PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UCCS … signed.pdfCTL|T PROJECT NO. CS17987-115...

$: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UCCS … signed.pdfCTL|T PROJECT NO. CS17987-115 S:\CS17500-17999\CS17987.000\115\2. Reports\CS17987-115-R1.doc SCOPE This report presents the$
5240 Mark Dabling Blvd | Colorado Springs, Colorado 80918 | Telephone: 719-528-8300 Fax: 719-528-5362

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UCCS PARKING GARAGE

STANTON STREET AND AUSTIN BLUFFS PARKWAY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

Prepared for:

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT COLORADO SPRINGS Facilities Services

1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway Colorado Springs, Colorado 80918

Attention: Mr. Gary Reynolds

CTL|T Project No. CS17987-115

October 29, 2012

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT COLORADO SPRINGS STANTON STREET PARKING GARAGE CTL|T PROJECT NO. CS17987-115 S:\CS17500-17999\CS17987.000\115\2. Reports\CS17987-115-R1.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SCOPE..................................................................................................................................... 1

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 1

SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................. 2

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................ 4

SITE GEOLOGY...................................................................................................................... 4

FIELD INVESTIGATION.......................................................................................................... 5

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 5 Existing Fill ....................................................................................................................... 6 Natural Sand ..................................................................................................................... 6 Bedrock............................................................................................................................. 6 Groundwater..................................................................................................................... 7 Seismicity.......................................................................................................................... 7

SITE PREPARATIN AND UTILITIES ...................................................................................... 7

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 10 Foundations.................................................................................................................... 10 Slabs-on-Grade .............................................................................................................. 10 Below-Grade Construction ........................................................................................... 11 Pavements ...................................................................................................................... 11

CONCRETE ........................................................................................................................... 12

SURFACE DRAINAGE.......................................................................................................... 12

CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................... 12

GEOTECHNICAL RISK......................................................................................................... 13

LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 13

FIG. 1 – LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS

FIG. 2 – SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS

APPENDIX A – SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE A-1 – SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT COLORADO SPRINGS 1 STANTON STREET PARKING GARAGE CTL|T PROJECT NO. CS17987-115 S:\CS17500-17999\CS17987.000\115\2. Reports\CS17987-115-R1.doc

SCOPE

This report presents the results of our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for

the proposed Stanton Street Parking Garage to be constructed on the campus of the

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. This report includes a description of

subsurface and groundwater conditions found in our borings and our opinions regarding

the potential influence of these conditions on site development and structure

construction. The report also includes preliminary geotechnical design and construction

criteria for installation of buried utilities and site grading, and concepts for structure

foundations, slabs-on-grade, and pavement sections. We believe this study was

completed in general conformance with our proposal (CS-12-0134) dated September 12,

2012.

No preliminary documents or construction plans were available for the proposed

parking garage, at the time of this report. Our understanding of the project is based on

the owner’s verbal description of the location and type of proposed construction. The

report was prepared based on conditions interpreted from conditions found in our

exploratory borings, results of laboratory tests, engineering analysis, and our experience.

As the project documents become more definitive, we should review the plans to

formulate specific design and construction recommendations. Evaluation of the site for

the possible presence of potentially hazardous materials (Environmental Site

Assessment) is beyond the scope of this investigation.

The following section summarizes our evaluation. A more complete description of

the conditions found, our interpretations, and our recommendations are included in the

report.

SUMMARY

1. Depending on the actual size and location of the planned structure on the

investigated parcel, a significant amount of site preparation and fill placement may be necessary to achieve the desired building pad elevation.

2. Subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory borings drilled

within the vicinity of the planned parking garage consisted of about 10 to over 25 feet of natural sand underlain by claystone or sandstone bedrock. A layer of existing fill material, 3 to 5 feet thick, was encountered at the


ground surface in two of the borings. Samples of the natural, very clayey sand, sandstone, and claystone exhibited low to moderate measured swell values when wetted.

3. At the time of drilling, groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory

borings. When water levels were checked again two days after the completion of drilling operations, the borings were again found to be dry.

4. We believe grading and utility installation can be accomplished using

conventional heavy-duty equipment. 5. To reduce the risk of excessive total and differential movements of

potentially heavily-loaded foundation columns underlain by a possibly widely varying thickness of grading fill, natural soils and bedrock, we recommend the garage structure be planned considering a drilled pier foundation bottomed in the underlying bedrock.

6. New moisture conditioned and densely compacted grading fill and the on-

site, natural soils will likely provide good support characteristics for lightly loaded, at-grade garage slabs. Slabs bearing on or near expansive claystone may experience movement and associated damage. Where claystone bedrock is present near the slab elevation, subexcavation of the claystone and replacement with moisture conditioned fill will likely be an appropriate method to mitigate the effects of the expansive materials. The risk of poor slab performance cannot be fully evaluated until plans and at-grade slab elevations are defined.

7. For planning purposes, pavement thicknesses for full-depth asphalt

sections for access driveways to the garage in the range of 5 to 6 inches are anticipated. Concrete pavement, 5 to 6 inches thick, is expected in the lowest parking level.

8. Surface drainage should be designed for rapid runoff of water away from

the proposed parking garage. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the structure or over exterior slabs or pavements.

SITE CONDITIONS

The site of the proposed Stanton Street Parking Garage is located north of the

intersection of Stanton Street and Mountain Lion Way on the campus of the University of

Colorado at Colorado Springs. The parcel is situated on the face of a generally northwest-

facing slope. The ground surface slopes downward to the northwest at grades estimated

to be between about 10 and 15 percent, with locally near-vertical banks in the vicinity of

what appears to be a detention basin the northwest portion of the property. A concrete

vault that contains a storm drain outlet and manhole is situated along the southern edge


of the detention basin. What appears to be a fill wedge, pushed out from the west side of

Stanton Street, is present in the northeast corner of the site. The western side of the fill

wedge slopes downward to the west and northwest at a grade estimated to be about 20

to 25 percent.

Two existing dirt roads are present along the northern edge of the site and in the

central portion of the property. The site has apparently been used extensively in the past

as a dumping area for a variety of materials. Scattered piles of dumped soil, construction

debris (mostly concrete), telephone poles, and organic materials are present throughout

much of the site. Overhead electric power lines form the western boundary of the parcel.

Vegetation on the property consists of grasses, weeds, yucca, scrub oak, a few pine

trees, and scattered deciduous bushes and trees. Some of the main features of the site

are presented in Fig. 1. Photograph Nos. 1 and 2 depict the parcel in its current condition.

Photo No. 1: Northeast corner of the site looking west from Stanton Street.


Photo No. 2: Southwest corner of the site looking north from Stanton Street.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

We understand the proposed parking garage is in the preliminary conceptual

planning stage. We anticipate the garage will be a cast-in-place and/or pre-cast concrete,

multi-level structure. Concrete slabs are anticipated in the at-grade portions of the

garage. Foundation loads are expected to be moderate to high. We anticipate paved

driveways will provide access to the garage from Stanton Street. We understand an

artificial playing surface is planned on the top level of the garage.

SITE GEOLOGY

Published geologic mapping (“Geologic Map of the Pikeview Quadrangle, El Paso

County, Colorado,” Jon P. Thorson, Christopher J. Carroll and Mathew L. Morgan,

Colorado Geological Survey, 2001) indicates the site is underlain locally by alluvial

deposits (Qfo). The upper member of the Laramie Formation (Klu) comprises the


underlying bedrock found beneath the near-surface soils. Conditions encountered in our

borings generally confirm the mapping. Our borings and site observations suggest man-

made fill of varying thickness has been placed at several locations across the site.

FIELD INVESTIGATION

Our field investigation included drilling five exploratory borings at the general

location of the proposed garage, as outlined by personnel from UCCS. The approximate

locations of the borings are shown in Fig. 1. Exiting topography and the presence of

dumped materials across much of the site limited the possible locations where the

borings could be drilled. The borings were advanced to depths of 25 to 35 feet using 4-

inch diameter, continuous-flight auger and a truck-mounted drill rig. Drilling was

observed by our field representative who logged the conditions found in the borings and

obtained samples. Graphical logs of the conditions encountered in the borings, the

results of field penetration resistance tests, and laboratory test data are presented in Fig.

2. Swell-consolidation test results are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory test data are

summarized in Table A-1.

Soil and bedrock samples obtained during this study were returned to our

laboratory and visually classified. Laboratory testing was then assigned to representative

samples. Testing included moisture content and dry density, swell-consolidation, sieve

analysis, and water-soluble sulfate content tests. To evaluate potential heave, the swell

test samples were wetted under applied pressures that approximated the overburden

pressure (the weight of overlying soil).

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory borings drilled within the

vicinity of the planned parking garage consisted predominantly of natural sand underlain

by claystone or sandstone bedrock. A layer of existing fill material was encountered at

the ground surface in two of the borings. The pertinent engineering characteristics of the

soils and bedrock encountered are discussed in the following paragraphs.


Existing Fill

A layer of existing fill, about 3 to 5 feet thick, was encountered at the ground

surface in two of the borings. The fill consisted of clayey sandy. The fill was loose to

medium dense based on the results of field penetration resistance testing and our

observations during drilling operations. The fill appeared to have been randomly dumped

at the site over a significant period of time. What appears to be a fill wedge, estimated to

be 10 to 15 feet thick, was observed along the eastern edge of the parcel, adjacent to

Stanton Street. We doubt any documentation exists regarding the placement of the fill

material, such as the results of field density testing, and so the fill must be considered to

be of suspect quality and unsuitable to underlie the proposed structure, in its current

condition. If free from deleterious substances, such as construction debris and organics,

some of the material may be suitable for re-use as new fill within the planned

development. The suitability of the existing fill for re-use should occur at the time of

construction.

Natural Sand

About 10 to over 25 feet of natural, silty or clayey to very clayey sand was

encountered at the ground surface or beneath the existing fill in each of the borings.

Occasional layers of very sandy clay were found to be interbedded with the clayey to very

clayey sand. The sand was medium dense to dense based on the results of field

penetration resistance tests. A sample of the clayey sand tested in our laboratory

exhibited a low measured swell value of 0.2 percent when wetted under estimated

overburden pressure. Five samples of the sand contained 14 to 38 percent clay and silt-

size particles (passing the No. 200 sieve). Our experience indicates the sands are

typically non-expansive or exhibit low measured swell values when wetted.

Bedrock

Sandy to very sandy claystone bedrock and silty to clayey sandstone were found

in four of the borings drilled at the site, beneath the natural soils, at depths of 10 to 19

feet below the existing ground surface. Claystone appeared to be the predominant

bedrock material. Field penetration resistance test results indicated the bedrock was


medium hard to very hard. Three samples of the claystone tested in our laboratory

exhibited measured swell values of 0.2 to 1.8 percent when wetted under overburden

pressure, which is indicative of slightly to moderately expansive material. A sample of the

clayey sandstone exhibited a measured swell of 0.1 percent when wetted. The sandstone

is typically non-expansive or exhibits low measured swell values when wetted.

Groundwater

At the time of drilling, groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory

borings. When water levels were checked again two days after the completion of drilling

operations, the borings were again found to be dry. Our experience indicates

groundwater can occur in different forms below this site. Water can be found in the

fissures within the bedrock. A “perched” groundwater table can also form at the

interface between the overlying granular materials and underlying bedrock. The

occurrence of groundwater, the volume, and elevation will fluctuate in response to

seasonal precipitation variations, surface drainage, and landscaping irrigation.

Seismicity

This area, like most of central Colorado, is subject to a degree of seismic activity.

We believe the soils and bedrock on the site classify as Site Class C (dense soil and soft

rock) according to the 2009 International Building Code (2009 IBC). A geophysical study

is required to evaluate the shear wave velocity (V100) profile at the site to potentially

allow for an upgrade to Site Class B. Our firm can provide a site-specific geophysical

seismic study using the ReMi micro-tremor, surface method, if desired.

SITE PREPARATION AND UTILITIES

No grading plans were available for our review during the preparation of this

study. Based on the existing site topography, we anticipate a significant amount of site

preparation work will be needed to achieve the desired building pad elevation and grades

within the any access driveways. The amount and complexity of the site preparation work

will be dependent on the actual location of the structure on the parcel, as well as the size

and configuration (number of levels, extent of below-grade construction, etc.) of the


garage. We anticipate some deep fills (15 to 20 feet or more) may be necessary, unless

the structure steps down the hillside to accommodate the existing slope of the ground

surface. For planning purposes, permanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than

3:1 (horizontal to vertical). Our office should be contacted to review the site grading plans

once they are prepared.

Prior to grading fill placement, surficial stockpiles of construction debris, organic

materials, and vegetation should be stripped away from the ground surface and removed

from the site. Organic topsoil can be stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas.

Existing fill encountered on the site should be excavated to expose the underlying

natural soils. We anticipate a thick layer of existing fill may be present along the eastern

edge of the site, adjacent to Stanton Road. Existing fill materials should be observed by

our representative to determine if the soils are suitable for incorporation into the planned

site grading.

All remnants of the concrete structures and backfill materials associated with the

existing detention basins located in the northwest corner of the property, that impact the

location of the planned garage should be removed from the site before grading of the

property can begin. All organics and soft soils should be removed from the bottom of the

basins to expose firm, natural soils, prior to fill placement.

Our experience suggests a subsurface drain system should be constructed in the

bottom of the existing detention basins, prior to placement of grading fill materials. The

drain will provide an exit point for surficial runoff that penetrates into the backfill soils

and that may otherwise pond in the bottom of the basins. For planning purposes, we

anticipate the drain will consist of washed concrete aggregate wrapped in a non-woven,

geotextile fabric. The location of the drain can be established once a grading plan has

been developed and the position of the parking garage has been established.

Fill materials within the garage footprint should consist of the on-site sands and

sandstone. Sandstone placed as grading fill should be mechanically broken down into

particles of less than 2 inches in diameter. Expansive claystone bedrock should be

placed as fill outside of the planned building footprint as much as possible or be

removed from the site. The granular grading fill should be moisture conditioned to within


2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted in thin lifts to at least 95 percent

of maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557). Sandy clays and claystone

placed as fill should be moisture conditioned to between 1 and 4 percent above optimum

moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry

density (ASTM D 698). The placement and compaction of the grading fill should be

observed and tested by a representative of our office during construction.

Where the existing ground surface exists at a slope ratio of 5:1 (horizontal to

vertical) or steeper, benches should be cut into the hillside, prior to the placement of fill.

The benches should be at least 10 feet in width or one and a half times the width of the

compaction equipment, whichever is greater. The vertical distance between benches

should not exceed 5 feet.

Our borings suggest the on-site soils and bedrock can be excavated using

conventional, heavy-duty equipment. The grading fill and natural soils will likely cave into

unsupported, near-vertical utility trench excavations. Based on the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA) criteria governing excavations, the grading fills and

natural soils will probably classify as Type C soils. The bedrock will probably classify as

Type B soil. Temporary excavations in Type B and Type C materials require a maximum

slope inclination of 1:1 and 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical), respectively, unless the

excavation is shored or braced. Should groundwater seepage occur, flatter slopes may

be necessary. The contractor’s competent person should evaluate the soils at the time of

excavation and determine appropriate safety measures.

We recommend clayey utility trench backfill be placed in thin, loose lifts, moisture

conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least

95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698). Granular trench

backfill should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content

and compacted in thin lifts to at least 95 percent of maximum modified Proctor dry

density (ASTM D 1557). Personnel from our firm should periodically observe utility trench

backfill placement and test the density of the backfill materials during construction.


CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Our preliminary opinions regarding foundations, slabs-on-grade, below-grade

construction, and pavements are presented below for the anticipated construction. Once

plans for the parking garage become more defined, our office should be contacted to

provide specific design criteria and construction recommendations.

Foundations

Based on our understanding of the planned construction and data from our

exploratory borings, subsurface conditions beneath the proposed parking garage could

possibly consist of potentially widely varying thicknesses of grading fill, natural sand and

clay soils, and claystone and sandstone bedrock. To reduce the risk of excessive total

and differential movements of potentially heavily-loaded foundation walls, we

recommend the garage be planned considering a drilled pier foundation bottomed in the

underlying bedrock. For planning purposes, we anticipate a maximum allowable end

pressure of 25,000 to 35,000 psf and an allowable skin friction of 2,500 to 3,500 psf for the

portion of pier in comparatively unweathered bedrock will be appropriate for preliminary

pier sizing. We anticipate a minimum deadload pressure of 10,000 to 15,000 psf will be

appropriate for initial design. The presence of potentially caving sands at the site may

require the use of temporary casing to install some of the drilled piers. Our office should

provide site-specific foundation recommendations and design criteria for the planned

structure after site grading plans have been prepared and the building location and

lowest floor elevation have been established.

Slabs-on-Grade

We expect the lowest level of the parking garage will include a concrete slab-on-

grade. We judge the risk of poor slab performance will likely be low where new, sandy to

clayey, moisture conditioned and densely compacted grading fill, natural sand, and/or

sandstone are present at or near slab elevations. Should claystone bedrock be

encountered at or near the slab elevation, subexcavation of the claystone and

replacement with moisture conditioned granular fill will likely be an appropriate method

to mitigate the effects of the expansive material. The risks associated with poor slab-on-


grade performance cannot be evaluated fully until the plans become better defined and

floor slab elevations are established.

Below-Grade Construction

We anticipate portions of the proposed parking garage will be constructed below

exterior grades. The foundation walls will be subjected to lateral earth loads that are

dependent on the height of the wall, soil type, and backfill configuration. For backfill

materials that consist of the on-site, silty to clayey sands and walls that are not free to

rotate, such as foundation walls, we recommend the walls be designed to resist “at-rest”

earth pressures. We recommend design for the “at-rest” earth pressure condition using

an equivalent fluid density of at least 60 pcf. Claystone should not be used as wall

backfill. For planning purposes, foundation drain installation should be anticipated

around all habitable, below-grade construction within the project site, with the possible

exception of non-habitable areas that can be constructed as water-tight structures, such

as elevator pits.

Pavements

Pavement subgrade soils across the site will likely consist of new, sandy to clayey

grading fills and natural, silty to clayey sands and sandy to very sandy clay. We anticipate

the grading fills and natural sands will generally provide good subgrade support

characteristics for pavement systems. The natural clay will provide comparatively poor

pavement support qualities. Where granular subgrade soils are encountered, pavement

thicknesses for full-depth asphalt concrete sections for access driveways in the range of

4 to 6 inches are likely. Pavement thicknesses for full-depth asphalt concrete sections in

areas where clay is the predominant subgrade material will likely be on the order of 1 to 2

inches thicker.

The concrete pavement anticipated in the lowest level of the parking garage is

expected to be on the order of 5 to 6 inches thick. When possible during grading, sands

should be placed in the upper 2 feet of the subgrade in pavement areas to reduce the

required section thickness. Final pavement section recommendations can be provided

once site development and grading plans are prepared.


CONCRETE

Concrete in contact with soils can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured the

soluble sulfate concentration in one sample from this site at less than 0.1 percent. Sulfate

concentrations less than 0.1 percent indicate Class 0 exposure to sulfate attack for

concrete in contact with the subsoils, according to ACI 201.2R-01, as published in the

2008 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual of Concrete Practice. For this level of

sulfate concentration, the ACI indicates Type I/II cement can be used for concrete in

contact with the subsoils. In our experience, superficial damage may occur to the

exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete, even though sulfate levels are relatively

low. To control this risk and to resist freeze-thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious

material ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete in contact with soils that are likely to

stay moist due to surface drainage or high water tables. Concrete subjected to freeze-

thaw cycles should be air entrained.

SURFACE DRAINAGE

The performance of this project will be influenced by surface drainage. When

developing an overall drainage plan, consideration should be given to drainage around

the proposed structure and away from paved areas. Drainage should be planned such

that surface runoff is directed away from foundations and is not allowed to pond adjacent

to the parking garage or over pavements. We recommend slopes of at least 6 inches in

the first 10 feet for the area surrounding the structure, where possible. Roof downspouts

and other water collection systems should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill

around the structure. Proper control of surface runoff is also important to prevent the

erosion of surface soils. Sheet flow should not be directed over unprotected slopes.

Water should not be allowed to pond at the crest of slopes. Permanent slopes should be

seeded or mulched to reduce erosion. Special attention should be paid to compact soils

behind the curb and gutter sections adjacent to streets and in utility trenches.

CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS

We recommend that CTL | Thompson, Inc. provide observation and testing

services during construction to allow us the opportunity to verify whether soil conditions


are consistent with those found during our investigation. If others perform these

observations, they must accept responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in

this report remain appropriate.

GEOTECHNICAL RISK

The concept of risk is an important aspect with any geotechnical evaluation

primarily because the methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not

comprise an exact science. We never have complete knowledge of subsurface

conditions. Our analysis must be tempered with engineering judgment and experience.

Therefore, the recommendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be

considered risk-free. Our preliminary recommendations represent our judgment of those

measures that are necessary to increase the chances that the structure will perform

satisfactorily. It is critical that all recommendations in this report are followed during

design and construction.

LIMITATIONS

Plans for the proposed building were in the preliminary conceptual phase at the

time of this report. The recommendations presented should be considered to be

preliminary. Once the plans become better defined, our firm should be contacted to

formulate geotechnical design criteria and construction recommendations.

Our borings were located to obtain a reasonably accurate indication of subsurface

foundation conditions. The borings are representative of conditions encountered at the

exact boring location only. Variations in subsurface conditions not indicated by the

borings are possible. We recommend a representative of our office observe the

completed foundation excavation. Representatives of our firm should be present during

construction to perform construction observation and materials testing services.

We believe this investigation was conducted with that level of skill and care

normally used by geotechnical engineers practicing in this area at this time. No warranty,

express or implied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��!!��!!!��"��"�� !��!!��!!!��"��"��

�#$$%&'��()*�(+�,-.(&%/(&'0(&12)*

��

��

��

��

��!�

��"�

��

��#�

��$��

��!"

��%��&#��

��#�'$%� ��

�'��( ��

��$��%��#��

��

��

��

��

��

��

#��%��'#�

�� $�� $��

�� $�� $��

��

�� )��*%��

��

��%��

��

�� %��

��%��+��%��

��#�

��

��*%��

��

�� $�� ,�

�� $��%��

�� $��

��#��,�

��$�'' $��%��''��,�

�� $��$��

��,�

��

��

��

��!�

��

��

��#�

��'�

��"�

��

��'�

�'&"��-#!�#��-##'��-'�#

#�&#��-"��-"!��-'��

#�&#��-#��-!#$�''-�"

�'&#��-��-#'#��-#��

�'&�

�'&��-#��-##��-'��

�'&�

�'&�

��$��

��"�

�"&#��-��"��-##�$�''-#"

��&#�

�!&#��-#��-"!

�'& ��-#��#��-##�$�''-

�'&

�'&��-�'��-#'�$�''-��

��$��

��#'

##&#��-#�� -#'#��-.'�#

��&#��-��-#'�$�''-#�

��&#��-��"��-##'

�#&#��-#'� ��-#'�$�''-��

��&#�

��&#��-#!� ��-#'�$�''-�!

��$�#

��

�#&#�

#"&#��-��-"�

��$��

��

��

��&#��-��'��-#'�$�''-��

�'&#'

�'&��-#!� ��-##��-#�!

��$��

��#�

��$��

#�&#��-��#��-#'�$�''-#�

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT COLORADO SPRINGS STANTON STREET PARKING GARAGE CTL|T PROJECT NO. CS17987-115 S:\CS17500-17999\CS17987.000\115\2. Reports\CS17987-115-R1.doc

APPENDIX A

SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE A-1 – SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING

�� CLAYSTONE, SANDY DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 112 PCF�� TH-2 AT 24 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT= 18.7 %

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT COLORADO SPRINGSSTANTON STREET PARKING GARAGECTL|T PROJECT NO. CS17987-115S:\CS17500-17999\CS17987.000\115\2. REPORTS\CS17987-115_SWELL.XLS

APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF

CO

MP

RE

SS

ION

% E

XP

AN

SIO

N

Swell ConsolidationTest Results

FIG. A-1

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING

0.1 1.0 10 100

�� CLAYSTONE, WEATHERED DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 101 PCF

�� TH-3 AT 14 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT= 24.4 %

�� CLAYSTONE, VERY SANDY DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 112 PCF





CO

MP

RE

SS

ION

% E

XP

AN

SIO

N


FIG. A-2

CO

MP

RE

SS

ION

% E

XP

AN

SIO

N

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3


-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3


0.1 1.0 10 100

0.1 1.0 10 100

�� SAND, VERY CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 98 PCF


�� SANDSTONE, CLAYEY DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 110 PCF





CO

MP

RE

SS

ION

% E

XP

AN

SIO

N


FIG. A-3

CO

MP

RE

SS

ION

% E

XP

AN

SIO

N

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3


-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3


0.1 1.0 10 100

0.1 1.0 10 100

PASSING WATERMOISTURE DRY LIQUID PLASTICITY APPLIED SWELL NO. 200 SOLUBLE

DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY LIMIT INDEX SWELL PRESSURE PRESSURE SIEVE SULFATESBORING (FEET) (%) (PCF) (%) (%) (%) (PSF) (PSF) (%) (%) DESCRIPTION

TH-1 4 3.2 103 14 SAND, SILTY (SM)TH-1 9 2.9 110 SAND, SILTY (SM)TH-1 14 10.7 104 26 SAND, SILTY (SM)TH-1 24 18.7 102 38 SAND, VERY CLAYEY (SC)TH-2 4 22.2 93 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)TH-2 9 5.1 103 16 SAND, SILTY (SM)TH-2 24 18.7 112 1.8 3000 11000 CLAYSTONE, SANDYTH-3 4 6.0 103 23 FILL, SAND, CLAYEYTH-3 9 16.7 101 <0.1 SAND, SILTY (SM)TH-3 14 24.4 101 1.3 1800 CLAYSTONE, WEATHEREDTH-3 24 16.3 112 0.2 3000 CLAYSTONE, VERY SANDYTH-4 4 9.2 98 0.2 500 SAND, VERY CLAYEY (SC)TH-4 9 16.6 81 59 CLAY, VERY SANDY (CL)TH-4 19 18.1 110 0.1 2400 SANDSTONE, CLAYEYTH-5 4 3.9 112 19 SAND, SILTY (SM)TH-5 9 16.4 98 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)TH-5 14 15.1 114 77 CLAYSTONE, SANDYTH-5 29 20.2 104 54 CLAYSTONE, VERY SANDY

SWELL TEST RESULTS*

TABLE A-1

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTINGCTL|T PROJECT NO. CS17987-115

ATTERBERG LIMITS

* SWELL MEASURED WITH ESTIMATED IN-SITU OVERBURDEN PRESSURE. NEGATIVE VALUE INDICATES COMPRESSION. Page 1 of 1

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UCCS … signed.pdfCTL|T PROJECT NO. CS17987-115...

Documents

Transcript of PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UCCS … signed.pdfCTL|T PROJECT NO. CS17987-115...