Preliminary Geotechnical Report
for
Proposed
South Main Street Subdivision
at
Greenville, California
Parcel 1 and Parcel A
Book 6 of Parcel Maps at Page 61
Plumas County, California
July 2004
i
Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Parcel 1 and Parcel A
Book 6 of Parcel Maps at Page 61
Greenville
Plumas County, California
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Site Location and Description ........................................................................................................................ 2 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Site Reconnaissance and Subsurface Exploration .......................................................................................... 3 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 5 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 8
Valley Floor ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Slopes ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Professional Statement ................................................................................................................................... 9 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figures
Appendices
2
Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Parcel 1 and Parcel A
Book 6 of Parcel Maps at Page 61
Greenville
Plumas County, California
Introduction
A proposal has been made by the partnership of Steve King and Niel Soult for the subdivision of lands located in
Greenville, Plumas County, California. The subject lands include Parcel 1 and Parcel A as shown in Book 6 of Parcel
Maps at Page 61 of the Official Records of Plumas County. This area is located within a portion of the Southeast ¼
of Section 3, T26N R9E, MDM and includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN’s) 110-190-016, 110-190-011, and 110-
200-010. The total area containing 16.81 acres. The proposal includes the creation of 33 lots and a remainder.
The California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code §66490) requires that a “Preliminary Soils Report” be
prepared for every subdivision for which a final map is required. This report has been prepared to comply with this
requirement.
Site Location and Description
The project site is located about 0.3 miles southwest of the intersection of State Route 89 and Main Street in Greenville.
A topographic map of the project site is shown on Plate 1. Approximately 5.7 acres of the 16.81 acre total area lies
on the floor of Indian Valley at the mouth of a 0.48 square mile drainage. The remaining area rises steeply from the
valley floor with slopes exceeding 30 percent.
The surface elevation varies from about 3580 feet on South Main Street (a.k.a. Round Valley Lake Road) to
approximately 3720 feet near the south ¼ corner of Section 3.
The site has been recently logged (June 2004) with considerable ground disturbance and slash piles remaining. The
sparse vegetative cover that remains consists predominantly of Sugar Pine, Douglas Fir, and Incense Cedar.
Geology and Soils
The project site is located within the eastern belt of rocks of the Northern Sierra Nevada terrane as described by Durrell
(1987). The steeper portions of the site are underlain by the Sierra Buttes Formation while the valley floor is underlain
by fluvial Quaternary and Holocene deposits (Grose, et al, 1990). The northwesterly trending Taylorsville Thrust
Fault lies about one mile to the south. The Sierra Buttes Formation consists predominately of Paleozoic (Devonian)
meta-volcanic rocks with lesser amounts of meta-sedimentary rocks. Specific rocks found within the Sierra Buttes
Formation include quartz-bearing felsic volcanic flows and tuff, black phosphatic chert, tuffaceous siltstone, and shale,
as well as rhyolitic to andesitic hypabyssal intrusives (Grose, et al, 1990); all of which have been subjected to low
grade regional metamorphism associated with orogenic (i.e. mountain building) processes. These marine rocks
derived from sediment and volcanics deposited on an ancient sea floor have since been uplifted and severely folded.
3
The Quaternary and Holocene fluvial deposits located on the valley floor consist predominately of sands and gravels
deposited at the mouth of the narrow 0.48 square mile basin which extends to the southwest of the project site. These
coarser materials were deposited in the ancient lake that once occupied Indian Valley during the Quaternary Period
while more recent Holocene deposits were laid down directly on the valley floor during floods events in this drainage
basin.
Uplift of the Sierra Buttes Formation rocks above sea level has exposed them to terrestrial physical, chemical, and
biological weathering processes which slowly degrade the integrity of the rock mass and the minerals which comprise
the intact rock. Such weathering generally works from the ground surface down and along joints and fractures in the
rock mass reducing it into discrete particle sizes and producing new minerals as the products of chemical weathering.
Chemical weathering generally proceeds such that alteration of the less stable minerals within the parent rock
ultimately results in the creation of more stable clay minerals. The type of clay minerals produced depends upon the
mineralogy of the parent rock and the weathering environment.
Weathering of a rock mass will generally yield a soil profile in which the average particle size increases with depth
provided that erosional processes occur at a slower rate than weathering processes. Such a soil is termed a “residual
soil” which is in contrast to a “transported soil” in which soil particles are transported by water, wind, or gravity and
deposited at a location removed from their original occurrence. Residual soils which contain weathered fragments of
the parent rock “floating” in a finer grained matrix and which contain relic structures from the parent rock are termed
“saprolites”.
The Plumas National Forest (PNF) Soil Survey (unpublished) maps the soils on the slopes of this area as Unit 199,
Holland Family, basic, 2 to 50 percent slopes with a taxonomic classification of fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Ultic
Haploxeralfs. Thus the Holland Family belongs to the Alfisol taxonomic soil order in which there is an accumulation
of silicate clay minerals in the B horizon and this horizon is only moderately leached of exchangeable cations. The A
and B horizons are moderately well developed with a total thickness up to 5 feet and a USDA textural classification
of sandy loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, or clay. The Holland Family soil profiles also include up to 30 percent
coarse particle sizes.
Site Reconnaissance and Subsurface Exploration
A subsurface exploration was performed on June 30, 2004 which consisted of the excavation of six exploratory test
pits across the site. The location of each test pit, designated TP-1 through TP-6, is shown in Plate 1. With the
exception of TP-6, all test pits were excavated on the valley floor. TP-6 was excavated near the top of the slope to the
east of two man-made water treatment facility ponds. Test pits were excavated with a Massey-Ferguson Model 60
backhoe provided by the current land owner and using a 30 inch wide bucket. The author was present to log each test
pit, visually classify materials encountered, and obtain disturbed grab samples for laboratory testing. Two samples
were obtained from TP-1 while one sample each was obtained from TP-2, TP-3, TP-5, and TP-6. Test pit depths
varied from 6± feet in TP-2 and TP-4 to 9.5± feet in TP-5. An “undisturbed” Shelby tube sample was obtained at a
depth of 5.0 feet in TP-6. A log of each test pit is included in Appendix A.
4
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits.
Possible bedrock refusal was encountered at a depth of 6± feet in TP-2. Sound bedrock was not encountered in any of
the other test pits. However, a fractured bedrock surface was encountered at a depth of 9.5± feet in TP-5.
Grain size analyses were conducted on selected grab samples from TP-1, TP-2, TP-5, and TP-6 in accordance with
ASTM D-1140 “Amount of Materials in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75µm) Sieve” and/or ASTM D-422 “Standard
Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils”. The Atterberg limits of materials finer than the No. 40 (425µm)
sieve from samples TP-1 S-1, TP-1 S-2, and TP-6 S-1 were determined in accordance with ASTM D-4318 “Liquid
Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils”. The natural water content of sample TP-6 S-1 was determined in
accordance with ASTM D2216 “Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass”.
The specific gravity of the minus No. 40 fraction of samples TP-1 S-2 and TP-6 S-1 were determined in accordance
ASTM D854 “Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer”. A specific gravity of 2.68 and 2.69 were
determined for samples TP-1 S-2 and TP-6 S-1, respectively . Grain size distribution curves for each sample are
presented in Figure 1 and a Plasticity chart is shown in Figure 2.
An unconfined compression test was conducted on the Shelby tube sample obtained at a depth of 5.0 feet in TP-6 in
accordance with ASTM D2166 “Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil”.
A summary of test data is presented in Table 1 while numerical laboratory test data is included in Appendix B.
Table 1, Sampling and Testing Summary
Sample Depth (ft) GSA % - No. 200 % -0.002 mm LL PI Ac USCS USCS Description (USDA where noted)
TP-1 S-1 2.3± 60.9 10.0 NP NP 0 ML Sandy SILT (Sandy Loam)
TP-1 S-2 4.0± 44.6 17.0 33 9 0.32 SM Silty SAND with Gravel (Gravelly Sandy Clay Loam)
TP-2 S-1 composite 13.3 ND ND ND ND GM Silty GRAVEL with Sand
TP-3 S-1 5.0± 15.5 ND ND ND ND GM Silty GRAVEL with Sand
TP-6 S-1 5.0± 50.2 25.5 41 25 0.52 CL Sandy Lean CLAY (Sandy Clay Loam)
ND – Not Determined USCS – Unified Soil Classification Group Symbol GSA – Grain Size Analysis USDA – USDA Textural Classification System LL – Liquid Limit PI – Plasticity Index Ac – Activity of Clay
Samples were classified in accordance with ASTM D-2487 “Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified
Soil Classification System)”. In addition, samples TP-1 S-1, TP-1 S-2, and TP-6 S-1, for which hydrometer analyses
were run, were classified in accordance with the USDA Textural Classification System.
A site reconnaissance was made on July 27, 2004 following the site exploration work performed on June 30th in order
to assist with interpretation of earlier subsurface observations, observe an existing landslide, and perform manual
Dutch cone (CPT) soundings on the sloping portions of the site and within the landslide mass. The approximate
location of each CPT sounding is shown in Plate 1 and a log of each CPT sounding is included in Appendix A
5
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the exploratory test pits and observed during a geologic reconnaissance
varied according to location. Test pits TP-2 through TP-5, which were excavated on the valley floor, encountered an
orange brown Silty GRAVEL with Sand (GM) for the full depth of each test pit. The soils encountered in these test
pits are transported fluvial soils. Test pit TP-6, which was excavated near the crest of a convex slope, encountered a
reddish yellow Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) for the entire depth of excavation to 8.6± feet below existing grade. The
classification of this material was borderline with only 50.2 percent silt and clay sizes and a plotting position very
close to the “A” line on the plasticity chart. Consequently, only a slight change in the percent finer than the No. 200
sieve or in the plasticity could change the classification to a Silty SAND (SM), Clayey SAND (SC), or a Sandy SILT
(ML). Regardless of USCS classification, the soils encountered in TP-6 are residual soils which have developed from
in situ weathering of the parent rock material and there is likely to be little difference in behavioral characteristics of
samples classified as a Sandy Lean CLAY, Sandy SILT, Clayey SAND, or Silty SAND at this site. These residual
soils appear to be rather deep near the crest of the slope while CPT testing (CPT-1 and CPT-2) suggests that they are
much shallower further down slope. Test pit TP-1, which was excavated on the valley floor near the toe of a slope,
appears to be transitional between the residual soil profile above and the fluvial soil profile on the flat and is most
likely colluvium.
In all samples tested in TP-1 and TP-6, the percent silt and clay sizes exceeded 44.6 percent and was only 60.9 percent
in the sample classified as a Sandy SILT (ML). The particle size distribution (Figure 1) for the silt and clay sizes for
the samples from TP-1 and TP-6 show that the residual soil has a higher percentage of finer silt and clay sizes than
does the transitional colluvial soils near the toe of the slope.
Likewise, the Atterberg Limits of samples tested show the higher plasticity of the residual soil with a liquid limit (LL)
of 41 and a plasticity index (PI) of 16 which plots very near the “A” Line on the Plasticity Chart (Figure 2). This
compares with a LL of 33 and a PI of 9 for the fines of the Silty SAND obtained from TP-1. The Atterberg Limits of
both of these samples plot very near the “A” line which indicates that they are likely from the same geologic formation.
In contrast, the surficial Sandy SILT encountered in TP-1 was found to be non-plastic.
The Atterberg Limits, which include the shrinkage limit, the plastic limit, and the liquid limit, are those gravimetric
water contents which demarcate the behavioral state of cohesive soils from solid to semi-solid; from semi-solid to
plastic; and from plastic to liquid, respectively. The plasticity index (PI) is the liquid limit (LL) minus the plastic limit
(PL) and represents the range of water contents over which the material remains plastic (i.e. is moldable).
The activity of the clay, which is defined as the PI divided by the percent of clay size particles (- 0.002 mm), was also
computed for samples TP-1 S-2 and TP-6 S-1. The activity of a clay can be used as an indicator of the type of clay
minerals present. The corrected activity for these samples (i.e. –No 40 fraction) was found to be 0.32 and 0.52,
respectively. The plotting position of these samples on the Plasticity Chart and their activities suggest that the clay
fraction is composed primarily of the kaolinite group.
6
An unconfined compression test (UC) was run on the Shelby tube sample obtained at a depth of 5.0 feet in test pit TP-
6 in order to estimate the undrained shear strength (su) of the residual soil for use in a slope stability analysis. The
undrained shear strength is the strength that is mobilized when soils are sheared rapidly enough to preclude the
drainage of excess pore water pressures generated during shear. Such drainage conditions are likely to occur in fine
grained soils following the initiation of a slope failure. The natural water content of the sample was 22.6 percent
which is below the saturation water content of 33.8 percent. The degree of saturation was 67 percent. Unconfined
compression tests on unsaturated soils generally yield low values of su for saturated conditions. However, they do
provide, along with CPT testing, a basis on which to roughly estimate the saturated undrained shear strength. This
was the approach taken here in which CPT tip resistances were taken immediately below the UC sample depth. CPT
resistances cannot be used as a direct measure of undrained shear strength but rather a correlation must be applied in
order to estimate the strength. The undrained shear strength for the unsaturated sample estimated in the UC test was
425 pounds per square foot (psf). This can be considered a lower bound strength with the saturated strength expected
to be somewhat higher. If it is assumed that the saturated strength is on the order of 500 psf, an approximate correlation
can be made with the CPT resistances which essentially increase linearly from 8 tons per square foot (tsf) at a depth
of 5.75 feet to 21 tsf at a depth of 8.25 feet (see the log of TP-6 in Appendix A). The corresponding values of su
increase from 500 psf at 5.75 feet to 1,300 psf at 8.25 feet.
Evaluation
Soil engineering properties can often be inferred from site geology and simple classification tests such as performed
for this project. Such inference and testing suggests the likelihood of encountering problem soils such as soft soil,
organic soil, expansive soil, collapsible soil, liquefiable soil, or erosive soil. Such engineering properties must also
be assessed in relation to expected seasonal groundwater conditions.
Both transported and residual soils are present on this site. The transported soils are found on the valley floor while
the residual soils are found on the sloping portions of the site. The transported soils include both fluvial deposits near
the mouth of a drainage basin and colluvial soils present at the location of an existing landslide mass.
The properties of residual soils can vary widely within a short distance both vertically and laterally within the soil
profile. The engineering properties of residual soils are also greatly affected by in situ soil structure which is easily
disturbed by sampling or excavation. An undisturbed residual soil with a blocky texture may exhibit the properties of
a coarse grained transported soil including low compressibility and high permeability when undisturbed but these
desirable characteristics may be lost upon disturbance.
Residual soils may exhibit problem behavioral characteristics such as any of those listed above with the exception of
liquefaction (which is generally associated with loose, transported, cohesionless soil below the water table under
severe earthquake induced ground shaking), however, geomorphic features may be utilized to further narrow the list
of potential problematic conditions. For example, soft soils and organic soils are generally found in areas of low
topographic relief which in temperate climates are likely to be occupied by transported soils rather than residual soils.
7
Residual soils such as encountered in test pit TP-6 may exhibit any degree of expansive potential, collapse potential,
and/or erosion potential. But these too may be further evaluated by the use of simple classification and index tests.
The plasticity index (PI) and activity of a soil may be used as indicators of expansion potential. These cannot,
however, be used to provide a reliable numerical estimate of potential swell or swelling pressure. The measured PI
of 16 falls within the range of 15 to 35 which Chen (1988) considers to have a medium swelling potential. Similarly,
the PI of 16 with corresponding activities of 0.52 also suggests a low swelling potential of less than 1.5 percent (Seed,
et al, 1962). However, potential swell beneath a building foundation or road pavement must be assessed in the context
of the proportion of clay particles to the entire soil mass. The potential swell of the soils encountered on this site is
inconsequential in this regard.
Collapse potential may also be identified through geologic inference and index tests. However, collapsible soils are
usually transported soils which were deposited rapidly such as in alluvial fans or debris flows. In such cases the
cementation or soil suction which can develop under arid or semi-arid conditions can be lost with the application of a
load and the saturation of the soil. Collapse settlements are abrupt and irreversible.
There are generally two types of residual soils that may be subject to collapse (Barksdale and Blight, 1997). The first
are residual soils developed in wind blown silt deposits while the second is highly weathered and leached residual soil
derived from siliceous igneous rocks such as granite. These soils contain a large proportion of quartz with much
mineral matter lost due to leaching. Consequently they exhibit a low density and a high void ratio with an unstable
grain structure. Therefore, the best indicator of collapse potential is low bulk density and high void ratio. While the
density of the intensely weathered relict gravel size particles in sample TP-6 S-1 was found to be extremely low, it is
the author’s opinion that the collapse potential of the soil mass is very low considering geomorphic conditions, the
presence of clay minerals which suggest limited leaching, the low volumetric proportion of coarse particles, and the
nature of the parent rock material.
The fluvial deposits on the valley floor consist of Silty Gravels with Sand. These deposits, as observed in the test pits,
are well graded and appear to have a somewhat dense particle arrangement in which the proportions of sand and gravel
sizes are nearly the same. Such gradational and structural soil properties tend to preclude the occurrence of collapse
settlements. These soils are not loose (soft), are not organic, are not expansive, and are not subject to flow liquefaction.
A significant landslide was observed on the southerly portion of the project site. The approximate limits of this slide,
which may be described in geomorphic terms as a composite earth slide – earth flow, are shown in Plate 1. The eroded
headscarp of a rotational slump straddles the westerly boundary of Parcel 1. The material from within the slumped
source area flowed downslope to be deposited to the east creating a total disturbed area of nearly ¾ acres. A profile
of the slide is shown in Plate 1. Limited CPT testing within the slide mass indicates a shallow depth to bedrock and
suggests that the slide occurred along a convex portion of the slope in which residual soils may be as thick as 20 feet
or more. The relative age of the slide may be inferred from the fresh tree stumps observed near the base of the
headscarp and the smaller diameter trees left after logging. None of the recently removed trees from the source area
appeared to be larger than perhaps 12 inches in diameter at the stump. A preliminary estimate of the age of the slide
is on the order on 50 to 100 years. This slide may be indicative of the potential behavior of other convex slope portions
8
of the site such as in the vicinity of test pit TP-6 and requires further analysis prior to the development of the sloping
portions of the project site.
The colluvial deposits associated with the landslide may be subject to renewed instability and require additional study.
The erosion potential of a site is a function of a number of factors which include: the quantity, duration, and hence,
intensity of rainfall; the vegetative cover; the type of soil; the steepness and length of slopes; and land use management
practices and their impact on the volume, flow direction, and flow velocity of stormwater runoff. The relative effect
of these parameters is quantified in the empirical Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) which provides an estimate
of annual soil loss in tons per acre per year.
Medium to fine grain non-plastic soils such as poorly graded sands, silty sands, and non-plastic silts are the most
susceptible to erosion while highly plastic clays or coarser grained gravels are least susceptible. The relative
susceptibility of a soil can be quantified by the erosion factor of the USLE. The PNF Soil Survey indicates a moderate
erosion potential and suggests a USLE erosion factor of 0.32 for the Holland Family of soils found on the sloping
portions of this site. This value compare favorably with published values for silty sands and sandy silts of intermediate
plasticity as suggested by Day (2000). Thus it can be concluded that the plasticity offered by the clay mineralogy of
the residual soil serves to reduce the potential for accelerated erosion at this site. However, the presence of a silty
topsoil layer (which was not logged in the test pits but is similar to the Sandy Silt of TP-1 S-1) coupled with the
significant ground disturbance resulting from recent timber harvesting will result in a high erosion potential in the
short to medium term.
Understanding the interaction of groundwater with transported or residual soils is paramount to predicting their
behavior. As stated previously, expansion and collapse mechanisms are both related to a loss in soil suction created
by saturation of the soil pore volume. Likewise, saturation by high groundwater will generally result in higher pore
water pressures with lower drained shear strengths and increased compressibility for any soil. Free groundwater was
not encountered in any of the test pits excavated on this site. However, the landslide noted on the southerly portion
of the project site was likely initiated by high groundwater during a period of high precipitation or snowmelt.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Valley Floor
The geology and soils observed on the valley floor portion of the project site are suitable for development as proposed.
No geologic hazards such as soft soil, organic soil, expansive soil, collapsible soil, or erosive soil were encountered
in any of the exploratory test pits or in observations made during a geologic reconnaissance.
Based upon conditions encountered in the test pits and observations made in the field, development of the site may
proceed without additional geotechnical investigation, testing, and/or analyses provided prescriptive Plumas County
design criteria are followed with regard to allowable soil bearing pressures (i.e. 1500 psf) and seismic base shear
calculation (Soil Type SD).
Slopes
9
The residual soils encountered on the sloping portions of the site are susceptible to landslide mass movements and
require additional study prior to developing these areas.
Professional Statement
Recommendations presented within this report are based upon the physical properties of soils encountered in the
exploratory test pits and during a site reconnaissance. If during the course of final design or construction, subsurface
conditions are encountered which differ significantly from those detailed within this report, or if substantial changes
are made to the site development plan, Steven C. Devin, P.E. should be contacted immediately in order to evaluate
the applicability of this report to the changed conditions. Such an evaluation may result in changes to the
recommendations made herein.
The intent of this report was to assess general suitability of the site for the proposed development. Although a site
reconnaissance was made for the purposes described, the potential presence of soil or groundwater contamination was
not investigated and no analytical laboratory testing was performed in this regard.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Steve King and Niel Soult and their retained design professionals
in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common to the local area. No other warranty
is made, express or implied.
References
Barksdale, R.D. and Blight, G.E., 1997, “Compressibility and Settlement of Residual Soils” in Mechanics of Residual Soils, G.E. Blight, Ed., A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 95-154.
Chen, F.H., 1988, Foundations on Expansive Soils, American Elsevier Science Publ., New York.
Day, R.W., 2000, Geotechnical Engineer’s Portable Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, 560 pp.
Durrell, C., 1987, Geologic History of the Feather River Country, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 337 pp.
Grose, T.L.T., Saucedo, G.J., and Wagner, D.L., 1990, “Geologic Map of the Susanville Quadrangle, Lassen and Plumas Counties, California”, Open File Report 91-1, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento.
Seed, H.B., Woodward, R.J., and Lundgren, R., 1962, “Prediction of Swelling Potential for Compacted Clays”, J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE. 88 (SM3):53-87.
10
Figures
Steven C. Devin, P.E. 9/12/2016
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.0010.010.1110100
Perc
ent P
assi
ng (%
)
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Analysis
TP-1 S-1
TP-1 S-2
TP-2 S-1
TP-3 S-1
TP-6 S-1
B-1 S-1
B-1 S-2
B-1 S-4
B-1 S-5
B-2 S-1
B-2 S-3
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" 1/4" No. 4 No. 10 No. 40 No. 200 U.S. Std Sieve Sizes
Project: King-Soult Greenville FIGURE 1
Fine GravelCoarse Gravel Medium Sand Fine Sand Silt ClayCoarse Sand
Hydrometer
11
Appendix A
Test Pit Logs and CPT Sounding Logs
3586
3584
3582
3580
3578
3576
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
S-1
S-2
Brown Silty SAND (SM)with Organics (roots)
2.3Reddish Brown Sandy
SILT (ML); subroundedmedium Sand sizes; few
Organics; moist;60.9% -No. 200
Non-Plastic4.0
Yellowish Red SiltySAND with Gravel (SM);
trace angular Cobbles;subangular to angularmedium Sand sizes;
subangular to subroundedSand and Gravel sizes;
moist44.6% -No. 200
LL=33PI=9
Gs = 2.69Acitivity, Ac =0.32
Boring terminatedat 8.3 ft.
SM
ML
SM
4257
63
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Mark Delizio ELEVATION: 3587.6 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. TP-1
DRILL METHOD: Massey-Furguson Model 60 LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: N/A DATE: June 30, 2004
No Groundwater observedNo Bedrock encountered
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3590
3588
3586
3584
3582
3580
3578
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
S-1 Orange-Brown SiltyGRAVEL with Sand
(GM), few subangularCobbles; subangular toangular medium Sandsizes; aubangular to
subrounded coarse Sandand Gravel sizes; dry
13.3% -No.200Composite Sample
Boring terminatedat 6 ft.Refusal
GM
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Mark Delizio ELEVATION: 3590.2 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. TP-2
DRILL METHOD: Massey-Furguson Model 60 LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: N/A DATE: June 30, 2004
No Groundwater observedProbable Bedrock Refusal @ 6.0'
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3586
3584
3582
3580
3578
3576
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
S-1
Orange-Brown SiltyGRAVEL with Sand
(GM)
Orange-Brown SiltyGRAVEL with Sand(GM) ; subangular toangular medium Sandsizes; subangular to
subrounded coarse Sandand Gravel sizes; dry to
moist15.5% -No.200
Easily Excavated
Boring terminatedat 9.3 ft.
GM
GM
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Mark Delizio ELEVATION: 3587.7 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. TP-3
DRILL METHOD: Massey-Furguson Model 60 LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: N/A DATE: June 30, 2004
No Groundwater observedNo Bedrock encountered
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3598
3596
3594
3592
3590
3588
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Brown Silty GRAVEL(GM) with angular
Cobbles; dry
Orange-Brown SiltyGRAVEL (GM) with
angular Cobbles; moistdifficult digging at 3'-4'
hole collapsingNO SAMPLES
Boring terminatedat 6 ft.
GM
GM
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Mark Delizio ELEVATION: 3598.7 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. TP-4
DRILL METHOD: Massey-Furguson Model 60 LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: N/A DATE: June 30, 2004
No Groundwater observedNo Bedrock encountered
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3594
3592
3590
3588
3586
3584
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
S-1
Brown Silty SAND (SM)with Organics (roots); dry
0.5Orange-Brown SiltyGRAVEL with Sand
(GM) ; few angular tosubangular Cobbles;
Easilty Excavated
Boring terminatedat 9.5 ft.
Bedrock fragments, stillable to excavate;
Possible Bedrock Surface
SM
GM
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Mark Delizio ELEVATION: 3595.8 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. TP-5
DRILL METHOD: Massey-Furguson Model 60 LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: N/A DATE: June 30, 2004
No Groundwater observedPossible Bedrock encountered at 9.5'
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3674
3672
3670
3668
3666
3664
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
ST-1
S-1
Gray Sandy SILT (ML);few Organics (roots)
1Reddish-Yellow Sandy
Lean CLAY (CL)Moist; Soft to Medium
Stiff
Undisturbed Shelby TubeSample
Reddish-Yellow SandyLean CLAY (CL);
subrounded to roundedcoarse Sand and Gravelsizes which are severelyweathered, very porous,and have low density;
moist;Soft;
RESDIUAL SOIL50.2% -No.200
LL=41PI=16
moist = 107.3 pcfsat = 117.3 pcfdry = 87.6 pcf
Gs = 2.68e = 0.91S = 67%
Unconfined Compressionsu = 425 psf
Activity, Ac = 0.52Boring terminated
at 8.6 ft.
ML
CL
CL
0.32 425 87.6 0.67
8
13.5
15
16.5
18
21
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Mark Delizio ELEVATION: 3674.9 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. TP-6
DRILL METHOD: Massey-Furguson Model 60 LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: N/A DATE: June 30, 2004
No Groundwater observedNo Bedrock encountered
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3604
3602
3600
3598
3596
3594
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Residual Soil ProfileNo Samples or Visual ID
(Dry Soil)Probable
Sandy SILT (ML)or
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Boring terminatedat 4.5 ft.Refusal
47.551
24
25.5
35
24
25
26.5
31
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Steven Devin ELEVATION: 3605 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. CPT-1
DRILL METHOD: LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: DATE: July 27, 2004
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3642
3640
3638
3636
3634
3632
3630
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Residual Soil ProfileNo Samples or Visual ID
(Dry Soil)Probable
Sandy SILT (ML)or
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Boring terminatedat 4.6 ft.Refusal
6846.5
31.5
26
22.5
28
34
37
1827.5
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Steven Devin ELEVATION: 3642 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. CPT-2
DRILL METHOD: LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: DATE: July 27, 2004
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3698
3696
3694
3692
3690
3688
3686
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Colluvial Slide DebrisNear Base of HeadscarpNo Samples or Visual ID
(Dry Soil)Probable
Sandy SILT (ML)or
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Boring terminatedat 3.1 ft.Refusal
3222.5
59
43
47.5
5768
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California (Landslide)
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Steven Devin ELEVATION: 3698 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. CPT-3
DRILL METHOD: LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: DATE: July 27, 2004
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3682
3680
3678
3676
3674
3672
3670
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Colluvium Slide DebrisAlong Upper Slide TrackNo Samples or Visual ID
(Dry Soil)Probable
Sandy SILT (ML)or
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Boring terminatedat 3.6 ft.Refusal
5938.5
54
60
57
41
4846
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California (Landslide)
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Steven Devin ELEVATION: 3682 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. CPT-4
DRILL METHOD: LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: DATE: July 27, 2004
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3668
3666
3664
3662
3660
3658
3656
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Colluvium Slide DebrisAlong Upper Slide TrackNo Samples or Visual ID
(Dry Soil)Probable
Sandy SILT (ML)or
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)Boring terminated
at 1.6 ft.Refusal
5050
6570
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California (Landslide)
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Steven Devin ELEVATION: 3668 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. CPT-5
DRILL METHOD: LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: DATE: July 27, 2004
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3652
3650
3648
3646
3644
3642
3640
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Colluvium Slide DebrisAlong Upper Depositional
AreaNo Samples or Visual ID
(Dry Soil)Probable
Sandy SILT (ML)or
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)Boring terminated
at 1.8 ft.Refusal
6568
57
58
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California (Landslide)
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Steven Devin ELEVATION: 3652 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. CPT-6
DRILL METHOD: LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: DATE: July 27, 2004
GWT not observed
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
3604
3602
3600
3598
3596
3594
2
4
6
8
10
12
Boring terminatedat 7.25 ft.
20.7534.5
18.25
15
19.5
12.5
12.5
20
22.75
30.75
26
30
30
Steven C. Devin, P.E. PROJECT: King-Soult Greenville PROJECT NO.: G2004-06
Civil and Geotechnical CLIENT: Steve King and Niel Soult
Engineering Services LOCATION: Parcel 1 6PM61, Greenville, California
P.O. Box 1782, Quincy, California 95971 DRILLER: Steven Devin ELEVATION: 3605 Assumed
BORING LOGNo. CPT-7B
DRILL METHOD: LOGGED BY: Steven Devin
DEPTH TO - WATER: DATE: June 3, 2005
Dep
th (f
t)__
____
____
_
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
Gra
phic
Sam
ple
No.
(%) R
ecov
ery
Description
US
CS
Torv
ane
s u (t
sf)
UC
su
(psf
)
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Sat
urat
ion
S (%
)
(%) -
No.
200
CF
(%) -
0.0
02 m
m
Est
. SP
T N
60
TEST RESULTSDutch Cone Penetration Tests
Atterberg LimitsNatural Water Content
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water Content -Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
10 20 30 40 50 60 70CPT qc (tsf) -
This
info
rmat
ion
pert
ains
onl
y to
this
test
pit
or b
orin
g an
d sh
ould
not
be
inte
rpre
ted
as b
eing
indi
citiv
e of
the
site
.
PAGE 1 of 1
Sieve Analysis
Sample Dry Weight: 1037.1 Washed Dry Weight: 409.9 Washing Loss: 627.2
Sieve Designation
Sieve Opening
(mm)
Cumulative Weight
RetainedPercent Retained
Percent Passing Atterberg Limits: ASTM D-4318
3 76.2 281.9 0.0 100.0 Natural Water Content2 50.8 281.9 0.0 100.0 Liquid Limit1 1/2 38.1 281.9 0.0 100.0 Plastic Limit1 25.4 281.9 0.0 100.0 Plasticity Index NP3/4 19.1 281.9 0.0 100.0 Summary1/2 12.7 281.9 0.0 100.0 1.1 % Gravel3/8 9.53 285.0 0.3 99.7 0.0 % coarse gravel1/4 6.35 287.9 0.6 99.4 1.1 % fine gravelNo. 4 4.75 292.8 1.1 98.9 38.0 % SandNo. 10 2.00 317.8 3.5 96.5 2.4 % coarse sandNo. 40 0.425 402.2 11.6 88.4 8.1 % med. sandNo. 200 0.075 687.1 39.1 60.9 27.5 % fine sandPan 691.7 39.5 60.5 60.9 % Silt & ClayWash Loss 627.2 Total Weight of Original Sample 1037.1 Pan CPan plus Wash 1037.0 Less Total Weight of Fractions 1037.0 Pan Tare 281.85Total Fractions 1037.0 Error 0.0
Percent Error 0.0REMARKS: Testing per ASTM D-422 and D-1140
D10 (mm) CU N/AD30 (mm) CC N/AD60 (mm)
Technician: Checked and Submitted by:
Steven C. Devin
Date: July 3, 2004
Sample No: TP-1 S-1
Project: King-Soult Greenville
Sample Description: Reddish brown Sandy SILT (ML); subrounded medium Sand, few Organics
Visual-Manual Sample Description:
Sample Type: grab
Location: 2.3'
Hydrometer Analysis
Specific Gravity (Gs) 2.68 Measured Assumed
Wahed on Sieve? yes noSieve No. 40 % Passing 88.4 Hydrometer 152H
Weight Evap. Dish: 252.45 Dish+Dry Material: 306.36 Dry Soil+Dispersent: 53.91 Dry Soil: 48.91Weight of Dispersent: 5.00
Elapsed Time (min)
Actual Hydrometer
Reading (Rs)
Composite Correction
(RC)
Corrected Reading
(R)
Gs Correction (a)
% Finer Adjusted % Finer
Temperature (ºC)
Corr. Factor (K)
Effective Depth (L)
Particle Diameter
(mm)
1 34 3.92 30.09 0.99 61.1 54.0 19.5 0.014 10.758 0.0442 30 3.92 26.09 0.99 53.0 46.9 19.5 0.014 11.410 0.0325 24 3.92 20.09 0.99 40.8 36.1 19.5 0.014 12.388 0.021
15 19 3.87 15.13 0.99 30.7 27.2 19.6 0.014 13.203 0.01330 15.5 3.70 11.80 0.99 24.0 21.2 20.0 0.013 13.774 0.00960 13 3.44 9.56 0.99 19.4 17.2 20.6 0.013 14.181 0.007
250 9 2.37 6.63 0.99 13.5 11.9 23.1 0.013 14.833 0.0031440 8 3.57 4.43 0.99 9.0 8.0 20.3 0.013 14.996 0.001
Date: July 19, 2004Sample No: TP-1 S-1
Location: 2.3'
Sample Type: grab
Project: King-Soult GreenvilleSample Description: Reddish brown Sandy SILT (ML), subrounded medium Sand, few Organics
Sieve Analysis
Sample Dry Weight: 1827.8 Washed Dry Weight: 1015.4 Washing Loss: 812.4
Sieve Designation
Sieve Opening
(mm)
Cumulative Weight
RetainedPercent Retained
Percent Passing Atterberg Limits: ASTM D-4318
3 76.2 283.2 0.0 100.0 Natural Water Content2 50.8 283.2 0.0 100.0 Liquid Limit 331 1/2 38.1 283.2 0.0 100.0 Plastic Limit 241 25.4 359.6 4.2 95.8 Plasticity Index 93/4 19.1 415.7 7.3 92.7 Summary1/2 12.7 502.8 12.0 88.0 17.5 % Gravel3/8 9.53 531.0 13.6 86.4 7.3 % coarse gravel1/4 6.35 576.6 16.1 83.9 10.2 % fine gravelNo. 4 4.75 602.8 17.5 82.5 37.9 % SandNo. 10 2.00 706.2 23.2 76.8 5.7 % coarse sandNo. 40 0.425 1007.7 39.7 60.3 16.5 % med. sandNo. 200 0.075 1294.8 55.4 44.6 15.7 % fine sandPan 1297.2 55.5 44.5 44.6 % Silt & ClayWash Loss 812.4 Total Weight of Original Sample 1827.8 Pan DPan plus Wash 1826.4 Less Total Weight of Fractions 1826.4 Pan Tare 283.20Total Fractions 1826.4 Error 1.4
Percent Error 0.1REMARKS: Testing per ASTM D-422 and D-1140
D10 (mm) CU N/AD30 (mm) CC N/AD60 (mm)
Technician: Checked and Submitted by:
Steven C. Devin
Project: King-Soult Greenville Date: July 3, 2004
Sample Description: Brown Silty SAND with Gravel (SM); subangular to angular medium Sand sizes, subangular to subrounded coarse Sand and Gravel sizes
Sample No: TP-1 S-2
Visual-Manual Sample Description: Location: 4.0'
Sample Type: grab
Hydrometer Analysis
Specific Gravity (Gs) 2.69 Measured AssumedWahed on Sieve? yes noSieve No. 40 % Passing 60.3 Hydrometer 152H
Weight Evap. Dish: 253.45 Dish+Dry Material: 306.51 Dry Soil+Dispersent: 53.06 Dry Soil: 48.06Weight of Dispersent: 5.00
Elapsed Time (min)
Actual Hydrometer
Reading (Rs)
Composite Correction
(RC)
Corrected Reading
(R)
Gs Correction (a)
% Finer Adjusted % Finer
Temperature (ºC)
Corr. Factor (K)
Effective Depth (L)
Particle Diameter
(mm)
1 37.5 3.70 33.80 0.99 69.8 42.1 20.0 0.013 10.188 0.0432 35 3.70 31.30 0.99 64.6 39.0 20.0 0.013 10.595 0.0315 32 3.70 28.30 0.99 58.4 35.2 20.0 0.013 11.084 0.020
15 29 3.66 25.34 0.99 52.3 31.5 20.1 0.013 11.573 0.01230 27 3.53 23.47 0.99 48.4 29.2 20.4 0.013 11.899 0.00860 24.5 3.36 21.14 0.99 43.6 26.3 20.8 0.013 12.307 0.006
250 19 2.28 16.72 0.99 34.5 20.8 23.3 0.013 13.203 0.0031440 14 3.49 10.52 0.99 21.7 13.1 20.5 0.013 14.018 0.001
Project: King-Soult Greenville Date: July 19, 2004
Location: 4.0'
Sample Type: grab
Sample Description: Brown Silty SAND with Gravel (SM); subangular to angular medium Sand sizes, subangular to subrounded coarse Sand and Gravel sizes
Sample No: TP-1 S-2
Sieve Analysis
Sample Dry Weight: 2074.4 Washed Dry Weight: 1753.1 Washing Loss: 321.3
Sieve Designation
Sieve Opening
(mm)
Cumulative Weight
RetainedPercent Retained
Percent Passing Atterberg Limits: ASTM D-4318
3 76.2 274.7 0.0 100.0 Natural Water Content2 50.8 274.7 0.0 100.0 Liquid Limit1 1/2 38.1 274.7 0.0 100.0 Plastic Limit1 25.4 477.0 9.8 90.2 Plasticity Index3/4 19.1 580.9 14.8 85.2 Summary1/2 12.7 815.4 26.1 73.9 42.9 % Gravel3/8 9.53 930.1 31.7 68.3 14.8 % coarse gravel1/4 6.35 1077.7 38.8 61.2 28.1 % fine gravelNo. 4 4.75 1162.0 42.9 57.1 41.6 % SandNo. 10 2.00 1408.8 54.8 45.2 11.9 % coarse sandNo. 40 0.425 1819.7 74.6 25.4 19.8 % med. sandNo. 200 0.075 2023.4 84.5 15.5 9.8 % fine sandPan 2023.9 84.5 15.5 15.5 % Silt & ClayWash Loss 321.3 Total Weight of Original Sample 2074.4 Pan EPan plus Wash 2070.5 Less Total Weight of Fractions 2070.5 Pan Tare 274.70Total Fractions 2070.5 Error 3.9
Percent Error 0.2REMARKS: Testing per ASTM D-422 and D-1140
D10 (mm) CU N/AD30 (mm) CC N/AD60 (mm)
Technician: Checked and Submitted by:
Steven C. Devin
Project: King-Soult Greenville Date: July 3, 2004
Sample Description: Brown Silty GRAVEL with Sand (GM); subangular to angular medium Sand sizes, subangular to subrounded coarse Sand and Gravel
Sample No: TP-3 S-1
Visual-Manual Sample Description: Location: 5.0'
Sample Type: grab
Si A l iSieve AnalysisProject: King-Soult Greenville Date: July 3, 2004
Sample Description: Reddish-Yellow Sandy Lean CLAY (CL); subrounded to rounded coarse Sand and Gravel sizes which are severely weathered, very porous, low density
Sample No: TP-6 S-1
Sample Dry Weight: 797.8 Washed Dry Weight: 399.2 Washing Loss: 398.6
Sieve Cumulative
Visual-Manual Sample Description: Location: 5.5'
Sample Type: grab
Sieve Designation
Sieve Opening
(mm)
Cumulative Weight
RetainedPercent Retained
Percent Passing Atterberg Limits: ASTM D-4318
3 76.2 293.0 0.0 100.0 Natural Water Content 25.82 50.8 293.0 0.0 100.0 Liquid Limit 411 1/2 38.1 293.0 0.0 100.0 Plastic Limit 251 25.4 329.6 4.6 95.4 Plasticity Index 163/4 19.1 345.1 6.5 93.5 Summary1/2 12.7 348.7 7.0 93.0 7.6 % Gravel3/8 9.53 348.7 7.0 93.0 6.5 % coarse gravel1/4 6.35 351.6 7.3 92.7 1.1 % fine gravelNo. 4 4.75 353.7 7.6 92.4 42.2 % SandNo. 10 2.00 359.7 8.4 91.6 0.8 % coarse sandNo. 40 0.425 434.3 17.7 82.3 9.4 % med. sandNo. 200 0.075 690.3 49.8 50.2 32.1 % fine sandPan 692.4 50.1 49.9 50.2 % Silt & ClayWash Loss 398.6 Total Weight of Original Sample 797.8 Pan BP l W h 797 9 L T t l W i ht f F ti 797 9 P T 293 00Pan plus Wash 797.9 Less Total Weight of Fractions 797.9 Pan Tare 293.00Total Fractions 797.9 Error -0.1
Percent Error 0.0REMARKS: Testing per ASTM D-422 and D-1140
D10 (mm) CU N/AD30 (mm) CC N/AD60 (mm)
Technician: Checked and Submitted by:
Steven C. Devin
Top Related