preliminary geotechnical report - devingeo.com...accordance with astm d2216 “laboratory...

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




Greenville


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




Greenville


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





BORING LOGNo. TP-2



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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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


GM

GM





BORING LOGNo. TP-3




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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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





BORING LOGNo. TP-4




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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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


Bedrock fragments, stillable to excavate;

Possible Bedrock Surface

SM

GM





BORING LOGNo. TP-5



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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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





BORING LOGNo. TP-6




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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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




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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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



6846.5

31.5

26

22.5

28

34

37

1827.5





BORING LOGNo. CPT-2



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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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



3222.5

59

43

47.5

5768



Engineering Services LOCATION: APN 110-190-016, Greenville, California (Landslide)


BORING LOGNo. CPT-3



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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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



5938.5

54

60

57

41

4846





BORING LOGNo. CPT-4



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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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





BORING LOGNo. CPT-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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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





BORING LOGNo. CPT-6



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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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


20.7534.5

18.25

15

19.5

12.5

12.5

20

22.75

30.75

26

30

30



Engineering Services LOCATION: Parcel 1 6PM61, Greenville, California


BORING LOGNo. CPT-7B


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



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


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


Sieve Designation

Sieve Opening

(mm)

Cumulative Weight



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




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


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


Sieve Designation

Sieve Opening

(mm)

Cumulative Weight



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




Steven C. Devin


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


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


Sieve Cumulative


Sample Type: grab

Sieve Designation

Sieve Opening

(mm)

Cumulative Weight



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




Steven C. Devin

preliminary geotechnical report - devingeo.com...accordance with astm d2216 “laboratory...

Documents