Geotechnical Engineering Report -...

Geotechnical Engineering Report Ski Apache Zip Lines

1286 Ski Run Road

Alto, New Mexico May 28, 2014

Terracon Project No. AF145004

Prepared for: Ski Apache

Alto, New Mexico

Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Geotechnical Engineering Report Ski Apache Zip Line Alto, New Mexico May 28, 2014 Terracon Project No. AF145004

Responsive Resourceful Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the zip line project to be located at Ski Apache in Alto, New Mexico. The proposed project will include the construction of three zip line spans. Terracon’s geotechnical scope of work included the advancement of four test pits to approximate depths of 4 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). Backhoe refusal was encountered in Test Pits T-2 through T-4 due to suspected bedrock. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for development of the proposed project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:

The site soils generally consisted of silty sand with gravel, clayey sand with gravel and well graded sand with silt and gravel from the surface to the total explored depths of about 4 to 10 bgs. The upper soils were underlain by suspected bedrock in Test Pits T-2 through T-4. Test Pit T-1 was advanced to a total explored depth of about 10 feet bgs without backhoe refusal. Groundwater was not encountered in the test boring at the time of drilling.

The zip line towers can be supported by the preferred mat foundations bearing on prepared

native soils or engineered fill materials. The elevated decks can be supported by shallow spread footings bearing on prepared native soils or engineered fill. The on-site sand soils appear suitable for use as engineered fill beneath foundations.

Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of

earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during construction.

This geotechnical executive summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design and/or construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.


Responsive Resourceful Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................................................................1

2.1 Project Description .........................................................................................1 2.2 Site Location and Description .........................................................................2

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...................................................................................2 3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile ..............................................................................2 3.2 Groundwater ..................................................................................................2

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ................................3 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations..........................................................................3 4.2 Earthwork .......................................................................................................3

4.2.1 Site Preparation ..................................................................................3 4.2.2 Foundation Pad Preparation ...............................................................4 4.2.3 Fill Materials Types .............................................................................4 4.2.4 Fill Material Placement and Compaction Requirements ......................5 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage.........................................................................5 4.2.6 Earthwork Construction Considerations ..............................................5

4.3 Foundation Recommendations .......................................................................6 4.3.1 Design Recommendations ..................................................................6

4.4 Seismic Considerations ..................................................................................7 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ...........................................................................................7 Exhibit No. Appendix A – Field Exploration Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan............................................. A-1 and A-2 Field Exploration Description ................................................................................. A-3 Test Pit Logs ................................................................................................ A-4 to A-7 Photosheet ............................................................................................................ A-8 Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Laboratory Test Description ................................................................................... B-1 Laboratory Test Results ............................................................................ B-2 thru B-7 Appendix C – Supporting Documents General Notes ....................................................................................................... C-1 Unified Soil Classification System .......................................................................... C-2

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SKI APACHE ZIP LINES

1286 SKI RUN ROAD ALTO, NEW MEXICO

Terracon Project No. AF145004 May 28, 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the zip line project to be located at Ski Apache in Alto, New Mexico. Four (4) test pits, designated T-1 through T-4, were performed to a depth of approximately 4 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) within the planned support tower footprints. Backhoe refusal was encountered in Test Pits T-2 through T-4 due to suspected bedrock. Logs of the test pits along with a site location map and test pit location plan are included in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

subsurface soil conditions foundation design and construction earthwork seismic considerations

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description

Item Description

Site layout Refer to the Site Location Map and Test Pit Location Plan (Exhibits A-1 and A-2)

Structures Three zip line spans including concrete tower/platforms and elevated loading decks at the bottom on top of the individual spans.

Building construction Concrete towers supported by mat foundations and elevated decks supported by shallow drilled piers or spread footings.

Finished floor elevation Existing at the bottom and top of the spans (assumed) Maximum loads Unknown

Maximum allowable movement 2 inches (assumed), Terracon understands that the towers will be pre-loaded to initiate settlement prior to completion.



2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description Location Ski Apache in Alto, New Mexico Existing site features Ski runs and undeveloped

Surrounding developments

North: Undeveloped East: Undeveloped West: Undeveloped South: Ski Apache Facilities

Current ground cover Native subgrade soils.

Existing topography Mountainous area with significant vertical relief. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile Specific conditions encountered at the test pit locations are indicated on the individual test pit logs. Stratification boundaries on the test pit logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for the test pits can be found on the test pit logs included in Appendix A of this report. Based on the results of the test pits, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Description Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Stratum 1 4 to 10

Silty Sand with Gravel, Clayey Sand with Gravel

and Well Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel

N/A

Stratum 2 N/A Suspected Bedrock Backhoe Refusal (not

encountered in Test Pit T-1)

2 Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in Appendix B. Laboratory test results indicate that the near surface soils should exhibit low to moderate compressibility potentials at in-situ moisture contents. 3.2 Groundwater The test pits were observed during excavation and after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was not observed in the test pits during excavation, or for the short duration that the test pits were allowed to remain open.



4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test pits. Based on the geotechnical engineering analyses, subsurface exploration and laboratory test results, it is our opinion that the proposed tower structures can be supported by the preferred mat foundations bearing on prepared native soils or engineered fill materials. The elevated decks can be supported by shallow spread footings on prepared native soils or engineered fill materials. Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. 4.2 Earthwork The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented for design and construction of earth supported elements including foundations are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. All grading for the structures should incorporate the limits plus a minimum pad extension of three feet beyond proposed foundation perimeters. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project. 4.2.1 Site Preparation Prior to construction or placing any fill, all vegetation (if applicable), and any otherwise unsuitable materials should be removed from the construction areas. Wet or dry material should either be removed, dried or moisture conditioned and compacted. Exposed areas which will receive fill or be constructed upon, once properly cleared, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 10 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted.



After stripping and grubbing, the subgrade should be proof-rolled to aid in locating loose or soft areas. Proof-rolling can be performed with a 15-ton roller or fully loaded dump truck. Soft, dry, wet, and low-density soil should be removed or compacted in place prior to placing fill or construction. 4.2.2 Foundation Pad Preparation We have provided the following subgrade preparation recommendations which are intended to reduce the magnitude of soil movements.

Complete the stripping operations discussed in the 4.2.1 Site Preparation section.

The exposed subgrade in the foundation areas should be proofrolled with at least a 15-ton roller, or equivalent equipment, to evidence any weak yielding zones. The foundation area is defined as the area that extends at least 3 feet (horizontal) beyond the foundation perimeter. A Terracon geotechnical engineer or his/her representative should be present to observe proofrolling operations.

Over-excavate any confirmed weak yielding zones, both vertically and horizontally,

to expose competent soil. The excavated soil can be used to restore grade provided that the material is relatively free and clean of deleterious material or materials exceeding 6 inches in maximum dimension.

After proofrolling and the replacement of weak yielding zones, scarify, moisture

condition, and compact the newly exposed subgrade.

If grades are to be raised further, then select fill should be used to achieve the final grade. Recommendations for select fill are included in the following section.

4.2.3 Fill Material Types Engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement Near Surface On-Site

Soils SM, SC

The on-site silty sand and clayey sand soils typically appear suitable for use as engineered fill.

Granular SM or SC 2 All locations and elevations

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

2. Imported silty sand or clayey sand.



4.2.4 Fill Material Placement and Compaction Requirements Item Description

Fill Lift Thickness 10 inches or less in loose thickness

Minimum Compaction Requirements 1 95% of the materials maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557)

Moisture Content Within 2% of optimum moisture content value as determined by the modified Proctor test at the time of placement and compaction

1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

4.2.5 Grading and Drainage Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the project. Infiltration of water into foundation excavations should be prevented during construction. Surface features which could retain water in areas adjacent to the structures should be sealed or eliminated. We recommend that protective slopes be provided with a minimum grade of approximately 5 percent for at least 10 feet from the foundation perimeters (where applicable). Backfill against foundations should be well compacted and free of all construction debris to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration. 4.2.6 Earthwork Construction Considerations Although the exposed subgrade is anticipated to be relatively stable upon initial exposure, unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. The use of light construction equipment would aid in reducing subgrade disturbance. The use of remotely operated equipment, such as a backhoe, would be beneficial to perform cuts and reduce subgrade disturbance. Should unstable subgrade conditions develop, stabilization measures will need to be employed. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content prior to construction of foundations. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to foundation construction. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should



comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation; moisture conditioning; re-compaction; placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; backfilling of excavations into the completed subgrade, and just prior to construction of foundations. 4.3 Foundation Recommendations The tower mat foundations and elevated deck spread footings should bear on prepared native subgrade or engineered fill materials. Design recommendations for the foundations and related structural elements are presented in the following paragraphs. 4.3.1 Design Recommendations

Description Value

Foundation Type Mat Foundations and Spread Footing Foundations

Structure Towers and Elevated Decks

Bearing Material Prepared native subgrade or engineered fill underlain by compacted native soils

Allowable Bearing Pressure 4,500 psf

Modulus of subgrade reaction 200 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) Minimum Embedment Depth Below Finished Grade 24 inches

Sliding Coefficient of Friction (concrete to silty sand with gravel) 0.35

Passive Earth Pressure (silty sand with gravel) 420 psf/ft

Total Estimated Settlement

2 inches, Terracon understands that the tower foundations will be pre-loaded to initiate

settlement prior to completion of the zip line spans

Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within five feet of the foundation. The allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. The weight of the foundation concrete below grade may be neglected in dead load computations.



The foundation should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. Proportioning on the basis of equal total settlement is recommended. Additional foundation movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates the foundation soils; therefore, proper drainage should be provided in the final design and during construction. The foundation should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. Foundation excavations and engineered fill placement should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. If the soil conditions encountered differ significantly from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required. 4.4 Seismic Considerations

Description Value 2009 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC) 1 C2

Site Latitude 33.3931 Site Longitude -105.7861

Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1 SMs = FaSs and SM1 = FvS1

Site Class C - Fa = 1.2, Fv = 1.7

SMS Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period (0.2 sec) 0.337 g SM1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.148 g

SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 SDS Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period (0.2 sec) 0.225 g

SD1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.099 g 1 Note: In general accordance with the 2009 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2. IBC Site Class is based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. 2 Note: The 2009 International Building Code (IBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. The test pits extending to a maximum depth of 10 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that dense soil may be encountered below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations



in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

SKI APACHE ZIP LINE 1286 SKI RUN ROAD ALTO, NEW MEXICO

SITE LOCATION MAP

Project Mngr: DB

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

DB

JDC

JDC

Project No. AF145004

Scale

File No.

Date:

Not to Scale

Site Map

5/6/14

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105 Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005

575.527.1700 Fax: 575.527.1092

FIG No.

A-1

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

Source: USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map “Nogal Peak, NM (1/1/2004) and Sierra Blanca Peak, NM (1/1/1982).”

N

Project Site

Ski Run Rd

SKI APACHE ZIP LINE 1286 SKI RUN ROAD ALTO, NEW MEXICO

TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN

Project Mngr: DB

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

DB

JDC

JDC

Project No. AF145004

Scale

File No.

Date:

N.T.S

Test Pit Location

5/5/14

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105 Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005

575.527.1700 Fax: 575.527.1092

FIG No.

A-2

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

Approximate Test Pit Locations

Source:

N

T-1

T-2

T-3 T-4


Responsive Resourceful Reliable Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description Four test pits were excavated at the site on May 1, 2014. The test pits were excavated to depths of about 4 to 10 feet below the ground surface at the approximate location shown on the attached Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan, Exhibit A-1 and A-2, respectively. Backhoe refusal was encountered in Test Pits T-2 through T-4 due to suspected bedrock. The test pits were located as follows:

Boring Location Depth (feet) T-1 Bottom of Span #3 10

T-2 Bottom of Span #2 4

T-3 Bottom of Span #1 6

T-4 Top of Span #1 7 The test pits were excavated with a backhoe. The test pit locations were staked in the field by the client. The accuracy of the test pit locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the method used. Lithologic logs of the test pits were recorded by the field engineer during the excavation operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were collected and placed in sample bags. Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits during the drilling operations.

7.0

10.0

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), black

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), yellowish-brown

Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet

31

24

17

21

31-29-2

31-26-5

Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G Bottom of Span #3

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL A

F14

5004

.GP

J

1286 SKI RUN ROAD ALTO, NEW MEXICOSITE:

PROJECT: SKI APACHE ZIP LINE

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:Backhoe

Abandonment Method:

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105Las Cruces, New Mexico

Notes:

Project No.: AF145004

Excavator:

Test Pit Started: 5/1/2014

TEST PIT LOG NO. T-1SKI APACHECLIENT:ALTO, NEW MEXICO

Operator:

Test Pit Completed: 5/1/2014

Exhibit: A-4

Per

cent

Fin

es

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10S

AM

PLE

TY

PE

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

2.0

4.0


WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM), yellowish-brown

Test pit refusal due to suspected bedrock at 4 Feet

67 NP


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G Top of Span #3/Bottomof Span #2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL A

F14

5004

.GP

J



Page 1 of 1


Abandonment Method:


Notes:


Excavator:



Operator:


Exhibit: A-5

Per

cent

Fin

es

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


6.0


yellowish-brown


197 23-22-1


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G Top of Span #2/Bottomof Span #1

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL A

F14

5004

.GP

J



Page 1 of 1


Abandonment Method:


Notes:


Excavator:



Operator:


Exhibit: A-6

Per

cent

Fin

es

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


4.0

7.0


WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM), yellowish-brown


19

7

15

16

NP

NP


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G Top of Span #1

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL A

F14

5004

.GP

J



Page 1 of 1


Abandonment Method:


Notes:


Excavator:



Operator:


Exhibit: A-7

Per

cent

Fin

es

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


Geotechnical Engineering Report Ski Apache Zip Line 1286 Ski Run Road Alto, New Mexico Photos Taken: May 1, 2014 Terracon Project No. AF145004


Test Pit #1 Test Pit #1



APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING


Responsive Resourceful Reliable Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Appendix A. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards. Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering properties:

Atterberg Limits Water Content Sieve Analysis

.

Sieve Size 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200

% Passing (Cumulative) 100% 87% 76% 67% 56% 43% 36% 31.4%Specification

% GRAVEL = 33% D85 = 17.3 D15 =% SAND = 35% D60 = 2.7 D10 =

% SILT & CLAY = 31% D50 = 1.0 CU =D30 = CC =

Project Name: Ski Apache Zip LineProject No.: AF145004

Sample Location: TP-1 at 0-7'Liquid Limit: 31 Plasticity Index: 2

USCS Classification: SMMaterial Description:

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105Las Cruces, NM 88005

Silty Sand with Gravel

GRAIN SIZE - mm

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

6 in

.

1.5

in.

#4

#200

.

Sieve Size 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200


% GRAVEL = 34% D85 = 17.0 D15 =% SAND = 42% D60 = 3.0 D10 =

% SILT & CLAY = 24% D50 = 1.1 CU =D30 = 0.1 CC =



USCS Classification: SCMaterial Description:

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON


Clayey Sand with Gravel

GRAIN SIZE - mm


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

6 in

.

1.5

in.

#4

#200

.

Sieve Size 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200


% GRAVEL = 42% D85 = 17.9 D15 = 0.3% SAND = 51% D60 = 5.3 D10 = 0.2

% SILT & CLAY = 6% D50 = 3.2 CU = 31.3D30 = 1.0 CC = 1.2


Sample Location: TP-2 at 2-4'Liquid Limit: NV Plasticity Index: NP

USCS Classification: SW-SMMaterial Description:

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON


Well Graded Sand with Silt & Gravel

GRAIN SIZE - mm


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

6 in

.

1.5

in.

#4

#200

.

Sieve Size 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200


% GRAVEL = 32% D85 = 15.7 D15 =% SAND = 49% D60 = 2.9 D10 =

% SILT & CLAY = 19% D50 = 1.5 CU =D30 = 0.3 CC =




TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON



GRAIN SIZE - mm


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

6 in

.

1.5

in.

#4

#200

.

Sieve Size 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200


% GRAVEL = 17% D85 = 5.6 D15 =% SAND = 64% D60 = 1.1 D10 =

% SILT & CLAY = 19% D50 = 0.7 CU =D30 = 0.2 CC =




TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON



GRAIN SIZE - mm


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

6 in

.

1.5

in.

#4

#200

.

Sieve Size 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200


% GRAVEL = 17% D85 = 5.8 D15 = 0.2% SAND = 76% D60 = 1.3 D10 = 0.1

% SILT & CLAY = 7% D50 = 0.8 CU = 11.8D30 = 0.4 CC = 1.1



USCS Classification: SW-SMMaterial Description:

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON


Well Graded Sand with Silt & Gravel

GRAIN SIZE - mm


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

6 in

.

1.5

in.

#4

#200

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

TraceWithModifier

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGYRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

TraceWithModifier

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

Loose

Very Stiff

Exhibit C-1

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Medium Dense

Dense

Very Dense

0 - 1 < 3

4 - 9 2 - 4 3 - 4

Medium-Stiff 5 - 9

30 - 50

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

Auger

Shelby Tube

Ring Sampler

Grab Sample

8 - 15

Split Spoon

Macro Core

Rock Core

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Term

< 1515 - 29> 30

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Water InitiallyEncountered

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Major Componentof Sample

Percent ofDry Weight

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

Includes gravels, sands and silts.

Hard

Very Loose 0 - 3 0 - 6 Very Soft

7 - 18 Soft

10 - 29 19 - 58

59 - 98 Stiff

less than 500

500 to 1,000

1,000 to 2,000

2,000 to 4,000

4,000 to 8,000> 99

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

SA

MP

LIN

G

FIE

LD

TE

ST

S

(HP)

(T)

(b/f)

(PID)

(OVA)

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Descriptive Term(Density)

Non-plasticLowMediumHigh

BouldersCobblesGravelSandSilt or Clay

10 - 18

> 50 15 - 30 19 - 42

> 30 > 42

_

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Standard PenetrationTest (blows per foot)

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Water levels indicated on the soil boringlogs are the levels measured in theborehole at the times indicated.Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils,accurate determination of groundwaterlevels is not possible with short termwater level observations.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field

visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

> 8,000

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracyof such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey wasconducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographicmaps of the area.

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dryweight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils haveless than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, andsilts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may beadded according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are definedon the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

Plasticity Index

01 - 1011 - 30

> 30

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Percent ofDry Weight

< 55 - 12> 12

No Recovery

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Particle Size

Over 12 in. (300 mm)12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mmPassing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

ST

RE

NG

TH

TE

RM

S Unconfined CompressiveStrength, Qu, psf

4 - 8

GENERAL NOTES

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name

B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of

coarse fraction retained

on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E

GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E

GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse

fraction passes No. 4

sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E

SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E

SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line

J CL Lean clay

K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt

K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay

K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay

K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay

K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name. C

Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly

graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D

Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded

sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded

sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,”

whichever is predominant. L

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to

group name. M

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name. N

PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O

PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P

PI plots on or above “A” line. Q

PI plots below “A” line.

Date post:	23-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lykhanh
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times