Geotechnical Engineering Report - Pavilion … Hermosa...Geotechnical Engineering Report Richardson Subdivision Apartments 37th Street and Grand Avenue Artesia, New Mexico September

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Richardson Subdivision Apartments

37th Street and Grand Avenue

Artesia, New Mexico

September 13, 2011

Terracon Project No. 68115055

Prepared for:

Development Design & Engineering, Inc.

El Centro, California

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Las Cruces, New Mexico


Richardson Subdivision Apartments ■ Artesia, New Mexico

September 13, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 68115055

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

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.................................................................................. 3

3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile ............................................................................. 3

3.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................. 3

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ............................... 3

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations......................................................................... 3

4.2 Earthwork ...................................................................................................... 4

4.2.1 Site Preparation ................................................................................. 4

4.2.2 Excavation ......................................................................................... 5

4.2.3 Subgrade Preparation ........................................................................ 5

4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement .............................................................. 6

4.2.5 Compaction Requirements................................................................. 7

4.2.6 Grading and Drainage ........................................................................ 7

4.2.7 Corrosion Potential ............................................................................ 7

4.3 Foundation Recommendations ...................................................................... 8

4.3.1 Design Recommendations ................................................................. 8

4.3.2 Construction Considerations .............................................................. 9

4.4 Seismic Considerations ................................................................................. 9

4.5 Floor Slabs ...................................................................................................10

4.5.1 Design Recommendations ................................................................10

4.5.2 Construction Considerations .............................................................10

4.6 Pavements ...................................................................................................10

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS .........................................................................................13

Exhibit No.

Appendix A – Field Exploration

Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan............................................. A-1 and A-2

Field Exploration Description ................................................................................. A-3

Boring Logs ............................................................................................ A-4 thru A-11

General Notes ..................................................................................................... A-12

Unified Soil Classification System ........................................................................ A-13

Appendix B – Laboratory Testing

Laboratory Test Description ................................................................................... B-1

Laboratory Test Results ............................................................................ B-2 thru B-6




Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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.

A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the Richardson Subdivision Apartments

located near the northeast corner of 37th Street and Grand Avenue in Artesia, New Mexico.

The proposed project will include a residential subdivision (approximately 3.5 acres) with a

government controlled 80 unit multi-family apartment complex (10 structures with a community

services building). Paved parking and drive areas are also associated with the project.

Terracon’s geotechnical scope of work included the advancement of eight (8) test borings to

approximate depths ranging from 11-1/2 to 21-1/2 feet below existing site grades (bgs).

Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site is suitable for

development of the proposed project. The following geotechnical considerations were

identified:

The site soils in the building areas generally consisted of compressible and expansive

lean clay with varying amounts of sand from the surface to the total explored depths (11-

1/2 to 21-1/2 feet bgs). Groundwater was not encountered in the test borings at the time

of drilling.

Due to the presence of compressible and expansive soils on the site, standard spread

and continuous footings bearing on a minimum of 3 feet of engineered fill may be used

for support of the structures. The majority of on-site clay soils do not appear suitable for

use as engineered fill beneath foundations and floor slabs. However, on-site clay soils

may be blended with imported granular soils to meet the engineered fill specification

contained in this report.

Standard spread and continuous foundations are used for support of the structures,

construction of floor slabs on a minimum thickness of 3 feet of engineered fill composed

of approved blended on-site or imported soils is considered acceptable for the project.

Automobile parking areas – 3” AC over 6” ABC over 10” Compacted Subgrade. 35th

Street – 4-1/2” AC over 6” ABC over 10” Compacted Subgrade

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


1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

RICHARDSON SUBDIVISION APARTMENTS

NEC OF 37TH STREET AND GRAND AVENUE

ARTESIA, NEW MEXICO Terracon Project No. 68115055

September 13, 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the

Richardson Subdivision Apartments located near the northeast corner of 37th Street and Grand

Avenue in Artesia, New Mexico. The proposed project will include a residential subdivision

(approximately 3.5 acres) with a government controlled 80 unit multi-family apartment complex

(10 structures with a community services building). Paved parking and drive areas are also

associated with the project. Items addressed in this report are as follows:

subsurface soil conditions groundwater conditions

earthwork foundation design and construction

seismic considerations floor slab design and construction

pavements

Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the advancement of eight

test borings to depths ranging from approximately 11-1/2 to 21-1/2 feet below existing site

grades.

Logs of the borings along with a Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan (Exhibits A-1 and A-

2) are included in Appendix A of this report. The results of the laboratory testing performed on

soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included in Appendix B of this

report. Descriptions of the field exploration and laboratory testing are included in their respective

appendices.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Site layout Refer to the Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan (Exhibits

A-1 and A-2)




Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 2

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Structures

The proposed project will include a residential subdivision

(approximately 3.5 acres) with a government controlled 80 unit

multi-family apartment complex (10 structures with a community

services building). The buildings will be single-story and two-story

structures. Paved parking and roadway areas (portion of 35th

Street) are associated with the project.

Building construction

The buildings will consist of wood frame bearing on exterior and

interior spot footings. The floor system is anticipated to be slab-on-

grade.

Finished floor elevation Existing

Maximum loads

Columns: 15 to 40 kips maximum (assumed)

Walls: 2.0 klf maximum (assumed)

Slabs: 150 psf max (assumed)

Maximum allowable movement 1 inch

Maximum allowable differential

movement

½ inch over 40 feet for walls, ¾ inch over 40 feet for interior

columns (assumed)

Grading in building area Minimal cuts and fills are anticipated

Retaining walls None

Cut and fill slopes None

2.2 Site Location and Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Location Northeast of 37th Street and Grand Avenue in Artesia, New Mexico

Existing site features Vacant lot. Evidence of previous development was not observed

during the field exploration

Surrounding developments

North: Single Family Residential

East: Undeveloped

West: 37th Street

South: Single Family Residential

Current ground cover Subgrade soils sparsely vegetated with native grasses and

mesquite bush. Construction debris piles were located throughout

the site.

Existing topography Relatively flat





3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile

Specific conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the individual boring

logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of

changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each

of the borings can be found on the boring logs included in Appendix A of this report. Based on

the results of the borings, 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 11-1/2 to 21-1/2

Lean Clay with varying

amounts of gravel, sand

and carbonate cementation

Stiff to Hard

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented

in Appendix B. The soil samples tested have a slight to significant tendency for hydro-

compaction when elevated in moisture content. It is likely that some sample disturbance

occurred due to the high blow counts and low moisture contents of tested samples. It is our

opinion that the soils will exhibit low to moderate compression potential and low to moderate

expansive potentials.

3.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was not observed in the test borings at the time of field exploration. These

observations represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration and may

not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Groundwater conditions can change

with varying seasonal and weather conditions, and other factors.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Due to the presence of compressible/expansive soils and based on the geotechnical

engineering analyses, subsurface exploration and laboratory test results, Terracon

recommends that the proposed structures be supported by standard spread and continuous

footings bearing on a minimum thickness of 3 feet of engineered fill.





Low to moderate expansive soils are present on this site. This report provides

recommendations to help mitigate the effects of soil shrinkage and expansion. However,

even if these procedures are followed, some movement and (at least minor) cracking in the

structures should be anticipated. The severity of cracking and other cosmetic damage such

as uneven floor slabs will probably increase if any modification of the site results in

excessive wetting or drying of the expansive soils. Eliminating the risk of movement and

cosmetic distress may not be feasible, but it may be possible to further reduce the risk of

movement if significantly more expensive measures are used during construction which may

include additional engineered fill thicknesses and/or structural slabs. We would be pleased

to discuss other construction alternatives with you upon request.

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

and slabs are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. All

grading for the structures should incorporate the limits of the proposed structures plus a

minimum pad blow-up of five feet beyond proposed perimeter building walls (where

applicable).

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

Strip and remove existing vegetation, construction piles, surface debris and other

deleterious materials from proposed building area. Exposed surfaces should be free of

mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction.

Stripped materials consisting of vegetation and organic materials should be wasted from the

site, or used to revegetate landscaped areas or exposed slopes after completion of grading

operations. If it is necessary to dispose of organic materials on-site, they should be placed

in non-structural areas, and in fill sections not exceeding 5 feet in height.





The site should be initially graded to create a relatively level surface to receive fill, and to

provide for a relatively uniform thickness of fill beneath the proposed building structures.

Although evidence of underground facilities such as septic tanks, cesspools, utilities and

basements was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features could be

encountered during construction. If unexpected fills or underground facilities are

encountered, such features should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior

to backfill placement and/or construction.

4.2.2 Excavation

It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with

conventional earthmoving equipment.

On-site soils may pump or become unstable or unworkable at high water contents.

Workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Overexcavation of wet zones and

replacement with granular materials may be necessary. Lightweight excavation equipment

may be required to reduce subgrade pumping.

4.2.3 Subgrade Preparation

A minimum of 3 feet of engineered fill is recommended below spread and continuous

foundations and a minimum of 2 feet of engineered fill is recommended beyond the lateral

extents of the foundations. The engineered fill should extend laterally an additional distance

of 8 inches for each additional foot of excavation beyond the 3-foot minimum depth.

Additionally, the engineered fill should extend horizontally a minimum distance of 5 feet

beyond the outside edge of the slab perimeter. The majority of clean on-site soils do not

appear suitable for use as engineered fill at this site. Site soils (clays) that do not meet the

engineered fill specifications can be blended with imported granular soils to achieve the

recommended fill parameters provided in this report. Additional effort will be required by the

earthwork contractor to moisture condition and blend the on-site clay soils with imported

soils for use as engineered fill.

Exposed areas which will receive fill, once properly cleared and benched where necessary,

should be scarified to a minimum depth of ten inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture

content, and compacted.

Areas of loose or soft soils may be encountered at foundation bearing depth after

excavation is completed for footings. When such conditions exist beneath planned footing

areas, the subgrade soils should be surficially compacted prior to placement of the

foundation system. If sufficient compaction can not be achieved in-place, the loose soils

should be removed and replaced as engineered fill. For placement of engineered fill below





footings, the excavation should be widened laterally, at least eight inches for each foot of fill

placed below footing base elevations.

Subgrade soils beneath exterior slabs should be scarified, moisture conditioned and

compacted to a minimum depth of 10 inches. The moisture content and compaction of

subgrade soils should be maintained until slab or pavement construction.

4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement

All fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and fragments larger

than six inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded

materials should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical

engineer.

Approved imported materials or blended soils may be used as fill material for the following:

general site grading exterior slab areas

foundation areas foundation backfill

pavement areas

Imported or blended soils for use as fill material within proposed building areas should

conform to low volume change materials as indicated in the following specifications:

Percent Finer by Weight

Gradation (ASTM C 136)

6" ......................................................................................................... 100

3” .................................................................................................... 70-100

No. 4 Sieve ..................................................................................... 50-100

No. 200 Sieve ................................................................................... 25-75

Liquid Limit ....................................................................... 35 (max)

Plasticity Index .................................................................. 15 (max)

Maximum expansive potential (%)* ............................................ 1.0

*Measured on a sample compacted to approximately 95 percent of the ASTM D698

maximum dry density at about 3 percent below optimum water content. The sample

is confined under a 100 psf surcharge and submerged/inundated.

Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and

procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the

lift. Fill lifts should not exceed ten inches loose thickness.





4.2.5 Compaction Requirements

Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for engineered fill materials are as

follows:

Material Type and Location

Per the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D 1557)

Minimum

Compaction

Requirement (%)

Range of Moisture Contents

for Compaction

Minimum Maximum

Approved on-site or imported fill soils:

Beneath foundations: 95 0% +3%

Beneath slabs: 95 0% +3%

Beneath pavements: 95 0% +3%

Miscellaneous backfill 90 0% +3%

4.2.6 Grading and Drainage

Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life

of the project. Infiltration of water into utility trenches or foundation excavations should be

prevented during construction. Planters and other surface features which could retain water

in areas adjacent to the buildings should be sealed or eliminated. In areas where sidewalks

or paving do not immediately adjoin the structures, we recommend that protective slopes be

provided with a minimum grade of approximately 5 percent for at least 10 feet from

perimeter walls. Backfill against footings, exterior walls, and in utility and sprinkler line

trenches should be well compacted and free of all construction debris to reduce the

possibility of moisture infiltration.

Downspouts, roof drains or scuppers should discharge into splash blocks or extensions

when the ground surface beneath such features is not protected by exterior slabs or paving.

Sprinkler systems should not be installed within five feet of foundation walls. Landscaped

irrigation adjacent to the foundation systems should be minimized or eliminated.

4.2.7 Corrosion Potential

Soluble sulfate testing from the general area indicates that ASTM Type I Portland cement is

suitable for all concrete on and below grade. However, the use of ASTM Type II Portland

cement is recommended for additional sulfate resistance of construction concrete based on

the published information. Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance with the

provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4.





4.3 Foundation Recommendations

The building structures can be supported by spread footings bearing on engineered fill.

Design recommendations for foundations for the proposed structures and related structural

elements are presented in the following paragraphs.

4.3.1 Design Recommendations

DESCRIPTION VALUE

Foundation Type Spread and Continuous Footings

Structures

The proposed project will include a residential

subdivision (approximately 3.5 acres) with a

government controlled 80 unit multi-family apartment

complex (10 structures with a community services

building). The buildings will be single-story and two-

story structures.

Bearing Material Minimum 3-foot thickness of engineered fill for support

of spread footings and continuous footings.

Allowable Bearing Pressure 2,000 psf

Minimum Embedment Depth Below

Finished Grade 18 inches

Total Estimated Movement 1 inch

Estimated Differential Movement ½ inch in 40 feet under walls

Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within five feet of the foundation for

perimeter (or exterior) footings and finished floor level for interior footings. 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.

Exterior footings should be placed a minimum of 18 inches below finished grade to provide

confinement for the bearing soils. Finished grade is the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter

footings and floor level for interior footings.

Footings should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. Proportioning

on the basis of equal total movement is recommended; however, proportioning to relative

constant dead-load pressure will also reduce differential movement between adjacent

footings. Additional foundation movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates

the foundation soils; therefore, proper drainage must be provided in the final design and

during construction.





Footings, foundations, and masonry walls should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the

potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. The use of joints at

openings or other discontinuities in masonry walls is recommended.

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.

4.3.2 Construction Considerations

A minimum of three feet of engineered fill is recommended below all footings. The subgrade

soils should be removed to a minimum depth of 36 inches and a minimum of 24 inches

horizontally beyond the edge of footings. The engineered fill should extend laterally an

additional distance of 8 inches for each additional foot of excavation beyond the 36-inch

minimum depth. The soils should be replaced with approved engineered fill, conditioned to

near optimum moisture content and compacted.

4.4 Seismic Considerations

We have provided seismic design parameters according to the 2009 International Building

Code (IBC) for design and construction of the proposed structure. Selected site ground

motion parameters for the project have been determined in general accordance with the

IBC. The values provided are based on the subsurface exploration presented herein and

the USGS software for use in interpolating values.

CONTERMINOUS 48 STATES-2003 NEHRP SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS

LATITUDE: 32.839 LONGITUDE: -104.441

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

Site Class D - Fa = 1.6, Fv = 2.4

Period (sec) Sa (g)

0.2 0.250 (SMs, Site Class D)

1.0 0.109 (SM1, Site Class D)

SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SD1 = 2/3 x SM1

Site Class D - Fa = 1.6 ,Fv = 2.4

Period (sec) Sa (g)

0.2 0.166 (SDs, Site Class D)

1.0 0.073 (SD1, Site Class D)





4.5 Floor Slabs

4.5.1 Design Recommendations

DESCRIPTION VALUE

Interior floor system Slab-on-grade concrete.

Floor slab support 3 feet of engineered fill soils placed and compacted in

accordance with Earthwork section of this report.

Modulus of subgrade reaction 100 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in)

Construction of floor slabs compacted fills composed of approved soils is considered

acceptable for the project.

In areas of exposed concrete, control joints should be saw cut into the slab after concrete

placement in accordance with ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R-37 8.3.12 (tooled control

joints are not recommended). Additionally, dowels should be placed at the location of

proposed construction joints. To control the width of cracking (should it occur) continuous

slab reinforcement should be considered in exposed concrete slabs.

Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and all

foundations, columns or utility lines to allow independent movement. Interior trench backfill

placed beneath slabs should be compacted in accordance with recommendations outlined in

the Earthwork section of this report. Other design and construction considerations, as

outlined in the ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R are recommended.

4.5.2 Construction Considerations

A minimum of 3 feet of engineered fill is recommended below slabs-on-grade. The

engineered fill should extend horizontally a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond the outside

edge of perimeter footings. Some differential movement of a slab-on-grade floor system is

possible should the subgrade soils become elevated in moisture content. Such movements

are anticipated to be within general tolerance for normal slab-on-grade construction. To

reduce potential slab movements, the subgrade soils should be prepared as outlined in the

Earthwork section of this report.

4.6 Pavements

Design of parking and drive pavements for the project has been based on the procedures

outlined in the 1990 Flexible Pavement Design – California Design Procedures. Assumed

traffic criteria used for pavement thickness design includes single 18-kip equivalent standard

axle loads (ESAL's) of 36,000 for planned auto parking areas. A Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0 for

auto areas was calculated. Actual design traffic loading should be verified. Reevaluation of





the recommended pavement sections may be necessary if the actual traffic varies from the

assumed criteria outlined above.

Recommended alternatives for flexible and rigid pavements are as follows:

Traffic Area Alternative

Recommended Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Asphalt

Concrete

Surface

Portland

Cement

Concrete

Aggregate

Base

Course

Total

Parking and Drive

Areas

A --- 5 --- 5

B 3 --- 6 9

New pavement thicknesses for 35th Street developed for the project have been based on the

procedures outlined in the Infrastructure Design Directive IDD-2008-05 by the New Mexico

Department of Transportation (NMDOT). Estimated traffic criteria used for pavement thickness

design of each residential roadway includes single 18-kip equivalent standard axle loads

(ESAL's) of 150,000. Actual design traffic loading should be verified. Reevaluation of the

recommended pavement sections may be necessary if the actual traffic varies from the

assumed criteria outlined above.

Based upon AASHTO criteria, New Mexico is located within Climatic Region V of the United

States. This region is characterized as being dry, with freeze-thaw cycling. For design

purposes, these conditions typically result in saturated or near-saturated subgrade soil

moisture conditions for approximately 4 percent of the annual moisture variation cycle.

For flexible pavement design of the roadway alignment, a terminal serviceability index of 2.0

was utilized along with an inherent reliability of 85 percent. Using the correlated design R-value

(10), appropriate EAL/day, environmental criteria and other factors, the structural numbers (SN)

of the pavement sections were determined on the basis of the 1993 AASHTO design equation.

Recommended alternatives for flexible pavements are as follows:

Traffic Area Alternative

Recommended Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Asphalt

Concrete

Surface

Portland

Cement

Concrete

Aggregate

Base

Course

Total

35th Street A 4-1/2 --- 6 10-1/2

B --- 6 --- 6





Each alternative should be investigated with respect to current material availability and

economic conditions. Rigid concrete pavement, a minimum of 6 inches in thickness, is

recommended at the location of dumpsters where trash trucks will park and load or areas of

anticipated heavy vehicle loads.

Minimizing subgrade saturation is an important factor in maintaining subgrade strength and

stability. Some distress of pavements is possible due to the clay subgrade soils. Water

allowed to pond on or adjacent to pavements could saturate the subgrade and cause

premature pavement deterioration. The pavement should be sloped to provide rapid surface

drainage, and positive surface drainage should be maintained away from the edge of the

paved areas. Design alternatives which could reduce the risk of subgrade saturation and

improve long-term pavement performance include crowning the pavement subgrades to

drain toward the edges, rather than to the center of the pavement areas; and installing

surface drains next to any areas where surface water could pond. Properly designed and

constructed subsurface drainage will reduce the time subgrade soils are saturated and can

also improve subgrade strength and performance.

Periodic maintenance extends the service life of the pavement and should include crack

sealing, surface sealing and patching of any deteriorated areas. Also, thicker pavement

sections could be used to reduce the required maintenance and extend the service life of

the pavement. If asphaltic concrete is used for this project, we recommend that reinforced

concrete pads be provided in front of and beneath trash receptacles or other areas

anticipated to support heavy vehicle traffic loads. The dumpster trucks should be parked on

the rigid concrete pavement when the trash receptacles are lifted. The concrete pads at and

adjacent to the trash enclosure should be a minimum of 6 inches thick and properly

reinforced.

The performance of all pavements can be enhanced by minimizing excess moisture which

can reach the subgrade soils. The following recommendations should be considered at

minimum:

site grading at a minimum 2 percent grade away from the pavements.

the subgrade and the pavement surface have a minimum 1/4 inch per foot slope to

promote proper surface drainage.

consider appropriate edge drainage and pavement underdrain systems.

install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting (e.g.,

garden centers, wash racks).

install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately.

compaction of any utility trenches for landscaped areas to the same criteria as the

pavement subgrade.





seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent

moisture migration to subgrade soils.

place compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and

gutter.

place curb, gutter and/or sidewalk directly on subgrade soils without the use of base

course materials.

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

RICHARDSON APARTMENTS 37

TH STREET AND GRAND AVENUE

ARTESIA, NEW MEXICO

SITE LOCATION MAP

Project Mngr: DC

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

JM

MEW

MEW

Project No. 68115055

Scale

File No.

Date:

Not to scale

Site Vicinity

08/30/11

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 “Artesia, New Mexico” 1985

N

GRAND AVENUE

PROJECT LOCATION

37th

STREET

Approximate Boring Location

RICHARDSON APARTMENTS 37

TH STREET AND GRAND AVENUE

ARTESIA, NEW MEXICO

BORING LOCATION PLAN

Project Mngr: DC

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

JM

MEW

MEW

Project No. 68115055

Scale

File No.

Date:

Not to Scale

Boring Location

08/30/11


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.

N

B-1

B-3

B-4

B-2

B-5 B-6

B-7 B-8

GRAND AVENUE

37TH

STREET

Source: Development Design & Engineering




Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description

A total of eight (8) test borings were drilled at the site on August 16, 2011. The borings were

drilled to depths of about 11-1/2 and 21-1/2 feet below the ground surface at the

approximate locations shown on the attached Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan,

Exhibit A-1 and A-2, respectively. The test borings were located as follows:

Borings Location Depth (feet)

B-1 thru B-8 Building Footprints 11-1/2 to 21-1/2

The test borings were advanced with a truck-mounted CME-75 drill rig utilizing 8-inch

diameter hollow-stem augers.

The borings were located in the field using aerial photos, on-site property corner stakes and

using the proposed site plan. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to

the level implied by the method used.

Lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by the field geologist during the drilling

operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving

split-spoon or ring-barrel samplers. Bulk samples of subsurface materials were also

obtained.

Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon and ring-

barrel samplers into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30

inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency or

relative density of materials encountered.

A CME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings

performed on this site. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been

considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report.

Groundwater conditions were evaluated in the borings at the time of site exploration.

- 200 =77.7%LL=31PI=135

10

15

2020.33

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND; Brown, verystiff, dry, trace gravel.

Carbonate indurated.

Trace gravel.

Stiff.

Hard, gravelly.Boring terminated at 20.33 feet. No freewater encountered at time of drilling.

SS

RB

SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

17

34

18

14

50 (4")

7.0

6.4

14

12

18

14

0

87

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

RICHARDSON APARTMENTS

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines

SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-55

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DCFOREMANRIG

8-16-11

68115055

DEVELOPMENT DESIGN & ENGINEERINGCLIENT

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1

JOB #

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.

Page 1 of 1

PROJECT

8-16-11WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft

37TH STREET AND GRAND AVENUEARTESIA, NEW MEXICO

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

NB

LOW

S \

ft.

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 6

811

5055

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

9/

13/1

1

5

10

11.5

LEAN CLAY; Light brown, stiff, carbonateindurated.

White to light brown, hard.

Brown to light brown, very stiff.

Boring terminated at 11.5 feet. No freewater encountered at time of drilling.

SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

14

31

22

18

14

14

TESTS

DESCRIPTION



SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-55

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DCFOREMANRIG

8-16-11

68115055



JOB #

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


Page 1 of 1

PROJECT



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

NB

LOW

S \

ft.

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 6

811

5055

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

9/

13/1

1

5

10

15

21.5


Light brown to white, dry.

Very stiff.

Brown to white.


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

10

13

19

16

17

5.9

16

12

14

14

16

87

TESTS

DESCRIPTION



SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-55

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DCFOREMANRIG

8-16-11

68115055



JOB #

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


Page 1 of 1

PROJECT



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

NB

LOW

S \

ft.

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 6

811

5055

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

9/

13/1

1

- 200 =85.6%LL=31PI=14

5

11.5

LEAN CLAY; Brown to light brown, stiff,carbonate indurated.

Very stiff, dry.


SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

11

19

17

7.9

14

16

16

TESTS

DESCRIPTION



SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-55

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DCFOREMANRIG

8-16-11

68115055



JOB #

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


Page 1 of 1

PROJECT



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

NB

LOW

S \

ft.

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 6

811

5055

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

9/

13/1

1

5

15

2020.5


Very stiff ,trace gravel.

Hard.

Gravelly.Boring terminated at 20.5 feet. No freewater encountered at time of drilling.

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

13

25

22

33

50 (6")

18

16

14

16

0

TESTS

DESCRIPTION



SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-55

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DCFOREMANRIG

8-16-11

68115055



JOB #

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


Page 1 of 1

PROJECT



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

NB

LOW

S \

ft.

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 6

811

5055

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

9/

13/1

1

- 200 =84.6%LL=30PI=125

11.5

LEAN CLAY; Light brown, stiff, dry.

Very stiff, carbonate indurated.


SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

14

21

24

6.812

14

16

TESTS

DESCRIPTION



SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-55

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DCFOREMANRIG

8-16-11

68115055



JOB #

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


Page 1 of 1

PROJECT



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

NB

LOW

S \

ft.

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 6

811

5055

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

9/

13/1

1

5

10

2020.33

LEAN CLAY; Light brown, very stiff, dry,carbonate indurated.

Dark brown to white, dry.

Hard, brown.

Gravelly.Boring terminated at 20.33 feet. No freewater encountered at time of drilling.

SS

RB

SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

16

32

31

52

50 (4")

9.4

14

12

14

10

0

105

TESTS

DESCRIPTION



SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-55

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DCFOREMANRIG

8-16-11

68115055



JOB #

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


Page 1 of 1

PROJECT



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

NB

LOW

S \

ft.

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 6

811

5055

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

9/

13/1

1

10

11.5

LEAN CLAY; Light brown, very stiff,carbonate indurated.

Brown to red-brown.


SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

16

19

20

18

18

18

TESTS

DESCRIPTION



SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-55

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DCFOREMANRIG

8-16-11

68115055



JOB #

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


Page 1 of 1

PROJECT



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

NB

LOW

S \

ft.

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 6

811

5055

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

9/

13/1

1

GENERAL NOTES DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon - 1-3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary

The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the “Standard Penetration” or “N-value”. For 3” O.D. ring samplers (RS) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, reported as “blows per foot,” and is not considered equivalent to the “Standard Penetration”or “N-value”.

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling N/E: Not Encountered WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.

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

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Unconfined

Compressive Strength, Qu, psf

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.

Consistency

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.

Ring Sampler (RS) Blows/Ft.

Relative Density < 500 0 - 1 Very Soft 0 – 3 0-6 Very Loose 500 – 1,000 2 - 4 Soft 4 – 9 7-18 Loose 1,000 – 2,000 4 - 8 Medium Stiff 10 – 29 19-58 Medium Dense 2,000 – 4,000 8 -15 Stiff 30 – 49 59-98 Dense 4,000 – 8,000 15 - 30 Very Stiff > 50 > 99 Very Dense 8,000+ > 30 Hard

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGYDescriptive Term(s) of other

constituentsPercent of Dry Weight

Major Component of Sample

Particle Size

Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) With 15 – 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm)

Modifier > 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINESSand

Silt or Clay #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm)

Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents

Percent of Dry Weight

Term Plasticity Index

Trace With

Modifiers

< 5 5 – 12 > 12

Non-plastic

Low Medium

High

0 1-10 11-30 > 30

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification

Group Symbol

Group NameB

Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E GW Well-graded gravelFClean Gravels Less than 5% finesC

Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E GP Poorly graded gravelF

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF,G, H

Coarse Grained Soils

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines More

than 12% finesC

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF,G,H

Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E SW Well-graded sandIClean Sands Less than 5% finesD

Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E SP Poorly graded sandI

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG,H,I

Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Sands with Fines

More than 12% finesD

Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG,H,I

PI > 7 and plots on or above “A” lineJ CL Lean clayK,L,MSilts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50

inorganic

PI < 4 or plots below “A” lineJ ML SiltK,L,M

Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,N

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

organic

Liquid limit - not dried < 0.75 OL

Organic siltK,L,M,O

inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK,L,M

Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more

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

Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,P organic

Liquid limit - not dried < 0.75 OH

Organic siltK,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-in. (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

230

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.

HIf 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.

Form 111—6/98

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING





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:

Consolidation In-situ Water Content

Sieve Analysis In-situ Dry Density

Atterberg Limits

.

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

% Passing (Cumulative) 100% 100% 100% 98% 96% 94% 89% 77.7%

Specification

% GRAVEL = 2% D85 = 0.1 D15 =

% SAND = 20% D60 = D10 =

% SILT & CLAY = 78% D50 = CU =

D30 = CC =

Sample Date: 8/16/2011

Project No.: 681115055

Project Name: Richardson Apartments

Report Date: 9/13/2011

Sample Location: B1 at 2.5'

Liquid Limit: 31 13

USCS Classification: CL

Material Description: Lean Clay with Sand

Reviewed By:

Dan Cosper, P.E.

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON


Las Cruces, NM 88005

Plasticity Index:

GRAIN SIZE - mm

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

6 in

.

1.5

in

.

#4

#200

.

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


Specification

% GRAVEL = 0% D85 = D15 =

% SAND = 14% D60 = D10 =

% SILT & CLAY = 86% D50 = CU =

D30 = CC =





Sample Location: B4 at 5'

Liquid Limit: 31 14


Material Description: Lean Clay

Reviewed By:

Dan Cosper, P.E.

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON



Plasticity Index:

GRAIN SIZE - mm


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

6 in

.

1.5

in

.

#4

#200

.

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


Specification

% GRAVEL = 0% D85 = 0.1 D15 =

% SAND = 15% D60 = D10 =

% SILT & CLAY = 85% D50 = CU =

D30 = CC =





Sample Location: B6 at 2.5'

Liquid Limit: 30 12


Material Description: Lean Clay

Reviewed By:

Dan Cosper, P.E.

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON



Plasticity Index:

GRAIN SIZE - mm


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

6 in

.

1.5

in

.

#4

#200


ARTESIA, NEW MEXICOTERRACON


LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88005

(575) 527-1700

fax (575) 527-1092

CONSOL-B-1@5'.xls

BORING B-1 @ 5'

LEAN CLAY

USCS Classification:

CL

DRY DENSITY= 87 lbs/ft3

MOISTURE CONTENT= 6.4%

PROJECT NO. 68115055

-15

-13

-11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

10 100 1000 10000

PE

RC

EN

T C

ON

SO

LID

AT

ION

/ S

WE

LL

STRESS POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT

SWELL/CONSOLIDATION CHART

water added





(575) 527-1700

fax (575) 527-1092

CONSOL-B-3@5'.xls

BORING B-3 @ 5'

LEAN CLAY


CL




-26

-23

-20

-17

-14

-11

-8

-5

-2

10 100 1000 10000

PE

RC

EN

T C

ON

SO

LID

AT

ION

/ S

WE

LL



water added





(575) 527-1700

fax (575) 527-1092

CONSOL-B-7@5'.xls

BORING B-7 @ 5'

LEAN CLAY


CL




-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

10 100 1000 10000

PE

RC

EN

T C

ON

SO

LID

AT

ION

/ S

WE

LL



water added

Documents

Geotechnical Engineering Report - Pavilion … Hermosa...Geotechnical Engineering Report Richardson Subdivision Apartments 37th Street and Grand Avenue Artesia, New Mexico September