Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />CONCLUSIONS <br />(1) The subsoil profile along the proposed alignment is erratic with <br />f;`, <br />respect to soli type, depth to bedrock and engineering properties. <br />Subsoils encountered generally consist of unconsolidated sandy to <br />silty c{ay and sand and gravel deposits of variable thickness over- <br />lying claystone and shale bedrock. Soil depth is typically shallow <br />within the Dry Creek basin and escarpment to the southeast, but <br />becomes significantly deeper to the north. <br />(2) The depth to free water Is also erratic and dependent upon geographic <br />• <br />location. Perched water generally overlies bedrock in lower areas <br />requiring fill but only minor free water was encountered at test hole <br />locations within the two deep cut areas. In the low area between ap- <br />proximate Stations 0+00 and 24+00, high water table conditions near <br />the existing ground surface should be anticipated during spring <br />runoff. <br />(3) Permanent cut faces in overburden soils with adequate drainage and <br />erosion precautions can be 1}:1, and In the claystone 1:1 (horizontal <br />to vertical). The maJority of the~excavatlon should be possible with <br />heavy-duty ripper equipment. <br />(4) The upper natural soils should provide adequate support for proposed <br />fill sections and culvert structures. Potential settlement within <br />these areas should be within tolerable limits. Excavated subsoils <br />and broken bedrock obtained in cut sections can be utilized as fill <br />material. Embankment slopes can be constructed to a maximum of 1}:1 <br />• <br />(horizontal to vertical) with adequate slope protection and drainage <br />precautions. <br /> <br />-~~ ~` <br />