HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 11.23.2016H-PKUMAR
Geotechnical Engineering ( Engineering Geology
Materials Testing 1 Environmental
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 945-7988
Fax: (970) 945-8454
Email: hpkglenwood0kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Silverthome, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 115, IRONBRIDGE
281 SILVER MOUNTAIN DRIVE
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 16-7-587
NOVEMBER 23, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
JACK PROCK
206 SOUTH LINDSEY STREET
CASTLE ROCK, CO 80104
(cletus64@msn,com)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 2 -
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL - 2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 3 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 4 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 4 -
FOUNDATIONS _ 4 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 -
FLOOR SLABS - 6 _
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 -
SITE GRADING _ 7
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 8 -
LIMITATIONS - g -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT
FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
H -P - KUMAR
Project No. 16.7-587
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot
115, Ironbridge, 281 Silver Mountain Drive, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is
shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the
foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical
engineering services to Jack Prock dated November 11, 2016. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical
(now H-P/Kumar) previously conducted a preliminary subsoil study for Lots 108 to 118 and
presented the findings in a report dated December 6, 2002, Job No. 101 196-1.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field
exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or
swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable
pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during
this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical
engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions
encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Building plans for the residence had not been developed at the time of our study. In general, the
proposed building will be in the middle of the lot and be a 1 or 2 story structure possibly above a
walkout lower level. Ground floor could be slab -on -grade or structural above crawlspace.
Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 2 to 6
feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of
construction.
H -P _ KUMAR
Project No. 16-7-587
-2 -
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above,
we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The lot was vacant at the time of the field exploration and the ground surface appeared mostly
natural, The ground surface slopes gently down to the east with about 2 feet of elevation
difference across most of the building envelope then relatively steep down to the Robertson
Ditch then to the Roaring Fork River located about 100 feet east of the lot. The top of steep
slope roughly corresponds to the east building envelope or property line of the lot. A split rail
fence was on the eastern side of the lot running north to south. In the southeast corner of the lot
was a small eroded area exposing rounded cobbles up to about 1 foot in diameter. Vegetation
consisted of sagebrush, grass and weeds.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Ironbridge Subdivision.
These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone with some
massive beds of gypsum and limestone. There is a possibility that massive gypsum deposits
associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution of the
gypsum under certain conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of
localized subsidence. During previous studies for Ironbridge and other developments, broad
subsidence areas and sinkholes have been observed including sinkholes in the central to northern
parts of Ironbridge. These sinkholes appeared similar to others associated with the Eagle Valley
Evaporite in areas of the lower Roaring Fork River valley.
Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot or in the southern part of
Ironbridge. No evidence of cavities was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the
exploratory borings were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our present
knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will
not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 115 throughout the service life of the
H -P KUMAR
Project No. 16.7-587
-3 -
proposed residence, in our opinion, is low; however, the owner should be made aware of the
potential for sinkhole development. If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock
below the site is desired, we should be contacted.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on November 14, 2016. Three exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions.
The borings were advanced with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-
mounted CME -45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers
were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30
inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586.
The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the
subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are
shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our
laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils consist of nil to about 1/2 foot of topsoil overlying about 1 to 21/2 feet of very stiff to hard,
sandy silty clay with scattered gravel underlain by dense, silty to slightly silty sandy gravel and
cobbles with boulders. Drilling in the coarse granular soils with auger equipment was difficult
due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content and density and gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on
a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the clay soil, presented on Figure 4, indicate low to
moderately high compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of gradation
--P ; KUMAR
Project No. 16-7-587
-4 -
analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus I1/2 -inch fraction) of the coarse
granular subsoils are shown on Figure 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The natural gravel and cobble soils encountered below the topsoil and clay soils are suitable for
support of spread footing foundations with moderate bearing capacity and relatively low
settlement potential. All topsoil should be removed from beneath the proposed building area. At
typical foundation depths for the general proposed type of construction, we expect the clay soils
will be removed down to the gravel and cobble soils.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing
on the natural granular soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for
an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf.
Based on experience, we expect
settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will
be about 1 inch or less.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for isolated pads.
H -P KUMAR
Project No. 16-7-587
-5-
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement
of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this
area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local
anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist
lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
5) The topsoil, clay and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the
footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural granular soils.
The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to
undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and
can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should
be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight
of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. Backfill should not contain organics
or rock larger than about 5 inches.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal
backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
M -P KUMAR
Project No. 16-7-587
-6 -
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain
should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density.
Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since
this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall
backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to
facilities constructed on the backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pcf. The
coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil
strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will
occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against
the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular material compacted to at least
95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade
construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained
vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage.
cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the
designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 -inch layer of free -
draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This
H -P t KUMAR
Project No. 16-7-587
-7 -
material should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve
and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-
site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or
seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We
recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement areas, be protected
from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above
the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of
excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum I % to
a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in the underdrain system should
contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a
maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at Ieast 11/2 feet deep.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction -induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the building is
located above the steep slope as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut
depths for the basement level will not exceed about 6 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 feet
deep, and not be placed at the downhill side of the residence where the slope steepens.
Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density
near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully
prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to at least 95% of the maximum
H -P ; KUMAR
Project No. 16-7-587
-8 -
standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding
20% grade. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to I
vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided
during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas
and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to
drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum
slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3
inches in the first I0 feet in paved areas. Free -draining wall backfill should be
covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 feet of the on-site finer grained
soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5
feet from foundation walls.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at the time of this study. We make no warranty either
express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based
upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure
1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include
H -P ; KUMAR
Proiect No. 16-7.587
-9 -
determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants
(MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in
this special field of practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and
extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in
the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions
encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should
be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not
responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we
should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
H -P KUMAR
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/Ijf
H -P t KUMAR
Project No. 16-7-587
\
\ \
\
\ REBAR & CAP LS.
/10508 FNO. (1' P.)
\`
1,6
\\ o
Ak
11
!k
0'Oo' '11
00
5 1+
r30'a0' w 1+
4 4t
It
g
a
2
A
It
� 11
11
14
11
41
44
1
11
I I
11
11
11
1vER1 PUT t2' GAP
2' PVC RISER
O
• Ag
e
LOT 114
y J s
791 51.
/
1LI 2D. 0'
BI`2' PVC RISER REBAR & CAP L.S.
\ / •19558 SET (lP
A4. PVC Ri t° \ BORING 2
1 4
BORING 1
r
5 86'55'44' E
2' PVC RISER!-
3
15 0 15 30
APPROXIMATE SCALE -FEET
LOT 115
(20,020 $F±)
BORING 3
ANL �CE
L
0
tirin E NTS'
141.15'
REBAR & CAP L
�IU5g8 FND mINES5Ea
1987'
LOT 116
0
In
m
I0
e
1
I CASEI
1
16-7-587
H-P�KUMAR
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 1
-- 100
— 95
�r
z
0— 90
r
-
a
w
J
W
BORING 1
EL. 100'
39/6, 50/1
74/12
COMBINED
we=1.1
+4=50
-200=11
BORING 2
EL. 100'
34/12
WC=7.3
DD=103
42/6, 50/2
9t/12
BORING 3
EL. 98.5'
49/6, 50/5
WC=1.0
+4=51
-200=11
100
95
90
--- 85 85
-- 80 80
16-7-587
H-P-MKLIMAR
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
ELEVATION -FEET
Fig. 2
F
LEGEND
® TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY CLAY AND SILT, FIRM, SLIGHTLY MOIST, DARK BROWN.
—7
0
34/12
t
CLAY (CL); SANDY, SILTY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, VERY STIFF TO HARD, SLIGHTLY
MOIST, BROWN.
GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM—GP); SANDY, SILTY TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, BOULDERS,
DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MIXED BROWN, SUBROUNDED TO ROUNDED ROCK.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.O. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/B—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.
DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 34 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO FIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON NOVEMBER 14, 2016 WITH A 4—INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED BY HAND LEVEL AND REFER
TO BORING 1 AS 100 FEET ASSUMED.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE
ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (X) (ASTM 0 2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422);
—200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
16-7-587
H-P45KUMAR
LEGEND AND NOTES
Fig. 3
1
0
J —2
W
3
— 3
z
0
a
z
O
ce —5
— 5
— 7
—8
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay
FROM: Boring 2 0 1'
WC = 7.3 X, DD = 103 pcf
mom 1 r..aas wrT wry m T.
waw ,..cw. n+ wuy mad
...Tiwa..a.gt M
114. T It fa ..mm 010'4.1 M
xrnr N A—,1,1,,. ,r. lata
a.erTaTT T,. DNsk
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
16-7-587
1.a APPTJETJ PRESSURE - KSF
H-PEtKUMAR
TO
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT
100
Fig. 4
100
e 0
O 0
70
ea
10
40
30
30
10
a
ma!
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
+101 AGOING,
1e 4441 7 000
• W. u� vin I•u,n A LA 4 ILA4
1
SIEVE ANALYSIS
104
00
e0
70
ev
00
10
10
20
10
O
,0041 . 07 .000 .010 .00 .073 .+70 .413 .1190 1.1 }.0 .30 1. 3
DIAMETER or PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
0.0
r/
10
20
30
SO
10
/0
70
00
WO
1 C
11.2 137 709
107
CLAY TC SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
FINE I MEDIUM ]COARSE
FINE I COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL 50 X
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF; Slightly Silty Sandy Grovel
SAND
39 X
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 11 X
FROM: Boring 1 0 3' and 5' (Combined)
16-7-587
GRAVEL 51 X
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silly Sandy Gravel
SANG
H-PtiKUMAR
35 X SILT AND CLAY 11 X
PLASTICITY INDEX
FROM= Baring 3 0 2.5'
0
10
20
20
10
SO
{0
7a
00
00
100
These Net re1r11s 0004 way to The
samples .lace rare 4slid. The
Hein0 roper! shall not be 740/41411 tea,
secs 0t In !WI. siphon/ 0110 .7177in
approval of kum417 a An00141l01. inc
Siete onvl7sl. 7.1X110 ft 0s'1or]n.4 In
accordance .11h ASM 0617. ASTM C104
vnd�41r ASTM aII4O.
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 5
HYDRO O4ETC il
ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
14 4100 7 NRS
17 unr S 1440
TIYr 00634001
60040 111101 10'"
00nn
4390
US. 070410010 0(0110
1100 450 1104010 401 110 4/
a 011'
C1(+11 1014601 017711101
711' I ! e 7." S"{'
1 1
J i t 1
1 1
1
1 1 11..37
1 1 1 00
i
t 1 1. 1 L
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ._1
01
L
.901
.oa3 oat
011
.0]T
017
DIAMETER
010 000 42640 1 +/ 7-A{ •.
1
OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
7 es
57 5111.10.7 lit 201
132
CLAY TO
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLESFINE
I MEDIUM 1COARSEL FINE
1 COARSE
16-7-587
GRAVEL 51 X
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silly Sandy Gravel
SANG
H-PtiKUMAR
35 X SILT AND CLAY 11 X
PLASTICITY INDEX
FROM= Baring 3 0 2.5'
0
10
20
20
10
SO
{0
7a
00
00
100
These Net re1r11s 0004 way to The
samples .lace rare 4slid. The
Hein0 roper! shall not be 740/41411 tea,
secs 0t In !WI. siphon/ 0110 .7177in
approval of kum417 a An00141l01. inc
Siete onvl7sl. 7.1X110 ft 0s'1or]n.4 In
accordance .11h ASM 0617. ASTM C104
vnd�41r ASTM aII4O.
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 5
H-PKUMAR
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No. 16-7-587
SAMPLE LOCATION
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(pct)
GRADATION
PERCENT
PN0.20D
SIEVE
ATTERBERG LIMITS
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(PSF)
L OR
BEDROCK TYPE
BORING
DEPTH
(ft)
GRAVEL
(%)
SAND
(%)
LIQUIDNG LII
(%)
PLASTICINDEX
(%)
1
l� mb ed)
1.1
50
39
11
Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay
2
1
7.3
103
1
3
21/2
1.0
51
38
11
Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel
s
-
!1