HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoil Study for Foundation Design 05.07.18H-P ~KUMAR
Geotechnical Engineering I Enginee ring Geology
Materials Testing I Environmental
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 945-7988
Fax: (970) 945-8454
Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, Summit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 53, SPRING RIDGE RESERVE
IDDDEN VALLEY DRIVE
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT N0.18-7-257
MAY 7, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
RED HOUSE ARCHITECTURE
ATTN: BRUCE BARTH
815 BLAKE A VENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
bruce@redhousearchitecture.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ....................................................................................... -1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................ -1 -
SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. -1 -
FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................ -2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. -2 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ -3 -
FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................................................... -3 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ....................................................................... -4 -
FLOOR SLABS ...................................................................................................................... -5 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... -6-
SURFACE DRAINAGE ........................................................................................................ -6 -
LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... -7 -
FIGURE 1.-LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING AND PITS
FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORING AND PITS
FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 THROUGH 6 -SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
H-P~KUMAR Project No. 17-7-257
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot
53, Spring Ridge Reserve, Hidden Valley 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 general accordance with our agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to Red House Architecture dated April 10, 2018.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory pits and exploratory boring 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
The proposed residence will be one and two-story construction with an attached garage located
on the lot as shown on Figure 1. Ground floor will be structural above crawlspace for the
residence and slab-on-grade for the garage. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively
minor with cut depths up to about 5 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical
of the proposed type of construction.
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 proposed development area was vacant at the time of our field exploration. The site lies at
an elevation between about 6,503 feet and 6,508 feet. The existing topography is shown by the
H-P~KUMAR Project No. 17-7-257
-2 -
contour lines (1-foot contour interval) on Figure 1. The ground surface slope across the
proposed building area is about 6% down to the northwest with about 4 feet of elevation
difference. The slope steepens up to the east at about 10 to 15% grade. A small ephemeral
drainage crosses the western part of the lot and the proposed building area. Vegetation consists
of native grass, weeds and brush with juniper trees to the northeast of the lot.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on April 10 and 19, 2018. Two exploratory
pits were initially dug to a depth of 15 feet to evaluate the subsurface conditions and depth to
bedrock. Since bedrock was not encountered, an exploratory boring was then drilled to penetrate
the soils down to bedrock. The boring and pit locations are shown on Figure 1. The boring was
advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-45B
drill rig. The boring and pits were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar.
Samples of the subsoils in the boring were taken with a 2-inch l.D. spoon sampler. The sampler
was 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 and hardness of the bedrock. Relatively undisturbed, hand-driven liner samples of the
subsoils were taken from the exploratory pits. Depths at which the samples were taken are
shown on the Logs of Exploratory Boring and Pits, 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 mainly consist of reddish brown sandy to very sandy silt and clay overlying hard
sandstone bedrock of the Maroon Formation at a depth of about 24Y2 feet at Boring 1. At Pit 2,
about 3 feet of organic topsoil was encountered above the silt and clay soil. A 2-foot-thick layer
of silty sand and gravel was encountered at a depth of about 14% feet in Boring 1.
H-P~KUMAR Project No. 17-7-257
-3 -
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring and pits included natural
moisture content and density, and percent of material smaller than sand size gradation analyses.
Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the sandy
silt and clay soils, presented on Figures 4 through 6, typically indicate low to moderate
compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. The sample from 6 feet in Pit 1 showed
a moderate collapse potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. The laboratory
testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the boring and pits at the time of drilling or digging and the
subsoils and bedrock were slightly moist.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and pits and the
nature of the proposed construction, the building can be founded with spread footings bearing on
the natural subsoils with a risk of settlement.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural silt and clay soils should be designed
for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect
initial settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section
will be about 1 inch or less. There could be additional differential settlement if
the bearing soils were to become wetted. The magnitude of the settlement would
depend on the depth and extent of the wetting but may be on the order of 1 inch.
We should further evaluate the subgrade soils at the time of construction.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement
H-Pi:l:iKUMAR Project No . 17-7-257
-4-
of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this
area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14 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 (possibly 3 feet or deeper in the western part) and any loose or
disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to
the stiff natural soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened
to near optimum 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 55 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site fine-grained 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 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site fine-grained soils.
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
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
Project No. 17-7-257
-5 -
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 .35 . Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 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 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. The slab subgrade should be further evaluated for expansion/compressibility
potential at the time of excavation. 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 sfab 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 relatively well graded sand and gravel such as road base should be placed beneath slabs
for support. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least 50% retained
on the No. 4 sieve and less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum
standard Proc;tor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-
H-P~KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-257
-6 -
site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock or a suitable granular material such as
3A inch road base can be imported.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
areas where there are clay soils 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
(if any), be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system.
Shallow crawlspace areas (up to about 4 feet deep) should not have an underdrain to help limit
potential for wetting below shallow foundations.
If installed, 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 1 % 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
least 1 Y2 feet deep and covered with filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N. An impervious membrane
such as 20 mil PVC should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached to
the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing soils.
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.
H-P~KUMAR
Project No . 17-7-257
-7 -
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 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3
inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be
covered with filter fabric and capped with at least 2 feet of the on-site 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 10
feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use of xeriscape to
reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building caused by irrigation.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. 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 boring and pits located as indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of
construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include 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 boring and pits 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
H-P~KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-257
-8 -
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
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/kac
Cc: Kaup Engineering-Dale Kaup (kaupeng@rof.net)
H-P~KUMAR
Project No . 17-7-257
•,
\
\
.. ·,
\ ....
\_
.~~~-~-~-~-~-ml!~~: 25 0 25 50
APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET
8507
\
.......
' , ..
I .. '
\
f,l•L;: ~· 01-
I
I
E T·C SEJlVlCE
... I
'!.'MER stkf'Cf.
f"OP.LOT!SJ.
""' • I
I
\ i
e510
' {
PLAN 100'-0"= SITE 650<
GARAGE 99'-0= SITE 65
LOT53
197,399 sq.ft .
4.532 acres
I
/
/
"' .
::!
0
~
N
0
~
i
~ -;;
~
i .,,
Q
~ ;_
~
E lG . ' ..,~
NO iii IQ
7~
f-w w u...
I z
0
f-
<i: > w
__J w
6510
BORING 1
EL 6506'
PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR LEVEL
PIT 1
EL 6508'
-------------EL~;65o7' ____________ _
6505
6500
6495
6490
6485
6480
6475
20/12
WC=4.0
00=106
17/12
WC=5.7
00=89
-200=61
16/12
WC=5.9
00=104
34/12
23/12
WC=6.9
00=121
50/1
WC=6.2
00=94
PIT 2
EL 6505'
WC=6.3
00=95
WC=3.8
00=99
-200=46
6510
6505
6500
6495
6490
6485
6480
6475
f-w w u...
I z
0
f-
<i: > w
__J
w
~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~---! ~~ iq 18-7-257
I~'--~~~~~--'~~~~~~~~~~-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....a..~~~~ H-P~KUMAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORING AND PITS Fig. 2
~
E !l ~+ Ci., -;;. , ..
LEGEND I TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY SILT AND CLAY, STIFF, MOIST, DARK BROWN, ROOTS.
[71 SILT AND CLAY (ML-CL); SANDY TO VERY SANDY, STIFF TO VERY STIFF, RED-BROWN, L_j SLIGHTLY POROUS AND CALCAREOUS.·
~SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); SILTY, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, RED-BROWN.
D SANDSTONE BEDROCK; HARD TO VERY HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, RED. MAROON FORMATION.
p RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2-INCH l.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
p HAND DRIVEN 2-INCH DIAMETER LINER SAMPLE.
20/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 20 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
t PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY PITS WERE DUG WITH A TRACKHOE ON APRIL 10, 2018 AND THE BORING
WAS DRILLED ON APRIL 19, 2018 WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER
AUGER.
2. THE EXPLORATORY PITS AND BORING WERE LOCATED IN THE BUILDING AREA DESIGNATED BY
THE CLIENT.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY PITS AND BORING WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION
BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
4. THE EXPLORATORY PIT AND 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 PIT AND BORING LOGS
REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS
MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE PITS AT TIME OF DIGGING OR IN THE BORING
AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 221 6);
-200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
~~1--..-..-..-..-..--.-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..---..-..-..----1 !I 18-7-257 I H-P~KUMAR I LEGEND AND NOTES I Fig. 3
2>,__,._,._,._,._,._....._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._.._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,._,.___.,._,._,.____,
J
....I
....I w
~ 0
z
0 i== -1
<(
0
::::i
0
VI z
0 u
....I
....I w
-2
-3
~ 0
z
0 i== -1
<(
0
::::i
0
VI z
0 u
-2
-3
.1
These test results apply onty to the
somplu lullld. The lnling report
shol not be reproduced, except in
ful~ •ithout the •ritten opptOYGI of
Kumar and Anoc:tat.s, Inc:. S.all
~:::~:".i~:S'!.s~-~: in
.1
1.0
1.0
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay
FROM: Boring 1 @ 2.5'
WC = 4.0 %, DD = 106 pcf
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSf 10
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay
FROM: Boring 1 @ 1 O'
WC = 5.9 %, DD = 1 04 pcf
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSf 10
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
100
100
r
a
.~ i7
:,;~
! I T r
I I
I
! ! I --,-
1
I I I I 1 I
}-+ --
::l -2
l.JJ s:
V)
z
0
i=
<{
-3
3 -4
0
V) z
0
u -5
-6
-7
-8
i
1
I r
'
I
I 1-
! l I_~ ,
I
' I f I
I
I
t
---t I
I I
I ~ f
I I I
I I I
I
I I -r -.
I I
-9 Thne tnl results opply only to the ·--t
aampfn lnted. The ta.ling report
sholl not be reproduce'd, ••cept in
lull, •ilhout lhe wriU1tt1 opprovol ol
Kumor and A11ociales, Inc. Swell
~~=-:~;~.i~:S~:~~~.::. in
.1
-1
1.0
I
i
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt and Clay
FROM: Pit 1 @ 6'
I
WC = 6.2 %, DD = 94 pcf
r-I 'I I I I
, --1
I I Ii
I r· --_ : r
i
I I I t : , __ r 1
I
--_111 -J
r [ -1 : ,
I I I i I I ----l i
I i I !
I I i
Ii' l I
--1 1-~
! _1[ -·t
I
I
I
I
I
I 1
l i
JI_ i--r .
I 1, I I i I
·--1 ; l
: 1 !
l
j
I I I i
l i--t-
I
l
I
I I
I ! I __ ]
I !
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
! ~ I
f . I
-1----1 i
.i ·--
[
I
_ _.i.
-I
I .
I I
I
~-1 j
I
I_
I : r
, I
I I
100
7~~___,___,___,___,--___,___,___,___,___,___,___,___,___,~.,......---.---.---.---.---.---.~---.~~---.---.---.---.---.___,,...____,___,--l ~? ~t 18-7-257
f~L-~~~~.L-~~~~~~~~~~'--~~---.~~~~~---.~~---.~~~---1~~~---'
H-P~KUMAR SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
0
c
J
&
I
,......
~ ........
....I
....I w
3:
(/)
z
0
i==
<(
0
::J
0
(/) z
0
(.)
0
-1
I
I I l-· -1
I
I i-r
I I I
I I I ,_ r --f
I
I 1 \
I I I
-2
-3
-t --
1 r1 ~-·-;-; !
I ' l I
i -·-:----r
-4 I ' I + t
1 I_ 1 -5
-6
-7
-8
-9
f--
i
t
-1 0 1-....,-.-, .. -,-... -,lls-.-•• -ly .-n1y-•• -•• -.
sompfn lnled. Tho letting t•potl
sh011 not be reproduc9d, eu:ept in
full. eilhout lhe •rillen opproval of
Kumar ond Aasocioln, Inc, S•ell
~;::::;;:".i~:s~·D1~~~1. in
.1
-, I r
I I
r 1-
_1,1_ I
T
' I
1.0
I ! i
t -~
l __ )_
I I
+-
\
i
! .f. __
-+--
l.
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt end Cloy
FROM: Pit 2 @ 6'
WC = 6.3 %, DD = 95 pcf
1--l
I I
'
I I ! 1 · I ; ,
I I
! ~ T
i ' !
! L I
I / , .
r I 1 i I
i . i I I ! I r-r r
! I I I i 1 I
I I I I
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING r ,-
J 1 , I
~-! t
' I
I
i
t ~ _,.J_ -
I I I ' Ii f
I I
I j ! I
l
I' I I
: I
I I -I i I
I I
I I I
! i
-1-
t I
+ I
-~-
! I
t--!--._
i I
!
I I I
1-.
I
1 .
I I
' i l ! I
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF 10 100
M-t'~l\.UIVIAI<
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No. 18-8-257
SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED PERCENT
MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE
BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH SOIL TYPE
(%) (%)
SIEVE
(ft) (%) Cocfi (%) {%) losf)
1 212 4.0 106 Sandy Silty Clay
5 5.7 89 61 Sandy Silt and Clay
10 5.9 104 Sandy Silty Clay
20 6.9 121 ' .. Sandy Silty Clay
PIT
1 6 6.2 94 Sandy Silt and Clay
2 6 6.3 95 Sandy Silt and Clay
8 3.8 99 46 Very Silty Clayey Sand