HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 05.22.2019K+A
Kumar & Associates, Inc.®
Geotechnical and Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scientists
An Employee Owned Company
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
www.kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado
Jai y ASSa[iatas, i4
c,
30
Y"m'
89 20
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 54, FILING 4B
OAK MEADOWS
358 SILVER KING COURT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 19-7-271
MAY 22, 2019
PREPARED FOR:
IAN YOUNG
442 SILVER KING COURT
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
ityoungpainting(a�yahoo.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 1 -
GEOLOGY -2-
FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3
FOUNDATIONS - 3
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 4
FLOOR SLABS - 5
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 6
SITE GRADING - 6
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7
LIMITATIONS - 8 -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-271
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot
54, Filing 4B, Oak Meadows, 358 Silver King Court, 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 proposal for geotechnical
engineering services to Ian Young dated April 19, 2019.
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
At the time of our study, design plans for the residence were conceptual. In general, the
residence will be located in the downhill, eastern part of the lot roughly between the exploratory
borings shown on Figure 1. We assume excavation for the building will have a maximum cut
depth of one level, up to about 10 feet below the existing ground surface. For the purpose of our
analysis, foundation loadings of the structure were assumed to be relatively light and 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 lot was vacant at the time of the field exploration. The terrain across the majority of the lot
was moderately sloping down to the northeast at about 5% to 10% and was steeply sloping to the
Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 19-7-271
-2
northeast at about 25% to 30% in the uphill western part of the lot. The elevation difference
across the building site is about 6 feet. Vegetation consisted of grass, weeds, and oak brush. Two
story residences are north and south of the site, Silver King Court and a playground are east, and
vacant land is to the west.
GEOLOGY
The lot is located near the lower limit of a mapped, very large, dormant landslide complex.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. evaluated the overall stability of the landslide as part of the
subdivision approval by Garfield County in 1999. The evaluation included depth to bedrock and
depth to groundwater level, both being relatively deep. The conclusion was that the landslide
complex was not near critical stability condition and moderate cut and fill depths made for
subdivision infrastructure and individual lot development should not affect the overall stability of
the landslide.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on May 7, 2019. Two 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 Kumar &
Associates.
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 about 1'/z to 2 feet of topsoil overlying very stiff silty, sandy clay and/or
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-271
-3-
medium dense to dense, clayey, sandy gravel with basalt cobbles and probable 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 at Boring 2.
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
relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay and sand soils, presented on Figure 4, indicate
low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and low expansion potential upon
wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 %2
inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figure 5. The laboratory testing is
summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of exploration and the subsoils were
slightly moist to moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The sandy clay soils and clayey sandy gravel and cobble soils encountered at typical shallow
foundation depth have moderate bearing capacity and somewhat variable settlement/heave
potential. A shallow foundation placed on the sandy clay and gravel soils should typically have
a low risk of post -construction movement potential. It will be critical to the long-term
performance of the structure that the recommendations for surface grading and subsurface
drainage contained in this report be followed. The amount of settlement/heave, if the bearing
soils become wet, will mainly be related to the depth and extent of subsurface wetting. Sub -
excavation of expansive clay layers could be needed to help limit the movement potential and
should be further evaluated at the time of excavation.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, the building can be founded with spread footings bearing on the
natural sandy clay and gravel soils with a risk of movement. The more expansive clay soils
should be sub -excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7.271
-4-
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 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. Additional differential movement up to about 1 inch could
occur depending on the depth and extent of future wetting of the subgrade soils.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 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
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 and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing
bearing level extended down to the firm natural soils. Expansive clay soils should
also be removed below footing bearing level as needed and replaced with
structural fill such as CDOT Class 6 base course compacted to at least 98% of
standard Proctor density. 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 55 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on -site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-271
-5-
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 soils. Backfill should not contain topsoil or
rock larger than 6 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
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 slightly above 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 0.40. 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, can be used to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade
construction with a risk of movement. The clay soils could exhibit expansion potential and
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-271
6
heave the floor slab if wetted and may need to be sub -excavated at least 2 feet and replaced with
compacted structural fill. If risk of movement cannot be tolerated, a structural floor over
crawlspace is recommended. 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 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 should consist of
predominantly granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock or CDOT Class 6
road base.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
mountainous areas 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, crawlspace 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 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 11/2 feet deep.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction -induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the building is
located in the less steep slope area as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-271
7
cut depths for the basement level will not exceed one level, about 10 feet. Fills should be limited
to about 8 feet deep. 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 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 1 vertical or flatter
and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will
be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is
encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage
will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for the project
prior to construction.
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 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 about 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 5
feet from foundation walls.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. ` Project No. 19-7-271
-8-
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 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 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,
Kumar & Associates, Inc.
Shane J. Robat, P.E.
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak, P
SJR/kac
Kumar & Associates, Inc.. Project No. 19-7-271
LOT 55
N 87°21'16'. W 115.52`
LOT 53
10 0 i 0 20
APPROXIMATE SCALE -FEET
5' Ut+fiiY OntenageW Lament;
88
19-7-271
Kumar & Associates
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 1
BORING 1
EL. 6828'
BORING 2
EL. 6823'
n 10704V 97271-C2
Ec
0
5
10
15
20
13/12
/-/-- 18/12
/ WC=16.7
DD=106
34/12
14/12
WC=12.3
DD=114
f�.
19/12
fo.
24/12
35/12
WC=9.0
+4=46
-200=26
14/12
WC=17.8
+4=15
-200=49
0
5
10
15
20
25 25
DEPTH —FEET
19-7-271
Kumar & Associates
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
\locc:\?omp\Ac?ubilsh_10734\' 97271 —02
oo
E
LEGEND
/
fr
TOPSOIL; ORGANIC, SILTY, SANDY CLAY WITH SCATTERED GRAVEL, STIFF, MOIST, DARK
BROWN.
CLAY (CL); SILTY, SANDY WITH SCATTERED GRAVEL, VERY STIFF, MOIST, BROWN. LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY.
GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GC—CL); SILTY, VERY SANDY CLAY MATRIX, BASALT AND
SANDSTONE ROCKS, ANGULAR—SUBANGULAR, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST, BROWN.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
IDRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.
13/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 13 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON MAY 7, 2019 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 OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN
CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
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 (%) (ASTM D2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D6913);
—200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D1140).
19-7-271
Kumar & Associates
LEGEND AND NOTES
Fig. 3
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
0
—4
0
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Clay with Gravel
FROM: Boring 1 ® 2.5'
WC = 16.7 %, DD = 106 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
These test results apply only to the
samples tested. The testing report
shall not be reproduced. except in
full. without the written approval of
Kumar and Associates. Inc. Swell
Consolidation testing performed in
accordance with ASTM D-4546.
SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sand with Gravel
FROM: Boring 1 ® 10'
WC = 12.3 %, DD = 114 pcf
NO MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
19-7-271
Kumar & Associates
SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
4S MIN 80MIN 19MIN 4A
IN MIN 4200
U.S.
/100 /
STANDARD SERIES
. Jr 430 /
6 41? /8 /4
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
3/8" 3 4" 1 2" 3" 5"6" Iro
100
_UAW
I
1
so
-I--L
I
10
_
80
zo
_I_-
1
r
70
I
{
30
---1I
2 60
—
40 2
p
_---
—
—I
1
—I_
L
50
— —
--
I
i
r—
E
40
I
I
-1
I
60
L_
I-
I
30
1
I
70
f
-I
20
I
80
11_
L
—
—1
10
90
—I
—I
_.
____ _{
o
-
T-T --T
7T
T
I 1
1 1 J-11_TI-
-
ItI
1 I 1 1
- A. "=J -I
J 1.1.711
-_ -1
1_ I 11 J
111
100
.001 .002
.005 .009 .019 .037 .075
DIAMETER
.150 .300 I .600 1.18 12.36 4.75
.425 2.0
OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
__I-
9 5 19 38.1 76.2 127
152
-
200
SAND
GRAVEL
CLAY TO SILT
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
FINE COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL 46 %
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sandy Gravel
SAND 28 % SILT
PLASTICITY INDEX
FROM:
AND CLAY 26 %
Boring 2 0 5'
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24 HRS
45 MIN
TIME READINGS
7 HRS
15 MIN 60MIN 19N N 4MIN WIN /200
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
4100 450 440 430 4
6 41? /8 /
3/8"
CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS
3 4" 1 1/2" 3" 5'6" /"0
100
--
90
r
�--
10
I
I
I
i
80
_
-
-I
I
20
1
{
70
i
I
30
I
I---
I
B0I-.--40
I
+
1
50
}
-
z
50
I
Y
I
1
I
I
E
40
I
I
I
30
--I
t1T
1
70
_
20
-
-
I
-
80
-
-I
I
10
-
90
-
_
-I-1
I_
I
0
-
1 1
1 17
I
1 1 1 IT
1TT -
I
_L-
1
T
I -TT
1
-
J 11 1 1T1T
1 —r—r
1 1 I
I I I 1
100
.001 .002 .005 .009
_1_
.019 .037 .075 .150 .300
.425
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES
.800 1.18 12.36 4.75 9 5 19 38.1 76.2 127
2.0
IN MILLIMETERS isz
200
SAND.
GRAVEL
CLAY TO SILT
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
FINE COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL 15 % SAND 36 % SILT AND CLAY 49 %
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
These test results apply only to the
SAMPLE OF: Very Clayey Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 2 0 10' samples which were tested. The
testing report shall not be reproduced,
except in full, without the written
approval of Kumar & Associates, Inc.
Sieve analysis testing Is performed In
accordance with ASTM D6913, ASTM D7928,
ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D1140.
19-7-271
Kumar & Associates
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 5
C• _
C
W
uJ _a)
co
c
1.11
a co
j m E
v c
ao c 2
N C
W
be 2
III
Project No. 19-7-271
SOIL TYPE
Sandy Clay with Gravel
Clayey Sand with Gravel
Clayey Sandy Gravel
Very Clayey Sand with 11
Gravel
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(psf)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
PLASTIC
INDEX
(%)
LIQUID LIMIT
(%)
PERCENT
PASSING NO.
200 SIEVE
N
C>
GRADATION
a
N
M
J
g t-
o
.--'
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(P)
O
'--i
----
.--i
FNZ
Z 0 0
5
(�
vO
•--�
M
N,—,
•--,
9.0 1
00
•--�
II SAMPLE LOCATION
DEPTH
(ft)
O
O
BORING
4 -'
N