The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSoils Report 04.06.2020I(+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 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 87, IRON BRIDGE SUBDIVISION 272 RIVER BANK LANE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 20-7-198 APRIL 6, 2020 PREPARED FOR: RICHARD DOOLEY P.O. BOX 519 TABERNASH, COLORADO 80478 richard.dooley(a,gmail.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - 1 - SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL - 2 - FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 3 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 4 - FOUNDATIONS -4- FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 - FLOORSLABS -6- UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 - SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7 - LIMITATIONS - 8 - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 and 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Kumar & Associates, Inc. ° Project No. 20-7-198 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 87, Iron Bridge Subdivision, 272 River Bank Lane, 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 Richard Dooley dated March 20, 2020. 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 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 a one story wood frame structure over walkout basement with attached garage at the main level. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to 9 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 subject site was vacant at the time of our field exploration. The ground was moist on the upper area of the lot and the lower lot was very moist to wet with marshy areas and some standing water. The building area is separated into 2 benches with a steep 10 to 12 foot -high slope separating the two benches. The ground surface slopes down to the northeast with varied Kumar & Associates, Inc. ° Project No. 20-7-198 -2 - grades across the lot. The two benches are relatively flat with grades of up to about 5% with a grade of up to 50% on the steep slope between the benches. Vegetation consists of grass, weeds and sparse trees and sagebrush. SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the subject lot at depth. 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 work in the area, several sinkholes were observed scattered throughout the Iron Bridge Subdivision and Roaring Fork River Valley. These sinkholes appear similar to others associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite in areas of the Eagle Valley. Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. 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 87 throughout the service life of the 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 March 23 and 31, 2020. Four 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, Inc. 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 Kumar & Associates, Inc. ° Project No. 20-7-198 -3 - 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 encountered in Borings 1 and 2 consist of about 6 to 9 inches of topsoil overlying medium dense to dense silty sand and gravel to the maximum drilled depth of 8'/2 feet. About 3 feet of loose sand was encountered overlying the medium dense gravel soils in Boring 2. The subsoils encountered in Borings 3 and 4 below about 6 inches of topsoil consist of soft sandy clay to between 3 and 51/2 feet underlain by dense silty gravel and sand to 8 feet. The silty gravel subsoils were underlain by dense silty, clayey, gravel and sand to the maximum drilled depth of 16 feet. Drilling in the dense granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in Boring 1 at 6'/2 feet and in Boring 2 at 8'/2 feet in the dense gravel soils. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1'/2 -inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figures 4 and 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. Free water was encountered in Boring 3 at 1'/2 feet and in Boring 4 at 4 feet at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist in Borings 1 and 2 to very moist to wet in Borings 3 and 4. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The soft sandy clay and the loose silty sand soils within about the upper 3 to 5'/2 feet are low density and typically moderately to highly compressible. The underlying gravel and sand soils possess moderate bearing capacity and typically low settlement potential. Excavations of less than 5 feet in depth may need to be deepened to expose less compressible soils and the sub - excavated depth backfilled with structural fill. Spread footings bearing on natural gravel soils or Kumar & Associates, Inc. ° Project No. 20-7-198 -4 - compacted structural fill should be feasible for foundation support of the residence. Shallow groundwater was encountered in Boring 3 and 4 on the lower bench of the lot. There was also marshy ground and standing water on this lower bench area. Groundwater may be encountered in foundation excavations and dewatering may be necessary to place foundations or structural fill. 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 gravel soils or compacted structural fill. 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 or compacted structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 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. 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) All existing fill, topsoil 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. Kumar & Associates, Inc. ° Project No. 20-7-198 -5 - If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete or structural fill placement. Structural fill placed below footing areas can consist of onsite gravel soils or suitable imported gravel processed to remove rock larger than 6 inches. Structural fill should be limited to about 3 feet in depth and compacted to at least 98% of standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content and to at least 1'/2 feet beyond the footing edges. 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 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular 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 granular soils. Backfill should not contain organics, debris 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 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 Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 20-7-198 -6 - 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 above the groundwater level and 180 pcf below the groundwater level. 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 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 granular soils or a suitable imported gravel devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. We recommend vapor retarders conform to at least the minimum requirements of ASTM E1745 Class C material. Certain floor types are more sensitive to water vapor transmission than others. For floor slabs bearing on angular gravel or where flooring system sensitive to water vapor transmission are utilized, we recommend a vapor barrier be utilized conforming to the minimum requirements of ASTM E1745 Class A material. The vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations and ASTM E1643. Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 20-7-198 -7- UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Free water was encountered during our exploration, and 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 also 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 fmish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet or sump and pump. 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'/2 feet deep. 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 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. Kumar & Associates, Inc. ° Project No. 20-7-198 -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. James H. Parsons, E.I. Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, JHP/kac Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 20-7-198 272- R\) R f AN t4 LN BENCHMARK: L � 2 7 SEWERMANHOLE EL..100' ASSUMED 15 0 15 30 APPROXIMATE SCALE -FEET N \ I 20-7-198 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 ELEVATION -FEET BORING 1 BORING 2 EL. 96.7' EL. 94.5' BORING 3 BORING 4 EL. 88.7' EL. 87.1' 100 100 95 90 85 80 75 WC=1.2 +4=51 —200=14 3/12 17/12 13/12 WC=26.8 DD=97 24/12 50/3 50/5 WC=9.2 +4=27 —200=42 3/12 20/12 WC=8.3 DD=127 — 200=10 50/3 WC=9.0 +4=19 — 200=48 50/2 95 90 85 80 75 70 70 ELEVATION -FEET 20-7-198 Kumar & Associates LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 LEGEND TOPSOIL; CLAY, SANDY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, FIRM, MOIST, DARK BROWN. (SOFT IN BORINGS 3 AND 4). CLAY (CL); SANDY, VERY SOFT TO SOFT, VERY MOIST TO WET, BROWN. SAND (SM); SILTY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, LOOSE, MOIST TO WET, BROWN. GRAVEL AND SAND (GM); SILTY, SUBROUNDED TO ROUNDED, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET, BROWN. GRAVEL AND SAND (GM—GC); SILTY, CLAYEY, ANGULAR, DENSE, MOIST TO WET, MIXED TAN. DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST. 78/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 78 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES. DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL ENCOUNTERED AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. — DEPTH AT WHICH BORING CAVED. PRACTICAL AUGER DRILLING REFUSAL. NOTES 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON MARCH 23 AND 31, 2020 WITH A 4—INCH—DIAMETER CONTINUOUS—FLIGHT POWER AUGER. 2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM BUILDING CORNERS STAKED BY CLIENT. 3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED BY INSTRUMENT LEVEL AND REFER TO THE SEWER MANHOLE RIM BENCHMARK ON FIG. 1. 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 LEVELS SHOWN ON THE LOGS WERE MEASURED AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FLUCTUATIONS IN THE WATER LEVEL MAY OCCUR WITH TIME. 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). 20-7-198 Kumar & Associates LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 f 3 PERCENT PASSING 0 0 S o 0 0 0 0 0 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS 24 HRS 7 HRS 45 MIN 15 MIN 606IN 196IN 4MIN 1MIN /290 U.S. STANDARD SERIES yp • 00 /50 /1.0 /30 • 6 /10'8 #4 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3/§' 3/4' 1 2" 3" 5' Q' 8 LI11111 1 11111 1 1 I11 1 111111 1 1111111 1 1111Th 0 0 0 0 o S o 0 0 PERCENT RETAINED I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I .002 I I .005 III .009 I 11111111 .019 .037 .075 DIAMETER .150 .300 OF PARTICLES III 1 .600 .425 1111 1. IN 8 1 2.36 2.0 MILLIMETERS I 11III 4.75 LI 9 5 19 1 1 38.1 1111/111 76.2 127 152 SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT FINE MEDIUM (COARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 51 % LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Gravel SAND 35 % SILT PLASTICITY INDEX FROM: AND CLAY 14 % Boring 1 ® 2.5' & 5' HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 24 HRS 45 MIN TIME READINGS 7 HRS J5 MIN 601.1I9 19MIN 41.1IN 1MIN /200 U.S. STANDARD SERIES /100 /50 /40 #30 (16 /10 /8 (4 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3 8' 3 4' 1 1/2' 3' S'6' 8'0 100 I I I 90 I I I I I 10 I I I 80I I 20 I I 70I 30 I I 60 I 1 40 E, P. I I I C 50 I I 50 I I u 40 I I I 60 I I 30 I I 70 1 1 201 1 80 1 I 10I i 90 1 0 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 1 .037 .075 .150 DIAMETER .300 OF PARTICLES 1 .600 1. IN 8 1 2.36 2.0 MILLIMETERS 4.75 9 5 19 38.1 1 76.2 1 127 152 200 SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT FINE MEDIUM (COARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 27 % SAND 31 % SILT AND CLAY 42 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX These test results apply only to the SAMPLE OF: Clayey Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 3 0 15' 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. 20-7-198 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 Bank Tans\Drafln9\20]199-0 PERCENT PASSING bo 0 0 S o 0 0 0 0 0 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS 24 HRS 7 HRS 45 MIN 15 MIN 60yIN 191/IN 4yIN 166 42$10 U.S. STANDARD SERIES • 00 650 4111.0 650 • 6 /10'8 •4 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3 8" 3 4" 1 1/2" 4" 5"4" 8 LI1I1I1I1I111 1I1I1II11 1 1llll1 1 11llll1 1 1111Th O O O O O O O O PERCENT RETAINED 1 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I .002 I I .005 III .009 ( I .019 .037 .075 I .075 .150 DIAMETER .300 OF PARTICLES II I I .600 .425 I I I I 1. IN 8 1 2.36 2.0 MILLIMETERS ( V I I I LI 4.75 9 5 19 1 38.1 76.2 76.2 1 1 127 152 SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT FINE MEDIUM (COARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 19 % SAND 33 % SILT AND CLAY 48 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Clayey Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 4 ® 10' These test results apply only to the 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. 20-7-198 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 K±A Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Geotechnical and Materials Engineers and Environmental Scientists