HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoil StudyI (trt i;f;r,ffiäå'üff ilÍ å *' "
An Employcc Orncd Compony
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
emai I : kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
www.kumarusa.com
Ofïice Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Clenwood Springs, and Sumrnit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 265, TRONBRTDGE
RIVER VISTA
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO.21-7-187
MARCH 6,,2021
PREPARED FOR:
scrB, LLC
ATTN: LUKE GOSDA
0115 BOOMERANG ROAD, SUITE 52018
ASPEN' COLORADO 81611
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
BACKGROLIND INFORMATION ........
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ....................
FOUNDATIONS
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING V/ALLS
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
SITE GRADING
SURFACE DRAINAGE
LIMITATIONS...
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 3 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
......- 4 -
......- 4 -
......- 5 -
......- 6 -
......- 7 -
......- 7 -
a-L-
.,
-3 -
n
J-
8-
-8-
1
1
1
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-187
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on
Lot265,Ironbridge, River Vista, 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 SCIB, LLC dated February 8,2021.
A field exploration program consisting of an exploralory 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 analyzedto 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The proposed residence is located in the existing Ironbridge development. Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc. (now Kumar & Associates) previously conducted subsurface exploration and
geotechnical evaluation for the development of Villas North and Villas South parcels, Job No.
105 115-6, report dated September 14,2005, and performed observation and testing services
during the infrastructure construction, Job No. 106 0367, between April 2006 and April 2007.
The information provided in these previous reports has been considered in the current study of
Lot265.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had not been developed. The residence
will likely be a one or two-story, wood-frame structure with structural slab foundation and no
basement or crawlspace. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.21-7-187
a
depths between about 3 to 4 feet. \ü/e 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
Lot265 is bordered on the north by Ironbridge Drive, and on the west by River Vista. The lot
was vacant at the time of our f,reld exploration. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds with
some sage brush, and the lot was partially covered with patches of 2 to 3-inch deep snow. The
center of the lot and the building envelope are nearly level. The northern edge of the lot slopes
steeply down toward Ironbridge Drive, and the eastern edge slopes steeply down to the adjacent
pedestrian path. River Vista is on a fill bench made for residence construction that was placed
during the subdivision development.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the project area which is known to be associated with sinkholes
andlocalized ground subsidence in the Roaring Fork Valley. A sinkhole opened in the cart
storage parking lot located east of the Pro Shop and north of the Villas South parcel in January
2005. Irregular surface features were not observed in the Villas South parcel that could indicate
an unusual risk of future ground subsidence. Localized variable depths of debris fan soils which
could indicate ground subsidence were generally not encountered by the previous September 14,
2005 or February 28,2014 geotechnical studies in the Villas South parcel. The subsurface
exploration performed in the area of the proposed residence on Lot 265 did not encounter voids.
In our opinion, the risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 265 throughout the service life of the
proposed residence is low and similar to other areas of the Roaring Fork Valley where there have
not been indications of ground subsidence, 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 lreld exploration for the project was conducted on February 12,202L One exploratory
boring was drilled at the location shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-187
-J-
boring was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted
CME-458 drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of Kumar & Associates, lnc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with l% 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 Log of Exploratory Boring, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory
for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A graphic log of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site is shown on Figure 2. Below
about a 6-inch root zone, the subsoils consist of medium dense to dense, silty clayey sandy
gravel fill down to a depth of about 17 feet. This was underlain by medium dense to dense,
slightly gravelly sand and silt down to about 45 feet. This was underlain by very dense, silty
sandy river gravel alluvium to the drilled depth of 49 feet. Drilling in the dense granular soils
with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and possible boulders.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture
content and density, and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on
a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the sand and silt soils, presented on Figure 3, indicate
low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of gradation
analyses performed on samples of the more granular soils (minus I%-inch fraction) are presented
on Figure 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist to moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper 17 feet of soils encountered in the boring consist of fill placed mainly in2006 as part
of the subdivision development. The f,reld penetration tests and laboratory tests performed for
the study, and review of the field density tests performed during the fill construction indicate the
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-187
-4-
structural fill was placed and compacted to the project specified minimum 95Yo of standard
Proctor density. Alluvial fan soils which tend to collapse (settle under constant load) when
wetted were encountered below the f,rll. The amount of settlement will depend on the thickness
of the compressible soils due to potential collapse when wetted, and the future compression of
the wetted soils following construction. Relatively deep structural fill as encountered will also
have some potential for long-term settlement but should be significantly less than the alluvial fan
deposits. Proper grading, drainage and compaction as presented in the Surface Drainage section
will help to keep the subsoils dry and reduce the settlement risks. A heavily reinforced structural
slab or post-tensioned slab foundation designed for significant differential settlements is
recommended for the building support. As an altemative, a deep foundation that extends down
into the underlying dense, river gravel alluvium could be used to reduce the building settlement
risk.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOIINDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with a heavily reinforced
structural slab or post-tensioned slab foundation bearing on at least 15 feet of the existing
compacted structural fill. If a deep foundation system is considered for building support, we
should be contacted for additional recommendations.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a heavily reinforced
structural slab or post-tensioned slab foundation system,
1) A heavily reinforced structural slab or post-tensioned slab placed on compacted
structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf.
The post-tensioned slab placed on structural fill should be designed for a wetted
distance of 10 feet or at least half of the slab width, whichever is greater.
Foundation settlement is estimated to be about I Io llz inches based on the long-
term compressibility of the fill. Additional settlement of about I to 2 inches is
estimated if the underlying debris fan soils were to become wet. Settlement from
the deep wetting would tend to be uniform across the building area and the
settlement potential of the fill section should control the design.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.21-7-187
5
2)The thickened sections of the slab for support of concentrated loads should have a
minimum width of 20 inches.
The perimeter turn-down section of the slab 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. If a frost-
protected foundation is used, the perimeter turn-down section should have at least
18 inches of soil cover.
The foundation should be constructed in a "box-like" configuration rather than
with irregular extensions which can settle differentially to the main building area.
The foundation walls, where provided, 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, if any, should also
be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and
Retaining Walls" section of this report.
The root zone and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed. Additional
structural f,rll placed below the slab should be compacted to at least 98% of the
maximum standard Proctor density within 2 percenfage points of the optimum
moisture content.
A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the compaction of
the fill materials and observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement
to evaluate bearing conditions.
3)
4)
s)
6)
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures (if any) 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.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traff,rc, construction materials and equipment. The
Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No.2l-7-187
-6-
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 90o/o 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 95Yo 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 backf,rll against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 325 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 95Yo of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS
Compacted structural fiIl can be used to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction
separate from the building foundation. The fill soils can be compressible when wetted and can
result in some post-construction settlement. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be separated from buildings to 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 relatively
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 21-7-187
-7 -
well-graded sand and gravel, such as road base, should be placed beneath slabs as subgrade
support. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least 50Yo retained on
the No. 4 sieve and less than l2o/o passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95%o of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-
site predominantly granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
LTNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
It is our understanding the finished floor elevation at the lowest level is at or above the
surrounding grade. Therefore, a foundation drain system is not required. It has been our
experience in the areathat 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, be protected from
wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain and wall drain system.
If the finished floor elevation of the proposed structure has a floor level below the surrounding
grade, we should be contacted to provide recommendations for an underdrain system. All earth
retaining structures should be properly drained.
SITE GRADING
Extensive grading was performed as part of the existing Villas South development. Additional
placement and compaction of the debris fan soils could be needed to elevate the site to design
grades and reduce the risk of excessive differential settlements and building distress. In addition,
the water and sewer pipe joints should be mechanically restrained to reduce the risk ofjoint
separation in the event of excessive differential settlement. Additional structural frll placed
below foundation bearing level should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum standard
Proctor density within 2Yo of optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade
should be carefully prepared by removing any vegetation and organic soils and compacting to at
least95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density atnear optimum moisture content. The fill
should be benched into slopes that exceed 20Yo grade.
Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No.21-7-'187
-8-
Permanent unretained cut and filI slopes should be graded aL2horizontal to I vertical or flatter
and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. This office should review site
grading plans for the project prior to construction.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Precautions to prevent wetting of the bearing soils, such as proper backfill construction, positive
backfill slopes, restricting landscape irrigation and use of roof gutters, need to be taken to help
limit settlement and building distress. The following drainage precautions should be observed
during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the building structural slab foundation excavations should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and
nonstructural slab areas and to at least 90Yo 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 5 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Graded swales should have a
minimum slope of 3%.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge at least 5 feet beyond the
foundation and preferably into a subsurface solid drainpipe.
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 drilled at the location indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of
Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No. 21-7-187
-9-
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 concemed 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 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 recoÍrmendations, and to veriff that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. Vy'e 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 & Associateso Inc.
David A. Noteboom, Staff Engineer
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak,
SLP/kac
ú,1 5222
l"l 2
Kumar & Associates, lnc.6 Project No.21-7"187
E
L
A
I
I
I I
1 0 10
A
LOT 265
o
BORING f
: :.;
LCIT 264
APPROXIMATE SCALE_FEET
21-7 -187 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 1
BORING 1
EL. 5970'
LEGEND
0 R00T ZONE; SILTY, GRAVELLY SAND, R00TS AND ORGAN|CS,
FIRM, MOIST, BROWN.
40/12
FILL; SILTY, CLAYEY, SAND AND GRAVEL, MEDIUM DENSE,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN.
à 50/ 4 SAND AND SILT (SM-ML); SLIGHTLY GRAVELLY, STRATIFIED,
MEDIUM DENSE/VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN TO
LIGHT BROWN.
GRAVEL (CU); SIITY, SANDY, COBBLES, VERY DENSE,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN.
24/6, 50/5
WC=5.1
+4=28
-200=36
F:Å
1.,¡Þ.1
f;j:.)
10
34/ 12 !
i
DRIVE SAMPLE, z-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLT.
DRIVE SAMP:E, 1 3/9-|NCH r.D. SpLtT SPOON
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.
15
3e/12
¿6712DR|VE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 40 BIOWS 0F'-I '- A 14o_POUND HAMMER FALLING 50 INCHES WERE REQUIRED
TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
20 17 /12
WC=4,6
DD= 1 07
NOTES
THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON FEBRUARY 12, 2021
WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
F
t¡J
LJJtL
IrF
o_t¡lô
2 THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS MEASURED
APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE
SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
25
34/ 12 3. THE ELEVATION OF THE TXPLORATORY BORING WAS OBTAINED
BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN
PROVIDED.
30
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATION AND ELEVATION SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE
METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY
BORING LOG REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES
BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE
GRADUAL.
12/ 12
WC=12.1
*4=0
-200=68
6 GROUNDWATTR WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING AT THE
TIME OF DRILLING.55
45
7, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
DD = DRY DENSTTY (pcf) (tSrU 0 ZZr0);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED 0N N0.4 SIEVE (ASTM D 6915);
-200 = PERCENTAGE PASSING N0. 200 SIEVE ASTM D 1140).
50/5.5
50
21 -7 -187 Kumar & Associates LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 2
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Grovelly Silt ond Sond
FROM:Boringl@2O'
WC = 4.6 %, DD =107 pcf
sholl not
Th€tlrt d.roport
inexcopt
full, vithout the wdtt€n opprovol of
Kumor ond Aasociotoa, lnc. 5{6ll
Comolidolion tæting p6rfom6d iñ
occordoncå w¡th ffi D-4546.
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
1
ñ
JJ
L¡J
=U1
I
z.oË
ô
=oØz.o(J
o
-1
-.L
-5
-4
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE -100
21 -7 -187 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3
I
I
€
T
I
HYDROMETÊR ANALYSIS
IIME REAÞINGS
2¡ HRS 7 HRS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
U.S. SÍANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
I
l
I
I
l
I
I
l
L
i
ll 'I
6
't oo
90
80
70
60
50
,10
30
20
to
0
0
t0
20
30
40
50
60
70
ao
90
r00
=
ã
t9 54.1 127
1s2
DIAMETER OF IN
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 28 % SAND 36 %
LIQUID LIMIT - PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE 0F: Grovelly Silt ond Sond (Fill)
SILT AND CLAY 36 %
FROM: Boring 1 O 4' & 10' (Comblned)
t00
90
80
70
60
50
10
50
20
10
0
10
20
ı
t
30
,to
50
60
70
80
90
100
-g
E
.125 2-O
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL O %
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Sill
SAND 32 %.
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 68 %
FROM:Boring1O55'
Th€s. l€31 r€sulh opply only lo lh€
somplos whlch wsre lesl€d. Ths
tesllng reporl sholl nol bo roproducod,
exc€pt ln full, wllhoul lhe wrltlonqpprovql of Kumor & Assaclolos, Inc.
Slovo onqlysls l€sllng is p€rformod in
occordqnc€ wlth ASÍM D6915, ASTM D7928,
ASTM C136 qnd,/or ASTM 01140,
SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDTUM lCOrnSe FIN E COARSE
21 -7 -187 Kumar & Associates GRADAÏION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
I Crt i;;ffih:ffifËn1r'iÍå *' "TABLE ISUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSSOIL TYPEGravelly Silt and SandSand and SiltUNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVESTRENGÏHSlightly Gravelly Silt andSandPLASTICINDEXlol IATTERBERG LIMITSIololLIQUID LIMITPERCENTPASSING NO,200 stEvE3636285.168SAND("/rl32GRADATIONGRAVEL(%)0(pcflNATURALDRYDENSITYr07("/"1NATURALMOISTURECONTENT4.6I2.1ffttDEPTH4 and 10combined2035SAMPLE LOCATIONBORING1No.21-7-187