HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoil Studyrcrf iiË;¡.[#3;"fËi5'"nÊ;ä'''**
An Employcc Owncd Compony
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
www.kumarusa.colll
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parkeq Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Sumrnit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 262, TRONBRTDGE
RIVER VISTA
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 21-7-235
APRrL 8,2021
PREPARED FOR:
SCIBO LLC
ATTN: LUKE GOSDA
0115 BOOMERANG ROAD, SUITE 52018
ASPEN' COLORADO 81611
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
BACKGROUND INFORMATION .
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
F OUNDA'I'ION tsEARING CONDITIONS
SURFACE DRAINAGE..........
LIMITATIONS
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY RORTNG
FIGURE 2 -LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 3 _ GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1
I
1
J-
-2-
1
a-J-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATTONS ............ ...,.,..- 4FOIINDATIONS ,..,,...- 4
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS .................- 5
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS ..........- 6
UNDERDRATN SYSTEM............. ................- 7
SITE GRADING..,.....-7 -
-7 -
-8-
Kumar & Associates, lnc, o Project No. 21-7-235
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results ofa subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on
Lot262,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 March 2,202L
An exploratory boring was drilled 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 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 2001.
The information provided in these previous reports has been considered in the current study of
Lot262.
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
depths between about 3 to 4 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the
proposed type of construction.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-235
.,
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly fi'r:m those described above,
we should be nutificú to re-evalual.e lhe reoommendations contained in this repofi.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site was vacani. at the time of our field exploration. The lot is located in the
northeastern part of the Villas South Parcel. The natural terrain prior to development in 2006
sloped down to the east at about 5Yo grade. The subdivision area was elevated by filling on the
order of 18 feet abovc thc original ground surfacc to crcatc a rclatively flat building site off River
Vista. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds with scattered sage brush.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the project area which is known to be associated with sinkholes
and localized 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 andlocalized variable depths of the debris fan soils
were generally not encountered by the previous September 14,2005 geotechnical study. The
current subsurface exploration performed in the area of the proposed residence on Lot 262 did
not encounter voids. In our opinion, the risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 262 throtghout
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.
FIELD EXPLORATION
Tlre lreld exploration for the project was conducted on March 24,2021. One exploratory boring
was drilled at the location shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The 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, Inc.
Samplcs of the subsoils were taken withl% 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.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No, 21.7.235
-3 -
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. The
subsoils consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying compacted fill soils to 18 feet deep overlying
medium dense/stiff, sand and silt soils with gravel (alluvial fan deposits) underlain by dense/
very stiff, silty clayey sandy gravel/weathered siltstone at a depth of about 47 feú. to the
maximum drilled depth of 51 feet. The fill materials were mainly placed in2006 and consist of
relatively dense, mixed silt, sand and gravel.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture
content and density and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small
diameter drive samples (minus \%-inch fraction) of the granular fill soils and natural subsoils are
shown on Figure 3. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly
moist to moist with depth.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper 18 feet of soils encountered in the boring consist of fill placed mainly in 2006 as part
of the subdivision development. The field penetration tests and laboratory tests performed for
the study, and review of the field density tests performed during the fill construction indicate the
structural fill was placed and compacted to the project specified minimum 95% of standard
Proctor density. Alluvial fan soils which tend to collapse (settle under constant load) when
wetted were encountered below the fill. 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
Kumar & Associates, Inc. @ Project No. 21-7-235
-4-
will hclp to kccp the subsoils dry and reduce the settlement risks. A heavily reinforced structural
slab ur pus[-tensionud slab lbuntlation designed tbr srgniticant dittþrentral settlerrellts is
recourtneuded for the builcling support. As an altcrnative, a deep foundation that extends down
into the underlying dense, river gravel/bedrock could be used to reduce the building settlement
risk.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
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 18 feet of the existing
compacted structural fill. If a deep foundation system is consiclered for building snpport, we
should be contacted for additional recommendations.
The clesign 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.
Settlement of foundation is estimated to be about I to l% inches based on the
long-term compressibility of the fill. Additional settlement of about 1 to 2 inches
is estimated if the underlying debris fan soils were to become wet. Settlement
fiom the deep wetting lvould tend to be unifonn across the buildi. a ^r-q anrl {hc
settlement potential of the fill section should control the design.
2) The thickened sections of the slab for support of concentrated loads should have a
minimum width of 20 inches.
3) The perimeter tum-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 fi'ost-
protected foundation is used, the perimeter turn-down section should have at least
18 inches of soil cover.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21.7.235
-5-
4)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 fill placed below the slab should be compacted to at least 98Yo of the
maximum standard Proctor density within 2percentage 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.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures (if any) which arelaterclly 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, traffrc, 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 90Yo of the maxlmum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and
s)
6)
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.21-7-235
-6-
walkway arcas should be cornpacted to at least 959'o of the nraxinrurn standard Ploutul density.
Care shuuld be l.aken not to overcompact the hacktî ll or use large equipment near the wall, since
this could cause excessive latcral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall
backfill should be expected, even if the material is placecl correctly, ancl coulcl result in clistress 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 1'ooting. 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 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 95% of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS
Compacted structural fill 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 settlemcnt. To rcduce 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 clarnage clue to shrinkage
^.-^1,1^- 'ì'L- --^";*^.-ô6+^ f^*:^:-+ ^^^^:-^ ^'^l ^t^L -^:-l-^-^^*^-+ ^L^-.ll L^ ^^+^Lt:-1^^l L-. ¿l-^vrqwr\¡r¡ó, ¡¡rw rwYur¡vlll!rrrù ¡ur JUrrrt ùP<rvtrré 4ltLt ùl4u lçllllutteçlllçttL ùttuulLl uç trSLaull¡)llttu uy Llitt
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 as subgrade
support. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on
the No. 4 sieve and less than l2o/o passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill trraterials lur supporl. of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 959'o of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Requirecl fill can consist of the on-
site granular soils devoid of vegetal"ion, topsoil and oversized rock.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.21-7-235
-7 -
UNDERDRAIN 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 areathaf 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. ln 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 fill placed
below foundation bearing level should be compacted to at least 98o/o of the maximum standard
Proctor density within 2%o of opfimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade
should be carefully prepared by removing any vegetation and organic soils and compacting to at
least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. The fill
should be benched into slopes that exceed 20Yo grade.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at2horizontal to 1 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
Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No.21-7-235
-8-
linrit sel"tlcment antl builtling tlistress. The following tlrainage precaul.ions shoultl be observed
cluring construction ancl 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 95% of the maximum stanclard Proctor clensity in pavement ancl
nonstructural slab areas and to at least 90Yo of fhe 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 I'eet 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 inigation
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this orea at this timc. Wc makc no warranty cithcr cxprcss or implicd.
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 l, 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 flrture. 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 variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different fiom those described in this repoft, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-235
-9 -
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design pulposes. 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 veriff that the recoÍrmendations
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 &
Steven L. Pawlak,
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLPlkac
!
Kumar &,Associates, lnc.'¡'Project No. 21"7-235
\,'\-
t or 263
I
^g'¿.gl
EORING I
o
LOî 262
q
F*
c|tlo
I
to(o
o)út
co(o
o)ú)
10 0 10 20
SCALE-FEET
21 -7 -235 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 1
BORING 1
EL.=5970.5'LEGEND
0 TOPSO|L; CLAYEY SAND AND SILT, R00TS AND 0RGANICS,
FIRM, MOIST, BROWN.
FILL; MIXED SAND, GRAVEL AND SILT, MEDIUM DENSE TO
DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MIXED BROWN.
q
55/12 SAND AND SILT (SM-ML); SCATTERED GRAVEL TO
GRAVELLY, MEDIUM DENSE/STIFF, SUGHTLY Mo|ST T0
MOIST WITH DEPTH, BROWN.
GRAVEL (GM); SANDY, SILTY, DENSE, VERY STIFF, MOIST,
BROWN, POSSIBLE SILTSTONE.
w
IA
10 34/ 12
WC=3.0
DD= 1 20
*4=21
-200= 1 5 !
¡
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2_INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
F
t¡J
t¡J
t!
I-t-
o_
trJo
15 22/6, 50/6
DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8-|NCH r.D. SPL|T SP00N STANDARD
PENEÏRATION TEST.
""r..DR|VE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 55 BLOWS 0Frr/ tL A 140-pouND HAMMER FALLTNG J0 TNCHES WERE REQUIRED
TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
20 7/12
V,lC=7,7
+4=17
-200=45 NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON MARCH 24, 2021
WITH A 4_INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
25 2. THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS MEASURED
APPROXIMATELY BY TAPING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE
PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS OBTAINED BY
INTERPOLATION BETWTEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDTD.
30 1o/12
-200=5 1
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.
45 6 GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING AT THE
TIME OF DRILLING.
50 31/6,50/3
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (Z) (ASTU D 2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (PCf) (ASTM D 2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED 0N N0. 4 SIEVE
(¡sru o ogr¡);
-200 = PERCENTAGE PASSING N0, 200 SIEVE
(ASTM D 1140);
21 -7 -235 Kumar & Associates LOG OF TXPLORATORY BORING Fis. 2
HYDROMEIER ANALYSIS
TIME REAOINCS
24 HRS 7 HRS¿5 UtN t6 !tñ ãñUtñ tautñ ¡utñ tvtN
U.S. SIANDÂRO SER¡ES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
\/et z/lt 1 1ltû
l
l
l
I
ì
I
I
l
i
I
I
l
I
I
i I
I
I
1l
I
I
rl
=
100
90
ao
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
o
10
20
50
40
50
60
70
ao
90
foo
¡
.oof .oo2 .600 2.36 4.7 5
2.O
IN MILLIMETERS
152
DIAMETER OF
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 21 % SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sond with crovol (Fitt)
64%SILT AND CLAY 15 %
PLASÏICITY INDEX
FROM:Boringl@10'
100
90
80
60
50
4U
50
20
10
o
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
ao
90
B
a
E
100
.o19 .o57 .o75 .1 50 200
-125
DIAMETER OF ICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 17 % SAND 38
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Sond ond Silt wilh Grovel
%
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 45 %
FROM:Boringl@20'
Th€s€ lesl r€sulls opply only lo ih6
sqmplqs wh¡ch w€ro l€sl6d. Thelesllng reporl sholl nol be roproduc€d,
sxc€pl ln full, wllhoul lh€ wrlll6nqpprovol ol Kumo¡ & Assocîol€s, lnc.
Slcve onolysls lssflng ls p€rlorm€d ln
occordonco wllh ASTM D6913, ASTM 07928,
ASTM C'136 ondilor ASTM Dll4O.
SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
lIME READIilCS
24 HRS 7 HRS
4t oo t1
U.S. STAÑOARD SERIES
¡50 4¿O 43ô 4tñ
CLEAR SQUÂRE OPENINGS
a/À" a/a" 1 1ft,
I
!
l I
I
I
i
I
¡ ! ¡l
SAND GRAVEL
FIN E MEDIUM COARSE FIN E COARSE
21 -7 -235 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig.3
rcrf åiçlfi#tx:Étrr'"n¡ï n' *' *TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSProject No.21-7-235Lot262NATURALDRYDENSITYGRADATIONATTERBERG LIMITSUNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVESTRENGTHGRAVEL(%)SAND(%)PERCENTPASSING NO.200 stEvELIQUID LIMITPLASTICINDEXSOIL TYPE1202T6415Silty Sand with GravelillSand and Silt with GravelVery Sandy Silt withGravel45513817NATURALMOISTURECONTENT(olol3.07.77.5SAMPLE LOCATIONDEPTH(ft)102030BORING1