The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeoTech Investigationtr gllrTHOilPSoI{ @ GTLITI{OMFSOH YEARS FgUfìlIlEfJ- f il TgTl ûEOTECHÍI¡|CAL Ë!{Gtt{EERüûê tt{vË3ïtÊAÏoil fiiAHAFFËY RESIDËÌ,|CË {F64 tOUl'¡TY ROåÐ 309 aARFtËLÞ CgUt{TY, COLORATO Praparud For: GARY AI.ID DËBBIE MAHAFFEY 4947 toun$ Rûrd 309 ParechutE, CO 81ûgS Fr$ea No" G$0ð643.000.120 Nor¡ombar g,ZW1 trrlllrltrrlllr I ffi TABLË OF CONTËNTS scoPE.. $UMMARY OF CONCLU$IONS slïE coNÐtTtoNS . _................. 1,.,.,.:."':'.:. PROPOSEÐ CONSTRUCTTON ..........,...... GEOLOGY ANÐ GEOLOGIC HAZARÐS... SUBSURFACË CONDITIONS....... r. ,. ¡. rrir ¡ I I I ¡ t r r:.: EARTHWORK..............,... Subexcavation and $lructural Fill Foundation Wall Backfill FOUNDATION CRAWL SpACE CON$TRUCT1ON.....,.,........ FOUNDATION WAllS,.,,..,. SUgSURFACE DRAINAGE. SURFACË DRAINAGË. ÇONCRETE ÇONSÏRUCTIO N OBSERVATIONS GEOTËCHNIGAL RISK LrMtïATtONS .............. FIGURË 1*VICINITY MAF FIGURE 2 - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 3 * SUMMARY LOG OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURË 4* GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5* FOUNDATION WALL ÐRAIN CONCËPT TABLE I. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING ,.j: GARY AND DEBBIË, MAHAFFEY MÂHAFFËY RESIDETTCE PRoJECT NO, GS006{r.000-1 2û SCOPE: CTL I Thompson, lnc, has completed a geotechnical engineering investi- , gation for the Mahaffey Residence at 4654 Çounty Road 309 in Garfield Drive,, : Colorado. We conducted this investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions at i the site and provide geotechnicalengineering recommendations for the planned , construction. The scope of our investigation was set forth in our proposal No. GS 21-0302. Our report was prepared from data developed from our field explqra- i tion, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and our experience wlih similar, : conditions- This report incfudes a description of the subsurface conditions ob: : served in our exploratory pits and provides geotechnical engineering recom**n-, dations for design and construction of the foundation, below-grade walls, and de-, tails influenced by the subsoils. A summary of our conclusions is below. : , SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1 subsoils encountered in our exploratory pits generally consisted of ' : about 6 inches of topsoil and nil to 4 feet of sandy clay filt, underlain by, natural, sandy clay with scattered gravel to the total excavated depth óf,I feet. Groundwater was not found in our exploratory pits at the time of, our subsur{ace investigation. I I Geologic mappÍng and our engineering experience indicate the soils ati this site have the potentiaf for significant consolidation when wetted un- der building loads. we judge a footing fourrdation ís appropriate for the i ${atfey Residence, provided the soils are subexcavatedto a depth of, 3 feet below planned footings and replaced as densery-compacted,, :structuralfill. i I A foundatíon walldrain should be constructed around the perimeter of , crawl space area$ below the residence. site grading should be de-,' , signed and consiructed to rapidly convey surface water away from the , lesidgnce., j , : 2. GARY ANO ÐËBBIE MATIATÊEY MAHAFFËY ftÈSIDEf{CE PROJECI HO. CS066¿13.000.120 3 1 ffi SITE CONDITIONS The Mahafiey Residence ls propoeed at ¡t854 county Road 309 in Gar- field Couttty, Golorado. A vicinity map w{th the localion of the slte is induded as Figure 1. The pmposed reeidenoe site at the base of Hofins Mesa. Ground eur- face genenally slopes dorrun to the northwest at grädes leos than 5 percent. An existing barn ls adiaoent to the tesldenoÊ location, An aer'ral photograph of üre site is ghonn on Figure 2. Vegdation in the plannod builcling hccüon is sparee gråÈs and weeds. Pinon and juniper trees cover mudr of the property surround- ing the slte. A photogreph from our subEurface investþaüon iE belor¡y. TP-l location PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The Mahafrey Residencs willbe a one-slory modular bulldlng. A caat-in- plaoe perinneter foundation wall will form a crawl spac6 below he resldence. We expec't several interior oolumn pads. No slab-on-grade construstbn is planned. lvlaximum foundation excavation depths of 3 to 4 feet are anüclpated. cAnf,AfiÞOESBtEl ñAFIY NÀHAFTEV@IOHICT FnqrBeÌ üo. c80tüa¡.00.t20 2 GEOLOGY AND GEOLOG]C HAZARDS. we reviewed the geologic map by the u.s. Geology survey (u$GS) tifled,i "Geologic Map of the Rulison Quadrangle, Garfield county, colorado',, by yeendi Donnell, and Smith (dateO lgBS). The residence is proposed in an area that is . mapped as eañhflow and soil creep deposits of the Holocene Epoch, Theqe de- , posits are described as poorly*sorted, boulders, cobbles, and gravel in a matrix ', of sandy silt. The deposits are generally derived from landslide and cotluvialfea- , tures. The mapping indicates these deposits are typicalty undqrlain by claystone-, rich bedrock of the Wasatch Formation. The soils found Ìn our exploratory pits iare generally consistent with the geologic mapping. Due to the depositional i imethod, the soildeposits have not been subject to signÍficant geologic loads. , , These soils are prone to consolidation when wetted under buílding loads. We i ,, iudge the sandy clay and sandy silt at the site has potentiat for moderate to high , amounts of consolidation when wetted under building loads. : SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface condition$ were investigated by observing the excavation et two exploratory pits (TP-1 and TP-2) at the slte. The pits were excavated with a trackhoo at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2, Exploratory excavation operations were direcied by our representative, who logged subsurface condi. tions encountered and obtained samples of tho soils. Graphic logs of the soils, found in our exploratory pits are shown on Figure 3. : Subsoils encountered in our exploratory pits generalty consisted of about 6 inches of topsoil and nil to 4 feet of sandy clay fill, underlain by natural, sand¡r clay with scattered gravelto the total excavated depth of g feet. Groundwater , was nQt found in our pits at the tirne of our suþsurface investigation. The pits I GARY AND DEBÉIE MAHAFFEY fIIAHAFFEY RESIþENCE PROJËCT ¡{O_ GS0664C.000-12A 3 ffi were backfillsd immediately afror exploratory excavation openatlons $/Bre coflþ pleled" A photograph of the solls e:çosed in our exploratory pits is below. Conditions exposed in TP-1 Samples of the soils obtained in the field were returned to our labonatory where typicalsamples were seleded br testing. Engineerlng index teçling on one sample indicated the natural soil is moderately plastic wiltr a liquid lirnit of 3g percent and a plasticity index of 16 percent, One sample selected for gradation tesling indlcated 4 porcent gravel, 14 percent sand, and 82 percont silt and day (passing the No. 200 sieve). Gradation test resulh are shown on Figure 4. Labor- atory testing is summarlzed on Table l. OANYAIO DEE*' TAHAF'ÊV n$tArFEVeAaDE ßË FnoJEcT rl0. G80t3at000.t¡0 4 ffi EARTI,IWORK; . Based on our subsurface investigation, excavations at the site can be ac_ , complished with çonventíonal, heavy-duty excavation equipment, such ". " re- , dium'size trackhoe. $ides of excavations must be sloped or braced to meet local; state and federal safety regUlations. The existing fill and natural soils at the site I will likely classify as Type B or Type c, based on osHA standards gqverning ex-, cavations- $ides of excavations deeper than 5 feet and above groundwater , I should be no steeper than 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type B soils and j,5 to, 1 in Type C soíls. Contractors are responsible for site safety and providing and : maintaining safe and stable excavations. Contractors should identify the soils en-' countered in excavations and ensure that osHA standards are met. : , Free groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory pits at the time of our subsurface Ìnvestigation. We do not expect excavation for the residence : foundation will penetrate a free groundwater table, To remove water from precipi-, tation, the excavation should be sloped to a gravily discharge or be directed to a , temporary sump where water can be removed by pumping. i , $uþefcavatio,rL.and, SfrH.çturat,,F.il[ Geofogic mapping and our engineering experience indícate the soils ati this site have the potentialfor signifícant consolidation when wetted under build- ing loads' We judge a footing foundation is appropriaie for the Mahaffey Resi-, dence, provided the soils are subexcavated to a depth of 3 feet below planned: footings anS replaced as densely-compacted, structuralfill. The subexcavation process should eXtend at least 1 foot beyond the perimeter of the footprint. : The excavated soils can be reused as structural fill, provided flrey are free of rockq larger than 4 inches, organics, and debris. structuralfill should bg : G,\RY ANÐ OEBBIË MAHAFFË,Y MAHAFFEY RËSIOÊNCE PROJECT NO. GSo664t.000-120. 5 ffi placed in loose liñs of I inctres thlck or loss, moistue-oonditioned to within 2per- cent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at þast g8 percent of sþnd- ard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry denslty. Moisture content and density of struc{ural flll shsuld be checlced by a rcpresentative of our firm during placement. observation of thE plaoement and compac{ion prooess is neceseary. Foundation Wall Backfi ll Proper placement and compactlon of foundation wall backfillis important to rcduce infiltration of surfaoe water and consolidation settlement of backfill soils. Thle is especially important for backfill areas that wlll support extedor oon- crete ffahrcrk, suctt as patios. The excavated soils free of rocks larger than 4 lnches in diameter, organhs, and debris can be reused as bad<fill adiacent to foundation wall exteriors. Backfill ehould be placed in loose lifts of approximately 10 inches tfilcft or less, molsture-conditíoned to withln 2 percent of optimurn moisture content, and compacted to at least g6 percent of standard Prcctor (ASTM D S98) maximurn dry density. Moisture oontent and donsity of the backfill should be drecked during placement by a representative of our firm. Observation of the oompaction procE. durc is nsoessary. FOUNDATION The soils at this slte have the potentialfor significant consolklation when wetted under building loads. tÂle fudge a footing bundation is appropriate for the Mahafiey Residenoe, provided the soils are subexcavated to a depth of 3 feet be- low planned footings and replaced as densely.compacted, slructural fill. The structuralfillshould be in aocordanoe with recornrnendations in the Subexcava- tion and Stnuctural Fill section, SARVAI{O DETD! fliÀHAFfET IåHAFFEY ITTIDIIICE PRO¡eçf r¡0, ct0r6.t000.rt0 6 ffi Some amount of subsurface wettlng is inherent afler a building is con- structed. The recommendations in the suBsuRFAcE DRAIÌ{AGE and SURFACE DRAINAGE sestions willbe criticalto reduce the amount of subsur. face wetting beloru the building and enhance the potentlal performance of fooþ ings. Recommended desþn and construction criteria for footing foundations are below. These criteria nßre developed based on our analysis of fìeH and labora- tory datra, as wellâs our englneering experlenoe. The reeidence can be construc{ed on a footing bundation that is suppoded by a 3-foot lhickness of densaly-eompac.ted, structural fill, The struc{uralfillshould be in accordanoe with üre subexcava- tion and Structural Flllsectlon. Footlngs on the structuralfillcan be sized using a ¡naximum net al- lorable bearing prcssure of 3,000 psf. The weight of bacltflll eoil above the nootings can be neglected fior bearing pressure carcura- tlon. Gontinuoue wall footings should have a minimum width of at least 16 inches. Foundations for isolated columns should haræ mrnrmum dimensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be re- quired, depending upon foundation loads Grade beams and foundation walls should be well-reinforoed to span undisclosed loose or soft soil pockets. We recommend rein- forcement sufftcient to span an unsupported dlstance of at least 12 Þet. 1 2 3. 4 5. ß^RYÁnDDG¡üt t¡lçrw TAHÂRFET RETDÜICE PRO,'GCI x0. {¡ürtat.o*t to The soils under exterior footings should be protected fiom freezing. We reoommEnd the bottom of foolings be constructed at a depth óf at least 36 inches belor finished exterior gnades. The Garfield county building departrnent should be consulted rqarding required frost protection depth. 7 ffi. CR^AWL SPAGF COI-ISTRUCTION A crawl $pace will be below the modular residence. The required air space between the floor system and ihe soils at the bottom of the crawl $pace depends, on the materials used to construct the floor. Building codes normally require a :.: clear space of at least 18 inches between exposed earth and untreated Wood, ', floor components of the strueturalflocr. Fornon-organic systems, we recom-, , mend a minimum clear space of 12 ínchesi . ,. utility connections, including water, gas, air duct, and exhaust stack con- nections to appliances on structuralfloors should be capable of absorbing some deflection of the floor. Plumbing that passes through the floor should ideally be hung from the underside of the structural floor and not laid on the bottom of the excavaiion. lt is prudent to maintain the minimum clear space below all plumbing lines. : Üontrol of humídity in crawl spaces is important for indoor air qualíty and ', performance of wood floor systems. We believe the best current practices to con- trol humidity ínvolve the use of a vapor retarder or vapor barrier (10 mil minimum): placed on the goils below accessible subfloor âreas. The vapor retarder/barrier ', should be sealed at joints and attached to concrete foundaiion elements. lt may , be appropriatg to installventilation systems that are controlled by humidistat, i : FOUNDA.TION WALLS Foundation walls which extend below-grade should be designed for lateral eartl'¡ pfessures where backfill is not present to about the same extent on both: : sides of the wall, such as in crawl spaces. Many factors affect the values of the : design lateral earth pressure. These factors include, but are not limited to, the; : GARY ANO OEBEIË MAHAFFEY MAHAFFEY RÊSIOENCÉ PROJEGT NO. G906843.000-1e0 I ffi type, compaction, slope, ?0d drainage of the backfill, and the rigidity of the walt againstrotationanddeflection" : ' ,',' For a very rigid wallwhere negligible or very little deflection willocçur, an : "at-rest" lateral earth pressure should be used in design. For walls that can dq- I flect or rotate 0.5 to I percent of Wall height {depending upon the backfill types), ' design for a lower "active" lateral earth pressure may be appropriate. Our experi-, ence indicates typical below-grade walls in residences deflect or rotate slightly : under normal design loads, and that this deflection results in satisfactory wall, , performance. Thus, the earth pres$ures on the walls will likely be between the-, : "active" and "at-rest" condítions. ' , For backfill soils conforming with recommendations Ín the FoundAlion.J{,#,1lj Bac-kfill section that are not saturated, we recommend design of befow-grade i ', walls at this site using an equivalent fluid densíty of at leaet 45 pcf . This vafue as- sume$ deflection; some minor cracking of walls may oÇcur. lf very little wall de= : ffection is desired, a higher design value approachíng the "at-rest" condition usins an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf may be appropriate. These equívalent den-, síties do not incf ude allowances for sloping backfill, surcharges or hydrostatic i ipfeSSUfeS, , , SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE Water from precipitation, snowmelt, and irrígation frequently flows through, relatively permeable backfill placed adjacent to a residence and collects on the : surface of less permeable soils at the bottom of foundation excavations. This pro* cess can cause wet or moist conditions in below-grade areas, such as crawl . : spaces, after construction. To reduce the likelihood water pressure will develop , outside foundation walls and the risk of accurnuJation of water ln below-grade ar- oa$, we recommend provision of a foundation wall drain. , , êARY ANo DEBBIE I'TAHAFFEY iJIA}IAFFEY RESIDENCE PROJEcT NO. cS06643.00q.ra0 I The foundation draín should consist of 4-inch diameter, slotted pvc pipe , encased ln free-draíníng gravel. A prefabricated drainage composite shoufd bq I placed adjacent to foundation walls. Care should be taken during backfill opera- ' tions to prevent damage to drainage composítes. The drain should discharge.via a. positive gravity outlet or lead to a sump where water can bq removed by pumping. Thefoundationwall drAinccnceptisshownonFigures.i : , i . ' j I: SURFACE DRAINAGE Surface drainage is criticalto the performance of foundations. $ite drain- age should be designed to rapidly convey surface water away from the resi- . dence. Proper suface drainage and irrigation practices can help control the : amount of surface water that penetrates to foundation levels and contrjbutes to settlement or heave of soils that support foundations and other structures. Posi- tive drainage away from the foundation and avoidance of irrigation near the foqn- dation also help io avoid excessíve wettíng of backfillsoils, which can lead to in- creased backfill settlement and possibly to higher lateralearth pressures, due to increased weight and reduced strength of the backfill. We recommend the follow- ing precautions. : The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence i , should be sloped to drain away from the building in alr directions. :we recommend a minimurn constructed slope of at reast 1z inches , ín the first 10 feet (10 percent) in landscaped areas around the reqi-, {ence, ., : : Backfillaround the foundation walls should be moisture-treated and compacled pursuant to recommendatíons in ihe Foundation wal[ Fgckf¡ll section. _.- , We recommend the residence be provided with roof gutters and : downspouts. The downspouts should discharge well beyond the, : limits oÍ all backfill. splash blocks and/or extensions shourd be pro- GARY AND DEBBIË !/IAIIAFFEY MAHAFFËY RËSIDENCE PROJECT NO, GSoCqæ.q00.120 1 2. 3. vided at alldownspouts so water discharges onto the ground be. yond the backfill. We generally recommend against burial of down-sPqqtdischarge; : '. , , : , 4 lrrigation should be limited to the minimum amount sutficient to, maintain vegetation; application of rnore water will increase rikeri- hood of slab and foundation movements. plants placed crose to: foundation walls should be limited to those with low moisture re; quirements, lrrigated grâss should not be located within 5 feet of the foundation. Sprinklers should not discharge within 5 feet of , foundations. Plastic sheeting should not be placed beneath rand- scaped areas adjacent to foundation walls or grade beams. Geq- textile fabric will inhibit weed growth yet still allow natural evâpora-tiontooccur.. : . . , : : : CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. Our experi* i ence in the area of the site indìcates the soils contain low levels of water-soluble , sulfates. ACI 332-08, "Code Requirements for Resídential Concrete", indicatgs t, that any type of cement can be used for concrete in contact with the subsoils that have low levels of sulfate concentration. : , ln our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaqes of highly-permeable concrete, even though sulfate levels are relatively low. To. control this risk and to resist freeze-thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitíous materials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to surface drainage or high-water tables. Concrete should have a total air Çqntent of 6 percent +/- 1.5 percent. We recommend all founda. tonwafs and gfade þeams in contactwith the subsoils be damp-proofed. . GARY AND OË8BIE MAHAFTEY MAHAFFÊ,Y RESIDEI.¡CË PROJ€CT NO. GS06643.000-120 11 ffi c oNsTRu cTloN oE$ERVATIONS We recommend that GTL I Thompson, lnc. be retained to provide con-i : struction observatíon and maierials testing services for the project. This would al-' low us the opportunity to verify whether soil conditions are consistent with those , found during this investigation. lf others perform these observatíons, they must : accept responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in this report rmain, appropriate. lt is also beneficialto projects, from economic and practicalstand- ::, points, when there is continuity between engineqring consultation and the con- : struction on materials testing phases. : ' : ; I GEOTECHNICAL RI$K The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnícal evaluation. , The primary rea$on for this is that the analytical rnethods used to develop ge-, l otechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science, The analyticaf : tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be tem-i pered by engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or rec- : ommendations presented in any geotechnlcal evaluation should not be consid- j ered risk-free and are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and i the proposed structure will lead to performance äs desired or intended. The engi-i neering recommendations in the preceding sectíons constitute our estimate of : those measures neÇes$ary to help the buildíng perform satisfactorily. i , Th;s report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client for the purpose of providing geotechnical design and construction criteria for the pro-: posed project. The information, conclusíons, and recommendations presente( herein are based upon consideratíon of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of structures proposed, the geologic setting, and the subsurface condi- GARY ANO OË8BIE MAHAFFEY MAHAFFÊY RËSIÐENCE PROJËCT NO. qS06Ë43.00q.1 2ô 12 ffi tions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the rc- : : port are not valíd for use by others. Standards of practice continuously change ini the area of geotechnical engineering. lf the proposed residence is not con-, ; . : structed within three years, we should be coniacled to determine if we should up. t.date this report.: ::..t:: LIMITATION$, Our exploratory pits provide a reâsonable characterization of subsurface ', conditions below the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by the pits will occur. i , This investigation was conducted ín a manner consistent with that levelof care and skillordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers currently practicing under similar conditions in the localíty of this project. No warranty, express or im- plied, is made. lf we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this. report, please catl. : ÇTt I THOMPSON, ¡NC. James D. Kellogg, P.8., Division Manager ' i JDK:aþr' SARY Al'lO 0EBBIE MAHASFËY MÀHAFFEY RESIÐENCH PROJECT NO. GS0Ê643,ü00.1 20 t3 ffi o r0æ æûtr!trrtr-t EqIg lr - 300ü SATA.LnE HåOE TBOM IiA¡fiR (coPYRrGl{r 2021) NOIEr 4654 County Rood 309 or!,_.¡f Dtþþl¡l¡¡n¡rylr¡ùdÞthErn PFOTEOT hfO. CO0Cô43.O0O-1 AO Vldnlty ilap Hg. I LEGEND; TP-I APPNOXh{ATE IPÊATION OFI EXPLOñAÏOFY PIT NOTE: ffi tæ SAÏE.LITE IMAOERIY FROM NqXAR (coFYRFHr 2t21l,.3orIA I'r l0d ïP- TF-2 Ory_rrllD¡Ébi,trrt ùtffiffi PROFST NO, qgo68{g.0G1 eO Asdal Pñslograph Flg. 2 7J V 7J >-{t oÞ^.{ fr V TP-1 8t.5343 5340 SANYA}¡DTGFEII+üTFËT I.IÂHâFFEY ßE9O€I¡OEcltlf pRorEcr lto. e8cotloc t¡0 53{5 I.EGEND¡ TP.z 81.53{5 ffi w T{¡PSOL, Ctåy, â^¡tDy. cRAvB.. ilotsT, BßO$rlt. FIL¡.. CIÂY. SAI{DY. SqAflERED GRAVEI.. SL|GHTLY ltotÊT, llEDtuü snFF, SROrrlrN,t-lü Hio ñ t¡¡ t340 5335 s330 EI z,o Et¡¡ CI.ÀY, SAIOY, SCATTBED GRAI/EL. lrEDt ¡l 8ïttr" tLtot{ny l¡otsT. 8nf}trH" GnAY. {CL) FTDTc,ATES è{rLt( sAipt E FßoH ExcAvATED SOttS, NOTES¡ ET,ruORATORY PITIì I¡IIERE EXGAVÂÎED WITH A TRÂCX|OE 0r OCToBER t., 2mt. ptTti WERE EACIüI.I.€D ITT¡€OIAÎELY AFTEN EXPTORATÐRY EXCAVATIOû¡ OPERANOilS WERE COiIIPLETEO, 2, GROUNCNtrATER WAS NCrr FOUIÚ IN E)OIORATOßY PIIT A? THE TIiIE OF EXC,AVATTO¡II. 3. EI.EVATIOÍ{8 OF ÞçLOßATÞRY PIÎS WENE ESTIMATED FROiI GOOGLE EAñTI{. 4, 1}IE9E Lfi9S ARE SUBJÉ T 10 TflE EXPT.A'{ATIONS. tr{rTAnÖHS AfiO CONCLrrStoltgCoNTA|NEO Þt lHtS RÊPORT. F 9unmary Logs of Explonatóry Fr6.3 rF TA¡Ú3 (3åA¡r€LcråY trr,åtTtc¡'fo $Ll tl$t$PtÁ3¡tc}FIIIE i¡fûLt{co^fis Ftt:tqÂn$t coâa-Ë6 lûl¡l^1, lgtll¡l ¡d¡lr¡ ! BD¡ .al{l .!30 .!0.4Õ'r3 .!¿ .t0 + .4 I / I ..4 t?t ?ûl I62 tm 90 lo 9r0lrD Íôþit:t3ã H.t Þ r0 o ?0 t0 90 ræ.tûi ò.ðû¡ ({,, 0Ê{ 0t9 û¡t r5¡ rer üt tf¡ cLE REAUATaÈOr¡tíltç$ tÉ t¿r o t0 !ûE I aù I¡IË, 0?. .r&¡ nt ?Êo t,te ?0 M r?t þ12 D( rrGfES 0f PAÂnctE Itl ¡tlr.nßtgR$ ¡tHñ. tlln {0il¡}r, r¡irF Somple of cLÂy. sANDy (cL)FTom TP- l AT4 FEET GRAVET { % SAXÍ) slLT & cLÂY 82 % r-rQuro L[rtT PLÁSTICTY INDEX 14 q( % 96 Somplo of from OARY AITD OÉ8BIE IiA}IAFFEV TIAHAfFEY RESII¡€TICE PROJECf lto. O9,063a3.00tt,'t 1{ GRAVEL SILT E CLAY P¡-r\SIlôlTY INOËX 96 SAN¡)% r.lorlD r.rAilT 9ú 9l'jt Gradation Test Results ßR^VErclÁY tpt^f f *;l ;o Êt,T tttort.PL¡allgl f tfiG ¡¡ûDtr.i,cãÂRa FIIE cûAHtÉ c0Bã.€6 t- :l ! ¿ I I I '1oÐHr¡ r?mil .1flF. 1 urt ?00 t00 ùa ðþ yþ !0É P: F, !-Ê¡Í E, J} .tt É¡ o) r0 t{¡ to 10: yt ¡0 t0 0 OI¡¡,CIER St FâRIFIE lt¡ l¡ÌrUgh tttl$ ü.3 8l^¡a0¡fto t¡¡ru¡* 'lÐ '?t '{0 1¡o '18 '10 .å ct€ÁR 8ouAnE óÊÊfl r'ri:s !t ll¡- tlt' y .&l ð.eø Ét D¡{ 0!9 .dBl ú?,t !{0 ,OO .¡r9t !tg ?0231 l.¡8 l¡3? !t¡ t l ttz lelrå¡o¡ ¡[tA. ttA ,r5 t lx. râ ralr FIG,4 tr BE OF TID mflitEOt ltotÉ RAroryÐ *l HMDRIN CI¿OOIm EautvilIrrÍ ATr ßfl Pt¡sftcrO FOUDüf,TT'II ,;-CÑAilL SHÆ-/ ffilA oüm EñffnE Gftß/E. ffffiPeffiEùTAHAFFEY Project 1ì¡o. 0S06680.000,1 20 su¡FE PEN Fosrno 0R PrD HRRM Fmt FOOnroF omrËn) f;ËSffiffitrflhrffi"ry ãþTfrrtr ^r rast r/€-¡mr DiÐp-ÞEñ'ioor Foundatlon ìltlall Draln Concapt grilfiuul nooR Flg.5 TABLE ISUTTNARY OF LABORATORY TESTINGPROTECT NO. GSOee¡9.000d1 20ffiCI.AY. SANDY(CLIDESCRIPTIO}¡OLAY. SA¡,IDY(CLìPASSINGNO.200SIEVEf96ì8r85PERCENTSAIIDt96ì14PERCENTGRAVETf96ì4PLASTICITYrNf)Ð(t96)l6L¡OUIDUMITft6l39DRYDENSITYfPCFTMOÍSTURECONTENT(9ô)DEPTHfFEEN4-5ffiPITTP.ITP.zIIr-r-IrIrrITrrIrPäge f off