HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils Study for Foundation Designffi CTLITHOMPSON
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER¡NG INVESTIGATION
REED STORAGE BUILDING
7550 COUNTY ROAD 312
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared for:
JOHN REED
7550 County Road 312
New Castle, CO 81647
CTLIT Project No. GS06770.000-120
July 7, 2A23
(revised July 1 1, 2023)
CTllThompson, lnc.
Denver, Fort Collins, &lglqd.Q_9pd¡gg, Glenwood Sprinqs, P-Ugþ.!g, Summit County - Colorado
Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bozeman, Montana
\
$
{e
$
N
s
ffi
Table of Contents
scoPE,,....,
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
SITE CONDITIONS
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..,......
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND HAZARDS
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........,.
SITE EARTHWORK.,...
Excavations
Subexcavation and Structural Fill.....,........
Foundation Wall Backfi11..................
FOUNDATTON ................
SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION ..........
BELOW-GRADE CONSTRUCTION
SURFACE DRAINAGE
CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
GEOTECHNICAL RISK
LtMtTATIONS ................
FIGURE 1_VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
FIGURE 3 - SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
cTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06770.000-120 REVISED
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
ffi
SCOPE
CTllThompson, lnc. (CTLIT) has completed a geotechnical engineering in-
vestigation regarding a new storage building proposed on the Reed property at
7550 County Road 312in Garfield County, Colorado. We conducted this investiga-
tion to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical engi-
neering recommendations for the proposed construction. The scope of our investi-
gation was set forth in our Proposal No. GS 23-0036. Our report was prepared
from data developed from our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering
analysis, and our experience with similar conditions. This report includes a de-
scription of subsurface conditions found in our exploratory pits and provides ge-
otechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the foun-
dation and floor system, and details influenced by the subsoils. A summary of our
conclusions is below.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Our exploratory pits excavated at the site encountered a surficial
layer of topsoil underlain by sandy to silty clay with occasional gravel
and cobbles to the maximum explored depth of 11 feet. Free
groundwater was found in one pit at a depth of 10 feet.
2.The natural clay soils found in our exploratory pit excavations were
soft and moist to very moist. Based on our field and laboratory data,
and our geotechnical engineering experience, the natural clay soil
has potentialfor moderate consolidation when subjected to building
and stored equipment loads.
Plans show a monolithic slab with turned down edges will support
the building. We judge the storage building can be constructed on a
monolithic slab with turned down edges sized at low allowable bear-
ing pressure placed on the natural clays. Risk of potential slab set-
tlement can be mitigated by subexcavation and structuralfill place-
ment below the building.
1
3
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06770.000120 REVISED
Page 1 of 12
SITE COND¡TIONS
The Reed property is addressed as 7550 County Road 312 in Garfield
County, Colorado. A vicinity map showing the location of the property is included
as Figure 1. An aerial photograph of the site is shown on Figure 2. The site is an
approximately 18.1-acre parcel northeast of County Road 312. A residence, barn,
and a man-made pond are to the east of the planned storage building footprint.
Garfield Creek is approximately 150 feet to the
building location. Ground surface in the proposed building area generally slopes
own e south and southwest at grades visually estimated as less than 5 per-
cent. Vegetation in this area is predominantly grasses and sage with tree stands
adjacent to the residence and along the banks of an historic creek drainage. A
photograph of the site taken during our subsurface investigation is below.
'. fr . r.j: s
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
cTLIT PROJECT NO. G506770.000-120 REVISED
Looking east at TP-1
Page 2 of 12
ffi
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Plans are to construct a one-story, wood-frame storage building with a slab-
on-grade floor. Pre-engineered roof trusses and metal roofing are planned. The
building footprint will be 28 feet by 48 feet. The storage building will be founded on
a monolithic slab with turned down edgòs. Maximum foundation excavation depths
of 5 feet are expected. Fill placement below the building is not anticipated. We ex-
pect foundation loads of between 1,000 and 2,000 pounds per lineal foot along the
building perimeter. We understand that actual construction has not been deter-
mined at this writing. We should be provided with "for-construction" building plans
when available so we can provide geotechnical/geo-structuralengineering input.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND HAZARDS
We reviewed geologic mapping by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)
for the area of the property titled, "Center Mountain Quadrangle Geologic Map,
Garfield County, Colorado", by Carroll, Kirkham, and Stelling, (dated 2014).Wa-
satch Formation bedrock underlies the site and is near the ground surface at high-
er elevations near the site. Subsurface soils at the site are mapped as colluvium
(Qc) and undivided alluvium and colluvium (Qac). The alluvium and colluvium soils
on this site are mostly clay and silt deposited by water and gravity derived from
bedrock of the Wasatch Formation. No significant geologic hazards were identified
that would preclude the planned construction. The soils encountered in our explor-
atory pits are consistent with the alluvium and colluvium shown on the mapping.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions were investigated by excavating two exploratory pits
(TP-1 and TP-2) on May 17,2023. The pits were excavated at the approximate
locations shown on Figure 2. Excavation operations were directed by our repre-
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
cTLlr PROJECT NO. GS06770.000-120 REVISED
Page 3 of 12
ffi
sentative, who logged subsurface conditions encountered and obtained repre-
sentative samples of the soils. Graphic logs of subsurface conditions found in the
exploratory pits are included as Figure 3.
Our exploratory pits excavated at the site encountered an approximately 6-
inch-thick surficial layer of topsoil underlain by I and 10.5 feet of sandy to silty clay
with occasional gravel and cobbles. Free groundwater was encountered at a depth
of 10 feet in the TP-2 excavation. The pits were backfilled immediately after exca-
vation operations were completed
Samples of the soils obtained from our pit excavations were returned to our
laboratory for pertinent testing. Engineering index testing performed on two sam-
ples of the soils indicated liquid limits of 23 and 31 percent and plasticity indices of
6 and 16 percent with 68 and 36 percent silt and clay (passing the No. 200 sieve),
respectively. Gradation testing on a sample of soil obtained from TP-1 at a depth
of I to 9 feet determined 40 percent gravel, 24 percent sand and 36 percent silt
and clay sized particles (passing the No. 200 sieve). A sample of soil tested had a
water-soluble sulfate content of 0.09 percent. Gradation test results are shown on
Figure 4. Laboratory testing is summarized on Table l.
SITE EARTHWORK
Excavations
Maximum foundation excavation depths of about 5 feet are anticipated. Our
subsurface investigation indicates that excavations at the site can be accom-
plished using conventional, heavy-duty excavating equipment.
Sídes of excavations need to be sloped or retained to meet local, state, and
federal safety regulations. The subsoils at the site will likely classify as Type B
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
cTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06770.000.120 REVISED
Page 4 of 12
ffi
soils based on OSHA standards governing excavations. From a "trench" safety
standpoint, temporary slopes deeper than 5 feet that are not retained should be no
steeper than 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type B soÍls. Contractors are respon-
sible for determining the actual OSHA soiltype when excavations are made and
for maintaining safe excavations. Contractors should identify the soils encountered
in excavations and ensure that OSHA standards are met.
Free groundwater was found at a depth of 10 feet in our TP-2 excavation.
We do not believe excavations to construct the proposed storage building willen-
counter a free groundwater table.
Subexcavation and Structural Fill
Based on our field and laboratory data, and our geotechnical engineering
experience in the area, the natural soils at the site have potential for moderate
consolidation under building loads. Similar consolidation could occur below heavily
loaded floor slabs.
We judge the storage building monolithic slab with turned down edges can
be supported on the natural soils if floor deflection and cracking are acceptable.
Floor deflection and slab cracking can be significantly reduced if the soil below the
building footprint is subexcavated and replaced as properly-compacted, structural
fill to a depth of at least 3 feet below the bottom of the slab. The subexcavation
process should extend at least 1 foot beyond the edges of the building perimeter.
The subexcavated soil can be reused as structuralfill, provided it is free of
rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter, organic matter, and debris. A positÍve alter-
native would be to use imported CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course as struc-
tural fill. The structuralfill soil should be moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of
optimum moisture content, placed in loose lifts of I inches thick or less, and com-
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06770.000-120 REVISED
Page 5 of 12
ffi
pacted to at least 98 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry
density. Moisture content and densíty of structural fill should be checked by a rep-
resentative of our firm during placement. Observation of the compaction procedure
is necessary.
Foundation Wall Backfill
Proper placement and compaction of foundation wall backfill soil is im-
portant to reduce infiltration of surface water and settlement from consolidation of
backfill. This is especially important for backfìll areas that will support exterior con-
crete flatwork. The soils excavated from the site can be used as backfill, provided
they are free of rocks larger than 4-inches in diameter, organics, and debris.
Backfill soil should be placed in loose lifts of approximately 10 inches thick
or less, moisture-conditioned, and compacted. The backfill should be compacted
to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density.
Moisture content and density of the backfill should be checked during placement
by a representative of our firm. Observation of the compaction procedure is nec-
essary.
FOUNDATION
The storage building foundation is planned as a monolithic slab with turned
down edges. The turned down edges will act as footings and transfer roof and wall
loads to the soils. The turned down edges will be subject to significantly greater
loads than the adjacent floor slab. The slab design should account for the different
load intensity, or a construction joint should be included to allow differential
movement.
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
crLlT PROJECT NO. GS06770.000-120 REVTSED
Page 6 of 12
ffi
We judge the storage building monolithic slab with turned down edges can
be supported on the natural soils if floor deflection and cracking are acceptable.
Floor deflection and slab cracking can be significantly reduced if the soíl below the
building footprint is subexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth of at
least 3 feet below the bottom of the slab. The subexcavation process should ex-
tend at least 1 foot beyond the edges of the building perimeter. Structural fill
should be in accordance with the Subexcavation and Structural Fill section.
Recommended design and construction criteria for a monolithic slab are be-
low. lf plans change and a footing foundation is planned, we should be informed o
provide design criteria for a footing foundation. These criteria were developed
based on our analysis of field and laboratory data, as well as our engineering ex-
perience.
The storage building can be constructed on monolithic slab with
turned down edges that is supported by the undisturbed native soil if
floor deflection and slab cracking are acceptable. Floor deflection
and slab cracking can be significantly reduced by supporting the
building on a 3-foot thickness of properly-compacted, structural fill
that is in accordance with the Subexcavation and Structural Fill sec-
tion.
The monolithic slab with turned down edgegcan be designed for a ,
maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure ofJ0@-æf-Slabs are
ade modulus.
We recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pcf if this de-
sign approach is taken.
A friction factor of 0.40 can be used to calculate resistance to sliding
between concrete footings and the natural soils or structuralfill.
4
3
5
The base of the turned down edge should have a minimum width of
16 inches.
The turned down edge should be well-reinforced. We recommend re-
inforcement suffícient to span an unsupported distance of at least 12
feet.
1
2
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06770.000,1 20 REVTSED
PageT of 12
ffi
6.The soils under exterior footings or turned down edges should be
protected from freezing. The Garfield County building department
should be consulted regarding frost protection requirements.
SLAB.ON.GRADE CONSTRUCTION
The storage building will be constructed with a slab-on-grade floor. To re-
duce the potential for floor deflection and slab cracking, we recommend subexcava-
tion of the soils below the floor slab to a depth of 3 feet and replacement with
properly-compacted, structuralfill. The structuralfill should be in accordance with
recommendations in the Subexcavation and Structural Fill section.
Based on our analysis of field and laboratory data, as well as our engineer-
ing experience, we recommend the following precautions for slab-on-grade con-
struction at this site.
The turned down edges will be subject to significantly greater loads
than the adjacent floor slab. The slab design should account for the
different load intensity, or a construction joint should be included to
allow free vertical movement of the slabs.
Underslab plumbing should be pressure tested for leaks before the
slabs are constructed. Plumbing and utilities which pass through
slabs should be isolated from the slabs with sleeves.
Exterior concrete flatwork and pavements should be isolated from
the building. The exterior slabs should be well-reinforced to function
as independent units.
Frequent controf joints should be provided, in accordance with Amer-
ican Concrete lnstitute (ACl) recommendations, to reduce problems
associated with shrinkage and curling.
BELOW-GRADE CONSTRUCT¡ON
We understand the storage building will not include below-grade areas,
such as a basement or crawl space. lf construction plans evolve to include below-
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
crLlT pRoJEcr NO. G506770.000-120 REVISED
1
2
3
4.
Page 8 of 12
ffi
grade areas, we should be informed so that we can provide recommendations for
lateral earth pressures and subsurface drainage systems.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Surface drainage is critical to the performance of building foundations, floor
slabs, and concrete flatwork. Site grading should be designed and constructed to
rapidly convey surface water away from the storage building. Proper surface
drainage and irrigation practices can help control the amount of surface water that
penetrates below the slab and contributes to settlement. We recommend the fol-
lowing precautions.
The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the storage building
should be sloped to rapidly convey surface water away from the
building in all directions. We recommend a constructed slope of at
least 12 inches in the first 10 feet (10 percent) in landscaped areas
around the building.
Backfill around the foundation slab should be moisture-treated and
compacted pursuant to recommendations in the Foundation Wall
Backfill section.
We recommend that the storage building be provided with roof gut-
ters and downspouts. The downspouts should discharge well beyond
the limits of all backfill. Splash blocks and/or extensions should be
provided at all downspouts so water discharges onto the ground be-
yond the backfill. We generally recommend against burial of down-
spout discharge pipes.
Landscaping should be carefully designed and maintained to mini-
mize irrigation. Plants placed close to foundation walls should be lim-
ited to those with low moisture requirements. lrrigated grass should
not be located within 5 feet of the foundation. Sprinklers should not
discharge within 5 feet of foundatíons. Plastic sheeting should not be
placed beneath landscaped areas adjacent to foundation walls or
grade beams. Geotextile fabric will inhibit weed growth yet still allow
natural evaporation to occur.
1
2
3
4
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
cTLIT PROJECT NO. G506770.000¡ 20 REVTSED
Page 9 of 12
ffi
CONCRETE
Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. One sample of
the soil from our exploratory pits that was tested contained 0.09 percent water sol-
uble sulfates (see Table l). For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI 332-08,
"Code Requirements for Residential Concrete", indicates there are no special ce-
ment requirements for sulfate resistance in concrete that is in contact with the
subsoils.
ln our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of
highly permeable concrete, even when sulfate levels are relatively low. To control
this risk and to resist freeze-thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious 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 content of 6 percent +l- 1.5 percent.
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
We recommend that CTLIT be retained to provide construction observation
and materials testing services for the project. This would allow us the opportunity
to verify whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investi-
gation. lf others perform these observations, they must accept responsibility to
judge whether the recommendations in this report remain appropriate. lt is also
beneficialto projects, from economic and practical standpoints, when there is con-
tinuity between engineering consultation and the constructíon obseruation and ma-
terials testing phases.
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
cTLIT PROJECT NO. G506770.000-120 REVTSED
Page 10 of 12
ffi
GEOTECHNICAL RISK
The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical evaluation.
The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop ge-
otechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. We never have
complete knowledge of subsurface conditions. Our analysis must be tempered
with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the recommendations pre-
sented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free. We can-
not provide a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed
structure will lead to performance as desired or intended. Our recommendations
represent our judgment of those measures that are necessary to increase the
chances that the structure will perform satisfactorily. lt is critical that all recom-
mendations in this report are followed.
LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the client. The infor-
mation, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon
consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of structures
proposed, the geologic setting, and the subsurface conditions encountered. The
conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by
others. Standards of practice continuously change in geotechnical engineering.
The recommendations provided in this report are appropriate for about three
years. lf the proposed storage building is not constructed within three years, we
should be contacted to determine if we should update this report.
Our exploratory pits provide a reasonable characterization of subsurface
condítions at the site. Variations in subsurface conditions not indicated by the pits
will occur. We should be provided with architectural plans, as they are further de-
veloped, so we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural engineering input.
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BUILDING
CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06770.000-120 REVTSED
Page 11 of 12
ffi
This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers currently practicing
under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or im-
plied, is made. lf we can be of fudher service in discussing the contents of this re-
port, please call.
CTLITHoMPSON, INC Revíewed by
ß"-,f?-
fan R. Bang, P.E.
Principal E
imech linq @ctlthompson. com
JOHN REED
REED STORAGE BU¡LDING
crLlT pRoJEcr No. GS06770.000-'120 REVTSED
R rbone,
Division Manager
Page 12 of 12
ffi
0 t.000 2.000trFtrFtr-I NOTE:
SQALE: 1'- !,000'
JOHN REED
7650 COUNTY ROAD 312
SATELLITE IMAGE FROM MAXAR
(CoPYRTGHT 2023)
Vicinity
MapcTUT PROJECT NO. GSO6770.OOO-120 FIG. 1
LEGEN D:
TP_1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFI EXPLORATORY PIT
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
ffi
0 50 100 NOTE:
SCÁLE: l'- 100'
JOHN REED
75ıO CC'UNTYRC'.AD3I2
SATELLITE IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH
(DATED oCTOBER 13, 2022)
Aerial
PhotographoTUT PROJECT NO. GSO6770.OOO-120 FIG. 2
TP-1
TOPSOIL, CIáY, SANDY. SILTY, ORGANICS, WET,
DARK BROWN,
CI.AY, SILTY TO SANDY, GRAVEL, COBBLES. VERY
MOTST TO WET, SOFT, DARK BROWN. (CL, CL-ML, GC)
BULK SAMPLE FROM EXCAVATED SOILS.
WATER LEVEL MEASURED AT TIME OF EXCAVATION
EXPLORATORY PITS WERE EXCAVATED WITH A
TRACKHOE ON MAY 17,2023. EXPLORATORY PITS
WERE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION
OPERATIONS WERE COMPTETED.
2. THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS,
LIMITATIONS. AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT.
TP.2 ffi
F
UJult!
IÍF
o_
IJJo
00
55
l-
Llj
LrJlr
tFû
UJo
10
15
LEGEND:
JOHN REED
7550 COUNTY ROAD 312
Summary Logs of
FìIE'rratóry
FIG.3
g
NOTES:
1.
10
15
F
g
CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06770.000-120
ffi
GRAVELSANDS
GLAY (PLAST|C) TO StLT (NON-PLASTTC)
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE coARsË COBBLES
SIEVE ANALYSISHYDROMETERANALYSIS
.--t--
__-t ---,
---1-
---t-
-t---
_--t.-_-__t_-__t_-__
-_-_t------t--*
-j=::
.-t7-
---t-_t-____t___
-._t_--
=_.--*t----
-l-/
__---t--
-----,-_,t--
_t__t_
-----J-
_-t_
_-t_ _-
0
l0
20
30
40
50
60
70
00
90
9706.t)
Í60
F-z
850
É.t¡lÊ40
o
IUz
Þ
uJü
t-z
IJJo
É.
UJÀ
127 ZOO
152
90
80
'100
s.52 19.1 36.1 76.2.001 0.002 .005 .009 .01s .037 .o74 .149
100
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
TIME READINGS
60 MrN. 19 MlN. 4 MlN. I MrN. '200
U.S, STANDARD SERIES
'100 '50'40 '30 '18 '10'8
CLEAR SAUARE OPENINGS
3/8' 314" 1%" 3" 5'8" 8'
30
20
10
u .297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.78
0.42
25 HR. 7 HR.
45 MtN. r5 MtN.
Somple of GRAVEL, cLAyEy (cc)From TP-1 AT 2-3 FEET
Somple of
From
JOHN REED
7550 COUNTY ROAD 312
PROJECT NO. GS06770.000-120
GRAVEL
SILT & CLAY
PLASTICITY INDEX
GRAVEL
SILT & CLAY
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
24%
o/o
%
4O o/o
is v"
o/o SAND
o/o LIOUID LIMIT
o/o
Yo
%
Gradation
Test Results
SANDS GRAVEL
COBBLEScLAY (PLASTTC) TO SrLT (NON-PI-ASTTC)
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
-t-_
I___ì__
---_--t---,_,,,.-
-_t--
4_._t.__-_
---
t---
-'---- -t-_*-
----- --t---"-.-l------
10
20
30
40
50
60
7g
80
90
100
127 200
152
90
80
otoz6Ø
Í60
t-z
850
Uodo
30
20
10
0 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 9.52 t9,1 36.1 76.2
loo
TIME READINGS
60 MtN. 19 MtN. 4 MlN. 1 MlN. '200
U,S. STANDARD SERIES
'100 .50'40 '30 t16 '10'8
CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS
3/8' 3t4' 1yi', 3', 5'6"
.074 .149 .297 .590 1.19 2.O 2.38 4,76
o.42
OIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR. 7 HR.
45 MlN. 15 MtN.
FIG.4
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
PROJECT NO. cS06770-120
ffi
DESCRIPTION
CLAY, SANDY (CL)
GRAVEL, CLAYEY (GC)
CLAY, SILTY, SANDY (CL.ML)
CLAY, SILTY, SANDY (CL-ML)
PASSING
NO.200
SIEVE
(%j
36
68
50
PERCENT
SAND
(o/o\
24
PERCENT
GRAVEL
("/")
40
SOLUBLE
SULFATES
(o/o)
0.09
ATTERBERG LIMITS
PLASTICITY
INDEX
(o/o\
16
6
LIQUID
LIMIT
(o/o)
31
23
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
MOISTURE
CONÏENT
(o/o\
21.0
10.2
21.6
28.6
DEPTH
(FEET)
2-3
8-9
4-5
10-11
EXPLORATORY
PIT
TP.1
TP-1
TP-2
1P-2
Page 1 of 1