Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils Report for Foundation Designffi GTLITHOMPSON GEOTECHNIGAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION hr-\j -:1,1:::-t:r.'1e-{€!g-ra-4il5r:.--!:iE::?ar*F:'glra:I-*'.-siC?'t-.'-',?:-d ICE HOUSE ADDITION 54 PINE STREET CARBONDALE, COLORADO Prepared for: Maura and Brett Wamsley 54 Pine Street Carbondale, CO 81623 CTLIT Project No. GS06929.000-120-R1 December 11,2024 CTLlThompson, lnc. Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Sorinqs, Glenwood Sprinos, Pueblo, Summit Countv - Colorado Chevenne, Wyoming and Bozeman, Montana NKI Et Erul uiFIN +resEE l/it= ; r't E 5 =l cJ ri *l ri# cEl g r*r t:l r= EBIIE -Et fr =Jet =tl =E SI EH ffi Table of Contents scoPE....... SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS.... SITE CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .,... SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........ EARTHWORK................. Excavations Subexcavation and Structural Fill Foundation Wall Backfi 11.............. FOUNDATIONS...... SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION .. BELOW-GRADE CONSTRUCTION..... SURFACE DRAINAGE CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ... GEOTECHNICAL RISK LtMtTAT|ONS ................ FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 3 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION FIGURE 4 - SUMMARY LOG OF EXPLORATORY PIT FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION GTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06929.000-1 20-R1 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 5 6 6 7 7 o I 9 ffi SCOPE CTLIThompson, lnc. (CTLIT) has completed a geotechnical engineering investigation regarding the addition to the residence located at 54 pine street in Carbondale, Colorado. We conducted this investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotech- nical engineering recommendations for the planned construction. The scope of our investigation was set forth in our Proposal No. GS 24-0161. Our report was prepared from data developed from our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and our experience with simi- lar conditions. This report includes a description of subsurface conditions found in our explorato- ry pit and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the foundation, floor system, and details influenced by the subsoils. Recommendations in this report were developed based on our understanding of the currently planned construction. We should be provided with architectural plans, as they are further developed, so that we can pro- vide geotechnical/geo-structural engineering input. A summary of our conclusions is below. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory pit excavated at the site consisted of about 6 inches of "topsoil" over 5.5 feet of silty gravel with cobbles and boulders. Groundwater was not encountered in our pit. Our experience indicates that the silty gravel and cobble soil at the site generally exhibits good foundation support characteristics. Existing fill or clay should be removed from below the planned addition. The addition can be constructed on footing foundations that are supported on the undisturbed, silty gravel and/or densely compacted, structural fill. Existing fill or clay soil should be removed from below the footings. We judge that slab-on-grade floors are appropriate for the site provided existing fill is removed from below the slabs. Good floor slab performance can be ex- pected for slabs supported on the silty gravel and cobble soils. Densely- compacted, structuralfill may be required to raise grades or replace unsuitable soil below slabs. A foundation wall drain should be constructed around the perimeter of the foun- datiorr of tlre addition. Site grading slrould be designed and constructed to rapidly convey surface water away from the building. MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION GTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06929.000-120-Rl 1 2. 3. 4. 5 Page 1 of 10 ffi SITE CONDITIONS The Wamsley residence is located at 54 Pine Street in Carbondale, Colorado. A vicinity map with the locatlon of the site is included as Figure 1. "lhe property is an approximately 0.36 acre parcel. An aerial photograph of the site is shown on Figure 2. The existing residence on the property is a two-story wood frame structure with a crawl space. Ground surface in the area of the proposed addition is relatively flat and has been landscaped with irrigated grass. Our obser- vations indicated the existing structure has performed adequately. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION A site plan by The Outpost Studio (dated October 21,2024) indicates that the new addi- tion will be a one-level structure with slab-on-grade floor and no below-grade areas. The addi- tion is planned on the south side of the existing residence and has a footprint of 850 square feet. We expect maximum foundation excavation depths of about 3 feet will be required to con- struct the addition. We should be provided with architectural plans, as they are further devel- oped, so that we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural engineering input. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS To investigate subsurface conditions, CTLIT directed excavation of one exploratory pit (TP-1) on November 8,2024. The pit was excavated with a track-lroe at the approxirrrate loca- tion shown on Figures 2 and 3. Exploratory excavation operations were observed by our repre- sentative who logged subsurface conditions encountered and obtained representative samples of the soils. A graphic log of subsurface conditions found in our exploratory pit is included as Figure 4. Subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory pit excavated at the site consisted of about 6 inches of "topsoil" over 5.5 feet of silty gravelwith cobbles and boulders. Groundwa- ter was not encountered in our pit at the time of excavation. The pit was backfilled after explora- tory operations were completed. Samples of the subsoils obtained from our pit were selected for laboratory testing that included grain size analysis and water-soluble sulfates. A sample selected for grain size analy- MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION CTLIT PROJECT NO. cS06929.000-1 20-R1 Page 2 of 10 ffi sis contained 58 percent gravel, 30 percent sand, and 12 percent silt and clay sized particles (passing the No. 200 sieve). The samples did not include rocks larger 3 inches, which are pre- sent in the in-situ soils. Grain size analysis results are shown on Figure 5. Laboratory test re- sults are summarized on Table l. EARTHWORK Excavations Our subsurface investigation indicates excavations at the site can be made with conven- tional, heavy-duty excavating equipment, such as a medium to large-size trackhoe. Large boul- ders r4ay be encountered during excavation. From a "trench safety" standpoint, sides of excava- tions must be sloped or retained to meet local, state, and federal safety regulations. The soils at this site will likely classifo as Type C soils based on OSHA standards governing excavations. Temporary slopes deeper than 5 feet should be no steeper than 1.5 to 1 in Type C soils. The contractor's "competent person" is required to review excavation conditions and refer to OSHA Standards when worker exposure is anticipated. Contractors should identify the soils encoun- tered and ensure that OSHA standards are met. We do not anticipate excavations for the planned construction at the site will penetrate a free groundwater table. Water from seepage, precipitation, and snowmelt can likely be mitigated by sloping excavations to gravity discharges, or to temporary sumps, where water can be re- moved by pumping. Excavations should not undermine the existing footings. Excavations should generally be sloped away from existing foundations. We recommend against new footings that are parallel to and in close proximity to existing building foundation walls. lf this situation is part of the de- sign for the addition foundation a checkerboard excavation sequence, underpinning, or bracing will be required. CTLIT can assist with preliminary design for a checkerboard excavation se- quence, underpinning, or bracing, if requested. MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION crLlT PROJECT NO. G506929.000-120-R1 Page 3 of 10 ffi Subexcavation and Structural Fill Our experience indicates the silty gravel and cobble soil at the site generally exhibits good foundation support characteristics. Natural clay and existing fill soilwith unknown support characteristics may be present at the site. Clay and existing fill should be removed from below the footings, floor slabs, and exterior slabs. Footing and slab-on-grade elevations can be re- attained with densely compacted, structural fill. Additionally, a 4- to 6-inch{hick layer of struc- turalfill placed as a leveling course may be conduciveto construction of footings and floor slabs. CTLIT should be called to observe conditions exposed in subexcavated areas, prior to placing structural fi ll. The on-site excavated soils can be reused as structural fill, provided they are screened to remove rocks larger than 4 inches in diameter, organics, and debris. lmport soil needed for structural fill should consist of an aggregate base course or pit run material with a maximum rock size of 4 inches and 10 to 30 percent silt and clay size material. A sample of potential im- port soil for structural fill should be submitted to CTLIT for approval prior to the hauling to the site. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts of 8 inches thick or less, moisture- conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 98 per- cent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Moisture content and density of structural fill should be checked by a representative of CTLIT during placement. Observation of the compaction procedure is necessary. Foundation Wall Backfill Proper placement and compaction of foundation backfill is important to reduce infiltration of surface water and settlement of backfill. This is especially important for backfill areas that will support exterior concrete flatwork, such as driveways and patios. The on-site excavated soils can be reused as backfill, provided they are screened to remove organics, debris, and rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter. Backfill should be placed in loose lifts of approximately 10 inches thick or less, moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) dry density. MAURA A,ND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION GTLIT PROJECT NO. G506929.000-120-R1 Page 4 of 10 ffi Moisture content and density of the backfill should be checked by CTLIT during placement. Ob- servation of the compaction procedure is necessary. FOUNDATIONS Our experience indicates the silty gravel and cobble soil at the site generally exhibits good foundation support characteristics. Natural clay and existing fill soilwith unknown support characteristics may be present at the site. The natural clay and existing flll should be removed from below the foundations to expose the underlying, silty gravel and cobbles. lf necessary, footing elevations can be re-attained with densely compacted, structural fill in accordance with recommendations in the Subexcavation and Structural Fill section. Footings can be supported by the undisturbed, silty gravel and/or the densely compacted, structural fill. Additionally, a 4- to 6-inch-thick layer of structural fill placed as a leveling course may be conducive to construction of footings and floor slabs. Recommended design and construction criteria for footing foundations are below. These criteria were developed based on our analysis of field and laboratory data, as well as our engi- neering experience. Footings should be supported on the undisturbed, silty gravel and/or densely compacted, structuralfill in conformance with the Subexcavation and Structural Fill section. Footings on the undisturbed, silty gravel and/or densely compacted, structural fill can be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The weight of backfill soils above footings can be neglected for bearing pressure calculation. A friction factor of 0.35 can be used to calculate resistance to sliding between concrete footings and the soils. Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Founda- tions for isolated columns should have minimum dimensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required, depending upon foundation loads, Grade beams and foundation walls should be well-reinforced. We recommend re- inforcement sufficient to span an unsupported distance of at least 12 feet. The soils under exterior footings should be protected from freezing. We recom- mend the bottom of footings be constructed at a depth of at least 36 inches be- low finished exterior grades. The Garfield County building department should be consulted regarding frost protection requirements. MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION CTLIT PROJECT NO. G506929.000-120-R1 1 2 3. 4. 5. 6 Page 5 of 10 SLAB.ON.G RADE CONSTRUCTION Plans indicate floors of the new addition will be constructed as slab-on-grade. Our expe- rience indicates the silty gravel and cobble soil at the site generally exhibits good support char- acterlstlcs. Natural clay and existing fill soilwith unknown support characteristics may be pre- sent at the site. Natural clay and existing fill should be removed from below interior floor slabs and exterior slabs. Slab-on-grade elevations can be re-attained with densely compacted, struc- turalfill as recommended in the Subexcavation and Structural Fill section. Based on our analysis of field and laboratory data, as well as our engineering experi- ence, we recommend the following precautions for slab-on-grade construction at this site. Slabs should be separated from wall footings and column pads with slip joints, which allow free vertical movement of the slabs. Underslab plumbing should be pressure{ested for leaks before the slabs are constructed. Plumbing and utilities which pass through slabs should be isolated from the slabs with sleeves and provided with flexible couplings to slab- supported appliances. Exterior concrete slabs, such as sidewalks and patios, should be isolated from the building. These slabs should be well-reinforced to function as independent units. Frequent controljoints should be provided, in accordance with American Con- crete lnstitute (ACl) recommendations, to reduce problems associated with shrinkage and curling. The lnternational Building Gode (lBC) may require a vapor retarder be placed be- tween the base course or subgrade soils and the concrete slab-on-grade floors, The merits of installation of a vapor retarder below floor slabs depends on the sensitivity of floor coverings and building to moisture. A properly installed vapor retarder (10 mil minimum) is more beneficial below concrete slab-on-grade floors where floor coverings, painted floor surfaces or products stored on the floor will be sensitive to moisture. The vapor retarder is most effective when concrete is placed directly on top of it. A sand or gravel leveling course should not be placed between the vapor retarder and the floor slab. The placement of concrete on the vapor retarder may increase the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. BELOW-GRADE CONSTRUCTION We understand that no belowgrade areas, such as basements or crawl space, are planned for the addition. lf plans change to include below-grade areas, CTLIT should be con- MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION CTLIT PROJECT NO. cS06929.000-1 20-R1 1 2 3. 4. 5 Page 6 of 10 ffi tacted to provide recommendations for lateral earth pressures and subsurface drainage. SURFACE DRAINAGE Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, floor slabs, and concrete flatwork. Site grading should be designed and constructed to rapidly convey surface water away from the building. Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices can help control the amount of surface water that penetrates to foundation levels and contributes to settlement or heave of soils and bedrock that support foundations and slabs-on-grade. Positive drainage away from the foundation and avoidance of irrigation near the foundation also help to avoid excessive wetting of backfill soils, which can lead to increased backfill settlement and possibly to higher lateral earth pressures, due to increased weight and reduced strength of the backfill. We recommend the following precautions. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence should be sloped to rapidly convey surface water away from the building in all directions. We recom- mend a minimum constructed slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet in landscaped areas. Backfill around the exterior of foundation walls should be moisture-treated and compacted pursuant to recommendations in the Foundation Wall Backfill. ln- creases in the moisture content of the backfill soils after placement often results in settlement. Re-establishing proper slopes (owner maintenance) away from the building may be necessary. We recommend that the residence be provided with roof drains or gutters and downspouts. The drains and/or downspouts should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Splash blocks and/or extensions should be provided at all drains and/or downspouts so water discharges onto the ground beyond the back- fill. We generally recommend against burial of downspout discharge pipes. 4.Landscaping should be designed and maintained to minimize irrigation. Plants placed close to foundation walls should be limited to those with low moisture re- quirements. lrrigated grass 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 landscaped areas adjacent to foundation walls or grade beams. Geotextile fabric can be used to control weed growth and allow some evaporation to occur. CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured a water- soluble sulfate concentration of 0.10 percent in a sample of the soil from the site (see Table l) MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION cTLlr pRoJEcT NO. GS06929.000-120-Rl 1 2 3 Page 7 of 10 Pursuant to our test and ACI 332-20, this concentration corresponds to a sulfate exposure class of "Moderate" or RS1 as indicated on the table below. SULFATE EXP(JSURE CLASSES PtR ACI332-20 Percent sulfate by mass in soil determined by 1 580 For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI 332-20,'Code Requirements for Residential Concrete", indicates there are special cement type requirements for sulfate resistance as indi- cated on the table below. CONCRETE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SULFATE EXPOSURE PER ACI 332-20 A) Concrete compressive strength specified be on 28-day tests perASTM C39/C39MB) Alternate combinations of cementitious materials of those listed in ACI when tested for sulfate resistance meeting the criteria in section 5.5. 332-20 Table 5.4.2 shallbe permitted C) Other available types of cement such as Type lll or Type I are permitted in Exposure Classes RS1 or RS2 if the C3A eontents are less than I or 5 percent, respectively. D) The amount of the specific source of pozzolan or slag to be used shall not be less than the amount that has bccn dctcrmincd by service record to improve sulfate resistancc when used in concrete containing Type V cement. Alternatively, the amount of the specific source of the pozzolan or slab to be used shall not be less than the amotrnt tested in accordance with ASTM C1A12|C1012M and meeting the criteria in section 5,5,1 of ACt332-20. E) Water-soluble chloride ion content that is contributed from the ingredients including water aggregates, ce- mentitious materials, and admixtures shall be determined on the concrete mixture ASTM C12181C1218M between 29 and 42days. MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION cTLIT PROJECT NO. G506929.000-1 20-Rl Exposure Classes Water-Soluble Sulfate (SOa) in SoilA (%l Not Applicable RSO < 0.10 Moderate RS1 0.10 to 0.20 Severe RS2 0.20 to 2.00 Very Severe RS3 > 2.00 Cementitious Material Tvoes B Exposure Class Maximum Water/ Cement Ratio Minimum Compressive Strength A (psi) ASTM c150t c150M ASTM c595/ c595M ASTM c1157t e1157M Calcium Chloride Admixtures RSO N/A 2500 No Type Restrictions No Type Restrictions No Type Restrictions No Restrictions RS1 0.50 2500 il Type with (MS) Designation MS No Restrictions RS2 0.45 3000 Vc Type with (HS) Designation HS Not Permitted RS3 0.45 3000 V + Pozzolan or Slag Cement D Type with (HS) Designation plus Pozzolan or Slag Cement E HS + Pozzolan or Slag Cement E Not Permitted Prda f, ^f {n ffi Superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete. 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 sur- face drainage or high-water tables. Concrete should have a total air content ol60/o +/-1.5%. We recommend foundation walls and grade beams in contact with the subsoils be damp-proofed. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that CTLIT be retained to provide construction observation and materi- als testing services for the project. This would allow us the opportunity to verify whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investigation. lf others perform these ob- servations, 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 continuity between engineering consultation and the construction observation and materials testing phases. 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 geotechnical 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 rec- ommendations in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free. We cannot provide a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structures 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 structures will perform satisfacto- rily. lt is criticalthat all recommendations in this report are followed. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client. The information, con- clusions, and recommendations provided herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of structures proposed, the geologic setting, and the sub- surface conditions encountered. Standards of practice continuously change in geotechnical en- MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION crLlT PROJECT NO. GS06929.000-1 20-Rl Page 9 of 10 L?a',y'/4 ffi /ts gineering. The recommendations provided in this report are appropriate for about three years. lf the proposed project is not constructed within three years, we should be contacted to determine if we should update this report. Our exploratory pit provides a reasonable characterization of subsurface conditions at the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by the pit will occur. The recom- mendations in this report were developed based on plans at the time of our investigation. Revi- sions in the planned construction could affect our recommendations. We should be provided with structural and architectural plans, as they are further developed, so that we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural eng i neering input. 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 implied, is made. lf we can be of further ser- vice in discussing the contents of this report, please call. cTLITHOMPSON, tNC Reviewed by: ) i fi;t ';J .o5 't/ oooc0 AL Kimberly Talbed Staff Geologist kta I be rt@ctlth om pson. co m MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITION CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06929.000-1 20-Rl Craig A. Burger, P. Principal Engineer Page 10 of 10 ffi 0 500 1000 NOTE: SCALE: 1'- 1000' IVIAURA AT{D BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSEADDMON oTUT PROJECT NO. GSO6929.OOO-120 SATELLITE IMAGE FROM MMAR (coPYRrcHT 2024) Vicinity Map Flg. 1 LEGEND: TP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF T EXPLORATORY PIT ffi 50 60 NOTE: SCALE: 1'- 50' I,AURA AI{D BRETT WAMSLtr ICE HOUSEADDMON oTUT PROJECT NO. GSO6929.OOO-120 SATELLITE IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH (DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2021) Aerial Photograph TP-1 L LJ UJEFa LJz E Flg. 2 LEGEND: TP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF I EXPLOMTORY PIT NOTE: ffi 0 30 60 SGALE: 1'= 60' BASE IMAGE BY THE OUTPOST STUDIO (DATED ocroBER 21, 2oz4) l, TP-1 _lt- {** "^^*-/-\ -' .\1r. ' ,a . .t.:,, .rl\i ' wooD DECK ONE STORY WOOD GARAGE ,u," MULTI-LEVEL .., WOOD HOUSE i!; !li J PLANNED ADDITION r--1 I4AURA AAID BRETT WAMSLW ICE HOUSEN)DMONcrur PRoJEcr No. Gso6929.ooo-120 Proposed Construction ns. 3 ru, TP-1 5 10 MAURA AND BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITON CTLIT PROJECT NO. cS06929.0000-120 LEGEND: TOPSOIL SANDY, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN. GRAVEL, SILTY, COBBLES AND BOULDERS, MEDIUM DENSE. BROWN, TAN. (GP.GM) INDICATES BULK SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM EXCAVATED SOILS. NOTES: THE EXPLOMTORY PIT WAS EXCAVATED WITH A TRACKHOE ON NOVEMBER 08, 2024. THE PIT WAS BACKFILLED AFTER EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION OPEMTIONS WERE COMPLETED. 2. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT FOUND IN OUR EXPLOMTORY PITS ATTHE TIME OF EXCAVATION. 3. THIS LOG IS SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT ffi Summary Log of Filo,oratbry FIG.4 0 Fl! UJlt IFo-u,o F Fulut Lr IFo-lrlo 5 10 ffi SANDS GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM COARS FINE COARSE COBBLES HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 _l -r-- -/ --: 9706o f60Fz Es0u UJr4o oulz FU e.Fzulotul 0- '4 127 200 '152 90 80 100 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 100 TIME READINGS 60 MrN. 19 MtN. 4 MtN. 1 MtN. .200 U.S. STANDARD SERIES '100 '50'40 '30 '16 '10 '8 CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS 3/8" 314" tw', 3" 5"6'I' 30 20 10 0 .o74 .149 .297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 0.42 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 25 HR. 7 HR. 45 MtN. 15 MtN. cLAY (PLASTTC) TO SrLT (NON-PLASTTC) Somple of CnRVer, StLTy (Gp-GM) From TP-1 - AT4 FEET GRAVEL sA% sAND SILT & CLAY 12 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 30 Yo % % SANDS GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM COARS FINE COARSE COBBLES crAY (PIASTTC) TO SILT (NON.PLASTTC) SIEVE ANALYSIS _t_ --t----------f------- -t_* 100 90 80 o70z6 $oFz 850Eul\o 30 20 10 0 76.2 127 200 152 '4 t0 20 '200 '100 70 80 90 '100 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 9.52 19.1 36.1 TIME READINGS 60 MtN. 19 MtN. 4 MtN. I MtN. U.S, STANDARD SERIES '50'40 '30 '16 '10 '8 CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS 3/8" 3t4" 1W 3" 5"6' 30ffz 40f; trFs0Eoe, ooH .074 .149 .297 .590 1.'19 2.O 2.38 4.76 o.42 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 25 HR. 7 HR. 45 MtN. 15 MtN. Somple of From MAURA & BRETT WAMSLEY ICE HOUSE ADDITON PROJECT NO. GS06929.000-120 GRAVEL o/o SILT & CLAY O/o PLASTICITY INDE' SAND LIOUID LIMIT o/o % % Gradation Test Results FIG. 5 TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06929.000-120 ffi DESCRIPTION GRAVEL. SILry:GP-GM) PASSING NO.200 SIEVE e/") 12 PERCENT SAND (o/o\ 30 PERCENT GRAVEL (o/o) 58 SOLUBLE SULFATES e/o', 0.10 -SWELL (%l ATTERBERG LIMITS PLASTICITY INDEX (o/o\ LIQUID LIMIT (o/o\ DRY DENSITY {PCF) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 3.6 DEPTH (FEET) 4-5 EXPLORATORY BORING TP-1 Page 1 of 1