HomeMy WebLinkAbout5496 No. 5496
GARPTR/ 1) COUNTY
BUILDING, SAMTATION and PLANNING DEPARTMENT
109 Sib Strcct ,Suitt 303
Glenwood Springs, j)olorado 81601
(303)995:8212
Job Address County Road 320 Rifle r
Nature J oCwork Building Permit I 6' ; �i' '� L . �' ^
Use of Building Install Aanu. /11 � e on ,A■yiundation n It '
Owner Gil Batt
Contractor Owner 1 '
Amount oC Permit $ 515.80 \ I r D.,10 J f. April 28, 1995
Permit: 252.00 ■
Plan : 163.80/% i' �i l
Set Up Fee 100.00;
Paid 278.70 4 -7 -95 S. Archuleta
Clerk
.� BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
' /
Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. PERMIT NO. " -- 7 / b PARCEUSCHED NO.
Go
JOB ADDRESS / LiOK 0 /e
1 LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK SUBDIVISION
DESCR.
2 OWNER l.Pl (, AD DRESS i ? o 6 S 0 A i ) 1 (OI0JPfOii PH & (�J 3 WK. PH. g >�, -C l
3 CONTRACTOR 6,. 1. ' (�" / ADDRESS li /I PH. I 1 LICENSE NO.
4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER ADDRESS PH. LICENSE NO.
5 ENGINEER ()) Cbu/A ADDRESS PH. LICENSE NO.
6 S.F OF BUILDING /) i-
S.F OF LOT f ) c rs HEIGHT / , S F} NO. OF FLOORS J
7 USE OF BUILDING ?Qrrrnc crJ_3 v 0\JJd(l/J
8 CLASS or wORK: XNEW nADDITION oALTERATION r o REPAIR o MOVE � o MOVE [ /�[/ � nor--
9 DESCRIBE WORK: l .V� /VILLA) NQ r rEr 7 ) � 2- ' RJ 0,igi T Y I \ - / 1 \ OCV C.tr 1 � G\`w YyJF , 1 CD 'I Fb'�'
- � 1.N TU \ * 1J.�c1-4r G>j WSTc .N e- sA
10 GARAGE SNGLE DOUBL ((( C ARPORT SINGLE DOUBLE V \ V
DRIVEWAY PERMIT ON SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT SITE PLAN
I 1 VALUATION or WORK:$ OW ADJUSTED VALQry 7 PLAN C/IEAC�E I PERMIT FEE ( - l�a
•
S
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: // (/ j K X /..c: " SCHOOL IMPACT FEE • NO. OF BUILDINGS ON USE OF BUILDINGS NOW ON •
qq �rff ° J /8 ` r /y/ PARCEL Q � I PARCEL 1 1
// ��'7/ V . / TOTAL FEE ``�'''' C" c OCC. GRR 3./1-1 'U orfr. TYPE of
NOTICE WATER SUPPL DATE PERMIT ISSUED 9 Q -I
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING,
VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. SPECIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED R NOT REOUIRED
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS ZONING I
NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED
OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS
COMMENCED. HEALTH DEPT.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW
THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES FIRE DEPT.
GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED
HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE SOIL REPORT
AUTHORITY TO VOLATE OR r • CEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR
LOCAL LAW F EGUI_Q,TING I •IS TR UGTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF SETBACKS
CONSTRUCT 1 _ -
1 (Date) \ ?- -C I , . c
FLOOD HAZARD
•
Sign .� , Contra/ I. Pad age ad derslood nolic a e
/. g MANUF. HOME
•I 9 O• .rhn: 4/ Planning Depa era Approval /date
OTHER
AGREEMENT
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT AS OWNER, CONTRACTOR AND /OR THE AGENT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER TO
CONSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE AS DETAILED ON PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT THE SIGNER HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND LAND USE
REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY GARFIELD COUNTY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GIVEN IN 30.28.201 CRS AS AMENDED. THE SIGNER FURTHER
AGREES THAT IF THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCES ARE NOT FULLY COMPLIED WITH IN THE LOCATION, ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRUCTURE. THE PERMIT MAY THEN BE REVOKED BY NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY AND THAT THEN AND THERE IT
SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID.
THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BASED UPON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM
THEREAFTER REQUIRING THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA OR FROM PREVENTING BUILDING
OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WHEN IN VIOLATION OF THIS CODE OR ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THIS
JURISDICTION.
THE REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED THEREAFTER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN
" • T" ,:.. Im ?. ' • k SIBILITIES OR LIABILITIES BY GARFIELD COUNTY FOR ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES. THE
a'' :. • jams
.. S AND IMPLEMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION RESTS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ARCHITECT, DESIGNER,
01 DI9i 7Yh ! fQ r • t • : : S S ARE INTENDED TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE OWNERS INTEREST. ��
trform TS 07 199951 H ;. o i ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE AGREEMENT ABOVE IINITIAL /✓�+ 1
I:a.AAFIEL.D COUNT
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING AND PLANNING
NOTICE
A COPY OF THIS PLAN REVIEW IS ATTACHED TO THE OWNER'S OR
CONTRACTOR'S COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS. THIS PLAN REVIEW IS
PROVIDED IN CONJUNCTION WITH OR IN PLACE OF REDLINING THE
APPROVED PLAN.
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER AND /OR THE CONTRACTOR TO
CLOSELY REVIEW THE PLAN REVIEW AND VERIFY THAT ALL CORRECTIONS
NOTED ARE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CODES ADOPTED BY
GARFIELD COUNTY.
THE ISSUANCE OR GRANTING OF A PERMIT OR APPROVAL OF PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS AND COMPUTATIONS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE A
PERMIT FOR, OR AN APPROVAL OF, ANY VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY CODE, ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION OF GARFIELD
COUNTY. PERMITS PRESUMING TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR
CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF CONSTRUCTION CODES OR OTHER
ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS OF GARFIELD COUNTY SHALL NOT BE VALID.
THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BASED UPON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND
OTHER DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM
THEREAFTER REQUIRING THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN SAID PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA, OR FROM PREVENTING BUILDING
OPERATIONS BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WHEN IN VIOLATION OF
CODES, ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS OF GARFIELD COUNTY.
(Authority under the 1988 Uniform Building Code Section 303 (c). titled:
Validity of Permit.)
THE REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED THEREAFTER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN
ACCEPTANCE OF ANY RESPONSIBILITIES OR LIABILITIES BY GARFIELD
COUNTY FOR ERRORS OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES. THE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THESE ITEMS AND IMPLEMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION RESTS
SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ARCHITECT, DESIGNER, BUILDER AND OWNER.
COMMENTS AND NOTATIONS FD TO RUCTIVE AND IN
SUPPORT OF THE OWNERS INTEST. �" iS e .
__C 44 6416\ 4 kct: e r *
te
` s
Art Hougland, of Building Official
PRNOTICE
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945 8212/625- 5571/285 -7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
, eve pa/nor-se v go la
717.71 %.
r ) ecrietierete oef ei
si....,B,Titor, :co Not., Rewor my Per
xcrE,FTIcy;s i es . regi e o p ge4Wirtliffili
13.1iMAJ,U":si; A.VEirls"N IZ le s le - Res.
Date raf ,f5E
co —
B p
:. VinticdiT "
r:i.."%kz, ON SIVE
ettnorr coq
•
•. •,
•
GARFIELD COUNTY
•
BUILDING AND PLANNING
MANUFACTURED HOMES
Installation requirements within Garfield County
1. A fuel gas pipeline pressure test is required by the installer and the test
required to be witnessed and approved by the Garfield County building
inspector. Test must be at a minimum pressure of 10 psi and show no
appreciable drop within 15 minutes. A gage capable of indicating pressures
no higher than 60 psi shall be used in the test.
2. All stairs serving the unit. on the exterior are to comply with the U.B.C.
(Uniform Building Code) Section 3306 for rise, run, handrails and guardrail's.
3. All decks and porches which are more than 30 inches above grade are •
required to have guardrail's complying with U.B.C. Section 1711 with a
minimum height of 36 inches. Guardrail's shall have intermediate rails or an
ornamental pattern such that a sphere 6 inches in diameter cannot pass
through.' Grade (Adjacent Ground Elevation) is to be measured at points 5
feet horizontally from the level of the walking surface vertically to finished
ground, floor or similar surface.
4. If manufactured home is placed on a basement foundation the foundation and
the basement shall comply with requirements of the U.B.C. including but not
limited to:
(a) Installation of smoke detectors in the basement and in the
Manufactured home. U.B.C. Section 1210.
(b) Installation of escape or rescue windows. U.B.C. Section 1204.
(c) Providing of light, ventilation and sanitation. U.B.C. Section 1205.
(d) Providing of minimum room dimensions. U.B.C. Section 1207.
(e) Protection of insulating Materials for flame spread requirements.
U.B.C. Sections 1712 & 1713.
(I) Forming and placing of concrete for foundation and floor slab. U.B.C.
Chapter 26.
5. A final inspection of the placement, blocking, lie - downs, skirling, grading and
compliance with above items is required and approval given by the building
department prior to occupancy of the manufactured home or basement.
(see other side)
109 BTII STREET, SUITE 303 • 9 45- 02121625- 5571/205 -7972 • GLENWOOO SPRINGS, COLORADO 01601
rJ (•
QJ �
3
r
h I r i •
q
car
1
ql
1
iff r
\ p i irK-,.., ii . --„„ • ,
25.--#3:.-
):
\ w n '
... )1 j N
1 : '
Vbp ti.� LI j
� i O q / �
�y � a b b
wY I N
-
MI 11 e t s r C I .� !IiI I i � M \ � ;), i. *: # o soN do% \ w '14 C'-.e. V 43
i ii ii I 1 : !I 1 Pi htip.... at
e
ii i 1 li 1! Je !rt A Th.," ,i -i s \ - %. N
L'.: i i'. I; ic 5 II !!' itift FAL ‘ i
joi !VII; i! ri ilitialiiiittlitia 11 t • __
i il,ury ; i a ,), . . ; I \ \ '. . " i
P 1 Hi :! e 1; A l \ l i t !f
1
'Mtfl1II1PJ'IIflf t g as i�f { �B l• ' r "� it KE' g �l i� ! !'
� ! e1
;:. G A RAGES • I . •
"' I. sitar. nnna �7F
1 6'x 7' & 8' x 7'
20' NInLt+ 3 x� u
pnnw yjjs Nf
ywurrnnw Wis.
n kwrlrk &I nwFM nnna}. 1-2r1? 1. 2- 11'
yrl.Innws N/A
(lSpwa11 nnoat
. VIC4"Fy you < /v2
L049 4
L_„u4 24° O.C_ —.. WS
f i be rrl l as
Haut US — — — — 1. —.—
iALl s_J1 uart'I ' l �• �►} _
161 w r .. ltklA.. Y"
y�iii!��IIJ1�lU�iiiii,�
si,u14 2x4 16" O.C.
c trim r.
4x8 Omni boa 1
SN➢
n c WWI
6'
Gil boJly '.
r
1nC0 r• I,nwne� : 1 •11‘ . r . . .. Wi n. 4.
rl .il' I , L. .. nIe it Au
•
83
t� 1'VyN�/ 19 •1 11F •ArIl
iTi '�k11 ! ,
;it
''t • k
..r..• •lt t .J .- ��r;r'. r��
+ 1 ■
r•u .. �� � �. I r . r �-.� .�. r .. :S. 1,.�~ I�I�I�I�h�'1�'hl1
1_ .�— I It I �� I I : II
� ft Il .
I I �Y
�I 6X 7 , �X
i I i! •
4r �. . Ir cii?. . �.' . to
• � l, e ac: . r DC D. I K e v � ; ti,r
IHH, . H.: 1: aLFI i
4
• , • .' :412.2 lir ACi Pr 7 44 - ---'-- --
- -- „ ,.
, __-- __..-.` - '--- L LiCr ' 4 C-a(e, f Ad c s
-
rh rt.) vGif ad --
_--- --------\----.3---- ,
__---
_.---," HU() A4brtpd...)ga
...-4--
----, , 77 .-cza4rt-ii Go/
40 40 zoofrEJ coAo
• - A i' ,,, • 7 2 . D r y ‘ . 4 . , F ., c h . _ L . „ . ) I e - 00 cs....ict 0 pv A./ ,7(-4.,Pt 5 I
gitiC Le? —; e a
4::arect
/.2
Alzir t-i-afidea
tAele-Or 7:3 Art Ian
7 /
z (4 ci g 3 0,4 .____--)
,
•-x:ti-f-1,...., -
0‘..,:)LL-E. .1d x 4 3:--0Qc/A-dc. e
•.,..---. --
1 .2 "x• G.. r 4 -0: - ..; e-. -------,
I - ./ .-
A
. N,7 (sr - S .-
•
Ps . /
z
. /I . ---.....- 7
\ it<
/ - -177Y .-. ClitEr tftHf - Ze e;eir
1 1
• foie/02
I i ”
.z... . • r, , c(C-- . . • - . i ----' ",--- 6 " ..0.4../e &tact_ ...\
1 1 c
1 _, ,„..7 ril 4
M '
N ( I
c'1) I • 6 Ora - ..1 • TN •
- 32L eic-. e.: t .,4 1 •
i a 12%/.0 121EATI CO ',L , -- 41,120-S
• _g *07 -7 . '-! cz) ii f--J a • -- • —
/her i 0
, j.. /
• c. ..
) z) 4IP • er. e a
• --: ---:-
. IV Ors -
,
i -r -i- -,
• . . . , - - — -- - / C: -H I' H -
. • .
ss , , • 12
1; ' a7a-vnewittari' 4- !
-1 0 _L__L 1 L L Li.--i--1--1--1
I - ! , . i : • !--1. 1 , 4_ ---L--1--j-- . 1 i t_ ._ I _t , 1 $ 1
-., , 1 , . _i__': --k . ! : i i 1 . , + 4-- ; 67 /new' 9 a c : cet -c7 6 i Iri ; :
, . - 1 - - ! ; I- - ; ; ; ; ; I ! - ! —L- ; ; ; L ! I 1 / 2; &C-0 4 4 ,1 4 1 T 1 Q,40tirl • !/;. . ■ ., I irra:
I I ; I_ --ILAI
-:-1- r - i 1 { -7 —+-- - ; 1 ' 1 r r-- --- 1 1 /
4 4 -1, 1,..,, , , ,--1-i, , :,_ i 1__1, ■ ■ I___L , 1_4_, , , , , _i , .1._ , , 1 i. _,,..,t_ i.... - ,,,,, Lti.
P 1 1Ff' „r.. y rf- d
' .. •
■
E
,.. or. , ' 2 -' 4 9.4 \c-AA Sig O CP.tfla 0 •
'
. .......• � . OYV.n^ vl.A;,NC�., as L .� R_ - EXGhvt
.. .
l ,k192; ' .4. _, G,c,£s;,_ 4 SJ.4l. I b-..._I_..__ '
5� � �� .) • �� -1wH S 4 Ca y 1 . C ARC _:_i• .. . - '=�Iiri ANTz _ GRUVTSGLY� . -. _ eit :LE__Ir...i.Ltc..A.1-\,
.. : _mt.);;Li..,: vi ,i g+ , _:: I 2: ,........._
_..: __: ;: 04-. , :. , ).
_ f
Ct11 3 Zn D G
1 .
Tc1. LzT30
l 3 I4 l
• I
II
�c SC
._. .._.... ter... I
,
No; .a ScqLc_
r 11
T L.j_ - c .;,...I i nk f � fva, 5,
1 r inn..,.. .� ,, ,• , r -,
4M
c\ PP 2
c N `op
0.
C04 07
SUPPORT PLAN tW j
DOUBLE WIDE CaTe°F 96/
ILy AIIFO P �
45° Ty pical
1
� : 24i'
t A' MAX
�- .. (TYP)
C�
Mating line
+ ro
jseeNote2.jeeNot .--i
C M
_ "
0 Typical
Two Tiedowns required 1 Tiedown Spacing"'
at each corner
II = Chassis Supports per "TABLE I SUPPORT SCHEDULE ".
M = Perimeter Supports per "TABLE I SUPPORT SCHEDULE ".
El = Mating Line Supports per "TABLE II & TABLE III ".
NOTES:
1. Support piers are required at ridge beam support locations.
Refer to "TABLE II RIDGE BEAM SUPPORTS" for support capacities
and maximum spans.
2. For 30 psf roof loads and greater, bearing walls at the marriage
line must be supported per "TABLE III SUPPORTS AT MATING LINE
BEARING WALL ".
3. Perimeter Supports are not required for 20 psf roof loads.
9
, ANCHORS AND TIES
1. EACH APPROVED GROUND ANCHOR AND TIE WHEN INSTALLED SHALL BE
CAPABLE OF RESISTING AN ALLOWABLE WORKING LOAD OF AT LEAST
3150# IN THE DIRECTION OF THE TIE PLUS A 50% OVERLOAD (4725 #)
WITHOUT FAILURE.
2. ALL ANCHORING EQUIPMENT EXPOSED TO WEATHERING SHALL HAVE A
RESISTANCE TO WEATHER DETERIORATION AT LEAST EQUIVALENT TO
THAT PROVIDED BY A COATING OF 0.30 OUNCES OF ZINC PER SQUARE
FOOT OF STEEL.
3. INSTALL GROUND ANCHOR AND TIEDOWN EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.
4. THE TIEDOWN SYSTEM SHOWN BELOW IS ONE ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF
ANCHORAGE. OTHER APPROVED SYSTEMS MAY BE USED PROVIDED THAT
THEY MEET THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN ITEM 1 ABOVE.
�Q�� > ,,d SIDEWALL
Cc z N0. 0 p FLOOR DECKING
E.u.3 -"1/44 4
s�IVIL �P
"le OF GOO' STRAP BUCKLE
� 1
RIM JOIST 5
IF "I" BEAM
STEEL STRAP TIE — 1.25" X .035"
TYPE 1, CLASS B, GRADE NO. 1
PER SPEC QQ — S -781 —H
45 °— 50°
APPROVED
PIER /PAD
0 f STRAP BUCKLE . '
1 111I= a if �-» = llll-)( l)lf�litg l =111
_o_ 1i'L111i =tLt— dttl_1111v.: II 111= 1111=1111 = 111 iW = r
GROUND ANCHOR
16
Huntingdon
Huntingdon Engineering & Environmental, Inc.
(Chen- Northern, Inc.)
5080 Road 154
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Telephone: (303) 945 -7458
Fax: (303) 945-2383
PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED ROLLING ACRES SUBDIVISION
RIFLE, COLORADO
JOB NO. 4 387 94
OCTOBER 12, 1994
PREPARED FOR:
MR. ROLAND FOSTER
10894 COUNTY ROAD 320
RIFLE CO 81650
Q,'f A member of the (HIH( group of companies
Huntingdon
Huntingdon Engineering & Environmental, Inc.
(Chen- Northern. Inc.)
5080 Road 154
October 12, 1994 Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Telephone: (303) 945 -7458
Fax: (303) 945 -2363
Mr. Roland Foster
10894 County Road 320
Rifle CO 81650
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Rolling Acres Subdivi-
sion, Rifle, Colorado.
Job No. 4 387 94
Dear Mr. Foster:
As requested, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study at the subject
site, located along the south side of County Road 320 in Rifle, Colorado
Subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory test pits excavated in and near building areas
are variable and consist of a combination of sandy clay and sandy gravel containing cobbles and
boulders on Lot 2 and sand clay overlying sandstone bedrock on Lot 3. Groundwater was not
encountered in the test pits at the time of our investigation.
The proposed residences can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural gravel subsoils
and bedrock and designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 1500 to 2000 psf, depending on
the local soil conditions. A site specific subsoil study should be performed for individual
structures. Moderate grading will be required to construct the driveways to access the proposed
lots.
The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and presents our
recommendations suitable for planning and preliminary design. It is important that we conduct
additional subsurface investigation when building plans have been developed. We should also
provide field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the
geotechnical recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HUNTINGDON ENGINEERING
& ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
e
Fred R. Cameron
Reviewed by: SRH
0 A member of the ® grow Ol ranpaniee
Huntingdon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1
SITE CONDITIONS 2
FIELD EXPLORATION 2
GEOLOGY 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 4
FOUNDATIONS 4
FLOOR SLABS 5
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 5
DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION 5
PERCOLATION TESTING 6
SITE GRADING 6
ADDITIONAL STUDIES 8
FIGURE 1 - TEST PITS AND PERCOLATION TEST LOCATIONS
FIGURE 2 - TEST PIT LOGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 AND 5 - SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 7 - PROJECT LOCATION
FIGURE 8 - TYPICAL SMALL CHANNEL SECTION
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE II - SUMMARY OF PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
0 A member of M ®group of companies
• Huntingdon
• PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical engineering study for the
proposed Rolling Acres Subdivision to be located in Rifle, Colorado. The project site is shown
on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to provide recommendations for preliminary design
of foundations and driveway subgrade. The study was conducted in accordance with our
proposal for geotechnical engineering services to you, dated September 21, 1994.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory pits was conducted to obtain
information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested
in the laboratory to determine compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics of
the on -site soils. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to
develop preliminary recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for
the proposed residential building foundations, roadway subgrade parameters and topsoil depths.
The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in the report. Evaluation
of the geologic conditions which may impact construction on the site was performed based on
review of existing literature and a partial site reconnaissance.
This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study and to
present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil
conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical engineering
considerations related to the proposed construction are included in the report.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed development will consist of a semi - private access drive to Lots 2 and 3 and
two proposed single family residential lots. The proposed building area for Lots 2 and 3 are
located on the extreme north edge of each lot. The driveway from County Road 320 ascends
to the south across a relatively flat area. Near the break in slope, there will be an intersection
with a driveway to each building area. Cuts in the drive alignment will vary from 0 to
approximately 8 feet and maximum fill depth will be on the order of 7 -8 feet. A layout of the
proposed development is shown on Fig. 1.
If driveway grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should
0 A member of the ® group of companies
Huntingdon
•
-2-
be notified to re- evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
Lots 2 and 3 are composed of varied terrain. The northern ends of both Lots consist of
gently rolling to hilly areas. To the south, the lots climb relatively steeply up to a Grass Mesa.
Several minor surface drainages cross the lots from south to north and there is a larger
intermittent drainage across Lot 2 along the west side of the building envelope.
The sites are vegetated with pinions, junipers, sagebrush and grasses. Bedrock outcrops
in several areas along the hillside. Total elevation change across the two sites is approximately
280 feet.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on September 23 and 26, 1994. Two
exploratory pits were excavated at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface
conditions. The pits were advanced with a backhoe. The pit on Lot 3 was excavated below the
actual building area because the terrain is too steep for equipment access. The pits were logged
by a representative of Huntingdon. One additional pit was excavated on each lot for the purpose
of percolation testing.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 -inch I.D. hand drive. Bulk samples of the
soils were also collected. Depths at which the samples were taken are shown on the Logs of
Exploratory Pits, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project
engineer and testing.
GEOLOGY
Site geology can be divided into two main areas. The northern end of Lot 2 consists of
alluvial and colluvial deposits described under the "Subsurface Conditions" section of this report.
A member el the 1H 11 1 J group of companies
Huntingdon
-3-
All of the proposed development for Lot 2 and most of the driveway for Lot 3 is within these
materials.
The building area for Lot 2 will be underlain by colluvium /alluvium and the building area
for Lot 3 will be underlain by the Wasatch Foundation.
Based on a partial site reconnaissance, the only significant potential geologic hazard
identified is that of rockfall. We believe the severity of the hazard is low, in part because of
the tendency for the site bedrock to form slabs. Slab shaped pieces would tend to have short
travel distances even on the relatively steep slopes. A positive measure for mitigation of this
hazard would be to locate the residences away from the hillslope on the proposed building pads.
Soil cover on the steep slopes behind the building envelope appears to be shallow, so any
surficial slumping should be minor.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsoil conditions encountered at the site (shown graphically on Fig. 2) are variable
with respect to their types, depths and engineering characteristics. The subsoils encountered in
Pits 1 and 3, located below and in the building areas of Lot 3, generally consist of 1 foot of
topsoil overlying medium dense, sandy clay. Based on the location and attitude of the
outcropping bedrock it appears that excavation in the building area of Lot 3, above Test Pit 1,
will encounter shallow sandstone bedrock. In Test Pit 2, located near the center of the building
area of Lot 2, we encountered 0.5 feet of topsoil overlying relatively dense sandy gravel.
Groundwater was not encountered at the time of excavation.
The United States Soil Conservation Service classifies the site soils as the Arvada Loam.
This unit is generally described as a deep, well drained silty clay loam. The Arvada Loam is
shown as Map Unit 4 on the partial reproduction of Sheet 9 of 20, of the U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Rifle area map, dated 1977. This partial reproduction
is included in the report as Figure 7. This figure indicates that the southern most ends of the
lots grade into Unit 67. This unit is classified as Torriorthants -Rock Outcrop Complex, and is
described generally as exposed sandstone and shale bedrock and stony soils.
0 A methm oI the (Hill) group oI oompames
Huntingdon
-4
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the pits included natural moisture
content, Atterberg limits testing, gradation analyses and consolidation testing. Results of
consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay, presented
on Figs. 4 and 5, indicate moderate to high compressibility under conditions of loading and
wetting and high compression when wetted under constant light surcharge. Results of gradation
analyses performed on a bulk sample (minus 3 -inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils
from Lot 2, are shown on Fig. 6. Atterberg limits testing typically indicates the clay soils have
moderate plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and the general
proposed construction, it appears that development of the site should be feasible based on
geotechnical engineering considerations. Subsurface conditions vary considerably across the site
and should be carefully evaluated for the individual lot construction when building plans are
available.
The following recommendations are made for planning and preliminary design purposes.
When final building plans have been developed, we should be contacted for review and
additional analysis as needed.
FOUNDATIONS
The subsoils encountered at expected foundation bearing depths on Lot 2 are mainly
sandy gravels beneath a thin veneer of sandy clay. Although Test Pit 3 did not penetrate the
sandy clay, we anticipate that the strata at foundation bearing levels will consist of the sandstone
bedrock exposed lower in the slope on Lot 3. The natural granular soils on Lot 2 and bedrock
on Lot 3 should be suitable for support of lightly loaded spread footings.
Footings can probably be sized to impose a maximum bearing pressure of 1500 psf to
2000 psf, depending on the local soil conditions. The upper clay soils are compressible and
could result in some post- construction foundation settlement if the structures bear on them.
0 A member of the ® g roup of companies
Huntingdon
-5-
Settlement potential of foundations should be evaluated as part of the site specific foundation
study for the individual structures.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on -site granular soils and bedrock should support lightly loaded slab -on -grade
construction, typical of residential construction. The on -site clay soils are compressible in their
native state but should be suitable for use as underslab fill, if properly compacted. To reduce
the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be constructed independent from
the building foundation.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Individual buildings should have foundation drains to prevent wetting of the below grade
areas and prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind foundation walls and retaining structures.
The foundation drains should consist of drainpipe surrounded by free - draining granular material
placed at least 1 foot below the bottom of the proposed excavation. The free - draining gravel
backfill should be surrounded by a suitable filter fabric to reduce infiltration of the on -site fine -
grained soil into the gravel. The drain line should be sloped at a minimum 1% grade and
connected to a gravity outlet pipe. Free - draining granular material used in the drain systems
should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less
than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION
The subsoils encountered within the proposed roadway alignment were evaluated using
standard property tests to estimate an 'R' value. The test results are summarized in Table I.
Clayey fine - grained soils, such as those encountered at the site, typically have poor load support
properties. The soils in this area are also known to be frost susceptible. Based on the other
tests results and our experience in the area, we recommend an 'R' value of 15 be used for design
of pavement sections on the sandy clay subgrade.
0 A member of The 1111141 group of companies
Huntingdon
-6
Subgrade soils should be scarified, adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
95% of the standard Proctor density prior to placement of base course or surfacing materials.
A preliminary roadway section consisting of a layer of "pit -run" material over properly prepared
subgrade and surfaced with a 4 -inch aggregate base layer should be suitable for typical
residential traffic. Heavy construction traffic could damage the roadways and placement of
additional base and regrading may be necessary in a post- construction phase. In some areas
overexcavation and placement of compacted granular borrow or additional aggregate base course
may be necessary to stabilize the driveway section.
PERCOLATION TESTING
Preliminary percolation testing was performed in the proposed leach field areas of the
building sites. The subsoil profiles were logged in the adjacent exploratory test pits. No free
water was observed in the exploratory or percolation pits. The testing was performed in hand
dug holes in the bottom of the backhoe excavated pits. The results of the percolation testing are
presented in Table II. The results indicate the subsoils have a variable percolation rate but
should be acceptable for conventional infiltration septic disposal systems.
SITE GRADING
Drainage ditches should be provided along the uphill side of the driveways to divert
surface water away from the road section. The proposed site grading will consist of minor cut
and fill to allow construction of the semi- private driveways and building sites. We assume
proposed cut depths will not exceed about 10 feet and maximum fill depths will be about 5 to
7 feet. The following criteria can be used in developing preliminary grading plans.
Grading of the property should limit cut and fill depths as much as possible. Permanent
unretained cut and fill slopes which do not encounter seepage should be graded at 2 horizontal
to 1 vertical or flatter. If groundwater seepage is encountered or where deeper cuts are
proposed, we recommend that they be evaluated for stability on an individual basis. Interceptor
drains will be needed above the building pads to divert surface flow around the building areas.
We do not anticipate unusual problems with the proposed fill slopes provided the fills are
A member of me (till(' group of companies
Huntingdon
-7-
properly compacted and the slopes do not exceed 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. We understand that
the larger intermittent drainage crossing Lot 2 will be re- channeled, to the west away from the
proposed building area. We recommend that the east side of the new channel be protected from
erosion from the mouth of the drainage along the length of the building area for Lot 2. This
could be done by the placement of rip -rap or channel lining. On -site sandstone cobbles and
boulders should be suitable for rip -rap. A typical channel section is shown on Fig. 8.
Areas to receive fill should be carefully prepared prior to fill placement by removing all
vegetation, topsoil and other deleterious materials. The exposed subgrade should be scarified
and compacted to provide a uniform base for fill placement. Fills placed on hillsides exceeding
2 horizontal to 1 vertical should be benched into the hillsides. Fill material should be compacted
to at least 95% of standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum in areas to be
developed and 90% in landscape areas. Fill sections deeper than 10 feet should be studied on
an individual basis for slope stability and settlement potential.
lJ A member of the I 111 nf group of companies
• Huntingdon
•
-S -
ADDITIONAL STUDIES
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices in the area and is suitable for planning and preliminary design purposes.
Additional studies should be performed to finalize foundation design parameters once building
plans have been developed.
If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service,
please contact our office.
Sincerely,
HUNTINGDON ENGINEERING
& ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
,p,
Fred R. Cameron
Project Geologist pG REGiS N
i - S c 9 `•�
Reviewed By / ' e• y;J 3
ie pi
I ••
/ • 666
y
�'. c
Stan Helenschmidt, P. t ....... \ � EN �'s
FRC /lr
0 A member of me 1H1H) group of companies
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE SITES
f 6
L '
oavrmn POUAR i
L^� { PERCOLATION 1 •
1 010fr
L 1i TEST PIT 1 T EST_PIT 3
.1.yp2 :
l itela riV
PERCOLATION 2 Oill 11 : 10 ,
PROPOSED L OT 3
ST PIT (1.0 ACRES PROPOSED
- r4 kz
o • 3 �� C x 47
irm ira
■ LIMN
lbws na co.
552J
I IIIIh i
••• 'V 411 ,
PROPOSED LOT 2 ►J ,
k
S •E ± ���
0 ' A 0 11
589'28'02" N 89'28'02 "E
•
Mb ? V 4CORMIR
Ella 20, DRAM GAP
NOT TO SCALE
4 387 94 Huntingdon TEST PITS AND PERCOLATION TESTS LOCATION Fig 1
TEST PIT 1 TEST PIT 2 TEST PIT 3
0 0
1 WC = 4
WC= 4 DD =101 —
DD = 105 4 —
5 5 —
4 —
-"WC = 9 'WC = 5
1 -200 = 80 1 +4 = 54 —
w 10 LL = 34 —200 = 19 10 —
PI =15 — L
F - a
w w
0 15 15 — 0
20 20
25 25
NOTE: Expanation of symbols presented on Fig. 3.
4 387 94 Huntingdon TEST PIT LOGS F 2
LEGFND
p q TOPSOIL; Silt and Clay, sandy, firm, slightly moist, brown
CLAY; Very sandy, firm, moist, brown, occasional gravel
gl GRAVEL; Sandy, dense, moist, brown, with cobbles and boulders
up to 1.5' In diameter, very sandy below 7.5'.
E Hand drive sample.
1 Disturbed Eulk Sample
NfTFS
1. Test pits were excavated on September 23, 1994, with a backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory test pits were determined approximately
by features shown on the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory test pits were not measured and Togs of
exploratory test pits are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory test pit locations and elevations should be considered
accurate only to the degree Implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory test pit Togs represent
the approximate boundaries between material types and the transitions may
be gradual.
6. Ground water was not encountered in the test pits at the time of excavation.
I AAORATfRY TFSTING RFSI II TS
WC =Water Content ( %)
DD =Dry Density (pcf)
— 200 = Percentage passing No. 200 sieve
LL= Llquld Limit ( %)
PI= Plasticity Index ( %)
+4= Percentage retained on #4 sieve
—
4 387 94 Huntingdon LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
Moisture Content = 4 percent
Dry Unit Weight = 105 pct
2 sempieot: sandy clay
From: Test Pit 1 at 3 feet
.1
ae 0 ---
0 1
N
N
n1
L
E 2 Additional compression —
° under constant pressure
due to wetting
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
\\\\\\
11
12
13
14
0.1 10 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — kst
4 387 94 I Huntingdon SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
•
Moisture Content = 4 percent
1 Dry Unit Weight = 101 pcf
Sample of: sandy clay
From: Test Pit 3 at 1 foot
,0
0
O
N 1
N
v
i
d
O 2
V
3
Additional compression
4 under constant pressure -
due to wetting
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
OA 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf •
4 387 94 I Huntingdon SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Flg. 5
•
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 1( SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS I U 5 STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SOUAPE OPENINGS
24 HR 7 HR
45 MIN 15 MIN 6D MIN 19 MINA MIN. 1 MIN 200 100 '5D 40 '30 '16 t 1 a '4
100 { D
•
90 ' I 1 10
I f 1
80 I p
I
70 1 L
30
1 0
i 50 1 40 w
1 4
✓/ 6
N I
4 50 1 F I 5011
I 1
J_ 1 z
Q dD I ii I 60 a
' �
1 1 f
JO , 8
�
20 y 7 1 — I ID N
1 tE`
f 8O
. I I
10 1
1
1
0 ∎ nO•w ∎1=1•11•00UW.. Y—•u•1111■a— w-•u •FI - -- 10a
001 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 297 590 1 19 238 4 76 9 52 19 1 38 1 76 2 127 24
42 20 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
SAND GRAVEL
CLAY TO SILT FINE 1 MEDIUM (COARSE} FINE 1 COARSE COBBLES
GRAVEL 54 % SAND %7 % SILT AND CLAY 19 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF sandy gravel FROM Test Pit 2 at 5 feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANA
TIME READINGS U 5 STANDARD SERIES I L 5
C.I. E 4R SQUARE OPENINGS 1
24 HH 7 HR
45 MIN 15 MIN 50 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN 1 MIN ?DO 7 100 50 40 10 '16 1 1'5 '4 \
100 1 t , 0
11111jE MIL
— —
80 1014 3o 0
1
70
p
u z 60 N z
■ --- ■ - --
w
■1 SD
■ ■ W
a4o 4 ■,60
1
_ M
Min 713
20 ■ 1 90
■ �,
mss_
IN 1 001 W8 •••∎ ] 0] 4�—r ��n_ —MI _-N4� .i4 - -t6 •n00 ■ 47 20 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
FINE 1 MEDIUM 1GOARSEI FINE f COARSE COBBLES
GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY 1, ,i
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF FROM
1 3B7 94 1 Huntingdon [ GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6
SOIL SURVEY OF RIFLE AREA, COLORADO l v� . ; ' 1 55 27 n
Parts of D and o Counties ¶
United State ate Department of Agriculture j
Soil Conservation Service, 1977 � 5 s+
aoer! -
F'r 57 `1. .' 1 . � f b 1� 4 • Y7 . f I 1 A g O ` .j
a e . --"•• • -tpe •*75;-"f-'
3. e
4
57 t * V� 1I '.. • : ,c . YT
3 S r A Se��5IS -2 5 y . a �__. __ _
�w. 3 -f 6�
V l V mil.
r
4 �P E
, 't
i :+ MESA 3 `` 54-4 •�34 56
s 4 .. { �'� r 3 . 3a
ti J ai 1 . /. -..,_ r- ,
44 56
35 5 0
r,„f 35 55 t .1 ` ‘.4'1. 34 i 1 12 It
0406 CQ 35 I:
/ \ j. � 65 —\
C• \ Lam
'VI 3 72 �1 65
{ , 314
r X65 a ER . J
!Jy S:y � � �� X65 . VG.[ \h �' .. . 7 boa
P r 21 4.
.. ' 5-..! : t��J �. I'[ l� 4 T'_
3 40 i , .
i
e. ii ,� [i , n . : 'r �
Ir a -A , PROJECT SITES 'v i
1 s .
ry . 4 5 / r '-'1 ..M. ' C. 45% 15f 45
{'
67 " 21
34 r {q�, 6R "t .. •
68 '
GRASS MESA I \ \ m# +. 5 67 •
� `
S6 M+w
66 • ... JJ''
68
.294 . ra;= 2H 68 27
z I
4 387 94 Huntingdon PROJECT LOCATION Fig 7
•
BOULDER
EAST RIP RAP
WEST
!NIP arc.
44 FILTER •
FABRIC
xK XX
4 307 94 Huntingdon TYPICAL SMALL C'i4NNEL SECTION Fig 8
W b
en
R ':
e
r W W W f ' p � � y
O O O a x 3' o
J 2
oca
a u `0 a - 4 - p,,04
v y
0 0 14 A
K
n
n z
P E 0
d
y. 4 o
N ti z' z z rii
o c)
z
o r m
m Y
�' °� z m --1 z
r. n
A C
O n Q,
00(-^)..4 7y �- Cn
r
0-117) al
x
0
0
r r-,
tri
cn r
°oil O
G S c S
0 p o
6 .c 6 6
t V V te
2
Y
.< `< �4 6
PI 0
® - / r
! /
\ e \9
_
G/ /
"Mi §
® 2
t §
/ i 2
, � j ( ! _ , '6,' ( j 3 , {$m § b m 2
; f§ Z m m
Z § e °
• 0 ) \
m -1 \\ t - — R'
§ } - m
« ! ! /% \ - \
, , , Et, v, b,, ® f { H ?
? / \
*
- #/0 2 /
a§ a a a = e! a it$
\\ n
\
d ig
il
tu
o
r
Chen - Northern, Inc.
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
•---..,— I;In e- ASTM Designation: D 2487 - 83
(Based on Unified Soil Classification System)
Soil Claudication
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboralory Tests' Group
Symbol Name'
Coarse- Grained Soils Gravels Clean Gravels Cu . 4 and 15Cc GW Well graded gravel'
More than 50% retained on More Than 50% coarse Less than 5% fines'
No 200 sieve Traction retained on Cu<4 and /or 1>Cc>3' GP Poorly graded gravel'
No. 4 sieve
Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silly gravel' °-
More than 12% fines'
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel' °"
Sands Clean Sands Cu?6 and 1< Cc53' SW Well - graded sand'
50% or more of coarse Less than 5 %lines°
Traction passes No Cu<6 and /or 1>Cc >3' SP Poorly graded sand'
4 sieve
Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand° "'
More Than 12 %lines°
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand` "'
Fine - Grained Soils Silts and Clays inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above CL Lean clay "
50% or more passes the Liquid limit Tess than 50 "A" line'
No. 200 sieve
PIC4 or plots below "A" ML Silt' `"
line'
organic Liquid limit - oven dried ,... OL Organic clay' ""
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt "" °
Sills and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay ""
Liquid limit 50 or more
PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic silt' `"
organic Liquid limit - oven OH Organic clay'
Liquid limit - not dried 75
Organic silt' ` " °
Highly organic soils Primarily organic mailer, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
'Based on the material passing We 3 -10 (75 -mm) sieve (Dpi' 11 Aiieroerq limits piot m hatched area. foil is a CL -ML.
*If field simple conlained cobbles or boulders. Or bolo 'Cu = Ow 70 ie Cc = 0, • D. silty clay
add - with cobbles or boulders, or both" 10 group name 'II awl contains 1510 29% plus No 200 add - with sand' or
'Gravels with 5 t0 12% lines require dual symbol. 'II amt contains ?l5 %land, add "with sand" to group 'with graver. wiiche4r is predominant.
GW -GM well-graded gravel with sill name. •11 son contains ?ID%plus No 200, predomin•ntly sand
GW -OC well-graded gravel with clay `a lines Glumly As CL -ML. use dual symbol GC -GM, or add "sandy' Io group name
OP-OM poorly graded gravel with sill SC-SM.
'll rarani... o W, ns No. 2 predominantly Wave'
GP -0O poorly graded gravel with clay 'II Imes are organic. see "with organic hoes" l0 group add d "gravelly" l0 group mm<
*sands will, 5 10 12% lines require duel symbol[ name. - Pipe and prole on or above "A' Inc i
SW -SM well-graded sand with sill 11 sod contains P15% gravel, add "ludo 9ra 0el" 10 group • P1<1 Or plots below - A' line
SW •SC well-graded land with clay name
'PI plots on or above - A - line
SP -SM poorly graded sand with sill
'PI plats 0.10., A 5.,'.
SP-SC pOOdy graded send with clay
SIEVE ANALYSIS 60 -
1 SCREEN - IN I SIEVE NO f For desalficallen al h+a9nhwd aolnnd
3 21141 V. % 4 10 20 40 60 140 200 ata e9'aksW Iractl0rl M cone-grained //
100 1111•••••11•1 ° 50 — /
1101111......11101111......11 Iti,on d - AVine 4. /
Horisonial at P1 = to LL = 255 �tj E
� ,
,,1•.■.
.. p d
.' Ten PI= 02]ILL -AI ` S/ . .1 Py ts
Y IIIi Q.-5- Nom LLI 4 0 EOWlion of Wine C t' [,
r p
ti- m ,IIIIME .■.a 10 F Vertical LL = Ifi to PI - 1 / -�
— lien PI = q9 (LL -01 ,
\
uIIIW■•u■MII cc > 30 —
0 4110,,,m
40 II,I■" p ow =25 mm I °v Fri
ccii 20 ma
11111.1.....11.1 c " 4 ,./ r
1
I 1 1 1 I I 10—
so 10 5 10 0.5 0 10 7
— / / % /, ML i OL
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 4
0 l
0 10 16 20 30 40 50 ' -60 70 so 90 100 110
FL U Op = Is = 200 C - ID.:. 12 51- .5 5 6 ' t
0., 0 ats c o -•+a oo2s- 5 LIOUID LIMIT (LL)
•