HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils ReportrGrt
-
¡(mûÀ¡rocffi,l¡c, 5020 County Road 154GeatæhnicalandhlaterlalsEnginoors Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
ãnd Env¡ronmôntal sclerrtists phonè: (g?0) 945-7ggg
fax: (970) 945-8454
email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
Ân Employûo oï'|ìcd compony www.kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Spr¡ngs, and Summit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT aS2,rRONBRrDGE
EAGLE CLA\ry CIRCLE
GARFTELD COTINTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 19-7-220
APRIL 9,2019
PREPARED FOR:
JOE & LESLIE VOSSMER
ó121 NORTH PONDEROSA WAY
PARKER, COLORADO 80134
ivossmer(ô.aol.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY.................
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS..
SUBSIDENCE POTENTTAL. ........
LIMITATIONS........
I
2-
2-
FIELD EXPLORATTON ..............- 3 -
...........-7 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 4
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS................ ...................- 4 -
FOI.JNDATIONS ...,..4.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS .,...,,..7 .
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM.
SITE GRADING .-8-
-7 -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORTNC
FIGI,IRE 2 _ LOG, LEGEND AND NOTES OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 3 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
-1-
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No. 19-7-22A
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results ofa subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot
2l2,honbndge, Eagle Claw Circle, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on
Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design.
The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services
to Joe and Leslie Vossmer dated April 3,2019. He,pworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (now Kumar &
Associates) previously conducted a preliminary subsoil study for residences in the Villas North
and Villas South parcels of Ironbridge where the subject lot is located and presented the findings
in a report dated February 28,2074, Job No. ll3 47tA'
A field exploration program consisting of an exploratory boring was conducted during the
preliminary subsoil study to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the
subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their
classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the
field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for
foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This
report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design
recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed
construction and the subsurface conditions encountered.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The proposed residence is located in the existing Ironbridge subdivision development.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (now Kumar & Associates) previously conducted subsurface
exploration and geotechnical evaluation for development of Villas North and Villas South
parcels, Job No. I 05 1 1 5-6, report dated Septemb er 14,2005, and performed observation and
testing services during the infrastructure construction, Job No. 106 0367, between April 2006
and April 2007. The information provided in the previous reports has been considered in the
current study of Lot252.
Kumar & Associates, lnc,Project No. 'lS-7A20
-2-
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Development plans for the lot were not available at the time of our study. 'l'he proposed
residcnce is assumed to be a two-story wood frame structure with a structural slab foundation
and no basement or crawlspace. A post-tensioned or conventionally reinforced slab foundation
has been used to support the existing residences in this area. Grading for the structure is
assumed to be relatively minor with cut and fill depths on the order of a few feet or less. We
assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction.
When the building loadings, location and grading plans have been developed, we should be
notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed residence is located on the west side of the Viltas South parcel overlooking the
18th Green. The natural terrain prior to devclopment in 2006 sloped down to the east at about 5 to
7%ó grade. The subdivision in this area was elevated by filling on the order of 15 to 20 feet
above the original ground surface to create a relatively level building site with a moderate slope
down along the west side to the 18th Green. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanianage Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the subject site. These rocks
are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone with some massive beds
of gypsum and limestone. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is known to be associated with sinkholes
and localized ground subsidence in the Roaring Fork River valley. A sinkhole opened in the cart
storage parking lot east of the Pro Shop located to the north of the Villas South parcel in January
2005. Other irregular bedrock conditions have been identified in the affordable housing site
located to the west of the Villas North parcel. Indicatjons of ground sr¡bsiclence were not
observed in the Villas development area that could indicate an unusual risk of ground
subsidence, but localized variable depths of the debris fan soils encountered in the previous
September 14,2005 geotechnical study in the Villas development area could be the result of past
subsidcnce. In our opinion, the risk of lulure grourrd subsitlenue in the Villas North and South
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No. 19-7.220
-J-
project area is low and similar to other areas of the Roaring Fork River valley where there have
not been indications ofground subsidence.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the Villas project was conducted between December 24,2013 anð
January 2,2014, to evaluate the subsurface conditions and included one boring drilled on Lot
252 atthe location shown on Figure 1. The boring was advanced with 4-inch diameter
continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-458 drill rig.
Samples of the subsoils were taken withl% inch and Z-tnch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers
were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30
inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-l586.
The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the
subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are
shown on the Log of Exploratory Boring, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory
for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A graphic log of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site is shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils encountered, below minor topsoil consist of around 18 feet of mixed sand, silt and clay
with gravel man-placed fill. Slightly sandy to sandy silt with lenses and layers of glavel was
encountered at depths from l8 to 47 feet. At a depth of47 feet, very dense rounded gravel and
cobbles (river gravel alluvium) was encountered,
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on a relatively
undisturbed drive sample of the natural sandy silt soils, presented on Figure 3, indicates low to
moderate compressibility under light loading and a low collapse potential (settlement under
constant load) when wetted. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of the fill
soil are shown on Figure 4. The laboratory testing is summarizeó in Table 1.
Kumar & Associates, lnc,Projecl No, 19-7-220
-4-
No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly
moist to moist.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
The upper 18 feet of soils encountered in the boring consist of fill placed rnainly in 2006 as part
of the subdivision development. The field penetration tests and laboratory tests performed
during the study, and review of the field density tests performed during the fill construction
indicate that the structural fill was placed and compacted to the project specified 95% standard
Proctor density. Debris fan soils which tend to collapse (settle under constant load) when wetted
were encountered below the fill. The amount of settlement will depend on the thickness of the
compressible soils and their wetted de,pth. The settlement potential and risk of excessive
building distress can be reduced by compaction of the soils to a certain depth below the
foundation bearing level (as has already been done) and by heavily reinforcing the foundation to
resist differential settlernents. The compaction should also extend beyond the building to below
driveway and utility areas. The compacted soils can consist of the existing structural fill used to
elevate the project site. Foundation levels deeper than 5 feet below the existing ground surface
on this site are not recommended. Relatively deep structural fills will also have some potential
for long term settlement. Proper grading, drainage, and compaction as presented below in the
Site Grading and Surface Drainage sections will help reduce the settlement risks. A heavily
reinforced structural slab or post-tensioned slab foundation designed for significant differential
settlements is recommended for the building support. As an alternative, a deep foundation that
extends down into the underlying dense, river gravel alluvium and structural floor slabs could
also be used to reduce the settlement risk.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurf,ace conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of
the proposed construction, \rye recommend the builcling be founcled with a heavily reinforced
structural slab or post-tensioned slab foundation bearing on at least 15 feet of compacted
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No. 19-7-220
-5-
structural fill. If a deep foundation system is considered for building support, we should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a structural slab or
post-tensioned slab foundation system.
l) A structural slab or post-tensioned slab placed on at least 15 feet of compacted
structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf or
2)
subgrade modulus of 100 tcf. Post'tensioned slabs placed on structural fìll should
be designed for a wetted distance of 10 feet but at least half of the slab width,
whichever is more. Settlement of the foundation is estimated to be about L to l%
inches based on the long-term compressibility of the fill. Additional settlement
between about 2 to 3 inches is estimated if deep wetting of the debris fan soils
were to occur. Settlement from the deep wetting would tend to be uniform across
the building/development area and the settlement potential of the fill section
should control the design.
The thickened sections of the slab for support of concentrated loads should have a
minimum width of 20 inches.
The perimeter turn-down section of the slab should be provided with adequate soil
cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations
at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. If a frost.é-ã
protected foundation is used, the perimeter turn-down section should have at least
18 inches ofsoil cover.
The foundation should be constructed in a "box-like" configuration rather than
with inegular extensions which can settle differentially to the main buildingarea.
The foundation walls, where provided, should be heavily reinforced top and
bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at
least 14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be
designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and
Retaining Walls" section of this report.
The root zone and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed. Structural fill
placed below the slab bearing level should be compacted to g8o/o of the maximum
standard Proctor density within 2 percentage points of optimum moisture content.
3)
4)
s)
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No, 19-7-224
-6-
A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the compaction of
the filI materials and observe all fboting excavations prior to concrete placement
for bearing conditions.
FOI.INDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to
undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfìll consisting
of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the building and
can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should
be clesigned for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight
of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal
backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining sffucture. An underdrain
should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Site walls with a
maximum back slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical should be designed for an active earth pressure
of at least 60 pcf equivalent fluid unit weight.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at leastglYo of the maximum standard Proctor density.
Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since
this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall
backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to
facilities constructed on the backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against
6)
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No. 19-7-220
-7 -
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coefÍicient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf. The
coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil
strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will
occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against
the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95o/o of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS
Compacted structural fill can be used to support lightly loaded slabs-on-grade separate from the
building foundation. The fill soils can be compressible when wetted and result in some post-
construction settlement. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural
floor slabs should be separated from building to allow for unrestrained vertical movement. Floor
slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements
for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on
experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of relatively well graded sand
and gravel, such as road base, should be placed beneath slabs for support. This material should
consist of minus 2-inch aggregatewith at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than
l2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least95Yo of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-
site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or
seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We
recommend below-grade construction, such as grade change site retaining walls, be protected
Kumar & Associates, lnc,Project No. 19-7-220
-8-
from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. An underdrain should
not be provided around structural building foundation slabs and separate slabs-on-grade.
Where installed, the drains should consist of drainpipe place<l in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be
placed at each level ofexcavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and
sloped at a minimum lYo to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the
underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing
the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at
least lYz feet deep.
SITE GRADING
Extensive grading was performed as part of the existing Villas South development. Additional
placement and compaction of the debris fan soils could be needed to elevate the site to design
grades and reduce the risk of excessive differential settlements and building distress. In addition,
The water and sewer pipe joints should be mechanically restrained to reduce the risk ofjoint
separation in the event of excessive differential settlement. Additional structural fill placed
below foundation bearing level should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum standard
Proctor density within 2 percentage points of optimum moisture content. Prior to filI placement,
the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing any vegetation and organic soils and
compacting to at least 95o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture
content. The fill should be benched into slopes that exceed 2O%o grade.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at2honzontal to 1 vertical or flatter
and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. This office should review site
grading plans for the project prior to construction.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Precautions to prevent wetting of the bearing soils, such as proper backfill construction, positive
backfill slopes, restricting landscape irrigation, and use of roof gutters need to be taken to help
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No, 19'7-220
-9-
limit settlement and building distress. The following drainage precautions should be observed
during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation ofthe foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided
during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95Yo of themaximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas
and to at least 90o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to
drain away from the foundation in all directions. rüfe recommend a minimum
slope of 6 inches in the first 5 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
3 inches in the first l0 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be
capped with about 2 feet of the on-site soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
Surface swales in landscape areas should have a minimum grad,e of 3Yo.
4) Roof gutters should be provided with downspouts that discharge at least 5 feet
beyond the foundation and preferably into subsurface solid drain pipe.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, should be
located at least 10 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to
use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building
caused by irrigation.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the exploratory boring drilled at the location indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of
construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the
presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing
in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of
practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory boring and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No. 19-7-220
-10-
during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recommendations maybe made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not
responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we
should provide continued consultation and field services during conskuction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to veriry that the recomrnendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Signi{icant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfu lly Submitted,
H-P*KUMAR
Steven L. Pawlak, P
SLPlkac
cc: RM Construction -
t
1 $*ä*
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No. 19-7-220
Ê
I?
@
LOï26r
40¡?iaF.
0.0ÐgtAc.
16Ð) BORING
LoilÈ
4O¡5¡ú35,
o¡e¡lÂc.
@
LOï263
¡(l¡llt t F,
0.@6ùAC,
\
\
\
qe.
æ"t
%
@
LOT254
428ft5,F.
o.@giAc,
APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET
6&1Ut{ru)
I
t.ty
19-7-220 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 1
N
ot;
(å
æoo
e
Þ
Éo,'lÀ
o
Þo
o
Õz
gUJ
doJ
thosooøø
.ð
(!E
fY
gORING
'LOT ?52 LEOET{O
ffi¡r¡1¡¡eg cggv !r.Ì, 5Är0 ANo oRAvrL mrH cogor.rs, Mrorur,¡ Drxsr,
Þ(sucHTty [0rs1 t0 t{otsT, coNsTRuctto MAtr,ity tN 2006.
/þ1¡1 Nll;t saNDy to vrR'r saNDy, sltcHil,y cuyry, cRÂvrr uyrRs. flrF l0
Ulvtlf snÍF, slrcHTr.r MüsT, ucll BRowN f0 tnow¡r, sucrfly cltiun¡ous.
m
tá.fg!¡Y+ ANo co8Bus (GM-GP); s¡-lclrlÏ sltrY, SANDY, pRosABLf EourDERs,
Fi,.ålotNst, ¡¡orsT, BRovJN, RoUNDÉ0 RrvR noct(.U
L
I I oirvt sÄr¡pu, 2-lNcH l.D. CALtTOnNtA uNtR sAt¡pLE.I
I
onvr srunt, 1 J/s-tilcl t.0. spl¡l spool slÂNDÂRo prNF¡f,alton tËsr.
32/12 !:\tvE sAMpt-t 8t0ty couilT, tN0tcATts lH^T t2 SLOhj ut a l4{'-pouNo' rylqR FA|-UN6 30 fiCHES WtRi RrolltRt0 to DRtvt t¡tr sÅt¡plrR t2ft{cHts.
+ DIPIX Át WHtcl{ goR¡NG CÁv¡D WHt}t cÆCl(tD ! DAYS ÂñtR DnjLUNG-
0
32/12
t0
3ð/12
I|/C=3.6
0D:125
+ 4=58
-200: t3
53/t2
20 lElt7
IVC:5.8
NOTES
r. rHt ExptoRÀToÌy loRtì{c llÂs 0RÍ-rr0 ott orctuSt¡
4-|NCH ÐtAüErER C0ilÍl{Uous FLtoHr pov/Ir AUctR.
21, 201J WttH A
2. THI TOCAIION O' TIIE €XPLORA¡ORY SORING
P C¡r{c tRof f[atuRls 5H0wN ON Í8r SfTr
l{Ás l/EAsURt0 ÀPProXly^TttY 8Y
PIAN PROY¡DTO,
28/12
WC-d.6
0D:105
-200=52
r. nE q"EV Tl0lr or lHr txplonÀToRy BonlNG WÀS Not.AVÁ¡LA8!E
^ilD
tHEros rs l{EAsuRt0 t0 0tnH.
4. rHr_rxptoRÁTory goRtltc LocÄïott sriouLD 8t coIstD[RED ÂCCURAÌT ONLYl0 THE DtCntE [aputD sy tÍt t.nHoD ust0,
t ru_!!!!q.s- qq¡$EI r¡AlrRtALS SUOlltx o¡,t tHr rxp[o¡Ál0Ry EoRtr{c toG
!!fl¡sE!t tHE Appfioxtl^fi 0ouNoARtEs 8Ê¡rrrN ur¡r¡rr" wpis-¡nlnr
}R¡NSIIIOIIS i'ÂY 8E CNADUÂL
6. cRoul¡0rtÁïR $lÄs Nol ÊNcour{tÊRrD r¡ THt goRtNc Är THr r¡t¡t ot
ORII.I-ING OR !TEN CHECKTD J OAYS I.ÁÍTR.
i. UBOTÁIORY TESI RESULIS;
t{c : YrÀrr collltNT (Í) (ÁS!ï 0 2?f6);û0 = DRy DÊt¡Slry (pcf) (Âslx D 2?15)¡+1 = PtictilTÁot 8tTÂtt{t0 oN r{0. 4 st[vt (Ás.r]¡ D 122);
-200 = PERCtNtÁcE PASSING N0. 200 SttvE (ÄSTx D fi¡0i.
30
13/t2
40
45
21/12
50
7s/1
55
oNc.¡
IN
I
P
E
I
SAMPLE OF: Very Sondy Clcyey Sllt
FROM:Boringl@25'
WC = 4.6 %, ÐD = 105 pcf
lð
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
ril1i;rli
:j¡iii;!;1i:
i:;
0
JJ -ll¡l
=a'
t.
zotr
o_¡
JoØzaQ_4
ÀPPLIÊÞ t0 r00
19-7-22A Kumar & Associates SWTLL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3
/
--.. t.- |
:.. _ï'-- ,-
I
I
I /I
I
I
I /I
I
I
t
I
/
I
I
I
SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
HYDROT4EIR ANALYSIS SIEVE ,ÀNALYSIS
u.t. tTNoltD g[f,tÊS
2
ã
F
roo
t0
ao
70
ao
to
{
50
20
to
o
o
to
?o
30
ao
50
ao
ao
ßo
90
100
I
u
E
Ë
rð2
CLAY TO SILT coEELES
GRAVEL 5E ,6 illo
LIQUID UUIT
SÂMPLE OF: Sttty So¡dy Grovel - Fllt
29X
PTASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CTAY 13 X
FROMrBorlngfOt0'
thd. l.¡l r.Dlh gpply oDty lo lh.rompl.r rhloh w.ru L¡}!d. thâl.lfng -Epcll rhsll nol b. ÞÞh¡lilc.d,.xcrÞt ¡n lull, vlthout lh! r.íttåñqPprcvol ot Kumqr t As&oto¡.¡. hc.Sl.Y. onolyrh l.rl¡¡g b Þ.dom¡d tñeccordqrc. wlh ¡ìSTH 9422. ÁSW Ct¡6ondlor.ASÌil 0tt¡tO,
19-7-220 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RTSULTS Fig. 4
€
{9
H-P*KUMARTABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSProject No. 19-7-220SOIL TYPESilty Sandy Gravel (Fill)Sandy Clayey SiltVery Sandy Clayey SiltLIQUIDLIMITPLASTICINDEXUNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVESTRENGTHGRAVELSANDPERCENTPASSINGNO.200SIEVE(v.l(vol13665229s8NATURALMOISTURECONTENTNATURALDRYDENSITY1231053.6s.84.6SAMPLEDEPTHtft\102025BORING1