HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence-Soils Report Attached€o/t 4aázlColleen Wirth
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Frank Rinaldi <frank@lindauerdunn.com >
Tuesday, July 11,2023 12:08 PM
Col leen Wi rth; titosha ndymanservice@yahoo.com
RE: BLRE-06-23-8174 - RUIZ covered shelter is now UNDER REVIEW
22-7 -736 (02-21-23) Lot 2 Subsoil STudy signed.pdf
Collen,
The soils report that we have on file is attached
Iindauer.tunTï,Int.
ll¡¡Fl 1:.1*.rt tliti F¡l:f¡l
Frank N. Rinaldi, P.E.
Lindauer Dunn, Inc.
ph. (970) 241-0900
fx. ( 970) 243-2430
From: Co lleen Wi rth <cwirth @ga rfie ld-county.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July Lt,202311:07 AM
To: titosha ndymanservice@yahoo.com; frank@ lindauerdunn.com
Subject: RE: BLRE-06-23-8774 - RUIZ covered shelter is now UNDER REVIEW
Tito,
Thanksforyouremail replyonitem#'s2,3,4,5and7. Pleaserespondtoorsubmititems#l,6whenyouareable.
Colleen W¡rth
Building Plans Examiner
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401
(970) 94s-1377 extL6LO
cwirth @ea rfield-countv.com
From: Colleen Wirth
Sent: Monday, July tO,20231:10 PM
To: titosha ndvma nservice@va hoo.com; fra nk@lindauerdunn.com
Subject: BLRE-06-23-8L74 - RUIZ covered shelter is now UNDER REVIEW
RE: BLRE-06-23-8L74 - RUIZ covered shelter structure is UNDER REVIEW
Courtesy Update for Tito Ruiz and Frank Rinaldi:
I am starting the building review for the proposed covered shelter at TBD CR 346 outside Silt, Colorado and
have some questions to better understand the work scope and ensure we correctly apply the codes. Please
respond in writing to the following:
1
CORRECTION LIST:
1. Please email copy of Kumar & Associates geotechnical report 22-7-736 referenced on Sheet 51 to me at
cwi rth @garfi eld-cou ntv.com .
2. Please convey the approximate elevation in feet above sea Ievel at the site. Confirmation of elevation
data will help confirm necessary snowload and frost depth.
3. Will the covered shelter remain open to the elements on all four sides of the structure?
4. Willthe covered shelter have a poured concrete slab?
5. What is the proposed use of the L,}OO sq ft covered shelter?
5.a. Will the covered shelter serve agricultural uses such as sheltering farm machinery and equipment,
hay storage, agricultural or livestock needs?
5.b. W¡ll the shelter be utilized to cover any propane or other oil and/or gas fuel tanks, water storage
tanks, generators?
5.c. Will the shelter be utilized for residentialvehicular parking use by a future residence?
5.d. Will the shelter be used for staging of future building construction materials?
5.e. Will the shelter remain for future private recreational use only?
6. Please supply an ELEVATION PLAN clearly depicting N, W, S, E side views of the shelter. This Elevation
Plan should include accurate scale or dimensions depicting the building height.
7. Will the covered shelter have any proposed electrical service wiring, power, lighting?
Your comments and referenced documents can be sent to cwirth@garfield-countv.com.
Colleen W¡rth
Building Plans Examiner
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401
(970) 945-1377 extt6t0
cwirth @ga rfie ld-co u ntv.com
2
tGrtirf;*fr',ffifffiriiiå*"'
An Employcc Oryncd Compony
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
,onaail: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
www.kumalusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, GlenwoodiSprings, and Summit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 2, RUIZ SOUTH MrNOR SUBDIVTSTON
COUNTY ROAD 331
GARX'IELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO.22-7-736
FEBRUARY 21,2023
PREPARED FOR:
TITO RUIZ
353 WEST ORCHARD AVENUE
SILT, COLORADO 81652
titoshandvm anservice@yahoo.com
I
TABLE OF'CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..
SITE CONDITIONS..
FIELD EXPLORATION
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .....
FOUNDATIONS
1
....... - 1 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .....-2-
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS .........- 2 -
_1_
1
............... - 3 -
............... - 3 -
..-4-
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..- 4 -
FLOOR SLABS......
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
LIMITATIONS ..-6-
FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 through 6 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 22-7-736
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STTJDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located onLot2,
Ruiz South Minor Subdivision, County Road 331, south of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. The
project site is shown on Figure l. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for
the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to Tito Ruiz dated November 26,2022.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted 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, compressibilþ 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.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The residence will be a two-story wood-framed structure with an attached garage located on the
lot as shown on Figure 1. Ground floors will be structural above crawlspace for the living areas
and slab-on-grade for the garage. Grading for the structure is expected to be relatively minor
with cut depths between about 2%to 4 feet. An auxiliary dwelling unit (ADU) may be built in
the future to the southeast of the proposed residence in the vicinity of our Boring 3, see Figure l.
We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above,
we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed building site was vacant at the time of our field exploration. There was a chicken
coop located in the north-east corner of the lot. The ground surface in the building area is
relatively flat, slopes gently down to the north, and was vegetated with grasses and weeds.
About 3 inches of snow covered the ground at the time of our field exploration.
T.IELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on January 5,2023. Three exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conditions.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 22-7-736
-2-
Borings I and2 were drilled at the proposed main residence and Boring 3 was drilled at the
future ADU site, and located as directed by the client. The borings were advanced with 4-inch
diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-458 drill rig. The borings
were logged by a representative of Kumar & Associates.
Samplcs of thc subsoils wcrc takcn with a 2-inch I.D. California lincr samplcr. Thc samplcr was
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-I586.
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 Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our
laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
S U BS U R.T'.ACE CONDITION S
Graphic logs of thc subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. 'îhe
subsoils encountered, below aboutYz foot of organic topsoil, consisted of medium stiff to stiff,
sandy to very sandy silt and clay that extended down to the depths drilled at Borings 2 and 3 of
2l feet. At Boring 1, relatively dense coarse granular soils were encountered below the silt and
clay soils from 20 feet to the depth drilled of 21 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content and density, percent finer than sand-size gradation analyses, and unconfined compressive
strength. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive
samples, presented on Figures 4 through 6, indicated generally moderate compressibility under
conditions of loading and wetting. Two of the samples, Borings I @ 5' and Boring 3 @2.5',
showed a low to moderate collapse potential when weffed under a constant 1,000 psf surcharge.
The other sample, Boring 2 @ 5' , showed a minor expansion potential when wetted under a
constant 1,000 psf surcharge. The unconfined compressive strength testing indicated medium
stiffconsistency for the moist to very moist silt and clay. The laboratory testing is summarized
in Table l.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist to moist to occasionally very moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper silt and clay soils are generally stiff and should be suitable for support of lightly
loaded spread footings with some risk of sottlomont, mainly if the bearing soils are wetted. Tho
minor expansion potential encountered in one of the samples can be neglected in the foundation
Kum¡r&Associates, lnc. o ProþdtiîJo.22.7-736
-J-
(and floor slab) design. A lower risk foundation would be to extend the foundation bearing
down to the underlying dense coarse granular soils such as with helical piers.
Provided below are recommendations for spread footings bearing on the natural soils. If
recommendations for helical piers are desired, we should be contacted.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, we believe the buildings can be founded with spread footings bearing
on the natural soils with some risk of sefflement. Precautions should be taken to prevent wetting
of the bearing soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
l) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect
settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will
be about I inch or less. There could be some post-construction settlement up to
around 1 inch if the bearing soils were to become wetted, depending on the depth
and extent of the wetting.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas 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.
4) Continuous foundation walls 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.
5) The topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing
bearing level extended down to the undisturbed firm natural soils. The exposed
soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted.
6) A representative ofthe geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 22-7-736
-4-
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 55 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site fine-grnined soils. Cantilcvcrcd rctnining structurcs which are separato from tho
residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the fulI active earth pressure
condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site fine-grained soils. The
backfill should not contain organics, debris or rock larger than about 6 inches.
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 structure. An underdrain
should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls as needed.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% ofthe maximum
standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. Backfill placed in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95%o 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.
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
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.30. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 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 95%;o of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade
construction. To reduce the effeots of some differential movomentn floor slabs should be
Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No. 22-7-736
5
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow 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 '/o-inch base course, should be placed beneath interior slabs
for subgrade support. This material should consist of minus 2-inchaggregate with at least 50%
retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than l2Yopassing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least95%o of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the
on-site soils devoid of topsoil and oversized (plus 6-inch) rocks.
PERIMETER DRAIN SYSTEM
It is our understanding the proposed finished floor elevation at the lowest level is at or above the
surrounding grade. A perimeter foundation drain system should not be needed for the proposed
shallow (less than 4 feet deep) crawlspace construction.
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 also create a
perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as basement areas,
crawlspace areas deeper than 4 feet, and retaining walls, be protected from wetting and
hydrostatic pressure buildup by a perimeter foundation drain system.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Positive surface drainage is a very important aspect of the project to prevent wetting of the
bearing soils. 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 censtruction and during the life of the structure.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas
and to at least 90Yo 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. We recommend a minimum
slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
Kumar & Associates., ilnc. o Project No. 22-7-78ß
-6-
Landscaping which requires regularhaany irrigation, such as sod, and sprinkler
heads should be located at least 5 fcctftûm foundation walls. Consideration
should be given to use of xcriscape to leûuce the potential for wetting of soils
below the building caused by inigdim-
LIMITATIOITS
This study has been conducted in accordance with gmally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. Wennake no warranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted inffiñs rqnrt are based upon the dete obtained
from the exploratory borings drilled at the locationsimdicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of
construction and our experience in the a¡ea. Our sewüæs do not include determining the
presence, prevention or possibility of mold or otherhiological contaminants (MOBC) developing
in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC,fr€n aprofessional in this special field of
practice should be consulted. Our findings includeinferpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratorybmings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavationisperfomred. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those deCIcffied in this report, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recommendations may b€mdCI.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive usebyrour client for design pu{poses. We are not
responsible for technical interpretations by others ofmr inforrration. As the project evolves, we
should provide oontinued consultation and field serr¿frocs during construction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recommendations, md to v€riry that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant deoägn changes may require additional anaþsis
or modifications to the recommendations presentedhcrein. We recommend on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing shata and tc#ing of structural fiIl by a re,presentative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kumar & Assocíates, Inc,
-tl/\
David A. Noteboom, StaffEngineer
Reviewed by:
David A. Young,
DAY/kac
s)
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No, 22-7-736
I
I
-l-
I
I
{-
Road No. 346
-
x_- x- x- x- x-
-
x- x*--- x.-- x-
L 20 UtíIitA Easerent
16.A US Wesl Comtuüîíetion
Easemenl
Book 89O, Page 143
I
i
Chit
v- Y- l-
Weil
@
LOT I
LOT 2
Ruíz Sout¡. Mino, Subdívision
Receot¡on No.
1O.27St Acres
20.O' Iftigatíon Dítch hsement
Rewtion No, 7a5o66
,rr.'BORING 2
17.5'
aßælDsae
o
BORING 3
30 Witness Comet
{5 Rebar and
1-1/2" Aluminilñ CûF
&ed "Pß 36572 WC 30"
N 89'45',13" E 546.00',
50 100
APPROXIMATE SCALE_FEET
22-7-736 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1
Ê.
,r!t
=I
BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3
-0 0
7/12
17 /12
WC=7.8
DD=97
-200=55
6/ 12
\{Ç=7,7
DD=98
-5
55/ 12
WC= 12.9
DD=1 1 0
1',t / 12
WC=,l1.0
DD=1 1 3
5/12
wc-2f .0
DD= 1 00
- 10 4/ 12
10
t-l¡Jtdl!
I-t-(L
tiJô
6/ 12
\NC=21 ,4
DD=1 02
-200=88
UC= 1 ,1 00
6/ 12
WC= 13.9
DD= 1 03
-2OO=72
F-
LJ
t¡Jl!
I-FfL
L¡Jô_ 15 8/12
WC=17.2
DD= 1 07
UC=1,300
15s/12 1O/ 12
-20 7 /12
206/6,27/6 6/12
25 25
22-7-736 Kumar & Associates LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
LEGEND
N
TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY SILT LOAM, FIRM, FROZEN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN
SILT AND CLAY (CL-ML); SANDY TO VERY SANDY, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST
TO MOIST TO OCCASIONALLY VERY MOIST, BROWN.
F.::Z
viÀza
GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM-GC); SANDY, SILTY, CLAYEY, DENSE, MOIST, BROWN, PRIMARILY
SUBROUNDED ROCKS.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE
-T.^ DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 7 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER
'/ '' FALLTNG 30 TNCHES WERE REQU|RED To DRtvE THE SAMPLER t2 tNcHES.
.--} DEPTH AT WHICH BORING CAVED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING DRILLING.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON JANUARY 5, 2023 WITH A 4-INCH-DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2, THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE NOT MEASURED AND THE LOGS OF
THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE PLOTTED TO DEPTH.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE
DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (PCT) (ISTU D2216);
-2OO = PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM Dllao);
UC = UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSt) (ISTU D 21 66).
22-7 -736 Kumar & Associates LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Sílt ond Cloy
FROM:Borlngl@5'
WG = 12.9 %, DD = 110 pcf
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
)
)
\
\
\
\
\(
\
\
\
I I
tad
Kumor ond kletu, lñc. Srdl
bnællddloñ t ilnq Flomd ln
oæoddnc. tr m D-4546.
òe
JJ
l¡J
=at1
I
z.otr
ô
=o
tJ1z.o
C)
o
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
I I.O APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 t00
22-7 -736 Kumar & Associates SWELL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
€
I
E
!t
I
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silt ond Cloy
FROM:Boring2@5'
WC = l1.O %, DD = 113 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
I
)
1
JJ
LJ
=rr1
I
z9F
ô
=o
UIzo(J
0
-1
-2
22-7 -736 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
Ê
I
à¡
SAMPLE OF: Very Sondy Silt ond Cloy
FROM:Boring3@2.5'
Y{C = 7.7 %, DD = 98 pcf
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
ì
\
\)
ft.s tâd 6ulb opÞly oñlt to üô
æûpb ldd. n. t .tlng r.poñ
rholl nd b. roËduc.d, .xcôpt ¡n
full, d$dt Sâ rdft¡ optrdol d
Kuñor ond k!æ1d6, lnc. srdl
Conslldatlôn tdlnq rylomd inôcddôr.. tr ñ O-454C-
1
0
às
JJ -ll¡J
=ar)
t-2
z.otr
ô
o
anz.oo_4
-5
-6
t0 'r00I
22-7 -736 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6
l(+ltiJtr*fi:'ffi*:ffif*iTiå*"'
:'
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
No.22.7-736
AITERT RG LIIITS
,0l'l
PLASTIC
ll{DEX
lnrn
UNCONFI}IED
coilPRESSIVE
STREIIGTH SOIL TYPE
ßt
DEPTH
fqat
NATURAL
frtotsluRE
coNTEill
I{AfURAL
DRY
DENSITY
lbcll
GRAVEL
(%)
SAND
(%)
PERCENT
PASSI{G NO.
200 slEvE
l%t
LIQUID LINF
Sandy Silt and ClayI512.9 lt0
Sandy Silt and Clay10288I,1001021.4
53 Very Sandy Silt and Clay22y,7.8 97
Sandy Silt and Clay5I1.0 113
72 Sandy Silt and Clayl013.9 t03
Very Sandy Silt and ClayJ2%7.7 98
Sandy Silt and Clay100521.0
1,300 Very Sandy Silt and Clayl517.2 107