The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubsoils Study for Foundation Designtr CTL I THOMPSONW .t $$a GEOTEGHIIICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION JOHNSON RESIDENCE COLORADO HIGHWAY 325 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Preparcd For: $ $ 24-gnL MICHAEL JOHNSON 124 West 2d Street Rifle, CO 81650 Project No. GS06486.000-120 September 11,2A20 ffi TABLE OF CONTENTS scoPE....... SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. ....,. SITE CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ......... stTE GEO1OGY............... SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS... SITE EARTHWORK......... Foundation Wall Backfill......... FOUNDATTON ................. STRUCTURALLY-SUPPORTED FLOORS AN D CRAWL SPAC ES .,..,... FOUNDATION WALLS.,.. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE................. SURFACE DRAINAGE. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES .......,.... GEOTECHNICAL RISK... LIMTTAT|ONS .,......,........ FIGURE 1-VICINITYMAP FIGURE 2 - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 3 - SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURE 4 * GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN CONCEPT TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. G50648€.000-120 1 1 2 3 3 3 5 5 6 7 7 8 I ......10 10 11 11 12 ffi SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investiga- tion for the Johnson Residence proposed along Colorado Highway 325 in Gar- field County, Colorado. We conducted this investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the planned residence. Our report was prepared from data developed from our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and our experience with similar conditions. This report includes a description of the subsurface con- ditions observed in exploratory pits and presents geotechnical engineering rec- ommendations for design and construction of foundations, floor systems, below- grade walls, and details influenced by the subsoils. Recommendations contained in this report were developed based on our understanding of the proposed con- struction. A summary of our conclusions is below. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Our exploratory pits (TP-1 and TP-2) excavated at the site encoun- tered about 6 inches of topsoil over soils consisting predominantly of silty to clayey sand to depths of 10.5 feet and 8 feet. The clayey to silty sand was intermixed with silty sandy clay The soils below a depth of B feet inTP-2 were silty to clayey gravelwith cobbles. Groundwater was not found in our exploratory pits. 2.Soils at anticipated foundation elevation for the building will consist predominantly of clayey to silty sand. We judge the residence can be constructed on a footing foundation supported by the undis- turbed, natural soils at the site. Design and construction criteria for the footing foundation are provided in the report. A perimeter foundation drain should be constructed around the crawlspace below the residence. Ground surface adjacent to the residence should be graded to provide for rapid removal of surface water away from the building, MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS06486.000.1 20 1 3. ffi SITE GONDInONS The Johnsar Residence is plopced on a 60-acre parer (GarfieH cflnty Parel No.21271t2(no27r, whictr b located along the east sftle of Golonado Hlqhrrtay 325 in GarfieH County, Gobrdo- A virt'nity m4 wiUr the location of the sile b shout on Figurc 1. The site b located nearlhe moufir of the canyon (Ri[e @p) trat is belotr the dam of Rifle Gap Reservdr. Rifle creek Gotf cource is soutt of the parcel. Rifre Creek fuends down to the soutlr acfi)ss tre subject property, adlaw t to fte rcad. An redd photograph dilre site b induded as Figurc 2. The prc- posed buiHlng sib is located on the v*y floor between Rifle Cred( and tre south{ending Rine Crcek Canon trot abng fte bme of tre sbep canyon slope to the e*t Overall ground surfae ln tre propced bulHing area b genty shptng b tte souh and sorthwest at grades less than 5 percem. Vegetalion in thb arca consbts of native grass and scaftered sage. Fl!/drophilic phnb, such as willows, arc aQiacent to the creek. A photogr4h of the slte is belorrr. reHAE-JcIT[}(lIJ(rIIXI|RESIFf,EPnoFcrxLGs{G"@120 Looking south acnrss buildkrg sib ffi PROPOSED CONSTRUGTION We were provided with plans for the residence by Drummond House Plans (dated December 17,2018). The plans indicated the Johnson Residence will be a two-story, wood-frame building. We understand the client desires a crawl space below the main level floor. Several covered decks will be on the building exterior. Foundation loads along perimeter walls are likely to be be- tween 1,000 and 3,000 pounds per linear feet with maximum interior column loads of less than 50 kips. We should be informed if construction plans change so we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural engineering input. SITE GEOLOGY As part of our geotechnical engineering investigation, we reviewed the ge- ologic map by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), titled, "Geologic Map of the Rifle Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado", by Ralph R. Shroba and Robert Scott (dated 1997)" The overburden soils at the site are mapped as undivided alluvium and colluvium. The silty to clayey sand and gravel soils found in our ex- ploratory pits excavated at the site are consistent with the descriptions on the map- ping. The soils are underlain at depth by bedrock units of the Wasatch formation, SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS To investigate subsurface conditions at the site, we excavated two explor- atory pits (TP-1 and TP-2) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Ex- ploratory excavation operations were directed by our representative who logged subsoils encountered in the pits and obtained representative samples of the soils. Graphic logs of the soils exposed in the pits are included as Figure 3. MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GSo6486.000-'t 20 ffi Our elplonatory pits TP-l and TP-2 encountered about 6 inctres of topsoil over soils consisling predominanUy of silty to clayey sand to depths of 10.5 fuef, and 8 fuet, respeciively. The clEpy to silty sand uras intermixed with silty sandy clay. The soils below a depth of Sbet in TP-2 urere siltyto clayeygravelwith @bbbs. Groundlrater was notfiound in our elploratory pits- The pits werc bad(- filled immediately afier exploratory excavation operatbns urere oompleted- A photograph of fte soils excavabd ftorn TP-2 b belor. Soils rcvated fiorn TP-z Samples of the soils obtained ftrom our eploratory pils rrere retumed to our laboratory for pertinent testring.. One sample of the clayey to sitty gnavel *- leffi for gmdation analysis conhined 34 perent gravel" 26 percent sand, and 20 perent sift and clay (passing tlre No, 20O sieve)- A sample of the silty sandy day seleded br ergineering index teting exhibited a lQuil limit of 23 perent and a plasticity index of 5 percent Gradation test reul'ts are resulls are shown on Figurc4. Laboratory testing is surnmarized on Table l. llcHAE!.J(ItlSOr{ .fxtlsoilt REsit[ErEE PRo.EGT ito GS{n|!dmLt2[! ffi SITE EARTHWORK We anticipate the foundation excavation will extend to depths of 3 to 5 feet to attain bottom of crawlspace elevation. Our subsurface information indicates the subsoils at this depth will consist predominantly of clayey to silty sand. Sides of excavations deeper than 4 feet should be sloped to meet local, state, and fed- eral safety regulations. The natural soils at the site will likely classify as Type B or C soils based on OSHA criteria. Sides of excavations should be no steeper than 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type B soils and 1.5 to 1 in Type C soils. The contractor is responsible for identification of soil types and proper sloping and excavation sloping, Free groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory pits during ex- cavation, We do not expect that excavations to the anticipated depths (3 to 5 feet) will penetrate a free groundwater table. We suggest excavations be sloped to a gravity discharge or to a temporary sump where water from precipitation and runoff can be removed by pumping. Foundation Wall Backfill Proper placement and compaction of foundation backfill is important to re- duce infiltration of surface water and settlement of backfill. This is especially im- portant for backfill areas that will support pavements, such as in the driveway. The excavated soils free of rocks larger than 4 inches in diameter, organics and debris can be reused as backfill adjacent to foundation wall exteriors. 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 dry density MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. G506486.000-120 ffi (ASTM D 698). Our representative should test moisture content and density of the backfill during placement. FOUNDATION Our subsurface information indicates the soils at anticipated foundation el- evation for the building will consist predominanfly of clayey to silty sand. we judge the Johnson Residence can be constructed on a footing foundation sup- ported by the undisturbed, natural soils at the site. Our representative should be called to observe the completed foundation excavation to confirm that conditions are as anticipated from our investigation and suitable for support of footings. Recommended design and construction criteria for footings are below. The residence can be constructed on a footing foundation sup- ported by the undisturbed, natural ctayey to silty sand. Footings can be sized using a maximum allowabre bearing pres- sure of 2,500 psf. 1 2. 3 4 continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of at least 16 inches. Foundations for isolated corumns should have minimum dimensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be re- quired, depending upon foundation loads Grade beams and foundation walls shourd be werr reinforced, top and bottom, to span undisclosed loose or soft soil pockets. we rec- ommend reinforcement sufficient to span an unsuppofted distance of at least 12 feet. Ihe soils under exterior footings shourd be protected from freezing, 'rfy'e reeommend the bottom of footings be constructecj at a depth of at least 36 inches below finished exterior grades. The Garfield county building department should be consurted regarding required depth. 5. MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS064s6.000-120 ffi STRUCTURALLY.S UPPORTED FLOORS AN D CRAWL S PACES The main levelfloor in the residence will be structurally-supported with a crawl space below. The required air space in crawl spaces depends on the ma- terials used to construct the floor and the potential expansion of the underlying soils. Building codes normally require a clear space of at least 18 inches be- tween exposed earth and untreated wood floor components, For non-organic systems, we recommend a minimum clear space of 12 inches, Utility connections, including water, gas, air duct, and exhaust stack con- nections to appliances on structural floors should be capable of absorbing some deflection of the floor. Plumbing that passes through the floor should ideally be hung from the underside of the structuralfloor and not laid on the bottom of the excavation. lt is prudent to maintain the minimum clear space below all plumbing lines. Control of humidity in crawl spaces is important for indoor air quality and peformance of wood floor systems. We believe the best current practices to control humidity involve the use of a vapor retarder or vapor barrier (10 mil mini- mum) placed on the soils below accessible subfloor areas, The vapor re- tarder/barrier should be sealed at joints and attached to concrete foundation ete- ments. FOUNDATION WALLS Foundation walls which extend below-grade should be designed for lateral earth pressures where backfill is not present to about the same extent on both sides of the wall, such as in crawl spaces. Many factors affect the values of the design lateralearth pressure. These factors include, but are not limited to, the MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. cS06488.000-120 ffi type, compaction, slope, and drainage of the backfill, and the rigidity of the wall against rotation and deflection. For a very rigid wall where negligible or very little deflection will occur, an "at-rest" lateral earth pressure should be used in design. For walls that can de- flect or rotate 0.5 to 1 percent of wall height (depending upon the backfill types), design for a lower "active" lateral earth pressure may be appropriate. Our experi- ence indicates typical below-grade walls in residences deflect or rotate slighly under normal design loads, and that this deflection results in satisfactory wall performance. Thus, the earth pressures on the walls will likely be between the "active" and "at-rest" conditions, For backfill conforming with recommendations in the Foundation Wall Backfill section, that are not saturated, we recommend design of below-grade walls at this site using an equivalent fluid density of at least 40 pcf. This value as- sumes deflection; some minor cracking of walls may occur. lf very little wall de- flection is desired, a higher design value for the at-rest condition using an equiva- lent fluid pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE Water from precipitation and sufface irrigation frequently flows through rel- atively permeable backfill placed adjacent to a residence and collects on the sur- face of less permeable soils at the bottom of foundation excavations. This pro- cess can cause wet or moist eonditions after construction. To reduce the likeli- hood water pressure will develop outside foundation walls and the risk of accu- mulation of water in below-grade areas, we recommend provision of a foundation drain adjacent to the perimeter of the crawlspace. The drain should consist of a 4-inch diameter, slotted pipe encased in free-draining gravel. The drain should MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO, G506486.000-120 ffi lead to a positive gravity outlet or to a sump where water can be removed by pumping. The foundation drain concept is shown on Figure 5. SURFACE DRAINAGE Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, floor slabs, and concrete flatwork. Surface drainage should be designed to provide rapid runoff of surface water away from the residence. Proper surface drainage and ir- rigation practices can help control the amount of surface water that penetrates to foundation levels and contributes to settlement of soils that support the building foundation. Positive drainage away from the foundation and avoidance of irriga- tion 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 drain away from the building in all directions. We recommend a minimum constructed slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet (10 percent) in landscaped areas around the resi- dence, where practical. The residence should be provided with roof gutters and down- spouts. The downspouts should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Splash blocks and/or extensions should be provided at all downspouts so water discharges onto the ground beyond the backfill. Landscaping should be carefully designed and maintained to mini- mize irrigation. Plants placed close to foundation walls should be limited to those with low moisture requirements. 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 will inhibit weed growth yet still allow natural evaporation to occur^ 1 2 3 MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. G506486.000-1 20 ffi CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. We meas- ured a water-soluble sulfate concentration of 0.0 percent in a sample of the sub- soils from the site. For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI 332-08 Code Re- quirements for Residential Concrete indicates there are no special requirements for sulfate resistance. ln our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed suffaces of highly permeable concrete. To control this risk and to resist freeze thaw deteri- oration, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for con- crete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to surface drainage or high-water tables. Concrete should have a total air content of 6o/a +t-1.5%. We recommend all foundation walls and grade beams in contact with the subsoils (in- cluding the inside and outside faces of garage and crawl spaces) be damp- proofed. CONSTRUCTION OBS ERVATIONS we recommend that crl f rhompson, lnc. be retained to provide con- struction observation and materials testing services for the project, This would allow us the opportunity to verify whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investigation. lf others perform these observations, they must accept responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in this report remain aopropriate. lt is also beneficial to projeets, from economic and practical stand- points, when there is continuity between engineering consultation and the con- struction observation and materials testing phases. MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS06486.000-120 ,ffi STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CTL I Thompson, lnc. is a full-service geotechnical, structural, materials, and environmental engineering firm. Our services include preparation of struc- tural framing and foundation plans. We can also design earth retention systems. Based on our experience, crl I Thompson, lnc. typically provides value to pro- jects from schedule and economic standpoints, due to our combined expertise and experience with geotechnical, structural, and materials engineering, We would like the opportunity to provide proposals for structural engineering services on your future projects, GEOTECHNICAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop ge- otechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnicalengineers use are generally empirical and must be tem- pered by engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or rec- ommendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be consid- ered risk-free and, more impoftantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction be- tween the soils and that the proposed structure will perform as desired or in- tended. What the engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sec- tions do constitute is our estimate, based on the information generated during this evaluation and our experience working with these conditions, of those measures that are necessary to help the building perform satisfactorily. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client for the purpose of providing geotechnical design and construction criteria for the pro- posed project. The information, conclusions, and recommendations presented MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS0548e.000-1 20 ffi herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, hrt not limited b, the type of structures proposed, the geologic setting, and the subsurftae condF tions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contalned in the re- port are not valid for use by others. Standards of practice continuously change irn the area of geotechnical engineering. lf the proposed residence h not oon- structed within three years, we should be contacted to determine ilre shouH rp date this report. LIMITATIONS Our exploratory pits provide a reasonable picture of subsurfae condi[ons below the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated bythe pils will occur. Our representative should be called to observe the con@ted found& tion excavation to confirm that conditions are as anticipated from our inveslig+ tion and suitable for support of footings. This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent witir that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers cunen0y practlcing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warrantlr" elercss or irr plied, is made. lf we can be of further service in discussing the ornbnts of ltris report, please call. cTL I THOMPSON, tNC.Reviewed By E.mes D. Senior Principal Engineer l\ )llllL MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. cS03486.000-1 20 ivision tr o 1500 J000ErrEl=NJOIE SCALE: l'= 3000' Mlchael Johnson SATEI-IjITE II4AGE F-ROM GOOCTE FARTI-{ (DATED 6/',t7/20X6} Vicinity ilapProJect No. GSO6485.OO(F1A Fs. 1 tr LEGEND: TP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFt EXPLoRATORY PIT NOTE:o 50 100 SCll,E 1' - 100' SATELLIIE IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARrH (DATED 6/17 /2016) TP-1 TP_2 AerialMlchacl Johnson ProJect No. GSO6486.OO0-1 20 Pholograph Eg. 2 TP-1 EL. 5780 5,780 5,775 5,770 5,765 5,760 MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE cTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06496.000-120 5,780 LEGEND: 5,775 5,770 5,765 5,760 TOPSOIL, SAND, CLAYEY, MOIST, BROWN. CLAYEY SILTY SAND. INTERMIXED WITH SANDY SILTY CI-AY, GRAVEL, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM SNFF, BROWN, TAN, RUST. (sc-sM, CL-ML) GMVEL. CLAYEY TO SILTY, COBBLES, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST. MEDIUM oENSE, TAN, BROWN. (GC, cC-cM) BULK SAMPLE FROM EXCAVATED SOILS, NOTES: EXPLORATORY PITS WERE EXCAVATED WITH A TRACKHOE ON AUGUST 26,2020. 2. GROUND WATER WAS NOT FOUND IN OUR EXPLOMTORY PITS AT THE TIME OF EXCAVATION. PITS WERE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION OPERATIONS WERE COMPLETED. 3, LOCATIONS OF EXPLOMTORY PITS ARE APPROXIMATE. ELEVATIONS WERE ESTIMATEO FROM GOOGLE EARTH. 4, THESE LOGSARE SUBJECTTOTHE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. ffi 9unlmary Logs of Fi[g'o'"tory FIG. 3 TP.2 EL.5776 FL! uJ LL zotr lllJllj F Lr.lulr o F ulJ lrJ F ffi SANDS GRAVELcrAY (PrASTtc) To stLT (NoN-pLASTtc) FINE MEDIUM COARS FINE COARSE COBBLES ANALYSIS zil='' . ':::: -t - -*<l: r: =J--:-.1- -::''-t.- : .-,1=, i| --:-::l-l=_ -: 0 10 20 30 40 60 70 80 .074 .149 .297- ._.5S0 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 g_52 19..1 36.1 76.2 127 2oOo.42 - - '-isf-- OIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 9706a f60 Fz 850tua4o FzUoeU& s0 80 100 .001 0.002 .005 .009 ,019 .037 5'6'8' TIME READINGS 60 MtN. 19 MtN. 4 MtN. 1 MlN. .200 ..t00 U.S. STANOARD SERIES '50 '40 '30 '16 .10 .8 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3/8" 3t4" 1% 3" 30 20 10 0 90 100 25 HR. 7 HR. 4s MlN. 15 MtN. Somple of From GRAVEL, CLAYEY (cC) TP - 2 AT 8.9 FEET GRAVEL i4 o/o stlr & cLAy 20 % PLASTICITY INDEX GRAVEL SILT & CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX % SANDo/o LIQUID LIMII SAND LIQUID LIMIT 26% % o/o Somple of From MICHAEL JOHNSON JOHNSON RESIDENCE PROJECT NO, cS06486.000-1 20 % /o % Gradation Test Results SANDS GRAVELcLAy (pLAs nc) To stLT (NoN-pLASTtc) FINE MEOIUM COARS FINE COARSE COBBLES ANALYSIS SIEVE ANAL -: t-l .l: t__----_-:.| ,.--L- -.J'--..--.[ -':ll : -f.,, ,l=,,-,t1,,,,,,, ,,1,- -;.l-lll,l =:- .1i..'L. __1 .- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 (no 6q fa0 Fzu50odu o,40 0 g0 80 100 s0 100nnl n nnt 9.52 ig.i 36.1 16.2 127 200 152 TIME U.S. STANDARD SERIES '50 '40 '30 .16 '10 .8 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3t8" 314" 1A' 3" 5" 6" 30 20 10 0 . r5v ,avt 3Yu L t9 l.v 1 J6 4 t6 o.42 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 60 MtN, 19 MtN. 4 MtN. 1 MtN. .200 .100 25 11p. 7 HR, 45 MlN. 15 tVtN" FIG.4 tr NOTE ORAIN SHOUID BE AT I.EAST 2 NCHES BELOIY BOTTOM OF FOOIING AT THE HrcHETTT POiN $D STOPE DOWiITVARD TO A POSIIII/E GRAVIIY OUTLET OR TOA SUMP WHERE WATER CATTI BE REMOVED BT PUMPING. BACKN\ SLOPE osttA COIER ENTIRE IYIDTH OF MIMDMIN GzOON OR EQUlVAl-EtlT ATTACH PI.ASflC SHEENNG TO FOUNDATION WAT 8. MINIMUM OR BEYOND f cR wt sPace J ./ FOOnNc 0R PAn .llUD SI.AB'oR PER GMI/EL WTIH NON-WOVEN GEOTDCNLE FABRIC (UINNTI r40N oR EAUVATENI). BARRIER 1:1 SLOPE FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTINC (lvHtcHEvER ts GREAIER) l:[lcH DIAIdEIER PffiFORATED DRAIN PIPE THE PIPE SHOUU} BE PTACED IiI A TRET{CH WIH A slopE oF AT tEASr t,/E-tNCH DROP pER FOOT OF DRAIN. Mlchael Johnson Johnsor Fosldenco Foundatlon Wall Drain Conceot S|TRUCIUMI. FLOOR tt' 'G:;' TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTrc PROJECT NO. cs06486.000-r2r ffi EXFLORATORY PIT DEPTH (FEETI MOISTURE CONTENT to/ol DRY DENSIry {PCFI :RG LIMITS SOLUBLE SULFATES (o/o\ PERCEINIT GRAVEIL n&) FEFaCEITT!' SAITD en P'A55mKi ilto" 2(x! SIEl'Et*)DESCR!FTNON LIOUID LIMIT (o/ol PLASTICIry INDEX (o/o\ TP-1 8-7 000 ilr IP.2 5€ 54 a 20 FaOe It d'[