HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils Report for Foundation DesignKumar & AssoclaNs, Inc.
K Geotechnical and Materials Engineers 5020 County Road 154
and Environmental Scientists Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email: kaglenwood@akumarusa.com
An Employee Owned Company www•kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT FW-20, ASPEN GLEN
382 GOLDEN BEAR DRIVE
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO.21-7-739
DECEMBER 9, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
ANDREA SOUSA
110 HARRIS STREET, APT 206
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
and rea Sousa mail.com
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY........................................................................................ I -
PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION................................................................................................ I
SITECONDITIONS...................................................................................................................-
1
SUBSIDENCEPOTENTIAL.....................................................................................................-
2-
FIELDEXPLORATION............................................................................................................
2
SUBSURFACECONDITIONS..................................................................................................
2-
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS...............................................................................
3-
DESIGNRECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................
3-
FOUNDATIONS....................................................................................................................
- 3-
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ...................................................................
- 4-
FLOORSLABS......................................................................................................................
- 5 -
UNDERDRAINSYSTEM.....................................................................................................
- 6-
SURFACEDRAINAGE.....................................................................................................
7-
LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................
7-
FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 21-7-739
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on
Lot FW-20, 382 Golden Bear Drive, Aspen Glen, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is
shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for foundation
design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering
services to Andrea Sousa, dated September 10, 2021.
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, 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, recommendations and other geotechnical engineering
considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had not been developed. The building is
proposed in the area roughly between the exploratory borings shown on Figure 1. The building
will likely be a one- or two-story wood -frame structure with attached garage possibly over a
basement level. We assume excavation for the building will have a maximum cut depth of one
level, up to about 8 feet below the existing ground surface. For the purpose of our analysis,
foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to be relatively light and typical of the
proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans are significantly different from those described
above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site was vacant at the time of our field exploration. The ground surface is relatively
flat. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds. A drainage ditch is near the northeast edge of the
subject site.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 21-7-739
-2-
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Aspen Glen Subdivision.
These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone with some
massive beds of gypsum and limestone. There is a possibility that massive gypsum deposits
associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution of the
gypsum under certain conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of
localized subsidence. During previous work in the area, several sinkholes were observed
scattered throughout the lower Roaring Fork Valley. These sinkholes appear similar to others
associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite in areas of the Roaring Fork Valley.
Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. No evidence of cavities
was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the exploratory borings were relatively
shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our present knowledge of the subsurface
conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of
future ground subsidence on Lot FW-20 throughout the service life of the proposed residence, in
our opinion, is low; however, the owner should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole
development. If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired,
we should be contacted.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on September 15, 2021. Two exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions.
The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -
mounted CME-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Kumar &
Associates, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1%-inch and 2-inch 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 testis similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586.
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.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface profiles encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. Below
about % foot of organic topsoil, the subsoils consist of very stiff to hard, slightly sandy clay. At
Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 21-7-739
-3-
a depth of about 6 feet in Boring 1 and 9 feet in Boring 2, the subsoils became a dense, silty
sandy gravel and cobble mixture. The soils encountered in the borings are similar to the soils
encountered at other nearby lots. The clay portions of these soils can possess an expansion
potential when wetted.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural
moisture content and density and grain size analyses. Swell -consolidation testing was performed
on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay subsoils. The swell -consolidation test results,
presented on Figures 4, indicate low compressibility under relatively light surcharge loading and
a moderate expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. Undisturbed
sampling of the silty sandy gravel soils was not possible due to the rock content. Results of
gradation analyses performed on the minus 1 %z-inch fraction of the gravel subsoils are presented
on Figure 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly
moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper clay soils encountered at the site possess moderate expansion potential when wetted.
The underlying gravel soils possess moderate bearing capacity and typically low settlement
potential. Foundations placed on the upper clay soils will have a risk of foundation movement,
especially if the bearing soils become wetted, possibly resulting in distress to the proposed
residence. Surface runoff, landscape irrigation, and utility leakage are possible sources of water
which could cause wetting. A full -depth basement level would remove most of the clay soils
from below footing and slab areas and allow the foundation to bear entirely on the gravel soils
reducing the risk of foundation and slab movement. We recommend the upper clay soils be
removed from below the building area and the foundation bear entirely on the underlying gravel
soils or on a minimum 3-foot depth of compacted structural fill (such as in the garage area).
Structural fill should consist of an imported gravel material such as CDOT Class 6 road base.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the residence be founded with spread footings placed
on undisturbed natural granular soils or a minimum three-foot depth of compacted structural fill.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 21-7-739
-4-
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils or compacted structural
fill can be designed for an allowable bearing pressurr
500ps2) Based on experience, we expect settlement of footint ne an constructed
as discussed in this section will be up to about 1 inch. There could be some
additional movement if the bearing soils were to become wet.
3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous footings
and 24 inches for isolated pads.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies and limit the risk of differential movement. One method of
analysis is to design the foundation wall to span an unsupported length of at least
14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to
resist a lateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining
Walls" section of this report.
5) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover a earing elevation for frost protection. Placement
of foundations at east 36 inch s- elow the exterior grade is typically used in this
area.
6) Prior to the footing construction, topsoil and loose disturbed soils should be
removed and the foundation excavation extended down to the underlying granular
soil or sub -excavated 3 feet below the proposed foundation bearing level for
structural fill. The sub -excavated depth should be backfilled to design grade with
compacted structural fill. Structural fill should consist of a suitable imported
granular material such as CDOT Class 6 base course, moisture conditioned to
near optimum moisture content and compacted to 98 percent of maximum
standard Proctor density. The fill should extend to at least 1 Meet beyond footing
edges.
7) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations and test structural fill compaction prior to concrete placement to
evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION 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 60 pcf for backfill consisting
Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 21-7-739
-5-
of the on -site fine-grained soils and at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of imported granular
materials. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and can be
expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full 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 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site fine-grained soils and at least 40 pcf for
backfill consisting of imported granular materials.
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.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content slightly above optimum. Backfill placed in
pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95% 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
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 375 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 a non -expansive material compacted to
at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural clay soils possess an expansion potential and slab heave could occur if the subgrade
soils were to become wet. If used, slab -on -grade construction should be placed on the natural
coarse granular soils or 3 feet of compacted structural fill consisting of a suitable imported
Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 21-7-739
WOE
granular material (CDOT Class 6 Base Course) and precautions should be taken to limit potential
wetting of the underlying clay soils. These recommendations will not prevent all slab heave if
the clay soils become wetted and the owner should be informed of possible movement and
distress. A positive way to reduce the risk of slab movement, which is commonly used in the
area, is to construct structurally supported floors over crawlspace.
To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained
vertical movement. Interior non -bearing partitions resting on floor slabs underlain by clay soils
should be provided with a slip joint at the bottom of the wall so that, if the slab moves, the
movement cannot be transmitted to the upper structure. This detail is also important for
wallboards, stairways and door frames. Slip joints which will allow at least 1 %2-inches of vertical
movement are recommended. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to
shrinkage cracking. Slab reinforcement and control joints should be established by the designer
based on experience and the intended slab use.
A minimum 4-inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed immediately beneath basement
level slabs -on -grade. This material 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. The free -draining gravel
will aid in drainage below the slabs and should be connected to the perimeter underdrain system.
Required fill beneath slabs can consist of a suitable imported granular material, excluding topsoil
and oversized rocks. The fill should be spread in thin horizontal lifts, adjusted to at or above
optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor
density. All vegetation, topsoil and loose or disturbed soil should be removed prior to fill
placement.
The above recommendations will not prevent slab heave if the expansive soils underlying slabs -
on -grade become wet. However, the recommendations will reduce the effects if slab heave
occurs. All plumbing lines should be pressure tested before backfilling to help reduce the
potential for wetting.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although groundwater was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
the area and where clay soils are present, that local perched groundwater can develop during
times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a
perched condition. Therefore, we recommend below -grade construction, such as crawlspace and
Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 21-7-739
-7_
basement areas, be protected from wetting by an underdrain system. The drain should also act to
prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind foundation walls.
The underdrain system should consist of a drainpipe surrounded by free -draining granular
material placed at the bottom of the wall backfill. The drain lines should be placed at each level
of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade, and sloped at a minimum
1% grade to a suitable gravity outlet, drywell into the gravel soils or sump and pump. Free -
draining granular material used in the drain system 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. The
drain gravel should be at least I Meet deep and covered with filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N.
Void form below the foundation can act as a conduit for water flow.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Providing and maintaining proper surface drainage will be critical to the long term, satisfactory
performance of the proposed residence. The following drainage precautions should be observed
during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas
should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion
potential of the clay soils.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement areas and to at
least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. Free -
draining wall backfill should be covered with filter fabric and capped with about
2 feet of the on -site, finer graded, soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
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.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least
5 feet from foundation walls.
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.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 21-7-739
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations 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 borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear to be different from those described in this report, we should be
notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be 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 construction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications of 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.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kumar & Associates, Inc.
qa"� It pau-r�
James H. Parsons, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Steven L. PaN
JHP/kac
Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 21-7-739
M
DRAINAGE & I
LANDSCAPE
EASEMENT
N34-25'52"W 114.80' .
r
BALD EAGLE WAY
S34"25'52"E 114.80'
C20 C21
32.fi4 82,16 C22 C23 0
iv an C42
2.f37 S3 '15'17"E `'' S3ZI5'17"E _ r
_ r
100.04' _.. 85.31' r ��C41
Tti LLOTok
LbT 11%
2- P�_0. s ACt
P .285 AC± 0 0.283 ACf -1 0
382 GOLDEN BEAR DR F�`I
L
_J LOBORING 2 j L r
C1 fi ENVELOPE C25
74.57 88.19 (TYP.) C37
0
S,32*1 5'1 7-*E 162.76' 1,
361.54' GOLDEN BEAR DR
100.00 100.00 11.84 C27
--� CP
z ff _ zOT �' -- T
NOT 8 ? 0.253 rACt }ODa 0.253 ACf c�0.253 ACf 0
--�'
20 0 20 40
APPROXIMATE SCALE -FEET
21-7-739 1 Kumar & Associates I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Fig. 1
BORING 1
BORING 2
0
39/12
0
25/12
WC=8.8
WC=1 1.9
DD=1 10
DD=108
-200=91
5
28/12
J 20/12
5_
F
w
WC=7.8
W
I
CL
a
Ui
32/6,50/5
10
50/5
- WC=2.0
10
+4=43
-200=20
15
15
p
I
P
$a
ej
e�
�R
21-7-739
Kumar & Associates
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY
BORINGS
Fig. 2
yE
Si
LEGEND]
® TOPSOIL; CLAY AND SILT WITH ORGANICS, FIRM, MOIST, BROWN.
CLAY (CL); SLIGHTLY SANDY, CALCAREOUS, STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN.
GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM); SANDY, SILTY, PROBABLE BOULDERS, DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
' BROWN, SUBROUNDED ROCK.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
I
DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.
I
25/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 25 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 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 (pcf) (ASTM D2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D6913);
—200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D1140).
21-7-739 1 Kumar & Associates I LEGEND AND NOTES I Fig. 3
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Sandy Clay
--
FROM: Boring 1 ® 2.5'
WC = 11.9 %, DD = 108 pcf
3
�
EXPANSION UNDER
CONSTANT
J
w
PRESSURE UPON
WETTING
N 2
I
Z
O 1
—
I
a
0
J
O
N
Z
0
1
I
I
—1
—2
,1
100
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10
3
2
1
J
Li
N 0
I
Triz
o
—1
Q
0
J
O
to
z -2
O
U
—3
Li
1 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE
- KSF 10 100
21-7-739
Kumar & Associates SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Sandy Clay
FROM: Boring 2 ® 5'
WC = 7.6 %, DD = 107 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER
PRESSURE UPON
CONSTANT
WETTING
1
I
Thmnpvl lM rnYlp npp>r Wy to 1ha
�Ilell �ISL�C alepfYEYCKd��+pf to
fup, rilhwl use Mrl�++ appmwl of
I{unwr and RaaocfMaa, Inc- S.eY
Canw66alion taltlnq PPNwnw! �
oCwbmue rSlh 75fY 6�5{0.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS
:24 HRS 7 HRS
IN 4M N 1 IN W
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
go 01DO ap A 10 a7e
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
4' 1 1 3' 'e
1 0
100
90
10
20
eD
—
70
I
1
30
40
so
p
—I
50
so
i7
60
30
70
e0
20
10
90
0
100
.001
,aOR .o0s .00G .012 .037 .073 .150 .boa .800 t.te 24594.76 P.S 1P 3i.1 7a,2 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM 1COARSE1
FINE I COARSE
GRAVEL 43 % SAND 37 % SILT AND CLAY 20 %
LIQUID LIMIT — PLASTICITY INDEX —
SAMPLE OF: Stilly Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 2 O 10'
These lout resUlta apply only to fhe
samples which wan loafed. The
lraifng nporF shall not 6e rappeduced,
except in full, wllhovl the wrlTlen
apprava} of Kumar & Asscolotss, Inc.
Stsrs onclyals lnsfln8 to performed In
aocordo nce wlih AS06913. ASTM D7926,
ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D1140.
S
21-7-739
Kumar &Associates
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 5
�
�
k
k
a-
M
U
U
U
§
2
2
2
9
7
A
2
Lu
0 LU LU '
z§&
=u
H
\
)=
m
L
§
§
� @
Or
0 u
j§\
2
c
G
(L<m
z
w
z
£
k
9
-1
°
§
0
k&k
3
0
�
e�z
?
—
_
z�
—
_jk§
_
§dz
00
06
0
q
—
z�u
§
a.®
3
LU
w
M
k
cn