HomeMy WebLinkAboutB17-0305_1709 GENEVA DUPLEX SOILS AND ROCKFALL REPORT 17-7-435 (07-25-17) S+F signed_1501884360.pdf H-P--- -•'KUMAR 5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs,CO 81601
Geotechnical Engineering I Engineering Geology Phone: (970)945-7988
Materials Testing I Environmental Fax: (970)945-8454
Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Parker,Glenwood Springs,and Silverthorne,Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED DUPLEX RESIDENCE
LOT 4,FILING 1, MATTERHORN VILLAGE
1709 GENEVA DRIVE
VAIL, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 17-7-435
JULY 25,2017
PREPARED FOR:
H-B GENEVA 1709,LLC
ATTN: DAVE HILB
P. O. BOX 2054
VAIL, COLORADO 81658
(davehilb @ grnail.com)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 _
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 _
SITE CONDITIONS - 2 -
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS _ 2 _
FIELD EXPLORATION _ 3 _
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS _ 3
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS _4 _
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS _4 _
FOUNDATIONS _ 4 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 _
FLOOR SLABS _ 7 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 _
SITE GRADING _ g
SURFACE DRAINAGE _ g _
LIMITATIONS _ 9 _
FIGURE 1 -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 2-LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING/LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 3 -GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
H-PkKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed duplex to be located on Lot 4,
Filing 1, Matterhorn Village, 1709 Geneva Drive, Vail, 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 general accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering
services to H-B Geneva 1709, LLC dated May 31, 2017.
An exploratory boring was drilled to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions.
Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to
determine their classification 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. A discussion of the geologic conditions
at the site is included in the report.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The existing residence located as shown on Figure 1 will be removed for the new duplex
residence construction. The proposed duplex will be located on the lot as shown on Figure 1.
The building will be a three level structure stepped down the hillside to the west with attached
garages below the main level of each unit. The ground floors will be slab-on-grade at finish
elevations shown on Figure 2. Grading for the structure will require cut depths up to about 15
feet. We assume relatively light to moderate 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.
H-P-KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
- 2 -
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is occupied with an existing 11/2 story wood frame house apparently constructed
over crawlspace. The house is located in the southeast corner of the property, see Figure 1.
Lot 4 is 0.4028 acres in size and located on the downhill (west) side of Geneva Drive. The
ground surface is strongly sloping down to the west/northwest at grades from about 12 to 18%.
Elevation difference across the proposed building footprint is about 15 feet and across the lot is
about 25 feet. The upper portion of the lot has been graded for the existing development with up
to about 6 feet of fill placed at the north and west sides of the existing house as encountered in
our boring at the site. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds with scattered trees along the south
property line.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Potential geologic hazards that may impact the lot and proposed development appear limited to
debris flow per the Town of Vail Geologic Hazards Mapping (Town of Vail, 2000a, 2000b,
2000c). Additionally, the soils at the site are alluvial/debris fan deposits that may tend to settle
when wetted (hydro-compressive). The underlying bedrock is the Minturn Formation. The
potential hydro-compressive soil potential is discussed in the"Foundation Bearing Conditions"
section of this report. The debris flow hazard potential is discussed below.
The approximate southwestern 1A of the lot is noted as moderate potential for debris flow hazard
per the Town of Vail mapping (2000b). The debris flow potential is from a relatively large
drainage basin about 228 acres in size with a fairly deeply incised drainage channel that
discharges onto an alluvial/debris fan about 350 feet southeast of the lot. The channel has a low
berm apparently placed as partial debris flow mitigation for nearby residences near the outlet of
the incised channel. The retention basin area behind the berm is relatively small but will reduce
the volume of water and debris that would potentially reach the subject Lot 4 site in the event of
a debris flow. We believe the risk of debris flow impacting the subject site is low due to the
existing detention area and berm at the debris flow channel along with existing residential
H-Pk
Project No. 17-7-435
- 3 -
developments upslope of Lot 4. Positive surface drainage should be provided away from the
residence as discussed in the "Surface Drainage" section of this report.
The grading and landscape plans for the site development dated May 26, 2017 by Martin Manley
Architects are such that, in our opinion, "the site is in a geologically sensitive area but the
proposed development will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public
buildings, right of ways, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any
kind." (ref. Town of Vail Code, section 12-21-13. B.2).
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on June 8, 2017. One exploratory boring
was drilled at the location shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the general subsurface conditions. A
second boring as planned could not be drilled due to the existing development on the lot. The
boring was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted
CME-45B drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/8 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 test is 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 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 about 6 feet of existing fill, consisted of medium dense to dense,
clayey sandy gravel with scattered cobbles and possible small boulders that extended down to the
depth drilled of 26 feet. Drilling in the dense granular soils with auger equipment was
H-PrKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
-4 -
occasionally difficult due to the cobbles and possible boulders. The fill was clayey sandy gravel
with cobble material. A fill depth greater than that shown on the boring log may exist at the site.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture
content and density, and gradation analyses. The soils were too rocky to obtain undisturbed
samples for swell-consolidation testing. Results of gradation analyses performed on small
diameter drive samples (minus 1' to 2-inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown
on Figure 3. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly
moist to moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The natural granular soils at the site possess moderate bearing capacity and relatively low
settlement potential based on their natural moisture and density. Spread footings bearing on the
natural granular soils appear feasible for foundation support of the building with a low risk of
settlement. The risk of settlement is primarily if the bearing soils were to become wetted and
precautions should be taken to prevent wetting. The fill material from previous site development
was encountered in the upper portion of the site and will need to be removed from beneath the
proposed building area.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing
entirely on the natural granular soils with some risk of settlement.
H-P�KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
- 5 -
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 should be designed for
an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect
settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will
be up to about 1 inch. There could be some additional settlement if the bearing
soils were to become wetted. The magnitude of the additional settlement would
depend on the depth and extent of the wetting but may be on the order of l inch.
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 48 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this
area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be well reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 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) All existing fill, debris, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense
natural granular soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened
and compacted.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations 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 50 pcf for backfill consisting
H-P-KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
- 6 -
of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the
duplex 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 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. The wall
backfill should not include debris, topsoil or oversized(plus 6 inch) rocks.
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 near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and
walkway 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. Use of a select granular material, such as road base, and
increasing compaction to at least 98% standard Proctor density could be done to reduce the
backfill settlement.
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 0.45. 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
H-P�KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
- 7 -
the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular material compacted to at least
95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site granular soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-
on-grade construction. Existing fill and debris from the previous site development should be
removed from beneath slab areas and replaced with compacted structural fill as needed.
To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be 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 free-draining gravel
should be placed beneath slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2
inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No.
200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-
site granular soils devoid of debris, topsoil and oversized (plus 6 inch) rocks.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
mountainous areas 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 retaining walls, crawlspace and
basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain
system.
H-P-KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
- 8 -
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed 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 of
excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% 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 11 feet deep and be
coverd by filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the building is
located as planned and the cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut depths for the
lower levels will not exceed 15 feet and will be laid back to a stable grade or shored.
Embankment fills should be limited to about 10 feet deep and be compacted to at least 95% of
the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement,
the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and
compacting to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be
benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter
and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will
be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is
encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage
will adversely affect the cut stability.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Positive surface drainage away from the building is an important aspect of the project. The
following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the duplex has been completed:
H-P�KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
- 9 -
1) Inundation of the 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 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas
and to at least 90% 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. Free-draining wall backfill should be
capped with filter fabric and about 2 feet of the on-site finer graded soils to reduce
surface water infiltration.
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.
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 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 during construction appear
different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the
recommendations may be made.
H-P�KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
- 10 -
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 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.
Sincerely,
H-13 :- KU 02.M.1: �;.
•%/''p, 0
.t°
ca � � s cs
d e
ca ° o vu,
32 o
David A. Young, P.E % 4 e t
sy �J'7--7 °P
n°o '/.-.-,' i,' °` 'a4
Ao�'se°°aaejO' °�•�
Reviewed by: 'Ay
1ONAO ,1440100101 �
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
DAY/kac
REFERENCES
Town of Vail, 2000a. Official Rockfall Hazard Map, Town of Vail. Prepared by the Town of
Vail, Vail, Colorado (Adopted by the Town Council on October 17, 2000).
Town of Vail, 2000b. Official Debris Flow Hazard Map, Town of Vail. Prepared by the Town
of Vail, Vail, Colorado (Adopted by the Town Council on October 17, 2000).
Town of Vail, 2000c. Official Avalanche Hazard Map, Town of Vail. Prepared by the Town of
Vail, Vail, Colorado (Adopted by the Town Council on October 17, 2000).
H-P:KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-435
___ ______________________________ ___
r___
1 1
1r 1 1
c1),� LOT 4
O I 1709 GENEVA DRIVE
\I 1
F, 1
1 1
�
1
I ` \ 1
,-.. I
ti
1
1 1
I `
UNIT A
MAIN LEVEL
I FF=8018.5' 1
1 1
IN
\ 1
I 100'
1 \1 , 1
LOT 5 I
ILOT 3
1 PROPOSED �\ 1
U1
I RESbENCPLEXE GARAGE
FF=801 2.8'
1 1 "-
I 1
c20, I
O 1 1
\ I 1
t UNIT B
I
N\ MAIN LEVEL 1
I -...L._ FF=8024.5' I
I \ I
Ir_. _ _ _ ____,
1 \ I
I 1
GARAGE
1 I I FF
,
=8013.3'
1 I \ 1
I \
1 I EXISTING I BORING 1 \ 1
I RESIDENCE \
I I
(TO BE REMOVED) � I
1
�'p i 1I
�O \
-\\ �
__ __-__-__-__-__-__-____\\ J_
__
s \\ GENEVA DRIVE -2-----�
i
s
1 -— -
: 10 0 10 20
$^ APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET
17-7-435ti
H—P"`'KUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 1
BORING 1 LEGEND
EL. 8022.5'
FILL: CLAYEY SANDY GRAVEL WITH COBBLES, LOOSE TO MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST, MIXED BROWN.
MAIN FLOOR
8025 LEVEL UNIT B /GRAVEL (GC); SANDY, CLAYEY, SCATTERED COBBLES, POSSIBLE
BOULDERS, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST, BROWN,
SUBANGULAR ROCKS.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
9/12
WC=12.8 MAIN FLOOR
8020 DD=114 LEVEL UNIT A DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD
�
. —200=28 PENETRATION TEST.
• 24/12 9/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 9 BLOWS OF A
140—POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED
/ TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
8015 '
APPROXIMATE GARAGE
o / FLOOR LEVELS NOTES
/
w— 25/12 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON JUNE 8, 2017
WC=7.3 WITH A 4—INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
— / 08=125
/ +4=47 2. THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS MEASURED
0 8010 /.,7 —200=18 APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE
> / APPROXIMATE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
w— /J LOWER FLOOR
LEVEL UNIT A 3. THE ELEVATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS OBTAINED
/ 41/12 BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN
PROVIDED.
/"
O /
8005
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATION AND ELEVATION SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY
THE METHOD USED.
24/12
_ WC=4.9 5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY
/. +4=41 BORING LOG REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES
/ —200=16 BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE
8000 GRADUAL.
• /
/ 6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING AT THE
TIME OF DRILLING.
/.
• 1 33/6,50/3 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
7995 DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422);
—200 = PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
21 17-7-435 H-P KUMAR LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 2
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 183 7 183
1 oo 45 YM IS I81 1011N 1/i111 4181-111111 !269 /106 850 /l10 !30 III 010 f( •! 391' 3/4' 1 1/1 r S 6' ('0
-l- -----._
I
90 -- I 10
1 I
110 I— �-20
I !
70_-----931_93 91 _••1 •••• ME 30
60 -- 1 1_ - - I 40
i50 �— �� 9)t♦‘11.1.111. e�lnnese m♦50 t
1— I 8
40 I I 1 60
I
I30
_- i_. _'L_ --_ _1_-70
I I 1-
20 .0.0"-- 1 _I- I---_110
I I I
—I—
(0_ - _ ___1__ --{-- —_ —_-1--90
J I -1-_
0 I I L rr I T-1-1-T-ITA I t f--iI-I-TT1"1 1 _ I 11-f-r"f-f I I 1-1T1-r TTf-1 — 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.18 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
I
SAND GRAVEL
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 47 X SAND 35 % SILT AND CLAY 18 X
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 1 ® I0'
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIESI CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 183 7 183
1D0 45181 15 MN (OMN 18611 41191 (MN D I00 35O I = - - _-
4,1_1_139_____j14 10 3I' 3 4' 1 1 ' 2' Y r 6' 6'0
- _ _ _ _�-_
111•1111111111M11•1111111 I ..r_
1
80
T1iIIpIiIpP :±E!
SO
---- Ep.
i__
.....
60
40 - --- -- r-- le
so -
-
l_._- 70
20
1111•11112•1•M i ea
10
90
_ -1____
_ __
0 -__ = 1-- 8�1 - ■ 81�� 8 ==1-118==1-118 __-_-_=.1_--=-__
1l 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 1 .600 1.111 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 32.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILOMETERS
I
3 SAND GRAVEL
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 41 % SAND 43 % SILT AND CLAY 16 X
S LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 20'
These teat results apply only to the
samples which were tested. The
except In report shall
ewithout tbe the writtenaced,
E approval of Kumar& Associates, Inc.
,',
Slice analyab !TWO
esting la performed In
accordance with ASTM D422,ASTM C136
8 and/or ASTM 01140.
17-7-435 H-P~KUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3
co
co
w 73ti >
r > > '-
w cd ct C7
z C7 C7 4
J >, >, m
0
o -0 b b
at cz al
LO v) v) (ID
a >, a >,
a) a) (L)
c c c
U U U
p w
w 2
Z ct 1-
w
OaW
a
U) z2 ~
I- p0ct
D
.. Cl)- W
F�: 2 a Z
F- a-
,14 0
d W w
2 i_
cc 0
0
W -~
0
- Q .71 J
r r Q
W H0
1_ J Q Z• Z
�� w
! COm m U N N W 00 cc VD
QQ
I— __I cc u) N
aa• z
QM LL
0
1 } p
< O cf M d
2 a
0 Z w
(1) 0 > o (---- -
7t 710
J• }
cc u) V --
p N
Qp Z a _., .--�
z p
J w 1_
mHH , c
M G\
►- E2 Z CV [--- d"
ZOO
z I
O ~ $ \
n. O O
H w N . N
Q p
O
O
J
w
J 0
CO