Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutB18-0088_Subsoil Study_1529589973.pdf 5020 - ti KUMA Glenwood Springs, CO 81`. "Po , Phone:(970)945-798. j3Q0)11# Geotechnical Engineering I Engineering Geology Materials Testing I Environmental Fax:(970)945-845418 Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.& Office Locations: Denver(HQ),Parker,Colorado Springs,Fort Collins,Glenwood Springs,Summit County,Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN �e.'' PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 11,BLOCK 1,VAIL VILLAGE 1ST FILING 6 0© ,-e 332 MILL CREEK CIRCLE VAIL,COLORADO PROJECT NO. 17-7.651 SEPTEMBER 27,2017 PREPARED FOR: ENGLISH AND ASSOCIATES ATTN: MICHAEL ENGLISH P.O.BOX 2395 EDWARDS,CO 81632 (michael @englishdeveloper.com) 4 1140 S# 00) TABLE OF CONTENTS 06/21/18 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - I - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - I - SITE CONDITIONS - I - FIELD EXPLORATION -2- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS -2- DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS -3 - FOUNDATIONS - 3 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS -4- FLOOR SLABS - 5 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM -6 - SURFACE DRAINAGE -6 - LIMITATIONS - 7 - FIGURE 1 -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 AND 5 -GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I-SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS H-P CUMAR Project No. 17-7-651 t OFde,! tir py�p 7�+ �p 300) PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 06/21/18 This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located at Lot 11,Block 1,Vail Village 1st Filing, 332 Mill Creek Circle, 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 accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to English and Associates dated August 24, 2017. 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 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 proposed residence will be a multi-story structure with a full basement and Iocated within building envelope shown on Figure 1. Ground floor will be slab-on-grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively extensive with cut depths between about 5 to 15 feet. 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 site is currently occupied by a multi-story wood frame residence with a basement. The current residence will be razed for the new construction. The site has been extensively graded and a depth of man placed fill exists on portions of the lot. The topography of the site is valley H-NKUMVIAR Project No. 17-7-651 - 2- bottom with slopes less than 5 %. Mill Creek is a short distance to the east of the site and aroun. 120) # 15 to 20 feet below the current grade of the site. Vegetation at the site consists of a lawn,stone'21118 paver patios, and scattered aspen trees and conifers. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on September 6 and 12, 2017. Four exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Three of the borings were advanced with 3-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a mini drill rig. The fourth boring was 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 H-P/Kumar. 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 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 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 conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils consist of about 6 inches of topsoil and around 3 to 9 feet of man-placed fill, underlain by relatively dense gravel and sand with cobbles down to the drilled depths of 21 feet. Drilling in the dense granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and possible boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit with the mini rig. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small H-PaeKUMAR Project No. 17-7-651 tir 1, tt diameter drive samples (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown ons # Figures 4 and 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. 06/21/18 Free water was encountered in Boring 4 at a depth of 17 feet at the time of drilling and when measured 16 days later. The upper soils were slightly moist to moist. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. 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 about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 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 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 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. H-P KUMAR Project No. 17-7-651 5) All existing fill,debris, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should bei # removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense 06/21/18 natural granular soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moisture adjusted to near optimum and compacted. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 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 of the on-site granular soils. 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 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining 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 H-P 4.KUMAR Project No. 17.7.651 , OFde,! - 5 - backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to -100) facilities constructed on the backfill. 06/21/18 We recommend granular soils for backfilling foundation walls and retaining structures because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures and the backfill will improve the subsurface drainage. Subsurface drainage recommendations are discussed in more detail in the "Underdrain System" section of this report. 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 325 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 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 soils,exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. 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 basement level 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. The under slab gravel should be connected to the perimeter foundation drain with interior lateral subdrains at least one foot deep. H-P4KUNAR Project No. 17-7-651 OF iv, -6 - 1111101.:b 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 o° -21118 site granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was encountered below probable excavation depth,it has been our experience in mountainous areas that the water level can rise and local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas,be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. 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 or sump and pump. 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 11/2 feet deep and connected to a wall drainage material. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 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. H-PataimAR Project No. 17-7.651 OFde,! tir 611, 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to " -100)1 drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum 06/21/18 slope of 6 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 covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 feet of the on-site finer grained 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 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 different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that 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 H-PWUMAR Project No. 17-7-651 , ....,...„. ,..,40.,.0„ . .. 4 - 8 - cv or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation " X00)1 of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of6121118 the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, H-Pk KUR laid\ Og„..-------, Robert L. Duran, E.1. Reviewed by: ; .. te; PAI �� 43 N.Cie4h *Ot ' , � '®�otre�!ice `4, . 1 622 Steven L. Pawlak, i RLI /kac . :1-,,. lt,1 /6 it i of..7., 1 a®®•ID �o '` f®�F CQI.�� H-P-KUMAR Project No. 17-7-651 • 4:61)01A401111115 la EC 419 �` 11 . , ; ;,J NIP fil-4 . ,n L�eaf,.s,wawa 4- v g, yr �„ `�l k'lr6+f%ray 7�',I.{y 's"t''If/47:2 j ' � iS f:"Z'rr1L:':::: •4`j» -"- ?? —• r Tr,< _,-- !p /18 qty _ t �,' _ II;' • :54.,7:4;,11:\\.\'''\ --..--- Th7tr . i!- . .. 7•`• ,' '`"�!` .=�\5,11 I��i�r'"'r a ..._ rIln,r-nmI} _-r'�' "�7rr - 2>ar/ 1 fittc,,,tA , , ., • `'r �� . f * I �BORING�2 / - 1 ..,i _, _� • --- __ '' k il '7..:14(71 I ' ipAi ii"4 - \":,,,---'-"q.' '*:-. --,-- 0. 0,1 -,.....? :,,,....._. , -ma P`i,I r'� � �r / P' / r v„nom ri ' ' I It `' . '' X11/ a ask)'1'Xra' ' f J i 4Ir,4 l'f' I r ( .r.` \ *--'4.. _ - 1 ... 1 . — --a, _ !'‘• .,\ N, W, (7,,....... ..... \\ \ / i _-. - .. iar BOR�NG 1• ! -1-V,g!'-' II �•. \ r� - BORING 3'� `� tAr �' •.:,, I MG L iiii ::/i ,14.!"f‘i 5 ...,-,.3,-,,_48141i ,' °ktriql / ) ti a, ` r\ a a, J' / if 1 — NJ \ ,u rr � �Q^M X11�V 086111PA-inn. ."-A\'' I\s,\ 0 •/ ,O p•/.�J�1ir �_ _,rry `4 M"err. Y as ,g',„,_ I °iN.t+��+� r.\ . ,�nsj..bp r.sy,"•, •`/ 1+1 ,,,, '�j l a.. i. ' -,.," OM/ mem„~'+al 1 i H' ur' Imo'" .)�'..—T - Rr-- --,ee \ �,,, ` 11............ IN / ( J •• '�• - ---,.._,..._,...,,,r� I ! \ \®tie ,rt�-�'•iee �'. / �.- \ .Rt T �.� • ',we ga I. ii $:' P I AIt0 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE—FEET 2 11 17-7-651 H-Pw-,10.11V1AR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Fig. 1 'f.:011101111911ii!" 4:riolto ca via z- 7:5 4F BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 BORING 4 O op, 0 (2(2) r ..-= .ti 1. 0 .'3g0)'S _ + T `-t _ . r 06/21/ 8 6,41 11/12 iI. M •I 45/12 50/4 27/12 1. f 50/6 el 5 137/12 5 - 9/12 18/12 16/12 . WC=7.6 WC=6.7 WC=7 _ WC2 +4=30 0D=101 00=9210 — 10 -200=19 -200=40 -200=42 10— 59/12 ' 4 _ WC=2.1 -1 W +4=70 4 -200=5 J= W i�' — W O 15 15— 33/12 - 0 WC=7.3 I +4=26 -200=15 ii -1 — 20 47/1220. ' L I `^ 25 25--' 9 0 Ei 1 ! it44 6 o& mi i. -U 17-7-651 H-Pws,KUMAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 IslA OF iv, . - A...,40941:e. 4,4e0 Ca Z' LEGEND -100) [1(2) STONE PAVER; THICKNESS IN INCHES SHOWN IN PARENTHESES TO LEFT OF THE LOG. 06/21/18 �2) CLEAN SAND (SW), THICKNESS IN INCHES SHOWN IN PARENTHESES TO THE LEFT OF THE LOG. • %TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SILT, SLIGHTLY SANDY, SLIGHTLY MOIST, DARK BROWN. FILL: SAND AND GRAVEL, SILTY. MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED SAND. MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST, DARK BROWN. 1 GRAVEL AND SAND (GM—SM); COBBLEY, SILTY, MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE, SUGHTLY MOIST TO WET WITH DEPTH, BROWN TO DARK BROWN. 11 RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. 111 DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT). 1 3/8 INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE, ASTM 0-1586. 11/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 11 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES. Q46. DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL AND NUMBER OF DAYS AFTER DRILLING MEASUREMENT WAS MADE. —0- DEPTH AT WHICH BORING CAVED. APRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL. WHERE SHOWN ABOVE BOTTOM OF BORING, INDICATES THAT I MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS WHERE MADE TO ADVANCE THE HOLE. NOTES 1. EXPLORATORY BORINGS 1, 2 AND 3 WERE DRILLED ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 WITH A 3—INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER. BORING 4 WAS DRILLED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 WITH 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. 9 5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL. P 6. GROUNDWATER LEVELS SHOWN ON THE LOGS WERE MEASURED AT THE TIME AND UNDER CONDITIONS INDICATED. FLUCTUATIONS IN THE WATER LEVEL MAY OCCUR WITH TIME. 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS: WC = WATER CONTENT (X) (ASTM D 2216); DO = DRY DENSITY (pci) (ASTM D 2216); 1 +4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422); o —200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM 0 1140). t.t &i 17-7-651 H-P KUFAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 nVzi , ....cp"44,.. Ili Ca HYDROMETER ANALYSIS . SIEVE ANALYSIS I 4 4�'F Tad READINGS U.S.STANDARD SL Uf CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 ION 7 NRS fF OI LOO S ul. :,ue /uaa au 1a --,.. _._ __30 a s/:� /4` 1 1. a . - 90 ________ ,--.. L.a _ __. 11":mow mews AAIIIIIIIIIIM----- va ----- I '06/21/18 00 -_.. —1— 1- -- -- xD ------ to - -t v 110 AO l 40 - Imil ~ 1, 00 re ini _ - xo _ L _ _ la SO o -T-1 r T1Ti t 11 1 -rt rl n"rr- loo .001 A= .003 .009 .010 .037 070 .150 .300 I .800 1.13 17.38 6.73 0.9 15 30.1 70 2 127 200 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS 2.0 Isx I CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES FINE MEDIUM ICOARSE FINE COARSE GRAVEL 30 X SAND Si % SILT AND CLAY 19 X LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silly Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 3' • HYDROMETER ANALYSIS J _ SIEVE ANALYSIS J - TIUC REsoino4 -�f U.S.STANDARD 3E0105-Y" CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 NRS 7 HRS 100 151llr+ IS 0110 00ufl lfun 41310 114-3 _3 00 3104 154 i{`0 3 3 4/5 *1ra Ai 3 0 .1 /1" 5"5. e'0 00 20 gL§ 40 80 ._ -._-------_.._,__._ .. .. —_-___._J.: -_ L_ _ _.•-... .. . _.. 1..._. - .-._ .- .-_..-...---.._ ._-., i _ ._._ _ 1 00 .� -_...1 _.. =..7::----- :-_-7-__:- ... ----:- _ — - - --• ---- -- - - 0 -. ---- ------ - - ...». -_- •_'f- .]- .-.-7 ' . -r.--`r r-T �T'--. Z TT_.___..�_--,--•r"r�••rTT.. ..__r_r_Fri-rrcr-- --•1----T•-r-r t-F rrrr_ 100 .001 .002 .003 .000 .015 •037 .075 .100 .300 1I .000 1.10 2.07,35 4.79 3 5 I I 30.1 70.2 137, 200 • L___-_ — __ DIA_METE__R OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS -___ I r' CLAY TO SILT _ SAND GRAVEL COBBLES - FINE I MEDIUM COARSE FINE f COARSE _ a. - GRAVEL 70 X SAND 25 X SILT AND CLAY 5 X LIQUID L.MIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silly Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 4 0 10' s'. c- 111104 leaf results apply only to the _ tamales which ware foaled. The tooling report shall not he reproduced, _ except In full. without the wrillon approval of Kumar & Attoclateo, Inc. Slave an/Ayala testing In performed In occardance with ASTM 0422. ASTM C136 and/or ASTM 01140. . I �'. 17-7-651 — GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 i.h.4 .0 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS c U Tait READING; S.STANDARD 5[IMARL CACAO ARL OPENINGS 4F R 74 1112 7 NRS 1 100 J Mi 'LII J41 y .; -., ..0 . '. :m r• J• . 41g Ii niMEIMIWAYM-- IQ 01 11;Cil twto lel .N' 6/21/18 60 - i._. —1_ 20 SO a1 _ i 'r �.. ___ m____. E..., ...tet _ _..._.�, 66 & �,,,m 40 I� 1 M 60 -!. 1. _ 20 60 0,'`.__...,--1—f--1'TT T 1---'1—T-r-T1 rrr"--T--"'1t i-TT= —r- -1-77 1 F'-11Z — ICD .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .079 .150 .300.!I .000 1.10 502.36 4.75 9.5 19 30.1 762 12192200 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT FINE SAND MEDIUM (COARSE FINE GRAVELMEDIUM COBBLES GRAVEL 26 X SAND 59 X SILT AND CLAY 15 X LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Baring 4 ® 15' 1 • r f rt T 7 C 1 I These fool results apply only to the • samples *Filch were tested. The lestln9 report shall not he reproduced, S escupl In full. allhaul Ihs minion approval of Kumar & Assoclolas.Inc. V - Siert analysts testing Is performed In 'i accordance wIth ASTM D422, ASTM C136 R 2- and/or ASTM 01140. ii 17-7-651 H-PWUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 As +#1 OF d•4, Fo_p--.....-\--„KumAR „. - . . TABLE 1 .c ^7 IS ur SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Pro 0.3 #is Arm 111 SAMPLE LOCATION GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS 06/21/18 NATURAL NATURAL PERCENT UNCONFINED BORING DEPTH MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL TYPE CONTENT DENSITY (%) (%) NO.200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH SIEVE (ft) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (PSF) 1 I 1 3 7.6 30 51 19 Silty Sand and Gravel 2 2 6.7 101 40 Silty Sand with Gravel and Organics (Fill) Silty Sand with Gravel 3 2 7.2 92 42 (Fill) 4 10 2.1 70 25 5 Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel 15 7.3 26 59 15 Silty Sand with Gravel