Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />88-609 <br />Landform, inc. <br />October 5, 1988 <br />the afternoon of September 16. <br />Retests were taken reviously taken <br />Because two of these faction tests were Ps at approxima- <br />at elevation 1014 and a new^floor <br />one retest were `aken at <br />tely 1013, two additio ,,tion tests met or exceeded the <br />elevation 1013. These c' P irements of 95% of standard <br />Specified minimum comp -is, requ <br />Proctor density. <br />Soils placed at a minima ` 95*~ of standard Proctor proosior- <br />ara suitable for support c typical spreadCessure9 of 2,000 <br />tinned to exert a maximi :oil bearing p <br />pounds per square foot. <br />CONC 'IONS <br />Based on our excavation -beervation and compaction test <br />result, iis Oured in the <br />bottoms of tthe excavoatioh cdatthe ®fill l so lserplac d are <br />suitable for support of t proposed footing and/or foun- <br />dation loads. <br />GENERAL REMARKS <br />It should be noted that standard penetration test borings <br />with power equipmentthe were <br />soils takento <br />were visible the <br />soiland sthe <br />at <br />depth. Howeverr,, <br />results of the hand auger probes indicate soils at that <br />depth issvery <br />detrimental settlement due to p <br />small and we, thus, recommend that it be assumed by the <br />owner. The cost for taking arranted borings to better define <br />that risk does not app <br />Services performed by the geotechnical engineers for this <br />project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that <br />level members of <br />ordinarily <br />currently practicing in exercised <br />thisdare <br />theca. This is <br />our professional responsibility. No warranty, expressed or <br />implied, is made. <br />r <br />I <br />■1 <br />L ,J <br />