HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.34 Westview Dr.0056.2018 (23).ARBK H-P ti KU MAR 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: Denver(HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, Summit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 8,BLOCK 2, KNOLLWOOD
34 WESTVIEW DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 17-7-751
DECEMBER 7,2017
PREPARED FOR:
MARGO KOVAL
do: S2 ARCHITECTS
ATTN: JOSEPH SPEARS
319 AABC,UNIT J
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
j oseph @ RECEIVED
03/22/2018
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS _ 1 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS -4 -
FLOOR SLABS - 5 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 6 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 6 -
DRYWELL - 7 -
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 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE 2—PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
RECEIVED
03/22/2018
H-P�KUMAR ASPEN
Project No. lantSiNG DEPARTMENT
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 8,
Block 2, Knollwood, 34 Westview Drive, Aspen, 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 proposal for geotechnical engineering services to S2
Architects dated October 10, 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 existing structure on the property will be razed for construction of a new residence in its
place. The proposed residence will generally be a multi-story structure with a one level
basement. Ground floors could be slab-on-grade or structural above crawlspace. Grading for the
structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 12 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 proposed development area currently has a single-story residence located as shown on
Figure 1. The site lies at an elevation of around 8,130 feet. The existing topography is sho T E WED
03/22/2018
H-P%KUMAR ASPEN
Project No. 17' t1I9iNG DEPARTMENT
- 2 -
the contour lines (1-foot contour interval) on Figure 1. The slope across the development area is
down to the southeast and moderate from Westview Drive then gentle through the building area.
Vegetation on the site consists of grass and weeds with mainly aspen trees and a few evergreen
trees.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on October 31, 2017. Two exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions.
The boring locations were limited to the driveway because of the sloping terrain and other site
features. 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 H-P/
Kumar.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 13/s inch I.D. spoon sampler and a 2-inch I.D.
California liner sampler. 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 3 to 5 feet of fill and topsoil materials overlying medium dense to
dense, silty gravelly sand with scattered cobbles down to the boring depths of 21 feet. The fill
materials were variable in type and their depth will likely vary across the site.
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
RECEIVED
03/22/2018
H-PvKUMAR ASPEN
Project No. 17RtitiNG DEPARTMENT
- 3 -
diameter drive samples (minus 11/inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on
Figures 4 and 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The underlying natural granular soils are adequate for support of spread footing foundations.
About 5 feet of fill was encountered in the borings apparently from past site development. The
man-placed fill should be removed from beneath proposed building areas down to the natural
granular soils.
The City of Aspen requires an engineered excavation stabilization plan if proposed foundations
are within 15 feet of a neighboring structure or public travel way. The plan is not required if
excavations are less than 5 feet below existing grades or further than 15 feet from travel ways
and less than 15 feet deep. Slope bracing through use of a variety of systems such as chemical
grouting, micro piles and soil nails should be feasible at the site. A shoring contractor should
provide design drawings to support the proposed excavation slopes as needed. Other City
requirements may also be applicable.
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 3,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect
RECEIVED
03/22/2018
H-PvKUMAR ASPEN
Project No. 17EMtING DEPARTMENT
-4 -
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.
5) All existing fill, debris, topsoil and 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 45 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. Backfill
should not contain organics, debris or rock larger than about 6 inches.
RECEIVED
03/22/2018
H-P%KUMAR ASPEN
Project No. 17BADING DEPARTMENT
- 5 -
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The
pressure recommended above assumes 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. Increasing compaction to at least 98% standard Proctor
density and use of a relatively well graded sand and gravel soil can be provided to limit the
settlement potential.
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 0.5. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides
of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 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
RECEIVED
03/22/2018
H-Pk-KUMAR ASPEN
Project No. 174ING DEPARTMENT
- 6 -
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.
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 vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
the area that 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 drywell. 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 1 1 feet
deep.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the residence has been completed:
RECEIVED
03/22/2018
H-1):
ASPEN
Project No. 17 J NG DEPARTMENT
- 7 -
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 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 at least 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.
DRYWELL
We expect that a drywell or bio-swale may be used for site runoff detention and disposal. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service has identified four hydrologic soil groups (HSG) in the
Aspen area and the site is located in Type B soil having a moderate infiltration rate. Results of a
percolation test performed at Boring 2 are presented in Table 2 and indicate an infiltration rate of
about 5 minutes per inch. The groundwater level and bedrock are generally known to be
relatively deep in this area and should not affect drywell performance.
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 RECEIVED
03/22/2018
H-P-KUMAR
ASPEN
Project No. 1Ntit.UNG DEPARTMENT
- 8 -
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
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.
Respectfully Submitted,
H-P-KUMAR ����,yynn/w
I",i jt k
Steven L. Pawlak, P.
162.22
Reviewed by: .
OF CatU
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/kac
RECEIVED
03/22/2018
H-P-MKUMAR
ASPEN
Project No. 1T3VIt JNG DEPARTMENT
Iv
.. - i. .. ..
E .... ---
112
111E0AR.g CAP
a: ra
\\ £
r,
_,,� -
I t
N' BORING 1 f
BORING 2 0 % \- .,
- 111 -
1' J 4L
�" Iw
6 s WILIERLIl
I rl
r i III W.,,M, \ /t/
`�`-.A.,-! I 1 I
I
it
E. S'
s
a
8
S? 15 0 15 30
-2? APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET
RECF IVED
11 17-7-751 H-P--MKUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FG133/122 /2018
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
BORING 1 BORING 2
EL. 8133' EL. 8133.5'
8135 8135
8130 22/12 4/6, 17/6 8130
4/6, 9/6 / 19/12 =
��=f' DD=124WC=1
— f�. +4=26 _
i_ 8125 7: 7 -200=24 8125
w / w
w— —w
o 30/12 / 33/6, 50/5 —o
a
—�
a
w WC=2.7 r —w
8120 / +4=35 / 8120 w
-200=15 7 —
— / .11
42/12 —
37/12 WC=1.6 —
— +4=25
7 -200=37 —
8115 4 7/ 8115
—
./ —
— 29/12 33/12 —
8110 8110
RECEIVED
17-7-751 H-P--41KUMAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FDA/22 /2018
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LEGEND
FILL: SILTY SAND AND GRAVEL, ORGANICS AT BORING 2, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MIXED GRAY—BROWN,
RECYCLED ASPHALT AT SURFACE.
TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY SILT AND CLAY, FIRM, SLIGHTLY MOIST, DARK BROWN.
/:. SAND (SM); SILTY, GRAVELLY, SCATTERED COBBLES, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, SLIGHTLY
MOIST, LIGHT BROWN.
RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT), 1 3/8 INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON
SAMPLE, ASTM D-1586.
22/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 22 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON OCTOBER 31, 2017 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 OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN
CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS 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 D 2216);
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).
e
-.
8`
o?
,,,
..,
:,.‹
RECEIVED
,?4,
J 17-7-751 H-P=�KUMAR LEGEND AND NOTES FGig3/22 /2018
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
1ao 45 MIN 15 MIN 60MIN ,.MIN 4MIN IM1 200 00 50 40 30 16 10 e 4 3 e' 3 4' 1 1 2' 3' 5' ' e'o
C.I. === ——�—
_ 'I"—-.: ___ EiNEEMallgrr-
•• r 90
• 20
70 -- — — �M=MMIMM =r- MI 1-4-11.111111 30
_ ��—
P60 — � --�� 1 40
. Rs���rlt� -
50
so
IIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIMI
61111111111111,-.42/////11111111111•1111811811111.1/ RN\ I - i ill RIIIIIIIMMININ 1811111•1111 nil
30 r iEMIIMMIIIMIM_ I 70
-- - =BEEM- M " ■. ..
20 _ mm /'� === =
10 —___
a sRr.�����slss�r�R= - 90
0 _._I I 1 1 1 I T- NOR ■tl�--
MIME 1w ■O_ OM- 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.15 12.35 4.75 9.5 19 30.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
GRAVEL 35 X SAND 50 % SILT AND CLAY 15 X
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 10' & 15' (Combined)
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 ALAIN I5 MIN BOMIN IRMIN 4MIN 1MIN 200-,__AZL
15 1p1B /4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1 2' 3' S6' 13'0
- I --9Di- - — — ---- } -- ,0
— I —eo I ----I 20
70 - }601—�_ - -- _ 40
— _--I ---s01 —
} soI - __ —I--I I
40 }—130 — I — 70
2.:....,... .--- _ __ -_
20 �e�eeee1e4� ��� r�e� 60
10 -- _-- _ _—_ j , ---i—_--.—_ --—
-___--_ --- —I _—ram - _+_- 90
0 -'----I I� -- - -r1.771 I In—_TrTI---�TrT(TTII---I�-1� rT--- 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.11 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 3e.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
rj CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
GRAVEL 26 % SAND 50 X SILT AND CLAY 24 X
1 LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
2 SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 2 0 5'
These test results apply only to the
samples which were tested. The
I
tasting report shall not be reproduced,
�, except In full, without the written
a approval of Kumar & Associate c.
Sieve analysis testing Is pert I
accordance with ASTM D422a ,� \E D
o s and/or ASTM D1140.
r E
2
sI 17-7-751 "1
�'�-P -i�M/�R GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fj3/422/2018
16
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 4$MIN 15 MIN GOWN 19MIN 4MIN 1MIN #200 _#100 #50 r40_13A _116__j10#6 _j4 3/6' 3/4' 1 1 2' 3' S'6' 6'0
_ I I —
— — _1 10
80 — I
— I — 20
1 — I —
70 1 t— 1
——_ —I— _ 30
60 -- _ -- —_,— --- _ --t—.—
I
50 —�-
I SO
EI - _ I f _ ^-I-
40 __ - I I _-
------1-- 60
_ — I I _I _
30 --- I I -- t 70
— —t I — I
20 — _— ---—4— I —"�.—
-- __ I 1 60
—,— —I I
10 — I
t —I —f0
0 - _� 11 "1 rIT_I=I I --Iy-f mi I I I 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 1 .600 1.18 12.36 4.75 9.5 16 3e.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
GRAVEL 25 X SAND 38 X SILT AND CLAY 37 X
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Very Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 2 0 15'
1
These test results apply only to the
samples which were tested. The
a= testing report shall not be reproduced,
except In° approval oful Kumar o&t Associ the ates. Inc.
3 Slave analysis testing Is pertorgtei jA �1��
accordance with ASTM D4.22, ASTIR 1
r E and/or ASTM D1140. E '�
e [t / 2f2o18
17-7-751 H-PKIUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
L
N.
N-
0
a C7 C7
Z 'E A
o 3 3 v�
a` g
a
c
a) ;-4
v) cn > C7
ww
>x_
z
lL W 0 LL
oaw a
Fes- Zoq)
—IU
n
Ce W H Hw
2- gc o
z
a
W 'U
I- m
2 } W• -�
a� o
0 Q J J
W tr i-0
o
c
Cl M—I O ZZw
0 CO m
ill
QJI— N> V)U-O� -"dza
W
1 O o
z e
I Q z o 0 oc
E
j x• w
V) 0Q o vl r)
M (-Nif7
cr
J
z ce co V
Q G W Q. C I+
Z O
QmZ
cc H H h
...Cl)Z °-- C'd
QOO
zEU
Q a. E 111111
�r
o• G O o
J
c Z
N o N`l 03/22/2018
m
ASPEN
3llILDING DEPARTMENT
HPCVIAR
TABLE 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NO. 17-7-751
HOLE NO. HOLE LENGTH OF WATER WATER DROP IN AVERAGE
DEPTH INTERVAL DEPTH AT DEPTH AT WATER PERCOLATION
(INCHES) (MIN) START OF END OF LEVEL RATE
INTERVAL INTERVAL (INCHES) (MIN./INCH)
(INCHES) (INCHES)
B-2 120 10 32 271/4 43/4 2.1
271/4 25 21/4 4.4
25 23 2 5
23 203/4 21/4 4.4
20% 18'/4 2'/2 4
Note: The percolation test was conducted in the completed 4-inch diameter borehole
on October 31, 2017.
RECEWED
03/22/2018
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT