Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.517 Park Cir.0161.2018 (4).ARBK HH-P-- KUMAR- 5020 County Road 154 v 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 Summit County,Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT 517 PARK CIRCLE ASPEN, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 17-7-170 MARCH 22, 2017 PREPARED FOR: ASPEN HOUSING PARTNERS ATTN: JASON BRADSHAW 228 EASTWOOD DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (iebradshaw @ mac.com) TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - 1 - FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 - MINE SUBSIDENCE - 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 I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 AND 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE l- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2- SUMMARY OF PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS H-P*KUMAR Project No. 17-7-170 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed affordable housing project to be located at 517 Park Circle, 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 Aspen Housing Partners dated November 22, 2016. 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 affordable housing project will consist of a three story building with four units. The lower level will walkout on the west side. The ground floor will be slab-on-grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 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 property is vacant of structures. The site has been graded into upper and lower relatively flat benches separated with a steep slope. The graded areas are delineated with boulders stacked around the perimeter. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds with scattered aspen and evergreen trees. Fi-P%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-170 - 2 - MINE SUBSIDENCE Portions of the Aspen area are underlain by mine workings. The workings are primarily underground tunnels between Aspen and Smuggler Mountains southeast and east of the downtown area. The workings consist of numerous tunnels beginning a few hundred feet below the ground surface becoming shallower to the south. Under certain conditions these workings may collapse and cause surface subsidence. The subject site appears to be on the eastern edge of these main tunnel workings. Our borings were relatively shallow and for foundation design only, however, no indications of subsurface voids were found at the subject site. We believe the risk of subsidence due to the collapse of underground mine works throughout the service life of the proposed development to be low. If further evaluation of the mine works subsidence potential is desired, we should be contacted. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 15, 2017. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I 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 H-P/Kumar. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1'/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 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, below about four to twelve feet of fill, consist of silty sandy gravel with cobbles and H-P4-KU MAR Project No. 17-7-170 - 3 - boulders. Drilling in the dense granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit at Boring 2. 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 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 to moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The natural granular soils encountered below the fill are adequate for support of spread footing foundations. The fill material should be removed from beneath proposed building areas. The depth, type and extent of the fill could likely vary across the site. 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. 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 or properly placed and compacted structural fill. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. H-P-KUMAR Project No. 17-7-170 - 4 - 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils or structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 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. 5) The topsoil, fill material, debris 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. Structural fill should be a relatively well graded granular soil compacted to at least 100% of standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content and extend beyond the footing edges a distance at least one-half the depth of fill below the footing. 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 soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the building and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should H-P.KUMAR Project No. 17-7-170 - 5 - 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 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 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 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 95To 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 H-P.KUMAR Project No. 17-7-170 - 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 natural granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. The existing fill should be evaluated for use as structural fill at the time of construction. 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 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. 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. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the building has been completed: H-P=_KUMAR Project No. 17-7-170 - 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 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 21 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 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 understand that a drywell or bio-swale will 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 C soil having a slow infiltration rate. Results of a percolation test performed at Boring 2 are shown on Table 2 and indicate an infiltration rate between 3 to 4 minutes per inch for the natural soils. The groundwater level and bedrock are generally known to be relatively deep in this area and are not expected to affect the drywell or bio-swale designs. 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 H-P KUMAR Project No. 17-7-170 - 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-Pk KUMAR Louis E. Eller Reviewed by: l; AWIiEN .%. sar Steven L. Pawlak, P.E' s"2 d: LEE/kac %*: Z 2 2 2 1* j t:• 3 _ ) %C.w j f 70 7y7-11/ �u e I cc: Method Planning&'i� - ajg e•- Roy (adam@methodpd.com) %.,f OF Ca - H-P k KUMAR Project No. 17-7-170 iL •t ,40, 01141 r'.erii *it ., t ' . e * , , PP • t 0 or 4 s • , . ,- 4. • 0 4 -.---,,,--- -----1----- . . -, 0 ,,,,,,t 044 - • 1 ..#. ,0' - ,. .--. . I „0? ? /. .,, • Iokw— . - TY ."` . • '' If • 4tig . ' •1, , ,i1 4 , lit: 10 111 ..• •,; ..,-._•,„,, -tio, i f 11 trt 4 • 4-e.-;‘,' 4IN °Ai BORIP1G ..1* N.. i 4 I V r "t,7°'.3i'SIN,it4 4 1.10L"-•-':N.,/ - 4 / l4. *4 1 PROPOSED' 1 1 : _.'-1•4 l(-il..) , ..tt isilt&,:. if BUILDING • 0 ta ..... / NI Y r . , -3 '! • . . 'N. ) 1 I '. . fl.d.s . . BORING 2 it ( / . . . • i'.!}:,, ' . . ,1, ., • ' 4 r e BORIN t .1,, !GaLL .k1 ;.• i- 4 • .)1/4 i r,, .. 4._--\,..... ... ...., .,... •ii Si . -1 •-.. / Ofi i N. N. .1 e!, , ,4 li 4 *II" %.„. / ,.14 400011:1: 4010 4 ,i N. i • %. - * ' ... ., it i . .,7N.,,, , ., A: • ' i '17%",,. i • • ,,,, -.. . r 1 / ..1 Ili . • ., - — - — 15 0 15 30 APPROXIMATE SCALE—FEET • 17-7-170 H-P---t-KUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig 1 • BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 EL. 98.5' EL. 100' EL. 98.5' _- p p� 11/12 • 18/12 - WC=8.3 26/12 ♦ WC=10.9 H DD=111 WC=6.6 DD=123 -200=15 00=98 •J -200=34 - ♦ — 5 5 4/12 22/12 � 17/12♦ WC=2.8 -200=10 ♦ _ ♦ - 10 1p_ - A 31/12 14/12 •/— WC=3.2 • WC=15.6 - /- J 0D=110 bD=83 / -200=6 _ - - L W W Um W r15 15— I / 15/12 ji20/12 i/ -ao WC=5.3 WC=4.1 i,+4=41 +4=37 -� -200=12 � -200=12 _ - - 20 X 20— 22/12 18/12 — 25 25— AI 50/3 Al 34/12 30 a s E. e. S Y d 7 j a "s i" s, ,, 17-7-170 H-P"tiKUMAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 3> LEGEND FILL: SILTY CLAYEY SAND AND GRAVEL, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, MIXED BROWN. OVERLAIN BY 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL AT BORINGS 1 AND 3. 7 GRAVEL (GM); SANDY, SLIGHTLY SILTY TO SILTY, SCATTERED COBBLES, POSSIBLE BOULDERS, Z MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN. 11RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. 111 DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT), 1 3/8 INCH I.O. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE, ASTM D-1556. ii/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. t PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL. _ NOTES 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON MARCH 15, 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 MEASURED BY HAND LEVEL AND REFER TO BORING 2 AS ELEVATION 100', ASSUMED. 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); e —200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM 0 1140). p e Y a d P 1 a ri c Yp= S' .? 17-7-170 H-P45 KUMAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TaftREADIN03 W.STANOARa 7ERIE3 CHAR SQUARE aromas NIA 7 NO ioo - MIN S MIN • •N 1 QIN II 1 - /00 /00_ I • /Aa I • /e /I• 4 3 ' 3 A' 1 2' ' '0 _ID to i---m_ I s P. �l i 1a mil 1...„- : _ ._!! : MMNi iv'�.—�r MN 30olon30 � lIo1 mew 1 ,.. m= .- 11 w Ie�� --mum �r..rr..l��>.�m= .... "� as . 30 �__ �, p.����._ _ 30 �� ___ m_=� '�� ®.......nom ■ 30 ia MI -=-: MN-M=1M — mi la manmmINIIMMIIMI a —-1 -1-1-1 -r-"'- 1-t-Tti TT I T-1 I 100 .001 .002 A011 A09 All .037 A7e .150 .300 1 A00 1.1e 12.34 4.75 1.3 II as,' 7/.3 117 200 ! DIAMETER OF PARTICLES.05 IN MILLIMETERS 2.0 1a 2 I CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES FINE ! MEDIUM !COARSE FINE ! COARSE GRAVEL 41 X SAND 47 % SILT AND CLAY 12 X L QUID UNIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Grovel FROM: Boring 1 0 IS. HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TINE REAOIN03 11.5.1TANO040 SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 NM 7 MO 1v0 43,111 13JIIN 'Q-NIN 101111 4M914 1190$ 1910 /100 / 14Q fso 1} r e0 II 3 0' 3 /' 1 3' co,Ira ---- I- 1- - f la ea -'-I- - —I_ 70 --.4i-t-- _.1_ w �fJ- 30 ----I- — M �.. -t- —t-..-.- ., — p!—L_- __ b i 33 ��-- -r — - ._..-_C,= 00 .�_— .. ----1- _ � =_:TOP 40 \ I -1 —/ —I--- C"' _ —=I 10 �.I—_ —L__...! _—./ i_ —- -t-_——I- �r _• �_—-- -I- -—f -- I- _... - sa -I-^ —1 , —1 -- -- - -1--- —i: .-____ -—1-- 10 e -I-I--1'Irt T-1—1-1-I-1-I I.11--'--1"""""tt-r--1-11'1-—t_I—r-1-1-1-t-11--3'-'•-'I'--1-Y-1- 11r-t-— ma.001 .002 .003 A09 .019 .037 A70 .1S0 J00 4I A00 MI I 30 4.73 0.3 Is 3/.1 73.1 II73t300 ! DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS ! a SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT _ COBBLES i FINE J MEDIUM COARSE FINE I COARSE e r. GRAVEL 34 X SAND 56 X SILT AND CLAY 10 X II II LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 1 SAMPLE OF: Silly Send and Gravel FROM: Baring 2 0 5' # The"t.al mufti apply only to the samples which wore listed. The A hal telling report WWI not I. reproduced. J except In lull, without the wAMen sd appro.ol of Rumor I &Aseal., Inc. Slue analysts telling Is p4rformed In 8 8 occardence with AST11 0422. ASTM C133 and/or MTh D1140. r= "1 'i 17-7-170 H-P%'Kl1MAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS Due ecAaN07 U.S.778N0440 aOtln I CtLAR 0011AR[of ENING! I 1a 1017 7 1047 100 {5 MIN 16 1(21_1 n" MOO WIN 11071 1220 /100 I . 0/0 IA I/ /lf 1 I 311- 1 a' 1 C' 0' ��a — _ , _i ! 1 i' -- —7 _ /0 I , r 1-I to 1 �.— - 1 I """"� f — - ,0 70 1 1- _I__ 30 I so t I _�L i as 1 __so 1 -- 1 I >o 10. - 1 I 1— ____.___j I~w t —1 I —`� 70 - —i 1 —1 10 _ I- --- -—I Zo T 1 t—i-�_6a J — 10 T —1— ------1- _- __ t- ao I- "- a —1-1-=1-7 I'-"1'-71-1'"1'1.IYI" -7---- 1T TI-T 1 -rT'T-LI_ --i T-T1-7 rr1-1-- 100 .001 .002 .005 .000 .011 .037 .076 .160 .30a 1 .000 MI 1,A6 4.76 0.3 - --I-II 31.1 71.2 127 zoo I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS I to CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL nNE I MEDIUM 1COARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 37 X SAND 51 X SILT AND CLAY 12 X LIQUID UNIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF; Silty Sand and Gravel FROM; Boring 3 0 15' i a A 1; S a Those tee results apply only to the samples which wen feted. The i IetKnp roped shall no1 !e reproduced. anp0 In full, wllhaW the written 11 approval of Kumar & Asuodahs, Inc. Stove analysla leafing Is ppeerformed In i accordance with ASTM 0422, ASTM C136 w. end/or ASTM 0114a. 1 3 17-7-170 H-P--1KUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 1.i 0 3 > 3 > 0 s 0 =v C7z.., v) cn -a Cl) -a-I a 0 . cis w w ID U>+�T. :r y rn U u rn U ; U ; to ^ ice.. ,..0 � ^� ice... L ate+ L U1 0 rA 0 cn U? 0 n C/] 0C/] 0 C/] O W W>z zrnl- W Z Q Z 0 u) Jv Ce LL!CC F I-uw z 0 a < LLI cc I— . 2 L- oc .,_ O a �-' I- wrr ~0C 0 m m UV1"W N a N �Np— M N J aaZN un OLL 1 N 0 ZO Q vz ast J [ . Cl) Ce e•. 7 rn 0 J =re t1 ..... 0 c M FbW O` N 00 a CIZ JWI- Ie CC 3 W en In 'O 00 'h. .-. 0 Q o Z oc K, vn cV c 4 Z2U Z I 0 VI I=• W S N N N ^' U 0 J W a Z 2 N m O• m H-PKUMAR TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. 17-7-170 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) (MINJINCH) (INCHES) (INCHES) 2 86 2 36'/2 331/2 3 0.7 33'/a 31% 1'/4 1.1 31'/4 30% 11/2 1.3 30% 29'/4 1 2 29'/4 28% % 2.7 28'/2 27'/4 % 2.7 27% 27 '/4 2.7 27 261/2 '/a 4 261/2 253/4 '/4 2.7 25% 25'/4 '/a 4 Note: The percolation test was conducted in the completed 4-inch diameter borehole on March 15, 2017.