HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.1130 Black Birch Dr.0096.2018 (86).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 13,BLACK BIRCH ESTATES
1130 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 17-7-810
DECEMBER 27, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
RIVERFRONT FORK, LLC
C/O FORUM PHI
ATTN: BETH HELD
715 WEST MAIN STREET,#204
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
eheld@forumphi.com
ti,5 O
4.r ,\rie
ff' �po
ft-
cbs
��0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 1 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS -4-
SLABS-ON-GRADE - 5 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 5 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 6-
DRYWELL - 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 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE 2 - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
449 Cb
CC" °<"
\fle
<4.7 (12
tlik\ cr<Z
0
H-P%KUMAR �-y��•
Project No. 17-7-810
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for A proposed residence to be located on Lot
13, Black Birch Estates, 1130 Black Birch 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 Riverfront Fork, LLC dated November 1, 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 residence at the subject site will be razed and a new 2-story residence built in its
place. Ground floors will probably be slab-on-grade. There could be a below grade level if
feasible considering the generally known shallow groundwater in this area or if the lower level is
designed to be watertight. Grading for the residence is assumed to be relatively minor with cut
and fill depths up to about 5 feet or greater cut depth if a lower level is built. 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 .
A
ti�The site is occupied by a 1 and 2-story wood frame structure and detached garage I t as 0
ge
shown on Figure 1. The ground surface of the lot is relatively flat with a gen • iS.
e dowp�t\
the northeast toward the Roaring Fork River with about 3 feet of elevation 'A • nce ac\o the G�4
building area. The current river level is about 6 to 8 feet below the building site an e �`�o�'
H-P�KUMAR %4i
Project No. 17-7-810
- 2 -
confluence with Castle Creek is located immediately south of the lot at a somewhat higher
elevation. Vegetation consists of landscape grass and mature aspen and evergreen trees.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on November 28, 2017. Four exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions.
Boring 1 was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck
mounted CME-45B drill rig and Borings 2, 3 and 4 were advanced with 3-inch diameter
continuous flight augers powered by a mini drill rig. The borings were logged by a
representative of H-P/Kumar.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1%inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was 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 consisted of about 11 to 3 feet of topsoil or mixed clay and gravel fill soils overlying
natural, relatively dense silty, sand and gravel with cobbles. At Boring 1, medium dense silty
gravelly sand was encountered at about 10 feet which extended down to the drilled depth of 16
feet. Drilling in the upper coarse granular soils with the mini rig and augers was difficult due to
the cobbles and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit at Borings 2, 3 and 4 at depths of
about 31/to 6 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural mo
content and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on smallVr rive,"
samples (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the natural granular subsoils are shown on t and if)" ,`
Free water was encountered in Boring 1 at a depth of about 5 feet at the tiriie' t rllling fr the y
(1 �',\
subsoils in the other borings were slightly moist. ��' PG O�
f.
SIN-
H-PWUMAR Cb��
Project No. 17-7-810
- 3 -
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 below existing fill and topsoil. The excavations should be kept
relatively shallow,especially in the spring to early summer to avoid potentially shallow
groundwater unless the structure is designed to be watertight. If building below groundwater
level is proposed, we should be contacted for groundwater flow assessment and additional
foundation design recommendations.
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.
5) All existing fill, debris, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relativ4
el �
natural granular soils. The exposed soils in footing area should t isteneclj 7
and compacted. Backfill placed below footing areas should c► 4'. ) sand�n'V ''
gravel soils compacted to at least 98% of standard Proctor i"r , at neazle (,6���
optimum moisture content. •t5' '�eO P
H-Pt4KUMAR CZ)\�\\�
Project No. 17-7-810
-4 -
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 or rock larger than about 6 inches.
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 A
Nif
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pres Ngai st b
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be ea culated`� �.`
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure of compacted ba 4/gains �,
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight 00 pc C'l' hhe ,Q�QP�
Qt
�OCD
H-Pt-KUMAR ��
Project No. 17-7-810
- 5 -
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.
SLABS-ON-GRADE
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil and fill, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-
on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, 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 relatively
• well graded sand and gravel such as road base or crushed rock should he placed beneath slabs for
support. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on
the No. 4 sieve and less than 12% 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 should consist of
granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil, debris and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
The potential flood level of the Roaring Fork River crosses the building area and groundwater
level could rise to near ground surface during high water flow. Groundwater was encountered
relatively shallow in Boring 1 located the closest to Castle Creek. Although free water was not
encountered in Borings 2, 3 and 4 during our exploration, the water level is expected to rise
49,
during spring and early summer runoff. Local perched groundwater could also develop d '
times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff and from frozen ground during spring
recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls and depressed areas tected tiel)
from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. `� �Q
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall ba rrounN above,N/ ��
the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at Qtcyh level c<
C`
.‘
H-PkKUMAR %�
Project No. 17-7-810
- 6 -
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.
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.
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 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 building walls.
DRYWELL
Drywells and bio-swales are often used in the Aspen area for site runoff detention and disp ,
The natural granular soils encountered are typically free draining and should be suitable
surface water treatment and disposal. The results of percolation testing performed •� ?Ng 1, ti�
presented in Table 2, indicate an infiltration rate of about 4 minutes per inch. T 'qck is Q0
tl
generally known to be relatively deep in this area. Potential shallow groun. ,, evel sh®l l be �' 4,
considered in the drainage design. The groundwater level appears to be so- ' at dew r,n t �r
o o
0
H-P-KUMAR %��
Project No. 17-7-810
- 7 -
northern part of the lot (further away from Castle Creek) and could be additionally evaluated for
drywell feasibility.
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 excavated 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 notbecome 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,
KUMAR :.
r
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E15�2a 1.11 `(1/
Nef8 *)
Q
SLP/kac 1 ;t G N'`
cc: Forum Phi—Jordan :,t rho '�' m.hi.com) Q �
H-P-MKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-810
/ \ kkt k M1-f�
MTN RV
A , `t. t .c•en•. n i p t•
t .10; �! i9 .� -- BORING 3
\ \\
BORING 4
an / \\
• / / b err! .a
',km / T� n�'r ;a
= 4
k t i �,• `` "-.s. 3.0T13 m ArAle 1' ru'>
t\ f \ \, x t i �,} , V� ' BO_RING 2,�, h{.. y
• \ 7'-'z NI/ 1 '''' v.„7-:;,--,,...-i, /
4{ \i a —,`S /,I Ir u ) / Two /
t .k. ` rv. �_Ji wevc..FEW 1300:3 nnwrt 1
i
'' 1jY{�T. •! ` 'tm,;k4 ' 4, ___,....../ mna04114.f _,ns'�'v o._., ntrn
1 1 4, \- \ —
\ \Vtl, \ , \ \ \\,. '4'4 \\',- ''''', < '"'•
��7 I , 'r�
�t _ � i #.
\ \ \ \ ''\ . ),L17715 \'' '-\'''.116"'
1 1 ---- — S BORING�1,-- "`1"'� '',i r
i r �.: " .y , 1! ` gip'. -
ss M ^aaro
\itlArr4,d...if' \ .J. " .0.,,,,
‹.i #..4 Lr/714•C. ' /
,..1:,_,
F L4117
1
_ \ / /
_ ___ N
I
.i 4���
-42
eleN.,
i In :-_ 4,
�o
ed 15 0 15 30 ‘;4111.P \ G',\
sm APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET Oc, ��Q ,
1 17-7-810 H-PtiKUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 4. 1
BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 BORING 4
EL. 7754' EL. 7752' EL. 7751' EL. 7751'
7755 7755
9/12 —
7750 0 , =-.`. : . 7750
21/6,50/5 0� 10/12 -
+4=57 9/6,18/6 'a 1 16/12
200=6 0 o , —
w— o . 44/12 0 , F-
w WC=3.4 fr1162
—w
w
o— a 1 50/4 0� ± z7745 � 4 32
a— -200=19 7745 0
w w
27/12 >
J-
W —-J
W
7740
7740
Al 37/12
+4=25 —
— -200=17
7735 7735
b
�
I
3-3
<14i1S1411‘'. ',Coo
T. AP
do e4-4\S1/
ii
,,,
,,,..
o�_,
5<PP Gr.,
o �, o�
9 17-7-810 H-P-KLJMAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I�2
LEGEND
TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SILTY CLAYEY SAND, GRAVELS, LOOSE, MOIST, DARK BROWN, PROBABLE FILL
, MATERIAL INCLUDED.
4
FILL; SILTY CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, LOOSE, MOIST, DARK BROWN, SOME TOPSOIL.
X SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); SILTY, COBBLES, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST, WET WITH
DEPTH AT BORING 1, BROWN, ROUNDED ROCK.
. •
SAND (SM); SILTY, GRAVELLY, MEDIUM DENSE, WET, BROWN.
DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT), 1 3/8 INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON
SAMPLE, ASTM D-1586.
0
9/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 9 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
DEPTH AT WHICH BORING CAVED FOLLOWING DRILLING.
t PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON NOVEMBER 28, 2017, BORING 1 WITH A 4-INCH
DIAMETER AND BORINGS 2, 3 AND 4 WITH A 3-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 LEVELS SHOWN ON THE LOGS WERE MEASURED AT THE TIME AND UNDER
CONDITIONS INDICATED. FLUCTUATIONS IN THE WATER LEVEL MAY OCCUR WITH TIME. BORING 1
WAS BACKFILLED FOLLOWING DRILLING. BORINGS 2, 3 & 4 WERE DRY.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422);
-200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
O
ip
'<9
C:
11
ti�
kee*, o
�>� (1/
0\
?2 ‹Z c ok
\-V 4•/40-
4 17-7-810 H-PtiKIIMAR LEGEND AND NOTES 43tj`. 3
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 45 YIN 15 MIN BONIN 19MIN 4 IN WIN 02.0 4 00 4 0 Jr 430 e 6 /1,18 04 3/p' 3 4' 1 7' 3' Tf' P'0
I I_ 1
90- I 10
eo 20
I
r
70 1 30
I
60 I 40
P. MIII/ „AAIr
50 I 50 &
so
60 k'
1•mm ..-�
30 ■-■ ,�S■� I 70
911111111111
20 III11_� 1�
e0
I
to smaimmoommowe 90
0 I I III.1 I 11 1 _11 1 1 1 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.18 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 33.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
COBBLES
FINE I MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 57 X SAND 37 X SILT AND CLAY 6 X
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 5'
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 45 MIN 15 MIN BONIN 19MIN MAIN 1MIN 0200 4100 50 440 30 16 010 49 4 3 8' 3 4' 1 2' 3' 5'6' 8'0
-IIIIIIIMM���Mr0� I _=�F ��■
90- -ee...�e.1• -• .�� 0e�� --eee�.f...l 10
■=■ ■■■■■__I ■�■■i11
60 1_-11-111-1M_II-11- N1_ I1�PM _I_ I 20
70 =_ 111111==8111.1.111:=1H11 1111.11111•1811=. 11=. __ 11_S 11111111.1118111M__IIIIIMIlll
1
_ M________II/ ___■MC 30
6O_ . ■I__-__-_V IIII♦IIII♦IIII♦IIII♦IIII♦IIIII.III 40 W 11911111111111
e 50ME ■■-I__
■■� MI 50
4o r
MI
1111111111111
NIP
REIM
30 to=11111
i� Io■ .■I_ iiina...!II °
■■■■
■ ■ ■ ■■■
0 I I • 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300.4120.600 1.16 2102.38 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200
152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE I COARSE COBS
GRAVEL 25 X SAND 58 X SILT AND CLAY 17 X
g �
s LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 4k
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 15' colts
Ots -\apply//66Q�1y to the
as Ic wero attd] he V�
Ea 1t art shall TT roproducJ�1�\ •L`
full, wit ut a written V
6 g eI p al of Ku ar soclates 41 eV ��
vs analysis 1T Inn Is perfo w• In
7 accordance I TM D422 C C14
$� and/or AST 140. flir
O
Ig 17-7-810 H-Pk1KUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS �4
H
Cb
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
no 45 MIN 15 MIN BOMIN 19MIN 4MIN 1MIN #200 /100 /50 f4I0 1 3�16al/ #6 /4 3/8' 3/4' 1 1 2' 3' 5'6' 6'O
I
_I ___I______
90 I I 10
_ --____ _ __i__ I--_ I
e0 _I__ - I 20
- I I
I
70 I —I- I---
30
I I
60 I
--40
i _
50 I 50
I m
I so W
_,t_ I
30 i 70
I
20 - I 80
1 L t---_
-
10 ( { I 90
I
I
0 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.1e 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200
e 425 2.0 152 I
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
GRAVEL 59 X SAND 36 X SILT AND CLAY 5 X
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 2 0 4'
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100
60 IN •.. 4M. IN .0 0. 4. • 1. 4 - 3
MIME
=
90 .—_.� M� 10
e0 _ =9!• n / m %ow 20
— E := / seal
70 - a�a9��a.. MINIM 30
IIIIIIIIMMIMIIIIII=
MIMI
60 - - r -
, c� /Q W
�.
50 . 99/99 50
I ` 6>_ _
4o - i�
� RM_ . 60
ma monemt
30 ��
== 70
1111111
20 �_—�161�61 80
MIMI
9119111111911191•9=69 II
10 —— r� IN
90
INME11111611111111•111111•1
0 I I -1_i_ ■ �� 9a11=M61.rl.ri69611111919..a.91991-..o IIIIIMIIMININIMI MOM 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.1 a 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 36.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS J
lj CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBS 7
?:' ;411ktksililligNk
GRAVEL 32 X SAND 49 X SILT AND CLAY 19 X
CS
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX /�
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 3 0 4' Ili e( O y
t �s oh apply I to the
a Ich were toa�{pQd[�� he
I art shall 66�reproduced�S �(
asp full, wif le
a written (/` \�
pproial of Kumar soclatea q/ A
eve analysis In Is parlor, In r
accordance t.M 0422,, ,,.. Ot(S§
and/or 1140. Q
17-7-810 H-P%KUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS 4.35
o i 75
co ca cd
ti �.
C7 C7 -�
- .d cct
C
a 0 cp i-
Z v C7
++ J - "C3
O 'VI 'C3 C%) 'C
z.
VD
w
w>_=
z v)!-
LLCO0 LL
W
oaw Cl-
H Mom a
...Iv
CX W U) -w
E Q° o
J --L-
a. - -
cD
W cc_
I— m
2 } cc W °�
O a a�
� Q .
LU CC ~0o
0 —Ip z z o w
Q Q Cr CO W a�fA
F- J aaz
QM OLL
xz 8 0 en ,.o cr
c2 a
c a J
0 < o N cn C' N
N Lfl en
(7
J
f-°ZO.
a W
z °
JWz
<.z
_i_. ,,_
44‘,(9,
?FH c ri
Qp0 M
dt„„k>,--
R. ‘‹).;0) Cw -t G�a °
-C.)i �\ `' �Q �o Q OIL-I _\a Z
cs‘
\`
Q N M
m )
V
H-P1<UMAR
TABLE 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NO. 17-7-810
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-1 120 2 21% 20'/2 1 2
20'/2 19'/2 1 2
191/2 181/2 1 2
181/2 171/2 1 2
17'/2 16% 3/4 2.7
163/4 16'/4 '/2 4
161/4 15% '/2 4
15% 151/4 '/2 4
151/4 143/4 1/2 4
z
v
Note: The percolation test was conducted in the completed 4-inch diameter borehole
on November 28, 2017.