HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.1315 Sage Ct.0082-2021-BRES (2) I( Kumar&Associates,Inc.°
Geotechnical and Materials Engineers 5020 County Road 154
and Environmental Scientists Glenwood Springs,CO 81601
phone: (970)945-7988
fax:(970)945-8454
email:kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
An Employee Owned Company www.kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver(HQ),Parker,Colorado Springs,Fort Collins,Glenwood Springs,and Summit County,Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED BASEMENT ADDITION
LOT 4, BLOCK 2, RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION
1315 SAGE COURT
ASPEN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 21-7-152
APRIL 16, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
J. MATT JOHNSON
1501 DRAGON STREET, SUITE 102
DALLAS, TEXAS 75207
matt(&,lang-p artners.com
RECEIVED
06/04/2021
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 1 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 1 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 2 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 3 -
FLOOR SLABS - 4 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 5 -
DRYWELL - 6 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 6 -
LIMITATIONS - 6 -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURES 3 and 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE 2 -PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
RECEIVED
C1-6-/-0-442021
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.21-7-152 ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed basement addition to an existing
residence located on Lot 4, Block 2, Red Butte Subdivision, 1315 Sage Court, 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 Zone 4 Architects, dated January 14, 2021.
A field exploration program consisting of an exploratory boring 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 basement addition will be below the existing garage shown on Figure 1 and
connect to the existing residence lower level. The addition footprint will be somewhat larger
than the existing garage area. Ground floors will be slab-on-grade. 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 subject site was developed with a two-story residence and detached garage at the time of our
field exploration. The addition site is relatively flat and gently sloping down to the north at a
grade of about 5% or less. Vegetation consists of landscaped bushes, trees and lawn.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 16, 2021. One exploratory borin
was drilled off the driveway at the location shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface RECEIVE D
conditions. The boring was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by
0-,/04/2021
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.21-7-152 ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
-2 -
a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of Kumar&
Associates, Inc.
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 Log of Exploratory Boring, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory
for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A graphic log of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site is shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils, below about 21/2 feet of mixed clay, silt and sand fill soils, mainly consist of relatively
dense, slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles to the drilled depth of about 21 feet. A relatively
dense sand and silt layer was encountered from about 81/2 to 14 feet deep.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture
content and density and gradation analyses. The results of gradation analyses performed on
small diameter drive samples (minus 11/2-inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown
on Figures 4 and 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
Free water was not encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the soils were moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper fill soils are variable density and unsuitable for support of the proposed addition. The
underlying sandy gravel and sandy silt soils possess moderate bearing capacity and typically low
settlement potential. At basement excavation depth, we expect the subgrade to consist of the
sandy gravel subsoils suitable for support of spread footings. We should observe the building
excavation for bearing conditions and the need to sub-excavate fill and silt 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 soil nails or
micro-piles should be feasible at the site. A shoring contractor should provide design drag E IVE D
to support the proposed excavation slopes. Other City requirements may also be applicable.
0-6 0-4/2 021
Kumar&Associates,Inc.® Project No.21-7-152 ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
- 3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the building addition be founded with spread footings
bearing on the natural granular or silt 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 or silt 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 12 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 existing fill and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the
footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural granular or silt
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 50 pcf for backfill cor Er E IV E D
of the on-site granular soils. Walls taller than 12 feet should be designed to resist a uniform
0-,/04/2021
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.21-7-152 ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
-4 -
horizontal earth pressure of 25H in psf for wall height H in feet. Cantilevered retaining
structures which are separate from the addition 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.
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 0.40. 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 and fill, are suitable to support lightly loades __ �/E IVE D
on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs s oou d
0-,/04/2021
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.21-7-152 ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
- 5 -
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.
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.
We recommend vapor retarders conform to at least the minimum requirements of ASTM E1745
Class C material. Certain floor types are more sensitive to water vapor transmission than others.
For floor slabs bearing on angular gravel or where flooring system sensitive to water vapor
transmission are utilized, we recommend a vapor barrier be utilized conforming to the minimum
requirements of ASTM E1745 Class A material. The vapor retarder should be installed in
accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations and ASTM E1643.
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, drywell 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 1%2 feet deep.
RECEIVED
0-6-/0-4/2 0 21
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.21-7-152 ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
- 6 -
DRYWELL
Drywells and bio-swales are often used in the Aspen area for site water runoff detention and
disposal. The natural granular soils encountered below the fill and clay soils are typically
relatively free draining and should be suitable for surface water treatment and disposal. The
results of percolation testing performed in Boring 1,presented in Table 2, indicate an infiltration
rate of about 2 minutes per inch (rate of 30 inches per hour, equivalent inverted units). The
groundwater and bedrock depths are generally known to be relatively deep in this area and
should not affect the drywell design. If a drywell is used, it should have solid casing down to at
least basement floor level with perforations below that level and located at least 10 feet from the
building foundation.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the addition 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
2'/2 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.
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 REerIIECEIVED
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
0-,/0-4/2021
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.21-7-152 ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
- 7 -
from the exploratory boring drilled at the location 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 boring 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,
Kumar& Associates, ;,:,...‘.,,
Qp,OO REG ,''4k.
. f o * p.A.,,
,i
•
v) 1 222 - 1
Steven L. Pawla 4 ', z` • s
4, ..... /9/2•..,��iS
Reviewed by: i'�� •'•'•••••'• zo
1, ss\�NALEN__
F„...... ...A\14,ji...........
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/kac
cc: Zone 4 Architecture—Tim Andrulaitis tim@zone4architects.com)
RECEIVED
06/04/2021
Kumar&Associates,Inc. Project No.21-7-152
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
/ 6._<:/ _.____ XSICH\\ \
/ \II.
/01 --,,
. ,‘\ \ \ -‘
/
099 V \ �ti e.
9 N j t'
N
1,I
O,$/ @\ 12 R \ l \ '9iL- \
0 zo% , D.1( 7
_ NN
'YI /1'R �,o11'R 1/
/ .. -- N
0'F
,,B", M1 1315 SAC£ • • \ � 4
N.
MIX17 FRAMED \ ® ?Q% •
\ r /i6 HOUSE - 1 F °
FOUND N0.4 REBAR / B% , }t Ti f' 9 R ll/ \ \
Ban,ASPHALT 5J.3' 11% s s l0 R:
...., \A
,.,
•
%BI 0%
w&' Osv.Fl13SJl' SyT F. 11 R: 10'R 7•R 6 R rr
\ 9, a.�7731.DD 1� \ 1D'R .1,6 -1 9 B'' \ FOUND NO,
\ hu a �7130.f8' N 5 b J I °I ,I REBAF 9 CA
MARKED LS
570'IB'SJ E
v, „0 a11. 5"O rr l.fJ'
N
Z. o JOI R 081/1 B• T.°' K' CON ' %
LOT 10 BLOCK 2 T,% DRr�E PA I/OO
RED BUTTE SU@OMB/ON \ 4B, D F j F
'I
\ / CMtm1 <.' A 14'R
a1' o BORING 1 1 v 2% �, ;-��
7/ T /
\ 1, /I .; GRADE 6 \ /
Tap EL
_-------.---\ I Mu Q 7731. ,,,...... -_ D \ 4
— FOUND N04 REBAR )23../Iii.„....., 'R •
BELOW ASPHALT \ Q v ja' •
51828701V D
4.91' \ 2B.B' LOT 4, BLOCK 2 'T
o,� ,' RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION �h
LOT 9,BLOCK 2 -. 0,ly, 1\•
RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION -1 f] \ - O•F DITCH BOOK 2A PAGE 288
o� C1 treene 20• r, 42,4J2 Sq Ff ry
/ >.*p \� 0 15R 0.97 Ac.
/ 5'I
1 y1,0- _'
— — RIM Q�7754.81' i y
ry
61
775
\ Centerline 1.0' �'
V N , aeB,7 r`
/ �- LOT BLOCK 2
9 r B I RED BUTTE SUBD/OS/ON
/\ r Ili NJ ,o I\ ...ilk
N ik
, D \ /'N . "
N'
...______r
QF -
LOT 7,BLOCK 2 City'?
'Aspen*
'4s_ \
RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION LOT B,BLOCK 2 1:: 2•� i} \
I RED BUTTE SUBDIVISIONto � j\
I �9� o \
4.ro
GPS
I y 9 Irj, �4n \\
Elsu�784A � � \GPS \ \\
I Ehv.�JBA.91' \ \
a
gi
-11
c.
I 25 0 25 50
ao APPROXIMATE SCALE FEET
0 6/94/2921
21 -7-152 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING lg. 1
AGFLP,,
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
BORING 1 LEGEND
EL. 7753'
TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SILTY CLAYEY SAND, SCATTERED GRAVEL,
0 FIRM, DARK BROWN.
22/12 X FILL: SILTY CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST, DARK BROWN.
40/6; 50/3 WC=5.6 i _o GRAVEL (GM-GP); SLIGHTLY SILTY, SANDY, COBBLES, DENSE,
5 MOIST, BROWN, ROUNDED ROCK.
���
+4=64
-200=8 /SAND AND SILT (SM-ML); MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN.
30/12 /
� o
-
'_ / 17/12 DRIVE SAMPLE, 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
= 10 WC=8.5
o_ +4=0
o— -200=73 DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8-INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD
j PENETRATION TEST.
— �� 32/12 22/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 22 BLOWS OF
15 WC=2.0 A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED
DD=115 TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
+4=44
-200=4
NOTES
20 � 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON MARCH 16, 2021
V■f 41/12 WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS MEASURED
APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE
PLAN PROVIDED.
20 3. THE ELEVATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS OBTAINED
BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN
PROVIDED.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATION AND ELEVATION SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE
METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY
BORING LOG REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN
MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING 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 6913);
-200 = PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
ka.f
$r 21 -7-152 Kumar &Associates LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 6%'6 ?2021
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 45 MIN 15 MIN 6OMIN 19MIN 4MIN 1MIN #200 #100 #50#40#30 16 #10#8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1 2" 3" 5"6" 8"0
90 10
80 20
70 - 30
60 40
G
▪ 50 50
II Z1
a• 40 60 E
30 70
20 80
10 90
O I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I III I I I I III I I I I I III I I I I I I III 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 64 % SAND 28 % SILT AND CLAY 8 %
LIQUID LIMIT — PLASTICITY INDEX —
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 4' and 7' (Combined)
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 45 MIN 15 MIN 60MIN 19MIN 4MIN 1MIN #200 #100 #50#40#3.1......1.6 #10#8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 5I 6" 8"0
90 10
[ I
80 20
70 30
60 1 40
IQ —
50 1 50
40 I 60
30 70
20 - 80
I
10 — 90
O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 100
s' .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
cTi
GRAVEL 0 % SAND 27 % SILT AND CLAY 73 %
li
LIQUID LIMIT — PLASTICITY INDEX —
These test results apply only to the
osamples which were tested. The
E SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt FROM: Boring 1 0 10'
testing report shall not be reproduced,
2 except in full, without the written
ao approval of Kumar & Associates, Inc.
mE Sieve analysis testlQQgQgg�qQQ.��is performed in
o accordance with A D6913, ASTM D7928,
1 g ASTM C136 and/or TM D1140.
p: 21 —7-152 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS 06%16142021
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 45 MIN 15 MIN 6ONIN 19MIN 4MIN 1MIN #200 #100 '50#40#30 16 #10#8 #4 3/8" 3 4" 1 1 2" 3" 5"6" 8"0
90 10
80 20
70 30
60 40
50 50
u
40 60
30 — 70
20 80
10 90
0 I I III I I I 1 111111 I I 1111 I 111111 I I 1 111111 1 too
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 .600 1.18 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 44 % SAND 52 % SILT AND CLAY 4 %
LIQUID LIMIT — PLASTICITY INDEX —
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 15'
s'
-1
These test results apply only to the
samples which were tested. The
testing report shall not be reproduced,
except in full, without the written
approval of Kumar & Associates, Inc.
o1 g Sieve dCan3c wit h A r
_ASTM C136 and/or
0, 21 —7-152 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS 0 6%64 f 2021
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Ic+AKumar&Associates,Inc.°
Geotechnical and Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scientists
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No.21-7-152
SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED
MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PERCENT PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE
BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY (%) (%) PASSING 200 S EVE LIQUID LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH SOIL TYPE
(ft) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (psf)
4 and 7
1 5.6 64 28 8 Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel
combined
10 8.5 0 27 73 Sandy Silt
15 2.0 115 44 52 4 Slightly Silty Sand and
Gravel
RECEIVED
06/04/2021
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
I(+AKumar&Associates,Inc.°
Geotechnical and Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scientists
TABLE 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NO.21-7-152
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE
(INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER LEVEL PERCOLATION
(MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL (INCHES) RATE
(INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN./INCH)
1 192 3 99 97 2 1.5
97 95 2 1.5
95 93 2 1.5
93 91 2 1.5
91 89 2 1.5
89 87 2 1.5
87 85 2 1.5
85 831/2 1'/2 2
Note: The percolation test was conducted in the completed 4-inch diameter borehole on March 16, 2021.
RECEIVED
06/04/2021
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT