HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.309 Oak Ln.0021-2022-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 RESIDENCE
LOT 309, SMUGGLER PARK
309 OAK LANE
ASPEN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 21-7-651
NOVEMBER 30, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
CHRIS CAMPAIGNE
309 OAK LANE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
chriscampaigne( gmail.com
REcEWED
r09/tirEME
29/2022 01/19/2022
FORCOUCCUMP ANCE
Jim ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 1 -
MINE SUBSIDENCE - 2 -
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 - 5 -
SLOPE STABLIZATION - 6 -
DRYWELL - 6 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7 -
LIMITATIONS - 7 -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 3 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE 2 -PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
Zvi ; � RECEIVED
ell
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° i 9RC®Ota>mv 11t7EProject No.21-7-651 ASPEN
;imp
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on
Lot 309, Smuggler Park, 309 Oak Lane, 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 agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Chris
Campaigne dated July 26, 2021.
An exploratory boring was drilled 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 mobile home on the subject site will be removed and replaced with the proposed
building. The proposed residence will be a one- and two-story structure with an attached carport.
Ground floors will be slab-on-grade. The main level will have a finished floor level
approximately 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Grading for the structure is assumed to
be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to 7 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 subject site was developed with a one-story modular home at the time of our field
exploration. The ground surface was relatively flat and the lot was graded as part of the original
development. The site was barren of vegetation.
RECEEVED
2
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° i 9RC®Ota>mv 11t7EProject No.21-7-651 ASPEN
imp
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
-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 works 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. Glory Hole Park, which is about '/2 mile southwest of the
subject site, is believed to have been caused by the collapse of one or more tunnels. The subject
site appears to be along the west perimeter of these main tunnel works.
Our boring was 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 September 15, 2021. One exploratory
boring was drilled at the location shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The
boring was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by 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 13/s-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 consist of about 6 feet of loose, sand and clay fill overlying medium dense to dense,
sand and gravel with cobbles down to the maximum explored depth of 16 feet.
- � RECEEVED
ice l
2
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° i 9RC®Ota>mv 11t7EProject No.21-7-651 ASPEN
imp
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
- 3 -
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture
content and density and gradation analyses. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a small
diameter drive sample (minus 11/2-inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on
Figure 3. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly
moist to moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The natural sand and gravel soils encountered below the fill soils at the site are adequate for
support of spread footing foundations with relatively low settlement potential. The existing fill
material and debris from prior site development should be removed from within proposed
building areas. It has been our experience that boulders up to 2 to 3 feet in size are typical of the
gravel deposits in this area. The fill soil type, condition and depth should be expected to vary
across the building site.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing
on the natural granular soils or compacted structural fill.
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 or compacted structural
fill 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.
RECEEVED
4-040,0111
Kumar&Associates,Inc.® i 9RC®Ota>mv 11t7EProject No.21-7-651 ASPEN
imp
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
-4 -
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, topsoil and any loose 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 granular material compacted to at least 98% of standard
Proctor density at near optimum moisture content and extend to at least 11/2 feet
beyond footing edges.
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 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 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 de1ft
� IVE
Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use larl r the wal
7
09/29/2022 01/19/2022
,Kumar&Associates,Inc.° FCAC®Ota>mv 11t7EProject No.21-7-651 ASPEN
imp
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
- 5 -
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
95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural granular soils encountered below the existing fill are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab-on-grade construction. Depending on the depth of the foundation excavation the
upper fill soils may be exposed at the proposed slab subgrade. The clayey fill soils should be
further evaluated for support of slab-on-grade at the time of construction. To reduce the effects
of some differential movement, floor 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 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 experiel E/'►E IVE D
the area that local perched groundwater can develop during time IVE, itation or
09/29/2022 01/19/2022
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° iV9RCO&GO /CEProject No.21-7-651 ASPEN
imp
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
- 6 -
seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We
recommend below-grade construction 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 into the natural granular soil or sump and pump. The underslab
gravel should have a positive connection with the outside perimeter underdrain. 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.
SLOPE STABLIZATION
The City of Aspen requires an engineered excavation slope stabilization plan if proposed
foundations are within 15 feet of neighboring structures or public travel ways. The plan is not
required if excavations are less than 5 feet below the existing grade or further than 15 feet from
travel ways and less than 15 feet deep. The proposed building is near the southeast and
southwest property lines and slope bracing could be required depending on the addition location,
size and excavation depth. Slope bracing through use of a variety of systems such as 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 where needed. Other City
requirements may also be applicable.
DRYWELL
Drywells and bio-swales are often used in the Aspen area for site runoff detention and disposal.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has identified four hydrologic groups (HSG) in the
Aspen area and the site is located in Type C soil having a moderate infiltration rate. The results
of percolation testing performed in Boring 1,presented in Table 2, indicate an infiltration rate of
about 2 minutes per inch (equivalent inverted rate of 60 feet per day). The bedrock is generally
known to be relatively deep in this area and groundwater level was not encountered to the boring
depth of 16 feet. The drywell should have solid casing down to at least the lowest construction
level and perforation below that level.
RECEIVED
ifeiAreari)
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° FORCOOtalmniANCEProject No.21-7-651 ASPEN
imp
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
- 7 -
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 12 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 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 implied.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
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.
- i : ; ki RECEIVED
2
Kumar&Associates,Inc.° FORCOOtaNKANCEProject No.21-7-651 ASPEN
;imp
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
- 8 -
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, Inc.
0;09 REG/sl 'I
Off'•'•• 0.P '•.;c9��4
S '
, • i
James H. Parsons, P.E , 58663
Reviewed by: ,',, •••:2/V1
114%c!"/OVAL y'
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
JHP/kac
alEVENET)) RWEIVEF
09/29/2022I 2
Kumar&Associates,Inc.® FORCO0MMIJANCE Project No.21-7-651
jimp ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
e
/ #5 REBAR W/1W'YPC
LS#9184 N 21'53'E 1.9'
7947.6'
------------7---_____ 7947.4'
y ! LOT A
m / �\ SMUGGLER RUN
OWNER:SIMON,AMY
/ 41 RR PE RETAINING WALL
STORM DRAIN co
S
Sq
\ �F
h ` SS �,
\ / PI ":11.,..-. /
LOT NAIL WI 21 DISC 5 #91
�r 794 309 eN 61154.E 1.9' 7950.9'
y y, /// 2,948 SQ FT t12^+�\ ���1" C� PAY A 12'
3
y �� / 0 BS
\ / /P y0 ^SHED 7944.1'
/ ,f�/\ Co 794 .�0/ �41
co / 7
\ / /
y / ) $309
OAK LANE
/ 94
N
\. .? LOT
/ }y-y�
S
„9u \GRAVEL PAR PARKING 308 OWNER:HOCH,DA`
\\\7`rcJ�, � ( �� BORING 1 ,�'
/ \ #5 REBAR W/1'/.' • ,q°
YPC LS 184 ,y'�
\ \-6 ` . "-7941.8
j \
NN)4..,-------- (..-
a
bso
i 96'I p4 o\ O \
pL8�`4, l•\ 4, 4' \
F S n .� �"pq� 10' .`4#5 REBAR NO CAP
\OC MFN ./B \
f SSS \ r 0
�F'Nf,IT 4 7941.6' \
o \
h
A \ \
GPS#4 N.\ /\ \
N\ 25'WATER LINE EASEMENT
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
N RECEPTION#525030 \
s
n
.
1
El 1 0 0 10 20
""I,
APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET RECEIVED
o iteitirekeil
OL 19/2022
Ea 21 -7-651 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF _ A BORING �Ig. 1
8 :-P ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
BORING 1 LEGEND
EL. 7941
FILL; SAND AND CLAY, GRAVELLY, STIFF,
0 >/ MOIST, BLACK TO DARK BROWN.
xx X GRAVEL AND SAND (GM—SM); COBBLES,
PROBABLE BOULDERS, SILTY, MEDIUM DENSE
9/1 2 / TO DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN,
SUBROUNDED ROCK.
5 DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER
9/12 SAMPLE.
WC=1 5.6
•
DD=112
—200=44 DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.
w 'o:
10 9/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 9
A 32/12 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER FALLING 30
o o WC=5.9 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE
+4=24 SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
—200=17
15 NOTES
26/12
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON
SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 WITH A 4—INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING
20 WAS MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN
PROVIDED.
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).
as
RECEIVED
;;•( D EVAJEWIE""0
9 2 0 O L/19/2022
E 21 -7-651 Kumar & Associates LOG OF EXPLORATA N ND NOTES 'Flg. 2
ASFLP4
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
f00 45 MIN 15 MIN BOMIN 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 '
a 40 60 '
30 70
20 80
10 90
0 I I I I I I I I 11 I I III II 1 I 11 I I I I II 1 I I I I I III I I I I I II II 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .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 24 % SAND 59 % SILT AND CLAY 17 %
LIQUID LIMIT — PLASTICITY INDEX —
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 10'
s'
a
i
These test results apply only to the
samples which were tested. The
a Q testing report shall not be reproduced,
except In full, without the written
o i approval of Kumar & Associates, Inc.
1' Sieve analysis testing is perform-•- in
of ASTM accordance
and/or.ip D114% ••,,
'o i V ,_ nnn sss ��� V
•
Es 21 —7-651 Kumar & Associates GRADATIO:� b- 291 1 S 0 i /E 9/2022
o>
FORE CE MPLI ii10E
jimp ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
I( i A Kumar&Associates,sInc.°
Gumar&Aland Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scientists
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No.21-7-651
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)
1 5 15.6 112 44 Clayey Sand and Gravel
(Fill)
10 5.9 24 59 17 Silty Sand and Gravel
•
•
RECEIVED
01/19/2022
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
I(+AKumar&Associates,Inc.°
Geotechnical and Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scientists
TABLE 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NO.21-7-651
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)
118 114 4 0.5
114 112 2 1
112 110 2 1
110 108 2 1
108 106 2 1
B-1 192 2 106 104 2 1
104 103 1 2
103 102 1 2
102 101 1 2
101 100 1 2
100 99 1 2
Note: Percolation testing was conducted on September 15, 2021 in a 4-inch diameter auger boring.
:.;weii)
REc EWER
r09/29/2022 I 01/19/2022
FORC®Mc()w LIANCE ASPEN
jimp ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT