My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1996-10-29_REVISION - M1977493
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977493
>
1996-10-29_REVISION - M1977493
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 5:41:06 PM
Creation date
8/31/2010 11:00:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977493
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
10/29/1996
Doc Name
Outlet Works Construction
From
Climax Molybdenum
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
SR2
Email Name
ACS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2390 S. Lipan St. <br /> Denver,CO 80223 <br /> K&A (303)742-9700 <br /> Fax 742-9666 <br /> Kumar & Associates, Inc. <br /> Branch Office—Colorado Springs,CO <br />- Geotechnical&Environmental Engineers <br /> November 27, 1995 <br /> WMERER&ASS <br /> Subject: Construction Observation and <br /> n y �; � Materials Testing, Eagle Park <br /> Ot`� `' E:? Outlet Works <br /> Reservoir <br /> Construction, Cyprus Climax_ <br /> Metals, Eagle County, Colorado <br /> Project No. 95-435 <br /> Mr. Douglas C. Seely, P.E. <br /> W.W. Wheeler & Associates, Inc. <br /> 3700 South Inca Street <br /> Englewood, Colorado 80110 <br /> Dear Mr. Seely: <br /> Modification to Material specifications for Embankment Fill: The <br /> project specifications require the Zone 1 fill to have at least 30% <br /> passing the No. 200 sieve. it is intended to reuse the existing <br /> embankment fill obtained from the breach excavation for the outlet <br /> conduit to refill the breach. <br /> During the excavating, the existing embankment was observed by <br /> the undersigned and by yourself. A visible difference between Zone <br /> 1 and Zone 2 materials as identified on the original dam design <br />• drawings was not apparent. Laboratory gradation tests indicated <br /> one sample from the area designated as Zone 1 on the drawings <br /> possessed 34% passing the No. 200 sieve. Another sample from the <br /> Zone 2 area possessed 22% passing the No. 200 sieve. These are <br /> based on a maximum particle size for the samples of 3 inches. The <br /> results of these tests were previously submitted to you under <br /> letter dated November 1, 1995. <br />• <br /> We have also reviewed the test results from the original <br /> construction of Dam 4. Test data were reported by Woodward-Clyde <br /> Sherrard and Associates during Stage 1 construction 1964 through <br /> 1966. Sixty samples of Zone 1 Ynaterial were tested to determine <br /> percentage passing the No. 200 sieve. Results indicated the <br /> 0 percent passing No. 200 sieve varied from 12 to 36 percent and <br /> averaged 25 percent based on the minus iZ-inch portion. Adjusted <br /> for a maximum particle size of 12-inches, the aforementioned <br /> samples of "Zone 1" and "Zone 2" material which were recently <br /> obtained from the breach excavation possess 37% and 24% passing the <br /> No. 200 sieve, respectively. <br />• <br /> In our opinion, the difference between Zones 1 and 2 of the <br /> embankment is probably transitional and not very distinct. Larger <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.