HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 11.30.2015cec!tech
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
Htpwurth Nub!: Gentechnic.al, Int.
5020 County R0.11,1154
Glcnuixxl Springs, Colorant 81601
PItnnc• 970.945.7983
F. . 970-945-8454
cm eil hrgec 4 hpgenttxh coal
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 33, HERON CROSSING AT IRONBRIDGE
RIVER BEND WAY
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 115 533A
NOVEMBER 30, 2015
PREPARED FOR:
RM CONSTRUCTION
ATTN: BLAKE PILAND
151 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE
NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647
blake@buildwithrm.com
Parker 303-84I.7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Si[verthome 970-468-1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 2 -
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL - 2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 3 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 4 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 4 -
FOUNDATIONS - 4
FLOOR SLABS - 5 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 6 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 6 -
LIMITATIONS - 7 -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located
on Lot 33, Heron Crossing at Ironbridge, River Bend Way, Garfield County, 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 RM Construction dated
November 4, 2015. We previously conducted a preliminary subsoil study in the Heron
Crossing at Ironbridge development area and presented our findings in a report dated
February 28, 2014, Job No. 113 471A.
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,
compressibility or swell 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 residence will be a single story, wood frame structure Iocated as shown on
Figure 1. Ground floor will be structural over crawlspace in the living area and slab -on -
grade in the garage. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut
depths between about 3 to 5 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.
Job No 115 533A Gegritech
SITE CONDITIONS
The lot was vacant at the time of our field exploration. The ground surface had been
stripped of topsoil and the subdivision grading was in progress. River Bend Way is
asphalt paved. The ground surface slopes gently down to the northeast with about 2 feet
or less elevation difference across the building footprint.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Ironbridge
development. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone
and siltstone with some massive beds of gypsum and limestone. There is a possibility
that massive gypsum deposits associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite underlie
portions of the lot. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain conditions can cause
sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized subsidence. Several sinkholes
were observed during geologic assessments conducted for the Ironbridge development.
These sinkholes appeared similar to others associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite in
areas of the Roaring Fork River valley. A sinkhole opened in the cart storage parking lot
in January 2005 and irregular bedrock conditions have been identified in the affordable
housing site located roughly 500 to 1,000 feet south of the current development area.
Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. No evidence of
cavities was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the exploratory borings
were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our present knowledge of
the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not
develop. The risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 33 throughout the service life of
the proposed residence, in our opinion, is low; however, the owner should be made aware
of the potential for sinkhole development. If further investigation of possible cavities in
the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be contacted.
Job No. 115 533A
-3 -
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on November 24, 2015. Two
exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 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 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1'/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 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 consist of about 8 to 11 feet of sandy clay and silt overlying dense, slightly
silty sandy gravel and cobbles with boulders. Drilling in the coarse granular soils with
auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was
encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural
moisture content and density and finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of
swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay
and silt soils, presented on Figure 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under
Job No 115 533A Gtech
-4 -
conditions of loading and wetting. The samples showed a low expansion or compression
when wetted under light loading. 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.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper clay and silt soils have low bearing capacity and low to moderate
compressibility mainly when wetted. Shallow spread footings placed on the natural clay
and silt soils can be used with a risk of settlement as described below. The footing
bearing level should be at least 3 feet below existing ground surface so there is no more
than 7 feet of compressible soils below the bearing level. Use of a deep foundation
placed on the underlying dense gravel and cobbles soils could be used to achieve a low
settlement risk.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the
nature of the proposed construction, the building be founded with spread footings bearing
on the natural clay and silt soils with a settlement risk. If a deep foundation is desired, we
should be contacted for supplemental 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 1,500 psf. Based on
experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and
constructed as discussed in this section will be about y to 1 inch or less.
Job No. 115 533A Gestech
-5 -
Additional differential settlement up to about 1 inch could occur if the
bearing soils are wetted.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 20 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 36 inches below exterior grade is
typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom
to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at
least 14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also
be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for the onsite clay and silt soil as
backfill.
5) Any existing fill, topsoil and loose or disturbed soils should be removed in
the footing areas. The exposed soils in footing area should then be
moistened and compacted. The soils should be protected from frost and
concrete should not be placed on frozen soils.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, can be used to support lightly loaded slab -
on -grade construction with a settlement risk if the bearing soils are wetted. 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.
Job No. 115 533A G tech
-6 -
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 clay and silt soils devoid of vegetation and topsoil.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
It is our understanding that the finished floor elevation at the lowest level will be at or
above the surrounding grade. Therefore, a foundation drain system is not required. 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
and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an
underdrain and wall drain system. An underdrain should not be provided around the
crawlspace to help limit surface water infiltration to the bearing soils.
If the finished floor elevation of the proposed structure has a basement level, we should
be contacted to provide recommendations for an underdrain system. All earth retaining
structures should be properly drained.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Providing proper surface grading and drainage is very important to the satisfactory
performance of the building. 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
115 533A -
-7 -
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.
4) Roof gutters should be provided with downspouts and drains that
discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation such as sod should be
located al least 10 feet from foundations. Consideration should be given to
use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the
building caused by irrigation.
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 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
Job No. 1t5533A
-8 -
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,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Danie E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/ksw
Job No 115 533A
RIVER BEND WAY
LOT 32
115 533A
GARAGE
F.F. 98.5
APPROXIMATE SCALE
i' 20'
BORING 1
•
PROPOSED
FIESIDENCE
F F. = 99 92'
Nib
BORING 2
•
LOT 33
1
H
Hepworth—Pawlak Geotschnkol
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
LOT 34
Figure 1
0
5
10
15
20
BORING 1 BORING 2
16/12
7/12 WC=4 5
� 00=94
' •200 91
14/12 19/12
WC=
C=1Q 6
DD= 92
62/12
23/12
c;„.
0
Liz
55/12
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3.
0
5
10—
15
20
m
iv
m
115 533A
Hepworth—PaM1ak Geatechnical
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Figure 2
LEGEND:
---7
0
14/12
T
CLAY AND SILT (CL -ML); slightly sandy to sandy, slightly moist, brown, slightly porous.
GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM -GP); slightly silty, sandy, boulders, dense, slightly moist, brown, rounded rock.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 -inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 14 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
Practical drilling refusal,
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on November 24, 2015 with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan
provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were not measured and the logs of exploratory borings are drawn to depth
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 transitions may be gradual.
B. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%)
DD = Dry Density (pcf)
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
115 533A
HEPIMORT*PAWLAK G6aTE.cHNICAL
LEGEND AND NOTES
Figure 3
Compression - Expansion %
Compression %
1
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.1
Moisture Content 10.6 percent
Dry Density 92 pct
Sample of: Silty Sandy Clay
From: Boring 1 at 5 Feet
Expansion
upon
wetting
9
0.1
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
0
Moisture Content 4.5 percent
Dry Density = 94 pct
Sample of: Slightly Sandy Silt
From: Boring 2 at 2 Y2 Feet
\\\\ L Compression
upon
wetting
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
115 533A
I-1
Hepworth—Pawlak Geoteehnlcd
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 4
Job No. 115 533A
z
J
a
V_
Z
=
U
w
I-
o O
I.J
C„7
Y
5 71W
J
'CC
9- fa--
z
1 -
cc
D
O.
W
=
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SOIL DR
BEDROCK TYPE
Silty Sandy Clay 11
Slightly Sandy Silt 11
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
Inn
I ATTERBERG LIMITS
z 7--
... a.
2
a
c ie
5
g
PERCENT
PASSING NO.
200 SIEVE
.--1
ON
-f-
O
a
a
a
a
to
D
x x
N
>
g k
NATURAL
DRY DENSITY
Ipcn
el
et
CA
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
I%I
O
in
4
SAMPLE LOCATION
o —
N
BORING
...i
N