HomeMy WebLinkAboutObservation of Excavation 06.15.2015F�
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
June 15.2015
Richard & Mary Jolley Family LLLP
Attn: Kent Jolley
832 Canyon Creek Drive
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
kentjollevki sopri 5-nel
-3.020( ittiti hi 1
I'li+ '170
ural 3rptit
Job No. 115 10SA
Subject: Observation of Excavation, Proposed Residence, Jolley Ranch, County
Road 335, Between Divide and Garfield Creeks, Garfield County,
Colorado
Dear Kent:
As requested, a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Gcotechnical, Inc. observed the
excavation at the subject site on June 11, 2015 to evaluate the soils exposed for
foundation support. The findings of our observations and recommendations for the
foundation design are presented in this report. We previously conducted a subsoil study
for design of foundations at the site and presented our findings in a report dated April 27,
2015, Job No. 115 108A.
At the time of our visit to the site, the foundation excavation had been cut in one level
from 2 to 5 feet below the adjacent ground surface. The soils exposed in the bottom of
the excavation consisted of stiff sandy silty clay. Results of swell -consolidation testing
performed on samples taken from the site, shown on Figure 1, indicate the soils have low
to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting and a minor swell or
collapse (settlement under constant load) when wetted. No free water was encountered in
the excavation and the soils were slightly moist to moist.
The soil conditions exposed in the excavation are consistent with those previously
encountered on the site and suitable for support of spread footings designed for the
recommended allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Loose and disturbed soils should
be removed in the footing areas to expose the undisturbed natural soils. Other
recommendations presented in our previous report which are applicable should also be
observed.
The recommendations submitted in this letter are based on our observation of the soils
exposed within the foundation excavation and the previous Iimited subsurface exploration
at the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions below the excavation could increase
the risk of foundation movement. We should be advised of any variations encountered in
the excavation conditions for possible changes to recommendations contained in this
letter. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of
I'.trLLL 303-S41-7119 • i',tltfr,itit)Sprint_s 719 633-5502 6 ilvertlu m 9770.4{,5 1989
Richard and Mary Jolley Family LLLP
June 15, 2015
Page 2
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
consul ted.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH -- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. ;0 24443
41FSS�ONAL V
Rev. by: SLP
DEH/ksw
attachment Figure 1 — Swell -Consolidation Test Results
cc: Palomino Design -Build PC- Jack Palomino (o::k@palominodesignbuilct
Job No. 115 I ORA
eigtech
Compression %
Compression - Expansion %
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
0.1
Moisture Content = 16.9 percent
Dry Density = 88 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Footing Grade, East Side
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
0.1
115 108A
•
Expansion
upon
wetting
Compression
upon
wetting
Moisture Content = 12.6 percent
Dry Density = 95 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Footing Grade, North Side
•
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
H
Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
100
100
Figure 1