The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSoils & Foundation Report 11.20.2015CTLITHOMPSON SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION RAUMAN RESIDENCE LOT 33, FOUR MILE RANCH 221 MAROON DRIVE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN 221 Maroon Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Project No. GS05973-120 November 20, 2015 234 Center Drive I Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone. 970-945-2809 Fax 970-945-7411 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE-...'... ~_.~... ...~... --_-........... .... ~~.~~~~~-' -_........... --~1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. __..... .-....... .,.,..-,.--_____. 2 SITE GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SITE EARTHWORK Structural F|U FOUNDATION ^.~.~~ Footings Foundations ..... _..~_'.... .... ~~~~~.~~~~~~~._~~..... ---_--8 FLOOR SYSTEN1 AND SLABS -ON -GRADE ,,.-. � FOUNDATION WALLS a SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE ._--_---__~~~~~-....~~.~-~-~.--_-___-$ SURFACE DRAINAGE __-_-~_~~~~~~~~_-~~-~..-_, _Q CUNCRETE_._---.--._-_-~.-..,...~...-,.,..--_-____-...........,......,....._...,..l0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS. 10 GEOTECHNICAL RISK .-.....-......_.,..-..-_-------_..,.,,.,.',.,.~~',----..-..-_i1 FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - LOCATIONS QFEXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - SUMMARY LOGS CF EXPLORATORY BORNGS FIGURE 4-SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE -GRADATIONTEGTRESULTQ FIGURES - EXTERIOR FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN TABLEW- SUMMARY C}FLABORATORY TESTING EXHIBIT /\- SURFACE DRA|NAGE, |RR|GAT|ON AND MAINTENANCE KIMBERLY AND ROCKY mAUmAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. mmmysn^co 5.1G550/2.000112012.nepon*Go05972120n,u=" SCOPIC This report presents the results of our soils and foundation investigation for the proposed Rauman Residence on Lot 33 of Four Mile Ranch Subdivision (aka 221 Maroon Drive) in Garfield County, Colorado. A vicinity map is shown on Figure 1. We conducted this investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed resi- dence. Our report was prepared from data developed from our field exploration, la- boratory testing, engineering analysis, and our experience with similar conditions. This report includes a description of the subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory borings and presents geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the building foundation, floor system, below -grade walls, and details influenced by the subsoils. Recommendations contained in this report were developed based on our understanding of the planned construction. We should be provided building plans, as they become available, so that we can provide geotechnical engineering input and check that our recommendations and design criteria are appropriate. A summary of our conclusions is presented below. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. We found about 1 foot of sandy clay "topsoil" and 3.5 to 4 feet of sandy clay underlain by clean to slightly silty gravel with cobbles and boulders to the maximum explored depth of 25 feet. We encountered a 7 -foot thick lens of clayey to silty sand in TH-1 at a depth of 11 feet. Practical drilling refusal occurred on cobbles and boulders at numerous depths in our borings. Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings at the time of drilling. 2. We anticipate that excavations required for the new residence will be about 10 feet deep. The residence can be constructed on footing foundations supported by the undisturbed, natural soils. Design and construction criteria for foundations are presented in the report. An excavation observation is required to confirm subsoils are as antici- pated prior to placing forms to construct footings. 3. We expect slabs can be supported by the natural soils at this site with low risk of differential movement and associated damage. The KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05073-120 SiGS0S073.000512m2. Rrporta5GS05e73120 R1.does 1 basement and garage floors are planned as slabs -on -grade. Pre- cautions in the report must be followed. 4. Surface drainage should be designed to provide for rapid removal of surface water away from the residence. SITE CONDITIONS Lot 33 (aka 221 Maroon Drive) is in the northeast part of the Four Mile Ranch subdivision. The property is +1- 2 -acre parcel that has not been built upon. The building envelope is in the central part of the lot. Existing residences are on lots to the north and south of the property. The ground surface slopes within the building envelope at grades Tess than 10 percent down to the southwest. Vegeta- tion on the lot consisted of sparse grasses and sage. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Building plans for the Rauman Residence were not developed at the time of our investigation. The residence will likely be a two-story wood framed building, with a full -depth basement. Maximum excavations will likely be on the order of about 10 feet deep. Basement and garage floors are anticipated to be constructed as slabs -on -grade. Typical foundation loads for this type of construction are about 1,000 to 3,000 pounds per linear foot of foundation wall with maximum 50 kip inte- rior column loads. If construction will differ significantly from the descriptions above, we should be informed so that we can adjust our recommendations and design criteria, if necessary. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling two explora- tory borings at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Subsurface condi- tions encountered in our borings were logged by our engineer who obtained sam- ples of the soils during drilling operations. We found about 1 foot of sandy clay KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973420 S: GS05973.00017017. Raparta1G3059T3120 R1.dot: 2 "topsoil" and 3.5 to 4 feet of sandy clay underlain by clean to slightly silty gravel with cobbles and boulders to the maximum explored depth of 25 feet. We encoun- tered a 7 -foot thick lens of clayey sand in TH-1 at a depth of 11 feet. Practical drill- ing refusal occurred on cobbles and boulders at numerous depths in our boring. The hole location had to be moved slightly to advance the borings farther. Ground- water was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. The borings were backfilled at the completion of drilling operations. Graphic Togs of the soils encoun- tered in our exploratory borings are shown on Figure 3. Samples of the natural soils obtained in the field were returned to our labor- atory where volume change potential and field classification was checked. One sample of silty to clayey sand selected for swell -consolidation testing exhibited 0.3 percent consolidation when wetted under a 1,000 psf surcharge load. Swell/con- solidation test results are shown on Figure 4. Samples tested contained between 3 and 34 percent silt and clay sized particles (passing the No. 200 sieve). Repre- sentative samples of the gravel soil were difficult to obtain, due to the presence of larger cobbles and boulders. Gradation tests are representative of only the smaller size (less than 1.5 inches) size soil particles. Gradation test results are shown on Figure 5, and laboratory test results are summarized on Table I. SITE GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS We reviewed the geologic Map of Glenwood Springs Quadrangle which in- cludes the area of Four Mile Ranch subdivision. The mapping was by Kirkham, Streufert, Cappa, Shaw, Allen, and Jones (dated 2008). The site is mapped as Pleistocene -age loess (wind) deposits consisting of silt and fine grained sand un- derlain by older debris flow deposits that consist predominantly of clast-supported gravel, cobbles and boulders in a silty clay matrix. In our opinion, there are not ge- ologic constraints at this site that would inhibit development as planned. KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS059T3-120 S:IGSOS973.000112012 Rsports1G5O5073120 RI.docs 3 Covering the ground with houses, streets, driveways, patios, etc., coupled with lawn irrigation and changing drainage patterns, leads to an increase in sub- surface moisture conditions. As a result, some soil movement is inevitable. Itis critical that all recommendations in this report are followed to increase the chances that the foundations and slabs -on -grade will perform satisfactorily. After construc- tion, owners must assume responsibility for maintaining the structure and use ap- propriate practices regarding drainage and landscaping. SITE EARTHWORK Our subsurface information indicates excavations for the planned residence will be in silty to clayey sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. We anticipate excavation of the soils can be accomplished using conventional, heavy duty exca- vating equipment. Sides of excavations would need to be sloped to meet local, state and federal safety regulations. The soils will likely classify as Type B to Type C soils based on OSHA standards governing excavations. Temporary slopes deeper than 4 feet that are not retained should be no steeper than 1 to 1 (horizon- tal to vertical) in Type B soils and 1.5 to 1 in Type C soils. Free groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory borings during drilling operations. We do not anticipate excavations for foundations or utilities will penetrate groundwater, however, excavations should be sloped to a gravity dis- charge or to a temporary sump where water can be removed by pumping, if nec- essary. Some water seepage may be encountered in excavations made during the spring. Structural Fill Structural fill may be required to attain subgrade elevations for the garage slab and to support concrete flatwork or porch or patio columns. The on-site soil, free of organic matter, debris and rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter can be KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973420 S:10506972.000112012 Raperla1GS06973120 R1.daer 4 used as structural fill. If required, import fill should consist of a CDOT Class 6 ag- gregate base course or similar soil. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts of 10 inches thick or less and moisture -conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Structural fill should be compacted to 100 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maxi- mum dry density. Moisture content and density of structural fill should be checked by a representative of our firm during placement. FOUNDATION The Rauman Residence can be constructed on footing foundations sup- ported by the undisturbed, natural soils. Voids resulting from the removal of cob- bles and boulders in the bottom of footing excavations should be filled with struc- tural fill pursuant to the criteria and recommendations in the Structural Fill section. Our representative should be called to observe subsoils exposed in the completed foundation excavation to confirm that the exposed soils are as anticipated and suitable for support of the foundation as designed. Footings Foundations 1. The residence can be supported by footing foundations supported entirely on the undisturbed, natural soils. Soils loosened during the forming process for the footings should be removed or re -compacted prior to placing concrete. 2. Footings on the undisturbed, natural soils can be sized using a maxi- mum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. 4. Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of at least 16 inches. Foundations for isolated columns should have minimum di- mensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required, depending upon foundation loads. KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS059T3-120 S:5GS05973.000112012. Reports403505973 120 R1.docx 5 5. Grade beams and foundation walls should be well reinforced, top and bottom, to span undisclosed loose or soft soil pockets. We rec- ommend reinforcement sufficient to span an unsupported distance of at least 12 feet. Reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer. 6. The soils under exterior footings should be protected from freezing. We recommend the bottom of footings be constructed at a depth of at least 36 inches below finished exterior grades. The Garfield County building department should be consulted regarding required frost protection depth. FLOOR SYSTEM AND SLABS -ON -GRADE The most positive altemative to mitigate floor movement is construction of structural floors. A structural floor is supported by the foundation system. Design and construction issues associated with structural floors include ventilation and lat- eral Toads. Where structurally supported floors are installed over a crawl space, the required air space depends on the materials used to construct the floor and the potential expansion of the underlying soils. Building codes require a clear space of 18 inches between exposed earth and untreated wood floor components. This minimum clear space should be maintained between any point on the underside of the floor system (including beams and floor drain traps) and the soils. Where structurally supported floors are used, utility connections, including water, gas, air duct, and exhaust stack connections to floor supported appliances, should be capable of absorbing some deflection of the floor. Plumbing that passes through the floor should ideally be hung from the underside of the structural floor and not laid on the bottom of the excavation. This configuration may not be achiev- able for some parts of the installation. It is prudent to maintain the minimum clear space below all plumbing lines. If trenching below the lines is necessary, we rec- ommend sloping these trenches so they discharge to the foundation drain. KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. G505973420 S;16505873.000112012. R,porlstGS05B73120 Rt.docs 6 Control of humidity in crawl spaces is important for indoor air quality and performance of wood floor systems. We believe the best current practices to con- trol humidity involve the use of a vapor retarder or vapor barrier (10 mil minimum) placed on the soils below accessible subfloor areas. The vapor retarder/barrier should be sealed at joints and attached to concrete foundation elements. We rec- ommend the client consider the benefit of installing a mechanical de -humidifying system consisting of fans that operate when a percent humidity level is reached. We expect basement and garage floors will be constructed as slabs -on - grade. Based on our laboratory test data and experience, we judge slab -on -grade construction can be supported by the soils at this site with low risk of differential movement and associated damage. Structural fill placed to attain subgrade eleva- tions for floor slabs should be in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Structural Fill section. We recommend the following precautions for slab -on -grade construction at this site. These precautions will not prevent movement from occurring; they tend to reduce damage if slab movement occurs. 1. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members with slip joints which allow free vertical movement of the slabs. 2. The use of underslab plumbing should be minimized. Underslab plumbing should be pressure tested for leaks before the slabs are constructed. Plumbing and utilities which pass through slabs should be isolated from the slabs with sleeves and provided with flexible couplings to slab supported appliances. 3. Frequent control joints should be provided, in accordance with Amer- ican Concrete Institute (ACI) recommendations, to reduce problems associated with shrinkage and curling. KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973-120 S:1G505073.00011201 . Reporta1GS05973120 R1.doex 7 FOUNDATION WALLS Foundation walls which extend below -grade should be designed for lateral earth pressures where backfill is not present to about the same extent on both sides of the wall. Many factors affect the values of the design lateral earth pres- sure. These factors include, but are not limited to, the type, compaction, slope and drainage of the backfill, and the rigidity of the wall against rotation and deflection. For a very rigid wall where negligible or very little deflection will occur, an "at -rest" lateral earth pressure should be used in design. For walls that can deflect or rotate 0.5 to 1 percent of wall height (depending upon the backfill types), lower "active" lateral earth pressures are appropriate. Our experience indicates typical below -grade walls in residences deflect or rotate slightly under normal design loads, and that this deflection results in satisfactory wall performance. Thus, the earth pressures on the walls will likely be between the "active" and "at -rest" condi- tions. If the on-site soils are used as backfill and the backfill is not saturated, we recommend design of below -grade walls at this site using an equivalent fluid den- sity of at least 50 pcf. This value assumes deflection; some minor cracking of walls may occur. If very little wall deflection is desired, a higher design value is appropri- ate. For the on-site soils, an at -rest lateral earth pressure of 40 pcf, and a passive lateral earth pressure of 270 pcf can be used. The structural engineer should also consider site-specific grade restrictions and the effects of large openings on the behavior of the walls. Foundation Wall Backfill Proper placement and compaction of foundation backfill is important to re- duce infiltration of surface water and settlement of backfill. The natural soils can be used as backfill, provided they are free of rocks larger than 3 -inches in diameter, }LIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973-720 5:10505271000‘1201.2 Reporti10506973 120 R1.daex 8 organics, and debris. The upper 2 feet of fill should be with sandy clay to limit infil- tration. Backfill should be placed in loose lifts of approximately 10 inches thick or less, moisture -conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted. Thickness of lifts will likely need to be about 6 inches if there are small confined areas of backfill, which limit the size and weight of compaction equip- ment. The backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum stand- ard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698). Moisture content and density of the backfill should be checked during placement by a representative of our firm. Observation of the compaction procedure is necessary. Testing without observation can lead to undesirable performance. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE Water from surface irrigation of lawns and landscaping frequently flows through relatively permeable backfill placed adjacent to a residence, and collects on the surface of Tess permeable soils occurring at the bottom of foundation exca- vations. This process can cause wet or moist conditions in basements and crawl spaces after construction. To reduce the likelihood water pressure will develop outside foundation walls and the risk of accumulation of water in basement and crawl spaces, we recommend provision of a foundation drain. The drain should be along the entire foundation perimeter. The provision of a drain will not eliminate slab movement or prevent moist conditions in crawl spaces. The drain should con- sist of a 4 -inch diameter, slotted pipe encased in free -draining gravel. The drain should lead to a positive gravity outlet or to a sump where water can be removed by pumping. Sump pumps must be maintained by the home owner. A typical foun- dation drain detail is presented on Figure 6. SURFACE DRAINAGE Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, floor slabs and concrete flatwork. Recommendations in this report are based on effective KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973-120 SAGS05971.900112012. ReportatGS05971120 R1.doci 9 drainage for the life of the structure and cannot be relied upon if effective drainage is not maintained. Exhibit A contains our recommendations for surface drainage, irrigation, and maintenance. CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured a water-soluble sulfate concentration in one sample from this site at 0.00 percent. Sulfate concentrations less than 0.1 percent indicate Class 0 exposure to sulfate attack for concrete in contact with the subsoils, according to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Guide To Durable Concrete (ACI 201.2R-01). For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI indicates any type of cement can be used for concrete in contact with the subsoils. In our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete, even though sulfate levels are relatively low. To control this risk and to resist freeze -thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious material ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete in contact with soils. Concrete exposed to freezing and thawing should have a total air content of 6% + 1.5%. We recommend all walls and grade beams in contact with the subsoils be water -proofed. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Kimberly and Rocky Rauman and the design team for the purpose of providing geotechnical engineer- ing design and construction criteria for the proposed project. The information, con- clusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of structures proposed, the geo- logic setting, and the subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by others. Stand- ards of practice continuously change in the area of geotechnical engineering. The recommendations provided in this report are appropriate for three years. If the pro - KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. G505973.120 S:10S06977.000112012. Reports1GS05973120 RI.doci 10 posed project is not constructed within three years, we should be contacted to de- termine if we should update this report. We recommend that CTL 1 Thompson, Inc. provide construction observation and materials testing services to allow us the opportunity to verify whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investigation. If others per- form these observations, they must accept responsibility to judge whether the rec- ommendations in this report remain appropriate. GEOTECHNICAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop ge- otechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be tem- pered by engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or recom- mendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as desired or intended. What the engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sections do constitute is our estimate, based on the information generated during this and previous evalua- tions and our experience in working with these conditions, of those measures that are necessary to help the building perform satisfactorily. The developer, builder, and owner must understand this concept of risk, as it is they who must decide what is an acceptable level of risk for the proposed development of the site. LIMITATIONS Our exploratory borings were located to provide a reasonably accurate pic- ture of subsurface conditions. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by the borings will occur. A representative of our firm should be called to observe KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973-120 S:0505072.000112012. Repofl1 GS0S873120 Ri.doex 11 the completed foundation excavation to confirm that the exposed soils are suitable for support of the footings as designed. This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or im- plied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this re- port, please call. [tfZ4�S.t��y Edward R. White,.P.E c Project Engineer' '' Reviewed by: es D. Kellogf ssociate ERW:JDK:cd cc: Via email to kraumanCc�woodbridoerealtVco.com KIMBERLY ANO ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. (505973-120 S:1GS05973.000112012. Reparta1G505973120 Rt.docx 12 SCALE: 1' 2,000' Kimberly and Rocky Rauman Rauman Residence Project No. GS05973-120 1 SCALE: 1' = 100' NOTE: LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE APPROXIMATE. Kimberly and Rocky Rauman aieumen .s!dance Project No. GS05973-120 Locations of Exploratory Borings Fig. 2 51G505973 000112018 0RAFTING1G505973000120 BORING LOGS FIGURE 3 GPJ TH-1 50:5 33112 TH-2 17/6, 25/6 31/6 45+'12 0 5 - 10- 15 - 25 - -- LEGEND: F3] SANDY CLAY 'TOPSOIL'', ORGANICS. MOIST, BROWN -7 ..7 CLAY, SANDY, STIFF, MOIST, BROWN (CL) GRAVEL, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, COBBLES AND BOULDERS, DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST, BROWN, GRAY (GP -GM) ElSAND, CLAYEY TO SILTY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, DENSE, MOIST, BROWN (SC -SM) b DRIVE SAMPLE.THE SYMBOL 50/6 INDICATES 50 BLOWS OF A 140 -POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2 5 -INCH O.D. SAMPLER 6 INCHES. DRIVE SAMPLE THE SYMBOL 17/6, 25/6, 31/6 INDICATES 17, 25 AND 31 BLOWS OF A 140 -POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2 0 -INCH O.D. SAMPLER IN 6 INCH INCREMENTS. BULK SAMPLE FROM AUGER CUTTINGS TPRACTICAL DRILLING REFUSAL NOTES: -30 30 --1 EXPLORATORY BORINGS FOR THIS INVESTIGATION WERE DRILLED ON - J OCTOBER 20, 2015 WITH 4 -INCH DIAMETER - SOLID -STEM AUGER AND A TRACK -MOUNTED DRILL RIG - 3.5 35 - - 40 40 - _45 45 __ KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAU61AN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO 0505973 000-120 2 LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE APPROXIMATE 3 NO FREE GROUNDWATER WAS FOUND IN OUR EXPLORATORY BORINGS AT THE TIME QF DRILLING 4 THESE EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. Summary Logs of Exploratory Borings FIG 3 z O -4 z X Z O 5 N w a -7 2 0 U _g _ . F ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 4 01 1 0 10 1C) APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF Sample of SAND, CLAYEY TO SILTY (SC -SM) DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 124 PCF From TH-1 AT 14 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT= 3 7 KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973-120 51G505173 000112016 Ca1cs1GS05973 120 Swell kis Swell Consolidation Test Results sample of GRAVEL, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY (GP -GM) From TH - 2 AT 5 FEET GRAVEL 69 % SAND SILT & CLAY 3 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 28 % oda 0/0 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U $ STANDARD SERIES 45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN '200 100 '50 '40 '30 '16 10 '8 , 1 _ <59 143 { A j{ 1 { { i f ; 50 W I 1 { 60 23 —1 { ! — i I 8p 90 _• 1_ . I .. _.1. - . �••••••••I I _ : 1 ...A ' 100 0 002 L005 C09 019 077 074 149 2970 42 590 1 19 2 0 2 36 4 76 9 52 19 1 30 1 76 2 127 152 590 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS '4 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3'6' 3.4' 1 3' 5'6 8' a 10 20 30 a0 30 •I 70 10 a- 001 CLAY (PLASTIC} TO SILT {NON PLASTIC) SANDS GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM 1 COARS Sample of From KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973-120 &M05973 000112016. Colcs4G505573 120 Gradation.ils FINE 1 COARSE ICOBBLES PERCENT RETAINED GRAVEL % SAND % SILT & CLAY % LIQUID LIM T PLASTICITY INDEX Gradation Test Results FIG 5 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 1 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U 6 STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 M.N 1 PAN '200 '10 ., 0 '{. • '::1 '16 '10 •8 '4 3.8• 3 4' I'� 3' 5'6- A- 100 _.__ _._ _ 90 T r i 1 : o LT 0 `d' a b o o ° PERCENT RETAINED 6p - � I { 1370 r { -- - U50rc— 0' 0'40 - 30 IO 10 I 1- 60 p i__.___] - Lr . _ 1, , + 90 100 u• i 001 0 002 005 009 019 037 074 1492970 42 590 -1 19 2 0 2 36 4 76 9 52 19 1 36 1 76 2 127 52200 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY (PLASTIC! TO SILT (NON -PLASTIC; SANDS GRAVEL FINE 1 MEDIUM COARSE FINE 1 COARSE 1 C0136LE5 I sample of GRAVEL, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY (GP -GM) From TH - 2 AT 5 FEET GRAVEL 69 % SAND SILT & CLAY 3 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 28 % oda 0/0 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U $ STANDARD SERIES 45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN '200 100 '50 '40 '30 '16 10 '8 , 1 _ <59 143 { A j{ 1 { { i f ; 50 W I 1 { 60 23 —1 { ! — i I 8p 90 _• 1_ . I .. _.1. - . �••••••••I I _ : 1 ...A ' 100 0 002 L005 C09 019 077 074 149 2970 42 590 1 19 2 0 2 36 4 76 9 52 19 1 30 1 76 2 127 152 590 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS '4 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3'6' 3.4' 1 3' 5'6 8' a 10 20 30 a0 30 •I 70 10 a- 001 CLAY (PLASTIC} TO SILT {NON PLASTIC) SANDS GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM 1 COARS Sample of From KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973-120 &M05973 000112016. Colcs4G505573 120 Gradation.ils FINE 1 COARSE ICOBBLES PERCENT RETAINED GRAVEL % SAND % SILT & CLAY % LIQUID LIM T PLASTICITY INDEX Gradation Test Results FIG 5 SLOPE PER OSHA COVER ENTIRE WIDTH OF GRAVEL WITH NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT). ROOFING FELT IS AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. SLOPE P?- REPORT BACKFILLti PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE COMPOSITE (MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT) ATTACH PLASTIC SHEETING TO FOUNDATION WALL-.-� BELOW -GRADE WALL SUP JOINT re 1 • ,O 2 MINIMUM 8" MINIMUM OR BEYOND 1:1 SLOPE FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) 4 -INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED RIGID DRAIN PIPE. THE PIPE SHOULD BE PLACED IN A TRENCH WITH A SLOPE OF AT LEAST 1/8 -INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. ENCASE PIPE IN 1/2' TO 1-1/2' WASHED GRAVEL EXTEND GRAVEL LATERALLY TO FOOTING AND AT LEAST 1/2 HEIGHT OF FOOTING. FILL ENTIRE TRENCH WITH GRAVEL FOOTING OR PAD NOTE THE BOTTOM OF THE DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 2 INCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. Kimberly and Rocky Redman Reisman Residence Project No. GS05973-120 Exterior Foundation WaII Drain Fig. 6 I DESCRIPTION J SAND, CLAYEY TO SILTY (SC -SMI. GRAVEL, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY (GP -GM) GRAVEL, CLEAN (GP} 1:: Il! U 6 � � K III III III 111111111 11 III 11 11 11-.1 a Li°11 pp O SUELT APPLIED PRESSURE (PSF SWELL TEST R 111111111111 11111 11111111 111111 1111111IMI. 11;; a z J g 1 9 D 8 N MOISTURE CONTENT ("Yo} 11.2 n m 0 0 .1 g ,n EXPLORATORY, BORING -1 I TH-2 EXHIBIT A SURFACE DRAINAGE, IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE Performance of foundations and concrete ftatwork is influenced by the moisture conditions existing within the foundation soils. Surface drainage should be designed to provide rapid runoff of surface water away from the proposed res- idence. Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices can help control the amount of surface water that penetrates to foundation levels and contributes to settlement or heave of soils and bedrock that support foundations and slabs -on - grade. Positive drainage away from the foundation and avoidance of irrigation near the foundation also help to avoid excessive wetting of backfill soils, which can lead to increased backfill settlement and possibly to higher lateral earth pres- sures, due to increased weight and reduced strength of the backfill. CTLThomp- son, Inc. recommends the following precautions. The home buyer should main- tain surface drainage and, if an irrigation system is installed, it should substan- tially conform to these recommendations. 1. Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavations should be avoided. 2. Excessive wetting of foundation soils before, during and after con- struction can cause heave or soften fill and foundation soils and re- sult in foundation and slab movements. Proper surface drainage around the residence and between lots is critical to control wetting. 3. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence should be sloped to drain away from the building in all directions. We recommend a minimum constructed slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet (10 percent) in landscaped areas around the resi- dence, where practical. We do not view the recommendation to provide a 10 percent slope away from the foundation as an absolute. It is desirable to create this slope where practical, because we know that backfill will likely settle to some degree. By starting with sufficient slope, positive drainage can be maintained for most settlement conditions. There are many situations around a residence where a 10 percent slope cannot be achieved practically, such as around patios, at inside foundation comers, and between a house and nearby sidewalk. In these areas, we believe it is desirable to establish as much slope as practical and to avoid irrigation. We believe it is acceptable to use a slope on the order of 5 percent perpendicular to the founda- tion in these limited areas. KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO.OS05977120 8:14S05973.00[412012 Reportal0506977120 R1.doex Exhibit A-1 For Tots graded to direct drainage from the rear yard to the front, it is difficult to achieve 10 percent slope at the high point behind the house. We believe it is acceptable to use a slope of about 6 inches in the first 10 feet (5 percent) at this location. Construction of retaining walls and decks adjacent to the residence should not alter the recommended slopes and surface drainage around the residence. Ground surface under the deck should be compacted and slope away from the residence. A 10 -mil plastic sheeting and landscaping rock is recommended above the ground under the decks to reduce water dripping from the deck causing soil erosion and/or forming depressions under the deck. The plastic sheeting should direct water away from the residence. Retaining walls should not flatten the surface drainage around the residence and block or impede the surface runoff. 4. Swales used to convey water across yards and between houses should be sloped so that water moves quickly and does not pond for extended periods of time. We suggest minimum slopes of about 2 to 2.5 percent in grassed areas and about 2 percent where land- scaping rock or other materials are present. If slopes less than about 2 percent are necessary, concrete -lined channels or plastic pipe should be used. 5. Backfill around the foundation walls should be moistened and com- pacted. 6. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the lim- its of all backfill. Splash blocks and/or extensions should be pro- vided at all downspouts so water discharges onto the ground be- yond the backfill. We generally recommend against burial of down- spout discharge. Where it is necessary to bury downspout dis- charge, solid, rigid pipe should be used and it should slope to an open gravity outlet. Downspout extensions, splash blocks and bur- ied outlets must be maintained by the home owner. 7. The importance of proper home owner irrigation practices cannot be over -emphasized. Irrigation should be limited to the minimum amount sufficient to maintain vegetation: application of more water will increase likelihood of slab and foundation movements. Land- scaping should be carefully designed and maintained to minimize irrigation. Plants placed close to foundation walls should be limited to those with low moisture requirements. Irrigated grass should not be located within 5 feet of the foundation. Sprinklers should not dis- charge within 5 feet of foundations. Plastic sheeting should not be placed beneath landscaped areas adjacent to foundation walls or KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS05973-120 S:4805073.000112012 ReportsIGS05973120 R1.docx Exhibit A-2 grade beams. Geotextile fabric will inhibit weed growth yet still al- low natural evaporation to occur. 8. The design and construction criteria for foundations and floor sys- tem alternatives were compiled with the expectation that all other recommendations presented in this report related to surface and subsurface drainage, landscaping irrigation, backfill compaction, etc. will be incorporated into the project. It is critical that all recom- mendations in this report are followed. KIMBERLY AND ROCKY RAUMAN RAUMAN RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. G505973-120 5:1G305971000112012. ReportilGS05973120 131.doca Exhibit A-3