The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubsoil Study for Foundation Design 04.30.12HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL SUBSOIL STUDY l lq I\• 11 , I' 1 .f 11. ( '"' "h111c 11 lnL 'l'21.'1 ·11 rirr H .. I lil t •I l\\\'11(1J ~r•u1·'"• ( .1l1H h.Ll :--(u ... '1 ih l' •1 i\'.••f5.,"-~ f,I\ ·1;,' l!~ ... ~---! ,111 if fi1..: ,,.i·fi1 ~ ... t•.,ii ''Ill FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED BRIDGE, BARN AND SHOP 4110 COUNTY ROAD 243, MAIN ELK CREEK NORTHWEST OF NEW CASTLE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 112 088A APRIL 30, 2012 PREPARED FOR: SMITHBUILT ATTN: BRIDGER SMITH P .O . BOX 8616 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 smith.bridgerrd>gmail.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ........................................................................ -I - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................. -I - SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... - 2 - FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................ - 3 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. - 3 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ............................................................... - 4 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. - 4 - BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS ..................................................................................... - 4 - ABUTMENT AND WING WALLS ....................................................................... - 5 - BARN AND SHOP FOUNDATIONS .................................................................... -6 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ......................................................... - 7 - FLOOR SLABS ...................................................................................................... - 9 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ...................................................................................... - 9 - SITE GRADING .................................................................................................. -I 0 - SURFACE DRAINAGE ....................................................................................... -10- PERCOLATION TESTING ..................................................................................... -11 - LIMlTATIONS ........................................................................................................ -12 - FIGURE I -LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES FIGURE 2-LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4-SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 -GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURES 6 & 7 -USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2-PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results or u subsoil study for a proposed bridge, barn and shop to be located at 4110 County Road 243, Main Elk Creek, northwest ofNew Castle, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure I. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Smithbuilt dated April 16 and revised April 17, 2012. A preliminary geotcchnical investigation was performed by Y ch and Associates, Inc. dated November 15, 2007, their Project No. 27~ 314. The overall site geology nnd geologic hazards were addressed in the Y ch report that should be referenced for additional information . 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 cletennine their clnssificntion, compressibility and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboruto1)' testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This rep01t summarizes the data obtained <luring this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other gcotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed bridge will be a single lane and about 50 foot span. The barn will be a two sto1y structure with a lower level walkout to the north. The shop will be a one story wood frame structure. Ground floor of the shop will be slab~on-grade. Grading for the structures is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to I 0 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings for the buildings and moderate loadings for the bridge, typical of the proposed type of construction. Joh Nn. 112 088/\ ~ech - 2 - If building loadings, locations 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 existing ranch site is cu1Tently occupied by a single story house, shop, bam and sheds. The site slopes moderately down to the east from the County Road to Main Elk Creek at grades of 5 to 15% with locally steeper slopes north of the barn and shop and along the creek bed. Vegetation in the developmcnl areas consists of grass and weeds with scattered brush anc.1 trees. The area between the County Road and the creek is historically in"igated pasture. SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporitc underlies the site. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, tinc-grnined 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 cc11ain condilions can cause sinkholes to develop und can produce areas of localized subsidence. Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject site. No evidence of cuvities was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the exploratory borings were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Bused on our present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain thal sinkho lcs will nol develop. The risk of future ground subsidence throughout the se1vicc lite of the proposed structures, in our opinion, is low; however, the owner should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development. If fi.u1her investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be contacted . Joh No. 112 OHHA ~tech - 3 - FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on Apri I 18, 2012. Four 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-458 drill rig . The borings were logged by a representative of Hepwo11h-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/K inch and 2 inch 1.0. 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 lest described by ASTM Method 0-1586. The penetration resistance values arc 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 ofExplorntmy Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our labornto1y for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered ut the site arc shown on Figure 2. The subsoils consist of about l!h to 5Vl foet of fill overlying up to S!h foet ofloose, slightly clayey silty gravelly sand (alluvial fan deposit). Relatively dense silty sandy gravel with cobbles (creek alluvium) was encountered in Borings I and 2 al depths of about 4 feet and al Boring 3 at 13 foct. Dense sundy gravel was not encountered in Boring 4 and the loose lo medium dense sand soils were encountered to the maximum depth explored , 40 feet. The gravelly sand soils are generally interlayered with sandy silt, sundy clay, and sanely gravel soils, consistent with alluvial fan deposits. Drilling in the dense gravel alluvium with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles. Laboratory testing pcrfom1ed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, density and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing Joh No. 112 Ol!8A ~tech - 4 - performed on relntivcly undisturbed drive samples of the sandy silt and clay soils, presented on Figure 4, indicate moderate compressibility under conditions ofloading and welting. One of the samples showed a low collnpse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus l Yi inch fraction) of the coarser granular soils are shown on Figure 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. Free water was encountered in the borings at about the level of the creek nt the time of drilling. The subsoils above the water level were slightly moist to moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS Foundations for the bridge will be based on the relatively dense gravel alluvium encountered at about 4 to 4 1/~ foet deep. Foundations for the barn and shop can be placed on the medium dense, silty to clayey gravelly sand (alluvial fan deposit). There is some risk of long-term settlement of shallow toundations placed on the alluvial fan soils. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in Exploratory Borings I and 2 and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the bridge be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural dense granular soils. We assume that potential scour of the bearing soils will be addressed by armoring the creek banks in the area of the bridge. If desired, recommendations for a deep foundation ultenmtive such as driven piles can be provided. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. Joh No. 112 088A ~tech -5 - I) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for nn allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pst: Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less . 2) Footings should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement offoundations at least 36 inches below grade is typically used in this area. 4) Abutment and wing walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least I 0 feet. Abutment and wing walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Abutment and Wing Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing till, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense nnturul granular soils. J f water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dcwatcred before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior lo concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. ABUTMENT AND WING WALLS Abutment walls which arc laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral eat1h pressure computed on the hasis ofan equivalent tlui<l unit weight of at least 45 pcffor backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures, such as wing walls , which can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral eaith 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. All abutment and wing wall 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 Job No. 112 OS8A ~tech -6 - behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or ml upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a retaining structure. An underdrain or gravel-packed weep holes should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment net1r the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep abutment or wing 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 ofobutment or wing 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 bused on a coeflicient of friction of0.50. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using nn equivalent buoyant fluid unit weight of 275 pct: The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safoty 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 compacted to nt least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. BARN AND SHOP FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in Exploratory Borings 3 and 4 and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the barn and shop buildings be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural sandy soils. Care should be taken to prevent wetting of the foundation soils as described in the "Surface Drainage" Section of this rcp011. Joh No. 11.2 088A ~tech -7 - The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. I) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural sandy 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 I inch or less. Additional settlement on the order of I to 2 inches could occur in the event of wetting of the sandy soils below the toundation. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous walJs 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 reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by nssuming an unsuppo11ed length of at least I 0 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lntcral em1h pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing till, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the natural sandy soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. 6) A representative of the gcotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATJON AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and cnn be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral Job No. I I 2 OSHA ~tech - 8 - emih pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site sandy soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the buildings and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the foll active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight ofnt least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site sandy soils. All foundation nnd retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as udjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls mul a horizontal buck fill surface. The buildup of water behind u wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundution wall or retaining structure. An unclerdrnin should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in unifonn lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompncl the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since 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, nnd 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 nnd passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistnnce to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coef'licicnt of friction of0.40. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings cun be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pct: 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, pm1icularly in the case Job No. 112 088A ~tech - 9 - of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist Intern! loads should compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slnb- on-grnde construction. To reduce the eftects 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 sandy soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock . UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water wns not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas 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, basement level and below grade areas, 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 smTounded above the invert level with free-draining grnnufor material. The drain should Job No. 112 OS8A ~tech -JO - be placed at each level of excavution and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum I% to a suitable gravity outlet. 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 of2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least I Y2 feet deep. An impervious membrane such as 20 mil PVC should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting ofthe bearing soils. SITE GRADING The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings are located away from the steep slopes as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut depths for the barn lower level will not exceed one level, about I 0 to 12 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 1 0 feet deep, especially at the downhill side of the barn where the slope steepens. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the suhgradc should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to nt least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade. Permanent unretained cut and till slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to I vcrticnl or flatter and protected against erosion by revcgetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be incrensed if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. lfseepnge is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site gruding plans for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The 2007 Yeh nnd Associates report identified the assessment of Main Elk Creek as being potentially impacted by debris flows. We have not evaluated the risk but based on our Joh Nn . 112 081!A ~tech - l I - cursory review, the risk appears to be low at the boltom of the alluvial fan urea where the current development is proposed. If this risk of potential impact is not acceptable we can provide site specific evaluation for mitigation design as needed. The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and mnintaincd at all times after the barn and shop have been completed: I) 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 nreas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface smTouncling 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 I 0 feet in unpaved arens and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first I 0 foet in paved areas. Free-draining wall bnckfill (if any) should be capped with about 2 foet of the on-site soils lo reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy itTigation should be located ut least l 0 foet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building caused by irrignt ion. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests were conducted on April 25, 2012 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile boring nnd three percolation pits were dug at the locations shown on Figure I. The test holes (nominal I 2 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and were soaked with Joh No . t 12 088A ~ech -12 - water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Boring shown on Figure 2 and consist of loam to extremely gravelly sand. Gradation test results performed on samples of the subsoils obtained from the Profile Boring and Percolation Hole P-3 are shown on Figures 6 and 7. The percolation test results are presented in Table 2. The percolation test results were variable and the overall average percolation rate was nbout 30 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotcchnical engineering principles anti practices in this area at this time. We make no wmTanty either express or implied. The conclusions und recommendations submitted in this repo11 are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure I, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the aren. Our se1viccs do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contamimmts (MOBC) developing in the IUture. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrnpolntion of the subsurface <.:onditions 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 rcp011, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be mnde. This rcp011 has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We arc not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consullution and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Signilicant design Joh No. l 12 0881\ ~tech -13 - 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. Respectful1y Submitted, HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DEH/ksw Job No. 112 088A I I I ) _I I ' I I I I (/ I I I ) ' I I I 112 088A ,, '....._______ lJ) ~.-..... ---....... _ ____,_, -~---~_....,,,,,,,.,.---_____ _... ---_ ... _...---_.......' LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS, AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES FIGURE 1 tii w u. t w c 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 112 088A BORING 1 BORING2 BORING3 BORING4 PROFILE BORING ELEV .... 6026' ELEV.=6024' ELEV.=6036' ELEV.=6047' ELEV.=6032' 2/6,20/6 WC=8.0 ·200=33 5/12 WC=14 .8 53/12 12/12 +4=3 WC=S.B ·200=73 00:::86 -200=56 -23/12 --WC=38 ·200=13 43/12 2/6,20/6 33/12 NOTE: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. ~tech LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS HEPWORTH.PAWLAKGEOTECHNlCAL 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 m u. • t w 0 FIGURE 2 LEGEND: FILL;SlighUy silty sandy gravel with cobbles, loose to medium dense, slightly moist, brown. Clayey gravelly sand at Boring 1, with wood debris and organics at Borings 3 and 4. SAND (SM); Gravelly, silty to slightly clayey, loose, moist, brown. SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GC); Silty to clayey with cobbles, medium dense, slightly moist to moist, mixed browns. Interlayer with sandy silty and clay. GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM-GP); Sand, silty, dense, wet, brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch l.D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT). 1 3/8 inch l.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586. 4112 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 4 blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California sampler 12 inches . Depth at which boring caved immediatley following drilling. Free water depth measured in boring. NOTES : 1. Exploratory borings and the profile boring were drilled on April 18, 2012 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger and the percolation test holes were dug wiht a mini excavator. 2. Locations of exploratory borings, profile boring and percolation test holes were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings and profile boring were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided. The logs of exploratory and profile borings are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring, profile boring and percolation test hole 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 . 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated . Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results : WC = Water Content ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 112 088A ~tech HEPWORTH·PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 3 Moisture Content= 5.8 percent Dry Density = 86 pcf Sample of: Sandy Sitt and Clay From: Boring 3 at 4 Feet 0 r--r--i- '"""' r--. 1 to-. 11'-' '---"'Compression ~ i.-- """ i,..L.-i... upon 2 141\ t-(.....-wetting rft. ~ c: 0 ·u; II) 3 Q) ..... a. l\l E 0 (.) 4 \ 5 \ 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -kst Moisture Content= 21.2 percent Dry Density = 99 pcf 0 ---Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay -............... ' From: Boring 4 at 20 Feet 1 ~ ""~ ~!'- ------i--- 2 IJ-""" / ""' ( No movement upon rft. 3 wetting c: '\ 0 ·u; "" ~ 4 a. E ~~ 0 (.) 5 II.. ~I> 6 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -kst 112 088A ~tech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 4 HEPWORTH.PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS I I TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD SER IES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS I z'Stt 7Hll 3/8' 3/4" 11/Z' 3' 5'6" 8' 4 N . 15 MIN. 60MINl9MIN.4 MIN . 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 0 100 10 90 Cl 20 eo w (!) z 30 10 z ~ U5 en 40 eo ~ a: I-I-z 50 51] z w w u u a: 60 "° a: UJ UJ a. a. 70 JD ~ 80 20 90 10 100 0 .an .ooz .DOS .DOii .019 Jr11 111• 150 .300 --118 2.:Je •75 u 1u 1a.o 37.5 7U 152 2D3 127 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMETERS Cl.AV 10 SILT I i!!!I! 1~1 c;RAVE\. I COlllUS Fir£ I MEDIUM FINE I co-R5£ GRAVEL 46 % SAND 35 % SILT AND CLAY 19 % SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 1 at 10 and 15 Feet (Combined) HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 24 ~ . 7 HA TIME READINGS I US STANDARDSERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS I 45 ~. 15 MIN . 60MIN19MIN .4 MIN. 1 MIN . #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 114 3/8' 3/4' 11/Z' 3' 5'6' a· 0 100 10 90 Cl 20 BO w (!) z 30 70 z ~ U5 en a: 40 60 ~ I-I-z 50 50 z w w u u a: 60 40 ffi w a. a. 70 30 80 20 90 10 100 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9-S,2519.0 375 76 .2 121!'2 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMETERS Cl.AY 10 Sl.T I Aii I ~ MEOUI ICOAA!il I FINE ia;vn COARSE I COllBl£S GRAVEL 51 % SAND 24 % SILT ANO CLAY 25 % SAMPLE OF: Slightly Clayey Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 4 at 5 and 1 O Feet (Combined) 112 088A ~tech GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 HEPWORTH~AWLAKGEOTECHNICAL Cl w z < I-w a::: I-z LL.I u a::: w a.. I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS HR TIME READINGS 24 HR. 7 O 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MINl9MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 116 18 14 318' 3/4' 11rz a· 5·s· e· 100 10 20 : 30 40 . 50 . : 60 70 80 90 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 236 4.75 9.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203 127 12.5 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN M1WMETERS CV.Y I Sl.T I !W.o I MEOl..t.I ci"1'1. LNIClE v. Fffi I FINE I ME!l!!.!:! I cOARSE Iv. COARSE SM.Oil. I _ I COBa£S GRAVEL 5 % SAND 45 % SILT 43 % CLAY 7 % USDA SOIL TYPE: Loam FROM: Profile Boring at 2 Y.! Feet 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 c.:> z Vi (/) <( a. 1-z w u 0:: l.aJ a. 112 OBBA ~tech USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 6 HEPWORTH~AWLAK GEOTECHNICAL 0 ..... z < I-..... a::: ..... z ..... u a::: ..... a. HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS U.S . STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS I I HR TIME READINGS I 24 HR. 7 O 45 MIN. 15 MIN .60MIN19MIN .4 MIN. 1 M lN . #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #6 #4 3/B' 314· 1 1/Z' a· 5' 6' e· 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 eo 90 100 .001 .002 ClAY I Gravel .005 .009 .019 .037 SILT 72 % . ~ .074 .150 .300 _60() 1-18 2 36 4 _75 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMETERS . . 95 19.0 37.5 125 76 2 152 203 127 I v RE I FtNE I ~ I CCWISE Iv. COAASEI SL\AU I MfOUI Gll&f'-lAAGli I C08afll Sand 19 % • 200 9 % USDA SOIL TYPE: Extremely Gravelly Sand From: Percolation Hole P-3 90 BO 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 C> :z in Vl < a.. I-z ..... u a::: ..... a.. 112 088A ~tech USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 7 HEPWORTH.PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 Job No. 112 088A SUMMARY OF LABO RA TORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION A TTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED PERCENT MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (o/e) (%) SIEVE (ft) (%) (pcf) (%1 (%1 (PSFI 1 10& 15 46 35 19 Silty Clayey Sand and Gravel (combined) 3 1 8.0 33 Silty Gravelly Sand (Fill) 4 5.8 86 56 Sandy Silt and Clay 4 5 17.1 105 52 Slightly Gravelly Sandy Siity Clay (Fill) 5 & 10 6.2 121 51 24 25 Slightly Clayey Silty Sandy Gravel (combined) 20 21.2 99 Sandy Silty Clay Profile 2'h 14.8 3 24 73 Slightly Clayey Slit and Sand (Loam) 8 3.8 13 Silty Sand and Gravel . Pere 3 72 19 9 Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (FEET) P-1 30 P-2 33 P-3 30 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS LENGTH OF WATER WATER INTERVAL DEPTH AT DEPTH AT (MIN) START OF END OF INTERVAL INTERVAL (INCHES) (INCHES) 15 7 6Yz 6Yz 6 Water added 7 6% 6% 6Yz 6% 6 6 5% 15 6% 5% Water added 7 6Y. 6Y. 5% So/. SY. 4% 4% 4Y. 3% 5 3Yz Ya Water added 4* 1% Water added 4Y. 1Y. Water added 4Y. 1Y. DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) Ya Ya y. y. y. y. o/. % Ya Ya Ya Ya 3 2% 3 3 JOB N0.112 088A AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) 60 30 2 Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on April 24, 2012. Percolation tests were conducted on April 25, 2012. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test. Item# 1000T-2CP Top View Section View 68" ' ' 56" .: 1000 Gallon Top Seam Two Compartment ·---111"·------ 4" . -. ... : 53" -.• utyl Rubber Sealant • ...__..,...,...........,....-............. _,,,, ,,....,,._.--~ .!'-~.....,.,...... ........ t ' ... -~ -: • -' . -• --__ , ~.. .. ~ .. -• . .. · ' -~ *Meets ASTM C-1227 spec lncludlng C-1644-06 for reslllent connectors • 6000 psi concrete ---106"----- Dlgglng Specs J l~art Dlmenelon• I 11 • Long x r Wide fln1et Outlet Length Wldlh Height se• below Inlet Invert j se• 53·-~1· ~ _ 60" _I 689 ~ [ .. -· Net Capacttr~ _ _____, Inlet Side Outlet Side Total • Delivered complete with lntemal piping 687 gallons 323 gallons 1,010 gaDons • PVC, poly or concrete risers available • Option of pump or siphon Installed L Lid 2,620 lbe Net Weight Tank 9,3801be Total i 12.ooolbe I Water & (719) 39M784 28XJ5Q>. Rd. 317 Waatawatar P.O. 8Clc925 v., a T 'LDv •Systems ~-1719) "Mll:_~m Bual& Vlsla, coe1211 0 .AM D& •Products r-v ~ 0 PRECAST In Servi Website: www.valleyprecast.com · t c. • ce Emall: frontdesk@valleyp18C88t.com Residential Biotube® Effluent Filters Applications Our patented* 4-in. (I 00-mm) Bio cube Effluent Filters , Biotube Jr., Bio tube Insert Filters, and Biotube Base Inlet Filters are ideal for residential septic tanks and have a lifetime warranty. They prevent large solids from leaving the tank, dramatically improving wastewater quality and extending the life of residential drainflelds. 4-in. (JOO-mm) Biot11be Ejjluellt Filter •• 4-i11. (J 00-mm) Biotttbe Jr. ( 4-i11. Biotube cartridge avail- able sep arately llS Imert Filter) 8-i11. (200-mm ) Bau !11let Filter 4-i11 . (JOO-mm) l11sert Filter J{ •, Ormco's superior eff/11mr filte rs resist cloggi11g better than all other bra11ds. Our stmz- dard, full-sized 4-in. (1 00-mm) Biotube Ejjluellt Filter provides maximum long-term protection i11 a complete package, with housing. Our 4-i11. (JOO-mm) Biotube Jr., at half the size of our standard model has more filtering capacity than the fi11l-siz ed filters sold by other mmmfocturers. For tanks UJith existing 011tlet tees , the Biot11be Insert Filter is ideal. And for low-profile tanks, there's the Base !11/et Filter. ' Co»otcd b)· p J10111 uumbc:rs ~.492 .635 Jtid 4.4 393 23 To Order Call your nearest Orenco Systems•, Inc. distributor. For nearest distribu- tor, call Orenco at 800-348-9843 or go to www.orenco.com and click on "Distributor Locator." APS·FT·1 Rev.1U> 11110 Orenco Svs•ems~. Inc . Standard Features & Benefits • Has 5-10 times more flow area than other brands, so lasts many times longer between clean- ings, increasing homeowner satisfaction • Installs in min- utes inside new or existing tanks; extendible tee handle for easy removal Optional Features & Benefits • Alarm available, to signal the need for cleaning • Flow modulating discharge orifices available to limit flow rate leaving tank , mitigat- ing surges and increasing retention time • Custom and commercial sizes available • Easy to clean by simply hosing off whenever the tank needs pumping • Removes about two-thirds of sus- pended solids, on average, extending drainfield life • Corrosion-p roof construction, to ensure long life • Lifetime warranty Biotube Filtering Process Effluent from the relatively clear zone of the septic tank, between the scum and sludge layers, horizontally enters the Biotube Effluent Filter. Effluent then enters the annular space between the housing and the Biotubes, utilizing the Biotubes' entire surface for filtering. Particles larger than the Biotube's mesh are prevented from leaving the tank. Orenco Systems* Incorporated Chstnti"g thr W9 thr Wo rld Due1 \\7astewa1,r• www.orenco.c:om Nomenclatures 4-in. Biotube Riter (standard) FT 00o4 00 -DDD 1--i;tionS: Blalk = no optoos M = flow IOOdu!ation plate Installed A = float IYad<et attached Cartridge height: 28" and 36" a1e standard Housing height 36" and 44• are standard Filter diameter Qnches) w .. fits Type 3034 outlet pipe S = fits Schedule 40 out et pipe Blank a 1/8" hlttatioo P 1/16' fil!latioo Biolube effluenl Mer series 8-in. Biotube Filter (base inlet modell FTOoa 22.14 eD l-i;ions A float !Jacket f s -2" out lei orifice FSO .. 2' oullet orifice and overflow plale" Base 1ntet model Caitr dge height: 14" standaid HouSlng height 22· slandaid Filler diameter Qnches) oa 8" Blank • 1/8" filtration P 1/16" fi!!1at1011 Biolube effluent rn1 er series ·Also available with coupling and sleeve as a "kit" FT OVERFLOWK,1 4-in. Biotube Jr. (includes cartridge and housing) FT J OO o4 118 ~ions: BL'.llk • no oplions M z flolY roodulatiorl plate lllStalled A = float bracl<llt attached Carvidge height Qnches) Filler diameter (inches) W • fits Type 3034 outlel tee S .. fits Sclledule 40 outlet tee Blank " 1/8' fill1alion P • 1 /16" filtration Junior series Biotube effluent filter se1ies 4-in. Biotube Filter Insert (cartridge onty) FT i 00418-D-D 11 --i;; customized optioos (e 9 • NC indicates Nor1f1 Carorll13 reg ions) W = fils Type 3034 outlet tee s = fits Schedule 40 outlet tee CartriOJe height (inches) Filter diameter pnchest Blank .. 1/8" filtration P = 1116" fil!ralion Insert Biotube eUluent lilter se ries 4-in. Biotube Effluent Riter 4-in. Biotube Jr. ,..... __ Extendible PVC handle Biotube® filter cartridge '----Fitter housing ---' 000 Tank wall --.... Discribured By: Item# DBox8C Concrete Distribution Box (1 inlet, 7 outlets) & Riser I 15" ; Top View 28"-- I 14" I "' '!,_____.4 ... End View Riser Section --28"--- nock Down Baffle Section View 28"-- ,_ __ 25"- 14" '® ® ® 0 . 28"-- I 7" I , ~·~ ... 4. ·.a.; :~ ~.d ·'.~~· •· ·~· ' 15" . . • ·.,. ... . . ~ . . ~ .a .. . · .• : . ,4 . . 2· ' -:' .a .. •4 ' .,· .a .· . f-<'--"''-'---. -. .d,--· -. -.-. -. _..;...,,.. .. _...... -('II./ "112· Lid View • 6000 PSI Concrete • 7 Outlet equal flow • Slide-in Baffle • 4" Pipe penetration ports • Connectors cast into the box • 12" Riser available Weight: Side View End View D-Box with Baffle -200 lbs D-Box Lid -75 lbs D-Box Riser -140 lbs Wat8r & (71I) 395-1784 28XJ5Q>. Rd. 317 Watawater P.O. Box925 0 VALLEY :=:: Fax: (719)395-3727 Eka18Vlala,COS1211 0 PRECAST Inc •Service Websn.: www.valleyprecast.com ' • Emal: frontdesk@valleyprecastoom e: -I L_J ~ 5.32 13.5 cm 04.49 r11.4 Cm I THIS WEIR SHAPE ~\ IS SELF LEVELING t THESE RIBS PROVIDE FRICTION FIT FOR ALL 4" PIPE ID 1.73 .09 4.4cm .2cm POL YLOK EQUALIZER PART NO. -3049 ..... l ,. MATERIAL .. FILLED POLYPROPYLENE