HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 05.25.2016HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
l--lepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado $1601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
email: hpgco@hpgeoteclt.com
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 34, HERON CROSSING AT IRONBRIDGE
RIVER BEND WAY
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 116 163A
MAY 25, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
RM CONSTRUCTION
ATTN: BLAKE PILAND
5030 COUNTY ROAD 154
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
bloke@buildwithrm.com
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 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 34, 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 May
4, 2016. 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 located 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 2 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. 116 163A
GeTtech
-2
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 north with about 3 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 34 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. 116 163A
GecStech
-3
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on May 12, 2016. 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% 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 71/ to 8 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. 116 163A
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 2 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 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
Job No. 116 163A
Gtech
-5 -
section will be about 1/2 to 1 inch or less. 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. 116 163A
Gec5tech
-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 prevent surface water infiltration down 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
Job No. 116 163A
Gtech
-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 at 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. 116 163A
G tech
-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 G M ;Y• NICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Pw"c,,e,
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/ksw
cc: RM Construction — Jodi Thimsen (jodi@builtwithrm.com)
RM Construction — Eric Lintjer (eric@builtwithrm.com)
Job No. 116 163A
Gtech
i
5929
116 163A
•
LOT 33
5e
RIVER BEND WAY
i
i
.7•
BORING 2
PROPOSED
RESIDENCE
i
BORING 1 •
LOT 34
7
/
i
/
/
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1 "= 30'
Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical
i
i
i
i
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Figure 1
Elevation - Feet
BORING 1
ELEV.= 5931.5'
BORING 2
ELEV.= 5930'
5935 5935
5930
5925
5920
5915
14/12
WC=6.5
DD=105
-200=83
12/12
WC=9.3
DD = 99
47/12
10/12
WC=9.2
DD=117
-200=87
14/12
WC -8.7
DD=98
36/12
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3.
5930
5925
5920
5915
Elevation - Feet
116163A
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Figure 2
LEGEND:
14/12
i
NOTES:
SILT AND CLAY (ML -CL); sandy, stiff, slightly moist, brown, low plasticity.
GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM -GP); slightly silty, sandy, boulders, dense, slightly moist, light 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.
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on May 12, 2016 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 obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided.
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.
6. 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
116 163A
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
LEGEND AND NOTES
Figure 3
Compression %
0
0)
0
0
0
x
w
Compression -
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
Moisture Content = 9.3 percent
Dry Density = 99 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 1 at 5 feet
Compression
upon
wetting
0.1
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
Moisture Content = 8.7 percent
Dry Density = 98 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 2 at 5 feet
Expansion
upon
wetting
0.1
.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
116 163A
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 4
Job No. 116 163A
z
J
U
z
U
Lu
0
w
L7
Q -�
J LJJ
Q m
Q
a�
0
a
U1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
(1
SOIL OR
BEDROCK TYPE
Sandy Silt and Clay
Sandy Silty Clay II
Sandy Silt and Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(PSF)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
PLASTIC
INDEX
(%)
LIQUID LIMIT
(%)
PERCENT
PASSING NO.
200 SIEVE
m
00
87
GRADATION
0
z o
u,
GRAVEL
(%)
NATURAL
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
in
M
CN
N
N
00
I SAMPLE LOCATION
DEPTH
(ft)
N
2'
BORING
N