HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 03.29.2016CTL I THOMPSON
�r•
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
HABITAT RESTORE
LOT 4, FYRWALD EXEMPTION
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared For:
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
7025 Highway 82, Box 2
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attention: Ms. Dana Dalla Betta
Construction Manager
Project No. GS06008.000-125
March 29, 2016
234 Center Drive 1 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 3
SITE EARTHWORK 4
Structural Fill 4
FOUNDATION 5
Footing Foundations 5
FLOOR SYSTEM AND SLABS -ON -GRADE 6
FOUNDATION WALL BACKFILL 7
SURFACE DRAINAGE 7
CONCRETE 8
PAVEMENTS 9
Asphalt Concrete (AC) or Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 9
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) 11
GEOTECHNICAL RISK 13
LIMITATIONS 13
FIGURE 1 — VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 — LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURES 3 AND 4 — SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
APPENDIX A — LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX B — PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000-125
5:1G506008 000112512 Reports1G506008.125 P.1 docx
SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the pro-
posed Habitat Restore warehouse/office building planned on Lot 4, Fyrwald Ex-
emption in Garfield County, Colorado. A vicinity map is shown on Figure 1. We
conducted this investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and pro-
vide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project. Our re-
port was prepared from data developed from our field exploration, laboratory test-
ing, geologic evaluation, engineering analysis, and our experience with similar
conditions. This report includes a description of the subsurface conditions en-
countered in our borings and presents geotechnical engineering recommendations
for design and construction of the building foundation, floor system, below -grade
walls, pavements and details influenced by the subsoils. Recommendations con-
tained in this report were developed based on our understanding of the anticipated
construction. We should be provided building plans, when they become available,
so that we can provide geotechnical engineering input and check that our recom-
mendations and design criteria are appropriate. A summary of our conclusions is
presented below.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. Five exploratory borings located within the planned building footprint
encountered about 12 inches of sandy to silty clay topsoil, over 10 to
13 feet of silty to sandy clay underlain by silty to sandy gravel, with
cobbles and occasional boulders to the maximum explored depth of
23 feet. Borings were drilled to practical drill rig refusal on cobbles
and boulders. Groundwater was not found in the borings the day of
drilling.
We judge the building can be constructed on footing foundations
(continuous footingsor column pads) supported by the undisturbed,
natural clay soils with low risk of differential movement. Design and
construction criteria for footing foundations are presented in the re-
port.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO, GS06008.000-125
S:lGS06008 000112512 Reports\GS06008-125 R7 .doc■
1
3. In our opinion, slab -on -grade floors in the building can be supported
on the natural clay soils with low risk of differential movement and
associated damage. Potential performance of the slab would be en-
hanced by supporting the slab on a 12 -inch thickness of densely -
compacted, granular structural fill. Additional discussion is in the re-
port.
4. Surface drainage should be designed to provide for rapid removal of
surface water away from the building and paved surfaces.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is about one quarter mile south of the State Highway 82 and
County Road 114 (CMC Road) intersection; about 6 miles south of Glenwood
Springs in Garfield County, Colorado. The building site is a vacant lot bordered by
Highway 82 on the northwest. A paved access road and cul-de-sac is at the
southwest. Ground surface slopes slightly from east to west at grades of 2 per-
cent or Tess. Vegetation is native grasses and weeds. Some sparse sage is on the
south half of the site.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Plans for the proposed Habitat Restore building were not developed at this
writing. We understand that warehouse space will comprise approximately 41,000
square feet and office facilities about 2,600 square feet. The building is likely to be
steel -framed with a slab -on -grade floor. No below -grade areas are expected.
Maximum foundation excavation depths will likely be on the order of 4 feet.
Deeper excavations may be required for utility installation.
We expect max column Toads around the building perimeter of less than
100 kips. Exterior slab -on -grade construction is planned. Paved access roads
and parking areas will be adjacent to the building. If construction will differ signifi-
cantly from the descriptions above, we should be informed so that we can adjust
our recommendations and design criteria, if necessary.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. G506008.000-125
S:\GS06008.0001125V2. ReporsIGS06008-125 R1.docx
2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions within the proposed building footprint were investi-
gated by drilling five exploratory borings (TH-1 through TH-5). Two additional bor-
ings to sample subgrade soils (S-1 and S-2) were drilled in future pavement areas.
Borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Soils en-
countered in our borings were logged by our laboratory/field manager, who also
obtained samples of the soils during drilling operations.
We found about 12 inches of sandy to silty clay topsoil and about 10 to 13
feet of silty to sandy clay underlain by gravel with occasional cobbles and boulders
to the maximum explored depth of 23 feet. Practical drill rig refusal on cobbles or
boulders occurred at 14 to 21 feet. The gravel was penetrated 3 to 9 feet before
refusal was encountered. Groundwater was not found in our borings the day of
drilling. Borings TH-2 and TH-4 were piped to allow future measurements of
groundwater. Graphic logs of our exploratory borings are shown on Figures 3 and
4.
Samples of the soil obtained in the field were returned to our laboratory
where volume change potential and field classification were checked. Five sam-
ples of the clay soil tested exhibited 0.1 percent swell to 0.2 percent consolidation
when wetted under a 1,000 psf surcharge load. Two samples of the soils exhib-
ited unconfined compressive strengths of 10,000 psf and 12,000 psf at axial
strains of 20 percent or less. Atterberg limits tests determined liquid limits of 30
and 32 percent and plastic indices of 13 and 14 percent which is indicative of mod-
erate plasticity. Gradation testing on a sample of gravel determined 44 percent
gravel, 23 percent sand, and 33 percent silt and clay sized particles (passing the
No. 200 sieve). Laboratory test results are provided in Appendix A.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000.125
S:1GSD6008.000112512. Reports\GSO80De-125 R1,docx
3
SITE EARTHWORK
Our subsurface information indicates excavations for the planned buildings
will be in the natural clay soils. Excavation of the clay can be accomplished using
conventional, heavy-duty excavating equipment. Sides of excavations need to be
sloped to meet local, state and federal safety regulations. The clay soils will likely
classify as Type B soils based on OSHA standards governing excavations. Tem-
porary slopes deeper than 4 feet that are not retained should be no steeper than 1
to 1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type B soils.
Free groundwater was not measured in our exploratory borings during drill-
ing 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.
Structural Fill
Fill may be required to attain subgrade elevations for slabs -on -grade and
pavements. We expect structural fill thickness will be 3 feet or less. The exca-
vated clay soils, free of organic matter, debris and rocks larger than 3 inches in di-
ameter can be used as structural fill. A CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course or
similar soil is recommended for the upper 12 -inch thickness of structural fill below
the building floor slab.
Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts of 8 inches thick or less and
moisture -conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Structural
fill should be compacted to 98 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. Observation of the compaction
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000.125
S:IGS06008.000112512. Reporls1GS06006-125 R1.docx
4
procedure is necessary. Testing without observation can lead to undesirable per-
formance.
FOUNDATION
Our exploratory borings indicate that natural clay soils are present at antici-
pated foundation elevations for the proposed building.
The building can be con-
structed on footing foundations supported by the undisturbed, natural clay soils
with low risk of differential movement and associated damage if soils below the
building do not get wetted. In our opinion, footings can be constructed as a contin-
uous footing around the building perimeter or as isolated pads at perimeter col-
umns. In either case, our experience indicates that maximum total settlement will
be less than 1 inch for footings designed and constructed with the criteria below.
Footing Foundations
1. The buildings can be constructed on footing foundations supported
by the undisturbed, natural clay soils. Soils loosened during the
forming process for the footings should be removed or re -compacted
prior to placing concrete,
Footings on the natural soils can be sized using a maximum allowa-
ble bearing pressure of 2,500 psf.
3. If needed, a passive earth pressure can be calculated adjacent to
footings using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pounds per cubic
foot.
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 are likely to be re-
quired, depending upon foundation loads.
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.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000-125
S:1GS06006 000112512. ReportslGS06000.125 R1.docK
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 department should be consulted regarding required frost pro-
tection depth.
FLOOR SYSTEM AND SLABS -ON -GRADE
In our opinion, a slab -on -grade floor can be constructed in the building, sup-
ported on the natural clay soil with low risk of differential movement and associ-
ated damage provided subgrade soils are not wetted. Potential performance of
the slab would be enhanced by supporting the slab on a 12 -inch thickness of
densely -compacted, granular structural fill. Recommendations for structural fill
were outlined in the Structural Fill section.
We recommend the following precautions for slab -on -grade construction at
this site.
Floor slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bear-
ing 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. Exterior concrete flatwork should be isolated from the building.
These slabs should be well -reinforced to function as independent
units.
4. Frequent control joints should be provided, in accordance with Amer-
ican Concrete Institute (ACI) recommendations, to reduce problems
associated with shrinkage and curling.
5. The International Building Code (IBC) or International Residential
Code (IRC) require a vapor retarder be placed between the base
course or subgrade soils and concrete slab -on -grade floors. The
merits of installation of a vapor retarder below floor slabs depend on
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000.125
5:IGS06000.000112512. ReportsGS06006-125 R1 docx
6
the sensitivity of floor coverings and building to moisture. A properly
installed vapor retarder (10 mil minimum) is more beneficial below
concrete slab -on -grade floors where floor coverings, painted floor
surfaces or products stored on the floor will be sensitive to moisture.
The vapor retarder is most effective when concrete is placed directly
on top of it. A sand or gravel leveling course should not be placed
between the vapor retarder and the floor slab. The placement of
concrete on the vapor retarder may increase the risk of shrinkage
cracking and curling. Use of concrete with reduced shrinkage char-
acteristics including minimized water content, maximized coarse ag-
gregate content, and reasonably low slump will reduce the risk of
shrinkage cracking and curling. Considerations and recommenda-
tions for the installation of vapor retarders below concrete slabs are
outlined in Section 3.2.3 of the 2003 report of American Concrete In-
stitute (ACI) Committee 302, "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab
Construction (ACI 302.R-96)".
FOUNDATION WALL BACKFILL
Proper placement and compaction of foundation backfill is important to re-
duce infiltration of surface water and settlement of backfill. Foundation wall backfill
must be moisture -treated and compacted to reduce settlement. The natural clay
soils can be used as backfill, provided they are free of rocks larger than 3 -inches
in diameter, organics, and debris. Backfill should be placed in loose lifts of approxi-
mately 8 inches thick or Tess, moisture -conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum
moisture content, and compacted. We recommend backfill soils be compacted to
about 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698).
Moisture content and density of the backfill should be checked during place-
ment by a representative of our firm. Observation of the compaction procedure is
necessary. Testing without observation can lead to undesirable performance.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, slabs and ex-
terior flatwork. We recommend the following precautions be observed during con-
struction and maintained at all times after the building is completed:
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000-125
S:lGS06008.000112512. Reports1GS06008.125 R1.docx
The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should
be sloped to drain away from the building in all directions. We rec-
ommend providing a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet
around the residence, where possible. In no case should the slope
be less than 6 inches in the first 5 feet.
2. The building should be provided with roof drains and downspouts.
Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits
of all backfill. Splash blocks and downspout extensions should be
provided at all discharge points.
3. Landscaping should be carefully designed to minimize irrigation.
Plants used near 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 discharge within 5 feet
of the foundation and should be directed away from the building.
Impervious plastic membranes should not be used to cover the
ground surface immediately surrounding the building. These mem-
branes tend to trap moisture and prevent normal evaporation from
occurring. Geotextile fabrics can be used to control weed growth
and allow some evaporation to occur.
CONCRETE
Two soluble sulfate tests determined 0.00 percent soluble sulfate. For low
levels of sulfate concentration, ACI 332-08 Code Requirements indicates there are
no special requirements for sulfate resistance.
In our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of
highly permeable concrete, even though sulfate levels are relatively low. To con-
trol this risk and to resist freeze -thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious ma-
terials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete in contact with soils that are likely
to stay moist due to surface drainage or high water tables. Concrete should have
a total air content of 6% +l- 1.5%. We recommend that all foundation walls and
grade beams in contact with the subsoils be damp -proofed.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000-125
S:1GS06008.000112512. Reports{GS06008.125 Rl.dock
8
PAVEMENTS
The natural clay subgrade soils generally classify as A-6 with the AASHTO
classification system with a Group Index of 11. We estimate an R -value of 15
based on our laboratory testing and experience with similar soils. The natural clay
soils at this site are a fair subgrade for pavements.
We used an Estimated Daily Load Application (EDLA) of 5 for the access
drives. If the anticipated traffic loads are considerably different than those as-
sumed, we should be informed so that we can review our recommendations.
Based on our calculations, we recommend the following minimum pavement sec-
tions.
Asphaltic
Concrete on Natural
Clay + Aggregate
Base Course
Full Depth
Asphaltic Concrete
Portland
Cement Concrete
4„ + 6"
5„
7.,
Portland cement concrete is typically more durable in areas where heavy
vehicles such as trucks will stop and maneuver at low speed. Areas such as
dumpsters and loading dock areas perform better with concrete pavements.
Asphalt Concrete (AC) or Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
HMA should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, hydrated
lime, and asphalt cement. Some mixes may require polymer modi-
fied asphalt cement, or make use of up to 20 percent reclaimed as-
phalt pavement (RAP). A job mix design is recommended and peri-
odic checks on the iob site should be made to verify compliance with
specifications.
2 HMA should be relatively impermeable to moisture and should be
designed with crushed aggregates that have a minimum of 80 per-
cent of the aggregate retained on the No. 4 sieve with two mechani-
cally fractured faces.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000-125
S:1GS06008.000112512. Reports1GS06000-125 R1.docx
9
Gradations that approach the maximum density line (within 5 percent
between the No. 4 and 50 sieve) should be avoided. A gradation with
a nominal maximum size of 1 or 2 inches developed on the fine side
of the maximum density line should be used.
4. Total void content, voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) and voids
filled should be considered in the selection of the optimum asphalt
cement content. The optimum asphalt content should be selected at
a total air void content of approximately 4 percent. The mixture
should have a minimum VMA of 14 percent and between 65 percent
and 80 percent of voids filled.
Asphalt cement should meet the requirements of the Superpave Per-
formance Graded (PG) Binders. The minimum performing asphalt
cement should be PG 64-22.
6 Hydrated lime should be added at the rate of 1 percent by dry weight
of the aggregate and should be included in the amount passing the
No. 200 sieve. Hydrated lime for aggregate pretreatment should con-
form to the requirements of ASTM C 207, Type N.
7. Paving should only be performed when subgrade temperatures are
above 40°F and air temperature is at least 40°F and rising.
8. HMA should not be placed at a temperature lower than 245°F for
mixes containing PG 64-22 asphalt, and 290°F for mixes containing
polymer modified asphalt. The breakdown compaction should be
completed before the mixture temperature drops 20°F.
9. The maximum compacted lift should be 3.0 inches and joints should
be staggered. No joints should be placed within wheel paths.
10. HMA should be compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of Maxi-
mum Theoretical Density. The surface shall be sealed with a finish
roller prior to the mix cooling to 185°F.
11. Placement and compaction of HMA should be observed and tested
by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence un-
til the subgrade is properly prepared (or stabilized), tested and proof -
rolled. Proof rolling should be performed with the heaviest machine
available at the time. The proof roller should be selected from ma-
chines providing both mass and high contact pressure.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000.125
S:IGS06006 000112512. ReportslGS06008-125 R1.docx
10
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
1. Portland cement concrete should have a minimum compressive
strength of 4,200 psi at 28 days and a minimum modulus of rupture
(flexural strength) of 650 psi. A CDOT approved Class P mix design
is also acceptable. A iob mix design is recommended and periodic
checks on the job site should be made to verify compliance with
specifications.
2. Due to the high soluble sulfate concentrations found at this site, Type
V portland cement should be used. Portland cement should conform
to ASTM C 150.
3. Portland cement concrete should not be placed when the subgrade
or air temperature is below 40°F.
4. Free water should not be finished into the concrete surface and fin-
ishers should not use a steel trowel on the surface. Atomizing nozzle
pressure sprayers for applying finishing compounds are recom-
mended whenever the concrete surface becomes difficult to finish.
5. Curing of the portland cement concrete should be accomplished by
the use of a curing compound. The curing compound should be ap-
plied in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
6. Curing procedures should be implemented, as necessary, to protect
the pavement against moisture loss, rapid temperature change,
freezing, and mechanical injury.
7. Construction joints, including longitudinal joints and transverse joints,
should be formed during construction or sawed after the concrete
has begun to set, but prior to uncontrolled cracking.
8. All joints should be properly sealed using a rod back-up and ap-
proved sealant.
9, Traffic should not be allowed on the pavement until it has properly
cured and achieved at least 80 percent of the design strength, with
saw joints already cut.
10, Placement of portland cement concrete should be observed and
tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not com-
mence until the subgrade is properly prepared and tested.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000.125
5:1G506008.0 0 011 2 512. Reports1G506008.125 R1.docx
11
The performance of a pavement system is as much a function of the quality
of the paving materials and construction as the support characteristics of the sub -
grade. If the pavement system is constructed of inferior material, then the life and
serviceability of the pavement will be substantially reduced. We have included
construction guidelines for flexible and rigid pavements in Appendix B.
Routine maintenance, such as sealing and repair of cracks and overlays at
5 to 7 -year intervals, are necessary to achieve long-term performance of an as-
phalt system. We recommend application of a rejuvenating sealant such as fog
seal after the first year. Deferring maintenance usually results in accelerated dete-
rioration leading to higher future maintenance costs.
We recommend concrete contain a minimum of 610 pounds of cement per
cubic yard and between 5 and 7 percent entrained air. A mix design should be
prepared for this project using the aggregate and cement that will be used during
construction. Control joints should separate concrete pavements into panels as
recommended by ACI. No de-icing salts should be used on paving concrete for at
least one year after placement.
A primary cause of early pavement deterioration is water infiltration into the
pavement system. The addition of moisture usually results in softening of base
course and subgrade and the eventual failure of the pavement. We recommend
drainage be designed for rapid removal of surface runoff from pavement surfaces.
Final grading should be carefully controlled so that design cross -slope is main-
tained and low spots in the subgrade which could trap water are eliminated. Port-
land cement concrete drainage pans with subsurface drains should be considered
in areas where water will be flowing across pavement surfaces,
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. G506008.000-125
S:VGS06008,0001125f2. ReportslGS06006-125 R1 .docx
12
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.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Habitat for Humanity
and the design team for the purpose of providing geotechnical design and con-
struction criteria for the proposed project. The information, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations presented herein are based upon consideration of many factors in-
cluding, but not limited to, the type of structures proposed, the geologic setting,
and the subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recommenda-
tions contained in the report are not valid for use by others. Standards of practice
continuously change in the area of geotechnical engineering. The recommenda-
tions provided in this report are appropriate for three years. If the proposed project
is not constructed within three years, we should be contacted to determine if we
should update this report.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000-125
S:1GS06008.000112512. Reporis1GS06008.125 R1 docx
13
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.
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.
Ames D. Kellogg, P.
ivision Manager
JM:JDK:kk
cc: Via email to habitat.dana(a7gmail.com
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06006.000.125
S:IGS06008.000112512 Reports\GS06008.125 R1 dacx
14
SCALE: 1 = 2,000'
Habitat for Humanity - Roaring Fork
Habitat ReStore
Project No. GS06008-125
Vicinity
Map
Fig. 1
SCALE: .•
Habitat for Humanity - Roaring Fork
Habitat Fl•Stor•
Project No. 3S06005-125
NOTE:
LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY
BORINGS ARE- APPROXIMATE.
EL
• •ab >an°
KWH TARO
15
co
LEGEND:
TH11 INDICATES EXPLORATORY BORING
S11 INDICATES PAVEMENT SUBGRADE BORING
THi2
41,041 SQ PT
TH••3 I
14J —i 1 •
5
*Hp
1
THi4
2,653 SQ FT
-E)
SI
4
10,514 sp FT
S-2
e•E3 •
32
115
PARKINE.- SPACES
YARD -2
S-1
•
CP -FAC -
5
Locations of
Exploratory
Borings
19g. 2
ELEVATION - FEET
51GSO800B 0011112518 OROFTINGGS06600 000
TH-1
L 0
r
L5
— 10
— - 15
-20
—25
— 30
30-�
TH-2
TH-3 TH-4
16/12 1
1 / ] 14/12
J /
rf
r/
6132 117112 / J -I 16/12
l��J
San
S-2
r
r
5
10-
15
20--
6
a
25 —
1
- 35
- - 40
45
PROJECT NO. G806008.000-125
SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
35
40
45�
FIG. 3
S \GS06008 0001125\8 DRAFTINGIGS06DOB 000 125 BORING LOGS FIGURE 3 AND 4 GP.1
LEGEND:
-7
P./4
T
TOPSOIL, CLAY, SANDY TO SILTY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST, BROWN.
CLAY, SILTY TO SANDY, MEDIUM STIFF TO VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST,
BROWN,
GRAVEL, SILTY, COBBLES AND OCCASSIONAL BOULDERS, VERY DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
BROWN.
DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL 16/12 INDICATES 16 BLOWS OF A 140 -POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.5 -INCH O.D. SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL 9/12 INDICATES 9 BLOWS OF A 140 -POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.0 -INCH O.D. SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
BULK SAMPLE FROM AUGER CUTTINGS,
PRACTICAL DRILL REFUSAL.
NOTES:
1. EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON MARCH 8, 2016 WITH 4 -INCH DIAMETER,
SOLID -STEM AUGER AND A TRACK -MOUNTED DRILL RIG,
2. LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE APPROXIMATE.
3. NO FREE GROUNDWATER WAS FOUND IN OUR EXPLORATORY BORINGS AT THE TIME OF
DRILLING.
4. THESE EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND
CONCLUSIONS AS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
SUMMARY LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO GS06008 000-125
FIG. 4
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000.125
S:\GS06008.000112512. Reports\GS06008-125 R1.docx
COMPRESSION % EXPANSION
7
5
4
3
2
0
- 2
- 3
-4
- 5
6
-7
-a
_
________
_____
____
...
—
_
-..-
_...._
_
_
_
ADDITIONAL
CONSTANT
WETTING
COMPRESSION
PRESSURE
DUE
UNDER
TO
__
..
_
1
_
..
__
. __..._.
1
_
____ __._.__.
_.........
0 1 1-0
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
From TH-1 AT 4 FEET
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008-125
S:1GS06006.000112516, CaIcslGS06006 l25 Swell xis
10
100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 95 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 10.9
SweII Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-1
COMPRESSION % EXPANSION
6
5
4
2
0
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
8
0.1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
From TH-2 AT 9 FEET
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.125
S:1GS0G008.000112516. Calcs1GS06000 125 Swell.xls
.0
10
100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 109 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 13.4 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-2
NO
MOVEMENT
DUE
TO WETTING
0
o
a
_
._
._.
n.
0.1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
From TH-2 AT 9 FEET
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.125
S:1GS0G008.000112516. Calcs1GS06000 125 Swell.xls
.0
10
100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 109 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 13.4 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-2
COMPRESSION % EXPANSION
6
5
4
2
0
-2
3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
0,1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
From TH-3 AT 9 FEET
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008-125
S:IGS06006.000112516. CaIcsIGS06006 125 Swell.xls
1.0
10
100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 93 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 9.2
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-3
___
li.::III
ADDITIONAL
CONSTANT
WETTING
COMPRESSION
PRESSURE
DUE
_
UNDER
TO
_ .
_
_. _
0,1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
From TH-3 AT 9 FEET
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008-125
S:IGS06006.000112516. CaIcsIGS06006 125 Swell.xls
1.0
10
100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 93 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 9.2
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-3
COMPRESSION % EXPANSION
7
6
4
3
2
1
0
1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-6
0-1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
From TH-4 AT 9 FEET
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008-125
SAGS06008.000t12515, CaIcsIGS0600B 125 Swell.xls
0
10
100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 101 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 6.7 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG- A-4
CONSTANT
WETTING
EXPANSION
PRESSURE
UNDER
DUE TO
0-1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
From TH-4 AT 9 FEET
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008-125
SAGS06008.000t12515, CaIcsIGS0600B 125 Swell.xls
0
10
100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 101 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 6.7 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG- A-4
Sample of GRAVEL, CLAYEY TO SILTY (GC -GM)
From TH -1 AT 19-20 FEET
GRAVEL 44 % SAND
SILT & CLAY 33 % LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
23 %
°I0
L NYE (94E7ER ANALYSIS [ SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN 1 MIN. '200 "100 50 '40 '30 "16 '10 '8 '4 3/8" 0/4" 1W 3' S"6' r
100
«----
r
0
90-
I
10
....
......
,
80
80
!
-----.
..-----
20
20
-
_.._
PERCENT PASSING
c
o
0 0 0 0 0 0
z
30
Ir
--—
w
moo—
_
401."'
a
----•-
j
aw,
Z.--•
—
1
.--•50
�0
U
,.
��_-...
-T-.
..-..-..-
{i
-
11
i
IL
n40
•
--
_-–.....
.
60
•
30
70
I.
20
-
{—
-
-- 80
."".'..-......–
C
.... ..
–r.–. �-...
1
-.001 0 002 ,605 .009 .019 037 074 149 297 '.590 , 1 19 210 2 38 4 76 9 52 19 1 36 1 76.2s 127 200
0 42 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON -PLASTIC)
SANDS
GRAVEL
FINE 1 MEDIUM [COARSE
FINE I COARSE I COBBLES
. �...-1--
002 005
Sample of GRAVEL, CLAYEY TO SILTY (GC -GM)
From TH -1 AT 19-20 FEET
GRAVEL 44 % SAND
SILT & CLAY 33 % LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
23 %
°I0
Sample of
From
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. G506008-125
S;IGS06008.000112516 CaIc /GS06008 125 Gradation ids
GRAVEL
SILT & CLAY
PLASTICITY INDEX
% SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
Gradation
Test Results
FIG. A-5
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS1
25 HR, 7 HR TIME READINGS U S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN, 15 MIN 60 MIN. 19 MIN 4 MIN 1 MN '200 '100 '50 '40 '30 '16 '10 -8 '4 318' 314" 1%" 3 5"6" 8'
1001 R
r
80
!
-----.
..-----
20
-
_.._
z
30
Ir
--—
w
moo—
_
401."'
a
----•-
j
aw,
Z.--•
—
1
.--•50
�0
U
,.
��_-...
-T-.
..-..-..-
{i
-
11
IL
n40
•
--
_-–.....
.
60
•
30
70
I.
20
-
{—
-
-- 80
."".'..-......–
-- ,-..
.... ..
–r.–. �-...
0 _.
CD1 0
. �...-1--
002 005
--1_I-..
.009
7�""-- :-.......-1.-.
019 037
, ...�....1
074
.�
149
DIAMETER
..
297
OF
.r`.
590
0.42
PARTICLE
.1 L-....
1 19 2 0 2 39 4.76
IN MILLIMETERS
9
52 19.1
36 1 76
2 127
100
200
152
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASI IC)
SANDS
GRAVEL
III
FINE 1 MEDIUM I COARS
FINE 1 COARSE 1 COBBLES
Sample of
From
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. G506008-125
S;IGS06008.000112516 CaIc /GS06008 125 Gradation ids
GRAVEL
SILT & CLAY
PLASTICITY INDEX
% SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
Gradation
Test Results
FIG. A-5
TABLE A-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
PROJECT NO. GS06008-125
t�l
EXPLORATORY
BORING
DEPTH
(FEET)
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
1
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
1
SWELL TEST RESULTS'
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSION
(PSF)
SOLUBLE
SULFATES
(%)
PERCENT
GRAVEL
(%)
PERCENT
SAND
(%)
PAgSING
NO. 200
SIEVE
(.%)
DESCRIPTION
LIQUID
LIMIT
(%)
PLASTICITY
INDEX
(%)
SWELL
(%]
APPLIED
PRESSURE
(PSF).
TH-1
4
10.9
+1
95
-0.2
inti
CLAY, SANDY (CL)
II
TH-1
9
12.4
109
k 32
14
0.0
88
CLAY, SANDY (CL)
TH-1
19-20
3.2
1
44
23
33
GRAVEL, CLAYEY TO SILTY (GC -GM)
TH-2
9
13.4
109
0.0
1000
CLAY. SANDY (CL)
TH-3
4
7.9
98
30
13
0.0
86
CLAY. SANDY (CL)
TH-3
9
9.2
03
-0.1
1000
CLAY. SANDY (CL)
T H-4
4
0.2
102
12,000
CLAY, SANDY (CLI
TH-4
9
5.7
101
0.1
1000
CLAY, SANDY (CL)
TH-5
4
7.E
93
CLAY, SANDY (CL)
i H-5
9
8-9
97
10,000
CLAY. SANDY (CL)
r
f
1
' SWELL MEASURED WITH 1000 PSF APPLIED PRESSURE OR ESTIMATED IN-SITU OVERBURDEN PRESSURE.
NEGATIVE VALUE INDICATES COMPRESSION,
Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX B
PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000-125
S:4GS06008.000112512. Reporls1GS06008-125 R1.does
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Experience has shown that construction methods can have a significant
effect on the life and serviceability of a pavement system. We recommend the
proposed pavement be constructed in the following manner:
Natural soils should be stripped of organic matter, scarified, mois-
ture treated, and compacted. Subgrade soils should be moisture -
treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and com-
pacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry den-
sity (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99). Moisture treatment and com-
paction recommendations also apply where additional fill is neces-
sary.
2. Utility trenches and all subsequently placed fill should be properly
compacted and tested prior to paving. As a minimum, fill should be
compacted to 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density
(ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99).
3. If areas of soft or wet subgrade are encountered, the material
should be sub -excavated and replaced with properly compacted
structural backfill. Where extensively soft, yielding subgrade is en-
countered, we recommend the excavation be inspected by a repre-
sentative of our office.
4. Asphaltic concrete should be hot plant -mixed material compacted
to at least 95 percent of maximum Marshall density. The tempera-
ture at laydown time should be near 275 degrees F. The maximum
compacted lift should be 3.0 inches and joints should be staggered.
5. The subgrade preparation and the placement and compaction of all
pavement material should be observed and tested. Compaction
criteria should be met prior to the placement of the next paving lift.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000-125
S:1GS06006,000112512. RepoAs4G506006-125 R1.doc■
B-1
RIGID PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Rigid pavement sections are not as sensitive to subgrade support charac-
teristics as flexible pavement. Due to the strength of the concrete, wheel Toads
from traffic are distributed over a Targe area and the resulting subgrade stresses
are relatively low. The critical factors affecting the performance of a rigid pave-
ment are the strength and quality of the concrete, and the uniformity of the sub -
grade. We recommend subgrade preparation and construction of the rigid pave-
ment section be completed in accordance with the following recommendations:
1. Subgrade soils should be stripped of organic matter, scarified,
moisture treated, and compacted. Subgrade soils should be mois-
ture -treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content com-
pacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry den-
sity (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99). Moisture treatment and com-
paction recommendations also apply where additional fill is neces-
sary.
2. The resulting subgrade should be checked for uniformity and all
soft or yielding materials should be replaced prior to paving. Con-
crete should not be placed on soft, spongy, frozen, or otherwise un-
suitable subgrade.
3. The subgrade should be kept moist prior to paving.
4. Curing procedures should protect the concrete against moisture
loss, rapid temperature change, freezing, and mechanical injury for
at least 3 days after placement. Traffic should not be allowed on
the pavement for at least one week.
5. A white, liquid membrane curing compound, applied at the rate of at
least 1 gallon per 150 square feet, should be used within 24 hours
of placement.
6. Construction joints, including longitudinal joints and transverse
joints, should be formed during construction or should be sawed
shortly after the concrete has begun to set, but prior to uncontrolled
cracking. All joints should be sealed.
7. Construction control and inspection should be carried out during the
subgrade preparation and paving procedures. Concrete should be
carefully monitored for quality control.
8. The design section is based upon a 20 -year Period. To avoid prob-
lems associated with scaling and to continue the strength gain, we
recommend deicing salts not be used for the first year after place-
ment.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK
HABITAT RESTORE
PROJECT NO. GS06008.000-125
S:IG SOG006.00O112512, Reports1G 506008-125 R1.docx
B-2