HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 04.30.2019K+A
Kumar & Aesaalatas. lac.
Geotechnical and Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scientists
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
An Employee Owned Company www.kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado
6Auo[io ,4C
EcEiVE
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 80, FILING 2, PINYON MESA
PINYON MESA DRIVE
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 19-7-176
APRIL 30, 2019
PREPARED FOR:
CHRIS SHAW CONSTRUCTION
ATTN: CHRIS SHAW
P.O. BOX 2724
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
(cshaw8102{7 lrotmail.cortn)
3Q
g89-2Oi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 1 -
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL - 2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..., - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 -
FLOORSLABS -6-
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ..... - 6 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7 -
LIMITATIONS - 7 -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 3 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-176
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot
80, Filing 2, Pinyon Mesa, TBD Pinyon Mesa Drive, 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 Chris Shaw Construction dated March 19, 2019.
A field exploration program consisting of an exploratory boring 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 two story structure over a basement with an attached garage.
Ground floors will be slab on grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor
with cut depths between about 6 to 10 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.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site was vacant at the time of our field exploration. The ground surface slopes down
to the north and south from a broad ridge near the middle part of the lot. Elevation difference
across the building area is about 2 feet and across the lot is about 8 feet. Vegetation consists of
weeds.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7.176
-2 -
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the subject site. 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.
During previous work in the area, sinkholes have been observed scattered throughout the lower
Roaring Fork Valley. These sinkholes appear similar to others associated with the Eagle Valley
Evaporite in this 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 boring was 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 80 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.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 28, 2019. One exploratory boring
was drilled at the location shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The boring
was advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -mounted CME
45B drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of Kumar & Associates, 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 Log of Exploratory Boring, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory
for review by the project engineer and testing.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7.176
-3 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A graphic log of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site is shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils consist of about 10 feet of stiff, sandy, silt and clay overlying very stiff, sandy, clay with
scattered gravel to a depth of 21 feet. Silty, clayey, gravel and cobbles with sand was
encountered from 21 feet to the maximum drilled depth of 31 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture
content and density and finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation
testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples, presented on Figure 3, showed high
compressibility (sample at 5 feet) and low to moderate compressibility (sample at 10 feet) under
conditions of loading and wetting. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly
moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The natural sandy silt and clay soils within about the upper 10 feet are low density and
moderately to highly compressible when wetted. The underlying sandy clay soils exhibit
relatively low compressibility under light loading. At assumed excavation depths we expect the
subgrade will transition sandy silt and clay to sandy clay soils. Excavations of less than about 7
feet in depth may need to be deepened to expose less compressible soils and the sub -excavated
depth backfilled with compacted structural fill. Spread footings placed on compacted structural
fill or the deeper sandy clay soils should be feasible for foundation support of the residence with
a risk of differential movement due to variable bearing conditions.
A low settlement risk option
would be to extend the foundation bearing level down to natural granular soils encountered at 21
feet with a deep foundation system such as micro -piles.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of
the proposed construction,
we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-176
4 -
on compacted structural fill or the deeper sandy clay soils.
If a lower settlement risk, deep
foundation system is desired, we should be contacted to provide design recommendations.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1)
Footings placed on the undisturbed natural sandy clay soils or structural fill
should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,200 psf. Based on
experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and constructed as
discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less with about %2 to 1 inch of
additional differential settlement 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
lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
5) The topsoil, low density material (upper 5 to 7 feet) and any loose or disturbed
soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the firm
natural soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and
compacted. Structural fill placed below footing areas can consist of the onsite
soils compacted to at least 98% of standard Proctor density at near optimum
moisture content and to at least 11/2 feet beyond the footing edges.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should perform compaction testing
on structural fill during placement and observe all footing excavations prior to
concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19.7-176
-5 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to
undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site fine-grained soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the
residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure
condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site fine-grained soils.
All foundation and 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 behind_the walls and a horizontal
backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain
should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density.
Care should be taken not to overcompact 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, and could result in distress to
facilities constructed on the backfill. Backfill should not contain organics, debris or rock larger
than about 6 inches.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining 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
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf 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, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19.7-176
6
the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be 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, can be used to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade
construction with a risk of settlement similar to footings described above. 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. 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 soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
the area and where there are clay soils 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
system. An underdrain should not be placed around slab -at -grade garage and shallow crawlspace
areas to help limit the potential for wetting the bearing soils.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above
the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of
excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to
a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in the underdrain system should
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19.7.176
-7 -
contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a
maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/2 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 of the bearing soils.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Proper surface grading and drainage will be critical to keeping the bearing soils dry and limiting
potential differential foundation settlements. 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 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. Free -draining wall backfill should be
covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 feet of the on-site soils to
reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 10
feet from foundation walls. 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 boring drilled at the location indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-176
-8 -
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 boring 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 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,
Kumar & Associates, Inc.
James H. Parsons, E.I.
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak,
JHP/kac
cc: Kurtz Engineering rtz (kurtzengineerO.yahoo.com)
Julian Hardaker (julian(t thebcstwayhoinc.corn)
Hinge Architects — Kurt Carruth (kurt(lhinl e✓architects.com)
Kumar & Associates, Inc.
Project No. 19-7.176
rr• •— r■ C) — \`
� � r . - •-.. — —.-- 1
r f :- .
1
1 r- ,, 1
r ♦ ▪ -- ,
1
;;L� r, —
;,7,r
- ,1 {flN r - rr i .ei / ,
r ! ,- /- 1r f- ,ri J r,-
' r' 1 1 r ! r _.
—�� —r
r
--- 1 11�
Q�N
r
rr- ri. "! r ! r' r !
r .
r �� 1r r- ▪ - - • ,rte
1 1
.0.1e---1"---- -▪ - 1 1
...
. — . - - -I ...... - — v-10' 1EASEMENT 1 ( 1 1 t
t
I r
o � ,= r LOT); $O + sty 1, III 2
+� .O'
wT 1�
•
1
'1r
BORING 1
r
I
IPROPOSED RESIDENCE J/ /
• 1
/ / ,1
1 rr %
/ r
f r J r r
� f � { r
1 Jr - ' • ,� r' r,rr /ir
!! r
,� --,-1 / / , 1.
r
F./ - ,1 / ;
r /i rrr _�
- 1__� ,„
_ y 1, J
- .2---/` ter/ ,',//
—r- % .1
fr
— ,, _ / / / r, /
-- f !r — y —../ __ fir rr //
e 1 _.,! ,- / / —
--1 / _ z____-/-----
,- _/-
- — _.---/— — / ,1 -
/ J
r
-~ / — /
/_./_— —
^1�
1
15 0 15 30
APPROXIMATE SCALE—FEET
19-7-176
Kumar & Associates
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
Fig. 1
0
BORING 1
EL. 6202'
7
/
/ 12/12
5
{ 14/12
WC=6.0
DD=98
10
1 34/12
/ WC=9.2
— DD=105
1
/
/A
15 //
H / 37/12
Lu
Lu / WC=8.6
1- — r' DD=111
_ -200=88
a — /
LJ_ !
/
20 /
2
— 25
30
35
LEGEND
7
SILT AND CLAY (ML -CL); SANDY, STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
LIGHT BROWN.
CLAY (CL); SANDY TO VERY SANDY, SCATTERED GRAVEL,
VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN, SLIGHTLY CALCAREOUS.
GRAVEL (GM -GC); SILTY, CLAYEY, SANDY, MEDIUM DENSE,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, MIXED BROWN.
- DRIVE SAMPLE, 2 -INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8 -INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD
PENETRATION TEST.
14/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 14 BLOWS OF
A 140 -POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED
TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
NOTES
THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON MARCH 28, 2019
WITH A 4 -INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS MEASURED
41/12 APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE
WC=5.5 SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
DD=118
-200=52 3. THE ELEVATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS OBTAINED
BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN
PROVIDED.
50/2
36/6, 50/3
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATION AND ELEVATION SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY
THE METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY
BORING LOG REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES
BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE
GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING AT THE
TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216);
-200 = PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
19-7-176
Kumar & Associates
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
Fig. 2
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
0
-3
0
—1
—2
—3
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt and Clay
FROM: Boring 1 ® 5'
WC = 6.0 %, DD = 98 pcf
I
j Ft --'7-:=j=---L____-T_.______: ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
I I 1 UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
1 t i f j DUE TO WETTING
1 ji i
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 10
•i i l
1 i ? iLI!
Ibere (.t lasuRf appy wpb la Ma
:anWH IbtAd. 7h. tHtlnq port
hd not ba repaducW, pproae In
IW1, without OaAXm opp,nn,1 of
Cow000sucadnnRsedan,
mmIK.
d6 ,. lath 151170.1=1 SW,Mu
19-7-176
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay
FROM: Boring 1 CP 10'
WC = 9.2 %, DD = 105 pcf
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
}
1.0 APPUEW PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
Kumar & Associates
SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 3
K+A
Kumar & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical and Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scientists
kumarusa.com
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No. 19-7-176
SAMPLE LOCATION
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(PCI)
GRADATION
ERCENT
PASSING NO.
200 SIEVE
1
ATTERBERG LIMITS
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(Pst)
SOIL TYPE
BORING
DEPTH
(ft)
GRAVEL
CM
SAND
(%)
LIQUID LIMIT
(%)
PLASTIC
INDEX
(%)
1
5
6.0
98
Sandy Silt and Clay
10
9.2
105
Sandy Silty Clay
15
8.6
111
88
Sandy Silty Clay
20
5.5
118
52
Sand and Clay with Gravel