HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 09.24.2020September 24, 2020
Andrea and Rolland Luplow
c/o Stryker/Brown Architects
225 N. Mill Street, Suite 100
Aspen, CO 81611
Attention: David Brown
CTL I THOMPSON
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
Geotechnical/Geo-structural Engineering Consultation
Luplow Residence
5354 County Road 100
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. GS06483.000-145
CTL/Thompson, Inc. performed a geotechnical investigation on the subject
property, addressed as 5354 County Road 100, prior to construction of the exist-
ing residence (now the Luplow Residence) at the site under our Project No.
GS04500-120 (report dated May 26, 2005). Recently, we were asked to provide
geotechnical/geo-structural engineering consultation for additions that are
planned to the Luplow Residence. The scope of our services was set forth in our
Proposal No. GS 20-0230.
The following sections describe our previous investigation and the existing
residence, discuss the proposed construction, and provide our engineering opin-
ions and recommendations for design. Our opinions and recommendations pro-
vided in this letter are contingent upon our observations of subsoils exposed in
excavations for the new construction
Previous Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
We investigated subsurface conditions for our previous geotechnical in-
vestigation by excavating two exploratory pits at the site with a trackhoe. Sub-
soils exposed the pits consisted of about 1 foot of sandy clay "topsoil" underlain
by basalt boulders and cobbles in a matrix of silty to clayey sand. Boulders en-
countered in our pits made excavation deeper 6 and 7 feet not practical. Free
ground water was not observed in the exploratory pits.
Based on site and subsurface conditions, we recommended constructing
the residence on footing foundations supported by the undisturbed, natural soil.
At the time of our previous investigation, structural fill as thick as 10 to 12 feet
was anticipated below the garage building. We judged footings for the garage
1
ANDREA & ROLLAND LUPLOW
LUPLOW RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS06483.000-145
could be supported on the structural fill, provided it was in accordance with rec-
ommendations in the SITE EARTHWORK section of our report. Good perfor-
mance of slab -on -grade floors was anticipated. A copy of our geotechnical engi-
neering investigation report is attached as Appendix A.
Existing Residence
James Kellogg, P.E. of CTL met at the site with David Brown of
Stryker/Brown Architects on September 10, 2020. The Luplow Residence is con-
structed in an area that was graded with a cut/fill balance. Excavation cut areas
are at the east side of the residence. A fill embankment is along the north edge
of the building site. The residence is comprised of two, wood -frame buildings
that are connected by an exterior stairway/entry area. An aerial photograph of
the site and exiting residence is below.
Aerial photograph of site and existing residence
The main residence is a one and two-story building with a crawlspace be-
low the main level floor. The garage is a two-story structure that is northwest of
the main residence. Garage space with a slab -on -grade floor is in the lower
level. A carport area is adjacent to the north side of the garage. Column sup-
ports for the carport roof are supported on pier foundations that are bottomed in
the natural soils below the fill. Our cursory observations indicated the building
has performed well without significant differential movement.
ANDREA & ROLLAND LUPLOW
LUPLOW RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. OS06483.000.145
2
Proposed Construction
During our site visit, the proposed additions to the Luplow Residence were
discussed. The primary addition will be a master bedroom wing east of the exist-
ing residence. The new structure will attach to north side of the existing building
near the main entrance. Plans by Stryker/Brown Architects (dated August 18,
2020) indicate this addition will be one-story with a crawlspace below. The addi-
tion area includes previously -graded lawn and landscaping, as well as undis-
turbed terrain. A photograph of the area where the master bedroom addition will
connect to the existing entrance area is below.
I[ ... . .
Existing main entrance area viewed from east
Numerous basalt boulders were observed at the ground surface adjacent
to the landscaped lawn that is south and east of the existing residence. The
boulders are representative of the clast-supported rocks that will be encountered
in excavations at the site. Relatively difficult excavation should be expected. A 4
to 6 -inch leveling course of densely -compacted, aggregate base course may fa-
cilitate construction of footings. A significant percentage of the excavated soils
will not likely be suitable as foundation backfill. A photograph of conditions east
of the existing residence is below.
ANDREA & ROLLAND LUPLOW
LUPLOW RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS06483.000-145
3
Proposed area of master bedroom addition viewed from north
An enclosed storage room is planned at the location of the existing car-
port. The west part of the carport will be enclosed, utilizing the existing roof and
new wood -frame walls. A slab -on -grade floor will be constructed for the storage
area. A photograph of existing conditions in the storage area is below.
Proposed location of storage area addition viewed from west
ANDREA & ROLLAND LUPLOW
LUPLOW RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS06483.000-145
4
The area of the existing carport is on fill that appears to be at least 10 feet
thick. This fill has been in place for nearly 15 years and the majority of consoli-
dation settlement has occurred. We did not observe evidence of significant set-
tlement -related damage to the garage and carport structure. The columns that
support the carport roof are not founded on the fill soils.
Engineering Opinions and Recommendations
We recommend constructing the master bedroom addition on a footing
foundation supported by the undisturbed, natural soils. A construction joint
should be considered between the addition and the existing residence. Plans in-
dicate a crawlspace will be below the addition floor. A foundation wall drain
should be constructed around the perimeter of the crawlspace. A slab -on -grade
floor is a reasonable alternative for the storage room. We suggest a turned -down
edge to support the new walls and protect against potential subsoil freezing.
Performance of foundations and slabs will be influenced by moisture con-
ditions within the near -surface soils. The ground surface surrounding the exterior
of the residence will need to be sloped to drain away from the building in all di-
rections. We recommend the building be provided with roof gutters and down-
spouts. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all foundation backfill soils.
In our opinion, the recommended design and construction criteria in our
previous geotechnical engineering investigation report are appropriate for the
proposed additions. The attached report should be referenced for structural de-
sign.
Our opinions and recommendations are contingent upon our observation
of the subsoils exposed in excavations for the new construction. We believe this
consultation was provided with that level of skill and care ordinarily used by ge-
otechnical engineers practicing in this area at this time. No warranty, express or
implied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this
letter, please call.
TL I THOMPSON, INC.
c 4,_,\
0 R(G jis
'0 elcp
o. Ice oiela
,
F.
mes D. Kellogg, P:�` 38298 0a
'vision Manager
,62417.0
SIA t
ANDREA 8 ROLLAND LUPLOW
LUPLOW RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS06463.000-145
5
APPENDIX A
PREVIOUS GEOTECNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
CTL PROJECT NO. GS04500-120
ANDREA & ROLLAND LUPLOW
LUPLOW RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS064B3.000.145
A-1
CTLITHONdPSOP➢
SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
BROWN RESIDENCE
LOT 4, WEST RIMLEDGE
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared For:
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
119 South Spring Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Attention: Mr. David Brown
Project No. GS04500-120
May 26, 2005
234 Center Drivel Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE 1
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1
SITE CONDITIONS 2
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
SITE EARTHWORK 3
FOUNDATIONS 4
SLABS -ON -GRADE 5
BELOW -GRADE CONSTRUCTION 6
SURFACE DRAINAGE 7
LIMITATIONS 8
FIGURE 1 - SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2 -APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 3 -SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 5 - EXTERIOR FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
BROWN RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GSO4500-720
SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the
Brown Residence proposed on Lot 4, West Rimledge in Garfield County, Colorado.
We conducted this investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and
provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction. Our report
was prepared from data developed from observation of subsurface conditions
exposed in exploratory pits, engineering analysis and our experience with similar
conditions. This report includes a description of the subsurface conditions observed
in the exploratory pits, and presents our engineering opinions and recommendations
for design and construction of foundations slab -on -grade, foundation walls, and
details influenced by the subsoils. Recommendations contained in this report were
developed based on our understanding of the planned construction. If plans differ
significantly from the descriptions contained in the report, we should be informed so
that we can provide geotechnical input and check that our recommendations and
design criteria are appropriate. A summary of our conclusions is presented below.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. Subsurface conditions observed in the exploratory pits consisted of
about 1 foot of sandy clay "topsoil" underlain by basalt boulders and
cobbles in a matrix of silty to clayey sand. Practical trackhoe refusal
occurred on boulders at depths of 6 and 7 feet in our pits. Free ground
water was not observed in the exploratory pits.
2. We anticipate excavations at this site will be more difficult than usual
due to the dense cobbles and boulders. Voids resulting from removal
of Targe boulders should be filled with densely compacted, granular
structural fill. Additionally, the large amount of cobbles and boulders in
the natural soil may result in a significant percentage of the excavated
soils that are unsuitable for reuse as fill and backfill.
3. We recommend constructing the Brown Residence on footing
foundations supported by the undisturbed, natural soil. Footings for
the detached garage can be supported on densely compacted, granular
structural fill that is placed and compacted as recommended in the
report. The structural engineer should evaluate the need for a
construction joint between the residence and garage. Design and
construction criteria for footings are presented in the report.
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
BROWN RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS04500-120
1
4. We expect slab -on -grade construction can be supported by the densely
compacted, granular structural fill with low risk of differential
movement, provided the fill is placed as recommended in the report.
Additional discussion is in the report.
5. Surface drainage should be designed to provide for rapid removal of
surface water away from the residence. An exterior foundation wall
drain should be constructed around below -grade areas in the building.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is located in West Rimledge Subdivision in Garfield County, Colorado.
Access to the site is from Rimledge Road. The building envelope is located in the
south part of the lot (see Figure 1). Ground surface in the building envelope slopes
moderately down to the northwest. Native vegetation on the property consists
predominantly of pinion, juniper and sage. Numerous basalt boulders and cobbles
are exposed at the ground surface. Prior to subsurface investigation, the excavation
contractor constructed the driveway and cleared vegetation from the building
footprint.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The Brown Residence is planned in the southwest part of the building
envelope. The residence will be a one-story, wood -frame building at the location
shown on Figure 2. A two-story, detached garage will be northwest of the residence.
A crawl space will be below the floor in the residence. A breezeway will connect the
house to the garage. The garage is planned as a slab -on -grade. Maximum foundation
excavation depths will likely be about 6 feet. Completed wall backfill depth may be
slightly more than excavation depth as final grades are adjusted for drainage.
Structural fill on the order of 10 to 12 feet thick will be required below the garage to
construct the building at planned elevations. Foundation Toads are expected to vary
between 1,000 and 3,000 pounds per lineal foot of foundation wall with maximum
interior column Toads of 30 kips. If construction will differ significantly from the
descriptions above, we should be informed so that we can provide geotechnical input
and adjust our recommendations and design criteria, if necessary.
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
BROWN RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS04500-120
2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
We investigated subsurface conditions at the site by excavating two
exploratory pits (TP -1 and TP -2) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The
trackhoe was provided by the client's excavation contractor. Exploratory excavation
operations were directed by our field representative who logged conditions exposed
in the pits and obtained samples of the excavated soils. Graphic logs of the soils
observed in the exploratory pits are shown on Figure 2.
Subsurface conditions observed in the exploratory pits consisted of about 1
foot of sandy clay "topsoil" underlain by basalt boulders and cobbles in a matrix of
silty to clayey sand. Practical trackhoe refusal occurred on boulders at depths of 6
and 7 feet in our pits. Observations during exploratory excavation indicated that the
boulders and cobbles are dense to very dense. Free ground water was not observed
in our exploratory pits. Results of gradation testing are shown on Figure 4.
SITE EARTHWORK
Structural fill as thick as 10 to 12 feet will be required below the garage and
below parts of the driveway. Areas that will receive fill should be stripped of
vegetation, organic soils and debris. The on-site soils free of organic matter, debris
and maximum rock size of 6 inches can be used as fill outside the building footprint.
We recommend that structural fill placed below the building consist of an aggregate
base course such as an AASHTO Class 4 aggregate base course or similar soil. A
sample of the desired import structural fill soil should be submitted to our office for
approval, prior to hauling.
Fill and structural fill should be placed in thin, loose lifts of 10 inches thick or
less and moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Site
grading fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D
698) maximum dry density. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 100 percent
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
BROWN RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS04500-120
3
of ASTM D 698 maximum dry density. Moisture content and density of fill and
structural fill should be checked by a representative of our firm during placement.
We anticipate excavations at this site for the building and underground utilities
will be more difficult than usual due to the dense cobbles and boulders. Heavy-duty
excavation equipment will be necessary. Excavations may require or be most
efficiently made with blasting to loosen the soils. Large boulders should be expected.
Voids below the building resulting from removal of large boulders should be filled
with densely compacted, granular structural fill. Excavation sides will need to be
sloped or braced to meet local, state and federal safety regulations. We believe the
natural gravel and cobble soil will classify as a Type C soil based on OSHA standards
governing excavations. Temporary slopes deeper than 5 feet should be no steeper
than 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type C soils. Contractors should identify the
soils encountered in the excavations and refer to OSHA standards to determine
appropriate slopes.
Free ground water was not observed in our exploratory pits. We do not
anticipate excavations for foundations or utilities will penetrate ground water,
however, excavations should be sloped to a gravity discharge or to a temporary sump
where water can be removed by pumping. The ground surrounding the excavations
should be sloped to direct runoff away from the excavations.
FOUNDATIONS
We recommend constructing the Brown Residence on footing foundations
supported by the undisturbed, natural soil. Voids resulting from removal of large
boulders should be filled with densely compacted, granular structural fill. The
completed foundation excavation should be observed by a representative of our firm,
prior to placing forms, to confirm that the subsoils are as anticipated and suitable for
support of the designed footings. Footings for the detached garage can be supported
on densely compacted, granular structural fill. Recommendations for structural fill
were presented in the SITE EARTHWORK section.
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
BROWN RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS04500-120
4
We expect the structural fill will consolidate about 1 percent of the total fill
thickness. Less settlement will occur for the main residence footings supported on
the undisturbed, natural soils. The structural engineer should evaluate the need for a
construction joint between the residence and the garage. Recommended design and
construction criteria for footings are presented below.
1. Footing foundations should be supported by the undisturbed, natural
soils or densely compacted granular, structural fill. Soils loosened
during excavation or the forming process for the footings should be
removed or the soils can be re -compacted prior to placing concrete.
2. Footings should be designed for a maximum allowable soil pressure of
3,000 psf.
3. Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of at least 16
inches. Foundations for isolated columns should have minimum
dimensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required,
depending upon foundation loads.
4. Grade beams and foundation walls should be well reinforced, top and
bottom, to span undisclosed loose or soft soil pockets. We
recommend reinforcement sufficient to span an unsupported distance
of at least 10 feet. Reinforcement should be designed by the structural
engineer.
5. The soils beneath 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 for frost protection.
SLABS -ON -GRADE
The floor in the parking level of the garage is planned as a slab -on -grade. We
judge slab -on -grade construction can be supported by the densely compacted,
granular structural fill with low risk of differential movement, provided the structural
fill placed is placed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the SITE
EARTHWORK section. Settlement of about 1 percent of the total fill thickness should
be anticipated.
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
BROWN RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GSO4500-120
5
We recommend the following precautions for slab -on -grade construction at
this site.
1. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing
members with slip joints which allow free vertical movement of the
slabs.
2. 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 patio and porch slabs should be isolated from the residence.
These slabs should be well -reinforced to function as independent units.
4. Frequent control joints should be provided, in accordance with
American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommendations, to reduce
problems associated with shrinkage and curling. Our experience
indicates panels which are approximately square generally perform
better than rectangular areas.
BELOW -GRADE CONSTRUCTION
Foundation walls which extend below -grade should be designed for lateral
earth pressures where backfill is not present to about the same extent on both sides
of the wall. Many factors affect the values of the design lateral earth pressure. These
factors include, but are not limited to, the type, compaction, slope and drainage of the
backfill, and the rigidity of the wall against rotation and deflection. For a very rigid
wall where negligible or very little deflection will occur, an "at -rest" lateral earth
pressure should be used in design. For walls which can deflect or rotate 0.5 to 1
percent of wall height (depending upon the backfill types), lower "active" lateral earth
pressures are appropriate. Our experience indicates basement walls can deflect or
rotate slightly under normal design Toads, and that this deflection results in
satisfactory wall performance. Thus, the earth pressures on the walls will likely be
between the "active" and "at -rest" conditions.
If the on-site soils are used as backfill, we recommend design of below -grade
walls using an equivalent fluid density of at least 50 pcf for this site. This equivalent
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
BROWN RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS04500-120
6
density does not include allowances for sloping backfill, surcharges or hydrostatic
pressures. The recommended equivalent density assumes deflection; some minor
cracking of walls may occur. If very little wall deflection is desired, a higher equivalent
fluid density may be appropriate for design.
Backfill placed adjacent to foundation wall exteriors should be free of organic
matter, debris and rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter. Backfill should be moisture
conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at
least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density.
Water from rain, snow melt and surface irrigation frequently flows through
relatively permeable backfill placed adjacent to a residence and collects on the
surface of permeable, undisturbed soils at the bottom of the excavation. This can
cause wet or moist conditions in basement and crawl space areas after construction.
To reduce the likelihood water pressure will develop outside foundation walls and
reduce risk of accumulation of water in the crawl space, we recommend provision of
a foundation drain. The drain should consist of a 4 -inch diameter, open joint or
slotted pipe encased in free draining gravel. The drain should lead to a positive
gravity outfall, or to a sump pit where water can be removed by pumping. A typical
foundation drain detail is presented on Figure 4.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, floor slabs and
concrete flatwork. We recommend the following precautions be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the residence is completed:
1. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence should
be sloped to convey surface water away from the building. We
recommend providing a slope of at least 6 inches in the first 5 feet
around the residence, where possible.
2. Backfill around the exterior of foundation walls should be placed in
maximum 10 inch thick loose lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2
percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95
percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density.
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS 7
BROWN RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS04500-120
3. The building should be provided with roof gutters 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.
4. 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.
5. Impervious plastic membranes should not be used to cover the ground
surface immediately surrounding the residence. These membranes
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.
LIMITATIONS
The exploratory pits provide a reasonably accurate picture of subsurface
conditions at the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by the
pits will occur. We should observe the completed foundation excavation to confirm
that the soils are as anticipated and suitable for support of the footings as designed.
This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by engineering geologists and geotechnical engineers
currently practicing under similar conditions In the locality of this project. No other
warranty, express or implied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing
the contents of this report, please call.
CTL ( THOMPSON, INC.
James D. Kellogg, P.E.
Project Engineer
JDK:cd
(5 copies sent)
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
BROWN RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS04500.120
8
IF
Stryker Brown Architects
Lot 4, West Rkn Ledge
Protect No. 0804500-120
Site
Plan
Flg. 1
SCALE: 1 •= 30'
UeztdI
phone
r_ ► elect is
Stryker Brown Architects
Lot 4, west Rin Ledge
Project No. GS04500-120
Approximate
Locations of
Exploratory
Pits
Fig. 2
1
Projaut No. 0504500-120
TP -1
ELa6771
TP -2
EL -6756
-- 6775 6775 —
— 6770 6770
6765 6765 —
6760
— 6755
L
— 6750
6745
6760 J
6755 —
6750-
-
6745 --'
LEGEND
Sandy clay-topnon v rgorice,
roots, Cobble], molrl, .fork
brown.
EgBasan boulders and cobbles.
matrix of silty to Clayey sand.
pockets of sandy ally. slightly
moist. light brown. dark gray.
111
T
NOTES;
Indlaales bulk sample.
Indicates practical trookhee
r.fuam.
1. Exploratory pHs were excavated
with a Irackhoe on May 5, 7pO5.
Pile were hockflIled Immedlofnly
after excavation oporafons were
aamplstsd.
2. No free ground water was
observed In the exploratory
pits al the time of excovo+ion.
3. Lacalionn and elevollone nl
exploratory pits an approximate.
4. rheas exp!crofory pits are
adbJocl Po Inn expiarlation=,
IfmIteliona and ronrluatcra as
contained In Nils report.
SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
Fig. 3
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR. TV& READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES
45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60 MW. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MN. '200 '100 '50 MO '30 '16 '10 '84
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
3/6- 3/4' 114" 3' 5-6* 8'
0
.009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 0.42.590 1. 9 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
76.2 127 200
152
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON -PLASTIC)
GRAVEL
FINE / MEDIUM / COARSE . FINE COARSE J COBBLES 1
SANDS
10
20
30
40
59
0
10
nn
Sample of GRAVEL, SILTY (GM)
From TP -1 AT 4-6 FEET
GRAVEL 66 % SAND 17 %
SILT CLAY 17 % LIQUID LIMIT - %
PLASTICITY INDEX -
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS
U.S. STANDARD SEA&
45 MIN. 15 MIN. 80 MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40 '30 '16 '10 8
100
90
80
70
I 60
N
40
30
20
10
0
001 0.002
..........
........ ...........
•
1. l..
.1 ...
. — ..
i.--2 ...— .... L
..... "t:
.. L.
*_...._.r::::.:... ';:::) .........
3/8'
CLEAR SODARE OPENINGS
3/4' 1W 3' 5-6' 8'
,0
.. ..... ' •
....-....
...
....... ...........
..... .....
„
.........
.:•••••••
......:2:,:::
4
10
20
30
Ii
z
40
50 0)
60
70
80
90
100
.005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 0.42.590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200
152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON•PLAST1C)
SANDS GRAVEL
FINE 1 MEDIUM COARSE FINE / COARSE ./ COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL, SILTY (GM)
From TP -2 AT 5-7 FEET
PROJECT NO. GS04500-190
GRAVEL 68 % SAND 21 %
< & CLAY 11 % LIQUID LIMIT -%
PLASTICITY INDEX
Gradation
Test Results
FIG.4
.
......
........_.
.—.
.................
._.__..___..
•
..........._....
I
r
_..___
........
..........—....--.-....."
—................
. 1
j
1
•
'-r". ............••••
,...........
:1..
;.
..,
..
..r
M
0
•................
....... r..
I
....... .....•
±:::.......
....
1.....-:'.-
••••-•-•
•
........ ...
.... ...
....... .......44
.
. .............1
•
.-.-...-••
_...............____—...—..
.....
..... r
..... .
..
.
..- .....
• z
c... .......
. .r ''::::::""
..
....... •
_
: it..- ...—
...—....
:
...........—..
..... "
----
" ........
-... ....—.... .,.1
—.—...
..."...."...."....'—.".1
_
..............._........—.....
,1...
.:._...:._.:..Jtr•—
t'
-
:...,........
-
.— .......
— —
— —
— —
...
.::..:—:::
.............
.. .................
...... —
....
_ ............
....____„..,....—
....
— .......
..... _,
•
1 •
'—"'"...:::=---
::::
I
. ..
........
_._
.................
...—....—
— ......
......
I
s.
.009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 0.42.590 1. 9 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
76.2 127 200
152
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON -PLASTIC)
GRAVEL
FINE / MEDIUM / COARSE . FINE COARSE J COBBLES 1
SANDS
10
20
30
40
59
0
10
nn
Sample of GRAVEL, SILTY (GM)
From TP -1 AT 4-6 FEET
GRAVEL 66 % SAND 17 %
SILT CLAY 17 % LIQUID LIMIT - %
PLASTICITY INDEX -
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS
U.S. STANDARD SEA&
45 MIN. 15 MIN. 80 MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40 '30 '16 '10 8
100
90
80
70
I 60
N
40
30
20
10
0
001 0.002
..........
........ ...........
•
1. l..
.1 ...
. — ..
i.--2 ...— .... L
..... "t:
.. L.
*_...._.r::::.:... ';:::) .........
3/8'
CLEAR SODARE OPENINGS
3/4' 1W 3' 5-6' 8'
,0
.. ..... ' •
....-....
...
....... ...........
..... .....
„
.........
.:•••••••
......:2:,:::
4
10
20
30
Ii
z
40
50 0)
60
70
80
90
100
.005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 0.42.590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200
152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON•PLAST1C)
SANDS GRAVEL
FINE 1 MEDIUM COARSE FINE / COARSE ./ COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL, SILTY (GM)
From TP -2 AT 5-7 FEET
PROJECT NO. GS04500-190
GRAVEL 68 % SAND 21 %
< & CLAY 11 % LIQUID LIMIT -%
PLASTICITY INDEX
Gradation
Test Results
FIG.4
SLOPE
PER REPORT
SUPPORTED
BELOW GRADE WALL
SLOPE
PER
OSHA
BACKFILL
(CQMPOSfTION AND
COMPACTION PER REPORT)
ENCASE PIPE IN WASHED
_ CONCRETE AGGREGATE (ASTM
C33, NO. 57 OR NO. 67)
EXTEND GRAVE TO AT LEAST
1/2 HEIGHT OF FOOTING.
Project No. 0S04500-120
COVER GRAVEL WITH
FILTER FABRIC
SLOP[ TD ORAN
2" MINIMUM
f
8" MINIMUM
OR BEYOND 1:1
SLOPE FROM BOTTOM
OF FOOTING.
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
4 -INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED
DRAIN PIPE. THE PIPE SHOULD
BE PLACED IN A TRENCH WITH A
SLOPE RANGE BETWEEN 1/8 INCH
AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT
OF DRAIN.
- PROVIDE PVC SHEETING GLUED
TO FOUNDATION WALL TO REDUCE
MOISTURE PENETRATION.
REINFORCED STEEL
PER STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS
- CRAWL SPACE-)
-- FOOTING OR PAD
BUrroM OF EXCAVATION
NOTE:
DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 2 INCHES
BELOW BOTTOM OF FOOTING AT THE
HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD
TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO
A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED
BY PUMPING.
Exterior
Foundation
Wall Drain
Fig. 5