Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoil StudyWfr'ce Copy- Scay, i*h tr GTL I THOMPSON Laffg..fi'c)'ra- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEËRING INVESTIGATION LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE HIDDEN VALLEY DRIVE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA 160 Springridge Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Project No. GS06535.000-120 February 12,2021 234 Center Drive I Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 97A-945-28A9 Fax: 97A-945-7411 ffi TABLE OF CONTENTS scoPE......,. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS SITE CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTTON ......... SITE GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SUBSURFACE COND|T|ONS................., SITE EARTHWORK..... Excavations Subexcavation and Structural Fi||.......... Foundation Wall Backfi 11........................ FOUNDATTON ................ SLABS.ON.GRADE CRAWL SPACE CONSTRUCTION........ FOUNDATION WALLS... SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE...... SURFACE DRAINAGE......... CONCRETE CoNSTRUCTION OBSERVATTONS ..,.............. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES....., GEOTECHN]CAL RISK L|MITAT|ONS .............. FIGURE 1-VICINITYMAP FIGURE 2 - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURË 3 - PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT FIGURE 4 - SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURE 5 - SWELL.CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 6 - FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN CONCEPT TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GSO6635.000-120 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 I I 01 10 11 12 12 13 14 ffi SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investiga- tion for the residence proposed on Lot 52, Springridge Reserve on Hidden Valley Drive in Garfield County, Colorado. We conducted this investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical engineering recom- mendations for the proposed construction. The scope of our investigation was set forth in our Proposal No. GS 21-0100. Our report was prepared from data devel- oped from our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and our experience with similar conditions. This report includes a description of the sub- surface conditions observed in our exploratory pits and presents our geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the foundation, floor system, below-grade walls, subsufface drainage, and details influenced by the subsoils. We should be provided with architectural plans, as they evolve, so that we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural engineering input. A summary of our conclusions is below. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Subsoils encountered in our exploratory pits (TP-1 and Tp-2) were about 6 inches of topsoil over sandy clay to the totar explored depth of I feet. Groundwater was not found in our exploratory pits at the time of excavation- 2 The sandy clay soil at the site has potentialfor significant consoli- dation when wetted under building loads. we judge a footing foun- dation is appropriate for the residence, provided the soils are subexcavated to a depth of at 3 feet below footi ngs and re- placed with densely-compacted, 1 3.A slab-on-grade floor is planned for the garage. We judge a slab- on-grade is appropriate, provided the soils are subexcavated to a depth of at leasll? feet below the slab and replaced with densely- compacted, structural fi ll, TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS06536.000-i20 1 ffi A foundation wall drain should be constructed around the crawl spac_e. surface grading should be designed and constructed to pro- vide for rapid removal of surface water away from the building. SITE CONDITIONS Lot 52 of Springridge Reserve is located on Hidden Valley Drive in Gar- field County, Colorado. A vicinity map with the location of the site is included as Figure 1. The lot is a 1.16-acre parcel bounded by Hidden Valley Drive at the south and east. An aeríal photograph of the site is shown on Figure 2. The lots to the north and west have not been built upon. No structures are present on the subject lot. Ground surface at the site generally slopes down to northwest at grades less than 10 percent. Vegetation consists of sage, grass and weeds. Sev- eral inches of snow cover was present on the site at the time of our subsurface investigation. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We were provided with design development drawings for the proposed residence by Modfin Design & Build. The residence will be a one-story, wood- framed building with an attached garage. The proposed building footprint is shown on Figure 3. A slab-on-grade floor is planned for the garage. crawl spaces will be below floors in living areas. Maximum excavation depths on the order of 4 to 5 feet are expected. Typical foundation loads for this type of con- struction are about 1,000 to 3,000 pounds per linear foot with maximum interior column loads of about 50 kips. We should be provided with architectural plans, as they evolve, so we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural input and refine our recommendations. TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS06535.000-l 20 4. 2 ffi SITE GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS As part of our geotechnical engineering investigation, we reviewed geo- logic mapping and report by the colorado Geologic survey (cGS) tifled, "Geo- logic Map of the cattle creek Quadrangle, Garfield county, cororado", by Kirk, ham, streufert, Hemborg, Thomas, and stelling (dated 20141. The soils at the site are mapped as undivided alluvium and colluvium of the Holocene Epoch. The deposits are described as stratified sand, pebbly sand, and sandy gravelto unstratified clayey, silty sand, and sandy silt. At the site, these deposits consist primarily of sandy clay. The over burden soils appear to be underlain at depth by bedrock of the Maroon Formation. We did not encounter bedrock in our explora- tory pits. we also reviewed the cGS mapping, "collapsible soils and Evaporite Karst Hazards Map of the Roaring Fork River Corridor, Garfield, Eagle and Pitkin Counties, Colorado", by Jonathan L. White (dated 20021. The map indicates the subject site is in an area of unconsolidated surficial deposits that include alluvium and colluvium deposits. These deposíts are geologically recent and typícally loosely-packed, porous and dry. ln many cases, the soils have a potential for co¡ lapse when wetted under load. CGS has mapped a historical soil collapse feature about 1,000 feet north of the subject property. We are not aware of buildings in the vicinity of the subject site that have experienced recent soil collapse related damage. We rate the potentialfor soil collapse at this site is low to moderate, provided the recommendations in our report are followed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by observing the exca- vation of two exploratory pits (TP-1 and TP-2) in the building envelope. The pits were excavated with a trackhoe at the approximate locations shown on Figures 2 TERRY AND }IEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS06535.000.120 3 ffi and 3. Exploratory excavation operations were directed by our representative, who logged subsurface conditions encountered and obtained representative samples of the soils. Subsoils exposed in our exploratory pits were about 6 inches of topsoil over sandy clay to the total explored depth of g feet. Groundwater was not found in our pits at the time of excavation. The pits were backfilled immediately after exploratory excavation operations were completed. Graphic logs of the soils found in our exploratory pits are included as Figure 4. Samples of the soils obtained from our exploratory pits were returned to our laboratory for pertinent testing. One sample of the sandy clay selected for one-dimensional, swell-consolidation testing exhibited 0.4 percent consolidation when wetted under an applied load of 1,000 psf.. Engineering index testing on two samples of the sandy clay indicated moderate plasticity with liquid limits of 31 and 34 percent and plasticity indices of 11 and 15 percent. The clay samples were comprised of 71 to 75 percent silt and clay size material (passing the No. 200 sieve). One sample of the soiltested had a water-soluble sulfate content of 0.0 percent. Swell-consolidation test results are shown on Figure 5. Laboratory testing is summarized on Table l. SITE EARTHWORK Excav?tions Maximum excavation depths on the order of 4 to 5 feet are expected. Based on our exploratory excavation operations, excavations for construction of a residence at the site can be accomplished using conventional excavating equipment. From a "trench" safety standpoint, sides of excavations deeper than 5 TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS0ô535.000-r20 4 ffi feet need to be sloped or braced to meet local, state and federal safety regula- tions. The soils at the site will likely classifu as Type B based on O$HA standards governing excavations. Temporary excavation slopes that are not retained should be no steeper than 1 to 1 (horizontalto vertical) in Type B soils. Contrac- tors are responsible for site safety and maintaining safe excavations. Free groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory pits at the time of excavation. We do not anticipate that excavations for the proposed construc- tion will penetrate the groundwater table. We recommend excavations be sloped to gravity discharges or to temporary sumps where water from precipitation and snowmelt can be removed by pumping. Subexgavalion and Sfructural Fifl The sandy clay soil at the site has potential for significant consolidation when wetted under building loads. Supporting footings and floor slabs direcily on the undisturbed natural soils at this site would involve low to moderate risk of dif- ferential settlement and associated damage. To enhance potential performance, we recommend subexcavation of the soils to a depth of at least 3 feet below foot- ings and slabs and replacement with densely-compacted, structuralfill. The subexcavation and replacement process should extend at least 1 foot beyond the edges of footings and slabs. Our representative should be called to observe the conditions in the foundation excavation to confirm recommended subexcavation depths and suitability of the exposed soils for support of structural fill. The excavated on-site soils can be moisture-treated and reused as struc- turalfill to reattain planned construction elevations, provided they are free of rocks larger than 4 inches, organics, and debris. A positive alternative to reuse of the onsite soils would be to import an aggregate base course or pit run material for use as structural fill. We recommend import soils contain at least 60 percent TERRY AND HE]DI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RËSERVE PROJECT NO. cS06535.000-120 5 ffi sand and gravelwith a maximum rock size of 4 inches. A sample of potential im- port structuralfill soils should be submitted to our office for approvat. ln any case, structuralfill soils should be placed in loose lifts of I inches thick or less, moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture con- tent, and compacted to 98 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Moisture content and density of structural fill should be checked by a representative of our firm during placement. Observation of the compaction pro, cedure is necessary. Foundation Wall Backfill Proper placement and compaction of foundation backfill soils is important to reduce infiltration of surface water and settlement of backfill soils. This is espe- cially important for backfill areas that will support exterior concrete slabs, such as driveways and patios. The excavated soils free of rocks larger than 4 inches in diameter, organics, and debris can be used as backfill adjacent to foundation wall exteriors. Backfillshould be placed in loose lifts of approximately 10 inches thick or less, 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. Our representative should test moisture content and density of the backfill during placement. FOUNDATION The sandy clay soil at the site has potential for significant consolidation when wetted under building loads. We judge a footing foundation is appropriate for the residence, provided the soils are subexcavated to a depth of at least 3 TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS06536.000-120 6 ffi feet below footings and replaced with densely-compacted, structuralfill. The structuralfill should be in accordance with recommendations in the Subexceva- tion and Structural Fill section. Recommended design and construction criteria for footings are below. 1 3 Footings should be supported by a 3-feet thickness of densely- compacted, structuralfill placed as recommended in the sub-exca- vation and Structural Fill section. @Í¡gs on the densely-compacted, structuralfill should be sized using a maximum continuous wallfootings 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 re- quired, depending upon foundation loads. 2. 4 Grade beams and foundation walls should be werr 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. 5 The soils under exterior footings should be protected from freezing. we recommend the bottom of footings be constructed at a depth ıf at least 36 inches below finishr.ct e-terior oradeq. The Garfieldco@enlshoutd be coñìäiãã regarding required frost protection depth. SLABS-ON-GRADE A slab-on-grade floor is planned in the garage. we judge a slab-on-grade is appropriate, provided the soils are subexcavated to a depth of at least Q-.¡þ1 Ue¡ota¿f¡.e-slabånd replaced with densely-compacted, structuralfill. The struc- turalfill should be in accordance with recommendations in the Sr,.lbexcqvation and Struclur,al Fill section. We recommend the following precautíons for slab-on- grade construction at this site. TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT ı2, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. cs0653s,000-120 7 ffi Floor slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members with slip joints which allow free verticar move- ment of the slabs. The use of underslab plumbing should be minimized. underslab plumbing should be pressure tested for leaks before the srabs 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. Exterior concrete flatwork should be isolated from the buirding. These slabs should be welþreinforced to function as independent units. Frequent controljoints should be provided, in accordance with American Concrete lnstitute (ACl) recommendations, to reduce problems associated with shrinkage and curling. CRAWL SPACE CONSTRUCTION Crawl space areas will be constructed below the floors in the living area of the residence. Building codes normally require a clear space of at least 1B inches between exposed earth and untreated wood floor components. For non-organic systems, we recommend a minimum clear space of 12 inches. Where structurally supported floors are used, utility connections, including water, gas, air duct, and exhaust stack connections to floor supported appliances, should be capable of absorbing some deflection of the floor. Control of humidity in crawl spaces is important for indoor air quality and performance of wood floor systems. We believe the best current practices to con- trol humidity involve the use of a vapor retarder or vapor barrier (10 mil minimum) placed on the soils at the bottom of the crawl spaces. The vapor retarder/barrier should be sealed at joints and attached to concrete foundation elements. An ao tive ventilation system controlled by a humidistat is beneficial. TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIOGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS0653s.000-120 1 2. 3 4. I ffi FOUNDATION WALLS 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, such as in crawl space areas. Many factors affect the values of the design lateralearth pressure. These factors include, but are not limited to, the type, compaction, slope, and drainage of the backfill, and the rigidig 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 that can de- flect or rotate 0.5 to 1 percent of wall height (depending upon the backfill types), design for a lower "active" lateraf earth pressure may be appropriate. Our experi- ence indicates typical below-grade walls in residences deflect or rotate slightly under normal design loads, 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. For backfillthat conforms to recommendations in the Foundation Wall Backfill section and that is not saturated, we recommend design of below-grade walls using an equivalent fluid density of at least 45 pcf. This value assumes de- flection; some minor cracking of walls may occur. lf very little wall deflection is desired, a higher design value approaching the atrest condition should be con- sidered using an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf. These equivalent densities do not include allowances for sloping backfill, surcharges or hydrostatic pres- sures. TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS06535.000-120 9 ffi SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE Water from precipitation, snowmelt, and surface irrigation frequently flows through relatively permeable backfill placed adjacent to a residence, and collects on the surface of less permeable soils at the bottom of foundation excavations. This process can cause wet or moist conditions after construction. To reduce the likelihood water pressure will develop outside foundation walls and the risk of ac- cumulation of water in below-grade areas, we recommend provision of a founda- tion wall drain around the perimeter of the crawl space areas below the resi- dence. The exterior foundation wall drain should consist of 4-inch diameter, slot- ted, PVC pipe encased in free-draining gravel. A prefabricated drainage compo- site should be placed adjacent to foundation walls. Care should be taken during backfill operations to prevent damage to drainage composites. The drain should discharge via a positive gravity outlet, or lead to a sump pit where water can be removed by pumping. Gravity outlets should not be susceptible to clogging or freezing. lnstallation of clean-outs along the drainpipes is recommended. The foundation walldrain concept is shown on Figure 6. SURFACE DRAINAGE Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, floor slabs, and concrete flatwork. Surface drainage should be designed to provide rapid run- off of surface water away from the residence. Proper surface drainage and irriga- tion practices can help control the amount of surface water that penetrates to foundation levels and contributes to settlement or heave of soils that support foundations and slabs-on-grade. Posítive drainage away from the foundation and avoidance of irrigation near the foundation also help to avoid excessive wetting of backfill soils, which can lead to increased backfill settlement and possibly to TERRY AND HEID] RUONAVAARA LOT 62, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. cs0653s.000-120 f0 ffi higher lateralearth pressures, due to increased weight and reduced strength of the backfill. We recommend the following precautions. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence should be sloped to drain away from the buirding in alt directions. we recommend a minimum constructed slope of at reast 12 inches in the first 10 feet (10 percent) in landscaped areas around the resi- dence, where practical. Backfillaround the foundation walls should be moistened and com- pacted pursuant to recommendations in the Foundation Wall Back- fill section. The residence should be provided with roof gutters and down- spouts. Roof downspouts should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. splash blocks and/or extensions should be provided at all downspouts so water discharges onto the ground beyond the backfill. we generally recommend against buriar of downspout dis- charge pipes. where it is necessary to bury downspout discharges, solid, rigid pipe should be used, and the pipe should slope to an open gravity outlet. lrrigation should be limited to the minimum amount sufficient to maintain vegetation; application of more water will increase likeli- hood of slab and foundation mCIvements. Plants placed crose to foundation walls should be limited to those with low moisture re- quirements. lrrigated grass should not be located within s feet of the foundation. sprinklers should not discharge within 5 feet of foundations. Plastic sheeting should not be placed beneath land- scaped areas adjacent to foundation walts or grade beams. Geo- textile tabric will inhibit weed growth yet still allow natural evapora- tion to occur. CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. We meas- ured a water-soluble soluble sulfate concentration of 0.00 percent in a sample of the soil from this site (see Table l). For this level of sulfate conçentration, ACI 1 2 3. 4. TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. cS06635.000-120 11 ffi 332-08, "Code Requirements for Residential Concrete", indicates there are no special requirements for sulfate resistance. ln our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete. To control this risk and to resist freeze thaw deteri- oration, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for con- crete 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 60/o +l-1.5%. We recommend all foundation walls and grade beams in contact with the subsoils be darnp-proofed. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that CTL I Thompson, lnc. be retained to provide con- struction observation and materials testing services for the project. This would al- low us the opportunity to veriff whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investigation. lf others perforrn these observations, they must accept responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in this report remain appropriate. lt is also beneficialto projects, from economic and practicalstand- points, when there is continuity between engineering consultation and the con- struction observation and materials testing phases. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CTL I Thompson, lnc. is a full-service geotechnical, structural, materials, and environmental engineering firm. Our services include preparation of struc- turalframing and foundation plans, We can also design earth retention systems. Based on our experience, CTL I Thompson, lnc. typically provides value to pro- jects from schedule and economic standpoints, due to our combined expertise TERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS06515.000-120 12 ffi and experience with geotechnical, structural, and materials engineering. We can provide a proposalfor structural engineering services, if requested. 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 geotechnicalengineers use are generally empirical and must be tem- pered by engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the sotutions or rec- ommendations presented in any geotechnicalevaluation should not be consid- ered rísk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction be- tween the soils and that the proposed structure will perform as desired or in- tended. The engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sections constitute our estimate of those measures necessary to help the building perform satisfactorily. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client for the purpose of providing geotechnical design and construction criteria for the pro- posed project. The information, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of structures proposed, the geologic setting, and the subsurface condi- tions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the re- port are not valid for use by others. Standards of practice continuously change in the area of geotechnical engineering. The recommendations provided in this re- port are appropriate for three years. lf the proposed project is not constructed within three years, we should be contacted to determine if we should update this report. ÎERRY AND HEIDI RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIDGE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS06535.000-{20 l3 =ffi LIMITATIONS Our exploratory pits provide a reasonable characterization of subsurface conditions at the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by the pits will occur. We should be provided with architectural plans, as they evolve, so that we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural engineering input. This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that levelof care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnicalengineers currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or im- plied, is made. lf we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report, please call. cTL I THOMPSON, tNC Reviewed É?+ aou ' Kyan W. DeMars, E.l.T. Staff Engineer *8 Jâmes D. Kellogg Feb 14 2O2l 7:17 PM James D. Division Man RWD:JDK:abr TERRY AND HEID] RUONAVAARA LOT 52, SPRINGRIOOE RESERVE PROJECT NO. GS06535.000"{20 14 ffi 0 60 LEGEND: TP-1 APPROXII,IATE LOCATION OFT EXPLORATORY PIT NOTE:BASE DRAWING BY MODFIN DESIGN + BUILDSCAII: l'- 60' TP*1r' ,--l \, -¡.' , .i-,:f-:,,-.;I ¿ , .iì".í' ìq--: \ I \ \ \1,, \ 'a\\\ \ \t(t> üþo ,,...|,-'-, t.''l-t; 1 \\\, -\, !, TERRY AI{D HEIÞ| RUOÀI¡{VAAIìA r.of ôn, 8FHÎ{OR|ÞCE ñEgERl'E PRo.JECT NO. GSO6ı35.O00-1 20 Proposed Bulldlng Footprint Flg. g ffi NOTEplAil{ SHOUID BE AT t-EASf 2 TNCHBBq.ow BorToM oF FOOT|NG Ât THE-- lpHESr PONT A¡tD SLOPE 0OWnWnno To,ô Posrlt,c cnAvrry om-sr on ïoA SUMP TYTIERE ¡TATER CA}I BERilq/ED BT PUMPINO. SLOPE PER OSHA æ\/ER EilNBE OF GRAVET TVITH GEOTÐflI.8 FÁBRICl¡l0N OR IEBtsY AltD HEtDt RUoI{AVA¡\FùA MoRAN RELor 62. spRtuonlooe neseRÈ PROJECT NO. GSO6535.OOO-1 2() MIRADRAIN GzOON OR EQUMAI,.S{T ATTACH Pt¡Sftc sHEllt¡c TO FOUND'MON WAIj. 8, ìIINIMUM OR BEÍOND cRAwL sPAcE J BA,RRIER RE@MMET{DED t¡f SüOPE FROM BOTÍOM OF FIOONNG 0rlilcHEvER tS cREATm) f:trclt pt4uErER PERFoRATÐ DRA|N ptpE THEPIPE S}IOUI,D BE PIÂCED IN A TRB{CH þrTH'Á- !LO?E OF AT I-EASÍ 1,/E-|NCH DROP pER FOOTOF DRAIN. Foundation Wall Drain Concept SIRUOIUR/qL FLOOR