HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils Study for Foundation Designl(rrt
:t
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 EmploycO O,vned Compony wtryw'kumarusa'com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR F'OUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 63, SPRTNG RrDGE RESERVE
553 HIDDEN VALLEY DRIVE
GARF'IELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO.22-7-641
NOVEMBI,R8,2022
PREPARED FOR:
PAUL BARTSCH
2195 CHAMONTX LANE, #34
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
pbart1956@email.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY........1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION I
SITE CONDITIONS..-.I
FIELD EXPLORATION 1-L-
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS _) _
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..............- 3 -
-J-
-3-
FLOOR SLABS
TINDERDRAIN SYSTEM
SITE GRADING................
SURFACE DRAINAGE....
LIMITATIONS.....................
FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FICURE 3 - LI,GEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 and 5 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
....- 4 -
....- 5 -
....- 5 -
....- 6 -
-6-
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No 22.7.641
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results ofa subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on
Lot 63, Spring Ridge Reserve, 553 Hidden Valley Drive, Garheld County, Colorado. The
project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for
foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical
engineering services to Paul Bartsch, dated September 19, 2022.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field
exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or
swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable
pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during
this study and presents our conclusions, recommendations and other geotechnical engineering
considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed single-family residence will be a two-story structure above crawlspace with an
affached slab-on-grade garage located as shown on Figure 1. We assume excavation for the
building will be cut about 2to 6 feet below the existing ground surface. Foundation loadings for
the structure were assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans are significantly different from those desøibed
above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The property was vacant at the time of our field exploration and vegetated with grass, weeds and
sage brush. The ground surface slope is variable and down to the north with around 5 feet of
elevation difference across the general building area. The terrain is moderately sloping at about
15 to 20Yo grade in the uphill, southeastern part of the lot with a small drainage channel through
the north part. Maroon Formation sandstone is exposed on the hillside to the south of the lot.
GEOLOGY
According to the Geologic Map of the Cattle Creek Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, by
Krikham, Steufert, Hemborg, and Stelling, dated 2014,the site is underlain by alluvium and
colluvium deposits of the Holocene age overlying Maroon Formation.
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No 22.7-641
-2-
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on October 12,2022. Two exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions.
The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck-
mounted CME-458 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Kumar &
Associates.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with I% inch and 2-inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers
were driven into the subsurface materials 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 and hardness of the bedrock. Depths at which the samples
were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings,
Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and
testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface profiles encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. Below
about2 feet of organic topsoil, the subsoils consist of stiff to very stiff, sandy silt and clay
underlain by very hard sandstone bedrock at depths ofabout 14 to 17 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural
moisture content and density and finer than sand size gradation analysis (percent passing the No.
200 sieve). Swell-consolidation testing was performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples
of the silt and clay soils. The swell-consolidation test results, presented on Figures 4 and 5,
indicate low compressibility under relatively light surcharge loading and minor to moderate
expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. The laboratory testing is
summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling and the subsoils and bedrock
were slightly moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
Thc subsoils encountered at the site possess variable low to moderate movement potential mainly
when wetted. The moderote expansion potcntial mcosurcd in thc somplc from Boring 1 ot 10 fcct
appears to be an nnomaly and the expansion potential should be further evaluated at the time of
excavation. Surface runoff landscape irrigation, and utility leakage are possible sources of water
which could cause wetting. Footings placed on the natural soils can be used for foundation
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No 22-7-64'l
-3-
support with the accepted risk of movement. Deep foundations that extend down to bedrock,
such as drilled piers or micro-piles, can be used if the risk of movement cannot be tolerated. We
should be contacted if deep foundation recommendations are desired.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOTINDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, the residence can be founded with spread footings placed on
undisturbed natural soils with a risk of settlement/heave mainly if the bearing soils are wetted.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
l) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils can be designed for an allowable
bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect initial settlement
of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be up to
about 1 inch. Additional movement could be around Yzto I inch depending on
the depth of wetting.
3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous footings
and24 inches for isolated pads.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies and limit the risk of differential movement. One method of
analysis is to design the foundation wall to span an unsupported length of at least
12 feet. Below grade level are not currently planned. If a basement level is
planned, the foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be
designed to resist alateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and
Retaining Walls" section of this report.
5) 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 the exterior grade is typically used in this
alea.
6) Prior to the footing construction, the topsoil and loose or disturbed soils should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to competent bearing soils.
7) A representative ofthe geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOLINDATION 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
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No 22-7-641
-4-
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-sitc soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separatc from thc rcsidcncc 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 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
incrcasc thc 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 near optimum moisture content. Backfill placed in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95o/o 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.
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 0.40. 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
the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95Yo 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. There could be differential settlement potential from wetting of the bearing soils
similar to that described above for footings. 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
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No 22-7-641
-5-
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 relatively well graded sand and gravel such as road base should
be placed beneath slabs for support. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with
at least 50%o retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than l2Yo passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least95Vo 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 (plus 6-inch) rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although groundwater was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
the area and where clay soils are present that local perched groundwater can develop during
times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can creafe a
perched condition. Therefore, we recommend below-grade constructiono such as crawlspace and
basement areas (if provided), be protected from wetting by an underdrain system. The drain
should also act to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind foundation walls.
The underdrain system should consist of a drainpipe surrounded by free-draining granular
material placed at the bottom of the wall backfill. The drain lines should be placed at each level
of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade, and sloped at a minimum
l%o grade to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the drain system
should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 50Yo passing the No. 4 sieve and less
than2Yo passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain gravel should be at least lYz feet deep. An
impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC should be placed below the drain gravel in a trough shape
and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to keep drain water from flowing beneath the
wall and to other areas of the building.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided cut and fill
depths are limited. We assume cut and fill depths for foundation construction will not exceed
about 5 to 6 feet. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least95%o of the maximum
standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade
should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to at least
95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of
the hillside exceeding 20Yo grade. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at
2horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means.
This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction.
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No 22-7-641
-6-
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Providing proper surface grading and drainage will be critical to prevent wetting of the bearing
soils and limiting building settlement and distress. The following drainage precautions should be
observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Excessive wetting or drying 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 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement areas and to at
least90Yo 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.
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
prevent wetting of bearing soils from landscape irrigation.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of
construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the
presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing
in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of
practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear to be different from those described in this report, we should be
notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has bccil prcparetl fur Lhc exulusive use by uur client fur design purposes. We are nul
responsiblc for tcchnioul intcrprctutions by othcrs of our information. As thc projcct cvolvcs, wc
should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations
Kumar & Associates, lnc.Project No 22.7-641
-7 -
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications of the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural frll by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfu lly Submitted,
Kumar & Associates,
Steven L. Pawlak, P
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLPlkac
Cc: DM Neuman Construction - Rich Carter (nchfø¿qneuqan.cam)
Kuma¡ & Associates, lnc.Projec{ No 22-7-641
G
a
LOT 64
\o-
Wtta?\"''_'io.
,ur^(
*¡e¡cf
(ù;.-
LOT 63
SQ FT
2 ì¿ìuì,
O BORING 1
Lot 63
63,153 SF
(1.45 Acres)
o
.-\
',4ttr'o.
Y/-^.+t'9 - -
1-
Þ-
,n*ril¿oñ.to*t ----)---/'-,-'-OPEN SPACE &8s---
-/
- 6lrú._
2002040
APPROXIMATE SCALE- FEET
SPRINGS CO
coR
22-7 -641 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1
I
Ê
BORING 1
EL. 6473'
BORING 2
EL. 6472.5'
0 0
42/12
WC=6.9
DD=l 1 1 18/12
5
23/ 12
WC=8.6
DD=99
5
17/12
WC= 10.0
DD=97
-2OO=73
t0 1036/12
WC=9.8
DD=117
24/ 12
t-I¡ltd
TL
IIt-fL
l¡Jô
15 50/5 15
Ft¡l
l¿ltL
I-Fo-
t¡Jo
1O/ 12
20 20
50/ 1 50/ 1
26 25so/1.s
30 30
22-7 -641 Kumar & Associates LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
I
LEGEND
TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY SILT AND CLAY, ROOTS, FIRM, SLIGHTLY MO|ST, DARK BROWN.
SILT AND CLAY (ML-CL)¡ SANDY, STIFF T0 VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN TO
RED-BROWN WITH DEPTH, CALCAREOUS TRACES.
SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE BEDROCK; VERY HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, RED. MAROON FORMATION
F
i
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8-|NCH t.D. SPLTT SPoON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
^t/1) DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAI 42 BLOWS OF A 14O-POUND HAMMER'-,.- FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
NOTES
1 THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON OCTOBER 12, 2022 WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN
CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE
ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM Ð2216);
DD = DRy DENSTTY (pcr) (lSrV D2216)t
-2Q0= PERCENTAGE PASSING No. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D1140)
22-7-641 Kumar & Associates LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
i
I
EI
I
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silty Cloy
FROM:Boringl@2.5'
WC = 6.9 %, DD = 1.l1 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
)
\\
\
(
àq
JJul
=(r',
I
z.otr
ô
Jolnz.o(J
1
0
1
2
-3
I APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF t0
JJ
l¡J
=U'
I
z.otr
ô
=o
al'tz.oo
1
0
1
t.0 RE - KSF IO 100
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silty Cloy
FROM: Boring 1 @ 10'
WC = 9.8 %, DD - 117 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTINGì\
)
'fhê!e tcd
22-7-641 Kumar & Associates SWELL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
E
!
E
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silly Cloy
FROM:Boring2@5'
WC = 8.6 %, DD = 99 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
)
I
I
tdd.lh.
:on$liddbn tcating ærfomd in
¡ccodoñcc #S lsnf 0-4546.
¡s
JJ
LJ
=Ø
I
zotr
o
=o
anzoo
0
-1
-2
22-7-641 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
lGrtåiçl[f;:r:$trni'íiå-"':t
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
GRI noit ATTERBERG LIIIITSSATPLE LOCATIOil
LrautD L[{tT
tol't
PLASTIC
INDEX
tol'I lDifl
Ui¡CONFINÊD
coltPREsslvE
STREI{GTH SOILIYPEDEPfH
t%t
NATURAL
[IOISTURE
CONTENT
NATURAL
DRY
DEI{SITY
lbc{ì
GRAVEL
(%)
SAND
(%)
PERCENI
PASSI{G NO.
200 stEvE
Sandy Silty ClayI2v,6.9 lll
Sandy Silt and Clay10.0 97 735
Sandy Silty Clay109.8 117
Sandy Silty Clay258.6 99