Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 07.21.2015Gtech HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL July 21, 2015 KW Glenwood Springs, LLC Attn: Kevin Kiernan 941 Orange Avenue, #512 Coronado, California 92118 kevin(athekiernancompanies.com 1lepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical_ Inc 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 Phonc 970-945-7988 Fax 970-945-8454 Lmail hpgco rrhpgcotcch corn Job No. 115 023A Subject: Update of February 27, 2015 Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed FedEx Ground Sort Facility, County Road 154 near State Highway 82, Garfield County, Colorado Gentlemen: As requested. I Iepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed additional subsurface exploration and evaluation for the proposed development at the subject site. The current study information is in addition to and in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services with KW Glenwood Springs, LLC dated January I5, 2015. The findings of our additional services and recommendations for the current development plan design are presented in this report. Proposed Development Plan Changes: The building and development plans are similar to the previously proposed plan except the facilities have been shifted to the west as shown on Figure 1. The septic disposal area has been relocated to the west of the new building site. The proposed water storage tank is still in the eastern part of the property and now between Borings 5 and 6 and actually 200.000 gallons in size. If'development plans change significantly from those described, we should be contacted for further review and evaluation. Additional Subsurface Exploration: The subsurface conditions in the shifted building area and relocated septic disposal area were evaluated by drilling 4 exploratory borings (Borings 15 through 18), excavating 2 profile pits and conducting 4 percolation tests at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The additional boring and pit logs are shown on Figure 2 and explanation of terms are presented on Figure 3 with the laboratory test results shown on Figure 4 and summarized in Table 1. The additional percolation test results are summarized in Table 2. Findings and Recommendations: The subsurface conditions encountered by the additional subsurface exploration and testing arc generally consistent with the previous subsurface information. The findings. recommendations and limitations presented on pages 5 through 12 of our previous study report are applicable to the current development facilities with the updated subsurface profile information. Based on the subsoil profile KW Glenwood Springs, LLC July 21, 2015 Page 2 information, it appears the southeast side of the current proposed building could encounter granular soils at design hearing level but the remaining building area will encounter silt and clay soils and a minimum 2 feet of compacted structural fill, such as CDOT Class 2 base course, is recommended for footing bearing support. Similarly, a minimum 2 feet of compacted structural fill is recommended below the current proposed water storage tank and also below the building slab -on -grade floor. Other recommendations presented in our previous report which are applicable should also be observed. The findings and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the subsurface conditions obtained for the current and previous studies at the site. Additional variations in the subsurface conditions could be encountered at the time of excavation. If'you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak, P Rev. by: DSII SLP/ksw 15222 7/2 - Attachments: Figure 1 Location of Exploratory Borings and Pits Figure 2 — Logs of Exploratory Borings and Pits Figure 3 Legend and Notes Figure 4 — USDA Gradation Test Results Table I - Summary of Laboratory Test Results Table 2 Percolation Test Results cc: M. Design Fusion, LLC - Michael Fa (inIlia/desalt i'usiou.bii) High Country Engineering - Roger Neal (rnea1(i hcen°u.com) Job No. I 1 5 023A Gel7tech 4 Nn,., Yj -_—_,..- APPROXIMATE SCALE 1'-80 ry V EGEND: • Previous Boring O Current Study Boring • Previous Pit ❑ Current Study P. G)<: BORING 3 -1; BORIN,p-ir .\-i kilnOCA \ _ wA�E- BORINr�L� iANK \ • a . • BORING 6 PROFILE PIT 3 0 QP 5 P 6 AP `J+QP 8 0 PROFILE PIT 1 P 1A P 2 A. BORING 9 P 3 • P 4 PROFILE A PIT 2 • j7 PROPOSED BUILDING BORING F F - 5952' 0 BORING 15 BORING 1 N6 11 • BRING 14 RING 7 • BORING 8 BORING 1 • ()RING 2 • 1-. - PROFILE �, O BORING 18 115 023A FIEPWORTH•PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS Figure as 1 Q m D 0 10 15 20 0 5 10 BORING 15 ELEV. - 59501 5/12 WC -88 DD = 91 -200 = 75 7/12 WC - 12.3 DO - 110 52/6 BORING 16 BORING 17 BORING 18 ELEV. = 5951' ELEV. = 5950' ELEV. = 5949' PROFILE PIT 3 ELEV. — 5951' / 6/12 5112 WC = 14.9 DD = 102 5/12 6/12 WC = 18.9 DD = 103 -200 = 85 UC = 1.500 41/6,50/1 Sand=37 5iit = 52 Clay -= 10 I.L - 26 P1 = 4 6/12 6/12 7/12 WC -221 DD 99 54/12 81/12 PROFILE PIT 4 ELEV. = 5950' Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3 0 6/12 WC= 196 DO 98 .200 _ 9I LL = 38 PI - 15 5 8/12 10 15 20 0 5 10 LL 0 15 023A H EP WORTH•PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS Figure 2 LEGEND: 0 TOPSOIL; organic sandy silt and clay, root zone, brown. b 31/12 T NOTES: SILT AND CLAY (ML -CL); slightly sandy to sandy. medium stiff, very moist, red, low plasticity. GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM -GP); salty to slightly silty, sandy, boulders, dense, slightly moist, red -brown, rounded rock. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 -inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample, standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sarnple, ASTM D-1586. Drive sarnple blow count; indicates that 31 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive ttie California or SPT sampler 12 inches. Practical drilling refusal. 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on June 29, 2015 with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger. The profile pits were excavated on June 25, 2015 with a Cat 419E backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory borings and profile pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings and profile pits were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided. 4. The exploratory boring land profile pit 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 borino and pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drifting or profile pits at time of excavating. Fluctuation in water level may occur with lime. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) DD = Dry Density (per) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit (%) PI = Plasticity Index (%) UC = Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi) Sand _ Percent passing No. 10 sieve and retained on No. 325 sieve Silt — Percent passing No. 325 sieve to particle size .002mm Clay — Percent smaller than particle size .002mm 115 023A IfEPWORTH.PAWLAN GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND AND NOTES Figure RCENT RETAIN 1 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS f + 24 I R 7 HR TIME READINGS 1 ti11N. 0 45 MIN.15 MIN. E0MIN19.M IN.4 MIN. #325 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WIIr W Ei W waw—mart—rt — ram ar !—�S—NM =rrrrls WE MEEW _ — ---MN l���-- kraal rrrrl raaal a� ! MOM rrrrl Will IMI !� ram— aa_ MI MEMWI WOW Ei ---- �W-- .^CCMN �.rrrr.� — ■Wwa aE—rr_si rrt rrr� ram ,EE �__— aa_ —a. aaar ina IMW ra_ parrW aWai rrrr IMP WEI i rrraa aar rrrar raaaraai radar W rrrr ar' WI irraaA! Wm W ww.W1 WI BM .MNINI r✓Wist aaaa— Nm.aaaaa. ar_a_E Amm W If i WI W is ErrrrIr W. rarrl aaaas SW WWI alma WI aaaar ^� FM Wmirrr� 1.MINW rri arra Ja � .�.�.■ WE ■ter rrraai aar IAaaarri alrrrra WE a/W rraa+ -A — — Ewa WBIWIM rrar`Araarrl� rraaai ill MM a< SIEVE ANALYSIS CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS #140 aaa�aa_r♦aaa� rrra.WMEI !MI War rrarirrraar� >_r rr�a� r�r U.S. STANDARD Sr7RIES #60 #35 #18 #10 #4 aar�lY —� WI, aaara lW,M air• .Mawr AEI WIIMr•MJamaaaraaaar WS W_lWIrraa�ii Arai 1W WI! WEWMWS W WI= raaaai W .W raa+�irai WAW Wi ra— WWrraarraaaa wi/iraii Wa r Ar ii ��— _moi_-- aa- r! WNW — rrrar ray r� aaaa�r WES EIW it WI it WI= MW War aaat maram welow araarraaaa� rlalai A• WI WI r�i�rrri WI WI WI r� aai r� arrraa 3/9" 3/4" 1 1/2 3' 5'6' 9' 100 arra—rrrr_f rr•r rai raa�ra�r go !r_r� lrr,rs aa�r K Wt W- a_r Mir :`N a_r ram carr r rW rrarf! a�arrr♦ !! ter.! raaa.WI= rra�a_ ! ��Araa^rrl�— a_raaAr l Aad-ararir_ lily raa^r sr r_ >•r_ aas�ra� �a_tw rri a_ raa� a_r arr --raart a_raa� aaaarra --- ! ram a_ r r_ lar�rr_ ra�rarr r r_ lar.r� rEM rrrr•r_rrrr. i a`raaraa laaa.maw= baa a_-- !r_ra_ �ya_rir, �r_rrrr A.0 ram -ram rra= rr_ ram rW raia_rW Arrrrl`=ail= aairarlrW aa�rarrsa_ arrrraaara� a�aartraa� --r` WE arts W! WWIWW r_ WE! lEms1SEI ME wg—aratas i— arm rrrrl rrr rrra■ `�raaarr� a_ i=—_ rrr� WW1r_r rr� rrarll — rrrEaWal NEa_ raa�-__- W NW aai!! li aaar� aaa[rrar rrrr1MIN 1._11M. aMI Mil AMEN.E ra� .A -- attar =NW MINE WI MNW Ada! �1rrr! rrrrlr Aalaati arlrrNEW WIMM! ami aaa�Araarltea_=r— WIEWEMSWW! WS WNW mar MNIMWlA��irl aaaa�� aarrRi WIM Aar.! sada MIIIMMr r_ air ru.tiri rr_ ! I WWII I. wiraaaA WDM WI — it wal MEE i•WtPPM aai rA ME rr WEE ill it -- w wawaalraa rr�J a�rr aairaaaa — irk r•�rr+� SIMMII it rr_EMI ii ra'—r^late ai r•aarrr_�lai i l — s itMAI l rr� rsaa�, r�Araaaiarsl Wm!a Il lWWiI Wa�aa_rri r!� ram wrA aIJ�—ar[ Nm MEMEIWMamaaaaarA MEIEw d rrriWIS! mart arrrai WOW lEEMIIIME 111Wi WIE rr�rr� i ra�� rar�l raa� Air — raaaa WI WI r�irai �_W rrr� it aaais aarrar .001 .002 005 009 .019 ,045 .106 .025 .500 1.00 2.00 DIAMEER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS �-- ii r> i 80 70 60 50 40 311 20 10 0 4.15 9.5 19.0 37 5 76.2 152 203 SAY SRT SAN] FNE 1 ME 1 MEULM !avast IM fs>x'CE GRAVEL SWILL I+ :Dia fAfCZ CORM ES GRAVEL 0 % SAND 37 % USDA SOIL TYPE: Silt Loam SILT 53 % CLAY 10 % FROM: Profile Pit 3 at 3 t0 4 Feet RCENT PASSIN 115023A H HEPWORTH.PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4 Job No. 115 023A Z J U3 < z ~ _ co o w W F >- a a IX w � Q YwCC J m Eaa 42t 1< d u- 0 f- } cc 0 a a 2 w = U) W 0. 0Y J0 5 cocc co Sandy Silt and Clay Sandy Silt and Clay Sandy Silt and Clay Sandy Silt and Clay 00 .04 cn U 00 w }}0_ g o J 50 W m w?x Z rx W z o vii 0 0 0 mo 0. ATTERBERG LIMITS N oj_ J 00 00 Cr) 0. HYDROMETER 0 GRADATION Q LIJ CC 7 EU <00 z20 U SAMPLE LOCATION e O 0 C:31 00 00 N 0 — +--1 C1 O% 'zt: 00 0, 0\ 00 VD 0\ .--i GRADATION N cn 0 N 0 N V] -4 N 00 SAMPLE LOCATION Z F a LIJ a HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) JOB NO. 115 023A Additional Testing AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-5 38 15 Water Added 5 4% 41/2 3% 51 5 '/: 5 4% 4A 4 P-6 40 15 Water Added 5 4 h 3J 1 30 4i4 5/. 4%: 4 'A 4% 4% 1/2 4'/, 41/4 4 P-7 40 15 Water Added 6 5 4 3% 5 4% '/4 14 60 5% 5% 5% 1 5 IA 5 4% 4% 4'/: '/4 60 P-4 40 15 5'/: Water Added 5 A 5 41/2 34 51/4 5 5 4' 4% 4'4 1/2 'A 4'/2 4% Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on June 25, 2015. Percolation tests were conducted on June 26, 2015. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test.