The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeotechnical Engineering Reportffi CTL I THOMPSON F:ii;Ë{Ètrffi GTLITHOMPSON YEARS FOUNÐEÐ IN .i971 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PORTER RES¡DENCE COUNTY ROAD 244 AND YELLOW SLIDE ROAD GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: SGM, INC. 118, W. Sixth Street, Suite #2A0 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Jeff Simonson, PE CFM Principal Project No. GS06563.000-1 20 April20,2021 234 Center Drive I Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8j601 ffi TABLE OF CONTENTS scoPE... SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS SITE CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE GEOLOGY suBsuRFACE coN DtT1oNS..................... SITE EARTHWORK..... Excavations Subexcavation and Structural F¡l|.......,..... Foundation Wall Backfi11 .......,................... FOUNDATTON ....,........... SLAB.ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION ......... CRAWL SPACE CONSTRUCTION............. FOUNDATION WALLS SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE.............. SURFACE DRAINAGE CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL RISK LtM|TAT|ONS ..........,.. FIGURE 1-VICINITYMAP FIGURE 2 -AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 3 - SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURES 5 AND 6 - FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN CONCEPTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING .1 ,1 .2 .2 ,3 .3 .5 .5 5 o 7 I I 10 I 1 2 3 3 4 4 sci,r. tNc. ffi SCOPE CTL I Thompson, lnc. (CTL) has completed a geotechnical engineering in- vestigation for the Porter Residence proposed near the intersection of County Road 244 and Yellow Slide Road in Garfield County, Colorado. We conducted this investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotech- nical engineering recommendations for the proposed construction. The scope of our investigation was set forth in our Proposal No. GS 21-0130 (revised). Our re- port was prepared from data developed from our field exploration, laboratory test- ing, engineering analysis, and our experience with similar conditions. The report includes a description of subsurface conditions observed in our exploratory pits and provides geotechnicalengineering recommendations for design and construc- tion of the foundation, floor system, below-grade walls, subsurface drainage, and details influenced by the subsoils. A summary of our conclusions is below. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory pits were about 8 inches of sandy clay topsoil and 4.5 to 7.5 feet of clayey gravelwith sandstone pieces, underlain by sandstone bedrock. The trackhoe was unable to excavate more than 6 to 1B inches into the sandstone. Groundwater was not found in our exploratory pits. The sandstone bedrock below the site has good support properties for a footing foundation. Where overburden soils are found at planned footing elevations, the soils should be subexcavated to a depth of 3 feet, unless sandstone is encountered at a shailower depth. Footing elevations can be re-attained with densely- compacted, granular, structural fill. The overburden soils at the site possess relativery poor slab support characteristics as compared to the sandstone bedrock. we recom- mend removal of the soils below building floor slabs to a depth of at least 2 feet, unless sandstone is encountered at a shallower depth. Floor slab elevations can be re-attained with densery-compacted, granular, structural fill. 1 2 3 A foundation walldraín should be constructed around the perimeter of basement and crawl space areas to mitigate surface water that in- 4 ffi filtrates backfill soils adjacent to the residence. Surface grading should be designed and constructed to rapidly convey surface water away from the building. SITE CONDITIONS The Porter Residence is proposed near the intersection of County Road 244 and Yellow Slide Road in Garfield County, Colorado. A vicinity map with the site location is included as Figure 1. The lot is an approximately 78.4-acre parcel accessed at the north. Two unimproved, dirt roads intersect at the planned build- ing location. An aerial photograph of the site is shown on Figure 2. A pad with nat- ural gas wellheads is about 1,200 feet south of the location. Ground surface in the area of the proposed building generally slope down to the northeast at grades less than 10 percent. Vegetation at the site consists primarily of sage and native grass- es. A photograph of the site is at the time of our subsurface investigation is below. Looking northwest towards TP-1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We reviewed conceptual plans for the Porter Residence by TPI lndustrials, lnc. (dated March 23,2921). The residence is proposed as a two-level, wood- frame building with an attached garage. The lower levelwill be a walk-out base- ffi ment. We do not know if crawl spaces will be constructed below some parts of the building. Slab-on-grade floors are likely for the lower level and garage areas. We expect excavation depths of 8 to 10 feet at the uphill side of the residence. Foun- dations loads are likely to be on the order of 1,000 to 3,000 pounds per linear foot of foundation wall with maximum interior column loads of about 50 kips. We should be provided with architectural plans, as they are further developed, so that we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural engineering input. SITE GEOLOGY As part of our geotechnical engineering investigation, vve reviewed geo- logic mapping published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), titled "Geologic Map of the Rifle Quadrangle, Garfield county, colorado," by shroba and (dated 1gg7). Ïhe overburden soils at the site are mapped as sheetwash deposits of the late Pleistocene and early Holocene epochs. The deposits are described as mostly pebbly, silty sand and sandy silt mostly derived from weathered bedrock and loess by sheet erosion. The mapping indicates the subject site is underlain by bedrock of the Shire Member of the Wasatch Formation that is near or at the ground surface. This formation consists of conglomerate, conglomeratic sandstone, sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, and claystone. Soils encountered in our exploratory pits are consistent with the geologic descriptions of the sheetwash deposits. We believe the bedrock encountered in our pits is the sandstone component of the Shire Member. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS $ubsurface conditions were investigated by observing the excavation of two exploratory pits (TP-1 and TP-2) at the site. The pits were excavated with a track- hoe at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Exploratory excavation oper- ations were directed by our engineer, who logged the soils and bedrock encoun- ffi tered in the pits and obtained representative samples. Graphic logs of the soils and bedrock encountered in our exploratory pits are shown on Figure 3. Subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory pits were about I inches of sandy clay topsoil and 4.5 to 7.5 feet of clayey gravel with sandstone pieces, underlain by sandstone bedrock. The trackhoe was unable to excavate more than 6 to 18 inches into the sandstone. Free groundwater was not encoun- tered in our pits at the time of excavation. The pits were backfilled immediately af- ter exploratory excavation operations were completed. A photograph of the soils excavated from TP-2 is below. '-..::.,!'' .¿ Soils excavated from TP-2 Samples of the soils obtained from our pits were returned to our laboratory for pertinent testing. Two samples the clayey gravel selected for gradation analysis contained 38 and 44 percent gravel, 33 and 27 percent sand, and 29 percent silt and clay (passing the No. 200 sieve). Gradation test results are not inclusive of rocks larger than 5 inches, which are present in the in-situ soils. Gradation test re- sults are shown on Figure 4. Engineering index testing on one sample of the clay- ey gravel indicated moderate to low plasticity with a liquid limit of 26 percent and plasticity index of I percent. One sample of the soil tested had a water-soluble sul- fate content of 0.66 percent. Laboratory testing is summarized on Table L ffi SITE EARTHWORK Excavations Our subsurface information at the site indicates very hard sandstone bed- rock is likely to be encountered in excavations deeper than 10 feet. We expect ex- cavations in the overburden soils can be accomplished using conventional, heavy- duty excavating equipment. Excavation in the sandstone bedrock will be difficult. A pneumatic hammer attachment on a trackhoe may be required. Excavations deeper than 4 feet must be braced or sloped to meet local, state, and federal safety regulations. The overburden soils will likely classify as Type C soils based on OSHA standards governing excavations. Temporary exca- vations should be no steeper than 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type C soils. The sandstone will likely classify as stable rock unless unfavorable bedding or a high degree of fracturing results in a lower classification. Excavations in stable rock can be near-vertical. Contractors are responsible for site safety and providing and maintaining safe and stable excavations. Contractors should identify the soils encountered in excavations and ensure that OSHA standards are met. Free groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory pits at the time of excavation. We do not anticipate excavations for the proposed construction will penetrate a free groundwater table. We recommend water from precipitation be mitigated by sloping excavations to discharge via gravity or to temporary sumps where water can be removed by pumping. Subexcavation and Structural Fill Our exploratory pits indicate sandstone bedrock, which has good founda- tion support properties, is less than 10 feet below ground surface in the area of the proposed building. Where overburden soils are found at planned footing eleva- ffi tions, the soils should be subexcavated to a depth of 3 feet, unless sandstone is encountered at a shallower depth. We recommend removal of overburden soils below building floor slabs to a depth of at least 2 feet, unless sandstone is encoun- tered above that depth. The subexcavation process should extend at least 1 foot beyond the perimeter of the building footprint. CTL should be called to observe conditions in the subexcavated area, prior to placement of structural fill. The subexcavated soils should be replaced with densely-compacted, granular, structuralfill. The soils excavated from the site can be reused as struc- turalfill, provided they are free of rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter, organic matter, and debris. lmported structural fill should consist of an aggregate base course or pit run with a maximum rock size of 3 inches. A sample of desired import soil should be submitted to our office for approval. The structural fill should be placed in loose lifts of I inches thick or less and moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Structural fill should be compacted to at least g8 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Moisture content and density should be checked by a rep- resentative of our firm during placement. Observation of the compaction procedure is necessary. Foundatioq Wall B3ckfill Proper placement and compaction of foundation backfill is important to re- duce infiltration of surface water and settlement of backfill. Foundation wall backfill must be moisture-treated and compacted to reduce settlement. However, compac- tion of the backfill soils adjacent to concrete walls may result in cracking of the wall. The potential for cracking can vary widely based on many factors including the degree of compaction achieved, the weight and type of compaction equipment utilized, the structural design of the wall, the strength of the concrete at the time of ffi backfill compaction, and the presence of temporary or permanent excavation re- tention systems. The excavated soils free of rocks larger than 4 inches in diameter, organics and debris can be reused as backfill adjacent to foundation wall exteriors. Backfill should be placed in loose lifts of approximately I inches thick or less, moisture- conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted. Thickness of lifts will need to be about 6 inches if there are smalt confined areas of backfill, which limit the size and weight of compaction equipment. We recommend backfill soils be compacted to 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) dry density. Moisture content and density of the backfill should be checked during placement by a representative of our firm. Observation of the compaction procedure is necessary. FOUNDATION The sandstone bedrock below the site has good support properties for a footing foundatipn. Where overburden soils are found at planned footing eleva- tions, the soils should be subexcavated to a depth of 3 feet, unless sandstone is encountered at a shallower depth. Footing elevations can be re-attained with densely-compacted, granular, structuralfill. The structuralfillshould be in accord- ance with recommendations in the Subexcavation and Structural Fillsection. Recommended design and construction criteria for footings are below. These criteria were developed based on our analysis of field and laboratory data, as well as our engineering experience. Footings should be supported by the undisturbed, sandstone bed- rock or densely-compacted, granular, structural fill. The structuralfill should be in accordance with recommendations in the subexcava- tion and Structural Fill section. 1 =F Footings supported by the sandstone bedrock or densely- compacted, granular, structural fill can be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The weight of back- fillsoils above the footings can be neglected. A friction factor of 0.45 can be used to calculate resistance to sliding between concrete footings and the sandstone and/or structuralfill. Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of at least 16 inches. Foundations for isolated columns should have minimum di- mensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required, depending upon foundation loads. Grade beams and foundation walls should be well 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 10 feet. The soils under 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 protectíon The Garfield County building department should be consulted re- garding required frost protection depth. SLAB-ON.GRADE CONSTRUCTION Slab-on-grade floors are likely for the lower level and garage areas. The overburden soils at the site possesses relatively poor slab support characteristics as compared to the sandstone bedrock. We recommend removal of the soils be- low building floor slabs to a depth of at least 2 feet (unless sandstone is encoun- tered at a shallower depth) and replacement with densely-compacted, granular, structuralfill. The structuralfill should be in accordance with recommendations in the Subexcavation and Structural Fill section. Based on our analysis of field and laboratory data, as well as our engineer- ing experience, we recommend the following precautions for slab-on-grade con- struction at this site. 2 3. 4 5 6 ffi slabs should be separated from footings and columns pads with srip joints which allow free vertical movement of the slabs. 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. Exterior patio slabs should be isolated from the building, These slabs should be well-reinforced to function as independent units. Frequent controljoints should be provided, in accordance with Amer- ican concrete Instltute (ACl) recommendations, to reduce problems associated with shrinkage and curling. CRAWL SPACE CONSTRUCTION We do not know if crawl spaces will be constructed below some parts of the building. Where structurally-supported floors are installed over a crawl space, the required air space between the floor joists and the soils at the bottom of the crawl space depends on the materials used to construct the floor. Building codes require a clear space of 1B inches between exposed earth and untreated wood floor com- ponents. For non-organic systems, we recommend a minimum clear space of 18 inches. This minimum clear space should be maintained between any point on the underside of the floor system (including beams, plumbing pipes, and floor drain traps and the soils. Utility connections, including water, gas, air duct, and exhaust stack con- nections to floor supported appliances, should be capable of absorbing some de- flection of the floor. Plumbing that passes through the floor shoutd ideally be hung from the underside of the structural floor and not laid on the bottom of the excava- tion. lt is prudent to maintain the minimum clear space below all plumbing lines. lf trenching below the lines is necessaU, we recommend sloping these trenches, so they discharge to the foundation drain. 1 2 3 4 ffi 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 below accessible subfloor areas. The vapor retarder/barrier should be sealed at joints and attached to concrete foundation elements. lnstalling an active ventilation system that is controlled by a humidistat is beneficial. FOUNDAT¡ON 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 basements and crawl spaces. Many factors affect the values of the design lateral earth pressure on below-grade walls. 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 that can deflect or rotate 0.5 to 1 percent of wall height (depending upon the backfill types), lower lateralearth pressures approaching the "active" condition may be appropriate. Our experience 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. lf the on-site soils are used as backfill and the backfill is not saturated, we recommend design of below-grade walls at this site using an equivalent fluid den- sity of at least 40 pcf. This value assumes some deflection; some minor cracking of walls may occur. lf very little wall deflection is desired, a higher design value closer to the "at-rest" condition may be appropriate. For the on-site soils, an at-rest ffi lateral earth pressure of 55 pcf is recommended. These equivalent densities do not include allowances for sloping backfill, surcharges or hydrostatic pressures. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE Water from precipitation, snowmelt, and 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 can cause wetting of foundation soils, hydrostatic pressures on below-grade walls and wet or moist conditions in below-grade areas, such as basements and crawlspac- es afier construction. To mitigate problems with subsurface water, we recommend construction of a foundation wall drain around the perimeter of basement and crawl space areas of the residence. The foundation drain should consist of 4-inch diameter, slotted PVC pipe encased in free-draining gravel. A prefabricated drainage composite should be placed adjacent to foundation walls. Care should be taken during backfill opera- tions to prevent damage to drainage composites. The drain should discharge to a positive gravity outlet or lead to a sump pit where water can be removed by pump- ing. Gravity outlets should not be susceptible to clogging or freezing. lnstallation of clean-outs along the drainpipes is recommended. The foundation wall drain con- cept are shown on Figures 5 and 6. SURFACE DRAINAGE Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, floor slabs and concrete flatwork. Surface grading should be designed and constructed to rapidly convey surface water away from the residence. Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices can help control the amount of surface water that pene- trates to foundation levels and contributes to settlement or heave of soils and bed- rock that support foundations and slabs-on-grade. Positive drainage away from the foundation and avoidance of irrigation near the foundation also help to avoid ex- ffi cessive wett¡ng of backfill soils, which can lead to increased backfill settlement and possibly to higher lateral earth pressures, due to increased weight and reduced strength of the backfill soils. We recommend the following precautions. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence should be sloped to drain away from the building in all directions. we rec- ommend a minimum constructed slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet (10 percent) in landscaped areas around the residence, where practical. Backfill around the foundation walls should be moistened and com- pacted pursuant to recommendations in the Foundation wall Backfill section. The residence should be provided with roof gutters and downspouts. Roof downspouts should discharge well beyond the limits of all back- fill. splash blocks and/or extensions should be provided at all down- spouts so water discharges onto the ground beyond the backfill. we generally recommend against burial of downspout discharge. where it is necessary to bury downspout discharge, solid, rigid pipe should be used, and the pipe should slope to an open gravity ouilet. Landscaping should be carefully designed and maintained to mini- mize irrigation. Plants placed close to foundation walls should be lim- ited to those with low moisture requirements. lrrigated grass should not be located within 5 feet of the foundation. sprinklers should not discharge within 5 feet of foundations. Plastic sheeting should not be placed beneath landscaped areas adjacent to foundation wails or grade beams. Geotextile fabric will inhibit weed growth yet still allow natural evaporation to occur. CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured a soluble sulfate concentration of 0.66 percent in a sample of soil from the site (see Table l). For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI 332-08 Code Require- ments for Residential Concrefe indicates concrete shall be made with ASTM C150 Type V cement or an ASTM C595 or C1157 hydraulic cement meeting high sul- fate-resistant hydraulic cement (HS) designation and shall have a specified mini- mum compressive strength of 3000 psi at 28 days. Alternative combination of ce- I 2 3. 4 ffi ments and supplementary cementitious mater¡als, such as Class F fly ash, shall be permitted with acceptable test records for sulfate durability. ln our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete, even when sulfate levels are relatively low. To controt this risk and to resist freeze-thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete 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 6 percent +l- 1.5 percent. We recommend all foundation walls and grade beams in contact with the subsoils be damp-proofed. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that CTL I Thompson, lnc. be retained to provide construc- tion observation and materials testing services for the project. This would allow us the opportunity to veriff whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investigation, lf others perform these observations, they must accept responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in this report remain appro- priate, lt is also beneficialto projects, from economic and practical standpoints, when there is continuity between engineering consultation and the construction observation and materials testing phases. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER¡NG SERVICES CTL I Thompson, lnc. is a full-service geotechnical, structural, materials, and environmental engineering firm. Our services include preparation of structural framing and foundation plans. We can also design temporary and permanent earth retention systems. Based on our experience, CTL I Thompson, lnc. typicaily pro- vides value to projects from schedule and economic standpoints, due to our com- bined expertise and experience with geotechnical, structural, and materials engi- ffi neer¡ng. We can provide a proposalfor structuralengineering design services, if requested. GEOTECHNICAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect with any geotechnical evaluation primarily because the methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be tempered by engineering judgment and experience, Therefore, the solutions or recommendations presented in any ge- otechnicalevaluation should not be considered risk-free and, more importanfly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed struc- ture will result in performance as desired or intended. The engineering recommen- dations 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. The infor- mation, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of structures proposed, the geologíc setting, and the subsurface conditions encountered. Standards of practice continuously change in the area of geotechnical engineer- ing. The recommendations provided are appropriate for about three years. lf the proposed project is not constructed within three years, we should be contacted to determine if we should update this report. 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 are further developed, so that we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural engineering input. ffi This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that levelof care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers 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 re- port, please call. ii cTL ITHOMPSON, tNC è oî l-'W"^Ê'r't' Ryan R. Barbone, E.l.T. Staff Engineer aoü 2ozlD Division M an RRB:JDK:abr ffi 0 1000 2000 SCAIII l' - 2(Xl0' NOTE:SATELLITE IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH (DATED JUNE 17, 2016) tir ,;F.iit'."15ffiiã, ':;: RESIDENCE RIFLE 8gM, tNC.Vicinity LEGEN D: TP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFI EXPLORAToRY PIT NOTE: ffi 0 100 200 SCAIEI l'= 200' SATELLITE IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH (DATED JUNE 17, 2016) sGM. tNC.Aerial TP.1 EL. 5828 ÎP-2 EL.5834 5,835 LEGEND: 5,830 ffi 5,835 830 5,825 ,820 5,815 H SANDY CLAY'TOPSOIU', MOIST, BROWN, SANDSTONE PIECES. GRAVEL, CLAYEY. SANDSTONE PIECES, MOIST, MEDTUM DENSE, WHITE, TAN. (cC) SANDSTONE BEDROCK, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY HARD, WHITE. TAN. Þ-ul UJIL zot- T¡JJ lU t- l¡.1 u¡l¿ Izq 1- UJJ UJ 5,825 5,820 5,815 INDICATES HAND DRIVE SAMPLE. INDICATES BULK SAMPLE FROM EXCAVATED SOIIS. NOTES: EXPLORATORY PITS WERE EXCAVATED WITH A TRACKHOE ON MARCH 30,2021. PITS WERE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION OPERATIONS WERE COMPLETED, 2. FREE GOUNDWATER WAS NOT FOUND IN OUR EXPLORATORY PITS AT THE TIME OF EXCAVATION. 3. LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY PITS ARE APPROXIMATE. ELEVATIONS WERE ESTIMATED FROM GOOGLE EARTH. 4. THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. þ F SlìM INN 9unlmary Logs of FìÍPIoratory ffi SANDS GFÁVELcl-AY (PLAST|c) TO S|LT (NON-P|-ASïC) FINE MEDIUM COARS FINE COARSE coEsLEs ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS --- 0 10 zo 30 40 50 60 7o 80 90 100.074 .149 .297-._.590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200o.42 '-'- '-isz--- DIAMETER OF PARTICLÉ ¡N MILLIMETERS 2roØ Kuo t"-z u50ú,u¡À40 6 t¡Jzal-uÉ t..z t¡Joú, UJÈ 90 80 100 30 20 10 0 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 5"6" 8" TIME REAOINGS 60 MlN. t9 MlN. 4 MtN. I MtN. .200 U.S, STANDARD SERIES '100 '50'40 .30 .16 ..t0 .8 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3/8" 1W 3' 25 HR, 7 HR. 45 MlN. t5 MtN. Somple of eRnvrl, cLAyEy (cc)From rp - t nr z-a rÈrr Somple of GRAVEL, cLAyEy (cc)From rÞ - z nr 4-s FEET GRAVEL 38 slLT & CLAY 29 PLAsrcrrY l¡¡oex Oh SANDo/o ltOU¡O UMir 33 o/o o/o Yo GRAVEL 44 o/o slLT & cLAY 2s v" PLASTICITY INDEX SAND r-rouro Lll¡tr 27 o/o o/o % 9GM, lNC. PORTER RESIDENCE PROJECT NO. GS06563.000-120 Gradation Test Resulfs SANDS GRAVELcr-AY (PLASTTC) TO SrLT (NON.P|-AST|C) FINE MEDIUM COARS FINE COARSE COBBLES SIEVEANAL g0 80 (9toz6ô É60þ2 u50É UJolo 30 zg 10 0 l0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1û0.o74 .149 .297, _-.590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.7ø 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 2oO0,42 '- - '-isz--- OIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS -t- - .001 0,002 .005 .009 .019 .037 100 TIME READINGS 60 MtN. 19 MrN. 4 MrN- 1 MrN. .200 U.S. STANDARD SERIES '100 '50.40 .30 '1ô .10'8 CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS 3/8" 3t4" 1'/t" 3" 5'6. 25 HR. 7 HR. 45 MtN. 15 MtN. tr ê É o IE ô SLOPE Slr0PE OSHA PER PREFABRICATE} DRAI].IACE COMPOSlIE (IilRADRAIN 6000 oR EQUrVAlElfr) AÏTACH PI.ASTIC SHEETING TO FOUNDATION lïÆr- 8, MINIMUM OR BFTOND VNPOR BARRIER MINIMUM f:l SI,'IOPE FROM BOTTOM OF FOOANC (wHrcHEvER ts GREAIER) !:tlctl DlAMErffi PERFOR $ED DRAIN P|PE, THE PIPE SHOUII) BE PIACED IN A TRB.ICH T'TTH A gL_oPE OF AT t.EASr 1rl8-tNCH DROP pER FOOTOF DRAIN. 4tc.qsE ptpE tN l/2' TO 1-1/2, SCREENtr) ROCK. ÐfiB¡D GMì/EL I.ATERAÍ.IY TO FOONÑG Aì¡D AT tEASf 1,/2 HBCHr OF FOOT|NC. Ru- E}MRE TRB{CH WTM GRAI/tr. NOTE ïttE_BorroM oF rHE DRATN SHOUID BE AL t¡ÁSr 2 rucHns BELOW BOTTOM OFI9$NG,ôr -lHE HrcHesr PoNr AÌ,lD sLoPE _Do$,Nwarirt-io a-posän E-ô¡t/älfñ'ounEf oR To A suMp wt{ERE wArER C,A¡t Bf nniilvuo'rr þûMÈñd Foundation Wall Drain STRUSIURAL FTOOR tr É .å 2-3' SLOPE PER OSHA k;rn BETOW-CRADE WAJ. SUP JOINÍ DRA¡ì.IAOE coMFosm (MIRADRA¡N OqXt oR EQUMAt.Rfi) ATTACH PI¡SIIC SHEENNG TO FOUNDATION MINIMUM OR BEIOND 1:1 SLOPE FROM BOTÍOM OF FOONNG(wrrcnwen s cRe¡ren) 1:INCH DtAìtEfER PERFOR IlE RtGtD DRA¡N ptpE rHE ptpg snourD BE ptAcED tN A TRt{cn úml 4_S!OPE OF rtr 1EASÍ 1rlE-tNCH DROP pER FOOÍ OF DRAIN. ENCâSE ptpE tN l/2'Tc, 7-1/2. SCREENED GRAI/EL ÞcEND GRAvEt I¡rdrurv To FoonNG AI{D AT TEAST 1/2 HBOHT OF FOOTNG. RI.I- E}MRE TRENCH WNH CNNE. NOÏE THE BOTTOM OF THE DRAIN SHOUTD BE ô[ ]EAST 2 NCHES BELOW BOTTOM OFryqlxc AT TlrE HrcHesr Pglur Ai¡D slopE 0ol¡unno-To A-posärr/E-ê'È¡i'ffi'ounrr oR To A suup w{ERE rvâilER car{ BE hÐrä,ED gr-puuÞr¡úô. Foundation Wall Drain TABLE ISUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTINGPROJECT NO. GS06563.000-1 20ffiDESCRIPTIONGRAVEL, CLAYEY (GC)GRAVEL, CLAYEY (GC)PASSINGNO.200SIEVE(olol2929PERCENTSAND(%\3327PERCENTGRAVELP/o\3844SOLUBLESULFATES(o/o\0.66ATTERBERG LIMITSPLASTICITYINDEX(o/o\oLIQUIDLIMIT(%)26DRYDENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT(o/o\DEPTHIFEET)7-84-5EXPLORATORYPITTP-1-lH-2Page 1 of 1