The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubsoil Study for Foundation Design 05.11.2021rc iiffifi'åi'm:ËtrÉ'TÊü*"' An Employcc Owncd Compony 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: (970) 945-1988 fax: (970) 945-8454 email : kaglenwood@kumarusa.com www.kumarusa.com Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Sumrnit County, Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY F'OR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 50, WESTBANK MESA HUEBINGER DRIVE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 21-7-260 MAY ll,202l PREPARED FOR: RIGO HERNANDEZ 1140 HOME AVENUE SILT, COLORADO 81652 riso@rshinc.net TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..... SITE CONDITIONS....... FIELD EXPLORATION SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS 1 I I a -2- -3 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................. FOUNDATIONS FOLINDATION AND RETAINING WALLS.. FLOOR SLABS UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ..... SITE GRADING.......... SURFACE DRAINAGE............... LIMITATIONS... FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SV/ELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 6 _ USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2- SUMMARY OF USDA LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ....-7 - ....-8- 8- 9- Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 21-7-260 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results ofa subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 50, Westbank Mesa, Huebinger Drive, Garfield 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 proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Rigo Hernandez, dated December 3,2020. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings and pits was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the f,reld 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 analyzedto 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 At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had not been developed. The building is proposed in the area of the exploratory boring locations shown on Figure 1. We assume the house will be one to two stories over a crawlspace or walkout basement excavation and will have a maximum cut depth of one level, about 10 feet below the existing ground surface. For the putpose of our analysis, 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 described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The site was vacant at the time of our field work. The proposed building area slopes down to the northeast at about 10 to 15 percent grade. Vegetation consists of sagebrush and scattered pinon trees with an understory of grass and weeds. The buildingarea was accessed from the two-track road that cuts through the property. Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.2l-7-260 a FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 25, April l and April20, 202I. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 on March 25 and April 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, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken wifh I% inch and 2 inch LD. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils 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. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the exploratory boring logs, Figure 2. The samples were retumed to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. Two explorctory pits were excavated in the proposed septic field area at the location shown on Figure 1 on April 20 to evaluate subsurface conditions. The pits were dug with a Yanmar SV-120 mini excavator trackhoe. The pits were logged by a representative of Kumar & Associates, Inc. A sample of the subsoils was taken with disturbed sampling methods. The depth at which the sample was taken is shown on the Logs of Exploratory Pits, Figure 2. The sample was 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 about I foot of organic topsoil, the subsoils consist of about 6 feet of stiff to very stiff, sandy silty clay with scattered gravel. At a depth of about 7 feet in the borings, the subsoils became a dense clayey sand and gravel mixture. The soils encountered in the borings are similar to the soils encountered at other nearby lots. The clay portions ofthese soils can possess an expansion potential when wetted. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural moisture content, density and grain size analyses. Swell-consolidation testing was performed on Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-260 -3- a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the shallow clay subsoils. The swell-consolidation test results, presented on Figure 4, indicate low compressibility under relatively light surcharge loading and a low to moderate expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. Results of gradation analyses performed on the minus I%-inch fraction of the subsoils are presented on Figure 5. The laboratory testing is summarizedin Table 1. Two pits were excavated with a trackhoe in the proposed septic area, located west and downhill of the building site. Below about 1 foot of topsoil, the soils consisted of medium stiff Loam. A USDA gradation was performed and the results are shown on Figure 6. The soils exposed in the pits should be suitable for a conventional septic system. A civil engineer should design the septic disposal system. No free water was encountered in the borings and pits at time of exploration. The subsoils were slightly moist to moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The shallow clay subsoils encountered af the site possess low to moderate expansion potential when wetted. The expansion potential canprobably be mitigated by load concentration to reduce or prevent swelling in the event of wetting below the foundation bearing level. Surface runoff, landscape irrigation, and utility leakage are possible sources of water which could cause wetting. Altemately, the expansion potential can be mitigated by subexcavation and extending the bearing level down to the underlying granular soils or replacing the sub-excavated depth with imported, compacted structural fill. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the residence be founded with spread footings placed on undisturbed natural soils or compacted structural fill' The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural clay soils can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The footings should also be designed for Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 21-7-260 2) 3) 4) s) 6) 7) -4- a minimum dead load pressure of 800 psf. In order to satisfiz the minimum dead load pressure under lightly loaded areas, it may be necessary to concentrate loads by using a grade beam and pad system. Wall-on-grade construction is not recommended at this site to achieve the minimum dead load. Footings placed on the underlying granular soils or properly compacted structural full can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The structural fill should consist of imported 3/o-inch road base compacted to at least 98o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Based on experience, we expect settlement or heave of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be up to about 1 inch. There could be some additional movement if the bearing soils were to become wet. The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous footings and24 inches for isolated pads. 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 14 feet. 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. 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 area. Prior to the footing construction, any existing fill, topsoil and loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the designated bearing soils. \ü/e should evaluate the exposed bearing soils for expansion potential and the need for sub-excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 21-7-260 -5- FOLINDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which arelaterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site fine-grained soils and at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of imported granular materials. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence 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 fine-grained soils and. at least 3 5 pcf for backfill consisting of imported granular materials. 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 increase the 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 90o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content slightly above optimum. Backhll in pavement 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 backhll should be expected even if the material is placed correctly and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. 'We recommend imported granular soils for backfilling foundation walls and retaining structures because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures. Granular materials should be placed within 2 feet of the ground surface and to a minimum of 3 feet beyond the walls. The granular backfill behind foundation and retaining walls should extend to an envelope defined as a line sloped up from the base of the wall at an angle of at least 30 degrees from the vertical. The upper 2 feet of the wall backfill should be a relatively impervious on-site soil (or a pavement structure should be provided) to prevent surface water inf,rltration into the backfill. Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No. 21-7-260 -6- 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 0.30. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 325 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 atthe 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 on-site clay soils possess an expansion potential and slab heave could occur if the subgrade soils were to become wet. Slab-on-grade construction may be used provided precautions are taken to limit potential movement and the risk of distress to the building is accepted by the owner. A positive way to reduce the risk of slab movement, which is commonly used in the area, is to construct structurally supported floors over crawlspace. We should evaluate the slab subgrade conditions for expansion potential and the need for sub-excavation and replacement with imported granular structural fill. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Interior non-bearing partitions resting on floor slabs should be provided with a slip joint at the bottom of the wall so that, if the slab moves, the movement cannot be transmitted to the upper structure. This detail is also important for wallboards, stairways and door frames. Slip joints which will allow at least Ir/z-inches of vertical movement are recommended. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. Slab reinforcement and control joints should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed immediately beneath basement level slabs-on-grade. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 50Yo Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.2l-7-260 -7 - passing the No. 4 sieve and less than2Yo passing the No. 200 sieve. The free-draining gravel will aid in drainage below the slabs and should be connected to the perimeter underdrain system. Required fill beneath slabs can consist of a suitable imported granular material, excluding topsoil and oversized rocks. The fill should be spread in thin horizontal lifts, adjusted to at or above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density. All vegetation, topsoil and loose or disturbed soil should be removed prior to fill placement. The above recommendations will not prevent slab heave if the expansive soils underlying slabs- on-grade become wet. However, the recommendations will reduce the effects if slab heave occurs. All plumbing lines should be pressure tested before backfilling to help reduce the potential for wetting. TINDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although groundwater was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas 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 also create a perched condition. Therefore, we recommend below-grade construction, such as crawlspace and basement areas, 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 lYo 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 50o/o passing the No. 4 sieve and less than2Yo passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain gravel should be at least lV, feet deep. Void form below the foundation can act as a conduit for water flow. 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 above the void form with mastic to keep drain water from flowing beneath the wall and to other areas of the building. Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-260 -8- SITE GRADING The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the building is located as planned, and cut and fill depths are limited. Ws assume the cut depth for the basement level will not exceed one level, about 8 to 10 feet. Embankment fills should be compacted to at leastg5o/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 95o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20o/o grade. Permanent unretained cut and filI slopes should be graded af2horizontal to I 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. SURFACE DRAINAGE 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. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the soils. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement areas and to at least90o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. Free- draining wall backfill should be covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 to 3 feet of the on-site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 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 5 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building caused by inigation. Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 2l-7-260 -9 - LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this arca 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 and pits excavated 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 pits 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 been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. rùy'e are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to veriff that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications of the recommendations presented herein. 'We recommend on-site observation ofexcavations and foundation bearing strata and testing ofstructural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, Kumar & Associates, Daniel E. Hardin, P Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DEFVkac ç/,/bt Kumar & Associates, lnc. R'Project No. 21-7-260 j ¡ t I ARK: RTY LINE PIN .lot'ot*"\ ,\r fr ;,. ¡ P ; tt B P i \t ¡ !I t;' C.r ,.. .i" r , t ..Y [ ,;, l Lir t NOT TO SCALE sâ,1 t,It.2f *,. t.ll a. f l I- ?,' I Þ'r$ [-j. :. ì ;:r t: a !L:l.\,f,lì,l ì:. )r.\'. )i¡-11 ì -. rF"¡t,.'¡ì , i¡.' ¡! 21 -7 -260 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF TXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS 1Fig. E I BORING 1 EL.=84.5' BORING 2 EL.=91 .0' PROFILE PIT 1 PROFILE PIT 2 0 0 22/12 14/12 WC=9.5 DD= 1 02 WC=7.5 GRAVEL=6-l snuo=¡¡ -r SILT=45 CLAY= 1 6 5 13/ 12 WC=8.5 DD= 1 06 -200=82 5 f- t¡J t¡J LL I-Fo- L¡Jô 3s/12 WC=3.6 DD=119 -200=35 t- t¡Jt¡l LL I-t- o_t¡lo 10 10 30/ 12 34/12 WC=3.1 +4=18 -200=43 WC=2.6 *4=27 -2OO=34 15 15 36/ 12 21/6 45/6 20 20 48/ 12 24/ 6 50/3 WC=2.0 +4=37 -ZQO=27 25 25 81/11 30 30 63/ 12 35 35 21 -7 -260 Kumar & Associates LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS Fig. 2 E I I LEGEND TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY SILTY CLAY, FIRM, MOIST, DARK BROWN CLAY (CL); SILTY, SANDY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, STIFF TO VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN CLAY AND SILT (CL-ML); SANDY, MEDIUM STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST, BRoWN, LoAM SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); CLAYEY, DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, REDDISH BROWN. DRIVE SAMPLE, 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE i I DRTVE SAMPLE, 1 5/8-rNCH l.D. SPLIr SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE 22/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 22 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 MARCH 25 AND APRIL 1 , 2021 WITH A 4_INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS_FLIGHT POWER AUGER. THE EXPLORATORY PITS WERE EXCAVATED WITH A MINI EXCAVATOR ON APRIL 20, 2021. 2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY PITS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY TAPING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED BY INSTRUMENT LEVEL BASED ON THE BENCHMARK SHOWN ON FIG.1. 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING AND 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 BORING AND PIT LOGS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL. 6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AND PITS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING OR DIGGING. 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS: Wc = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D2216); DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D2216); +4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (¡STV OOSI¡); _2OO= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 2OO SIEVE (ASTM D1140); GRAVEL= PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 10 SIEVE; SAND= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO.10 SIEVE AND RETAINED ON NO.325 SIEVE; SILT= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 325 SIEVE TO PARTICLE SIZE .002MM; CLAY= PERCENT SMALLER THAN PARTICLE SIZE .002MM. 21 -7 -260 Kumar & Associates LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 4 5 2 ñ JJt¡l =U) I zotr o =o u'lzoo 0 -1 -2 -5 -4 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF l0 100 SAMPLE OF: Silty Cloy FROM:Boringl@4' WC = 9.5 %, DD = 102 pcf ! I I I l EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE UPON WETTING I ¡ I I I I I I i II 1 Fig. 4Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS21 -7 -260 I e € x9ß< oå ñ:Ri = too 90 ao 70 60 50 10 30 20 to o o fo 20 30 40 50 60 70 ao 90 100 .oo5 .o19 ,037 .o75 I DIAMETER OF PARTI S IN MILLI CLAY TO SILT COBBLES GRAVEL 1A % SAND LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Grovelly Sond ond Cloy 39%SILT AND CLAY 43 % PLASTICITY INDEX FROM: Boring 1 @ 10' ond 15' (combined) = 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ao 90 100 .600 1 .14 I 2.36 4.75 2.O METERS f9 5A.t 76.2 127 1 200 -125 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN CLAY TO SILT COBBLES GRAVEL 37 % SAND LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Cloyey Sond ond Grovel 56% PLASTICITY INDEX SILT AND CLAY 27 % FROM: Boring 1 @ 20' ond 25' (combined) Th€se lesl resulls opply only lo lhe sompl€s whlch wsre lesled. fho lesl¡ng r€port sholl nol be r€produc€d, €xcepl ln full, wllhout lh6 wrill€n opprovol ol Kumor & Associol€s, lnc. Slev€ qnolysls lesllng is p6rform6d in occordonce wlth ASTM 06913, ASTM D7928, ASTM C156 ond/or ASIM Dll40, HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ÂNALYSIS CLEAR SQUARE OPEN¡NGS a/A6z/a'11/r- TIME READINGS 24 HRS 7 HRS l MIN U.S. STANDARD SERIES I j I l I j I I i I I I SAND GRAVEL COARSE FINE COARSEFI NE MEDIUM SIEVE ANALYSISHYDROMETER ANALYSIS IIME REÂDINGS 7 HRS24 HRS U.S. STANDÄRD SERIES 450 ¡¿O ¡aô 3t6 ¿lO aA 5"6" t CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3/a" a/1" 1 1 /2" 3' I I I I I IL I I i SAND GRAVEL FIN E MEDIUM COARSE FI NE COARSE 21 -7 -260 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig.5 HYDROIVETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS / / / TIME READINGS U,S, STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HB, 7 HF 1MIN, #325 045 MIN.mMtN. 19MtN. 4 MtN.#1 #60 +35 #18 #10 #4 1 3" 5',6" 8',100 10 90 20 80 30 70 o l¡Jz.aF t¡Ju Fz t¡JO É. t¡J o- 40 60 () z. U'' U) o_ Fz t¡JO É. lJJo- 50 50 60 40 70 30 80 ,^ 90 10 100 0.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .045 .'106 .025 .500 1.00 2.00 4.75 9.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203 DIAN/ETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIIVETERS CLAY COBBLES GRAVEL 6 %SAND 33 %SILT 45 %CLAY 16 % USDA SOIL TYPE: Loam FROM: Profile Pit 1 @ 4-4.5' S[IALL I ARGE GÊAVËL MEDIIJMSILT 21 -7 -260 Kumar & Associates USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig.6 lGrtiiffilfi'trflr;Ë:iri'iiå*'"TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSSOIL TYPESandy ClayClayey SandGravelly Sand and ClayClayey Sand and GravelSandy Silty ClayClayey Sand and Gravel(VrlEXPANSION91(psf)EXPANSIONPRESSURE6,000(ololPLASTICINDEXATTERBERG LIMITS(%lLIQUID LIMIT3543278234PERCENTPASSING NO.200 srEVE(%)SAND393639GRADATION(f/"1GRAVEL813127locflNATURALDRYDENSITYt02T191063.61aJ2.08.32.6P/,1NATURALMOISTURECONTENT9.5(ft)DEPTH4710&1s20&25510&15SAMPLE LOCATIONBORING12No.21-7-260 rcrf iiffil,*åä'fËtrri'r,"å*'"TABLE 2SUMMARY OF USDA LABORATORY TEST RESULTSSOIL TYPET645JJLoam6CLAY(f/"1SILT%tSAND(%)USDA SOIL TEXTUREGRAVELl:/"1SILT&CLAY$tSAND%tGRADATION%tGRAVELNATURALDRYDENSITY(pcr)NATURALMOISTURECONTENTl:/"1t.3DEPTH(ft)4-4%SAMPLE LOCATIONPITPROFILE1Pect No. 21-7-260 tÐ qPuþlic.net* Garfield County, CO Physical Address Owner Address 1491HUEBINGER DR GLENWOODSPRINGS HERNANDEZ,ANAIS & RIGOBERTO 1140 HOMEAVENUE stLTco 81ós2 87601 2019Total Actual Value Overview Legend I Parcels Roads Parcel/Account Numbers Highways : Limited Access - Highway - - MajorRoad - ' Local Road " Minor Road Other Road Ramp *- Ferry Pedestrian Way Owner Name i- i Lakes&Rivers - County Boundary Line $125,000 Last2Sales Date Price 3/!U2O2r $17s,000 9/14/2016 $112,s00 Account R100143 Number Parcel 239502206050 Number Acres 4 Land SqFt 0 TaxArea 010 2019 Mill Levy 75.5390 Date created:7/2/2027 Last Data Uploaded: 7 /2/2021 11:37:23 AM Dev e rone d bv¡[-) F..årpst4çr 7t2t2021 qPublic.net - Gafield County, CO - Property Record Card: R100143 fÐ qPublic.lrct'' Garfi eld County, CO Summary Account Parcel Property Address Legal Description Acres Land SqFt Tax Area Mill Lew Subdivision R100143 239502206050 1491 HUEBINGERDR,GLENWOODSPRINGS,CO 81ó01 Section: 2 Township: 7 Range: 89 Subdivision: WESTBANK RANCH PUD #4 RESUB Lot: 50 (3.94 AC) 3.94 0 10 75.5390 WESTBANK RANCH PUD #4 RESUB Yrsrvll¡p Owner HERNANDEZ, ANAIS & RIGOBERTO 1140 HOME AVENUE stLT co 81ó52 Land UnitType VACANT RES LoTs -0100 (VACANT LAND) Square Fêet 0 ActualValues Assessed Year Land Actual lmprovement Actuâl Total Actual Assessed Values Assessed Yeâr Land Assessed lmprovement Assessed Total Assessed Tax History 2020 $2,409.68 2021 $12s,000.00 $o.oo $12s,000.00 2027 $3ó,2s0.00 $o.oo $36,250.00 2079 $2,437.72 2020 $110,000.00 $o.oo $110,000.00 2020 $31,900.00 $o.oo $31,900.00 2018 $7,7s4.s2 2079 $110,000.00 $o.oo $110,000.00 20L9 $31,900.00 $o.oo $31,900.00 2017 $7,677.72 Tâx Yeâr Taxes Billed Click here to view the tax ìnformation for this parcel on the Garfield County Treasurer's website. Transfers Sale Date Deed Type 3/T2/2027 SPECIALWARRANW DEED 9/74/2076 WARRANTY DEED 6/6/7997 WARRANWDEED 5/72/7994 Plat 3/TO/T994 WARRANTY DEED Reception Number 952272 882378 509372 463059 460239 Book - Page 7027 0750 089s- 00ó5 Sale Price $17s,000 $112,s00 $82,500 WESTBANK MESA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP $o $75O,OOO WESTBANK RANCH NO l LTD Grantor HERNANDEZ, VICTOR; HERNNDEZ, ROSALBA SUTER, ROBERT; SUTER, ANNA Grantee HERNANDEZ, ANAIS; HERNANDEZ, RIGOBERTO HERNANDEZ, VICTOR; HERNANDEZ, ROSALBA SUTER, ROBERT & ANNA WESTBANK MESA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Photos https://qpublic.schneidercorp.comiApplication.aspx?ApplD=1038&LayerlD=22381 &PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9447 &KeyYalue=R100143 1t2 7t2t202'l qPublic.net - Garfield County, CO - Property Record Card: R100143 t ;ìitì t.i1 ili' :ìr r:.ri:ll ìir- Lt{ i. -!ls s l, B {ye çv- P.sL],cy Ç.D-.f ! .P¡lv3.çy Nqtlcç l.qstData!plqad:71212o2\,?.37-;2. 4M \r.' :ri,r,. .,r r:'i: [-¡i'¡,tloir,tci i.,t C)Fsþg',.idçr No data avaílable for the follow¡ng modules: Buildings, Sketches. https:/þpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1 038&LayerlD=22381 &PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9447&KeyValue=R1 00143 2t2