The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubsoil Studyffi CTL I THOMPSON ffi GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: ZAG Built, LLC P.O. Box 2449 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Attention : Mike Zagrzebski Project No. GS06556.000-120 March 30,2021 234 Cente¡ Drive I Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970-945-2809 Fax: 970-945-7411 ffi TABLE OF CONTENTS scoPE....... SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS SITE CONDITIONS PROpOSED CONSTRUCTtON .......... slTE GEO1OGY.....,........ GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.. suBsuRFAcE coNDtTtoNs........... SITE EARTHWORK........ Excavations Structural Fi11 .............. Foundation Backfill........ FOUNDATTON ................. CRAWL SPACE CONSTRUCTION.........,. SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTTON .................. FOUNDATION WALLS SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE............... SURFACE DRAINAGE CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ........ GEOTECHNICAL RISK LIMITAT|ONS ................. FIGURE 1_VIClNIryMAP F¡GURE 2 _AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 3 - PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT FIGURE 4 _ SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS FIGURES 5 AND 6 _ GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 7 _ FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN CONCEPT TABLE I _ SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT LzO PROJECT NO. GS065s6.000-120 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 þ o 6 7 7 ............. 13 ,'^,.....'',.14 ....'",..,,.. 15 ffi SCOPE CTL I Thompson, lnc. has completed a geotechnicalengineering investiga- tion for the single-family residence proposed on Aspen Glen, Filing 3, Lot L20 in Garfield County, Colorado. We conducted this investigation to evaluate subsur- face conditions at the site and provide geotechnical engineering recommenda- tions for the proposed construction. The scope of our investigation was set forth in our Proposal No. 21-0147 . Our reporl was prepared from data developed from our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and our experience with similar conditions. This report includes a description of the subsurface conditions observed in our exploratory pits and provides geotechnical engineering recom- mendations for design and construction of the foundation, floor system, below- grade walls, subsurface drainage, and details influenced by the subsoils. A sum- mary of our conclusions is below. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS subsurface conditions encountered ín our exploratory pits consisted of about 6 inches of sandy clay topsoil and 1.5 to 2.5 feet of clayey gravel, underlain by silty gravel, cobbles, and boulders to the total explored depth of I feet. Groundwater was not found in our explora- tory pits. 2.The natural, silty gravel and cobble soil at the site has good founda- tion support characteristics. we recommend constructing the resi- dence on a footing foundation that is supported by the natural, gravel and cobble soil. Design and construction criteria for footings are in the report. The garage floor is anticipated as a slab-on-grade. We anticipate slabs-on-grade can be supported on the natural, graveland cobble soils with low potential risk of differential movement. Additional dis* cussion is in the report zAG BU|LT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. GS06556.000-1 20 1 3 1 ffi A foundation wall drain should be constructed around the perimeter of the crawl space to mitigate water that infiltrates backfill soils adja- cent to the residence. surface grading should be designed and con- structed to rapidly convey surface water away from the building. SITE CONDITIONS The residence will be constructed on Aspen Glen, Filing 3, Lot L20 in Gar- field County, Colorado. A vicinity map showing the location of the site is included as Figure 1. The lot is an approximately 0.79-acre parcel. No structures are pre- sent on the lot. Midland Loop is adjacent to the lot to the north. A large írrigation pond is on the east half of the subject property and adjacent lot to the east. An aerial photograph of the site is shown on Figure 2. Ground surface gently slopes down to the northeast from an elevation of about 6,A71feet to 6,066 feet. Grades are less than 5 percent. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds. A photograph of the site at the time of our subsurface investigation is below. View across property to the south ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT LzO PROJECT NO. GS06556.000-120 4 2 ffi PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Plans for the residence were preliminary at the time of our geotechnical en- gineering investigation. We discussed the proposed construction with KRAA De- sign Architecture. The proposed building footprint is shown on Figure 3. The resi- dence will be a two-story, wood-frame building with an attached garage, No base- ment construction is planned. The main level floor will be structurally supported with a crawl space below. The garage floor is planned as a slab-on-grade. Foun- dation excavation is expected to extend 4 to 5 feet below the existing ground sur- face. We expect rimeter foundation loads between 1 ,000 and 3,000 pounds linear foot with maximum interior column loads of less than 50 kips. We should be€ provided with architectural plans, when available, so that we can provide geotech- nical/geo-structural engineering input. SITE GEOLOGY As part of our geotechnical engineering investigation, we reviewed geologic mapping by the Colorado Geology Survey (CGS), titled, "Geologic Map of the Cat- tle creek Quadrangle, Garfield county, colorado", by Kirkham, streufert, Hem- borg, and Stelling (dated 2014). The overburden soils at the site are mapped as intermediate terrace alluvium of the late Pleistocene Epoch. The deposits are de- scribed as mostly poorly-sorted, clast-supported, pebble and cobble gravel in a sand and silt matrix. The silty gravel and cobbles found in our exploratory pits is consistent with the geologic description. The soils are underlain at depth by bed- rock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite formation. The surface of the bedrock is typi- cally irregular and contorted and not representative of the relatively flat ground surface at the site. ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. G506556.000-120 3 ffi GEOLOGIC HAZARDS We also reviewed the CGS map "Collapsible Soils and Evaporite Karst Hazard Map of the Roaring Fork Valley, Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle Counties", by Jonathan L. White (dated 2002). CGS has mapped sinkhole and subsidence fea- tures near the subject property. Surface subsidence in the area of the subject site is usually due to solution cavities that form in the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite bedrock. The Evaporite minerals in the bedrock formation are dissolved and removed by circulating groundwater. Most of the flow in the area of this site is subflow tributary to the Roaring Fork River. The groundwater circulates through the permeable alluvial terrace gravel, forming solution cavities in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Overburden soils collapse into the solution cavities. When caving propagates to the ground surface, ground subsidence and/or sinkholes occur. Formation of sinkholes is random and can occur anywhere and at any time in the geologic environment at this site and cannot be predicted. The degree of risk related to sinkholes cannot reasonably be quantified. We did not observe ob- vious visual evidence of sinkholelsubsidence formations on or immediately adja- cent to the subject property. We are not aware of buildings in the immediate vicin- ity of the subject property that have experienced recent subsidence-related dam- age. we rate the potential risk of sinkhole development at the site as low. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions were investigated by directing the excavation of three exploratory pits (TP-1 through TP-3) spaced across the site. The pits were excavated with a trackhoe at the approximate locations shown on Figures 2 and 3. subsurface conditions in the pits were logged by our representative, who logged conditions encountered and obtained representative samples of the soils ZAG BUILT, LLG ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. GS06556-000-120 4 ffi Graphic logs of the soils exposed in our exploratory pits are included as Figure 4. Subsoils encountered in our exploratory pits consisted of about 6 inches of sandy clay topsoil and 1.5 to 2.5 feel of clayey gravel, underlain by silty gravel, cobbles, and boulders to the total explored depth of g feet. Groundwater was not found in our pits at the time of excavation. Pits were backfilled immediately after completion of exploratory excavation operations. A photograph of the silty gravel and cobbles soilfound in our pits is below. Soils excavated from TP-2 Samples of the soils obtained from our exploratory pits were returned to our laboratory for pertinent laboratory testing. Three samples of the gravel and cobble soil selected for gradation analysis contained 49 to 79 percent gravel, 16 to 24 percent sand, and 5 to 30 percent silt and clay (passing the No. 200 sieve). Gradation test results exclude rocks larger than 5 inches in diameter. A significant fraction of the soils at this site are comprised of cobbles and boulders. Gradation test results are shown on Figures 5 and 6. Laboratory testing is summarized on Table L ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJËCT NO. G306556.000-l 20 5 ffi SITE EARTHWORK Excavations We anticipate maximum foundation excavation depths of 4 to 5 feet to con- struct the proposed residence. Based our subsurface investigation, excavations in the soils at the site can be made with conventional, heavy-duty equipment, such as medium-size trackhoe. Sides of excavations need to be sloped to meet local, state, and federal safety regulations. The on-site soils will likely classify as Type C soils based on OSHA criteria. Sides of excavation in Type C soils should be sloped no steeper than 1 to 1.5 horizontal to vertical. Contractors are responsible for site safety and providing and maintaining safe and stable excavations. Con- tractors should identify the soils encountered and ensure that OSHA standards are met. Free groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory pits. We do not expect that excavations for the proposed construction will penetrate a free groundwater table. We believe the pond located on the property has a synthetic or soil-bentonite liner. lf the pond liner remains competent, we do not expect seep- age into the excavation for the proposed residence. Excavations should be sloped to a gravity discharge or to a temporary sump where water from precipitation and snowmelt can be removed by pumping. Structural Fill Organics and clayey soils should be removed from below the proposed building footprint. Planned foundation elevations can be re-attained with densely- compacted, granular, structural fill. Additionally, a 4 to 6-inch thick layer of struc- tural fill placed as a leveling course may be conducive to construction of footings and floor slabs on the gravel and cobble soil. We recommend that structuralfill consíst of an aggregate base course or similar soil. ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. GS06556.000-120 6 ffi Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts of I inches thick or less, mois- ture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 98 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Moisture content and density of structural fill should be checked by a representa- tive of our firm during placement. Observation of the compaction procedure is necessary. Foundation Backfill Proper placement and compaction of foundation backfill is important to re- duce infiltration of surface water and settlement from consolidation of backfill. This is especially important for backfill areas that will support concrete slabs, such as driveways and patios. The excavated soils free of rocks larger than 4 inches in di- ameter, organics and debris can be reused as backfill adjacent to foundation wall exteriors. Backfill should be placed in loose lifts of approximately 10 inches thick or less, moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor (ASTM D 693) dry density. Moisture content and density of the backfill should be checked during placement by a representative of our firm. Observation of the compaction proce- dure is necessary. FOUNDATION The natural, silty gravel and cobble soil at the site has good foundation support characteristics. We recommend constructing the residence on a footing foundation that is supported by the undisturbed, gravel and cobbles. Organics and clayey soils should be removed from below the proposed building footprint. Planned foundation elevations can be re-attained with densely-compacted, granu- lar, structural fill. Additionally, a 4 to 6-inch thick layer of structural fill placed as a ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. GS065s6.000-120 7 ffiF leveling course may be conducive to construction of footings and floor slabs on the gravel and cobble soil. The structuralfill should be in accordance with the Structural Fill section. A representative of our firm should be called to observe soils in the founda- tíon excavation and check that conditions are suitable for support of the founda- tion as designed. Our experience indicates that maximum total settlement will be about 1 inch for footings designed and constructed as recommended. Recom- mended design criteria forfootings, developed from our analysis of field and la- boratory data and our experience, are below. Footings should be supported by the undisturbed, silty gravel and cobble soil or densely-compacted, granular, structural fill. soils loos- ened during excavation or the forming process for the footings should be removed or the soils can be re-compacted prior to placing concrete. Footings on the gravel and cobble soil can be sized using a maxi- mum net allowable bearing pressure ol-4,9.99-psf. The weight of backfill soil on footings can be neglecte A friction factor o'f 0.4 can be used to calculate resistance to sriding between concrete footings and the silty gravel and cobbles. 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 to span undisclosed loose or soft soil pockets. We recommend rein- forcement sufficient to span an unsupported distance of at least 12 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 3ô inehcs helow finished exterior grades. The Garfield County building department should be consulted regarding required depth. ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. GS065s6.000-120 3 4 1 2 5 b 8 ffi CRAWL SPACE CONSTRUCTION The main level floor of the residence is proposed as structurally-supported by the foundation walls with a crawl space below the floor. Building codes nor- mally require a clear space of at least 18 inches between exposed earth and un- treated wood floor components. For non-organic systems, we recommend a mini- mum clear space of 12 inches. This minimum clear space should be maintained between any point on the underside of the floor system (including beams, plumb- íng pipes, and floor drain traps and the soils. utility connections, including water, gas, air duct, and exhaust stack con- nections to appliances on structural floors should be capable of absorbing some deflection of the floor. Plumbing that passes through the floor should ideally be hung from the underside of the structural floor and not laid on the bottom of the excavation. lt is prudent to maintain the minimum clear space below all plumbing lines. lf trenching below the lines is necessarv, we recommend sloping these trenches, so they discharge to the foundation drain. 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. SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION The garage floor is anticipated as a slab-on-grade. Exterior slabs such as the driveway and patios are likely to be constructed adjacent to the building. We anticipate slabs-on-grade can be supported on the natural, gravel and cobble soils with low potential risk of differential movement . A 4 to 6-inch thick leveling course ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. GS06556.000-120 I ffi of granular structural fill may be conducive for construction of floor slabs. Struc- turalfill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations in the Struc- tural Fill section. We recommend the following precautions for slab-on-grade con- struction at this site. slabs should be separated from footings and column pads with srip joints that 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. Exteríor concrete flatwork 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 American Concrete lnstitute (ACl) recommendations, to reduce problems associated with shrinkage and curling. FOUNDATION WALLS Foundation walls which extend below-grade should be designed for lateral earth pressures where backfill is not present to about the same extent on both sides of the wall, such as in crawl spaces. Many factors affect the values of the design lateral earth pressure. These factors include, but are not limited to, the type, compactíon, 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 eañh 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), design for a lower "active" lateral earth pressure may be appropriate. Our experience in- dicates typical below-grade walls in residences deflect or rotate slightly under nor- mal design loads, and that this deflection results in satisfactory wall performance. I 2 3 4. ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3. LOT L2O PROJECT NO. GS06556.000-,t20 l0 ffi Thus, the earth pressures on the walls will likely be between the "active" and "at- rest" conditions. For backfill soils conforming with recommendations in the Foundation Wall Backfill section that are not saturated, we recommend design of below-grade walls at this site using an equivalent fluíd density of at least 40 pcf. This value as- sumes deflection; some minor cracking of walls may occur. lf very little wall de- flection is desired, a higher design value for the at-rest condition using an equiva- lent fluid 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 pro- cess can cause wet or moist conditions in below-grade areas, such as crawl spaces, after construction. To reduce the likelihood water pressure will develop outside foundation walls and the risk of accumulation of water in below-grade ar- eas, we recommend provision of a foundation wall drain, 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 via a positive gravity outlet or lead to a sump where water can be removed by pumping. The foundation wall drain concept is shown on Fígure 7. zAG BU|LT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT LzO PROJECT NO, GS06556.000-t 20 11 ffi SURFACE DRAINAGE Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, floor slabs, and concrete flatwork. Surface drainage should be designed to provide rapid run- off of surface water away from the residence. Proper surface drainage and irriga- tion practices can help control the amount of surface water that penetrates to foundation levels and contributes to settlement or heave of soils and bedrock that support foundations and slabs-on-grade. Positive drainage away from the founda- tion and avoidance of irrigation near the foundation also help to avoid excessive wetting of backfill soils, which can lead to increased backfill settlement and possí- bly to higher lateral earth pressures, due to increased weight and reduced strength of the backfill. We recommend the following precautions. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence shourd 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 and drains should discharge well beyond the rimits of all backfill. splash blocks and/or extensions should be provided at all downspouts so water discharges onto the ground beyond the backfill. We generally recommend against burial of downspout dis- charge. Where it is necessary to bury downspout discharge, solid, rigid pipe should be used, and the pipe should slope to an open gravity outlet. Landscaping should be carefully designed and maintained to mini- mize irrigation. Plants placed close to foundation walls should be limited to those with low moisture requirements. Sprinklers should not discharge within 5 feet of foundations. Plastic sheeting should not be placed beneath landscaped areas adjacent to foundation walls or grade beams. Geotextile fabric will inhibit weed growth yet still allow natural evaporation to occur. 1 2 3 4 ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O pRoJECT NO. G506556.000-120 12 ffi CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. Our experí- ence is that the natural granular soils within Aspen Glen possess low concentra- tions of soluble sulfate. For low levels of soluble sulfate concentration, ACI 332- 08, "Code Requirements for Residential Concrete", indicates there are no special req uirements for sulfate resistance, ln our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete. To control this risk and to resist freeze thaw deterio- ration, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for con- crete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to suface drainage or high-water tables. Concrete should have a total air content of 60/o +l-1.ío/a.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 verify whether soiÍ 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 remaín 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 ENGINEERING SERVICES CTL I Thompson, lnc. is a full-service geotechnical, structural, materials, and environmental engineering firm. Our services include preparation of structural ZAG BUILT, LLC Aa ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O I g PROJECT NO, GS06555,000-120 ffi framing and foundation plans. We can also design earth retention systems. Based on our experience, CTL I Thompson, lnc. typically provides value to projects from schedule and economic standpoints, due to our combined expertise and experi- ence with geotechnical, structural, and materials engineering.We can provide a proposal for structural engineering services, if requested. GEOTECHNICAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop ge- otechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be tem- pered by engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or rec- ommendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be consid- ered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction be- tween the soils and the proposed structure will result in performance as desired or intended. The engineering recommendations in the preceding sections constitute our estimate of those measures necessary to help the building perform satisfacto- rily. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the client for the purpose of providing geotechnical design and construction criteria for the proposed project. The information, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of struc- tures proposed, the geologic setting, and the subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by others. Standards of practice continuously change in the area of geotech- nical engineering. The recommendations provided in this report are appropriate for three years. lf the proposed project is not constructed within three years, we should be contacted to determine if we should update this report. ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. GS06555.0û0-120 14 ffi LIM!TATIONS Our exploratory pits provide a reasonable characterization of subsurface conditíons at the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by the pits will occur. We should be provided with architectural plans, when available, so that we can provide geotechnical/geo-structural engineering input. This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that levelof care and skill ordinarily exercised by 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. Reviewed g trii I cTL I THOMPSON, tNC-..ç t"!,'ltt)' ,,' .1 . r', )' ,1.;."1 : .:...t',0'" t¿..,., .r1.,.1.,.,.1,. - r -( i g ,'lt'f :r.li, ir *'r?( 3t() 1 7-\ John Mechling, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer JM:JDK:abr ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. G506556.000-120 a åJåI l5 ffi 0 500 1000 NOTE: SCALE: 1'- 1000' ZAG BUILT, LLC ÅaPEN OLEN, FrUr¡G¡ 3, r.(rTUrO PROJECT NO. GSO6556.OOO-120 SATELLITE IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH (DATED JUNE 2017) Vicinity Map Fls. 1 0 2A 40 LEGTND TP_1I NOTE: ffi APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PIT APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SATELLITE IMAGE FROM GOOGLE FARTH (DATED JUNI 2017)SCALE: 1' - 4O' ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FIUNG 3, LOT U¡O Aerial Photograph lt tr I LooPìdlcnd PROJECT NO. GSO6556.OOO-1 20 Flg. 2 ffi 0 20 SCALE: l'- ¡t0' 40 MIDLAND LOOP LEGEND: TP-l APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFI EXPLORATORY PIT NOTE: TP-1I BASE DRAWING BY KRAAI DESIGN ARCHTTECTURE (ÐATED MARCH 1, 2021) .. TP_J t-l t? I i, l ! I l li I ¡q' I : ,1t( ,.:., 1 I ì l.:È \- \ i'î i. ..:ll' ^tt zAa BULT,IIC ASPEN GLEN. FILIÈ¡O 3. I-oT ¡¿O PRO.JECT NO. GSO6556.OOO-1 20 Proposed Building Footprint Flg. 3 r ð. TP-1 EL. 6068 TP-2 TP-3 EL.6070 E1.6069 ffi Fult¡ltr zoF lrJJ I! Ft¡¡ lrJu- zo F- UIJ t¡.1 r6, F F r' F r tL--6, 070 065 060 055 ZAG BUILT, LtC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS06556.000-120 6,070 LEGEND: 6,065 6,060 6,055 SANDY CLAY'TOPSOIL", MOIST, DARK BROWN GRAVEL. CLAYEY, MEDTUM DFNSE, MO|ST, BROWN. (GC) GRAVEL, SILTY, COBBLES, AND BOULDERS, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST, BROWN, GRAY. (GP, GP-GM) INDICATES BULK SAMPLE FROM EXCAVATED SOILS. NOTES: 1. EXPLORATORY PITS WERE EXCAVATED WITH A TRACKHOE ON MARCH 16,2021. PITS WËRE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXPTORATORY EXCAVATION OPERATIONS WERE COMPLËTED, 2, FREE GROUNDWATER WAS NOT FOUND IN OUR EXPLORATORY PITS AT THE TIME OF EXCAVATION 3. LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY PITS ARE APPROXIMATE. FLEVATIONS WERE ESTIMATED FROM GOOGLE EARTH. 4" THESE LOGSARE SUBJECTTOTHE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT, F Summ ary Logs of Exploratóry FIG.4 þ ffi GRAVELcLAY (PTAST'C) TO StLT {NON-PLAST|C)FINE SANDS MEÐIUM FINE COARSE COBBLES ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 0 't0 20 308z S40 i! e. t- 50ño U60r 80 90 100.o74 .149 ,297, -.590 1.19 2.O 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 2oO0.42 '- - '-1si'- DIAMÊTER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETÊRS 2roao f60t-z 350ú.Ua4o 90 80 't00 30 20 10 0 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .o37 TIME REAÞINGS 60 MtN. 19 MtN. 4 MtN, I MtN. .200 U.S. STANOARD SERIES '100 '50'40 .30 .16 .10 .8 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3/8' 3t4" 'tyi, 3,, 5"6" 8. 25 HR. 7 HR. 45 MtN. 15 MtN. Somple of cRAVEL, StLTy (GM)From ip - t nr 7.5-8.5 FEET GRAVEL SILT & CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX GRAVEL SILT & CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX SAND Ltoutp l¡¡¡rr 49 o/o iaw 21 Yo % ol/o Somple of From GRAVEL, SLTGHTLY STLTY (cP-cM) TP - 2 AT 5-6 FEET 24 o/o '/o Yo 70% 6% SAND LIQUID LIMIT ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2O PROJECT NO. GS06556.000-120 Gradation Test Results SANDS GRAVELcLAY (prASTtC) TO StLT (NON-ptASTtC) FINE MEDIUM COARS FINE coARsË COBBLES ANALYSIS ------------.---- -t-=:E----t- t-__ -¡---....1 -.---_]- _-l-- -tr_ *- I -|-¡_- - -l.-.-. 10 2g 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .t70z6Ø Íô0 t--z 350 u04o 8' 0 't27 200 152 90 80 100 30 20 10 0 .00'l 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .o37 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 TIME READINGS 60 MtN. 19 MtN. 4 MtN. 1 MtN. "2AA U.S- STANDARD SERIES.100 '50'40 .30 .16 ..t0 "B CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS 3/8' 3t4 1/;', 3" 5"6' .o74 .149 .297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 0.42 DIAMÊTER OF PARTICLÊ IN MILLIMÊTERS 25 ¡1p. 7 HR. 45 MIN. 15 M¡N. FIG,5 ffi SANDS GRAVELcLAY (PLASTTC) TO SrLT (NON.pLAS'nC) FINE MEDIUM COARS FINE COARSE COBBTES SIEVE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100.o74 .149 .297 .590 1.19 2,0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 '127 2oOO.42 - - -152--- OIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS * *_t_ -t¿¿Jañ ıØ Í60 l-z 350tuÀ40 ¿¡ zaFuL FzUoúIû '200 oñ 80 100 30 20 10 0 .001 0.oo2 .005 .009 .019 .037 TIME RÊADINGS 60 MlN. l9 MlN. 4 MlN. 1 MtN. U.S- STANDARD SERIES '100 '50'40'30 .16 "10 .8 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3/8' 3t4" 1/," 3. 5"6' I' 25 HR. 7 HR. 45 MIN. 15 M¡N. Somple of c,RAVE¡, SLIGHTLy stLTy (cp-cM)From rÞ - s Ár 4.s-s.s FEET GRAVEL 79 O/O SAND SILT & CLAY 5 YO LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 16 o/o % o/o SANDS GRAVELCLAY {PLAST|C) TO SrLT (NON-pLAST|C) FINE MEÐIUM COARS FINE COARSE COBBLES SIEVE ANAL 0 10 2A 30 40 50 70 80 90 100 90 80 ctl0z6Ø Ís0Fz 350 u %o 20 10 0 ----t_-___ __t___ -------f-----__t-_ -__¡_,__ ---l- ----.t--- _____t-_ I 'f00 Fzuo uc .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200 152 5'6" 8', 100 TIME RËADINGS 60 MlN. 19 MtN. 4 MtN. 1 MtN. .200 U-S. STANDARÐ SERIES '50 '40 '30 '1ô '10'6 CLEAR SOUARE OPËNINGS 3/8' 3t4" 'ty," 3" .o74 .149 .297 .5S0 1,19 2.0 2.35 4.?6 o.42 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMEÎFRS 25 HR. 7 HR. 45 MtN. 15 MlN. Somple of From ZAG BUILT, LLC ASPEN GLEN, FILING 3, LOT L2() PROJËCT NO. GS06556.000-120 GRAVEL SILT & CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX % SAND Yo LIQUID LIMIT o/o % % Gradation Test Results FIG.6 tr NOIE DRAIN SHOUI.D BE AT t.EASr 2 NCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF FOOTNG AT'IHE HIGHESÍ POf\fÍ AÌ.lD SLOPE DOlff,¡WARD TO A POSITTVE GRAVTTY OI,T1"Ef OR TO A SUMP IY}IERE TTATER CâT{ BE RNJIO/ED EY PUMPING. SLOPE B{CKN\ SLOPE OSHA COIER B.ÍNRE WDTH OF MIRADRAIN G2OON OR EOUIVAL.ENT ATÍACH PLAS¡IC SHEENNG TO FOUNDATION WÄ¡- 8'mNtMUM OR BEYOND PER CRAWL SPACE VAPOR EARRIER RECOMME}¡DED GRAIEL WITI NON-TVOVTN GEOTÞMLE FIABRIC (MIMR l,+ON OR EOUMAI"E}.|Ð. Zag Bullt. LLC Aspon Glsnr Ftllng 3. Lot l¡O ProJect No. GSO6556.OOO-1 20 1:1 SLOPE FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTNG (wHrcHEvER tS GREATER) 4-INCH DIAIiETER PERFOR'TTED DRA¡N PIPE T}IE PIPE SHOUL"D BE PI.ACED IN A TRENCH IYITH A SLoPE OF AT LEASI 1/S-|NCH DRop pER FOOT OF DRAIN. MINIMUM Foundation Wall Drain Goncept STRUCruRAL FLOOR Flg.7 TABLE ISUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTINGPROJECT NO. cs06556.000-l 20ffiDESCRIPTIONGRAVEL, SILTY (GM)GRAVEL, SLIGHTLY SILTY (GP-GM)GRAVEL, SLIGHTLY SILTY (GP.GM)PASSINGNO.200SIEVE(o/o\3065PERCENTSAND(/"\212416PERCENTGRAVELe/"\497A79ATTERBËRG LIMITSPLASTICITYINDEX("/")LIQUIDLIMIT(o/o)DRYDENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTËNT(o/o\DEPTH(FEET)7.5-8.55-64.5-5.5EXPLORATORYptTTP.1TP-2TP-3Page 1 of 1