Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoil Study for Foundation Design 04.20.2021 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: (970) 945-7988 fax: (970) 945-8454 email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com www.kumarusa.com Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE 31 ROYAL COACHMAN LOT 28, ROARING FORK MESA AT ASPEN GLEN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 21-7-202 APRIL 20, 2021 PREPARED FOR: RONDA CAMPBELL P.O. BOX 4272 FRISCO, COLORADO 80443 rondacampbell@comcast.net Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 21-7-202 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ....................................................................................... - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................ - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... - 1 - SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL ..................................................................................................... - 1 - FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................ - 2 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. - 2 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ - 3 - FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................................................... - 3 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ....................................................................... - 4 - FLOOR SLABS ...................................................................................................................... - 5 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... - 5 - SURFACE DRAINAGE ......................................................................................................... - 6 - LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... - 6 - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 21-7-202 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 28, Roaring Fork Mesa, Aspen Glen Subdivision, 31 Royal Coachman, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Ronda Campbell dated February 12, 2021. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed residence will be a one-story wood-frame structure with partial second story and attached three-car garage. Ground floors will be structural over crawlspace for the living areas and slab-on-grade for the garage. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 2 to 4 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The subject site was vacant at the time of our field exploration. The ground surface is gently sloping down to the east at a grade of around 5 percent. A dry drainage swale borders the lot to the north. Vegetation consists of grass with brush in the drainage swale north of the lot. SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the site. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone with some massive beds of - 2 - Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 21-7-202 gypsum and limestone. There is a possibility that massive gypsum deposits associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized subsidence. During previous work in the area, several sinkholes were observed scattered throughout the Aspen Glen Development, mainly east of the Roaring Fork River. These sinkholes appear similar to others associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite in areas of the lower Roaring Fork River Valley. Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. No evidence of cavities was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the exploratory borings were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 28 throughout the service life of the proposed residence, in our opinion, is low; however, the owner should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development. If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be contacted. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 23, 2021. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck- mounted CME-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Kumar & Associates, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1â…ś inch and 2 inch I.D. 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 Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying 21½ to 24½ feet of medium dense to dense, - 3 - Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 21-7-202 silty sand with gravel layers. Relatively dense, silty sand and gravel was encountered at depths of 22½ to 25½ feet and extended down to the drilled depth of 30 feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples, presented on Figure 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a nil to low expansion potential when wetted under constant light surcharge. Our experience in the area indicates the swell potential is an anomaly and can be discounted in foundation design particularly due to the depth of the sample that swelled at 20 feet. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1½-inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figure 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils with a risk of settlement. The settlement potential is mainly from wetting and precautions should be taken to keep the bearing soils dry. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) 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 exterior grade is typically used in this area. - 4 - Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 21-7-202 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural granular soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. 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 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will 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 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. Backfill should not contain organics, debris or rock larger than about 6 inches. - 5 - Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 21-7-202 The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.40. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 375 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free- draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on- site granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. We recommend vapor retarders conform to at least the minimum requirements of ASTM E1745 Class C material. Certain floor types are more sensitive to water vapor transmission than others. For floor slabs bearing on angular gravel or where flooring system sensitive to water vapor transmission are utilized, we recommend a vapor barrier be utilized conforming to the minimum requirements of ASTM E1745 Class A material. The vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations and ASTM E1643. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We - 6 - Kumar & Associates, Inc. ® Project No. 21-7-202 recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls and crawlspace areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet or drywell. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1½ feet deep. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 2½ inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 feet of the on-site finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 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 irrigation. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained Kumar & Associates Kumar & Associates Kumar & Associates Kumar & Associates Kumar & Associates TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. 21-7-202 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT NATURAL DRY DENSITY GRADATION PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SOIL TYPE BORING DEPTH GRAVEL SAND LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC INDEX (%) (%) (ft) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (psf) 1 4 & 7 1.5 44 42 14 Silty Gravelly Sand 10 3.4 29 Silty Gravelly Sand 20 8.1 102 57 Sand and Silt 2 5 1.0 121 13 Silty Gravelly Sand 7½ & 10 2.0 13 58 29 Silty Gravelly Sand 20 7.0 113 88 Slightly Sandy Silt and Clay