Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutObservation of Excavation 07.21.21lGrt#ffiffiffiiffü** # 61n An Employcr Owncd Compony 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: (970) 945-7988 fax: (970) 545-8454 email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com www.kumarusa.com Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado July 21,2021 Tom Fisher 1090 Fender Lane Carbondale, Colorado 81623 tomfi sher(gìrocketmail. com Project No. 19-7-268.01 Subject: Observation of Excavation, Proposed Residence, Homestead 1ó, Panorama Ranches, 16 Panorama Drive, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Tom: As requested, a representative of Kumar & Associates observed the excavation at the subject site on July 9, 15 and 21,2021to evaluate the soils exposed for foundation support. The findings of our observations and recommendations for the foundation support are presented in this report. The services were perfonned in aucotdance with oru'agleement for professional engineering services to Tom Fisher dated April 15,2021. The proposed residence will be a one-story wood-frame structure over a walkout basement level with attached garage at the upper/main level. At the time of our first and second visits to the site, the foundation excavation in the garage area exposed some topsoil at the footing elevation. We recommended removing the topsoil to place footings on the underlying natural fine-grained soils. At the time of third visit to the site, the foundation excavation had been cut in multiple levels from 0 to 7 feet below the adjacent ground surface. The soils exposed in the bottom of the excavation consisted of sandy clay in most of the excavation and clayey sand and gravel in the east side of the excavation. No free water was encountered in the excavation and the soils were slightly moist to moist. Considering the conditions exposed in the excavation and the nature of the proposed construction, spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of I ,500 psf should be adequate for support of the proposed residence. The exposed soils tend to compress when wetted and there could be some post-construction settlement of the foundation if the bearing soils become wet. Footings should be a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose disturbe.d soils in footing areas should be removed and the bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection. 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 a lateral earth pressure based on an Tom Fisher July 21,2021 Page2 equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for on-site soil as backfill. Â perimetcr foundation drain should be provided to prevent temporary buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the basement walls and prevent wetting of the lower level. Loosc distrubcd soil, fill and topsoil should be removed from below slab-on-grade areas. Slab subgrade can be reestablished with structural fill. Structural fill placed within floor slab areas can consist of the on-site soils compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed around the structure should be compacted and the surface pgaded to prevent ponding within at leost 10 feet of the building. Landscapc that rcquires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, and sprinkler heads should not be located within 5 feet of the foundation The recommendations submitted in this letter are based on our observation of the soils exposed within the foundation excavation and do not include subsurface exploration to evaluate the subsurface conditions within the loaded depth of foundation influence. This study is based on thc assumption that soils bcncath the footings have equal or bettel support than those exposed. The risk of foundation movement may be greater than indicated in this report because of possible variations in the subsurface conditions. In order to reveal the nafure and extent of variations in the subsurface conditions below the excavation, drilling would be required. It is possible the data obtained by subsurface exploration could change the recommendations contained in this letter. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the fr¡ture. If the client is concemed about MOBC, thcn n profcssional in this spccial ficld of practice should be consulted. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, Kr¡rnar & ,,\ssoci¿rtes, Inc James H. Parsons, P Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. JHP/kac tL Y. s/e ã86€0 Kumar & Associales, lnc.6 Project No. 19.7.268.01