Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03180 1 ` 1 t GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N2 3 1 8 n Y ) V 109 6th Street Suite 303 Assessor Parcel No. • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 { • • Phone (303) 945 - 8212 (S . 1t & it This does not constitute e ■ INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. rr ; 4 j PROPERTY / p,� r 6 ; l.P/l � Phone �' / 4 , I Owner's Name kL4 11 Ilk Li E At 11 Present Address 111.9 �Qil il , `• g COQ) r i ti t 3 13 , //o/ �/ h f �1 c s 4 System Locat o 1 / . P - k `r 4.1 h "O -n_ Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. g , r HYSTEM DESIGN f ilejVx 6 1 Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other ii rI / _ yy� $ 0 - q 7 H t � / / Y 0 ' " Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) �-to r ' • t Requ Absorption Area - See Attached [ ) i * Special Setback Requirements: / - t 1 i Date Inspector #1 r i ` FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) f 1 Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation F if r /2©6CAt SrBetl /•(G M AN T /N ro r _ t • System Installer Septic Tank Capacity_ ' 2 " G G L ,, e ( t C o PE C A At 7 Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name r O Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface i'''''s- ' io r . C Absorption Area r 0) V i\I 1 7 S O F 6 O flo ( F A C ) t i Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name 1N it 7 ft, Aa 7 0 (l S 12 Pr xdfr)f ° ` � ; k Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements Z . i • e Other X7 n A CC EA N- oU i ( v ..5 F - Date ( I Ici 9 9 Inspector t ' RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE Y . ; *CONDITIONS: 'i ' '' s 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter . r i 25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984. ), t 4 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con- i nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a L requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. i 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system In a manner which Involves a knowing and material 'i. variation from the terms or specifications contained In the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense (5500.00 fine — 6 '. , months in jail or both). , is +A White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT . INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION OWNER A /Ztrf //t f � Se--ran ADDRESS /7 /q .Slinrluccn �ri / e, ®dO rw�S co g �PHO (_//9 ,) — 049.5 CONTRACTOR 4O ffe 1 � � r��0 / ADDRESS / O, /�ra�! 9t'.► 04 CO t/t23 PHONE 0'7O)%3- /3°a PERMIT REQUEST FOR (✓S NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4). LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY: Near what City of Town C /P.it peon „l Spar-7 < � �' � Size of Lot 5 5:2 acres Legal Description or Address s '.. ��� ti S —111P WASTES TYPE: (v) ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: Number of Bedrooms S Number of Persons Z ( v4 Garbage Grinder ( r )- Automatic Washer (v4Dishwasher SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ( ) WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: aoryarzeetr2, Z DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? /(/0 A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMUM distances: Leach Field to Well: 100 feet Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet Septic System to Property Lines: 10 feet YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT A SITE PLAN. GROUND CONDITIONS: Depth to first Ground Water Table fr/R Percent Ground Slope Z - % 2 TYPE OF-INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: ( Jj SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT ( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE ( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE ( ) CHEMICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE FINAL DISPOSAL BY: ( ) ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (4 UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER ( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE � WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE ? /147 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the Percolation Test) Minutes /n 0 per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes Z' O per inch in hole NO. 3 Minutes 62 D per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes /I per inch in hole NO. Name, address nd telepho9ne of,RPE who made soil absorption tests: �e.�/i d At / I Ft Er fkpwart ' Pew k t Ge edas2J�it StW IP4 )S 4 Kr4, / JooJ <0 cori I ce 8!6 o / Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law. ` Signed // /& R ide � Date � / y9 PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! 3 • 1 HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945.8454 Phone 970 945 -7988 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 5, SPRINGRIDGE SUBDIVISION GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 198 631 OCTOBER 12, 1998 PREPARED FOR: ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. 1719 SANDERSON AVENUE COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80915 • HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ' October 12, 1998 Albert W. Bevan, Jr. 1719 Sanderson Avenue Colorado Springs, Colorado 80915 Job No. 198 631 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 5, Springridge Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Bevan: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area consist of to 1 foot of topsoil overlying nil to about 41/2 feet of sandy clay underlain by mixed clay and gravel with cobbles becoming silty sandy gravel and cobbles with depth. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings and the subsoils were slightly moist. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf with some risk of settlement due to the variable bearing conditions. The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPW •RTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. David A. Yo g, P.E. Rev. By: SLP DAY /rso • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 FIELD EXPLORATION 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS 3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 4 FOUNDATIONS 4 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS 5 FLOOR SLABS 6 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 6 SITE GRADING 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE 7 LIMITATIONS 8 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS & PERCOLATION TEST HOLES FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS H -P GEOTECH PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 5, Springridge Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 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 Albert W. Bevan Jr. dated September 11, 1998. Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical previously performed a preliminary geotechnical study for the Springridge Development dated May 3, 1994, Job No. 194 191. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on 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. Percolation testing was also performed to evaluate the infiltration characteristics of the subsoils for design of the on -site septic disposal system. 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 subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed residence will be a 1 and 2 story structure over a walk -out basement level, located on the lot as shown on Fig. 1. The building will be post and beam construction with straw bale and a foam bock foundation system. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade at the approximate elevation shown on Fig. 2. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 2 to 8 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 reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. H -P GEOTECH -2- SITE CONDITIONS The lot is vacant and located on strongly sloping terrain vegetated with tall grass and weeds. The ground surface appears natural, sloping down to the northeast at about 2 to 4% grade. Elevation difference across the proposed residence is about 5 to 6 feet and about 20 feet across the lot. There are existing irrigation ditches above the site that were dry at the time of our field work. There are several relatively new residences on nearby lots. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on September 25, 1998. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Borings 1 and 2 were drilled in the proposed building area and the third boring was a profile boring in the area of the proposed septic disposal system. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck- mounted CME 55 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1 /e 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, Fig. 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 Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1/2 foot of organic topsoil overlying nil to about 41 feet of stiff sandy clay underlain by very stiff /dense clay and gravel with cobbles H -P GEOTECH - S - and possible boulders. At depths from about 2 to 9 feet, relatively dense, silty sandy gravel and cobbles with boulders was encountered to the drilled depths of 10 to 17 feet. Drilling in the underlying materials with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, gradation analyses, and Atterberg limits. Results of consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the upper sandy clay, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a small diameter drive sample (minus 1' inch fraction) of the natural gravel and cobble soils are shown on Fig. 5. The liquid and plastic limits testing indicates the sandy clay has low to medium plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and when checked 1 or more days later. The subsoils were slightly moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS At proposed excavation grades the bearing soils will apparently transition from sandy clays to clayey and silty gravel with cobbles. The clays possess relatively low bearing capacity and moderate settlement potential when wetted. The gravel soils should possess moderate bearing capacity and relatively low settlement potential. Spread footings bearing on the natural soils can be used for foundation support with some risk of differential settlement due to the variable bearing conditions and potential wetting. Sources of potential wetting include landscape irrigation, surface water ponding and utility line leaks. Placing the foundation entirely on the gravel subsoils would provide a relatively low risk of differential settlement. Subexcavation of the clay soils would probably be needed in some areas to provide bearing entirely on the gravels. H -P GEOTECH -4- DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we believe the building can be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural soils with some risk of settlement. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch and may be differential. Footings placed entirely on the gravel soils can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 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) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies and better withstand the effects of some differential settlement 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 topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to firm natural soils. The clays should also be removed as needed if footing bearing is designed for the higher bearing pressure on the gravels. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. H -P GEOTECH -5- 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 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the main building 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 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. The wall backfill should not contain vegetation, topsoil or oversized rocks. The backfill should consist of the more gravelly soils where possible. 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 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. 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 0.35 Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of H -P GEOTECH -6- 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 soils, or a suitable imported granular material, devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rocks. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area and where clay soils are present that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement 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. Free - draining H -P GEOTECH • -7- 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 11/2 feet deep. 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. We assume the cut depths for the basement level will not exceed one level, about 8 to 10 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet deep and be compacted to at least 95 % 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 95% standard Proctor density. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. SURFACE DRAINAGE Positive surface drainage is an important aspect of the project to help limit the potential for wetting below the building. The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: I) 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 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved H -P GEOTECH -8- areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Granular wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on -site, finer grained 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, such as sod, should be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests were conducted on September 26, 1998 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile boring was drilled and three percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes (nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Boring shown on Fig. 2 and consist of sandy clay overlying gravelly clay and clayey gravel with cobbles. The percolation test results, presented in Table II, indicate average percolation rates of about 60 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. We recommend the infiltration area be oversized due to the relatively slow percolation rate. 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 expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions H -P GEOTECH • -9- encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re- evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We 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 verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORT A *K ?OF9JECHNICAL, INC. F David A. Youn. 0 ' ' e 32 -21 tt Reviewed By: 0 Gt ��: ` ' 't, '/ O ;t AL s 1 ,%%h Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DAY /rso cc: Jeff Dickinson, Architect H -P GEOTECH • APPROXIMATE, SCALE 1" =100' Z LOT BOUNDARIES LOT 5 BORING 1 PROPOSED RESIDENCE BORING 2 1 LOT 4 PROFILE BORING • AP 1 P 30 0 P 2 BENCH MARK: BASE OF FIRE HYDRANT; ELEV. = 100.0'. ASSUMED. • • LOT 6 SPRINGRIDGE COURT LEGEND: • EXPLORATORY BORING A PERCOLATION TEST HOLE HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 198 631 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES 9' BORING 1 BORING 2 PROFILE BORING ELEV. = 110' ELEV. = 105' ELEV. = 102' 110 110 — t — — }• •— 45/12 — - 105 WCt20 ^ APPROXIMATE PROPOSED 105 +4-36 W. LOWER FLOOR LEVEL - 104' — — - 20 N - m L- i — 50/5 18/12 — I o 100 , waa7.6 100 _ `g DD -97 _ — - 200-86 I LL■30 — d W PI -14 W _ — ..� 50/3 ;�.. 50/2 - 95 _ ' + �y�� 95 — • ,j j` 15/3,20/0 — - 90 g0 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. 198 631 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ■ • ,LEGEND: TOPSOIL; organic silty clay, dark brown, moist. ® CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, stiff, slightly moist, light brown, low to medium plasticity. calcareous, slightly porous. CLAY AND GRAVEL (CL —GC); with cobbles and boulders, sandy, very stiff /dense, slightly moist, brown, calcareous, rocks are primarily subangulor to subrounded. GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM); with boulders, sandy, silty, dense to very dense, slightly moist, brown, rocks are primarily subangular to subrounded. h Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 —inch I.D. California liner sample. i Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8 —inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D — 1586. 18/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 18 blows of a 140 —pound hammer falling 30 inches were 18 / required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. T Practical rig refusal. Indicates slotted PVC pipe installed in boring to depth shown. Y ti NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on September 25, 1998 with a 4 —inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site pion provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark shown on Fig. 1. 4. The exploratory boring 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 logs represent the approximate boundaries . between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 1 and 14 days later. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( Z ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plasticity Index ( % ) 198 631 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • • • Moisture Content = 7.6 percent Dry Density = 97 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Boring 2 at 4 Feet 0 _ • 1 • " upon 2 wetting 0 N tl • a 3 0 0 4 __ • 5 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 198 631 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • HYDROMETER NIALYSS I IEVE ANALYSIS DYE RFADNBS U.S. LLS S7ANOARO SERES 1 GEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 1 1 24 HR 7 HR 45 MN. 15 MN. 60 MN.19 MN. 4 MIN. 1 MN. (200 1100 /50 /30 /16 r 44 3/61/2 1 1/2* 3' 5'6• 60 — n_ • 1. I -- -..-- ■ __ N - -- — INNEN = OSS011ia = -- W � = = 10 M __-- ian ma'am — _a —am p — - —in =moo o mamma — _ a — la -- allISINO NW a. -- — =ISM al BSI — — - - - -- — 70 _— ___ —__� —_ _— 30 allIMIS �_ - -�— — - - 0 C, � _ AM ___ ---_— — W Z G o _ 40 N � - -a MI -- al —_ SeS NS sans d � ..1 — — a_ ■ H ∎ l _ � _ S __ ■ 50 I— 50 0 41 NMI — — 0 LI re ea allaa EL Inman II= a MINN= all all MMEME EL 40 C— — =Se — 60 Ma — Sal a Ea a p -CS C — la - - C —C G 70 30 la masa �� — — --- __ s■ ammo -C� lal -- al MIS - - - -._ al — -- --- — 20 s — — • 60 C — - - -am— anaaa allalaall - - — - - -- — al — _ la Mina C s .0 90 10 a — - - -son = = �a = NMI — — liana= al - - a ■alaala — s — w -- O 0 00 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.16 2.36 4.75 9.6 16.0 37.5 76.2 72 752 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO STET 000KES la 111=714al•LLFie GRAVEL 36 % SAND 41 % SILT AND CLAY 23 7. LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 1 at 4 Feet 198 631 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. . to m ' ; co to J z & m m O) T o ° E L t° 8 EEE co 0 co El V N C a t9 to >. .T c t0 to • .J J - a ix z 3 - z _ I- W I-- 1 0 W — 0 41 M %o F- ~g co Ili" N f0 a o 2 } F— cc 11 v cc a W N ° (0 2 1 t c, m o m N ri yg Z ° N € .- N 2 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 198 631 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE (INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION (MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN. /INCH) P -1 52 16 9 8 1/4 3/4 8 1/4 7 1/2 3/4 7 1/2 7 1/2 7 6 1/2 1/2 6 1/2 6 1/4 1/4 6 1/4 6 1/4 6 5 3/4 1/4 60 P -2 48 15 8 7 1/4 3/4 7 1/4 6 3/4 1/2 6 3/4 6 1/4 1/2 6 1/4 6 1/4 6 5 3/4 1/4 5 3/4 5 1/2 1/4 51/2 51/4 1/4 60 P -3 43 15 8 7 1/4 3/4 71/4 61/2 3/4 6 1/2 6 1/2 6 6 3/4 1/4 5 3/4 5 1/2 1/4 5 1/2 5 1/4 1/4 51/4 5 1/4 60 Note: Percolation holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on September 25, 1998. Percolation tests were conducted on September 26, 1998 by H -P Geotech. Average percolation rates determined from last 3 readings at each hole.