The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20152557.tiff 1861 CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970) 336-7215, EXT 4226 011111111 FAX (970) 352-0242 WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us ��,/ 1150 O STREET `� -I �. P.O. BOX 758 C � U N GREELEY CO 80632 September 2, 2015 LARSON PAUL D 1983 BRIARWOOD PL ERIE, CO 80516-4043 RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2015, WELD COUNTY COLORADO APPROVAL OF STIPULATION BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ASSESSOR ACCOUNT NO.: R4598407 Dear Petitioner: On July 30, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Colorado convened and acting as the Board of Equalization, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 39-8-101 et seq., considered your request to approve and adopt a valuation of your property arrived at by a Stipulation between you and the Weld County Assessor, for the year 2015. The Board of Equalization found that the evidence presented at the hearing supported the stipulated value placed upon the above-described property as set forth below. Such evidence indicated the value was reasonable, equitable, and derived according to the methodologies, percentages, figures and formulas dictated by law. ACTUAL VALUE AS STIPULATED VALUE DETERMINED BY ASSESSOR APPROVED BY BOARD $340,000.00 $250,000.00 The above 'Stipulated Value' is the value which will be used in the calculation of your property taxes for 2015. This value is not appealable. If you have questions concerning the above information, please call me at (970) 336-7215, Ext. 4226. Very truly yours, Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board Weld County Board of County Commissioners Cc: Christopher Woodruff, Weld County Assessor 2015-2557 AS0091 E - COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WELD COUNTY Single County Schedule Number R4598407 STIPULATION (As To Tax Year_2015_Actual Value) RE PETITION OF : NAME: CINDY HALL/PAUL D. LARSON ADDRESS: 1983 BRIARWOOD PL ERIE, CO 80516 Petitioner(s)and the Weld County Assessor hereby enter into this Stipulation regarding the tax year 2015 valuation of the subject property,and jointly move the Board of Equalization to enter its order based on this Stipulation. Petitioner(s)and Assessor agree and stipulate as follows: 1. The property subject to this Stipulation is described as: LOT 1983 HERITAGE AT VISTA RIDGE PHASE 6 2. The subject property is classified as Residential property. 3. The County Assessor originally assigned the following actual value to the subject property for the tax year 2015: Total $340,000.00 4. After further review and negotiation, Petitioner(s) and Weld County Assessor agree to the following tax year 2015 actual value for the subject property: Total $250,000.00 5. The valuation, as established above, shall be binding only with respect to tax year 2015. 6. Brief narrative as to why the reduction was made: Reduced due to property damage from expansive soils 7. Both parties agree that: ®A hearing has not yet been scheduled before the Board of Equalization. 2015-2557 R4598407 DATED this 21st day of July, 2015. Pam) b, (Ark 6v PS Petitioner(s) or Agent or Attorney (Assistant) County Attorney for Respondent, Weld County Board of Commissioners Address: ^ " Address: l C? jri W 6-23C Lau 1150 "O" Street �kr , ^v 1�Y,,f �., P.O. Box 758 C:'e Greeley, CO 80632 Telephone: `.'- Telephone:(970) 336-7235 County Assessor — sr� .�.�; ,,, Address: 1400 N.17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Telephone: (970) 353-3845 ext. 3697 Docket Number Stip-1.Frm R4598407 • CLERK TO THE BOARD \ 1861/ PHONE (970) 336-7215, EXT 4226 FAX (970) 352-0242 AI/ WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us 1150 O STREET �� P.O. BOX 758 COUNTY GREELEY CO 80632 July 22, 2015 LARSON PAUL D 1983 BRIARWOOD PL ERIE, CO 805164043 Account No.: R4598407 Dear Petitioner(s): The Weld County Board of Equalization has set a date of July 30, 2015, at or about the hour of 1:45 PM, to hold a hearing on your valuation for assessment. This hearing will be held at the Weld County Administration Building, Assembly Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. You have a right to attend this hearing and present evidence in support of your petition. The Weld County Assessor or his designee will be present. The Board will make its decision on the basis of the record made at the aforementioned hearing, as well as your petition, so it would be in your interest to have a representative present. If you plan to be represented by an agent or an attorney at your hearing, prior to the hearing you shall provide, in writing to the Clerk to the Board's Office, an authorization for the agent or attorney to represent you. If you do not choose to attend this hearing, a decision will still be made by the Board by the close of business on August 5, 2015, and mailed to you on or before August 12, 2015. Because of the volume of cases before the Board of Equalization, most cases shall be limited to 10 minutes. Also due to volume, cases cannot be rescheduled. It is imperative that you provide evidence to support your position. This may include evidence that similar homes in your area are valued less than yours or you are being assessed on improvements you do not have. Please note: The fact that your valuation has increased cannot be your sole basis of appeal. Without documented evidence as indicated above, the Board will have no choice but to deny your appeal. If you wish to obtain the data supporting the Assessor's valuation of your property, please submit a written request directly to the Assessor's Office by fax (970) 304-6433, or if you have questions, call (970) 353-3845. Upon receipt of your written request, the Assessor will notify you of the estimated cost of providing such information. Payment must be made prior to the Assessor providing such information, at which time the Assessor will make the data available within three (3) working days, subject to any confidentiality requirements. AS0091 LARSON PAUL D - R4598407 Page 2 Please advise me if you decide not to keep your appointment as scheduled. If you need any additional information, please call me at your convenience. Very truly yours, BOARD OF EQUALIZATION vc Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board Weld County Board of County Commissioners cc: Christopher Woodruff, Assessor AS0091 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION RECEIVED Christopher M. Woodruff JUL 1 3 2015 Date of Notice: 6/30/2015 Weld County Assessor Telephone: (970) 353-3845 1400 N 17th Ave WELD COUNTY Fax: (970) 304-6433 Greeley, CO 80631 COMMISSIONERS Office Hours: 8:00AM- 5:00PM ACCOUNT NO. TAX YEAR TAX AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION/PHYSICAL LOCATION R4598407 2015 3520 ERI HVRC6 UNIT 1983 HERITAGE AT VISTA RI DGE CONDOS PH 6 j�jj LARSON PAUL D 3 1983 BRIARWOOD PL 1983 BRIARWOOD PL 0 ERIE,CO 80516-4043 ERIE,CO 000000000 CC O CC ASSESSOR'S VALUATION PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL VALUE PRIOR TO ACTUAL VALUE AFTER REVIEW REVIEW RESIDENTIAL 384,020 340,000 TOTAL $384,020 $340,000 The Assessor has carefully studied all available information, giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest. The Assessor's determination of value after review is based on the following: AL02 - The actual valuation of your property has been adjusted based on new information. This may be information you have supplied, corrections of characteristics or additional sales. If you disagree with the Assessor's decision, you have the right to appeal to the County Board of Equalization for further consideration, § 39-8-106(1)(a), C.R.S. The deadline for filing real property appeals is July 15. The Assessor establishes property values. The local taxing authorities (county, school district, city, fire protection, and other special districts) set mill levies. The mill levy requested by each taxing authority is based on a projected budget and the property tax revenue required to adequately fund the services it provides to its taxpayers. The local taxing authorities hold budget hearings in the fall. If you are concerned about mill levies, we recommend that you attend these budget hearings. Please refer to last year's tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of the local taxing authorities. Please refer to the reverse side of this notice for additional information. Applicable): (If AgentA : 9 pP ) -7/6- 6000-0098 APPEAL PROCEDURES County Board of Equalization Hearings will be held from July 29 through August 5 at 1150 O Street. To appeal the Assessor's decision, complete the Petition to the County Board of Equalization shown below, and mail or deliver a copy of both sides of this form to: Weld County Board of Equalization 1150 O Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 Telephone: (970) 356-4000 ext, 4225 To preserve your appeal rights, your Petition to the County Board of Equalization must be postmarked or delivered on or before July 15 for real property — after such date, your right to appeal is lost. You may be required to prove that you filed a timely appeal; therefore, we recommend that all correspondence be mailed with proof of mailing. You will be notified of the date and time scheduled for your hearing. The County Board of Equalization must mail a written decision to you within five business days following the date of the decision. The County Board of Equalization must conclude hearings and render decisions by August 5, § 39-8-107(2), C.R.S. If you do not receive a decision from the County Board of Equalization and you wish to continue your appeal, you must file an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals by September 10, § 39-2-125(1)(e), C.R.S. If you are dissatisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision and you wish to continue your appeal, you must appeal within 30 days of the date of the County Board's written decision to ONE of the following: Board of Assessment Appeals District Court 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Contact the District Court in the County Denver, CO 80203 where the property is located. See your (303) 866-5880 local telephone book for the address and www.dola.colorado.qov/baa telephone number. Binding Arbitration For a list of arbitrators, contact the County Commissioners at the address listed for the County Board of Equalization. If the date for filing any report, schedule, claim, tax return, statement, remittance, or other document falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, it shall be deemed to have been timely filed if filed on the next business day, § 39-1-120(3), C.R.S. PETITION TO COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION What is your estimate of the property's value as of June 30, 2014? (Your opinion of value in terms of a specific dollar amowt is required for real property pursuant to § 39-8-106(1.5), C.R.S.) $_2524M2_417 Zoo,d� What is the basis for your estimate of value or your reason for requesting a review? (Please attach additional sheets as necessary and any supporting documentation, i.e., comparable sales, rent roll, original installed COSI, praisal act )11 .�y- Ylc J �s- �'2�1.t., • Loll � l�IC�O' 0�1^r� i?,c t f11� 4 -/-. Ott eui01-44-61-1A ATTES ATI N I, the undersigned owner or agent' of the property identified above, affirm that the statements contained herein and on any attachments hereto are true and complete. 4"e-- ' 7 -2.l7 )15' Signature Telephone Number Date pa_ larsov — CNA @ Volvo. f;0241 Email Address ' Attach letter of authorization signed by property owner. 15-DPT-AR PR 207-08/13 R4598407 8426735 Weld County Board of Equalization Paul Larson 1150 O Street, P.O. Box 758 1983 Briarwood Place Greeley, CO 80631 Erie, CO 80516 970-214-4757 Reference: Account Number R4598407 ERI HVRC6 Unit 1983 Heritage at Vista Ridge Condos PH 6 July 9, 2015 The purpose of this correspondence is to appeal the assessed value of the property located at 1983 Briarwood Place, Erie, Colorado 80516. I believe the following information supports a change in the valuation of this property. As you know from the assessors"Notice of Determination"at 1935 Briarwood Place in Erie ($250,000) and 1941 Briarwood Place, Erie ($250,000),there are significant structural issues involved with these properties.This is also the case with 1983 Briarwood Place. We (1935, 1941 and 1983 Briarwood Place)are currently in litigation with the builder and state court with the engineering company. Because of the "expansive soil" and structural problems,we are unable to even sell such properties.This situation renders the house worthless. Realtors indicated that we could not even get half of the original cost of the house. I have attached the Geotechnical Engineering Report(Hayes Consulting Company)for your review.This is also specific to 1983 Briarwood Place. Repairs to the three homes were estimated in 2014 to be approximately$350,000 each. Because we can't even "give the house away", I am asking for a similar assessment that was given to the 1935 and 1941 Briarwood Place properties. Thanks for your consideration. If additional information is needed please call or write. Sincerely, ));.tri Paul D. Larson Enc. Hayes Consulting Company—Geotechnical Engineering Report 0 )0 IH1 AY-E CONS- Nil- INC COMPANY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 1935 Briarwood Place 1941 Briarwood Place 1983 Briarwood Place Vista Ridge Subdivision Erie, Colorado PREPARED FOR: Boulder Creek Builders, Inc 841 Front Street Louisville, Colorado 80027 ATTN: Michael Sinkey C3:. Vie:,-,: el' e2/1 2 /4 `-. 4.a PROJECT NO. 13G133_A DECEMBER 13, 2013 llayF• _onsuir_•ng company r r?,iirTr:•r_O1,,t1 r.If'=,gn & consulting services -ii-=.c soIA-ii :_i1_II,5ec st p 303.455 5130 11 I lte 13od 1.. f 303.455.705❑ engineerinOC) -)0 ii If E S - C O N 9 U L rING CUMPANY December 13, 2013 Boulder Creek Builders, Inc. 841 Front Street Louisville, Colorado 80027 Attn.: Michael Sinkey, Owner/Manager Job No.: 13G133.A Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report for 1935 Briarwood Place, 1941 Briarwood Place, 1983 Briarwood Place, Vista Ridge Subdivision, Erie, Colorado. Dear Mr. Sinkey, As requested, we have completed a geotechnical analysis of subsurface conditions at and below the subject structures. The following report presents the data obtained during the field exploration, conclusions regarding probable causes of the existing conditions, opinions on the future performance of the existing structure, and preliminary repair recommendations from a geotechnical perspective. We are available to discuss the details of this report with you. Please call at your convenience if any additional consultation is required. Sincerely, HAY. S._6ONSULTING COMPANY rt V0 14-Y 1.3" T�r .� pis :17) �' + .'c, / .-JA4 -41,17, 14(:,‘' 40-9t) O+ . Matthew'Hayes, MSCE, PE Principal/President Table of Contents Section 1 Statement of Purpose 1 Section 2 General Description 1 2.1 Documents Reviewed 2 Section 3 HCC Geotechnical Investigation 5 3.1 Field Exploration_ _ _5 3.2 Laboratory Testing 5 3.3 Site-Specific Subsurface Conditions 7 Section 4 Geotechnical Evaluation and Analysis 7 4.1 Depth of Wetting 8 4.2 Heave Predictions(Consolidation-Swell Test Method) 9 Section 5 Repair Recommendations 10 Section 6 Limitations 12 Drawings and Photos r, Site Aerial with Boring Locations Drawing 1 Boring Logs Drawings 2 Through 4 Appendix A: Laboratory Testing Results • Appendix B: Soil Moisture Characteristics Appendix C: Heave Prediction Calculations r'a Appendix D: Repair Details Q m m ri ri 0 Z U W 0 cc d 1. Statement of Purpose The subject structures are located at 1935 Briarwood Place, 1941 Briarwood Place, and 1983 Briarwood Place, Vista Ridge Subdivision, Erie, Colorado. Based on the conditions observed during the initial site observation performed by representatives from Hayes Consulting Company (HCC) on August 15, 2013, it was determined the foundation systems had experienced movement resulting in structural and cosmetic damages. The conditions identified during the initial site observation included poor drainage (HCC visual observation), foundation wall cracks, drywall cracks and apparent separations, out-of-square doorframes, un-level floors, cracks along (and with depth) and heaving of the basement concrete structural floor systems, and cracks and apparent heaving of garage slab-on- grade floor systems (where observed) and exterior flatwork. The damages observed and identified during the initial site observation were all indicative of damages related to and the result of expansive soil. Considering the conditions encountered, HCC recommended and ultimately performed a geotechnical evaluation of the soil and subsurface conditions below and adjacent the subject structures through the review of the original construction documents, field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. From a geotechnical perspective, the purpose of this evaluation was to determine the most probable cause(s) of the existing structural conditions of the subject structures. The potential future performance of the existing foundation systems has also been provided based on the sub-surface conditions, engineering characteristics and properties of the subsurface soils, and our experience with similar type projects. Preliminary repair recommendations have been provided for the stabilization of ,. the foundation systems and the basement structural floor systems. The geotechnical field exploration was conducted on October 11 and 17, 2013. The following information was gathered during this investigation: • Determination of the Soil Profile Supporting the Foundation System • Engineering Properties of the Subsurface Materials Encountered '' • Subsurface Water Conditions 2. General Description The homes at the 1935 Briarwood Place and 1941 Briarwood Place were the south and north units of ;°,+ a two-unit townhome structure, respectively. The home at 1983 Briarwood Place was the north unit of `" a two unit townhome structure. The townhome units, constructed in 2007, were single story stucco and stone veneer residential structures each with a full basement and attached two-car garage. For q the purposes of this report, the units faced northeast onto Briarwood Place. The location of the m is shown on Drawing 1 (Site Plan and Vicinity Map). Per the geotechnical recommendations cg ,I) property 18 by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon), the foundation systems were reinforced cast-in-place cl concrete walls/grade beams founded upon drilled piers designed for a maximum allowable end o pressure of 25,000 pounds per square foot (psf) and an allowable skin friction value of 2,500 psf for z the portion of the piers in bedrock. The minimum bedrock penetration was 10 feet into "unweathered w bedrock" with minimum pier lengths of at least 25 feet and a minimum pier diameter of 10 inches. A minimum pier dead load recommendation was not provided. Structural floor systems were a recommended at the basement level. Please refer to the following Terracon document for all geotechnical recommendations. 2.1 Documents Reviewed: The following documents were reviewed and summarized when relevant to the geotechnical evaluation of the subject structure, where applicable, as part of this investigation: 2.1.1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Duplex Residence - 1983/1989 Briarwood Place, Vista Ridge Subdivision, Filing 7, Erie, Colorado, by Terracon Consultants, Inc., Project No. 22055089, dated June 27. 2005, signed and stamped by Edward J. Paas, PE. In summary, one exploratory boring (15 feet in total depth) was drilled at the subject lot by Terracon Consultants, Inc. One sample from 9 feet was tested for swell/consolidation potential. As reported, the sample exhibited a swell potential of 7.2% when wetted under a surcharge load of 500 psf with a swelling pressure of 3,700 psf. The installation of a foundation drain placed at the exterior perimeters of the foundation system was also recommended. The following was stated in the report: "Foundation Recommendations: "Due to the presence of moderate to highly expansive claystone bedrock at a depth which could ,.. influence spread footing foundations, we recommend that the proposed residence be supported by grade beams and straight shaft piers(caissons)drilled into bedrock. "A minimum 6-inch void space or greater should be provided beneath grade beams between piers." And, ,•• "Basement Construction: "To reduce the potential for perched groundwater to impact foundation soils and enter the basement of the structure, installation of a perimeter drainage system is recommended. The drain trench and pipe should be constructed around the exterior perimeter of the basement foundation." And, I1 "Floor Slab Design and Construction: a "Given the presence of the moderate to very high swelling materials potentially at or near the level of the floor slab, depending on the site-grading, we recommend the use of a structural floor system with a rio void beneath it for the basement area of the residence. "To reduce potential slab movements, carefully planned and maintained surface drainage will be z critical." U W a a E 2.1.2 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Duplex Residence - 1935/1941 Briarwood Place, Vista Ridge Subdivision, Filing 7, Erie. Colorado, by Terracon Consultants, Inc., Proiect No. 22055089, dated June 27. 2005, signed and stamped by Edward J. Paas, PE. One exploratory boring (30 feet in total depth) was drilled at the subject lot by Terracon swell/consolidation potential. The Consultants, Inc. One sample from 4 feet was tested for p sample exhibited a swell potential of 5.2% when wetted under a surcharge load of 500 psf and with a swelling pressure of 4,500 psf. The installation of a foundation drain placed at the exterior perimeter of the foundation system was recommended. The following was stated in the report: "Foundation Recommendations: "Due to the presence of moderate to highly expansive claystone bedrock at a depth which could influence spread footing foundations, we recommend that the proposed residence be supported by grade beams and straight shaft piers(caissons)drilled into bedrock "A minimum 6-inch void space or greater should be provided beneath grade beams between piers." And, "Basement Construction: "To reduce the potential for perched groundwater to impact foundation soils and enter the basement of the structure, installation of a perimeter drainage system is recommended. The drain trench and pipe should be constructed around the exterior perimeter of the basement foundation. " And, '.I "Floor Slab Design and Construction: "Given the presence of the moderate to very high swelling materials potentially at or near the level of the floor slab, depending on the site-grading we recommend the use of a structural floor system with a void beneath it for the basement area of the residence. "To reduce potential slab movements, carefully planned and maintained surface drainage will be critical." 2.1.3 Sheet S-1, Full Basement Foundation Plan for the Duplex Residence, 1983 & 1989 Briarwood Place, by Rod Randol & Associates, dated June 13, 2006, stamped and signed by Rodney Randol. 0 The foundation plan specified a total of seventy 10-inch diameter piers to be placed at a minimum depth of 25 feet. The plans specified 8-inch reinforced concrete walls and grade beams. A structural floor system at the basement elevation was specified with a 4-inch slab-on-grade at the garage. 2.1.4 Sheet S-1, Full Basement Foundation Plan for the Duplex Residence, 1935 & 1941 Briarwood Place, by Rod Randol & Associates, dated February 7, 2007, stamped and signed by Rodney Randol. The plan specified a total of seventy 10-inch diameter piers to be placed at a minimum depth of 25 feet. The plans specified 8-inch reinforced concrete walls and grade beams. A structural floor system at the basement elevation was specified with a 4-inch slab-on-grade at the garage. 2.1.5 Post Construction Geotechnical Investigation, Vista Ridge, Filing 7, Erie, Colorado, by CTLIThompson Inc., dated May 2, 2013, stamped and signed by Ronald M. McOmber. Four exploratory borings (approximately 40 to 50 feet in total depth) were drilled at or near the subject lots by CTLlThompson Inc (CTL). Specifically, the borings designated by CTL as TH-4, TH-11, TH-12, and TH-13 were drilled in proximity to the subject structures. The CTL report provided laboratory testing results of 34 samples retrieved at various depths from within these four borings. The samples exhibited consolidation to no movement with a majority exhibiting swell potentials ranging from 0.1% to 8.2% when wetted under surcharge pressures representing approximate overburden pressures. For the samples that exhibited swell potentials, the swelling pressures ranged from 1,000 psf to 35,000 psf. The following was stated in the report: "Conclusions and Recommendations ., "Various methods have been used to perform repairs to structures experiencing vertical movement. The most effective methods typically involve underpinning the foundation. These repairs may experience future movement and may require future adjustments or additional repairs. There are several types of deep foundations used to underpin including drilled piers, '• helical piles, push piles, and micropiles. We provide design criteria for micropiles below. We judge "' installation of conventional drilled piers to depths in excess of 30 feet may be impractical for r+ underpinning propose. Pre-drilling will likely be required for helical piles and push piles. We can provide geotechnical design criteria for push piers and helical piles, if requested. "Our provision of design criteria for repairs does not constitute a recommendation that underpinning is required. We have not evaluated the performance of the residences. i "Piles/piers should bottom below the zone of probable moisture variation and concentrate the !'! weight of the structure to resist potential swell of the bedrock. Recent research (Walsh, et.al, 2009)indicates there is a 90 percent probability that wetting depth will not exceed 24 feet, with a — 95 percent probability at 26 feet, and a 99 percent probability at 29 feet. There are many other m variables in the data and assumptions used in the design, so these probabilities do not directly Imply likelihood that piles/piers will not move. We used a depth of wetting of 29 feet below ground c7 surface to develop our recommendations. "Geotechnical design criteria are provided below. An adjustable connection from the piles/piers to the foundation wall should be installed to allow for future corrections, should additional movement � occur." 0 And, a "...Based on the soil types encountered in our exploration, we anticipate a "Type A" micropile will be utilized. Grout would be tremied to the base of the drilled holes and no excess pressure would be applied to the grout. We recommend a minimum micropile hole diameter of 5 inches and a minimum total length of 40 feet below the basement or at least 45 feet below the garage and crawls pace walls. Longer piles may be required for structural loads. The reinforcement bar in the micropile should extend full length and be capable of resisting an ultimate tension force of 50 Kips. If a hole larger than 5-inches in diameter is used, the force must increase proportionately. We anticipate the use of No. 10, (1.128-inch diameter)Grade 60 bar..." 3. HCC Geotechnical Investigation The objective of the geotechnical exploration and analysis was to identify the soil profile at the subject lot, to obtain the engineering characteristics of the soil types encountered throughout the profile, and to determine if the existing soil and engineering characteristics have had any adverse effects to the subject structures resulting in the observed and documented distress. Three borings, B1, B2, and B3, were excavated to depths of 49, 49, and 42 feet, respectively. The borings were excavated adjacent the subject foundation systems and the locations are shown on Drawing 1 (Site Plan). 3.1 Field Exploration: Three borings, Boring B1, B2 and B3, were drilled to a depth of 49 feet, 49 feet, and 42 feet, respectively, located as shown on Sheet 1 (Site Plan and Vicinity Map). The borings were excavated using 3-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a limited- access drilling rig. Soil samples were retrieved at various intervals throughout the depth of the i borings. The field engineer logged the materials encountered in the borings and these conditions are shown on Drawings 2 through 4 (Boring Logs). At frequent intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were obtained using a California Barrel Sampler, driven into the subsurface materials by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a free fall of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler a specific depth (commonly 12 inches) is known as a penetration test. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the e, specific depth gives an indication of the consistency or relative density of the soils sampled. The r results of the penetration tests and locations of the sampling are shown on Drawings 2 through 4 (Boring Logs). All samples obtained were sealed in the field and returned to the laboratory for testing. ••• 3.2 Laboratory Testing: The following laboratory tests were performed on some or all of °`' the samples obtained: co 3.2.1 Moisture Content and Dry Density (ASTM D2216): Per ASTM, the scope of these test methods cover the laboratory determination of the water (moisture) content by mass m of soil, rock, and similar materials... ...Two test methods are provided in this standard. The `i methods differ in the significant digits reported and the size of the specimen (mass) required. The d method to be used may be specified by the requesting authority; otherwise Method A shall be performed. Considering Method A, the water content by mass is recorded to the nearest 1%. For w cases of dispute, Method A is the preferred method. Considering Method B, the water content by mass is recorded to the nearest 0.1%. For this study, the moisture content was recorded and documented to the nearest 1%. 3.2.2 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318): Per ASTM, these test methods cover the determination of the liquid limit, the plastic limit, and the plasticity index of soils as defined in the ASTM Section on Terminology. The Liquid Limit (LL) is the water content where a soil changes from plastic to liquid behavior. Per Casagrande's standardized test procedures, soil is placed into the metal cup portion of the device and a groove is made down its center with a standardized tool. The cup is repeatedly dropped 10mm onto a hard rubber base during which the groove closes up gradually as a result of the impact. The number of blows for the groove to close for 13 mm (' inch) is recorded. The moisture content at which it takes 25 drops of the cup to cause the groove to close is defined as the Liquid Limit. The Plastic Limit (PL) is the water content where soil starts to exhibit plastic behavior. A thread of soil is at its Plastic Limit when it is rolled to a diameter of 3 mm and crumbles. To improve consistency, a 3 mm diameter rod is often used to gauge the thickness of the thread when conducting the test. The Plasticity Index (PI) is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit (PI = LL-PL). 3.2.3 Sieve Analysis (Particle Size Analysis - ASTM 0422): Per ASTM, this test method covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of particle sizes in soils. The n, distribution of particle sizes larger than 75pm (retained on the No. 200 sieve) is determined by sieving... 3.2.4 One Dimensional Swell/Consolidation Potential (ASTM D4546): Per ASTM, the soil swell/collapse strains measured from these test methods can be used to develop estimates of heave or settlement for a confined soil profile subject to one-dimensional heave or ;,. settlement, or stress-induced settlement following wetting-induced heave/settlement. They can also be used to estimate the pressure that would be necessary to prevent swelling. Selection of ''' test method, loading, and inundation sequences should, as closely as possible, simulate field conditions because relatively small variations in unit weight and water content, or sequence of loading and wetting can significantly alter the test results. Approximated overburden pressures were used as surcharge pressures during the swell/consolidation testing procedures for samples from Borings B1, B2, and B3. 3.2.5 Soil Suction (ASTM 0 5298): Per ASTM, soil suction is a measure of the free energy of the pore-water in a soil. Soil suction in practical terms is a measure of the affinity of soil Q to retain water and can provide information on soil parameters that are influenced by the soil m water; for example, volume change, deformation, and strength characteristics of the soil. This test method covers laboratory filter papers as passive sensors to evaluate the soil matric (matrix) and c total potential (suction), a measure of the free energy of the pore-water or tension stress exerted z on the pore-water by the soil matrix... F- U W a For the samples, approximated values of the overburden pressures in some cases were used as surcharge pressures during the swell/consolidation testing procedures. The laboratory results are shown on Drawings 2 through 4 (Boring Logs) and in Appendix A. 3.3 SITE-SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.3.1 Fill: Fill material was encountered in all borings from the ground surface (relative to each boring) extending to depths of 8.5 to 11 feet. The fill was clay and claystone fragments, slightly sandy to sandy, soft to medium stiff, moist to very moist, and erratic in color. Seven samples of the fill were tested in the laboratory. Dry densities of the fill samples ranged from 96 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 107 pcf with moisture contents ranging from 20% to 25%. Samples tested for swell/consolidation potentials exhibited consolidation to swell potentials ranging from 0.2% to 1.80% when wetted under surcharge loads equal to the approximated overburden pressures. The samples tested for Atterberg Limits exhibited Liquid Limit (LL) values ranging from 42 to 51 and Plasticity Index (PI) values ranging from 21 to 28. The soil suction value of the samples ranged from 3.16 pF to 3.60 pF. The FILL classified as CL and CH soil types by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), and A-6 and A-7-6 soil types using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) classification method. 3.3.2 Claystone Bedrock: Claystone bedrock was encountered in all borings from depths of 8.5 to 11 feet and extended to the maximum depth explored in each boring. The bedrock was predominantly claystone, traces of lignite, iron-stained, trace of sand to sandy, very sandy lenses " with depth, firm to very hard, slightly moist to very moist, and rust brown, brown, to gray with .. black. Twenty one samples of the bedrock were tested in the laboratory. Dry densities of the samples ranged from 102 pcf to 127 pcf with moisture contents ranging from 11% to 22%. Samples tested for swell/consolidation potentials exhibited consolidation to a swell potential of 5.60% when wetted under surcharge loads. The soil suction values ranged from 3.68 pF to 4.42 ;.. pF. The samples tested for Atterberg Limits exhibited Liquid Limits (LL) values ranging from 34 to 72, Plasticity Index (PI) values ranging from 14 to 45. The CLAYSTONE classified as CL and CH Pi soil types by the USCS method, and A-6 and A-7-6 soil types using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) classification method. 3.3.3 3.3.4 Subsurface Water Levels: Subsurface water was encountered on the day of the drilling operations at Boring B1 at 26.5 feet. Twenty-one days following the drilling operations, I., subsurface water was encountered at 25.8 feet in Boring B1. Subsurface water was not encountered on the day of the drilling operations at Borings B2 and B3. Twenty-one days a following the drilling operations, no subsurface water was encountered in Boring B2. Fifteen days m following the drilling operations, subsurface water was encountered at 41.4 feet in Boring B3. All of the borings were backfilled following the subsurface water measurements. Water levels should be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions. 0 z i- 4. Geotechnical Evaluation and Analysis: The following sections define the engineering evaluations and analyses in the determination of the depth of wetting and the potential heave - considering the Terracon data from 2005, the CTL data from 2013, and the current data compiled by HCC. 4.1 Depth of Wetting: The depth of wetting is the depth where "wetting" (increased soil moisture) within the subsurface soils supporting the foundation system will occur from external and subsurface water sources. In the design of foundation systems and/or repairs, the determination of the depth of wetting is required to define the potential risks, and govern the final effective initial foundation design or repair design based on the subsurface conditions throughout the depth of wetting. The determination of the depth of wetting should be based on site-specific surface and subsurface conditions and the availability of water from various surface and sub- subsurface sources including precipitation, surface run-off, capillary action post-construction, etc., and the consideration of the potential for broken irrigation, water, and/or sewer lines. The best method to approximate the depth of wetting is the combination of comparing the moisture contents with depth, to the liquidity indices with depth, and to the suction values with depth. The comparison of the moisture content with depth to historical soil moisture content and/or the consistency of soil moisture with depth were used in the first technique. The second technique used to approximate the depth of wetting integrates the Atterberg Limit results, the in-situ moisture contents, and engineering judgment. The Liquidity Index (IL) value is used to evaluate the existing condition of a soil in relationship to its in-situ moisture content and its corresponding Liquid Limit (LL) and Plastic Limit (PL) values. The Liquidity Index is calculated as a ratio of the difference between in-situ water content, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index for each soil sample as follows: 1, IL=(w-PL)/(LL-PL) where, w=measured soil moisture content(%) PL =measured Plastic Limit(%) LL=measured Liquid Limit(%) A Liquidity Index (IL) value of 1 indicates the soil's moisture content is at its Liquid Limit (LL)value. A Liquidity Index (IL) value of zero indicates the soil's moisture content is at its Plastic Limit (PL). A Liquidity Index (IL) value of less than zero indicates the soil is dry, desiccated, and potentially '''. very expansive. A third approximation technique used to approximate the depth of wetting involves the change in soil suction throughout depth, specifically the changes in magnitude. Soil suction per Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, Chapter 4, was defined as the free energy of soil water, total suction comprised of matric and osmotic suction. In simpler terms, :a'. suction is essentially the attraction forces acting at the boundaries between the soil particles and water, resulting in either water being absorbed, released, or merely contained. Soil suction can a also be used in the approximation of the depth of wetting. Per Foundations on Expansive Soils m (Chen, 1988), the depth of wetting can be approximated using "rules of thumb" as follows: "For soil suction versus depth profiles that exhibit S-shaped curves with depth, the depth of the 0 active zone was set below the first major change in magnitude of the soil suction." z w As shown in Appendix B, comparisons were made between the three techniques defined herein. o Using all data available, both the site-specific "moisture content with depth" graphs and the a "liquidity indices versus depth" graphs were compared to the "suction versus depth" graphs for an accurate approximation of the depth of wetting. The comparisons indicate the depth of wetting is approximately 35 feet. 4.2 Heave Predictions (Consolidation-Swell Test Method): The predicted heave was based on elevated moisture variations occurring from the surface throughout the approximated "depth of wetting" of 35 feet and the soil characteristics throughout this depth. The heave calculations indicate a potential heave of 6.1 to approximately 9 inches at the location of the HCC borings in addition to any heave that has already occurred. Considering the original data from Terracon's TB-18 and TB-19, the heave prediction at the time of original construction was determined to be over 14 inches at the basement elevations. Please refer to Appendix C for all heave prediction calculations. The method estimates heave at the subject property ranging from 6 inches to over 14 inches when considering all data including the limited data from the Terracon report at the time of original construction. The heave prediction methods, and the reliability and accuracy of such predictions depend on many factors such as the soil-moisture interaction processes, the availability of moisture from surface runoff, and other sources such as leaking water and/or sewer lines. Based on this information, similar type projects constructed on similar soil types, and the probability that not all of the soil below the structures has become wetted, it is HCC's opinion that additional predicted free-surface heave and the predicted foundation heave would most likely range from 6 to 12 inches. The maximum total potential heave should never be ignored during the general ,' design and foundation design process. Per the US Army Corp of Engineers, "...A desirable reliability is that the predicted potential total vertical heave should not be less than 80 percent of the maximum in-situ heave that will eventually occur but should not exceed the maximum in-situ heave by more than 20 to 50 percent." in m m 0 m 0 z F U W O 5. Repair Recommendations: Due to the existing soil conditions and the potential swelling and/or consolidation values, structural repair recommendations include the stabilization of the existing foundation systems by the placement of new helical piers, micro-piles, or a piering system approved equivalent. The following outlines general repair recommendations for consideration by the structural engineer. 5.1 The structural engineer shall determine the quantity and placement locations of the new piers based upon the extent of damage, the existing structural capacity of the foundation systems and the anticipated design loads. 5.2 The structural engineer shall determine the lateral capacity of the existing foundation walls considering an "active" equivalent fluid pressure of 65 pcf. Where the wall capacity is inadequate to support an "active" equivalent fluid pressure of 65 pcf, the walls should be structurally reinforced per design and recommendations by the structural engineer. 5.3 Micropiles: New micropiles shall be placed to a minimum depth of 48 feet below the bottom elevation of the basement walls. The micropiles shall be placed at a minimum depth of 53 feet below the garage, crawispace, and any other upper level footings. The piles shall have a minimum of thirteen (13) feet of bedrock penetration and grout/ground interface below the estimated depth of wetting of 35 feet as measured from the existing surface elevations (or 22 feet from the basement level sections of the foundation system or 27 feet from the garage level or , upper level sections of the foundation system). The piles shall not be terminated in lignite or weathered bedrock. An approved friction reducing element shall be installed in the upper portion .. of the micropiles — 26 feet within the basement level micropiles and 31 feet within the garage (or upper) level micropiles. The micropile systems shall be installed in accordance with Case I, Type A requirements as specified in the United States Department of Transportation publication number FHWA-SA-97- 070. The micropiles shall be 4-inches in diameter. The contractor shall excavate the micropiles using dry rotary or air flush methods. All micropiles shall be reinforced per the structural engineer. .. Plastic reinforcing centralizers shall be provided to temporarily center the reinforcing bars within the micropile excavation. Subsequent to the placement of the required reinforcing within the micropile excavation, the grout shall be introduced into the drill hole through a tremie pipe discharging at the bottom of the hole. vi The grout shall be pumped into the bottom of the hole until grout of similar quality being pumped is observed at the top of the excavation. The grout mix design shall have a minimum compressive a strength of 5000 psi. In addition, the grout mix design shall be sulfate resistant for"severe" sulfate m conditions, ACI Class 2. The contractor shall submit documentation of the sulfate resistance of ri the cement used in the proposed mix design to HCC prior to bidding. The micropiles shall be connected to the foundation walls per the recommendations by the Si structural engineer. A minimum 12-inch void space below the foundation system shall be provided 16 below the foundation grade beams, structural floors, plumbing, and foundation walls. All soil shall be removed and properly discarded away from the site. The use of a void form material may be P a required to prevent the filling of the new void space below the foundation system. Where required, the void form should be resistant to growth, i.e., mold, fungi, etc. 5.4 The existing flatwork will require partial to complete removal per the structural engineer. 5.5 The existence and proper functionality of the existing basement drain shall be determined by the contractor and approved by the engineer. If determined to be insufficient, a new perimeter drain at the basement elevation will be required. Refer to Drawing C-1 in Appendix C for drain system recommendations. 5.6 It is recommended that new damp-proofing material be applied at all exterior foundation walls exposed. Prior to the placement of the damp-proofing material, the surfaces of the walls and grade beams shall be properly cleaned and free of soil, water, and excessive existing damp- proofing material, typically accomplished by sandblasting procedures. 5.7 Any new concrete shall be designed for "severe" sulfate conditions, ACI Class 2, per the American Concrete Institute Design Manual (ACI 318-02. or Latest Edition), with minimum 28-day strength of 4,500 psi, and water-cement ratio of 0.45. 5.8 As a minimum, grading should encompass a minimum 6 feet horizontal distance around the perimeter of the foundation systems. The following recommendations apply for all backfill and grading procedures: • The backfill around the exterior of the foundation system in non-structural areas should be :, moistened and compacted to at least 90% and in structural areas should be moistened and compacted to at least 95% of Standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. • All grading should slope away from the foundation so that surface water is directed away from the foundation and beyond the backfill areas. A minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 5 feet is recommended. A minimum slope of 2% is recommended, thereafter, flowing to common swales, curb gutters, detention and/or storm water facilities per the civil design. Area drains should be installed in depressed areas where proper slope cannot be achieved. These drains must discharge to the front and/or back of the home. If the minimum slope requirements cannot be achieved due to the existing top-of-wall foundation elevations, modifications to the perimeter of the home may be required. The contractor shall provide an as-built survey, I.: prepared by a registered land surveyor, showing that proper grades at the foundation have been established. — a m • Watering of any kind next to the foundation or within the backfill areas is not recommended crl and should be eliminated from any landscaping scheme. Swales and/or detention areas m should be constructed to divert or detain the water away from the structure and beyond the `l areas of backfill. The drainage swales should be placed and maintained a minimum of 5 feet d away from the structures and beyond the limits of the backfill area. �. ■ It is recommended that all lawn edging be perforated to eliminate and/or minimize ponding of surface run-off next to the foundation or within the backfill areas. • Water collection systems such as roof gutters, swales, etc., should discharge beyond the structure and beyond the backfill areas and should be maintained for the life of the structure and/or system. • Water sprinkler heads, including any drip-type systems, should be placed a minimum 5 feet away from the foundation. The sprinkler heads should be placed so that their spray patterns, under full pressure, do not fall within 5 feet of the structures or within the backfill areas. • Where desired, the exterior backfill may be covered with geo-fabric material. The exterior backfill should not be covered with a poly-barrier. 6. Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by Boulder Creek Builders, Inc. and their clients and other engineering consultants to provide the most probable cause of the items and conditions described herein. Final conclusions were based on the data gathered and laboratory testing results. HCC has endeavored to perform geotechnical services for this project in a manner consistent with those exercised by our profession. The test boring was placed to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of subsurface conditions for analysis purposes. Variations of the subsurface conditions not ,,, described or depicted herein may exist. Therefore, this report does not represent and should not be interpreted as a guarantee or warranty of any kind. The conclusions presented in this report shall not be considered valid for use by others, unless written authorization has been made by this office. By acceptance of this report, it is understood that all data , including all associated risks, have been properly defined to the client. In the event of any changes in the nature, design, or locations of the repair elements or specifications, the recommendations contained in our scope of work shall not be considered valid unless this office reviews the changes, ,v and the recommendations of this report are modified or verified in writing. If the professional services of HAYES CONSULTING COMPANY do not extend to the site ;, observations of the contractor's work or performance, then by the acceptance of this report and , recommendations, it is agreed that the client will hold harmless the HAYES CONSULTING COMPANY. This includes any claim or suit whatsoever, including, but not limited to, all payments, expenses or costs involved, arising from or alleged to have arisen from the contractor's performance or the failure of the contractor's work to conform to the design intent and the contract documents. HAYES CONSULTING COMPANY agrees to be responsible for its own or its employee(s) negligent m acts, errors or omissions. �+ m 0 z Lii O a a •61 1935 )RIV WAY NORTH BRIARWOOD PLACE 1941 � BRIARWOOD '�R'VF WAY 1_ PLACE • cc!.'7\N � lJ / -z-g% % NOTE: THE DRAWING IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY 1983 KEY BRIARWOOD >\ BX INDICATES BORING LOCATION 3• PLACE • AND BORING NUMBER SITE PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1935/1941 BRIARWOOD PLACE V-�' 1 1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE • I i • VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE DRAWWQ TO LE: PROJECT NO.: 130130.A SITE PLAN AND VICINITY MAP DATE: 12/06/2013 HA`r'E „ GRAEBER ecT: DESIGN BY: --- p„; RESIDENCE DRAWN BY: ELR 1 RRFi BORING B9 a — LEGEND: -- 5/12(140 LB) FILL CLAY AND CLAYSTONE FRAGMENTS,SLIGHTLY SANDY DD=102 PCF 4 TO SANDY,SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF,MOIST TO VERY MOIST, MC=20% HARD,SLIGHTLY MOIST TO VERY MOIST,RUST BROWN, -#200=84% ERRACTIC IN COLOR(CL,CH) LL=45 PI=23 14/12(140 LB) FL=22 " ' CLAYSTONE(BEDROCK): CLAYSTONE,TRACES OF LIGNITE, DO=98 PCF SW=1.41%(120 PSF) ` v6v IRON STAINED,TRACE OF SAND TO SANDY,VERY SANDY 5 MC=25% SS=3.20 pF v' v LENSES WITH DEPTH,FIRM TO VERY HARD,SLIGHTLY MOIST -#200=90% - TO VERY MOIST,RUST BROWN,BROWN,GRAY WITH BLACK LL=50 (CL,CH) P1=28 PL=22 SW=0.16%(480 PSF) IJX/D INDICATES THAT"X"BLOWS OF A 140 POUND HAMMER SS=3.49 pF FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2-INCH °c°vvv 28/12(140 LB) DIAMETER(INSIDE)SAMPLER A DEPTH OF"0"INCHES v c o DD=105 PCF 10 — V V MC=24% DO DRY DENSITY IN POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT v v r t,v v -#200=99% v LL=82 MC MOISTURE CONTENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF DRY WEIGHT v""' P1=37 - rr '' PL=25 -#200 PERCENT PASSING THE#200 SIEVE V V c SW=4.68%(1,080 PSF) V r v SS=3.88 pF LL LIQUID LIMIT r ac. V 7 50/8(140 LB) PI PLASTICITY INDEX DD=116PCF 15 — rvc v . MC=16% PL PLASTIC LIMIT _ r v v -#200=97% v V LL= SW SWELL POTENTIAL UNDER A SURCHARGE LOAD yr PI=- vvv (SURCHARGE IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT) vvv PL=24 _ v V V SW=1.95%(1,680 PSF) v r v SS=3.90 pF CONS CONSOLIDATED UNDER A SURCHARGE LOAD r v c (SURCHARGE IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT) - 7-150/8(140 LB) V V c-I DO=119 PCF SS SOIL SUCTION(LOG„IN CENTIMETERS OF WATER) 20 — v o v MC=17% x`" 4200=96% NM NO MOVEMENT v ' LL=54 r O v v v r' PI=32 DEPTH TO SUBSURFACE WATER ON THE DAY OF THE V V c PL=22 -DRILLING OPERATIONS _ V V V SW=3.37%(2,280 PSF) •77 v a SS=3.92 pF v DEPTH TO SUBSURFACE WATER ON'X'DAYS FOLLOWING v v 5015(140 LB) -THE DRILLING OPERATIONS r v D0=124 PCF 25 — [coy,v v MC=13% 'Y 77 -#200=99% NOTES: vvc LL=47 r V c P1=28 1.THE BORINGS 81 AND 82 WERE DRILLED ON OCTOBER 11,2013 - vvc PL=2l V yr vv SW=2.15%(2,880 PSF} AND BORING 83 WAS DRILLED ON OCTOBER 17,2013.ALL BORINGS o a V SS=3.87 pF WERE DRILLED WITH 3-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS v r c POWERED BY A LIMITED-ACCESS DRILLING MACHINE. v ocr D50/4(140 LB) 2. SUBSURFACE WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT BORING 61 AT 28.5'ON DD=123 PCF THE DAY OF THE DRILLING OPERATIONS. REFER TO THE BORING LOGS 30 — as V MC=12% FOR SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE WATER INFORMATION. vv v -#200=100% V V V LL=50 3.THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE 7,7'7,, pi=29 BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND THE TRANSITION BETWEEN - O v v c PL=21 THE DIFFERENT SOIL TYPES MAY BE GRADUAL • c SW=2.11%(3,480 PSF) 4.THE DRILL LOG IS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS,EXPLANATIONS, r V V Vj SS=4.02 pF AND CONCLUSIONS OF THIS REPORT. - V V v'limo 140 LB v DD-125 PCF 35 rvcvl MC=14% • �c 4200=92% - r vvv; LL=34 Qaac PI=14 vve" PL=20 'vv'.' SW=NM a"c v.7 SS=3.72 pF c c r a]50/5(140 LB) coca DD=127PCF 40 — I vvv MC=14% V V ' r' v'J -#200=97% ✓ v. LL=43 rvvv PI=23 - a n ar PL=20 VVVV SW=0.81%(4,680 PSF) _ v v 'c•vv SS=3.90pF cV - V V V 715015(140 LB) IVVV DD=121 PCF 45 — v c v c MC=15% vvv•. v -#200=89% - 6x'' LL=39 -50/6(140 LB) a v v PI=20 DD.114 PCF - are, car PL=19 MC=18% _ V v v T. SW=0.12%(5,280 PSF) -#200=100% U''"v SS=3.88pF LL=67 Vvr P1=42 v v • rs PL=25 50 - SW=2.03%(5,880 PSF) SS=3.81pF OFIAINING TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13,3133.A HAYES BORING LOGS DATE: 12/13/2013 PROJECT: DESIGN BY: 1935 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIFIC4F SI 1RI7IVISIC)N BORING B2 LEGEND: o — FILL: CLAY AND CLAYSTONE FRAGMENTS,SLIGHTLY SANDY 5/12(140 LB) TO SANDY,SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF,MOIST TO VERY MOIST, DD=102 PCF HARD,SLIGHTLY MOIST TO VERY MOIST,RUST BROWN, - MC=24% ERRACTIC IN COLOR(CL,CH) -#200=92% LL=61 61 �'v-v• CLAYSTONE(BEDROCK): CLAYSTONE,TRACES OF LIGNITE, _ PI=28 vvv IRON STAINED,TRACE OF SAND TO SANDY,VERY SANDY �DO (140 PCFLB) PL= 1.3 a 'r 7 LENSES WITH DEPTH,FIRM TO VERY HARD,SLIGHTLY MOIST OD=98 SW=1.01%(120 PSF) 5 - MC=23% SS=3.41 pF TO VERY MOIST,RUST BROWN,BROWN,GRAY WITH BLACK 4200=90% (CL,CH) LL=43 P1=22 PL=21 -1X/D INDICATES THAT"X"BLOWS OF A 140 POUND HAMMER - CONS(480 PSF) 1 FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2-INCH SS=3.80pF DIAMETER(INSIDE)SAMPLER A DEPTH OF"D"INCHES - vvv 45112(140 LB) e V v-145/12 DD=118 PCF DD DRY DENSITY IN POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT I 10 — vvv MC=18% v v a v -#200=90% MC MOISTURE CONTENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF DRY WEIGHT _ v v v LL=48 v v v PI=Y5 4200 PERCENT PASSING THE#200 SIEVE . vvv PL=23 °°' LL LIQUID LIMIT _ avt. SW=5.11%(1,080 PSF) v v v SS=3.74pF v v V PI PLASTICITY INDEX - vvv 50/8(140 LB) V v v DD=126 PCF PL PLASTIC LIMIT 15 — vvv c eva MC=14% v v v -#200=97% SW SWELL POTENTIAL UNDER A SURCHARGE LOAD f V V V LL=52 (SURCHARGE IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT) _ V'9 V PI=24 v e e PL=28 CONS CONSOLIDATED UNDER A SURCHARGE LOAD vv SW=3.97%(1,680 PSF) - v (SURCHARGE IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT) vvv SS=3.89pF V V V Id I, V .508(140 LB) SS SOIL SUCTION(LOG10 IN CENTIMETERS OF WATER) e v v OD=126 PCF NM NO MOVEMENT 20 — ,vvv MC=11% v v v .#200=86% — c V V vvv LL=38 DEPTH TO SUBSURFACE WATER ON THE DAY OF THE v V V PI=19 DRILLING OPERATIONS _ v v v PL=19 V V V SW=1.48%(2,280 PSF) - vvv SS 3.94 F DEPTH TO SUBSURFACE WATER ON'X"DAYS FOLLOWING c V V = P -THE DRILLING OPERATIONS - .7vo v 50f2(140 LB) vvv 25 — .'vvv NOTES: vv!• env v V V 1.THE BORINGS B1 AND B2 WERE DRILLED ON OCTOBER 11,2013 v v V AND BORING B3 WAS DRILLED ON OCTOBER 17,2013. ALL BORINGS - vvv WERE DRILLED WITH 3-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS .V V Va POWERED BYA LIMITED-ACCESS DRILLING MACHINE. - V V V V' V V V i 2.SUBSURFACE WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT BORING B1 AT 26.5'ON - '1 V V V'i"150!5(140 LB) THE DAY OF THE DRILLING OPERATIONS. REFER TO THE BORING LOGS e V° DD=119 PCF FOR SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE WATER INFORMATION. 30 — n V V V' MC.15% v v v 5 c v a 3.THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE o- vvv 1 #200=96% LL=49 BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND THE TRANSITION BETWEEN pl= THE DIFFERENT SOIL TYPES MAY BE GRADUAL. - vvv( 1=AA v v; PL=23 4.THE DRILL LOG IS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS,EXPLANATIONS, V v V I SW=2.28%(3,480 PSF) AND CONCLUSIONS OF THIS REPORT. - vvvp, SS=4.08pF veal — e v v a'--50!5(140 LB vvc v v a * 1DD 118 PCF 35 — vUVV( MC=17% '1 v-'V. -#200=99% — V V O I LL=72 _ evaj PI=45 avovl PL=27 v v V I SW=5.37%(4,080 PSF) — ovvv v t.,.j SS=4.42 pF y v v v - I v v V 050/5(14018) v v v v, DO=120 PCF 40 - 'vvv1 MC=15% "t''/1 4200=100% - k,e v v' LL=50 L V V V I P1=26 vvv, PL=24 voal vvv SW=3.57%(4,680 PSF) 1 SS=4.13pF - v v V 1_15015(140 LB) v ,',' DD=111PCF 45 — °'v°v', MC=16% v^V -#200=99% v v vi LL=63 vvv.1 P1=36 - pool PL=27 — •e V 9, SW=3.93%(5,280 PSF) ,7 1 SS=4.17 pF - v''v 10911.5(140 LB) 50 - •DRAWING,TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A O HAY E S BORING LOGS DATE: 12/1 3izoy s ' PROJECT: DESIGN BY: - s HA YES r,„ a „",„, 1941 BRIARWOOD PLACE AIL DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION r BORING B3 LEGEND: 0 — 4.s e FILL: CLAY AND CLAYSTONE FRAGMENTS,SLIGHTLY SANDY J 4/12(140 LB) ' TO SANDY,SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF,MOIST TO VERY MOIST, DO=103 PCF #tiAA. HARD,SLIGHTLY MOIST TO VERY MOIST,RUST BROWN, MC=22% ERRACTIC IN COLOR(CL,CH) 4200=84% LL=48 CLAYSTONE(BEDROCK): CLAYSTONE,TRACES OF LIGNITE, PI 27 21 a va v v IRON STAINED,TRACE OF SAND TO SANDY,VERY SANDY 4112(140 LB) PL= o DD=103 PCF SW=1.80%(120 PSF) v v a LENSES WITH DEPTH,FIRM TO VERY HARD,SLIGHTLY MOIST 5 - MC=23% SS=3.16 pF _ _ TO VERY MOIST,RUST BROWN,BROWN,GRAY WITH BLACK -8200=88% (CL,CH) 11=42 PI=21 PL=21 INDICATES THAT"X"BLOWS OF A 140 POUND HAMMER SW=0.20%(480 PSF) FALLING 30 INCH ES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2-INCH SS=3.49 pF DIAMETER(INSIDE)SAMPLER A DEPTH OF"D"INCHES 7/12(107 LB) =107 PCF DD DRY DENSITY IN POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT DO 10 - M2=23% MC MOISTURE CONTENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF DRY WEIGHT #200==82% v v a LL=47 v v v v P1=25 -#200 PERCENT PASSING THE#200 SIEVE — a v v PL=22 v v v CONS(1,080 PSF) LL LIQUID LIMIT — eve SS=3.53pF v v v PI PLASTICITY INDEX — vvv 47/12(140 LB) 0 0 0 ,DD=113 PCF PL PLASTIC LIMIT 15 — vvv _ cvq MC=19% v a v -#200=95% SW SWELL POTENTIAL UNDER A SURCHARGE LOAD - v v v LL=59 (SURCHARGE IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT) vvv P1=33 _ aSi vv PL=26 CONS CONSOLIDATED UNDER A SURCHARGE LOAD a v v SW=4.69%(1,680 PSF) (SURCHARGE IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT) - vvv SS=3.87pF vvv - v°° 50/10(140 LB) SS SOIL SUCTION(LOG"IN CENTIMETERS OF WATER) vv a v v - D0=114 PCF NM NO MOVEMENT 20 " a v v MC=16% a V° -#200=99% - v v v LL=43 DEPTH TO SUBSURFACE WATER ON THE DAY OF THE v vv PI=23 DRILLING OPERATIONS vqv PL=20 - uvv v` SW=2.53%(2,280 PSF) DEPTH TO SUBSURFACE WATER ON"X"DAYS FOLLOWING a a v SS=3.68 pF THE DRILLING OPERATIONS - v qv j50/8(140 LB) vvv DD=117PCF 25 — aav MC=15% NOTES: vvv c, -#200=99% v v v LL=56 1.THE BORINGS B1 AND B2 WERE DRILLED ON OCTOBER 11,2013 v a v pi a 32 AND BORING B3 WAS DRILLED ON OCTOBER 17,2013.ALL BORINGS - °°°ava PL=24 WERE DRILLED WITH 3-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS - V o q SW=3.00%(2,880 PSF) POWERED BY A LIMITED-ACCESS DRILLING MACHINE. 00V SS=3.82 pF V vv 2.SUBSURFACE WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT BORING 81 AT 26.5'ON - v v c ']50/5(140 LB) THE DAY OF THE DRILLING OPERATIONS. REFER TO THE BORING LOGS °V" DD=121 PCF FOR SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE WATER INFORMATION. 30 - V°v MC=13% v Si v vvc -#200=97% 3.THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE - v VC. LL=54 BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND THE TRANSITION BETWEEN °°v PI=31 THE DIFFERENT SOIL TYPES MAY BE GRADUAL. - vvv PL=23 4.THE DRILL LOG IS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS,EXPLANATIONS, a v v SW=1.89%(3,480 PSF) — AND CONCLUSIONS OF THIS REPORT. 'a`'v SS=3.74pF vvv - vvo° ASOiS(140 LB) vvv DD=119 PCF 35 — avc MC=15% v v v -#200=99% - v v v LL=61 vvvv PI=35 - v v v PL=28 v v v SW=5.60%(4,080 PSF) - °vv vvv =SS4.15 pF vvv V V v 1100/4(140 LB) vvv 40 — vvv acv — avv vvv vvv` 45 — 50 — 'DRAWING TmE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A 'O�� HAYES BORING LOGS DAB Y: 12/13/2O13 ( PROJECT: DESIGN BY: N s„L, P, „ , 1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR \/IRTA RIIIC>..F RI IR7-71\/ICIC ni ._ . •••-•• 4°I m m 7 Appendix A Laboratory Testing Results J 8% • -_ - -- -- - __.. _ , _._ /_. - _ -T - { i I 7% • I i I I I I J I . I I i 5% - - i ; I i f _ _ 4%- - - - - I I 1 I I I I I - i I I ' ' - , I 3% . . I ' I I I I I I ! ' I__ i I I if.""---' I • 1% ----' i i - I t - I O I I I E g o .'' I - I I I O SWELLED UNDER I I I QWHEN WETTED I U CONSTANT PRESSURE i I '_ I -_I WATER ADDED TO SAMPLE CO I W E 1 W I a 3% I i - i i 1 I I i I I I I • f 1 i i E i -6% I ' I ] I I -I-I.-I-I- ; - 1 .1 , j —i ! E -8% -- --1-- -' I I I I C i i L. 1il 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 DRY MOISTURE _BORING NO. DEPTH(FT.) --- SAMPLE SOIL TYPE_ _ - _ DENSITY(PCF) I CONTENT(%) I B1 1 I FILL 112 2D DRAWN.TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A °(;) HADES,H° c o M P.a SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 E'ROJECT: DESIdN BY: --- r o w c . . 935/1947/19$3 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION CHECKED BY: WMH L 8% -. _ I . 7% I - -L ! I- - I-1- j I I I I I I j ! 1 3% 11_ I I 2% t I I I -- � 1_ f .I i I 1 -I I I I k I j 1% , ! I I SWELLED UNDER 1_ O I - I= CONSTANT PRESSURE O 0TD WHEN WETTEDaoJI i I -_- 1.i • i ~ _I_W -2% I , , - U , W a -3% I -: 1 ! 1 1 1 � I --} - _ `- I-.T-.4[ I i • i I . -5% 1 - ! -._�.. .. t i • i • e% f -I 'II — i 1_1_ __ I— L I I I 100 1'000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 DRY ' MOISTURE BORING DENSITY(PCF)_ I_CONTENT(%) 61_ - 4 FILL 102 j____ _25 I I-MtAWING TOLE: PROJECT NO.: 130133.A `- hiSWELL/CONSOLIDATION SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 o° s„,,,.,r: I o .. ,. N . 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DESIGN BY: --- VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION . DRAWN BY: ELR I 8% I , . Ii I f f I III 7% t I I I ; s% I I I • • I II It I • I [ ' f I 1 ; I 1, : ! I ! If I I , 4% f 1 ' I I I } I I - ' SWELLED UNDER I CONSTANT PRESSURE I , i 3% ' WHEN WETTED I I 1 I - III __ i .... • , ' _ - I j I 1 2% 1 f i I • . I rE r _ . Z l Q E I O Cl) I . Z ` . -1°6 r I I I I ! I I I WATER ADDED TO SAMPLE I I- II Z -2% I 1 I I I I I ILI I I IM , 0 I f f -3%- : I I I I f } 1- - i i i I I -4% 1.. - - I I I 1 ._.-... I I -5%-- - I I I I I -- I i Ili__ 1 -8% - I -I I , I 1 I I I i I I { i , p 1 8% _ I I i L f _I._L_ 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10.000 100,000 - - - DRY MOISTURE BORING NO. DEPTH(FT.) I SAMPLE SOIL TYPE -_- DENSITY(PCB CONTENT(%) Bt 9 I CLAYSTONE 107 24 [n nNG,.Ilt: ' PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A HAYES SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 r 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DESIGN BY: --- VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION _ DRAWN B.. ELR 8% .- I iI ' I I I I ; • ! I . 6% . I 1 ! I I lh . . 1 I 5% ! I I a% I l I I r 1 : I , I , I , , —_. 3% L ! H I i i 2% . I 1% :- I I I , Z O • Q I I I I . j I Z -2%- - I-I - ! ! 1 ! - ! - -� W I ! SWELLED UNDER / CONSTANT PRESSURE U1 ! T x WHEN WETTED i ! i :( _i 3% - - - 1 -i I T WATER ADDED TO SAMPLE • j . I , • I I -6% - - . ` L I k1 - - - HI--i--I-- • I . I i • i ' 1__1.1 ____.. .1 _I� ! I III I -8% 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 DRY MOISTURE BORING NO. _ DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE _,DENSITY(PCF) [ CONTENT(%) I I B1 14 . CLAYSTONE j 119 - .I ... ._ _16 I DRAWINC1 TITLE. PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A OC AV' SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 PROJECT: DESIGN BY: o 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA R117C-IF St 1Rr)IVISIC7N ......._......__- _.-- ...... . 8% - -.---- -- i 1- • ----- - II - - _- ! -I i ! I I 7% I I I I I ,— -I 1 - • I 1 I 1 I • i i s% I ! i i I . 5% I i I I I I I II a% — —I I I 1 1—I — - — : -- -1 ! . 1 I I i • I I E 3% I 1 I I , I i O • . Q ! 0 i / I 1- O : I l \\I 1 U E I ! , VI DII I ( SWELLED UNDER i CONSTANT PRESSURE - ff WHEN WETTED Z -2% I �L�� _ .. IA WATER ADDED I w TO SAMPLE • a • • I I I I I! 1 ,• -. +. I ! I �% I I I • i 8%-I j 1 - 1 1 I I I ,J 100 1•000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 I I DRY MOISTURE BORING NO. DEPTH(FT). _SAMPLE SOIL TYPE I DENSITY(PCF) CONTENT(%) I ; B1 I 19 CLAYSTONE 118 17 DRAWING TITLE. PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A o1V I �� SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 PRQJECT: DESIGN BY:c o„ .„,,, �„M P. „ 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RI17(:IF SL JRI7IVISION -. .—.,_._ _... ...... . L 8% I _ I 1 I I 1 i I I I. E I • f • I 6% I . - I • • 5% I i I I I It ! I , I T ; : i , i III 4%- --1 I I I I • I c • I • • • P.: k Q o t_e I Z I •II J• - E SWELLED UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE 0 I WHEN WETTED ' W -2% I 1_1----------:I I WI I O WATER ADDED ' UJ I TO SAMPLE ' -3%- I I % I • I . -4% 596 II I ; .-- I , I _ - - I • l 1 I__ __-- ... I I4I ' I • II -8% - . L--L L' .1 JJ_____.___1_ .1---- i-1-1--_ I 100 1.000 LOAD(PSF) 10.000 100.000 DRY MOISTURE '' BORING NO. DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DENSITY(PCF) CONTENT(%) B1 24 CLAYSTONE 128 I 13 • DIiAW NIc3 TrrLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 1 H A`,(E S VIOJECT: DESIGN BY: --- 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIr)C:IF Sl IRr IVISIC)N -•. .-__ . . .... .. - 8% II 11 I • 1_— •7% I I 1 I Ii . 6% I ' IIII I , 1 i , 4% -I-4. I— -T -- ,— --4-----I---I • • ! z Q I � I o I O • 0 iii {co I � I ! o i I Gk c -1% - - ----I-- -- - . 1 i /1 SWELLED UNDER I / CONSTANT PRESSURE WHEN WETTED - I I 1 -- - 4 I--- I WATER ADDED I cc W I I TO SAMPLE I t! I I l s : I _ I , 11-- -- I i .- -1----- I I I I I I I I I I I T i • 1- >____-' _1' I _-- _L !-l i • i_�. .. _i_ , -6%—I 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 DRY MOISTURE BORING NO. DEPTH(FT.)_ SAMPLE SOIL TYPE I DENSITY(PCF) CONTENT(%)_ B1 I 28 CLAYSTONE 125 12 DRAWING TITLE. PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 '7 , HAYE S PROJECT: DESIGN BY: --- 1935/194'1/1983 BR'ARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIr)CGF SIJRClIVISIC)N o�- ••�•� 6% — I 7% , , _1 I I • II I • I I . 5% j I I I :_ I I 4% • 7 Y I — 1 i f I I II I 3% t I • I 1% I } , -; Z i IT [ I I O I E H 1 I • o I : i : f I i O 0 . .: i ; 1 i I_ __s I , I O ! U IEI / \ , v) w z% • O NO MOVEMENT UNDER PTO SAMPLE D TER ADDE CONSTANT PRESSURE a I WIIEN WETTED -3% . - - - - I T I I I � -4% , i } - • , I ! i { I • • • -_-! --I- I I_- ! 1 1 J I 100 1'000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 BORING NO. DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DRY MOISTURE . DENSITY(PCF) CONTENT(%) BI 34 CLAYSTONE _ - 121 [ 14 DRAW.MA TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 } HAVES PROJECT DESIGN BY: --- ., , , ,4 0 N , 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION DRAWN_. ELR ! I I I II I 1 I I I i '. I i 5% E I I I i I I I I 4% I I WI ! - - 1-1± C - __ 3% • I j- j I 1 I I ; ! I I I 2% I r 1 i 1 ' • I ! I i I II I O t% - , Q I I I 1 O i CO Z O I U I •` n -1% ! —I + -296 _l_j_i_ii_ 1I ---r . ,; i I I I O I SWELLED UNDER i NT0 SAMPLE CONSTANT PRESSURE I II. I. I WHEN WETTED I a -3% - - �- • a% I I_ I -5% -7% r - -8% I 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10.000 100,000 DRY ' MOISTURE BORINGNO -_- DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DENSITY(PCF) : CONTENT(%) ! B1 39 CLAYSTONE i 123 14 • DMWINC3 TITLE. PROJECT NO.: 13O133.A 7 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 171 AY E S 1 935 r DESIGN BY: --- 193E01 941/1 983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDCIF St JRDIVISI NI l 8% I I i I I . I • I I } ; H i E I 5% I i i • •4% I z I I I • I ' i i 1 2% I. ! •-! E ! 1 ' i 1% e { O H ' Q O Z I i O i _1% I /_ I_ : I SWELLED UNDER I WATER SAMPLED CONSTANT PRESSURE I I CO I WHEN WETTED I ! • Z -2% ! I--- I I I --I a I I I i . I I 5% I__- . • I I I f •I I + I I 6°h - --� ' I - � I PE I . I II { . I I i I I i i 4 8% -- I I - __ _ ! I I I ! 1— 7 I 1_ I_I_ -I I -1--1 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 L_ I. _. -.--.- DRY MOISTUREa BOBBING NO. (--- DEP��(FT.) I - SAMPLE TYPE I DENSITY(PCF) .I CONTENT(/o) • •DRAWING TITLE: . PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A () — SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE; 12/13/2O13 ) HAYFS ----cr: DESIGN BY: --- 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION �.-+-�- ••• 8% , ° ' — 1 I I j 7h r , I E I E 1 6% i 1 s ' I i ' I I i Soh L� — i 4% -- 1 I I , I 3% —4 j �_ I i I. L. .. ._ 2% 1 F • I E I ' — .. Z 1% 1 O E Q 1 I I O TITDEDt • • • W TO SAMPLE I j E I I 1 LH . — I — I '-} -i I F 11: E : : I ii i i i f I I I 1 a% -r-- — , — — C-- — I -1 I ' i I I J_I_ 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100.000 DRY `. MOISTURE BORING NO. DEPTFE.(FT.) I _ SAMPLE SOIL TYPE - I DENSITY(PCF)_I .CONTENT(%) B1 49 I _ J _ CLAYSTONE __.-- _ 114 1. 18 •ur1AWv'$Q mw_t: ' PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 ' H A'IE C PROJECT:935/ DESIGN BY: E ,,,C „r','1,„ o ,.✓„ 1935/'1947/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION P HFr k-P 1 RV- WMH 8% 1 $ I { • I I E , i 6% ! 1 I i I E i 5% I€ I II I ! { ! 4% -I I E 4 G I I , ! E I I : ( , , i . O . O \ SWELLED UNDER z \ : CONSTANT PRESSURE O I WHEN WETTED 11 I E f O I n -1% ;- --�I T� I f l 1 ' F ., E I T i i WATER ADDED TO SAMPLE ~ Z -2%- 1 L . I1- I ! - 1 . I - I I l wI ! o re w I I a. 3% - L - --- ---k--+-i.+ 1 --. j---- - - - -I ,- 1 1 -4% - - -1- 1-1-1-.1- -j--- - - - t ---- -- I• -6%--- -?- - -i I I ' -- -I- ;._I L-'.._ • I I 1 i -7% i ! I . ._ I • I f I I s% _ [ 1_ I • 1 -_L l- I I t00 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 DRY I MOISTURE BORING NO. -DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DENSITY(PCF) CONTENT(%)- I ... B2 !- FILL - -- - 101 24 ue1AW NGnt1-e: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 H.AYES PROJECT: 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DESIGN BY: --- DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIImnE SURDIVISIC)N .,__ ...... . 8% I i ` I I i I i t 6% • 5% ' ! I , 1 4% I i I - � i Tt I I i 3%- I I i I i I II I I ' ' i 1% .. I : _. .: 1 }_. I i i o { I I II I f a f I I i CI u I SWELLED UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE WHEN WETTED w -2%- TTTILc1 I I I I I-- -f. -l-! Z ! _ . I WATER ADDED O. I TO SAMPLE I__—_ U.1a I I • I • i I .I I::r • i I ! I I I a% 7 I ` I1I - I C I - ' , - . I e% 1 - I i l I 1I_1 -_ I _- ( i 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 I DRY MOISTURE BORING NO. _ DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE . ' DENSITY(PCF)_._CONTENT(%) B2 I 4 I FILL _ 104 23 DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A s O. SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 i HAYES PROJECT: DESIGN BY: --- 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SLJBDIVISION 8% I I I I I I I ; 7% 6% t • I . I r V i ; II I t 5% I 4 • I I !I i • • 4% - I ' I I I I I I I i • I ! I I I , I . I I I__ ; I . 2% , SWELLED UNDER • CONSTANT PRESSURE I I WHEN WETTED 1% I I I , I O E I I O I I z O . — n i J -1% WATER ADDED - � I co TO SAMPLE I I i I--- I I-_I E w -2%- I , I I E E o_ -3% --t . -440 - - I I i i I I I f • I I I f I_ I i -7%-- I I . .`—f T I rt. ' I-1 I I I i • I € I I I I - I �- ' I ; i I_I -8%-- I 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100.000 -- I DRY MOISTURE BORING NO. DEPTH.(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DENSITY(PCF) I CONTENT(S) I B2 I__ _ ...--_9 - _-_-- CLAYSTONE . _._._ I 119 16 DFlAWINO TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 1 3G1 33.A Q-' SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 , 117,1 AYE S PROJECT DESIGN BY: --- „ , 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDCiF StJRDIVISIC)N _.. ....... 8% - ---- - _----. .----- - - - --. - . 1 ! i 7% I ' f 6% ii , I , 5% 1 ! ! I I I i a% I — ! l- I I -I- I - , - 3% _- f i ! f • l 2% f SWELLED UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE ° ( ! . WHEN WETTED / -I ,' I I" I I O i f i • p . ' I W WATER ADDED . TO SAMPLE I- I ' I 1 I l I �-,- . W -2%-! - O e CC i lil s i ' I i — I I , j ; I 5% - k • • , , I —7% —_ i. _1 ' - I I 1 I , 1 1 J -g%T_ - - I I 100 1'000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 • DRY I MOISTURE BORING NO. ; DEPTH(FT.) _____ - SAMPLE SOIL TYPE _1 -DENSITY(PCF).I CONTENT(%) ! B2 - 1 14 L ._... ._ CLAYSTONE 124 14 DRAWING nrLE: • PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A Z- HAYES SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 ) PROJECT: DESIGN BY: 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION i_JC.,,=r. %AI..LA ass i f I j • -- I —j 1 7% 1 I I ! 1 I 5O I . I I { -- ' - - 5% L I 1 — I tt— I I 1 4% ! -! I -I I 1 I I I . I 2%- i--_ - . .-- _ i _II I j !_:_ ' SWELLED UNDER ' CONSTANT PRESSURE I WHEN WETTED I ' - . I Z T� ! I I 6 O Z 1 i 1 ' ; , .. -I � \,____L.-I_ • I_!_!L I __ _ k I 1 __ 1 WATER SAMPLED ' I •I ! I - 1 1 3% --- -r ,-j I ! I 4% j I ' I I II 1 •- I I II I L.JHJ _.I-_ L ! 1 100 1.000 LOAD(PSF) 10.600 100,000 T_.__ __-- __DRY F MOISTURE BORING NO. DEPTH(FT.) J SAMPLE SOIL TYPE - DENSITY(PCF) I_-CONTENT(%) B2 I 19 _ CLAYSTONE_ 126 j 11 DI iANRNO TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 130133.A !! SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 !TTI PROJECT: DESIGN BY: --- c o ,, N, 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN 6Y: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION rl.JCr.1Cor.nV. UMAN 8% i Ii 7% . 1-- i is i I II 6% -I— i ' •! I_ I I I i ` 1 r s% I I f I E I Ei! 2% I ! • ' I SWELLED UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE I • WHEN WETTED 1 I P _ f I II E : i U I -[ it z -2%- 1 S I U , i WATER ADDED aw Iee • • -,I TO SAMPLE I - - - ---- ! �H 3%-- i . I IIII • _I I • 8% - II t---_1:_ ' 1_ I -_-__1_!ii_..L. 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 . DRY MOISTURE BORING NO. DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DENSITY(PCB I CONTENT(%) I B2 29 CLAYSTONE I 121 I 15 Di AW,NG TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 )() HAY ES aflO. . DESIGN BY: --- I 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: EL-R \/ICTA pit-lc-1r CI IRI')1\/ICur)N --.._-..--_ .-.. ..._... 8% r — T I , III I ! ! I I I ' E II _III 6% i r I , I I I I . 4% t I ( i I + I E ; . . i i , i is I 3% I i --t SWELLED UNDER ` I CONSTANT N WETTED PRESSURE - -- i..I_ � i 2% . II - -II - I ,1% I z _. ILI ° i I 1II _ I 'i , , ! II WW I I WATER ADDED I I TO SAMPLE , 0 { -3%- I I I i I I I 4% I -5% I- I I I - I I - - -1 -- III I i I I 1. I iiI:I., ':I !!. ! • , i _ ', �._ -I i it I 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10.000 100,000 DRY MOISTURE I BORING NO... DEPTH(FT.) - I - SAMPLE SOIL TYPE - _ DENSITY(PCF)_ CONTENT(% , ) B2 I 34 - - I CLAYSTONE _ 120 17 DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 130133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 ).H AV NCI E G 1935PROJECT: DESIGN BY: --- 1/`1 �/ANI, 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION r--v r,Rv- NA/KAH I l I I I I i 7% I - !_ I I I f 1 ,L:: ' i i I I- i - i I 3% I I 2% I I ' 1 SWELLED UNDER I ' CONSTANT PRESSURE WHEN WETTED j I I ' 1% Imo_ n o 0 T z o , -1% , ' 1 I , — ' I 1 I t cn ! I ii ~ I - -_ --- -- CL f I I I�; I WATER ADDED t W I I I , TO SAMPLE N. -3% I - - —1 .I !-- I— --I- I _ __ ----- .-�. a% -r j j_1-I- I 1 I I i -5%-6% .-. :_ -j -1 I I i ! .____1 .----- - - II t I !— i_1_ _L.I_i_.1_.i i __ I I 100 1.000 LOAD(PSF) 10.000 100.000 DRY MOISTURE BORING NO. -_.DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE _ DENSITY(PCB • CONTENT(%) I B2 39 CLAYSTONE 120 - -1_ 15 OliAW NCI TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 ) H AV ES S PrIOJE DESIQN BY: --- s „ 1935/,1941/1983 BRIARWOO[�PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR %/IRTA Rcr.-1(4F RI IRfIVISIC)N .........— .... ....... I 1 i I , 7%- I 6% j ! T E I I I I• I 5% I 1I IH- 4% I I 1 , 1_ ` I • 3% - i i I E ! 2°6 I SWELLED UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE I • ' WHEN WETTED _ I Ii Ili O �� ! WATE ADDED i co { } TO SA PLE W -2% —i— iI E --;— U € I I , : i e 1 1 I —I I_., I I I 1 I-- _..ii.- -4% I I I I I 5% — I : I — — I I I I f I—E' ! ! 1--I I I t i i s% 1 — — { - ! H - - I_ III ! i i I -1 I 1-i 1 C _I I i i I I I 100 1,000 10,000 100.E LOAD(PSF) TURE ' BORING NO. f DEPTH(FT.)_ I _ SAMPLE SOIL TYPE_ -- j_DENSITYSPCF) CONTENT(%). I B2 I 44 1 CLAYSTONE I 121 16 i ODRAWING TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 130133.A r SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 '�` HAVES 1 DESIGN BY: --- 199 E35//1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION CHECKED BY: WMH p 77-j _..-.-. _. r_- - -r_- ___...87% I • I I• I • • III 4% -- I E I H . I 1_ 3% i , I I .H, i Li - I E ; I I I I o i I I O 0 SWELLEd UNDER 1 (O Z CONSTANT PRESSURE O \ WHEN WETTED n -• 1%-1 \ I_—I i , _- E I-J 1 WATER ADDED i ! ! TO SAMPLE N ,co tii V s w a I I I I - 1 I 3% — � ( I I iI I I I - --I i. I LI - I -I- -4% E IT ) ; ; I I I ` 15% — ---- ' 1 1 -1---I I I -�--- - f r i I , I I E I II -- I 1 I I I I I I I -7% I -- I_ — I I, I l , I • I I I �_ _ _ I L I ,-1 I -1 I 1 i -e% - 1 I 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 - T - - - r DRY MOISTURE BORING NO. DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE I .DENSITY(PCF) CONTENT(%) 'II B3 I 1 - I FILL -- - 106 22 DRAWING i ITLEr PROJECT NO.: 1313133.A 0 `�/' SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 '(;) HA ■ ES PROJECT: 1935 DESIGN BY: --- 1935/194 i/�983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION C:HFC.I Fn F4V, WMH 7% ! - -- - • • • I 5°h I I I 11 I I I !_I I 1- 4%-! I- .-- I I 1111 I I 2/ I I1 WATER ADDED I TO SAMPLE 1% I I I I } CONSOLIDATED UNDER O / CONSTANT PRESSURE ~ WHEN WETTED • Q CI D I I -J--- ! _-_I ---- -I -- -- . I--r -__-__111} .._ - 1H .- 1 CO O I I I U I ! I I w -2% I- 1 I i i I ; -H ! I I-` O I w -3% — — I '-}-'t�--t--- — — i , e t i . I f -5% I -- _-1_ 1 L... • .. . I 1--' I I I I I I ; I I • -a% l __1 1 II III L --�.I ;. • i11-_ 100 1.000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 DRY MOISTURE BORING NO 1._ ---DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE I DENSITY(PCF) I CONTENT(%) B3 4 FILL 1 107 23 • •DNAVNNet TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 I ) HAYES 1FiOJECr DESIGN BY: --- 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR \/IRT6 Rir-u-4 CI 'RI-In/m.(1N -- ------- --- ...... . 8% „ I I I , I I k -I 6% I- I i i t - I. I I 5% I i I I E I _L 4% ' i I f I I H f , I i 3% t • I 2% H I I • I I I G -1 ! . I .i 1% I -, OO I WATER ADDED p TO SAMPLE ; Q ; a -I j • I - - Ir u i • U I , J -1%- --- I_ I I tt , I. . , CONSOLIDATED UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE . to WHEN WETTEQ U -2% I CL Ii a -3% I I I I - I I— _l II I 4% , I I I I I I i I I i i f i �. I a% f i f 1 I i 7— --- I I I I i I I I , I t } I i - I I -8% -rf f _ I ! i L _ _ i f_ j I H - -- 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 -- - -- DRY ' MOISTURE BORING NO. DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLESOIL TYPECONTENT L%--__- DENSITY(PCF) ` 3 )- i B3 9 FILL 108 #DRAw,NG TrrLE: ' PROJECT NO.: 130133.A HAYES SWELt/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 PROJECT: DESIGN BY: --- I, N „,„, 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR %/1CTA RIFIC-IF CI IRFIIVICICIN _.._-..-- ...... •.... ... 1'0 . C Cr) '7 CO Appendix B Soil Moisture Characteristics 5 3 BORING B1 o — Moisture Content Versus Depth Explored - - --- 5112(140 LB) DD=102 PCF Moisture Content — MC=20% 6% 10% 16% 20% 26% 30% -#200=84% 0 ' - ._. - I - LL=45 a —_.__ P1=23 s -. __ - 4/12(140 LB) PL=22 DD=98PCF SW=1.41%(120 PSF) to -- - - ---_.. 5 —' MC=25% SS=3.20 pF - _ -#200=90% . LL=50 is -- .-- PI=28 1 PL=22 - --__� SW=O.t6%(480PSF) 20 ---- --- CTL TH•11(3r201L SS=3.49 pF CTL TH.4(10120121 28112 _ V T.a - r a v t (140 LB} -. t " TERRACON-TB-10120051,..1 -.- . vvv DD=105PCF g - 10— vav--MC=24% 3 30 - ` arar c -#200=99% .- - ava 1L=62 36 -. ..-_ •vva P1=37 I - v,,,_ PL= / o- v vav SW=4.88%(7,090 PSF) 40 - -._--_—_ _—__. — • i _ _— 000 SS=3.88pF vvt' — vvv 50/8(140 LB) vvv DO=116 PCF 15 — V 0 4 e v v -#200=97% - vs v LL=56 vvo ._- ..--- - - r v v PI=32 avv PL=24 ___, v v v SW=1.95%(1,680 PSF) to — vvv SS=3.90pF rvv - a a a-150/8(140 L8) C c v 10D=119 PCF Liquidity Index Versus Depth Explored 20 — cc a MC=17% Llquldity Index a r a -#200=96% — r a o LL=54 -15 _10 -OS 0.0 0.6 1A 1A avv vov PI=32 ( 6'-_ _.. ... _ _ - or PL=22 I — btvac v SW=3.37% 2,280 PSF) - t-- '.'e v SS=3.92pF I ---- to - --. - vvv 50/5(140 L8) 'v v v OD=124PCF --. . 25 --- v v v - --- .. v v v MC=13% 16 v v -#200•8916 2s_( �' --} — vv V LL=47 Hrt;01<'M71.2;•.ii I - 26 _ rrvvc _2 S 35—:. _._..__- -- _...-� PL 1 av v v SW=2.15%(2,880 PSF) xi - - -- avv SS=3.87pF avv — r-a 5014(140 LB) >e- lQa DD=123PCF 30— O-V V V MC•12% 40. -- vvv -#200=100% t-v 11=50 i6. —_._. _ ._ --. , vvv PI=29 v v v PL=21 - 'vvv se- - t - C v v v SW=2.11%(3,480 PSF) - vvv 85=4.02 pF - —.— t r r^ DRIER WETTER - a v vav J50/5(140 Le) vav DD=125 PCF 80_ 35 '— Favr MC=14% vvv, -#200=92% - vro LL=34 Suction Versus Depth Explored v o o PI=14 Suction(pF) vvvI PL=20 v'•'v" SW=NM 2.s 3 3.6 4 40 66 - vvv 4, SS=3.72 pF 0• - ; I vvvI I TOP'',v v)05015(140L8) 6 -_ . rrv5 DD=127PCF 40 — v c•vv MC=14% 10 _ r• a l 4200=97% P a a H,:t'.B!(10'11/2013; - avrt LL=43 46. _ __, - 0va_ P1=23 culnat(�,2o13> - o o • aocv� SW=0.3.90 81%(4,680 PSF) 20 • r—. rH-4naMlzl _ __ I oI 25 - v o v (140 LB) ,vevvc1 DD DD=121 PCF 45 — vv, MC=15% f•a v v -#200=89% 3s ---- - — vaV LL=39 5018(140 LB) �•vry PI=20 �DD=114PCF 40- .. •.. - V t•i' v 4 v SW=0.12%(5,280 PSF) 4200=100% 45.-_--.-_ ('tv`• SS=3.88 pF f LL=67 ,vtv ` P1=42 60--- - -.. . r _ )•vvv PE=25 _. _ _ _. _.... SW=2.03%(5,880 PSF) es —.__ :-- 50— SS.3.81pF W _ __ l oRAWfNo VILE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SOIL- MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS DATE: 12/13/2013 j1 ,'HAVES PROJECT. DESIGN BY: --- CONS 1935 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR \/ISTA RIDC4F St 1RDIVISION .J=r-Le=ver CM/. \AI•4l., BORING B2 o — 5/12(140 LB) Moisture Content Versus Depth Explored DD=102 PCF Moisture Content — MC=24% ex, lox 12% 20% 26% 30% e � . 4200=92% LL=51 _ — P1=28 s �4113(140 LB) PL=23 to DO=98PCF SW=1.01%(120 PSF) - i -�� - 5 - MC=23% SS=3.41pF #200=90% 16 -- - LL=432 rGC G2 i0;v.mT) PI=22 20 1 _ - PL=21 CruH0 nn CONS(460 PSF) 20 _-______- Memnon(t i2'1.;r-- SS=3.60pF I -fr 3. _ _ _--- $ -- - V V V 145/12(140 LB) c vac DD=118 PCF 35 _ - -- 10 — aov MC=16% 1 VV.., -#200=90% _ _ _ i _ — — Vo w V LL=48 — t= v v v P125 _ — — _ — — o v G PL=23 es '--- vvv . vvv SW=5.11%(1,080 PSF) vvv SS=3.74pF w - - - - --- - ,.•vo - V V o 7 50/8(140 LB) a — __-- - _ . - -_- - -_ _ - ..v°4 DD=126PCF 15 — av9 _ _ _-- — .:P99 MC 14% 00 -- - - - G v r #200=97% - v ti v Lt.=52 t*v v PI=24 v vvo PL=28 Liquidity Index Versus Depth Explored vvv SW=3.97%(1,680 PSF)- Liquidity Index vo`�t, SS=3.89pF o 5018(140 LB) ;41 -11 as 0.0 as 1.0 13 r- vvvv v a v DD=126 PCF 20 — c v v MC=11% 6' - a G v 4200=88% vc vLL=38 10 I - vvv Pt=19 16� v v v PL=19 ------ 4 - V vvv SW=1.48%(2,280PSF) a _- { IV,I,0ur,xr) I-- q v v SS=3.94 pF I ...._.__-'--- _-. _-. _.. - oL1 r r -50/2(140 LB) 9 9 G dy �. 1 _ __. _.._... - - - —.-- ---.I 25 -- .V VV V O - VV S• - 't•V V 25 -._._ V V V G99 a --" — 9 9 P P a v es -_. - -._-__ _-- _--__ 9 P P - V G'V 9 V V se — ,v vv _750/5(140 LB) v v v DD=119 PCF to ORffR wEnER 30 - V V v rY-.._ .. _..-._._..-.. ........... v v v MC=15% 60- . - - - - v 9 v -#200=96% — vvv LL=49 rvvv P1=26 _ P9V v v v V PL=23 Suction Versus Depth Explored vvv SW=2.28%(3,480 PSF)— avvv; SS=4.O8pF Suction(pF) 9 V V i 2s 2 3.6 -.. 4 4.6 - ,at,°o X50/5(140 LB) e I ovv,Y DD=118PCF s 1 I - 35 — !vvvi MC=17% 1 V v v v -#200=99% to -- — 1 - - v LL=72 vac, PI=45 is 1❑ovv PL=27 go- - - acc ra,,, ,U.,q_ - Caov SW=5.37°h(4,080PSF) MTV rr0}.0111 vvv SS=4.42pF r 36 i 1 'I�TL TN-400:),2) _.. U V V c V V 50/5(140 LB) ,I_ a99v DD=120PCF I ' 40 — a a MC=15% 36 v v v vi -#200=100% ... ........ .. vvv 1 ...... - V V v V j LL=50 60 J ____-_1 'V9111 pia 28 L — t v--. PL=24 is -- --- 9 9 C _ _..._.. _.- - ... — o o c SW=3.57%(4,680 PSF) or, __ v v v SS=4.13pF v v v K - PG9 - 150/5(140 LB) vvc DD=111PCF 45 POP MC=16% °0 --- — .-- _____ P P^ vav 4200=99% — ‘'''vv' LL=63 ivvv PI 'kr =36 9 9 c vvv PL=27 v a V V, SW=3.93%(5,280 PSF) - 'Pvvs, SS=4.17pF vv,' - V V V X100/1.5(140 LB) 50 - • DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13,3133.A SOIL- MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS DATE: 12/13/2O13 ,r' NAVIES PRwECT. DESIGN BY: --- DRAWN.•�/ 1941 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RtrIC4F St 1F3OIVIStON I•I,-,-,,=r+o,•• SAM ALI BORING B3 o _ lr - 4/12(140 LB) Moisture Content Versus Depth Explored '! DD=103 PCF Moisture Content - ryey MC=22% -#200=84% 6% t0Y ls% I0X 26% 30% '— ili� 11=46 !'6Qi P1=27 '- ±�y 14/12(140 LB) PL=21 s --" - 5 - ~iY i MC=23%PCF SS=3.16 pF(120 PSF) !!!�i to 1 2001 88% ----.- __... .- PI=21 - !# 1 - ��!!s LL--42 is PL=21 m _ --- --- SW=0.20%(480 PSF) - SS=3.48 pF ss I-------- _..- - fiiil-7/12 140 LB) r lliiliA I DO=107 PCF i 10 '-- CTl U TH-11 013) - irit«i, -#200=82% OO Crt TH-13(3n013> - V v° LL=47 - • TERRAC0N TB-19(2005) r V v PI=25 _ °°° _ Y -.__-..--' ._-__- - - _ _ _._.... -.._ vv PL-22 e v v CONS(1,080 PSF) vvt SS=3.53pF 46 - -- - - -- - .a V V 147112(140 LB) 1 --— — — -- — -__- — v°° JDD=113PCF 15 — c.'- MC=19% ris o v . -#200=95% - vvv LL=59 - - - ---_ �° PI=33 -- - 60 - 5'V t' }°° PL=26 v v v SW=4.69%(1,680 PSF) - c° SS=3.87 pF Liquidity Index Versus Depth Explored v v v - 50/10(140 LB) Liquidity Index ,vv°v. .DD=114 PCF -lb 40 -0b. 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.6 V 20 - .;eMC=16% 6' V v 4200=99% ▪ ovv 6. — _.__. vv .. LL=43 ; vvv P1=23 to e v v PL=20 °•'° SW=2.53%(2,280 PSF) u 7 vv SS=3.68 pF - ucc E,n 1i 111 "- vvv 50/8(1401B) v v - DD=117 PCF L Is . _ — 25 '— v c v MC=15% i vvt. _ v -#200=99% CI Js- — _ - - -- — - — vv LL= v 7 7 PI=32 36- - - -_-.._.. , ----._ - '°° PL=24 ovv vv SW=3.00%(2,880 PSF) 40 — vvv SS=3.82pF .V v S. si••..,..--- - vvv ]50/5(140 LB) 'v" DD=121 PCF so -- — 30 — vvV°V. MC=13% v v c -#200=97% 66 _ - - v v P1= 1 Cd4.w wcfTE.I ... vv ev PI=31 N vvv PL=23 •r V'. SW=1.89%(3,480 PSF) - "v° SS=3/4 pF Suction Versus Depth Explored 1 v v Suction(pF) - vcv -t5018(140 LB) 1.6 3 3.6 4 4.6 s cvo MC DD=119%PCF 0 35 — °v MC=15% 1- I 111 II°° 4200=99% 6 - - "94 LL=61 v 5,° ovv PL=26 °° SW=5.60%(4,Q80 PSF) K — °°v c°v SS=4.15 pF vvv 20 --r;.�c c.$0,1/.n p'. i c v c 100/4(14018) rtt TM;14'2)13) vvv 126- illn ,f '') I 40 — •oV. L v v^ as- --. - __ ---- - __---- --- .,vo vvv u - - -_ III _.._. so 66—_ --- -- -_ se 45 66 60 -.-. .. .. -... L._ _.... _ 50— DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A .O.1 SOIL- MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS DATE: 12/13/2013 DESIGN� HAYE5 PROJECT:ECT. BY: CONSULT IMP CC. ,,,P,u,PANY 1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION CHECKED BY: WMH 8% II _ • it f , 7% i [ , 1 __ 1 I . H f IE i I 6% 1 ; I I f 1 5% 1 I - i 1 1 t f I I s% _ — I \ — F 1 I I t 2%- - - _ - - i- • I SWELLED UNDER ! t CONSTANT PRESSURE I • WHEN WETTED ! I ' 4 I Z O i I o I 1.- I - ! co0 I ( E I o I HI J• -t% I 1 - I� I I j .._I U ' E 1_ _-I/ - I II W -2% ._i U WATER ADDED ; W TO SAMPLE D. I 1 , 3% -I--1 T4 I I ' I I I • a% I_ I I • I . I , 11-> I ! I f I 1 1 1 5% -_� 1 1 -I i 1 ! I�.�. • I_ . I • I 1 i li t I I e% I 11 I. I I L I I I I I 1 i �_ _ 1 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10.000 100,000 -_ - - I MOISTURE I 1 • 1 -- DRY BORING NO. I __ DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE I DENSITY(PCF)•• CONTENT(%) i B3 14 CLAYSTONE 120 I. . _..- 19 O AWINC TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A . SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 }I HAVES 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DESIGN BY: --- DRAWN BY: ELR \/ICTA PlInrz.P CI IF2flIVIRICINI --. ..---.... --.- .•••••• 8% I I 1 7 7 I I I I • I 6% I I I I I • ` j I I i j — i I 1 1 {J a% I ; 1 1 I ' I .i. . 2% 1 E I SWELLED UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE f WHEN WETTED I I I - o II :I1TTt171 •; I �� I Z -2% ' WATER ADDED W TO SAMPLE I 1 a — 3% -- -I I I , 1 I :I 1 I e I 4°� 1 I I 5%- - i--1- . - [--1,—+ . ----,- - { I 1 —6%--I —,-- I I —r—I—I s I I 7% 1 f I � 100 1.000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 DRY ' MOISTURE BORING NO. -.. DEPTH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE.- - - I DENSITY(PCF).I_. CONTENT(%) B3 I 19 i -- CLAYSTONE .... 118 I 16 UHAWINGTITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 0, } HAYES 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE PROJECT-DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: ELR VICTA RIf7nF Sl 1RIDIVISION .-,uwcr,o,. •A Oh Al, 8% I I 1 I I 7% I ' III ' �-_ I r 1 I I I I j 6% • 5°h i l l i € I I • I • 1I 3% i - __ -i i 1 'i I j _ I I I SELLED UNDER HL CONSTANT PRESSURE WHEN WETTED ! I I 1 \IN: W O I Q I 1 I Q o I I r i i O Cr)Z I O I ' , ; , 3 I , I I Ill O WATER ADDED W TO SAMPLE I ! 0_ ( -3%---- ; — , -- l ;I I , ---1 —I-- •—T. I !! • 1 • -4°h E - Lill _1 __._..I;itI 1 i I r I1 I I I t I H --- L 1..:_s E t 7°� I ' i I 1 t 1_. I !__J 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 DRY MOISTURE I - � - ( - CONTENT(%) . BORING NO. DEPTH FT.) SAMPLLiAYSTOONE TYPE DENSITY(PCF} , 15 • ,DRAWING,TITLE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 1-HAVES PROJECT: DESIGN BY: --- M F. 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR /1 -1-A. Dir f F c1 IFifIIN/ICIlIAI ---- --- --- •-- -. . 8% I I ' Iii - ;I, i ',, 1 I ''I : { 1 i , 5% 4%- - -I -I I i- l I f f 1 { 3% $ I I i iI I i I i I 2% i ' I kI SWELLED UNDER ! ! CONSTANT PRESSURE WHEN WETTED ' O T I !- - Z � I P O I H i . I I U °� f C I I I J In I - ! I HIjI1 . — -----1 - - -I-- w I Uce WATER ADDED I i ' w TO SAMPLE i I a. 1 - -3% - rr T I -1- - I ; i , -4%-- - I -5% 1 • -s% I E- - I I } I I I i I ! a% — < � -L { I-I — : fi I fi ' -8%--.1 --1 I I—I - , I _I. I i I ' — I I I 100 1'000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100,000 I DRY MOISTURE I BORING NO. I DEP TH(FT.) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE - DENSITY(PCF)_ CONTENT(%) B3 - 29 CLAYSTONE I _ - _ 125_ - 13 ORAWINOTrrLE: PROJECT NO.: 130133.A 0-N H AY ES SWELL/CONSOLI DATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 PROJECT: DESIGN BY: 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWNBY: VISTA RIrIC�F RI IRIIIVISI[IN --. .-. 6% _ r 7% I- 6% I , ICI Iiii ` I , • I 5% I , I . 4% I I I II �- _ I 1- �- I I , 1 3% -i-- I --I I- I I { SWELLED UNDER ! dam_ . I CONSTANT PRESSURE - I WHEN WETTED /' 1%- T-,-r� I - - I z0 i I I III o Z co I U � -1%- - -__ yCO I I I I-- -z% I I _L I I I_ — 4 ' I - CU WATER ADDED ` I W TO SAMPLE I I D. -3% j I-- -7---,I -I j I , i I I I L_. __ , I I I 'I 6% I 1- I - I _.I_. I - • I i- - +- -I- 1 . I + +-; I I t !--I I I ; >3% ' ,_, I i I 1 I 1_I I A -_ ° I 100 1,000 LOAD(PSF) 10,000 100.000 f-_-- I DRY I MOISTURE Ik BORING NO. --_.DEPTH.(FT.) _ SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DENSITY(PCF)! CONTENT(%) f B3 34 CLAYSTONE 1 121 15 • • DRAWING I IILE: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A SWELL/CONSOLIDATION RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 '7) HAYFS PROJECT: DESIGN BY: --- e o u + i 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR \/FRTA RIf7nF Rl IRI—OVIRi(7N --• .. ..—---- •••--• 125 ( I _._ - ' I . 120 E 2 _ �"ZERO AIR VOIDS"CURVE FOR Gs=2.7 I- 115 — ._._._. r }r - - - - . - o -. o_ -._ a i o z 0 ' a I w 110 ( , - { 0 f ' . - re p . -. LL: NA i PL NA PI: NA - -#200=NA 105 .-- - f • T 100 - - - - - - - - _ _—I -- }- - — --I MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY=105.6 PCF • OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT=18.1% • . 10 15 20 25 3 5 0 35 WATER CONTENT AS A PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT - --------- --- SAMPLE DESCRIPTION B1-BULK SAMPLE FROM BACKFILL DEPTH(S): 0-4'I MATERIAL: FILL PROCTOR TEST PROCEDURES ASTM D698-STANDARD,METHOD A •3 LAYERS,5.5 POUND HAMMER,12 INCH DROP,25 BLOWS PER LAYER,4"0 MOLD SOIL CLASSIFICATION uses:ICI_ _ ,TEST RESULTS MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: (105.6 PCF [-OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: (18.1% UI'APAVO 111LE. ' PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A 0� HAYES PROCTOR RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2O13 vao.iecT: DESIGN BY: 4 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIC)elF St JRfIVISIoN -..••---•-�-� ^-- ........ 125 --• } I ' • 120 as ' . -ZERO AIR VOIDS"CURVE FOR Gs=2.7I-- o i � 115 i 1 ` :- -. - - - 0 =r - - .- I I La _._. D z . - ----' l - W• 110 -- O . _ i ,-- __-_ I , - - - . o -_ . . I LL: NA - PL: NA .-. I PI: NA -#200=NA --. \\• - 105 -• - - -- - - ! � _.. • • T . . 100 ' I - } - } ! _J MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY=106.3 PCF • OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT=17.2% I I- i 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 WATER CONTENT AS A PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT I SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 82-BULK SAMPLE FROM BACKFILL DEPTH(S): 0-4' MATERIAL: FILL PROCTOR TEST PROCEDURES ASTM D698-STANDARD,METHOD A r3 LAYERS,5.5 POUND HAMMER,12 INCH DROP,25 BLOWS PER LAYER,4"0 MOLD SOIL CLASSIFICATION . USCS: ICL TEST RESULTS MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 106.3 PCF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 17.2% DRAWING&TR l.t: PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A PROCTOR RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 '.i l o-AYES PROJECT. DESIGN BY: --- 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VIRTA RIC)CiF St IRfIVISIC)N i.uci-vc-,o... %wn.,u I . 125 I CI - • _ � -_' 120 r . O ._ . . 'ZERO AIR VOIDS"CURVE FOR Gs=2.7r 115 I — — Ai —1 U , • W { I a I o Z . 0O. -: 6110 l i _ - _ - - 0 . . - LL: NA - I PL: NA -- • - i PI: NA . -9200=NA 105 I - ------- - _ /._ I r r 100 - - - - - - - --- - { I :111 f MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY=104.9 PCF , f OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT=17.2% i I r • I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 WATER CONTENT AS A PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT I SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 83-BULK SAMPLE FROM BACKFILL { DEPTH(S): 0-4'I MATERIAL: FILL PROCTOR TEST PROCEDURES ASTM 1)698-STANDARD,METHOD A 3 LAYERS,5.5 POUND HAMMER,12 INCH DROP,25 BLOWS PER LAYER,4"0 MOLD SOIL CLASSIFICATION uSCS:1CL TEST RESULTS • MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 104.9 PCF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 17.2% •'u,AWRJG TITLE: • PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A PROCTOR RESULTS DATE: 12/13/2013 HAYES PROJECT. DESIGN BY: --- l935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR V/IT-A RIMC:1F RI.IRI-A/IRWIN -.._...,. ...... . I - ri • • G Appendix C o Heave Prediction Calculations w 0 0. Q M T va M 0 Z m Is O 7 C si 12g ppaa ��yyp(fF q i CaVNn8888 OO [v M aro 0 m h YL V a ta C )II ° RI og0 - o ° o ' o ' II 00 .- o . oS ! OF T` P 250 § oEog § d �, U d o o d O o d o o 0() Q46 C)0 � I O 7 a, a F,�t .e 00 ,0 o000000000e co V e_ i • C k ll , 111 Yf 0 C e ., {C� O O ; M1 ¢a¢il� � pC� � l(y� a� / � 3 ` N N N M M P M O } e W A fl 31 2 11 ii f Iz' a i - 2 g II 4 " g. a O • ,/// y1 / Nn r. e ? N K j`• li- sa m 3 m. m i n. 4''1":.-/--, - e � c 2 5 1 > � 0 0 020u ≥ "P I z m co„m d a , 4 a 7- :i v o a <e- : 8 H 2 It ea 4 0 tO d -p Z m a 7 -:1-. # (Ni)Paoidx3 Lade° O 4 to 0 N 4 M M r 0 O Z to O ip> h rt � �+ 0ooiovi aom � � ]j , P e in o R u El gi s of 1 n ao 2g OO N .- OOINN >. ii Es � � � ( g 00 �i .: 0! ,,,°42' (t: if § 8vaggF u d� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Oc ap l �- 9 , M t 3 / ` 'Jill', kY 1 ' :,;:f4',,,,4,_.:7:`,..:J11 a' 4 N ' 1mq S n 1�Q b (O O M !l M O M 7' 00000000a V It] ':: :'''.*•i.:',- :.:1,,::.'.. ';', 1 in C LL J N Vi [� f " r, l` �Wp, Lu j I o 1" N III N N � 0 C- M poI M / C7 C / a 3 j $9 ! t o i i � ' ea � s 45 3 ii a yi' t/ I Iii 11 / 6 LL 1 H. q i; . i I I' a f ei ss i f' 1 i �L a v gei I 1/ i 01 i 0 6 € y i / a. C I 24 / o ; i . tcg I i / m c " q/ 1 ta z d z '2ir Y 0 oLL r z o m :°• • 8 E g ear g '� } Gs C) M r 0 M 0 z a, 0 111: 9 p L II 3 Y iR h tO ,2 W (// a El— o0orenaom t It o 4 xssvon242 '. }e- oo0 .- .- .- 0oa >.ci 1 1 i_ 51S88282212rg O O o O O a 1••. Tr Is L aU 000000000 ( $ cQ >2 80 O0000 O o 0 O O O O 0 O O 6 0 x ei C B ki , a LL } N 0 x cq g2 em t•- v "I st. cu 0 .1001 i; Va �y`. 11 W S a'aa N N N X pal X 2 3 X 0 $ ~ r $ O a a e Ii 22 z g i a8 as 1. ; 01 op w o Y �3 a z / v ; m 21 it its 1 3 'I S 8 0. 0 I / u. I m e ; � I I ' 0 " S i / I n j 3r"'""� r 3i 01 a IJ i, k. a v 8 i\ 2 4 a O 22m z I m ii d .ro r * / I F z l4SVl -' 2 , r, 111\ 'WI! ./Wo § fr f{ § fi« m23 \ s& ® � ,52 Tc:c) I § § Ot 3 . < )k \\ ,2 m § 2 v oi 332 ^\ ' : X §' 2 ! a I1 ) 1II / _ , . . u. o / _ I , ` - ! �i ii �a Z k§ \ ` 0 ; A ; { ' f . X a j . 1:1 ! cl I I §I @ 2 » � ; III 0.c. ) \ �Z § ; a z ; c• . , | � 2 ' Eel E. 7 \ ! ; a ° i © I �� s top' ci ? u. . ' ® ! i e 2 IT, < i ■ . I 2 § i ` a 2 3 6 q I i ° § - ` I V $ § 12F. 1 $ k \ / I i 0. ;.0 S a ` i !®5 o i ,|- u 2 §■§ @ » © : \ , 2 m $aA 2 . , 2 B i I . . -i k t / ' • ) _ B 2 \/ / o U ; 2i: k R.` I ' k 0. ) 2 f k u. I \ °° - \ = m ; R ; a 4 t Q ftp: cEE :; : i N pp o L C }+f a C�<,_, 2 m co O �p -F 'Ile m v tQ a 88 T �� o0 aU J J C_ 3 a ay m a) V Z win >1 d d C O gti U n ri ! x ill ! 1 c gr 12E m in !, p I ad co iI in I- o I q8 p ii6 s. o 6 LL 1 G Y E'W _ ® en j 2 / vN =CC f a C g w I I7 a 1 E / b 3 / 1 mE 1 0:, it r - At f I E I - n 7.„ 1. 'a / N Ae m I CO / d o. E.) g � .°�+ a i d 8 L Y q O m a ; g O �lMG g l° a / bN C) m 3 a.�1� a / z u w / x C 2 2 / � i en m D 3 g5. _4;'-� J O Y1 2) �„ G - I !o i 0 hi giSE at Ey•) o ry O LL fi O 0 o a N M 2 3 a a` 2 'dZN x 4'• id m Appendix D Repair Details a. 1 FLOOR SYSTEM UNKNOWN \/f.\/.\j, / /\T / / EXISTING FOUNDATION ' \r\</ WALL(DESIGNED BY / ,\ HIGH POINT OF DRAIN TO BEGIN B OTHERS) N BELOW BOTTOM ELEVATION OF NEW '.•/`\/. \ FOUNDATION VOID MATERIAL '�/',7 /< K 4'0 RIGID(SCHEDULE 27 PVC PERFORATED 1 /•/ // i PIPE,MIN.1/4'PER FOOT SLOPE TO SUMP PIT ��j ‹ K� OR APPROVED GRAVITY DISCHARGE ,,�% 'WRAP'GEO-FABRIC AROUND %It \ `//�/S�< NEW GRAVEL LAYER AS SHOWN I A \ /' / 1 11 / // / • PLACE DRAINPIPE IN ..��t� � ii ii I �7< „A,. , 3/4'CLEAN GRAVEL ( i<A,/,:,/\( \�. Iw NEW i 2'VOID MATERIAL BELOW ALL w--, 77WALLS AND GRADE BEAMS(BEYOND) n a PROVIDE AN APPROVED FRICTION REDUCTION ¢U PIPE PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER O 0 IRE:REPORT FOR LENGTH OF PIPE o 0 6 DD z0 /I I FOLLOWING COMPLETE PIER n n 2 0 OF I I PLACEMENT,ELIMINATE NOTE:THE DRAIN TRENCH AND PIPE pp � ► EXISTING CONCRETE PIER BY Eo 15'I I THE REMOVAL OF THE UPPER SHALL POSITIVELY SLOPE TO THE SUMP w PIT OR OUTFALL WITHOUT LOW AREAS c m a 18 OF EACH CONCRETE PIER (DEPRESSIONS) I I INCLUDING ALL REINFORCING U NOTE:USE SIMILAR DRAIN FOR i' HELICAL PIERS , 4'DIAMETER MICRO-PILE 1 BASEMENT MICROPILE AND DRAIN NO SCALE OADFILE: 'Oi7AWING III LE: • PROJECT NO.: 13G133.A r1 HAYES REPAIR DETAIL DATE: 12/13/2013 vnoiEcr- DESIGN BY: --- 1935/1941/1983 BRIARWOOD PLACE DRAWN BY: ELR VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION ....ILA Hello