Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Transport Tire, Inc. <br /> <br />-6- <br /> <br />March 1, 1983 <br /> <br />the typical range and 2) the risk of greater than typical settlements <br /> <br />approach. A decision regarding foundation and construction procedures <br /> <br />between the two approaches is one of economics versus risk of greater than <br /> <br />typical settlements. <br /> <br />In the low risk approach, we have defined four different alternatives with <br /> <br />total settlements anticipated to be less than 3/4 of an inch, with <br /> <br />differential settlement approximately half the total settlement. This <br />settlement range would be considered typical. <br /> <br />It is our opinion that for the proposed structure, the most feasible <br /> <br />foundation would be Alternative 2, in the section describing foundation <br /> <br />alternatives with risks of greater than typical settlement. A structural <br /> <br />steel, steel sided, structure is fairly flexible and the settlements <br /> <br />discussed should be evaluated by your structural engineer. <br /> <br />Alternatives for Typical Foundation Settlement <br /> <br />Alternative 1 - Lower the building floor slab elevation by <br />removing some of the existing fill. If 4 ft of existing fill <br />soil in the building area is removed, footings having 4 ft of <br />soil cover for frost protection would likely rest on natural <br /> <br />medium dense sand with an N Value equal to approximately 13 blows <br /> <br />per foot. Spread footings bearing on medium dense fine sand and <br /> <br />silt with a minimum Standard Penetration Test N value of 13 can <br /> <br />STS Consultants, ltd. <br />