Search results for query: *

Thank You very much Damguy. Based on the Commentary I was correct in my sitution (ie: accounting for rock in the upper 100 ft). It is still my opinion that the CODE should to revised to limit abiguity. It seems to be very confusing and professionals have differing opinions.

This is why the IBC Code is very vague and confusing. Everybody seems to have a different interpretation. In my opinion, a Code should be very CLEAR & SPECIFIC. Thank You for your input but I guess I still do not have a clear interpretation.

Thanks for your response. Most of the rock in New England is not able to be penetrated with augers (granite, schist, diorire, etc). Possibly a few feet if severely weathered. To understand your response, I am correct to use "N" = 100 within the upper 100 ft profile if adequate rock is...

I need HELP. This question keeps coming up and everyone seems to have their own opinion. This is a Building Code issue so I would think there should only be 1 answer. Do I consider BEDROCK (N=100) in the upper 100 ft of Soil Profile. It greatly impacts the Site Classification. Some peope...

Thanks for the responses. My initial concern was whether I could consider BEDROCK as part of the upper 100 ft site profile or if only SOIL conditions were to be considered. It makes a BIG difference. The IBC is not very clear in this respect. In many areas, we have very hard bedrock...

I am persistently questioned with respect to the IBC Site Classification for subgrade conditions especially when designating an "E" site (Soft Soil Profile). In many cases, we have a loose sand or soft clay that marginally does not conform to the specific IBC characteristics (liquefaction, high...

I am asked to review a stormwater infiltration system which will be within 20 ft of a 10 ft retaining wall. The concern is potential water mounding behind the wall. I believe somewhere in the past, I saw a Table showing approximate drawdown curves for varying permeability soils without getting...