mh93333
2024-11-01 20:02:30
- #1
, thanks for the points mentioned. I will not inquire further about Danwood for now, as after further reading here in the forum, I will also refrain from assigning the basement and house separately.
I have attached the drawing part of the development plan. That should also answer the questions based on the contour lines.
, thanks for your explanations. Indeed, an initial appointment with a freelance architect is planned for next week. In particular, it will be about the question of whether it might make sense not to have a basement at all. In this case, many further steps would be easier. But as I said, I rather think that financially it makes more sense with a basement, or how do you see it?
By the way, a soil report is available that the municipality had commissioned during the development of the building area. I will quote the summary:
Below are the conclusions based on the current exploration status summarized:
The strata encountered are suitable for bearing the loads resulting from the planned buildings. Foundation on a load-bearing slab is preferred from our point of view. Partial replacement of soft layers may be necessary.
No groundwater was encountered in the investigation area. Temporary, minor subsoil water flow cannot be completely excluded.
In principle, for buildings on rather low-permeability soils, waterproofing according to DIN 18195-Part 6, Section 9 against rising seepage water is required.
In connection with drainage according to DIN 4095 with suitable outflow, waterproofing according to DIN 18195-T4 can be implemented.
During construction, subsoil and surface water must be collected and drained promptly via short paths. The trench excavations must be secured by shoring elements. In general, slopes of up to max. 45° are possible with the soils encountered. Conditions must be checked in each individual case.
For the installation of traffic routes, the load-bearing capacities of the soils at formation level meet the requirements, so that an increase in load capacity may only need to be planned partially. For any necessary increase, the thickness of the planned KFT layer should be increased by 10–20 cm.
For pipeline trenches, measures to increase the load capacity of the pipe support will probably not be necessary.
The resulting hillside excavation material—if broken up—is mostly suitable for backfilling utility trenches. For loess clay, influence by precipitation must be effectively prevented by appropriate storage.
Description, classification, and evaluation of the subsoil conditions were done based on the conditions encountered in the test pits. For intermediate areas, continuous stratification was assumed.
Since deviations cannot generally be excluded, we recommend checking the described subsoil conditions during the planned works.
The next test pit on our property looks like shown in the attachment. In your assessment, does the soil report rather recommend pro or contra basement?
What exactly is a "moderate slope": residential basement downhill side from normal parapet without light wells above ground or even floor-to-ceiling above ground?
I have attached the drawing part of the development plan. That should also answer the questions based on the contour lines.
, thanks for your explanations. Indeed, an initial appointment with a freelance architect is planned for next week. In particular, it will be about the question of whether it might make sense not to have a basement at all. In this case, many further steps would be easier. But as I said, I rather think that financially it makes more sense with a basement, or how do you see it?
By the way, a soil report is available that the municipality had commissioned during the development of the building area. I will quote the summary:
Below are the conclusions based on the current exploration status summarized:
The strata encountered are suitable for bearing the loads resulting from the planned buildings. Foundation on a load-bearing slab is preferred from our point of view. Partial replacement of soft layers may be necessary.
No groundwater was encountered in the investigation area. Temporary, minor subsoil water flow cannot be completely excluded.
In principle, for buildings on rather low-permeability soils, waterproofing according to DIN 18195-Part 6, Section 9 against rising seepage water is required.
In connection with drainage according to DIN 4095 with suitable outflow, waterproofing according to DIN 18195-T4 can be implemented.
During construction, subsoil and surface water must be collected and drained promptly via short paths. The trench excavations must be secured by shoring elements. In general, slopes of up to max. 45° are possible with the soils encountered. Conditions must be checked in each individual case.
For the installation of traffic routes, the load-bearing capacities of the soils at formation level meet the requirements, so that an increase in load capacity may only need to be planned partially. For any necessary increase, the thickness of the planned KFT layer should be increased by 10–20 cm.
For pipeline trenches, measures to increase the load capacity of the pipe support will probably not be necessary.
The resulting hillside excavation material—if broken up—is mostly suitable for backfilling utility trenches. For loess clay, influence by precipitation must be effectively prevented by appropriate storage.
Description, classification, and evaluation of the subsoil conditions were done based on the conditions encountered in the test pits. For intermediate areas, continuous stratification was assumed.
Since deviations cannot generally be excluded, we recommend checking the described subsoil conditions during the planned works.
The next test pit on our property looks like shown in the attachment. In your assessment, does the soil report rather recommend pro or contra basement?