Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoil Borings/Initial Study0 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW City Hall/Public Works Expansion 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, Minnesota AET Project No. 01 -04415 Prepared for: City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. January 20, 2009 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Attn: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review City Hall and Public Works Expansion 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, Minnesota AET Project No. 01 -04415 Dear Mr. Johnson: CONSULTANTS • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • FORENSICS • American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for your proposed City Hall and Public Works Building expansion in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. These services were performed according to our proposal to you dated December 1, 2008. We are submitting three copies of the report to you. Three copies are also being sent on your behalf to Mr. Randy Engel of Buetow & Associates. Please contact me if you have any questions about the report. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. 11-54- Je fery K. Voyen, PE Vice President, Geotechnical Division Phone: (651) 659 -1305 Cell: (612) 961 -9186 jvoyen @amengtest.com cc: (3) Buetow and Associates, Attn: Randy Engel This document shall not be reproduced, except In full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North • St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 651 - 659 -9001 • Toll Free 800 - 972 -6364 • Fax 651 - 659 -1379 • www.amengtest.com Offices throughout Florida, Minnesota, South Dakota & Wisconsin AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review City Hall/Public Works Expansion 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, Minnesota AET Project No. 01 -04415 January 20, 2009 Prepared for: City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Attn: Eric Johnson Report Authored By: k. A 0 '!"—"_ Jeffery K. Voyen, PE Vice President, Geotechnical Division I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota Name: Jeffery K. Voyen Date: 1-7L9— License #: 15928 Copyright 2009 American Engineering Testing, Inc. All Rights Reserved Prepared by: American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 (651) 659-9001/www.amengtest.com Peer Review Conducted By: Joseph G. Bentler, PE Geotechnical Engineer 0 Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project. STANDARD DATA SHEETS Floor Slab Moisture/Vapor Protection Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction APPENDIX A — Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 — Boring Locations Figure 2 — Proposed Project Layout Subsurface Boring Logs APPENDIX B — Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use TABLE OF CONTENTS AET Project No. 01 -04415 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 ............................... 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................. ............................... 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1 ...................................................................... ............................... 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING ................................. ............................... 2 4 4.1 Field Exploration Program ..................................................................... 4 ............................... 4.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................. ............................... 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. ............................... 4 5 5.1 Subsurface Soils/ Geology ....................................................................... 5 ............................... 5.2 Ground Water ......................................................................................... ............................... 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5 ........................................................................... ............................... 6.1 Building Grading 6 .................................................................................... ............................... 6.2 Foundation Design 6 ................................................................................ ............................... 6.3 Floor Slab Design 10 ................................................................................. ............................... 6.4 Below Grade Wall Backfilling/Water Control 11 ..................................... ............................... 11 6.5 Exterior Backfilling- Non - Retaining Wall Case .................................. ............................... 13 6.6 Pavements ............................................................................................. ............................... 6.7 Post/Pier Foundation Design Considerations 13 ....................................... ............................... 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 17 ............................................... ............................... 7.1 Potential Difficulties 19 ............................................................................. ............................... 7.2 Excavation Backsloping ....................................................................... 19 19 ............................... 7.3 Observation and Testing ....................................................................... ............................... 8.0 LIMITATIONS 20 ........................................................................................ ...0........................... 20 STANDARD DATA SHEETS Floor Slab Moisture/Vapor Protection Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction APPENDIX A — Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 — Boring Locations Figure 2 — Proposed Project Layout Subsurface Boring Logs APPENDIX B — Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW FOR CITY HALL AND PUBLIC WORKS EXPANSION 14168 OAK PARK BLVD. N OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA AET PROJECT NO. 01-04415 1.0 INTRODUCTION A new City Hall and an expanded Public Works building are proposed to be constructed at the current municipal site in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. To assist planning and design, you have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface exploration program at the site, conduct soil laboratory testing, and perform a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of the above services, and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES AET previously conducted four soil borings at the site, and prepared a preliminary geotechnical report for the project (AET #01- 03837, dated February 5, 2008). To provide additional data for a more complete geotechnical program and report, additional services have been requested. These expanded services were performed according to our proposal to you, dated December 1, 2008. This proposal was accepted by Mr. Eric Johnson on December 2. The authorized scope of this expanded work consists of the following: • Five standard penetration test borings in planned building areas to depths of 21 feet. • Seven standard penetr ation test borings in pavement, fence /exterior wall enclosure, and other exterior areas to depths of 11 feet. • Soil laboratory testing (water content on cohesive soils). • Geotechnical engineering analysis based on the gained data and preparation of this report. These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope was not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination. • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The overall municipal complex is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The first phase involves the construction of items outside of the current City Hall area and the pavements to the south, thereby allowing construction while the existing city offices remain open. The second phase will involve the demolition of the existing City Hall building and the construction of new parking lots and drive areas. The existing Public Works Garage will remain in place, supplemented by new additions built off the garage. In addition, the existing water tower and pump room will remain, located to the south of the Public Works Garage. The City Hall building will have a footprint of 13,640 square feet, and will include a full lower level for parking. The main floor elevation is proposed to be 956.0 and the lower garage basement floor elevation is proposed to be 942.0. We understand maximum column loads for the new building will be on the order of 315 kips. Exterior wall loads are expected to reach a maximum of 7 kips per lineal foot. A small transformer pad will be located on the east end of the north City Hall wall (exterior side). The pad will be placed on -grade in the vicinity of elevation 948, roughly midway up the basement wall. Therefore, the pad will overlie at least a portion of the basement backfill zone. A new storm sewer pipe will also be placed in the area, oriented in an east -west direction. Pipe invert depth will be about 10 feet lower than the new transformer pad. Plans suggest the pipe alignment is very near the northern edge of the proposed transformer pad, meaning the pad will overlie the full depth of the pipe trench backfill. The Public Works additions will be constructed to the north and west of the existing Public Works Garage to remain, as shown on Figure 2. We understand finished on -grade floor elevation will match existing garage elevation at 954.2. Foundation loads are expected to be somewhat less than that described for the City Hall building. Page 2 of 20 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 0 Our building foundation design assumptions include a minimum factor of safety of 3 with respect to localized shear or base failure of the foundations. We assume the structure will be able to tolerate total settlements of up to 1 inch, and differential settlements over a 30 foot distance of up to '/z inch. New pavements will be constructed as a part of the project, as shown on Figure 2. We understand bituminous pavements will be divided between light duty areas (cars and passenger trucks /vans only) and heavy duty areas (intended for heavier truck traffic). A small concrete pavement area is also planned near the Public Works garage addition, assumed to be a "heavy duty" pavement. Sidewalks are also proposed. The bituminous drive serving the lower garage level of the City Hall will enter the building on the west side. With the lower slab elevation, the drive will lower below surrounding grade, toresulting in the need for retaining walls on both sides of the drive. We understand the walls will be cast -in -place cantilevered retaining walls, which will be supported on spread foundations. A brick wall trash enclosure will be constructed on the north side of the north Public Works addition. The enclosure wall will be supported on a spread footing and masonry wall foundation, and the interior slab will be concrete. Fence enclosed Impound Lot and Public Works Storage Yard areas are also proposed on the west side. The Impound Lot will be bituminous surfaced and the Storage Yard will be gravel surfaced. A concrete pad will also be constructed for a generator in the northeast corner of the Impound Lot. Short block retaining walls may be constructed in some perimeter locations. Our scope does not include design of these walls. Other project features include fences, located around the Impound Lot/generator pad and the Public Works Storage Yard. Light poles, a flag pole, a series of bollards, and a center island area pylon or statue are also proposed. These elements will be supported on post type foundations, and this report presents foundation design concerns related to frost action. Page 3 of 20 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 The stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Field Exploration Program The total subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of sixteen standard penetration test borings (including the four previously drilled borings). The logs of the borings and details of the methods used appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative density or consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N- value). The boring locations were taped in the field by our field crew, and appear on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The locations were referenced to existing building lines, as noted on the figure. The surface elevations were measured by our field crew using an engineer's level and rod. The reference benchmark was the top nut of the hydrant located to the west of the water tower (west of the entrance drive), which appears on Figure 1. This benchmark is shown to be elevation 953.98 feet. 4.2 Laboratory Testing The laboratory test program included numerous water content tests, conducted on cohesive soils. The test results appear on the individual boring logs adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed. Page 4 of 20 r a AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Subsurface Soils /Geology The predominant geology consists of glacially deposited till. The till is mostly silty sand, although is often more clayey (sandy lean clay and clayey sand) near the top of the deposit. Alluvial layers (water deposited soils) are occasionally present within or above the till. Alluvial deposits above the till are mostly lean clays and sandy silts; with the upper zone sometimes developed into topsoil. Where the alluvial layers are interbedded at greater depth, they are usually sands and sands with silt, often with gravel. With the past development, fill is present above the till, with soil types similar to the upper zones of the natural profile. At some locations, it was difficult to judge whether zones of the profile were fill or naturally occurring till. These particular samples did not have the obvious appearance of fill, although it is evident from the surface topography that some fill does exist in the area. The geologic descriptions on the logs present our best judgment based on the limited samples retrieved. It should be easier to distinguish fill from the natural soils within the actual excavations during construction. 5.2 Ground Water No ground water entered the boreholes at the time of drilling. Although much of the profile is till, which includes slower draining soil which do not allow immediate appearance of water, some of the deeper borings included sand layers which were moist (not waterbearing). These non - waterbearing sands are present lower than elevation 930. Based on this, it appears that the steady -state ground water table is deeper than elevation 930. With the slow draining nature of the on -site soils, water can appear in a perched condition. Page 5 of 20 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 Ground water levels fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts, as well as other factors. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Building Grading 6. L] City Hall Excavation Most of the new City Hall building will extend well into the competent glacial till layer. The limiting soils pertaining to the foundation design is located in the northwest corner of the proposed building area, defined by Boring 11. This is the area where grade is currently lower than the remainder of the building footprint such that footings would be supported over soils within the upper portion of the profile. To take advantage of the high bearing capabilities of the till deposit throughout most of the building area, we will recommend subcutting of upper looser soils within the upper portion of the till to allow a net allowable soil bearing capacity of 4000 psf in the design. To prepare the City Hall building area and the adjacent retaining wall foundation area, we recommend excavating all surficial fill and topsoil materials which should expose the glacial till layer. Excavation to lower level grade will already penetrate through these materials into the competent till. Once the natural till is exposed, we recommend additional excavation of any looser or softer till zones near the surface, which would be applicable in the northwest corner of the building. This additional excavation would only apply to foundation areas, and not the general floor slab areas. We recommend removing soils which have an N -value of 9 blows per foot or less, resulting in an excavation depth of 4 feet at Boring 11. A review of required excavation depths for footing support at the test locations then appears on Table A. Page 6 of 20 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 Table A — Recommended Minimum Excavation Depths Boring Location Surface Elevation (ft) Minimum Excavation Depth ft Approximate Excavation Elevation ft 2 952.8 *4 *948'/2 3 955.2 *4 *951 11 941.2 4 937 12 948.0 *2 *946 13 948.1 *2'/2 *945'h 14 949.5 *2 *947'/2 15 950.0 *6' /z *9431/2 Trxcavation to lower level boor elevation (942.0) will penetrate to greater depths (i.e., competent soils will be present at proposed grades). The depth/elevation indicated in Table A is based on the soil condition at the specific boring location. Since conditions will vary away from the boring location, it is recommended that AET geotechnical personnel observe and confirm the competency of the soils in the entire excavation 0 bottom prior to new fill or footing placement. Where the excavation extends below foundation grade, the excavation bottom and resultant engineered fill system must be oversized laterally beyond the planned outside edges of the foundations to properly support the lateral loads exerted by that foundation. This excavation/engineered fill lateral extension should at least be equal to the vertical depth of fill needed to attain foundation grade at that location (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize). 6.1.2 Public Works Building Excavation To prepare the Public Works Addition and trash enclosure areas, we recommend removal of surficial fill and topsoil, thereby exposing either the glacial till or the stiff alluvial clays. Considering the nature of these additions and the presence of lean clays which can be associated with lower strength, the excavation observations should consider soil strength needs for 3000 psf allowable bearing pressures. Is Page 7 of 20 PJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 We were not able to clearly judge the geologic origin of the soils around 5 feet at Boring 4. Although these soils are likely natural tills, additional field judgment should be performed of the soils in this area to confirm natural till. If the soils are judged to be fill, they should be excavated per the direction of the geotechnical field personnel. Anticipated excavation depths at the boring locations in the vicinity of the Public Works building additions appear on Table B. Table B — Recommended Minimum Excavation Depths Boring Location Surface Elevation (ft) Minimum Excavation Approximate Excavation Depth ft Elevation ft 4 953.4 *4 -6'/2 *949'/2 -947 6 952.9 2 951 nuns in Luis range snouia ne evaivatea to the neia at ttne tune of excavation. The depth/elevation indicated in Table B is based on the soil condition at the specific boring location. Since conditions will vary away from the boring location, it is recommended that AET geotechnical personnel observe and confirm the competency of the soils in the entire excavation bottom prior to new fill or footing placement. Where the excavation extends below foundation grade, the excavation bottom and resultant engineered fill system must be oversized laterally beyond the planned outside edges of the foundations to properly support the lateral loads exerted by that foundation. This excavation/engineered fill lateral extension should at least be equal to the vertical depth of fill needed to attain foundation grade at that location (i.e., 1: l lateral oversize). Care will be needed when excavating adjacent to the existing Public Works garage building which will remain. If the existing building foundations are supported directly on the competent natural soils, then the excavation will not need to extend deeper than the bottom of footing at that particular location. However, if the existing footing is supported on compacted fill, the excavation may need to extend lower than footing grade. In the latter case, the existing 0 Page 8 of 20 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 0 compacted fill system should include a minimum 1:1 lateral oversize such that a wedge of properly compacted fill should remain for temporary support. However, if the fill system is not properly oversized, such that the excavation needs to encroach further into the supporting soils, then underpinning may be needed to maintain foundation support integrity. This condition will need to be evaluated during excavation operations, as the supporting soils are exposed. 6.1.3 Building Area Fill Placement and Compaction Engineered fill placed to attain grade for foundation support should be compacted in thin lifts, such that the entire lift achieves a minimum compaction level of 98% of the standard maximum dry unit weight per ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). Fill placed which supports the floor slab only (outside of the 1:1 oversize zone below footings) can have a reduced minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight. Engineering fill placed below foundations should consist of sand or sand with silt, which refers to soils which contain less than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve. The silty sands, clayey sands, and sandy lean clays can be used below the floor slab areas, provided they are moisture conditioned to within 2% of the standard optimum water content such that they can be compacted to the specified levels stated above. Also, any soils containing organic content or debris should be discarded (used below "green" areas only). If there are areas where fill is placed on slopes, we recommend benching the sloped surface (benches cut parallel to the slope contour) prior to placing the fill. Benching is recommended where slopes are steeper than 414:1 V. 6.1.4 Transformer Pad Considerations The transformer pad will be supported by both storm sewer pipe backfill and basement wall backfill. Sand is recommended as backfill against the basement wall (see Section 6.4.2). For frost 0 Page 9 of 20 • • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 uniformity reasons, we recommend this sand backfill be extended further to the north to also fully support the transformer pad. The excavation bottom should extend beyond the pad footprint by 2 feet in all directions. The excavation bottom can have a slight slope towards the building (I OH: IV) to allow drainage to the perimeter drain system for the basement. The sand should be compacted in thin lifts, such that the entire lift achieves a minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight per ASTAD698 (Standard Proctor test). The pipe should be installed and backfilled prior to the sand backfill placement. The trench backfill should be compacted in thin lifts, such that the entire lift achieves a minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight per ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). On site non - organic soils can be used for this purpose, although should be moisture conditioned as needed to allow compaction throughout the fill lift. 6.2 Foundation Design The new buildings and structural retaining walls can be supported on conventional spread foundations placed on the competent natural soils or on engineering fill overlying the competent natural soils. We recommend perimeter foundations for heated building space be placed such that the bottom is a minimum of 42 inches below exterior grade. We recommend foundations for unheated building space (such as exterior retaining walls and canopy foundations) be extended to a minimum of 60 inches below exterior grade. Based on the conditions encountered and the recommended engineered fill placement, it is our opinion the City Hall foundations can be designed based on a net maximum allowable soil bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. Further, it is our opinion the Public Works building addition foundations can be designed based on a net maximum allowable soil bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. Page 10 of 20 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 It is our judgment the above presented design pressures will have a factor of safety of at least 3 against localized shear or base failure. We judge that total settlements under these loadings will be less than 1 inch. We also judge that differential settlements of conditions depicted by the borings and at the interface between the new construction and existing garage building should not exceed '/2 inch 6.3 Floor Slab Design For concrete slab design, we estimate the on -site lean clays should provide a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k- value) of at least 100 pci. These soils appear in the Public Works area. In the City Hall area, the borings indicate the subgrade soils will be silty sands and clayey sands, and not lean clays. The silty and clayey sands would be associated with an estimated k -value of 200 pci. For recommendations pertaining to moisture and vapor protection of interior floor slabs, we refer you to the attached standard sheet entitled "Floor Slab Moisture/Vapor Protection." 6.4 Below Grade Wall Backfilling/Water Control 6.4.1 Drainage Below grade walls should include a perimeter backfill drainage system on the exterior side of the wall. Drainage systems should consist of perforated or slotted PVC drainage pipes located at the bottom of the backfill trench, lower than the interior floor grade. The drain pipe should be surrounded by properly graded filter rock. A filter fabric should then envelope the filter rock. The drain pipe should be connected to a suitable means of disposal, such as a sump basket or a gravity outfall. A storm sewer gravity outfall would be preferred over exterior daylighting, as the latter may freeze during winter. 0 Page 11 of 20 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 6.4.2 Backfilling To prevent saturation of soils against the wall and to control the laterals loads which will be imposed, we recommend granular soils be used as backfill. The zone of granular soil backfill should extend outward from the wall at least 2 feet, and then upward and outward from the wall at a 30° or greater angle from vertical (this does not imply that this geometry satisfies OSHA backsloping requirements). As a minimum, the granular soils should contain no greater than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve, which would include (SP) and (SP -SM) soils. The sand backfill should be placed in lifts and compacted with portable compaction equipment. This compaction should be to the specified levels if sidewalks or pavements are placed above. Where slab /pavements are not above, we recommend capping the sand backfill with a layer of clayey soil to minimize surface water infiltration. Positive surface drainage away from the structure should also be maintained. If surface capping or positive surface drainage cannot be maintained, then the trench should be filled with more permeable soils, such as the Fine Filter or is Coarse Filter Aggregates defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3149. You should recognize that if the backfill soils are not properly compacted, settlements may occur which may affect surface drainage away from the building. 6.4.3 Lateral Pressures Lateral earth pressures on below grade walls vary, depending on backfill soil classification, backfill compaction, and slope of the backfill surface. Static or dynamic surcharge loads near the wall will also increase lateral wall pressure. For design purposes, assume that soils placed on a level surface would exert an equivalent fluid density pressure of about 35 pcf in the "active" case and about 50 pcf in the "at- rest" case. These values are based on the assumptions of SP or SP- SM sands used for backfill as recommended and sand compaction at 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight per ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). No factor of safety has been applied to the presented values. 0 Page 12 of 20 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 0 Below grade basement walls are normally restrained at the top which restricts movement. In this case, the design lateral pressures should be based on the "at- rest" pressure situation. Retaining walls which are free to rotate or deflect can be designed using the "active" case. Lateral earth pressures will be higher than that given if the backfill soils are not drained and become saturated, and/or if more silty /clayey soils are used. The design value used for passive pressure resistance depends on the allowable wall deflection. In order for full passive resistance to act, the wall needs to be mobilized. This can be studied further if requested, although for the purpose of design, we would suggest limiting the passive pressure resistance to an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf. 6.5 Exterior Backfilling- Non - Retaining Wall Case Most of the on -site soils are at least moderately frost susceptible. Because of this, certain design •considerations are needed to mitigate these frost effects. For details, we refer you to the attached sheet entitled "Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction." 6.6 Pavements 6.6.1 Definitions Italicized words used in this section have a specific definition. These definitions are presented on the attached standard sheet entitled "Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction," or in an ASTM Standard or Mn/DOT Specification. 6.6.2 Subgrade Preparation Long term pavement performance is dependent on having high soil stability in the critical Subgrade zone to resist wheel loads and on having favorable frost and drainage characteristics. The borings indicate the soils present within the critical subgrade zone will consist of silty sands, clayey sands, sandy lean clays, and lean clays; all of which are poor draining and frost 0 Page 13 of 20 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 0 susceptible. The preferred approach in these poor frost/drainage conditions is to perform a uniform subcut and place a uniform thickness sand subbase. The use of a 1 -foot thick sand subbase is usually a good approach when considering performance and economy. Use of a sand subbase layer as the upper portion of the subgrade is then our primary recommendation for this project. Sand subbase layers are often comprised of Select Granular Borrow. This specification does allow for the possibility of a fine grained sand material approaching a silty sand classification. This type of material does not allow for free drainage, and the stability can also be affected by the presence of water. Therefore, we often prefer the use of Modified Select Granular Borrow, if your budget allows. Value engineering judgments of intermediate gradations could also be considered, and we are available for review on this issue. Where there is a need to vary the thickness of the sand subbase, we recommend the thickness have a taper of no steeper than 10:1 (H:V). The subcut and sand subbase placement should extend slightly beyond the outer edge of the curb, or the paved edge (if no curb is placed), to maintain frost uniformity. The sand subbase should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent build up of water within the sand. This can be accomplished by placing short segments of properly engineered drainage lines which are connected to catch basins in low elevation areas (referred to as "finger drains "). Where paved areas are relatively level, and if finger drains are not frequent, you should consider placing a longer parallel drainage line through the level area to better remove infiltrating water. The need for shorter paths to draintile lines increases as the subbase material becomes less permeable (i.e, less draintile would be needed using Modified Select Granular Borrow versus Select Granular Borrow). The final subgrade should have proper stability within the critical subgrade zone. Stability of the • Page 14 of 20 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 on -site soils should be evaluated prior to sand subbase placement, preferably using the test roll procedure. Instability will likely be a result of wetter clayey /silty soils. More widespread instability can be anticipated during wetter seasons. Unstable soils should either be subcut and replaced, or reworked in- place. If soils are reworked in- place, they may need to undergo considerable scarification and drying to reach a proper level of stability (ability to pass a test roll). Reworked soils should be prepared similar to new fill materials, and should meet the water content and compaction requirements outlined later for new fill placement. We caution that instability of soils present beneath the soils being reworked and compacted may limit the ability to compact the upper soils. In this case, greater depths of subcutting and stability improvement may be needed. If organic soils are found to be present, we recommend removing these soils where present within the critical subgrade zone. Following subcutting and preparation of existing soils, fill can be placed as needed to attain subgrade elevation. Fill should be placed and compacted per the requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3F1 (Specified Density Method). This specification requires soils placed within the critical subgrade zone be compacted to a minimum of 100% of the standard maximum dry unit weight defined in ASTM: D698 (Standard Proctor test), at a water content between 65% to 102% of the standard optimum water content. A reduced minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight can be used below the critical subgrade zone. The sand subbase can be considered part of a composite subgrade; and the top of the subbase can be figured as the top of the 3 foot subgrade zone needing the 100% compaction level. However, the lower (dry) end of the water content range requirement does not need to apply to the sands. The interior of the Impound Lot will be bituminous surfaced, except for the concrete pad generator area. The subgrade of the interior for both the Impound Lot and the concrete generator 0 Page 15 of 20 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 is pad should be prepared as a pavement subgrade, as defined in this section. The Storage Yard will be gravel surfaced. This subgrade should also be prepared consistent with that recommended for pavements, except that you could consider eliminating the sand subbase layer if needed for budgetary reasons. The gravel surface does not as readily show frost movement distress and can be graded. Without the sand subbase, you should consider the placement of a geotextile fabric (Type V per Mn/DOT 3733) between the aggregate base and underlying subgrade to assist material separation. 6.6.4 Pavement Section Thicknesses We are presenting pavement designs based on two potential traffic situations (light and heavy duty). The light duty design refers to parking areas which are intended only for automobiles and passenger truck/ vans. The heavy duty design is intended for pavements which will experience 0 the heavier truck traffic. Lean clays are present within the subgrade area, which represents the limiting subgrade condition in terms of design R- value. However, the use of a 1 -foot thick sand subbase will improve the subgrade R- value. We estimate an R -value of 30 will be provided for the composite subgrade consisting of 1 -foot of Select Granular Borrow over the on -site lean clays. The designs are based on this R- value, and if you elect to remove the sand subbase from the section, we should be contacted for review of revised sections. Our recommended pavement designs based on the R -value of 30 appear in Tables C and D. Table C — Bituminous Pavement Thickness Designs Material Section Thicknesses =30 Light Duty Heavy Duty Bituminous Wear 3" (2 lifts) 4" (2 lifts) Class 5 Aggregate Base 5" 6" is Page 16 of 20 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 0 Table D — Concrete Pavement Thickness Designs Material Section Thicknesses =30 Light Duty Heavy Duty Concrete 3.5" 5.5" Class 5 Aggregate Base 4" 4" The concrete design assumes that no dowels are needed for load transfer. Although the Class 5 aggregate base is not necessarily needed for strength reasons, it was added to the concrete design to assist in controlling "mud pumping" at the joints. The design assumes a minimum concrete compressive strength (f c) of 4000 psi at 28 days. The presented designs have been based on "20- year" pavement life design charts. However, the concrete design is expected to have a longer pavement life; or at least, does not require the on- Isgoing maintenance of a bituminous system. The benefit of a bituminous system is that rehabilitation techniques, such as mill and overlay procedures, can be more easily performed. 6.7 Post/Pier Foundation Design Considerations The project is expected to include numerous post type foundations. This includes bollards, a flag pole, and fence posts. Vertical loads are very light, and frost forces can negatively impact these foundations if not properly designed. Frost uplift forces can be created on post or pier foundations by the surrounding frost susceptible soils. Frost heaving soils which surround the pier can adhere to the pier and lift the pier as it freezes and expands. Even if the pier in the frost zone has a smooth surface, a "pinching" effect can still occur because the soils surround the pier in all directions. Based on our experience with other similar projects, a potential uplift force of 13 psi can act on the shaft perimeter in the upper frost zone. For example, based on a frost depth of 4 feet and a pier diameter of 12 inches, this 0 Page 17 of 20 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 0 could then translate to over 23 kips of upward force. To assist in mitigating the potential effect of these frost forces, the following items should be considered: • The frost forces will be created from the upper frost zone of the pier. For this situation (where snow cover will remain), we would consider the frost zone to be the upper 4 feet of the pier (in contact with soil). It will be very important to maintain the pier diameter such that it does not increase as it approaches the surface (i.e., telescope with a wider top). In fact, if possible during construction, it would be preferable to have the diameter of the pier below 4 feet be larger than the diameter in the upper portion. This lower pier oversizing would assist in resisting the upward force. • Although some "pinching" effects in the frost zone can occur, there would still be less frost forces if the upper pier had a smooth face rather than a rough face. To accomplish this, you should consider the placement of a smooth form in the upper portion of the pier. We recognize that side resistance will likely be needed to resist lateral and moment forces. We would suggest placing a tubular form within the upper 3 foot zone to create a slip surface. Depending on the form material used, an additional application of a "slippery" material /substance may be needed on the outside of the form to create a positive slip surface. A low- strength flowable concrete or grout should then be placed in the annular space created outside of the form to re- establish contact with the surrounding soil (for shear and moment resistance). This would also assist in creating a smaller diameter at the top as opposed to deeper portions of the pier. • Additional depth of pier embedment can be used to resist the upward frost forces. In the case of a one -foot diameter pier, a total embedment depth of 12 feet (which includes the frost zone) of a common diameter would be needed to resist the uplift force. The depth 0 Page 18 of 20 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 could be reduced to 8 feet if the diameter below the frost zone is larger than the diameter in the upper 4 -foot zone; which can be accomplished by augering an oversized hole (assume a 2 inch larger radius) and using a form in the upper 4 -foot zone. The issues with the annular space in the formed area would again need to be resolved if lateral constraint is needed. Also, the structural design of the pier will need to consider the tensile forces created. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Potential Difficulties 7. 1.1 Cobbles and Boulders The soils at this site appear to include some cobbles, and may potentially include boulders. This may make excavating procedures somewhat more difficult than normal if they are encountered. 7.1.2 Perched Water With the slow draining nature of most of the on -site soils, water can easily perch and appear in excavations, especially during times of inclement weather. Standing water should be removed as needed to facilitate construction and filling. 7.1.3 Wet Soils Some of the site soils available for re -use may be wet or could become wet of the "optimum water content" condition. Such soils may then need to be moisture conditioned in order to achieve specified compaction levels. 7.2 Excavation Backsloping If excavation faces are not retained, the contractor should maintain maximum allowable slopes in 0 Page 19 of 20 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, 'Excavations" (can be found on www.osha. ov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance. 7.3 Observation and Testing The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we recommend on -site observation by a geotechnical engineer /technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. We also recommend these soils be evaluated for proper through percolation of infiltrating water prior to backfill placement, if the design does not include a perimeter draintile system. Soil density testing should be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied. 0 8.0 LIMITATIONS • Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either express or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled " Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use ". Page 20 of 20 FLOOR SLAB MOISTURENAPOR PROTECTION Floor slab design relative to moisture /vapor protection should consider the type and location of two elements, a granular layer and a vapor membrane (vapor retarder, water resistant barrier or vapor barrier). In the following sections, the pros and cons of the possible options regarding these elements will be presented, such that you and your specifier can make an engineering decision based on the benefits and costs of the choices. GRANULAR LAYER In American Concrete Institute (ACI) 302.1R -04, a "base material" is recommended over the vapor membrane, rather than the conventional clean "sand cushion" material. The base layer should be a minimum of 4 inches (100 mm) thick, trimmable, compactible, granular fill (not sand), a so- called crusher -run material. Usually graded from 1'/2 inches to 2 inches (38 to 50 mm) down to rock dust is suitable. Following compaction, the surface can be choked off with a fine -grade material. We refer you to ACI 302.1R -04 for additional details regarding the requirements for the base material. In cases where potential static water levels or significant perched water sources appear near or above the floor slab, an under floor drainage system may be needed wherein a draintile system is placed within a thicker clean sand or gravel layer. Such a system should be properly engineered depending on subgrade soil types and rate /head of water inflow. VAPOR MEMBRANE The need for a vapor membrane depends on whether the floor slab will have a vapor sensitive covering, will have vapor sensitive items stored on the slab, or if the space above the slab will be a humidity controlled area. If the project does not have this vapor sensitivity or moisture control need, placement of a vapor membrane may not be necessary. Your decision will then relate to whether to use the ACI base material or a conventional sand cushion layer. However, if any of the above sensitivity issues apply, placement of a vapor membrane is recommended. Some floor covering systems (adhesives and flooring materials) require installation of a vapor membrane to limit the slab moisture content as a condition of their warranty. VAPOR MEMBRANE /GRANULAR LAYER PLACEMENT A number of issues should be considered when deciding whether to place the vapor membrane above or below the granular layer. The benefits of placing the slab on a granular layer, with the vapor membrane placed below the granular layer, include reduction of the following: • Slab curling during the curing and drying process. • Time of bleeding, which allows for quicker finishing. • Vapor membrane puncturing. • Surface blistering or delamination caused by an extended bleeding period. • Cracking caused by plastic or drying shrinkage. The benefits of placing the vapor membrane over the granular layer include the following: • A lower moisture emission rate is achieved faster. • Eliminates a potential water reservoir within the granular layer above the membrane. • Provides a "slip surface ", thereby reducing slab restraint and the associated random cracking. If a membrane is to be used in conjunction with a granular layer, the approach recommended depends on slab usage and the construction schedule. The vapor membrane should be placed above the granular layer when: • Vapor sensitive floor covering systems are used or vapor sensitive items will be directly placed on the slab. • The area will be humidity controlled, but the slab will be placed before the building is enclosed and sealed from rain. • Required by a floor covering manufacturer's system warranty. The vapor membrane should be placed below the granular layer when: • Used in humidity controlled areas (without vapor sensitive coverings /stored items), with the roof membrane in place, and the building enclosed to the point where precipitation will not intrude into the slab area. Consideration should be given to slight sloping of the membrane to edges where draintile or other disposal methods can alleviate potential water sources, such as pipe or roof leaks, foundation wall damp proofing failure, fire sprinkler system activation, etc. There may be cases where membrane placement may have a detrimental effect on the subgrade support system (e.g., expansive soils). In these cases, your decision will need to weigh the cost of subgrade options and the performance risks. • 01REP013(3/07) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. FREEZING WEATHER EFFECTS ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 0 GENERAL Because water expands upon freezing and soils contain water, soils which are allowed to freeze will heave and lose density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original 2rength and density. The extent of heave and density/ strength loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition. Heave is greater in soils with higher percentages of fines (silts /clays). High silt content soils are most susceptible, due to their high capillary rise potential which can create ice lenses. Fine grained soils generally heave about 1/4" to 3/8" for each foot of frost penetration. This can translate to 1 " to 2" of total frost heave. This total amount can be significantly greater if ice lensing occurs. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Clayey and silty soils can be used as perimeter backfill, although the effect of their poor drainage and frost properties should be considered. Basement areas will have special drainage and lateral load requirements which are not discussed here. Frost heave may be critical in doorway areas. Stoops or sidewalks adjacent to doorways could be designed as structural slabs supported on frost footings with void spaces below. With this design, movements may then occur between the structural slab and the adjacent on -grade slabs. Non -frost susceptible sands (with less than 12% passing a #200 sieve) can be used below such areas. Depending on the function of surrounding areas, the sand layer may need a thickness transition away from the area where movement is critical. With sand placementover slower draining soils, subsurface drainage would be needed for the sand layer. High density extruded insulation could be used within the sand to reduce frost penetration, thereby reducing the sand thickness needed. We caution that insulation placed near the surface can increase the potential for ice glazing of the surface. The possible effects of adfreezing should be considered if clayey or silty soils are used as backfill. Adfreezing occurs when backfill adheres to rough surfaced foundation walls and lifts the wall as it freezes and heaves. This occurrence is most common with masonry block walls, unheated or poorly heated building situations and clay backfill. The potential is also increased where backfill soils are poorly compacted and become saturated. The risk of adfreezing can be decreased by placing a low friction separating layer between the wall and backfill. Adfreezing can occur on exterior piers (such as deck, fence or other sirrilar pier footings), even if a smooth surface is provided. This is more likely in poor drainage situations where soils become saturated. Additional footing embedment and/or widened footings below the frost zones (which include tensile reinforcement) can be used to resist uplift forces. Specific designs would require individual analysis. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Foundations, slabs and other improvements which may be affected by frostmovements should be insulated from frost penetration during freezing weather. If filling takes place during freezing weather, all frozen soils, snow and ice should be stripped from areas to be filled prior to new fill placement. The new fill should not be allowed to freeze during transit, placement or compaction. This should be considered in the project scheduling, budgeting and quantity estimating. It is usually beneficial to perform cold weather earthwork operations in small areas where grade can be attained quickly rather than working larger areas where a greater amount of frost stripping may be needed. If slab subgrade areas freeze, we recommend the subgrade be thawed prior to floor slab placement. The frost action may also require reworking and recompaction of the thawed subgrade. • O1REP015(02 /01) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • DEFINITIONS RELATING TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION TOP OF SUBGRADE Grade which contacts the bottom of the aggregate base layer. SAND SUBBASE Uniform thickness sand layer placed as the top of subgrade which is intended to improve the frost and drainage characteristics of the pavement system by better draining excess water in the base /subbase, by reducing and "bridging" frost heaving and by reducing spring thaw weakening effects. CRITICAL SUBGRADE ZONE The subgrade portion beneath and within three vertical feet of the top of subgrade. A sand subbase, if placed, would be considered the upper portion of the critical subgrade zone. GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2131. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the 1 " sieve, contain less than 20% by weight passing the #200 sieve. SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2132. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the 1" sieve, contain less than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve. MODIFIED SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Clean, medium grained sands which, of the portion passing the 1" sieve, contain less than 5% by weight passing the #200 sieve and less than 40% by weight passing the #40 sieve. •COMPACTION SUBCUT Construction of a uniform thickness subcut below a designated grade to provide uniformity and compaction within the subcut zone. Replacement fill can be the materials subcut, although the reused soils should be blended to a uniform soil condition and recompacted per the Specified Density Method (Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3F I). r TEST ROLL A means of evaluating the near - surface stability of subgrade soils (usually non - granular). Suitability is determined by the depth of rutting or deflection caused by passage of heavy rubber -tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, over the test area. Yielding of less than 1" is normally considered acceptable, although engineering judgment may be applied depending on equipment used, soil conditions present, and /or pavement performance expectations. UNSTABLE SOILS Subgrade soils which do not pass a test roll. Unstable soils typically have water content exceeding the "standard optimum water content" defined in ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). ORGANIC SOILS Soils which have sufficient organic content such that engineering properties /stability are affected. These soils are usually black to dark brown in color. OIREP019 (04/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • Ap endix A AET Project No. 01 -04415 Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 — Boring Locations Figure 2 — Proposed Project Layout Subsurface Boring Logs • 0 Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AET Project No. 01 -04415 *A_I FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling sixteen standard penetration test borings. The locations of the borings appear on Figure 1, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split -Spoon Samples (SS) - Calibrated to N60 Values Standard penetration (split- spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM:D1586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2 -inch O.D. split - barrel sampler into the in -situ soil with a 140 -pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N- value. Our method uses a modified hammer weight, which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N -value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split -spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60% of it's potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system. This converted energy then provides what is known as an N60 blow count. Most newer drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system, which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N- values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100 %. Therefore, the intent of AET's hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60% to 65% of the theoretical energy of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 inches. The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N- values, stating that N- values of 100% or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can &tate that the accuracy deviation of the N- values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM Method. A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS) /Spin -up Samples (SU) Sample types described as "DS" or "SU" on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Determining the thickness of "topsoil" layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual -manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed. A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM:D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual -manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs. The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted drimarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and evelopment can sometimes aid this judgment. Appendix A - Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AET Project No. 01 -04415 sk- 4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under "Water Level Measurements" on the logs: • Date and Time of measurement • Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement • Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow -stem auger at time of measurement • Cave -in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered • Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01- LAB -010, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM:D2216 and AASHTO:T265. A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied. OA.7 SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days. • Appendix A - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. BORING LOG NOTES . DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS Symbol Definition Symbol Definition CONS: One - dimensional consolidation test B,H,N: Size of flush joint casing DEN: Dry density, pcf CA: Crew Assistant (initials) DST: Direct shear test CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf inches HYD: Hydrometer analysis CC: Crew Chief (initials) LL: Liquid Limit, % COT: Clean-out tube LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches OC: Organic Content, % DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field; DR: Driller (initials) L - Laboratory DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights PL: Plastic Limit, % FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate) inches qc: Static cone bearing pressure, tsf HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter q,,: Unconfined compressive strength, psf HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm -cros in inches RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent LG: Field logger (initials) (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of as a percent of total core run) samples and for the ground water level symbols SA: Sieve analysis N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N- value) in blows per TRX: Triaxial compression test foot (see notes) VSR: Vane shear strength, remoulded (field), psf NQ: NQ wireline core barrel VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf PQ wireline core barrel WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit % -200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve REC: In split -spoon (see notes) and thin- walled tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES In rock coring, the length of core recovered (expressed (Calibrated Hammer Weight) as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no The standard penetration test consists of driving a split -spoon sample recovered. sampler with a drop hammer (calibrated weight varies to provide REV: Revert drilling fluid N60 values) and counting the number of blows applied in each of SS: Standard split -spoon sampler (steel; 13 /8" is inside three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in otherwise ASTM:D1586, the blows for each complete 6" increment and for SU Spin -up sample from hollow stem auger each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, TW: Thin - walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0. F below the slash. inches WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" column, rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid disparity is because the N -value is recorded below the initial 6" WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM:D1586 is hammer encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18 "). 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel Y ' Water level directly measured in boring 0: Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance is O1REP052C(OI /05) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve (see Plasticity Chart below) Highly organic soil UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488 for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests" Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu >4 and I<Cc <3E than 50% coarse Less than 5% fraction retained finesc Cu <4 and /or 1 >Cc >3 on No. 4 sieve Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more SIEVE ANALYSIS 1 K 10 20 p 80 1b 200 0 Gravels with Fines classify as ML or MH Fines more Well- graded sand than 12% fines c Fines classify as CL or CH Clean Sands Cu >6 and 1<Cc<3 Less than 5% Term fines° Cu<6 and/or I >Cc >3 Sands with Fines classify as ML or MH Fines more Gravel than 12% fines D Fines classify as CL or CH inorganic PI >7 and plots on or above Pass #200 sieve "A" liner PI<4 or 4lots below then Pt= 09ILL-6) G� "A" line organic Liquid limit —oven dried <0.75 greater than W' Liquid limit — not dried inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line organic Liquid limit --oven dried <0.75 Liquid limit —not dried Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic in odor 20 Z D. = 0075— D 5p ao 5 05 0.1 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Well- graded sand 0 —I)e 0.075.15 X5.6 Poorly - graded sat ADDITIONAL TF Silty sand Grain Size Term Particle Size Boulders Over 12" Cobbles 3" to 12" Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Sand #200 to #4 sieve Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve 6 s xWa O 4 F 3 z a d Soil Classification Group Group Na iymbol GW Well graded gr GP Poorly graded 1 GC Clayey graver' °' SW Well- graded sand SP Poorly - graded sat SM Silty sand SC Clayey sand CL Lean cla ML Sil OL Organic cla Organic siltK.L MO CH Fat cla MH Elastic silt"- OH Organic cla Organic siltK.L"'Q ---- - ------------- __ r« des r�rio� o r �re ned eoh as Layering Notes Term (MC Column) Very Soft D (Dry): fineaained tact Wm«sea .soils. 2 - 4 Firm touch. Layers Tess than Laminations: La Y M (Moist): EgMim of Wsire hbraMal etR =4to LL =25.5. then R= 0731LL -20) !/2" thick of visible. Soil may still have a high differing material water content (over "optimum "). or color. t/ *caring): Free water visible intended to Egation of'Vaire Verticals LL =76 to PI =7 then Pt= 09ILL-6) G� Lenses: Pockets or layers Waterbearing usually relates to greater than W' sands and sand with silt. thick of differing F (Frozen): Soil frozen material or color. MH or OH CL- ML or OL r LIQUID LIMIT ILL) Plasticity Chart Gravel Percentages Tenn Percent A Little Gravel 3%-14% With Gravel 15%-29% Gravelly 30%-50% molsturerrrost congttton Layering Notes Term (MC Column) Very Soft D (Dry): Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to 2 - 4 Firm touch. Layers Tess than Laminations: La Y M (Moist): Damp, although free water not !/2" thick of Hard visible. Soil may still have a high differing material water content (over "optimum "). or color. t/ *caring): Free water visible intended to describe non - plastic soils. Lenses: Pockets or layers Waterbearing usually relates to greater than W' sands and sand with silt. thick of differing F (Frozen): Soil frozen material or color. Consistency of Plastic Soils Term N- Value, BPF Very Soft less than 2 Soft 2 - 4 Firm 5 - 8 Stiff 9-15 Very Stiff 16-30 Hard Greater than 30 Peat Description AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. ■ter Notes ABased on the material passing the 3 -in (75 -mm) sieve. BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. cGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well - graded gravel with silt GW -GC well - graded gravel with clay GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay °Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well - graded sand with silt SW -SC well - graded sand with clay SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay (1330' ECU = Dr,,, /D,o, Cc= D10 x D(A) Plf soil contains >15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. olf fines classify as CL -ML, use dual ymbol GC-GM, or SC -SM. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add "with ravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL -ML silty clay. KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 add "with sand" or "with gravel ", whichever is predominant. Llf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. mlf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. NPI >4 and plots on or above "A" line. oPl<4 or plots below "A" line. PPI plots on or above "A" line. QPI plots below "A" line. aFiber Content description shown below. Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N- Value, BPF Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 5-10 Medium Dense 11 - 30 Dense 31 -50 Very Dense Greater than 50 Organic Description (if no lab tests) Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat and is judged to have sufficient organic tines content to influence the Liquid Limit properties. Shehrly organic used for borderline cases. Root Inclusions With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity of roots to influence the soil properties. Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged to be in sufficient quantity to significantly affect soil properties. 01CLS021 (07/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Fiber Content Term (Visual Estimate) Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% Hemic Peat: 33-67% Sapric Peat: Less than 33% AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. ■ter Notes ABased on the material passing the 3 -in (75 -mm) sieve. BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. cGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well - graded gravel with silt GW -GC well - graded gravel with clay GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay °Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well - graded sand with silt SW -SC well - graded sand with clay SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay (1330' ECU = Dr,,, /D,o, Cc= D10 x D(A) Plf soil contains >15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. olf fines classify as CL -ML, use dual ymbol GC-GM, or SC -SM. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add "with ravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL -ML silty clay. KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 add "with sand" or "with gravel ", whichever is predominant. Llf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. mlf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. NPI >4 and plots on or above "A" line. oPl<4 or plots below "A" line. PPI plots on or above "A" line. QPI plots below "A" line. aFiber Content description shown below. Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N- Value, BPF Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 5-10 Medium Dense 11 - 30 Dense 31 -50 Very Dense Greater than 50 Organic Description (if no lab tests) Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat and is judged to have sufficient organic tines content to influence the Liquid Limit properties. Shehrly organic used for borderline cases. Root Inclusions With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity of roots to influence the soil properties. Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged to be in sufficient quantity to significantly affect soil properties. 01CLS021 (07/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Borings locations: (given in distances from Baselines A & B) #6- 1 00' W of B, on A #7- 20'W of B, 22"N of A #8- 223'W of B, 24' N of A #9- 178'W of B, 76' N of A # 10- 171' W of B, 140'N of A #11- 50'W of B, 179'N of A # 12- WE of B, 145' N of A # 13- 78'E of B, 193"N of A # 14- 78'E of B, 11 TN of A # 15- 118'W of B, 141' N of A RaQplinP R South line Of the Northwest Ou.,te, of the Northwest Quarter of Sec 4, Tw. 29. Rng. 2 P 0I i6 Boring locations: #5- 1 T E of Point C #16- 9' W & 53' S of Point C - Z "—fTl 1 J/ 1f1 0 PROJECT City Hall /Public Works Expansion, Oak Park Heights AMERICAN >INEERING SUBJECT IW TING, INC. Boring Locations SCALE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1 " = 981E 1 JKV _ AET NO. 01 -04415 DATE December 16, 2008 FIGURE 1 � im oTREE #7,8&,9 \ EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN #13 ,48' -0' 2400 SF ] ExR AN° FUTURE , I I 7-0' PATq I EXPANSION r________ _`____ FUTURE OPERATOR / 1 : EXPANSION `\ CITY 1 P 1 � .... #15 .... ...... ...... ... #12 #°i6 SPAR 0JG _ i IMPOUND # 1 0 ? ENTRY TO PARKING GARAGE 7. TREE #,4 i - -- - _ 1 1� NEIN ALL BUILDING It SLIDING GATE O - 13,640 S.F. FOOTPRINT - - - -_ __ ____ - Y" 4 1••••• ENTRY m i WITH FULL LOWER LEVEL ' # 1 63-0- 5 -11 1/Y 46'_7 1/4' ,_ - - - -- - - - - -- I ;L, I 2 7000 SF , - 6-0' CONIC STEPS d ENTRY CANOPY / -- -- - - -- --------- #(� FUTURE : HANDRAIL : 7 EXPANSION: '� CONC WALK /� -/ �QT _ _____ __ - -__ -_ :� ............. .... -.. -: - -- -__ PUBLIC GREEN WITH #Z Y p /y2 • _- . "�._.._.m. _.. .._N G'R ._.._ _. n DQN _ - �_ _. RAI�.39'-0 _ CNL d LANDSCAPE ._ 1 24'-0. -g' 32' -1 R' Q AGC. RPNIP ^ Tr _ 141 Wp I .' -� BST-- _ ENCL. 16'0 RAISED PROOF OF PARKING - - -- i R I 1 -1 •j -cc - PAVING CENTER RAIL o TRAIL TO BE 54 STALLS #`� I BRICK #� ISLAND 10 NEWT REROUTED t'j SIREN --- - - - - -- 4I PUBLIC WORK _ 0. ADDITION BOLLARDS.; - - - - - -- AT I irr MZPARKISNOGUAND _ l __ ! LINDA 34I : PUBLIC EXISTING 30 STTA'L 5T - I• - - - - - -- EXISTING CRY HALL TO------ -'30'B WORKS PUBLIC 1 1 ADDITION WORKS °Q (Y° I B REMOVED 1 3 E REM L �.�__ ft i REMAIN TO 22 STALLS _o - I 24 - 1 I' I 1 j 20'-0' 3V -0' - r PROPERTY LINE PAVING TO BE REMOVED 1 • t ' ry �. § T (-. NEW COLONNADE OF TREES ALONG -it BUILDING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CITY HALL i PARKING- SEE LANDSCAPE I' NEW CURB 6' CONC 1 I SIDEWALK EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING CURB 1 1 TO BE REMOVED Ij I i; 1 j R- S'-- EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 'I O EXISTING CUR REMAIN EXISTING PUMP 1 1 rtlr-- TO 10 ' jl I ROOM TO F11 1.+ I L TING CURB NEW'YRAIK EXISTING I X 'G SITE I I ITEMS TO BE FOR REFERENCE ONLY TO 1 ©- I _.. 1 .. _C.R._ O SS WALK, TV P, RE MOVED EM-_- V : E _ D � C F LRO.OV }EXISTING CURB NEW CURB - � _ Q- ._ +r'" -= 16'O;FtAISED I a.� �'� • PAVING CENTER I 57TH STREET NORTH - - -- ISLAND \I EXISTING :.- ___BOLLARDS. 1 TREES T ^^ i REMAIN ____ __ .. _ I NEW CURB r R O.W. ..�..y�j. 1 ' • / 26 EXISTING I ' STALLS TO REMAIN ---I I u 0 10' 50' 100, � I I I . 30' PROJECT AET NO. City Hall/Public Works Expansion, Oak Park Heights 01 -04415 AMERICAN SUBJECT DATE E&GINEERING Proposed Project Layout TING, INC. January 8, 2009 SCALE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1 " = 68't Provided JV FIGURE 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. I (p. I of 1) OJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 951.7 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL "20 IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ME IN. FILL, mostly clayey sand with roots, a little FILL 1 ravel, dark brown, frozen F/M SU FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and 2 gravel, brown, a little dark brown, frozen to 3 about F 7 M SS 12 14 4 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, TILL OR 5 brown, stiff (SC) (possible fill) FILL 14 M SS 10 7 6 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, TILL medium dense (SM/SC) 30 M SS b 8— SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense to 9 medium dense (SM) 10 45 M SS 14 Ll 12 29 M SS 16 13 14 5— 29 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 20 42 M SS 16 21 22 23 29 M SS 24 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -22' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1/21/08 1:15 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF RING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 1/21/08 THIS LOG DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91 C 06/04 a AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 2 (p. 1 of 1) ROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.8 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD &LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE �' 2" FILL, mostly organic sandy silt with roots, FILL 1 black to dark brown, frozen F/M Su 11 FILL, mostly clayey sand with gravel, trace 2 roots, brown, frozen to about 1.25' 3 8 M SS 12 10 4 SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace roots, brown, stiff TILL 5 (CL /SC) 10 M SS 10 12 6 7 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 8 to medium dense (SM) 30 M SS 12 9 10 43 M SS 14 11 12 13 29 M SS 14 14 15 32 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 20 19 M SS 16 21 22 23 28 M SS 24 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -22' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1/21/08 12:10 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING D: 1/21/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C TH]S LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. T JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 3 (p. 1 of 1) ROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTII SURFACE ELEVATION: 955.2 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN' FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel, trace FILL F SU 1 roots, dark brown, frozen F/M SU 13 FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and 2 gravel, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 1.2' TILL OR 3 FILL 6 M SS 6 18 SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, trace roots, dark brown to brown, firm (CL /SC) 4 (possible fill) TILL CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, stiff 5 (SC /CL) 14 M SS 8 12 6 7 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense, g lenses of clayey sand (SM) 36 M SS 16 9 ]0 11 42 M SS 12 12 13 49 M SS 16 14 15 54 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, fine to : COARSE 20 medium grained, brown, moist, very dense (SP) ALLUVIUM * M SS 12 21 22 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense TILL 23 (SM) 48 M SS 18 24 END OF BORING *7/0.5 + 23/0.5 + 50/0.2 DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH EPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1/21/08 10:30 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF ORING COMPLETED: 1/21/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 4 (p. 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, NIlN D):INTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 953.4 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL Y,4201 FILL, mixture of silty sand and gravel, dark FILL 1 brown and brown, frozen F SU 11 FILL, mixture of clayey sand and sandy lean 2 clay, a little silty sand and gravel, brown, frozen 3 to 2.5' 27 F/M SS 12 12 4 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense, TILL OR 5 lenses of clayey sand (SM) (possible fill) FILL 25 M SS 14 8 6 7 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense TILL (SM) 8 32 M SS 14 9 10 34 M SS 16 ll 12 13 33 M SS 16 14 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 5 (SM) 36 M SS 14 16 17 18 19 20 38 M SS 14 21 22 SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium COARSE 23 grained, brown, moist, dense, lenses of sandy silt ` ALLUVIUM 32 M SS 14 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -22' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1121/08 9:15 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BO COMMPPLETED: 1/21 /08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG Ub /U4 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 5 (p. 1 Of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEIPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 953.4 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE 4.25" Bituminous pavement FILL F/M 10" FILL, mostly sand with silt and gravel, dark 1 TILL FILL OR brown, frozen to 10" M 2 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown (SM) . 20 M SS 14 3 (possible fill) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light 4 brown, medium dense, laminations of sand (SM) 5 17 M SS 14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 6 dense (SM) 7 8 24 M SS 12 9 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light 10 brown, medium dense, laminations of sand (SM) 21 M SS 10 I I END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO , " 0 -9/: 3.25 HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTIH CD DEPTH FLI�UID LEVEL WATER ATTACHED 12/10/08 11:30 11.0 9.5 10.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/10/08 THIS LOG DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG C) JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. (p. 1 of 1) 6 OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.9 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL V.4201 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE ' 6" FILL, mostly sandy silt, trace roots, dark FILL 31 I brownish gray, frozen to 4" 11 F/M X SS 20 2 12 FILL, mixture of silty sand and clayey sand, a FINE little gravel, pieces of concrete, trace roots, dark 14 M SS 15 19 3 brown and brown ALLUVIUM 21 4— LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brownish gray to TILL brown, stiff, a lens of silt with sand above 2.5' 5 (CL) 10 M SS 14 19 6 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, reddish brown, a little brown, stiff, a lens of silty sand (SC /SM) 7 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, reddish brown, 8 medium dense (SM/SC) 16 M SS 17 14 9 10 20 M SS 17 11 12 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium dense (SM) 21 M SS 16 13 14 15 26 M SS 15 6 0 1 7 18 19 20 22 M SS 16 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0- 19'/2' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/5108 11:15 21.0 19.5 20.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 1215/08 DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 7 (p. 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN IkT DBPNTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.1 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE 7" FILL, mixture of silty sand and sandy silt, a FILL 18 :TILL I little gravel, trace roots, brown and dark brown, 39 F/M SS 17 frozen 2 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 12 M SS 18 3 dense, lenses of clayey sand (SM) 4 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 5 dense, laminations of sand with silt (SM) lb M SS 17 6 7 8 18 M SS 15 9 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 10 (SM) 32 M SS 16 11 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -9' /z' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/5108 12:10 11.0 9.5 11.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/5/08 DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 8 (p. 1 of 1) 6 oJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 949.3 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o - 420 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE 4" SANDY SILT, trace roots, dark brown, TOPSOIL 21 1 frozen (ML) 10 F/M SS 14 9 TILL 2 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, stiff (SC) 17 M SS 16 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 3— 4 dense (SM) CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, 5 brown, a little light brown, hard, laminations of 31 M SS 16 5 6 silt (SC) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light brown, dense, laminations of silt (SM) 36 M SS 12 8 9 10 46 M SS 14 l l END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 1 , „ 0 -9/: 3.25 HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED H DEPTWH CAVE-IN FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/10/08 10:00 11.0 9.5 10.4 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/10/08 DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 9 (p. 1 of 1) 46OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 951.1 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL 420 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE 6" FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, a little FILL FINE 1 clayey sand, trace roots, dark brown, frozen 26 F/M SS 16 17 2 ALLUVIUM LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, trace roots, dark grayish brown, a little brown, very stiff (CL) 7 M SS 6 20 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, trace roots, brown, 3 q firm, laminations of silt (CL) 5 20 M SS 1 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, possible ALLUVIUM 6 cobbles at 4.5', brown, very stiff (SC) OR TILL 7 8 19 M SS 16 12 9 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, stiff, TILL 10 laminations of sand (SC /SM) 18 M P SS 14 8 11 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0-9' /z' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/10/08 10:30 11.0 9.5 9.5 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/10/08 THIS LOG DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG ET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 10 (p. 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPT IN SURFACE ELEVATION: 948.9 GEOLOGY GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL 6420 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN' FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and FILL 1 gravel, trace roots, dark brown and brown, 12 F/M SS 14 12 frozen to about 6" 2 3 17 M SS 8 4 g SILTY SAND, trace roots, fine grained, light COARSE brown, moist, medium dense (SM) ALLUVIUM 15 M SS 6 6 7 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium TILL dense to dense (SMISC) 8 23 M SS 10 8 9 10 LI 32 M SS 12 8 12 13 34 M SS 16 7 14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense 15 (SM) 45 M SS 14 6 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -14'W 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12!8!08 1:10 16.0 14.5 16.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING COMPLETED: 12/8/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06 /04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 11 (p. 1 Of 1) ROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEIPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 941.2 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD &LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL V.4201 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN. 4" SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, dark TOPSOIL OR 1 brown, moist, very loose (SM) (possible fill) FILL 3 M SS 12 2 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, TILL very loose to loose (SM) 3 6 M SS 6 4 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, 5 loose (SM/SC) 10 M SS 14 6 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, brown, hard (SC) 8 34 M SS 0 9 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 10 dense, lenses and laminations of clayey sand (SM) 23 M SS 18 11 12 13 23 M SS 16 14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 15 dense (SM/SC) 20 M SS 18 16 17 18 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, very 19 dense (SM) 20 59 M SS 8 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -19 /z 3.25 „ HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/5/08 1:25 21.0 19.5 20.3 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING COMPLETED: 12/5/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 12 (p. 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEIPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 948.0 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD &LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL .420 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN. 4" SANDY SILT, trace roots, dark brown, TOPSOIL 31 1 frozen (ML) 4 F/M SS 8 13 MIXED 2 ALLUVIUM CLAYEY SAND, trace roots, brown, frozen to TILL about 6 ", then soft (SC) 3 14 M SS 10 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, 4 medium dense to dense, lenses and laminations of clayey sand (SM) 5— 25 M SS 14 6 7 g 38 M SS 18 7 9 SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, fine to : COARSE 10 medium grained, brown, moist, dense, a lens of ALLUVIUM 39 M SS 16 silty sand (SP -SM) 11 12 CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, hard TILL 13 (SC) 37 M SS 6 10 14 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 15 (SM) 38 M SS 18 6 17 18 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense, 19 laminations of sand (SM) 20 38 M SS 18 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0- 19'/x' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/9/08 2:10 21.0 19.5 21.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING COMPLETED: 12/9/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB No: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING No. 13 (p. 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DES H SURFACE ELEVATION: 948.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o - #20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE 6" SANDY SILT, trace roots, dark brown, TOPSOIL 32 FINE 1 frozen (ML) F/M SS 12 12 2 ALLUVIUM SANDY SILT, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 12 ", then moist (ML) TILL 3— 19 M SS 6 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, trace roots, light q brown, firm (CL) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 5 dense (SM) 47 M X SS 16 6 7 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles at 8', brown, hard, laminations of sand 38 M SS 14 7 8 (SC) 9 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, possible 10 cobbles, dense (SM) 32 M SS 8 I1 12 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, brown, very dense to dense (SM) 53 M SS 14 13 14 15 46 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 20 43 M SS 14 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -19%2' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/9/08 12:55 21.0 19.5 20.4 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING COMPLETED: 12/9/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 14 (p. I Of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH FEET SURFACE ELEVATION: 949.5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE TYPE REC IN. FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 3" SANDY SILT, with roots, dark brown, frozen TOPSOIL 38 1 Y ( ML) 4 F/M SS 14 11 FINE 2 3 ALLUVIUM 15 M SS 10 6 SANDY SILT, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 6 ", then moist, very loose (ML) TILL LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, a little gravel, trace q roots, brown, stiff (CL) 5 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, medium dense (SM) 20 M SS 12 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 6 dense, a lens of clayey sand (SM) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light brown, medium dense, laminations of sand with 8 27 M SS 10 q silt and sand (SM) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense (SM) 10 33 M SS 16 11 12 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, possible 13 cobbles, brown, very dense (SM) 76 M SS 8 14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, 15 brown, very dense (SM/SC) 67 M SS 12 16 17 18 19 20 56 M SS 14 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 1 , „ 0 -19/: 3.25 HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED H DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL EVEL THE ATTACHED 12/8/08 11:15 21.0 19.5 19.8 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TED: 12/9/08 TERMINOLOGY ON �D�R= LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB No: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING No. 15 (p. 1 of 1) oJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEIPNTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 950.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL 6420 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. FILL, mixture of clayey sand and sandy silt, a FILL I little gravel, trace roots, dark brown, frozen to 11 F/M SS 8 14 about 6" 2 FILL, mixture of clayey sand and silty sand, a 3 little gravel, trace roots, brown 13 M SS 12 8 4 5 18 M SS 10 10 6 7 LEAN CLAY, trace roots, brown and brownish FINE gray mottled, hard, laminations of silty sand ALLUVIUM 38 M SS 10 9 8 (CL) 9 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium . : TILL 10 dense (SM) 25 M SS 12 8 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, very 1 I Astiff (SC) END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -9 %z' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/8/08 1:55 11.0 9.5 10.7 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/8/08 DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 16 (p. 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.6 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL V o42() FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN_ FILL, mixture of clayey sand and silty sand, a FILL 16 I little gravel, pieces of bituminous, trace roots, F/M SS 18 dark brown and brown, frozen to 12" 2 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little TILL 3 light brown, very stiff to hard, laminations of 17 M SS 6 9 4 sand (SC) 5 31 M SS 10 9 6 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, medium dense (SM/SC) Ib M SS 14 8 9 10 I 29 M SS 12 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -9' /z' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/10/08 12:30 11.0 9.5 10.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF COMPLETED: 12/10/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 Appendix B AET Project No. 01 -04415 Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use 40 • Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use AET Project No. 01 -04415 B.1 REFERENCE This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE', of which, we are a member firm. B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. B.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project - Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project - specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man -made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. 1 ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road /Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565 -2733 : www.asfe.orE Appendix B — Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use AET Project No. 01 -04415 B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. 13.2.6 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. B.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. 13.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need to prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. B.2.10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcome§, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. B.2.11 Geoenviron mental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Appendix B — Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC u REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW City Hall /Public Works Expansion 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, Minnesota AET Project No. 01 -04415 Date: January 9, 2009 is Prepared for: City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. January 9, 2009 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Attn: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review City Hall and Public Works Expansion 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, Minnesota AET Project No. 01 -04415 Dear Mr. Johnson: CONSULTANTS • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • FORENSICS American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for your proposed City Hall and Public Works Building expansion in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. These services were performed according to our proposal to you dated,December 1, 2008. We are submitting three copies of the report to you. Three copies are also being sent on your behalf to Mr. Randy Engel of Buetow & Associates. Please contact me if you have any questions about the report. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. Jeffery K. Voyen, PE Vice President, Geotechnical Division Phone: (651) 659 -1305 Cell:. (612) 961 -9186 jvoyen@amengtest.com cc: (3) Buetow and Associates, Attn: Randy Engel 550 Cleveland Avenue North I St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 651- 659 -9001 Noll Free 800- 972 -6364 1Fax 651 -659 -1379 1www.amengtest.com IAA/EEO �� This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from American Engineering Testing, Inc. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review City Hall/Public Works Expansion 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, Minnesota AET Project No. 01 -04415 January 9, 2009 Prepared for: Prepared by: City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Attn: Eric Johnson Report Authored By: American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 (651) 659- 9001 /www.amengtest.com Peer Review Conducted By: Jeffery K. Voyen, PE J eph G. Bentler, PE Vice President, Geotechnical Division Geotechnical Engineer I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota Name: Jeffery K. Voyen Date: /- 9 - 9 License #: 15928 Copyright 2009 American Engineering Testing, Inc. All Rights Reserved Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project. STANDARD DATA SHEETS Floor Slab Moisture/Vapor Protection Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction APPENDIX A — Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 — Boring Locations Figure 2 — Proposed Project Layout Subsurface Boring Logs APPENDIX B — Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use • TABLE OF CONTENTS AET Project No. 01 -04415 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... ............................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES., ........................................................................... ............................... 1 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ...................................................................... ............................... 2 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING ................................. ............................... 4 4.1 Field Exploration Program ..................................................................... ............................... 4 4.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................. ............................... 4 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. ............................... 5 5.1 Subsurface Soils / Geology ....................................................................... ............................... 5 5.2 Ground Water ......................................................................................... ............................... 5 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... ............................... 6 6.1 Building Grading .................................................................................... ............................... 6 6.2 Foundation Design .................................................................................. ............................... 9 6.3 Floor Slab Design ................................................................................. ............................... 10 6.4 Below Grade Wall Backfilling/Water Control ..................................... ............................... 10 6.5 Exterior Backfilling- Non - Retaining Wall Case .................................. ............................... 12 6.6 Pavements ............................................................................................. ............................... 12 6.7 Post/Pier Foundation Design Considerations ....................................... ............................... 16 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................... ............................... 18 7.1 Potential Difficulties ............................................................................. ............................... 18 7.2 Excavation Backsloping ....................................................................... ............................... 18 7.3 Observation and Testing ....................................................................... ............................... 18 8.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................ ............................... 19 STANDARD DATA SHEETS Floor Slab Moisture/Vapor Protection Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction APPENDIX A — Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 — Boring Locations Figure 2 — Proposed Project Layout Subsurface Boring Logs APPENDIX B — Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use • GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW FOR CITY HALL AND PUBLIC WORKS EXPANSION 14168 OAK PARK BLVD. N OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA AET PROJECT NO. 01-04415 1.0 INTRODUCTION A new City Hall and an expanded Public Works building are proposed to be constructed at the current municipal site in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. To assist planning and design, you have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface exploration program at the site, conduct soil laboratory testing, and perform a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of the above services, and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES AET previously conducted four soil borings at the site, and prepared a preliminary geotechnical report for the project (AET #01- 03837, dated February 5, 2008). To provide additional data for a more complete geotechnical program and report, additional services have been requested. These expanded services were performed according to our proposal to you, dated December 1, 2008. This proposal was accepted by Mr. Eric Johnson on December 2. The authorized scope of this expanded work consists of the following: • Five standard penetration test borings in planned building areas to depths of 21 feet. • Seven standard penetration test borings in pavement, fence /exterior wall enclosure, and other exterior areas to depths of 11 feet. • Soil laboratory testing (water content on cohesive soils). • Geotechnical engineering analysis based on the gained data and preparation of this report. These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope was not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination. AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 0 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The overall municipal complex is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The first phase involves the construction of items outside of the current City Hall area and the pavements to the south, thereby allowing construction while the existing city offices remain open. The second phase will involve the demolition of the existing City Hall building and the construction of new parking lots and drive areas. The existing Public Works Garage will remain in place, supplemented by new additions built off the garage. In addition, the existing water tower and pump room will remain, located to the south of the Public Works Garage. The City Hall building will have a footprint of 13,640 square feet, and will include a full lower level for parking. The main floor elevation is proposed to be 956.0 and the lower garage basement floor elevation is proposed to be 942.0. We understand maximum column loads for the new building will be on the order of 315 kips. Exterior wall loads are expected to reach a 0 maximum of 7 kips per lineal foot. The Public Works additions will be constructed to the north and west of the existing Public Works Garage to remain, as shown on Figure 2. We understand finished on -grade floor elevation will match existing garage elevation at 954.2. Foundation loads are expected to be somewhat less than that described for the City Hall building. Our building foundation design assumptions include a minimum factor of safety of 3 with respect to localized shear or base failure of the foundations. We assume the structure will be able to tolerate total settlements of up to 1 inch, and differential settlements over a 30 foot distance of up to '/z inch. 18 Page 2 of 19 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 9 New pavements will be constructed as a part of the project, as shown on Figure 2. We understand bituminous pavements will be divided between light duty areas (cars and passenger trucks /vans only) and heavy duty areas (intended for heavier truck traffic). A small concrete pavement area is also planned near the Public Works garage addition, assumed to be a "heavy duty" pavement. The bituminous drive serving the lower garage level of the City Hall will enter the building on the west side. With the lower slab elevation, the drive will lower below surrounding grade, resulting in the need for retaining walls on both sides of the drive. At this time, we do not have details on the type of retaining wall to be constructed. This report presents recommendations for building spread foundations, which can also be applied to the retaining wall foundations. Our services do not include design of a segmental block retaining wall in the event that type of wall is to be used. A brick wall trash enclosure will be constructed on the north side of the north Public Works addition. The enclosure wall will be supported on a spread footing and masonry wall foundation, and the interior slab will be concrete. Fence enclosed Impound Lot and Public Works Storage Yard areas are also proposed on .the west side. The Impound Lot will be bituminous surfaced and the Storage Yard will be gravel surfaced. Short block retaining walls may be constructed in some perimeter locations. Our scope does not include design of these walls. Other project features include fences, located around the Impound Iot and the Public Works Storage Yard. A flag pole and a series of bollards are also proposed in the center island areas. These elements will be supported on post type foundations, and this report presents foundation design concerns related to frost action. The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if 1 Page 3 of 19 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Field Exploration Program The total subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of sixteen standard penetration test borings (including the four previously drilled borings). The logs of the borings and details of the methods used appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative density or consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N- value). The boring locations were taped in the field by our field crew, and appear on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The locations were referenced to existing building lines, as noted on the figure. The surface elevations were measured by our field crew using an engineer's level and rod. The reference benchmark was the top nut of the hydrant located to the west of the water tower (west of the entrance drive), which appears on Figure 953.98 feet. 4.2 Laboratory Testing This benchmark is shown to be elevation The laboratory test program included numerous water content tests, conducted on cohesive soils. The test results appear on the individual boring logs adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed. 0 Page 4 of 19 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Subsurface Soils /Geology The predominant geology consists of glacially deposited till. The till is mostly silty sand, although is often more clayey (sandy lean clay and clayey sand) near the top of the deposit. Alluvial layers (water deposited soils) are occasionally present within or above the till. Alluvial deposits above the till are mostly lean clays and sandy silts; with the upper zone sometimes developed into topsoil. Where the alluvial layers are interbedded at greater depth, they are usually sands and sands with silt, often with gravel. With the past development, fill is present above the till, with soil types similar to the upper zones of the natural profile. At some locations, it was difficult to judge whether zones of the profile were fill or naturally occurring till. These particular samples did not have the obvious appearance of fill, although it is evident from the surface topography that some fill does exist in the area. The geologic descriptions on the logs present our best judgment based on the limited samples retrieved. It should be easier to distinguish fill from the natural soils within the actual excavations during construction. 5.2 Ground Water No ground water entered the boreholes at the time of drilling. Although much of the profile is till, which includes slower draining soil which do not allow immediate appearance of water, some of the deeper borings included sand layers which were moist (not waterbearing). These non - waterbearing sands are present lower than elevation 930. Based on this, it appears that the steady -state ground water table is deeper than elevation 930. With the slow draining nature of the on -site soils, water can appear in a perched condition. 0 Page 5 of 19 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 Ground water levels fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts, as well as other factors. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Building Grading 6. L I City Hall Excavation Most of the new City Hall building will extend well into the competent glacial till layer. The limiting soils pertaining to the foundation design is located in the northwest corner of the proposed building area, defined by Boring 11. This is the area where grade is currently lower than the remainder of the building footprint such that footings would be supported over soils within the upper portion of the profile. To take advantage of the high bearing capabilities of the till deposit throughout most of the building area, we will recommend subcutting of upper looser 00 soils within the upper portion of the till to allow a net allowable soil bearing capacity of 4000 psf in the design. To prepare the City Hall building area and the adjacent retaining wall foundation area, we recommend excavating all surficial fill and topsoil materials which should expose the glacial till layer. Excavation to lower level grade will already penetrate through these materials into the competent till. Once the natural till is exposed, we recommend additional excavation of any looser or softer till zones near the surface, which would be applicable in the northwest corner of the building. This additional excavation would only apply to foundation areas, and not the general floor slab areas. We recommend removing soils which have an N -value of 9 blows per foot or less, resulting in an excavation depth of 4 feet at Boring 11. A review of required excavation depths for footing support at the test locations then appears on Table A. 9 Page 6 of 19 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 • Table A — Recommended Minimum Excavation Depths Boring Location Surface Elevation (ft) Minimum Excavation Depth 11 Approximate Excavation Elevation ft 2 952.8 *4 94 8/2 3 955.2 *4 *951 11 941.2 4 937 12 948.0 *2 *946 13 948.1 *2' /z *945'/2 14 949.5 *2 *947'/2 15 950.0 *6'/2 *943'/2 *Excavation to lower level floor elevation (942.0) will penetrate to greater depths (i.e., competent soils will be present at proposed grades). The depth/elevation indicated in Table A is based on the soil condition at the specific boring location. Since conditions will vary away from the boring location, it is recommended that AET geotechnical personnel observe and confirm the competency of the soils in the entire excavation bottom prior to new fill or footing placement. 40 Where the excavation extends below foundation grade, the excavation bottom and resultant engineered fill system must be oversized laterally beyond the planned outside edges of the foundations to properly support the lateral loads exerted by that foundation. This excavation/engineered fill lateral extension should at least be equal to the vertical depth of fill needed to attain foundation grade at that location (i.e., 1;1 lateral oversize). 6.1.2 Public Works Building Excavation To prepare the Public Works Addition and trash enclosure areas, we recommend removal of surficial fill and topsoil, thereby exposing either the glacial till or the stiff alluvial clays. Considering the nature of these additions and the presence of lean clays which can be associated with lower strength, the excavation observations should consider soil strength needs for 3000 psf allowable bearing pressures. Page 7 of 19 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 We were not able to clearly judge the geologic origin of the soils around 5 feet at Boring 4. Although these soils are likely natural tills, additional field judgment should be performed of the soils in this area to confirm natural till. If the soils are judged to be fill, they should be excavated per the direction of the geotechnical field personnel. Anticipated excavation depths at the boring locations in the vicinity of the Public Works building additions appear on Table B. Table B — Recommended Minimum Excavation Depths Boring Location Surface Elevation (ft) Minimum Excavation Approximate Excavation Depth ft Elevation ft 4 953.4 *4 -6%2 *949'/2 -947 6 952.9 2 951 UVlla 11 calla 1a11rG a11VUlU uri eVdIMILea m me nela at the tune oI excavation. The depth/elevation indicated in Table B is based on the soil condition at the specific boring location. Since conditions will vary away from the boring location, it is recommended that AET geotechnical personnel observe and confirm the competency of the soils in the entire excavation bottom prior to new fill or footing placement. Where the excavation extends below foundation grade, the excavation bottom and resultant engineered fill system must be oversized laterally beyond the planned outside edges of the foundations to properly support the lateral loads exerted by that foundation. This excavation/engineered fill lateral extension should at least be equal to the vertical depth of fill needed to attain foundation grade at that location (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize). 6.1.3 Building Area Fill Placement and Compaction Engineered fill placed to attain grade for foundation support should be compacted in thin lifts, such that the entire lift achieves a minimum compaction level of 98% of the standard maximum dry unit weight per ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). Fill placed which supports the floor slab only (outside of the 1:1 oversize zone below footings) can have a reduced minimum 0 Page 8 of 19 0 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight. Engineering fill placed below foundations should consist of sand or sand with silt, which refers to soils which contain less than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve. The silty sands, clayey sands, and sandy lean clays can be used below the floor slab areas, provided they are moisture conditioned to within 2% of the standard optimum water content such that they can be compacted to the specified levels stated above. Also, any soils containing organic content or debris should be discarded (used below "green" areas only). If there are areas where fill is placed on slopes, we recommend benching the sloped surface (benches cut parallel to the slope contour) prior to placing the fill. Benching is recommended where slopes are steeper than 4H:1 V 6.2 Foundation Design The new buildings and structural retaining walls can be supported on conventional spread foundations placed on the competent natural soils or on engineering fill overlying the competent natural soils. We recommend perimeter foundations for heated building space be placed such that the bottom is a minimum of 42 inches below exterior grade. We recommend foundations for unheated building space (such as exterior retaining walls and canopy foundations) be extended to a minimum of 60 inches below exterior grade. Based on the conditions encountered and the recommended engineered fill placement, it is our opinion the City Hall foundations can be designed based on a net maximum allowable soil bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. Further, it is our opinion the Public Works building addition foundations can be designed based on a net maximum allowable soil bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. 0 Page 9 of 19 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 It is our judgment the above presented design pressures will have a factor of safety of at least 3 against localized shear or base failure. We judge that total settlements under these loadings will be less than 1 inch. We also judge that differential settlements of conditions depicted by the borings and at the interface between the new construction and existing garage building should not exceed '/z inch 6.3 Floor Slab Design For concrete slab design, we estimate the on -site lean clays should provide a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k- value) of at least 100 pci. These soils appear in the Public Works area. In the City Hall area, the borings indicate the subgrade soils will be silty sands and clayey sands, and not lean clays. The silty and clayey sands would be associated with an estimated k -value of 200 pci. For recommendations pertaining to moisture and vapor protection of interior floor slabs, we refer you to the attached standard sheet entitled "Floor Slab Moisture/Vapor Protection." 6.4 Below Grade Wall Backfilling/Water Control 6.4.1 Drainage Below grade walls should include a perimeter backfill drainage system on the exterior side of the wall. Drainage systems should consist of perforated or slotted PVC drainage pipes located at the bottom of the backfill trench, lower than the interior floor grade. The drain pipe should be surrounded by properly graded filter rock. A filter fabric should then envelope the filter rock. The drain pipe should be connected to a suitable means of disposal, such as a sump basket or a gravity outfall. A storm sewer gravity outfall would be preferred over exterior daylighting, as the latter may freeze during winter. 0 Page 10 of 19 is AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 6.4.2 Backfilling To prevent saturation of soils against the wall and to control the laterals loads which will be imposed, we recommend granular soils be used as backfill. The zone of granular soil backfill should extend outward from the wall at least 2 feet, and then upward and outward from the wall at a 30° or greater angle from vertical (this does not imply that this geometry satisfies OSHA backsloping requirements). As a minimum, the granular soils should contain no greater than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve, which would include (SP) and (SP -SM) soils. The sand backfill should be placed in lifts and compacted with portable compaction equipment. This compaction should be to the specified levels if sidewalks or pavements are placed above. Where slab /pavements are not above, we recommend capping the sand backfill with a layer of clayey soil to minimize surface water infiltration. Positive surface drainage away from the structure should also be maintained. If surface capping or positive surface drainage cannot be maintained, then the trench should be filled with more permeable soils, such as the Fine Filter or Coarse Filter Aggregates defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3149. You should recognize that if the backfill soils are not properly compacted, settlements may occur which may affect surface drainage away from the building. 6.4.3 Lateral Pressures Lateral earth pressures on below grade walls vary, depending on backfill soil classification, backfill compaction, and slope of the backfill surface. Static or dynamic surcharge loads near the wall will also increase lateral wall pressure. For design purposes, assume that soils placed on a level surface would exert an equivalent fluid density pressure of about 35 pcf in the "active" case and about 50 pcf in the "at- rest" case. These values are based on the assumptions of SP or SP- SM sands used for backfill as recommended and sand compaction at 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight per ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). No factor of safety has been applied to the presented values. 0 Page 11 of 19 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 0 Below grade basement walls are normally restrained at the top which restricts movement. In this case, the design lateral pressures should be based on the "at- rest" pressure situation. Retaining walls which are free to rotate or deflect can be designed using the "active" case. Lateral earth pressures will be higher than that given if the backfill soils are not drained and become saturated, and/or if more silty /clayey soils are used. The design value used for passive pressure resistance depends on the allowable wall deflection. In order for full passive resistance to act, the wall needs to be mobilized. This can be studied further if requested, although for the purpose of design, we would suggest limiting the passive pressure resistance to an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf. 6.5 Exterior Backfilling- Non - Retaining Wall Case Most of the on -site soils are at least moderately frost susceptible. Because of this, certain design considerations are needed to mitigate these frost effects. For details, we refer you to the attached sheet entitled "Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction." 6.6 Pavements 6.6.1 Definitions Italicized words used in this section have a specific definition. These definitions are presented on the attached standard sheet entitled "Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction," or in an ASTM Standard or Mn/DOT Specification. 6.6.2 Subgrade Preparation Long term pavement performance is dependent on having high soil stability in the critical subgrade zone to resist wheel loads and on having favorable frost and drainage characteristics. The borings indicate the soils present within the critical subgrade zone will consist of silty sands, clayey sands, sandy lean clays, and lean clays; all of which are poor draining and frost 0 Page 12 of 19 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 susceptible. The preferred approach in these poor frost/drainage conditions is to perform a uniform subcut and place a uniform thickness sand subbase. The use of a 1 -foot thick sand subbase is usually a good approach when considering performance and economy. Use of a sand subbase layer as the upper portion of the subgrade is then our primary recommendation for this project. Sand subbase layers are often comprised of Select Granular Borrow. This specification does allow for the possibility of a fine grained sand material approaching a silty sand classification. This type of material does not allow for free drainage, and the stability can also be affected by the presence of water. Therefore, we often prefer the use of Modified Select Granular Borrow, if your budget allows. Value engineering judgments of intermediate gradations could also be considered, and we are available for review on this issue. Where there is a need to vary the thickness of the sand subbase, we recommend the thickness ihave a taper of no steeper than 10:1 (H:V). The subcut and sand subbase placement should extend slightly beyond the outer edge of the curb, or the paved edge (if no curb is placed), to maintain frost uniformity. The sand subbase should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent build up of water within the sand. This can be accomplished by placing short segments of properly engineered drainage lines which are connected to catch basins in low elevation areas (referred to as "finger drains "). Where paved areas are relatively level, and if finger drains are not frequent, you should consider placing a longer parallel drainage line through the level area to better remove infiltrating water. The need for shorter paths to draintile lines increases as the subbase material becomes less permeable (i.e, less draintile would be needed using Modified Select Granular Borrow versus Select Granular Borrow). The final subgrade should have proper stability within the critical subgrade zone. Stability of the 0 Page 13 of 19 • • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 on -site soils should be evaluated prior to sand subbase placement, preferably using the test roll procedure. Instability will likely be a result of wetter clayey /silty soils. More widespread instability can be anticipated during wetter seasons. Unstable soils should either be subcut and replaced, or reworked in- place. If soils are reworked in- place, they may need to undergo considerable scarification and drying to reach a proper level of stability (ability to pass a test roll). Reworked soils should be prepared similar to new fill materials, and should meet the water content and compaction requirements outlined later for new fill placement. We caution that instability of soils present beneath the soils being reworked and compacted may limit the ability to compact the upper soils. In this case, greater depths of subcutting and stability improvement may be needed. If organic soils are found to be present, we recommend removing these soils where present within the critical subgrade zone. Following subcutting and preparation of existing soils, fill can be placed as needed to attain subgrade elevation. Fill should be placed and compacted per the requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3FI (Specified Density Method). This specification requires soils placed within the critical subgrade zone be compacted to a minimum of 100% of the standard maximum dry unit weight defined in ASTM: D698 (Standard Proctor test), at a water content between 65% to 102% of the standard optimum water content. A reduced minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight can be used below the critical subgrade zone. The sand subbase can be considered part of a composite subgrade; and the top of the subbase can be figured as the top of the 3 foot subgrade zone needing the 100% compaction level. However, the lower (dry) end of the water content range requirement does not need to apply to the sands. With the interior of the Impound Lot being bituminous surfaced, the subgrade of the interior should be prepared as a bituminous pavement. Page 14 of 19 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 The Storage Yard will be gravel surfaced. This subgrade should also be prepared consistent with that recommended for pavements, except that you could consider eliminating the sand subbase layer if needed for budgetary reasons. The gravel surface does not as readily show frost movement distress and can be graded. Without the sand subbase, you should consider the placement of a geotextile fabric (Type V per Mn/DOT 3733) between the aggregate base and underlying subgrade to assist material separation. 6.6.4 Pavement Section Thicknesses We are presenting pavement designs based on two potential traffic situations (light and heavy duty). The light duty design refers to parking areas which are intended only for automobiles and passenger truck/ vans. The heavy duty design is intended for pavements which will experience the heavier truck traffic. 0 Lean clays are present within the subgrade area, which represents the limiting subgrade condition in terms of design R- value. However, the use of a 1 -foot thick sand subbase will improve the subgrade R- value. We estimate an R -value of 30 will be provided for the composite subgrade consisting of 1 -foot of Select Granular Borrow over the on -site lean clays. The designs are based on this R- value, and if you elect to remove the sand subbase from the section, we should be contacted for review of revised sections. Our recommended pavement designs based on the R -value of 30 appear in Tables C and D. Table C — Bituminous Pavement Thickness Designs Material Section Thicknesses =30 Light Duty Heavy Duty Bituminous Wear 3" (2 lifts) 4" (2 lifts) Class 5 Aggregate Base 5" 6" 0 Page 15 of 19 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 Table D — Concrete Pavement Thickness Designs Material Section Thicknesses =30 Light Duty Heavy Duty Concrete 3.5" 5.5" Class 5 Aggregate Base 4" 4" The concrete design assumes that no dowels are needed for load transfer. Although the Class 5 aggregate base is not necessarily needed for strength reasons, it was added to the concrete design to assist in controlling "mud pumping" at the joints. The design assumes a minimum concrete compressive strength (f,,) of 4000 psi at 28 days. The presented designs have been based on "20- year" pavement life design charts. However, the concrete design is expected to have a longer pavement life; or at least, does not require the on- going maintenance of a bituminous system. The benefit of a bituminous system is that rehabilitation techniques, such as mill and overlay procedures, can be more easily performed. 6.7 Post/Pier Foundation Design Considerations The project is expected to include numerous post type foundations. This includes bollards, a flag pole, and fence posts. Vertical loads are very light, and frost forces can negatively impact these foundations if not properly designed. Frost uplift forces can be created on post or pier foundations by the surrounding frost susceptible soils. Frost heaving soils which surround the pier can adhere to the pier and lift the pier as it freezes and expands. Even if the pier in the frost zone has a smooth surface, a "pinching" effect can still occur because the soils surround the pier in all directions. Based on our experience with other similar projects, a potential uplift force of 13 psi can act on the shaft perimeter in the upper frost zone. For example, based on a frost depth of 4 feet and a pier diameter of 12 inches, this could then translate to over 23 kips of upward force. 0 Page 16 of 19 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415 is To assist in mitigating the potential effect of these frost forces, the following items should be considered: • The frost forces will be created from the upper frost zone of the pier. For this situation (where snow cover will remain), we would consider the frost zone to be the upper 4 feet of the pier (in contact with soil). It will be very important to maintain the pier diameter such that it does not increase as it approaches the surface (i.e., telescope with a wider top). In fact, if possible during construction, it would be preferable to have the diameter of the pier below 4 feet be larger than the diameter in the upper portion. This lower pier oversizing would assist in resisting the upward force. 0 Although some "pinching" effects in the frost zone can occur, there would still be less IS frost forces if the upper pier had a smooth face rather than a rough face. To accomplish this, you should consider the placement of a smooth form in the upper portion of the pier. We recognize that side resistance will likely be needed to resist lateral and moment forces. We would suggest placing a tubular form within the upper 3 foot zone to create a slip surface. Depending on the form material used, an additional application of a "slippery" material /substance may be needed on the outside of the form to create a positive slip surface. A low- strength flowable concrete or grout should then be placed in the annular space created outside of the form to re- establish contact with the surrounding soil (for shear and moment resistance). This would also assist in creating a smaller diameter at the top as opposed to deeper portions of the pier. • Additional depth of pier embedment can also assist resisting frost forces. 0 Page 17 of 19 A AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Potential Difficulties 7.1.1 Cobbles and Boulders AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 The soils at this site appear to include some cobbles, and may potentially include boulders. This may make excavating procedures somewhat more difficult than normal if they are encountered. 7.1.2 Perched Water With the slow draining nature of most of the on -site soils, water can easily perch and appear in excavations, especially during times of inclement weather. Standing water should be removed as needed to facilitate construction and filling. 7.1.3 Wet Soils iSome of the site soils available for re -use may be wet or could become wet of the "optimum water content" condition. Such soils may then need to be moisture conditioned in order to achieve specified compaction levels. 7.2 Excavation Backsloping If excavation faces are not retained, the contractor should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, `Excavations " (can be found on www.osha. ov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance. 7.3 Observation and Testing The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring Page 18 of 19 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 0 1 -04415 17,.� locations, we recommend on -site observation by a geotechnical engineer /technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. We also recommend these soils be evaluated for proper through percolation of infiltrating water prior to backfill placement, if the design does not include a perimeter draintile system. Soil density testing should be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied. 8.0 LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either express or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled "Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use ". 0 Page 19 of 19 FLOOR SLAB MOISTURE/VAPOR PROTECTION Floor slab design relative to moisture /vapor protection should consider the type and location of two elements, a granular layer and a vapor membrane (vapor retarder, water resistant barrier or vapor barrier). In the following sections, the pros and cons of the possible options regarding these elements will be presented, such that you and your specifier can make an engineering decision based on the benefits and costs of the choices. GRANULAR LAYER In American Concrete Institute (ACI) 302.IR -04, a "base material" is recommended over the vapor membrane, rather than the conventional clean "sand cushion" material. The base layer should be a minimum of 4 inches (100 mm) thick, trimmable, compactible, granular fill (not sand), a so- called crusher -run material. Usually graded from P/2 inches to 2 inches (38 to 50 mm) down to rock dust is suitable. Following compaction, the surface can be choked off with a fine -grade material. We refer you to ACI 302.IR -04 for additional details regarding the requirements for the base material. In cases where potential static water levels or significant perched water sources appear near or above the floor slab, an under floor drainage system may be needed wherein a draintile system is placed within a thicker clean sand or gravel layer. Such a system should be properly engineered depending on subgrade soil types and rate/head of water inflow. VAPOR MEMBRANE The need for a vapor membrane depends on whether the floor slab will have a vapor sensitive covering, will have vapor sensitive items stored on the slab, or if the space above the slab will be a humidity controlled area. If the project does not have this vapor sensitivity or moisture control need, placement of a vapor membrane may not be necessary. Your decision will then relate to whether to use the ACI base material or a conventional sand cushion layer. However, if any of the above sensitivity issues apply, placement of a vapor membrane is recommended. Some floor covering systems (adhesives and flooring materials) require installation of a vapor membrane to limit the slab moisture content as a condition of their warranty. VAPOR MEMBRANE /GRANULAR LAYER PLACEMENT A number of issues should be considered when deciding whether to place the vapor membrane above or below the granular layer. The benefits of placing the slab on a granular layer, with the vapor membrane placed below the granular layer, include reduction of the following: Slab curling during the curing and drying process. • Time of bleeding, which allows for quicker finishing. • Vapor membrane puncturing. • Surface blistering or delamination caused by an extended bleeding period. • Cracking caused by plastic or drying shrinkage. The benefits of placing the vapor membrane over the granular layer include the following: • A lower moisture emission rate is achieved faster. • Eliminates a potential water reservoir within the granular layer above the membrane. • Provides a "slip surface ", thereby reducing slab restraint and the associated random cracking. If a membrane is to be used in conjunction with a granular layer, the approach recommended depends on slab usage and the construction schedule. The vapor membrane should be placed above the granular layer when: • Vapor sensitive floor covering systems are used or vapor sensitive items will be directly placed on the slab. • The area will be humidity controlled, but the slab will be placed before the building is enclosed and sealed from rain. • Required by a floor covering manufacturer's system warranty. The vapor membrane should be placed below the granular layer when: • Used in humidity controlled areas (without vapor sensitive coverings /stored items), with the roof membrane in place, and the building enclosed to the point where precipitation will not intrude into the slab area. Consideration should be given to slight sloping of the membrane to edges where draintile or other disposal methods can alleviate potential water sources, such as pipe or roof leaks, foundation wall damp proofing failure, fire sprinkler system activation, etc. There may be cases where membrane placement may have a detrimental effect on the subgrade support system (e.g., expansive soils). In these cases, your decision will need to weigh the cost of subgrade options and the performance risks. OIREP013(3/07) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. FREEZING WEATHER EFFECTS ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION GENERAL Because water expands upon freezing and soils contain water, soils which are allowed to freeze will heave and lose density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original arength and density. The extent of heave and density/ strength loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition. Heave is greater in soils with higher percentages of fines (silts /clays). High silt content soils are most susceptible, due to their high capillary rise potential which can create ice lenses. Fine grained soils generally heave about 1/4" to 3/8" for each foot of frost penetration. This can translate to 1 " to 2" of total frost heave. This total amount can be significantly greater if ice lensirg occurs. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Clayey and silty soils can be used as perimeter backfill, although the effect of their poor drainage and frost properties should be considered. Basement areas will have special drainage and lateral load requirements which are not discussed here. Frost heave may be critical in doorway areas. Stoops or sidewalks adjacent to doorways could be designed as structural slabs supported on frost footings with void spaces below. With this design, movements may then occur between the structural slab and the adjacent on -grade slabs. Non -frost susceptible sands (with less than 12% passing a #200 sieve) can be used below such areas. Depending on the function of surrounding areas, the sand layer may need a thickness transition away from the area where movement is critical. With sand placementover slower draining soils, subsurface drainage would be needed for the sand layer. High density extruded insulation could be used within the sand to reduce frost penetration, thereby reducing the sand thickness needed. We caution that insulation placed near the surface can increase the potential for ice glazing of the surface. The possible effects of adfreezing should be considered if clayey or silty soils are used as backfill. Adfreezing oxurs when backfill adheres to rough surfaced foundation walls and lifts the wall as it freezes and heaves. This occurrence is most common with masonry block walls, unheated or poorly heated building situations and clay backfill. The potential is also increased where backfill soils are poorly compacted and become saturated. The risk of adfreezing can be decreased by placing a low friction separating layer between the wall and backfill. • Adfreezing can occur on exterior piers (such as deck, fence or other similar pier footings), even if a smooth surface is provided. This is more likely in poor drainage situations where soils become saturated. Additional footing embedment and/or widened footings below the frost zones (which include tensile reinforcement) can be used to resist uplift forces. Specific designs would require individual analysis. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Foundations, slabs and other improvements which may be affected by frostmovements should be insulated from frost penetration during freezing weather. If filling takes place during freezing weather, all frozen soils, snow and ice should be stripped from areas to be filled prior to new fill placement. The new fill should not be allowed to freeze during transit, placement or compaction. This should be considered in the project scheduling, budgeting and quantity estimating. It is usually beneficial to perform cold weather earthwork operations in small areas where grade can be attained quickly rather than working larger areas where a greater amount of frost stripping may be needed. if slab subgrade areas freeze, we recommend the subgrade be thawed prior to floor slab placement. The frost action may also require reworking and recompaction of the thawed subgrade. 0 O1REP015(02/01) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • • DEFINITIONS RELATING TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION TOP OF SUBGRADE Grade which contacts the bottom of the aggregate base layer. SAND SUBBASE Uniform thickness sand layer placed as the top of subgrade which is intended to improve the frost and drainage characteristics of the pavement system by better draining excess water in the base /subbase, by reducing and "bridging" frost heaving and by reducing spring thaw weakening effects. CRITICAL SUBGRADE ZONE The subgrade portion beneath and within three vertical feet of the top of subgrade. A sand subbase, if placed, would be considered the upper portion of the critical subgrade zone. GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.213 1. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the 1" sieve, contain less than 20% by weight passing the #200 sieve. SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2132. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the 1 " sieve, contain less than 12% by weight passing the 4200 sieve. MODIFIED SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Clean, medium grained sands which, of the portion passing the I" sieve, contain less than 5% by weight passing the #200 sieve and less than 40% by weight passing the #40 sieve. COMPACTION SUBCUT Construction of a uniform thickness subcut below a designated grade to provide uniformity and compaction within the subcut zone. Replacement fill can be the materials subcut, although the reused soils should be blended to a uniform soil condition and recompacted per the Specified Density Method (Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3F 1). TEST ROLL A means of evaluating the near- surface stability of subgrade soils (usually non - granular). Suitability is determined by the depth of rutting or deflection caused by passage of heavy rubber -tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, over the test area. Yielding of less than 1" is normally considered acceptable, although engineering judgment may be applied depending on equipment used, soil conditions present, and /or pavement performance expectations. UNSTABLE SOILS Subgrade soils which do not pass a test roll. Unstable soils typically have water content exceeding the "standard optimum water content" defined in ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). ORGANIC SOILS Soils which have sufficient organic content such that engineering properties /stability are affected. These soils are usually black to dark brown in color. 01 REPO 19 (04/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • Ap endix A AET Project No. 01 -04415 Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 —Boring Locations Figure 2 — Proposed Project Layout Subsurface Boring Logs i • Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AET Project No. 01 -04415 A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling sixteen standard penetration test borings. The locations of the borings appear on Figure 1, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split -Spoon Samples (SS) - Calibrated to N60 Values Standard penetration (split- spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM:D1586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2 -inch O.D. split - barrel sampler into the in -situ soil with a 140 -pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N- value. Our method uses a modified hammer weight, which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N -value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split -spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60% of it's potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system. This converted energy then provides what is known as an N60 blow count. Most newer drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system, which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N- values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100 %. Therefore, the intent of AET's hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60% to 65% of the theoretical energy of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 inches. The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N- values, stating that N- values of 100% or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can state that the accuracy deviation of the N- values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM Method. *A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS) /Spin -up Samples (SU) Sample types described as "DS" or "SU" on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Determining the thickness of "topsoil" layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual - manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed. A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM:D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual - manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs. The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and Development can sometimes aid this judgment. Appendix A - Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AET Project No. 01 -04415 �A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under "Water Level Measurements" on the logs: • Date and Time of measurement • Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement • Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow -stem auger at time of measurement Cave -in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered • Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01- LAB -010, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM:D2216 and AASHTO:T265. A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied. JDA.7 SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days. • Appendix A - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. BORING LOG NOTES WDRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS Symbol Definition Symbol Definition CONS: One - dimensional consolidation test B,H,N; Size of flush joint casing DEN: Dry density, pcf CA: Crew Assistant (initials) DST: Direct shear test CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf inches HYD: Hydrometer analysis CC: Crew Chief (initials) LL: Liquid Limit, % COT: Clean -out tube LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches OC: Organic Content, % DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field; DR: Driller (initials) L - Laboratory DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights PL: Plastic Limit, % FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate) inches qC: Static cone bearing pressure, tsf HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter q,,: Unconfined compressive strength, psf HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm -cros in inches RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent LG: Field logger (initials) (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of as a percent of total core run) samples and for the ground water level symbols SA: Sieve analysis N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N- value) in blows per TRX: Triaxial compression test foot (see notes) VSR: Vane shear strength, remoulded (field), psf NQ: NQ wireline core barrel VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf PQ wireline core barrel WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit % -200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve REC: In split -spoon (see notes) and thin - walled tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES In rock coring, the length of core recovered (expressed (Calibrated Hammer Weight) as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no The standard penetration test consists of driving a split -spoon sample recovered. sampler with a drop hammer (calibrated weight varies to provide REV: Revert drilling fluid N60 values) and counting the number of blows applied in each of SS: Standard split -spoon sampler (steel; 1%" is inside three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in otherwise ASTM:D 1586, the blows for each complete 6" increment and for SU Spin -up sample from hollow stem auger each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, TW: Thin- walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0. F below the slash. inches WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" column, rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid disparity is because the N -value is recorded below the initial 6" WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM:131586 is hammer encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18 "). 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel V Water level directly measured in boring O: Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance OIREP052C(01105) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 01CLS021 (07/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC_ UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488 ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Soil Classification Notes Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests" Group Group Name ABased on the material passing the 3 -in k0rained Symbol (75 -mm) sieve. Blf field sample contained cobbles or Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu >4 and 1 <Cc <3 GW Well graded grave! Soils More than 50% coarse Less than 5% boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or than 50% fraction retained finesc Cu <4 and/or I>Cc>3p GP Poorly graded gravel boulders, or both" to group name. retained on on No. 4 sieve cGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual No. 200 sieve Gravels with Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty grave symbols: Fines more GW -GM well - graded gravel with silt than 12% fines c Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey grave GW -GC well - graded gravel with clay GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay Sands 50% or Clean Sands Cu>6 and I <Cc<3 SW Well- graded sand more of coarse Less than 5% _ °Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual fraction passes finest) Cu <6 and /or I>Cc>3b SP Poorly- graded sand symbols: No. 4 sieve SW -SM well - graded sand with silt Sands with Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand SW -SC well - graded sand with clay Fines more SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt than 12% fines ° Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay Fine - Grained Silts and Clays inorganic PI >7 and plots on or above CL Lean cla Soils 50% or Liquid limit less "A" liner (D3Q)Z more passes than 50 PI <4 or below ML Sil ECU = D60 /D to. Cc = the No. 200 rplots "A" line Diu K Drl, sieve organic Liquid limit -oven dried <p,79 OL Organic cla g Elf soil contains >15 %sand, add "with ( seePlasticity Liquid limit - not dried Organic g - sand" to group name. Chart below) °If fines classify as CL -ML, use dual ymbol GC-GM, or SC -SM. Silts and Clays' inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat cla Liquid limit 50 If fines are organic, add "with organic or more PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic sil fines" to group name. 'If soil contains >15 %gravel, add "with organic Liquid limit -oven dried <0.75 OH Organic cla gavel" to group name. Liquid limit - not dried Organic K.LJ4Q If Arterberg limits plot is hatched area, silt soils is a CL -ML silty clay. KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 Highly organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Pea soil in color, and organic in odor add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. Llf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to SIEVE ANALYSIS so finearainMrmptlma —mamde 1S. group name. o w mlf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, ��� � HomN at P1 tire thenP1=e R=ato u =as.s thenPl =Q73 predominantly gravel, add ravel/ P Y 1{ "gravelly" LL -20) to group name. _01 G =1 ? Equegion of u4ire yy VedidflL= 16WP1 =7. NPb_4 and plots onor above "A "line. In<4orplots w F hen P1= Q9)LLA) below "A "line. PPI a F plots on or above "A" line. QPl plots below "A" line. on =2smm 20- BFiber Content description shown below. X1 IY fb �' MH or OH Da =0075mm 10 o m 4 - ML or OL 00 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS LIQUID LIMIT (LQ Em— °'"no;5.ts'Se Plasticity Plasticity Chart ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION Grain Size Gravel Percentages Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N- Value- BP F Term N -Value BPF Term Particle Size Term Percent Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14% Very Soft less than 2 Very Loose 0-4 Cobbles 3" to 12" With Gravel 15%-29% S o f t 2 - 4 Loose 5-10 Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Gravelly 30% - 50% Firm 5 - 8 Medium Dense 11 - 30 Sand #200 to #4 sieve Stiff 9-15 Dense 31 -50 Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve Very Stiff 16-30 Very Dense Greater than 50 Hard Greater than 30 Moisture/Frost Condition Layering Notes Peat Description Organic Description (if no lab tests) Soils are described as or anic, if soil is not peat (MC Column) D (Dry): Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to and is judged to have sufficient organic tines touch. Laminations: Layers less than Fiber Content content to influence the Liquid Limit properties. M Moist : ( ) Damp, although free water not P g /�' thick of Term (Visual Estimate) Sli hrQ tv organic used for borderline cases. visible. Soil may still have a high y g differing material Root Inclusions water content (over "optimum "). or color. Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity t/ Free water visible intended to Hemic Peat: 33-67% of roots to influence the soil Baring): describe non - plastic soils. Lenses: Pockets or layers Sapric Peat: Less than 33% properties. Waterbearing sual/ relates to g y greater than %' Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged sands and sand with silt. thick of differing to be in sufficient quantity to F Frozen : ( ) Soil frozen material or color. significantly affect soil properties. 01CLS021 (07/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC_ Borings locations: (given in distances from Baselines A & B) #6- 1 00' W of B, on A #7- 20'W of B, 22'N of A #8- 223'W of B, 24'N of A #9- 178'W of B, 76'N of A #10- 171'W of B, 140'N of A 911- 50'W of B, 179'N of A #12- WE of B, 145'N of A #13- 78'EofB, 193'NofA #14- 78'E of B, 117'N of A #15- 118'W of B, 14 1' N of A }to d y, Basel�inel B -------- — 4� h h o� / l J /) // l jl 'A f /��! < \ \\ �93gi �'/ /l�r l /� / 943\ y7g #11 gag #13 I �,? r o _4 #1s_� —x,96 #12' / Sri m� #3 l \, - — #Sg •#4° #6 e�wgc3 hEr _ Baseline A--- �v EXISTING 1 -STORY BUILDING J s 14168 OAK PARK BLVD. NORTH x93" \ 892.70 (d-d) 1 y� �- 893.27 -__ e t`ar. 890 I - .:� 264.00 - - — - -II 572.90 I{, N89°35'03wW -> ,es Trrer or 7u�t soam eae of the Normwest darter Lrw;:. A. RLS No. 70 _ >, r� I -�- Ot the Northwest Oaarter of Sec. 4, ") Point CI Twp, 29, Rag. 20I I ' a BENCHMARK PM � TNH =953.98 -'� O� FFE =954.3 I szd #C �•7 Boring locations: #5- 1 T E of Point C #16:9'W &53'Sof Point C= O #16 f - r' / 'I rl line Of Tract A. c, to of lit1�41 �T ^ vu. 70 WETLAND � � — ENCHMA%, / a & suety a:ea�eat M TNH- 954.61, 9yti City of Ook Pork Doc. No. 3084037 ) r PROJECT AET NO. City Hall /Public Works Expansion, Oak Park Heights 01 -04415 AMERICAN SUBJECT DATE E, GINEERING Boring Locations December 16, 2008 TING, INC. SCALE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY If' = 981± JKV _ FIGURE 1 oTREOE #7,68,9 i EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN \� 1 I 1 1 ! J 14V'-0 2400 SF 1 ? I DOOR OPERATOR_ / ! RAno FUTURE F PANSION;EXPANR9 __________` 1 I _ J EXIT AND I 1 77 -0' 111 -oT / \ \ 1 IMPOUND 1;.:.:� 1 .... ....... ...........:...... 905 . (PARKING - - - - - O LOT Ap '' PARKING GARAGE TaEE #14 S- j I SLIDING GATE ��� X13,640 S.FF. FOOTPRINT N DING T ENTM WITH FULL LOWER LEVEL 45' -71 /d' 14-6 tld' -- -- e 70W SF -- 61-W CANC STEPS B ENTRY CANOPY J / - "- - - - - -- a : FUTURE ' HANDRAIL 6 Jay -__ ---------- .______ EXPANSION i CONC WALK — i -J: /f 0j� II I E __ ti2 PUBLIC GREEN WITH _ TY yy 1 .. RAINSaARDF_N -SAE __._. 51. -- - _ -_ - _.. _ — _. i.. _ 39'-0' �- - _, -,_ - CIVIL B LANDSCAPE , ; _ _ _ _ 1 I 24 *-W AC p'_ I 1 PUBLIC WORKS - 1 1 / AI, /'T- ADDITION `'ATA ISLAND wCEN _ -- NEW TRAIL NQ REROUTED PROOF 54 OF PARKING ..__.____; c�N� ENCL. f / 160 RAISED 1 /• I STALLS (�� PUBLIC WORKS Vt ________Y___ m SIREN MET M1f/1TES BOLLARDS. i J E ' BRICK ENCL. w/ r; 1 1 LIGN - - -_ -- - - ..__--- I I ... I 24 NEW PARKING AND __L. __ _ ,j —� 1 PUBLIC -- EMSTI G F _�� I— EXISTING CITY HALL TO _ L- - , - -30'S I I 1 ROUNDABOUT W STALLS p BE REMOVED ADDRION WORKS G GARAGE TO 22 STALLS PROPERTY LINE 1 t 1; 1 4 PAVING TO BE - TTT REMOVED V- -e EXISTING CITY HALL 4 Z I I NEW COLONNADE OF TREES ALONG BUILDING TO BE REMOVED' I I PARKING -SEE LANDSCAPE 1 ;;I NEW CURB 6' CONC 1 I }I I; . I EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING CURB SIDEWALK I \ y ^L/ I TO BE REMOVED � I EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 1 EXISTING CUR I I I TO REMAIN EXISTING PUMP ROOM TO REMAIN 1 -+ 1 Q 15TNJG CUR111 NEW'RRAII. OREMAIN °_` ITEMS TO SITE I ;, I ITEMS E BE FOR REFERENCE ONLY TO (� 1 A�C. CROSS WALK, NP, o REMOVED - _ I; •_�� � INDICATE TRAFFIC FLOW EXISTING CURB NEW CURB Re D I - -- PAwNGCENTER I 57TH STREET NORTH 15LAND w/ 10 I EXISTING __BOLLARDS. I TREEST -' _ t I REMAIN __ _ __ ,,. NEW CURB `a R.O.W. 24'•0• �- 26 EXISTING I 1\1 6TALLS TO REMAIN --� i 0 10' _ 50' COQ, 1 30' PROJECT AET NO. City Hall /Public Works Expansion, Oak Park Heights 01 -04415 AMERICAN SUBJECT DATE ENGINEERING Proposed Project Layout January 8, 2009 i WING, INC. SCALE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1 1t = 681± Provided JV FIGURE 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG ET JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. I (p. I of 1) OJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 951.7 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o- #20 IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. FILL, mostly clayey sand with roots, a little FILL SU 1 gravel, dark brown, frozen F/M SU FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and 2 gravel, brown, a little dark brown, frozen to 3 about F 7 M SS 12 14 4 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, TILL OR 5 brown, stiff (SC) (possible fill) FILL 14 M SS 10 7 6 7 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, _ TILL medium dense (SM/SC) 30 M SS 6 8 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense to 9 medium dense (SM) 10 45 M SS 14 11 12 29 M SS 16 13 14 15 29 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 20 42 M SS 16 21 22 23 29 M SS 24 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -22' 3.25" BSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1/21/08 1:15 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 1/21/08 THIS LOG DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING �w TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 2 (p. I Of 1) JECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.8 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL 4420 IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' 2" FILL, mostly organic sandy silt with roots, FILL 1 black to dark brown, frozen F/M SU 11 FILL, mostly clayey sand with gravel, trace 2 roots, brown, frozen to about 1.25' 8 M SS 12 10 3 4 SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace roots, brown, stiff TILL 5 (CL /SC) 10 M SS 10 12 6 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense g to medium dense (SM) 30 M SS 12 9 t0 43 M SS 14 11 12 29 M SS 14 ]3 14 is 32 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 20 19 M SS 16 21 22 23 28 M SS 24 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME STD DEPTH CAVE-IN DTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL T►� ATTACHED „ 0-22 3.25 BSA 1/21/08 12:10 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 1/21/08 THIS LOG DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C 06/04 a AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG A 7 JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 3_(p. 1 Of 1) OJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, NIN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION- 955.2 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN. FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel, trace FILL F SU 1 roots, dark brown, frozen F/M SU 13 FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and 2 gravel, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 1.2' TILL OR 3— FILL b M SS 6 18 LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, trace roots, dark brown to brown, firm (CL /SC) 4 (possible fill) TILL 5 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, stiff 14 M SS 8 12 (SC /CL) 6 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense, 8 lenses of clayey sand (SM) 36 M SS 16 9 10 42 M SS 12 11 " 12 13 49 M SS 16 14 15 54 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, fine to : COARSE 20 medium grained, brown, moist, very dense (SP) `" ALLUVIUM * M SS 12 21 22 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense : TILL 23 (SM) 48 M SS 18 24 END OF BORING *7/0.5 + 23/0.5 + 50/0.2 DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -22' 3.25" BSA DATE TIME S� JD DEPTH CAVE-IN FLDRILLING ID LEVEL LATEEL THE ATTACHED go 1/21/08 10:30 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 1/21 /08 DR: SG LG: TM Ri : 91C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 4 (p, 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 953.4 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o- 420 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. �' FILL, mixture of silty sand and gravel, dark FILL 1 brown and brown, frozen F SU 11 FILL, mixture of clayey sand and sandy lean 2 clay, a little silty sand and gravel, brown, frozen 3 to 2.5' 27 F/M SS 12 12 4 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense, TILL OR 5 lenses of clayey sand (SM) (possible fill) FILL 25 M SS 14 8 6 7 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense TILL (SM) 8 32 M SS 14 9 10 li 34 M SS 16 12 13 33 M SS 16 14 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 5— (SM) 36 M SS 14 16 17 18 19 20 38 M X SS 14 21 — 22 SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium COARSE 23 grained, brown, moist, dense, lenses of sandy.silt ALLUVIUM 32 M SS 14 (SP) 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -22' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1/21/08 9:15 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING COMPLETED: 1121/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN 1 ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTIN G, INC. NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 5 (p. 1 of 1) 6T JECJOB T: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;0ak Park Heights, MN DEPTH IN FEET SURFACE ELEVATION: 953.4 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE TYPE REC IN. FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o - #20 4.25" Bituminous pavement FILL F/M 10" FILL, mostly sand with silt and gravel, dark brown, frozen to 10" I 2 3 20 M M SS 14 TILL OR FILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown (SM) (possible fill) TILL 4— 5 SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light brown, medium dense, laminations of sand (SM) 17 M SS 14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 6 dense (SM) 7 24 M SS 12 8 9 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light l0 brown, medium dense, laminations of sand (SM) 21 M SS 10 I I END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -9' /Z' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DPH DEPTH EEVL FLUID LEVEL EE T ATTACHED FOR AN 12/10/08 11:30 11.0 9.5 10.0 None SHEETS EXPLANATION OF COMPLETED: 12/10/08 TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 6 (p. I of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH IN FEET SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.9 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE TYPE REC IN. FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o - #20 I 2 3 6" FILL, mostly sandy silt, trace roots, dark brownish gray, frozen to 4" FILL 11 14 F/M M SS SS 20 15 31 12 19 21 FILL, mixture of silty sand and clayey sand, a little gravel, pieces of concrete, trace roots, dark brown and brown FINE ALLUVIUM 4 LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brownish gray to brown, stiff, a lens of silt with sand above 2.5' TILL 5 (CL) 10 M SS 14 19 6 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, reddish brown, 7 8 a little brown, stiff, a lens of silty sand (SClSM) 16 M SS 17 14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, reddish brown, medium dense (SM/SC) 9 10 20 M SS 17 I1 12 13 21 M SS 16 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium dense (SM) 14 15 26 M SS 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 M SS 16 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0- 191/2' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/5/08 11:15 21.0 19.5 20.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BOMPLETED: 12/5/08 TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 7 (p. 1 of 1) o.IECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.1 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o -##24 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN. T' FILL, mixture of silty sand and sandy silt, a FILL 18 TILL 1 little gravel, trace roots, brown and dark brown, 39 F/M SS 17 frozen 2 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 12 M SS 18 3 dense, lenses of clayey sand (SM) 4 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 5 dense, laminations of sand with silt (SM) 16 M SS 17 6 7 18 M SS 15 8 9 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 10 (SM) 32 M SS 16 11 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO ,� 0 -9/2 3.25 HSA DATE TIME SDEPTH D DEPTH DEPTH FLDRILLING ID LEVEL EVER THE ATTACHED 12/5/08 12:10 11.0 9.5 11.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF ORIN TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/5/08 THIS LOG DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 8 (p.1 Of 1) 16OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 949.3 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN, WC DEN LL PL o-420 4" SANDY SILT, trace roots, dark brown, TOPSOIL 21 TILL 1 frozen (ML) 10 FIM SS 14 9 CLAYEY SAND, a litt le gravel, trace roots, 2 brown, stiff (SC) 17 M SS 16 SILTY SAND, a little grave), brown, medium 3 4 dense (SM) CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, 5 brown, a little light brown, hard, laminations of 31 M SS 16 5 6 silt (SC) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light brown, dense, laminations of silt (SM) 36 M SS 12 8 9 10 46 M SS 14 t 1 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 0 -9' /z' 3.25" HSA None SHEETS FOR AN 12!10108 10:00 11.0 4.5 10.4 EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12110/08 THIS LOG i DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C 06104 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 9 (p. I of I) 160JECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 951.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' WC DEN LL PL o-#20 6" FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, a little FILL FINE 1 clayey sand, trace roots, dark brown, frozen 26 F/M SS 16 17 ALLUVIUM LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, trace roots, dark 2 grayish brown, a little brown, very stiff (CL) 7 M SS 6 20 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, trace roots, brown, 3 q firm, laminations of silt (CL) 5 20 M SS I CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, possible ALLUVIUM 6 cobbles at 4.5', brown, very stiff (SC) OR TILL 7 19 M SS 16 12 8 9 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, stiff, TILL 10 laminations of sand (SC /SM) 18 M SS 14 8 I I END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 0 -9' /z' 3.25" HSA 12/10/08 10:30 11.0 9.5 9.5 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON OMPLETED: 12/10/08 THIS LOG DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 10 (p. 1 Of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPNTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 948.9 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-*20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and FILL 1 gravel, trace roots, dark brown and brown, 12 F/M SS 14 12 frozen to about 6" 2 17 M SS 8 3 4 5 SILTY SAND, trace roots, fine grained, light COARSE brown, moist, medium dense (SM) ALLUVIUM 15 M SS 6 6 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium TILL dense to dense (SM/SC) 23 M SS 10 8 x 9 10 32 M SS 12 8 11 12 34 M SS 16 7 13 14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense 15 (SM) 45 M SS 14 16 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME SAMPLED D DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL EVER THE ATTACHED „ 0 -14/: 3.25 HSA 1218/08 1:10 16.0 14.5 16.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/8/08 THIS LOG DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG Al T JOB NO: 01- 044155 LOG OF BORING NO. 11 (p. 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, NIN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 941.2 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL 9420 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE 4" SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, dark . 'TOPSOIL OR I brown, moist, very loose (SM) (possible fill) :- ` FULL 3 M SS 12 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, TILL 2 very loose to loose (SM) 6 M SS 6 3 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, 5 loose (SM/SC) 10 M SS 14 6 7 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, brown, hard (SC) 34 M SS 0 8 9 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 10 dense, lenses and laminations of clayey sand 23 M SS 18 11 (SM) 12 23 M SS 16 13 14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 15 dense (SM/SC) 20 M SS 18 16 17 18 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, very 19 dense (SM) 20 59 M SS 8 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0- 19' /z' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/5/08 1:25 21.0 19.5 20.3 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF ORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/5/08 THIS LOG DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C I 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 12 (p. 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 948.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL 6420 IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. 4" T, trace roots, dark brown, TOPSOIL 31 MIXED ] 4 F/M SS 8 13 2 ALLUVIUM CLAYEY SAND, trace roots, brown, frozen to TILL about 6 ", then soft (SC) 14 M SS 10 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, 3 q medium dense to dense, lenses and laminations of clayey sand (SM) 5 25 M SS 14 6 7 38 M SS 18 7 8 9 SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, fine to : COARSE 10 medium grained, brown, moist, dense, a lens of ALLUVIUM 39 M SS 16 silty sand (SP -SM) 11 12 CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, hard TILL (SC) 37 M SS 6 10 13 14 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense IS (SM) 38 M SS 18 16 17 18 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense, 19 laminations of sand (SM) 20 38 M SS 18 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING MET140D WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 0 -19 %' 3.25" HSA 12/9108 2:10 21.0 19.5 21.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF RING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/9/08 THIS LOG DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 13 (p. 1 Of 1) 0 oJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEN H SURFACE ELEVATION: 948.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL .420 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' 6" SANDY SILT, trace roots, dark brown, TOPSOIL 32 FINE t frozen (ML) F/M SS 12 12 2 ALLUVIUM SANDY SILT, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 12 ", then moist (ML) 19 M SS 6 ..1: TILL LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, trace roots, light 3 4 brown, firm (CL) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 5 dense (SM) 47 M SS 16 6 7 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles at 8', brown, hard, laminations of sand 38 M SS 14 7 8 (SC) 9 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, possible 10 cobbles, dense (SM) 32 M SS 8 11 12 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, brown, very dense to dense (SM) 53 M SS 14 13 14 15 46 M SS 16 6 17 18 19 20 43 M SS 14 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -19/2 3.25 HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED H DEPTIH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/9/08 12:55 21.0 19.5 20.4 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 1219/08 THIS LOG DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 14 (p. I of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DES H FEET SURFACE ELEVATION: 949.5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE TYPE' REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 3" SANDY SILT, with roots, dark brown, fr ozen TOPSOIL 38 FINE 1 (ML) 4 F/M SS 14 1] 2 3 ALLUVIUM 15 M SS 10 6 SANDY SILT, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 6 ", then moist, very loose (ML) TILL LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, a little gravel, trace 4 roots, brown, stiff (CL) SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, medium dense (SM) 5 20 M SS 12 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 6 7 dense, a lens of clayey sand (SM) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light brown, medium dense, laminations of sand with 8 27 M SS 10 q silt and sand (SM) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense (SM) 10 11 33 M SS 16 12 13 76 M SS 8 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, possible cobbles, brown, very dense (SM) 14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, 15 brown, very dense (SM/SC) 67 M SS 12 6 17 18 19 20 56 M SS 14 21 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0- 191/2' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1218/08 11:15 21.0 19.5 19.8 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING COMPLETED: 12/9/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 15 (p. 1 of 1) 0 OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 950.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL 6-420 N FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' FILL, mixture of clayey sand and sandy silt, a FILL 1 little gravel, trace roots, dark brown, frozen to l I F/M SS 8 14 about 6" 2 13 M SS 12 8 FILL, mixture of clayey sand and silty sand, a 3 little gravel, trace roots, brown 4 5 18 M SS 10 10 b 7 LEAN CLAY, trace roots, brown and brownish FINE gray mottled, hard, laminations of silty sand ALLUVIUM 38 M SS 10 9 S (CL) 9 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium TILL 10 dense (SM) 25 M SS 12 8 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, very 11 Astiff (SC) END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 0 -9'/2' 3.25" HSA 1218/08 1:55 11.0 9.5 10.7 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF RING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12/8/08 THIS LOG DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING No. 16 (p. 1 of 1) OJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN DEIPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.6 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE FILL, mixture of clayey sand and silty sand, a FILL 16 1 little gravel, pieces of bituminous, trace roots, F/M X SS 18 dark brown and brown, frozen to 12" I — 2 17 M SS 6 9 — CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little TILL 3 light brown, very stiff to hard, laminations of 4 sand (SC) 5— 31 M SS 10 9 6 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, medium dense (SNVSC) 16 M SS 14 s 9 IO 29 M SS 12 1 I END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO ,� 0 -9h 3.25 HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED H DEPTH CAVE-IN FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 12/10/08 12:30 11.0 9.5 10.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 12!10108 ' THIS LOG DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C 06/04 • Appendix B AET Project No. 01 -04415 Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use • • • Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use AET Project No. 01 -04415 B.1 REFERENCE This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE', of which, we are a member firm. B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. B.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project - Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project - specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man -made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. I ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road /Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 3011565 -2733 : www.asfe.ore Appendix B — Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use AET Project No. 01 -04415 B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. 13.2.6 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. 13.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance. Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need to prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. 13.2. 10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. B.2.11 Geoenviron mental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. i Appendix B — Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC it City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574 December 2, 2008 Jeff Voyen American Engineering and Testing 550 Cleveland Ave. N. St. Paul, MN 55114 RE: OPH Additional Soil Borings Enclosed you will find the completed /executed documents - dated Dec 1 st, 2008 related to the above project and which authorizes your firm to proceed as outlined and as proposed for a fee 'not to exceed' $7,300.00. Please utilize the approximate boring sites as identified, but naturally, these may be within a close proximity to avoid tree removal or other obvious conflicts. is Just to verify, the City would anticipate that AET would handle all general aspects of this proposal including the contacting of the requisite GOPHER -1 call. The City is not aware of any known environmental contamination hazards or 'private' utilities. However there are underground utilities in the vicinity including a fiber -optic line. to receiving the results as soon as possible. Administrator Cc: Randy Engel, Architect Weekly Notes Building Design Committee • AMERICAN' ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. December 1, 2008 City of Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 -2007 Attn: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Proposal for Additional Geotechnical Services City Ha1UPublic Works Expansion, Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Johnson: CONSULTANTS • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • FORENSICS Per your November 24 RFP and our discussion with Randy Engel, we are submitting this Letter Proposal to conduct the following scope: Scope: Fieldwork • Drill twelve standard penetration test borings at the site. Borings 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14 in building areas will extend to depths of 21 feet each. The remaining seven borings will extend 11 feet deep. If we see the need to add a little footage for proper evaluation, we will add up to 15 extra feet without additional charge (beyond the not -to- exceed fee). • Many of the borings will be located within more difficult access areas (trees, slopes, etc.). Therefore, we will plan to use an all- terrain vehicle. Even with this type of rig, we may not be able to get to the exact location noted. Depending on snow and in -place tree conditions, we may review either snow plowing or tree cutting assistance from the City to allow us to get as close as possible to the planned locations. • Boring 6 is shown within the existing Public Works garage. Your architect indicated that it was not his intent to drill the boring within the existing building area, and accordingly, that boring will be moved to the outside. • Clear underground public utilities through the Gopher State One Call system. If private utilities are present, which are not cleared by GSOC, then the owner will need to provide a representative to locate these utilities (or a private utility location subcontractor can be hired at additional cost). • Obtain final boring location measurements for the Boring Location figure to be used in the final report. • Measure boring surface elevations. This document shall not be reproduced, except in fuli, without wrinen approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North - St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 651 - 659 -9001 • Toll Free 800 - 972 -6364 • Fax 651 -659 -1379 • www.amengtest.com Offices throughout Florida, Minnesota, South Dakota & Wisconsin AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .7 • • 4 City of Oak Park Heights December 1, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Laboratory Conduct water content testing on cohesive soils (hourly during lab logging) Report • Logs of the test borings (including past Borings 1 to 4). • Descriptions of drilling, sampling, test, and classification methods. • Review of soil /groundwater conditions encountered and of pertinent soil properties. • Recommendations for possible foundation types, depths, and allowable bearing capacity (to be within assumed or given tolerable settlement levels); grading procedures to prepare structural areas; suitability of on -site soils for re-use as fill; floor slab support, estimate of modulus of subgrade reaction, and moisture /vapor protection needs; building and retaining wall backfilling with drainage comments and estimates of lateral earth pressures; pavement subgrade preparation and estimated R- value/k- value; bituminous and concrete pavement section thickness designs; foundation support and frost considerations for exterior elements such as stoops, poles, and fence /exterior wall enclosures; and potential construction issues and ground water impacts. The scope of work defined in this proposal is intended for geotechnical purposes only, and not to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination at the site. However, we will note obvious contamination encountered. Fee: The described scope of services will be performed on a time and materials basis per the attached fee schedule. We will offer to charge the lower truck drill rig rate ($70/hr) even though we plan to use an ATV (which is $100/hr) for the work. For the described scope, we will establi 7300 as a not -to- exceed fee. In the event the scope of our work needs to be revised, we will review such scope adjustments and the associated fees with you, and receive your approval before proceeding. Schedule: Based on our current backlog, we anticipate drilling can be performed within about five to six working days after receiving authorization to proceed. Verbal results can be provided shortly after the fieldwork is completed. The report should follow the fieldwork by about two weeks. Terms/Conditions: Our services will be performed per the Contract Agreement Between the City of Oak Park Heights and American Engineering Testing, Inc. For Professional Services, dated January 7, 2008. Acceptance: To indicate acceptance of this proposal, we ask that you endorse the enclosed copy and return it to us. The original proposal is intended for your records. City of Oak Park Heights December 1, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Remarks: If you have questions or need additional information, please do not Sincerely, Jeffery K. Voyen, PE . Vice President, Geotechnical Division Phone #651- 659 -1305 Fax #651 -659 -1347 jvoyen @amengtest.com Attachments 2008 Geotechnical Fee Schedule Printed Date: to contact me. CE BY: ,Tatqso, C, • 04 bM I#.A Sn2ATUZ • I. Personnel Hourly Rates 0.65 /mile A. Word Processing Specialist 55.00/hr B. Drill Technician/Lab Technician 80.00/hr C. Senior Engineering Technician 85.00/hr D. Engineering Assistant %.00/hr E. Engineer I/Geologist I 102.00/hr F. Engineer II/Geologist It/Sr. Engr. Assistant 117.001hr G. Senior Engineer /Geologist 130.00/hr H. Principal Engineer /Geologist 156.00/hr H. Vehicle Mileage A. Personal Automobile/Truck 0.65 /mile B. Auxiliary Truck 0.85 /mile C. I -ton Truck with Drill Rig 1.05 1mile D. 1- 1/2 to 2 -1/2 -ton Truck with Drill Rig I.20 /mite E. CPT Truck Rig (20 -ton push capacity) 1.40 /mile F. Tractor/Lowboy Trailer 1.60 /mile III. Equipment Rental 8. Settlement (FoSSA) A. Drill Rig Rental 15.00/hr F. 1. Rotary Drill on 1 -ton Truck 60.001hr 1. Diamond Bit - Sedimentary Rock 2. Rotary Drill on 1 I/z to 21/2-ton Truck 70.00/hr 10.00 /foot 3. Rotary Drill on All- Terrain Vehicle 100.00/hr 4. Portable, Non -rotary Rig 70.00 /hr B. Auxiliary Vehicle Rental 15.00/hr C. Cone (CPT) Rig/Equipment Rental A. 1. CPT Truck Rig (20 -ton push capacity) 124.00/hr Dry Density (includes water content) 2. All- Terrain Rig (10 -ton push capacity) 100.00/hr 3. Electronic Cone w /Computer 36.00/hr 4. Soil Sampler 3.00/hr Separately 5. Water Sampler 20.00/hr D. Miscellaneous Equipment Rental Sieve Analysis (includes 4200) 88.00/test 1. Field Vane Shear 290.00 1day G. 2. Field Electrical Resistivity 205.00 /day 885.00/test 3. Field Seismic Refraction (ReMi) 360.00/day H. 4. Inclinometer Reading Equipment 300.00 /day Unconfined Compression (ASTM:D2166) 5. Pneumatic Transducer Reading 150.001day 10.00 /test 6. Bore Hole Permeability 72.00/test L. Topsoil Borrow Test (Mn/DOT 3877) a. Open End Casing Method 110.00/day R -value (Hveem Stabilometer) 350.00 /test b. HQ Wireline Packer 290.00 /day 7. Borehole Pressuremeter 50.00/hr 8. Iowa Borehole Shear Tester 300.00 /day Proctor Tests 9. Double Ring Infiltrometer 230.00 /day 115.00hest 10, Photoionization Detector(PID) 100.00 /day 11. GPS Mapping System 13.00/hr 12. Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) 670.00 /day 13. Calibrated SPT Rod 170.00 /day 14. Generator 100.00 1day 15. Concrete Coring a. Coring Equipment with Crew 125.00/hr b. Bit Wear 7.00 /inch 16. Pavement Testing (FWD includes Truck) a Falling Weight Deflectometer 175.00/hr b. Light Weight Deflectometer 50.001hr E. Geotechnical Software Rental 1. Geo Studio Finite Element 55.001hr 2. CAPWAP 30.00/hr 3. AutoCAD 25.00/hr 4. Wave Equation (WEAP) 15.001hr 5. LPILE or GROUP 15.00/hr 6. Slope Stability (ReSSA) 15.001hr 7. Stabilized Earth Slopes & Walls 15.00/hr 2008 GEOTECHNICAL FEE SCHEDULE V. Expenses A. Direct Project Expenses: includes out -of- Cost + 15% town per diem; plowing & towing; special materials & supplies; special travel, transportation & freight; subcontracted services, and miscellaneous costs B. Equipment Replacement (when abandonment Cost is more feasible than recovery) C. Equipment Recovery (when required by Cost + 15% regulatory agencies or project specifications) VI. Expert Witness Service. Rates A. Litigation Preparation 205.00/hr B. Deposition or Court Time 255.00/hr (4 -hour minimum) The rates presented are portal -to- portal with vehicle mileage, expenses and equipment rentals being additional. Overtime for personnel charged at above cost plus 25% for over 8 hours per day or Saturday; and at above cost plus 50% for Sundays or Holidays. Hazardous work charged at an additional 25 %. Night time shift work will include a premium charge of $30.00 per person per shift. DPM021.0101 /08 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 8. Settlement (FoSSA) 15.00/hr 9. SHAFT 15.00/hr F. Bit Wear- Rock Coring 1. Diamond Bit - Sedimentary Rock a) B, NQ 10.00 /foot b) HQ 12.00 /foot 2. Diamond Bit - Metamorphic & Igneous a) B, NQ 17.00 /foot b) HQ 20.00 /foot IV. Laboratory Tests of Soil A. Water Content hourly B. Dry Density (includes water content) 50.00/test C. Atterberg Limits (ASTM:D4318) 1. Plasticity Index 100.00 /test 2. Liquid Limit or Plastic Limit 75.00/test Separately D. Shrinkage Limit (ASTM:D427) 95.00/test E. Sieve Analysis (includes 4200) 88.00/test F. Hydrometer Analysis (sieve included) 230.00/test G. Thermal Resistivity w/Proctor (ASTM:D5334) 1. As Received and Oven Dried (2 pts) 885.00/test 2. Dry Out Curve (4 pts) I I00.00/test H. Electrical Resistivity (ASTM:G57 -Soil Box) 83.00/test I. Unconfined Compression (ASTM:D2166) 74.00/test J. Hand Penetrometer 10.00 /test K. Organic Content of Soil 72.00/test L. Topsoil Borrow Test (Mn/DOT 3877) 330.00 /test M. R -value (Hveem Stabilometer) 350.00 /test N. California Bearing Ratio 1. Granular 550.00 /test 2. Cohesive 620.00 /test 0. Proctor Tests 1. Standard 115.00hest 2. Modified 130.00 /test V. Expenses A. Direct Project Expenses: includes out -of- Cost + 15% town per diem; plowing & towing; special materials & supplies; special travel, transportation & freight; subcontracted services, and miscellaneous costs B. Equipment Replacement (when abandonment Cost is more feasible than recovery) C. Equipment Recovery (when required by Cost + 15% regulatory agencies or project specifications) VI. Expert Witness Service. Rates A. Litigation Preparation 205.00/hr B. Deposition or Court Time 255.00/hr (4 -hour minimum) The rates presented are portal -to- portal with vehicle mileage, expenses and equipment rentals being additional. Overtime for personnel charged at above cost plus 25% for over 8 hours per day or Saturday; and at above cost plus 50% for Sundays or Holidays. Hazardous work charged at an additional 25 %. Night time shift work will include a premium charge of $30.00 per person per shift. DPM021.0101 /08 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007.Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574 November 24, 2008 Mr. Jeff Voyen American Engineering and Testing 550 Cleveland Ave. N. St. Paul, MN 55114 RE: Possible Supplemental Study to AET #01 -03837 Dear Jeff, The City is interested in securing additional soil borings at our City Hall Facility site. Again the project involves the construction of a new City Hall Facility directly north of the current location. In late 2007 / early 2008 AET did perform some initial borings. I would suggest we would • simply like a supplemental report for an additional twelve (12) boring sites. (See attached map). Please note that boring numbers #6, # 11, # 12, # 13 & # 14 shall be between 16 to 25' however other samples may be between 12' to 16'. The difference being the greater depths at building locations. If there is a standard agreement you can forward to me for immediate review I would be happy to review it, I would best assume that this would be similar in scope and price to earlier work, although there are more borings to take. Lastly, the final submitted report should be in the same format and scope as the earlier work at this site. The City would certainly prefer to complete these borings and have the results in the next couple of weeks. Please let me know when tt�s work can be completed. Please call me so we c Vss his project. Re r, z inistrator Cc: Weekly Note Randy Engels uetow & Associates • W � \1 c vj \ C7 O0 \Y� W r a \_ 955c4\ 1 T C) W 0 O : O tD rt Q O x x x (D ::c m O P--4 D D D N rn O O O to ED D M. C O ao'3 rn o p =1 m D m r m r m r- > m_4 u V u n N o° 3 V to to W N x 3 D m O m -i Oo' m m c m it nci 3 O p O H z rt rt rr ID m rt �. WO--�= z n r N r H- w O ►-� N u 3 rn � u C) W 0 O : O tD rt Q i O. Ln (D ::c m O P--4 ■ O QJ � n n � 3 6 rn o to ED D M. C O ao'3 rn o p =1 -n m 0 ob 0 m_4 O " c O r co Z3 rt o° 3 ��� --S6� (b q? 0 c, 0 - > C ` Parallel with the wes line of Tract A. RLS No. 0 N.01 30:001) 0 } V J 60 t,, y l 01 I f o 0 0 M _ r -o c 3 3 N � _ z m ?o (D I{ N rn 3 1 O ' (D �z 0 rt (D (D I o N- U) 0 • CD 0 z3� i C Ln X N m OD Un E ■ O Z 3 r 4, < N m 0 rn A o D C O ao'3 rn O rn � c o A 0 a 0 ��� --S6� (b q? 0 c, 0 - > C ` Parallel with the wes line of Tract A. RLS No. 0 N.01 30:001) 0 } V J 60 t,, y l 01 I f o 0 0 M _ r -o c 3 3 N � _ z m ?o (D I{ N rn 3 1 O ' (D �z 0 rt (D (D I o N- U) 0 • CD 0 z3� W W X X X X- C W -� C 3= z C In -0 G X m m m m 0 y� m n �-, G1 C v 0 Or IC rn x m D C O ao'3 rn O rn � c o A 0 a 0 m_4 O z x O pZ� r n (DO (D rr- y m z x 3 D m O m -i Oo' m m 3 m it D =�z 3 O p O H z 0 z m m WO--�= z m m 7a X z I C LA rnvJ.A 3 rn ;0 -n O n = O 0 r C 0 C Z W u1 W .. 40- j 0,) ,n coo Ut WN O W p s 1> C7 C7 C� �I z 0 6 h- — 0 90 i 00 N G (O V W O N O�(o ^ /; % it C < 0 m _ � i I / Ilr i f i cn r p X 3 � m O z � g rn W -� C 3= z C In -0 G X rn r m= O rn W O X m O Q -0 O rn � � r � v r- rn n D (n 3 m O Z rn p � m m n �-, G1 C v 0 Or IC rn x m � c o A Q T rn / r n (DO (D N z / n Oo' \ c 0 (D it o I / i / O x 0,) ,n coo Ut WN O W p s 1> C7 C7 C� �I z 0 6 h- — 0 90 i 00 N G (O V W O N O�(o ^ /; % it C < 0 m _ � i I / Ilr i f i cn r CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ;'J 14168 OAK PARK BOULEVARD NORTH L' A i � c o A Q T A c�D (D 0 / r n (DO (D N z / N N (D O h Oo' \ c 0 (D it o I / i / CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ;'J 14168 OAK PARK BOULEVARD NORTH . A i9 i/ II kW -11 Yj � SCt I ' Ll � Co / (0 . 1 C r; o , , i 1 643.77 ` 1 652.00 (deed) f N01 °04'10 "W •' r Bonestroo f / � 1 N I r d 100.90 m X z c� n C r= 0 Z , W 5' utility easement in 1 .3 -- -+42.6 -- favor of NSP per Book ZC) \ O -- Tom=— + + Yj � SCt I ' Ll � Co / (0 . 1 C r; o , , i 1 643.77 ` 1 652.00 (deed) f N01 °04'10 "W •' r Bonestroo f / � 1 N I r d 100.90 m X z c� n C r= 0 Z , L. -r-t v r- i � r, C7 Z Zrn(0 rnW o 0 (00 ° co o s "CA CL � (D CLs a .. rim i V� Cr V, Sri G _ 1> C7 V � Sri 1> C7 C7 CJ - G_ � _ 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT SURVEY St. Paul Office WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION 2335 West Highway 36 AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR DRAWN g y UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. St. Paul, MN 55113 PRINT NAME: DANIEL]. ROEBER DESIGNED Phone: 651- 636 -4600 APPROVED Fax: 651-636-1311 SIGNATURE: DATE 07/2 ©BONESTROO 2008 www.bonestroo.com DATE 07/29/2008 IC. NO. 43133 PRO). NO. 550 W 5' utility easement in 1 .3 -- -+42.6 -- favor of NSP per Book 300 Deeds, page 244 \ -- Tom=— + + East line if of the Northwest n ra-rir \n � _\ tJ n , L-) I I 1 v f v ` -- Quarter the Northwest Quarter I of Sec. 4, Twp. 29, Rng. 20 L. -r-t v r- i � r, C7 Z Zrn(0 rnW o 0 (00 ° co o s "CA CL � (D CLs a .. rim i V� Cr V, Sri G _ 1> C7 V � Sri 1> C7 C7 CJ - G_ � _ 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT SURVEY St. Paul Office WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION 2335 West Highway 36 AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR DRAWN g y UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. St. Paul, MN 55113 PRINT NAME: DANIEL]. ROEBER DESIGNED Phone: 651- 636 -4600 APPROVED Fax: 651-636-1311 SIGNATURE: DATE 07/2 ©BONESTROO 2008 www.bonestroo.com DATE 07/29/2008 IC. NO. 43133 PRO). NO. 550 (*mU s D(nnMD (D (D o o 0— -v o U3 --4 D O m S v -CL MZnD D o o o— D to to S Ci O C rt m 7o O V) t0 0, 70 m rr m m C rt (nD O 7 rt— zr m O D N 7 O m O0 (nD O0 S S 3 o O m v m 7 rt r °1 rr 0, r (DD Z� fl' rt O O O C`o t0 O -lh rr to p 7 w r c0 O N S Z rt a � to :3- O v 0) � = 0 0 w c w d 0 0. � Q A �* rt� to g X p o :3 a, m� m s m s O O m rt cn C) D- O o 03 o m : rt Dl `� �,O Z"i V1 p O lD SrrC 7 3 p lD rNrrNr O m Ln O N N O 1 rr S r� m N > O m rt to o m N .� r* O Z r'r A o rt o f-r m � -� m (3p 0, � O r+ N Ort � N (SD .fir �, Z N � 7 m -�i Z rt p rt (D O O� S rt N 0-. (SD = lfl 7 (D W m (D N O (o, W m S rr O S A (D D (D (n w Lnn n Z r N p m p � O LAJ a D OL? o =r (D o O C 0, OO ,O O �' - v1 01 rt 7 c �+ O G (n rnr (SD O ((D a. rr (DD -1 j n, O a, n 0, --� r� m O (D O cD D (p (D _ �� rr O rr S -„ Ort m m O (�D ,� ? Z rr X O rr aj O m m :E O O Z S rt to 0, O rCr ^D (D (rnN� (D S O�rr'r(SD "O (D a(� rt 7 N S O to r�'r (n W� m N lD O N X 3 CD (D 0) M rt S O m ? O to rt �• O O --n A To 0, r�r 0 4'o Nr r"r l0 DrNr tin O �1 Zl�D 0, (D rmr r D� OD �a07 �rt01 NA a u r* �flN� ° Z� � rt � �• \ Ori r� � Q S O ? rt p (-D 4 rN•r c O O N S u d C Z CO+, (nD ,Vfr O o (D -' O -'h m n Q 7 ? o m rt o 20 rr r} (D (nD emr -O+, lnD rr O -y,c �O = O *0 a(n � (AtnO C- (n Z(D � m rt m rt y K n ch rcr o� U) o m O� O f-n 4 0 in Z- o M. O Z` o O n' � ,Ova ° c 0 m o om ;oi . J O a N (D CD 3 0 7 O rrT y m ? D N (CD ((DD rr V (SD 0) W hl O O n W (f rr N A r� (D O p 01 rOr j rNr r* +� F` Q � O N A O a) N N � ? ? _. (l (D r r = N p 0, y O— m O 01 (D ,(� , O rt a m °1 n °� rt [SD � ? m (nD p N to �' o D umi m O Orni : 0' � r't err O Oto mO p0 A(D ' (n l0 mO ��a� � m rt Ln a) O N a- (D (D l0 0. � O � rrt rt M7 � O lD (.!1 S rr (DD -• 'O to N O p O O o - (D (n lD (� N m (A ( a 01 n O, O) O 7 0, fD lD N O Q (D m (:D O (D m m m - �om(n n. (n (D m =r -h O � SrtA n (D n m 0. Z 0, (D O (D O rr (D N O r� CL .,, rt to � -, O S Z -I g O (n M. (D c, (n rt 0 (Oi, O n t0 Z (D rt rr rt U 4 S ,� D O m 0) O (D o � rt O n0 cn :3 (D S O0 0, O . _ O rt lnD .: r-r O O rt Z -h F 0 0 m <fl m (p rt rt :0 fD Z ms4 u, O �o A N(D O O (SD —o n lD ? rr -h 00 -„ O rt (D ((D 0) °' m (=D � O N (D to to N (D (D ((D O m rr i n- O -n -t r0r r A a -h -O+, V1 -- rt fD O (DD r r N O rr O m N P O ID o D a S O n 3 = Z °� O 7(n :3 m� ��m ct°n (D rt — S ? D n m r D O 4 O N to N O N N O O O N ,55\ 5508154 \CAD \Dwg \5508154V201.dwg Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:20:20 AM ... •r— O %t C6 x, ol West line of the Southwest ,----Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Sec. 4, Twp. 29, Rn If A n h I ED-7- rl 1 w r-\ V L_I VVL_ P VIJI \ t 153.00 'Wo �t n � 0 T y r� v 1> I, C7 � ,aT \7 ' Y� 4 1, 1� I Ci> s- t Lr' 00 I CO p'.6 CO 1 (A N Iv% I li y f. c o 0 O c l Q � (D O fi i .-r Ln J� C n a S rt (D Z O 0 s— N N co z cu 0 0 Z7 ,�.r 7 � _ � f S m m N 0 m N01 °03'16 "W 77.00 OQ I r I I rn�0) c0 O go O - o T o (D V) m1< z — 0 c o J Z _ � 00 0 o ° 0 r n co 0 b D 0 Z > 0 3 CSI I : i I I, r� i� � I � I I I I I I I I U) p Z �L� 0 m n — - -- y f. r3 Cn I zo Z O O • C s O CD I i V Z I\ OQ I r I I rn�0) c0 O go O - o T o (D V) m1< z — 0 c o J Z _ � 00 0 o ° 0 r n co 0 b D 0 Z > 0 3 CSI I : i I I, r� i� � I � I I I I I I I I U) p Z 1. --y_— = F'0"O 330.00 II n - ('o = \ r C c Q 3 1 L , rn o "' 1 I I V / 41 j I �o O 0 I I � CO I I � I N I I N I I V J I � O z 7 N m �_. I IIII� c z I! �0 m I NON :37 I I I C ON I CO CD O C I s I I Oz O I 0 0 -� I I z Z' 7 D '40 00 1 R (D or! 1s Cj_ cD +y rt (D CL Or W 0 0 (D 0 0 / �jjN Pr �rr 4 I �L� - -- o rt _( —_ rii O O 3 0 N Ib I C O 0 S �� 3 I CpZI \ o m o JO 0 1. --y_— = F'0"O 330.00 II n - ('o = \ r C c Q 3 1 L , rn o "' 1 I I V / 41 j I �o O 0 I I � CO I I � I N I I N I I V J I � O z 7 N m �_. I IIII� c z I! �0 m I NON :37 I I I C ON I CO CD O C I s I I Oz O I 0 0 -� I I z Z' 7 D '40 00 1 R (D or! 1s Cj_ cD +y rt (D CL Or W 0 0 (D 0 0 / �jjN Pr �rr 4 I 0 l� BUETOW AND ASSOCIATES INC AN ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES COMPANY 2345 Rice Street Suite 210 St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 Letter of Transmittal: To: City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Attn: Mr. Eric A. Johnson, AICP, City Administrator Project Number: 0822 Project Name: Oak Park Heights City Hall The following items are enclosed and sent via: Mail FedEx 1 hour Courier 3 hour Courier Date: November 21, 2008 Fax X Delivered Copies Number Description 2 Marked-up Site Survey document with Geotechnical Boring Locations Note #1: For distribution to City's Geotechnical Consultant. Note #2: Continuation of onsite soil exploration program. Note #3: Results and Observations desired ASAP in early December. ned: Randv L. Enqel, Principal -in- Charqe tel 651 403 -6701 fax 651 453 -2574 www.bu*towsrchltecte.com F agc i vi z- • Eric Johnson From: Erickson, Karen S [Karen. Erickson@bonestroo.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:01 AM To: Eric Johnson Cc: Postler, Dennis M Subject: RE: soil borings Eric- American Engineering Testing, Inc. has provided a complete geotechnical report for the proposed City Hall and Public Works Expansion Building. This report will provide guidelines for the design professional based on Concept E as developed by Buetow & Associates. As the design of the City Hail progresses and changes are made it may be necessary to have more soil borings and addendums to this report. In addition, a geotechnical engineer will be required on site when construction of the building commences. In regards to ground water the soil borings, which were 24' deep, showed no water at the time of rilling. The upper soils in the boring are slow draining and therefore water can be trapped in these layers during wet weather and snowmen. Perched water is common on many projects and can be removed during construction, if necessary. According to the geotechnical report the water table will not be a major concern at this site. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Karen Erickson, PE��Fl" T01651-604-4788 karen.ericksonobonestroo.com Bonestroo From: Eric 3ohnson [ mailto: eajohnson @cityofoakparkheights.com] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 1:46 PM To: Postler, Dennis M Subject: soil borings • 2/1112008 0 • AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. CONSULTANTS • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • FORENSICS St. Paul, MN Duluth, MN Mankato, MN Marshall, MN Rochester, MN Pierre, SD Rapid City, SD Sioux Falls, SD Wausau, WI REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Date: February 5, 2008 Prepared for: City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 AET #01 -03837 AMERICAN ENGINEERING • TESTING, INC. February 5, 2008 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Attn: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion Oak Park Heights, Minnesota AET 401 -03837 Dear Mr. Johnson: CONSULTANTS • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • FORENSICS • This report presents the results of a preliminary subsurface exploration program and associated geotechnical review for your proposed City Hall and Public Works building expansion project in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. We are submitting three copies of the report to you. Additional copies are being sent on your behalf as noted below. Please contact me if you have questions about the report, or if you wish to arrange for additional services at the project site. Very truly yours, American Engineering Testing, Inc. *Jeffery oyen, PE Vice President, Geotechnical Division Phone: (651) 659 -1305 Fax: (651) 659 -1347 jvoyengameng,test.com JKV /ak cc: (2) Bonestroo, Attn: Karen Erickson, PE This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North • St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 651 - 659 -9001 • Toll Free 800 - 972 -6364 • Fax 651 - 659 -1379 • www.amengtest.com Offices throughout Florida, Minnesota, South Dakota & Wisconsin AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER STANDARD DATA SHEETS Floor Slab MoistureNapor Protection Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction Basement/Retaining Wall Backfill and Water Control Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction APPENDIX A Figure 1 - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Exploration/Classification Methods Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ ............................... 1 Scope........................................................................................................... ............................... 1 PROJECTINFORMATION ............................................................................ ............................... 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ................................................................... ............................... 2 General........................................................................................................ ............................... 2 Drillingand Sampling Methods .................................................................. ............................... 3 ClassificationMethods ................................................................................ ............................... 3 LaboratoryTesting ...................................................................................... ............................... 3 SITECONDITIONS ........................................................................................ ............................... 4 SubsurfaceSoils /Geology ........................................................................... ............................... 4 WaterLevel Measurements ......................................................................... ............................... 4 Reviewof Soil Properties 4 ............................................................................ ............................... RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................. ............................... 5 BuildingGrading ..................................................................... ............................... SpreadFoundations ..................................................................................... ............................... 7 BuildingFloor Slabs .................................................................................... ............................... 8 ExteriorBuilding Backfilling ...................................................................... ............................... 8 Pavements................................................................................................... 8 ............................... CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................... ............................... 12 PotentialDifficulties .................................................................................. ............................... 12 Excavation Sidesloping /Retention ............................................................ ............................... 13 Observationand Testing ............................................................................ ............................... 13 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................. 13 ............................... STANDARDOF CARE ................................................................................ 14 ............................... SIGNATURES............................................................................................... ............................... 15 STANDARD DATA SHEETS Floor Slab MoistureNapor Protection Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction Basement/Retaining Wall Backfill and Water Control Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction APPENDIX A Figure 1 - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Exploration/Classification Methods Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System • GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW CITY HALL AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING EXPANSION OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA AET #01 -03837 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a preliminary subsurface exploration program and our associated geotechnical engineering review for your proposed City Hall and Public Works building expansion project in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. Scope The scope of work was outlined in our January 7, 2008 proposal letter to you, which was subsequently authorized by you on the same date. The authorized scope includes the following: • Drill four standard penetration test borings at the project site to depths of 24 feet. • Conduct soil index testing (water content on cohesive samples). • Analyze the above data, and prepare this preliminary geotechnical report. These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination. PROJECT INFORMATION The project site is located at the existing municipal site at 14168 Oak Park Blvd N. We understand much of the existing City Hall structure will be demolished, although a portion of the Public Works facility will remain. At this time, the project is in the preliminary design stages. The currently preferred option is to construct the City Hall to the rear of the existing building, and expand the Public Works area to the west of the current facility. This currently preferred option (Option E) is attached as Figure 1. 0 AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 2 of 15 Current plans include a new City Hall with two stories over an 8400 square foot footprint. The Public Works building would be somewhat smaller. The existing buildings at the site do not include a basement. We understand current plans are for the new construction to also not include a basement. Based upon preliminary loadings, maximum column loads would be on the order of 75 kips and maximum continuous bearing wall loads would be on the order of 7.5 kips per lineal foot. Our foundation design assumptions include a minimum factor of safety of 3 with respect to a shear or base failure of the foundations. We assume the structures will be able to tolerate total settlements of up to one inch; and differential settlements over a 30 foot length and at the contact with the existing structure of no more than % inch. New bituminous parking and drive areas will be included with the project. Although much of the new paved surface will be in current paved areas, a portion of the pavement will overlie the footprint of the demolished City Hall building, at least if Option E is chosen. The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION General The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of four standard penetration test borings. The logs of these borings appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative 0 AET No. 01-03837— Page 3 of 15 density or consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N- value). The field work was performed on January 21, 2008. The boring locations are shown on Figure 2 in the Appendix. The borings were surveyed and staked by Bonestroo prior to the drilling activities. Drilling and Sampling Methods Details on the drilling, sampling, and water level measurement methods used appear on the attached sheet entitled Exploration /Classification Methods. Definitions of the symbols used on the boring logs appear on the attached sheet entitled Boring Log Notes. Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings. They may still be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Classification Methods Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM:D2488. Without laboratory classification tests, the descriptions are visual -manual judgments. A data sheet regarding the USC system and other descriptive terminology is appended, entitled Unified Soil Classification System. The boring logs include judgments of the geological depositional origin. This judgment is primarily based on observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. Laboratory Testing The laboratory test program included twelve water content tests. The test results appear on the is individual boring logs adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed. 0 AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 4 of 15 SITE CONDITIONS Subsurface Soils /Geology The natural geology consists of glacially deposited till, although some water deposited (alluvial) sands are interbedded at depth. The till is mostly silty sand, although is more clayey (sandy lean clay and clayey sand) near the top of the deposit. With the past development, fill is present above the till, with soil types similar to the upper zones of the till. It should be noted that it was relatively difficult to judge whether some of the soils were fill or naturally occurring till. These samples did not have the obvious appearance of fill, although it is evident from the surface topography that some fill does exist in the area. The geologic descriptions on the logs present our best judgment based on the limited samples retrieved. It should be easier to distinguish fill from the natural soils within the actual excavations during construction. Water Level Measurements No water entered the boreholes at the time of drilling. Borings 3 and 4 included non- waterbearing sand layers at depth, suggesting that the true steady -state water level is deeper than these sand layers. However, since upper soils are slow draining, water can readily perch over these soils during times of wetter weather and snowmelt. Ground water levels fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts, as well as other factors. Review of Soil Properties For the most part, the natural till soils are judged competent for structural support. Fill soils have the risk of compaction variability and buried inferior soils, and the fill should not be relied upon for structural support. Also, if the upper soils are indeed natural (upper 4 feet at the boring locations), some exhibit somewhat lower strength (N- values of 8 bpf or less); possibly due to freeze -thaw weathering. 0 The on -site soils are considered to be moderate to moderately high in frost heave potential. AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 5 of 15 RECOMMENDATIONS Building Grading Foundation Excavation In order to prepare building areas for shallow spread foundation support, we recommend the soils listed below be excavated from below the foundation areas: • Fill • Organic soils • Natural clayey soils with N- values of 8 bpf or less Exceptions to the above can be made when verified by a field geotechnical engineer /technician. An example may be where firm clays are present at depth where footing bearing pressure intensities are greatly reduced. In this case, the settlement potential of the soil in place would need to be considered. Based on the above and our review of the soil samples, we judge that the excavation depths listed in the following table would be needed at the test boring locations. TABLE A — RECOMMENDED EXCAVATION DEPTHS Boring Location Excavation Depth (ft) Approximate Excavation Elevation ft 1 4 947V2 2 4 948'/2 3 4 951 4 4 949'/2 The soil borings provide a guide for excavation needs. Actual excavation needs will need to be judged in the field at the time of construction by a geotechnical engineer /technician. Changes can • AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 6 of 15 occur between test locations. It is highly recommended that the entire building area be observed and evaluated for suitability prior to new fill or footing placement. Foundation Excavation Oversizing Where the excavation extends below foundation grade, the excavation bottom and resultant engineered fill system must be oversized laterally beyond the planned outside edges of the foundations to properly support the lateral loads exerted by that foundation. This excavation/engineered fill lateral extension should at least be equal to the vertical depth of fill needed to attain foundation grade at that location (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize). Floor Slab Excavation We recommend fill and organic soils be removed from below floor slab areas. There may be cases where firm clayey soils are present (which are to be removed below foundation areas) which would be suitable for floor slab support. This would pertain to the "firm" (N- values of 5 to 8 bpf) till soils. Because of the uncertainty of whether the soils are fill or natural, these soils should again be evaluated for acceptability by a geotechnical engineer /technician. Filling Fill placed to attain grade for foundation support should be compacted in thin lifts, such that the entire lift achieves a minimum compaction level of 98% of the standard maximum dry unit weight per ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). Fill placed which supports the floor slab only (outside of the 1:1 oversize zone below footings) can have a reduced minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight. It is preferred that granular soils with no more than 12% by weight passing #200 sieve (sands and sands with silt) be used as engineered fill beneath the building. However, if this proves to be too costly, it is possible to use on -site soils with caution if properly prepared and compacted. • 0 AET No. 01-03837— Page 7 of 15 If on -site soils are used for new engineered fill, it is important that the new fill placed meet the minimum specified compaction level throughout the entire thickness of the fill profile. Since most of the soils are clayey /silty in nature, it will be very important that the soils be placed and compacted at a water content near the standard optimum water content (per ASTM:D698). For clayey fill (clays or clayey sands) placed below foundations, we recommend the fill have a water content within 2% (either dry or wet) of the standard optimum water content. This would likely require moisture conditioning of at least a portion of the on -site soils. If there are areas where fill is placed on slopes, we recommend benching the sloped surface (benches cut parallel to the slope contour) prior to placing the fill. Benching is recommended where slopes are steeper than 4H:1 V. Spread Foundations 00 The structure can be supported on conventional spread foundations placed directly on the competent natural soils or on new engineered fill overlying the competent natural soils. We recommend the perimeter foundations for heated building areas be placed such that the bottom is a minimum of 42 inches below exterior grade for frost protection. Interior foundations in heated areas can be placed directly below the floor slab. Exterior foundations (those foundations not bordering heated building areas) should be extended to a minimum of 60 inches below exterior grade. Based on the conditions encountered and on the recommended grading /compaction procedures, it is our opinion the foundations can be designed based on a maximum allowable soil bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. It is our judgment the recommended design bearing capacity will include a factor of safety of at least 3 against shear or base failure. We judge that total and differential settlements should not exceed 1 inch. We also judge that differential settlements of conditions depicted by the borings should not exceed '/2 inch. 0 AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 8 of 15 Building Floor Slabs Any new fill placed to attain floor slab subgrade, including utility and foundation trench backfill, should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight (ASTM:D698). Based on the clayey soils present, we estimate the subgrade should provide a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k- value) of about 100 pci. For recommendations pertaining to moisture and vapor protection of interior floor slabs, we refer you to the attached standard sheet entitled Floor Slab MoistureNapor Protection. Exterior Building Backfilling The on -site soils are at least moderately frost susceptible. Because of this, certain design considerations are needed to mitigate these frost effects. For details, we refer you to the attached sheet entitled Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction. We understand that basements are not planned as a part of the new construction. However, in the event retaining situations exist in the form of shallow mechanical spaces, loading dock walls, and/or exterior retaining walls, or if the design changes and a basement is added, we are attaching a standard sheet entitled Basement/Retaining Wall Backfill and Water Control. Pavements Definitions Italicized words used in this section have a specific definition. These definitions are presented on the attached standard sheet entitled Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction, or are defined in ASTM standards or Mn/DOT specifications. AET No. 01-03837— Page 9 of 15 Subgrade Preparation Long term pavement performance is dependent on having high soil stability in the critical subgrade zone to resist wheel loads and on having favorable frost and drainage characteristics. The upper zone of the profile was frozen at the time of drilling and strength information is then not available. Unfrozen zones of the fill suggest that it is not highly compacted. In addition, the soils are moderate to moderately high in frost heave potential. Much of the future pavement area will likely lie in existing paved areas, and portions may lie over the demolished building area. Therefore, the conditions portrayed by the borings may not necessarily be representative of the soil conditions in place for pavement support. However, we suspect most soils present may at least be moderately frost susceptible. Based on this, the preferred approach is to place a uniform thickness sand subbase as the upper portion of the subgrade. The use of a 1 foot thick subbase in light duty areas and a 1' /2 foot thick subbase in heavy duty areas is usually a good approach when considering performance and economy. Prior to placement of a sand subbase, it will be necessary to properly prepare the underlying site soils. Where pavements overlie the existing building area, it will be important to completely remove the existing building elements and refill to plan grades with controlled, compacted fill. The soils used for fill should be similar in type to the adjacent surrounding soils for frost uniformity reasons. Excavations should be backsloped at 3H:1 V or flatter to reduce lateral compaction variation. If organic soils are found to be present, we recommend removing these soils where present within the critical subgrade zone, Sand subbase layers usually consist of Select Granular Borrow. This specification does allow for the possibility of a fine grained sand material approaching a silty sand classification. This type of material does not allow for free drainage, and the stability can also be affected by the presence of water. Therefore, we often prefer the use of Modified Select Granular Borrow, if your budget • L� AET No. 01-03837— Page 10 of 15 allows. Value engineering judgments of intermediate gradations could also be considered, and we are available for review on this issue. Where there is a need to vary the thickness of the sand subbase, we recommend the thickness have a taper of no steeper than l OH: IV. The subcut and sand subbase placement should extend slightly beyond the outer edge of the curb to maintain frost uniformity. The sand subbase should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent build up of water within the sand. This can be accomplished by placing short segments of properly engineered drainage lines which are connected to catch basins in low elevation areas (referred to as "finger drains "). Where paved areas are relatively level, and if finger drains are not frequent, you should consider placing a longer parallel drainage line through the level area to better remove infiltrating water. The need for shorter paths to draintile lines increases as the subbase material becomes less permeable (i.e, less draintile would be needed using Modified Select Granular Borrow versus Select Granular Borrow). If your budget does not allow for a uniform sand subbase layer, the subbase is not necessary, although you should realize that performance will be reduced. In this case, we still recommend conducting subcuts of 1 foot to 1 % foot (light duty and heavy duty, respectively) and performing a Compaction Subcut to improve frost and strength uniformity. The final subgrade should have proper stability within the critical subgrade zone. Stability should be evaluated, preferably using the test roll procedure. Instability will likely be a result of wetter clayey /silty soils. More widespread instability can be anticipated during wetter seasons. Unstable soils should either be subcut and replaced, or reworked in- place. If soils are reworked in- place, they may need to undergo considerable scarification and drying to reach a proper level of stability (ability to pass a test roll). Reworked soils should be prepared similar to new fill materials, • AET No. 01 -03837 — Page I 1 of 15 and should meet the water content and compaction requirements outlined later for new fill placement. We caution that instability of soils present beneath the soils being reworked and compacted may limit the ability to compact the upper soils. In this case, greater depths of subcutting and stability improvement may be needed. Following subcutting and preparation of existing soils, fill can be placed as needed to attain subgrade elevation. Fill should be placed and compacted per the requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3FI (Specified Density Method). This specification requires soils placed within the critical subgrade zone be compacted to a minimum of 100% of the standard maximum dry unit weight defined in ASTM: D698 (Standard Proctor test), at a water content between 65% to 102% of the standard optimum water content. A reduced minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight can be used below the critical subgrade zone. The sand subbase can be considered part of a composite subgrade; and the top of the subbase can be figured as the top of the 3 • foot subgrade zone needing the 100% compaction level. However, the lower (dry) end of the water content range requirement does not need to apply to the sands. Section Thicknesses Pavement designs are presented on Table B. These designs provide two potential traffic situations (light and heavy duty) and two potential subgrade approaches (with and without a sand subbase). The light duty design refers to parking areas which are intended only for automobiles and passenger truck/ vans. The heavy duty design is intended for pavements which will experience the heavier truck traffic (9 -ton to 10 -ton design load). The pavement designs are based on a native soil subgrade R -value of 20, which is an estimated R- value based on the on -site sandy lean clays and clayey sands. • 0 AET No. 01 -03837 —Page 12 of 15 TABLE B — PAVEMENT DESIGNS Material Section Thickness with Sand Subbase Light Duty Heavy Duty Bituminous Wear 3" (2 lifts) 3.5" (2 lifts) Bituminous Non -Wear 0 2" Class 5 Aggregate Base 5" 5" Sand Subbase 12" 18" Material Section Thickness without Sand Subbase Light Duty Heavy Duty Bituminous Wear 3" (2 lifts) 4" (2 lifts) Bituminous Non -Wear 0 2" Class 5 Aggregate Base 6" 8" 0 If you wish to use a concrete pavement for the heavy duty design, we would recommend section comprised of 5 inches of concrete (with the sand subbase) to 5.5 inches of concrete (without a subbase) over 4 inches of Class 5 aggregate base. We recommend the concrete have a minimum compressive strength (f c) of 4000 psi. Spacing between joints should be no greater than 12 feet. No dowels are necessary at the joints. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Potential Difficulties Runoff Water in Excavation Water can be expected to collect in the excavation bottom during times of inclement weather or snow melt. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to reduce the potential for soil disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend water be removed from within the excavation during construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the ground water can 0 be handled with conventional sump pumping. 0 AET No. 01 -03837 —Page 13 of 15 Disturbance of Soils The on -site soils can become disturbed under construction traffic, especially if the soils are wet. If soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed soils. The subcut soils can then be dried and recompacted back into place, or they should be removed and replaced with drier imported fill. Cobbles and Boulders The soils at this site can include cobbles and boulders. This may make excavating procedures somewhat more difficult than normal if they are encountered. Excavation Sidesloping/Retention If excavation faces are not retained, the excavation should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, 'Excavations "(can be found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance. Observation and Testing The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we highly recommend on -site observation by a geotechnical engineer /technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing and sieve analysis testing should also be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction and material type have been satisfied. For fill placed below foundations, we recommend the operation be observed and tested on a full -time basis. LIMITATIONS This service and report was structured to meet the sole needs of the client for this specific project. Others should not rely on this report for other purposes unless first conferring with the author. 0 AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 14 of 15 0 The data derived through the exploration program have been used to develop our opinions about the subsurface conditions at the site. However, because no exploration program can reveal totally what is in the subsurface, conditions between borings and between samples and at other times, will differ from conditions described in this report. The exploration we conducted identified subsurface conditions only at those points where we took samples or observed ground water conditions. Depending on the sampling methods and sampling frequency, every soil layer may not be observed, and some materials or layers which are present in the ground may not be noted on the boring logs. The conditions represented can also change with time. This may be due to man -made excavation, filling, substance release, vibrations, or other events on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events such as groundwater fluctuations, drought or flooding. This report should not be used to fulfill the needs of the construction contractor, as it is not intended to provide sufficient information to accurately determine quantities and locations of particular materials. • If conditions encountered during construction differ from those indicated by our borings, it may be necessary to alter our conclusions and recommendations, or to modify construction procedures, and the cost of construction may be affected. The extent and detail of information about the subsurface condition is directly related to the scope of the exploration. It should be understood, therefore, that information can be obtained by means of additional exploration. STANDARD OF CARE Our services for your project have been conducted to those standards considered normal for services of this type at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either express or implied, is intended. • AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 15 of 15 0 Report Prepared by: American Engineering Testing, Inc. Jeffery K. Voyen, PE Vice President, Geotechnical Division Reg. No. 15928 • • SIGNATURES Report Reviewed by: American Engineering Testing, Inc. Steven D. Koenes, PE Principal Engineer FLOOR SLAB MOISTURENAPOR PROTECTION Floor slab design relative to moisture /vapor protection should consider the type and location of two elements, a granular layer and a vapor membrane (vapor retarder, water resistant barrier or vapor barrier). In the following sections, the pros and cons of the possible options regarding these elements will be presented, such that you and your specifier can make an engineering decision based on the benefits and costs of the choices. GRANULAR LAYER In American Concrete Institute (ACI) 302.IR -04, a "base material" is recommended over the vapor membrane, rather than the conventional clean "sand cushion" material. The base layer should be a minimum of 4 inches (100 mm) thick, trimmable, compactible, granular fill (not sand), a so- called crusher -run material. Usually graded from 1' /z inches to 2 inches (38 to 50 mm) down to rock dust is suitable. Following compaction, the surface can be choked off with a fine -grade material. We refer you to ACI 302.IR -04 for additional details regarding the requirements for the base material. In cases where potential static water levels or significant perched water sources appear near or above the floor slab, an under floor drainage system may be needed wherein a draintile system is placed within a thicker clean sand or gravel layer. Such a system should be properly engineered depending on subgrade soil types and rate /head of water inflow. VAPOR MEMBRANE The need for a vapor membrane depends on whether the floor slab will have a vapor sensitive covering, will have vapor sensitive items stored on the slab, or if the space above the slab will be a humidity controlled area. If the project does not have this vapor sensitivity or moisture control need, placement of a vapor membrane may not be necessary. Your decision will then relate to whether to use the ACI base material or a conventional sand cushion layer. However, if any of the above sensitivity issues apply, placement of a vapor membrane is recommended. Some floor covering systems (adhesives and flooring materials) require installation of a vapor membrane to limit the slab moisture content as a condition of their warranty. VAPOR MEMBRANE /GRANULAR LAYER PLACEMENT A number of issues should be considered when deciding whether to place the vapor membrane above or below the granular layer. The benefits of placing the slab on a granular layer, with the vapor membrane placed below the granular layer, include reduction of the following: • Slab curling during the curing and drying process. • Time of bleeding, which allows for quicker finishing. • Vapor membrane puncturing. • Surface blistering or delamination caused by an extended bleeding period. • Cracking caused by plastic or drying shrinkage. The benefits of placing the vapor membrane over the granular layer include the following: • A lower moisture emission rate is achieved faster. • Eliminates a potential water reservoir within the granular layer above the membrane. • Provides a "slip surface ", thereby reducing slab restraint and the associated random cracking. If a membrane is to be used in conjunction with a granular layer, the approach recommended depends on slab usage and the construction schedule. The vapor membrane should be placed above the granular layer when: • Vapor sensitive floor covering systems are used or vapor sensitive items will be directly placed on the slab. • The area will be humidity controlled, but the slab will be placed before the building is enclosed and sealed from rain. • Required by a floor covering manufacturer's system warranty. The vapor membrane should be placed below the granular layer when: • Used in humidity controlled areas (without vapor sensitive coverings /stored items), with the roof membrane in place, and the building enclosed to the point where precipitation will not intrude into the slab area. Consideration should be given to slight sloping of the membrane to edges where draintile or other disposal methods can alleviate potential water sources, such as pipe or roof leaks, foundation wall damp proofing failure, fire sprinkler system activation, etc. There may be cases where membrane placement may have a detrimental effect on the subgrade support system (e.g., expansive soils). In these cases, your decision will need to weigh the cost of subgrade options and the performance risks. O1REP013(3/07) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • GENERAL FREEZING WEATHER EFFECTS ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Because water expands upon freezing and soils contain water, soils which are allowed to freeze will heave and lose density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original 9rength and density. The extent of heave and density/ strength loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition. Heave is greater in soils with higher percentages of fines (silts /clays). High silt content soils are most susceptible, due to their high capillary rise potential which can create ice lenses. Fine grained soils generally heave about 1/4" to 3/8" for each foot of frost penetration. This can translate to 1 " to 2" of total frost heave. This total amount can be significantly greater if ice lensing occurs. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Clayey and silty soils can be used as perimeter backfill, although the effect of their poor drainage and frost properties should be considered. Basement areas will have special drainage and lateral load requirements which are not discussed here. Frost heave may be critical in doorway areas. Stoops or sidewalks adjacent to doorways could be designed as structural slabs supported on frost footings with void spaces below. With this design, movements may then occur between the structural slab and the adjacent on -grade slabs. Non -frost susceptible sands (with less than 12% passing a #200 sieve) can be used below such areas. Depending on the function of surrounding areas, the sand layer may need a thickness transition away from the area where movement is critical. With sand placementover slower draining soils, subsurface drainage would be needed for the sand layer. High density extruded insulation could be used within the sand to reduce frost penetration, thereby reducing the sand thickness needed. We caution that insulation placed near the surface can increase the potential for ice glazing of the surface. The possible effects of adfreezing should be considered if clayey or silty soils are used as backfill. Adfreezing occurs when backfill adheres to rough surfaced foundation walls and lifts the wall as it freezes and heaves. This occurrence is most common with masonry block walls, unheated or poorly heated building situations and clay backfill. The potential is also increased where backfill soils are poorly compacted and become saturated. The risk of adfreezing can be decreased by placing a low friction separating layer between the wall and backfill. Adfreezing can occur on exterior piers (such as deck, fence or other similar pier footings), even if a smooth surface is provided. This is more likely in poor drainage situations where soils become saturated. Additional footing embedment and/or widened footings below the frost zones (which include tensile reinforcement) can be used to resist uplift forces. Specific designs would require individual analysis. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Foundations, slabs and other improvements which may be affected by frostmovements should be insulated from frost penetration during freezing weather. If filling takes place during freezing weather, all frozen soils, snow and ice should be stripped from areas to be filled prior to new fill placement. The new fill should not be allowed to freeze during transit, placement or compaction. This should be considered in the project scheduling, budgeting and quantity estimating. It is usually beneficial to perform cold weather earthwork operations in small areas where grade can be attained quickly rather than working larger areas where a greater amount of frost stripping may be needed. If slab subgrade areas freeze, we recommend the subgrade be thawed prior to floor slab placement. The frost action may also require reworking and recompaction of the thawed subgrade. O1 REPO 15(02/01) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • DRAINAGE BASEMENT/RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND WATER CONTROL Below grade basements should include a perimeter backfill drainage system on the exterior side of the wall. The exception may be where basements lie within free draining sands where water will not perch in the backfill. Drainage systems should consist of perforated or slotted PVC drainage pipes located at the bottom of the backfill trench, lower than the interior floor grade. The drain pipe should be surrounded by properly graded filter rock. A filter fabric should then envelope the filter rock. The drain pipe should be connected to a suitable means of disposal, such as a sump basket or a gravity outfall. A storm sewer gravity outfall would be preferred over exterior daylighting, as the latter may freeze during winter. For non - building, exterior retaining walls, weep holes at the base of the wall can be substituted for a drain pipe. BACKFILLING Prior to backfilling, damp /water proofing should be applied on perimeter basement walls. The backfill materials placed against basement walls will exert lateral loadings. To reduce this loading by allowing for drainage, we recommend using free draining sands for backfill. The zone of sand backfill should extend outward from the wall at least 2', and then upward and outward from the wall at a 30' or greater angle from vertical. As a minimum,the sands should contain no greater than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve, which would include (SP) and (SP -SM) soils. The sand backfill should be placed in lifts and compacted with portable compaction equipment. This compaction should be to the specified levels if slabs or pavements are placed above. Where slab /pavements are not above, we recommend capping the sand backfill with a layer of clayey soil to minimize surface water infiltration. Positive surface drainage away from the building should also be maintained. If surface capping or positive surface drainage cannot be maintained, then the trench should be filled with more permeable soils, such as the Fine Filter or Coarse Filter Aggregates defined in Mn /DOT Specification 3149. You should recognize that if the backfill soils are not properly compacted, settlements may occur which may affect surface drainage away from the building. Backfilling with silty or clayey soil is possible but not preferred. These soils can build -up water which increases lateral pressures and results in wet wall conditions and possible water infiltration into the basement. If you elect to place silty or clayey soils as backfill, we recommend you place a prefabricated drainage composite against the wall which is hydraulically connected to a drainage pipe at the base of the backfill trench. High plasticity clays should be avoided as backfill due to their swelling potential. LATERAL PRESSURES Lateral earth pressures on below grade walls vary, depending on backfill soil classification, backfill compaction and slope of the backfill surface. Static or dynamic surcharge loads near the wall will also increase lateral wall pressure. For design, we recommend the following ultimate lateral earth pressure values (given in equivalent fluid pressure values) for a drained soil compacted to 95% of the Standard Proctor density and a level ground surface. Equivalent Fluid Density Soil Type Active (pcf) At -Rest (pcf) Sands (SP or SP -SM) 35 50 Silty Sands (SM) 45 65 Fine Grained Soils (SC, CL or ML) 70 90 Basement walls are normally restrained at the top which restricts movement. In this case, the design lateral pressures should be the "at- rest" pressure situation. Retaining walls which are free to rotate or deflect should be designed using the active case. Lateral earth pressures will be significantly higher than that shown if the backfill soils are not drained and become saturated. O1REP014(07 /01) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • DEFINITIONS RELATING TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION TOP OF SUBGRADE Grade which contacts the bottom of the aggregate base layer. SAND SUBBASE Uniform thickness sand layer placed as the top of subgrade which is intended to improve the frost and drainage characteristics of the pavement system by better draining excess water in the base /subbase, by reducing and "bridging" frost heaving and by reducing spring thaw weakening effects. CRITICAL SUBGRADE ZONE The subgrade portion beneath and within three vertical feet of the top of subgrade. A sand subbase, if placed, would be considered the upper portion of the critical subgrade zone. GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.213 1. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the I" sieve, contain less than 20% by weight passing the 4200 sieve. SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2132. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the 1" sieve, contain less than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve. MODIFIED SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Clean, medium grained sands which, of the portion passing the I" sieve, contain less than 5% by weight passing the #200 sieve and less than 40% by weight passing the #40 sieve. GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION FABRIC Geotextile meeting Type V requirements defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. When using fabric, installation should also meet the requirements outlined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. COMPACTION SUBCUT Construction of a uniform thickness subcut below a designated grade to provide uniformity and compaction within the subcut zone. Replacement fill can be the materials subcut, although the reused soils should be blended to a uniform soil condition and recompacted per the Specified Density Method (Mn/DOT Specification 2105.317 1). TEST ROLL A means of evaluating the near - surface stability of subgrade soils (usually non - granular). Suitability is determined by the depth of rutting or deflection caused by passage of heavy rubber -tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, over the test area. Yielding of less than 1" is normally considered acceptable, although engineering judgment may be applied depending on equipment used, soil conditions present, and /or pavement performance expectations. UNSTABLE SOILS Subgrade soils which do not pass a test roll. Unstable soils typically have water content exceeding the "standard optimum water content" defined in ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). ORGANIC SOILS Soils which have sufficient organic content such that engineering properties /stability are affected. These soils are usually black to dark brown in color. 01 REPO 19 (08/07) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • A-D-Dendix A AET #01 -03837 Figure 1— Proposed Project Layout Figure 2 - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Exploration/ Classification Methods Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System r • r 1* '41 - Front Elevation {L 3: 4 .......... _.. _.......... S4" Scvers N PROJECT AET NO. City Hall & Public Works Building Expansion 01 -03837 AMERICAN Oak Park Heights, Minnesota ENGINEERING SUBJECT DATE TESTING, Ine Proposed Project Layout February 5, 2008 SCALE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY n/a Others __ Figure 1 0 rn4l n PROJECT City Hall & Public Works Building Expansion AMERICAN Oak Park Heights, Minnesota ENGINEERING SUBJECT TESTING, Ine Borings Locations SCALE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY n/a Bonestroo -- AET NO. 01 -03837 DATE February 5, 2008 Figure 2 a AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 1 (p. 1 of 1) ROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, NIN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 951.7 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN- WC DEN LL PL "20 FILL, mostly clayey sand with roots, a little FILL SU 1 gravel, dark brown, frozen F /M SU FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and 2 gravel, brown, a little dark brown, frozen to 3 about 1' 7 M SS 12 14 4— CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, TILL OR 5 brown, stiff (SC) (possible fill) FILL 14 M SS 10 7 6 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, TILL medium dense (SM/SC) 30 M SS 6 8 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense to 9 medium dense (SM) 10 45 M SS 14 1] 12 29 M SS 16 13 14 15 29 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 20 42 M SS 16 21 22 23 29 M SS 24 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME SAMPLED ING D P TT E DTH I FL R LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 0 -22 3.25 "HSA 1/21/08 1:15 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON TED: 1121/0$ COMPLETED: THIS LOG DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. ET JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 2 (p. 1 of 1) ROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEIPNTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.8 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. FILL, mostly organic sandy silt with roots, FILL 1 A2" black to dark brown, frozen F/M SU 11 FILL, mostly clayey sand with gravel, trace 2 roots, brown, frozen to about 1.25' 8 M SS 12 10 3 4 SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace roots, brown, stiff TILL 5 (CL /SC) 10 M SS 10 12 6 7 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense g to medium dense (SM) 30 M SS 12 9 10 43 M SS 14 11 12 13 29 M SS 14 14 15 32 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 20 19 M SS 16 21 22 23 28 M SS 24 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -22' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL T ATTACHED 1/21/08 12:10 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 1/21/08 DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. T JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 3 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, NIN DEPTH IN SURFACE ELEVATION: 955.2 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN. FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel, trace FILL F SU 1 roots, dark brown, frozen F/M SU 13 FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and 2 gravel, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 1.2' TILL OR 3 FILL 6 M SS 6 18 SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, trace roots, dark brown to brown, firm (CL /SC) 4 (possible fill) TILL 5 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, stiff (SC /CL) 14 M SS 8 12 6 7 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense, 8 lenses of clayey sand (SM) 36 M SS 16 9 10 42 M SS 12 11 12 13 49 M SS 16 14 15 54 M x SS 16 16 — 17 18 19 SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, fine to COARSE 20 medium grained, brown, moist, very dense (SP) ALLUVIUM * M SS 12 21 22 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense : TILL 23 (SM) 48 M SS 18 24 END OF BORING *7/0.5 + 23/0.5 + 50/0.2 DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -22' 3.25" BSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1/21/08 10:30 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF CORING 1/21/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG T JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 4 (p. 1 of 1) ROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH �1 SURFACE ELEVATION: 953.4 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL o- #20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN. FILL, mixture of silty sand and gravel, dark FILL F Su 1 brown and brown, frozen F SU 11 FILL, mixture of clayey sand and sandy lean 2 clay, a little silty sand and gravel, brown, frozen 3 to 2.5' 27 F/M SS 12 12 4 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense, :TILL OR 5 lenses of clayey sand (SM) (possible fill) FILL 25 M SS 14 8 6 7 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense TILL (SM) 8 32 M SS 14 9 10 34 M SS 16 11 12 13 33 M SS 16 14 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 15 (SM) 36 M SS 14 16 17 18 19 20 38 M X SS 14 21 — 22 SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium : COARSE 23 grained, brown, moist, dense, lenses of sandy silt ALLUVIUM 32 M SS 14 24 (SP) END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0 -22' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1/21/08 9:15 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING COMPLETED: 1/21/08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG 06/04 EXPLORATION /CLASSIFICATION METHODS SAMPLING METHODS Split -Spoon Samples (SS) - Calibrated to N60 Values Standard penetration (split- spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM:D1586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2" O.D. split - barrel sampler into the in -situ soil with a 140 -pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 ". The sampler is driven a total of 18" into the soil. After an initial set of 6 ", the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12" is known as the standard penetration resistance or N- value. Our method uses a modified hammerweight, which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N -value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split -spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60% of it's potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system. This converted energy then provides what is known as an Tio blow count. Most of todays drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system, which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N- values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100 %. Therefore, the intent of AET's hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60% to 65% of the theoretical energy of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 ". The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation inN- values, stating that N- values of 100% or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can state that the accuracy deviation of the N- values using this method are significantly hatter than the standard ASTM Method. Disturbed Samples (DS) /Spin -up Samples (SU) Sample types described as "DS" or "SU" on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. .CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil classifications shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM:D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil classifications shown on the boring logs are visual - manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs. The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under "Water Level Measurements" on the logs: • Date and Time of measurement • Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement • Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollowtem auger at time of measurement • Cave -in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • Water Level: depth in the borehole where free wateus encountered • Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples ofthe soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 •days. 01 REP051 C(09/03) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. BORING LOG NOTES DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS Symbol Definition B,H,N: Size of flush joint casing CA: Crew Assistant (initials) CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in inches CC: Crew Chief (initials) COT: Clean-out tube DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry DR: Driller (initials) DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter in inches LG: Field logger (initials) MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of samples and for the groundwater level symbols N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N- value) in blows per foot (see notes) NQ wireline core barrel PQ wireline core barrel Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit REC: In split -spoon (see notes) and thin - walled tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample. In rock coring, the length of core recovered (expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no sample recovered. REV: Revert drilling fluid SS: Standard split -spoon sampler (steel; 13 /8" is inside diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated otherwise SU Spin -up sample from hollow stem auger TW: Thin - walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in inches WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and hammer WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel Water level directly measured in boring Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance 0 Symbol Definition CONS: One - dimensional consolidation test DEN: Dry density, pcf DST: Direct shear test E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf HYD: Hydrometer analysis LL: Liquid Limit, % LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf OC: Organic Content, % PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES (Calibrated Hammer Weight) The standard penetration test consists of driving a split -spoon sampler with a drop hammer (calibrated weight varies to provide N60 values) and counting the number of blows applied in each of three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in ASTM:D 1586, the blows for each complete 6" increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0. F below the slash. The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" column, may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The disparity is because the N -value is recorded below the initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM:D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18 "). OIREP052C(O1 /05) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. L - Laboratory PL: Plastic Limit, % qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate) qc: Static cone bearing pressure, tsf q,,: Unconfined compressive strength, psf R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm -cros RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length as a percent of total core run) SA: Sieve analysis TRX: Triaxial compression test VSR: Vane shear strength, remoulded (field), psf VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight % -200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES (Calibrated Hammer Weight) The standard penetration test consists of driving a split -spoon sampler with a drop hammer (calibrated weight varies to provide N60 values) and counting the number of blows applied in each of three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in ASTM:D 1586, the blows for each complete 6" increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0. F below the slash. The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" column, may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The disparity is because the N -value is recorded below the initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM:D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18 "). OIREP052C(O1 /05) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488 a SIEVE ANALYSIS M ME A ■'- n is 0n��1 MEN= �! SD b 5 5 er PARTICLE SIZE IN fALUMETERS 0.075— 6 5 a F 3 z Fa dassification of fneareinad soils and fine-°rained haGim of ooarsearained soils. Equation of WAim H.4o Ad A R =4to LL 25.5. then P1= 013 (LL-20) .S\' Equation of 'mine Venial ALL =16 to P1 =7. G then P1= 09(LL-8) V 0 00 V fV UQU E) LIMIT (LL) Plasticity Chart AMERICAN ENGINEERING 10 TESTING, INC. Notes ABased on the material passing the 3 -in (75 -mm) sieve. Rlf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. cGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well - graded gravel with silt GW -GC well - graded gravel with clay GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay °Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well- graded sand with silt SW -SC well - graded sand with clay SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay (Dio)Z ECu = D64) /D u,. Cc= D 1„ x Da, FIf soil contains >15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. olf fines classify as CL -ML, use dual vmbol GC -GM, or SC -SM. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. 'If soil contains >15% gravel, add "with ravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL -ML silty clay. Klf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 add "with sand" or "with gravel ", whichever is predominant. LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. MY soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. NPI >4 and plots on or above "A" line. oPl <4 or plots below "A" Iine. PPI plots on or above "A" Iine. QPl plots below "A" line. RFiber Content description shown below. Grain Size Gravel Percentages Consistency of Plastic Soils Soil Classification teria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests" Group Group Name Term Percent Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14% Symbol less than 2 Coarse - Grained Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu_ >4 and I <Cc <3 GW Well graded grave Soils More than 50% coarse Less than 5% Gravelly 30%-50% Firm 5 - 8 than 50% fraction retained finesc Cu <4 and /or 1 >Cc >3 GP Poorly graded gra) retained on on No. 4 sieve Pass 4200 sieve Very Stiff 16-30 No. 200 sieve Gravels with Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty grave Moisture/Frost Condition Fines more Peat Description Organic Description (if no lab tests) Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat (MC Column) than 12% fines c Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel Sands 50% or Clean Sands Cu >6 and 1 <Cc<3 SW Well- graded sand more of coarse Less than 5% M (Moist): Damp, although free water not %" thick of Term fraction passes fines° Cu <6 and I >Cc >3 SP Poorly- graded San No. 4 sieve Root Inclusions water content (over "optimum "). or color. Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% Sands with Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand Hemic Peat: 33 - 67% Fines more earing): describe non - plastic soils. Lenses: Pockets or layers Sapric Peat: Less than 33% than 12% fines o Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand Fine - Grained Silts and Clays inorganic PI >7 and plots on or above CL Lean ayKLM Soils 50% or Liquid limit less to be in sufficient quantity to "A" liner Soil frozen material or color. more passes than 50 significantly affect soil properties. PI <4 or Blots below ML Sil the No. 200 "A" line sieve organic Liquid limit —oven dried <0.75 OL Organic cla (see Plasticity Liquid limit — not dried Organic siltI.L.rro Chart below) Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat cla Liquid limit 50 or more PI plots below "A" Iine MH Elastic sil organic Liquid limit —oven dried <0.75 OH Organic cla Liquid limit — not dried Organic si1tK L MQ Highly organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Peat soil in color, and organic in odor a SIEVE ANALYSIS M ME A ■'- n is 0n��1 MEN= �! SD b 5 5 er PARTICLE SIZE IN fALUMETERS 0.075— 6 5 a F 3 z Fa dassification of fneareinad soils and fine-°rained haGim of ooarsearained soils. Equation of WAim H.4o Ad A R =4to LL 25.5. then P1= 013 (LL-20) .S\' Equation of 'mine Venial ALL =16 to P1 =7. G then P1= 09(LL-8) V 0 00 V fV UQU E) LIMIT (LL) Plasticity Chart AMERICAN ENGINEERING 10 TESTING, INC. Notes ABased on the material passing the 3 -in (75 -mm) sieve. Rlf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. cGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well - graded gravel with silt GW -GC well - graded gravel with clay GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay °Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well- graded sand with silt SW -SC well - graded sand with clay SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay (Dio)Z ECu = D64) /D u,. Cc= D 1„ x Da, FIf soil contains >15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. olf fines classify as CL -ML, use dual vmbol GC -GM, or SC -SM. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. 'If soil contains >15% gravel, add "with ravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL -ML silty clay. Klf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 add "with sand" or "with gravel ", whichever is predominant. LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. MY soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. NPI >4 and plots on or above "A" line. oPl <4 or plots below "A" Iine. PPI plots on or above "A" Iine. QPl plots below "A" line. RFiber Content description shown below. Grain Size Gravel Percentages Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density of Noti-Plastic Soils Term N- Value, BP F Term N- Value, BPF Term Particle Size Term Percent Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14% Very Soft less than 2 Very Loose 0 - 4 Cobbles 3" to 12" With Gravel 15%-29% Soft 2 - 4 Loose 5- 10 Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Gravelly 30%-50% Firm 5 - 8 Medium Dense 11 -30 Sand #200 to 44 sieve Stiff 9-15 Dense 31 -50 Fines (silt & clay) Pass 4200 sieve Very Stiff 16-30 Very Dense Greater than 50 00 V fV UQU E) LIMIT (LL) Plasticity Chart AMERICAN ENGINEERING 10 TESTING, INC. Notes ABased on the material passing the 3 -in (75 -mm) sieve. Rlf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. cGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well - graded gravel with silt GW -GC well - graded gravel with clay GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay °Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well- graded sand with silt SW -SC well - graded sand with clay SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay (Dio)Z ECu = D64) /D u,. Cc= D 1„ x Da, FIf soil contains >15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. olf fines classify as CL -ML, use dual vmbol GC -GM, or SC -SM. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. 'If soil contains >15% gravel, add "with ravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL -ML silty clay. Klf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 add "with sand" or "with gravel ", whichever is predominant. LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. MY soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. NPI >4 and plots on or above "A" line. oPl <4 or plots below "A" Iine. PPI plots on or above "A" Iine. QPl plots below "A" line. RFiber Content description shown below. O 1 CLS021 (01/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Grain Size Gravel Percentages Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density of Noti-Plastic Soils Term N- Value, BP F Term N- Value, BPF Term Particle Size Term Percent Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14% Very Soft less than 2 Very Loose 0 - 4 Cobbles 3" to 12" With Gravel 15%-29% Soft 2 - 4 Loose 5- 10 Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Gravelly 30%-50% Firm 5 - 8 Medium Dense 11 -30 Sand #200 to 44 sieve Stiff 9-15 Dense 31 -50 Fines (silt & clay) Pass 4200 sieve Very Stiff 16-30 Very Dense Greater than 50 Hard Greater than 30 Moisture/Frost Condition Layering Notes Peat Description Organic Description (if no lab tests) Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat (MC Column) D (Dry): Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to and is judged to have sufficient organic fines touch. Laminations: Layers less than Fiber Content content to influence the Liquid Limit properties. M (Moist): Damp, although free water not %" thick of Term (Visual Estimate ) Slightly organic used for borderline cases. visible. Soil may still have a high differ material ing maea Root Inclusions water content (over "optimum "). or color. Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity O'bti Free water visible intended to Hemic Peat: 33 - 67% of roots to influence the soil earing): describe non - plastic soils. Lenses: Pockets or layers Sapric Peat: Less than 33% properties. Waterbearing usually relates to greater than %:" Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged sands and sand with silt. thick of differing to be in sufficient quantity to F (Frozen): Soil frozen material or color. significantly affect soil properties. O 1 CLS021 (01/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, Minnesota toDate: February 5, 2008 Prepared for: City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 AET #01 -03837 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. February 5, 2008 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Attn: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion Oak Park Heights, Minnesota AET #01 -03837 Dear Mr. Johnson: CONSULTANTS • ENVIRONMENTAL • HNICAL • MATERIALS • ALS • FORENSICS This report presents the results of a preliminary subsurface exploration program and associated geotechnical review for your proposed City Hall and Public Works building expansion project in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. We are submitting three copies of the report to you. Additional copies are being sent on your behalf as noted below. Please contact me if you have questions about the report, or if you wish to arrange for additional services at the project site. Very truly yours, American Engineering Testing, Inc. Jeffery K. Voyen, PE Vice President, Geotechnical Division Phone: (651) 659 -1305 Fax: (651) 659 -1347 jvoyen@amengtest.com JKV /ak cc: (2) Bonestroo, Attn: Karen Erickson, PE This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North • St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 651 -659 -9001 • Toll Free 800 - 972 -6364 • Fax 651 -659 -1379 • www.amengtest.com Offices throughout Florida, Minnesota, South Dakota & Wisconsin AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �1 L J TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ ............................... l Scope........................................................................................................... ............................... I PROJECTINFORMATION ............................................................................ ............................... I SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ................................................................... ............................... 2 General................................................... ............................... ................ ............................... 2 Drillingand Sampling Methods .................................................................. ............................... 3 ClassificationMethods ................................................................................ ............................... 3 LaboratoryTesting ...................................................................................... ............................... 3 SITECONDITIONS ........................................................................................ ............................... 4 SubsurfaceSoils /Geology ........................................................................... ............................... 4 WaterLevel Measurements ......................................................................... ............................... 4 Reviewof Soil Properties ............................................................................ ............................... 4 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................. ............................... 5 BuildingGrading ......................................................................................... ............................... 5 SpreadFoundations ..................................................................................... ............................... 7 BuildingFloor Slabs .................................................................................... ............................... 8 ExteriorBuilding Backfilling ...................................................................... ............................... 8 Pavements..................................................................................................... ..............................8 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................... ............................... 12 PotentialDifficulties .................................................................................. ............................... 12 Excavation Sidesloping/Retention ............................................................ ............................... 13 Observationand Testing ............................................................................ 13 ............................... LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................. 13 ............................... STANDARDOF CARE ................................................................................ 14 ............................... SIGNATURES............................................................................................... ............................... 15 STANDARD DATA SHEETS Floor Slab MoistureNapor Protection Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction Basement/Retaining Wall Backfill and Water Control Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction APPENDIX A Figure l - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Exploration/Classification Methods Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW • CITY HALL AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING EXPANSION OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA AET #01 -03837 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a preliminary subsurface exploration program and our associated geotechnical engineering review for your proposed City Hall and Public Works building expansion project in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. ScoAe The scope of work was outlined in our January 7, 2008 proposal letter to you, which was subsequently authorized by you on the same date. The authorized scope includes the following: • Drill four standard penetration test borings at the project site to depths of 24 feet. is • Conduct soil index testing (water content on cohesive samples). • Analyze the above data, and prepare this preliminary geotechnical report. These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination. PROJECT INFORMATION The project site is located at the existing municipal site at 14168 Oak Park Blvd N. We understand much of the existing City Hall structure will be demolished, although a portion of the Public Works facility will remain. At this time, the project is in the preliminary design stages. The currently preferred option is to construct the City Hall to the rear of the existing building, and expand the Public Works area to the west of the current facility. This currently preferred option (Option E) is attached as Figure 1. 60 • AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 2 of 15 Current plans include a new City Hall with two stories over an 8400 square foot footprint. The Public Works building would be somewhat smaller. The existing buildings at the site do not include a basement. We understand current plans are for the new construction to also not include a basement. Based upon preliminary loadings, maximum column loads would be on the order of 75 kips and maximum continuous bearing wall loads would be on the order of 7.5 kips per lineal foot. Our foundation design assumptions include a minimum factor of safety of 3 with respect to a shear or base failure of the foundations. We assume the structures will be able to tolerate total settlements of up to one inch; and differential settlements over a 30 foot length and at the contact with the existing structure of no more than %z inch. . New bituminous parking and drive areas will be included with the project. Although much of the • new paved surface will be in current paved areas, a portion of the pavement will overlie the footprint of the demolished City Hall building, at least if Option E is chosen. The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION General The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of four standard penetration test borings. The logs of these borings appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 3 of 15 0 density or consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N- value). The field work was performed on January 21, 2008. The boring locations are shown on Figure 2 in the Appendix. The borings were surveyed and staked by Bonestroo prior to the drilling activities. Drilling and Sampling Methods Details on the drilling, sampling, and water level measurement methods used appear on the attached sheet entitled Exploration/Classification Methods. Definitions of the symbols used on the boring logs appear on the attached sheet entitled Boring Log Notes. Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings. They may still be present in the ground even if they are not • noted on the boring logs. Classification Methods Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM:D2488. Without laboratory classification tests, the descriptions are visual -manual judgments. A data sheet regarding the USC system and other descriptive terminology is appended, entitled Unified Soil Classification System. The boring logs include judgments of the geological depositional origin. This judgment is primarily based on observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. Laboratory Testing The laboratory test program included twelve water content tests. The test results appear on the individual boring logs adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed. • • AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 4 of 15 • SITE CONDITIONS Subsurface Soils /Geology The natural geology consists of glacially deposited till, although some water deposited (alluvial) sands are interbedded at depth. The till is mostly silty sand, although is more clayey (sandy lean clay and clayey sand) near the top of the deposit. With the past development, fill is present above the till, with soil types similar to the upper zones of the till. It should be noted that it was relatively difficult to judge whether some of the soils were fill or naturally occurring till. These samples did not have the obvious appearance of fill, although it is evident from the surface topography that some fill does exist in the area. The geologic descriptions on the logs present our best judgment based on the limited samples retrieved. It should be easier to distinguish fill from the natural soils within the actual excavations during construction. Water Level Measurements No water entered the boreholes at the time of drilling. Borings 3 and 4 included non - waterbearing sand layers at depth, suggesting that the true steady -state water level is deeper than these sand layers. However, since upper soils are slow draining, water can readily perch over these soils during times of wetter weather and snowmelt. Ground water levels fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts, as well as other factors. Review of Soil Properties For the most part, the natural till soils are judged competent for structural support. Fill soils have the risk of compaction variability and buried inferior soils, and the fill should not be relied upon for structural support. Also, if the upper soils are indeed natural (upper 4 feet at the boring locations), some exhibit somewhat lower strength (N- values of 8 bpf or less); possibly due to freeze -thaw weathering. The on -site soils are considered to be moderate to moderately high in frost heave potential. i AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 5 of 15 0 RECOMMENDATIONS Building Grading Foundation Excavation In order to prepare building areas for shallow spread foundation support, we recommend the soils listed below be excavated from below the foundation areas: • Fill • Organic soils • Natural clayey soils with N- values of 8 bpf or less Exceptions to the above can be made when verified by a field geotechnical engineer /technician. An example may be where firm clays are present at depth where footing bearing pressure intensities are greatly reduced. In this case, the settlement potential of the soil in place would need to be considered. Based on the above and our review of the soil samples, we judge that the excavation depths listed in the following table would be needed at the test boring locations. TABLE A — RECOMMENDED EXCAVATION DEPTHS Boring Location Excavation Depth (ft) Approximate Excavation Elevation ft 1 4 947%2 2 4 948'/2 3 4 951 4 4 949'/2 The soil borings provide a guide for excavation needs. Actual excavation needs will need to be judged in the field at the time of construction by a geotechnical engineer /technician. Changes can 0 • AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 6 of 15 occur between test locations. It is highly recommended that the entire building area be observed and evaluated for suitability prior to new fill or footing placement. Foundation Excavation Oversizing Where the excavation extends below foundation grade, the excavation bottom and resultant engineered fill system must be oversized laterally beyond the planned outside edges of the foundations to properly support the lateral loads exerted by that foundation. This excavation/engineered fill lateral extension should at least be equal to the vertical depth of fill needed to attain foundation grade at that location (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize). Floor Slab Excavation We recommend fill and organic soils be removed from below floor slab areas. There may be cases where firm clayey soils are present (which are to be removed below foundation areas) which would be suitable for floor slab support. This would pertain to the "firm" (N- values of 5 to 8 bpf) till soils. Because of the uncertainty of whether the soils are fill or natural, these soils should again be evaluated for acceptability by a geotechnical engineer /technician. Filling Fill placed to attain grade for foundation support should be compacted in thin lifts,. such that the entire lift achieves a minimum compaction level of 98% of the standard maximum dry unit weight per ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). Fill placed which supports the floor slab only (outside of the 1:1 oversize zone below footings) can have a reduced minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight. It is preferred that granular soils with no more than 12% by weight passing #200 sieve (sands and sands with silt) be used as engineered fill beneath the building. However, if this proves to be too costly, it is possible to use on -site soils with caution if properly prepared and compacted. • AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 7 of 15 If on -site soils are used for new engineered fill, it is important that the new fill placed meet the minimum specified compaction level throughout the entire thickness of the fill profile. Since most of the soils are clayey /silty in nature, it will be very important that the soils be placed and compacted at a water content near the standard optimum water content (per ASTM:D698). For clayey fill (clays or clayey sands) placed below foundations, we recommend the fill have a water content within 2% (either dry or wet) of the standard optimum water content. This would likely require moisture conditioning of at least a portion of the on -site soils. If there are areas where fill is placed on slopes, we recommend benching the sloped surface (benches cut parallel to the slope contour) prior to placing the fill. Benching is recommended where slopes are steeper than 4H: IV. Spread Foundations The structure can be supported on conventional spread foundations placed directly on the competent natural soils or on new engineered fill overlying the competent natural soils. We recommend the perimeter foundations for heated building areas be placed such that the bottom is a minimum of 42 inches below exterior grade for frost protection. Interior foundations in heated areas can be placed directly below the floor slab. Exterior foundations (those foundations not bordering heated building areas) should be extended to a minimum of 60 inches below exterior grade. Based on the conditions encountered and on the recommended grading/compaction procedures, it is our opinion the foundations can be designed based on a maximum allowable soil bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. It is our judgment the recommended design bearing capacity will include a factor of safety of at least 3 against shear or base failure. We judge that total and differential settlements should not exceed 1 inch. We also judge that differential settlements of conditions depicted by the borings should not exceed '/z inch. • AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 8 of 15 Building Floor Slabs Any new fill placed to attain floor slab subgrade, including utility and foundation trench backfill, should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight (ASTM:D698). Based on the clayey soils present, we estimate the subgrade should provide a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k -value) of about 100 pci. For recommendations pertaining to moisture and vapor protection of interior floor slabs, we refer you to the attached standard sheet entitled Floor Slab MoistureNapor Protection. Exterior Building Back%lling • The on -site soils are at least moderately frost susceptible. Because of this, certain design considerations are needed to mitigate these frost effects. For details, we refer you to the attached sheet entitled Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction. We understand that basements are not planned as a part of the new construction. However, in the event retaining situations exist in the form of shallow mechanical spaces, loading dock walls, and/or exterior retaining walls, or if the design changes and a basement is added, we are attaching a standard sheet entitled Basement/Retaining Wall Backfill and Water Control. Pavements Definitions Italicized words used in this section have a specific definition. These definitions are presented on the attached standard sheet entitled Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction, or are defined in ASTM standards or Mn/DOT specifications. • AET No. 01-03837— Page 9 of 15 • Subgrade Preparation Long term pavement performance is dependent on having high soil stability in the critical subgrade zone to resist wheel loads and on having favorable frost and drainage characteristics. The upper zone of the profile was frozen at the time of drilling and strength information is then not available. Unfrozen zones of the fill suggest that it is not highly compacted. In addition, the soils are moderate to moderately high in frost heave potential. Much of the future pavement area will likely lie in existing paved areas, and portions may lie over the demolished building area. Therefore, the conditions portrayed by the borings may not necessarily be representative of the soil conditions in place for pavement support. However, we suspect most soils present may at least be moderately frost susceptible. Based on this, the preferred approach is to place a uniform thickness sand subbase as the upper portion of the subgrade. The use of a 1 foot thick subbase in light duty areas and a 1 % foot thick subbase in heavy duty areas is usually a good approach when considering performance and economy. Prior to placement of a sand subbase, it will be necessary to properly prepare the underlying site soils. Where pavements overlie the existing building area, it will be important to completely remove the existing building elements and refill to plan grades with controlled, compacted fill. The soils used for fill should be similar in type to the adjacent surrounding soils for frost uniformity reasons. Excavations should be backsloped at 3H:1 V or flatter to reduce lateral compaction variation. If organic soils are found to be present, we recommend removing these soils where present within the critical subgrade zone. Sand subbase layers usually consist of Select Granular Borrow. This specification does allow for the possibility of a fine grained sand material approaching a silty sand classification. This type of material does not allow for free drainage, and the stability can also be affected by the presence of water. Therefore, we often prefer the use of Modified Select Granular Borrow, if your budget 0 AET No. 01- 03837 — Page 10 of 15 allows. Value engineering judgments of intermediate gradations could also be considered, and we are available for review on this issue. Where there is a need to vary the thickness of the sand subbase, we recommend the thickness have a taper of no steeper than l OH: l V. The subcut and sand subbase placement should extend slightly beyond the outer edge of the curb to maintain frost uniformity. The sand subbase should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent build up of water within the sand. This can be accomplished by placing short segments of properly engineered drainage lines which are connected to catch basins in low elevation areas (referred to as "finger drains "). Where paved areas are relatively level, and if finger drains are not frequent, you should consider placing a longer parallel drainage line through the level area to better remove infiltrating water. The need for shorter paths to draintile lines increases as the subbase material becomes less apermeable (i.e, less draintile would be needed using Modified Select Granular Borrow versus Select Granular Borrow). If your budget does not allow for a uniform sand subbase layer, the subbase is not necessary, although you should realize that performance will be reduced. In this case, we still recommend conducting subcuts of 1 foot to 1' /2 foot (light duty and heavy duty, respectively) and performing a Compaction Subcut to improve frost and strength uniformity. The final subgrade should have proper stability within the critical subgrade zone. Stability should be evaluated, preferably using the test roll procedure. Instability will likely be a result of wetter clayey /silty soils. More widespread instability can be anticipated during wetter seasons. Unstable soils should either be subcut and replaced, or reworked in- place. If soils are reworked in- place, they may need to undergo considerable scarification and drying to reach a proper level of stability (ability to pass a test roll). Reworked soils should be prepared similar to new fill materials, AET No. 01 -03 837 — Page 11 of 15 and should meet the water content and compaction requirements outlined later for new fill placement. We caution that instability of soils present beneath the soils being reworked and compacted may limit the ability to compact the upper soils. In this case, greater depths of subcutting and stability improvement may be needed. Following subcutting and preparation of existing soils, fill can be placed as needed to attain subgrade elevation. Fill should be placed and compacted per the requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3F1 (Specified Density Method). This specification requires soils placed within the critical subgrade zone be compacted to a minimum of 100% of the standard maximum dry unit weight defined in ASTM: D698 (Standard Proctor test), at a water content between 65% to 102% of the standard optimum water content. A reduced minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight can be used below the critical subgrade zone. The sand subbase can be considered part of a composite subgrade; and the top of the subbase can be figured as the top of the 3 foot subgrade zone needing the 100% compaction level. However, the lower (dry) end of the water content range requirement does not need to apply to the sands. Section Thicknesses Pavement designs are presented on Table B. These designs provide two potential traffic situations (light and heavy duty) and two potential subgrade approaches (with and without a sand subbase). The light duty design refers to parking areas which are intended only for automobiles and passenger truck/ vans. The heavy duty design is intended for pavements which will experience the heavier truck traffic (9 -ton to 10 -ton design load). The pavement designs are based on a native soil subgrade R -value of 20, which is an estimated R- value based on the on -site sandy lean clays and clayey sands. • 0 AET No. 01 -03837 —Page 12 of 15 TABLE B — PAVEMENT DESIGNS Material Section Thieknest, witk Sand Subbase Light'Duty, Heavy Duty Bituminous Wear 3" (2 lifts) 3.5" (2 lifts) Bituminous Non-Wear 0 2" Class 5 Aggregate Base 5" 5" Sand Subbase 12" 18" If you wish to use a concrete pavement for the heavy duty design, we would recommend a section comprised of 5 inches of concrete (with the sand subbase) to 5.5 inches of concrete (without a subbase) over 4 inches of Class 5 aggregate base. We recommend the concrete have a minimum compressive strength (f ) of 4000 psi. Spacing between joints should be no greater than 12 feet. No dowels are necessary at the joints. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Potential Difficulties Runoff Water in Excavation Water can be expected to collect in the excavation bottom during times of inclement weather or snow melt. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to reduce the potential for soil disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend water be removed from within the excavation during construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the ground water can be handled with conventional sump pumping. • Seeti44 Tliie sssv #lintit, aid Subbase i)Ii`7ii =tyW Heavy Duty Bituminous Wear 3" (2 lifts) 4" (2 lifts) Bituminous Non -Wear 0 2" Class 5 Aggregate Base 6" 8" If you wish to use a concrete pavement for the heavy duty design, we would recommend a section comprised of 5 inches of concrete (with the sand subbase) to 5.5 inches of concrete (without a subbase) over 4 inches of Class 5 aggregate base. We recommend the concrete have a minimum compressive strength (f ) of 4000 psi. Spacing between joints should be no greater than 12 feet. No dowels are necessary at the joints. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Potential Difficulties Runoff Water in Excavation Water can be expected to collect in the excavation bottom during times of inclement weather or snow melt. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to reduce the potential for soil disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend water be removed from within the excavation during construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the ground water can be handled with conventional sump pumping. • AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 13 of 15 Disturbance of Soils The on -site soils can become disturbed under construction traffic, especially if the soils are wet. If soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed soils. The subcut soils can then be dried and recompacted back into place, or they should be removed and replaced with drier imported fill. Cobbles and Boulders The soils at this site can include cobbles and boulders. This may make excavating procedures somewhat more difficult than normal if they are encountered. Excavation SideslopingMetention If excavation faces are not retained, the excavation should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, `Excavations "(can be found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance. 0 Observation and Testing The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we highly recommend on -site observation by a geotechnical engineer /technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing and sieve analysis testing should also be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction and material type have been satisfied. For fill placed below foundations, we recommend the operation be observed and tested on a full -time basis. LIMITATIONS This service and report was structured to meet the sole needs of the client for this specific project. Others should not rely on this report for other purposes unless first conferring with the author. 0 0 AET No. 01 -03837 — Page 14 of 15 The data derived through the exploration program have been used to develop our opinions about the subsurface conditions at the site. However, because no exploration program can reveal totally what is in the subsurface, conditions between borings and between samples and at other times, will differ from conditions described in this report. The exploration we conducted identified subsurface conditions only at those points where we took samples or observed ground water conditions. Depending on the sampling methods and sampling frequency, every soil layer may not be observed, and some materials or layers which are present in the ground may not be noted on the boring logs. The conditions represented can also change with time. This may be due to man -made excavation, filling, substance release, vibrations, or other events on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events such as groundwater fluctuations, drought or flooding. This report should not be used to fulfill the needs of the construction contractor, as it is not intended to provide sufficient information to accurately determine quantities and locations of particular materials. If conditions encountered during construction differ from those indicated by our borings, it may be necessary to alter our conclusions and recommendations, or to modify construction procedures, and the cost of construction may be affected. The extent and detail of information about the subsurface condition is directly related to the scope of the exploration. It should be understood, therefore, that information can be obtained by means of additional exploration. STANDARD OF CARE Our services for your project have been conducted to those standards considered normal for services of this type at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either express or implied, is intended. • AET No. 01-03837— Page 15 of 15 SIGNATURES Report Prepared by: Report Reviewed by: American Engineering Testing, Inc. American Engineering Testing, Inc. Jeffery K. Voyen, PE Steven D. Koenes, PE Vice President, Geotechnical Division Principal Engineer Reg. No. 15928 • 1] FLOOR SLAB MOISTURENAPOR PROTECTION Floor slab design relative to moisture /vapor protection should consider the type and location of two elements, a granular layer and a vapor membrane (vapor retarder, water resistant barrier or vapor barrier). In the following sections, the pros and cons of the possible options regarding these elements will be presented, such that you and your specifier can make an engineering decision based on the benefits and costs of the choices. GRANULAR LAYER In American Concrete Institute (ACI) 302.IR -04, a "base material" is recommended over the vapor membrane, rather than the conventional clean "sand cushion" material. The base layer should be a minimum of 4 inches (100 mm) thick, trinunable, compactible, granular fill (not sand), a so- called crusher -run material. Usually graded from 1% inches to 2 inches (38 to 50 mm) down to rock dust is suitable. Following compaction, the surface can be choked off with a fine -grade material. We refer you to ACI 302.1R -04 for additional details regarding the requirements for the base material. In cases where potential static water levels or significant perched water sources appear near or above the floor slab, an under floor drainage system may be needed wherein a draintile system is placed within a thicker clean sand or gravel layer. Such a system should be properly engineered depending on subgrade soil types and rate /head of water inflow. VAPOR MEMBRANE The need for a vapor membrane depends on whether the floor slab will have a vapor sensitive covering, will have vapor sensitive items stored on the slab, or if the space above the slab will be a humidity controlled area. If the project does not have this vapor sensitivity or moisture control need, placement of a vapor membrane may not be necessary. Your decision will then relate to whether to use the ACI base material or a conventional sand cushion layer. However, if any of the above sensitivity issues apply, placement of a vapor membrane is recommended. Some floor covering systems (adhesives and flooring materials) require installation of a vapor membrane to limit the slab moisture content as a condition of their warranty. VAPOR MEMBRANE /GRANULAR LAYER PLACEMENT A number of issues should be considered when deciding whether to place the vapor membrane above or below the • granular layer. The benefits of placing the slab on a granular layer, with the vapor membrane placed below the granular layer, include reduction of the following: • Slab curling during the curing and drying process. • Time of bleeding, which allows for quicker finishing. • Vapor membrane puncturing. • Surface blistering or delamination caused by an extended bleeding period. • Cracking caused by plastic or drying shrinkage. The benefits of placing the vapor membrane over the granular layer include the following: • A lower moisture emission rate is achieved faster. • Eliminates a potential water reservoir within the granular layer above the membrane. • Provides a "slip surface ", thereby reducing slab restraint and the associated random cracking. If a membrane is to be used in conjunction with a granular layer, the approach recommended depends on slab usage and the construction schedule. The vapor membrane should be placed above the granular layer when: • Vapor sensitive floor covering systems are used or vapor sensitive items will be directly placed on the slab. • The area will be humidity controlled, but the slab will be placed before the building is enclosed and sealed from rain, • Required by a floor covering manufacturer's system warranty. The vapor membrane should be placed below the granular layer when: • Used in humidity controlled areas (without vapor sensitive coverings /stored items), with the roof membrane in place, and the building enclosed to the point where precipitation will not intrude into the slab area. Consideration should be given to slight sloping of the membrane to edges where draintile or other disposal methods can alleviate potential water sources, such as pipe or roof leaks, foundation wall damp proofing failure, fire sprinkler system activation, etc. There may be cases where membrane placement may have a detrimental effect on the subgrade support system (e.g., expansive soils). In these cases, your decision will need to weigh the cost of subgrade options and the performance risks. • OIREP013(3 /07) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. FREEZING WEATHER EFFECTS ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION GENERAL Because water expands upon freezing and soils contain water, soils which are allowed to freeze will heave and lose density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original strength and density. The extent of heave and density/ strength loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition. Heave is greater in soils with higher percentages of fines (silts/clays). High silt content soils are most susceptible, due to their high capillary rise potential which can create ice lenses. Fine grained soils generally heave about 1 /4" to 3/8" for each foot of frost penetration. This can translate to I " to 2" of total frost heave. This total amount can be significantly greater if ice lensirg occurs. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Clayey and silty soils can be used as perimeter backfill, although the effect of their poor drainage and frost properties should be considered. Basement areas will have special drainage and lateral load requirements which are not discussed here. Frost heave may be critical in doorway areas. Stoops or sidewalks adjacent to doorways could be designed as structural slabs supported on frost footings with void spaces below. With this design, movements may then occur between the structural slab and the adjacent on -grade slabs. Non -frost susceptible sands (with less than 12% passing a #200 sieve) can be used below such areas. Depending on the function of surrounding areas, the sand layer may need a thickness transition away from the area where movement is critical. With sand placementover slower draining soils, subsurface drainage would be needed for the sand layer. High density extruded insulation could be used within the sand to reduce frost penetration, thereby reducing the sand thickness needed. We caution that insulation placed near the surface can increase the potential for ice glazing of the surface. The possible effects of adfreezing should be considered if clayey or silty soils are used as backfill. Adfreezing owurs when backfill adheres to rough surfaced foundation walls and lifts the wall as it freezes and heaves. This occurrence is most common with masonry block walls, unheated or poorly heated building situations and clay backfill. The potential is also increased where backfill soils are poorly compacted and become saturated. The risk of adfreezing can be decreased by placing a low friction separating layer between the wall and backfill. Adfreezing can occur on exterior piers (such as deck, fence or other similar pier footings), even if a smooth surface is • provided. This is more likely in poor drainage situations where soils become saturated. Additional footing embedment and/or widened footings below the frost zones (which include tensile reinforcement) can be used to resist uplift forces. Specific designs would require individual analysis. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Foundations, slabs and other improvements which may be affected by frostmovements should be insulated from frost penetration during freezing weather. If filling takes place during freezing weather, all frozen soils, snow and ice should be stripped from areas to be filled prior to new fill placement. The new fill should not be allowed to freeze during transit, placement or compaction. This should be considered in the project scheduling, budgeting and quantity estimating. It is usually beneficial to perform cold weather earthwork operations in small areas where grade can be attained quickly rather than working larger areas where a greater amount of frost stripping may be needed. If slab subgrade areas freeze, we recommend the subgrade be thawed prior to floor slab placement. The frost action may also require reworking and recompaction of the thawed subgrade. 01 REPO 15(02/0 1) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 0 0 BASEMENT/RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND WATER CONTROL 0 DRAINAGE Below grade basements should include a perimeter backfill drainage system on the exterior side of the wall. The exception may be where basements lie within free draining sands where water will not perch in the backfill. Drainage systems should consist of perforated or slotted PVC drainage pipes located at the bottom of the backfill trench, lower than the interior floor grade. The drain pipe should be surrounded by properly graded filter rock. A filter fabric should then envelope the filter rock. The drain pipe should be connected to a suitable means of disposal, such as a sump basket or a gravity outfall. A storm sewer gravity outfall would be preferred over exterior daylighting, as the latter may freeze duringwinter. For non - building, exterior retaining walls, weep holes at the base of the wall can be substituted for a drain pipe. BACKFILLING Prior to backfilling, damp /water proofing should be applied on perimeter basement walls. The backfill materials placed against basement walls will exert lateral loadings. To reduce this loading by allowing for drainage, we recommend using free draining sands for backfill. The zone of sand backfill should extend outward from the wall at least 2', and then upward and outward from the wall at a 30' or greater angle from vertical. As a minimum,the sands should contain no greater than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve, which would include (SP) and (SP -SM) soils. The sand backfill should be placed in lifts and compacted with portable compaction equipment. This compaction should be to the specified levels if slabs or pavements are placed above. Where slab /pavements are not above, we recommend capping the sand backfill with a layer of clayey soil to minimize surface water infiltration. Positive surface drainage away from the building should also be maintained. If surface capping or positive surface drainage cannot be maintained, then the trench should be filled with more permeable soils, such as the Fine Filter or Coarse Filter Aggregates defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3149. You should recognize that if the backfill soils are not properly compacted, settlements may occur which may affect surface drainage away from the building. Backfilling with silty or clayey soil is possible but not preferred. These soils can build -up water which increases lateral pressures and results in wet wall conditions and possible water infiltration into the basement. If you elect to place silty or clayey soils as backfill, we recommend you place a prefabricated drainage composite against the wall which is hydraulically connected to a drainage pipe at the base of the backfill trench. High plasticity clays should be avoided as backfill due to their swelling potential. LATERAL PRESSURES Lateral earth pressures on below grade walls vary, depending on backfill soil classification, backfill compaction and slope of the backfill surface. Static or dynamic surcharge loads near the wall will also increase lateral wall pressure. For design, we recommend the following ultimate lateral earth pressure values (given in equivalent fluid pressure values) for a drained soil compacted to 95% of the Standard Proctor density and a level ground surface. Equivalent Fluid Density Soil Type Active (pcf) At -Rest (pcf) Sands (SP or SP -SM) 35 50 Silty Sands (SM) 45 65 Fine Grained Soils (SC, CL or ML) 70 90 Basement walls are normally restrained at the top which restricts movement. In this case, the design lateral pressures should be the "at -rest" pressure situation. Retaining walls which are free to rotate or deflect should be designed using the active case. Lateral earth pressures will be significantly higher than that shown if the backfill soils are not drained and become saturated. O1REP014(07 /01) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION TOP OF SUBGRADE Grade which contacts the bottom of the aggregate base layer. SAND SUBBASE Uniform thickness sand layer placed as the top of subgrade which is intended to improve the frost and drainage characteristics of the pavement system by better draining excess water in the base /subbase, by reducing and "bridging frost heaving and by reducing spring thaw weakening effects. CRITICAL SUBGRADE ZONE The subgrade portion beneath and within three vertical feet of the top of subgrade. A sand subbase, if placed, would be considered the upper portion of the critical subgrade zone. GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.213 1. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the V sieve, contain less than 20% by weight passing the 4200 sieve. SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2132. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the I" sieve, contain less than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve. MODIFIED SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Clean, medium grained sands which, of the portion passing the I" sieve, contain less than 5% by weight passing the #200 sieve and less than 40% by weight passing the #40 sieve. GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION FABRIC Geotextile meeting Type V requirements defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. When using fabric, installation should also meet the requirements outlined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. COMPACTION SUBCUT Construction of a uniform thickness subcut below a designated grade to provide uniformity and compaction within the subcut zone. Replacement fill can be the materials subcut, although the reused soils should be blended to a uniform soil condition and recompacted per the Specified Density Method (Mn/DOT Specification 2105.317 1). TEST ROLL A means of evaluating the near - surface stability of subgrade soils (usually non - granular). Suitability is determined by the depth of rutting or deflection caused by passage of heavy rubber -tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, over the test area. Yielding of less than V is normally considered acceptable, although engineering judgment may be applied depending on equipment used, soil conditions present, and/or pavement performance expectations. UNSTABLE SOILS Subgrade soils which do not pass a test roll. Unstable soils typically have water content exceeding the "standard optimum water content" defined in ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). ORGANIC SOILS Soils which have sufficient organic content such that engineering properties /stability are affected. These soils are usually black to dark brown in color. OIREP019 (08/07) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • • • Avvendix A AET #01 -03837 Figure 1— Proposed Project Layout Figure 2 - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Exploration /Classification Methods Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System • 0 '4.- Front Elevation Floor Mans. i1 i 01 sum M PROJECT AET NO. City Hall & Public Works Building Expansion 01 -03837 AMERICAN Oak Park Heights, Minnesota ENGINEERING SUBJECT DATE TEVMG, Inc. Proposed Project Layout February 5, 2008 SCALE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY n/a Others __ I Figure 1 0' 0 I• PROJECT City Hall & Public Works Building Expansion AmmmcAN Oak Park Heiahts. Minnesota ♦ ENGINEERING SUBJECT TESTING, Ine. SCALE n/a Borings Locations DRAWN BY CHECKED BY Bonestroo -- AFT NO. 01 -03837 DATE February 5, 2008 Figure 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 1 (p. I Of 1) PROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 951.7 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL 46420 IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' FILL, mostly clayey sand with roots, a little FILL 1 ravel, dark brown, frozen F/M SU FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and 2 gravel, brown, a little dark brown, frozen to 3 aboutF 7 M SS 12 14 4 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, TILL OR 5 brown, stiff (SC) (possible fill) FILL 14 M SS 10 7 6 7 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, : TILL medium dense (SM/SC) 30 M SS 6 8 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense to 9 medium dense (SM) 10 45 M SS 14 11 12 29 M SS 16 13 14 15 29 M SS 16 16 17 ' 18 19 20 42 M SS 16 21 22 23 29 M SS 24 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO „ 0 -22 3.25 HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CAVE-IN H FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF 1/21/08 1:15 24.0 22.0 24.0 None BORING - TERMINOLOGY O COMPLETED: 1/21 /08 DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG 06/04 10 J AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG 06/04 AET JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 2 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.8 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL V642 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE' 2" FILL, mostly organic sandy silt with roots, FILL Su— 33 1 black to dark brown, frozen F/M SU 11 FILL, mostly clayey sand with gravel, trace 2 roots, brown, frozen to about 1.25' 3 8 M SS 12 10 4 SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace roots, brown, stiff TILL 5 (CL /SC) 10 M SS 10 12 6 7 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 8 to medium dense (SM) 30 M SS 12 9 10 43 M SS 14 1] 12 13 29 M SS 14 14 IS 32 M SS 16 16 17 18 19 20 19 M SS 16 21 22 23 28 M SS 24 24 END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0-22 315 „ HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN 1/21/08 12:10 24.0 22.0 24.0 None 46 EXPLANATION OF BORINQ COMPLETED: 1/21 /08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: SG LG. TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG 06/04 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 3 (p. I Of 1) PROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN DEPTH IN SURFACE ELEVATION: 955.2 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL u-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel, trace FILL SU 1 roots, dark brown, frozen F/N4 SU 13 FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and 2 ravel, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 1.2 TILL OR 3 FILL 6 M SS 6 18 SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, trace roots, dark brown to brown, firm (CL/SC) 4 (possible fill) TILL s CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, stiff (SC/CL) 14 M SS 8 12 6 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense, 8 lenses of clayey sand (SM) 36 M SS 16 9 10 ii 42 M SS 12 12 13 49 M SS 16 14 15 54 M SS 16 16 17— 18 19 SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, fine to ' ' COARSE 20 medium grained, brown, moist, very dense (SP) ALLUVIUM + M X SS 12 21 22 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense : TILL 23 (SM) 48 M SS 18 24 END OF BORING *7/0.5 + 23/0.5 + 50/0.2 DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO 0-22' 3.25" BSA DATE TDvfE SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1/21/08 10:30 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION O BORING COMPLETED: 1/21/08 TERMINOLOGY O THIS LOG DR: SG LG: TM Rig, 91C 06/04 ,I AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET I AE J T OB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 4 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: _ City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, NIN DEPTH IN SURFACE ELEVATION: 953.4 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS WC DEN LL PL 2 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN' FILL, mixture of silty sand and gravel, dark FILL I brown and brown, frozen F SU 11 FILL, mixture of clayey sand and sandy lean 2 clay, a little silty sand and gravel, brown, frozen 3 to 2.5' 27 F/M SS 12 12 4— SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense, ` : TILL OR s lenses of clayey sand (SM) (possible fill) - : FILL 25 M SS 14 8 6 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense : TILL (SM) 8 32 M SS 14 9 10 34 M SS 16 11 12 13 33 M SS 16 14 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 15 (SM) 36 M SS 14 16 17 18 19 20 38 M SS 14 21 22 SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium : COARSE 23 grained, brown, moist, dense, lenses of sandy silt ` : ALLUVIUM 32 M SS 14 24 (SP) END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO I ATTACHED 0-22 3.25 „ HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE -IN DEPTH DRILLING FLUID LEVEL WATER LEVEL 1/21/08 9:15 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF BORING COMPLETED: 1/21 /08 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG IP 4 06/04 EXPLORATION /CLASSIFICATION METHODS SAMPLING METHODS Split -Spoon Samples (SS) - Calibrated to N60 Values Standard penetration (split- spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM:D1586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2" O.D. split - barrel sampler into the in -situ soil with a 140 -pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 ". The sampler is driven a total of 18" into the soil. After an initial set of 6 ", the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12" is known as the standard penetration resistance or N- value. Our method uses a modified hammer weight, which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N -value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split -spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60% of it's potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system. This converted energy then provides what is known as an lJo blow count. Most of todays drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system, which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N- values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100 %. Therefore, the intent of AET's hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60% to 65% of the theoretical energy of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 ". The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N- values, stating that N- values of 100% or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can state that the accuracy deviation of the N- values using this method are significantly better than the standard ASTM Method. Disturbed Samples (DS) /Spin -up Samples (SU) Sample types described as "DS" or "SU" on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights ofthe auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil classifications shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM:D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil classifications shown on the boring logs are visual -manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs. The boring logs include descriptions ofapparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under "Water Level Measurements" on the logs: • Date and Time of measurement • Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement • Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollov stem auger at time of measurement • Cave -in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • Water Level: depth in the borehole where free wateis encountered • Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples ofthe soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days. OIREP051C(09 103) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. BORING LOG NOTES DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS Symbol Definition Symbol Definition CONS: One - dimensional consolidation test B,H,N: Size of flush joint casing DEN: Dry density, pcf CA: Crew Assistant (initials) DST: Direct shear test CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf inches HYD: Hydrometer analysis CC: Crew Chief (initials) LL: Liquid Limit, % COT: Clean -out tube LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches OC: Organic Content, % DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field; DR: Driller (initials) L - Laboratory DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights PL: Plastic Limit, % FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate) inches qc: Static cone bearing pressure, tsf HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter q,,: Unconfined compressive strength, psf HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm -cros in inches RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent LG: Field logger (initials) (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of as a percent of total core run) samples and for the groundwater level symbols SA: Sieve analysis N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N- value) in blows per TRX: Triaxial compression test foot (see notes) VSR: Vane shear strength, remoulded (field), psf NQ wireline core barrel VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf PQ wireline core barrel WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight RD: Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit % -200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve REC: In split -spoon (see notes) and thin -walled tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES In rock coring, the length of core recovered (expressed (Calibrated Hammer Weight) as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no The standard penetration test consists of driving a split -spoon sample recovered. sampler with a drop hammer (calibrated weight varies to provide REV: Revert drilling fluid N60 values) and counting the number of blows applied in each of SS: Standard split -spoon sampler (steel; 13 /a" is inside three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in otherwise ASTM:D1586, the blows for each complete 6" increment and for SU Spin -up sample from hollow stem auger each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, TW: Thin - walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1' below the slash. inches WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" column, rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid disparity is because the N -value is recorded below the initial 6" WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM:131586 is hammer encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18 "). 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel Water level directly measured in boring V : Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance 0 O1REP052C(01 /05) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. , I / oil's � - 1 1 NEMEN 1 i1111�\NEN� 1 „ �11 Enloe El 1111��MEN IN UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN PARnCLE S6 IN MWMETERS UOLADUNT(W ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488 " o 'r°' o moo' as 'aa a Is Plasticity Chart ENGINEERING OR AD A� TE. r 5 �L(3GY t�'FES U3 -I�i , AE1' 1?O;k SOII.`li) I 'f'I ©N TESTING, INC. Gravel Percentaees Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N- Value. BPF Term N- Value. BPF Term Particle Size Term Percent Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14% Very Soft less than 2 Very Loose 0-4 Soil Classification Notes Soft 2 - 4 Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests" Group Group Name ''Based on the material passing the 3 -in Firm 5 - 8 ado Sand #200 to 94 sieve Symbol Dense 31 -50 VS -mm) sieve. If field sample contained cobbles or Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve Coarse - Grained Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu>4 and 1 <Cc<3 GW Well graded gravel Soils More than 50% coarse Less than 5% Hard Greater than 30 boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or than 50% fraction retained finesc Cu<4 and/or 1 >Cc>3 GP Poorly graded gravef boulders, or both" to group name. retained on on No. 4 sieve D (Dry): Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to and is judged to have sufficient organic fines cGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual touch.. No. 200 sieve Fiber Content Gravels with Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravef.UH symbols: Slightly meanie used for borderline cases. visible. Soil may still have a high Fines more Root Inclusions GW -GM well- graded gravel with silt or color. Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity than 12% fines c Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey grave GW -GC well - graded gravel with clay Waterbearing): describe non - plastic soils. Lenses: Pockets or layers Sapric Peat: Less than 33% properties Waterbearing usually relates to GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay Sands 501 /6 or Clean Sands Cu >6 and 1 <Ce<3 SW Well - graded sand more of coarse Less than 5% to be in sufficient quantity to °Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual material or color. fraction passes fines ID Cu<6 and 1 >Cc>3 SP Poorly - graded sand symbols: No. 4 sieve SW -SM well- graded sand with silt Sands with Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand ' SW -SC well- graded sand with clay Fines more SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt than 12% fines ° Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clay sand ' ' SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay Fine- Grained Silts and Clays inorganic PI >7 and plots on or above CL Lean cla Soils 501/6 or Liquid limit less "A" liner (Dv )r more passes than 50 PI <4 or slots below ML Sil ECu = Du, /Dw.. Cc= the No. 200 "A" line Duo x D(g) sieve organic Liquid limit —oven dried <0.75 OL Organic cla FIT soil contains >1 5% sand, add "with (see Plasticity Liquid limit —not dried Organic silt1C L ALO sand" to group name. Chart below) olf fines classify as CL -ML, use dual ymbol GC-GM, or SC -SM. Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat cla Liquid limit 50 If fines are organic, add "with organic or more PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic sil ' ' fines" to group name. 'If soil contains >1 5% gravel, add "with organic �iauid limit—oven dried <035 OH Organic cla ' ' ' $ravel" to group name. Liquid limit — not dried L MQ Organic If Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, siltK' soils is a CL -ML silty clay. xIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 Highly organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Pea soil in color, and organic in odor add "with sand" or "with gravel ", whichever is predominant. Llf Soil contains >30% plus No. 200, , I / oil's � - 1 1 NEMEN 1 i1111�\NEN� 1 „ �11 Enloe El 1111��MEN IN predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. mlf soil contains >30116 plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. NPl >4 and plots on or above "A" Iwe. °PI<4 or plots below "A" line. PPl plots on or above "A" line. QPI plots below "A" line. aFiber Content description shown below. w o s '.s as s' .0- — 0 16 10 so p 50 ea ro so 9U 100 .no PARnCLE S6 IN MWMETERS UOLADUNT(W " o 'r°' o moo' as 'aa a Is Plasticity Chart OR AD A� TE. r 5 �L(3GY t�'FES U3 -I�i , AE1' 1?O;k SOII.`li) I 'f'I ©N Grain Si Gravel Percentaees Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N- Value. BPF Term N- Value. BPF Term Particle Size Term Percent Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14% Very Soft less than 2 Very Loose 0-4 Cobbles 3" to 12" With Gravel 15%-290/a Soft 2 - 4 Loose 5-10 NONE Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Gravelly 3 0 1 / 6 - 50% Firm 5 - 8 ado predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. mlf soil contains >30116 plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. NPl >4 and plots on or above "A" Iwe. °PI<4 or plots below "A" line. PPl plots on or above "A" line. QPI plots below "A" line. aFiber Content description shown below. w o s '.s as s' .0- — 0 16 10 so p 50 ea ro so 9U 100 .no PARnCLE S6 IN MWMETERS UOLADUNT(W " o 'r°' o moo' as 'aa a Is Plasticity Chart AD A� TE. r 5 �L(3GY t�'FES U3 -I�i , AE1' 1?O;k SOII.`li) I 'f'I ©N Grain Si Gravel Percentaees Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N- Value. BPF Term N- Value. BPF Term Particle Size Term Percent Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14% Very Soft less than 2 Very Loose 0-4 Cobbles 3" to 12" With Gravel 15%-290/a Soft 2 - 4 Loose 5-10 Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Gravelly 3 0 1 / 6 - 50% Firm 5 - 8 Medium Dense 11-30 Sand #200 to 94 sieve Stiff 9-15 Dense 31 -50 Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve Very Stiff 16-30 Very Dense Greater than 50 Hard Greater than 30 Moisture/Frost Condition Layerine No Peat Description manic Description (if no lab test Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat (MC Column) D (Dry): Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to and is judged to have sufficient organic fines touch.. Laminations: Layers less than Fiber Content content to influence the Liquid Limit properties. M (Moist): Damp, although free water not /a" thick of Term (Visual Estimate) Slightly meanie used for borderline cases. visible. Soil may still have a high differing material Root Inclusions water content (over "optimum "). or color. Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity W (We(Wet/ Free water visible intended to Hemic Peat: 33 - 67 /o of roots to influence the soil Waterbearing): describe non - plastic soils. Lenses: Pockets or layers Sapric Peat: Less than 33% properties Waterbearing usually relates to greater than %'" Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged sands and sand with silt. thick of differing to be in sufficient quantity to F (Frozen): Soil frozen material or color. significantly affect soil properties. 01CLS021 (01/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN • The CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS and AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This agreement is made and entered into this 7th day of January, 2008, by and between the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, hereafter referred to as the CITY and American Engineering Testing, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as AET. Witaesseth: Whereas, the CITY has need for various services, including subsurface exploration, geotechnical engineering, materials testing, laboratory services, and environmental services; and Whereas, it is the desire of the CITY to enter into a Contract Agreement with AET for the performance of those services; and Whereas, a letter outlining the scope of services and basis of payment shall be issued by AET and accepted by the CITY on specific projects (Letter Proposal). Now, therefore, the CITY and AET hereby mutually agree as follows: SECTION I - SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY AET A. Basic Services • 1. The CITY may at its sole discretion engage AET to furnish basic professional services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract Agreement. The scope of these services may include, but shall not be limited to, subsurface exploration, geotechnical engineering, materials testing, laboratory services, and environmental services. The terms and conditions of this Contract Agreement shall be incorporated in any Letter Proposal accepted by the CITY, unless specifically modified therein. The City is at no time required to utilize AET to furnish any services, nor is the City required to advise, contact or inform AET that it is working with alternative firms. 2. AET shall perform services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement as an independent contractor. Except where otherwise provided in this Agreement, AET shall be responsible for the means and methods used in performing services under this agreement, and is not a joint - venturer with the CITY. The CITY or it's designated representative shall coordinate AET's Services and shall facilitate the exchange of information among the independent professional associates and consultants employed by the CITY. 3. AET will perform services consistent with the level of care and skill normally performed by other firms in the profession at the time of this service and in this geographic area, under similar budgetary constraints. 4. AET shall request and obtain the data and information considered important for the performance of AET's Services from the CITY. AET is responsible to see that the documents prepared by AET and the services AET renders hereunder will conform to applicable Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, orders, and other requirements. AET's communications to or with the ACS411(09/02) - Page 1 of 6 • CITY's other independent professional associates and consultants will be through or with the knowledge of the CITY. 5. AET will inform the CITY when AET is unable to perform exploration services in the event private underground improvements cannot be located. The CITY must accept that in order to perform services in this case, the CITY must locate private underground improvements, arrange for location of such improvements, or waive AET's liability in writing in the event such non - located improvements are contacted. 6. AET shall contact State notification centers, where available, or individual utility owners where a State notification center is not available to request location of public underground utilities. 7. AET shall locate borings, excavations, or other penetrations such that they maintain a safe distance from known underground improvements. 8. The CITY must understand that, in the normal course of fieldwork, some damage to the site may occur. It is the responsibility of AET to take reasonable precautions to minimize such damage. It is AET's responsibility to patch bore holes placed through pavement or slab areas after performance of borings. Otherwise, restoration of the site is the responsibility of the CITY. 9. To the extent required by law, AET shall report to the CITY any contamination detected or of which AET becomes aware during the course of providing services on the project pursuant to this Agreement. Upon contamination detection, AET reserves the right to stop the work and renegotiate project fees. 10. Known or suspected hazardous material samples obtained by AET shall remain the property of the CITY. AET reserves the right to return such samples to the CITY. 11. AET shall be responsible for the safety of AET employees at the work site. B. Additional Services 1. If authorized in writing by the CITY, AET shall provide within the time period stipulated in such authorization additional services which are not included as part of Basic Services. The nature of the additional work to be performed, the time in which it must be completed, and the amount of additional compensation shall be agreed upon by the parties prior to rendering the additional services. SECTION II - THE CITY's RESPONSIBILITIES A. The CITY shall: 1. Make available to AET drawings, specifications, schedules, and other information, interpretation, and data which were prepared by the CITY, or it's consultants, and which the CITY and AET Consider pertinent to AET's responsibilities hereunder, all of which AET may rely upon in performing services hereunder except as may be specifically provided in writing. 2. Provide AET information known by the CITY of possible site contamination concerns. 3. Make arrangements for safe and legal access to and make all provisions for AET to enter upon public and private property as required for AET to perform services under this Agreement. 4. Give prompt written notice to AET whenever the CITY observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that in the CITY 's determination may affect the scope or timing of AET services or any defect or non - conformance in the work of AET that may in the CITY 's determination affect the project- ACS411(09l02) - Page 2 of 6 • 5. Advise AET of the identity of other independent professional associates or consultants participating in the design or construction administration of this part of the project and the scope of their services. 6. Be responsible for the safety of the CITY employees at the work site. SECTION III - PAYMENT TO AET A. Small Miscellaneous Projects (Annual Schedule Rate) 1. The CITY shall compensate AET for all Basic Services rendered under Section I at AET's standard fee schedule rates for that year (provided upon request) or as may be agreed upon in a Letter Proposal. B. Specific Projects 1. The CITY shall compensate AET for all Basic Services rendered under Section I in accordance with the Letter Proposal of AET, for specific projects. C. General 1. Invoices will be processed and payments made by the CITY to AET within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of invoice, for services performed by AET. SECTION IV - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Personnel and Timing 1. AET has, or will secure, qualified personnel, equipment, and facilities to complete the services outlined in this Contract Agreement. 2. It is understood that the services under Section I will not commence until notice to proceed is given to AET by the CITY. 3. The services as described herein shall be commenced and carried out expeditiously. The time within which AET shall perform its services shall be extended by delays caused by acts of God or other circumstances beyond the control of AET. B. Project and Agreement Changes 1. The terms of this agreement may be changed by the written mutual consent of the CITY and AET. C. Termination The CITY and AET shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. In such event, copies of the document data and work papers, studies, drawings, maps, models, and photographs prepared by AET shall become the property of the CITY. AET shall have the right to stop performing services on this Agreement if the CITY has breached this Agreement, but only after giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the CITY specifying the breach. D. Records ACS411(09/02) - Page 3 of 6 • 1. Fiscal records of AET pertinent to AET's compensation and payments under this Agreement will be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. 2. AET shall maintain all original records (fiscal and other) and design calculations on file in legible form for a period of not less than two (2) years. 3. AET's records and design calculations will be available at AEI's office at reasonable business hours upon reasonable notification for examination and audit if required. E, Insurance AET shall secure the insurance specified below. All insurance secured by AET under the provisions of this Article shall be issued by insurance companies in good standing and authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. The insurance specified in this Article may be in a policy or policies of insurance primary or excess. Upon request, AET agrees to provide the CITY certificates evidencing that it has the insurance specified below in effect, and stating that such insurance cannot be canceled until thirty (30) days after the CITY has received written notice of the insurer's intention to cancel the insurance. 1. Workers Compensation Insurance Having statutory limits of the Workers Compensation Law of the State of Minnesota Employers Liability Insurance. 2. Commercial General Liability Insurance Providing coverage not less than that of the standard Commercial General Liability insurance policies (Occurrence Form) for operations of AET or its subconsultants. This coverage shall be maintained for two years after final completion and acceptance of the project. The policy shall include contractual, products and completed operations, personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage liability coverage with limits of $1 million for each occurrence and $2 million in aggregate. 3. Automobile Liability Insurance Covering all owned, non - owned, and hired automobiles, trucks, and trailers. Such insurance shall provide coverage of $1 million Combined Single Limit. 4. Professional Liability Insurance Providing protection for the claims that would arise form the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of AET, or the negligent rendering of professional services by AET in the amount of $1 million for each occurrence, and $2 million aggregate. F. Mediation 1. The CITY and AET agree that any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to arbitration or the institution of legal or equitable proceedings by either party. 2. Unless the CITY and AET mutually agreed otherwise, mediation shall be in accordance with the Construction Industry Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The mediator shall be acceptable to both parties and shall have experience in municipal construction matters. ACS411(09/02) - Page 4 of 6 • 3. The parties shall share the mediator's fee and any filing fees equally. Agreements reached in mediation shall be enforceable as settlement agreements in any court having jurisdiction thereof 0 G. Limitation of Liability The CITY agrees to limit AET's liability to the CITY arising from negligent acts, errors, or omissions, such that the total liability of AET shall not exceed the amount of the stated insurance limits (stated in Section E — Insurance). H. Indemnification 1. AET agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the CITY from and against liability arising out of AET's negligent performance of the work, subject to any limitations, other indemnifications or other provisions the CITY and AET have agreed to in writing. 2. The CITY agrees to hold harmless and indemnify AET from and against liability arising out of the CITY's negligent conduct, subject to any limitations, other indemnifications or other provisions the CITY and AET have agreed to in writing. I. Governing Law This Agreement shall be construed, and the rights of the parties shall be determined, in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. In witness whereof, this Agreement is herewith executed the date and year first above written. 0 ACS411(09/02) - Page 5 of 6 For CI j' By: Typed or Print, ,2 , Name: Eric Johnson For AET American ngmeering Testing, c. By. Typ d or Printed Name: Jeffery K. Voyen Title: Vice President Addresses for giving notices: City of Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 -2007 Telephone: (651) 439 -4439 American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 Telephone: (651) 659 -9001 • ACS411(09/02) - Page 6 of 6 • • • L J Wit City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007.Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574 January 7, 2008 Mr. Jeff Voyen American Engineering and Testing 550 Cleveland Ave. N. St Paul, MN 55114 RE: Response to RFP - Proposal for Geo- technical Services Dear Mr. Voyen, Enclosed you will find the completed /executed documents - dated Jan 7th, 2008 related to the above project and which authorizes your firm to proceed as outlined and as proposed for $2470.00. Please execute and return one original copy of the CONTRACT document to my attention. Please utilize the approximate boring sites as identified in the RFP. Just to verify, the City would anticipate that AET would handle all general aspects of this proposal including the contacting of the requisite GOPHER -1 call. The City is not aware of any known environmental contamination hazards. However there are underground utilities in the vicinity including a fiber -optic line. The timeline for project coathi4 n and the providing of the results to the City should be not later than Feb 8th, 200is no t is not workable please let me know. City Cc: Karen Erickson, Bonestroo Weekly Notes .'r City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007.Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574 January 7, 2008 Mr. Jeff Voyen American Engineering and Testing 550 Cleveland Ave. N. St Paul, MN 55114 RE: Response to RFP - Proposal for Geo- technical Services Dear Mr. Voyen, Enclosed you will find the completed /executed documents - dated Jan 7th, 2008 related to the above project and which authorizes your firm to proceed as outlined and as proposed for $2470.00. Please utilize the boring sites as identified in the RFP. Just to verify, the City would anticipate that AET would handle all general aspects of this proposal including the Contacting of the requisite GOPHER -1 call. The City is not aware of any known environmental contamination hazards. However there are underground utiiities in the vicinity including a fiber -optic line. The timeline for project not later than Feb 8th., ; Cc: Karen E Weekly Bonestroo I the providing of the results to the City should be is not workable please let me know. AMERICAN ENGINEERING - TESTING INC, January 7, 2008 City of Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 -2007 Attn: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Proposal for Geotechnical Services City Hall /Public Works Expansion, Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Johnson: CONSULTANTS • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • FORENSICS Per the December 4 RFP from Mr. Phil Caswell of Bonestroo and our recent discussion, we are submitting this updated Letter Proposal for the following scope: Scope Fieldwork • Drill four standard penetration test borings at the site to depths of 24 feet each (or to "practical obstruction" if encountered at a shallower depth). • This proposal assumes the test locations will be accessible to a standard truck drill rig (plowed as needed). • Clear underground public utilities through the Gopher State One call system. If private utilities are present, which are not cleared by Gopher State One, then the owner will need to provide a representative to locate these utilities (or a private utility location subcontractor can be hired at additional cost). • The boring locations and surface elevations will be surveyed/staked by Bonestroo. Laboratory • Conduct water content testing on cohesive soils (hourly during lab logging) Report • Logs of test borings, including descriptions of drilling, test, and classification methods. • Review of soil/groundwater conditions encountered and of pertinent soil properties. • Recommendations for possible foundation types, depths, and allowable bearing capacity (to be within assumed or given tolerable settlement levels); grading procedures to prepare structural areas; suitability of on -site soils for re -use as fill; floor slab support, estimate of modulus of subgrade reaction, and moisture /vapor protection needs; building backfilling with drainage continents and estimates of lateral earth pressures; pavement subgrade This document shall not be reproduced, except in Lull, W&xxn written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc, 550 Cleveland Avenue North • St. Paul, MN 55114 is Phone 651 -659 -9001 • Toll Free 800. 972 -6364 • Fax 651 - 659 -1379 • www.amengtest.com Offices throughout Florida, Minnesota, South Aakota.&A ffisconsia AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City of Oak Park Heights January 7, 2008 Page 2 of 2 preparation and estimated R- value; pavement section thickness designs; and potential construction issues and ground water impacts. The scope of work defined in this proposal is intended for geotechnical purposes only, and not to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination at the site. However, we will note obvious contamination encountered. Fee The described scope of services will be performed for a lump sum fee of $2470. In the event the scope of our work needs to be revised, we will review such scope adjustments and the associated fees with you, and receive your approval before proceeding. Schedule Based on our current backlog, we anticipate drilling can be performed within about ten working days after receiving authorization to proceed. Verbal results can be provided shortly after the fieldwork is completed. The report should follow the fieldwork by about two weeks. Terms /Conditions Our services will be performed per the Contract Agreement Between the City of Oak Park Heights and American Engineering Testing, Inc. For Professional Services, dated January 7, 2008. Acce"ce To indicate acceptance of this proposal, we ask that you endorse the enclosed copy and return it to us. The original proposal is intended for your records. Remarks If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, i PROM A BY: Jeffery K. Voyen, PE Signatur . Vice President, Geotechnical Division Phone #651- 659 -1305 Printed N e: F¢ 1 L VA Fax #651- 659 -1347 jvoyen @amengtest.com Date: y 7 a • CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN The CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS and AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This agreement is made and entered into this 7th day of January, 2008, by and between the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, hereafter referred to as the CITY and American Engineering Testing, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as AET. Witnesseth: Whereas, the CITY has need for various services, including subsurface exploration, geotechnical engineering, materials testing, laboratory services, and environmental services; and Whereas, it is the desire of the CITY to enter into a Contract Agreement with AET for the performance of those services; and Whereas, a letter outlining the scope of services and basis of payment shall be issued by AET and accepted by the CITY on specific projects (Letter Proposal). Now, therefore, the CITY and AET hereby mutually agree as follows: SECTION I - SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY AET A. Basic Services 1. The CITY may at its sole discretion engage AET to furnish basic professional services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract Agreement. The scope of these services may include, but shall not be limited to, subsurface exploration, geotechnical engineering, materials testing, laboratory services, and environmental services. The terms and conditions of this Contract Agreement shall be incorporated in any Letter Proposal accepted by the CITY, unless specifically modified therein. The City is at no time required to utilize AET to furnish any services, nor is the City required to advise, contact or inform AET that it is working with alternative firms. 2. AET shall perform services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement as an independent contractor. Except where otherwise provided in this Agreement, AET shall be responsible for the means and methods used in performing services under this agreement, and is not a joint - venturer with the CITY. The CITY or it's designated representative shall coordinate AET's Services and shall facilitate the exchange of information among the independent professional associates and consultants employed by the CITY. 3. AET will perform services consistent with the level of care and skill normally performed by other firms in the profession at the time of this service and in this geographic area, under similar budgetary constraints. 4. AET shall request and obtain the data and information considered important for the performance of AET's Services from the CITY. AET is responsible to see that the documents prepared by AET and the services AET renders hereunder will conform to applicable Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, orders, and other requirements. AET's communications to or with the ACS411(09 /02) - Page 1 of 6 CITY's other independent professional associates and consultants will be through or with the knowledge Of the CITY. S. AET will inform the CITY when AET is unable to perform exploration services in the event private underground improvements cannot be located. The CITY must accept that in order to perform services in this case, the CITY must locate private underground improvements, arrange for location of such improvements, or waive AET's liability in writing in the event such non - located improvements are contacted. 6. AET shall contact State notification centers, where available, or individual utility owners where a State notification center is not available to request location of public underground utilities. 7. AET shall locate borings, excavations, or other penetrations such that they maintain a safe distance from known underground improvements. 8. The CITY must understand that, in the normal course of fieldwork, some damage to the site may occur. It is the responsibility of AET to take reasonable precautions to minimize such damage. It is AET's responsibility to patch bore holes placed through pavement or slab areas after performance of borings. Otherwise, restoration of the site is the responsibility of the CITY. 9. To the extent required by law, AET shall report to the CITY any contamination detected or of which AET becomes aware during the course of providing services on the project pursuant to this Agreement. Upon contamination detection, AET reserves the right to stop the work and renegotiate project fees. 10. Known or suspected hazardous material samples obtained by AET shall remain the property of the CITY. AET reserves the right to return such samples to the CITY. 11. AET shall be responsible for the safety of AET employees at the work site. B. Additional Services 1. If authorized in writing by the CITY, AET shall provide within the time period stipulated in such authorization additional services which are not included as part of Basic Services. The nature of the additional work to be performed, the time in which it must be completed, and the amount of additional compensation shall be agreed upon by the parties prior to rendering the additional services. SECTION II - THE CITY's RESPONSIBILITIES A. The CITY shall: 1. Make available to AET drawings, specifications, schedules, and other information, interpretation, and data which were prepared by the CITY, or it's consultants, and which the CITY and AET Consider pertinent to AET's responsibilities hereunder, all of which AET may rely upon in performing services hereunder except as may be specifically provided in writing. 2. Provide AET information known by the CITY of possible site contamination concerns. 3. Make arrangements for safe and legal access to and make all provisions for AET to enter upon public and private property as required for AET to perform services under this Agreement. 4. Give prompt written notice to AET whenever the CITY observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that in the CITY 's determination may affect the scope or timing of AET services or any defect or non - conformance in the work of AET that may in the CITY 's determination affect the project. ACS411(09/02) - Page 2 of 6 is 5. Advise AET of the identity of other independent professional associates or consultants participating in the design or construction administration of this part of the project and the scope of their services. 6. Be responsible for the safety of the CITY employees at the work site. SECTION III - PAYMENT TO AET A. Small Miscellaneous Projects (Annual Schedule Rate) 1. The CITY shall compensate AET for all Basic Services rendered under Section I at AET's standard fee schedule rates for that year (provided upon request) or as may be agreed upon in a Letter Proposal. B. Specific Projects 1. The CITY shall compensate AET for all Basic Services rendered under Section I in accordance with the Letter Proposal of AET, for specific projects. C. General 1. Invoices will be processed and payments made by the CITY to AET within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of invoice, for services performed by AET. SECTION IV - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Personnel and Timing 1. AET has, or will secure, qualified personnel, equipment, and facilities to complete the services outlined in this Contract Agreement. 2. It is understood that the services under Section I will not commence until notice to proceed is given to AET by the CITY. 3. The services as described herein shall be commenced and carried out expeditiously. The time within which AET shall perform its services shall be extended by delays caused by acts of God or other circumstances beyond the control of AET. B. Project and Agreement Changes 1. The terms of this agreement may be changed by the written mutual consent of the CITY and AET. C. Termination The CITY and AET shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. In such event, copies of the document data and work papers, studies, drawings, maps, models, and photographs prepared by AET shall become the property of the CITY. AET shall have the right to stop performing services on this Agreement if the CITY has breached this Agreement, but only after giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the CITY specifying the breach. D. Records ACS411(09l02) - Page 3 of 6 1. Fiscal records of AET pertinent to AET's compensation and payments under this Agreement will be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. 2. AET shall maintain all original records (fiscal and other) and design calculations on file in legible form for a period of not less than two (2) years. 3. AEI's records and design calculations will be available at AET's office at reasonable business hours upon reasonable notification for examination and audit if required. E. Insurance AET shall secure the insurance specified below. All insurance secured by AET under the provisions of this Article shall be issued by insurance companies in good standing and authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. The insurance specified in this Article may be in a policy or policies of insurance primary or excess. Upon request, AET agrees to provide the CITY certificates evidencing that it has the insurance specified below in effect, and stating that such insurance cannot be canceled until thirty (30) days after the CITY has received written notice of the insurer's intention to cancel the insurance. 1. Workers Compensation Insurance Having statutory limits of the Workers Compensation Law of the State of Minnesota Employers Liability Insurance. 2. Commercial General Liability Insurance Providing coverage not less than that of the standard Commercial General Liability insurance policies (Occurrence Form) for operations of AET or its subconsultants. This coverage shall be maintained for two years after final completion and acceptance of the project. The policy shall include contractual, products and completed operations, personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage liability coverage with limits of $1 million for each occurrence and $2 million in aggregate. 3. Automobile Liability Insurance Covering all owned, non - owned, and hired automobiles, trucks, and trailers. Such insurance shall provide coverage of $1 million Combined Single Limit. 4. Professional Liability Insurance Providing protection for the claims that would arise form the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of AET, or the negligent rendering of professional services by AET in the amount of $1 million for each occurrence, and $2 million aggregate. F. Mediation 1. The CITY and AET agree that any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to arbitration or the institution of legal or equitable proceedings by either party. 2. Unless the CITY and AET mutually agreed otherwise, mediation shall be in accordance with the Construction Industry Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The mediator shall be acceptable to both parties and shall have experience in municipal construction matters. ACS411(09/02) - Page 4 of 6 • 3. The parties shall share the mediator's fee and any filing fees equally. Agreements reached in mediation shall be enforceable as settlement agreements in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 0 G. Limitation of Liability The CITY agrees to limit AET's liability to the CITY arising from negligent acts, errors, or omissions, such that the total liability of AET shall not exceed the amount of the stated insurance limits (stated in Section E — Insurance). H. Indemnification 1. AET agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the CITY from and against liability arising out of AET's negligent performance of the work, subject to any limitations, other indemnifications or other provisions the CITY and AET have agreed to in writing. 2. The CITY agrees to hold harmless and indemnify AET from and against liability arising out of the CITY's negligent conduct, subject to any limitations, other indemnifications or other provisions the CITY and AET have agreed to in writing. I. Governing Law This Agreement shall be construed, and the rights of the parties shall be determined, in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. In witness whereof, this Agreement is herewith executed the date and year first above written. 0 ACS411(09 /02) - Page 5 of 6 • For the CITY By: Typed or Printed Name: Eric Johnson Title: City Administrator For AET American Engineering Testing, Inc. By: Typed or Printed Name: Jeffery K. Voyen Title: Vice President Addresses for giving notices: City of Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 -2007 Telephone: (651) 439 -4439 American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 Telephone: (651) 659 -9001 is ACS411(09/02) - Page 6 of 6 • to • n I ], AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC$ January 7, 2008 City of Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 -2007 Attn: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Proposal for Geotechnical Services City Hall /Public Works Expansion, Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Johnson: CONSULTANTS • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • FORENSICS Per the December 4 RFP from Mr. Phil Caswell of Bonestroo and our recent discussion, we are submitting this updated Letter Proposal for the following scope: Scope Fieldwork • Drill four standard penetration test borings at the site to depths of 24 feet each (or to "practical obstruction" if encountered at a shallower depth). • This proposal assumes the test locations will be accessible to a standard truck drill rig (plowed as needed). • Clear underground public utilities through the Gopher State One call system. If private utilities are present, which are not cleared by Gopher State One, then the owner will need to provide a representative to locate these utilities (or a private utility location subcontractor can be hired at additional cost). • The boring locations and surface elevations will be surveyed/staked by Bonestroo. Laboratory • Conduct water content testing on cohesive soils (hourly during lab logging) Report Logs of test borings, including descriptions of drilling, test, and classification methods. Review of soil /groundwater conditions encountered and of pertinent soil properties. Recommendations for possible foundation types, depths, and allowable bearing capacity (to be within assumed or given tolerable settlement levels); grading procedures to prepare structural areas; suitability of on -site soils for re -use as fill; floor slab support, estimate of modulus of subgrade reaction, and moisture /vapor protection needs; building backfilling with drainage comments and estimates of lateral earth pressures; pavement subgrade This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North • St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 651- 659 -9001 • Toll Free 800 - 972 -6364 • Fax 651 - 659 -1379 • www.amengtest.com Offices throughout Florida, Minnesota, South Dakota & Wisconsin AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City of Oak Park Heights Is January 7, 2008 Page 2 of 2 • preparation and estimated R- value; pavement section thickness designs; and potential construction issues and ground water impacts. The scope of work defined in this proposal is intended for geotechnical purposes only, and not to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination at the site. However, we will note obvious contamination encountered. Fee The described scope of services will be performed for a lump sum fee of $2470. In the event the scope of our work needs to be revised, we will review such scope adjustments and the associated fees with you, and receive your approval before proceeding. Schedule Based on our current backlog, we anticipate drilling can be performed within about ten working days after receiving authorization to proceed. Verbal results can be provided shortly after the fieldwork is completed. The report should follow the fieldwork by about two weeks. Terms /Conditions Our services will be performed per the Contract Agreement Between the City of Oak Park Heights and American Engineering Testing, Inc. For Professional Services, dated January 7, 2008. Acceptance To indicate acceptance of this proposal, we ask that you endorse the enclosed copy and return it to us. The original proposal is intended for your records. Remarks If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jeffery K. Voyen, PE Vice President, Geotechnical Division Phone #651- 659 -1305 Fax #651- 659 -1347 jvoyen@amengtest.com PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE BY: Signature: Printed Name: Date: �- !9 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007,e Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574 December 6, 2007 TO: Soil Testing Firms / FROM: Eric Johnson, City RE: Soil Boring Cost Es' The City of Oak Park Heights is interested in receiving price quotations for performing soil boring services at its City Hall Property located at 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Generally, the City would like to have a general cross - section of the property's general and build -able areas so that such results would facilitate the possible construction of a new 23,000 +/- square foot city hall facility. (SEE THE ATTACHED MAP) Accordingly please provide a response to the following: • what is your price to provide this cross- section, • approximately how many samples would be required, • where would these samples be taken from, • what would be the depth of these samples, • what type of report / analysis will the City receive as a result of the sampling. • PROVIDE ANY OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION YOU MAY FEEL IS NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO CONSIDER. THE CITY IS IN NEED OF YOUR RESPONSE NOT LATER THAN 3PM, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11TH RESPONSES CAN BE SUBMITTED BY: FAX - 651 - 439 -0574 M EMAIL eajohnson @cityofoakparkheights.com 0 k . , P4 LL / )§ §(\ �_ � § Cl) 2 2 $q §§ O 7 C) >1 ® k 4§).$ o _ � CD ® � C/)_ \ O o § §§§ U)