HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport of Geotechnical Exploration & Review, City Hall/Public Works Expansion A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
CONSULTANTS
• ENVIRONMENTAL
• GEOTECHNICAL
• MATERI ALS REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
• FORENSICS 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
Prepared for:
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N
PO Box 2007
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
St. Paul, MN
Duluth, MN
Mankato, MN
Marshall, MN
Rochester, MN
Pierre, SD
Rapid City, SD
Sioux Falls, SD
Wausau, WI
AMERICAN CONSULTANTS
A ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL
• ICAL
TESTING, INC. • MATERIALS
NMI • FORENSICS
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:
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 datedDecember 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 1St. Paul, MN 55114
Phone 651- 659 -9001 I Toll Free 800 -972 -6364 I Fax 651- 659 -1379 I www.amengtest.com I AA/EEO 4I1k
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 American Engineering Testing, Inc.
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N 550 Cleveland Avenue North
PO Box 2007 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
Attn: Eric Johnson (651) 659- 9001 /www.amengtest.com
Report Authored By: Peer Review Conducted By:
Jeffery K. Voyen, PE J J
h G. Bentler, PE 4 0-4/ 4 14 ,■fr, 611,./)---
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 1 am a duly Licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State
of Minnesota
Name: Jeffery K. Voyen
Date: /- 9- 07 License #: 15928
Copyright 2009 American Engineering Testing, Inc.
1 All Rights Reserved
1
Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project.
t
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 ro ram and report, additional services have been requested. These
P g P � q
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. 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.
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 %2 inch.
Page 2 of 19
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC. AET Project No. 01-
Project 01-04415
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
Page 3of19
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 reviousl drilled borings). The to s of the borings
p Y g g
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 P erformed.
Page
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415
1
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
J g �' P Y
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
g P PP
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 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
6.1.1 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 comer 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 19
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -0441
Table A — Recommended Minimum Excavation Depths
Boring Location Surface Elevation (ft) Minimum Excavation Approximate Excavation
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft)
2 952.8 *4 *948
3 955.2 *4 *951
11 941.2 4 937
12 948.0 *2 *946
13 948.1 *2 *945
14 949.5 *2 *947
15 950.0 *6 *943
*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.
Where the excavation extends below foundation g rade, 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 7of19
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
*Soils in this range should be evaluated in the field at the time 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., 1:1 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
Il i
Page 8 of 19
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.
Page 9 of 19
•
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 Iocated 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.
Page 10of19
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -0441
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.
Page 11 of 19
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 - 04415
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
Page 12 of 19
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415
susceptible. The preferred approach in these poor frostldrainage 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 13of19
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.
With the interior of the Impound Lot being bituminous surfaced, the subgrade of the interior
should be re are
dasabit
p p uminous P avement.
Page 14 of 19
Ii
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.
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 (R =30)
Light Duty Heavy Duty
Bituminous Wear 3" (2 lifts) 4" (2 lifts)
Class 5 Aggregate Base 5" 6"
Page 15of19
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415
Table D — Concrete Pavement Thickness Designs
Material Section Thicknesses (R =30)
Light Duty Heavy Duty
Concrete 3.5" 5.5"
Class 5 Aggregate Base 4" 4"
The concrete conc ete 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-
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.
Page 16 of 19
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -0441
p
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 also assist resisting frost forces.
Page 17of19
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 01 -04415
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
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 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. 01 -04415
ti
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 ".
Page 19 of 19
FLOOR SLAB MOISTUREIVAPOR 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
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 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 sinilar 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.
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 3149.2B1. 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 3149.2B2. 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
CIean, 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 2105.3F1).
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.
01REP019 (04/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
Appendix 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
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 fmal 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
g P P Y r�Y
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 - Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops m 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.
A.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 q Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate)
inches q 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-cms
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: 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; 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: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: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
Water level directly measured in boring
V: Estimated water level based solely on sample
appearance
01R.EP052C(01/05) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
L
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN A ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488 ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC. nom
Soil Classification Notes
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Test? Group Group Name" "Based on the material passing the 3 -in
Symbol (75 -mm) sieve.
Coarse - Grained Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu>4 and 1 <Cc <3 GW Well graded gravel' e lf field sample contained cobbles or
Soils More than 50% coarse Less than 5% boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or
than 50% fraction retained fines Cu <4 and/or I >Cc >3 GP Poorly graded graver boulders, or both" to group name.
retained on on No. 4 sieve % Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual
No. 200 sieve Gravels with Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel''' symbols:
Fines more GW -GM well - graded gravel with silt
than 12% fines C Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel' ' GW -GC well- graded gravel with clay
GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt
Sands 50% or Clean Sands Cu >6 and 1 <Cc <3 SW Well- graded sand' GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay
more of coarse Less than 5% ° Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual
fraction passes fines Cu <6 and/or 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 CFI 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 clay
Soils 50% or Liquid limit less "A" line' (D30)
more passes than 50 PI <4 or plots below ML SiIt L M E Cu = Do /D,0 Cc =
the No. 200 "A" line D x D60
sieve organic Liquid limit —oven dried <0.75 OL Organic clayK.L.M.N r
(see Plasticity Liquid limit— not dried Organic siltK.L "ro
If soil contains >15% sand, add "with
( ty g sand" to group name.
Chart below) ° If fines classify as CL -ML, use dual
Silts and Clays' inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay ' M symbol GC -GM, or SC -SM.
Liquid limit 50 If fines are organic, add "with organic
or more PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic silt fines" to group name.
'lf soil contains >15% gravel, add "with
organic Liquid limit —oven dried <035 01-1 Organic clay"' gravel" to group name.
Liquid limit — not dried If Atterberg limits plot is hatched area,
Organic SiltK t "to soils is a CL -ML silty clay.
Highly organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Peat'' K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200
add "with sand" or "with gravel ",
soil in color, and organic in odor whichever is predominant.
'If soil contains >30% plus No. 200,
SIEVE ANALYSIS ao
Hsa «n 00.vq G ", 1 Sm. m.ro.r ---i for d655if�aon of fine- afa,a005os �a predominantly sand, add "sandy" to
ftmgeli rrzclon a ooarseora' soih. group name.
�3 zm r x x +6 x o eo m zoo - . f 50 _ "' I f soil contains >30% plus No. 200,
+ �� ■ a Equation of A'4ine
Ia+aontalatW- 4tou=u.s , predominantly gravel, add "gravelly"
than Plea 73 N- -201 -�.
' 40- to group name.
on 111=111101111101111 N LI 2 E uation WV-line AIIIIDIPP 1 `
Vefio ALL= 18 to P1 =7.
m '» Pl >4 and plots on or above "A" line.
eo , �■■ m than ' °PI <4 or plot below "A" line.
PI plots on or above "A" line.
'11111111111101 31a� u . , Q PI plots below "A" line.
Iao= 25mo 1111' 20 . R Fiber Content description shown below.
"1111111111111111110.1-1 , Al, MH or OH
4 -- ������ �� ML or OL
w fo 5 1 . 6 05 a+ 00 10 18 20 30 40 30 60 70 80 90 100 110
PARTICLE SIZE IN MWMETERS UQIND LIMIT (LL)
—§1 -61-20. 15 .366 C.. IoW' 2'S' S.6
°A ams ob =cti aors.u' 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 Particle Size Term Percent Term N- Value, BPF Term N- Value, BPF
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 #4 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)
(MC Column) Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat
D (Dry): Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to and is judged to have sufficient organic fines
i Laminations: Layers less than Fiber Content
touch. content to influence the Liquid Limit properties.
/2" thick of Term (Visual Estimate)
i ghtly organ used for borderline cases.
still have a hi differing material
visible. Soil may g Root Inclusions
or color. Fibric Peat: Greater than 67%
water content (over "optimum "). With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity
W Wet/ Free water visible intended to Hemic Peat: 33 — 67%
( of roots to influence the soil
L
Waterbearing): describe non - plastic soils.
Lenses: Pockets or layers Sapric Peat: Less than 33% properties.
Waterbearing usually relates to greater than /z" Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged
sands and sand with silt. thick of differing
to be in sufficient quantity to
Soil frozen material or color.
F
(Frozen): significantly affect soil properties.
01CLS021 (07/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
Borings locations:
(given in distances from Baselines A & B)
#6- 100' 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' WofB, 140'NofA
#11- 50' W of B, 179' N of A
#12- 16' E of B, 145' N of A
#13- 78'EofB, 193'NofA
#14- 78'EofB, 117'NofA
#15- 118' WofB, 141'NofA
1241 ai i / Baseline B . ----.._____J
, .8 i. /. < < j / ,/
1 \
1
r 4 //,
\ ; #11 �-- 9 �
\yam % - ----�'
(n 1 \ ��� N 9 r" . #13 <� I
II, -- #10 \ � q9 #15 _� \ .99° c / ( ✓ r►- '_ I 6
-c e•
/ / ,, '7.--- '� , i ,/ /
, r 9 I 949 \ ' �
L 55r -85 . D 95 1p( �� #3 ,%� A 1 \
#9 1 951.6. , i � 1� 1 \
LIJ �y . � 615,- e Y to _ e e1' en _� 4 /l / 1
O A
#8 ; #4 #6 . -A �', So s �\
I X f ' _ _; . " #7 -7._ 1 t . t aseline A \_
1 ° 1 . ,1
o • 6.' 0 9S
e .e EXISTING 1 -STORY BUILDING � 9 sa ��
m` n 14158 OAK PARK BLVD. NORTH Xs59, \ \ 89 . ee)
ort.t- 6,68/ )1 74.
a,
890, , -, 2 64.00 @ 1,1 572.90
` N89 °35'03 "W
X ^1. /.r
est
wcorner of _ / " I 1 South line of the Northwest Duarte t3 F,'0 S.
A. RLS Na 70 r- ,1 .7, 1 r` "" of the Northwest Quarter of Sec. 4,
1 r7 y 1' Point C Twp. 29. Rng. 201
BENCHMARK PA f ,, ' e� e ? y � ► °
TNH =95 Q .- I � (g F FE 9543 'z,�t��
— _ y ' 1 o1i�u iw glir Boring locations:
---------- I - - `
' b+l #5- 17' E of Point C
9-- �a.,.�� a ,. �r
i ,r 4 #16- 9' W & 53' S of Point C =
� #16 �,• • ) 2 _
i „, rTl
tin of Tract A O @ utility f --- 5 / 1 FT
va 70 X5 to r TtlPe�i+a .2 ; T h
'� 1 i ' 1 . l v.
i I,
WETLAND 2 BENCHMARK 1 ' ,._ � ii K _ .
2 K( ' / _ '
& Man .0,—nt ,, TNH= 954.67, 451 .
City at Oak Park y r
Doc. No 3084037 k' s5 . -- i
5x � 1”
PROJECT AET NO
City Hall/Public Works Expansion, Oak Park Heights 01 -04415
AMERICAN SUBJECT DATE
ENGINEERING
Boring Locations
TESTING, INC. g December 16, 2008
SCALE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
1" = 98'± JKV - FIGURE 1
' , ,/ P �l . W 1 i II 1 F
to / I OTR E #7,88 , / ,./ z „,./
/ ) \\
i 1 0 /
\� 1 1 I 1 1 �/ / EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN \
1 1 1 I __/ / /
■ 1 / / - 2400 SF
1 1 __-- - -____ / / EXIT AND FUTURE ,
72'L' ( 1 - / PATIO EXPANSION'.__ �
° \ '.
- ` I .. TREE F -_____I _ / FUTURE \
•
1- - DOOR OPERATOR / EXPANSION
{ I __---- --"-`� -- / PARKING �'
•
qTY
IMPOUND 9 ENTRY TO
LOT ,,,o '" PARKING GARAGE TR 614 „'
! � NEW CITY HALL BUILDING m __ - - " - --
I
SLIDING GATE
/416.? 1' 13,640 S. F. FOOTPRINT -' - m ENTR
WITH FULL LOWER LEVEL
5 i =
6e'.v s'm 1/7 a5• -7 v4• 14•-5 v4•
I j I \ •, ■ ___ - -
i
•
7000 SF .} , ' 6•-0• CONC STEPS 8 ENTRY CANOPY _ / J J , /
y ! I FUTURE HANDRAIL I I CONC WALK !� - -/
` 1I 1 i- PUBLIC GREEN WITH . .._ CAVIL GARDI =.._..._ ® /�- ._.._..� GARDEN LADE I'gFYP, � _.. _.. -.._
_
• : I 9 . ACC. RAMP
,,,,r, WORKS I I �■.�IIh _ -_ _ ._- �.-_ -___ DROPiIFF f..i
•
WORKS
I 1 • I. �� -r BSTALLS _ _ ..�._. ` .-_ _ -_ - -- 4 . -
/ f Alp GEN ENGL. t6' 0 RAISED PROOF OF PARKING
46%9B , n 1 / / : ' - PAVING CENTER NEW TRAIL 9 - TRAIL TO BE 54 STALLS
I BRICK ENCL. w/ / PUBLIC WORKS ' 461 ISLAND wl 10 m REROUTED QSIRFN
' METAL ADDITION BOLIARDS. ------ N ;
1 r n NEW 1
1 I 1 ' - 24 j, PARKIN AND - L ._ ___> --- --
1 .I -' � ROUNDABOUT 1
L_ ____ T , WORKS EXISTING - - -/ 30 STALLS „�± , 1-
BE REMOVED CI LTO 30 EXISTING
- -_` - 1 ADDtTiO WORKS °Q CI if I
I l GE TO 20 1 S
REMAGARAIN 22 STALLS 2 I
L ��____ 1 I/�, �2D-0' 3D-0• - - - PROPERTY UNE
1 / ,4 . 1 T PAVING TO BE
I T
A4 1 1 ' ' 1 ! I •
i, `'UU _..._. . _ REMOVED
� ` i - EXISTING CITY HALL j , ! � 1 ] , NEW COLONNADE OF TREES ALONG OF
I BUILDING TO BE REMOVED 1 ; 1 � ` ' PARKING. SEE LANDSCAPE
1 1 1 4••• NEW CURB 8' CONC h / k v 1 M1 4,. EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN
• I.' EXISTING CURB
TO BE REMOVED SIDEWALK
%% L
% ��'
II -- i `�1ii t i 7 ,�
1 EXISTING CUR ' EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN
I �I NIL
� TO REMAIN I EXISTING PUMP 61 gl•
TOIJ' j ROOM TO REMAIN I L w " H`�
�� �i 1 v r 1 ���t:
�a4 � ,� , II %U
-- 411 1/1111.111%..; ;r — �,s ��
O I � X I REMAIN R u _ \ I �lii�
{ -- EXISTING SI7E \ ; 0 0
O 1 1 0 REMAIN !TENS TO BE I V -:- I 4C. CROSS WALK. TVP.
O REMOVED _ - - _ • - --------- - - Oy V O -_ —_-_
FOR REFERENCE - ,-'.\� INDICATE TRAFFIC
' . Q I EXISTING CURS p- _ -_' ., „' �_ _ ,
1 ; R.O.W.
\ _.� NEW CURB T_� - �V.,1 j
.,_ P _
- - - _ �� P P A 16' i ---
a VIN -
PAVING CENTER , 57TH STREET NORTH ill
lj ISLAND w/ 10
• / EXISTING - - ” BOLLARDS. � , 1
TREES T• - 1 'a I NEW CURB
\REMAIN a 1 R.O.W. v •-0 1 O
24' ` 26 EXISTING `I 0 10 50 100 STALLS TO REMAIN 1
` .. n I H I I I i !WI j 1 1 1 •
PROJECT AET NO.
City Hall/Public Works Expansion, Oak Park Heights 01 -04415
AMERICAN SUBJECT DATE
ENGINEERING Proposed Project Layout January 8, 2009
TESTING, INC.
SCALE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
1" = 68 Provided JV FIGURE 2
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
MIMS TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 1 (p. 1 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
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN ' WC DEN LL PL 4�0 -#20(
1 — \ FILL, mostly clayey sand with roots, a little FILL F RI SU
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 FIA 3 — about 1' 7 M SS 12 14
4 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, V TILL OR ;1i
5 — brown, stiff (SC) (possible fill) FILL 14 M ' SS 10 7
2 _ SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, •• TILL 1
medium dense (SM/SC) 30 M " SS 6
8 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense to !`i
9 — medium dense (SM) 11i
10 - 45 M1 SS 14
12 — ' • ;$
13 — 29 M M SS 16
14 — ��
15 — 29 M 0 SS 16
16 — 111 17 — 18 — .. 19
20 42 M it SS 16
21 — ;1/
22 —
23 _ 29 M ' SS 24
24 END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE -IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED
0 - 22' 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
1/21/08 1:15 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
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
...... TESTING, INC.
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, MIN
D NTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.8 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN ' WC DEN LL PL ;4420(
1 - \ 2" FILL, mostly organic sandy silt with roots, FILL F ► SU 33
black to dark brown, frozen / F/M 1 SU 11
FILL, mostly clayey sand with gravel, trace 1
2 - roots, brown, frozen to about 1.25'
3 8 M PA SS 12 10
4 SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace roots, brown, stiff % TILL II
5 — (CL /SC) 10 M 1I SS 10 12
6 / 1
2 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense . .
8 — to medium dense (SM) 30 M " SS 12
9 - M
10 - 43 M F SS 14
11 al
12 -
13- 29 M" SS 14
14 - M
15- 32 M SS 16
16 -
]7 - fill 18 - 19 -
20- 19 M RA SS 16
21 - �
22 -
\ 1'
23 - 28 M `' SS 24
24 END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE -IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED
0 - 22' 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
1/21/08 12:10 24.0 22.0 24.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING 1/21/08 TERMINOLOGY ON
DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG
06/04
I
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
111111111111111
AET INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 3 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MN
D
I T H SURFACE ELEVATION: 955.2 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE WC DEN LL PL %-#20(
FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel, trace FILL F . SU
1 — 1roots, dark brown, frozen
2 FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and F/M ill SU 13
gravel, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 1.2' / TILL OR
3 — SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, trace FILL 6 M A SS 6 18
roots, dark brown to brown, firm (CL /SC)
(possible fill) / 0 TILL �1�
4
5 — CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, stiff 14 M il SS 8 12
6 —
(SC/CL)
SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense,
8 — lenses of clayey sand (SM) 36 M �, SS 16
10— 42 M" SS 12
11 — �ii
12 — �1i
13 — 49 M RA SS 16
14 — LA
54 M Pi SS 16
16 —
1
17 — 1
18 — 1.1
19 SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, fine to : : COARSE 1
20 — medium grained, brown, moist, very dense (SP) ALLUVIUM * M
SS 12
21—
22 1
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
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE -IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED
0 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
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 LO: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG
06/04
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
...... IESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -03837 LOG OF BORING NO. 4 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall and Public Works Building Expansion; Oak Park Heights, MiN
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 953.4 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN ' WC DEN LL PL Vo -#t20(
FILL, mixture of silty sand and gravel, dark FILL F' • i S(J
1 — brown and brown, frozen / F SU 11
FILL, mixture of clayey sand and sandy lean 111 1
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 1
5 lenses of clayey sand (SM) (possible fill) FILL 25 M " SS 14 8
6 _
7 _ SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense • TILL `il
8 — (SM) 32 M �� SS 14
9 — M
10 — R 34 M SS 16
11 —
12 — � FA
13 — 33 M SS 16
14 !�
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense 117
15 — (SM) 36 M R. SS 14
16 — A
17 — 1
18— 1
19 — 1
20 —
38 M i SS 14
21— I .•.
22 SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium : -:':-: COARSE l ;
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
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE -IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED
0 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
1/21/08 9:15 24.0 22.0 24.0 None S HEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 1/21/08
DR: SG LG: TM Rig: 91C THIS LOG
06/04
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
111111111111111 TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 5 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 953.4 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE' WC DEN LL PL % - #20(
4.25" Bituminous pavement /---- FILL F/M
1 10" FILL, mostly sand with silt and gravel, dark
brown frozen to 10" .FILL '� OR M
2 ..-r FILL
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown (SM) TILL 20 M SS 14
3 (possible fill)
4 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light ii
5 brown, medium dense, Laminations of sand (SM)/
SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium 17 M X SS 14
6 dense (SM)
7
8 24 M X SS 12
9 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light t.
10 brown, medium dense, laminations of sand (SM) 21 M X SS 10
11 END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE -IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED
0 - 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
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
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 7 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.1 GEOLOGY N MC S 4MPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' WC DEN LL PL V0-#20(
7" FILL, mixture of silty sand and sandy silt, a FILL 18
1 — little gravel, trace roots, brown and dark brown, `/ TILL 39 F/M X SS 17
frozen / \
2 — SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium - 12 M x 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 X SS 17
—
8 — 18 M SS 15
9 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense
10 — (SM) 32 M X SS 16
11
END OF BORING
L
,
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
�� DATE TIME
SAMPLED DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0 -9Y2 3.25" HSA
12/5/08 12:10 11.0 9.5 11.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 12/5/08
T THIS LOG
DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C ,
06/04
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
ammo TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 8 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 949.3 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' WC DEN LL PL %-#20(
1 — \ 4" SANDY SILT, trace roots, dark brown, ) \TOPSOIL , \ f 21
froz (ML) / / TILL 10 F/M X SS 14 9
2 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, _
brown, stiff (SC) 17 M X SS 16
3 — SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium
4 _.-- O dense (SM)
5 — CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots,
brown, a little light brown, hard, laminations of / 31 M X SS 16 5
6 — silt (SC)
7 _ SILTY SAND, a Little gravel, brown, a little light :
brown, dense, Laminations of silt (SM) 36 M X SS 12
8—
li
10 — 46 M x SS 14
11 END OF BORING /
•
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
�� DATE TIME
SAMPLED CASING TH CAVE-IN
DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-9%' 3.25" HSA
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
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 10 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN
DEPNTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 948.9 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE WC DEN LL PL %-#20(
FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little silty sand and FILL ,
1 — gravel, trace roots, dark brown and brown, 12 F/M SS 14 12
2 — frozen to about 6"
3 — 17 M :' SS 8
4—+ M
5 _ SILTY SAND, trace roots, fine grained, light ': COARSE
brown, moist, medium dense (SM) ALLUVIUM 15 M FA SS 6
6
7 — SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium TILL It
8 — dense to dense (SM/SC) 23 M A SS 10 8
9 - its
i
10 — 32 M :' SS 12 8
11 — M 12 —
13 — 34 M 1 SS 16 7
14 A M
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
a , �� DATE TIME
SAMPLED DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-14W 3.25" HSA _
12/8/08 1:10 16.0 14.5 16.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 12/8/08 _ _
DR: TK LG: EW Rig: 66C THIS LOG
06/04
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
Now= TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01-04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 12 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 948.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL V0 -#20(
1 — \ 4" SANDY SILT, trace roots, dark brown, ) TOPSOIL 31
frozen (ML) / j MIXED 4 F/M SS 8 13
2 CLAYEY SAND, trace roots, brown, frozen to ALLUVIUM r rik a bout 6 ", then soft (SC) / ' :: TILL 14 M SS 10
3 — SILTY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, brown,
4 — medium dense to dense, lenses and Laminations : , .: RI
of clayey sand (SM) '
5 — 25 M SS 14
6= `1/
I 8 — 38 M F SS 18 7 • 9 It
SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, fine to COARSE
10 — medium grained, brown, moist, dense, a lens of ALLUVIUM 39 M Fl SS 16
11 — silty sand (SP -SM) A
12 — CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, hard TILL �11
13 — (SC) / . 37 M `r SS 6 10
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dense �11
15 — (SM) 38 M : SS 18
16 ill 17 — I8 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense,
19 — laminations of sand (SM) 1
20 — 38 M F SS 18
21 END OF BORING
4
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE -IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED
0 - %z' 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
12/9/08 2:10 21.0 19.5 21.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 12/9/08
DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG
06/04
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING No. 13 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
DEIPNTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 948.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE WC DEN LL PL %-#20(
6" SANDY SILT, trace roots, dark brown, 1 1 TOPSOIL ii 32
I frozen (ML) 111 FINE F/M SS 12 12
2 SANDY SILT, trace roots, brown, frozen to ALLUVIUM
about 12 ", then moist (ML) TILL . 19 M F SS 6
3 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, trace roots, light
4 brown, firm (CL) M
SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium
5 dense (SM) 47 M :' SS 16
6
P 7 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, possible / " It
8
cobbles at 8', brown, hard, laminations of sand 38 M FA SS 14 7
9 M
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, possible
10 cobbles, dense (SM) 32 M FA SS 8
11 . `'
12 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles, :. , : 1
brown, very dense to dense (SM) 53 M'/ SS 14
13
14 ri • •
15 46 M FA SS 16
16 ..
I 17 1
• 18 1
19 1
20 43 M " SS 14
21 END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME
SAMPLED DEP DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-19W 3.25" HSA
12/9/08 12:55 21.0 19.5 20.4 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 12/9/08
DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG
06/04
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 14 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
DEIPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 949.5 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL % - #20(
3" SANDY SILT, with roots, dark brown, frozen \TOPSOIL / 38
1 (ML) ' FINE 4 F/M'l SS 14 11
2 SAND SILT, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, ALLUVIUM
`frozen to about 6 ", then moist, very loose (ML) / j TILL 15 M SS 10 6
3 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, a little gravel, trace A
4 roots, brown, stiff (CL) % `1l
i
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown,
5 medium dense (SM) 20 M : ' SS 12
6 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium "" !►]]
dense, a lens of clayey sand (SM) /" l
8 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light 27 M SS 10
brown, medium dense, laminations of sand with .
9 silt and sand (SM) /if. `1l
10 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, dense . " F (SM) • • 33 M SS 16
11 l !►ii
12 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, possible 117
cobbles, brown, very dense (SM)
13 . 76 M SS 8
14 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, possible cobbles,
15 brown, very dense (SM/SC) 67 M SS 12
16 1
17 1
18 : , ` 1
19 1
20 56 M p SS 14
21 END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME
SAMPLED DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0 -19/2 3.25" HSA
12/8/08 11:15 21.0 19.5 19.8 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 12/9/08
DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG
06/04
A AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 15 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 950.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE WC DEN LL PL % - #20(
FILL, mixture of clayey sand and sandy silt, a FILL \/
1 – little gravel, trace roots, dark brown, frozen to 11 F/M X SS 8 14
2 about 6" /_\
FILL, mixture of clayey sand and silty sand, a
3 – little gravel, trace roots, brown 13 M SS 12 8
4 – \/
5 – 18 M X SS 10 10
7 – LEAN CLAY, trace roots, brown and brownish j FINE X t.
gray mottled, hard, laminations of silty sand ALLUVIUM 38 M SS 10 9
8 – (CL)
9 SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium ' TILL X 10 -dense (SM) / Jj25 M SS 12 8
11 CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, very ;��
stiff (SC)
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
„ DATE TIME
SAMPLED CASING
EPT DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0 -9/: 3.25" HSA
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
A AMERICAN
ENGIN SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 01 -04415 LOG OF BORING NO. 16 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: City Hall/Public Works Expansion;Oak Park Heights, MN
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 952.6 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' WC DEN LL PL V0 -#20(
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" / \
2 ^ CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little V TILL
3 — light brown, very stiff to hard, laminations of 17 M X SS 6 9
a _ sand (SC) fl
5 31 M X SS 10 9
6 —
B.
7 — SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, \ /
medium dense (SM/SC) 16 M x SS 14
8— (`
■
I 9
10 — 29 M X SS 12
11 — _
END OF BORING
I
1
I
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING TH CAVE-IN
EPTH FLUID LEVEL EVER THE ATTACHED
0-9W 3.25" HSA
12/10/08 12:30 11.0 9.5 10.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 12/10/08 _
DR: EW LG: TK Rig: 66C THIS LOG
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.
Asa 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: 301/565 -2733: www.asfe.org
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.
B.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.
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.
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 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 Geoenvironmental 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