Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutreport of Geotechnical Exploration-1991 :_. � �_ � �� L� � � RICKS SUPERVALU __ Report of Geotechnical Exploration _ AdditionTo Existing Store Ricks Superoalue Navarre, Minnesota TCT#4220 91-104 � � � 33 � o �� c � � May 13, 1991 � � . ♦ ` • tw�n c�tti+ test�nq �- corporat�on � , 0 662 CROMWELI AVENUE ST. PAUL, MN 55114 _ May 13, 1991 PHONE 612/645-3601 Mr Rick Bloomquist Ricks SuperValu 3333 Shoreline Drive � — Navarre, MN 55392 Subj: Addition to Existing Store — Ricks SuperValu Navarre, Minnesota TCT #4220 91-1043 Twin City Testing Corporation is pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical exploration program for the proposed addition to the Ricks Supervalu Store in Navarre, — Minnesota. We are sending you three copies of our report. Additional copies of the report are being forwarded to D. J. Miller Construction. Submittal of this report concludes the scope of work defined by our quotation of April 22, 1991. About 50% of the soil samples will be held at this office for one month. The samples will then be discarded uniess we are notified in writing to hold them for a longer period — of time. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you on this project. If� you — have any questions regarding this report, or if you require additional information, please contact me at 641-9411. I can also be contacted for coordination of constructed related testing services. Very truly yours, Gary A. Larson _ Field Engineer GAL/sew m � A mrrober ol�hc �I I I I 9�oup OI companies • . �. , IMPORTANT INFOIZMATION � ABOUT YOUR � j - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT � � � — More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions.their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be,their frequency a�d extent proposed construction activity.and appropriate founda- _ have been lessened considerably in �ecent years.due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may di(fer from those infer�ed io exist. The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer,no matter how the Geosciences. qualified,and no subsurfacQ exploration program,no — The follow�ing suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive,can reveal what is hidden by to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth.�ock and time.The actual inte�face between mate- cost-overruns and other costly headacfies that can rials may be(ar more gradual or abrupt tfian a report _ o:cur during a construccion project. indicates.Actual conditions in areas not sampled may � dif(er from predictions.Nothing can be done fo prevenf the unanticipa�ed,but steps tan be taken�o help minimize thcir A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING �mDuct.For this reason,most experitnced own�rs retain their • REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET 9cocc:�i��ica1 consulta�its thr�ugh�he cons�ruction stage,to iden- tify variances.conduct additional tests which may be OF PRO)ECT SPECIFIC FACTORS needed.and to�ecommend solutions to problems A eotechnical en ineerin re encountered on site. _ g g g port is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorpo�ate a unique set o(proiect-specific factors.These typically in�ude: SUBSURFACE COND1TlONS . the general nature of the structure involved,its size and CAN CHANGE - — configuration:the focation oF the structure on the site and its orientation:physical concomitants such as Subsu�face conditions may be modi(ied by constantl��- access roads.parking lots.and underground utilities, changing natural(orces. Because a geotechnical engi- and the level o(additional risk which the dient assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at — b�•virtue ot limitations imposed upcm the exploratory the time ot subsur(ace exploration,conslruction decisions program. To help avoid costly p�oblems.consult the =>>��«<d�����!�c l�ascd on a acotcrhnical cnginecring reporf u�h��cP geotechnical engineer to determine how am•factors Qa�q����u m��u Jiavc hccn a//e�1ed(�u lime.Speak with the geo- __ �chich change subsequent to the date o(the repon ma�� �echnical consultant to leam if additional tests are a(fect ics recommendacions. advisable before construction starts. . Unless your consulting gec�technical engineer indicates Constr�ction operations at or adjacent to the site and _ otherkis2.uour gcotcthniial eiogiacering r�pc�rt shou(Q not natural events such as floods.earthqua�es or ground- hc u�ed: water(luctuations may also affect subsurface cond'+tions •V��hen the nature of the proposed structure is and,thus.the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical changed.for example.if an o((ice building will be report.The geotechnical engineer should be kept erected instead of a parking garage.or if a refriger- apprised o(any such events.and should be consulted to ated wa�ehouse will be built instead of an unre- dete�mine i(additional tests are necessary. frigerated one: � •when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE � 1 structure is altered: PERFORMED FOR SPECIFtC PURPOSES •when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is moditied: AND PERSONS •when there is a change of ownership.or Geotechnical engineers reports are prepared to meet � •for application to an adjacent site. the s cific needs of s pe pecific individuals.A report pre- Geoeethnital enyineers cannol accept responsihilily for hrohlems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- u�hich may develop i/lhey are not consul(ed aJter(atfors tonsid- quate(or a construetion convaetor,or even some other Tered in their report's development have chanqed. consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise. this�eport was prepared expressly for the dient involved and expressly for purposes indicated by 2he dient.Use � MOST GEOTECHNICAL "F1NDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose.or by the dient TARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES (or a dif(erent purpose,may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should appl y this report jor its Site exploration identi(ies actual subsur(ace conditions intended purp�se u�i(hout Jirst conferring with the geotechnical 1 onl�•at those points where samples are taken,when engineer. N�persen should apply 1hi5 report/�r dny purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that vriginallu�ontcmplated u�ilhout first con/erring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- u�ilh(he gcolcchni:al en_qineer. _ A GFATECHNICAL ENGINEERING der the mislaken impression that simply disdaiming re- REPORT IS SUBJECT TO sponsibility tor the accuracy of subsurface in(ormation ' always insulates them from attendant liability.Providing MISINTERPRETATION the best availabie iniormation to contractors helps pre- — Costly problems can occur when other design profes- �ent costly consvuction problems and the adversarial � ' sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate of a geotechnical engineering report.To help avoid scale. , these problems.the geotechnical engineer should be �AD RESPONSIBILITY retained to work with other appropriate design profes- sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to CLAUSES CLOSELY review the adequacy of their plans and specifications — relative to geotechnical issues. � Because geotechnical engineer�ngis based extensively • on judgment and opinion,it is far less exact than other • design disciplines.This situation has resulted in wholl�� unwarranted daims being lodged against geotechnical — BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE consultants.To help prevent this problem,geotechnical ' engineers have developed model dauses for use in writ- SEPARATED FROM THE ten transmittals.These are not ezculpatory dauses ENGINEERING REPORT designed to foist geotechnical engineers liabilities onto — � someone else.Rather,they are definitive dauses which Fnal boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi- identify where geotechnical engineers responsibilities nee�s based upon their interpretation of field logs begin and end.Their use helps all parties involved reo- lassembled by site personnell and laboratory evaluation ognize their individua)responsibilities and take appro- —of field samples.Only final boring logs customarily are priate action.Some of these definitive dauses are likely induded in geotechnical engineering reports.Tf�ese logs to appear in yout geotechnica)engineering teport,and should not under any circumstances be redrawn for indusion in you are encouraged to read them dosely.l�our geo- ___architectural or other design drawings.because drafters technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. answers to your questions. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem,it does nothing to minimize the possibility of OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO —convactors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara- tion.when this occurs.delays,disputes and unantici- REDUCE RISK pated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Your consultin g geotechnical engineer will be pleased to —To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit- tion,give contraclors►eady access to che completc gcotechnical igate risk.I�addition.ASFE has developed a variety ot �ngineering repon prepared or authorized(or their use. materials which may be beneficial.Contact ASFE(or a , Those who do not provide such access may proceed un- • compfimentary copy of iu publications directory. Published by , THE ASSOCIATION _ OF ENGINEERING fIRMS • PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106/Silver Spring. Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733 0:a� 3�' � TABLE OF CONTENTS i Page ` 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 ` l.l Project Information , • 1 — 1.2 Scope of Services 1 2.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM RESULTS 2 . 2.1 Exploration Scope 2 2.2 Site Conditions 3 ` 2.3 Subsurface Conditions 3 2.4 Water L.evels 4 — 3.0 ENGINEERING REVIEW 5 3.1 Project Data 5 — 3.2 Discussion 6 3.3 Foundation Recommendations 9 3.4 Floor Slab Support 10 — 3.5 Exterior Backfill/Water Control 11 4.0 CONSTRUCTION DIFFICULTY , 12 5.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING 13 � 6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 14 -- 6.1 Soil Sampling 14 6.2 Soil Classification 14 _ 7.0 STANDARD OF CARE 15 Appendix ` Logs of Test Borings General Notes Soil Classification Sheet � Sketch i • REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM PROPOSED ADDITION TO EXISTING STORE � RICKS SUPERVALUE NAVARRE, MINNESOTA . • . TCT #4220 91-1043 1.0 INTRODUCTION —' 1.1 Project Information The proposed construction will be a single-story, slab-on-grade addition to the west side — of the existing Supervalu Store. The building will be of masonry construction with an Irshaped footprint. The overall dimensions of the larger north-south leg will be about 47' x 120' with the smaller east-west leg measuring about 22' x 28'. A full basement may — be constructed within a small portion of the structure, located in the southcentral portion of the addition. The approximate building location is as shown on the sketch included in the appendix of this report. 1.2 Scope of Services _ In accordance with the authorization of Mr Rick Bloomquist on April 22, 1991, we have , performed a geotechnical exploration program. Our scope of services for this project was ` outlined in our April 22 quotation and was limited to the following items: � � ; . _ Page 2 - #4220 91-1043 , � `r 1. Explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by means of three penetration borings put down at locations selected by TGT. � `" 2. Prepare an engineering report which includes the following items: a. Logs of the soil test borings. , � -" b. A sketch showing the approximate boring locations. c. Recommended foundation types and depths. d. Recommended soil bearing pressures. — e. Estimates of potential foundation settlements. f. Recommendations for support of on-grade floor slabs. Our scope of services was intended for geotechnical purposes only, and did not include an environmental assessment of the site. However, we can state that no contaminants — were discovered in the retrieved soil samples, as could be easily identified by color or odor using human senses. , _ 2.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM RESULTS 2.1 Exploration Scope The three test borings for the project were put down on May 2, 1991. They were put ` down at the approximate locations indicated on the sketch included in the Appendix of _ this report. Surface elevations at the boring locations were referenced to the top of the first floor slab of the existing Supervalu Store. Elevation of the existing floor was taken as 100', an assumed elevation. Page 3 - #4220 91-1043 + 2.2 Site Conditions The addition will be located at the west side of the existing Supervalu Store located at — the intersection of County Road 15 and Kelley Avenue in Navane, Minnesota. A portion of the area of the addition is presently covered with a bituminous driveway. The remainder of the site vegetation ranges from grass areas to moderately light woods in the — south. In general, the ground surface slopes downward from north to south �nd east to west. A low lying swampy area is present in the extreme western portion of the addition as well as south of the addition. Surface elevations at the boring locations range from — 97.7' at boring #1 to 85.2' at boring #2. ` 2.3 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions encountered at each test location are shown on the boring _ logs included in the Appendix of this report. We wish to point out that subsurface conditions at other times and locations on the site may dif�er from those found at our test locations. If different conditions are encountered during construction, it is _ necessary you contact us so our recommendations can be reviewed. The test boring logs also indicate the possible geologic origin of the materials encountered. A review of the boring logs indicates a general soil profile consisting of surficial fill, r underlain by topsoil, which is in turn underlain by fine alluvium, weathered till and till. Page 4 - #4220 91-1043 `" The fill encountered consists primarily of a mixture of lean clay and sandy lean clay ranging in color from brown to dark brown and black. The fill at boring #3 also ' contains some clayey sand and silty sand. Based on the penetration resistance (N- -- value), portions of the fill appear to be in a relatively well-compacted condition while other portions, primarily the fill encountered at borings #1 and #2 as well as surficial fill at boring #3, appear to be in a loose condition. At borings #1 and #2, topsoil — consisting of silty clay and lean clay ranging in thickness from 1/2' to 2' was encountered beneath the fi1L - At borings #1 and #3, fine alluvium consisting of dark grayish brown and light gray lean clay was encountered beneath the surficial fill and topsoil. Based on the penetration resistance (N-value) the �ne alluvium ranged in consistency from very soft to soft. . Underlying the surficial fill, topsoil and fine alluvium, weathered till and till consisting V primarily of sandy lean clay and clayey sand was encountered to the depth of the _ borings. These cohesive soils contain some lenses of waterbearing sand and silty sand. Based on the penetration resistance (N-value) the weathered till ranged from soft to � rather stiff while the underlying till generally ranged from firm to hard. ; 2.4 Water Levels ' The boreholes were checked for the occurrence of water during and shortly after completion of our test borings. Groundwater was encountered at the boring locations _ Page 5 - #4220 91-1043 " at the times and levels indicated on the attached boring logs. Observation of the samples retrieved indicated that water level may rise to higher elevations. The predominant soils encountered at the boring locations are relatively slow draining. For -- this reason, accurate water levels cannot be measured within an open borehole except � when measured over an extended period of time. Such water level measurements are . beyond the scope of a normal subsurface exploration. Seasonal and yearly fluctuations •-- of the groundwater levels could be expected. 3.0 ENGINEERING REVIEW 3.1 Project Data _ The engineering recommendations made in this report are based on our understanding of the project as described in the followtng paragraphs. The recommendations are valid for a specific set of prnject conditions. If the characteristics of the project change from ._ those indicated in this section, it is necessary that we be notified so we may determine whether the new conditions affect our recommendations. � We understand the planned construction will be a single-story addition to the west side � of the existing Supervalu Store. 1fie building will be �shaped with the larger portion _ of the structure measuring about 47' x 100'. The smaller leg of the building, located at the south end of the addition, will measure about 22' x 28'. The majority of the � structure will be of slab-on-grade construction with the finished floor matching the � elevation of the existing structure. We understand that a portion of the addition, located in the southcentral portion of the addition may include a full basement construction. Page 6 - #4220 91-1043 , " Actual structural loadings for the construction are not presently available. However, we do anticipate that wall and column loadings will be relatively light, -� Our design assumptions include an allowable total settlement of up to 1", and a minimum safety factor of three with respect to shearing or base failure of the new foundations. 3.2 Discussion _ We understand the existing structure was constructed in 1976, and is supported on a normal spread footing foundation system. Elevations of the existing foundations L apparently range from about 4' below slab grade in the north to about 10' below slab � _ grade in the south. We understand foundations are supported upon a compacted fill system placed after excavation of compressible soils in 1976. _ The results of soil observation and internuttent compaction testing performed by our firm during the original construction in 1976 were available for our review. The associated � report (#9-7112) indicates the bottom of�the original excavation ranged from about 7' _ to 19' below floor elevation. A compacted fill consisting primarily of cohesive clays was placed to re-establish building grade. Project specifications at the time of this � construction required that compacted fill be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the ,._ Page 7 - #4220 91-1043 " Standard Proctor density. Available information indicates that the excavation-refill system ' : extended beyond the limits of the present construction to provide a ,1:1 lateral excavation , oversize as measured from elevation of pertinent foundation elements. ; In our opinion, the su�cial fill, topsoil and softer portions of the fine alluvium should ; not be relied upon for structural support. At the location of boring. #3, located very -- near the southwest corner of the existing building, the fill encountered at depth appears � to consist of moderately well-compacted fill placed during the excavation-refill earthwork for construction of the existing building. The results of laboratory testing performed on _ selected fill samples indicates the present dry density of the fill is comparable at this location to the dry densities obtained at compaction test locations performed during the � initial earthwork. r We recommend the in-place fill, topsoil and soft portions of the fine alluvium be y removed from the planned building area. The excavation should be extended beyond the � edge of the planned building a minimum of 1' for each depth of excavation required below planned foundation grade (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize). The minimum depth of � excavation required at the boring locations is indicated in the following tabulation. � Actual depth of excavation required will likely vary throughout the site, especially within the presently inaccessible portions of the site to the south of the planned building and the west edge. ; Page 8 - #4220 91-1043 �-- Boring Surface Minimum Depth Estimated Elevation Num6er Elevation (t�Z Of Excavation (t�� Qf Bottom of Excavation (ft2 `- 1 97.7 3.5 94.2 . 2 85.2 9 76.2 3 94.0 A A �--- Note: A - Excavation at the southwest corner of the existing building (near boring ,- #3) should extend to approximate elcvation 90' to match existing foundation elevation. Extending from this corner west and south we expect the �— excavation will extend deeper, at least as deep as elevation 82' to remove uncontrolled fill overlying the competent natural deposited soils. Excavation along the west wall of the existing building should be performed in a manner ~ to avoid disturbing soils beneath the existing foundation elements. We recommend the � excavation be performed to leave intact soil beyond the limits of the existing building to provide a 1:1 slope of the excavation downwards from the foundation and provide lateral support for the foundation soils for the existing construction. Careful �eld observation __ will be required by a geotechnical engineer during this phase of the excavation to aid in distinguishing between portions of the existing fill which were placed in a controlled � manner from those placed in an uncontrolled manner. Some contingency should be _ provided in project budgeting for excavation that extends beyond the limits indicated by the borings. �� Page 9 - #4220 91-1043 " After completion of excavation, planned building grade can be re-established with placement of a well-compacted granular fill. The fill should consist of a granular soil free of organic debris and other rubble. Fill should be placed in thin lifts and �' compacted to a minimum of 98% of the Standard Proctor density (ASTM:D 698). If groundwater enters the excavation, the fill used up to an elevation at least 2' above -- the water should consist of a free-draining sand-gravel containing less than 10% material finer than a #200 sieve. -- Based on our observation of the samples of the presently in-place fill, it is our opinion ; these soils will probably not be suitable for reuse within the compacted fill system. � 3.3 Foundation Recommendations ` By following the previously recommended earthwork procedures, it is our opinion the `., building can be supported on conventional spread footings. The exterior wall foundation should be placed at a minimum frost depth (42" below planned exterior grade). _ Based on the recommended compaction level, and the strength characteristics of the softer portions of the fine alluvium and weathered till, we recommend the foundations ~ be designed .for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 ps£ The � recommended soil bearing pressure provides a theoretical factor of safety of at least three against general shear failure. Further, it is our judgment total foundation } ' Page 10 - #4220 91-1043 ... , " settlement should be less than 1" and differential settlement should be less than 1/2". ` :; These settlement figures are typically considered tolerable for the planned type of construction. We recommend the planned addition be supported completely independent of the i foundation members for the existing building. We understand the foundations for the �� existing building were designed to rest on soil having an allowable bearing capacity of 2000 psf. Furthermore, based upon the compaction levels specified during placement of fill for support of the existing structure, it is our judgment that the in-place soils beneath ;.- the existing foundations would probably not be suitable for support of an increased foundation loading. ,_ 3.4 Floor Slab Support In our opinion the compacted fill system placed for structural support should be suitable _ for support of slab-on-grade construction. Fill, including interior wall backfill, should be compacted to 98% of Standard Proctor Density. We do recommend the upper 6" of soil below the floor consist of a free-draining sand with less than 10% passing the #200 `_ sieve. The free-draining sand should provide a capillary moisture break beneath the slab � to minimize transmission of moisture to the slab. �� _, Page 11 - #4220 91-1043 `" 3.5 Exterior Backfill/Water Control � , . We understand a portion of the structure may have a full basement. We recommend `- the construction include the installation of a perimeter drain tile system at footing grade around this basement area. In addition, we recommend the backfill above the drain tile , be installed to allow water to freely pass to the drain tile. This could be accomplished •-� using free-draining sand backfill or drainage mats against the perimeter foundation walls. The draintile should also be provided with some means of discharge to remove the water which may collect. The below grade basement walls should be dampproofed. The basement wall should be structurally designed to withstand the lateral pressures exerted by the backfill soils. We caution that clayey soils will exert a much higher �. lateral loading than granular soils. This pressure is greatly magnified when water is allowed to build up within the backfill. In a drained condition, we estimate sands having 10% or less material passing the #200 sieve and less than 70% passing the #40 sieve _ would exert an at-rest equivalent fluid lateral pressure of about 45 pounds per cubic foot � on the walls. Clayey fill would exert up to 120 pounds per cubic foot in the at-rest ` . condition. The free-draining sand should occupy a wedge-shaped area extending up from ; the draintile at a 60° with the horizontal. � If a truck dock is to be built as part of the addition, the dock walls should be backfilled ? in the same manner as the basement walls, including the sand backfill. This clean sand � • Page 12 - #4220 91-1043 ' should extend at least 10' back into the interior of the addition to minimize, but not • necessarily eliminate, any frost heave of the lab. We also recommend that insulation (from frost) be provided behind those exteriar portions of the dock walls. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION DIFFICULTY �-- We wish to point out that some of the fine alluvium and weathered till are susceptible to disturbance when subjected to construction traffic, especially when wet. In the event that disturbance of the naturally deposited soils does occur during excavation, it will be �.-. necessary to extend the excavation deeper to expose competent undisturbed soils. We anticipate that use of backhoe excavation equipment will be required to accomplish the recommended excavation. The earthwork equipment used for placing and compacting engineered fill should be carefully matched to the site conditions at the time the work is being performed. The _ engineered fill should be placed in lifts thin enough so that the entire thickness of each . lift can be compacted with the type of equipment being used. '_ We anticipate that some groundwater may enter deeper portions of the excavation. We recommend water be removed to facilitate observation of the excavation and fill v� placement. Since the soils encountered are primarily relatively slow draining, we �_ _ Page 13 - #4220 91-1043 `~ anticipate that dewatering can probably be accomplished using temporary sump pumps. However, additional effort may be required if the surficial wate� from the swamp were to enter the excavation. We suggest draining this water before starting the excavation ' work. All excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart �- P, "Excavations And Trenches". This document states that excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the job specifications. 5.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING ,_ At this site, the soil conditions may well vary between boring locations. Therefore, we _ recommend a geotechnical engineer be retained to observe actual site conditions within excavated areas to review the impact of these conditions on the design. We also _ recommend soil compaction tests be performed at regular intervals during �11 placement in the building area. � � Page 14 - #4220 91-1043 `� 6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES , 6.1 Soil Sampling Soil sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM:D1586-84. Using this procedure, a 2" O.D. split barrel sampler is driven into the soil by a 140 lb weight falling 30". — After an initial set of 6", the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12" is known as the penetration resistance or N value. The N value is an index of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. 6.2 Soil Classification �_ As the samples were obtained in the field, they were visually and manually classi�ed by the crew chief in accordance with ASTM:D2487-85 and D2488. Representative portions of the samples were then returned to the laboratory for further examination and for verification of the field classification. In addition, selected samples were submitted to . a program of laboratory tests. Logs of the borings indicating the depth and identification r of the various strata, the N value, the laboratory test data, water level information and _ pertinent information regarding the method of maintaining and advancing the drill holes � are attached. Charts illustrating the soil classification procedure, the descriptive terminology and symbols used on the boring logs are also attached. Page 15 - #4220 91-1043 " 7.0 STANDARD OF CARE The recommendations contained in this report represent our professional opinions. - These opinions were arrived at in accordance with currently accepted engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no wananty is implied or intended. This report was prepared by: __. Gary A Larson �_ This report was reviewed by: ona Shaffer, P.E. �- . .. .. .�5: .... ..: . ..... ... _, . �•. ... • ,. . �� ;.:t•e'. . ::�4. tir � .... �.,Y ��rw.:': , .. � �. �l:, ..'1.1: . .T L' .. , . �. . ... � . .. .i�:1"i'.:•E'f t•'�Cif:r •1!_''tl.�sL C�1nt�1b �. .... .. ..�..�..)1�1. �. �r L--� � �:L, tu w ~ ,r a �' �:;::���i�� � li,w�va ��; � - LOG OF TEST BORING JOB N0. 4220 91-1043 VERTICAL SCALE j" = 3' BORiNG H0. 1 � ' PROJECT RICKS SUPERVALUE ADD'N - NAVARRE MINNESOTA r DIN H DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL GEOLOGIC N SAMPLE LABORATORY TESTS FEET SURFACE EIEVATION 97�7 or p� ORIGIN CR WL N0. TYPE W D LL PL or ROD . FILL, MIXTURE OF LEAN CLAY AND Fill 1 HS " SANDY LEAN CLAY w/a little limestone, brown, dark brown and black --- S 2 SB 3.0 3.5 SILTY CLAY, black, soft (CL-ML) Topsoii 3 SB _.. SANDY LEAN CLAY W/A LITTLE �� Weathered GRAVEL, brown mottled, firm (CL/SC) Till 9 4 SB 10 5 SB I1 6 SB 12.0 _ SANDY LEAN CLAY W/A LITTLE Till GRAVEL, brown mottled, firm to hard, a -. 12 7 SB few lenses of sand (CL/SC) , � 18 8 SB _-- 16.0 End of Boring � WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS START 5-2-91 COMPIETE $-2-91 DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN gAIIED DEPTNS uATER METHOD a Z:OO DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH LEVEL 3-1 4" HSA 0�-14.5' '— 5-2 2:00 16' 14.5' 16' None 5-2 2•OS 16' ---- 4' None EAST: NORTH: CREN CNIEF J. Kulhanek twin city testing - corporation , _. LOG OF TEST BORING �os No. 4220 91-1043 VERTICAL SCALE 1^ = 3' BORING N0. 2 � PROJECT RICKS SUPERVALUE ADD'N - NAVARRE MINNESOTA — DEPTH DESCRiPTION Of MATERIAL GEOIOGIC N SAMPLE LABORATORY TESTS fEET SURFACE ELEVATION 85.2 or p� ORIGIN CR HL N0. TYPE W D LL PL or ' RCD FILL, MIXTURE OF LEAN CLAY AND Fill 1 HS ` SANDY LEAN CLAY W/A LITTLE GRAVEL, black and brown 2.0 ; LEAN CLAY, a trace of wood, black, Topsoil or � soft (CL) (may be fiil) Fill 5 2 SB 4A � ^ LEAN CLAY, dark grayish brown, very Fine soft (CL) (may be fill) Alluvium or Fill 3 3 SB 7.0 ._ LEAN CLAY, brown to light gray Fine mottled, very soft to soft (CL) Alluvium 3 4 SB , 7 5 SB 7 1 6 SB 14.0 " SANDY LEAN CLAY W/A LITTLE Weathered GRAVEL, brown mottled, rather stiff, a Till few lenses of waterbearing sand (CL) 12 7 SB =- 16.0 End of Boring : Note: Water level may rise to about ?' `- depth WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS START 5-2-9I COMPLETE S-2-I1 DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN gAILEO DEPTHS WATER METHOD a 11:IS DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH LEVEL 3-j 4" HSA 0'-14.5° �- 5-2 11:15 16' 14.5' 16' None 5-2 11:25 16' ---- 3.5' 13' EAST: NORTH: .�. CREY CHIEF J. Kuihanek twin city testing corporation . _ LOG OF TEST BORING �os No. 4220 91-1043 VERTICAI SCALE 1" = 3° BORING N0. 3 � � PROJECT RICKS SUPERVALUE ADD'N - NAVARRE. MINNESOTA - DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL GEOLOGIC N SAMPLE LABORATORY TESTS FEET SURfACE ELEVATION 94.0 ORIGIN CR WL N0. TYPE N D LL PL or RGO FILL, MIXTURE OF LEAN CLAY AND Fill SANDY LEAN CLAY W/A LITTLE , GRAVEL, brown with some black and a little gray , ~ 2 1 SB 18 108 ' 4.0 � FILL, MIX'TURE OF SANDY LEAN CLAY AND CLAYEY SAND W/A LITTLE SILTY SAND AND GRAVEL, 3 2 SB 17 111 �- brown with traces of black and gray v 8 3 SB 5 4 SB 19 109 12.0 . LEAN CLAY, light gray, soft (CL) Fine Alluvium 7 5 SB � � 14.0 — SANDY LEAN CLAY W/A LITTLE Weathered GRAVEL, brown to light gray mottled, Till ; - soft (CL) 5 6 SB 7 3T 19.0 CLAYEY SAND W/A LITTLE � Till GRAVEL, brown mottled, firm, some lenses of wet silty sand (SC) 9 8 SB � ` WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS START 5-2-91 COMPLETE 5-2-91 SAMPLEO CASING CAVE-IN WATER METHOD a 12:4� DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH BAILEO DEPTNS �EVEL 3-j 4" HSA 0'-Z4.S° - 5-2 12:40 26' 24.5' ---- 24.5' 5-2 12:50 26' ---- 10' None EAST: NORTH: ; CREW CHIEF Kulhanek twin city testing corporation . LOG OF TEST BORING JOB N0. 4220 91-1043 VERTICAL SCALE 1" = 3' BORING N0. 3 CONTINUED � . PROJECT RICKS SUPERVALUE ADD'N - NAVARRE. MINNESOTA r- DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL GEOIOGIC N SAMPLE LABORATORY TESTS or ou FEET ORIGiN CR WL N0. TTPE W D LL PL or ' RQD _ CLAYEY SAND W/A LIITLE GRAVEL '�: :: 'Till (con't) (con't) ' 1 , � 14 9 SB 26.0 � End of Boring Note: Water level may rise to about 14' depth ; ; -. � ` twin city testing corporation . � GENERAL NOTES DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS r SYA180L DEFlNITIO�I SYMBOL OEFINITION � � I H5.�1 3 1!4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger �N \1'ater Content - 96 of Dry��'t. •ASTM D 2216 _.F.� 4", 6" or iQ" Diameter FliRht AuRer O Dry Density• Pounds Per Cubit Foot . _HA 2", 4" or 6" Hand AuRer LL, PL liquid and Plastit Limit -ASTM D 4318 `� _DC 2 1/2", 4". 5"or 6" Steel �ri�•e CasinA Additional Insertion3 in Last Column _.RC Si7.e A, B, or N Rotary CacinR Pf� Pipe Orill or Cleanout Tuhe Qu Unconfined Comp. Strength•psf-ASTM O 2166 CS Con�inuous Split Barrel SamplinR Pq Penetrometer Reading•Tons/$quare Foot � Dti1 DrillinR�4ud ' Ts Torvane Reading•Tons'Square foot l�v JettinR�Vater G Specific Gravity-ASTM D 854 SB 2"O.D. Split Barrel $ample $L Shrinkage Limits-ASTM D 427 _L 2 1/2" or 3 1/2" O.D. 58 Liner Sample OC Orga�ic Content•Combustion Method 1 SP Swell Pressure-Tons/ uare Foot _T 2" or 3" Thin��'alled Tube Sample SQ 3TP 3" Thin\�'alled Tube tPitcher Sampler) PS Percent Swe�l _TO 2" or 3" Thin �'1'alled Tube (OsterberR Sampler) FS free Swell -Petcent \Y �1'ach $ample pH Hydrogen lon Content, Meter Method R Bag Sample SC Sulfate Content- PahslMillion,same as mg/L � P Tect Pit Sample � CC Chloride Content• Parts/Million,same as mg/L _Q BQ. NQ, or PQ 11�ireline System C• One Dimensional Consolidation-ASTM D 2435 _X AX. BX, or �X Douhle Tube Barrel Qc' Triaxial Compression � CR Core Recovery- Percent D.S.' Direct Shear-ASTM D 3080 � NSR No Sample Recovered, clacsification baced on action of K• CoeHicient of Pe�meability•cm/sec drillinR equipment and/or material noted in drillinR fluid D• �ispersion Test or on camplinR bit. DH' Double Hydrometer•ASTM D 4221 r !.�1R No Measurement Rec�rded, primarily due to presence MA• Particte Size Anal�Sis-/�STM D 422 • I of drillinR or coring Auid. R laboratory Resistivity, in ohm•cm -ASTM G 57 E• Pressuremeter Deformation Modulus-TSF - � \Nater L'evel Symbol PM' Pressuremeter Test � VS' Field Vane Shear-ASTM D 2573 IR• Infiltrometer Test-ASTM O 3385 RQD Rock Quality Designation'• Percent I ' See attacfied data sheet or graph 1 WATER LEVEL Water levels shown o�the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time and under the conditions indicated.In sand,the indicated levels may be considered reliable ground water levels.tn clay soil,it may not be possible to determine the ground water level within the normal � time required for test borings,except�vhere lenses or layers of more pervious waterbearing soil are present, Even then,an extended period of time may be necessary to reach equilibrium.Therefore,the position of the water levgl symbol for tohesive o�mixed texture soils may not indicate the true level of the ground water table. Perched�•ater refers to water above an impervious layer,thus impeded in reaching the a•ate�table. - The available M•ater le��el information is given at the bonom of the log sheet. , DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY �. DENSITY CONSISTENCY Lamination Up to 1/2"thick stratum TERM "N"VALUE TERM �ayer 1/2" to 6" thick stratum Very Loose 0•4 . Soh Lens 1/2" to 6" discontinous stratum, pocket Loose 5-8 Medium Vaived Alternating laminations of clay,silt and/or fine � Medium Dense 9-15 Rather Stiff grained sand, or colors thereof Dense 16-30 Stiff Dry Powdery, no noticeable water Very Dense Over 30 Very Stiff Moist Below saturation ' Standard "N" Penetration:Blows Per Foot of a 140 Pound Hammer Wet Saturated, above liquid limit Falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD Split Waterbearing Pervious soil below watet Barrel Sampler ' RELATIVE GRAVEL PROPORTIONS RELATIVE SIZES CONDITION TERM RANGE Boulder Over 12" Coarse Grained Soils A little gravel � 2- 14X Cobble 3" - 12" � : With g�avel 15 -497G • Gravel , Coarse 314"-3" Fine Grained Soils . Fine !4-3/4" 15-299G + No. 200 A little gravel . 2. 7�G Sand , 15-29`X + No 200 V1rth grave) 8-29% 309G + No.200 � A little giave) ` �'2 .147L: : ; . � ..> ._ .. ... ._:. ._ _ ......_. ._ . ..... _ ._. _ Coarse �4-/10 ..._, , ..__ . :: . :•. -- Medwm � �10•i40 .: 309G°+"No. 200' ;- -�' wth'grave) -: 15 •247G , . _ ,. �ine � �. �40•i200 . . . - - '�30% + No. 200 ` Gravelly � 16- 49% . � Silt&C1ay —#200. Based on Plasticity �' CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES — . ASTM Designation: 0 24s� - s5 SOIL ENGINEER�NG (Based on Unified Soil Classification System) Soi�Gassiiicatton _ Criteri�lor Assi9ninfl Group Symbols arM Group Nemes U�inp Laboratory Teats" Group � S�� Group NamaB Coarse-Greined Soils Graveb Ckan Graveb Cu14 and 1S�S� GW Well greded grevslf More than 50%retained on More than 50%coars� Lsss than 596 Rnss� � No.200 siew fraction rotainad on Cu<<and/or 1>Cc>3E GP Poorty praded gravelf � No.t sievs Gravsb with Fnes Fnea elassify as ML or MH (iM Silty pravelf.o�+ More ttun 12%tinss� , Finee classify as CL or CH GC Cleyey pawif•aN Sands Cban Sands Cu>8 and 1S�S� SW Weli�ynded sand' 50%or moro of coan� Lesa than 5%fines� iract'an panses No. Cu<8 and/or 1>Cc>3f SP PooAy graded sand� 4 sieve Sanda with Fines Finp classify as ML or MH SM Sitty sand�•K� More than 12%Nnet� ' Fnee classify as CL a CH SC Claysy sand°�a Fnelirainod Soils Silts and qays inorpanic PI>7�nd piots on or abov� CL Lean ck�W , 50%or mo►s pasees th� Liquid limit Isss than 50 "A"Nrw� r NO.200 aNw ._ PI<1 or pbq belcw"/�'• ML Sil�� line� or0anic Liquid IimR-ws�dried OL Orpanic da�-"'�N <0.75 ` Uquid IimR-nol drisd Orqank Nlt�-µo Silts and Clay� inorpanic p�pb�p�pr�pya��q�•Iine CH Fat cla�µ Liquid limit 50 or more _- PI pbta below•'A••line MH Elastic silt"u-~ , orpanic Liquid limit•oven dried OH Orpanic da�KP <0.75 L'puiE Umit-not dried _ ' Orpanic sitt"«~.o Hiyhly orqanic soils Primerily organic matter,dark in color,and orqanie odor PT Peat Fibric Peat > 6796 Fibers Hemic Peat 3396-6796 fibers , Sapric Peat < 3396 Fibers �Bas�d o�1M rr�tKitl pwinp!M 3in.(7'Smm)Wv�. � BM fiek s� ECu - D /D Ce. (��0) �If An�rb�ry limits pbt in hneh�d anti�ou Is a CI�IL. mp�e eontain�0 eobbl�s a bould�rt.a both.add eo ro D .a tilry elay. 'tivilh cobbin a bould�n.a bdh"to proup narn�. ro eo Ktl wN cartairo 15 ro 2g96 plw No.200.add"wiM�arW• �G�Rwk wiM S a 12�6 t!nu nQuin eual rYmb�; fM wi earnalrNZ/5%w+d.�dG'1w1M wrW"a qroup a•1vitA pnv�l;'w�hieMvw M pndominu�t. GWGM wrllyndW pnvN with rilt mny, Lfl wil conuituZ30%plus no.200.Or«1ani�anuY M�d. GWGC w�11yrWW prwN w4h Nay �M fir�cWsity u CL�#IL,uw dwl�ymbol GC13M,a �dd"�andy"to 10 proup n�m�. GP-0M D�Y O�WW 9rav�1 wiM NI1 SGSM. ~M�al oonhina,L30%plw No.200.pWanin�ntlY. D GPGC poay pnOW pravN with daY NII MM an orpanie.Wd'1NtA orp�nk 1k�"b pra+P p�v+1.Wd"pnwly•b qroup ryrM. S�nda with S b t2%Iinu nquin dwl�Y��� nart». ~PI,ZI�nd plols o�a�bow••A••Nn�. SWSM vv�l4yradeC tand with silt �tl wN conta1ro215%prtvN��dd"WM pr�vN"Oo proup �PI<4 a pbts Dslow••A�•lin�. SWSC wNlynO�d s�nd with WY nurn. PPI plots on a atwN••A••Gn�. SP-SM p0prly qradsd s�nd wiM�NI O SF-SC poory phded und wiM cl�y p�P�a�p�,••A••Yrr. " SIEVE ANALY515 � ' Fo�clossitieotion of fine- roined sails I sc�ccw-�� � sievc wo. ( on me-aro�ne rac �ono coaru-9ro� �/ . roo� t�.�k k � w :o .o so �.o xo�o foi t. � H 30 _ � d EQuotion ot�A-IiM `�� I , X Nori:ontol at PI-�to Ll-25.5. t � w :o W a � then PI�0.73(LL-20) ''Ww � .�Pv� = z 2 Epuotioe of�U�-lin� y I �«���^�� a — Vertitol ot lL�16 to PI=7 / d t0 � : I 'O �. � � then PI■0.9 fll-8) �/ G� v W '� I � 6O = ►- � ` _ . . Q �Os�l.Smn� � V y �� V W � i ¢ < 20 —! a :o , eo a d � 8 MH � Of"� I � � o.-o.o,e �' (J� � 10 ° '°° ML OL �.,__ �. �. �. � � - , on !0 10 9 �.o O.] 0.�0 4 ..� PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETER$ � I 0 10 16 20 30 �O SO 60 70 80 90 100 Ii0 � �•'�-003'=0° <<' o,�.�.."a.-d�3's� 110UID LIMIT (LLl • (� tllJlfl CICV CQSCIf'7q - sE-, (se•o) � 7 coraoraoan