Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-01 Soil ReportrlN SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION 6875 HIGI-4WAv NO 65 N E P O BOX 32371 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55,132 JOB No, k-84192 SOIL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNDER THE LINDEN AVENUE ORONO, MINNESOTA A REPORT PREPARED FOR TINGEWOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC, SEPTEMBER, 1984 REPORT ON SOIL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNDER TK' LINDEN AVE ORONO, MINNESOTA This report was prepared by SubterraneLn Engineering Corp. at the request of Mr. Adrian Johnson representing Tingewood Const- ruction, Inc. The purpose of our investigation was to present criteria for foundation design and site development, based on soil exploration, testing and engineering analysis under terms of an agreement dated August 24, 1984 for the Proposed Single Family Dwelling, Under the Linden Avenue, Orono, Minnesota. Specifically our work included: 1. Surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration with a truck - mounted drill rig. 2. Determination of test hole elevations based on geodetic datum. 3. Laboratory observation and classification of samples obtained during the course of this investigation to evaluate the appro- priate characteristics of site soils. 4. Engineering analyses, based on available data abtained from our exploration program and from other data in our files, to providE recommendations for foundation design and site grading. 5. Preparation of this report. SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA PROCEDURE A total of two (2) soil test holes were drilled at the site. The approximate test hole locations are shown on the appended site plan, Drawing No.l and bear the designation TH-1 and TH-2. Our field work foi this project was performed on August 28, 1984 using a truck -mounted CME-45B drill rig. The test holes were advanced with 3k"i.d. x 7"o.d. continuous flight hollow stem augers which act as a casing to prevent collapse of the sides of the holes Standard penetration tests (split -spoon) were performed in advance of the auger tip at 2 to 5 foot intervals of depth, in accordance with procedures designated in A.S.T.M. D-1586, to obtain an indicst on of -,-.lie density or consistency of the soil and to allow visual exam- ination of representative portions of the soil column. Tt.c borings were drilled to a depth of 20 feet, for a total of 40 lineal feet of drilling. The drilling was performed under th observation of a Subterranean Engineering technician who maintained a continuous log of the soil conditions and obtained soil samples for further classification and testing as necessary. The soils wer examined in the laboratory by a Soil Engineer and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, illustrated on the appended chart en'_itled Classification of Soils for Engineer ng Purposes. Detailed soil descriptions along with a plot of the standard penetration test blows per foot are presented on the Borehole Logs, Drawing No.2. Descriptive terminology used on the boring logs is defined in the General Notes also appended to this report. The soil samples will be retained for a period of at least 90 days from the date of issue of this report, after which they will be discarde unless we aLo otherwise notified. All elevations in this report are to geodetic datum, and were obtained using a benchmark supplied by Hickok and Associates (BN1=Lake Minnetonka 929.2 feet- August, 1984). All elevations Are approximate. They should not be used for plan:iing or earthwork oper- ations without confirmation by a Registered Land Surveyor. 1 SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SITE AND GEOLOGY The subject site is located on Fagerness Point, a peninsula of land extending into the West Arm of Lake Minnetonka. An existi g house, which will be raised to accommodate the prop3?ed dwelling, currently occupies the site. The existing topography of the prop- erty generally slopes downward toward Lake Minnetonka, with eleva- tions at the borings of 933.2 feet (TH-1) and 931.6 feet (TH-2), and at the edge of the lake at 929.2 feet. Natural inorganic soils in this area consist of clayey glacial till related to the Des Moines ice lobe of the Wisconsin glaciation, and alluvial soils derived from the till soils. During post -glacial times, a surface layer of organic soils has formed. Mixed fill currently rovers the surface at the borings. According to information published by the State of Minnesot Geologi^al Survey, the uppermost bedrock stratum under this area is believed to be Jordan sandstone or St. Lawrence dolomite, and probably occurs at consideia tiie depth below ground surface. SOIL CONDITIONS Three basic soil types werE encountered in the borehol,_:s. These are: mixed fill and organic soils; clayey alluvium; and clayey glacial till. Mi>,:!d Fill and Organic Soils A layer of mixed fill and organic soils cover the surface at the test holes. This layer ex=ends to a depth of 5.5 feet at TH-1 and 6.5 feet at TH-2. This deposit consists of a mixture of sandy clay, sandy silt, organic sandy clay, and clayey silt. It is moist to saturated and generally in a soft condition. In its existing condition the mixed fill and topsoil is not suitable for foundation or f iuor s! ah support.. It -i l 1 be npr^e��3 y to remove this soil from below footings and floor slabs. This material is generally not suitab'e for re -use as a structural fill material. SUBTERRANEAN EAGINEERING CORP. Y �♦ MINIVEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA Clayey Alluvium Underlyina the mixed fill and organic soils at each boring is z, deposit of clayey alluvium. I* is likely that the alluvium was derived from the underlying glacial till, by ctream action or shoreline de-elopment processes. The alluvium consists of blue -grey fine to coarse sandy cla with trace -,ravel content. It extends to a depth of 7.5 feet at TH-1 -ind 13.5 feet at TH-2. It is slightly to :moderately plastic. It also contains roots in the upper few feet at Test Hole 2. Standard penetration test values i-, the alluvium vary from 4 to ? blows per foot, generally representative of a stiff to tough condition. Hewe,,er, soft zones were noted to a depth of app7oximately 10 feet at Th-2. The alluvial clay generally has low t:) moderate load bearini ,-apacity and lc,- compressibility and is a suitable foundation for support of both footings and floor slaLs. However, the upper few feet of alluvium at TH-2 is sot_ and is not suitable for footing support. It is likely that this sift zone covers a larger area in close proximity to the lake. Clayey Glacial T,ll Tr.e major soil type at this property occurs at a depth of 7.5 feet at Hole i and 13.5 feet at Hole 2, and extends beyond the 20 foot terminate depth of both borings. It consists of green -grey and dark grey, fine to coarse sandy clay with trace gravel content, and includes lenses of clayey san'. The till is slightly plastic. Standard penetration test values Within the till vary fi:om 10 to 21 blows per foot representative of a tough to very tough consis- tency. This deposit has moderate load -bearing capac:*y and low compressibility. It is a suitable foundation subsoil. bUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA b GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Free groundwater was observed in both borings during our short period of observation, at final depths and corresponding elevations listed below: TEST GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER VOLE DEPTH (feet)_ ELEVATION ( feet) 1 3.5 929.7 4 4.0 927.6 The water elevation of Lake Minnetonka at the time of our investigation was 929.2 feet (from Hickok Associates). It is likely that groundwater seepage in'-o excavations exter ding just a few feet below the existing ground surface will occur. The quantity of such seepage should be such that it could be handled with conventional sump pumping operations. The relatively shallow groundwater should be considered in establishing finished floor levels for the dwelling and garage. DEVELOPMENT PLANS It is proposed to construct a single family dwelling with attached 2-car garage at this site. An existing smaller dwelling currently or_apies the site and will be removed. Detailed structural plans for the wilding were not availabl at the time of our investigation. We have t-c- informed that the building will have overall dimensions of 27 feet by 55 Beet and wil maintain approximately the same setbacksas the existing building. The lowest design floor elevation of the building is estimated to be 934.5 feet. The dwelling will have a crawl space below the first floor. The garage will have a slab -on -grade floor. Structure of this type are generally one to two stories in height, with masonry bearing walls to first floor level, and wood frame constru tion above. Structural footing ana garage slab loads are relativel light. r' SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. x MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The existing fill and organic sells at this site are not suitable for support of a single family Cwelling. Some soil corr- ection work will be necessary to remove the unsuitable near su rf_ac soils and to densify loose or soft zones exposed during grading. The house will have a crawl space below the first floor in the living area. The garage floor will be designed as a slab -on -grade The existing fill, organic soils, and underlying soft alluvium should be removed from below footings, floor slabs, and associated oversizing areas. The thickness of unsuitable soils and corres- ponding elevation of the top of foundation subsoils suitable for footing support at our borings is esti:,,a*-d to be: TEST THICKNESS OF HOLE UNSUITABLE SOILS _`eet) ELEVATION OF TOP OF SUITABLE SUBSOILS ( feet) 1 5.5 927.7 2 10.0 921.6 As indicated above, the soft to stiff alluvial soils betwee the dep'-hs of 6.5 and 10 feet at Test Hole 2 are not suitable for footing support. However, these soils are suitable for support of the proposed garage slab. As a result, it will only be necessary to subcut to a depth of approximately 6.5 feet (Elev. 925.1 feet) below the garage slab in the vicinity of Test Holt 2. In the living area where no concrete slabs -on -grade are proposed, it will be necessary to excavate only for the footings, to the estimated elevations tabulated above. These footings can bear directly on the native, tough, clayey till. Due to the relatively high water table, it will be necessary to adequately dewater the footing excavations prior to casting footings. The footings should be excavated in small areas, and the concrete cast with a minimum of delay to avoid softening of the native clayey soils. It may be necessary to place an approximately 1 foot thick ness of washed gravel at the base of the ^xcavations to provide a wTiKing area, and to protect the clay from softening. SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. n MINNEAPOLIS, M.NNESOTA Below the g,.rage slab -on -grade, it will be necessary to remo the mixed fill and organic soils and replace them witll compacted structural fill. The excavation should be oversized a minimum horizontal distance beyond the outer edge of perimeter footings 1 foot for each 1 foot of vertical cut, or 6 feet, whichever is greater. Temporary sideslopes of the excavation should not be steeper- than 1 horizontal: 1 vertical. The removed material is gen erally not suitable for re -use as structural fill and should be disposed of off site or in landscape areas. Non -organic portions of the existing fill can be selectively re -used as structural fill. A qualified Suil Engineer s►-ould work with the grading contractor to determine the suitability of re -using excavated materials and to determine the actual required excavation d.,pths in both footing ai,d slab areas, during grading. The excavation will likely extenu below the water table. For practical reasons, where it extends below the water table, the exposed base does not requ_re compaction. However, the excavation should be adequately dewatered and the base visible to so that obsLrvations and shallow hand auger prob-s can be made at t.►e botto Fill necessary to reach design grade should consist of ( s~.' sand or gravel with less than 10% passing the No.200 sieve, and free of foreign material or debris. It should be spread in loo lifts limited to 8 inches in thickness, and compacted to an average of 92% Maximum Modified Proctor Dry Density, A.S.T.M. D-1557 with individual values of at least 90�, Modified Proctor. If adequate d-watering is not possible, c':eck borings throug the completed fill above bases obscured by water and slurry will be necessary, to verify that all unsuitable soils have been removed. The proposed building may be supported upon conventional relatively shallow spread footing foundations founded on approved compacted fill or approved native subsoils. A ne' allowable soil bearing Pressure of 1500 pol.nds per square foot ahould be used for the footing design. SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA e All perimeter footings in heated portions of the building must be a minimum of 3h feet below outside finished grade for frost protection purposes. Perimeter footings in unheated portions such as the outside garage walls should be at least 4 feet below outside grade. Continuous strip footings under bearing walls should be at least 18 inches wide, for practical reasons. To inhibit potential problems due to seasonal freeze -thaw cycles, all exterior items that are not structurally supported including sidewalks, garage aprons, patio slabs etc. should be structurally independent of the building, and unrestrained in their movement. The site should be graded to provide positive drainage of runoff away from the building in all directions. Driveway Pavement Organic soils and inadequate:y compacted fill remaining bolo driveway areas should be stripped and removed to a minimum 24-inch depth, and replaced with approved compacted fill. The base of the excavation should be compacted to a minimum of 95% Maximum Modified Proctor Dry Density, A.S.T.M. D-1557. Fill necessary to reach design pavement grade should be an approved inorganic soil, free of any foreign material or debris. It should be spread in 6 to 8-inch maximum loose lifts and should be compacted to achieve at least 95% Maximum Modified Proctor Dry Dens ty A.S.T.M. D-1557. Conventional flexible pavement design may be used above such a prepared subgrade. This pavement recommendation is based on economics and the relative risks involved. It is similar to those used successfully at sites with similar soil conditions. However, where buried organ c soils remain below the pavement, some subsidence may occur and future additional maintenance of the pavement should be anticipated In order to reduce the potential for pavement distress, the uncompa cted mixed fill and organic soils beneath the pavement section woul have to be entirely removed. SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. MINNEAPOLIS, 'AINNESOTA GENERAL Soil deposits may vary in type, strength arl many other important properties between points of observation and exploration. Additionally, ground water and soil moisture cond.i.tions can vary seasonally or tor other reasons. Therefore, it imrt be recognized that we do not and cannot have a complete knowledge of the subsurfa e conditions underlying the subject site. The criteria presented are based upon the findings at the points of exploration and upon interpretive data, including interpolation and extrapolation of information obtained at points of observation. During construction, all excavations, earthwork, fill place- ment and compaction, and foundation installations should be monitor d and tested by a qualified Soil Engineer. We would be please3 to provide the necessary field engineering observation and testing services. The recommendations con taine-,d in this report are intended ..,,lely for a project of the type described herein. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the building are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid, unless the changes ate reviewed and the conclusions of this report ire modified or verified in writing. SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Tingewood Construction: Inc. and their agents for specific applica- tion to Proposed Single Family, Under the Linden Avenue, Orono, Minnesota in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering p-actices. No other warranty, expressed, or implied, is made. Submitted September 19, 1984 SUBTERRANEAN FNGINEERING CORP. 7ACC�►� William D. Plate Senior Soil Engineer .'innesota P.E. 16043 %vitr. 1)y - S� Mervyn Andess Registered Professional Engineer WDP:MM/pg Distribution: 4 cc Tingewood construction, Inc. 1 cc File SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEER!NG CORP. n MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA N ;7) Q as Z e LEA \ �w w \�. w oW.-zI`J moxwWoaw •400 W � r kt /_� O }, z S�` O O Ci�WW Cl�-uzi W W t: z z W r0 t r_ V :n as 00 p 04 ON u�• �a _ •O �n • wJ , ; ! �O La y y r, J mjp OO U .i .r 1 m •.� .-. W C .+ N el7 y u Q U>1 T O G r7 O E m ♦/ W � y u u • .L: m C ro .,, H I m u .r n••-. ° W H v N w w 1 FF c • � F E `viU. V°, C, %00 Ow �U tOa a U Et°n ;; vpi W w ` O � � s � i W z ~ 0 O W %A I udi � .• 0 °u �� ti N O fd I I 1 IFE I I � N � CV 0. F z 0 .a O W U z Z z_ MQ W •� F' 2 0 cc ^ d :/ Z U) w z 0 Im.r -- -44 O O c t. 41 O U.c G•C�• A > V E A'u J— O a1 y .. ai mm a+ a m m + O a o w a^ d .0 v O U ro mr.w t7 y� a 1 H Haw M w a�bO uO O F WA m u L0+ � E rn cUo NO �U J A > ro 'O tiMd L7 >.� 80 u U A- y> U CGJ U >. C4 E Q N' U U y .Cy7 G itl G m H C: y "• u -� . •vyy��1�1 �Idm GI b' i7 c m C U l!�h Aj y j b1l a m c H aJ C IV N ID O w udl �C .•/ O• 0, mro cfJ! v .• �. »a � 'O u tr u i- Gi � m 11 E IJ O � V . Cf`C' - L 1 . H � ..C+ a! ..)W H •p H G7 > tr ,., v; •� I n m :: - '� '' T_ U a s m im Z z fo ra U m .44 2 I• ?1 ► 1 x..$ -- t- i t{ CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING_ PURPOSES ASTM Desi pailon: D 2467 — 66 T AND D 2466 — 66 T Unified Soil CNwifiatma System Now dvislena 0 ' 0 1 Typical issenes laboratory dasihCRsen C111ebss Wellgadedgrewb, D graval�and wu /Ox7a- Ci, great or than 4. G - between 1 and GW mixtures. finleorn�frnr� j DI„ c Dt0XOw GP Poorly flradad eraveh. Pavel „ Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW send rni,TurM little or no fames . h ■ C d Silty gravels. gravel7and4h Artertm'j limrtsbelow "A" i `fir GM mixtures fi line to P i im than / # u is: t7 t s Above ..A.* line w" F.I. ,6 between a land 7 we bo , --- - - u = 3 i . - --between &der i can ri quirbtg use at GC i aaYw vowels. gravel sand -clay s � - Iiu.Dero hmirs above ..A.. � of dual syrstOMs - , waturas I linev. th P I greater than 7 than I SW Wel4teded sends. atavelly (c Dau IDxilt sands, little or no fines - Cu - Peat« than 8. C C rn�an obin-~ 1 and 3 Dio f : Poorly graded sends, grswlly ■ Sp erids. lire ti no fines S }' Not melting all gradation requirements for SW s Y t Atttarbe knits below A SM — Sifty sands. sandsiM mi,rures a n N u line or P I Nss than / Limits pbning in hatched _ u o zone with P.I. bMwtpn 4 and 7 we borAkws reps S ! a I I ` • ' rewiring use of dud virm- ? Clan •y sands ind I'•y mix R Atterbarg limits above "A" pas. Sc lures "n 'n I fine Meth ►.I gryatM then 7 I � Inorganic silts and vary fi sertda, rock flour. silty nr Cley PAL ey fine said@ or cleyey silts i L= with slight plasticity 11"Nowr4c: :Jays of low to fM !!■ CL dium plasticity, gravelly dsys. aridr days. silty Nays. law Q s q Z i� OL Organic ants and organic fitly Clays of Imw PUMCIty MM Inorganic Wts. mineeose or diatome:904r• fine sandy or ailty eplts. OIMK nits CH Inorganic dM of h4h plee• ticity. fet Cleve - ON Organic cis" of if urn to high plasticity• organic sift. 1! n Peet anJ other highly organic I alb 60 50 �0 70 10 7 4 0 For classification of fineSminad smile sad fire fraction of co@M- PsMsd soils. Atterberg Limits plotting in hatched area are bordsrfin l tale• CM ficatiore requiring uss of dual Equation of A -lire PI-0.79ILL 20) I r ON on a MH i 1 CL l I ML4MWOL 0 10 20 20 40 8o W 7'4 00 to ifs Liquid UimW PlaltleMy Chwt subterranean engineering Corp. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsurface conditions than any other factor As troublesome as sub- surface problems can be their frequency and extent have been lessened considerably in recent years thanks to the Association of Soil and Foundatiun Engineers tASFE) When ASFE was founded in 1969 subsurface problems were frequently being resolved through lawsuits In fact, the situation had grown to such alarming proportions that consulting geotechnical engineers had the worst profes- sional liability record of al! deign professionals By 1980 ASFE-member consulting stl and Mundotion enainem had the best p►*ssionaf Withty ►Alvd This dramatic turn -about can be attributed directly to client acceptance d problem -solving programs ar.d materials developed by ASFE for its mem- bers application Thnoii.rtonceins01nedfrcuustdW?1l$ ri'►rnsrd the ASiE appriv,N to be in thnr,�i•n kst inleresrs Disputes benefit r•nl, th( •,e who earn their living from others disagreements The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays. cost -over. runs and other costly headaches that can occur during a ,-on,truction project A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS Ageotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of protect -specific factors These typically include the general nature of the structure imalved its sut and configuration the location M the structure on the site and its onentation physical concomitants such as access roads parking lots and underground utilities and the level of additional nsk which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory program Te help avoid costly prob lens ccm,ult the geot �chnical engineer to determine how any factors which change subsequent to the date of his report may affect his recommendations Unless your consulting gtotechnical engineer indicates otherwise engrnrenng rrrwi Avid not iw used • When the nature cif the proposed structure is changed. for example if an riffice building will be erected instead of a parlung garage or if a refriger- ated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefng- erated one. • when the sire or configuration of the proposed structure is altered • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified • when there is a change of ownership or • for application to an adjacent site A Wankmcal engtnrrr canny auepr mWmukktV br prublrms usi ch mwp Jew4op it he r, rill caiwGed aid factors cowsi,![eerl in his reports devektpment note (howm MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FlNDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES Site exploration identifies actual s!-hsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. when they are taken Data derived through sdmphng and suusequent Laboratory testing dre extrapolated by the geotechrucal engitsrer whu then renders an opinion aho A uve►all sub- urt.,c r• conditions their likely reaction to proposed con• struction activity and appropriate foundation design Even under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ from those opined to exist because nc get techrucal en- gineer no mattui how qualified and no subsurface cxplo- ratios program no matter how comprehensive, wri reveal what is t+idden by earth. rock and time For example the actual interface between materials may be tar more gradiml or abrupt than the report indicates and actual condition, u, areas not sampled may differ from predic- tions NMh;ng can fir done to p►ornt the unantinpatr! but ster+s can br rhos tr hdr Pr,nimrr thin impart For this reason most exp "mciti,wno, mar, !hnrgroteihnual,onsufrant ih.rouuh the ,.arshumon rt.we to identify vanances conduct additional tests which mar be needed and to recommend ,olunons if pro,.hlems en.-tintered on site SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE Sul,%urface:onditiuns may he modified by constantly- char.ging natural force, lsecause a geotechnical engineer- ing report v, based on c +nditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration comartimm decisions sknuk: n,+l be I Jse: ,+rt a ,N, trehnital fegrnrrrtiW report %how adegua; y may how fern a►!.-aed hu lime Speak with the geotechnical consultant to learn It additional tests are advisable before construc- tion starts Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods earthquakes or groundwater fluctuations may ZINC) affect subsurface conditions and thus the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report the geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any such events and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Costly problems can occur when other design profession. 31s develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a ec,technical engineering report To help avoid these prob- lems thegeotechnical engineer should be retained to work Kith other appropnate design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to sreotechnical I REA. rES. 'ONSIBIUTY CLAUSES I Issues CLC . LY BORING LOG: 11. D NOT BE SEPARATED Fk. :_ ENGINEERING REPORT Final bonng logs are developed by the geotechnical en- gineer based upon his In': rji�w.atlon c. field logs lassem- bled by site pemonnell and laboratory evaluation of field samples Only final boring logs customarily are Included in geotechnical engineering reports Tfww 1* should not umkr any amumstawes fir Wnirwit for Inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process Although photo- graphic reproduction eliminates this problem it does nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misin- terpretating the logs during bid preparation When this occurs. delays. d-sputes and unantic,pated costs are the all -too -frequent result To minimize the likelihood of bonng log misinterpretation. p t contrairors roily aam to Uri conWkr geotetiimu it enonee irg ►r vrt Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaivm impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate scale Because geotechnical engineering is based extertsvvefy on judgement and opinion it is far less exact than other design disciplines This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical consultants lb help prevent this problem. geotechnical engineers have developed model clauses for use in written transmittals These are mot exculpatory clauses designed to foist the geotet hnical engineers liabilities onto someone else Rather. they are definitive clauses which Identify where the geotechnical engineer's responsibilities begin and end Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your geotechnical engineering report. and you are encouraged to read them closely Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK Y6ur cnnsulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to discuss other techniques which can be employed to miti- gate risk !n addition. the Association of Soil and Fcxinda- tion Engineers has developed a vanety of materials which may be beneficial Contact ASFE for a complimentary copy of its publications directory AMC--AATION OF XX AND FOUNDATION ENGNEERS 8811 Colesville Road/Suite 225 Silver Spring. Maryland 20910 301/565-2733 GENERAL NOTES DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY DENSITY CONSISTENCY APP1OX UNCONFINED TERM N VALUE TERM N VALUE COMPRESSION STRENGTH Very loose 0-4 Soft 0-4 0 — 1:00 pet ►.eose S-10 Stiff 5-3 1200 — 2000 psf Medium Dense 11-30 Tough 9-1.1 2000 — 4000 psf Dense 31-50 Very Tough 16.30 4000 — 8000 psf Ve•y Dense Over SO Hard Over 30 Over — $000 psf RELATIVE PROPORTIONS MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION TERM RANGE TERM SItI Tracer 0 — S o/o Boulder Over B inches A tittle 6 - 15 0/o Cobble B — 4 inches Some 16 - 300/0 Mod Course Gavel 4-3/1 inches With 31 - SOo/o Fine Gravel 3/1 in -NO 10 sieve Sand No 10 sieve - No 200 sieve Sill and Ciay Finer than 200 sieve MOISTURE DESCRIPTION DEGREE OF SATURATION % Ory 0 Mumi d 1- 23 Domp 23-30 Moist 50-73 Wet 79-99 Soturoted 100 WATER LEVEL SYNKX - Z Wrath levels shown on the boring low are the levels measured in the borings at the tin* and under ow conditions indicated In sand. the indicated levels can be cone4o reliable ground water levels. In clay soil it is not possible to detsrmins the ground water level within the normal scope of a test borrno invost•,:.'.^r. excep, ovhere IeneM or Isyers of nmre pervious waterbearing soil are prow-nt and then a lore psriod of term may be noosseery to rersch equilibrium. Therefore. the position of the water level symbol for cohesive or mixed texture &oils may not indicate the trio level of the ground water table. The available warn Wool intonation to given at the botliom of Via log sN&et. L.&B7EMANEANENGNVEER[NG CORP. SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. Nam 6875 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Kcne: 546.6931 Do 'e Job Neme S AI fjf- J.b N.. X,6 4 / 9 Job Location 1 `i.3Z �AA'r h tSS fir Rd. 0IQ'o p�N. Eer+Arak contreNor /'P%Psr e," ^/ _ C"( •1_ // v6eSyv o p `oysr. Mc . Arrive Job [*age 1 6 M r Total DepeAJob j OO Trerel Time /o4rt., _ Chergeeole 7¢ Lab. Time Hour Total H.— ..Job T �� Report Time/ ?r( Sumnw►y of Technical end/or &4nearing Sere* -es performed, including Field Test Data. Lace+ions, Elevations, and Depths are saiii ated. THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY STATEMENTS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS REPORT CONSTITUTE AN INTEG. RAL PART HEREOF. At the request of the earthwork contractor we were called to the situ to inspect the type of fill tc be used to reach footing subgrade. The fill consists of a fine to coarse sand, with a little gr.vel, and trace silt. This material should he adequate if water is to be en- countered during filling. We also recommended that dewaterinz would be necessary. if water — seepage accumulates 6-inches or more, in depth in the excavation. DISTR I WTION IC-C. DdN /e-c Oeoo"'o-t- THESE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY STATEMEATS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS REPORT: I. In performing our professional se vies with regard to earthwork inspection and quality control, our findings will be obtained and our recommendations made, in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. We will observe, monifor and test this work, and may advise or make recommendations, but we are not guarantors. This warranty is in heu of all other warranties either expresser: or implied. 2.Subterranean Engineering does not practice in ;he field of land surveying, and is not responsible for the accuracy of jrads stakes end/or building location stakes of this jobsite. There must be adequate construction stakes, clearly-arked, to enable our ail inspector to property assess the excavation. We will not L. responsible for any harm- ful consequences resulting from improper or incorrect construction staking. 3. The field density test data presented with this report represents the values at par. ficla► localized points within the earthwork. Alhough this is believed to be fairfy repro santative of the condition of the fill placed and compacted on this date, condition of other locations and elevations in the fill may vary, and we do not warrant or guarantee uniform fill densities. 4. We cannot certify, ei+sr expressly or by implication, the quality of any work on firs project which we did not have the opportunity to oL serve at first hand. Inspection of " earthwork project at irregular intervals does not pormit the inspector to assess the full scope of the contractor's activities. S. If the - -icture is redesigned in size and shape, or if it is otherwise moved subeequent to our inspection, we should be notified so that we can assess if additional inspection work is required, or suggesl sound engineering alternatives. We are not responsibie for any soil -foundation, system where the struct,we has been relocated with respect to excavation and fill area, subsequent to our inspection. k I OCT 17 r�l4 _. til ?0,�� SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. 6875 Highway No. 65 N.E. P.O. Box 32371 PAT[ 1 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA Phone 574-1242 EARTHWORK OBSERVATION REPORT Oct4e 121] I Job Name h1lt__farvl�lyi 11ln JoD No.ti02 Job Location _ 1�3L.. Fo�eJr _,Rdr QNo�l►L+� Earthwork �rN 'n� Contractor /I CSSta „t•. Client/ ! rJ Arrive Job—ILMileage 56,-1 Total DODart Job /r• 4s Travel Tlms ��¢k_NChar9eabIo Hours Lab. Time Total Hours LI� �1 En9'► On Job _ hft- Report Time -_-!' _ Review Time_— —Q4SERVED xCAVATION: "ck ---- seat ILL PLACEMENT' Lot --- - — - Block Plat Summary of Technical and for Engineering Services performed Includina Field Toot Date, Locations, Elevation*, and Depths are estimated. THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY STATEMENTS ON THE REVERSE E OF THE COMPACTION QUALITY CONTROL TEST REPORT CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRAL PART HEREOF. .7 �, feat deep ',/ _ feet deep 1. Excavation Is�,�t�Elevatlon at I'9rading to Elevation at ___ and i 2. Side Slopes 1rrl spprox.: rart. ,jam 1/2 horiz.: lvert. El horiz.: 1 art. L7 tioriz: 1 vert. ❑ flatter than 2:1 ❑ other. __ E 3. Construction S 1 Is: adequate,)r not available ri Incomplete [ 1 X 4. Excavation Is oversized . S _ feet outside of building llnes. C 5. Excavation Is: dry ❑ wet j$I A 5s. Wader Is seeping from V Sb. Depth of water In excavatio•. at.Grox. +0 C.. A 5c. Dewatering is. necessary ❑ mt requited T S. Excavation is with : dra9lina ❑ backho• sstsPot ❑ dollar ❑ a ;.' 1 7. All unsuitable molls have bean excavated. YES 54-" NO ❑ O 74. __ _. feet of . ____.—____. _. _- _.-- soil rams ins to be removed. N S. Soil at excavation base Is: it Silty Clay ❑ Sandy Clay Clayey Slit ❑ Sllty and Clayey Sand ❑ Clean Sand ❑ the► 9. _.--�5.-.__ _ feet of fill required to reach design subgrod4jR y, h."? 110. Excavation Is: Approved � Not Approved ❑ fo pls ant. 11. FIR is __ .. --- --- - --- (type of soil) 11a. Imported ❑ On -site borrow ❑ 11b. Compaction is with •hespefoot roller ❑ manual tamper ❑ vibratory [j F smooth drum roller ❑ self-prop3ltod ❑ non -vibratory ❑ 1 12. Performed __ -.. field density tests. See Compaction Quality Control L Test Report No. L 13. ..__._.__ feet of ►lit remains to be placed. 14. Density lost• most compsction s')eciflcatlons. YES ❑ NO ❑ 14m. Test No's. ____ __-__ .___-_—_ _-__ did not meet co action specifications. 1S.Additional observations / r10uU4d. YES NO ❑ FROST ADJACENT r C WEATHER CONDITIONS: IT DEWATERING: PROTECTION: STRUCTURES: ��/wall point• ❑ straw blankets ❑ _t--x-LHot ❑ Dry J;_deep walla❑ loose •oil ❑ Warm ❑ Rain ❑ I open ditch ❑ frost ripping ❑ within 20 lost Cool 4.4' Snow n A O sump PUMP ❑ temp. heat 0 20-40 for, ❑ > 32' F Sother ❑ other _— U 40 or resro feet ❑ Sub-fTe*zh DIST��UTIO J .. _ L cc: __j0QA1_f4_ _.Fj PI61— cc: aC: b!ubt9rj - -- — can gineering Corp. THESE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY STATEMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS REPORT: I. In performing our processional services with regard to earthwork inspection and r,ualHy control, our findings will b, obtained and our recommendations made, in accordance with generelfy accepted e, o;ieering principles and practices. We will ^bserve, monitor and test this worm, and may advise or make recommendations, but we are not guarantors. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. 2. Subterranean Engineering does not practice in the field of land surveying, and is not responsible for the accuracy of grade stakes and/or building location stakes at this jobsife. There must be adectuate construction stakes, clearly marked, to enable our soil inspector to properly assess the c•cavatio, . We will not be respo^-;ble for any harm- ful consequences resulting from improp,r or incorrect construction ..eking. 3. The field density test data prasentea with this report represents tho valve: at per- ticier "hod points within the earthwork. Alhough this is befievod to be fairfy repre- sentative of the condition of the fill placed and compacted on this date, conditions at other locations and elevations in the fill may vary, and we o not warrant or guarantee uniform fill densities. 4. We cannot certify, either ;,xprwly or by imptication, the quality of any work on this project which we did not have the cpportunity to obseree at first hand. Inspection of the earthwork project at irregular intervals does not permit the inspector to assess the feel scope of the contractor's activities. 5. If 'he structur_ is redesigned in size and shape, or if it is otherwise moved subsegtwh to cur inspection, we should be notified so that we can assess if additional inspection work is required, or suggest sound engineering alternatives. We are not responsible for any soil -foundation system where the structure has been relocated with respect to excavation and fill area, subsequent to our inspection. SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. 6875 Hlphway No. 65 N.E. P.O. Box 32371 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55432 574-1242 ' COMPACTION QUALITY CONTROL TESTS Project Single Family Dwelling Report No. 2618 English St. Maplewood Job No. Sand Cone Method 0 Indicated Percent Compaction: ASTM Nuclear ❑ % Max. Modified Proctor Dry Density D-1557 Other ❑ ❑ % Max. Standard Proctor Dry Density D-698 Test No. ELEV. AND/OR DEPTH BELOW Wet Density 0! Total Sample Delude -Stone) MOISTURE CONTENT % Dry Density For Slone) Masimum Laboratory Dry Densily Pei Compocton RECOMMENDATIONS REMARKS Fooltn De .1, de Fill Surface 1984 -111 929' 128.E 4.3 122.8 127.8 9 Meets specs 11 2 -11' 929' 131.9 3.7 126.8 127.8 99 I NOTES I) ALL TESTS CORRECTED FOR STONE CONTENT, WHERE APPLIC: BLE . 2 ) APPROXIMATE DENSITY TEST LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN BELOW 2. i — - _ { • r SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. 6875 Highway No. 85 N.E. P.O. Box 32371 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55432 574-1242 COMPACTION QUALITY CONTROL TESTS Project Single Family Dwelling Report No. 2618 English St. Maplewood Job No. —XLZ A Sand Cone Method 0 Indicated Percent Compaction: ASTM Nuclear ❑ % Max. Modified Proctor Cry Density 0-1537 Other ❑ ❑ % Max. Standard Proc`.or Dry Density 0- i 98 ELEV. ANO/OR DEPTH BELOW Wet Density Total Sample Includnq Slam) 4015T URE CONTENT /° ° Dry Densny ( Comet. e Fnr Sloe! 1 Maximum L:iwro+an Dry Deasitr ; , i ';' ° -p„potlw^ RECDMMENOATIONS REMARKS DOtQ TestOf No. lFill Fooling r Grade 0•si n Grade Surface Ict. 12 1984 3 -6' 923.5' 139.3 11.0 124.1 ' 127.81 97 It 'Meet. secs. " 4 -3' 926,S' 127.7 4.6 121.S j:t9.8f t 95 " it 5 -41 925.S' 138.7 13.2 120.8 127.8 9S " NOTES I) ALL TESTS CORRECTED FOR STONE CONTENT WHERE APPLICABLE 21 APPROXIMATE DENSITY TEST LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN BELOW fog 1� I 1 i iJr owl _— SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING CORP. r 8975 Highway No. 05 N.E. P.0 aox 32371 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55432 574-1242 COMPACTION QUALITY CONI ROL TESTS Project Single I:,im i ] x• Dwelling Report No. . 3 193? ingcrnes� 1'�_ Rd. 0.011° Job No. X—P-Y//% Sand Cone Metho.' Z Indicated Percent Compaction: ASTM Nuclear ❑ % Max. Modified Proctor Dry Density D-1557 04her ❑ ❑ % Max. Standard Proctor Dry Density D-698 •tDO1e • .. Test NO. E'- EV. 4N0 ! OR DEPTH BELOW Fooling r Gro' FlaDeunGr� ,yet Density Of Total Sample 1"cludnq Stone► Mt.'STURE CO0/' /i. Or-, Density maximum (Correcle( Lobaat For Stone;irti�""h y t 1 Comaoctbn RECOMMENDATIONS REMARKS F7 t t ur acs OCt. 18 1984 6 -11' 929' 136.3 ( 6.7 1.'6.S 127.E 99 Meets specs 7 -3'r' 926' 138.2 9.7 124.7 1?'.8 98 " c1L q 13' 7 7.2 126.2 127.8 qy i ter_ I NOTES: 1.) ALL TESTS G, rED °OR STONE CONTENT, WHEF.- APPLICABLE. 2 ) APPROXIMATE DENSITY TEST LOCATIONS ARE SHCWN BELOW.