The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport of Geotechnical Exploration & Review-2013 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIE�VV 1105 Ferndale Road West Orono, Minnesota Report No. 01-05798 Date: June 21,2013 Prepared for: Lind Nelson Construction,Inc. 3794 299`�Avenue NW . Isanti,Minnesota 55040 AMERICAN coNsu�TANTs � ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING� INC. • MATOERIALSICAL - • FORENSICS June 21, 2013 -- Lind Nelson Construction,Inc. 3794 299�'Avenue NW Isanti,Minnesota 55040 Attn: Jeff Nelson RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Ferndale Road West Orono,Minnesota Report No. O1-05798 � Dear Mr.Nelson: American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AE'1� is pleased to present the results of our subsurface ' exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for the proposed new single family home at 1105 Ferndale Road West in Orono, Minnesota. These services were performed , according to our proposals dated May 1 and May 23, 2013. We are submitting 2 copies of the report.to you along with an electronic pdf copy. Please contact me if you have any questions about the report. I can also be contacted for arranging construction observation and testing services during the earthwork phase. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing,Inc.� `��y� , J P. Brekke,PE Staff Engineer II Phone: (651) 789-4645 �brekke(a�amenQtest:com Page i � 550 Cleveland Avenue North�St. Paul,MN 55114 Phone 651-659-9001�Toll Free 800-972-6364� Fax 651-659-1379�www.amengtest.com�AA/EEO �� This document shall not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval from American Engineering Tesling,Inc. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Ferndale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. SIGNATURE PAGE Prepared for: Prepared by: Lind Nelson Construction, Inc. American Engineering Testing, Inc. 3794 299�'Avenue NW 550 Cleveland Avenue North Isanti,Minnesota 55040 St.Paul,Minnesota 55114 Attn: JeffNelson (651)659-9001/www.amengtest.com Authored by: Reviewed by: ��Zy� � ay P. Brekke, PE Steven D. Koenes, PE Staff Engineer II Principal Engineer I hereby certify that this plan,specification,or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under Minnesota Statute Section 326.02 to 326.15 Date: ��,� License#:25631 Copyright 2013 American Engineering Testing,Inc. All Rights Reserved Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project. Page ii Report of Geotechnical Ezploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS TransmittalLetter........................................................................................................ ................ i SignaturePage ................................................................................................................................ii ... TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................ 1 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION...................................................................... . ........................... 1 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING.......................................................... ......2 4.1 Field Exploration Program.................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ 3 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS................................................................................................................. 3 5.1 Surface Observations.................................................................................................. ....... 3 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology...................................................................................................... 3 5.3 Ground Water........................................................................................................................4 6.0 RECO1vIIvIENDATIONS..........................................................................................................4 6.1 Discussion..............................................................................................................................4 6.2 Building Grading...................................................................................................................6 6.3 Driven Pipe Pile.....................................................................................................................6 6.4 Helical Piers...........................................................................................................................7 6.5 Pile Caps and Grad Beams.................................................................................................... 8 6.6 Floor Slab Design.................................................................................................................. 8 6.7 Underground Utility Construction.........................................................................................8 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................9 7.1 Potential Di�culties.................................................................................................:............9 7.2 Excavation Backsloping .......................................................................................................9 7.3 Observation and Testing........................................................................................................9 8.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................... 10 Page iii ', � I I Report oTGeotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. APPENDIX A—Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes � Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Consolidation Test Results APPEND�X B—Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use i Page iii Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. lA INTRODUCTION A new single family home is planned at 1105 Femdale Road West in Orono, 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's services were performed according to our proposals dated May 1 and May 23, 2013. The authorized scope consists of the following: • Three standard penetration test borings to depths of about 45 to 75 feet; • Soil laboratory testing; and, • Geotechnical engineering analysis based on the gained data and preparation of this report. These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION �I It is our understanding that the site was previously occupied by a single family home which was I recently demolished. It is our understanding that the new house will be a two story structure with attached garage. It is our understanding that the finished floor will be set at an elevation of 934.0 feet. The garage floor at the apron elevation is planned at 933.5 feet. According to Mattson Macdonald Young, Inc., wall loads are estimated to be up to about 5 kips per foot with column loads of about 36 kips. Page 1 of 10 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. Our 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. The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Field Exploration Program Our subsurface exploration program for this project consisted of drilling three Standard Penetration test (SPT) borings at the site on May 10, May 31 and June 3, 2013. The approximate � locations of the borings are shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The logs of the borings are included in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. The relative density or consistency of the naturally-occurring soils is also noted, based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N-value). We located the borings in the field by measuring from site features such as the house next door, the lake, and the excavation limits from the previous house. Our field crew surveyed the ground surface elevation at the boring referenced to the top rim of the. manhole located along the driveway. Based on the survey, this benchmark is at an elevation of 929.79 feet. Before we drilled, we contacted Gopher State One Call to locate public underground utilities. Page 2 of 10 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota p��CpN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING INC. , We drilled the boring using 3'/a-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers and by rotary drilling with drilling mud. We backfilled the boreholes to comply with cuzrent Minnesota Department of Health regulations. Refer to Appendix A for details on the drilling and sampling methods, the classification methods, and the water level measurement methods. 4.2 Laboratory Testing The laboratory test program included visual classification of the soil samples along with water content testing of selected samples. Additionally, a consolidation test was performed by Soil Engineering Testing on a sample collected at about 28 feet in Boring 2. The test results appeaz in Appendix A on the individual boring log adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed or on the test result sheets following the boring logs. 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Surface Observations The site is currently vacant and is generally surrounded on three sides by Lake Minnetonka and an existing single family home on the southeast. There is a relatively shallow excavation present from the removal of the previous house. The elevation at our borings ranged from 933.1 to 930.6. We measured the water level of Lake Minnetonka on May 10, 2013 at elevation 928.97. 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology At our borings, we found about 2 to 6%2 feet of fill or possible fill. Underlying the fill, we encountered predominantly coarse alluvial soils to depths of between about 20 to 28 feet, where swamp deposits were found to about 35 to 43 feet below grade. The swamp deposits consist of sapric peat and organic clay and had moisture contents ranging from 80%to 237%. Page 3 of 10 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Ferndale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. Underlying the swamp deposits, we encountered glacial till to the boring termination depths. The glacial till consist predominantly of sandy lean clay. 5.3 Ground Water We measured ground water in our three borings at depths ranging from about 4%2 to 6 feet below grade. The near surface soils on this site are relatively slow draining soils and an extended period of time would be required for the water level to reach equilibrium. Given more time, it is our opinion that the ground water level would have risen to about the lake elevation. 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 Discussion We found sigmficant buried swamp deposits at our borings. These swamp deposits are highly susceptible to consolidation under any new(or even recent) load increases. Load increases could be caused by fill being place for grading or from new structures. Based on the consolidation test that was done and assuming the new building is supported on conventional footings and a slab- on-grade, we estimate total settlement could be on the order of 4 to 8 inches. Therefore, we recommend that the proposed building (including a structural floor slab) be supported on a deep foundation system. Our primary recommendation would be to use driven pile as the deep foundation system. Since there is an existing house very close (about 12 feet) to the proposed house, vibration may be a concern for this project. If it can be determined that the existing house is supported on pile, then the vibrations from pile driving may be acceptable. If the foundation system for the neighboring Page 4 of 10 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Ferndale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. house is unknown or is not supported on a deep foundation system, you could also consider a deep foundation using helical piers(such as A.B. Chance helical piers or Atlas helical piers). As discussed above, new loads imparted by placing fill to raise grade will cause significant settlement of the swamp deposits. The settlement will occur not only at the location where the fill is placed, but will also cause settlement of the ground surface in the area surrounding the new fill. Therefore, it will be very important to limit the placement of new fill in the building and grading design. It is our understanding that the new building footprint will roughly match the old building footprint (and the old footprint is typically 2 to 3 feet below suriounding grade). We strongly recommend that the new building utilize precast concrete plank supported on grade beams for the first floor (including the garage), so that significant amounts of new fill will not need to be placed in the building footprint. Based on the grading plan, it appears that the only area outside the building to receive significant amounts of fill is the garage approach area, where grade will be raised up to about 2 feet. Note that the ground surface in this area(and possibly to a lesser extent in other azeas)will continue to settle over time (for decades, with most settlement occurring in the first few years), which will j result in settlement of the landscaping,pavement, sidewalks and any other exterior structures not I supported on driven piles or helical piers. Therefore, settlement sensitive exterior structures such as steps, canopies and decks should be supported on driven piles or helical piers. It is our understanding that the driveway is currently gravel surface; we recommend postponing placing any paving or pouring the garage apron for some time (at least a couple seasons) to allow for some settlement to occur and so that the amount of settlement can be evaluated. In general, you should anticipate the need for greater than normal maintenance of exterior structures. Details of our recommendations are given below. Page 5 of 10 . Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMEWCAN June 21,2013 ENGINEEIZING ReportNo.01-05798 TESTING,INC. 6.2 Building Grading It is our understanding that the previous structure including foundations were removed. We don't anticipate that much grading will be required in the building footprint. Backfill against the grade beams, both inside and outside the building, should be granular soil for relative ease of compaction, and to contribute to the lateral resistance of the grade beams and pile caps. The fill should be placed in loose lifts and mechanically compacted to at least 95% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density(ASTM: D698). For exterior fill such as in the garage approach area, we recommend using granular soil with less than 20% passing the No. 200 sieve, compacted to a muumum of 95% of Standard Proctor density. 6.3 Driven Pipe Pile One alternative is to support the proposed building on a driven pile foundation. The floors should also be structurally supported on piles. The swamp deposits are judged to be compressible and may continue to consolidate under existing and any additional loads, creating a potential for negative load (down drag) on the piles. To resist potential negative load, an amount is reserved based on the diameter of the pile. Using an 8-5/s inch O.D. pipe pile, we recommend reserving 20 tons per pile to resist potential negative load. These diameter p'ipe piles should be suitable for 15 tons of building load capacity, or a working load capacity of 35 tons per pile, when driven to a tip elevation of about 858 (about 75 feet below existing grade at Boring 1). The same diameter pipe piles should be suitable for 10 tons of building load capacity, or a working load capacity of 30 tons per pile, when driven to a tip elevation of about 865 (about 68 feet below existing grade). The working capacities incorporate a safety factor of 2.0 against pile failure. � Page 6 of 10 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Ferndale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. The piles should have a minimum wa11 thickness of 0.250 inches. We also recommend the pipe have minimum yield strength of 45 ksi. The piles should be equipped with a steel plate at the pile tip and be filled with 3,000 psi concrete after driving. You may receive alternate bids from pile contractors during the bidding process. Other pile diameters and wall thicknesses could be considered on this project. If other pile types are proposed,please contact us for additional consultation. Pile driving, and to a lesser extent general construction activities, will cause some vibrations which could affect the neighboring building. We recommend determining the foundation system of the neighboring house prior to construction. We also recommend monitoring during installation of the piles using a vibration seismograph. If needed, changes in the hammer/driving ` system can be made to reduce vibration intensities during pile driving. Even then, it is possible i that some minor cracking in portions of the existing structure may occur. b.4 Helical Piers I As an alternative to driven piles, the new building (including a structural floor slab) could be supported on a deep foundation system using helical piers (such as A.B. Chance helical piers or I Atlas helical piers). Since helical piers aze proprietary systems, the pier size, number of piers, installation depths, design capacity, and settlement estimates would be determined by the installation contractor you select and their Engineer. We recommend that a negative load (down drag) be included in the design. If grout is placed around the helical pier shaft,the drag load should consider the diameter of the grout collar. We recommend that you contact Atlas Foundation Company at (763) 428- 2261, Veit Companies at (763) 482-2242, or Carl Bolander & Sons at (651) 224 6299 for more Page7of10 � Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review I 105 Ferndale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. information. The foundations should be designed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 6.5 Pile Caps and Grad Beams The bottom of perimeter pile caps and grade beams should be at least 42 inches below final outside grade for frost protection in heated azeas of the building. Any exterior foundations (or foundations for the garage if it is unheated) should be extended to a minimum of 60 inches below exterior grade. Any groundwater encountered in the pile cap and grade beam excavations must be properly pumped out prior to forming, so that reinforcing steel and concrete can be placed in dry conditions. 6.6 Floor Slab Design � As indicated previously in this report, we recommend using precast concrete plank so that fill will not need to be placed. We recommend placing a vapor retarder below the floor slabs of the building. The purpose of a vapor retarder is to reduce the potential for upward migration of water vapor from the soil into the crawl space. . 6.7 Underground Utility Construction As discussed earlier in this report, the swamp deposits will continue to settle over time. Therefore, settlement sensitive utilities (such as sanitary sewer) should be hung from the slab under the building and supported on driven piles or helical piers outside the building. Utilities that are not settlement sensitive can be supported conventionally, but the connections should be designed to allow for some settlement of the site soils outside the building. Page 8 of 10 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota A1V�RICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Potential Difficulties 7.1.1 Cobb[es and Boulders We did not encounter cobbles or boulders at our borings, but they may be present within the site soils. If piles or piers are obstructed or out of alignment due to encountering obstructions, they may need to be replaced. 7.1.2 Water in Excavations Based on the close proximity of the lake, you should anticipate that ground water may be encountered in excavations for foundations and utilities for this project. To allow for � construction of pile caps and grade beams and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend that - free-standing water within the excavations be removed prior to proceeding with construction. 7.2 Ezcavation Backsloping If excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, . Subpart P, "Excavations" (can be found on www.osha.�ov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or mm�ing 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 location. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we recommend on-site observation by a geotechnical engineer/technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. The building materials should also be tested in accordance with the project specifications and the building codes. Page 9 of 10 C Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. If driven piles are utilized, a test pile program should be performed at the start of pile driving to document that the design capacities have been attained with a suitable factor of safety. We recommend driving at least one test pile at the start of pile driving. We recommend the Pile Driving Analyzer be used to aid in establishing driving criteria. We also recommend a technician familiar with pile driving be on site during the installation of the remaining piles. If helical piers aze utilized, we recommend that one helical pier be load tested and we recommend observation of the helical pier installation to record installed depths and torque. 7.4 Precondition Survey and Vibration Monitoring Based on the proximity of the neighboring home, we recommend a preconstruction condition � survey of this adjacent structure in addition to vibration monitoring during pile driving operations. S.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 expressed 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 10 of 10 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21;2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 —Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Consolidation Test Results � Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 01-05798 A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling three standard penetration test borings. The approximate location of the boring appears on Figure 1,preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split-Spoon Samples(SS)-Calibrated to Nbo Values Standard penetrarion (split-spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM: D1586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2-inch O.D, split-barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of.30 inches.The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is lmown as the standard penetration resistance or N-value. Our method uses a modified hammer weight,which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N-value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split-spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60%of its potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system.This converted energy then provides what is lmown as an N6o blow count. The most recent 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 lughly 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 statisrical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can state that the accuracy deviarion of the N-values using this method is significantly better than the standazd ASTM Method. A.2.2 Disturbed Samples(DS)/Spin-up Samples(Sin Sample types described as"DS"or"SiJ"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 lazge 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 thiclrness 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 thicla►ess judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thiclmess presented on the (ogs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thiclrness and topsoil quality definition,altemate 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. Visual-manual judgment of the AASHTO Soil Group is also noted as a part of the soil description.A chart presenting details of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is also attached. Appendix A-Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. Appendiz A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. O1-05798 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. 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 ineasurement • Sampled Depth:]owest depth of soil sampling at the time of ineasurement • Casing Depth:depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of ineasurement • C3ve-in Depth:dopth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • WSte['LeVel: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered • Drilling Fluid Level:same as water Levet,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 O1-LAB-010,which is performed in general accordance with ASTM:D2216 and AASHTO:T265. A.5.2 Sieve Analysis of Soils(thru#200 Sieves) Conducted per AET Procedure O1-LAB-040,which is performed in general conformance with ASTM:D6913,Method A. 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 Defnitioo Symbol DeFinition • AR: Sample of material obtained from cuttings btown out CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test the top of the borehole during air rotary procedure. DEN: Dry density,pcf B,H,N: Size of flush-joint casing DST: Direct shear test CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf inches HYD: Hydrometer analysis ' COT: Clean-out tube LL: Liquid Limit, % DC: � Drive casing;number indicates diameter in inches LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure,tsf DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry OC: Organic Conten[,% DR: Driller(initials) PERM: Coefficient�ofpermeability(K) tesi;F-Field; . DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights L- Laboratory " � DP: Direct push drilling; a 2.I25 inch OD outer casing PL: Plastic Limit,% wi[h an inner l%z inch �D p�astic tube is driven . qP: . Pocket Penetrometer strength,tsf(anproximate) continuously into the ground. q�: Static cone bearing pressure,tsf FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in q,,: Unconfined compressive strength, psf inches R: Electrical Resistivity,ohm-cros HA: Hand auger;number indicates outside diameter RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent HSA: Hollow stem auger;number indicates inside diameter (aggregate length of core pieces 4"or more in length � in inches as a percent of total core run) LG: Field logger(initials) SA: Sieve analysis � MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of TRX: Triaxial compression test samples and for the ground water level symbols VSR: Vane shear strongth,remolded(Field);psf N(BPF): Standard penetration resistance(N-value)in blows per� VSU: Vane shear strength,undisturbed(field),psf foot(see notes) WC: Water content,as percent of dry weight NQ: NQ wireline core baael %-200: Percent of material.finer than#200 sieve PQ: PQ wireline core barrel RDA: Rotary drilling with compressed air and roller or drag STAIYDARD PEIYETRATION TEST fYOTES bit. (Calibrated Hammer Weight) RDF: Rotary drilling with drilling fluid and roller or drag bit The standard penetration test consists of driving a splii-spoun REC: In split-spoon(see notes),direct push and thin-walled sampler with a drop hammer(calibrated weight varies to provide tube sampling, the recovered (ength (in inches) of N60 values)and counting the number of blows applied in each o E sample. [n rock coring, the length of core cecovered three 6" increments of penetration: [f the sampler is driven less (expressed as perccnt of the total core run). Zero than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in indicates no sample recovered. ' AST'M:D 1586,[he blows for each complete 6"increment and for SS: S[andard split-spoon sampler (steel; l.5" is inside each partial increment is on the boring log_For partial increments, diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1'bclo�v the slash. otherwise— SU Spin-up sample from hollow stem auger � The length oFsample recovered,as shown on the"REC"column, TW: Thin-walled tube;number indicates inside diameter in may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column.The inches disparity is because the IV=valuc is recorded below the initial 6" WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening retuming set (unless partial penetration defincd in ASTM: D1586 is rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is fur the the borehole after"falling"through drilling fluid entire sampler drive(which may even cxterid more than l8"). WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and hammer WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel �: Water level directly measured in boring �: Estimated water level based solely on sample appearancc O lREP052C(7/l I) AMER[CALY ENG[NEERING TEST[NC,INC_ UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN � ASTM Designatioas:D 2487,D2488 ENGINEERING • TESTING,INC. �� soil ctavsification Notes Criteria for Asaigning(iroup Symbots and Group Nemes Using Laborffiory Tesls" Group Group Name �Based on the maurial passing the 3-in S mbol S�5-mm) sieve. Coarse-Grained Gaavels More Clean Gravels Cu?4 and 1<Cc4 GW Well graded gravel If field sample contained cobbla or Soils More than 50%coarse Less than 5% boulders,or both, atld"with cobbtes or than 50% fraction retained fines� Cu<4 and/or l>Cc>3 GP Poorly gradad grave boulders,or both"to group name. retained on on No.4 sieve �Gravels with 5 to 12Yo fines requiro dual No.200 sieve Gravels with Fines clessify as ML or Mfi GM Silty g[ave � symbols: Fines more GW-GM well-gaded gravel with silt than 12%fines� Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey grave ' GW-GC well-gradtd g►avel with clay GP-GM poorly g�aded gmvel with silt Sands SO%or Clean Sands Cu?6 and l<Cc<i SW Well-graded sand GP-GC poody gradad gravel with clay more of coarse Less than 5% °Sands with 5 to 12%fines requirc dual fraction passes fines° Cu<6 and/or 1>C�3 $P Poorly-graded sand symbols: No.4 sieve SW-SM well-graded sand with silt Sands with Fines clagsity as ML or MH SM Silty sand SW-SC well-graded send with clay Fines more SP-SM poorly gradad sand with silt then 12%fines° Fines classi as CL or CH SC Cla sand SP-SC poorly grnded sand with clay Fino-Grained Silts and Cleys inorganic PI>7 end plotv on or above CL I,ean cla _ �oils 50%or Liquid limit less "A"line� fgo� more passes than 50 PI<4 or plob below ML Sil ECu=Dco/D�o. Cc= the No.200 , ••A"line' �ioX D�o sieve organic Liauid limit-oven dried OL Organic cla P <n.75 If soil co�ins>lS�o sand,add"with Liquid limit-not dried Or anic si1tK�'"�'O sand"W name. (seo Plasticity B �uP Chart below) °If fines classify as CGML,use dual Silts and Clays inorgenic PI plots on or above"A"l'ne CH Fat cla �mbol C�G['M,or SC-SM. Liquid limit 50 If fines are organic,add"with organic or more PI plots below"A"line MH Elastic sil fines"to group name. �If soil cantains>ISYogravel,add"with organic Liauid limit-ovai dried�p,�s OH Organic cla ¢ravel"to group name. Liquid limit-not dried µ� If Atterberg licnits plot is hatched area, Organic silt�' soils is a CIrML�silty clay. High(y organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Pea KIf soil corRains l5 W 29%plus No.200 soil in color,and organic in odor add"with sand"or "wwith grsvel", whichever is predominenC �If soil co�ins>30%plus No.200, s�ua�ras p prodominandy sand,add "sandy"ro ��,,,,,y„+oay��,,,M„w� for clas�l}Iatlo�of 1i�e Ined�ell� on mlyro rac rn nerfrgrm_ i $IOlIpRB[LC. , '' " , , H � w .. � MIf soil cantains>30%pius No.200, a Eawtla�f'�-u,. �iy predominandy�avel,add "gravelly„ tl m x IMrl��nfal at VI-1 te LL-zs.s. J� ,r �.� to gro�name. w then PI-0.73(LL-201 '� � i,�0 Equotfae sf'U'-tln �'�PI>4 and plots on orabove"A"Ime. � o o.=,a�.� p � Wrtlwl at LL•IB toP1• �� °pl<4 or plou below"A"lina F � tho PI•o.el��-el i G PPI plob on or above"A"l�e. u QPI plols below"A"lire. � ` d.u,,,,, p � ,�n �� RFiber Conunt description shown below. � 2O � d MH OH a pa-no�s�.� 6 i� G� io ° ,.!°° *-- ML�OL ..�.. p...;.. . 1:0 6l QI �� _ P.eHTIQE SI�IN MWhEiERS �o io e eo 30 �o eo so ioo u �•a.ame•m0 �•�•ams is'u LIOVID LIMIT(ll) Plastici Chart ,,.-�` "�c.3�_ � �j -- �: S OIL.IDE GATXO1Vi�CIVD�ESC4RIPTI01� ��a:�.�..� -s:±-�..�.�.,��.-�� :.�.�,�. ,.,�.�IL. -��.� _ _ - -- ' ize . Gravel Percentaees Consi�tencv of Plastic Soils M1 Relative Densitv of Noo-Plastic Soils Term Particle Siu Tu n Per e TeRn N-Va(ua BPF Ter N-Value BPF Boulders Over I2" A Little Cttavel 3%-14% Very Soft less than 2 Very Loose 0-4 Cobbles 3"to 12' With Gravel 15%-29% Soft 2-4 I,00se 5-10 G�avel 1W sieve to 3" Gravelly 30%-50% Fiicn S-8 Medium Dense I 1-30 Sand !{200 to#4 sieve Stiff 9-15 Dense 31-50 Fines(silt&clay) Pass 1�200 sieve Very Stiff 16-30 Very Dense Greater than 50 Hard Greater then 30 MoistureJFrost Condition Laverine Notes Peat Descriution Or¢anic Descriotion(if no lab tesfsl (MC Column) Soils are desc�bed as�if soil is not peat D(Dry): Absense oFmoisture,dusty,dry to and is judged to have sutTicient orgenic fines Laminations: Layers less than Fiber Content touch. � con6ent to influena ffie Liquid LimitpropeRies. r4" thick of Te�m (Visual Estimatel M(Moist): Damp,although froe water not S!lrhdv orranic used for bo�derline cases. differing material visible. Soil mny still have a high Root Inclusions water content(over"opdmum"). or color. Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% �yiy�roots: Judged to have sufficient quanrity Hemic Peat: 33-67% W(WeU Free water visible intended to of roots to intlumce the soil Waterbearing): describe non-plasdc soils. unses: Pockeb or layers Sapric Peat: Less than 33% propeRies. Watarbearing usually relates to g�� h Trace rools: Small roots presen�but not judged sands and send with silt thick of differing to be in sufficient quentity to F(Froun): Soil froun material or color. significanUy afFect soil properties. O1CLS021 (07/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. 51.5 i �._ f�.� �� w---w�-------�-�,929. -� � - �� . -- -� �. o �--- � � �1` 0 �0 82 S '��,�_.��,` �� 1�i � � od ��, 1, ` ` . �,� b � ` � �-A� � �b. i _ �--� ��r � dQ i . � �\ Q i O � ``\ � � \\'•�`� O� � I � `� � 9 : PR.�T � • '�F` � i ,9.�,1�-__ _ _ �� ,� ��` TW�93; � / ;� "'� � \. � 84M=93 � -9 `. 9 y �� ` p / !�B_Z • 'fl`P�` d's 3• `\ �. �. � / i -� i .� \ c�0.�, �� ,� .� V. ": 9 d 1 �`. ♦ � 9 qk �' `1 .Q� � w`, 'c�i\, .i� --- a i i�,� '/� 'i 9 � `�( �" 3� �` - ' bb� ,/ � 't"��` / `. �r�, � i �•� ir S .o�>. � o � Oy�� . ' � � _ d �+�Y / ��. ►'•'ti� .�` `� �� m � �\�'�,�, � _. � \"�:"4` �—�� :. `S' . �■ ••� .�i r �*-- ',, �� l fi. �! ��''.Mai^floor elewtbn 93�.0' � - _ , � �• A% .7`� �Gan�e Ooor �•�. R � � "�r�:+ I �•elmdon 933.5' _ ► , � '- . Q � •��.�,� ��,:� A•. �'.�� j � � � \ . .•/B p .,�i m Q�pb � � -� �,' � ? { � Om b ! \' '''v��/ ,;b• 'n �`�, � �' ,� % ^ �� `- B'3� .� BELOIh� � ' " � t�t. 4��;' y � ,�•, _ ;!T6�'`�6, '�, ' `'�. : �,,: a'l a. �■ �, .�' 9 . \` ,� . ` �' , �:�� ;�E PAT10 'O� `'sr �'� `. : ` v�, oti \ ''. �. � � � � ��s``�' ,\ s ``� � �` � __ I \ ` � �� r•• `� � -,, . � .� l�. - ,� .�,, ' . � i � i 1 • : ` , ss � '=� _ : �,�� , \ dc MAINTAIN �.,� � ` ,% 1 � ) w ICE TYPICAL ��, i �-'' REMOVE S�'ONE W . � � , �i ;EMOVE STONE WALL ++� :�� ', � • � / �`� ' � � '. � , PROJECT 1105 Ferndale Road West AET JOB NO. Orono, Minnesota O 1-05798 AMERICAN SUg,TECT Approximate Boring Locations DATE ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. June 20, 2013 SCALE DRA.WN BY CHECKED BY None JPB -- � AMERICAN � ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG � TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 01-OS79H LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 �. 1 of 2) PRo�cr: Single Family Home; Orono,MN DE�H SURFACE ELEVATION: 933.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �E �� WC DEN OC PL a-#2 SILTY SAND WITH ORGANIC FINES,fine ' �: MIXED � grained,trace roots,dark brown,a little grayish � �'�• ALLUVIUM 6 M SS 12 2 brown,loose,a lens of clayey sand(SIvn '�� OR FILL 3 (possible fili) 5 M � SS 6 q SAND WITH SILT,a little gravel,trace roots, � 5 fine grained,brown,a litt(e grayish brown, MIXED _ moist,loose,lenses of clayey sand(SP-SM) ' ALLWIUM 4 M SS 14 31 6 ossible fill) OR FILL � CLAYEY SAND,a little gravel,trace shells :• . ALL�UVSIUNI 5 M SS 6 8 and roots,brownish gray,soft,a lens of fine to 9 edium sand with silt(SC)(possible fill) �p SILTY SAND WITH ORGAMC FINES,a 5 W SS 12 �1 little gravel,fine to medium grained,dark 12 browmsh gray,moist to wet,loose(SM) 13 SAND WITH SILT,fine to medium grained, 4 W SS 6 y,waterbearing,very loose(SP-SM) 14 SAND WITH SILT,fine to medium grained, 15 ay,waterbearing,very loose(SP-Slvn 3 W SS 6 16 SAND,medium to fine grained,brownish gray, ; �� a little dark brownish gray,waterbearing,very ' �$ loose,a lens of sandy silt(SP) 19 SAND WITH SILT,trace shells,medium to 20 fine grained,dark grayish brown,waterbearing, � very loose,a lens of sandy s#lt(SP-SM) 4 W SS 12 80 21 ORGANIC CLAY,trace shells,dark grayish SW� z2 brown to brownish gray,a little gray to black, DEPOSIT 23 soft,laminations of fine to medium sand around 24 20'/z(OL/OH) 25 4 W SS 16 164 26 27 28 29 30 4 W SS 6 220 31 32 33 - 34 � 35 SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravei,brownish TILL 0 - SS NR � 36 �ay to gray,stiff to very stiff(CL) � 37 � 38 J �' 39 + � � DEPTH: DR[LLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREI�NTS NOTE: REFER TO � � � „ DATE TIME S�HD DEP7�'H CDEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL T�ATTACHED 0-9/: 3.25 HSA � 9'/z-74'/:' RD w/DM 5/10/13 8:37 11.0 9.5 8.8 g,2 SHEETS FOR AN N s 5/10/13 8:47 11.0 9.5 8.1 4.4 EXP[,ANATION OF � COMPLETED: 5/10/13 5/10/13 8:47 11.0 9.5 8.1 4.4 T��NOLOGY ON � DR: SG LG: TM Ri : 91C THIS LOG a 03/2011 O 1-DHR-Q60 AMERICAN � ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG � TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: O1-OS79H LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 �. 2 Of 2� PRo�ECT: Single Family Home; Orono,MN DEPTH FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS R;J GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �PE �' WC DEN OC PL o-#20 41 SANDY I;EAN CLAY,a little gravel,brownish TILL gray to gray,stiff to very stiff(CL)(continued) (continued) 42 43 44 45 ll W SS 6 24 46 • 47 48 49 50 13 - SS NR Sl 52 53 54 55 26 W SS 14 22 � 56 57 58 59 _ 60 18 - SS NR 61 62 63 64 65 17 - SS NR 66 67 68 69 �� 23 W SS 16 27 ' 71 72 73 74 � 75 21 W SS 16 22 � 76 END OF BORING 0 c� WJ > F4 4 Q � a � � � � 0 a ¢ O U � Q 03/2011 O 1-DHR-060 AMERICAN � ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG � TESTING, ING � AET JOB NO: O1-OS79H LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 �• 1 Of Z� PRo�ECT: Single Family Home; Orono,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVAT[ON: 933.1 GEOLOGY SAMPLE [�C FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS F ET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC Typg IN�. �yC DEN OC PL o-#20 FILL,mostly sandy lean clay,a little gravel, FILL � trace roots,dark brown to brown 4 M SS 8 30 2 3 4 M SS 14 21 4 LEAN CLAY,trace roots,gray,soft(CL) FINE 5 ALLWIUM 2 � SS 16 54 6 - 7 8 6 M SS 12 35 SAND WITH SILT,fine to medium grained, •�: COARSE 9 gray,waterbearing, loose(SP-SM) �'�:�ALLWIUM �0 7 W SS 20 11 12 SAND WITH SILT,a little gravel,fine to 13 medium grained,gray,waterbearing,very loose :� 4 W SS 12 ta (SP-SM) 15 4 W SS 14 16 17 � 18 SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL,fine to 19 medium grained,gray,waterbearing,very loose :' 20 (SP-SM) 3 W SS 10 21 22 23 SAPRIC PEAT dark brown and brown(PT) . � SWAMP TW 0 24 ' DEPOSIT 25 1 W SS 18 �I 82 26 27 28 ORGANIC CLAY,trace shells and roots,dark TW �8 29 brovmish gray,soft to very soft(OL/OH) 30 3 W SS 18 128 3! � 32 , 33 1 W SS 20 l34 � 34 „ 35 TW 16 � 36 � 37 SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel,gray, TILL 2 Hr SS 20 19 � 38 soft to stiff(CL) � 39 + � Y DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL IvtEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO � DATE T[IVtE SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED � 0-44'/:' 3.25"HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLLJID LEVEL LEVEL � 6/3/13 8:48 11.0 9.5 9.6 6.1 S�TS FOR AN 4 EXPLANATION OF S � COMPLETED: 6/3/13 TERMINOLOGY ON U Q DR JM LG: SS Ri : 68C , T[-llS LOG 03/2011 i O1-DHR-060 � AMERICAN � ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG �� TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: �1-05798 LOG OF BORING NO. B'2 �• 2 Of 2� PROJECT: Sin�le Family Home; Orono,MN DEN H GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE �C F[ELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPT(ON �PE �' WC DEN OC PL o-#20 SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel,gray, TILL 4t soft to stiff(CL)(continued) (continued) 42 43 � 44 45 9 W SS 12 26 46 END OF BORING � � � 0 c� wJ5 + a � a' � � R 0 a � 0 U � a 03/2011 O1-DHR-060 AMERICAN � ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG � TESTING, INC. �T 1os No: 01-05798 LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 �j�. 1 of 2) PROJECT: Sin�le Family Home; Orono,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 930.6 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE �C FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS F ET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �E �' WC DEN OC PL r#20 FILL,mostly silty and,a little gravel,pieces of FILL 6 M SS 6 � concrete,brown 2 LEAN CLAY sli htl or anic,trace roots,dark TOPSOIL OR 3 brown,soft(CL)(possiblefill) FILL 3 � SS 6 42 4 SAND,fine to medium grained,gray, '�•: COARSE 5 waterbearing,loose to very loose(SP) �`�'� ALLUVIUM 9 W SS 18 6 7 8 4 W SS l8 9 SAND WITH SILT,a little gravel,fine to � �� medium grained,gray,waterbearing,very loose :' 3 W SS 6 t t (SP-SM) 12 13 2 W SS 6 14 GRAVEL WITH SAND,gray,waterbearing, � 15 very loose(GP) � 3 W SS 4 16 f, 17 f 18 � � l9 +� � 20 ,i 4 W SS 2 21 � 22 � 23 � 24 � � 25 � 4 W SS 1 26 #,�, 27 � z9SAPRIC PEAT,dark brown,a little light gray � EPOS T (PT) 30 6 W SS 16 172 31 32 33 6 W SS 18 237 34 ' 35 ORGAMC CLAY,dark brown,firm(OI./OH) - TW 12 � 36 0 37 �, 38 6 W SS 16 100 J �' 39 + � Y DEPTH: DRILLING Iv1ETHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREIvIENTS NOTE: REFER TO � DATE TUvIE SAMPLED CASRVG CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER � 0-44'/i 3.25"HSA DEPT[-[ DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL T�ATTACHED ` 44-49'/i RD w/DM 5/31/13 1:32 8.5 7.0 7.2 9.7 S�ETS FOR AN q EXPLANATION OF 0 o COMPLETED: 5/31/13 � TERMINOLOGY ON � TE-IlS LOG DR: JM LG: SS Eti : 68C 03/2011 O l-DHR-060 AMERICAN � ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG �� TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: �l-OrJ798 LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 (p. 2 Of 2� PROJECT: Single Family Home; Orono,MN DEPTH GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE [�C FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCR[PTION �E �' WC DEN OC PL �-#20 ORGANIC CLAY,dark brown,firm(OL,/OH) 41 �continued) 42 ' 43 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,a little gravel, T[LL TW � gray,firm(CL) . 45 6 W SS 14 26 46 47 48 SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel,gray, 49 stiff(CL) 50 15 W SS 16 23 51 END OF BORING ' � c � 0 � JWW � UF W Q a' � m n � 0 C O U W a 03/2011 Ol-DHR-060 Void Ratio and % Settlement vs. Log of Pressure Pressure(ts� 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 4.75 -9.2% 4.50 -4.2% 4,25 0,8% 4.00 S.S�o 3.75 10.8% 3.50 15.8% 3.25 � m y 20.8%E v o � ¢ 3.00 v� 9 25.8% 0 > 2.75 30.8% � 2.50 � � 35.8�0 2.25 " � 40.8% 2.00 � 45.8% 1,75 50.8%a 1.50 - 55.8% 1.25 Project: 01-5798 Date: 6/18/13 Sample#: Boring#: B-2 Depth ft: 27-29 Job#: 8979 Sofl Type: Organic Clay w/shells(OH) Initfal W/C(�o): 164.0 Dry Density(pcfl: 28.0 LL: PL: PI: Gs: 2.37 (Assumed) Organic Content(�o): Initial Height(in.): 0.745 Diameter(in.): 2.503 eo= 4265 Preconsolidation Pressure(Pc); 0.35 tsf Compressfon Index(Cc): 1.47 Recompressfon Index(Cr): __0.26 Remarks:Testing pertormed In general accordance with ASTM:D2435 OIL a4oi w bbr�str�er NGINEERING Richfield,Minnesota 55423-2031 ESTING, INC. • • • . • • • � � ��....��....��.■■��--� ------� - � --� __��.■.�.��....��.■■��....��... �Y�� l�� .....��....�.,------- ��;��..■■��=C��... ��.■■��...��::..�.._- -�....�� ... �..��.■■��....��..■■��.��-_---, ��.�.... ��....��....��.■■��...:�.��... 11 �� i��r..� -.�� ■ �� —�� 11 ��-�� 1 1 �� —�� • • a�� w��-- ��iii��■ ��.�_��■ ,1 1 �� ii��■ ��=i��=�� '--a�� —��—�� i��w��■ �� ■ .11 ��_�� i�_�� 1 1 �� r�� 11 ��iii�r��iii��ii�r��iii��ii ��a�;�� --�� ■ :11 ��Ti��■ �� a��-�� —�� •11 �� r��■ ��.��--��u��■ 111 ��iiii��iii��iii��_ �� iir\�� 11 ��rr��_ ��_�� 1 1 � �� 11 ��\��a��i� _��iii ��'�� •w��■ 11 ��._��■ ��w�� =�.;�� 11 ��iii�� iii��r��u��iii ��iii��ii 11 ��_��I�T��r�� .�� '��a .11 ��u��iii�� r��_�� i�� ' 11 ��:-��■ ��■ ��_��■ ��s��■ :11 s�� r�� - �� a�� ri��.`�� •11 �� :�� !��r��■ ��o��■ 1 1� ��o��■ ��a��_��v�� iiL��iii��iiii��ii 11 ��=i�� iii��iii��iii 11 ��-�.�� rr—�� i�� a�� 11 ��iii��ii ��`��_�� ,11 �� ■ ��r-------- —��C�� ■ 11 ��iii�� iii ��.:�� e��A��i�� ■ .11 ��ii��ii��iii��iii �� 11 �� -�� :11 �� ii��r��iiii��ii ��=�� -�� •1 1 ��_��w��■ �� w�� 111 ��iii��.��iiii��iii��ii ��►��■ �� 11 ��r�� r�� 11 ��iii��iiru � ��iii ��-�� a�� 5��\�� 11 ��r��:�� i��. 7��C�� r�� 11 ��i��i��■��u��iii �� 11 ��iii��iii��ii�ii��ii �� .11 ��a 1 1 11 111 1111 • 1 �. �. � - :• • �-• �� _ � '1 — � :• � Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 1105 Femdale Road West,Orono,Minnesota AMERICAN June 21,2013 ENGINEERING Report No.01-05798 TESTING,INC. � Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use �I Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Report No. O1-05798 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 aze a member firm. B.2 RLSK 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 fust 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 Geotechnicat 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 srivcture on the site; and other planned or eacisting site improvements,such as access roads,parking lots, and underground utiliries. 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 prepazed for the specific site explored,or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building,or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team,or • project ownership. As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones,and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been af�ected 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 addirional testing or analysis could�revent major problems. 1 ASFE,8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring,MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733:www.asfe.or¢ Appendix B—Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Gnidelines for Use Report No.01-05798 B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests aze conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface condirions throughout the site.Actual subsurface conditions may differ,sometimes significantly,from those indicated in yow report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed yow 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 fmal, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendarions only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnicai 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 teatn 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 Eagineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare fmal boring and testing logs based upon their interpretarion of field logs and laboratory�ata.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 reproducrion is acceptable,but recognizes 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 prepararion. 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 rypes of information they need or 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 cotnmonly 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. BZ.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significant�y 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 AIvIERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC