HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical exploration/review-2008 AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
•
CONSULTANTS
•ENVIRONMENTAL
•GEOTECHNICAL
•M`TERIALS REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL
•FORENSICS
EXPLORATION AND REVIEW
Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center
Wayzata Boulevard and Old Crystal Bay Road
Orono,Minnesota
AET Project No. 22-00012
Date:
•
April 7, 2008
Prepared for:
Ryan Companies US, Inc.
•
50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403
St. Paul, MN
Duluth, MN
Mankato, MN
Marshall,MN
Rochester,MN
Pierre, SD
Rapid City, SD
Sioux Falls, SD
Wausau,WI .
AMERICAN CONSULTANTS
A ENGINEERING 'ENVIRONMENTAL
•
TESTING, INC. •MA ERALSICAL
- •FORENSICS
April 7,2008
Mr.Ben Terry
Ryan Companies US,Inc.
50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55403
RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review
Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center
Wayzata Boulevard and Old Crystal Bay Road
Orono,Minnesota
AET Project No. 22-00012
Dear Mr. Terry:
We have completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering review for the
referenced project. This report documents the results of our exploration/review and provides our
opinions and recommendations to aid you and your design team in the planning and construction
of this project. We are submitting three copies of this report to you; this report is the instrument
of services defined in our proposal.
We have.enjoyed working with you on this phase of the project. If you have questions regarding
this report or if we can be of further assistance,please contact us.
Sincerely,
American Engineering Testing,Inc.
Chad A. Underwood, PE,PG
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Phone: (651)789-4653
Fax: (651)659-1347
cunderwood@amengtest.com
CAU:G:Projects'Reports\2008\22-00012b.Cu.Doc
This document shall not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of American Engineering Testing,Inc.
550 Cleveland Avenue North•St.Paul,MN 55114
Phone 651-659-9001 •Toll Free 800-972-6364•Fax 651-659-1379•www.amengtest.com
Offices throughout Florida.Minnesota,South Dakota&Wisconsin
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center
•
Orono, Minnesota
AET Project No. 22-00012
April 7, 2008
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Mr. Ben Terry American Engineering Testing, Inc.
Ryan Companies US, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North
50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300 St.Paul,Minnesota 55114
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55403 (651) 659-9001/www.amengtest.com
Report Authored By: Review Conducted By:
7:///4/00t4
Chad A.Underwood,PE,PG Thomas P. Venema,PE ae
Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal EngineerNice President
I hereby certify that this plan,
specification, or report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota
Print Name, Chad A.Underwood
Signature: ����
Date: i� Tl""8 License#:43026
Copyright 2008 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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center
Orono,Minnesota
AET Project No. 22-00012
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2
3.1 Available Geotechnical Information 3
3.2 Project Assumptions 4
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4
4.1 Field Exploration Program 4
4.2 Laboratory Testing 5
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 6
5.1 Surface Observations 6
5.2 Soils 6
5.3 Groundwater 8
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 9
6.1 Building Pad Preparation Alternative No. 1 —Soil Correction 9
6.2 Building Pad Preparation Alternative No. 2—Aggregate Piers 13
6.3 Foundation Design 15
6.4 Floor Slab Design 16
6.5 Foundation Drainage 17
6.6 Loading Docks 18
6.7 Exterior Backfilling 19
6.8 Exterior Underground Utility Construction 19
6.9 Pavements 20
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 26
7.1 Potential Difficulties 26
7.2 Excavation Sideslopes 27
7.3 Observation and Testing 27
8.0 LIMITATIONS 28
STANDARD DATA SHEETS
Floor Slab Moisture/Vapor Protection
APPENDIX A—Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
Figure 1 -Boring and Test Pit Locations
Figure 2—Pavement Section Details
Subsurface Boring Logs
Test Pit Logs
Boring Log Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
APPENDIX B—Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW
PROPOSED CRYSTAL BAY BUSINESS CENTER
ORONO, MINNESOTA
AET PROJECT NO. 22-00012
1.0 INTRODUCTION
You have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface
exploration and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for this project. This report
presents the field information we obtained during previous geotechnical explorations on this site,
our geotechnical laboratory results, and our engineering recommendations for earthwork and
foundations.
To protect you, AET, and the public, we authorize use of opinions and recommendations in this
report only by you and your project team for this specific project. Contact us if other uses are
intended. Even though this report is not intended to provide sufficient information to accurately
determine quantities and locations of particular materials, we recommend that your potential
contractors be advised of the report availability.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services for this project, as outlined in our proposal, was limited to the following
elements
• Drill and sample 28 Standard Penetration test (SPT) borings in accordance with ASTM:
D1586, to depths of 10 feet to 20 feet; one of these borings (EP-8) was not drilled
because we could not access that location in the storage yard. In addition to the SPT
borings, drill seven hand auger borings inside the existing buildings and sample with a
manually-operated 89 pound hammer, each to a depth of 4.5 feet.
- Of the 34 borings that we drilled, 25 were drilled under environmental protocol for
purposes of environmental screening by your environmental consultant, Liesch
Associates, Inc. The borings that we drilled under environmental protocol are
designated with an "EP" on the attached logs. The borings that were not drilled under
Page 1 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
environmental protocol are designated with an"ES." The samples from these borings
were environmentally screened by Liesch in our laboratory after drilling.
• Observe the excavation of 15 test pits at various locations to explore the topsoil
thicknesses and the vertical and horizontal extent of existing fill on this site for the north
building. Test pits were not excavated for the rest of the proposed buildings. You
contracted Doboszenski& Sons,Inc.to dig the test pits.
• Visually/manually classify the soil samples and perform limited laboratory testing on the
recovered soil samples; this included water content testing of selected cohesive soil
samples.
• Prepare a written report including the logs of the borings and test pits and our
geotechnical recommendations for site grading,building foundations,pavement subgrade
preparation,pavement section design, and construction considerations.
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
Ryan Companies is planning the development of a parcel on the south side of U.S. Highway 12
(Wayzata Boulevard), north of the new Highway 394 (presently under construction) and east of
Old Crystal Bay Road. There are three existing structures on the site: an office/warehouse
building on the east half, a private residence on the north, and an office/warehouse in the middle
of the west parcel. The residence and office/warehouse in the west parcel will be razed for the
new development.
The proposed construction will consist of three office/warehouse buildings, two along the west
side of the site and one at the south end of the site. This report will focus on the two buildings
Page 2 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
on the west side of the site. Refer to our preliminary geotechnical report dated March 30, 2006
for preliminary recommendations related to the south building pad preparation.
The new buildings on the west side of the site will be single-story, slab-on-grade structures
covering footprints of about 40,000 square feet. The finished floor elevations of the north and
south buildings are planned at elevations 1027.3 and 1027.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum(NGVD).
The buildings will likely have perimeter masonry or precast concrete bearing walls and an
interior structural steel frame. Based on information provided by Anderson Urlacher, P.A., wall
loads will likely be on the order of 3.5 to 4 kips per linear foot, with maximum column loads of
about 95 kips.
There are no specific tenants at this time, so the floor loadings are not yet known. However,there
will be loading docks on the east side of both buildings, and there would probably be fork lift
traffic in the buildings. Therefore, floor loads will likely be on the order of 250 to 500 pounds
per square foot.
Paved parking and drive lanes will be constructed around the buildings. We anticipate that the
daily traffic pattern would consist of numerous passes of automobiles and light trucks (pickups
and vans), along with numerous semi-tractor trailers (HS20 and HS25 loadings), and additional
heavier vehicles such as waste collection trucks,delivery trucks, and snow plows (seasonal).
3.1 Available Geotechnical Information
We have drilled borings on adjacent sites to the west, northeast, and north. The soil types in this
area consist of soft to stiff silty clay and clayey silt soils with relatively shallow perched
groundwater conditions. We have reviewed soil borings drilled by Nova Environmental Services,
Inc. in 1990 for a contamination investigation on the north side of the existing structure on the
eastern half of the site. These borings also showed soft to stiff clayey silt on this site.
Page 3 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
Your environmental consultant, Liesch Associates, has performed environmental assessments on
this site, and environmental impacts have been documented. Refer to Liesch's reports for
additional information on the environmental considerations related to site development and
construction.
3.2 Project Assumptions
Our foundation design assumptions include a minimum factor of safety of 3 with respect to the
ultimate soil bearing capacity. We assume the structures will be able to tolerate total settlements
of up to 1 inch, and differential settlements of up to '/2 inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet.
The information presented above 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 included drilling 27 Standard Penetration test (SPT) borings
and seven hand auger borings at this site between February 22 and 28,2006. The locations of the
environment(EP) borings were selected by Liesch. We selected the locations of the geotechnical
(ES) borings. However, both sets of borings were used for our geotechnical report preparation.
We also observed the excavation of 15 test pits at this site on December 11, 2006. The
approximate locations of the borings and test pits are shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.
Your surveyor, Westwood Professional Services, Inc., staked the boring and test pit locations
and shot the ground surface elevations at the test locations. You contracted Doboszenski &
Sons, Inc. to dig the test pits. Doboszenski backfilled the test pits after we described the soils
exposed on the sidewalls of the pits. Before we drilled, we contacted Gopher State One Call to
Page 4 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
locate public underground utilities, and Hance Utility Services to locate private underground
utilities on this site.
We drilled the outside borings using 21/4-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers. We drilled the
inside borings with hand augers, after coring through the concrete floor slab. We drilled the
borings designated with an "EP" under environmental protocol; the drill rig, augers, drill rods,
and samplers were steam cleaned at our shop before mobilization,and the samplers were washed
in Alconox solution and rinsed with water between samples. A representative from Liesch was
on the site as we drilled to perform environmental screening of the "EP" borings, and to obtain
environmental soil samples. A representative from Liesch also environmentally screened soil
samples from the"ES"borings after the samples were returned to our laboratory.
We backfilled the boreholes with soil cuttings to comply with current 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 recovered samples were returned to our laboratory where we visually/manually classified
each sample based on texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
(USC) system. Data sheets describing the USC System, and the descriptive terminology and
symbols used on the boring logs are included in Appendix A.
We performed water content tests of selected cohesive samples collected from our borings. The
results of the water content tests are shown on the respective boring logs opposite the samples for
which they were performed.
Page 5 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS
5.1 Surface Observations
At the time of our field exploration, the site of the proposed development was a relatively flat
parcel. The site was snow covered when we drilled. There was approximately 8 feet of elevation
difference among our 34 borings and the 15 test pits; the topography generally sloped downward
to the south. There was outside storage of building materials and boats at the south end of the
property.
5.2 Soils
The logs of the borings and test pits are presented in Appendix A. The logs contain information
concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description and moisture condition; the
relative density or consistency are also noted, based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N-
value, "blows per foot"). The boring logs only indicate the subsurface conditions at the sampled
locations. Variations often occur between and beyond the borings.
5.2.1 Borings
In Borings ES-1 through 3, 9, and 10, and Borings EP-1,2, 6, 7 and EP-12 through 15,we found
a surficial topsoil layer consisting of black clay and dark brown to black silty sand and sandy silt,
to depths of 2 feet to 4.5 feet below grade.
In Borings EP-3 through 5 and Boring EP-17, we encountered about 4 to 9 inches of bituminous
pavement. Below the bituminous pavement in these borings, we found fill consisting of a
mixture of brown, dark brown, and black silty sand, clayey sand, and lean clay fill,to depths of 2
feet to 7 feet below grade. Below the floor slab in Borings EP-19 through 25, which we drilled
inside the existing buildings, we encountered, sand and silty sand fill, to depths of 3.5 feet and
4.5 feet (i.e., the boring termination depth). In Borings ES-4 through 8, and Borings EP-9
through 11 and EP-16 through 18, we encountered a surficial layer of fill consisting of a mixture
of brown, gray, and black sandy lean clay, clayey sand, silty sand, and sand, to depths of about 2
feet to 6 feet below grade.
Page 6 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
Underlying the fill in borings EP-4 and EP-24, we found a possible buried topsoil layer
consisting of black lean clay with organics, extending to a depth of 4.5 feet below grade.
Below the surficial topsoil, pavement, fill, and/or buried topsoil, we encountered interbedded
strata of fine alluvium, coarse alluvium, and till to the boring termination depths. The cohesive
and semi-cohesive soils were of very soft to stiff consistency, with N-values ranging from 0
("weight of hammer") to 14; the water contents ranged from 18% to 41%. The granular soils
were very loose to medium dense,with N-values ranging from 2 to 24.
5.2.2 Test Pits
The soils that we observed in our test pits are generally consistent with the soils that we
encountered in our borings on this site. In nine of the 15 test pits, we observed a surficial layer
of topsoil consisting of a mixture of dark brown and black clay, silt and sand, to depths of 1.5
feet to 3 feet below grade. Below the topsoil in some of these test pits, we observed a layer of
relatively soft gray lean clay and silt with black organic layers and staining extending about 0.5
feet to 2 feet below the topsoil layer.
In the remaining test pits, we found a surficial layer of fill extending to depths of 3 feet to 6 feet
below grade. The existing fill consisted of a mixture of dark brown and black lean clay, silt,
clayey sand and silty sand; some of the fill contained organics and debris.
In Test Pit 1, we observed an old masonry foundation wall at the edge of the test pit. In Test Pits
2 and 11, we observed an old clay pipe running through each excavation. In Test Pit 5, we found
a relatively deep pocket of fill (about 6 feet deep) that contained debris such as large pieces of
bituminous and an old corrugated metal culvert. The depth of fill increased rapidly across the
exposed pit, and it appeared that the fill was placed in an excavation with near-vertical sidewalls.
It is unknown if this was an old borrow pit or an excavation for an underground utility. After
encountering the relatively deep fill in Test Pit 5,we directed the excavator to dig a test pit about
30 feet west (Test Pit 5A) and one about 25 feet south (Test Pit 5B) of Test Pit 5 to better assess
Page 7 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
the horizontal extent of the fill. Based on our observations, it appears that the deeper fill could
be confined to an area within about a 30 feet radius of Test Pit 5.
Below the fill in each test pit, we encountered interbedded strata of fine alluvium consisting of
lean clay, silty clay, clayey silt, and silt to the test pit termination depths. Based on our
observations of the fine alluvium in the test pits,the clay and silt appeared to be of relatively soft
to firm consistency.
5.3 Groundwater
We encountered groundwater in eight of our 34 borings, at depths of 4.5 feet to 17 feet below
grade,corresponding to elevations ranging from 1008.0 feet to 1020.8 feet NGVD; the remaining
borings were dry when we drilled. We also observed groundwater seeping into the bottom of
Test Pit 5.
The cohesive and semi-cohesive soils on this site are estimated to have relatively low
permeabilities, and an extended period of time, on the order of days or weeks,would be required
for the groundwater to reach equilibrium levels in the borings. Thus, it is possible that
groundwater may be shallower on the site than indicated by the level of free water(or absence of
free water) in the boreholes during the relatively short period of time (approximately 1 hour per
boring) in which we drilled. A discussion of the water level measurement methods is presented
in Appendix A.
Groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally and annually due to varying rainfall and snow melt, as
well as other factors such as infiltration and runoff. Groundwater levels measured during the
winter are usually lower than the groundwater levels in spring and summer.
Page 8 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Building Pad Preparation Alternative No. 1—Soil Correction
6.1.1 Excavation
We recommend that the surficial topsoil be stripped from the footprints of the buildings. The
zone of stripping should extend laterally to at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeters. The
topsoil depths ranged from 2 feet to 4.5 feet; this is considered relatively deep and the variance is
up to 2.5 feet. Thus, significant variations in topsoil depths should be anticipated.
Further, below the topsoil in several of the test pits, we observed 0.5 foot to 2 feet of relatively
soft gray lean clay and silt with black organic layers and staining. We recommend that this layer
of clay and silt with organics below the topsoil also be stripped. The excavators bidding this
project should not be allowed to use our borings to calculate topsoil stripping depths and
volumes; they should be required to carry out their own topsoil surveys.
All remnants of the razed structures and utilities should be completely removed from the
footprints of the buildings. We also recommend subcutting the existing fill, buried topsoil, and
any other unsuitable soils that are found in the footprints of the buildings after the topsoil has
been stripped. In the building pads, the lateral zone of subcutting should be extended out
horizontally at least 1 foot from the outside edges of perimeter footings for every foot of fill
required below the base of the footings (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize). This lateral oversize is to be
measured at the base of the subcut,not at the surface.
The following table presents our estimated depths of stripping/subcutting in the building pads,
based on information from the borings. The actual required depth of stripping/subcutting may be
deeper or shallower than found at the borings. This should be determined by a Geotechnical
Engineer or Technician performing full-time observation and testing during site preparation.
Because of the unknown depths and lateral extent of the subcutting that will be needed, we
recommend that the earthwork contract include a unit price line item for extra soil correction
Page 9 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
needed beyond that estimated by the Civil Engineer.
Table A-Recommended Subcut Excavation Depths in the Building Pads
Test Surface Estimated Subcut Approximate Subcut Approximate Observed
Location Elevation Excavation Depth Excavation Elevation Groundwater Level,ft
(ft NGVD) (ft) (ft NGVD) (Elevation,ft NGVD)
Borings
ES-1 1025.3 4.5 1020.8 NE
ES-2 1024.2 2.0 1022.2 14.0(1010.2)
ES-3 1024.4 4.5 1019.9 NE
ES-4 1025.0 4.5 1020.5 17.0(1008.0)
ES-5 1025.1 7.0 1018.1 15.0(1010.1)
EP-1 1024.7 4.5 1020.2 NE
EP-2 1024.6 2.0 1022.6 NE
EP-12 1025.5 2.0 1023.5 NE
EP-13 1025.5 2.0 1023.5 NE
EP-14 1024.3 2.0 1022.3 NE
EP-15 1024.2 2.0 1022.2 NE
Test Pits
TP-5 1023.3 6.0 1017.3 GW Seepage at Bottom
TP-5A -4023 2.5-4.5(I) 1018.5- 1020.5(1) NE
TP-5B -1023 4.0 1019.0 NE
TP-6 1024.9 1.5-2.0(1) 1022.9-1023.4(I) NE
TP-7 1024.6 1.5-2.5(I) 1022.1- 1023.1 (I) NE
TP-8 1023.9 2.0-3.0(1) 1020.9- 1021.9(I) NE
TP-9 1024.2 2.5-4.0(1) 1020.2-1021.7(1) NE
TP-10 1024.8 2.5-3.5(I) 1021.3-1022.3(I) NE
TP-11 1024.7 3.0-5.0(I) 1019.7- 1021.7(" NE
TP-12 1025.0 2.5 1022.5 NE
TP-13 1025.5 1.5-2.5(1) 1023.0- 1024.0(I) NE
Notes:
(1) The recommended subcut depths in the test pits are to the bottom of the topsoil. We have noted a range
in subcut depths in some of the test pits to include cutting some of the transition zone from the topsoil to
the underlying non-organic clays.
NE=Groundwater not encountered during or after drilling or test pit excavation.
Page 10 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
Based on the conditions found in our borings and test pits, it is possible that the contractor will
encounter groundwater during soil correction. We also observed old sewers or draintile in Test
Pits 2, 5, and 11. It is likely that the excavator will encounter old drain tile during site
preparation. Drain tile is often filled with water and when the tile is broken, significant amounts
of water can drain from the pipe into the excavation. The excavation must be properly
dewatered so that the base soils can be observed and tested, and to allow proper placement and
compaction of new fill. This can likely be performed with sump pits and pumps.
The clayey soils on this site have relatively high moisture contents, and they are very sensitive to
disturbance from construction equipment and worker foot traffic. If the contractor is not careful,
excessive amounts of soil disturbance will occur, requiring remedial subcutting and backfilling.
Stripping and subcutting of the topsoil should be performed using backhoes with smooth-edged
buckets. If very soft clay is below the topsoil, it may also need to be stripped. Filling should be
performed immediately after the subgrade has been cut to the suitable naturally-occurring non-
organic soils. We recommend that construction equipment not travel over the cut subgrade; the
fill should be "pushed" in place with construction equipment traversing the new fill rather than
the clay subgrade.
6.1.2 Fill Placement and Compaction
The finished floor elevations for the buildings have been set about 3 to 4 feet above existing
grade. Because of the soft clay that we found in our borings, we strongly recommend that the
foundation construction not be started until at least one month after the fill has been completed to
final grade over the entire footprint of each building. This would allow some consolidation of the
soils to occur before footing construction begins,to reduce post-construction building settlement.
We also recommend that you monitor the fill settlement at least twice weekly during this waiting
period, to determine when the settlement has stabilized; the settlement elevation should be shot
to the nearest 0.005 foot. We can assist you in analyzing the settlement data.
Page 11 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
We recommend that you plan the construction schedule to accommodate a minimum 30 day
waiting period between the completion of site grading in the building pad, and the start of
footing construction. If the construction schedule cannot accommodate this waiting period, then
we strongly recommend that you authorize us to complete a supplemental field and laboratory
testing program to further assess the potential settlement, and evaluate potential alternative site
preparation methods.
If there is space on the site to open a borrow pit, some of the on-site clay, silty sand, and sand
might be reusable as fill in the building pads. Much of the on-site cohesive soils have elevated
water contents, up to 41% at our borings; we estimate that the optimum water content is about
16% to 18%, based on the Standard Proctor test (ASTM: D 698), and soils with water contents
above about 18% to 20% would require drying before use as compacted fill. Cohesive soils used
as backfill must be dried to within 2% of the optimum water content before placement or treated
with Class C fly ash or hydrated lime to achieve the desired compaction with reasonable effort
and without drying. However, lime or fly ash treatment requires that the soil temperature be no
lower than about 45°F at the time of treatment. It is beyond our scope of services to calculate the
amount of suitable fill that might be available on the site.
For imported fill in the building pads, we recommend using a granular soil with less than 12%
passing the No. 200 sieve, such as Mn/DOT 3149.2B2 having no gravel larger than 3 inches.
Alternatively,a lean clay(USCS Classification of CL or CL-ML), clayey sand(SC), or silty sand
(SM) could be used. If the contractor proposes a different type of fill, a sample should be
submitted to our laboratory for testing and review by a Geotechnical Engineer.
The use of sand fill may be advantageous since the initial lift can be placed in a thicker lift than
clay, while still achieving compaction. This would reduce the potential for disturbing the
excavation base. Furthermore, there are several risks associated with using the on-site clay or
imported silty/clayey soils as fill. Wet weather can increase the water content of the clay and
require drying before it is used as compacted fill; this could significantly delay construction. If
Page 12 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
poorly compacted fill is placed in the building pad, excessive building settlement could occur;
this risk can be reduced by careful construction procedures and full-time observation by a
Geotechnical Engineer or Materials Technician during fill placement. These risks can be further
reduced by importing granular fill, such as Mn/DOT 3149.2B2 (as discussed above), which is
less susceptible to disturbance during wet weather, easier to dry, and easier to compact.
The fill in the building pads should be placed in lifts and compacted to at least 98% of the
maximum Standard Proctor dry density(ASTM: D 698). Where the thickness of new fill exceeds
10 feet, we recommend that the compaction effort be increased to 100% of the maximum
Standard Proctor dry density. Cohesive soils must be placed within 2% of the optimum water
content. The fill should be placed in lifts thin enough to attain the specified compaction level
throughout the entire lift thickness. This normally requires that fill be placed in loose lifts less
than 8 inches thick.
If sand fill is used to prepare the building pads over clay subgrades, there is a potential for the
sand fill to hold water. A perimeter drain system at foundation level, inside and outside the
building, could remove this trapped water. There could be a substantial volume of water
infiltrating the sand fill during construction until the buildings are enclosed, roofed and exterior
surface drainage provided. Providing an efficient means of removing this water could aid in
reducing the potential for construction delays or disturbance of the building pad soils. If sand fill
is not used inside the building pad,these drain systems would not be needed.
6.2 Building Pad Preparation Alternative No. 2—Aggregate Piers
As an alternative to soil correction, we recommend that you consider improving the soils in situ
with aggregate piers (stone columns or Geopiers ). With this alternative,the on-site topsoil and
higher water content clay generated during mass grading of the parking areas could be used to
raise the grade in the building pads. This would reduce the volume of soils that would have to be
exported off-site. Soil contamination is known to exist on some parts of the site, and the
aggregate pier alternative would also reduce the possibility of having to dispose of contaminated
Page 13 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
soils off-site, which could make this a cost effective alternative for improving the subgrade soils
on this site.
For this alternative, we recommend stripping the vegetative mat from the buildings. The
underlying topsoil could remain in-place. We recommend placing fill to the planned subgrade
elevation before the aggregate piers are installed. We anticipate that on-site lean clay (topsoil
and non-organic clay) would be used to raise the grade in the pads. Some of the on-site soils
could have relatively high water contents and could be difficult to compact. However, because
the aggregate piers will be installed through the new fill, a high degree of compaction during
placement is not necessary. We recommend that new fill placed within the aggregate pier
improved zone be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density. We
can review these compaction recommendations if the soil conditions are such that the desired
compaction can not be achieved with reasonable effort.
After new fill is placed to the desired floor slab subgrade elevation, the aggregate piers can be
installed. The final depths and layout of the piers would be determined by the specialty
contractor as a design-build contract. However, we anticipate that the aggregate piers would be
spaced in lines along continuous bearing walls, in clusters under columns, and in a grid pattern
under the floor slab.
If the aggregate pier alternative is selected, we recommend that the following issues be
considered prior to construction.
• The specialty Contractor should prepare specifications for the aggregate pier foundation
system.
• One test pier should be installed by the Contractor's standard procedures and then load-
tested to determine the modulus. The load testing setup and procedures should be selected
by the Contractor and submitted to the project Geotechnical Engineer for review. The test
Page 14 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
pier should be installed at the foundation grade level.
• All pier installation operations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer's
representative, to reduce the potential for short pier elements and excessive aggregate lift
thicknesses.
If clay soils are used as fill to raise the building pad elevation prior to aggregate pier installation,
you could consider"neat-cutting"the foundations to reduce backfilling. This technique involves
cutting the foundation with a smooth edge backhoe bucket to the size of the footing, both pad
and strip footings. With this method,there would be no forming of the footings, and the concrete
would be placed"bank to bank"with the cut soil acting as the form.
6.3 Foundation Design
After the site preparation described above,the buildings can be supported on conventional spread
footing foundations bearing directly on naturally-occurring clay, on new engineered fill placed
over naturally-occurring non-organic soils, or on aggregate pier improved soils. We recommend
that perimeter foundations for heated building areas bear at a minimum depth of 42 inches below
exterior grade for frost protection. Interior foundations in heated areas can be placed directly
below the floor slab. The bottom of exterior foundations (those foundations not bordering heated
building areas), including loading dock footings, should be extended to a minimum depth of 60
inches below exterior grade.
Based on the conditions found in our borings, and our recommended grading/compaction
procedures, it is our opinion that the footings can be proportioned for a maximum net allowable
soil bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). With the aggregate pier alternative,
we anticipate that the footings could be proportioned for a maximum net allowable soil bearing
capacity of 3,000 psf. The final bearing pressure and settlement estimates for the aggregate pier
alternative would be provided by the pier contractor after they perform on-site load tests of the
piers.
Page 15 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
The factor of safety with respect to the ultimate soil bearing capacity for these designs would
exceed 3. Based on this design, we estimate that total post-construction building settlement
would not exceed 1 inch, with differential settlement less than 1/2 inch over a horizontal distance
of 30 feet.
6.4 Floor Slab Design
We recommend using imported select granular soils with less than 20% passing the No. 200
sieve (such as Mn/DOT 3149.2B1) as interior backfill around the new foundations and in
underslab utility trenches inside the buildings, for relative ease of compaction in confined spaces.
Cohesive or semi-cohesive soil or cobbles/boulders should not be used for this backfill.
The backfill should be placed in lifts, with each lift mechanically compacted using manually-
operated vibratory or impact equipment, to at least 95% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry
density. The fill should be placed in lifts thin enough to attain the specified compaction level
throughout the entire lift thickness. This normally requires that fill be placed in loose lifts less
than 8 inches thick.
We recommend not using heavy towed or self-propelled compactors within 4 feet of newly
constructed foundation walls, including loading dock walls; such equipment can damage the new
walls. Based on a subgrade prepared with this type of backfill, and after general site grading,the
floor slab can be cast on-grade. For slabs cast on new compacted granular fill, we recommend
using a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 250 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for design of the
slabs; for slabs cast on clay fill,we recommend using a k value of 125 pci. If aggregate piers are
used to improve the floor slab subgrade, we recommend using a k value of 150 pci for design of
the slabs.
We recommend that a vapor retarder be placed over the subgrade to reduce the potential for
moisture migration. Moisture migration up to and through the concrete slab can damage coatings
Page 16 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
or coverings on the concrete floor, and contribute to excessive humidity and possible microbial
growth in the buildings.
The vapor retarder should be placed in accordance with the recommendations given in Part 2,
Section 302, of the Manual of Concrete Practice of the American Concrete Institute. Alternative
methods of vapor retarder construction are described in the April 2001 issue of Concrete
International. We also recommend that you contact the manufacturers of the specified floor
coverings or coatings to see how they wish to have the vapor retarder installed, since their
method may differ from the ACI methods. For additional recommendations on moisture and
vapor protection of floor slabs, please refer to the standard sheet at the end of this report entitled
Floor Slab Moisture/Vapor Protection.
6.5 Foundation Drainage
Because the buildings will not have basements, it is our opinion that it is not necessary to
construct a perimeter drain system around the foundations. However, if sand fill is used to
prepare the building pads over clay subgrades, there is a potential for the sand fill to hold water.
A perimeter drain system at foundation level, inside and outside the building, could remove this
trapped water. There could be a substantial volume of water infiltrating the sand fill during
construction until the buildings are enclosed, roofed and exterior surface drainage provided.
Providing an efficient means of removing this water could aid in reducing the potential for
construction delays or disturbance of the building pad soils. Furthermore, water from runoff or
irrigation systems can infiltrate next to the foundation after construction. The perimeter drain
system would help drain the water that infiltrates the exterior wall backfill.
We recommend that the ground surface around each building be sloped away from the structure
to promote surface runoff and reduce infiltration adjacent to the foundation walls. The surface
should be sloped at least 6 inches in the first 10 feet. The roof drainage system should be
designed to discharge away from the buildings. The landscaping next to the buildings should not
have depressions filled with decorative rock or mulch, because this can cause ponding of water
Page 17 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
next to the buildings.
6.6 Loading Docks
The loading dock walls will act as short retaining walls, and we recommend that the walls be
designed to resist the at-rest lateral earth pressure to reduce lateral deflection. The backfill
behind the loading dock walls should be a granular soil with less than 12% passing the No. 200
sieve, placed in lifts, and compacted with manually-operated equipment to at least 95% of the
maximum Standard Proctor dry density. The fill should be placed in lifts thin enough to attain
the specified compaction level throughout the entire lift thickness. This normally requires that fill
be placed in loose lifts less than 8 inches thick.
For compacted sand backfill behind the walls, we recommend that the walls be designed to resist
an equivalent fluid density of 50 pounds per cubic foot for the at-rest condition. For the active
earth pressure condition, we recommend using equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf. The earth
pressure should also include an additional uniform pressure equal to 0.5 times the uniform
surcharge load applied over the interior wall backfill from the floor slab. The passive earth
pressure at the base of the walls can be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 270
pounds per cubic foot.
We recommend using a coefficient of sliding friction of 0.28 for mass concrete on cohesive soils.
To achieve a higher coefficient of sliding friction, you could consider subcutting the cohesive
soils at least 1 foot below the bottom of footing and replacing it with compacted sand backfill.
We recommend using a coefficient of sliding friction of 0.50 for mass concrete on granular soils.
A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used for the sliding resistance.
Adequate vertical insulation should be placed on the inside face of the loading dock walls to
prevent horizontal frost penetration into the interior floor slab subgrade.
Page 18 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
6.7 Exterior Backfilling
Where exterior entry slabs, sidewalks, and aprons abut the buildings, we recommend placing
select non-frost susceptible(NFS) granular backfill around the exterior of the buildings to reduce
the potential for frost heave of the slabs and sidewalks. We recommend a sand or sand and gravel
mix having less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve and less than 40% passing the No. 40 sieve.
The NFS fill should be placed in thin lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum
Standard Proctor dry density.
The zone of the NFS backfill should extend at least 2 feet beyond the edges of the entry slabs,
and be tapered upward at a slope of 3 units horizontal to 1 unit vertical (3:1) to meet the
naturally-occurring soil. The purpose of the tapering is to reduce the potential for abrupt slab
displacement when zones farther away from the addition may heave during winter. The sand
backfill must include a proper drainage system to remove infiltrating water.
6.8 Exterior Underground Utility Construction
Excavations for underground utility construction will extend into the silty/clayey soils and
topsoil that we found in our borings. When unconfined, these soils are very sensitive to
disturbance by construction traffic and worker foot traffic. Where silty/clayey soils (USCS
Classification of CL, ML, CL-ML) are present at the pipe invert, the soil at the bottom of the
trench should be over-excavated to allow placement of a minimum of 4 inches of granular pipe
bedding below the pipe. If the soils are soft and susceptible to disturbance workers' foot traffic,
we recommend placing a geotextile separator fabric between the subgrade and the pipe bedding
to reduce mixing of the subgrade and the bedding. If the contractor is not careful, excessive
amounts of soil disturbance will occur, requiring remedial subcutting and backfilling.
For pipe bedding material, we recommend a sand or sand and gravel mix with less than 12%
passing the No. 200 sieve, such as Mn/DOT 3149.2B2. Pipe bedding should be carefully placed
and hand-compacted under the haunches of the pipe, around the pipe, and to a minimum of 6
inches above the crown. As backfill is placed in the trenches, special caution must be given to
Page 19 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
the densification of the soil around and over the pipe. The contractor may have to use special
manual techniques to properly compact the backfill under the haunches of the pipe, in order to
prevent voids and prevent lateral movement of the pipe. The bedding must be in direct contact
with the pipe before the trench is backfilled.
The excavated non-organic soils can be used as backfill for new utility line trenches. We
recommend that each lift of the trench backfill be mechanically compacted to at least 95% of the
maximum Standard Proctor dry density. Within 3 feet of the pavement subgrade elevation, the
compaction should be increased to at least 100% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density.
Under lawns or landscaped areas, compaction to at least 90% of the maximum Standard Proctor
dry density should be adequate. Cohesive soils used as utility trench backfill should be moisture
conditioned within 2% of optimum water content before placement. The fill should be placed in
lifts thin enough to attain the specified compaction level throughout the entire lift thickness. This
normally requires that fill be placed in loose lifts less than 8 inches thick.
6.9 Pavements
6.9.1 Subgrade Preparation
We found soft, compressible non-organic clay in our borings in the new pavement areas. Further,
up to about 3 feet of new fill will be placed to attain the desired grade in the pavement areas.
Pavements constructed over these soils will undergo settlement as the soft soils consolidate
under the weight of the new fill embankment.Areas of thicker fill and deeper soft soils will settle
more than areas of thinner fill and shallower soft soils.
It is typically cost prohibitive to carry out deep soil correction under pavements. One way to
reduce post-construction settlement and associated pavement distress would be to place the new
fill and aggregate base course, and then delay paving, or delay placement of the bituminous wear
course layer until the following Spring. However, please note that heavy vehicle loads traveling
on only one lift of bituminous can lead to excessive distress of the initial bituminous layer,
Page 20 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
possibly requiring additional maintenance before the final lift of bituminous is placed.
In the new pavement areas, we recommend stripping the existing pavement and surficial topsoil
to at least 2 feet beyond the edge of new pavements. After stripping the existing pavement,
vegetative layer, and topsoil, and before placing new fill in the pavement areas, we recommend
that the exposed clayey soils within 3 feet of the pavement elevation be evaluated for stability by
test rolling. Unstable soils found during the test roll (generally soils that yield more than 1 inch)
should be subcut and replaced, or scarified, dried and compacted until a passing test roll is
achieved.
If the remnants of the existing buildings on the site underlie the new pavement areas,they should
be cut off at least 2 feet below bottom of new base course to avoid "hard spots" under the
pavement that will be placed. We recommend that the bid documents contain a unit price line
item for removal of old buried structures and utilities that cannot be seen from the surface but
might be encountered.
Because of the poor frost/drainage and the variable stability properties of the clayey soils on this
site,we strongly recommend placing a sand subbase layer below the bottom of the base course in
the new pavement areas. We recommend using a Modified Select Granular material for the sand
subbase layer, such as Mn/DOT 3149.2B2 processed to have less than 40% passing the No. 40
sieve and less than 7% passing the No. 200 sieve. Drainpipes should be installed in the sand
subbase to remove infiltrating water. We recommend that the subbase extend beneath the curbs
and to 2 feet beyond the outside edge of the curbs, for frost and drainage uniformity. However,
outside the curbs, the sand subbase should be capped with slow draining soil to reduce
infiltration of surface water into the sand layer. Please note that the sand subbase has very little
"binder" in it and will rut under construction traffic. Therefore, the aggregate base course will
likely have to be placed by end-dumping so that the construction equipment can work off of an
aggregate base course surface rather than the sand subbase.
Page 21 of 28
J
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
In some areas of the site, topsoil will be present at the planned pavement subgrade elevation(i.e.,
bottom of sand subbase). In the heavy-duty pavement areas, where the pavement section
includes 24 inches of sand subbase beneath the aggregate base course, the sand can be placed
directly over the topsoil after the subgrade has passed a test roll. In the light-duty areas,where a
thinner sand subbase is planned, we recommend placing a geotextile separator fabric such as
Mirafi 500X or equivalent over the exposed topsoil.
We recommend that all new fill placed within 3 feet of the top of subgrade elevation be
compacted to a minimum of 100% of the Standard Proctor density (ASTM: D698). This applies
to the sand subbase, new fill, and the underlying native soil that is either reworked or reused as
fill. At depths greater than 3 feet below the subgrade, the degree of compaction can be reduced
to 95% of the Standard Proctor density. The fill should be placed in lifts thin enough to attain the
specified compaction level throughout the entire lift thickness. This normally requires that fill be
placed in loose lifts less than 8 inches thick.
Based on a subgrade consisting of lean clay, we recommend using a Stabilometer value (R-
value) of 10 for the bituminous pavement design. If a 2 foot thick sand subbase is included in the
design, we recommend using an equivalent R-value of 30 for the composite subgrade (sand
subbase over clayey soils); for a 1 foot thick sand subbase, we recommend using an equivalent
R-value of 20 for the composite subgrade.
6.9.2 Fly Ash Stabilization Alternative
Because of the relatively soft, high water content clay soils on this site, we recommend that you
consider improving the pavement subgrade using fly ash stabilization. The cementitious
products formed during hydration of the fly ash (after it is mixed with the soil) stabilize the soil,
and improve the stability and subgrade support. This would reduce the amount of subcutting of
topsoil because the sand subbase would be eliminated for the light-duty pavements and the
thickness of the sand subbase would be reduced for the heavy-duty pavements.
Page 22 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
We recommend that the fmal 12 inches of the clay subgrade be treated with Class C fly ash. The
subgrade can consist of the on-site dark brown to black clayey topsoil. For preliminary design
purposes, we estimate that treating the upper 12 inches of clay subgrade with about 10% by
weight of fly ash would likely increase the R-value from 10 to about 20. Laboratory Proctor and
CBR or Stabilometer testing would be required to confirm the estimated subgrade support
parameters for this alternative. The actual required amount of fly ash will depend on the water
content of the soil at the time of compaction. If you wish to pursue this alternative further,
please contact us for additional information. We can also assist in preparing preliminary cost
estimates for this alternative.
6.9.3 Subsurface Drainage
Drainpipes should be installed in the sand subbase to remove infiltrating water. This can be
accomplished by placing short segments of perforated drainage lines which are connected to
catch basins at lower elevations (referred to as "finger drains"). Where the pavement is relatively
level, and finger drains are not frequent, we recommend placing a series of longer parallel
drainage lines through the level area to better remove infiltrating water.
The final slope/shape of the subcut bottom prior to sand subbase placement should be such that
water is directed to the drainage area. The subcut bottom should not include depressions which
act as reservoirs for water collection.
6.9.4 Section Thicknesses
For the traffic pattern typical of this type of parking lot, we recommend the following pavement
sections; our recommended pavement sections without and with fly ash stabilization are
presented in Tables B and C,respectively(see also Figure 2 in Appendix A).
Page 23 of 28
J
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
TABLE B—RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESSES
(WITHOUT FLY ASH STABILIZATION)
Light-Duty Areas Heavy-Duty Areas
Pavement Component (autos,pick-ups,and vans only) (drive lanes for buses,delivery
and waste collection trucks)
MN/DOT 2360 MVWE35035 1.5 inches 2 inches
(wear course)
MN/DOT 2357 Tack Coat Yes Yes
MN/DOT 2360 MVNW35035 1.5 inches 2 inches
(non-wear course)
MN/DOT 3138 Granular base
course,Class 5, 100%crushed rock 6 inches 8 inches
or 100%crushed concrete(< 12%
passing the No.200 sieve)
Sand Subbase 12 inches 24 inches
(< 12%passing the No.200 sieve)
Geotextile Separator Fabric Yes No
NOTE: The thicknesses in these designs are minimumsnot the averages. This should be noted in your plans
and specifications.
TABLE C—RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESSES
(WITH FLY ASH STABILIZATION)
Light-Duty Areas Heavy-Duty Areas
Pavement Component (autos,pick-ups,and vans only) (drive lanes for buses,delivery
and waste collection trucks)
MN/DOT 2360 MVWE35035 1.5 inches 2 inches
(wear course)
MN/DOT 2357 Tack Coat Yes Yes
MN/DOT 2360 MVNW35035 1.5 inches 2 inches
(non-wear course)
MN/DOT 3138 Granular base
course,Class 5, 100%crushed rock 8 inches 6 inches
or 100%crushed concrete(< 12%
passing the No.200 sieve)
Sand Subbase 0 inches 12 inches
(< 12%passing the No.200 sieve)
Fly Ash Treated Subgrade Yes Yes
NOTE: The thicknesses in these designs are minimums, not the averages. This should be noted in your plans
and specifications.
Page 24 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
The heavy-duty pavement section can be constructed without the bituminous and used as a
construction haul road. However, if the heavy-duty pavement areas are used as haul roads
during construction, additional aggregate base course should be placed (over the thickness
recommended above) because some of the near-surface aggregate material will become fouled
by construction traffic. This fouled base course should be stripped off prior to placing the
bituminous.
The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 100% of the maximum Standard
Proctor dry density or to meet the penetration index criteria for Mn/DOT dynamic cone
penetrometer(DCP) tests. After the base course has been placed, compacted and tested, it is the
contractor's responsibility to maintain the base in a suitable condition for paving. If the subgrade
becomes saturated after testing, it may be rendered unsuitable for paving due to softness and
pumping. This would require remedial action before the pavement can be placed.
Please note that we have specified gradation No. 3 in the wear course bituminous mix. This
gradation will provide more stability and resist static loads and scuffing better than a gradation
No. 4. However, please note that the gradation No. 3 mix is more "coarse" looking than a
gradation No. 4, and is sometimes considered less aesthetically pleasing. For the Mn/DOT 2360
bituminous mix, the compaction should be at least 91.0% of the maximum theoretical density
(G.) for placement over aggregate base course, and 92.0% for placement over a bituminous
layer. We recommend using Type E oil (PG 64-28) for the wear and non-wear course for both
light-duty and heavy-duty bituminous mixes. As an alternative, Type B oil (PG 58-28) could be
used for the non-wear course.
The bituminous pavement section given above would have an estimated life of 20 years.
However, the Owner should not expect that the pavements would last 20 years without
maintenance. Within one to three years after construction, cracks will appear in the bituminous
mat due to thermal expansion and contraction, and due to the loss of volatiles from the
bituminous cement. These cracks cannot be avoided; they should be cleaned annually and filled
Page 25 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
with a hot bituminous sealant. Within three to five years after construction, cracks and
depressions may appear in heavily traveled areas. Such areas should be cut out and repaired
expeditiously to extend the pavement life. Periodically during the pavement life, the Civil
Engineer responsible for maintenance of the facility should determine the need to apply a seal
coat of hot bituminous and rock chips.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Potential Difficulties
7.1.1 Water in Excavations
Based on the conditions found in our borings, it is our opinion that the hydrostatic groundwater
table could be encountered in excavations for soil correction, foundations, and underground
utilities on this site, requiring construction dewatering. Perched groundwater and water from old
drain tile could also be encountered in excavations for foundations and underground utilities for
this project. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, and to reduce the potential for soil
disturbance and facilitate filling operations, we recommend that all free-standing water within
the excavations be removed prior to proceeding with construction.
The dewatering plan should include provisions for handling and disposing of contaminated
groundwater, if encountered. This should be reviewed with your environmental consultant,
Liesch Associates.
7.1.2 Disturbance of Soils
The soils that we encountered in our borings are highly susceptible to disturbance by
construction traffic, especially when saturated or exposed to free groundwater. Disturbed soils
should be carefully excavated and replaced with new compacted fill as described above.
7.1.3 Winter Construction
If construction occurs during the winter, it is necessary for the contractor to protect the base soils
from freezing each day and each night before new fill is placed. Fill should not be placed over
Page 26 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
frozen soils, snow, or ice, nor should the use of frozen fill soils be permitted. The contractor
must protect base soils from freezing before and after fill placement, and before, during, and
after concrete placement. If the interior footings will be exposed to freezing temperatures during
construction, we recommend that you consider lowering the footings to protect against frost
penetration into the footing subgrade soils. We recommend that a special pre-construction
meeting be held to discuss the procedures and precautions that must be followed.
7.2 Excavation Sideslopes
The excavations for this project must have sideslopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations
(Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, "Excavations" (can be found on www.osha.gov).
Even with the required OSHA sloping, surface runoff flowing over the slopes can possibly cause
sideslope erosion which could require slope maintenance. The responsibility to provide safe
working conditions on this site lies solely with the contractors.
7.3 Observation and Testing
The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test
boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring
locations, we recommend on-site observations by a Geotechnical Engineer, or the Engineer's
representative,during construction to evaluate the effect of these potential changes.
We recommend that all foundation bearing surfaces be observed by a Geotechnical Engineer or
Engineering Technician immediately prior to concrete placement. Soil density testing should also
be performed on all fill placed at the site to document that our recommendations, and the
specifications, for compaction and moisture, have been satisfied. Where fill material type is
important, laboratory sieve analyses should be performed to document that the actual fill meets
the recommended gradation criteria. The building materials should also be tested in accordance
with the project specifications and the building codes.
Page 27 of 28
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 22-00012
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, we have endeavored to perform our
services according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and
location. Other than this,no warranty, either express or implied, is intended.
Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in
Appendix B entitled "Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use."
Page 28 of 28
Appendix A
AET Project No. 22-00012
Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
Figure 1 —Boring and Test Pit Locations
Figure 2 —Pavement Section Details
Subsurface Boring Logs
Test Pit Logs
Boring Log Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
Appendix A
Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
AET Project No.22-00012
A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling 27 Standard Penetration test(SPT)borings and seven
hand auger borings,and observing the excavation of 15 test pits on this site.The locations of the borings and test pits appear on
Figure 1,preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix.
A.2 SAMPLING METHODS
A.2.1 Split-Spoon Samples(SS)-Calibrated to N60 Values
Standard penetration(split-spoon)samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM:D1586 with one primary
modification.The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2-inch O.D.split-barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140-pound
hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches.The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil.After an initial set of 6 inches,
the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N-value.
Our method uses a modified hammer weight,which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer
(PDA)and an instrumented rod.
In the past, standard penetration N-value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy
transferred to the split-spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60%of its potential energy due to the friction inherent in this
system.This converted energy then provides what is known as an N60 blow count.
Most newer drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system,which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently
results in lower N-values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to
determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly
variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100%. Therefore, the intent of AET's hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer
weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60%to 65%of the theoretical energy of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches.
The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N-values, stating that N-values of 100% or more have been
observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date,we can
state that the accuracy deviation of the N-values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM Method.
A.2.2 Disturbed Samples(DS)/Spin-up Samples(SU)
Sample types described as"DS"or"SU"on the boring logs are disturbed samples,which are taken from the flights of the auger.
Because the auger disturbs the samples,possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate.
A.2.3 Sampling Limitations
Unless actually observed in a sample,contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of
drilling tools.Cobbles,boulders,and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings,and they may be present
in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs.
Determining the thickness of"topsoil"layers is usually limited,due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery,and other
factors. Visual-manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant
variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for
calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality
definition,alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed.
A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS
Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is
described in ASTM:D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been
performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are
visual-manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system,the descriptive terminology,and the
symbols used on the boring logs.
The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted
primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and
development can sometimes aid this judgment.
A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Appendix A-Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC.
Appendix A
Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
AET Project No. 22-00012
The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under
"Water Level Measurements"on the logs:
• Date and Time of measurement
• Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement
• Casing Depth:depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of measurement
• Cave-in Depth:depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole
• Water Level:depth in the borehole where free water is encountered
• Drilling Fluid Level:same as Water Level,except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid
The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes.This is
possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors
include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings,
presence of drilling fluid,weather conditions,and use of borehole casing.
A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS
A.5.1 Water Content Tests
Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-010,which is performed in general accordance with ASTM:D2216 and AASHTO:T265.
A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS
Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards
referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied.
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.
- - WAYZATA-8U .WEST.-(U.S.- -k? -610-1.2)- - -- - - -
EXISTING BUILDING
I TP-12
%% X(1025.0 •-4 IP-1 .—
• _ L' J 1024.3 .r 4. )
1024 a X
PROPOSED I -8 ( 025.3) EP-15 -7
WAREHOUSE
(10 .9 (1024.2)Tr/LX (101,3.7) (O ^.`)
t 02!.3) (1024.46_4$
FFE�1027.3 TP-' X
ES 3 X(102 2 �_-3 0• ,1) r I
10 .4, TT-5B 1102
EP-14 EXISTING
L I 10 X 1024.3) (1024.9)4 9) 10 .3) BUNG
(10 4.8)
ES-4 (10- 0(1024.7f1025.0)
EP-Ir
TP-117 1024.6) a•-16
(1024.7) TP-13 i 023.6
ES-5 X(1025. G
1025.1) EXISTING BUDDIL
NG
PROPOSED
Ed1I .
,. •_
WAREHOUSE EP-12
EP-13 la �ODd
FFE-1027.0 ' (1025. ) I (STING BUILDI ' IEP-17
%..
' EP 24 "•\' t FFE-1024.0'*
02 2 a 19
y EP-2EP-2�i
• I EP-10
6;.,,,. .... ,/�, ,(1022.5)
EXISTING BUILDING I (� 1rgj
PROPO 1 - ` I; a a�
I
ES-9o) t1ES-7�
mq
OFFICE / (1PROPOSED 023.0)
WAREHOUSE
1 FFE•1024.3 c
ESB
ES-10 (1021.9)
I ��(1022 2)
— — — _Z I �\ EP-11
I �` * (1019.2)4
EP-9
_ _ _ _ (1021.1) I
LEGEND
% = APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION (AND GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION)
41-= APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SOIL BORING DRILLED BY AET IN FEBRUARY 2006
(AND GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONS)
NOTE: BORING AND TEST PIT LOCATIONS STAKED BY WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AMERICAN CONSULTANTS FIGURE 1: BORING AND
A .GEOTECHNICAL TEST PIT LOCATIONS
ENGINEERING •ENVIRONMENTAL
- INC. •MATERIALS 0
APPROXIMATE Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center
SCALE Orono,Minnesota
550 Cleveland Avenue Nardi
Mee651 56.5661
wo I
St.Paid,Moneta M 55114 Fa: N 51f51137! I FEET I DRAWN BY: VJL CHECKED BY: CAU
Wooden:www.amanteet es 0 200
DATE: 12!151416 AET JOB NO. 22.10.12
PROJECT734/4- /shy' JOB NO. Z Z-000/l
AMERICAN ‘ No f CA:74 SH / OF
ENGINEERING BY ctu DATE 3/Z Blame
TESTING, INC. CHECKED BY -7-1'i' DATE •
SCALE ef-/or /V Jct.
i
Co»°t i4eV -,i00 �✓r Sc 20 J
flz_9�#.tlkTlvEr :: ,
1 �-1 A,. e?Ye" 4 l? _�.�•✓✓�7✓�jfJti .. k_6G NL 47 ._�M? .. 1. °.. .�2Y_ )
, 1,1,6o.r- tikry
fiF -` Tr
•
, ///////////ft--8034411;,..)0Les --IP ley/&/_//// .47_ : . .
6v — • rip-
, .
o • . q- E--C t-A4 ... _�� •..o ....Is;-CO .
- • a Q
y !� �\
• 0 p
t '•
• _i • suaQ E. ` r ' r 4n
'
- - to r -. '-
4 - L^
. C3 . , � Q
t .�
'RL
_i
� 7A.Ow ;• ,-Etwv- _.�1
i ITerg4e0,:, 'tet
ray.
'
J 1.. --C.A • •t; +
^__, F. ,. F
1.
+
1, ! i.14.�rv' A• M,( 1
7 --,t..
• ,
rruwv.oAKS i r
r - ,; f
+ �Z -,: i--- i- + Viae' ' �1'a .art c -- y��
c f
•
--,----rte-4 1
i
t ,
r - f
;
I
r i
j:
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES- 1 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DIN II,EV, SURFACE ELEVATION: 1025.3 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET I'EEl MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL 044200
50/0.5 M ►i SS 5
1 —
2— LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,trace roots, TOPSOIL 1R.
black,firm(CL) Lill 33— 5 M SS 7
4— 1020.8 / Iii
/
5 —
SILT WITH SAND,grayish brown,a 5 M ' SS 20
6— little brown mottled,moist,loose(ML)
7 1018.3 � Iii
8— 5 M ' SS 24 40 36
9 LEAN CLAY,gray and brown mottled, It
firm(CL) fit
10—
FINE 8 M SS 24
11 — ALLUVIUM
12 — It
13 — 6 M P SS 24 29 39
14—
1010.8 Iii
15 — ,
6 M SS 24 22 39
firm(CL)
16— LEAN CLAY,gray, '
17— 1
18
1007.3 11/
19— SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, /TILL 6 M , SS 24 22 23
gray,firm(CL) 420 1005.3
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA I ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED EGCULEETHE ATTACHED
0-18' 2.25"HSA DEPTH DPTTHDEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
2/28/06 20.0 18.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE I h1): 2/28/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mom
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES-2 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTHELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.2 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — LEAN CLAY,trace roots,firm(CL) TOPSOIL
6 M SS 23
2 1022.2
3— 3 M A SS 18 32
4—
LEAN CLAY,trace roots,grayish 1
brown,
a little brown mottling,soft to
5 — firm ,
5 M , SS 24
6—
7— i
8— 5 M A SS 24 38
9 1014.7 FINE 1
ALLUVIUM
10—
7 M SS 24
11 — LEAN CLAY,gray,a little brown
mottled,firm(CL) ;
12—
13 — 6 M SS 24 40
14— 1009.7 — -i
15 —
6 M H SS 24 29
16— LEAN CLAY,gray,firm(CL)
17—
18 1006.2
19— SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, TILL
gray,firm(CL) % 6 M SS 24 22
20 1004.2
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA 1'ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME S DEPTH CASINGPTTDEPTH FLUIDDIDLEVEL WATER
THE ATTACHED
0-18' 2.25"HSA
2/28/06 20.0 18.0 17.0 14.0 SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE 1 Ell: 2/28/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
..
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES-3 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.4 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET I'Eh' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %4200
V
SANDY LEAN CLAY,trace roots, TOPSOIL
1 — black,soft(CL) 2 M 111 SS 14
2 1022.4
MIXED
3 — SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, ALLUVIUM 7 M ' SS 19 22
trace roots,black and brown,firm(CL) OR TOPSOIL
4 1019.9 !ti
5 —
LEAN CLAY,trace roots,grayish 4 Mill SS 17 37
6— brown,a little brown mottled,soft(CL)
7
1017.4 !ii
FINE ill
ALLUVIUM8 LEAN CLAY,gray,a little brown2 M SS 19 40
9— mottled,soft to firm(CL) /
!ii
10—
5 Mill SS 24
11 —
12
1012.4 !ii
13 — % 6 M SS 24 21
1
14— SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, TILL !ii
gray,firm,lamination of brown sand
15 —
(CL)
5 M p SS 24 30
16—
17— kil
18—
19— 7 M , SS 24
20 1004.4
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA I ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SDCINDIDEELEER THE ATTACHED
0-18' 2.25"HSA PHDEPTH DEPTH FLUID
L
2/28/06 20.0 18.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE I ED: 2/28/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
iim
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES-4 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH EI EV, SURFACE ELEVATION: 1025.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET 1'EE1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' WC DEN LL PL %-#200
FILL,mostly SANDY LEAN CLAY,
1 — trace roots,black and brown
FILL
3 M , SS 10
2 1023.0
3 — FILL,a mixture of SILTY SAND and 5 M , SS 17
CLAYEY SAND,a little gravel,trace /
4— roots,dark brown
logos / ti
s—
SANDY LEAN CLAY,brown and gray, MIXED 5 MSS 19 31
6— firm,lenses of silty sand(CL) /ALLUVIUM ,
7 1018.0 1
8 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, and WH M SS 24 38
9— brown mottled,very soft to firm(CL) '
i
10— j FINE
ALLUVIUM 6 M A SS 24
11 —
12 1013.0 i
13 — LEAN CLAY,gray,soft(CL) 4 M SS 24 41
14—
1010.5 li
15 — ,
6 MSS 24 18
16— SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, TILL A
gray,firm(CL) .M 1
17 — I
18 —
19— 6 M SS 24
20
1005.0 %A
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASINGPTTHDEPTH FLUID LEVEL WATER
THE ATTACHED
0-18' 2.25"HSA
2/28/06 20.0 18.0 18.0 17.0 SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORI�PLETED: 2/28/06 TERMINOLOGY ON
CODR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
itAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mom
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES-5 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH EV SURFACE ELEVATION: 1025.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
IN
FEET 1'EE1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' WC DEN LL PL %-#200
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,trace roots, TOPSOIL OR
1 — black,soft(CL) FILL 4 M ' SS 12
2 1023.1 /
3 — SANDY LEAN CLAY,trace roots, 6 M ' SS 10
black,firm(CL) '
TOPSOIL OR
_
4 1020.6 FILL It
5 —
SANDY LEAN CLAY,brown and gray 4 M rSS 12
6— brown,soft,lense black silty sand(CL)
7 1018.1 !ii
8— LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,a little 3 M ' SS 19 39
brown mottled,soft(CL) '
9 1015.6 !ii
10— r
/ 5 M SS 24 35
11 — ,
LEAN CLAY,gray a little brown FINE
mottled,firm(CL) 0 ALLUVIUM !ii
12— � ill
13 — 5 M SS 24
14— 1010.6Iii
15 — � ri
5 M SS 24 38
16— LEAN CLAY,gray,firm(CL)
17— 1
i
18 1007.1
1 _ SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, TILL
9 gray,firm(CL) 8 M SS 24 19
20 1005.1 A
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME S DEPT ID DEPTH DEPTHH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-18' 2.25"HSA
2/28/06 20.0 18.0 17.0 15.0 SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE I LD: 2/28/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
ummi
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES-6 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
50/0.3 M SS 2
FILL,mostly SILTY SAND WITH FILL 1
1 — GRAVEL,dark brown,wet,dense
2 1021.0 1
j
3 — LEAN CLAY,trace roots,grayish 9 MSS 19 31
brown,stiff(CL) '
4 1018.5 i
5—
LEAN CLAY,light gray,firm(CL) 7 MSS 20 33
6— ,
7 1016.0 i
8—_ A 7 M SS 24 36
9 LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,firm(CL) it
FINE
10— ALLUVIUM
7 M SS 24
11 —
12 1011.0
13 — LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,dark 8 M SS 24 32
grayish brown,firm,lamination of
14— clayey sand(CL)
1008.5
15 — Y.
8 M SS 24
16— SANDY SILT,grayish brown,loose,
moist(ML) .
17—
18 1005.0
SILTY SAND,a little gravel,dark gray, :•,::•;•`.TILL
19— moist,loose,lamination of sandy clay :.::•,:* 6 M SS 24
(SM) ..\.. `
20 1003.0 • . •
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSpNOTE: REI�1rR TO
DATE TIME S PLrHH DEPINIHG CDEPPIH FZ IDLEVEL LSE EL THE ATTACHED
0-18' 2.25"HSA
2/27/06 20.0 18.0 17.0. 15.0 SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/27/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mom
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES-7 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH ,FV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1022.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
r III FEE1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
FILL,mostly SANDY LEAN CLAY,
1 — trace roots,brown 36 M SS 24
FILL
2 1020.1
3— FILL,mostly LEAN CLAY,trace roots, 10 M SS 14
grayish brown,lamination of black clay
4— 1017.6 I
5 —
LEAN CLAY,trace roots,light grayish 8 M SS 24 31
6— brown,firm,lamination of brown sandy
silt(CL)
7 1015.1 i
8— LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,firm, % 6 M SS 24 36
lamination of brown silt(CL)
9 1012.6
10—
LEAN CLAY,brownish gray,fine, FINE 6 M SS 24 35
11 — lamination of brown silt(CL) ALLUVIUM
12 1010.1 i
13 — 7 M SS 24 34
LEAN CLAY,dark grayish brown,finn
14— to stiff(CL)
i
15 —
11 M SS 24
16- t
17 1
18 1004.1 1
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,a little TILL
19— gravel,dark brownish gray,firm(CL) 8 M SS 24 20
20 1002.1
END OF BORING
Offset 15'east
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASINGPTTHDEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THEATTACHED
0-18' 2.25"HSA
2/27/06 20.0 18.0 19.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BCOMPLETED: 2/27/06 TERMINOLOGY ON
DR MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
iiAMERICAN
i, ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
mom
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES-8 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1021.9 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel, FILL
1 — trace fine roots,dark brown,moist, 10 M1 SS 17
loose,laminations and lenses of brown
2 1019.9 and gray mottled lean clay
3 — 14 M
LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,stiff(CL) ri_ SS 17 25
4 1017.4 gi
5 —
LEAN CLAY,trace roots,gray,firm 5 Mill SS 19 34
6— (CL)
1014.9 !ii
7 FINE
ALLUVIUM il
8— 5 M SS 24 37
LEAN CLAY,light brownish gray,
9— firm,lamination of silt(CL) al
10—
5 M SS 24
11 — '
12
1009.9 !ti
13 — LEAN CLAY,gray and brown mottled, 8 Mfit SS 24 30
firm,laminations of silt(CL)
14— 1007.4 M
15 —
10 M fit SS 24 20
16— SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel,
grayish brown,stiff(CL) TILL
r.
17— ill
18 1003.9 1
SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, 1
19— dark gray,firm(CL) 5 M SS 24 22
2 1001.9 A
0
END OF BORING
Offset 15'east
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
" DATE TIME SEPPTHD DEPTH CAVE-INING EPTH FLUIDDDRILLING
GEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-18' 2.25 HSA
2/27/06 20.0 18.0 18.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/27/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG `
TESTING, INC.
mom
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES-9 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTHIN SURFACE ELEVATION: 1025.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
SILTY SAND,trace roots,dark brown, : :''.:TOPSOIL
1 — wet,medium dense(SM) :.:•i. 30 WH SS 24
2 1023.0 .
3— SILT WITH SAND,grayish brown, 4 M r SS 19
moist,very loose(ML)
4 1020.5 li
5 -
2 Millif
/ SS 17
6— SILT WITH SAND,trace fine roots,
grayish brown and brown mottled,very !i
7— loose,moist(ML)
8— 2 M , SS 24
9 1015.5 !i
10— /ALLUVIUM /
5 M ' SS 24 17
11 LEAN CLAY,a little sand,grayish
brown and brown,firm(CL) ii
12—
13 — 5 M ' SS 24
14— 1010.5 ii
is —
16— LEAN CLAY,a little sand,dark
7 M SS 24 35
brownish gray,firm(CL) '
17— - i
18 1007.0 i
19— SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, �TILL11 M / SS 22 20
stiff(CL)
20 1005.0 4
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SEPPTHHD DEPTH DEPTHIN FLUID LEVEL WATER
THE ATTACHED
0-18' 2.25"HSA
2/27/06 20.0 18.0 18.0 17.0 SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
COMPLETED:BORING
2/27/06 TERMINOLOGY ON
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
itAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
Iii
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. ES-10 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1022.2 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
ELEV.
FEET 1'bE l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' WC DEN LL PL %-#200
SANDY SILT,trace fine roots,black, TOPSOIL
1 _ moist,medium dense(ML) 14 M SS 24
2 1020.2
3 — SANDY LEAN CLAY,black,stiff(CL)
TOPSOIL 9 M SS 14
a 1017.7 % •! I
5— :.
SILTY SAND,trace fine roots,grayish :•::.:: 8 M SS 17
6— brown,moist,loose,laminations of clay :.,:.;•`
S : COARSE
7 1015.2 ( ::••:'.ALLUVIUM 1
8— SILTY SAND,medium to coarse 10 1r A SS 17
grained,dark grayish brown,moist,
loose(SM) .\::''. A
9- •
1012.7 :':;•: 1
10-
7 M ' SS 14
11 — SANDY SILT,grayish brown,moist, FINE ,
loose(ML) ALLUVIUM I
12—
13 — 5 M ' SS 16
14— 1007.7 1i
15 — ••• ••
:•••:••
16— SILTY SAND,fine to medium grained, • •:COARSE 12 W , SS 20
grayish brown,wet,medium dense(SM) :•:'':ALLUVIUM
17 -
ii
181004.2j
19— SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, TILL 9 M SS 14 20
dark brownish gray,stiff(CL)
20 1002.2
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED D CASINGPCAVE-INDPPTHFLUID DRILLINGWATER
LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-18' 2.25"HSA
2/27/06 20.0 18.0 14.0 8.0 SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BCOMPLETED: 2/27/06 TERMINOLOGY ON
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mem
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP- 1 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEQ ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.7 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET Fh> 1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — 5 M SS 10
2— LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,trace roots, TOPSOIL
black,firm(CL)
3— 4 M SS 2
4—
1020.2
5 —
SILT WITH SAND,gray,moist,very 4 M SS 20
6— loose,laminations of brown sandy silt
7 1017.7 )
— LEAN CLAY,gray,soft,laminations of r FINE
8brown sandy silt(CL) ALLUVIUM 4 M SS 24 38
9 1015.2 t
10—
LEAN CLAY,brownish gray and 5 M SS 24 37
11 — brown,firm(CL)
12 1012.7
13 — FAT CLAY,dark brownish gray,soft 4 M SS 24 41
(
14— 1010.2
15 SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, TILL
dark gray,firm(CL) 6 M SS 24 21
16— 1008.2
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLEDPTHHCASINGPTTDEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-14%' 2.25"HSA
2/24/06 16.5 14.5 14.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/24/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
•
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
imil
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-2 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.6 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC IN.
FEET 1'EhT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TSE IN. WC DEN LL PL '%-#200
LEAN CLAY,trace roots,black,firm, TOPSOIL
1 — laminations of gray silt(CL) 5 M SS 10
2 1022.6
3 — 2 M SS 2 28
4—
LEAN CLAY,trace roots,gray,soft, I
laminations of brown silt(CL) ,
5 -
3 M , SS 19
6—
7— i
8— 4 M , SS 24 35
9 NE A
1015.1 ALLUVIUM i,
10—
LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,soft, 4 M SS 24 38
11 — laminations of brown silt(CL)
12 1012.6 t
13 — 7 M / SS 24 39
14— FAT CLAY,dark brownish gray,firm
(CH)
15 —
5 M SS 24
16— 1008.1 4
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA 1'hR LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED INCEEATHE ATTACHED
0-14/ 2.25„HSA EP CASINGPTCAVE-IN
FLUID LVL LEVEL
2/23/06 16.5 14.5 14.5 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE I ED: 2/23/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG `
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-3 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
D I� ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1025.3 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET FEEEI MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
9.5"Bituminous pavement 50/0.4 M SS 2
1024.5 1
1 FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel, FILL
11121023.3 dark brown
3 SAND WITH SILT,a little gravel,fine 24 MilY SS 19
to medium grained,brown,moist to 4.5' A
4— then waterbearing,medium dense to7 !ii
loose(SP-SM) — ,
5 —
5 W SS 7
A
1018.3 :-•:COARSE !1
-•ALLUVIUM if
8— 2 W ,
_ SS 17
SAND,a little gravel,fine to medium
9 (grained,brown,waterbearing,very loose ' li
10—
4 WASS 10
11 —
12 1013.3 i
13 LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,a little 5 MSS 17
brown mottled,firm(CL) '
14 FINE
1010.8 ALLUVIUM 1
15 — LEAN CLAY,gray,firm(CL)
7 M SS 24
16— 1008.8
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA 1'ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WAI]'R
0-14W 2.25"HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED
DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
2/22/06 16.5 14.5 4.5 SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE 1 ED: 2/22/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mem
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-4 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1025.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
ELEV.
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
9.5"of bituminous pavement 50/0.4 M W SS 7
1024.3 1
1 — FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel, FILL i
2 1023.1 brown and dark brown
LEAN CLAY,trace roots,black,stiff, r FILL OR
3 — lense of silty sand(CL)(may be fill) TOPSOIL 12 M ' SS 17
4 1020.6 M
5 —
4 M SS 10
6— LEAN CLAY,a little sand,gray,a little '
brown mottled,soft,strong petroleum !ii
7— type odor from 7'to 9.5'(CL)
8— 3 M fit SS 14
9 1015.6 % !ii
FINE
10— ALLUVIUM il 3 M SS 24
il — LEAN CLAY,gray and brown mottled,
soft to firm,slight petroleum type odor 3F !ii
12 — from 9.5'to 11.5'(CL) — ili
13 — 5 M SS 24
14— !li
15 — ,
6 M SS 24
16— 1008.6 7///<
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASINGPTTDEPTH FLUID DRILLING
LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-14W 2.25"HSA
2/22/06 16.5 14.5 14.0 12.0 SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BCOMPLETED: 2/22/06 TERMINOLOGY ON
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
itAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-5 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.3 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
I.EE1 NF-h1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL U0-#200
1024.0,,3.5"of bituminous pavement �— 50/0.4 M _ SS 5
I – 1
1
1
2— FILL,a mixture of gravelly silty sand
and clayey sand,brown
3 — FILL 8 M SS 10
4– 1019.8
5 –
FILL,a mixture of sandy lean clay,silt 4 M SS 17
6— and silty sand,black,brown and gray
7 1017.3
8— 5 M SS 19
9 LEAN CLAY,gray and brown mottled, i
10— firm,lenses of brown silt(CL)
5 M SS 24
11 – FINE
ALLUVIUM
12 –
13 — 5 M SS 24
14— 1009.8
15 — LEAN CLAY,gray,firm(CL)
5 M SS 22
16— 1007.8
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
0-14%' 2.25"HSA DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
2/22/06 16.5 14.5 SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLL TED: 2/22/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
Immo
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-6 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.9 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET NEE1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
LEAN CLAY,trace roots,black,firm, TOPSOIL
1 — laminations of gray clay and sandy lean 8 M , SS 14
1021.9 clay(CL)
2 '
3— LEAN CLAY,light brownish gray,firm 7 M SS 10
(CL)
4 1019.4 i
5—
5 M SS 17
6 LEAN CLAY,light brownish gray,
firm,laminations of brown silt and silty I '
7— sand(CL)
8— FINE 4 MSS 24
ALLUVIUM ,
9 1014.4 i
10—
LEAN CLAY,brownish gray and gray 8 MSS 24
11 — mottled,firm(CL) '
12 1011.9 i
13 — FAT CLAY,dark grayish brown,firm, 8 MSS 24
laminations of silty sand(CH) 1
14— 1009.4 p
15 —
SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, TILL 5 M SS 24
dark gray,firm(CL)
16— 1007.4
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING WATER
THE ATTACHED0-14/ 2.25"HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL
2/23/06 16.5 14.5 14.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/23/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
•
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-7 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.7 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET 1'FhI MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 SANDY SILT,trace roots,a little TOPSOIL 6 M ' SS 22
gravel,black,moist,loose(ML)
2—
,
3 �1020.7 5 M SS 24
LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,firm, ,
4— laminations of sand(CL)
1019.2 i
5 — /
3 M i SS 17
6 LEAN CLAY,light brownish gray,soft,
laminations of brown silt(CL) t`
7-
8— 5 M A SS 24
9-
1014.2 FINE 1
10— ALLUVIUM
LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,firm, 8 MSS 24
11 — laminations of brown silt(CL) '
12 1011.7 i
13 — 8 M A SS 24
14— FAT CLAY,dark grayish brown,firm
(CH) ti
15 —
5 M SS 24
16— 1007.2
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REI..ER TO
DATE TIME SEPPTHH CASINGPTTDEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-14W 2.25"HSA
2/23/06 16.5 14.5 14.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE 1ED: 2/23/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
NOTE: Boring EP-8 was not drilled due to the storage of
materials on this part of the site.
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mom
AFT JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-9 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1021.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
ELEV.
FEET 1'EET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' WC DEN LL PL %-#200
FILL,a mixture of sandy clay and silty
1 — sand,trace roots,black and gray 36 M SS 24
mottled,frozen
2 1019.1
FILL,mostly sandy clay,trace fine FILL
—
3roots,black and gray mottled 11 M SS 19
4 1017.1
FILL,mostly sandy clay,trace fine
5— roots,brown,black and light brown 4 M SS 19
6 1015.1
�'..1:
7 SILTY SAND,fine to medium grained, : :' COARSE 9 M SS 14
brown,moist,loose,lenses and ::•\'•ALLUVIUM
8— laminations of silt(SM)
9— ;•;� 9 M SS 10
10 1011.1
END OF BORING
Offset 30'north
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SEPPTHD CASINGPTTHCAVE-INDPPTFLUID LEVEL LEVEL
2/27/06
R THE ATTACHED
0-8' 2.25"HSA
2/27/06 10.0 8.0 8.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE FED: 2/27/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mom
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-l0 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1022.5 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
ELEV.
FEET FEEI MATERIAL DESCRIP'T'ION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %4206
50/0.5 M SS 3
FILL,mostly silty sand with gravel, FILL
1 — dark brown
2 1020.5
j
3— LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,very soft 4 M SS 22
(CL)
4_ 1018.5
5 — / 4 M SS 22
LEAN CLAY,light gray and brown FINE
6— mottled,soft to firm(CL) ALLUVIUM
7— 7 M A SS 24
8 1014.5
9— LEAN CLAY,brown and gray mottled, 4 M SS 24
soft,laminations of brown silty sand
10 1012.5 (CL) 4
END OF BORING
Offset 5'west
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA 1ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED EHEHLLLEEL THE ATTACHED
0-8' 2.25"HSA DEPTH DEPTH DPTFLUID LEVEL
2/24/06 10.0 8.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORN ETED: 2/24/06 NG TERMINOLOGY ON
CDR MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-11 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1019.2 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
1•EE1 FEEI MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' WC DEN LL PL %-#200
FILL,mostly silty sand,trace roots,dark
1 — brown and black mottled
1017.2 7 M ' SS 19
2 FILL
3— FILL,a mixture of silty sand and clayey 7 M ' SS 17
sand,a little gravel,dark brown ,
4 1014.7 !ti
5 —
10 M , SS 24
6 SAND WITH SILT,a little gravel,fine
•
to medium grained,brown,moist, !ii
7— medium dense(SP-SM) • '
8— 13 M , SS 14
9 1009.7 •• ••t-...: tii
10— .:COARSE
• •ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND,a little gravel,fine to :•'• : 7 M A SS 19
11 — medium grained,gray,moist,loose : :.,;
S
12 1007.2 •'•''!•• It
13 — SILTY SAND,fine grained,grayish • : 14 W ' SS 14
brown,wet,medium dense(SM) `' .
14— 1004.7 • .: gi
15 — SILTY SAND,fine grained,gray,wet, :.\::!•:
loose(SM) 8 W SS 17
16— •\'.
1002.7 .,
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
" DATE TIME SEPPTHD CASINGPTCAVE-IN PTH FLUID LEVEL ING LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-14%' 2.25 HSA
2/23/06 16.5 14.5 13.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/23/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
A. AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
MIMI
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-18 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.9 SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
GEOLOGY N MC
FEET FEE 1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
50/0.3 W -1 SS 4
1 — FILL,mostly silty sand with gravel, FILL
brown,wet
1021.9 t
2
3— SANDY LEAN CLAY,light brownish % 5 M ' SS 12
gray,firm(CL)
4 1019.4 ii
5 —
5 M SS 24
6— ,SANDY LEAN CLAY,brown and grayMIXED
mottled,firm(CL) 0 ALLUVIUM ii
7—
8— 5 M SS 24
9 1014.4 ii
10—
LEAN CLAY,a little sand,grayish 6 M SS 24
11 — brown,firm(CL) FINE ,
12 1011.9 ALLUVIUM t
13 — 7 M SS 24
FAT CLAY,dark brownish gray,fine
14— (CH) ii
,
15 1008.9
SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, TILL 10 M I SS 24
16— dark brownish gray,stiff(CL)
1007.4
END OF BORING
Offset 25'south
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
0-14W 2.25"HSA DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
2/27/06 16.5 14.5 14.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE FED: 2/27/06 _
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
IMI
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-19 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1026.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
INELEV.
I'EE1 )~EE1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — 15 M SS
Concrete floor slab over FILL,mostly FILL
2— sand,a little gravel,brown
3 — 1022.5 12 M SS
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,black, /FINE
4— 1021.5 trace roots stiff(CL) ALLUVIUM*
END OF BORING
Blow counts obtained from an 89 pound *OR
hammer falling 11 inches correlated to a TOPSOIL
140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SEHINLEELEL THE ATTACHED
0-4' Hand Auger DEPTH DPTCAVE-IN
FLUIDDRILLING WATER
2/27/06 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE 1 Ell: 2/27/06
DR: JY LG: JE Rig: HA THIS LOG
06/04
itAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG •
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-13 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1025.5 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — LEAN CLAY,trace roots,black,firm 0 TOPSOIL 5 M SS 17
(CL)
2 1023.5
3— LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,trace roots, FINE 5 M SS 12 20
dark brown and brown mottled,firm ALLUVIUM
4—
1021.0 (CL) 1
5 —
CLAYEY SAND,grayish brown,firm 0 MIXED 5 M SS 17 29
6— (SC) ALLUVIUM
1018.5 ! s
7 t
8— 4 M SS 24 33
9 LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,a little FINE it
brown mottled,soft(CL) ALLUVIUM
10—
4 M SS 24 37
11 —
12— it
13 — 4 M SS 24
14— 1011.0
15 — LEAN CLAY,gray,a little brown
mottled,soft(CL) 4 M SS 24 37
_
16 1009.0
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SEPPTHD DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-14%' 2.25"HSA _
2/24/06 16.5 14.5 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/24/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
Imi
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-12 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1025.5 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — LEAN CLAY,trace roots,black,firm TOPSOIL 6 MSS 14
(CL) '
2 1023.5
3 — LEAN CLAY,dark grayish brown,firm 6 M SS 19
4— (CL)
1021.0 A IT
5-
4 M ' SS 19
6— SILT,gray and dark brown,moist,very FINE
loose,laminations of silty sand(ML) ALLUVIUM
7—
IT
8— 3 M , SS 24
9— 1
1016.0 I
10—
LEAN CLAY,gray,soft,laminations of 4 M ' SS 24
11 — brown sandy silt(CL) 1
12 1013.5 1
13 — LEAN CLAY,dark gray,soft, 3 M SS 24
laminations of brown sandy silt(CL)
14— 1011.0 zi 1
15 —
FAT CLAY,dark gray,firm(CH) 5 M SS 24
16— 1009.0 ,,
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WAlER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED EPHH DEPTH H DEPTH FLUID DRILLING
GEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-14W 2.25"HSA
2/24/06 16.5 14.5 14.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/24/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
..
.. AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-14 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DIN , SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.3 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEE 1 FEE! MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — LEAN CLAY,trace roots,black,soft 0 TOPSOIL 4 M 1 SS 10
(CL)
2 1022.3
3 — LEAN CLAY,brown and gray mottled, 4 MSS 7
soft(CL) ,
4— 1019.8 i
5—
4 M SS 20
6 LEAN CLAY,gray,a little brown FINE
mottled,soft,chemical type odor at 4.5' ALLUVIUM I
7— to 6.5'(CL) ,
8— 4 M A SS 24
9— 1014.8 i
10—
LEAN CLAY,gray and brown mottled, 6 MSS 24
11 — firm(CL) '
12 1012.3 i
13 — / 6 M , SS 24
LEAN CLAY,ACH) grayish brown,firm
(E
14— '
15 1009.3
SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, TILL 6 M , SS 24
16— gray,a little brown mottled,firm(CL) A/
1007.8 %/
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
0-14%' 2.25"HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED
DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
2/23/06 16.5 14.5 14.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/23/06 _
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mom
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-15 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SPACE ELEVATION: 1024.2 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
1.EE1 14E1E1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,trace roots, TOPSOIL
1 — black,soft(CL) / 4 M SS 14
2 1022.2
3 — LEAN CLAY,gray,a little dark brown 6 MSS 10
4— mottled,firm(CL) ,
1019.7 !ii
s — /
3 M SS 19
6 LEAN CLAY,grayish brown,a little FINE '
brown mottled,soft(CL) 0 ALLUVIUM MI
_
7 � '
8— 4 M SS 24
1014.7 MI
10— ri
6 M SS 24
11 — LEAN CLAY and sh brown
mottled,firm(CL) !ti
12—
13 — 5 M SS 24
1010.6 '
14— l i
15 — LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,a little TILL fl
gravel,gray,firm(CL) 6 M SS 24
16— 1007.7 %///,
END OF BORING
Offset 15'north
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING
DRILLING
THE ATTACHED
0-14%' 2.25"HSA DEPTH DEPTH CAVE-IN
FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
2/23/06 16.5 14.5 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/23/06
DR MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
NOTE: Boring EP-20 was drilled with hand augers. No split-spoon sampling
was conducted in this boring.
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-21 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
ELEV.
IN
FEET 1'EEI MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — 20 M SS
Concrete floor slab over FILL,mostly FILL
2— sand,a little gravel,brown
3 1020.5 15 M SS
4— SANDY LEAN CLAY,black,stiff /MIXED
1019 5 ,(CL) / ALLUVIUM*
END OF BORING
Blow counts obtained from an 89 pound *OR
hammer falling 11 inches correlated to a TOPSOIL
140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED EHLLEEATHE ATTACHED
0-4' Hand Auger DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL
2/27/06 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/27/06
DR: JY LG: JE Rig: HA THIS LOG
06/04
_ AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-16 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.6 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
ELEV.
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL Vo-#200
1 — FILL,mostly clayey sand,a little gravel, FILL 6 M SS 10
dark brown
2 1021.6
c
3— CLAYEY SAND,dark brown and p MIXEDUVIUM 9 M SS 17
brown,stiff,laminations of silty sand r OR FILL '
4— (SC)(may be fill)
1019.1 i
5—
lir
SILT WITH SAND,brown and gray, 7 M , SS 12
6— moist,loose(ML)
7 1016.6 ), 1
8— LEAN CLAY,brown and gray mottled, iJVIiJM 4 M SS 24
soft(CL) '
9 1014.1 i
10— '
3 M SS 24
11 —
LEAN CLAY,gray,a little brown
mottled,soft to firm(CL) 1
12— � ,
13 — 5 M A SS 24
14—
i,
15 —
5 M 1 SS 24
16— 1007.1 %///,
END OF BORING
Offset 4'south
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
" DATE TIME SAMPLEDPCASINGPTTDEPTH FLUID LEVEL WATER
THE ATTACHED
0-14%' 2.25 HSA
2/23/06 16.5 14.5 14.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BOCOLE1 hD: 2/23/06 TERMINOLOGY ON
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-17 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.7 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET 1'EE 1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1023.3 5"of bituminous pavement
1 — FILL,mostly lean clay with sand,a little 28 M ' SS 24
gravel,dark brown and gray,frozen
2 1021.7
FILL
3 — FILL,a mixture of silty sand and sandy 9 M ' SS 12
lean clay,brown and gray
4— 1019.2 ft
5—
3 MrlSS 19
6 LEAN CLAY,gray,a little brown '
mottled,soft to firm,laminations of silt h1
7— (CL)
8— j FINE 4 M SS 24
ALLUVIUM '
7 M SS 24
11 — '
12 1011.7 Ili
13 — LEAN CLAY,gray,firm(CL) 6 MSS 24
P
14— 1009.2 gi
15 — /
LEAN CLAY,gray,firm(CL/CH) 7 M SS 24
16— 1007.2 %///,
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA 1ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REI.ER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED EHCTHE ATTACHED
0-14W 2.25"HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUIDLEVEL LEVEL
2/23/06 16.5 14.5 14.0 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE rr:D: 2/23/06
DR: MN LG: TM Rig: 750D THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-22 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1026.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — 14 M SS
2— Concrete floor slab over FILL,mostly FILL
silty sand,a little gravel,brown
3 11 M SS
1022.0
4 1021.5 LEAN CLAY,gray and dark brown FINE*
\mottled,stiff(CL)
END OF BORING
Blow counts obtained from an 89 pound *ALLUVIUM
hammer falling 11 inches correlated to a
140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA I ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTHG DEP�THH FLUID
LEVGEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-4' Hand Auger
2/27/06 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE IED: 2/27/06
DR: JY LG: JE Rig HA THIS LOG
06/04
itAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mmin
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-23 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DIN EPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 1026.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — Concrete floor slab over FILL,mostly 11 M SS
sand with silt,a little gravel,brown
2 1023.5 FILL
3 FILL,mostly sand,a little gravel,brown 11 M SS
4-
1021.5
END OF BORING
Blow counts obtained from an 89 pound
hammer falling 11 inches correlated to a
140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASINGPCAVE-INDPPTHFLUID LEVEL LEVEL T ATTACHED
0-4' Hand Auger
2/27/06 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED: 2/27/06
DR: JY LG: JE Rig: HA THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-24 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1026.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET I'EEI MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — Concrete floor slab over FILL,mostly FILL 16 M SS
sand,a little gravel,brown
2- -
1023.5
3— SANDY LEAN CLAY,trace roots, 'MIXED
_ black,firm(CL) Valium 8 M SS
OR TOPSOIL
4 1021.5
END OF BORING
Blow counts obtained from an 89 pound
hammer falling 11 inches correlated to a
140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA I Eft LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED
CASINGPTTHDEPTH FLUID FLUID LEVEL LEVEL WATER THE ATTACHED
0-4' Hand Auger
2/27/06 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BOMPLETED: 2/27/06 TERMINOLOGY ON
CDR: JY LG: JE Rig: HA THIS LOG
06/04
..
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG .
TESTING,INC.
AFT JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. EP-25 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1026.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
1.E,E,T FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 — 11 M SS
Concrete floor slab over FILL,mostly FILL
2— sand,a little gravel,brown
3 6 M SS
1022.0
4 1021.5 CLAYEY SAND,grayish brown loose V MIXED*
\(SC)
END OF BORING
Blow counts obtained from an 89 pound *ALLUVIUM
hammer falling 11 inches correlated to a
140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUIDDLEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
0-4' Hand Auger
2/27/06 None SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLL TED: 2/27/06
DR: JY LG: JE Rig: HA THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-1 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE FLFVATION: 1024.7 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET I'hE 1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' WC DEN LL PL %-#206
1 —
2— FILL,mixture of silty sand and lean FILL*
clay,brown,dark brown and black
3 —
4 1020.7
000
000
CLAYEY SILT,moist,gray and iii FINE
5— brownish gray(CL-ML) 00
iii ALLUVIUM
000
6 1018.7 ei
END OF TEST PIT
*Encountered old masonry foundation
wall in north end of test pit
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THEATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
imm
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-2 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTHSURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.6 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEEL }'ELI MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL /,4200
1 FILL,mixture of sandy lean clay and FILL*
silty sand,dark brown and black,trace
2— roots
3 1021.6
4—
LEAN CLAY,trace roots,moist,gray, FINE
some brown staining(CL) ALLUVIUM
5—
6 1018.6
END OF TEST PIT
*Encountered clay pipe at about 3',pipe
runs NW-SE
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA 1 ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED
DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLEI ED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mum
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-3 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.4 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL Vo-#200
1 SILTY CLAY,trace roots,moist,black TOPSOIL
2_ (CL)
3 1021.4 r
LEAN CLAY,trace sand,moist,gray
4 1020.4 (CL)
CLAYEY SAND,trace gravel,moist, /FINE
1019.4 gray(SC) /ALLUVIUM
5 LEAN CLAY,moist,grayish brown
6 1018.4 (CL) A
END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE FED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
Immim
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-4 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 10243 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET 1±E 1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 SANDY LEAN CLAY,trace roots, TOPSOIL
_
moist,black(CL)
2 1022.3
000
iii
3 SILTY CLAY,moist,trace sand,gray ;;; FINE
and brownish gray(CL-ML) ALLUVIUM
4— iii
000
5 1019.3
END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WA 1 ER
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-5 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.3 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
NEE 1 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 -
2—
3 — FILL,mixture of clayey sand and sandy FILL
lean clay,black and dark brown,pieces
of bituminous and metal culvert
4—
5 —
1017.3
6 LEAN CLAY,gray,moist(CL) ALLUVIUM
7 1016.3
END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA I ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-5A (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
11±1 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 FILL,mixture of sandy silt and lean I FILL
clay,trace roots,black
2-
1020.5
3 LEAN CLAY,gray intermixed with FINE
brown and black clay,moist(CL) ALLUVIUM
4— 1018.5
1018.0 LEAN CLAY,gray with some brown j//
5 mottled and some water seeping into
hole(CL) I
END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THEATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
THIS LOG
DR: LG: Rig:
06/04
•
9 A AMERICAN
- ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-5B (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET 1'EE1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' WC DEN LL PL %-#200
FILL,mixture of sandy silt and lean
1 — clay,trace roots,black
1021.5
2— : FILL
3 — FILL,mixture of brown,gray,black
clay,sand
4 1019.0 °•:
1018.5 SILTY CLAY,moist,gray(CL) %/ FINE
END OF TEST PIT ALLUVIUM
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG -
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-6 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.9 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
ELEV.
1,hh1 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL V0-#200
SANDY LEAN CLAY,moist,black p TOPSOIL
(CL)
1 _ 1023.4
2 1022.9 LEAN CLAY,moist,gray and black FINE
- \(CL) / II ALLUVIUM
3 1021.9 SILT,moist,gray,some brown staining
VMI-)
END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REI hR TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME SAMPLED
DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THEATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE FED:
DR LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
•
I
I AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AFT JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-7 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEI EV, SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.6 FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
IN GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET 1'LET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %#200
SANDY LEAN CLAY,moist,black p TOPSOIL
(CL)
1 r 1023.1
LEAN CLAY,moist,gray and black
2— 1022.1 (CL) /
SILT AND CLAYEY SILT,moist,gray M FINE
3— 0�0 ALLUVIUM
(CL-ML) /00
0.0
1020.6 iii
4 END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WA 1-ER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WAIIR
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL T ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
AMERICAN T
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-8 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 1023.9 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
1'r h 1 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#204
SANDY LEAN CLAY,moist,black %/ TOPSOIL,
1 — (CL)
2 1021.9
LEAN CLAY,moist,dark gray and
1020.9 black(CL) FINE
3 SILT,trace clay,moist,gray(ML) ALLUVIUM
4 1019.9
END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME SAMPLED
DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THEATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE l ED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
z AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
ii
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-9 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHEs1ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.2 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL /-#200
1 —
ANDY LEAN CLAY,moist,black TOPSOIL
(CL)
_
2 1021.7 %///
3 SILT,trace clay,moist,gray(ML) FINE
4 1020.2 ALLUVIUM
1019.7 LEAN CLAY,moist,gray with some
\brown staining(CL)
END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME SAMPLED
DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
..
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mimm
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-10 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHEll, SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.8 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
IEE 1 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 —
SANDY LEAN CLAY AND LEAN %TOPSOIL
CLAY,moist,black(CL)
_
2 1022.3
FINE
3 — LEAN CLAY,moist,gray(CL) ALLUVIUM
1021.3
0 MIXED
4_ CLAYEY SAND,moist,gray and ALLUVIUM
1019.8 brown(SC) f A
5 END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WA I Etc
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
* AAMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-11 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTHELE�7, SURFACE ELEVATION: 1024.7 SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
INFEET 1±EET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GEOLOGY N MC TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL Vo#200
1 SANDY LEAN CLAY,moist,black /TOPSOIL*
2— (CL)
3 1021.7
LEAN CLAY,moist,gray and black
4— (CL) FINE
1019.7 ALLUVIUM
5 1019.2 LEAN CLAY,moist,gray and brown %/)
\(CL)
END OF TEST PIT
*Encountered clay pipe at about 3'in
west end of test pit,pipe runs N-S
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME SAMPLED
DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
AAMERICAN Y
. ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-12 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH ELEV. SURFACE ELEVATION: 1025.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
H±1 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %-#200
1 FILL,mixture of dark brown and black FILL
silty sand and clayey sand,trace roots
2-
1022.5
3 SILT,trace sand,trace roots,clay, FINE
moist,gray with some brown staining ALLUVIUM
_
4 1020.5 (ML)
END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WAIhR THE ATTACHED
DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLETED:
DR: LG: Rig: THIS LOG
06/04
f
4
a A AMERICAN
V
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING,INC.
mom
AET JOB NO: 22-00012 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-13 (p. 1 of 1)
PROJECT: Proposed Crystal Bay Business Center; Orono,Minnesota
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: ~1025.5 FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS
IN ELEV. GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC
FEET FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' WC DEN LL PL %420(1
SANDY LEAN CLAY,moist,black r TOPSOIL
1 — (CL) f
(CL) CLAY,moist,gray and black
2— FINE
LEAN CLAY,moist,gray with some ALLUVIUM
—
3brown staining(CL) A
END OF TEST PIT
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THEATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
BORING TERMINOLOGY ON
COMPLE
THIS LOG
DR: LG: Rig:
06/04
1
7
BORING LOG NOTES
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS
Symbol Definition Symbol Definition
CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test
B,H,N: Size of flush-joint casing DEN: Dry density,pcf
CA: Crew Assistant(initials) DST: Direct shear test
CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf
inches HYD: Hydrometer analysis
CC: Crew Chief(initials) LL: Liquid Limit, %
COT: Clean-out tube LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf
DC: Drive casing;number indicates diameter in inches OC: Organic Content, %
DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F-Field;
DR: Driller(initials) L-Laboratory
DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights PL: Plastic Limit, %
FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in go: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf(approximate)
inches qq: Static cone bearing pressure, tsf
HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter q : Unconfined compressive strength, psf
HSA: Hollow stem auger;number indicates inside diameter R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cms
in inches RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent
LG: Field logger (initials) (aggregate length of core pieces 4"or more in length
MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of as a percent of total core run)
samples and for the ground water level symbols SA: Sieve analysis
N(BPF): Standard penetration resistance(N-value)in blows per TRX: Triaxial compression test
foot(see notes) VSR: Vane shear strength,remoulded (field),psf
NQ: NQ wireline core barrel VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field),psf
PQ: PQ wireline core barrel WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight
RD: Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit %-200: Percent of material finer than#200 sieve
REC: In split-spoon (see notes) and thin-walled tube
sampling,the recovered length(in inches)of sample. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES
In rock coring, the length of core recovered (Calibrated Hammer Weight)
(expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero The standard penetration test consists of driving a split-spoon
indicates no sample recovered. sampler with a drop hammer(calibrated weight varies to provide
REV: Revert drilling fluid N60 values)and counting the number of blows applied in each of
SS: Standard split-spoon sampler (steel; 1%" is inside three 6"increments of penetration.If the sampler is driven less
diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in
otherwise ASTM:D1586,the blows for each complete 6" increment and
SU Spin-up sample from hollow stem auger for each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial
TW: Thin-walled tube;number indicates inside diameter increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1'
in inches below the slash.
WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning
rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC"
the borehole after°falling"through drilling fluid column, may be greater than the distance indicated in the N
WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and column.The disparity is because the N-value is recorded below
hammer the initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in
WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod ASTM:D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample
94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even
Water level directly measured in boring extend more than 18").
0: Estimated water level based solely on sample
appearance
01REP052C(01/05) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC.
f
I
1laUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN
ASTM Designations:D 2487,D2488 ENGINEERING
TESTING,INC. �a
Soil Classification lifal
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tats" Group Group Name' "Baud on the material passing the 3-in
Symbol (15-mm)sieve.
Coarse-Grained Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu>4 and 1<Cc<3" GW Well graded gravel' If field sample contained cobbles or
Soils More than 50%coarse Less than 5% boulders,or both, add"with cobbles or
than 50% fraction retained finesc Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3L GP Poorly graded gravel boulders,or both"to group name.
retained on on No.4 sievecGravels with 5 to 12%fires require dual
No.200 sieve Gravels with Fines classify as ML or MN GM Silty gravel" symbols:
Fines more OW-GM well-graded gravel with silt
than 12%fines c Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel''r' GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay
GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt
Sands 50%or Clean Sands Cu>6 and l<Cc<3k SW Well-graded sand' GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay
more of coarse Less than 5% °Sands with S to 12%fines require dual
faction passes fines° Cu<6 and 1>Ce>3° SP Poorly-graded sand' symbols:
No.4 sieve SW-SM well-graded sand with silt
Sands with Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand' SW-SC well-graded sand with clay
Fines more SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt
than 12%Imes D Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand`r u SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
Fine-Grained Silts and Clays inorganic Pl>7 and plots on or above CL Lean clay"
Soils 50%or Liquid limit less "A"liter (D,02
more passes than 50 Pl<4 or plots below ML Silt' leu..Drs/Dino. Cc
the No.200 "A"line Dior D60
sieve organic Liquid limit-oven dried<0.75 OL Organic clay'''. Ylf sod
(see Plasticity Liquid limit-not dried Organic sihcs,si°• containsadd"with
Liquid
Chart below) °If fines classify as CL-ML,use dual
Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above"A"line CH Fat clay1L6 symbol GC-GM,or SC-SM.
Liquid limit 50 "lf lues are organic,add"with organic •
or more P1 plots below"A"line MH Elastic silt' fps"to group name.
'lfsoil contains>15%gravel,add"with
organic L.iauid limit-oven dried<0.75 OH Organic clay'''. braver to group name.
'If Atserberg limits plot is hatched area, .
Liquid limit-not dried Organic nitwit/ soils is a CL-ML silty clay.
Highly organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Pat" KIf soil contains 15 to 29%plus No.200
add"with soil in color,and organic in odor sand"or whichever is roan graver,
t.
'If soil contains No.200,
OM ANALYSIS 'predominantly sand,add "sandy"to
F...o...a►j--Ne""r"--I group name.
tf l i " 1 i >0 4 A ion p a- i wlf soil containns�,>30%pl s No.200,
c` t Iou.al ,*+*"
� predominantly tom,add "gravelly"
O
m as WWI/073 wail I:)\\ • to group name.
�
ve°.6ld+u,SiarR.s i t 14P1>4 end plots on or above"A"line.
0 6.15.. eR-aa6m q °P1<4 or plots below"A"lute.
'0 n /
'11 plots on or above A"line.
QPI plots below'A*line.
I
• •n.•2ew mr fi /Tiber Cornea description shown below.
a o
I
0 al
.0 .tet to 4 ,o ao eb 70 b lib .tie flet
• PARTO.E WE N 141,1110 1918 ntpuoUMT(W
...t.r.a �.a. ',ts•u - Plasticity Chart •
t ADDlTIONA14 TERMINOLOGY-,NOTES;USED BY.AE.FOR:SOIL.IDI]V17FIG4fl IiANBRE +' .!:!i:.::
4 min Sirs Gravel Percentages Consistency of Plastic Sills Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils
1 i..M Particle Size Inln MERE DOR $-Value.BPF ISg N-Value.BIT
:. Boulders Over 12' A Little Gravel 3%-14% Very Soft less than 2 Very Loose 0-4
Cobbles 3'to 12' With Gravel 15%-29% Soft 2-4 Loose 5-10
--Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Gravelly 30%-SO% Firm 5-S Medium Dense 11-30
Sand #200 to#4 sieve Stiff 9-IS Dense 31-50
Fines(silt&clay) Pass#200 sieve Very Stiff 16-30 Very Dense Greater than SO
Hard Grater than 30
Moisture/Frost Condition Levering Notes Fiber Contain of Peat Organic/Roots Description fif no lab tests)
(MC Column) Laminations: Layers less than Fiber Content Soils are described as prsadc,if soil is not peat
D(Dry): Abserse of moisture,dusty,dry to W thick of TSM [Visual Estimate) and is judged to have sufficient organic fines
touch. differing material content to influence the soil properties. Sleigh,
M(Moist): Damp,although five water not or color. Fibric Peat Greater than 67% oceanic used for borderline ass.
visible. Soil may still have a high Hemic Peat: 33-67%
water content(over"optimum"). Lenses: Pockets or layers Sapric Peat Less then 33% With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity
W(Wet/ Free water visible intended to greater than lb" of roots to influence the soil
Waterbeering): describe non-plastic soils. thick of differing properties.
Waterbearing usually relates to material or color. Trace roots: Small roots present,but not judged
sands and sand with silt to be in sufficient quantity to
F(Frozen): Soil frozen significantly affect soil properties.
•
-`O1CIS021(2/04) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC.
A
1
I
r
Appendix B
AET Project No. 22-00012
Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
1
1 Appendix B
Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
AET Project No.22-00012
B.1 REFERENCE
This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by
construction delays,cost overruns,claims,and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE',of which,
we are a member firm.
B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes,Persons,and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study
conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because
each geotechnical engineering study is unique,each geotechnical engineering report is unique,prepared solely for the client.
No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one
originally contemplated.
B.2.2 Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on
an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.
B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study.
Typically factors include: the client's goals,objectives,and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure
involved,its size,and configuration;the location of the structure on the site;and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study
specifically indicates otherwise,do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored,or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a
light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight of the proposed structure,
• composition of the design team,or
• project ownership.
As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes,even minor ones,and request an assessment
of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports
do not consider developments of which they were not informed.
B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a
geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;by man-made events,such
as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of
additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
1 ASFE,8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring,MD 20910
Telephone:301/565-2733:www.asfe.org
Appendix B—Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC
Appendix B
Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
AET Project No. 22-00012
B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions
Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an
opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly,
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction
observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
B.2.6 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final,because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their
recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer
who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does
not perform construction observation.
B.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower
that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the
report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.
Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer
participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences,and by providing construction observation.
B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.
To prevent errors or omissions,the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion
in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that
separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems,give contractors the complete
geotechnical engineering report,but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter,advise contractors that
the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to
confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional
study to obtain the specific types of information they need 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 commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled"limitations"many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical
engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions
closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
B.2.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment,techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any
geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage
tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have
not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance.
Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.
Appendix B—Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC