exploration and review -...

www.amengtest.com

CONSULTANTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

GEOTECHNICAL

MATERIALS

FORENSICS

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL

EXPLORATION AND REVIEW

Proposed Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Minnesota Segment 4

Nobles County, Minnesota

Report No. 32-01940

Date:

March 9, 2016

Prepared for:

Banner Associates, Inc.

2307 West 57th Street Suite 102

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57102

Page i

601 E. 48th St. N. | Sioux Falls, SD 57104

Phone (605) 332-5371 | (800) 972-6364 | Fax (605) 332-8488 | www.amengtest.com | AA/EEO This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from American Engineering Testing, Inc.

CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL · GEOTECHNICAL · MATERIALS · FORENSICS

March 9, 2016 Banner Associates, Inc. 2307 West 57th Street Suite 102 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57102 Attn: Dennis Odens Subj: Geotechnical Exploration Program Proposed Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Minnesota Segment 4 Sioux Falls, South Dakota AET Project No. 32-01940 BAI No. 20000.30.01 Dear Mr. Odens: American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for the proposed Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Minnesota Segment 4 project in Nobles County, Minnesota. These services were performed according to our proposal to you dated November 16, 2015 and the written authorization of Mr. Timothy Conner with Banner Associates, Inc. on November 23, 2015. An electronic copy of the report is being submitted to you. Please contact me if you have any questions about the report. I can also be contacted for arranging construction observation and testing services during the earthwork phase. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. Bradley C. Letcher, EIT Project Manager Phone: (605) 332-5371 Fax: (605) 332-8488 [email protected] BCL/bl

mailto:[email protected]

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.

Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Transmittal Letter............................................................................................................................. i Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 1 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 1 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING ................................................................ 2

4.1 Field Exploration Program .................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ 4

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 4 5.1 Surface Observations ............................................................................................................. 4 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology...................................................................................................... 4 5.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 5

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 5 6.1 Water Pipeline Installation .................................................................................................... 5 6.2 Trench Excavation - Backfill ................................................................................................. 7 6.3 Dewatering............................................................................................................................. 9 6.4 Excavation Slopes................................................................................................................ 10 6.5 Pipe Loading and Deflection ............................................................................................... 11 6.6 Corrosivity ........................................................................................................................... 12 6.7 Reservoir Control Vault Construction ................................................................................. 14

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 14 7.1 Potential Difficulties ............................................................................................................ 15 7.2 Excavation Backsloping ...................................................................................................... 16 7.3 Observation and Testing ...................................................................................................... 16

8.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 17


Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS STANDARD SHEETS Excavation and Refilling for Structural Support Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction Basement/Retaining Wall Backfill and Water Control APPENDIX A – Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Boring Location Map Subsurface Boring Logs Analytical Results (Soil Corrosivity Tests) APPENDIX B – Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use


Page 1 of 17

1.0 INTRODUCTION

We understand the project will consist of the construction of large diameter water pipeline for the

Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. We also understand valve vaults and a reservoir control

vault will be a part of this project. This portion of the Minnesota project includes Segment 4 from

Adrian to Worthington in Nobles County, Minnesota. To assist in planning and design, you have

authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to perform geotechnical exploration and

review for the proposed new water pipeline project. AET will conduct soil laboratory testing, and

perform a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of our

services, and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

AET's services were performed according to our proposal to Mr. Dennis Odens with Banner

Associates, Inc. dated November 16, 2015 and the written acceptance of that proposal by Mr.

Timothy Conner with Banner Associates, Inc. on November 23, 2015. The authorized scope

consists of the following:

• Contact Gopher State One Call to clear utilities in the area of the subsurface exploration.

• Twenty-Six (26) standard penetration test borings to depths of 15’ to 18’.

• Soil laboratory testing.

• Geotechnical engineering analysis based on the gained data and preparation of this report. These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the

presence or extent of environmental contamination.

3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

We understand the project will consist of the design and construction of the proposed Lewis and Clark

Regional Water System Minnesota Segment 4 project in Nobles County, Minnesota. From the

beginning of the project (station 3112+45) to station 3375+84 the proposed pipeline will be 24-

inch (steel or PVC pipe) based on economics at bid time. From station 3375+84 to station 3592+30


Page 2 of 17

(reservoir turnout) the proposed pipeline will be 20-inch (steel or PVC pipe) based on economics

at bid time. From station 3592+30 to end of the project (station 3890+50) the proposed pipeline

will be 16-inch PVC. We understand a concrete reservoir control vault will be constructed at

station 3592+30 (Soil Boring #18). The proposed invert of the vault will be at an approximate

elevation of 1703’. The anticipated cast in place concrete vault dimensions are 14’ x 14’ x 10’

deep.

The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This

information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there

are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our

recommendations are appropriate.

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING

4.1 Field Exploration Program

The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of twenty-six (26)

standard penetration test borings. The logs of the borings and details of the methods used appear

in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic

description, and moisture condition. Relative density or consistency is also noted for the natural

soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N-value).

The boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Map included in Appendix A. The borings

were located in the field by Banner Associates. Coordinates and surface elevations at the boring

locations were furnished by Banner Associates. The elevation at each boring location based on the

furnished elevations is shown on the top of the logs included in Appendix A.

Due to poor site conditions many of the soil borings needed to be moved to a suitable location in

order to complete our subsurface exploration program. Table 1 on the following page shows the

coordinates and elevation of each boring after they were moved from the locations staked by

Banner.


Page 3 of 17

TABLE 1 – Soil Boring Information

Boring No.

Coordinates Elevation (feet) Northing Easting

1 553106.245 2129089.276 1594.5 2 552944.482 2133612.185 1583.3

3 552965.156 2136513.696 1587.8

4 552712.590 2142840.822 1636.7 5 552595.303 2145247.079 1643.8 6 552646.538 2148763.241 1638.1

7 552586.782 2149255.810 1638.9

8 552609.872 2150855.246 1644.4 9 552471.943 2154595.707 1672.5

10 552457.790 2157293.668 1653.2

11 552482.582 2160037.029 1671.1

12 552498.779 2162289.116 1624.7 13 552502.261 2163187.870 1625.7 14 552447.907 2168308.018 1638.5

15 552367.655 2170514.151 1673.0

16 552296.120 2174112.277 1695.1 17 552211.615 2174828.707 1694.7 18 552228.644 2176010.429 1714.8

19 552137.064 2181399.317 1681.3

20 551992.705 2186696.414 1646.3 21 551839.282 2188010.874 1632.8 22 551841.749 2191053.847 1613.5

23 552267.235 2195820.654 1607.4

24 553530.310 2200023.784 1585.2 25 555471.314 2202795.687 1568.5 26 556343.740 2201870.237 1577.4


Page 4 of 17

4.2 Laboratory Testing

The laboratory test program included water content, percent passing the #200 sieve by wieght and

soil corrosivity tests. The soil corrosivity tests included resistivity, pH, chloride and sulfate tests.

The water content test results appear in Appendix A on the individual boring logs adjacent to the

samples upon which they were performed. The soil corrosivity tests results are shown in Table 3

and also on the data sheets included in Appendix A of this report.

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surface Observations

The location of the project starts at the intersection of Edwards Avenue and 270th Street and ends

approximately 14 miles east at the Worthington Water Treatment Plant. The current site vegetation

in the area of the proposed water pipeline consists of grass and plowed fields. The topography of

the area is rolling hills with surface elevations at the boring locations ranging from 1568.5’ to

1714.8’.

5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology

A review of the soil boring logs suggests a varied soil profile. The soils encountered include

organic lean clay topsoil, silty clay topsoil, clay fill, clayey sand fill, lean clay alluvium, silty clay

alluvium, fat clay alluvium, clayey sand alluvium, silty sand alluvium, sand alluvium (water

deposited soils), and sandy lean clay till (glacier deposited soils). It should be noted that the

majority of the clay soils consisted of lean clay or sandy lean clay, which generally exhibit a low

potential for moisture/volume movements.

The consistency of the natural clay soils ranged from soft to very stiff. The density of the sand

soils ranged from very loose to medium dense.

The soils encountered along the pipeline route were typically deposited by water. These soils

virtually contain all particle sizes including clay, silt, sand and gravel as well as cobbles and


Page 5 of 17

possibly boulders. Although boulders were not encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that

they could be encountered during construction of the project.

We wish to point out that the subsurface conditions at other times and locations on this site may

differ significantly from those found at our test locations. If different subsurface conditions are

encountered during construction, it is necessary that you contact us so that our recommendations

can be reviewed. The test boring logs also indicate the possible geologic origin of the materials

encountered.

5.3 Groundwater

Observations for subsurface groundwater were made at the boring locations during our drilling

operations. The levels of the groundwater readings are shown on the boring logs. Groundwater

was encountered at the boring locations during our drilling operations at depths varying from 4.5’

to 14.7’ below the surface elevations. The time of year that the borings were drilled, and the history

of precipitation prior to drilling, should be known when using the water level information on the

soil boring logs to extrapolate water levels at other points in time.

Groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and yearly. The time of year that

the borings were drilled, and the history of precipitation prior to drilling, should be known when

using the water level information on the soil boring logs to extrapolate water levels at other points

in time.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Water Pipeline Installation

As previously noted, the boring logs indicate a varying soil profile. Based on our visual review,

laboratory tests and our familiarity with similar soils encountered at the boring locations, it is our

opinion that trench excavation conditions will range from poor to good. In general, the soil

conditions expected to be encountered at the pipe elevations can be categorized into four


Page 6 of 17

categories. The categories are as follows: 1) Sand below the water table, 2) Sand above the water

table, 3) Clay below the water table, and 4) Clay above the water table. It is our opinion that the

most challenging category could be the third category, clay below the water table. The saturated

clay soils are sensitive to disturbance and have a potential for soft areas that may need to be

stabilized using geotextile fabric or crushed aggregate or a combination of the two.

To obtain adequate stability of the trench bottom for pipe placement, we recommend over-

excavating at least 6” below the bottom of pipe or manhole elevations followed by the placement

of granular bedding. If soft or loose conditions are present at this elevation, we recommend two

options for obtaining adequate stability of the trench bottom for pipe placement. The first option

will consist of placement of a geotextile fabric and granular bedding. The geotextile fabric should

extend up the trench sidewalls to a level of at least the midpoint of the pipe. Placement of the fabric

should then be followed by placement of granular bedding material also extending from the bottom

of the trench to the midpoint of the pipe or higher. Bedding material should be compacted into

place using backhoe mounted vibratory compaction equipment. The second option would consist

of over-excavating an additional 6” to allow for the placement of coarse rock (oversize) capped

off with 4” to 6” of finer grained material. The appropriate means of subgrade stabilization should

be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction.

We recommend that the trench preparation for sand soils below the water table consist of

dewatering the site prior to trench excavation and then vertically over excavating 6” below the

bottom of pipe or manhole elevations. We recommend that the exposed sand soils be surface

compacted before the placement of new engineered fill.

We recommend that the trench preparation for sand soils above the water table consist of vertically

over excavating the sand soils to 6” below the bottom of pipe or manhole elevations. We

recommend that the exposed sand soils be surface compacted before the placement of new

engineered fill.


Page 7 of 17

We recommend that the trench preparation for clay soils below the water table consist of

dewatering the site prior to excavation and then vertically over excavating 6” to 12” depending

upon the stability of the exposed soils. We recommend placing stabilization materials (crushed

rock and/or geotextile fabric) as the situation warrants. If geotextile fabric is used, it should be

placed on the natural soils and extend up the trench sidewalls to a level of at least the midpoint of

the pipe. Placement of the fabric should then be followed by placement of the stabilization material

also extending from the bottom of the trench to the midpoint of the pipe or higher. Stabilization

material should be compacted into place using backhoe mounted vibratory compaction equipment.

We recommend that the trench preparation for clay soils above the water table consist of vertically

over excavating 6” below the bottom of pipe or manhole elevations followed by the placement of

the bedding materials. If soft areas are encountered, we recommend that the area be treated as

stated above for clay soils below the water table. In the drilling, process we encountered many soft

areas in the clay soils.

6.2 Trench Excavation – Backfill

The backfill of the pipeline trench will consist of three distinct layers. The “pipe base” shall extend

the full width of the trench, from 6” below the pipe to the bottom of the pipe. The “pipe zone” shall

extend the full width of the trench from the top of the pipe base (bottom of the pipe) to 6” above the

top of the pipe. The “trench zone” shall include the full width of the trench from the top of the pipe

zone to the top of the original surface elevation of the natural ground. Sand material shall be used for

the pipe base and pipe zone. Native material may be used for the trench zone.

We recommend that sand soils be used for the pipe base and pipe zone backfill. The sand should be

classified as a SP, SM or SP-SM based on the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM:D3839).

The sand material should be free of gravel or sharp materials that measure ¾” or larger.


Page 8 of 17

We recommend that the sand soils used for the pipe base be compacted to at least 90% relative

compaction as compared to the Standard Proctor density (ASTM:D698). For the pipe zone,

compaction should be such to avoid damaging the pipe but it is our opinion that the compaction should

reach a minimum of 90% relative compaction as compared to the Standard Proctor density. However,

the pipe manufacturer’s recommendations for compaction levels should be reviewed. The sand soils

used for the pipe base and pipe zone backfill should be placed in maximum 8” lifts. Generally, it is

desirable that the sand soils have a moisture content from 1% to 5% below the optimum moisture

content as determined by the Standard Proctor.

Excavation to expose the bottom trench elevation should be performed using a backhoe with a smooth

bucket. The pipe base material should be shaped to conform to the bottom of the pipe. Hand

excavations should be used to shape the pipe fill areas.

The backfill in the trench zone should consist of the native excavated soils; however, organic soils

(topsoil) or organic fill soils should not be used for backfill except for cover material. The trench

zone backfill soils placed in nonstructural areas such as in the existing native grass areas or

agricultural fields, should receive a compaction of at least 90% relative compaction as compared

to the Standard Proctor density (ASTM:D698). Backfill soils placed in structural areas, such as

beneath traffic areas, should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction as compared to the

Standard Proctor density. In general, the native backfill soils should be placed in maximum 8”

loose lifts. The clay backfill soils should be placed at a moisture content ranging from -3% to +2%

of the optimum moisture content as determined by the Standard Proctor. Drying of the backfill soil

will likely be required to obtain adequate compaction. The backfill material should be free of frost

and should not be placed on frozen soils. Please refer to the “Freezing Weather Effects on Building

Construction” included in the Standard Sheets.


Page 9 of 17

The clay backfill soils encountered along the pipeline will become difficult to work with if exposed

to the atmosphere and allowed to dry out or become over-saturated. Therefore, we suggest the

excavated trench soils be placed in a relatively contained berm with minimal surface area to help

minimize the potential for atmospheric drying or wetting of these soils. The time that the backfill soils

are exposed to atmosphere should be minimized as much as possible. We recommend that the surface

elevation of the refilled pipeline trench be equal to or higher than that of the adjacent existing grades.

General site grading should not allow water to pond along the pipeline trench.

6.3 Dewatering

As noted on the boring logs, groundwater was encountered at depths varying from 4.5’ to 14.7’ below

existing grade at the time of our subsurface exploration program. The amount of water encountered

in the excavation at the site will be dependent upon seasonal fluctuations, the excavation depths

required and the amount of sands encountered. Because of the permeable nature of the sand soils

present at borings 12, 14 and 18, it may not be possible to control water entering the excavations in

these areas with normal sump pumping procedures. More intricate dewatering techniques may be

required depending upon the magnitude of water encountered.

Depending upon the volume of inflow, it may be possible to place some coarse rock in the excavation

bottom to aid in draining the water to sump locations. However, in the more pervious sand soils, pre-

drainage may be necessary to provide safe excavation slopes for pipeline installation and for

backfilling. A dewatering contractor should be contacted for specific recommendations for pre-

drainage.

Any water which does collect in the open excavation should be quickly removed. Upon removal of

the groundwater from the excavation, the immediate placement of the pipe bedding and the first


Page 10 of 17

several lifts of fill should be performed. In addition, surface drainage away from the excavation should

be provided during construction.

6.4 Excavation Slopes

Safe excavation slopes should be provided in accordance with current OSHA requirements. These

regulations are found in the “Federal Register, Tuesday, October 31, 1989, Part II, Department of

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 29 CFR Part 1926, Occupational

Safe and Health Administration, Standards-Excavation; Final Rule”.

OSHA recommends safe excavation slopes based on the classification of the soil and the unconfined

compressive strength. Soils are classified as Type A, Type B, Type C and stable rock. The stability

of Type A is the highest for the soils and Type C is the lowest. Please refer to the above mentioned

OSHA document for a more specific definition of each soil type and the associated stipulations.

Based on empirical correlations with the standard penetration resistance (“N” values), we typically

assume cohesive soil is Type A if it has an “N” value of greater than 10 blows per foot. Based on the

soils encountered at the boring locations, it is our opinion the majority of the soils will be classified

as Type C soil according to OSHA.

We recommend that the excavated soils not be placed at the top of the excavation slope. The soil

should be placed as far from the top of the excavation slope as possible. OSHA guidelines do not

consider surcharge effects from the excavated material. Also, we wish to point out that the soils at the

boring locations may not represent the soil conditions between the borings. Therefore, it is important

that personnel trained in OSHA soil classification be on-site to monitor the excavations and aid in

determining safe excavation slopes. Trench shields should also be considered where unstable soils

are encountered.


Page 11 of 17

6.5 Pipe Loading and Deflection

The pressures acting on shallow buried pipe are influenced by the relative rigidity of the pipe and

surrounding soils, depth of cover, type of backfill, width and shape of the pipe, trench width and

method of construction. For example, the vertical exterior pressure acting at the top of a pipe may

range from pressures equal to or greater than the overburden pressures in highly compressible soils

to much less than the overburden pressures in granular soils because of the effect of “arching”, in

which a portion of the overburden pressure is supported by the surrounding soil. Also, the soil pressure

against the side of the pipe in an embankment significantly influences the resistance of the pipe to

vertical load. Appropriate references should be consulted relative to these varied parameters. For

design purposes, we have provided the following modulus of soil reaction (E’) in Table 2 below. We

wish to note that various values have been published with variations in the E’ for various types of

materials and compaction. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and the American Society for Testing and

Materials utilize the same values. The ASTM designation is D3839 and the Bureau of Reclamation

standard is E-3.

Table 2

Soil Type - Primary Pipe Zone Backfill Material (Unified Classification

System)

E’ for Degree of Compaction of Bedding

85% Proctor* or 40% Relative Density

90% Proctor* or 40-70% Relative Density

95% Proctor* or 70% Relative Density

Coarse grained soils with fines: GM, GC, SM, SC containing more than 12% fines

400 1000 2000

Coarse grained soils with little or no fines: GW, GP, SW, SP containing less than 12% fines

1000 2000 3000

Accuracy in terms of difference between predicted and actual average percent deflection

±2% ±1% ±1%

* - Standard Proctor ASTM:D698


Page 12 of 17

We recommend using a total wet unit weight of 125 pcf for the soil over the pipeline in calculating

pipe loadings. This is somewhat more than the wet unit, but is being recommended to maintain a

conservative approach to the design with possible variations of the soil weight between the borings.

6.6 Corrosivity

Soil corrosivity is typically not a major concern in southwest Minnesota. The concentration of

water-soluble sulfates measured in samples obtained from the exploratory borings ranged from 31

to 3930 parts per million (ppm) with the pH between 7.48 and 8.72. This concentration of water-

soluble sulfates represents a moderate to severe degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to

these materials. Based on our experience in this area and the test results, a Type I-II Portland

cement will be sufficient for concrete exposed to the majority of the on-site soils. We recommend

that the concrete be a relatively rich mix with sufficient air-entrainment to ensure the protection

against possible sulfate attack. If concrete is placed in the area of boring #24 we recommend using

a Type V Portland cement due to the elevated Sulfate test results.

Lab resistivity values of the soils obtained from the site ranged from 697 to 3,490 ohm-cm. The

lab resistivity values of the borings indicate a fairly to corrosive degree of corrosivity. Soil

resistivity less than 1000 ohm-cm indicates that exterior coating protection for reinforced concrete

or a minimum 3-inch concrete cover over reinforcing steel is needed.

The chloride content of the soil samples obtained from the site ranged from <2.0 to 28 ppm

indicating moderate corrosivity against buried metal pipes. To protect the buried pipes at the site,

the underground piping may be coated or wrapped.

Table 3 on the following page summarizes the results of the laboratory testing on select samples

to determine the soil properties for potential corrosion and concrete attack. A copy of the analytical

report is included in Appendix A.


Page 13 of 17

Table 3 – Corrosivity Lab Test Results

Boring

Depth

Sampled (ft)

PH

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride

(ppm)

Lab

Resistivity (ohm-cm)

1 6 – 10 8.27 83 5.6 1,560 2 7 – 11 8.72 130 2.8 1,270 3 6 – 10 7.84 42 <2.0 1,790 4 7 – 11 8.26 55 5.6 1,860 5 6 – 10 8.04 31 8.3 1,760 6 6 – 10 8.28 53 5.6 1,650 7 7 – 11 8.34 44 11 1,970 8 6 – 10 8.33 52 8.3 1,580 9 8 – 12 8.29 73 8.3 1,810

10 8 – 12 7.62 52 <2.0 1,580 11 6 – 10 8.12 61 <2.0 1,920 12 6 – 10 7.55 210 17 1,060 13 6 – 10 7.70 50 <2.0 1,510 14 6 – 10 7.73 68 2.8 2,400 15 6 – 10 7.63 37 <2.0 1,670 16 6 – 10 7.60 34 11 2,070 17 6 – 10 7.97 54 5.6 1,340 18 7 – 11 7.60 36 <2.0 3,490 19 7 – 11 7.87 41 11 1,810 20 6 – 10 7.96 49 <2.0 1,650 21 6 – 10 7.89 76 2.8 1,420 22 6 – 10 7.91 54 2.8 1,800 23 6 – 10 7.99 54 <2.0 1,590 24 6 – 10 7.48 3,930 28 796 25 7 – 11 7.90 190 19 1,320 26 6 – 10 8.06 500 11 697


Page 14 of 17

6.7 Reservoir Control Vault Construction

Based on our review of the soil conditions encountered at station 3592+30 (Soil Boring #18) during

our subsurface exploration program, it is our opinion that the natural glacial till soils found near

the bottom of the reservoir control vault structure (approximate elevation 1702’) are suitable for

support of the new construction at this site. Due to the groundwater level being higher than the

bottom of the proposed excavation we recommend using a 12” minimum granular layer of crushed

rock with a maximum size of 3” to attain grade for foundation support.

Based on the soil conditions encountered, it is our opinion the structure can be supported on a

spread footing foundation designed based on a net maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of

3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). It is our judgment the above design pressures will have a factor

of safety of at least 3 against localized shear or base failure. We judge that total settlements under

this loading should not exceed 1 inch. We also judge that differential settlements should not exceed

½ inch.

If any excavation extends below foundation grade, the excavation bottom and resultant engineered

fill system must be oversized laterally beyond the planned outside edges of the foundations to

properly support the lateral loads exerted by that foundation. This excavation/engineered fill lateral

extension should at least be equal to the vertical depth of fill needed to attain foundation grade at

that location (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize).

Depending upon the foundation elevation of the vault structure and future groundwater table

elevations, groundwater may exist above the foundation of the vault structure. To help control

groundwater within the excavation, it may be advantageous to place 6” of crushed rock at the

bottom of the excavation. We recommend that the vault be designed to resist any buoyant forces

that may be present due to future groundwater.


Page 15 of 17

Assuming that any portion of the structure that will experience lateral earth pressures will be rigid

and no deflection can take place during or following backfilling, we recommend an at rest

equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf be used above the groundwater level for the on-site clay soils

or new granular engineered fill soils. If an active equivalent fluid pressure is desired, we

recommend using 40 pcf for the on-site clay soils or new granular engineered fill soils above the

groundwater level. For submerged conditions, we recommend that an at rest equivalent fluid

pressure of 100 pcf or an active equivalent fluid pressure of 90 pcf be used.

The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and horizontal

backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will

increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. Adequate

drainage should be provided behind any below grade walls as described in the

“Basement/Retaining Wall Backfill and Water Control” standard sheet included with this report.

The values calculated for the above parameters would provide ultimate values. We recommend a

minimum safety factor of at least 1.5 be applied to the calculated lateral values. The above noted

equivalent fluid pressures assume the backfill soils adjacent to the walls will be compacted to a

range of 95% to 100% of the Standard Proctor density.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Potential Difficulties

7.1.1 Runoff Water in Excavation

Water can be expected to collect in the excavation bottom during times of inclement weather or

snow melt. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to reduce the potential for soil

disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend water be removed from within the

excavation during construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the groundwater can

be handled with conventional sump pumping.


Page 16 of 17

7.1.2 Disturbance of Soils

The on-site soils can become disturbed under construction traffic, especially if the soils are wet. If

soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed soils. The subcut soils

can then be dried and recompacted back into place, or they should be removed and replaced with

drier imported fill.

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

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 Backsloping

If excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes

in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations”

(can be found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface

runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance.

7.3 Observation and Testing

The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring

locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations,

we recommend on-site observation by a geotechnical engineer/technician during construction to

evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing should also be performed on new fill placed

in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied.


Page 17 of 17

8.0 LIMITATIONS

Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according

to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this,

no warranty, either expressed or implied, is intended.

Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in

Appendix B entitled “Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.”

01REP011 (04/12) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

EXCAVATION AND REFILLING FOR STRUCTURAL SUPPORT

EXCAVATION

Excavations for structural support at soil boring locations should be taken to depths recommended in the geotechnical

report. Since conditions can vary, recommended excavation depths between and beyond the boring locations should be

evaluated by geotechnical field personnel. If ground water is present, the excavation should be dewatered to avoid the

risk of unobservable poor soils being left in-place. Excavation base soils may become disturbed due to construction

traffic, ground water, or other reasons. Such soils should be subcut to underlying undisturbed soils. Where the excavation

base slopes at an angle steeper than 4H:1V, the excavation bottom should be benched across the slope parallel to the

slope contour.

Soil stresses under foundations spread out with depth. Therefore, the excavation bottom and subsequent fill system

should be laterally oversized beyond foundation edges to support these stresses. A lateral oversize equal to the depth of

fill below the foundation (i.e., 1:1 oversize) is usually recommended. The lateral oversize is usually increased to 1.5:1 to

2:1 where compressible organic soils are exposed on the excavation sides. Variations in oversize requirements may be

recommended in the geotechnical report or can be evaluated by the geotechnical field personnel.

Unless the excavation is retained, the backslopes should be maintained in accordance with OSHA Regulations

(Standards - 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” (found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA

sloping, ground water can induce sideslope raveling or running which could require that flatter slopes or other approaches

be used.

FILLING

Filling should proceed only after the excavation bottom has been approved by the geotechnical engineer/technician.

Approved fill material should be uniformly compacted in thin lifts to the compaction levels specified in the geotechnical

report. The lift thickness should be thin enough to achieve specified compaction through the full lift thickness with the

compaction equipment utilized. Typical thicknesses are 6" to 9" for clays and 12" to 18" for sands. Fine grained soils are

moisture sensitive and are often wet (water content exceeds the “optimum water content” defined by a Proctor test). In

this case, the soils should be scarified and dried to achieve a water content suitable for compaction. This drying process

can be time consuming and labor intensive, and will require favorable weather.

Select fill material may be needed where the excavation bottom is sensitive to disturbance or where standing water is

present. Sands (SP) which are medium to coarse grained are preferred, and can be compacted in thicker lift thicknesses

than finer grained soils.

Filling operations for structural support should be closely monitored for fill type and compaction by a geotechnical

technician. Monitoring should be on a full-time basis in cases where vertical fill placement is rapid; during freezing

weather conditions; where ground water is present; or where sensitive bottom conditions are present.

EXCAVATION/REFILLING DURING FREEZING TEMPERATURES

Soils that freeze will heave and lose density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original strength and density.

The extent of heave and density loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition; and is most pronounced in clays

and silts. Foundations, slabs, and other improvements should be protected from frost intrusion during freezing weather.

For earthwork during freezing weather, the areas to be filled should be stripped of frozen soil, snow, and ice prior to new

fill placement. In addition, new fill should not be allowed to freeze during or after placement. For this reason, it may be

preferable to do earthwork operations in small plan areas so grade can be quickly attained instead of large areas where

much frost stripping may be needed.

AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

FREEZING WEATHER EFFECTS ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

GENERAL

Because water expands upon freezing and soils contain water, soils which are allowed to freeze will heave

and loose density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original strength and density. The extent of

heave and density/strength loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition. Heave is greater in soils

with higher percentages of fines (silts/clays). High silt content soils are most susceptible, due to their high

capillary rise potential which can create ice lenses. Fine grained soils generally heave about 1/4" to 3/8" for

each foot of frost penetration. This can translate to 1" to 2" of total frost heave. This total amount can be

significantly greater if ice lensing occurs.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Clayey and silty soils can be used as perimeter backfill, although the effect of their poor drainage and frost

properties should be considered. Basement areas will have special drainage and lateral load requirements

which are not discussed here. Frost heave may be critical in doorway areas. Stoops or sidewalks adjacent to

doorways could be designed as structural slabs supported on frost footings with void spaces below. With this

design, movements may then occur between the structural slab and the adjacent on-grade slabs. Non-frost

susceptible granular soils (with less than 12% passing a #200 sieve) can be used below such areas.

Depending on the function of surrounding areas, the granular soil layer may need a thickness transition away

from the area where movement is critical. With granular soil placement over slower draining soils,

subsurface drainage would be needed for the granular layer. High density extruded insulation could be used

within the granular soils to reduce frost penetration, thereby reducing the granular soil thickness needed. We

caution that insulation placed near the surface can increate the potential for ice glazing of the surface.

The possible effects of adfreezing should be considered if clayey or silty soils are used as backfill.

Adfreezing occurs when backfill adheres to rough surfaced foundation walls and lifts the wall as it freezes

and heaves. This occurrence is most common with masonry black walls, unheated or poorly heated building

situations and clay backfill. The potential is also increased where backfill soils are poorly compacted and

become saturated. The risk of adfreezing can be decreased by placing a low friction separating layer between

the wall and backfill.

Adfreezing can occur on exterior piers (such as deck, fence or other similar pier footings), even if a smooth

surface is provided. This is more likely in poor drainage situations where soils become saturated. Additional

footing embedment and/or widened footings below the frost zones (which include tensile reinforcement) can

be used to resist uplift forces. Specific designs would require individual analysis.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Foundations, slabs, and other improvements which may be affected by frost movements should be insulated

from frost penetration during freezing weather. If filling takes place during freezing weather, all frozen soils,

snow, and ice should be stripped from areas to be filled prior to new fill placement. The new fill should not

be allowed to freeze during transit, placement, or compaction. This should be considered in the project

scheduling, budgeting, and quantity estimating. It is usually beneficial to perform cold weather earthwork

operations in small areas where grade can be attained quickly rather than working large areas where a greater

amount of frost stripping may be needed. If slab subgrade areas freeze, we recommend the subgrade be

thawed to prior floor slab placement. The frost action may also require reworking and recompaction of the

thawed subgrade.

01REP014 (12/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

BASEMENT/RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND WATER CONTROL

DRAINAGE

Below grade basements should include a perimeter backfill drainage system on the exterior side of the wall. The

exception may be where basements lie within free draining sands where water will not perch in the backfill. Drainage

systems should consist of perforated or slotted PVC drainage pipes located at the bottom of the backfill trench, lower

than the interior floor grade. The drain pipe should be surrounded by properly graded filter rock. A filter fabric should

then envelope the filter rock. The drain pipe should be connected to a suitable means of disposal, such as a sump basket

or a gravity outfall. A storm sewer gravity outfall would be preferred over exterior daylighting, as the latter may freeze

during winter. For non-building, exterior retaining walls, weep holes at the base of the wall can be substituted for a drain

pipe.

BACKFILLING

Prior to backfilling, damp/water proofing should be applied on perimeter basement walls. The backfill materials placed

against basement walls will exert lateral loadings. To reduce this loading by allowing for drainage, we recommend using

free draining sands for backfill. The zone of sand backfill should extend outward from the wall at least 2', and then

upward and outward from the wall at a 30 or greater angle from vertical. As a minimum, the sands should contain no

greater than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve, which would include (SP) and (SP-SM) soils. The sand backfill

should be placed in lifts and compacted with portable compaction equipment. This compaction should be to the specified

levels if slabs or pavements are placed above. Where slab/pavements are not above, we recommend capping the sand

backfill with a layer of clayey soil to minimize surface water infiltration. Positive surface drainage away from the

building should also be maintained. If surface capping or positive surface drainage cannot be maintained, then the trench

should be filled with more permeable soils, such as a Porous Backfill defined in SD/DOT Specification 680.2. You

should recognize that if the backfill soils are not properly compacted, settlements may occur which may affect surface

drainage away from the building.

Backfilling with silty or clayey soil is possible but not preferred. These soils can build-up water which increases lateral

pressures and results in wet wall conditions and possible water infiltration into the basement. If you elect to place silty or

clayey soils as backfill, we recommend you place a prefabricated drainage composite against the wall which is

hydraulically connected to a drainage pipe at the base of the backfill trench. High plasticity clays should be avoided as

backfill due to their swelling potential.

LATERAL PRESSURES

Lateral earth pressures on below grade walls vary, depending on backfill soil classification, backfill compaction and slope

of the backfill surface. Static or dynamic surcharge loads near the wall will also increase lateral wall pressure. For design,

we recommend the following ultimate lateral earth pressure values (given in equivalent fluid pressure values) for a

drained soil compacted to 95% of the Standard Proctor density and a level ground surface.

Equivalent Fluid Density

Soil Type

Active (pcf)

At-Rest (pcf)

Sands (SP or SP-SM)

35

50

Silty Sands (SM)

45

65

Fine Grained Soils (SC, CL or ML)

70

90

Basement walls are normally restrained at the top which restricts movement. In this case, the design lateral pressures

should be the “at-rest” pressure situation. Retaining walls which are free to rotate or deflect should be designed using the

active case. Lateral earth pressures will be significantly higher than that shown if the backfill soils are not drained and

become saturated.


Appendix A

Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes

Unified Soil Classification System Boring Location Map

Subsurface Boring Logs Analytical Results (Soil Corrosivity Tests)

Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing

Report No. 32-01940

Appendix A - Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling standard penetration test borings. The locations of the borings appear on the Boring Location Map, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split-Spoon Samples (SS) Standard penetration (split-spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM: D1586. 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. 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. Visual-manual judgment of the AASHTO Soil Group is also noted as a part of the soil description. A chart presenting details of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is also attached. The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The groundwater 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:

Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing

Report No. 32-01940

Appendix A - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

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.5.2 Atterberg Limits Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-030, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D4318 and AASHTO: T89, T90. A.5.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-080, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D2166 and AASHTO: T208. 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.

Symbol Definition Symbol Definition

B,H,N: Size of flush-joint casing CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test

CA: Crew Assistant (initials) DEN: Dry density; pcf

CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nomial diameter in DST: Direct shear test

inches E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf

CC: Crew Chief HYD: Hydrometer analysis

COT: Clean-out tube LL: Liquid Limit, %

DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf

DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry OC: Organic Content, %

DR: Driller (initials) PERM: Coefficient of permeablility (K) test; F- Field;

DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights L - Laboratory

FA: Flight Auger; number indicates outside diameter in PL: Plastic Limit, %inches qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate)

HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter qc: Static cone bearing pressure, tsfin inches qu: Unconfined compressive strength, psf

LG: Field logger (initials) R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cms

MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in precent

samples and for the ground water level symols (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length

N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N-value) in blows per as a percent of total core run)

foot (see notes) SA: Sieve Analysis

NQ: NQ wireline core barrel TRX: Triaxial compression test

PQ: PQ wireline core barrel VSR: Vane shear strength, remoulded (field), psf

RD: Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field) psf

REC: In california-spoon, split-spoon (see notes) and thin- WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight

walled tube sample, the recovered length (in inches) %-200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve

of sample. In rock coring, the length of core recovered

(expressed as percent of the total core run. ) Zero

indicates no sample recovered.

REV: Revert drilling fluid

2L: California-spoon sampler (stee; 2" inside diameter

with 4" long brass liners; 3" outside diameter)

SS: Standard split-spoon sample (steel; 1⅜" inside

diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated

otherwise

SU: Spin-up sample from hollow stem auger

TW: Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in

inches

WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning

rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside

the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid

WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and

140-pound hammer

WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod

94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel

▼: Water level directly measured in boring

: Estimated water level based solely on sample

appearance

AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

The standard penetration test consists of driving the sampler with a 140

pound hammer and counting the number of blows applied in each of three

6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less than 18" (usually

in highly resistant material), permitted in ASTM:D1586, the blows for each

complete 6" increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log.

For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1'

below the slash.

The length of the sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" column, may

be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The disparity is

because the N-value is recorded below the intial 6" set (unless partial

penentration defined in ASTM:D1586 is encountered) whereas the length

of sample recoveres is for the entire sampler driver (which may even extend

more than 18").

BORING LOG NOTES

DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES

01CLS021(2/04) AMERICAN ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING TESTING,

INC.

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA

Soil Classification Notes ABased on the material passing the 3-in

(75-mm) sieve. BIf field sample contained cobbles or

boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or

boulders, or both” to group name. CGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual

symbols:

GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt

GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay

GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt

GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual

symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt

SW-SC well-graded sand with clay

SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt

SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

ECu = D60 /D10, Cc = (D30)

2/ D10 x D60

FIf soil contains >15% sand, add “with

sand” to group name. GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual

symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. HIf fines are organic, add “with organic

fines” to group name. IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add “with

gravel” to group name. JIf Atterberg limits plot is hatched area,

soils is a CL-ML silty clay. KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200

add “with sand” or “with gravel”,

whichever is predominant. LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200,

predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

MIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200,

predominantly gravel, add “gravelly”

to group name. NPl>4 and plots on or above “A” line.

OPl<4 or plots below “A” line.

PPl plots on or above “A” line.

QPl plots below “A” line.

RFiber Content description shown below.

Group

Symbol

Group NameB

Coarse-Grained

Soils More

than 50%

retained on

No. 200 sieve

Gravels More

than 50% coarse

fraction retained

on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels

Less than 5%

finesC

Cu>4 and 1<Cc<3E

GW Well graded gravelF

Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3E

GP Poorly graded gravelF

Gravels with Fines more

than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF.G.H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF.G.H

Sands 50% or

more of coarse

fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands

Less than 5%

finesD

Cu>6 and 1<Cc<3E

SW Well-graded sandI

Cu<6 and 1>Cc>3E

SP Poorly-graded sandI

Sands with Fines more

than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG.H.I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG.H.I

Fine-Grained

Soils 50% or

more passes

the No. 200

sieve

(see Plasticity Chart below)

Silts and Clays

Liquid limit less

than 50

inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above

“A” lineJ

CL Lean clayK.L.M

PI<4 or plots below

“A” lineJ

ML SiltK.L.M

organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75

Liquid limit – not dried

OL Organic clayK.L.M.N

Organic siltK.L.M.O

Silts and Clays

Liquid limit 50

or more

inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK.L.M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic siltK.L.M

organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75

Liquid limit – not dried

OH Organic clayK.L.M.P

Organic siltK.L.M.Q

Highly organic

soil

Primarily organic matter, dark

in color, and organic in odor

PT PeatR

3 2 ½ 1 ¾ 4 10 20 40 60 140 200100

80

60

40

20

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

81

Sieve NumberScreen Opening (in.)

50 10 5 1.0 0.10.5

PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SIEVE ANALYSIS

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G

PE

RC

EN

T R

ET

AIN

ED

D60 = 15mm

D30 = 2.5mm

D10 = 0.075mm

Cu = = = 200D60

D10

15

0.075Cc = = = 5.6

(D30)

D10 x D60

2.5

0.075 x 15

2 2

CL-ML

For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils.

Equation of "A"-lineHorizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5. then PI = 0.73 (LL-20)

Equation of "U"-lineVertical at LL = 16 to PI = 7. then PI = 0.9 (LL-8)

"A" L

INE

"U" L

INE

CL OR O

L

CH OR OH

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

16

7

4

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X (

PI)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

Plasticity Chart

ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

Grain Size Term Particle Size

Boulders Over 12"

Cobbles 3" to 12"

Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Sand #200 to #4 sieve

Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve

Gravel Percentages

Term Percent

A Little Gravel 3% - 14%

With Gravel 15% - 29%

Gravelly 30% - 50%

Consistency of Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF

Very Soft less than 2

Soft 2 - 4

Firm 5 - 8 Stiff 9 - 15

Very Stiff 16 - 30

Hard Greater than 30

Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF

Very Loose 0 - 4

Loose 5 - 10

Medium Dense 11 - 30 Dense 31 - 50

Very Dense Greater than 50

Moisture/Frost Condition

(MC Column)

D (Dry): Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to

touch.

M (Moist): Damp, although free water not

visible. Soil may still have a high water content (over “optimum”).

W (Wet/ Free water visible intended to

Waterbearing): describe non-plastic soils.

Waterbearing usually relates to

sands and sand with silt.

F (Frozen): Soil frozen

Layering Notes

Laminations: Layers less than

½" thick of

differing material

or color.

Lenses: Pockets or layers

greater than ½"

thick of differing

material or color.

Fiber Content of Peat

Fiber Content

Term (Visual Estimate)

Fibric Peat: Greater than 67%

Hemic Peat: 33 – 67% Sapric Peat: Less than 33%

Organic/Roots Description (if no lab tests)

Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat

and is judged to have sufficient organic fines

content to influence the soil properties. Slightly

organic used for borderline cases.

With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity

of roots to influence the soil

properties.

Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged

to be in sufficient quantity to

significantly affect soil properties.

PROJECT:

SUBJECT:

SCALE: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.

PROPOSED LEWIS AND CLARK RWS MINNESOTA SEGMENT 4

NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA

BORING LOCATION MAP

1 INCH = 2 MILES

BCLBWC

03 / 09 / 2016

32-01940

SCALE

N

-APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS

3

6

6

9

11

12

TOPSOIL

TILL

SILTY CLAY, black, wet, frozen to 1'(ML-OL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, wet to very moist to moist, softto firm to stiff, a lens of waterbearing gravelfrom 2.3'-2.6' (CL)

END OF BORING

18

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

20

21

MH

1594.5'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:

3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH

BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/9/16

CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

16'

WATERLEVEL

3:25

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:

DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE

63

DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO

THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/9/16 None

MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.

AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:

1 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.

FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG

06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY

AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.

Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota

NWC PLLLDEN

28

5

4

11

12

11

12

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with gravel,and SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown and darkbrown, frozen

LEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, very moist to wet,soft (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)

END OF BORING

18

16

16

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

25

22

MH

1583.3'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-17'


18.5'

WATERLEVEL

10:36

Rig:

17'18.5'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/15/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

5

7

9

14

9

9

TOPSOIL

FINEALLUVIUM

MIXEDALLUVIUM

TILL

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen (CL-OL)

FAT CLAY, very dark brown, very moist, firm(CH)

CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, witha little gravel, brown, wet to 4.8' thenwaterbearing, loose (SC)



END OF BORING

18

14

16

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

14

23

MH

1587.8'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

5'

WATERLEVEL

11:08

4:44

Rig:

14.5'

---

16'

16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/15/16

2/15/16

None

4.8'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

16

7

9

4

6

8

9

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FINEALLUVIUM

MIXEDALLUVIUM

FILL, mostly CLAYEY SAND, with gravel,brown, frozenLEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen to 3' (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, firm tostiff, a lens of waterbearing sand at 9' (CL)

LEAN CLAY, brown, very moist to wet, soft tofirm (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, very moist, firmto stiff (CL)

END OF BORING

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

20

29

MH

1636.7'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-17'


18.5'

WATERLEVEL

11:50

Rig:

17'18.5'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/15/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

9

11

10

12

10

10

TOPSOIL

TILL

LEAN CLAY, black, frozen (CL-OL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff,cobbles at 1.5' and 2', a lamination of wet sandat 7', frozen to 2' (CL)

END OF BORING

3

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

16

17

MH

1643.8'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


8.5'

16'

WATERLEVEL

12:40

12:58

Rig:

7'

14.5'

8.5'

16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/15/16

2/15/16

7'

None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

6

6

13

13

14

15

FILL

TILL

FILL, mixture of ORGANIC LEAN CLAY andLEAN CLAY, black and dark brown, verymoist, frozen to 1.2'

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, firm tostiff, a lens of waterbearing sand at 14.5' (CL)

END OF BORING

12

12

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

20

16

MH

1638.1'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

WATERLEVEL

1:36

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/15/16 14.7'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

5

6

7

9

9

11

10

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown and dark brown, frozenLEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,firm, frozen to 3' (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, wet to very moist to moist, firmto stiff (CL)

END OF BORING

16

16

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

19

19

MH

1638.9'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-17'


18.5'

WATERLEVEL

2:16

Rig:

17'18.5'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/15/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

7

5

11

11

10

16

TOPSOIL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

LEAN CLAY, black, wet, frozen to 1.6'(CL-OL)

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, very moist, firm(CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, firm tostiff, a lens of waterbearing sand at 4.5' (CL)

END OF BORING

12

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

18

20

MH

1644.4'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

5'

WATERLEVEL

3:10

4:42

Rig:

14.5'

---

16'

16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/15/16

2/15/16

None

4.8'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

15

7

4

9

12

9

9

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland LEAN CLAY, brown and dark brown,frozen

LEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 3.5' (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, wet to very moist to moist, firmto soft to stiff, lenses of waterbearing sand at7.5 and 9.5' (CL)

END OF BORING

18

12

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

22

20

MH

1672.5'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-17'


18.5'

10'

WATERLEVEL

3:46

3:58

Rig:

17'

---

18.5'

18.5'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/15/16

2/15/16

None

8.2'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

10

5

4

6

6

6

7

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mostly CLAYEY SAND, with gravel,brown, frozen

LEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 3.5' (CL)

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet, firm (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, wet to very moist, soft to firm,a lens of waterbearing sand at 14.5' (CL)

END OF BORING

12

10

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

21

24

MH

1653.2'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-17'


8.5'

18.5'

5'

WATERLEVEL

4:10

4:22

4:29

Rig:

7'

17'

---

8.5'

18.5'

18.5'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/15/16

2/15/16

2/15/16

8'

14.5'

None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

10

4

6

6

6

8

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mostly CLAYEY SAND, with a littlegravel, dark brown, frozenLEAN CLAY, very dark brown, wet, frozen to3' (CL)

LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, wet to verymoist, soft to firm (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist, firm, lenses ofwaterbearing sand at 9' and 10' (CL)

END OF BORING

16

16

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

29

18

MH

1671.1'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

WATERLEVEL

9:35

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/16/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

4

11

28

16

10

12

TOPSOIL

MIXEDALLUVIUM

COARSEALLUVIUM

TILL

LEAN CLAY, black, wet, frozen to 1' (CL-OL)

CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, withgravel, brown, moist to wet to 5' thenwaterbearing, medium dense, a lens of sandylean clay at 7' (SC)

SAND, fine to medium grained, with a littlegravel, brown, waterbearing, medium dense, alens of sandy lean clay at 10' (SP)


END OF BORING

10

18

4

16

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

16

17

15

MH

1624.7'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

10'

WATERLEVEL

10:14

10:21'

Rig:

14.5'

---

16'

16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/16/16

2/16/16

8'

5'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN -#200

4

3

5

5

12

12

TOPSOIL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

COARSEALLUVIUM

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet, frozen to 1.5'(CL-OL)

FAT CLAY, very dark brown, wet, soft (CH)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist to moist, firm to stiff, lenses ofwaterbearing sand at 6.5' and 12.5', cobbles at12' (CL)

SAND, fine to medium grained, with gravel,brown, waterbearing, a lens of sandy lean clay(SP)

END OF BORING

12

18

10

18

18

12

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

30

23

MH

1625.7'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

WATERLEVEL

11:10

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/16/16 6'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

5

14

19

21

9

7

TOPSOIL

MIXEDALLUVIUM

COARSEALLUVIUM

TILL

LEAN CLAY, black, frozen (CL-OL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet, firm(CL)

SAND WITH SILT, fine to medium grained,with gravel, brown, wet to 4.5' thenwaterbearing, medium dense to loose (SP-SM)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist, firm (CL)

END OF BORING

16

16

18

10

12

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

12

MH

1638.5'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

5'

WATERLEVEL

11:53

12:01

Rig:

14.5'

---

16'

16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/16/16

2/16/16

6'

4.5'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN -#200

9

5

7

5

10

9

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

COARSEALLUVIUM

FILL, mixture of ORGANIC LEAN CLAY andSANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen to3'

LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, very mist, firm(CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist, to moist, firm tostiff (CL)

SAND, fine to medium grained, with a littlegravel, brown, waterbearing, loose (SP)

END OF BORING

6

18

18

18

18

10

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

26

33

MH

1673.0'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

WATERLEVEL

1:12

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/16/16 10'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

6

10

19

12

11

10

TOPSOIL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL


LEAN CLAY, brown, very moist, firm (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff to verystiff to stiff (CL)

END OF BORING

10

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

18

17

MH

1695.1'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

WATERLEVEL

1:46

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/16/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

13

7

3

7

7

7

7

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown and darkbrown, very moist, frozen to 3.5'

FAT CLAY, dark gray, very moist, soft (CH)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to wet, firm, a lens awaterbearing sand at 12' (CL)

END OF BORING

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

30

22

20

MH

1694.7'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-17'


13.5'

18.5'

WATERLEVEL

11:03

11:11

Rig:

12'

17'

13'

18.5'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/22/16

2/22/16

12'

None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

9

7

13

14

11

11

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

COARSEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with gravel,and LEAN CLAY, dark brown and brown,frozenLEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 2.5' (CL)

LEAN CLAY, light grayish brown mottled,very moist, firm (CL)

SAND WITH CLAY, fine to medium grained,with gravel, brown, wet to 7.2' thenwaterbearing, medium dense, a lens of lean clay(SP-SC)


END OF BORING

10

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

26

12

MH

1714.8'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

9'

WATERLEVEL

3:06

3:13

Rig:

14.5'

---

16'

16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/16/16

2/16/16

None

7.2'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN -#200

9

5

10

9

11

12

11

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland LEAN CLAY, dark brown and brown,frozen

LEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 3' (CL)

LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, very moist, firm(CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff, alamination of waterbearing sand (CL)

END OF BORING

18

16

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

22

20

MH

1681.3'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-17'


18.5'

WATERLEVEL

3:48

Rig:

17'18.5'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/16/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

11

9

13

13

9

9

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown andbrown, frozenLEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 3.5' (CL)

LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, very moist, stiff(CL)


END OF BORING

18

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

21

16

MH

1646.3'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

WATERLEVEL

4:36

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/16/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

5

10

9

9

9

11

TOPSOIL

TILL

LEAN CLAY, black, very moist, frozen to 0.5'(CL-OL)


END OF BORING

10

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

20

21

MH

1632.8'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

WATERLEVEL

9:41

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/17/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

7

10

12

13

15

14

TOPSOIL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

LEAN CLAY, black, very moist, frozen to 1'(CL-OL)

LEAN CLAY, very moist, firm (CL)


END OF BORING

16

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

19

19

MH

1613.5'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

WATERLEVEL

10:22

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/17/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

9

9

8

9

9

11

TOPSOIL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL


LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, very moist, stiffto firm, frozen to 2' (CL)


END OF BORING

18

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

21

24

MH

1607.4'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

WATERLEVEL

11:21

Rig:

14.5'16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/17/16 None


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

5

4

10

16

11

13

TOPSOIL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen to 2'(CL-OL)

LEAN CLAY, brown, wet to very moist, firm(CL)SILTY CLAY, brown mottled, wet, soft(CL-ML)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, moist, very stiff, a lens ofwaterbearing sand (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, moist, stiff (CL)

END OF BORING

12

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

21

MH

1585.2'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

8'

WATERLEVEL

11:55

12:44

Rig:

14.5'

---

16'

16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/17/16

2/17/16

None

5.5'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

4

3

6

9

9

9

9

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mixture of ORGANIC LEAN CLAY,LEAN CLAY and SANDY LEAN CLAY, darkbrown and black, very moist, frozen to 1'

LEAN CLAY, brown, wet to very moist, soft tofirm, a lens of waterbearing sand at 5' (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff, a lensof sand at 10.5' (CL)


END OF BORING

8

16

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

43

34

21

MH

1568.5'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-17'


18'

8'

WATERLEVEL

1:22

1:31

Rig:

17'

---

18.5'

18.5'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/17/16

2/17/16

10'

5.5'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

10

7

14

10

7

7

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

MIXEDALLUVIUM

TILL

FILL, mixture of ORGANIC LEAN CLAY,LEAN CLAY and SANDY LEAN CLAY,black and dark brown, very moist to moist,frozen to 1'

FAT CLAY, very dark brown, very moist, firm(CH)

FAT CLAY, gray mottled, very moist to moist,stiff (CH)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, verymoist to moist, stiff, a lens of waterbearing sandat 10.5' (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist, firm, a lens of waterbearingsand at 12.2' (CL)

END OF BORING

17

18

18

18

18

18

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

HSAS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

30

26

MH

1577.4'

LG:

SAMPLEDDEPTH

DR:



CAVE-INDEPTH

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0-14½'


16'

10'

WATERLEVEL

2:16

3:15

Rig:

14.5'

---

16'

16'

DEPTH:


63


THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGRH

TIME

2/17/16

2/17/16

12'

9.8'


AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

DEPTHIN

FEET qu

32-01940


06/04

MC SAMPLETYPE

GEOLOGY



NWC PLLLDEN

PROJECT: DATE:

NOBLES COUNTY, MN

REPORTED TO: BANNER ASSOCIATES INC.

ATTN: TIMOTHY CONNER

PO BOX 298

BROOKINGS, SD 57006

LABORATORY NO: 32-01940

Date Sampled: ---

Date Received: 02/16, 02/22/16

Boring

#1

6.5' - 9.5'

Boring

#2

7' - 11'

Boring

#3

6' - 10'

Boring

#4

7' - 9'

Boring

#5

7' - 10' Date

Parameter 16-0772 16-0773 16-0774 16-0775 16-0776 MDL Analyzed

Sulfate, ppm 83 130 42 55 31 5 03/08/16

Chloride, ppm 5.6 2.8 <2.0 5.6 8.3 1 03/07/16

pH 8.27 8.72 7.84 8.26 8.04 --- 03/02/16

Resisitivity, ohm-cm 1,560 1,270 1,790 1,860 1,760 --- 03/04/16

Boring

#6

6.5' - 10'

Boring

#7

7' - 11'

Boring

#8

7' - 10'

Boring

#9

8' - 12'

Boring

#10

8' - 12' Date


Sulfate, ppm 53 44 52 73 52 5 03/08/16

Chloride, ppm 5.6 11 8.3 8.3 <2.0 1 03/07/16

pH 8.28 8.34 8.33 8.29 7.62 --- 03/02/16


Boring

#11

7' - 10'

Boring

#12

7' - 10'

Boring

#13

6' - 10'

Boring

#14

7' - 10'

Boring

#15

6.5' - 10' Date


Sulfate, ppm 61 210 50 68 37 5 03/08/16

Chloride, ppm <2.0 17 <2.0 2.8 <2.0 1 03/07/16

pH 8.12 7.55 7.70 7.73 7.63 --- 03/03/16


Method

AASHTO T 290-91

AASHTO T 291-91

AASHTO T 289-91

AASHTO T 288-91

LEWIS AND CLARK REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM

MN SEGMENT 4

AASHTO T 288-91

AASHTO T 289-91

AASHTO T 288-91

March 9, 2016

Method

AASHTO T 290-91

AASHTO T 291-91

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Method

AASHTO T 290-91

AASHTO T 291-91

AASHTO T 289-91

CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL · GEOTECHNICAL · MATERIALS · FORENSICS

Boring

#16

6.5' - 10'

Boring

#17

7' - 12'

Boring

#18

7' - 11'

Boring

#19

7' - 11'

Boring

#20

7' - 11' Date


Sulfate, ppm 34 54 36 41 49 5 03/08/16

Chloride, ppm 11 5.6 <2.0 11 <2.0 1 03/07/16

pH 7.60 7.97 7.60 7.87 7.96 --- 03/04/16


Boring

#21

6.5' - 10'

Boring

#22

6.5' - 10'

Boring

#23

6.5' - 10'

Boring

#24

6.5' - 10'

Boring

#25

7' - 11' Date


Sulfate, ppm 76 54 54 3930 190 5 03/08/16

Chloride, ppm 2.8 2.8 <2.0 28 19 1 03/07/16

pH 7.89 7.91 7.99 7.48 7.90 --- 03/04/16

Resisitivity, ohm-cm 1,420 1,800 1,590 796 1,320 --- 03/06/16

Boring

#26

6.5' - 10' Date

Parameter 16-0862 MDL Analyzed

Sulfate, ppm 500 5 03/08/16

Chloride, ppm 11 1 03/07/16

pH 8.06 --- 03/04/16

Resisitivity, ohm-cm 697 --- 03/06/16

If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please feel free to contact us.

American Engineering Testing, Inc.

Virginia VerMulm Dan T. Hanson

QA Manager Chemistry Manager

Method

AASHTO T 290-91

AASHTO T 291-91

AASHTO T 289-91

AASHTO T 288-91

AASHTO T 288-91

AASHTO T 288-91

Method

AASHTO T 290-91

AASHTO T 291-91

AASHTO T 289-91

Method

AASHTO T 290-91

AASHTO T 291-91

AASHTO T 289-91

ANALYTICAL RESULTS (Cont.)


Appendix B

Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

Report No. 32-01940

Appendix B – Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC

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 ASFE1, 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

http://www.asfe.org/

Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

Report No. 32-01940

Appendix B – Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC

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 recognizes that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid 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.

exploration and review -...

Documents