The URL can be used to link to this page

4504 Oak Chase Rd - Geotechnical Data ReportAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. CONSULTANTS.: • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • FORENSICS www.amengtest.com GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT Eagan, Minnesota Date: October 3, 2011 Prepared for: City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Report No. 28- 00448 October 3, 2011 Mr. John Gorder, P.E. City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Geotechnical Exploration Services 4504 Oak Chase Road Eagan, Minnesota Report No. 28 -00448 Dear Mr. Gorder: American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program for the 4504 Oak Chase Road infiltration project in Eagan, Minnesota. These services were performed according to our proposal to you dated September 7, 2011. We are submitting two (2) copies of the report to you. For your convenience, we are also submitting this report in electronic (PDF) format. Please contact me if you have any questions about the report. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. Travis J. Rengstorf, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Phone: (651) 789 -4667 Fax: (651) 659-1347 trengstorf@amengtest.com Page i Geotechnical Data Report 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, Minnesota October 3, 2011 Report No. 28 -0048 • Prepared for: City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Attn: Mr. John Gorden Authored by: SIGNATURE PAGE Travis J. Rengst'' .E. Geotechnical Engineer Copyright 2011 American Engineering Testing, Inc. All Rights Reserved Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project. Page ii Prepared by: AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC., American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 (651) 659 - 9001 /www.amengtest.com Geotechnical Data Report AMERICAN 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, Minnesota AMERICAN October 3, 2011 TESTING, INC. Report No. 28 -0048 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 2 4.3 Optional Supplementary Laboratory Testing 3 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3 5.1 Surface Observations 3 5.2 Subsurface Soils /Geology 3 5.3 Ground Water 3 6.0 LIMITATIONS 4 Page iii Geotechnical Data Report 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, Minnesota AMERICAN October 3, 2011 ENGINEERING Report No. 28 -0048 TESTING, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A — Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System AASHTO Classification System Boring Log Descriptive Terminology (Mn/DOT) Figure 1 — Approximate Boring Location Subsurface Boring Log APPENDIX B — Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Page iv Geotechnical Data Report 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, Minnesota AMERICAN October 3, 2011 ENGINEERING Report No. 28 -00448 TESTING, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Eagan is working with the property owner of 4504 Oak Chase Road to improve the drainage /infiltration to a section of the property located behind the existing house. To assist planning and design, you have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface exploration program at the site. This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES AET's services were performed according to our proposal to you dated September 7, 2011. The authorized scope consists of the following: • Drill and sample one (1) standard penetration test (SPT) boring to a depth of 15 feet. • Visually /manually classify the recovered soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Mn/DOT Textural Triangle. • Prepare a written data report including the log of the soil boring, drilling and classification methods. 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 City of Eagan is working with the property owner of 4504 Oak Chase Road to improve the drainage /infiltration capabilities of the land located behind the existing house. We understand you will be estimating the infiltration properties of the soils encountered in our boring. Page 1 of 4 Geotechnical Data Report 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, Minnesota AMERICAN October 3,2011 ENGINEERING Report No. 28 -00448 TESTING, INC. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Field Exploration Program The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of drilling one (1) standard penetration test (SPT) boring to a depth of 15 feet. The logs of the borings and details of the methods used are presented 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 approximate boring location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A. You staked the boring location prior to the start of our fieldwork. Prior to drilling, we contacted Gopher State One Call to locate the public underground utilities at the site. We drilled the borings using 31/4-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers. We backfilled the boreholes to comply with current Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) regulations. Refer to Appendix A for details on the drilling and sampling methods, the classification methods, and the water level measurement methods. 4.2 Laboratory Testing After the recovered samples were submitted to our laboratory, we visually /manually classified each sample based on texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System, AASHTO System and Mn/DOT Textural Triangle. Data sheets describing the Unified Soil Classification System, the AASHTO System, the Mn/DOT Textural Triangle and the descriptive terminology and symbols used on the boring log are also included in Appendix A. Page 2 of 4 Geotechnical Data Report 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, Minnesota AMERICAN October 3, 2011 ENGINEERING Report No. 28 -00448 TESTING, INC. We performed water content tests on selected cohesive samples. The results of the water content tests are shown on the respective boring logs opposite the samples for which they were performed. 4.3 Optional Supplementary Laboratory Testing We have reserved the samples we collected from our boring in our soil laboratory. We will retain the soil samples for approximately 30 days. If grain size distributions of the granular soils would be useful in your estimation of the soils permeability, please contact us for additional laboratory testing. 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Surface Observations The boring was drilled behind (east of) the existing house located at 4504 Oak Chase Road. 5.2 Subsurface Soils /Geology The site geology generally consists of fill underlain by mixed and fine alluvium with coarse alluvium at depth. 5.3 Ground Water We did not encounter ground water in our borehole during or after drilling. A discussion of the water level measurement methods is presented in Appendix A. Ground water levels fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts, as well as other factors, Page 3 of 4 Geotechnical Data Report 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, Minnesota AMERICAN October 3, 2011 ENGINEERING Report No. 28- 00448 TESTING, INC. 6:0 LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other . than this, no warranty, either expressed or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled "Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use." Page 4 of 4 Geotechnical Data Report 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, Minnesota AMERICAN October 3, 2011 ENGINEERING Report No. 28 -00448 TESTING, INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Boring Log Descriptive Terminology (Mn/DOT) Figure 1 — Approximate Boring Location Subsurface Boring Log A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 28 -00448 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling one (1) standard penetration test boring.' The location of the boring appears on Figure 1, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split -Spoon Samples (SS) - Calibrated to No Values Standard penetration (split- spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM: D1586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2 -inch O.D. split- barrel sampler into the in -situ soil with a 140 -pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N- value. Our method uses a modified hammer weight, which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N -value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split -spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60% of its potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system. This converted energy then provides what is known as an No blow count. The most recent drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system, which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N- values than the traditional Nfi0 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100 %. Therefore, the intent of AET's hammer calibrations is to vary the hanuner weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60% to 65% of the theoretical energy of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 inches. The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N- values, stating that N- values of 100% or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can state that the accuracy deviation of the N- values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM Method. A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS) /Spin -up Samples (SU) Sample types described as "DS" or "SU" on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Determining the thickness of "topsoil" layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual- manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed. A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) systexn. The USC system is described in ASTM: D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM: D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual- manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs. Visual - manual judgment of the AASHTO Soil Group is also noted as a part of the soil description. A chart presenting details of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is also attached. Appendix A - Page I of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under "Water Level Measurements" on the logs: • Date and Time of 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 - Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered • Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01- LAB -010, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D2216 and AASHTO: T265. A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied. A.7 SAMPLE STORAGE Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 28 -00448 Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days. Appendix A - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Symbol AR: B,H,N: CAS: COT: DC: DM: DR: DS: DP: FA: HA: HSA: LG: MC: N (BPF): NQ: PQ: RDA: RDF: REC: SS: SU TW: WASH: WH: WR: 94mm: DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS Definition Sample of material obtained from cuttings blown out the top of the borehole during air rotary procedure. Size of flush joint casing Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in inches Clean -out tube Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches Drilling mud or bentonite slurry Driller (initials) Disturbed sample from auger flights Direct push drilling; a 2.125 inch OD outer casing with an inner 1 Y2 inch ID plastic tube is driven continuously into the ground. Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter in inches Field logger (initials) Column used to describe moisture condition of samples and for the ground water level symbols Standard penetration resistance (N- value) in blows per foot (see notes) NQ wireline core barrel PQ wireline core barrel Rotary drilling with compressed air and roller or drag bit. Rotary drilling with drilling fluid and roller or drag bit In split -spoon (see notes), direct push and thin- walled tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample. In rock coring, the length of core recovered (expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no sample recovered. Standard split -spoon sampler (steel; 1.5" is inside diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated otherwise Spin -up sample from hollow stem auger Thin - walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in inches Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and hammer Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod 94 millimeter wireline core barrel Water level directly measured in boring Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance BORING LOG NOTES Symbol CONS: DEN: DST: E: HYD: LL: LP: OC: PERM: PL: q qc• q R: RQD: SA: TRX: VSR: VSU: WC: % -200: TEST SYMBOLS Definition One - dimensional consolidation test Dry density, pcf Direct shear test Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf Hydrometer analysis Liquid Limit, % Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf Organic Content, % Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field; L - Laboratory Plastic Limit, % Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate) Static cone bearing pressure, tsf Unconfined compressive strength, psf Electrical Resistivity, ohm -cnis Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length as a percent of total core run) Sieve analysis Triaxial compression test Vane shear strength, remolded (field), psf Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf Water content, as percent of dry weight Percent of material finer than 1/200 sieve STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES (Calibrated Hammer Weight) The standard penetration test consists of driving a split -spoon sampler with a drop hammer (calibrated weight varies to provide N60 values) 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), pennitted in ASTM: D 1586, 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 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 initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM: D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18 "). 01REP052C (7/11) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. num Soif Classification Notes Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests" Group Group Name Symbol "Based on the material passing the 3 -in K75 -mm) sieve. h lf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name Gravels 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 ° Sands 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 (D30) Coarse - Grained Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu >4 and 1<Cc<3 GW Well graded gravel Soils More than 50% coarse Less than 5% than 50% fraction retained fines Cu <4 and/or 1 >Cc >3 GP Poorly graded gravel retained on on No. 4 sieve No, 200 sieve Gravels with Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel Fines more than 12% fines ° Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel Sands 50% or Clean Sands Cu >6 and l <Cc<3 SW Well- graded sand' more of coarse Less than 5% fraction passes fines Cu <6.and 1 >Cc>3 SP_ Poorly- graded sand` No. 4 sieve Sands with Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand Fines more than 12% fines ° Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand`'"'' Fine - Grained Silts and Clays inorganic PI >7 and plots on or above CL Lean clay Soils 50% or Liquid limit less "A" line more passes than 50 PI <4 or ` plots below ML Silt M the No. 200 "A" line E CU = D60 /D10, Cc = Dtox D6o F • If soil contains >15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. ° ]f fines classify as CL -ML, use dual ymbol GC -GM, or SC -SM. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. t lf soil contains >15% gravel, add "with ravel" to group name. /If soils CL is limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL -ML silty clay. x If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 add "with sand" or "with gravel ", whichever is predominant. L lf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, "sandy" sieve organic Liquid limit -oven dried <0 75 OL Organic clay'.LM.21 Liquid limit- not dried x L nao (see Plasticity q Organic silt ' Chart below) Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay " L.M Liquid limit 50 or more PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic silt " organic Liquid limit oven dried <0 75 OH Organic clay" M1i Y Liquid limit - not dried "L.A1Q Organic silt Highly organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Peat" soil in color, and organic in odor SIEVEANALYSIS 60 w v x W 40 ° z _ '° 4 20 For danllalondfne- -and sots and predominantly sand, add to group name. A >30 %plusNo.200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" tD group name. N P 1 >4 and plots on or above "A" line. ° Pl <4 or plots below "A" line. P P1 plots below "A" line. R Fiber Content description shown below. F sae..0,4%,ry1. tJ 11Mr �� "• —� 3 6 >: ° 20 ° a° 11 a,° f adnedIr464d�a.�°ed601a , E i,o,4 d'A' -Ilre I�� F I060 0 . a 73 °LL =2ss 1h404 N. - 20 ) f yt w ,1'�� G a ,III .■..■ . ■ ■■■ .■■�■.. ;;; �, � � A ,� FR.,aa, i alsae iiat� =7 ' Dw =1Srtn ■.■ a �;: <a ow 1111 11L. ° =zBm g Ailing 1111 MAN n. ■�.■ 4 _-■M so a ■ "o ' ' ii PARTICLE SIZE IN MLLIMET'ERS '' it ' °.ms °20° °' ' ° y,s s-a ' . 10 .16 20 00 40 60 60 70 00 90 700 110 UQUID LIMIT (LL) Plas icily Chart ADDITIONAL .TERMIN,OLOGY NOTES USED 731/ AETTOIt SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION- Grain Size Gravel Percentages Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density ofNon- Plastic Soils Term Particle Size Term Percent Term N- Value, BPF Term N- Value, BPF Boulders Over 12" Cobbles 3" to 12" Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Sand #200 to #4 sieve Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve A Little Gravel 3% - 14% With Gravel 15% - 29% Gravelly 30% - 50% Very Soft less than 2 Soft 2 - 4 Firm 5 - 8 Stiff 9 - 15 Very Stiff 16 - 30 Hard Greater than 30 Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 5 - 10 Medium Dense 11 - 30 Dense 31 - 50 Very Dense Greater than 50 Moisture/Frost Condition Layering Notes Fiber Content of Peat Organic /Roots Description (if no lab tests) (MC Column) D (Dry): Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to touch. M (Moist): Damp, although fi ee 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 Laminations: Layers less than 'A" thick of differing material or color. Lenses: Pockets or layers greater than W' thick of differing material or color. Fiber Content Term (Visual Estimate) 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 Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% Bernie Peat: 33 - 67% . Sapric Peat: Less than 33% 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. 01CLS021 (06/07) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. General Classification Granular Materials (35% or less passing No. 200 sieve) Silt -Clay Materials (More than 35% passing No. 200 sieve) Group Classification A l A -3 A 2 A -4 A -5 A -6 A -7 A -1 -a A -1 -b A -2 -4 A -2 -5 A -2 -6 A -2 -7 A -7 -5 A -7 -6 Sieve Analysis, Percent passing: No. 10 (2.00 mm) No. 40 (0.425 mm) No 200 (0.075 mm) 5o max. 30 max. 15 max. 50 max. 25 max. 51 min. 10 max. .... 35 max. .... 35 max. .... 35 max. .... 35 max. . .... 36 min. . ... .... 36 min. .... ... • 36 min. .... 36 min. Characteristics of Fraction Passing No 40 (0.425 mm) Liquid limit .. Plasticity index . -- • • 6 max. .... N.P. 40 max. 10 max. 41 min. 10 max. 40 max. 11 min. 41 min. 11 min. 40 max. 10 max. 41 min. 10 max. 40 max. 11 min. 41 min. 11 min. Usual Types of Significant Constituent Materials Stone Fragments, Gravel and Sand Fine Sand Silty or Clayey Gravel and Sand Silty Soils Clayey Soils General Ratings as Subgrade Excellent to Good Fair to Poor The placing of A -3 before A -2 is necessary in the "left to right elimination process" and does not indicate superiority of A -3 over A -2. Plasticity index of A -7 -5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity index of A -7 -6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30. Group A -8 soils are organic clays or peat with organic content >5 %. PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) 100 1.0 20 3.0 40 50 90 80 70 1= 60 j 50 40 30 20 10 Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index Ranges for the A -4, A -5, A -6 and A -7 Subgroups Definitions of Gravel, Sand and Silt -Clay The terms "gravel', "coarse sand ", line sand" and "sill- clay ", as determinable from the minimum test data required in this classification arrangement and as used in subsequent word descriptions are defined as follows: GRAVEL - Material passing sieve with 3 -in. square openings and retained on the No. 10 sieve. COARSE SAND - Material passing the No. 10 sieve and retained on the No. 40 sieve. FINE SAND - Material passing the No. 40 sieve and retained on the No. 200 sieve. COMBINED SILT AND CLAY - Material passing the No. 200 sieve BOULDERS (retained on 3.10. sieve) should be excluded from the portion of the sample to which the classificaiton is applied, but the percentage of such material, if any, in the sample should be recorded. The term "silly' is applied 10 fine material having plasticity index of 10 or less and the term "clayey" is applied to fine material having plasticity index of 11 or greater. OICLS022(07 /11) AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS Classification of Soils and Soil - Aggregate Mixtures 60 70 GROUP INDEX CHART 50 'Group Index (GI) = (F -35) [0.2 +0.005 (LL -40) I+ 0.01 (F -15) (PI -10) where F = % Passing No. 200 sieve, LL = Liquid Limit, and PI = Plasticity Index. When working with A-2-6 and A -2 -7 subgroups the Partial Group Index (PGI) Is determined from the PI only. When the combined Partial Group Indices are negative, the Group Index should be reported as zero. co Fxample• Then 82% Passing No. 200 sieve PGI = 8.9 for LL LL = 38 PGI = 7_4 for PI PI =21 • .GI =16 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. • // i / ,/ i 4(y. , 1-4soty <),, ,'• / i i i A A7 // -5 i A-4 A 6 The placing of A -3 before A -2 is necessary in the "left to right elimination process" and does not indicate superiority of A -3 over A -2. Plasticity index of A -7 -5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity index of A -7 -6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30. Group A -8 soils are organic clays or peat with organic content >5 %. PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) 100 1.0 20 3.0 40 50 90 80 70 1= 60 j 50 40 30 20 10 Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index Ranges for the A -4, A -5, A -6 and A -7 Subgroups Definitions of Gravel, Sand and Silt -Clay The terms "gravel', "coarse sand ", line sand" and "sill- clay ", as determinable from the minimum test data required in this classification arrangement and as used in subsequent word descriptions are defined as follows: GRAVEL - Material passing sieve with 3 -in. square openings and retained on the No. 10 sieve. COARSE SAND - Material passing the No. 10 sieve and retained on the No. 40 sieve. FINE SAND - Material passing the No. 40 sieve and retained on the No. 200 sieve. COMBINED SILT AND CLAY - Material passing the No. 200 sieve BOULDERS (retained on 3.10. sieve) should be excluded from the portion of the sample to which the classificaiton is applied, but the percentage of such material, if any, in the sample should be recorded. The term "silly' is applied 10 fine material having plasticity index of 10 or less and the term "clayey" is applied to fine material having plasticity index of 11 or greater. OICLS022(07 /11) AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS Classification of Soils and Soil - Aggregate Mixtures 60 70 GROUP INDEX CHART 50 'Group Index (GI) = (F -35) [0.2 +0.005 (LL -40) I+ 0.01 (F -15) (PI -10) where F = % Passing No. 200 sieve, LL = Liquid Limit, and PI = Plasticity Index. When working with A-2-6 and A -2 -7 subgroups the Partial Group Index (PGI) Is determined from the PI only. When the combined Partial Group Indices are negative, the Group Index should be reported as zero. co Fxample• Then 82% Passing No. 200 sieve PGI = 8.9 for LL LL = 38 PGI = 7_4 for PI PI =21 • .GI =16 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. This boring was made by ordinary and conventional methods and with care deemed adequate for the Department's design purposes. Since this boring was not taken to gather information relating to the construction of the project, the data noted in the field and recorded may not necessarily be the same as that which a contractor would desire. While the Department believes that the information as to the conditions and materials reported is accurate, fl does not warrant that the information is necessarily complete. This information has been edited or abridged and may not reveal all the information which might be useful or of interest to the contractor. Consequently, the Department will make available al its offices, the field logs relating to this boring. Since subsurface conditions outside each borehole are unknown, and soil, rock and water conditions cannot be relied upon 10 be consistent or uniform, no warrant is made That conditions adjacent to this boring will necessarily be the same as or similar to (hose shown on this log. Furthermore, the Department will not be responsible for any interpretations, assumptions, projections or interpolations made by contractors, or other users of this log. Water levels recorded on this log should be used with discretion since the use of drilling fluids in borings may seriously distort the true Field conditions. Also. water levels in cohesive soils ofien lake extended periods of lime to reach equilibrium and thus reflect their true field level. Water levels can be expeded to vary both seasonally and yearly. The absence of notations on this log regarding water does not necessarily mean that this boring was dry or that the contractor will nol encounter subsurface water during the course of construction. WATER MEASUREMENT AB After Bailing AC AF w/C w/M WSD wIAUG 0 01E50 4 (0), 2� 14 � OF T8I After Completion After Flushing with Casing with Mud While Sampling /Drilling with Hollow Stern Auger MISCELLANEOUS NA Not Applicable wI with w/o with out sat saturated DRILLING OPERATIONS AUG Augered CD Core Drilled DBD Disturbed by Drilling DBJ Disturbed by Jetting PD Plug Drilled Si.. Split Tube (SPT lest) TW Thinwall (Shelby Tube) Minnesota Department of Transportation Geotechnical Section Boring Log Descriptive Terminology (English Units) USER NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS - Additional information Al Jet NP WH Weight of Hammer WR Weight of Rod Mud Drilling Fluids in Sample CS Continuous Sample SOIL/CORE TESTS SPT Ns. ASTM D1586 Modified Blows per foot with 140 Ib. hammer and a standard energy o1210 fl -Ibs. This energy represents 60% of the potential energy of the system and is the average energy provided by a Rope 8 Cathead system. MC Moisture Content COH Cohesion V Sample Density LL Liquid Lirnil PI Plasticity Index Phi Angle REC Percent Core Recovered RQD Rock Quality Description (Percent of total core interval consisting of unbroken pieces 4 inches or longer) ACL Average Core Length (Average length of core that is greater than 4 inches long) Coro Breaks Number of natural core breaks per 2 -fool Interval. DISCONTINUITY SPACING Fractures Distance Very Close........ <2 inches Close 2 -12 inches Mod. Close 12 -36 inches Wide >36 inches DRILLING SYMBOLS Vane Shear Test Washed Sample (Ctlte wi &ring pug einn,gl Augered Plug Drifted Split Tube Sate (SPT N, 2 in spa 4Ge writhes) Thin Wall Sample (3h Sidr Tike) Core Dilled (NVCcre Bard We35 otter.,oero5) Centinuwws Sal Sarple Augered & Jetted Jetted ALgerwi 8 Rug Gilled WS Wash Sample RELATIVE DENSITY t� SR . jj.�ro Relrie C ompaclness - Granular Soils ndes Sheet No S(1 Mar 1 J :lgcote - i rciFc ms1rNDEx70.Oc( SOIUROCK TERMS C Clay Lmst .......Limestone Bedding L Loam Ss I.. ..... ...Sandstone Very Thin S Sand Dolo........Dolostone Thin SI Sill wx...........weathered Medium G Gravel (No. 10 Sieve to 3 inches) Thick Bldr ... ....... Boulder (over 3 inches) T.... fill (unsorted, nonstratified glacial deposits) 100% BPF 100 % 10 • 90 20 BO 20 70 40 ,WL% �..� 60 ANIA.A � ATEMYATAWAtilik £IItE % Sand 80 70 50 available in Geotechnical Manual. very loose .0-4 loose 5 -10 medium dense 11 -24 dense 25 -50 very dense >50 Consistency - Cohesive Soils BPF very soft 0 -1 soft .2 -4 firm ...5 -8 stiff 9 -15 very stiff ...16 -30 hard ...31 -60 very hard ..> 60 COLOR blk Black wht.... While grn Green brn.... Brown orng Orange yet .............Yellow dk Dark It ....... Light 103 Iron Oxide Stained GRAIN SIZE /PLASTICITY VF Very Fine pl Plastic F Fine slpl..._.._..Slightly Cr Coarse Plastic Mn /DOT Triangular Textural Soil Classification System 60 Clay 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% To Sill N z H Pa W A v a) U O z w get U AET JOB NO: 28 -00448 LOG OF BORING NO. 1 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, MN DEPTH FEET SURFACE ELEVATION GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE TYPE U �� FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC DEN LL PL /0 - #20( 1 — FILL, mixture of sandy silt and lean clay, trace roots, brown (SILT LOAM, trace roots, brown, damp, A -4, fill) FILL 15 11 13 23 64 16 15 M M M M M M M 1 it SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 2 12 16 14 16 16 16 17 10 15 2 3 — a 5 — 6 _ CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little light brownish gray, stiff; laminations of silty sand (SC) (PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, a little light brownish gray, moist, stiff, laminations of loam, A -6, alluvium) V' � 0 MIXED ALLUVIUM LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, a little gravel, gray, a little brown, stiff, lenses and laminations of silty sand, laminatiosn of sandy silt (CL) (SILT LOAM, gray, a little brown, moist, stiff, laminations of loamy fine sand, A -6, alluvium) //, FINE ALLUVIUM 7 8 — 9— 10 — 11 — SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium dense (SM) (LOAMY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, A -2 -4, alluvium) •: COARSE ALLUVIUM SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, very dense (SM) (LOAMY SAND, brown, moist, very dense, A -2 -4, alluvium) ' 12 13 — 14 — 15 — 16— SILTY SAND, a little gravel, brown, medium dense (SM) (LOAMY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, A -2 -4, alluvium) . END OF BORING DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO T HE A "I' "1 ACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG i , „ 0 -14/: 3.25 HSA DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING CAVE-IN FLUID LEVEL LEVEL 9/23/11 9:05 16.5 14.5 14.7 None B D: 9/23/11 DR: JM LG: TM Rig: IC 03/2011 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG 01 -DHR -060 Geotechnical Data Report 4504 Oak Chase Road; Eagan, Minnesota AMERICAN October 3, 2011 ENGINEERING Report No. 28 -00448 TESTING, INC. Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use B.1 REFERENCE Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Report No. 28 -00448 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE of which, we are a member firm. B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. B.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geoteclmical 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 geoteclmical 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.orc Appendix B — Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, 1NC Appendix 13 Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Report No. 28 -00448 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, Appendix B — Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC