The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-05-06 Geo Tech Exploration-° °~~ GEOTECHNICA.L EXPLORATION - PROPOSED MINNEAPOLIS FACTORY SFiOPPES I-94 AND COUNTY ROAD 19 ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA GME PROJECT NO. 5974 ~:: Copyright, GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ~,~. ~ ~. ,.~ May 6, 1996 Mr. Jim Morse JMJ Properties, Inc. 107 Sinclair Drive Muskegon, Michigan 49441 GME Project No. 5974 RE: Report of subsurface exploration for the proposed Minneapolis Factory Shoppes at I-94 and County Road 19 in Albertville, Minnesota Dear Mr. Morse: We are pleased to submit the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering review for this project. Submittal of this report concludes the scope of work defined in our written proposal dated March 7, 1996. We appreciate the opportunity to work on this project with you. If there are any questions about our recommendations, please call me at (612) 559-1859. Coordination of our field services during the construction phase of this project may be arranged through me or Mr. Steve Ruesink, P.E. at the same phone number. Sincerely, GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Mervyn Mindess, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer cc: Mr. John Bertelsen John Oliver and Associates, Inc. - Elk River Mr. Phillip Baum Stahl Construction Company The Collaborative, Inc. - Architects - Toledo, Ohio MM:jm c:\mm\5974.dtr WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P.E. THOMAS PAUL VENEMA, P.E. WILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL, P.E. GREGORY R. REUTER, P.E. WYATT A. GUTZKE, P.E. MERVYN MINDESS, P.E. MARK D. MILLSOP, P.G. SANDRA J. FORREST, P.G. STEVEN J. RUESINK, P.E. An Equal Opportunity Employer CME CONSULTANTS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14000 21st Ave. No./ Minneapolis, MN 55447 Phone (6121559-1859 / Fax (612) 559-0720 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED MINNEAPOLIS FACTORY SHOPPES I-94 AND COUNTY ROAD 19 ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA GME PROJECT N0. 5974 Section ASFE Notes Regarding Geotechnical Engineering Reports INTRODUCTION Project Information SCOPE OF SERVICES EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Soil Sampling Soil Classification SITE CONDITIONS Site and Geology SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Conditions Groundwater Conditions ENGINEERING REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Discussion Site Preparation for Buildings Foundation Recommendations Ground Supported Floor Slabs Loading Dock Walls Foundation Wall Backfill Appurtenant Structures External Pavement Areas CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Site Drainage Groundwater Winter Construction Construction Safety Field Observation and Testing STANDARD OF CARE CONCLUDING COMMENTS Appendix Pacte ~,,- GME CONSULTANTS, INC. GME C0111SULTANTS, INC. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT As the client of a consulting geotechnical engineer, you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction problems than any other factor. ASFE/The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences offers the following suggestions and observations to help you manage your risks. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based On A Unique Set Of Project-Specific Factors Your geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. These factors typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; other improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask your geotechnical engineer to evaluate how factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the report's recommendations. Unless your geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, do not use your geotechnical engineering report: • when the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one; • when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed structure is altered; • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; • when there is a change of ownership; or • for application to an adjacent site. ~~ Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors considered in their report's development have changed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Do not base construction decisions on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with your geotechnical consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts. Note, too, that additional tests may be required when subsurface conditions are affected by construction opera#ions at or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or ground water fluctu- ations. Keep your geotechnical consultant apprised of any such events. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Judgments Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your geotechnical engineer who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your geotechnical engineer can work together to help minimize their impact. Retaining your geotechnical engineer to observe construction can be particularly bene- ficial in this respect. A Report's Recommendations Can Only Be Preliminary The construction recommendations included in your geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork, you should retain your geotechnical engineer to observe actual conditions and to finalize recommendations. Only the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. Geotechnical Services Are Performed For Specific Purposes And Persons Consulting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your geotechnical engineer prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for purposes you indicated. No other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ~i INTRODUCTION In accordance with the acceptance of our written proposal dated March 7, 1996, by Mr. Jim Morse, on March 11, 1996, we have performed a subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering review for this project. This report presents our findings, evaluations, and recommendations. ~~ Proiect Information You propose to construct two retail buildings for an outlet mall. The .,~. buildings will be L-shaped, one-story slab-on-grade structures with a total footprint of about 258,000 square feet. The buildings will have perimeter masonry bearing walls, and steel frame construction to support flat roofs. The structural design has not yet been completed. We estimate that wall loads on the footings would be about 2 to 4 kips per lineal foot, with column loads in the range of 25 to 100 kips. The first floor elevations of the buildings has not yet been determined. Floor loads in retail buildings of this type would typically be about 80 to 100 pounds per square foot in the retail areas, and as high as 300 to 400 pounds per square foot in stockroom areas. Some future out-buildings will be constructed on the easterly side of the property in a future phase of the project. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ~~~ Mr. Jim Morse 2 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 As part of the Phase I development a town center containing gazebos, walkways, and a corporate monument sign will be constructed in the south-central portion of the Phase I development. Sanitary sewers for the outlet mall will be connected to the ., Albertville Municipal System. Extensive paved parking and drive areas will be constructed for the mall. The main access drive to the mall will be off County Road 19, and would carry numerous daily automobiles, pick-up trucks, and vans, along with some heavier delivery and waste collection trucks. We were informed by your traffic consultant, Benshoof and Associates, that the daily traffic on the main entrance road will~be about 9,100 vehicles per day, of which about 200 are trucks. A number of wetlands occur on or near the site. Some of these will have to be mitigated if they are filled and disturbed. A stormwater detention pond may be constructed at the southerly or southeasterly end of the project, with some of the soil derived from this pond being used as structural fill. Even though building floor grades are unknown, we anticipate that cuts and fills required to grade the site will generally be less than 8 feet . GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ,_ Mr. Jim Morse 3 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 SCOPE OF SERVICES As per our proposal, our work scope for this phase of the project was as follows: 1. Explore the subsurface conditions within the property by means of 24 standard penetration soil borings extending to 15 foot depths in potential building and detention pond areas, and S foot depth in exterior pavement areas. 2. Perform some routine laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained from the exploration, to assist us in classifying the soils and characterizing their physical and engineering properties. 3. Submit a geotechnical engineering report, including logs of the test borings, a site plan showing the soil test hole locations in relation to the outlines of the proposed buildings, and our engineering opinions and recommendations regarding: A. Soil correction required to prepare the building pads and roadways for construction. B. Appropriate foundation type. C. Allowable soil bearing pressure for footing design, and estimates of foundation settlements under the applied new loads. D. Floor slab subgrade preparation, and our opinion about the advisability of installing a vapor barrier beneath the floor slabs. E. Modulus of subgrade reaction, which the Structural Engineer can use to design the ground supported floor slabs. F. Pavement subgrade preparation, and an estimated stabilometer R-value of the subgrade, which we can use to design the pavement thickness in both light and heavy duty pavement areas. The traffic volumes and types for use in our design were to be provided by your Traffic Engineering Consultant, Benshoof and Associates. G. Construction considerations related to foundations and earthwork. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. t ~. Mr. Jim Morse 4 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES We recommended the number of borings, their locations and depths. The boring locations were staked for us by John Oliver and Associates, who also provided the surface elevations to National Geodetic Vertical Datum. We drilled the borings on April 3, 24, 25, using both a ti-uck- mounted CME-55D and an all-terrain CME-750 drill rig. On April 3, substantial portions of the area to be tested were underwater, and were not accessible, even to an all-terrain vehicle, which tended to get mired in the wet clay soil. Soil SamplincT We advanced the borings with 4-1/4 inch I.D. by 8 inch O.D. continuous flight, hollow stem augers fitted with a removable center plug. The drill crew sampled the soil in advance of the auger tip at 2 to 5 foot intervals of depth, in accordance with ASTM: D 1586, commonly referred to as the Standard Penetration Test. The N-value obtained from this test is an index of the relative density of cohesionless soils, and to a lesser extent, the consistency of cohesive or semi-cohesive soils. The drill crew observed for groundwater levels in the borings while drilling and after completion. They backfilled the borings with cuttings after the final water level observations were made, to comply with current Minnesota Department of Health Regulations. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Morse 5 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 Soil Classification As the samples were obtained ir_ the field, they were preliminarily classified by the field crew. Representative portions of the samples were sealed in jars and returned to the laboratory for further examination and classification by an Engineer in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Logs of the borings indicate the depths and identification of the various strata, the N-values, water level information, and pertinent information regarding the method of maintaining and advancing the drill holes, are included in the Appendix. Charts illustrating the soil classification proceaure ana the descriptive terminology and symbols used on the boring logs are also included. The soil samples obtained in the borings will be kept for a period of one month from the date of this report. The samples will then be disposed of, unless we are contacted and directed to do otherwise. Site and Geology SITE CONDITIONS This property was formerly mainly a cultivated agricultural field with some wetlands. The topography is undulating. There is approximately a 13 foot maximum difference in elevation among our 24 borings, between the high point at the westerly end of the property, and the low point GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ~~^ _' Mr. Jim Morse 6 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 at the easterly edge adjacent to County Road 19. An intermittent stream enhanced by some man-made ditching traverses the property from the north toward the south by southeast. General surface drainage at the property is toward the south and southeast, through a culvert under County Road 19, eastward to School Lake. The principal naturally-occurring soil type at this site is clayey and silty glacial till deposited by the Des Moines ice lobe of the Wisconsinan glaciation., After this soil was formed it became partially desiccated and consolidated. The clay till does not drain well, and thus there are numerous. lake, marshes, and ponds in the general area, including wetlands at the southerly end of this property. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are shown on the boring logs in the Appendix. The logs also indicate the Unified Soil Classifications of the soil types encountered. The soil conditions have been established at our specific boring locations only. Variations in the soil stratigraphy are likely to occur between and around the borings, the nature and extent of which would not become evident until exposed by construction excavation. Interpolation or extrapolation of the results is not warranted. GME CONSUITANT3, ANC. 1 7 May 6, 1996 Mr. Jim Morse GME Project No. 5974 Soil Conditions We penetrated 4.5 to 6 feet of mixed fill at borings 6 and 9, both in the north-central portion of the property. The fill consisted of a mixture of organic topsoil, sandy clay and clayey sand. It generally was loose and unsuitable for foundation support. At boring 24, adjacent to the west side of County Road 19, the fill extended to more than 15 foot depth, and was generally loose and unsuitable for foundation support. ~~ In the other 21 borings we found from 0.8 to 2.5 feet of topsoil. This consisted of dark brown to brownish-black to black sandy clay, clayey silt, and fine sandy silt. The topsoil is unsuitable for foundation support, or as a subgrade below a floor slab or pavement. The major, naturally-occurring soil type at this site commenced at ,I depths of 0.8 to 6.8 feet below grade at all borings except boring 24, and extended to the 15 foot termination depths of these borings. The soil was primarily a brown to gray-brown, low plasticity, sandy clay with traces of gravel. As is common in this type of clayey glacial till formation, we also penetrated random seams or lenses of silty fine sand, clayey sand, fine to coarse sand, and fine sandy silt. Standard Penetration N-values in the clay till formation varied. from 4 to 18. Most of the stratum sampled was stiff to medium dense in consistency, and in our opinion is competent for foundation support. Natural moisture contents of the clay till formation varied from 14o to 37%, GME CONSULTANTS, ANC. Mr. Jim Morse 8 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 with most values in excess of 19a. We estimate that the optimum moisture content for this material that would be determined from a Standard Proctor compaction test is in the range of 14o to 160. Thus drying of this soil would generally be required for efficient compaction. +s We were unable to ascertain the reason for the deep fill at baring 24. If only a roadway or pavement is to be constructed over this area, then a deeper boring is not required, in our opinion. However,,~.if a building or other type structure will be located at or near boring 24 then further soil exploration will be required, to penetrate into competent naturally-occurring soil. Groundwater Conditions Borings 19 and 24 were drilled under shallow ponded water, which filled the boreholes. Thus groundwater level readings at these locations was obscured and was not possible. We found groundwater i~ only one of the other 22 borings, namely at the 12 foot depth in boring 2, corresponding to elevation 946.6 feet. Other borings with tip elevations as low as 935.2 feet remained dry during our relatively short period of observation. School Lake is located about 650 feet due east of the east property line, and its average summer water elevation is 948 feet. School Lake connects to Mud Lake, which has the same average water elevation. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ~~' Mr. Jim Morse 9 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 Had the period of observation in all of our borings been longer, it is likely that the groundwater level would eventually risen to the same elevation as the water in School Lake or slightly higher. We recommend that for design purposes for the Minneapolis Factory Shoppes project, a groundwater elevation of 949 feet should be used. This groundwater level will fluctuate seasonal and annually, depending primarily on precipitation and climatic conditions. If underground utility lines for this project extend below elevation 949 to 948 feet they still may not require major dewatering, because the permeability of the sandy clay glacial till is very low. ENGINEERING REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The engineering recommendations made in this report are based on our understanding of the project as described in the Introduction. The recommendations are valid solely for a project of the type described herein. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or locations of the buildings are planned, the opinions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless we review these changes and the recommendations of this report are modified or verified in writing. GME CONSULTANTS. INC. Mr. Jim Morse 10 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 Discussion Based on our interpretation of the soil boring data, it appears that in most of the site area only conventional topsoil stripping, grading, and surficial compaction will be required to prepare the sites for building development or pavements. In the localized areas (borings 6, 9, 24) where loose fill and buried topsoil occur, these should be excavated and removed. At boring 6 and 9 this involves excavations to depths of about 4-1/2 to 6 feet. .,,,. It is our opinion that the retail buildings can be supported on conventional, spread footing foundations bearing on stiff naturally- occurring sandy clay, or on controlled compacted sandy clay fill. The non-organic sandy clay soils will be competent for floor slab support, and as a subgrade below pavements. However, these soils are susceptible to frost heave in the winter and tend to soften during the spring thaw. Thus, they are not good pavement subgrade soils and a thicker pavement is usually required to compensate. The upper sandy clay soils tend to be much wetter than optimum, and would be difficult to work with in wet weather. Furthermore, this sandy clay should not be directly used as fill, until its moisture content is lowered. The earthwork contractor should allow for spreading, disking, and drying before re-using this material as structural fill. GM8 CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Morse 11 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 Site Preparation for Buildings All vegetation, obviously organic topsoil, and surficial-fill should be stripped and removed from the building and pavement areas. Cut areas should then be cut to design subgrade elevations. In fill areas, some subcut may be required prior to filling. Estimated subcut depth's and elevations are indicated on the following table: RECOM~SENDED EXCAVATION PRIOR TO FILLING IN BUII.DING AREAS BORING NO. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet) RECOMMENDED ML,IIMUM EXCAVATION DEPTH {feet) APPROXL~fATE ELEVATION OF EXCAVATION BASE (feet) BUILDING 1 959.5 1.5 958 A 2 958.6 2.5' 956 3 961.5 1 960.5 4 954.7 7 947.5 S 958.6 1.5 957 6 957.1 6 951 7 956.0 1 955 i. 8 9~ 1.6 4 947.5 BUII.DING 9 953.9 6 948 B 10 96.8 1.5 955 j 11 953.7 6 947.5 ~ 12 958.0 i 957 ~~ 13 958.4 1 957.5 14 957.1 3 954 15 954.2 2 952 16 952.4 2 950.5 ~' 17 954.6 1 953.5 a FUTURE BUILDING 23 950.2 2 948 ' S.E. UADRANT 24 948.5 9 939.5 i GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Morse 12 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 It can be seen from the table that the subcut depths are irregular. As a generalization, in the lower areas the upper soils are softer and wetter, requiring more subcut. In the higher areas basically only topsoil stripping is required. After the stripping the exposed surface should be disked or scarified, and then thoroughly surface compacted with a large vibratory sheeps- foot roller. It is important to note that the surficial soil conditions at this site are quite variable, both horizontally, and vertical, and changes or adjustments in the depths of excavation may be necessary in the field, depending on site conditions encountered at the time of construction. Non-organic soils excavated from the site may be re-used as fill. A high proportion of this material is expected to be sandy clay which is wetter than the optimum moisture content that would be determined by the Standard Proctor compaction test. We estimate that the optimum moisture content for the clay soils at this site would be in the range of 14o to 160. Should the sandy clay soil be placed in too wet or two dry a condition, it cannot be adequately and properly compacted. If it is placed in a too dry condition, passing compaction tests could be achieved, but the soil is then subject to future consolidation when it becomes wet. If it is placed in a too wet condition, adequate compaction is very difficult to achieve, and the soil can then shrink if it subsequently GME CONSU~7ANT3. INC. Mr. Jim Morse 13 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 dries. Thus, an important element of the earthwork at this project will be tight control of the soil moisture contents of the fill at the time of placement. The control of moisture in the fill soils will be feasible only in the warmer months of the year. Late fall, winter, or early spring site grading would be very difficult, and may not be feasible. We strongly recommend that a_pre-construction conference be held with the earthwork contractors to thoroughly explain the importance of moisture control during fill placement. ~.- If the site preparation for this project occurs during a wet season, proper earthwork would be very difficult. You should consider the use of lime and/or fly ash as a soil drying and stabilizing agent, to facilitate the earthwork. As a prelimir_ary estimate only, approximately 4o to 6% admixture of these materials with the existing sandy clay would be required. However the optimum amount should be determined by actual testing at the time of construction. If pumping or rolling of the base soil is observed during the initial surficial compaction, additional soil correction may be necessary. If the earthwork extends into a wet season, some isolated seams and lenses of perched groundwater may be encountered, emanating from thin sand and silt seams within the soil profile. An important feature of the earthwork at this site would be to appropriately slope the excavation for drainage to the southeast, so that these perched water lenses do not create a problem. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ., Mr. Jim Morse 14 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 The recommended subcut involves removal of primarily non-organic sandy clay and clayey silt soils. These soils could be re-used as fill only if they can be aerated or treated with an admixture to dry them to within 20 of the optimum moisture content determined by the Standard Proctor compaction test, ASTM: D 698. Zt does not appear that more than 10 feet of fill will be required in any part of the proposed building pads. However, if there is some area that has more than 10 feet of fill under the building, we recommend that special filling techniques should be used. The thickness of compacted clay fill should be limited to no more than 9 feet, and the remainder of the required fill should be an imported sand. The reason for this is that thick clay fills undergo a phenomenon known as hydro- compression, even if they are well compacted. This can result in settlements in the order of 1% to 20 of the total fill height. Such settlements would not be tolerable for the buildings. All fill for this project should be spread in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts, and compacted to at least 98% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density, ASTM: D 698. Conventional 1 horizontal: 1 vertical excavation oversizing should be used around the building pads. Foundation Recommendations After re-grading and soil correction, the buildings may be supported on conventional spread footings, bearing either on stiff naturally- I GME CONSULTANTS, INC. a Mr. Jim Morse 15 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 occurring sandy clay which has been observed and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Technician, or on compacted fill which has been appropriately tested and fully meets the required density and moisture specifications. Fill which is too wet or too dry should be rejected, even if it"does achieve the .proper density. All perimeter footings should bear at least 4 feet below outside finished grade, for frost protection. In the loading dock areas, any isolated exterior footings, such as entry ~- canopies, or under unheated gazebos the bottom of footings should be at least 5 feet below grade. Interior footings should bear at 18 ir_ch depth or more below the top of the floor slab, provided that they will not be subjected to freezing weather conditions during construction. Based on our interpretation of the soil boring and laboratory test data, and the recommended site preparation program, we recommend that a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot should be used for the footing design. The continuous strip footings under the bearing walls should be at least 6 inches wider on either side than the walls they support. Individual column footings should be at least 3 feet wide. The recommended soil bearing pressure provides a theoretical factor of safety against shear failure in excess of 3. Total and differential I settlements corresponding to this loading should be less than 1 inch I i GME CONSULTANTS, INC. -- r Mr. Jim Morse 16 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 597? and 1/2 inch respectively. The ground supported floor slabs would undergo total or differential settlements less than the settlement of the superstructure, probably about 3/8 to 1/2 inch or less for a slab built over a properly prepared subgrade. Ground Supported Floor Slabs .~ The recommended site preparation program should provide appropriate support for the floor slabs. We recommend that the slabs be designed for a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per square inch per inch (pci), using the design procedure recommended by the Portland Cement Association (PCA). The uppermost 4 to 6 inches of fill below the floor slabs should be a clean, free-draining sand with less than So passing the number 200 sieve, to act as a capillary brea.~ layer. In addition, a 6-mil polyethylene vapor barrier should be installed below the clean sand layer and above the prepared subgrade. The purpose of this vapor barrier is to reduce the transmission of water vapor to the slab from the soil subgrade. This moisture can adversely affect adhesion of the or carpet, or can affect the hardeners used on unfinished concrete floors. There appears to be no usable volume of clean sand. on the site, to use as the capillary break layer. Therefore, we recommend that imported sand, such as ASTM: C 33 concrete sand, be used as the final fill below GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Morse 17 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 the floor slabs. This will also afford a better working surface for casting of the slabs. The sand should be spray-dampened immediately prior to casting the slabs. A slab with a vapor barrier should be designed and built in accordance with ACI, Section 302. Loading Dock Walls If any portions of the structures are to have loading docks, the loading dock walls will act as short retaining walls. We recommend ~,. that these walls be designed using at-rest lateral earth pressures, to reduce the potential for wall deflection. Loading dock walls should be backfilled with clean granular soil containing less than 5% passing the number 200 sieve. We recommend that an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf be used for the at-rest design condition. The passive earth pressure can be computed using a fluid having an equivalent fluid weight of 275 pcf. We recommend that a concrete-on-soil coefficient of sliding friction of 0.33 be used for the soils at this site. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used for sliding resistance. We recommend placement of adequate insulation against the inside faces of the loading dock walls, to prevent horizontal frost penetration into the interior floor slab subgrade. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. 4 Mr. Jim Morse 18 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 Foundation Wall Backfill The interior sides of foundation walls should be backfilled with the same type of structural fill used elsewhere within the building pads. The backfill should be placed in 6 inch maximum loose lifts, with each lift uniformly compacted. The use of manually operated vibrating plate compactors is recommended for the zone adjacent to the walls. The use of large vibratory equipment within 3 feet of the walls should not be allowed, because this type of equipment can impose high, transient, lateral stresses on the walls, which they are not normally designed to resist. The walls should be backfilled simultaneously, inside and outside. All of the wall backfill should be compacted to at least 94a of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density. As an alternative, after site preparation to floor subgrade level, you should consider excavating neat trenches to footing depth, and casting the footings and foundation walls as one integral unit, thus eliminating the need for form work and for foundation wall backfilling. A~UUrtenant Structures we recommend that the subgrade under all slabs or sidewalks adjacent to the buildings consist of non-frost susceptible soil to a depth of at least 3-1/2 feet.` This would reduce the characteristic heave which occurs when cohesive or semi-cohesive soils freeze. The heave can damage the slabs and the structure, and can jam door entries. The non- ,- _ ,~~~~ GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ~~ Mr. Jim Morse 19 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 frost susceptible soil should be a medium to coarse grained sand with less than 5o passing the number 200 sieve. This material should be subdrained to the site stormwater collection system, so that it does not act as a water collector. External Pavement Areas ,~ Site preparation of pavement areas should consist of stripping all topsoil, soil containing vegetation and roots, plus additional subcut ~~ if the subgrade is wet, soft, or disturbed. The exposed subgrade should be test rolled in accordance with MnDOT 2111 procedures. Fill used in pavement areas should be compacted in thin lifts to at least 1000 of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density. For a stiff sandy clay subgrade, we estimate that the Stabilometer R- value would be 12. On this basis, we have designed the following pavement thicknesses, using the indicated design criteria: Pavement design life = 15 years Standard duty pavement (parking lot): Equivalent 18-kip axle loads EAL = 2 per day = 10,950 per 15 years Heavy duty pavement (driveways and traffic lanes): EAL = 4.5 per day = 24,638 per 15 years GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Morse 20 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PAVEMENT THICKNESS STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT (inches) (inches) Hot-mix bituminous 1.5 1.5 wearing course, MnDOT 2331.508 Hot-mix bituminous 1.5 2.0 binder course, MnDOT 2331.510 Compacted aggregate 8 10 base course, MnDOT Class 5 100a crushed rock or recycled concrete Geofabric separator, No Yes MnDOT 3733, Type V The use of rigid (Portland Cement Concrete) pavement is recommended adjacent to the loading docks, and in areas where semi-trailers may be parked. The lean sandy clay/clayey silt subgrade soils at this site are highly susceptible to frost heaving; and weaken or soften excessively during the spring thaw. We recommend the use of a geofabric separator such as Mirafy 600X or equivalent to be used between the subgrade and the base course in all driveway, traffic lane and truck loading areas. Its function is to prevent clogging of the base course by silt and clay particles that are forced upward under the pressure of passing traffic. The use of a geofabric should extend the pavement life and decrease the amount of required maintenance. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Morse 21 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 Good subdrainage of the pavement base course is strongly recommended. We recommend that a series of radial drains at least 40 feet long should be installed around each storm sewer manhole or catch basin in the pavement areas, to remove infiltrating water from the base course. In our opinion, the pavement described above should have a design'life of 20 years. The 20 year design life does not mean that the pavement would last 20 years with no maintenance. It should be expected that normal shrinkage cracks will develop, and that localized areas {such as in traffic lanes and at entry drives) would show wear and possible alligator cracking within 3 to 6 years after construction. Such areas should be expeditiously repaired in order to realize the overall maximum life of the pavement. Periodic seal coating should also be applied. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Site Drainage Good site drainage should be maintained throughout the work, so that the site is not vulnerable to ponding after or during a rainfall. The clayey soils at this site will soften when wet, if driven over by construction traffic. We recommend that the earthwork contractor review the type of equipment that would be feasible for use. If the contractor finds that the GME CONSULTANTS, INC. I~ Mr. Jim Morse 22 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 equipment used is disturbing the fine-grained soils at this site, it is the contractor's responsibility to switch to different equipment or grading methods, to reduce the disturbance. Any soils that become disturbed will require additional subcutting. We recommend that a staging area be selected on the site, so"that equipment and supplied can be brought in without the need for trucks to drive over the prepared soils and subgrades within the building pad or major pavement areas. Preparation of construction haul roads should also be anticipated. Groundwater The excavations for the soil correction, building pads, and for the installation of underground utility lines serving the development, may encounter some groundwater infiltration. It is our opinion that this should be of an amount that could be drained by gravity, or by pumping from sump pits. The soils at this site are not suitable for well point dewatering. Winter Construction The clayey soils at this site are not conducive to winter earthwork, and this should be avoided. Only unfrozen fill should be used, and the contractor may charge extra for importing unfrozen soil or keeping fill from freezing. Placement of fill and/or foundation concrete must not GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Mvrse 23 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 be permitted on frozen soil, nor should the bearing soils or subgrade be allowed to freeze after concrete is placed. Construction Safety All excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR,~yPart 1926, Subpart P "Excavations and Trenches". This document states that excavation safety is solely the responsibility of the contractor. Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the job specifications. The responsibility to provide safe working conditions on this site, for earthwork, building construction, or any associated operations., is not borne in any manner bey GME Consultants, Inc. Field Observation and Testinct Special conditions are strongly recommended for this project, because of the clay soil at this site. These include: 1. There should be full-time observation and testing by a Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Technician, during the soil correction, earthwork placement and compaction, and foundation installations. 2. The earthwork specifications for clay fill should include not only minimum density requirements, but also moisture control requirements for the fill being placed. i ~ GME CONSULTANTS, tNC. Mr. Jim Morse 24 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 3. There should be apre-construction conference with the earthwork contractors to thoroughly explain the importance of the soil moisture control. If there are any areas on the site, particularly near the southeast corner, where clay fill depth exceeds 15 feet, we strongly recommend that check borings be drilled through the compacted fill, using continuous sampling methods, and that these results be analyzed for uniformity and suitable compaction of the fill. The concrete used for foundations and floor slabs should be tested, and reinforcing steel placement should be observed for compliance with the design, in accordance with the requirements of the 1994 t~riiform Building Code, Section 1701. We would be please to provide the necessary field observation, testing, and (Special Inspection) services. We recommend that a sufficient number of field density tests should be taken in all controlled fill, in order to assess its suitability. We recommend that at least one density test be performed for each 3,600 square feet of fill area, for each 2 foot lift of fill. There should be at least one laboratory Proctor compaction reference test for each 40 field density tests or less. All proposed fill materials should be submitted to a laboratory for Proctor compaction tests, and tests to check compliance with the recommendations and project specifications. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Morse 25 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 STANDARD OF CARE The recommendations contained in this report represent our professional opinions. The soil testing and geotechnical engineering services performed for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of skill and care ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budgetary and time constraints. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. ~.~:- CONCLUDING COMMENTS It is agreed between GME Consultants, Inc., JMJ Properties, Inc., and John Oliver and Associates, Inc., that this report is furnished in strict confidence for the exclusive use of the Owner and its agents. When this report is used by others, it is necessary that they check with GME so that they properly interpret or apply the results or recommendations contained herein. GME CONSUITANT3, INC. Mr. Jim Morse 26 May 6, 1996 GME Project No. 5974 This report represents our completion of the soil exploration program, based on our understanding of the scope of services. If you require additional information or services please call us. .y Prepared by: Mervyn indess, P.E. Princi 1 Geotechnical Engineer ~ -~-'t __---~ Reviewed by: Gregory R. Reuter, P.E. ~.. Senior Project Engineer I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws the State of Min to U r, Date ~G 7 ~ Reg. No. 8435 MM:GRR:jm c:\mm\5974.dtr GME CONSULTANTS, INC. i APPENDIX Soil Boring Location Diagram General Notes Soil Boring Logs Unified Soil Classification System .y Special Notes Regarding Placement of Compacted Fill Soils~~~ i GME CONSULTANTS, INC. L DITCH WET DS ~~ l NreRSTq T F H~~N~q Y 94 ~ ~ >' ~Q C~ r ~_ Z ~~ O U APPROXIMATE SCALE 0' FE1~T 400' GME CONSULTANTS. INC. C»otscFricd • Mat~rioh • EnvirorynMtd 14000 2bt /~v~w~ N. h6x+~aipois. Mrv+~sota 55447 (612) 559-1859 SOIL BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM fWMESOTA FACTORY SHOPPES ALBERT~/ILLE. MI~JESOTA KMB ~ WCK ~ APRIL 96 ~ (~ Pro ject No. 5974 GENERAL NOTES DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SL SS SS with Liner Split Spoon - 1'/a" I.D., 2" O.D., unless OS Osterberg Sampler - 3" Shelby Tube otherwise noted HS Hollow Stem Auger ST Shelby Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted WS Wash Sample PA Power Auger FT Fish Trail DB Diamond Bit - NX: BX: AX RB Rock Bit AS Auger Sample BS Bulk Sample JS Jar Sample PM Pressuremeter test - in situ VS Stand Vane Shear ard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer fall ing 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon, except where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL Water Level WCI : Wet Cave In DCI Dry Cave In WS While Sampling WD While Drilling BCR : Before Casing Remvoal ACR : After Casing Removal AB After Boring ;. Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In previous.soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground water elevations is not possible in even several days observation, and additional evidence of ground water elevations must be sought. GRADATION DESCRIPTION & TERMINOLOGY Coarse Grained or Granular Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as: clays or clayey silts if they are cohesive, and silts if they are non-cohesive. In addition to gradation, granular soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their strength or consistency, and their plasticity. Major Descriptive Term(s) Component (Of Components Also Percent of Of Sample Siae Range Present in Sample) Dry Weight Boulders Over 8 in. (200mm) Trace ~ - 9 Cobbles 8 in. to 3 in. Little 10 -19 ' (200mm to 75mm) Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve Some 20 - 34 (75mm to 2mm) Sand #4 to #200 sieve And 35 - 50 (2mm to .074mm) Silt Passing #200 sieve (0.074mm to 0.005mm) Clay Smaller than O.OOSmm CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS: RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS: Unconfined Comp. Strength, Du, tsf Consistency N -Blows/ft. Relative Density < 0.25 Very Soft 0 - 3 Very Loose 0.25 - 0.49 Soft 4 - 9 Loose 0.50 - 0.99 Medium (Firm) 10 - 29 Medium Dense 00 - 1.99 1 Stiff 30 - 49 Dense . 2.00 - 3.99 Very Stiff 50 - 80 Very Dense 4.00 - 8.00 Hard 80 + Extremely Dense 8.00 Very Hard GME CONSULTANTS, INC. LOG OF BORING B- 1 SITE 1-94 & (;ounty ttoao I y Albertville, Minnesota ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. Op (tsf) ---0--- t~i 1 2 3 4 5 N i~--~- w ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ WATER ~ w 4 w m CONTENT ~ W ~ ~ _ ~ _.. .~-_. T z W } w ~ U Q J J STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) J c' F- W ~ Q w ~ ~ - _ w ~ Z G ~ SURFACE ELEVATION --I N ~ ? o N ~ 3 ~ 959.5 z ,o zo ao ao 50 Brown CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, trace organics -firm - (ML) (Topsoil) s ~ s 1SS 2.0 Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace ` ~ 2SS gravel -medium dense -damp - (CL) 15 r~:a ' '''__ 4~ 3SS Liquid Limit= 30 12 15 ,n,?e ~' Plasticity Index = 4SS zz Minneapolis Factory Shoppes CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. F- w w w r 9.0 ` Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace ,! 5SS gravel, iron staining -stiff to very stiff - 15 ~ ~ (CL) l s BSS t~ 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/Z5/y0 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/25/96 Geotechniesl•Materisb Environmental RIG CME-550 DRILLER KJB W.L. while drillin or after au er 14000 21st Avenue North Minneapolis. Minneaote 551.7,7 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK W.L. removal ~ 16721559-1859 JOB x 5974 SHEET 1 of 1 Boring caved at 1 1.5 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B- 2 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - ounty oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~ LL ~ Qp (tsf) --0--- t 2 3 4 5 w W "" w ? Z W J y > W ~ ~ = U Q DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w ~ Q ~ N ~ m ~ J WATER CONTENT ~.•. _. STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT( = w a d~ Q z ~, Q W Q ~ Q H to SURFACE ELEVATION ~ r 9 5 8.6 U~ w N (a!l ~ Q > Z - , ~ 20 30 40 50 ~ Dark brown SILT WITH CLAY, trace sand, 1SS organics -loose -damp - (ML) (Topsoil) 5 ~ s 2.0 Light brown and brown mottled SILTY _ 2 S CLAY, trace sand, roots, with thin sand s 2 S lens at 4.5 feet -firm to stiff - (CL) t 1 1 1 3SS 10 25 • 6.0 Brown and gray brown mottled CLAYEY ' ~ SILT WITH SAND -stiff -damp - (ML) i2 ~ ~ • 4SS 9.0 Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace ,` ~ 5SS gravel -firm - (CL) s t t 13.0 Gray SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace , 6SS gravel -stiff - (CL) 14 ,~L~ ~b~ 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/?.5/96 Groundwater not encountered W L GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/25/96 . . l•Meteriela Environmental i h G while drillin W L n es eotec 1400021stAvenuaNvth RICi CME-55D DRILLER KJB . . 0 feet after au er removal 12 W i L ~ Minnaepolis, Minnesota Ssaa7 1859 812 559 oRAwN TAB APPROVEDWCK . . . - 1 1 J08 x 5974 SHEET 1 Of 1 Boris caved at 12.2 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries l removal . between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradua LOG OF BORING B- 3 'PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - ounty Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~ w w ~- 1..: ~ Qp (tsf) ~--~--- 1 2 3 4 5 ~ i 1_ ~ w w ~ ~ } W~ ; > w ~ Q S ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL N w Q J ~ ~ m J r WATER CONTEtJT °i6 ---~--- STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) w o ~ z m a Q 3 F ~ SURFACE ELEVATION --~ 961.5 a w ~ o: ~ z ``•>' l0 20 ao 40 50 ~ Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace S organics -stiff - (CL) s 1 1S 2.1 Brown SANDY SILT WITH CLAY, trace t 2S gravel -medium dense -damp - (MU ~~ S 4.0 t Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace 3SS gravel, iron staining -stiff to very stiff - ~~ ~ (CU .~ \ 4 S t~ S t 5SS is ~ t t t t t t t t ~ t t BSS ~~ ~ ~ 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/25196 W L Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/25/96 . . W L while drillin or after au er ~ * Gaotechnitel•Meteride Environmentd 14000 21st Avenue North Rlc CME-55D DRILLER KJB . . W L removal ~ MinneePOlb. MinneaoL 55447 1853 61 559 DRAWN TAB APpROVEDWCK . . ( - 2) JOB 1l 5974 SHEE7 1 Of 1 BOfIn Caved at 12.2 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B- 4 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. F.. twi. t~i Qp (tsf) --0--- 1 2- 3 4 5 w W w ? Z W J~ > W w ~ = U Q DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q J N ~ m J WATER CONTENT i -~ STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) w D n. C Z to G Q ~ Q F to SURFACE ELEVATION ~ ~ 9 5 4.7 w N a w N ~ Q ~ Z _ 10 20 30 40 50 Brown .and gray mottled CLAYEY SILT S WITH SAND, trace organics -soft -damp a ~ is • 1S _ (ML) ` •i 2.5 ~ 2S Gray brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, tt S trace gravel, iron staining -stiff - (CL) 4.0 Gray brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, ~' 3SS trace organics, iron staining -firm -damp - 5 (CL) `~' 4SS Liquid Limit = 44 s ,n, ~ Plasticity Index= 22 ~ 9.0 ` Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace ~~ 5SS iron staining -medium dense -damp - (CL) is 6SS 78 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/25/96 W L ndwater not encountered Gr GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/25/96 . . ou l•Materiala Environmental i h G R B W L r after au er hile d illi n ca aotec 14000 21st Avenue North RIG CME-55D DRILLE KJ . . w r n o ~ CK W L l ~ M3 neaoca 55aa7 ~ ' DRAWN TAB APPROVEDW . . remova 18 12I 559 8 f 1 JOB x 5974 SHEET 1 O Boring caved at 11.7 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries al d i i b removal . e gra u on may t between soil types; insitu the trans LOG OF BORING B- 5 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~ w u- ~ Qp (tsf) 1 2 3 4 5 '~"_~. w w w j Z w J ~ ; w w cw7 _ U ¢ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL N w F- Q ~ ~ ~ ~ m J WATER CONTENT °h -•~--- STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) w o o_ Q Z cn ¢ q 3 ~ ~ cn SURFACE ELEVATION ~ 958.6 a w ~ ~ ? Z _ - ~ - to 20 3o ao so Dark brown SANDY SILT WITH CLAY, ~ ,0 trace organics - (ML) (Topsoil) -Frozen to iSS 4 feet 1a ~ i 2.0 Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace gravel -stiff - (CL) -Soil Frozen 2SS Dark brown and gray mottled SANDY 1a 1 CLAY WITH SILT, trace roots, gravel - 4.0 stiff - (CL) -Soil Frozen ~ Light brown and gray SANDY CLAY WITH ; 3SS SILT, trace gravel -stiff to very stiff - (CL) 11 ~ 16 ' o ti l l 4SS 14 1e (~ a I 1 I i 1 I 5SS 1s r r r i i i 6S$ 14 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/4/96 Groundwater not encountered W L GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/4/96 . . ) while driltin or after au er W L Geoteehnied•Meterieb Environmenul 14000 21st Avenue North RIG CME-750 DRILLER KJS . . removal W L Minnaepolia, MinneaoL 55~•i7 1859 812 559 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK . . ( 1 . JOB x 5974 SHEET 1 Of 1 Bonin caved at 11.3 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B- 6 'PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Sho CLIE NT JM J Pro pe rties, Inc. w w u_ m w m ~ ,~ w Z Q W w > Z w > w _ U "- w °' J Q w 2 d }- Q SITE I-y4 tai County Fioaa I y es Albertville, Minnesota ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. Qp (tsf) ---0--- u~. 1 2 3 4 5 N --I f I I DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ WATER N ~ CONTENT °h w m ---e--- Q J J STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) U ~ ; --~-- w Q Z Q ~ SURFACE ELEVATION --~ a w o ~, c 3 ~, 957.1 ~ ~ z Io zo so ao so Dark brown SANDY SILT, trace clay, 0.8 organics - (MU (F)LU -Frozen to 4.5 feet ~~ 1SS Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace ~ 2.0 organics -stiff - (CL) (FILL) Brown and gray mottled SANDY SILT ~ ,_ 2SS WITH CLAY, trace organics -medium 15 r~y~y: dense - (ML) {FILL) , 3SS Brown and gray mottled CLAYEY SILT, s trace sand, organics -firm -damp - (ML) 6.0 (Topsoil) 6 $ Brown and black mottled SANDY SILT ~ 4SS WITH CLAY, trace angular gravel -damp - 12 (MU Brown and gray mottled SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace gravel, iron staining - stiff - (CU ' 5SS i2 5 4 5 t 1 1 1 13.0 ' Dark gray brown SANDY CLAY WITH , 6SS SILT, trace gravel -very stiff - (CU 18 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings I I ~ I RTED 4/4196 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS INC TS 80RING STA ETED 4/4/96 W.L. GfOUndWatef nOL enCDUntered . , GME CONSULTAN Geotechnie~l•Mate~i~b Environmental BORING COMPL IG 750 ME DRILLER KJS W L while drilling or after auger 14000 21st Avanua North Minnesota 55447 l' i R • C TAB gppRpVEDWCK W.L. removal u. nne~po M (612) 559-1859 DRAWN ~~ ~ ~',Q7d SHEET 1 Of 1 Boring caved at 1 1.4 feet after au removal LOG OF BORING B- 7 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty Oa Albertviile, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~ w ~- ` Qp (tsf) 1 2 3 4 5 ~ w w w ~ ~ Z w >- w > ~ ~ Q = ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL v w Q J ~ ~ tD J WATER CONTENT °k --.--- STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWSIFOOT) = w o a E- Q Z to a w ~Q ~ H to SURFACE ELEVATION -1 596.0 a w ~ ~ ~ Z _ 1o zo so ao so Black SANDY SILT WITH CLAY, trace 1 2 organics -medium dense -damp - (ML) 18 zz ~ 1 SS . (Topsoil) -Frozen Gray fine to medium SILTY SAND - ,~ medium dense -damp - (SM) 15 ZSS 4.0 Brown and gray SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, 3SS trace gravel, iron staining, cobbles at 10 ~ 1 e feet -stiff to very stiff - {CL) '"' s ~ 2 4SS 5SS 11 t I t 4 I l t 6SS 1 s 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/4196 W L Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/4/96 . . W L while drillin or after au er Geoteehniesl•Meteriela Environmental 1400021atAvenueNorth RIG CME-750 DRILLER KJS . . W L remOVal Minnesvolia, Minnesota 55aa7 (612! 559-1859 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK . . JOB # 5974 SHEET 1 Of 1 Boffin caved at 12.0 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B- 8 `PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1- w LL' - ~ Q.p (tsi) 1 2 3 4 5 w w w w ~ Z w a ~ > w -+ ~ = U ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w H. w cn Q ~ 3 m w WATER CONTENT °i6 __'~'__ STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWSlFOOT) _ w o ~ °' Q Z N Q w Q ~ ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION ~ r 951.6 a w ~ ~ J ~ z _~_. 10 20 ao ao 50 Black SANDY SILT WITH CLAY, trace roots -loose - (ML) $ 1SS 2.0 ~ Light brown and gray mottled SANDY 2 S CLAY WITH SILT, trace roots, iron a S staining -soft to firm - (CL) 3SS ~ ~. 6.0 ` Brown SANDY CLAY, trace gravel, iron staining -stiff - (CL) 1 ~ 4SS r 5SS s ~ s ti 6SS i3 ~ ~ 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/4/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. goRING COMPLETED 414/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er Geotechnical-Materiala Environmental 1400021st Avenue North RIG CME-750 DRILLER KJS W L removal ~ Minneapol"n, Minnesota 554.17 (6121 559.1859 DRAWN TAB APPRovEDWCK . . cos x 5974 SHEET 1 Of 1 Boris Caved at 1 1.5 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B- 9 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIE JM NT J Pr ope rties, ~ twy ARCHITEC Inc. Joh T-ENG n Oli INEER ver & Associates, Inc. Qp {tsf) --0--- t~i. ~ 2 3 4 5 ~ i i ~ w LL' w ~ ~ Z J y w > ~ Cw7 Q Y Q DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w F.. N Q ~ N ~ m .- w J WATER CONTENT °,6 __.~--- STANDARD PENETRATION {BLOWS/FOOT) = o 0.F' C Z to ~ w d 3 Q Imo„ cn SURFACE ELEVATION --~ 953.9 U ~ a w N ~ Q ~ Z _~._. io so ao ao so Black CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, trace 1SS organics -firm - (ML) (Topsoil) (Possible 5 ~ se ~ 1 5 Fill) -Frozen to 1.5 feet , Gray brown and black CLAYEY SILT WITH ~ SAND, trace organics -firm to soft - (ML) 2SS (Possibly Fill or Disturbed Soil) s ~ s 3SS a i 6.0 Gray brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, '~ SS trace sand -stiff - (CL) g s 4 > 5SS g 2a ~ t BSS 12 a 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used fuH depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings TED 4 /3/96 EVE L OBSERVATIONS BORING STAR WATER L 4/3/96 ntered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. goRING COMPLETED W.L. Groundwater not encou Geotechnical•Materiala Environmental GRILLER KJS er f t Avenue North 14000 21 RIG CME-750 ter au W.L. while driilin or a s 55447 i PPROVEDWCK ~ nnesota Minneapolis, M DRAWN TAB A W.L. removal 16121559.1859 T 1 Of 1 E Jog x 5974 SH E BOrln caved at 12.1 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries radual be i i removal . g on may t between soil types; insitu the trans LOG OF BORING B-10 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OLIMy Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w u' w = Qp (tsfl 1 2 .--~--- 4 5 w ~ m > z i ~ ~ > J ~ ~ z = ~ ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w ~ JQ J N ~ n - WATER CONTENT °k ---i--- STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/POOH _ w o a c °z ~ Q w Q ~ ~ N SURFACE ELEVATION ~ '1 956.8 a w to o: J ~ z - to zo ao ao so Brown CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, trace 0'9 organics - (ML) (Topsoil) -Frozen to 2 feet za 1SS ~ Brown and black mottled CLAYEY S1LT 2.0 WITH SAND, trace organics -stiff - (ML) Brown and ray SANDY SILT WITH CLAY g , trace gravel -stiff -damp - (ML) r4i: ZSS to ~''_ f 3SS >> `J o 6.0 ~ Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace ' gravel, iron staining -stiff - (CU ' ~ aSS t2 5SS t2 r r i i 6SS s 1 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS gOA1NG STARTED 4/3/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/3/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er Geotechnieal•Materiala Environmenul 14000 21st Avenue North RIC' CME-750 DRILLER KJS W.L. removal ~ Minneapolis. Minneaota55447 (6121 559.1859 PRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK JOB X 5974 SHEET ~ Of ~ Boris caved at 11.8 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-11 PROJECT SITE - OUnty oa Minneapolis Factory Shoppes Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT ARCHITECT-ENGINEER JMJ Properties, Inc. John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w Qp (tsf) LL' W 1 2 3 4 5 m w m c~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL to ~ WATER ~ w a N ~ CONTENT w ~ Z a > J S U w F- m - --A--• w ~ ~ N Q ~ w STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) _ ~ w ~ w a Q z Q ~ SURFACE ELEVATION ~ a w ~ - o cn Q ~ to '~ 953.7 ~ ~ z io zo ao ao so Dark brown and black SANDY SILT, trace SS organics -loose - (ML) (Topsoil) -Frozen ~ as ~ 1 1.5 to 2 feet ~ 2.0 Brown fine to medium SILTY SAND - tSM) - Dark brown and gray mottled SILTY CLAY ` WITH SAND, trace organics -soft - (CU a , 2SS `S'` 4.0 ' Gray brown SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, 3SS trace gravel, iron staining -soft - (CL) s ,~ ~ ,~ `~ 6.0 ~ ra Dark brown to SANDY CLAY WITH g y ~ SILT, trace gravel, iron staining -stiff to 10 ~ ~ 4SS very stiff - (CL) t t 1 1 1 5SS r z r r r r r r r 6SS 8 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/3/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. 8Ofl1NG COMPLETED 4/3/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er Gaotechnicd~Matariala Environmental 14000 21st Avenua North RAG CME-750 DRILLER KJS W.L. removal ~~ Minnaspolia, Minnesota 55447 ieizi sss-rasa PRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK JOB x 5974 SHEET 1 of 1 BOrln caved at 1 1.0 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. ', LOG OF BORING B-12 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - ounty Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w ~" W ~ Qp (tsf) 1 2 3 4 5 w LL tr: m ~ > Z~ ~ w > J ~ ~ Q S U ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL u~i w F- fA C J N ~ ~ m w J WATER CONTENT --.~--. STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWSiF00T} _ w ~ ~ Q z N Q Q ~ ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION ~ 958.0 a W to ~ > z - 10 20 30 40 50 Dark brown SANDY SILT, trace organics - 0.9 (ML) (Topsoil) -Frozen to 4 feet 1z 1SS Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace roots -very stiff to stiff - (CL) ~ , " 2 to SS 3.5 Brown and gray mottled SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace gravel, roots, cobbles at 3SS 9 feet - sti#f - (CL) s r ~ r B r ~ • 4SS i i t i i i i 5SS s 17 • I t 6SS 12 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilted with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/13/96 W.L.) Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, 1NC. BORING COMPLETED 4/1 3/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er Gaotechnical•Materiala Environmental 14000 21st Avenue North RIG CME-750 GRILLER KJS W.L. removal Minneapolis, Minnesota SSaa7 (6121 559-1859 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK Job x 5974 SHEET 1 Of 1 Burin Caved at 1 2.5 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-13 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shopper SITE - ounty Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w ur W t` QP (tsf) 1 2 --0'-- 4 5 a w ~ D: m ~ Z ~ ~ ~ J ~ J D: z = U ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w ~ Cn Q ~ (A m ~ WATER CONTENT °,6 -_.®-~- STANDARD PENETRATION IBLOWSlFOOT) _ w o c Q z Ln Q ~ Q ~ ~ Ln SURFACE ELEVATION -~ 958.4 a W Ln s J > z - ~o zo ao ao so Dark brown SANDY S1LT, trace clay, roots 1.0 - (ML) (Topsoil) -Frozen to 4 feet 1SS Brown and light brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace gravel, roots -very stiff to stiff - (CL) ,' s 2SS t2 4.0 ' Brown and gray mottled SANDY SILT 3SS WITH CLAY -loose -damp - (ML) s ~ 5.5 Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace gravel, iron staining -stiff - (CU t t ' s 4SS a t 5SS 12 14.0 6SS Brown' fine to coarse SAND WITH 12 t 15.0 GRAVEL, trace silt -medium dense -damp - (SP) End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/3/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 43/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er Geotechnical•Materiala Environmental 14000 21st Avenue North Rlc CME-750 DRILLER KJS W.L. removal ~ Minneepolia, Minnesota 55447 (6121 559-1859 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWGK JOB z 5974 SHEET 1 of 1 Bonin Caved at 13.0 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-14 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w Qp (tsf) ---0--- 1 2 3 4 5 w ~ m ~ Z d ~~ J ~ J ~ Z = U ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL W N N Q 3 m w WATER CONTENT °,b ---~--- STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) _ o d N Q w ~ ~-, SURFACE ELEVATION ~ 957.1 ~ a w N ~ J > z - - ~' - - ~o zo so as so Dark brown to brown CLAYEY SILT, trace sand, organics -stiff - (ML) (Topsoil) - ss 1SS Frozen to 3.8 feet 13 ~ ~ 2.0 ' Dark brown and black SANDY CLAY WITH t SILT, trace roots -stiff - (CL) 2SS ~z r 5.0 3SS Brown and gray mottled SILTY CLAY 2B "" WITH SAND -stiff - (CU s ~ 7.0 ~ aSS Brown fine to coarse CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, trace silt, angular gravel - 13 medium dense -damp - (SG) 9.0 ~ Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace 5SS gravel, iron staining -stiff - (CL) ~ ~ r r 13.0 t 1 ~ Gray SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace , 6 gravel -stiff - (CL) SS B 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/3/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/3/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er ~ ~ Gaotechnieal•Materiala Environmantal 14ooo21atAvenuaNorth R1G CME-750 . DRILLER KJS W.L. removal ' ` ' Minnaapolia, Minnesota 55447 (6121559.1859 DRAWN. TAB APPROVEDWCK roe x 5974 SHEET 1 Of 1 Borin caved at 11.0 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-75 ,~ PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. W ~- tL OP (tsf) 1 2 3 4 5 1- ~ m ~ > Z w ~ ~ t+ > w rt Z `Z _ U ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL v~i w F- Q N ~ m WATER CONTENT -•~--- STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) _ o vai < ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION -~ 954.2 J a w to rr J ~ z _ io 20 ao ao so Dark brown SANDY SILT, trace organics - I 0.9 (ML) (Topsoil) -Frozen to 4 feet ~ 1SS Brown SILTY CLAY WITH SAND trace 2.0 , roots -very stiff - (CL) ` Brown and ra mottled SANDY CLAY ` g y WITH SILT trace roots gravel -stiff - (CU , ZSg , , tz t 3SS Liquid Limit = 42 i Plasticity Index= 23 10 6.0 Brown SANDY SILT, trace clay, iron 7.0 staining -damp - (ML) aSS Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT trace , gravel, iron staining -stiff - (CL) t , I t I 5SS is I I I I I I I 6SS 12 ~ 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/3/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/3/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er : A Geotechnrcal-Materials Environmental 14000 21st Avenue North RIG CME-750 DRILLER KJS W.L. removal _. . ,~~ MinnaapoGa. Minnesota 55447 (612) 559-1859 PRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK JOB rt 5974 SHEET 1 Of ~ Boris Caved at 12.5 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-16 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. F- w u- - ~ Qp (tsf) 1 2 3 4 5 w w > z a ~ > ~ ~ = ~ ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w ~ ~ Q J 3 m W J WATER CONTENT ---e--- STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) _ w 4 ~ a Q Z to ¢ w Q 3 ~ to SURFACE ELEVATION ~ 952.4 a w N ~ > z - ~o zo ao ao 50 Dark brown CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND - SS stiff - (MU (Topsoil) -Frozen to 4 feet B 1 5 ,y 2.5 ` 2 Brown and gray mottled SANDY CLAY io SS WITH SILT, trace gravel -stiff to soft - (CL) ,' 3SS ~ ( ~ ~ ~, r r r S a t ~ 4S ~ 9.0 `~ Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace 5SS gravel, iron staining -stiff - (CL) t2 r t i 13.0 Gray SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace , 6SS gravel -stiff - (CL) a 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/3/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/3/96 W.L, while drillin or after au er Geote°hnieal •Materials Enwonmental 14ooo21atAvenueNorth RIG CME-750 y Jc DRILLER t~ J W.L. remDVal Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 (6121 559-1859 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK Joe x 5974 SHEET 1 of 1 Boris. caved at 1 1.5 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.. LOG OF BORING B-17 '., PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - ounty oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, lnc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~ F" w twi w _ F: ~ Qp (tsf) ---~--- 1 2 3 4 $ i I i w w = m ~ z w } d J j w Z = U ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w I- Q N ~ m -.- i WATER CONTENT °,6 - --~--- STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS o F - N Q w ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION -~ 1' 954.6 J a w ~ rr J ~ z /FOOTI ~0 20 ao ao 50 Dark brown SANDY SILT, trace clay, 0'8 i (ML) T il 1SS organ cs - ( opso ) -Frozen to 4 feet tz Brown to brown and gray SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace roots -stiff - (CL) ' s 2SS t2 4.0 ' Light brown to gray SANDY SILT, trace ~ 3SS clay -medium dense -damp - (ML) ' is 6.0 ' Brown SANDY SILT WITH CLAY, trace gravel -medium dense -damp - (ML) ,` 4SS 12 t 9.0 Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT trace ~ 5SS , gravel, iron staining -stiff - (CL) ,~ta» t4 r r i i i i r t r 6SS to 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WAT ER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/ 3/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 413/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er Geatechnical~Matariela EnvironmenUl 14000 21st Avenue North RIG CM E-750 DRILLER KJS W.L. removal Minna.polra,Minneaota5s447 (8121 55&1859 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK JOB tt 5974 SHEET ~ Of ~ florin Caved at 1 1.8 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. ` LOG OF BORING B-18 PROJECT SITE - Ounty oa Minneapolis Factory Shoppes Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT ARCHITECT-ENGINEER JMJ Properties, Inc. John Oliver & Associates, Inc. ~-- w Qp (tsf) LL I--' - -O• - " ~ w 1 2 3 4 5 m Z DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ 3 WATER I- w ~ > w > Q 2 N ~ CONTENT ~ Z C J U Q w F- n --' ---0--- _ ~ ~ ~ ~ H- ~ STANDARD PENETRATION IBIOWSIFOOT I. .. ) w Q z Q ~ SURFACE ELEVATION -~ Uw w > - - ~' - - ~ N Q ~ N 955.2 n . N ~ z ~o zo ao 4o so Brown CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, trace organics, gravel at 2 feet -firm to stiff - s 1SS damp - (ML) (Topsoil and/or Fill) s t ~ ZSS s 4.0 ~ Brown and gray mottled SANDY SILT 3SS WITH CLAY, trace gravel -medium dense z - damp - (ML) to z 4SS 1~ 1 8.0 End of boring at 8 feet HOllow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WAT ER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/25/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/25/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er Geotaehniul-Materiels Environmental 14000 21st Avenue North RIG CME-55D DRILLER KJB W.L. removal Minneapolis. Minnesota 55447 (Q121559-1H53 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK JOB x 5974 SHEET ~ Of 1 Bonin caved at 5.3 feet after auger The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. ' LOG OF BORING B-19 PRO.IECT SITE - ounty oa Minneapolis Factory Shoppes Alhartville Minnasnta CLIENT ARCHITECT-ENGINEER JMJ Properties, Inc. John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w QP (tsi') ---0•-- 0: W 1 2 3 4 5 I ~ i m ~ Z DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL N 3 WATER j j = u~i ~ CONTENT °k LL z wa ~ ~ w f- m --•A--• w Q STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOW = a~ F- J J . S/FOOT) w Q Z Q H SURFACE ELEVATION --~ a w ~ N ~ ~ ~ 951.0 to s z io so 3o ao so Brown and black mottled CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, trace organics -soft -damp 1SS - (MU a ~ ~ .> 2SS 3 4.0 ~ Dark gray and brown. SANDY SILT WITH t 3SS CLAY, trace gravel -loose to medium t ~ dense -damp - (ML) e ~`" 4SS 8.0 End of boring at 8 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WAT ER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/25/96 W.L. Water ponded 0.1 foot above GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/25/96 W.L. round surface Geotechnied•Meterids Envirommantal 14000 21st Avenue North RIG CME-55D DRILLER KJB W L Minneepolie, Minneeote 55447 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK . . (612) 559-1859 JOB x 5974 SHEET 1 Of ~ Bonin Caved at 5.0 feet after auger The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF 80RING B-20 PROJECT SITE - ounty oa Minneapolis Factory Shoppes Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT ARCHITECT-ENGINEER JMJ Properties, Inc. John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w Q.p (tsf) W -_~•-- u_ W ~ 1 2 3 4 5 i F i--F 2 LL+ m ~ Z DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL N -- WATER w ? J ~ = W m CONTENT °,6 LL Z d ~ U H '-' ---~--- ~~ ~ tn Q J w STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) _ d w J w Q z Q ~ SURFACE ELEVATION -~ a w ~ - ~ N ~ ~ to Y 956.3 cn cc z io zo so ao ao Dark brown CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, 0.9 trace organics - (ML) (Topsoil) -Frozen to ~ ASS 3.5 feet 2.0 Brown and gray brown mottled SILTY (` CLAY WITH SAND trace roots -stiff - , 2SS (CL) ` 14 ~ Brown and gray mottled SANDY CLAY , trace gravel, organics -stiff - (CL) 7 , r 3S S ~ `r t t ,,, t t 2 4SS to S.0 End of boring at 8 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/4196 W.L. GrOUndwater not enCOUntefed GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/4/96 W,L. while driilin or after au er Geoteehnical•Materiab Environmental 1400021atAvenueNorth RIG CME-750 DRILLER KJS W.L. removal Minneapolis, Minnesota 55sa7 (eizl sss-lass DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK JOB x 5974 SHEET ~ Of ~ Bonin caved at 5.6 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-21 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARC}iITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w w w L ~ Qp ttsf) - --0--- 1 2 3 4 5 I i I--I w LL ~ m ~ Z tl ~ >- > J tt t z = U ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w F- N Q ~ to m w J WATER CONTENT - .. • - . . STANDARD PENETRATION 18LOWSlFOOT) w 4 r= ~ z ~ ¢ ¢ ~ ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION ~ 951.2 nUw. w rn o= > z - - ~ - ~0 20 .;o ao 50 Black and dark gray SANDY SILT WITH CLAY, trace roots, gravel -loose - (ML> z 1SS a ~ ' 2.3 Gray SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, trace ' 23 2SS roots., with fine to coarse sand lens at 5 f ~ ~ • eet -firm - (CL) , r r 3SS 5 (~ 0 `~' 6.0 ' Gray brown CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, ~ trace roots, iron staining -firm -damp - aSS (ML) ~ ~ 9.0 ~~ Gray brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, 5SS trace iron staining -very stiff - {CL) 2s ~ r r i r r 13.0 r Gray SANDY SILT WITH CLAY, trace , 6SS gravel -medium dense -damp - (ML) 18 ~ 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/24/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/24/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er Geotachnical • Materials Environmenul 1400021st Avenue North RIG CME-55D DRILLER ICJS W.L. removal ~ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55aa7 1612) 559-1859 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK Joe x 5974 SHEET 1 of 1 Borin caved at 1 1 .4 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-22 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w twi. F,: ~.. QA ftsfl ---0--- 1 2 3 d 5 w w u. m > z w a ~~ J > w -~ Z = V a DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w F- N Q ~ m - w WATER CONTENT --•l--.. STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) _ F- w ~ d Q z N Q w ~ Q ~ F - Q ~ to SURFACE ELEVATION -I 1' 955.4 J U ~ a w ~ a: J Q > z - - ~ - - 1o zo so do 50 Dark brown SILT WITH SAND, trace clay, I 0.9 organics - (ML) (Topsoil) -Frozen to 4 feet za 1SS Brown SILTY CLAY WITH SAND -stiff to very stiff - (CL) ~, .> t 2 2SS i s l~ 4.0 ~ Brown and gray mottled SANDY SILT 3SS WITH CLAY -medium dense -damp - (ML) 1 2 ~0 7.0 , 4SS Brown SILT, trace clay, sand -medium dense -damp - (MU is 9.0 ~ ' Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace 5SS iron staining, gravel, with cobbles and ,his angular gravel at 13 feet -stiff - (CL) is ~Q~' 6 SS is ~ 15.0 End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/3/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COh1PLETED 4/3/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er Geotaehnical •Materiala Environmental 14000 21at Avenue Noah Rlc CME-750 y J~ DRILLER I~ W.L. removal ~ ~---- Minneapolis, Minnesota 55dd7 1612) 559.1859 DRgyyN TAB APPROVEDWCK JOB X 5974 SHEET 1 Of 1 Borin caved at 12.0 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. '. LOG OF BORING 6-23 PROJECT Minneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - OUnty Oa Albertville, Minnesota CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w Qp (tsfl 1 2 3 4 5 w ~ m ~ z a ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ = v ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w t- N Q J ~ m - w WATER CONTENT °~ ---~--- STANDARD PENETRATION iBIOWS/FOOT) _ w o ~ „ Q Z ~ Q Q ~ H N SURFACE ELEVATION ~ 950.2 a w N ~ J ~ z ~o zo 30 40 50 Black SANDY SILT, trace organics - (ML) 1.0 1SS Brown SANDY SILT WITH CLAY, trace z 2.0 roots -loose -damp - (ML) s ~ ', Gray brown CLAY WITH SILT trace roots + t , , iron staining -stiff - (CL) 2SS ~o 4 2 ! . 5.0 Gray brown SILTY CLAY, trace sand - (CL) r , 3SS Dark brown SANDY SILT WITH CLAY - ,~j, a5 6.0 loose -damp - (ML) s `Q~ • Brown and gray mottled CLAYEY SILT ', WITH SAND -stiff -damp - (ML) 4SS e 9.0 ~t ~ Dark brown SANDY SILT WITH CLAY, ` 5SS trace gravel -medium dense -damp - (ML) ~ ~ ~ ~s + + + 13.0 + + Gray SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace , 6SS gravel -very stiff - (CL) ~i is 15.0 End of boring at 15 feel Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WAT ER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED. 4/24/96 W.L. Groundwater not encountered GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 4/24/96 W.L. while drillin or after au er !~ Geotechnieel•Neteriela Environmental 14000 21st Avenue North Rlc CME-55D DRILLER KJS W.L. removal ~ Minnaepoli,.Minneaote55447 1611) 559-1859 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK Jos x 5974 SHEET 1 of 1 Bonin caved ai 10.2 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. . '~ LOG OF BORING B-24 PROJECT ~ n; I~Ilnneapolis Factory Shoppes SITE - ounty Oa ~ IL....-.. II A~.. /'11UC:1 ~~i„e, tip„ ~nescta CLIENT JMJ Properties, Inc. ARCHITECT-ENGINEER John Oliver & Associates, Inc. w "- w ~ Qp (tsf) 1 2 3 4 5 w LL rL w > z a ~ > ~ ~ ~ = v ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w t- Q ~ N m -- J WATER CONTENT °k ---~--- STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWSlFOOT) _ w o F d Q °z ~ a w Q ~ Imo,- cn SURFACE ELEVATION 948.5 a w ~ ~ ~ Z - 1o zo ao 40 50 Black to dark gray SANDY SILT, trace clay, organics, gravel -very loose - (ML) 2z ~ ASS {FILL) 2 2.0 ' s Gray and gray brown mottled CLAYEY ~ SILT WITH SAND, trace roots -soft to 33 ~ 2SS firm -damp - (MU (FILL) 4 ~ I I 3SS 5 (~ 1 I I I 4SS 3 1 5 1 l 9.3 : 5SS Brown and gray fine to medium SILTY B ' SAND -loose -wet - (SM) {FILL) I I I 1 1 14.0 6SS Dark red brown fine to medium SILTY 10 ,© 1 ~ 5.0 SAND, trace asphalt, gravel -medium ` ~ dense - (SM) (FILL) End of boring at 15 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WA TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4/24/96 W.L. Water ponded 0.2 feet above GME CONSULTANTS, INC. gOR1NG COMPLETED 4/24/96 W.L. ground surface n ~e°«chnical•M,teri,b Environmental 14000 21st Avenue North RIG CME-55D DRILLER KJS W.L. ~ Minneapolis, Minneaou 55a-t7 (812) 559-1859 DRAWN TAB APPROVEDWCK JOBS 5974 SHEET 1 Of 1 Borin caved at 12.3 feet after au er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual. ~, PLASTICITY CHART OV ~~ ~(] CH so CL to I OH to or 0 MH 0 • I CL-ML) ML 0 0 10 2 0 30 40 5 0 6 0 70 fan an ~ n n „ n , ~ n , ~~ 0 X w 0 Z } F- U H Q J n.. LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTICITY DATA KEY SYM80L SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (feet) NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%) PLASTIC LIMIT (%) LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTICITY INDEX (%) PASSING N0. 200 SIEVE (°,6) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL • B- 1 2.0-8.0 18 30 12 CL V B- 4 4.0-8.0 21 44 22 CL • B-15 2.0-6.0 19 42 23 I CL PLASTICITY DATA Minneapolis Factory Shoppes Albertville, Minnesota GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Geotechnical Materials Environmental 14000 21st Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 TLW I MM I 5/96 I#5974 'CL.ASSIFIClaTl®N ®F S®ILS F®R EIVGII~IEE1~1111G PURP®SES (ASTM: D 2487 and 2488) Major divisions symbols Typical names Laboratory classification criteria ~, d G W w c = c o a ~ o w c ~ N y d . ~ ~ d U ~ GP m . ..r N U C ~ O ~ N :.- Z w c = d o GM o m ta`r c E c°r a~ ~p ~ t A m d d u d Z o ~ 3 ~ C w '_ " u v o m e - m ° ~ ~ a , . u s ~ G C ~m w c °.~ a _ A ~ ~ a d ~ ~- c : ~ v SYJ U ~ ~ c c o v a oc (Q N ` H R ~ s _d a,d V n m .°_' ~ J SP y ~ O ~ -~ b _U O ~ ~ C Z Nom c d r , mo SM ~~, y t0 C ~ dE ` `" ~ H Lmd U o S N a 5 ; ~ ~ ..r s .~ o in a SC a Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels, gravel- sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures v ~ d v c_ ~ t0 ` .7 N ~ A ~ v ~ N N ~ m N U ;~ N N m c ~ o:U ~= m C7 t7 v ~° E aio 3~ `o ~. N V' V' m N 3 U p d Z ;~ c A c rnv m ~ N c v o ~~ v `o ,~ . a = a y ~ c C uAi O 3 . c m° ~ c w m O C w y y U ~ C N :o°~mv`u c ~9 y o.c y a= O.N GOi C N N C a o ,n ~ W a N Ol V . ' N C C ~ N O E c m d `y CNJ~in o t;°- Clayey sands, sand-clay mix- tures X60 tO30~2 C~=-greater than 4; C~ between 1 and 3 ~ ro ~ toX~sp Not meeting alt gradation requirements for GW Atterberg limits below "A" X60 fO3p~2 C~=-greater than 4; C~= between 1 and 3 D io ~ roX~so '^` line or P.I. less than 4 Above "A" line with P.1. between 4 and Tare border- line cases requiring use Atterberg limits below "A•' of dual symbols line or P.1. greater than 7 Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW Atterberg limits below "A" line or P.I. less than 4 limits plotting in hatched zone with P.1. between 4 cases li d b er ne or and 7 are requiring use of dual sym- Atterberg limits below "A" bols. line or P.I. greater than 7 Inorganic silts and very fine ML sands, rock flour, silty or clay- s ey fine sands or clayey silts ~ with slight plasticity 60 - i.t ~ f low to me- i l I For classification of fine-grained A norgan c c ays o soils and fine fraction of coarse- ~ w dium plasticity, gravelly clays, grained soils CL l l ilt l 50 . H E ays, ean y c ays, s sandy c Atterberg Limits plotting in ?+ ,n . " - y V clays hatched area are borderline classi- 0 3 ~ fications requiring use of dual l b N ~ 40 sym o s Z OL Organic silts and organic silty ~ Equation of A-line: clays of low plasticity ~ 73 (LL - 20) PI=0 c m . t T `" . - v 30 _m ° w ~ Inorganic silts, micaceous or m oe ` y c MH diatomaceous fine sandy or n. +P \ OH and MH ` ~ ` rn m ~ silty soils, elastic silts 20 ~ c y LL. ~ A y CL Inorganic clays of high plas- c ~ `v CH 10 m °' ticity, fat clays t :; = 7 -------- ~ ~ m E ; CL-ML ML and OL t a ~ 4 -- ------- i y o ~ v OH Organic clays of medium to i 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 high plasticity, organic sills Liquid Limit r c ,~ Peat and other highly organic Plasticity Chart _ ~ •y Pt soil 0 u . ",~ SPECIAL NOTES ON PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL SOIL GENERAL The placement of compacted fill for support of foundations, floor slabs, pavements, or earth structures should be carried out by an experienced excavator with the proper equipment. The excavator must be prepared to adapt his procedures, equipment, and materials to the type of project, to weather conditions, and the structural requirements of the architect and engineer. Methods and materials used in summer may not be applicable in winter; fill used in dry excavations may not be suitable in wet excavations or during periods of precipitation; proposed fill soil may require wetting or drying for proper placement and compaction. Conditions may also vary during the course of a project or in different areas of the site. These needs should be addressed in the project drawings and specifications. EXCAVATION/BACKFILL BELOW THE WATER TABLE It is common to have to excavate and replace unsuitable soils below the water table for site correction. As a general rule of prudent construction technique, we recommend that excavation/backfill below the water table not be permitted, unless the excavation is dewatered. Numerous problems can develop when this procedure is attempted'"without dewatering. - Inability of the equipment operators and soil technicians to observe that all unsuitable soil/materials have been removed from the base of the excavation. - Inability to observe and measure that proper lateral oversizing is provided. - Inability to prevent or correct sloughing of excavation sidewalls, which can result in unsuitable soils trapped within the select backfill. - Inability of the contractor to adequately and uniformly compact the backfill. - Possibility of disturbance of the suitable soils at the base of the excavation. ~.~: The dewatering methods, normally chosen at the contractor's option, should follow prudent construction practice. Excavations in clay can often be dewatered with sump pits and pumps; this technique would not be applicable for excavation extending into permeable granular soil, especially for depths significantly below the water table. Dewater- ing granular soils should normally be done with well points or wells. When dewatering is needed, we strongly recommend that the procedures be discussed at pre-bid or pre-construction meetings. The dewatering technique chosen by the contractor should be reviewed by the architect and engineer before construction starts; it should not be left until excavation is under way. The selection of proper backfill materials is important when working in dewatered excavations. Even with dewatering, the base is usually wet and the contractor must be careful not to disturb the base. We recommend that the first lifts of backfill be a clean medium to course grain sand with less than 5°!° passing the #200 sieve. The use of silty sand, clayey sand, or cohesive/semi-cohesive soils is not recommended for such situations. The excavator should be required to submit samples of the proposed material(s) he plans to use as backfill before the fill is hauled to the site, so that it can be tested for suitability. WINTER EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION Winter earthwork presents its own range of problems which must be overcome; the situation may be complicated by the need for dewatering discussed above. During freezing conditions, the fill used must not be frozen when delivered to the site. It also must not be allowed to freeze during or after compaction. Since the ability to work the soil while keeping it from freezing depends in part on the soil type, the specifications should require the contractor to submit a sample of his proposed fill before construc- tion starts, for laboratory testing. If the soil engineer and structural engineer determine that it is not suitable, it should be rejected. In general, silty sand, clayey sand, and cohesive/semi-cohesive soils should not be used as fill under freezing conditions. All frozen soil of any type should be rejected for use as compacted fill. It is important that compacted fill be protected from freezing after it is placed. The excavator should be required to submit a plan for protectina the soil. The plan should include details on the type and amount of material (straw, blankets, extra loose fill, topsoil, etc.) proposed for use as frost protection. The need to protect the soil from freezing is ongoing throughout construction and applies both before and after concrete is placed, until backfilling for final frost protection is completed. Foundations placed on frozen soil can experience heaving and significant settlement, rota- tion, or other movement as the soil thaws. Such movement can also occur if the soil is allowed to freeze after the concrete is placed and then allowed to thaw. The higher the percentage of fines (clay and silt, P-200 material) in the fill, the more critical is the need for protection from freezing. GME CONSULTANTS, INC. ~- MOISTURE CONTROL OF FILL The contractor should be required to adjust the moisture content of the soil to within a narrow range near the optimum moisture content (as defined by the applicable Proctor or AASHTO Test). In general, fill should be placed within about 2% of optimum. The need for moisture control is more critical as the percentage of fines increases. Naturally-occurring clayey sand or cohesive/semi-cohesive soil are often much wetter than the optimum. Placing and attempting to compact such soils to the specified density may be difficult, or not possible. Even if compacted to the specified density, excessively wet soils may not be suitable as floor slab or pavement subgrades due to pumping under applied load. This is especially true when wet cohesive/semi-cohesive soil is used as backfill in utility trenches under streets. Excessively wet soil in thick fill sections may cause post-construction settlement beyond that estimated for fill placed at or near (±2%) the optimum moisture content. An exception to this would be low permeability soil placed as a pond liner or for a dam. Such soil should usually be placed at 2% to 4% above the optimum moisture content, to provide for a lower insitu permeability. Also, shrinking/ swelling soils (expansive clay) should be placed at about 2% to 4% above optimum moisture to reduce the possibility of soil expansion. Clayey silt, silt, or very silty fine sand should be placed excessively dry. Such soils can undergo post-construction consolidation upon being wetted, even if the specified density had been achieved. This is caused by the collapse of flocculant soil particle arrangement, and can result in settlement of buildings or stabs constructed over the soil. Proper control of fill soil moisture is the responsibility of the excavator. The excavator should evaluate the need for wetting or drying the soils, based either on the data in the soil report, or his own site testing. If the excavator is bringing in off-site fill, it is also his responsibility to evaluate the moisture content of the soil, and the need for wetting or drying. We recommend that this matter be addressed in the project specifications. ~:- CONSTRUCTION ON COMPACTED SOIL After the select fill has been placed, compacted, and tested, it must be maintained and protected in order to properly support structures. The suitability of compacted fifl.soil can be greatly diminished if it is allowed to freeze, become saturated while unconfined (such as in footing excavations or at the surface of slab/placement subgrade), or disturbed by construction equipment. The responsibility for protecting the soil, or for correcting any disturbance, should be clearly defined in the specifica- tions. Soils which become wet and soft after compaction testing do not necessarily reflect inaccurate field density tests. Especially with non-expansive cohesive/semi-cohesive soils, saturation when unconfined can severely reduce the shear strength while the density remains adequate. The reduced shear strength can cause footings, floor slabs, or pavements to settle or fail under load. We strongly recommend that all pavement subgrade be test rolled (MN/DOT Specification 2111) immediately before paving to determine if the subgrade has not been protected and soft spots have developed. FLOOR SLAB SUBGRADE AND UTILITY TRENCHES This facet of construction presents special problems, especially if the slab subgrade is allowed to freeze. When the soil thaws, it undergoes a period of temporarily lower shear strength. Floor slabs should not be cast over soil in such a weakened or frozen condition (reference pertinent PCA and ACI publications). To do so can result in cracked and failing slabs. The time period to heat and thaw a building may place the construction schedule and/or costs in jeopard;:'.^/e strongly recommend that this matter be reviewed in pre-bid and pre-construction meetings. Backfilling of utility trenches in the floor slab subgrade can be difficult. If the soil is wet, compaction to the specified density may be difficult, or not possible. The narrowly cut trenches may preclude the use of proper compaction equipment. With the use of small equipment in confined areas, the contractor must place the soil in thin lifts {4 to 6 inches), with the soil at the proper moisture content. This work is typically carried out by contractors other than the mass grading or earthwork contractor. We strongly recommend that the responsibility to carry out the compaction be clearly de#ailed in the applicable section of the specifications, and reviewed with the appropriate contractor and subcontractor.