1998-09-29 Report of Geotechnical Explorations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
337 31ST AVENUE SOUTH. PO BOX 325 · WAITE PARK, MN 56387
OFFICE: 320-253-4338. FAX: 320-253-4547
SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
PROJECT 98-380
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATIONS
For
PROPOSED BUILDING SITE
ALBERTVILLE FIRE STATION
ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
Prepared For:
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
and
SEH, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
337 31ST AVENUE SOUTH - PO BOX 325 -WAITE PARK, MN 56387
OFFICE: 320-253-4338 - FAX: 320-253-4547
September 29, 1998
Mr. Peter J. Carlson
SEH, Inc.
P.O. Box 1717
St. Cloud, MN 56302-1717
RE: 98-380 Report of Geotechnical Explorations
Proposed Fire Station, Albertville, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Carlson:
Independent Testing Technologies is pleased to submit the results of our subsurface
investigation program for the proposed Fire Station in Albertville, Minnesota.
This report represents our work for this project as authorized by you. It includes our
recommendations for earthwork and foundation design. Three copies are enclosed.
The soils on this site are good for support of buildings. The majority of the soils
encountered were sandy clays in a soft to very hard condition. Soil samples obtained
during our investigation will be stored at our office for thirty days after the date of this
report. They then will be disposed of unless you advise otherwise.
Mr. Carlson, it has been our pleasure to work with you on this project. Please contact us if
you have any questions or need additional services.
Sincerely,
PaQ~
Patrick A. Johnson, P.E.
MN Registration #22037
a:b8380Cover-MyC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction:
Project Information......... .....................................................1
Scope of Services......... ............ ............................ ................1
General Site Conditions..... ........................................................2
Exploration Program.......................... ........................................2
Exploration Resu1ts....................................................................3
Water Level Observations........... ...............................................4
Engineering Review...................................................................5
Foundation Recommendations...................................................6
Structural Fill............................................................................. 7
Pavement Recommendations ... ................................................ ..8
Closing ................................ ..... ....................................... ...........9
Boring Location Plan ................................................Appendix 1
Soil Boring Logs....................................................... Appendix 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATIONS
PROPOSED FIRE STATION
ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
PROJECT 98-380
Introduction
Project Information
This report represents the results of our subsurface investigation for the proposed Fire
Station in Albertville, Minnesota. The building will be a single story with pre-cast
concrete panel walls ranging from 14 to 24 feet above finished floor. The floor will be a
slab-on-grade. The roof structure will be composed of steel joist and deck.
In accordance with your signed authorization, we have conducted a subsurface exploration
program for the proposed building project.
Scope of Services
Our authorized scope of services included the following:
1. To investigate the subsurface soil and water conditions encountered
at four (4) split spoon boring locations in the proposed building
area as shown on the boring location plan in Appendix 1. The
borings were planned to depths of 30 to 40 feet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
2. To provide a report of our findings including the results of our sub-
surface investigation and recommendations regarding earthwork,
building pad preparation, foundation design with allowable soil bearing
capacities, estimated settlements, fill and backfill recommendations,
and pavement subgrade preparation with estimated pavement thick-
nesses.
General Site Conditions
The proposed project site is located in an existing farm field. The site is west and
immediately adjacent to an existing ball field. The site is relatively flat with slopes ranging
from 0-2%.
According to the Soil Survey of Wright County, prepared by the Soil Conservation Service,
this site lies within the Hayden-Dundas-peat soil association which consists of deep,
medium textured and moderately fine textured soils on gently rolling uplands. The
individual soils mapped on this site are rated good to fair for shear strength and stability,
but have moderate to high frost susceptibility. The soils have poor drainage characteristics
and seasonal shallow perched water conditions.
Exploration Program
Four (4) standard penetration test borings were conducted on the site at the locations shown
on the boring location plan in Appendix 1. The borings were advanced to depths of 30 to
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 3
40 feet using a 3 1/4 inch I.D. hollow stem auger. Samples were obtained every 2 1/2 feet
for the first 10 feet and every 5 feet thereafter using a 2-inch a.D. split spoon sampler in
accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D1586).
Standard penetration values (N-values) were obtained at each sample interval by driving
the sampler into the soil using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. After an initial set
. .
of 6 inches, the number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches is known as the
standard penetration resistance or N-value. Where the sampler could not be driven six
inches by 50 blows of the hammer, the distance driven by 50 blows was recorded.
Groundwater levels were noted during drilling. The bore holes were sealed with bentonite
grout in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations. A copy of the
sealing record will be sent to the city. The boring locations were staked and elevations
provided by SEH, Inc.
Exploration. Results
The majority of the soils encountered during the exploration consisted of sandy lean clays
(eL) with some deep layers of poorly graded sands (SP) and silty sands (SM). The borings
were conducted in an existing field. However, very little organic topsoils were
encountered. Topsoil thickness ranged from 2 to 6 inches. Below the topsoils, the borings
encountered sandy lean clays with fine to medium grained sands and little gravel. The soils
were grey and mottled at the surface, became brown and mottled, and then grey. Boring
B-1 encountered poorly graded sands (SP) from 26 feet to termination. Boring B-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 4
encountered silty clayey sands from 15 1/2 to termination. Boring B-3 encountered a layer
of clean sand (SP) from 7 1/2 to 10 feet and a layer of silty sand from 14 to 17 feet. Boring
B-4 encountered a layer of clean sand (SP) from 31 to 33 feet.
The standard penetration blow counts in the natural soils were low to moderate, indicating
the natural clays were in a soft to hard condition. Drilling was fairly easy. Softer soils
were encountered in borings B-1 and B-2 to depths of 6 1/2 feet. The soils generally
became stiffer with depth. No large rocks, gravel, or refusal was encountered.
Water Level Observations
Observations of the subsurface water conditions were made during drilling operations and
after drilling completion. Water was encountered in three of the borings at depths of 14
1/2 to 36 1/2 feet at the time of our investigation. It is apparent that the water that is
encountered on this site is perched water. Perched water is water trapped above or between
impervious layers. These soils are ideal for containing perched water. Perched water may
be encountered at shallow depths during the spring thaw. Mottled soils and grey soils were
encountered. Mottled soils are a historical indication of a seasonally saturated soil
condition. Grey soils are an indication of a permanently saturated soil condition.
It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater can occur due to
variations in rainfall, temperature, spring thaw and other factors not evident at the time of
our investigation. We do not believe that groundwater will have an affect on construction
~~-._...~-.~.-
WELL OR BORING LOCATION
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Minnesota Well and Boring
H
69210
Sealing No.
WELL AND BORING SEALING RECORD Minnesota Unique No.
Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 1031 or W-series No.
cLeave blank 11 nol known)
County Name
t. \_ _1..L
l~;:,\\# ro;;;~o r;; Sec~on No k:;~:;'I~'4 Date se;t_ 1.'- 'f1!J
N~~al;ee~:l:ss or;"e NU~::7rty: taU o:~m~:~ ~ Depth 8elore Sealmg ~. 0
Show exactlocallOll of weft or ~ Sketch map of weft Of boring
in sectIon grod with 'K' location. showing property lines.
roads. and buildings.
N
1?R
~
'I- ~\' ~t.\d.
ij
W
-:-- ~-
I I
_1- _ ~ _
o I
o 0
- r - -,-
,
I
-I-
I
I
-~-
I
E
-:~ -~- -~- ~:-f
I 1 I t
I. I ',mile
-:- -~- -i-- -:- i
S
~lmile~
'f.
1
~1-' j#-
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME
t,~. n,t. Albu"",,,\tc..
MaIling A~dresS If dollerentlhianP'rt,perty address Indlcated abe>ve
51'~ Nt:. nf4.\'",. "=*
Albe.r.\-lJ'\~ i rt N 55,0\
GEOLOGICAL MATERtAL
COLOR
HARDNESS OF FROM
FORMATION
II not known. IndIcate estimatl'd lormation log from nearby well or 110ring.
("fu.
,
C'.\fJU
I
'Srntlltlo. I.t,~~ - F.,.... 0 I~.
1..(1.-. ~,I".- J&..t '?>D
\
".' ", .
.
.:..
-, , .... '. .
REMARKS. SOURCE OF DATA, D1FACULTlES IN SEAUNG
~e4d
~
bC-
3 PDrs~, ~ u"L.u.-kl
9c.o+U,~AI{A.\ \/\ \1e~-'-lj €t-N^
propo'd j:.'"t'L ~ +d,r ~_ ..
IMPORTANT"FILE WITtI PROP.E .RT r'l1
PAPeRs-WELL OWNER COpy r H
c9t)7' n
Q.. '- ~J
HE-01434,O.1
,', -
IJ;1 Single Aquder 0 Mufllaqulfer
CASING TYPE
o Steel
o ~ile
o Other AI ,,,.
o Plastoe
Screen from ,..,) Pt
OBSTRUCTlON/DEBRISlFtLL
to
o ObstructIOn
o F,ll
o Debns
Type of debrislobstrucllon
tJ ,.
Obstruction/DebrislFift removed? 0 Yes 0 No
PUMP
o Removed 0 Not Presem 0 Other --AlJA
CASING
tJ lie
TO
Diameter
Depth
~'..in..from _.to..~fl.
_in.from ~to_ft.
_in.from __to ~ ft.
ApproXimate Date Well
or Bonng ConSlructl'd
q-1.1-9/J
3D
ft. Original Depth
ft.
Static Water Level
o Accurate
tit Approximate
,'-I
)(
below
above land surface
ft..
'3,,,,'t :CQ #~A
--. .
ft, Open Hole trom
ft
to
Set in oversize hole? Annular space initially grouted?
DVes ONo o Yes ONo o Unknown
DYes DNo DYes DNo o Unknown
DYes DNo DYes DNo o Unknown
METHOD USED TO SEAL ANNULAR SPACE BETWEEN 2 CASINGS, OR CASING AND BORE HOLE:
" No Annular Space Exists
o Annular space grouted with tramie pipe
o Casing Perforation/Removal
in. trom
to
in. from
to
Type of perforator
o Other
GROUTING MATERIAL
Grouting material '6.....LolA:-\<"
from
from
from
from
UNSEALED WELLS AND BORINGS
Other unsealed well Of boring on property? 0 Yes 0 No
UCENSED OR REGISTERED CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION
ft.
o Perfo~ated 0 Removed
ft.
o Perforated 0 Removed
{)
'!>o ft ~ yards ~ bags
to
to
ft. ~ yards _ bags
to
II. _ yards _ bags
to
II.
yards
bags
This weft or boring was sealed in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725. The informallon contained in thIS report is
true to the best ot my knowledge,
~~.-;:'
Au/honzed Representative Signature . .
Ch'dk - 4LkuWlA.tI
Name 01 Person Sealing Well or Bonng
1#1..'/"7;~R.t?!ffl'1
It) r; ( ., fJ
Date
WELL OFlBORING LOCATION MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Sealing No. H
County Name WELL AND BORING SEALING RECORD Minnesota Unique No.
1..' rll: ~4- Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 1031 or W-series No.
(leave blank It not known)
M;;'~..'lrJiD No rZ4NO Sect"'" Notctoon (sm 'Ig.) Date Sealed ApproXImate Date Well
J 'I~'I"'" ~l- ZZ- f6 or Bonng Constructed 9-2Z -9~
Numencal Street Address or Fife Number and C,ty of Welt or Bonng Locat"'" Jlo qt:J
Depth Before Sealing ft. Origmal Depth It.
Show exact locatIon of well or bonng Sketch map 01 well or boring Statoc Water Level o ACcurate
.n sect.on grid WIth -X" Iocatoon. showing property lines. fl,APProxrmate
N M roads. and buildtngs.
, ~.~ , . ~ 3!f,,5 ~
-,- -,- -,- )1 Single Aquifer o MultiaqUlfer
It. below above land surface
I . , ,
_I... _.J_ -~- -,- CASING TYPE
W , , 1 , E
, I I . l ~/A '}.f.t l(:Cd #5A
-1-' -~- -r- -,- E o Steel o PlastIC OTlIe o Other
I , I , ',mile .,. f;tl.
.
, , . I i rJ/A
-,- -.- -.- -.- -
S S7~~. of ~ Screen from to ft. Open Hole lrom to ft.
~Imile~ .:1 ...l OBSTRUCTlONIDEBRtS/FILL
o Obstructoon O'Debns DFill
PROPERTY OWNER'S NA1ll. +",\k tJlA I
ItaL O~ I
Mall,ng AAdrtlss ,t dillerenllhan property address.ndlCated above Type 01 debnslobstructlOn !
59'''1 ntl.l"" ~+ ObstructionlDebnslFill removed? DYes ONo J
Nf PUMP
A-l~u+"f'k I ,.,N 5530'
D Removed o Not Present D Other
CASING tJ/A
GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL COLOR HARDNESS OF FROM TO
FORMATION
II not known. ,ndicate estimated 10rmatlOn log Irom nearby well or boring. Diameter Depth Set in oversize hole? Annular space InitIally grouted?
(llu. 0l"Pt.JiI\ r::.,...~ () 11./ _in.from _ to ____ It. DYes ONo Dyes DNo D Unknown
I/JiJ ~ t-/c.... r.1"*' J~ 131 _ in. from _to_ft. DYes ONo DYes ONo D Unknown
I.('_A J f.rr~ ~4L 1-", 1'lI.."2. _in.from _. to -.:.l- ft. DYes ONo Dyes DNo o Unknown
I Ja.. . ~t(_ )3 METHOD USED TO SEAL ANNULAR SPACE BETWEEN 2 CASINGS, OR CASING AND BORE HOLE:
b, f.c.. IlO ~o Annular Space Exists
. . o Annular space grouted with trernie pipe
D Casing Perforation/Removal
in. from to ft. o Perforated o Removed
in. from to ft. o Perforated o Removed
Type of perforator
o Other
GROUTING MATERIAL
Grouting material ~~.Jo.... k. lrom 0 to J../ 0 ft. Y., yards ibags
from to It. _ yards _ bags
REMARKS, SOURCE OF DATA, DIFFICULTIES till SEAUNG
~l6-(ed " -Ie.( << from fo ft. _ yards _ bags
t>>.lJ 1/'#1;'\1"\ CM. . bpl'(lt-.k
liHtk chI ~ ~~~"I~Al from to ft. yards bags
UNSEALED WELLS AND BORINGS
i A \1f!t -h ~A..""Df> of. propol4 Other urlSe!lled well or bonng on property? DYes Q!tNO
LICENSED OR REGISTERED CONTRACTOR CERT1FICATION
,ctf<... h~ This weN or boring was sealed in accordance with Minnesota Rules. Chapltlr 4725. Tile intormation contaIned in thIS report is
true to the best of my knowledge.
--r.I L .\. ";.,, 44", 1t(lwJ,r.,(~1:./. 110 I~
cont~:: %" ... , License or Registration No.
./"/:? J'.- 10 1,/ t:i1J
Authon,,~sentative Signature { Date
IMPORTANH1LE MTHPROPER1 69211 ~~{~ ~l~""u "-
PAPERS-WELL OWNER COPY .H Name 01 Person Sealing Well or Bonng
-- W," 00' ""'''' I
69211
HE.01434-Ql
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 5
of this project. However, site grading should be designed to preclude ponding water near
any structure.
Engineering Review
The following recommendations are provided to ensure satisfactory performance of the
expected earthwork. The expected earthwprk will consist of topsoil stripping and cutting
and filling areas for the building pad and parking lot.
All of the organic soils should be removed from the construction area prior to beginning
earthwork operations. We estimate this will require an excavation of approximately 2 to 9
inches over the entire area.
Soils can change dramatically over short horizontal distances, therefore this depth should
be used as a guide. The excavation bottom should be observed by a soils engineer
or qualified soil technician to verify complete removal of all organic soils and that
competent material has been reached. We recommend that the excavation be oversized 1
foot beyond the outside edge of the fill for every foot of excavation below proposed
finished grade.
After approval of the excavation bottom, we recommend inorganic, mineral fill meeting the
requirements of structural fill be placed and compacted. We recommend all fill placed in
the building area be compacted to at least 98% of standard proctor maximum density
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 6
(ASTM D698). All fill placed within 3 feet of parking lot subgrade should be compacted
to at least 100% of standard proctor. All other fill should be compacted to at least 95% of
standard proctor (ASTM D698).
Foundation Recommendations
The N-values recorded in the penetration borings indicate that the existing soils at nominal
foundation depths are in a soft to firm condition and are capable of supporting the proposed
structure. However, the soft soils encountered near the surface in borings B-1 and B-2
should be observed by a soils technician prior to placing any fill or footings to verifY they
are suitable. Any soft or unsuitable soils should be sub cut and replaced with compacted
granular material.
The footings should be placed at a minimum depth of 42 inches below proposed final grade
to provide protection from frost damage. In areas where the parking lot abuts the building,
such as drive through window areas, we recommend the footings be placed at a depth of 60
inches due to increased frost penetration depths below pavement.
We recommend that spread footings be proportioned for a maximum net allowable soil
bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst). The recommended bearing
pressure is a net value and represents the actual loads that may be transmitted to the soil
independent of overburden pressures.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 7
In our opinion, total settlement of the foundation should be less than 1 inch, with
differential settlement about half this amount, if the recommendations in this report are
followed. Below grade walls should be designed to withstand an equivalent fluid pressure
of 45 pcf due to soil pressure.
We recommend a minimum of 6 inches of clean, free draining washed sand with less than
5% passing a No. 200 sieve be placed beneath the floor slab. This will provide a capillary
break and a uniform level sub grade for the floor slab.
Structural Fill Recommendations
The on-site soils consisting of sandy lean clays (CL) are considered fair material for use as
controlled fill. The native soils may be wet and could require drying to reach optimum
moisture for compaction. In addition, they are very susceptible to moisture changes and
will require drying if they become wet prior to compaction. We recommend that all fill
material be free from organic material; soft, wet, or frozen soils; highly expansive soils;
rocks in excess of 6 inches in diameter; and other deleterious material. We recommend
that any fill placed in the building and oversizing areas be compacted in 8-inch loose lifts
to a minimum of 98% of standard proctor maximum density in accordance with ASTM
D698. Any fill placed in the top 3 feet of the parking lot subgrade should be compacted to
at least 100% of standard proctor maximum density. All fill should be compacted within
plus or minus 2% of optimum moisture content as determined by a standard proctor. We
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 8
recommend compaction tests be taken on any fill in the building area at a rate of one test
per 2 vertical feet per 2,500 square foot area, with a minimum of 2 tests per fill area.
Pavement Recommendations
The subgrade soils encountered are classified as A-4 and A-6 soils in accordance with the
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) classification
system.A-4 and A-2-4 soils are rated fair to poor material for use as roadway sub grade
material. Without benefit of a laboratory R-value determination and based on MN/Dot
guidelines, an R-value of 30 can be assumed for these materials. In no instance should
organic soils be used as parking lot subgrade material.
Based on an assumed R-value of30, we recommend the following pavement sections for
light car and truck parking areas and heavy duty traffic areas.
Car & Light Truck Parking Areas:
8.0"
10.0"
Coarse / Description
Mn/DOT 2331 Type 41A, 47, or 67
Bituminous Wear Coarse
Mn/DOT 3138 Aggregate Base
TOTAL
Granular Equivalent
4.5"
Thickness
2.0"
~
12.5"
~
, '~~
'""" '
',," ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 9
Heavy Duty Traffic Areas:
2.0"
Coarse / Description
Mn/DOT 2331 Type 41A, 47, or 67
Bituminous Wear Coarse
Mn/DOT 2331 Type 31B
Bituminous Base Coarse
Mn/DOT 3138 Aggregate Base
TOTAL
Granular Equivalent
4.5"
Thickness
2.0"
4.0"
8.0"
12.0"
~
16.5"
,
. .. .
In using the above assumed R-value for bituminous pavement design, it is essential that the
sub grade be constructed of uniform soils at a moisture content and density in accordance
with MN/Dot specification 2105 and capable of passing a test roll in accordance with
MN/Dot specification 2111. If the sub grade is not compacted, uniform and capable of
passing a test roll, then we would recommend the subgrade be scarified and recompacted
or sub cut and replaced with select granular material meeting MN/Dot specification 3149.
The top of parking lot subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 100% of standard
proctor maximum density.
Closing
Our work was performed for geotechnical purposes only and not to document the presence
or extent of any contamination on the site. We can note that our crew did not detect any
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 10
obvious contamination by sight or smell during drilling operations. However, human
senses are limited in terms of contamination detection and, therefore, the lack of detection
through human sensing does not preclude the possibility of the presence of contamination
of the site.
This report represents the result of our subsurface investigation and is based on information
gathered at specific locations. Subsurface conditions can change a great deal over short
horizontal distances. Also, the actual interface between strata will likely be a gradual
transition rather than an abrupt change as represented on the boring logs. No warranty,
expressed or implied, is made.
Geotechnical engineering is based extensively on opinion. Therefore, the data contained in
this report should be used as a guide, and we recommend that construction monitoring be
performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer or technician. Any changes in the
subsurface conditions from those found during drilling this investigation should be brought
to the attention of a soils engineer.
a:b8380-rpt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
': I
'I!
I
I : ~
/
3nN3^'v' (j30N'v'l
--, rI':! ~ ~ 'i ~i
.. j J.~; . : ~ ~ ~ W I
_~__ - '"' . ~ e, ~ ~ I
-_.=J ,~~, ,~" ""~~, ~ "j \j'.
,. j.,...,,_)...A .l;......~_/r' ~.J!I. ~ ~ it' ~~'~t../"'{ '}.. ...., .
r' ~ f'..,., ,... .~...{ '1 -"-r~'" ,,\,.1- ~....
00
Wz
VlO
O~
0... <x:
o
0::0
0...
~
z
o
l./)
l./)
W
U
z
a
U
HtttttttHtH1
HtttttttHtH1
00
Wz
VlO
O~
0... <x:
o
0::0
0...
I-
a
.-JVl
W
au
Z<x:
-0...
~Vl
0::
<x: 0
o...cn
I
I
!
H-
~
~
J;
!
=It
~
8;
I
I
Z /'/'
a /
~:
I-
O<(Vl
WI-W
VlVlU
a <(
o....wo....
ao::Vl
0::-
o....l..J...cn
u6p.lno~O"PO~\lI86\^aqIO\:! 311.:1 H3S
Il:I>,:80
86 d3S 01
~ ~
~ \
I
I
W...J
0-
-<(
3:0::
I-
COVl
::J
00
WZ
Vl -
0:2:
o....::J
01-
0::-
0... CD
lJ..1-<(
1-::>1-
-00
OJ-(/)
-~W
~-.JZ
WOZ
w::;E
(/)-
OW
a..-.J
O:::!
a:r:::
a.. a:
w
CD
-.J
<(
/'
C"" .
it':.:':~':::-:'-: :,':-/:
I l t . I
I
I
I
I I
I
m I
I
'I I
I
+-
~
I 0
.
~
N
I
I
I \' '<t"
I
co cD
I f-
D
I -.J l/)
W
I C) U
Z <:(
~ 0.... ./
./
I ~ l/) -
I
CL cD
<:( 0 I
I
I 0.... (J) I
I
/
/ I
/ I
I / W
/ I --.J
/ I 0
/ f---i- 1----4
/
.- 1----4 <t
-" I
I z ./ L4J :s cr
./
,-
D ,- UiJ \-
/'
,-
I ~ or -
~ ex)
O<:(l/) H- =>
I Wf-W uD 0 0
l/)VJU W Z
D <:( ! if) 1----4
I
I o....Wo.... Jt 0 2
OCLl/) CL =:J
I cr~ H- 0 \-
o....LLOl ~ cr 1----4
ui) CL m
I
I -~
I
I INDEPENDENT TESTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LOG OF SOIL BORING
ROJECT: 98-380 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE DATE: 9-21-98 BORING #: B-1
PROPOSED FIRE STATION START TIME: 12:30 END TIME: 2.;.lliL
I ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
METHOD: 3 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger
Northwest Building Comer CREW: CKA / SJ
I ELEVATION:
Sample N Water
# Value Table Notes
I
I 12
I 5.0
5
I
17
I 10.0
I 23
I
I 15.0
11
I
I 20.0
18
I
y Water measured at 23 feet after
I completion.
I 26.0 24
I
I
27
I 31.5
Bonng comp ete to 1 2 eet.
Water measured at 23 feet after completion.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INDEPENDENT TESTING TECHNOLOGIES INC.
PROJECT: 98-380 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
PROPOSED FIRE STATION
ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
LOG OF SOIL BORING
DATE: 9-21-98 BORING #: B-2
START TIME: 10:00 END TIME: 11:45
Southwest Building Comer
METHOD: 3 1/4" LD. Hollow Stem Auger
CREW: CKA / SJ
ELEVATION:
Sample N Water
# Value Table Notes
Geryish-brown, mottled.
5
5.0
6
10
Grey, mottled.
10.0
16
15.5
20.0
Layer of SAND from 20 to 21 feet.
31
25.0
42
30.0
31.5
54
I INDEPENDENT TESTING TECHNOLOGIES INC. LOG OF SOIL BORING
PROJECT: 98-380 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE DATE: 9-21-98 BORING #: B-3
PROPOSED FIRE STATION START TIME: 2;.illL END TIME: 3 :00
I ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
METHOD: 3 1/4" J.D. Hollow Stem Auger
LOCATION: Northeast Building Comer CREW: CKA / SJ
I ELEVATION:
Sample N Water
# Value Table Notes
I
I 18
I 5.0
13
I 7.5
12
I 10.0
I 13
I 14.0
Water measure at 1
I after completion.
41
17.0
I CL
I 20.0
32
I
I
25.0
I 59
I
I
50/2"
I 31.5
Bonng comp ete to 1 2 eet.
Water measured at 14 1/2 feet after completion.
I INDEPENDENT TESTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LOG OF SOIL BORING
PROJECT: 98-380 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE DATE: 9-22-98 BORING #: B-4
PROPOSED FIRE STATION START TIME: 9:30 END TIME: 11 :45
I ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
METHOD: 3 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger
Southeast Building Comer CREW: CKA / SJ
I ELEVATION: PAGE 1 of2
Sample N Water
# Value Table Notes
I
I 18
I 5.0
10
I
7
I 10.0
I 10
I
15.0
I 13
I
I 20.0
10
I
I
25.0
I 15
I
I 30.0
I continued-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INDEPENDENT TESTING TECHNOLOGIES INC.
ROJECT: 98-380 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE DATE: 9-22-98
PROPOSED FIRE STATION START TIME: 2..;.1(L
ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
LOG OF SOIL BORING
BORING #: B-4
END TIME: ~
Depth ASTM
Feet S mbol
L LEAN CLAY; w
3 1.0 re ish-brown.
SP RL Y GRADED
grey, water bearing.
METHOD:
LOCATION: Southeast Building Comer
PAGE 2 of2
Notes
37
33.0
CL
35.0
32
V Water measured at 36 1/2 feet
after completion.
41.5
25