EXPLORATION AND REVIEW -...
Transcript of EXPLORATION AND REVIEW -...
www.amengtest.com
CONSULTANTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
FORENSICS
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL
EXPLORATION AND REVIEW
Proposed Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Minnesota Segment 4
Nobles County, Minnesota
Report No. 32-01940
Date:
March 9, 2016
Prepared for:
Banner Associates, Inc.
2307 West 57th Street Suite 102
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57102
Page i
601 E. 48th St. N. | Sioux Falls, SD 57104
Phone (605) 332-5371 | (800) 972-6364 | Fax (605) 332-8488 | www.amengtest.com | AA/EEO This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from American Engineering Testing, Inc.
CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL · GEOTECHNICAL · MATERIALS · FORENSICS
March 9, 2016 Banner Associates, Inc. 2307 West 57th Street Suite 102 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57102 Attn: Dennis Odens Subj: Geotechnical Exploration Program Proposed Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Minnesota Segment 4 Sioux Falls, South Dakota AET Project No. 32-01940 BAI No. 20000.30.01 Dear Mr. Odens: American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for the proposed Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Minnesota Segment 4 project in Nobles County, Minnesota. These services were performed according to our proposal to you dated November 16, 2015 and the written authorization of Mr. Timothy Conner with Banner Associates, Inc. on November 23, 2015. An electronic copy of the report is being submitted to you. Please contact me if you have any questions about the report. I can also be contacted for arranging construction observation and testing services during the earthwork phase. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. Bradley C. Letcher, EIT Project Manager Phone: (605) 332-5371 Fax: (605) 332-8488 [email protected] BCL/bl
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transmittal Letter............................................................................................................................. i Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 1 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 1 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING ................................................................ 2
4.1 Field Exploration Program .................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ 4
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 4 5.1 Surface Observations ............................................................................................................. 4 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology...................................................................................................... 4 5.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 5
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 5 6.1 Water Pipeline Installation .................................................................................................... 5 6.2 Trench Excavation - Backfill ................................................................................................. 7 6.3 Dewatering............................................................................................................................. 9 6.4 Excavation Slopes................................................................................................................ 10 6.5 Pipe Loading and Deflection ............................................................................................... 11 6.6 Corrosivity ........................................................................................................................... 12 6.7 Reservoir Control Vault Construction ................................................................................. 14
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 14 7.1 Potential Difficulties ............................................................................................................ 15 7.2 Excavation Backsloping ...................................................................................................... 16 7.3 Observation and Testing ...................................................................................................... 16
8.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 17
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS STANDARD SHEETS Excavation and Refilling for Structural Support Freezing Weather Effects on Building Construction Basement/Retaining Wall Backfill and Water Control APPENDIX A – Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Boring Location Map Subsurface Boring Logs Analytical Results (Soil Corrosivity Tests) APPENDIX B – Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 1 of 17
1.0 INTRODUCTION
We understand the project will consist of the construction of large diameter water pipeline for the
Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. We also understand valve vaults and a reservoir control
vault will be a part of this project. This portion of the Minnesota project includes Segment 4 from
Adrian to Worthington in Nobles County, Minnesota. To assist in planning and design, you have
authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to perform geotechnical exploration and
review for the proposed new water pipeline project. AET will conduct soil laboratory testing, and
perform a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of our
services, and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
AET's services were performed according to our proposal to Mr. Dennis Odens with Banner
Associates, Inc. dated November 16, 2015 and the written acceptance of that proposal by Mr.
Timothy Conner with Banner Associates, Inc. on November 23, 2015. The authorized scope
consists of the following:
• Contact Gopher State One Call to clear utilities in the area of the subsurface exploration.
• Twenty-Six (26) standard penetration test borings to depths of 15’ to 18’.
• Soil laboratory testing.
• Geotechnical engineering analysis based on the gained data and preparation of this report. These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the
presence or extent of environmental contamination.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
We understand the project will consist of the design and construction of the proposed Lewis and Clark
Regional Water System Minnesota Segment 4 project in Nobles County, Minnesota. From the
beginning of the project (station 3112+45) to station 3375+84 the proposed pipeline will be 24-
inch (steel or PVC pipe) based on economics at bid time. From station 3375+84 to station 3592+30
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 2 of 17
(reservoir turnout) the proposed pipeline will be 20-inch (steel or PVC pipe) based on economics
at bid time. From station 3592+30 to end of the project (station 3890+50) the proposed pipeline
will be 16-inch PVC. We understand a concrete reservoir control vault will be constructed at
station 3592+30 (Soil Boring #18). The proposed invert of the vault will be at an approximate
elevation of 1703’. The anticipated cast in place concrete vault dimensions are 14’ x 14’ x 10’
deep.
The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This
information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there
are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our
recommendations are appropriate.
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING
4.1 Field Exploration Program
The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of twenty-six (26)
standard penetration test borings. The logs of the borings and details of the methods used appear
in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic
description, and moisture condition. Relative density or consistency is also noted for the natural
soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N-value).
The boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Map included in Appendix A. The borings
were located in the field by Banner Associates. Coordinates and surface elevations at the boring
locations were furnished by Banner Associates. The elevation at each boring location based on the
furnished elevations is shown on the top of the logs included in Appendix A.
Due to poor site conditions many of the soil borings needed to be moved to a suitable location in
order to complete our subsurface exploration program. Table 1 on the following page shows the
coordinates and elevation of each boring after they were moved from the locations staked by
Banner.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 3 of 17
TABLE 1 – Soil Boring Information
Boring No.
Coordinates Elevation (feet) Northing Easting
1 553106.245 2129089.276 1594.5 2 552944.482 2133612.185 1583.3
3 552965.156 2136513.696 1587.8
4 552712.590 2142840.822 1636.7 5 552595.303 2145247.079 1643.8 6 552646.538 2148763.241 1638.1
7 552586.782 2149255.810 1638.9
8 552609.872 2150855.246 1644.4 9 552471.943 2154595.707 1672.5
10 552457.790 2157293.668 1653.2
11 552482.582 2160037.029 1671.1
12 552498.779 2162289.116 1624.7 13 552502.261 2163187.870 1625.7 14 552447.907 2168308.018 1638.5
15 552367.655 2170514.151 1673.0
16 552296.120 2174112.277 1695.1 17 552211.615 2174828.707 1694.7 18 552228.644 2176010.429 1714.8
19 552137.064 2181399.317 1681.3
20 551992.705 2186696.414 1646.3 21 551839.282 2188010.874 1632.8 22 551841.749 2191053.847 1613.5
23 552267.235 2195820.654 1607.4
24 553530.310 2200023.784 1585.2 25 555471.314 2202795.687 1568.5 26 556343.740 2201870.237 1577.4
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 4 of 17
4.2 Laboratory Testing
The laboratory test program included water content, percent passing the #200 sieve by wieght and
soil corrosivity tests. The soil corrosivity tests included resistivity, pH, chloride and sulfate tests.
The water content test results appear in Appendix A on the individual boring logs adjacent to the
samples upon which they were performed. The soil corrosivity tests results are shown in Table 3
and also on the data sheets included in Appendix A of this report.
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS
5.1 Surface Observations
The location of the project starts at the intersection of Edwards Avenue and 270th Street and ends
approximately 14 miles east at the Worthington Water Treatment Plant. The current site vegetation
in the area of the proposed water pipeline consists of grass and plowed fields. The topography of
the area is rolling hills with surface elevations at the boring locations ranging from 1568.5’ to
1714.8’.
5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology
A review of the soil boring logs suggests a varied soil profile. The soils encountered include
organic lean clay topsoil, silty clay topsoil, clay fill, clayey sand fill, lean clay alluvium, silty clay
alluvium, fat clay alluvium, clayey sand alluvium, silty sand alluvium, sand alluvium (water
deposited soils), and sandy lean clay till (glacier deposited soils). It should be noted that the
majority of the clay soils consisted of lean clay or sandy lean clay, which generally exhibit a low
potential for moisture/volume movements.
The consistency of the natural clay soils ranged from soft to very stiff. The density of the sand
soils ranged from very loose to medium dense.
The soils encountered along the pipeline route were typically deposited by water. These soils
virtually contain all particle sizes including clay, silt, sand and gravel as well as cobbles and
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 5 of 17
possibly boulders. Although boulders were not encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that
they could be encountered during construction of the project.
We wish to point out that the subsurface conditions at other times and locations on this site may
differ significantly from those found at our test locations. If different subsurface conditions are
encountered during construction, it is necessary that you contact us so that our recommendations
can be reviewed. The test boring logs also indicate the possible geologic origin of the materials
encountered.
5.3 Groundwater
Observations for subsurface groundwater were made at the boring locations during our drilling
operations. The levels of the groundwater readings are shown on the boring logs. Groundwater
was encountered at the boring locations during our drilling operations at depths varying from 4.5’
to 14.7’ below the surface elevations. The time of year that the borings were drilled, and the history
of precipitation prior to drilling, should be known when using the water level information on the
soil boring logs to extrapolate water levels at other points in time.
Groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and yearly. The time of year that
the borings were drilled, and the history of precipitation prior to drilling, should be known when
using the water level information on the soil boring logs to extrapolate water levels at other points
in time.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Water Pipeline Installation
As previously noted, the boring logs indicate a varying soil profile. Based on our visual review,
laboratory tests and our familiarity with similar soils encountered at the boring locations, it is our
opinion that trench excavation conditions will range from poor to good. In general, the soil
conditions expected to be encountered at the pipe elevations can be categorized into four
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 6 of 17
categories. The categories are as follows: 1) Sand below the water table, 2) Sand above the water
table, 3) Clay below the water table, and 4) Clay above the water table. It is our opinion that the
most challenging category could be the third category, clay below the water table. The saturated
clay soils are sensitive to disturbance and have a potential for soft areas that may need to be
stabilized using geotextile fabric or crushed aggregate or a combination of the two.
To obtain adequate stability of the trench bottom for pipe placement, we recommend over-
excavating at least 6” below the bottom of pipe or manhole elevations followed by the placement
of granular bedding. If soft or loose conditions are present at this elevation, we recommend two
options for obtaining adequate stability of the trench bottom for pipe placement. The first option
will consist of placement of a geotextile fabric and granular bedding. The geotextile fabric should
extend up the trench sidewalls to a level of at least the midpoint of the pipe. Placement of the fabric
should then be followed by placement of granular bedding material also extending from the bottom
of the trench to the midpoint of the pipe or higher. Bedding material should be compacted into
place using backhoe mounted vibratory compaction equipment. The second option would consist
of over-excavating an additional 6” to allow for the placement of coarse rock (oversize) capped
off with 4” to 6” of finer grained material. The appropriate means of subgrade stabilization should
be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction.
We recommend that the trench preparation for sand soils below the water table consist of
dewatering the site prior to trench excavation and then vertically over excavating 6” below the
bottom of pipe or manhole elevations. We recommend that the exposed sand soils be surface
compacted before the placement of new engineered fill.
We recommend that the trench preparation for sand soils above the water table consist of vertically
over excavating the sand soils to 6” below the bottom of pipe or manhole elevations. We
recommend that the exposed sand soils be surface compacted before the placement of new
engineered fill.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 7 of 17
We recommend that the trench preparation for clay soils below the water table consist of
dewatering the site prior to excavation and then vertically over excavating 6” to 12” depending
upon the stability of the exposed soils. We recommend placing stabilization materials (crushed
rock and/or geotextile fabric) as the situation warrants. If geotextile fabric is used, it should be
placed on the natural soils and extend up the trench sidewalls to a level of at least the midpoint of
the pipe. Placement of the fabric should then be followed by placement of the stabilization material
also extending from the bottom of the trench to the midpoint of the pipe or higher. Stabilization
material should be compacted into place using backhoe mounted vibratory compaction equipment.
We recommend that the trench preparation for clay soils above the water table consist of vertically
over excavating 6” below the bottom of pipe or manhole elevations followed by the placement of
the bedding materials. If soft areas are encountered, we recommend that the area be treated as
stated above for clay soils below the water table. In the drilling, process we encountered many soft
areas in the clay soils.
6.2 Trench Excavation – Backfill
The backfill of the pipeline trench will consist of three distinct layers. The “pipe base” shall extend
the full width of the trench, from 6” below the pipe to the bottom of the pipe. The “pipe zone” shall
extend the full width of the trench from the top of the pipe base (bottom of the pipe) to 6” above the
top of the pipe. The “trench zone” shall include the full width of the trench from the top of the pipe
zone to the top of the original surface elevation of the natural ground. Sand material shall be used for
the pipe base and pipe zone. Native material may be used for the trench zone.
We recommend that sand soils be used for the pipe base and pipe zone backfill. The sand should be
classified as a SP, SM or SP-SM based on the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM:D3839).
The sand material should be free of gravel or sharp materials that measure ¾” or larger.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 8 of 17
We recommend that the sand soils used for the pipe base be compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction as compared to the Standard Proctor density (ASTM:D698). For the pipe zone,
compaction should be such to avoid damaging the pipe but it is our opinion that the compaction should
reach a minimum of 90% relative compaction as compared to the Standard Proctor density. However,
the pipe manufacturer’s recommendations for compaction levels should be reviewed. The sand soils
used for the pipe base and pipe zone backfill should be placed in maximum 8” lifts. Generally, it is
desirable that the sand soils have a moisture content from 1% to 5% below the optimum moisture
content as determined by the Standard Proctor.
Excavation to expose the bottom trench elevation should be performed using a backhoe with a smooth
bucket. The pipe base material should be shaped to conform to the bottom of the pipe. Hand
excavations should be used to shape the pipe fill areas.
The backfill in the trench zone should consist of the native excavated soils; however, organic soils
(topsoil) or organic fill soils should not be used for backfill except for cover material. The trench
zone backfill soils placed in nonstructural areas such as in the existing native grass areas or
agricultural fields, should receive a compaction of at least 90% relative compaction as compared
to the Standard Proctor density (ASTM:D698). Backfill soils placed in structural areas, such as
beneath traffic areas, should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction as compared to the
Standard Proctor density. In general, the native backfill soils should be placed in maximum 8”
loose lifts. The clay backfill soils should be placed at a moisture content ranging from -3% to +2%
of the optimum moisture content as determined by the Standard Proctor. Drying of the backfill soil
will likely be required to obtain adequate compaction. The backfill material should be free of frost
and should not be placed on frozen soils. Please refer to the “Freezing Weather Effects on Building
Construction” included in the Standard Sheets.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 9 of 17
The clay backfill soils encountered along the pipeline will become difficult to work with if exposed
to the atmosphere and allowed to dry out or become over-saturated. Therefore, we suggest the
excavated trench soils be placed in a relatively contained berm with minimal surface area to help
minimize the potential for atmospheric drying or wetting of these soils. The time that the backfill soils
are exposed to atmosphere should be minimized as much as possible. We recommend that the surface
elevation of the refilled pipeline trench be equal to or higher than that of the adjacent existing grades.
General site grading should not allow water to pond along the pipeline trench.
6.3 Dewatering
As noted on the boring logs, groundwater was encountered at depths varying from 4.5’ to 14.7’ below
existing grade at the time of our subsurface exploration program. The amount of water encountered
in the excavation at the site will be dependent upon seasonal fluctuations, the excavation depths
required and the amount of sands encountered. Because of the permeable nature of the sand soils
present at borings 12, 14 and 18, it may not be possible to control water entering the excavations in
these areas with normal sump pumping procedures. More intricate dewatering techniques may be
required depending upon the magnitude of water encountered.
Depending upon the volume of inflow, it may be possible to place some coarse rock in the excavation
bottom to aid in draining the water to sump locations. However, in the more pervious sand soils, pre-
drainage may be necessary to provide safe excavation slopes for pipeline installation and for
backfilling. A dewatering contractor should be contacted for specific recommendations for pre-
drainage.
Any water which does collect in the open excavation should be quickly removed. Upon removal of
the groundwater from the excavation, the immediate placement of the pipe bedding and the first
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 10 of 17
several lifts of fill should be performed. In addition, surface drainage away from the excavation should
be provided during construction.
6.4 Excavation Slopes
Safe excavation slopes should be provided in accordance with current OSHA requirements. These
regulations are found in the “Federal Register, Tuesday, October 31, 1989, Part II, Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 29 CFR Part 1926, Occupational
Safe and Health Administration, Standards-Excavation; Final Rule”.
OSHA recommends safe excavation slopes based on the classification of the soil and the unconfined
compressive strength. Soils are classified as Type A, Type B, Type C and stable rock. The stability
of Type A is the highest for the soils and Type C is the lowest. Please refer to the above mentioned
OSHA document for a more specific definition of each soil type and the associated stipulations.
Based on empirical correlations with the standard penetration resistance (“N” values), we typically
assume cohesive soil is Type A if it has an “N” value of greater than 10 blows per foot. Based on the
soils encountered at the boring locations, it is our opinion the majority of the soils will be classified
as Type C soil according to OSHA.
We recommend that the excavated soils not be placed at the top of the excavation slope. The soil
should be placed as far from the top of the excavation slope as possible. OSHA guidelines do not
consider surcharge effects from the excavated material. Also, we wish to point out that the soils at the
boring locations may not represent the soil conditions between the borings. Therefore, it is important
that personnel trained in OSHA soil classification be on-site to monitor the excavations and aid in
determining safe excavation slopes. Trench shields should also be considered where unstable soils
are encountered.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 11 of 17
6.5 Pipe Loading and Deflection
The pressures acting on shallow buried pipe are influenced by the relative rigidity of the pipe and
surrounding soils, depth of cover, type of backfill, width and shape of the pipe, trench width and
method of construction. For example, the vertical exterior pressure acting at the top of a pipe may
range from pressures equal to or greater than the overburden pressures in highly compressible soils
to much less than the overburden pressures in granular soils because of the effect of “arching”, in
which a portion of the overburden pressure is supported by the surrounding soil. Also, the soil pressure
against the side of the pipe in an embankment significantly influences the resistance of the pipe to
vertical load. Appropriate references should be consulted relative to these varied parameters. For
design purposes, we have provided the following modulus of soil reaction (E’) in Table 2 below. We
wish to note that various values have been published with variations in the E’ for various types of
materials and compaction. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and the American Society for Testing and
Materials utilize the same values. The ASTM designation is D3839 and the Bureau of Reclamation
standard is E-3.
Table 2
Soil Type - Primary Pipe Zone Backfill Material (Unified Classification
System)
E’ for Degree of Compaction of Bedding
85% Proctor* or 40% Relative Density
90% Proctor* or 40-70% Relative Density
95% Proctor* or 70% Relative Density
Coarse grained soils with fines: GM, GC, SM, SC containing more than 12% fines
400 1000 2000
Coarse grained soils with little or no fines: GW, GP, SW, SP containing less than 12% fines
1000 2000 3000
Accuracy in terms of difference between predicted and actual average percent deflection
±2% ±1% ±1%
* - Standard Proctor ASTM:D698
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 12 of 17
We recommend using a total wet unit weight of 125 pcf for the soil over the pipeline in calculating
pipe loadings. This is somewhat more than the wet unit, but is being recommended to maintain a
conservative approach to the design with possible variations of the soil weight between the borings.
6.6 Corrosivity
Soil corrosivity is typically not a major concern in southwest Minnesota. The concentration of
water-soluble sulfates measured in samples obtained from the exploratory borings ranged from 31
to 3930 parts per million (ppm) with the pH between 7.48 and 8.72. This concentration of water-
soluble sulfates represents a moderate to severe degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to
these materials. Based on our experience in this area and the test results, a Type I-II Portland
cement will be sufficient for concrete exposed to the majority of the on-site soils. We recommend
that the concrete be a relatively rich mix with sufficient air-entrainment to ensure the protection
against possible sulfate attack. If concrete is placed in the area of boring #24 we recommend using
a Type V Portland cement due to the elevated Sulfate test results.
Lab resistivity values of the soils obtained from the site ranged from 697 to 3,490 ohm-cm. The
lab resistivity values of the borings indicate a fairly to corrosive degree of corrosivity. Soil
resistivity less than 1000 ohm-cm indicates that exterior coating protection for reinforced concrete
or a minimum 3-inch concrete cover over reinforcing steel is needed.
The chloride content of the soil samples obtained from the site ranged from <2.0 to 28 ppm
indicating moderate corrosivity against buried metal pipes. To protect the buried pipes at the site,
the underground piping may be coated or wrapped.
Table 3 on the following page summarizes the results of the laboratory testing on select samples
to determine the soil properties for potential corrosion and concrete attack. A copy of the analytical
report is included in Appendix A.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 13 of 17
Table 3 – Corrosivity Lab Test Results
Boring
Depth
Sampled (ft)
PH
Sulfate (ppm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Lab
Resistivity (ohm-cm)
1 6 – 10 8.27 83 5.6 1,560 2 7 – 11 8.72 130 2.8 1,270 3 6 – 10 7.84 42 <2.0 1,790 4 7 – 11 8.26 55 5.6 1,860 5 6 – 10 8.04 31 8.3 1,760 6 6 – 10 8.28 53 5.6 1,650 7 7 – 11 8.34 44 11 1,970 8 6 – 10 8.33 52 8.3 1,580 9 8 – 12 8.29 73 8.3 1,810
10 8 – 12 7.62 52 <2.0 1,580 11 6 – 10 8.12 61 <2.0 1,920 12 6 – 10 7.55 210 17 1,060 13 6 – 10 7.70 50 <2.0 1,510 14 6 – 10 7.73 68 2.8 2,400 15 6 – 10 7.63 37 <2.0 1,670 16 6 – 10 7.60 34 11 2,070 17 6 – 10 7.97 54 5.6 1,340 18 7 – 11 7.60 36 <2.0 3,490 19 7 – 11 7.87 41 11 1,810 20 6 – 10 7.96 49 <2.0 1,650 21 6 – 10 7.89 76 2.8 1,420 22 6 – 10 7.91 54 2.8 1,800 23 6 – 10 7.99 54 <2.0 1,590 24 6 – 10 7.48 3,930 28 796 25 7 – 11 7.90 190 19 1,320 26 6 – 10 8.06 500 11 697
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 14 of 17
6.7 Reservoir Control Vault Construction
Based on our review of the soil conditions encountered at station 3592+30 (Soil Boring #18) during
our subsurface exploration program, it is our opinion that the natural glacial till soils found near
the bottom of the reservoir control vault structure (approximate elevation 1702’) are suitable for
support of the new construction at this site. Due to the groundwater level being higher than the
bottom of the proposed excavation we recommend using a 12” minimum granular layer of crushed
rock with a maximum size of 3” to attain grade for foundation support.
Based on the soil conditions encountered, it is our opinion the structure can be supported on a
spread footing foundation designed based on a net maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of
3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). It is our judgment the above design pressures will have a factor
of safety of at least 3 against localized shear or base failure. We judge that total settlements under
this loading should not exceed 1 inch. We also judge that differential settlements should not exceed
½ inch.
If any excavation extends below foundation grade, the excavation bottom and resultant engineered
fill system must be oversized laterally beyond the planned outside edges of the foundations to
properly support the lateral loads exerted by that foundation. This excavation/engineered fill lateral
extension should at least be equal to the vertical depth of fill needed to attain foundation grade at
that location (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize).
Depending upon the foundation elevation of the vault structure and future groundwater table
elevations, groundwater may exist above the foundation of the vault structure. To help control
groundwater within the excavation, it may be advantageous to place 6” of crushed rock at the
bottom of the excavation. We recommend that the vault be designed to resist any buoyant forces
that may be present due to future groundwater.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 15 of 17
Assuming that any portion of the structure that will experience lateral earth pressures will be rigid
and no deflection can take place during or following backfilling, we recommend an at rest
equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf be used above the groundwater level for the on-site clay soils
or new granular engineered fill soils. If an active equivalent fluid pressure is desired, we
recommend using 40 pcf for the on-site clay soils or new granular engineered fill soils above the
groundwater level. For submerged conditions, we recommend that an at rest equivalent fluid
pressure of 100 pcf or an active equivalent fluid pressure of 90 pcf be used.
The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and horizontal
backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. Adequate
drainage should be provided behind any below grade walls as described in the
“Basement/Retaining Wall Backfill and Water Control” standard sheet included with this report.
The values calculated for the above parameters would provide ultimate values. We recommend a
minimum safety factor of at least 1.5 be applied to the calculated lateral values. The above noted
equivalent fluid pressures assume the backfill soils adjacent to the walls will be compacted to a
range of 95% to 100% of the Standard Proctor density.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Potential Difficulties
7.1.1 Runoff Water in Excavation
Water can be expected to collect in the excavation bottom during times of inclement weather or
snow melt. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to reduce the potential for soil
disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend water be removed from within the
excavation during construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the groundwater can
be handled with conventional sump pumping.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 16 of 17
7.1.2 Disturbance of Soils
The on-site soils can become disturbed under construction traffic, especially if the soils are wet. If
soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed soils. The subcut soils
can then be dried and recompacted back into place, or they should be removed and replaced with
drier imported fill.
7.1.3 Winter Construction
If construction occurs during the winter, it is necessary for the contractor to protect the base soils
from freezing each day and each night before new fill is placed. Fill should not be placed over
frozen soils, snow, or ice, nor should the use of frozen fill soils be permitted. The contractor must
protect base soils from freezing before and after fill placement, and before, during, and after
concrete placement. If the interior footings will be exposed to freezing temperatures during
construction, we recommend that you consider lowering the footings to protect against frost
penetration into the footing subgrade soils. We recommend that a special pre-construction meeting
be held to discuss the procedures and precautions that must be followed.
7.2 Excavation Backsloping
If excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes
in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations”
(can be found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface
runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance.
7.3 Observation and Testing
The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring
locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations,
we recommend on-site observation by a geotechnical engineer/technician during construction to
evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing should also be performed on new fill placed
in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Page 17 of 17
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according
to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this,
no warranty, either expressed or implied, is intended.
Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in
Appendix B entitled “Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.”
01REP011 (04/12) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
EXCAVATION AND REFILLING FOR STRUCTURAL SUPPORT
EXCAVATION
Excavations for structural support at soil boring locations should be taken to depths recommended in the geotechnical
report. Since conditions can vary, recommended excavation depths between and beyond the boring locations should be
evaluated by geotechnical field personnel. If ground water is present, the excavation should be dewatered to avoid the
risk of unobservable poor soils being left in-place. Excavation base soils may become disturbed due to construction
traffic, ground water, or other reasons. Such soils should be subcut to underlying undisturbed soils. Where the excavation
base slopes at an angle steeper than 4H:1V, the excavation bottom should be benched across the slope parallel to the
slope contour.
Soil stresses under foundations spread out with depth. Therefore, the excavation bottom and subsequent fill system
should be laterally oversized beyond foundation edges to support these stresses. A lateral oversize equal to the depth of
fill below the foundation (i.e., 1:1 oversize) is usually recommended. The lateral oversize is usually increased to 1.5:1 to
2:1 where compressible organic soils are exposed on the excavation sides. Variations in oversize requirements may be
recommended in the geotechnical report or can be evaluated by the geotechnical field personnel.
Unless the excavation is retained, the backslopes should be maintained in accordance with OSHA Regulations
(Standards - 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” (found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA
sloping, ground water can induce sideslope raveling or running which could require that flatter slopes or other approaches
be used.
FILLING
Filling should proceed only after the excavation bottom has been approved by the geotechnical engineer/technician.
Approved fill material should be uniformly compacted in thin lifts to the compaction levels specified in the geotechnical
report. The lift thickness should be thin enough to achieve specified compaction through the full lift thickness with the
compaction equipment utilized. Typical thicknesses are 6" to 9" for clays and 12" to 18" for sands. Fine grained soils are
moisture sensitive and are often wet (water content exceeds the “optimum water content” defined by a Proctor test). In
this case, the soils should be scarified and dried to achieve a water content suitable for compaction. This drying process
can be time consuming and labor intensive, and will require favorable weather.
Select fill material may be needed where the excavation bottom is sensitive to disturbance or where standing water is
present. Sands (SP) which are medium to coarse grained are preferred, and can be compacted in thicker lift thicknesses
than finer grained soils.
Filling operations for structural support should be closely monitored for fill type and compaction by a geotechnical
technician. Monitoring should be on a full-time basis in cases where vertical fill placement is rapid; during freezing
weather conditions; where ground water is present; or where sensitive bottom conditions are present.
EXCAVATION/REFILLING DURING FREEZING TEMPERATURES
Soils that freeze will heave and lose density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original strength and density.
The extent of heave and density loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition; and is most pronounced in clays
and silts. Foundations, slabs, and other improvements should be protected from frost intrusion during freezing weather.
For earthwork during freezing weather, the areas to be filled should be stripped of frozen soil, snow, and ice prior to new
fill placement. In addition, new fill should not be allowed to freeze during or after placement. For this reason, it may be
preferable to do earthwork operations in small plan areas so grade can be quickly attained instead of large areas where
much frost stripping may be needed.
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
FREEZING WEATHER EFFECTS ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL
Because water expands upon freezing and soils contain water, soils which are allowed to freeze will heave
and loose density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original strength and density. The extent of
heave and density/strength loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition. Heave is greater in soils
with higher percentages of fines (silts/clays). High silt content soils are most susceptible, due to their high
capillary rise potential which can create ice lenses. Fine grained soils generally heave about 1/4" to 3/8" for
each foot of frost penetration. This can translate to 1" to 2" of total frost heave. This total amount can be
significantly greater if ice lensing occurs.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Clayey and silty soils can be used as perimeter backfill, although the effect of their poor drainage and frost
properties should be considered. Basement areas will have special drainage and lateral load requirements
which are not discussed here. Frost heave may be critical in doorway areas. Stoops or sidewalks adjacent to
doorways could be designed as structural slabs supported on frost footings with void spaces below. With this
design, movements may then occur between the structural slab and the adjacent on-grade slabs. Non-frost
susceptible granular soils (with less than 12% passing a #200 sieve) can be used below such areas.
Depending on the function of surrounding areas, the granular soil layer may need a thickness transition away
from the area where movement is critical. With granular soil placement over slower draining soils,
subsurface drainage would be needed for the granular layer. High density extruded insulation could be used
within the granular soils to reduce frost penetration, thereby reducing the granular soil thickness needed. We
caution that insulation placed near the surface can increate the potential for ice glazing of the surface.
The possible effects of adfreezing should be considered if clayey or silty soils are used as backfill.
Adfreezing occurs when backfill adheres to rough surfaced foundation walls and lifts the wall as it freezes
and heaves. This occurrence is most common with masonry black walls, unheated or poorly heated building
situations and clay backfill. The potential is also increased where backfill soils are poorly compacted and
become saturated. The risk of adfreezing can be decreased by placing a low friction separating layer between
the wall and backfill.
Adfreezing can occur on exterior piers (such as deck, fence or other similar pier footings), even if a smooth
surface is provided. This is more likely in poor drainage situations where soils become saturated. Additional
footing embedment and/or widened footings below the frost zones (which include tensile reinforcement) can
be used to resist uplift forces. Specific designs would require individual analysis.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Foundations, slabs, and other improvements which may be affected by frost movements should be insulated
from frost penetration during freezing weather. If filling takes place during freezing weather, all frozen soils,
snow, and ice should be stripped from areas to be filled prior to new fill placement. The new fill should not
be allowed to freeze during transit, placement, or compaction. This should be considered in the project
scheduling, budgeting, and quantity estimating. It is usually beneficial to perform cold weather earthwork
operations in small areas where grade can be attained quickly rather than working large areas where a greater
amount of frost stripping may be needed. If slab subgrade areas freeze, we recommend the subgrade be
thawed to prior floor slab placement. The frost action may also require reworking and recompaction of the
thawed subgrade.
01REP014 (12/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
BASEMENT/RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND WATER CONTROL
DRAINAGE
Below grade basements should include a perimeter backfill drainage system on the exterior side of the wall. The
exception may be where basements lie within free draining sands where water will not perch in the backfill. Drainage
systems should consist of perforated or slotted PVC drainage pipes located at the bottom of the backfill trench, lower
than the interior floor grade. The drain pipe should be surrounded by properly graded filter rock. A filter fabric should
then envelope the filter rock. The drain pipe should be connected to a suitable means of disposal, such as a sump basket
or a gravity outfall. A storm sewer gravity outfall would be preferred over exterior daylighting, as the latter may freeze
during winter. For non-building, exterior retaining walls, weep holes at the base of the wall can be substituted for a drain
pipe.
BACKFILLING
Prior to backfilling, damp/water proofing should be applied on perimeter basement walls. The backfill materials placed
against basement walls will exert lateral loadings. To reduce this loading by allowing for drainage, we recommend using
free draining sands for backfill. The zone of sand backfill should extend outward from the wall at least 2', and then
upward and outward from the wall at a 30 or greater angle from vertical. As a minimum, the sands should contain no
greater than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve, which would include (SP) and (SP-SM) soils. The sand backfill
should be placed in lifts and compacted with portable compaction equipment. This compaction should be to the specified
levels if slabs or pavements are placed above. Where slab/pavements are not above, we recommend capping the sand
backfill with a layer of clayey soil to minimize surface water infiltration. Positive surface drainage away from the
building should also be maintained. If surface capping or positive surface drainage cannot be maintained, then the trench
should be filled with more permeable soils, such as a Porous Backfill defined in SD/DOT Specification 680.2. You
should recognize that if the backfill soils are not properly compacted, settlements may occur which may affect surface
drainage away from the building.
Backfilling with silty or clayey soil is possible but not preferred. These soils can build-up water which increases lateral
pressures and results in wet wall conditions and possible water infiltration into the basement. If you elect to place silty or
clayey soils as backfill, we recommend you place a prefabricated drainage composite against the wall which is
hydraulically connected to a drainage pipe at the base of the backfill trench. High plasticity clays should be avoided as
backfill due to their swelling potential.
LATERAL PRESSURES
Lateral earth pressures on below grade walls vary, depending on backfill soil classification, backfill compaction and slope
of the backfill surface. Static or dynamic surcharge loads near the wall will also increase lateral wall pressure. For design,
we recommend the following ultimate lateral earth pressure values (given in equivalent fluid pressure values) for a
drained soil compacted to 95% of the Standard Proctor density and a level ground surface.
Equivalent Fluid Density
Soil Type
Active (pcf)
At-Rest (pcf)
Sands (SP or SP-SM)
35
50
Silty Sands (SM)
45
65
Fine Grained Soils (SC, CL or ML)
70
90
Basement walls are normally restrained at the top which restricts movement. In this case, the design lateral pressures
should be the “at-rest” pressure situation. Retaining walls which are free to rotate or deflect should be designed using the
active case. Lateral earth pressures will be significantly higher than that shown if the backfill soils are not drained and
become saturated.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Appendix A
Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes
Unified Soil Classification System Boring Location Map
Subsurface Boring Logs Analytical Results (Soil Corrosivity Tests)
Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
Report No. 32-01940
Appendix A - Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling standard penetration test borings. The locations of the borings appear on the Boring Location Map, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split-Spoon Samples (SS) Standard penetration (split-spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM: D1586. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N-value. A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS)/Spin-up Samples (SU) Sample types described as “DS” or “SU” on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Determining the thickness of “topsoil” layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual-manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed. A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM: D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM: D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual-manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs. Visual-manual judgment of the AASHTO Soil Group is also noted as a part of the soil description. A chart presenting details of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is also attached. The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The groundwater level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under “Water Level Measurements” on the logs:
Date and Time of measurement Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of measurement Cave-in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid
The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include:
Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
Report No. 32-01940
Appendix A - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-010, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D2216 and AASHTO: T265. A.5.2 Atterberg Limits Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-030, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D4318 and AASHTO: T89, T90. A.5.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-080, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D2166 and AASHTO: T208. A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied. A.7 SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days.
Symbol Definition Symbol Definition
B,H,N: Size of flush-joint casing CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test
CA: Crew Assistant (initials) DEN: Dry density; pcf
CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nomial diameter in DST: Direct shear test
inches E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf
CC: Crew Chief HYD: Hydrometer analysis
COT: Clean-out tube LL: Liquid Limit, %
DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf
DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry OC: Organic Content, %
DR: Driller (initials) PERM: Coefficient of permeablility (K) test; F- Field;
DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights L - Laboratory
FA: Flight Auger; number indicates outside diameter in PL: Plastic Limit, %inches qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate)
HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter qc: Static cone bearing pressure, tsfin inches qu: Unconfined compressive strength, psf
LG: Field logger (initials) R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cms
MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in precent
samples and for the ground water level symols (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length
N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N-value) in blows per as a percent of total core run)
foot (see notes) SA: Sieve Analysis
NQ: NQ wireline core barrel TRX: Triaxial compression test
PQ: PQ wireline core barrel VSR: Vane shear strength, remoulded (field), psf
RD: Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field) psf
REC: In california-spoon, split-spoon (see notes) and thin- WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight
walled tube sample, the recovered length (in inches) %-200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve
of sample. In rock coring, the length of core recovered
(expressed as percent of the total core run. ) Zero
indicates no sample recovered.
REV: Revert drilling fluid
2L: California-spoon sampler (stee; 2" inside diameter
with 4" long brass liners; 3" outside diameter)
SS: Standard split-spoon sample (steel; 1⅜" inside
diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated
otherwise
SU: Spin-up sample from hollow stem auger
TW: Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in
inches
WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning
rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside
the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid
WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and
140-pound hammer
WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod
94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel
▼: Water level directly measured in boring
: Estimated water level based solely on sample
appearance
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
The standard penetration test consists of driving the sampler with a 140
pound hammer and counting the number of blows applied in each of three
6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less than 18" (usually
in highly resistant material), permitted in ASTM:D1586, the blows for each
complete 6" increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log.
For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1'
below the slash.
The length of the sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" column, may
be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The disparity is
because the N-value is recorded below the intial 6" set (unless partial
penentration defined in ASTM:D1586 is encountered) whereas the length
of sample recoveres is for the entire sampler driver (which may even extend
more than 18").
BORING LOG NOTES
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES
01CLS021(2/04) AMERICAN ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING TESTING,
INC.
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA
Soil Classification Notes ABased on the material passing the 3-in
(75-mm) sieve. BIf field sample contained cobbles or
boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or
boulders, or both” to group name. CGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual
symbols:
GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt
GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay
GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt
GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual
symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt
SW-SC well-graded sand with clay
SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
ECu = D60 /D10, Cc = (D30)
2/ D10 x D60
FIf soil contains >15% sand, add “with
sand” to group name. GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual
symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. HIf fines are organic, add “with organic
fines” to group name. IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add “with
gravel” to group name. JIf Atterberg limits plot is hatched area,
soils is a CL-ML silty clay. KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200
add “with sand” or “with gravel”,
whichever is predominant. LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200,
predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.
MIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200,
predominantly gravel, add “gravelly”
to group name. NPl>4 and plots on or above “A” line.
OPl<4 or plots below “A” line.
PPl plots on or above “A” line.
QPl plots below “A” line.
RFiber Content description shown below.
Group
Symbol
Group NameB
Coarse-Grained
Soils More
than 50%
retained on
No. 200 sieve
Gravels More
than 50% coarse
fraction retained
on No. 4 sieve
Clean Gravels
Less than 5%
finesC
Cu>4 and 1<Cc<3E
GW Well graded gravelF
Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3E
GP Poorly graded gravelF
Gravels with Fines more
than 12% fines C
Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF.G.H
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF.G.H
Sands 50% or
more of coarse
fraction passes No. 4 sieve
Clean Sands
Less than 5%
finesD
Cu>6 and 1<Cc<3E
SW Well-graded sandI
Cu<6 and 1>Cc>3E
SP Poorly-graded sandI
Sands with Fines more
than 12% fines D
Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG.H.I
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG.H.I
Fine-Grained
Soils 50% or
more passes
the No. 200
sieve
(see Plasticity Chart below)
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit less
than 50
inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above
“A” lineJ
CL Lean clayK.L.M
PI<4 or plots below
“A” lineJ
ML SiltK.L.M
organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75
Liquid limit – not dried
OL Organic clayK.L.M.N
Organic siltK.L.M.O
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit 50
or more
inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK.L.M
PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic siltK.L.M
organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75
Liquid limit – not dried
OH Organic clayK.L.M.P
Organic siltK.L.M.Q
Highly organic
soil
Primarily organic matter, dark
in color, and organic in odor
PT PeatR
3 2 ½ 1 ¾ 4 10 20 40 60 140 200100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
81
Sieve NumberScreen Opening (in.)
50 10 5 1.0 0.10.5
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
PE
RC
EN
T P
AS
SIN
G
PE
RC
EN
T R
ET
AIN
ED
D60 = 15mm
D30 = 2.5mm
D10 = 0.075mm
Cu = = = 200D60
D10
15
0.075Cc = = = 5.6
(D30)
D10 x D60
2.5
0.075 x 15
2 2
CL-ML
For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils.
Equation of "A"-lineHorizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5. then PI = 0.73 (LL-20)
Equation of "U"-lineVertical at LL = 16 to PI = 7. then PI = 0.9 (LL-8)
"A" L
INE
"U" L
INE
CL OR O
L
CH OR OH
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
16
7
4
PLA
ST
ICIT
Y IN
DE
X (
PI)
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
Plasticity Chart
ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
Grain Size Term Particle Size
Boulders Over 12"
Cobbles 3" to 12"
Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Sand #200 to #4 sieve
Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve
Gravel Percentages
Term Percent
A Little Gravel 3% - 14%
With Gravel 15% - 29%
Gravelly 30% - 50%
Consistency of Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF
Very Soft less than 2
Soft 2 - 4
Firm 5 - 8 Stiff 9 - 15
Very Stiff 16 - 30
Hard Greater than 30
Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF
Very Loose 0 - 4
Loose 5 - 10
Medium Dense 11 - 30 Dense 31 - 50
Very Dense Greater than 50
Moisture/Frost Condition
(MC Column)
D (Dry): Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to
touch.
M (Moist): Damp, although free water not
visible. Soil may still have a high water content (over “optimum”).
W (Wet/ Free water visible intended to
Waterbearing): describe non-plastic soils.
Waterbearing usually relates to
sands and sand with silt.
F (Frozen): Soil frozen
Layering Notes
Laminations: Layers less than
½" thick of
differing material
or color.
Lenses: Pockets or layers
greater than ½"
thick of differing
material or color.
Fiber Content of Peat
Fiber Content
Term (Visual Estimate)
Fibric Peat: Greater than 67%
Hemic Peat: 33 – 67% Sapric Peat: Less than 33%
Organic/Roots Description (if no lab tests)
Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat
and is judged to have sufficient organic fines
content to influence the soil properties. Slightly
organic used for borderline cases.
With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity
of roots to influence the soil
properties.
Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged
to be in sufficient quantity to
significantly affect soil properties.
PROJECT:
SUBJECT:
SCALE: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
PROJECT NO.
PROPOSED LEWIS AND CLARK RWS MINNESOTA SEGMENT 4
NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA
BORING LOCATION MAP
1 INCH = 2 MILES
BCLBWC
03 / 09 / 2016
32-01940
SCALE
N
-APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS
3
6
6
9
11
12
TOPSOIL
TILL
SILTY CLAY, black, wet, frozen to 1'(ML-OL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, wet to very moist to moist, softto firm to stiff, a lens of waterbearing gravelfrom 2.3'-2.6' (CL)
END OF BORING
18
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
20
21
MH
1594.5'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/9/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
3:25
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/9/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
1 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
28
5
4
11
12
11
12
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with gravel,and SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown and darkbrown, frozen
LEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, very moist to wet,soft (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
18
16
16
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
25
22
MH
1583.3'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/15/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-17'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
18.5'
WATERLEVEL
10:36
Rig:
17'18.5'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/15/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
2 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
5
7
9
14
9
9
TOPSOIL
FINEALLUVIUM
MIXEDALLUVIUM
TILL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen (CL-OL)
FAT CLAY, very dark brown, very moist, firm(CH)
CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, witha little gravel, brown, wet to 4.8' thenwaterbearing, loose (SC)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
18
14
16
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
14
23
MH
1587.8'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/15/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
5'
WATERLEVEL
11:08
4:44
Rig:
14.5'
---
16'
16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/15/16
2/15/16
None
4.8'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
3 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
16
7
9
4
6
8
9
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FINEALLUVIUM
MIXEDALLUVIUM
FILL, mostly CLAYEY SAND, with gravel,brown, frozenLEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen to 3' (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, firm tostiff, a lens of waterbearing sand at 9' (CL)
LEAN CLAY, brown, very moist to wet, soft tofirm (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, very moist, firmto stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
20
29
MH
1636.7'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/15/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-17'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
18.5'
WATERLEVEL
11:50
Rig:
17'18.5'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/15/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
4 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
9
11
10
12
10
10
TOPSOIL
TILL
LEAN CLAY, black, frozen (CL-OL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff,cobbles at 1.5' and 2', a lamination of wet sandat 7', frozen to 2' (CL)
END OF BORING
3
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
16
17
MH
1643.8'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/15/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
8.5'
16'
WATERLEVEL
12:40
12:58
Rig:
7'
14.5'
8.5'
16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/15/16
2/15/16
7'
None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
5 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
6
6
13
13
14
15
FILL
TILL
FILL, mixture of ORGANIC LEAN CLAY andLEAN CLAY, black and dark brown, verymoist, frozen to 1.2'
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, firm tostiff, a lens of waterbearing sand at 14.5' (CL)
END OF BORING
12
12
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
20
16
MH
1638.1'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/15/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
1:36
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/15/16 14.7'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
6 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
5
6
7
9
9
11
10
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown and dark brown, frozenLEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,firm, frozen to 3' (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, wet to very moist to moist, firmto stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
16
16
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
19
19
MH
1638.9'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/15/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-17'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
18.5'
WATERLEVEL
2:16
Rig:
17'18.5'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/15/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
7 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
7
5
11
11
10
16
TOPSOIL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
LEAN CLAY, black, wet, frozen to 1.6'(CL-OL)
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, very moist, firm(CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, firm tostiff, a lens of waterbearing sand at 4.5' (CL)
END OF BORING
12
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
18
20
MH
1644.4'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/15/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
5'
WATERLEVEL
3:10
4:42
Rig:
14.5'
---
16'
16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/15/16
2/15/16
None
4.8'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
8 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
15
7
4
9
12
9
9
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland LEAN CLAY, brown and dark brown,frozen
LEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 3.5' (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, wet to very moist to moist, firmto soft to stiff, lenses of waterbearing sand at7.5 and 9.5' (CL)
END OF BORING
18
12
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
22
20
MH
1672.5'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/15/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-17'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
18.5'
10'
WATERLEVEL
3:46
3:58
Rig:
17'
---
18.5'
18.5'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/15/16
2/15/16
None
8.2'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
9 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
10
5
4
6
6
6
7
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mostly CLAYEY SAND, with gravel,brown, frozen
LEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 3.5' (CL)
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet, firm (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, wet to very moist, soft to firm,a lens of waterbearing sand at 14.5' (CL)
END OF BORING
12
10
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
21
24
MH
1653.2'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/15/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-17'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
8.5'
18.5'
5'
WATERLEVEL
4:10
4:22
4:29
Rig:
7'
17'
---
8.5'
18.5'
18.5'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/15/16
2/15/16
2/15/16
8'
14.5'
None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
10 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
10
4
6
6
6
8
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mostly CLAYEY SAND, with a littlegravel, dark brown, frozenLEAN CLAY, very dark brown, wet, frozen to3' (CL)
LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, wet to verymoist, soft to firm (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist, firm, lenses ofwaterbearing sand at 9' and 10' (CL)
END OF BORING
16
16
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
29
18
MH
1671.1'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/16/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
9:35
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/16/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
11 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
4
11
28
16
10
12
TOPSOIL
MIXEDALLUVIUM
COARSEALLUVIUM
TILL
LEAN CLAY, black, wet, frozen to 1' (CL-OL)
CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, withgravel, brown, moist to wet to 5' thenwaterbearing, medium dense, a lens of sandylean clay at 7' (SC)
SAND, fine to medium grained, with a littlegravel, brown, waterbearing, medium dense, alens of sandy lean clay at 10' (SP)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
10
18
4
16
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
16
17
15
MH
1624.7'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/16/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
10'
WATERLEVEL
10:14
10:21'
Rig:
14.5'
---
16'
16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/16/16
2/16/16
8'
5'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
12 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN -#200
4
3
5
5
12
12
TOPSOIL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
COARSEALLUVIUM
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet, frozen to 1.5'(CL-OL)
FAT CLAY, very dark brown, wet, soft (CH)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist to moist, firm to stiff, lenses ofwaterbearing sand at 6.5' and 12.5', cobbles at12' (CL)
SAND, fine to medium grained, with gravel,brown, waterbearing, a lens of sandy lean clay(SP)
END OF BORING
12
18
10
18
18
12
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
30
23
MH
1625.7'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/16/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
11:10
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/16/16 6'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
13 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
5
14
19
21
9
7
TOPSOIL
MIXEDALLUVIUM
COARSEALLUVIUM
TILL
LEAN CLAY, black, frozen (CL-OL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet, firm(CL)
SAND WITH SILT, fine to medium grained,with gravel, brown, wet to 4.5' thenwaterbearing, medium dense to loose (SP-SM)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist, firm (CL)
END OF BORING
16
16
18
10
12
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
24
12
MH
1638.5'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/16/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
5'
WATERLEVEL
11:53
12:01
Rig:
14.5'
---
16'
16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/16/16
2/16/16
6'
4.5'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
14 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN -#200
9
5
7
5
10
9
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
COARSEALLUVIUM
FILL, mixture of ORGANIC LEAN CLAY andSANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen to3'
LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, very mist, firm(CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist, to moist, firm tostiff (CL)
SAND, fine to medium grained, with a littlegravel, brown, waterbearing, loose (SP)
END OF BORING
6
18
18
18
18
10
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
26
33
MH
1673.0'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/16/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
1:12
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/16/16 10'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
15 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
6
10
19
12
11
10
TOPSOIL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen (CL-OL)
LEAN CLAY, brown, very moist, firm (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff to verystiff to stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
10
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
18
17
MH
1695.1'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/16/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
1:46
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/16/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
16 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
13
7
3
7
7
7
7
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown and darkbrown, very moist, frozen to 3.5'
FAT CLAY, dark gray, very moist, soft (CH)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to wet, firm, a lens awaterbearing sand at 12' (CL)
END OF BORING
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
30
22
20
MH
1694.7'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/22/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-17'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
13.5'
18.5'
WATERLEVEL
11:03
11:11
Rig:
12'
17'
13'
18.5'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/22/16
2/22/16
12'
None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
17 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
9
7
13
14
11
11
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
COARSEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with gravel,and LEAN CLAY, dark brown and brown,frozenLEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 2.5' (CL)
LEAN CLAY, light grayish brown mottled,very moist, firm (CL)
SAND WITH CLAY, fine to medium grained,with gravel, brown, wet to 7.2' thenwaterbearing, medium dense, a lens of lean clay(SP-SC)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
10
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
26
12
MH
1714.8'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/16/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
9'
WATERLEVEL
3:06
3:13
Rig:
14.5'
---
16'
16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/16/16
2/16/16
None
7.2'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
18 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN -#200
9
5
10
9
11
12
11
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland LEAN CLAY, dark brown and brown,frozen
LEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 3' (CL)
LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, very moist, firm(CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff, alamination of waterbearing sand (CL)
END OF BORING
18
16
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
22
20
MH
1681.3'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/16/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-17'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
18.5'
WATERLEVEL
3:48
Rig:
17'18.5'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/16/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
19 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
11
9
13
13
9
9
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mixture of CLAYEY SAND, with graveland SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown andbrown, frozenLEAN CLAY, very dark brown, very moist,frozen to 3.5' (CL)
LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, very moist, stiff(CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
18
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
21
16
MH
1646.3'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/16/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
4:36
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/16/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
20 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
5
10
9
9
9
11
TOPSOIL
TILL
LEAN CLAY, black, very moist, frozen to 0.5'(CL-OL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
10
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
20
21
MH
1632.8'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/17/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
9:41
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/17/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
21 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
7
10
12
13
15
14
TOPSOIL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
LEAN CLAY, black, very moist, frozen to 1'(CL-OL)
LEAN CLAY, very moist, firm (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
16
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
19
19
MH
1613.5'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/17/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
10:22
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/17/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
22 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
9
9
8
9
9
11
TOPSOIL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen (CL-OL)
LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, very moist, stiffto firm, frozen to 2' (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
18
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
21
24
MH
1607.4'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/17/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
WATERLEVEL
11:21
Rig:
14.5'16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/17/16 None
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
23 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
5
4
10
16
11
13
TOPSOIL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, frozen to 2'(CL-OL)
LEAN CLAY, brown, wet to very moist, firm(CL)SILTY CLAY, brown mottled, wet, soft(CL-ML)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, moist, very stiff, a lens ofwaterbearing sand (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
12
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
24
21
MH
1585.2'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/17/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
8'
WATERLEVEL
11:55
12:44
Rig:
14.5'
---
16'
16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/17/16
2/17/16
None
5.5'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
24 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
4
3
6
9
9
9
9
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mixture of ORGANIC LEAN CLAY,LEAN CLAY and SANDY LEAN CLAY, darkbrown and black, very moist, frozen to 1'
LEAN CLAY, brown, wet to very moist, soft tofirm, a lens of waterbearing sand at 5' (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,brown mottled, very moist to moist, stiff, a lensof sand at 10.5' (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist to moist, stiff (CL)
END OF BORING
8
16
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
43
34
21
MH
1568.5'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/17/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-17'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
18'
8'
WATERLEVEL
1:22
1:31
Rig:
17'
---
18.5'
18.5'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/17/16
2/17/16
10'
5.5'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
25 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
10
7
14
10
7
7
FILL
FINEALLUVIUM
MIXEDALLUVIUM
TILL
FILL, mixture of ORGANIC LEAN CLAY,LEAN CLAY and SANDY LEAN CLAY,black and dark brown, very moist to moist,frozen to 1'
FAT CLAY, very dark brown, very moist, firm(CH)
FAT CLAY, gray mottled, very moist to moist,stiff (CH)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown mottled, verymoist to moist, stiff, a lens of waterbearing sandat 10.5' (CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a little gravel,gray, very moist, firm, a lens of waterbearingsand at 12.2' (CL)
END OF BORING
17
18
18
18
18
18
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
HSAS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
30
26
MH
1577.4'
LG:
SAMPLEDDEPTH
DR:
3.25" HSACASINGDEPTH
BORINGCOMPLETED: 2/17/16
CAVE-INDEPTH
SURFACE ELEVATION:
0-14½'
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
16'
10'
WATERLEVEL
2:16
3:15
Rig:
14.5'
---
16'
16'
DEPTH:
DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATE
63
DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOGRH
TIME
2/17/16
2/17/16
12'
9.8'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONRECIN.
AET JOB NO:
PROJECT:
26 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DEPTHIN
FEET qu
32-01940
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
06/04
MC SAMPLETYPE
GEOLOGY
AMERICANENGINEERINGTESTING, INC.
Lewis & Clark Segment 4; Nobles County, Minnesota
NWC PLLLDEN
PROJECT: DATE:
NOBLES COUNTY, MN
REPORTED TO: BANNER ASSOCIATES INC.
ATTN: TIMOTHY CONNER
PO BOX 298
BROOKINGS, SD 57006
LABORATORY NO: 32-01940
Date Sampled: ---
Date Received: 02/16, 02/22/16
Boring
#1
6.5' - 9.5'
Boring
#2
7' - 11'
Boring
#3
6' - 10'
Boring
#4
7' - 9'
Boring
#5
7' - 10' Date
Parameter 16-0772 16-0773 16-0774 16-0775 16-0776 MDL Analyzed
Sulfate, ppm 83 130 42 55 31 5 03/08/16
Chloride, ppm 5.6 2.8 <2.0 5.6 8.3 1 03/07/16
pH 8.27 8.72 7.84 8.26 8.04 --- 03/02/16
Resisitivity, ohm-cm 1,560 1,270 1,790 1,860 1,760 --- 03/04/16
Boring
#6
6.5' - 10'
Boring
#7
7' - 11'
Boring
#8
7' - 10'
Boring
#9
8' - 12'
Boring
#10
8' - 12' Date
Parameter 16-0777 16-0778 16-0779 16-0780 16-0781 MDL Analyzed
Sulfate, ppm 53 44 52 73 52 5 03/08/16
Chloride, ppm 5.6 11 8.3 8.3 <2.0 1 03/07/16
pH 8.28 8.34 8.33 8.29 7.62 --- 03/02/16
Resisitivity, ohm-cm 1,650 1,970 1,580 1,810 1,580 --- 03/05/16
Boring
#11
7' - 10'
Boring
#12
7' - 10'
Boring
#13
6' - 10'
Boring
#14
7' - 10'
Boring
#15
6.5' - 10' Date
Parameter 16-0869 16-0782 16-1048 16-0783 16-0784 MDL Analyzed
Sulfate, ppm 61 210 50 68 37 5 03/08/16
Chloride, ppm <2.0 17 <2.0 2.8 <2.0 1 03/07/16
pH 8.12 7.55 7.70 7.73 7.63 --- 03/03/16
Resisitivity, ohm-cm 1,920 1,060 1,510 2,400 1,670 --- 03/07/16
Method
AASHTO T 290-91
AASHTO T 291-91
AASHTO T 289-91
AASHTO T 288-91
LEWIS AND CLARK REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM
MN SEGMENT 4
AASHTO T 288-91
AASHTO T 289-91
AASHTO T 288-91
March 9, 2016
Method
AASHTO T 290-91
AASHTO T 291-91
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Method
AASHTO T 290-91
AASHTO T 291-91
AASHTO T 289-91
CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL · GEOTECHNICAL · MATERIALS · FORENSICS
Boring
#16
6.5' - 10'
Boring
#17
7' - 12'
Boring
#18
7' - 11'
Boring
#19
7' - 11'
Boring
#20
7' - 11' Date
Parameter 16-0785 16-0857 16-0786 16-0787 16-0788 MDL Analyzed
Sulfate, ppm 34 54 36 41 49 5 03/08/16
Chloride, ppm 11 5.6 <2.0 11 <2.0 1 03/07/16
pH 7.60 7.97 7.60 7.87 7.96 --- 03/04/16
Resisitivity, ohm-cm 2,070 1,340 3,490 1,810 1,650 --- 03/06/16
Boring
#21
6.5' - 10'
Boring
#22
6.5' - 10'
Boring
#23
6.5' - 10'
Boring
#24
6.5' - 10'
Boring
#25
7' - 11' Date
Parameter 16-0858 16-0863 16-0859 16-0860 16-0861 MDL Analyzed
Sulfate, ppm 76 54 54 3930 190 5 03/08/16
Chloride, ppm 2.8 2.8 <2.0 28 19 1 03/07/16
pH 7.89 7.91 7.99 7.48 7.90 --- 03/04/16
Resisitivity, ohm-cm 1,420 1,800 1,590 796 1,320 --- 03/06/16
Boring
#26
6.5' - 10' Date
Parameter 16-0862 MDL Analyzed
Sulfate, ppm 500 5 03/08/16
Chloride, ppm 11 1 03/07/16
pH 8.06 --- 03/04/16
Resisitivity, ohm-cm 697 --- 03/06/16
If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please feel free to contact us.
American Engineering Testing, Inc.
Virginia VerMulm Dan T. Hanson
QA Manager Chemistry Manager
Method
AASHTO T 290-91
AASHTO T 291-91
AASHTO T 289-91
AASHTO T 288-91
AASHTO T 288-91
AASHTO T 288-91
Method
AASHTO T 290-91
AASHTO T 291-91
AASHTO T 289-91
Method
AASHTO T 290-91
AASHTO T 291-91
AASHTO T 289-91
ANALYTICAL RESULTS (Cont.)
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed Lewis and Clark RWS Minnesota Segment 4; Nobles County, MN AMERICAN March 9, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 32-01940 TESTING, INC.
Appendix B
Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
Report No. 32-01940
Appendix B – Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC
B.1 REFERENCE This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE1, of which, we are a member firm. B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. B.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, not prepared for the specific site explored, or completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,
elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. 1 ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733: www.asfe.org
Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
Report No. 32-01940
Appendix B – Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC
B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. B.2.6 A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. B.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognizes that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. B.2.10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled “limitations” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. B.2.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.