Soil Boring Report 3-5-24
March 5, 2024 HGTS Project Number: 24-0073
Mr. Matt Olson
Brandl Anderson
221 River Ridge Circle South
Burnsville, MN 55337
Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Residential Development, Chanhassen,
Minnesota
Dear Mr. Olson:
We have completed the geotechnical exploration report for the proposed residential
development in Chanhassen. A brief summary of our results and recommendations is
presented below. Specific details regarding our procedures, results and recommendations
follow in the attached geotechnical exploration report.
Eight soil borings were completed for this project with 6 of the borings encountering about 1
to 4 ½ feet of topsoil overlying clayey glacial till deposits that extended to the termination
depths of the borings. The remaining two borings (SB-5 and SB-6) encountered about 6 to 7
feet of Fill and buried topsoil or swamp deposits that extended to depths ranging from about
10 to 12 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was encountered in one of the soil
borings at about 14 feet below the ground surface .
The vegetation, topsoil and Fill, buried topsoil and swamp deposits are not suitable for
building, roadway or utility support and will need to be removed and replaced, as needed,
with suitable compacted engineered fill. It is our opinion that the underlying native glacial
till soils are suitable for foundation support.
With the building pads prepared as recommended it is our opinion that the foundations for
the proposed homes can be designed for a net allowable soil bearing capacity up to 2,000
pounds per square foot.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Paul Gionfriddo at 612-729-2959.
Sincerely,
Haugo GeoTechnical Services
Paul Gionfriddo, P.E.
Senior Engineer
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
PROJECT:
Proposed Residential Development
NE Quadrant Bluff Creek Drive & Pioneer Trial
Chanhassen, Minnesota
PREPARED FOR:
Brandl Anderson
221 River Ridge Circle South
Burnsville, MN 55337
PREPARED BY:
Haugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407
Haugo GeoTechnical Services Project: 23-0089
March 5, 2024
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Paul Gionfriddo, P.E.
Senior Engineer
License Number: 23093
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Purpose 1
1.3 Site Description 1
1.4 Scope of Services 1
1.5 Documents Provided 2
1.6 Locations and Elevations 2
2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES 2
3.0 RESULTS 3
3.1 Soil Conditions 3
3.2 Groundwater 3
3.3 Laboratory Testing 4
3.4 OSHA Soil Classification 5
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
4.1 Proposed Construction 5
4.2 Discussion 5
4.3 Site Grading Recommendations 6
4.4 Dewatering 8
4.5 Interior Slabs 8
4.6 Below Grade Walls 9
4.7 Retaining Walls 9
4.8 Exterior Slabs 10
4.9 Site Grading and Drainage 10
4.10 Utilities 11
4.11 Bituminous Pavements 11
4.12 Materials and Compaction 12
4.13 Stormwater Ponds/Infiltration Basins 12
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 13
5.1 Excavation 13
5.2 Observations 13
5.3 Backfill and Fills 13
5.4 Testing 13
5.5 Winter Construction 13
6.0 PROCEDURES 14
6.1 Soil Classification 14
6.2 Groundwater Observations 14
7.0 GENERAL 14
7.1 Subsurface Variations 14
7.2 Review of Design 14
7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations 15
7.4 Use of Report 15
7.5 Level of Care 15
APPENDIX
Boring Location Sketch, Figure 1
Soil Boring Logs, SB-1 thru SB-8
Descriptive Terminology
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Brandl Anderson is preparing for construction of a residential development in Chanhassen,
Minnesota and retained Haugo GeoTechnical Services (HGTS) to perform a geotechnical
exploration to evaluate the suitability of site soil conditions to support the proposed
development.
We understand the project will include preparing house pads for 13 townhome buildings
along with the associated streets, underground utilities and stormwater ponds.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to characterize subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions and provide recommendations for foundation design and
construction.
1.3 Site Description
The project site is located in the north east quadrant of the intersections of Bluff Creek Drive
and Pioneer Trail in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The site is known as, or is referred to, as the
MnDOT Property. At the time of this assessment, the project site existed as vacant land and
was mostly grass covered. Based on a brief review of historical aerial photographs available
on Google Earth, it appears that the land was used for agricultural purposes until sometime
around March 2006 when the farmstead was removed. Some grading activities are visible in
the aerial photographs dated May 2006 that appear to be associated with construction of
Pioneer Trail and U S Highway 212. The project site appears to have remained vacant since
about 2008.
The site topography varied but generally rise to the north. The ground surface elevations at
the soil boring locations ranged from about 913 to 947 with most of the elevations near about
931 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
1.4 Scope of Services
Our services were performed in accordance with the Haugo GeoTechnical Services proposal
24-0073 dated January 30, 2024. Our scope of services was performed under the terms of our
General Conditions and limited to the following tasks:
Completing 8 standard penetration test soil borings and extending 5 to nominal depths
of 20 feet and 3 to nominal depths of 14 ½ feet.
Sealing the borings in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
Obtaining GPS coordinates and ground surface elevations at the soil boring locations.
Brandl Anderson and/or their consultants subsequently staked the boring locations
and provided ground surface elevations at the boring locations.
Visually/manually classifying samples recovered from the soil borings.
Performing laboratory tests on selected samples.
2
Preparing soil boring logs describing the materials encountered and the results of
groundwater level measurements.
Preparing an engineering report describing soil and groundwater conditions and
providing recommendations for foundation design and construction.
1.5 Documents Provided
We were provided a Concept Sketch prepared by Brandle Anderson and/or Westwood
Professional Services (Westwood) that was dated January 12, 2024. The Concept Sketch
showed the proposed locations of the townhomes, streets and stormwater pond(s) along with
the proposed soil boring locations.
Additionally, we were provided a plan sheet that showed the property boundaries, boring
locations and ground surface elevations at the boring locations. The plan was not titled or
dated and did not identify the preparer however we understand that it was prepared by
Westwood.
Other than the documents described above, specific architectural, structural or civil plans were
not available at the time of this geotechnical evaluation.
1.6 Locations and Elevations
The soil borings were selected and staked in the field by Brandle Anderson and/or Westwood.
Ground surface elevations at the soil boring locations were also provided by Brandle
Anderson and/or Westwood. The approximate locations of the soil borings are shown on
Figure 1, “Soil Boring Location Sketch,” in the Appendix. The sketch was prepared by HGTS
using the untitled plan sheet provided as a base.
2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES
The eight (8) standard penetration test borings were advanced on February 16th and 19th, 2024
by HGTS with a rotary drilling rig, using continuous flight augers to advance the boreholes.
Representative samples were obtained from the borings, using the split-barrel sampling
procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In the split-barrel
sampling procedure, a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-
pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon
the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration is recorded as the standard penetration resistance
value, or "N" value. The results of the standard penetration tests are indicated on the boring
logs. The samples were sealed in containers and provided to HGTS for testing and soil
classification.
A field log of each boring was prepared by HGTS. The logs contain visual classifications of the
soil materials encountered during drilling, as well as the driller's interpretation of the
subsurface conditions between samples and water observation notes. The final boring logs
included with this report represents an interpretation of the field logs and include
modifications based on visual/manual method observation of the samples.
3
The soil boring logs, general terminology for soil description and identification, and
classification of soils for engineering purposes are also included in the appendix. The soil
boring log identify and describe the materials encountered, the relative density or consistency
based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N-value, “blows per foot”) and groundwater
observations.
The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the samples and auger cuttings. The
depths shown as changes between strata are only approximate. The changes are likely
transitions, variations can occur beyond the location of the boring.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Soil Conditions
The soils were frozen to a depth of about 2 feet below the ground surface at the time of our
exploration.
At the surface, the soil borings encountered about 1 to 4 ½ feet of topsoil consisting of sandy
lean clay that was black in color and contained trace amounts of roots.
Below the topsoil soil borings SB-5 and SB-6 encountered clayey Fill soils that extended to
about 7 feet below the ground surface. The Fill was composed of clayey sand and sandy lean
clay that was brown in color.
Penetration resistance values (N-Values), shown as blows per foot (bpf) on the boring logs,
within the clayey Fill soils ranged from 6 to 10 bpf. These values indicate the Fill had a medium
to rather stiff consistency or loose relative density.
The Fill at borings SB-5 and SB-6 was underlain by buried topsoil or swamp deposits that
extended to depths ranging from about 10 to 12 feet below the ground surface. The buried
topsoil or swamp deposits were composed of organic clay that contained some roots and was
black in color.
Below the topsoil, Fill, buried topsoil and swamp deposits the soil borings encountered native
sandy lean clay glacial till soils that extended to the termination depths of the borings. The
glacial till soils were mostly brown in color.
N-Values within the sandy lean clay glacial till ranged from 5 to 32 bpf with most of the values
ranging from about 6 to 16. These values indicate the clayey glacial till had a rather soft to
hard consistency but were mostly medium to stiff. The higher N-values, generally greater
than 20 bpf, were likely due to gravel cobbles or boulders within the glacial till.
3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in soil boring SB-6 at abut 14 feet below the ground surface
while drilling and sampling. Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining borings
while drilling and sampling or after removing the augers from the boreholes. Water levels are
summarized in Table 1.
4
Table 1. Summary of Groundwater Levels
Boring
Number
Surface
Elevation
(feet)
Approximate
Depth to
Groundwater
(feet)*
Approximate
Groundwater
Elevation (feet)*
SB-1 930.5 NE -
SB-2 931.5 NE -
SB-3 931.8 NE -
SB-4 931.8 NE -
SB-5 947.3 NE -
SB-6 913.0 14 899
SB-7 929.9 NE -
SB-8 928.1 NE -
* = Depths and elevations were rounded to the nearest ½ foot. NE = Not Encountered
Water levels were measured on the dates as noted on the boring logs and the period of water
level observations was relatively short. Given the cohesive nature of the soils encountered, it
is possible that insufficient time was available for groundwater to seep into the borings and
rise to its hydrostatic level. Seasonal and annual fluctuations in the groundwater levels should
be expected. Groundwater monitoring wells or piezometers in conjunction with deeper soil
boring(s) would be required to more accurately determine water levels.
3.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory moisture content and percent passing the #200 sieve (P-200) tests were performed
on selected samples recovered from the soil borings. Moisture content ranged from about 18
½ to 30 percent. These values indicate that the soils were likely above their assumed optimum
moisture content based n the standard Proctor test. The P-200 content is a measure of the silt
and clay sized particle on a sample which can affect infiltration rates. In general, the greater
the P-200 content the less permeable the soil will be. Organic contents ranged from about 3 ½
to 5 percent indicating the soils were slightly organic. Laboratory test results are summarized
in Table 2 and are also shown on the boring logs adjacent to the sample tested.
Table 2. Summary of Laboratory Tests
Boring
Number
Sample
Number
Depth
(feet)
Moisture
Content (%) *
P-200 Content
(%) *
Organic
Content (%)
SB-1 SS-19 5 22 53 ½ -
SB-2 SS-3 5 20 ½ - -
SB-3 SS-25 2 ½ 26 - -
SB-4 SS-33 2 ½ 27 ½ - -
SB-5 SS-48 2 ½ 19 - -
SB-5 SS-50 7 ½ 24 - 5
SB-6 SS-57 5 22 - -
SB-6 SS-58 7 ½ 28 - 3 ½
SB-7 SS-11 5 30 - -
SB-8 SS-42 5 18 ½ 54 -
*Moisture content, P-200 and organic contents were rounded to the nearest ½ percent.
5
3.4 OSHA Soil Classification
The soils encountered in the borings consisted predominantly of sandy lean clay with lesser
amounts of clayey sand meeting the ASTM Classifications of CL and SC, respectively. Soils
meeting the classification of CL will generally be Type B soils under Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines, while soils classified as
SC will generally be Type C soils under OSHA guidelines.
An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field.
Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P,
“Excavations and Trenches.” This document states excavation safety is the responsibility of
the contractor. The project specifications should reference these OSHA requirements.
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Proposed Construction
We understand the project will include preparing lots and house pads for 13 townhome
buildings with each building having 4 or 6 units for a total of 62 units. We were not provided
specific architectural, structural or civil construction plans, but we assume the homes will
include one or two stories above grade and will most likely be slab on grade structures but
could have walkout, lookout or full basements. We anticipate below grade construction
consisting of cast-in-place concrete or masonry block foundation walls supported on concrete
spread footings. The above grade construction will likely consist of wood framing, a pitched
roof and asphalt shingles.
Based on the assumed construction we estimate wall loadings will range from about 2 to 3
kips (2,000 to 3,000 pounds) per lineal foot and column loads, if any will be less than 75 kips
(75,000 pounds).
We anticipate the buildings will be constructed at or near existing site grades so that cuts or
fill for permanent grade changes will generally be on the order of 5 feet or less.
If the proposed loads exceed these values or if the design or location of the proposed
development changes, we should be informed. Additional analyses and revised
recommendations may be necessary.
4.2 Discussion
The vegetation and topsoil are not suitable for foundation, roadway or utility support and will
need to be removed from below the building pads, pavements, utilities and oversize areas and
replaced with suitable compacted engineered fill.
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs available on Google Earth a farmstead
existed on the site that appears to have been located in the vicinity of soil boring SB-4. The
farmstead was removed sometime around March 2006. Although our borings did not
encounter remnants of the former structure(s) there is that potential. We recommend that all
remnants of any former structure(s), if encountered, including; foundations, foundation walls,
6
floor slabs and any underground utilities be removed from within the proposed building,
roadway, utility and oversize areas and be properly disposed of off-site.
The origin of the Fill encountered in borings SB-5 and SB-6 is unknown. Soil boring SB-5 was
completed in an area that appears to have been graded during construction of U S Highway
212 and Pioneer Trail. Soil boring SB-6 was completed in an area that was occupied by a pond
that appears to have been filled as part of construction of Pioneer Trail. We are not aware of
any documentation regarding placement or compaction of the Fill and the concern with
undocumented Fill is the potential for unsuitable materials to be buried within it that can settle
unfavorably due to the structural loads associated with the proposed development. Below the
Fill, soil borings SB-5 and SB-6 encountered organic soils (buried topsoil and/or swamp
deposits) that extend to depths ranging from about 10 to 12 feet below the ground surface.
The organic soils are compressible and can settle unfavorably. For these reasons we do not
recommend supporting the townhomes, utilities and pavements on the Fill and organic soils
and recommend they be removed from within the proposed building, utility, pavement and
oversize areas.
It is our opinion that the underlying native glacial till soils are generally suitable for
foundation, pavement and utility support.
The laboratory moisture contents of the clayey glacial till soils ranged from about 18 ½ to 30
percent, with most of the values greater than 20 percent, indicating they were likely above
their assumed optimum soil moisture content based on the standard Proctor test. Clayey soil
that will be reused ad fill or backfill will likely require some moisture conditioning (drying)
to meet the recommended compaction levels. Summer months are typically more favorable
for drying wet clays.
Groundwater was encountered in one of the borings (SB-6) at about 14 feet below the ground
surface. With the foundations anticipated to bear about 4 to 10 feet below the ground surface
we do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during construction and do not
anticipate that dewatering will be required.
4.3 Site Grading Recommendations
Excavation We recommend that all building remnants, if encountered, footings, floor slabs,
foundation walls and underground utilities be removed from within the building, roadway,
utility and oversize areas.
We recommend that all vegetation, topsoil, Fill, buried topsoil, organic soils (swamp deposits)
and any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils, if encountered, be removed from below the
proposed building, roadway, utility and oversize areas. Table 3 summarizes the anticipated
excavation depths at the soil boring locations. Excavation depths may vary and could be
deeper.
7
Table 3. Anticipated Excavation Depths
Boring
Number
Measured
Surface
Elevation
(feet)
Anticipated
Excavation
Depth (feet)*
Anticipated
Excavation
Elevation (feet)*
Approximate
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet)*
SB-1 930.5 4 ½ (Pond) 926 NE
SB-2 931.5 1 930 ½ NE
SB-3 931.8 1 ½ 930 ½ NE
SB-4 931.8 1 930 NE
SB-5 947.3 12 935 ½ NE
SB-6 913.0 9 ½ 903 ½ 899
SB-7 929.9 1 929 NE
SB-8 928.1 1 ½ (Pond) 926 ½ NE
* = Excavation depths and elevations were rounded to nearest ½ foot.
Oversizing In areas where the excavations extend below the proposed footing elevations, the
excavations require oversizing. We recommend the perimeter of the excavation be extended
a foot outside the proposed footprint for every foot below footing grade (1H:1V oversizing).
The purpose of the oversizing is to provide lateral support of the foundation.
Fill Material Fill required to attain site grades may consist of any debris-free, non-organic
mineral soil. The on-site native clayey glacial till soils appear to be generally suitable for reuse
as structural fill or backfill provided they are free of debris, organic soils or otherwise
unsuitable materials. Excepts we recommend that fill or backfill placed in wet excavations or
within 2 feet of the groundwater table, if encountered, consist of granular soil (sand) with less
than 5 percent passing the number 200 sieve and at least 50 percent retained on the number 40
sieve.
The laboratory moisture contents of the clayey glacial till soils ranged from about 18 ½ to 30
percent indicating they were likely above their estimated optimum soil moisture content
based on the standard Proctor test. Clayey soil that will be reused ad fill or backfill will likely
require significant moisture conditioning (drying) to meet the recommended compaction
levels. Summer months are typically more favorable for drying wet clays.
Topsoil, buried topsoil, organic soils (swamp deposit) and soils that are black in color are not
suitable for reuse as structural fill or backfill.
Backfilling We recommend that backfill placed to attain site grades be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). Granular fill classified
as SP or SP-SM should be placed within 65 percent to 105 percent of its optimum moisture
content as determined by the standard Proctor. Other fill soils should be placed within 3
percentage points above and 1 percentage point below its optimum moisture content as
determined by the standard Proctor. All fill should be placed in thin lifts and be compacted
with a large self-propelled vibratory compactor operating in vibratory mode.
8
In areas where fill depths will exceed 10 feet, if any, we recommend that compaction levels be
increased to a minimum of 100 percent of standard Proctor density. Even with the increased
compaction levels a construction delay may be required to allow for post settlement of the fill
mass.
Fill and backfill placed on slopes, if any, must be “benched” into the underlying suitable soils
to reduce the potential for slip places to develop between the fill and underlying soil. We
recommend “benching” or excavating into the slope at 5 feet vertical intervals to key the fill
into the slope. We recommend each bench be a minimum of 10 feet wide.
Foundations We recommend the perimeter footings bear a minimum of 42 inches below the
exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings may be placed immediately below the
slab provided construction does not occur during below freezing weather conditions.
Foundation elements in unheated areas (i.e. deck or porch footings) should bear at least 5 feet
below exterior grade for frost protection.
We anticipate the foundations and floor slabs will bear on compacted clayey engineered fill
over native clayey glacial till soils. With the building pads prepared as recommended, it is
our opinion the footings can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 2,000
pounds per square foot (psf).
We anticipate total and differential settlement of the foundations will be less than 1 inch and
½ inch, respectively, across a 30-foot span.
4.4 Dewatering
Groundwater was encountered in one of the borings (SB-6) at about 14 feet below the ground
surface. With the utilities anticipated to bear about 7 to 10 feet below the ground surface we
do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during construction and do not
anticipate that dewatering will be required. In clayey soils it might be possible to control
groundwater with sumps and pumps, if encountered.
4.5 Interior Slabs
The anticipated floor subgrade will consist of compacted clayey engineered fill or clayey
native glacial till soils. It is our opinion a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 50 pounds per
square inch per inch of deflection may be used to design the floor.
If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the concrete slab will be used, we
recommend that a vapor retarder or vapor barrier be placed immediately beneath the slab.
Some contractors prefer to bury the vapor barrier or vapor retarder beneath a layer of sand to
reduce curling and shrinkage, but this practice often traps water between the slab and vapor
retarder or barrier. Regardless of where the vapor retarder or vapor barrier is placed, we
recommend consulting the floor covering manufacturer regarding the appropriate type, use
and installation of the vapor retarder or vapor barrier to preserve the warranty.
We recommend following all state and local building codes with regards to a radon mitigation
plan beneath interior slabs.
9
4.6 Below Grade Walls
We recommend general waterproofing of the below grade walls. We recommend either
placing drainage composite against the backs of the exterior walls or backfilling adjacent to
the walls with sand having less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing the #40 sieve
and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve. The sand backfill
should be placed within 2 feet horizontally of the wall. We recommend the balance of the
backfill for the walls consist of sand however the sand may contain up to 20 percent of the
particles by weight passing the #200 sieve.
We recommend installing drain tile behind the below grade walls, adjacent to the wall footing
and below the slab elevation. Preferably the drain tile should consist of perforated pipe
embedded in gravel. A geotextile filter fabric should encase the pipe and gravel. The drain
tile should be routed to a storm sewer, sump pump or other suitable disposal site.
Foundation walls or below grade (basement) walls will have lateral loads from the
surrounding soil transmitted to them. Active earth pressures can be used to design the below
grade walls if the walls are allowed to rotate slightly. If wall rotation cannot be tolerated, then
below grade wall design should be based on at-rest earth pressures. It is our opinion that the
estimated soil parameters presented in Table 4 can be used for below grade wall design. These
estimated soil parameters are based on the assumptions that the walls are drained, there are
no surcharge loads within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall and the backfill
is level.
Table 4. Estimated Soil Parameters
Soil Type
Estimated
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Estimated
Friction
Angle
(degrees)
At-Rest
Pressure
(pcf)
Active
Soil
Pressure
(pcf)
Passive Soil
Pressure
(pcf)
Sand
(SP & SP-SM) 120 32 55 35 390
Other Soils
(CL & SC) 135 28 70 50 375
Resistance to lateral earth pressures will be provided by passive resistance against the wall
footings and by sliding resistance along the bottom of the wall footings. We recommend a
sliding coefficient of 0.35. This value does not include a factor of safety.
4.7 Retaining Walls
We are not aware of any proposed retaining walls for the project. Retaining wall designers
and/or installers should be aware that soil borings for any retaining wall were not completed
as part of this evaluation. Because of that, additional geotechnical explorations (soil borings)
will be required to determine and evaluate the suitability and/or stability of site soil
conditions to support their design(s). Retaining wall designer and/installers will be solely
responsible to conduct additional geotechnical evaluation(s) as needed.
10
In addition, HGTS does not practice in retaining wall design. Retaining wall designers will be
solely responsible for retaining wall design and construction.
4.8 Exterior Slabs
Exterior slabs will likely be underlain by clayey soils which are considered moderately to
highly frost susceptible. If these soils become saturated and freeze, frost heave may occur.
This heave can be a nuisance in front of doors and at other critical grade areas. One way to
help reduce the potential for heaving is to remove the frost-susceptible soils below the slabs
down to bottom of footing grades and replace them with non-frost-susceptible backfill
consisting of sand having less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing the number
200 sieve.
If this approach is used and the excavation bottoms terminate in non-free draining granular
soil, we recommend a drain tile be installed along the bottom outer edges of the excavation to
collect and remove any water that may accumulate within the sand. The bottom of the
excavation should be graded away from the building.
If the banks of the excavations to remove the frost-susceptible soils are not sloped, abrupt
transitions between the frost-susceptible and non-frost-susceptible backfill will exist along
which unfavorable amounts of differential heaving may occur. Such transitions could exist
between exterior slabs and sidewalks, between exterior slabs and pavements and along the
slabs themselves if the excavations are confined to only the building entrances. To address
this issue, we recommend sloping the excavations to remove frost-susceptible soils at a
minimum 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) gradient.
An alternative method of reducing frost heave is to place a minimum of 2 inches of extruded
polystyrene foam insulation beneath the slabs and extending it about 4 feet beyond the slabs.
The insulation will reduce frost penetration into the underlying soil and reduce heave. Six to
twelve inches of granular soil is typically placed over the insulation to protect it during
construction.
Another alternative for reducing frost heave is to support the slabs on frost depth footings. A
void space of at least 4 inches should be provided between the slab and the underlying soil to
allow the soil to heave without affecting the slabs.
4.9 Site Grading and Drainage
We recommend the site be graded to provide positive run-off away from the proposed
buildings. We recommend landscaped areas be sloped a minimum of 6 inches within 10 feet
of the building and slabs be sloped a minimum of 2 inches. In addition, we recommend
downspouts with long splash blocks or extensions.
We recommend the lowest floor grades be constructed to meet City of Chanhassen
requirements with respect to groundwater separation distances. In the absence of City
requirements, we recommend maintaining at least a 4-foot separation between the lowest floor
slab and the observed groundwater levels and at least a 2-foot separation between the lowest
floor slab and the 100-year flood level of nearby wetlands, storm water ponds or other surface
water features.
11
4.10 Utilities
We anticipate that new utilities will be installed as part of this project. We further anticipate
that new utilities will bear at depths ranging from about 7 to 10 feet below the ground surface.
At these depths, we anticipate that the pipes will bear on compacted engineered fill or native
glacial till soils which in our opinion are generally suitable of pipe support.
We recommend removing all vegetation, topsoil, Fill and any soft or otherwise unsuitable
soils, if encountered, beneath utilities prior to placement. We recommend bedding material be
thoroughly compacted around the pipes. We recommend trench backfill above the pipes be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent beneath slabs and pavements, the exception being
within 3 feet of the proposed pavement subgrade, where 100 percent of standard Proctor
density is required. In landscaped areas, we recommend a minimum compaction of 90
percent.
Groundwater was encountered in one soil boring (SB-6) at about 14 feet below the ground
surface and we do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during utility
construction. In clayey soils it might be possible to control groundwater with sumps and
pumps, if encountered.
4.11 Bituminous Pavements
General The City of Chanhassen may have standard plates that dictate pavement design and
if so, we recommend that the pavements be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City of Chanhassen standard plates. The following paragraphs provide general pavement
recommendations in the absence of city standard plates.
Traffic We were not provided any information regarding traffic volumes, such as Average
Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) or vehicle distribution. We anticipate the streets will be used
predominantly by automobiles, light trucks, school busses, garbage trucks and delivery vans
(FEDEX, UPS etc.). Based on the anticipated number of homes in the development and
assumed traffic types we estimate the roadways will be subjected to Equivalent Single Axle
Loads (ESAL’s) less than 50,000 over a 20-year design life. This does not account for any future
growth.
Subgrade Preparation We recommend removing all vegetation, topsoil and any soft or
otherwise unsuitable materials from beneath the pavement subgrade. Prior to placing the
aggregate base, we recommend compacting and/or test rolling the subgrade soils to identify
soft, weak, loose, or unstable areas that may require additional subcuts.
Backfill to attain pavement subgrade elevations can consist of any mineral soil provided it is
free of organic material or other deleterious materials. We recommend placing and
compacting fill and/or backfill as described in Section 4.3 except in paved areas where the
upper 3 feet of fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its
standard Proctor maximum dry density.
12
R-Value R-Value testing was beyond the scope of this project. The soils encountered in the
soil borings consisted predominantly of sandy lean clay corresponding to the ASTM
Classification of CL. It is our opinion an assumed R-Value of 10 can be used for pavement
design.
Pavement Section Based on an estimated R-value of 10 and a maximum of 50,000 ESAL’s we
recommend pavement section consisting of a minimum of 3 ½ inches of bituminous (1 ½
inches of wear course and 2 inches of base course) underlain by a minimum of 8 inches of
aggregate base.
If a heavy-duty section is required, we recommend pavement section consisting of a minimum
of 4 inches of bituminous (2 inches of wear course and 2 inches of base course) underlain by a
minimum of 8 inches of aggregate base.
4.12 Materials and Compaction
We recommend specifying aggregate base meeting MN/DOT Class 5 aggregate base. We
recommend the aggregate base be compacted to 100 percent of its maximum standard Proctor.
We recommend that the bituminous wear and base courses meet the requirements of
MN/DOT specification 2360. We recommend the bituminous pavements be compacted to at
least 92 percent of the maximum theoretical density.
We recommend specifying concrete that has a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,500
psi, and a modulus of rupture of at least 600 psi. We recommend Type I cement meeting the
requirements of ASTM C150. We recommend specifying 5 to 7 percent entrained air for
exposed concrete to provide resistance to freeze-thaw deterioration. We also recommend
using a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less for concrete exposed to deicers.
4.13 Stormwater Ponds/Infiltration Basins
Based on the provided Concept Sketch, the project will include constructing storm water
ponds/infiltration basins on the project site. We were not provided any information regarding
site grades and or pond bottom elevations. Soil borings SB-1 and SB-8 were completed within
or near the proposed pond locations and encountered sandy lean clay meeting the ASTM
classification CL. It is our opinion that the infiltration rates presented in Table 5, which were
obtained from “Minnesota Storm Water Manual”, can be used for stormwater pond design.
Table 5. Infiltration Rates
In-situ soils Soil Description Hydrologic Soil
Group
Design Infiltration
Rate (in/hr.)
CL Sandy Lean Clay D 0.06
It should be noted that soil infiltration rates can vary due to; soil moisture content, soil
compaction, the placement or introduction of fine-grained soils, topsoil or biofiltration media
and changes or variations in local groundwater levels. These variations may result in
additional construction costs and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this
purpose.
13
Field tests (double ring infiltrometer) can be performed within the proposed infiltration basin
area to verify infiltration rates of the in-situ soils. We would be pleased to provide these
services if required or requested.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Excavation
The soils encountered in the borings consisted predominantly of sandy lean clay with lesser
amounts of clayey sand meeting the ASTM Classifications of CL and SC, respectively. Soils
meeting the classification of CL will generally be Type B soils under Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines, while soils classified as
SC will generally be Type C soils under OSHA guidelines.
Temporary excavations in Type B soils should be constructed at a minimum of 1 foot
horizontal to every 1 foot vertical within excavations. Temporary excavations in Type C soils
should be constructed at a minimum of 1 ½ foot horizontal to every 1 foot vertical within
excavations. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. If site
constraints do not allow the construction of slopes with these dimensions, then temporary
shoring may be required.
5.2 Observations
A geotechnical engineer or a qualified engineering technician should observe the excavation
subgrade to evaluate if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered in the borings and
adequate to support the proposed construction.
5.3 Backfill and Fills
We recommend moisture conditioning all soils that will be used as fill or backfill in accordance
with Section 4.3 above. We recommend that fill and backfill be placed in lifts not exceeding 4
to 12 inches, depending on the size of the compactor and materials used.
5.4 Testing
We recommend density tests of backfill and fills placed for the proposed house foundations.
Samples of the proposed materials should be submitted to our laboratory prior to placement
for evaluation of their suitability and to determine their optimum moisture content and
maximum dry density (Standard Proctor).
5.5 Winter Construction
If site grading and construction is anticipated to proceed during cold weather, all snow and
ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading and placement of
fill. No fill should be placed on frozen soil and no frozen soil should be used as fill or backfill.
14
Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM and/or
ACI. Concrete should not be placed on frozen soil. Concrete should be protected from
freezing until the necessary strength is obtained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate
below the footings.
6.0 PROCEDURES
6.1 Soil Classification
The drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the borings in
general accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-
Manual Procedure).” Soil terminology notes are included in the Appendix. The samples were
returned to our laboratory for review of the field classification by a soils engineer. Samples
will be retained for a period of 30 days.
6.2 Groundwater Observations
Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottom of the boring, the hole was checked
for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after removing the augers from the borehole
the hole was once again checked and the depth to water and cave-in depths were noted.
7.0 GENERAL
7.1 Subsurface Variations
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from
a limited number of soil borings. Variations can occur away from the boring, the nature of
which may not become apparent until additional exploration work is completed, or
construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be
made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of
any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs and it is suggested
that a contingency be provided for this purpose.
It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program during
construction to evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes have affected
the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly
interpreted and implemented in the designs, specifications and construction methods. This
will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings
and will provide continuity of professional responsibility.
7.2 Review of Design
This report is based on the design of the proposed structures as related to us for preparation
of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the
design and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes have
affected the validity of the recommendations and whether our recommendations have been
correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications.
15
7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations
We made water level measurements in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated
on the boring log. The data was interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation
was relatively short and fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall,
flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident
at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction
planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations.
7.4 Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of Brandl Anderson and their design team to use to design
the proposed structures and prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written
approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding
this report. The data, analysis and recommendations may not be appropriate for other
structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or
purposes contact us.
7.5 Level of Care
Haugo GeoTechnical Services has used the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstance by members of the profession currently practicing in this locality. No
warranty expressed or implied is made.
APPENDIX
Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC
2825 Cedar Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Figure #: 1
Drawn By: AH
Date: 3-5-24
Scale: None
Project #: 24-0073
SB-1
Soil Boring Location Sketch
Residential Development
Chanhassen, MN
SB-2
Legend
Approximate Soil Boring Location
SB-8
SB-7
SB-6
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed.
This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
SB-5
SB-4
SB-3
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Roots, black, wet (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, wet, medium to stiff
(Glacial Till)P-200= 53.5%
Bottom of borehole at 14.5 feet.
AU17
SS18
SS19
SS20
SS21
SS22
SS23
2-3-3(6)
2-3-5(8)
2-3-4(7)
2-3-5(8)
3-5-7(12)
3-6-9(15)
22
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 930.5 ft
LOGGED BY NC/MD
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS 750-2 GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/16/24 COMPLETED 2/16/24
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
Moisture Content(%) FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
PAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-1
CLIENT Brandl Anderson
PROJECT NUMBER 24-0073
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Residential Development
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 3/5/24 15:39 - C:\USERS\ALICE HAUGO\HGTS DROPBOX\LAB HAUGO\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\24-0073 BORING LOG DRAFT.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN, 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Roots, brown, wet (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather stiff
(Glacial Till)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey, wet, medium to stiff
(Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet.
AU1
SS2
SS3
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
SS8
2-4-6(10)
2-5-6(11)
2-5-6(11)
2-4-5(9)
3-7-9(16)
2-4-5(9)
2-4-4(8)
20.5
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 931.5 ft
LOGGED BY NC/MD
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS 750-2 GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/16/24 COMPLETED 2/16/24
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
Moisture Content(%) FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
PAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-2
CLIENT Brandl Anderson
PROJECT NUMBER 24-0073
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Residential Development
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 3/5/24 15:39 - C:\USERS\ALICE HAUGO\HGTS DROPBOX\LAB HAUGO\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\24-0073 BORING LOG DRAFT.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN, 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Roots, black, wet (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, wet, medium to rather
stiff (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet.
AU24
SS25
SS26
SS27
SS28
SS29
SS30
SS31
2-2-4(6)
2-3-6(9)
3-5-6(11)
2-3-6(9)
2-5-6(11)
2-5-7(12)
2-5-5(10)
26
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 931.8 ft
LOGGED BY NC/MD
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS 750-2 GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
Moisture Content(%) FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
PAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-3
CLIENT Brandl Anderson
PROJECT NUMBER 24-0073
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Residential Development
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 3/5/24 15:39 - C:\USERS\ALICE HAUGO\HGTS DROPBOX\LAB HAUGO\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\24-0073 BORING LOG DRAFT.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN, 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Roots, black, wet (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, wet, medium to very
stiff (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet.
AU32
SS33
SS34
SS35
SS36
SS37
SS38
SS39
1-3-5(8)
2-3-5(8)
14-10-16(26)
4-8-12(20)
3-7-8(15)
2-5-7(12)
2-5-8(13)
27.5
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 931.8 ft
LOGGED BY NC/MD
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS 750-2 GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
Moisture Content(%) FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
PAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-4
CLIENT Brandl Anderson
PROJECT NUMBER 24-0073
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Residential Development
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 3/5/24 15:39 - C:\USERS\ALICE HAUGO\HGTS DROPBOX\LAB HAUGO\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\24-0073 BORING LOG DRAFT.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN, 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Roots, black, wet (Topsoil)
Clayey Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist
(Fill)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey and brown, wet (Fill)
Organic Clay, trace Roots, black, wet (Buried Topsoil)
Organic Content= 5%
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather stiff
(Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet.
AU47
SS48
SS49
SS50
SS51
SS52
SS53
SS54
2-5-5(10)
2-4-6(10)
3-4-5(9)
4-5-6(11)
3-6-5(11)
2-4-6(10)
2-4-5(9)
19
24
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 947.3 ft
LOGGED BY NC/MD
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS 750-2 GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
Moisture Content(%) FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
PAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-5
CLIENT Brandl Anderson
PROJECT NUMBER 24-0073
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Residential Development
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 3/5/24 15:39 - C:\USERS\ALICE HAUGO\HGTS DROPBOX\LAB HAUGO\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\24-0073 BORING LOG DRAFT.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN, 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Roots, black, frozen
(Topsoil)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, wet (Fill)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey and brown, wet (Fill)
(OL) Organic Clay, trace Roots, black, wet, soft (Swamp Deposit)
Organic Content= 3.5%
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather soft
(Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet.
AU55
SS56
SS57
SS58
SS59
SS60
SS61
2-4-6(10)
2-2-4(6)
1-1-1(2)
0-2-3(5)
1-2-3(5)
2-2-3(5)
22
28
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 913 ft
LOGGED BY NC/MD
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS 750-2 GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24
AT TIME OF DRILLING 14.00 ft / Elev 899.00 ft
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
Moisture Content(%) FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
PAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-6
CLIENT Brandl Anderson
PROJECT NUMBER 24-0073
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Residential Development
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 3/5/24 15:39 - C:\USERS\ALICE HAUGO\HGTS DROPBOX\LAB HAUGO\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\24-0073 BORING LOG DRAFT.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN, 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Roots, brown, wet (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather stiff to very
stiff (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet.
AU9
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
SS14
SS15
SS16
2-4-6(10)
2-4-6(10)
3-4-5(9)
4-5-6(11)
4-7-10(17)
11-7-11(18)
21-10-12(22)
30
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 929.9 ft
LOGGED BY NC/MD
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS 750-2 GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/16/24 COMPLETED 2/16/24
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
Moisture Content(%) FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
PAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-7
CLIENT Brandl Anderson
PROJECT NUMBER 24-0073
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Residential Development
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 3/5/24 15:39 - C:\USERS\ALICE HAUGO\HGTS DROPBOX\LAB HAUGO\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\24-0073 BORING LOG DRAFT.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN, 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Roots, brown, wet (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, wet, medium to hard
(Glacial Till)
P-200= 54%
Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet.
AU40
SS41
SS42
SS43
SS44
SS45
SS46
0-3-4(7)
2-6-7(13)
6-14-18(32)
4-10-14(24)
4-8-11(19)
14-5-10(15)
18.5
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 928.1 ft
LOGGED BY NC/MD
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS 750-2 GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
Moisture Content(%) FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
PAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-8
CLIENT Brandl Anderson
PROJECT NUMBER 24-0073
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Residential Development
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 3/5/24 15:39 - C:\USERS\ALICE HAUGO\HGTS DROPBOX\LAB HAUGO\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\24-0073 BORING LOG DRAFT.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN, 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238