The URL can be used to link to this page

Geo Project 02-03-16IMPORTANT Notice Regarding This PDF File Transmission If you received this transmission in error, please notify Giles Engineering Associates, Inc., by telephone (1-800-782-0610) or by return e-mail. The information contained in this PDF file is intended solely for the private and confidential use of the designated recipient. If you are not a designated or authorized recipient, further review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. To the Authorized Recipient: This PDF file represents the latest (DRAFT) of our report. It is sent to you in advance for review and discussion purposes only. The final report may be subject to further revision. While we have taken precautions to assure a complete and secure transmission, this PDF file is not to be relied upon or used as a copy or substitute for the final report. The final report will be hand - delivered to you, or issued by either regular post or common carrier. An authorized signature and/or corporate seal will authenticate the final report. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. MCI DRAFT Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen FSU 445-463 West 79th Street Chanhassen, Minnesota Prepared for: Chick-fil-A, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia February 3, 2016 Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota Print Name: Signature: Date: License # W GILES G.Nt�nh F-H:Ni`> i l.SS{zL.IATrzs: :.w, •.Marla, GA • BaI(imore. MD • Da'.'.as.. TX. • Los Angeles. GA Manassas, VA M vvx ,ukoo, wi Chick-fil-A, Inc. 5200 Buffington Road Atlanta, GA 30349 r ILE ENGINEERING lp/SSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS Attention: Ms. Candy Nooks Restaurant Development February 3, 2016 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen FSU 445-463 West 79th Street Chanhassen, Minnesota Project No. 1G-1601002 (DRAFT) Dear Ms. Nooks: As requested, Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. conducted a Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis for the proposed project. The accompanying report describes the services that were conducted, and it provides geotechnical -related findings, conclusions, and recommendations that were derived from those services. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical consulting services for the proposed project. Please contact the undersigned if there are questions concerning the report, or if we may be of further service. Very truly yours, GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Benjamin M. Stark, EIT Staff Professional Anthony C. Giles, P.E. Vice President Distribution: Chick-fil-A, Inc. Attn: Ms. Candy Nooks (1 via email: candy.nooks( hick-fil-a.com) Attn: Mr. Jason Hill (1 via email: jason.�-fil-a.com) Chick-fil-A, Inc. Real Estate Legal Department Attn: Ms. Brittany Berube (1 via USPS) N8 VV22350 Johnson Drve. Suite Al � Waokasha VVI 53186 262/544-0118 - Fax 2621549-5566 .. E-MaL m Waukw5plesehgracro TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 CHANHASSEN FSU 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES PROJECT NO. 1G-1601002 Section No. Description EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................ 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................... 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................... 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................... 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY SERVIC 6.0 MATERIAL CONDITIONS ........................... 6.1 Surface Materials ............................. 6.2 Fill Material ...................................... 6.3 Native Soil ........... ........I. :........ 7.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS.'. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 8.1 Site Development Considerations.... 8.2 Seismic Design Considerations........ 8.3 Grease Trap Considerations ......... 8.4 Building Foundation Recommendati( 8.5 Floor Slab Recommendations ........ 8.6 New Pavement Recommendations.'! 8.7 General Site Preparation Recommer 8.8 Generalized Construction Considera Page No. ...........................................:.:......................i .......:'. ................. 1 .................. ..............................:............ 1 ....... ........................ ................ 2 ES .... .................. 3 ...........s €.... .......`..................................... 3 ..............::................................................. 3 ........_........................................... 4 ............................................................. 4 4 9.0 BASIS OF REPORT..... i .......................................... ICES A— Figures (1) and Test Boring Logs (7) B - Field Procedures ............................................... 7 ............................................... 8 ..............................................11 ..............................................13 )rvices...................................14 Appendix C ,I Laboratory Testing and Classification Appendix D -'General Information and Important Information about Your Geotechnical Report 15 Red — This site has been given a "Red" designation, from a geotechnical perspective, because subgrade improvement will likely be necessary in floor slab and pavement areas due to soil with lower strengths and/or higher moisture contents, and possibly also due to perched groundwater. Also, over -excavation might be needed for foundations. It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer provide specific recommendations regarding subgrade improvement and over -excavation during construction, based on observation and testing. WGILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 CHANHASSEN FSU 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES PROJECT NO. 1G-1601002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary provides limited geotechnical project. Since this Executive Summary is exceedingly ab context with the following report ('Report'). Red — This site has been given a "Red" designatii because subgrade improvement will likely be neces: due to soil with lower strengths and/or higher moistt perched groundwater. Also, over -excavation migl recommended that a geotechnical engineer provide subgrade improvement and over-excavati and testing. Subsurface Conditions • Seven geotechnical test borings wi pavement (with an aggregate base Materials classified as fill were bei were prese gravel, exc fill include( existing fill, It is estim silty sand and gravel t -concrete rubble. M s oresent to the test I had rela at the via locations, when the test shallow, perched groun variable in terms of area ly high during ng the proposed read in complete from a geotechnical perspective, in floor slab and pavement areas :ontents, and possibly also due to ie needed for foundations. It is �cific recommendations regarding nstruction, based on observation ducted at the site. Topsoil or Asphalt -concrete ),was at the ground surface at the test borings. he surface materials at most test borings, and The fill materials generally consisted of sandy Was at one test boring. At two test borings, the ive soil was below the surface materials and ring termination depths. In general, native soil with variable amounts of silt, sand, and gravel. re contents. le was about 10 to 15 feet below -ground at the test boring s were conducted; however, the site is likely subject to conditions. Perched groundwater is expected to be pth, and could be significant. • A spread -footing foundation is recommended for the proposed building. It is recommended that footings bear directly on suitable native soil that has been evaluated and approved by a geotechnical) engineer. Existing fill is unsuitable for direct or indirect support of foundations. Foundations are recommended to be designed using a 2,000 pound per square foot (psf) maximum, net, allowable soil bearing capacity. Suitable bearing native soils were encountered at, or near, the assumed foundation -bearing elevations (given in the Report) at the test boring locations, but subsurface conditions could vary between test borings. Some over -excavation will likely be necessary for foundation construction, especially due to low -strength native soil, and also due to existing fill associated with the current and former site developments. WGILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued) Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Floor Slab • A ground -bearing floor slab is suitable for the proposed building, assuming that the floor - slab subgrade will be prepared in accordance with the Report. • The floor slab is recommended to be at least 4 inches thick. A 10 -mil vapor retarder and a minimum 4 -inch -thick aggregate base course are recommended to be below the floor slab. Parking Lot • Considering that the site is subject to shallow, perched groundwater, a sub -base consisting of free -draining, open -graded aggregate is recommended to be below the dense -graded aggregate base course; the sub -base;, is intended for drainage. The sub- base is recommended to be at least 4 inches thick, but the actual thickness should be determined based on the subgrade conditions during construction. Site Development Considerations • Based on the soil that was encountered at the test borings, and considering that the site is likely subject to perched groundwater, it is expected that unstable soil will be encountered during subgrade preparation. On a preliminary basis, unsuitable soil could be replaced with engineered fill;or it could be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted. Specific recommendations for subgrade improvement should be provided by a geotechnical engineer during construction'. • Because the site is likely subject to shallow, perched groundwater, buried tanks for grease storage (grease traps) might need to be ballasted or anchored to resist buoyant uplift. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 CHANHASSEN FSU 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES PROJECT NO. 1G-1601002 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES This report provides the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration, an( Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. ("Giles") conducted for the proposed deve Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysisincluded a Geotechnics Exploration Program, Geotechnical Laboratory Services, and Geotechnical Engine) The scope of each service area was narrow and limited, as directed by our client our understanding and assumptions about the proposed project. Service are described later. Geotechnical -related recommendations aro the foundation and floor slab for the 'p recommendations are also provided recommendations are given, but are only preparation will depend on factors that we factors include, but are not Limited to, the conditions that are exposed during constru Giles is conducting a Identification Survey r€ separate reports (Giles 2.0 The subject site is alc west of Great Plains B is 445-463 West 79th portion of the site was fair condition. The e� housed several retail I of the existing buildi contained a few trees'. between EI. 99.2 and subject site ON Analysis that :)pment. The Subsurface ea on briefly I in this report for design and construction of Chick-fil-A building. Geotechnical -related parking -lot pavement. Site preparation v because the means and methods of site vn when this report was prepared. Those )efore and during construction, subsurface final details of the proposed development. Assessment (ESA) and an Asbestos is of those services will be provided in ng the south side of West 79th Street, north of Arboretum Boulevard and )ulevard, in Chanhassen, Minnesota. It is understood that the site address treet. When the test borings (described later) were performed, the western occupied by an asphalt -concrete parking lot that appeared to be in poor to istern portion of the site contained a single -story masonry structure that usinesses. The building was reported to not have a basement. Southeast ig, along Arboretum Boulevard, the site was covered with grass and The site was relatively flat. Ground elevations at the test borings ranged EI. 101.02; those elevations are referenced to Giles' adopted benchmark shown on the Test Boring Location Plan, Figure 1, in Appendix A. Based on a cursory review of aerial photographs, the site was previously developed and included a former structure. WGILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 2 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Chick-fil-A restaurant will be a single -story, stud -frame structure truss roof system. It will not have a basement or other below -grade walls and interior columns will support the building. Maximum found columns are assumed to be 3,000 pounds per lineal foot (plf) and 40 The floor is planned to be a ground -bearing concrete slab, with an as of 100 pounds per square foot (pso. Chick-fil-A's parking lot will include parking stalls, drive consist of passenger vehicles, except for occasional removal. For the Midwest region, Chick-fil-A's minimur 4 -inch -thick layer of hot -mix asphalt (HMA) over an'8-ir fil-A's minimum concrete pavement section consists of concrete (PCC). However, for the drive-thru lane and section consists of a 6 -inch -thick PCC slab. The proposed floor elevation and pave complete this report it was necessary for that the floor of the Chick-fil-A building w shown on the Test Boring Location Plan. between EI. 99 and EI. 101, and will gen assumed floor and p foot of grade change UU1 To evaluate subsurface using a mechanical drill fil-A's or000sed buildinc 4 were 16 feet 14 were offset and 7 were 6 fe were positioned ite'locations of with a brick exterior and a spaces. Exterior bearing atio:n loads from walls and ;000 pounds, respectively. sumed maximum live load 5c due to' deli` pavement secti aggregate base -thick layer of I r stalls, the mii nes. Traffic will veries and trash on consists of a concrete grades were not provided to Giles; therefore, to to assume those elevations. This report assumes at El. 101 referenced to (Giles' adopted benchmark report also assumes that pavement grades will be 'ollow the site's current topography. Based on the Wonsidering the current topography, less than one r site develorjment. PROGRAM s, seven geotechnical test borings were conducted at the site fuse the existing building covered a significant portion of Chick - locations for the test borings were restricted. Test Boring Nos. id were in Chick-fil-A's proposed building area, but Test Boring the proposed footprint due to the existing building. Test Boring and were in Chick-fil-A's proposed parking lot area. Test boring relative to the existing building, and by estimating right angles. borings are shown on the Test Boring Location Plan. Samples were collected from each test boring, at certain depths, using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), conducted using the drill rig. A brief description of the SPT is given in Appendix B, along with descriptionsof other field procedures. Immediately after sampling, select portions of the SPT samples were placed in containers that were labeled at the site for identification. Retained samples were transported to Giles' geotechnical laboratory. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 3 Ground elevations at the test borings were estimated based on Giles' adopted benchmark shown on the Test Boring Location Plan, and are noted on the Test Boring Logs (in Appendix A), which are records of the test borings. Test boring elevations are considered accurate within approximately one foot The boreholes were backfilled; however, settlement and/or expansion of backfill materials will likely occur, possibly creating a hazard that can lead to a threat of injury to people and animals. Borehole areas should, therefore, be carefully and routinely monitored, by the property owner; settlement and/or expansion of backfill materials should be repaired immediately. Giles will not monitor or repair boreholes. 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Retained samples were classified using the descriptive terms and particle -size criteria shown on the General Notes in Appendix D, and by using the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488-75) as a general guide. Classifications are shown on the Test Boring Logs along with horizontal lines that show estimated depths of material change. Field -related information pertaining to the test borings is also on the Test Boring Logs. For simplicity and abbreviation, terms and symbols are used on the Test Boring, Logs the terms and,, symbols are defined on the General Notes. Unconfined compression, calibrated penetrometer resistance, and moisture content tests were performed on select cohesive soil samples to evaluate their general engineering properties. The test results are on the TestBoring,Logs. Laboratory procedures are briefly described in Appendix C. Because the tests were conducted on SPT samples, results of the strength -related tests (unconfined compression and penetration resistance) are considered to be approximations and were, therefore, used as supplemental information.I The retained samples were screened with a Photoionization Detector (PID) to check for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) vapors,, such as vapors associated with gasoline. Results of the PID are on TERIAL Because material sampling at the test borings was discontinuous, it was necessary for Giles to estimate conditions between sample intervals. Estimated conditions at the test borings are briefly discussed in this section and are described in more detail on the Test Boring Logs. Giles' conclusions and recommendations are based on the estimated conditions. 6.1 Surface Materials About 6 and 9 inches of topsoil was at the ground surface at Test Boring Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, conducted in Chick-fil-A's proposed building area. Asphalt -concrete pavement that GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 4 was about 4 to 6 inches thick was at the ground surface at Test Boring Nos. 3 through 7. About 6 to 8 inches of aggregate base -course materials were beneath the asphalt pavement. 6.2 Fill Material Materials classified as fill were beneath the surface materials at Test Boring Nos. 3 through 7, and were present to about 2 feet below -grade. The fill materials generally consisted of sandy gravel, except that silty sand and gravel was encountered at Test Boring No. 7. The fill at Test Boring Nos. 5 and 6 included asphalt -concrete rubble. 6.3 Native Soil Native soil was below the surface materials and existing fill, and was present to the test boring termination depths. In general, native soil consisted of clay with variable amounts of silt, sand, and gravel. Based on visual -manual classification, and considering the results of strength -related laboratory testing, the native soils exhibited a medium stiff to very stiff comparative consistency. Also, the native soils had relatively high moisture contents. 7.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIO It is estimated that the water table was about locations, when the test borings were conducte perched groundwater conditions. Perched groi area and depth, and could be significant. The groundwater conditions discussed above conditions of the soil samples recovered from the might differ and the water table might be ,higher groundwater conditions at the site is and monitored; however, considering Section 3.0, observation wells are no 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOI Red — This sit because subgi due to soil witl perched grout recommended subgrade imps and testing. that only 5 feet below -ground at the test boring ver, the site is likely subject to shallow, r is'exoected to be variable in terms of were '_estimated based on the colors and moisture test borings. The actual groundwater conditions than estimated. If a precise determination of the roundwater observation wells could be installed ninor grade changes are expected, as discussed to be necessary. DATIONS has been given a "Red" designation, from a geotechnical perspective, le improvement will likely be necessary in floor slab and pavement areas )wer strengths and/or higher moisture contents, and possibly also due to ✓eater. Also, over -excavation might be needed for foundations. It is iat a'geotechnical engineer provide specific recommendations regarding rement and over -excavation during construction, based on observation GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 5 8.1 Site Development Considerations In general, the retained soil samples are sensitive to moisture and relatively low strengths and high moisture contents. Furthermore, shallow, perched groundwater conditions. Due to the textural and si retained soil samples, and the shallow groundwater, subgrade it excavation, mechanical stabilization, etc.) will likely be necessary. F should be defined during construction with the assistance of a ge specific improvement methods should be determined durina const basis, depending on the site conditions and results of pr subgrade improvement is needed, it might be necessary/1 determine the most cost-effective and appropriate means of preparation recommendations are given later. 8.2 Seismic Desian Considerations A soil Site Class C is recommended for seismic design. By c average properties of subsurface materials to 100 feet below test borings were not requested or authorized, it was necess; the test borings, presumed area geology, and the Internationa might be possible, but would require performing at least one W. disturbance, and some had the site is likely subject to renath characteristics of the ing ament (such as over - requiring improvement finical engineer. Also, in on an area -by -area scribed later). Where al to construct "test strips" to ping a suitable subgrade. Site on, Site Class is based on the round surface. Since 100 -foot ry to estimate Site Class based on Building Code. A higher Site Class 00 -foot test boring at the site. It is estimated that the water table was about 10 to 15 feet below -grade at the test boring locations, when the test borings were conducted. However,', the site is likely subject to shallow, perched groundwater. Buried tanks for grease storage (grease traps) might, therefore, need to be ballasted or anchored to resist buoyant uplift. 8.4 Building Foundation Recommendations Based on the assumed floor elevation (EI. 101 referenced to Giles' adopted benchmark), a spread -footing foundation is recommended for the proposed building. It is recommended that footings bear directly on suitable native soil that has been evaluated and approved by a geotechnicalengineer. Existing fill is unsuitable for direct or indirect support of foundations. Foundations are recommended to be designed using a 2,000 psf maximum, net, allowable soil bearing capacity. For geotechnical considerations, strip footings are recommended to be at least 16 inches wide and isolated footings are recommended to be at least 24 inches wide, regardless of the calculated foundation -bearing stress. Foundation walls could be constructed of cast -in- place concrete or concrete masonry units. It is recommended and assumed that a structural engineer will provide specific foundation details including footing dimensions, reinforcing, and other details. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 6 It is understood that a minimum 42 -inch foundation depth is required for frost protection. Footings for perimeter walls are, therefore, recommended to be at least 42 inches below the finished ground -grade adjacent to the building, or to a depth required by the local building code. Interior footings could be directly below the floor slab, since the building will be heated and it is assumed that support soil will not freeze. The foundation analysis was conducted assuming the planned bearing grade of perimeter and interior foundations will be approximately 4 feet and 1 %feet below the floor surface, respectively. Using the assumed floor elevation (EI. 101), and the above, it is assumed that perimeter and interior f respectively, referenced to Giles' adopted benchmar Suitable bearing native soils were encountered at, elevations at the test boring locations, but subsurface Some over -excavation will likely be necessary for fou strength native soil, and also due to existing fill a: developments. Where feasible, foundation excavations -',are reco backhoe bucket to develop a relatively undisturbe disturb foundation -bearing soil more than a smooth excavation base more susceptible to saturation and Contractors must protect foundation support soil an reinforcing, etc.). In addition, engineered fill is re excavations, benched as needed, along foundatioi are capable of supporting lateral pressures from ba Earth -formed footing construction techniques will I that was encountered at the testborings. -- Aings' will bear at El. 97 shown on the Test Boring r near, the assumed foun, xnditions could vary betwee ucuon, especia the current ai depths given and EI. 99.5, _ocation Plan. cation -bearing n test borings. Ily>'due to low - id former site emended to be made with a smooth -edge bearing grade. A toothed bucket will likely rdge bucket, thereby making materials at the nstability„ especially during adverse weather. foundation construction materials (concrete, ommended to be placed and compacted in walls immediately after the foundation walls dill, compaction, and compaction equipment. aly be feasible considering the cohesive soil Based on the recommended 2,000 psf bearing capacity, the unconfined compressive strength of native cohesive (clayey) foundation support -soil is recommended to be at least 1.0 ton per square foot (tsf). It is further recommended that the strength characteristics of soil within the entire foundation influence zone (determined by a geotechnical engineer during construction) meet or exceed the recommended value, unless Giles approves lesser values. As described above, suitable -bearing native soil was at, or near, the assumed foundation -bearing elevation at the building -area test borings; but some over -excavation of low -strength native soil and existing fill should be expected. A geotechnical engineer must evaluate (and approve) foundation support -soil during foundation excavation and immediately before foundation construction. The purpose of the recommended evaluation is to confirm that the foundation will be properly supported; to determine over- GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 7 excavation depths and widths (if any), and to confirm that the support soils are similar to those described herein and reported on the Test Boring Logs. If another firm performs the recommended evaluation, they should use appropriate means and methods and Giles must be notified if the composition or strength characteristics of foundation support materials differ from those shown on the Test Boring Logs, allowing us the opportunity to revise this report. Without evaluation and approval of foundation support materials by a geotechnical engineer, the foundation could be improperly supported, possibly resulting in excessive settlement of the proposed structure. Unsuitable materials beneath the foundation areas could be replaced with engineered fill, such as well -graded aggregate that has lower water -sensitivity. If engineered fill is used as backfill, lateral over -excavation of the unsuitable materials will also be required. Extreme care should be problems. Static (non -vibratory) compaction equipment should be used. To avoid problems associated with the use of vibratory compaction equipment,,, unsuitable materials could be replaced with lean Portland cement concrete (minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 500 psi). Footing pads could also be stepped or thickened to extend through ,unsuitable bearing materials and isolated column pads could be uniformly thickened or extended. It is recommended that a structural engineer provide specific details of stepped or thickened footings. The post-constructiontotal anc and constructed based on this respectively. The post-constru inch per inch across a distanc during W rential settlements of a spread -footing foundation designed I are estimated to be less than about 1 inch and 0.5 inch, angular distortion is estimated to be less than about 0.002 20 feet or more. Estimated settlements are based on the Soil will be tested and approved by a geotechnical engineer With proper subgrade preparation, aground -bearing concrete floor slab is considered suitable for the proposed, building. However, because of the current and former site developments, and the low -strength native soil, floor slab support materials must be thoroughly tested and evaluated by a geotechnical engineer during construction. Assuming a maximum 100 psf floor load, the floor slab is recommended to be at least 4 inches thick; that recommended thickness assumes that the 28 -day compressive strength concrete will be at least 3,500 pounds per square inch (psi). The floor slab is recommended to be reinforced. It is recommended and assumed that a structural engineer will specify the floor slab thickness, reinforcing, joint details and other parameters. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 8 A minimum 4 -inch -thick base course is recommended to be directly below the floor slab to serve as a capillary break and for uniformity. It is recommended that the base course consist of free - draining aggregate. Also, it is recommended that a geotechnical engineer test and approve base course aggregate before it is placed. Depending on aggregate gradation, a geotextile might need to be below the base course. For moisture control, a minimum 10 -mil vapor retarder is recommended to be directly below the base course throughout the entire floor area. The vapor retarder _is444recommended to be in accordance with ASTM E 1745-97, entitled: Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs. if the base course has sharp, angular aggregate, protecting the retarder with'a geotextile (or by other means) is recommended. Estimated Floor Slab'' Settlement The post -construction total and differential settlements of an isolated floor slab constructed in accordance with this report are estimated to be less than about 0.5 inch and 0.3 inch, respectively, over a distance of about 20 feet. Estimated settlements are based on the assumption that the floor slab subgrade will be thoroughly tested by a geotechnical engineer during and immediately before floor slab construction. E� Based on information_ provided by,Chick-fil-A, it is understood that the typical traffic at Chick-fil-A sites consist of 3 large tractor -trailer trucks per week and 4 general delivery trucks per day. Therefore, the pavement recommendations given below are based on an estimated maximum daily traffic volume consisting of four 18,000 -pound equivalent single -axle loads (ESALs). It is recommended that the project owner, developer, civil engineer and other design professionals involved with the project confirm that the traffic volume is appropriate. If requested, Giles will provide supplemental pavement recommendations based on other traffic conditions. Hot -Mix Asphalt Pavement A California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testis commonly used to determine soil support parameters for pavement design. Since a CBR test or other test was not authorized for this project, it was necessary for Giles to assume the CBR design value used to give pavement recommendations. The following pavement sections are based on a silty clay subgrade and an assumed CBR design value of 3. Engineered fill that is placed in proposed pavement areas is recommended to have a CBR value equal to or greater than 3. Considering that the site is subject to shallow perched groundwater, a sub -base consisting of free - draining, open -graded aggregate is recommended to be below the dense -graded aggregate base course; the sub -base is intended for drainage. A geotextile is recommended to be directly below GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 9 the sub -base to serve as a separator; the geotextile is recommended to be installed on a properly prepared subgrade in accordance with the geotextile manufacturer's recommendations. Minnesota Department of Transportation specifications are shown on the table so that proper materials are specified and used. The pavement section in the following table is based on the traffic volumes presented above. If the pavement is subject to a greater amount of traffic, increased pavement maintenance and premature pavement failure should be expected. Local codes may require specific testing to determine soil support characteristics and/or minimum pavementsection thickness. The pavement section shown below is for both parking stalls and drives. TABLE 1 " RECOMMENDED ASPHALT -CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION Minimum Section Minnesota DOT Material Thickness Inches Standard Specifications Hot Mix Asphalt Section 2360 1Y Surface Course Hot Mix Asphalt Section 2360 2Y Binder Course Dense -Graded Aggregate Section 3138 4 Base Course CL -5 or CL -6 Open -Graded Aggregate Section 3136 4 Sub -Base Open -Graded Base Geotextile FabricMirafi®150N Section 3733 or similar geotextileapproved b Giles • Install geotextile in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations • Depending on the subgrade conditions at the time 'of construction, the sub -base might need to be thicker than recommended, it Chick-fil-A' Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section is considered suitable ndard duty areas of the site; however, the base course, sub -base, and geotextile shown High Stress Area Pavement Chick-fil-A's standard 6 -inch -thick PCC pavement section is considered suitable in high -stress areas such as at the drive-thru lanes, entrance/exit aprons, at the trash enclosure, and in areas where trucks will turn f or will be parked. The trash enclosure slab should include No. 3 reinforcing bars at 12 inches on -center, each way. The drive-thru lane PCC pavement should include at least 6x6, W1.4xW1.4 gauge Welded Wire Fabric (WWF) reinforcement. The base course, sub -base, and geotextile shown in Table 1 are recommended to be below the PCC pavement. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 10 General Portland Cement Concrete Recommendations Concrete should have a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 4,000 psi with 4 to 7 percent air entrainment. Control joint spacing should be determined in accordance with the current ACI code. Expansion joints should be provided where pavement abuts fixed'; objects, such as the buildings and light poles. Materials and construction procedures for concrete pavement and aggregate base course are recommended to be in accordance with the Minnesota DOT Standard Specifications Section 2301 and 2211, respectively Because the site is subject to shallow perched-gro recommended to be below all pavement areas to drainage system, maintenance and repair of the,p of the pavement could be reduced because of pe other problems should be expected due to fro! especially if the parking lot is not equipped with an In general, it is recommended that the under -1 graded sub -base and geotextile fabric shown recommended to be contoured and pitched to an under -pavement drain system is Even with the recommended necessary. The service life ter. Pavement damaae and could be significant, nt drainage system. ment drainage system consist of the open- rable 1. Also, the pavement subgrade is ct water to catch basins. Weep holes are recommended to be installed in the catch basins as specified by the project civil engineer. The sub -base must be hydraulically connected to the weep holes, thereby allowing water to freely drain into the weep holes. It is recommended that a civil engineer design the pavement drainage system based on the finalized site grades and details of the site, and in consideration of local and state codes. While the primary purpose of the drainage system is to collect groundwater from pavement areas, the drainage system is„recommended to be configured to collect (intercept) water at the perimeter of the m beneath sidewalks. The pavement recommendations assume that the pavement subgrade will be prepared in accordance with this report, the base course and sub -base will be properly drained, and a geotechnical engineer will observe and test pavement construction. The pavement was designed based on AASHTO design_ parameters for a twenty-year design period. Pavement maintenance along with a major rehabilitation after about 8 to 10 years should be expected. Additional pavement maintenance and repair should be expected due to the existing fill, due to lower strength native soil, and because the site is subject to shallow perched groundwater. Local codes may require specific testing to determine soil support characteristics and/or minimum pavement section thickness might be required. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 11 8.7 General Site Preparation Recommendations This section deals with site preparation, including preparation of floor slab, pavement, and engineered fill areas. The means and methods of site preparation will greatly depend on the weather conditions before and during construction, the subsurface conditions that are exposed during earthwork operations, and the final details of the proposed development. Therefore, only generalized site preparation recommendations are given. In addition to being general, the following site preparation recommendations are abbreviated; the Guide Specifications in Appendix D gives further recommendations. The Guide Specifications should be read along with this section. Also, the Guide Specifications are recommended to be used as an aid to develop the project specifications. Site preparation will require complete removal and proper disposal of the existing building, including all foundations, floor slabs, underground utilities that are not reused, etc. Site preparation will also require complete removal and proper disposal of any below -grade remnants of the building that formerly occupied the site. Disposal of rubble and debris should be in accordance with local, state and federal regulations for the material type. As an option to complete removal (outside of the proposed building area), it may be feasible for existing foundations to remain in-place in the planned parking lot and landscape areas, provided the foundations are stable, are cut off at least 3 feet below the planned subgrade, and any hollow cores are grouted solid. However, construction remnants that remain in-place may cause excavation difficulties for new utilities and landscape plantings, and for future construction. All excavations must be 'backfilled with engineered fill performed under engineering controlled conditions. It is also expected to be necessary to bench into the surrounding soils as noted in Item No. 3 of the Guide Specifications enclosed in Appendix D. It is assumed that all existing pavement will be removed and replaced with new pavement. The existing pavement is recommended to be saw -cut (where needed) and removed from the site. Removed pavement could be pulverized into a well -graded material with a maximum 3 -inch particle size and used as fill,; subbase material, or subgrade stabilization material. After removal of the existing pavement, base course materials should then be removed and properly disposed of off-site. Base course materials could also be stockpiled on-site for future use as fill material, subbase material„ or subgrade stabilization material. Existing base course materials that are removed and stockpiled could possibly be re -used as dense -graded base materials for the new pavement after the subgrade is properly prepared and improved which is included in the recommendations below; however, existing base materials are not expected to be suitable for use as the open -graded base course (shown in Table 1). A geotechnical engineer must test and approve stockpiled base course materials before reuse. If the base course materials are reused as base material, the pavement section given above might need to be thicker than recommended to account for a lower structural coefficient. Giles must be notified if the existing base material GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 12 will be reused. Existing pavement and base material should be left in-place as long as possible to help protect the moisture- and disturbance -sensitive soil. Surface vegetation, trees and bushes, topsoil with adverse organic content, and otherwise unsuitable materials are recommended to be removed from the proposed building footprint, pavement areas, and other structural areas. Clearing, grubbing and stripping should extend at least several feet beyond proposed development areas, where feasible. After the recommended demolition and removal, and once the the subgrade is recommended to be proof -rolled with a fully-loa other suitable construction equipment to help locate unstable si caused by the wheel loads of the proof -roll equipment. The e proof -rolled and, where feasible, proof -rolling should extent development areas. It is recommended that a geotechnit operations and evaluate the subgrade stability based on those of are not accessible to proof -roll equipment are recommended to a geotechnical engineer using appropriate means and methods. Based on the subsurface conditions subject to perched groundwater, it is e rolling/testing. On a preliminary basis could be scarified, moisture conditi subgrade improvement should be pro The site is recommend+ engineered fill immediat the proposed site imprc relatively thinlayers (Lift: least 95' percent of the'fi compaction test (ASTM, one foot of the pavemer the fill's maximum dry information pertaining to Due to shallow pe Use of vibratory c, possibly resulting equipment should is cut (lowered) as needed, tandem -axle dump truck or based on subgrade deflection re site is recommended to be it least several feet beyond engineer observe proof -roll )rvations. Areas of the site that ; evaluated (and approved) by at the test borings, and considering that the site is likely xpected=that unstable soil will be encountered during proof- , unsuitable soil could be replaced with engineered fill, or it oned, and compacted. Specific recommendations for vided by a geotechnical engineer during construction. to be raised, where necessary, to the planned finished grade with after the subgrade is confirmed to be stable and suitable to support meets. Engineered fill is recommended to be placed in uniform, Each layer of engineered fill is recommended to be compacted to at iaterial's maximum dry density determined from the Standard Proctor 98). As an exception, the in-place dry density of engineered fill within ubgrade is recommended to be compacted to at least 100 percent of nsity. Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the Guide Specifications give more lection and compaction of engineered fill. ndwater, vibratory compaction equipment should be used with care. equipment near groundwater could cause soil to become unstable, )ort and settlement problems. Static (non -vibratory) compaction near groundwater. Engineered fill that does not meet the density and water content requirements is recommended to be replaced with new fill or scarified to a sufficient depth (likely 6 to 12 inches, or more), moisture -conditioned, and compacted to the required density. A subsequent lift of fill should only GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 13 be placed after a geotechnical engineer confirms that the previous lift was properly placed and compacted. Subgrade soil will likely need to be recompacted immediately before construction since equipment traffic and adverse weather may reduce soil stability. Use of Site Soil as Engineered Fill Site soil that does not contain adverse organic content or other the Guide Specifications, could be used as engineered fill; hov soil (used as engineered fill) will likely need to be adjusted & proper compaction. If construction is during adverse weather will likely not be feasible. In that case, aggregate fill (or other m will likely need to be imported to the site. Additional recomrr placement and compaction are given in the Guide Specificatioi E.:3 Adverse Weather Clayey site -soil is extremely sensitive to adverse weather such as rain, necessary to remove or stabilize the upper 6 to which commonly occurs during late fall, winter and/or stabilization of unstable soil should be'f weather. Because site preparation depends' earthwork activities, should consider the time o To protect soil from adverse weather, the site and contoured during construction to divert Contoured subgrades are recommended to t orecioitation. to "sea]' the surface. Furtherm re and will like r more) us materials, as noted in the moisture content of site i wetting or drying to obtain ssed below), drying site soil I with a low water -sensitivity) :ions regarding fill selection, me unstable when exposed es. Therefore, it might be soil due to adverse weather, least some over -excavation ed if construction is during or after adverse gather, bids for site preparation, and other that construction will be conducted. ice is recommended to be smoothly graded ace water away from construction areas. led with a smooth -drum compactor, before construction traffic should be restricted to e -covered areas in an effort to reduce traffic -related soil disturbance. Foundation, floor pavement construction should begin immediately after suitable support is confirmed. Dewatering It is estimated that the water table was about 10 to 15 feet below -ground at the test boring locations, when the test borings were conducted; however, the site is likely subject to shallow, perched groundwater conditions. Perched groundwater is expected to be variable in terms of area and depth, and could be significant. Dewatering might, therefore, be necessary. Filtered sump pumps, drawing water from sump pits excavated in the bottom of construction trenches, will likely be adequate to remove water that collects in shallow excavations. Excavated sump pits should be fully -lined with a geotextile and filled with compacted, open -graded, free -draining aggregate. Water that accumulates in construction areas is recommended to be removed from excavations and other construction areas, along with unstable soil as soon as possible. 6"M GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 14 Excavation Stability Excavations are recommended to be made in accordance with current trench safety standards, and other applicable requirements. Sides of exc to be sloped or braced to maintain or develop a safe work environment, l be designed according to applicable regulatory requirements. Contrail excavation safety. The site is currently developed, and a former developn Unsuitable materials might have been buried beneath the site or construction. Fill materials, where encountered, are re geotechnical engineer to determine if removal and replacem( Disposal of any unsuitable material should be in accord regulations for the material type. This report might ner encountered that differ from those described herein and repc All existing utilities should relocated outside the pro and removed in accordar utilities are recommended conditions. Grading opera or disturbed. Utility invert foundation elevations to i( be identified and locat )osed building area. U ce with local codes ai to be backfilled with er tions must be done ca Elevations, depths and es that ordinar OSHA excavation and ivations will likely need emporary shoring must )rs are responsible for previously occupied the site. ce during previous site grading nended to be evaluated by a th engineered fill is necessary. with local, state and federal be revised if conditions are an the Test Boring Logs. ned to be maintained should be Dt reused should be capped -off Excavations for the removal of fill placed under engineering controlled that existing utilities are not damaged iuld be checked relative to the planned This report was prepared assuming that a geotechnical engineer will perform Construction Materials Testing ("CMT") services during construction of the proposed development. It might be necessary for Giles to provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations based on the results of CMT services and specific details of the project not known at this time. EE This report is strictly based on the project description given earlier in this report. Giles must be notified if any parts of the project description or our assumptions are not accurate so that this report can be amended, if needed. This report is based on the assumption that the facility will be designed and constructed according to the codes that govern construction at the site. 6"M GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03840 Chanhassen, Minnesota Giles Project No. 1G-1601002 Page 15 The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on estimated subsurface conditions as shown on the Test Boring Logs. Giles must be notified if the subsurface conditions that are encountered during construction of the proposed development differ from those shown on the Test Boring Logs because this report will likely need to be revised. General comments and limitations of this report are given in the appendix. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in & engineering. No other warranty is either expressed or implied. ©Giles Engineering Associates GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. been promulgated in e field of geotechnical LEGEND: $ GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING 0 25' 50' APPROXIMATE BENCHMARK CENTER OF ACCESS SCALE ... AT EDGE OF W. 79th ST. ASSUMED ELEVATION = 100.0' N NOTES: 1.) TEST BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. VJ E 2.) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM THE "SKETCH F", DATED 11-5-15, PREPARED BY ATKINS. s &ILES (ENGINEERING OSSOCIATES, INC. I N8 W22350 JOHNSON DRIVE, SUITE Al WAUKESHA, WI 53186 (262)544-0118 FIGURE 1 TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 CHANHASSEN FSU 445 -463 WEST 79th STREET & ADJACENT EAST PARCEL CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA DESIGNED DRAWN SCALE DATE REVISED PDRIBMS JSZ aPprox. 1"=50' 02-01-16 -- PROJECT NO.: 1G-1601002 CAD No. 101601002-b10 BORING NO. & LOCATION: TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 100.8 feet COMPLETION DATE: 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET 01/27/16 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. KEITH FLOWERS PROJECT NO: 1G-1601002 d c a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION s n a~ N Q. O° O, W PID NOTES a >E (tsf) (fsf) (fsf) (%) a m n o w W 6"± Topsoil Brown Silty Clay, some Sand - Very Moist 100 1 -SS 5 BDL Gray -Brown mottled with Orange -Brown Silty Clay , little to some Sand (Fill) - Moist 2 -SS 12 0.9 25 BDL Light Gray mottled with Orange -Brown Sandy Clay, trace Gravel -Moist 5- 3 -SS 11 1.0 25 BDL 95 Gray -Brown Sandy Clay, trace Gravel - Moist (Includes calcareous leachate seams/lenses) 4 -SS 16 2.6 20 BDL Brown -Gray Sandy Clay, trace Gravel - Moist 10- 5 -SS 20 2.5 19 BDL 90 Dark Gray Silty Clay, some Sand, trace Gravel - Moist 15- 6 -SS 14 2.3 17 BDL 85 Boring Terminated at about 16 feet (EL. 84.8') Water Observation Data Remarks: 4 Water Encountered During Drilling: Air Water Level At End of Drilling: - Cave Depth At End of Drilling: 11 ft. 1 Water Level After Drilling: Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between sell types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. BORING NO. & LOCATION: 2 TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 100.9 feet COMPLETION DATE: 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET 01/27/16 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. KEITH FLOWERS PROJECT NO: 1G-1601002 d c a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION s n a~ N Q. O° O, W PID NOTES a >E (tsf) (fsf) (fsf) (%) a m n o w W 9"± Topsoil Dark Gray Silty Clay, little to some Sand, 100 1 -SS 5 28 BDL trace Gravel - Moist 2 -SS 7 28 BDL Light Gray mottled with Orange -Brown Sandy Clay, some Sand, trace Gravel - Moist 5 3 -SS 9 2.9 26 BDL 95 Gray -Brown mottled with Orange -Brown Sandy Clay, trace Gravel - Moist 4 -SS 15 1.3 19 BDL 10 -- 5 -SS 15 2.4 21 BDL 90 Dark Gray Silty Clay, little to some Sand, trace Gravel - Moist 15 -- 6 -SS 14 1.5 17 BDL Boring Terminated at about 16 feet (EL. 84.9') Water Observation Data Remarks: 4 Water Encountered During Drilling: Air Water Level At End of Drilling: - Cave Depth At End of Drilling: 10.5 ft. 1 Water Level After Drilling: Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between sell types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. BORING NO. & LOCATION: 3 TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 100.2 feet COMPLETION DATE: 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET 01/27/16 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. KEITH FLOWERS PROJECT NO: 1G-1601002 d c a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION s n a~ N Q. O° O, W PID NOTES a >E (tsf) (fsf) (fsf) (%) a m n o w W 6"± Asphalt Concrete 100 6"± Aggregate Base Course Fill: Gray -Brown Sandy Gravel -Wet �.` 1 -SS -- BDL Blue -Gray Silty Clay, little Sand - Moist 2 -SS 7 1.8 30 BDL Light Gray mottled with Orange -Brown Sandy Clay, trace Gravel - Moist 5 95 3 -SS 10 2.3 20 BDL Gray -Brown Sandy Clay, little Gravel - Moist 4 -SS 14 3.8 20 BDL 10--90 5 -SS 27 3.2 20 BDL 15--85 6 -SS 16 1.7 21 BDL Boring Terminated at about 16 feet (EL. 84.2') Water Observation Data Remarks: 4 Water Encountered During Drilling: Air Water Level At End of Drilling: - Cave Depth At End of Drilling: 10 ft. 1 Water Level After Drilling: Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between sell types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. BORING NO. & LOCATION: 4 TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 100.1 feet COMPLETION DATE: 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET 01/27/16 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. KEITH FLOWERS PROJECT NO: 1G-1601002 d c a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION s n a~ N Q. O° O, W PID NOTES a >E (tsf) (fsf) (fsf) (%) a m n o w W 6"± Asphalt Concrete 6"± Aggregate Base Course Fill: Brown -Gray Sandy Gravel - Moist o C 1 -SS -- BDL Gray Silty Clay, little Sand - Moist 2 -SS 6 1.0 26 BDL Light Gray mottled with Orange -Brown Sandy Clay, trace Gravel - Moist 5 95 3 -SS 9 2.0 22 BDL Gray -Brown mottled with Gray Sandy Clay, trace Gravel - Moist 4 -SS 14 3.2 19 BDL Gray -Brown Sandy Clay, trace Gravel - Moist 10—_90 5 -SS 11 1.8 21 BDL Brown Clayey Sand with Gravel - Moist 15--85 6 -SS 17 BDL Boring Terminated at about 16 feet (EL. 84.1') Water Observation Data Remarks: 4 Water Encountered During Drilling: Air Water Level At End of Drilling: - Cave Depth At End of Drilling: 10 ft. 1 Water Level After Drilling: Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between sell types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. BORING NO. & LOCATION: 5 TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 99.2 feet COMPLETION DATE: 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET 01/27/16 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. KEITH FLOWERS PROJECT NO: 1G-1601002 d c a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION s n a~ N Q. O° O, W PID NOTES a >E (tsf) (fsf) (fsf) (%) a m n o w W 4"± Asphalt Concrete 8"± Aggregate Base Course Fill: Gray -Brown Sandy Gravel - Moist o 1 -SS -- BDL (Includes Asphalt - Concrete Rubble) 00( 97.5 Light Gray mottled with Orange -Brown Clayey Silt with fine Sand - Moist 2.5- 2 -SS 6 1.5 26 BDL Gray mottled Sandy Clay - Moist 95.0 5.0 3 -SS 13 19 BDL Boring Terminated at about 6 feet (EL. 93.2') Water Observation Data Remarks: 4 Water Encountered During Drilling: Air Water Level At End of Drilling: - Cave Depth At End of Drilling: 3.5 ft. 1 Water Level After Drilling: Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between sell types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. BORING NO. & LOCATION: 6 TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 100.6 feet COMPLETION DATE: 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET 01/27/16 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. KEITH FLOWERS PROJECT NO: 1G-1601002 d c a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION s n a~ N Q. O° O, W PID NOTES a >E (tsf) (fsf) (fsf) (%) a m n o w W 4"± Asphalt Concrete 8"± Aggregate Base Course 100. Fill: Gray -Brown Sandy Gravel - Moist o 1 -SS -- BDL (Includes Asphalt - Concrete Rubble) O o� Gray -Brown Silty Clay, little to some Sand, trace Gravel - Moist 2.5 2 -SS 8 24 BDL 97.5 Blue -Gray Silty Clay, trace Sand - Moist 5.0 3 -SS 9 1.2 36 BDL 95.0 Boring Terminated at about 6 feet (EL. 94.6') Water Observation Data Remarks: 4 Water Encountered During Drilling: Air Water Level At End of Drilling: - Cave Depth At End of Drilling: 3.5 ft. 1 Water Level After Drilling: Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between sell types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. BORING NO. & LOCATION: 7 TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 03840 101 feet COMPLETION DATE: 445-463 WEST 79TH STREET 01/27/16 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. KEITH FLOWERS PROJECT NO: 1G-1601002 d c a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION s n a~ N Q. O° O, W PID NOTES a >E (tsf) (fsf) (fsf) (%) a m n o w W 4"± Asphalt Concrete 8"± Aggregate Base Course 00. Fill: Light Brown Silty Sand and Gravel - Dry 1 -SS -- BDL Blue -Gray Silty Clay, little to some Sand - Moist 2.5 -- 2 -SS 10 25 BDL --97.5- 5.0-- 3-SS 7.55.03-SS 4 2.0 28 BDL Boring Terminated at about 6 feet (EL. 95') Water Observation Data Remarks: 4 Water Encountered During Drilling: Air Water Level At End of Drilling: - Cave Depth At End of Drilling: 3.5 ft. 1 Water Level After Drilling: Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between sell types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. GENERAL FIELD PROCEDURES Test Boring Elevations The ground surface elevations reported on the Test Boring Logs are referenced to the assumed benchmark shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Unless otherwise noted, the elevations were determined with a conventional hand -level and are accurate to within about 1 foot. Test Boring Locations The test borings were located on-site based on the existing site features and/or apparent property lines. Dimensions illustrating the approximate boring locations are reported on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Water Level Measurement The water levels reported on the Test Boring Logs represent the depth of "free" water encountered during drilling and/or after the drilling tools were removed from the borehole. Water levels measured within a granular (sand and gravel) soil profile are typically indicative of the water table elevation. It is usually not possible to accurately identify the water table elevation with cohesive (clayey) soils, since the rate of seepage is slow. The water table elevation within cohesive soils must therefore be determined over a period of time with groundwater observation wells. It must be recognized that the water table may fluctuate seasonally and during periods of heavy precipitation. Depending on the subsurface conditions, water may also become perched above the water table, especially during wet periods. Borehole Backfilling Procedures Each borehole was backfilled upon completion of the field operations. If potential contamination was encountered, and/or if required by state or local regulations, boreholes were backfilled with an "impervious" material (such as bentonite slurry). Borings that penetrated pavements, sidewalks, etc. were "capped" with Portland Cement concrete, asphaltic concrete, or a similar surface material. It must, however, be recognized that the backfill material may settle, and the surface cap may subside, over a period of time. Further backfilling and/or re -surfacing by Giles' client or the property owner may be required. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES Auger Sampling (AU) Soil samples are removed from the auger flights as an auger is withdrawn above the ground surface. Such samples are used to determine general soil types and identify approximate soil stratifications. Auger samples are highly disturbed and are therefore not typically used for geotechnical strength testing. Split -Barrel Sampling (SS) — (ASTM D-1586) A split -barrel sampler with a 2 -inch outside diameter is driven into the subsoil with a 140 - pound hammer free -falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The summation of hammer - blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 -inches of an 18 -inch sample interval is defined as the "Standard Penetration Resistance" or N -value is an index of the relative density of granular soils and the comparative consistency of cohesive soils. A soil sample is collected from each SPT interval. Shelbv Tube Samplina (ST) — (ASTM D-1587 A relatively undisturbed soil sample is collected by hydraulically advancing a thin-walled Shelby Tube sampler into a soil mass. Shelby Tubes have a sharp cutting edge and are commonly 2 to 5 inches in diameter. Bulk Sample (BS) A relatively large volume of soils is collected with a shovel or other manually -operated tool. The sample is typically transported to Giles' materials laboratory in a sealed bag or bucket. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DC) — (ASTM STP 399) This test is conducted by driving a 1.5 -inch -diameter cone into the subsoil using a 15 - pound steel ring (hammer), free -falling a vertical distance of 20 inches. The number of hammer -blows required to drive the cone 1% inches is an indication of the soil strength and density, and is defined as "N". The Dynamic Cone Penetration test is commonly conducted in hand auger borings, test pits and within excavated trenches. - Continued - GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Ring -Lined Barrel Sampling — (ASTM D 3550) In this procedure, a ring -lined barrel sampler is used to collect soil samples for classification and laboratory testing. This method provides samples that fit directly into laboratory test instruments without additional handling/disturbance. Sampling and Testing Procedures The field testing and sampling operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the field testing (i.e. N -values) are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Explanations of the terms and symbols shown on the logs are provided on the appendix enclosure entitled "General Notes". GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION Photoionization Detector (PID) In this procedure, soil samples are "scanned" in Giles' analytical laboratory using a Photoionization Detector (PID). The instrument is equipped with an 11.7 eV lamp calibrated to a Benzene Standard and is capable of detecting a minute concentration of certain Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) vapors, such as those commonly associated with petroleum products and some solvents. Results of the PID analysis are expressed in HNu (manufacturer's) units rather than actual concentration. Moisture Content (w) (ASTM D 2216 Moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water contained within a soil sample to the weight of the dry solids within the sample. Moisture content is expressed as a percentage. Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) (ASTM D 2166) An axial load is applied at a uniform rate to a cylindrical soil sample. The unconfined compressive strength is the maximum stress obtained or the stress when 15% axial strain is reached, whichever occurs first. Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance (gp) The small, cylindrical tip of a hand-held penetrometer is pressed into a soil sample to a prescribed depth to measure the soils capacity to resist penetration. This test is used to evaluate unconfined compressive strength. Vane -Shear Strength (gs The blades of a vane are inserted into the flat surface of a soil sample and the vane is rotated until failure occurs. The maximum shear resistance measured immediately prior to failure is taken as the vane -shear strength. Loss -on -Ignition (ASTM D 2974; Method C) The Loss -on -Ignition (L.O.I.) test is used to determine the organic content of a soil sample. The procedure is conducted by heating a dry soil sample to 440°C in order to burn -off or "ash" organic matter present within the sample. The L.O.I. value is the ratio of the weight loss due to ignition compared to the initial weight of the dry sample. L.O.I. is expressed as a percentage. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Particle Size Distribution (ASTB D 421, D 422, and D 1140) This test is performed to determine the distribution of specific particle sizes (diameters) within a soil sample. The distribution of coarse-grained soil particles (sand and gravel) is determined from a "sieve analysis," which is conducted by passing the sample through a series of nested sieves. The distribution of fine-grained soil particles (silt and clay) is determined from a "hydrometer analysis" which is based on the sedimentation of particles suspended in water. Consolidation Test (ASTM D 2435) In this procedure, a series of cumulative vertical loads are applied to a small, laterally confined soil sample. During each load increment, vertical compression (consolidation) of the sample is measured over a period of time. Results of this test are used to estimate settlement and time rate of settlement. Classification of Samples Each soil sample was visually -manually classified, based on texture and plasticity, in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2488-75). The classifications are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the laboratory tests are provided on the Test Boring Logs or other appendix enclosures. Explanation of the terms and symbols used on the logs is provided on the appendix enclosure entitled "General Notes." GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test ASTM D-1833 The CBR test is used for evaluation of a soil subgrade for pavement design. The test consists of measuring the force required for a 3 -square -inch cylindrical piston to penetrate 0.1 or 0.2 inch into a compacted soil sample. The result is expressed as a percent of force required to penetrate a standard compacted crushed stone. Unless a CBR test has been specifically requested by the client, the CBR is estimated from published charts, based on soil classification and strength characteristics. A typical correlation chart is below. 2 CALIFORNIA BEARING. RATIO - CBR 3 4 5 5 7 8 9. 1C 15 20; 25 30 40. 56. "06:70 8090100 3 4 5 0: 7 8.9 10 15 20 25 30 40 50. 60 .70 80 601017 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GI° ____ GW.' ASTM SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMGM (Uri ec Ghssficatipn). GC SW SP Sc OH MI CH CI AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION A'0 A.1 C� A 14 .::I F_. . A v 6 A' A3 A5 A-5 A7,, A -J -s I I FEDERALAVIATIONADPAINISTRATION SDILCLASSIPICATION ^ ---- F^ ---- E`2: F d E5 [ F_ IFS 7 _ E:9 F'2 ''...RESISiANCEVALUE R.. 5 10 20 0 10, MODULUS OF SUBGRADE}JEACT ON K PSI PCR N 100 ''...150 ''.... 200 2;10 OG 400 506 .00 70 B^ AR NG'VALUE PSI 20 30 4C 50 80 ''.... CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO - CBR ''.., ''.... 3 4 5 0: 7 8.9 10 15 20 25 30 40 50. 60 .70 80 601017 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBGRADE AND GRADE PREPARATION FOR FILL, FOUNDATION, FLOOR SLAB AND PAVEMENT SUPPORT; AND SELECTION, PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF FILL SOILS USING STANDARD PROCTOR PROCEDURES Construction monitoring and testing of subgrades and grades for fill, foundation, floor slab and pavement, and fill selection, placement and compaction shall be performed by an experienced soils engineer and/or his representatives. 2. All compaction fill, subgrades and grades shall be (a) underlain by suitable bearing material, (b) free of all organic, frozen, or other deleterious material, and (c) observed, tested and approved by qualified engineering personnel representing an experienced soils engineer. Preparation of subgrades after stripping vegetation, organic or other unsuitable materials shall consist of (a) proof -rolling to detect soil, wet yielding soils or other unstable materials that must be undercut, (b) scarifying top 6 to 8 inches, (c) moisture conditioning the soils as required, and (d) recompaction to same minimum in-situ density required for similar materials indicated under Item 5. Note: compaction requirements for pavement subgrade are higher than other areas. Weather and construction equipment may damage compacted fill surface and reworking and retesting may be necessary to assure proper performance. 3. In overexcavation and fill areas, the compacted fill must extend (a) a minimum 1 foot lateral distance beyond the exterior edge of the foundation at bearing grade or pavement subgrade and down to compacted fill subgrade on a maximum 0.5(H):1(V) slope, (b) 1 foot above footing grade outside the building, and (c) to floor subgrade inside the building. Fill shall be placed and compacted on a 5(H):1(V) slope or must be stepped or benched as required to flatten if not specifically approved by qualified personnel under the direction of an experienced soil engineer. 4. The compacted fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated", and shall be low -expansive with a maximum Liquid Limit (ASTM D-423) and Plasticity Index (ASTM D-424) of 30 and 15, respectively, unless specifically tested and found to have low expansive properties and approved by an experienced soils engineer. The top 12 inches of compacted fill should have a maximum 3 -inch -particle diameter and all underlying compacted fill a maximum 6 -inch -diameter unless specifically approved by an experienced soils engineer. All fill materials must be tested and approved under the direction of an experienced soils engineer prior to placement. If the fill is to provide non -frost susceptible characteristics, it must be classified as a clean GW, GP, SW or SP per the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487). For structural fill depths less than 20 feet, the density of the structural compacted fill and scarified subgrade and grades shall not be less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by Standard Proctor (ASTM -698) with the exception of the top 12 inches of pavement subgrade which shall have a minimum in-situ density of 100 percent of maximum dry density, or 5 percent higher than underlying fill materials. Where the structural fill depth is greater than 20 feet, the portions below 20 feet should have a minimum in-place density of 100 percent of its maximum dry density of 5 percent greater than the top 20 feet. The moisture content of cohesive soil shall not vary by more than -1 to +3 percent and granular soil f3 percent of the optimum when placed and compacted or recompacted, unless specifically recommended/approved by the soils engineer monitoring the placement and compaction. Cohesive soils with moderate to high expansion potentials (PD15) should, however, be placed, compacted and maintained prior to construction at a moisture content 3±1 percent above optimum moisture content to limit further heave. The fill shall be placed in layers with a maximum loose thickness of 8 inches for foundations and 10 inches for floor slabs and pavement, unless specifically approved by the soils engineer taking into consideration the type of materials and compaction equipment being used. The compaction equipment should consist of suitable mechanical equipment specifically designed for soil compaction. Bulldozers or similar tracked vehicles are typically not suitable for compaction. 6. Excavation, filling, subgrade and grade preparation shall be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working platform. Springs or water seepage encountered during grading/foundation construction must be called to the soil engineer's attention immediately for possible construction procedure revision or inclusion of an underdrain system. 7. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below -grade walls (i.e. basement walls and retaining walls) must be properly tested and approved by an experienced soils engineer with consideration for the lateral pressure used in the wall design. Whenever, in the opinion of the soils engineer or the Owner's Representatives, an unstable condition is being created either by cutting or filling, the work shall not proceed into that area until an appropriate geotechnical exploration and analysis has been performed and the grading plan revised, if found necessary. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL COMMENTS The soil samples obtained during the subsurface exploration will be retained for a period of thirty days. If no instructions are received, they will be disposed of at that time. This report has been prepared exclusively for the client in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. Copies of this report may be provided to contractor(s), with contract documents, to disclose information relative to this project. The report, however, has not been prepared to serve as the plans and specifications for actual construction without the appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. Reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Giles. This report has been based on assumed conditions/characteristics of the proposed development where specific information was not available. It is recommended that the architect, civil engineer and structural engineer along with any other design professionals involved in this project carefully review these assumptions to ensure they are consistent with the actual planned development. When discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to ensure they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations provided herein. The project plans and specifications may also be submitted to Giles for review to ensure that the geotechnical related conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been correctly interpreted. The analysis of this site was based on a subsoil profile interpolated from a limited subsurface exploration. If the actual conditions encountered during construction vary from those indicated by the borings, Giles must be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in the field of geotechnical engineering. No other warranty is either expressed or implied. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. W. O y w w w ro ro ro ro ro as. .� � C C C R � _ A R C C tq O O C P P 11 o w s w o 0 7 O s 7 W o O O O O T Q C O v v O v p O O O p x R W h O 0A 0A ai ai pp pp ai ai ai ai ai y 45 045O O O 45S S S E S S S E S E S O R d Q' O Q' .� z .� w 45 O O R L q y+ !. Vl N N O O Vl Vl O O O Vl ti W o p Yi. 'p'p y .p p LO U yY 6 4tRi p A ro N p A p ro N p p �' a a a a O p E ti ti y y y y y O O O O U Z O p O p p .. 0 O 0 O p .. O .. .. .. .. E�2 E b ob o ow°b Ob o 0�2 ti ro � ti N b N ro tib ti ti b N b a b y y y y z C7 3 C7 3 C7 C7 C7 5 C7 5 C7 ° C7 C7 C7 a a a w w W. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) 'Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u arefor roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits, suffix d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less;the suffix u is used when L.L. is greater than 28. Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group sympols. For example GW-GC,well-graded gravel -sand mixturewith clay binder. ££.. Group Major Divisions Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria Symbols Well-graded D°(Di° 21 gravesamxus, C=�greaterthan 4;Cbetween land 3 2v little or no fines N E"Dio D10 Deo Poorly graded gravels, C °1 �c` o v v GP gravel -sand mixtrues, ai N D Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW N little or no fines v J V C — N N N N O a U N 'j J m O V v C d L o v Atterberg limits g o o w d ° z C ° k GM° Silty gravels, gravel- F d" u below"A"line or P.I. Limits plotting within shaded p 9 Y sand -silt mixtures 6 a E o ,° V less than 4 area, above"A"line with P.I. z° t t .3 v u o M o between 4 and 7 are C y Y in 9 w y N ul ul a' J borderline cases requiring o " v iO v v a use of dual symbols Atterberg limits vrn GC Clayey gravels, gravel- � E N m° above"A"Iineor P.I. .� sand -clay mixtures C o greater than 7 60 — V Well -graded sands, sv�v (D �y gravelly sands, " °° C=SW p0 greaterthan 4;C,= between land 3 ° vCv no fines o io DiopsoNo N C al C O1 F -6 N o ly graded sands, o Cv a Nv d SP gravelly sands, little or v F Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW t no finesO1 v C N v O t -6 O v ° in ° C v 'o dE fl- v ° ° Atterber limits g E t C E SM, Silty sands,sand-silt C below"A"line or P.I. Limits plotting within shaded s k ., t v mixtures _Y ° aless than area, above"A"line with P.I. between 4 and 7 are v E o a borderline cases requiring Atterberg limits N use of dual symbols aClayey SC sands, sand -clay o above"A"line or P.I. a mixtures greater than 7 Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock ML flour, silty or clayey fine ti0 v sands, or clayey silts N Y slight plasticity with 9 p Y vv Inorganic clays of low - CL to medium plasticity, 00 �, gravelly clays,sandy a / d -o clays, silty clays z Organic silts and C 6 Jg ac 0Y v OL organic silty clays of v low plasticity v 5E 6 Inorganic silts, mica- °,o ceous or diatomaceous MH fine sandy or silty soils, �- A _° WH elastic silts - w ECH Inorganic clays of high L «_ plasticity,fat clays E C N Y � 'c --- -- / -- --- Organic clays of a, 6 OH mediumto high ° d plasticity, organic silts ao1 � V rn iO "oPt Peat and other highly °o IM #o �° 31 an so ._ F - O) organic soils 'Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u arefor roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits, suffix d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less;the suffix u is used when L.L. is greater than 28. Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group sympols. For example GW-GC,well-graded gravel -sand mixturewith clay binder. ££.. GENERAL NOTES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION All samples are visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487-75 or D-2488-75) DESCRIPTIVE TERM (/BPDRYWEIGHT) PARTICLE SIZE (DIAMETER) Trace: 1-10% Boulders: 8 inch and larger Little: 11-20% Cobbles: 3 inch to 8 inch Some: 21-35% Gravel: coarse -'/a to 3 inch And/Adjective 36-50% fine—No. 4 (4.76 mm) to'/a inch Sand: coarse—No. 4 (4.76 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) medium—No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) fine — No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt: No. 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (non -plastic) Clay: No 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (plastic) SOIL PROPERTYSYIIBOLS DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS Dd: Dry Density (pcf) SS: Split -Spoon LL: Liquid Limit, percent ST: Shelby Tube — 3 inch O.D. (except where noted) PL: Plastic Limit, percent CS: 3 inch O.D. California Ring Sampler PI: Plasticity Index (LL -PL) DC: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer per ASTM LOI: Loss on Ignition, percent Special Technical Publication No. 399 Gs: Specific Gravity AU: Auger Sample K Coefficient of Permeability DB: Diamond Bit w: Moisture content, percent CB: Carbide Bit qp: Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance, tsf WS: Wash Sample qs: Vane -Shear Strength, tsf RB: Rock -Roller Bit qu: Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf BS: Bulk Sample qc: Static Cone Penetrometer Resistance Note: Depth intervals for sampling shown on Record of (correlated to Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf) Subsurface Exploration are not indicative of sample PID: Results of vapor analysis conducted on representative recovery, but position where sampling initiated samples utilizing a Photoioruzation Detector calibrated to a benzene standard. Results expressed in HNU-Units. (BDL—Below Detection Limit) N: Penetration Resistance per 12 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for a standard 2 inch O.D. (1% inch I.D.) split spoon sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free -falling 30 inches. Performed in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test Specifications (ASTM D- 1586). N in blows per foot equals sum of N -Values where plus sign (+) is shown. Nc: Penetration Resistance per 13/a inches of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Approximately equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N -Value in blows per foot. Nr: Penetration Resistance per 12 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for California Ring Sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free -falling 30 inches per ASTM D-3550. Not equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N -Value. SOIL STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS COHESIVE (CLAYE9 SOILS NON -COHESIVE (GRANULAR) SOILS COMPARATIVE BLOWS PER COMPRESSIVE RELATIVE BLOWS PER CONSISTENCY FOOT (N) STRENGTH (TSF) DENSITY FOOT (N) Very Soft 0 - 2 0-0.25 Very Loose 0 - 4 Soft 3 - 4 0.25 - 0.50 Loose 5-10 Medium Stiff 5-8 0.50 - 1.00 Firm 11 - 30 Stiff 9-15 1.00 - 2.00 Dense 31 -50 Very Stiff 16-30 2.00 - 4.00 Very Dense 51+ Hard 31+ 4.00+ DEGREE OF DEGREE OF EXPANSIVE PLASTICITY PI POTENTIAL PI None to Slight 0 - 4 Low 0-15 Slight 5-10 Medium 15-25 Medium 11 - 30 High 25+ High to Very High 31+ WGILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Important Intorimation About Your Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. The following information is provided to help you manage your risks. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Speeffic 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 engi- neer 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 solelyfor 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 —noteven you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. 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. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical 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 oth- erwise, 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 repods do not consider developments of which they were not informed. 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 engineer- ing reportwhose 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 fluctua- tions. 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. Most Geotechnical findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers 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. 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 engi- neers 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. A Geotecludcal Engmeeping Report is Subject to Nlisinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent 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. 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, butrecognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contpacttors 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 con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that 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 contrac- tors 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. Remi Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. 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 reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers responsi- bilities 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. Geoenvironmentai Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- merrtaistudy 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 gooen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with MoM Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your AS"ember Gootechnicial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE The [eS1 Feeble ee [*11b 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 3011565-2733 Facsimile: 3011589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.Grg www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFES specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members ofASFEmay use this document as a complement to oras an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other tom, individual or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045oM