Geotechnical ReportREPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL
EXPLORATION AND REVIEW
Proposed Addition
I.D.I. Distributors
8303 Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Date:
August 25, 2016
T% Prepared for:
Eden Trace Corporation
8821 Sunset Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Report No. 20-14527
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
August 25, 2016
Eden Trace Corporation
8821 Sunset Trail
Chanhassen, MN 5 53 17
Attn: Mr. Mark Undestad
RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review
Proposed Addition
I.D.I. Distributors
8303 Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Report No. 20-14527
Dear Mr. Undestad:
CONSULTANTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
GEOTECHNICAL
' MATERIALS
• FORENSICS
American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface
exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for the proposed I.D.I. Distributors
Addition. These services were performed according to our proposal dated June 22, 2016.
We are submitting this report as an electronic pdf copy. If you also would like hard copies sent,
please contact me.
Please contact me if you have any questions about the report. I can also be contacted for
arranging construction observation and testing services during the earthwork phase.
Sincerely,
America Engineering 'Testing, Inc.
r
Jay P. Brekke, PE
Senior Engineer
Phone: (651) 789-4645
j brekkeamengtest. com
Page i
550 Cleveland Avenue North I St. Paul, MN 55114
Phone 651-659-90011 Toll Free 800-972-6364 Fax 651-659-13791 www.amengtest.com j AA/EEO 1,�®
This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from American Engineering Testing, Inc. Ls p�F
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota AMERICAN
August 25, 2016 ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING, INC.
SIGNATURE PAGE
Prepared for:
Eden Trace Corporation
8821 Sunset Trail
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55076
Attn: lV`i.�r. Mark i Tnrlestad
Authored by:
Jay P. Brekke, PE
Senior Engineer
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under
Minnesota Statute Section 326.02 to 326.15
Name: Jay P. Brekke
Date: ff2r' License #: 25631
Copyright 2016 American Engineering Testing, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Prepared by:
American Engineering Testing, Inc.
550 Cleveland Avenue North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
(651) 659-9001/www.amengtest.com
Reviewed by:
Thomas P. Venema, PE
Principal Engineer
Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project.
Page ii
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25, 2016
Report No. 20-14527
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................
1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................1
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION.....................................................................................................1
3.1 Available Geotechnical Information.....................................................................................2
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING................................................................
3
4.1 Field Exploration Program....................................................................................................
3
4.2 Laboratory Testing................................................................................................................3
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................3
5.1 Surface Observations.............................................................................................................3
4
5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology ...............................................
4
5.3 Groundwater..........................................................................................................................
5.4 Review of Soil Properties......................................................................................................5
6
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
...............................
7
6.1 Building Grading..........................................................
8
8
6.2 Foundation Design..................................................................................... ................................................
6.3 Floor Slab Design
.......••..""""""""'
6.4 Exterior Backfilling.............................................................................................................10
11
6.5 Exterior Underground Utility Construction.........................................................................
6.6 Pavements....................................................................
11
14
6.7 Infiltration Rate Comments
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................
..,
7.1 Potential Difficulties............................................................................................................15
15
7.2 Excavation Backsloping ...................................................................................
...................
16
7.3 Observation and Testing ..................................................
....................................................
16
8.0 LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................
STANDARD SHEETS
Excavation and Refilling for Structural Support
Floor Slab Moisture/ Vapor Protection
APPENDIX A — Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
Boring Log Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
Figure 1 - Boring Locations
Subsurface Boring Logs
APPENDIX B — Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
Page iii
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota AMERICAN
August 25; 2016 ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING, INC.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
An addition is planned on the north side of the existing I.D.I. Distributors Building located at
8303 Audubon Road in Chanhassen, Minnesota. To assist with planning and design, Eden Trace
Corporation authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface
exploration program at the site, conduct soil laboratory testing, and perform a geotechnical
engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of these services, and provides
our engineering recommendations based on this data.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
AET°s services were performed according to our proposal dated June 22, 2016. The final
authorized scope consists of the following:
• Drilling 12 standard penetration test borings to depths ranging from 20 to 36 feet below
grade;
• Performing routine soil laboratory testing; and,
• Conducting a geotechnical engineering analysis based on the gained data and preparation
of this report.
These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope to explore for the presence of
environmental contamination was limited to our field crew noting any visual or olfactory
evidence in the soils samples.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
An addition is planned on the north side of the existing I.D.I. Distributors Building. The existing
building is an office/warehouse structure for distribution of building insulation products. The
structure has a main floor for warehouse space and offices, and a second level for offices. The
building is supported on spread footings with a structural/architectural precast panel exterior.
The building was constructed in late 2008 and we understand that the structural integrity of the
existing building is satisfactory.
The new addition will extend to the north of the existing building. The precast panel north wall
of the existing building will remain in place. There will be new precast walls on the east, north
Page 1 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25; 2016
Report No. 20-14527
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
and west walls of the new addition. The interior frame will be structural steel. The floor slab will
be set at an elevation of approximately 953 feet to match the existing building. The building
addition will cover a footprint of 26,962 feet. The main floor will consist of warehouse space
covering 18,407 square feet, and office space covering 8,555 square feet. A second level office
of 8,555 square feet will be constructed over the main floor office.
We have not been provided with structural details, but for the purposes of this report we are
assuming wall loads of about 1 to 4 kips per linear foot and maximum column loads of about 100
kips. We estimate live floor loads of less than about 200 pounds per square foot. These loads
should be confirmed when a structural engineer is part of the design team.
New parking will be provided to the north of the building addition. There is also an infiltration
basin proposed at the north end of the parking area.
Our foundation design assumptions include a minimum factor of safety of 3 with respect to
localized shear or base failure of the foundations. We assume the structure will be able to tolerate
total settlements of up to 1 inch, and differential settlements over a 30 foot distance of up to '/2
inch.
The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This
information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if
there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our
recommendations are appropriate.
3.1 Available Geotechnical Information
AET performed a geotechnical exploration for the existing building in 2007 (AET Report No.
22-00135 dated November 27, 2007). In our report, we recommended supporting the building on
conventional spread footings after performing soil correction to remove and replace the existing
fill and any other unsuitable soils.
It is our understanding that the site grading for the existing building and the proposed addition
area was performed in 2008. We have reviewed Google Earth aerial photos from 2008 and 2009.
The photo from September 2008 shows grading operations over the existing building and most of
the addition footprint. Grading at the northwest corner of the addition footprint appeared to be
Page 2of16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota AMERICAN
August 25; 2016 ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING, INC.
incomplete as some vegetation was visible. The photo from 2009 shows the completed building.
AET performed the construction testing for the existing building (AET Project No. 22-00135.2)
and may, or may not have, performed construction testing of the grading for the proposed
addition. We have not been able to locate records from the construction testing to review what
was done in the addition area. If any records of fill placement for the addition are found, please
contact us to review our recommendations.
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING
4.1 Field Exploration Program
The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of 12 standard
penetration test borings drilled between June 30 and July 7, 2016. The logs of the borings and
details of the methods used appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil
layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative density or
consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration
resistance (N -value).
The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A. We located the borings
in the field by measuring from the existing building using dimensions scaled from the site plan
provided. Our drill crew determined the ground surface elevations at the borings using an
engineer's level referenced to the floor slab of the existing building. According to the
preliminary site plan prepared by Sambatek the floor slab is at an elevation of approximately 953
feet.
4.2 Laboratory Testing
The laboratory test program included visual and manual classification of the soil samples along
with water content testing of selected samples. The test results appear in Appendix A on the
boring logs adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed.
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS
5.1 Surface Observations
At the time of drilling the south side of the site was occupied by the existing building. The area
of the proposed addition was a relatively level lawn area and paved entrance drive. Most of the
area north of the proposed addition is a berm which we understand was placed in 2008 or prior to
Page 3 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25; 2016
Report No. 20-14527
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
2008 and consists mostly of stripped topsoil. The topsoil is from the existing building
construction and also from other sites. The berm was covered with grass and weeds and was
about 10 feet in height. Borings B-1OA, B -11A, and B -12A were drilled on top of the berm. The
elevations at our 12 borings ranged from 961.1 to 947.8 feet.
5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology
At our three borings drilled on the berm, we found about 14 to 15 feet of fill (which corresponds
to elevations ranging from about 9441/2 to 946%2 feet). These elevations are consistent with the
ground surface from previous topography information based on a survey prepared by Schoell and
Madson, Inc. in 1999. We have this plan from our previous geotechnical information. At the
remaining borings, fill or possible fill was found to depths ranging from about 4 to 9 feet below
grade (which corresponds to elevations ranging from about 945 to 943.6 feet). Again, review of
the topography information from 1999 and our previous borings in 2007 (some of which were
drilled in the addition footprint) indicate that these elevations are generally consistent with the
previous ground surface elevations. Our previous borings drilled in the addition area found about
4 feet of mixed sand and clay fill to about elevation 943.
The fill in the berm area consisted of sandy lean clay and clayey sand, much of which contained
organics. The fill and possible fill in the remaining borings (B-lA to B -9A) consisted of sandy
lean clay and clayey sand. Typically, the upper 1 to 2 feet in Borings B-lA to B -9A contained
organics. These borings were drilled in lawn areas (Boring B -9A was drilled in a brush area) and
this could be the graded topsoil zone. Most of the fill and possible fill below 1 to 2 feet at
Borings B -IA to B -9A did not contain significant amounts of organics, however traces of roots
were common and some zones of slightly organic soils were present.
Underlying the fill and possible fill, we found predominantly glacial till soils. At Boring B -5A,
layers of fine alluvium and coarse alluvium were also found.
5.3 Groundwater
Most of the on-site soils are relatively slow draining and an extended period of time would be
required for groundwater to reach equilibrium in the boreholes. A measurable groundwater level
was found in only one of our borings. We measured groundwater at about 11 feet below grade in
Boring B -5A just above a layer of coarse alluvial silty sand. The measured water level
corresponds to an elevation of about 942.2 feet. The survey indicates a wetland in the northeast
Page 4 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota AMERICAN
August 25; 2016 ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING. INC.
corner of the property, with ground surface elevations of about 939 to 942 feet. In our opinion,
the water level measured in Boring B -5A likely represents the approximate hydrostatic
groundwater level on the date of drilling. A discussion of the water level measurement methods
is presented in Appendix A.
Please note that groundwater levels will not remain stable. Groundwater levels fluctuate due to
varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts, as well as other factors.
5.4 Review of Soil Properties
5.4.1 Fill
Most of the fill at our borings in the proposed addition area typically had moderate N -values and
are judged to have moderate strength, and would not be significantly compressible under
anticipated foundation loads. Some of the fill (see Boring B -1A) had N -values below about 7 and
depending on their depth below the new footings and the footing loads, could be compressible
under foundation loads. The fill soils are judged to be slow draining arid moderately high in frost
susceptibility.
5.4.2 Fine Alluvium
The fine alluvial soils are judged to be moderate strength materials and are not significantly
cornpressible under anticipated foundation loads. The fine alluvial soils are judged to be slow
draining and moderately frost susceptible.
5.4.3 Coarse Alluvium
The coarse alluvial soils are judged to be moderate strength materials and are not significantly
compressible under anticipated foundation loads. The coarse alluvial soils are judged to be
moderately fast draining and at least moderately frost susceptible if exposed to freezing
temperatures.
5.4.4 Glacial Till
The glacial till soils are judged to have moderate strength and are not judged to be significantly
compressible under anticipated foundation loads. The glacial till soils are judged to be slow
draining and would be moderately frost susceptible if exposed to freezing temperatures.
Page 5 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota AMERICAN
August 25; 2016 ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING, INC.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the soil conditions found in our borings, our understanding of the past grading
activities and on the design information that is available, it is our opinion that after proper site
preparation the proposed addition can be supported on conventional spread footing foundations.
Details of our recommendations are given below.
In the planned addition area we found fill and possible fill to about 9 to 10 feet below grade.
Some level of observation and testing may have been done during the placement of the existing
fill in 2008, but no records are available. If any records are found, please contact us to review our
recommendations.
Often, we recommend that fill soils, for which records of placement are not available, not be
relied on for building support. however, with the exception of the upper I to 2 feet of soils
containing organics, the majority of the fill at our borings appears suitable for support of the
proposed building on conventional spread footings and the floor slab on grade. The exception
may be at Boring B -IA, where an N -value of 4 was recorded at about 5 feet below grade. It is
our opinion that the majority of the existing fill can be relied upon for support, but there may be
some local correction necessary.
In order to further assess the existing fill soils, we recommend performing a partial subcut below
all of the footings. Under perimeter footings, we recommend subcutting to a minimum of 2 feet
below planned bottom of footing, and under interior column pads we recommend subcutting to a
depth below the footing equal to n/2 the footing width. Following subcutting, the exposed soils
should be observed and tested by a geotechnical engineer/technician. New compacted fill can
then be placed to the bottom of footing elevation. The excavated non-organic soil can be reused
as backfill provided it is at the proper moisture content. Assessment of the fill quality should also
be carried out by observation of sidewalls in all of the footing trenches.
Note that with the approach of relying on existing fill, the owner needs to accept a greater than
normal risk of foundation and floor settlement (greater than the stated tolerance levels) due to the
inherent variability of fill. Fill soils don't have the benefit of the time and uniformity of geologic
processes, and accordingly, are typically much more variable than naturally -occurring soils.
Details or our recommendations are given below.
Page 6 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25; 2016
Report No. 20-14527
6.1 Building Grading
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
6.1.1 Excavation
Preparation of the building pad should include stripping the vegetation and near surface soils
containing significant amounts of organics. We anticipate a typical stripping depth of about 1 to
2 feet will be required based on the borings. As discussed in section 6.0, under footings we
recommend performing a partial subcut to assess the existing fill. We recommend subcutting to a
minimum of 2 feet below planned bottom of perimeter footings, and to a depth below the interior
column pads equal to '/2 the footing width. The lateral zone of stripping/subcutting should be
extended out horizontally at least 1 foot from the outside edges of footings for every foot of fill
required below the base of the footings (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize). Prior to placing new fill or
concrete, the exposed soils should be observed and tested by a geotechnical engineer/technician.
Any organic, wet/soft or other unsuitable soils as determined by the geotechnical
engineer/technician should be additionally subcut.
The actual required depths of subcutting will need to be determined during earthwork. Because
of the unknown depths and lateral extent of the subcutting that will be needed, we recommend
that the earthwork contract include a unit price line item for extra soil correction required beyond
what is estimated.
6.1.2 Fill Placement and Compaction
The on-site non-organic sandy lean clay and clayey sand soils would be suitable for reuse as fill
provided they do not contain rubble, debris, cobbles or boulders. Excepting the upper 1 or 2 feet,
most of the soils found in borings drilled in the addition area appeared suitable for reuse as new
fill. The majority of the soils found at our three borings in the existing berm did not appear
suitable for reuse. The soils found in Boring B-l0A however, did appear to be mostly suitable for
reuse. Separation of the reusable soils from unsuitable soils in the berm may not be feasible; this
could be better assessed with test pits.
The fill soils must be placed at moisture contents that will allow the soils to be compacted to the
specified levels. We recommend clayey soils be moisture conditioned to within -2 to +3
percentage points of the optimum water content as determined by the Standard Proctor dry
density (ASTM: D 698) before placement. Drying of the on-site clayey soils will likely be
required. This will require favorable weather conditions (warm and dry).
Page 7 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25; 2016
Report No. 20-14527
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
Where imported fill is required, we recommend a granular soil with less than 12% passing the
No. 200 sieve (such as Mn/DOT 3149.2B2) having no gravel larger than 3 inches. If the
contractor proposes a different type of fill, a sample should be submitted to the Geotechnical
Engineer for approval.
The building pad fill should be placed in thin lifts and compacted to at least 98% of the
maximum Standard Proctor dry density (ASTM: D698). The fill should be placed in lifts thin
enough to attain the specified compaction level throughout the entire lift thickness.
Please refer to the standard data sheet at the end of this report entitled "Excavation and Refilling
for Structural Support" for general information regarding excavation and fill placement for
foundation support.
6.2 Foundation Design
After the site preparation described above, the building can be supported on conventional spread
footing foundations bearing on the existing fill and new compacted fill. We recommend that
perimeter foundations for heated building areas bear at a minimum depth of 42 inches below
exterior grade for frost protection. Additional protection from frost penetration can be obtained
by placing the footings at a depth of 48 inches below grade. Interior foundations in heated areas
can be placed directly below the floor slab. The bottoms of exterior foundations (those
foundations not bordering heated building areas) should be extended to a minimum depth of 60
inches below exterior grade, because deeper frost penetration can occur away from the heated
building.
Based on the conditions found in our borings, and assuming that our recommended
grading/compaction procedures in Section 6.1 are followed, it is our opinion that the footings
may be proportioned for a maximum net allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per
square foot. This is also the bearing pressure that was recommended for the existing building
foundations. Our foundation design assumptions include a minimum factor of safety of 3 with
respect to localized shear or base failure of the foundations.
Page 8of16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota AMERICAN
August 25; 2016 ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING, INC.
Please note that settlement of the existing building has probably already occurred. Therefore, the
settlement of the addition would be differential from the existing building. We recommend that
the connections between the addition and the existing building be designed to accommodate this
differential movement.
6.3 Floor Slab Design
Preparation of the building area as previously described will also prepare the building area for
floor slab support. Where there will be forklift traffic in the warehouse area, we recommend that
you consider importing a 100% crushed concrete or crushed limestone Class 5 aggregate for the
floor slab base in those areas. The purpose of the Class 5 base in warehouse areas is to provide a
firmer base and to allow the contractor to place a flatter slab; the Class 5 would also help the slab
performance under forklift traffic at joints in the slab. The minimum thickness of the Class 5
should be 6 inches. The Class 5 aggregate base in the warehouse areas should be compacted to at
least 98% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density, or to meet the criteria for Mn/DOT
dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests.
For relative ease of compaction in confined spaces, we recommend using only sand soils with
less than 12% (by weight) passing the No. 200 sieve as interior backfill around the new
foundations and in underslab utility trenches inside the building.
The backfill around the new foundations and in underslab utility trenches inside the building
should be placed in thin lifts, with each lift mechanically compacted using manually -operated
vibratory or impact equipment, to at least 95% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density.
The fill should be placed in lifts thin enough to attain the specified compaction level throughout
the entire lift thickness. We recommend not using heavy towed or self-propelled compactors
within 4 feet of newly constructed foundation walls; such equipment can damage the new walls.
Based on a subgrade prepared with the type of backfill described above, and after general site
grading, the floor slab can be cast on -grade. For slabs cast on the existing fill and on new clayey
fill, we recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 150 pounds per square inch per
inch of deflection (pci) for design of the slabs. For slabs cast on Class 5 material, we recommend
using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pci.
Page 9of16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota AMERICAN
August 25; 2016 ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING, INC.
A vapor retarder should be placed under the floor slab where there are moisture sensitive floor
coverings/coatings such as are typical in office areas. The purpose of a vapor retarder is to
reduce the potential for upward migration of water vapor from the soil into and through the
concrete slabs. Water vapor migrating upward through the slab can damage floor coverings,
coatings, or sealers placed on the slab, or materials/packages stored on the slabs, and contribute
to excess humidity and possible microbial growth in buildings. For additional recommendations
on moisture and vapor protection of floor slabs, please refer to the standard sheet at the end of
this report entitled "Floor Slab Moisture/Vapor Protection." Typically, the vapor retarder is
placed directly below the floor slab.
6.4 Exterior Backfilling
Backfill around the building and the existing soils outside of the building will have an effect on
the surrounding sidewalks and slabs due to the frost heave potential. Where settlement -sensitive
exterior entry slabs and sidewalks abut the building, we recommend excavation of the on-site
clayey soils down to 4 feet below finished grade. We recommend using non -frost susceptible
(NFS) sand soils as backfill. The purpose of this is to reduce the potential for the characteristic
heave that can occur when clayey soils freeze each winter. We recommend that the NFS sand
soils contain less than 5% (by weight) passing the #200 sieve and less than 40% (by weight)
passing the #200 sieve. New fill should be placed in thin lifts and compacted to at least 95% of
the maximum Standard Proctor dry density. A filtered drain tile should be placed at the base of
the NFS sand fill. The drain tile lines should be drained to a sump (where it can be pumped) or to
a gravity outlet such as a catch basin to help prevent the accumulation of excess water.
The zone of NFS sand backfill should extend at least 2 feet beyond the edges of the entry slabs,
and should be tapered outward away from the building below slabs/pavements at a 3:1 (H:V) or
flatter slope. The purpose of the tapering is to reduce the potential for abrupt slab displacement
when zones farther away from the building may heave during winter.
As an alternative to placing 4 feet of engineered sand fill, the entry slabs can be designed as
structural slabs. These structural slabs should be supported on frost wall foundations bearing at
least 60 inches below the bottom of slab. With this alternative, there should be a minimum 4 inch
air gap left below each slab. The vertical sides on all of the frost walls should be covered with a
bond breaker, preventing adfreezing of the backfill soils. With this approach, you should
anticipate the potential for differential heave of the surrounding on -grade supported slabs
Page 10 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota AMERICAN
August 25; 2016 ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING, INC.
sidewalks and pavements. Sand backfill, drained and tapered, as discussed above can be used
adjacent to the structural slab to reduce the potential for differential heave and a possible tripping
hazard.
6.5 Exterior Underground Utility Construction
The excavated non-organic clayey soils can be reused as backfill in the new utility trenches.
Organic soils should not be used to support manhole structures or utilities, and should not be
reused as backfill. Much of the on-site clayey soils appear to be at elevated moisture contents
and will need to be dried to be reused as fill. We recommend clayey soils be moisture
conditioned to within -2 to +3 percentage points of the optimum water content as determined by
the standard Proctor dry density (ASTM: D698) prior to placement. We recommend that each lift
of the trench backfill be mechanically compacted to at least 95% of its standard Proctor dry
density. Within 3 feet of the pavement subgrade elevation, the compaction should be increased to
at least 100% of its maximum standard Proctor dry density. The fill should be placed in lifts thin
enough to attain the specified compaction level throughout the entire lift thickness.
6.6 Pavements
New pavements are planned to be constructed north and northwest of the new addition.
Although no traffic loads were provided, we anticipate that daily traffic will consist mostly of
cars and light trucks, along with occasional heavier vehicles such as delivery trucks and snow
removal equipment. The planned pavement areas are currently largely occupied by the existing
berm and a significant amount soil removal will be required in most areas to reach design grades.
Grading plans are not yet available but we anticipate finished grades of about 949 to 952 feet in
the pavement areas.
6.6.1 Subgrade Preparation
In areas of new pavements, subgrade preparation should consist of stripping any
vegetation/topsoil and excavating to the planned bottom of base course (or sand subbase)
elevation. We anticipate that the existing fill from the stockpile will be at pavement subgrade
elevation. The subgrade surface should be test rolled as described below. We recommend
additionally subcutting any significantly organic (containing over about 4% organics by weight)
or unstable soils that may be exposed to 3 feet below the proposed subgrade elevation (i.e., 3 feet
below the bottom of Class 5). It should not be necessary to correct soft or organic soils to more
than 3 feet beneath the proposed subgrade elevation, unless the soils are so unstable that they
Page 11 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25; 2016
Report No. 20-14527
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
limit the ability to compact fill placed above these soils. The zone of stripping/subcutting should
be laterally extended at least 2 feet beyond the edges of the new pavements.
The on-site soils could be reused as fill in pavement areas provided they do not contain a
significant amount of organics and they can be sufficiently dried to achieve the recommended
compaction levels. We recommend all fill placed within the top 3 feet of the pavement subgrade
be compacted to a minimum of 100% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density. If fill is
required below the top 3 feet, it should be compacted to at least 95%.
Prior to placing the sand subbase or Class 5, we recommend the subgrade be evaluated for
stability by test rolling as described in the attached sheet entitled "Bituminous Pavement
Subgrade Preparation and Design." If soft or unstable soils are found, they should be subcut and
replaced with drier fall or aerated, dried and recompacted back into place if weather conditions
permit.
6.6.2 Sand Subbase Layer
The clayey soils on this site are frost -susceptible and have the potential to heave upon freezing
each year and undergo a reduction of shear strength during freeze/thaw cycles. Additionally,
their slow -draining nature will increase the potential for excess moisture in the aggregate base
course. Therefore, we strongly recommend placing a 1 foot thick sand subbase below the Class 5
base course to improve drainage, reduce frost effects, and to distribute wheel loads to the
subgrade. The sand should meet the gradation requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2B2
for Select Granular Borrow. Preferably, Modified Select Granular Borrow should be used; this
material would have less than 5% passing the #200 sieve and less than 40% passing the #40
sieve. The entire thickness of the sand subbase layer should be compacted to a minimum of
............... . .
100% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density.
The sand subbase layer, if it is placed, should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage
to collect and discharge water which may become trapped within the sands and above the slower
draining clayey soils. This drainage can be provided by installing finger drains into catch basins
at elevations no higher than the bottom of the sand layer. Edge drains can also be provided
around the perimeter of the parking areas. The finger drains and edge drains should be wrapped
with geotextile fabric and backfilled with sand. To promote subsurface movement of the trapped
Page 12 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25; 2016
Report No. 20-14527
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
water, the top of the clayey subgrade should be sloped or shaped to direct water to the drainage
collection points.
Cost will be a factor in your decision whether or not to construct a sand subbase. Although the
use of a sand subbase has a higher initial cost, it will likely result in reduced longer term costs,
improved performance, lower maintenance, longer service life, and the use of thinner pavement
sections.
6.6.3 Pavement Thickness
It is our opinion the pavements should be designed using an assumed R -value of 20 if the sand
subbase is not placed. If the sand subbase is used, we estimate an R -value of 30. The following
table presents the recommended bituminous pavement thicknesses for options with and without a
sand subbase. The heavy duty design is intended for drive lanes.
Table 6.6.3 — Recommended Pavement Thickness Designs_
* I,f a sand subbase is not placed, we recommend placing a geotexttte separator jaoric (tvtruuvl
3733, Type 5) under the Class 5 base course, preferably below the entire pavement but at a
minimum in heavy duty areas.
6.6.4 Bituminous Pavement Comments
pavementsar
The bituminous pavement sections given above would have an. estimated life of 20 ye 01
However, the Owner should not expect that the pavements would last 20 years wit. h
maintenance. Even if placed and compacted properly on stable subgrade conditions, bitunuino t
Page 13 of 16
Sand Subbase Alternative
With No Sand Subbase
Light Duty
Heavy
Light Duty
Heavy
Pavement Course
(Automobile
Duty Areas
(Automobile Traffic
Duty
Traffic On r ,
02!YJ
Areas
Bituminous Wear
1.5'•
211
1.5"
2"
SPWEA340F
Bituminous Base
2.,
2.1
2"
2"
(SPWEB340F
Class 5 Aggregate Base
61
811
8ae
101
(Mn/DOT 3138
Select Granular Borrow
121
12"
No*
No*
(Mn/DOT 3149.2B2)
* I,f a sand subbase is not placed, we recommend placing a geotexttte separator jaoric (tvtruuvl
3733, Type 5) under the Class 5 base course, preferably below the entire pavement but at a
minimum in heavy duty areas.
6.6.4 Bituminous Pavement Comments
pavementsar
The bituminous pavement sections given above would have an. estimated life of 20 ye 01
However, the Owner should not expect that the pavements would last 20 years wit. h
maintenance. Even if placed and compacted properly on stable subgrade conditions, bitunuino t
Page 13 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota AMERICAN
August 25; 2016 ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING, INC.
expansion and shrinkage. Each of the designs given above assumes that a regularly scheduled
maintenance program consisting of patching cracks and repair rg of locally distressed Ereas
would be implemented. Seal coating of the pavement surface after 3 to 5 years often helps
prolong pavement life.
Various bituminous mix designs and binder materials for pavements should be considered,
specifically to resist thermal cracking and rutting. Binders with a designation of "F" generally
have a greater initial cost than `B" or "B" binders, but are more resistant to rutting and thermal
cracking. Although "F" binders are preferred, `B" binders are also suitable if the mix does not
include recycled aggregate. If "E" or `B" binders are used, there will be an increased probability
of thermal cracking compared to using an "F" binder. Thermal cracks tend to demand more
maintenance and result in a reduced service life with greater long-term costs.
6.7 Infiltration Bate Comments
It is our understanding that a stormwater infiltration pond is planned in the northern portion of
the site (near Boring B -12A) as shown on the preliminary site plan prepared by Sambatek. The
bottom of the pond has been set at elevation 941.5 feet with a top elevation of 944.0 feet. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) Minnesota Stormwater Manual provides
recommendations for design infiltration rates based on soil type
(http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design infiltration rates).
The soils encountered in Boring B -12A consist mostly of sandy lean clay. These soils are not
conducive to rapid infiltration and would have a design infiltration rate of 0.06 inches per hour.
This value assumes a minimum separation of 3 feet between the bottom of the infiltration
practice and the seasonably high ground water table. The long term groundwater level at this site
may be at about 939 to 942 feet based on our borings and the nearby wetland elevation. It may be
necessary to install a piezometer to obtain accurate groundwater levels.
We recommend performing in-situ infiltration testing of the onsite subgrade soils during
construction using the double -ring infiltrometer. The test results can be used to confirm the
project civil engineers design assumptions for the ponds.
Page 14 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25; 2016
Report No. 20-14527
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Potential Difficulties
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
7. LI Water in Excavations
Groundwater and surface runoff may be encountered in excavations for construction. To allow
observation of the excavation bottom, and to reduce the potential for soil disturbance and
facilitate filling operations, we recommend that all free-standing water within the excavations be
removed prior to proceeding with construction.
7.1.2 Disturbance of Soils
The on-site soils can easily become disturbed under construction traffic, especially if the soils are
wet. If soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed soils. The
subcut soils can then be dried and recompacted back into place, or they should be removed and
replaced with drier imported fill.
7.2.3 Winter Construction
If construction occurs during the winter, it is necessary for the contractor to protect the base soils
from freezing each day and each night before new fill is placed. Fill should not be placed over
frozen soils, snow, or ice, nor should the use of frozen fill soils be permitted. The contractor
must protect base soils from freezing before and after fill placement, and before, during, and
after concrete placement.
7.2 Excavation Backsloping
If excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes
in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P,
"Excavations" (can be found on www.osha.goy). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water
seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could
require slope maintenance. Excavation safety is the contractor's responsibility.
Page 15 of 16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25; 2016
Report No. 20-14527
7.3 Observation and Testing
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test
boring locations. Because the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring
locations, we recommend on-site observation by AET geotechnical personnel during
construction to evaluate the effect of these potential changes.
We recommend the soils in excavation bottoms be observed by an AET geotechnical engineer
immediately prior to placing fill or forming for footings. Soil density testing should also be
performed on all fill placed at the site to document that our recommendations and the
specifications for compaction and moisture have been satisfied. Where fill material type is
important, laboratory sieve analyses should be performed to document that the actual fill meets
the recommended gradation criteria. The building materials should also be tested in accordance
with the project specifications and the building codes.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, we have endeavored to provide our
services according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and
location. Other than this, no warranty, either express or implied, is intended.
Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in
Appendix B entitled "Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use."
Page 16 of 16
EXCAVATION AND REFILLING FOR STRUCTURAL SUPPORT
EXCAVATION
Excavations for structural support at soil boring locations should be taken to depths recommended in the geotechnical
report. Since conditions can vary, recommended excavation depths between and beyond the boring locations should be
evaluated by geotechnical field personnel. If ground water is present, the excavation should be dewatered to avoid the
risk of unobservable poor soils being left in-place. Excavation base soils may become disturbed due to construction
traffic, ground water or other reasons. Such soils should be subcut to underlying undisturbed soils. Where the excavation
base slopes steeper than 4:1, the excavation bottom should be benched across the slope parallel to the excavation contour.
Soil stresses under footings spread out with depth. Therefore, the excavation bottom and subsequent fill system should be
laterally oversized beyond footing edges to support the footing stresses. A lateral oversize equal to the depth of fill below
the footing (i.e., 1:1 oversize) is usually recommended. The lateral oversize is usually increased to 1.5:1 where
compressible organic soils are exposed on the excavation sides. Variations in oversize requirements may be
recommended in the geotechnical report or can be evaluated by the geotechnical field personnel.
Unless the excavation is retained, the backslopes should be maintained in accordance with OSHA Regulations
(Standards - 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, "Excavations" (found on www.osha.goy). Even with the required OSHA
sloping, ground water can induce sideslope raveling or running which could require that flatter slopes or other approaches
be used.
FILLING
Filling should proceed only after the excavation bottom has been approved by the geotechnical engineer/technician.
Approved fill material should be uniformly compacted in thin lifts to the compaction levels specified in the geotechnical
report. The lift thickness should be thin enough to achieve specified compaction through the full lift thickness with the
compaction equipment utilized. Typical thicknesses are 6" to 9" for clays and 12" to 18" for sands. Fine grained soils are
moisture sensitive and are often wet (water content exceeds the "optimum moisture content" defined by a Proctor test). In
this case, the soils should be scarified and dried to achieve a water content suitable for compaction. This drying process
can be time consuming, labor intensive, and requires favorable weather.
Select fill material may be needed where the excavation bottom is sensitive to disturbance or where standing water is
present. Sands (SP) which are medium to coarse grained are preferred, and can be compacted in thicker lift thicknesses
than finer grained soils.
Filling operations for structural support should be closely monitored for fill type and compaction by a geotechnical
technician. Monitoring should be on a full-time basis in cases where vertical fill placement is rapid; during freezing
weather conditions; where ground water is present; or where sensitive bottom conditions are present.
EXCAVATION/REFILLING DURING FREEZING TEMPERATURES
Soils that freeze will heave and lose density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original strength and density.
The extent of heave and density loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition; and is most pronounced in clays
and silts. Foundations, slabs, and other improvements should be protected from frost intrusion during freezing weather.
For earthwork during freezing weather, the areas to be filled should be stripped of frozen soil, snow and ice prior to new
fill placement. In addition, new fill should not be allowed to freeze during or after placement. For this reason, it may be
preferable to do earthwork operations in small plan areas so grade can be quickly attained instead of large areas where
much frost stripping may be needed.
01REPOI I (12/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
FREEZING WEATHER EFFECTS ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL
Because water expands upon freezing and soils contain water, soils which are allowed to freeze will heave and lose
density. Upon thawing, these soils will not regain their original strength and density. The extent of heave and
density/strength loss depends on the soil type and moisture condition. Heave is greater in soils with higher
percentages of fines (silts/clays). High silt content soils are most susceptible, due to their high capillary rise
potential which can create ice lenses. Fine grained soils generally heave about 1/4" to 3/8" for each foot of frost
penetration. This can translate to 1" to 2" of total frost heave. This total amount can be significantly greater if ice
lensing occurs.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Clayey and silty soils can be used as perimeter backfill, although the effect of their poor drainage and frost
properties should be considered. Basement areas will have special drainage and lateral load requirements which are
not discussed here. Frost heave may be critical in doorway areas. Stoops or sidewalks adjacent to doorways could
be designed as structural slabs supported on frost footings with void spaces below. With this design, movements
may then occur between the structural slab and the adjacent on -grade slabs. Non -frost susceptible sands (with less
than 12% passing a #200 sieve) can be used below such areas. Depending on the function of surrounding areas, the
sand layer may need a thickness transition away from the area where movement is critical. With sand placement
over slower draining soils, subsurface drainage would be needed for the sand layer. High density extruded
insulation could be used within the sand to reduce frost penetration, thereby reducing the sand thickness needed.
We caution that insulation placed near the surface can increase the potential for ice glazing of the surface.
The possible effects of adfreezing should be considered if clayey or silty soils are used as backfill. Adfreezing
occurs when backfill adheres to rough surfaced foundation walls and lifts the wall as it freezes and heaves. This
occurrence is most common with masonry block walls, unheated or poorly heated building situations and clay
backfill. The potential is also increased where backfill soils are poorly compacted and become saturated. The risk
of adfreezing can be decreased by placing a low friction separating layer between the wall and backfill.
Adfreezing can occur on exterior piers (such as deck, fence or other similar pier footings), even if a smooth surface
is provided. This is more likely in poor drainage situations where soils become saturated. Additional footing
embedment and/or widened footings below the frost zones (which include tensile reinforcement) can be used to
resist uplift forces. Specific designs would require individual analysis.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Foundations, slabs and other improvements which may be affected by frost movements should be insulated from
frost penetration during freezing weather. If filling takes place during freezing weather, all frozen soils, snow and
ice should be stripped from areas to be filled prior to new fill placement. The new fill should not be allowed to
freeze during transit, placement or compaction. This should be considered in the project scheduling, budgeting and
quantity estimating. It is usually beneficial to perform cold weather earthwork operations in small areas where
grade can be attained quickly rather than working larger areas where a greater amount of frost stripping may be
needed. If slab subgrade areas freeze, we recommend the subgrade be thawed prior to floor slab placement. The
frost action may also require reworking and recompaction of the thawed subgrade.
OIREP015 (12/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25, 2016
Report No. 20-14527
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
Appendix A
Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
Boring Log Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
Figure 1 — Boring Locations
Subsurface Boring Logs
Appendix A
Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
Renort No. 20-14527
A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling and sampling 12 standard penetration test (SPT) borings. The locations of the
borings appear on appended Figure 1, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix.
A.2 SOIL SAMPLING METHODS
A.2.1 Split -Spoon Samples (SS) - Calibrated to N60 Values
Standard penetration (split -spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM:D1586 with one primary
modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2 -inch O.D. split -barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140 -pound
hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches,
the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N -value.
Our method uses a modified hammer weight, which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer
(PDA) and an instrumented rod.
In the past, standard penetration N -value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy
transferred to the split -spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60% of its potential energy due to the friction inherent in this
system. This converted energy then provides what is known as an N60 blow count.
AET's drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system, which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently
results in lower N -values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to
determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly
variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100%. Therefore, the intent of AET's hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer
weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60% to 65% of the theoretical energy of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 inches.
The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N -values, stating that N -values of 100% or more have been
observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can
state that the accuracy deviation of the N -values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM method.
A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS)/Spin-up Samples (SU)
Sample types described as "DS" or "SU" on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger.
Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate.
A.2.3 Sampling Limitations
Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of
drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present
in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs.
Determining the thickness of "topsoil" layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other
factors. Visual -manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant
variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for
calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality
definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed.
A.3 SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODS
Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is
described in ASTM:D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been
performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are
visual -manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the
symbols used on the boring logs.
The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted
primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and
development can sometimes aid this judgment.
Appendix A - Page 1 of 3 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
Appendix A
Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing
Report No. 20-14527
AA WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under
"Water Level Measurements" on the logs:
• Date and Time of measurement
• Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement
• Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow -stem auger at time of measurement
• Cave-in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole
• Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered
• Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid
The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is
possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors
include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings,
presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing.
A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS
A.5.1 Water Content Tests
Conducted in general conformance with ASTM:D2216.
A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS
Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards
referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied.
A.7 SAMPLE STORAGE
Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of
30 days.
Appendix A - Page 2 of 3 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
BORING LOG NOTES
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS
Symbol Definition
B, H, N:
Size of flush -joint casing
CA:
Crew Assistant (initials)
CAS:
Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in inches
CC:
Crew Chief (initials)
COT:
Clean-out tube
DC:
Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches
DM:
Drilling mud or bentonite shiny
DR:
Driller (initials)
DS:
Disturbed sample from auger flights
FA:
Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches
HA:
Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter
HSA:
Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter in
inches
LG:
Field logger (initials)
MC:
Column used to describe moisture condition of
samples and for the ground water level symbols
N (BPF):
Standard penetration resistance (N -value) in blows per
foot (see notes)
NQ:
NQ wireline core barrel
PQ:
PQ wireline core barrel
RD:
Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit
REC:
In split -spoon (see notes) and thin-walled tube sampling, the
recovered length (in inches) of sample. In rock coring, the
length of core recovered (expressed as percent of the total
core run). Zero indicates no sample recovered.
REV:
Revert drilling fluid
SS:
Standard split -spoon sampler (steel; l d" is inside diameter;
2" outside diameter); unless indicated otherwise
SU
Spin -up sample from hollow stem auger
TW:
Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in inches
WASH:
Sample of material obtained by screening retuning rotary
drilling fluid or by which has collected inside the borehole
after "falling" through dulling fluid
WH:
Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and hammer
WR:
Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod
94mm:
94 millimeter wireline core barrel
♦ :
Water level directly measured in boring
0:
Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance
TEST SYMBOLS
Symbol
Definition
CONS:
One-dimensional consolidation test
DEN:
Dry density, pcf
DST:
Direct shear test
E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf
HYD: Hydrometer analysis
LL: Liquid Limit, %
LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf
OC: Organic Content, %
PERM: Coeflicient of permeability (K) test; F - Field;
L - Laboratory
PL: Plastic Limit, %
qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength tsf (approximate)
qC: Static cone bearing pressire, tsf
q": Unconfined compressive strength, psf
R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cirn
RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent
(aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length as a
percent of total core run)
SA: Sieve analysis
TRX: Triaxial compression test
VSR: Vane shear strength, remolded (field), psf
VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf
WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight
%-200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES
(Calibrated hammer Weight)
The standard penetration test consists of driving a split -spoon sampler
with a drop hammer (calibrated weight varies to provide N60 values) and
counting the number of blows applied in each of three 6" increments of
penetration. If the sampler is driven less than 18" (usually in highly
resistant material), permitted in ASTM: D1586, the blows for each
complete 6" increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log.
For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1'
below the slash.
The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" cohnm, maybe
greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The disparity is
because the N -value is recorded below the initial 6" set (unless partial
penetration defined in ASTM: D 1586 is encountered) whereas the length
of sample recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even
extend more than 18').
O1REP052C (12/08) AMERICAN UNU NELKINtJ AE�iiiits, Liv �--
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488
p
o
50
Term
20
Soil Classification
Criteria for
Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA
Group
Group Name
40
C5 30
6D
3%-14%
Symbol
less than 2
Coarse -Grained
Gravels More
Clean Gravels
Cu>4 and 1<Cc<3
GW
Well graded grave
Soils More
than 50% coarse
Less than 5%
Loose
5-10
Gravel
than 50%
fraction retained
finesc
Cu<4 and/or I>Cc>3
GP
Poorly graded gra,
retained on
on No. 4 sieve
Sand
No
No. 200 sieve
Stiff
Gravels with
Fines classify as ML or MH
GM
Silty gravel
Pass #200 sieve
Fines more
Very Stiff
16-30
Very Dense
Greater than 50
than 12% fines C
Fines classify as CL or CH
GC
77
Clayey gravel
Sands 50% or
Clean Sands
Cu>6 and 1<Cc<3
SW
Well -graded sand
more of coarse
Less than 5%
Organic Description (if no lab tests)
fraction passes
fines°
Cu<6 andior 1>Cc>3
SP
Poorly -graded San
No. 4 sieve
Sands with
Fines classify as ML or MH
SM
Silty sand"-"-'
Fines more
than 12% fines o
Fines classify as CL or CH
Sc
Clayey sand
Fine -Grained
Silts and Clays
inorganic
PI>7 and plots on or above
CL
Lean clay '
Soils 50% or
Liquid limit less
"A" line
more passes
than 50
PI<4 or plots below
ML
Silt
the No. 200
"A" line
sieve
organic
Liquid limit—oven dried 10.75
OL
clay
Organic 'clay
(see Plasticity
Liquid limit — not dried
Organic siltK.L.M.o
Chart below)
Silts and Clays
inorganic
PI plots on or above "A" line
CH
Fat clayK,L,M
Liquid limit 50
or more
PI plots below "A" line
MH
Elastic silt
organic
Liquid limit—oven dried 10.75
OH
Organic clay '
Liquid limit — not dried
Organic si1tK.L.M.Q
Highly organic
Primarily organic matter, dark
PT
Peat
soil
in color, and organic in odor
p
o
50
Term
20
Term
N -Value, BPF
.40
N -Value, BPF
Boulders
40
C5 30
6D
3%-14%
80
less than 2
-'
0-4
Cobbles
.7
Sapric Peat:
4
15%-29%
0
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING 93
TESTING, INC.
Notes
ABased on the material passing the 3 -in
(75 -mm) sieve.
BIf field sample contained cobbles or
boulders, or both, add `with cobbles or
boulders, or both" to group name.
cGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual
symbols:
GW -GM well -graded gravel with silt
GW -GC well -graded gravel with clay
GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt
GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay
°Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual
symbols:
SW -SM well -graded sand with silt
SW -SC well -graded sand with clay
SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay
(D30)2
'Cu = D60 /Dto, Cc =
D o x D60
'If soil contains >15% sand, add "with
sand" to group name.
GIf fines classify as CL -ML, use dual
symbol GC -GM, or SC -SM.
"If fines are organic, add `with organic
fines" to group name.
'If soil contains >15% gravel, add "with
ravel" to group name.
If Anerberg limits plot is hatched area,
soil is a CL -ML silty clay.
KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200
add "with sand" or "with gravel",
whichever is predominant.
LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200,
predominantly sand, add "sandy" to
group name.
MIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200,
predominantly gravel, add "gravelly"
to group name.
"Pl>4 and plots on or above "A" line.
oPl<4 or plots below "A" line.
PPI plots on or above "A" line.
QPl plots below "A" line.
RFiber Content description shown below.
,. PARTICLE SIZE IN MLLINEMRS -. .fV 11QJDLJNI7(LL) : V .,~ .... ..~. ..
c = a 15 =zro===s.s Plasticity Chart
ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
Grain Size Gravel Percentages Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density of Non -Plastic Soils
Term
Particle Size
Term
Percent
Term
N -Value, BPF
Term
N -Value, BPF
Boulders
Over 12"
A Little Gravel
3%-14%
Very Soft
less than 2
-'
0-4
Cobbles
PANE
Sapric Peat:
With Gravel
15%-29%
Soft
2 - 4
Loose
5-10
Gravel
#4 sieve to 3"
Gravelly
30%-50%
Firm
5 - 8
Medium Dense
11 -30
Sand
No
Stiff
ENEEM
Dense
31- 50
Fines (silt & clay)
Pass #200 sieve
Very Stiff
16-30
Very Dense
Greater than 50
Hard
Greater than 30
Moisture/Frost Condition
SOMME
Peat Description
Organic Description (if no lab tests)
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING 93
TESTING, INC.
Notes
ABased on the material passing the 3 -in
(75 -mm) sieve.
BIf field sample contained cobbles or
boulders, or both, add `with cobbles or
boulders, or both" to group name.
cGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual
symbols:
GW -GM well -graded gravel with silt
GW -GC well -graded gravel with clay
GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt
GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay
°Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual
symbols:
SW -SM well -graded sand with silt
SW -SC well -graded sand with clay
SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay
(D30)2
'Cu = D60 /Dto, Cc =
D o x D60
'If soil contains >15% sand, add "with
sand" to group name.
GIf fines classify as CL -ML, use dual
symbol GC -GM, or SC -SM.
"If fines are organic, add `with organic
fines" to group name.
'If soil contains >15% gravel, add "with
ravel" to group name.
If Anerberg limits plot is hatched area,
soil is a CL -ML silty clay.
KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200
add "with sand" or "with gravel",
whichever is predominant.
LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200,
predominantly sand, add "sandy" to
group name.
MIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200,
predominantly gravel, add "gravelly"
to group name.
"Pl>4 and plots on or above "A" line.
oPl<4 or plots below "A" line.
PPI plots on or above "A" line.
QPl plots below "A" line.
RFiber Content description shown below.
,. PARTICLE SIZE IN MLLINEMRS -. .fV 11QJDLJNI7(LL) : V .,~ .... ..~. ..
c = a 15 =zro===s.s Plasticity Chart
ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
Grain Size Gravel Percentages Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density of Non -Plastic Soils
Term
Particle Size
Term
Percent
Term
N -Value, BPF
Term
N -Value, BPF
Boulders
Over 12"
A Little Gravel
3%-14%
Very Soft
less than 2
Very Loose
0-4
Cobbles
3" to 12"
Sapric Peat:
With Gravel
15%-29%
Soft
2 - 4
Loose
5-10
Gravel
#4 sieve to 3"
Gravelly
30%-50%
Firm
5 - 8
Medium Dense
11 -30
Sand
#200 to #4 sieve
Stiff
9 - 15
Dense
31- 50
Fines (silt & clay)
Pass #200 sieve
Very Stiff
16-30
Very Dense
Greater than 50
Hard
Greater than 30
Moisture/Frost Condition
Layering Notes
Peat Description
Organic Description (if no lab tests)
(MC Column)
Soils are described as oceanic, if soil is not peat
and is judged to have sufficient organic fines
content to influence the Liquid Limit properties.
Sltzhtl�or;anic used for borderline cases.
Root Inclusions
D (Dry): Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to
Laminations: Layers less than
33 6a
touch.
M (Moist): Damp, although free water not
`/�' thick of
Term
visible. Soil may still have a high
differing material
water content (over ` optimum").
or color.
Peat:
W (Wet/ Free water visible, intended to
Hemic Peat:
Hemi
Waterbearing): describe non -plastic soils.
Lenses: Pockets or layers
Sapric Peat:
Waterbearing usually relates to
greater than /_
sands and sand with silt.
thick of differing
F (Frozen): Soil frozen
material or color.
Fiber Content
(Visual Estimate)
Soils are described as oceanic, if soil is not peat
and is judged to have sufficient organic fines
content to influence the Liquid Limit properties.
Sltzhtl�or;anic used for borderline cases.
Root Inclusions
e
Greater than 67%
With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity
33 6a
of roots to influence the soil
Less than 33%
properties.
Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged
to be in sufficient quantity to
significantly affect soil properties.
OICLS021 (07/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
. AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
p
l /
B -12A
L j
\
—40sd%_
o
J
_ 7 ���IffiI�I�I�I� B=9A
— B st�ls
o
—
20 stalls \
o
B -11A -1'
B -10A I I I I*++ \
Z
,s
i
14
g
21 stalls
I 12
T
15 stabs
6 s
B� 6A
#mow B -7A
B -8A
I
I
is sWs � I B -4A B -5A
i—
t ® ® -
i
B -22A B- B-lA ,
1 B stats
. I
EXIS BOILDING - 45,200 S.F. I:
AIN - QFFICE / 6,584 S.F.. ,.
1N =WAREHOUSE / 38,616
10 2ND FL - OFFICE / 13,627 S.F.
16 stalls
6
1
PROJECT IDI Distributors Addition
Chanhassen, Minnesota
SUBJECT Approximate Boring Locations
SCALEI DRAWN BY I CHECKED BY
Done ??'B
AET JOB NO.
20-14527
DATE
August 2016
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -1A (p. 1 of 1)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, MN
D INTH
Surface Elevation 952.8
GEOLOGY
N
MC
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
WC
DEN
LL
PL
o-#20
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
IN.
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, slightly organic, a
FILL
little gravel, trace roots, dark brown and black
1
DS
19
2
FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, gray
5
M
SS
6
14
3
4
FILL, mixture of sandy lean clay and clayey
sand, a little gravel, brown and gray
5
4
M
SS
6
18
6
7
7
M
SS
10
20
8
9
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown
TILL
and gray mottled, firm (CL)
10
7
M
SS
18
22
11
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, grayish
i2
brown, a little brown, stiff (CL)
11
M
SS
1 18
22
14
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, gray, a
little brown and dark brown, very stiff (CL)
is
19
M
SS
16
18
16-
17
18
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, gray, very stiff
(SC)
19—
20
19
M
SS
18
17
21
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
DATE
0-191/2' 3.25„ HSA
TIME
STD
DEPTH
CASING
CAVE-IN
DEPTH
DRILLING WATER
FLUID LEVEL LEVEL
7/7/16
10:01
21.0
19.5
21.0
None
BORING
COMPLETED: 7/7/16
THIS LOG
DR: SHS LG: CD Rig: 70
03/2011 01-DTiR-060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -2A (p. 1 of 1)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, MN
D INTH
Surface Elevation 954.0
GEOLOGY
N
MC
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
WC
DEN
LL
PL
.-420
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
'
FILL, mostly clayey sand with organic fines, a
FILL
little gravel, dark grayish brown
1
DS
16
2
FILL, mixture of sandy lean clay and clayey
sand, a little gravel, brownish gray
6
M
SS
10
22
3—
4-
5
10
M
SS
12
20
6-
7-
710
10
M
SS
10
16
8
9
SANDY LEANT CLAY, a little gravel, brown, a
TILL
little gray, stiff (CL)
10
9
M
SS
14
20
11
12
10
M
SS
18
20
13 -
i
i
I
14
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little
gray, stiff (SC)
15
15
M
SS
16
21
16
17
18
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, gray, a
little brown and light gray, stiff (CL)
19
20
11
M
SS
18
20
21
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
0-191/z' 3.25" HSA
DATE
TpVIE
SAMPLED
DEPTH
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE-IN DRILLING
DEPTH FLUID LEVEL
WATER
LEVEL
7/6/16
12:17
21.0
19.5
21.0
None
BORING
COMPLETED: 7/6/16
THIS LOG
�
DR: SHS LG: CD Rig: 70
03/2011 01-DHR-060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B-3A (p. 1 of 1)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition, Chanhassen, MN
DEPTH
Surface Elevation 952.8
GEOLOGY
N
MC
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD &LABORATORY TESTS
IN
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
IN.
WC DEN
LL
PL
o #20
FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, trace
FILL
roots, dark brown
DS
11
1
2
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, a little gravel, gray
and brown
5
M
x
SS
18
19
3—
4
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, trace
TILL OR
roots, brown and gray mottled, stiff (CL)
FILL
5
(possible fill)
12
M
SS
18
19
6
7I
13
M
SS
16
26
I
9
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown, a
TILL
little light tan, very stiff (CL)
10
18
M
SS
18
19
1i
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, grayish
12
brown, a little brown and dark brown, very stiff
(CL)
18
M
SS
18
19
13
14-
15
15
M
SS
16
19
16-
17
18
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, gray, very stiff
(SC)
19
;—, 20
18
M
SS
18
17
0
J 21
W
END OF BOILING
3
r
0 DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
a
DATE
TIME
SAMPLED
DEPTH
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE-IN DRILLING
DEPTH FLUID LEVEL
WATER
LEVEL
0-191/z' 3.25" HSA
SHEETS FOR AN
N
7/1/16
1:32
21.0
19.5
20.8
None
N
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
CS
N
x BORING
o COMPLETED: 7/1/16
THIS LOG
Uj DR: JM LG: SHS Rig: 70
a
03/2011 01-DHR-060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -4A (p. i of 1)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, MN
DEPTH
Surface Elevation 953.6
GEOLOGYN
MC
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
WC
DEN
LL
PL
4.420
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
IN'
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, slightly organic, a
FILL
little gravel, pieces of brick, dark brown and gray
1
DS
21
2
FILL, mixture of sandy lean clay and clayey
sand, a little gravel, brown and gray
10
M
SS
12
13
3—
4
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, grayish brown
TILL OR
mottled, a little light tan and brown, stiff to firm
FILL
5
(CL) (possible fill)
12
M
SS
12
18
6-
7-
718
18
M
X
SS
14
18
8—
1
9
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown and gray
TILL
mottled, a little dark brown, stiff (SC)
l0
15
M
SS
16
19
i1
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, grayish
12
brown, a little brown and dark brown, very stiff
(CL)
18
M
X
SS
18
20
13
14-
15
16
M
SS
18
19
16
17
18
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little
gray and dark brown, very stiff (SC)
19
20
26
M
SS
18
19
l
21
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
1
0-19/2 3.25�� HSA
DATE
TIME SD
DEPTH
CASING
DEPTH
VE -IN
DEPTH
FLUID LEVEL
WATER
LEVEL
7/6/16
1:25
21.0
19.5
21.0
None
BO&N
COMPLETED: 7/6/16
THIS LOG
d DR: SHS LG: CD Rig: 70
1
1 1
1
1
03/2011 01-DHR-06U
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
SUBSPACE BORING LOG
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -5A (p. 1 of 1)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, NIN
DEPNTH
Surface Elevation 953.2
GEOLOGY
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
WC
DEN
LL
PL
o-#20
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
MC
TYPE'
IN
FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, trace
FILL
roots, dark brown
1
DS
18
2
FILL, mixture of sandy lean clay and clayey
sand, a little gravel, pieces of bituminous, dark
9
M
SS
16
17
3
brown, gray and brown
4
FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, trace
roots, brown, gray and dark brown
5—
9
M
SS
14
19
6-
F1 -LL, mostly sandy lean clay, a little gravel, gray
7—
7
and brown, a little dark brown
7
M
SS
16
19
8
�
9
FILL, mostly clayey sand, brown and gray
17
10
9
M
SS
18
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, gray, a little brown,
FINE
stiff (CL)
ALLUVIUM
30
11
—
SILTY SAND, a little gravel, fine to medium
COARSE
12
grained, grayish brown, wet, loose (SM)
ALLUVIUM
{{
j
W
SS
18
I
14-
15
7
W
SS
18
16-
17
18
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brownish
TILL
gray, stiff (CL)
19
20
14
W
SS
8
20
21
END OF BORING
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOG
1
0-19h 3.25„ HSA
DATE
TIME SAMPLED
PTH
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE-IN
DEPTH
FLUIDLEVEL
LEVELG WATER
7/1/16
11:40
13.5
12.0
12.0
11.0
7/1/16
11:50
21.0
19.5
20.0
18.7
BORING
COMPLETED: 7/1/16
7/1/16
12:00
21.0
19.5
19.7
18.4
DR: JM LG: SHS Rig: 70
03/2011 01-DHR-060
c�
N
N
0 CL
BORING
N
o COMPLETED: 7/1/16
a DR: JM LG: SHS Rig: 70
03/2011
7/1/16 9:03 21.0 19.5 20.7 None SHBETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOG
O1-DHR-060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET No: 20-14527
Log of Boring No.
B -6A (p.1 of 1)
Project:
IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, MN
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
DEPTH
Surface Elevation 952.6
GEOLOGY
N
MC
SAMPLE
TYPE
RE
IN.
WC
DEN
LL
PL o-#20
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
FILL, mostly lean clay with sand, slightly
FILL
19
organic, trace roots, dark brown
7
M
SS
20
1
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, a little gravel and
19
sand, trace roots, dark gray and light gray
2
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, a little gravel,
slightly organic, trace roots, dark brown
7
M
SS
16
19
3
4-
5—
13
M
SS
10
21
6-
FILL, mostly clayey sand, trace roots, dark
7
brown
18
M
SS
12
15
8
9
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, gray and
TILL
brown mottled, a little dark brown, stiff to very
to
stiff (CL)
9
M
SS
10
21
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, gray, very stiff
11
(SC)
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, a little gravel, gray
12
(CL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, light
7
Zvi
SS
14
20
13
brown and light gray mottled (CL)
�\
14
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel (SC)
15
17
M
SS
18
18
16
17
18
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, gray, very
stiff (CL)
19-
20
20
M
SS
18
19
0
21
w
L
END OF BORING1
CL
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
a
DATE
TIME
SAMPLED
DEPTH
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE-IN
DEPTH
DRILLING
FLUID LEVEL
WATER
LEVEL
THE ATTACHED
a 0-191/z'
3.25" HSA
c�
N
N
0 CL
BORING
N
o COMPLETED: 7/1/16
a DR: JM LG: SHS Rig: 70
03/2011
7/1/16 9:03 21.0 19.5 20.7 None SHBETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOG
O1-DHR-060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSPACE BODING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -7A (p. 1 of 1)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen MN
DEPTH
Surface Elevation 952.7
GEOLOGY
N
MC
SAMPLE
REC
FIE&LABORATORY TESTS
LD
IN
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
IN'
WC DEN LL PL o-#20
FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, trace
FILL
10
roots, dark brown
13
M
SS
18
1
12
2
FILL, mixture of sandy lean clay and clayey
sand, a little gravel, trace roots, brown, dark
13
M
SS
12
16
3
brown and gray
4
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, a little gravel and
silty sand, slightly organic, dark brown, black
13
5
and gray
21
M
SS
18
19
6
FILL, mostly clayey sand, brown, a little gray
7
M
SS
16
18
9
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, brown, a little grayFINE
and light gray, firm (CL)
ALLUVIUM
10
OR
WEATHERE
8
M
SS
18
21
TILL
I 1
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown and gray
TILL
'2
firm (SC)
Imottled,
8
M
SS !
18
19
13
�
14
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, a little
gray and dark brown, stiff (CL)
15
9
M
SS
16
24
16-
17
18
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, gray, a
little brown, very stiff (CL)
19—
20
17
M
SS
18
19
0
21
END OF BORING
w
+
r
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
<
DATE
TIME
SAMPLED
DEPTH
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE-IN
DEPTH
DRILLING
FLUID LEVEL
WATER
LEVEL
THE ATTACHED
0-191/z' 3.25" HSA
N
7/1/16
9:55
21.0
19.5
21.0
None
SHEETS FOR AN
6
EXPLANATION OF
N
a. BORING
TERMINOLOGY ON
o COMPLETED: 7/1/16
THIS LOG
�'
LU DR: JM LG: SHS Ri : 70
a 01-DHR-06(
03/2011
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -8A (p. I of 1)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, MN
DEPTH
Surface Elevation 952.9
GEOLOGY
N
MC
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD &LABORATORY TESTS
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
IN.
WC
DEN
LL
PL
o-#20
FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, trace
FILL
6
roots, gray and brown to dark brown
1
24
M
SS
24
FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, pieces
12
of bituminous, trace roots, brown, dark brown
2
and gray
11
M
SS
12
12
3
4
5
8
M
SS
16
15
6-
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, a little gravel and
7—
clayey sand, trace roots, brown and dark gray
10
M
SS
10
18
8
9
LEANT CLAY WITH SAND, gray, a little brown
WEATHERS
dark brown, stiff (CL)
TIOR
10—and
INE
9
M
SS
18
22
ALLUVIUM
11
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown, a
TILL
12
little dark brown and gray mottled, stiff (CL)
11
I M
SS
18
121
i3
14
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, grayish
brown, a little brown, stiff (CL)
15
15
/M
SS
16
21
16
17
18
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, gray, stiff (SC)
19
s
20
13
M
SS
18
17
' 21
END OF BORING
? DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
T ATTACHED
'
DATE
TIME
SAMPLED
DEPTH
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE-IN
DEPTH
DRILLING
FLUID LEVEL
WATER
LEVEL
0-191/z' 3.25" HSA
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
7/1/16
10:42
16.0
14.5
16.0
None
J
7/1/16
10:48
21.0
19.5
20.7
None
BO
7/1/16
10:53
21.0
19.5
20.7
None
COMPLETED: 7/1/16
THIS LOG
DR: JM LG: SHS Rig: 70
t
03/2011
01-DHR-060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -9A (p. 1 of 1)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, MN
D INTH
Surface Elevation 947.8
GEOLOGY
N
MC
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
WC
DEN
LL
PL
o-#20
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
IN.
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, slightly organic, a
FILL
20
little gravel, trace roots, dark brown and black
1
M
SS
14
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, a little gravel,
18
trace roots, brown, a little gray and dark brown
2
15
M
SS
12
17
3
4
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, gray, a
WEATHERS
little brown and light gray, stiff (CL)
TILL
5
10
M
SS
16
22
6
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown
TILL
7
and gray mottled, firm to stiff (CL)
jI
8
M
SS
16
17
E
9-
10—
g
M
SS
16
19
11
12
.
10�M
SS
14
21
E
13
14
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown,
stiff
15
10
M
SS
18
19
16-
17
18
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, gray, very stiff
(SC)
19
s
' 20
16
M
SS
18
16
i
' 21
END OF BORING
Ll
I
? DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
T ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
' 0-191/z' 3.25" HSA
DATE
TIME
SAMPLED
DEPTH
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE-IN
DEPTH
DRILLING
FLUID LEVEL
WATER
LEVEL
7/7/16
8:52
21.0
19.5
21.0
None
BORIN>COMPLETED:
7/7/16
THIS LOG
DR: SHS LG: CD Rig: 70
i
03/2011 01-DHR-060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -10A (p. 1 of 2)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen MN
DEPTH
961.1SAMPLE
FIELD &LABORATORY TESTS
Surface Elevation GEOLOGY N MC S SEE )IAC
FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC DEN LL PL o-#2(
FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, trace FILL 12
1 roots, brown and gray 14 M SS 18 14
2 FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, trace
3 roots, gray, a little light gray
4 FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, gray, a
little brown
5
6
7
8
9-
10
11
12
13 FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, a little gravel,
brown, a little gray
14 FILL, mostly organic clayey sand, a little gravel
and sandy lean clay, trace roots, dark brown and
15 black
CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots,
16 brown, a little gray and light gray, stiff (SC)
17 SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown
and gray mottled, a little light gray, stiff to firm
to very stiff (CL)
18
19
20-
21
U
LU
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
LU
0-241/2' 3.25" HSA
DR: JM LG: SHS Rig: 70
03/2011
18 1 M I X I SS 1 18 1 12
13 1 M I X I SS 1 16 1 15
11 I M IXI SS 116 119
7 I M I X I SS I 12 119
15
7 i M V SS 1 12 1 19
TILL 9 I M I n l SS I 12 1 17
13
14 I M I X I SS I 18 118
8 IMIXI SS 1 18120
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
I
NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
SA2vTTDDC
DRILLING
DATE
TI; E
DEPH
EPTH
DPTH
FLUID LL
EVEL
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
6/30/16
1:03
26.0
24.5
26.0
None
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOG
01-DHR-060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSPACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -10A (p. 2 of 2)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, MN
DEPTH
GEOLOGY
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
WC
DEN
LL
PL
o-#20
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
MC
TYPE
D1'
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown
TILL
and gray mottled, a little light gray, stiff to firm
(continued)
23
to very stiff (CL) (continued)
24-
25
16
M
SS
18
18
26
END OF BORING
I
i
03/2011 01 -DDR -060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -11A (p. 1 of 1)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen MN
DEPTH
Surface Elevation 958.5
GEOLOGY
N
MC
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD &LABORATORY TESTS
IN FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
m'
WC
DEN
LL
PL
6420
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, slightly organic, a
FILL
little gravel and clayey sand, dark brown
6
M
SS
10
21
1
2-
13
M
x
SS
18
15
3–
4
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, slightly organic,
trace roots, black, a little gray
5
12
M
SS
18
28
6
7
8
M
SS
12
25
8-
9-
910
10
11
9
M
SS
10
21
12
9i
20
M
X
SS
18
17
13
i
r
i
i
i
14
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, a little gravel,
TILL
grayish brown, a little brown, stiff (CL)
15
11
M
SS
18
24
16
17
18
19
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown
0
and gray mottled, stiff (CL)
a 20
11
M
SS
18
23
21
L
END OF BOILING
+ DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
THE ATTACHED
s
DATE
TIME
SAMPLED
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE-IN
DEPTH
DRILLING
FLUID LEVEL
WATER
LEVEL
i 0-19'/z' 3.25" HSADEPTH
6/30/16
11:36
21.0
19.5
21.6
None
SHEETS FOR AN
n
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
u
r BORING
COMPLETED: 6/30/16
THIS LOG
',
'DR: JM LG: SHS Rig: 70
0
03/2011 O1 -1—.f 6(,
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
TESTING, INC.
AET No: 20-14527 Log of Boring No. B -12A (p. 1 of 2)
Project: IDI Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, MN
DEPTH
Surface Elevation 960.6
GEOLOGY
SAMPLE
REC
FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
WC
DEN
LL
PL
o-#20
FEET
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
MC
TYPE
IN.
FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, slightly organic, a
FILL
little gravel and clayey sand, trace roots, dark
1
brown, black, a little gray
g
M
SS
12
17
2-
3
8
M
SS
10
20
4
5
7
M
SS
14
21
6-
7
9M
SS
12
19
b
9
9
M
SS
16
17
10-
11
8
M
SS
16
27
12
i
i 13
18
M
SS
18
28
14
SANDY LEAN CLAYa little gravel, brown
TILL
and gray mottled, a little light gray, stiff to very
15
stiff (CL)
12
M
SS
16
21
16-
6
17
17
16
M
SS
24
18
18
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown
and gray mottled, stiff (CL)
19
11
M
SS
24
21
20
SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown
and gray mottled, stiff (CL)
21
9
M
SS
24
20
DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD
WATER LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
NOTE: REFER TO
1 , „
0-34/2 3.25 HSA
DATE
TIME
SAMPLED
DEPTH
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE-IN
DEPTH
DRILLING
FLUID LEVEL
WATER
LEVEL
THE ATTACHED
SHEETS FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF
TERMINOLOGY ON
THIS LOG
6/30/16
10:30
36.0
34.0
36.0
None
BORING
COMPLETED: 6/30/16
DR: JM LG: SHS Rig: 70
03/2011 01-DHR-060
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
SUBSURFACE BORING LOG
03/2011
Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
I.D.I. Distributors Addition; Chanhassen, Minnesota
August 25, 2016
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
Report No. 20-14527 TESTING, INC.
Appendix B.
Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
Appendix B
Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines 'for Use
Report No. 20-14527
B.1 REFERENCE
This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which rare caused by
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE , of which, we
are a member firm.
B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study
conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each
geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one
except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who
prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
8.2.2 Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.
B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically
factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its
size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access
roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates
otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light
industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of
their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not
consider developments of which they were not informed.
B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a
geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as
construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always
contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional
testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
1 ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301/565-2733: www.asfe.or¢
Appendix 13 — Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC
Appendix B
Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
Report No. 20-14527
B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions
Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken.
Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about
subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated
in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
B.2.6 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their
recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who
developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not
perform construction observation.
B.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that
risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also
retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also
misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.
B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To
prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in
architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognizes that separating
logs from the report can elevate risk.
B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete
geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with
the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain
the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have
sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information
available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated
conditions.
B.2.10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims,
and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory
provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'
responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask
questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
B.2.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental
findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated
contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your
own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an
environmental report prepared for someone else.
Appendix B - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC