Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report - Avienda - B1701407
Table of Contents
Description Page
A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
A.1. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1
A.2. Site Conditions and History ................................................................................................. 2
A.3. Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 2
A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents .......................................................... 2
A.5. Scope of Services ................................................................................................................. 3
B. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 4
B.1. Geologic Overview .............................................................................................................. 4
B.2. Previous Geotechnical Information ..................................................................................... 4
B.3. Boring Results ...................................................................................................................... 4
B.4. Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 5
B.5. Laboratory Test Results ....................................................................................................... 6
C. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 6
C.1. Design and Construction Discussion ................................................................................... 6
C.1.a. Foundation-Type Building Support ........................................................................ 6
C.1.b. Reuse of On-Site Soils ............................................................................................. 7
C.1.c. Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 7
C.1.d. Pavement ............................................................................................................... 7
C.1.e. Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................ 8
C.1.f. Weather.................................................................................................................. 8
C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................. 8
C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations ............................................................................... 8
C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing ........................................................................................... 10
C.2.c. Excavated Slopes .................................................................................................. 11
C.2.d. Excavation Dewatering ......................................................................................... 12
C.2.e. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation ............................................. 12
C.2.f. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll .............................................................................. 13
C.2.g. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction .......................................................... 13
C.2.h. Special Inspections of Soils ................................................................................... 14
C.3. Spread Footings ................................................................................................................. 15
C.4. Below-Grade Walls ............................................................................................................ 15
C.4.a. Drainage Control .................................................................................................. 15
C.4.b. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads............................................................... 17
C.4.c. Retaining Wall along South side of Site................................................................ 18
C.5. Frost Protection ................................................................................................................. 18
C.5.a. General ................................................................................................................. 18
C.5.b. Frost Heave Mitigation ......................................................................................... 18
C.6. Pavements and Exterior Slabs ........................................................................................... 20
C.6.a. Design Sections .................................................................................................... 20
C.6.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials .......................................................................... 20
C.6.c. Subgrade Drainage ............................................................................................... 20
C.6.d. Performance and Maintenance ........................................................................... 21
Table of Contents (continued)
Description Page
C.7. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 21
C.7.a. Subgrade Stabilization .......................................................................................... 21
C.7.b. Corrosion Potential .............................................................................................. 21
C.8. Stormwater........................................................................................................................ 22
C.9. Additional Geotechnical Exploration and Analysis ............................................................ 22
D. Procedures...................................................................................................................................... 23
D.1. Penetration Test Borings ................................................................................................... 23
D.2. Exploration Logs ................................................................................................................ 23
D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets ............................................................................................. 23
D.2.b. Geologic Origins ................................................................................................... 23
D.3. Material Classification and Testing ................................................................................... 24
D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification .......................................................................... 24
D.3.b. Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 24
D.4. Groundwater Measurements ............................................................................................ 24
E. Qualifications .................................................................................................................................. 24
E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................. 24
E.1.a. Material Strata ..................................................................................................... 24
E.1.b. Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................. 25
E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility .......................................................................... 25
E.2.a. Plan Review .......................................................................................................... 25
E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing ............................................................... 25
E.3. Use of Report..................................................................................................................... 26
E.4. Standard of Care ................................................................................................................ 26
Appendix
Soil Boring Location Sketch
Logs of Previous Borings ST-1 through ST-12
Logs of Boring Sheets ST-13 through ST-32
Descriptive Terminology of Soil
A. Introduction
A.1. Project Description
This Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the proposed design and construction of the
Avienda Mixed-Use Development, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Lyman
Boulevard and Powers Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Development is in conceptual stages at this time; thus, only preliminary grading plans were available at
the time of this report. Based on development plan drawings, the project may include the construction of
single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, senior housing, hotels, parking ramp, retail and office
buildings as well as associated roads and utilities. We assume some buildings may have a level of below
grade parking, and above grade structures will range from one to five levels above grade. It appears the
heavier structures could include a 5-story apartment building connected to a parking ramp. We assume
building column loads will range from about 100 to 800 kips (100,000 to 800,000 pounds). We also
understand there will be an approximately 20-foot tall retaining wall along the southern boundary of the
property.
This preliminary geotechnical evaluation should generally be adequate for the design of site grading, as
we understand the whole site will be graded together. However, due to at least one area of deep, soft
soil conditions, we recommend additional soil borings and laboratory testing be performed in this area to
better estimate the depths and extent of soil corrections in this area.
Once site grading is complete and final design plans are available, we request we be able to review this
information as we anticipate that additional soil borings and a supplemental geotechnical evaluation and
analysis will be necessary prior to final design and construction of this project.
Table 1 provides assumed project details regarding pavements and site grading.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 2
Table 1. Site Aspects and Grading Description
Aspect Description
Pavement type(s) Mostly bituminous with the possibility of small areas of
concrete near loading docks, etc.
Provided/Assumed Pavement loads Light-duty: 50,000 ESALs*
Medium-duty: 200,000 ESALs*
Grade changes Up to 20 feet (Assumed)
*Equivalent 18,000-lb single axle loads based on X-year design.
A.2. Site Conditions and History
Currently, the site exists as mostly an open farm field. The center of the northern half of the site
contains a pond/wetland and the southwest corner of the site contains heavy tree coverage. General
site topography ranges from about 880 to 956 based on the MnTOPO website provided by the
Department of Natural Resources. Generally, the lowest elevations are in the southeast corner of the
site and the highest elevations are in the northeast corner of the site.
A house was formally located on the north side of the site along Lyman Boulevard. This house was
removed in the summer of 2016.
A.3. Purpose
The purpose of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation was to characterize subsurface geologic
conditions at selected exploration locations and evaluate their impact on the design and construction of
the proposed mixed-use development.
A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents
We reviewed the following information:
Development Plan provided by Landform, dated February 8, 2017.
Grading Plan provided by Landform, this plan was not dated.
Previous Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by Braun Intertec under
project number B14-07461, dated November 18, 2014.
Available public aerial photographs showing the existing site conditions.
Geologic atlas showing the general soil types present in this area.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 3
We have described our understanding of the proposed construction and site to the extent others
reported it to us. Depending on the extent of available information, we may have made assumptions
based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the
project details, the project team should notify us. New or changed information could require additional
evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations.
A.5. Scope of Services
We performed our scope of services for the project in accordance with our Revised Proposal for a
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, dated February 7, 2017, and authorized on February 19, 2017. The
following list describes the geotechnical tasks completed in accordance with our authorized scope of
services.
Staking and clearing the exploration location of underground utilities. Landform selected and
we staked the new exploration locations. We acquired the surface elevations and locations
with GPS technology using the State of Minnesota’s permanent GPS base station network.
The Soil Boring Location Sketch included in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of
the borings.
Performing 20 standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST-13 to ST-32, to
nominal depths of 20 feet below grade across the site.
Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering
analysis.
Preparing this preliminary report containing a boring location sketch, logs of soil borings, a
summary of the soils encountered, results of laboratory tests, and preliminary
recommendations for structure and pavement subgrade preparation and the design of
foundations, exterior slabs, utilities, stormwater improvements and pavements.
Our scope of services did not include environmental services or testing, and we did not train the
personnel performing this evaluation to provide environmental services or testing. We can provide these
services or testing at your request.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 4
B. Results
B.1. Geologic Overview
The general geologic profile depicted at the boring locations across the site generally consisted of a
variable layer of topsoil over glacially deposited soils to the boring termination depths. Alluvial or swamp
deposited soils may also be present in swales, lower elevation or drainage areas of the site. In addition, a
few borings found previously clay fills soils, likely related to past filling in low areas.
The encountered soils primarily consisted of clayey soils; however, the presence of frequent interbedded
sand and silt seams and layers should be anticipated.
We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, laboratory testing, and available
common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional history,
geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the geologic
history for the site.
B.2. Previous Geotechnical Information
We have previously performed soil borings at this site as part of a Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
Report under Braun Intertec project number B14-07461 and dated November 18, 2014. Borings ST-1
through ST-12 were completed as part of that preliminary evaluation and are included in the appendix of
this report.
B.3. Boring Results
Table 2 provides a summary of the soil boring results, in the general order we encountered the strata.
Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details. The Descriptive
Terminology sheets in the Appendix include definitions of abbreviations used in Table 2.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 5
Table 2. Subsurface Profile Summary*
Strata
Soil Type -
ASTM
Classification
Range of Penetration
Resistances Commentary and Details
Topsoil SM, SC, CL NA
Predominantly Lean Clay and Sandy Lean Clay.
Dark brown to black, with variable organic contents.
Thicknesses at boring locations varied from about 1
to 5 feet.
Fill CL 9 to 13 BPF
Moisture condition generally moist to wet.
Thicknesses at boring locations varied from 4 to 9
feet.
Encountered in Borings ST-1, ST-2 and ST-5.
Swamp
deposits OL 2 to 12 BPF
Thicknesses at boring locations varied from 4 to 12
feet.
Encountered in Borings ST-1, ST-5, ST-6 and ST-7.
Alluvial CL, CH, ML 1 to 14 BPF
Encountered to depths of 7 to 12 feet.
Moisture condition generally wet.
Encountered in Borings ST-1, ST-6, ST-8, ST-11 and
ST-14.
Glacial
deposits
SP, SM 4 to 40 BPF General penetration resistance of 6 to 18 BPF.
Intermixed layers of glacial outwash and till.
Variable amounts of gravel; may contain cobbles
and boulders.
Encountered to boring termination depth at each
boring.
Moisture condition generally moist to wet.
SC, CL 2 to 24 BPF
*Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheets.
For simplicity in this report, we define existing fill to mean existing, uncontrolled or undocumented fill.
B.4. Groundwater
Table 3 summarizes the depths where we observed groundwater; the attached Log of Boring sheets in
the Appendix also include this information and additional details.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 6
Table 3. Groundwater Summary
Location
Surface
Elevation
Measured or Estimated
Depth to Groundwater
(ft)
Corresponding
Groundwater Elevation
(ft)
ST-14 903.6 7 897
ST-27 907.9 13 895
ST-31 919.3 14 905 1/2
The soil borings indicate a layered soil profile that is conducive for encountering perched water
conditions. Soil borings not listed in Table 3 did not encounter groundwater while drilling. However,
groundwater may take days or longer to reach equilibrium in the boreholes and we immediately
backfilled the boreholes, in accordance with our scope of work. If the project team identifies a need for
more accurate determination of groundwater depth, we can install piezometers and perform longer-
term monitoring. Project planning should anticipate seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater.
B.5. Laboratory Test Results
Moisture content, sieve analysis (through a number 200 sieve), Atterberg limits and organic content tests
were performed on recovered jar samples. The laboratory test results are shown on the Log of Boring
Sheets included in the Appendix, across from the associated soil sample.
Of note from the laboratory test results, the in-place clayey soils generally appear to be slightly to well
above their estimated optimum moisture contents based on the test results.
C. Recommendations
C.1. Design and Construction Discussion
C.1.a. Foundation-Type Building Support
Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and evaluation, we anticipate that spread footing
foundations bearing on the native soils can be designed for support of the proposed structures, after
performing typical subgrade preparation. Typical subgrade preparation includes removing existing fill,
topsoil or organic soils, structures and any loose sands or soft clays below the building pads.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 7
In some cases, relatively deep soil corrections may be needed and if fill depths exceed 10 feet, a
construction delay may be necessary to allow the fill and underlying native soils to consolidate under the
new weight. Construction delays can range from 3 to 12 months or longer, depending on the depth and
type of fill placed, the type of structural loads and the condition of the native soils at depth.
If the construction schedule is such that a construction delay cannot be tolerated, sand containing less
than 12 percent of fine-grained material can be placed to within 10 feet of the bottom of footing
elevation. Sand soils consolidate much quicker than clay soils, and the majority of consolidation will
likely be completed during construction of the lot. However, if medium stiffness clay soils are left in place
under thick deposits of new fill, laboratory consolidation tests should be performed to better predict the
amount and rate of settlement. This information will be important both in building pads with deep fills
and in retaining wall areas with deep fills.
C.1.b. Reuse of On-Site Soils
The existing, non-organic, debris-free, clays is suitable for reuse as engineered fill below the proposed
building pad. We do not recommend reusing existing fill that contains debris or organic material as
structural fill. However, as mentioned above, sand fill may be recommended in deep fill areas to reduce
long-term settlements, and lessen or avoid construction delays.
C.1.c. Groundwater
We observed limited groundwater in the borings. Where we observed groundwater, it was below the
anticipated excavation depths for construction. Some of the soils, such as silty sands, clayey sands and
clay, will collect water from precipitation or if water drains to the site. We recommend the contractor
remove any water that collects in work areas before performing further work.
Excavations for this project may encounter occasional zones of groundwater. We recommend project
planning anticipate temporary excavation dewatering during construction. Based upon the boring and
piezometer observations, we anticipate sump pumps would be suitable for temporary dewatering.
C.1.d. Pavement
To improve long-term pavement performance, the project team should consider a pavement design that
incorporates non-frost-susceptible sand in paved areas. Incorporation of the sand into the pavement
section will reduce the impact of the frost heave and subsequent thaw-weakening of the soils beneath
the pavement. The sand will also provide better drainage throughout the year. Sand will not only
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 8
increase the life of the pavement but will likely reduce reconstruction cost at the end of the pavement
life. If the pavement design incorporates a sand subgrade, it could then decrease the aggregate base
thickness.
C.1.e. Subgrade Preparation
If schedule, site constraints, or other issues prevent scarification and drying operations, the contractor
may need to subcut some areas of excessively wet clays. We recommend the owner and contractor
anticipate some removal and replacement of these soils with imported sand, aggregate base or crushed
rock.
We are including recommendations for a pavement design option that incorporates a sand subbase. The
sand subbase will increase constructability over subgrade soils susceptible to disturbance and, with
proper drainage, will improve pavement performance by reducing the risk of frost heave.
C.1.f. Weather
In our judgment, the on-site clays are suitable for reuse as engineered fill but may require drying to
achieve compaction. To dry these soils, the contractor will need to perform extensive scarifying of these
clays, which is easier to accomplish in the relatively drier months of June to September. If the contractor
performs site grading in the spring or fall, on-site drying of these soils may not prove feasible and
building pad and pavement subgrade preparation may then require importing drier soils. If time or space
is not available to dry these soils, the contractor may need to import drier soils. We recommend
discussing the reuse of these materials with potential contractors at the bidding stages of the project.
To account for potential rainfall during construction, we recommend maintaining construction grades to
intercept surface water flow into the area and drain water from the area to an appropriate collection
point. After grading, the contractor should compact the soil surface with a smooth drum roller to
attempt to lower infiltration. After rain events, the contractor should limit construction traffic until the
surface is dry enough that traffic will not mix accumulated surface water into lower portions of the soil.
C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation
C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations
We recommend removing unsuitable materials from below the proposed buildings and their oversize
areas. We define unsuitable materials as existing fill, frozen materials, organic soils, existing structures,
existing utilities, vegetation or soft/loose soils. We also recommend having a geotechnical engineer, or
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 9
an engineering technician working under the direction of a geotechnical engineer, (geotechnical
representative) evaluate the suitability of exposed subgrade soils to support the proposed structure.
Table 4 shows the preliminary estimates of anticipated soil correction excavation depths and bottom
elevations for each of the borings. Please note that once actual building locations, elevations and
structural loading information is better defined, that these estimated soil correction depths need to be
reevaluated. Also based on the desired construction schedules of each building, it may be possible to
reduce soil correction depths if a construction delay is available between the time of filling and the time
of construction.
Table 4. Preliminary Estimates of Building Area Soil Correction Excavation Depths
Location
Approximate Surface
Elevation (ft)
Anticipated Excavation
Depth
(ft)
Anticipated
Bottom Elevation (ft)
ST-1 888.0 12 876
ST-2 940.3 9 931
ST-3 938.1 4 934
ST-4 942.5 1 1/2 941
ST-5 926.4 16-20* 910 - 906
ST-6 908.7 12 896 1/2
ST-7 904.7 8 896 1/2
ST-8 917.6 4 913 1/2
ST-9 896.5 5 891 1/2
ST-10 916.2 1 1/2 914 1/2
ST-11 887.5 2 1/2 885
ST-12 912.8 1-2 911 1/2 - 910 1/2
ST-13 934.0 1 933
ST-14 903.6 3 to 9* 900 1/2 to 894 1/2*
ST-15 935.5 1/2 935
ST-16 921.9 1 921
ST-17 921.6 1 920 1/2
ST-18 895.3 1 1/2 to 4* 893 1/2 to 891*
ST-19 914.4 1 913 1/2
ST-20 915.4 1 914 1/2
ST-21 880.9 2 879
ST-22 878.3 3 875
ST-23 878.2 2 876
ST-24 880.1 3 1/2 876 1/2
ST-25 890.9 1 to 9* 890 to 882*
ST-26 925.6 4 921 1/2
ST-27 907.9 1/2 907
ST-28 908.5 1 1/2 907
ST-29 908.6 1 1/2 907
ST-30 924.7 2 922 1/2
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 10
Location
Approximate Surface
Elevation (ft)
Anticipated Excavation
Depth
(ft)
Anticipated
Bottom Elevation (ft)
ST-31 919.3 1 1/2 917 1/2
ST-32 911.4 2 909 2
*At these borings, a range of subcut depths is given and the actual depth of subcut should be determined in the field based on
the proposed construction in the area and the actual soil conditions at the time of excavating. Test pits could be performed
prior to excavating to better estimate subcut depths.
Excavation depths will vary between the borings. Portions of the excavations may also extend deeper
than indicated by the borings. A geotechnical representative should observe the excavations to make the
necessary field judgments regarding the suitability of the exposed soils.
If fill is to be placed on slopes with a gradient steeper than a 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) grade, there is
potential for instability, resulting in creep of the fill mass. In these cases, we recommend “benching” or
excavating into the slopes at 5-foot vertical intervals to key the fill into the slope. We recommend each
bench be a minimum of 10 feet wide.
If fill depths exceed 10 feet, a construction delay may be necessary to allow the fill to consolidate under
its own weight. Construction delays can range from 3 to 12 months or longer, depending on the depth
and type of fill placed. We recommend placing settlement plates on lots where a construction delay is
required to allow for periodic monitoring. We recommend monitoring the settlement plates once a
week during the first month, once every other week for the second month, and once a month thereafter
until the settlement rate has declined to within tolerable ranges.
If the construction schedule is such that a construction delay cannot be tolerated, sand containing less
than 12 percent of fine-grained material can be placed to within 10 feet of the bottom of footing
elevation. Sand soils consolidate much quicker than clay soils, and the majority of consolidation will
likely be completed during construction of the lot.
C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing
When removing unsuitable materials below structures or pavements, we recommend the excavation
extend outward and downward at a slope of 1H:1V (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. See Figure 1 for an
illustration of excavation oversizing.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 11
Figure 1. Generalized Illustration of Oversizing
C.2.c. Excavated Slopes
Based on the borings, we anticipate on-site soils in excavations will consist of clays. These soils are
typically considered Type B Soil under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines.
OSHA guidelines indicate unsupported excavations in Type B soils should have a gradient no steeper than
1H:1V. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. OSHA requires an engineer
to evaluate slopes or excavations over 20 feet in depth.
An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field. Excavations must
comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This
document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The project specifications
should reference these OSHA requirements.
1. Engineered fill as defined in C.2
2. Excavation oversizing minimum of 1 to 1
(horizontal to vertical) slope or flatter
3. Engineered fill as required to meet
pavement support or landscaping
requirements as defined in C.2
4. Backslope to OSHA requirements
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 12
C.2.d. Excavation Dewatering
We recommend removing groundwater from the excavations. Project planning should include temporary
sumps and pumps for wet excavations in low-permeability soils, such as clays. Dewatering of high-
permeability soils (e.g., sands) from within the excavation with conventional pumps has the potential to
loosen the soils, due to upward flow.
C.2.e. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation
We recommend the following steps for pavement and exterior slab subgrade preparation. Note that
project planning may need to require additional subcuts to limit frost heave.
1. Strip unsuitable soils consisting of topsoil, organic soils, peat, vegetation, existing structures
and pavements from the area, within 3 feet of the surface of the proposed pavement grade.
2. Have a geotechnical representative observe the excavated subgrade to evaluate if additional
subgrade improvements are necessary.
3. Slope subgrade soils to areas of sand or drain tile to allow the removal of accumulating
water.
4. Scarify, moisture condition and surface compact the subgrade with at least 5 passes of a
large roller with a minimum drum diameter of 3 1/2 feet.
5. Place pavement engineered fill to grade and compact in accordance with Section C.2 to
bottom of pavement and exterior slab section. See Section C.5 for additional considerations
related to frost heave.
6. Proofroll the pavement or exterior slab subgrade as described in Section C.6.
To improve long-term pavement performance, we recommend incorporating 12 to 24 inches of select
granular engineered fill in paved areas, in addition to the recommendations above, as a sand subbase.
Section C.6 provides recommended pavement design sections with and without the sand subbase. Note,
we recommend sloping subgrade soils to promote drainage and removal of accumulated water.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 13
C.2.f. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll
After preparing the subgrade as described above and prior to the placement of the aggregate base, we
recommend proofrolling the subgrade soils with a fully loaded tandem-axle truck. We also recommend
having a geotechnical representative observe the proofroll. Areas that fail the proofroll likely indicate
soft or weak areas that will require additional soil correction work to support pavements.
The contractor should correct areas that display excessive yielding or rutting during the proofroll, as
determined by the geotechnical representative. Possible options for subgrade correction include
moisture conditioning and recompaction, subcutting and replacement with soil or crushed aggregate,
chemical stabilization and/or geotextiles. We recommend performing a second proofroll after the
aggregate base material is in place, and prior to placing bituminous or concrete pavement.
C.2.g. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction
Table 5 below contains our recommendations for engineered fill materials.
Table 5. Engineered Fill Materials*
Locations To Be Used
Engineered Fill
Classification
Possible Soil Type
Descriptions Gradation
Additional
Requirements
Below foundations
Below interior slabs Structural fill SP, SM, SC, CL 100% passing 2-inch sieve < 2% Organic
Content (OC)
Drainage layer
Non-frost-susceptible
Free-draining
Non-frost-
susceptible fill
SP
100% passing 1-inch sieve
< 50% passing #40 sieve
< 5% passing #200 sieve
< 2% OC
Behind below-grade
walls, beyond
drainage layer
Retained fill SP, SP-SM, SM 100% passing 3-inch sieve
< 20% passing #200 sieve
< 2% OC
Plasticity Index (PI)
< 4%
Pavements Pavement fill SP, SM, SC, CL 100% passing 3-inch sieve < 2% OC
PI < 15%
Below landscaped
surfaces, where
subsidence is not a
concern
Non-structural fill 100% passing 6-inch sieve < 10% OC
* More select soils comprised of coarse sands with < 5% passing #200 sieve may be needed to accommodate work occurring in
periods of wet or freezing weather.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 14
We recommend spreading engineered fill in loose lifts of approximately 8 inches thick. We recommend
compacting engineered fill in accordance with the criteria presented below in Table 6. The project
documents should specify relative compaction of engineered fill, based on the structure located above
the engineered fill, and vertical proximity to that structure.
Table 6. Compaction Recommendations Summary
Reference
Relative
Compaction, percent
(ASTM D698 –
Standard Proctor)
Moisture Content Variance from Optimum,
percentage points
< 12% Passing #200 Sieve
(typically SP, SP-SM)
> 12% Passing #200 Sieve
(typically CL, SC, ML, SM)
Below foundations and
oversizing zones
(*100% if more than 10
feet of fill)
98-100* ±3 -1 to +3
Below interior slabs 98 ±3 -1 to +3
Within 3 feet of
pavement subgrade 100 ±3 -1 to +3
More than 3 feet below
pavement subgrade 95 ±3 ±3
Below landscaped
surfaces 90 ±5 ±4
Adjacent to below-grade
wall 95* ±3 -1 to +3
*Increase compaction requirement to meet compaction required for structure supported by this engineered fill.
The project documents should not allow the contractor to use frozen material as engineered fill or to
place engineered fill on frozen material. Frost should not penetrate under foundations during
construction.
We recommend performing density tests in engineered fill to evaluate if the contractors are effectively
compacting the soil and meeting project requirements.
C.2.h. Special Inspections of Soils
We recommend including the site grading and placement of engineered fill within the building pad under
the requirements of Special Inspections, as provided in Chapter 17 of the International Building Code,
which is part of the Minnesota State Building Code. Special Inspection requires observation of soil
conditions below engineered fill or footings, evaluations to determine if excavations extend to the
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 15
anticipated soils, and if engineered fill materials meet requirements for type of engineered fill and
compaction condition of engineered fill. A licensed geotechnical engineer should direct the Special
Inspections of site grading and engineered fill placement. The purpose of these Special Inspections is to
evaluate whether the work is in accordance with the approved Geotechnical Report for the project.
Special Inspections should include evaluation of the subgrade, observing preparation of the subgrade
(surface compaction or dewatering, excavation oversizing, placement procedures and materials used for
engineered fill, etc.) and compaction testing of the engineered fill.
C.3. Spread Footings
Table 7 below contains our preliminary recommended parameters for foundation design. Final
recommendations can be provided as design information becomes available and possibly additional soil
borings are completed for a given structure.
Table 7. Recommended Spread Footing Design Parameters
Item Description
Maximum net allowable bearing pressure (psf)
2,000 to 4,000
Minimum factor of safety for bearing capacity failure 3.0
Minimum width (inches) Footing – 24
Column - 36
Minimum embedment below final exterior grade for heated
structures (inches) 42
Minimum embedment below final exterior grade for
unheated structures or for footings not protected from
freezing temperatures during construction (inches)
60
Total estimated settlement (inches) 1
Differential settlement Typically about 2/3 of total settlement*
* Actual differential settlement amounts will depend on final loads and foundation layout. We can evaluate differential
settlement based on final foundation plans and loadings.
C.4. Below-Grade Walls
C.4.a. Drainage Control
We recommend installing drain tile to remove water behind the below-grade walls, at the location shown
in Figure 2. The below-grade wall drainage system should also incorporate free-draining, engineered fill
or a drainage board placed against the wall and connected to the drain tile.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 16
Even with the use of free-draining, engineered fill, we recommend general waterproofing of below-grade
walls that surround occupied or potentially occupied areas because of the potential cost impacts related
to seepage after construction is complete.
Figure 2. Generalized Illustration of Wall Engineered Fill
The materials listed in the sketch should meet the definitions in Section C.2. Low-permeability material is
capable of directing water away from the wall, like clay, topsoil or pavement. The project documents
should indicate if the contractor should brace the walls prior to filling and allowable unbalanced fill
heights.
As shown in Figure 2, we recommend Zone 2 consist of retained, engineered fill, and this material will
control lateral pressures on the wall. However, we are also providing design parameters for using other
engineered fill material. If final design uses non-sand material for engineered fill, project planning should
account for the following items:
1. 2-foot wide area of Free-
Draining Engineered Fill or
Drainage Board
2. Retained Engineered Fill
3. 1 foot of Low-Permeability
Soil or Pavement
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 17
Other engineered fill material may result in higher lateral pressure on the wall.
Other engineered fill material may be more difficult to compact.
Post-construction consolidation of other engineered fill material may result in settlement-
related damage to the structures or slabs supported on the engineered fill. Post-construction
settlement of other engineered fill material may also cause drainage towards the structure.
The magnitude of consolidation could be up to about 3 percent of the wall fill thickness.
C.4.b. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads
Below-grade wall design can use active earth pressure conditions, if the walls can rotate slightly. If the
wall design cannot tolerate rotation, then design should use at-rest earth pressure conditions. Rotation
up to 0.002 times the wall height is generally required for walls supporting sand. Rotation up to 0.02
times the wall height is required when wall supports clay.
Table 8 presents our recommended lateral coefficients and equivalent fluid pressures for wall design of
active, at-rest and passive earth pressure conditions. The table also provides recommended wet unit
weights and internal friction angles. Designs should also consider the slope of any engineered fill and
dead or live loads placed behind the walls within a horizontal distance that is equal to the height of the
walls. Our recommended values assume the wall design provides drainage so water cannot accumulate
behind the walls. The construction documents should clearly identify what soils the contractor should
use for engineered fill of walls.
Table 8. Recommended Below-Grade Wall Design Parameters – Drained Conditions
Retained Soil
Wet Unit
Weight,
pcf
Friction
Angle,
degrees
Active Lateral
Coefficient/
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure*
(pcf)
At-Rest Lateral
Coefficient/
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure*
(pcf)
Passive Lateral
Coefficient/
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure*
(pcf)
CL 125 28 45 65 370
SP 120 32 35 55 430
* Based on Rankine model for soils in a region behind the wall extending at least 2 horizontal feet beyond the bottom outer
edges of the wall footings and then rising up and away from the wall at an angle no steeper than 60 degrees from horizontal.
Sliding resistance between the bottom of the footing and the soil can also resist lateral pressures. We
recommend assuming a sliding coefficient equal to 0.35 between the concrete and soil.
The values presented in this section are un-factored.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 18
C.4.c. Retaining Wall along South side of Site
A relatively tall retaining wall will likely be built along the south border of the site. We recommend an
experienced retaining wall professional be consulted for the design. Considerations should be given to
account for global stability of the final design slope and the types of backfill soils and the potential for
subsidence of backfill soils. We do not recommend the wall backfill zone be constructed within the zone
of influence of any buildings. In our experience, if clay soils are used below the wall foundation, or as
backfill or retained soil, there is potential for long-term consolidation and subsequent settlement of the
wall itself and/or grades or pavements behind the wall. The Owner and designer should weigh the cost of
sand fill and backfill versus the risks of wall and backfill movement.
C.5. Frost Protection
C.5.a. General
Clays will underlie most of the exterior slabs, as well as pavements. We consider clay to be moderately to
highly frost susceptible. Soils of this type can retain moisture and heave upon freezing. In general, this
characteristic is not an issue unless these soils become saturated, due to surface runoff or infiltration, or
are excessively wet in situ. Once frozen, unfavorable amounts of general and isolated heaving of the soils
and the surface structures supported on them could develop. This type of heaving could affect design
drainage patterns and the performance of exterior slabs and pavements, as well as any isolated exterior
footings and piers.
Note that general runoff and infiltration from precipitation are not the only sources of water that can
saturate subgrade soils and contribute to frost heave. Roof drainage and irrigation of landscaped areas in
close proximity to exterior slabs, pavements, and isolated footings and piers, contribute as well.
C.5.b. Frost Heave Mitigation
To address most of the heave related issues, we recommend setting general site grades and grades for
exterior surface features to direct surface drainage away from buildings, across large paved areas and
away from walkways. Such grading will limit the potential for saturation of the subgrade and subsequent
heaving. General grades should also have enough “slope” to tolerate potential larger areas of heave,
which may not fully settle after thawing.
Even small amounts of frost-related differential movement at walkway joints or cracks can create
tripping hazards. Project planning can explore several subgrade improvement options to address this
condition.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 19
One of the more conservative subgrade improvement options to mitigate potential heave is removing
any frost-susceptible soils present below the exterior slab areas down to a minimum depth of 4 feet
below subgrade elevations. We recommend filling the resulting excavation with non-frost-susceptible fill.
We also recommend sloping the bottom of the excavation toward one or more collection points to
remove any water entering the engineered fill. This approach will not be effective in controlling frost
heave without removing the water.
An important geometric aspect of the excavation and replacement approach described above is sloping
the banks of the excavations to create a more gradual transition between the unexcavated soils
considered frost susceptible and the engineered fill in the excavated area, which is not frost susceptible.
The slope allows attenuation of differential movement that may occur along the excavation boundary.
We recommend slopes that are 3H:1V, or flatter, along transitions between frost-susceptible and non-
frost-susceptible soils.
Figure 3 shows an illustration summarizing some of the recommendations.
Figure 3. Frost Protection Geometry Illustration
Another option is to limit frost heave in critical areas, such as doorways and entrances, via frost-depth
footings or localized excavations with sloped transitions between frost-susceptible and non-frost-
susceptible soils, as described above.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 20
Over the life of slabs and pavements, cracks will develop and joints will open up, which will expose the
subgrade and allow water to enter from the surface and either saturate or perch atop the subgrade soils.
This water intrusion increases the potential for frost heave or moisture-related distress near the crack or
joint. Therefore, we recommend implementing a detailed maintenance program to seal and/or fill any
cracks and joints. The maintenance program should give special attention to areas where dissimilar
materials abut one another, where construction joints occur and where shrinkage cracks develop.
C.6. Pavements and Exterior Slabs
C.6.a. Design Sections
Our scope of services for this project did not include laboratory tests on subgrade soils to determine an
R-value for pavement design. Based on our experience with similar clay soils anticipated at the pavement
subgrade elevation, we recommend pavement design assume an R-value of 12. Note the contractor may
need to perform limited removal of unsuitable or less suitable soils to achieve this value. Table 9 provides
recommended pavement sections, based on the soils support and traffic loads.
Table 9. Recommended Bituminous Pavement Sections
Use Light Duty Medium Duty
Light Duty with
Sand Subbase
Medium Duty with
Sand Subbase
Minimum asphalt
thickness (inches) 3 1/2 4 3 1/2 4
Minimum aggregate
base thickness
(inches)
10 12 8 8
Minimum granular
subbase NA NA 12 24
C.6.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials
Appropriate mix designs are critical to the performance of flexible pavements. We can provide
recommendations for pavement material selection during final pavement design.
C.6.c. Subgrade Drainage
We recommend installing perforated drainpipes throughout pavement areas at low points, around catch
basins, and behind curb in landscaped areas. We also recommend installing drainpipes along pavement
and exterior slab edges where exterior grades promote drainage toward those edge areas. The
contractor should place drainpipes in small trenches, extended at least 8 inches below the granular
subbase layer, or below the aggregate base material where no subbase is present.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 21
C.6.d. Performance and Maintenance
We based the above pavement designs on a 20-year performance life for bituminous. This is the amount
of time before we anticipate the pavement will require reconstruction. This performance life assumes
routine maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing. The actual pavement life will vary depending
on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance.
It is common to place the non-wear course of bituminous and then delay placement of wear course. For
this situation, we recommend evaluating if the reduced pavement section will have sufficient structure to
support construction traffic.
Many conditions affect the overall performance of the exterior slabs and pavements. Some of these
conditions include the environment, loading conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance. With
regard to bituminous pavements in particular, it is common to have thermal cracking develop within the
first few years of placement, and continue throughout the life of the pavement. We recommend
developing a regular maintenance plan for filling cracks in exterior slabs and pavements to lessen the
potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weather distress due to wetting
and softening of the subgrade.
C.7. Utilities
C.7.a. Subgrade Stabilization
Earthwork activities associated with utility installations located inside the building area should adhere to
the recommendations in Section C.2.
For exterior utilities, we anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations will be suitable for utility support.
However, if construction encounters unfavorable conditions such as soft clay, organic soils or perched
water at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and replacement
with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. Project design and construction
should not place utilities within the 1H:1V oversizing of foundations.
C.7.b. Corrosion Potential
Based on our experience, the soils encountered by the borings are moderately corrosive to metallic
conduits, but only marginally corrosive to concrete. We recommend specifying non-corrosive materials
or providing corrosion protection, unless project planning chooses to perform additional tests to
demonstrate the soils are not corrosive.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 22
C.8. Stormwater
We estimated infiltration rates for some of the soils we encountered in our soil borings, as listed in Table
10. These infiltration rates represent the long-term infiltration capacity of a practice and not the capacity
of the soils in their natural state. Field testing, such as with a double-ring infiltrometer (ASTM D3385),
may justify the use of higher infiltration rates. However, we recommend adjusting field test rates by the
appropriate correction factor, as provided for in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual or as allowed by the
local watershed. We recommend consulting the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for stormwater design.
Table 10. Estimated Design Infiltration Rates Based on Soil Classification
Soil Type
Infiltration Rate *
(inches/hour)
Gravels and gravelly sands 1.63
Sands with less than 12% fines,
poorly graded or well graded sands 0.8
Silty sands, silty gravelly sands 0.45
Silts, very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands 0.2
Clayey sands and clays 0.06
* From Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Rates may differ at individual sites.
Fine-grained soils (silts and clays), topsoil or organic matter that mixes into, or washes onto, the soil will
lower the permeability. The contractor should maintain and protect infiltration areas during
construction. Furthermore, organic matter and silt washed into the system after construction can fill the
soil pores and reduce permeability over time. Proper maintenance is important for long-term
performance of infiltration systems.
This geotechnical evaluation does not constitute a review of site suitability for stormwater infiltration or
evaluate the potential impacts, if any, from infiltration of large amounts of stormwater.
C.9. Additional Geotechnical Exploration and Analysis
Final design plans for this site have not been established at this time. The considerations provided in this
report are preliminary in nature for use in conceptual design, construction estimating and site grading of
this project. We recommend a more detailed geotechnical evaluation(s) including more soil borings be
performed for larger structures once final design is established. We are available to discuss the scope of
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 23
the additional geotechnical evaluation(s) with you once the project has advanced toward final design.
Final recommendations for this project can be provided once the design of the proposed development
has progressed and additional geotechnical evaluation(s) has been performed.
D. Procedures
D.1. Penetration Test Borings
We drilled the penetration test borings with an off-road vehicle-mounted core and auger drill equipped
with hollow-stem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking
penetration test samples at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals in general accordance to ASTM D1586. We
collected thin-walled tube samples in general accordance with ASTM D1587 at selected depths. The
boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths. We also collected bulk samples
of auger cuttings at selected locations for laboratory testing.
D.2. Exploration Logs
D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets
The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and
describe the penetrated geologic materials, and present the results of penetration resistance tests
performed.
We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings.
Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The
boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as
gradual rather than abrupt transitions.
D.2.b. Geologic Origins
We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based
on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual
classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface
exploration, (3) penetration resistance testing performed for the project, (4) laboratory test results, and
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 24
(5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the
site and surrounding area in the past.
D.3. Material Classification and Testing
D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification
We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we
performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in
accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we
used.
D.3.b. Laboratory Testing
The exploration logs in the Appendix note most of the results of the laboratory tests performed on
geologic material samples. The remaining laboratory test results follow the exploration logs. We
performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM procedures.
D.4. Groundwater Measurements
The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger
withdrawal. We then filled the boreholes as noted on the boring logs.
E. Qualifications
E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions
E.1.a. Material Strata
We developed our evaluation, analyses and recommendations from a limited amount of site and
subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from
exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and
thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning
should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation and thickness, away from the exploration locations.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 25
Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until
performing additional exploration work, or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals
any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such
variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to
accommodate them.
E.1.b. Groundwater Levels
We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the
exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were
relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall,
flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal
and annual factors.
E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility
E.2.a. Plan Review
We based this report on a limited amount of information, and we made a number of assumptions to help
us develop our recommendations. We should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the
designs and specifications. This review will allow us to evaluate whether we anticipated the design
correctly, if any design changes affect the validity of our recommendations, and if the design and
specifications correctly interpret and implement our recommendations.
E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing
We recommend retaining us to perform the required observations and testing during construction as
part of the ongoing geotechnical evaluation. This will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions
exposed during construction with those encountered by the borings and provide professional continuity
from the design phase to the construction phase. If we do not perform observations and testing during
construction, it becomes the responsibility of others to validate the assumption made during the
preparation of this report and to accept the construction-related geotechnical engineer-of-record
responsibilities.
Launch Properties
Project B1701407
April 12, 2017
Page 26
E.3. Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no
responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may
not be appropriate for other parties or projects.
E.4. Standard of Care
In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality.
No warranty, express or implied, is made.
Appendix
P
O
W
E
R
S
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
LYMAN BOULEVARD
H I G H W A Y 3 1 2
MILLS DRIVE
B L U F F C R E E K B O U L E V A R D
Sheet:
of
Fig:
Project No:
B1701407
Drawn By:
Date Drawn:
Checked By:
Last Modified: 3/20/17
Scale:
F :\2 0 1 7 \B 1 7 0 1 4 0 7 .d w g ,G e o t e c h ,3 /2 0 /2 0 1 7
2 :0 2 :2 2
P M
Drawing No:
S O I L
B O R I N G
L O C A T I O N
S K E T C H
G E O T E C H N I C A L
E V A L U A T I O N
A V I E N D A
S O U T H W E S T
O F
L Y M A N
B O U L E V A R D
A N D
P O W E R S
B O U L E V A R D
C H A N H A S S E N ,
M I N N E S O T A
B1701407
1" = 300'
BJB
2/22/17
EJ
FAX (952) 995-2020
PH. (952) 995-2000
Minneapolis, MN 55438
11001 Hampshire Avenue S
DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING
DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING
(PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED)
0
SCALE: 1" = 300'
300'150'
N
9
12
3
4
6
8
7
14
19
FILL
FILL
OL
CL
CL
FILL: Lean Clay, dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil Fill)
FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, brown, moist.
ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet.
(Swamp Deposit)
LEAN CLAY, gray, wet, rather soft.
(Alluvium)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, medium
to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 6 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
886.8
884.0
879.0
876.0
867.0
1.2
4.0
9.0
12.0
21.0
10/10/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-01 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-01
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
888.0
Depth
feet
0.0
12
11
13
14
14
15
23
33
FILL
FILL
FILL
CL
FILL: Silty Sand, dark brown, mmoist.
(Topsoil Fill)
FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, brown, wet.
FILL: Lean Clay, brown and gray, wet.
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist to
wet, stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 14 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 5 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
939.9
936.3
931.3
924.3
0.4
4.0
9.0
16.0
10/10/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-02 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-02
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
940.3
Depth
feet
0.0
13
10
12
13
13
18
OC=2%20
21
SC
CL
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather
stiff to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 14 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 7 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
934.1
922.1
4.0
16.0
10/10/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-03 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-03
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
938.1
Depth
feet
0.0
14
15
15
20
23
22
21
21
18
23
CL
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist to
wet, stiff to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 5 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
941.1
921.5
1.4
21.0
10/10/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-04 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-04
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
942.5
Depth
feet
0.0
10
9
10
7
4
4
5
6
11
18
26
FILL
FILL
OL
CL
FILL: Clayey Sand, dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil Fill)
FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown and dark
brown, moist.
ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet.
(Swamp Deposit)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, rather
soft to rather stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 22 feet of hollow-stem auger
in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 7 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
925.4
919.4
914.4
902.9
1.0
7.0
12.0
23.5
10/10/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-05 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-05
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
926.4
Depth
feet
0.0
1
1
3
4
6
7
12
15
43 LL=68%50
24
OL
CH
CL
ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet.
(Swamp Deposit)
FAT CLAY, gray, wet, very soft to rather soft.
(Alluvium)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, medium
to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring immediately backfilled.
904.7
896.7
887.7
4.0
12.0
21.0
10/10/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-06 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-06
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
PI
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
908.7
Depth
feet
0.0
3
2
4
9
7
7
11
27
21
OL
CL
CL
ORGANIC CLAY, black and gray, wet.
(Swamp Deposit)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather
soft to rather stiff.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, medium
to rather stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 6 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
896.7
892.7
883.7
8.0
12.0
21.0
10/10/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-07 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerAN
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-07
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
904.7
Depth
feet
0.0
7
14
9
10
21
18
21
18
CL
ML
SM
CL
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown and black, moist.
(Topsoil)
SANDY SILT, brown, wet, medium dense.
(Alluvium)
SILTY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather
stiff to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 14 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 5 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
913.6
910.6
908.6
903.6
901.6
4.0
7.0
9.0
14.0
16.0
10/9/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-08 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-08
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
917.6
Depth
feet
0.0
10
7
7
8
14
21
24
33
CL
CL
CL
SC
LEAN CLAY, black, moist.
(Topsoil)
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, wet, medium.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet,
medium to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
CLAYEY SAND, trace Gravel, brown, wet, very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 15 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 5 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
891.5
887.5
882.5
880.5
5.0
9.0
14.0
16.0
10/8/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-09 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerAN
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-09
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
896.5
Depth
feet
0.0
10
14
19
16
21
20
* No sample recovery.
22
17
CL
CL
CL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist to
wet, rather stiff to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 14 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 5 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
914.7
902.2
900.2
1.5
14.0
16.0
10/9/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-10 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-10
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
916.2
Depth
feet
0.0
11
6
12
11
12
18
12
25 LL=44%26
19
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet, rather stiff.
(Alluvium)
LEAN CLAY, brown and gray, wet, medium.
(Alluvium)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist,
rather stiff.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, rather
stiff to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 5 feet
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
885.1
883.5
880.5
875.5
866.5
2.4
4.0
7.0
12.0
21.0
10/9/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-11 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-11
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
PI
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
887.5
Depth
feet
0.0
6
11
11
19
14
20
24
P200=52%
11
16
CL
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist to
wet, medium to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 1 foot
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
911.8
891.8
1.0
21.0
10/8/14 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-12 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerAN
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-12
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB14-07461LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
4
\
0
7
4
6
1
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
8
Braun Project B14-07461
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
Southwest of Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
912.8
Depth
feet
0.0
8
12
13
11
9
8
10
22
17
TS
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet,
medium to stiff.
(Topsoil)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
933.2
913.0
0.8
21.0
3/6/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-13 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-13
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
934.0
Depth
feet
0.0
3
5
4
7
8
8
14
OC=2%
An open triangle in the
water level (WL) column
indicates the depth at
which groundwater was
observed while drilling.
Groundwater levels
fluctuate.
27
21
TS
CL
SM
CL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown and black, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet, rather soft.
(Alluvium)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown, wet,
very loose.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown to 18 feet
then gray, wet, medium to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at 7 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
900.6
896.6
894.6
882.6
3.0
7.0
9.0
21.0
3/6/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-14 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-14
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
903.6
Depth
feet
0.0
8
13
17
15
12
13
19
18
19
TS
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist,
medium to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
935.1
914.5
0.4
21.0
3/3/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-15 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-15
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
935.5
Depth
feet
0.0
7
10
11
12
12
13
23
21
19
TS
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet,
medium to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
921.0
900.9
0.9
21.0
3/3/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-16 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-16
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
921.9
Depth
feet
0.0
8
11
10
10
11
15
13
19
20
TS
CL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown to 18 feet
then gray, wet, medium to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
920.8
900.6
0.8
21.0
3/6/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-17 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-17
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
921.6
Depth
feet
0.0
5
8
7
7
9
15
11
21
30
TS
CL
CL
SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, gray, wet, rather soft.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown to 14 feet
then gray, wet, medium to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
894.0
891.3
874.3
1.3
4.0
21.0
3/3/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-18 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-18
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
895.3
Depth
feet
0.0
9
11
10
11
15
13
13
20
18
TS
CL
LEAN CLAY, black, frozen.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown to 18 feet
then gray, wet, rather stiff to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
913.4
893.4
1.0
21.0
3/1/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-19 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-19
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
914.4
Depth
feet
0.0
10
14
17
16
17
11
12
22
18
TS
CL
SM
CL
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, frozen.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather
stiff to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
SILTY SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist, medium
dense.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather
stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
914.6
901.4
897.4
894.4
0.8
14.0
18.0
21.0
3/1/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-20 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-20
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
915.4
Depth
feet
0.0
8
8
7
15
17
40
18
23
23
FILL
CL
CL
SM
SM
CL
FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil Fill)
LEAN CLAY, with Sand, brown, wet, medium.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet,
medium.
(Glacial Till)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel,
brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Till)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel,
brown, moist, dense.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
878.9
876.9
873.9
866.9
862.9
859.9
2.0
4.0
7.0
14.0
18.0
21.0
3/2/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-21 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-21
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
880.9
Depth
feet
0.0
5
7
10
12
12
11
14
LL=38
PL=15
PI=23
29
18
TS
CL
CL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown and black, wet.
(Topsoil)
LEAN CLAY with SAND, trace Gravel, brown to 12 feet
then gray, wet, medium to rather stiff.
(Glacial Till)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, wet, rather stiff to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
875.3
864.3
857.3
3.0
14.0
21.0
3/2/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-22 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-22
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
878.3
Depth
feet
0.0
7
11
14
19
16
15
13
20
18
TS
CL
CL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet,
medium to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
876.2
866.2
857.2
2.0
12.0
21.0
3/2/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-23 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-23
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
878.2
Depth
feet
0.0
7
7
7
3
9
11
10
25
20
TS
CL
CL
LEAN CLAY, dark brown to black, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet, soft to
medium.
(Glacial Till)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, rather stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
876.6
866.1
859.1
3.5
14.0
21.0
3/2/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-24 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-24
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
880.1
Depth
feet
0.0
4
5
2
9
13
11
12
8628
18
TS
CL
CL
LEAN CLAY, black, frozen.
(Topsoil)
LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown and gray, wet, soft to
rather soft.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, Silty Sand lense at 10 feet, trace
Gravel, gray, wet, rather stiff to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
889.9
881.9
869.9
1.0
9.0
21.0
3/2/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-25 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-25
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
890.9
Depth
feet
0.0
5
11
13
8
9
10
10
50
22
24
TS
CL
SM
CL
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, frozen.
(Topsoil)
LEAN CLAY, with Sand, brown, wet, rather soft.
(Glacial Till)
SILTY SAND, trace Gravel, brown, moist to wet,
medium dense to loose.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, rather
stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
924.8
921.6
911.6
904.6
0.8
4.0
14.0
21.0
3/1/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-26 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-26
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
925.6
Depth
feet
0.0
8
15
18
12
14
20
17
19
17
TS
CL
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel,
dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown to 14 feet
then gray, wet, medium to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
Sand lense at 13 feet.
END OF BORING.
Water observed at 13 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
907.7
886.9
0.2
21.0
3/1/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-27 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-27
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
907.9
Depth
feet
0.0
6
8
14
13
16
15
16
22
22
TS
CL
CL
LEAN CLAY, black, wet.
(Topsoil)
LEAN CLAY, with Sand, trace Gravel, brown, wet,
medium.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown to 14 feet
then gray, wet, medium to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
907.2
904.5
887.5
1.3
4.0
21.0
3/1/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-28 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-28
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
908.5
Depth
feet
0.0
6
10
9
9
13
15
9
21
20
TS
CL
SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown to 14 feet
then gray, wet, medium to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
907.4
887.6
1.2
21.0
3/3/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-29 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-29
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
908.6
Depth
feet
0.0
6
12
12
14
13
12
14
31
18
TS
CL
CL
LEAN CLAY, black, wet.
(Topsoil)
LEAN CLAY, with Sand, brown, wet, medium.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with Silty Sand lenses at 5 feet,
trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather stiff to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
922.7
920.7
903.7
2.0
4.0
21.0
3/6/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-30 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-30
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
924.7
Depth
feet
0.0
8
14
15
12
13
20
19
19
19
TS
CL
SP
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist,
medium to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
with Gravel, brown, waterbearing, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at 14 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
917.9
905.3
901.3
898.3
1.4
14.0
18.0
21.0
3/6/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-31 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-31
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
919.3
Depth
feet
0.0
6
7
6
9
12
17
17
25
22
TS
CL
CL
LEAN CLAY, black, wet.
(Topsoil)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown and gray, wet,
medium.
(Glacial Till)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown to 14 feet
then gray, wet, medium to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
909.4
907.4
890.4
2.0
4.0
21.0
3/3/17 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-32 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerJ. Vloo
L O G O F B O R I N G
(S
e
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
h
e
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-32
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1701407LO
G
O
F
B
O
R
I
N
G
N
:
\
G
I
N
T
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
A
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
1
7
\
0
1
4
0
7
.
G
P
J
B
R
A
U
N
_
V
8
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
.
G
D
T
4
/
1
2
/
1
7
1
1
:
0
7
Braun Project B1701407
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Avienda
Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
911.4
Depth
feet
0.0
Rev. 9/15
Descriptive Terminology of Soil
Standard D 2487
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System)
a. Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75mm) sieve.
b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders or both” to group name.
c. Cu = D60/D10 C c = (D30)2
D10 x D60
d. If soil contains ≥15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
e. Gravels 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
f. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.
g. If fines are organic, add “with organic fines: to group name.
h. If soil contains ≥15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
i. Sand 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
j. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel” whichever is predominant.
l. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.
m. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.
n. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
o. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.
p. PI plots on or above “A” lines.
q. PI plots below “A” line.
Laboratory Tests
DD Dry density, pcf OC Organic content, %
WD Wet density, pcg S Percent of saturation, %
MC Natural moisture content, % SG Specific gravity
LL Liquid limit, % C Cohesion, psf
PL Plastic limits, % Ø Angle of internal friction
PI Plasticity index, % qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf
P200 % passing 200 sieve qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf
Particle Size Identification
Boulders................. over 12”
Cobbles ................. 3” to 12”
Gravel
Coarse ........... 3/4” to 3”
Fine ................ No. 4 to 3/4”
Sand
Coarse ........... No. 4 to No. 10
Medium .......... No. 10 to No. 40
Fine ................ No. 40 to No. 200
Silt ......................... <No. 200, PI< 4 or below
“A” line
Clay ...................... <No. 200, PI > 4 and on
or about “A” line
Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils
Very Loose ............. 0 to 4 BPF
Loose ..................... 5 to 10 BPF
Medium dense ....... 11 to 30 PPF
Dense .................... 31 to 50 BPF
Very dense ............. over 50 BPF
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
Very soft................. 0 to 1 BPF
Soft ........................ 2 to 3 BPF
Rather soft ............. 4 to 5 BPF
Medium .................. 6 to 8 BPF
Rather stiff ............. 9 to 12 BPF
Stiff ........................ 13 to 16 BPF
Very stiff ................. 17 to 30 BPF
Hard ....................... over 30 BPF
Drilling Notes
Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4”
or 6 1/4” ID hollow-stem augers, unless noted otherwise.
Jetting water was used to clean out auger prior to sampling
only where indicated on logs. All samples were taken with
the standard 2” OD split-tube samples, except where noted.
Power auger borings were advanced by 4” or 6” diameter
continuous flight, solid-stern augers. Soil classifications and
strata depths were inferred from disturbed samples augered
to the surface, and are therefore, somewhat approximate.
Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2”
or 3 1/4” diameter auger and were limited to the depth from
which the auger could be manually withdrawn.
BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard
penetration test, also known as “N” value. The sampler was
set 6” into undisturbed soil below the hollow-stem auger.
Driving resistances were then counted for second and third
6” increments, and added to get BPF. Where they differed
significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for
the second and third 6” increments, respectively.
WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight
of hammer and rods alone; driving not required.
WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight
of rods alone; hammer weight, and driving not required.
TW: TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample.
Note: All tests were run in general accordance with
applicable ASTM standards.
ML or OL