GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FINAL 01-06-2020
January 5, 2018 Project Number: 17-1039
Mr. Patrick Sarver
Civil Site Group, Inc.
4931 W 35th Street, Suite 200
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Senior Living Facility,
1620 and 1660 Arboretum Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Sarver,
We have completed the geotechnical exploration report for the proposed senior living facility
at 1620 and 1660 Arboretum Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota. A brief summary of our
results and recommendations is presented below.
The soil borings completed with the building area encountered about 1 foot of vegetation and
topsoil along with previously placed Fill that extended to depths ranging from about 12 to 29
feet below the ground surface. The Fill was composed of mostly clayey soils that contained
organics, roots and fibers, and pieces of wood and concrete. Below the topsoil and Fill, the
borings encountered native clayey soils that extended to the termination depths of the soil
borings. The underlying native clays, in our opinion, are generally suitable for foundation
support, but portions of the native clays had a soft consistency. The vegetation, topsoil, Fill
and soft clay soils are not suitable for foundation support and will need to be removed from
within the building and oversize areas and replaced with suitable compacted engineered fill.
The deepest deposits of Fill and/or soft native soils (about 29 feet) was encountered on the
western portion of the site near boring SB-1 with soil borings elsewhere generally
encountering about 12 to 17 feet of Fill and/or soft native soil. Soil corrections extending to
about 29 feet may not be cost effective and, if possible, moving the building to the east might
result in reduced soil corrections and the associated costs. If the building will include a lower
level, removal of a significant portion of the Fill soil would likely be incidental to construction.
Specific details regarding our procedures, results and recommendations follow in the attached
geotechnical exploration report.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please contact Paul Gionfriddo at 612-271-8185 or Brett Maki at
612-269-4027.
HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC
Brett S. Maki, P.E. Paul Gionfriddo, P.E.
Project Engineer Senior Engineer
G EOTECHNICAL EXPLORAT ION REPORT
PROJECT:
Proposed Senior Living Facility
NW Quadrant of Highway 5 and Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
PREPARED FOR:
Civil Site Group, Inc.
4931 W 35th Street, Suite 200
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
PREPARED BY:
Haugo GeoTechnical Services LLC
2825 Cedar Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Haugo GeoTechnical Services Project: 17-1039
January 5, 2018
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
Paul Gionfriddo, P.E.
Senior Engineer
License Number 23093
Expires June 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Purpose 1
1.3 Site Description 1
1.4 Scope of Services 1
1.5 Documents Provided 2
1.6 Locations and Elevations 2
2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES 2
3.0 RESULTS 3
3.1 Soil Conditions 3
3.2 Groundwater 4
3.3 Laboratory Testing 5
3.4 OSHA Soil Classification 5
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
4.1 Proposed Construction 5
4.2 Discussion 6
4.3 Foundation Preparation 7
4.4 Dewatering 8
4.5 Retaining Walls 8
4.6 Interior Slabs 9
4.7 Exterior Slabs 10
4.8 Site Grading and Drainage 10
4.9 Utilities 11
4.10 Bituminous Pavements 11
4.11 Materials and Compaction 12
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 12
5.1 Excavation 12
5.2 Observations 13
5.3 Backfill and Fills 13
5.4 Testing 13
5.5 Winter Construction 13
6.0 PROCEDURES 13
6.1 Soil Classification 13
6.2 Groundwater Observations 14
7.0 GENERAL 14
7.1 Subsurface Variations 14
7.2 Review of Design 14
7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations 14
7.4 Use of Report 15
7.5 Level of Care 15
APPENDIX 17
Boring Location Sketch
GPS Boring Locations
Soil Boring Logs, SB-1 thru SB-8
Descriptive Terminology
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Civil Site Group, Inc. is preparing design and construction documents for a proposed senior
living facility on two parcels located at 1620 and 1660 Arboretum Boulevard in Chanhassen
MN. The project will also include constructing the associated parking, drive lanes, and
underground utilities.
Civil Site Group requested a geotechnical exploration to evaluate the suitability of site soil
conditions to support the proposed senior living center and provide recommendations for site
development.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to characterize subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions and provide recommendations for foundation design, pavement
design and construction of the proposed senior living center.
1.3 Site Description
The project site consists of two parcels totaling 3.5 acres and is located at 1620 and 1660
Arboretum Boulevard in Chanhassen, MN. The lot was mostly open, and grass covered, with
mature trees along the perimeter of the site. Riley Creek runs along the northern border of the
site from nearby Lake Ann, which is about 1000 feet to the north of the site. The ground surface
slopes to the north, with elevations at the soil boring locations ranging from about 958 ½ to
972 ½ feet mean sea level (MSL).
1.4 Scope of Services
Our services were performed in accordance with the Haugo GeoTechnical Services LLC
proposal dated October 31, 2017 and under the terms of our General Conditions.
Our scope of services was generally limited to the following tasks:
• Completing five (5) standard penetration test borings in the building area, extending
to a nominal depth of 30 feet.
• Completing three (3) standard penetration test borings in the pavement areas,
extending to a nominal depth of 10 feet. One boring was extended to 15 feet due to
the presence of existing Fill soils.
• Obtaining GPS coordinates and elevations at the soil boring locations.
• Visually/manually classifying soil samples recovered from the soil borings.
• Performing laboratory tests on select soil samples.
• Preparing soil boring logs describing the materials encountered and the results of
groundwater level measurements.
• Preparing an engineering report describing soil and groundwater conditions, and
providing recommendations for foundation and pavement design.
2
1.5 Documents Provided
We provided with a Surveyor’s Certificate of the property which was prepared by Sunde Land
Surveying, LLC and dated December 5, 2005. The Surveyor’s Certificate showed the property
boundaries, city street(s) and existing topography.
We were also provided a copy of a geotechnical engineering report prepared by STS
Consultants dated January 13, 2006. The report presented the results of 10 soil borings taken
across the project site. Briefly, the borings generally encountered about 6 to 15 feet of Fill
overlying native glacial till deposits. The Fill was reported to contain “mixed organic bands”
and possibly pieces of concrete. The report was prepared for construction of a surface parking
lot with the potential for a future parking ramp. The report indicated that the soil conditions
were generally suitable for support of a surface parking lot but soil corrections or a deep
foundation system would be required to support a parking structure.
1.6 Locations and Elevations
The soil boring locations were selected by Haugo GeoTechnical Services (HGTS) based on the
anticipated construction and site access. The ground surface elevations at the soil boring
locations were obtained by HGTS using GPS measuring equipment. The GPS measurements
were based on the MN County Coordinate System (Carver County) in US Survey Feet using
the GEOID09 (Conus) model. The approximate locations of the soil borings are shown on
Figure 1, “Soil Boring Location Sketch,” in the Appendix. The GPS boring locations are shown
on Figure 2 in the Appendix.
2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES
The standard penetration test borings were performed on December 18th, 19th and 20th, 2017
by HGTS with a rotary drilling rig, using continuous flight augers to advance the boreholes.
Representative samples were obtained from the borings, using the split-barrel sampling
procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In the split-barrel
sampling procedure, a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-
pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon
the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration is recorded as the standard penetration resistance
value, or "N" value. The results of the standard penetration tests are indicated on the boring
log. The samples were sealed in containers and provided to HGTS for testing and soil
classification.
Soil samples recovered from the borings were classified in general accordance with ASTM
2488, “Description and Identification of Soils (Visual/Manual Procedures).
A field log of each boring was prepared by the HGTS drill crew. The logs contain visual
classifications of the soil materials encountered during drilling, as well as the driller's
interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples and water observation notes. The
final boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs and
include modifications based on visual/manual method observation of the samples.
3
The soil boring logs, general terminology for soil description and identification, and
classification of soils for engineering purposes are also included in the appendix. The soil
boring logs identify and describe the materials encountered, the relative density or consistency
based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N-value, “blows per foot”) and groundwater
observations.
The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the samples and auger cuttings. The
depths shown as changes between strata are only approximate. The changes are likely
transitions, variations can occur beyond the location of the boring.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Soil Conditions
Building Borings Soil borings SB-1 through SB-5 were completed within the proposed
building footprint. These soil borings encountered about 1 foot of topsoil at the surface that
consisted predominantly of silty clay. The topsoil contained some roots and was black to dark
brown in color.
Below the topsoil the borings encountered Fill materials that extended to depths ranging from
about 12 to 29 feet below the ground surface. The Fill consisted of a variety of soil types
consisting primarily of sandy lean clay with lesser amounts of silty clay, silty sand and sandy
clay. The Fill varied in color from brown to dark brown to grey to black, and contained traces
of organics, fibers, roots, wood, gravel and concrete.
Below the topsoil and Fill the soil borings generally encountered native alluvial soils and/or
glacial till soils that extended to the termination depths of the soil borings. The alluvial soils
consisted of lean clay that was grey to mottled brown and grey in color, and portions
contained traces of gravel. The penetration resistance values (N-Values), shown as blows per
foot (bpf) on the boring logs within the alluvial soils ranged from 2 to 9 bpf. These values
indicate the alluvial soils had a soft to rather stiff consistency.
The glacial till soils consisted of sandy lean clay that was grey in color and contained traces of
gravel. N-Values within the glacial till soils ranged from 9 to 13 bpf. These values indicate
the glacial till soils had a rather stiff to stiff consistency.
Parking Lot Borings Soil borings SB-6 to SB-8 were completed within the proposed parking
areas on the north and east sides of the building. These soil borings encountered about 1 foot
of topsoil at the surface that consisted predominantly of silty clay. The topsoil was black to
dark brown in color.
Borings SB-6 and SB-7 encountered native glacial till soils below the topsoil that extended to
the termination depths of the soil borings. The glacial till was composed of sandy lean clay
that was brown in color and contained traces of gravel and rust staining. N-Values within the
glacial till soils ranged from 6 to 17 bpf. These values indicate the glacial till soils h ad a
medium to very stiff consistency.
4
Boring SB-8 encountered about 11 feet Fill below the topsoil. The Fill was composed of silty
sand and sandy lean clay that was black in color and contained traces of organics, wood and
gravel. The topsoil and Fill were underlain by native alluvial soils that extended to the
termination depth of the boring. The alluvial soils consisted of lean clay that was mottled
brown and grey in color and contained traces of rust staining and gravel. N-Values within the
alluvial soils ranged from 6 to 12 bpf. These values indicate the glacial till soils had a medium
to rather stiff consistency.
3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in soil borings SB-1 to SB-5 while drilling and sampling or
after removing the augers from the boreholes at depths ranging from 17 to 25 feet below the
ground surface, corresponding to an elevation range of 946 to 950 feet MSL.
Water levels were measured on the dates as noted on the boring logs and the period of water
level observations was relatively short. Given the cohesive nature the Fill, alluvial and glacial
till soils encountered, it is likely that insufficient time was available for possible perched
groundwater to seep into the bore hole and rise to its hydrostatic level. Groundwater
monitoring wells or piezometers would be required to more accurately determine water
levels. Seasonal and annual fluctuations in the groundwater levels should be expected.
The water level of Riley Creek along the north border of the site ranges between about 946 to
950 feet MSL. Lake Ann is located about 1000 feet to the north of the site. The MN DNR
reports the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of Lake Ann to be 955.5 feet MSL.
3.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory moisture content tests and organic content tests were performed on selected
samples recovered from the soil borings. Laboratory moisture contents ranged from about 14
to 26 percent. These values indicate that portions of the soils were likely well above their
assumed optimum soil moisture contents. Organic contents ranged from about 3 ½ to 7 ½
percent indicating the soils were slightly organic to organic. Results of the laboratory moisture
content tests are also shown on the boring logs adjacent to the sample tested.
5
Table 1. Summary of Laboratory Tests
Boring
Number
Sample
Number
Depth
(feet)
Moisture
Content
(%)*
Organic
Content
(%)*
SB-1 S-25 5 14 3 ½
SB-1 S-26 7 ½ 19 ½ -
SB-1 S-28 12 ½ 25 5
SB-1 S-31 20 26 4 ½
SB-2 S-16 7 ½ 18 ½ -
SB-3 S-4 7 ½ 15 ½ -
SB-4 S-49 5 15 -
SB-4 S-50 7 ½ 24 ½ 7
SB-5 S-38 5 17 ½ -
SB-6 S-65 5 19 ½ -
SB-7 S-60 5 18 -
SB-8 S-71 7 ½ 24 ½ 7 ½
*Moisture content and organic content tests were rounded to the nearest ½ percent
3.4 OSHA Soil Classification
The soil encountered in the borings consisted predominantly of cohesive (clay) soils consisting
of sandy lean clay and silty clay, meeting the ASTM Classifications CL and CL-ML. The site
soils will generally be Type B soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) guidelines.
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Proposed Construction
Based on correspondence with Civil Site Group, we understand that specific plans for the
senior living facility have not been finalized. Preliminary plans indicate that the building will
likely be a single-story slab on-grade structure but could include a lower level. Specific
structural drawings or design information was not available at the time of this report but based
on the anticipated construction we assumed the building will include cast in-place concrete or
masonry block foundation walls supported on concrete spread footings. Above grade
construction is anticipated to include wood framing with a pitched roof and asphalt shingles.
Based on these assumptions we anticipate perimeter footing loads on the order of 2 to 3 kips
per lineal foot and interior column loads, if any, will be less than 100 kips. We anticipate the
main floor will bear at or near existing site grades corresponding to about elevation 970. We
further anticipate that soil bearing pressure(s) of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) will be
required for foundation support.
We have attempted to describe our understanding of the project. If the proposed loads exceed
these values or if the design or location of the proposed building changes, we should be
informed. Additional analyses and revised recommendations may be necessary.
6
4.2 Discussion
The borings completed with the building area (SB-1 to SB-5) encountered about 1 foot of
vegetation and topsoil along with previously placed Fill that extended to depths ranging from
12 to 29 feet below the ground surface. Underlying the topsoil and Fill, the borings
encountered native alluvial clays and/or glacial till clay soils that extended to the termination
depths of the soil borings. The soil conditions encountered in our soil borings were generally
consistent with those identified and described in the STS Consultants geotechnical report.
The vegetation and topsoil are compressible and not suitable for foundation support and will
need to be removed and replaced with suitable compacted engineered fill to provide adequate
foundation support. The Fill was composed of a variety of soil types, consisting of sandy lean
clay, silty clay, silty sand and clayey sand and contained organics, fibers, wood and concrete.
In addition, the Fill varied in color with much of it black in color. Laboratory test results
indicated it was slightly organic to organic. Organic soils or soil containing organic materials
are generally compressible and poor-quality soil for foundation support. In addition, portions
of the alluvial clay soils had a soft to rather soft consistency. The soft clays are also generally
compressible and likewise, are poor-quality soil for foundation support.
For these reasons we do not recommend supporting the proposed senior living facility on the
Fill or soft alluvial clays. The underlying stiffer native alluvial clays and glacial till clay soils,
in our opinion, are generally suitable for foundation support.
The deepest deposits of Fill and/or soft native soils (about 29 feet) was encountered in soil
boring SB-1 with soil borings SB-2 thru SB-5 generally encountering about 12 to 17 feet of Fill
and/or soft native soil. Soil corrections extending to about 29 feet may not be cost effective
and if possible, moving the building to the east might result in reduced soil corrections and
the associated costs. If the building will include a lower level, removal of a significant portion
of the Fill and soft native soil would likely be incidental to construction.
As noted above much of the Fill was “black” in color and slightly organic to organic and will
likely not be suitable for re-use as structural fill. It may be possible to reuse these soil in “green
areas” such as landscaping berms.
Soil borings SB-6 and SB-7 were completed in the proposed parking areas on the east side of
the building. The ground surface in the vicinity of these borings was near elevation 958 ½.
We assume the parking lot(s) will match the approximate main floor elevations of the building
which is anticipated to be near 971. Because of that we anticipate that about 12 to 13 feet of
fill could be required to attain parking lot grades.
Groundwater was encountered in the soil borings while drilling and after auger removal from
the boreholes at depths ranging from 17 to 29 feet below the ground surface. We anticipate
that groundwater will be encountered during deeper soil corrections and anticipate that
dewatering will be required.
The following sections provide recommendations for supporting the proposed senior living
facility on typical frost depth footing following soil corrections.
7
4.3 Foundation Preparation
Excavations We recommend that all vegetation, topsoil, existing Fill, soft alluvial clays or
other unsuitable soils be removed from the proposed building and oversize areas. Table 2
below summarizes the anticipated excavation depths at the soil boring locations. Excavation
depths may vary and could be deeper.
Table 2. Anticipated Grading Excavation Depths
Boring
Number
Measured
Surface
Elevation (feet)
Anticipated
Excavation
Depth (feet)*
Anticipated
Excavation Elevation
(feet)*
Groundwater
Elevation (feet)*
SB-1 970.0 29 941 950
SB-2 969.8 13 957 949 ½
SB-3 972.7 17 955 ½ 947 ½
SB-4 964.6 17 947 ½ 947 ½
SB-5 971.0 17 954 946
SB-6 958.7 1 (Parking) 957 ½ NE
SB-7 958.3 1 (Parking) 957 ½ NE
SB-8 967.9 1 (Parking) 967 NE
*Excavation depths and elevations were rounded to the nearest ½ foot. NE = Not Encountered
Oversizing In areas where the excavations extend below the proposed footing elevations,
the excavation requires oversizing. We recommend the perimeter of the excavation be
extended a foot outside the proposed footprint for every foot below footing grade (1H:1V
oversizing). The purpose of the oversizing is to provide lateral support of the foundation.
Fill Material Additional fill required to attain site grades can consist of any non-organic
mineral soil provided it is free of debris or other deleterious materials. As mentioned in the
Discussion section, the existing Fill was mostly black in color and slightly organic to organic.
The existing Fill will generally not be suitable for re-use as structural fill. It may be possible
to reuse these soil in “green areas” such as landscaping berms.
If construction is anticipated to occur during the winter months we recommend granular
material meeting the ASTM Classification SP or SP-SM for ease in compaction.
For backfill/fill within 3 feet of the groundwater table we recommend using granular soil with
less than 5 percent passing the number 200 sieve and at least 50 percent retained on the number
40 sieve.
Backfilling We recommend that engineered fill placed to establish foundation grades be
compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of its standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). We
recommend that engineered fill placed to establish floor slab grades be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698).
Granular fill classified as SP or SP-SM should be placed within 65 percent to 105 percent of its
optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor. Other fill soils, if any,
should be placed within 3 percentage points above and 1 percentage point below its optimum
moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor. All fill should be placed in thin lifts
8
and be compacted with a large self-propelled vibratory compactor operating in vibratory
mode.
In areas where fill depths will exceed 10 feet we recommend that compaction levels be
increased to minimum of 100 percent of the materials standard Proctor density. Even with
the increased compaction levels a construction delay may be appropriate to allow for post
construction settlement of the fill mass.
Fill and backfill placed on slopes, if any, must be “benched” into the underlying suitable soil
to reduce the potential for slip planes to develop between the fill and underlying soil. We
recommend “benching” or excavating into the slope at 5 feet vertical intervals to key the fill
into the slope. We recommend each bench be a minimum of 10 feet wide.
Foundations We recommend the perimeter footings bear a minimum of 42 inches below the
exterior grade for frost protection. The interior footings may be placed immediately below the
floor slab provided construction does not occur during below freezing weather conditions.
Footings in unheated should bear at least 5 feet below grade for frost protection.
We anticipate the foundations and floor slabs will bear on compacted engineered fill over
native clay soils. With the building pad prepared as recommended it is our opinion the
footings can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 3,000 pounds per square
foot (psf).
We anticipate total and differential settlement of the foundations will be less than 1 inch and
½ inch, respectively across an approximate 30-foot span.
4.4 Dewatering
Groundwater was encountered in the soil borings while drilling and after auger removal from
the boreholes at depths ranging from 17 to 29 feet below the ground surface. We anticipate
that groundwater will be encountered during deeper soil corrections anticipate that
dewatering will be required.
Where dewatering is required we recommend the groundwater level be temporarily lowered
to a minimum of 2 feet below the lowest anticipated excavation elevation to allow for
construction.
We recommend that a dewatering contractor be consulted to review the soil boring logs,
develop a dewatering plan and evaluate the impact of dewatering on adjacent structures.
4.5 Below Grade Walls
We anticipate that the proposed building will be a slab on-grade structure with no below
grade or basement levels. However, we understand that building design has not been finalized
and the building could include a lower level.
Foundation walls or below grade (basement) walls will have lateral loads from the
surrounding soil transmitted to them. We recommend general waterproofing of the below
grade walls even with the use of free-draining backfill because of the potential cost impacts
9
related to seepage after construction. Unless a drainage composite is placed against the backs
of the exterior perimeter below-grade walls we recommend that backfill placed within 2 feet
of those wall consist of sand having less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing the
#40 sieve and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve. We
recommend the balance of the backfill for the walls consist of sand however the sand may
contain up to 20 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve.
We recommend installing drain tile behind the below grade walls, adjacent to the wall footing
and below the slab elevation. Preferably the drain tile should consist of perforated pipe
embedded in gravel. A geotextile filter fabric should encase the pipe and gravel. The drain
tile should be routed to a storm sewer, sump pump or other suitable disposal site.
Active earth pressures can be used to design the below grade walls if the walls are allowed to
rotate slightly. If wall rotation cannot be tolerated, then below grade wall design should be
based on at-rest earth pressures. We recommend the following soil parameters be used for
below grade/retaining wall design, shown in Table 3. These design parameters are based on
the assumptions that the walls are drained, there are no surcharge loads within a horizontal
distance equal to the height of the wall and the backfill is level.
Table 3. Soil Parameters
Soil Type
Estimated
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Estimated
Friction
Angle
(degrees)
At-Rest
Pressure
(pcf)
Active
Soil
Pressure
(pcf)
Passive
Soil
Pressure
(pcf)
Sand
(SP & SP-SM) 125 32 55 35 400
Clays
(CL) 135 28 70 50 375
Resistance to lateral earth pressures will be provided by passive resistance against the wall
footings and by sliding resistance along the bottom of the wall footings. We recommend a
sliding coefficient of 0.35. This value does not include a factor of safety.
4.6 Interior Slabs
We anticipate that the floor subgrade will consist of a “sand cushion” over compacted clay fill.
For “clean” sand (SP or SP-SM) soils a subgrade modulus (k value) of 200 pounds per square
inch of deflection may be used to design the floor.
If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the concrete slab will be used, we
recommend that a vapor retarder or vapor barrier be placed immediately beneath the slab.
Some contractors prefer to bury the vapor barrier or vapor retarder beneath a layer of sand to
reduce curling and shrinkage, but this practice often traps water between the slab and vapor
retarder or barrier. Regardless of where the vapor retarder or vapor barrier is placed, we
recommend consulting the floor covering manufacturer regarding the appropriate type, use
and installation of the vapor retarder or vapor barrier to preserve the warranty.
10
We recommend following all state and local building codes in regards to a radon mitigation
plan beneath interior slabs.
4.7 Exterior Slabs
Portions of the exterior slabs will likely be underlain by silty and clayey soils which are
considered moderately frost susceptible. If the silty/clayey soils become saturated and freeze,
significant heave may occur. This heave can be a nuisance in front of doors and at other critical
grade areas. One way to help reduce the potential for heaving is to remove the frost -
susceptible soils below the slabs down to bottom of footing grades, and replace them with
non-frost-susceptible backfill consisting of sand having less than 5 percent of the particles by
weight passing the number 200 sieve. Sand meeting this gradation is likely not available on -
site.
If this approach is used and the excavation bottoms terminate in non-free draining granular
soil we recommend a drain tile be installed along the bottom outer edges of the excavation to
collect and remove any water that may accumulate within the sand. The bottom of the
excavation should be graded away from the building.
If the banks of the excavations to remove the frost-susceptible soils are not sloped, abrupt
transitions between the frost-susceptible and non-frost-susceptible backfill will exist along
which unfavorable amounts of differential heaving may occur. Such transitions could exist
between exterior slabs and sidewalks, between exterior slabs and pavements and along the
slabs themselves if the excavations are confined to only the building entrances. To address
this issue we recommend sloping the excavations to remove frost-susceptible soils at a
minimum 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) gradient.
An alternative method of reducing frost heave is to place a minimum of 2 inches of extruded
polystyrene foam insulation beneath the slabs and extending it about 4 feet beyond the slabs.
The insulation will reduce frost penetration into the underlying soil and reduce heave. Six to
12 inches of granular soil is typically placed over the insulation to protect it during
construction.
Another alternative for reducing frost heave is to support the slabs on frost depth footings. A
void space of at least 4 inches should be provided between the slab and the underlying soil to
allow the soil to heave without affecting the slabs.
4.8 Site Grading and Drainage
We recommend the site be graded to provide positive run-off away from the proposed
building. We recommend landscaped areas be sloped a minimum of 6 inches within 10 feet
of the building and slabs be sloped a minimum of 2 inches. In addition , we recommend
downspouts with long splash blocks or extensions.
We recommend the lowest floor grades be constructed to maintain at least a 4-foot separation
between the lowest floor slab and observed groundwater and at least a 2-foot separation
between the lowest floor slab and 100 year flood levels of any adjacent surface water features
such as wetlands, ponds or creeks.
11
4.9 Utilities
We anticipate that the utilities will be supported on engineered fill placed following soil
corrections or native alluvial and glacial till soils which in our opinion are suitable for pipe
support. We recommend removing all topsoil, Fill, very loose/soft or other unsuitable soil, if
encountered, beneath utilities prior to placement.
We recommend bedding material be thoroughly compacted around the pipes. We recommend
trench backfill above the pipes be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent beneath slabs and
pavements, the exception being within 3 feet of the proposed pavement subgrade, where 100
percent of standard Proctor density is required. In landscaped areas we recommend a
minimum compaction of 90 percent.
Groundwater was encountered in the soil borings while drilling and after auger removal from
the boreholes at depths ranging from 17 to 29 feet below the ground surface. We do not
anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during utility construction and do not
anticipate that dewatering will be required.
4.10 Bituminous Pavements
We recommend that pavements be designed and constructed in accordance with City of
Chanhassen standard plates. The following paragraphs provide general pavement
recommendations in the absence of City of Chanhassen standard plates.
We anticipate that the parking areas will be used predominantly by automobiles and light
trucks with occasional use by heavier vehicles including but not limited to food service
delivery trucks and garbage trucks. Based on the assumed traffic types we anticipate that both
light duty and heavy duty pavements will be required.
Based on the assumed traffic types we estimate the light duty pavements will be subjected to
Equivalent Single Axel Loads (ESAL’s) up to 50,000 over a design life of 20 years and heavy
duty pavements will be subjected to ESAL’s up to about 75,000 over a 20 year design life.
We recommend removing all vegetation, topsoil or other unsuitable materials from beneath
the pavement subgrade. We recommend the existing Fill soils be further evaluated during
construction. Prior to placing the aggregate base we recommend compacting and proof-
rolling the subgrade soil to provide a more uniform surface and to identify soft, weak, loose
or unstable areas that may require additional subcuts.
As mentioned in the Discussion section, soil borings SB-6 and SB-7 were completed in the
proposed parking areas on the east side of the building. The ground surface in the vicinity of
these borings was near elevation 958 ½. We assume the parking lot(s) will match the
approximate main floor elevations of the building which is anticipated to be near 971. Because
of that we anticipate that about 12 to 13 feet of fill will be required to attain parking lot grades.
Backfill to attain pavement subgrade elevation can consist of any mineral soil provided it is
free of organic material or other deleterious materials. Granular fill classified as SP or SP-SM,
if used, should be placed within 65 percent to 105 percent of its optimum moisture content as
12
determined by the standard Proctor. Other fill soils should be placed with moisture contents
within a range of 1 percentage point below and 3 percentage points above its optimum
moisture content. The upper 3 feet of fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum of
100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density.
R-Value testing was beyond the scope of this project. The soil borings generally encountered
cohesive soils corresponding to the ASTM Classification of CL which typically have R-Values
ranging from 6 to 18. It is our opinion that an R-Value of 12 can be used for pavement design.
It should be noted that the pavement sections presented below are not absolutes. Depending
on serviceability expectations, material availability, and cost, there will be circumstances
under which alternative sections will be more practicable. The placement of a sand subbase
to support the pavements could potentially reduce the required pavement sections.
For light duty pavements subjected to a maximum of 50,000 ESAL’s and a subgrade R-Value
of 12 we recommend a pavement section consisting of a minimum of 3 ½ inches of bituminous
over a minimum of 9 inches of MN/DOT Class 5 aggregate base.
For medium to heavy duty pavements subjected to a maximum of 75,000 ESAL’s and a
subgrade R-Value of 12 we recommend a pavement section consisting of a minimum of 4
inches of bituminous over a minimum of 12 inches of MN/DOT Class 5 aggregate base.
4.11 Materials and Compaction
We recommend specifying aggregate base meeting MN/DOT Class 5 aggregate base. We
recommend the aggregate base be compacted to 100 percent of its maximum standard Proctor.
We recommend that the bituminous pavements be compacted to at least 92 percent of the
maximum theoretical density.
We recommend specifying concrete that has a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 4,000
psi, and a modulus of rupture of at least 600 psi. We recommend Type I cement meeting the
requirements of ASTM C150. We recommend specifying 5 to 7 percent entrained air for
exposed concrete to provide resistance to freeze-thaw deterioration. We also recommend
using a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less for concrete exposed to deicers.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Excavation
The soil encountered in the borings consisted predominantly of cohesive (clay) soils meeting
the ASTM Classifications CL and CL-ML. The site soils will generally be Type B soils under
Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines.
Temporary excavations in Type C soils should be constructed at a minimum of 1 foot
horizontal to every 1 foot vertical within excavations. Slopes constructed in this manner may
13
still exhibit surface sloughing. If site constraints do not allow the construction of slopes with
these dimensions then temporary shoring may be required.
5.2 Observations
A geotechnical engineer or qualified engineering technician should observe the excavation
subgrade to evaluate if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered in the borings and
adequate to support the proposed construction.
5.3 Backfill and Fills
Site soils that will be excavated and reused as backfill and fill appear to be above their assumed
optimum moisture content. We anticipate it might be necessary to moisture condition (dry)
these soils to achieve the recommended compaction. We recommend that fill and backfill be
placed in lifts not exceeding 4 to 12 inches, depending on the size of the compactor and
materials used.
5.4 Testing
We recommend density tests of backfill and fills placed during construction of the facility.
Samples of the proposed materials should be submitted to our laboratory prior to placement
for evaluation of their suitability and to determine their optimum moisture content and
maximum dry density (Standard Proctor).
5.5 Winter Construction
If site grading and construction is anticipated to proceed during cold weather, all snow and
ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading and placement of
fill. No fill should be placed on frozen soil and no frozen soil should be used as fill or backfill.
Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM and/or
ACI. Concrete should not be placed on frozen soil. Concrete should be protected from
freezing until the necessary strength is obtained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate
below the footings.
6.0 PROCEDURES
6.1 Soil Classification
The drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the boring s in
general accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-
Manual Procedure)”. Soil terminology notes are included in the Appendix. The samples were
returned to our laboratory for review of the field classification by a geotechnical engineer.
Samples will be retained for a period of 30 days.
14
6.2 Groundwater Observations
Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottom of the borings, the hole was checked
for the presence of groundwater. Again, at the end of the drilling day, the borings were re-
checked for the presence of groundwater with the levels and time delay being noted on the
boring logs.
7.0 GENERAL
7.1 Subsurface Variations
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from
a limited number of soil borings. Variations can occur away from the borings, the nature of
which may not become apparent until additional exploration work is completed or
construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be
made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of
any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs and it is suggested
that a contingency be provided for this purpose.
It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program during
construction to evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes have affected
the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly
interpreted and implemented in the designs, specifications and construction methods. This
will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings
and will provide continuity of professional responsibility.
7.2 Review of Design
This report is based on the design of the proposed structures as related to us for preparation
of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the
design and specifications. With the review we will evaluate whether any changes have
affected the validity of the recommendations and whether our recommendations have been
correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications.
7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations
We made water level measurements in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated
on the boring logs. The data was interpreted in the text of this report. The period of
observation was relatively short and fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to
rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not
evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and
construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations.
15
7.4 Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of Civil Site Group, Inc. and their design team to use to
design the proposed structures and prepare construction documents. In the absence of our
written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties
regarding this report. The data, analysis and recommendations may not be appropriate for
other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or
purposes contact us.
7.5 Level of Care
Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC has used the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised
under similar circumstance by members of the profession currently practicing in this locality.
No warranty expressed or implied is made.
APPENDIX
SB-4
SB-5
Haugo GeoTechnical
Services, LLC
2825 Cedar Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Figure #: 1
Drawn By: AY
Date: 12/16/17
Scale: None
Project #: 17-1039
Soil Boring Location Sketch
1620 & 1660 Arboretum Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Approximate Soil Boring Location
SB-6
SB-1 SB-2 SB-3
SB-7
SB-8
Silty Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, dark brown and black, moist.
(FILL)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Organics, trace Wood, grey
and black, moist. (FILL)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Organics, trace Wood,
black, moist. (FILL)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Organics, trace Wood,
brown and black, moist. (FILL)
Clayey Sand, trace Gravel, trace Organics, with Concrete at 22 1/2
feet, with Wood at 27 1/2 feet, black, wet. (FILL)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey, moist, rather stiff.
(Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 31.0 feet.
AU
23
SS
24
SS
25
SS
26
SS
27
SS
28
SS
29
SS
30
SS
31
SS
32
SS
33
SS
34
SS
35
8-3-4
(7)
4-6-7
(13)
4-3-5
(8)
3-3-5
(8)
3-2-8
(10)
4-4-12
(16)
2-2-4
(6)
1-1-1
(2)
2-3-18
(21)
2-1-2
(3)
4-3-3
(6)
4-4-5
(9)
14
19.5
25
26
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 970 ft
LOGGED BY MS
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JC
DATE STARTED 12/19/17 COMPLETED 12/19/17
AT TIME OF DRILLING 20.00 ft / Elev 950.00 ft
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-1
CLIENT Civil Site Group
PROJECT NUMBER 17-1039
PROJECT NAME Facility Senior Living
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 1/5/18 13:43 - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\17-1039 13625 CREST AVENUE NE.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Silty Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Roots, brown and dark
brown, moist. (FILL)
Silty Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist.
(FILL)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown and dark brown, moist.
(FILL)
Silty Clay, black, moist. (FILL)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey, moist, medium.
(Alluvium)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, rust staining, mottled brown
and grey, moist, medium. (Alluvium)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey, moist, rather stiff to
stiff. (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 31.0 feet.
AU
13
SS
14
SS
15
SS
16
SS
17
SS
18
SS
19
SS
20
SS
21
SS
22
3-3-5
(8)
2-3-4
(7)
2-3-3
(6)
3-11-7
(18)
4-3-3
(6)
3-5-3
(8)
3-5-8
(13)
5-4-6
(10)
3-5-7
(12)
18.5
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 969.8 ft
LOGGED BY MS
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JC
DATE STARTED 12/18/17 COMPLETED 12/18/17
AT TIME OF DRILLING 20.00 ft / Elev 949.80 ft
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING 20.40 ft / Elev 949.40 ft with Cave-In Depth of 24 feet
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-2
CLIENT Civil Site Group
PROJECT NUMBER 17-1039
PROJECT NAME Facility Senior Living
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 1/5/18 13:43 - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\17-1039 13625 CREST AVENUE NE.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Silty Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Organics, brown and black,
moist. (FILL)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist. (FILL)
Clayey Sand, fine to medium grained, with Gravel, trace Wood,
dark brown, moist. (FILL)
(CL) Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey, moist to wet, rather soft to
medium. (Alluvium)
(CL) Lean Clay, trace Gravel, mottled brown and grey, moist to
wet, mediuim. (Alluvium)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, rather stiff.
(Glacial Till)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey, moist, stiff. (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 31.0 feet.
AU
1
SS
2
SS
3
SS
4
SS
5
SS
6
SS
7
SS
8
SS
9
SS
10
SS
11
SS
12
2-3-5
(8)
2-3-4
(7)
2-3-6
(9)
3-3-4
(7)
4-5-7
(12)
6-9-10
(19)
2-3-4
(7)
1-2-3
(5)
2-3-3
(6)
3-5-5
(10)
3-6-7
(13)
15.5
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 972.7 ft
LOGGED BY MS
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JC
DATE STARTED 12/19/17 COMPLETED 12/19/17
AT TIME OF DRILLING 25.00 ft / Elev 947.70 ft
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered with Cave-In Depth of 7 feet
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-3
CLIENT Civil Site Group
PROJECT NUMBER 17-1039
PROJECT NAME Facility Senior Living
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 1/5/18 13:43 - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\17-1039 13625 CREST AVENUE NE.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Silty Clay, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist. (FILL)
Silty Clay, trace Gravel, black, moist. (FILL)
Silty Clay, trace Organics, grey and black, moist. (FILL)
(CL) Lean Clay, mottled brown and grey, wet, soft. (Alluvium)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey, moist, rather stiff to
stiff. (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 31.0 feet.
AU
47
SS
48
SS
49
SS
50
SS
51
SS
52
SS
53
SS
54
SS
55
SS
56
SS
57
3-3-4
(7)
2-3-4
(7)
3-5-5
(10)
2-3-4
(7)
1-1-1
(2)
1-2-2
(4)
3-7-8
(15)
3-5-7
(12)
6-5-8
(13)
3-6-9
(15)
15
24.5
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 964.6 ft
LOGGED BY MS
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JC
DATE STARTED 12/20/17 COMPLETED 12/20/17
AT TIME OF DRILLING 17.00 ft / Elev 947.60 ft
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered with Cave-In Depth of 5 feet
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-4
CLIENT Civil Site Group
PROJECT NUMBER 17-1039
PROJECT NAME Facility Senior Living
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 1/5/18 13:43 - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\17-1039 13625 CREST AVENUE NE.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Silty Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Wood, trace Fibers, brown,
moist to wet. (FILL)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Fibers, brown and grey, wet.
(FILL)
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace Fibers, grey and black, wet.
(FILL)
Silty Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, black, wet. (FILL)
(CL) Lean Clay, trace Gravel, mottled brown and grey, wet, rather
soft to rather stiff. (Alluvium)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, grey, moist, rather stiff to
stiff. (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 31.0 feet.
AU
36
SS
37
SS
38
SS
39
SS
40
SS
41
SS
42
SS
43
SS
44
SS
45
SS
46
3-3-5
(8)
3-3-4
(7)
2-2-3
(5)
1-1-2
(3)
2-2-2
(4)
4-6-7
(13)
2-3-2
(5)
2-5-4
(9)
3-6-7
(13)
3-5-7
(12)
17.5
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 971 ft
LOGGED BY MS
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JC
DATE STARTED 12/19/17 COMPLETED 12/19/17
AT TIME OF DRILLING 25.00 ft / Elev 946.00 ft
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered with Cave-In Depth of 10 feet
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-5
CLIENT Civil Site Group
PROJECT NUMBER 17-1039
PROJECT NAME Facility Senior Living
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 1/5/18 13:43 - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\17-1039 13625 CREST AVENUE NE.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Silty Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, rust staining, brown, moist,
medium to stiff. (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 11.0 feet.
AU
63
SS
64
SS
65
SS
66
SS
67
2-3-3
(6)
2-3-4
(7)
4-5-6
(11)
4-6-7
(13)
19.5
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 958.7 ft
LOGGED BY MS
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JC
DATE STARTED 12/20/17 COMPLETED 12/20/17
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-6
CLIENT Civil Site Group
PROJECT NUMBER 17-1039
PROJECT NAME Facility Senior Living
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 1/5/18 13:43 - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\17-1039 13625 CREST AVENUE NE.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Silty Clay, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, rust staining, brown, moist,
rather stiff to very stiff. (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 11.0 feet.
AU
58
SS
59
SS
60
SS
61
SS
62
3-4-6
(10)
2-5-6
(11)
5-8-9
(17)
3-5-5
(10)
18
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 958.3 ft
LOGGED BY MS
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JC
DATE STARTED 12/20/17 COMPLETED 12/20/17
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered with Cave-In Depth of 6 feet
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-7
CLIENT Civil Site Group
PROJECT NUMBER 17-1039
PROJECT NAME Facility Senior Living
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 1/5/18 13:43 - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\17-1039 13625 CREST AVENUE NE.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Silty Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
Silty Sand, fine to medium grained, with Gravel, black, moist.
(FILL)
Silty Clay, trace Organics, trace Wood, black, moist. (FILL)
(CL) Lean Clay, trace Gravel, rust staining, mottled brown and
grey, medium to rather stiff. (Alluvium)
Bottom of borehole at 16.0 feet.
AU
68
SS
69
SS
70
SS
71
SS
72
SS
73
SS
74
3-6-7
(13)
1-1-2
(3)
2-3-4
(7)
3-2-3
(5)
2-2-4
(6)
3-5-7
(12)
24.5
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 967.9 ft
LOGGED BY MS
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JC
DATE STARTED 12/20/17 COMPLETED 12/20/17
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered with Cave-In Depth of 3 feet
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-8
CLIENT Civil Site Group
PROJECT NUMBER 17-1039
PROJECT NAME Facility Senior Living
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 1/5/18 13:43 - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\17-1039 13625 CREST AVENUE NE.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959