Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report 10-17-06
A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report
Proposed Audubon Motor Plex
Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Prepared for
Mutual Investments, LLC
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCT 2 0 2006
CHANHASSEN PU.NNING DEPT
Professional Certification
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a
duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
~ " ",'11111/11
/< ~ "" G R. JA,I/'II
,,<'"_0....... D,C,'/
,<,">-v.. ". '70-;'
'::r~-.' '. ~
,"'-F. ."'-
:: ... LICENSED ". -::.
~ R. ~ PE = i PROfESSIOllAL , ~
Pnnclpal Engmeer: = : ENGINEER : ::
License Number: 182~ \Jl.... 1E2?1 ....;: 2
'" "^. - . ....
October 17, 2006 ~.../-1;"'"" "<~:?....~..
/, 1:0- l'\~."\" \':-
'I, ,- ,;." "I.
11Ilillli\\\'
Project BL-06-02305
Braun Intertec Corporation
.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Phone: 952.995.2000
Fax: 952.995.2020
Web: brouninfertec.com
Braun Intertec Corporation
1100 I Hampshire Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55438
October 17, 2006
Project BL-06-02305
Mr. Bruno Silikowski
Mutual Investments LLC
3615 Zircon Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Audubon Motor Plex
Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Silikowski:
We have completed the geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Audubon Motor Plex project in
Chanhassen, Minnesota. The purpose of the preliminary geotechnical evaluation was to provide
geotechnical information and preliminary recommendations regarding the design and construction of the
proposed project. Our evaluation was completed in general accordance with our Proposal for
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, dated May 10,2006.
Please see the attached report for a detailed discussion on the field exploration results and our
recommendations. The report should be read in its entirety.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions
regarding this report, please contact Josh Van Abel at 952.995-2310 or Gregg Jandro at 952.995.2270.
Sincerely,
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1vt1rZ
Joshua J. Van Abel, PE
Project Engineer
~::-~
Principal Engineer
Attachment:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report
c: Bob Payette, PE; Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.
Georpt Audubon Motor Plex
. Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957
Table of Contents
Description
Page
A. Introduction ............ ............... .... .................... .............. ..... .... ........ ...................................... 1
A. 1. Proj ect.................................... .................................................... ............................ 1
A.2. Purpose.................................. .......................................................... ... ................... 1
A.3. Scope..................................................................................................................... 1
A.4. Existing Site Conditions.... .................................................................................... 2
A.5. A vai lab Ie Information...... ............ .......................................................................... 2
A.5.a. Previous Geotechnical Information ......................... ........ ......................... 2
A.5. b. Sketches................................................. ................................................... 3
B. Results ................................................................................................................................ 3
8.1. Soil Boring Locations and Elevations ................................................................... 3
B.2. Logs....................................................................................................................... 3
B.3. Soils.................... ....... ....... ..................................................................................... 4
B.3 .a. Topsoil............ ..... .... ......... ........ ......................................... ....................... 4
B.3. b. Fill... .................. ...... .................. .................... ............................................ 4
B.3 .c. Glacial Deposits.... ................................................................................... 4
B.4. Groundwater .......................................... ................................................................ 4
C. Analyses and Preliminary Recommendations .................................................................... 5
C .1. Proposed Construction.............. ...... ......................... ............. ..... ............................ 5
C.2. Discussion of Preliminary Recommendations....................................................... 5
C.2.a. General Site Development........................................................ ................ 5
C.2.b. Building Pad Preparation and Soil Corrections........................................ 5
C .2.c. Groundwater Control.... ..... ...... ............................. .................................... 6
C.2.d. Backfill and Reuse of On site Soils........................................................... 6
C.2.e. Pavement Areas ..................................................... .... ............... ..... ........... 6
C.2. f. Additional Investigation........... ................................................................ 6
C.3. Bu i Id ing Pad Preparation.......... ....... ................................................. ..................... 7
C.3.a. Excavation.......................... ................................................ ...................... 7
C.3. b. Fi II and Backfi II.............. .......................................................................... 8
C.3.c. Compaction............................................................................................... 8
C.4 . Foundations................................................. .......................................................... 8
C.4.a. Depth................................ ........................................................................ 8
C.4. b. Bearing Pressure....... ...................... .......................................................... 9
C.4.c. Settlement............................................................................. ..... ........... .... 9
C.5. Floor ....................................... ............................................................................... 9
C.5.a. Subgrade ................ ...................... ............................................................. 9
C.5. b. Vapor Barrier..... ........... ...................................... ................... ................... 9
C.5.c. Subgrade Modulus.................... .............................................................. 10
C.6. Below Grade Walls.................................................... ........ .................................. 10
C.6.a. Lateral Pressures........................ ............................................... .......... .... 11
C.6.b. Seepage Control............................................................... ........ ......... ...... 11
C. 7. Exterior Slabs.............. ............ ........ ................ .......... ................... ....................... 11
C. 7 .a. Subgrades ..... ....... ........ ........... ............ .......... ..... .................. ..... .............. 11
C. 7. b. Frost Protection ...... ..... ......... ...... ... ........................... .......... ...... ..... ......... 12
C.8. Uti I ity Support... ....................................... ....... .................................. .................. 12
Table of Contents (Continued)
Description
Page
C.9 . Pavement.... ..... ..... ........ ............. ....................................................... ... ................ 13
C. 9 .a. Subgrade Preparation........................ .... ................... ............................... 13
C.9. b. Proofro lIs................................................................................................ 13
C.9.c. Anticipated Subgrade and R-value......................................................... 13
C.9.d. Design Sections........................... ........................ ......... .......................... 14
C.9.e. Materials............................... ................... ................ .............. ................. 14
C.9. f. Drainage Considerations........................... .............................. ............... 14
C.W. Site Grading and Drainage........ ...... ......... ........... .................... .......... ..... .... ......... 14
C.II. Additional Construction Recommendations........................................................ 15
C.II.a. Excavation .............................................................................................. IS
C.II.b. Observations ........................................................................................... IS
C.II.c. Testing .................................................................................................... IS
C.II.d. Cold Weather Construction .................................................................... 15
D. Procedures ......... ...... ..... .................. .... .......................................................... .................... 16
D.I. Drilling and Sampling ......................................................................................... 16
D .2. Soil Classification................................................................................................ 16
D.3. Groundwater Observations....... ...................................................... ..... ................ 16
E. General Conditions........................................................... ................................................ 16
E.I. Basis of Preliminary Recommendations.............................................................. 16
E.2. Review of Des ign .... .................................................................. ............. ............. 1 7
E.3. Groundwater Fluctuations................................................................................... 1 7
E.4 . Use of Report..................................................................................... .................. 17
E.5. Level of Care......... ................................... ........................................... ................ I 7
Appendix
Boring Location Sketch
Log of Boring Sheets ST-I to ST-7
Descriptive Terminology
A. Introduction
A.I. Project
We understand Mutual Investments, LLC is proposing the construction of the Audubon Motor Plex on
the property located on the northwest corner of Audubon Road and the Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad alignment in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The site is currently undeveloped. However, we
understand portions of the site have been previously graded and prepared for building support using
typical spread footing foundations.
The proposed Audubon Motor Plex will likely consist of multiple, one- to two-story structures along with
associated site improvements. Final building design, location and grades have not yet been determined.
As part of the project, Braun Intertec has been contracted by Mutual Investments to perform soil borings
and a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Audubon Motor Plex project.
A.2. Purpose
The purpose of the evaluation was to provide preliminary geotechnical information and preliminary
recommendations regarding development of the proposed site.
A.3. Scope
Our services were performed in general accordance with our Proposal for Preliminary Geotechnical
Evaluation to Mr. SiIikowski with Mutual Investments, dated May 10, 2006.
Our scope of geotechnical services was limited to:
. conducting six standard penetration test borings to depths of 15 to 30 feet below grade at the
requested locations (one additional soil boring was performed).
. returning the samples to our laboratory for laboratory testing and visual classification and
logging by a geotechnical engineer.
. formulating preliminary recommendations for soil corrections and earthwork, foundation
design, floor slab support, pavement design and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations.
. submitting a preliminary geotechnical evaluation report containing logs of the borings, our
analysis of the field and laboratory tests, and geotechnical recommendations.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page 2
AA. Existing Site Conditions
The proposed project site is the eastern 18-acres (approximate) of the 31- acre (approximate) parcel of
property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Audubon Road and the Milwaukee,
St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. The remaining 13 acres of the site predominantly consist of wetlands and
will not be developed as part of this project. The area proposed for development primarily consists of
slightly vegetated upland areas. As stated in the Twin City Testing reports discussed in Section A.S, the
majority of the site has been previously graded.
Ground surface elevations across the site generally slope downward to the wetland areas, located to the
north and west of the proposed development areas. Based on the provided survey, ground surface
elevations range from approximately 950 down to 903 near the wetlands.
A.5. Available Information
A.5.a. Previous Geotechnical Information
Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. (Sathre-Bergquist) provided us with a Soil Observation and Testing Report and a
Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exp[oration Program, both prepared by Twin City Testing. The Report
of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration Program was performed under Twin City Testing project number
4220 89-957 and was dated March 27, 1989. The Soil Observation and Testing Report was performed
under Twin City Testing project number 422089-1167 and was dated June 29, 1989.
The Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration Program contained four soil borings performed on the
property prior to grading. The report indicated the site generally appeared suitable for fill or foundation
placement after topsoil stripping operations.
The Soil Observation and Testing Report summarized the soil observation and compaction testing
services performed by Twin City Testing during grading of the site. Based on the report, it appears the
eastern portion of the site was prepared for five lots, under two blocks (Lots 1,2 and 3 of Block 1 and
Lots I and 2 of Block 2) and a roadway (Audubon Court). A sixth lot (Lot 3, Block 2) located in the
southwestern corner of the development was apparently not completed. Compaction testing of fill in this
lot was not performed. The Soil Observation and Testing Report indicates the subgrade soils prior to fill
placement were judged suitable for fill and foundation support assuming a maximum soil bearing
capacity of 3000 pounds per square foot (pst). The report also includes compaction tests on subsequent
backfill placed to reach proposed grades across the lots and roadways. The tests indicate the backfill was
generally compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of standard Proctor density.
It appears the previous grading of the site did not extend into the narrow portion of the site that extends
to the west, parallel to the existing railroad alignment.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page 3
A.S.b. Sketches
Sathre-Bergquist provided us with an ALTAI ASCM Land Title Survey for the project site. The survey
was prepared by Sathre-Bergquist and was dated September 26, 2006. The survey included the existing
site conditions and elevations and the surveyed soil boring locations. The survey did not include
proposed elevations or site layout.
Sathre-Bergquist also provided us with a sketch showing the approximate site layout. The sketch did not
include proposed elevations. The plan was not titled or dated.
B. Results
B.l. Soil Boring Locations and Elevations
We performed a total of seven standard penetration test borings for the project, denoted as ST-I to ST-7.
The borings were performed at the approximate locations shown on the attached Soil Boring Location
Sketch.
The boring locations were selected by Sathre-Bergquist and Braun Intertec and staked by
Sathre-Bergquist personnel. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were also provided by
Sathre- Bergq u ist.
8.2. Logs
Log of Boring sheets indicating the depths and identifications of the various soil strata, penetration
resistances, laboratory test results and groundwater observations are attached. The strata changes were
inferred from the changes in the penetration test samples and auger cuttings. The depths shown as
changes between the strata are only approximate. The changes are likely transitions and the depths of the
changes vary between the borings.
Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil types,
blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the depositional history of the site. Because of the
complex glacial and post-glacial depositional environments, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain.
A detailed investigation of the geologic history of the site was not performed.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page 4
8.3. Soils
The soil profile encountered at the borings generally consisted of a layer of topsoil and topsoil fill over
glacially deposited soils to the boring termination depths. In addition to the topsoil fill, additional
non-organic previously placed fill was encountered at a couple of the borings overlying the glacially
deposited soils. The following subsections discus the strata in more detail.
B.3.a. Topsoil
A surficial layer of topsoil or topsoil fill was encountered at a majority of the boring locations. The
topsoil and topsoil fill generally ranged in depth from 1/2 to 1 foot. However, the topsoil fill ranged in
depth from approximately 4 to 7 feet at Borings ST-5 and ST-6. The topsoil and topsoil fill generally
consisted of silty sand, clayey sand, sandy lean clay and lean clay with sand. The topsoil and topsoil fill
were generally judged to be slightly organic to organic.
B.3.b. Fill
In addition to the topsoil fill, additional previously placed fill was encountered at Borings ST-I and ST-3.
This fill generally appeared to be non-organic. The fill was approximately 22 and 4 feet deep at Borings
ST-l and ST-3, respectively. The fill generally consisted of sandy lean clay and clayey sand.
The recorded penetration resistances in the fill soils ranged from 9 to 16 blows per foot (BPF). These
recorded penetration resistances are indicative of engineered, compacted fill.
B.3.c. Glacial Deposits
Below the fill or topsoil, glacially deposited soils were encountered. The glacially deposited soils are
listed as glacial till, glacial outwash and glaciotluvium on the Log of Boring sheets. The glacial deposits
consisted of lean clay, sandy lean clay, clayey sand, sandy silt, silty sand and poorly graded sand with
silt.
The recorded penetration resistances in the glacial sandy lean clay, lean clay and clayey sand ranged
from 5 to 22 BPF, indicating a rather soft to very stiff consistencies. The recorded penetration
resistances in the glacial poorly graded sand with silt, silty sand and sandy silt ranged from 3 to 8 BPF,
indicating very loose to loose relative densities.
B.4. Groundwater
Groundwater was observed at Borings ST-2, ST-4, ST-5 and ST-6 during or immediately after drilling
operations. At these borings, groundwater was observed at depths of 5 to 19 feet below grade,
corresponding to approximate elevations of 897 to 912 1/2.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17,2006
Page 5
We anticipate the large variance in the groundwater levels observed in the borings is due to perched
water conditions and the relatively impermeable nature of the cohesive soils encountered by the borings.
We anticipate groundwater levels across the site are near or slightly above the water level surface in the
adjacent wetlands. Based on the survey, this appears to be near elevation 903 to 904. Annual and
seasonal fluctuations of groundwater levels should also be expected.
C. Analyses and Preliminary Recommendations
c.t. Proposed Construction
We understand the proposed Audubon Motor Plex will likely consist of multiple one- to two-story,
slab-on-grade structures along with associated site improvements. However, the types of construction,
building loads and proposed grades have not yet been determined.
For the purposes of this report, we have assumed column loads for the proposed structures will not
exceed 150 kips (150,000 pounds). Perimeter or interior strip footing loads are estimated to be less than
5 kips per lineal foot (5000 plf).
We assume paved areas will be constructed for car parking and several drive lanes and access roads will
be built. The access roads will carry cars, delivery trucks and waste management vehicles.
The recommendations provided in this report should be reviewed when additional building and elevation
information is available to determine if these recommendations need to be revised.
C.2. Discussion of Preliminary Recommendations
C.2.a. General Site Development
Based on the results of our borings, we anticipate the site is suitable for support of the proposed buildings
using a typical spread footing foundations. However, some soil correction excavations would be
necessary to remove topsoil and potentially very soft to rather soft native clayey soils.
C.2.b. Building Pad Preparation and Soil Corrections
The medium to very stiff and loose glacially deposited soils and previously placed engineered fill
generally appear suitable for building support using typical spread footing foundations and slab-on-grade
floors. However, topsoil and very soft to rather soft native clayey soils have the potential for settlement
under fill and foundation loads and should be removed from the proposed building and oversizing areas.
Although generally not encountered by the borings, some areas of soft to rather soft clayey glacial soils
are anticipated onsite. Topsoil and organic fill depths should be anticipated to increase towards the
wetland areas and tops of slopes.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02J05
October 17,2006
Page 6
C.2.c. Groundwater Control
Depending on proposed grades and excavation depths across the site, groundwater or perched water
could potentially be encountered in excavations. Based on the borings, we anticipate sump pumps will
generally be suitable for short-term groundwater control. However, the groundwater control methods
should be reviewed after grades are determined.
C.2.d. Backfill and Reuse of Onsite Soils
The on-site native glacial soils generally appear suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, clayey soils
will likely need to be moisture conditioned prior to reuse. The excavation contractor should note that
moisture conditioning of clayey soils could be labor intensive and extremely difficult outside of the summer
months, requiring significant amounts of time. Topsoil and organic fill soils should not be reused as
structural fill below the building areas.
C.2.e. Pavement Areas
We anticipate typical subgrade preparation procedures will be suitable for preparation of the pavement
areas onsite. The recommended subgrade preparation procedures are outlined in Section 0.6.
Based on the borings, the onsite soils near the surface in the pavement areas generally consist of clayey
soils. The contractor should note that clayey soils are susceptible to disturbance due to repeated
construction traffic. Disturbance of these soils may cause areas that were previously prepared for
pavement support to become unstable and require addition moisture conditioning, compaction and/or
subcutting. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing the soils.
C.2.f. Additional Investigation
If development of this site proceeds, we recommend further subsurface exploration be performed. The
additional subsurface exploration should include test pits or addition soil borings around the proposed
building areas, once the proposed building locations, types of structures, foundation loads and proposed
grades have been determined. The additional subsurface information in the proposed building areas will
allow us to finalize the recommendations regarding site development, grading, foundation design, floor
slab support and pavement design.
The recommendations within this report should be considered preliminary. The recommendations
provided in this report may change or be revised based on additional soil boring information and/or
building or site design information.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page 7
C.3. Building Pad Preparation
C.3.a. Excavation
For building pad preparation, we recommend that the vegetation, topsoil, organic soils and very soft to
rather soft native clayey soils be removed from below all proposed building and oversize areas. If
present, any existing utilities and old backfill should also be removed from proposed building and
oversIze areas.
After excavation of the unsuitable soils, the native glacial soils or previously compacted clayey fill
soils should be directly suitable for support offoundations or engineered fill. Table I outlines the
anticipated excavation depths at the soil borings. However, we recommend the excavation depths be
reviewed after the proposed building loads and grades are available. The excavation depths may
need to be revised.
T bl 1 A f' t d E
f D th
a e . n Icma e xcava Ion em s
Anticipated Depth Approximate
Approximate Ground of Excavation Bottom-of-Excavation Elevation
Borin!! Surface Elevation (feet) (Estimated)
ST-l 934.1 1/2 933 1/2
ST-2 931.4 1/2 * 931 *
ST-3 939.6 I 938 1/2
ST-4 916.3 1 915
ST-5 914.2 7 907
ST-6 916.4 4 912
ST-7 921.7 - -
* The sandy silt soils at Boring ST-6 can become disturbed and unstable due to construction traffic. If this occurs, these soils
may need to be subcut.
Please note the excavation depths indicated in the above tabulation are approximate and will vary. The
actual depth of excavation may differ between boring locations and should be determined in the field at
the time of construction.
For excavations within the building areas that extend below design footing elevation, we recommend the
excavation bottoms be extended laterally beyond the edges of the proposed footings a minimum of I foot
for each vertical foot below the footing at that location (i.e. 1: 1 lateral oversizing). This oversizing is
necessary for the lateral distribution of the footing loads through the fill sequence.
To minimize disturbing the in-place soils, we recommend the footing excavations be performed with a
backhoe equipped with a smooth-edge bucket or a wide-tracked dozer. If the excavation bottom soils
become disturbed, they should be surface compacted prior to fill and/or foundation placement.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page 8
C.3.b. Fill and Backfill
Structural backfill should consist of non-organic, on- or off-site mineral soils. Fill containing foreign debris
or organic material should not be reused as structural fill. If imported soils are used, we recommend they
consist of non-organic, debris-free mineral soils.
For fill placement over wet subgrades, we recommend coarse sand or sandy gravel be used as backfill to
establish a stable fill base. Coarse sands and sandy gravels consist of soil with less than 5 percent
passing the number 200 sieve and less than 50 percent passing the number 40 sieve by weight.
C.3.c. Compaction
We recommend the backfill and fill be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. We
recommend fill soils be compacted to the minimum densities summarized in Table 5, determined in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 698 (standard
Proctor). Fill and backfill should be within 3 percentage points of its optimum moisture content.
However, clayey fill should be placed within 3 percentage points above and I percentage point below its
optimum moisture content.
Table 2. Recommend Compaction Levels
Minimum Compaction
Location (Standard Proctor)
Footings and Interior Floor Slab 98%
Below Exterior Slabs 95%
Exterior Wall Backfill 90%
Within 3 feet of Pavement 100%
Below 3 feet of Pavements 95%
The compaction parameters should be re-evaluated after additional information regarding building
location and loads are provided.
CA. Foundations
For preliminary design, it is our opinion typical spread footings could be used for building support.
However, this recognizes that soil corrections will be required to prepare the building pads.
C.4.a. Depth
We recommend that the perimeter footings bear a minimum of3 1/2 feet below the exterior grade for
frost protection. Interior footings may be placed immediately beneath the slab. If winter construction is
being considered, we recommend interior footings also bear a minimum of 3 1/2 feet below grade for
frost protection.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page 9
We recommend that isolated exterior footings have a minimum of 4 feet of cover over the tops of the
footings. We recommend the piers be tied to the footings with reinforcing so frozen soil adhering to the
sides of the piers does not heave the piers.
C.4.b. Bearing Pressure
Based on the soils encountered in the borings, and assuming the site corrections are completed as
recommended, it is our opinion the spread footings can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure
up to 3,000 pounds per square foot. We recommend a minimum width of 18 inches for strip footing
design. However, this recommendation is based on preliminary building design and locations. After the
building design and locations have been finalized and additional subsurface information is provided, we
can provide additional analysis and recommendations regarding the final design of the foundation
system.
C.4.e. Settlement
Based on the preliminary bearing capacity and assumed foundation loads, we anticipate total and
differential settlement of the foundations will be less than I inch and 1/2 inch, respectively, under the
assumed loads.
C.S. Floor
C.S.a. Subgrade
For buildings supported on spread footing foundations, we anticipate the slab subgrade soils will consist
of engineered fill or native glacial soils suitable for slab-on-grade floor support after site grading.
Backfill in footing and mechanical trenches should be compacted to a minimum of95 percent of its
standard Proctor maximum dry density.
C.S.b. Vapor Barrier
Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to
separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. We recommend placing a vapor retarder or barrier below
ground supported slabs where floor covering or coatings less permeable than concrete will be used, or if
moisture is a concern.
We recommend placing the vapor retarder or barrier directly below the concrete, and taking the following
precautions to help limit concrete shrinkage and curling:
. using the largest possible maximum aggregate size and/or coarse aggregate.
. using the lowest practical slump.
. using the lowest necessary cement content to reduce top-to-bottom moisture differentials.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page 10
carefully curing the concrete.
. optimizing the spacing of control joints.
Current practices, however, often allow the vapor retarder or barrier to be buried below a layer of sand to
reduce concrete shrinkage and curling, but this practice risks trapping water between the slabs and the vapor
retarder or barrier, and causing moisture vapor problems some time after construction. [fthe vapor retarder
or barrier is buried below a layer of sand, consideration should be given to:
. eliminating moisture-trapping slip sheets, where possible, from below the slabs.
installing roof drains prior to retarder/barrier installation to reduce wetting of the sand cushion.
. directing the concrete subcontractor to keep excess process water away from the sand cushion.
. sealing control joints to discourage water from penetrating the slabs after construction.
Regardless of where the vapor retarder or barrier is placed, we recommend consulting with floor covering
manufacturers regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or barrier to preserve
warranty assurances.
We recommend that the vapor retarder or barrier be observed prior to concrete or sand placement so that
holes, tears or gaps in the vapor retarder or barrier can be identified and patched or realigned as needed.
We further recommend performing moisture vapor transmission tests after the concrete slabs have cured,
but before flooring is installed. Flooring manufactures typically recommend upper limits of moisture
vapor transmission that can be used to set schedules for flooring installation, but more importantly, may
impact warranties.
C.S.c. Subgrade Modulus
Assuming the floor subgrades are engineered fill or glacial soils generally consisting of consist sandy
lean clay, it is our opinion that a modulus of subgrade reaction of 'k' value of 100 pounds per square inch
per inch of deflection (pei) may be used to design the floors. [f a minimum of 6 inches of compacted
crushed gravel road base is placed immediately beneath the floor slabs, it is our opinion that the modulus
may be increased by 50 pci.
C.6. Below Grade Walls
We understand the proposed buildings may have some full or partially below-grade walls. Prior to
backfill operations, the foundation walls should be laterally braced or filled evenly on both sides to
minimize displacement of the walls.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page II
C.6.a. Lateral Pressures
The following table summarizes the lateral earth pressures to be used for design calculations of below-
grade walls. These values do not include a factor of safety. A factor of safety should be used for design
calculations.
T bl 6 L tiE
t FI 'd P
a e a era .Q Ulva en Ul ress u re
Active Condition At Rest Condition Passive Condition
Wall Backfill Soil Type (psf per foot (psf per foot of (psf per foot
of depth) depth) of depth)
Clean Sands 30 45 400
Other Soils 55 70 300
Sands for the purpose of wall design have less than 5 percent by weight passing a number 200 sieve. If
sands are used, the granular material should extend 2 feet laterally away from the base of the wall and
then extend to the surface at 60 degrees from horizontal. Other soils include on-site or imported silty
sands, clayey sands, sandy lean clays, lean clays, and silts.
Also, the design should incorporate a surcharge loading of 250 psf at the surface to provide support for
construction traffic and any future traffic or loads that could affect the walls.
C.6.b. Seepage Control
As a precaution against below-grade seepage, we recommend the below-grade walls be adequately
dampproofed and a perimeter foundation drain system be installed. The system should include a
perforated pipe with an invert within 2 inches of bottom-of-footing elevation. Collected seepage should
be routed to a sump and then drained by a pump or gravity to a storm sewer or low area on the site.
The seepage control system should include permeable material against the basement wall, such as a
synthetic wall drainage system or at least 2 feet (horizontal) of free-draining sandy gravel or sand
backfill. The sandy gravel or sand backfill should have less than 5 percent of the particles by weight
passing a number 200 sieve and less than 50 percent passing the number 40 sieve. Where the sandy
gravel or sand backfill extends outside the footprint of the building, it should be capped by a slab,
pavement or at least 1 foot of clayey topsoil.
C.7. Exterior Slabs
C.7.a. Subgrades
We recommend the topsoil and organic soils be removed from beneath any proposed exterior slabs. We
anticipate the building excavations will remove the majority of these soils below exterior slabs. Fills and
backfills should be compacted to a minimum of95 percent of their standard Proctor density.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page 12
C.7.b. Frost Protection
The on-site soils, with the exception of the poorly graded sands with silt, are considered frost susceptible.
Construction directly on these soils could cause unfavorable amount of frost heave to occur. This heave
can be a nuisance for slabs or steps in front of doors and at other critical grade areas. One way to reduce
this heave is to remove the frost-susceptible soils down to bottom-of-footing level and replace them with
non frost-susceptible sand or sandy gravel. Sand or sandy gravel with less than 5 percent of the particles
by weight passing a number 200 sieve is non frost-susceptible. We recommend a drainpipe be installed
to remove any water that may collect in the sand. The bottom of the subexcavation should be graded so
that water flows to the center where it can be collected by a pipe and drained to a storm sewer, another
drain tile, or a water collector system for discharge.
Another alternative for reducing frost heave is to support the steps or slabs on frost-depth footings.
A void space of at least 4 inches should be provided between the bottoms of the steps/slabs and
frost-susceptible soils to allow the soils to heave without affecting the steps/slabs.
To reduce frost heave at the intersection of sidewalks and stoops, we recommend placing
non frost-susceptible sand to a depth of 3 feet below the stoop and upwards at 10: I (horizontal:vertical)
ratio below the sidewalk. The sand should also be extended 2 feet laterally beyond the sidewalk. This
approach should dissipate frost heave related movement to a reasonable level at these areas. (fthis
approach is used, we recommend a drain pipe be installed to remove any water that may collect in the
sand or sandy gravel.
e.S. Utility Support
With the exception of the topsoil and other organic soils, the previously placed fill and glacial soils
encountered onsite generally appear suitable for pipe support. However, if unstable fill soils or very soft
to soft native clayey soils are encountered at pipe invert elevations, they may need to be subcut and
replaced with engineered backfill or crushed rock. If any organic soils (such as organic clay fill) are
encountered in the utility trench excavations they should also be removed and replaced with engineered
backfill or crushed rock.
We also recommend that the utility trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of95 percent of its
standard Proctor density, except in the upper 3 feet of pavement areas, where the compaction level
should be increased to a minimum of 100 percent.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17,2006
Page 13
. C.9. Pavement
C.9.a. Subgrade Preparation
For construction of new paved areas, we recommend stripping the surficial vegetation. Topsoil and other
organic soils should then be rem~ved to a minimum depth of 3 feet vertically of the pavement subgrade.
Organic soils below 3 feet of the subgrade could potentially be left in place. However, we should be
consulted prior to leaving any organic soils in place.
After stripping, we recommend the subgrade be surface-compacted with a large self-propelled vibratory
compactor. We recommend the existing subgrade be surface compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of
standard Proctor density if within 3 feet of the proposed pavement subgrade. Ifbelow 3 feet, surface
compaction to 95 percent should be adequate.
If there are areas where the subgrade cannot be compacted, we recommend that the upper 2 feet of the
resulting subgrade be scarified to a moisture content not more than 2 percent above optimum or 1 percent
below, and compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density.
If there are areas which still cannot be compacted, we recommend that the unstable materials be
subexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and be replaced by materials which can be compacted. Where fill is
required, we recommend that it be similarly moistened and compacted. For fills more than 3 feet below
final subgrades, 95 percent compaction should be sufficient.
C.9.b. Proofrolls
Prior to the placement of the aggregate base, we recommend the subgrade soils be proofrolled with a
loaded tandem-axle truck and observed by a geotechnical engineer. This will assist in identifying any
soft or weak areas that will require additional soil correction work. Areas that yield or rut more than
1 inch due to wheel traffic should be corrected. Failed areas should be compacted, or if too wet, subcut
and replaced with suitable soil and compacted as specified for the fill.
C.9.c. Anticipated Subgrade and R-value
After the site has been graded, we anticipate the subgrade soils will primarily consist of sandy lean clay.
Laboratory tests to determine the R-values of these soils were not included in our scope of services.
These soils typically have assumed R-values ranging from 8 to 12. We used an assumed R-value of 8 for
our pavement design.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17, 2006
Page 14
C.9.d. Design Sections
For the above subgrade, a 20-year design life and assumed traffic (Section C.I), we recommend the
following minimum section thicknesses be used for pavement design. The light duty section is
recommended for the car parking areas and the medium duty section is recommended for the drive lanes and
any truck parking areas.
Table 3. Recommended Minimum Pavement Section Thicknesses
Course Light Duty (inches) Medium Duty (inches)
Bituminous 3 4
Gravel Base 8 9
The above pavement designs are based upon a 20-year performance life. This is the amount of time
before major reconstruction is anticipated. This performance life assumes proper care, such as seal
coating and crack sealing is routinely performed. The actual pavement life will vary depending on
variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance. Other pavement design sections providing
equivalent structural capacity also could be considered
C.9.e. Materials
We recommend specifying Class 5 aggregate base meeting the requirements of MnlDOT (Minnesota
Department of Transportation) Specification (Standard Specifications of Construction Article) 3138.
We recommend bituminous base and wear courses meeting the requirements of Mn/DOT specification
2360. We recommend the crushed aggregate base be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its
standard Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend the bituminous mixtures be compacted to a
minimum of95 percent of their Marshall densities.
C.9.f. Drainage Considerations
In low areas with catch basins, we recommend finger drains be placed below the aggregate base and tied
into the catch basins to help remove any water trapped above the subgrade within the aggregate base.
C.IO. Site Grading and Drainage
We recommend the site be graded to provide a positive run-off away from the proposed and existing
structures. We recommend landscaped areas be sloped a minimum of6 inches within 10 feet of the
building and slabs be sloped a minimum of 2 inches. In addition, we recommend gutters and downspouts
with long splash blocks or extensions.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17,2006
Page 15
C.ll. Additional Construction Recommendations
C.11.a. Excavation
All excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P,
"Excavations and Trenches." This document states that excavation safety is the responsibility of the
contractor. Reference to these OSHA requirements should be included in the project specifications.
C.li.b. Observations
A geotechnical engineer should observe the excavation, footing and slab subgrades to evaluate if the
subgrade soils are similar to those encountered by the borings and adequate to support the proposed
construction. Oversize of excavations below perimeter footing grades should be checked. These
observations should be conducted prior to placing backfills, fills or forms for footings.
After excavating for footings, we recommend that tests be conducted on the subgrades to evaluate if the
bearing capacity is at least 3,000 psf. Typical instruments used for these tests include hand augers and
dynamic cone penetrometers.
C.11.c. Testing
We recommend density tests of backfills and fills placed beneath footings, floor slabs, and along
foundation walls. Samples of proposed backfill and fill materials should be submitted to our testing
laboratory at least three days prior to placement for evaluation of their suitability and determination of
their optimum moisture contents and maximum dry densities.
C.li.d. Cold Weather Construction
If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend that good winter
construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior
to additional grading. No fill should be placed on soils that have frozen or contain frozen material.
No frozen soils should be used as fill.
Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94. Concrete
should not be placed upon frozen soils or soils which contain frozen material. Concrete should be
protected from freezing until the necessary strength is attained. Frost should not be permitted to
penetrate below footings bearing on frost-susceptible soil since such freezing could heave and crack
the footings and/or foundation walls.
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17,2006
Page 16
D. Procedures
0.1. Drilling and Sampling
We performed the penetration test borings on September 19,2006, with a truck-mounted core and auger
drill equipped with 3 1/4-inch inside-diameter hollow-stem auger. Sampling for the borings was
conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of
Soils." We advanced the boreholes with the hollow-stem auger to the desired test depths. A 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches was then used to drive the standard 2-inch split-barrel sampler a total
penetration of I 112 feet below the tip of the hollow-stem auger. The blows for the last foot of
penetration were recorded and are an index of soil strength characteristics. Samples were taken at
2 1/2-foot vertical intervals to the 15-foot depth and then at 5-foot intervals to test boring termination.
A representative portion of each sample was then sealed in a glass jar.
0.2. Soil Classification
The drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the borings in general
accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure}."
A summary of the ASTM classification system is attached. The samples were then returned to our
laboratory for review of the field classifications by a soils engineer. Representative samples will remain
in our Minneapolis office for a period of 60 days to be available for your examination.
0.3. Groundwater Observations
Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottoms of the borings, the holes were probed through
the hollow-stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after withdrawal of the
auger, the holes were again probed and the depths to water or cave-ins were noted. The borings were
then backfilled.
E. General Conditions
E.l. Basis of Preliminary Recommendations
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the
soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketch. Often, variations occur between
these borings, the nature and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or
Mutual Investments, LLC.
Project BL-06-02305
October 17,2006
Page I 7
construction is conducted. Additional borings may be necessary once final site development plans are
conceived. The recommendations in this report should be viewed as preliminary and not applicable to
final geotechnical design.
It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program for the site
preparation phase of this project. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during
construction to the soil borings, and will provide continuity of professional responsibility.
E.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 designs and
specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes in design have affected the
validity of the recommendations, and whether our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and
implemented in the design and specifications.
E.3. Groundwater Fluctuations
We made water level observations in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the
boring logs. These data were 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, specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of
fluctuations.
EA. Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of Mutual Investments, LLC and their design team to use to design the
proposed school 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, analyses
and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that
parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us.
E.5. Level of Care
In performing our services, Braun Intertec has used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised
under similar circumstances by reputable members of our profession currently practicing in the same
locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made.
W LINE Of THE SEI/4 OF SEC.15
/- .
_ (~5~5'~6~)(_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'"
cPo
'"
"'.
*
I \ \
\ \
I \ I
I-
I I~
I
I
I;;;
Ii
I~
I:
I~
1
\
\
\
I~
~,
-.
>.
~-
V1
~-
~~
C/) C/)
~::~ ~;
~<...t~_ ~C;o'
C~l::2
0, l::2~~
~ ':~ ",0, , /:::) l::2
\
\
4./:::)/:::)
,-,..,
0",
\
V'
'"
"'.
o
1/'. LT' 0).....
~ ~ I.O.~ ~ ~
V' o. '" f"\"', ...
o {"''''. ...-..
J'~ 0, 61~.-;:~~.1
S'o 0', ~6' 6' ~., ....V1\i
'Sf, ~ . '~~~!:..oI>>\ I
o J'. p.> "I
~. t~..-a\~\ \ \
/ J -c, ~ . \ 1/
t ($'.. J' t-O'. ..... \' \ I
(',}o. /~:'?~.\ \
/ ,.~ "'.0\0\
1 . SJ\ ~...K."p\
1 \ 'I
<:;
<fl
o
v:
t~
,.
,z
o
I
I
z 'I
en
~ ,~
N
.N
0
.": ,
:E .~
....
..
'"
~
o
~C\
~
~ (J...
~ \
~ ,...
~
"Y~
1--
g
u -:}
~
- ~ \/ \ /
- - - - - - - - -'.......Ll..tlLO~E\/<4 OF\,,5 r-t-
-.J~\ I
-0 \ I
~~ ~
"'", "-
i' ~~i~~
~ ~i~~i
,.,. ......,.,
,i; ;;
\
\
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
738.
(SOO' 2<4' 06' W) ~j!~:' .' '/
-------.....
E. L IN[ OF THE 5(1/4 OF TH( N(1/4.oe cPUt
\ ~=
\
\
\ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\
F -----:r j>
//
I ~/ ~f',i"
I ~/
I
(
\
Ul
~
r
r.t
o
*
I
U!tI
~~
ZO
tI "'"
~ m
::aU!
tI~
"ll"ll
m"ll
Z::a
mO
""'><
~i
:H:j
Om
Zr-
-10
mn
~~
lll-
00
::aZ
-0
~'Tl
--
. _ n-
" ."
"'0 I/I~
.....
N
UJ
.....
II'
N
CJ1
q
N
CJ1
q
~ ~T OA~
~ DRAWN BY: JAG 10-10-06
:;0
r'l APP'O BY: JJV 10-10-06
~ JOB NO. BL0602305
OWG. NO. BL0602305 SHEET OF
SCALE 1" 250'
SOIL BORING LOCATION SKETCH
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
PROPOSED AUDUBON MOTOR PLEX
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
BRAUN
INTERTEC
BRAUN'M
I NTE RTEC
Braun Project BL-06-0230S
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Condo Warehouses
Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DRILLER: Chris Powers
Elev.
feet
934.1
933.6
Depth
feet
0.0
0.5
-
-
-
I-
f---
';;;1-
c
.2
.~~
;;-
<lJ
:2;-
'"'
<....
~I-
.9
~-
'"'
0.-
~-
...
<2_
<lJ
<lJ
.J:::
</>-
~
0-
.::
E-
<lJ
f-
~-
:g-
~
<lJ
01-
<lJ
<lJ
~I-
f--
-
912.1
22.0
g
:!-
'"
!;2
.....
:::-
~
b-
"
~-
:2
ro
~-
"-
"
vi
g-
N
o
g-
--l
U
~ 903 6
ro .
5-
:2
ro
30.5
BL-06-02305
ASTM
Symbol
FILL
FILL
BORING:
LOG OF BORING
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
ST-l
r METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer
DATE:
Description of Materials
(ASTM 02488 or 02487)
Sandy Lean Clay, slightly organic, dark brown,
FILL:
\ moist.
\ (Topsoil)
FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, with a trace of Gravel and -
Fibers, with occasional Silty Sand layers, brown and dark
brown with a trace of black, wet. -
-
-
CL I SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, brown to
29 feet then gray, wet, medium to rather stiff. _
(Glacial Till)
-
~
-
END OF BORING. *
Braun Intertec Corporation
f
9/19/06 I SCALE: I" = 4'
BPF WL qp MC Tests or Notes
tsf 0/0
Ground surface
elevations provided
by Sathre-Berquist,
18 Inc.
15
-
-
13
-
-
II
-
-
10
-
-
16
-
-
-
9
-
-
-
-
II
-
-
7
2
* Water not
observed with 29
feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
-
-
Water not observed
to cave-in depth of
20 112 feet
immediately after
withdrawing the
auger.
-
-
9
2 ilL
~
Boring immediately
backfilled.
ST-I page I of I
Elev.
feet
931.4
930.9
Depth
feet
0.0
0.5
927.4 4.0
Vl
c
.9
.~
>
...
13
.D
'"
<...
o
.3
;::;
c
..:3
...
u
Vl
...
Cl
...
...
C/l
910.9
20.5
'"
<:"'
.,.
""
o
r:::
<3
...
i:l
o
;i
::J
;2
'"
""
~
g
N
o
o
o
...l
U
<Ii
-<
'"
5
;2
'"
BL-06-02305
ASTM
Symbol
SC
ML
CL
BORING:
LOG OF BORING
ST-2
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autoharnmer
DATE:
. BRAUN'M
I NTERTEC
Braun Project BL-06-0230S
GEOTECHNICAL EV ALVA TION
Condo Warehouses
Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DRILLER: Chris Powers
Description of Materials
(ASTM D2488 or 02487)
CLA YEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, slightly
organic, dark brown, moist.
To soil
SANDY SILT, brown, moist, loose.
(Glaciotluvium)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, with
occasional Silty Sand seams, brown and gray, wet, rather
stiff to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at 19 feet with 19 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 feet
immediately after withdrawing the auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
Braun Intenec Corporation
9/19/06
BPF WL qp MC
tsf %
9
II
13
14
II
9 2 II
12
3 17
3
3
"Sl-
SCALE:
I" = 4'
Tests or Notes
An open triangle in
the water level
(WL) column
indicates the depth
at which
groundwater was
observed while
drilling.
Groundwater levels
tl uctuate.
5T-2 page I of I
BRAUN'M
I NTE RTEC
Braun Project BL-06-02305
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Condo Warehouses
Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DRILLER: Chris Powers
LOG OF BORING
BORING:
ST-3
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
I METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer
DATE:
9/19106
I SCALE:
I" = 4'
Elev.
feet
939.6
938.9
Depth
feet
0.0
0.7
ASTM
Symbol
FILL
FILL
Description of Materials
(ASTM 02488 or 02487)
FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, slightly organic, black, wet.
(Topsoil) L
FILL: Clayey Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with a trace
of Gravel, dark brown, brown and gray, wet. -
BPF WL qp
tsf
Tests or Notes
-
-
II
-
-
935.6
4.0
SC ') CLA YEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with a trace
of Gravel, with occasional Silty Sand seams, brown, wet,_ 13
:; stiff.
"/ (Glacial Till) -
:;-
~ -
14
-
'/
9.0 /'
CL ~ SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, with
occasional Silty Sand seams, brown, wet, rather stiff to _ 12 2 1/2
stiff.
-
-;;;
c
.!:2
0;
';;
~
on
on
'"
'0 930.6
c
.!:2
~f--
'"
0.
~r-
...
..s
_r-
'"
'"
.c
"'r-
~
0'-
c
'e
v '-924.1
!-
~~
:~
t;-
'"
'"
Cl
'"
'"
~
(Glacial Till)
-
/"/~
-
15
3
-
-
15.5
~
END OF BORING,
-
16
-
Water not observed with 14 feet of hollow-stem auger in -
the ground.
-
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 13 feet
immediately after withdrawing the auger.
-
-
Boring immediately backfilled.
-
r-
-
r-
-
0-
N
~~
'"
o
t::
21-
tif-
o
~r-
;:i
al
~r-
"-
o
'"
~-
N
o
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,-
-l
U
Vi-
<(
<0
5-
;:i
<0
-
-
-
BL-06-02305
Braun Intertec Corporation
ST-3 page I of 1
Elev.
feet
916.3
Depth
feet
0.0
915.3
1.0
<n
'"
.g
~
.;;
~
.D
.D
'"
'-
o
'"
.g
~
'"
...::l
.s::
o
.::
E
..
ll)
l-
ll)
.~
..
u
'"
ll)
CI
ll)
ll)
C/l
895.8 20.5
a-
N
'"
."
o
'"
o
I-
o
o
5
;2
co
a.
~
g
N
o
o
o
--'
~
Vl
<{
al
5
;2
co
BL-06-02305
CL
BORING:
LOG OF BORING
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
ST-4
METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer
DATE:
. BRAUN'M
I NTE RTEC
Braun Project BL-06-0230S
GEOTECHNICAL EV ALVA TION
Condo Warehouses
Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DRILLER: Chris Powers
Description of Materials
(ASTM 02488 or 02487)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, slightly organic, dark brown and
black, wet.
To soil
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, with
occasional Silty Sand seams, brown and gray to 19 feet
then gray, wet, rather stiff to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at 19 feet with 19 feet of hollow-stem
auger in the ground.
Water not observed with 16 feet immediately after
withdrawing the auger.
Boring immediately backfilled.
Braun Intertec Corporation
9/19/06
SCALE:
BPF WL qp MC
tsf %
9
9 21/
10
II
18 3
22
17
2 1/ 20
2 1/ 20
3
'Sl
I" =4'
Tests or Notes
5T-4 page I of I
BRAUN'M
I NTE RTEC
Braun Project BL-06-02305
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Condo Warehouses
Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DRILLER: Chris Powers
LOG OF BORING
BORING:
ST-5
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
I METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer
DATE:
9/19/06
I SCALE:
I" = 4'
Elev. Depth
feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL qp Tests or Notes
914.2 0.0 Symbol (ASTM 02488 or 02487) tsf
FILL ~ FILL: Lean Clay with Sand, slightly organic to organic,
- ~ black, wet. -
(Topsoil)
- ~ -
~ 6
- -
f- -
I- - 4 "Sl
~I- -
.S 907.2 7.0
;;;
'> SM SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with occasional 3
~
i5f- Lean Clay layers, brown and gray, wet to waterbearing, -
'" very loose to loose.
'-
~I- (Glaciofluvium) -
.2
~I-- - 5
'"
]1- -
v
.2 -
_f- ". 6
v
v
...c::
"'I- -
~ ~
0
t::
.~ - - 5
v
l-
v --<
>
:~
ti- -
'"
v
of- -
v
v
C/l 895.2 19.0
CL t% LEAN CLAY, with Silty Sand and Sandy Silt seams,
1-g93.7 gray, wet, medium. - 7 2
20.5 (Glaciofluvium)
I- END OF BORING. -
f- Water observed at 6 l/2 feet with 6 l/2 feet of -
'" hollow-stem auger in the ground.
<:'!
::!:f- -
'"
0 Water observed at 16 feet with 19 feet of hollow-stem
'"
:::1- auger in the ground. -
so
bl- Water observed at 5 feet with a cave-in depth of 6 feet -
\:)
5f- immediately after withdrawing the auger. -
;:i
1Il Boring immediately backfilled.
~I- -
c..
\:)
vi
g- -
N
0
0 -
0
--l
U
Vi - -
<(
1Il
5 --<
;:i
1Il
BL-06-02305 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-5 page I of I
. BRAUNsM
INTERTEC
Braun Project BL-06-02305
GEOTECHNICAL EV ALVA TION
Condo Warehouses
Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DRILLER: Chris Powers
LOG OF BORING
BORING: ST -6
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
I METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer
DATE:
9/19/06
I SCALE:
1" = 4'
Elev.
feet
916.4
Depth
feet
0.0
ASTM
Symbol
FILL
Description of Materials
(ASTM 02488 or 02487)
FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, slightly
organic, dark brown and black, moist.
(Topsoil)
BPF WL qp
tsf
Tests or Notes
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
912.4
4.0
SM
SILTY SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist, very loose to
loose.
-
4
I--
~I-
.3
.~~
>
(l)
~I-
ro
'0 907.4
t:
.3
~~
ro
~e-
...
~
<2 904.4 12.0
(Glaciofluvium)
-
-
6
-
SC
CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Silty
Sand layers, with a trace of Gravel, brown, wet, mediul1L- 6
(Glacial Till)
52
9.0
-
Q)
...
..c::
Vl~
g
0-
t:
.~-
(l)
I-
~-
:~
tl-
Vl
(l)
01-
(l)
...
CI) 897.4
CL
I SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, with
Poorly Graded Sand layers, brown and gray, wet, rather -
soft to medium.
(Glacial Till) -
5
I 1/2
-
8
2
I
-
-
-
19.0
SC
CLA YEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with a trace
of Gravel, gray, wet, medium. _ 7
(Glacial Till)
END OF BORING. -
f---g95.9
20.5
I-
I-
Water observed at 9 feet with 9 feet of hollow-stem auger -
in the ground.
-
g;
:!t-
~
e
r--
::::1-
3
Water not observed with 19 feet of hollow-stem auger in
the ground. -
Water not observed to cave-in depth of8 feet immediately
after withdrawing the auger. _
bl--
o
~I-
;;i
ell
~f-
c..
q
~~
N
o
o
o
--'
u
v; -
-<
ell
5
;;i
ell
Boring immediately backfilled.
-
-
-
-
-I
BL-06-02305
Braun Intertec CorporatIOn
ST-6 page I of I
.. BRAUN'M
I NTE RTEC
LOG OF BORING
Braun Project BL-06-0230S BORfNG: ST-7
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION LOCATION: See attached sketch.
Condo Warehouses
Audubon Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DRILLER: Chris Powers I METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer DATE: 9/19/06 I SCALE: 1" = 4'
Elev. Depth
feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL Tests or Notes
921.7 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or 02487)
SP- POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
SM medium-grained, with a trace of Gravel, brown and light -
brown, moist, very loose to loose.
(Glacial Outwash) - 4
-
:. -
- - 5
-;;; -
t::
.S!
0; -
.;; 6
<!)
.0 -
.0
'"
'-
0 -
c
.S!
0; - - 7
t::
'"
0.-
x -
Q)
... .
J2 -
Q:j 8
Q)
...c::
V> -
j . -
0
.::
E -906.2 :. - 6
Q) 15.5
f- END OF BORfNG.
Q) -
.:::
.g Water not observed with 19 feet of hollow-stem auger in -
~ the ground.
v
Cl -
v
Q) Water not observed to cave-in depth of 12 feet
~ immediately after withdrawing the auger. -
- Boring immediately backfilled. -
-
-
0-
N
'i -
'"
0
'"
23 -
I-
a - -
0
z
=> -
;:i
en
;;:: -
0
on
:s; -
N
0
0 -
0
..J
U
Vi - -
-<
en
5 -
;:i
en
BL-06-02305
Braun Inlertec Corporal1on
ST-7 page I of I