The URL can be used to link to this page

CR 2013-079 Feasability Report - 2014 Street and Utility Improvements�4ca Hc3p,kin8 nnesota City of Hopkins 10101st Street South • Hopkins, MN 55343 952-935-8474 FEASIBILITY Report August 5, 2013 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Hennepin County, Minnesota City Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 - 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 WSB Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: (763) 541-4800 • Fax: (763) 541-1700 wsbeng.com FEASIBILITY REPORT 2014 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 2013-10 FOR THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA August 5, 2013 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 763-541-4800 763-541-1700(Fax) Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2 013 -10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 WSB && A.,.w�� engineering • planning • environmental • constriction August 5, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Hopkins 1010 1st St. S. Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Transmitted herewith for your review is a feasibility report for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements, which addresses improvements proposed along 21 st Avenue North and West Park Road, associated with the Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) area improvements proposed by Hennepin County. I am available at your convenience to discuss this report. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-287-7189 if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, WAs ociates, Inc. Donald W. Sterna, PE Project Manager Enclosure St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com 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. Date: August 5. 2013 License No. 19103 Quality Control Review By: I-; vekl' Tom Voll. PE Date: August 5, 2013 License No. 43412 Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improretnents City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................1 2. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Authorization.....................................................................................................................2 2.2 Scope.................................................................................................................................2 2.3 Data Available...................................................................................................................2 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS......................................................................................................3 3.1 Surface.............................................................................................................................. 3 3.2 Sanitary Sewer.................................................................................................................. 3 3.3 Water Main........................................................................................................................ 3 3.4 Storm Sewer......................................................................................................................3 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................4 4.1 Surface..............................................................................................................................4 4.2 Sanitary Sewer.................................................................................................................. 4 4.3 Water Main........................................................................................................................ 4 4.4 Storm Sewer......................................................................................................................5 4.5 Permits.............................................................................................................................. 5 4.6 Right-of-Way/Easements.................................................................................................. 5 4.7 Construction Access/Staging............................................................................................5 4.8 Public Involvement........................................................................................................... 5 5. FINANCING............................................................................................................................. 6 5.1 Opinion of Cost.................................................................................................................6 5.2 Funding............................................................................................................................. 6 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE...........................................................................................................8 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................9 Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Appendix A Figure 1 — Project Location Figure 2 — Typical Sections Figure 3 — Existing Conditions — 21" Avenue North Figure 4 — Existing Conditions — West Park Road Figure 5 — Proposed Improvements — 21" Avenue North Figure 6 — Proposed Improvements — West Park Road Appendix B Opinion of Probable Cost Appendix C Figure 7 — Assessed Properties — 21" Avenue North Figure 8 — Assessed Properties — West Park Road Assessment Calculations Service Assessment Calculations Preliminary Assessment Roll Appendix D Figure 9 — Temporary Easements — 21" Avenue North Figure 10 — Temporary Easements — West Park Road Appendix E Public Infonnational Meeting Questionnaires Appendix F Geotechnical Evaluation Report Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 14 74-2 0 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2014 Street and Utility Improvements, City Project No. 2013-10, was initiated as part of the Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) project proposed by Hennepin County. The streets identified for improvement include: • 21 s` Avenue North -from Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) to I" Street North • West Park Road - from 2nd Street North to Wyndham Hill Drive Improvements proposed along 21 S` Avenue North and West Park Road include roadway reconstruction and concrete curb and gutter replacement. These improvements consist of bituminous pavement replacement and subgrade corrections. Also proposed is new cul-de-sac construction at the intersection of 21 S` Avenue North and 1 S` Street and the intersection of West Park Road and Wyndham Hill Drive. Installation of the cul- de-sacs to the north will eliminate access to Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) to the west and maintain access to the residential roads to the east. Both cul-de-sacs will provide additional parking with access to the trail located along Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61). Proposed utility improvements on 21 st Avenue North and West Park Road include replacements and removal of various segments of sanitary sewer and water main as well as the replacement of many individual property sanitary and water services to the City right-of-way. The total estimated project cost for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements is $743,309.30, which includes a 15% contingency and 25% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administrative, and financing costs. The project is proposed to be funded through City funds and special assessments to benefitting property owners. The project is proposed to be substantially completed in 2014, including restoration items. The project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint and should be constructed as proposed herein. Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Page 1 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Authorization On June 4, 2013, the Hopkins City Council authorized the preparation of an Engineering Feasibility Report for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements. This project has been designated as City Project No. 2013-10. 2.2 Scope The 2014 Street and Utility Improvements includes surface improvements for streets identified within the Shady Oak (CSAH 61) project as proposed by Hennepin County. Utility infrastructure repairs and replacements are also proposed to be completed in conjunction with the surface improvements. 2.3 Data Available Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following: ■ City of Hopkins Record Plans ■ Hennepin County Topography Maps ■ Utility Record Drawings ■ Field Observations of the Area and Discussions with City Staff ■ Geotechnical Evaluation Report, AET, dated March, 2013 ■ City of Hopkins Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy ■ Preliminary Construction Plans (Prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2 013 -10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Page 2 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface 21 st Avenue North and West Park Road are aging and experiencing various pavement distresses including potholing and cracking along with drainage issues. The project areas have landscaping, trees, and other private improvements beyond the edge of the roadway and within City right-of-way. 21 St Avenue North is approximately 28 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter along the east side of the roadway. A soil boring taken near the intersection of 21 St Avenue North and 1 st Street North indicated a 3.5 -inch pavement section. Another soil boring taken at the south end of the roadway indicated an existing pavement section of 6.5 inches. Additionally, the boring revealed a 3.5 -inch pavement section approximately 1 inch below the existing bituminous section. Both borings indicated a loamy sand subgrade. West Park Road is a rural road approximately 28 feet wide. Soil borings indicated an existing pavement section of 3.5 inches within the roadway connecting Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) and West Park Road to the north over a loamy sand with gravel subgrade. A copy of the geotechnical report can be found in Appendix F. 3.2 Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer system along 21" Avenue North and West Park Road consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed in 1969. The joint sealing material in use at that time was typically an oakum and bituminous material, which is known to deteriorate and fail over time. The existing sanitary sewer conditions are shown in Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix A. 3.3 Water Main The existing water distribution mains in the project area were also installed in 1969 and consist of 6 -inch cast iron pipe (CIP). It is typical water main breaks will become more likely as the pipes are approaching 50 years of service, which is the typical design service life. In addition, the cast iron pipes of this age are typically found to be heavily corroded and possibly leaking. The existing water main conditions are shown in Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix A. 3.4 Storm Sewer No major drainage issues have been reported or identified along 21St Avenue North and West Park Road. However, the existing system is near the end of its designed service life. Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City ojHopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Page 3 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 4.1 Surface 21St Avenue North and West Park Road are to be reconstructed to the City's 7 -ton design standard and are proposed to consist of the following section: 1 '/z inches of bituminous wearing course, 2 inches of bituminous base course, and 8 inches of aggregate base over 12 inches of an acceptable, compacted subgrade. Both roads will be reconstructed to maintain existing roadway drainage and minimize impacts to adjacent properties. Both 21St Avenue North and West Park Road are proposed to be reconstructed with concrete curb and gutter (13618). To control access onto Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) and reduce traffic volumes within the residential neighborhoods adjacent to Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61), the existing access to Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) will be eliminated on 21" Avenue North, 1" Street North, and West Park Road. 21St Avenue North is proposed to open onto an alleyway north of Main Street. Cul-de-sacs on the north end of 21 '` Avenue North and West Park Road are proposed to maintain access to the adjacent residential neighborhoods and provide additional parking and trail access to Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61 ). West Park Road will maintain access to Shady Oak Road (CSAH 6 1 ) by use of 2"`r Street North on the south end. Access to Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) and Wyndham Hill Drive will be controlled by the use of the proposed cul-de-sac. 4.2 Sanitary Sewer The existing 8 -inch VCP will be reconstructed with 8 -inch PVC pipe sewer, including the replacement of sanitary sewer services along 21" Avenue North. Some services will be eliminated due to the house removals required for the Shady Oak Road (CSAH 6 1 ) proposed improvements. Services along West Park Road were determined by the City to be in good condition and are not proposed to be replaced at this time. The proposed sanitary sewer improvements are shown on Figure 5 in Appendix A. 4.3 Water Main The existing 6 -inch CIP will be reconstructed with 8 -inch ductile iron pipe (DIP), including replacement of the water services up to and including the curb stop along 21 s` Avenue North. Replacement of the existing water services from the main up to and including the curb stops is proposed along West Park Road. The existing water main along West Park Road has been deemed adequate and is not proposed to be replaced at this time. However, service replacements are always highly recommended with new street projects whether the water main is replaced or not due to their higher failure rates than mains. Some services will be eliminated due to the house removals required for the Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) proposed improvements. Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvemenn City of Hopkins Project No. 101 3-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Page 4 The proposed water main improvements are shown on Figures 5 and 6 in Appendix A. 4.4 Storm Sewer The existing drainage patterns will be maintained but will be replaced with new drainage structures and piping designed to meet current City standards. 4.5 Permits A permit from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) will also be required for the replacement of water main facilities. A permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will also be required for the replacement of sanitary sewer facilities. A Hennepin County Work in Right -of -Way permit will be required for the work within the Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) right-of-way along 21St Avenue North. 4.6 Right-of-Way/Easements All work for the project will take place within existing right-of-way and easements or easements being acquired as part of the County's Shady Oak Road (CSAH 61) project. Temporary easements are also proposed to be acquired for work that may take place outside of the existing right-of-way or easements. This would be for work involving connections to existing water and sewer services and match ins at various driveway locations. The temporary easements are shown on Figures 9 and 10 in Appendix D. 4.7 Construction Access/Staging The contractor will be responsible for providing access to all properties throughout the project. Adequately signed detours will be identified to direct traffic around the construction zones and notify users of the increased truck and construction activity. Construction will be phased to reconstruct the streets located at the center of the project first, such that construction truck traffic will not need to access newly reconstructed streets to complete the project. Detailed construction phasing plans will be developed with final design of the project. 4.8 Public Involvement A public informational meeting for the proposed improvements was conducted on July 10, 2013 for properties owners affected by the project. Preliminary information was presented to 18 attendees regarding the proposed improvements, costs, funding, schedule, and impacts associated with the project. Questionnaires were made available to attendees at the meeting. The Questionnaires received are included in Appendix E. Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 1013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Page 5 5. FINANCING 5.1 Opinion of Cost Detailed opinions of cost for the various project areas can be Found in Appendix B of this report. The opinions of cost incorporate estimated 2013 construction costs and include a 15% contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 25% of the construction cost and include engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. Table I below provides a summary of the opinions of probable cost for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements. Table I - 2014 Street and Utility Improvements Summary of Costs Total 21st Avenue North Surface Improvements $180,461.09 21st Avenue North Water Main Improvements $150,929.38 21st Avenue North Sanitary Sewer Improvements $118,457.25 West Park Road Surface Improvements $217,093.45 West Park Road Water Main Service Line Improvements $60,438.13 West Park Road Stone Sewer Improvements $15,930.00 Total $743,309.30 5.2 Funding Financing for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements will come from City Funds and Special Assessments. Based on the City's assessment policy. special assessments to benefitting properties are 70% of the surface and storm sewer improvements identified for the project, with the remaining 30% to be funded using City funds. Assessments for this project were calculated on an adjusted front foot basis as identified in the City's Assessment Policy. The City's Assessment Policy dictates a maximum assessment to a single-family residential property may not exceed 120% of the average per foot assessment on the previous three similar street reconstruction projects. The 70% assessment per fi•ont foot based on the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements anticipated construction costs exceeds the average per foot assessment established on the previous three similar street reconstruction projects and the City's assessment policy dictates an assessment cap per front foot be implemented. The calculated assessment cap based on the past three similar reconstruction projects of $78.98 per front foot is proposed for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements project. Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Page 6 Costs associated with the utility improvements, including proposed water main, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer, are proposed to be financed 100% using City funds. Water services and sanitary services proposed for replacement will be replaced from the existing main to the City right-of-way. The costs associated with service line replacements are typically the responsibility of the property owner. However, because the service replacements are mandatory, the City has funded 50% of the service replacement costs in past projects. City staff recommends the 50150 split be implemented again in the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements project. As service lengths vary from the sanitary sewer and water main, service replacements assessments are proposed to be determined based on the actual replacement lengths to each benefitting property owner. The proposed assessment roll is included in Appendix C of this report, along with an Assessment Maps shown on Figures 7 and 8 in Appendix C highlighting the benefitting properties and assessment calculations used to determine individual total assessments. Below is the assessment summary for the project using the sanitary and water service replacements as proposed: Table 3 - 2014 Street and Utility Improvements Assessment Summary 21st Avenue North Calculated Assessment Cap Sanitary Water Project Location Service Service Front Foot Unit Front Foot Unit $449,847.72 Assessment Assessments Assessment Assessments Assessment Assessment 21st Avenue $123.97 $6,074.40- $78'98 $3,870.02- $1,142.82- $898.4- North $13,078.56 $8,332.39 $1,249.19 $999.07 West Park Road $141.04 $12,411.10 - $78.98 $6,950.24- $0.00 $873'28 $17,699.92 $9,911.99 $1,728.60 Below is the funding summary for the project using the $78.98 per front -foot assessment cap and sanitary and water service replacements as proposed: Table 4 - 2014 Street and Utility Improvements Funding Summar 21st Avenue North West Park Road Total City Funds $392,619.69 $197,072.63 $589,692.32 Special Assessments $57,228.03 $96,388.95 $153,616. Total $449,847.72 $293,461.58 $743,309.30 Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Page 7 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE The proposed project schedule for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements is as follows: Authorize Feasibility and Approved Engineering Contract . Order Feasibility Public Hearing .......................................... First Public Informational Meeting ....................................... Feasibility Report Public Hearing ......................................... Approve Feasibility Report and Order Plans and Specs....... Order Public Assessment Hearing ....................................... Second Public Meeting......................................................... Assessment Hearing.............................................................. ............ June 4, 2013 ............ July 9, 2013 ........... July 10, 2013 ........ August 5, 2013 ......... August 5, 2013 .... September 2, 2013 ........ October 2, 2013 October 15, 2013 * Schedule assumes any necessary private utility work is completed prior to start of construction. Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 1013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Page 8 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The 2014 Street and Utility Improvements include full depth roadway reconstruction with complete curb and gutter replacement, sanitary sewer improvements, and water main improvements along 21s` Avenue North and West Park Road. The total estimated cost for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements including roadway, sanitary sewer, and water main improvements is $743,309.30. Proposed funding for the project is provided through a combination of Special Assessments and City funds. This project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint and can be best accomplished by letting competitive bids for the work. The project feasibility is subject to financial review by the City. Based on the information contained in this report, it is recommended to proceed with the improvements as outlined in this report. The City, its financial consultant, and the persons assessed will determine the economic feasibility of the proposed improvements. Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 Page 9 APPENDIX A Figure 1 — Project Location Figure 2 — Typical Sections Figure 3 — Existing Conditions — 21" Avenue North Figure 4 — Existing Conditions — West Park Road Figure 5 — Proposed Improvements — 21" Avenue North Figure 6 — Proposed Improvements — West Park Road Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-10 Iz w a [MINNESOTA Q 4th STe z 3rd ST. No w a 2nd STo 2014 Street & Utility Improvements - West Park Road - 21st Avenue N —J list L 1L + L L t L -C o I- 4-- N 0--) c LO U7 MAIN I v� w > V) a BRADFORD +- RD. o cv w L >+- m v�is. w>a1st EXCELSIOR D U L a °I 2014 Street & Utility Improvements F City of Hopkins, Minnesota 0 0 vi w Q s Ln N v\ �.o 0 300 ft 600 + Figure 1 Project Location Map WEST PARK ROAD STA 70+00.0 TO STA 75+85.2 TE R/W WEST PARK ROAD R/W TE 1- 10' _1_ 25' _L 25' 1 10' _1 4' 14' 14' 4' BLVD LANE LANE BLVD 6618 CONCRETE CURB 8 GUTTER 8618 CONCRETE CURB 8 GUTTER VARIES 0.02'/' PROFILE GRADE 0.04'/' EXISTING GROUND VARIES TO 0.02'/' 0.02'1'VARIES L I-TI!:G 6RDUfID 6" TOPSOIL. FERTILIZER. SODLJ �6" TOPSOIL. FERTILIZER. SOD SEE INSET AJ GRADING GRADE 1.5' SUBGRADE EXCAVATION BACKFILL WITH 1.5' SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL 21st AVENUE N STA 20+20 TO STA 25+67.8 R/W 21ST AVE R/W 4' 2' 14' 14' BLVD BLVD LANE LANE B618 CONCRETE 8 CURB 8 GUTTER 618 CONCRETE CURB 8 GUTTER PROFILE GRADE EXISTING GROUND VARIESO.04'/' / 0.02'/' 0.02'/' 1�1II;6 Ck0U!ID 6" TOPSOIL. FERTILIZER. SOD-/�-6' TOPSOIL. FERTILIZER. SOD SEE INSET A GRADING GRADE 1.5' SUBGRADE EXCAVATION BACKFILL WITH 1.5' SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL INSET "A" CITY STREETS SPEC 2360 2" TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPWEB440C =' SPEC 2360 3" TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPWEB440C 6" AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5- SPEC 2211. 3138 i Figure 2 2014 Street & Utility Improvements City of Hopkins, Minnesota Typical Sections N A o so ft Ioo ft 1st Street N,__�____<- /... y VV t� Vf - '±�•----"� 4 a i Legend WATER LINE �« - SANITARY SEWER ' -<- STORM SEWER r V ij Mainstreet 2014 Street & Utility Improvements Figure 3 City of Hopkins, Minnesota 21st Avenue N Existing Conditions i VV i Legend WATER LINE �« - SANITARY SEWER ' -<- STORM SEWER r V ij Mainstreet 2014 Street & Utility Improvements Figure 3 City of Hopkins, Minnesota 21st Avenue N Existing Conditions i 9 N. 000%, *�c 0 6 -- )oo o 0 too* a. a 00) /atee 4 IF t IF —41W. 2014 Street & Utility Improvements Figure 4 City of Hopkins, Minnesota West Park Road Existing Conditions y . 0 50 ft 100 ft ■ S MW1• T 1st Street N v 7 i k - 4 4 A 'kA�. OM1,• � v �' I , � r"^'� � �L .��t . _ —' - > ma r rte— - -- ..... Ia V i � m rxa 0 o Legend V A Er t-- • I PROPOSED WATER MAIN d —<< PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER i I Mainstreet w 0 PROPOSED ROADWAY _A _ p0 PROPOSED CSAH 61 IMPROVEMENTS - %T Y Figure 5 mm 2014 Street & Utility Improvements =� City of Hopkins, Minnesota 21st Avenue N mm Proposed Improvements p3 N �', �LCA — � ®� �� ,.tip '!'!!1•� - - - - 44 kwo. -701 r. Aft. % o Ll 1 o a JJ \ - 1V.1,STATION 0001, T . LIFT + ( ®J 1000100000V\, F j < L A jL U — `• a z - "` G - 1 "'— -- << — Legend PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER O 40,, Y 7 .{ ! ..� I_—_. —___ PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED CSAH 61 IMPROVEMENTS 3 M� v �y mm 2014 Street & Utility Improvements Figure 6 City of Hopkins, Minnesota 21st Avenue N m m Proposed Improvements 03 APPENDIX B Opinion of Probable Cost Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 14 74-2 0 Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost U&M I �jw �FQMOMIF son APPENDIX C Figure 7 — Assessed Properties - 21" Avenue North Figure 8 — Assessed Properties — West Park Road Assessment Calculations Service Assessment Calculations Preliminary Assessment Roll Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 m N o so ff ioo ft Legend IV[d M reet ASSESSED PROPERTIES:. r Figure 7 2014 Street & Utility Improvements 4M City of Hopkins, Minnesota 21st Avenue N Assessed Properties i t` N Y 1 •H + M. .1�'f,,.astl .400 00 �► a r l l� 00 stag f } Legend ASSESSED PROPERTIES 2014 Street &Utility Improvements Figure 8West Park Road City of Hopkins, Minnesota Assessed Properties 2014 Street and Utility Improvements Assessment Calculations Summar 21st Avenue North Improvements - Residential Project Costs 21 st Avenue North Assessable Project Cost $180,461.09 Assessment Rate 70% Total Assessment $126,322.76 City Funded Frontage 509.5 Assessable Frontagel Frontage 509.5 Assessment per Front Foot $123.97 West Park Road Improvements - Residential Project Costs West Park Road Assessable Project Cost $217,093.45 Assessment Rate 70% Total Assessment $151,965.42 Assessable Fronta e 1077.5 Assessment per Front Foot $141.04 21 st Avenue North Road Im rovements - Residential Assessment per front Foot (Ca) $78.98 21 st Avenue North Assessable Frontage 1 509.5 Total Assessmenti $40,240.31 West Park Road Improvements - Residential Assessment per front Foot (Ca) $78.98 West Park Road Assessable Frontage 1 1077.5 Total Assessmenti $85,100.95 11101(CI kIII"\II\I IIIINIM, �I I:I1"I \I Ili �I'I HI1 S \It1' '�, I�I�IIfI �I \�'I��.\1311 SEWER SERVICE PIPIMAPID ADDRESS � �� AMTARI � \�.�Il:l� II��\ Itil.11 i\�\Ik �I \\I I: �I \1II<\1�1 i��\II��I\il \1 JUN JI -w FTI 1i' I'll m SERVICE PIPE �II�•I '.'i "��'I 11\I II%i\ I\; ,I%li 1��1.11 II`I `\I \ Preliminary Assessment Roll H'SB Project: Project Location: NSB Project.No.: 1014 Street and Utility lmpr-entr CI8` of Hopkin.\' 1474-10 21ST AVENUE NORTH PER FRONT FOOT ASSESSMENT(CALCULATED): WEST PARK ROAD PER FRONT FOOT ASSESSMENT (CALCULATED): ASSESSMENT CAP: 5123.97 $141.84 $78.98 MAP ID PID FEE OWNER FEE OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIP CODE PROPERTY ADDRESS USE DESCRIPTION ASSESSABLE FRONT FOOT ASSESSMENT PER FRONT FOOT PROPOSED FRONT FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPOSED SANITARY SERVICE REPLACEMENT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED WATER SERVICE REPLACEMENT ASSESSMENT TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT 21ST AVENUE NORTH 51 2311722410001 PAULINE R MARCH 5121STAVEN IIOPKINS/MN 55343 5121.11 A\'I.N RESIDENTIAL. 1115.5 $78.98 $8,332.39 $0.00 59990- 19,33146 45 231172241 WU2 DAVID W S SI BELLY E'IHOMSON 4521S7'AVE N HOPKINS.NM 55.143 45 21S AV] IS RESIDENTIAL. 500 $78.98 $7949.00 $1142.82 589844 S59190.26 41 2.31172241(KK)3 CI ITYEI.L&SS STANLEY 4121ST AVEN HOPKINSIMN 55343 4121 S7'AVE N RESIDENTIAL. 490 $78.98 $3870.02 $0,00 5923.60 54793.62 35 2311722410004 BENJAMIN CHARLES CYR 352ISI 'AVE N IIOPKINS/MN 55343 3521 ST AVEN RESIDENTIAL 511.11 $78.98 $3949.00 SI,196.W 5948.75 S6093.75 29 2311722410005 DE 'SON WINTERS '_9221ST AVEN HOPKINS/MN 55343 2921 ST AVEN RESIDENTIAL, 49.5 578.98 S3909.51 SI1960) 5948.75 S6054.26 25 2311722410006 1111 IN SIHRIJY 2521S7'AVE N HOPKINS/MN 55343 2521 S7'AVE N RESIDENTIAL 500 578.98 53949.00 SI222.60 $973.91 $6145.51 21 2311722410007 FRAN('ISM HAT'ITN 2121ST AVEN HOPKINSWN 55343 2121 ST AVE IS RESIDENTIAL 49.5 578.98 53909.51 SI249.19 5999.07 56157.77 IS 231172241(11)08 DON A11) K. X PA DUCIA A. CLOW 1521ST'AVE N HOPKINS/MN 55343 1521 ST AVEN RESIDENTIAL 50.5 578.98 57988.49 SI222.60 5973,91 $6185,00 11 2111722410009 \k ARRII'K G 1ACKNFR 1121m A.N HOPKINS MN 55343 1121st A\eN RESIDENTIAL 55.5 578.98 S438.339 51169.41 5923.60 56476.40 21ST AVENUE NORTH TOTAL 503 SMI 4031 S8.398.62 .10 55722&03 PARK ROAD WEST 250 2311722130014 DAVID WHAS I 250 PARK RDW HOPKINS/MN 55343 250 PARK RDW RESIDENTIAL 125.5 578.98 S9911.99 $0.00 50.00 59911.99 236 2311722130015 MARY R MCKOIAUS 236 PARK RD W HOPKINS/MN 55.343 236 PARK RD W RESIDENTIAL 89.5 $78.98 S7,068+71 50.00 50.00 S7,068.71 21_6 23117221301116 J F STECH & ILARRIE S TCH 226 PARK RD W HOPLINSWN 55343 226 PARK RD N' RESIDENTIAL 88.0 $78.98 $6,950.24 $0.00 $70438 S7,654.62 218 2311722130017 JO ANNE C C1RISTMAN 218 PARK RD W HOPKINS/MN 55343 218 PARK R1) W RESIDENDAL 89.5 578.98 $7068.71 $0.00 5973.91 S8,042.62 210 2311722130018 TIMOTHY D PIFUAL 210 PARK RDW HOPKINSIMN 55343 210 PARK RDW RFSIDENT7AL 92.0 578.98 S7266.16 SO.00 $873.28 5813944 202 '311722130020 JHA. FORRIiST&ALLEN FORREST 2112 PARK RDW HOPKINS/MN 55343 202 PARK RDW RI!SIDENTIAI. 101.0 $78.98 $7976.98 $0.00 $999.07 $8976.05 249 2311722130038 N & B HENDRICKSON 249 PARK RDW HOPKINS/MN 55343 249 PARK RDW RESIDENTIAL 9911 578.98 57819.02 $0.00 S7477.03 $9296.05 2.111722110037 DBROWN&BBROWN 235 PARK RD \k HOPKINS/MN 55343 235 PARK RDW RI SIDFNTIAL 99.5 578.98 57858.51 50.1111 51776.41 59234.92 2311722131&136 SA&SJ WARYAN 223 PARK R11 W' IIOPKINS/MN 55343 225 PARK RDW KI SIDENnAL 99.5 S78.98 $7858.51 50.00 SI,527.35 59385.86 209 23117221301134 DAWN ZAREM13A 209 PARK RD HOPKINSIMN 55343 1_119 PARK RD N' 120 SIDENTIAL 101.0 578.98 5797698 50.1111 51627.97 59604.95 201 23117221MO35 S A AMAN & 1 A MOCK 1 201 PARK RD W HOPKINS/MN 1 55343 201 PARK RD N I RI SIDENHAL 1 93.0 578.98 57 Y15.14 SOD(I _S128 W S9073,74 W'ES'I' PARK ROADTOT'AL 1077.5 5&5100.95 50.011 $1172N.09 $ 95 APPENDIX D Figure 9 — Temporary Easements — 21" Avenue North Figure 10 — Temporary Easements — West Park Road Feasibility Report 1014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-10 N 1st Street N ilt Vol .4 D-0 lh 8 Shetty E. Th -,- hos,-!,'Av s,-, No M, !,'A - .... coney I Ly /I & "l nr a S Far ley, North -j2_ _ I OeZ F'0 23 117-22 41 -0003 O B�iilanii� t: h:ir1�5 Cys A, 35 1. f A .n1 it N nh fW.. AM.. 117 2-41 I'iO4 ` Pif) " G M H Di�stiri WW", , 1 c1 A,-- North ID 23 11 -'-22 41 r 005- , f^ ✓oma sn�ney. 25- 21st Avenue North 23 1 R fr:� � N Harrer� • °, ----•--..�_� � 10'Temporary Easement _ Ir"' ' 11'22 �41-000] ayq�+� +� F �±: Donald R 5 I'-- A CION FFF 15-21 st Avenue North ' g, PID 23-117-2241-0008r' t l it Legend bow } ` Mainstreet TEMPORARY EASEMENTS T;.r •_ ti fit' N Y I ♦ A A �. & Figure 9 2014 Street & Utility Improvements 21st Avenue N City of Hopkins, Minnesota Temporary Easements N A ti • iot an I Barbara ckson ._ - �_r 1W Y No -m249 West Park Road >iY # • PID 23-117-22-13-0036 '•j3�1� � �a Y • "" i Douglas B Barbara Brown s 249 West Park Road PID 23.117-22-13-0037 r . i t Scott A 8J oaaryan t 5, 225 West 11 Park ty Roatl , r PID 23-117-12-13-0036 John S1ech & Hamet K ark Revocable Tmsl y '*.•- 226 West Park Roatl `000 PID 23-117-22-13-0016 _ Dawn Zaremba ` G 209 Welt Park Road PID 23-117-22.13-0034 ,F man 9y i t ✓, ! rnk Road gloom,y 0 PID�2-13-0017 �,,phanio Am. Jeh ey Mock �K �•' �� 101 West Park Road PID 23-117-22-13-0035 '' 1 \ ;i TIMOTHY D P-00AL l 210 WEST PARKK ROAD PID 23-117-21-1318 r Ot 10' 1u,b ary Easement �- D o 0 tir AY�4P11 m �# 0 th I k Legend o xt TEMPORARY EASEMENTS N1L1 ♦ '�,w i P Figure 10 2014 Street & Utility Improvements mm City of Hopkins, Minnesota West Park Road mm Temporary Easements 03 APPENDIX E Public Informational Meeting Questionnaire Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 CITY OF HOPKINS PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DIVISION 2014 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE MAILED: JUNE, 2012 PLEASE RETURN BY: JUNE 21, 2012 Street and utility improvements are proposed for your street in 2014. Your comments/concerns will assist us in determining the scope of improvements. 1. DRAINAGE �I have observed standing water in the street after a significant rain. It is located at: IVD_I have standing water in my front yard after a significant rain. The general location in yard is: Ali) 2. SANITARY SEWER IV p We have experienced no problems with our sanitary sewer service. Qo We have experienced problems or replaced our sewer service. Please contact us. 3. WATERMAIN X''rLO-We have experienced no problems with our water service_ 140 We have experienced problems or replaced our water service. Please contact us. 4. SIDEWALKS ��Do you have interest in seeing additional sidewalks within your neighborhood? If so, where? 'VQ 5. IRRIGATION SYSTEM I Jo Yes, we have an irrigation system. 6. GENERAL COMMENTS / QUESTIONS Please describe any issues you suggest be considered as part of this project: The following information is optional and will remain confidential but is useful if we have a question about your responses: Q Name:kmrlo Y'1 dill Phone No.: Address: !3� 4 _ A4 THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE! CITY OF HOPKINS PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DIVISION 2014 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE MAILED: JUNE, 2012 PLEASE RETURN BY: JUNE 21.2012 Street and utility improvements are proposed for your street in 2014. Your comments/concerns will assist us in determining the scope of improvements. 1. DRAINAGE w I have observed standing water in the street after a significant rain. It is located at: I have standing water in my front yard after a significant rain. The general location in yard is: 2. SANITARY SEWER _ We have experienced no problems with our sanitary sewer service. We have experienced problems or replaced our sewer service. Please contact us. 3. WATERMAIN -NOwe have experienced no problems with our water service. We have experienced problems or replaced our water service. Please contact us. 4. SIDEWALKS Do you have interest in seeing additional sidewalks within your neighborhood? If so, where? 5. IRRIGATION SYSTEM `6 Yes, we have an irrigation system. 6. GENERAL COMMENTS / QUESTIONS Please describe any issues you suggest be considered as part of this project: The following information is optional and will remain confidential but is useful if we have a question about your respons ,,.� C� 955 C 3 Name: Phone No.: p 1 Address: 6 ��"� tV THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE! _ii �Llflflrn �--�< rr� .=, :r :rte—._a�:'--- ••-r _-r-r_.<:__�.—�_:_:..�...r__.�,�.._.....--_=.—_..._..�..__....__.__.rr :r_rr��.rrr.�rlrr��---- __ ..�,e._..__�-. ,.....,__---1,. EEC � � --: CITY OF HOPKINS PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DIVISION 2014 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE MAILED: JUNE, 2012 PLEASE RETURN BY: JUNE 21, 2012 Street and utility improvements are proposed for your street in 2014. Your comments/concerns will assist us in determining the scope of improvements. 1. DRAINAGE ✓I have observed standing wafter in the street after a significant rain. It is located at: T"have standing water in my front yard after a significant rain. The general location in yard is: 2. SANITARY SEWER ✓ We have experienced no problems with our sanitary sewer service. We have experienced problems or replaced our sewer service. Please contact us. 3. / WATERMAIN V We have experienced no problems with our water service. We have experienced problems or replaced our water service. Please contact us. 4. SIDEWALKS Do you have interest in seeing additional sidewalks within your neighborhood? If so, where? (® 119 yur)('4' S e S po', 1 5. IRRIGATION SYSTEM ve .f Yes, we have an irrigation system. 6. GENERAL COMMENTS / QUESTIONS Please describe any issues you suggest be considered as part of this project: The following information is optional and will remain confidential but is useful if we have a question about your responses: Name: l �-e V 1 Q.. Phone No.: 752 — 30 ` 63 /,;1, Address: c / O b J1 S4 /Gl. r' 1C Cl ,. THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSEI r CITY OF HOPKINS PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DIVISION 2014 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE MAILED: JUNE, 2012 PLEASE RETURN BY: JUNE 21, 2012 Street and utility improvements are proposed for your street' in 2014. Your comments/concerns will assist us in determining the scope of improvements. 1. DRAINAGE I have observed standing water in the street after a significant rain. It is located at: I have standing water in my front yard after a significant rain. The general location in yard is-. 2. SANITARY SEWER XWe have experienced no problems with our sanitary sewer service. We have experienced problems or replaced our sewer service. Please contact us. 3. WATERMAIN _We have experienced no problems with our water service. We have experienced problems or replaced our water service. Please contact us. 4. SIDEWALKS Do you have interest in seeing additional sidewalks within your neighborhood? If so, where? 5. IRRIGATION SYSTEM Yes, we have an irrigation system. 6. GENERAL COMMENTS / QUESTIONS Please describe any issues you suggest be considered as part of this project: The following information is optional and will remain confidential but is useful if we have a question about your responses: Q Name: /1/ SN l �' y Phone No.: a �.z ~ 5 �V � � - Address: THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSEI J CITY OF HOPKINS PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DIVISION 2014 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE MAILED: JUNE, 2012 PLEASF. RETURN BY: JUNE 21, 2012 Street and utility improvements are proposed for your street in 2014. Your comments/concerns will assist us in determining the scope of improvements. 1. DRAINAGE I have observed standing water in the street after a significant rain. It is located at: I have standing water in my front yard after a significant rain. The general location in yard is: 2. SANITARY SEWER Zwe have experienced no problems with our sanitary sewer service. We have experienced problems or replaced our sewer service. Please contact us. 3. WATERMAIN We have experienced no problems with our water service. We have experienced problems or replaced our water service. Please contact us. 4. SIDEWALKS Do yoV have interest in seeing additional sidewalks within your neighborhood? If so, where? 5. IRRIGATION SYSTEM Yes, we have an irrigation system. 6. GEN$RAL COMMENTS/ QUETIONS �� Froom �-Q, �� t Please describe any �ies you suggest be considered as part of this project: 7� The following information is optional and will remain confidential but is useful if we have a question about 1 your responses: Q Name: '� C. — P one No.: S, L22 �b 7/ Address:_ L THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSEI APPENDIX F Geotechnical Evaluation Report Feasibility Report 2014 Street and Utility Improvements City of Hopkins Project No. 2013-10 WSB Project No. 1474-20 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements Retaining Walls and Roadway CSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd) to MNTH 7 Hopkins and Minnetonka, Minnesota Report No. 28-00650 Date: March 27, 2013 Prepared for: WS13 &&. Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 March 27, 2013 WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Attn: Mr. Don Sterna, PE RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements - Retaining Walls and Roadway CSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd) to MNTH 7 Hopkins and Minnetonka, Minnesota Report No. 28-00650 Dear Mr. Sterna: American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for your Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements project in Hopkins and Minnetonka, Minnesota. These services were performed according to our proposal to you dated October 30, 2012 which was approved by WSB on December 4, 2012. We are submitting 3 copies of the report to you (2 bound, I unbound). Please contact me if you have any questions about the report. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. Dave Van Deusen, PE Principal Engineer Phone: (651) 659-1324 Fax: (651) 659-1347 dvandeusen@amengtest.com Page i Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements - Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN March 27, 2013 Report No. 28-00650 SIGNATURE PAGE Prepared for: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Attn: Mr. Don Sterna, PE Authored by: �, Ck Dave Van Deusen, PE Principal Engineer I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under Minnesota Statute Section 326.02 to 326.15 Date: 7✓ (-Z'-7hP13 License #: 23441 Prepared by: AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 (651) 659-9001/www.amengtest.com Reviewed by: JamiC. Vudd, PE Princibal P-neineer Copyright 2013 American Engineering Testing, Inc. All Rights Reserved Unaulhorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibiled by anyoire other than the client for the specific project. Page ii Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS TransmittalLetter................................................................................................. SignaturePage..................................................................................................... TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................... 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION.......................................................................... 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING ..................................... 4.1 Field Exploration Program......................................................................... 4.2 Laboratory Testing..................................................................................... 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS...................................................................................... 5.1 Surface Observations.................................................................................. 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology........................................................................... 5.3 Ground Water............................................................................................. 5.4 Design R-Value.......................................................................................... 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................... 6.1 Definitions.................................................................................................. 6.2 General Grading......................................................................................... 6.3 Infiltration................................................................................................... 6.4 Compaction................................................................................................. 6.5 Embankment Widening/Retaining Wall ..................................................... 6.6 Embankment Widening.............................................................................. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS..................................................... 7.1 Potential Difficulties................................................................................... 7.2 Excavation Backsloping............................................................................. 7.3 Observation and Testing............................................................................. 8.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................. Page iii ........................ i ....................... ...................... ui ....................... 1 ....................... 1 ....................... 2 ....................... 3 ....................... 3 ....................... 3 ....................... 4 ....................... 4 ....................... 4 ....................... 9 ....................... 9 ..................... 10 ..................... 10 ..................... 12 ..................... 13 ..................... 14 ..................... 14 ..................... 18 ..................... 19 ..................... 19 ..................... 20 ..................... 20 ..................... 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS STANDARD SHEETS Bedding/Foundation Support of Buried Pipe Standard Recommendations for Utility Trench Backfilling APPENDIX A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes AASHTO Soil Classification System MnDOT Triangular Textural Soil Classification System Figure 1 - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Results of Sieve Analysis Tests APPENDIX B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Page it Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Hennepin County is proposing to realign and reconstruct a portion of County State Aid Highway (CSAR) 61 (Shady Oak Road) between CSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd) and a point north of the junction of Minnesota Trunk Highway (MNTH) 7 in Minnetonka and Hopkins, Minnesota. The geotechnical scope of services for this project addresses the reconstruction and realignment of CSAH 61 and the junction with MNTH 7. Also addressed are two proposed infiltration elements, retaining wall, and areas of embankment widening. To assist planning and design, you have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface exploration program at the site, conduct soil laboratory testing, and perform a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of our geotechnical review including the subsurface exploration, soil laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis with recommendations for design and construction for the project based on the gained data. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES AET's services on this project were performed according to the approved professional services subconsultant agreement between WSB & Associates, Inc., and AET authorized on December 4, 2012. As the project developed, scope changes and expansion have occurred. In particular, borings on the south side of MNTH 7, east of CSAH 61 were added. Also added was an additional infiltration pond. The authorized scope of work which is reported herein consists of the following: • Drill 43 standard penetration test (SPT) borings for roadway, infiltration, wall, and utility purposes having a total lineal footage of 534 feet. Both truck and all -terrain drill vehicles were used. Page 1 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins. Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. • Clear underground public utilities through the Gopher State One -Call System. • Obtain necessary permits for work. • Provide traffic control, warning/safety signage where needed. • Classify soil samples using MnDOT triangular textural and AASHTO soil classification methods. • Conduct laboratory soil index testing to include water content testing. • Prepare subsurface boring logs using MnDOTs current boring log template. • Prepare this design report which includes a review of subsurface soil conditions, location of unsuitable foundation soils, and our geotechnical engineering analysis based on the gained data. The scope of work performed is intended for geotechnical purposes only. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination. However, obvious contamination would be reported to you. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Hennepin County is proposing to reconstruct CSAH 61 from County Road 3 to north of NINTH 7. The CSAH 61 project will widen the existing roadway to add a travel lane in each direction, construct a sidewalk and a trail, new utilities, infiltration basins, and realign the intersection with MNTH 7. The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. Page 2 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Field Exploration Program The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project originally consisted of 45 test borings. At the time of drilling snow cover and frozen ground conditions coupled with a steep slope prohibited the planned hand auger sampling for borings 39 and 40. Due to utility conflicts boring 29 was moved approximately 200 feet north of the originally proposed location. The boring locations are shown on Figure 1. The borings were located in the field by AET with GPS utilizing location layouts and Hennepin County coordinates provided by WSB. The logs of the borings and details of the methods used appear in Appendix A. The boring logs contain information concerning rock description and quality, soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative density or consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N -value). Judgments of excavation methods should be made by the contractor at the time of bidding through a review of the subsurface boring information provided in this report. Subsequent to the first round of drilling a series of hand probes were conducted through holes drilled in the pond ice in an effort to determine both the pond bottom depth and conditions. Proposed embankment widening and a retaining wall are located either within existing pond locations, on steep, inaccessible slopes, and/or heavy utility areas. While our plan was to obtain borings directly over the proposed construction, access by truck or ATV -mounted power equipment close to these locations was not possible due to the above issues. 4.2 Laboratory Testing The laboratory test program involved moisture content testing. The test results along with other engineering information appear on the individual boring logs, included in Appendix A, adjacent Page 3 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. to the samples upon which they were performed. A supplemental program with provisions for gradation and R -value testing was also part of the scope. Gradation testing of soils at the proposed storm water infiltration sites was performed. However, it was felt that R -value testing was not necessary based on review of the inplace soils; an assumed design R -value would suffice. The test results appear in Appendix A on the individual boring logs adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed, or on the data sheets following the logs. 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Surface Observations In place topsoil with predominant soil classifications of loam, silt loam, and sandy loam was encountered ranging in depth from 0.5 to 2 feet. An average depth of l foot may be used for design estimating purposes. Materials represented by the observed soil types are not likely to meet MnDOT Specifications for Topsoil Borrow. Overall, the thickness of bituminous pavernent encountered ranged from 3 to 12 inches. On MNTH 7, bituminous pavement encountered ranged in thickness from 4 to 12 inches with an average of 7.25 inches. These were taken through existing right and left turn lanes as well as shoulders. CSAH 61 bituminous pavement ranged from 3.5 to I 1 inches with an average of about 6.5 inches. 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology CSAH 61 Within the existing and proposed CSAH 61 roadway our borings encountered slightly plastic and plastic sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand. However, better soils such as loamy sand and sand are Page 4 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. interspersed throughout the project, particularly south of NINTH 7. North of MNTH 7 borings 24, 25, 27, 28, 28A, and 29A encountered loam and silt loam to depths ranging from 2 to 11 feet below existing ground or pavement surface. Backage Road Borings 1 and 2 were advanced through the existing backage road west of CSAH 61 between Bradford Road and Oak Drive Lane. In boring 1 we encountered 3 inches of bituminous over 3.5 inches of crushed limestone material. Fill soils encountered were loamy sand and gravel with apparent cobbles to a depth of 14 feet. Water was encountered at a depth of about 10 feet. Low blow counts were obtained in the loamy sand and gravel directly beneath the water table. In the remainder of the boring saturated sand and gravel were observed to a depth of 21 feet. Boring 2 encountered 4.5 inches bituminous over 14 inches of loamy sand and gravel followed by sandy loam and gravel to a depth of 4 feet. A layer of partially decomposed peat exists from 4 to 6.5 feet. Ground water was observed within the boring at a depth of about 9 feet. Soils beneath the peat consist of loam, sand, and sand and gravel to the bottom of the hole at 21 feet. Oak Drive Lane Boring 9, taken over a proposed alignment for a storm sewer pipe to be jacked beneath Oak Drive Lane, encountered 5 inches of bituminous pavement over 7 inches of loamy sand and gravel. Beneath that were 3 feet of silt loam fill, loamy sand and gravel, and slightly plastic to plastic sandy loam. Groundwater was observed at a depth of about 16 feet within a 6.5 -foot thick silt loam layer. Lake Street Two borings were advanced through Lake Street. Boring 16 (west side of CSAH 61) Page 5 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Revievv Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka.. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. encountered 10.5 inches of bituminous overlying a thin, 2.5 inch layer of loamy sand and gravel. Beneath that mixed fill consisting of loam, plastic sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand to the bottom of the hole at 1 1 feet. Boring 18 (east side of CSAH 6 1 ) encountered 7 inches of bituminous overlying approximately 5 inches of loamy sand and gravel. Beneath that mixed fill consisting of loam, plastic sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand to the bottom of the hole at 1 1 feet. Very soft, weight -of -hammer loam was encountered between 6.5 and 10.5 feet. A petroleum type odor was detected within this layer. This fact was communicated to you, as well as internal and client environmental personnel. Beneath this layer the boring encountered approximately 3.5 feet of partially to well -decomposed peat followed by organic silt loam and slightly organic silt loam to 16.5 feet. Water was observed at a depth of about 11 feet. Main Street One boring (7) was done on Main Street. Here we encountered 6 inches of bituminous pavement, 18 inches of loamy sand and loamy sand and gravel fill. Beneath that alluvial soils were encountered: sand and sand and gravel to the bottom of the hole at 11 feet. Embankment Widening/Retaining Wall Borings 13, 15, 17, and 29A were located and advanced as near as possible (as permitted by topography and utilities) to the proposed retaining wall alignments. Due to utility conflicts boring 29 was moved approximately 200 feet north of the originally proposed location. The relocated boring (29A) encountered approximately 0.5 foot of topsoil consisting of slightly organic silt loam and loam (trace roots). Beneath that we encountered dense to medium dense till to the end of boring at 26 feet. At a depth of 6.5 feet we observed a Page 6 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. 2.5 -foot thick layer of loamy sand and gravel alluvium. Boring 13 encountered about 3.5 inches of bituminous, 21 inches of loamy sand and gravel, and then fill comprised of loose to very loose loamy sand and plastic sandy loam to a depth of 12 feet. Till and alluvium comprised of slightly plastic sandy loam and sand (loose to very loose) were observed to the bottom of the hole, at 36 feet. A saturated sand layer was encountered at a depth of 23 feet but no groundwater was observed. Surficial materials encountered in boring 15 were 2 feet of loam and loamy sand with a trace of roots. Beneath that, fill comprised of loam and gravel, were observed to a depth of 6.5 feet. Stiff to very stiff sandy loam till was observed to a depth of 26 feet. A 2.5 -foot thick, saturated, loose fine sand layer was encountered at 11.5 feet. Groundwater was observed at a depth of 9 feet. Surficial materials encountered in boring 17 were 2 feet of loam with a trace of roots. Fill comprised of slightly plastic and plastic sandy loam, were observed to a depth of 9 feet. Firm to very stiff sandy loam till was observed to a depth of 23 feet. From 23 feet to the bottom of the boring (26 feet) we encountered a medium dense loamy fine sand layer. Groundwater was observed at a depth of 12.5 feet. Subsequent to the above SPT borings a series of probes were conducted through holes drilled through the pond ice to determine both pond bottom depth and conditions. Although it was not possible to retrieve soil samples with this method judgments were made as to the consistency based on the resistance to penetration offered by the material. In P-1 we encountered approximately 7.5 feet of soft (presumably unsuitable for grading) material beneath 2.2 feet of ice and water. The material beneath the soft layer was firm and, Page 7 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Revim Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. based on feel and sound.judged to be "gravelly." Conditions in P-2, P-3, and P-6 were similar except the layers of soft materials encountered were about 5.5, 3.5, and 3 feet thick, respectively. Two probes in the southern pond (P-4 and P-5) encountered frozen ground directly beneath the ice. Due to this fact and inherent equipment limitations it was not possible to obtain a sample to make a determination of the soil type. However. the drillers' notes indicated the following: frozen, dark brown silty sand, with a trace of roots, and a little gravel. Storm Sewer Borings 11, 12, and 14, taken over the proposed storm sewer alignment, encountered 7 to 24 feet of fill. Predominant till soils were loam, loamy sand and gravel, plastic sandy loam, and silt loam. Ground water depths ranged from 8 to 17 feet. Boring 11 encountered pieces of concrete at a depth of 20 to 22 feet. Tills and alluviums consisted of silt loam and plastic sandy loam. Infiltration Two infiltration pond locations are proposed. At the southern infiltration location boring 41 encountered 3.5 inches of bituminous over loamy sand, tine sand, plastic sandy loam, and loamy sand fill to a depth of 10 feet. From 10 feet to 16 feet loam we encountered medium dense to dense loamy sand and gravel, and plastic sandy loam with gravel. Medium dense to very loose loamy sand and gravel were encountered below the water table from 16 feet to the end of boring at 22 feet. The proposed northern infiltration pond location near boring 26 encountered 4 feet of plastic sandy loam. The remainder of the boring encountered till and alluvium consisting of medium dense to dense loamy sand and sand to the bottom of the hole at 16 feet. Page 8 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. MNTH 7 Thirteen borings were advanced within the NINTH 7 corridor. These were located within existing right and left turn lanes, shoulders, and proposed widening and new construction. Borings through paved surfaces encountered from 4 to 12 inches of bituminous in place. Beneath that was 1 to 3 feet of granular material, either loamy sand or loamy sand and gravel. Subgrade soils consist primarily of plastic sandy loam; however silt loam, and loamy sand and gravel were also encountered. 5.3 Ground Water Ground water levels fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts, as well as other factors. The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. Twelve of the borings encountered water at various depths. All of these instances were south of NINTH 7. Borings at the proposed south infiltration pond location encountered water at a depth of 16 feet. The boring (26) at the proposed northern pond did not encounter water. Design infiltration rate recommendations are discussed in Section 6.3. 5.4 Design R -Value Within the existing and proposed CSAH 61 roadways our borings encountered slightly plastic and plastic sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand. The primary soils limiting the design R -value are slightly plastic and plastic sandy loam. While better soils such as loamy sand and sand are interspersed throughout the project, particularly south of NINTH 7, these are the predominant Page 9 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. ones. Based on Table 5-3.3(a) in the MnDOT Pavement Manual in place, limiting soils are estimated to have a design R -value of 20 Note that the R -value can be improved with the placement of a sand subbase, which would then be considered as a composite subgrade with a higher effective R -value. With the placement of an 18 inch layer of Select Granular Material as the upper 18 inches of the subgrade, we estimate an adjusted R -value of 45. If this adjusted R -value is used in the pavement design the same Select Granular Material may not be applied towards granular equivalency requirements. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Definitions The sections that follow use italicized words which have the following definitions: Grading Grade is defined as the bottom of the Class 6 Aggregate Base layer. Compaction Subeut is defined as a subcut where in-place subgrade soils are excavated completely to observe the bottom. Prior to backfilling the bottom of the subcut should be scarified, blended and moisture tempered in-place then re -compacted. The bottom of the subcut should be compacted by the MnDOT Quality Compaction Method, 2105.3172. The subcut should be backfilled according to the recommendations in Section 6.2, blended, moisture tempered, placed in 6 inch lifts. We recommend compacting in accordance with MnDOT Specified Density Method, 2105.3F1. Test roll is a means of evaluating the near -surface stability of subgrade soils (usually non- granular). Suitability is determined by the depth of rutting or deflection caused by passage of heavy rubber -tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, over the test area. Page 10 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. Yielding of less than 1 -inch is normally considered acceptable, although engineering judgment may be applied depending on equipment used, soil conditions present, and/or pavement performance expectations. The standard procedures and equipment of MnDOT Specification 2111 may be used as one defined method. Unstable soils are those soils which do not pass a test roll.' Unstable soils typically have water content exceeding the standard optimum water content defined in ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). Suitable Grading Material shall include all mineral soils in accordance with the Triaxial Chart in the MnDOT Grading and Base Manual, except silt. Unsuitable materials shall include debris, marl, peat, wood, or any other organic soils. Suitable Grading Material should be reserved for embankment placement within the roadway core. Regular Grading Material shall be considered mineral soils classified as Suitable Grading Material listed above as well as peat, excess slope dressing, and other organic soils free from wood and debris. Regular Grading Material shall only be placed outside of the roadway core and in a manner in which the material will maintain long term stability. Granular Material shall meet the gradation requirements of MnDOT Specification 3149.2E 1. Select Granular Material shall meet the gradation requirements of MnDOT Specification 3149.2B2. Select Granular Material Modified shall meet the gradation requirements of MnDOT Specification 3149.2B2 with the exception that the percent passing the No. 200 sieve shall be Page I 1 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Revie-v Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. less than 7 percent. Topsoil Borrow for general use as a turf growing medium should meet the following requirements: Topsoil Borrow Requirements Minimum Maximum Material Passing the #10 Sieve 85% Clay 5% 30% Silt 10% 70% Sand and Gravel 10% 70% Organic Matter 3% 20% pH 6.1 7.8 Slope Dressing is defined as the in-place topsoil or other soil that may provide a medium for establishing turf These soils may not meet the minimum organic content and other requirements for Topsoil Borrow. 6.2 General Grading On CSAH 61, south of MNTH 7, we recommend excavation of in place soils to a depth of 18 inches beneath Grading Grade followed by an 18 inch Compaction Subcut of remaining in place soils for uniformity and compaction. We recommend that the upper 18 inches of the subgrade be backfilled with Select Granular Material. North of MNTH 7 borings 24, 25, 27, 28, 28A, and 29A encountered loam and silt loam to depths ranging from 2 to 11 feet below existing ground and our pavement surface. These soils are not consistent with the assumed design R -value of 20. We recommend removing loam and silt loam to a depth of 3 feet below proposed grading grade. Recommended backfill is Suitable Grading Material, of which the upper 18 inches shall be Select Granular Material. Page 12 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAR 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. Where reconstructing, or widening adjacent to, MNTH 7, we recommend a 3 -foot subcut backfilled with 18 inches of Granular Material followed by 18 inches of Select Granular Material. Where widening, provide a sawcut along the existing lane line. Cut vertically to the bottom of the inplace surfacing then at a 2:1(V:H) slope to the bottom of the recommended subgrade excavation. We recommend a 3 -foot subcut backfilled with 18 inches of Granular Material followed by 18 inches of Select Granular Material. At the termini of proposed new construction and when changing subcut depths within the upper 3 feet of the Grading Grade construct tapers at a rate of 1:20 (V:H). Construct tapers such that granular soils overlie non -granular type soils. Below the upper 3 feet of the Grading Grade, tapers may be steepened to 1:4 (V:H). Where matching in-place crossroads and entrances we recommend a vertical cut to the top of the new Grading Grade then a 1:4 (V:H) taper to the bottom of the recommended subgrade excavations. In all areas of new full width embankment construction, we recommend the stability of the subgrade soils be evaluated using the test roll procedure to determine if unstable zones exist. For the test roll, following the compaction at the bottom of any subcut and prior to placement of the recommended backfill we recommend the subgrade soils be test -rolled. If unstable soils are encountered, either they should be subcut and replaced, or they should be scarified, dried, and recompacted until proper stability is achieved. 6.3 Infiltration Standard design infiltration rates based on both the USDA Triangular Textural System and Unified Soil Classification group are presented in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, Table Page 13 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAR 61 Improvements - Hopkins, Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. 12.INF.7 Design Infiltration Rates. Discounting soils within the upper 5 feet of the existing ground, the loamy sand in boring 26 corresponds to a design infiltration rate of about 0.8 inches per hour. In boring 41 the soils are stratified, with limiting layers of plastic sandy loam and loam; the design infiltration rate based on the limiting loam soil is between 0.3 to 0.6 inches per hour. 6.4 Compaction Within the upper 3 feet of the subgrade we recommend compaction of all Suitable Grading Material to 100% Standard Proctor Density and in accordance with MnDOT Specification 2105.3F1 (Specified Density Method). Compaction of all Aggregate Base, Select Granular Material Modified, Select Granular Material, and Granular Material should be in accordance with MnDOT "Modified Penetration Index Method." 6.5 Embankment Widening/Retaining Wall 6.5.1 General Discussion Embankment widening and a structural retaining wall are proposed in three areas: 1) Embankment Widening #1, located on the east side of CSAH 61 from approximate Station 1208 to Station 1210; 2) Embankment Widening #2, located on the east side of CSAH 61 from approximate Station 1211+50 to Station 1213+75; and 3) Retaining Wall #1, located on the west side of the North Service Drive from TH 7 to CSAH 61 between approximate station 82+00 to station 86+20. Page 14 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. In each of these three areas, there are open water wetlands adjacent to the existing roadway embankments. The proposed roadway widening will extend into the open water areas. In each location, results of the soil borings and hand probes indicate that some depth of soft soils exists. Due to the fact that drill rigs could not access these areas, the actual depth of soft soils is uncertain, and may vary from that assumed in this report. Further discussion of this is given in Section 6.4.2, below. To avoid differential settlement between the existing roadway and the newly widened roadway areas, we recommend excavation of the existing unsuitable soils and replacement with compacted Select Granular Material Modified prior to constructing the new embankments. Refer to Section 6.5.2 for further discussion on the excavate/refill soil correction. After completion of the excavate/refill soil correction, we recommend constructing the proposed retaining wall. We understand that you are evaluating either a cast -in-place concrete, or sheet pile retaining wall. Recommendations for both types of retaining wall are discussed in Sections 6.5.3 and 6.5.4, below. Recommendations for a widened embankment section are included in Section 6.6. 6.5.2 Excavate/Refill Soil Correction We recommend that all unsuitable soils (organic and/or very soft clays) be excavated from below the proposed embankment widening plus a 1:1.5 (V:H) lateral oversize beyond the edge of the retaining wall. We recommend that the excavation be fully dewatered during construction to allow for observation of the excavation bottom, and to facilitate compaction of the backfill soils. A sheet Page 15 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAR 61 ILnprovements — Hopkins, Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. pile cofferdam may be necessary to accomplish the construction dewatering. Design of temporary structures, such as a cofferdam, is typically done by a PE retained by the Contractor. The cofferdam design should be submitted by the contractor to the Engineer for review prior to construction. The excavation bottom should be observed by a geotechnical engineer to confirm that all unsuitable soils have been fully excavated within the specified excavation limits. Based on the available soil borings and hand probes, the estimated bottom of unsuitable soil is given in Table 6-1, below. Actual excavation depths may need to be deeper due to uncertainties in the hand probe procedure, and due to natural variations in the soil profile. The contractor should be prepared to excavate deeper, it' actual conditions vary fi-om the available limited soil boring information. Table 6-1: Estimated Depth of Unsuitable Soils. Location Boring/Probe Estimated Surface Elevation (feet) Estimated Depth of Soft Soils (feet) Estimated Elevation of Bottom of Soft Soils (feet) EW 1 B-13 925 11.5 912.5 EW1 P-6 919 5 914 EW2 B-17 924 11.5 911.5 EW2 P-3 919 7 912 RW 1 P-1 938 10 928 We recommend that the excavations be backfilled with Select Granular Material Modified. The backfill soils should be compacted in accordance with MnDOT Specifications 2105 and 2451 and the compaction recommendations in Section 6.4 of this report. Page 16 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. Any temporary sheet pile cofferdams should be removed prior to construction of any permanent retaining wall structures. Removal of temporary sheet piles could result in some short term ground movement. 6.5.3 Cast -in -Place Retaining Wall After completion of the soil correction procedure recommended in Section 6.5.2 above, it is our opinion that a concrete, cast -in-place retaining wall could be constructed. We recommend that the retaining wall be designed using the geotechnical design parameters given in Table 6-2, below: Table 6-2: Recommended Design Parameters for Cantilever Retaining Wall. Design Parameter Recommended Value(s) Active Earth Pressure (equivalent fluid 36 pcf density) Neglect in front of footing. If shear key Passive Earth Pressure (equivalent fluid used below footing, then use equiv. density) fluid density = 250 pcf for shear key only. Coefficient of friction between footing and 0.55 subgrade Unit weight of sand backfill 125 pcf Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressure for 4,000 psf, average bearing pressure/ footing design 6,000 psf, extreme edge bearing pressure The recommended soil parameters given in Table 6-2, above, assume that the design high water level of pond is below the footing base. If the design water level is above the footing level, then contact us for additional recommendations. 6.5.4 Permanent Sheet Pile Retaining Wall We understand that you are also evaluating the feasibility of constructing a permanent sheet pile Page 17 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. wall, as an alternate to a cast -in-place wall. One possible advantage of permanent sheet pile wall would be to reduce the lateral extent of the excavation required to remove soft soils (discussed in Section 6.5.2, above). In our opinion, the soft soils would still need to be excavated in the backfill zone behind the sheet pile wall to avoid differential settlements. During backfilling of the soil correction area, a sheet pile wall could experience significant lateral deflections due to unbalanced stresses caused by compaction equipment. To avoid large lateral deflections, one or more tie -back anchors may be needed. Because of the potential deflections, we do not recommend the use of a permanent sheet pile wall. If you wish to limit lateral extent of the soil correction excavation, you could consider construction of a buried permanent sheet pile wall to provide lateral stability to the finished embankment. A concrete retaining wall would still be required, as discussed in Section 6.5.3. A typical design for a buried sheet pile wall would be a PZ -27 wall driven a total depth of 30 feet (20 feet embankment below a max. 10 feet of soft soils). A concern with this option is that the depth of soft soils is uncertain, and the specified design may need to be modified during construction if actual soil conditions vary fi-om the design assumptions. If you wish to pursue this option, contact us for additional recommendations. 6.6 Embankment Widening Between Stations 1208 and 1214 the existing CSAH 61 embankment is proposed to be widened into adjacent wetland areas. To avoid differential settlement between the existing roadway and the newly widened roadway areas, we recommend excavation of the existing unsuitable soils and replacement with compacted Select Grunulur Muteriul Modified prior to constructing the new embankments. We recommend that all unsuitable soils (organic and/or very soft clays) be Page 18 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. excavated from below the proposed embankment widening in accordance with Figure 5-2.10 "Typical Swamp Sections" of the MnDOT Pavement Manual. This section calls for a 1:1.5 (V:H) lateral oversize of the excavation beyond the PI of the embankment section. Refer to previous Section 6.5.2 for additional discussion and recommendations related to the excavate/refill soil correction. We recommend that the embankments, above the level of the ponds, be constructed of Suitable Grading Material and in accordance with MnDOT Specifications 2105 and 2451 and the compaction recommendations in Section 6.4 of this report. We recommend that embankment slopes be constructed at 1:3 (V: H) or flatter. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Potential Difficulties Water can be expected to collect in the excavation bottom during times of inclement weather or snow melt. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to reduce the potential for soil disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend water be removed from within the excavation during construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the ground water can be handled with conventional sump pumping. Ground water may be encountered during utility installation trenching. We recommend dewatering be performed as needed to allow positive installation of utilities. If water or instability issues exist, thicker bedding/foundation layers may be needed. Geosynthetic separation fabric may also be an option. We refer you to the sheet entitled "Bedding/Foundation Support of Buried Pipe" for additional details. For backfilling of utilities, we refer you to the Page 19 of 20 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. sheet entitled "Standard Recommendations for Utility Trench Backtillinu'." 7.2 Excavation Backsloping If excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standar(A 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, "Excavations" (can be found on Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance. 7.3 Observation and Testing The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we recommend on-site observation by a geotechnical engineer/technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing should also be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied. 8.0 LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either expressed or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled "Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use". Page 20 of 20 BEDDING/FOUNDATION SUPPORT OF BURIED PIPE GENERAL This page addresses soil bedding and foundation support of rigid pipe, such as reinforced concrete, and flexible pipe, such as steel and plastic. This does not address selection of pipe based on loads and allowable deflections, but rather addresses the geotechnical/soil aspects of uniform pipe support. Bedding/foundation support needs relate to local conditions directly beneath and to the sides of the pipe zone, which may be influenced by soft in-situ ground conditions or by soil disturbance due to soil sensitivity or ground water. Bedding relates to granular materials placed directly beneath the bottom of the pipe (usually 4" to 6" thick), which is intended to provide increased support uniformity. We refer to foundation soils as thicker layers of sands and/or gravels (beneath the bedding zone) intended to provide increased foundation strength support, usually needed due to soft, unstable and/or waterbearing conditions. GRANULAR BEDDING With circular pipes, high local loads (approaching point loads) develop if pipes are placed on hard surfaces. Load distribution is improved by placing granular bedding materials beneath the pipe, which are either shaped to match the pipe bottom or are placed without compaction to allow "settling in." The bedding should be placed in such a manner that the pipe will be at the proper elevation and slope when the pipe is laid on the bedding. Common bedding material is defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3149.217, Granular Bedding. Published documents recommend rigid pipes having a diameter of 12" to 54" be placed on a bedding thickness of 4", which increases to 6" of bedding for pipe diameters ranging from 54" to 72". Beyond a 72" diameter, the bedding thickness can be equal to the pipe outside diameter divided by 12. Typically, the need for bedding under small diameter pipes (less than 12") depends on the pipe designer's specific needs, although in obvious point loads situations (bedrock, cobbles, significant coarse gravel content), bedding is recommended. Note that bedding should also account for larger diameter bells at joints. FOUNDATION FILL Positive uniform strength is usually compromised in soft or unstable trench bottom conditions. In this case, deeper subcuts and foundation fill placement is needed beneath the pipe. In moderate instability conditions, improvement can likely be accomplished with a thicker bedding layer. However, in more significant instability situations, particularly where ground water is present, coarser materials may be needed to provide a stronger foundation. Thicker gravel layers can also be a favorable media from which to dewater. The following materials would be appropriate for stability improvement, with the coarser materials being appropriate for higher instability/ground water cases. • Fine Filter Aggregate — Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2J • Coarse Filter Aggregate—Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2H When using a coarser material which includes significant void space, we highly recommend enveloping the entire gravel layer within a geotextile fabric. The gravel material includes open void space, and the fabric acts as a separator which minimizes the intrusion of fines into the open void space. If additional granular bedding sand is used above foundation gravel, the fabric would also prevent downward infiltration of bedding sand into the rock void space. Although it is preferred to not highly compact thin granular bedding zones directly beneath the pipe center, it is desirable to compact the foundation materials to prevent more significant pipe settlement. We recommend foundation fill be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor density (ASTM: D698). It is not possible to test coarse rock fill, although this material should still be well compacted/ tamped. Often, pipes entering structures such as catch basins, lift stations, etc., enter the structure at a higher elevation than the structure bottom, and are therefore placed on the structure backfill. Fill beneath these pipes should be considered foundation fill. Depending on the flexibility of the connection design, it may be necessary to increase the minimum compaction level to reduce differential settlements, particularly with thicker fills. SIDE FILL SUPPORT If the pipe designer requires support from the side fill, granular bedding should also be placed along the sides of the pipe. In poor soil conditions, the sand fill may need to be placed laterally up to two pipe diameters on both sides of the pipe. With rigid pipe, compacted sand placement up to the spring line (within the haunch area) is usually sufficient. With flexible pipe, side fill should be placed and compacted at least to the top of the pipe. For positive support, it is very important to properly compact the sands within the haunch area. 01REPO 17 (12/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. UTILITY EXCAVATION BACKFILLING GENERAL Clayey and silty soils are often difficult to compact. as they may be naturally wet or dry, or may become wet due to ground water or runoff water during construction. Soils will need to be placed within a certain range of water (moisture) content to attain desired compaction levels. Moisture conditioning to within this range can be time consuming and labor intensive. and will require favorable weather. The degree of compaction and the soil type used for backfill within open cut utility excavations depends on the eventual function of the overlying land surface. Details are as follows: ROADWAYS Where trenches are located below roadways. we recommend using inorganic till and compacting these soils per Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3171 (Specified Density Method). This specification requires achieving 100% of the Standard Proctor density in the upper 346ot subgrade zone, and 95% below this. Note that this specification also includes moisture content range requirements which are important for proper subgrade stability. Where available soils are wet or of poor quality. it may be possible to use the "Quality Compaction Method" (Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3F2) for soils below the upper 3 -foot subgrade zone if you can tolerate some subsidence. However. a high level of stability is still important within the upper subgrade zone and recommend that the "Specified Density Method" be used in this upper subgrade area. We caution that if backfill soils in the lower trench area are significantly unstable. it may be difficult or even impossible to properly compact soils within the upper 3 -foot subgrade zone. In this case, road subgrade stability can be improved by placing a geotextile reinforcement fabric directly over the unstable soils followed by properly drained granular fill placement. STRUCTURAL AREAS If fill is placed beneath or within the significant zone of influence of a structure (typically a 1:1 lateral oversize zone), the soil type and minimum compaction level will need to be evaluated on an individual basis. Because trenches result in variable fill depths over a short lateral distance, higher than normal compaction levels and/or more favorable (sandy) soil fill types may be needed. If this situation exists. it is important that special geotechnical engineering review be performed. NON-STRUCTURAL AREAS In grass/ditch areas, backfill soils should be placed in reasonable lift thicknesses and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the Standard Proctor density (ASTM: D698) and/or per the Mn/DOT "Quality Compaction Method." If lower compaction levels are accepted. more noticeable subsidence at the surface can occur. Steep or high slopes require special consideration. and if this situation exists. it is important that special geotechnical engineering review be performed. SPECIAL CASES Structural retention systems are often used to reduce impacts on adjacent streets/improvements. If localized excavations/pits or annular spaces are created which need to be backfilled, it may not be possible to place and compact soils by the conventional means of backfilling. Retraction of structural systems can also leave soils loosened. Significant settlement can occur in areas where backfill cannot be compacted. If these situations are located in non-structural or non -paved areas, it may be reasonable to accept the settlements and associated follow-up maintenance in order avoid the high cost of trying to compact the soil or placing flowable lean concrete fill. However, there may be areas where till settlement needs to be avoided. especially as the settlement will be differential from the surrounding surface, or differential from a buried structure in the case of higher piping entering the structure. Where settlement needs to be avoided. the specification should require that the contractor submit a backfill compaction plan along with the retention plan. Improper sequencing of retention system removal and backfilling of the pits could result in excessive settlement and/or lateral movement of nearby improvements. 01REPO 18 (04/12) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins, Minnetonka, MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes AASHTO Soil Classification System MnDOT Triangular Textural Soil Classification System Figure 1 — Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Results of Sieve Analysis Tests Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 28-00650 A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling standard penetration test borings. The locations of the borings appear on Figure 1, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split -Spoon Samples (SS) - Calibrated to N,,r, Values Standard penetration (split -spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM: D1586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2 -inch O.D. split -barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140 -pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. Atter an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N -value. Our method uses a modified hammer weight. which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N -value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split -spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60%, of its potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system. This converted energy then provides what is known as an N,,,, blow count. The most recent drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system, which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N -values than the traditional N,,,, values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment. we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systcros available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55"„ to over 100"(,. Therefore, the intent of AET's hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60 to 65 of the theoretical energy of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 inches. The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N -values. stating that N -values of 100° or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can state that the accuracy deviation of the N -values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM Method. A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS)/Spin-up Samples (SU) Sample types described as "DS" or "SU" on the boring logs are disturbed samples. which are taken fi•om the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples. possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample. contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered fi-om test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Determining the thickness of "topsoil" layers is usually limited. due to variations in topsoil definition. sample recovery, and other factors. Visual -manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly. the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed. A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM: D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM: D2487 are possible. Otherwise. soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual -manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs. Visual -manual judgment of the AASHTO Soil Group is also noted as a part of the soil description. A chart presenting details of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is also attached. Appendix A - Page 1 of AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 28-00650 The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under "Water Level Measurements" on the logs: • Date and Time of measurement • Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement • Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow -stem auger at time of measurement • Cave-in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered • Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01 -LAB -010, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D2216 and AASHTO: T265. A.5.2 Atterberg Limits Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01 -LAB -030, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D4318 and AASHTO: T89, T90. A.5.3 Sieve Analysis of Soils (thru #200 Sieve) Conducted per AET Procedure 01 -LAB -040, which is performed in general conformance with ASTM: D6913, Method A. A.5.4 Particle Size Analysis of Soils (with hydrometer) Conducted per AET Procedure 01 -LAB -050, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D422 and AASHTO: T88. A.5.5 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil Conducted per AET Procedure 01 -LAB -080, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D2166 and AASHTO: T208. A.5.6 Laboratory Soil Resistivity using the Wenner Four -Electrode Method Conducted per AET Procedure 01 -LAB -090, which is performed using Soil Box apparatus in the laboratory in general accordance with ASTM: G57 A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied. A.7 SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days. Appendix A - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. BORING LOG NOTES DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS Symbol Definition AR: Sample of material obtained from cuttings blown out the top of the borehole during air rotary procedure. B, H, N: Size of flush joint casing CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in inches COT: Clean-out tube DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry DR: Driller (initials) DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights DP: Direct push drilling. a 2.125 inch OD outer casing with an inner 1'/z inch ID plastic tube is driven continuously into the ground. FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter in inches LG: Field logger (initials) MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of samples and for the ground water level symbols N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N -value) in blows per foot (see notes) NQ: NQ wireline core barrel PQ: PQ wireline core barrel RDA: Rotary drilling with compressed air and roller or drag bit. RDF: Rotary drilling with dril ling fluid and roller or drag bit REC: In split -spoon (see notes), direct push and thin-wal led tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample. In rock coring. the length of core recovered (expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no sample recovered. SS: Standard split -spoon sampler (steel: 1.5" is inside diameter; 2" outside diameter): unless indicated otherwise SU Spin -up sample from hollow stem auger TW: Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in inches WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and hammer WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel V: Water level directly measured in boring 0: Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance TEST SYMBOLS Symbol Definition CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test DEN: Dry density. pcf DST: Direct shear test E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf HYD: Hydrometer analysis LL: Liquid LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf OC: Organic Content. % PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field: L - Laboratory PL: Plastic Limit. °o qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate) q': Static cone bearing pressure, tsf q": Unconfined compressive strength. psf R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cros RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length as a percent of total core run) SA: Sieve analysis TRX: Triaxial compression test VSR: Vane shear strength. remolded (field). psf VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight %-200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES (Calibrated Hammer Weight) The standard penetration test consists of driving a split -spoon sampler with a drop hammer (calibrated weight varies to provide N,,,, values) and counting the number of blows applied in each of three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in ASTM: Dl 586, the blows for each complete 6" increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1' below the slash. The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" column, may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The disparity is because the N -value is recorded below the initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM: D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18"). 01REP052C (7/11) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS Classification of Soils and Soil -Aggregate Mixtures The placing of A-3 before A-2 is necessary in the "left to right elimination process" and does not indicate superiority of A-3 over A-2. Plasticity index of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity index of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30. Group A-8 soils are organic clays or peat with organic content >5%. 9C 8C 7C 6C a a� 4C 3C 2C 10 liquid [knit and Plasticity 1rx Ranges for the A-4, A-5, A-6 and AJ Subgroups Definitions of Gravel. Sand and Silt -Clay The terms "gravel", "coarse sand", "fine sand" and "silt -clay', as determinable from the minimum test data required in this classification arrangement and as used in subsequent word descriptions are defined as follows: GRAVEL - Material passing sieve with Sin. square openings and retained on the No. 10 sieve. COARSE SAND - Material passing the No. 10 sieve and retained on the No. 40 sieve. FINE SAND - Material passing the No. 40 sieve and retained on the No. 200 sieve. COMBINED SILT AND CLAY - Material passing the No. 200 sieve BOULDERS (retained on Sin. sieve) should be excluded from the portion of the sample to which the classificaiton is applied, but the percentage of such material, if any, in the sample should be recorded. The term "silty" is applied to fine material having plasticity index of 10 or less and the term "clayey" is applied to fine material having plasticity index of 11 or greater. PLAS naTY INDEX (PI) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Granular Materials Silt -Clay Materials General Classification i i (35% or less passing No. 200 sieve) (More than 35% passing No. 200 sieve) A-1 A-2 A-7 Group Classification A-7-5 A -1-a A-1 -b A-3 A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7 A-4 A-5 A-6 7 A-7-6 Sieve Analysis, Percent passing: No. 10(2.00 mm) ............................. 50 max. .... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... No. 40 (0.425 mm) ..................... ... .. 30 max. 50 max. 51 min. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... No. 200 (0.075 mm) ............................ 15 max. 125 max. 10 max. 35 max. 35 max. 35 max. 35 max. 36 min. 36 min. 36 min. 1 36 min. Characteristics of Fraction Passing No. 40 (0.425 mm) Liquid limit ................................... .... .... 40 max. 41 min. 40 max. 41 min. 40 max. 41 min. 40 max. 41 min. Plasticity index ............................... 6 max. N.P. 10 max. 10 max. 11 min. 11 min. 10 max. 10 max. 11 min. 11 min. Usual Types of Significant Constituent Materials Stone Fragments, Fine Silty or Clayey Gravel and Sand Silty Soils Clayey Soils Gravel and Sand Sand General Ratings as Subgrade .................... Excellent to Good Fair to Poor The placing of A-3 before A-2 is necessary in the "left to right elimination process" and does not indicate superiority of A-3 over A-2. Plasticity index of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity index of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30. Group A-8 soils are organic clays or peat with organic content >5%. 9C 8C 7C 6C a a� 4C 3C 2C 10 liquid [knit and Plasticity 1rx Ranges for the A-4, A-5, A-6 and AJ Subgroups Definitions of Gravel. Sand and Silt -Clay The terms "gravel", "coarse sand", "fine sand" and "silt -clay', as determinable from the minimum test data required in this classification arrangement and as used in subsequent word descriptions are defined as follows: GRAVEL - Material passing sieve with Sin. square openings and retained on the No. 10 sieve. COARSE SAND - Material passing the No. 10 sieve and retained on the No. 40 sieve. FINE SAND - Material passing the No. 40 sieve and retained on the No. 200 sieve. COMBINED SILT AND CLAY - Material passing the No. 200 sieve BOULDERS (retained on Sin. sieve) should be excluded from the portion of the sample to which the classificaiton is applied, but the percentage of such material, if any, in the sample should be recorded. The term "silty" is applied to fine material having plasticity index of 10 or less and the term "clayey" is applied to fine material having plasticity index of 11 or greater. PLAS naTY INDEX (PI) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 F- a UL GROUP INDE)(CI-,1ART Group Index (GI) = (F-35) [0.2+0.005 (LL -40) ] + 0.01 (F-15) 771 Unit, and PI Plasticity Ind r.. 200 sieve, LL= Llqud 2 N Wien vloridi g with X2-6 and X2-7 subgroups the Partial Croup Index (PGI) is determined from the PI Only. 30 Wuen the conibined Partial Group lrxioes are negative, the Group Irxlelc should be reported as aero. 135.1 Eo�: lbell 82% Passing No. 200 sieve PGI = 8.9 for LL LL = 38 PGI = 7.4 for PI PI=21 GI=16 g 70 00 OICLS022 (07/11) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. i i i i 7 F- a UL GROUP INDE)(CI-,1ART Group Index (GI) = (F-35) [0.2+0.005 (LL -40) ] + 0.01 (F-15) 771 Unit, and PI Plasticity Ind r.. 200 sieve, LL= Llqud 2 N Wien vloridi g with X2-6 and X2-7 subgroups the Partial Croup Index (PGI) is determined from the PI Only. 30 Wuen the conibined Partial Group lrxioes are negative, the Group Irxlelc should be reported as aero. 135.1 Eo�: lbell 82% Passing No. 200 sieve PGI = 8.9 for LL LL = 38 PGI = 7.4 for PI PI=21 GI=16 g 70 00 OICLS022 (07/11) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Minnesota Department of Transportation —__-- - Geotechnica I Section 1o L OF IF Boring Log Descriptive Terminology (English Units) o U o y USER NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS • Additional information available in Geotechnical Manual This boring was made by ordinary and conventional WR .. .... Weight of Rod RELATIVE DENSITY AC ........... methods and with care deemed adequate for the Mud ....... Drilling Fluids In Sample Compactness - Granular Soils BPF Department's design purposes. Since this boring CS ......... Continuous Sample very loose ................ 0-4 was not taken to gather information relating to the wIAUG ....... loose .................... 5-10 construction of the project, the data noted in the SOIL/CORE TESTS medium dense .... ....... 11-24 field and recorded may not necessarily be the same SPT N8, .... ASTM D1586 Modified dense ................... 25-50 as that which a contractor would desire. While the Blows per foot with 140 Ib. hammer and a very dense ............... >50 Department believes that the information as to the standard energy of 210 ft -lbs. This energy conditions and materials reported is accurate, it represents 60% of the potential energy of the Consistency - Cohesive Soils BPF does not warrant that the information Is necessarily system and is the average energy provided by very soft ................. 0-1 complete. This information has been edited or a Rope & Cathead system. soft .... .... .. .. 2-4 abridged and may not reveal all the information MC . ...... Moisture Content firm ........... ......... 5-8 which might be useful or of interest to the COH ....... Cohesion stiff ..................... 9-15 contractor. Consequently, the Department will make 7 ... Sample Density very stiff ................. 16-30 available at its offices, the field logs relating to this LL ......... Liquid Limit hard ..................... 31-60 boring. pl ......... Plasticity Index very hard ............ .... > 60 F Phi Angle 40 Since subsurface conditions outside each borehole REC ....... Percent Core Recovered COLOR are unknown, and soil, rock and water conditions RDD ....... Rock Quality Description blk ....... Black wht .... White cannot be relied upon to be consistent or uniform, (percent of total core Interval consisting of grn Green brn .... Brown no warrant is made that conditions adjacent to this unbroken pieces 4 inches or longer) orng ...... Orange yet ..... Yellow boring will necessarily be the same as or similar to ACL ....... Average Core Length dk ........ Dark It ...... Light those shown on this log. Furthermore, the (Average length of core that is greater than 4 IOS ...... Iron Oxide Stained o\v Department will not be responsible for any inches long) `o �o po yo 00 ^o 00 0o y interpretations, assumptions, projections or Core Breaks Number of natural core GRAIN SIZE (PLASTICITY Interpolatlonsmadebycontractors,orotherusersof . breaks per 2 -toot interval. VF ..... Very Fine at .. Plastic this log. Water levels recorded on this log should be used with discretion since the use of drilling fluids in borings may seriously distort the true field conditions. Also, waterlevels In cohesive soils often take extended periods of time to reach equilibrium and thus reflect their true field level. Water levels can be expected to vary both seasonally and yearly. The absence of notations on this log regarding water does not necessarily mean that this boring was dry or that the contractor will not encounter subsurface water during the course of construction. WATER MEASUREMENT AB ........... After Balling AC ........... After Completion AF ........... After Flushing w/C .......... with Casing w/M .......... with Mud WSD ......... While Sampling/Drilling wIAUG ....... with Hollow Stem Auger MISCELLANEOUS NA ........... Not Applicable wl ........... with w10 .......... with out sat .......... saturated DRILLING OPERATIONS AUG ....... Augered CD ........ Core Drilled DBD ....... Disturbed by Drilling DBJ ........ Disturbed by Jetting PD ......... Plug Drilled ST ......... Split Tube (SPT test) fW ........ Thinwall (Shelby Tube) NS ........ Wash Sample VSR ....... No Sample Retrieved NH ........ Weight of Hammer Index Sheet No. 3.0 July 1997 DISCONTINUITY SPACING Clay Lmst .. Limestone Fractures Distance Bedding Very Close .. <2 inches ... Very Thin Close ....... 2-12 inches ... Thin Mod. Close .. 12-36 inches .. Medium Wide ....... >36 inches .... Thick DRILLING SYMBOLS F ..... Fine slpl ... Slightly Cr ..... Coarse Plastic SOIUROCK TERMS C ...... Clay Lmst .. Limestone L ...... Loam Sst .... Sandstone S ...... Sand Dolo .. Dolostone SI ..... Silt wx .... weathered G ...... Gravel (No. 10 Sieve to 3 inches) Bldr ... Boulder (over 3 inches) T ...... till (unsorted, nonstratified glacial deposits) Mn/DOT TRIANGULAR TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Vane Shear Test CLAY W Washed Sample 100% Cotleded dunnp plug drilling 90 f Augered '°_\/ 80 pD Plug Drilled \ / (Rotary drilled with Auld) �'° \ / \ 70 Split Tube Sample p so, ( whh flne�wkh 2 Irt epU1 tube 20 n /\ / 60 Thin Wall Semple yP s ° (3 Inch Thb, Wall Tube) 60 Core Drilled 40 (NV Core Bartel, unleae oMerWee rated) / / /\ \ / 30 \ / \ I Continuous Sall Sample t 20 VP Augered and Plug Drilled - — — 10 til try Ia let Jetted S \ � 0, o o\v VJ , Augered and Jetted `o �o po yo 00 ^o 00 0o y % SILT z 4� 1 t••.' r r= ♦. , wo# . -i l • , _ � �I bf 40 w r r tl � P y, yi •r+`iw - .i i 4 AMERICAN FIGURE 1 ENGINEERING Testing Locations TESTING, INC. Legend 28-00650 Boring Locations Shady Oak Rd Excelsior to TH 7 550 Cleveland Avenue North Hennepin County, Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 0 30 60 120 180 240 Phone; (651) 659-9001 DRAWN BY: DRM NECKED BY: DAV Fax: (651) 659_1379 Meters Date: 4/1/2013 AET NO. 28-00650 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 'Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG KU��U��UU�� UUU�� .�oww��^- "��"""�°~~"� U.S. CUstDnO@rV Units AMERICAN El TESTING, INC. ENGINEERING State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-1 (Surveyed) Location ft. ILT Drill Machine SHEET I of 1 Coordinate: X=488464 Y=147695 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/3/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT MC COH Other Tests Lu Formation 0.3 -\3" Bituminous pavement 0.8 M-6.5" 5 Crushed limestone base, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 0 0 �X 5 01 6 12 5 0 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, apparent cobbles, dark . 0' brown, frozen to 4'then damp to wet, medium dense to very 5 10 14.0 15 0 9 X 0, SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, saturated, medium dense, 0 A -1-b, alluvium 01 0 17 21 Bottom of Hole - 21' Moved 4'E and 2'N due to utilities ------------------------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-2 (Surveyed) Location , , ft, LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488485 Y=148118 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/3/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT MC Nso °�) COH (pst) Y (Pcf) _ Other Tests u) Or Remarks Depth o z Lu Lu ° ° `= REC RQD' ACL Core Y Formation Elev. -J Classification a 0 0 p > ( )>� ; I o0 irtl reale.: or Member 4.5" Bituminouspavement °. LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, frozen, A -1-b. fill 5 1.6 o • 7 x><11 x ' . SANDY LOAM AND GRAVEL, pieces of wood, brownish 9 gray, frozen to 3', A -1-1b, fill 4.0 x 5 PARTIALLY DECOMPOSED PEAT, dark brown, A-8, 3 333 046 swamp deposit 6.5 X . x LOAM, trace roots, gray, moist, soft, A-6, alluvium 4 19 1 9.0 x 10 SAND, gray, saturated, loose, A-3, alluvium 7 19 11.5 0 0 0 . o. 3 16 o' A O 15 O 0 . 7 11 • o• 9 SAND AND GRAVEL, gray, saturated, loose to medium A dense, A -1-b, alluvium 0 0 0 o• O' A 20 O 0 .° 17 11 21.0 °' Bottom of Hole - 21' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GE0IGINTW1 GINTPR0JECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING AMERICAN ENGINEERING TEST|NG INC.K4n8}�TTEK�PLATE ��_� ' TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG KU��U��KU�� UUU�� ~°"=n�m~°=� "�~°"°"��~~"� [].S.Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk HighwaylLocation Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-3 (Surveyed) Location , ft. LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488690 Y=147664 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/10/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC COH (PSO (PCO Other Tests coo Or Remarks Depth 8; Elev. Classification or Member 4." Bituminous pavement 9" Pieces of bituminous SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, grayish brown, damp, 8 SAND, brown, frozen to T, A -1-b, fill 4.0 5'� k^'1 |\/| f / ` � /^/ o / 1e . . ..) LOAM, brown to brown and gray mottled, moist, firm to stiff, A-6, till 9 16 9.0 10-- SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense, A -1-b, alluvium ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3. 0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 92 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units 1© AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-4 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488630 Y=147955 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/3/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o FREC MC (�o) COH (psn Y (pct) _ : Other Tests co Or Remarks Depth o = RQD ACL Core YFormation CL Elev. J Classificationo „� �) (ft, Breaks ( or Member 3.75" Bituminous pavement 0.7 11 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 25 8 LOAMY SAND. brown, frozen to 2', A-2-4, fill 3.0 12 8 SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense, A-3, fill 5 4.0 5-- 21 7 SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense. A-3, alluvium 21 4 9.0 0 10 •o 0• O, o• .0 33 3 O O 029 • o• 0 5 115 0 0 o, SAND AND GRAVEL, possible cobbles, brown, damp to 01 0 .o 0 0 saturated. dense to medium dense, A -1-b, alluvium X 22 12 20 0 • o 0 .0 0 0, o . 19 15 21.0 c- Bottom of Hole - 21' ------------------------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTVAI GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project 0.8 Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. .... .. Ground Elevation 2.0 LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen to 2', A -1-b, fill CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-5 7 8 (Surveyed) Location , ft. LT X Drill Machine 1 18 5 -- SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488720 Y=148301 Hammer 2 6 Drilling 1/10/13 Com Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC COH (PSO (PCO Other Tests 605 Or Remarks Depth 11.0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 '' Z. -2 5 1 X .. .... .......... .............. .............. 77'. .............. .............. . .. ...... ........ -- ... .......... a 0 w RSCFormation R i. AC C� Elev. Classification Q ... 4 t*"::: Q�: or Member --------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GMG1NTW1 G1NTPR0JECM28-00650.GPJ 0.8 9" Bituminous pavement .... .. ........... .......... 2.0 LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen to 2', A -1-b, fill X 7 8 4.0 X MIXTURE OF PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, damp, medium dense, A-2-4, fill X 13 18 5 -- 6.5 LOAMY SAND, brown, damp, very loose, A -1-b, fill 2 6 9.0 SAND, light brown, damp, loose, A -1-b, alluvium 5 3 10-- 11.0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 '' SAND AND GRAVEL, light brown, damp, dense, A -1-a, alluvium 33 5 1 X Bottom of Hole - 11' --------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GMG1NTW1 G1NTPR0JECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN El ENGINEERING El TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-6 (Surveyed) Location ft, LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488684 Y=148614 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/3/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= c SPT N60 MC (°i°) COH (psi Y (Pct) _ Other Tests coo. Or Remarks = t- w Depth Elev. o'3 ° c Classification - o o REC ;(q�l ROUE f%) fit) ........... Cori : tK _ ..... . Formation or Member 1.1 X LOAM, trace roots, dark brown, frozen, A-6, fill 20 SAND, light brown, frozen to 1.7', A-3, fill 2.0 5 MIXTURE OF LOAMY SAND AND LOAM, pieces of wood, 22 7 brown, damp, medium dense, A-2-4 and A-6, fill 4.0 x 5 x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, stiff, A-2-4, fill 14 14 6.5 'x •. LOAMY SAND, brown, damp, loose, A-2-4, fill 9 7 9.0 10 LOAMY SAND, pieces of concrete, brown and gray, damp, dense, A -1-b, fill 41 8 11.5 SLIGHTLY ORGANIC SILT LOAM, trace roots, dark brown, moist, firm, A-6, topsoil or alluvium 6 19 14.0 15 6 20 CLAY LOAM, brown, moist, firm, A-6, alluvium 18.0 0 0 o. 0. SAND AND GRAVEL, light brown, damp, medium dense, 20 9' .o � A -1-b, alluvium 18 4 21.0 0 Bottom of Hole - 21' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X.'101-GEOIGINTw11 GINT PROJECT&28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-7 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488924 Y=148557 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/24/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= 0.5 SPT MC COH Y _ : Other Tests Depth o' 7 5 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill N60 (%) (PsO (Pct) n Or Remarks Lu w 10 _ " i.a AC Ct � : Formation Elev. Bottom of Hole - 11' Classification o :.;:. (j. or Member ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 X:101-GEOIGINTw11 GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ I 0.5 6" Bituminous pavement ....................... 0.8 2.0 LOAMY SAND, dark brown, frozen, A-2-4, fill 7 5 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 5 6.5 SAND, light brown, frozen to 3.5' then damp, medium dense, A -1-b, alluvium 15 5 4 10 11.0 SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, damp, medium dense, A -1-b, alluvium 20 19 4 4 Bottom of Hole - 11' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 X:101-GEOIGINTw11 GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ I AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units 13AMERICAN ENGINEERING 13 TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-8 (Surveyed) Location , , ft, LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Drilling 1/24/13 Coordinate: X=488725 Y=148858 (ft) Hammer Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= 0.5 SPT MC COH Y _ Other Tests Depth ff 6 6 'N Or Remarks LOAMY SAND, pieces of bituminous, dark brown, frozen to T then damp, A -1-b, fill 6 5-- 9.0 LOAMY SAND, a little plastic sandy loam, brown to dark brown, damp, very loose to very dense, A-2-4, fill 4 50/.1 7 6 Lu 10 11.0 2 REC , ROD ; ACi Core Bottom of Hole - 11' Formation Elev. Classification o (} (°)_; (ft) Breaks(2': or Member ------------------------- -------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTW I GINT PROJECTW8-00650.GPJ 0.5 6.5" Bituminous pavement 0.6 0.9 2.0 1" Crushed limestone base, light brown, frozen, fill ff 6 6 3.5" Bituminous pavement LOAMY SAND, dark brown to brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 4.0 LOAMY SAND, pieces of bituminous, dark brown, frozen to T then damp, A -1-b, fill 6 5-- 9.0 LOAMY SAND, a little plastic sandy loam, brown to dark brown, damp, very loose to very dense, A-2-4, fill 4 50/.1 7 6 10 11.0 SAND AND GRAVEL, light brown, damp, medium dense, A -1-b, alluvium or fill 16 3 Bottom of Hole - 11' ------------------------- -------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTW I GINT PROJECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 'Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG U0��U��UU�� 8UU�� ~°"="�w~°~- "�^^"°"��~-"� U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk High waylLocation Boring No. Ground Elevation I CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-9 (Surveyed) Location , ft. LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488465 Y=149017 Hammer Drilling 1/4/13 Comp/eted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT MC COH Other Tests Ark Formation or Member 0.4 Bituminous pavement _5" LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 1.0 11 24 SILT LOAM, brown, frozen to 2', firm, A-6, alluvium or fill X 7 17 4.0 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, apparent cobbles from 4.9' to 5.4', brown, damp, very dense, A -1-b, alluvium 50/.1 6 6.5 X 'X I SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, medium dense, A-2-4, till X PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, very stiff, A -6, till 11.5 14 �4 X 17 21 1 5-- SILT LOAM, brown, wet, medium dense, A-4, alluvium 34 18 X 18.0 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, moist, very stiff, A-24, till 21.0 Bottom of Hole - 21' ------------------------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN 13 ENGINEERING 13 TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Boring No. B-10 Ground Elevation (Surveyed) Location Coordinate: Latitude ft. LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 1 X=488625 Y=149040 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/4/13 Completed (North)= Longitude (West)= o ° 4 0 0 SPT N60 MC (%) COH li-)sf) Ipc _ Other Tests 0 Or Remarks w Depth Elev. o t -� Classification REC (,�� RQD ; l;�) ACL (ft) , Core reak:. Formation 0 or Member 5 10 15 20 0.4 1.0 2.0 6.5 21.0 5" Bituminous pavement 9 2 11 9 6 13 10 7 7 11 8 4 2 2 3 4 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill SAND, brown, frozen, A -1-b. fill LOAMY SAND. a little silt loam, brown and gray. frozen to 5', very loose, A-24, fill SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, damp, medium dense to loose, A -1-b, alluvium Bottom of Hole - 21' ------ ------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 X.901-GEOIGINTMf GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-11 (Surveyed) Location ft. ILT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 2 Coordinate: X=488581 Y=149130 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/10/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC (%) COH (I)SO Y (pcf) _ Other Tests un Or Remarks Depth o' = _. . R � f+'QtJ t fore Formation E/ev. =' Classification Q) o o (?At).lt .............. . . lk: or Member X PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, trace roots, brown, frozen to 2', 14 A-6, fill 2.0 0 o. ° X 22 4 0' ° LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, damp, medium dense, A -1-b, fill 5 ° o. X 30 5 6.5 • 01 x " X x' 11 8 10 x x " . x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray, damp, stiff to firm, A-6, fill 8 18 'x 9 14 14.0 X " 15 4 27 SILT LOAM, brown, a little gray, moist, soft, A-6, fill 1 3 20 19.0 X " LOAM, brown, wet, very hard, A-6, fill 19 20 20.2 X 100/.3 7 ° Pieces of concrete, gray, fill 22.0 X SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM AND GRAVEL, dark 4 17 x gray, wet, very loose, fill 24.0 SILT LOAM, slightly organic, gray, moist, soft, A-6, alluvium >Z_ 5 --- ------------------------- — ------ ----------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 (Continued Next Page) Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTM1 GINT PROJECTS128-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING � SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units -------------------------------- Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTw11 GINT PROJECT&28-00650.GPJ Mn/DOT GEOTECHNICAL SECTION - LOG & TEST RESULTS SHEET 2 of 2 State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-11 (Surveyed) SPT MC COH Y _ Other Tests Depth o N60 N (Psf) (pur) � Or Remarks z � w o t 0 2 ITEC: OD ACL , Cora o Formation Elev. Classification oo (� f✓a) (w Breaks or Member SILT LOAM, slightly organic, gray, moist, soft, A-6. alluvium 3 25 26.0 continued - Bottom of Hole - 26' -------------------------------- Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTw11 GINT PROJECT&28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN 13 ENGINEERING 13 TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Jo �Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-12 (Surveyed) Location , , ft. LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488521 Y=149314 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/25/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC (%) COH (PsO Y (Pct _ Other Tests co Or Remarks Depth o = o o .:.. RE.0 QD A.G. .0ure : � : Formation Elev. = Classification o o € j ) Wa: ( � or Member x . x SLIGHTLY ORGANIC, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, 39 trace roots, dark brown, frozen to 15, A-4, fill 2.0 x. x". 3 18 x LOAM, brown and gray, moist, soft A-6, fill 5 3 16 6.0 x SILT LOAM, trace roots, gray, a little brown, moist, firm, 6 54 laminations of loamy sand, A-6, alluvium or fill 8.0 1.. k x'. 4 16 10 x" x 2 16 x x. 3 16 15 X X . PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray, wet, soft to very stiff, A-2-4, 5 10 x till .x . 8 12 x . . x. 11 11 20 x X• 17 t 10 22.0 Bottom of Hole - 22' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 X:101-GEOIGINTIM1 GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING El TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-13 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 2 Coordinate: X=488592 Y=149354 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/25/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N60 MC (%) COH (Psf) (Pct) Other Tests v°, Or Remarks Depth Elev. o Classification o o REC 0-) ROD ACL (ft) Core reak Y Formation 0 or Member 3.5' Bituminouspavement LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen. A -1-b, fill + 7 2.0 11 5 --LOAMY SAND AND PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, 5 12 frozen to T then damp, loose to very loose, A-2-4, fill 4 9 9.0 x". 10 x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, wet, soft. A-6, fill 3 18 11.5 X" X X X'. 7 11 15 x" 14 11 X SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, a little gray, moist, loose to medium dense, a lens of silt loam around x ' . IT, A-2-4, till 14 14 20-- 0 23.0 23.0 SAND, grayish brown, saturated, very loose to loose, A-3, alluvium 25 ---••- Index Sheet Code --------------------------- 3.0 (Continued Next Page) -- -- ------ Soil Class: Rock ----------- Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTWI GINT PROJECTSI28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN 1 ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Mn/DOT GEOTECHNICAL SECTION - LOG & TEST RESULTS SHEET 2 of 2 State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-13 (Surveyed) SPT MC COH Y _ Other Tests Depth a o, c N60 (/) (PsO (PcO 60) OrRemarks = w w fx'EO RQU AC .C. Formation ° Elev. -� Classification o o �� (:.. ....:........ .. or Member 1 20 PD SAND, grayish brown, saturated, very loose to loose, A-3, alluvium (continued) 30 g 33.0 P D X . PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray, wet, stiff, lenses and 35 x laminations of slightly plastic sandy loam, stiff, A-2-4, till x 12 12 I Bottom of Hole - 36' Moved 3'W due to utilities -- --------------------- Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTlM1 GINT PROJECTSI28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-14 (Surveyed) Location ft, LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488439 Y=149461 (ff") Hammer Drilling 1/4/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N60 MC (il COH (PsO Y (pcf) _ Other Tests coo Or Remarks Depth o w ° REC ROD ACL CoreU Formation Q Elev. _' Classificationo o ,(V -t (Vo (ft) BreakS Z or Member •x . x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, pieces of concrete, trace roots, 15 brown, frozen to 1.1', A-24, fill 2.0 X' 10 10 .x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, trace roots, brown, damp, stiff to firm, A-24, fill 5 x x' 5 13 6.5 X . X LOAM, brown and gray mottled, wet, soft, A-6, till 4 28 9.0 x". X'. 10-- 1.. X PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown mottled, wet, firm, A-24, till 5 15 11.5 x' X'. X 10 16 15 X 14 11 x ' . PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray to brownish gray, damp, stiff X' to very stiff, A-6 20 x." 20 10 21.0 Bottom of Hole - 21' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X101-GEOIGINTWI GINTPR0JECT&28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 'Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UU��U��UU�� KUU�� ~�"�"��~�~- "=~�"°"��~-"� U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING State Project Bridge No. or Jo Trunk HighwaylLocation Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) � B-15 (Surveyed) Location , ft. ILT Drill Machine 91 SHEET 1 of 2 Coordinate: X=488524 Y=149575 (ft-) Hammer Drilling 1/4/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT MC COH Other Tests LU 00 Formation Q Classification 0.8 > LOAM, trace roots, dark brown, frozen, A-6, fill 16 LOAMY SAND, trace roots, brown, frozen to about 1.5', LOAM AND GRAVEL,brown and dark brown, damp, very X 18 8 > stiff, A-6, fill 4.0 LOAMY SAND, brown, damp, medium dense, A -1-b, fill 17 8 6.5 10 10 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, wet, stiff, A-24, till 11.5 FINE SAND, brown, saturated, loose, A-3, alluvium 5 16 14.0 15-- PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, wet, stiff, laminations of 13 13 loamy sand, A-24, till 16.5 LOAM, brown, wet, stiff, A-6, till 11 13 19.0 11 12 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, wet, stiff to very stiff, A-24, till 19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4-- — — — — — — — — — — Index Sheet Code 3.0 (Continued Next Page) Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date.' 372 F1 13 AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units Mn/DOT GEOTECHNICAL SECTION - LOG & TEST RESULTS SHEET 2 of 2 State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-15 (Surveyed) SPT MC COH Y _ Other Tests Depth :T N60 (pso (pct) 6 Or Remarks w RGA A ore Formation Elev. _' Classification o o (� f) (ft) teak„ or Member PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, wet, stiff to very stiff, 11 11 A-24, till (continued) Bottom of Hole - 26' Moved 6'N, 1'W of stake ------------------------------------------------------------ Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27113 X101-GMGINTW1 G1NTPR0JECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING AMERICAN ENGINEERING TEST|NG K�n8}OTTEK4PLATE �� ' INC.� TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UU��UA�KU� ��KUU�� "°"�w~"~~ "°~�"°"��~~"� U.S.Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) � B-16 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=487984 Y=149879 Hammer Drilling 1/4/13 Comp ted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC (Y.) COH (pSo (pCo Other Tests U05 Or Remarks Depth 8� Formation Q Elev. Classification 10.5" Bituminous pavement 1.1 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen, LOAM, brown, frozen, A-6, fill 13 2.0 21 MIXTURE OF PLASTIC SANDY LOAM AND LOAMY 4. fill SAND, brown, frozen to 25then damp, loose, A-2- , o 7 11 sa SAND, brown, damp, loose, A-3.alluvium m,fill o 4 | || X | � oV [T -T � --------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27713 V1 2J AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-17 (Surveyed) Location r jt, LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 2 Coordinate: X=488385 Y=149789 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/25/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N60 MC COH (ps17 Y (pct) Other Tests 025 Or Remarks Depth o = ° RE C RQn , ASL Core Formation w Elev. Classification o o I,°� i f°) i (ft) t"0ak,. Z or Member X LOAM, trace roots. brown, frozen to 15, A-6, fill 14 2.0 6 9 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, loose. A-2-4, fill 5-- 5.0 x 3 x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, trace roots, brown and gray, moist, firm, A-6, fill X '. 7 21 9.0 X. • . 10 SILT LOAM, trace roots, gray, moist, firm, A-6, alluvium 5 33 11.5 Y. " X x" 7 15 x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray to brownish gray, moist, firm, 15 X x'. A-6, till 7 17 18.0 X x . X". 20 x'. 21 12 " "x ". PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, wet, very stiff, A-24, till X" 23.0 Y'" EFINE LOAMY SAND, brown, wet, medium dense, A-2-4, -allu'ium25 --- Index Sheet Code --------------------------- 3.0 (Continued Next Page) -- — — Soil Class: — Rock — Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTVV1 GWTPROJECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING a TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units Mn/DOT GEOTECHNICAL SECTION - LOG & TEST RESULTS SHEET 2 of 2 State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-17 (Surveyed) SPT MC COH Y _ Other Tests Depth o N60(io) 0 (PsO (pct) Q0)Or Remarks = w G #I3:.:A Formation Q Elev. =� Classification o o :; < y fAr};' ..A) I rV: or Member FINE LOAMY SAND, brown, wet, medium dense, A-2-4, 14..... 16 26.0 alluvium continued Bottom of Hole - 26' Moved 6'W & 21'S from original staked location ------------ Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTM1 G1NTPR0JECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Boring No. B-18 Ground Elevation (Surveyed) Location , , ft. ILT Drill Machine 91 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488625 Y=149962 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/4/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N60 MC (°i°) COHY (Psf) (pcf) Other Tests Q, = Or Remarks Q Depth E/ev. o r _� Classification m n 0 0 REC ; °° ( ROD GI , ACL I trtl Core rea1� Y o : Formation 02 or Member 5 10--21 1.' 15 20 0.6 1.0 1.5 4.0 6.5 11.5 14.0 16.5 19.0 21.0 7" Bituminous pavement 4 WH 6IV 4 3 10 4 3 10 12 11 15 15 21 181 453 38 14 13 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen. A -1-b, fill LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill LOAMY SAND, grayish brown. frozen to 30". A-2-4. fill X x x'. PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray, wet, soft. A-2-4, fill X x X , X' X LOAM, gray, wet, very soft, A-6, fill (petroleum type odor) A PARTIALLY DECOMPOSED PEAT, dark brown. A-8, swamp deposits 110 WELL DECOMPOSED PEAT, dark brown, A-8, swamp deposits ORGANIC SILT LOAM, dark gray, wet, loose, A-2-4. alluvium SLIGHTLY ORGANIC LOAMY SAND, dark gray, wet, loose, A-2-4, alluvium x x ' . PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray, wet, soft, A-2-4, till Bottom of Hole - 21' Moved 6'E due to utilities ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X.101.GEOIGINTW I GINT PROJECTS 28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING 1313 TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-19 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine q SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488243 Y=149999 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/24/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N6o MC (1o) COHY (psO *0 _ Other Tests Cn' Or Remarks Depth rn = w20CAC1 o_ g ;: ..:. . .:: Q Formation lev.Classification = a ,...., ..:.: >: teak or Member SLIGHTLY ORGANIC LOAMY SAND, trace roots, dark 0 brown, frozen to 2', A-2-4, fill t 2.0 5 1 10 x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, firm to soft, A-2-4, fill 5 x 4 12 x" 6.5 2 9 LOAMY SAND, a little plastic sandy loam, brown, damp, very loose, A-24, fill 10-- 4 8 11.0 RnHnm of Hnlo _ 11' Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit Date: 3/27/1 X:IDI-GEOIGINTWII GINT PROJECTSI28-00650. GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN 13 ENGINEERING 13 TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-20 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488110 Y=150167 (ft.) Hammer Drilling,1/24/13 Com feed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT MC COH _ Other Tests Depth rn o N60 (°�°) (Pst) (Pcf) U Or Remarks = LU w REC ROD ACt Core Formation Elev. Classification a 0 0 ° : O p ��) O . r�ea. k or Member 0.7 8" Bituminous pavement LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown to brown, frozen, 2 2.0 A -1-b, fill 3 8 5 LOAMY FINE SAND, brown, frozen to 3' then damp, loose 8 5 to medium dense. A-2-4, alluvium or fill 17 7 9.0 10 LOAMY SAND, brown, damp, medium dense, A-2-4, alluvium 24 6 11.0 RnMnm of Nnlo _ 11' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127/13 X:101-GEOIGINTM1 GINT PROJECTS128-00650.GPJ I AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. -Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG KU��UA�UU�� UUU�� ~°"=n=w=,~- "=~°"°"��~~"� U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk High waylLocation 7c, Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-21 (Surveyed) Location , ft. ILT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488210 Y=150511 (ft-) Hammer Drilling 1/25113 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC COH (PsO (PcO Other Tests U") Or Remarks Depth Lu EX. Formation Elev. Q or Member SLIGHTLY ORGANIC LOAM, trace roots, dark brown, 34 2.0 X PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, stiff to firm, A-6, fill X 'X X SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, a little LOAM, brownish gray, damp, loose, A-2-4, fill 'X X 11.5 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray and dark brown, damp, firm, 13.5 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray, moist, firm, A-6, till 18.5 SAND, brown, saturated, medium dense, A -11-b, alluvium 23.0 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, a little gray, damp, hard, 25.5 Bottom of Hole - 25.5' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3. 0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units ©AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-22 (Surveyed) Location , , ft, LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488139 Y=150677 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/29/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT M-) MC N COH (PsO Y *0 Other Tests U"): Or Remarks Depth o = ° REC < ROD ACL Core Formation Q- UJ c ° Elev. Classification o o t%) (a) 00 reak:. c or Member X LOAM, trace roots, dark brown, frozen, A-6, fill 27 2.0 LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen to 2.5', A-2-4, fill 7 4.0 'x 5 X PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, stiff, A-6. till 9 11 6.5 SAND, brown, damp, medium dense, A -1-1b, alluvium 20 6 9.0 X 10 x ' . 17 12 "X X 6 11 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, wet, very stiff to firm, X A-2-4, till 15 X•: 6 15 18.0 x X x SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, wet, loose, 20 z A-2-4, alluvium 9 23 21.0 x Bottom of Hole - 21' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127/13 X:101-GEDGINTW 1 GINT PROJECM26-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING a TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project 0.6 Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. .............. Ground Elevation 1.0 2.0 LOAMY SAND, dark brown, frozen, A-2-4, fill PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, dark brown, frozen, A-2-4, fill CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-23 13 x (Surveyed) Location � � ft. LT LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, damp, medium dense, A -1-b, fill Drill Machine 33 19 3 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488027 Y=150825 (ft.) Hammer 24 26 24 4 7 7 Drilling 1/30/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60(�o) MC 0 COH (psO Y (pct) _ c53Or Other Tests Remarks Depth o'', = Core Formation ° Elev. Classification o o .. f ra).... .:,:.#it)...... real;. or Member Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTlM1 GINT PROJECM26-00650.GPJ 0.6 7" Bituminous pavement .............. 9 1.0 2.0 LOAMY SAND, dark brown, frozen, A-2-4, fill PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, dark brown, frozen, A-2-4, fill 13 x 4.0 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, damp, medium dense, A -1-b, fill 19 3 5-- 10-- 11.0 LOAMY SAND, brown, damp, medium dense, A-2-4, fill 24 26 24 4 7 7 Rnttnm of "An _ 11, Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTlM1 GINT PROJECM26-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units ElAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-24 (Surveyed) Location ft, LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488018 Y=150951 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Com feted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N60 MC (°i) COH (psf) Y (pcf) _ U")Or Other Tests Remarks Depth o = w REG F'QtJ AGL Core Formation Elev. Classification o o ;fel e) ftt) reale � or Member SLIGHTLY ORGANIC SILT LOAM, trace roots, dark brown, 42 frozen, A-6, topsoil or fill 2.0 LOAM, dark brown and brown, frozen, A-6-7, till or fill 15 4.0 x . 5 x" X 17 11 X x X 27 8 x SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, medium 10 % .: dense to dense, laminations of plastic sandy loam at around 34 8 x" 15', A-2-4, till x 32 8 15 40 7 16.0 x'. Bottom of Hole - 16' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTM1 GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING 0 TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. nk Highway/Location 7Cc,SAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Boring No. B-25 Ground Elevation (Surveyed) ) Location , , ft. LT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488045 Y=151117 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N60 MC (V.) COH (pso Y (pct) _ o Other Tests Or Remarks w o Depth Elev. �, o w Classificationtk o REO fQD _... Ail-L .....:::::. pre Formation or Member 5 10 0.7 1.5 2.0 11.0 8.25" Bituminous pavement 8 10 8 3 16 20 24 18 27 LOAMY SAND, dark brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill X LOAM, brown, frozen, A-6, fill SILT LOAM, grayish brown to brown and gray mottled, frozen to 3.5', firm to stiff, A-6, alluvium Bottom of Hole - 11' Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 X:101-GEOIGINTW1 G1NTPR0JECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-26 (Surveyed) Location , ft, LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488014 Y=151293 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC i°io) COH (Psf) Y (pct) _ Other Tests UO) Or Remarks Lu Q Depth Elev. o r Classification ° 2 o o REC (a) , RQD ��) ACL lft) Core reak. o Formation 0 : or Member .x . " PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, trace roots, dark brown, frozen, A-6, fill 18 2.0 x P40=73,P200=26 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, trace roots, brown, frozen, A-2-4, 7 " till 4.0 5 37 5 P40=71, P200=30 LOAMY SAND, light brown to brown, damp, dense. A-2-4, alluvium or till P40=69, P200=29 30 7 9.0 10 12 2 P40=44, P200=6 SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense, A-3, alluvium 23 3 15 22 3 16.0 Bottom of Hole - 16' ------------------------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127/13 XVI-GEOIGINTlM1 GINTPR0JECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING a TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-27 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488017 Y=151682 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N6o MC 0v-) COHOther (PsO (pct) Tests coo Or Remarks Depth 8', ........... ....... Lu zs . R EQ ....... RQ*D:.**** ....... Formation Q Elev. Classification Qac ............ ............. .. ...... or Member –4.5" Bituminous pavement 1.0 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, pieces of bituminous, dark 5 -\brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill > 12 12 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, dark brown to brown, frozen to 3.5', stiff, A-2-4, fill t 14 1 9 6.5 9 9 5 FINE LOAMY SAND, light brown to brown, damp, loose to dense, A-2-4, fill 10-- 31 7 11.0 Pn"— of Pn1. - 11, ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 31271- 113 X:101-GEOIGINTM1 GINT PROJECM28-00650 GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-28 (Surveyed) Location ft, LT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=487925 Y=151829 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= _ SPT NF', MC 016) COH (pst) Y (pct) -Completed _ Other Tests coo Or Remarks Depth o = U-1 e ° REC ROD ; ACL Core Formation Elev. Classification a o o ( �' reale . or Member 0.9 11" Bituminous pavement il X, LOAM, dark brown, frozen, A-6, fill 15 2.0 " SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, frozen to 3.2', 14 3.2 X A-2-4, fill RnHnm of Hnla -'1 9' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date:— 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTW 1 GINT PROJEGT&26-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING a TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B -28A (Surveyed) Location ft, LT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=487929 Y=151829 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Com feted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC (V.) COHY (pso (pci) _ Other Tests conOr Remarks Depth o', = _ ....................... ..................... .................. ............. ............... f?EO #0 D A— Utz.... � Formation ° Elev. Classification W o o ::() (a}) rR.. or Member ........................ 0.5 6.5" Bituminous pavement 1.0 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, pieces of bituminous, dark 5 x ' . brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 2,0 LOAM, dark brown, frozen, A-6, fill 14 x. "x SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, loose, 8 15 A-2-4, fill x' 4.5 x " . PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, moist, firm, A-6, till 7 13 6.5 7 5 LOAMY SAND, brown, damp, loose, A-2-4, alluvium 5 x 7 x " . PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, firm, A-6, till X 12 9.0 10 ; . LOAMY SAND, brown, damp, loose, A-2-4, alluvium 10 5 11.0 - . - . N Bottom of Hole - 11' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTW1 GINTPROJECTS128-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B -29A (Surveyed) Location , , ft, LT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 2 Coordinate: X=487920 Y=151090 (n Hammer Drilling 2/21/13) Completed Latitude (North)=44.931222 Longitude (West)= -93.429972 SPT N6o MC (%) COH (Pst) Y (Pcf) _ Other Tests Q Or Remarks Depth w _ REC ROD , ACL Care Formation Q Elev. Classification z 0 0 ('� l'o) £1 Breaks Q or Member SLIGHTLY ORGANIC SILT LOAM WITH ROOTS, dark 66 x brown frozen, A-4, fill LOAM, trace roots, brown, frozen, A-6, fill X • : 17 2.0 X x ' . LOAM, trace roots, light brown, frozen. A-6, till 11 4.0 x . 5 X ' . PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, a little gray. frozen to 45, 27 11 'x . very stiff, laminations of loamy sand, A-2-4, till 6.5 • LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, damp, very dense, 69 5 A -1-b, alluvium 9.0 X 10 x 38 6 x 41 8 15 X • : 36 7 x" SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp to moist, x dense to medium dense, lenses and laminations of plastic x'. "x " sandy loam around 13', A-2-4, till 31 9 20-- 19 9 X 25 10 25 — — —X-- --------------------------9-- — — — — Index Sheet Code 3.0 (Continued Next Page) Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 X:101-GEOIGINTM1 GINTPROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Mn/DOT GEOTECHNICAL SECTION - LOG & TEST RESULTS SHEET 2 of 2 State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B -29A (Surveyed) SPT MC COH Y _ Other Tests Depth o' N6o 00 (psO *0 coo Or Remarks = Formation Q Elev. =� Classification a 0 0 :'o E :.... Ela}:'#t>.::: r;k or Member x 25 11 26.0 END OF BORING -------------------------------------------------------- Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTW1 GINTPR0JECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING TESTING, INC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-30 (Surveyed) Location , , ft, LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488112 Y=150899 (nHammer Drilling 1/30/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT MC COH _ Other Tests Depth o c N60 °io) (Psf) *0 6 Or Remarks T ............ LU ° E REC RQD ACL Core Formation oElev. Classification °a) tit Break � : or Member oota SLIGHTLY ORGANIC SILT LOAM, trace roots, dark brown, 22 1.0 frozen, A-6, fill x.. LOAM, dark brown, frozen, A-6, fill 2.0 13 'x 11 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray and brown, frozen, A-2-4, fill 5 X 13 6.5 X x 14 12 10 X PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, trace roots, brown, damp, stiff to 16 13 very stiff, A-6, till x". 21 13 14.0 X ' X 15 x". 37 9 X SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, dense, A-2-4, X X" till 20 X" "X .: 35 8 21.0 Bottom of Hole - 21' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTwII GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-31 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=487950 Y=150628 Hammer Drilling 2/1/13 Com Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N6o MC (5) COH (PsO (pct) Other Tests Q')' Or Remarks Depth Lu . . . .............. ................ Formation Q Elev. Classification Q ..... .......... ... ... ...... ... ... - ........ .............. .. . ........ .... i.4 or] or Member 0.6 7.5" Bituminous pavement LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 4 2.0 SAND, light brown, frozen to 4', A -1-b, fill 3 4.0 51 ''1 N 6 1 10 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, firm to stiff, A-6, fill IYI 11 1 13 10T 11.0 .'l IX 5 t 13 Bottom of Hole - 11' --------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3,72;113 X -GEUGINTMI G1NTPR0JECT&26-00650.GPJ :01 �2 AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-32 (Surveyed) Location ft, LT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=487902 Y=150697 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N60 MC (io) COH (psf) (pcf) _ in Other Tests Or Remarks Depth o = CL Lu w ° 2 REG ROD , ACL Care Formation E/ev. _� Classification o o <(J (a) itt; (Break 02: or Member 0.6 7" Bituminous pavement LOAMY SAND, dark brown, frozen, A-2-4, fill 4 2.0 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, frozen to 3', A -1-b, fill 6 40 5 'x ' . PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, firm, A-2-4. fill 5 12 6.0 X . X. X•: 9 12 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, trace roots, brown, damp, stiff. x ' . A-2-4, fill X' 10 14 11 Bottom of Hole - ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTM1 GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING a TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-33 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488179 Y=150764 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Com le ted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60(I)SO MC COH Y (Pct) _ Other Tests 6 Or Remarks Depth o', = Lu R Formation Elev. Classification or Member x SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, trace roots, dark 8 ] brown, frozen, A-2-4, fill 2.0 12 5t PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, frozen then damp, stiff to I X I 9 t 11 x very stiff, A-6, till or fill V v iV"i 9.0 LOAM, brown, a little light brown and dark brown, damp, 10 x very stiff, laminations of silt loam, A-6, alluvium 27 12 11.0 Bottom of Hole -11' --------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINT1 GWT PROJECTSI28-00650.GPJ Wl AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING El TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-34 (Surveyed) Location , , ft, LT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488235 Y=150944 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 2/1/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N6o MC COH (pst) Y (pcf) _ ri) Other Tests : Or Remarks Depth o a ............ c° REC ROD' ACL Core Formation Elev. Classification a 0 0 q (/a) (, u) , _ (tt1 real< Q or Member 0.6 7" Bituminous pavement LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 7 2.0 'x SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, frozen to 4', 8 X A-2-4, fill 4.0 x . 5 x 'X 16 10 X' X PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown to dark brown, damp, very 16 13 x" stiff to stiff, A-2-4, fill 10 X • : 12 9 11.5 x ' x ' . PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, pieces of wood, brown, damp, 6 14 firm, A-6, till or fill 14.0 x' 15 SILT LOAM, brown, moist, firm, A-6, alluvium or till 8 25 16.0 Bottom of Hole - 16' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINT 1 GINT PROJECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERINGAK�ER|CANENG|NEER|NGTEST|NG' INC.-K�n8}OTTEK�PLATE �� TESTING, |NC ' . SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S.Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk High waylLocation Boring No. Ground Elevation I CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) � B-35 (Surveyed) Location ft. ILT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488386 Y=150990 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 2/1/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC (Y.) COH (PSO (PCO Other Tests 66' Or Remarks Depth Q Elev. Classification 0.6 7" Bituminous pavement LOAMY SAND, dark brown, frozen, A-24, fill 7 2.0 LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen to 35, A-2-4, fill 4.0 oSILT LOAM, brown and gray, firm, A-6, alluvium or fill o z* ».» - 48 11 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, hard mfirm, x-2-4. 4 | till or fill 109 10 t 11.0 __________ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-36 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 , , Coordinate: X=488439 Y=151077 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/31/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N60 MC (°i°) COH ii3sfi �pcf) Other Tests COO Or Remarks Depth o iz- a ......... r ° REC RQD ACL Core Y 0. Formation Q Elev. J Classification o o (, } (W ift) 1 reak.. Q : or Member 4" Bituminous pavement 3 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen. A -1-b, fill 0.5 LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 6 2.0 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, frozen to 4', 10 " . A-2-4, fill 4.0 5 X PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, gray, damp, very stiff. A-2-4. fill 6.5 18 11 X '.'. 27 1 9 10 'X 24 9 x SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, medium dense, A-2-4, till or fill x•. x 24 9 15t I'x ..1 I X I 23 t 8 oUuvin cn rlUlC - 10 Moved 12'S due to utilities --------------------------------------------- —F Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTw11 GINT PROJECTS128-00650. AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING a TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-37 (Surveyed) Location � � ft. LT Drill Machine 1 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488680 Y=151239 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/31/13 Comp/ ted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC (%) COH (I)SO(pcf) Y _ Other Tests 60)OrRemarks Depthm = oo :... .. .:. w ° f C ROD. AC fort? Formation Elev. Classification ,., Y�.- _ or Member 4.25" Bituminous pavement 4 0.7 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 5 2.0 7 X x" 5 x 14 6 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, frozen to 4' x then damp, medium dense, A-2-4, till or fill x " 19 8 x' x 10 x 18 7 Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit Date: 3/27/1 X:101-GEO�GINTW1 GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-38 (Surveyed) Location , ft, LT Drill Machine 33 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488926 Y=151362 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 2/1/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT Ngo MC (i) COH_ (Psf) (pct) Other Tests Or Remarks Depth o = a w ... ......... w _ °i � REC ROD ASL Cure Y � : Formation Q Elev. =I Classification = Q- 0 0 (� � t �) i ) reale.: or Member 0.6 7" Bituminous LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen. A -1-b, fill 3 2.0 x'. x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, frozen to 3', A-2-4, fill 10 4.0 5t I.x . 11 I X 17 t 15 LOAM, brown, dark brown and gray, damp to moist, firm, A-6, fill jy�8 1 17 10 I I•x-,I I X I 4 T 17 Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 I XV 1-GEOIGINT lM 1 G1NT PROJECTW8-00650. GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN 13ENGINEERING 13 TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-41 (Surveyed) Location ft. LT Drill Machine 91 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488714 Y=149251 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/4/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC (/) COHY (Psf) (PCO _ Other Tests c Or Remarks Depth o = Ore Formation Elev. -� Classification o o,} (a} Ott] teak or Member 3.5" Bituminous pavement LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen, A-2-4, fill 5 1.7 3 P40=93, P200=8.8 FINE SAND, light brown, damp, frozen to 2', loose, A-3, fill 8 4 4.0 x . 5 x ' . 8 10 x " " PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, dark brown, damp, firm, A-2-4, fill P40=93, P200=30 x 5 14 8.0 LOAMY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, A-2-4, fill 15 12 10 10.0 x P40=87, P200=45 x LOAM, brown, wet, stiff to hard, A-6, till 15 17 12.5 x 23 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, damp, dense, 40 7 A -1-b, alluvium 14.0 x " " P40=31, P200=9.8 15 X " PLASTIC SANDY LOAM AND GRAVEL, brown, moist, 24 12 medium dense, A -1-b, alluvium 16.0 1.. 11 15 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, gray, wet, medium dense to 3 19 X very loose, A -1-b, alluvium 20-- 5 12 22.0 Bottom of Hole - 22' ------------------------------------------------------------ Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTM1 GINTPR0JECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING a TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-42 (Surveyed) Location ft, LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488289 Y=150868 (ft) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= o SPT N60 MC M-) COH (Psf) r (Pct) _ Other Tests � Or Remarks Depth o = Q- .......... REC RQD ACL Core Formation ° Elev. Classification (it) reale or Member .............. 0.6 6" Bituminous pavement LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, pieces of bituminous, dark 3 2.0 brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill x' SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM. brown, frozen to 3.5', 13 x A-2-4, till or fill 4.0 •w 5 x LOAM, brown, a little gray. damp, very stiff, A-6, till or fill 20 t 13 6.5 PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, very stiff, A-6, till 10 t 11.0X 16 t 17 Rnffnm of {-Inlc _ 11' `/ v Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X.101-GEOI GINTlM 1 GINT PROJECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-43 (Surveyed) Location v f ft, LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488493 Y=151013 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/25/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC (Y.) COH (PSO Y (pct) _ 62) Other Tests Or Remarks Depth o' = ua,_ ........... 0 F2C f+'Utl+ . Formation ° Elev. = Classification a „.Ei.... ...,)..... .. �' k.. _ or Member 0.7 8" Bituminous pavement 1.2 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 4 2 0 LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 5 x . x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, frozen to 3.5', A-2-4, fill 11 4.0 x . " 5 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, pieces of wood, brown, damp, medium dense, A-2-4, fill 11 7 6.0 „ x LOAM, brown, moist, stiff, A-6, till 13 12 x " 9.0 x .x . 10 x PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, very stiff, A-24, till 21 12 11.0 Bottom of Hole - 11' --------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/1 X:101-GEOIGINTW 1 GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Boring No. B44 Ground Elevation (Surveyed) Location , , ft. LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488723 Y=151175 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Completed Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT MC N (9/-) COH (psf) Y *19 _ Other Tests $ Or Remarks = Q Depth Elev. o Classification E o o REC (��) RQD f°a) ACL (ft) Core Breaksor Formation Member 1.0 4.0 12' Bituminous pavement 4 5 10 LOAMY SAND AND GRAVEL, dark brown, damp, frozen, A -1-b, fill 5t I.".d Y1 18 t 6 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, medium dense, A-2-4, fill V 24 8 x 10 X " 21 6 11.0 Rnttnm of Hnla - 11' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date73;2 7/13 X:101-GEOIGINTWII GINT PROJECTS 28-00650 GP.l AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERINGTESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) B-45 (Surveyed) Location � e ft. LT Drill Machine 69 SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488952 Y=151313 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 1/30/13 Com leted Latitude (North)= Longitude (West)= SPT N60 MC (Y.) COHY (pst) (PCO _ Other Tests 62) Or Remarks Depth o' = . w w C F.W. , ...0...L.... Core Formation E/ev. _� Classification o or Member 0.9 11" Bituminous pavement 6 LOAMY SAND, brown, frozen, A -1-b, fill 2.0 X PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, frozen to 3.5', A-2-4, till or 12 fill 4.0 5 x 8 t 8 x SLIGHTLY PLASTIC SANDY LOAM, brown, damp, loose, x A-2-4, till or fill 7 1 13 9.0 10TSILT LOAM, gray, a little brown, moist, firm, A-6, alluvium �/ 8 t 20 11.0 RnHnm of I-Inic _ 11' Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/1 X:101-GEOIGINTW1 G/NT PROJECTW8-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc, Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation State Project T� CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) P-1 (Surveyed) Location � � ft. LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=487868 Y=151121 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 2/26/13 Com leted Latitude (North)=44.931308 Longitude (West)= -93.430174 SPT MC COH Y Other Tests Depth o ° N60 N (psO (pcO UO) Or Remarks = w ° REC t?QIJ AW Cure Formation Classifcatione. . or Member Ice 1.5 2.2 Water Top of Muck ------ ----------------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X.101-GEOI GI NTWI i GINT PROJECT&28-00650. GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING AK8ER|CANEN{�|NEER|NGTESTING, INC.-K�n/DOTTEyNPLATE ��_� TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S.Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk High waylLocation Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) P-2 (Surveyed) Location , ft. LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=487947 Y=150913 (ft-) Hammer Drilling 2/26/13 Completed Latitude (North) =44.930738 Longitude (West) =-93.429869 SPT N60 MC COH (PsO Oct? Other Tests Or Remarks Depth Formation Elev. Classification or Member Ice 1.5 Water 2.3 5-- Top of Muck 7.7 Bottom of Hole - 77 ------------------------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3127113 AMERICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE ENGINEERING a TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) P-3 (Surveyed) Location � � ft, LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=489443 Y=149751 (ft) Hammer Drilling 2/26/13 Completed Latitude (North)=44.927553 Longitude (West)= -93.424091 o SPT N60 MC (%) COH (pso Y (pco _ c°n : Other Tests Or Remarks Depth o = � o m o REQ fi'Q� Aft Otte' Formation CL Lu Elev. Classification o o >(� f°�) {) reek c or Member 19.5" Ice 1.6 Water 3.5 5 Top of Muck 6.8 Bottom of Hole - 6.8' ------------------------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit Date: 3/27/13 X.V1-GE0IGINTM1 GINT PROJECT&28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 'Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UU��8��UU� ��UUU�� "�n�w��u~ o��nwv��u~o� U.S. CUstOnO8rV Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) P-4 (Surveyed) Location ft. ILT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488486 Y=149660 Hammer Drilling 2/26/13 Completed Latitude (North) =44.92 7302 Longitude (West) =-93.42 7785 SPT MC COH Other Tests Depth 0') 1Z N60 (V.) (PSO (PCO con Or Remarks a: or Member 0.5 Ice 0.6 --\Ground frozen Bottom of Hole - 0.58' AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING. INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) P-5 (Surveyed) Location � r ft. LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Drilling 2/26/13 Coordinate: X=488606 Y=149415 (ft) Hammer Completed Latitude (North)=44.926630 Longitude (West)= -93.427322 o SPT N60 MC ii) COH (psf) Y Wcf) Other Tests C20 Or Remarks Depth +a REC ROD ACL Core Y Formation LU °c = m ° Elev. Classification o o (% 0),:,t) teak or Member Ice 1.0 Ground frozen Bottom of Hole - 1.17' ----------------------------------------------------------- Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit: Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GEOIGINTV01 GINT PROJECM28-00650.GPJ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. - Mn/DOT TEMPLATE SUBSURFACE BORING LOG UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) P-6 (Surveyed) Location , , ft. LT Drill Machine SHEET 1 of 1 Coordinate: X=488645 Y=149329 (ft.) Hammer Drilling 2/26/13 Com leted Latitude (North)=44.926394 Longitude (West)= -93.427171 SPT MC COH Y — Other Tests Depth o'3 N60 0 (Y.) (PSO (pct) � Or Remarks = 0 #+?�JOcir Formation Elev. Classification : t° ).;.. a}.... ) r :. � : or Member Ice 1.7 2.0 Water Top of Muck 5 5.0 Rnffnm of Hnla Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class: Rock Class: Edit Date: 3/27/13 X:101-GMGINTW 1 GINT PROJECTS128-00650.GPJ R A:.......... -G- AAAI Y IWI Sample ID: Field Sample: Date Sampled: Source: Material: Specification: Sampling Method: 28 -00650 -W3 -S1 B-26, 2.0'-3.5' D422 with Organic Date of Issue: 2/25/2013 Description Method Resuli Limits Dispersion device ASTM 0 422 - 07 Dispersion time (min) Shape Hardness % Passing AMERICAN American Engineering Tesling, Inc ..... EN c, I N ri. F. R I N 550 Cleveland Ave North Saint Paul, MIN 55114 .... TESTING, IN( Phone: 654-659-9001 11 oll I-ree, 800-9Y2-6364 Fax G51-659-1379 91 No.20 w.vw ainengtest.corn No.40 13 No.80 Material Test Re[,p)(c)),f--Jl-' No, 100 40 Client: WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC 26 60 Project: 28-00650 ..... 10 40 CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) R A:.......... -G- AAAI Y IWI Sample ID: Field Sample: Date Sampled: Source: Material: Specification: Sampling Method: 28 -00650 -W3 -S1 B-26, 2.0'-3.5' D422 with Organic Date of Issue: 2/25/2013 Description Method Resuli Limits Dispersion device ASTM 0 422 - 07 Dispersion time (min) Shape Hardness % Passing % Passing 100 ..... .. ........ ....... -0 .... 95 80 91 No.20 70 No.40 13 No.80 45 No, 100 40 No.200 26 60 ........................ .......... ..... 10 40 ... *''* ....... 30 \N .. ............ 20 ...... 10 . .. .. .... ... ........ 01 N/A Form No: 16909, Report No: MAT:28-OW50-W-S I o co 6 7 Z zz Z Z' V, Sieve Method: ASTM D 422 - 01 Drying by: Oven Date Tpsied: 2/25/2013 Sieve Size % Passing Y2in 100 3/8in 98 No.11. 95 No. 10 91 No.20 85 No.40 13 No.80 45 No, 100 40 No.200 26 LfinKF) by Page 1 of I Q206-ioiidESTL 0 hd0FST 0;11 CC: American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Ave North Saint Paul, WIN 55114 Phone. 654-659-9001 IToll Free: 800-972-6364 Fax: 651-659-1379 www-arnenplest.com Date of Issue: 2/25/2013 Sample Details Other Test Results Sample ID: 28 -00650 -W3 -S2 Description Method Result Limits Field Sample: B-26, 4.5'-6.0' Dispersion device ASTM D 422 - 07 Date Sampled: Dispersion time (min) Source: Shape Material: Hardness Specification: D422 with Organic Sampling Method: Method: ASTM D 422 - 07 Drying by: Oven Date Tested: 2/25/2013 Sieve Size Axn[CAN %in ENG INEERINC, 3/8in TrSTING, INC, N o.4 96 Mat@U'W Test �_'eporr c Client: 11VSB & ASSOCIATES, INC Project: 28-00650 71 CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) 46 Minneapolis, MN CC: American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Ave North Saint Paul, WIN 55114 Phone. 654-659-9001 IToll Free: 800-972-6364 Fax: 651-659-1379 www-arnenplest.com Date of Issue: 2/25/2013 Sample Details Other Test Results Sample ID: 28 -00650 -W3 -S2 Description Method Result Limits Field Sample: B-26, 4.5'-6.0' Dispersion device ASTM D 422 - 07 Date Sampled: Dispersion time (min) Source: Shape Material: Hardness Specification: D422 with Organic Sampling Method: Method: ASTM D 422 - 07 Drying by: Oven Date Tested: 2/25/2013 Sieve Size % Passing Limits %in 100 3/8in 99 N o.4 96 No.10 92 No.20 84 No.40 71 No.80 46 No.100 42 No.200 30 Comments N/A Form No: 18909, Report No: MAT:28-00650-W3-S2 ® 2000-2011 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com P20e 1 of 1 bmRICA\ IFNcmr,r,Rlf� TESTINIG, LN, Mateftl Testi Client: WSB & ASSOCIATFS, INC Project: 28-00650 CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Minneapolis, MNI !��.»ptte Details Sample ID: 28 -00650 -W3 -S3 Field Sample: B-26, 7.0'-8.5' Date Sampled: Source: Material: Specification: D422 with Organic Sampling Method: parfide American Engineering'resting, Inc 550 Cleveland Ave North Saint Paul, AAN 55114 Phone: 654-659-9001 1 foil Free: 800-972-6364 Fax 651-659-1379 vn•;w amengtest com i Date of Issue 2/25/2013 Description _ Method Result Limits Dispersion device ASTM D 422 - 07 Dispersion time (min) Shape Hardness Method: ASTM D 422 - 07 Crying by: Oven Date Tested: 2/25/2013 Aeve Size % @assing Limits ''/.in 100 3/8in 100 No.4 95 No.10 90 No.20 83 No.40 69 No.80 44 No. 100 40 No.200 2.9 Comments N/A — -- ._ - -- Form No: 18909, Report No: MAT:28-00650-W3 S:i ? 2buo-2071 UE ST�ab by S(ec6aQFST com Page 1 or 1 ENGINEERING L' a I,GINEERING ,.. TFSTING, INC, Pc-poldr Client: WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC CC: Project: 28-00650 CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Minneapolis, MN American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Ave North Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: 654-659-9001 ITO Free: 800-972-6364 Fax: 651-659-1379 Date of Issue: 2/25/2013 Details Other fest Result Sample ID: 28 -00650 -W3 -S4 Description Method Result Limits Field Sample: B-26, 9.5'-11.0' Dispersion device ASTM D 422 - 07 Date Sampled: Dispersion time (min) Source: Shape Material: Hardness Specification: D422 with Organic Sampling Method: Particle z z z z zo Z 2 Sieve Method: ASTM D 422 - 07 Drying by: Oven Date Tested: 2/25/2013 Sieve Size % Passing Limits %in 100 3/8in 98 No.4 94 No.10 85 No.2-0 67 No.40 44 No.80 17 No, 100 14 No.200 6.0 "SeUititT3C"ntS N/A Form No 18909, Report No: MAT.28-00650-W3-S4 © 2000-2011 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Page 1 of 1 AMERICAN _` N Ameiican Engineering resting, Inc 550 Cleveland Ave North FwmE jm i Saint Paul, NN 55114 rp r j Phone: 654-659-9001 -roll Free: 800-972-6364 TFs 1 iN, ir;� l N' Fax: 651-659-1379 vnwr.amenatest com Mate0al Test Rco(pcnli: Client: WSB & ASSOCIATF_S, INC CG: Project: 28-00650 CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Dale of Issue: 2/25/2.013 Minneapolis, MN Sample ID: 28 -00650 -W3 -S5 Description Method Result Field Sample: B-41, 2.0' 4.0' Dispersion device ASTM D 422 - 07 Date Sampled: Dispersion time (min) Source: Shape Material: Hardness Specification: D422 with Organic Sampling Method: " z z z z Z. 0 z z Sieve Method: ASTM D 422 - 07 Guying by: Oven Bate -rester I: 2/25/2013 :iiev(-: Size % PISshly I-Ilrilts %tin 100 3/bin 100 No.4 100 No.10 100 No.20 99 No.40 93 No.80 39 No.100 28 No200 8.8 N/A Form No: 18909, Repot No: MAT:28-00650-W3-S5 - O 2000-2011 OESTLab by Sp=_cfraOEST com Page 1 of 1 kim RICAN Ft\1t,iN,t`.RING TFSTIRIG, I `r i Client: WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC Project: 28-00650 CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Minneapolis, MN CC,__ American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Ave North Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: 654-659-9001 IToll Free: 800-972-6364 Fax: 651-659-1379 Date of Issue: 2/25/2013 Sample Do -tails Other Test Result Sample ID: 28 -00650 -W3 -S8 Description Method Result Limits Field Sample: B-41, 14.0'-16.0' Dispersion device ASTM D 422 - 07 Date Sampled: Dispersion time (min) Source: Shape Material: Hardness Specification: D422 with Organic Sampling Method: Particle Size Distribution Method: ASTM D 422 - 07 Drying by: Oven Date Tested: 2/25/2013 Sieve Size % Passing Limits %in 93 3/8in 89 No.4 80 No.10 63 No.20 41 No.40 31 No.80 19 No. 100 16 No.200 9.8 Comments N/A Form No: 18909, Report No: MAT:28-00650-W3-S8 ® 2000.2011 QESTLab by SpeclraQEST.com Page 1 of 1 1AMERICANEV'c.INE E?RIN _ TESTI\'(", Iti\ -. Mete rW Test Client: WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC Project: 28-00650 CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Minneapolis, MN ,SalT)P1e DetlF iIS Sample ID: 28 -00650 -W3 -S6 Field Sample: B-41, 6.0'-8.0' Date Sampled: Source: Material: Specification: D422 with Organic Sampling Method: American Engineering Testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Ave North Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone. 654-659-90011101 Free: 800-972-6364 Fax 651 -659.1379 vnvvc.amenntr>l cou Date of Issue: 2/25/2013 Description Dispersion device Dispersion time (min) Shape Hardness 7N/A Method Result Limits ASTM D 422 - 07 Method: ASTM D 422 - 07 Drying by: Oven Date Tested: 2/25/2013 Siev(::i12P. n 3/bin No.4 No.10 No.20 No.40 No.80 No.'100 No.200 °fin Passing 100 100 98 95 88 74 45 41 30 I_ i rn i'i:3 Form No: 18909, Report No: MAT:28-00850-W3-S6 2000 2011 t7ESTLab by SpectraCEST com' -- - -- - ----- - - - Page 1 of 1 EN(101NEE.RING TESTING, INC, Material Test Report Client: WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC Project: 28-00650 CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) Minneapolis, MN CC: American Engineering testing, Inc. 550 Cleveland Ave North Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: 654-659-9001 ITO Free: 800-972-6364 Fax: 651-659-1379 vnvw.antenglesl.corn art Nu: MAT: 2,840WAU1447 Date of Issue: 2/25/2013 Sample Details Other Test Results Sample ID: 28 -00650 -W3 -S7 Description Method Result Limits Field Sample: B-41, 10.0'-12.0' Dispersion device ASTM D 422 - 07 Date Sampled: Dispersion time (min) Source: Shape Material: Hardness Specification: D422 with Organic Sampling Method: o0 C N 0 M Z G ^ G � Z Z Z Z Z Z Sieve Method: ASTM D 422 - 07 Drying by: Oven Date Tested: 2/25/2013 Sieve Size % Passing Limits '/yin 100 3/8i n 100 No.4 99 No.10 98 No.20 95 No.40 87 No.80 65 No. 100 60 No.200 45 commefits N/A Fours No. 18909, Report No: MAT:28-00650-W3-S7 © 2000-2011 QESTLab by SpeclraQEST.com v Page 1 of 1 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Re%,ie-*% Hennepin CSAH 61 Improvements — Hopkins. Minnetonka. MN AMERICAN March 27, 2013 ENGINEERING Report No. 28-00650 TESTING, INC. Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Report No. 28-00650 B.1 REFERENCE This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE', of which, we are a member firm. B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. B.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. 1 ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733: www.asfe.or¢ Appendix B — Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Report No. 28-00650 B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers revie\a field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. B.2.6 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from Judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. B.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences. and by providing construction observation. B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions. the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognizes that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter. advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. B.2.10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes. geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. B.2.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques. and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations: e.g.. about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Appendix B— Page 2of2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC