Loading...
AF-SOIL - 43155r,r l y � � A Geotechnical Evaluation Report %r Counselor Realty Proposeci Single Family Residences, Riv�rview Heights, Fri�ley, Minnesota � �� Project BPDX-9�-012A February 13, 199� Braun Intertec Corporation � � SM �. . eRauN I NTE RTEC February 13, 1995 Mr. Mitch Moe Counselor Realty 7766 Highway b5 Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Moe: � r �t .' � ��� '� �: ,,* q �`��': Bfn1lfl �M�OftOC �.OfpOf�1011 . . , ` � . . 245 East Roselawn Avenue SI. Paul, Minnesola 55117-1943 ,�, �i,.�� 612.4873245 fax:487-1812 Engineers and Scientists Sarving Ihe Built and Nafural Environments' Project BPDX-9S-012A Re: Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Single Family Residences, Three lots in the Riverview Heights Area, Fridley, MN The geotechnical evaluation you authorized on January 30, 1995, has been completed. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide data to Counselor Realty for distribution to prospective buyets regarding subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and recommendations for design and construction of future homes. Results �"soit"��i�"ti�� were performed in each o€ �e subjett Ze�s °iaeste�,, Il�ovef Streets u►-aortl�east &ridley. The borings encountered 1 to 3 feet of topsoil over alluvial sands and silts and clayey sand till. The sands encountererl in the upper 5 to 10 feet of the borings were typically very loose to loose. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 7 to 13 feet below the surface. These depths conespond to elevations ranging from approximately 807 to 810. Recommendations We' -'•"' remavin�,all to�s,�il fr�om��b�l$�►.w�,the ro sed haus� : °`�. g ilie liA �I' j�lAa sands prior ta placing backfill ancl required £or p g�}des. e recommend surface compacting all footing ueas when exposed during construction. Itis aur opiaion that footings supported on the underlying recompact� sand, or on compacted fill, can �e +�ig�ed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure up t�p Z 040 unds pet square fobt. Baserl on proposed floor elevations relative to water levels encountered in the horings, it does not appear that groundwater will affect house designs or construction. Counselor Realty Project BPDX-95-012A February 13, 1995 Page 2 Remari:s P(ease refer to the attached geotechnical evaluation report for more detai2s. If you have any questions, or would like additional services, please call Phil Peterson at (612) 487-7020 or Chuck Hubbard at (612) 487-7014. Sincerely, ����"---/� � Phillip J. Peterson Field Se ' es Engineer . u bard, PE, CPG Project Engineer-Geologist Attachment: Geotechnical Evaluation Report PJPk�: �lrpu1b95� 13. ] Table of Contenl.s DESCription Page A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A.1. Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A.3.Scope .............................................. 1 A.4. Documents Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A.S. Boring Locations and Elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Results ................................................... 2 B.1.Lobs ............................................... 2 B.2.Soils .............................................. 2 B.3. Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. Analysis and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C.1. Proposed Conswction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C.2. HUD-FHA Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C.3. Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 C.4. Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C.S. Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C.6. Additional Recommendations for Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 D. Field Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 D.1. Drilling and Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 D.2. Soil Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 D.3.GroundwaterObservations ................................. � E. General Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 E.1. Basis of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 E.2. Review of Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 E.3. Groundwater Fluctuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 E.4. Use of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 E.S. Level of Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Professional Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Professional Certification • Appendix Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets Descriptive Terminology • • .� �. I NTE RTEC A. Introduciion Bwun Intertoc Corpowfion 245 Easf Roselawn Avenue St. Paul, Mianesoto 55117-1943 612-487�245 faz:487-1812 Engineers ond Scientists Setving Ihe Builf and Nofural Environmenrs' A.1. Project Counselor Realty plans to sell three residential lots located along Buffalo, Cheryl, and Dover Streets in the Riverview Heights Area of Fridley, Minnesota (hereafter referred to individually as the Buffalo, Cheryl, and Dover sites). The lou are to be developed for single family homes. A.2. Purpose The purpose of this geotechnical evaluation was to provide daca to Counselor Realty for distribution to prospective buyers regarding subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and recommendations for design and construction of future homes. A.3. Scope Our services were provided under the terms of our General Conditions dated August 1, 1993, and were performed in general accordance with our January 26, 1995, proposal to Mr. Mitch Moe with Counselor Realty. Our scope of services consisted of: • Staking boring locations and measuring surface elevations at the boring locations. • Coordinatinb the locatinb of underground utilities near the boring locations. • Drilling six peneuation test borings to depths of approximately 15 feet. • Classifying samples obtained from the borings and preparing boring logs. • Evaluating the soil boring data. • Developing recommendations for house pad preparation and for the design of footings. • Preparing this geotechnical evaluation repoR containing the results of our soil borings along with our analysis and recommendations. A.4. Documents Provided A partial copy of an Engineer Plan (no author or date) was provided for each of the proposed house lots. T'he plans showed property boundaries, existing and proposed grades, proposed house pad locations, and elevations of proposed garage slabs and tops of foundation walls. A.S. Boring Locations and Elevations The borings were staked by our field personnel at the locations shown on the attached figures, which are partial reproductions of the aforementioned Engineer Plans. Two borings were performed on each proposed house lot. Counselor Realty Project BPDX-95-012A February 13, 1995 Page 2 Surface elevations at the boring locations were measured by our drill crew using a surveyor's level. Nearby fire hydrants were used as reference elevations. The elevations and locations of the referenced hydrants are described on the attached Log of Boring she�;ts. B. Results B.1. Logs Log of Boring sheets indicatina the depths and identifications of the various soil strata, penetration resistances, and ?roundwater observations are attached. The strata chan�es were inferred from the chanaes in the penetration test samples and auger cuttinbs. It should be noted that the depths shown as changes between the strata are only approximate. The chanbes are likely transitions and the depths of the changes likely vary away from the borinb. Geolobic oribins presented for each stratum on the Lob of Boring shee[s are based on the soil types, blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the depositional history of the area. B.2. Soils B.2.a Strata. At the Buffalo site, Borings ST-1 and ST-2 encountered approximately 1 to 1 1/2 feet of topsoil over alluvial sands. The topsoil was dark brown, moist, and contained roots. The aliuvial sands consisted of silty sand, poorly graded sand with siit, poorly graded sand, and gravelly poorly graded sand. These sands were brown to light brown, moist to 12 feet and then waterbearing. The sands were commonly mottled beginning at about the 9 foot depth. At the Cheryl site, Borings ST-3 and ST-4 encountered approximately 1 to 1 1/2 feet of topsoil over alluvial sands and silts. The topsoil was dark brown to black, moist, and organic. The alluvial soils consisted of silty sand, poorly graded sand with silt, poorly graded sand, sandy silt, and silt with • sand. The sands were grayish brown to brown and moist to waterbearing. The silts, encountered between the 7 and 15 foot depths at boring location ST-3 and between the 14 and 15 foot depths at boring location ST-4, were brown to aray and wet. At the Dover site, Borings ST-5 and ST-6 encountered 1 1/2 to 3 feet of topsoil over alluvial sands, silts and glacial till. The topsoil was dark brown and moist. The alluvial soils consisted of silty sand, poorly braded sand with silt, poorly graded sand, and silt with sand. The glacial till consisted Counselor Realty Project BPDX-95-012A February 13, 1995 Page 3 of clayey sand. The alluvial sands were brown to gray and moist to wet. The glacial soils, encountered between the 12 and 15 foot depths at boring location ST-6 and between the 14 and 15 foot depths at boring location ST-5, were light reddish brown and wet. B.2.b. Penetration Resistances. Penetration resistances recordeti in the alluvial soils ranged from 3 to 36 blows per foot (bp fl indicating these soils were very loose to dense. Penetration resistances recorded in the underlying till ranged from 21 to 30 bpf indicating these soils were medium dense. It should be noted that alluvial soils were generally looser than the glacial soils, with very loose to loose alluvial soils typically within 5 to 10 feet of the surface. B.3. Groundw�ater Groundwater was encountered at depths of 8 or more feet while drilling. After auger withdrawal, each of the borin�s were dry to cave-in depths ranging from 6 to 12 feet. Wet to waterbearing soils were encountered bebinnin� at depths ranging from 7 to 12 feet. Based on our bore hole water level observations and moisture contents of the samples retrieved, it appears that the hydrostatic groundwater surface was at approximately elevation 807 at the Buffalo site, 810 at the Cheryl site, and 808 at the Dover site. C. Analysis and Recommendations , C.1. Proposed Construction We anticipate that the proposed residences will be wood-frame construction with maximum wall loads of one to two kips per linear foot. Soil pressures on conventional strip footings are anticipated to be relatively light, less than 2,000 pounds per square foot (ps�. Proposed grades are shown on the attached figures. • C.2. HLTD-FHA Requirements Mr. Mitch Moe with Counselor Realty has indicated that these residences may be financed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-Federal Housing Administration (HUD-FHA). If any lot will have footin�s on fill soils, or if tt�e depths of the fill soils beneath house or garage slabs will exceed those allowed by FHA's "Minimum Property Standards," HUD Data Sheet 79g regulations will apply. These regulations, titled "Land Development with Controlled Earthwork," require that a soils engineer analyze and interpret a field exploration and laboratory tests and prepare soil engineerinb recommendations. Counselor Realty Project BPDX-95-012A February 13, 1995 Page 4 Based on the proposed slab elevations shown on the Engineer Plans, HUD data sheet 79g will apply to each of the proposed lots. To comply with data sheet 79g requirements, when earthwork commences, a qualified soils engineer should: • Observe the bottoms of excavations prior to placement of bac�ll or fill. • Check that the proposed basement slabs and the groundwater level are separated by a distance of at least 4 feet. • Check the oversizing of excavations beyond building lines. � Observe the types of bac�lls/fills and their placement. � Take field density tests of the backfill/fill layers durinb placement. • Provide engineerino consultation, observation and testinb on a lot-by-lot basis sufficient to state (if warranted) that bacl.�ll/fill areas were graded in substantial accordance with the recommendations and Data Sheet 79g. C.3. Site Preparation C.3.a. Excavations. Vegetation and topsoil should be stripped from below all proposed house pads and adjacent walkway and driveway areas. The borings encountered topsoils at depths ranging from 1 to 3 feet. The actual depth of topsoil should be determined by visual observations at the time of construction. Where requirecl, the excavations should be properly oversized. Oversizing is required where excavations extend below boaom-of-footing grade. In these situations, the excavation must be oversized a minimum of one foot in the horizontal direction for every foot of excavation below bottom-of-footing grade. This oversizing should be measured from the bottom outside edges of the footings. Oversizing is necessary to provide adequate lateral stabitity for the resulting structural fill. Because the underlying silty sands and sands were typicaliy very loose to loose, in accordance with HUD data sheet 79g requirements, we recommend the bottoms of the excavations be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches and surface compacted with a large vibratory compactor. C.3.b. Observations. Prior to spreading backfill or fill, we recommend having all excavation bottoms be observed by a geotechnical engineer or engineering technician working under a geotechnical engineer. The purpose of the observation is to check that the unsuitable materials have been removed to adeyuate depths, proper oversizing has been provided, and the exposed soils are capable of supponing backfill, fill, footings, and slabs. 0 Counselor Realty Project BPDX-95-012A February 13, 1995 Pabe S C.3.c. Available Backfill and Fill. The on-site sands appear suitable for reuse as replacement backfill for stripped topsoil and as additional required fill. Imported fill, if needed to balance quantities, should be similar in composition to the on-site sands. We recommend importing sand having less than 20 percent of the particles by weight passing a 200 sieve. We recommend that bac�ll and fill placed below water or in a wet excavation consist of a granular material having less than 5 percent passing the Z00 sieve and less than 50 percent passing the 40 sieve. C.3.d. Placement and Compaction of Backfill and Fll. We recommend spreading the fill in lifts of 4 to 8 inches, dependinb on the type of compactor and material used. We recommend that all structural bac}.�I1 and fill be placed and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density determined by American Society for Testinb and Materials (ASTM) Method of Test D 698 (standard Proctor). C.4 Footings C.4.a. Depth. To provide adequate frost protection, we recommend [hat perimeter footings bear at least 42 inches below the lowest exterior grades. Exterior footings and unheated footings, such as those for stoops, should be extended ac least 60 inches below the lowest exterior grades. C.4.b. Subgrade Preparation. We recommend surface compacting all footing areas when exposed during construction. Any soil conditions encountered at proposed footing grades which are significantiy different from that indicated by the borings should be further evaluated prior to placing footings. C.4.c. Bearing Pressure. It is our opinion that footings supported on the alluvial sands or on compacted backfill can be sized to exert a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (ps�. This value includes a safety factor of at least three against punching failure. C.4.d. Settlement. We ancicipate total and differential settlement of footings will be less than 3/4 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively, under the assumed loads. Structures similar to the proposed houses can generally tolerate settlements of this maanitude. C.5 Groundwater Based on the current hydrostatic water leveis compared with the proposed grades of the various houses, it appears that broundwater will have no significant affect on the design and construction of [he proposeci homes. 0 Counselor Realty Project BPDX-95-012A February 13, 1995 Page 6 Data Sheet 79g requires that the lowest level floor slab be a minimum of 4 feet above the static groundwater surface determined at the time of the soils exploration. The installation of drain tile is not su�cient to reduce this requirement. Our observations indicate that groundwater surface ranges from about elevation 807 to 810. Based on this data, the lowest floor slab elevations permissible are 811 at the Buffalo site, 814 at the Cheryl site, and 812 at the Dover site. The proposed lower level/basement slabs all appear to be at least 4 feet above groundwater. C.6 Additional Recommendations for Construction We recommend density tests of backfills and fills placed beneath footings, slabs and pavements. Samples of proposed backfill and fill materials should be submitted to our testing laboratory at least three days prior to placement for evaluation of their suitahility and determination of the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density. If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend that good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on soils which have frozen or contain frozen material. No frozen soils should be used as fill. D. Field Procedures D.1. Drilling and Sampling . The penetration test borings were performed on February 3, 1995 with a truck mounted core and auger drill equipped with 3 1/4-inch inside diameter hollow-stem auger. Sampling for the borings was condvcted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils." Using this method, we advanced the bore hole with the hollow-stem auger to the desired test depth. A 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches was then used to drive the standard ' 2-inch split-barrel sampler a total penetration of 1 1/2 feet below the tip of the hollow-stem auger. The blows for the last foot of penetration were recordeci and are an index of soil strength characteristics. Samples were taken at 2 1/2-foot vertical intervals. A representative portion of each sample was ihen sealed in a glass jar. D.2. Soil Classification Soils encountered in the borings were visually and manually classified in the field by the crew chief in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures)." A summary of the_ASTM classification system is attached. All samples were then i � Counselor Realty Project BPDX-95-012A February 13, 1995 Page 7 returned to our laboratory for review of the field classifications by a soils engineer. Representative samples will remain in our o�ce for a period of 60 days to be available for your examination. D.3. Groundwater Observations Immediately after tdking the final samples in the bottoms of the borings, the holes were probed through the hollow-stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater. Immediately afrer withdrawa! of the auger, the holes were again probed and the depths to water or cave-ins were noted. The borings were then immediately backfilled. E. General Recommendations E.1. Basis of Recommendations The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketches. Often, vaziations occur between these borings, the nature and extent of which will not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. A re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report should be made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the chazacteristics of any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs, and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program for the site preparation phase of this project. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings, and will provide continuity of professional responsibility. E.2. Review of Design This report is based on the design of the proposed homes as indicated by the Engineer Plans provided. It is recommended that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the final designs and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes in the design have affected the validity of the recommendations, and whether our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. E.3. Groundwater Fluctuations We made water level observations in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. T'hese data were interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation was relatively shon, and fluctuation in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, flooding, Counselor Realty Project BPDX-95-012A February 13, 1995 Page 8 irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations. E.4. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and the copied parties to use to design the proposed structure and prepar� construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data., analysis and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplatina other structures or purposes contact us. E.�. Level of Care Secvices performed Braun Intertec Corporation personnel for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Professional Certification I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. arles D. Hubbard, PE Registration Number: 21153 Date: February 13, 1995 pjplcdh:Uah\rpts\B95-012A 'L � Descriptive Terminology �� Designation D 2487 — 83 Standard Test Method for CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGlNEERING PURPOSES M � x W 0 Z � u N < J d eo �. Y�uo m t•e uie�u! ousma tne i- n I7S�m) s.e.c. O. I/ 11l10 {�Olf (O�L���tE fO00it1 ��C/Or ppulp�rf. �OC ��ll� COODI<f IM/Or bulp«l� l0 rWD ��( (. �KNlIf �ISI' S IG IT3 ��MS �tO��rt Ou�l f�D011 �-W w'I �p�p yrwtl rltn y�li �i' RI1 yr�p�p �1•fl wlln C1�� �%� ivo•1� y.�pK g•�.el v�L• S�It v-c; /00•1� O�qK r...i .,t� �i.. o. s.ws .,in s to ln ��«. .eo�,.e c�..i .ruo�s � 5�•3M .a�� qr.nea ..�e .�sn s;�i Sy-SL .t71 wwec s�nc �1t� �I�r � Y�$11 pprl� 9��pK LMO �+ir. 1� 1: v-s: 000��r 9•aec i.oe .�v ��... 1��017 e. c� '�co�ic tc '.,�' o. i� 1. H�oil canu�n� ` Ua anc. �o: '.:v. s�ro' to a.w10 nwe. q. i� f�Mf clnn!�it A+4. vie c�e�. swiool L:-6i:, S:•Y. e. li IiiKf �e m9��K. �ac •.�tn o*n�-.�c (�nei• to qrwo nwe. f. It yptl mnuint � 15s yr�Kl. �cc '.+t� g�hel' to yroup nk. J. 11 11tte.Mry �x�tf olat �� n�tc�ec �•e�. toll fs � Clfi:. tiltr cl��. t.' 1/ ypil ca�c�.ny !S 1c t91 plus 4. i[IG, wa '�1tn y�M• p. '��tn srti�l• �nK�ev<. �t wt0a+�onl. �. �} fOil CMU�ef ��(.: Oluf F0. 14;. PMY��nlnllr MK. WC 't�wOr' l0 rOVO �wf. �. 11 wil tant�ms i j0i Dlus �r.. 'OC.. or�pa�n�ellr g.�.�l. �aC 'qrwillj �o qrw,o cwr. e. /1 )� MC yle:f ee. y. �p.e 'R' I �.K. a. �1 <� m a�ots sAO. •�• I�M. i. �i v�o�t o� v awe •�• I��e. a. rl oleu e<iw •t• ��ne. . . �o� uoss�'�:c•�c. c' •�ne-a�c��ea so��s ono . me-oromec 'ror �on oi roorse-aromm i :ous / iauot�or.o` �t - �ne ' at, MOrItO�TG� C' D:•� _��� c / tner o.. � ' : • _ ��- -' J�./ � ' " ' / ( Fauot�or C' : - �n. _p �«,��o� �- _ _���-: ._ � • G,�,- rneno:-CS�.�_-Biy � j I i I / /I 20 � � �`�� � �� M i � G� �o � -- � I ML� OL 4 �. � � ; � � � 0 IC iE 20 30 ♦O SO 60 . L�OU10 LIMIT (LL) -> H � OH z� LABORATORY TESTS � �D Dry Oensit}•. pc( OC Oroanic Content. ��o WU Wet Densrty, pct S Percent o1 Saturauon, �ro . MC Nalural Moislure Cornent °K SG Specific Gravity LL Liquid Limit =�c C Cohesion PL PlasUC Limr,. 5� � Angle ot I�temal F�id�on PI PtasUChy Inoez ac qu Unconl�ned Gompressive Strength � PARTICLE S(ZE IDENTIFICATION Boulders . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . over 12.. Cobbles . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3" to 12.. Gravel Coarse ........................... i:" — 3" Fine. . . . . . .... .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 4 — �." Sand Coarse . .. ...... ....... ... . . .. ... . No. 4 — No. 1G Medium . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 10 — No. CC Fine .............................. No.40 — No.20: Silt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 200 — .005 r— Clay ............................... fesSthan.005 m- RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS very loose . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 — � =ac loose--� ......................................5-1C �°F medium dense .. ... . ... . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 — 3: :oc dense . .. . . ............... . . .... . . 31 — 5: =�f ........... very clense .......................................5'J- _�= CONStSTENCY OF COHESIVE SOI�S very soft ...................................... 0 — ' ==F son..........................................2 — .. =ar rather soft . . ........... ... ..... . . . . .... . . .... . 4 — : 3�F medium. . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 — E =°r' rather stift . . . . ...... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . 9 — �� _?� Sllff. . . . . . . . . ... ... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 13 — lE ��r very stifl . . . . . .... . . . .. . . 17 — 3� �?F ..................... hard............................................3G- ��F DRILLING NOTES Standard penetralion tes! borings were advanced by 3:=" c� ;_� I.D. holiow-stemaugers unless noted otherwise. Jening waie• v.�s used lo dean out auger prior to samplmg oMy where indic2:ec on logs. Standard pe�etration test borings are tlesianated b; :ne prefix "ST' (Split Tube). Power auger borings were advanced by 4" or 6" o;�Re:�r. continuous-tlite. solid stem augers. Soil classification anc s:-a�r, dept hs are inferred trom disturbed samples augered to the s::-cce and are therefo�e somewhat approximate. Power auger ��• -�s are designated by the pretix "B". Hand probings were advanced manually with a t'.'" C�e-e:2+ probe and are Gmited to the depth from wh�Cn the prot� c�- �� manually withdrawn. Hand probings are ind�CateC by the �-='�r ..H.. SAMPLING — All samples are taken with the 5la�darC �� _ D. split tube sampler, except where noted. TW Ind�cates tr..r-:.al� (und�sturbed) sample. BPF — Numbers indicate b7ows per fool recorded irt s:2�:�z�6 penetration test. also known as 'N" value. The sampie: is se� 6' into und�sturbed soil below the hollow-stem 2uger. D-�.:�c resistances are the� counted for second and ihirC 6'� fncrer.��is and addeC to get BPF. Where they difler significantly, the� ��e reponed in the following form — 2!12 for the second and trn-� e increments respectively. WH — WH ��dicates that sampler penetratec7 soil under we�c-� 01 hammer ano rods alone, driving noi required. NOTE — AU �ests ru� in accordance wfth applicable L.�-M standards. - e Rau N5� INTERTEC t . ;� �ry�� . ��"��. a � PROJECT: BPDX-95-012A BORING: ,S"j'•�i 't .� ' �;' ' Geotectu�ical Evaluatiun LOCAT70N: Riverview Heights Srx attached s{cetctt. Proposed Single-Fumily Residences '� Fridley, Minnesota DATE: 2/3/95 SCAI.E: 1' •� �+ ASTM Ta� q� �,M �; Elev. Depth D2487 Description of Matenals BPF WL .. 819.0 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488) SM S1LTY SAND, very fine- to fine-grained, dark o brown, moist, loose. Beuchmark: Top nut of firo g �-rop��i� hya�c �c � �,c � 6 Broad Avmuo � 816.0 3.0 ���� � ��j v SP POORL,Y GRADED SAND with SILT', finC-grainrd, � � SM .' brown, moist, m�dium densc. > + (Coarsz Alluvium) 13 .L a 812.0 7A � SP :'. POORI.Y GRADED SAND, fine- to 14 � '�-: medium-grxined, traca of Gravel, light brown, a • moist to wet, medium dense to loose. o (Coarse Alluvium) ;� 9 m � � 807.0 12.0 r ML SILT with SAND, gray, wet, medium dense. 18 �o (Fine Alluvium) 80�.0 14.0 v SC � CLAYEY SAND, very fina-grained, trace of Gravel, '° 03.5 15. light reddish biown, wet, medium dease. �3 a (Glacial Till) v L � END OF BORING. b + Water not observed with 14 feet of hollow-stem N � auger in the ground. �o � Water not observed to cave-in depth of 12 feet o immediately after withdrawa! of auger. :� � Boring then bacl:fillad. d d tn .. , �� - �- _ rnun ntenec oq�ora��on - .. � .. r' 8s �, . r : � � . . � �.�-- --�'�'_ -'�. Z � �-+� � _ --- Z 2 ---� I /� --- z3 � __ �- - - - - - -20--- � �� . , ,.` . � � ST-6 t �� � . i ' � � Proposed � House � � I f ' � ST-5 ��. — --� / 1 I \ �� 20 �_ �— — — — — ►R------- ---_ Dover Street Indicates Approximate Soil Boring Location Indicates Proposed Grade Indicates Existing Grade B R A t�l N� Proposed House Dover Site I?aver Street between Broad Avenue I N T E RT E C & Riverview Terrace Fridley, Minnesota � :{. INT DATE SH:ET ORAWN BY: p � � APP'D 8Y: �p J08 No. OWG.NO. . - ` fIGUREy SCAIE ��_ �