GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT · geotechnical engineering report joseph campau greenway trail...

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

JOSEPH CAMPAU GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECT

DETROIT, MICHIGAN

SME Project Number: 077832.00.002.001

May 18, 2018

4219 Woodward AvenueSuite 204

Detroit, MI 48201

T (313) 922-7000

www.sme-usa.com

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER

May 18, 2018

Mr. Orza Robertson Project Manager Detroit Economic Growth Corporation 500 Griswold Street, Suite 2200 Detroit, Michigan 48226

Via electronic mail: [email protected] (PDF file)

RE: Geotechnical Evaluation Report Joseph Campau Greenway Trail Project Detroit, Michigan SME Project No. 077832.00.002.001

Dear Mr. Robertson:

We have completed the geotechnical evaluation and report for the proposed Jos Campau Greenway Project in Detroit, Michigan. This report presents the results of our observations and analyses, and our recommendations for subgrade preparation, earthwork, retaining walls, and pavements. Additionally, our report presents a discussion regarding construction considerations related to the geotechnical conditions disclosed by the borings.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact us.

Very truly yours,

SME

Laurel M. Johnson, PE Senior Project Engineer

Prepared By: Reviewed By: Michael L. Kapetansky, PE Laurel M. Johnson, PE Senior Staff Engineer Senior Consultant

Distribution: Mr. Matt A. Vander Eide, PG, CPG – SME ([email protected])

mailto:[email protected]

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 11.1 SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 2

2. EVALUATION PROCEDURES.................................................................. 22.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ..................................................................................... 2

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................. 2

3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................. 33.1 SOIL CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 3

3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 4

4. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 44.1 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK ........................................................ 4

4.1.1 EXISTING FILL ..................................................................................................... 4

4.1.2 GENERAL SITE SUBGRADE PREPARATION ...................................................... 5

4.1.3 ENGINEERED FILL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................. 6

4.2 FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................... 6

4.3 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................. 8

5. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 95.1 SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 9

5.2 TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................ 10

5.3 SUBGRADE PREPARATION .......................................................................... 11

5.4 HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTIONS .................................................. 11

5.5 DRAINAGE .................................................................................................... 12

5.6 CONSTRUCTION NOTES .............................................................................. 13

APPENDIX A SOIL BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

PROPERTY AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY DIAGRAMS (FIGURES 3 THROUGH 6)

BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY

BORING (PAVEMENT CORE) LOGS AND DCP DATA (SB1, SB5, SB7, SB11, SB13,

SB15, SB18, SB20, SB22, SB26, SB28, SB30, SB31, SB32, SB36, SB39, AND SB41)

APPENDIX B IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 1

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents our geotechnical recommendations for the Jos Campau Gateway Project in Detroit, Michigan. We conducted this evaluation in accordance with the scope of services outlined in our Professional Services Agreement dated December 19, 2017, our subsequent telephone and email communication, and our review of the undated preliminary site specific civil drawings provided by SmithGroupJJR. Results of SME’s environmental evaluation(s) are presented under separate cover.

1.1 SITE CONDITIONS

The proposed Campau Gateway Project is located between East Jefferson Avenue and East Vernor Highway, just east of Chene Street in Detroit, Michigan. More specifically, the pathway will start at the intersection of Jos Campau Ave. and E. Jefferson Ave., and will continue (approximately NNW) through several neighborhoods until reaching the intersection of Jos Campau and E. Vernor Hwy. Site conditions across the lots and parcels varies considerably, but generally there are concrete and asphalt pavements (including parking lots and sidewalks) as well as some sporting courts (tennis, basketball, etc.), grasses and lawns (with some landscaping), sparse trees and some areas of heavy brush. Refer to Figure 1 below for additional information.

FIGURE NO. 1: PROJECT ALIGNMENT

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 2

The existing ground surface across most of the project areas is relatively flat (especially when considered as smaller parcels); however, the site elevations generally rise from south to north. Based on Google Earth, the site elevations range from about elevations 595 to 627 feet (USGS), or approximately 116.6 feet to 148.6 feet (Detroit Datum).

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

We understand the project will consist of the construction of a new bike/walking path, site improvements, and retaining walls. Preliminary design site grades were provided with the project documentation. We anticipate minor cuts and fills of less than 2 to 3 feet will be required to balance the site during construction.

2. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

SME advanced 41 soil probe borings, 17 of which we performed for the purpose of this geotechnical evaluation, and the remaining performed for environmental purposes. On February 13 and 14, 2018, we advanced borings SB1, SB5, SB7, SB11, SB13, SB15, SB18, SB20, SB22, SB26, SB28, SB30, SB31, SB32, SB36, SB39, and SB41, with a direct push Geoprobe. At each of the borings, we advanced a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) probe. We then advanced a direct push Geoprobe to about 8 feet below the ground surface. Borings SB20 and SB28 were terminated at 4.0 and 5.0 feet below the ground surface, respectively.

We obtained groundwater levels during and upon completion of drilling at the boring locations, and backfilled the boreholes with excavated soils and bentonite chips. We did not obtain long-term groundwater levels from the borings. SME and SmithGroupJJR jointly determined the number, depths, and locations of the borings. SME located the borings using a sub-meter global positing system (GPS) instrument. We show the approximate locations of the borings on the Boring Location Plan included in Appendix A.

The SME drillers sealed recovered samples from the borings in glass jars, acetate liners and/or plastic bags and delivered them to our laboratory for additional analysis.

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory testing program consisted of visual soil classification on recovered samples along with moisture content and hand penetrometer or Torvane shear tests on portions of cohesive samples obtained. The Laboratory Testing Procedures in Appendix B provide descriptions of the laboratory tests discussed herein.

Upon completion of the laboratory testing, we prepared boring logs that include materials encountered, penetration resistances, pertinent field observations made during the drilling operations, and the results of certain laboratory tests. The boring logs and DCP Data Sheets are included in Appendix A. We developed the soil descriptions from both visual classification and the results of laboratory tests, where applicable.

Soil samples retained over a long time, even sealed in jars, are subject to moisture loss and are no longer representative of the conditions initially encountered in the field. Therefore, we retain soil samples in our laboratory for 60 days and then dispose, unless instructed otherwise.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 3

3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS

The general soil profile encountered at the borings consists of fill sands and clays, or topsoil or surficial pavements over fill soils, underlain by natural clays extending to the explored depths of the borings. We summarize the subsurface conditions in greater detail below:

STRATUM 1: GRAVEL, ASPHALT PAVEMENT, AND UNDOCUMENTED FILL We observed about 3 inches of asphalt pavement at the ground surface of borings SB5 and SB1, overlying granular subbase materials (i.e., sand and/or gravel) to about 24 inches below the ground surface. At boring SB5, we encountered about 12 inches of concrete below the granular fill, extending to about 3 feet below the ground surface. We also encountered about 9 inches of gravel at the ground surface of SB30.

Although not encountered at the geotechnical borings, topsoil was encountered at seven of the environmental borings. At the ground surface of the remaining geotechnical boring locations, we encountered fill clays and sands with various amounts of silt and deleterious debris, including (but not limited to) concrete, brick, glass, and wood fragments, as well as buried organic seams and layers or soils that appeared to be relatively organic (containing significant roots). Undocumented fill was encountered beneath surficial materials or at the ground surface at each geotechnical boring location. The fill extended about 2.0 to 6.5 feet below the ground surface, or to the explored depths of borings SB20 and SB28 (where we terminated drilling due to refusal).

We obtained shear strengths of 0.4 to greater than 4.5 kips per square foot (ksf) in the clay fill, with corresponding moisture contents of about 13 to 23 percent, indicating a soft to hard condition; however, the clay fill was generally in a stiff to very stiff condition. We obtained California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values in the sand fill (or aggregate base materials), ranging from 0.9 to 100.0 percent, indicating a very poor to good condition.

We also performed one Loss-of-Organics-on-Ignition (LOI) test to determine the organic content of a sample from Boring SB15 which appeared to contain significant amounts or organics. Based on the test results, the sample contained about 3.6 percent organic materials, which we generally consider nominal to borderline organic.

STRATUM 2: NATURAL CLAYS We encountered natural clays beneath the surficial materials (where present) and fill materials, extending to the explored depths of the remaining borings. We obtained shear strengths of 1.25 to greater than 4.5 ksf, and corresponding moisture contents of about 12 to 22 percent on the native clays, indicating a stiff to hard condition.

The soil profile described above and depicted on the boring logs are generalized descriptions of the conditions encountered. The stratification depths shown on the boring logs and described above indicate a zone of transition from one soil type to another and are not exact depths of change from one soil type to another. Soil conditions may be different in areas other than at the boring locations. Please refer to the boring logs for the soil conditions at the specific boring locations. We base the soil descriptions on visual classification of the soils encountered.

Consider thickness measurements of surficial materials reported on the boring logs (e.g., gravel, topsoil, concrete, etc.) approximate since mixing of these materials can occur in small diameter boreholes. Therefore, if accurate thickness measurements are required for inclusion in bid documents or purposes of design, perform additional evaluations such as shallow test pits.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 4

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between fill and natural soils based on samples and cuttings from small-diameter boreholes, especially when portions of the fill do not contain man-made materials, debris, topsoil or organic layers, and when the fill appears similar in composition to the local natural soils. At boring B2, we encountered gray clays overlying brown clays, which is sometimes indicative of undocumented fill. However, we did not observe debris or other deleterious materials in the upper clays, and the clays visually appear consistent with the native clays. Therefore, consider the delineation of fill described above and on the appended boring logs approximate only. Review former site topography plans, aerial photographs, and other historic site records and excavate test pits if a more comprehensive evaluation of the extent and composition of the fill is required.

3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

We encountered groundwater within one of the sample liners during drilling at boring SB32; however, we did not encounter standing groundwater in the borehole at SB32 immediately following completion of the boring. Furthermore, we did not encounter water at the remaining boring locations. In cohesive soils (clays), a long time may be required for the long-term groundwater level in a small diameter bore hole to reach an equilibrium position. Therefore, groundwater observation wells (piezometers) would accurately determine the hydrostatic groundwater level within cohesive soils. Use groundwater observation wells (piezometers) to further evaluate the site groundwater levels at this site.

Expect hydrostatic groundwater levels and the volume of groundwater, especially from perched or trapped groundwater source(s), to fluctuate throughout the year, based on variations in precipitation, evaporation, surface runoff, and other factors. The groundwater levels indicated by the borings and presented in this section represent conditions when we advanced the borings. The groundwater levels at the time of construction may vary.

Along the project alignment, where native soils consist primarily of low permeability clays, the heaviest source of water is from perched water in granular fill (including debris) in the clays and from leaking underground utilities.

4. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK

4.1.1 EXISTING FILL

We encountered as much as about 6.5 feet of fill across the project site, although two borings, SB20 and SB28, were terminated due to obstructions at 4.0 and 5.0 feet, respectively. Therefore, it is possible that deeper fill deposits are present and should be expected during construction. At each of the borings, the fill included deleterious materials, including (but not limited to) concrete, asphalt, and brick fragments, wood fragments or large roots, topsoil or materials that appeared to contain significant levels of organic materials, and other former construction related materials. Also, some of the fill appeared to be relatively “clean” of free of debris, and most of the shear strengths obtained testing the clay fill were similar to those obtained in the underlying native clays. In addition to obstructions at SB20 and SB28, we encountered buried concrete at boring SB5. Large intact buried structures, such as foundations, foundation/basement walls, floor slabs, utilities, and other below-grade obstructions are commonly encountered in Brownfield regions of Detroit, and should be anticipated for this project.

If an elevated risk of settlement associated with construction over undocumented fill is unacceptable to the Owner, foundations should extend through undocumented fill, organic material (including buried topsoil), and otherwise unsuitable soils, to bear on suitable natural soils below. Depending upon cost versus risk considerations, it may be feasible to construct foundations for lightly loaded structures on improved inorganic existing fill. We understand at this time, you are not planning the construction of large structures as part of this project.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 5

Further, because of the presence of fill and potentially impacted soils along the alignment, we recommend assuming all soils that cannot remain on site will require landfilling. Because permanently occupied structures are not planned and considering disposal costs, we expect the Owner will opt for the increased risk of settlement associated with construction over existing fill. Additional guidance regarding environmental considerations are provided under separate cover.

4.1.2 GENERAL SITE SUBGRADE PREPARATION

Remove existing below-grade structures from previous construction and any existing utilities from beneath proposed structure footprints and to a depth of at least 2.5 feet below the design subgrade level. As indicated in Section 4.1.1, intact mass structures may remain in place beneath structures if an elevated risk of differential movement is acceptable. However, abandoned utilities beneath foundations must be properly abandoned by bulk-heading and grouting in place. Reroute utilities around the proposed structure foundations. Refer to Section 5 for additional subgrade preparation recommendations for pavements.

In areas were small structures or retaining walls are planned, strip the subgrade of topsoil and other near-surface unsuitable soil. Extend stripping operations 5 feet beyond the structure footprint. Strip proposed pavement areas of topsoil, extending stripping operations a minimum of 1 foot beyond pavement edges for support of pavement edges and curbs and gutters. Base the decision to remove “topsoil” on organic content, rather than color. At least some of the near-surface fill is dark in color, but is not high in organic content (based on visual review and the results of our LOI testing). Remove only soils with greater than 4 percent organic content. Over-stripping of this site could result in a significant amount of excess soil that will have to be wasted to non-structural areas of the site or properly disposed of offsite. Refer to the environmental reports for additional guidance regarding handling and reuse of existing site soils.

Once SME verifies suitable subgrade is exposed, and additional undercuts of exposed unsuitable soil are performed, thoroughly compact the exposed subgrade prior to placing additional engineered fill or proofrolling. As clay is expected once stripping operations are complete, use a heavy sheepsfoot roller and, at a minimum, compact the subgrade by performing three passes per unit roller width in each of two perpendicular directions. Once the subgrade is compacted, evaluate the subgrade for suitability to support engineered fill and pavements by proofrolling with a rubber-tire tandem axle dump truck. Undercut unsuitable soil identified by SME and backfill areas of poor subgrade with granular engineered fill to establish a uniform subgrade 12 inches below pavements. If areas of contaminated soil are encountered that would require special handling/disposal, subgrade modification could be considered in lieu of undercuts. Subgrade modification could consist of “charging” large diameter aggregate into soft/loose soils or chemically modifying soft/high moisture content clays.

After making cuts design grades and after the exposed subgrade is evaluated (as mentioned above) and improved as necessary, engineered fill may be placed on the exposed subgrade to establish final subgrade levels. See Section 4.1.3 of this report for materials and compaction requirements for engineered fill.

Subgrade disturbance during construction can be a significant factor at this site and a significant amount of subgrade improvements could be required to achieve a stable working platform and subgrade for engineered fill placement. Based on the results of the borings, we anticipate the subgrade exposed after stripping may provide relatively poor support for heavy, rubber-tire construction equipment, especially during wetter (and colder) periods of the year. Protect existing subgrade from channelized traffic to reduce the need for undercuts in pavement areas. Establish designated haul roads (if and where possible) and do not allow construction traffic to randomly traffic the site. Additional recommendations regarding soil handling and disposal are provided under separate cover by SME’s environmental team. Ensure the contractors are provided with both this geotechnical report as well as reports prepared by our environmental team.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 6

4.1.3 ENGINEERED FILL REQUIREMENTS

Engineered fill placed within the construction area must be an approved material, free of frozen soil, organics, or other deleterious materials. Spread the fill in level layers and compact to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with the Modified Proctor test. Compact granular fill with a drum roller or vibratory plate type compactor and clay fill with sheepsfoot rollers. Limit loose thickness to the maximum lift size the contractor’s equipment can uniformly compact at one time.

Place and compact clay at ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content, and allow wet sands to drain prior to reusing them as engineered fill. Thinner lifts may be required in confined spaces to achieve compaction of the backfill. The contractor should expect to moisture condition or chemically modify the clays prior to their reuse, as the in-situ moisture contents are at or above typical optimum moisture contents.

If construction occurs during wetter periods of the year and/or if there are not open areas available to moisture condition the clays, chemically modify them in place or waste them to non-structural areas of the site and import granular engineered fill. For this site, lime kiln dust should be suitable for lowering moisture contents to allow for clay placement.

Use well-draining granular soils as engineered fill in areas where drainage is required or where compaction is achieved with hand-operated equipment. Retaining walls shall be backfilled with granular soil. For mechanically stabilized earthen (MSE) walls, the reinforced zones must consist of a well-draining material. Import MDOT Class II sand or open-graded crushed aggregate/crushed concrete to the site for this purpose. Do not use rounded open-graded materials, such as pea gravel, in areas where structural support is required.

The existing site soils are generally suitable for reuse as general site fill, provided they are properly segregated prior to reuse, and the contractor is well aware of the recommendations of this report and the best practices for the reuse of clay as engineered fill. Do not place interbedded layers of sand and clay fills, as layered soils are more susceptible to disturbance resulting in premature pavement failure and/or are a potential slip plane if placed on slopes. Also, use a sheepsfoot roller with sufficient weight per soil lift thickness to perform compaction of engineered clay fill. Regarding slopes, do not place fill on sloped surfaces. Rather, bench the subgrade and place engineered fill in level horizontal layers.

4.2 FOUNDATIONS

Foundations for small structures such as cast-in-place concrete retaining walls, monuments, or other relatively small structures (under about 6,000 lbs) may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Foundations may bear on suitably prepared inorganic existing undocumented fill, provided the Owner accepts the elevated risk of settlement as compared to costs associated with undercutting or extending foundations through undocumented fill to bear on suitable native clays below. For the low recommended bearing pressure provided and the lightly loaded retaining walls and auxiliary structures planned, if subgrade soils are properly evaluated during construction, foundations may be constructed on suitable undocumented fill. If the elevated risk of settlement is unacceptable, remove and replace undocumented fill beneath foundations (including MSE reinforced zones) and replace with imported granular engineered fill, or extend structure foundations through the fill to bear on native clays below. When evaluating risk vs. cost, assume excavated soils that cannot remain on site will require landfilling.

To verify suitable subgrade is exposed at the bearing surface at the foundation level, we recommend SME evaluate the foundation subgrade during construction. If subgrade soils are encountered that are not suitable for the design soil bearing pressure, the contractor should be prepared to improve or undercut and replace the bearing soils. The improvement of bearing soils, where necessary, could include in-place compaction and/or removal of the upper bearing soils and replacement with an engineered fill material. Foundations may either extend deeper to bear on suitable native clays below, or

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 7

the undercut may be backfilled and foundations constructed at the design bearing level. Where undercuts are required, extend excavations outward from the edge of foundation 1 foot laterally for each 2 feet of depth. Backfill undercuts with open-graded crushed concrete or crushed aggregate with a maximum particle size of 1.5 inches. MDOT 6AA meets this requirement. To reduce the risk of differential settlement due to migration of fines into the void spaces within the undercut backfill, where 12 inches or more of open-graded crushed material is placed, “choke” the surface with a minimum of 3 inches of dense-graded crushed aggregate or crushed concrete, such as MDOT 21AA. Refer to the undercutting diagram below for additional information. We do not recommend larger diameter 1-to-3-inch diameter materials be used beneath structures due to the elevated risk of differential movement from migration of fines into the larger void spaces and from cyclical shrink-swell activity associated with changes in moisture conditions near the foundation bearing levels.

TYPICAL UNDERCUTTING DIAGRAM

For concrete foundations, maintain vertical foundation walls such that frost lips are not formed near the tops of foundations. Based on the predominantly clayey soil profile, we expect bank-formed, or “neat trench” construction will generally be feasible. However, where granular soils are encountered shoring may be required to maintain vertical sidewalls. Otherwise, slope foundation excavations back and form foundations and foundation walls.

Protect foundations and bearing soils from freezing if winter construction is planned. Do not leave foundation excavations open for extended periods. In general, excavate foundations and place concrete in all open excavations by the end of day. Remove disturbed soils and standing water prior to placing foundation concrete.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 8

4.3 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Considering the historic use of the site, we anticipate environmental contamination could be present at the site. Any environmental evaluations of the site should be provided to prospective bidders for retaining wall construction. Where contamination is present above threshold criteria, handling, transportation, and disposal of spoils must be performed in accordance with recommendations that are typically provided in a Due Care Plan prepared for the site by the environmental consultant. We note SME’s environmental team is providing environmental services, the results of which will be presented under separate cover. Ensure the contractors understand the implications of the environmental documents. Geotechnical recommendations are made on a sliding cost vs. risk scale. This report presents a reasonable way forward for the conditions observed at the geotechnical boring locations. SME can meet with the Owner after you have reviewed this report to further discuss how our recommendations may impact cost and risk of settlement. Our recommendations are based on relatively light loads, no permanently occupied structures, and our extensive experience with Brownfield redevelopment in the City of Detroit.

We anticipate a temporary backcut within the backfill zone behind the wall will be made by the contractor to accommodate construction of the wall. The backcut should be sloped to a stable inclination consistent with the requirements of MIOSHA. The condition of the temporary slope created by the backcut should be monitored by the contractor during construction. The contractor should be prepared to flatten the temporary slope to a more stable inclination if sloughing or instability is observed during construction.

The contractor must take precautions to protect adjacent existing structures, roads, and utilities during excavating and compacting operations. Care must be exercised during the compacting operations so that excessive vibrations do not cause settlement of the existing improvements.

The contractor must provide a safely sloped excavation or an adequately constructed and braced shoring system in accordance with federal, state, and local safety regulations for individuals working in an excavation that may expose them to the danger of moving ground. If material is stored or heavy equipment is operated near an excavation, stronger shoring must be used to resist the extra pressure due to the superimposed loads.

The contractor should anticipate localized perched water within the upper fill soils. Depending upon the time of year of construction, heavier seepage could occur from water trapped within the fill overlying the relatively impermeable site clays. In previously developed areas of Detroit, significant water accumulations are often observed within areas of rubble fill, and a large source of water is from leaking utilities or water trapped in granular utility trench backfill. We recommend the contractors be prepared to dewater areas where perched groundwater is present. For most excavations, we anticipate standard sump pit and pumping procedures will be adequate to control these accumulations on a localized basis. We expect discharge onto the ground surface within the project limits will be acceptable. Do not release water from construction activities into storm or sanitary sewers or onto adjacent properties or streets.

The depth of fill (including both fill containing organics and otherwise suitable fill) encountered during construction could vary from those reported on the boring logs. Expect deeper fill deposits in areas near existing and former utilities and in areas of the site where historical structures may have been located. Refer to the environmental reports prepared for this project, which include historical development maps.

The exposed subgrade soils are prone to disturbance due to weather and activity on-site. Disturbed soils will have to be undercut and replaced with engineered fill. In heavily trafficked areas and/or under adverse weather conditions, protect areas of exposed subgrade at the site by placing crushed concrete or crushed aggregate on the exposed subgrade.

Utilities backfilled with clays, clayey sands, buried topsoil, and undocumented fill are more susceptible to corrosion than are clean sands. Bed and backfill utilities in granular engineered fill and separate utilities of differing materials.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 9

5. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

This section contains recommendations for the construction of new pavements including the proposed Hot Mix Asphalt Bicycle path along with the adjacent concrete sidewalks. Our pavement design recommendations are based in part on our review of the Pavement and Surface Details plan provided by Smith Group JJR (Drawing Number LS-501, undated).

5.1 SUBGRADE CONDITIONS

Boring locations SB1, SB5, SB7, SB11, SB13, SB15, SB18, SB20, SB22, SB26, SB30, SB31, SB32, SB36, SB39 and SB41 were performed along the proposed path alignment for the purpose of geotechnical evaluation pertaining to the following pavement recommendations. Sandy clay topsoil with grass, or existing surficial asphalt pavements/gravels, overlaying sandy lean clay fill with trace amounts of debris was encountered at the most of the borings. Sand fill with debris was encountered below the topsoil or below the clay fill at some of the boring locations (borings B5, B7 and B8). Buried concrete, possibly including buried pavements and voids, was encountered below the clay fill at borings SB5.

SME performed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests at the geotechnical boring locations to evaluate the existing subgrade for pavement support. Subgrade soils with California Bearing Ratio (CBR) estimate from 3 to 5 percent are considered to offer poor support conditions, and subgrade soils with CBR estimates less than 3 percent are considered to offer very poor support conditions. CBR values estimated from the USACE DCP tests indicated variable subgrade support conditions ranging from very poor to marginal. Poor to very poor subgrade support usually requires stabilization or undercutting in order to provide a stable construction platform. Refer to Section 3.1 of this report, and the attached boring logs and DCP data sheets, for further information regarding description of the soil conditions encountered at the site and to review DCP test results

The following Table 1 indicates the approximate depths below existing ground elevations at which very poor to poor subgrade support characteristics were encountered.

TABLE 1: POOR TO VERY POOR SUPPORT CONDITIONS

SOIL PROBE DEPTH FROM SURFACE (in)

CONDITION

FROM TO

SB1 9 12 Poor

SB1 12 25 Very Poor

SB5 4 16 Very Poor

SB7 0 6 Very Poor

SB7 20 24 Poor

SB7 24 33 Very Poor

SB11 0 3 Poor

SB11 3 5 Very Poor

SB13 0 8 Very Poor

SB15 0 5 Very Poor

SB18 10 12 Very Poor

SB18 12 15 Poor

SB18 20 23 Poor

SB20 0 9 Very Poor

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 10

SOIL PROBEDEPTH FROM SURFACE (in)

CONDITIONFROM TO

SB20 11 13 Poor


SB22 2 11 Very Poor

SB22 11 13 Poor

SB26 0 2 Very Poor

SB28 6 8 Very Poor

SB28 11 13 Poor

SB30 0 4 Very Poor

SB30 4 19 Poor


SB31 2 13 Very Poor

SB31 13 16 Poor

SB31 20 27 Poor

SB31 29 34 Poor

SB32 2 10 Very Poor

SB36 0 6 Very Poor

SB36 6 8 Poor

SB36 10 13 Poor


SB39 0 3 Very Poor

SB39 17 20 Poor

SB41 0 12 Very Poor

Based on the results of the borings, areas of loose and poor support conditions are anticipated during construction. Contingencies should be included in the project budget for subgrade improvements. We also recommend that a qualified geotechnical/pavement engineer (SME) should determine the type and quantity of stabilization to be used based on field conditions during construction. We understand that the anticipated traffic loading for the path is negligible however; we anticipate that support improvements in the sub-grade soils will be required in order to facilitate construction traffic.

5.2 TRAFFIC

Specific traffic information was not provided for our use in developing pavement recommendations. Therefore, these recommendations should be considered preliminary until actual traffic estimates and a final grading plan have been reviewed. We assume the path will be primarily trafficked by pedestrians and bicycles however there may be an occasional need to traffic the path with emergency and snow removal vehicles. Additionally, we assume heavy vehicle loads such as refuse haulers or delivery vehicles will not traffic the path. Due to the low anticipated traffic loading for the path, the pavement is designed primarily to account for climatic influences and subgrade conditions. Based on the AASHTO Low-Volume Road Design guidelines, the site is located in U.S. Climatic Region III, and a minimum 50,000 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) were used in our design for the light duty hot-mix asphalt (HMA) pavements for an anticipated design life of 20 years.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 11

5.3 SUBGRADE PREPARATION

Overall, the inorganic subgrade soils are generally considered suitable for the support of pavements, provided these soils are properly prepared during construction. In general, subgrade preparation should follow the recommendations provided in Section 4.1 of this report. Pavement areas should be cleared and grubbed by removing all topsoil, surface vegetation, debris, unsuitable fill, and other deleterious materials to expose suitable subgrade soils. Fill with organics and buried topsoil were encountered near the existing ground surface at some of the borings and considered unsuitable for the support of pavements. Subgrade preparation, aggregate base and subbase layers should extend at least 12 inches beyond the pavement edge or back of curbs to provide support for the outer edges of pavement.

After the proposed pavement areas have been properly stripped and pre-existing structures removed (e.g. utilities are rerouted, pre-existing foundations are removed, etc.), we anticipate the exposed subgrade will generally consist of existing undocumented fill sand, natural clay or newly placed controlled fill. The undocumented fill encountered in some borings contained construction debris. Undocumented fill containing construction debris larger than 6 inches in diameter should be removed from beneath the proposed pavement to reduce the risk of creating “hard spots” in the pavement due to frost jacking. We recommend soils containing greater than 4 percent organic content be removed from beneath the pavement due to an increased risk of frost movements, settlement and deflection related cracking associated with such materials. Depending on the extent of the organic materials, economics, and tolerance for risk, consideration could be given to leaving moderately organic materials in-place.

The exposed subgrade should be proofrolled with a loaded tandem-axle truck or other suitable rubber tired equipment. SME must be present during proofrolling. Any yielding, loose or otherwise unstable areas should be remedied by additional compaction, undercutting and replacing with engineered fill, or by other means as dictated by the site conditions at the time of construction. Without proper subgrade preparation, compaction of fill layers could be difficult. The top 12 inches of the exposed subgrade in fill areas and individual fill layers should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.

Once any soft or loose areas are repaired, utilities are installed, and fill layers are placed, a final proofroll should be performed. The criteria for the final proofroll should be a maximum of 1/4-inch of subgrade deflection or rutting. Once the subgrade passes the final proofroll, we recommend the aggregate base and pavement layers be placed soon thereafter to avoid further subgrade disturbance. If the subgrade is subjected to disturbance including construction traffic or wet and/or freezing weather conditions, the subgrade should be re-evaluated before placement of the pavement layers.

We recommend performing site work during the drier summer periods. Construction during colder and wetter periods of the year could result in the need for additional undercutting, reinforcement using geogrid, or other suitable subgrade stabilization techniques. Due to the presence of buried topsoil and construction debris, we recommend contingencies be included for undercutting and backfilling as conditions warrant during construction.

5.4 HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTIONS

The recommended pavement sections were developed based on the information presented in the previous sections of this report, our review of the project documents provided by SmithGroup JJR, and our experience with similar, low traffic volume pavements in the area. The recommended pavement sections are considered the minimum sections required for the expected loading described above. Our recommendations are based on the recommended subgrade preparation and evaluation, and on the final subgrade passing a thorough proofroll under a fully loaded tandem axle truck. The performance of the pavement and subgrade materials may be affected by temperature extremes, rainfall and other precipitation, and/or frost action over the duration of the anticipated service life. Therefore, the constructed pavement should be regularly inspected and routine maintenance should be performed. Maintenance may include, but is not limited to, crack sealing and partial or full depth HMA patching.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 12

The recommended layer materials shown below refer to standard material designations listed in the 2012 edition of the "MDOT Standard Specifications for Construction" prepared by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), unless otherwise modified in this report. Specifications for asphalt concrete mix design and composition can be obtained in Tables 1 and 2 of the MDOT Special Provision for Marshall Hot Mix Asphalt Mixture 12SP501(F). Specifications for aggregate base gradations can be obtained in Tables 902-1 and 902-2 of the 2012 edition of the “MDOT Standard Specifications for Construction”.

The following table presents the layer material and thickness recommendations for the pavement sections:

TABLE 2: LIGHT-DUTY HMA PAVEMENT BICYCLE PATH RECOMMENDED MATERIALS AND LAYER THICKNESSES

LAYER MATERIAL THICKNESS (IN.)

Bituminous Surface MDOT 36A (Max 15% RAP, PG64-22) 1.5

Bituminous Leveling MDOT 13A (Max 30% RAP, PG64-22, min 60%

crushed material) 2.5

Aggregate Base MDOT 21AA Crushed Limestone 8.0

Crushed concrete, or MDOT 22A should not be substituted for the recommended MDOT 21AA crushed limestone aggregate base without a 25 percent increase of the thickness of the aggregate base to account for structural differences of the materials.

The final asphalt binder grade should be performance grade PG64-22 for all bituminous mixtures. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) should be limited to 15 percent in the surface course and 30 percent in leveling course. Per MDOT Special Provision 12SP501(F), a note should be included on the project plans and specifications indicating the required design air voids of 3.0 percent. The asphalt concrete mixtures should be compacted to 94 to 97 percent of theoretical maximum density as determined by the Rice Method. A bond coat of SS-1h emulsion should be required between asphalt concrete layers at a rate of 0.1 gallons/s.y.

The leveling course is not designed to carry heavy construction traffic without damage. Partial construction of these design sections and use of the leveling course as a construction platform will likely result in premature damage that would require repairs prior to placing the wearing course. If construction traffic is anticipated on the pavement structure, the initial lift thickness could be increased and placement of the final lift could be delayed until the majority of the construction activities have been completed. This action will allow repair of localized failure, if any does occur, as well as reduce load damage on the pavement system. We believe this recommendation will reduce future maintenance costs due to localized premature pavement failures.

5.5 DRAINAGE

The pavement system must be properly drained to reduce the possibility of frost heaving and softening of the subgrade due to water infiltrating through cracks. The infiltrated water, if not properly drained, can adversely affect the pavement performance. A minimum surface slope of 1.5 percent is recommended for parking areas. Catch basins should have 20-foot long sections of underdrains installed in four perpendicular directions. Cutoff drains should also be installed where adjacent ground surface elevations slope towards the pavement. The underdrains should consist of a 6-inch diameter perforated drain tile pipe in a trench extending a minimum of 18 inches below the final subgrade elevation. The trench should be backfilled with MDOT 34R peastone and wrapped in nonwoven filter fabric. The fabric should be overlapped on top of the trench.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER 13

5.6 CONSTRUCTION NOTES

To provide adequate service life and protect the pavement investment, we present the following construction notes. These notes should be included in the project specifications and should be implemented during the construction activities:

1. In general, earthwork and pavement construction shall be performed in accordance with the latest MDOT Standard Specifications for Construction and special provisions, unless otherwise noted in the following items.

2. Remove any existing pavements, foundation structures, topsoil, organic soils, vegetation, trees, unsuitable fill, and deleterious materials to expose the subgrade soil. Tree roots and associated root systems shall be completely removed. Foundation structures shall be removed to a minimum depth of 30 inches below the top of proposed subgrade.

3. Excavate to the depth of the final subgrade elevation to allow for grade changes and the placement of the recommended pavement system.

4. On-site fill can be used if the specified compaction requirements can be achieved. If on-site soil is used, it shall be clean and free of frozen soil, organics, or other deleterious materials.

5. The top 12 inches of the final subgrade surface, as well as individual fill layers, shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum Modified Proctor dry density.

6. After compaction, the subgrade shall be thoroughly proofrolled using a fully loaded tandem axle truck under the observation of a geotechnical/pavement engineer. The criteria for the final proofroll shall be a maximum of 1/4-inch of subgrade deflection or rutting. Loose or yielding areas that cannot be mechanically stabilized shall be removed and replaced with engineered fill or as dictated by field conditions.

7. The aggregate base shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum Modified Proctor dry density. The base and subgrade compaction shall extend a minimum of 1 foot beyond the paved edge.

8. All bituminous material shall be compacted to a density of 94 to 97 percent of the theoretical maximum density as determined by the Standard Test Method for Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures (ASTM D2041).

9. A bond coat of SS-1h emulsion shall be required between the leveling course and the wearing course. The bond coat shall be applied in a uniform manner over the surface at a rate of 0.1 gallons/s.y.

10. The final asphalt cement grade shall be PG64-22 for all layers. Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) in the surface course shall be limited to 15 percent. RAP shall be in allowed in the leveling course and shall not exceed 30 percent. Target air void shall be 3.0 percent.

11. Final pavement elevations shall be so designed to provide positive surface drainage.

12. Cutoff drains shall be installed at major landscaped islands and berms and along edges of the pavement where the adjacent ground surface is higher.

13. Construction traffic shall be minimized on the new pavement.

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER

APPENDIX A SOIL BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM (FIGURE NO. 2)

PROPERTY AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY DIAGRAMS (FIGS. 3 THROUGH 6)


BORING (PAVEMENT CORE) LOGS AND DCP DATA (SB1, SB5, SB7, SB11, SB13,

SB15, SB18, SB20, SB22, SB26, SB28, SB30, SB31, SB32, SB36, SB39, AND SB41)

L

A

R

N

E

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

E

J

E

F

F

E

R

S

O

N

A

V

E

N

U

E

SB5

SB1

SB2

SB3

SB4

ORPHANED 6,000-GALLONGASOLINE UST REMOVED 1993

FORMER USTBASIN LOCATION

FORMER FUEL OILUST LOCATION

FORMER USED OILUST LOCATION

GUARD BOOTH

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS

GUARD BOOTH

0'

GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 50'

50' 100'

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

LOCATION MAP

SITE

E JE

FFE

R

SO

N

A

V

EN

U

E

LA

R

N

ED

S

TR

EE

T

PL

OT

D

AT

E:

FIL

E L

OC

AT

IO

N:

Ma

y 15

, 2

018

- 1:0

9p

m - jb

la

ke

Project

Project Location

Sheet Name

www.sme-usa.com

CADD

Scale

Project

No.Revision Date

Designer

Date

\\S

me

-in

c\p

z\W

IP

\0

77

83

2.0

0\C

AD

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

04

\re

v0

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

04

-S

B.d

wg

NO REPRODUCTION SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT THE PRIOR

CONSENT OF SME

c

DRAWING NOTE: SCALE DEPICTED IS MEANT FOR 11" X 17"

AND WILL SCALE INCORRECTLY IF PRINTED ON ANY

OTHER SIZE MEDIA

Figure No.

JOS CAMPAU

GREENWAY

PORTION OF 2761

EAST JEFFERSON

AVENUE

DETROIT,

MICHIGAN

SOIL BORING

LOCATION

DIAGRAM

2

077832.00.001.004

AHR

JAB

2018

3-21-18

1" = 50'

M

AR

O

N

P

LA

CE

FORMER DISPENSER ISLANDS

APPROXIMATE 1993EXCAVATION BOUNDARY

PORTION OF 2761 EAST JEFFERSONAVENUE PARCEL EVALUATED DURINGTHE BEA

L

A

R

N

E

D

S

T

R

E

E

T

E

L

A

F

A

Y

E

T

T

E

S

T

R

E

E

T

S

T

M

A

R

O

N

P

L

A

C

E

1

SB6

SB7

SB8

SB10

SB11

SB12

SB13

SB14

SB15

S

J

E

F

F

E

R

S

O

N

A

V

E

N

U

E

R

A

L

P

H

B

U

N

C

H

E

C

O

-

O

P

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

R

A

L

P

H

B

U

N

C

H

E

C

O

-

O

P

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

F

O

R

M

E

R

L

O

C

A

T

I

O

N

O

F

S

E

R

V

I

C

E

S

T

A

T

I

O

N

5

3

3

-

5

4

3

J

O

S

E

P

H

C

A

M

P

A

U

A

V

E

N

U

E

/

2

7

5

0

E

.

C

O

N

G

R

E

S

S

SB9

0'


150' 300'

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE ASSESSMENT AREA


LOCATION MAP

SITE

M

A

C

O

M

B

S

TR

EE

T

E LA

FA

Y

ETTE

S

TR

EE

T

LA

R

N

ED

S

TR

EE

T

B

R

A

D

B

Y

D

R

IV

E

P

R

IN

C

E

R

O

B

ER

T

HA

LL

DR

IV

E

E V

ER

N

O

R

H

IG

H

W

A

Y

PL

OT

D

AT

E:

FIL

E L

OC

AT

IO

N:

Ap

r 0

5, 2

018

- 10

:5

5a

m - jb

la

ke

Project

Project Location

Sheet Name

www.sme-usa.com

CADD

Scale

Project

No.Revision Date

Designer

Date

\\S

me

-in

c\p

z\W

IP

\0

77

83

2.0

0\C

AD

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

05

\re

v0

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

05

-S

B.d

wg


CONSENT OF SME

c



OTHER SIZE MEDIA

Figure No.

JOS CAMPAU

GREENWAY

DETROIT,

MICHIGAN

PROPERTY AND

ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

DIAGRAM - SOIL

3

077832.00.001.005

AHR

JAB

2018

4-2-18

1" = 150'

1

2

3

2781 EAST LARNED STREETPARCEL ID: 11000154-74

1599 BRADBY DRIVEPARCEL ID: 11002290-96

2141 McDOUGALLPARCEL ID: 11002200-78

APPROXIMATE PARCEL LINE

1. CONCENTRATIONS ARE SHOWN IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM ( g/kg)

AND EXCEED ONE OR MORE PART 201 GENERIC RESIDENTIAL CLEANUP CRITERIA.

NOTE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOT TO SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text

µg/kg)

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB6 (1'-3') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Arsenic 9,100 9,100 Copper 81,000 81,000 Selenium 700700

AutoCAD SHX Text

Duplicate 1 SB6 (1'-3') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Benzo(a)pyrene 13,000 Fluoranthene 37,000 37,000 Phenanthrene 37,000 37,000 Arsenic 10,000 10,000 Mercury 690 690 Selenium 620 620 Zinc 210,000 210,000 210,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB8 (1'-2') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Arsenic 10,000 10,000 Mercury 140 140 Selenium 580580

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB9 (1'-2') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Arsenic 8,4008,400

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB11 (1'-2') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Arsenic 10,00010,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB12 (0'-1') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Arsenic 7,800 7,800 Mercury 170170

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB13 (0'-1') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Mercury 240240

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB14 (0'-1') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Selenium 1,9001,900

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB15 (0'-1') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Mercury 210 210 Selenium 620620

SB23

SB24

SB25

R

O

B

E

R

T

B

R

A

D

B

Y

D

R

I

V

E

M

A

C

O

M

B

S

T

R

E

E

T

2

SB18

SB19

SB20

SB21

SB22

E

L

A

F

A

Y

E

T

T

E

S

T

R

E

E

T

B

U

N

C

H

E

E

L

E

M

E

N

T

A

R

Y

S

C

H

O

O

L

C

I

T

Y

S

I

D

E

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

&

T

O

W

N

H

O

U

S

E

S

P

A

R

K

V

I

E

W

T

O

W

E

R

A

N

D

S

Q

U

A

R

E

F

O

R

M

E

R

L

O

C

A

T

I

O

N

O

F

S

E

R

V

I

C

E

S

T

A

T

I

O

N

1

0

0

0

-

1

0

1

0

J

O

S

E

P

H

C

A

M

P

A

U

A

V

E

N

U

E

/

2

9

0

1

E

.

L

A

F

A

Y

E

T

T

E

SB16

SB17

0'


150' 300'

LOCATION MAP

SITE

M

A

C

O

M

B

S

TR

EE

T

E LA

FA

Y

ETTE

S

TR

EE

T

LA

R

N

ED

S

TR

EE

T

B

R

A

D

B

Y

D

R

IV

E

P

R

IN

C

E

R

O

B

ER

T

HA

LL

DR

IV

E

E V

ER

N

O

R

H

IG

H

W

A

Y

PL

OT

D

AT

E:

FIL

E L

OC

AT

IO

N:

Ap

r 0

5, 2

018

- 10

:5

5a

m - jb

la

ke

Project

Project Location

Sheet Name

www.sme-usa.com

CADD

Scale

Project

No.Revision Date

Designer

Date

\\S

me

-in

c\p

z\W

IP

\0

77

83

2.0

0\C

AD

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

05

\re

v0

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

05

-S

B.d

wg


CONSENT OF SME

c



OTHER SIZE MEDIA

Figure No.

JOS CAMPAU

GREENWAY

DETROIT,

MICHIGAN

PROPERTY AND

ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

DIAGRAM - SOIL

4

077832.00.001.005

AHR

JAB

2018

4-2-18

1" = 150'

LEGEND



1

2

3







NOTE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOT TO SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB16 (1'-2') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Arsenic 7,800 7,800 Zinc 200,000200,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB18 (0'-1') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Arsenic 7,900 7,900 Selenium 590 590 Zinc 340,000340,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB19 (1'-2') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Arsenic 8,200 8,200 Zinc 200,000200,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB20 (0'-2') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Arsenic 9,000 9,000 Copper 190,000 190,000 Lead 2,500,000 2,500,000 Selenium 590 590 Zinc 690,000690,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

Duplicate 2 SB20 (0'-2') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Arsenic 8,100 8,100 Copper 140,000 140,000 Lead 970,000 970,000 Selenium 520 520 Zinc 630,000630,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB21 (1'-2') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Arsenic 10,000 10,000 Lead 550,000550,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB22 (0'-1') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Arsenic 8,500 8,500 Mercury 1,800 1,800 Selenium 640640

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB23 (0'-1') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Arsenic 7,000 7,000 Selenium 600600

AutoCAD SHX Text

µg/kg)

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB25 (1'-2') 2-15-2018 2-15-2018 Arsenic 6,300 6,300 Zinc 220,000220,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB24 (0'-1') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Arsenic 15,00015,000

R

O

B

E

R

T

B

R

A

D

B

Y

D

R

I

V

E

P

R

I

N

C

E

H

A

L

L

D

R

I

V

E

C

H

E

N

E

S

T

R

E

E

T

SB26

SB27

SB28

SB29

SB30

SB31

N

O

E

L

V

I

L

L

A

G

E

L

D

H

A

F

E

N

I

M

O

R

E

C

O

U

R

T

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

F

E

N

I

M

O

R

E

C

O

U

R

T

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

C

O

L

E

M

A

N

Y

O

U

N

G

C

O

M

M

U

N

I

T

Y

C

E

N

T

E

R

P

R

I

N

C

E

H

A

L

L

P

L

A

C

E

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

C

A

M

P

A

U

F

A

R

M

S

C

O

N

D

O

M

I

N

I

U

M

S

2

0'


150' 300'

LOCATION MAP

SITE

M

A

C

O

M

B

S

TR

EE

T

E LA

FA

Y

ETTE

S

TR

EE

T

LA

R

N

ED

S

TR

EE

T

B

R

A

D

B

Y

D

R

IV

E

P

R

IN

C

E

R

O

B

ER

T

HA

LL

DR

IV

E

E V

ER

N

O

R

H

IG

H

W

A

Y

PL

OT

D

AT

E:

FIL

E L

OC

AT

IO

N:

Ap

r 0

5, 2

018

- 11:10

am

- jb

la

ke

Project

Project Location

Sheet Name

www.sme-usa.com

CADD

Scale

Project

No.Revision Date

Designer

Date

\\S

me

-in

c\p

z\W

IP

\0

77

83

2.0

0\C

AD

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

05

\re

v0

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

05

-S

B.d

wg


CONSENT OF SME

c



OTHER SIZE MEDIA

Figure No.

JOS CAMPAU

GREENWAY

DETROIT,

MICHIGAN

PROPERTY AND

ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

DIAGRAM - SOIL

5

077832.00.001.005

AHR

JAB

2018

4-2-18

1" = 150'

LEGEND



1

2

3







NOTE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOT TO SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

µg/kg)

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB27 (0'-1') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Zinc 340,000340,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB28 (0'-2') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Arsenic 7,1007,100

AutoCAD SHX Text

Duplicate 3 SB28 (0'-2') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Arsenic 12,000 12,000 Selenium 560560

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

SB30 (1'-2') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Arsenic 11,00011,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB31 (0'-1') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Arsenic 6,2006,200

SB33

SB34

SB37

H

A

L

L

D

R

I

V

E

E

V

E

R

N

O

R

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

3

SB32

SB35

SB36

SB39

SB38

SB40

SB41

M

c

D

O

N

A

L

D

S

Q

U

A

R

E

&

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

M

c

D

O

N

A

L

D

S

Q

U

A

R

E

&

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

P

R

I

N

C

E

H

A

L

L

P

L

A

C

E

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

N

O

E

L

V

I

L

L

A

G

E

L

D

H

A

P

R

I

N

C

E

H

A

L

L

P

L

A

C

E

A

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

S

F

O

R

M

E

R

L

O

C

A

T

I

O

N

O

F

C

O

A

L

Y

A

R

D

2

3

0

3

-

2

3

1

1

J

O

S

E

P

H

C

A

M

P

A

U

A

V

E

N

U

E

/

2

7

6

7

J

A

Y

S

T

R

E

E

T

0'


150' 300'

LOCATION MAP

SITE

M

A

C

O

M

B

S

TR

EE

T

E LA

FA

Y

ETTE

S

TR

EE

T

LA

R

N

ED

S

TR

EE

T

B

R

A

D

B

Y

D

R

IV

E

P

R

IN

C

E

R

O

B

ER

T

HA

LL

DR

IV

E

E V

ER

N

O

R

H

IG

H

W

A

Y

PL

OT

D

AT

E:

FIL

E L

OC

AT

IO

N:

Ap

r 0

5, 2

018

- 10

:5

4a

m - jb

la

ke

Project

Project Location

Sheet Name

www.sme-usa.com

CADD

Scale

Project

No.Revision Date

Designer

Date

\\S

me

-in

c\p

z\W

IP

\0

77

83

2.0

0\C

AD

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

05

\re

v0

\0

77

83

2.0

0.0

01.0

05

-S

B.d

wg


CONSENT OF SME

c



OTHER SIZE MEDIA

Figure No.

JOS CAMPAU

GREENWAY

DETROIT,

MICHIGAN

PROPERTY AND

ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

DIAGRAM - SOIL

6

077832.00.001.005

AHR

JAB

2018

4-2-18

1" = 150'

LEGEND



1

2

3







NOTE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOT TO SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB32 (0'-1') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Arsenic 7,6007,600

AutoCAD SHX Text

µg/kg)

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB33 (0'-1') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Arsenic 7,500 7,500 Lead 430,000 430,000 Selenium 500 500 Zinc 300,000300,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB34 (1'-2') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Arsenic 9,700 9,700 Lead 450,000 450,000 Mercury 300 300 Selenium 500 500 Zinc 250,000250,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB35 (0'-1') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Arsenic 6,000 6,000 Zinc 420,000420,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB36 (0'-1') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Zinc 230,000230,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB37 (0'-1') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Arsenic 9,800 9,800 Selenium 550 550 Zinc 340,000340,000

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB38 (1'-2') 2-14-2018 2-14-2018 Arsenic 6,2006,200

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB39 (1'-2') 2-16-2018 2-16-2018 Arsenic 6,6006,600

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve. Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:

Less than 5 percent……………………..……...GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12 percent……………………..…….GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 percent……………...……..Cases requiring dual symbols

SP-SM or SW-SM (SAND with Silt or SAND with Silt and Grav-

el) SP-SC or SW-SC (SAND with Clay or SAND with Clay and

Gravel) GP-GM or GW-GM (GRAVEL with Silt or GRAVEL with Silt and

Sand) GP-GC or GW-GC (GRAVEL with Clay or GRAVEL with Clay

and Sand)

If the fines are CL-ML:

SC-SM (SILTY CLAYEY SAND or SILTY CLAYEY SAND with Gravel)

SM-SC (CLAYEY SILTY SAND or CLAYEY SILTY SAND with Gravel)

GC-GM (SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL or SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL with Sand)

GM-GC (CLAYEY SILTY GRAVEL or CLAYEY SILTY GRAVEL with Sand)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART

COARSE-GRAINED SOIL (more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)

GRAVEL

More than 50% of coarse

fraction larger than No. 4 sieve size

Clean Gravel (Less than 5% fines)

GW Well-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP Poorly-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Gravel with fines (More than 12% fines)

GM Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GC Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SAND

50% or more of coarse

fraction smaller than No. 4 sieve size

Clean Sand (Less than 5% fines)

SW Well-graded sand; sand-gravel mixtures, little or no fines

SP Poorly graded sand; sand-gravel mixtures, little or no fines

Sand with fines (More than 12% fines)

SM Silty sand; sand-silt-gravel mixtures

SC Clayey sand; sand–clay-gravel mixtures

FINE-GRAINED SOIL (50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size)

SILT AND

CLAY Liquid limit less than

50%

ML Inorganic silt; sandy silt or gravelly silt with slight plasticity

CL Inorganic clay of low plasticity; lean clay, sandy clay, gravelly clay

OL Organic silt and organic clay of low plasticity

SILT AND

CLAY Liquid limit

50% or greater

MH Inorganic silt of high plasticity, elastic silt

CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity, fat clay

OH Organic silt and organic clay of high plasticity

HIGHLY ORGANIC

SOIL PT

Peat and other highly organic soil

LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

GW D60 D30 CU = greater than 4; CC = between 1 and 3 D10 D10 x D60

GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW

GM Atterberg limits below “A” line or PI less than 4

Above “A” line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols GC

Atterberg limits above “A” line with PI greater than 7

SW D60 D30 CU = greater than 6; CC = between 1 and 3 D10 D10 x D60

SP Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW

SM Atterberg limits below “A” line or PI less than 4 Above “A” line with PI

between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols SC

Atterberg limits above “A” line with PI greater than 7


LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)

PLASTICITY CHART

DRILLING AND SAMPLING ABBREVIATIONS

2ST – Shelby Tube – 2” O.D. 3ST – Shelby Tube – 3” O.D. AS – Auger Sample GS – Grab Sample LS – Liner Sample NR – No Recovery PM – Pressure Meter RC – Rock Core diamond bit. NX size, except

where noted SB – Split Barrel Sample 1-3/8” I.D., 2” O.D.,

except where noted VS – Vane Shear WS – Wash Sample

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

WOH – Weight of Hammer WOR – Weight of Rods SP – Soil Probe PID – Photo Ionization Device FID – Flame Ionization Device

PARTICLE SIZES

Boulders - Greater than 12 inches Cobbles - 3 inches to 12 inches Gravel- Coarse - 3/4 inches to 3 inches Fine - No. 4 to 3/4 inches Sand- Coarse - No. 10 to No. 4 Medium - No. 40 to No. 10 Fine - No. 200 to No. 40 Silt and Clay - Less than (0.0074 mm)

DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES

Parting – as much as 1/16 inch thick Seam – 1/16 inch to 1/2 inch thick Layer – 1/2 inch to 12 inches thick Stratum – greater than 12 inches thick Pocket – deposit of limited lateral extent Lens – lenticular deposit Hardpan/Till – an unstratified, consolidated or cemented

mixture of clay, silt, sand and/or gravel, the size/shape of the constituents vary widely

Lacustrine – soil deposited by lake water

Mottled – soil irregularly marked with spots of different

colors that vary in number and size

Varved – alternating partings or seams of silt and/or

clay

Occasional – one or less per foot of thickness Frequent – more than one per foot of thickness Interbedded – strata of soil or beds of rock lying between or

alternating with other strata of a different nature

VISUAL MANUAL PROCEDURE

When laboratory tests are not performed to confirm the classifica-tion of soils exhibiting borderline classifications, the two possible classifications would be separated with a slash, as follows:

For soils where it is difficult to distinguish if it is a coarse or fine-grained soil:

SC/CL (CLAYEY SAND to Sandy LEAN CLAY) SM/ML (SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT) GC/CL (CLAYEY GRAVEL to Gravelly LEAN CLAY) GM/ML (SILTY GRAVEL to Gravelly SILT)

For soils where it is difficult to distinguish if it is sand or gravel, poorly or well-graded sand or gravel; silt or clay; or plastic or non-plastic silt or clay:

SP/GP or SW/GW (SAND with Gravel to GRAVEL with Sand) SC/GC (CLAYEY SAND with Gravel to CLAYEY GRAVEL with

Sand) SM/GM (SILTY SAND with Gravel to SILTY GRAVEL with

Sand) SW/SP (SAND or SAND with Gravel) GP/GW (GRAVEL or GRAVEL with Sand) SC/SM (CLAYEY to SILTY SAND) GM/GC (SILTY to CLAYEY GRAVEL) CL/ML (SILTY CLAY) ML/CL (CLAYEY SILT) CH/MH (FAT CLAY to ELASTIC SILT) CL/CH (LEAN to FAT CLAY) MH/ML (ELASTIC SILT to SILT) OL/OH (ORGANIC SILT or ORGANIC CLAY)

OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS

Topsoil

Void

Sandstone

Asphalt

Glacial Till

Siltstone

Base

Coal

Limestone

Concrete

Shale

Fill

CLASSIFICATION TERMINOLOGY AND CORRELATIONS

Cohesionless Soils

Relative Density N-Value (Blows per foot)

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Extremely Dense

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 50 to 80 Over 80

Standard Penetration ‘N-Value’ = Blows per foot of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split barrel sampler, except where noted.

Cohesive Soils

Consistency N-Value

(Blows per foot) Undrained Shear Strength (kips/ft2)

Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard

0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30 > 30

0.25 or less 0.25 to 0.50

0.50 to 1.0

1.0 to 2.0

2.0 to 4.0

4.0 or greater

CL

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

PI)

(%

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0

10

60

50

40

30

20

CH

A LINE

PI=0.73 (LL-20)

MH & OH

ML & OL CL+ML

0.3

2.0

8.0

ASPHALT

FILL- GRAVEL Aggregate with Sand andTrace Asphalt-Gray (GP)

LEAN CLAY with Trace Gravel- MottledBrown and Gray (CL)

END OF BORING AT 8.0 FEET.

43

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2

DATE STARTED: 2/13/18 COMPLETED: 2/13/18

LOGGED BY: CEB CHECKED BY: MAV

BORING METHOD: Direct Push

RIG NO.: TRUCK MOUNTOPERATOR: BJM

GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION

GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED

NOTES: 1. Soil samples were classified according to ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification ofSoils (Visual-Manual Procedure) for environmental purposes only. Therefore, the boring logs and associatedreport(s) should not be used for geotechnical evaluation or design.

2. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.3. Listed depths under the profile description are rounded to the nearest tenth of a foot (e.g. 5.75 = 5.8). Refer to

the report and attachments for actual sample depths and/or intervals (where applicable).4. No odors noted and no staining observed.

BACKFILL METHOD: Soil Cuttings, Bentonite, &Asphalt Patch

BORING SB 1

PROJECT LOCATION: Detroit. Michigan

PROJECT NAME: Jos Campau Gateway PROJECT NUMBER: 077832.00.001.004

CLIENT: City of Detroit

PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E

PROFILE DESCRIPTION SOIL

ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

0.3

2.0

8.0

ASPHALT

FILL- Fine to Medium SAND with Gravel andSilt- Dark Brown- Moist (SW-SM)



46

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2


LOGGED BY: CEB CHECKED BY:









BORING SB 2




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

0.3

1.5

8.0

ASPHALT

FILL- Fine to Medium SAND with Gravel andSilt- Dark Brown- Moist (SW-SM)



44

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB 3




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

0.3

2.5

4.5

8.0

ASPHALT

FILL- Fine to Medium SAND with Gravel, Siltand Concrete- Dark Brown- Moist (SW-SM)

FILL- Fine to Coarse SAND- Brown- Moist(SP)



41

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB 4




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

0.3

2.0

3.0

8.0

ASPHALT

FILL- Fine to Medium SAND with Gravel, Siltand Concrete- Dark Brown- Moist (SW-SM)

CONCRETE



42

48

1.5

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2

Staining and petroleum odors noted from 1 to 2 feet.









the report and attachments for actual sample depths and/or intervals (where applicable).BACKFILL METHOD: Soil Cuttings, Bentonite, &Asphalt Patch

BORING SB 5




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

6.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick and Rubber- Brown (CL)

Refusal at 6.0 Feet


48

27

<1

4.7

<1

LS1

LS2

Black staining and petroleum odor from 2 to 3 feet.









the report and attachments for actual sample depths and/or intervals (where applicable).BACKFILL METHOD: Soil Cuttings

BORING SB 6

PROJECT LOCATION: Detroit, Michigan

PROJECT NAME: Joseph Campau Greenway PROJECT NUMBER: 077832.00.001.005


PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

2.0

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Concrete, Brick and Asphalt-Brown (CL)



48

42

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2










BACKFILL METHOD: Soil Cuttings

BORING SB 7




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.0

8.0




48

58

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB 8




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

0.5

2.5

FILL- TOPSOIL- Fine to Medium SAND withSilt and Roots- Dark Brown- Moist (SP-SM)

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick and Rubber- Brown (CL)

Refusal at 2.5 Feet


6

6

6

6

6

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5



BORING METHOD: Hand Auger

EQUIPMENT: Hand AugerFIELD REPRESENTATIVE: BJM







BORING SB 9




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

1.0

2.5

4.0


FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick- Brown (CL)



6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

<1

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7

AS8











BORING SB10




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

4.5

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick, Concrete and Asphalt-Brown (CL)



37

33

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB11




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

0.5

2.5



Refusal at 2.5 Feet


6

6

6

6

6

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5











BORING SB12




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.5

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick and Concrete- Brown(CL)



48

46

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB13




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

1.0

3.5

FILL- TOPSOIL- Fine to Coarse SAND withSilt and Gravel- Dark Brown- Moist (SP-SM)

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick and Glass- Brown (CL)

Refusal at 3.5 Feet


6

6

6

6

6

6

6

<1

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7











BORING SB14




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

2.5

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel andRoots- Fragments of Concrete and Brick-Brown (CL)



48

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB15




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.5

7.0

8.0


FILL- Fine to Coarse SAND- Brown- Moist(SP)

LEAN CLAY with Trace Concrete- MottledBrown and Gray (CL)


43

35

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB16




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.0

5.0

8.0


FILL- Fine to Medium SAND- Light Brown-Moist (SP)



48

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB17




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

6.5

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Concrete and Brick- Brown(CL)



47

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB18




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.0

8.0




42

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB19




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

4.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick, Concrete and Glass-Brown (CL)

Refusal at 4.0 Feet


42

<1

<1

LS1











BORING SB20




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

0.3

3.0

4.0





6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

<1

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7

AS8











BORING SB21




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

4.0

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Clay andRoots- Fragments of Concrete and Brick-Brown (CL)



48

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB22




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

1.0

3.0

4.0





6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

<1

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7

AS8











BORING SB23




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

2.0

4.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Fragments ofBrick- Brown (CL)

LEAN CLAY- Mottled Brown and Gray (CL)


6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

<1

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7

AS8











BORING SB24




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

4.5

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Ash-Fragments of Brick and Concrete- Brown(CL)



48

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB25




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

4.5

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel andRoots- Fragments of Concrete, Brick andAsphalt- Brown (CL)



43

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB26




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

1.5

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Gravel- Trace Roots-Fragments of Brick and Concrete- Brown(CL)



37

46

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB27




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

5.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel andRoots- Fragments of Brick and Concrete-Dark Brown to Brown (CL)

Refusal at 5.0 Feet


39

14

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB28




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.5

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick, Concrete and Asphalt-Brown (CL)



48

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB29




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

0.8

3.0

8.0

FILL- Sandy GRAVEL with Clay- Gray-Brown- Moist (GW)

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel andAsh- Fragments of Brick and Concrete-Brown (CL)



48

39

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB30




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.0

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick, Concrete and Plastic-Brown (CL)



37

44

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB31




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

2.5

6.0

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Roots- Trace Gravel-Fragments of Brick and Glass- Dark Brownto Brown (CL)

FILL- Fine to Coarse SAND- Gray- Moist(SP)



44

32

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB32




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.5

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Roots- TraceFragments of Brick and Coal- Brown (CL)

Refusal at 3.5 Feet


6

6

6

6

6

6

6

<1

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7











BORING SB33




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

6.0

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel andRoots- Fragments of Brick, Asphalt andGlass- Brown (CL)



45

47

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB34




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

2.0

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel andRoots- Fragments of Brick, Concrete andAsphalt- Brown (CL)



48

45

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB35




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

5.0

6.5

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel andSlag- Fragments of Brick, Concrete andGlass- Brown (CL)

FILL- Fine to Medium SAND with TraceGravel- Light Brown- Moist (SP)



36

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB36




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

0.5

4.0


FILL- Fine to Medium SAND with Clay-Trace Fragments of Glass- Brown to LightBrown- Moist (SP-SC)


6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

<1

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7

AS8











BORING SB37




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

4.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel andRoots- Fragments of Brick and Glass- Brown(CL)


6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

<1

<1

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7

AS8











BORING SB38




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.0

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel-Fragments of Asphalt, Brick and Concrete-Brown (CL)



48

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB39




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

3.0

8.0

FILL- Sandy CLAY with Trace Gravel andRoots- Fragments of Brick, Concrete,Asphalt and Glass- Brown (CL)



48

48

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB40




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

7.0

8.0




46

45

<1

<1

<1

<1

LS1

LS2











BORING SB41




PAGE 1 OF 1

SY

MB

OLI

CP

RO

FIL

E


ANAL

YTIC

AL S

AMPL

E

REC

OVE

RY

(inch

es)

PID

(ppm

)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

/NO

.IN

TER

VAL

REMARKSDE

PT

H (

FE

ET

)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

PROJECT NAME: Jos Campau Gateway PROBE/CORE: SB1

PROJECT NO.: 077832.00.001.004 STREET:

LOCATION: Detroit, Michigan LANE:

CLIENT: Detroit Economic Growth Corporation STATION:

A/E: OFFSET:

DATE: 2/13/18 ADDRESS:

BY: BJM GROUND EL:

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONSLayer

From To Thickness, in.

0 0.33 0.33

0.33 24 23.67

24 96 72

Depth to Groundwater From Ground Surface NOTES:

Upon Completion:

DCP TEST RESULTSDepth to start of test from ex. ground surface: 5 inches

No. of Pen. Blow Set Pen./Blow Blow Depth from CBR Soil AverageBlows (mm) (mm) (mm) Factor Surface (inches) (%) Type CBR (%)

0 450 230 490 40 1 2 6.6 97.3 Good 25 500 10 0 2 7.0 100.0 Good 20 540 40 2 2 8.5 61.8 Good 20 610 70 4 2 11.3 33.0 Good 10 670 60 6 2 13.7 18.1 Good 48.95 750 80 16 2 16.8 3.4 Poor 3 840 90 30 2 20.4 1.0 Very Poor 5 940 100 20 2 24.3 2.2 Very Poor 8 1080 140 18 2 29.8 2.8 Very Poor 2.4

15 1120 40 3 2 31.4 44.8 Good 44.8

Hammer Blow Factor: 1 for 17.6 lb Hammer and 2 for 10.1 lb Hammer *CBR breaklines are based on blow counts performed prior to sampling. Depths are approximate.

Support Conditions

CBR Range for Aggregate Base

Materials (%)

Good >80Marginal 60 to 80

Poor 30 to 60Very Poor <30

© 2018 SME CORE LOG DCP 1 meter rod (standard).XLS ver. 2/7/1 4- Clay DCP

Comment

CBR Range for Subgrade Soils (%)

>105 to 103 to 5

<3

PAVEMENT CORE LOG AND USACE DCP DATA

Layer, in. Description Comment

3 inches of ASPHALT CONCRETE

FILL- Sand & Gravel Aggregate Base- Trace Asphalt Millings (SP)

LEAN CLAY with Sand- Occasional Silt Partings- Mottled Brown & Gray- Hard (CL)

MC: 14%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 3.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

351 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 0.25 0.25

0.25 24 23.75

24 36 12

36 96 60


Upon Completion:

DCP TEST RESULTSDepth to start of test from ex. ground surface: inches


0 710 0 215 800 90 6 2 3.5 18.1 Good 4 815 15 4 2 4.1 30.6 Good 5 970 155 31 2 10.2 0.9 Very Poor 8 1106 136 17 2 15.6 3.0 Very Poor


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



3 inches of ASPHALT CONCRETE

FILL- Fine to Coarse SAND with Silt & Gravel- Frequent Concrete & Asphalt Millings- Dark Brown & Black- Moist (SP-SM)

CONCRETE

LEAN CLAY with Sand & Gravel- Frequent Silt & Sand Partings- Mottled Brown & Gray- Hard (CL)

MC: 14%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 7.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

181 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 24 24

24 96 72


Upon Completion:



0 150 0 22 230 80 40 2 3.1 0.5 Very Poor 3 300 70 23 2 5.9 1.6 Very Poor

15 360 60 4 2 8.3 28.4 Good 20 390 30 2 2 9.4 85.3 Good 35 440 50 1 2 11.4 90.1 Good 10 490 50 5 2 13.4 22.2 Good 12 535 45 4 2 15.2 30.6 Good 17 595 60 4 2 17.5 32.7 Good 6 660 65 11 2 20.1 7.4 Marginal 6 760 100 17 2 24.0 3.1 Poor 5 870 110 22 2 28.3 1.8 Very Poor 6 990 120 20 2 33.1 2.2 Very Poor


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel- Frequent Fragments of Concrete, Brick & Asphalt- Brown & Dark Brown- Stiff (CL)

MC: 17%, HP: 1.75 ksf at 1.5 feet

SILTY LEAN CLAY with Sand- Mottled Brown & Gray- Very Stiff (CL-ML) MC: 20%, HP: 3.25 ksf at 3.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

351 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 54 54

54 96 42


Upon Completion:



0 145 0 24 210 65 16 2 2.6 3.3 Poor 3 280 70 23 2 5.3 1.6 Very Poor 6 350 70 12 2 8.1 6.3 Marginal

10 410 60 6 2 10.4 18.1 Good 30 490 80 3 2 13.6 44.8 Good 40 495 5 0 2 13.8 100.0 Good 50 520 25 1 2 14.8 100.0 Good 30 550 30 1 2 15.9 100.0 Good 20 610 60 3 2 18.3 39.3 Good 10 665 55 6 2 20.5 19.9 Good 20 780 115 6 2 25.0 18.9 Good 12 860 80 7 2 28.1 16.0 Good 15 995 135 9 2 33.5 11.5 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel- Frequent Fragments of Brick, Concrete & Asphalt- Brown & Dark Brown- Hard (CL)

MC: 13%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 2.5 feet

SILTY LEAN CLAY- Frequent Silty Sand Seams & Partings- Mottled Brown & Gray- Stiff (CL-ML)

MC: 22%, HP: 1.25 ksf at 7.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

401 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 42 42

42 96 54


Upon Completion:



0 155 0 21 220 65 65 2 2.6 0.2 Very Poor 2 295 75 38 2 5.5 0.6 Very Poor 4 365 70 18 2 8.3 2.8 Very Poor 8 450 85 11 2 11.6 7.6 Marginal 6 510 60 10 2 14.0 10.2 Good 8 550 40 5 2 15.6 22.2 Good

15 590 40 3 2 17.1 44.8 Good 15 650 60 4 2 19.5 28.4 Good 9 710 60 7 2 21.9 16.0 Good 6 770 60 10 2 24.2 10.2 Good

15 840 70 5 2 27.0 23.9 Good 25 900 60 2 2 29.3 50.4 Good 45 1050 150 3 2 35.2 34.9 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel- Occasional Fragments of Brick & Concrete- Brown- Hard (CL)

MC: 13%, HP: 1.5 ksf at 2.5 feet

LEAN CLAY with Sand- Mottled Brown & Gray- Hard (CL) MC: 15%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 5.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

401 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 30 30

30 96 66


Upon Completion:



0 150 0 21 225 75 75 2 3.0 0.2 Very Poor 2 285 60 30 2 5.3 1.0 Very Poor 5 340 55 11 2 7.5 7.1 Marginal 8 405 65 8 2 10.0 12.9 Good

15 490 85 6 2 13.4 19.3 Good 12 565 75 6 2 16.3 17.3 Good 20 630 65 3 2 18.9 35.9 Good 20 668 38 2 2 20.4 65.5 Good 30 710 42 1 2 22.0 92.2 Good 30 725 15 1 2 22.6 100.0 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel- Frequent Root Fibers & Fragments of Concrete & Brick- Dark Brown- Hard (CL)

LOI: 3.6%, MC: 15%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 1.5 feet

LEAN CLAY with Sand & Gravel- Frequent Silty Sand Seams & Partings- Mottled Brown & Gray- Very Stiff (CL)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 78 78

78 96 18


Upon Completion:



0 155 0 28 200 45 6 2 1.8 19.4 Good

15 245 45 3 2 3.5 39.3 Good 50 290 45 1 2 5.3 100.0 Good 50 325 35 1 2 6.7 100.0 Good 30 370 45 2 2 8.5 85.3 Good 6 400 30 5 2 9.6 22.2 Good 3 460 60 20 2 12.0 2.2 Very Poor 5 530 70 14 2 14.8 4.4 Poor 6 590 60 10 2 17.1 10.2 Good 8 650 60 8 2 19.5 14.1 Good 6 730 80 13 2 22.6 4.9 Poor

12 810 80 7 2 25.8 16.0 Good 10 900 90 9 2 29.3 11.5 Good 10 1030 130 13 2 34.4 5.1 Marginal


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel- Frequent Silty Sand Seams & Silty Clay Layers- Frequent Fragments of Concrete & Brick- Dark Brown, Gray & Black- Stiff (CL)

MC: 12%, HP: 1.75 ksf at 2.5 feet

SILTY LEAN CLAY- Frequent Silty Sand Seams- Mottled Brown & Gray- Stiff (CL-ML)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 48 48


Upon Completion:



0 160 0 21 235 75 75 2 3.0 0.2 Very Poor 2 310 75 38 2 5.9 0.6 Very Poor 3 380 70 23 2 8.7 1.6 Very Poor 4 430 50 13 2 10.6 5.5 Marginal 5 500 70 14 2 13.4 4.4 Poor 5 590 90 18 2 16.9 2.7 Very Poor 5 690 100 20 2 20.9 2.2 Very Poor 1 695 5 5 2 21.1 22.2 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel- Frequent Fragments of Brick, Concrete & Glass- Occasional Silty Sand Seams & Partings- Brown- Very Stiff (CL)

MC: 16%, HP: 3.25 ksf at 3.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 48 48

48 96 48


Upon Completion:



0 145 0 24 190 45 11 2 1.8 6.8 Marginal 1 270 80 80 2 4.9 0.1 Very Poor 2 360 90 45 2 8.5 0.4 Very Poor 3 430 70 23 2 11.2 1.6 Very Poor 3 480 50 17 2 13.2 3.1 Poor 6 550 70 12 2 15.9 6.3 Marginal

10 620 70 7 2 18.7 15.2 Good 7 700 80 11 2 21.9 6.6 Marginal 5 750 50 10 2 23.8 10.2 Good

15 870 120 8 2 28.5 13.1 Good 25 970 100 4 2 32.5 28.4 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel- Frequent Root Fibers- Frequent Fragments of Concrete & Brick- Brown- Very Stiff (CL)


LEAN CLAY with Sand- Frequent Sand Seams & Partings- Mottled Brown & Gray- Hard (CL)

MC: 12%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 6.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

351 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 54 54

54 96 42


Upon Completion:



0 150 0 22 210 60 30 2 2.4 1.0 Very Poor 8 300 90 11 2 5.9 6.8 Marginal


20 565 65 3 2 16.3 35.9 Good 30 610 45 2 2 18.1 85.3 Good 30 630 20 1 2 18.9 100.0 Good 40 650 20 1 2 19.7 100.0 Good 40 690 40 1 2 21.3 100.0 Good 40 720 30 1 2 22.4 100.0 Good 40 740 20 1 2 23.2 100.0 Good 40 775 35 1 2 24.6 100.0 Good 40 810 35 1 2 26.0 100.0 Good 40 860 50 1 2 28.0 100.0 Good 20 900 40 2 2 29.5 61.8 Good 30 1020 120 4 2 34.3 28.4 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY- Frequent Sand Seams & Root Fibers- Frequent Fragments of Concrete, Brick & Asphalt- Brown to Dark Brown- Hard (CL)

MC: 12%, HP: 4.0 ksf at 1.0 foot


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

401 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 60 60


Upon Completion:



0 160 0 212 210 50 4 2 2.0 27.2 Good 5 250 40 8 2 3.5 13.1 Good 4 300 50 13 2 5.5 5.5 Marginal 3 360 60 20 2 7.9 2.2 Very Poor 3 390 30 10 2 9.1 10.2 Good 4 440 50 13 2 11.0 5.5 Marginal 4 500 60 15 2 13.4 3.8 Poor

10 565 65 7 2 15.9 16.5 Good 15 600 35 2 2 17.3 52.0 Good 15 630 30 2 2 18.5 61.8 Good 15 700 70 5 2 21.3 23.9 Good 15 740 40 3 2 22.8 44.8 Good 15 790 50 3 2 24.8 34.9 Good 20 830 40 2 2 26.4 61.8 Good 30 860 30 1 2 27.6 100.0 Good 15 865 5 0 2 27.8 100.0 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel- Frequent Sand Seams & Layers- Occasional Fragments of Brick & Concrete- Dark Brown to Brown- Very Stiff (CL)

MC: 15%, HP: 3.25 ksf at 2.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

301 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 0.75 0.75

0.75 36 35.25

36 96 60


Upon Completion:



0 160 0 22 200 40 20 2 1.6 2.2 Very Poor 2 270 70 35 2 4.3 0.7 Very Poor 3 310 40 13 2 5.9 4.9 Poor 3 360 50 17 2 7.9 3.1 Poor 3 410 50 17 2 9.8 3.1 Poor 5 470 60 12 2 12.2 6.0 Marginal 5 540 70 14 2 15.0 4.4 Poor 6 640 100 17 2 18.9 3.1 Poor 4 750 110 28 2 23.2 1.1 Very Poor 4 850 100 25 2 27.2 1.4 Very Poor 3 930 80 27 2 30.3 1.2 Very Poor

10 980 50 5 2 32.3 22.2 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy GRAVEL with Clay- Gray- Moist (GP)

FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel & Ash- Fragments of Brick & Concrete- Brown, Dark Brown & Black- Very Stiff (CL)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

351 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 36 36

36 96 60


Upon Completion:



0 160 0 26 190 30 5 2 1.2 22.2 Good 6 220 30 5 2 2.4 22.2 Good 3 290 70 23 2 5.1 1.6 Very Poor 3 350 60 20 2 7.5 2.2 Very Poor 3 410 60 20 2 9.8 2.2 Very Poor 4 480 70 18 2 12.6 2.8 Very Poor 5 560 80 16 2 15.7 3.4 Poor

12 610 50 4 2 17.7 27.2 Good 11 670 60 5 2 20.1 20.1 Good 6 760 90 15 2 23.6 3.8 Poor 6 850 90 15 2 27.2 3.8 Poor 5 900 50 10 2 29.1 10.2 Good 8 1020 120 15 2 33.9 3.8 Poor


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- SILTY CLAYEY SAND- Frequent Fragments of Brick, Concrete & Plastic- Frequent Sandy Clay Seams & Layers- Brown- Moist (SC-SM)

LEAN CLAY with Sand- Frequent Silty Sand Seams & Partings- Mottled Brown & Gray- Very Stiff (CL)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

401 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 30 30

30 72 42

72 96 24


Upon Completion:



0 155 0 25 210 55 11 2 2.2 7.1 Marginal 2 280 70 35 2 4.9 0.7 Very Poor 4 355 75 19 2 7.9 2.5 Very Poor 3 420 65 22 2 10.4 1.8 Very Poor 6 480 60 10 2 12.8 10.2 Good

10 530 50 5 2 14.8 22.2 Good 8 580 50 6 2 16.7 17.3 Good

12 640 60 5 2 19.1 22.2 Good 7 660 20 3 2 19.9 41.5 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- SILTY SANDY CLAY- Frequent Root Fibers- Occasional Fragments of Brick & Glass- Dark Brown & Brown- Soft (CL-ML)

MC: 23%, TV: 0.4 ksf at 1.5 feet

FILL- Fine to Coarse SAND- Brown & Gray- Moist to Wet (SP)

LEAN CLAY- Mottled Brown & Gray- Hard (CL) MC: 20%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 6.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

251 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 60 60

60 78 18

78 96 18


Upon Completion:



0 160 0 21 240 80 80 2 3.1 0.1 Very Poor 2 310 70 35 2 5.9 0.7 Very Poor 4 370 60 15 2 8.3 3.8 Poor 4 420 50 13 2 10.2 5.5 Marginal 5 490 70 14 2 13.0 4.4 Poor 7 565 75 11 2 15.9 7.5 Marginal 8 650 85 11 2 19.3 7.6 Marginal 8 750 100 13 2 23.2 5.5 Marginal 6 825 75 13 2 26.2 5.5 Marginal 4 920 95 24 2 29.9 1.5 Very Poor

10 980 60 6 2 32.3 18.1 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY- Frequent Sand Seams & Layers & Slag- Fragments of Brick, Concrete & Glass- Brown & Dark Brown- Very Stiff (CL)


FILL- Fine to Medium SAND with Gravel- Light Brown to Brown- Moist (SP)

LEAN CLAY with Sand- Gray- Hard (CL) MC: 15%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 7.5 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

351 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 36 36

36 96 60


Upon Completion:



0 165 0 22 240 75 38 2 3.0 0.6 Very Poor 5 290 50 10 2 4.9 10.2 Good 5 330 40 8 2 6.5 13.1 Good 5 370 40 8 2 8.1 13.1 Good

10 410 40 4 2 9.6 28.4 Good 12 460 50 4 2 11.6 27.2 Good 8 520 60 8 2 14.0 14.1 Good

10 590 70 7 2 16.7 15.2 Good 5 660 70 14 2 19.5 4.4 Poor

30 760 100 3 2 23.4 34.9 Good 7 800 40 6 2 25.0 19.1 Good

12 880 80 7 2 28.1 16.0 Good 12 960 80 7 2 31.3 16.0 Good 10 1020 60 6 2 33.7 18.1 Good


Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY- Frequent Sand Seams & Layers- Fragments of Asphalt, Brick & Concrete- Dark Brown & Brown- Stiff (CL)

MC: 17%, HP: 1.75 ksf at 2.5 feet


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

401 10 100

DE

PT

H (

IN)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR





A/E: OFFSET:


BY: BJM GROUND EL:



0 78 78

78 96 18


Upon Completion:



0 160 0 22 220 60 30 2 2.4 1.0 Very Poor 4 295 75 19 2 5.3 2.5 Very Poor 4 370 75 19 2 8.3 2.5 Very Poor 5 470 100 20 2 12.2 2.2 Very Poor 8 560 90 11 2 15.7 6.8 Marginal



Support Conditions


Materials (%)




Comment


>105 to 103 to 5

<3



FILL- Sandy LEAN CLAY- Frequent Fragments of Brick & Concrete- Grayish Brown- Hard (CL)

MC: 11%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 2 feet

Sandy LEAN CLAY- Mottled Brown & Gray- Hard (CL) MC: 17%, HP: 4.5+ ksf at 6.75 feet

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

301 10 100

DE

PT

H (I

N)

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

© 2018 SME 077832.00.002.001+051818+GER

APPENDIX B IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

Geotechnical-Engineering ReportImportant Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one – not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read this Report in FullCostly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about ChangeYour geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include: • the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences; • the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria; • the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and • other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:• the site’s size or shape;• 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;• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;• the 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. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

This Report May Not Be ReliableDo not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:• for a different client;• for a different project;• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional OpinionsBefore construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-DependentThe recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be MisinterpretedOther design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members, • help develop specifications, • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications, and • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may

perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. 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.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not CoveredThe personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and MoldWhile your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any

kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

Telephone: 301/565-2733e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org

© 2009 SME General Comments 1

GENERAL COMMENTS BASIS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices to assist in the design and/or evaluation of this project. If the project plans, design criteria, and other project information referenced in this report and utilized by SME to prepare our recommendations are changed, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or approved in writing by our office. The discussions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the available project information, described in this report, and the geotechnical data obtained from the field exploration at the locations indicated in the report. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions commonly occur between or away from sampling locations. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until the time of construction. If significant variations are observed during construction, SME should be contacted to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. SME should be retained to continue our services through construction to observe and evaluate the actual subsurface conditions relative to the recommendations made in this report. In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, procedures are followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil and foundation engineering. Specifically, field logs are prepared during the field exploration that describe field occurrences, sampling locations, and other information. Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and reclassification in the laboratory and differences may exist between the field logs and the report logs. The engineer preparing the report reviews the field logs, laboratory classifications, and test data and then prepares the report logs. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the report logs and the information contained therein.

REVIEW OF DESIGN DETAILS, PLANS, AND SPECIFICATIONS SME should be retained to review the design details, project plans, and specifications to verify those documents are consistent with the recommendations contained in this report.

REVIEW OF REPORT INFORMATION WITH PROJECT TEAM Implementation of our recommendations may affect the design, construction, and performance of the proposed improvements, along with the potential inherent risks involved with the proposed construction. The client and key members of the design team, including SME, should discuss the issues covered in this report so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner’s budget, tolerance of risk, and expectations for performance and maintenance.

FIELD VERIFICATION OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS SME should be retained to verify the recommendations of this report are properly implemented during construction. This may avoid misinterpretation of our recommendations by other parties and will allow us to review and modify our recommendations if variations in the site subsurface conditions are encountered.

PROJECT INFORMATION FOR CONTRACTOR This report and any future addenda or other reports regarding this site should be made available to prospective contractors prior to submitting their proposals for their information only and to supply them with facts relative to the subsurface evaluation and laboratory test results. If the selected contractor encounters subsurface conditions during construction, which differ from those presented in this report, the contractor should promptly describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and SME should be notified so that we can verify those conditions. The construction contract should include provisions for dealing with differing conditions and contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and foundation construction. We would be pleased to assist you in developing the contract provisions based on our experience. The contractor should be prepared to handle environmental conditions encountered at this site, which may affect the excavation, removal, or disposal of soil; dewatering of excavations; and health and safety of workers. Any Environmental Assessment reports prepared for this site should be made available for review by bidders and the successful contractor.

THIRD PARTY RELIANCE/REUSE OF THIS REPORT This report has been prepared solely for the use of our Client for the project specifically described in this report. This report cannot be relied upon by other parties not involved in the project, unless specifically allowed by SME in writing. SME also is not responsible for the interpretation by other parties of the geotechnical data and the recommendations provided herein.

© 2009 SME Laboratory Testing Procedures 1

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES VISUAL ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION Visual classification was performed on recovered samples. The appended General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) sheets include a brief summary of the general method used visually classify the soil and assign an appropriate USCS group symbol. The estimated group symbol, according to the USCS, is shown in parentheses following the textural description of the various strata on the boring logs appended to this report. The soil descriptions developed from visual classifications are sometimes modified to reflect the results of laboratory testing.

MOISTURE CONTENT Moisture content tests were performed by weighing samples from the field at their in-situ moisture condition. These samples were then dried at a constant temperature (approximately 110º C) overnight in an oven. After drying, the samples were weighed to determine the dry weight of the sample and the weight of the water that was expelled during drying. The moisture content of the specimen is expressed as a percent and is the weight of the water compared to the dry weight of the specimen.

HAND PENETROMETER TESTS In the hand penetrometer test, the unconfined compressive strength of a cohesive soil sample is estimated by measuring the resistance of the sample to the penetration of a small calibrated, spring-loaded cylinder. The maximum capacity of the penetrometer is 4.5 tons per square-foot (tsf). Theoretically, the undrained shear strength of the cohesive sample is one-half the unconfined compressive strength. The undrained shear strength (based on the hand penetrometer test) presented on the boring logs is reported in units of kips per square-foot (ksf).

TORVANE SHEAR TESTS In the Torvane test, the shear strength of a low strength, cohesive soil sample is estimated by measuring the resistance of the sample to a torque applied through vanes inserted into the sample. The undrained shear strength of the samples is measured from the maximum torque required to shear the sample and is reported in units of kips per square-foot (ksf).

LOSS-ON-IGNITION (ORGANIC CONTENT) TESTS Loss-on-ignition (LOI) tests are conducted by first weighing the sample and then heating the sample to dry the moisture from the sample (in the same manner as determining the moisture content of the soil). The sample is then re-weighed to determine the dry weight and then heated for 4 hours in a muffle furnace at a high temperature (approximately 440º C). After cooling, the sample is re-weighed to calculate the amount of ash remaining, which in turn is used to determine the amount of organic matter burned from the original dry sample. The organic matter content of the specimen is expressed as a percent compared to the dry weight of the sample.

ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS Atterberg limits tests consist of two components. The plastic limit of a cohesive sample is determined by rolling the sample into a thread and the plastic limit is the moisture content where a 1/8-inch thread begins to crumble. The liquid limit is determined by placing a ½-inch thick soil pat into the liquid limits cup and using a grooving tool to divide the soil pat in half. The cup is then tapped on the base of the liquid limits device using a crank handle. The number of drops of the cup to close the gap formed by the grooving tool ½ inch is recorded along with the corresponding moisture content of the sample. This procedure is repeated several times at different moisture contents and a graph of moisture content and the corresponding number of blows is plotted. The liquid limit is defined as the moisture content at a nominal 25 drops of the cup. From this test, the plasticity index can be determined by subtracting the plastic limit from the liquid limit.

Passionate People Building and Revitalizing our World

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT · geotechnical engineering report joseph campau greenway trail...

Documents

Transcript of GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT · geotechnical engineering report joseph campau greenway trail...