23121.JLM Chesterfield Warehouse - G2 Soils Report.pdf

Report of Geotechnical Investigation

Chesterfield Veterans Center

Maintenance Building and

Warehouse

Pearson

Chesterfield, Michigan 48047

Latitude 42.663198˚ N

Longitude 82.812714˚ W

Prepared for:

Nowak & Fraus Engineers, Inc.

47777 Woodward Avenue

Pontiac, Michigan 48342

G2 Project No. 230282

June 1, 2023

Mr. Brett J. Buchholz, P.E.

Principal

Nowak & Fraus Engineers, Inc.

47777 Woodward Avenue

Pontiac, Michigan 48342

Re: Report of Geotechnical Investigation

Chesterfield Veterans Center Maintenance Building and Warehouse

Pearson

Chesterfield, Michigan 48047

Dear Mr. Buchholz:

We have completed the geotechnical investigation for the proposed maintenance building to be constructed at the Chesterfield Veterans Center in Chesterfield, Michigan. This report presents the results of our observations and analyses and our recommendations for earthwork operations, foundation design, and construction considerations as they relate to the geotechnical conditions on site.

As always, we appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Nowak & Fraus Engineers, Inc. and look forward to discussing the recommendations presented. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding our report or any other matter pertaining to the project, please contact us.

Sincerely, G2 Consulting Group, LLC

Amy L, Schneider, P.E. Noel J. Hargrave-Thomas, P.E.

Project Manager Principal

ALS/NJHT/ljv

Enclosures

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed project includes construction of a 10,000 square foot, single-story, slab-on-grade, metal building for maintenance and storage use. We estimate loading conditions will be relatively light and maximum wall loads will range from 1-1/2 to 2 kips per linear foot and maximum column loads will range from 25 to 50 kips.

Approximately 4-1/2 to 5 inches of silty sand topsoil are present at the soil boring locations. Medium compact silty sand fill with approximately 1-1/2 percent organic matter underlies the topsoil at boring

B-3 and extends to an approximate depth of 4 feet. Native loose to medium compact sand is present below the topsoil at the remaining boring locations and extends to an approximate depth of 3 feet.

Native silty clay underlies the fill and native sand and extends to the explored depths of 15 and 20 feet.

The silty clay is stiff to very stiff in consistency extending to an approximate depth of 11 feet and very soft to medium thereafter extending to the explored depths. No measurable groundwater was encountered during drilling operations at the soil boring locations.

Based on the estimated building loads and existing subsurface conditions, we recommend the proposed building be supported on conventional shallow strip and/or spread footings extending through any existing fill and bearing on the native stiff to very stiff silty clay and loose to medium compact sand. A net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of foundations bearing on the stiff to very stiff silty clay and loose to medium compact sand. Our net allowable soil bearing pressure is based on a factor of safety of 3 and was determined using a two-layer analysis taking into account the very soft to medium silty clay below an approximate elevation of 576 feet. If footings must bear deeper than Elevation 582 feet or loads are significantly higher than estimated, a decrease in allowable bearing pressure may be required as a result of the very soft to medium silty clay having a larger influence on the foundations. Exterior footings must bear at a minimum depth of 3-1/2 feet below finished grade for protection against frost heave. Interior foundations can bear at shallower depths provided suitable bearing soils are present and the foundations are continuously protected from frost penetration during construction. We recommend a

G2 Consulting Group, LLC (G2) qualified engineer or technician be on site during construction to observe the foundation excavations and verify the adequacy of the bearing soils.

We anticipate the existing fill soils and native sand will be suitable for support of the proposed floor slab provided the subgrade is proof compacted as described in the SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS section of this report. A modulus of subgrade reaction value (k) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used in design of floor slabs supported on the existing fill, native loose to medium compact sand, and engineered fill to achieve proposed finished grades.

This summary is not to be considered separate from the entire text of this report with all the conclusions and qualifications mentioned herein. Details of our analysis and recommendations are discussed in the following sections and in the Appendix of this report.

wdutton Highlight wdutton Highlight wdutton Highlight

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project includes construction of a 10,000 square foot, single-story, slab-on-grade, metal building for maintenance and storage use. We estimate loading conditions will be relatively light and maximum wall loads will range from 1-1/2 to 2 kips per linear foot and maximum column loads will range from 25 to 50 kips.

Based on information provided by Nowak & Fraus, the finished floor of the building is estimated to be approximately 588 feet. Therefore, approximately 12 inches of engineered fill will be required to achieve proposed finished grades. When structural loading conditions and a grading plan become available and if they vary significantly from our assumptions, G2 should be notified so that we can review the recommendations provided within this report.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The field operations, laboratory testing, and engineering report preparation were performed under the direction and supervision of a licensed professional engineer. Our services were performed according to generally accepted standards and procedures in the practice of geotechnical engineering. Our scope of services for this project is as follows:

1. We drilled four soil borings within the footprint of the proposed extending to a depth of 15 or 20 feet each below existing grade.

2. We performed laboratory testing on representative samples obtained from the soil borings.

Laboratory testing included visual engineering classification, moisture content, dry density, organic matter content (loss-on-ignition), and unconfined compressive strength determination.

3. We prepared this engineering report. Our report includes recommendations regarding foundation types suitable for the soil conditions encountered, allowable bearing capacities of the anticipated bearing soils, estimated settlement, and construction considerations related to foundation construction and site development.

FIELD OPERATIONS

Nowak & Fraus Engineers, Inc., in conjunction with G2, selected the number, depth, and location of the soil borings based on the proposed building location. The soil boring locations were determined and staked in the field by use of GPS assisted mobile technology by a G2 engineer. The approximate soil boring locations are shown on the Soil Boring Location Plan, Plate No. 1 in the Appendix. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were interpolated from the topographic contour lines presented on the Sanitary Sewer Plan, Sheet C600, dated June 3, 2019 (ADDENDUM 4), The soil borings were drilled using a truck mounted rotary drilling rig. Continuous flight, 2-1/4-inch, inside diameter, hollow-stem augers were used to advance borings to the explored depth. Soil samples were obtained at intervals of 2-1/2 feet within the upper 15 feet and at 5 foot intervals thereafter. These samples were obtained by the Standard Penetration Test method (ASTM D 1586), which involves driving a 2-inch diameter split-spoon sampler into the soil with a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The sampler is generally driven three successive 6-inch increments with the number of blows for each increment recorded. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance (N). Blow counts for each 6-inch increment and the resulting N-values are presented on the individual soil boring logs.

Soil samples were placed in sealed containers in the field and brought to our laboratory for testing and classification. During mechanical boring operations, the drilling crew maintained logs of the encountered subsurface conditions, including changes in stratigraphy and observed groundwater levels.

The final boring logs are based on the field logs supplemented by laboratory soil classification and test results. After completion of drilling operations, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings.

LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing to determine soil parameters pertinent to foundation design and site preparation. An experienced geotechnical engineer classified the samples in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

Laboratory testing included natural moisture content, organic matter content, dry density, and unconfined compressive strength determinations. The organic matter content of representative samples was determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2974, “Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils.” The unconfined compressive strengths were determined by ASTM Test Method D 2166, a spring-loaded hand penetrometer, and a Torvane. Per

ASTM Test Method D 2166, the unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils is determined by axially loading a small cylindrical soil sample under a slow rate of strain. The unconfined compressive strength is defined as the maximum stress applied to the soil sample before shear failure. If shear failure does not occur prior to a total strain of fifteen percent, the unconfined compressive strength is defined as the stress at a strain of fifteen percent. The hand penetrometer estimates the unconfined compressive strength to a maximum of 4-1/2 tons per square foot (tsf) by measuring the resistance of the soil sample to the penetration of a calibrated spring-loaded cylinder. The hand-held torvane estimates the shear strength of the soil by measuring the resistance of the soil to the applied torque of a vane seated into the sample. The shear strength determined by the hand-held torvane is multiplied by a factor of two and presented on the soil boring logs as an equivalent unconfined compressive strength.

The results of the moisture content, dry density, and unconfined compressive strength laboratory tests are indicated on the soil boring logs at the depths the samples were obtained. The unconfined compressive strengths determined using ASTM D2166 is also presented graphically on the Unconfined

Compressive Strength Test, Figure Nos. 5 and 6. We will hold the soil samples for 60 days from the date of this report. If you would like us to retain the samples beyond this date or you would like the samples, please let us know.

SITE CONDITIONS

The proposed building will be situated on the west side of Pearson, south of Salitrmik Street in

Chesterfield, Michigan. The overall property is the Michigan Veterans Home at Chesterfield Township.

The proposed building will be located at the northwest corner of the existing development. The area is currently covered with low vegetation and scattered trees. Existing grades appear relatively flat with an average elevation of 587 feet. Based on the previously mentioned Sanitary Plan, underground electric lines currently extend through the footprint of the proposed building.

Based on Google Earth historical aerial imagery, two existing structures were situated in the footprint of the proposed building, which were demolished between June 2011 and October 2013. The current development was constructed beginning April 2019. No information on the previous structures or demolition operations was available at the time of this investigation. See the imagery below of the previous site conditions.

2010 2019

SOIL CONDITIONS

Approximately 4-1/2 to 5 inches of silty sand topsoil are present at the soil boring locations. Silty sand fill with approximately 1-1/2 percent organic matter underlies the topsoil at boring B-3 and extends to an approximate depth of 4 feet. Native sand is present below the topsoil at the remaining boring locations and extends to an approximate depth of 3 feet. Native silty clay underlies the fill and native sand and extends to the explored depths of 15 and 20 feet.

The silty sand fill is medium compact with a Standard Penetration Test N-value of 13 blows per foot and an organic matter content of 1.7 percent. The native sand is loose to medium compact with N-values ranging from 10 to 13 blows per foot. The silty clay is stiff to very stiff in consistency extending to an approximate depth of 11 feet with natural moisture contents ranging from 23 to 30 percent, dry densities ranging from 92 to 104 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and unconfined compressive strengths ranging from 2,350 to 5,000 psf. The underlying silty clay is very soft to medium in consistency with natural moisture contents ranging from 25 to 52 percent, dry densities of 83 and 93 pcf, and unconfined compressive strengths ranging from 400 to 1,000 psf.

The stratification depths shown on the soil boring logs represent the soil conditions at the boring locations. Variations may occur between borings. Additionally, the stratigraphic lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be more gradual than what is shown.

We have prepared the boring logs on the basis of laboratory classification and testing, as well as field logs of the soils encountered.

The Soil Boring Location Plan, Plate No. 1, Soil Boring Logs, Figure Nos. 1 through 4, and Unconfined

Compressive Strength Test, Figure Nos. 5 and 6, are presented in the Appendix. The soil profiles described above are generalized descriptions of the conditions encountered at the boring locations.

General Notes Terminology defining the nomenclature used on the boring logs and elsewhere in this report are presented on Figure No. 7.

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

No measurable groundwater was encountered during drilling operations at the soil boring locations.

Fluctuations in perched and long-term groundwater levels should be anticipated due to seasonal variations and following periods of prolonged precipitation. It should also be noted that groundwater observations made during drilling operations in cohesive soils are not necessarily indicative of the static groundwater level. This is due to the low permeability of such soils and the tendency of drilling operations to seal off the natural paths of groundwater flow.

SITE PREPARATION

We anticipate earthwork operations will consist of stripping the site of topsoil, vegetation, trees, proof rolling the exposed subgrade soils, placing engineered fill to achieve finished grades, preparing subgrade for support of floor slabs, and excavating for new foundations. We recommend all earthwork operations be performed in accordance with comprehensive specifications and be properly monitored in the field by qualified personnel under the direction of a licensed engineer.

At the start of earthwork operations, the existing topsoil, vegetation, and trees must be completely removed within the footprint of the proposed building. Any existing utilities encountered within the proposed building footprint and zone of influence must be removed (including associated fill) and the resulting excavations backfilled with engineered fill for support of foundations and utilities. Any existing utility lines that will be abandoned and lie outside the zone of influence of the proposed building footprint should either be completely removed or backfilled with cement grout.

Following removal of the topsoil, vegetation, trees, and utilities and prior to placement of engineered fill, the exposed granular subgrade should thoroughly proof compacted with a vibratory roller to densify the upper material. During proof compaction operations, the subgrade should be visually evaluated by qualified personnel for support of building foundations. Any unstable or unsuitable areas noted during proof roll operations should be improved by additional compaction or removed and replaced with engineered fill.

Engineered fill should be free of organic matter, frozen soil, clods, or other harmful material. Frozen material should not be used as fill, nor should fill be placed on a frozen subgrade. Engineered fill should be placed in uniform horizontal layers, not more than 9 inches in loose thickness. The engineered fill should be compacted to achieve a density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 1557). The granular soils encountered within the soil borings can be reused as engineered fill. Any granular engineered fill material should be placed and compacted at moisture contents within 2 percent above or below the optimum moisture content.

We recommend using an imported granular engineered fill within confined areas, such as adjacent to foundation walls and utility excavations. Granular engineered fill is generally more easily compacted than cohesive soils within these confined areas. Additionally, proper placement and compaction of backfill within these areas is imperative to provide adequate support for overlying floor slabs and foundation.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the estimated building loads and existing subsurface conditions, we recommend the proposed building be supported on conventional shallow strip and/or spread footings extending through any existing fill and bearing on the native stiff to very stiff silty clay and loose to medium compact sand. A net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf may be used for design of foundations bearing on the stiff to very stiff silty clay and loose to medium compact sand. Our net allowable soil bearing pressure is based on a factor of safety of 3 and was determined using a two-layer analysis taking into account the very soft to medium silty clay below an approximate elevation of 576 feet. If footings must bear deeper than Elevation 582 feet or loads are significantly higher than estimated, a decrease in allowable bearing pressure may be required as a result of the very soft to medium silty clay having a larger influence on the foundations.

Exterior footings must bear at a minimum depth of 3-1/2 feet below finished grade for protection against frost heave. Interior foundations can bear at shallower depths provided suitable bearing soils are present and the foundations are continuously protected from frost penetration during construction.

We recommend a G2 qualified engineer or technician be on site during construction to observe the foundation excavations and verify the adequacy of the bearing soils.

wdutton Highlight wdutton Highlight wdutton Highlight

Continuous wall or strip footings should be at least 12 inches in width and isolated spread footings should be at least 30 inches in their least dimension. Adjacent spread footings at different levels should be designed and constructed so the least lateral distance between them is equivalent to or more than the difference in their bearing levels. To achieve a change in the level of a strip foundation, the foundation should be gradually stepped at a grade no steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical.

If the recommendations outlined in this report are adhered to, total and differential settlements for the completed structure should be within 1 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively. We expect settlements of these magnitudes are within tolerable limits for the type of structure proposed. We recommend all foundations be suitably reinforced to minimize the effects of differential settlements associated with local variations in subsoil conditions.

FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS

We anticipate the existing fill soils and native sand will be suitable for support of the proposed floor slab provided the subgrade is proof compacted as described in the SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS section of this report. A modulus of subgrade reaction value (k) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used in design of floor slabs supported on the existing fill, native loose to medium compact sand, and engineered fill to achieve proposed finished grades.

We recommend at least 4 inches of clean coarse sand be placed between the subgrade and the bottom of the floor slab for use as a capillary break. If greater protection against vapor transmission is desired, a vapor barrier consisting of 10-mil plastic sheeting, or equivalent, may be placed on top of the granular subbase directly below the floor slab.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Caving and sloughing of the granular soils will likely occur during excavations operations. Therefore, the contractor should be prepared to over excavate and form the foundations if necessary. The sides of spread and/or strip footings should be constructed straight and vertical to reduce the risk of frozen soil adhering to the concrete and raising the foundations. All excavations should be backfilled with engineered fill when supporting overlying floor slabs.

We do not anticipate groundwater will be encountered in foundation excavations. We anticipate surface run-off in construction excavations can be controlled with a properly constructed sump/pump system.

Where excavations extend deeper than 5 feet and sufficient space is available, we recommend maximum slopes of 2 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit (2H:1V) for sloped excavations within any granular soils and 1H:1V in the underlying stiff to very stiff silty clay. All excavations should be safely sheeted, shored, sloped, or braced in accordance with MI-OSHA requirements. If material is stored or equipment is operated near an excavation, stronger shoring must be used to resist the extra pressure due to the superimposed loads.

Care should be exercised when excavating near the existing roadways or utilities to avoid undermining existing structures. Under no case should excavations extend below the bearing level of adjacent pavements or utilities unless underpinning is planned.

GENERAL COMMENTS

We have formulated the evaluations and recommendations presented in this report relative to site preparation and foundation design on the basis of data provided to us relating to the location, type, and grade for the proposed improvements. Any significant change in this data should be brought to our attention for review and evaluation with respect to the prevailing subsurface conditions. Furthermore, if changes occur in the design, location, or concept of the project, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not valid unless G2 Consulting Group, LLC reviews the changes. G2

Consulting Group, LLC will then confirm the recommendations presented herein or make changes in writing.

The scope of the present investigation was limited to evaluation of subsurface conditions for the support of the foundations and other related aspects of the development. No chemical, environmental, or hydrogeological testing or analyses were included in the scope of this investigation. If changes occur in the design, location, or concept of the project, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not valid unless G2 Consulting Group, LLC reviews the changes. G2 Consulting Group, LLC will then confirm the recommendations presented herein or make changes in writing.

We have based the analyses and recommendations submitted in this report upon the data from soil borings performed at the approximate locations shown on the Soil Boring Location Plan, Plate No. 1.

This report does not reflect variations that may occur between the actual boring locations and the actual structure locations. The nature and extent of any such variations may not become clear until the time of construction. If significant variations then become evident, it may be necessary for us to re-evaluate our report recommendations.

Soil conditions at the site could vary from those generalized on the basis of soil borings made at specific locations. It is, therefore, recommended that G2 Consulting Group, LLC be retained to provide soil engineering services during site preparation, excavation, and foundation construction phases of the proposed project. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. Also, this allows design changes to be made in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.

APPENDIX

Soil Boring Location Plan Plate No. 1

Soil Boring Log Figure Nos. 1 through 4

Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Figure Nos. 5 and 6

General Notes Terminology Figure No. 7

Scale: NTS

Soil Boring Location Plan

Date: 4-18-23

Drawn by: ALS

Project No. 230282

Plate No. 1

Chesterfield Veterans Center Maintenance Building and Warehouse

Pearson Chesterfield, Michigan 48047

Legend

Soil Borings Drilled by 2G Drilling on May 19, 2023

PE

ARSO

N

SALITRNIK

B-1

B-2

B-3

PROPOSED

BULDING

FOOTPRINT

B-4

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

22.6

23.3

26.5

25.1

52.0

4000*

1000*

400**

0.4

3.0

13.0

15.0

Topsoil: Dark Brown Silty Sand (5 inches)

Medium Compact Grayish Brown Sand with trace silt and gravel

Medium to Stiff Gray Silty Clay with trace sand, occassional silt and sand partings

Very Soft Gray Silty Clay with trace sand

End of Boring @ 15 ft

SAMPLE

TYPE-NO.

BLOWS/

6-INCHES

STD. PEN.

RESISTANCE

(N)

MOISTURE

CONTENT

DRY

DENSITY

(PCF)

UNCONF.

COMP. STR.

(PSF)

SOIL SAMPLE DATA

SO

IL

P

A V

EM

EN

T B

O R

IN

G

.G

PJ

G

C O

N

SU

LT

IN

G D

A T

A T

EM

PL

A T

E.

G

D T

/5 /2

Soil Boring No. B-1

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Figure No. 1

Water Level Observation:

Dry during and upon completion of drilling operations

Notes:

* Calibrated Hand Penetrometer ** Torvane

Excavation Backfilling Procedure:

Auger cuttings

PRO-

FILE

DEPTH

( ft)

G2 Project No. 230282

Project Name:

Project Location:

Chesterfield Veterans Center Maintenance Building and Warehouse Pearson Chesterfield, Michigan 48047

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 587.0 ft ±

Total Depth:

Drilling Date:

Inspector:

Contractor:

Driller:

Drilling Method:

2-1/4 inch inside diameter hollow stem auger

15 ft May 19, 2023

2G Drilling H. Pace

ELEV.

( ft)

582.0

577.0

572.0

567.0

562.0

Latitude: N/A Longitude: N/A

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

28.6

22.9

30.2

34.8

51.7

3000*

5000*

400**

0.4

3.0

11.0

15.0

Topsoil: Dark Brown Silty Sand (5 inches)

Medium Compact Grayish Brown Sand with trace silt and gravel

Stiff to Very Stiff Gray Silty Clay with trace sand

Very Soft to Soft Gray Silty Clay with trace sand

End of Boring @ 15 ft

SAMPLE

TYPE-NO.

BLOWS/

6-INCHES

STD. PEN.

RESISTANCE

(N)

MOISTURE

CONTENT

DRY

DENSITY

(PCF)

UNCONF.

COMP. STR.

(PSF)

SOIL SAMPLE DATA

SO

IL

P

A V

EM

EN

T B

O R

G

C O

N

SU

LT

IN

G D

A T

A T

EM

PL

A T

E.

G

/2

Soil Boring No. B-2

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Figure No. 2

Water Level Observation:

Dry during and upon completion of drilling operations

Notes:

* Calibrated Hand Penetrometer ** Torvane

Excavation Backfilling Procedure:

Auger cuttings

PRO-

FILE

DEPTH

( ft)

G2 Project No. 230282

Project Name:

Project Location:

Chesterfield Veterans Center Maintenance Building and Warehouse Pearson Chesterfield, Michigan 48047

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 587.0 ft ±

Total Depth:

Drilling Date:

Inspector:

Contractor:

Driller:

Drilling Method:

2-1/4 inch inside diameter hollow stem auger

15 ft May 19, 2023

2G Drilling H. Pace

ELEV.

( ft)

582.0

577.0

572.0

567.0

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

29.7

25.1

26.1

45.0

49.7

4000*

1000**

500*

0.4

4.0

11.0

15.0

Topsoil: Dark Brown Silty Sand (5 inches)

Fill: Medium Compact Dark Brown Silty Sand with trace clay, gravel, and organic matter (Organic Matter Content = 1.7%)

Stiff to Very Stiff Gray Silty Clay with trace sand

Soft Gray Silty Clay with trace sand

End of Boring @ 15 ft

SAMPLE

TYPE-NO.

BLOWS/

6-INCHES

STD. PEN.

RESISTANCE

(N)

MOISTURE

CONTENT

DRY

DENSITY

(PCF)

UNCONF.

COMP. STR.

(PSF)

SOIL SAMPLE DATA

SO

IL

P

A V

EM

EN

T B

O R

G

C O

N

SU

LT

IN

G D

A T

A T

EM

PL

A T

E.

G

/2

Soil Boring No. B-3

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Figure No. 3

Water Level Observation:

Dry during and upon completion of drilling operations

Notes:

* Calibrated Hand Penetrometer ** Torvane

Excavation Backfilling Procedure:

Auger cuttings

PRO-

FILE

DEPTH

( ft)

G2 Project No. 230282

Project Name:

Project Location:

Chesterfield Veterans Center Maintenance Building and Warehouse Pearson Chesterfield, Michigan 48047

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 587.0 ft ±

Total Depth:

Drilling Date:

Inspector:

Contractor:

Driller:

Drilling Method:

2-1/4 inch inside diameter hollow stem auger

15 ft May 19, 2023

2G Drilling H. Pace

ELEV.

( ft)

582.0

577.0

572.0

567.0

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

23.0

22.6

24.9

46.9

50.1

54.4

600**

600**

0.4

3.0

11.0

20.0

Topsoil: Dark Brown Silty Sand (4-1/2 inches)

Loose Brown Sand with trace silt and gravel

Stiff to Very Stiff Gray Silty Clay with trace sand

Soft Gray Silty Clay with trace sand

End of Boring @ 20 ft

SAMPLE

TYPE-NO.

BLOWS/

6-INCHES

STD. PEN.

RESISTANCE

(N)

MOISTURE

CONTENT

DRY

DENSITY

(PCF)

UNCONF.

COMP. STR.

(PSF)

SOIL SAMPLE DATA

SO

IL

P

A V

EM

EN

T B

O R

G

C O

N

SU

LT

IN

G D

A T

A T

EM

PL

A T

E.

G

/2

Soil Boring No. B-4

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Figure No. 4

Water Level Observation:

Dry during and upon completion of drilling operations

Notes:

* Calibrated Hand Penetrometer ** Torvane

Excavation Backfilling Procedure:

Auger cuttings

PRO-

FILE

DEPTH

( ft)

G2 Project No. 230282

Project Name:

Project Location:

Chesterfield Veterans Center Maintenance Building and Warehouse Pearson Chesterfield, Michigan 48047

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 587.0 ft ±

Total Depth:

Drilling Date:

Inspector:

Contractor:

Driller:

Drilling Method:

2-1/4 inch inside diameter hollow stem auger

20 ft May 19, 2023

2G Drilling H. Pace

ELEV.

( ft)

582.0

577.0

572.0

567.0

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0 4 8 12 16 20

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

Figure No. 5

ST

R

ES

S, p sf

STRAIN, %

Project Name:

230282G2 Project No.:

Chesterfield Veterans Center Maintenance Building and Warehouse

Project Location: Pearson

Classification MC% UC

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-3

B-3

S-2

S-4

S-4

S-5

S-3

S-4

Gray Silty Clay

Gray Silty Clay

Gray Silty Clay

Gray Silty Clay

Gray Silty Clay

Gray Silty Clay

Specimen

U S_

U N

C O

N

FI

N

ED

G

C O

N

SU

LT

IN

G D

A T

A T

EM

PL

A T

E.

G

/2

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0 4 8 12 16 20

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

Figure No. 6

ST

R

ES

S, p sf

STRAIN, %

Project Name:

230282G2 Project No.:

Chesterfield Veterans Center Maintenance Building and Warehouse

Project Location: Pearson

Classification MC% UC

B-4

B-4

B-4

B-4

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

Gray Silty Clay

Gray Silty Clay

Gray Silty Clay

Gray Silty Clay

Specimen

U S_

U N

C O

N

FI

N

ED

G

C O

N

SU

LT

IN

G D

A T

A T

EM

PL

A T

E.

G

/2

Figure No. 7

GENERAL NOTES TERMINOLOGY

Unless otherwise noted, all terms herein refer to the Standard Definitions presented in ASTM 653.

PARTICLE SIZE

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 - 0.005mm to 0.074mm Clay - Less than 0.005mm

CLASSIFICATION

The major soil constituent is the principal noun, i.e. clay, silt, sand, gravel. The second major soil constituent and other minor constituents are reported as follows:

Second Major Constituent (percent by weight)

Minor Constituent (percent by weight)

Trace - 1 to 12% Trace - 1 to 12% Adjective - 12 to 35% Little - 12 to 23% And - over 35% Some - 23 to 33%

COHESIVE SOILS

If clay content is sufficient so that clay dominates soil properties, clay becomes the principal noun with the other major soil constituent as modifier, i.e. sandy clay. Other minor soil constituents may be included in accordance with the classification breakdown for cohesionless soils, i.e. silty clay, trace sand, little gravel.

Consistency

Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf)

Approximate Range of (N)

Very Soft Below 500 0 - 2 Soft 500 - 1,000 3 - 4

Medium 1,000 - 2,000 5 - 8 Stiff 2,000 - 4,000 9 - 15

Very Stiff 4,000 - 8,000 16 - 30 Hard 8,000 - 16,000 31 - 50

Very Hard Over 16,000 Over 50

Consistency of cohesive soils is based upon an evaluation of the observed resistance to deformation under load and not upon the Standard Penetration Resistance (N).

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Density Classification Relative Density % Approximate Range of (N) Very Loose 0 - 15 0 - 4

Loose 16 - 35 5 - 10 Medium Compact 36 - 65 11 - 30

Compact 66 - 85 31 - 50 Very Compact 86 - 100 Over 50

Relative Density of cohesionless soils is based upon the evaluation of the Standard Penetration Resistance (N), modified as required for depth effects, sampling effects, etc.

SAMPLE DESIGNATIONS

AS - Auger Sample – Cuttings directly from auger flight BS - Bottle or Bag Samples S - Split Spoon Sample - ASTM D 1586 LS - Liner Sample with liner insert 3 inches in length ST - Shelby Tube sample - 3 inch diameter unless otherwise noted PS - Piston Sample - 3 inch diameter unless otherwise noted RC - Rock Core - NX core unless otherwise noted

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D 1586) - A 2.0 inch outside-diameter, 1-3/8 inch inside-diameter split barrel sampler is driven into undisturbed soil by means of a 140-pound weight falling freely through a vertical distance of 30 inches. The sampler is normally driven three successive 6-inch increments. The total number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration is the Standard Penetration Resistance (N).