231464 - Lakeland Correctional Facility Pavement Investigation Report - 9-20-23.pdf

REPORT OF PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION

LAKELAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

COLDWATER, MICHIGAN

Prepared For:

BECKETT & RAEDER, INC.

Prepared By:

MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC.

September 2023

MTC Project No. 231464

September 20, 2022

Project No. 221427

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

535 West William Street, Suite 101

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103

Attention: Kristofer Enlow, P.E.

Partner

Reference: Report of Pavement Investigation

Lakeland Correctional Facility

Coldwater, Michigan

Dear Mr. Enlow:

We have completed a pavement investigation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this investigation has been to perform discrete pavement cores and test borings in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot and road rehabilitation, present the results and to provide recommendations for the design and rehabilitation of pavements. This work has been performed as described in our proposal dated July 24, 2023.

Presented herein are descriptions of our understanding of the design considerations, the geotechnical investigation, encountered conditions and engineering recommendations. The

Appendix contains the report limitations and data collected during this investigation.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Available Information

We have been provided the following documents and information for use in this investigation:

• A pavement boring plan showing the requested boring locations provided by Mr. Kristofer

Enlow, P.E. of Beckett and Raeder, Inc. on June 9, 2023.

• Telephone and email correspondence with Mr. John Beckett and Mr. Kristofer Enlow, P.E.

of Beckett and Raeder, Inc. regarding the project details, boring locations and scope of investigation.

Report of Pavement Investigation

Project No. 231464

September 20, 2023

Project Scope

The proposed construction will be located in plan as shown on Figure No. 1. The site is located at the existing Lakeland Correctional Facility located at address 141 1st Street in Coldwater, Michigan.

The construction will in general consist of pavement rehabilitation to the recreational lots and interior and perimeter roads to the facility. We understand that the pavement near the Food

Service building will be repaved along with the pavement near the Bravo (B) Building. We understand the preferred pavement reconstruction would consist of removal of some or all existing HMA or concrete and placement of new pavement over the existing base material.

We have considered that interior courtyards will either be repaved or converted into sidewalks that link the building wings. The gravel parking area located north of 3rd Street will remain gravel. We understand that 2nd Street and 3rd Street will be completely demolished prior to the start of paving operations and the aggregate base and asphalt millings left over from demolition may be used to supplement aggregate base thicknesses in the interior courtyards.

Traffic is expected to consist of relatively light passenger vehicles with only occasional heavier axle wheel loading from trucks for deliveries, refuse pickup, etc. We understand the pavement near the existing truck unloading ramp at the Food Service Building, located at the northwest of the property, will experience the majority of the heavier-axle wheel loading. We have considered that the parking lots and entry drives will experience a design loading of no more than 500 vehicles per day. We have considered that the interior and perimeter roads of the facility will not undergo frequent loading as the roads are typically only used for patrol vehicles.

Traffic on the courtyards at the north of the site is expected to be limited to pedestrian traffic.

We should be informed of any changes between the actual design conditions and those described herein as this information may affect our recommendations.

INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

Pavement cores, hand auger soil borings and sampling along with field engineering reconnaissance were used to investigate the subsurface conditions. Boring locations are shown on Figure No. 1. Investigation procedures, soil classification information and boring logs are provided in the Appendix.

Number of Borings 21

Boring Depth Range, ft. 1.0 - 5.0

One of our engineers staked the approximate boring locations in the field. Boring elevations and coordinates were collected by GPS. The elevations used in this report are given in feet and are based on the NAVD 88 datum, with coordinates given in the Michigan State Plane

North system. Site reconnaissance was performed by our field engineer.

Borings were performed at requested locations through 4-inch diameter cores using a 3 1/4-inch diameter hand auger. Grab samples were recovered from the auger at regular intervals.

The boreholes were backfilled to the original ground surface and patched at the surface with cold patch after drilling completion, where necessary. Recovered samples were sealed, labeled and transported to our laboratory. All soil samples will be discarded after sixty days unless a longer hold time is specifically requested.

Borings were drilled and other sampling was conducted solely to obtain indications of subsurface conditions as part of a geotechnical exploration program. No services were performed to evaluate subsurface environmental conditions.

Soil samples were reviewed by one of our engineers and technically classified according to the methods of ASTM D 2488 "Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-

Manual Procedure)". The ASTM D2488 classifications are included on the boring logs.

INVESTIGATION RESULTS

In general, the pavement sections across the site were observed to be in fair to very poor condition with asphalt thicknesses ranging from 2 to 7 3/4 inches across the site. Boring B-

1 encountered 12 inches of concrete within the truck unloading ramp area and Borings B-5, B-8 and B-9 encountered layers of concrete ranging from 2 to 7 inches in thickness within the courtyards located at the north of the site. Gravel base was encountered in all borings except for Borings B-5 to B-9, B-15, B-17 and B-19. The encountered gravel base thicknesses ranged from 3 to 23 inches. Boring B-9 encountered multiple layers of materials including 2 inches of HMA, 3 inches of aggregate base, 2 inches of concrete and 5 inches of aggregate base.

Based on visual observations, the gravel base encountered in the borings generally appeared to be a natural aggregate, with the exception of Boring B-13A which encountered an inch of crushed limestone aggregate at the surface. The following table lists the surficial findings at each boring location.

Boring

HMA

Thickness (in)

Concrete

Thickness (in)

Gravel Base

Thickness (in)

B-1 - 12 -

B-2 4 1/2 - 5

B-3 5 1/2 - 6*

B-4 4 1/2 - 5

B-5 4 5 -

B-6 4 - -

B-7 2 1/4 - -

B-8 3 7 -

B-9 2 2 3, 5◊

Boring

HMA

Thickness (in)

Concrete

Thickness (in)

Gravel Base

Thickness (in)

B-10 2 - 11

B-11 3 1/2 - 15*

B-12 2 - 6, 12◊

B-13 - - 15

B-13A - - 22

B-14 6 1/4 -- 12*

B-15 6 3/4 - -

B-16 7 1/2 - 23*

B-17 7 3/4 - -

B-18 3 - 17*

B-19 2 1/2 - -

B-20 5 1/2 - 12

* - Hand auger refusal within aggregate base

◊ - Layered pavement section

Beneath the pavement sections or surficial material, the subgrade generally consisted of poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silty fines and clayey fines (SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, SC) and stiff to hard lean clay (CL) to the explored depths of 1 to 5 ft (els 969.6 to 996.5). Listed below are summaries of the encountered subsurface conditions, as well as pavement observations, within each area of the site. The boring logs located in the Appendix should be reviewed for detailed soil descriptions. Some variation between boring locations is to be expected.

Surface drainage throughout the site appeared to be facilitated through positive drainage to outer pavement edges. No curb and gutter were observed along the pavement edges. The pavement surfaces appeared to be relatively flat, with only minimal site grading to promote drainage to the outer grass areas. Depressions in the pavement were observed in areas where block, edge and alligator cracking has occurred, creating low areas for water to accumulate. Original design plans were not provided for the site.

Food Service Building Area- Borings B-1 to B-4

Borings B-1 encountered 12 inches of concrete underlain by poorly graded sand with varying amounts of clayey and silty fines (SP-SM, SC) to the explored depth of 2.5 ft (el 994.7).

Borings B-2, B-3, and B-4 generally encountered 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 inches of HMA underlain by 5 to 6 inches of aggregate base. Below the surficial material, Boring B-

2 encountered sandy clay (SC) to the explored depth of

1.4 ft (el 996.5) and Boring B-4 encountered medium stiff lean clay (CL) to the explored depth of 2.8 ft (el

996). Boring B-3 encountered shallow refusal within the aggregate base due to possible coarse gravel or cobble at a depth of 1 ft (el 996.3).

Bravo (B) Building Pavement Area- Borings B-6 and B-7

Boring B-6 and B-7 encountered 2 1/4 to 4 inches of HMA. Beneath the pavement section, Borings B-6 and B-7 encountered poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) to depths of 1.6 to 1.7 ft (el 989.3 to 990.2 ft) and very stiff to hard lean clay (CL) with varying amounts of sand to the explored depths of 3.7 to 5.0 ft (els 986.8 to 987.3).

Courtyards at B&C Buildings– Borings B-5, B-8 and B-9

Borings B-5 and B-8 generally encountered 3 to 4 inches of HMA and 5 to 7 inches of concrete at the surface.

Boring B-9 encountered a pavement section consisting of

2 inches of HMA, 3 inches of aggregate base, 2 inches of concrete and 5 inches of aggregate base at the surface.

Beneath the surficial material, Borings B-5 and B-8 encountered poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silty and clayey fines (SP-SM, SP-SC) to depths of 1.3 to

2.3 ft (els 990.7 to 995.6) and Boring B-8 encountered stiff lean clay (CL) to the explored depth of 2.5 ft (el 919.5). Boring B-9 encountered lean clay

(CL) to an explored depth of 2.0 ft (el 989.9).

Warehouse Gravel Parking Area – Borings B-12, B-13 and B-13A

Boring B-12 and B-13 were drilled within the parking area at the warehouse located between

1st and 3rd street. Boring B-12 generally encountered 6 inches of aggregate, 2 inches of HMA and 12 inches of aggregate base at the surface. Boring B-12 encountered shallow refusal within the aggregate base due to possible coarse gravel or cobble at a depth of 1.7 ft (el

981.8).

Borings B-13 and B-13A encountered 15 to 22 inches of aggregate at the surface, with Boring

B-13A encountering an inch of crushed limestone aggregate at the surface. Boring B-13 encountered poorly graded sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) to the explored depth of 1.9 ft

Truck Ramp Area (B-1)

Courtyard at Bravo Building (B-5)

(el 981.7) and Boring B-13A encountered buried clayey topsoil to a depth of 2.2 ft (el 981.3) and very stiff lean clay (CL) to the explored depth of 3.4 ft (el 980.1).

Adjacent Parking 2nd and 3rd Street – Borings B-10, B-11, B-14 to B-20

Boring B-10, B-15 were drilled within the court footprints adjacent to 2nd and 3rd streets.

Borings B-11, B-14, B-16 to B-20 were drilled on pavements on 2nd and 3rd street. Borings B-

10 and B-15 generally encountered 2 to 6 inches of HMA. Boring B-10 encountered 11 inches of aggregate base while Boring B-15 did not encounter aggregate base. Borings B-11, B-14 and B-16 to B-20 generally encountered 2 1/2 to 7 3/4 inches of HMA at the surface. Boring

B-20 encountered 12 inches of aggregate base, while Borings B-11, B-14, B-16 and B-18 generally encountered 12 to 23 inches aggregate base. Borings B-11, B-14, B-16 and B-18 encountered shallow refusal within the aggregate base due to possible coarse gravel or cobble at depths ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 ft (els 979.2 to 992.5).

Below the surficial material, Borings B-10, B-17, B-19 and B-20 encountered clayey sand (SC) to the explored depths of 2.3 to 5 ft (els 969.6 to 990.9). Boring B-15 encountered a layer of buried silty topsoil at depths ranging from 0.6 to 1.4 ft (el 990.7 to 991.5) and silty sand (SM) to the explored depth of 3.9 ft (el 988.2).

Groundwater was encountered during the drilling activities in Borings B-5, B-8 and B-9 at depths ranging from 1.3 to 1.8 ft (els 990.1 to 996.5). Groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations such as precipitation, snowmelt, nearby river or lake levels and other factors that may not be evident at the time of measurement. Groundwater levels may be different at the time of construction.

This section has provided a generalized description of the encountered subsurface soil conditions. The boring logs located in the Appendix should be reviewed for detailed soil descriptions. Some variation between boring locations may be expected.

PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

During our investigation, pavement in fair to very poor condition was encountered throughout the site. Along 2nd and 3rd Street, at the area of load/unload ramp, courtyards of Building B &

C, cracks generally originated on a transverse pattern, which we expect are related to reflective cracking from the joints in the underlying concrete and potentially due to age related distress due to long-term oxidation of the HMA overlay. Frequent potholes and pothole patches were observed, particularly near lane extents. Rutting was observed near the location of Boring B-

20 on 2nd Street. The pavement deterioration observed through other areas of the site appears to be primarily due to the age of the pavements.

Due to the lack of aggregate base, existing pavement conditions and considering long term pavement performance is desired (15 to 25 years), a full-depth asphalt replacement is recommended. Full depth rotomilling of the existing asphalt should be performed until the gravel base is exposed. Prior to placing new asphalt, the existing gravel base should be inspected, with any areas of less than the recommended amount of gravel thickness augmented with MDOT 21AA aggregate or the aggregate base and asphalt millings resulting from 2nd Street and 3rd Street demolition.

We have considered the existing aggregate base will be largely suitable for re-use. Re-use of the existing aggregate base does present some risk of premature pavement deterioration due to potential variations in the aggregate. Additionally, the use of rubblized asphalt presents some risks to the pavement when compared to new crushed limestone aggregate as the rubblized asphalt is expected to provide worse drainage capability for stormwater. Water trapped within the pavement base presents a risk of freeze-thaw damage to the pavement and premature pavement deterioration. If the owner can accept no risk of premature pavement deterioration, we recommend removal of existing aggregate base and replacement with MDOT 21AA aggregate. If poor quality aggregate base is suspected based on visual inspection or proof roll results after the HMA surface is removed, we recommend stockpiling and testing the material to determine the material’s gradation and suitability for re-use.

The aggregate base should be compacted and proof-rolled as described in the “Site and

Subgrade Preparation” section of this report. Following aggregate compaction, the new HMA pavement should be installed.

The pavement sections encountered in our investigation were variable between the sampling locations. If a pavement section is encountered during construction that is thinner than anticipated, pavement reconstruction may be required.

Pavement rehabilitation options such as a partial depth asphalt mill and overlay, chip sealing or any other nonstructural overlay are not expected to provide significant extension of the pavement life in areas of poor to very poor pavement condition. There is not expected to be sufficient pavement integrity in areas with less than 2 inches of existing asphalt to support a partial-depth asphalt mill and replacement. In addition, for any overlay, the cracking in pavement that is left in place would be expected to reflect upward through the overlay.

Our recommended options for addressing the primary deficiencies of the existing pavement section are described below, along with discussion of alternate options which will present varying degrees of pavement life.

It is important that the recommendations of this report, in particular those pertaining to subgrade preparation, construction observation and testing, be implemented during design and construction.

Recommended Option: Reuse of Existing Aggregate Base

Should the Owner accept the risk of possible poor performance of the pavement section due to variations in the existing aggregate base, the existing aggregate base may be used with the parameters of the following defined full-depth pavement section. If this option is selected, full depth rotomilling of the existing asphalt should be performed until the gravel base is exposed. The existing asphalt may be removed, or a crush-and-shape may be performed whereby the asphalt millings are mixed into the existing gravel in accordance with MDOT specifications. Prior to placing new asphalt, the existing gravel base should be inspected, with any areas of less than the recommended amount of gravel thickness augmented with MDOT

21AA aggregate. The aggregate base should be compacted and proof-rolled as described in the “Site and Subgrade Preparation” section of this report. Following aggregate compaction, the new HMA pavement should be installed.

Alternative Option: Full-Depth Reconstruction of Asphalt Pavement Section and Construction of New Pavements

Full-depth reconstruction involves removal of existing asphalt and aggregate base and replacement of the entire pavement section. Subgrade preparation in reconstructed and proposed pavement areas should be as described in the "Site and Subgrade Preparation" section of this report. The pavement sections recommended in this section are based on procedures contained in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

The design recommendations provided are based on the following:

Flexible Pavement Basis of Design

AASHTO design method Low volume roads

Level of reliability 75 percent

Analysis period 15 to 25 years

Low traffic level, no. 18-kip ESAL 50,000 to 300,000

Number of rehabilitation periods during analysis period 1

The following flexible pavement sections are recommended:

Flexible Pavement Section

Traffic Condition Standard Duty Heavy Duty

Sand subbase thickness, inches 10 12

Aggregate base thickness, inches 6 10

Bituminous leveling course thickness, inches 2.0 3.0

Bituminous wearing course thickness, inches 1.5 2.0

The following materials are recommended:

Flexible Pavement Materials

Material Standard Duty Heavy Duty

Sand subbase MDOT Class II granular MDOT Class II granular

Aggregate base MDOT 21AA MDOT 21AA

Bituminous leveling MDOT 13A MDOT 3C

Bituminous wearing MDOT 36A MDOT 4C

Sand subbase material should be laboratory tested to confirm MDOT Class II grading requirement. The binder grade should be a minimum PG 58-28. MDOT standard specifications for materials and placement should be observed.

It is recommended that cracks that may develop in the pavement be quickly and properly sealed through a regular maintenance program. Also, the subgrade should be sufficiently sloped (2 percent minimum) to provide drainage within the sand subbase and underdrains should be provided within the subbase, around catch basins and pavement edges, to facilitate drainage. At each catch basin, four underdrains with a watertight connection should extend out radially at least 20 ft. A suitable rubberized asphalt sealant should be placed between all concrete curb/HMA joints immediately after paving.

Alternative Option: Partial-Depth Replacement of Asphalt Pavement Section

We understand that partial-depth replacement of the asphalt is under consideration; however, we do not anticipate the pavement remaining after milling will have sufficient integrity to provide a stable base prior to application of the overlay. In most areas of the site, due to the existing pavement thicknesses and the poor to very poor condition of several pavement areas, a partial-depth replacement is not recommended. For portions of the facility with greater than

2 inches of existing asphalt and where pavement is in fair condition, it may be possible to utilize a partial-depth replacement of the existing asphalt, should a shorter pavement life span than our recommended section be acceptable to the Owner.

If partial depth replacement is selected for pavement in fair condition, we recommend replacing at least 1.5 inches of existing asphalt with an MDOT 36A wearing course with binder grade a minimum of PG 58-28. The wearing course lift should be placed and compacted in order to match the existing grades of the adjacent pavement surfaces.

Alternate Option: Asphalt Overlay or Chip Seal

We understand that an asphalt overlay is under consideration; however, it is not recommended as it is expected that an asphalt overlay will undergo early deterioration due to the poor to very poor condition of the existing pavement. Reflective cracking from the cracks already existing in the pavement is anticipated to appear within the overlay within 1 to 3 years after application.

Chip sealing is a type of overlay that involves placement of aggregate onto the pavement surface after it has been prepared with liquid asphalt binder. On a pavement in good to fair condition, a chip seal may extend the pavement life by 3 to 5 years; however, it is expected to have significantly less utility on pavements in poor to very poor condition such as those generally encountered in this investigation.

Rigid Pavement

Subgrade preparation should be as described in the “Site and Subgrade Preparation” section of this report. For design of rigid pavements supported on-grade, a modulus of subgrade reaction value, K30, of 100 psi/inch is recommended. A minimum concrete thickness of 8 inches is recommended. A plain jointed (unreinforced) concrete pavement with proper spacing of control joints is recommended. Load transfer devices (dowel bars) are not expected to be necessary given the expected axle loadings from primarily passenger vehicles.

A minimum 6-in base of MDOT Class II sand should be placed underneath the concrete. The concrete strength should be designed for a minimum modulus of rupture, S'c, of 600 psi and the concrete should be air-entrained. The pavement should be properly jointed (sawcut) with the joints sealed. A jointing plan should be prepared as part of the design. Typically, joints are placed every 12 to 15 ft with the sawcut extending approximately 1/4 of the pavement depth.

Site and Subgrade Preparation

All topsoil, vegetation, roots and any other miscellaneous debris should be removed from within the proposed construction areas. The limits of the proposed construction area, prior to the placement of any structures or engineered fill material, should be proof-rolled by the contractor and, where granular soil is present, compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum ASTM D1557 dry density. Proof-rolling is defined as the passing of relatively heavy construction equipment over the soil subgrade under observation by the Geotechnical

Engineer. The response of the soil, when subjected to the applied load, is subjectively evaluated by qualified geotechnical personnel with respect to its ability to support the overlying soil or structure. In areas where excessive deflection is observed, special subgrade preparation measures may be recommended to provide an acceptable subgrade condition.

These measures may consist of compaction of the subgrade at moisture contents close to the optimum value, undercutting affected areas and replacing with engineered fill, use of a geotextile separation fabric or some combination of these measures.

Boring B-13A and B-15 generally encountered buried clayey or silty topsoil to a depth of 1.4 to 2.2 ft (el 981.3 to 990.7). Due to the buried topsoil encountered in the field investigation, and due to variations that may exist between borings, it is possible that some form of subgrade improvement may be required. Buried topsoil may be acceptable to be left in place provided it is sufficiently stable during proof rolling and is free of large debris and significant organic material. If full-depth reconstruction of the asphalt sections is selected, test pits may be used to identify the extents and depths of the buried organic soil. Even after proof rolling and test pit exploration, some risk of future poor performance may still be present for pavements supported on the organic or possibly organic materials.

Engineered fill is approved on-site or imported soil placed in uniform layers and compacted to a minimum required density. Generally, on-site soil with group symbols of SP or SP-SM are expected to be suitable for engineered fill. Imported fill should meet the requirements for

MDOT Class II granular material.

Granular engineered fill and backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557). Vibratory compaction methods are typically found to be most effective in granular soils; however, relatively light equipment should be used adjacent to retaining or basement walls to avoid overstressing the walls.

The fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal layers not exceeding 9 inches. Field density tests (ASTM D2922) should be taken on each lift, as the fill is being placed, to verify compliance with compaction specifications. If the earthwork takes place during winter months, fill must not be placed on frozen ground and fill with frozen conglomerations of soil must not be used.

Because the site has been previously developed, there may be buried items not encountered in our borings, such as a utility conduit, which may cause settlement problems. The contract documents should reflect that it is necessary to remove or relocate such structures and to fill the excavation with engineered fill. Large roots should also be removed from beneath new pavements, where encountered.

Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered during the drilling activities in Borings B-5, B-8 and B-9 at depths ranging from 1.3 to 1.8 ft (els 990.1 to 996.5), close to the anticipated depth of excavation for site preparation. Groundwater will likely be encountered during construction and suitable control of groundwater should be anticipated and planned for accordingly before the start of construction. The contractor should be responsible for selecting and implementing an appropriate groundwater control system. The contractor should have previous dewatering experience on sites with similar conditions. Suitable silt and sediment traps should be incorporated into the dewatering system.

CLOSURE

In this report, descriptions of the geotechnical investigation, encountered conditions and recommendations for pavement reconstruction have been presented. The limitations of this study are described in the Appendix.

The recommendations presented in this report are based upon a limited number of subsurface samples obtained from various sampling locations. The samples may not fully indicate the nature and extent of the variations that actually exist between sampling locations. For that reason, among others, we strongly recommend that a qualified geotechnical firm be retained to observe earthwork construction. If variations or other latent conditions become evident during construction, it will be necessary for us to review these conditions and our recommendations as appropriate.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service to you on this project. Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact our office.

Sincerely, MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC.

Ryan D. Starcher, E.I.T.

Project Engineer

Robert J. Warren, P.E.

Project Manager

Attachments: Figure No. 1 - Boring Location Plan

Appendix

- Limitations

- Test Drilling and Sampling Procedures

- Boring Log Terminology and Classification Outline

- Boring Logs

APPENDIX

• Limitations

• Test Drilling and Sampling Procedures

• Boring Log Terminology and Classification Outline

• Boring Logs

9/20/

9/20

FIRST

FIRST

9/20/

LIMITATIONS

Soil Variations

The recommendations in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings.

This report does not reflect variations which may occur between these borings, and which would not become evident until construction. If variations then become evident, it would be necessary for a re-evaluation of recommendations of this report, after performing on-site observations.

Warranties

We have prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. We make no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report.

This report is prepared exclusively for our client and may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from our office.

Boring Logs

In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, we follow reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil engineering. Field logs maintained during drilling describe field occurrences, sampling locations, and other information. The samples obtained in the field are subjected to additional testing in the laboratory and differences may exist between the field logs and the final logs. The engineer reviews the field logs and laboratory test data, and then prepares the final boring logs. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the final logs.

Review of Design Plans and Specifications

In the event that any changes in the design of the building or the location, however slight, are planned, our recommendations shall not be considered valid unless modified or approved in writing by our office. We recommend that we be provided the opportunity to review the final design and specifications in order to determine whether changes in the original concept may have affected the validity of our recommendations, and whether our recommendations have, in fact, been implemented in the design and specifications.

TEST DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Test Drilling Methods:

Hollow stem auger, ASTM D6151

Mud rotary, ASTM D5783

Casing advancer, ASTM D5872

Rock coring, ASTM D2113

X Core/Hand Auger

Note: Cone penetration test data can be used to interpret subsurface stratigraphy and can provide data on engineering properties of soils. The ASTM procedure does not include a procedure for determining soil classification from CPT testing. Soil classifications shown on

CPT logs are based on published procedures and are not based on physical ASTM soil classification tests.

Sampling Methods:

SPT, ASTM D1586, Auto hammer (140 lb., 30" drop, 2" OD split spoon sampler)

X Grab Samples

Note: The number of hammer blows required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches, after seating 6 inches, is termed the soil N-value and provides an indication of the soil's relative density and strength parameters at the sample location. SPT blow counts in 6 inch increments are recorded on the boring logs.

Drill Rig:

CME 55 LC (ATV)

CME 750 Rubber tired (ATV)

CME 95 Truck

Geoprobe Direct Push

Geoprobe Rotary Sonic

Boreholes Backfilled With:

X Excavated soil

Cement bentonite grout

Piezometer or Monitoring Well (see notes on logs)

X Concrete or asphalt patch where appropriate

Sample Handling and Disposition:

X Samples labeled, placed in jars, returned to MTC Laboratory

X Discard after 60 days

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100

FOR CLARIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOIL AND

FINE-GRAINED FRACTION OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

< 5 5 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50

Relative Density SPT Blow CountDescriptive Terms

0 to 15 % 15 to 35 % 35 to 65 % 65 to 85 % 85 to 100 %

GENERAL NOTES

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF

HIGH PLASTICITY WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL

CLAYEY SANDS WITH OR

WITHOUT GRAVEL

Plasticity Chart

GRAIN SIZE

Less than 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 40%

50 to 100%

MINOR COMPONENT QUANTIFYING TERMS

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (major portions retained on No. 200 sieve): includes (1) clean gravel and sands and (2) silty or clayey gravels and sands. Condition is rated according to relative density as determined by laboratory tests or standard penetration resistance tests.

TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY OR CONDITION

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS

WITH OR WITHOUT SAND

SILTY GRAVELS WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND

WELL-GRADED SANDS WITH OR

WITHOUT GRAVEL

POORLY-GRADED SANDS WITH

SILT WITH OR WITHOUT

GRAVEL

CLEAN

SANDS WITH

LESS THAN

15% FINES

SANDS WITH

15% OR

MORE FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS WITH

OR WITHOUT GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS WITH

OR WITHOUT SAND

CLAYEY GRAVELS WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND

TYPICAL NAMES

CLEAN

GRAVELS

WITH LESS

THAN 15%

FINES

GRAVELS

WITH 15%

OR MORE

FINES

GRAVELS

MORE THAN

HALF

COARSE

FRACTION IS

LARGER

THAN NO. 4

SIEVE

SANDS

MORE THAN

HALF

COARSE

FRACTION IS

FINER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

SIZE

C O

A R

S E

-G R

A

IN

E D

S O

IL

S

M O

R E

T H

A N

H A

LF

IS

C O

A R

S E

R T

H A

N N

O . 2

S

IE

V

E

MAJOR DIVISIONS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SP-SM

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT/OL

INORGANIC SILTS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF

LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY

WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR

GRAVEL

INORGANIC SILTS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT

SAND OR GRAVEL

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT

SAND OR GRAVEL

SILTY SANDS WITH OR

WITHOUT GRAVEL

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY

ORGANIC SOILS

F

IN

E -G

R A

IN

E

D S

O

IL

S M

O R

E T

H A

N H

A

LF

IS

F

IN

E

R T

H A

N N

O . 2

S

IE

V

E

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR LESS

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER

THAN 50%

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

3. Preserved soil samples will be discarded after 60 days unless alternate arrangements have been made.

2. "Grades with" or "Grades without" may be used to describe soil when characteristics vary within a stratum.

SPT Blow CountDescriptive Terms

< 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 > 30

< 0.25

0.25 to 0.5

0.5 to 1.0

1.0 to 2.0

2.0 to 4.0 > 4.0

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Unconfined Compressive

TRACE

FEW

LITTLE

SOME

MOSTLY

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y I

N D

E X

P

I)

SAMPLE TYPES AND NUMBERING

U Shelby tube sample, ASTM D1587

R Rock core run

1. Classifications are based on the United Soil Classification System and include consistency, moisture, and color. Field descriptions have been modified to reflect results of laboratory tests where deemed appropriate.

S Other than 2" split barrel sample

L SPT with liner, ASTM D1586

A Auger cuttings

G Geoprobe liner

C U

D

FINE-GRAINED SOILS (major portions passing on No. 200 sieve): includes (1) inorganic and organic silts and clays, (2) gravelly, sandy, or silty clays, and (3) clayey silts. Consistency is rated according to shearing strength, as indicated by penetrometer readings, SPT blow count, or unconfined compression tests.

>12"

12" to 3"

3" to 0.75"

0.75" to No. 4

No. 4 to No. 10

No. 10 to No.40

No. 40 to No. 200

60D greater than 4; between 1 and 3 between 1 and 3

D 10 x D60

30D C

C

60Dx10D

10D 60D

C C

( D 30 )2 greater than 6;=C U

( )2

S SPT, split barrel sample, ASTM D1586

Per ASTM D2487, the following conditions must be met based on laboratory testing to justify the label 'well graded' in a soil description.

Gravel:

Sand:

BOULDER

COBBLE

COARSE GRAVEL

FINE GRAVEL

COARSE SAND

MEDIUM SAND

FINE SAND

BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY AND ASTM D 2488

CLASSIFICATION OUTLINE

During - indicates water level encountered during the boring End- indicates water level immediately after drilling Date and Depth - Measurements at indicated date

GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS:

ML OL

OR

ORCL

OL

MH OH

OR

CL-ML

"A " L

IN

E"U

" L

IN

E

CH

OH

OR

Strength TSF

1.0

1.5

2.5 Hand auger refusal due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

12" Concrete

Brown poorly graded SAND with silt; mostly coarse to fine sand, few silty fines, moist

Brown clayey SAND with clay and gravel;

mostly coarse to fine sand, little coarse to fine gravel, little clayey fines, moist

End of Boring

A-1

A-2

SP-SM

SC

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch.

08/21/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

NA

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 2.5 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

997.2 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

None

Date End: 08/21/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=170156.8 E=12952120.0 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-1

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

997.0

996.7

996.5

996.2

996.0

995.7

995.5

995.2

995.0

994.7

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.4

0.8

1.4 Hand auger refusal due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

4 1/2" HMA

5" Aggregate Base

Brown clayey SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, little clayey fines, few coarse to fine gravel, moist

End of Boring

A-1

A-2 SC

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch.

08/21/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

NA

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 1.4 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

997.9 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

None

Date End: 08/21/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=170099.2 E=12952054.6 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-2

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

997.7

997.4

997.2

996.9

996.7

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

0.5

1.0 Hand auger refusal due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

5 1/2" HMA

6"+ Aggregate Base

End of Boring

A-1

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch.

08/21/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

NA

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 1.0 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

997.3 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

None

Date End: 08/21/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=170106.5 E=12952175.3 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-3

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

997.1

996.8

996.6

996.3

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

2.8 Hand auger refusal due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

1.5

4 1/2" HMA

5" Aggregate Base

Brown sandy CLAY; mostly clayey fines, some coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, moist

End of Boring

A-1

A-2 CL

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch.

08/21/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

NA

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 2.8 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

998.8 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

None

Date End: 08/21/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=170240.2 E=12952179.1 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-4

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

998.6

998.3

998.1

997.8

997.6

997.3

997.1

996.8

996.6

996.3

996.1

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.75

0.3

2.3 Hand auger refusal due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

4" HMA

5" Concrete

Brown poorly graded SAND with silt; mostly coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, few silty fines, moist Grades wet at 1.3'

End of Boring

A-1

SP-SC

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch. Cave in at 1.5 ft.

08/21/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

1.3

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 2.3 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

997.8 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

1.3

Date End: 08/21/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=170604.0 E=12952285.1 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-5

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

997.6

997.3

997.1

996.8

996.6

996.3

996.1

995.8

995.6

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

1.6

5.0

4.5+

4" HMA

Brown SAND with silt; mostly coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, few silty fines, moist

Brown lean CLAY with sand; mostly clayey fines, little coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, moist

End of Boring

A-1

A-2

SP-SM

CL

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch.

08/21/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

NA

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 5.0 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

991.8 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

None

Date End: 08/21/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=170529.4 E=12952482.2 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-6

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

991.6

991.3

991.1

990.8

990.6

990.3

990.1

989.8

989.6

989.3

989.1

988.8

988.6

988.3

988.1

987.8

987.6

987.3

987.1

986.8

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

0.2

1.7

3.7 Hand auger refusal due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

3.5

2 1/4" HMA

Brown SAND with silt; mostly coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, few silty fines, moist

Brown lean CLAY; mostly clayey fines, few coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, moist

End of Boring

A-1

A-2

SP-SM

CL

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch.

08/21/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

NA

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 3.7 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

991.0 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

None

Date End: 08/21/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=170475.1 E=12952562.2 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-7

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

990.8

990.5

990.3

990.0

989.8

989.5

989.3

989.0

988.8

988.5

988.3

988.0

987.8

987.5

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

1.3

2.5 Hand auger refusal due to cave-in

2.0

3" HMA

7" Concrete

Brown poorly graded SAND with silt; mostly coarse to fine sand, few silty fines, moist Grades wet at 1.2'

Brown lean CLAY; mostly clayey fines, few coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, moist

End of Boring

A-1

A-2

SP-SM

CL

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch. Cave in at 1.5 ft.

08/22/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

1.3

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 2.5 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

992.0 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

1.2

Date End: 08/22/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=170396.2 E=12952762.2 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-8

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

991.8

991.5

991.3

991.0

990.8

990.5

990.3

990.0

989.8

989.5

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

0.6

1.0

2.0

Fill: 0.0' to 1.1'

Hand auger refusal due to cave-in

2" HMA

3" Aggregate Base

2" Concrete

5" Aggregate Base with COBBLE Grades wet at 1.0'

Gray brown lean CLAY; mostly clayey fines, few coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, moist

End of Boring

A-1

A-2 CL

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch. Cave in at 1.4 ft.

08/22/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

1.8

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 2.0 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

991.9 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

1.0

Date End: 08/22/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=170080.6 E=12952915.7 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-9

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

991.7

991.4

991.2

990.9

990.7

990.4

990.2

989.9

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

1.1

2.3 Hand auger refusal due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

2" HMA

11" Aggregate Base

Brown clayey SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, some clayey fines, few coarse to fine gravel, moist

End of Boring

A-1

A-2

SC

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch.

08/14/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

NA

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 2.3 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

980.1 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

None

Date End: 08/14/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=168730.4 E=12951576.6 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-10

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

979.9

979.6

979.4

979.1

978.9

978.6

978.4

978.1

977.9

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

Hand auger refusal due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

3 1/4" HMA

15"+ Aggregate Base

End of Boring

A-1

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, patched pavement with cold patch.

08/14/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

NA

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 1.5 ft.

Seepage

Date Begin:

Core

Coldwater, Michigan

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

991.3 ft

Client:

SPT Hammer

None

Date End: 08/14/2023

Core/Hand Auger

Rev. By:

N=168599.9 E=12951842.3 (MI South ift)

Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

Lakeland Correctional Pavement Investigation

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Elev.

FT. MST

REMARKS

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

DD

pcf

Boring No.:

B-11

QP

tsf

Project No.:LOG

OF

BORING Sheet:

*DESCRIPTION

Sample

Number

Recov.

FT.

Dyn. Cone

Eq. "N":

ASTM STP 399

*USCS

Group

Symbol

231464

Depth

FT.

991.1

990.8

990.6

990.3

990.1

989.8

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.50

0.7

1.7

Fill: 0.0' to 1.7'

Hand auger refusal due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

6" Aggregate

2" HMA

12" Aggregate Base

End of Boring

A-1

During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings.

08/18/2023

JV

Type

End

Tube

Hand AugerSampler 3 1/4"

Location:

NA

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Datum:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

Depth Drilled: 1.7 ft.

Seepage

Date…