27-0015 Attachment B- Bidding Specs (1).PDF

MMuullttii--SSppoorrtt FFiieelldd IImmpprroovveemmeennttss

FFoorr::

DD ee tt rr oo ii tt PP uu bb ll ii cc SS cc hh oo oo ll ss

CC aa ss ss TT ee cc hh nn ii cc aa ll HH SS

DDeettrrooiitt,, MMII

SSppeecciiffiiccaattiioonnss

IIssssuueedd FFoorr::

BBiiddddiinngg 77//1133//22002266

PPrreeppaarreedd bbyy::

One SeaGate, Park Level 118 Toledo, Ohio 43604

Phone: 419-242-7405 Fax: 419-242-7400

PPrroojjeecctt NNoo.. 110077442211

PRELIM

IN

ARY-

NOT FOR C

ONSTRUCTIO

N

1301048954

Michael A.

Muse

MICHAEL A. MUSE, 1301048954

EXPIRATION DATE 05/06/2027

Multi-Sport Field Improvements Detroit Public Schools – Cass Technical HS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 – PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

003100.0 ....... Available Project Information

003100.1 ....... Report of Geotechnical Investigation

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

011000 .......... Summary 012100 .......... Allowances 012300 .......... Alternates 012500 .......... Substitution Procedures 013000 .......... Administrative Requirements 013135 .......... Architect’s CADD Files 013216 .......... Construction Progress Schedule 014000 .......... Quality Requirements 014533 .......... Code-Required Special Inspections and Procedures 015000 .......... Temporary Facilities and Controls 015639 .......... Temporary Tree and Plant Protection 016000 .......... Product Requirements 016116 .......... Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Restrictions 017000 .......... Execution and Closeout Requirements 017800 .......... Closeout Submittals 017900 .......... Demonstration and Training

DIVISION 02 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

024119 .......... Selective Demolition

DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE

031000 .......... Concrete Forming and Accessories 032000 .......... Concrete Reinforcing 033000 .......... Cast-in-Place Concrete

DIVISION 04 – MASONRY

042000 .......... Unit Masonry

DIVISION 05 – METALS

055000 .......... Metal Fabrications

DIVISION 06 – WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES (NOT USED)

DIVISION 07 – THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

079200 .......... Joint Sealants

DIVISION 08 – OPENINGS (NOT USED)

DIVISION 09 – FINISHES

090561 .......... Common Work Results for Flooring Preparation 093000 .......... Tiling 096513 .......... Resilient Base and Accessories 096700 .......... Fluid-Applied Flooring 099113 .......... Exterior Painting

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

099123 .......... Interior Painting 099600 .......... High-Performance Coatings

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

101100 .......... Visual Display Units 105113 .......... Metal Lockers 107500 .......... Flagpoles

DIVISION 11 – EQUIPMENT

116833 .......... Athletic Field Equipment 116843 .......... Exterior Scoreboards

DIVISION 12 – FURNISHINGS (NOT USED)

DIVISION 13 – SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

133412 .......... Bleachers

DIVISION 14 – CONVEYING EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

DIVISION 21 – FIRE SUPPRESSION (NOT USED)

DIVISION 22 – PLUMBING (NOT USED)

DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING (NOT USED)

DIVISION 26 – ELECTRICAL

260005 .......... Basic Electrical Requirements 260505 .......... Selective Demolition for Electrical 260519 .......... Voltage Electrical Power Conductors and Cables 260526 .......... Grounding and Bonding for Electrical Systems 260529 .......... Hangers and Supports for Electrical Systems

260533.13 ..... Conduit for Electrical Systems

260533.16 ..... Boxes for Electrical Systems

260533.23 ..... Surface Raceways for Electrical Systems 260553 .......... Identification for Electrical Systems 262726 .......... Wiring Devices

262816.16 ..... Enclosed Switches 265100 .......... Interior Lighting 265600 .......... Exterior Lighting 265668 .......... Exterior Athletic Lighting

DIVISION 27 – COMMUNICATIONS (NOT USED)

DIVISION 28 – ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY (NOT USED)

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

311000 .......... Site Clearing

DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

321313 .......... Concrete Paving 321373 .......... Concrete Paving Joint Sealants 321813 .......... Synthetic Grass Surfacing 323113 .......... Chain Link Fences and Gates 323300 .......... Site Furnishings

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3

329219 .......... Seeding 329300 .......... Plants

DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES (NOT USED)

END OF DOCUMENT

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION 003100 - 1/1

SECTION 003100 - AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

A. Certain information relating to existing surface and subsurface conditions and structures is available to bidders but will not be part of Contract Documents, as follows:

B. Geotechnical Report:

1. A copy is available from the Owner.

2. Contractor is urged to examine data provided.

3. Contractor should visit the site and become acquainted with existing conditions.

4. This report identifies properties of below grade conditions and offers recommendations for the design of foundations, prepared primarily for the use of Architect.

5. This report, by its nature, cannot reveal all conditions that exist on the site.

Should subsurface conditions be found to vary substantially from this report, changes in the design and construction of foundations will be made, with resulting credits or expenditures to the Contract Sum accruing to Owner.

6. Interpretation: This report is provided only for information and convenience.

Owner and Architect disclaim responsibility for accuracy, true location and extent of soil conditions that have been evaluated by others. Owner and Architect further disclaim responsibility for interpretation of the report data by the Contractor; including but not limited to projecting soil bearing values, rock profiles, soil stability, and presence, level, and extent of underground water.

7. Applicable Requirements: Specific and variable recommendations contained in this document are subject to acceptance by Owner for incorporation in the Contract Documents prepared by Architect. Comply with requirements specified in the Contract Documents for earthwork, paving systems, and other applicable work scope items.

C. It is the responsibility of the contractor to review hazardous material testing reports with the owner and any found instances prior to demolition work taking place. No report has been provided or is included within these documents.

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

A. END OF SECTION

January 9, 2026 Project No. 251652

Detroit Public Schools Community District c/o: Plante Moran Realpoint 26300 Northwestern Highway Southfield, MI 48076

Attention: Collin Frink

Reference: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Cass Technical High School Stadium Renovation Detroit, Michigan

Dear Mr. Frink:

MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC. has completed a geotechnical investigation for the above-referenced project. The findings of the study along with recommendations for the design of foundations and earth-related structures are presented in the attached report.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide foundation engineering services and express our interest in providing continuing services in the areas of subgrade verification, special inspections and quality testing on various construction materials. Please contact our office should you have any questions or require further assistance.

Sincerely, MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC.

Kathryn A. Crow, P.E.

Project Manager

Robert J. Warren, P.E.

Senior Project Manager att: Report

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

CASS TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM RENOVATION

DETROIT, MICHIGAN

Prepared For:

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMUNITY DISTRICT

Detroit, Michigan

Prepared By:

MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC.

January 2026

MTC Project No. 251652

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 2

2.1 Available Information 2

2.2 Location and Type of Structure 2

3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY 3

3.1 Field Investigation 3

3.2 Laboratory 4

4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS 5

4.1 Regional Geology 5

4.2 Site Conditions 5

4.3 Subsurface Conditions 6

4.4 Infiltration Test Results 8

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8

5.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations - Scoreboard 8

5.2 Drilled Shaft Considerations 9

5.3 Site and Subgrade Preparation 10

5.4 Groundwater 12

5.5 Slopes and Temporary Excavations 12

5.6 Rigid Pavements 13

5.7 Flexible Pavements 13

5.8 MBC Seismic Considerations 15

6.0 CLOSURE 16

FIGURE BORING LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX LIMITATIONS

TEST DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION OUTLINE

BORING LOGS

INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

CASS TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM RENOVATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC. (MTC) has completed a geotechnical investigation for the

Cass Technical High School Stadium Renovation located in Detroit, Michigan. This work has been performed as described in our proposal, number 19373 and dated May 2, 2025, with modification as approved by Collin Frink of Plante Moran by email on December 9, 2025. The modification included the deletion of two borings and the addition of vacuum excavation to identify the buried utilities. Authorization to proceed was received from Mr. Collin Frink of

Plante Moran Realpoint in an email dated August 21, 2025. The scope of this study was described in an RFP email received on April 25, 2025 with boring locations provided in an email received on September 19, 2025.

The scope of this study in general includes the following:

performance of a field investigation including soil test borings, infiltration testing and field engineering reconnaissance;

review of recovered samples by one of our engineers and assignment of technical soil classifications;

performance of laboratory testing on selected soil samples;

engineering evaluation of encountered conditions with respect to the proposed construction; and preparation of this report.

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

Appendix contains the report limitations, boring log terminology, soil classification chart, boring logs, infiltration test results and laboratory test data.

Report of Geotechnical Investigation

2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 Available Information

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

An aerial image of the project site with proposed boring locations and depths provided by

Plante Moran Realpoint on September 19, 2025.

Email and telephone conversations with Mr. Collin Frink of Plante Moran Realpoint and

Mr. Andrew Brock, P.E., S.E. of AMB Consulting regarding the type of construction, design loads and elevations.

2.2 Location and Type of Structure

The proposed construction will be located in plan as shown on the attached Boring Location

Plan, Figure No. 1. The site is located within the southwestern quadrant of Ledyard Street and 3rd Avenue, west of the Cass Technical High School building at address 2501 2nd Avenue in Detroit, Michigan.

The proposed stadium renovation will consist of the conversion of an existing grass athletic field to synthetic turf, a new scoreboard, and improvements and additions to pedestrian pavements.

It was provided by Mr. Andrew Brock, P.E., S.E. of AMB Consulting that the proposed scoreboard is expected to be supported by drilled shaft foundations subjected to a lateral load of approximately 2 kips applied 16 ft above the top of the foundation and a vertical downward load of 0.6 kips.

We anticipate the proposed pavements will primarily be subjected to pedestrian foot traffic with occasional access from maintenance vehicles.

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

3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

3.1 Field Investigation

Subsurface conditions were investigated by 9 conventional soil test borings. Borings B-2, B-

6, B-7, and B-8 were drilled to depths of 5 to 15 ft in the proposed pavement areas. Borings

B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-9 were drilled to depths of 5 to 10 ft in the proposed turf areas. Boring

B-1 was drilled to a depth of 10 ft in the proposed scoreboard area. Boring locations are shown on the attached plan, Figure No. 1.

MTC staked the approximate boring locations in the field. Boring elevations were approximated by GPS. The elevations used in this report are given in feet and are based on

NAVD 88 datum. If more precise location and elevation data are desired, a registered professional land surveyor should be retained to locate the borings and determine their ground elevations.

The drilling was performed using conventional hollow-stem auger methods to advance the boreholes. The boreholes were backfilled with the compacted auger cuttings to the original ground surface after drilling completion.

Soil samples were recovered on regular intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test

(SPT), ASTM D1586. The SPT method involves the use of a 140-lb hammer with a 30-inch drop to drive a standard 2.0-inch O.D. split spoon sampler. The number of hammer blows required to drive the 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. The drill rig was equipped with an automatic hammer system which delivers a more consistent driving energy to the sampler compared to the rope and cathead system.

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.

The recovered soil samples were reviewed by an engineer and technically classified according to the methods of ASTM D2488 "Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils

(Visual-Manual Procedure)". Estimates of the unconfined compressive strength of the cohesive samples were made using a calibrated penetrometer. A copy of the test boring logs along with a description of the terminology used on the logs and a chart of the ASTM D2488 group symbol names are provided in the Appendix.

Two infiltration tests were performed within Borings B-4 and B-5 at approximately 5 ft below the ground surface (el 603.1). Infiltration testing followed the Southeast Michigan Council of

Governments (SEMCOG) Low Impact Development (LID) manual double ring method. The infiltration testing results are summarized in Section 4.4 and the detailed reports can be found in the Appendix.

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.

3.2 Laboratory

Selected samples were subjected to various laboratory tests, including:

ASTM D2216 "Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of

Soil and Rock by Mass”

ASTM D4318 "Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils"

The samples subjected to plasticity testing were reclassified according to ASTM D2487 procedures "Standard Test Method for Classifications of Soils for Engineering Purposes". The

ASTM D2487 and D2488 classifications are included on the boring logs.

Results of the laboratory tests have been summarized in a table provided in the Appendix.

4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS

4.1 Regional Geology

The Map of the Surface Formations of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan, published by the

State of Michigan, indicates the site is in an area of waterlaid moraines. Soil conditions typically are found to range from clay and silt to sand and gravel with possible cobble and boulder in this type of geologic area. The Map of Bedrock Topography of the Southern

Peninsula of Michigan indicates bedrock to be at approximately el 400 to 450, over 150 ft below the existing ground surface.

4.2 Site Conditions

At the time of our field work, the ground surface within the area of investigation was generally snow-covered. Based on recent aerial imagery from September 2025, the site consisted of a fenced-in grass athletic field with spectator stands along the east and west portions of the field with small masonry buildings located north and south of the eastern spectator stands.

The remaining surface areas generally consisted of grass and concrete pedestrian walkways.

The site, in general, was flat with elevations at our boring locations ranging between approximately el 607 to 609.

View from northeast corner of athletic field, facing southwest

Based on a review of historical aerial imagery, the site was developed with 3rd Avenue traversing north to south through the site and numerous commercial buildings along the roadway as far back as 1951. Between 1951 and 2002, the structures were progressively removed and eventually sometime between 2002 and 2005 the remaining structures and roadway were removed and replaced with the present-day athletic field layout.

2002 Historical Aerial Imagery 2005 Historical Aerial Imagery

4.3 Subsurface Conditions

The investigation encountered 4 to 7 inches of clayey topsoil at the surface. Granular and cohesive fill soils, consisting of generally loose to medium dense poorly graded sand with varying amounts of clayey fines (SP-SC and SP) and stiff to hard lean clay (CL) were encountered beneath the topsoil within Borings B-1 through B-4 and B-6 through B-8 and extended to depths ranging from 2 to 5.5 ft (els 603.5 to 606.9). Varying amounts of brick and general construction debris were observed within the fill soil.

Native stiff to hard lean clay (CL) was generally encountered beneath the topsoil and the fill soils and extended to the explored depths ranging from 5 to 15 ft (els 593.2 to 603.1). A layer of medium dense clayey silt was encountered within Boring B-3 between the depths of

5.5 to 8 ft (els 600.7 to 603.2). The cohesive soil compressive strengths were measured with calibrated penetrometer readings ranging from 1.5 to exceeding 4.5 tsf.

The borings generally encountered poor sampler recovery within the upper 5 ft, with sampler refusal encountered near the ground surface within Boring B-7. Poor recovery and sampler refusal could indicate coarse gravel, cobble, or other buried debris. Boulder may be present where cobble is noted.

The relative density of granular soil is based on recorded SPT N-values while the consistency of cohesive soil is based on both recorded SPT N-values and on estimates of the unconfined compressive strength obtained with a calibrated penetrometer.

Laboratory tests performed on select cohesive samples generally measured moisture contents ranging from 9.7 to 27.1 percent. Atterberg Limits testing, following ASTM D4318, was performed on a sample of gray lean clay (CL) obtained from Boring B-6 at a depth of 15 ft (el 593.2). The measured liquid limit was 25 and the measured plastic limit was 13, with a moisture content of 15.2 percent. The recorded moisture content with respect to the measured plastic limit suggests the gray lean clay (CL) is likely in an overconsolidated stress state.

Groundwater was encountered during the drilling activities in Boring B-9 at a depth of 4.5 ft

(el 604.5). The groundwater appeared to be perched within the granular fill soil overlying native cohesive soils. Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining soil borings during drilling operations. 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.

4.4 Infiltration Test Results

Double-ring infiltrometer testing per the SEMCOG LID was performed within Borings B-4 and

B-5 at depths of 5 ft below the ground surface (el 603.1). Two concentric rings were used to perform the tests, with a 6-inch outer ring diameter and a 4-inch inner ring diameter. The purpose of the outer ring is to prevent divergent flow of water from the inner ring while the water level in the inner ring is monitored to calculate a one-dimensional infiltration rate.

Readings were taken at 30-minute intervals until a stabilized infiltration rate was achieved.

The stabilized infiltration rate for both tests was 0 in/hr. The infiltration test reports can be found in the appendix.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations - Scoreboard

We understand the new scoreboard will be supported by drilled concrete shaft foundations with maximum vertical downward loads of 0.6 kips and a maximum lateral load of approximately 2 kips applied 16 ft above the top of the foundation.

We have evaluated the foundation for bearing, overturning and rotation using the following criteria:

Table 5.1.1 – Drilled Shaft Design Criteria

Factor of Safety to Resist Bearing Capacity Failure 3.0 Factor of Safety to Resist Overturning 2.0 Maximum allowable foundation settlement 1 inch Maximum allowable deflection at top of shaft 0.5 inches

A minimum 3-ft diameter dilled shaft foundation with a minimum of 9-ft embedment is expected to be feasible for support of the proposed scoreboard structure considering the design criteria noted in Table 5.1.1. The foundations are expected to bear on very stiff to hard lean clay (CL) as encountered in Boring B-1 or an approved engineered fill. Based on the subgrade materials encountered, we anticipate temporary casing may be required for hole stabilization requirements, as discussed in the following section.

It was assumed that the uppermost 5 ft of soil in the subsurface profile does not provide shaft support, and ground surface in the vicinity of the foundation is flat. The LPILE v6.0 software program was used to determine the minimum shaft length sufficient to satisfy the requirements of axial loading, shear loading, flexural moment, and ground surface deflection.

We have considered the structural integrity of the drilled shaft section will be evaluated by others, including the required type and orientation of shear reinforcement. If the actual loading conditions differ from the assumptions provided, or if the soil conditions encountered during construction differ from the conditions encountered during the geotechnical field investigation, the foundation dimensions provided should be evaluated by our staff and updated accordingly.

5.2 Drilled Shaft Considerations

We recommend the construction of the drilled shafts follow the MDOT 2020 Standard

Specifications for Construction, Section 718, Drilled Shafts. The Contractor should thoroughly review the test boring data performed as part of this investigation prior to mobilization. The

Contractor will be responsible for selection of appropriate construction methods and drilling equipment for the site’s subsurface conditions and tooling based on their past experience drilling the recommended shaft diameter in these types of subsurface conditions.

Boring B-1 encountered 2 ft of granular fill soil overlying predominantly very stiff to hard native lean clay (CL) within the anticipated depth of excavation. In addition, poor sampler recovery was encountered at a depth of 1.5 ft (el 607.4). Poor sampler recovery can indicate very dense material, or the presence of coarse gravel, cobble, boulders, or buried debris and the encountered fill soils may be susceptible to caving. Borehole stabilization methods may be needed at the proposed drilled shaft locations which may include casing, water and/or polymer-type slurry to maintain borehole stability.

A drilled shaft installation plan should be submitted to the Engineer 21 days before the beginning of drilled shaft installation which details, but is not limited to, the following items:

Proposed equipment (cranes, drills, rock bits, augers, slurry pumps, tremies, casing, etc.)

Construction sequence

Shaft excavation methods including proposed excavation methods through caving soil

Slurry mixing, circulating and de-sanding methods

Methods to clean shaft excavation

Reinforcement placement

Concrete placement

Drilled shaft pile installation plan

Where a dry excavation cannot be maintained, wet construction methods should be utilized whereby water or slurry is placed within an uncased or cased excavation to control seepage and groundwater movement, maintain excavation stability and allow for the placement of concrete. A positive pressure head of water or slurry should be maintained relative to the static groundwater elevation during drilled shaft construction. Concrete placement is accomplished using either tremie or a concrete pump in one continuous operation from bottom to top of shaft. Concrete (Grade T) with a slump ranging from 7 to 9 inches is recommended for wet construction methods.

A daily construction method log should be submitted to the Engineer for each constructed drilled shaft. A qualified geotechnical representative should be onsite to observe drilled shaft construction and verify appropriate conditions prior to shaft cleanout and placement of reinforcement steel and concrete.

5.3 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. 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.

Due to miscellaneous fill conditions encountered in the field investigation and due to variations that may exist between borings, it is expected that some form of subgrade improvement will be required to provide suitable subgrade conditions.

Engineered fill is approved on-site or imported soil placed in uniform layers and compacted to a minimum required density. Cohesive and fine-grained soils may be used as engineered fill;

however, due to the need for moisture contents during compaction to be within a relatively narrow range, they are relatively difficult to compact especially in wet or cold weather.

Imported engineered 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. Engineered fill composed of primarily clay soil should be compacted to least 95 percent of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698). Moisture contents during compaction should be within +2 percent of the soil's optimum moisture content. Sheepsfoot type compactors with a kneading form of compaction are typically found to be most effective in cohesive soil.

The fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal layers not exceeding 9 inches. Field density tests 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 septic tank, well, or 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.

5.4 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered during the drilling activities in Boring B-9 at a depth of 4.5 ft

(el 604.5). The groundwater appeared to be perched within the granular fill soil overlying native cohesive soils. Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining soil borings during drilling operations.

Perched groundwater may be encountered during construction where granular fill overlying native cohesive soils is encountered 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.

5.5 Slopes and Temporary Excavations

The Owner and the Contractor should make themselves aware of and become familiar with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Construction site safety generally is the sole responsibility of the

Contractor. The Contractor shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and operations of construction operations. We are providing the following information solely as a service on this project and, under no circumstances, should our provision of the following information be construed to mean that we are assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not implied and should not be inferred.

The Contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depths

(including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulations; e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR

Part 1926, or successor regulations. For this site, the overburden soil encountered in our exploratory program is a loose to medium dense poorly graded sand with varying amounts of clayey fines (SP-SC and SP) and stiff to hard lean clay (CL). We anticipate that OSHA will classify these materials as Type C and A, respectively. OSHA recommends a maximum slope inclination of 1½H:1V for Type C soil and ¾H:1V for Type A soil under ideal conditions. If excavations within the Type A soil are open less than 24 hours and are 12 ft or less in depth, then OSHA allows the maximum slope inclination to be 1/2H:1V under ideal conditions.

5.6 Rigid Pavements

Subgrade preparation in rigid pavement areas should be as described in the "Site and

Subgrade Preparation" section of this report. For design of the rigid pavements supported on-grade, a modulus of subgrade reaction value, K30, of 100 psi/inch is recommended. A minimum concrete thickness of 6 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 maintenance vehicles. A minimum 6-inch 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.

5.7 Flexible Pavements

Subgrade preparation in flexible 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 following flexible pavement section is recommended:

Table 5.7.2 - Flexible Pavement Section

Traffic Condition Standard Duty

Sand subbase thickness, inches 10.0

Aggregate base thickness, inches 6.0

Bituminous leveling course thickness, inches 2.0

Bituminous wearing course thickness, inches 1.5

The following materials are recommended:

Table 5.7.3 - Flexible Pavement Materials

Sand subbase MDOT Class II granular

Aggregate base MDOT 21AA Natural Aggregate

Bituminous leveling MDOT 4EL

Bituminous wearing MDOT 5EL

Minimum Binder Grade PG 58-28

Sand subbase material should be laboratory tested to confirm MDOT Class II grading requirement. MDOT standard specifications for materials and placement should be observed.

We recommend a maximum of 17 percent recycled asphalt pavement (RAP), measured as a percent of asphalt replacement, be utilized in HMA mixes. Air voids should be field regressed to 3.5 percent using liquid asphalt cement.

A natural aggregate base product, often consisting of crushed limestone, is recommended relative to crushed concrete aggregate base products considering the long-term performance risk crushed concrete presents due to potential hydration of free cement and decreased permeability over time.

Construction procedures and workmanship are of key importance with respect to pavement appearance and long-term pavement performance. Key components of workmanship include appropriate joint construction resulting in sufficient density, prevention of segregation, and maintaining a minimum temperature during placement. At a minimum, the procedures outlined in Section 501 of the 2020 MDOT Specifications should be followed with respect to equipment, placement, and temperatures. Compaction of the asphalt courses should range between 92 and 96 percent of the Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD) based on MDOT requirements. Due to the presence of utilities we recommend consideration be given to excluding vibratory rollers.

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 to provide drainage within the sand subbase and underdrains should be provided within the subbase, at 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.

5.8 MBC Seismic Considerations

The seismic design category can be determined with noted exceptions following Section 1613 of the 2021 Michigan Building Code. The Risk Category under Section 1613.2.5 shall be determined by a licensed structural engineer. Based on the subsurface conditions identified in the soil borings, our experience with the geological conditions in the site vicinity, and the procedures outlined in Section 1613 of the 2021 Michigan Building Code and Chapter 20, Table 20.2-1 of ASCE 7, we recommend assigning a Site Class E to this site. A Site Class E designates a loose sand or soft clay soil profile in the upper 100 ft. Recommended seismic ground motion values are provided in Table 5.8.1.

Table 5.8.1 - Recommended Seismic Ground Motion Values

2021 Michigan Building Code Values Short Period (0.2 sec)

Long Period (1 sec)

Spectral Response Acceleration, Figure 1613.2.1 (1 to 4), %g Ss = 10 Sl = 5 Seismic Site Coefficient, Table 1613.2.3 (1 and 2) Fa = 2.4 Fv = 4.2 Maximum Considered Spectral Response Acceleration, Equations 16-20 and 16-21 SMS = 0.240g SMl = 0.210g

5% Damped Spectral Response Acceleration, Equations 16-22 and 16-23 SDS = 0.160g SDl = 0.140g

6.0 CLOSURE

In this report, descriptions of the geotechnical investigation, encountered conditions and recommendations for the design of foundations and earth-related structures have been provided. 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.

TITLE: BORING LOCATION PLAN PROJECT: CASS TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM RENOVATION

SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: 1/9/26 PROJECT NO.: 251652

FIG. NO.: 1 DR. BY: SS REV. BY: KC

B-1

B-5

B-4

B-3

B-2

B-9

B-8

B-7

B-6

LEGEND

BORING LOCATION (TYP)

BORING AND INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION (TYP)

NOTE: AERIAL IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH

CASS TECHNICAL

HIGH SCHOOL

2501 2ND AVE

DETROIT, MI 48201

APPENDIX

Limitations

Test Drilling and Sampling Procedures

Boring Log Terminology and Classification Outline

Boring Logs

Infiltration Test Results

Summary of Laboratory Test Data

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:

X Hollow stem auger, ASTM D6151 Mud rotary, ASTM D5783 Casing advancer, ASTM D5872 Rock coring, ASTM D2113 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:

X SPT, ASTM D1586, Auto hammer (140 lb., 30" drop, 2" OD split spoon sampler) Thin-walled tube sampler (Shelby), ASTM D1587

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:

X CME 55 (ATV)

Acker Renegade (ATV) CME 45 Truck Geoprobe 7822 (ATV) Geoprobe Rotary Sonic

Boreholes Backfilled With:

X Excavated soil Cement bentonite grout Piezometer or Monitoring Well (see notes on logs) 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

4-7-8 N=15

6-9-14 N=23

6-11-15 N=26

8-12-14 N=26

1.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

Fill: 0.0' to 2.0' S-1: Poor recovery;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

0.5

2.0

5.5

10.0

6" Clayey Topsoil

Brown poorly graded SAND with clay;

mostly coarse to fine sand, few clayey fines, trace coarse to fine gravel, moist, Fill with occasional root fragments

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

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

Grades with occasional silt seams

End of Boring

4.5

4.0

3.5

17.1

17.9

16.4

SP-SC

CL

CL

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

Plante Moran Realpoint

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings, hole plug, and sand. Cave in at 8.5 ft.

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

N=308473.9 E=13476050.9 (MI South ift)

12/10/2025

BTKE

Type

End

Datum:608.9 ft

Client:

3 1/4" During

DateElevation:

JV

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Detroit, Michigan

Date Begin:

Core

Tube

SPT Hammer

None

Sampler

Auto

HSA

2"

Location:

NA

Date End: 12/10/2025

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

CME 55 LC

Rev. By:

Depth Drilled: 10.0 ft.

SPT

Cass Technical High School Stadium Renovation

Delayed Groundwater, ft.

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sample

Number

251652

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

*DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Sheet: 1 of 1

B-1

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

Elev.

FT.

Depth

FT.

608.4

607.9

607.4

606.9

606.4

605.9

605.4

604.9

604.4

603.9

603.4

602.9

602.4

601.9

601.4

600.9

600.4

599.9

599.4

598.9

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

4-11-11 N=22

6-8-11 N=19

1.0

1.5

Fill: 0.0' to 2.0' S-1: Poor recovery;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

S-1

S-2

0.5

2.0

5.0

6" Clayey Topsoil

Brown lean CLAY; mostly clayey fines, trace coarse to fine gravel, trace coarse to fine sand, moist, Fill with occasional debris and sand seams

Brown lean CLAY; mostly clayey fines, trace coarse to fine sand, trace fine gravel, moist with occasional silt lenses

End of Boring

2.5

4.5

9.7

19.8

CL

CL

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

Plante Moran Realpoint

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings. Cave in at 3.5 ft.

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

N=308369.6 E=13475957.4 (MI South ift)

12/10/2025

BTKE

Type

End

Datum:607.1 ft

Client:

3 1/4" During

DateElevation:

JV

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Detroit, Michigan

Date Begin:

Core

Tube

SPT Hammer

None

Sampler

Auto

HSA

2"

Location:

NA

Date End: 12/10/2025

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

CME 55 LC

Rev. By:

Depth Drilled: 5.0 ft.

SPT

Cass Technical High School Stadium Renovation

Delayed Groundwater, ft.

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sample

Number

251652

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

*DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Sheet: 1 of 1

B-2

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

Elev.

FT.

Depth

FT.

606.6

606.1

605.6

605.1

604.6

604.1

603.6

603.1

602.6

602.1

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5-8-17 N=25

5-8-10 N=18

4-9-12 N=21

8-12-14 N=26

1.0

1.2

1.5

1.5

Fill: 0.0' to 2.5' S-1, S-2: Poor recovery;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

0.5

2.5

5.5

8.0

10.0

6" Clayey Topsoil

Brown lean CLAY; mostly clayey fines, few coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, moist, Fill with occasional brick debris

Brown and gray mottled lean CLAY; mostly clayey fines, trace coarse to fine sand, trace coarse to fine gravel, moist

Brown clayey SILT; mostly silty fines, some clayey fines, trace coarse to fine sand, trace fine gravel, moist

Brown lean CLAY; mostly clayey fines, trace coarse to fine sand, trace fine gravel, moist with occasional silt seams

End of Boring

1.5

4.5

4.0

10.4

16.0

16.6

CL

CL

ML

CL

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

Plante Moran Realpoint

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings. Cave in at 8.0 ft.

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

N=308407.7 E=13476080.1 (MI South ift)

12/09/2025

BTKE

Type

End

Datum:608.7 ft

Client:

3 1/4" During

DateElevation:

JV

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

Detroit, Michigan

Date Begin:

Core

Tube

SPT Hammer

None

Sampler

Auto

HSA

2"

Location:

NA

Date End: 12/09/2025

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

CME 55 LC

Rev. By:

Depth Drilled: 10.0 ft.

SPT

Cass Technical High School Stadium Renovation

Delayed Groundwater, ft.

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sample

Number

251652

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

*DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Sheet: 1 of 1

B-3

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

Elev.

FT.

Depth

FT.

608.2

607.7

607.2

606.7

606.2

605.7

605.2

604.7

604.2

603.7

603.2

602.7

602.2

601.7

601.2

600.7

600.2

599.7

599.2

598.7

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

5-8-9 N=17

7-11-15 N=26

1.1

1.5

Fill: 0.0' to 2.0' S-1: Poor recovery;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

S-1

S-2

0.6

2.0

5.0

7" Clayey Topsoil

Dark brown clayey SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, some clayey fines, few coarse to fine gravel, moist, Fill with occasional brick debris

Brown lean CLAY; mostly…