020-2333 EHRM Geotech Report 111020.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT

EHRM INFRASTRUCTURE

UPGRADES

POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI

Prepared For:

Spur Design

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

November 10, 2020

Olsson Project No. 020-2333 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

A.1. Geotechnical Scope A.2. Project and Site Information

B. EXPLORATORY AND TEST PROCEDURES

B.1. Field Exploration B.2. Laboratory Testing

C. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

C.1. Subsurface Stratigraphy C.2. Groundwater Observation

D. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

E. SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS

E.1. General Site Preparation E.2. Structural Fill E.3. Drainage Considerations

F. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

F.1. Shallow Foundation Design F.2. Helical Anchors F.3. Seismic Site Classification

G. FLOOR SLAB SUBGRADE PREPARATION

H. LIMITATIONS

Appendices Appendix A Boring Location Diagram

Appendix B Symbols and Nomenclature, Boring Logs

EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades Poplar Bluff, Missouri

Olsson Project No. 020-2333 November 10, 2020

A. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

A.1. GEOTECHNICAL SCOPE

This geotechnical engineering report presents the results of the subsurface exploration completed for the new addition to the John J Pershing VA Medical Center in Poplar Bluff, Missouri. The purpose of this exploration was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and, based on the encountered conditions, provide our opinions and geotechnical recommendations regarding the new addition.

A.2. PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION

The new addition is planned in the central courtyard as shown in Figure A.2-1. At the time of our exploration, the courtyard contained a canopy structure, concrete sidewalks, and landscaped areas.

Figure A.2-1: Site Location

Site

Location

The new addition will abut the existing building on the southwest side of the courtyard (Figure

A.2-2). Based on provided drawings developed by The Drake Partnership Architects, we understand the existing structure near the planned addition is supported on shallow foundations bearing at elevations ranging from about 410 feet to 414 feet. A crawlspace is present beneath the portion of the structure that is planned to abut the addition. A basement level is present beneath the structure southeast of the planned addition. We have not been informed of any foundation or floor slab related distress in the existing building.

Figure A.2-2: Site Plan

We understand the new addition will be a single or two-story structure with a grade supported floor slab (no basement). We anticipate the finish floor elevation (FFE) of the new addition will match the FFE of the adjoining building (approximately 422 feet). Structural loads were not available at the time of this report. We anticipate structural loads will be less than 150 kips for columns and less than 6 kips per lineal foot for walls. We anticipate minimal cut and fill (less than

3 feet) will be required in the planned addition area.

Planned

Addition

B. EXPLORATORY AND TEST PROCEDURES

B.1. FIELD EXPLORATION

Olsson drilled two borings (B-1 and B-2) northeast of the courtyard using a truck mounted drill rig.

Three additional borings (B-3, B-4, and B-5) were completed in the courtyard using hand auger techniques. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan in

Appendix A. Boring logs are provided in Appendix B. Elevations shown on the boring logs were referenced to a transformer pad located northeast of the courtyard. The temporary benchmark was assigned an arbitrary elevation of 100.0 feet and the approximate location of the benchmark is shown on the Boring Location Plan.

Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled to depths of 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Borings

B-3, B-4, and B-5 were extended to depths of 2.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The drill crew obtained samples of the subsurface soils using thin walled tubes and split barrel samplers during performance of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Grab samples of the hand auger cuttings were also obtained from the borings in the courtyard.

The drill crew prepared a field log of the material encountered at each boring. The field logs also included the driller’s interpretation of the conditions between samples and elevations of each stratum change. The samples were then sealed and returned to the laboratory for testing and classification.

B.2. LABORATORY TESTING

At our laboratory, we visually observed each sample. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. Dry density tests and an unconfined compressive strength test were performed on selected samples obtained from the thin-walled tubes. A hand penetrometer was used to estimate the consistency of the remaining thin-walled tube samples. Atterberg limit tests were performed on selected samples across the site to aid in the classification of the soils using the Unified Soils

Classification System. Results of the laboratory tests are provided on the respective boring logs and in Appendix B.

C. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

C.1. SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

Specific conditions at each boring location are shown on the boring logs. The logs represent subsurface conditions at the specific boring locations; however, variations may occur between or beyond the borings. The stratification lines shown on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types but the actual transition between layers may be gradual.

Borings B-1, B-3, B-4, and B-5 were drilled in grassy areas. Boring B-2 was drilled in a paved area consisting of 7 inches of asphaltic concrete pavement. Beneath the surficial materials, the borings encountered existing fill material. The fill at borings B-1 and B-2 extended to depths of about 1.5 feet below the existing ground surface and consisted of clay with organics. Borings B-

3, B-4, and B-5 encountered hand auger refusal within the fill material at depths of about 2.5 feet.

The fill material at these borings consisted of clay soils with varying amounts of gravel. Concrete rubble was also noted in samples at boring B-4.

Beneath the fill material at borings B-1 and B-2, we encountered apparent native lean to fat clay soils with varying amounts of silt and gravel. The clay soils ranged from stiff to hard in consistency and were generally moist. The borings terminated in the clay soils at depths of 20 feet.

C.2. GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION

Water level observations were made at the boring locations during drilling and immediately upon completion of drilling. Groundwater was not encountered at the borings at these times. Variations and uncertainties exist with relatively short-term water level observations in boreholes. Water levels can and should be anticipated to vary between boring locations and over time within specific borings. Groundwater levels may fluctuate with changes in precipitation, site grading, drainage, and adjacent land use. Perched groundwater is sometimes encountered within existing fill. Long term monitoring with piezometers generally provides a more representative indication of the potential range of groundwater conditions.

D. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

We understand the existing structure that will connect to the new addition is supported on shallow foundations beneath a crawlspace. We have not been informed of any foundation or floor slab related distress in the existing building. Based on the results of our borings and the anticipated loads, in our opinion, the new addition can be supported on shallow foundations bearing at similar elevations. Care should be taken not to disturb the bearing soils beneath the existing building foundations. If necessary, excavations that extend below existing footings should not extend below an imaginary plane extending out and down from the outside edge of existing footings at a slope of approximately 2H:1V. Even with these criteria, excavations that extend below the level of existing foundations should be backfilled the same day they are excavated. Where this is impractical, shoring or underpinning of existing foundations may be required.

We understand the portion of the existing building southeast of the planned addition has a basement level. To reduce the potential for additional loading on existing basement walls, new footings near any existing basement wall should bear below a 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) line projected upward and outward from the edges of the existing foundations. New footings should be extended through any backfill behind basement walls.

Some overlap in stress distribution from new and existing footings may occur, which could cause minor movement of the existing footings and supported structures. Maintaining a clear distance at least equal to the width of the new column spread footings between the edges of the new and existing footings could reduce this risk. Any connections between the new and existing structures should be designed with control joints to allow for the anticipated differential movement.

The existing fill encountered in the courtyard at borings B-3, B-4, and B-5, consisted of clay soils with varying amounts of gravel and construction debris and was likely placed during construction of the existing building. Although theses borings terminated in the fill at depths of about 2.5 feet, we anticipate the fill extends to greater depths than what was encountered at the borings. In our experience, previous fills that are placed outside of building and pavement areas are not typically compacted in a manner necessary to support foundations of the new addition. Foundations and floor slabs founded on or above the existing fill may not perform predictably. We recommend that the existing fill be entirely removed from beneath the new addition footprint.

Due to the limitations associated with our small diameter, widely spaced borings, only a limited amount of data regarding the extent, depth and composition of the existing fill is available. To further evaluate the extent of the existing fill, following site stripping and any required undercutting, the exposed fill materials should be undercut and/or evaluated in all areas where foundations, floor slabs or other settlement sensitive structures are planned, or where structural fill is required.

Test pits should be excavated to aid in evaluating the composition, lateral extent, and consistency of these materials.

E. SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS

E.1. GENERAL SITE PREPARATION

We anticipate minimal cut and fill (less than 3 feet) will be required in the planned addition area.

We understand the existing canopy structure and concrete pad in the courtyard will be removed.

Site preparation within the addition footprint should also include stripping of all vegetation, root systems, existing unsuitable fill, organic soils, and any loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable material from the construction areas. These materials should be carefully separated to avoid incorporation of organic materials into new fill sections. Where necessary, existing sidewalks and pavements, as well as any associated gravel base, should also be removed. Removal of existing or abandoned underground utilities located within proposed addition areas should include the removal of the trench backfill. If utility lines are planned to remain, Olsson should observe the backfill above the utility to determine if the backfill needs to be removed.

Existing fill soils encountered at the borings consisted of a mixture of clay, gravel and construction debris. We were not able to penetrate the fill using the hand augers, and the fill extends deeper than the borings. We have not reviewed any records regarding placement of the existing fill at this site. We anticipate portions of the existing fill will be removed during stripping and site grading.

Any remaining existing unsuitable fill material should be removed from the new addition area except where fill extends below an imaginary plane extending out and down from the outside edge of existing footings at a slope of approximately 2H:1V. If existing fill extends into this zone, further evaluation of the fill will be required. Care should be taken to avoid undermining existing foundations of the existing building. If the existing fill in this area needs to be removed, underpinning of the existing foundations may be required. Even with these criteria, excavations that extend below the level of existing foundations should be backfilled the same day they are excavated. Where this is impractical, shoring or underpinning of existing foundations may be required. Existing fill removal should extend at least 5 feet beyond the addition footprints, where feasible.

Following site stripping and removal of unsuitable existing fill material, but prior to the placement of new fill, the exposed grade should be carefully evaluated by an Olsson representative. Unstable and unsuitable soils revealed by this evaluation cannot always be adequately densified in place.

These soils should be removed and replaced or stabilized.

Upon completion of the subgrade evaluation, the upper 9 inches of exposed subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the materials

Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Specification D-698) at a moisture content between optimum and 4 percent above optimum.

E.2. STRUCTURAL FILL

All structural fill and backfill should consist of approved materials, free of organic matter (organic content less than 5 percent). The soils should not contain particle sizes larger than three inches.

In our opinion, the on-site soils and existing fill material that do not contain unsuitable material are acceptable for reuse as structural fill beneath the new addition with the exception of soil located within 18 inches of the base of the floor slabs. Samples of all proposed fill materials should be submitted to Olsson prior to use on the site. Laboratory Proctor compaction tests and classification tests should be performed on any fill material placed during mass grading operations. We recommend that structural fill and backfill be compacted in accordance with the criteria provided in Table E.2-1. An Olsson representative should observe fill placement operations and perform field density tests concurrently to indicate if the specified compaction is being achieved.

Suitable fill materials should be placed in thin loose lifts of 9 inches or less. Within small excavations, such as in utility trenches or around manholes, the use of vibrating plate compactors, jumping jack compactors or walk behind sheepsfoot compactors may be used to facilitate compaction in these areas. Loose lift thicknesses of 4 inches or less are recommended where small compaction equipment is used.

Table E.2-1: Recommended Fill Placement Guidelines

Area of Fill Placement Material Compaction* Moisture Content

(% of Optimum)

Structural Fill – On-site and imported cohesive soils placed at the site

On-site and Imported

Cohesive Soil 95% -1 to +3 percent

Clean Rock Zone – 4 inches of No. 57 Stone placed directly below floor slab

ASTM No. 57 Stone

(3/4” Clean Rock)

60% Relative

Density

As Necessary to

Obtain Density

Low Volume Change (LVC) – 18 inches of

MoDOT Type 5 baserock placed below the 4 inches of No. 57 Stone

MoDOT Type 5

Baserock (Well-graded Baserock)

95% As Necessary to

Obtain Density

*According to ASTM D-698 – Standard Proctor

The moisture content for fill at the time of compaction should generally be maintained between the ranges specified above. More stringent moisture limits may be necessary with certain soils and some adjustments to moisture contents may be necessary to achieve compaction in accordance with project specifications.

E.3. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS

Water should not be allowed to collect at the ground surfaces near foundations or floor slabs either during or after construction. Site grading should provide for rapid and efficient drainage of rainfall or surface runoff away from new structures.

Provisions should be made to quickly remove accumulating seepage water or storm water runoff from excavations. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to allow rainwater or surface runoff to be quickly collected and gravity drained or pumped from construction areas. Subgrade soils that are exposed to precipitation or runoff should be evaluated prior to the placement of new fill, reinforcing steel, or concrete, to determine if corrective action is required. Roof drains should discharge directly into the storm sewer to prevent creating localized saturated areas around the building and sidewalks.

F. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

F.1. SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN

In our opinion, the proposed addition can be supported on shallow foundations bearing on stiff to very stiff clay soils or properly placed and compacted structural fill. Footings for the addition that are supported on these materials may be proportioned for a maximum allowable net bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The net bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation.

Care should be taken not to disturb the bearing soils beneath the existing building foundations. It is recommended that, where possible, excavations below existing footings not extend below an imaginary plane extending out and down from the outside edge of existing footings at a slope of approximately 2H:1V. Even with these criteria, excavations that extend below the level of existing foundations should be backfilled the same day they are excavated. Where this is impractical, shoring or underpinning of existing foundations may be required.

We understand the portion of the existing building southeast of the addition has a basement level.

To reduce the potential for additional loading on existing basement walls, new footings near any existing basement wall should bear below a 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) line projected upward and outward from the edges of the existing foundations. New footings should be extended through any backfill behind basement walls. This may require deepening of footings adjacent to the existing basements below typical frost depth.

Exterior footings should bear at a minimum depth of 2 feet below the lowest adjacent final ground surface. Footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous footings and 30 inches for isolated column footings. Earth formed trench footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.

Lightly loaded interior partition walls (loads less than 0.75 kips per lineal foot) may be supported directly on the slab-on-grade floor. Depending on the floor slab design and the specific wall loads, it may be appropriate to increase the floor slab reinforcement or provide a thickened slab cross section below interior walls. Interior walls with loads greater than 0.75 klf, should be supported on an independent footing.

Olsson should observe and test all foundation bearing materials. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of all water and loose material prior to placing concrete. After foundation subgrades have been observed and evaluated by an Olsson representative, concrete should be placed as soon as possible to avoid subjecting the exposed soils to drying, wetting, or freezing conditions. If unsuitable bearing materials are encountered in footing excavations, the excavations should be extended deeper to suitable soils. The footings could bear directly on these materials at the lower level or on lean concrete backfill placed in the excavations. If foundation subgrade soils are subjected to such conditions, Olsson should be contacted to reevaluate the foundation bearing materials.

Total settlement of new foundations is expected to be on the order of 1 inch with differential settlement on the order of ½ inch. The total settlement of the addition will be realized as differential settlement between existing footings and new footings.

F.2. HELICAL ANCHORS

As an option to minimize differential settlement between the new addition and the existing building, we understand helical anchors may be considered to support the new addition. Based on previous borings completed at the site by Shannon and Wilson, Inc and provided with the drawings developed by The Drake Partnership Architects, we understand the native clay soils at greater depths can contain boulders. If boulders are present, installation could be difficult.

Helical anchor design is typically contractor provided. We recommend a test anchor be installed at these sites to evaluate installation techniques.

F.3. SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION

For this project site, the encountered soil conditions are consistent with the definition of Site Class

“D” according to the 2012 IBC and ASCE 7.

G. FLOOR SLAB SUBGRADE PREPARATION

The floor slab subgrade should consist of a 4-inch thick granular drainage course (ASTM C-33

Size 57 Stone) underlain by a minimum of 18 inches of low volume change (LVC) material. LVC materials should consist of well-graded gravel (MoDOT Type 5 or equivalent). The 18 inches of material below the drainage course should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor test (ASTM D698). The 4-inch thick granular layer should be compacted to a minimum of 65 percent of the materials relative density.

Upon completion of grading operations in the addition area, care should be taken to maintain the recommended subgrade moisture content and density prior to construction of floor slabs. If the subgrade should decrease in moisture content, or become saturated, frozen, disturbed or altered by construction activity, the subgrade should be restored to the condition recommended in this report prior to floor slab placement.

The use of a synthetic vapor barrier is recommended when sensitive flooring and adhesives are used and on flooring that does not allow the concrete slab the ability to breathe. Care should be taken to minimize any damage to the barrier during construction.

The procedures recommended above may not eliminate all future subgrade volume change and resultant floor slab movement. However, the procedures outlined should reduce the potential for subgrade volume change. Common construction practice is to tie the slab-on-grade into the foundation elements to limit the impact of differential movement at doorways. Depending on many factors, including the size and shape of the floor area, the location of construction joints in the slab, the rigidity of the slab and foundation connection, and the magnitude of actual movement that occurs, some minor cracking within the floor slab could occur and should be anticipated.

H. LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information available regarding the proposed construction, the results obtained from our soil test borings and sampling procedures, the results of the laboratory testing program, and our experience with similar projects. The soil test borings represent a very small statistical sampling of subsurface soils and it is possible that conditions may be encountered during construction that are substantially different from those indicated by the soil test borings. In these instances, adjustments to design and construction may be necessary. This geotechnical report is based on the site plan and information provided to Olsson and our understanding of the project as noted in this report. Changes in the location or design of new structures could significantly affect the conclusions and recommendations presented in this geotechnical report. Olsson should be contacted in the event of such changes to determine if the recommendations of this report remain appropriate for the revised site design.

This report was prepared under the direction and supervision of a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Missouri with the firm of Olsson. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices at the time of this report within this geographic area. No warranty, express or implied, is intended or made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Spur Design and their authorized representatives for specific application to the proposed project.

APPENDIX A

Boring Location Plan

Scale: n.t.s.

NORTH Project No. 020-2333

Approved by: CLW

Date: 9/30/20

Boring Location Plan

Poplar Bluff, Missouri

EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades

Current Construction

Area

APPENDIX B

Symbols and Nomenclature

Boring Logs

SYMBOLS AND NOMENCLATURE

DRILLING NOTES

DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS

SS: Split-Spoon Sample (1.375” ID, 2.0” OD) HSA: Hollow Stem Auger NE: Not Encountered U: Thin-Walled Tube Sample (3.0” OD) CFA: Continuous Flight Auger NP: Not Performed CS: Continuous Sample HA: Hand Auger NA: Not Applicable BS: Bulk Sample CPT: Cone Penetration Test % Rec: Percent of Recovery MC: Modified California Sampler WB: Wash Bore WD: While Drilling GB: Grab Sample FT: Fish Tail Bit IAD: Immediately After Drilling SPT: Standard Penetration Test Blows per 6.0” RB: Rock Bit AD: After Drilling CI: Cave-In

DRILLING PROCEDURES

Soil samples designated as “U” samples on the boring logs were obtained in using Thin-Walled Tube Sampling techniques. Soil samples designated as “SS” samples were obtained during Penetration Test using a Split-Spoon Barrel sampler. The standard penetration resistance ‘N’ value is the number of blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive the Split-Spoon sampler one foot. Soil samples designated as “MC” were obtained in using Thick-Walled, Ring-Lined, Split-Barrel Drive sampling techniques. Recovered samples were sealed in containers, labeled, and protected for transportation to the laboratory for testing.

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. In relatively high permeable materials, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with only short-term observations.

SOIL PROPERTIES & DESCRIPTIONS

Descriptions of the soils encountered in the soil test borings were prepared using Visual-Manual Procedures for Descriptions and Identification of Soils.

PARTICLE SIZE

Boulders 12 in. + Coarse Sand 4.75mm-2.0mm Silt 0.075mm-0.005mm Cobbles 12 in.-3 in. Medium Sand 2.0mm-0.425mm Clay <0.005mm Gravel 3 in.-4.75mm Fine Sand 0.425mm-0.075mm

COHESIVE SOILS COHESIONLESS SOILS COMPONENT %

Unconfined Compressive Consistency Strength (Qu) (tsf) Relative Density ‘N’ Value Description Percent (%) Very Soft <0.25 Very Loose 0 – 3 Trace <5 Soft 0.25 – 0.5 Loose 4 – 9 Few 5 - 10 Firm 0.5 – 1.0 Medium Dense 10 – 29 Little 15 - 25 Stiff 1.0 – 2.0 Dense 30 – 49 Some 30 - 45 Very Stiff 2.0 – 4.0 Very Dense ≥ 50 Mostly 50 - 100 Hard > 4.0

PLASTICITY CHART ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)

Description RQD (%) Very Poor 0 – 25 Poor 25 – 50 Fair 50 – 75 Good 75 – 90 Excellent 90 – 100

G:\Admin\TEAMS\Geotech\AASHTO\Lab Forms\Symbols and Nomenclature gINT.doc

6-8-11 N=19

9-12-19 N=31

ROOT ZONE

FILL

Light brown, clay and organics

LEAN TO FAT CLAY

Stiff, moist, reddish brown, silty

Very stiff to hard, moist, brown to reddish brown, silty, with gravel

BASE OF BORING AT 20.0 FEET

0.3'

1.5'

8.5'

20.0'

25.6

16.2

26.8

24.0

U

U

SS

SS

97.4

108.9

PP = 1.5

PP = 3.0

CME 75

9/29/20

A. DEAVER

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

D. LUDWIG

9/29/20

OLSSON

CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER

APPROX. SURFACE ELEV. (ft):97.7

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Performed

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Shelby Tube Split Spoon

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER LOCATION

Poplar Bluff, Missouri

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-1

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

020-2333

U N

C . S

T R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Spur Design

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKSD

E

P T

H (f t)

OLSSON, INC.

302 E. MILLSAP ROAD

FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703

15-7-9 N=16

10-10-10 N=20

7" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

FILL

Light brown, clay and organics

LEAN TO FAT CLAY

Hard, moist, reddish brown, silty

Very stiff, moist, brown to reddish brown, silty, with gravel

FAT CLAY

Stiff, very moist, reddish brown, silty

LEAN TO FAT CLAY

Very stiff, moist, brownish red, with gray and dark brown, with gravel

BASE OF BORING AT 20.0 FEET

0.6'

1.5'

6.0'

9.5'

14.5'

20.0'

20.9

20.4

40.0

17.9

72/44

U

SS

U

SS

1.1

106.2

90.8

PP = 4.5+

CME 75

9/29/20

A. DEAVER

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

D. LUDWIG

9/29/20

OLSSON

CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER

APPROX. SURFACE ELEV. (ft):100.9

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Performed

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Shelby Tube Split Spoon

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER LOCATION

Poplar Bluff, Missouri

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-2

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

020-2333

U N

C . S

T R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Spur Design

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKSD

E

P T

H (f t)

OLSSON, INC.

ROOT ZONE

FILL

Moist, brown to reddish brown, lean clay and gravel

REFUSAL AT 2.5 FEET

0.3'

2.5'

17.5

16.5

15.5

34/16

GB

U

GB

PP = 1.0

HAND AUGER

9/29/20

A. DEAVER

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

D. LUDWIG

9/29/20

OLSSON

HAND AUGER

APPROX. SURFACE ELEV. (ft):89.2

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Performed

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Grab Sample Shelby Tube

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER LOCATION

Poplar Bluff, Missouri

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-3

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

020-2333

U N

C . S

T R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Spur Design

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

87.5

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKSD

E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

OLSSON, INC.

Moist, brown to reddish brown, clay, gravel and concrete rubble

REFUSAL AT 2.5 FEET

0.3'

2.5'

12.6

17.9

U

GB

HAND AUGER

9/29/20

A. DEAVER

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

D. LUDWIG

9/29/20

OLSSON

HAND AUGER

APPROX. SURFACE ELEV. (ft):89.1

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Performed

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Shelby Tube Grab Sample

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER LOCATION

Poplar Bluff, Missouri

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-4

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

020-2333

U N

C . S

T R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Spur Design

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

87.5

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKSD

E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

OLSSON, INC.

Moist, brown to reddish brown, lean clay and gravel

REFUSAL AT 2.5 FEET

0.3'

2.5'

20.8

19.6 27/12

GB

GB

HAND AUGER

9/29/20

A. DEAVER

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

D. LUDWIG

9/29/20

OLSSON

HAND AUGER

APPROX. SURFACE ELEV. (ft):89.1

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Performed

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Grab Sample

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER LOCATION

Poplar Bluff, Missouri

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-5

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

020-2333

U N

C . S

T R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Spur Design

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

87.5

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKSD

E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

OLSSON, INC.