551-22184.CAK - MSP-Ionia EB Scale - Spec 2 of 4.pdf

12330 James Street, Suite H80 Holland, Michigan 49424

Ph. (616) 396-0255 Fax (616) 396-0100 www.driesenga.com

LLaannssiinngg KKaallaammaazzoooo GGrraanndd RRaappiiddss YYppssiillaannttii

Holland Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Lansing Ypsilanti

July 12, 2022 via electronic mail

Mr. Greg Good

SCHLEY NELSON ARCHITECTS

4200 South 9th Street, PO Box 239 Oshtemo, Michigan 49077

Re: Geotechnical Report Ionia Weigh Station East Bound I-96, Orange Township, Michigan Driesenga & Associates, Inc. Project No 2140327.3A

Dear Mr. Good:

Driesenga & Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit the attached report of subsurface exploration performed for the above-referenced project. The report presents the exploration procedures, subsurface conditions encountered, and our recommendations for development of the site with respect to proposed earthwork, foundation construction, and pavement design. As the project nears construction you can contact Beni Traore at 517-505-0220 in our local office to provide construction materials testing and survey services.

Proper execution of our recommendations will affect the design, construction and performance of the structure and related facilities, and the potential associated risks involved. Therefore, the issues and recommendations presented in this report should be discussed with the project team, including Driesenga & Associates, Inc. This will increase the likelihood that the issues are understood and our recommendations are applied in a manner consistent with the project budget, tolerance of risk, and expectations for performance and maintenance.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service as design and construction progresses, please contact our office.

Sincerely, DRIESENGA & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Michael Stork Musana Nabil Senior Project Geologist Senior Project Engineer

Randy Pail, P.E Director of Geotechnical Engineering

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

SITE:

IONIA WEIGH STATION

EAST BOUND I-96

ORANGE TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN

July 12, 2022

PROJECT NO. 2140327.3A

PREPARED FOR:

SCHLEY NELSON ARCHITECTS

4200 SOUTH 9TH STREET, PO BOX 239

OSHTEMO, MICHIGAN 49077

Prepared by:

Driesenga & Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 LOCATION

1.2 PURPOSE

1.3 SCOPE

1.4 DESIGN INFORMATION

2.0 SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 GENERAL

2.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE SOILS

2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

2.5 SEISMIC SITE CLASS

2.6 LIMITATIONS

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 SITE PREPARATION

3.2 FOUNDATIONS

3.3 FLOORS

3.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY

4.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Figure 1 – Site Location Figure 2 – Boring Locations APPENDIX B Soil Boring Logs APPENDIX C Ground Penetrating Radar Report APPENDIX D Field and Laboratory Procedures

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 LOCATION

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation completed for the proposed

Fowlerville Weigh Station. The site is located on east bound I-96 approximately 2 miles east of exit 67 for M-66 in Orange Township, Ionia County, Michigan as shown on Figure 1 – Site

Location (Appendix A).

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the subsurface profile, the engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils, and to provide recommendations in regard to the proposed design and construction based on our interpretation of the test results. This report was prepared in general accordance with our email proposal dated March 24, 2022, as authorized by Mr. Greg

Good of Schley Nelson Architects on May 24, 2022.

1.3 SCOPE

The field exploration to estimate engineering characteristics of the site soils included performing a site reconnaissance, advancing the soil borings, performing standard penetration tests, and recovering split-spoon samples. Soil boring locations were determined in the field by measuring from existing site features. Existing ground surface elevations estimated to the nearest foot based upon available topographic information. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) scan was performed prior to the drilling operations to identify the utility locations, the scan was performed by FMCI on

June 6, 2022 and is provided in Appendix C.

Four (4) soil borings, designated SB-1 to SB-4, were advanced in the vicinity of the proposed building on June 27, 2022, at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2 - Boring Locations

(Appendix A). The soil borings were generally advanced with hallow-stem augers to depths ranging between twenty (20) to thirty (30) feet below the ground surface. Soil borings SB-2 and

SB-4 were offset approximately 20 feet south and 15 feet east respectively due to accessibility, utilities and/or overhead interference. During drilling, soil samples were collected from split-spoon sampling via standard penetration testing (ASTM method D 1586) at intervals of 2.5 feet to a depth of 10 feet, and intervals of 5 feet from a depth of 10 feet to the end of each boring. The soil boring logs are contained in Appendix B. The field and laboratory procedures are described in Appendix

D.

1.4 DESIGN INFORMATION

It is understood the proposed weigh station building is to be a single-story, slab-on-grade, masonry building approximately 41’-8” by 81-’8” in plan dimensions. Structural load information was not available as of the time of this report, but should be provided to Driesenga & Associates, Inc. for review in light of the recommendations contained herein as soon as available. For calculation purposes, maximum loads of 2,000 pounds per lineal foot of wall were assumed. Assuming that the new construction will not include any basement areas, exterior footing depths are assumed to be a minimum of 3.5 feet below the final ground surface elevation.

We have assumed maximum tolerable settlements of 1 inch total and ½ inch differential. We anticipate cut and fill sections on the order of 1 to 2 feet will be required to establish site grades.

Any significant deviation from these assumptions should be brought to the attention of Driesenga

& Associates, Inc. as soon as possible.

2.0 SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 GENERAL

The stratification of the soils, as shown on the soil boring logs in Appendix B, represents the soil conditions at the actual soil boring locations. Variations may occur away from or between the soil borings. Stratigraphic lines shown on the soil boring logs represent the approximate boundary between the soil types, but the transition may be gradual. They are not intended to show exact depths of change from one soil type to another. In addition, changes in soil type may occur between the sample intervals that are consequently not observed by the driller.

The soil boring logs in Appendix B include the drilling method, materials encountered, penetration resistances, and pertinent field observations made during the drilling operations along with the results of the laboratory testing.

2.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

The project site is an operating weigh station with an existing building and drives. The proposed weight station building will replace the existing structure and extend east and south from where the existing structure is currently. The area is relatively flat to sloping gently down to the east and south, there being about 1 to 2 feet of grade change across the building footprint area. Surrounding areas are mostly maintained lawn, wooded areas and farms. Elevations at the boring positions ranged from 826 to 827 feet.

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE SOILS

Surface materials encountered at the site generally consist of 8 to 12 inches of gravel or 12 to 15 inches of topsoil underlain by 2.0 feet to 3.0 feet of loose to dense sand and/or clayey sand fill.

The sand fill is underlain by stiff to hard, brown and gray sandy/silty clay, underlain by medium dense to very dense sand/clayey sand to the maximum explored depth of 20 to 30 feet below the ground surface.

Moisture content tests were performed on cohesive samples from the soil borings at depths ranging from 3.5 feet to 30.0 feet below the existing ground surface. As indicated on the soil boring logs, moisture content test results ranged from 18% to 22% on the clay samples.

Hand Penetrometer tests were performed on portions of cohesive soil samples to obtain an indication of the unconfined compressive strength and shear strength of the material. Test results ranged from 2.0 to greater than 4.5 tons per square foot. Results of these tests are shown on the soil boring logs where applicable.

The estimated group symbol, according to the USCS, is shown in the USCS column just before the textural description of the various strata on the soil boring logs in Appendix B.

2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater was initially encountered at depths ranging from 18.5 feet to 20.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Upon completion of the borings, cave-in or groundwater was measured at depths ranging from 18.5 to 19.3 feet. Hydrostatic groundwater levels and the elevations and volumes of groundwater should be expected to fluctuate throughout the year, based on variations in precipitation, evaporation, run-off, and other factors. The groundwater levels (or lack thereof) indicated by the soil borings and presented in this section represent conditions at the time the readings were taken. The actual groundwater levels at the time of construction may vary.

Groundwater measurements were collected during drilling and attempted shortly after completion of the drilling operations. After drilling and collection of groundwater readings, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings and the surface was repaired approximating previous conditions. Since the boreholes were backfilled shortly after drilling, long-term groundwater level information is not available from the soil borings. To obtain long-term groundwater levels, groundwater observation wells would be required.

2.5 SEISMIC SITE CLASS

The proposed building’s seismic class was determined for use in the structural design of the proposed project. Soils information was obtained from the soil borings completed on-site, as well as information obtained from the “Soil Survey of Ionia County” by the United States Department of Agriculture, the “Quaternary Geology of Michigan” completed by W.R. Farrand, the USGS

Topographic Quadrangle and the Hydrogeologic Atlas of Michigan. It is assumed that the proposed structure falls under Building Class II according to the 2015 Michigan Building Code

(MBC) Table 1604.5. Based on this information it is our determination that seismic site class D be used according to the ASCE 7 – Table 20.3-1 for structural calculations.

2.6 LIMITATIONS

Soil and groundwater conditions have been observed and interpreted at the soil boring locations only. This information has been used as the basis for our analyses and the recommendations that follow. Although we have allowed for minor variations in subsurface conditions in the development of our recommendations, conditions can vary away from and between soil boring locations. Should this become evident during construction, we should be contacted to review our recommendations. This geotechnical evaluation and report were prepared for geotechnical purposes only. We did not perform environmental related borings or analytical tests.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 SITE PREPARATION

To increase the likelihood that the recommended allowable soil bearing capacities are achieved and tolerable settlements are not exceeded, the recommendations contained herein should be followed.

Within the building footprint and any areas to receive fill, all existing building material, topsoil, old fill, organic-containing material, frozen soil and other unsuitable material should be removed. The clearing should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the limits of proposed building and pavement areas and areas to receive structural fill.

It is strongly recommended that the building pad and pavement subgrade areas be evaluated by

Driesenga & Associates, Inc. after the area has been cleared and stripped. This evaluation may be performed by proofrolling with a loaded tandem axle dump truck or another method selected by the geotechnical engineer. To identify any areas of soft subgrade soil. Where soft subgrade soils are encountered, remedial actions as recommended by the geotechnical engineer will be required.

We understand the existing building will be demolished as part of the project. Any existing foundations, floor slabs, utilities, and other below-grade structures from previous construction should be completely removed from the footprint of the proposed building. In proposed pavement areas, existing utilities and other below-grade structures should be removed to at least 2.5 feet below the final subgrade level. Alternatively, utilities can be left in place below pavement areas if the void space of the utility is completely grouted. Depressions or excavations from the demolition and removal operations should be backfilled with granular structural fill meeting the requirements of MDOT Class II sand compacted in accordance with the recommendations below.

Existing fill was encountered in the soil borings and extended about 2 to 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Without documentation of the placement of the fill, we consider it to be

“uncontrolled fill.” If documentation of the existing fill is available, we would be pleased to review it to determine its suitability of slab, pavement, and/or structural fill support.

Deeper and/or looser uncontrolled fill may be encountered at the site, particularly adjacent to existing or former structures, or in the vicinity of existing utilities. The existing fill may be suitable for support of slabs, pavements, and/or structural fill after additional evaluation and special preparation and only where it is not underlain by buried topsoil or other organic, deleterious or otherwise unsuitable soils and the owner accepts the risks in doing so. Existing fill with excessive organics (over 4%), voids or debris should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Test pits should be performed to identify unsuitable fill. The test pits could be performed prior to construction. However, suitability of the existing fill will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis during construction. The remaining fill, after removing unsuitable fill, is anticipated to be suitable to support floor slabs, pavements and structural fill, provided an increased risk of unsatisfactory performance is acceptable. We believe the risk of unsatisfactory performance such as cracking and settlement associated with the construction of slabs-on-grade and pavements on or above the existing fill is relatively low after preparation.

Ultimately, if the risk of poor slab and/or pavement performance is not acceptable, complete removal of the existing fill and replacement with structural fill should be performed. Based on the soil borings, the existing fill could extend 3 feet or more below the existing ground surface. If performed, the removal of the existing fill should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the edges of the proposed building, or laterally on a two vertical to one horizontal slope from the bottom outside edge of the foundation, whichever is greater. This action should reduce the amount and depth of undercutting during foundation construction since the unsuitable fill and any unsuitable soils directly beneath fill would be removed. For this case, the test pit evaluation would not be necessary. However, a test pit evaluation could be performed to provide a better estimate of the nature, depth and extent of the existing fill.

Trees were located within and/or nearby the project area when this investigation was conducted.

Large trees may have relatively widespread root structures and related organic veins. The earthwork activities within the building and pavement areas should include complete removal of the tree roots and organic veins.

The clays encountered directly below the old fills were generally soft to medium stiff and had moisture contents ranging from approximately 15 to 22 percent. Significant disturbance of the subgrade may result from repeated construction traffic on the clay. The exposed subgrade may need to be stabilized after removal of topsoil to support construction traffic or to reduce subgrade disturbance. Also, the clays may become disturbed due to ponded water and/or repeated construction traffic. Therefore, the contractor should remove standing water from the subgrade and prevent surface water from reaching the footing excavations and the subgrade. In addition, construction traffic should use haul roads and should not haphazardly traffic the site. The client should understand that construction costs may be higher during wet, snowy and/or colder months and that site preparation may be more extensive due to the effects of moisture on the soils. The contractor should limit the number and size of construction equipment on the site, should grade the site during stripping operations to allow surface water to drain from areas of proposed development, and should remove water from areas where it collects. In addition, site utilities should be installed early in the project to channel groundwater into the sand-filled trenches. Even with the above precautions, a significant amount of subgrade disturbance may result. Subgrade soils that become disturbed should be removed and replaced with structural fill or crushed aggregate. We recommend including a contingency in the construction budget to provide for subgrade improvements.

Aeration by methods such as disking may be required to reduce subgrade moisture content to the optimum moisture content range for compaction. In cold and/or wet weather conditions such as during the winter and spring months, it may not be possible to reduce the subgrade moisture content and granular fill or crushed aggregate may need to be imported to the site.

3.2 FOUNDATIONS

Considering the subsurface conditions on this site and the assumed proposed construction, it is acceptable for the proposed facility to be supported on conventional spread footings. Footings bearing on newly placed structural fill placed over suitable native soils or directly on the native clay may be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The footings should not be placed on the existing fill material.

To attain the recommended bearing pressure where foundations bear on clay soils, improvement of the foundation subgrade may be required in some areas. The soil conditions may vary from those disclosed by the soil borings and undercuts may be required. The amount of improvement will depend on the finished floor elevation, the amount of disturbance during earthwork operations, and the soil and groundwater conditions at the foundation bearing level(s). We do not anticipate compaction of the clay soils will be effective and improvements may include mixing a layer of coarse crushed aggregate into the subgrade. If the subgrade conditions cannot be improved either by compaction or mixing in crushed aggregate, the unsuitable soil should be removed and replaced with structural fill. In areas where undercutting is required, the undercut should extend laterally on a two vertical to one horizontal slope from the edge of the footing.

All perimeter footings and footings in unheated areas should bear at least 42 inches below finished grade for protection from frost action. To reduce the likelihood of frost heave, trench footings should be formed vertically and should not be allowed to widen near the top. If interior footings are to bear on compacted fill, the fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations of

Section 3.1. Interior foundations can be constructed on suitable natural soils or on structural fill overlying suitable natural subgrade just below the floor slab. However, the footings and proposed bearing soils should be protected from freezing during construction if work is conducted in the cold winter months. Due to the sands encountered at the site, construction of trench footings is probably not feasible. Therefore, we anticipate footing excavations will need to be sloped back and the foundations formed. The placement of footing concrete should be done as soon as footing excavations have been completed and approved to reduce the potential for disturbance or freezing of the footing subgrade.

Prior to concrete placement, the bearing surface should be free of loose soil and standing water.

The contractor should avoid stockpiling excavated materials immediately adjacent to the excavation walls. It is recommended that stockpiled materials be kept back from the excavation a minimum distance equal to half the excavation depth to prevent surcharging the excavation walls.

Total and differential settlement of foundations properly designed and constructed based on our recommendations are not expected to exceed 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively.

3.3 FLOORS

The soil below the floor slab should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations in

Section 3.1. A noncohesive soils mat such as MDOT Class II sand should be provided directly below the floor slabs. The mat should be a minimum of 8 inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95% of Modified Proctor MDD.

We recommend providing vapor barriers below floor slabs that will receive an impermeable floor finish/seal. Even if these floor coverings are not planned, the vapor barrier can reduce the transmission of moisture vapor from the ground into the building. However, the placement of a vapor barrier affects construction of the floor slab, concrete curing, and the rate of moisture loss as the concrete dries. These factors could affect the performance of the slab. The manufacturer of the vapor barrier should be consulted in regard to the depth of the barrier below the slab.

The floor slab should be suitably reinforced and proper joints should be provided at the junctions of the slab and foundation system so that a small amount of independent movement can occur without causing damage. A minimum of 6 inches of structural fill should be provided between the bottom of the slab and the top of the shallow spread footing below. Otherwise, other arrangements should be made to allow for potential relative settlements, such as grade beams, thickened slabs with appropriate reinforcing steel or other appropriate details. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci should be used in the design of slabs-on-grade.

3.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY

If excavations are anticipated for the proposed structure and/or utilities, shoring and bracing or flattening (laying back) of the slopes may be required to obtain a safe working environment.

Excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state and federal regulations, including OSHA (CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. We recommend that all excavated soils be placed away from the edges of the excavation at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation. In addition, surface runoff water should be diverted away from the crest of the excavated slopes to prevent erosion and sloughing.

Localized areas of soft or unsuitable soils not detected by our borings or in unexplored areas may be encountered once construction begins. Vertical cuts in these soils may be unstable and may present a significant hazard because they can fail without warning. Therefore, temporary construction slopes greater than 5 feet high should not be steeper than one horizontal to one vertical

(1H: 1V) and excavated material should not be placed within 10 feet of the crest of any excavated slope.

Unbraced excavations may experience some minor localized instability (i.e., sloughing). To reduce potential sloughing, excavated slopes should be covered with plastic for protection from rainfall and moisture changes. It should be emphasized that continuous observations by personnel from our office are important during trenching or excavation operations at the site.

4.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

If significant changes are made in the plans and specifications or location of the proposed structure, a consultation should be arranged to review such changes with respect to the prevailing soil conditions. It may then be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations. If deviations from the noted subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, they should also be brought to the attention of Driesenga & Associates, Inc.

Driesenga & Associates, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to review the project design drawings and specifications to verify the factors affecting subgrade and foundation performance comply with our recommendations.

It is recommended that the services of Driesenga & Associates, Inc. be engaged to observe excavation for the footings and to test and evaluate the soils in the footing excavations prior to placement of foundations in order to determine that the soils have the required bearing capacities.

Monitoring and testing should also be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for controlled fills and that they are properly placed and compacted.

This report and any future reports or addenda performed for this site should be supplied to potential bidders prior to them submitting their proposals. We also recommend the construction contract include provisions for dealing with differing conditions. Contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and foundation construction.

This report was for geotechnical purposes only. We did not sample for environmental purposes or perform any analytical testing. However, the contractor should be prepared to handle environmental conditions encountered at this site that may affect the excavation, removal, or disposal of soil; dewatering of excavations; and health and safety of workers. Any Environmental

Assessment reports prepared for this property should be made available for review by bidders and the successful contractor.

This report has been prepared solely for the use of the client for the project specifically described in this report. This report cannot be relied upon by other parties not involved in this project, unless written permission is granted by Driesenga & Associates, Inc. If this report or any of its contents are utilized by parties other than our original client and the project team members, Driesenga &

Associates, Inc. can not be held responsible for the suitability of the field exploration, scope of services, or recommendations made for the new project. Driesenga & Associates, Inc. also is not responsible for the interpretation of our soil boring logs and the recommendations provided herein by other parties.

Driesenga & Associates, Inc. will evaluate this report for other parties and developments at this site, provided our original Client agrees to release this information in writing. However, before this report can be relied upon by other parties. Driesenga & Associates, Inc. must review the proposed development since the new project will likely require additional field exploration, laboratory tests, analysis, and modifications to our recommendations to adequately address the needs of the new project.

APPENDIX A

·FIGURE NUMBER 1 – SITE LOCATION·

·FIGURE NUMBER 2 – BORING LOCATIONS·

Figure Number: 1 Boring Locations

Project Name Ionia Weigh Station

East Bound

Project Number 2240327.3A

Project Location Orange Township, Ionia County, Michigan

Project Site

Figure Number: 2 Boring Locations

Project Name Ionia Weigh Station

East Bound

Project Number 2240327.3A

Project Location Orange Township, Ionia County, Michigan

SB-1

SB-2

SB-3

SB-4

APPENDIX B

·SOIL BORING LOGS·

Project No. 2240327.3A Client Name: Schley Nelson Architects

Ionia, Michigan East Bound I-96

Project Name: Ionia Weigh Station

SB-1

Date Started : June 27, 2022 Date Completed : June 27, 2022 Hole Diameter : 6-inches Drilling Method : Hollow-Stem Auger Sampling Method : Split-Spoon Sampler

Drilling Company : Great Lakes Drilling Field Sampling : J. Cook Reviewed By : M. Stork GW Encountered : 20.5 GW Completion : Dry cave in at 19.2'

D ep th in

F ee t

Surf.

Elev.

U

SC

S

GW

SW/Fill

CL

SW-GW

SC

G R

AP

H

IC

DESCRIPTION

Water Levels During Drilling

After Completion

GRAVEL - 12 inches

Fill - SAND, medium dense, brown, fine to medium grained, moist.

Sandy CLAY, very stiff to hard, brown and gray mottled, trace gravel, moist.

SAND & GRAVEL, dense, brown, fine to coarse grained, trace clay, wet.

Clayey SAND, dense, gray, fine grained, trace gravel, wet.

Sa m pl es

Bl ow

C ou nt

N V al ue

Po ck et P en (t sf

2.5

2.5

>4.5

>4.5

2.75

W at er L ev el

M oi st ur e C on te nt

20.1

17.3

22.0

Ionia, Michigan East Bound I-96

Project Name: Ionia Weigh Station

SB-2

Date Started : June 27, 2022 Date Completed : June 27, 2022 Hole Diameter : 6-inches Drilling Method : Hollow-Stem Auger Sampling Method : Split-Spoon Sampler

Drilling Company : Great Lakes Drilling Field Sampling : J. Cook Reviewed By : M. Stork GW Encountered : 19.5' GW Completion : 19.3'

D ep th in

F ee t

Surf.

Elev.

U

SC

S

SW/Fill

CL

SW-GW

SC

CL

G R

AP

H

IC

DESCRIPTION

Water Levels During Drilling

After Completion

TOPSOIL - 12 inches

Fill - SAND, medium dense, brown, fine to medium grained, moist.

Sandy CLAY, very stiff to hard, brown and gray mottled, trace gravel, moist.

SAND & GRAVEL, dense to very dense, brown, fine to coarse grained, wet.

Clayey silty SAND, dense, gray, fine grained, trace gravel, wet.

Sandy CLAY, very stiff, gray, trace gravel, moist.

Sa m pl es

Bl ow

C ou nt

N V al ue

Po ck et P en (t sf

2.25

>4.5

>4.5

>4.5

>4.5

W at er L ev el

M oi st ur e C on te nt

21.7

17.5

Ionia, Michigan East Bound I-96

Project Name: Ionia Weigh Station

SB-3

Date Started : June 27, 2022 Date Completed : June 27, 2022 Hole Diameter : 6-inches Drilling Method : Hollow-Stem Auger Sampling Method : Split-Spoon Sampler

Drilling Company : Great Lakes Drilling Field Sampling : J. Cook Reviewed By : M. Stork GW Encountered : Dry GW Completion : Dry

D ep th in

F ee t

Surf.

Elev.

U

SC

S

GW

SW/Fill

CL

CL

G R

AP

H

IC

DESCRIPTION

Water Levels During Drilling

After Completion

GRAVEL - 8 inches Fill - SAND, loose, brown, fine to medium grained, clay layers, moist.

Sandy CLAY, stiff to hard, brown and gray mottled, trace gravel, moist.

Silty CLAY, hard, gray, trace sand, trace gravel, moist.

Sa m pl es

Bl ow

C ou nt

N V al ue

Po ck et P en (t sf

2.0

>4.5

>4.5

>4.5

>4.5

W at er L ev el

M oi st ur e C on te nt

15.6

16.9

Ionia, Michigan East Bound I-96

Project Name: Ionia Weigh Station

SB-4

Date Started : June 27, 2022 Date Completed : June 27, 2022 Hole Diameter : 6-inches Drilling Method : Hollow-Stem Auger Sampling Method : Split-Spoon Sampler

Drilling Company : Great Lakes Drilling Field Sampling : J. Cook Reviewed By : M. Stork GW Encountered : 18.5' GW Completion : 18.5'

D ep th in

F ee t

Surf.

Elev.

U

SC

S

SC/Fill

CL

SW-GW

G R

AP

H

IC

DESCRIPTION

Water Levels During Drilling

After Completion

TOPSOIL - 15 inches

Fill - Clayey SAND, medium dense, brown, fine grained, tree roots, moist.

Sandy CLAY, hard, brown and gray mottled, trace gravel, moist.

SAND & GRAVEL, medium dense, brown, fine to coarse grained, trace silt, wet.

Sa m pl es

Bl ow

C ou nt

N V al ue

Po ck et P en (t sf

>4.5

>4.5

>4.5

>4.5

W at er L ev el

M oi st ur e C on te nt

15.0

18.1

APPENDIX C

GROUND PENETRATING RADAR REPORT

Improve profitability. Reduce risk. Manage liability.

www.facilitiescompliance.com

June 6, 2022

Randy Pail Driesenga & Associates, Inc 12330 James Street, Suite H80 Holland, MI 49424

Survey Site: MSP Ionia Weigh Station-Orange Township, MI 48875

Project Objective:

Utilize Ground Penetrating Radar and ElectroMagnetic locating to investigate for any underground utilities in the proposed area for new building construction.

GPR Information and Background:

GPR has been used extensively in the past for geological and archeological exploration and mapping;

however, it has only been since 2001 that GPR had the capability to image shallow targets. The system used for this project has the ability to image targets to a depth of 12 feet with an accuracy of ± 2 inches. The 350 MHz antenna broadcasts a microwave energy pulse of less than 1/6th watt at a rate of 100 ns. This energy pulse is timed as it propagates through a material noting when a return pulse arrives. The time and strength of the return pulse is captured and analyzed and interpreted graphically.

This process is shown in the figure of a 1500 MHz antenna below.

http://www.facilitiescompliance.com/

Project Procedures:

Scans were completed every 5 feet in a grid pattern throughout the accessible areas of the proposed survey area using Ground Penetrating Radar. Also, electromagnetic locating was used to verify locations of utilities found and/or find any utilities that were not discovered by the Ground Penetrating Radar. Any utilities, remaining underground storage tanks, septic areas, and significant soil debris were marked on site, photographed, and identified on the drawing attached to this report. Any utility with known origin or purpose was marked according to the MISS DIG standards listed below. Any unknown anomalies, remaining underground storage tanks, or unknown utilities were marked in pink.

Communication-Orange Electric-Red Sewer-Green or Brown Gas-Yellow Water-Blue

All data was collected on June 01, 2022.

Project Results:

The following utilities were marked on site: electric marked in red, communications marked in orange, unknown utilities marked in pink, water marked in blue, septic tank marked in green, and drain field marked in green.

The approximate drain field location was marked on site in green paint/flags.

All results of the data collected are documented in the attached drawing and pictures of markings are also attached.

This report provided by FMCI is provided solely for illustration and information purposes. FMCI is not responsible for any loss or damage caused, arising out of the use of, or reliance on this report or the data collected, and this report is not to be construed as a warranty or guarantee on the part of FMCI.

Sincerely, Nick Schwartz Facility Management Consultants International nick@facilitiescompliance.com mailto:nick@facilitiescompliance.com

Image shows unknown utility in pink and electric in red.

Image shows electric in red.

Image shows electric in red and communication in orange.

Image shows electric in red, communication in orange, and two boring locations.

Image shows electric in red and one boring location.

Image shows electric in red, communication in orange, and sanitary septic in green.

Image shows boring location and approximate drain field location in green.

Image shows boring location and approximate drain field location in green.

Image shows septic tank and sanitary septic in green.

Image shows septic tank and sanitary septic in green.

Image shows septic tank, sanitary septic in green, electric in red, and boring location.

Image shows sanitary septic in green, electric in red, and communication in orange.

Image shows sanitary septic in green, communication in orange, and electric in red.

Image shows electric in red and boring location.

Image shows electric in red, communication in orange, and sanitary septic in green.

Image shows communication in orange, electric in red, and boring location.

Image shows communication in orange, electric in red, unknown utility in pink, and boring location.

Image shows electric in red, water in blue, and unknown utility in pink.

Image shows electric in red, water in blue, and boring location.

Image shows electric in red, unknown utility in pink, and boring location.

APPENDIX D

·FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES·

FIELD PROCEDURES

The soil borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with a standard hammer.

Split-barrel samples were obtained in the soil below the bottom of the augers in general accordance with the Standard Method for Penetration and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. Samples were collected at 2.5 feet intervals to 10 feet below grade, and every 5 feet thereafter. After recovery, the samples were removed from the split-spoon sampler, visually reviewed and classified, placed in glass jars and transported to our laboratory for additional review.

Soil samples stored for extended periods are susceptible to moisture loss and are no longer indicative of the conditions originally encountered in the soil borings. Therefore, soil samples are usually stored in our laboratory for a period of 60 days, unless instructed otherwise.

Soil boring logs were prepared based on field notes and visual classification of the samples in the laboratory. Indicated on each soil boring log is the description of each stratum observed, the approximate depth and/or elevation of each stratum change observed, Standard Penetration Test resistance values, and the observed groundwater levels. The soil boring logs are presented in

Appendix B.

LABORATORY PROCEDURES

The laboratory testing program included supplementary visual classification of the samples in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The following two pages describe the soils classification procedure.

CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

Per ASTM D 2487—00 (Based on Unified Soil Classification System)

Soil Description: Secondary Soil Type BASIC SOIL TYPE, Consistency/Relative Density, Color, Supplemental Soil Type, Moisture, Miscellaneous comments.

Ex. Silty SAND, loose, brown, fine to medium, trace gravel, moist.

Secondary Soil Type – adjective for the BASIC SOIL TYPE describing material making up greater than 12% but less than 50% of the primary soil type by weight. For sands this also includes a description of grain size (fine, medium or coarse).

BASIC SOIL TYPE – primary constituent of sample; material making up greater than 50% of the sample by weight. Material is classified by grain size and material properties.

Consistency/Relative Density – a measurement of in-situ consistency or density of cohesive or cohesionless soils, respectively, based upon Standard Penetration Testing blow counts (N) per ASTM D 1586.

Color – visual inspection of soil appearance.

Supplementary Soil Type – a description of any other material that may be mixed with the BASIC SOIL TYPE. Qualifying terms are based on the percentage of the supplementary soil type in the sample by weight.

Moisture – description of the in-situ moisture content of the sample (dry, moist or wet).

Miscellaneous Comments – anything observed in the sample or in the field that does not fit into the above categories but should be noted (odor, etc.).

CALIBRATED AUTO HAMMER CONSISTENCY/RELATIVE DENSITY

COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS

SPT

N-VALUES

IN-SITU

RELATIVE DENSITY

SPT

N-

VALUES

SHEAR

STRENGTH

(PSF)

IN-SITU

CONSISTENCY

0-3 VERY LOOSE 0-1 BELOW 250 VERY SOFT

4-8 LOOSE 2-3 250 - 500 SOFT

9-23 MEDIUM DENSE 4-6 500 - 1,000 MEDIUM STIFF

24-38 DENSE 7-12 1,000 - 2,000 STIFF

>38 VERY DENSE 13-25 2,000 - 4,000 VERY STIFF

>26 OVER 4,000 HARD

SUPPLEMENTAL TEXTURE

QUALIFYING TERMS

DESCRIPTOR

PERCENTAGE

BY WEIGHT

TRACE 1-10%

LITTLE 10-20%

SOME 20-35%

AND 35-50%

STANDARD HAMMER CONSISTENCY/RELATIVE DENSITY

COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS

SPT

N-VALUES

IN-SITU

RELATIVE DENSITY

SPT

N-VALUES

SHEAR

STRENGTH

(PSF)

IN-SITU

CONSISTENCY

0-4 VERY LOOSE 0-2 BELOW 250 VERY SOFT

5-10 LOOSE 3-4 250 - 500 SOFT

11-30 MEDIUM DENSE 5-8 500 - 1,000 MEDIUM STIFF

31-50 DENSE 9-16 1,000 - 2,000 STIFF

>50 VERY DENSE 17-32 2,000 - 4,000 VERY STIFF

>32 OVER 4,000 HARD

For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQU ID LIM IT ( LL)

' A ' - LIN E

' U ' - LIN E

C L- M L

C L or OL

C H o r OH

M H o r OH xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SIEVE ANALYSIS

0.1110100

PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

P

A S

S

IN

G D60 = 15 mm

D30 = 2.5 mm

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART (Per ASTM D2487)

Criteria for Assigning Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name

COHESIONLESS SOILS Gravels Clean Gravels Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E GW Well-graded gravelF More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve

Less than 5% finesC Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E GP Poorly graded gravelF

Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF,G,H

More than 12% finesC

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF,G,H

Sands Clean Sands Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E SW Well-graded sandF

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve

Less than 5% finesD Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E SP Poorly graded sandF

Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG,H,I

More than 12% finesD Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG,H,I

COHESIVE SOILS Silts and Clays Inorganic Pl ≥ 7 and plots on or above 'A' lineJ CL Lean clayK,L,M 50% or more passes the No.

200 Sieve

Liquid limit less than 50 Pl < 4 or plots below 'A' lineJ ML SiltK,L,M

Organic Liquid limit - oven dried < 0.75 OL Organic clayK,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried < 0.75 Organic siltK,L,M,0

Silts and Clays Inorganic Pl plots on or above 'A' line CH Fat clayK,L,M

Liquid limit 50 or more

Pl plots below 'A' line MH Elastic SiltK,L,M

Organic Liquid limit - oven dried < 0.75 OH Organic ClayK,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried < 0.75 Organic siltK,L,M,0

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in. sieve

B

If field sample contained cobbles or builders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders or both" to group name

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc = (D30)2/(D10*D60)

F If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM

H If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name.

I If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel" whichever is predominant

L If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name.

M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No.

200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name

N Pl ≥ 4 and plots on or above 'A' line.

O Pl < 4 or plots below 'A' line.

P Pl plots on or above 'A' line.

Q Pl plots below 'A' line.

812.03

Section 812. TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR

CONSTRUCTION ZONE OPERATIONS

812.01. Description. This work consists of protecting, regulating, warning, guiding, and maintaining traffic through and around the Construction Influence Area (CIA). This work includes furnishing, operating, and removing traffic control devices.

The Department will provide, install, and maintain traffic control devices outside the CIA.

812.02. Materials. Provide material in accordance with the following:

Temporary Traffic Signs Channelizing Devices Temporary Pavement Markings Lighting Devices Temporary Traffic Signals Traffic Regulator Equipment Portable Changeable Message Sign Temporary Concrete Barrier Temporary Attenuation Conspicuity Tape

812.03. Construction.

A. Contractor Notification. Notify the Engineer at least 72 hours, or as otherwise required by the contract, before starting work or installing initial traffic control devices on the project.

B. Changes in Stage Construction Plans. Provide written notice to the Engineer before making changes in stage construction. If the Department accepts the changes, the Engineer will provide written approval to the Contractor.

C. Deficient Traffic Control Operations. The Engineer will give written notification to the Contractor of deficient, inadequate, or improperly placed traffic control devices, or unsafe conditions within the CIA. This notification will include a statement of the required corrective action and timeframe for completion of the corrective action. Failure to make corrections within the timeframe required may result in the following actions by the Engineer:

1. Stop work on the project until the Contractor completes corrective action; and

2. Order corrective action by others in accordance with subsection 107.07, subsection 108.05, and in the interest of public safety.

D. Placing Traffic Control Devices. Provide and maintain traffic control devices meeting the requirements in the ATSSA Quality Guidelines for Work Zone Traffic Control Devices.

Apply and place traffic control devices within the CIA in accordance with the MMUTCD, as shown on the plans, or as directed in writing by the Engineer.

Do not place commercial or Contractor identification signs within the highway right-of-way.

Display only traffic control devices relevant to conditions. Cover, remove, modify, or move existing temporary or permanent signs with inapplicable legends. Do not place temporary signs not in use, with the sign face parallel to traffic.

Inspect traffic control devices daily to ensure devices are relevant, in place, positioned, aligned, and oriented as required. Record inspections and make the records available to the Engineer upon request. The Department may take possession of the inspection records at project completion.

Maintain lights on traffic control devices in working order at all times without direction from the Engineer.

Ensure the actions of subcontractors regarding the condition, placement, maintenance, and removal of traffic control devices on the project are as required.

Remove temporary traffic control devices from the project if no longer required.

Temporary traffic control devices provided by the Contractor will remain the property of the Contractor.

1. Temporary Signs. Mount signs of 20 square feet or less on portable or ground driven sign supports. Mount larger signs on ground driven supports. Place ground driven sign systems as described in Standard Plan WZD-100 Series, or use another NCHRP-350 or the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) accepted design.

Mount signs at a bottom height of at least 5 feet above the near edge of pavement and at least 5 feet above ground. If placing a sign behind a retaining wall, provide a bottom height of at least 5 feet above the top of the wall and provide a minimum height above the ground behind the wall to ensure visibility.

If erecting signs behind a curb, or within 6 feet of a pedestrian walkway, mount signs at a bottom height of at least 7 feet above ground.

For ground driven signs, if a secondary sign is required, mount the secondary sign below the primary sign with a bottom height 1 foot less than the bottom height required.

For portable signs requiring a secondary sign, mount on separate supports, at the required bottom height. Mount the primary portable sign above the secondary sign on separate supports. The Engineer will allow portable sign clusters if the total area measures no greater than 20 square feet.

Erect signs with supports vertical and the legend or symbol horizontal. Ensure signs do not vary from plumb by more than 2 inches over 4 feet.

The Department will allow the use flexible, roll-up signs only during daylight hours. The Department will not allow the use mesh signs.

Place and operate one Type A warning light, equipped with a one-way lens, on 4 feet by 4 feet diamond warning signs when required for that device by the FHWA Work Zone Acceptance letter.

For shoulders with no barrier walls, if removing temporary signs on portable supports, remove the sign stands from the uprights. Lay the sign flat, off the shoulder, and place the uprights facing downstream from traffic. Remove support stands and ballasts from the shoulder.

For shoulders with barrier walls, if removing temporary signs on portable supports, remove the sign stands from the uprights, and place against the barrier wall. Place the uprights facing downstream from traffic and place support stands and ballasts close to the barrier wall. Do not place sign covers on temporary sign systems on portable supports located on shoulders with no barrier walls.

Cover temporary signs on portable supports that straddle barrier wall, required to remain on the project while not in use. Remove sign covers from the roadway, or store against the barrier wall, when not in use.

For locations with guardrail, if conditions require temporary removal of temporary signs on portable supports, remove the sign stands from the uprights. Lay the sign behind the guardrail, and place support stands and ballasts close to the guardrail.

Do not obstruct or interfere with attenuation devices when storing temporarily removed temporary signs on portable supports.

2. Sign Covers. For permanent signs, other than overhead signs and signs larger than 60 square feet, cover the entire front of the sign panel. Mount the sign coverings using Department-approved methods to avoid damaging the sign sheeting. Do not apply fastening devices or covers directly to the reflective sheeting. Use spacers that provide 2 inches of air space between the cover and the sign face to protect the sheeting from damage.

Install Type I sign covers on Type I signs shown in the contract, to obscure conflicting information. Submit shop drawings of the Type I sign covers to the Engineer, and obtain the Engineer’s approval, before covering Type I signs on the project.

For temporary signs on fixed supports, cover the entire sign legend.

Do not use burlap or similar material to cover Department owned signs. The Contractor may use soft covers on other temporary signs.

Do not use sign plaque overlays that alter part of the legend or symbol.

3. Sign Supports. Place and construct sign supports to resist swaying, turning, or displacement. Provide fixed sign posts in accordance with subsection 919.04, except the Engineer will allow painted or galvanized steel posts.

Mount construction signs on portable sign support standards only if signs are to remain in place for 3 days or less, or as allowed by the Engineer if fixed supports are not possible.

4. Supplemental Weights. Maintain traffic control devices upright and aligned during use. Use sandbags, or a Department-approved alternate as supplemental weights to achieve stability.

5. Channelizing Devices.