Attachment 6 - B2307270 - Geotechnical Evaluation.pdf

Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Proposed VA Medical Center Material Storage 500 East Veterans Street Tomah, Wisconsin

Prepared for

IMEG Corporation

Professional Certification:

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Wisconsin.

Brandon K. Wright, PE Technical Manager, Senior Engineer License Number: 40141 September 20, 2023

Project B2307270

Braun Intertec Corporation

AA/EOE

Braun Intertec Corporation 2309 Palace Street La Crosse, WI 54603

Phone: 608.781.7277 Fax: 608.781.7279 Web: braunintertec.com

September 20, 2023 Project B2307270

Mr. Scott Schulte

1717 State Street, Suite 201 Bettendorf, IA 52722

Re: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed VA Medical Center Material Storage 500 East Veterans Street Tomah, Wisconsin

Dear Mr. Schulte:

We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the Proposed Tomah VA Medical Center Material Storage Building, located in Tomah, Wisconsin.

Thank you for making Braun Intertec your geotechnical consultant for this project. If you have questions about this report, or if there are other services that we can provide in support of our work to date, please contact either Timothy Felker at 612.670.7961 or Brandon Wright at 608.781.7277 or by email at (tfelker@brauninteretec.com) or (bwright@braunintertec.com).

Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION

Timothy D. Felker Staff Engineer

Brandon K. Wright, PE Technical Manager, Senior Engineer mailto:tfelker@brauninteretec.com mailto:bwright@braunintertec.com

Table of Contents

Description Page

A. Introduction

A.1. Project Description A.2. Site Conditions and History A.3. Purpose A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents A.5. Scope of Services

B. Results B.1. Geologic Overview B.2. Boring Results B.3. Groundwater B.4. Laboratory Test Results

B.4.a. Laboratory Mechanical Sieve Analysis Tests B.4.b. Laboratory Soil Classification Tests

C. Recommendations C.1. Design and Construction Discussion

C.1.a. Introduction C.1.b. Building Subgrade Preparation C.1.c. Re-use of On-Site Materials C.1.d. Groundwater C.1.e. Pavement C.1.f. Loadout Ramp Above Grade Wall

C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations C.2.b. Surface Compaction C.2.c. Excavation Oversizing C.2.d. Excavated Slopes C.2.e. Excavation Dewatering C.2.f. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation C.2.g. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction

C.3. Spread Footings C.4. Load-Out Ramp Walls

C.4.a. Drainage Control C.5. Interior Slabs

C.5.a. Subgrade Modulus C.5.b. Moisture Vapor Protection

C.6. Pavements and Exterior Slabs C.6.a. Design Sections C.6.b. Concrete Pavements C.6.c. Bituminous Pavement Materials C.6.d. Performance and Maintenance

C.7. Utilities C.7.a. Subgrade Stabilization C.7.b. Corrosion Potential

C.8. Equipment Support D. Procedures

Table of Contents (continued)

Description Page

D.1. Penetration Test Borings D.2. Exploration Logs

D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets D.2.b. Geologic Origins

D.3. Material Classification and Testing D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification D.3.b. Laboratory Testing

D.4. Groundwater Measurements E. Qualifications

E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions E.1.a. Material Strata E.1.b. Groundwater Levels

E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility E.2.a. Plan Review E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing

E.3. Use of Report E.4. Standard of Care

Appendix Soil Boring Location Sketch Fence Diagram Log of Boring Sheets ST-01 to ST-04 Descriptive Terminology of Soil Sieve Analysis ST-01 Sieve Analysis ST-03

A. Introduction

A.1. Project Description

This Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the proposed design and construction of an equipment and material storage building located at 500 East Veterans Street in Tomah, Wisconsin. The project will include the construction of a steel framed single-story, slab on grade structure along with a load up ramp. Table 1 presents assumed and provided project details.

Table 1. Building Description

Aspect Description

Below grade levels None (Assumed)

Above grade levels One Story (Assumed)

Lowest level floor elevation 950 (Assumed)

Column loads (kips) 100 (Assumed)

Wall loads (kips) 3 (Assumed)

Floor Slab Load (psf) 400 (Assumed)

Nature of construction Warehouse/equipment storage (Provided)

Cuts or fills for buildings Less than 2 feet from existing site grades (Assumed)

Tolerable building settlement 1 inch for total, and ½ inch for differential (Assumed)

Comments Loadout ramp also included for material storage.

Pavement Types Bituminous and Concrete (Assumed)

Pavement Loading Light-Duty: 50,000 ESALs*

Heavy-Duty: 300,000 ESALs*

Pavement Grading Less than 2 feet from existing site grades (Assumed)

The figure below shows an illustration of the proposed site layout with proposed boring locations.

Figure 1. Site Layout

Figure provided by IMEG Corp dated July 20, 2023.

A.2. Site Conditions and History

Currently, the site exists as existing green space, with some underground utilities traversing the parcel.

Current grades range from 952 to 950 ½ and the site is sloping from the Southwest to the Northeast.

A.3. Purpose

The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation will be to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at the selected exploration locations, evaluate their impact on the project, and provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed medical material storage building.

This will include the design and construction of foundations, ground supported slabs, underground utilities, and lateral earth pressures for the loadout ramp.

A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents

We reviewed the following information:

Aerial photographs of the site on Google Earth™ Geologic maps of the area.

We have described our understanding of the proposed construction and site to the extent others reported it to us. Depending on the extent of available information, we may have made assumptions based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, the project team should notify us. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations.

A.5. Scope of Services

We performed our scope of services for the project in accordance with our Proposal to IMEG Corp (QTB182285) dated July 28, 2023, and authorized on July 31, 2023. The following list describes the geotechnical tasks completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services.

Reviewing the background information and reference documents previously cited.

Staking and clearing the exploration location of underground utilities. IMEG Corp selected, and we staked the exploration locations. We acquired the surface elevations and locations with GPS technology. The Soil Boring Location Sketch included in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of the borings.

Performing 4 standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST-01 to ST-04, to nominal depths of 15 to 25 feet below grade across the site.

Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analysis.

Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, logs of soil borings, a summary of the soils encountered, results of laboratory tests, and recommendations for structure and pavement subgrade preparation and the design of foundations, floor slabs, exterior slabs, utilities, load up ramp, and pavements.

Our scope of services did not include environmental services or testing and our geotechnical personnel performing this evaluation are not trained to provide environmental services or testing. We can provide environmental services or testing at your request.

B. Results

B.1. Geologic Overview

We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, laboratory testing, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional history, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the geologic history for the site.

B.2. Boring Results

Table 2 provides a summary of the soil boring results; in the general order we encountered the strata.

Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details.

Table 2. Subsurface Profile Summary*

Strata

Soil Type -

ASTM

Classification

Range of Penetration Resistances Commentary and Details

Topsoil SM ---

Predominantly SM.

Light brown, brown, and dark brown in coloration.

Thicknesses at boring locations was approximately 1 foot.

Trace roots encountered in the borings.

Moisture condition generally considered moist.

Alluvial Deposits SP, SP-SM 8 to Blows 27

Per Foot (BPF)

Beneath the topsoil, alluvial deposited sands were encountered.

The grain size of the particles were primarily of fine grained.

The coloration of the soils were orangish tan, orangish brown, tannish white, and tan.

Variable amounts of gravel were encountered in the alluvial deposits.

General penetration resistance of 8 to 27 BPF, indicating the soils were loose to medium dense in apparent relative density.

Moisture condition of the soils were considered moist above the groundwater table and wet below the groundwater table.

*Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheets.

B.3. Groundwater

Table 3 summarizes the depths where we observed groundwater; the attached Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix also include this information and additional details.

Table 3. Groundwater Summary

Location Surface

Elevation

Measured or Estimated Depth to Groundwater

(ft)

Corresponding Groundwater Elevation

(ft)

ST-1 951.7 7 945

ST-2 951.8 6 946

ST-3 950.5 5 ½ 945

ST-4 952.4 6 ½ 946

At the time of our observation, the groundwater surface elevation was about elevation 945 to 946 feet.

Project planning should expect groundwater will fluctuate in relation to seasonal and annual groundwater conditions.

B.4. Laboratory Test Results

Laboratory testing was completed in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. More information including soil characteristics and laboratory test results are presented in the following subsections.

B.4.a. Laboratory Mechanical Sieve Analysis Tests We performed a mechanical sieve analysis (ASTM D6913) on two selected sample to assist in soil classification and particle size analysis. The tests indicate the samples evaluated classified as poorly graded sand (SP). The Log of Boring sheets present the moisture content and percent passing a #200 sieve results and the Appendix includes the graph showing the results of the mechanical sieve analysis.

B.4.b. Laboratory Soil Classification Tests Table 4 presents the results of our laboratory tests.

Table 4. Laboratory Classification Test Results

Boring

Sample Depth

(ft) USCS Soil Classification

Moisture Content (w, %)

Percent Passing a #200 Sieve

ST-1 2 ½ Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 9 ---

ST-1 5 Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 13 ---

ST-1 10 Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 18 ---

ST-1 12 ½ Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 17 ---

ST-2 2 ½ Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 10 ---

ST-2 5 Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 15 3

ST-2 10 Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 30 ---

ST-3 5 Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 15 ---

ST-3 10 Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 17 ---

Boring

Sample Depth

(ft) USCS Soil Classification

Moisture Content (w, %)

Percent Passing a #200 Sieve

ST-4 2 ½ Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 10 5

ST-4 5 Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 11 ---

ST-4 7 ½ Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 16 ---

C. Recommendations

C.1. Design and Construction Discussion

C.1.a. Introduction Based on our borings, lab tests, and general knowledge of the local area, it is our understanding that the site is underlain with alluvial deposited sands. The alluvial deposits ranged from loose to medium dense in apparent relative density based on penetration resistance at foot elevation.

C.1.b. Building Subgrade Preparation The native sands found at the footing elevation were loose to medium dense in relative density based on penetration resistance testing. Therefore, to help reduce settlement, the footings and slab should be constructed on an improved subgrade. An improved subgrade would constitute either native materials compacted in place or a one foot of compacted engineered backfill below the footings and slabs.

As a caution, this process should be done with equipment in the non-vibratory mode. Vibratory compaction methods at or near the water table with fine-grained sands and silt soils will result in unstable subgrades. Due to this, compaction effort within the first 2 feet of the groundwater table should be done with non-vibratory means and methods.

C.1.c. Re-use of On-Site Materials In our judgement, the onsite native alluvial soils are suitable for re-use as engineered backfill. The topsoil should be stripped and removed and not used as engineered backfill and should only be used in landscaped areas where subsidence is not of concern.

C.1.d. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths of 5 ½ to 7 feet, corresponding to elevation 945 to 946 feet. With much of the site being composed of sandy soils, an aggressive dewatering system will be required to facilitate earthwork below the water table. Therefore, any excavation that extends below the groundwater should anticipate dewatering with well points or a pumped well system. A licensed dewatering contractor should review our report and provide recommendations for dewatering.

C.1.e. Pavement Areas that will receive new pavement should be prepared by removing existing topsoil and enough underlying material to allow for placement of new pavement materials. Prior to placing aggregate base material, and after stripping the topsoil we recommend surface compacting the pavement subgrade to enhance surface uniformity.

C.1.f. Loadout Ramp Above Grade Wall With the proposed structure, there was an addition of a loadout ramp, which will necessitate a below-grade wall. This below grade wall should be backfilled with free-draining soils to limit the buildup of below-grade water and drain tile should be installed to remove water behind the below grade walls.

C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation

C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations We recommend removing unsuitable soils below the proposed structure and their oversized areas. We define unsuitable materials as existing fill, frozen materials, organic soils, existing structures, existing utilities, and vegetation/topsoil. Based on the borings, we do not anticipate soil corrections below the proposed footing elevations. We also recommend having a geotechnical engineer, or an engineering technician working under the direction of a geotechnical engineer, (geotechnical representative) evaluate the suitability of exposed subgrade soils to support the proposed structure.

C.2.b. Surface Compaction We recommend that exposed soils be surface compacted prior to placing additional required fill, foundations, and slabs for the proposed structures and pavement areas. This will densify and enhance uniformity of the exposed soils. We recommend surface compacting the exposed soils with a minimum of five passes by a large (minimum diameter of 3 ½ feet), smooth-drum compactor where sandy soils are encountered and a sheep-foot compactor where clayey soils are encountered. Areas that yield or pump during surface compaction may require additional sub-cutting.

As a caution, this process should be done with equipment in the non-vibratory mode. Vibratory compaction methods at or near the water table with fine-grained sands and silt soils will result in unstable subgrades. Compaction efforts within 2 feet of the groundwater should be done with non-vibratory means and methods.

C.2.c. Excavation Oversizing When removing unsuitable materials below structures or pavements, we recommend the excavation extend outward and downward at a slope of 1H:1V (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. See Figure 2 for an illustration of excavation oversizing.

Figure 2. Generalized Illustration of Oversizing

C.2.d. Excavated Slopes Based on the borings, we anticipate on-site soils in excavations will consist of sandy soils. These soils are typically considered Type C Soil under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines.

OSHA guidelines indicate unsupported excavations in Type C soils should have a gradient no steeper than 1.5H: 1V. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. OSHA requires an engineer to evaluate slopes or excavations over 20 feet in depth.

An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field. Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The project specifications should reference these OSHA requirements.

C.2.e. Excavation Dewatering Groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths of 5 ½ to 7 feet, corresponding to elevation 945 to 946 feet. With much of the site being composed of sandy soils, an aggressive dewatering system will be required to facilitate earthwork below the water table. Therefore, any excavation that extends below the groundwater should anticipate dewatering with well points or a pumped well system. A licensed dewatering contractor should review our report and provide recommendations for dewatering.

C.2.f. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation Areas that will be receiving new pavement should be prepared by first removing existing topsoil and enough of the native soils to allow placement of new pavement materials.

Prior to placing aggregate base material, we recommend surface compacting the pavement subgrade to enhance uniformity. We recommend performing a proofroll after the aggregate base material is in place, and prior to placing bituminous or concrete pavement. We also recommend having a geotechnical representative observe the proofroll. Areas that fail the proofroll indicate soft or weak areas that will require additional soil correction work to support pavements.

The contractor should correct areas that display excessive yielding or rutting during the proofroll, as determined by the geotechnical representative. Possible options for subgrade correction include moisture conditioning and recompaction, subcutting and replacement with soil, crushed aggregate, and/or geotextiles.

C.2.g. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction Table 5 below contains our recommendations for engineered fill materials.

Table 5. Engineered Fill Materials*

Fill Classification Locations To Be Used

Fill Source and Soil Descriptions Gradation

Relative Compaction, percent

(ASTM D698 –

Standard Proctor)

Structural fill

Soil correction backfill.

Below foundations Interior & exterior foundation wall backfill.

Below interior & exterior slabs

On-site alluvial sand soils or Imported sand and gravel consisting of

GP, GW, SP, SW, SP-SM,

100% passing 2-inch sieve <10% passing #200 sieve <2% Organic Content (OC)

Pavement Materials

Dense graded base Imported aggregate WisDOT Standard Spec 305 Dense Graded Base

Pavement subgrades

On-site alluvial sand soils or Imported sand and gravel consisting of

GP, GW, SP, SW, SP-SM,

SM, SC

100% passing 2-inch sieve <20% passing #200 sieve

<3% OC

100 – upper 3 ft 95 – below 3 ft

Non-structural fill

Below landscaped surfaces, where subsidence is not a concern

On-site soils and imported soils

100% passing 6-inch sieve

< 10% OC

* More select soils comprised of coarse sands with < 5% passing #200 sieve may be needed to accommodate work occurring in periods of wet or freezing weather.

We recommend spreading engineered fill in loose lifts of approximately 12 inches thick. We recommend compacting engineered fill in accordance with the criteria presented below in Table 6. The project documents should specify relative compaction of engineered fill, based on the structure located above the engineered fill, and vertical proximity to that structure.

Table 6. Compaction Recommendations Summary

Reference

Relative Compaction, percent

(ASTM D698 –

Standard Proctor)

Moisture Content Variance from Optimum, percentage points

< 12% Passing #200 Sieve

(SP, SP-SM)

> 12% Passing #200 Sieve

(SC, SM)

Below foundations and oversizing zones 95 Not Applicable -1 to +3

Below interior slabs 95 Not Applicable -1 to +3

Within 3 feet of pavement subgrade 100 Not Applicable -1 to +3

More than 3 feet below pavement subgrade 95 Not Applicable ±3

Below landscaped surfaces 90 Not Applicable ±4

Adjacent to Load-out Ramp Walls 95* Not Applicable Not recommend here

*Increase compaction requirement to meet compaction required for structure supported by this engineered fill.

The project documents should not allow the contractor to use frozen material as engineered fill or to place engineered fill on frozen material. Frost should not penetrate under foundations during construction.

We recommend performing density tests in engineered fill to evaluate if the contractors are effectively compacting the soil and meeting project requirements.

C.3. Spread Footings

Table 7 below contains our recommended parameters for foundation design.

Table 7. Recommended Spread Footing Design Parameters

Item Description

Maximum net allowable bearing pressure (psf) Interior column pad footings

Perimeter strip footings

2,500

Minimum factor of safety for bearing capacity failure 3.0

Minimum embedment below final exterior grade for heated structures (inches) 48

Minimum embedment below final exterior grade for unheated structures or for footings not protected from freezing temperatures during construction (inches)

Total estimated settlement (inches) 1

Differential settlement (inches) 1/2*

* Actual differential settlement amounts will depend on final loads and foundation layout. When tying into the existing buildings, the total settlement of this new building will be differential to the existing building. We can evaluate differential settlement based on final foundation plans and loadings.

C.4. Load-Out Ramp Walls

C.4.a. Drainage Control We recommend installing drain tile to remove water behind the below-grade walls, at the location shown in Figure 3. The below-grade wall drainage system should also incorporate free-draining, engineered fill or a drainage board placed against the wall and connected to the drain tile.

Table 8 presents our recommended lateral equivalent fluid pressures for wall design of active, at-rest and passive earth pressure conditions. The table also provides recommended wet unit weights and internal friction angles. Designs should also consider the slope of any engineered fill and dead or live loads placed behind the walls within a horizontal distance that is equal to the height of the walls. Our recommended values assume the wall design provides drainage so water cannot accumulate behind the walls. The construction documents should clearly identify what soils the contractor should use for engineered fill of walls.

Table 8. Recommended Below-Grade Wall Design Parameters – Drained Conditions

Wet Unit Weight

(pcf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

Active Lateral Equivalent Fluid

Pressure (pcf)

At-Rest Lateral Equivalent Fluid

Pressure (pcf)

Passive Lateral Equivalent Fluid

Pressure* (pcf)

Retained Fill 115 30 38 58 345

* Based on Rankine model for soils in a region behind the wall extending at least 2 horizontal feet beyond the bottom outer edges of the wall footings and then rising and away from the wall at an angle no steeper than 60 degrees from horizontal.

Sliding resistance between the bottom of the footing and the soil can also resist lateral pressures. We recommend assuming a sliding coefficient equal to0.35 between the concrete and soil.

The values presented in this section are un-factored.

C.5. Interior Slabs

C.5.a. Subgrade Modulus The anticipated floor subgrade is expected to be composed of compacted structural fill consisting of sand or gravel. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 200 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (pci) to design the slabs. If the slab design requires placing 6 inches of compacted crushed aggregate base immediately below the slab, the slab design may increase the k-value by 50 pci. We recommend that the aggregate base materials be free of bituminous. In addition to improving the modulus of subgrade reaction, an aggregate base facilitates construction activities and is less weather sensitive.

C.5.b. Moisture Vapor Protection Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. If project planning includes using floor coverings or coatings, we recommend placing a vapor retarder or vapor barrier immediately beneath the slab. We also recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or barrier to preserve warranty assurances.

C.6. Pavements and Exterior Slabs

C.6.a. Design Sections Our scope of services for this project did not include laboratory tests on subgrade soils to determine a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value for pavement design. Based on our experience with similar sandy soils anticipated at the pavement subgrade elevation, we recommend pavement design assume a CBR-value of 10. Similarly, we based the concrete pavement designs on an assumed modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pci. Table 9 provides recommended pavement sections, based on the soils support and traffic loads.

Table 9. Recommended Bituminous and Concrete Pavement Sections

Use

Asphalt Pavement Concrete Pavement

Light Duty Heavy Duty Light Duty Heavy Duty

Minimum asphalt thickness (inches)

3 ½ 4 ½ --- ---

Minimum concrete thickness (inches)

--- --- 5 6 ½

Minimum aggregate base thickness

(inches) 8 10 6 8

C.6.b. Concrete Pavements We recommend specifying concrete for pavements that has a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 psi, and a modulus of rupture (Mr) of at least 650 psi. We also recommend Type I cement meeting the requirements of ASTM International C 150. We recommend specifying 4.5 to 7.5 percent entrained air for exposed concrete to provide resistance to freeze-thaw deterioration. We also recommend using a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less for concrete exposed to deicers.

C.6.c. Bituminous Pavement Materials Appropriate mix designs are critical to the performance of flexible pavements. We recommend utilizing hot mix asphalt meeting the specifications of Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Section

460. We recommend utilizing a nominal 12.5 mm gradation for the base course and a nominal 9.5 mm gradation for the surface course as defined in Table 460-1 in Section 460.2.2.3. We recommend the Performance Graded Asphalt cement be a PG 58-28 in the lower and upper layer.

C.6.d. Performance and Maintenance We based the above pavement designs on a 20-year performance life for bituminous and a 35-year life for concrete. This is the amount of time before we anticipate the pavement will require reconstruction.

This performance life assumes routine maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing. The actual pavement life will vary depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance.

It is common to place the base and binder course of bituminous and then delay placement of wear course. For this situation, we recommend evaluating if the reduced pavement section will have sufficient structure to support construction traffic.

Many conditions affect the overall performance of the exterior slabs and pavements. Some of these conditions include the environment, loading conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance. Regarding bituminous pavements, it is common to have thermal cracking develop within the first few years of placement and continue throughout the life of the pavement. We recommend developing a regular maintenance plan for filling cracks in exterior slabs and pavements to lessen the potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weather distress due to wetting and softening of the subgrade.

C.7. Utilities

C.7.a. Subgrade Stabilization Earthwork activities associated with utility installations located inside the building area should adhere to the recommendations in Section C.2.g.

For exterior utilities, we anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations will be suitable for utility support.

However, if construction encounters unfavorable conditions such as soft clay, organic soils or perched water at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. Project design and construction should not place utilities within the 1H:1V oversizing of foundations.

C.7.b. Corrosion Potential Many of the soil borings indicated the site consists of sandy soils. We consider these soils non- to slightly corrosive to metallic conduits. If utilities extend through clay soils, we recommend bedding the utilities in sandy soil free of any clay lumps or constructing the utilities with non-corrosive materials.

C.8. Equipment Support

The recommendations included in the report may not be applicable to equipment used for the construction and maintenance of this project. We recommend evaluating subgrade conditions in areas of shoring, scaffolding, cranes, pumps, lifts, and other construction equipment prior to mobilization to determine if the exposed materials are suitable for equipment support or require some form of subgrade improvement. We also recommend project planning consider the effect that loads applied by such equipment may have on structures they bear on or surcharge – including pavements, buried utilities, and below-grade walls. We can assist you in this evaluation.

D. Procedures

D.1. Penetration Test Borings

We drilled the penetration test borings with an ATV-mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollow-stem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking penetration test samples at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals in general accordance with ASTM D1586. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths.

D.2. Exploration Logs

D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and describe the penetrated geologic materials and present the results of penetration resistance tests performed. The logs also present the results of laboratory tests performed on penetration test samples, and groundwater measurements. The Appendix also includes a Fence Diagram intended to provide a summarized cross-sectional view of the soil profile across the site.

We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings.

Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions.

D.2.b. Geologic Origins We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface exploration, (3) penetration resistance testing performed for the project, (4) laboratory test results, and

(5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past.

D.3. Material Classification and Testing

D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we used.

D.3.b. Laboratory Testing The exploration logs in the Appendix note most of the results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples. The remaining laboratory test results follow the exploration logs. We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM procedures.

D.4. Groundwater Measurements

The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger withdrawal. We then filled the boreholes or allowed them to remain open for an extended period of observation, as noted on the boring logs.

E. Qualifications

E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions

E.1.a. Material Strata We developed our evaluation, analyses, and recommendations from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and thicknesses. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation, and thickness, away from the exploration locations.

Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until performing additional exploration work or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to accommodate them.

E.1.b. Groundwater Levels We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors.

E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility

E.2.a. Plan Review We based this report on a limited amount of information, and we made several assumptions to help us develop our recommendations. We should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. This review will allow us to evaluate whether we anticipated the design correctly, if any design changes affect the validity of our recommendations, and if the design and specifications correctly interpret and implement our recommendations.

E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing We recommend retaining us to perform the required observations and testing during construction as part of the ongoing geotechnical evaluation. This will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those encountered by the borings and provide professional continuity from the design phase to the construction phase. If we do not perform observations and testing during construction, it becomes the responsibility of others to validate the assumption made during the preparation of this report and to accept the construction-related geotechnical engineer-of-record responsibilities.

E.3. Use of Report

This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.

E.4. Standard of Care

In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality.

No warranty, express or implied, is made.

Appendix

1S T

S T

R E

E T

ST-1

ST-2

ST-3

ST-4

!( Soil Boring

F:\2023\B2307270\GIS\B2307270\B2307270.aprx

Drawing No:

Fig2_SoilBoringLocation

Drawn By:

Date Drawn:

Checked By:

Last Modified: 8/29/2023

2309 Palace Street La Crosse, WI 54603

608.781.7277 braunintertec.com

SCALE: 1" = 60'

0 6030 ' o

Project No:

B2307270

TDF

8/29/2023

MMH

Tomah, Wisconsin

500 East Veterans Street

Proposed VA Storage Building Soil Boring

Location Sketch

953 953

952 952

951 951

950 950

949 949

948 948

947 947

946 946

945 945

944 944

943 943

942 942

941 941

940 940

939 939

938 938

937 937

936 936

935 935

934 934

933 933

932 932

931 931

930 930

929 929

928 928

927 927

926 926

925 925

924 924

Legend Key Topsoil

SP

SP-SM

Project ID:

Vert. Scale:

Hor. Scale:

Date:

Fence Diagram B2307270 Geotechnical Evalua on 1"= 4' Proposed VA Storage Building - Tomah, WI NTS 500 East Veterans Street 09/14/2023 Tomah, Wisconsin

WL

1.2

9.0

18.0

23.0

26.0

ST

-1

N

WL

1.0

2.0

4.0

18.0

26.0

ST

-2

N

WL

0.8

16.0

ST

-4

N

WL

0.9

18.0

26.0

ST

-3

N

Elev./ Depth ft

950.5 1.2

942.7 9.0

933.7 18.0

928.7 23.0

925.7 26.0

W at er Le ve l Description of Materials

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908)

SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, light brown, moist (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, orangish tan, moist to wet, medium dense

(ALLUVIUM)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, orangish brown, wet, medium dense

(ALLUVIUM)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, trace Gravel, orangish brown, wet, medium dense (ALLUVIUM)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, orangish brown, wet, medium dense

(ALLUVIUM)

END OF BORING

Boring then grouted

Sa m pl e Blows

(N-Value) Recovery

7-8-10 (18) 16"

8-10-14 (24) 16"

7-10-12 (22) 18"

6-11-15 (26) 16"

6-10-16 (26) 16"

5-8-14 (22) 16"

7-9-12 (21) 16"

7-10-11 (21) 16" qₚ tsf

MC

Tests or Remarks

Cave-in depth of 8 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Water observed at 7.0 feet while drilling.

LOG OF BORING

See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations

Project Number B2307270 Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed VA Storage Building - Tomah, WI 500 East Veterans Street Tomah, Wisconsin

BORING: ST-1

LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.

DATUM: NAD 1983 HARN Wisconsin CRS Monroe (US Feet)

NORTHING: 731509.0 EASTING: 1837260.3

DRILLER: GDC LOGGED BY: T. Felker START DATE: 08/30/23 END DATE: 08/30/23

SURFACE

ELEVATION: 951.7 ft RIG: Subcontractor METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA SURFACING: Grass WEATHER: Sunny

B2307270 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:09/20/2023 ST-1 page 1 of 1 ft

950.8 1.0

949.8 2.0

947.8 4.0

933.8 18.0

925.8 26.0

W at er Le ve l Description of Materials

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908)

SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, dark brown, moist (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained, orangish brown, moist, medium dense (ALLUVIUM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, tannish white, moist, medium dense

(ALLUVIUM)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, orangish brown to tan, moist to wet, medium dense (ALLUVIUM)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, trace Gravel, tan, wet, medium dense

(ALLUVIUM)

END OF BORING

Boring then grouted

Sa m pl e Blows

(N-Value) Recovery

5-7-8 (15) 16"

6-8-10 (18) 18"

7-7-14 (21) 18"

7-8-10 (18) 18"

6-9-11 (20) 18"

7-9-12 (21) 18"

7-10-10 (20) 18"

7-10-16 (26) 18" qₚ tsf

MC

Tests or Remarks

P200=3%

Cave-in depth of 9 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Water observed at 6.0 feet while drilling.

LOG OF BORING

See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations

Project Number B2307270 Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed VA Storage Building - Tomah, WI 500 East Veterans Street Tomah, Wisconsin

BORING: ST-2

LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.

DATUM: NAD 1983 HARN Wisconsin CRS Monroe (US Feet)

NORTHING: 731490.1 EASTING: 1837300.1

DRILLER: GDC LOGGED BY: T. Felker START DATE: 08/30/23 END DATE: 08/30/23

SURFACE

ELEVATION: 951.8 ft RIG: Subcontractor METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA SURFACING: Topsoil WEATHER: Sunny

B2307270 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:09/20/2023 ST-2 page 1 of 1 ft

949.6 0.9

932.5 18.0

924.5 26.0

W at er Le ve l Description of Materials

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908)

SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace roots, light brown to brown, moist (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, orangish brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, tannish white, wet, medium dense (ALLUVIUM)

END OF BORING

Boring then grouted

Sa m pl e Blows

(N-Value) Recovery

3-5-7 (12) 7"

4-6-9 (15) 16"

2-4-4 (8) 16"

3-4-5 (9) 18"

4-4-7 (11) 18"

8-8-16 (24) 18"

8-11-16 (27) 18"

7-10-15 (25) 12" qₚ tsf

MC

Tests or Remarks

Cave-in depth of 8 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Water observed at 5.5 feet while drilling.

LOG OF BORING

See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations

Project Number B2307270 Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed VA Storage Building - Tomah, WI 500 East Veterans Street Tomah, Wisconsin

BORING: ST-3

LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.

DATUM: NAD 1983 HARN Wisconsin CRS Monroe (US Feet)

NORTHING: 731450.4 EASTING: 1837346.1

DRILLER: GDC LOGGED BY: T. Felker START DATE: 08/30/23 END DATE: 08/30/23

SURFACE

ELEVATION: 950.5 ft RIG: Subcontractor METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA SURFACING: Grass WEATHER: Sunny

B2307270 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:09/20/2023 ST-3 page 1 of 1 ft

951.7 0.8

936.4 16.0

W at er Le ve l Description of Materials

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908)

SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace roots, light brown to brown, moist (TOPSOIL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained, orangish brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense (ALLUVIUM)

END OF BORING

Boring then grouted

Sa m pl e Blows

(N-Value) Recovery

6-8-12 (20) 18"

7-12-14 (26) 18"

6-8-11 (19) 18"

4-5-6 (11) 18"

2-3-7 (10) 18"

3-5-6 (11) 18" qₚ tsf

MC

Tests or Remarks

P200=5%

Cave-in depth of 8 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Water observed at 6.5 feet while drilling.

LOG OF BORING

See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations

Project Number B2307270 Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed VA Storage Building - Tomah, WI 500 East Veterans Street Tomah, Wisconsin

BORING: ST-4

LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.

DATUM: NAD 1983 HARN Wisconsin CRS Monroe (US Feet)

NORTHING: 731437.5 EASTING: 1837217.7

DRILLER: GDC LOGGED BY: T. Felker START DATE: 08/30/23 END DATE: 08/30/23

SURFACE

ELEVATION: 952.4 ft RIG: Subcontractor METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA SURFACING: Grass WEATHER: Sunny

B2307270 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:09/20/2023 ST-4 page 1 of 1

Descriptive Terminology of Soil Based on Standards ASTM D2487/2488

(Unified Soil Classification System)

Group

Symbol Group NameB

Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 D GW Well‐graded gravelE

Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3) D GP Poorly graded gravelE

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE F G

Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelE F G

Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 D SW Well‐graded sandI

Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3) D SP Poorly graded sandI

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandF G I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandF G I

CL Lean clayK L M

PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ ML SiltK L M

Organic OL

CH Fat clayK L M

MH Elastic siltK L M

Organic OH

PT Peat Highly Organic Soils

Silts and Clays

(Liquid limit less than

50)

Silts and Clays

(Liquid limit 50 or more)

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

Inorganic

Inorganic

PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ

PI plots on or above "A" line

PI plots below "A" line

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and

Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA

Soil Classification

C o ar se ‐g ra in e d S o ils m o re t h an r et ai n ed o n

N

. 2 s ie ve

Fi n e ‐g ra in e d S o ils o r m o re p as se s th e

N

. 2 s ie ve

Sands

(50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve)

Clean Gravels

(Less than 5% finesC)

Gravels with Fines

(More than 12% finesC)

Clean Sands

(Less than 5% finesH)

Sands with Fines

(More than 12% finesH)

Gravels

(More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve)

Liquid Limit − oven dried

Liquid Limit − not dried <0.75

Organic clay K L M N

Organic silt K L M O

Liquid Limit − oven dried

Liquid Limit − not dried <0.75

Organic clay K L M P

Organic silt K L M Q

Particle Size Identification Boulders.............. over 12" Cobbles................ 3" to 12" Gravel

Coarse............. 3/4" to 3" (19.00 mm to 75.00 mm) Fine................. No. 4 to 3/4" (4.75 mm to 19.00 mm)

Sand Coarse.............. No. 10 to No. 4 (2.00 mm to 4.75 mm) Medium........... No. 40 to No. 10 (0.425 mm to 2.00 mm) Fine.................. No. 200 to No. 40 (0.075 mm to 0.425 mm)

Silt........................ No. 200 (0.075 mm) to .005 mm Clay...................... < .005 mm

Relative ProportionsL, M trace............................. 0 to 5% little.............................. 6 to 14% with.............................. ≥ 15%

Inclusion Thicknesses lens............................... 0 to 1/8" seam............................. 1/8" to 1" layer.............................. over 1"

Apparent Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils Very loose ..................... 0 to 4 BPF Loose ............................ 5 to 10 BPF Medium dense.............. 11 to 30 BPF Dense............................ 31 to 50 BPF Very dense.................... over 50 BPF

A. Based on the material passing the 3‐inch (75‐mm) sieve.

B. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, 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. Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = 𝐷30 2 / 𝐷10 𝑥 𝐷60)

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

F. If fines classify as CL‐ML, use dual symbol GC‐GM or SC‐SM.

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

H. 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

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

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

K. If soil contains 15 to < 30% 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. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P. PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q. PI plots below “A” line.

Laboratory Tests DD Dry density, pcf qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf WD Wet density, pcf qU Unconfined compression test, tsf P200 % Passing #200 sieve LL Liquid limit MC Moisture content, % PL Plastic limit OC Organic content, % PI Plasticity index

Consistency of Blows Approximate Unconfined Cohesive Soils Per Foot Compressive Strength Very soft................... 0 to 1 BPF................... < 0.25 tsf Soft........................... 2 to 4 BPF................... 0.25 to 0.5 tsf Medium.................... 5 to 8 BPF .................. 0.5 to 1 tsf Stiff........................... 9 to 15 BPF................. 1 to 2 tsf Very Stiff................... 16 to 30 BPF............... 2 to 4 tsf Hard.......................... over 30 BPF................ > 4 tsf

Drilling Notes:

Blows/N‐value: Blows indicate the driving resistance recorded for each 6‐inch interval. The reported N‐value is the blows per foot recorded by summing the second and third interval in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D1586.

Partial Penetration: If the sampler could not be driven through a full 6‐inch interval, the number of blows for that partial penetration is shown as #/x" (i.e. 50/2"). The N‐value is reported as "REF" indicating refusal.

Recovery: Indicates the inches of sample recovered from the sampled interval. For a standard penetration test, full recovery is 18", and is 24" for a thinwall/shelby tube sample.

WOH: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required.

WOR: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required.

Water Level: Indicates the water level measured by the drillers either while drilling ( ), at the end of drilling ( ), or at some time after drilling ( ).

Moisture Content:

Dry: Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.

Moist: Damp but no visible water.

Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table.

5/2021

Sample Information

Sample Number: 549854

Sampling Method: Penetration Boring ASTM D1586

Boring Number: ST01

Location: Inplace

Depth (ft): 7.5

Sampled By: Drill Crew

Location Details: Exploratory Boring: ST01 at 7.5 feet

Sample Date: 08/30/2023

Received Date: 08/31/2023 Lab: 2309 Palace Street, La Crosse, WI

Tested Date: 08/31/2023 Tested By: Xu, Shizhao

Laboratory Data

Sieve Size Passing

Specification

19 mm (3/4 inch) 100.0

4.75 mm (No. 4) 100.0

2 mm (No. 10) 100.0

850 µm (No. 20) 99.3

425 µm (No. 40) 83.1

250 µm (No. 60) 46.5

150 µm (No. 100) 12.0

75 µm (No. 200) 1.9

Sand (%) 98.1

Silt & Clay (%) 1.9

D10 0.100

D30 0.202

D60 0.315

C 3.15

C 1.30

Classification: SP Poorly graded sand, fine to medium grained, brown

Specimen Obtained: Moist Test Method: Method B (Single Sieve Set)

Dispersion Apparatus: Shaking

General

Results: The test is for informational purposes.

Remarks: ASTM D2216: MC = 17%

U C

Sieve Analysis Of Soil

ASTM D6913

09/20/2023

2309 Palace Street La Crosse, WI 54603 Phone: 6087817277

Client:

IMEG Consultants Corp.

12755 Highway 55 Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55441

Project:

B2307270 Proposed VA Storage Building Tomah WI 500 East Veterans Street Tomah, WI 54660

Uncertainty was not taken into account in determining whether the test results meet the requirements. The results included in this report relate only to the items inspected or tested. Sampled per project specifications or industry standards. Also, this report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. We assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The information indicated in this report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without prior written approval.

Page 1 of 2Page 1 of 1

Sample Information

Sample Number: 549853

Sampling Method: Penetration Boring ASTM D1586

Boring Number: ST03

Location: Inplace

Depth (ft): 12.5

Sampled By: Drill Crew

Location Details: Exploratory Boring: ST03 at 12.5 feet

Sample Date: 08/30/2023

Received Date: 08/31/2023 Lab: 2309 Palace Street, La Crosse, WI

Tested Date: 08/31/2023 Tested By: Xu, Shizhao

Laboratory Data

Sieve Size Passing

Specification

19 mm (3/4 inch) 100.0

4.75 mm (No. 4) 100.0

2 mm (No. 10) 100.0

850 µm (No. 20) 99.7

425 µm (No. 40) 90.8

250 µm (No. 60) 64.0

150 µm (No. 100) 23.3

75 µm (No. 200) 4.9

Sand (%) 95.1

Silt & Clay (%) 4.9

D10 0.084

D30 0.166