DOMOPS Bid SPEC 051023.pdf

MINNESOTA

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

DULUTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

DELIVERY ORDER NO. W912LM-17-D-0003-0004

PROJECT FMKM169006

CONSTRUCT DOMOPS STORAGE

SPECIFICATIONS

FOR BID

May 10, 2023

LHB Project No. 170859

MnANG CONSTRUCT DOMOPS STORAGE LHB Project No. 170859 FMKM169006

Issued for BID 05/10/2023

TOC - 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 0105 CERTIFICATIONS PAGE

00 3100 AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 1000 SUMMARY

01 1005 GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS

01 2200 UNIT PRICES

01 2300 BID OPTIONS

01 2500 SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

01 3000 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 3260 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

01 4000 QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

01 4533 CODE-REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

01 5000 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 5713 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

01 6000 PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS

01 6116 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTENT RESTRICTIONS

01 7000 EXECUTION AND CLOSEOUT REQUIREMENTS

01 7419 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 7800 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 0516 UNDERSLAB VAPOR BARRIER

03 1000 CONCRETE FORMING AND ACCESSORIES

03 2000 CONCRETE REINFORCING

03 3000 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 3511 CONCRETE FLOOR FINISHES

03 3900 CONCRETE CURING

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 2900 ENGINEERED UNIT MASONRY

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 1200 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING

05 3100 STEEL DECKING

05 4000 COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING

05 5000 METAL FABRICATIONS

05 5213 PIPE AND TUBE RAILINGS

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 1000 ROUGH CARPENTRY

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 2100 THERMAL INSULATION

07 2119 FOAMED-IN-PLACE INSULATION

07 4113 METAL ROOF PANELS

07 4213.19 INSULATED METAL WALL PANELS

07 6200 SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM

07 7200 ROOF ACCESSORIES

07 9200 JOINT SEALANTS

MnANG CONSTRUCT DOMOPS STORAGE LHB Project No. 17859 FMKM169006

Issued for BID 05/10/2023

TOC - 2

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 1113 HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 3613 SECTIONAL DOORS

08 4500 TRANSLUCENT WALL AND ROOF ASSEMBLIES

08 7100 DOOR HARDWARE

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 2116 GYPSUM BOARD ASSEMBLIES

09 6700 FLUID-APPLIED FLOORING

09 9000 PAINTING AND COATING

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 1400 SIGNAGE

10 2213 WIRE MESH PARTITIONS

10 2800 TOILET ACCESSORIES

DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

13 3419 METAL BUILDING SYSTEMS

DIVISION 21 - FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 0100 FIRE SUPPRESSION GENERAL PROVISIONS

21 0500 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 0523 GENERAL-DUTY VALVES FOR WATER-BASED FIRE-SUPPRESSION PIPING

21 0553 IDENTIFICATION FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

21 1300 FIRE-SUPPRESSION SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 0501 PLUMBING GENERAL PROVISIONS

22 0519 METERS AND GAUGES FOR PLUMBING PIPING

22 0553 IDENTIFICATION FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

22 0719 PLUMBING PIPING INSULATION

22 1005 PLUMBING PIPING

22 1006 PLUMBING PIPING SPECIALTIES

22 3000 PLUMBING EQUIPMENT

22 4000 PLUMBING FIXTURES

DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 0501 HVAC GENERAL PROVISIONS

23 0529 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 0553 IDENTIFICATION FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 0593 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 0713 DUCT INSULATION

23 0923 DIRECT-DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM FOR HVAC

23 0993 HVAC SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS

23 3100 HVAC DUCTS AND CASINGS

23 3423 HVAC POWER VENTILATORS

23 3700 AIR OUTLETS AND INLETS

23 5533 FUEL-FIRED UNIT HEATERS

23 7200 ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS

23 8126 SMALL-CAPACITY SPLIT-SYSTEM AIR CONDITIONERS

23 8200 CONVECTION HEATING AND COOLING UNITS

LHB Project No. 170859 FMKM169006

Issued for BID 05/10/2023

TOC - 3

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 0500 BASIC ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS

26 0519 LOW VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES

26 0520 PATHWAYS FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

26 0526 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 0529 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 0533.13 CONDUIT

26 0533.16 BOXES

26 0553 IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 0573 POWER SYSTEM STUDIES

26 0583 EQUIPMENT WIRING

26 0916 ELECTRIC CONTROLS AND RELAYS

26 0923 LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES

26 2100 LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE

26 2200 LOW-VOLTAGE TRANSFORMERS

26 2416 PANELBOARDS

26 2716 ELECTRICAL CABINETS AND ENCLOSURES

26 2726 WIRING DEVICES

26 2813 FUSES

26 2816.16 ENCLOSED SWITCHES

26 4300 SURGE PROTECTIVE DEVICES

26 5100 INTERIOR LIGHTING

26 5200 EMERGENCY LIGHTING

26 5600 EXTERIOR LIGHTING

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

27 0500 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR COMMUNICATIONS

27 1100 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ROOM FITTINGS

27 1300 COMMUNICATIONS BACKBONE CABLING

27 1500 COMMUNICATIONS HORIZONTAL CABLING

27 5116 PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS

DIVISION 28 - ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 1800 ACCESS CONTROL

28 3139 FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION

SITE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBGROUP - DIVISIONS 31 THROUGH 35

30 1000 BASIC CIVIL REQUIREMENTS

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 1000 SITE CLEARING

31 2200 GRADING

31 2316 EXCAVATION

31 2316.13 TRENCHING

31 2323 FILL

31 3219 GEOTEXTILE SOIL STABILIZATION AND LAYER SEPARATION

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 1123 AGGREGATE BASE COURSES

32 1216 ASPHALT PAVING

32 1313 CONCRETE PAVING

32 3313 SITE BICYCLE RACKS

32 9219 SEEDING

32 9223 SODDING

Issued for BID 05/10/2023

TOC - 4

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 0513 MANHOLES AND STRUCTURES

33 1416 SITE WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING

33 3113 SITE SANITARY SEWERAGE GRAVITY PIPING

33 4100 SUBDRAINAGE

33 4211 STORMWATER GRAVITY PIPING

MnANG Construct DOMOPS Storage

Issued for BID 05/10/2023

CERTIFICATIONS PAGE

00 0105 - 1

SECTION 00 0105

CERTIFICATIONS PAGE

CIVIL ENGINEER

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR

UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY LICENSED ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS

OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

DAN G. SHAW

REG #41423 DATE: 05/10/2023

ARCHITECT

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR

UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS

OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

CYNTHIA I. POIRIER

REG #22021 DATE: 05/10/2023

STRUCTURAL

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR

UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY LICENSED ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS

OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

JENNIFER M. ALLEN

REG #40768 DATE: 05/10/2023

MECHANICAL ENGINEER, FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR

UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY LICENSED ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS

OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

STEWART D. CRAN

REG #21202 DATE: 05/10/2023

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR

UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

MARK J. VINCENT

REG #52349 DATE: 05/10/2023

END OF SECTION

Issued for BID 05/10/2023

CERTIFICATIONS PAGE

00 0105 - 2

Issued for BID 05/10/2023

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

00 3100 - 1

SECTION 00 3100

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS

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

B. Geotechnical Report: Entitled Minnesota National Guard Domestic Operations, dated Jan. 14, 2019.

1. A copy of the report is attached to this sectionl

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

3. The recommendations described shall not be construed as a requirement of this Contract, unless specifically referenced in Contract Documents.

4. This report, by its nature, cannot reveal all conditions that exist on the site. Should subsurface conditions be found to vary substantially from this report, changes in the design and construction of foundations will be made, with resulting credits or expenditures to the Contract Price accruing to Government.

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

Issued for BID 05/10/2023

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

00 3100 - 2

Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Minnesota Air National Guard Domestic Operations Minnesota Air National Guard 148th Fighter Wing Duluth, Minnesota

Prepared for

LHB, Inc.

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 Minnesota.

Joseph C. Butler, PE Principal / Senior Engineer License Number: 47600 January 14, 2019

Project B1803803

Braun Intertec Corporation

AA/EOE

Braun Intertec Corporation 3404 15th Avenue East, Suite 9 Hibbing, MN 55746

Phone: 218.263.8869 Fax: 218.263.6700 Web: braunintertec.com

January 14, 2019 Project B1803803

Mr. Daniel Shaw

21 West Superior St., Suite 500 Duluth, MN 55802

Re: Geotechnical Evaluation Minnesota Air National Guard Domestic Operations Minnesota Air National Guard 148th Fighter Wing Duluth, Minnesota

Dear Mr. Shaw:

We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the Minnesota Air National Guard Domestic Operations (MNANG DOMOPS) Project.

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 Molly Johnson at 218.263.8869 (mjohnson@braunintertec.com).

Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION

Molly A. Johnson, EIT Staff Engineer

Joseph C. Butler, PE Principal / Senior Engineer

Table of Contents

Description Page

A. Introduction

A.1. Project Description A.2. Site Conditions and History A.3. Purpose A.4. Seismic A.5. Background Information and Reference Documents A.6. Scope of Services

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

C. Recommendations C.1. Design and Construction Discussion

C.1.a. Building Subgrade Preparation C.1.b. Existing Fill C.1.c. Reuse of On-Site Soils

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

C.3. Spread Footings C.4. Interior Slabs

C.4.a. Subgrade Modulus C.4.b. Moisture Vapor Protection

C.5. Frost Protection C.5.a. General C.5.b. Frost Heave Mitigation

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

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

Table of Contents (continued)

C.8. Equipment Support D. Procedures

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 Log of Boring Sheets B-1 to B-9 and B-12 Descriptive Terminology of Soil

A. Introduction

A.1. Project Description

This Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the proposed design and construction of the Domestic

Operations (DOMOPS) general purpose storage facility, located at the Minnesota Air National Guard

148th Fighter Wing, in Duluth, Minnesota. The project will include the construction of an approximately

11,265 square foot, heated building. The building will be steel framed, supporting a steel deck roof system. The desired foundation system is conventional frost depth concrete footings. Exterior walls will consist of insulated metal panels and girts. Tables 1 and 2 provide project details.

Table 1. Building Description

Aspect Description

Below grade levels None (Assumed)

Above grade levels Single (Assumed)

Finished floor elevation 1399.5 (Provided)

Column loads (kips) Less than 200 (Assumed)

Wall loads (kips) Less than 15 (Assumed)

Nature of construction Concrete foundations, Steel framing, Insulated metal panel and girt exterior walls (Provided)

Cuts or fills for buildings Less than 2 feet (Provided)

Tolerable building settlement Less than 1 inch (Assumed)

Table 2. Site Aspects and Grading Description

Aspect Description

Pavement type Bituminous

Assumed Pavement loads

Light-duty: 75,000 ESALs*

Medium-duty: 100,000 ESALs*

Heavy-duty: 150,000 ESALs*

Grade changes Less than 2 feet (Assumed)

*Equivalent 18,000-lb single axle loads based on 20-year design.

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

Figure 1. Site Layout

Figure provided by LHB, Inc. dated November 19, 2018.

A.2. Site Conditions and History

Currently, the site exists as an undeveloped parcel with storage containers, an aggregate surfaced road and laydown yard area. Current grades range from 1397 to 1401. Generally, the site is sloping downward, from northwest to southeast.

A.3. Purpose

The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation is to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected exploration locations and evaluate their impact on the design and construction of the foundations and pavements.

A.4. Seismic

While national building codes indicate that the project site is in an area of potential seismic activity, the local building codes have deemed the risk as low enough that they do not require seismic evaluation as part of the building design.

A.5. Background Information and Reference Documents

We reviewed the following information:

Site layout, provided by LHB, Inc.

Aerial photographs of the project area using Google Earth©

A geologic Map of Minnesota, prepared by Howard C. Hobbs and Joseph E. Goebel, dated

1982.

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.6. Scope of Services

We performed our scope of services for the project in accordance with our Proposal QTB071299 to LHB, Inc., dated January 8, 2018, and authorized on April 23, 2018. 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.

Clearing the exploration location of underground utilities. LHB, Inc. selected and staked the new exploration locations.

Performing 10 standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as B-1 to B-9, and B-12, to nominal depths of 11 to 51 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, and pavements.

Our scope of services did not include environmental services or testing, and we did not train the personnel performing this evaluation to provide environmental services or testing. We can provide these services or testing at your request.

B. Results

B.1. Geologic Overview

The soils on the site generally consisted of a silty sand fill underlain by buried topsoil and glacially deposited silty sand or silt.

We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, in-situ and 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 3 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. The Descriptive

Terminology sheets in the Appendix include definitions of abbreviations used in Table 3.

Table 3. Subsurface Profile Summary*

Strata Soil Type -

ASTM

Classification

Range of Penetration Resistances

Commentary and Details

Fill SM, GP NA

Thicknesses at boring locations varied from 7 to 13 feet.

Existing fill contained variable amounts of debris, including concrete and bituminous in borings B-1, B-4, B- 5, B-7, B-8, and B-12.

Moisture condition generally moist.

Buried Topsoil

SM NA

Present in Borings B-2 and B-3.

Thicknesses at boring locations varied from 2 to 3 feet.

Moisture condition generally moist.

Glacial deposits

SM 5 to 50+ BPF Glacial till.

Variable amounts of gravel.

Moisture condition generally moist to wet. ML 12 to 22 BPF

*Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheets. NA=Not Applicable.

For simplicity in this report, we define existing fill to mean existing, uncontrolled or undocumented fill.

B.3. Groundwater

Table 4 summarizes the depths where we observed groundwater; the attached Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix also include this information and additional details.

Table 4. Groundwater Summary

Location Surface

Elevation

Measured or Estimated Depth to Groundwater

(ft)

Corresponding Groundwater Elevation

(ft)

B-1 1399.03 N/A N/A

B-2 1399.65 N/A N/A

B-3 1399.37 13 1386

B-4 1397.29 10 1387

B-5 1397.56 34 ½ 1363

B-6 1400.07 24 ½ 1375 ½

B-7 1400.07 13 1387

B-8 1399.35 N/A N/A

B-9 1397.56 13 1384 ½

B-12 1401.35 N/A N/A

Project planning should expect groundwater will fluctuate in relation to seasonal changes.

B.4. Laboratory Test Results

The boring logs show the results of laboratory testing we performed, next to the tested sample depth.

The moisture content of the silty sand fill varied from approximately 6 to 8 percent, indicating that the material was likely below its probable optimum moisture content.

Our mechanical analyses indicated that the silty sand fill contained 20.5 to 35.5 percent silt and clay by weight.

The moisture content of the buried topsoil silty sand was found to be 11 percent and the moisture content of the glacial till silt was found to be 15 percent.

C. Recommendations

C.1. Design and Construction Discussion

C.1.a. Building Subgrade Preparation

Based on the encountered soil profile across the proposed building area, it is our opinion the building can be supported on conventional spread footings. The soils present in the proposed building area include existing silty sand fill overlying buried topsoil and glacially deposited silty sand. The overlying fill soils may be variably compacted and contain traces of organics, and concrete and bituminous debris, these pose a risk for detrimental settlement under building loads. To reduce the risk we recommend the fill soils and buried topsoil be removed and replaced with engineered, compacted fill.

C.1.b. Existing Fill

Fill materials (materials placed by man rather than nature) were encountered in all of the borings. The existing fill was variable and does not appear to have been placed in a controlled manner. Unless documentation of its placement and compaction is available, we recommend the existing fill not be relied upon for the structural support of the foundations and floor slabs.

Existing fill soils should be removed within the building and oversize area. Once the existing fill has been removed, compacted structural fill can be placed to reach desired grades.

Beneath driveways and parking area, we recommend removing any organics, debris or other unsuitable materials from within 3 feet of finished grades. Compacted fill can then be placed to reach desired grades.

C.1.c. Reuse of On-Site Soils

The existing, non-organic, debris-free, soil is suitable for reuse as engineered fill below the proposed building and pavement areas.

C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation

C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations

We recommend removing unsuitable materials from below the building and its oversized areas. We define unsuitable materials as existing fill, frozen materials, organic soils, existing debris, soft/loose soils and buried topsoil. Table 5 shows the anticipated excavation depths and bottom elevations for each of the borings.

Table 5. Building Excavation Depths

Location Approximate Surface

Elevation (ft) Anticipated Excavation

Depth (ft) Anticipated Excavation Bottom Elevation (ft)

B-3 1399.37 12 1387

B-4 1397.29 11 1386

B-5 1397.56 12 1385 ½

B-6 1400.07 9 1391

B-7 1400.07 9 1391

Excavation depths will vary between the borings. Portions of the excavations may also extend deeper than indicated by the borings. A geotechnical representative should observe the excavations to make the necessary field judgments regarding the suitability of the exposed soils.

The contractor should use equipment and techniques to minimize soil disturbance. If soils become disturbed or are wet, we recommend excavation and replacement/mud slab/surface compaction/etc.

C.2.b. 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.c. Excavated Slopes

Based on the borings, we anticipate on-site soils in excavations will consist of fill and silty sand. 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 ½ H: 1 V. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. OSHA requires an engineer to evaluate slopes or excavations over 20 feet in depth.

1. Engineered fill as defined in C.3

2. Excavation oversizing minimum of 1 to 1

(horizontal to vertical) slope or flatter

3. Engineered fill as required to meet pavement support or landscaping requirements as defined in C.3

4. Backslope to OSHA requirements

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.d. Excavation Dewatering

We recommend removing groundwater from the excavations. Project planning should include temporary sumps and pumps for dewatering excavations.

C.2.e. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation

We recommend the following steps for pavement and exterior slab subgrade preparation. Note that project planning may need to require additional subcuts to limit frost heave.

1. Strip unsuitable soils consisting of topsoil, organic soils, debris and vegetation from the area, within 3 feet of the surface of the proposed pavement grade.

2. Have a geotechnical representative observe the excavated subgrade to evaluate if additional subgrade improvements are necessary.

3. Slope subgrade soils to areas of sand or drain tile to allow the removal of accumulating water.

4. Scarify, moisture condition and surface compact the subgrade with at least 3 passes of a large roller with a minimum drum diameter of 3 ½ feet.

5. Place pavement engineered fill to grade and compact in accordance with Section C.2.g to bottom of pavement and exterior slab section. See Section C.5 for additional considerations related to frost heave.

6. Proofroll the pavement or exterior slab subgrade as described in Section C.2.f.

To improve long-term pavement performance, we recommend incorporating 18 inches of engineered fill in paved areas, in addition to the recommendations above, as a sand subbase. Note we recommend sloping subgrade soils to promote drainage and removal of accumulated water.

C.2.f. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll

After preparing the subgrade as described above and prior to the placement of the aggregate base, we recommend proofrolling the subgrade soils with a fully loaded tandem-axle truck. We also recommend having a geotechnical representative observe the proofroll. Areas that fail the proofroll likely 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 or crushed aggregate, chemical stabilization and/or geotextiles. We recommend performing a second proofroll after the aggregate base material is in place, and prior to placing bituminous or concrete pavement.

C.2.g. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction

Table 6 below contains our recommendations for engineered fill materials.

Table 6. Engineered Fill Materials*

Locations To Be Used Engineered Fill Classification

Possible Soil Type Descriptions

Gradation Additional

Requirements

Below foundations Below interior slabs

Structural fill SP, SP-SM, SM 100% passing 2-inch sieve < 2% Organic Content (OC)

Drainage layer Non-frost-susceptible

Free-draining Non-frost-susceptible fill

GP, GW, SP, SW

100% passing 1-inch sieve < 50% passing #40 sieve < 5% passing #200 sieve

< 2% OC

Pavements Pavement fill SP, SP-SM 100% passing 3-inch sieve < 7% passing #200 sieve

< 2% OC

PI < 15%

Below landscaped surfaces, where subsidence is not a concern

Non-structural fill - 100% passing 6-inch sieve < 10% OC

* Engineered fill materials should satisfy the approved Response Action Plan (RAP), or applicable environmental requirements.

* 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 7. 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 7. Compaction Recommendations Summary

Reference

Relative Compaction, percent

(ASTM D698 –

Standard Proctor)

Moisture Content Variance from Optimum, percentage points

< 12% Passing #200 Sieve (typically SP, SP-SM)

> 12% Passing #200 Sieve (typically CL, SC, ML, SM)

Below foundations and oversizing zones

95 ±3 -1 to +3

Below interior slabs 95 ±3 -1 to +3

Within 3 feet of pavement subgrade

100 ±3 -1 to +3

More than 3 feet below pavement subgrade

95 ±3 ±3

Below landscaped surfaces

90 ±5 ±4

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.2.h. Special Inspections of Soils

We recommend including the site grading and placement of engineered fill within the building pad under the requirements of Special Inspections, as provided in Chapter 17 of the International Building Code, which is part of the Minnesota State Building Code. Special Inspection requires observation of soil conditions below engineered fill or footings, evaluations to determine if excavations extend to the anticipated soils, and if engineered fill materials meet requirements for type of engineered fill and compaction condition of engineered fill. A licensed geotechnical engineer should direct the Special

Inspections of site grading and engineered fill placement. The purpose of these Special Inspections is to evaluate whether the work is in accordance with the approved Geotechnical Report for the project.

Special Inspections should include evaluation of the subgrade, observing preparation of the subgrade

(surface compaction or dewatering, excavation oversizing, placement procedures and materials used for engineered fill, etc.) and compaction testing of the engineered fill.

C.3. Spread Footings

Table 8 below contains our recommended parameters for foundation design.

Table 8. Recommended Spread Footing Design Parameters

Item Description

Maximum net allowable bearing pressure (psf) 3,000

Minimum factor of safety for bearing capacity failure 3.0

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

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

Total estimated settlement (inches) Less than 1

Differential settlement Typically about 2/3 of total settlement*

* 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. Interior Slabs

C.4.a. Subgrade Modulus

The anticipated floor subgrade is structural fill. 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.4.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.5. Frost Protection

C.5.a. General

Silty sand will underlie all or some of the exterior slabs, as well as pavements. We consider silty sands moderately to highly frost susceptible. Soils of this type can retain moisture and heave upon freezing. In general, this characteristic is not an issue unless these soils become saturated, due to surface runoff or infiltration, or are excessively wet in situ. Once frozen, unfavorable amounts of general and isolated heaving of the soils and the surface structures supported on them could develop. This type of heaving could affect design drainage patterns and the performance of exterior slabs and pavements, as well as any isolated exterior footings and piers.

Note that general runoff and infiltration from precipitation are not the only sources of water that can saturate subgrade soils and contribute to frost heave. Roof drainage and irrigation of landscaped areas in close proximity to exterior slabs, pavements, and isolated footings and piers, contribute as well.

C.5.b. Frost Heave Mitigation

To address most of the heave related issues, we recommend setting general site grades and grades for exterior surface features to direct surface drainage away from buildings, across large paved areas and away from walkways. Such grading will limit the potential for saturation of the subgrade and subsequent heaving. General grades should also have enough “slope” to tolerate potential larger areas of heave, which may not fully settle after thawing.

Even small amounts of frost-related differential movement at walkway joints or cracks can create tripping hazards. Project planning can explore several subgrade improvement options to address this condition.

One of the more conservative subgrade improvement options to mitigate potential heave is removing any frost-susceptible soils present below the exterior slab areas down to a minimum depth of 3 feet below subgrade elevations. We recommend filling the resulting excavation with non-frost-susceptible fill.

We also recommend sloping the bottom of the excavation toward one or more collection points to remove any water entering the engineered fill. This approach will not be effective in controlling frost heave without removing the water.

An important geometric aspect of the excavation and replacement approach described above is sloping the banks of the excavations to create a more gradual transition between the unexcavated soils considered frost susceptible and the engineered fill in the excavated area, which is not frost susceptible.

The slope allows attenuation of differential movement that may occur along the excavation boundary.

We recommend slopes that are 3H:1V, or flatter, along transitions between frost-susceptible and non-frost-susceptible soils.

Figure 3 shows an illustration summarizing some of the recommendations.

Figure 3. Frost Protection Geometry Illustration

Another option is to limit frost heave in critical areas, such as doorways and entrances, via frost-depth footings or localized excavations with sloped transitions between frost-susceptible and non-frost-susceptible soils, as described above.

Over the life of slabs and pavements, cracks will develop and joints will open up, which will expose the subgrade and allow water to enter from the surface and either saturate or perch atop the subgrade soils.

This water intrusion increases the potential for frost heave or moisture-related distress near the crack or joint. Therefore, we recommend implementing a detailed maintenance program to seal and/or fill any cracks and joints. The maintenance program should give special attention to areas where dissimilar materials abut one another, where construction joints occur and where shrinkage cracks develop.

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 an

R-value for pavement design. Based on our experience with similar silty sand soils anticipated at the pavement subgrade elevation, we recommend pavement design assume an R-value of 20. Note the contractor may need to perform limited removal of unsuitable or less suitable soils to achieve this value.

Table 9 provides recommended pavement sections, based on the soils support and traffic loads.

Table 9. Recommended Bituminous Pavement Sections

Use Light Duty Medium Duty Heavy Duty

Minimum asphalt thickness (inches) 3 4 5

Minimum aggregate base thickness (inches) 6 8 10

Minimum granular subbase (inches) 18 18 18

C.6.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials

Appropriate mix designs are critical to the performance of flexible pavements. We can provide recommendations for pavement material selection during final pavement design.

C.6.c. Subgrade Drainage

We recommend installing perforated drainpipes throughout pavement areas at low points, around catch basins, and behind curb in landscaped areas. We also recommend installing drainpipes along pavement and exterior slab edges where exterior grades promote drainage toward those edge areas. The contractor should place drainpipes in small trenches, extended at least 8 inches below the granular subbase layer, or below the aggregate base material where no subbase is present.

C.6.d. Performance and Maintenance

We based the above pavement designs on a 20-year performance life for bituminous. 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 non-wear 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. With regard to bituminous pavements in particular, 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 engineered fill.

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

A majority of the soil borings indicated the site predominantly 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, below-grade walls, etc. We can assist you in this evaluation.

D. Procedures

D.1. Penetration Test Borings

We drilled the penetration test borings with a floatation tire-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 to ASTM D1586. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths.

We sealed penetration test boreholes meeting the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)

Environmental Borehole criteria with an MDH-approved grout. We will forward a sealing record for those boreholes to the Minnesota Department of Health Well Management Section.

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 and other in-situ tests performed. The logs also present the results of laboratory tests performed on penetration test samples, and groundwater measurements.

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 likely 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 and other in-situ 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 or AASHTO 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 to some extent. 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 relatively 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 a number of 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

1425.28

CP 02

M W

M W

M W

S

M W

M W

T P

M W

V E

N T

S

S

T P

S

S

M W

6"

8"

J B

12"

12" 10"

12"

10"

12"

12"

12" DEAD

10"

12"

10"

10"

10"

3"

12"

8"

12"

12"

12"

8"

10"

10"

10"

2"

W V

X X X

X X

X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

G A

S

G A

S

G A

S

G A

S

G A

S

G A

S

G A

S

G

A

S

G

A S

G

A S

G

A S

G

A S

G

A S

G

A S

GAS

G

A

S

G

A

S

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

The ground surface elevations at the boring locations were surveyed by LHB personnel using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology.

FILL

FILL

FILL

SM

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel and roots, brown, moist.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel and crushed bituminous, black, moist.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist.

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense.

(Glacial Till)

END OF BORING.

Water not observed while drilling.

Boring immediately backfilled with auger cuttings.

1395.0

1394.0

1392.0

1388.0

4.0

5.0

7.0

11.0

12/5/18 1" = 4'DATE: SCALE:DRILLER:

Tests or NotesWL

B-1 page 1 of 1

3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Heinzen

L O G O F B O R I N G (S ee D es cr ip tiv e T er m in ol og y sh ee t f or e xp la na tio n of a bb re vi at io ns

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

Description of Materials

B-1

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

Braun Intertec CorporationB1803803

LO

G

O F

BO

RI

N G

N

G

IN

T\

PR

O

JE

CT

S\

AX

P

RO

JE

CT

S\

\0

.G

PJ

B

RA

U

N _V

8_

CU

RR

EN

T.

G

D T

/1

4/

8:

Braun Project B1803803 Geotechnical Evaluation

MNANG DOMOPS

Minnesota Air National Guard 148th Fighter Wing Duluth, Minnesota

Symbol

Elev.

feet

1399.0

Depth feet

0.0

17*

*No recovery.

FILL

FILL

SM

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, dark brown, moist.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist.

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, organics and roots, black, moist, loose.

(Buried Topsoil)

END OF BORING.

Water not observed while drilling.

Boring immediately backfilled with auger cuttings.

1397.7

1390.7

1388.7

2.0

9.0

11.0

12/5/18 1" = 4'DATE: SCALE:DRILLER:

Tests or NotesWL

B-2 page 1 of 1

3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Heinzen

L O G O F B O R I N G (S ee D es cr ip tiv e T er m in ol og y sh ee t f or e xp la na tio n of a bb re vi at io ns

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

Description of Materials

B-2

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

Braun Intertec CorporationB1803803

LO

G

O F

BO

RI

N G

N

G

IN

T\

PR

O

JE

CT

S\

AX

P

RO

JE

CT

S\

\0

.G

PJ

B

RA

U

N _V

8_

CU

RR

EN

T.

G

D T

/1

4/

8:

Braun Project B1803803 Geotechnical Evaluation

MNANG DOMOPS

Minnesota Air National Guard 148th Fighter Wing Duluth, Minnesota

Symbol

Elev.

feet

1399.7

Depth

WH

20.5

An open triangle in the water level (WL) column indicates the depth at which groundwater was observed while drilling. A solid triangle indicates the groundwater level in the boring on the date indicated.

Groundwater levels fluctuate.

6.0

FILL

FILL

SM

SM

SM

SM

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, dark brown, moist.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist.

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, organics and wood, black, moist, very loose.

(Buried Topsoil)

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, organics, brown, wet, loose.

(Glacial Till)

SILTY SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, dense.

(Glacial Till)

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist to very moist, medium dense.

(Glacial Till)

END OF BORING.

Water observed at 13.2 feet while drilling.

Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout.

1397.4

1390.4

1387.4

1385.4

1381.4

1373.4

2.0

9.0

12.0

14.0

18.0

26.0

12/5/18 1" = 4'DATE: SCALE:DRILLER:

Tests or NotesWL

B-3 page 1 of 1

3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Heinzen

L O G O F B O R I N G (S ee D es cr ip tiv e T er m in ol og y sh ee t f or e xp la na tio n of a bb re vi at io ns

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

Description of Materials

B-3

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

Braun Intertec CorporationB1803803

LO

G

O F

BO

RI

N G

N

G

IN

T\

PR

O

JE

CT

S\

AX

P

RO

JE

CT

S\

\0

.G

PJ

B

RA

U

N _V

8_

CU

RR

EN

T.

G

D T

/1

4/

8:

Braun Project B1803803 Geotechnical Evaluation

MNANG DOMOPS

Minnesota Air National Guard 148th Fighter Wing Duluth, Minnesota

P200

MC

%Symbol

Elev.

feet

1399.4

Depth

9*

*No recovery.

FILL

FILL

FILL

SM

SM

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel and organics, dark brown, moist.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel and concrete debris, brown, moist.

FILL: Poorly Graded Gravel, course grained, with concrete debris, brown, wet.

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with a trace of Gravel and organics, brown, very moist, loose.

(Glacial Till)

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with a trace of Gravel, brown, very moist, medium dense to loose.

(Glacial Till)

END OF BORING.

Water observed at 10 feet while drilling.

Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout.

1395.3

1388.3

1386.3

1383.3

1371.3

2.0

9.0

11.0

14.0

26.0

12/5/18 1" = 4'DATE: SCALE:DRILLER:

Tests or NotesWL

B-4 page 1 of 1

3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Heinzen

L O G O F B O R I N G (S ee D es cr ip tiv e T er m in ol og y sh ee t f or e xp la na tio n of a bb re vi at io ns

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

Description of Materials

B-4

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

Braun Intertec CorporationB1803803

LO

G

O F

BO

RI

N G

N

G

IN

T\

PR

O

JE

CT

S\

AX

P

RO

JE

CT

S\

\0

.G

PJ

B

RA

U

N _V

8_

CU

RR

EN

T.

G

D T

/1

4/

8:

Braun Project B1803803 Geotechnical Evaluation

MNANG DOMOPS

Minnesota Air National Guard 148th Fighter Wing Duluth, Minnesota

Symbol

Elev.

feet

1397…