HS Parking Lot.pdf

pzawacki Polygon

3301 Tech Circle Drive Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5611

T (269) 323-3555 www.sme-usa.com

© 2018 SME 079266.00+070218+PEL 1

July 2, 2018

Dr. Peggy Mathis Superintendent Newaygo Public Schools 360 S. Mill Street, P.O. Box 820 Newaygo, Michigan 49337

Via E-mail: pmathis@newaygo.net (PDF file)

RE: Pavement Evaluation Report Newaygo High School Parking Lot Newaygo Public Schools Newaygo, Michigan SME Project No. 079266.00

Dear Dr. Mathis:

This report presents the results of the pavement evaluation completed by SME for the parking lot rehabilitation project at Newaygo High School in Newaygo, Michigan. This report presents a summary of our field evaluation procedures, our findings, and recommendations related to pavement rehabilitation and construction for the project. Our services were conducted in general accordance with the scope outlined in SME Proposal No. P01906.18, dated June 12, 2018.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is located at Newaygo High School at 200 East Street, in Newaygo, Michigan. The high school campus is located on the south side of the street. We understand the project will consist of rehabilitating the existing asphalt parking lot and drives located on the east side of the school building.

The lot is accessible by a single entry/exit drive off East Street at the intersection of Stake Street. Since these pavements are existing, and because grading plans were not provided to us for our use in developing these recommendations, we assumed the existing pavement footprints and grades will remain the same. If our assumption is incorrect, please contact us so we can review the proposed changes and revise our recommendations, as needed.

We understand school buses, automobiles, light duty passenger trucks, and occasional delivery trucks and garbage/recycling haulers will traffic the site.

Based on the information provided to SME by The Christman Company in an e-mail dated June 26, 2018, we have assumed the main drives will be trafficked by about 5 to 10 buses per school week to drop off students for athletic events. In addition, we have assumed about two garbage/recycling trucks and two medium-duty delivery (postal) trucks will traffic the main drives per week. We assumed a 200-day (40-week) school year in our design calculations. We recommend a heavy-duty section be used for pavement that will experience bus and delivery truck traffic. Based on this traffic data, the number of parking spaces in the lot, and typical environmental factors, we estimate up to 75,000 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) over a 15 to 20 year period for the heavy-duty pavement areas (drives) and up to 50,000 ESALs over a 15 to 20 year pavement life in light-duty (parking) areas of the site.

© 2018 SME 079266.00+070218+PEL 2

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

FIELD EXPLORATION

On June 18, 2018, SME performed eight pavement cores and borings (B1 through B8) within the existing asphalt pavement areas. The number, locations, and depths of the cores and borings were determined by SME. The approximate locations of the cores and borings are shown on the Boring Location Diagram (Figure No. 1) attached to this report.

The pavement at each boring location was cored using a 4-inch diameter core barrel. The core thickness was measured in the field and returned to our laboratory for further visual examination. After coring, a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test was conducted at each boring location to evaluate the existing aggregate base and the subgrade support characteristics. USACE DCP testing is conducted to estimate the in-situ California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the subgrade materials and aggregate base. CBR is an index commonly used in pavement design that gives an indication of subgrade support characteristics. The USACE have developed relationships to estimate the CBR value from the results of the DCP test. The results of the DCP testing are included on the attached Boring Data Sheets. Table 1, shown below, summarizes our opinion of the typical support conditions of aggregate base and subgrade based on ranges of estimated in-situ CBR values.

TABLE 1: AGGREGATE BASE AND SUBGRADE SUPPORT CONDITIONS

SUPPORT CONDITIONS

CBR RANGE FOR AGGREGATE BASE

MATERIAL (%)

CBR RANGE FOR

SUBGRADE SOILS (%)

Good >80 >10

Marginal 60 to 80 5 to 10

Poor 30 to 60 3 to 5

Very Poor <30 <3

After completion of the DCP test, we collected samples of the aggregate base and subgrade to depths of about 4 feet below the pavement surface using a hand auger. Groundwater measurements were recorded during and immediately after completion of the borings at each location. The soil samples were sealed in the field and returned to SME’s laboratory for further examination and testing. After completion of sampling, the borings were backfilled with sand and gravel and asphalt cold patch was placed at the surface. Therefore, long-term groundwater level information is not available for the boring locations.

LABORATORY PROCEDURES

The pavement cores, aggregate base, and subgrade samples were transported to our laboratory for further evaluation by SME. The general laboratory testing program consisted of performing visual soil classification on the recovered samples. The soil samples were visually classified in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D2488. The pavement cores were measured to the nearest ¼ inch and photographs of the cores were taken. The attached Laboratory Testing Procedures provides descriptions of the laboratory tests. Based on the laboratory testing, we assigned a group symbol to the various soil strata encountered based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Upon completion of the laboratory testing, Boring Data Sheets were prepared and include information on materials encountered, DCP test results, photographs of the cores, pertinent field observations, and the results of the laboratory testing. The Boring Data Sheets are attached to this report.

Soil samples retained over a long time, even sealed in jars, are subject to moisture loss and are no longer representative of the conditions initially encountered in the field. Therefore, soil samples are normally retained in our laboratory for 60 days and are then disposed of, unless instructed otherwise.

© 2018 SME 079266.00+070218+PEL 3

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Refer to the attached Boring Data Sheets for the specific data at each boring location. The following discussion provides a general description of the pavement and soil conditions encountered.

PAVEMENT CONDITION

The existing parking lot and drives are surfaced with asphalt pavement. Raised concrete sidewalk is present along the east side of the school building (along the west border of the parking lot). The entrance is divided by a concrete curb island and bordered by concrete curb and gutter, and curb islands are located throughout the parking lot. The existing pavements appear to sheet-flow-drain to a catch basin located in the southeast portion of the parking lot and to the grassy areas located on the east and south sides of the lot.

Based on our observations, the pavements are in fair to poor condition. The pavement surface is generally exhibiting moderate fatigue and block cracking. However, we noted more severe fatigue cracking in the drive lanes, with the most severe cracking and some potholes noted in the entrance drive area. In addition, distress was more prominent in the drive aligned with the exit lane, suggesting that vehicles traffic this through-lane more frequently than the east perimeter drive. The parking lot and drives have received extensive patching, as well as crack sealing and sealcoating. According to historical Google™ Earth imagery available online, the site of the existing pavements was occupied by an athletic field as late as 1999, before the adjacent school building was expanded and the existing pavement areas were constructed. The pavement cores indicate the pavement was partially milled and overlaid sometime after the initial construction, since the upper (wearing) course was delaminated and generally appeared to be in better condition than the lower (leveling) course.

EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION

The existing pavement section encountered at the boring locations consisted of asphalt pavement over aggregate base, overlying natural sand subgrade. The cores obtained from the pavement consisted of two distinguishable layers of asphalt pavement, delaminated at depths from 1.25 to 2.0 inches. The aggregate base consisted of a mixture of natural sand and gravel. The pavement cores showed asphalt varying from about 2.5 to 4.5 inches in thickness. The aggregate base thickness ranged from about 4.5 to 10 inches. Poor to very poor aggregate base support (CBR < 60 percent) conditions were indicated at each of the boring locations. The pavement layer thicknesses are summarized in Table 2 below:

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING PAVEMENT LAYERS

BORING

ASPHALT

THICKNESS, IN

AGGREGATE BASE

THICKNESS, IN

TOTAL

THICKNESS, IN

B1 3.25 7.75 11

B2 2.5 7.5 10

B3 2.75 7.25 10

B4 2.5 4.5 7

B5 3.5 5.5 9

B6 3.25 6.75 10

B7 3 7 10

B8 4.5 10 14.5

Minimum 2.5 4.5 7

Maximum 4.5 10 14.5

Average 3.2 7.0 10.2

© 2018 SME 079266.00+070218+PEL 4

Natural sands containing varying amounts of silt were encountered below the base materials and extended to the explored depth of the borings. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. The DCP test results indicated good subgrade support conditions at each of the test locations. Refer to the attached Boring Data Sheets for more details and test results.

ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PAVEMENT REHABILIATION

We understand Newaygo Public Schools is considering pavement rehabilitation options that utilize the existing pavement materials and strategies that reduce construction costs are desired for the project.

However, Newaygo Public Schools still wants to preform rehabilitation strategies that maximize the service life per amount spent towards construction.

In our opinion, partial depth milling and placing an overlay is not feasible for the site pavements since the existing pavement thickness is as thin as 2.5 inches in some locations, and due to the observed distress.

Milling 1 to 2 inches to allow for an overlay would result in less than 1 inch of remaining asphalt in some areas which is often too thin to withstand the impact of milling operations. In other words, it is likely that large areas would lose the entire asphalt surfacing during the milling operations, resulting in the need for large scale patching and full depth replacement.

In addition, it is our opinion that a surface reconstruction (mid-term) option is likely not feasible for the project. This option includes the removal or full-depth pulverizing of the asphalt surface and mixing with the existing aggregate base. While suitable aggregate base material was encountered in the west half of the parking lot, the base material in the east half of the lot consisted of mostly sand with round aggregate and contained asphalt pieces, suggesting the material was previously recycled or reclaimed from another location. Furthermore, the presence of concrete curb and sidewalk at the site will likely limit the amount that the final pavement surface can be raised. Based on the borings and assuming raising pavement grades is not feasible, less than 7 inches of salvaged base will be present in most of the pavements area after final grading and removal of excess materials is complete. Based on these factors, we anticipate the surface reconstruction option could require the need for undercutting and replacement of more than 50 percent of the aggregate base in the parking lot in order to provide sufficient base support and thickness to support paving operations.

Based on the conditions encountered in the borings, we have provided two recommended rehabilitation options for the pavements at the site. These options include Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) and a complete reconstruction. For the FDR option we anticipate a pavement service life of about 15 to 20 years. The complete reconstruction strategy is designed to provide a service life of 20 years. The estimated service lives assume the recommendations in this report are properly followed, SME is on-site during construction to observe the stabilization activities, and routine maintenance, such as crack sealing, patching, and overlays, are completed.

OPTION 1: FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION REHABILITATION

This strategy includes pulverizing the existing asphalt and aggregate base material, and stabilizing the salvaged base with cement to improve support conditions. In the FDR process, areas of unstable base/subgrade are cut, treated in place, and the cut material is treated and reused. This process reduces/eliminates the need to undercut and dispose of poor quality base.

The asphalt should be pre-pulverized and mixed with base subgrade to a depth of 16 inches to create a homogenous base layer. The base should be graded to allow for the installation of the proposed asphalt surface. The mix base should be stabilized to a depth of 12 inches below the top of the proposed aggregate base layer. Based on the borings, we preliminary recommend utilizing a Type I cement as the

© 2018 SME 079266.00+070218+PEL 5

stabilization agent, however, a detailed mix design should be performed to select the final stabilization agent and application rate. The mix design will be based on providing a seven day compressive strength of 150 to 350 psi per ASTM D1633. For preliminary budgeting, we anticipate a cement application of 45 lbs./sy. This should be verified with mix designs.

During stabilization, the stabilization agent should be thoroughly mixed with the salvaged base material and underlying subgrade to a depth of 12 inches at an application rate determined based on the laboratory mix design. The layer should then be graded, moisture added to approximately 2 percent above optimum, and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the maximum density per the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D698). Compressive strength samples should be molded during construction to be later tested to verify the required compressive strength is achieved. The surface should be allowed to cure for a minimum of five days without servicing construction or truck traffic. Low volumes of passenger vehicle traffic would still be allowed to traffic surface if traffic is to be maintained. Installation of underdrains after the FDR treatment is essential for the proper performance of the FDR pavement section.

Table 3 below presents the recommended pavement sections for the FDR strategy.

TABLE 3: FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION

LAYER MATERIAL

THICKNESS, IN

LIGHT DUTY HEAVY DUTY**

Wearing Course MDOT 36A* 1.5 1.5

Leveling Course MDOT 13A* 2.0 2.5

Stabilized Base Ex. Pulverized Asphalt, Ex. Base and

Subgrade with Stabilization Agent

12.0 12.0

*As modified in asphalt material recommendations section below.

** Heavy duty to apply in bus/heavy traffic areas.

OPTION 2: COMPLETE RECONSTRUCTION

Complete reconstruction of the existing pavements will cost more than the FDR option. However, complete reconstruction of the pavements will provide a longer service life and allow for more effective rehabilitation options in the future. Some of the additional costs incurred from complete reconstruction are due to the removal of existing pavement/subgrade materials and the import of new aggregate base, and the possibility for subgrade manipulation due to exposing underlying poor subgrade support.

The pavement areas should be cleared and grubbed by removing the existing pavement, base, and any underlying unstable fill and other deleterious materials, to expose stable subgrade soils. Cuts should be made to allow for the placement of the proposed pavement section. The subgrade should be sloped similar to the proposed pavement grades to promote subsurface drainage towards drainage structures.

Cuts made below design subgrade elevation should be backfilled with engineered fill. Subgrade preparation and aggregate base layers should extend laterally at least 12 inches beyond the edge of pavement surfaces or face of existing concrete curb to provide support for the outer edges of the pavement.

Once the site is cleared, deleterious materials are removed, and cuts are made to design subgrade levels, the top 12 inches of the exposed subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum soil dry density based on the Modified Proctor Test. After the subgrade is compacted, we recommend the exposed subgrade soils be subjected to a comprehensive proofrolling program. The purpose of proofrolling is to locate areas of unsuitably loose or soft subgrade. Proofrolling should be performed with a fully-loaded, tandem-axle truck or other similar pneumatic-tired construction equipment.

© 2018 SME 079266.00+070218+PEL 6

Areas of unsuitable (i.e., wet, loose, or soft) subgrade revealed during proofrolling should be mechanically improved (compacted) in-place.

Once any soft or loose areas are repaired, catch basins are repaired, finger drains are installed and fill layers are placed, a final proofroll should be performed. The criteria for the final proofroll should be a maximum of 1/4 inch of subgrade deflection or rutting. Once the subgrade passes the final proofroll, we recommend the pavement layers be placed soon thereafter to avoid further subgrade disturbance. If the subgrade is subjected to disturbance including construction traffic or wet and/or freezing weather conditions, the subgrade should be re-evaluated before placement of the pavement layers.

We recommend performing site work during the drier summer periods. Construction during colder and wetter periods of the year could result in the need for additional undercutting, reinforcement using geogrid, or other suitable subgrade stabilization techniques. Table 4 below presents the recommended pavement sections for complete reconstruction.

TABLE 4: COMPLETE RECONSTRUCTION

LAYER MATERIAL

THICKNESS, IN

LIGHT DUTY HEAVY DUTY**

Wearing Course MDOT 36A* 1.5 1.5

Leveling Course MDOT 13A* 2.0 2.5

Aggregate Base New MDOT 21AA Natural Aggregate or Crushed Limestone***

8.0 8.0

*As modified in asphalt material recommendations section below.

** Heavy duty to apply in bus/heavy traffic areas.

**Crushed concrete or MDOT 22A natural aggregate should not be substituted for the recommended crushed aggregate base without a 25 percent increase of the thickness of the aggregate base to account for the lower quality of the material.

ASPHALT MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The final asphalt cement grade should be performance grade PG58-28 for the asphalt mixtures.

Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) should be limited to 15 percent in the wearing course and 30 percent in leveling course. The MDOT 36A and 13A should have a minimum of 60 percent crushed material for the parking area mixes. The asphalt mixtures should be designed for target air voids of 3 percent. The asphalt mixtures should be compacted to 94 to 97 percent of theoretical maximum density as determined by the Rice Method. A bond coat of SS-1h emulsion should be required between asphalt concrete layers at a rate of 0.1 gallons/s.y.

The leveling course is not designed to carry heavy construction traffic without damage occurring. Partial construction of these design sections and use of the leveling course as a construction platform, will likely result in premature damage that would require repair prior to placing the wearing course. If construction traffic is anticipated on the partial pavement structure, the initial lift thickness could be increased and placement of the final lift could be delayed until the majority of the construction activities have been completed. The leveling course should be reviewed, and any areas of localized failure should be repaired prior to installation of the wearing course.

DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS

The pavement system must be properly drained to reduce the potential of frost heaving and softening of the subgrade due to water infiltrating through cracks. In general, we recommend constructing a pavement with a minimum of 1.5 percent surface slope to promote positive drainage. We recommend sloping surrounding ground surface away from pavements to improve surface drainage. We recommend installing underdrains at each catch basin and continuous underdrains along pavement edges that border

© 2018 SME 079266.00+070218+PEL 7

greenbelt areas that slope toward the pavements. The underdrains should consist of a 6-inch perforated drain pipe in a trench a minimum of 18 inches deep. The trench should be backfilled with aggregate meeting MDOT 34R gradational requirements (peastone) and wrapped in non-woven filter fabric as opposed to using a socket wrapped pipe. The fabric should be suitably overlapped on top of the trench.

SME can make recommendations for underdrain placement once a final site grading plan is developed.

As noted above, the underdrains should be installed after the base is stabilized in the FDR Option.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact us.

Sincerely, SME

Zachary L. Miller, EIT Kevin J. Glupker, PE Staff Engineer Senior Project Engineer

Attachments: Boring Location Diagram (Figure No. 1)

Boring Log Terminology Boring Data Sheets (B1 through B8) General Comments Laboratory Testing Procedures Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report

0'

GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 50'

50' 100'

P L

O T

D

A T

E

F I L

E

L

O C

A T

I O

N

J u n p m r i o s

Project

Project Location

Sheet Name www.sme-usa.com

CADD

Scale

Project

No.

Revision Date

Designer

Date

S m e i n c p z W

I P

C

A D

D

W G

S B

L D r e v

B

L D d w g

NO REPRODUCTION SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT THE PRIOR

CONSENT OF SME

c

DRAWING NOTE: SCALE DEPICTED IS MEANT FOR 11" X 17"

AND WILL SCALE INCORRECTLY IF PRINTED ON ANY

OTHER SIZE MEDIA

Figure No.

NEWAYGO HIGH

SCHOOL PARKING

LOT

NEWAYGO,

MICHIGAN

BORING LOCATION

DIAGRAM

079266.00

JL

JGR

06/21/2018

1" = 50'

E A

S T

S

T

E

A

S

LOCATION MAP

SITE

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

NOTE:

DRAWING INFORMATION TAKEN FROM GOOGLE

EARTH PRO WITH AN IMAGE DATE OF 09/25/2014.

M

I

L

L

W

B

A

R

T

O

N

A

D

A

M

B8

B5

B6

B7

B4

B3

B2

B1

Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve.

Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:

Less than 5 percent……………………..……...GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12 percent……………………..…….GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 percent……………...……..Cases requiring dual symbols

SP-SM or SW-SM (SAND with Silt or SAND with Silt and Grav-

el) SP-SC or SW-SC (SAND with Clay or SAND with Clay and

Gravel) GP-GM or GW-GM (GRAVEL with Silt or GRAVEL with Silt and

Sand) GP-GC or GW-GC (GRAVEL with Clay or GRAVEL with Clay and Sand)

If the fines are CL-ML:

SC-SM (SILTY CLAYEY SAND or SILTY CLAYEY SAND with Gravel)

SM-SC (CLAYEY SILTY SAND or CLAYEY SILTY SAND with Gravel)

GC-GM (SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL or SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL with Sand)

GM-GC (CLAYEY SILTY GRAVEL or CLAYEY SILTY GRAVEL with Sand)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART

COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)

GRAVEL

More than 50% of coarse fraction larger than No. 4 sieve size

Clean Gravel (Less than 5% fines)

GW

Well-graded gravel;

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP

Poorly-graded gravel;

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Gravel with fines (More than 12% fines)

GM

Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GC

Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SAND

50% or more of coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 sieve size

Clean Sand (Less than 5% fines)

SW

Well-graded sand; sand-gravel mixtures, little or no fines

SP

Poorly graded sand;

sand-gravel mixtures, little or no fines

Sand with fines (More than 12% fines)

SM

Silty sand; sand-silt-gravel mixtures

SC

Clayey sand; sand–clay-gravel mixtures

FINE-GRAINED SOIL

(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size)

SILT

AND

CLAY

Liquid limit less than

50%

ML

Inorganic silt; sandy silt or gravelly silt with slight plasticity

CL

Inorganic clay of low plasticity; lean clay, sandy clay, gravelly clay

OL

Organic silt and organic clay of low plasticity

SILT

AND

CLAY

Liquid limit

50% or greater

MH

Inorganic silt of high plasticity, elastic silt

CH

Inorganic clay of high plasticity, fat clay

OH

Organic silt and organic clay of high plasticity

HIGHLY

ORGANIC

SOIL

PT

Peat and other highly organic soil

LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

GW

D60 D30 CU = greater than 4; CC = between 1 and 3 D10 D10 x D60

GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW

GM

Atterberg limits below “A” line or PI less than 4

Above “A” line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols GC

Atterberg limits above “A” line with PI greater than 7

SW

D60 D30 CU = greater than 6; CC = between 1 and 3 D10 D10 x D60

SP Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW

SM

Atterberg limits below “A” line or PI less than 4 Above “A” line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols SC

Atterberg limits above “A” line with PI greater than 7

BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY

LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)

PLASTICITY CHART

DRILLING AND SAMPLING ABBREVIATIONS

2ST – Shelby Tube – 2” O.D.

3ST – Shelby Tube – 3” O.D.

AS – Auger Sample GS – Grab Sample LS – Liner Sample NR – No Recovery PM – Pressure Meter RC – Rock Core diamond bit. NX size, except where noted SB – Split Barrel Sample 1-3/8” I.D., 2” O.D., except where noted VS – Vane Shear WS – Wash Sample

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

WOH – Weight of Hammer WOR – Weight of Rods SP – Soil Probe PID – Photo Ionization Device FID – Flame Ionization Device

PARTICLE SIZES

Boulders - Greater than 12 inches Cobbles - 3 inches to 12 inches Gravel- Coarse - 3/4 inches to 3 inches Fine - No. 4 to 3/4 inches Sand- Coarse - No. 10 to No. 4 Medium - No. 40 to No. 10 Fine - No. 200 to No. 40 Silt and Clay - Less than (0.0074 mm)

DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES

Parting – as much as 1/16 inch thick Seam – 1/16 inch to 1/2 inch thick Layer – 1/2 inch to 12 inches thick Stratum – greater than 12 inches thick Pocket – deposit of limited lateral extent Lens – lenticular deposit Hardpan/Till – an unstratified, consolidated or cemented mixture of clay, silt, sand and/or gravel, the size/shape of the constituents vary widely

Lacustrine – soil deposited by lake water

Mottled – soil irregularly marked with spots of different colors that vary in number and size

Varved – alternating partings or seams of silt and/or clay

Occasional – one or less per foot of thickness Frequent – more than one per foot of thickness Interbedded – strata of soil or beds of rock lying between or alternating with other strata of a different nature

VISUAL MANUAL PROCEDURE

When laboratory tests are not performed to confirm the classifica-tion of soils exhibiting borderline classifications, the two possible classifications would be separated with a slash, as follows:

For soils where it is difficult to distinguish if it is a coarse or fine-grained soil:

SC/CL (CLAYEY SAND to Sandy LEAN CLAY) SM/ML (SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT) GC/CL (CLAYEY GRAVEL to Gravelly LEAN CLAY) GM/ML (SILTY GRAVEL to Gravelly SILT)

For soils where it is difficult to distinguish if it is sand or gravel, poorly or well-graded sand or gravel; silt or clay; or plastic or non-plastic silt or clay:

SP/GP or SW/GW (SAND with Gravel to GRAVEL with Sand) SC/GC (CLAYEY SAND with Gravel to CLAYEY GRAVEL with

Sand) SM/GM (SILTY SAND with Gravel to SILTY GRAVEL with

Sand) SW/SP (SAND or SAND with Gravel) GP/GW (GRAVEL or GRAVEL with Sand) SC/SM (CLAYEY to SILTY SAND) GM/GC (SILTY to CLAYEY GRAVEL)

CL/ML (SILTY CLAY)

ML/CL (CLAYEY SILT)

CH/MH (FAT CLAY to ELASTIC SILT) CL/CH (LEAN to FAT CLAY) MH/ML (ELASTIC SILT to SILT) OL/OH (ORGANIC SILT or ORGANIC CLAY)

OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS

Topsoil

Void

Sandstone

Asphalt

Glacial Till

Siltstone

Base

Coal

Limestone

Concrete

Shale

Fill

CLASSIFICATION TERMINOLOGY AND CORRELATIONS

Cohesionless Soils

Relative Density N-Value (Blows per foot)

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Extremely Dense

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 50 to 80 Over 80

Standard Penetration ‘N-Value’ = Blows per foot of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split barrel sampler, except where noted.

Cohesive Soils

Consistency N-Value

(Blows per foot) Undrained Shear Strength (kips/ft2)

Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard

0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30 > 30

0.25 or less

0.25 to 0.50

0.50 to 1.0

1.0 to 2.0

2.0 to 4.0

4.0 or greater

CL

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D E

X

P I)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CH

A LINE

PI=0.73 (LL-20)

MH & OH

ML & OL CL+ML

PROJECT NAME: Newaygo High School BORING: B1

PROJECT NO.: 079266.00 GROUND EL: Not Determined

LOCATION: Newaygo, MI

CLIENT: Newaygo Public Schools

DATE: 6/18/18

DRILLED BY: JL

LOGGED BY: JL/KG

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Layer

From To Thickness, in.

0 3 1/4 3 1/4

3 1/4 11 7 3/4

11 32 21

32 48 16

Depth to Groundwater From Ground Surface NOTES:

Upon Completion: Not Encountered

DCP TEST RESULTS

Depth to start of test from ex. ground surface: 3.25 inches

No. of Pen. Blow Set Pen./Blow Blow Depth from CBR Soil Average Blows (mm) (mm) (mm) Factor Surface (inches) (%) Type CBR (%)

0 460 0 21 560 100 5 1 7.2 50.8 Poor Agg Base 24 665 105 4 1 11.3 55.9 Poor Agg Base 53.4 13 770 105 8 1 15.5 28.1 Good Subgrade 10 865 95 10 1 19.2 23.5 Good Subgrade 8 970 105 13 1 23.3 16.3 Good Subgrade 6 1065 95 16 1 27.1 13.2 Good Subgrade 7 1175 110 16 1 31.4 13.4 Good Subgrade 18.9

Hammer Blow Factor: 1 for 17.6 lb Hammer and 2 for 10.1 lb Hammer *CBR breaklines are based on blow counts performed prior to sampling. Depths are approximate.

Support Conditions

CBR Range for Aggregate Base

Materials (%)

Good >80 Marginal 60 to 80

Poor 30 to 60 Very Poor <30

**Core picture shows approximate thickness

© 2018 SME CORE LOG DCP 1 meter rod (standard).XLS ver. 2/7/1 4- Clay DCP

Comment

CBR Range for Subgrade Soils (%)

>10 5 to 10 3 to 5

<3

1) The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

BORING DATA SHEET

Layer, in. Description Comment

ASPHALT PAVEMENT Delaminated at 1.5 Inches

End of Boring at 4 Feet

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine to Coarse SAND with Silt and Gravel - Brown - Moist (SP-SM)

Fine to Medium SAND with Silt - Brown - Moist (SP-SM)

Fine to Coarse SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

PROJECT NAME: Newaygo High School BORING: B2

LOCATION: Newaygo, MI

CLIENT: Newaygo Public Schools

DATE: 6/18/18

DRILLED BY: JL

LOGGED BY: JL/KG

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Layer

From To Thickness, in.

0 2 1/2 2 1/2

2 1/2 10 7 1/2

10 36 26

36 48 12

Depth to Groundwater From Ground Surface NOTES:

Upon Completion: Not Encountered

DCP TEST RESULTS

Depth to start of test from ex. ground surface: 2.5 inches

No. of Pen. Blow Set Pen./Blow Blow Depth from CBR Soil Average Blows (mm) (mm) (mm) Factor Surface (inches) (%) Type CBR (%)

0 440 0 12 540 100 8 1 6.4 27.2 Very Poor Agg Base 18 640 100 6 1 10.4 42.8 Poor Agg Base 35 14 745 105 8 1 14.5 30.6 Good Subgrade 11 840 95 9 1 18.2 26.1 Good Subgrade 11 940 100 9 1 22.2 24.6 Good Subgrade 11 1050 110 10 1 26.5 22.2 Good Subgrade 12 1150 100 8 1 30.5 27.2 Good Subgrade 26.1

Hammer Blow Factor: 1 for 17.6 lb Hammer and 2 for 10.1 lb Hammer *CBR breaklines are based on blow counts performed prior to sampling. Depths are approximate.

Conditions

CBR Range for Aggregate Base

Materials (%)

Good >80 Marginal 60 to 80

Poor 30 to 60 Very Poor <30

**Core picture shows approximate thickness

© 2018 SME CORE LOG DCP 1 meter rod (standard).XLS ver. 2/7/1 4- Clay DCP

Comment

CBR Range for Subgrade Soils (%)

>10 5 to 10 3 to 5

<3

1) The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

BORING DATA SHEET

Layer, in. Description Comment

ASPHALT PAVEMENT Delaminated at 1.25 Inches

End of Boring at 4 Feet

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine to Coarse GRAVEL with Silt and Sand - Brown - Moist (GP-GM)

Fine to Medium SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

Fine to Coarse SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

PROJECT NAME: Newaygo High School BORING: B3

LOCATION: Newaygo, MI

CLIENT: Newaygo Public Schools

DATE: 6/18/18

DRILLED BY: JL

LOGGED BY: JL/KG

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Layer

From To Thickness, in.

0 2 3/4 2 3/4

2 3/4 10 7 1/4

10 24 14

24 48 24

Depth to Groundwater From Ground Surface NOTES:

Upon Completion: Not Encountered

DCP TEST RESULTS

Depth to start of test from ex. ground surface: 2.75 inches

No. of Pen. Blow Set Pen./Blow Blow Depth from CBR Soil Average Blows (mm) (mm) (mm) Factor Surface (inches) (%) Type CBR (%)

0 460 0 14 560 100 7 1 6.7 32.3 Poor Agg Base 21 665 105 5 1 10.8 48.1 Poor Agg Base 40.4 18 760 95 5 1 14.6 45.3 Good Subgrade 18 865 105 6 1 18.7 40.5 Good Subgrade 15 965 100 7 1 22.6 34.9 Good Subgrade 14 1065 100 7 1 26.6 32.3 Good Subgrade 12 1165 100 8 1 30.5 27.2 Good Subgrade 36

Hammer Blow Factor: 1 for 17.6 lb Hammer and 2 for 10.1 lb Hammer *CBR breaklines are based on blow counts performed prior to sampling. Depths are approximate.

Conditions

CBR Range for Aggregate Base

Materials (%)

Good >80 Marginal 60 to 80

Poor 30 to 60 Very Poor <30

**Core picture shows approximate thickness

© 2018 SME CORE LOG DCP 1 meter rod (standard).XLS ver. 2/7/1 4- Clay DCP

Comment

CBR Range for Subgrade Soils (%)

>10 5 to 10 3 to 5

<3

1) The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

BORING DATA SHEET

Layer, in. Description Comment

ASPHALT PAVEMENT Delaminated at 1.25 Inches

End of Boring at 4 Feet

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine to Coarse GRAVEL with Silt and Sand - Brown - Moist (GP-GM)

Fine to Medium SAND with Silt - Brown - Moist (SP-SM)

Fine to Coarse SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

PROJECT NAME: Newaygo High School BORING: B4

LOCATION: Newaygo, MI

CLIENT: Newaygo Public Schools

DATE: 6/18/18

DRILLED BY: JL

LOGGED BY: JL/KG

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Layer

From To Thickness, in.

0 2 1/2 2 1/2

2 1/2 7 4 1/2

7 24 17

24 32 8

32 48 16

Depth to Groundwater From Ground Surface NOTES:

Upon Completion: Not Encountered

DCP TEST RESULTS

Depth to start of test from ex. ground surface: 3 inches

No. of Pen. Blow Set Pen./Blow Blow Depth from CBR Soil Average Blows (mm) (mm) (mm) Factor Surface (inches) (%) Type CBR (%)

0 460 0 17 560 100 6 1 6.9 40.1 Poor Agg Base 40.1 15 660 100 7 1 10.9 34.9 Good Subgrade 15 765 105 7 1 15.0 33.0 Good Subgrade 13 865 100 8 1 18.9 29.7 Good Subgrade 11 965 100 9 1 22.9 24.6 Good Subgrade 11 1075 110 10 1 27.2 22.2 Good Subgrade 28.8

Hammer Blow Factor: 1 for 17.6 lb Hammer and 2 for 10.1 lb Hammer *CBR breaklines are based on blow counts performed prior to sampling. Depths are approximate.

Conditions

CBR Range for Aggregate Base

Materials (%)

Good >80 Marginal 60 to 80

Poor 30 to 60 Very Poor <30

**Core picture shows approximate thickness

© 2018 SME CORE LOG DCP 1 meter rod (standard).XLS ver. 2/7/1 4- Clay DCP

Comment

CBR Range for Subgrade Soils (%)

>10 5 to 10 3 to 5

<3

1) The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

BORING DATA SHEET

Layer, in. Description Comment

ASPHALT PAVEMENT Intact - Layer at 1.5 Inches

Fine to Coarse SAND with Gravel - Brown - Moist (SP)

End of Boring at 4 Feet

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine to Coarse SILTY SAND with Gravel - Brown - Moist (SM)

Fine to Medium SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

Fine to Coarse SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

PROJECT NAME: Newaygo High School BORING: B5

LOCATION: Newaygo, MI

CLIENT: Newaygo Public Schools

DATE: 6/18/18

DRILLED BY: JL

LOGGED BY: JL/KG

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Layer

From To Thickness, in.

0 3 1/2 3 1/2

3 1/2 9 5 1/2

9 18 9

18 30 12

30 48 18

Depth to Groundwater From Ground Surface NOTES:

Upon Completion: Not Encountered

DCP TEST RESULTS

Depth to start of test from ex. ground surface: 3.5 inches

No. of Pen. Blow Set Pen./Blow Blow Depth from CBR Soil Average Blows (mm) (mm) (mm) Factor Surface (inches) (%) Type CBR (%)

0 470 0 14 570 100 7 1 7.4 32.3 Poor Agg Base 13 670 100 8 1 11.4 29.7 Very Poor Agg Base 31 11 760 90 8 1 14.9 27.7 Good Subgrade 11 880 120 11 1 19.6 20.1 Good Subgrade 10 970 90 9 1 23.2 24.9 Good Subgrade 12 1070 100 8 1 27.1 27.2 Good Subgrade 10 1165 95 10 1 30.9 23.5 Good Subgrade 24.4

Hammer Blow Factor: 1 for 17.6 lb Hammer and 2 for 10.1 lb Hammer *CBR breaklines are based on blow counts performed prior to sampling. Depths are approximate.

Conditions

CBR Range for Aggregate Base

Materials (%)

Good >80 Marginal 60 to 80

Poor 30 to 60 Very Poor <30

**Core picture shows approximate thickness

© 2018 SME CORE LOG DCP 1 meter rod (standard).XLS ver. 2/7/1 4- Clay DCP

Comment

CBR Range for Subgrade Soils (%)

>10 5 to 10 3 to 5

<3

1) The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

BORING DATA SHEET

Layer, in. Description Comment

ASPHALT PAVEMENT Delaminated at 2 Inches

Fine to Medium SAND with Gravel - Brown - Moist (SP)

End of Boring at 4 Feet

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine to Coarse SAND with Silt and Gravel - Frequent Asphalt Pieces - Dark Brown - Moist (SP-SM)

Fine to Medium SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

Fine to Medium SAND with Silt - Dark Brown - Moist (SP-SM)

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

CBR (%)

DEPTH VS CBR

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

PROJECT NAME: Newaygo High School BORING: B6

LOCATION: Newaygo, MI

CLIENT: Newaygo Public Schools

DATE: 6/18/18

DRILLED BY: JL

LOGGED BY: JL/KG

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Layer

From To Thickness, in.

0 3 1/4 3 1/4

3 1/4 10 6 3/4

10 20 10

20 33 13

33 48 15

Depth to Groundwater From Ground Surface NOTES:

Upon Completion: Not Encountered

DCP TEST RESULTS

Depth to start of test from ex. ground surface: 3.25 inches

No. of Pen. Blow Set Pen./Blow Blow Depth from CBR Soil Average Blows (mm) (mm) (mm) Factor Surface (inches) (%) Type CBR (%)

0 460 0 21 560 100 5 1 7.2 50.8 Poor Agg Base 24 660 100 4 1 11.1 59.0 Poor Agg Base 54.9 20 765 105 5 1 15.3 45.6 Good Subgrade 17 865 100 6 1 19.2 40.1 Good Subgrade 14 960 95 7 1 22.9 34.2 Good Subgrade 15 1060 100 7 1 26.9 34.9 Good Subgrade 12 1165 105 9 1 31.0 25.7 Good Subgrade 36.1

Hammer Blow Factor: 1 for 17.6 lb Hammer and 2 for 10.1 lb Hammer *CBR breaklines are based on blow counts performed prior to sampling. Depths are approximate.

Conditions

CBR Range for Aggregate Base

Materials (%)

Good >80 Marginal 60 to 80

Poor 30 to 60 Very Poor <30

**Core picture shows approximate thickness

© 2018 SME CORE LOG DCP 1 meter rod (standard).XLS ver. 2/7/1 4- Clay DCP

Comment

CBR Range for Subgrade Soils (%)

>10 5 to 10 3 to 5

<3

1) The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

BORING DATA SHEET

Layer, in. Description Comment

ASPHALT PAVEMENT Delaminated at 1.5 Inches

Fine to Medium SAND with Silt - Brown - Moist (SP-SM)

End of Boring at 4 Feet

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine to Coarse SAND with Silt and Gravel - Frequent Asphalt Pieces - Brown - Moist (SP-SM)

Fine SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

Fine SILTY SAND - Dark Brown - Moist (SM)

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

PROJECT NAME: Newaygo High School BORING: B7

LOCATION: Newaygo, MI

CLIENT: Newaygo Public Schools

DATE: 6/18/18

DRILLED BY: JL

LOGGED BY: JL/KG

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Layer

From To Thickness, in.

0 3 3

3 10 7

10 32 22

32 48 16

Depth to Groundwater From Ground Surface NOTES:

Upon Completion: Not Encountered

DCP TEST RESULTS

Depth to start of test from ex. ground surface: 3 inches

No. of Pen. Blow Set Pen./Blow Blow Depth from CBR Soil Average Blows (mm) (mm) (mm) Factor Surface (inches) (%) Type CBR (%)

0 470 0 21 570 100 5 1 6.9 50.8 Poor Agg Base 22 670 100 5 1 10.9 53.6 Poor Agg Base 52.2 17 770 100 6 1 14.8 40.1 Good Subgrade 17 870 100 6 1 18.7 40.1 Good Subgrade 16 970 100 6 1 22.7 37.5 Good Subgrade 15 1075 105 7 1 26.8 33.0 Good Subgrade 12 1170 95 8 1 30.6 28.8 Good Subgrade 36

Hammer Blow Factor: 1 for 17.6 lb Hammer and 2 for 10.1 lb Hammer *CBR breaklines are based on blow counts performed prior to sampling. Depths are approximate.

Conditions

CBR Range for Aggregate Base

Materials (%)

Good >80 Marginal 60 to 80

Poor 30 to 60 Very Poor <30

**Core picture shows approximate thickness

© 2018 SME CORE LOG DCP 1 meter rod (standard).XLS ver. 2/7/1 4- Clay DCP

Comment

CBR Range for Subgrade Soils (%)

>10 5 to 10 3 to 5

<3

1) The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

BORING DATA SHEET

Layer, in. Description Comment

ASPHALT PAVEMENT Delaminated at 1.25 Inches

End of Boring at 4 Feet

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine to Coarse GRAVEL with Silt and Sand - Brown - Moist (GP-GM)

Fine to Medium SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

Fine to Medium SAND with Silt - Brown - Moist (SP-SM)

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

PROJECT NAME: Newaygo High School BORING: B8

LOCATION: Newaygo, MI

CLIENT: Newaygo Public Schools

DATE: 6/18/18

DRILLED BY: JL

LOGGED BY: JL/KG

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Layer

From To Thickness, in.

0 4 1/2 4 1/2

4 1/2 14 1/2 10

14 1/2 33 18 1/2

33 48 15

Depth to Groundwater From Ground Surface NOTES:

Upon Completion: Not Encountered

DCP TEST RESULTS

Depth to start of test from ex. ground surface: 4.5 inches

No. of Pen. Blow Set Pen./Blow Blow Depth from CBR Soil Average Blows (mm) (mm) (mm) Factor Surface (inches) (%) Type CBR (%)

0 490 0 19 595 105 6 1 8.6 43.0 Poor Agg Base 18 690 95 5 1 12.4 45.3 Poor Agg Base 11 795 105 10 1 16.5 23.3 Very Poor Agg Base 37 8 890 95 12 1 20.2 18.3 Good Subgrade

10 1000 110 11 1 24.6 19.9 Good Subgrade 13 1110 110 8 1 28.9 26.7 Good Subgrade 21.8

Hammer Blow Factor: 1 for 17.6 lb Hammer and 2 for 10.1 lb Hammer *CBR breaklines are based on blow counts performed prior to sampling. Depths are approximate.

Conditions

CBR Range for Aggregate Base

Materials (%)

Good >80 Marginal 60 to 80

Poor 30 to 60 Very Poor <30

**Core picture shows approximate thickness

© 2018 SME CORE LOG DCP 1 meter rod (standard).XLS ver. 2/7/1 4- Clay DCP

Comment

CBR Range for Subgrade Soils (%)

>10 5 to 10 3 to 5

<3

1) The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

BORING DATA SHEET

Layer, in. Description Comment

ASPHALT PAVEMENT Delaminated at 1.75 Inches

End of Boring at 4 Feet

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine to Coarse GRAVEL with Silt and Sand - Brown - Moist (GP-GM)

Fine to Medium SAND with Silt - Brown - Moist (SP-SM)

Fine to Coarse SAND - Brown - Moist (SP)

1 10 100

D E

P T

H

IN

© 2009 SME General Comments 1

GENERAL COMMENTS

BASIS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices to assist in the design and/or evaluation of this project. If the project plans, design criteria, and other project information referenced in this report and utilized by SME to prepare our recommendations are changed, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or approved in writing by our office.

The discussions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the available project information, described in this report, and the geotechnical data obtained from the field exploration at the locations indicated in the report. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions commonly occur between or away from sampling locations. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until the time of construction. If significant variations are observed during construction, SME should be contacted to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. SME should be retained to continue our services through construction to observe and evaluate the actual subsurface conditions relative to the recommendations made in this report.

In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, procedures are followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil and foundation engineering. Specifically, field logs are prepared during the field exploration that describe field occurrences, sampling locations, and other information. Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and reclassification in the laboratory and differences may exist between the field logs and the report logs. The engineer preparing the report reviews the field logs, laboratory classifications, and test data and then prepares the report logs. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the report logs and the information contained therein.

REVIEW OF DESIGN DETAILS, PLANS, AND SPECIFICATIONS

SME should be retained to review the design details, project plans, and specifications to verify those documents are consistent with the recommendations contained in this report.

REVIEW OF REPORT INFORMATION WITH PROJECT TEAM

Implementation of our recommendations may affect the design, construction, and performance of the proposed improvements, along with the potential inherent risks involved with the proposed construction. The client and key members of the design team, including SME, should discuss the issues covered in this report so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner’s budget, tolerance of risk, and expectations for performance and maintenance.

FIELD VERIFICATION OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

SME should be retained to verify the recommendations of this report are properly implemented during construction. This may avoid misinterpretation of our recommendations by other parties and will allow us to review and modify our recommendations if variations in the site subsurface conditions are encountered.

PROJECT INFORMATION FOR CONTRACTOR

This report and any future addenda or other reports regarding this site should be made available to prospective contractors prior to submitting their proposals for their information only and to supply them with facts relative to the subsurface evaluation and laboratory test results. If the selected contractor encounters subsurface conditions during construction, which differ from those presented in this report, the contractor should promptly describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and SME should be notified so that we can verify those conditions. The construction contract should include provisions for dealing with differing conditions and contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and foundation construction. We would be pleased to assist you in developing the contract provisions based on our experience.

The contractor should be prepared to handle environmental conditions encountered at this site, which may affect the excavation, removal, or disposal of soil; dewatering of excavations; and health and safety of workers. Any Environmental Assessment reports prepared for this site should be made available for review by bidders and the successful contractor.

THIRD PARTY RELIANCE/REUSE OF THIS REPORT

This report has been prepared solely for the use of our Client for the project specifically described in this report. This report cannot be relied upon by other parties not involved in the project, unless specifically allowed by SME in writing. SME also is not responsible for the interpretation by other parties of the geotechnical data and the recommendations provided herein.

© 2009 SME Laboratory Testing Procedures 1

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

VISUAL ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION

Visual classification was performed on recovered samples. The appended General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) sheets include a brief summary of the general method used visually classify the soil and assign an appropriate USCS group symbol. The estimated group symbol, according to the USCS, is shown in parentheses following the textural description of the various strata on the boring logs appended to this report. The soil descriptions developed from visual classifications are sometimes modified to reflect the results of laboratory testing.

MOISTURE CONTENT

Moisture content tests were performed by weighing samples from the field at their in-situ moisture condition. These samples were then dried at a constant temperature (approximately 110º C) overnight in an oven. After drying, the samples were weighed to determine the dry weight of the sample and the weight of the water that was expelled during drying. The moisture content of the specimen is expressed as a percent and is the weight of the water compared to the dry weight of the specimen.

HAND PENETROMETER TESTS

In the hand penetrometer test, the unconfined compressive strength of a cohesive soil sample is estimated by measuring the resistance of the sample to the penetration of a small calibrated, spring-loaded cylinder. The maximum capacity of the penetrometer is 4.5 tons per square-foot (tsf). Theoretically, the undrained shear strength of the cohesive sample is one-half the unconfined compressive strength. The undrained shear strength (based on the hand penetrometer test) presented on the boring logs is reported in units of kips per square-foot (ksf).

TORVANE SHEAR TESTS

In the Torvane test, the shear strength of a low strength, cohesive soil sample is estimated by measuring the resistance of the sample to a torque applied through vanes inserted into the sample. The undrained shear strength of the samples is measured from the maximum torque required to shear the sample and is reported in units of kips per square-foot (ksf).

LOSS-ON-IGNITION (ORGANIC CONTENT) TESTS

Loss-on-ignition (LOI) tests are conducted by first weighing the sample and then heating the sample to dry the moisture from the sample (in the same manner as determining the moisture content of the soil). The sample is then re-weighed to determine the dry weight and then heated for 4 hours in a muffle furnace at a high temperature (approximately 440º C).

After cooling, the sample is re-weighed to calculate the amount of ash remaining, which in turn is used to determine the amount of organic matter burned from the original dry sample. The organic matter content of the specimen is expressed as a percent compared to the dry weight of the sample.

ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS

Atterberg limits tests consist of two components. The plastic limit of a cohesive sample is determined by rolling the sample into a thread and the plastic limit is the moisture content where a 1/8-inch…