W911SA18B2018_Attachment_4_Geotechnical_Report.pdf

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL

EXPLORATION AND REVIEW

Proposed New Building Emergency Operations Center W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AET Project No. 12-01702

Date:

May 18, 2015

Prepared for:

Rani Engineering 2912 Anthony Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418

Page i

This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc.

4203 Schofield Avenue ▪ Schofield, WI 54476 ▪ 715-359-3534 ▪ Fax 715-359-4032 ▪ www.amengtest.com

AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

A

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

May 18, 2015

Mr. Jeremy Schultz Rani Engineering 2912 Anthony Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418

RE: Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed New Building Emergency Operations Center W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AET Project No. 12-01702

Dear Mr. Schultz:

We are pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical review for your Emergency Operations Center project in Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. These services were performed according to our proposal to you dated September 27, 2014.

We are submitting one bound copy and one electronic (pdf) copy of this report to you.

We have enjoyed working with you on this phase of the project. Please contact us if you have questions about this report or require further assistance.

Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc.

Benjamin B. Mattson, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Proposed New Building; Emergency Operations Center W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN May 18, 2015 ENGINEERING AET Project No. 12-01702 TESTING, INC.

Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Transmittal Letter............................................................................................................................. i Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING

4.1 Field Exploration

4.2 Laboratory Testing

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surface Observations

5.2 Subsurface Soils

5.3 Groundwater

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Approach Discussion

6.2 Building Grading

6.3 Foundation Design

6.4 Floor Slab Design

6.5 Exterior Slabs and Sidewalks

7.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Groundwater

8.2 Disturbance of Soils

8.3 Excavation Backsloping

8.4 Observation and Testing

9.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 – Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Gradation Test Results

APPENDIX B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Rani Engineering (Rani) is providing planning and design services for a proposed new

Emergency Operations Center at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. To assist with planning and design, Rani authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface exploration program at the site and perform a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of the above services and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

AET's services were performed according to our proposal to Rani dated September 27, 2014.

The authorized scope consists of the following:

• Four standard penetration test borings to depths of 20 feet each.

• Visual/manual classification of the recovered soil samples.

• Geotechnical engineering review based on the gained data and preparation of this report.

These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination in the soil or groundwater.

3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

The project consists of an Emergency Operation Center covering an area of about 3,600 square feet; the footprint has been reduced from an originally-proposed 5,400 square feet. The building will mostly provide space for an office-type environment. The new building will have a single story and no basement, and the finished floor elevation will probably be within one foot of existing grades in the building area. Foundation loads are not available as of the date of this report.

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction and is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important we be contacted if there are changes from that described so we can evaluate if modifications to our recommendations are appropriate.

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING

4.1 Field Exploration

Our subsurface exploration program for the project consisted of drilling five geotechnical borings (B-1 through B-4, and B-3A) on November 6, 2014, and one boring (B-5) on April 17, 2015. Rani specified the original number (four) and locations of borings, and we recommended the depths. We drilled boring B-3A to obtain additional samples near the location of B-3. We drilled boring B-5 to explore soil conditions between the other boring locations. The boring locations are shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.

Prior to drilling, we contacted Wisconsin Diggers Hotline to locate public underground utilities at the site. We drilled the borings using 3¼-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers and mud rotary techniques. Refer to Appendix A for details on the drilling and sampling methods, the classification methods, and the water level measurement details.

The boring logs are found in Appendix A and contain information concerning soil layering, geologic description, moisture condition, and USCS classifications. Relative density or consistency is noted for the natural soils, which are based on the standard penetration resistance

(N-value).

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

4.2 Laboratory Testing

We performed nine gradation tests, three washed gradation tests to determine the percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve, fourteen moisture content tests, seven tests to estimate the unconfined compressive strength (by hand penetrometer), four organic content tests, and one dry density test. These test results are included in Appendix A.

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surface Observations

The proposed building area is currently mostly lawn space. The ground surface is relatively flat, with our boring elevations differing by less than 1 foot.

5.2 Subsurface Soils

We encountered surficial topsoil and fill to depths of less than 1 foot to 4.5 feet at each of our boring locations. We encountered some buried topsoil in borings B-2 and B-5.

The underlying soils were coarse alluvium and fine alluvium. The coarse alluvium was mostly very loose to medium dense sand with varying silt content. The fine alluvium was very loose to loose silt and sandy silt, with some layers having organics; the maximum organic content we measured was 10.2%.

5.3 Groundwater

We measured groundwater at depths of 4.1 to 4.8 feet in each of our borings. Because the coarse alluvium we encountered is relatively fast draining, these depths probably corresponded to the static water table on the days we drilled. However, groundwater levels will fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts, as well as other factors. The installation of piezometers for groundwater level monitoring was beyond our scope of services.

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Approach Discussion

Based on the subsurface conditions found in our borings and on our understanding of the project, it is our opinion the building can be supported on a conventional footing foundation system after proper site preparation has taken place.

The recommendations of Section 6.0 are based on the results of borings B-1, B-2, and B-5, which are in the footprint of the currently-proposed building. In general, borings B-3 and B-4 encountered soils that were more compressible. It is possible there are areas of more compressible soils within the building footprint that we did not encounter in our borings; the project owner should be aware of this risk. If that risk is not acceptable, additional subsurface exploration should be performed.

Details of our recommendations are presented below.

6.2 Building Grading

6.2.1 Excavation

To prepare the building area for foundation and slab support, we recommend complete removal of all vegetation, organic soils, and existing fill. We anticipate subcut depths of about 1 to 4.5 feet at borings B-1, B-2, and B-5, but subcut depths will vary away from our boring locations and could be shallower or deeper than anticipated. An experienced soils technician or geotechnical engineer should perform observations during construction to determine actual subcutting requirements.

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

Where subcutting will extend below the proposed foundation grade, the excavation bottom and resultant engineered fill system must be oversized laterally beyond the planned outside edges of the foundations to properly support the lateral loads exerted by that foundation. This engineered fill lateral extension should at least be equal to the vertical depth of fill needed to attain foundation grade at that location (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversize).

After removal of unsuitable soils, the exposed subgrade should be observed by a geotechnical engineer. If recommended by the geotechnical engineer, the exposed excavation base should be surface compacted to densify the base soils prior to placement of new fill or concrete.

The contractor must be careful so that excavation does not undermine or compromise the integrity of the existing adjacent building.

We anticipate construction dewatering may be required, but this will depend on excavation depths and the location of the water table during construction. The contractor is responsible for the selection and design of the dewatering system. The contractor must consider potential drawdown-induced settlement of nearby structures; pre-construction condition surveys should be performed of nearby structures to document existing cracking prior to dewatering.

6.2.2 Fill Placement and Compaction

The existing non-organic granular soils at the site would generally be suitable for re-use provided they can meet compaction requirements. If additional soils have to be imported, we recommend using a granular soil having less than 12% by weight passing the No. 200 sieve and a maximum aggregate size of 2 inches.

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

Fill placed to attain grade for foundation and/or slab support should be compacted in thin lifts, such that the entire lift achieves a minimum compaction level of 95% of the maximum Modified

Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557). We anticipate a lift thickness on the order of 8 inches may be appropriate, although this should be reviewed in the field at the time of construction.

6.3 Foundation Design

The building can be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system founded on competent naturally-occurring soils, or on fill placed and compacted over a suitable subgrade, provided the site has been prepared according to our recommendations. We recommend that perimeter foundations for heated building spaces bear a minimum of 4 feet below exterior grade for protection from frost penetration. Interior footings in heated areas may bear at a depth to accommodate the structural design. We recommend that footings in unheated areas be extended to a minimum of 5 feet below surrounding grade.

Column footings and continuous wall footings for this building should have minimum widths of

3 feet and 15 inches, respectively. Based on the subsurface conditions we encountered and provided our recommendations are followed, it is our opinion the building foundation can be designed based on a net maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. It is our judgment this design pressure will have a factor of safety of at least 3 against localized shear or base failure. We estimate maximum total building settlements of up to 1 inch, and differential settlements of ½ inch over a 30 foot distance, if the bearing soils are not soft, wet, disturbed, or frozen at the time of construction. This settlement will be differential from the existing adjacent building, which has already undergone most of its settlement; the designer should consider this differential settlement potential when designing the hallway that will connect the new building to the existing building.

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

6.4 Floor Slab Design

Interior backfill in underslab utility trenches and in footing trenches should be held to the same requirements of Section 6.2.2 of this report. Provided our recommendations of Section 6.2 are followed, the structural engineer can use a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per cubic inch to design the floor slab thickness and reinforcement.

If any areas will contain moisture-sensitive floor coverings, materials, or equipment, we recommend a vapor retarder be placed under the floor slab in those areas. The purpose of a vapor retarder is to reduce the potential for the upward migration of water vapor from the soil into and through the concrete slab. Water vapor migrating upward through the slab can damage floor coverings such as the carpeting, wood, or paint/sealers and contribute to excess humidity and microbial growth in the building. Various methods of vapor retarder construction are described in Part 2, Section 302 of the American Concrete Institute Manual of Concrete Practice. The architect or structural engineer should determine the location of the vapor retarder and whether a sand cushion or capillary break layer is necessary.

The slab-on-grade should be designed and constructed following the recommendations of the

Portland Cement Association and the American Concrete Institute. The slab should have construction joints/control joints at spacings recommended by the Portland Cement Association and the American Concrete Institute to mitigate, but not eliminate, slab curling and cracking. The floor slab should be cast independent of the foundation walls of the building to allow relative movement of the slabs and footings to occur without causing excessive distress to the structure.

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

6.5 Exterior Slabs and Sidewalks

Where exterior slabs and sidewalks abut the building, they should be designed as structural slabs supported on footings bearing at least 5 feet deep; the excavation requirements of Section 6.2 would also apply to these areas. An air gap of at least 4 inches should be left below the slab, and insulation panels should cover the vertical frost walls to act as a bondbreaker and to prevent adfreezing between the backfilled soils and the frost walls.

As an alternative, silty and clayey soils could be subcut to a depth of 4 feet below bottom of slab/sidewalk and replaced with non-frost susceptible (NFS) granular fill. This NFS fill subbase layer should consist of sand or a sand and gravel mix having less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. This fill should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density. The purpose of constructing the NFS subgrade is to reduce the potential for the characteristic heave (including differential heave) that can occur when silty and clayey soils freeze each winter. This heaving can raise the slabs to jam doors or damage the structure.

For either option, the civil engineer should include transition zones from the frost-protected slabs/sidewalks to unprotected (or less protected) areas. The purpose of this is to reduce the risk of abrupt transitions in frost heave of slabs and pavements.

7.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

According to the International Building Code (2009), the Site Class is determined by the average soil properties in the top 100 feet of soil. The deepest boring for this project extended to 31.5 feet below the ground surface. Based on local experience, our borings, and geologic conditions at the site, it is our opinion the project site should be classified as Site Class E per Table 1613.5.2 of the IBC.

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Groundwater

Based on the conditions found in our borings, it is our opinion the static groundwater table will probably be encountered during foundation construction, but will depend on groundwater levels at the time of construction. It is possible that zones of perched groundwater will be encountered.

If water is encountered in the excavations, it should be promptly pumped out before compacted fill or concrete are placed. The contractor should not be allowed to place fill or concrete into standing water, or over softened soils in an attempt to displace these materials. This technique can result in trapping softened soils under footings, resulting in excessive post-construction settlement, even if the softened zone is only a few inches thick.

8.2 Disturbance of Soils

The on-site soils can become disturbed under construction traffic, especially if the soils are wet.

If soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed soils. The subcut soils can then be dried and recompacted back into place, or they should be removed and replaced with drier imported fill. We recommend that all excavation within 2 feet of final grade in the building area be performed with a backhoe having a smooth-edge bucket (rather than a toothed bucket); the purpose of this is to avoid tearing and disturbing the base soils.

8.3 Excavation Backsloping

If excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” (can be found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance.

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

8.4 Observation and Testing

The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we recommend on-site observation by a geotechnical engineer/technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing should also be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been met.

9.0 LIMITATIONS

Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, we have endeavored to perform our services according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either expressed or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled “Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.”

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

Appendix A

Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing

Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System

Figure 1 – Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Gradation Test Results

SBD

Appendix A - Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling six (6) geotechnical borings. The locations of the borings appear on Figure 1, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in Appendix A.

A.2 SAMPLING METHODS

A.2.1 Split-Spoon Samples (SS) Standard penetration (split-spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM: D1586. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the next 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N-value.

A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS)/Spin-up Samples (SU) Sample types described as “DS” or “SU” on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger.

Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate.

A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs.

Determining the thickness of “topsoil” layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual-manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed.

A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS

Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS is described in ASTM: D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM: D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual-manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USCS, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs.

The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment.

A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under “Water Level Measurements” on the logs:

• Date and Time of measurement

• Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement

• Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of measurement

• Cave-in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole

• Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered

• Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid

The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing.

Appendix A - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

A.5 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS

Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied.

A.6 SAMPLE STORAGE

Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days.

01REP052 (12/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

BORING LOG NOTES

DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS

Symbol Definition Symbol Definition

B, H, N: Size of flush-joint casing CA: Crew Assistant (initials) CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in inches CC: Crew Chief (initials) COT: Clean-out tube DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry DR: Driller (initials) DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter in inches LG: Field logger (initials) MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of samples and for the ground water level symbols N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N-value) in blows per foot (see notes) NQ: NQ wireline core barrel PQ: PQ wireline core barrel RD: Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit REC: In split-spoon (see notes) and thin-walled tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample.

In rock coring, the length of core recovered (expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no sample recovered.

REV: Revert drilling fluid SS: Standard split-spoon sampler (steel; 1d" is inside diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated otherwise

SU Spin-up sample from hollow stem auger TW: Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in inches WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside the borehole after “falling” through drilling fluid

WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and 140-pound hammer

WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod

94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel ▼: Water level directly measured in boring

�: Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance

CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test DEN: Dry density, pcf DST: Direct shear test E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf HYD: Hydrometer analysis LL: Liquid Limit, % LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf OC: Organic Content, % PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field;

L - Laboratory PL: Plastic Limit, % qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate) qc: Static cone bearing pressure, tsf qu: Unconfined compressive strength, psf R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cms RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent

(aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length as a percent of total core run)

SA: Sieve analysis TRX: Triaxial compression test VSR: Vane shear strength, remolded (field), psf VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight %-200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES

The standard penetration test consists of driving the sampler with a 140 pound hammer and counting the number of blows applied in each of three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in ASTM: D1586, the blows for each complete 6" increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1' below the slash.

The length of sample recovered, as shown on the “REC” column, may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The disparity is because the N-value is recorded below the initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM: D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18").

01CLS021 (01/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488

AMERICAN

TESTING, INC.

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

Symbol Group NameB

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

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF.G.H

Gravels More than 50% coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Gravels with

Fines more than 12% fines C Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF.G.H

Cu>6 and 1<Cc<3E SW Well-graded sandI Clean Sands Less than 5% finesD Cu<6 and 1>Cc>3E SP Poorly-graded sandI

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG.H.I

Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Sands with Fines more than 12% fines D Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG.H.I

PI>7 and plots on or above “A” line J

CL Lean clayK.L.M inorganic

PI<4 or plots below “A” line J

ML SiltK.L.M

Organic clayK.L.M.N

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

(see Plasticity Chart below)

Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75

Liquid limit – not dried

OL

Organic siltK.L.M.O

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK.L.M inorganic

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic siltK.L.M

Organic clayK.L.M.P

Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75

Liquid limit – not dried

OH

Organic siltK.L.M.Q

Highly organic soil

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic in odor

PT PeatR

3 2 ½ 1 ¾ 4 10 20 40 60 140 200

Sieve NumberScreen Opening (in.)

50 10 5 1.0 0.10.5

PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SIEVE ANALYSIS

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G

P E

R C

E N

T R

E

TA

IN

E

D

D60 = 15mm

D30 = 2.5mm

D10 = 0.075mm

Cu = = = 200 D60

D10

0.075

Cc = = = 5.6 (D30)

D10 x D60

2.5

0.075 x 15

2 2

CL-ML

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

Equation of "A"-line Horizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5.

then PI = 0.73 (LL-20)

Equation of "U"-line Vertical at LL = 16 to PI = 7.

then PI = 0.9 (LL-8)

"A" L

INE

"U " L

IN

E

CL O

R O

L

CH OR O

H

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 0

P

LA

S

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D E

X (P

I)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

Plasticity Chart

Notes ABased on the material passing the 3-in (75-mm) sieve.

BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

CGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

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

(D30)

ECu = D60 /D10, Cc = D10 x D60

FIf soil contains >15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

HIf fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

JIf Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL-ML silty clay.

KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 add “with sand” or “with gravel”, whichever is predominant.

LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

MIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.

NPl>4 and plots on or above “A” line.

OPl<4 or plots below “A” line.

PPl plots on or above “A” line.

QPl plots below “A” line.

RFiber Content description shown below.

ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

Grain Size Term Particle Size

Boulders Over 12" Cobbles 3" to 12" Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Sand #200 to #4 sieve Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve

Gravel Percentages Term Percent

A Little Gravel 3% - 14% With Gravel 15% - 29% Gravelly 30% - 50%

Consistency of Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF

Very Soft less than 2 Soft 2 - 4 Firm 5 - 8 Stiff 9 - 15 Very Stiff 16 - 30 Hard Greater than 30

Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF

Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 5 - 10 Medium Dense 11 - 30 Dense 31 - 50 Very Dense Greater than 50

Moisture/Frost Condition (MC Column)

D (Dry): Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to touch.

M (Moist): Damp, although free water not visible. Soil may still have a high water content (over “optimum”).

W (Wet/ Free water visible intended to Waterbearing): describe non-plastic soils.

Waterbearing usually relates to sands and sand with silt.

F (Frozen): Soil frozen

Layering Notes

Laminations: Layers less than ½" thick of differing material or color.

Lenses: Pockets or layers greater than ½" thick of differing material or color.

Peat Description

Fiber Content Term (Visual Estimate)

Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% Hemic Peat: 33 – 67% Sapric Peat: Less than 33%

Organic Description (if no lab tests) Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat and is judged to have sufficient organic fines content to influence the Liquid Limit properties.

Slightly organic used for borderline cases.

Root Inclusions With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity of roots to influence the soil properties.

Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged to be in sufficient quantity to significantly affect soil properties.

FD

FD

A3 4

A3

A31

A3

A4

A4

69' - 4"

6' - 4"

7'

" SIPRNET

RECESSED FLOOR FOR

RAISED FLOOR SYSTEM

6' - 7 7/8"

7'

" HALLWAY

DATA

EMERGENCY

ROOM

102 22

6'

MECH / ELEC

WOMEN'S

MOP SINK

HIGH-LOW

DRINKING

FOUNTAINS

RECONFIGURE

EXISTING

CHAIN LINK

FENCE

EXIST'G

WINDOW

HALLWAY

0"

3"

5'

- 2

11"

2'

- 0

MEN'S

EXISTING

CHAIN LINK

FENCE

A B C D E F G H

D P W F O R T M c C O Y, W I

M O

D

RE

Q

UE

ST

DE

SC

RI

PT

IO

N M

AR

K

EM

ER

G

EN

CY

O

PE

RA

TI

O

NS

C

EN

TE

R

BU

IL

DI

NG

W

ES

T

HE

AD

Q

UA

RT

ER

S

RO

AD

FO

RT

M

CC

O Y , W

IS

CO

NS

IN

Da te

Re v.

3/

2/

W or k O rd er

N um b e r:

De sig n b y:

Dw n b y:

Re vie w ed b y:

Su bm itt ed b y:

Ck d by

F.

D ua n

F.

D ua n

F.

D ua n

SHEET

NUMBER :

M O

D

DA

TE

Pr oj ec t

Nu m be r:

of

A B C D E F G H

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

SHEET

FO

RT

M cC

O Y

DI

RE

CT

O

RA

TE

O F

PU

BL

IC

W

O

RK

S

S

O U

TH

TH

S

TR

EE

T

FO

RT

M cC O

Y, W

I 5

A nt ho ny

L an e M in ne ap ol is, M

N

P:

-4

-3

F : 6

-4

-3

F

LO

O R

P

LA

N

A1

NORTH

1/8" = 1'-0"

1 FLOOR PLAN

Distance:

12.22 ft

Dista nce:

78.13 ft

B-1

B-5

B-4

B-3 & B-3A B-2 Figure 1 - Boring Locations AET Project No. 12-01702 May 18, 2015 Note: modified from figure provided by Rani Engineering

FILL/

TOPSOIL

COARSE

ALLUVIUM

FILL, organic silt, black, moist (OL) SAND, fine grained, brown, moist, loose (SP)

SILTY SAND, fine grained, gray, moist to waterbearing, very loose (SM)

SAND, fine grained, pale yellow to brown, waterbearing, medium dense to dense (SP)

SAND WITH SILT, fine grained, pale yellow to brown, waterbearing, medium dense (SP-SM)

CLAYEY SAND, fine grained, brown, waterbearing, very loose (SC)

SILTY SAND, fine grained, brown, waterbearing, loose (SM)

End of boring at 21.5 feet

M

M

W

W

W

W

W

W

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

6.5

6.5

DEPTH: WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

4.4

4.4

MH

TIME

11/6/14

11/6/14

SAMPLED

DEPTH0-4.5'

4.5-19.5'

4.5

4.5

DRILLING

FLUID LEVEL

DR:

4.6

4.6

WATER

LEVEL

LG:

BORING

COMPLETED:

GM

DATE

none none

3.25" HSA

RD w/DM

DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO

THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOG

CASING

DEPTH

11/6/14

CAVE-IN

DEPTH

Rig:

Surface Elevation 878.2

MC

qp

Log of Boring No.

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

SAMPLE

TYPE

GEOLOGYDEPTH

IN

FEET WC

N

PL %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

REC

IN.

03/2011 01-DHR-060

FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS

Proposed New Building; Emergency Operations Center; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

AET No:

Project:

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG

12-01702 B-1 (p. 1 of 1)

A E

T _C

O R

P

2-

2.

G P

J A

E T

C

P T

W

E

LL

.G D

T

/1 9/

FILL/

TOPSOIL

FILL

BURIED

TOPSOIL

COARSE

ALLUVIUM

FINE

ALLUVIUM

COARSE

ALLUVIUM

FILL, organic silt, black, moist (OL) FILL, silty sand, fine grained, dark brown, moist

FILL, sand, fine grained, brown, moist

SILTY SAND with organics, fine grained, black, moist to waterbearing, loose (SM/OL) SAND, fine grained, brown to pale yellow, waterbearing, loose to medium dense (SP)

Sandy SILT, gray, waterbearing, loose (ML)

SILTY SAND, fine grained, brown, waterbearing, loose (SM)

SILTY SAND, fine grained, brown, waterbearing, very loose, with lenses of lean clay

(SM)

End of boring at 21.5 feet

M

M

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

6.5

6.5

DEPTH: WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

4.4

4.1

MH

TIME

11/6/14

11/6/14

SAMPLED

DEPTH0-4.5'

4.5-19.5'

4.5

4.5

DRILLING

FLUID LEVEL

DR:

4.8

4.6

WATER

LEVEL

LG:

BORING

COMPLETED:

GM

DATE

none none

3.25" HSA

RD w/DM

DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO

THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOG

CASING

DEPTH

11/6/14

CAVE-IN

DEPTH

Rig:

Surface Elevation 877.7

MC

qp

Log of Boring No.

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

SAMPLE

TYPE

GEOLOGYDEPTH

IN

FEET WC

N

PL %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

REC

IN.

03/2011 01-DHR-060

FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS

Proposed New Building; Emergency Operations Center; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

AET No:

Project:

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG

12-01702 B-2 (p. 1 of 1)

A E

T _C

O R

P

2-

2.

G P

J A

E T

C

P T

W

E

LL

.G D

T

/1

FILL/

TOPSOIL

FILL

COARSE

ALLUVIUM

FINE

ALLUVIUM

COARSE

ALLUVIUM

FILL, organic silt, black, moist (OL) FILL, gravelly sand with silt, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist (SP-SM) SILTY SAND, fine grained, dark brown to brown, moist, loose (SM)

SAND, fine grained, pale yellow, moist to waterbearing, medium dense (SP)

SILT, dark brown to gray, waterbearing, very loose (ML)

SILT, gray to brown, waterbearing, very loose to loose, with sand lenses, with lenses of gravel at about 18 and 20 feet (ML)

SILTY SAND with gravel, fine to coarse grained, brown, waterbearing, dense (SM) End of boring at 21.5 feet

Drilled offset boring (B-3A) 3 feet north

M

M

M/W

W

W

W

W

W

W

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.25

0.25

0.25

6.5

6.5

DEPTH: WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

4.9

4.8

MH

TIME

11/6/14

11/6/14

SAMPLED

DEPTH0-4.5'

4.5-19.5'

4.5

4.5

DRILLING

FLUID LEVEL

DR:

5.5

5.5

WATER

LEVEL

LG:

BORING

COMPLETED:

GM

DATE

none none

3.25" HSA

RD w/DM

DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO

THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOG

CASING

DEPTH

11/6/14

CAVE-IN

DEPTH

Rig:

Surface Elevation 878.1

MC

qp

Log of Boring No.

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

SAMPLE

TYPE

GEOLOGYDEPTH

IN

FEET WC

N

PL %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

REC

IN.

03/2011 01-DHR-060

FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS

Proposed New Building; Emergency Operations Center; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

AET No:

Project:

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG

12-01702 B-3 (p. 1 of 1)

A E

T _C

O R

P

2-

2.

G P

J A

E T

C

P T

W

E

LL

.G D

T

/1

FINE

ALLUVIUM

Blind drilled to 9.5 feet

SILT, dark brown to gray, waterbearing (ML) Dry density = 111 pcf Organic content = 1.6% End of boring at 11.5 feet

19W TW

11.5

DEPTH: WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

4.8

MH

TIME

11/6/14

SAMPLED

DEPTH0-9.5'

9.5

DRILLING

FLUID LEVEL

DR:

9.5

WATER

LEVEL

LG:

BORING

COMPLETED:

GM

DATE

none

3.25" HSA

DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO

THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOG

CASING

DEPTH

11/6/14

CAVE-IN

DEPTH

Rig:

Surface Elevation 878.1

MC

qp

Log of Boring No.

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

SAMPLE

TYPE

GEOLOGYDEPTH

IN

FEET WC

N

PL %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

REC

IN.

03/2011 01-DHR-060

FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS

Proposed New Building; Emergency Operations Center; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

AET No:

Project:

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG

12-01702 B-3A (p. 1 of 1)

A E

T _C

O R

P

2-

2.

G P

J A

E T

C

P T

W

E

LL

.G D

T

/1

FILL/

TOPSOIL

FILL

COARSE

ALLUVIUM

FINE

ALLUVIUM

FILL, organic silt, black, moist (OL) FILL, gravelly sand with silt, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist (SP-SM) SILTY SAND, fine grained, brown, moist, very loose (SM)

SAND, fine grained, pale yellow, waterbearing, medium dense to loose (SP)

SILT, gray, waterbearing, loose (ML)

SILT, gray to brown to dark brown, waterbearing, very loose to loose, with sand lenses, with organic fines from 17 to 21.5 feet

(ML)

Organic content = 10.2% (19.5-21.5 feet)

End of boring at 21.5 feet

M

M

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1.5

0.5

0.5

0.25

6.5

6.5

DEPTH: WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

4.5

4.5

MH

TIME

11/6/14

11/6/14

SAMPLED

DEPTH0-4.5'

4.5-19.5'

4.5

4.5

DRILLING

FLUID LEVEL

DR:

5.0

4.9

WATER

LEVEL

LG:

BORING

COMPLETED:

GM

DATE

none none

3.25" HSA

RD w/DM

DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO

THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOG

CASING

DEPTH

11/6/14

CAVE-IN

DEPTH

Rig:

Surface Elevation 878.3

MC

qp

Log of Boring No.

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

SAMPLE

TYPE

GEOLOGYDEPTH

IN

FEET WC

N

PL %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

REC

IN.

03/2011 01-DHR-060

FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS

Proposed New Building; Emergency Operations Center; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

AET No:

Project:

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG

12-01702 B-4 (p. 1 of 1)

A E

T _C

O R

P

2-

2.

G P

J A

E T

C

P T

W

E

LL

.G D

T

/1

FILL/

TOPSOIL

FILL

BURIED

TOPSOIL

COARSE

ALLUVIUM

FINE

ALLUVIUM

COARSE

ALLUVIUM

FINE

ALLUVIUM

FILL, silty sand with organics, fine grained, black, moist FILL, silty sand with gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, moist

SILT with organics, black, moist (OL)

SAND, fine to medium grained, light grayish brown, moist to waterbearing, medium dense, with lenses of lean clay (SP)

SAND, fine to medium grained, light grayish brown, waterbearing, medium dense (SP)

SAND WITH SILT, fine to medium grained, light grayish brown, waterbearing, medium dense (SP-SM)

SILTY SAND, fine grained, dark gray, waterbearing, loose (SM)

SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, trace organics (roots), grayish brown, waterbearing, loose (SM) no recovery

SILT with organics, dark brown, waterbearing, very loose (ML) Organic content = 5.4%

SILTY SAND, fine grained, trace organics, dark brown, waterbearing, very loose (SM)

SILT, trace organics, grayish brown, waterbearing, very loose (ML) Organic content = 2.2% End of boring at 31.5 feet

M

M

M/W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

6.5

6.5

DEPTH: WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

4.8

4.8

LL

TIME

4/17/15

4/17/15

SAMPLED

DEPTH0-4.5'

4.5-29.5'

4.5

4.5

DRILLING

FLUID LEVEL

DR:

4.9

4.9

WATER

LEVEL

LG:

BORING

COMPLETED:

MD

DATE

none none

3.25" HSA

RD w/DM

DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO

THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOG

CASING

DEPTH

4/17/15

CAVE-IN

DEPTH

Rig:

Surface Elevation 878.2

MC

qp

Log of Boring No.

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

SAMPLE

TYPE

GEOLOGYDEPTH

IN

FEET WC

N

PL %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

REC

IN.

03/2011 01-DHR-060

FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS

Proposed New Building; Emergency Operations Center; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

AET No:

Project:

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG

12-01702 B-5 (p. 1 of 1)

A E

T _C

O R

P

2-

2.

G P

J A

E T

C

P T

W

E

LL

.G D

T

/1

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4 30 medium

D10 coarse

4 14081.5 6 200100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification

MC% LL PL PI Cc

SILT OR CLAY

GRADATION CURVES

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

%Sand %Silt %Clay

98.7

97.0

93.3

98.8

96.2

%Gravel

SAND

fine

D30

D60

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

20161410

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER

2.1

2.6

3.0

2.1

2.8

0.96

1.08

1.26

0.97

1.13

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-2

5.5'

8.0'

10.5'

5.5'

8.0'

5.5'

8.0'

10.5'

5.5'

8.0'

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-2

1/2

P E R C E N T

F I N E R

B Y

W E I G H T

Sand, fine grained (SP)

Sand, fine grained (SP)

Sand with silt, fine grained (SP-SM)

Sand, fine grained (SP)

Sand, fine grained (SP)

3/8

2.00

4.75

2.00

2.00

2.00

0.28

0.29

0.27

0.28

0.28

0.190

0.185

0.173

0.189

0.178

Classification Cu

D100

6 70504

GRAVEL

fine

COBBLES

coarse

0.1339

0.1102

0.0886

0.1327

0.1002

1.3

3.0

6.7

1.2

3.8

11/6/14 Proposed New Building; Emergency Operations Center; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

PROJECT AET JOB NO.

DATE

12-01702

AMERICAN

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4 30 medium

D10 coarse

4 14081.5 6 200100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification

MC% LL PL PI Cc

SILT OR CLAY

GRADATION CURVES

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

%Sand %Silt %Clay

99.0

97.6

98.7

99.1

%Gravel

SAND

fine

D30

D60

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

20161410

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER

2.1

2.5

2.1

2.0

0.95

1.01

0.90

0.93

B-3

B-3

B-4

B-4

5.5'

8.0'

5.5'

8.0'

5.5'

8.0'

5.5'

8.0'

B-3

B-3

B-4

B-4

1/2

P E R C E N T

F I N E R

B Y

W E I G H T

Sand, fine grained (SP)

Sand, fine to medium grained (SP)

Sand, fine to medium grained (SP)

Sand, fine grained (SP)

3/8

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

0.28

0.31

0.30

0.28

0.191

0.193

0.197

0.192

Classification Cu

D100

6 70504

GRAVEL

fine

COBBLES

coarse

0.1362

0.1214

0.1429

0.1397

1.0

2.4

1.3

0.9

11/6/14 Proposed New Building; Emergency Operations Center; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

PROJECT AET JOB NO.

DATE

12-01702

AMERICAN

W. Headquarters Road at E. K Street; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin AMERICAN

Appendix B

Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

Appendix B – Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC

B.1 REFERENCE

This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE1, of which, we are a member firm.

B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

B.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study.

Typically factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you,

• not prepared for your project,

• not prepared for the specific site explored, or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,

• composition of the design team, or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

1 ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2952: www.asfe.org

Appendix B – Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC

B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

B.2.6 A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

B.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications.

Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.

To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognizes that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study.