Menomonee_River_FINAL_CERT_SPECS_19AUG14.pdf

FY 13 Menomonee River Environmental Restoration FY13MENOMONEERIV

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 22 00 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT

01 32 03 PROJECT SCHEDULE V3

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 35 13.10 SPECIAL PROJECT PROCEDURES

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL

01 45 00.10 10 QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM (QCS)

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 20.00 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

01 57 23 TEMPORARY STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL (EROSION AND

SEDIMENTATION CONTROL)

01 58 00 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 DEMOLITION

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 00 00 EARTHWORK

31 05 19 GEOTEXTILE

31 10 00 CLEARING FOR CIVIL WORKS

31 32 11 SOIL SURFACE EROSION CONTROL

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 92 19 SEEDING

DIVISION 35 - WATERWAY AND MARINE CONSTRUCTION

35 31 19 CHANNEL PROTECTION

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 01 11 00

SUMMARY OF WORK

08/11

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 WORK COVERED BY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

1.1.1 Project Description

1.1.2 Location

1.2 OCCUPANCY OF PREMISES

1.3 EXISTING WORK

1.4 Previous Construction Work As-Built Documents

1.5 SUBSURFACE INFORMATION

1.6 UNEXPECTED ENCOUNTERS WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1.7 LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

1.7.1 Utility Interferences Incidental to Construction

1.7.2 Commencement of Excavation Work

1.8 OVERPASSES

PART 2 PRODUCTS

PART 3 EXECUTION

-- End of Section Table of Contents --

SECTION 01 11 00 Page 1

SECTION 01 11 00

SUMMARY OF WORK

08/11

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 WORK COVERED BY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

1.1.1 Project Description

This section is a general summary of the required work and is not all-inclusive. The work described within these specifications shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:

a. Mobilization and Demobilization.

b. Protection of existing historic structures (grouted and ungrouted WPA retaining wall).

c. Installation, maintenance and repair of surface erosion control measures.

d. Control of water (channel diversion and dewatering).

e. Concrete channel demolition, salvage and disposal of material.

f. Clearing, grubbing stripping and stockpiling of earth materials.

g. Common excavation, backfill, compaction and testing.

h. Excavation, removal and replacement of unsuitable, or contaminated material.

i. Placement of boulders, select granular base, filter gravel and angular stone to replace the concrete channel lining.

j. Demobilization and returning the site to pre-construction condition.

1.1.2 Location

The work shall be located, as indicated on the project plans along the Menomonee River between West Wisconsin Avenue and Interstate 94.

1.2 OCCUPANCY OF PREMISES

Before work is started, the Contractor shall arrange with the Contracting Officer a sequence of procedure, means of access, space for storage of materials and equipment, and use of approaches to the project site .

1.3 EXISTING WORK

In addition to "FAR 52.236-9, Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements":

a. Remove or alter existing work in such a manner as to prevent

SECTION 01 11 00 Page 2 injury or damage to any portions of the existing work which remain.

b. Repair or replace portions of existing work which have been altered during construction operations to match existing or adjoining work, as approved by the Contracting Officer. At the completion of operations, existing work shall be in a condition equal to or better than that which existed before new work started.

The WPA Retaining Walls are historic features that cannot be disturbed.

1.4 Previous Construction Work As-Built Documents

As-built documents from previous Channel construction work completed in 1965 is contained with these contract documents.

1.5 SUBSURFACE INFORMATION

Subsurface investigations have been completed to indicate subsurface conditions at specific locations and times. A Geotechnical Report, entitled "Final Geotechnical Engineering Report, Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigations U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Detroit District" is contained with these contract documents.

1.6 UNEXPECTED ENCOUNTERS WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

In the event that unknown hazardous material is encountered during construction, work suspension may be needed to verify the presence and extent of hazardous materials. The Article "SUSPENSION OF WORK" in the GENERAL CONDITIONS shall be followed if a stop-work order is issued.

1.7 LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

Obtain digging permits prior to start of excavation. Verify the elevations of existing piping, utilities,and any type of underground or encased obstruction. Verify elevations before installing new work closer than nearest manhole or other structure at which an adjustment in grade can be made.

The Contractor shall at all times provide unobstructed access to fire hydrants, underground conduit, manholes and water and gas valve boxes.

Protect all utility poles from damage. If interfering utility poles or guy wires are encountered, the Contractor shall notify the Engineer and the appropriate utility company as soon as possible but not less that 30 days in advance of construction operations to permit the necessary arrangements for protection or relocation of the interfering poles' installation.

The Contractor shall replace, at their own expense, any and all other existing utilities removed or damaged during construction, unless other provided for in these Contract documents.

1.7.1 Utility Interferences Incidental to Construction

When notified by the Contractor that an unanticipated interference or conflict has been determined to exist, the Engineer will determine whether such interference shall be considered as required by construction or as incidental to construction.

SECTION 01 11 00 Page 3

1.7.2 Commencement of Excavation Work

Notify the Contracting Officer at least 15 days prior to starting excavation work.

1.8 OVERPASSES

Provide notification to the Contracting Officer at least 10 days prior to the start of work near the Canadian Pacific Rail Overpass and Wisconsin Department of Transportation I-94 Overpass.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not used.

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not used.

-- End of Section --

SECTION 01 11 00 Page 4

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text 1965 As-Built Drawings for Menomonee River Concrete Lining Project

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

H7ETDTCS

Typewritten Text

AECOM 616.942.9600 tel 5555 Glenwood Hills Pkwy, Suite 300 616.940.4396 fax

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512

Final Geotechnical Engineering Report

Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigations U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Detroit District

Delivery Order No.: 0028 Contract No.: W911XK-09-D-0015 AECOM Project No.: 60304884 Date: October 23, 2013

Prepared by:

AECOM

Aaron M. Humphrey, P.E.

Senior Project Engineer

(616) 940-4451

Reviewed by:

AECOM

Paul A. Tarvin, P.E.

Vice President

(414) 944-6080

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 2

Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Authorization and Purpose

3.0 Scope of Services

4.0 Procedures

4.1 Soil Borings

4.2 Borehole Survey

4.3 Laboratory Testing

5.0 Exploration Results

5.1 Area Geology

5.2 Soil Conditions

5.3 Water Conditions

6.0 Engineering Properties

6.1 Engineering Properties ME-01-13

6.2 Engineering Properties ME-02-13

6.3 Engineering Properties ME-03-13

6.4 Engineering Properties ME-04-13

6.5 Engineering Properties ME-05-13

6.6 Engineering Properties ME-06-13

6.7 Engineering Properties ME-07-13

7.0 General Qualifications

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 3

TABLES

Table 1: Boring Location Summary

FIGURES

Figure 1: Boring Location Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A – AECOM General Notes

AECOM Soil Classification System

AECOM Field and Laboratory Procedures

AECOM Standard Boring Log Procedures

Appendix B – Final Boring Logs

Field Boring Logs

Appendix C – Laboratory Summary Sheet

Atterberg Limits Test Results

Gradation Test Results

CU Triaxial Test Results

Specific Gravity Test Results

Appendix D - Photograph Log

Appendix E – Excerpts from EM1110-1-1905

Appendix F - MMSD CT 5/6 Cross Town Collector System Geotechnical Study

Geotechnical Data Table

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 1

60304884 - Menomonee River FINAL.doc

1.0 Introduction

According to the United States Army Corps of Engineers – Detroit District, the following paragraphs provide background information for the project:

“The lower Menomonee River currently has a concrete lined channel in the reach between I-94 to just upstream of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge. The channel is trapezoidal in shape and is lined with limestone floodwalls, which were constructed by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in the 1930’s. While the system currently serves it functions of conveying flood flows and reducing flow water surface elevations, the concrete is deteriorating as it approaches the end of its design life and high flow velocities and shallow flow depths impede fish migration between Lake Michigan and the upper portions of the watershed. The project includes the removal of the concrete channel to create a more suitable habitat for fish migration.

The purpose of the work is to determine the type, nature, engineering properties and the elevation of their occurrence, of the subsurface materials within the Underwood Creek project area. The results will be used for slope stability analysis and/or retaining wall design along the channel banks.

The project site is located on the Menomonee River between W Wisconsin Avenue and Interstate 94 near Milwaukee, Wisconsin.”

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 2

2.0 Authorization and Purpose

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) engaged AECOM to perform soil borings and laboratory testing to obtain geotechnical information needed for the design of the project.

The project was presented by USACE to AECOM in a Request for Proposal (RFP) and scope of work dated May 24, 2013. The contract was awarded on July 24, 2013 as task order 0028 under AECOM’s IDIQ contract W911XK-09-D-0015. AECOM subcontracted the drilling services to Subsurface Exploration Services, LLC (SES) out of Green Bay, Wisconsin.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 3

3.0 Scope of Services

The AECOM services were completed in general accordance with the Underwood Creek Geotechnical Investigation Scope of Work (SOW) dated May 24, 2013. The Scope of Work included, but was not limited to, the following tasks:

preparing a Quality Control Plan (QCP), and a Hazard Analysis and Accident Prevention Plan (APP);

staking the boring locations in the field;

obtaining utility clearance prior to the performance of the borings;

mobilizing a truck mounted drilling rig (subcontracted to SES) to the project site to perform borings primarily on weekends as required by the landowner;

obtaining representative split spoon and relatively undisturbed Shelby tube soil samples generally at continuous intervals in the upper 15 feet of borings and at 2.5-foot intervals at greater depths in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards to approximate depths of 44 to 58 feet, and obtaining a 1-foot long rock core of bedrock at the bottom of each boring;

restoring the boring sites to near pre-boring conditions;

recording the location and elevation of the borings using a handheld GPS device;

observing soil and groundwater conditions while drilling and sampling and preparing field logs documenting drilling methods, SPT results, soil condition observations, and other pertinent geotechnical-related observations;

performing laboratory testing on representative samples and preparing final geotechnical boring logs using gINT software;

preparing a draft geotechnical engineering report summarizing the field explorations, soil conditions, laboratory results, and recommended engineering properties; and, preparing this final report to reflect USACE comments to the draft report.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 4

4.0 Procedures

4.1 Soil Borings

A total of seven (7) soil borings were advanced at the project site by Subsurface Exploration Services (SES) under subcontract to AECOM using a truck mounted Diedrich D-50 rotary drill rig. An AECOM field engineer was on site during the subsurface exploration program to observe the collected samples and log the boreholes. Six of the borings were performed on the Miller-Coors property at the project site, while one boring (ME-07-13) was performed on the opposite bank of the Menomonee River.

The borings were advanced using solid stem augers to a depth of approximately 10 feet, at which point a 4-inch isolation casing was installed and the borings were continued using a roller bit and rotary wash methods. Representative soil samples were obtained at continuous intervals in the upper 15 feet of the boring and at 2.5-foot intervals below 15 feet in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils" using an automatic hydraulic hammer.

Relatively undisturbed Shelby tube samples were taken in cohesive soils in general accordance with ASTM D1587 “Standard Practice for Thin Walled Tube Sampling”. The borings were advanced using these methods to approximately 44 to 58 feet below the ground surface. The borings were advanced until bedrock was encountered, and a 1-foot long NX size rock core was obtained in each boring to determine the type, consistency and competency of the rock. The soil borings were backfilled with auger cuttings and bentonite pellets upon completion.

The soil samples were returned to the AECOM laboratory in Vernon Hills, Illinois for testing as described later in this report. The results of these observations are shown on the final boring logs that are included in Appendix B. A copy of the AECOM Standard Boring Log, Field, and Laboratory Procedures are included in Appendix A. Photographs taken during the drilling are included in Appendix D.

An AECOM field engineer was present during the drilling activities to prepare field logs documenting drilling methods, SPT results, soil conditions, groundwater measurements, and other pertinent geotechnical-related observations. It is important to note that the information included on the field logs is based on the initial interpretations of the soil conditions and soil types by the AECOM field representative.

These field logs were then used along with additional visual observations and the results of laboratory testing and laboratory classification for completing the final boring logs.

4.2 Borehole Survey

The USACE provided AECOM with a location map and coordinates of the seven proposed soil boring locations. AECOM located the borings prior to drilling based on visual observations and approximations based on the maps and boring co-ordinates using a hand-held GPS device. Following the performance of the soil borings, AECOM use a hand-held GPS device to survey the final boring locations.

The soil boring locations are presented on Figure 1 and the coordinates are provided on Table 1.

4.3 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory strength and index tests were completed on selected soil samples to characterize the physical properties of the soils encountered in the soil borings. The table below outlines the laboratory tests completed by AECOM and their corresponding ASTM designations:

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 5

Laboratory Testing Program Summary

Test Name Designation Proposed Number of

Tests

Completed Number of Tests

Visual Classification ASTM D 2488 56 163

Moisture Content ASTM D 2216 112 168

Atterberg Limits ASTM D 4318 14 14

Combined Analysis ASTM D 422 14 14

Specific Gravity ASTM D 854 7 7

CU Triaxial Test ASTM D4767

9 3

The laboratory testing results are included in Appendix C. Modifications to the original test program were made in consultation with Mr. Timothy Smith (USACE – Technical POC) prior to initiation of the laboratory testing program.

In conjunction with the laboratory test program, all of the samples were classified in the field in general accordance with the AECOM Soil Classification System. These descriptions and estimated group symbols are in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System which serves as the basis for the AECOM Soil Classification System, and are included on the soil boring logs. A brief explanation of the classification of soil samples is included in the Appendix A. The laboratory test results are included within Appendix C of this report.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 6

5.0 Exploration Results

5.1 Area Geology

The soil deposits in the Milwaukee area have been studied extensively and have been published in numerous reports prepared on behalf of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) for their deep tunnel project. These studies were commissioned in the 1980s and 1990s. One such study for the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) characterizes the site geology as follows:

“The soil deposits overlying bedrock in Milwaukee County range from a few to over 250 feet in thickness.

In general, these deposits can be differentiated into soils formed by continental glaciation and soils formed by recent fluvial deposition. The glacial soils were deposited by a series of glaciers that advanced out of the Lake Michigan basin, and in the proglacial lakes and streams associated with the glaciers.

These soils were deposited about 13,000 to 15,000 years ago and are present throughout the CSO study area. The postglacial soils were deposited in streams and shallow estuaries during a major fluctuation in the water level of ancestral Lake Michigan. These soils were deposited within the last 6,000 years and are present in the downstream reaches of the major river valleys in the CSO study area.

In general, the glacial soils consist predominately of till and proglacial lake sediment….Till 2 is the most common till. It is the surficial soil in most places within the CSO study area and present in the subsurface throughout.

Lacustrine sand and silt and outwash are the more common proglacial lake sediments in the subsurface along the lower Menomonee River valley and in the harbor area. Lacustrine silt and clay is more common in most other areas.

Postglacial soil units are found only along the major rivers in the CSO study area….Alluvial soils are present in the upper parts of the river valleys, as the surficial soil, and below and within the estuarine soil in the lower parts of the valley. Along the Milwaukee and Menomonee Rivers, the alluvial soils are present in the lower reaches of the river and are obscured by channelization in the middle and upstream reaches of the study area….The soil materials that make up the alluvial unit were deposited in stream channels as pint-bar and channel-lag deposits. They consist of very loose to medium dense, brown to gray, well to poorly graded, silt and sandy silt, to silty sand and gravel. When directly overlying glacial soils, alluvial deposits tend to be quite gravelly.”

The upper portion of the bedrock in the area of the subject site is typically a Silurian Age Dolomite of the Racine Formation. “The Racine Formation is a uniform, light gray, dense dolomite with bedding plane spacings that ranger form close to medium. There are occasional zones of very closely spaced thin shaly partings and finely vuggy rock.”

5.2 Soil Conditions

A generalized summary of the subsurface conditions encountered during the subsurface exploration program is discussed below. The geologic descriptions provided below are generalized and brief;

individual soil boring logs in Appendix B should be reviewed to determine the actual subsurface conditions at the individual boring locations. The conditions encountered are consistent with the previous regional studies described above.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 7

Ground Surface Borings ME-01-13 through ME-04-13, and boring ME-06-13, had approximately of 4 to 8 inches of bituminous asphalt pavement typically underlain by 2 inches of aggregate base. Boring ME-05-13 had 10-inches of concrete beginning at the ground surface underlain by about 2 inches of aggregate base, and boring ME-07-13 had approximately 8 inches of topsoil at the ground surface.

Fill Soils With the exception of boring ME-07-13 which was performed on the opposite bank of the Menomonee River than the other borings, the remaining borings encountered relatively thick deposits of non-engineered fill. These fill soils consisted of a mixture of sandy and clayey soils and contained varying amounts of limestone fragments, brick, glass, wood, cinders, concrete, and slag. These soils are highly erratic in both composition and relative density. The following table provides a summary of the thickness and bottom elevation of fill deposits encountered:

Fill Thickness Summary

Boring Depth to Bottom of Fill (feet)

Elevation of

Bottom of Fill

(feet)

ME-01-13 16.5 605.4

ME-02-13 11 609.5

ME-03-13 25 596.0

ME-04-13 22.5 596.5

ME-05-13 20.5 594.3

ME-06-13 13 591.0

ME-07-13 Fill Soils Not Encountered

Silty Clay Silty clay with trace to little amounts of fine to coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel (USCS: CL, CL-ML) is a primary deposit at the site. These soils are proglacial lake sediments. The thickness, depth, and consistency of this deposit were highly erratic and no discernible trends in these variables are readily identifiable, as shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. These soils had layers of sandy soils of variable thickness and at variable depths within the overall soil matrix. These cohesive soils ranged in consistency from medium to hard with calibrated penetrometer readings ranging from 0.75 to greater than

4.5 tons per square foot (tsf). In general, these soils were very stiff with average calibrated penetrometer readings between 2 and 3 tons per square foot (tsf).

Sand/Silt/Gravel In addition to the silty clay stratum discussed above, there were various seams and layers of granular material encountered throughout the borings. The soils are alluvial deposits. These deposits ranged from primarily silty soils (USCS: ML), primarily sandy soils (USCS: SP, SM, SP-SM), and primarily gravelly soils (USCS: GP, GP-GM). The relative density of these soils ranged from loose to extremely dense based on SPT-N values. In general, the soils were primarily sandy (USCS: SP, SM) and were typically dense. The boring logs in Appendix B should be consulted to evaluate the variability in these strata.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 8

Bedrock All of the borings were terminated at bedrock, and a minimum 1-foot long core was obtained in each. The bedrock consisted of a dolomitic limestone. The following table provides a summary of the depth of bedrock encountered:

Bedrock Depth Summary

Boring Depth to Top of

Bedrock (feet)

Elevation of Top of Bedrock (feet)

ME-01-13 57 564.9

ME-02-13 56.3 564.2

ME-03-13 54 567.0

ME-04-13 51.7 567.3

ME-05-13 45.6 569.2

ME-06-13 40.4 563.6

ME-07-13 47.2 566.6

5.3 Water Conditions

Groundwater was encountered before the start of wash rotary drilling methods at a depth of 13.2 feet in boring ME-02-13 and at 26.6 feet in boring ME-05-13. No groundwater was observed in the other borings.

These water level measurements were made under short term conditions and therefore may not be representative of the long term position of the groundwater table. Observation wells would need to be installed and monitored over a period of several weeks in order to determine the long term position of the water table. Additionally, both seasonal and annual fluctuations in groundwater levels will likely occur.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 9

6.0 Engineering Properties

AECOM understands that the USACE intends to use the soil boring and laboratory testing data obtained from the investigation described in this report to perform slope stability and/or bearing capacity analyses at the project site. Given the large degree of variability in soil conditions observed in both the borings and the laboratory testing, AECOM recommends that the USACE use appropriate factors of safety to account for variability in the selection of soil properties.

A table summarizing the typical range in soil index and strength properties from the MMSD CT 5/6 Cross Town Collector System Geotechnical Study is provided in Appendix F. The following section provides AECOM’s recommendations for soil properties based on the results of the soil borings and the laboratory testing, and comparison with the CT 5/6 soil test program. The three primary material types are outlined below along with a discussion of methodologies used to establish soil properties for each boring profile. In general, strata changes of one‐foot thickness or less were omitted from the engineering property tabulations. The recommended properties at each of the boring locations are provided in the following subsections. In general, strata changes of one‐foot thickness or less were omitted from the engineering property tabulations.

Fill Soils: At the request of USACE, estimates of the strength of the fill soils have been made using the methods outlined below for Granular/Cohesionless soils and for cohesive soils, and adjusted to account for inherent variability in the fill deposits, where appropriate. We have provided estimates which we believe are conservative; however, caution must be used in the use of the soil properties and the actual soil conditions must be carefully observed during construction to evaluate the appropriateness of these recommendations.

Granular/Cohesionless Soils: The engineering properties of granular soils were primarily derived from SPT tests performed in the field and a limited amount of laboratory testing for moisture content and soil density. Field SPT‐N values which were obtained in the field were corrected to N60 values in general accordance with procedures outlined in manual EM 1110‐1‐1905 (30 October 1992) “Bearing Capacity of Soils”. This conversion was performed with the assumption that the automatic hammer used in the field had an efficiency of approximately 85% for the rod energy correction and the overburden correction was made in accordance with correction factors derived by Tokimatsu and Seed (1984).

Once N60 was obtained, the relative density (Dr) for each sample was estimated using the method of Gibbs and Holtz (1957). This estimation was performed using the field SPT‐N value corrected for energy, but without the overburden correction applied in accordance with the method. Using the relative density estimation, friction angles were estimated using the Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (1974) correlations as outlined on Table 3‐1B of EM 1110‐1‐1905. Excerpts from EM 1110‐1‐1905 are included in Appendix E at the end of this report.

Unless otherwise noted, soil unit weights were estimated using engineering judgment and commonly observed values of unit weights for similar soils. Engineering judgment and engineering experience were used in recommendations for soil friction angle.

Cohesive Soils: The engineering properties of cohesive soils were primarily derived from the laboratory strength and index testing which was performed as well as field testing. The properties of cohesive soil deposits which were not subjected to laboratory testing are not presented.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 10

6.1 Engineering Properties ME-01-13

The following properties are recommended for use in analyses at this location.

Layer Name/Depth

Elevation (ft) Recommended Engineering Properties

Notes

Top Bottom

Fill

USCS: SM

(0’‐3’)

621.9 618.9 '= 30°

Estimated from empirical correlations based on SPT‐N values and engineering judgment. Note the fill soil is reported to contain:

concrete, cinders, and silt and clay layers.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Fill Soil Deposits

Fill

USCS: SC‐CL

(3’‐8’)

618.9 613.9 '= 28° Su = 1000 psf (from 1 point)

This parameter is estimated from empirical correlations for friction angle and calibrated penetrometer measurements for undrained shear strength. Note the fill soil is reported to contain concrete, cinders, and slag.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Fill Soil Deposits

Fill

USCS: SP, SM

(8’‐16.5’)

613.9 605.4 '= 28° and engineering judgment. Note the fill soil is reported to contain trace amounts of glass.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Fill Soil Deposits

USCS: CL

(16.5’‐21’)

605.4 600.9 Avgd = 114.9 pcf (from 1 pt)

Avgtot = 135.1 pcf (from 1 pt)

This parameter is based on density testing from sample S9.

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 60 psf

’= 27.5°

This strength envelope is based on CU testing on sample S‐9.

Total Stress Envelope Su = 2250 psf (from 2 pts)

This strength envelope is based on calibrated penetrometer measurements.

Cohesionless Soils

USCS: SM, ML

(21’‐25’)

600.9 596.9 '= 30° tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Sand & Silt Deposits

596.9 556.9 '= 36°

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 11

USCS: GP

(25’‐30’) tot = 133 pcf Estimated from engineering

(Appendix F) for Alluvial Deposits

(30’‐55’)

591.9 566.9 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 4000 psf (from 8 pts)

This strength envelope is based on

USCS: SM

(55’‐57’)

566.9 564.9 '= 38° tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

Silt Deposits.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 12

6.2 Engineering Properties ME-02-13

Layer Name/Depth

Elevation (ft) Recommended Engineering Properties

Notes

Top Bottom

Fill

USCS: SM, SP‐

SM

(0’‐11’)

620.5 609.5 '= 28° and engineering judgment. Note the fill soil is reported to contain wood, brick, concrete, slag, and cinders.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering

(11’‐22.5’)

609.5 598 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 1250 psf (from 2 pts)

This strength envelope is based on

USCS: SM

(22.5’‐25’)

598 595.5 '= 30° tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

USCS: SP,GP

(25’‐30’)

595.5 590.5 '= 36° tot = 133 pcf Estimated from engineering

(30’‐42.5’)

590.5 578 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 3000 psf (from 5 pts)

This strength envelope is based on

USCS: SM

(42.5’‐44’)

578 576.5 '= 36° tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 13

Silt Deposits.

(44’‐50’)

576.5 570.5 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 2750 psf (from 3 pts)

This strength envelope is based on

USCS: GP‐GM

(50’‐56.3’)

570.5 564.2 '= 38° tot = 133 pcf Estimated from engineering

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 14

6.3 Engineering Properties ME-03-13

Layer Name/Depth

Elevation (ft) Recommended Engineering Properties

Notes

Top Bottom

Fill

USCS: CL, SM,

ML

(0’‐13’)

621.0 608 '= 28° and engineering judgment. Note the fill soil is reported to contain:

concrete, brick, slag, and cinders.

tot = 120 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment

FILL

USCS: SP‐SM,

SM

(13’‐25’)

608 596 '= 30° and engineering judgment. Note the fill soil is reported to contain wood, brick, concrete, slag, paper, and cinders.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering

USCS: SP, GP

(25’‐29’)

596 592 '= 36° tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

USCS: CL‐ML

(29’‐34’)

592 587 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 2500 psf (from 2 pts)

This strength envelope is based on

USCS: ML

(34’‐36.5’)

587 584.5 '= 34° tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

(36.5’‐54’)

584.5 567 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope This strength envelope is based on

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 15

Su = 3300 psf (from 4 pts) calibrated penetrometer

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 16

6.4 Engineering Properties ME-04-13

Layer Name/Depth

Elevation (ft) Recommended Engineering Properties

Notes

Top Bottom

Fill

USCS: CL

(0’‐7’)

619 612 '= 28° Su = 750 psf (from 2 points)

This parameter is estimated from empirical correlations for friction angle and engineering judgment and calibrated penetrometer measurements for undrained shear strength.

Note the fill soil is reported to contain concrete, brick, cinders, and slag.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Fill Soil Deposits

Fill

USCS: SM

(7’‐9’)

612 610 '= 30° correlations based on SPT‐N values and engineering judgment. Note the fill soil is reported to contain: concrete and cinders.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Fill Soil Deposits

Fill

USCS: CL, SC‐CL

(9’‐22.5’)

610 596.5 '= 28° Su =5800 psf (from 4 points)

This parameter is estimated from empirical correlations for friction angle and engineering judgment and calibrated penetrometer measurements for undrained shear strength.

Note the fill soil is reported to contain concrete, brick, cinders, and slag.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Fill Soil Deposits

Cohesionless Soils

USCS: GM

(22.5’‐25’)

596.5 594 '= 31° values tot = 133 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Alluvial

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 17

USCS: GM, GP

(25’‐32.5’)

594 586.5 '= 36° values tot = 133 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

USCS: CL‐ML

(32.5’‐47.5’)

586.5 571.5 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 3750 psf (from 6 pts)

This strength envelope is based on calibrated penetrometer

USCS: SM, SP

(47.5’‐51’)

571.5 568 '= 36° values tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Sand & Silt Deposits

(51’‐51.7’)

568 567.3 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 4500 psf

This strength envelope is based on comparison of SPT‐N value with calibrated penetrometer measurements on other similar samples.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 18

6.5 Engineering Properties ME-05-13

Layer Name/Depth

Elevation (ft) Recommended Engineering Properties

Notes

Top Bottom

Fill

USCS: CL

(0’‐4’)

614.8 610.8 '= 28° Su = 1000 psf (from 2 points)

This parameter is estimated from empirical correlations for friction angle and engineering judgment and calibrated penetrometer measurements for undrained shear strength.

Note the fill soil is reported to contain concrete, brick, and cinders.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Fill Soil Deposits

Fill

USCS: SM, SP, SP‐

SM

(4’‐13’)

610.8 601.8 '= 30° values and engineering judgment. Note the fill soil is reported to contain: concrete, brick, cinders, slag and glass.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Fill Soil Deposits

Fill

USCS: SP‐SM, SM

(13’‐20.5’)

601.8 594.3 '= 28° values and engineering judgment. Note the fill soil is reported to contain: concrete, brick, cinders, and slag.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

USCS: SP,GP

(20.5’‐28’)

594.3 586.8 '= 36° values tot = 133 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

(28’‐35.5’)

586.8 579.3 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt

Effective Stress Envelope

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 19 c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

& Clay Deposits

Total Stress Envelope Su = 4500 psf (from 3 pts)

This strength envelope is based

USCS: SP,SP‐SM

(35.5’‐43’)

579.3 571.8 '= 36° values tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Sand & Silt Deposits

(43’‐45’)

571.8 569.8 Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 4500 psf

This strength envelope is based on comparison of SPT‐N value with calibrated penetrometer measurements on other similar samples.

USCS: ML

(45’‐45.6’)

569.8 569.2 '= 36° values tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 20

6.6 Engineering Properties ME-06-13

Layer Name/Depth

Elevation (ft) Recommended Engineering Properties

Notes

Top Bottom

Fill

USCS: SP, SM

(0’‐13’)

604.0 591 '= 30° values and engineering judgment. Note the fill soil is reported to contain wood, brick, concrete, slag, and cinders.

tot = 134 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

(13’‐21’)

Avgtot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering

(Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 4375 psf (from 4 pts)

This strength envelope is based on calibrated penetrometer measurements.

(21’‐30’)

583 574 '= 36° values tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Sand & Silt Deposits

(30’‐32.5’)

571.5

(Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Su = 3500 psf (from 1 pts)

This strength envelope is based

(32.5’‐37.5’)

571.5 566.5 '= 36° values tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

Silty Clay 566.5 560 Avgtot = 125 pcf Estimated from engineering

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 21

(37.5’‐44’)

Effective Stress Envelope

’= 26°‐28° judgment and MMSD Table (Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Total Stress Envelope Su = 3500 psf (from 1 pt)

This strength envelope is based on calibrated penetrometer measurements.

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 22

6.7 Engineering Properties ME-07-13

Layer Name/Depth

Elevation (ft) Recommended Engineering Properties

Notes

Top Bottom

Cohesionless Soils

USCS: ML

(0’‐10’)

613.8 603.8 '= 34° values tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

(10’‐13’)

603.8

600.8

(Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 ‐400 psf

’= 26°‐28° Total Stress Envelope Avg N60 =8 bpf (from 2 pts)

Due to sample disturbance, no measurements were obtained.

USCS: SM, SP, GP

(13’‐20’)

600.8 593.8 '= 30° values tot = 133 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

(20’‐44’)

593.8 569.8 Avgd = 103pcf (from 1 pt)

Avgtot = 122.3 pcf (from 1 pt)

This parameter is based on density testing from sample S20.

Effective Stress Envelope c’ = 0 psf

’= 25.1°

This strength envelope is based on CU testing on sample S20.

Total Stress Envelope Su = 3650 psf (from 10 pts)

This strength envelope is based

USCS: ML

(44’‐46.5’)

569.8 567.3 '= 36° values tot = 138 pcf Estimated from engineering judgment and MMSD Table

571.5 judgment and MMSD Table Effective Stress Envelope

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 23

(46.5’‐47.2’)

(Appendix F) for Lacustrine Silt & Clay Deposits

Total Stress Envelope Su = 4500 psf (from 1 pts)

This strength envelope is based

AECOM Menomonee River Geotechnical Investigation 24

7.0 General Qualifications

The information presented in this report is based on data obtained from soil borings and laboratory testing completed. Variations can occur between borings, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until after construction. If variations are encountered, it may be necessary reevaluate the information contained in this report with respect to the design and construction.

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices to aid in the evaluation of this property, and to assist in the design of this project. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The scope of this report is limited to the specific project and location described herein, and our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil characteristics.

TABLES

Table 1: Boring Location Summary

Menomonee River

Milwaukee, WI

AECOM Project #: 60304884

Table 1: Boring Location Summary

Northing (ft) Easting (ft)

ME‐01‐13 384983.0 2512422.9 621.90 58.2 SES 8/17/2013 Grouted

ME‐02‐13 384782.2 2512402.7 620.54 56.8 SES 8/18/2013 Grouted

ME‐03‐13 384564.1 2512291.2 620.98 55.5 SES 8/24/2013 Grouted

ME‐04‐13 384412.0 2512164.7 619.00 53.5 SES 8/25/2013 Grouted

ME‐05‐13 384238.8 2511991.4 614.80 48.5 SES 8/26/2013 Grouted

ME‐06‐13 383982.2 2511870.1 604.00 43.8 SES 8/24/2013 Grouted

ME‐07‐13 385080.5 2512562.2 613.80 49 SES 8/19/2013 Grouted

*: Based on NAD 83, Wisconsin State Plane South Co-ordinates **: Ground surface elevation based on NAVD88

Boring Drilling

Firm Date

Drilled Borehole

Status

Coordinates* Ground Surface

Elevation (ft)**

Boring

Depth (ft)

FIGURES

Figure 1: Boring Location Plan

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

ME-07-13

ME-06-13

ME-05-13

ME-04-13

ME-03-13

ME-02-13

ME-01-13

Drawn:

Scale:

Approved:

PROJECT

NUMBER

FIGURE

NUMBER

JW 10/2/2013

60304884

AH

0 75 150

Feet q 10/2/2013

AS SHOWN

www.aecom.com Copyright ©2013 By: AECOM

O:\Projects\60304884_Menominee\Fig1_menominee_borings.mxd

AERIAL PHOTO SOURCE: ESRI 4/29/2011

Legend !A Boring

MENOMINEE BORING LOCATIONS

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

APPENDIX A

AECOM Standard Documents

AECOM General Notes

Drilling and Sampling Symbols:

SS : Split Spoon - 1-3/8" I.D. 2" O.D. (Unless otherwise noted) HS : Hollow Stem Auger ST : Shelby Tube-2" O.D. (Unless otherwise noted) WS : Wash Sample PA : Power Auger FT : Fish Tail DB : Diamond Bit-NX, BX, AX RB : Rock Bit AS : Auger Sample BS : Bulk Sample JS : Jar Sample PM : Pressuremeter Test VS : Vane Shear GS : Giddings Sampler OS : Osterberg Sampler

Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler, except where otherwise noted.

Water Level Measurement Symbols:

WL : Water Level WCI : Wet Cave In WS : While Sampling DCI : Dry Cave In WD : While Drilling BCR : Before Casing Removal AB : After Boring ACR : After Casing Removal

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable groundwater levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of groundwater elevations may not be possible, even after several days of observations; additional evidence of groundwater elevations must be sought.

Gradation Description and Terminology:

Coarse grained or granular soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine grained soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as clay or clayey silt if they are cohesive and silt if they are non-cohesive. In addition to gradation, granular soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their strength or consistency and their plasticity.

Major Component of Sample

Size Range Description of Other

Components Present in Sample

Percent Dry Weight

Boulders Over 8 in. (200 mm) Trace 1-9

Cobbles 8 inches to 3 inches (200 mm to 75 mm)

Little 10-19

Gravel 3 inches to #4 sieve (75 mm to 4.76 mm)

Some 20-34

Sand #4 to #200 sieve

(4.76 mm to 0.074 mm) And 35-50

Silt Passing #200 sieve

(0.074 mm to 0.005 mm)

Clay Smaller than 0.005 mm

Consistency of Cohesive Soils: Relative Density of Granular Soils:

Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, tsf

Consistency N-Blows per foot Relative Density

<0.25 Very Soft 0 - 3 Very Loose

0.25 - 0.49 Soft 4 - 9 Loose

0.50 - 0.99 Medium (firm) 10 - 29 Medium Dense

1.00 - 1.99 Stiff 30 - 49 Dense

2.00 - 3.99 Very Stiff 50 - 80 Very Dense

4.00 - 8.00 Hard >80 Extremely Dense

>8.00 Very Hard

AECOM Soil Classification System (1)

1. See AECOM General Notes for component gradation terminology, consistency of cohesive soils and relative density of granular soils.

2. Reference: Unified Soil Classification Systems

3. Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example: GW-GC, well-graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder.

AECOM Field and Laboratory Procedures Subsurface Exploration Procedures

Hand-Auger Drilling (HA) In this procedure, a sampling device is driven into the soil by repeated blows of a sledge hammer or a drop hammer. When the sampler is driven to the desired sample depth, the soil sample is retrieved. The hole is then advanced by manually turning the hand auger until the next sampling depth increment is reached. The hand auger drilling between sampling intervals also helps to clean and enlarge the borehole in preparation for obtaining the next sample.

Power Auger Drilling (PA) In this type of drilling procedure, continuous flight augers are used to advance the boreholes. They are turned and hydraulically advanced by a truck, trailer or track-mounted unit as site accessibility dictates. In auger drilling, casing and drilling mud are not required to maintain open boreholes.

Hollow Stem Auger Drilling (HS) In this drilling procedure, continuous flight augers having open stems are used to advance the boreholes.

The open stem allows the sampling tool to be used without removing the augers from the borehole.

Hollow stem augers thus provide support to the sides of the borehole during the sampling operations.

Rotary Drilling (RB) In employing rotary drilling methods, various cutting bits are used to advance the boreholes. In this process, surface casing and/or drilling fluids are used to maintain open boreholes.

Diamond Core Drilling (DB) Diamond core drilling is used to sample cemented formations. In this procedure, a double tube (or triple tube) core barrel with a diamond bit cuts an annular space around a cylindrical prism of the material sampled. The sample is retrieved by a catcher just above the bit. Samples recovered by this procedure are placed in sturdy containers in sequential order.

AECOM Field and Laboratory Procedures Field Sampling Procedures

Auger Sampling (AS) In this procedure, soil samples are collected from cuttings off of the auger flights as they are removed from the ground. Such samples provide a general indication of subsurface conditions; however, they do not provide undisturbed samples, nor do they provide samples from discrete depths.

Split-Barrel Sampling (SS) - (ASTM Standard D-1586-99) In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a 2-inch O.D. split barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by means of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The value of the Standard Penetration Resistance is obtained by counting the number of blows of the hammer over the final 12 inches of driving.

This value provides a qualitative indication of the in-place relative density of cohesionless soils. The indication is qualitative only, however, since many factors can significantly affect the Standard Penetration Resistance Value, and direct correlation of results obtained by drill crews using different rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer-rod-spoon assemblies should not be made. A portion of the recovered sample is placed in a sample jar and returned to the laboratory for further analysis and testing.

Shelby Tube Sampling Procedure (ST) - ASTM Standard D-1587-94 In the Shelby tube sampling procedure, a thin-walled steel seamless tube with a sharp cutting edge is pushed hydraulically into the soil and a relatively undisturbed sample is obtained. This procedure is generally employed in cohesive soils. The tubes are identified, sealed and carefully handled in the field to avoid excessive disturbance and are returned to the laboratory for extrusion and further analysis and testing.

Giddings Sampler (GS) This type of sampling device consists of 5-foot sections of thin-wall tubing which are capable of retrieving continuous columns of soil in 5-foot maximum increments. Because of a continuous slot in the sampling tubes, the sampler allows field determination of stratification boundaries and containerization of soil samples from any sampling depth within the 5-foot interval.

AECOM Laboratory Procedures

Water Content (Wc) The water content of a soil is the ratio of the weight of water in a given soil mass to the weight of the dry soil. Water content is generally expressed as a percentage.

Hand Penetrometer (Qp) In the hand penetrometer test, the unconfined compressive strength of a soil is determined, to a maximum value of 4.5 tons per square foot (tsf) or 7.0 tsf depending on the testing device utilized, by measuring the resistance of the soil sample to penetration by a small, spring-calibrated cylinder. The hand penetrometer test has been carefully correlated with unconfined compressive strength tests, and thereby provides a useful and a relatively simple testing procedure in which soil strength can be quickly and easily estimated.

Unconfined Compression Tests (Qu) In the unconfined compression strength test, an undisturbed prism of soil is loaded axially until failure or until 20% strain has been reached, whichever occurs first.

Dry…