geotek engineering & testing services, inc. 909 east 50th

GEOTEK ENGINEERING & TESTING SERVICES, INC. 909 East 50th Street North Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104 Phone 605-335-5512 Fax 605-335-0773

March 15, 2021 Banner Associates, Inc. 409 22nd Avenue South Brookings, South Dakota 57006 Attn: Pat Carey, PE Subj: Geotechnical Exploration Proposed Street & Utility Improvements Lake Preston, South Dakota

GeoTek #21-046 This correspondence presents our written report of the geotechnical exploration program for the referenced project. Our work was performed in accordance with your authorization. We are transmitting an electronic copy of our report for your use. We thank you for the opportunity of providing our services on this project and look forward to continued participation during the design and construction phases. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office at (605) 335-5512. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTek Engineering & Testing Services, Inc. Jared Haskins Jared Haskins, PE Geotechnical Manager

Proposed Street & Utility Improvements of 23 Lake Preston, South Dakota GeoTek #21-046

GeoTek Engineering & Testing Services, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 4

PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 4 SCOPE OF SERVICES ..................................................................................................................... 4

SITE & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 5

SITE LOCATIONS & DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................................................. 5 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONS & TEST BORING LOCATIONS .................................................... 5 EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT, GRAVEL BASE & GRAVEL SURFACING THICKNESSES ............... 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 7 WATER LEVELS ........................................................................................................................... 8

ENGINEERING REVIEW & RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 8

PROJECT DESIGN DATA ............................................................................................................... 8 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 9

Subgrade Soils ........................................................................................................................ 9 Water Control.......................................................................................................................... 9 OSHA Requirements .............................................................................................................. 9 Trench Backfill ..................................................................................................................... 10 Trenchless Installation Method ............................................................................................. 12

STREET IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 12 Subgrade Conditions ............................................................................................................. 12 Stripping & Removals........................................................................................................... 14 Filling .................................................................................................................................... 14 Subgrade Preparation Option 1 – Scarification & Recompaction ........................................ 14 Unstable Subgrade with Subgrade Preparation Option 1 ..................................................... 15 Subgrade Preparation Option 2 – Subgrade Reinforcement ................................................. 15 Subgrade Preparation Option 3 – Cement Stabilization ....................................................... 16 Pavement Section Thicknesses ............................................................................................. 16 Unpaved Section Thickness .................................................................................................. 17 Asphalt Pavement, Aggregate Base Course Material & Gravel Surfacing .......................... 17 Existing Asphalt Pavement, Gravel Base & Gravel Surfacing ............................................. 18

CORROSIVE POTENTIAL ............................................................................................................. 18

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 19

GROUNDWATER & SURFACE WATER ......................................................................................... 19 DISTURBANCE OF SOILS ............................................................................................................. 19 COLD WEATHER PRECAUTIONS ................................................................................................. 19 EXCAVATION SIDESLOPES.......................................................................................................... 20 OBSERVATIONS & TESTING ....................................................................................................... 20

Excavation............................................................................................................................. 20 Testing................................................................................................................................... 21

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ................................................................ 21

TEST BORINGS ........................................................................................................................... 21



SOIL CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 22 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................................ 22 LABORATORY TESTS .................................................................................................................. 22

LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 23

STANDARD OF CARE ............................................................................................................. 23

APPENDIX A FIGURE 1 – SITE MAP BORING LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SHEET

SYMBOLS & DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY PROCTOR DATA SHEETS



GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS

LAKE PRESTON, SOUTH DAKOTA GEOTEK #21-046

INTRODUCTION

Project Information

This report presents the results of the recent geotechnical exploration program for the proposed

street and utility improvements on various streets in Lake Preston, South Dakota.

Scope of Services

Our work was performed in accordance with the authorization of Pat Carey with Banner

Associates, Inc. The scope of work as presented in this report is limited to the following:

1. To perform 25 standard penetration test (SPT) borings to gather data on the subsurface conditions at the project sites.

2. To perform laboratory tests that include moisture content, dry density, standard Proctor,

resistivity, pH, sulfate content and chloride content. We did not perform laboratory tests on any frozen soils.

3. To prepare an engineering report that includes the results of the field and laboratory tests

as well as our geotechnical engineering opinions and recommendations regarding the following:

• Existing pavement section or gravel surfacing; • Subsurface conditions; • Underground utility excavation and backfilling; • Subgrade strength and potential corrective measures; • Pavement section thicknesses; • Unpaved section thickness; • Corrosive potential of the soils; • Special geotechnical conditions that may impact the constructability and final

performance of the project; • Quality control observation and testing.



The scope of our work was intended for geotechnical purposes only. This scope of work did not

include determining the presence or extent of environmental contamination at the project sites or

to characterize the project sites relative to wetlands status.

SITE & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Site Locations & Descriptions

The project sites are located on various streets in Lake Preston, South Dakota. The streets are

asphalt surfaced or gravel surfaced. The streets included in this project consist of the following:

7th Street NW/NE, 6th Street NW, 5th Street NW/NE, 4th Street NW/NE, 3rd Street NE, 2nd Street

NW, Preston Avenue N, Minden Avenue N, Main Avenue N, Lake Avenue N, Fremont Avenue

N, Spring Avenue N, Park Avenue N and Walters Avenue N.

Ground Surface Elevations & Test Boring Locations

We did not determine the ground surface elevations at the test boring locations. A site map

(Figure 1) is attached showing the relative location of the test borings.

Existing Asphalt Pavement, Gravel Base & Gravel Surfacing Thicknesses

Table 1 summarizes the thicknesses of the existing asphalt pavement and gravel base

encountered at the respective test boring locations. Asphalt was not encountered at test borings 3,

4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 22. Table 2 summarizes the thicknesses of the existing gravel surfacing

encountered at the respective test boring locations. Also, see Tables 3 and 4 that show the

average asphalt pavement, gravel base and gravel surfacing thicknesses for the roads.

Table 1. Thicknesses of the Existing Asphalt Pavement & Gravel Base Test

Boring Street Asphalt Thickness, in Gravel Base, in

1 7th Street NW 4 5 2 7th Street NW 4 5 5 Main Avenue N 4 4 7 5th Street NW 4 3 ½ 11 4th Street NW 5 19



Table 1 (Continued). Thicknesses of the Existing Asphalt Pavement & Gravel Base Test

Boring Street Asphalt Thickness, in Gravel Base, in

12 Minden Avenue N 5 6 13 2nd Street NW 5 4 14 Lake Avenue N 3 ½ 3 15 Lake Avenue N 3 ½ 3 16 4th Street NE 4 5 17 4th Street NE 5 ½ 5 ½ 18 Fremont Avenue N 4 3 19 Fremont Avenue N 4 4 20 Spring Avenue N 4 7 21 Spring Avenue N 3 4 23 Park Avenue N 4 6 24 Park Avenue N 4 3 25 3rd Street NE 4 3

Table 2. Thicknesses of the Existing Gravel Surfacing Test

Boring Street Gravel Surfacing, in

3 7th Street NE 8 4 Minden Avenue N 5 6 Lake Avenue N 5 ½ 8 5th Street NE 6 ½ 9 Preston Avenue N 7 10 Preston Avenue N 24 22 Park Avenue N 6

Table 3. Average Asphalt Pavement & Gravel Base Thicknesses

Road Average Asphalt Pavement Thickness, in

Average Gravel Base Thickness, in

All Asphalt Surfaced Roads 4.1 5.2* Note: *Includes a gravel base thickness of 19 at test boring 5 (4th Street NW).

Table 4. Average Gravel Surfacing Thickness

Road Average Gravel Surfacing Thickness, in

All Gravel Surfaced Roads 8.9* Note: *Includes a gravel surfacing thickness of 24 inches at test boring 10 (Preston Avenue N).



Subsurface Conditions

The test borings were performed on January 21, January 22 and January 23, 2021. The

subsurface conditions encountered at the test boring locations are illustrated by means of the

boring logs included in Appendix A.

At the test boring locations, the subgrade soils consisted of the following soil types: existing fill

materials, topsoil materials, fine alluvium soils, mixed alluvium soils, coarse alluvium soils and

glacial till soils. The existing fill materials were encountered at the majority of the test borings

(not at test borings 3, 10 and 11) and extended to depths varying from 2 feet to 10 feet. The

topsoil materials were only encountered at test boring 22. The fine alluvium soils were

encountered at the majority of the test borings (not at test borings 19, 20, 23, 24 and 25). The

mixed alluvium soils were only encountered at test borings 2, 4, 11, 12 and 14. The coarse

alluvium soils were only encountered at test borings 3 and 6. The glacial till soils were

encountered at the majority of the test borings (not at test borings 2, 13, 20 and 21). The test

borings indicated that frozen soils extended to a depth of 2 feet.

The existing fill materials consisted of lean clay (CL) and lean clay with sand (CL). The topsoil

materials consisted of lean clay (CL). The fine alluvium soils consisted of lean clay (CL), fat

clay (CH) and lean clay with sand (CL). The mixed alluvium soils consisted of sandy lean clay

(CL) and clayey sand (SC). The coarse alluvium soils consisted of sand with silt (SP-SM). The

glacial till soils consisted of lean clay with sand (CL), fat clay with sand (CH) and sandy lean

clay (CL).

The consistency or relative density of the soils is indicated by the standard penetration resistance

(“N”) values as shown on the boring logs. A description of the soil consistency or relative

density based on the “N” values can be found on the attached Soil Boring Symbols and

Descriptive Terminology data sheet.

We wish to point out that the subsurface conditions at other times and locations at the project

sites may differ from those found at our test boring locations. If different conditions are

encountered during construction, then it is important that you contact us so that our

recommendations can be reviewed.



Water Levels

Measurements to record the groundwater levels were made at the test boring locations. The time

and level of the groundwater readings are recorded on the boring logs. Groundwater was

measured at depths of 12 feet (test boring 5), 11 feet (test boring 7), 12 feet (test boring 10), 7 ½

feet (test boring 11), 12 feet (test boring 12) and 8 ½ feet (test boring 13). Groundwater did not

enter the boreholes at the other test borings at the time of our measurements.

The water levels indicated on the boring logs may or may not be an accurate indication of the

depth or lack of subsurface groundwater. The limited length of observation restricts the accuracy

of the measurements. Long term groundwater monitoring was not included in our scope of work.

ENGINEERING REVIEW & RECOMMENDATIONS

Project Design Data

We understand that the project will consist of street and utility improvements on various streets

in Lake Preston, South Dakota. The majority of the street improvements will consist of a new

asphalt pavement section. Several of the streets will remain gravel surfaced. The utility

improvements will likely consist of new water main and sanitary sewer. We understand that the

sanitary sewer will have a maximum depth of about 12 feet. We understand that open-cut

methods will be used for the majority of the installation. Trenchless methods (directional

drilling) will likely be used for the installation of the utilities beneath the existing railroad tracks.

Minimum grade changes are expected for the project.

The information/assumptions detailed in the project design data section are important factors in

our review and recommendations. If there are any corrections or additions to the information

detailed in this section, then it is important that you contact us so that we can review our

recommendations with regards to the revised plans.



Utility Improvements

Subgrade Soils

The subgrade soils anticipated at the invert depths for the underground utilities will consist of

clay soils and sand soils, but mostly clay soils. Where soils having moderate moisture and

density values are encountered at the bottom of the trench excavations, it is our opinion that the

soils are considered suitable for support of the proposed utilities, provided they are adequately

dewatered and are not disturbed by construction traffic. Localized areas of wet or soft soils may

be encountered at the bottom of the trench excavations. These areas will require subexcavation

and trench stabilization methods and materials. Appropriate bedding materials should be used for

the utility pipes.

Water Control

Water may enter the trench excavations as a result of subsurface water, precipitation or surface

run off. Dewatering procedures may be required in order to control and remove water entering

the trench excavations. Where clay soils are encountered, it will likely be possible to remove and

control water entering the excavations using normal sump pumping techniques. However, if

waterbearing sand soils are encountered, then extensive dewatering techniques will likely be

required due to the potentially large volumes of water. The contractor should provide appropriate

dewatering methods and equipment. Again, groundwater was measured at depths varying from 7

½ feet to 12 feet at test borings 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Therefore, some dewatering should be

expected for the project, likely for the deeper utilities. Any water that accumulates at the bottom

of the excavations should be immediately removed and surface drainage away from the

excavations should be provided during construction.

OSHA Requirements

All excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P,

“Excavations and Trenches”. This document states that the excavation safety is the responsibility

of the contractor. Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the project

specifications.



Trench Backfill

The trench backfill should be placed in lifts of up to 6 inches in thickness and compacted to the

levels outlined in Table 5. Due to the depth of the sanitary sewer, it is our opinion that a higher

compaction specification (for excavations greater than 6 feet in depth) will be necessary to limit

(but not eliminate) the amount of settlement within the trench backfill. The compaction

specifications in Table 5 are based on a material’s maximum dry density value, as determined by

a standard Proctor (ASTM: D698) test.

Table 5. Recommended Compaction Levels Placement Location/Depth Compaction Specification

Backfill within 6 feet of the finished subgrade level 95% Backfill more than 6 feet below the finished subgrade level 97%

Below agriculture land and grass only areas 95%

Generally, it will be easier to achieve the compaction specification if the moisture content of the

trench backfill soils is adjusted to within plus or minus 2 percent of the optimum moisture

content as determined by standard Proctor (ASTM:D698). However, in order to achieve the 97

percent compaction specification, it may be necessary to adjust the moisture content of the trench

backfill soils to within plus or minus 1 percent of the optimum moisture content as determined

by standard Proctor (ASTM:D698). In order to provide increased stability in the trench backfill

areas that are within 2 feet of the finished subgrade level, we recommend that the moisture

content of the soils be within a range of 1 percent to 4 percent below the optimum moisture

content.

We performed 5 standard Proctor tests for the project (3 on the fine alluvium soils at test borings

10, 13 and 15 and 2 on the glacial till soils at test borings 17 and 23). The results of the standard

Proctor tests are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Standard Proctor Test Results Test

Boring Depth (ft) Soil Type OMC (%)

Maximum Dry Density (pcf)

10 2 to 4 ½ Lean Clay (FA) 21.1 101.1 13 6 to 10 Lean Clay (FA) 19.4 103.9 15 4 ½ to 9 ½ Lean Clay (FA) 19.4 102.5



Table 6 (Continued). Standard Proctor Test Results Test

Boring Depth (ft) Soil Type OMC (%)

Maximum Dry Density (pcf)

17 7 to 12 Lean Clay w/ Sand (GT) 19.6 104.0 23 3 to 8 Fat Clay w/ Sand (GT) 21.1 102.4

Note: FA – fine alluvium soils and GT – glacial till soils.

Based on the results of the moisture content and standard Proctor tests, it is our general opinion

that the majority of the existing fill materials, mixed alluvium soils and glacial till soils and

portions of the fine alluvium soils have in-situ moisture content levels that range from slightly

below to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, while the majority of the fine alluvium

soils and a small portion of the existing fill materials and glacial till soils have in-situ moisture

content levels that range from 6 percent above to 15 percent above the optimum moisture

content. The wet fine alluvium soils were encountered at test borings 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 15 and 16.

The wet existing fill materials were encountered at test borings 13 and 16. The wet glacial till

soils were encountered at test borings 4 and 10. In general, soils with moisture content levels

above 25 percent are considered “wet”. We also highlighted the wet existing fill materials, fine

alluvium soils and glacial till soils on the boring logs.

In our opinion, the majority of the existing fill materials, mixed alluvium soils, coarse alluvium

soils and glacial till soils and portions of the fine alluvium soils can likely be reused as trench

backfill, while the wet existing fill materials, wet fine alluvium soils and wet glacial till soils are

not suitable or ideal for use as trench backfill. Again, the wet existing fill materials, wet fine

alluvium soils and wet glacial till soils were encountered at the test borings discussed in the

paragraph above. Also, the topsoil materials should not be used as trench backfill. Our opinions

are based on our observations of the collected samples, the results of the laboratory tests and the

difficulties that the contractor will likely have trying to dry the wet soils within the project limits.

Therefore, the wet existing fill materials, wet fine alluvium soils, wet glacial till soils and topsoil

materials should be replaced with an off-site borrow material or with suitable material available

at other areas of the project.

The off-site borrow material should consist of either a granular or clay material. If a granular

material is used, then it should consist of a pit-run or processed sand or gravel having a

maximum particle size of 1 inch. The granular material can be placed in lifts of up to 1 foot in



thickness. If a clay material is selected, then it should consist of a non-organic clay having a

liquid limit less than 45. Scrutiny on the clay material’s moisture content should be made prior to

the acceptance and use. If granular materials are used, then the upper 2 feet to 3 feet of the trench

backfill should consist of a clay material in order to provide a consistent subgrade condition

beneath the pavement section.

Trenchless Installation Method

As previously stated, directional drilling will likely be used for the installation of the utilities

beneath the existing railroad tracks. Fine alluvium soils and glacial till soils will likely be

encountered during the direction drilling. In our opinion, the fine alluvium soils have low

strength levels and the glacial till soils have moderately high strength levels. We estimate that the

fine alluvium soils have unconfined compressive strength values between 0.5 tons per square foot

(tsf) and 1.0 tsf. Also, we estimate that the glacial till soils have unconfined compressive strength

values between 1.5 tons per square foot (tsf) and 2.5 tsf. The contractor may experience difficulties

if coarse gravel or cobbles are encountered during the installation process.

If water or saturated soils are encountered within the bore pits, then it would be beneficial to

place a layer (6 inches to 12 inches) of drainage rock at the bottom of the bore pits to provide a

stable base during construction. Also, some dewatering may be needed within the bore pits. The

drainage rock should be crushed, washed and meet the gradation specifications shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Drainage Rock Gradation Specifications Sieve Size Percent Passing 1 ½-inch 100 1-inch 70 – 90

3/4-inch 25 – 50 3/8-inch 0 – 5

Street Improvements

Subgrade Conditions

In general, existing fill materials, fine alluvium soils and glacial till soils are expected to be

encountered as subgrade soils. The existing fill materials, fine alluvium soils and glacial till soils



have Unified Soils Classification System symbols of CL and CH and AASHTO classifications of

A-6 and A-7.

As previously stated, frozen soils extended to a depth of 2 feet. Therefore, the moisture content

and density levels of the subgrade soils within 2 feet of the surface are unknown. Based on our

observations of the collected samples, the majority of the subgrade soils within 2 feet of the

surface consisted of existing fill materials that are dark in color (dark brown, very dark brown or

black). In our opinion, the majority of the existing fill materials within 2 feet of the surface have

low strength characteristics and are prone to instability during freeze-thaw cycles. In addition,

the majority of the existing fill materials within 2 feet of the surface are prone to instability from

normal construction traffic.

In general, we estimate California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values of 1.5 to 2.0 for the existing fill

materials that are dark in color and CBR values of 2.5 to 3.5 for the other existing fill materials,

fine alluvium soils and glacial till soils. CBR values of 1.5 to 2.0 are considered low CBR

values. The CBR value is a measure of the supporting value of the subgrade soils. The value can

be determined from a soaked test or a unsoaked test. The value from a soaked test is used to

simulate the worst conditions (wet periods of the year and the spring thaw), while the value from

an unsoaked test is used to simulate normal field conditions (summer and fall). Values from

soaked tests are much lower than values from unsoaked tests. The values discussed above

represent values from soaked tests. With all this said, we would consider the subgrade condition

to be a poor to fair subgrade condition.

In our opinion, normal subgrade preparation (option 1) could be used for the project. The normal

subgrade preparation would consist of scarification and recompaction. However, it should be

understood that additional corrections would likely be needed in some areas in order to provide a

stable subgrade condition. For option 1 to be successful, there may need to be an extended period

of dry weather during construction. Two (2) other subgrade preparation options could be

considered for the project. The other subgrade preparation options would consist of subgrade

reinforcement (option 2) and cement stabilization (option 3). Options 2 and 3 would likely

provide a stable subgrade condition in areas where poor subgrade conditions are encountered.



Options 2 and 3 would also extend the life of the pavement. In addition, the cement stabilization

would provide an “all weather” subgrade during construction.

Stripping & Removals

We recommend removing any vegetation/organic materials and the existing pavement section

(where applicable) in order to achieve the design subgrade elevations. Low-ground-pressure

construction equipment or excavators with smooth-edged buckets should be used for the

stripping and removals in areas where soft/wet soils are present. We recommend limiting the

amount of heavy wheeled construction traffic on the subgrade.

Filling

If filling is required to achieve the design subgrade elevations, then the fill materials should

consist of non-organic lean clay or sandy lean clay soils having a liquid limit less than 50 and a

plasticity index between 15 and 35. The moisture content of the fill soils should be 1 percent to 4

percent below the optimum moisture content. The fill soils should be placed in compacted lifts

having a maximum thickness of 6 inches. We recommend a minimum compaction specification

of 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM:D698) for the fill soils. Alternatively, granular

materials could also be used as subgrade fill.

Subgrade Preparation Option 1 – Scarification & Recompaction

For subgrade preparation option 1, the upper 8 inches of the subgrade should be scarified,

moisture conditioned and recompacted. The soils should be moisture conditioned to a moisture

level that is 1 percent to 4 percent below the optimum moisture content as determined by

standard Proctor (ASTM:D698). The scarification should be performed by a disc harrow and not

a road grader with teeth. Following the subgrade preparation (scarification and recompaction)

and prior to the placement of the aggregate base course material, we recommend that a proof roll

be performed on the exposed subgrade with a truck weighing 20 tons to 30 tons. During the

proof roll, unstable areas in the subgrade should be delineated from stable areas. An unstable

area would be considered a location with at least 1 inch of rutting or deflection. Unstable areas

will need additional corrections in order to provide a uniform and stable subgrade condition. See



the section entitled Unstable Subgrade with Subgrade Preparation Option 1 for detailed

information regarding the additional corrections.

Unstable Subgrade with Subgrade Preparation Option 1

Areas of unstable subgrade may be encountered during construction with subgrade preparation

option 1. The soils within the unstable area should be removed, and either moisture-conditioned

and recompacted, or replaced with suitable subgrade soils. If the unstable area will not stabilize

using this method, then alternative stabilization methods may be used such as a modified cross-

section involving a geotextile fabric. With the geotextile fabric, a thicker aggregate base course

section will likely be needed (thickness would be based on field conditions). For very poor

subgrade conditions, granular subbase will likely be needed with the geotextile fabric. The

granular subbase should consist of crushed quartzite, recycled concrete or a crushed pit-run

material meeting the gradation specifications shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Granular Subbase Gradation Specifications Sieve Size Percent Passing

4-inch 100 3-inch 70 – 90 2-inch 60 – 80 1-inch 40 – 70

#4 10 – 50 #40 5 – 20 #200 0 – 8

Regarding the geotextile fabric, we recommend using Mirafi HP 370, Propex Geotex 3x3 HF,

Huesker Comtrac P 45/45 or an approved alternative. The granular subbase should be compacted

to a minimum of 97 percent of standard Proctor density (ASTM:D698). It should be noted that

compaction testing may not be practical for the granular subbase due to the large aggregate.

Subgrade Preparation Option 2 – Subgrade Reinforcement

Subgrade preparation option 2 would consist of subgrade preparation option 1 with the addition

of a geotextile fabric beneath the aggregate base course material.



Subgrade Preparation Option 3 – Cement Stabilization

The cement stabilization should consist of blending the subgrade soils with cement to a

minimum depth of 12 inches. The percentage of cement used typically ranges from 5 percent to 7

percent and should be based on a site specific mix design. For bidding purposes, the percentage

of cement used should be 6 percent (example: if the in-place dry density equals 100 pounds per

cubic foot (pcf), then 6.0 pounds of cement should be applied to the subgrade, per square foot).

We recommend that the percentage of cement used during the blending process be determined by

a mix design that should be performed when the subgrade soils are exposed during construction.

The mix design typically takes about 2 weeks to complete.

Once the percentage of cement is determined, the cement should be placed uniformly over the

subgrade surface at the specified percentage with a truck-mounted cement spreader. In addition

to the cement being placed uniformly, the truck-mounted spreader will help control the spread of

cement dust. Then, a self-propelled pulvimixer/reclaimer should be used to reclaim the upper 12

inches of the subgrade along with the cement. Within 30 minutes, the reclaimed mixture of soil

and cement should be initially compacted with a large (60-inch to 72-inch diameter) vibratory

sheepsfoot roller to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by

Moisture-Density Relations of Soil-Cement Mixtures (ASTM:D558). The moisture content of

the material should be adjusted to a moisture level that is within 3 percent below to 3 percent

above the optimum moisture content determined by Moisture-Density Relations of Soil-Cement

Mixtures (ASTM:D558). After initial compaction, the subgrade should be graded to design

elevations, rolled with a pneumatic tire roller and watered with a commercial water truck.

Construction traffic should not be allowed on the subgrade for 48 hours after the final watering.

This delay allows for the cement to properly hydrate without being disturbed. If at any time

during or after the cement stabilization process it is determined that the subgrade is not

performing as expected, then the problem should be assessed to determine the best course of

action. This may include an additional application of cement.

Pavement Section Thicknesses

We were not provided traffic volumes for the streets, but we assume low traffic volumes. We

assume that the vehicle traffic will consist of automobiles and some trucks. Most of the trucks



will be on the truck routes – Minden Avenue N from 2nd Street NW to 4th Street NW, 4th Street

NW from Minden Avenue N to Main Avenue N and Park Avenue N from US Highway 14 to the

entrance to the grain facility. The pavement surfacing will be asphalt. Table 9 summarizes the

recommended pavement section thicknesses for the project.

Table 9. Recommended Asphalt Pavement Section Thicknesses

Area Asphalt

Pavement Thickness, in

Aggregate Base Course Thickness, in

Granular Subbase

Thickness, in

Subgrade Reinforcement

Cement Stabilization

Light Duty (1) 4 12* ** ** - Light Duty (2) 4 12* *** Geotextile Fabric† Light Duty (3) 4 8 - - Yes**** Heavy Duty (1) 5 12* ** ** - Heavy Duty (2) 5 12* *** Geotextile Fabric† Heavy Duty (3) 5 8 - - Yes****

Notes: The options are (1) scarification and recompaction, (2) subgrade reinforcement and (3) cement stabilization. The heavy duty sections should be used on the truck routes. *The thickness of the aggregate base course may need to be increased with options 1 and 2. **Subgrade reinforcement and granular subbase may be needed with option 1. ***Granular subbase may be needed with option 2 if very poor subgrade conditions are encountered. ****The percentage of cement may need to be increased if very poor subgrade conditions are encountered. †See page 15 for the approved products.

We recommend that routine maintenance such as crack filling, localized patching and seal

coating be performed. The design sections could be reduced if the owner is willing to assume

additional maintenance costs or potentially shorter pavement life.

Unpaved Section Thickness

As previously stated, several of the streets will remain gravel surfaced. We recommend that 4

inches of gravel surfacing over 8 inches of aggregate base course material be used for the

unpaved section thickness. We also recommend installing a geotextile fabric beneath the gravel

surfacing and aggregate base course material. Some maintenance should be expected in the

gravel surfaced areas. We also recommend that the gravel surfaced areas be crowned or sloped to

help shed surface water.

Asphalt Pavement, Aggregate Base Course Material & Gravel Surfacing

The asphalt pavement should meet the requirements of sections 320 and 321 for Class G. We

recommend that the aggregate base course materials and gravel surfacing meet the requirements



of Sections 260 and 882 of the SDDOT Standard Specifications. The aggregate base course

materials and gravel surfacing should be compacted to a minimum of 97 percent of standard

Proctor (ASTM:D698).

Existing Asphalt Pavement, Gravel Base & Gravel Surfacing

Reclaiming of the existing asphalt pavement, gravel base and gravel surfacing for use as

aggregate base course material or gravel surfacing could be considered for the project. Samples

of the reclaimed material should be collected for analysis during construction in order to approve

the material for use as aggregate base course material or gravel surfacing. In our opinion, the

lower 4 inches of the aggregate base course material for the asphalt pavement sections could

consist of recycled material. Also, the aggregate base course material (lower 8 inches) for the

unpaved section could consist of recycle material.

Corrosive Potential

Soil samples were collected from test borings 4, 13 and 19 and were submitted for resistivity,

pH, chloride content and sulfate content testing. The results of the laboratory tests are shown in

Table 10.

Table 10. Laboratory Test Results

Boring Depth (ft) Soil Type Resistivity (ohm-cm)

(as-received)

Resistivity (ohm-cm)

(saturated) pH Chloride

(mg/kg) Sulfate (mg/kg)

4 2 to 7 Lean Clay (FA) 804 737 8.2 17 788

13 2 to 6 Lean Clay w/ Sand (F) 630 583 8.0 22 614

19 7 to 12 Fat Clay w/ Sand (GT) 563 496 7.8 25 2,445

Note: F – existing fill materials, FA – fine alluvium soils and GT – glacial till soils.

The saturated resistivity values ranged from 496 ohm-cm to 737 ohm-cm. Resistivity values

below 1,000 ohm-cm are considered extremely corrosive to metals. The pH levels ranged from

7.8 to 8.2. PH levels below 8.0 can be corrosive to steel and ductile iron. The chloride content

levels ranged from 17 mg/kg to 25 mg/kg. Chloride content levels below 250 mg/kg are

considered mildly corrosive. The sulfate content levels ranged from 614 mg/kg to 2,445 mg/kg.



In general, the sulfate attack on concrete is considered mild if the sulfate content level is below

150 mg/kg, moderate if the sulfate content level is between 150 mg/kg and 1,500 mg/kg and

severe if the sulfate content level is above 1,500 mg/kg. Based on the test results, the potential

sulfate attack on concrete will be moderate to severe. With that said, we recommend using Type

II cement for moderate sulfate attack and Type V cement for severe sulfate attack. It should be

known that high sulfate levels can also accelerate corrosion of metals in direct contact with soil.

With all this said, protective measures should be taken for the project. This discussion should

also apply to the water tower site.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Groundwater & Surface Water

Water may enter the excavations due to subsurface water, precipitation or surface run off. Any

water that accumulates in the bottom of the excavations should be immediately removed and

surface drainage away from the excavations should be provided during construction.

Disturbance of Soils

The soils encountered at the test boring locations are susceptible to disturbance and can

experience strength loss caused by construction traffic and/or additional moisture. Precautions

will be required during earthwork activities in order to reduce the risk of soil disturbance. Where

soft/wet soils are encountered, the excavations should be performed with low-ground-pressure

construction equipment or an excavator (backhoe) having a smooth cutting edge on the bucket.

Cold Weather Precautions

If site preparation and construction is anticipated during cold weather, then we recommend all

subgrades, slabs and other improvements that may be affected by frost movements be insulated

from frost penetration during freezing temperatures. If filling is performed during freezing

temperatures, then all frozen soils, snow and ice should be removed from the areas to be filled

prior to placing the new fill. The new fill should not be allowed to freeze during transit,

placement and compaction. Concrete and asphalt should not be placed on frozen subgrades. If



subgrades freeze, then we recommend that the frozen soils be removed and replaced, or

completely thawed. The subgrade soils will likely require reworking and recompacting due to the

loss of density caused by the freeze/thaw process.

Excavation Sideslopes

All excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P,

“Excavations and Trenches”. This document states that the excavation safety is the responsibility

of the contractor. Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the project

specifications.

Observations & Testing

This report was prepared using a limited amount of information for the project and a number of

assumptions were necessary to help us develop our conclusions and recommendations. It is

recommended that our firm be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the final design

plans and specifications to check that our recommendations have been properly incorporated into

the design documents.

The recommendations submitted in this report have been made based on the subsurface

conditions encountered at the test boring locations. It is possible that there are subsurface

conditions at the site that are different from those represented by the test borings. As a result, on-

site observation during construction is considered integral to the successful implementation of

the recommendations. We believe that qualified field personnel need to be on-site at the

following times to observe the site conditions and effectiveness of the construction.

Excavation

We recommend that a geotechnical engineer or geotechnical engineering technician working

under the direct supervision of a geotechnical engineer observe all excavations for utilities, slabs

and pavements. These observations are recommended to determine if the exposed soils are

similar to those encountered at the test boring locations, if unsuitable soils have been adequately

removed and if the exposed soils are suitable for support of the proposed construction.



Testing

After the subgrade is observed by a geotechnical engineer/technician and approved, we

recommend a representative number of compaction tests be taken during the placement of the

backfill placed below slabs and pavements. The tests should be performed to determine if the

required compaction has been achieved. As a general guideline, we recommend at least 1 test be

taken for every 10,000 square feet of embankment fill placed, at least 1 test for every 500 feet in

trench fill, and for every 2-foot thickness of fill or backfill placed. The actual number of tests

should be left to the discretion of the geotechnical engineer. Samples of proposed fill and backfill

materials should be submitted to our laboratory for testing to determine their compliance with

our recommendations and project specifications.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Test Borings

We performed 25 SPT borings on January 21, January 22 and January 23, 2021 with a truck rig

equipped with hollow-stem auger. Soil sampling was performed in accordance with the

procedures described in ASTM:D1586. Using this procedure, a 2-inch O.D. split barrel sampler

is driven into the soil by a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. After an initial set of 6 inches, the

number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12 inches is known as the

penetration resistance, or “N” value. The “N” value is an index of the relative density of

cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. In addition, thin walled tube samples

were obtained according to ASTM:D1587, where indicated by the appropriate symbol on the

boring logs.

The test borings were backfilled with on-site materials and some settlement of these materials

can be expected to occur. Final closure of the holes is the responsibility of the client or property

owner.

The soil samples collected from the test boring locations will be retained in our office for a

period of 1 month after the date of this report and will then be discarded unless we are notified

otherwise.



Soil Classification

As the samples were obtained in the field, they were visually and manually classified by the crew

chief according to ASTM:D2488. Representative portions of all samples were then sealed and

returned to the laboratory for further examination and for verification of the field classification.

In addition, select samples were then submitted to a program of laboratory tests. Where

laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis and Atterberg limits) have been performed,

classifications according to ASTM:D2487 are possible. Logs of the test borings indicating the

depth and identification of the various strata, the “N” value, the laboratory test data, water level

information and pertinent information regarding the method of maintaining and advancing the

drill holes are also attached in Appendix A. Charts illustrating the soil classification procedures,

the descriptive terminology and the symbols used on the boring logs are also attached in

Appendix A.

Water Level Measurements

Subsurface groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and yearly from the

groundwater readings recorded at the test boring locations. Fluctuations occur due to varying

seasonal and yearly rainfall amounts and snowmelt, as well as other factors. It is possible that the

subsurface groundwater levels during or after construction could be significantly different than

the time the test borings were performed.

Laboratory Tests

We performed laboratory tests on select samples to aid in determining the index properties of the

soils. The tests consisted of moisture content, dry density, standard Proctor, resistivity, pH,

sulfate content and chloride content. The laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the

appropriate ASTM procedures. The results of the laboratory tests are shown on the boring logs

opposite the samples upon which the tests were performed or on the attached data sheets.

Lake Preston Survey Request

2000 ft

N

➤➤

N© 2020 Google

© 2020 Google

© 2020 Google

1 2 3

4 5 6

9 7 810

11

12

13

15

14

16 17 2223

18 2025

19 21 24

JessicaW

Text Box

Legend Open Cut Replacement CIPP Propose Bore Locations Existing Water Tower

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

PolyLine

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

PolyLine

JessicaW

PolyLine

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

PolyLine

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

Line

JessicaW

PolyLine

JessicaW

Rectangle

JessicaW

Ellipse

JessicaW

Ellipse

cedrich

Text Box

Lake Preston Proposed Soil Boring Locations - Phase 1

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Ellipse

cedrich

Text Box

Project Scope: Sanitary Sewer and Water Utility Replacement; Full Width Street Construction. Sanitary Sewer Main CIPP Lining Replacement of Existing Water Tower Approximate Utility Depth: Sanitary Sewer = 10' - 12' depth Water = 6' to 7' depth

cedrich

Rectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

29

21

22

24

24

89

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

17

16

15

15

0.3

0.8

2½

4½

9½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 5" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a little gravel,dark grayish brown, frozen to 2' then moist

LEAN CLAY: brown and gray, moist, firm,(CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown and gray, moist, very stiff, (CL)

FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown and dark gray, moist, stiff, (CL)

Bottom of borehole at 13½ feet.

--------

LABORATORY TESTS

DATE TIME SAMPLEDDEPTH

GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING LOG

13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL

BORING NO. 1 (1 of 1)

1-21-21------

8:44 am------

none------

PROJECT Proposed Street & Utility Improvements, Lake Preston, SD

NO. WC D PL QULLTYPEN

GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

METHOD3.25" ID Hollow Stem Auger

DEPTHin

FEET

COMPLETE 1-21-21 8:44 amSTART 1-21-21

909 E 50th St NSioux Falls, South Dakota, 57104605-335-5512 [email protected]

GEOLOGICORIGIN

CREW CHIEF Mike Wagner

SAMPLE

GEOTEK ENGINEERING& TESTING SERVICES, INC.

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALWL

-wet soils

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

19

12

15

36

32

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

9

15

16

9

8

0.3

0.8

3½

9½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

MIXEDALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 5" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a little gravel,dark brown and black, frozen to 2' then moist

SANDY LEAN CLAY: a trace of gravel,brown and gray, moist, stiff to very stiff, (CL)

LEAN CLAY: brown and gray, moist, firm tostiff, (CL)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-21-21------

9:23 am------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



-wet soils

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

10

9

23

24

23

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

11

13

11

14

15

0.7

2½

7

8½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

SURFACINGFINE

ALLUVIUM

COARSEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 8" thickLEAN CLAY WITH SAND: dark brown tovery dark brown, frozen to 2' then moist, (CL)

SAND WITH SILT: medium grained, darkbrown, moist, medium dense, (SP-SM)

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,grayish brown, moist, stiff, (CL)

FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown and gray, moist, stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-21-21------

10:05 am------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

21

23

19

30

23

100

FA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

8

11

7

10

0.4

2

7

9½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

SURFACINGFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

MIXEDALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 5" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, black, frozen

LEAN CLAY: grayish brown, moist, firm,(CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY: brown and gray,moist, stiff, (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown, moist, firm to stiff, (CL)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-21-21------

3:35 pm------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046


METHOD6" Flight Auger

DEPTHin

FEET

COMPLETE 1-21-21 3:35 pmSTART 1-21-21


GEOLOGICORIGIN

CREW CHIEF Roy Hanson

SAMPLE



-wet soils

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

22

22

24

23

24

99

FA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

10

10

12

11

0.3

0.7

2

4½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, black, frozenLEAN CLAY: grayish brown, moist, firm,(CL)

FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,grayish brown, moist, stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-21-21------

4:15 pm------

12------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

19

13

23

23

23

105

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

8

12

10

11

11

0½

2

4½

6

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

SURFACINGFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

COARSEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 5 1/2" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, very dark gray, frozen

LEAN CLAY: brown, frozen to 2.5' thenmoist, firm, (CL)

SAND WITH SILT: a trace of gravel, fine tomedium grained, brown, dry, medium dense,(SP-SM)

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown, moist, stiff, (CL)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-21-21------

1:40 pm------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

25

26

26

36

24

99

FA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

6

7

9

10

0.30.6

2

3½

11

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 3 1/2" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, brown and black, frozenFAT CLAY: very dark grayish brown, moist,firm, (CH)

LEAN CLAY: brown and gray, moist, firm, afew lenses of sand between 8' and 11' (CL)



--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-21-21------

2:55 pm------

11------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



-wet soils

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

21

18

22

21

22

104

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

6

7

10

11

0½

2

4½

7

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

SURFACINGFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 6 1/2" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, dark gray, frozen

LEAN CLAY: brown, moist, firm, (CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY: a trace of gravel,brown and gray, moist, firm, (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown, moist, firm to stiff, (CL)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-21-21------

2:15 pm------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

22

23

24

23

23

98

FA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

10

10

12

15

0.6

2

4½

7

9½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

SURFACINGFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 7" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, brown and black, frozen




FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel, darkgrayish brown, moist, stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

9:25 am------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

25

29

34

28

23

98

FA

SPT

BAG

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

8

3

7

8

12

2

4½

9½

11

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

SURFACING

FINEALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 24" thick

LEAN CLAY: very dark gray to black, moist,firm, (CL)

LEAN CLAY: brown, moist to wet, soft tofirm, (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown, moist, firm, (CL)

FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown and dark gray, moist, stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

10:10 am------

12------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



-wet soils

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

21

15

18

17

23

102

FA

SPT

SPT

BAG

SPT

SPT

SPT

9

9

10

8

12

0.4

2

4½

12

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASE

FINEALLUVIUM

MIXEDALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 5" thick

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 19" thick

LEAN CLAY: grayish brown, moist, stiff,(CL)

CLAYEY SAND: fine to medium grained,brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense,(SC)



--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

11:14 am------

7.5------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

20

9

10

12

24

101

FA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

9

11

10

6

8

0.4

0.9

2

4½

12

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

MIXEDALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 5" thick

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 6" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a little gravel,dark brown and black, frozenLEAN CLAY: grayish brown, moist, stiff, afew lenses of sand (CL)

CLAYEY SAND: a little gravel, fine tomedium grained, brown and dark brown,moist to wet, loose to medium dense, (SC)

FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown, moist, firm, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

11:55 am------

12------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

26

21

34

36

33

95

FA

SPT

SPT

BAG

SPT

SPT

SPT

6

6

8

7

7

0.4

0.8

2

6

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FILL

FINEALLUVIUM

ASPHALT: 5" thick

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a trace of,fine to medium grained, brown, frozen, 4"thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: very darkbrown and black, frozenFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: alittle gravel, brown and gray, moist

LEAN CLAY: brown and gray, moist to wet,firm, a few lenses of sand at 11' (CL)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

12:40 pm------

8.5------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



-wet soils

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

19

14

21

23

22

104

FA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

13

12

11

16

0.30½

2

4½

6

8½

12

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FILL

MIXEDALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 3 1/2" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 3" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a little gravel,dark brown and black, frozenFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: brown andgray, moist

SANDY LEAN CLAY: brown and gray,moist, stiff, (CL)

LEAN CLAY: brown and gray, moist, stiff,(CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,grayish brown and gray, moist, stiff, (CL)

FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel, darkgrayish brown, moist, very stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

2:10 pm------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

21

26

34

24

23

103

FA

SPT

SPT

BAG

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

7

8

11

13

0.30½

2

4½

9½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 3 1/2" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 3" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a little gravel,dark brown and black, frozenLEAN CLAY: brown, moist, firm, (CL)


FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown and gray, moist, stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

1:35 pm------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



-wet soils

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

26

25

32

23

24

93

FA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

6

7

7

10

14

0.3

0.8

4½

7

9½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 5" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, grayish brown and black, frozen to 2'then moist





--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

2:51 pm------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



-wet soils

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

lmcfarling

Rectangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

21

25

25

22

23

99

FA

SPT

SPT

SPT

BAG

SPT

SPT

6

6

8

10

15

0½

0.9

4½

7

12

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 5 1/2" thick

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 5 1/2" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, very dark brown and black, frozen to2' then moist



FAT CLAY WITH SAND: brown and darkgray, moist, stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

3:30 pm------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

24

21

22

22

23

101

FA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

11

9

15

15

15

0.30.6

2

3½

7

12

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 3" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, black and dark gray, frozenFAT CLAY: dark grayish brown, moist, stiff,(CH)

LEAN CLAY: brown and gray, moist, stiff,(CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown and gray, moist, stiff, (CL)



--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-22-21------

4:05 pm------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

22

22

25

23

24

100

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

5

7

8

10

0.3

0.7

7

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: brown, frozento 2' then moist

FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown, moist, firm to stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-23-21------

8:48 am------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

22

25

19

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

3

9

0.3

0.9

10

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 7" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: a trace ofgravel, brown, frozen to 2' then moist

Bottom of borehole at 10 feet.

--------

LABORATORY TESTS



11------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

10------

WATERLEVEL


1-23-21------

9:54 am------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

22

23

22

21

29

95

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

7

6

9

10

8

0.30.6

2½

4½

7

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

FINEALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

ASPHALT: 3" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: very darkbrown, frozen to 2' then moist

LEAN CLAY: very dark brown, moist, firm,(CL)

LEAN CLAY: light grayish brown, moist,firm, (CL)

LEAN CLAY: brown and gray, moist, firm tostiff, (CL)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-23-21------

9:15 am------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

26

23

22

21

90

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

10

9

8

10

15

0½

2

4½

7

9½

12

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

SURFACINGFILL

TOPSOIL

FINEALLUVIUM

FINEALLUVIUM

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

FILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 6" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: brown, frozen

LEAN CLAY: black, moist, stiff, (CL)

LEAN CLAY: dark grayish brown, moist,stiff, (CL)



FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown, moist, stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-23-21------

10:28 am------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

24

23

22

22

24

100

HSA

SPT

BAG

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

10

9

9

12

14

0.3

0.8

2

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 6" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: alittle gravel, brown, frozenFAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown and gray, moist, stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-23-21------

10:53 am------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

20

19

24

24

22

107

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

8

7

3

8

10

0.30.6

9½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 3" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY: brown anddark brown, frozen to 2' then moist

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown and gray, moist, firm to stiff, (CL)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-23-21------

11:24 am------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



1

2

3

4

5

6

17

19

13

23

24

HSA

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

11

11

14

12

15

0.30.6

3½

9½

13½

EXISTINGGRAVEL

BASEFILL

GLACIALTILL

GLACIALTILL

ASPHALT: 4" thickFILL, MOSTLY CLAYEY SAND: a littlegravel, fine to medium grained, brown,frozen, 3" thickFILL, MOSTLY LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: alittle gravel, brown, frozen to 2' then moist

SANDY LEAN CLAY: a little gravel, brownand gray, moist, stiff, (CL)

FAT CLAY WITH SAND: a little gravel,brown, moist, stiff, (CH)


--------

LABORATORY TESTS



13.5------

CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

12------

WATERLEVEL


1-23-21------

12:03 pm------

none------



GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L T

ES

T B

OR

ING

21-

046

.GP

J G

EO

TE

KE

NG

.GD

T 1

/29/

21

GEOTEK # 21-046



DEPTHin

FEET



GEOLOGICORIGIN


SAMPLE



SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -SILT MIXTURES

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITHHIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

LETTERGRAPHSYMBOLSMAJOR DIVISIONS

COARSEGRAINED

SOILS

TYPICALDESCRIPTIONS

GRAVELAND

GRAVELLYSOILS POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL

- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NOFINES

FINEGRAINED

SOILS

CLEANGRAVELS

GRAVELS WITHFINES

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITHFINES

LIQUID LIMITLESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTSAND

CLAYS

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINESANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY ORCLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEYSILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTYCLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

SILTSAND

CLAYS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY

SANDAND

SANDYSOILS

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SIZE

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISSMALLER THANNO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTION

PASSING ON NO. 4SIEVE

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTION

RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTYSOILS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

BORING LOG SYMBOLS AND DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY


SYMBOLS FOR DRILLING AND SAMPLING

Symbol Definition Bag Bag sample CS Continuous split-spoon sampling DM Drilling mud FA Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches HA Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches HSA Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter in inches LS Liner sample; number indicates outside diameter of liner sample N Standard penetration resistance (N-value) in blows per foot NMR No water level measurement recorded, primarily due to presence of drilling fluid

NSR No sample retrieved; classification is based on action of drilling equipment and/or material noted in drilling fluid or on sampling bit

SH Shelby tube sample; 3-inch outside diameter SPT Standard penetration test (N-value) using standard split-spoon sampler SS Split-spoon sample; 2-inch outside diameter unless otherwise noted WL Water level directly measured in boring ▼ Water level symbol

SYMBOLS FOR LABORATORY TESTS

Symbol Definition WC Water content, percent of dry weight; ASTM:D2216 D Dry density, pounds per cubic foot LL Liquid limit; ASTM:D4318 PL Plastic limit; ASTM:D4318 QU Unconfined compressive strength, pounds per square foot; ASTM:D2166

DENSITY/CONSISTENCY TERMINOLOGY

Density Consistency Term N-Value Term Very Loose 0-4 Soft Loose 5-8 Firm Medium Dense 9-15 Stiff Dense 16-30 Very Stiff Very Dense Over 30 Hard

DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY

Term Definition Dry Absence of moisture, powdery Frozen Frozen soil Moist Damp, below saturation Waterbearing Pervious soil below water Wet Saturated, above liquid limit Lamination Up to ½” thick stratum Layer ½” to 6” thick stratum Lens ½” to 6” discontinuous stratum

PARTICLE SIZES

Term Particle Size Boulder Over 12” Cobble 3” – 12” Gravel #4 – 3” Coarse Sand #10 – #4 Medium Sand #40 – #10 Fine Sand #200 – #40 Silt and Clay passes #200 sieve

GRAVEL PERCENTAGES

Term Range A trace of gravel 2-4% A little gravel 5-15% With gravel 16-50%

GEOTEK ENGINEERING& TESTING SERVICES, INC.909 East 50th Street NorthSioux Falls, SD 57104605-335-5512 Fax 605-335-0773www.geotekeng.com

REPORTED TO: PROJECT: 21-046 COPIES TO:

DATE REPORTED:

Sample No.: 1 Date Received:ASTM Test Method: D698B Manual Date Tested:

Soil Classification: Lean Clay, Very Dark Brown (CL)

Remarks:

Maximum Density, pcf:

Optimum Moisture, %:

Percent Passing, %:3/4":3/8":#4:#200:

Atterberg Limits (ASTM: D4318):Liquid Limit:Plastic Limit:Plasticity Index:

Nick Bierle, Staff Engineer

101.1

21.1

SAMPLE DATA

TEST DATA

MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT

1/25/2021

SB 10 (2' to 4 1/2')

1/29/2021

1/29/2021

10010010088

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY (

pcf)

MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

Curve for 100% saturation for specific gravity equal to 2.65

Proposed Street & Utility ImprovementsLake Preston, SD

Banner Associates, Inc. (Brookings)Pat Carey409 22nd Avenue SouthBrookings, SD 57006



DATE REPORTED:


Soil Classification: Lean Clay, Grayish Brown (CL)

Remarks:



Percent Passing, %:3/4":3/8":#4:#200:



103.9

19.4

SAMPLE DATA

TEST DATA


1/25/2021

SB 13 (6' to 10')

1/29/2021

1/22/2021

10010010086

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY (

pcf)







DATE REPORTED:


Soil Classification: Lean Clay, Brown (CL)

Remarks:



Percent Passing, %:3/4":3/8":#4:#200:



102.5

19.4

SAMPLE DATA

TEST DATA


1/26/2021

SB 15 (4 1/2' to 9 1/2')

1/29/2021

1/22/2021

10010010087

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY (

pcf)







DATE REPORTED:


Soil Classification: Lean Clay with Sand, Brown (CL)

Remarks:



Percent Passing, %:3/4":3/8":#4:#200:



104.0

19.6

SAMPLE DATA

TEST DATA


1/27/2021

SB 17 (7' to 12')

1/29/2021

1/22/2021

10010010076

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY (

pcf)







DATE REPORTED:


Soil Classification: Fat Clay with Sand, Brown (CH)

Remarks:



Percent Passing, %:3/4":3/8":#4:#200:



102.4

21.1

SAMPLE DATA

TEST DATA


1/26/2021

SB 23 (3' to 8')

1/29/2021

1/22/2021

10010010079

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY (

pcf)





geotek engineering & testing services, inc. 909 east 50th

Documents