report of subsurface exploration and geotechnical...

REPORT OF

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

PROPOSED OUTLOT RETAIL STRUCTURE

US ROUTE 30 AND US ROUTE 45 FRANKFORT, ILLINOIS

ECS PROJECT NO. 16:9356

FOR

THE BRADFORD REAL ESTATE COMPANIES

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

MARCH 25, 2013

REPORT PROJECT

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis Proposed Outlot Retail Structure US Route 30 and US Route 45

Frankfort, Illinois

CLIENT

Mr. William Shank The Bradford Real Estate Companies 30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2850

Chicago, Illinois 60606

SUBMITTED BY

ECS Midwest, LLC

1575 Barclay Boulevard Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089

Illinois Professional Design Firm

No. 184-004247

PROJECT #16:9356

DATE March 25, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page PROJECT OVERVIEW 1

Introduction 1 Site Location and Existing Site Conditions 1 Proposed Construction 1

EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 3 Subsurface Exploration Procedures 3 Laboratory Testing Program 3

EXPLORATION RESULTS 5 Soil Conditions 5 Groundwater Observations 6

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Overview 7 Subgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations 7 Fill Placement 9 Foundation Recommendations 11 Floor Slab Design 13 Underslab Sub-Drainage 14 Exterior Pavement Recommendations 14 Pavement Maintenance 16

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 17 General Construction Considerations 17 Foundation Subgrade Preparation 17 Construction Dewatering 17 CCDD Environmental Testing 18 Closing 18

APPENDIX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subsurface conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration and ECS’ conclusions and recommendations are summarized below. This summary should not be considered apart from the entire text of the report with all the qualifications and considerations mentioned herein. Details of our conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project are discussed in the following sections and in the Appendix of this report. The project site is located northeast of the intersection of US Route 30 and US Route 45 in Frankfort, Illinois. The proposed construction at the project site will consist of a one-story, slab-on-grade retail structure. A total of three (3) soil borings, designated as B-1 through B-3, were drilled within the footprint of the proposed structure to a depth of 15 feet below existing site grades. The subsurface conditions encountered at the borings performed at the site can be summarized as follows. The surficial material encountered at the project site was observed to consist of approximately 5 to 8 inches of Topsoil. The surficial topsoil material was observed to be underlain predominantly by brown Lean Clay FILL materials typically to a depth of approximately 4½ to 5½ feet below existing grades. No records regarding the placement/compaction of the lean clay fill soils were provided for our review at the time this report was prepared. Based on the results of the soil borings and laboratory testing, the Lean Clay FILL appeared to have been compacted with some type of control and compaction. At the bottom of the Lean Clay FILL and above the natural soils, approximately ½ foot of buried black Clayey Topsoil was encountered at boring locations B-1 and B-2 at a depth of approximately 5½ to 6 feet below existing site grades. The black buried topsoil could be remnants of topsoil that was not stripped prior to placement of the overlying clay fill. At boring location B-3, the Lean Clay FILL was underlain by Gravel and Sand FILL with varying amounts of asphalt and concrete fragments, clay and organics to a depth of approximately 7½ feet below existing site grades. The FILL and buried Clayey Topsoil were underlain by natural Lean CLAY to the termination depth of the borings (i.e., 15 feet below existing site grades). Groundwater was not encountered at the boring locations during drilling. We typically do not recommend slabs/pavements be supported on or above undocumented FILL materials as the fill materials exhibit variable composition and in-situ relative densities, which could result in unfavorable total and differential settlements and premature deterioration/cracking of the slab/pavement. We are aware that complete removal and replacement of the existing Lean Clay FILL, buried Clayey Topsoil and Gravel and variable granular Fill materials may not be feasible from a construction cost perspective. As such, consideration could be given to leaving the existing fill in place provided the following: (1) the upper one foot of lean clay fill material is re-worked in place (i.e., densified/scarified), (2) the re-worked lean clay fill subgrade passes a proofroll and (3) the owner is willing to accept some risk of premature deterioration of the slab/pavements. We recommend that test pits be performed prior to mass grading activities and/or prior to bidding to better delineate the limits (vertical and horizontal limits) of the buried clayey topsoil and variable granular fill materials. For structure foundation construction, we do not recommend the proposed structure bear on or above the existing fill soils or buried topsoil. We recommend the proposed structure be supported on a shallow foundation system extended through the buried topsoil and variable fill bearing in the competent natural Lean CLAY soil or engineered fill/lean concrete overlying competent natural Lean CLAY with a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The corresponding depths of foundation over-excavation may range from about 6 to 8 feet below existing site grades or 2½ to 4½ feet below likely foundation elevation based on the soil conditions indicated by the borings. As an option to removal and replacement of existing fill beneath the footings, ground improvement using drilled aggregate piers (densified aggregate piers) can be considered. Drilled aggregate piers are a ground improvement technique in which a column of soil is replaced with crushed stone that is densified with vibratory or ramming techniques. The footings are then designed for a bearing pressure appropriate for the densified aggregate pier and the remaining soil surrounding the pier. The advantages of ground improvement using aggregate piers are: (1) foundation subgrades can stay at a relatively uniform subgrade level without the need for undercutting, as the presence of the piers provides adequate support to the shallow foundation, and (2) the volume of undercut material will be reduced, which will reduce the costs associated with disposing of materials off-site. Our analysis indicates that for the anticipated structural loads and subsurface conditions, an allowable bearing pressure (after aggregate pier installation) in the range of 3,000 to 4,000 psf should be feasible. In addition, the aggregate piers can be utilized under floor slabs to reduce undesirable settlement and future maintenance. The drilled aggregate pier system should be designed by a design-build contractor and the proposed soil improvement plan should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GER) before construction begins. As this project moves forward, we recommend that ECS be retained to review the project drawings and specifications prior to the start of construction to verify that the recommendations detailed herein are followed. We also recommend that ECS be retained during construction of the proposed to monitor all earthwork/subgrade preparation to verify that the exposed subgrade materials will be suitable for the proposed structure(s) and the associated amenities. Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By: Danilo Guevarra Brett Gitskin, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Senior Principal Engineer

ECS Project No. 16:9356 -1- March 25, 2013 Proposed Outlot Retail Structure Frankfort, Illinois

PROJECT OVERVIEW Introduction This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analysis performed for the proposed Outlot Retail structure to be located northeast of the intersection of US Route 30 and US Route 45 in Frankfort, Illinois. A General Location Plan, included in the Appendix of this report, shows the approximate location of the project site. This study was conducted in general accordance with ECS Proposal No. 16:10976-GP, dated February 13, 2013. In preparing this report, we have utilized information from our current subsurface exploration as well as information from nearby sites. Site Location and Existing Site Conditions The project site is located northeast of the intersection of US Route 30 and US Route 45 in Frankfort, Illinois. The project site is bound to the north and east by bituminous pavement parking lots, to the south by a decorative sign and pavilion and to the west by US Route 45. The project site is currently undeveloped (grassed); however, it appears the site was previously developed by a bituminous parking lot until 2006 +/-. A drawing showing existing site grades was not available at the time this report was written. Based on our review of available on-line resources (i.e., Google Earth®), existing site grades at the project site are in the range of EL. +718 feet to EL. +720 feet (+/-). Please note the ground surface elevations based on Google Earth® can vary and may not represent the actual ground surface elevations at the project site. Proposed Construction Based on our review of the proposal documents, the proposed construction at the project site will consist of a one-story, slab-on-grade retail structure. The proposed structure will have no below-grade or a basement level. The structure will have approximate dimensions of 115 feet in the north-to-south direction by 65 feet in the east-to-west direction for an overall area in plan view of about 7,500 square feet. Information regarding the finished floor elevation and structural loading were not available at the time this proposal was written. We have assumed the finished floor elevation (FFE) will approximately match existing site grades. We have also assumed the typical column and wall loads will be in the range of 75 to 100 kips and 2 to 4 klf, respectively based on our experience with similar structures. Purpose of Exploration and Scope of Work The purpose of this exploration was to explore the subsurface conditions at the project site and to develop engineering recommendations to guide the geotechnical design and construction aspects of the project. We accomplished these purposes by performing the following scope of services:

1. Reviewing geotechnical engineering reports prepared by ECS for nearby project sites;


2. Drilling three (3) soil borings using an auger drill rig; 3. Performing laboratory tests on selected representative soil samples from the borings to

evaluate pertinent engineering properties; 4. Analyzing the field and laboratory data from this and previous explorations to develop

appropriate engineering recommendations; and, 5. Preparing this geotechnical report of our findings and recommendations.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on three (3) soil borings, designated as B-1 through B-3, conducted at the project site under ECS’ direction. The soil borings were drilled within the footprint of the proposed structure to a depth in the range of 15 feet below existing site grades. The subsurface exploration included split-spoon soil sampling, standard penetration tests (SPT) and groundwater level observations in the boreholes. The results of the completed soil borings, along with a Boring Location Plan are included in the Appendix of this report. The boring locations were selected by ECS based on the layout of the proposed construction. The borings were located in the field by ECS and the locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan. A drawing showing existing site grades was not available at the time this report was written. Based on our review of available online resources (i.e., Google Earth®), existing site grades at the project site are anticipated to be in the range of EL. +718 to EL. +720 (+/-). The elevations shown on the boring logs were interpreted from the elevations provided by Google Earth®. Please note the ground surface elevations based on Google Earth® can vary and may not represent the actual ground surface elevations at the project site.


EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Subsurface Exploration Procedures The soil borings were located in the field by ECS representative. As required by the State of Illinois, the ECS subcontracted driller notified Illinois’ Utility Alert, JULIE, to verify underground utilities in the vicinity of the project site prior to drilling operations. The soil borings were performed with a CME 45 truck-mounted rotary-type auger drill rig which utilized continuous flight augers to advance the boreholes. Representative soil samples were obtained by means of conventional split-barrel sampling procedures. Samples were typically obtained at 2½-foot intervals in the upper 10 feet and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. In this procedure, a 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through a 12-inch interval, after initial setting of 6 inches, is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) or N-value and is indicated for each sample on the boring logs. The SPT value can be used as a qualitative indication of the in-place relative density of cohesionless soils. In a less reliable way, it also indicates the consistency of cohesive soils. This indication is qualitative, since many factors can significantly affect the standard penetration resistance value and prevent a direct correlation between drill crews, drill rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer-rod-sampler assemblies. The drill rig utilized an automatic trip hammer to drive the sampler. Consideration of the effect of the automatic hammer’s efficiency was included in the interpretation of subsurface information for the analyses prepared for this report. The field crews maintained a field log of the soils encountered in the borings. After recovery, each geotechnical soil sample was removed from the sampler and visually classified. Representative portions of each soil sample were then sealed in jars and delivered to our laboratory in Buffalo Grove, Illinois for further visual examination and laboratory testing. After completion of the drilling operations, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings to the existing ground surface. Laboratory Testing Program Representative soil samples were selected and tested in our laboratory to check field classifications and to determine pertinent engineering properties. The basic laboratory testing program included visual classification of the soil samples, unconfined compressive strength testing with a calibrated hand penetrometer of cohesive sample and moisture content testing of cohesive samples. Each soil sample was classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring log. A brief explanation of the Unified System is included with this report. The various soil types were grouped into the major zones noted on the boring log. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring log are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.


The unconfined compressive strength (Qp) of relatively cohesive clay soil samples was estimated with the use of a calibrated hand penetrometer. In the hand penetrometer test, the unconfined compressive strength of a soil sample is estimated, to a maximum of 4½ tons per square foot (tsf) by measuring the resistance of a soil sample to penetration of a small, calibrated spring-loaded cylinder. The soil samples will be retained in our laboratory for a period of 60 days, after which, they will be discarded unless other instructions are received as to their disposal.


EXPLORATION RESULTS Soil Conditions A total of three (3) soil borings, designated as B-1 through B-3, were conducted at the project site under ECS’ direction. The soil borings were drilled within the footprint of the proposed structure to a depth of 15 feet below existing site grades. The subsurface conditions encountered at the borings performed at the site can be summarized as follows. The specific soil types observed at the boring locations are noted on the boring logs enclosed in the Appendix.

The surficial material encountered at the project site was observed to consist of approximately 5 to 8 inches of Topsoil. The surficial topsoil material was observed to be underlain predominantly by brown Lean Clay FILL materials typically to a depth of approximately 4½ to 5½ feet below existing grades. At the bottom of the Lean Clay FILL and above the natural soils, approximately ½ foot of buried black Clayey Topsoil was encountered at boring locations B-1 and B-2 at a depth of approximately 5½ to 6 feet below existing site grades. The black buried topsoil could be remnants of topsoil that was not stripped prior to placement of the overlying clay fill. At boring location B-3, the Lean Clay FILL was underlain by Gravel and Sand FILL with varying amounts of asphalt and concrete fragments, clay and organics to a depth of approximately 7½ feet below existing site grades. The FILL and buried Clayey Topsoil were underlain by natural Lean CLAY to the termination depth of the borings (i.e., 15 feet below existing site grades). The cohesive fill material (i.e., Lean Clay FILL) exhibited calibrated hand penetrometer values of in the range 4 tsf to greater than 4½ tsf which are indicative of hard consistencies for cohesive soils. The moisture contents of the Lean Clay FILL were in the range of 9 to 22 percent. No records regarding the placement/compaction of the lean clay fill soils were provided for our review at the time this report was prepared. Based on the results of the soil borings and laboratory testing, the Lean Clay FILL appeared to have been placed and compacted with some type of control. The buried clayey topsoil was observed to exhibit moisture contents of about 10 to 23 percent. The more granular gravel fill material encountered appeared to be dense to very dense in relative density with an SPT N-value of more than 55 blows per foot. We believe the higher SPT blows obtained in the more granular fill encountered was likely due to a sampler driving on top of a buried concrete rubble or other obstructions. The natural cohesive soils (i.e., Lean CLAY) exhibited unconfined compressive strength values in the range of 1½ tsf to 2½ tsf (stiff to very stiff) and moisture contents in the range of about 19 to 35 percent (typically 21 to 27 percent). It should be noted that bid quantity estimation by “averaging” depths and strata changes from boring logs is not permitted. Too many variations exist for such “averaging” to be valid, particularly in the surficial material thicknesses, soil types and condition, depth, and groundwater conditions. A different scope of professional services would be required to obtain subsurface information needed for land purchase considerations and earthwork bid preparation. This scope could include additional borings and possibly test pits. Even with this additional information, contingencies should always be carried in construction budgets or land purchase agreements to cover variations in subsurface conditions. Soil borings cannot present the same full-scale view that is obtained during complete site grading, excavation or other aspects of earthwork construction.


Groundwater Observations Observations for groundwater were made during sampling and upon completion of the drilling operations at the boring locations. In auger drilling operations, water is not introduced into the boreholes, and the groundwater position can often be obtained by observing water flowing into or out of the boreholes. Furthermore, visual observation of the soil samples retrieved during the auger drilling exploration can often be used in evaluating the groundwater conditions. Groundwater was not encountered at the boring locations during and upon completion (after auger removal) of drilling. Glacial till soils in the Midwest frequently oxidize from gray to brown above the level at which the soil remains saturated. The long-term groundwater level is often interpreted to be near this zone of color change. Based on the results of this exploration, the static long-term groundwater level may be located at a depth of approximately 10 to 12 feet below existing site grades (i.e., EL. +706 +/- to EL. +710 +/-). The highest groundwater observations are normally encountered in late winter and early spring and our current groundwater observations are not expected to be at the seasonal maximum water table. It should be noted that the groundwater level can vary based on precipitation, evaporation, surface run-off and other factors not immediately apparent at the time of this exploration. Surface water runoff will be a factor during general construction, and steps should be taken during construction to control surface water runoff and to remove water that may accumulate in the proposed excavations as well as floor slab and pavement areas.


ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overview The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated in the design and construction of the project to reduce possible soil and/or foundation related problems. The following sections present specific recommendations with regard to the geotechnical design and construction aspects of the proposed Outlot Retail structure. These include recommendations with regard to subgrade preparation and earthwork, fill placement, foundations, floor slab design and pavement design. Discussion of the factors affecting the building foundations for the proposed construction, as well as additional recommendations regarding geotechnical design and construction at the project site are included below. We recommend that ECS review the final design and specifications to check that the earthwork and foundation recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. Subgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations The finished floor elevation of the proposed structure and finished grades of the proposed parking/drive areas are anticipated to match the existing site grades. If our assumption for the final grade is incorrect, please contact ECS so we can review (and revise if appropriate) our recommendations for subgrade preparation discussed below. The initial site preparation should consist of the complete removal of the existing grass, topsoil and other deleterious material. Once the surficial materials have been removed, the limits of the structure footprints, parking lots and drive lanes should be excavated to the design subgrade elevation. ECS does not recommend the slab and pavement subgrades remain exposed to the elements or construction traffic for a prolonged period of time as the subgrade may be disturbed and/or softened. If the slab and/or pavement section is not planned to be constructed within a few days after exposing the final design subgrade, consideration should be given to leaving the subgrade approximately 1 foot above the final design subgrade to help prevent softening of the design subgrade soils (if feasible). We anticipate the soils at the slab and pavement subgrades will consist of undocumented Lean Clay FILL overlying buried topsoil and variable granular fill materials. We typically do not recommend slabs/pavements be supported on or above undocumented FILL materials as the fill materials exhibit variable composition and in-situ relative densities, which could result in unfavorable total and differential settlements and premature deterioration/cracking of the slab/pavement. We are aware that complete removal and replacement of the existing Lean Clay FILL, buried Clayey Topsoil and Gravel and variable granular Fill materials may not be feasible from a construction cost perspective. As such, consideration could be given to leaving the existing fill in place provided the following: (1) the upper one foot of lean clay fill material is re-worked in place (i.e., densified/scarified/moisture conditioned), (2) the re-worked lean clay fill subgrade passes a proofroll and (3) the owner is willing to accept some risk of premature deterioration of the slab/pavements. We recommend that test pits be performed prior to mass


grading activities and/or prior to bidding to better delineate the limits (vertical and horizontal limits) of the buried clayey topsoil and variable granular fill materials. Proofrolling Once the subgrade has been exposed (design subgrade after re-working the fill or subgrade after removal of fill), the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled using a loaded dump truck, having an axle weight of at least 10 tons. The intent of the proofroll is to aid in identifying localized soft or unsuitable material which may be required to be removed. If soft or yielding soils are observed during the proofroll of the subgrade, the soft or yielding soils should be further evaluated to determine if additional remedial measures are required. If deemed appropriate, the soft/unsuitable soils should be undercut up to a maximum of 2 feet and replaced with compacted and engineered fill to the design pavement subgrade in accordance with the Fill Placement section of this report. Proofrolling of the slab subgrade should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record or his authorized representative. To help limit the volume of soil removed as a result of the proofrolling observations, we recommend that soft or yielding soils be evaluated in approximately 6-inch intervals. That is to say, if soft or yielding soils are identified, the contractor should remove 6 inches of material in the subject area and then proofroll/evaluate the undercut subgrade. This may potentially limit the need to remove 2 feet of soil at all locations where soft or yielding soils are identified. A DCP (dynamic cone penetrometer) can also be used in conjunction with proofrolling to establish appropriate depths for remedial action. Subgrade Preparation – Building Foundations For building foundations, we do not recommend the footings bear on or above existing fill materials or buried topsoil. Existing fill should be completely removed beneath all proposed foundations such that the footings bear on competent natural soils or on engineered fill used to replace unsuitable existing fill materials. The resulting excavation should be monitored by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record to verify that proper and not excessive undercutting has been performed. The undercut excavations should be backfilled in strict accordance with the Fill Placement section of this report. As an option, ECS also recommends that consideration be given to improving the fill soils at the foundation locations with aggregate piers. Subgrade Preparation - General We recommend contingencies should be included in construction budgets to cover the cost of removal and replacement of unsuitable and soft/loose soils and existing fill within structure areas. The earthwork operations and subgrade preparation should be monitored by a qualified geotechnical field engineer or his field representative to make sure unsuitable soils and other deleterious material is stripped. Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the subgrade elevation if the excavations remain open for too long a period. If the subgrade soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. In addition, the on-site soils are likely sensitive to water/rain and difficult to work with (i.e., place and compact) or drive on if it becomes wet.


Excavations should comply with the requirements of OSHA 29CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, "Excavations" and its appendices, as well as other applicable codes. This document states that the contractor is solely responsible for the design and construction of stable, temporary excavations. The excavations should not only be in accordance with current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards but also with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. The contractor should shore, slope or bench the excavation sides when appropriate. In no case should excavations extend below the level of adjacent structures, utilities or pavements, unless underpinning or other adequate support is provided. Site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor, who shall also be responsible for the means, methods and sequencing of construction operations. If problems are encountered during the earthwork operations, or if site conditions deviate from those encountered during our subsurface exploration, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified immediately. Fill Placement All fills should consist of an approved material, free of organic matter and debris, particles greater than 3-inches and have a Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index less than 40 and 15, respectively. Unacceptable fill materials include topsoil and organic materials (OH, OL), high plasticity silts and clays (CH, MH), and low-plasticity silts (ML). Under no circumstances should high plasticity soils be used as fill material in proposed structural areas or close to site slopes. The natural Lean CLAY soils appear to be suitable for reuse as backfill material. Consideration could also be given to re-utilizing the existing Lean Clay FILL materials as engineered fill with proper screening to ensure the lean clay fill soils are not mixed with topsoil, particles greater than 3 inches, asphalt and concrete. The buried Clayey Topsoil and variable granular FILL with varying amounts of asphalt and concrete fragments, clay, roots and organics encountered should not be used as backfill material. Topsoil can be used for landscaping purposes only. The suitable on-site and off-site soils may require moisture content adjustments such as the application of discing or other drying techniques or spraying of water to the soils prior to their use as compacted fill (termed manipulation). The planning of earthwork operations should recognize and account for increased costs associated with manipulation of the on-site materials considered for reuse as compacted fill. Fill materials should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness and moisture conditioned to within ±2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content. Soil bridging lifts should not be used, since excessive settlement of overlying structures will likely occur. Controlled fill soils should be moisture conditioned to within the working range of the soils optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification D1557, Modified Proctor Method. The expanded footprint of the proposed structure and fill areas should be well defined, including the limits of the fill zones at the time of fill placement. Grade control should be maintained throughout the fill placement operations. All fill operations should be observed on a full-time basis by a qualified soil technician to determine that the specified compaction requirements are


being met. A minimum of one compaction test per 2,500 square foot area and 50 linear feet of trench should be tested in each lift placed. The elevation and location of the tests should be clearly identified at the time of fill placement. Compaction equipment suitable to the soil type used as fill should be used to compact the fill material. Theoretically, any equipment type can be used as long as the required density is achieved; however, the standard of practice typically dictates that a vibratory roller be utilized for compaction of granular soils and a sheepsfoot roller be utilized for compaction of cohesive soils. In addition, a steel drum roller is typically most efficient for compacting and sealing the surface soils. All areas receiving fill should be graded to facilitate positive drainage from building pad areas of free water associated with precipitation and surface runoff. It should be noted that prior to the commencement of fill operations and/or utilization of off-site borrow materials, the Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be provided with representative samples to determine the material’s suitability for use in a controlled compacted fill and to develop moisture-density relationships. In order to expedite the earthwork operations, if off-site borrow materials are required, it is recommended they consist of suitable fill materials in accordance with the recommendations previously outlined in this section. We do not recommend importing frost susceptible soil, (i.e., silty soils and fine sands) for use as engineered fill within 2 feet of the exterior surface grades (for frost considerations). Fill materials should not be placed on frozen soils or frost-heaved soils and/or soils that have been recently subjected to precipitation. All frozen soils should be removed prior to continuation of fill operations. Borrow fill materials, if required, should not contain frozen materials at the time of placement. All frost-heaved soils should be removed prior to placement of controlled, compacted fill, granular subbase materials, and foundation or slab concrete. Open-Graded Fill Materials ECS understands site conditions or project constraints may occur where the use of crushed 3-inch rock (CA-1 or crushed CA-18/IDOT PGE) is recommended by the Contractor as substitution for engineered fill. Upon written approval by ECS, CA-1 or CA-18/IDOT PGE may only be used if properly documented and witnessed by an experienced ECS Geotechnical engineer or qualified ECS representative. The installation must be observed by an ECS representative full-time during placement operations. ECS encourages the placement of a minimum 8 ounce, non-woven geotextile fabric as a separator between the open-graded material and the native subgrade. This geotextile material reduces the potential for intermixing of the subgrade soils with the open-graded aggregate and potential settlement. Pea gravel should not be used as engineered fill. If 3-inch rock (open graded granular fill, CA-1 or IDOT PGE) is to be considered for use as backfill, the 3-inch rock should be placed in accordance with the guidelines described herein. Due to the large diameter and absence of fines, 3-inch rock exhibits large voids. Fill materials containing large voids are more susceptible to future movement and may become unstable, resulting in excessive, unpredictable and variable total and differential settlement. These open-graded aggregates can not be tested using conventional density testing methods and therefore do not meet the definition of engineered fill as described elsewhere in this report.


Proper placement of the open-graded material is typically achieved by using a smooth drum vibratory roller, “hoe pac” or backhoe bucket techniques wherein the operator applies energy to the open-graded aggregate until the stone “closes up” and interlock is observed. Due to the inability to utilize conventional compaction testing methods; an ECS engineer or qualified ECS representative should observe the material placed in lifts less than 12 inches in loose thickness, that the material is “closed up” (interlocked and stable), and under significant load no further densification or shifting occurs. Oversized fragments (greater than 3 inches in diameter) should be rejected and removed from the fill. We recommend applying a sufficient number of passes with heavy vibratory steel wheel roller (minimum weight of 10,000 pounds), “hoe pac” or a sufficient number of impacts with a backhoe bucket to achieve interlock and a stable material. If deemed necessary by ECS, more energy may need to be applied after the contractor’s selected method of compaction. A “choking layer” at least 8 inches in thickness of CA-6 or similar materials (including a geotextile separator fabric as described above) should be placed on top of the 3-inch rock, at the final subgrade elevation. We do not recommend open-graded fill be utilized for mass grading activities or backfills greater than about 3 feet in thickness. Foundation Recommendations The proposed building for the project is anticipated to consist of one-story, slab-on-grade structure with no below-grade or basement level. The soil conditions encountered at the boring locations were observed to consist of undocumented lean clay fill overlying buried clay topsoil/variable granular material to a depth of approximately 5½ to 7½ feet below existing site grades followed by natural lean clay soils. To better delineate the limits (vertical and horizontal limits) of the buried clayey topsoil and variable granular fill materials, we recommend that test pits be performed prior to mass grading activities and/or prior to bidding. The test pit exploration may require laying out the footing limits (i.e., foundation wall/column lines). Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the project site, ECS is providing two options for support of the proposed structure. Option 1 consists of supporting the proposed structure on a shallow foundation system bearing in compacted engineered fill overlying suitable natural lean clay or on the natural Lean CLAY soils. Option 2 consists of supporting the proposed structure on aggregate piers. The foundation contractor should be prepared to remove concrete rubble or other obstructions during foundation excavation/construction without delay. Option 1 – Shallow Foundation System With Removal and Replacement Based on the results of the subsurface exploration, we anticipate the foundation subgrade soils within the limits of the proposed structure will consist of undocumented fill materials. We do not recommend the proposed structure bear on or above the existing fill soils and buried topsoil. We recommend the proposed structure be supported on a shallow foundation system extended below the buried topsoil and variable fill bearing in the competent natural Lean CLAY soil or engineered fill/lean concrete overlying competent natural Lean CLAY with a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The net allowable soil bearing pressure refers to that pressure which may be transmitted to the foundation bearing soils in excess of the final minimum surrounding overburden pressure. Competent natural soils can be identified on the boring logs and in the field as natural Lean CLAY with unconfined compressive strengths of 1½ tsf or greater.


Based on the soil conditions indicated by the borings, the corresponding depths of foundation over-excavation may range from about 6 to 8 feet below existing site grades or 2½ to 4½ feet below likely foundation elevation. During foundation excavation/construction, we recommend that visual soil classification by an ECS representative supplemented with hand auger probes, in-situ vane shear testing, and/or DCP testing be performed to a depth below the foundation subgrade equivalent to ½ the footing width (i.e., ½ B), or a minimum of 5 feet below each isolated column footing and continuous footings. Visual soil classification supplemented with hand auger probes, in-situ vane shear testing, and/or DCP testing should be performed at each column footing and at approximately 20-foot intervals along continuous footings to verify the suitability of the soils to support the recommended maximum net allowable bearing pressure. As mentioned above, the footings will need to extend below the existing fill/buried topsoil and bear on suitable natural soil. If soft/unsuitable soils or fill soils are encountered at the foundation bearing elevations, the foundation should be extended until suitable bearing soils are encountered or the unsuitable soils should be removed beneath the base of the foundation and replaced with compacted engineered fill or lean concrete. If engineered fill is utilized, the engineered fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density in accordance with the Modified Proctor Method, ASTM D1557. The zone of the engineered fill placed below the foundations should extend 1 foot beyond the outside edges of the footings and from that point, outward laterally 1 foot for every 2 feet of fill thickness below the foundation. If lean concrete is utilized to replace weaker/low bearing soils or unsuitable soils, no lateral over-excavation will be necessary, but the excavation should be 1 foot wider than the footing (6 inches on each side), and the lean concrete should be allowed to harden prior to placement of the footing concrete. We recommend that the excavation/backfill of building foundations be monitored full-time by an ECS Geotechnical Engineer or his representative to verify that the soil bearing pressure is consistent with the boring log information obtained during the geotechnical exploration. Option 2 - Shallow Foundation System with Aggregate Piers Ground improvement using drilled aggregate piers (densified aggregate piers) can be considered as an option to complete removal and replacement of existing undocumented fill materials beneath foundations. Drilled aggregate piers are a ground improvement technique in which a column of soil is replaced with crushed stone that is densified with vibratory or ramming techniques. The footings are then designed for a bearing pressure appropriate for the densified aggregate pier and the remaining soil surrounding the pier. Aggregate piers are typically designed to extend through unsuitable fill and softer soils and bear in more competent natural soils at depth. The piers are typically 24-inch to 30-inch (minimum) in diameter. The soil reinforcement occurs as a result of the excavation of unsuitable fill and soft soils and replacement by vibrated or compacted dense granular aggregate. The advantages of ground improvement using aggregated piers are: (1) foundation subgrades can stay at a relatively uniform subgrade level without the need for undercutting, as the presence of the piers provides adequate support to the shallow foundation, and (2) the volume of undercut material will be reduced, which will reduce the costs associated with disposing of materials off-site. Aggregate piers can be utilized under the building footprint to support walls and columns. Our analysis indicates that for the anticipated structural loads and subsurface conditions, an allowable bearing pressure (after aggregate pier installation) in the range of 3,000 to 4,000 psf should be feasible. In addition, the aggregate piers can be utilized under floor slabs to reduce undesirable settlement and future maintenance.


The drilled aggregate pier system should be designed by a design-build contractor and the proposed soil improvement plan should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GER) before construction begins. While design of this system would be performed by others, the design could be such that total and differential settlements would be limited to 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively. The design-build contractor should be made aware of the presence of deleterious materials including possible concrete rubble and other obstructions in the fill at the site. The presence of concrete rubble in the fill may cause problems during construction of aggregate piers. The design-build contractor will provide final design and quality assurance, but based on soils at the project site and our experience, the maximum allowable bearing capacity is likely to be in the range of 3,000 to 4,000 psf. Frost Depth and Minimum Footing Dimensions Footings should be placed at a depth to provide adequate frost cover protection. We recommend the exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas be placed at a minimum depth of 3½ feet below finished grade. Interior footings in heated areas can be placed at a minimum of 2 feet below grade provided suitable soils are encountered and that the foundations will not be subjected to freezing weather either during or after construction. Please note the corresponding depths of foundation over-excavation may range from about 6 to 8 feet below existing site grades based on the soil conditions indicated by the borings if Option 1 is considered to support the proposed structure. To reduce the potential for foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due to local shear or "punching" action, we recommend continuous footings have a minimum width of 18 inches and that isolated column footings have a minimum lateral dimension of 30 inches. Foundation Settlement Settlement of individual footings, designed in accordance with our recommendations presented in this report, is expected to be small and within tolerable limits for the proposed anticipated structure. For footings placed on suitable natural soils or properly compacted engineered fill, maximum total settlement is expected to be in the range of ½ to 1 inch. Maximum differential settlement between adjacent columns is expected to be one-half the total settlement. These settlement values are based on our engineering experience and the anticipated structural loading, and are to help guide the structural engineer with his design. In areas where foundations are founded at different elevations, it is important to provide a minimum slope of 1H:1V between the bottom edge of each foundation at their closest point. Floor Slab Design For the design and construction of the slabs-on-grade for the proposed retail structure, we recommend that the recommendations provided in the section entitled Subgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations be followed. The slab thickness can be determined utilizing an assumed modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci if the existing fill is allowed to remain in place, provided the upper one foot of clay fill is re-worked and passes a proofroll and the owner is willing to accept some risk of premature deterioration of the slab/pavement. If the existing undocumented fill materials are completely removed and replaced, the floor slab thickness can be determined utilizing an assumed modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch


(pci). In either case, we recommend the floor slab thickness should not be thinner than 5 inches. If the project team elects to utilize aggregate piers at the project site for support of the shallow foundation system, consideration should also be given to supporting the slab-on-grade on interstitial aggregate piers installed in a grid pattern. We recommend that the project team discuss the use of interstitial aggregate piers with a specialty design-build contractor to evaluate the potential benefits and the associated costs as well as design parameters. We recommend that the floor slab be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of granular material having a maximum aggregate size of 1½ inches and no more than 2% soil fines passing the No. 200 sieve. This granular layer will facilitate the fine grading of the subgrade and help prevent the rise of water through the floor slab. Prior to placing the granular material, the floor subgrade should be free of standing water, mud, and frozen soil. Before the placement of concrete, a vapor barrier may be placed on top of the granular material to provide additional moisture protection. Welded-wire mesh reinforcement should be placed in the upper half of the floor slab and attention should be given to the surface curing of the slab in order to minimize uneven drying of the slab and associated cracking and/or slab curling. The use of a blotter or cushion layer above the vapor retarder can also be considered for project specific reasons. Please refer to ACI 302.1R04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction and ASTM E 1643 Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs for additional guidance on this issue. We recommend that the floor slab be isolated from the building foundations so differential settlement of the structure will not induce shear stresses on the floor slab. For maximum effectiveness, temperature and shrinkage reinforcements in slabs on ground should be positioned in the upper third of the slab thickness. The Wire Reinforcement Institute recommends the mesh reinforcement be placed 2 inches below the slab surface or upper one-third of slab thickness, whichever is closer to the surface. Adequate construction joints, contraction joints and isolation joints should also be provided in the slab to reduce the impacts of cracking and shrinkage. Please refer to ACI 302.1R04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction for additional information regarding concrete slab joint design. Underslab Sub-Drainage Based on the groundwater levels observed during the subsurface exploration, we do not anticipate a significant volume of water will persist at the slab subgrade elevation. It should be noted however that surface runoff and limited groundwater seepage may accumulate at the slab subgrade. As such, we recommend that positive drainage be implemented around the perimeter of the proposed structure to help reduce the potential for water accumulation under the floor slab and foundation elements, which could potentially weaken the bearing soils. Exterior Pavement Recommendations We recommend that the pavement subgrade be prepared in accordance with the Subgrade Preparation and Earthwork Operations section of this report. Once the subgrade has been properly prepared, we recommend the following minimum pavement sections for the proposed development. The pavement sections were developed based on assumed traffic loads and a CBR of 3 for the subgrade soils.


Table 1: Pavement Section Recommendations Compacted Material Thicknesses (Inches)

Pavement Material Flexible Pavement (Standard)

Flexible Pavement

(Heavy Duty) Rigid Pavement

(Standard) Rigid Pavement

(Heavy Duty)

Portland Cement Concrete -- -- 5 6

Bituminous Surface Course 1½ 1½ -- --

Bituminous Base Course

2 3 -- --

Crushed Granular Subbase (CA-6) 8 12 6 6

Total Pavement Section Thickness 11½ 16½ 11 12

All pavement materials and construction, with the exception of the Modified Proctor compaction specification, should be in accordance with the Guidelines for AASHTO Pavement Design. The pavement sections specified in the table above are general pavement recommendations based on the anticipated usage at the project site and were not developed based on specific traffic patterns/loading and resiliency factors, as those parameters were not provided by the design team. We recommend the project team provide ECS with design traffic loads so that we can verify the recommendations detailed herein are appropriate for the anticipated traffic loads. The table above provides “Standard” and “Heavy Duty” flexible and rigid pavement recommendations. The standard pavement section assumes that typical traffic loading will be limited to standard automobiles and does not account for more heavily loaded vehicles (i.e., multiple axle trucks) and should be used for parking lanes. The “Heavy-Duty” pavement section is recommended for pavements to be subjected with frequent traffic such as drive lanes and entrance/exit drives. It should also be noted that the pavement sections specified in the table above were developed for the anticipated in-service traffic conditions only and do not provide an allowance for construction traffic conditions or traffic conditions in excess of typical residential/collector street traffic. Therefore, if pavements will be constructed early during site development to accommodate construction traffic, consideration should be given to the construction of designated haul roads, where thickened pavement sections can be provided to accommodate the construction traffic, as well as the future in-service traffic. ECS can provide additional design assistance with pavement sections for haul roads upon request. An important consideration with the design and construction of pavements is surface and subsurface drainage. Where standing water develops, either on the pavement surface or within the base course layer, softening of the subgrade and other problems related to the deterioration of the pavement can be expected. Furthermore, good drainage should minimize the possibility of the subgrade materials becoming saturated over a long period of time. We recommend the granular base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM D1557, Modified Proctor Method. During asphalt pavement construction, the wearing and leveling course should be compacted to a minimum of 93 percent of the theoretical density value. Prior to placing the granular material,


the pavement subgrade soil should be properly compacted, observed to be stable during a final proofroll and free of standing water, mud, and frozen soil. Infiltration and subterranean water are the two sources of water that should be considered in the pavement design for the project. Infiltration is surface water that enters the pavement through the joints, pores, cracks in the pavement and through shoulders and adjacent areas pavements as a result of precipitation. Subterranean water is a source of water from a high water table on the site. The long-term groundwater level on the site is estimated to be as high as 8 feet below existing site grades. Therefore for the proposed at grade pavements for the project, infiltration (i.e., perched water) is the most important source of water to be considered. We recommend pavement subgrades should be crowned, or sloped, a minimum of 1% to promote subsurface water flow across the clay subgrades and to prevent ponding. Crowning and sloping the subgrade should help minimize the potential for water to accumulate and the aggregate base course and clay subgrade soils to become saturated. Proper profile grading is essential to avoid the creation of “bathtubs” beneath the pavements, trapping water. The trapped water or standing water in the “bathtubs” can result in saturation of the aggregate base course and clayey subgrade soils leading to softening of the subgrade and premature pavement cracking and settlement. Large, front loading trash dumpsters frequently impose concentrated front-wheel loads on pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of the pavement and ultimately pavement failures. Therefore, we recommend that the pavement in trash pickup areas consist of the heavy duty rigid pavement section in Table 1. It should be noted that the pavement should be comprised of air-entrained Portland cement concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi and a minimum flexural strength of 650 psi. Adequate construction joints, contraction joints and isolation joints should be provided in the areas of rigid pavement to reduce the impacts of cracking and shrinkage. Please refer to ACI 330R-92 Guide for Design of Concrete Parking Lots. The Guide recommends an appropriate spacing strategy for the anticipated loads and pavement thickness. It has been our experience that joint spacing closer to the minimum values results in a pavement with less cracking and better long term performance. Pavement Maintenance The parking lot and drive lanes should be reviewed for cracks twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall. Regular maintenance and occasional repairs should be implemented to keep pavements in a serviceable condition. In addition, to minimize water infiltration to the pavement section and within the base course layer resulting in softening of the subgrade and deterioration of the pavement, we recommend the timely sealing of joints and cracks in the existing pavement using elastomeric caulk.


PROJECT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General Construction Considerations We recommend that the subgrade preparation, installation of the foundations and construction of the slabs-on-grade and pavements be monitored by an ECS geotechnical engineer or his representative. Methods of verification and identification such as proofrolling, DCP testing, vane shear tests, and hand auger probe holes will be necessary to further evaluate the subgrade soils and identify unsuitable soils. The contractor should be prepared to over-excavate footing and slab-on-grade excavations as necessary. We recommend that excavations of foundations be monitored on a full-time basis by an ECS geotechnical engineer or his representative to verify that the soil bearing pressure and the exposed subgrade materials can support the recommended design bearing pressure and are consistent with the boring log information obtained during this geotechnical exploration. We would be pleased to provide these services. Foundation Subgrade Preparation The foundation contractor should be prepared to remove concrete rubble or other obstructions during foundation excavation/construction without delay. If the existing fill is not completely removed from proposed structure areas and the Owner elects to only extend foundation excavations through the fill to suitable bearing soils, we recommend that hand auger probes and/or vane shear/DCP testing be performed to a depth below the foundation subgrade equivalent to ½ the footing width (i.e., ½ B), or a minimum of 5 feet below each isolated column footing and continuous footings during excavation/construction. Hand auger probes and/or DCP tests should be performed at each column footing and at approximately 20-foot intervals along continuous footings to verify the suitability of the soils to support the recommended maximum net allowable bearing pressure. All engineered fill placed in structure areas or within foundation undercut excavations should be should be compacted to a minimum of 95 % of the maximum dry density in accordance with modified Proctor method, ASTM D 1557. The zone of the engineered fill placed below the foundations should extend 1 foot beyond the outside edges of the footings and from that point, outward laterally 1 foot for every 2 feet of fill thickness below the footing. As discussed in the Foundation Recommendations section of this report, we recommend granular engineered fill be used minimized the effects of self-weight consolidation and to maintain maximum foundation settlement at about 1 inch. We recommend that the excavation/backfill of building foundations be monitored full-time by an ECS Geotechnical Engineer or his representative to verify that the soil bearing pressure is consistent with the boring log information obtained during the geotechnical exploration. Construction Dewatering Based on the groundwater conditions encountered at the project site, we do not anticipate that significant dewatering efforts will be required during construction of shallow foundations, slabs-on-grade and pavements. However, it should be noted that perched water and/or surface runoff may introduce water into the project site and the general contractor should be prepared to remove any accumulated water prior to the placement of fill and concrete. We anticipate that


the removal of any accumulated water can be achieved utilizing drainage trenches and a sump and pump system. Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a period. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are dug. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. CCDD Environmental Testing Given the nature of the proposed construction, we anticipate that site preparation, earthwork and foundation excavation may result in removal and disposal of excavation spoils off site. As the property is commercial in nature, in accordance with Illinois Public Act 96-1416, soil sampling and analysis, along with certification from a Licensed Professional Engineer that the soil is uncontaminated, will be required prior to disposal of site soils at a clean construction and demolition debris (CCDD) or soils-only landfill. Acceptance of materials at a CCDD landfill is at a minimum conditioned upon the above referenced certification, but acceptance is not guaranteed. The sampling, analysis and certification process generally takes about 7 to 10 working days to complete. To limit delays to the construction schedule, ECS recommends that consideration be given to proactively performing the requisite CCDD testing in advance of construction. This proactive approach should help facilitate same day “dig and haul activities” and could reduce overall costs and the potential for delay in the future. Please note that the total number of soil samples and analyses required will depend on site specific information (size, previous site use, neighboring property site use, amount of soil to be removed, etc.). Environmental soil sampling and analysis was not part of our scope of services for this project. ECS can provide a proposal for these services, if requested. Closing This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architect and/or engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to the specific project and locations described herein and our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects relative to soil and foundation characteristics. In the event that any change in the nature or location of the proposed construction outlined in this report are planned, we should be informed so that the changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or approved in writing by the geotechnical engineer. It is recommended that all construction operations dealing with earthwork and foundations be reviewed by an experienced geotechnical engineer to provide information on which to base a decision as to whether the design requirements are fulfilled in the actual construction. If you wish, we would welcome the opportunity to provide field construction services for you during construction. The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings and tests performed at the locations as indicated on the Boring Location Plan and other information referenced in this report. This report does not reflect variations, which may occur between the borings. In the performance of the subsurface exploration,


specific information is obtained at specific locations at specific times. However, it is a well known fact that variations in soil conditions exist on most sites between boring locations and also such situations as groundwater levels vary from time to time. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until the course of construction. If variations then appear evident, after performing on-site observations during the construction period and noting characteristics and variations, a reevaluation of the recommendations for this report will be necessary. In addition to geotechnical engineering services, ECS Midwest, LLC has the in-house capability to perform multiple additional services as this project moves forward. These services include the following:

• Environmental Consulting; • Project Drawing and Specification Review; • Construction Material Testing / Special Inspections; and,

We would be pleased to provide these services for you. If you have questions with regard to this information or need further assistance during the design and construction of the project please feel free to contact us.

APPENDIX

General Location Plan Boring Location Plan Boring Logs Unified Soil Classification System Reference Notes for Boring Logs

GENERAL LOCATION PLAN USGS Topographic Map

“Tinley Park, IL” Quadrangle Dated 1993

ECS PROJECT NO. 16:9356 PROPOSED OULOT RETAIL

US ROUTE 30 AND US ROUTE 45

FRANKFORT, ILLINOIS

Approximate Site Location

3/22/13

9356

APPROX. 1"=45'

FIGURE 2Frankfort Outlot Retail Structure

BORING LOCATION PLAN

Bradford Real Estate Services Corp.

LGM

DAG

N

APPROXIMATE SOIL BORING LOCATION

B-1

B-2

B-3

LINCOLN HWY. (ROUTE 30)

S. L

A G

RA

NG

E R

D. (

US

45)

GRAPHIC SCALE

0 10' 20' 45'

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

715

710

705

700

695

690

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

18

18

18

18

18

18

14

18

18

18

Topsoil Depth [5"]Lean Clay FILL, With Silt, Trace Sand andGravel, Dark Brown, Hard to Very Stiff, (CL-FILL)

With Large Limestone Gravel

Clayey Topsoil FILL, Black, (OL-FILL)Lean CLAY, With Silt, Trace Sand and Gravel,Brown to Gray at 12 Feet, Very Stiff to Hard,(CL)

END OF BORING @ 15'

578

61946

368

476

445

1514.7

4.5+

659.3 4.5+20.3

14

21.13.5

13 20.84.5+

9 13.1

2.5

CLIENT

Bradford Real Estate Services Corp

JOB #

16:9356

BORING #

B-1

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Frankfort Outlot Retail Structure

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

Knight Engineers & ArchitectsSITE LOCATION

US Route 30 and US Route 45, Frankfort, Illinois

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

WL DRY WS WD BORING STARTED 03/02/13

WL(BCR) WL(ACR) DRY BORING COMPLETED 03/02/13 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL RIG CME-45 FOREMAN S. Euker DRILLING METHOD CFA

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTICLIMIT

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATIONBLOWS/FT+718 +/-

1 OF 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

715

710

705

700

695

690

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

s-6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

ss

18

18

18

18

18

18

16

14

16

16

18

18

Topsoil Depth [6"]Lean Clay FILL, With Silt, Trace Sand andGravel, Dark Brown, Hard, (CL-FILL)

Clayey Topsoil FILL, Black, (OL-FILL)Lean CLAY, With Silt, Trace Sand and Gravel,Brown to Gray at 12½ Feet, Very Stiff, (CL)

END OF BORING @ 15'

557

51016

345

334

234

235

14.2

4.512

21.34.0

26

22.616.7 4.5+

9

22.72.07

21.93.57

13.9

2.58

CLIENT


JOB #

16:9356

BORING #

B-2

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

715

710

705

700

695

690

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

18

18

18

18

18

16

14

16

16

18

Topsoil Depth [8"]Lean Clay FILL, With Silt, Trace Sand andGravel, Dark Brown, Hard, (CL-FILL)

Gravel and Sand FILL, With Asphalt andConcrete Fragments, With Clay and Roots andTrace Organics at 6', Dark Brown, MediumDense, (GP-FILL)

Lean CLAY, With Silt, Trace Sand and Gravel,Brown to Gray at 12 Feet, Stiff, (CL)

END OF BORING @ 15'

579

8229

15

50/1"

121

234

14.4

4.5+16

22.44.5+

3167.2

55/7"

20.6

1.5

3

14.6

1.5

7

CLIENT


JOB #

16:9356

BORING #

B-3

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 1

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)

Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria

GW

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

Cu = D60/D10 greater than 4 Cc = (D30)2/(D10xD60) between 1 and 3

Cle

an g

rave

ls

(Litt

le o

r no

fines

)

GP

Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW

d

GMa

u

Silty gravels, gravel-sand mixtures

Atterberg limits below “A” line or P.I. less than 4

Gra

vels

(M

ore

than

hal

f of c

oars

e fra

ctio

n is

la

rger

than

No.

4 s

ieve

siz

e)

Gra

vels

with

fine

s (A

ppre

ciab

le a

mou

nt o

f fin

es)

GC

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

Atterberg limits below “A” line or P.I. less than 7

Above “A” line with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols

SW

Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines

Cu = D60/D10 greater than 6 Cc = (D30)2/(D10xD60) between 1 and 3

Cle

an s

ands

(L

ittle

or n

o fin

es)

SP

Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines

Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW

d

SMa

u

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

Atterberg limits above “A” line or P.I. less than 4

Coa

rse-

grai

ned

soils

(M

ore

than

hal

f of m

ater

ial i

s la

rger

than

No.

200

Sie

ve s

ize)

San

ds

(Mor

e th

an h

alf o

f coa

rse

fract

ion

is

smal

ler t

han

No.

4 s

ieve

siz

e)

San

ds w

ith fi

nes

(App

reci

able

am

ount

of

fines

)

SC

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures D

eter

min

e pe

rcen

tage

s of

san

d an

d gr

avel

from

gra

in-s

ize

curv

e.

Dep

endi

ng o

n pe

rcen

tage

of f

ines

(fra

ctio

n sm

alle

r tha

n N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

siz

e), c

oars

e-gr

aine

d so

ils

are

clas

sifie

d as

follo

ws:

Le

ss th

an 5

per

cent

GW

, GP

, SW

, SP

M

ore

than

12

perc

ent

G

M, G

C, S

M, S

C

5 to

12

perc

ent

Bor

derli

ne c

ases

requ

iring

dua

l sym

bols

b

Atterberg limits above “A” line with P.I. greater than 7

Limits plotting in CL-ML zone with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols

ML

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts with slight plasticity

CL

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays

S

ilts

and

clay

s (L

iqui

d lim

it le

ss th

an 5

0)

OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

MH

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts

CH

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

S

ilts

and

clay

s (L

iqui

d lim

it gr

eate

r tha

n 50

)

OH

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts

Fine

-gra

ined

soi

ls

(Mor

e th

an h

alf m

ater

ial i

s sm

alle

r tha

n N

o. 2

00 S

ieve

)

H

ighl

y O

rgan

ic

soils

Pt

Peat and other highly organic soils

Plasticity Chart

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit

Plas

ticity

Inde

x

"A" line

CH

MH and OH

CL

ML and OLCL-ML

a Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28. b 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. (From Table 2.16 - Winterkorn and Fang, 1975)

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS

Reference Notes for Boring Logs_2010-10-29.doc © 2010 ECS Corporate Services, LLC. All Rights Reserved

COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS UNCONFINED COMP. STRENGTH, QP2 (TSF)

SPT3 (BPF)

CONSISTENCY (COHESIVE ONLY)

50 Very Hard

GRAVELS, SANDS & NON-COHESIVE SILTS SPT3 (BPF) DENSITY

100 Partially Weathered Rock

to Intact Rock

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS

Trace

report of subsurface exploration and geotechnical...

Documents