geotechnical engineering report - v3co.com … · introduction geotechnical engineering report...

REPORT C OVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report Brewster Creek Project Oak

Bartlett, Illinois

April 10, 2018

Terracon Project No. MR185118R1

Prepared for:

V3 Companies, Ltd.

Woodridge, Illinois

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Naperville, Illinois.

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 135 Ambassador Drive Napervi l le, I l l inois 60540

P (630) 717 4263 F (630) 357 9489 terracon.com

REPORT C OVER LETTER TO SIGN

April 10, 2018

V3 Companies, Ltd.

7325 Janes Avenue, Suite 100

Woodridge, Illinois 60517

Attn: Mr. Keith Butkus

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Brewster Creek Project Oak

southwest corner of North Bartlett Road and Naperville Road

Bartlett, Illinois

Terracon Project No. MR185118R1

Dear Mr. Butkus:

We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This

study was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PMR185118 dated

March 20, 2018. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides

geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of

foundations and floor slabs for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions

concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Nathan J. Liggett, P.E. Paul A. Tarvin, P.E.

Project Manager Regional Geotechnical Manager

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

REPORT TOPICS

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 2 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... 3 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 4 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................ 5 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................... 10

FLOOR SLABS ............................................................................................................ 11 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ................................................................................. 13 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 15

PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 15 GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 19

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS (Current and Historical Boring Logs)

SUPPORTING INFORMATION (General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Brewster Creek Project Oak

Southwest Corner of North Bartlett Road and Naperville Road

Bartlett, Illinois Terracon Project No. MR185118R1

April 10, 2018

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering

services performed for the proposed development to be located at the southwest corner of North

Bartlett Road and Naperville Road in Bartlett, Illinois. The purpose of these services is to provide

information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Foundation design and construction

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Floor slab design and construction

■ Site preparation and earthwork ■ Seismic site classification per IBC

■ Dewatering considerations ■ Lateral earth pressures

■ Excavation considerations ■ Pavement design and construction

The current geotechnical engineering scope of services for this project included the advancement

of nine (9) soil borings to depths ranging from approximately 20 to 30 feet below existing site

grades. We also incorporated previous soil boring information completed by Terracon on the site.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration

Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples

obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs in the

Exploration Results section of this report.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the

field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.


Brewster Creek Project Oak ■ Bartlett, Illinois

April 10, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. MR185118R1


Item Description

Parcel Information

The project is located along Spitzer Road, near the southwest corner of North

Bartlett Road and Naperville Road in Bartlett, Illinois. The total area of the site

is about 31.4 acres.

See Site Location

Existing

Improvements

The site was formerly used as a sand and gravel quarry, and has since been

filled.

Current Ground

Cover Lightly to moderately vegetated.

Existing Topography

(from a site topographic

map from V3)

There is a large fill pile located on the eastern portion of the site that extends

up to elevation 806 feet. The site grades are lower on the western half of the

site, and generally decline from south (794 feet) to north (773 feet), with about

18 feet of elevation difference within the proposed building footprint.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided Based on a meeting with V3 and subsequent email correspondence from Mr. Keith Butkus. .

Project Description The project will consist of the construction of a precast concrete building.

Proposed Structure

The project includes a single-story building with a footprint of about 560,000 square feet (including room for future expansion). The building will be of typical slab-on-grade (non-basement) construction with a finished floor elevation of 791.5 feet. The pavements surrounding the proposed structure will have proposed surface elevations of 787.5 feet to allow for raised truck docks.

Building Construction The structure will most likely be steel framed with precast concrete panel walls.

Maximum Loads (provided by V3)

■ Columns: 150 kips ■ Walls: 4 kips per linear foot (klf) ■ Slabs: 500 pounds per square foot (psf)

Grading/Slopes

Up to 13 feet of cut and 17 feet of fill will be required to develop final grade.

Final slope angles of as steep as 3H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) are expected.

Below Grade Structures None planned.

Free-Standing Retaining Walls

None planned.





Item Description

Pavements

Paved driveway and parking will be constructed on the parcel.

We assume both rigid (concrete) and flexible (asphalt) pavement sections should be considered. Please confirm this assumption.

Anticipated traffic is as follows:

■ Autos/light trucks: 200 vehicles per day

■ Light delivery and trash collection vehicles: 10 vehicles per week

■ Tractor-trailer trucks: 500 vehicles per week

The pavement design period is 20 years.

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Subsurface Profile

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions

based upon our review of the current and historical data and our understanding of the geologic

setting and planned construction. The following table provides our geotechnical characterization.

The geotechnical characterization forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation

of site preparation, foundation options and pavement options. As noted in General Comments,

the characterization is based upon widely spaced exploration points across the site, and variations

are likely.

Stratum Approximate Elevation to

Bottom of Stratum Material Description Consistency/Density

1 Elev. 761 to 790 feet

FILL: typically consisting of lean to

silty clay, with varying amounts of

sand and gravel

N/A

2

Undetermined: Borings

terminated within this

stratum between Elev. 743

to 778 feet

Native soils consisting of lean clay

(CL) Stiff to very stiff

Native soils consisting of sand and

sand with gravel (SP)

Medium-dense to

dense

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs shown

in the Exploration Results section and are attached to this report. Stratification boundaries on

the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in native soil types; in situ, the

transition between materials may be gradual.





Groundwater Conditions

The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of

groundwater. The water levels observed in the boreholes can be found on the boring logs in

Exploration Results, and are summarized below.

Boring Number 1

Approximate Elevation of

Groundwater while Drilling

(feet)

Approximate Elevation of

Groundwater after Drilling

(feet)

B-4 757 feet None observed


B-2017 766 feet 765 feet



B-2020 768 feet 765 feet

B-2021 770.5 feet 765 feet

B-2023 761.5 feet None observed

B-2032 760.5 feet 756.5 feet

B-2034 757.5 feet None observed

1. Includes historical Terracon borings

Groundwater was not observed in the remaining borings while drilling, or for the short duration the

borings could remain open. However, this does not necessarily mean the borings terminated above

groundwater, or the water levels summarized above are stable groundwater levels. Due to the low

permeability of the soils encountered in the borings, a relatively long period may be necessary for a

groundwater level to develop and stabilize in a borehole. Long term observations in piezometers or

observation wells sealed from the influence of surface water are often required to define groundwater

levels in materials of this type.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff

and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater

levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than

the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be

considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

It is understood that the Client would like to support the proposed structure and pavements on a

partially over-excavated pad. As noted in Geotechnical Characterization, the borings





encountered existing fill to elevations ranging from 761 feet to 790 feet. The fill may have been

placed in a controlled manner, but we have no records to indicate the degree of control. In

addition, certain portions of the fill had elevated moisture contents, suggesting they may be

somewhat compressible. Support of footings, floor slabs, and pavements above existing fill soils

is discussed in this report. However, even with the recommended construction procedures, there

is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by

the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without

completely removing the existing fill, but can be reduced by following the recommendations

contained in this report. The following recommendations have been developed with the

understanding that the Owner is willing to assume this risk.

The existing site fill should be undercut to Elev. 778.5 feet within the footprint of the building pad

and extending 15 feet laterally. Once the existing fill soils are undercut to Elev. 778.5 feet, the

exposed subgrade should be compacted using a sheeps foot roller, followed by proofrolling the

subgrade using a heavily loaded tandem-axel truck with a gross weight of at least 20 tons. New

engineered fill conforming to the specifications provided within this report should be placed in lifts

and compacted as specified in the following sections up to the proposed pad surface elevation of

790.5.

The Shallow Foundations section addresses footing support of the proposed structure. It is our

opinion that the structure can be supported on typical spread footing foundations bearing within

the newly-placed engineered fill used to construct the building pad. Shallow foundations may be

proportioned for a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. We estimate total settlements of

less than 1-inch.

The Floor Slabs section addresses slab-on-grade support of structures. The floor slabs can be

grade supported on newly-placed engineered fill that appears stable under proofrolling.

Rigid and flexible pavement system recommendations are provided in this report. The

Pavements section addresses design and construction considerations for the proposed

pavement systems.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork will include clearing and grubbing, excavation and removal of a portion of the existing

fill, and new engineered fill placement. The following sections provide recommendations for use

in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria





as necessary to render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation

for foundations, floor slabs, and pavements.

Site Preparation and Fill Placement

It is understood that the Client would like to support the proposed structure and pavements on a

partially over-excavated pad. As noted in Geotechnical Characterization, the borings

encountered existing fill to elevations ranging from 761 feet to 790 feet. The fill may have been

placed in a controlled manner, but we have no records to indicate the degree of control. In

addition, certain portions of the fill had elevated moisture contents, suggesting that these

materials may be somewhat compressible. Support of footings, floor slabs, and pavements above

existing fill soils is discussed in this report. However, even with the recommended construction

procedures, there is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material

within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be

eliminated without completely removing the existing fill, but can be reduced by following the

recommendations contained in this report. The recommendations provided in this report have

been developed with the understanding that the owner is willing to assume this risk.

Based on the results of the borings, we recommend the following mass grading approach to

construct the proposed building pad for use with typical spread footing foundations, slab-on-grade

floors, and pavements:

■ Remove existing fill soils within the proposed building footprint, and extending 15 feet

beyond the building footprint, to an elevation of 778.5. It will not be necessary to undercut

competent native soils to this elevation. Excessively soft or loose native soils, or buried

topsoil, however, should also be removed. This approach will result in at least 12 feet of

compacted engineered fill to be placed below the building footprint to provide a firm base

to support the foundations and floor slabs.

■ Once the existing fill soils are undercut to Elev. 778.5 feet, the exposed subgrade should

be compacted using a sheeps foot roller, followed by proofrolling the subgrade using a

heavily loaded, tandem-axel truck with a gross weight of at least 20 tons. Any unstable

areas identified during proofroll, or if unsuitable fill soils are exposed at the undercut

subgrade elevation of 778.5 feet, the unsuitable soils should be scarified and

recompacted, or replaced with crushed stone.

■ New engineered fill conforming to the specifications provided within this report should be

placed and compacted as specified in the following sections up to the proposed pad

surface elevation of 790.5.





Fill Material Types

It is expected that most of the inorganic site soils, with the limitations discussed in this report,

could be considered for use as engineered fill for the project. However, some moisture

conditioning should be anticipated if existing site soils are to be utilized. Engineered fill for the

project should meet the follow material property requirements:

Fill Type 1, 2

USCS Classification Acceptable Locations for Placement

Cohesive CL

3

, CL/ML3

, ML3

(LL ≤ 45 and PI ≤ 20) All locations

Granular GW, GP, GM, GC

SW, SP, SM, SC All locations

Unsuitable CL/CH

4

, CH4

, MH4

,

OL, OH4

, PT non-structural locations

1. Engineered fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to Terracon for evaluation prior to use on this site.

2. Any organic materials, rock fragments larger than 3 inches, and other unsuitable materials should be removed prior to use as engineered fill.

3. Highly susceptible to frost; unstable when wet, are commonly used for pavement support with the knowledge that additional maintenance and/or shorter pavement life are likely

4. High plasticity. Not recommended beneath movement sensitive features such as foundations, floor slabs, or pavements.

A significant amount of fill (up to 17 feet thick) may be placed in certain areas of the site to

establish the final subgrade elevations. Cohesive fills could be used in these areas of deep fill

provided a settlement monitoring program is implemented to monitor the fill settlement. Cohesive

fill, even if placed with engineering controls, will still experience long-term consolidation within the

newly placed fill mass after placement due to the self-weight of the material and any external

loads. This settlement could be up to 1 to 2 percent of the total fill height, or roughly 1 to 2½

inches per each 10 feet of fill placed. Therefore, thicker clay fills should be placed as early in the

construction schedule as possible and placement of any new structural elements should be

delayed as much as two to three months to allow for consolidation of the underlying soils.

In order to speed up the settlement process, a granular fill material could be utilized in areas of

deep fill. Granular materials will not experience long-term settlement within the fill mass due to

self-weight after placement. However, the underlying soils below the newly placed fill will still

experience consolidation settlement and should be monitored accordingly prior to construction of

foundations, floor slabs, and pavements. If granular material is utilized, it should consist of a

relatively well-graded material with less than 15 percent passing the No. 200 US standard sieve

size.





Fill Compaction Requirements

Engineered fill should meet the following compaction requirements.

Item Description

Maximum fill lift thickness

■ 9 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled

compaction equipment is used

■ 4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment

(i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used

Minimum compaction

requirements 1, 2

■ 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density below the

building footpring; the compaction effort should extend laterally

beyond the foundations at least 8 inches for every foot of fill

placed.

■ 92% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density below the

pavement subgrade

Moisture content range 3

■ within 2% below to 3% above the modified Proctor optimum

moisture content at the time of placement and compaction for

cohesive soils

■ granular materials should be compacted within workable

moisture levels

1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

2. If the granular material is a coarse sand, crushed limestone, or gravel, is of a uniform size, or has a low fines content, compaction comparison to relative density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254) may be more appropriate. In this case, granular materials should be compacted to at least 60% and 65% of the material’s maximum relative density for the 92% and 95% modified Proctor recommendations, respectively.

3. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained to achieved compaction without bulking during placement or pumping when proofrolled.

Settlement Monitoring

If possible, the placement of fill to raise grades should be completed as early in the construction

schedule as possible to allow the underlying fill and native soils to consolidate under the additional

overburden pressure. Additionally, construction of pavements and any building foundations or

slabs over new fill should be delayed at least 4 to 6 weeks following completion of the fill

placement to allow for this consolidation. The significant thickness of fill that will be placed in

some areas (up to 17 feet) will cause consolidation of these soils.

To confirm the magnitude and time rate of settlement estimates provided above, we recommend

that a settlement monitoring program be implemented at the time of fill placement. Readings

should be made at least twice weekly and provided to the geotechnical engineer for review and

interpretation. The results will be used to make a final determination as to when construction of





foundations, pavements and slabs over new fill can be completed. Terracon can be retained to

provide these services if needed.

Grading and Drainage

During construction, grades should be developed to direct surface water flow away from or around

the site. Exposed subgrades should be sloped to provide positive drainage so that saturation of

subgrades is avoided. Surface water should not be permitted to accumulate on the site.

Final grades should slope away from the structure to promote rapid surface drainage.

Accumulation of water adjacent to the structure could contribute to significant moisture increases

in the subgrade soils and subsequent softening/settlement. Roof drains should discharge into a

storm sewer or several feet away from the building.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Terracon should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork

and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation, placement and

compaction of engineered fills, and backfilling of excavations.

Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the moisture content of

the subgrade soils prior to construction of floor slabs. The site should also be graded to prevent

ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. Any water that collects

over or adjacent to construction areas should be promptly removed. If the subgrade should

become frozen, desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or

these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to floor slab

construction and observed by Terracon.

Care should be taken to avoid disturbance of prepared subgrade soils. The native clayey and fill

soils can be easily disturbed, especially by construction traffic. Construction traffic should not

operate directly on saturated or low strength soils. If the subgrade becomes saturated, desiccated,

or disturbed, the affected materials should either be scarified and compacted or be removed and

replaced as previously discussed. Subgrades should be observed and tested by Terracon prior

to construction.

Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, excavations for the project are not

expected to encounter the long-term water table. However, some seepage may be encountered

if isolated granular seams containing perched free water is uncovered. If seepage is encountered,

the contractor is responsible for employing appropriate dewatering methods to control seepage

and facilitate construction. In our experience, dewatering of shallow excavations in clays or sands

above the water table can typically be accomplished with sump pits and pumps.





As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926,

Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, as well as other applicable codes, and in

accordance with any applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations. The contractor should

be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depth should in no instance exceed

those specified by these safety regulations. The existing site fill soils are considered Type “C”

soils under the OSHA regulations. Maximum slope inclinations for Type “C” soils under the OSHA

regulations are 1.5H:1V.

Flatter slopes than those dictated by these regulations may be required depending upon the soil

conditions encountered and other external factors. These regulations are strictly enforced and if

they are not followed, the owner, the contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractor could

be liable and subject to substantial penalties. Under no circumstances should the information

provided in this report be interpreted to mean that Terracon is responsible for construction site

safety or the contractor’s activities. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the

contractor who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of the

construction operations.

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

It is our opinion that the structure can be supported on typical spread footing foundations bearing

within the newly placed engineered soil fill following the over-excavation and replacement of the

existing site fill to Elev. 778.5 feet. We anticipate the new exterior foundations will bear at frost

depth.

Design Parameters

Item Description

Maximum Net Allowable Bearing

pressure 1

3,000 psf (footings bearing within newly placed engineered fill)

Minimum Foundation Dimensions Columns: 30 inches

Continuous: 18 inches

Ultimate Coefficient of Sliding Friction 2

0.35 (footings bearing on cohesive material)

0.45 (footings bearing on granular material)

Minimum Embedment below

Finished Grade 3

3.5 feet for heated structures

Estimated Total Settlement from

Structural Loads 4

Approximately 1 inch

Estimated Differential Settlement 4

About 2/3 of total settlement





Item Description

1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. An appropriate factor of safety has been applied. These bearing pressures can be increased by 1/3 for transient loads unless those loads have been factored to account for transient conditions.

2. Can be used to compute sliding resistance where foundations are placed on suitable soil/materials. Should be neglected for foundations subject to net uplift conditions.

3. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content variations. For sloping ground, maintain depth below the lowest adjacent exterior grade within 5 horizontal feet of the structure.

4. Foundation settlements will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footings, the thickness of engineered fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations and footing construction, frequent control joints should be provided for walls.

Uplift resistance of spread footings can be developed from the effective weight of the footing and

the overlying soils. The maximum allowable uplift capacity should be taken as a sum of the

effective weight of soil plus the dead weight of the foundation, divided by an appropriate factor of

safety. A maximum total unit weight of 120 pcf should be used for the backfill.

Foundation Construction Considerations

As noted in Earthwork, the footing excavations should be evaluated under the direction of the

Geotechnical Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose

soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing

soil disturbance. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during

construction. Excessively wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the

footing excavations should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.

It is understood that the footings will bear within the newly placed engineered fill building pad,

which will extend down to Elev. 778.5 feet at a minimum.

FLOOR SLABS

The floor slab for the structure can be supported on the newly placed engineered fill within the

building pad. We recommend that the thickness of the underslab leveling pad be a minimum of 4

inches and consist of free draining granular material.

Design parameters for floor slabs assume the requirements for Earthwork have been followed.

Specific attention should be given to positive drainage away from the structure and positive drainage

of the aggregate base beneath the floor slab





Floor Slab Design Parameters

Item Description

Floor Slab Support 1

New engineered soil fill used to construct the proposed building pad

Granular Leveling Course 2

Minimum 4 inches of well-graded granular material with less than 3%

passing the No. 200 sieve placed directly below the floor slab.

Estimated Modulus of

Subgrade Reaction 3

125 pci can be used for the engineered fill.

150 pci can be used at the top of the granular leveling course

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor

slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation.

2. The floor slab should be placed on a leveling course comprised of well-graded granular material containing

less than 3% fines compacted to at least 92% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).

3. The recommended modulus value is based on a 12-inch square plate. The modulus value used in design

should be adjusted based on the actual size of the floor slab according to the Naval Facilities Engineering

Design Manual 7.2, page 7.2-155, Table 4.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade covered with

wood, tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will

support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder,

the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding

the use and placement of a vapor retarder.

Saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of

cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual. Joints or cracks should

be sealed with a water-proof, non-extruding compressible compound specifically recommended

for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet environments.

Floor Slab Construction Considerations

On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase.

However, as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed by utility excavations,

construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, corrective action may be required prior to

placement of the granular leveling course and concrete.

The condition of the floor slab subgrade should be reviewed and tested immediately prior to

placement of the granular leveling course and construction of the slab. Particular attention should

be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled

trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by

removing the affected material and replacing it with engineered soil fill.





LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Design Parameters

Structures with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth

pressures at least equal to values indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be

influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction

and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Active earth pressure is

commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall

movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement and is commonly used for walls

restrained at the top. For the truck dock walls, where some wall movement is possible, we

recommend utilizing the “near at-rest” earth pressures. The “near at-rest” earth pressure can be

utilized for below grade walls that do allow some wall movement, but not enough to achieve the

full active condition. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of

safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls (unless stated).

Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

Earth Pressure Condition 1

Coefficient for Backfill Type 2

Surcharge Pressure

p1 (psf) 3, 4, 5 Effective Fluid Pressures

(psf) 2, 4, 5, 6

Active (Ka) Granular - 0.33 (0.33)S (40)H

Near At-Rest (Kt) Granular - 0.42 (0.42)S (50)H

At-Rest (Ko) Granular - 0.50 (0.50)S (60)H

Passive (Kp) Granular - 3.00

Fine Grained - 2.40

---

---

(360)H

(288)H





Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

Earth Pressure Condition 1

Coefficient for Backfill Type 2

Surcharge Pressure

p1 (psf) 3, 4, 5 Effective Fluid Pressures

(psf) 2, 4, 5, 6

1. For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height. For passive earth pressure, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

2. Uniform, horizontal backfill, compacted to at least 92 percent of the ASTM D 1556 maximum dry density, rendering a maximum unit weight of 120 pcf.

3. Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure.

4. Loading from heavy compaction equipment is not included.

5. No safety factor is included in these values. We recommend using a minimum factor of safety of 2 for calculations including passive earth pressures to account for the large strains required to mobilized the full passive resistance.

6. Assumes the walls are provided with sufficient drainage to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures.

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils. For the granular values to be

valid, the granular backfill must extend out and up from the base of the wall at an angle of at least

45 and 60 degrees from vertical for the active and passive cases, respectively.

Subsurface Drainage for Below Grade Walls

A perforated rigid plastic drain line installed behind the base of walls and extending below adjacent

grade is recommended to prevent hydrostatic loading on the walls. The invert of a drain line

behind a wall should be placed near the foundation bearing level. The drain line should be sloped

to provide positive gravity drainage to daylight or to a sump pit and pump. The drain line should

be surrounded by clean, free-draining granular material having less than 3 percent passing the

No. 200 sieve. The free-draining aggregate should be encapsulated in a filter fabric. The granular

fill should extend to within 2 feet of final grade, where it should be capped with compacted

cohesive fill to reduce infiltration of surface water into the drain system. For interior locations, the

granular fill should extend up to the floor slab granular leveling course.





As an alternative to free-draining granular fill, a pre-fabricated drainage structure may be used. A

pre-fabricated drainage structure is a plastic drainage core or mesh which is covered with filter

fabric to prevent soil intrusion, and is fastened to the wall prior to placing backfill.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design

Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted

average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear

strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7-10.

Description Value

2015 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC) 1

D 2

Site Latitude 41.9877° N

Site Longitude 88.2267° W

SDS Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 3

0.157g

SD1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 3

0.100g

1. Seismic site classification in general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code, which refers to

ASCE 7-10.

2. The 2015 International Building Code (IBC) uses a site profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic

site classification. Borings at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 30 feet. The site properties below

the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions

of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the

conditions below the current boring depth. 3. These values were obtained using online seismic design maps and tools provided by the USGS

(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/).

PAVEMENTS

General Pavement Comments

Estimates of minimum pavement thicknesses are provided for the traffic conditions and pavement

life referenced in Project Description. A critical aspect of pavement performance is site

preparation. The minimum pavement thicknesses are based on the subgrades being prepared as

recommended in the Earthwork. The pavements may be supported above existing fill soils that

appear stable under proofrolling.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/





There is often a time lapse between the end of grading operations and the commencement of

paving. Subgrades prepared early in the construction process can become disturbed by

construction traffic. Non-uniform subgrades often result in poor pavement performance and local

failures relatively soon after pavements are constructed. Depending on the paving equipment

used by the contractor, measures may be required to improve subgrade strength to greater depths

for support of heavily loaded trucks. Improvements should be made as recommended in

Earthwork.

Before paving, and where recommended by Terracon, pavement subgrades should be proofrolled

in the presence of a Terracon representative. Proofrolling of the subgrade should help locate soft,

yielding, or otherwise unsuitable soil at or just below the exposed subgrade level. Unsuitable

areas observed at this time should be improved by scarification and compaction or be removed

and replaced with engineered fill. Proofrolling should be accomplished with a fully loaded, tandem-

axle dump truck with a minimum gross weight of 25 tons or other equipment providing an

equivalent subgrade loading.

Pavement Design Parameters

Design of Asphaltic Concrete (AC) pavements are based on the procedures outlined in the

National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) Information Series 109 (IS-109). Design of

Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements are based upon American Concrete Institute (ACI)

330R-01; Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots.

A subgrade CBR of 5 was used for the AC pavement designs, and a modulus of subgrade reaction

of 125 pci was use for the PCC pavement designs. The values were empirically derived based

upon our experience with the described soil type subgrade soils and our understanding of the

quality of the subgrade as prescribed by the Site Preparation conditions as outlined in

Earthwork.

Pavement Section Thicknesses

All pavements should be designed for the types and volumes of traffic, subgrade and drainage

conditions that are anticipated. Terracon was not provided with anticipated traffic loading

information. The minimum thicknesses provided are based on 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load

Applications (ESAL18) over a 20-year design life, which are provided in the table below.





Design Traffic

Pavement Type Location Design ESAL’s Values

Standard Duty 1

Rigid (Concrete) 75,000

Flexible (Bituminous) 50,000

Heavy Duty 2

Rigid (Concrete) 700,000

Flexible (Bituminous) 500,000

1. Recommended for parking areas subjected primarily to vehicular parking and drives with minimal truck and trailer traffic.

2. Recommended for areas subjected to heavy use or repeated truck and trailer traffic.

Based upon the design parameters listed above, we have developed recommended minimum

pavement sections for both bituminous (flexible) and Portland cement concrete (rigid), where the

subgrade appears firm under proof-rolling at the time of construction. The recommended

minimum pavement sections are provided in the following table. Greater pavement and/or base

course thicknesses may be required for greater expected traffic loads and volumes, or if poorer

subgrade conditions are encountered.

Asphaltic Concrete (AC)

Layer Thickness (inches)

Standard Duty Pavement Heavy Duty Pavement

AC Surface 2 2

AC Binder 2 2

Aggregate Base 1

8 12

1. The base course aggregate beneath the new pavement should conform to IDOT CA-6 or approved alternate gradation.

Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)

Layer Thickness (inches)

Standard Duty Pavement Heavy Duty Pavement

PCC 1

5 8

Aggregate Base 2

4 4

1. Portland cement concrete pavements are recommended for roadways and areas subjected to repeated truck traffic, truck turning areas, and trash container pads. Trash container pads should be large enough to support the container and the tipping axle of the trash collection vehicle.

2. The base course aggregate beneath the new pavement should conform to IDOT CA-6 or approved alternate gradation.





Construction traffic on the pavements was not considered in developing the estimated minimum

pavement thicknesses. If the pavements will be subject to construction equipment/vehicles, the

pavement section should be revised to consider the additional loading.

The following comments should be considered for the indicated concrete pavement design

options.

■ Control joints should have a maximum spacing of about 30 times the thickness of the

concrete slab, as per American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommendations, and should be

placed in a roughly square pattern (where possible).

■ At construction joints, an adequately designed keyed construction joint or a butt end

construction joint is recommended. For a butt end construction joint, an adequate number

of deformed tie bars should be provided.

■ Tie bars are also recommended along the first longitudinal joint from the pavement edge

to keep the outside slab from separating from the pavement.

Pavement Drainage

Paved areas should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water and to drain water away

from the pavement edges. Water should not be allowed to accumulate on or adjacent to the

pavement, since this could saturate and soften the subgrade soils and subsequently accelerate

pavement deterioration. Periodic maintenance of the pavements will be required. Cracks should

be sealed, and areas exhibiting distress should be repaired promptly to help prevent further

deterioration. Even with periodic maintenance, some movement and related cracking may still

occur and repairs may be required.

We recommend pavement subgrades be crowned at least 2 percent, to promote the flow of water

from the aggregate base towards subdrains, edge drains, or a suitable daylight or sewage inlet.

The pavement surfacing and adjacent sidewalks should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of

surface water. Water should not be allowed to pond on or adjacent to these grade-supported

slabs, since this could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement or slab

deterioration.

Pavement Maintenance

The pavement sections represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such, periodic

maintenance should be anticipated. Therefore, preventive maintenance should be planned and

provided for through an on-going pavement management program. Maintenance activities are

intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the pavement investment.

Maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching)

and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the priority





when implementing a pavement maintenance program. Additional engineering observation is

recommended to determine the type and extent of a cost-effective program. Even with periodic

maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required.

Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive

maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and

layout of pavements:

■ Final grade adjacent to paved areas should slope down from the edges at a minimum 2%.

■ Subgrade and pavement surfaces should have a minimum 2% slope to promote proper

surface drainage.

■ Install below pavement drainage systems surrounding areas anticipated for frequent

wetting.

■ Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately.

■ Seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to

subgrade soils.

■ Place compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter.

■ Place curb, gutter and/or sidewalk directly on clay subgrade soils rather than on unbound

granular base course materials.

GENERAL COMMENTS

As the project progresses, we address assumptions by incorporating information provided by the

design team, if any. Revised project information that reflects actual conditions important to our

services is reflected in the final report. The design team should collaborate with Terracon to

confirm these assumptions and to prepare the final design plans and specifications. This

facilitates the incorporation of our opinions related to implementation of our geotechnical

recommendations. Any information conveyed prior to the final report is for informational purposes

only and should not be considered or used for decision-making purposes.

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical

conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur

between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in the final report, to

provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations

appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are

noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately

notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.





Support of foundations, floor slabs and pavements on/above existing fill is discussed in this report.

Even with the construction observation/testing recommended in this report, a risk remains for the

owner that unsuitable materials within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This may result

in larger than normal settlement and damage to foundations, floor slabs and pavements supported

above existing fill, requiring additional maintenance. This risk cannot be eliminated without

removing the existing fill from below the foundation, floor slab and pavement areas, but can be

reduced by thorough observation and testing as discussed herein.

Our scope of services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or

biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of

pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for

such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the

sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and

are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with

no third party beneficiaries intended. Any third party access to services or correspondence is

solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for

third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their

own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any

use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there

may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact

excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site

characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering

requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location

of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid

unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

ATTACHM ENTS

ATTACHMENTS

MISC APPENDIX 1







Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

9 20 to 30 or auger refusal Planned building area

Terracon previously performed fifteen (15) soil borings at this site in 2008 and documented in

Terracon Report No. 11085026, dated March 21, 2008. The pertinent historical soil borings are

provided in this report and the approximate boring locations are shown on the attached

Exploration Plan.

Boring Layout and Elevations: The current soil borings were staked in the field by the Client.

Terracon was provided with the as-drilled coordinates and elevations.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a track-mounted rotary drill

rig using continuous flight, hollow-stem augers. Four samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet

of each boring and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard

2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic

hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling

spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration

Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated

on the boring logs at the test depths. We observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling

and sampling. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with a mixture of auger cuttings

and bentonite chips after their completion.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information were recorded on the

field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory

for testing and classification by a geotechnical engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring

logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs include visual classifications of the materials

encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples.

Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the

geotechnical engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on

observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned various laboratory tests to better

understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata as necessary for this project.

Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases,

variations to methods are applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards





noted below include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily

applicable to describe the specific test performed.

■ ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)

Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

The laboratory testing program included examination of soil samples by a geotechnical engineer.

Based on the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in

accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

SITE LOC ATION AND EXPLOR ATION PLAN S

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

SITE LOCATION

Brewster Creek Project Oak ■ Bartlett, IL


DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: ELGIN, IL (1/1/1998), STREAMWOOD, IL (1/1/1993),

GENEVA, IL (1/1/1998) and WEST CHICAGO, IL (1/1/1998).

SITE

EXPLORATION PLAN

Brewster Creek Project Oak ■ Bartlett, IL


AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY

MICROSOFT BING MAPS DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT

INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

EXPLOR ATION RESULTS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

21

23

24

23

23

7

775

768

763

3-3-5N=8

3-2-4N=6

6-11-14N=25

6-7-11N=18

2-1-1N=2

6-7-10N=17

18

18

18

18

18

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

8.0

15.0

20.0

FILL - SILTY CLAY , varying amounts of sand and gravel, brown

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, brown, stiff to very stiff

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), trace silt, brown, medium dense

Boring Terminated at 20 Feet

4.00(HP)

3.50(HP)

1.25(HP)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

MR

1851

18 B

RE

WS

TE

R C

RE

EK

PR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 4

/5/1

8

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 783 (Ft.)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

SA

MP

LEN

UM

BE

R

DEPTH

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 41.989° Longitude: -88.2265°

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:3.25" Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:Boring backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chipsupon completion.

135 Ambassador DrNaperville, IL

Notes:

Project No.: MR185118

Drill Rig: D-50 track

BORING LOG NO. B-1V3 Companies LtdCLIENT:Woodridge, IL

Driller: GEOCON

Boring Completed: 03-27-2018

PROJECT: Brewster Creek Project Oak

Elevations were provided by others.

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for adescription of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation ofsymbols and abbreviations.

SWC of N. Bartlett Rd. and Naperville Rd. Bartlett, IllinoisSITE:

Boring Started: 03-27-2018Not encountered

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

tsf)

14

20

18

14

14

26

774.5

772

765

758

4-4-7N=11

6-8-11N=19

7-8-9N=17

4-6-9N=15

4-6-10N=16

4-5-8N=13

18

18

18

18

18

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.5

6.0

13.0

20.0

FILL - SANDY SILT , dark brown

FILL - SILTY CLAY , brown

SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), trace sand and gravel, brown, very stiff

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, gray, very stiff


3.50(HP)

3.50(HP)

2.50(HP)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

MR

1851

18 B

RE

WS

TE

R C

RE

EK

PR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 4

/5/1

8

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ELEVATION (Ft.)


WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

SA

MP

LEN

UM

BE

R

DEPTH



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




Driller: GEOCON









LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

tsf)

21

14

21

28

19

21

21

20

773

764763.5

743.5

5-11-5N=16

6-8-10N=18

7-7-5N=12

2-4-5N=9

5-8-11N=19

4-4-6N=10

2-4-6N=10

2-5-6N=11

12

12

10

8

12

14

16

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.5

9.510.0

30.0

FILL - GRAVEL SURFACE FILL - LEAN CLAY , varying amounts of sand and gravel, brown togray

ORIGINAL TOPSOIL, clayey, blackLEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, gray, very stiff to hard


2.00(HP)

3.00(HP)

3.00(HP)

dist.

5.00(HP)

2.50(HP)

2.75(HP)

2.50(HP)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

MR

1851

18 B

RE

WS

TE

R C

RE

EK

PR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 4

/5/1

8

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 773.5 (Ft.)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

SA

MP

LEN

UM

BE

R

DEPTH



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




Driller: GEOCON









LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

tsf)

12

21

14

17

26

33

25

22

779

774

761

752

7-9-12N=21

8-10-16N=26

5-9-12N=21

4-4-5N=9

3-3-4N=7

2-1-2N=3

5-4-6N=10

7-7-8N=15

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3.0

8.0

21.0

30.0

FILL - SILTY SAND , trace gravel, brown

FILL - LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL , trace sand, brown to dark brown,very stiff

FILL - LEAN CLAY , trace sand and gravel, brown and gray, stiff

Sample 6: black coloring noted.

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, gray, very stiff


4.00(HP)

3.50(HP)

2.50(HP)

2.00(HP)

1.25(HP)

2.00(HP)

3.50(HP)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

MR

1851

18 B

RE

WS

TE

R C

RE

EK

PR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 4

/5/1

8

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ELEVATION (Ft.)


WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

SA

MP

LEN

UM

BE

R

DEPTH



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




Driller: GEOCON







Boring Started: 03-27-201825' while drilling


LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

tsf)

14

15

16

19

17

23

772.5

762.5

760.5

3-5-5N=10

3-6-5N=11

6-6-6N=12

4-5-6N=11

3-2-4N=6

2-2-3N=5

18

18

18

18

10

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

8.0

18.0

20.0

FILL - SILTY CLAY , trace sand and gravel, brown and gray

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, brown, very stiff to hard

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, brown, stiff


3.00(HP)

4.00(HP)

3.50(HP)

4.50(HP)

2.50(HP)

1.25(HP)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

MR

1851

18 B

RE

WS

TE

R C

RE

EK

PR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 4

/5/1

8

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ELEVATION (Ft.)


WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

SA

MP

LEN

UM

BE

R

DEPTH



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




Driller: GEOCON









LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

tsf)

14

12

4

1

5

6

10

5

782.5

779

757

5-6-8N=14

6-7-7N=14

4-5-9N=14

13-27-30N=57

17-26-33N=59

28-29-31N=60

14-23-50/3"N=23+50/3"

15-18-13N=31

10

10

10

14

12

12

8

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

4.5

8.0

30.0

FILL - LEAN CLAY TO SANDY CLAY , trace gravel, brown

SAND (SP), trace gravel, brown, medium dense

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), trace silt, brown, dense


2.75(HP)

1.50(HP)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

MR

1851

18 B

RE

WS

TE

R C

RE

EK

PR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 4

/5/1

8

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ELEVATION (Ft.)


WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

SA

MP

LEN

UM

BE

R

DEPTH



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




Driller: GEOCON







Boring Started: 03-28-201823' while drilling


LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

tsf)

22

26

26

13

19

18

19

794

788.5

781.5

774.5

2-3-3N=62-1-3N=4

4-4-3N=7

5-11-17N=28

10-10-10N=20

2-3-5N=8

5-5-7N=12

10

11

18

18

12

18

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.5

6.0

13.0

20.0

TOPSOIL, 4 inchesFILL - SILTY CLAY , trace sand and gravel, brown

(Possible Fill) LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CL), trace silt and sand,brown, very stiff to hard

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, brown gray, stiff


2.75(HP)1.75(HP)

2.50(HP)

4.50(HP)

3.00(HP)

1.50(HP)

1.50(HP)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

MR

1851

18 B

RE

WS

TE

R C

RE

EK

PR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 4

/5/1

8

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ELEVATION (Ft.)


WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

SA

MP

LEN

UM

BE

R

DEPTH



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




Driller: GEOCON









LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

tsf)

13

16

17

20

19

24

776

767

764

7-8-10N=18

7-10-12N=22

8-9-10N=19

9-8-13N=21

4-4-5N=9

4-6-8N=14

18

18

18

18

6

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

8.0

17.0

20.0

FILL - SILTY CLAY , trace sand and gravel, brown

(Possible Fill) LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CL), trace silt and sand,brown, very stiff to hard

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, brown gray, stiff


4.50(HP)

4.50(HP)

4.50(HP)

3.50(HP)

2.50(HP)

3.50(HP)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

MR

1851

18 B

RE

WS

TE

R C

RE

EK

PR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 4

/5/1

8

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ELEVATION (Ft.)


WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

SA

MP

LEN

UM

BE

R

DEPTH



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




Driller: GEOCON









LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

tsf)

16

26

12

14

20

24

14

10

794

782

767

765

3-4-2N=6

2-5-6N=11

4-11-15N=26

5-16-8N=24

3-3-3N=6

2-3-5N=8

3-5-7N=12

11-12-13N=25

10

12

8

8

8

12

14

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.8

13.0

28.0

30.0

GRAVEL SURFACE

FILL - SILTY CLAY WITH GRAVEL , trace sand, brown

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, brown gray, stiff to very stiff

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, gray, hard


1.50(HP)

1.50(HP)

4.50(HP)

4.50(HP)

1.50(HP)

2.50(HP)

2.50(HP)

4.50(HP)

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

MR

1851

18 B

RE

WS

TE

R C

RE

EK

PR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 4

/5/1

8

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ELEVATION (Ft.)


WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

SA

MP

LEN

UM

BE

R

DEPTH



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




Driller: GEOCON









LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

tsf)

SUPPORTING INFORM ATION

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Brewster Creek Project Oak Bartlett, Illinois

4/5/2018 Terracon Project No. MR185118

0.25 to 0.50

> 4.00

2.00 to 4.00

1.00 to 2.00

0.50 to 1.00

less than 0.25

Unconfined Compressive StrengthQu, (tsf)

Split Spoon

Trace

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs arethe levels measured in the borehole at the timesindicated. Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils, accuratedetermination of groundwater levels is notpossible with short term water levelobservations.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONSGENERAL NOTES

> 30

11 - 30

1 - 10Low

Non-plastic

Plasticity Index

#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm

Boulders

12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)Cobbles

3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)Gravel

Sand

Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm)Silt or Clay

Particle Size

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Water InitiallyEncountered

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of theirdry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soilshave less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic,and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituentsmay be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils aredefined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINESRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTSN

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

UC

(PID)

(OVA)

Standard Penetration TestResistance (Blows/Ft.)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Unconfined CompressiveStrength

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Medium

0Over 12 in. (300 mm)

>12

5-12

<5

Percent ofDry Weight

TermMajor Component of Sample

Modifier

With

Trace

Descriptive Term(s) ofother constituents

>30Modifier

<15

Percent ofDry Weight

Descriptive Term(s) ofother constituents

With 15-29

High

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. Theaccuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographicalsurvey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined fromtopographic maps of the area.

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Descriptive Term(Density)

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Hard

15 - 30Very Stiff> 50Very Dense

8 - 15Stiff30 - 50Dense

4 - 8Medium Stiff10 - 29Medium Dense

2 - 4Soft4 - 9Loose

0 - 1Very Soft0 - 3Very Loose

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual

procedures or standard penetration resistance

STRENGTH TERMS

> 30

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM



UNIFIED SOIL C LASSIFIC AT ION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of

coarse fraction

retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse

fraction passes No. 4

sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A”

line J

CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded

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

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

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

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

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with

gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

geotechnical engineering report - v3co.com … · introduction geotechnical engineering report...

Documents