The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-03-22 Handouts at CC MeetingNTI' NORTHERN ECHNO TECNNOO LOGIES,IIC 6160 Carmen Avenue East Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 P:651.389.4191 F:651.389.4190 www.NTIgeo.com Dailey Companies P. O. Box 490206 Blaine, Minnesota 55449-0206 Attention: Mr. Jay Thorson Subject: Geotechnical Exploration and Engineering Review Summary Ruffridge Johnson Equipment Company Centerville, Minnesota NTI Project No. 17.61877.100 Dear Mr. Thorson, Unearthing confidence - March 21, 2017 Northern Technologies, LLC (NTI) has been asked by the City of Centerville to provide a project summary based on our geotechnical exploration and our understanding of the provided soil improvement testing reports and documentation. This letter provides our summary. Subsequent to the issuance of our initial report, additional documentation was provided to NTI by the City of Centerville consisting of site field testing reports prepared by Twin City Testing Corporation during the site's soil improvement activities. The provided documentation included density tests (performed in the fill soils) and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests (performed on the base native soils below the fill materials) for Parcel C and only DCP tests (performed on the base native soils below the fill materials) for Parcel B (see the attached soil test summary and the boring and test location plan). Parcel C is the west half of the property and Parcel B is the east half of the property. The majority of the project's proposed structure and the soil borings performed for this project are located on Parcel B. Based on the provided test reports, it appears that the fill may have been placed in a controlled manner on Parcel C; however, since documentation of the placement of fill on Parcel B was not provided, NTI still considers these fill soils to be undocumented and placement conditions to be unknown. Our soil borings encountered topsoil over fill extending to depths ranging from approximately 2.0 to 7.0 feet below the existing ground surface. The fill encountered at Borings SB -3 (located near the southwest corner of the proposed structure) and SB -5 (located within the east parking area) contained organic materials and/or organic soil layers at depths of approximately 4.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation and the lack of fill placement documentation for the Parcel B site, it is our opinion that in order to reduce risk of settlement and the potential for subsequent structural damage, a complete soil correction to remove the existing fill is recommended within the building pad footprint. Piecision Fl-,i:LiEsse - GVstechruf t11 Klotclwls F AI'l;Ej [3ISMAHC:K - GRAND FDRK5 M1N101 1N'Vf R GHEJVF HE 11; 111 S RAM SE Y HAP11)1:1TY S1471JX FA[ 15 4, Ruffridge Johnson Equipment Company Centerville, Minnesota NTI Project No. 17.61877.100 Without documentation of the placement of the fill soils (Parcel B), it is NTI's opinion that they are not suitable for direct support of the foundations or floor slabs and that they may not provide a uniform subgrade support. Additionally, the organic laden soils are not suitable for support of foundations or slabs. These may be limited in extent, but, even with documentation, we recommend that they be removed from the building area. If the floor slab is to be supported on the existing, non-organic, fill soils, there is the potential for increased distress within the floor slab. If this option is selected, the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) design value should be reduced to 150 pci (pounds per square inch per inch of depth). The risk of differential settlements in the slab could be reduced if the upper 1 foot, or more, of the slab subgrade is over -excavated and replaced with properly compacted granular backfill. If the floor slab is to be constructed directly over documented engineered fill or non-organic, competent native soil as described in the Site Preparation section of our geotechnical report, the design of the floor slab may be based on an estimated modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pci. Maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure recommendations for founding the foundation on native soils with on-site documented backfill that should be used for design is 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). Maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure recommendations for founding the foundation on newly prepared properly compacted fill soils or competent native soils that should be used for design is 3,500 psf. These recommendations are predicated on foundation design and construction complying with recommendations presented within our geotechnical report. To minimize local failure of supporting soils, it is our opinion foundation construction should comply with the International Building Code (IBC) requirements. If the Owner, in conjunction with the design team, wishes to explore an option to support the proposed structure on the existing fill soils, NTI suggests that a series of test pits be advanced at the site to refine our understanding of the fill soil profile prior to construction. Additionally, to aid in evaluating the fill soil conditions, density testing of the in-place fill soils could be performed within building pad area. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this project. If there are any questions regarding the soils explored or our review and recommendations, please contact us at your convenience at (651) 389-4191. Northern Technologies, LLC __i� �___ Debra A. Schroeder, P.E. Senior Engineer Steven D. Gerber, P.E. Senior Engineer Attachments 711 Aw,- 11 IT fAL i F 41:]] - Boring and Prior Soil Tests Location Diagram Completed Soil Borings: Ruffrid@eJohnson Equipment Company ~ Centerville, Minnesota Completed DCpTests: NTI NT|Pn�ect��17.61�77.1OO �w�m�m�� ' . vmm"wRxMEaLLC Completed Density Tests' . NOTE: Boring and Test locations are approximate. NTr 'E� I [+�xweursa,�u Unearth/ing confidence, Summary of the Provided Soil Improvement Testing Documentation Parcel D Parcel C Parcel 6 Parcel Name Not Noted Date Test No. Location Soil Date Test No. Soil Location Description Date Test No. 5011 Location Description Date Test N0. Soil Location Description Soft W and 15ft S & 20ft 45ft S of NW 101t N & 20ft E DCP-903 ft, W of NW bldg comer- of SW bldg 0-6,6-12 bldg comer - 6/20/2007 32 SM 6/21/200 7 34 m Retest #4 CL 902ft pan 9/13/2006 1 SM -CL corner Inches 8/6/2007 36 SP 898ft Proctor 25ft S & 1211 100ft Eof NW loft 5&loft EWof NW bldg comer- of NW bldg DCP-903 ft, bldg comer - 6/20/2007 33 SM 6/21/20071 35 a Retest #3 CL 903ft ass.9/13/2006 2 SM -CL comer 0-6 Inches 9/6/20071 37 SP 9008 Proctor 7SI t S & 20ft DCP-903 ft, W of NW NE comer of 87ft SE of NW Ofi, 6-12 bldg comer - 1 19 2007 39 CL ad-902ft Proctor 9/13/2006 3 SM -CL bide comer Inches 8/6/2007 38 SP 899ft Proctor DCP-903.5 3011 Sof NE 15ft W & 4011 ft, 06, 6 - comer of pad- N of SE bldg 12,12-18 11/19/2007 40 CL 904ft Proctor 913 2006 4 SM -CL corner I Inches 45ft 5 and 45ft E of NW comer 11/19/2007 41 CL of ad-902ft Proctor SONE and 1011 N of SW comer 11/29/20071 42 CL I of ad-904ft Proctor DCP-903It D-6,6-12 9/1-3/20-061 5 CL SE bide comer Inches NE bldg comer DCP-903 ft, 9 13 2006 6 CL ad 0-6 Inches. 5011 W and 45ft S of NW bldg comer - 9 13 2006 17 = Retest #4 CL I 90211 pass 10011 Eof NW bldg comer - omer- 9/13/2006. 9 13 2006 18 - Retest #3 CL 903ft pan 50ft W and 45ft Sof NE bldg corner, middle pad - 9/13/200 4 CL 903ft fall 10011 Eof SW bldg comer, ad - middle pad - 9/13/2006. 9 13 2006 3 CL 902ft fail 60ft S & 7011 E DCP-902 ft, of NW bldg 0-6, 6-12 9/13/20G6 7' SM -CL comer inches DCP-901 ft, 30ft E & 25ft 5 0-6,6-12 of NW bldg 12-18 9/13/200 e' SM -Cl. comer Inches DCP-900 ft, Soft N & 20ft E 0-6, 6-12, Of -Wig 12-18 9/13/2006 9' —SM -CL comer Inches 3/22/2017 10:36 AM A I B I C I D E F G H 1 Ruffridge Johnson Equipment Company Building Permit Plan Review 65% of Permit State Surcharge 0.05% of Valuation REU fee $2,300 x WAC fee $1,850 x SAC fee $2,485 x 1" Meter Park Fee @ 2,175/acre Erosion Control Site Fee Professional Fees Site Escrow* Soil Remediation by Arnt Construction Sewer Access Charge Water Access Charge Storm Water Area Charge @ $.07/sq. foot 9454.72 6145.57 718.05 5 = 5 = 5 = *Will be Addressed with Letter of Total Estimate Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 16318.34 11,500.00: 11,50_.0.,09 9,250.00 12,425.00`- =_ 527.00 10,875.00 10,875.00 360.00: - 5,000.001 (0aj 10,000.00 „ '. •" 76,255.34 ti 23,000. 2 00 12 13 14 15 16 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44