GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION and ENGINEERING REPORT. Proposed Sebright Products Expansion Wayland Township, Allegan County, Michigan

Transcription

1 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION and ENGINEERING REPORT Wayland Township, Allegan County, Michigan HOPPE DESIGN, LLC Belleville, Michigan

2 Mr. Wayde Hoppe, AIA HOPPE Design, LLC McBride Belleville, Michigan Re: Geotechnical Exploration and Engineering Report th Street Wayland Township, Allegan County, Michigan Dear Mr. Hoppe: In accordance with your request, Applied Geotechnical Services, Inc. (AGS) has performed a geotechnical exploration and engineering report for the above referenced project. This report documents the results of our observations and analysis and our recommendations for subgrade preparation, floor slab, pavement, and foundation design and construction considerations. PROJECT BACKGROUND & SITE DESCRIPTION We understand the project includes the expansion of the existing Sebright Products trash compactor manufacturing facilities located at th Street in Wayland Township, Allegan County, Michigan. The existing Sebright Products buildings include a paint booth building situated within the western portion of the site as well as an industrial building and quonset hut within the eastern and northeastern portions of the site. The existing Sebright Products buildings typically consist of high-bay, preengineered buildings with slab on grade floors and no basements. At the time of our site visit, the site was relatively level, with the exception of an approximately 3 to 4-foot high raised area within the southern portion of the site. As show on the attached Schematic Soil Boring Location Plan, the proposed expansion will include the following:

3 Page 2 Building No. 1: Building No. 1 will reportedly include the demolition of the existing quonset hut within the northeastern portion of the site and construction of an 88-foot by 5-foot preengineered metal building addition to the existing industrial plant. The addition will include a 20-foot wide section with a roof matching the roof profile of the existing building. The remaining portion of the addition will be a single slope roof with a 30-foot eave height. The proposed Building No. 1 addition will house a 15-ton, double girder top running bridge crane with 25-foot clearance and 80-foot span and a columnmounted jib crane reinforced concrete slab. We understand the Building No. 1 addition will not include any pits, hoists, mezzanines, elevated floor levels, or CMU perimeter walls. The expansion project will include removal and replacement of the existing concrete pavement north of Building No. 1. Building No. 2: Building No. 2 will reportedly consist of a 22-foot by 28-foot single-story, wood-framed office addition to the exisitng paint booth building situated within the western portion of the site and a new truck dock. The roof line of the addition will match the existing buiding. However, the finished floor will be 16-inches higher than the adjacent existing paint booth. Building No. 3: Building No. 3 includes a 36-foot by 54-foot addition to the southeastern portion of the existing paint booth building. The addition will house a new paint booth. Building No. 4: Building No. 4 includes the construction of an unheated 54-foot by 70-foot pole barn to be used for sand blasting and storage. The building will have a 20-foot eave height. The pole barn will be situated within the 3 to 4-foot high raised area. We understand the proposed Sebright Products additions will have slab on grade floors and no basements. At the time our exploration was completed, the structural loads for the additions were not yet available. Based on our experience with similar structures, we estimate maximum individual column loads may generally be in the range of 75 to 100 kips and wall loads may be in the range of 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot. No special settlement restrictions or dynamic loading conditions have been reported to our office.

4 Page 3 We understand a relatively large stormwater retention pond will be constructed within the northern portion of the parcel. The existing site will be regraded to provide for sheet drainage to the new retention pond FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Our field exploration included performing five (5) geotechnical soil borings within the proposed building addition and retention pond areas. The borings were extended to depths ranging from 15 to 30 feet below the existing grade and were located in the field by AGS using simple taping methods based on physical features shown on an aerial photograph furnished to our office. Site topographic information, including ground surface elevations at the boring locations, was not available at the time of our geotechnical exploration. However, as previously discussed, the site was reported to be relatively level except for an approximately 3 to 4-foot high raised area within the southern portion of the site. The approximate locations of the borings are presented on the attached Schematic Soil Boring Location Plan. The drilling services were performed by D&T Drilling, Inc. of Osceola, Indiana. A truckmounted Ingersol Rand A300 rotary drilling rig was used to perform the soil borings. Continuous flight hollow-stem augers were used to advance the bore holes and splitspoon samplers were used to obtain the soil samples by the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method in general conformance with ASTM Standard D The number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after an initial seating of 6 inches, with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance, N- value. A graphical representation of the N-values is given on the boring logs. During the field operations, the drill crew maintained a log of the subsurface conditions, including changes in stratigraphy and observed groundwater levels. After completion of the drilling operations, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings. LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples were placed in sealed containers in the field and brought to the laboratory for testing and classification. A geotechnical engineer classified the samples in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Laboratory testing included determining natural moisture content and estimating unconfined compressive strength of the split-spoon samples with a calibrated hand penetrometer. With a hand penetrometer, the unconfined compressive strength of a soil sample is estimated by measuring the resistance of the soil sample to penetration of a small, calibrated springloaded cylinder. The penetrometer can measure a maximum unconfined compressive strength of 4½ tons per square foot (tsf).

5 Page 4 We will hold the soil samples for 60 days from the date of this report. If you would like the samples, please contact us within this time frame. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Building Area Borings Borings 1 through 4: At the locations of Borings 1 through 4, the approximately 10 to 12 inches of topsoil or 6 inches of recycled asphalt pavement was encountered. The subsoils typically consisted of silty and fine to medium sands and fine to coarse sands that extended to depths ranging from 8 to 12 feet below the ground surface. Below these depths, lean clays and sandy lean clays were encountered to the maximum explored depth of the borings. The sands were generally loose to medium dense with N-values ranging from 5 to 21 blows per foot. However, the sands were very loose between approximate depths of 5½ to 8 feet at the location of Boring 1 and to a depth of approximately 3 feet at the location of Boring 4 with N-values of 3 to 4 blows per foot. The underlying lean clays and sandy lean clays were generally stiff to very stiff with calibrated penetrometer unconfined compressive strength values of 1½ to 3 tsf and natural moisture contents of approximately 13 to 25 percent. The driller looked for indications of groundwater seepage both during drilling and after completion of the borings. During drilling, groundwater seepage was reported at depths ranging from 2½ to 5 feet below the ground surface. Upon completion of the borings, groundwater seepage was reported at depths ranging from 3 to 9 feet below the ground surface. Proposed Retention Pond Area Boring 5: Approximately 10 inches of topsoil was encountered at the location of Boring 5. The subsoils consisted of sandy lean clays to an approximate depth of 5½ feet, followed by lean clays that extended to the maximum explored depth of 15 feet. The consistency of the lean clays and sandy lean clays was variable; ranging from stiff to hard with calibrated penetrometer unconfined compressive strength values of 1½ to 4 tsf and natural moisture contents of approximately 20 to 27 percent. During drilling, groundwater seepage was reported in Boring 5 at a depth of approximately 9½ feet below the existing ground surface. Upon completion of the boring, groundwater seepage was reported at an approximate depth of 9 feet below the existing ground surface. However, predominantly cohesive soils, such as encountered at the location of Boring 5, typically require a long time for water to become stable in the borehole. Therefore, the reported short-term groundwater levels may not represent the

6 Page 5 prevailing groundwater level. To determine the prevailing groundwater level, groundwater monitoring wells (piezometers) would have to be installed and monitored for an extended time. The depth at which the soil color changes from brown to gray is frequently indicative of the prevailing groundwater level in cohesive soils. Based on the available groundwater and soil information, and on the soil color change from brown to gray, we believe the zone of saturation may be located at approximately 5½ feet below the existing ground surface. Expect the prevailing groundwater level to vary due to changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface run-off, and other factors. The groundwater levels discussed herein, and shown on the boring logs, represent the conditions at the time of the measurements. The stratification depths shown on the soil boring logs represent the soil conditions at the boring locations. Variations may occur between borings. Additionally, the stratigraphic lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types; the transition may be more gradual than what is shown. We have prepared the boring logs based on the laboratory classification and testing as well as field logs of the explored soil. The soil boring logs and a schematic boring location plan are appended to this report. The soil profiles described above are generalized descriptions of the conditions encountered at the boring locations. Please review the individual boring logs for more specific information. SUBGRADE PREPARATION & ENGINEERED FILL PLACEMENT We understand the existing quonset hut situated within the proposed Building No. 1 footprint will be demolished prior to the start of construction. We recommend the existing foundations and floor slabs, including any below grades walls and slabs, be broken up and removed at the start of earthwork operations and the resulting depressions be backfilled to the level of surrounding grade with engineered fill as described below. At the location of the proposed Buildings 1 through 3, we anticipate up to approximately one to 2 feet of engineered fill may be required to achieve the finished floor elevations. At the location of Boring 4, we understand cuts of up to approximately 3 to 4 feet will be required to achieve finished grades. Strip the building areas of the existing pavement, recycled asphalt pavement, topsoil, and any other deleterious materials. Following removal of the topsoil and near surface materials, and prior to raising grade, thoroughly proofroll and compact the resulting subgrade to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Standard D1557 (Modified Proctor). We recommend the subgrade soils be proofrolled with a heavily loaded single-axle dump truck and compacted using a 10-ton roller. Unless earthwork operations are performed after a period of warm, dry prevailing weather conditions, we anticipate it will be necessary to

7 Page 6 compact the subgrade with a static drum roller to reduce the risk of pumping of water to the surface and disturbance of the granular subgrade soils. Loose or unstable areas revealed during proofrolling and compaction should be stabilized by additional compaction, or removed and replaced with engineered fill. If significant subgrade instability is encountered at isolated locations, it may be necessary to stabilize the subgrade surface with a 300 pound woven geotextile, or a layer of geogrid, and a crushed aggregate layer prior to placement of any engineered fill. We recommend a clean, well graded crushed natural aggregate or crushed concrete with a maximum nominal size of 3 inches and no more than 7 percent passing a number 200 sieve for this purpose. The thickness of the crushed aggregate layer will depend on the condition of the subgrade at the time of the subgrade preparation. However, we anticipate a minimum of 12 to inches of crushed aggregate may be required. Care should be taken during proofrolling, compaction, and undercutting operations adjacent to the existing buildings to reduce the risk of undermining the existing floor slabs and foundations. In no case should excavations extend below the level of adjacent existing foundations unless underpinning of the existing foundations is performed prior to excavation. Any fill beneath on-grade structures should be an approved, environmentally clean, freedraining granular material meeting the gradation requirements for MDOT Class II or Class III sand. The fill should also be free of organic matter, frozen soil, clods, or other harmful material. The fill material should not be placed on frozen subgrade. All engineered fill material should be placed and compacted at or near the material s optimum moisture content as determined by the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D1557). In general, the silty and fine to medium sands removed during the cut for the Building No. 4 pad area can be temporarily stockpiled onsite and used as engineered fill for the Building Nos. 1 through 3 additions and truck dock area. We recommend the contractor protect the stockpiled material from significant increases in moisture content as a result of precipitation events. Materials containing more than 4 percent organic matter and/or rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter should be removed from the fill. The fill material is expected to be somewhat variable in type, gradation, and moisture content. Thus, it is imperative that the earthwork contractor blend and thoroughly mix the fill material to obtain a relatively uniform material that can be effectively compacted to the requirements discussed below. Engineered fill should be placed in loose uniform horizontal layers of not more than 9 inches for granular soils. The engineered fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 (Modified Proctor Test). The aggregate subbase material (MDOT 21AA limestone) should be

8 Page 7 compacted to 98 percent of Modified Proctor maximum dry density. All fill material should be placed and compacted at or near the optimum moisture content. It should be anticipated that the lower portion of existing silty and fine to medium sands obtained from the Building No. 4 cuts will be relatively wet, and will likely have to be spread-out, aerated and dried before they can be placed and used as engineer fill. It may be difficult to dry and compact the on-site soils during wet and cold weather. Earthwork operations should be performed under adequate specifications and properly monitored in the field. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General: Based on typical static loading conditions, we recommend the use of conventional shallow spread footing type foundations (i.e., individual column pad footings and strip footings) for support of the proposed building additions and proposed new pole barn. Strip or wall footings should have a minimum width of inches regardless of the resulting bearing pressures. All strip footings should be suitably reinforced to reduce the effect of differential settlement associated with local variations in subsoil conditions. To achieve a change in the level of strip footings, the footings should be gradually stepped at a grade no steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical (2H:1V). Footings exposed to the outside, or in unheated areas should be embedded a minimum of 42 inches below final grade for protection against problems related to frost penetration during normal winters. Interior footings not exposed to frost effects during or after construction may be founded at shallower depths on suitable bearing soils as described below. Adjacent existing footings and new footings should bear at the same elevation. If it is planned to place the new and existing footings at different elevations, the least lateral distance between the new and adjacent existing footings should be equal to, or larger than, twice the difference in their bearing elevations. Based on the soil boring information as well as our knowledge of the local seismic and geologic conditions, we believe the site may be classified as Site Class D Stiff Soils Profile per the criteria presented in 2015 IBC Table Proposed Building Nos. 1 through 3: For the proposed Building Nos. 1 through 3, we recommend the spread footing foundations extend below the very loose to loose sands to bear on the native medium

9 Page 8 dense sands encountered at approximate depths of 1 to 5½ feet below the existing ground surface at the locations of Borings 2 through 4. Size individual spread footings and strip (wall) footings for maximum net allowable soil pressures of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) and 3,000 psf, respectively, bearing on the native medium dense sands. The footings can also be supported on engineered fill placed directly on the suitable native soils. Based on the anticipated structural loading conditions, total foundation settlement is estimated to be in the range of ½ to 1 inch. Differential settlement is estimated to be ½ inch or less. Proposed Building No. 4 Pole Barn: As previously discussed, we understand a cut of approximately 3 to 4 feet will be required to achieve finished grades within the building pad area of Building No. 4. We recommend the spread footing foundations extend below the very loose sands to bear on the underlying very stiff lean clays. The very stiff lean clays were encountered at an approxmate depth of 8 feet below the existing ground surface at the location of Boring 1. Size individual spread footings and strip (wall) footings for maximum net allowable soil pressures of 4,000 psf bearing on the suitable native very stiff lean clays. Based on the anticipated structural loading conditions, total foundation settlement is estimated to be in the range of ½ to 1 inch. Differential settlement is estimated to be ½ inch or less. We recommend the site preparation activities, engineered fill placement and foundation construction of the proposed Sebright Products Expansion project be observed by an AGS representative. Our representative will perform the appropriate type and number of field tests to verify compliance with construction specifications and that the foundation bearing material is suitable. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT Based on the soil boring information, the native silty and fine to medium sands are generally anticipated to be suitable for support of the floor slabs following completion of the subgrade preparation activities presented in this report. We recommend the floor slabs be structurally isolated from the foundation system to allow for independent movement. Immediately prior to concrete placement for floor slabs, the final subgrade should be observed and tested for suitability of floor slab support. In addition, we recommend the top 6 inches of the slab subgrade consist of approved granular material. The purpose of this recommendation is to provide a leveling surface for construction of the slab and a moisture capillary break between the slab and the underlying soils. In addition, this should protect the subgrade materials prior to placement of the concrete floor slab. MDOT 21AA dense-graded aggregate is recommended for this purpose. The granular

10 Page 9 material should be compacted per the recommendations presented above for engineered fill. For slab-on-grades constructed on properly prepared subgrade soils, a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 kcf (115 pci) is recommended for design. In general, we recommend providing a vapor barrier below floor slabs that will receive an impermeable floor finish/seal, or a floor covering which would act as a vapor barrier. Even if these floor coverings are not planned, the vapor barrier may reduce the transmission of moisture vapor from the ground into the building, which can occur due to thermal and humidity variations and other conditions. TRUCK DOCK RECOMMENDATIONS We understand the use of flexible retaining walls may be implemented for the proposed truck dock area. The development of the active, or minimum earth pressure condition requires movement of the wall away from the backfill. For a flexible wall to develop full active pressure conditions, the outward movement at the top of the wall should be on the order of times the wall height. Under the above conditions, and if precautions are taken not to overstress the walls (i.e., by temporarily bracing the walls during backfilling), the walls can be designed for an equivalent fluid active earth pressure of 40 pcf per foot height of wall. If the active earth pressure condition will not be developed, we recommend the retaining walls be designed for a minimum equivalent fluid at-rest earth pressure of 60 pcf per foot of wall height. Loads such as those resulting from surrounding surcharge, foundation, or floor loads, should be added to the above recommended minimum equivalent fluid earth pressure. An ultimate passive earth pressure coefficient of 3 can be used for the soils below the frost zone. We recommend the design passive earth pressure include a minimum factor of safety of 2. We recommend MDOT Class II sand be used as engineered fill behind the retaining walls. The MDOT Class II sand should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). We estimate the MDOT Class II sand placed as engineered fill will possess an angle of internal friction of 32 degrees. The ultimate coefficient of friction developed between cast in place portland cement concrete walls and MDOT Class II material is estimated to be 24 degrees. We recommend the same ultimate friction factor value for base friction on a granular soil base. We recommend a minimum factor of safety of 2. A perimeter foundation drainage system must be installed behind the truck well retaining walls. We recommend a 6-inch diameter, perforated PVC pipe (surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of MDOT 34R open graded aggregate wrapped in a non-woven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent) be placed at the top of the wall foundation along the retained side.

11 Page 10 GENERAL PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The new pavement subgrade soils should be prepared as indicated in the "Subgrade Preparation and Engineered Fill Placement" section of this report. Based on the soil boring information, the native silty and fine to medium sands are generally anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed concrete pavements following completion of the subgrade preparation activities presented in this report. The subbase aggregate material (MDOT 21AA limestone) should be compacted to 98% of Modified Proctor ASTM D All fill material should be placed and compacted at or near the optimum moisture content. If our recommendations are followed, the prepared subgrade should be adequate to provide proper pavement support. Long-term pavement performance is typically a function of the quality of the subgrade at the time the paving is performed, and the quality, thickness, and strength of the pavement section. Therefore, it is important to provide proper subgrade preparation to obtain as long a pavement service life as possible. Furthermore, all pavements need periodic repairs and maintenance to keep them in a serviceable condition; otherwise, the service life can be reduced significantly. The existing silty sand subgrade soils are considered to be susceptible to the effects of frost penetration. Accordingly, the pavement surface should be adequately sloped to promote good surface drainage, and to reduce water infiltration into the subbase course. We recommend finger drains, as a minimum, be installed at all catch basin locations to provide drainage for surface water which may become trapped in the pavement aggregate base section. We anticipate any new pavement area finished grade will generally be at or slightly above the existing grade. Accordingly, we estimate the new pavement subgrade soil will likely consist of silty and fine to medium sands. Following completion of the site preparation recommendations discussed in the report, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) value of 350 pounds per cubic inch (pci) be used for design of rigid pavements. STORMWATER DETENTION PONDS We understand it is proposed to construct a relatively large stormwater detention pond within the northern portion of the subject site in the vicinity of Boring 5. As previously discussed, the subsoils consisted of relatively low permeability lean clays that extended to the maximum explored depth of 15 feet. Based on the soil color change from brown to gray, we estimate the zone of saturation at the location of Boring 5 is at an approximate depth of 5½ feet below the existing ground surface.

12 Page 11 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Unless construction is performed after a prolonged period of warm, dry weather conditions, excavations for foundations and underground utility construction are anticipated to generally extend below the groundwater level. Caving and sloughing of the excavation sidewalls, as well as disturbance and loss of shear strength of the silty and fine to medium sand bearing soils is anticipated for excavations extending below the groundwater level. The risk of sidewall caving and sloughing, as well as foundation bearing soil disturbance, should be reduced by performing positive dewatering prior to excavating below the groundwater level. The design of the dewatering system must take into account the need to preserve the intregity of the floor slab and foundation subgrade soils of the existing buildings. Based on the available soil boring information, we estimate it may be possible to perform the dewatering through the use of closely spaced filtered sump pumps installed in casing wells. In consideration of the relatively shallow depth of the excavation below the groundwater level, we suggest the use of slotted casings installed in backhoe excavated pits as deep as practicable. The slotted casings should be placed outside the perimeter of the proposed building footprints. The casing well system should consist of a minimum of 12-inch slotted steel casings and submersible pumps set in pits excavated by backhoe as deep as practicable below the groundwater level. The outside area of the casing should be backfilled with pea gravel. We recommend the use of a non-woven geotextile fabric around the slotted casing to reduce the loss of fines during pumping. The pumps should be operated continuously until groundwater control has been established and the foundation and underground utility construction completed. If the encountered groundwater seepage is too heavy to be controlled by the use of slotted casings, more substantial positive dewatering measures, such as well points installed by a qualified dewatering contractor, may be necessary. In addition, instability of and disturbance to the silty and fine to medium sand foundation subgrade soils may also take place. During foundation excavation, if a tendency for disturbance is encountered we recommend the exposed suitable silty and fine to medium sands be stabilized by the immediate placement of a layer of crushed natural aggregate with a maximum nominal size of 3 inches and no more than 7 percent passing a number 200 sieve. MDOT 6A crushed natural aggregate can also be used for this purpose. If significant foundation subgrade disturbance is observed, we recommend the disturbed or loosened foundation subgrade material be hand cleaned from the excavation bottom prior to placement of the coarse crushed aggregate layer. Extreme care must be taken to avoid undermining any existing footings or underground utilities.

13 Page 12 All excavations should be safely sheeted, shored, sloped, or braced in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. If material is stored or equipment is operated near an excavation, stronger shoring must be used to resist the extra pressure due to the superimposed loads. Care should always be exercised when excavating near existing buildings, roadways, or utilities to avoid undermining. In no case should excavations extend below the level of adjacent existing foundations unless underpinning of the foundations is performed prior to the excavation. Abandoned utilities in the area of the proposed foundations should be removed or completely filled with grout. We recommend AGS be given the opportunity to review the final foundation plans to confirm our recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If there are any questions regarding this letter, please contact us oooo ()f fd/(jl;ooo '1/n oo oo..do - OA.'C Respectfully,.,A-0 o,.:_, 0 APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. g g : 0 (d- u : :Y T. tou, C.P.G., P.E. Geotechnical Engineer/Principal Encl: Schematic Boring Location Plan, General Notes, Bori Unified Soil Classification System --y -.J *:!:: : go: o.. o o <.8-. O * JEFFEREY \ i ANAGNOSTOU : a: : wo ENGINEER o,'a ov oo/10 No g :L.L.tg o.::po."r";;;g x-o f<;'o ESS\ v a,.,.--,..a:m:>'oe o gs B-1 1through B-5, 2 pc: encl. Applied Geotechnica/ Services, Inc Riverside, Livonia, Ml o

14

15 GENERAL NOTES Drilling & Sampling Symbols SS Split Spoon (1 3 / 8 I.D., 2 O.D., except where noted ST Shelby Tube (3 O.D., except where noted) PA Power Auger PS Piston Sample (3 diameter) WB Wash Boring WS Wash Sample HA Hand Auger Boring BS Bag Sample RC Rock Core with diamond bit, NX size, except where noted RB Roller Bit N/A Not applicable or available Standard Penetration Test N Value Blows per foot after an initial 6-inch seating of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted. Water Level Measurement Notation First When noted during drilling or sampling process. Completion After all drilling tools are removed from borehole. HR Number of hours after completion. N/R Dry Not recorded. No measurable water level found in borehole. Particle Sizes Boulders Greater than 6 (152 mm) Cobbles 3 to 6 (76 to 152 mm) Gravel Coarse: ¼ to 3 (19 to 76 mm) Fine: No.4 to ¾ (4.75 to 19 mm) Sand Coarse: No.10 to No.4 (2 to 4.75 mm) Medium: No.40 to No.10 (.425 to 2 mm) Fine: No.200 to No.40 (.074 mm to.425mm) Silt Minus No.200 (.005 mm to.074 mm) Clay Less than.005 mm Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the time indicated. The accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with short term observations, especially in impervious soils. The level shown may fluctuate throughout the year with variations in precipitation, evaporation, runoff, and other hydrogeologic features. CLASSIFICATION Cohesionless Soil Relative Density N Value (Blows/ft) Very Loose 0 to 4 Loose 5 to 9 Medium Dense 10 to 29 Dense 30 to 49 Very Dense 50 to 79 Extremely Dense Over 80 Soil Constituents Trace Less than 10% Trace to Some 10% to 19% Some 20% to 34% And 35% to 50% Cohesive Soil Unconfined Compressive Strength (tons per ft 2 ) Less than to 0.49 Soft 0.49 to 0.99 Medium 1.00 to 1.99 Stiff Consistency Very Soft 2.00 to 3.99 Very Stiff Greater than 4.00 Hard If clay content is sufficient so that clay dominates soil properties, then clay becomes the primary noun with other major soil constituent as modifier, i.e. silty clay. Other minor soil constituents may be added according to estimates of soil constituents present, i.e. silty clay, trace to some sand, trace gravel. AGS, Inc Riverside, Livonia, MI Tel/Fax: (734)

16 Project: Client: Hoppe Design, LLC Location: Wayland Township, Allegan County, MI Project #: Boring Log #: B-1 Applied Geotechnical Services, Inc Riverside Livonia, MI Tel: Sample No./Type Recovery (in.) Depth (ft.) 0 Description of Material Ground Surface Elevation = N/A Driller Reported ±10" Sandy Topsoil Moisture Content (%) - circles N-Value (blows/ft) - squares Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) - triangles SS SS SILTY FINE SAND - medium dense - very moist - light brown (SM) SS FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - trace silt and gravel - very loose - wet - brown (SP-SM) SS SS LEAN CLAY - trace gravel - occasional wet sand seams - very stiff - gray (CL) SS End of Boring (ft.): 20 Water Level Observations: Boring Started: 11/28/2017 Approved: JTA While Drilling: 5' Boring Completed: 11/28/2017 Remarks: Drawn By: NJA At Completion: 5' Cave-In At: Rig: Ingersol Rand A 300 Driller: D&T Drilling, Inc.

17 Project: Client: Hoppe Design, LLC Location: Wayland Township, Allegan County, MI Project #: Boring Log #: B-2 Applied Geotechnical Services, Inc Riverside Livonia, MI Tel: Sample No./Type Recovery (in.) Depth (ft.) 0 Description of Material Ground Surface Elevation = N/A Driller Reported ± 6" Recycled Asphalt and Gravel Moisture Content (%) - circles N-Value (blows/ft) - squares Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) - triangles SS SS FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - trace silt and gravel - medium dense - very moist to wet below 3' - brown (SP- SM) SS SILTY FINE SAND - occasional clay layers - medium dense - wet - gray (SM w/ CL LAYERS) SS FINE TO COARSE SAND - trace silt - some gravel - loose - wet - brown (SP-SM) SS LEAN CLAY - trace gravel - very stiff to stiff - gray (CL) SS Water Level Observations: While Drilling: 3' At Completion: 3' Cave-In At: End of Boring (ft.): 20 Boring Started: 11/28/2017 Approved: JTA Boring Completed: 11/28/2017 Remarks: Drawn By: NJA Rig: Ingersol Rand A 300 Driller: D&T Drilling, Inc.

18 Project: Client: Hoppe Design, LLC Location: Wayland Township, Allegan County, MI Project #: Boring Log #: B-3 Applied Geotechnical Services, Inc Riverside Livonia, MI Tel: Sample No./Type SS-1 Recovery (in.) Depth (ft.) Description of Material Ground Surface Elevation = N/A Driller Reported ± 12" Topsoil Moisture Content (%) - circles N-Value (blows/ft) - squares Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) - triangles SS-2 SS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - trace gravel - occasional clay seams - medium dense to loose - very moist to wet below 5' - brown changing to gray below 7' (SM) SS SS LEAN CLAY - trace gravel - occasional wet sand seams - stiff to very stiff - gray (CL) SS SS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Water Level Observations: Boring Started: 11/28/2017 Approved: JTA While Drilling: 5' Boring Completed: 11/28/2017 Remarks: Drawn By: NJA At Completion: 5' Cave-In At: Rig: Ingersol Rand A 300 Driller: D&T Drilling, Inc

19 Project: Client: Hoppe Design, LLC Location: Wayland Township, Allegan County, MI Project #: Boring Log #: B-3 (cont.) Applied Geotechnical Services, Inc Riverside Livonia, MI Tel: Sample No./Type Recovery (in.) Depth (ft.) Description of Material Moisture Content (%) - circles N-Value (blows/ft) - squares Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) - triangles LEAN CLAY - trace gravel - occasional wet sand seams - stiff to very stiff - gray (CL) SS Water Level Observations: While Drilling: 5' At Completion: 5' Cave-In At: End of Boring (ft.): Boring Started: 11/28/2017 Approved: JTA Boring Completed: 11/28/2017 Remarks: Drawn By: NJA Rig: Ingersol Rand A 300 Driller: D&T Drilling, Inc. 50.0

20 Project: Client: Hoppe Design, LLC Location: Wayland Township, Allegan County, MI Project #: Boring Log #: B-4 Applied Geotechnical Services, Inc Riverside Livonia, MI Tel: Sample No./Type SS-1 Recovery (in.) Depth (ft.) Description of Material Ground Surface Elevation = N/A Driller Reported ± 10" Topsoil SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - trace gravel - very loose - very moist to wet below 2.5' - brown (SM) Moisture Content (%) - circles N-Value (blows/ft) - squares Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) - triangles SS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - trace gravel - medium dense - wet - brown (SM) SS-3 7 CLAYEY SILT - hard - gray (CL-ML) SS FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - trace silt and gravel - medium dense - wet - gray (SP-SM) SS SS LEAN CLAY - trace gravel - occasional wet sand seams - very stiff to stiff - gray (CL) SS Water Level Observations: While Drilling: 2.5' At Completion: 9' Cave-In At: CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Boring Started: 11/28/2017 Approved: JTA Boring Completed: 11/28/2017 Remarks: Drawn By: NJA Rig: Ingersol Rand A 300 Driller: D&T Drilling, Inc

21 Project: Client: Hoppe Design, LLC Location: Wayland Township, Allegan County, MI Project #: Boring Log #: B-4 (cont.) Applied Geotechnical Services, Inc Riverside Livonia, MI Tel: Sample No./Type Recovery (in.) Depth (ft.) Description of Material Moisture Content (%) - circles N-Value (blows/ft) - squares Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) - triangles 26 LEAN CLAY - trace gravel - occasional wet sand seams - very stiff to stiff - gray (CL) SS SANDY LEAN CLAY - trace gravel - occasional wet sand seams - hard - gray (CL) Water Level Observations: While Drilling: 2.5' At Completion: 9' Cave-In At: End of Boring (ft.): Boring Started: 11/28/2017 Approved: Boring Completed: 11/28/2017 Remarks: Drawn By: NJA Rig: Ingersol Rand A 300 Driller: D&T Drilling, Inc. 50.0

22 Project: Client: Hoppe Design, LLC Location: Wayland Township, Allegan County, MI Project #: Boring Log #: B-5 Applied Geotechnical Services, Inc Riverside Livonia, MI Tel: Sample No./Type Recovery (in.) Depth (ft.) 0 Description of Material Ground Surface Elevation = N/A Driller Reported ± 10" Topsoil Moisture Content (%) - circles N-Value (blows/ft) - squares Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) - triangles SS SANDY LEAN CLAY - stiff - mottled brown and gray (CL-ML) SS SANDY LEAN CLAY - hard - mottled brown and gray (CL) SS SS LEAN CLAY - occasional wet sand layers - stiff to very stiff - gray (CL) SS Water Level Observations: While Drilling: 9.5' At Completion: 9.0' Cave-In At: End of Boring (ft.):15 Boring Started: 11/28/2017 Approved: JTA Boring Completed: 11/28/2017 Remarks: Drawn By: NJA Rig: Ingersol Rand A 300 Driller: D&T Drilling, Inc.

23 Unified Soil Classification Major Divisons Symbol Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria Coarse Grained Soils (More than half of material > No. 200 sieve) Gravels (More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve) Sands (More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve) Clean Gravels (little or no fines) Gravels with appreciable amount of fines Clean Sands (little or no fines) Sands with appreciable amount of fines GW GP d GM u GC SW SP d SM u SC Well graded gravels, gravelsand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels, gravelsand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sandclay mixtures Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve), coarse grained soils are classified as follows: Less than 5% GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12%...GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12%...Borderline case requiring dual symbols C u = D 60 /D 10 greater than 4; C c = (D 30 ) 2 / (D 10 x D 30 ) between 1 and 3 Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW Atterberg Limits below "A" line or PI less than 4 Atterberg Limits above "A" line with PI greater than 7 Atterberg Limits below "A" line or PI less than 4 Atterberg Limits above "A" line with PI greater than 7 Above "A" line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring dual symbols C u = D 60 /D 10 greater than 6; C c = (D 30 ) 2 / (D 10 x D 30 ) between 1 and 3 Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW Liquid Limits plotting between 10 and 30 with PI between 4 and 7 is a borderline case requiring dual symbols (CL-ML) Fine Grained Soils (more than half of material < No. 200 sieve) Silts and Clays (Liquid Limit < 50) Silts and Clays (Liquid Limit > 50) Highly Organic Soils ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, and lean clays Organic silts and silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diamaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Peat and other highly organic soils Plasticity Index (PI) PLASTICITY CHART PI = 0.73(LL-20) CH "A" Line OH and MH CL ML and OL Liquid Limit (LL) AGS, Inc Riverside Livonia, MI 48154