Washtenaw Community College Design & Construction Facilities Management 4800 East Huron River Drive Ann Arbor, MI

Transcription

1 Washtenaw Community College Design & Construction Facilities Management 4800 East Huron River Drive Ann Arbor, MI GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Parking Lots 1, 7 and SCB Handicap Ann Arbor Township, Michigan TEC Report: 6609 By: Testing Engineers & Consultants, Inc Rochester Road P.O. Box 249 Troy, Michigan (248) April 22, 2016

2 1343 Rochester Road PO Box 249 Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Engineering Client Success TEC Report: 6609 Date Issued: April 22, 2016 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College Design & Construction Facilities Management 4800 East Huron River Drive Ann Arbor, MI Re: Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Parking Lots 1, 7 and SCB Handicap Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Dear Mr. Bishop: Please find enclosed the results of a geotechnical investigation performed at the above referenced site. This geotechnical report presents our field and laboratory results; engineering analysis; and our recommendations for design of pavements, as well as important construction considerations. As you may know, Testing Engineers & Consultants, Inc. (TEC) has fifty years of experience in Quality Control Testing and Construction Inspection. We would be pleased to provide these services on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please let us know. It has been a pleasure to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted, TESTING ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS, INC. CJS/ln Enclosure Carey J. Suhan, P.E., Vice President, Geotechnical & Environmental Services Copyright 2007 Testing Engineers & Consultants, Inc. All rights reserved. All services undertaken are subject to the following policy. Reports are submitted for exclusive use of the clients to whom they are addressed. Their significance is subject to the adequacy and representative character of the samples and the comprehensiveness of the tests, examinations and surveys made. No quotation from reports or use of TEC s name is permitted except as expressly authorized by TEC in writing. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & FULL-SERVICE PROFESSIONAL TESTING AND INSPECTION OFFICES IN ANN ARBOR, DETROIT, AND TROY FOUNDED IN 1966

3 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: 6609 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION GENERAL DISCUSSION OF PAVEMENTS Pavement Design Pavements in Service Pavement Evaluation Pavement Rehabilitation FIELD INVESTIGATION Pavement & Soil Sampling Pavement Inspection LABORATORY TESTING.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.1 Subsoil Conditions.2 Ground Water Observations PAVEMENT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis of Existing Pavement Conditions Pavement Rehabilitation Methodologies Construction Considerations Pavement Recommendations DESIGN REVIEW AND FIELD MONITORING 12 APPENDIX APPENDIX A TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN APPENDIX B LOGS OF TEST BORINGS APPENDIX C SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS APPENDIX D GENERAL NOTES FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION APPENDIX E PHOTOGRAPHS OF PARKING LOTS & CORES

4 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: INTRODUCTION This report presents and evaluates the results of a geotechnical investigation for the pavement evaluation project of the drives and Parking Lots 1, 7 and SCB Handicap parking lot area at Washtenaw Community College, located in Ann Arbor Township of Washtenaw County, Michigan. Authorization to perform this investigation was given in Purchase Order No. P0661 dated March 30, The scope, fee schedule, and time table were defined in a signed copy of TEC Proposal No , dated March 17, Based on the information provided, we understand that the project will consist of the rehabilitation of three parking lots. We assume that for design purposes the pavements receive primarily just automobile traffic with light duty truck traffic. The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information necessary to determine basic engineering properties of soils at the site through a series of test borings and laboratory tests performed on the soil samples obtained during the field investigation. This information has been evaluated to provide the general recommendations for pavement rehabilitation, sidewalk design, and other geotechnical information. 2.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION OF PAVEMENTS Pavement is intended to transmit dynamic and static loads of vehicles into the underlying soil (subgrade) and to provide a safe, comfortable ride. The most common paving materials are hot mix asphalt (HMA), Portland cement concrete (PCC), and HMA over PCC. HMA pavement consists of aggregate particles coated with asphalt binder. PCC consists of cement, water, coarse aggregate, and fine aggregate, but typically includes supplemental cementitious materials and chemical additives. The strength and durability of HMA pavement depends on the properties of the ingredients, the proportions of the mix, and the construction of the pavement. 2.1 Pavement Design The pavement thickness is computed using the selected design method, all of which have equations that account for loads (based on number of vehicles and their axle loads), pavement section properties, and soil properties. The design methods may account for environmental exposure and construction details. The most common method is the one developed by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The output of the HMA pavement (also called flexible pavement) from the AASHTO Method is the structural number (SN). The pavement cross section is designed by selecting a thickness and layer coefficient, which depends on the material properties, and then computing a partial SN from the product of the layer thickness and layer coefficient. The total SN is the sum of all partial SN s. 1 of 12

5 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Pavement Design (Cont d) The first consideration in the design of any pavement is the subgrade. It must be strong enough to carry the loads and, ideally, should drain well. If the water table is high or the soil does not drain well, this must be considered in the design and construction. Some soils are susceptible to frost heave when their water content is high and that water freezes. The soils most susceptible to frost heave are fine sands or silty sands. Some soils lose strength when subjected to repeated loads. Soils susceptible to this loss of strength are fine-grained soils, i.e., silt and clay. The next consideration is the material properties of the paving material. In HMA, the two ingredients are the aggregate and asphalt cement (or binder). The aggregate must have the size distribution and surface characteristics to provide good interlock through interparticle friction. The asphalt cement must have the proper viscosity so that the pavement does not rut at high temperatures and does not crack at low temperatures. 2.2 Pavements in Service Once in service, pavement is subjected to vehicle loads and environmental exposure. The vehicle loads induce a stress at the tire-pavement interface, which produces a stress distribution in each pavement layer and the subgrade. There is a corresponding strain distribution to the stress distribution and a deflection distribution from the strain distribution. Environmental effects, specifically temperature change and moisture content change, tend to cause volume changes to the pavement. If these volume changes are restrained, stresses will result in the section. The performance, specifically the deterioration of the pavement then depends on the actual stresses, strains, and deformations relative to the appropriate failure criteria. If debris becomes lodged in a joint, this provides a source of stress concentration that can cause a localized failure of the pavement. However, this localized failure could then grow into a larger failure. Subgrade properties that contribute to the pavement performance are compressibility and stability. If the subgrade is highly compressible, it will settle, leaving a void beneath the pavement. That void can then provide the starting point for a crack in the pavement. Other issues that can contribute to subgrade problems are soils susceptible to frost heave and settlement of poorly-constructed backfill. In hot mix asphalt pavements, the asphalt cement becomes stiffer and more brittle as it ages. Consequently, the pavement becomes more susceptible to cracking. 2.3 Pavement Evaluation Pavement evaluation is typically done by a combination of visual inspection, field testing, and laboratory testing of specimens collected during the field investigation. In Michigan, the visual 2 of 13

6 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Pavement Evaluation (Cont d) inspection is often done by the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) method, that was developed Transportation Information Center at the University of Wisconsin Madison. The field investigation includes sampling of the pavement, base course, and underlying soil. The laboratory testing includes determining the strength and stability of the soil, and may include testing of the pavement material. 2.4 Pavement Rehabilitation Once the pavement has been evaluated and areas performing below some user-defined condition have been identified, a rehabilitation strategy is developed. Remediation techniques include: Large-scale rehabilitation o Replacement remove all existing pavement and construct new pavement o Pulverize existing pavement (to use as partial replacement of the aggregate base) and place new pavement o Mill and overlay remove unsuitable pavement at the surface and place new pavement on the competent underlying pavement Localized rehabilitation o Full depth repair remove the existing pavement and construct new pavement in isolated areas o Partial depth repair remove unsuitable pavement at the surface and place new pavement on the underlying competent pavement in localized areas o Patching fill poorly-performing areas such as potholes and faults o Crack sealing The selection of a rehabilitation method depends on The condition of the pavement, The cost of a particular remediation method, The effectiveness of that remediation method, The impact to the users of the project, e.g., lane or road closure 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3.1 Pavement and Soil Sampling Seventeen test borings were drilled on the sites of the three parking lots at the locations shown on the Test Boring Location Plan. The locations are accurate to within a short distance of the locations shown 3 of 13

7 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Pavement and Soil Sampling (Cont d) on the location plan included in the appendix. The test borings were drilled on April 13, 2016, with truck-mounted auger equipment using solid-stem augers to depths of five feet. Grab samples of the aggregate base were collected at locations that an aggregate base was present. The test borings were distributed as follows: Parking Lot 1 Parking Lot 7 SCB Handicap Lot test borings 9 test borings 3 test borings Drilling methods and standard penetration tests were performed in general accordance with the current ASTM D142 and D186 procedures, respectively. These procedures specify that a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler be driven by a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the split-barrel sampler through three successive 6-inch increments is recorded on the Test Boring Log. The first 6-inch increment is used for setting the sampler firmly in the soil and the sum of the hammer blows for the second and third increments is referred to as the Standard Penetration Index (N). From the standard penetration test a soil sample is recovered in the liner sampler tubes that are located inside the split-barrel sampler. Upon recovery of a soil sample, the liner tubes are removed from the split-barrel sampler and placed in a container which is sealed to minimize moisture losses during transportation to the laboratory. Standard penetration tests were made at depths of 2 ½ and feet. These parameters may vary for a given project depending on the nature of the subsoils and the geotechnical information required. Pavement cores were obtained with a diamond tipped core barrel at eight of the boring locations. Photographs of randomly selected parking lot areas and asphalt cores taken are included in Appendix E. 3.2 Pavement Inspection TEC performed a visual inspection of the pavement to determine the overall condition and to identify specific concerns. The pavement in all three parking lots is generally in poor condition as evidenced by the presence of signs of fatigue cracking (also called alligator cracking), potholes, block cracking, longitudinal cracks and transverse cracks. The longitudinal and transverse cracks show signs of raveling and secondary cracks have formed. At places thin overlays were visually observed. The surface drainage is generally fair, although localized low spots have allowed water to collect. The pavement appears to have minimal catch basins. The photographs included in Appendix E illustrate the conditions identified during the field inspection. 4 of 13

8 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: LABORATORY TESTING The laboratory testing consisted of determining the unconfined compressive strength, the natural bulk density and the natural moisture content of the soil samples recovered in the liner sampler tubes. In the unconfined compression tests, the compressive strength of the soil is determined by axially loading a soil sample until failure is observed or 1% strain, whichever occurs first. The above referenced test data are recorded on the boring logs. Some test results may deviate from the norm because of variations in texture, imperfect samples, presence of pebbles and/or sand streaks, etc. The results are still reported although they may not be relevant. The particle size distribution of six granular base soil samples was also determined using the sieve analysis test. The sieve analysis results are generally used to evaluate the suitability of granular base course use as fill or backfill, and specifically to evaluate its suitability as a pavement base. The results are included in Appendix C. Samples taken in the field are retained in our laboratory for 60 days and are then destroyed unless special disposition is requested by the client. Samples retained over a long period of time are subject to moisture loss and are then no longer representative of the conditions initially encountered. The cores were measured and photographed. The measurements and notes are included with the discussion of the soil conditions. The photographs are included in Appendix E..0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.1 Subsoil Conditions The soil conditions encountered in the borings are presented on the individual boring logs. Each log presents the soil types encountered at that location as well as laboratory test data, ground water data, and other pertinent information. Descriptions of the various soil consistencies, relative densities and particle sizes are given in the Appendix. Definitions of the terms and symbols utilized in this report may be found in ASTM D63. The areas are paved with hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement, and the pavement thickness ranged from 3 ½ to 8 inches. The asphalt was placed on an aggregate base of brown sand and crushed stone with some clay to silt. The subgrade varied from boring to boring. In the area of Boring No. 11, the concrete was placed on the sand and clay layer. In the other borings the HMA was placed on well graded sand and crushed gravel with or without a trace of silt/clay. A layer of granular fill was encountered in Boring Nos. 2, 3 and 6 below the aggregate base course. Native soils are present below. The native soils vary from granular to cohesive. The clay varies from firm to extremely stiff in consistency and the sand and clayey sand from loose to compact in relative density. of 13

9 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Subsoil Conditions (Cont d) Details of the pavement, base, and subgrade cross section for each parking lot are given below: Boring number Pavement thickness (in) Parking Lot No. 7 Thickness (in) 1 13 Loose Moist To Wet Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Trace Of Silt & Clay 2 ½ (Cored) Base Subgrade Ground Water At Description Completion 9 ½ Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Trace Of Silt & Clay Brown Well Graded Sand, Crushed Gravel & Silt 4 4 (Cored) 9 Brown Well Graded Sand, Crushed Gravel & Some Clay 6 Brown Well Graded Sand, Crushed Gravel & Some Clay Firm Moist Gray Clay With Some Silt Overlaying Stiff Brown Clay With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Dark Brown Sand With Trace Of Gravel & Crushed Asphalt With Medium Compact Clayey Sand Below Medium Compact Moist Brown Sand With Some Gravel & Crushed Asphalt Overlaying Stiff Brown Clay With Trace Of Gravel Loose Moist Dark Brown Clayey Sand Medium Compact To Loose Brown Clayey Sand With Clay Layers of 13

10 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Subsoil Conditions (Cont d) Boring number Pavement thickness (in) Parking Lot No. 7 (Cont d) Thickness (in) 6 9 Brown Well Graded Sand, Crushed Gravel & Some Clay 7 4 ½ (Cored) Base Subgrade Ground Water At Description Completion 23 Medium Compact Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Clay ½ Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Clay 9 4 ¼ (Cored) 12 Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt Compact Moist Brown Sand With Trace Of Gravel & Crushed Asphalt Medium Compact Dark Brown Clayey Sand With Clay Layers Medium Compact Moist Brown Sand With Trace Of Gravel & Crushed Asphalt With Extremely Stiff Brown Clay With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Below Medium Compact Dark Brown To Brown Sand & Trace Of Gravel of 13

11 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Subsoil Conditions (Cont d) Boring number Pavement thickness (in) SCB Handicap Parking Lot Thickness (in) 10 ½ 3 ½ Brown Moist Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt 11 8 (Concrete) Base Subgrade Ground Water At Description Completion 16 Loose Moist Brown Fine Sand With Some Silt & Clay With Trace Of Gravel 12 Moist Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt Loose Brown Sand With Stiff To Extremely Stiff Brown Clay With Some Silt Below Extremely Stiff Brown Clay With Some Silt Extremely Stiff Brown Clay With Some Silt of 13

12 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Subsoil Conditions (Cont d) Boring number Pavement thickness (in) 13 4 ¾ (Cored) Thickness (in) Parking Lot No. 1 Base Subgrade Ground Water At Description Completion 10 Brown Medium To Coarse Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt & Clay 14 4 ½ 4 Brown Medium To Coarse Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt & Clay 1 3 ¾ (Cored) 16 3 ½ (Cored) 9 ½ Brown Medium To Coarse Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt & Clay 6 ½ Brown Medium To Coarse Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt & Clay 17 8 Moist Brown Medium To Coarse Sand With Some Silt Stiff Moist Brown Clay With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Stiff Moist Brown Clay With Some Silt & Sand Seams Firm Moist Dark Gray Clay With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Medium Compact Moist Brown Sand Medium Compact Brown Sand Loose Wet Brown Clayey Sand of 13

13 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Subsoil Conditions (Cont d) Standard penetration values range from 7 to 37 blows per foot with unconfined compressive strengths of 660 to 10,00 pounds per square foot (psf). Bulk densities range from 107 to 140 pounds per cubic foot with moisture contents of 7. to 22.0 percent of the dry weight of the soil. The standard penetration values may have been skewed by the presence of large pieces of gravel, crushed stone in the aggregate base or upper soil..2 Ground Water Observations Water level readings were taken in the bore holes during and after the completion of drilling. These observations are noted on the respective Test Boring Logs. Water was encountered in three borings in Parking Lot 7, in none of the borings in the SCB Handicap lot and in three borings in Parking Lot No. 1. During drilling ground water was encountered at 4 in Boring No. 16 and after completion of drilling the ground water was measured at 10 in Boring Nos. 7 and 8. This water appears to be perched due to clayey soils below the granular base course, etc. 6.0 PAVEMENT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Analysis of Existing Pavement Conditions The pavement thickness, in each parking lot, appears to be a little thin at some locations for the traffic present in the areas. In general surface raveling was observed on the asphalt cores taken. The thickness of the HMA varies from 3 ½ to 8, with about 0% of the areas having thickness less than 4 ½ inches. The base course thickness varies from 3 ½ and 23 and its quality generally is below acceptable limits for gradation or thickness or both in all the areas where cores were taken. The pavement is generally in fair to poor condition. As discussed in Section 3.2, the pavement shows signs of fatigue cracking, as well as longitudinal cracks and transverse cracks with secondary cracks. Fatigue cracking is a structural failure of the pavement cross-section, caused by cyclic overloading, insufficient cross-section, or a weak subgrade. Secondary cracking of longitudinal and transverse cracks is further deterioration into a structural concern. The subgrade is primarily clay or mixed fill at a few places, both of which provide fair to poor drainage. Clay can be susceptible to volume changes upon changes in water content, and this can result in heave or settlement of the pavement surface. Mixed fill, particularly if it was not placed in a controlled manner under proper supervision and testing, can be susceptible to settlement of the fill and pavement placed on this fill. 10 of 13

14 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Analysis of Existing Pavement Conditions (Cont d) The surface drainage appears to be fair to poor. Most of the drives and parking areas shown in the photos in Appendix E appear to be relatively flat. Localized low spots have allowed water to pond, as illustrated in the photographs in Appendix E. There appears to be minimal catch basins. The pavement deterioration observed in the field during inspection is partially related to the age of the pavement and inadequate drainage. Inadequate drainage combined with cracks and a fair to poor subgrade could have exacerbated the deterioration. 6.2 Pavement Rehabilitation Methodologies The two main pavement rehabilitation strategies presented in Section 2.4 are applicable for large scale and localized failures. Based on the results of the visual inspection, soil borings, and pavement cores, large scale rehabilitation is the recommended strategy. Within the large scale rehabilitation strategy, possible options include complete replacement using all new material, complete replacement of the pavement and use of the current granular base as a partial replacement of the aggregate base, or mill and overlay. Based on the condition and thickness of the existing pavement, mill and overlay is not a viable option. We understand that the college plans a complete reconstruction. 6.3 Construction Considerations Within the limits of areas to be developed, the existing pavement and base should be removed prior to the site being graded. The site should then be rolled with a vibrating roller to densify the subgrade. The two main construction considerations are ground water management and subgrade stability. The ground water encountered during the drilling in borings could be handled with normal on-site dewatering procedures (sump and pump) and, therefore, we do not anticipate that ground water will cause significant problems with site preparation, earthwork, undercuts, or utility construction. We anticipate the need for some subgrade improvement during reconstruction, including the need for undercuts and stabilization. We suggest that the need to budget for about 1 of undercut. The extent of undercut required will be impacted by the volume of construction traffic and the weather when the subgrade is exposed. Subgrade undercut requirements should be determined at the time of construction by proof roll testing the exposed subgrade with rubber tired construction equipment capable of developing a concentrated wheel load. In particular the moisture content of the upper clay is quite high at Boring Nos. 1, 4, and 10 through 14. This includes about one half of Parking Lot 7, all of the SCB Handicap Parking and the south end of Parking Lot 1. It should be expected that these areas will fail proofroll. It is expected that localized soft, wet or pumping areas, if present during construction, can be stabilized by removing 1 foot of subgrade soils and replacing with compacted open graded aggregate such as 1 in. x 3 in. crushed aggregates or dense graded aggregate such as MDOT 21AA. In a few other borings the upper in-situ soils have slightly elevated moisture content. 11 of 13

15 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: Pavement Recommendations The subgrade resulting from the site preparation, as outlined in the recommended earthwork operations section, will provide a fair subgrade for support of pavements. The pavement should be properly crowned and shaped in order to provide effective surface drainage and prevent water ponding. A 1. percent slope is recommended. Edge drains along the perimeter of the pavement and finger drains around catch basins are recommended to prevent water from infiltrating the subgrade. All drains should be connected to storm sewer or other outlets. For automobile drives and minimal truck traffic the following section is recommended: 2 inch HMA top course (MDOT E1 or 1100T) 2. inch HMA base course (MDOT 3E1, 3C or 1100L) 8 inches untreated aggregate base (MDOT 21AA) For the top course mix, the percentage of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) should be limited to 20 percent. The SCB Handicap parking lot area has a loading dock and receives some truck traffic. We recommend the drive areas with truck traffic have a stronger cross section with 2. inch top course and 10 inch aggregate base. The loading dock could be repaved with 8 inches of Portland cement concrete on 6 inches of compacted aggregate base. The pavement recommendations presented above are intended to provide a serviceable pavement for an extended period of time. However, all pavements show deterioration with time and require regular maintenance such as occasional repairs of cracks and pot holes. The need for such maintenance efforts is not necessarily indicative of premature pavement failure. The serviceable life of the pavement can be substantially reduced if maintenance and minor repair is not performed in a timely manner. 7.0 DESIGN REVIEW AND FIELD MONITORING The evaluations and recommendations presented in this report relative to site preparation and paving have been formulated on the basis of assumed and provided data relating to the location, type and finished grades for the proposed development and adjacent areas. Any significant change in this data should be brought to our attention for review and evaluation with respect to the prevailing subsoil conditions. When the plans are finalized, a consultation should be arranged with us for a review to verify that the evaluations and recommendations have been properly interpreted. 12 of 13

16 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: DESIGN REVIEW AND FIELD MONITORING (Cont d) Soil conditions at the site could vary from those generalized on the basis of test borings made at specific locations. It is therefore recommended that Testing Engineers & Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide soil engineering services during the site preparation, excavation and paving phases of the proposed project. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations. Also, this provides opportunity for design changes to be made in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Harry I. Papadopoulos, Ph.D. Senior Project Engineer HIP/CJS/ln I:\gs\Job Files\00-99\6609\6609.doc Carey J. Suhan, P.E. Vice President, Geotechnical & Environmental Services 13 of 13

17 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: 6609 APPENDIX A TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN

18

19 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: 6609 APPENDIX B LOGS OF TEST BORINGS

20 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 1 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (") Loose Moist To Wet Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Trace Of Silt & Clay-FILL Firm Moist Gray CLAY With Some Silt Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: 1'0" At Completion: 3'8" Boring No. 1

21 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 2 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT ( 1/2") (Cored) Moist Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Trace Of Silt & Clay-FILL (9 1/2") Medium Compact Moist Dark Brown Sand With Trace Of Gravel & Crushed Asphalt-FILL Medium Compact Moist Brown Clayey SAND 7. Compact Moist Brown Clayey SAND With Some Gravel & Clay Layers 10.0 Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 2

22 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 3 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (4") Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt-FILL Medium Compact Moist Brown Sand With Some Gravel & Crushed Asphalt-FILL Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel 7. Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 3

23 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 4 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (4") (Cored) Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Clay-FILL Loose Moist Dark Brown Clayey SAND Loose Moist Brown Clayey SAND With Clay Layers Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 4

24 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (") Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Clay-FILL (6") Medium Compact Moist Brown Clayey SAND Loose Moist Brown Clayey SAND With Clay Layers Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No.

25 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 6 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (") Moist Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt-FILL (9") Compact Moist Brown Sand With Trace Of Gravel & Crushed Asphalt-FILL Bottom of Borehole at 3.3' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 6

26 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 7 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (4 1/4") (Cored) Medium Compact Moist To Wet Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Clay-FILL Medium Compact Moist Dark Brown Clayey SAND With Clay Layers Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: 10" At Completion: 10" Boring No. 7

27 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 8 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu /3" ASPHALT (4") Moist Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Clay-FILL Medium Compact Moist Brown Clayey SAND With Trace Of Gravel & Crushed Asphalt Extremely Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: 10" At Completion: 10" Boring No. 8

28 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 9 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (4 1/4") (Cored) Moist Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt-FILL /" Medium Compact Moist Dark Brown SAND With Trace Of Gravel 7.0 Medium Compact Moist Brown SAND 7. Compact Moist Brown SAND With Trace Of Gravel & Boulder Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 9

29 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 10 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT ( 1/2") Brown Moist Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt-FILL (3 1/2") Loose Moist Brown SAND Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt Extremely Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt & Sand Seams Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 10

30 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 11 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu CONCRETE (8") (Cored) Loose Moist Brown Fine SAND With Some Silt & Clay With Trace Of Gravel Extremely Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 11

31 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 12 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (") Moist Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt-FILL (") Loose Moist Brown Fine SAND Extremely Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 12

32 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 13 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (4 3/4") (Cored) Moist Brown Medium To Coarse Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt & Clay-FILL Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 13

33 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 14 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (4 1/2") Moist Brown Medium To Coarse Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt & Clay-FILL (4") Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt & Sand Seams Extremely Stiff Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: None At Completion: None Boring No. 14

34 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 1 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (3 3/4") (Cored) Moist Brown Medium To Coarse Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt & Clay-FILL Firm Moist Dark Gray CLAY With Some Silt & Trace Of Gravel Firm Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt & Wet Sand Seam Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: 4'0" At Completion: 3'4" Boring No. 1

35 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 16 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (3 1/2") (Cored) Brown Medium To Coarse Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt & Clay-FILL (6 1/2") Firm Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt Medium Compact Moist Brown SAND Loose Moist Brown SAND Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: 4" At Completion: 2'1" Boring No. 16

36 1343 Rochester Road - PO Box Troy, Michigan (248) or (313) T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax (248) Boring No.: 17 Job No.: 6609 Client: Washtenaw Community College Type of Rig: Truck Drilling Method: Solid Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: Project: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan Drilled By: I. Mickle Started: 4/3/2016 Completed: 4/3/2016 Depth (ft) Sample Type N Strata Change Soil Classification w d qu ASPHALT (") Moist Brown Medium To Coarse Sand With Some Silt-FILL Medium Compact Moist Brown SAND Loose Wet Brown Clayey SAND Firm Moist Brown CLAY With Some Silt (6") Bottom of Borehole at ' "N" - Standard Penetration Resistance SS - 2" ).D. Split Spoon Sample - Sectional Liner Sample ST - Shelby Tube Sample AS - Auger Sample w - H2O, % of dry weight d - Bulk Density, pcf qu - Unconfined Compression, psf DP - Direct Push RC - Rock Core Water Encountered: 3'0" At Completion: 3'11" Boring No. 17

37 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: 6609 APPENDIX C SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS

38 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road PO Box 249 Troy, Michigan or 313 T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax MECHANICAL ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation TEC REPORT NUMBER: Parking Lots 1, 7 and SCB LOCATION: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan DATE: CLIENT: Washtenaw Community College 6609 Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Material Description: Sample Source / Depth: Sample Location: Intended Use: Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Trace of Silt & Clay "-1' Date Sampled: 4/3/16 Sampled By: I. Mickle TEC Lab Sample Number: Remarks: AGGREGATE ANALYSIS Total Total Total SAMPLE Sieve Weight Percent Percent Specification DATA No. Retained Retained Passing Range 3" Initial Sample Weight (g) /2" Weight After Wash (g) /2" Loss in Weight (g) " Loss by Wash (%) 3.3% 3/4" /2" /8" # # # # # Tested By: # Reviewed By: # Total Sample Test Method: ASTM C117/C136 AASHTO T11/T27 MTM 108/109 X Remarks: R. Pruitt G. Putt Respectfully Submitted: Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc.

39 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road PO Box 249 Troy, Michigan or 313 T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax MECHANICAL ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation TEC REPORT NUMBER: Parking Lots 1, 7 and SCB LOCATION: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan DATE: CLIENT: Washtenaw Community College 6609 Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Material Description: Sample Source / Depth: Sample Location: Intended Use: Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt 4.7"-1' Date Sampled: 4/3/16 Sampled By: I. Mickle TEC Lab Sample Number: Remarks: AGGREGATE ANALYSIS Total Total Total SAMPLE Sieve Weight Percent Percent Specification DATA No. Retained Retained Passing Range 3" Initial Sample Weight (g) /2" Weight After Wash (g) /2" Loss in Weight (g) " Loss by Wash (%) 14.7% 3/4" /2" /8" # # # # # Tested By: # Reviewed By: # Total Sample Test Method: ASTM C117/C136 AASHTO T11/T27 MTM 108/109 X Remarks: R. Pruitt G. Putt Respectfully Submitted: Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc.

40 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road PO Box 249 Troy, Michigan or 313 T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax MECHANICAL ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation TEC REPORT NUMBER: Parking Lots 1, 7 and SCB LOCATION: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan DATE: CLIENT: Washtenaw Community College 6609 Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Material Description: Sample Source / Depth: Sample Location: Intended Use: Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt 4"-1' Date Sampled: 4/3/16 Sampled By: I. Mickle TEC Lab Sample Number: Remarks: AGGREGATE ANALYSIS Total Total Total SAMPLE Sieve Weight Percent Percent Specification DATA No. Retained Retained Passing Range 3" Initial Sample Weight (g) /2" Weight After Wash (g) /2" Loss in Weight (g) " Loss by Wash (%) 11.8% 3/4" /2" /8" # # # # # Tested By: # Reviewed By: # Total Sample Test Method: ASTM C117/C136 AASHTO T11/T27 MTM 108/109 X Remarks: R. Pruitt G. Putt Respectfully Submitted: Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc.

41 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road PO Box 249 Troy, Michigan or 313 T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax MECHANICAL ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation TEC REPORT NUMBER: Parking Lots 1, 7 and SCB LOCATION: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan DATE: CLIENT: Washtenaw Community College 6609 Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Material Description: Sample Source / Depth: Sample Location: Intended Use: Brown Well Graded Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt Date Sampled: 4/3/16 Sampled By: I. Mickle TEC Lab Sample Number: Remarks: AGGREGATE ANALYSIS Total Total Total SAMPLE Sieve Weight Percent Percent Specification DATA No. Retained Retained Passing Range 3" Initial Sample Weight (g) /2" Weight After Wash (g) /2" Loss in Weight (g) 9.9 1" Loss by Wash (%) 18.7% 3/4" /2" /8" # # # # # Tested By: # Reviewed By: # Total Sample Test Method: ASTM C117/C136 AASHTO T11/T27 MTM 108/109 X Remarks: R. Pruitt G. Putt Respectfully Submitted: Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc.

42 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road PO Box 249 Troy, Michigan or 313 T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax MECHANICAL ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation TEC REPORT NUMBER: Parking Lots 1, 7 and SCB LOCATION: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan DATE: CLIENT: Washtenaw Community College 6609 Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Material Description: Sample Source / Depth: Sample Location: Intended Use: Brown Fine Sand With Some Silt & Clay & Trace of Gravel 8"-1' Date Sampled: 4/3/16 Sampled By: I. Mickle TEC Lab Sample Number: Remarks: AGGREGATE ANALYSIS Total Total Total SAMPLE Sieve Weight Percent Percent Specification DATA No. Retained Retained Passing Range 3" Initial Sample Weight (g) /2" Weight After Wash (g).6 1-1/2" Loss in Weight (g) " Loss by Wash (%) 16.1% 3/4" /2" /8" # # # # # Tested By: # Reviewed By: # Total Sample Test Method: ASTM C117/C136 AASHTO T11/T27 MTM 108/109 X Remarks: R. Pruitt G. Putt Respectfully Submitted: Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc.

43 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road PO Box 249 Troy, Michigan or 313 T-E-S-T-I-N-G Fax MECHANICAL ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT: Proposed Pavement Rehabilitation TEC REPORT NUMBER: Parking Lots 1, 7 and SCB LOCATION: Ann Arbor Township, Michigan DATE: CLIENT: Washtenaw Community College 6609 Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Material Description: Sample Source / Depth: Sample Location: Intended Use: Brown Medium to Coarse Sand & Crushed Gravel With Some Silt & Clay 3.2"-10" Date Sampled: 4/3/16 Sampled By: I. Mickle TEC Lab Sample Number: Remarks: AGGREGATE ANALYSIS Total Total Total SAMPLE Sieve Weight Percent Percent Specification DATA No. Retained Retained Passing Range 3" Initial Sample Weight (g) /2" Weight After Wash (g) /2" Loss in Weight (g) " Loss by Wash (%) 13.9% 3/4" /2" /8" # # # # # Tested By: # Reviewed By: # Total Sample Test Method: ASTM C117/C136 AASHTO T11/T27 MTM 108/109 X Remarks: R. Pruitt G. Putt Respectfully Submitted: Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc.

44 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: 6609 APPENDIX D GENERAL NOTES ON SOIL CLASSIFICATION

45 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: 6609 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS In order to provide uniformity throughout our projects, the following nomenclature has been adopted to describe soil characteristics: CONSISTENCY AND RELATIVE DENSITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSF COHESIVE SOI N VALUES GRANULAR SOI CONSISTENCY N VALUES RELATIVE DENSITY Below Very Soft 0 4 Very Loose 00 1, Soft 10 Loose 1,000 2,000 8 Plastic Medium Compact 2,000 4, Firm 31 0 Compact 4,000 8, Stiff 0+ Dense 8,000 16, Ex. Stiff Over 16, Hard Material Types By Particle Size BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND ASTM D2487 Stones Over 12 In Diameter Stones 3 To 12 In Diameter #4 To 3 Diameter #10 To #4 Sieves #40 To #10 Sieves

46 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: 6609 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS (Cont d) Material Types By Particle Size FINE SAND SILT CLAY PEAT MARL SWAMP BOTTOM DEPOSITS ASTM D2487 #200 To #40 Sieves Minus #200 Sieve Material, Fairly Non-Plastic, Falls Below A -Line Minus #200 Sieve Material Plastic Material That Has A Tendency To Stick Together, Can Be Rolled Into Fine Rods When Moistened; Falls Above A -Line Black Organic Material Containing Partially Decayed Vegetable Matter Fresh Water Deposits Of Calcium Carbonate, Often Containing Percentages Of Peat, Clay & Fine Sand Mixtures Of Peat, Marl, Vegetation & Fine Sand Containing Large Amounts Of Decayable Organic Material

47 Mr. Todd L. Bishop Washtenaw Community College April 22, 2016 TEC Report: 6609 APPENDIX E PHOTOGRAPHS OF PARKING LOTS & CORES

48 Photograph #1: Parking Lot No. 1 Photograph #2: Parking Lot No. 1 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road Troy, MI Parking Lots 1, 7 & SCB Handicap Washtenaw Comm. College TEC Project #: 6609 Parking Lot Photographs (1 of 4)

49 Photograph #3: Parking Lot No. 7 Photograph #4: Parking Lot No. 7 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road Troy, MI Parking Lots 1, 7 & SCB Handicap Washtenaw Comm. College TEC Project #: 6609 Parking Lot Photographs (2 of 4)

50 Photograph #: Parking Lot No. 7 Photograph #6: Parking Lot No. 7 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road Troy, MI Parking Lots 1, 7 & SCB Handicap Washtenaw Comm. College TEC Project #: 6609 Parking Lot Photographs (3 of 4)

51 Photograph #7: SCB Handicap Parking Lot Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road Troy, MI Parking Lots 1, 7 & SCB Handicap Washtenaw Comm. College TEC Project #: 6609 Parking Lot Photographs (4 of 4)

52 Photograph #1: Core No. 2 Photograph #2: Core No. 4 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road Troy, MI Parking Lots 1, 7 & SCB Handicap Washtenaw Comm. College TEC Project #: 6609 Core Photographs (1 of 4)

53 Photograph #3: Core No. 7 Photograph #4: Core No. 9 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road Troy, MI Parking Lots 1, 7 & SCB Handicap Washtenaw Comm. College TEC Project #: 6609 Core Photographs (2 of 4)

54 Photograph #: Photograph #6: Core No. 1 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road Troy, MI Parking Lots 1, 7 & SCB Handicap Washtenaw Comm. College TEC Project #: 6609 Core Photographs (3 of 4)

55 Photograph #7: Core No. 16 Testing Engineers and Consultants, Inc Rochester Road Troy, MI Parking Lots 1, 7 & SCB Handicap Washtenaw Comm. College TEC Project #: 6609 Core Photographs (4 of 4)