Geotechnical Exploration Report Pump Station Railroad Street and Herbert Street Beatrice, Nebraska

Prepared for: WLA Consulting, Inc. 1640 L Street, Suite D Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

March 9, 2010 TG Project No. 10026.00

13478 Chandler Road Omaha, Nebraska 68138-3716 402.556.2171 Fax 402.556.7831 www.thielegeotech.com

THIELE GEOTECH, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL

MATERIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING

Geotechnical Exploration Report

Pump Station
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 2 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 3
SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 LOCAL GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 SOIL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 4

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 5

GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 EXCAVATION DEWATERING ........................................................................................................................................ 5 SHORING ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 PUMP STATION ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 EARTHWORK AND EXCAVATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 7 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Page 1

INTRODUCTION
Thiele Geotech, Inc. has completed a geotechnical exploration study for the proposed pump station to be located near Railroad Street and Herbert Street in Beatrice, Nebraska. The purpose of this study was to identify the general soil and ground water conditions underlying the site, to evaluate engineering properties of the existing soils, to provide earthwork and site preparation recommendations, and to recommend design criteria and parameters for foundations and other earth supported improvements. This study included soil borings, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. One test boring was drilled at the location of the new pump station. The field and laboratory data are presented in the Appendix, along with a description of investigative methods. The drilling and testing performed for this study were conducted solely for geotechnical analysis. No analytical testing or environmental assessment has been conducted. Any statements or observations in this report regarding odors, discoloration, or suspicious conditions are strictly for the information of our client. If an evaluation of environmental conditions is desired, a separate environmental assessment should be conducted. This study did not include biological assessment (e.g. mold, fungi, bacteria) or evaluation of measures for their control. It should also be noted that this report was prepared for design purposes only, and may not be sufficient for a contractor in bid preparation. Prospective contractors should evaluate potential construction problems on the basis of their own knowledge and experience in the local area and on similar projects, taking into account their own intended construction methods and procedures. This report is an instrument of service prepared for use by our client on this specific project. The report may be duplicated as necessary and distributed to those directly associated with this project, including members of the design team and prospective contractors. However, the technical approach and report format shall be considered proprietary and confidential, and this report may not be distributed in whole or in part to any third party not directly associated with this project. By using and relying on this report, all other parties agree to the same terms, conditions, and limitations to which the client has agreed.

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Page 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a 28-foot deep wet well for a new pump station. We assume that the structure will consist of reinforced concrete floors, walls, and top. The new pump station will be located adjacent to an existing pump station near the intersection of Railroad Street and Herbert Street in Beatrice, Nebraska. The site is located on the north bank of Indian Creek on the east side of Railroad Street.

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Page 3

SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located north of Railroad Street and east of Herbert Street, immediately north of Indian Creek in Beatrice, Nebraska. The pump station site is built up by several feet. The site is in an open area which is grass and tree covered.

LOCAL GEOLOGY
The surface geology of eastern Nebraska is Pleistocene in age and consists of eolian (wind-blown) deposits of Peoria and Loveland loess. The loess formed in dune-shaped hills west of the Missouri River. The Peoria loess typically consists of silty lean clays that are stiff when dry but become softer with increasing moisture content. The Peoria often exhibits low unit weight and is collapse susceptible. The Loveland loess is an older deposit, and typically consists of lean clays. The Loveland generally exhibits higher unit weights and shear strengths than the Peoria. The loess overlies Pleistocene glacial deposits of Kansan and Nebraskan till. The till consists of lean to fat clays mixed with sand, gravel, and occasional cobbles. The glacial deposits are generally fairly deep, but are sometimes near the surface at lower elevations on steep slopes. Cretaceous sandstone or Pennsylvanian limestone and shale form the bedrock unit below the glacial deposits. The depth to bedrock is normally great, and rock is rarely encountered in construction. Along drainageways, alluvial and colluvial deposits are typically present. These soils were formed by erosion of the adjoining loess-mantled hills. Alluvial deposits are generally present along creeks and in major drainageways. The upper several feet of alluvium are usually stiffer due to the effects of desiccation. Colluvial soils are usually located at the base of steep slopes and in upland draws, and are formed by local creep and sloughing.

SOIL CONDITIONS
The soils encountered in the test borings generally consisted of man-placed fill over alluvium. Man-placed fill was encountered in the upper 7 feet of the boring. It was described as dark gray, moist, hard lean clay. Based on an assumed Standard Proctor the fill had compaction levels of roughly 100 percent. Alluvium was encountered below the fill, and extended to a 28 foot depth. It was described as light brown to reddish brown, slightly moist to wet, loose, poorly-graded sand. Shale and limestone rock was encountered at 28 feet below grade. It was described as light brown, wet, and very hard in consistency. Drilling refusal was encountered at 30 feet, where a Standard Penetration Test blow count of 50 for 2 inches of penetration was recorded.

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Page 4

Ranges of engineering properties from laboratory tests on selected samples are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Laboratory Results

Soil Layer Moisture Content (%) Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Unconfin ed Compress ive Strength (tsf) 2.3 Classification (LL/PI)

Man-placed fill

17 to 18

103 to 111

CL (36/20)

Alluvium

2 to 15

--

--

SP (P-200=4.3%)

GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS

Ground water levels were observed in the borings as presented in Table 2. Note that ground water levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations and other factors.

Table 2 - Water Level Observations

Boring Number B-1 Water Level (ft. below grade) During Drilling 15.0 End of Drilling 15.0

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Page 5

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL
The soils encountered in the test boring were variable with depth. Soil in the upper 7 feet consisted of lean clay which was hard in consistency. Below the lean clay fill, alluvial poorly-graded sand was encountered to a 28 foot depth. Shale and limestone rock was found at 28 feet. The rock was very hard at 30 feet. Excavation into the rock will likely require pneumatic or hydraulic rock breakers. Ground water was fairly shallow in the boring, and dewatering will be a major consideration in making the excavation to construct the pump station.

EXCAVATION DEWATERING
Ground water was present at roughly 15 feet below existing grade. The proposed excavations extend below the water table and will require dewatering to facilitate construction. Soils encountered below the water table consist predominantly of poorly-graded sand. Since the soils beneath the water table are mainly sand, we expect seepage rates to be high. Sump pumps will not be sufficient to control the inflow of water into excavations. A well point or deep well system will be necessary to adequately dewater the excavations. We expect that multiple dewatering points will be necessary around the excavation to maintain a stable bottom condition.

SHORING
OSHAs Construction Standards for Excavations require that the contractors excavation activities follow certain worker safety procedures. These include a requirement that excavations over 4 feet deep be sloped back, shored, or shielded. The soils encountered in the test borings generally classify as type B and C soils according to the OSHA standard. The maximum allowable slope for an unbraced excavation in these soils is 1H:1V and 1.5H:1V, respectively, although other provisions and restrictions apply. Excavations over 20 feet deep require specific design by a licensed Professional Engineer. The contractor is solely responsible for site/excavation safety and compliance with OSHA regulations. The geotechnical engineer assumes no responsibility for site safety, and the above information is provided only for consideration by the designers. For braced excavation design, we recommend using a cohesion of 1,000 psf where clay is encountered, and a friction angle of 30 degrees where sand is present. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf is recommended above the water table, and buoyant unit weight of 65 pcf is recommended below the water table. Dewatering will have a significant impact on shoring loads. The shoring design should carefully consider water levels, hydrostatic loads, and dewatering requirements.

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Page 6

PUMP STATION
The structure is planned for a 28-foot depth, which puts it very close to the rock layer at 28 to 30 feet. We recommend extending the foundation to bear on the hard rock at roughly 30 feet below grade instead of bearing on a thin layer of sand at 28 feet. The following paragraphs include discussion about bearing on sand in case the structure becomes shallower than originally planned. The allowable bearing pressure for a buried structure would be the gross bearing pressure, which is the net allowable bearing pressure derived from the shear strength of the soil plus the surrounding overburden pressure. During construction, the net allowable bearing pressure controls before the structure is backfilled. Thus, we recommend that both the construction case and long-term case be considered in sizing the mat foundation for the structure. The net allowable bearing pressure for the saturated sand would be approximately 1,000 psf. The overburden pressure at a depth of 28 feet would be approximately 1,820 psf, based on a soil unit weight of 65 pcf and assuming the water table at the ground surface. Thus, the gross allowable bearing pressure for the lift station bearing on sand would be approximately 2,820 psf. A conservative net allowable bearing pressure for the hard rock would be approximately 5,000 psf. The overburden pressure at a depth of 30 feet would be approximately 1,950 psf, based on a soil unit weight of 65 pcf and assuming the water table at the ground surface. Thus, the gross allowable bearing pressure for the lift station bearing on rock would be approximately 6,950 psf. The actual contact pressure should be calculated by dividing the maximum operating weight of the lift station structure across the outside diameter of the lift station walls. Any footing projection outside of the walls should be neglected in the gross bearing calculation due to the balancing overburden pressure above this section of the foundation. For structural design of the base, this contact pressure should be uniformly distributed across the interior slab as a conservative practice. The same contact pressure should be separately applied to the footing projection as a cantilever. In addition, the footing projection should be designed to support the full weight of the overlying soil acting downward to resist buoyant effects. Since the net contact pressure for the completed/backfilled structure is actually negative, resulting in a reduction in the effective stress below the structure, there should be minimal settlement due to compression of the underlying soil. Actual settlement will be a function of the installation process, but should be minor (less than 1 inch if supported on sand, and negligible if supported on rock) if the contractor can maintain a stable excavation. If the bottom of the excavation ends in sand, we recommend placing a layer of crushed rock below the base to provide a stable work platform. This layer should be 12 inches thick, consisting of a 6-inch thick layer of 3-inch stabilization rock and a 6inch thick layer of pipe bedding material. A lean concrete mix may be placed as a mud slab in lieu of the bedding layer for construction convenience. For uplift design, we recommend that the design ground water level be taken at the ground surface. The uplift resistance should be calculated as the minimum operating weight of the lift station structure plus the effective weight of the soil mass above the footing projection outside of the barrel section.
T h i e l e G e o t e c h I n c

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Page 7

An effective unit weight of 65 pcf should be used for the backfill soil above the footing projection. The hydrostatic pressure and resisting loads should also be applied across the bottom of the structure to check the structural capacity of the base slab under this loading condition. For evaluating lateral pressures on the barrel section, we also recommend using the design ground water level at the ground surface. Lateral loads on the walls should be calculated at 30 pcf (equivalent fluid) for the effective soil pressure (at rest condition) plus full hydrostatic pressure.

EARTHWORK AND EXCAVATIONS

The excavated site soils will generally be suitable for reuse as structural fill, although significant moisture conditioning may be required. Any off-site borrow should be a clean, inorganic silt or lean clay with a liquid limit less than 45 and a plasticity index less than 20, or poorly-graded sand similar to the on-site soil. Borrow material should not contain an appreciable amount of roots, rock, or debris, and should not contain any foreign material with a dimension greater than 3 inches. All fills and backfill around the structure should be placed and compacted as structural fill. Fill should be placed in thin lifts not to exceed 8 inches loose thickness. Structural fill should be compacted with a sheepsfoot type roller to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D698, Standard Proctor). Moisture content should be controlled to between -3 and +4 percent of optimum. Quality control testing is an important part of any earthwork operation. It is recommended that a representative of the geotechnical engineer periodically monitor earthwork operations to verify proper compliance with these recommendations, including compaction levels.

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
During detailed design, additional issues may arise and possible conflicts may occur with our recommendations. Such issues and conflicts should be resolved through dialogue between the geotechnical engineer and designers. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer review the final design, including the plans and specifications, to verify that our recommendations are properly interpreted and incorporated into the design. If any changes are made in the design of the project, including the nature or location of proposed facilities on the site or significant elevation changes, the analysis and recommendations of this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed. The analysis and recommendations of this report should not be applied to different projects on the same site or to similar projects on different sites. The analysis and recommendations in this report are based upon borings at specific locations. The nature and extent of variation between boring locations is impossible to predict. Because of this, geotechnical recommendations are preliminary until they have been confirmed through observation of site excavation and earthwork preparation. If variations appear during subsequent exploration or

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Page 8

during construction, we may reevaluate our recommendations and modify them, if appropriate. The geotechnical engineer should be retained during construction to observe compliance with the recommendations of this report and to provide quality control testing of earthwork construction. If these services are provided by others, including the contractor, the entity that provides construction phase observation and testing shares responsibility as the geotechnical engineer of record for implementing or modifying these recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Thiele Geotech, Inc. Prepared by,

John A. Christiansen, P.E. Nebraska License E-7821

P:\10026.00\GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT.DOC

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Appendix

APPENDIX
Subsurface Exploration Methods Legend of Terms Boring Location Plan Boring Logs Soil Test Summary

Geotechnical Exploration Report TG #10026.00

March 9, 2010 Appendix

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION METHODS

The fieldwork for this study was completed on February 15, 2010. The exploratory program consisted of 1 test boring drilled at the approximate location shown on the Boring Location Plan. Boring locations were selected to provide the desired site coverage and were adjusted to accommodate access conditions. The boring location was laid out by estimating angles and measuring with a cloth tape from existing site features. The boring location should only be considered accurate to the degree implied by the methods used to define them. The test boring was advanced using hollow stem augers powered by a truck-mounted drill rig. Soil samples were obtained at selected depths as indicated on the boring logs. A 3-inch nominal diameter thin-walled sampler was hydraulically pushed to obtain undisturbed samples. Disturbed samples were obtained by driving a 2-inch nominal diameter split barrel sampler while conducting standard penetration tests (SPT). The boring log was prepared based on visual classification of the samples and drill cuttings, and by observation of the drilling characteristics of the subsurface formations. The log was supplemented and modified based on the laboratory test results and further examination of the recovered samples. The stratification lines on the boring log represent the approximate boundary between soil types, but the insitu transition may be gradual. Water level observations were made at the times stated on the boring log. The boring was backfilled with drill cuttings at the completion of the fieldwork. The field boring logs were reviewed to outline the depths, thicknesses, and extent of the soil strata. A laboratory testing program was then developed to further classify the basic soils and to evaluate the engineering properties for use in our analysis. Laboratory tests to further classify the soils included visual classification, moisture content, dry unit weight, Atterberg limits, and fraction passing the #200 sieve. The shear strengths of cohesive samples were evaluated using the unconfined compression test. The boring log and related information in this report are indicators of subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times noted. Subsurface conditions, including ground water levels, at other locations of the site may differ significantly from conditions that exist at the sampling locations. Also note that the passage of time may affect conditions at the sampling locations.

LEGEND OF TERMS
Soil Description Terms
Consistency - Fine Grained Very Soft, Soft, Firm, Hard, Very Hard Consistency - Coarse Grained Very Loose, Loose, Medium Dense, Dense, Very Dense Moisture Conditions Dry, Slightly Moist, Moist Very Moist, Wet (Saturated)

Sample Identification
Sample Type U -- Undisturbed (Shelby Tube) S -- Split barrel (disturbed) C -- Continuous sample A -- Auger cuttings (disturbed) Sample Data No. -- Number SPT -- Standard penetration test bpf -- blows per foot Rec -- Recovery MC -d -qu -LL/PI -Laboratory Data Moisture content Dry unit weight Unconfined compression Liquid limit & plasticity index

Unified Soil Classification System

Peat Pt Highly organic soils Fat Clay CH Clay - Liquid Limit > 50 * Elastic Silt MH Silt - Liquid Limit > 50 * Lean Clay CL Clay - Liquid Limit < 50 * Silt ML Silt - Liquid Limit < 50 * Silty Clay CL-ML Silty Clay * Clayey Sand SC Sands with 12 to 50 percent Silty Sand SM smaller than No. 200 sieve * Poorly-Graded Sand with Clay SP-SC Poorly-Graded Sand with Silt SP-SM Sands with 5 to 12 percent Well-Graded Sand with Clay ** SW-SC smaller than No. 200 Sieve * Well-Graded Sand with Silt ** SW-SM Poorly-Graded Sand SP Sands with less than 5 percent Well-Graded Sand ** SW smaller than No. 200 sieve * Clayey Gravel GC Gravels with 12 to 50 percent Silty Gravel GM smaller than No. 200 Sieve * Poorly-Graded Gravel with Clay GP-GC Poorly-Graded Gravel with Silt GP-GM Gravels with 5 to 12 percent Well-Graded Gravel with Clay ** GW-GC smaller than No. 200 sieve * Well-Graded Gravel with Silt ** GW-GM Poorly-Graded Gravel GP Gravels with less than 5 percent Well-Graded Gravel ** GW smaller than No. 200 sieve * * See Plasticity Chart for definition of silts and clays ** See Criteria for Sands and Gravels for definition of well-graded 50% or more smaller than No. 200 sieve

More than 50% larger than No. 200 sieve and % sand > % Gravel

More than 50% larger than No. 200 sieve and % gravel > % sand

Plasticity Chart
60 Plasticity Index 50 40 30 20 10 0 10
CL or OL CH or OH

MH or OH

CL-ML

ML

20

30

40 50 60 Liquid Limit

70

80

90

100

Criteria for Sands and Gravels

Boulders Cobbles Sieve size 10" 3" Coarse Gravel " Fine Gravel #4 Coarse Sand #10
2 2

Medium Sand #40

Fine Sand

FINES (silt or clay) #200

Well-graded sands (SW) Cu=D60/D106 and Cc=(D30) /(D10 x D60) 3 and 1 Well-graded gravels (GW) Cu=D60/D104 and Cc=(D30) /(D10 x D60) 3 and 1

BOR RING LO OG
WAT TER LEVEL OBS SERVATIONS PROJECT DRILLER LOGGER JOB NO. . DATE

During Drilling D E of Drilling End

15.0 15.0

Pump Station n
LOCATION

Epley

Kalbach

10026.00 0
DRILL RIG G

2/15/10 0
BORING N NO.

DRILLIN NG METHOD

Railroad St & Herbert St, Beatrice, B NE

LOC CATION OF BOR RING

3.25 5 HSA
TYPE OF F SURFACE

CME 45B B
ELEVATIO ON

B-1
DEPTH H

boring backfilled with w cuttings

see Boring Locatio on Plan

SOIL TYPE GEOLOGIC ORIGIN

g grass
SA AMPLE DATA REMA ARKS NO O. & TY YPE SPT REC C (bpf) (in.) MC (%)

30
LABORAT TORY DATA

VISU UAL/MANUAL DESCRIPTION D DEP (ft.) COLOR MO OIST. CONSIS ST.

d
(pcf)

DEP qu LL/PI (ft.) (tsf) CLASS

dark gray

m moist

hard

lean clay

fill

U-1

11

16.9 111.4

light brown mottl ling

U-2

11

18.3 103.0

LL=36 2.25 PI=20 CL

light brown
10

slig ghtly m moist

loose e

poorly graded sand

alluvium fine to coarse c san nd

U-3 12 2.3 10

S-4 15

11.0 15

w wet

S-5 20

15.2

P200 4.3% SP

20

minor fine e gravel grayish brown

S-6 25 5 25

BOR RING LO OG
WAT TER LEVEL OBS SERVATIONS PROJECT DRILLER LOGGER JOB NO. . DATE

During Drilling D E of Drilling End

15.0 15.0

Pump Station n
LOCATION

Epley

Kalbach

10026.00 0
DRILL RIG G

2/15/10 0
BORING N NO.

DRILLIN NG METHOD

Railroad St & Herbert St, Beatrice, B NE

LOC CATION OF BOR RING

3.25 5 HSA
TYPE OF F SURFACE

CME 45B B
ELEVATIO ON

B-1(con nt.)
DEPTH H

boring backfilled with w cuttings

see Boring Locatio on Plan

SOIL TYPE GEOLOGIC ORIGIN

g grass
SA AMPLE DATA REMA ARKS NO O. & TY YPE SPT REC C (bpf) (in.) MC (%)

30
LABORAT TORY DATA

VISU UAL/MANUAL DESCRIPTION D DEP (ft.) COLOR MO OIST. CONSIS ST.

d
(pcf)

DEP qu LL/PI (ft.) (tsf) CLASS

reddish brown

w wet

loose e

poorly graded sand

alluvium

light brown
30

w wet

very hard

rock

weather r shale with lime estone

bottom of hole @ 30

S-7

50/2 30

35

35

40

40

45

45

50

50

SOIL TEST SUMMARY

Project Job No.

Pump Station
Location Date

10026.00 2/22/2010
VOID RATIO (e) 0.512 0.636 SAT. (%) UNCONFINED COMPRESSION qu STRAIN (tsf) (%) SOIL CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG PASS LIMITS #200 LL PL PI (%) REMARKS UNIT WEIGHT WET DRY (pcf) (pcf) 130.2 121.8 111.4 103.0

Railroad St & Herbert St, Beatrice, NE

BORING NO. SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) 1.5-3 3.5-5 8.5-10 13.5-15 18.5-20 23.5-25 28.5-30 2.85 SAMPLE DIA. (in.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 16.9 18.3 2.3 11.0 15.2

B-1

U-1 U-2 U-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7

89 78 2.25 4.7 36 16 20 CL

4.3

SP