Laserfiche WebLink
Rug 26 04 07 :57a Jon Whitcomb <br />PUG 25 '04 02:40PM BRAIN INTERTEC <br />651- 430 -0029 <br />Wesley Investments, Inc. <br />Project: SP -04 -03734 <br />May 21, 2004 <br />Page 10 <br />P.15/23 <br />E.2. Soil Classification <br />Soils encountered in the borings were visually and manually classified in the field by the crew chief <br />in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and identification of Soils (Visual- Manual <br />Procedures)." A summary of the A STM classification system is attached. All samples were than <br />returned to our laboratory for review of the field classifications by a soils enaneer. Representative <br />samples will remain in our St. Paul, Minnesota office for a period of 60 days to be available for <br />your examination. <br />E3. Groundwater Observations <br />immediately after taking the final samples in the bottoms of the borings, the holes were probed <br />through the hollow -stem aueer w check for the presence of groundwater. immediately after <br />withdrawal of the auger, the holes were again probed and the depths to groundwater or cave -in were <br />noted. The boreboles were than backfilled with auger cuttings, <br />F. General Recommendations <br />F.1. Basis of Recommendations <br />The evaluation and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from <br />the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketch. Variations may occur <br />bet .. °.; n these borings, the nature and extent of which May r.oi Jecome evident until construction or <br />further explorations. ifvariations are encountered, it wilt be necessary to make a reevaluation of <br />the recommendations in this report. Such variations may result in additional construction costs and <br />it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. <br />F,Z. Plan Review <br />This report is based on a limited amount of information. As such, a number of assumptions were <br />necessary to pem:it us to make reconunendations. For this reason it is recommended that we be <br />retained to review the final design and specifications to determine whether those assumptions were <br />correct and whether any change in concept may have had any effect on the validity of our <br />recommendations, and whether our recommendations have been implemented in the design and <br />specifications. If we are not permitted an opportunity to make this recommended review, we will <br />not be liable for any losses arising out of incorrect assumptions, design changes, or <br />misinterpretation or misapplication of the recommendations. <br />p. 15 <br />