338-2434 Tharaldson Compressor Station, Casselton, ND

Intertek-PSI Tel +1 913 310 1600
2828 S. 44th Street Fax +1 913 310 1601

Kansas City, Kansas 66106 intertek.com/building
May 26, 2023
Primoris Design & Construction

14455 Primoris Way
Houston, Texas 77048
Attn: Ms. Debra Chansamouth

dchansamouth@prim.com
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Services Report

Tharaldson Compressor Station
3549 153rd Avenue SE
Casselton, ND
T
PSI Project Number: 03382434
Dear Ms. Chansamouth:

AF
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek company, is pleased to submit our Geotechnical
Engineering Services Report for the proposed Tharaldson Compressor Station project in Casselton,
North Dakota. This report includes the results of field and laboratory testing along with
recommendations for use in preparation of the appropriate design and construction documents for this
project.
R
PSI appreciates the opportunity to perform this Geotechnical Study and looks forward to continuing our
participation during the design and construction phases of this project. PSI also has great interest in
D
providing materials testing and inspection services during the construction of this project and will be
glad to meet with you to further discuss how we can be of assistance as the project advances.
If you have questions pertaining to this report, or if PSI may be of further service, please contact us at
your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
Ranjan Kumar Rout, E.I.T. Matthew R. Satterfield

Staff Engineer Regional Director/Principal Engineer
Geotechnical Engineering
Services Report
for the
Tharaldson Compressor Station

3549 153rd Avenue Southeast
Casselton, North Dakota
______________________
Ranjan Kumar Rout, E.I.T.
Staff Engineer
Geotechnical Services
Prepared for
T
AF
Primoris Design & Construction
14455 Primoris Way
Houston, Texas 77048
R
Prepared by
D
Professional Service Industries, Inc.

2828 S. 44th Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66106 DRAFT COPY
______________________
Matthew R. Satterfield
Regional Director/ Principal
Consultant
May 26, 2023
PSI Project 03382434

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Authorization ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services............................................................................................... 3
2 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Site Location and Description ................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Site History (Timeline) ............................................................................................................ 4
2.3 General Area Geology ............................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Exploration Procedures and Subsurface Conditions .............................................................. 6
2.5 Field Electrical Resistivity Testing........................................................................................... 6
2.6 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Water Level Measurements ................................................................................................... 8
T
3 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 9
3.1 Geotechnical Discussion ........................................................................................................ 9
AF
3.2 Site Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Seismic Conditions and Site Classification ............................................................................ 10
3.4 Foundation Design Recommendations ................................................................................ 11
3.4.1 Ground Improvement with Shallow Foundations.................................................................... 11
3.4.2 Deep Foundations .................................................................................................................... 12
3.4.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations ........................................................................................... 16
R
3.4.4 Below Grade Walls.................................................................................................................... 18
3.5 Pavement Design Recommendations .................................................................................. 20
3.5.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................. 20
3.5.2 Aggregate Surfacing Design ...................................................................................................... 20
D
3.6 Siltation Control ................................................................................................................... 21

3.7 Slopes................................................................................................................................... 21
4 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Moisture Sensitive Soils/Weather Related Concerns ........................................................... 23
4.2 Drainage and Groundwater Considerations ......................................................................... 23
4.3 Excavations .......................................................................................................................... 23
4.4 Utility Trenching................................................................................................................... 24
4.5 Construction Monitoring...................................................................................................... 24
5 GEOTECHNICAL RISK .................................................................................................................................. 25
6 REPORT LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 26
www.intertek.com/building
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Topographic Map
Appendix B - Site Vicinity Map & Boring Location Plan
Appendix C - Boring Log
Appendix D - General Notes/Soil Classification Chart
Appendix E - Field Electrical Resistivity Test
Appendix F - Drilled, Field and Lab Testing Procedures
T
AF
R
D
Tharaldson Compressor Station, Casselton, North Dakota
May 26, 2023
Page 1
1 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Project Authorization

The following table summarizes, in chronological order, the Project Authorization History for the services
performed and represented in this report by Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI).
PROJECT TITLE: THARALDSON COMPRESSOR STATION

Document and Reference Number Date Requested/Provided By
Request for Proposal 09/20/2022 Ms. Debra Chansamouth of Primoris
PSI Proposal Number: 0338-383971 10/04/2022 Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout and Mr. Matthew R.
Satterfield of PSI
Notice to Proceed 11/03/2022 Ms. Debra Chansamouth of Primoris
Satterfield of PSI
T
Rev 1.0
Rev 2.0 Satterfield of PSI
AF 02/08/2023 Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, Mr. Syed Gous
PSI Proposal Number: 0338-383971
Rev 3.0 Andrabi and Mr. Matthew R. Satterfield of PSI
1.2 Project Description

PSI understands that the project includes construction of a compressor building, pump building, power
distribution center (PDC) building and pipe bridges at the site. The flow rates at the compressor station may
R
range between 50 MM GPY to 200 MM GPY. GPY- gallons per year. Based on the information provide, the
equipment at the proposed site will include the following:
• Centrifugal Blower
• 4-Stage reciprocating compressors
D
• Dehydration Units (TEG)

• Dense Phase Pumps
• Custody Transfer Meter Skids
• Air Compressors
• Wastewater / Oil Storage Tanks
• Heat Exchangers
• Separators
• Cooling Towers
The following table lists the material and information provided for this project:
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL PROVIDER/SOURCE DATED

TEFC-26-01-02 _Tharaldson Ethanol Primoris 03/15/22
Previous Geotechnical Report Terracon 06/09/22
May 26, 2023
Page 2
The following table lists the structural loads and site features that are required for or are the design basis for
the conclusions of this report:
STRUCTURAL LOAD/PROPERTY REQUIREMENT/REPORT BASIS

BUILDING R* B*
Maximum Column Loads 50 kips X
Maximum Wall Loads 3 kips per lineal foot X
Maximum Floor Loads 150 psf X
Mat Pressure (Cooling Tower) 750 to 1,000 psf X
Dehydration Units (TEG) shipping weight 36,000 lbs X
Settlement Tolerances 1-inch total, ¾ inch Differential X
GRADING
Planned Grade Variations at Site Up to 4 feet X
T
*“R” = Requirement indicates specific design information was supplied.
*“B” = Report Basis indicates specific design information was not supplied; therefore, this report is based on this parameter.
Detailed structural loads, size of equipment and grading plans were not provided to PSI at the time of this
AF
report.
The following image of the site plan was provided to PSI for the preparation of this project:
R
D
Figure 1. Preliminary Site Plan with Boring Locations
May 26, 2023
Page 3
The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are based on the available project information,
building location, and the subsurface materials described in this report. If the noted information is incorrect,
please inform PSI in writing so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report if appropriate
and if desired by the client. PSI will not be responsible for the implementation of its recommendations when it is
not notified of changes in the project.
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services

The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions within the site to evaluate and provide
recommendations for site preparation and grading and for design of foundation systems for the proposed
construction. PSI’s contracted scope of services included drilling one (1) soil test boring at the site to a depth of
about thirty (31) feet below the ground surface, select laboratory testing, and preparation of this geotechnical
report. PSI’s scope also included utilization of geotechnical data performed by others (Terracon Project No.
M1225035 dated June 09, 2022) at the proposed project site. This report briefly outlines the testing procedures,
presents available project information, describes the site and subsurface conditions, and presents
recommendations regarding the following:
T
• General site development and subgrade preparation recommendations;
• Recommendations for site excavation, fill compaction, and the use of on-site and imported fill material
under pavements and the structure;
•
AF
Recommendations for building pad preparation for ground supported slabs, including subgrade
modulus values;
• Recommendations for deep foundations for support of the proposed structures;
• Recommendations for the design of foundations for supporting the proposed structure, including
foundation type, allowable bearing pressures, minimum foundation depths, estimated depths of
suitable bearing soil, and estimated settlements;
• Dynamic soil properties;
R
• Below-grade wall recommendations, including backfill material and compaction requirements and
active, passive, and at-rest soil pressures;
• Gravel surfacing recommendations;
D
• Seismic design site classification per the 2018 International Building Code;
The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of
wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or
around this site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, and unusual or
suspicious items or conditions are strictly for informational purposes. Prior to further developments of this site,
an environmental assessment is advisable.
PSI’s scope also did not provide any service to investigate or detect the presence of moisture, mold or other
biological contaminants in or around any structure, or any service that was designed or intended to prevent or
lower the risk of the occurrence or the amplification of the same. Client acknowledges that mold is ubiquitous to
the environment with mold amplification occurring when building materials are impacted by moisture. Client
further acknowledges that site conditions are outside of PSI’s control, and that mold amplification will likely occur,
or continue to occur, in the presence of moisture. As such, PSI cannot and shall not be held responsible for the
occurrence or recurrence of mold amplification.
May 26, 2023
Page 4
2 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
2.1 Site Location and Description

The site for the proposed Tharaldson Compressor station is located at 3549 153rd Avenue Southeast in Casselton,
North Dakota. The proposed development area is located inside the existing facility. The development area is
bordered by electrical transformer units to the north, existing parking facilities to the south, existing plant to the
east, and 153rd Avenue SE Road to the west. At the time of drilling, the west section of the site was open tract of
land with grass cover and the east section of the site was surrounded with existing plant facilities and covered
with gravel road. According to Google EarthTM, the site had visual difference in elevation of about four (4) feet.
The site latitude and longitude are approximately 46.8990° and -97.2629°, respectively. The following is an aerial
image from March 2021 and generally illustrates the site conditions at the time of drilling:
T
AF
R
D
Figure 2. Aerial Site Image – March 2021
2.2 Site History (Timeline)

Based on historical images obtained from Google EarthTM, the site was previously used primarily for agricultural
purposes since at least June 1990 (oldest image available). The existing facility was constructed between
September 2006 and September 2009, illustrated in below aerial images.
May 26, 2023
Page 5
T
AF
Figure 3. Historical Aerial Site Image – June 1990
R
D
Figure 4. Historical Aerial Site Image – August 2006
May 26, 2023
Page 6
T
AF
Figure 5. Historical Aerial Site Image – September 2009
2.3 General Area Geology

According to the North Dakota Geological Survey – 2001, Bedrock Geologic Map of North Dakota, the
R
proposed site is located within the Belle Fouche-Skull Creek, Undivided formation. Mowry Formation consists
of medium to dark gray shale, marine offshore sediment as thick as 180 feet. Newcastle formation consists of
light-gray, fine to medium grained sandstone, marine shoreline and offshore sediment as thick as 150 feet.
Skull Creek formation includes medium gray to dark-gray shale, marine offshore sediment as thick as 140 feet.
D
2.4 Exploration Procedures and Subsurface Conditions

The soil boring performed by PSI was performed with a truck-mounted drill rig and were advanced using 3¼-inch
inside diameter hollow-stem augers. Representative samples were obtained employing split-spoon and thin-wall
tube sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM procedures. The laboratory testing program was
conducted in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications. The results of these tests are to be found
on the accompanying boring logs located in Appendix C. Further, PSI conducted limited laboratory testing on
select soil samples to aid in identifying and describing the physical characteristics of the soils and to aid in defining
the site soil stratigraphy. The results of the field exploration and laboratory tests were used in PSI’s engineering
analyses and in the formulation of our engineering recommendations.
2.5 Field Electrical Resistivity Testing

Based on the information from the previous geotechnical study performed by others (Terracon), three (3) field
electrical resistivity tests were performed at the project site. The field electrical resistivity tests were reported to
be performed in general accordance with standard test method for field measurements of soil resistivity using
May 26, 2023
Page 7
the Wenner Four-Electrode Method in general accordance with ASTM G57. Resistivity measurements were taken
with electrodes spaced at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, and 70 feet, as space allowed. The traverses were
generally oriented in North-South, East-West, and Northeast-Southwest directions in open areas of the site, away
from existing underground and overhead improvements. PSI has included the results of these resistivity tests in
Appendix E of this report.
2.6 Subsurface Conditions

The site subsurface conditions were explored with one (1) soil test boring, drilled within the pipe bridge path to a
depth of 31 feet. As mentioned earlier, PSI utilized the geotechnical data performed by others (Terracon) at the
proposed site for further analysis. It is understood that one (1) boring was drilled in the close proximity of
compressor building and was drilled to a depth of 60 feet below grade. PSI has utilized only the data of boring B-
1 which was drilled by others for further analyses.
The boring locations and depths were selected by Primoris personnel and provided to PSI through a document
titled “Boring Location Maps”. PSI personnel staked the boring in the field using a hand-held GPS device.
T
An aggregate base layer was encountered at the surface of the boring. In general, the approximate thickness
of the layer was 4 inches. The soils encountered at the two (2) borings (one (1) boring by PSI and one (1) boring
by Others) beneath the aggregate base layer primarily included Fill, Fat Clay, Sandy Fat clay, Clayey Sand and
AF
Sandy Lean Clay soils that extended to the terminal depths of the borings.
The following table briefly summarizes the range of results from the field and laboratory testing programs.
Please refer to the attached boring logs and laboratory data sheets for more specific information:
THARLDSON COMPRESSOR RANGE OF PROPERTY VALUES

STATION, CASSELTON,
R
Compressive Strength,
NORTH DAKOTA
Approximate Depths
Moisture Content, %
Encountered (ft.)
Plastic Limit, %
Penetration, N
Liquid Limit, %
D
Unconfined
Weight, pcf
Standard
Dry Unit
Qu (tsf)
SOIL STRATA TYPE

Fill: Fat Clay w/ trace gravel &
½-6 - 31-38 81 1.0 88 35
fabric material
Fat Clay (CH), Sandy Fat Clay
6-28 5-8 29-53 70-111 0.3-1.45 37-111 16-36
(CH), Sandy Lean Clay (CL)*
Clayey Sand (SC) 28-31 6 29 - - - -
*Intermittent Clayey Sand (SC) layer was observed in borehole B-1
Based on the previous geotechnical data performed by others (Terracon) at the proposed site, it is understood
that fill layer was observed in the upper 6 feet, followed by medium stiff Fat Clay (CH), stiff to hard Sandy Lean
Clay (CL) strata from 6 to 60 feet below grade. Intermittent medium stiff Silt (ML) was also observed in the soil
borings.
May 26, 2023
Page 8
Auger refusal materials were not encountered within the boring performed by PSI. Auger refusal is a designation
applied to materials that cannot be further penetrated by the power auger with ordinary effort and is normally
indicative of a very hard or very dense material, such as boulders or gravel lenses or the upper surface of bedrock.
The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature to highlight the major subsurface stratification
features and material characteristics. The boring logs included in the Appendix C should be reviewed for specific
information at individual boring locations. These records include soil/rock descriptions, stratifications,
penetration resistances, and locations of the samples and laboratory test data. The stratifications shown on the
boring logs represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be
expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface
materials and the actual transition may be gradual. Water level information obtained during field operations is
also shown on these boring logs. The samples that were not altered by laboratory testing will be retained for sixty
(60) days from the date of this report and then will be discarded.
2.7 Water Level Measurements

Free water was not observed in the boring B-1 at the time of drilling. Free water was observed in the borings
T
drilled by others, at depths ranging from 19 feet to 24 feet below grade while drilling. Additionally, discontinuous
zones of perched water may exist within the overburden materials and/or at the contact with bedrock. The water
level measurements presented in this report are the levels that were measured at the time of PSI’s field activities.
AF
In fine-grained soils such as the clays encountered at this site, the water levels in the boreholes are often not
representative of the actual groundwater level, because the boreholes remain open for a relatively short time. If
it is desirable to obtain longer-term measurements, it will be necessary to install water level observation wells or
piezometers.
The groundwater level at the site, as well as perched water levels and volumes, will fluctuate based on variations
R
in rainfall, snowmelt, evaporation, surface run-off and other related hydro-geologic factors. The water level
measurements presented in this report are the levels that were measured at the time of PSI’s field activities.
D
May 26, 2023
Page 9
3 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Geotechnical Discussion

The types and bearing depth of foundations suitable for a given structure depend primarily on several factors
including the subsurface conditions, the function of the structure, the loads it may carry, the cost of the
foundation, and the criteria set by the Design Engineer with respect to vertical and differential movements which
the structure can withstand without damage.
The soils encountered in our exploration (Boring B-1) generally consisted of medium stiff fat clay and loose clayey
sand to depths ranging from 0 to 31 feet. These soils do not provide suitable bearing capacity for the relatively
heavy loads planned for the structure. Additionally, these soils are relatively compressible and settlement of large
loads near the surface would create significant structural settlement.
Due to these conditions and based on provided information, PSI recommends that the proposed structures be
supported on deep foundation system, provided that the Site Preparation section of this report is strictly followed
and that some long-term movements can be tolerated.
T
Details related to site preparation, foundation design, and construction considerations are included in subsequent
sections of this report.
AF
3.2 Site Preparation
It is our opinion that the means, methods, and sequence of the proposed construction, including site preparation,
should be the responsibility of the Contractor, who should specialize in this type of work. However, general
geotechnical related guidelines are offered herein in this regard for guidance and consideration. Prior to
construction, positive drainage and collection of surface water should be established throughout the construction
R
area and maintained throughout the duration of the construction period.
PSI recommends that topsoil, gravel layer, vegetation, roots, organic, frozen, extremely soft or loose near-surface
soils, highly disturbed soils, or unsuitable soils in the construction areas be stripped from the site and either
D
wasted or stockpiled for later use in non-structural areas. As mentioned earlier, fill material was observed in the
upper six (6) feet of the soil borings. Gravel traces, fabric material, organic clay mixture were observed in the fill
material. Due to the presence of undocumented fill material, PSI recommends that the upper six (6) feet of
existing soils across the site be undercut and replaced with properly compacted structural fill.
As previously discussed, a deep foundation system (i.e., drilled shafts) is recommended for support of all structural
loads of the proposed structures that cannot tolerate settlement. Consequently, a lower degree of compaction
should be considered within the structure footprint. The fill within the footprint of a shaft-supported structure
could consist of good quality cohesive material or excavated material, free of organic, debris, wood, roots,
deleterious materials, etc. Alternatively, the backfill could consist of structural fill material as will be discussed. In
either case, the backfill should be compacted to a density of about that of the surrounding naturally occurring
soils to minimize long-term areal settlements and the effect of down drag (negative skin friction) on the shafts.
However, control-compaction of this portion of fill material is believed unwarranted.
After subgrade preparation and observation have been completed, placement of new fills needed to obtain
proposed grades may begin. The first layer of fill should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be
adequately keyed (where needed) into the stripped and scarified subgrade soils.
May 26, 2023
Page 10
New engineered fill required to raise site grades should be free of organic, frozen, or other deleterious materials,
and have a maximum particle less than 3 inches, and a Liquid Limit less than 40 and a Plasticity Index below 20.
PSI does not recommend using a silt (USCS Classification ML) soil for engineered fill.
The existing native granular soils that do not contain organics are suitable for reuse as engineered fill and should
be prepared in accordance with this report. Engineered fill should be compacted to at least the compaction
percentages noted in the table below. The densities and optimum moisture contents noted are relative to the
Standard Proctor, ASTM D698. PSI recommends that a qualified geotechnical engineer test and review proposed
fill materials prior to placement.
MIN % MOISTURE
PROCTOR FREQUENCY
Material Tested DRY CONTENT
TYPE OF TESTING
DENSITY RANGE
1 per 200 cy of fill placed or
Fill under Foundation Elements
Standard 98% -2 to +2% 1 per every 2,500 sf of fill placed or
and Lateral Oversize
T
minimum of three tests per lift
Structural Fill
Standard 100% -2 to +2% 1 per 200 cy of fill placed or
(Top 3’ of Pavement Subgrade)
AF
Utility Trench Backfill /
1 per 200 cy of fill placed or
Wall Backfill / Slab Subgrade /
Standard 95% -2 to +3 % 1 per 200 lineal ft of trench placed
Pavement Subgrade
or minimum one test per lift
(Deeper than 3’)
1 per 3,000 cy of fill placed or
R
Random Fill (non-load bearing) Standard 92% -3 to +3 % 1 per 10,000 sf of fill placed or
minimum one test per lift
D
Engineered fill should be placed in maximum lifts of eight inches of loose material and should be compacted to
within the moisture content ranges noted above as determined by the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D698). If very
moist or wet soils are to be reused as engineered fill, they should be spread thinly on the ground and allowed to
dry prior to placement. If water is to be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil
by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacted engineered fill should be observed, tested, and documented by a
representative of PSI prior to placement of subsequent lifts. Compaction tests should be performed for every
2,500 square feet in the building pads and every 5,000 square feet in pavement areas. A minimum of three (3)
tests per layer is recommended. The lateral extent of the over excavation of poor soil and subsequent placement
and compaction of engineered fill should be equal to or greater than the depth of over excavation below finished
floor elevation. As for the pavement areas, the newly placed compacted engineered fill should extend at least five
(5) feet beyond the edges of the pavement.
3.3 Seismic Conditions and Site Classification

The 2018 International Building Code (IBC) Edition requires a site class for the calculation of earthquake design
forces. This class is a function of soil type (i.e., depth of soil and strata types). As part of the procedure to evaluate
seismic forces, the code requires the evaluation of the Seismic Site Class, which categorizes the site based upon
the characteristics of the subsurface profile within the upper 100 feet of the ground surface. The maximum boring
May 26, 2023
Page 11
depth for this project is 60 feet (performed by others). Based on site subsurface conditions encountered for this
investigation, a Seismic Site Class “E” is recommended.
The USGS-NEHRP probabilistic ground motion values interpolated between the nearest four grid points from
latitude N 46.899001° and longitude W 97.262854° are illustrated in the Table below.
The Site Coefficients, Fa and Fv were interpolated from IBC 2018 Tables 1613.3.3(1) and 1613.3.3(2) as a function
of the site classifications and the mapped spectral response acceleration at the short (Ss) and 1 second (S1) periods.
Seismic Design Parameters

2% Probability of Max. Spectral
Period Site Design Spectral Acceleration
Event in 50 Years Acceleration
(seconds) Coefficients Parameters
(%g) Parameters
0.2 (Ss) 0.057 Fa = 2.4 Sms = 0.136 SDs = 0.091 T0 = 0.119
1.0 (S1) 0.019 Fv = 4.2 Sm1 = 0.081 SD1 = 0.054 Ts = 0.593
T
Note:
Sms = FaSs SDs = ⅔*Sms T0= 0.2*SD1/SDs
Sm1 = FvS1
AF
SD1 = ⅔*Sm1 Ts= SD1/SDs
Based on the Spectral Acceleration values for this site, this site can be defined as a Seismic Design Category A as
defined in Tables 1613.3.5(1) and 1613.3.5(2), however the final determination is left up to the structural
engineer. The Risk Category is based on the nature of the occupancy of the structure and is typically determined
by the design team (Architect/Structural Engineer) or building official. The determination of the Risk Category is
R
beyond PSI’s scope of service.
3.4 Foundation Design Recommendations

D
Based on the subsurface conditions identified and the project information provided, the following foundation
systems were evaluated for the preliminary design components:
1. Lightly and Heavily loaded structures/ equipment: Ground Improvements with Shallow Foundations and
Deep Foundations – Drilled Shafts
3.4.1 Ground Improvement with Shallow Foundations

An optional system to support the structure may be to use compacted stone columns through the installation
of either vibro compacted stone columns (VSC) or rammed aggregate piers (RAP). This method improves the
foundation soils such that typical shallow foundation elements and slab-on-grade construction may be used
with elevated bearing capacities. Conventional shallow spread footings pose a settlement risk due to the
existing undocumented fill and heavy loads. The RAP or VSC design is sensitive to the means and methods
used to install the elements and are usually designed by a specialty contractor. Both methods involve installing
an aggregate material into the subsurface materials to improve the matrix of the existing subsurface material.
These methods improve the foundation soils such that typical shallow foundation elements may be used.
Stone columns/aggregate piers should be installed from the bottom of footing and extend to the design depth
required by the intermediate foundation vendor. Using this general profile, PSI anticipates design bearing
May 26, 2023
Page 12
pressures to be on the order of 3,000 to 5,000 psf for structures with maximum column loads on the order of
100 kips with 1 inch of total settlement and ½ inch differential settlement. PSI estimates that higher capacities
may be possible for column loads significantly less than 100 kips. The ultimate capacity will likely be a function
of the allowable settlement criteria for the structure. Final bearing capacities, settlement estimates, and VSC
or RAP design will be determined in coordination with the structural engineer and the VSC or RAP contractor.
A ground improvement design is outside the scope of this report and should be provided by the selected
ground improvement contractor. PSI can review the ground improvement design for an additional charge. The
specialty contractor should consult with the environmental report in development of their work to provide
proper protection and decontamination. In general, PSI recommends that the stone elements fully extend
through the undocumented fill materials; however, based on experience VSC element installation depths are
limited to 25 to 30 feet below the ground surface. Since the fill will remain in place, the owner should be
aware there is still an increased risk of settlement. PSI should be retained to provide observation and testing
of construction activities involved in the foundation, earthwork, and related activities of this project. PSI
cannot accept responsibility for conditions that deviate from those described in this report, nor for the
performance of the foundation system if not engaged to also provide construction observation and testing for
this project.
T
3.4.2 Deep Foundations
For lightly and heavily loaded structures straight shaft drilled piers are recommended.
AF
3.4.2.1 Axial Capacity:
The axial load carrying capacity of the shaft can be computed using the static method of analysis. According
to this method, axial capacity, Q, at a given penetration is taken as the sum of the skin friction on the side of
the shaft, Qs, and the end or point bearing at the shaft tip, Qp, so that:
R
Q = Qs + Qp = fAs + qAp
where As and Ap represent, respectively, the embedded surface area and the end area of the shaft; f and q
represent, respectively, the unit skin friction and the unit end or point bearing.
D
The total ultimate axial capacity in compression will be the summation of the ultimate frictional capacity and
the ultimate end bearing capacity. The total ultimate axial capacity in tension (uplift) will be the ultimate
frictional capacity alone neglecting end bearing component, along with the pile dead weight.
For this site, based on the evaluation of the soil conditions at the boring drilled by PSI (B-1), boring drilled by
Others (Terracon) TB-1, and field and laboratory test results, ultimate capacity for 12-inch, 18-inch and 24-
inch diameter drilled shafts are calculated. The recommended embedment lengths and the estimated
ultimate compression and tension (or uplift) capacities for drilled shafts are presented in the table below.
May 26, 2023
Page 13
DRILLED SHAFT CAPACITIES

Estimated Ultimate Single Shaft Capacity (kips)(1)
Shaft Length 12-inch Diameter Shaft 18-inch Diameter Shaft 24-inch Diameter Shaft
(feet)(2)
Compression Tension Compression Tension Compression Tension
25 25 20 45 30 65 45
30 30 25 55 40 100 55
35 60 40 110 65 170 85
40 90 65 150 100 205 135
45 100 90 160 135 225 180
50 115 100 180 155 270 205
55 145 120 240 185 345 245
Capacities are soil-pile related capacities and consideration should be given to the structural integrity of the shaft member
(1)
T
Shaft lengths are referenced from the existing ground surface in the soil boring at the time of drilling, and additional
(2)
length should be added to account for fill thickness or a raised floor
A factor of safety of at least 2.0 is recommended for both the unit skin friction and end bearing to arrive at
AF
the allowable values.
Neglect Skin Friction from Top of Shaft 6 feet

Minimum Embedment Depth Below Origin Grade 35 feet
Thickness to Neglect Skin Friction at Base of Shaft 1 Shaft Diameter (straight shafts)
R
Pier Weight + Dead Load + Allowable Skin Friction
Uplift Resistance
Below Active Zone
Minimum Spacing (Axial Loading) 3 Diameters center-to-center
D
Estimated Settlement
Total Settlement
Less than 1 inch
(Detailed Settlement Analysis is outside project
scope)
The minimum embedment depth was selected to locate the pile base below the depth of seasonal moisture
change and within a specified desired stratum. Actual pile depths may need to be deeper depending upon the
actual compressive loads on the pier.
3.4.2.2 Lateral Capacity:

For drilled straight shafts, the soil as well as the rigidity of the shaft resists the lateral loads on the foundation.
The rigidity of the shaft is a function of structural variables such as concrete strength, reinforcement details,
as well as the structural fixity (restraint) provided at shaft head by caps or column connections. Many of these
variables are only known during the detailed structural design; therefore, the project structural engineer
typically performs the evaluation of the lateral load capacity and/or serviceability for the drilled straight
shafts.
May 26, 2023
Page 14
The relationship between the soil resistance (p) and pile deflection (y) is commonly referred to as 'p-y'. Along
the depth of the shaft, soil resistance (p) is expressed as a non-linear function of lateral shaft deflection (y).
Various researchers developed 'p-y' criteria for different kinds of soils. The 'p-y' curves can be automatically
generated utilizing the computer program LPILE. Recommended parameters for implementing the p-y method
are provided in below Table.
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR LATERAL LOAD ANALYSES

Depth γ′ ks kc
‘p-y’ Criteria Strength Parameter ε50
(feet) (pcf) (pci) (pci)
0 to 6 - - - - - -
6 to 19 Soft Clay 105 Su=700 psf 100 - 0.01
19 to 33 Soft Clay 43 Su=700 psf 100 - 0.01
33 to 43 Stiff Clay 69 Su=3,000 psf 1,000 400 0.005
43 to 53 Stiff Clay 68 Su=1,600 psf 500 200 0.007
53 to 60 Stiff Clay 68 Su=3,500 psf 1,000 400 0.005
T
Note: γ′– effective unit weight; su– undrained shear strength; ks– modulus of subgrade reaction for
static loading condition; kc– modulus of subgrade reaction for cyclic loading condition; ε50 –
AF
strain corresponding to one-half the maximum principal stress difference.
3.4.2.3 Group Action:

For laterally loaded groups of shafts, the response of the group will differ from that of a laterally loaded single
shaft. In general, laterally loaded groups of shafts could deflect more than a single shaft loaded with the same
lateral load per shaft as the group. This increased deflection is due to the overlapping zones of stress of the
individual shafts in the group. This group effect should be considered in design and is a function of the shaft width
R
(B), the shaft spacing (S), and number of shafts in the group (n). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
historically recommended that the reduction factors (P-multiplier) in the following table be applied to the lateral
resistance of a single shaft.
D
Pile Spacing
3B 4B 5B ≥6B
(center-to-center)
Lead Row 0.7 0.85 1.0 1.0
2nd Row 0.5 0.65 0.85 1.0
3rd Row or greater 0.35 0.5 0.7 1.0
The following figure provides additional details regarding the loading orientation relative to the row number
within the shaft group.
May 26, 2023
Page 15
Group effect could be a factor and should be evaluated according to the applicable building code.
T
3.4.2.4 Straight Side Drilled Pier Construction Considerations
The performance of the foundation system is highly dependent on the quality of the installation. PSI
AF
recommends the installation procedure in accordance with FHWA-NHI-10-016, May 2010.
PSI recommends that the drilling contractor review the field exploration logs of this report before starting
excavations for the drilled piers. If used, temporary casing must be removed during concrete placement,
keeping a concrete head of at least two (2) feet above the bottom of the casing as it is being removed. A
representative of the Geotechnical Engineer should be on site to observe and document the entire drilling
R
and installation of the deep foundation system, if used.
When the drilling processes are completed for the pier, the reinforcing steel and the concrete should be placed
immediately after the final cleanout pass is conducted on the base. The tremie method of concrete placement
D
should be adopted when placing concrete below the groundwater table (if present) to prevent segregation of
the concrete materials. If concrete is placed by the free‐fall method into a dry excavation, it should be placed
to avoid contact with the excavation sidewalls to prevent segregation and be limited to a drop of less than 4
feet.
Concrete placed in the pier excavations should have a slump in the range of 7 to 9 inches to reduce the
potential for the formation of voids as the temporary pier casing is extracted. The concrete mix should be
designed to attain the required 28‐day design strength when placed at this slump. PSI should be retained to
observe and document the drilled pier construction and to evaluate whether the subsurface and pier bearing
conditions are as anticipated in this report. The contractor should submit their procedures for drilled pier
installation to the Geotechnical Engineer for approval prior to the start of the drilled pier construction.
3.4.2.5 Dynamic Spring Constants for Deep Foundations

No dynamic analyses were performed relative to any installed equipment or machinery. However, it is
recommended that the effect of vibrations be considered in structural analysis if deemed necessary by the
structural engineer. The exact response of the different structural elements, including spread footings and
pile foundations, will depend on the dynamic characteristics of the vibrations including its frequency, peak
May 26, 2023
Page 16
acceleration, etc.
Work done by Novak, suggests that the stiffness and equivalent viscous damping coefficients can be estimated
from the equations described below. The stiffness and damping function parameters (f1 and f2) can then be
estimated from the following. PSI can aid in the determination of the appropriate values for design, as they
are a function of a number of variables which have not yet been determined at the present time.
Equivalent Viscous Damping

Direction Stiffness Constant
Coefficient
Vertical translation Kw = (Epile*Apile/Rpile)*fw1 Cw = (Epile*Apile/Vs)*fw2
Horizontal Translation Kx = (Epile*I/R3)*fx1 Cx = [(Epile*I)/(R2Vs)]*fx2
Rotation of the pile head Kφ = (Epile*I/R)*fφ1 Cφ = (Epile*I/Vs)*fφ2
Coupling between horizontal rotation Kxφ = (Epile*I/R2)*fxφ1 Cc = [(EpileI)/(RVs)]*fxφ2
T
Where: Epile = Young’s Modulus Of The Pile
Apile = Cross Sectional Area Of The Pile
I = Moment Of Inertia Of The Pile
R = Pile Radius Of Equivalent Radius
AF
Vs = characteristic shear wave velocity of the soil
f1 = Stiffness Function Parameter
f2 = Damping Function Parameter
R
Stiffness Parameters Damping Parameters
Poisson’s
Ratio
Epile/GSoil fφ1 fxφ1 fx1 (fixed) fx1 (pinned) fφ2 fxφ2 fx2 (fixed) fx2 (pinned)
D
10,000 0.2207 -0.0232 0.0047 0.0024 0.1634 -0.0358 0.0119 0.0060
2,500 0.3097 -0.0459 0.0132 0.0068 0.2224 -0.0692 0.0329 0.0171
μ = 0.40 1,000 0.3860 -0.0714 0.0261 0.0136 0.2677 -0.1052 0.0641 0.0339
500 0.4547 -0.0991 0.0436 0.0231 0.3034 -0.1425 0.1054 0.0570
250 0.5336 -0.1365 0.0726 0.0394 0.3377 -0.1896 0.1717 0.0957

Note: these values are for homogenous soil profile and applicable for pile length to width ratios greater
than 25.
3.4.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations

PSI recommends that grade-supported slabs be supported on newly placed engineered fill soils that have been
observed and tested, provided the subgrade is prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation Section of this report.
For soils that pass proof rolling operations, PSI recommends that a subgrade modulus (k) of 140 pounds per cubic
inch (pci) be used for design considerations based on a 12-inch square plate load test. However, depending on
how the slab loads are applied, the value will have to be geometrically modified. The value should be adjusted for
May 26, 2023
Page 17
larger areas using the following expression for cohesive and cohesionless soil:
k
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, ks = ( ) for cohesive soil and
B
B +1 2
ks = k ( ) for cohesionless soil
2B
where: ks= coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction for loaded area,

k= coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction for 144 square inches area
B= width of area loaded, in feet
PSI recommends that a minimum four-inch-thick free draining granular mat be placed beneath the floor slabs to
enhance drainage. The granular fill should have less than 50% of the material passing the #40 sieve by weight and
less than 5% passing the #200 sieve. The on-site soils are unlikely to meet this gradation and import fill should be
anticipated. The soil surface shall be graded to drain away from the structures without low spots that can trap
water prior to placing the granular drainage layer. Polyethylene sheeting should be placed to act as a vapor
retarder where the floor will be in contact with moisture sensitive equipment as directed by the design engineer.
T
The decision to locate the vapor retarder in direct contact with the slab or beneath the layer of granular fill should
be made by the design engineer after considering the moisture sensitivity of subsequent floor finishes, anticipated
project conditions and the potential effects of slab curling and cracking. The floor slabs should have an adequate
AF
number of joints to reduce cracking resulting from differential movement and shrinkage.
3.4.3.1 Dynamic Properties

It is anticipated that small rotating equipment may be ground founded. Details of these equipment and
foundations have not been finalized. Consequently, no analyses have been performed relative to the dynamic
impact of the installed equipment on the structure foundation. It is recommended that the effect of vibrations be
R
considered in the structural analysis, if deemed necessary by the Structural Engineer. The exact response of the
different structural elements, including pile foundations, will depend on the dynamic characteristics of the
anticipated machine vibration including its frequency, peak acceleration, etc.
D
The dynamic shear modulus (Gmax), Poisson's ratio (ν), mass density (γ), and material damping ratio are soil
properties that are of interest for dynamic analysis of foundations. The actual value of dynamic shear modulus
depends upon the amplitude of dynamic strain, effective stress, void ratio, frequency of vibrations, degree of
saturation of soil, and grain size characteristics and structure of the soil.
The soil damping ratio values were estimated based on values suggested in “Design of Structures and Foundations
for Vibrating Machines” (S. Arya, M. O’Neill, and G. Pincus). Soil damping is primarily a function of shear strain
amplitude and soil type. The following table shows dynamic soil properties based on well-established empirical
relationships. The following table shows dynamic soil properties based on deep soil boring performed by others
(Terracon) B-1 and on well-established empirical relationships and assuming a Poisson’s ratio of 0.45 for clay.
May 26, 2023
Page 18
Dynamic Properties of Soil

Total Shear Average Dynamic
Mass Damping
Soil Type & Unit Poissons Wave Shear Young’s
Density (lb- Ratio
Depth (ft) Weight, Ratio Velocity Modulus, G Modulus, E
sec2/ft4) (%)
pcf (ft/sec) (psi) (psi)
Clay
110 3.42 0.45 275 1,700 5,300 4
(0 to 6)
Clay
105 3.26 0.45 500 4,550 16,700 4
(6 to 33)
Clay
110 3.42 0.45 800 12,200 44,650 4
(33 to 43)
Clay
130 4.04 0.45 770 13,600 48,600 4
(43 to 53)
Clay
130 4.04 0.45 940 21,400 73,000 4
(53 to 60)
3.4.4 Below Grade Walls
T
Below grade walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. Lateral earth pressure is developed
from the soils present within a wedge formed by the vertical below-grade foundation wall and an imaginary
line extending up and away from the bottom of the wall at an approximate 45° angle. The lateral earth
AF
pressures are determined by multiplying the vertical applied pressure by the appropriate lateral earth
pressure coefficient “K”. If the walls are rigidly attached to the structure and not free to rotate or deflect at
the top, PSI recommends designing the walls for the “at-rest” lateral earth pressure condition using Ko. Walls
that are permitted to rotate and deflect at the top can be designed for the active lateral earth pressure
condition using Ka. Passive pressure can be determined using Kp, with a factor of safety of 2.0. Recommended
parameters for use in below grade walls are as follows:
R
Recommended Parameters for use in Wall Design

Drained Friction Angle Total Soil Density
D
Material Type (φ') (pcf)

1) Fat Clay (in-situ) 22° 105
2) Lean Clay (conditioned and compacted) 28° 125
3) Granular Soils (clean crushed limestone) 35° 120
Cohesion for Clay Soils (psf) (undrained, φ = 0) 700
Maximum Toe Pressure on Firm Soil (psf) 1,800
Groundwater Elevation At bottom of the wall
Parameters specific to soil type 1 2 3*
Friction Factor for Base 0.26 0.34 0.43
Coefficient of Active Pressure (Ka) ** 0.45 0.36 0.27
Coefficient of Passive Pressure (Kp) ** 2.20 2.77 3.69
Coefficient of At-Rest Pressure (Ko) ** 0.63 0.53 0.43
May 26, 2023
Page 19
Recommended Parameters for use in Wall Design

Drained Friction Angle Total Soil Density
Material Type (φ') (pcf)
* These values may be used for design only if the crushed limestone backfill extends back from the wall certain
distances. These are a horizontal distance approximately equal to or greater than the total height of the wall at the
surface, and at least one foot beyond the heel of the wall footing.
** Earth pressure coefficients valid for level backfill conditions with no surcharge
The values presented above were calculated based on positive foundation drainage is provided to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic pressure. If surface loads are placed near the walls, such as traffic loads, they should be
designed to resist an additional uniform lateral load of one-half of the vertical surface loads. An “equivalent fluid”
pressure can be obtained from the above chart by multiplying the appropriate K-factor times the total unit weight
of the soil. This applies to unsaturated conditions only. If a saturated “equivalent fluid” pressure is needed, the
effective unit weight (total unit weight minus unit weight of water) should be multiplied times the appropriate
K-factor and the unit weight of water added to that resultant. However, PSI does not recommend that earth
retaining walls be designed with a hydrostatic load and that drainage should be provided to relieve the pressure.
T
PSI recommends that retaining wall and below-grade wall backfill be provided with drainage. One possible
drainage system would include:
AF
1) A 4 or 6-inch diameter perforated drain tile at the bottom of the backfill to collect seepage water
with the tile connected to a suitable means of disposal.
2) Clean ½-inch or 1-inch gravel classified as "GP" and containing less than 5% passing a #200 sieve
surrounding the draintile.
3) Non-woven 4 ounce per square yard geotextile between the drainage material and the on-site soils
to prevent infiltration of fine-grained soils into the draintile, granular drainage blanket, or granular
R
backfill.
In specific design cases where water is allowed to build up on the below-grade wall structure, the hydrostatic
load correlating to the maximum height of the water build up should be added to the lateral loads acting on
D
the wall.
The designs of below grade walls need to take into account the effects of geometry and loading conditions.
The following charts have been included from NAVFAC 7.02 concerning slopes in the grade at the top of below
grade wall. Depending on the geometry of the site, the lateral loading on the below grade wall should be
modified according to these charts.
May 26, 2023
Page 20
T
AF
R
Soil Type 1 – Clean Sand and Gravel, GW, GP, SW, SP

Soil Type 2 – Dirty Sand and Gravel of Restricted Permeability, GM, GM-GP, SM-SP, SM
Soil Type 3 – Stiff Residual Silts and Clays, Silty Fine Sands, Clayey Sands and Gravels: CL, ML, CH, MH, SM, SC, GC
D
3.5 Pavement Design Recommendations

3.5.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation
PSI recommends that top 12 inches of the existing subgrade in proposed pavement areas should be undercut
and replaced with compacted structural fill. After stripping and excavating to the required undercut depth,
the exposed soil should be proof rolled to locate any soft or loose areas. Soils that are observed to rut or
deflect under the moving load should be undercut and replaced with properly compacted structural fill. The
proof-rolling and undercutting activities should be witnessed by a PSI representative and should be performed
preferably during a period of dry weather. Proof-rolling and fill placement should be followed as per the “Site
Preparation” section of this report.
3.5.2 Aggregate Surfacing Design

It is understood that crushed aggregate surfacing may be used at the site. Crushed aggregate surfacing may
be designed in accordance with the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Chapter 4, Low Volume
Road Design. The AASHTO guide provides thicknesses for aggregate that may be used for design of low volume
roads using an Aggregate-Surface Road Design Catalog. The aggregate thickness using the catalog is based on
May 26, 2023
Page 21
specific ranges of 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL) in combination with the relative quality of roadbed
soil and U.S. climatic region. The project site is considered as climatic region VI by AASHTO and the subgrade
soils are fair in terms of relative quality. Aggregate surfacing recommendations for generic traffic volume
ranges are presented in the table below.
Aggregate Surface Road Design Thickness

Life Expectancy, ESALs
Pavement Material(s)
Light Duty Medium Duty
30,000 60,000
Aggregate Base 7.0 in. 17.0 in.
Subgrade or Subbase As Discussed Previously
The material should be placed in maximum six (6) inch compacted lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent
of the Standard Effort (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density at a moisture content within 2 percent of the
T
optimum moisture content. The incorporation of a non-woven geotextile to help maintain separation
between the aggregate base and subgrade soils, and/or a geogrid layer, may be considered if heavy trucks are
anticipated on the aggregate surfacing. Periodic maintenance may be required.
AF
The aggregate surfacing sections should be adjusted by the project Civil Engineer based on the actual design
traffic loading criteria for the project when that information becomes available. PSI can assist with the final
pavement section design if requested.
3.6 Siltation Control

R
The soils at the site are generally moderately susceptible to erosion. Appropriate erosion control measures
such as proper site contouring during general grading and siltation fences should be used during construction
so that eroded materials remain onsite. Depending on the length of time the subgrade is exposed and the
amount of siltation which occurs, it may be necessary to periodically remove materials collected by the silt
D
fences.
3.7 Slopes
The benched placement of engineered structural fill on natural slopes steeper than five (5) horizontal to one
(1) vertical where the final area will be uncontained is recommended. The placement of fill should begin at
the base of the natural slope with benches or terraces. The benches or terraces should be a minimum of eight
(8) feet wide laterally and should be cut into the slope every five (5) feet of vertical rise. The naturally occurring
existing soils should be prepared and fill placed in accordance with the previously described structural fill
guidelines. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should monitor the benching and fill placement
operations.
Unless specifically designed, temporary slopes shall not exceed steeper than a ratio of three (3) horizontal to
one (1) vertical where workers or equipment will occupy space at the toe or of the movement of the excavated
slope will jeopardize the stability of an adjacent structure. Temporary slopes exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical
height should have a slope stability analysis. Temporary slopes exceeding twenty (20) feet in vertical height
should have shear strength testing performed to assess the in-situ strength characteristics.
May 26, 2023
Page 22
Permanent cut slopes shall not be excavated to a final grade steeper than a ratio of three (3) horizontal to one
(1) vertical without a specific slope stability analysis. Specific shear strength testing should be performed to
assess the in-situ strength characteristics for permanent slopes steeper than four (4) horizontal to one (1)
vertical.
Special consideration must also be given to the stability of the natural cut ground when supporting substantial
fills, to structural fills themselves, and to cut surfaces in natural soil and rock excavations. The evaluation of
slope stability aspects of this site and the proposed development is beyond the scope of this exploration.
Relatively detailed grading plans will have to be developed before meaningful evaluation of slope stability can
be accomplished. All slope stability evaluations should be performed by qualified geotechnical engineering
personnel prior to the initiation of any significant grading activities at this site.
T
AF
R
D
May 26, 2023
Page 23
4 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
PSI should be retained to provide observation and testing of construction activities involved in the foundation,
earthwork, and related activities of this project. PSI cannot accept responsibility for conditions that deviate from
those described in this report, nor for the performance of the foundation system if not engaged to also provide
construction observation and testing for this project.
4.1 Moisture Sensitive Soils/Weather Related Concerns

Increases in the moisture content of the soil can cause significant reduction in the soil strength and support
capabilities. In addition, soils that become wet may be slow to dry and thus significantly retard the progress of
grading and compaction activities. It will, therefore, be advantageous to perform earthwork and foundation
construction activities during dry weather.
Water should not be allowed to collect in the foundation excavation, on floor slab areas, or on prepared subgrades
during or after construction. Areas should be sloped to facilitate removal of collected rainwater, groundwater, or
surface runoff. Positive site drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the
T
perimeter of buildings, beneath floor slabs, and within pavement areas. The grades should be sloped away from
buildings and surface drainage should be collected and discharged such that water is not permitted to infiltrate
the backfill and floor slab areas of the building.
AF
4.2 Drainage and Groundwater Considerations
PSI recommends that the Contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the site at the time of the
construction activities to assess the impact groundwater may have on construction. Water should not be allowed
to collect in the foundation excavation, on floor slab areas, or on prepared subgrades of the construction area
either during or after construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate
R
removal of collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff. Positive site drainage should be provided to
reduce infiltration of surface water around the perimeter of the building and beneath the floor slabs. The grades
should be sloped away from the building and surface drainage should be collected and discharged such that water
D
is not permitted to infiltrate the backfill and floor slab areas of the building.
4.3 Excavations
In Federal Register, Volume 54, Number 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29
CFR, part 1926, Subpart P". This document was issued to better enhance the safety of workers entering trenches
or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be utility trenches,
basement excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. It is
PSI’s understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the
owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should
shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides
and bottom. The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil
exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope
inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state,
and federal safety regulations.
May 26, 2023
Page 24
4.4 Utility Trenching

Excavation for utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with OSHA regulations as stated in 29 CFR
Part 1926. It should be noted that utility trench excavations have the potential to degrade the properties of the
adjacent fill materials. Utility trench walls that are allowed to move laterally can lead to reduced bearing capacity
and increased settlement of adjacent structural elements and overlying slabs.
Backfill for utility trenches is as important as the original subgrade preparation or structural fill placed to support
either a foundation or slab. Therefore, it is imperative that the backfill for utility trenches be placed to meet the
project specifications for the structural fill of this project. PSI recommends that flowable fill or lean mix concrete
be utilized for utility trench backfill. If on-site soils are placed as trench backfill, the backfill for the utility trenches
should be placed in four (4) to six (6) inch loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry
density achieved by the standard Proctor test. The backfill soil should be moisture conditioned to be within 2% of
the optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor test. Up to four (4) inches of bedding
material placed directly under the pipes or conduits placed in the utility trench can be compacted to the 90%
compaction criteria with respect to the standard Proctor. Compaction testing should be performed for every 200
T
cubic yards of backfill place or each lift within 200 linear feet of trench, whichever is less. Backfill of utility trenches
should not be performed with water standing in the trench. If granular material is used for the backfill of the utility
trench, the granular material should have a gradation that will filter protect the backfill material from the adjacent
AF
soils. If this gradation is not available, a geosynthetic non-woven filter fabric should be used to reduce the
potential for the migration of fines into the backfill material. Granular backfill material shall be compacted to meet
the above compaction criteria. The clean granular backfill material should be compacted to achieve a relative
density greater than 75% or as specified by the geotechnical engineer for the specific material used.
4.5 Construction Monitoring

R
Consideration should be given to the impact of all of the proposed construction activities on the integrity and
stability of any other existing structures and their foundation systems located within the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project. A detailed QA/QC program should be developed and strictly followed throughout the project.
This may include performing a thorough preconstruction inspection of the site and the surrounding structure
D
conditions including any existing distress, cracks, movements, etc. The QA/QC program should include close
monitoring of construction vibrations and movements, stability of excavations, dewatering activities, etc. and
their possible impact on any adjacent existing structures. This could include the use of videotaping, photographs,
instrumentation, sensors, geodetic surveys, etc. Vibrations due to new construction activities should be expected
and they should be monitored. In general, vibrations should be limited to about 0.25 inch/sec. (peak particle
velocity) at all existing nearby sensitive structures. If this value is exceeded, further consideration should be given
to the effects of vibrations and the methods, means and sequence of construction operations. In addition, the
selected Contractor should be specialized in this type of construction and capable of assuring the integrity of the
surrounding structures including the use of any necessary shoring, underpinning, bracing, etc. as needed.
PSI is providing this information solely as a service to our client. PSI does not assume responsibility for construction
site safety or the contractor's or other parties’ compliance with local, state, and federal safety or other
regulations.
May 26, 2023
Page 25
5 GEOTECHNICAL RISK
The concept of risk is an important aspect of the geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the
analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The
analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be used in conjunction with
engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions and recommendations presented in the
geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the
interaction between the soils and the proposed construction will perform as planned. The engineering
recommendations presented in the preceding section constitutes PSI’s professional estimate of those measures
that are necessary for the proposed improvements to perform according to the proposed design based on the
information generated and referenced during this evaluation, and PSI’s experience in working with these
conditions.
T
AF
R
D
APPENDIX A - TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
T
AF
R
D
N
T
AF
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION
R
D
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

THARALDSON COMPRESSOR STATION
PSI PROJECT NO.: 338-2434
3549 153rd AVE SE
CASSELTON, ND
APPENDIX B – SITE VICINTY MAP & BORING LOCATION PLAN
T
AF
R
D
N
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION
T
AF
R
D
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES SITE VICINITY MAP (GENERAL)

GOOGLE EARTH IMAGERY DATE: 03/2021
3549 153rd AVE SE PSI PROJECT NO.: 338-2434
CASSELTON, ND
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION N
T
AF
R
D
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES SITE VICINITY MAP (CLOSE UP)

CASSELTON, ND
N
TB-1
T
B-1
AF
TB-2
R
D
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS (OTHERS)
SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BORING LOCATION PLAN

CASSELTON, ND
APPENDIX C – BORING LOGS
T
AF
R
D
DATE STARTED: 1/27/23 DRILL COMPANY: PSI, Inc.
DATE COMPLETED: 1/27/23 DRILLER: Brad LOGGED BY: Ben
BORING B-1
While Drilling N/A feet
Water
COMPLETION DEPTH 31.0 ft DRILL RIG:
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger Upon Completion N/A feet
ELEVATION: N/A SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS/3-in ST Delay N/A
LATITUDE: 46.89881° HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: -97.26105° EFFICIENCY N/A
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: CM & RR
REMARKS:
SPT Blows per 6-inch (SS)

STANDARD PENETRATION
Push Pressure (ST)

Recovery (inches) TEST DATA
USCS Classification
Elevation (feet)
N in blows/ft
Sample Type
Depth, (feet)
Graphic Log
Sample No.
Moisture, %
PL
Moisture
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL Additional
0 25 50 Remarks
STRENGTH, tsf
Qu Qp
0 2.0 4.0
0 4 inches of Aggregate base 31
1 FILL: FAT CLAY, dark gray, black, trace
gravel and fabric material
DD = 81 pcf
FILL
38 >> LL = 88
PL = 35
2 Qu = 1.0 tsf
5 FAT CLAY, medium stiff, medium to dark 39

3 4 gray, brown 2-2-3
N=5
T
CH 40
4 8 3-3-5
N=8
LL = 104
44 >> PL = 36
10 5 13
AF
CLAYEY SAND, loose, medium brown
2-3-4 Fines=43.2%
SC N=7
FAT CLAY, medium stiff, medium brown 47

6 18 2-3-4
N=7
53 >> LL = 111
15 PL = 35
7 18 2-2-3
CH N=5
R
SANDY FAT CLAY, medium stiff, medium 39 Fines=57.5%

20
D
8 18 brown 2-2-3
N=5
CH
39
25 9 18 2-2-3
N=5
CLAYEY SAND loose, medium brown 29 Fines=36.3%

30 10 18 SC 2-2-4
N=6
End of boring at 31 feet
Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 338-2434

2828 S. 44th Street PROJECT: Tharaldson, ND
Kansas City, KS 66106 LOCATION: 3549 153rd Ave SE
Telephone: (913) 310-1600 Casselton, ND
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1
APPENDIX D – GENERAL NOTES/ SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
T
AF
R
D
GENERAL NOTES
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), AASHTO 1988 and ASTM designations D2487 and D-2488 are
used to identify the encountered materials unless otherwise noted. Coarse-grained soils are defined as having
more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve (0.075mm); they are described as: boulders,
cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine-grained soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve;
they are defined as silts or clay depending on their Atterberg Limit attributes. Major constituents may be added
as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size.
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS
SFA: Solid Flight Auger - typically 4" diameter SS: Split-Spoon - 1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., except
flights, except where noted. where noted.
HSA: Hollow Stem Auger - typically 3¼" or 4¼ I.D. ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted.
openings, except where noted.
M.R.: Mud Rotary - Uses a rotary head with RC: Rock Core
Bentonite or Polymer Slurry TC: Texas Cone
R.C.: Diamond Bit Core Sampler
H.A.: Hand Auger BS: Bulk Sample
P.A.: Power Auger - Handheld motorized auger PM: Pressuremeter
CPT-U: Cone Penetrometer Testing with
T
Pore-Pressure Readings
SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS
N: Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D.
Split-Spoon.
AF
N60: A "N" penetration value corrected to an equivalent 60% hammer energy transfer efficiency (ETR)
Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, TSF
Qp: Pocket penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, TSF
w%: Moisture/water content, %
LL: Liquid Limit, %
PL: Plastic Limit, %
PI: Plasticity Index = (LL-PL),%
R
DD: Dry unit weight, pcf
, , Apparent groundwater level at time noted
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS ANGULARITY OF COARSE-GRAINED PARTICLES
D
Relative Density N - Blows/foot Description Criteria

Angular: Particles have sharp edges and relatively plane
Very Loose 0-4
sides with unpolished surfaces
Loose 4 - 10
Subangular: Particles are similar to angular description, but have
Medium Dense 10 - 30
rounded edges
Dense 30 - 50
Subrounded: Particles have nearly plane sides, but have
Very Dense 50 - 80
well-rounded corners and edges
Extremely Dense 80+
Rounded: Particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges
GRAIN-SIZE TERMINOLOGY PARTICLE SHAPE

Component Size Range Description Criteria
Boulders: Over 300 mm (>12 in.) Flat: Particles with width/thickness ratio > 3
Cobbles: 75 mm to 300 mm (3 in. to 12 in.) Elongated: Particles with length/width ratio > 3
Coarse-Grained Gravel: 19 mm to 75 mm (¾ in. to 3 in.) Flat & Elongated: Particles meet criteria for both flat and
Fine-Grained Gravel: 4.75 mm to 19 mm (No.4 to ¾ in.) elongated
Coarse-Grained Sand: 2 mm to 4.75 mm (No.10 to No.4)
Medium-Grained Sand: 0.42 mm to 2 mm (No.40 to No.10) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES
Fine-Grained Sand: 0.075 mm to 0.42 mm (No. 200 to No.40) Descriptive Term % Dry Weight
Silt: 0.005 mm to 0.075 mm Trace: < 5%
Clay: <0.005 mm With: 5% to 12%
Modifier: >12% Page 1 of 2
GENERAL NOTES
(Continued)
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS MOISTURE CONDITION DESCRIPTION

QU - TSF N - Blows/foot Consistency Description Criteria
Dry: Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
0 - 0.25 0-2 Very Soft
Moist: Damp but no visible water
0.25 - 0.50 2-4 Soft
Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table
0.50 - 1.00 4-8 Firm (Medium Stiff)
1.00 - 2.00 8 - 15 Stiff RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
2.00 - 4.00 15 - 30 Very Stiff Descriptive Term % Dry Weight
4.00 - 8.00 30 - 50 Hard Trace: < 15%
8.00+ 50+ Very Hard With: 15% to 30%
Modifier: >30%
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION
Description Criteria Description Criteria
Stratified: Alternating layers of varying material or color with Blocky: Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small
layers at least ¼-inch (6 mm) thick angular lumps which resist further breakdown
Laminated: Alternating layers of varying material or color with Lensed: Inclusion of small pockets of different soils
layers less than ¼-inch (6 mm) thick Layer: Inclusion greater than 3 inches thick (75 mm)
Fissured: Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little Seam: Inclusion 1/8-inch to 3 inches (3 to 75 mm) thick
T
resistance to fracturing extending through the sample
Slickensided: Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, Parting: Inclusion less than 1/8-inch (3 mm) thick
sometimes striated
AF
SCALE OF RELATIVE ROCK HARDNESS ROCK BEDDING THICKNESSES
QU - TSF Consistency Description Criteria
Very Thick Bedded Greater than 3-foot (>1.0 m)
2.5 - 10 Extremely Soft
Thick Bedded 1-foot to 3-foot (0.3 m to 1.0 m)
10 - 50 Very Soft
Medium Bedded 4-inch to 1-foot (0.1 m to 0.3 m)
50 - 250 Soft
Thin Bedded 1¼-inch to 4-inch (30 mm to 100 mm)
250 - 525 Medium Hard
Very Thin Bedded ½-inch to 1¼-inch (10 mm to 30 mm)
R
525 - 1,050 Moderately Hard
Thickly Laminated 1/8-inch to ½-inch (3 mm to 10 mm)
1,050 - 2,600 Hard
Thinly Laminated 1/8-inch or less "paper thin" (<3 mm)
>2,600 Very Hard
ROCK VOIDS GRAIN-SIZED TERMINOLOGY
D
Voids Void Diameter (Typically Sedimentary Rock)

Pit <6 mm (<0.25 in) Component Size Range
Vug 6 mm to 50 mm (0.25 in to 2 in) Very Coarse Grained >4.76 mm
Cavity 50 mm to 600 mm (2 in to 24 in) Coarse Grained 2.0 mm - 4.76 mm
Cave >600 mm (>24 in) Medium Grained 0.42 mm - 2.0 mm
Fine Grained 0.075 mm - 0.42 mm
Very Fine Grained <0.075 mm
ROCK QUALITY DESCRIPTION DEGREE OF WEATHERING

Rock Mass Description RQD Value Slightly Weathered: Rock generally fresh, joints stained and discoloration
Excellent 90 -100 extends into rock up to 25 mm (1 in), open joints may
Good 75 - 90 contain clay, core rings under hammer impact.
Fair 50 - 75
Poor 25 -50 Weathered: Rock mass is decomposed 50% or less, significant
Very Poor Less than 25 portions of the rock show discoloration and
weathering effects, cores cannot be broken by hand
or scraped by knife.
Highly Weathered: Rock mass is more than 50% decomposed, complete

discoloration of rock fabric, core may be extremely
broken and gives clunk sound when struck by
hammer, may be shaved with a knife.
Page 2 of 2
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
SYMBOLS TYPICAL
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS
CLEAN WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
GRAVEL GRAVELS GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
AND
GRAVELLY
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GP GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
COARSE
GRAINED GRAVELS WITH SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SOILS MORE THAN 50% FINES GM SILT MIXTURES
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
(APPRECIABLE CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
4 SIEVE
AMOUNT OF FINES) GC CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

MORE THAN 50% SAND CLEAN SANDS SW SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
OF MATERIAL IS AND
LARGER THAN SANDY
T
NO. 200 SIEVE POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
SOILS
SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
AFSANDS WITH SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MORE THAN 50% FINES SM MIXTURES
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
(APPRECIABLE CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
4 SIEVE
AMOUNT OF FINES) SC MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

R
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
ML CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

FINE LIQUID LIMIT MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
AND CL
D
LESS THAN 50 CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY

GRAINED CLAYS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
SOILS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
OL SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50% INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SILTS
LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
AND GREATER THAN 50 CH PLASTICITY
CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

OH HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
Graphic Symbols for Materials and Rock Deposits
METAMORPHIC ROCK
CONCRETE
Amphibolite, Gneiss, Marble, Phyllite,
Portland Cement Concrete
Quartzite, Schist, Serpentinite, Slate
BITUMINOUS CONCRETE CHERT
SANDSTONE
CLAYSTONE Sandstone, Orthoquarzite
(Sandstone)
COAL
T
SHALE
Coal, Anthracite Coal
AF
CONGLOMERATE/BRECCIA
Conglomerate, Breccia SILTSTONE
IGNEOUS ROCK
R
Anorthsite, Basalt, Metabasalt, Diabase
(Gabbro), Gabbro, NO RECOVERY
Granite/Granodionite, Homfels,
Pegmatite, Rhyolite/Metarhyolite
D
LIMESTONE
VOID
Limestone, Dolomite
APPENDIX E – FIELD ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST DONE BY OTHERS (TERRACON)
T
AF
R
D
FIELD ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST DATA
SCS-Tharaldson Ethanol Compressor Station ■ Casselton, North Dakota
June 9, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. M1225035
Array Loc. East-West Run between two N-S runs (between overhead power and gas line)
Instrument Nilsson Model No. Weather Overcast, 65ºF
Serial # Ground Cond. Saturated
Cal. Check Tested By RG
Test Date May 25, 2022 Method Wenner 4-pin (ASTM G57-06 (2012); IEEE 81-2012)
Notes &
Conflicts Conflicts with driving pins in gravel/sand fill soils at surface, limited to 50-foot 'A' Spacings
4𝜋𝑎𝑅
Apparent resistivity ρ is calculated as : 𝜌=
2𝑎 𝑎
1+ −
𝑎 + 4𝑏 𝑎 +𝑏
Electrode Spacing a Electrode Depth b E-W Test
Measured Apparent Measured Apparent
[feet] [centimeters] [inches] [centimeters] Resistance R Resistivity ρ Resistance R Resistivity ρ
Ω [Ω-cm] Ω [Ω-cm]
0.5 15 6 15 47.00 7460
T
1 30 6 15 22.00 5460
1.5 46 6 15 16.00 5360
2 61 6 15 6.70 2820
3 91 6
AF
15 2.40 1430
5 152 6 15 0.83 810
10 305 12 30 0.27 530
15 457 12 30 0.20 580
20 610 12 30 0.15 580
30 914 12 30 0.10 590
50 1524 12 30 0.08 740
R
Apparent resistivity vs a spacing

10,000.0
D
Apparent Resistivity R [Ω-cm]
1,000.0
100.0
E-W Array
10.0
1.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Electrode Spacing a [cm]
FIELD ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST DATA
SCS-Tharaldson Ethanol Compressor Station ■ Casselton, North Dakota
June 9, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. M1225035
Array Loc. Two parallel lines between overhead power to west and gas line to east
Instrument Nilsson Model No. Weather Overcast, 65ºF
Serial # Ground Cond. Saturated
Cal. Check Tested By RG
Test Date May 24, 2022 Method Wenner 4-pin (ASTM G57-06 (2012); IEEE 81-2012)
Notes &
Conflicts Conflicts with driving pins in gravel/sand fill soils at surface
4𝜋𝑎𝑅
Apparent resistivity ρ is calculated as : 𝜌=
2𝑎 𝑎
1+ −
𝑎 + 4𝑏 𝑎 +𝑏
Electrode Spacing a Electrode Depth b N-S Test (West Run) N-S Test (East Run)
Measured Apparent Measured Apparent Resistivity

[feet] [centimeters] [inches] [centimeters] Resistance R Resistivity ρ Resistance R ρ
Ω [Ω-cm] Ω [Ω-cm]
T
0.5 15 6 15 5.70 900 21.00 3330
1 30 6 15 3.10 770 8.10 2010
1.5 46 6 15 2.10 700 4.20 1410
2 61 6
AF
15 1.70 710 2.40 1010
3 91 6 15 1.07 640 0.90 540
5 152 6 15 0.61 590 0.56 540
10 305 12 30 0.32 630 0.30 580
15 457 12 30 0.21 610 0.19 550
20 610 12 30 0.16 620 0.12 460
30 914 12 30 0.11 630 0.10 550
R
50 1524 12 30 0.07 700 0.07 700
70 2134 12 30 0.06 790 0.06 830
D
Apparent resistivity vs a spacing

10,000.0
Apparent Resistivity R [Ω-cm]
1,000.0
100.0
N-S Array (West)
N-S Array (East)
10.0
1.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Electrode Spacing a [cm]
APPENDIX F – FIELD AND LAB TESTING PROCEDURES
T
AF
R
D
FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS
Drilling and Sampling Procedures

The soil borings were performed with a track-mounted rotary head drill rig. Borings were advanced using 3¼-
inch inside diameter hollow-stem augers. Representative samples were obtained employing split-spoon and
thin-wall tube sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM procedures.
Penetration Tests and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils

During the sampling procedure, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at regular intervals (2½-foot
intervals to 10 feet and 5-foot intervals thereafter) to obtain the standard penetration value (N) of the soil. The
results of the standard penetration test indicate the relative density and comparative consistency of the soils,
and thereby provide a basis for estimating the relative strength and compressibility of the soil profile
components. The split-barrel sampler provides a soil sample for identification purposes and for laboratory tests
T
appropriate for soil obtained from a sampler that may produce large shear strain while obtaining the sample.
Thin-Walled (Shelby) Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils

AF
Thin-walled tube samples are utilized to obtain a relatively undisturbed specimen suitable for laboratory tests of
structural properties or other tests that might be influenced by soil properties. A relatively undisturbed sample is
obtained by pressing a thin-walled metal tube (typically an outside diameter 3 inches) into the in-situ soil, removing
the soil-filled tube, and sealing the ends to reduce the soil disturbance or moisture loss. These samples may be
utilized in the laboratory to obtain the following information or perform the following tests: Unconfined
Compressive Strength (qu), Laboratory Determination of Water Content, Wet and Dry Density, Percent Saturation,
and Atterberg Limits.
R
Water Level Measurements

Water level observations were attempted during and upon completion of the drilling operation using a 100-
D
foot tape measure. The depths of observed water levels in the boreholes are noted on the boring logs
presented in the appendix of this report. In the borings where water was unable to be observed during the
field activities, in relatively impervious soils, the accurate determination of the groundwater elevation may not
be possible even after several days of observation. Seasonal variations, temperature and recent rainfall
conditions may influence the levels of the groundwater table and volumes of water will depend on the
permeability of the soils.
Ground Surface Elevations

At this time, no site-specific elevations were available to PSI.
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
In addition to the field exploration, a supplemental laboratory-testing program was conducted to determine
additional engineering characteristics of the foundation materials necessary in analyzing the behavior of the
soils as it relates to the construction of the proposed structures. The laboratory testing program is as follows:
Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by Mass

The water content is a significant index property used in establishing a correlation between soil behavior and
its index properties. The water content is used in expressing the phase relationship of air, water, and solids in
a given volume of material. In fine grained cohesive soils, the behavior of a given soil type often depends on its
water content. The water content of a soil along with its liquid and plastic limits as determined by Atterberg
Limit testing, is used to express its relative consistency or liquidity index.
Atterberg Limits
T
The Atterberg Limits are defined by the liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) states of a given soil. These limits
are used to determine the moisture content limits where the soil characteristics changes from behaving more
like a fluid on the liquid limit end to where the soil behaves more like individual soil particles on the plastic limit
AF
end. The liquid limit is often used to indicate if a soil is a low or high plasticity soil. The plasticity index (PI) is
difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit. The plasticity index is used in conjunction with the
liquid limit to assess if the material will behave like a silt or clay. The material can also be classified as an organic
material by comparing the liquid limit of the natural material to the liquid limit of the sample after being oven-
dried.
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil (qu)

R
The primary purpose of the unconfined compressive strength test is to obtain the undrained compressive
strength of soils that possess sufficient cohesion to permit testing in the unconfined state. Unconfined
compressive strength (qu) is the compressive stress at which an unconfined cylindrical specimen of soil will fail
D
in a simple compression test. In this test method, unconfined compressive strength is taken as the maximum
load obtained per unit area or the load per unit area at 15% axial strain, whichever is obtained first during the
performance of a test. For the unconfined compressive strength test, the shear strength (su) is calculated to be
half of the compressive stress at failure.
The laboratory testing program was conducted in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications.
The results of these tests are to be found on the accompanying boring logs located in the Appendix.
May 26, 2023
Page 26
6 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface information obtained by PSI and
design details furnished by Primoris Design & Construction. If there are revisions to the plans for this project
or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, PSI
should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If
PSI is not retained to perform these functions, PSI will not be responsible for the impact of those conditions
on the project.
The geotechnical engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice
contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical
engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed.
After the plans and specifications are more complete, the geotechnical engineer should be retained and
provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to check that our engineering
recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents. At that time, it may be
T
necessary to submit supplementary recommendations.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Primoris Services Corporation for the specific
AF
application to the proposed Tharaldson compressor station to be constructed at 3549 153rd Avenue SE in
Casselton, North Dakota.
R
D

338-2434 Tharaldson Compressor Station, Casselton, ND

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

338-2434 Tharaldson Compressor Station, Casselton, ND

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intertek-PSI Tel +1 913 310 1600

2828 S. 44th Street Fax +1 913 310 1601

May 26, 2023

Primoris Design & Construction

Attn: Ms. Debra Chansamouth

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Services Report

Dear Ms. Chansamouth:

Ranjan Kumar Rout, E.I.T. Matthew R. Satterfield

Tharaldson Compressor Station

Professional Service Industries, Inc.

May 26, 2023

PSI Project 03382434

1 PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................. 1

3.6 Siltation Control ................................................................................................................... 21

6 REPORT LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 26

1.1 Project Authorization

PROJECT TITLE: THARALDSON COMPRESSOR STATION

1.2 Project Description

• Dehydration Units (TEG)

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL PROVIDER/SOURCE DATED

STRUCTURAL LOAD/PROPERTY REQUIREMENT/REPORT BASIS

Figure 1. Preliminary Site Plan with Boring Locations

1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services

2 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Location and Description

Figure 2. Aerial Site Image – March 2021

2.2 Site History (Timeline)

Figure 4. Historical Aerial Site Image – August 2006

2.3 General Area Geology

2.4 Exploration Procedures and Subsurface Conditions

2.5 Field Electrical Resistivity Testing

2.6 Subsurface Conditions

THARLDSON COMPRESSOR RANGE OF PROPERTY VALUES

SOIL STRATA TYPE

2.7 Water Level Measurements

3 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Geotechnical Discussion

3.3 Seismic Conditions and Site Classification

Seismic Design Parameters

0.2 (Ss) 0.057 Fa = 2.4 Sms = 0.136 SDs = 0.091 T0 = 0.119

1.0 (S1) 0.019 Fv = 4.2 Sm1 = 0.081 SD1 = 0.054 Ts = 0.593

3.4 Foundation Design Recommendations

3.4.1 Ground Improvement with Shallow Foundations

DRILLED SHAFT CAPACITIES

length should be added to account for fill thickness or a raised floor

Neglect Skin Friction from Top of Shaft 6 feet

3.4.2.2 Lateral Capacity:

SOIL PARAMETERS FOR LATERAL LOAD ANALYSES

3.4.2.3 Group Action:

Lead Row 0.7 0.85 1.0 1.0

2nd Row 0.5 0.65 0.85 1.0

3rd Row or greater 0.35 0.5 0.7 1.0

3.4.2.5 Dynamic Spring Constants for Deep Foundations

Equivalent Viscous Damping

Vertical translation Kw = (Epile*Apile/Rpile)*fw1 Cw = (Epile*Apile/Vs)*fw2

Horizontal Translation Kx = (Epile*I/R3)*fx1 Cx = [(Epile*I)/(R2Vs)]*fx2

Rotation of the pile head Kφ = (Epile*I/R)*fφ1 Cφ = (Epile*I/Vs)*fφ2

Coupling between horizontal rotation Kxφ = (Epile*I/R2)*fxφ1 Cc = [(EpileI)/(RVs)]*fxφ2

10,000 0.2207 -0.0232 0.0047 0.0024 0.1634 -0.0358 0.0119 0.0060

2,500 0.3097 -0.0459 0.0132 0.0068 0.2224 -0.0692 0.0329 0.0171

500 0.4547 -0.0991 0.0436 0.0231 0.3034 -0.1425 0.1054 0.0570

250 0.5336 -0.1365 0.0726 0.0394 0.3377 -0.1896 0.1717 0.0957

3.4.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations

Vertical translation Kw = (EpileApile/Rpile)fw1 Cw = (EpileApile/Vs)fw2

Horizontal Translation Kx = (EpileI/R3)fx1 Cx = [(EpileI)/(R2Vs)]fx2

Rotation of the pile head Kφ = (EpileI/R)fφ1 Cφ = (EpileI/Vs)fφ2

Coupling between horizontal rotation Kxφ = (EpileI/R2)fxφ1 Cc = [(EpileI)/(RVs)]*fxφ2