Geotechnical Engineering Report - odot.org · GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT BRIDGE NO. 75 OVER ELM CREEK RETAINING WALL CRAIG COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Terracon Project No. 04125294 July

Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek

Retaining Wall

Craig County, Oklahoma

July 16, 2013

Terracon Project No. 04125294

Prepared for:

Guy Engineering Services, Inc.

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Tulsa, Oklahoma

July 16, 2013

Guy Engineering Services, Inc. 10759 East Admiral Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74116-3012

Attn: Mr. Peter Ellis, E.I.

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek Retaining Wall Craig County, Oklahoma Terracon Project Number: 04125294

Dear Mr. Ellis:

lrerracan

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number P04110175A dated May 13, 2103. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of a cast-in-place retaining wall as related to the subsurface conditions encountered at the borings.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Cert. of Auth. #CA-4531exp.6130/15

Oklahoma No. 25692

VR:MHH:lo

Enclosures Addressee (3 via US Mail and 1 via email}

Regional Manager

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 9522 East 47 th Place, Unit D Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145 P [918] 250 0461 F [918] 250 4570 terracon.com

Geotechnical • Environmental • Construction Materials • Facilities

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.0

PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 1 2.0

2.1 Project Description ............................................................................................... 1

2.2 Site Location and Description .............................................................................. 1

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2 3.0

3.1 Geology ............................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Soil and Rock Conditions ..................................................................................... 2

3.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 2

RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................ 3 4.0

4.1 Footing Foundations ............................................................................................ 3

4.2 Earthwork Construction Considerations ............................................................... 4

4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures ....................................................................................... 5

4.4 Retaining Wall Drainage ...................................................................................... 6

4.5 Results of Global Stability Analyses ..................................................................... 7

GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 7 5.0

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map

Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Diagram

Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description

Exhibit A-4 to A-6 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes

Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System

Exhibit C-3 General Notes – Description of Rock Properties

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

BRIDGE NO. 75 OVER ELM CREEK

RETAINING WALL

CRAIG COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Terracon Project No. 04125294

July 16, 2013

INTRODUCTION 1.0

This geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the retaining wall planned south of

Bridge No. 75 over Elm Creek in Craig County, Oklahoma. Three borings, designated RW-1 to

RW-3, were drilled to depths of approximately 19 feet below the existing ground surface. Logs of

the borings along with a site location map and a boring location plan are included in Appendix A of

this report.

This geotechnical report describes the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, reports

the test results, and provides geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the

proposed retaining wall foundations.

PROJECT INFORMATION 2.0

2.1 Project Description

Item Description

Site layout See Appendix A, Figure A-2 Boring Location Diagram

Proposed Construction Retaining wall with heights of up to 14 feet to be located west of the

existing road between Stations 20+50 and 22+50.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location County Road S4390 over Elm Creek in Craig County, Oklahoma

Existing improvements An existing county road

Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek – Retaining Wall ■ Craig County, Oklahoma July 16, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 04125294


SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.0

3.1 Geology

Based on the results of our borings and information published in the Oklahoma Department of

Transportation manual, “Engineering Classification of Geologic Materials: Division 8,” the project

site is located along the boundary between the McAlester and Savanna Units. The McAlester

Unit typically consists of shale, while the Savanna Unit consists of shale with some sandstone

and limestone.

3.2 Soil and Rock Conditions

Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be

generalized as follows:

Stratum Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum Material Description

Consistency/

Density

1 14 to 16.5 feet Lean clay, shaley fat clay, shaley lean clay,

silty clayey gravel

Medium stiff to

very stiff

2

Boring termination

depths of 18.7 to 18.8

feet

Shale Soft to hard

Conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the boring logs. Stratification

boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil and rock

types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Classification of bedrock

materials was made from disturbed samples. Core samples and petrographic analysis may

reveal other rock types. Details for the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of

this report.

3.3 Groundwater

The boreholes were observed while drilling and immediately after completion for the presence

and level of groundwater. No groundwater was observed at these times. Longer monitoring in

piezometers or cased holes, sealed from the influence of surface water, would be required to

evaluate longer-term groundwater conditions. During some periods of the year, perched water

could be present. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be expected throughout the year

depending upon variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, evaporation, and other hydrological

factors not apparent at the time the borings were performed.



RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS 4.0

4.1 Footing Foundations

We understand from drawings presented to us that the bottom of the wall elevation will be range

from approximately 666 to 676 feet. At this elevation, conventional footings might bear in the

shaley clay immediately above the shale formation. It is not uncommon for water seeps to exist

in shaley clay formations on top of the shale. These seeps can reduce shear strength and

friction capacity of the formation. For these reasons, we recommend that retaining wall footings

extend into the shale formation.

Retaining wall foundations should be supported on the dark brown to dark gray shale formation

encountered in our borings. Footings should extend at least one foot, or past the weathered

zone, into the shale, whichever is greater. Foundations bearing on the above mentioned

materials can be designed using a nominal bearing resistance of 10,000 pounds per square foot

(psf).

A bearing resistance factor (φb) of 0.45, as outlined in Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 of AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, should be applied to the nominal bearing value.

Lateral loads can be resisted by frictional resistance between the base of the footing and the

underlying bearing materials. The nominal sliding resistance between the base of the footing

and the underlying bearing materials can be calculated using a coefficient of friction value (tan

) of 0.45. A resistance factor (φ) of 0.85, as outlined in Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 of AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, should be applied to the calculated nominal sliding

resistance.

Lateral loads can also be resisted by the passive pressure on the vertical face of the footings.

We recommend using a nominal passive resistance of 750 psf (rectangular distribution). A

resistance factor (φep) of 0.5, as outlined in Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications, 4th Edition, should be applied to the nominal passive resistance. The upper 2

feet of the soil materials below the final lowest exterior grade should be neglected for passive

pressure resistance. For passive earth pressure to develop, the wall must move horizontally to

mobilize resistance.

Footings should extend a minimum of 3 feet below final adjacent exterior grade, and the heel

should extend a minimum distance of 3 feet behind the wall face to satisfy global stability, as

discussed later in this report.



Foundation excavation should be free of all loose materials, debris, and water at the time

concrete is placed. Concrete should be placed as soon as possible after excavations are

completed to reduce the potential for wetting, drying, and disturbance of the bearing surface.

Long-term total and differential settlement of footings supported by the native soils or

engineered fill and designed and constructed as recommended in this report is expected to be

on the order of ¾ of an inch.

4.2 Earthwork Construction Considerations

Areas within the limits of construction should be stripped and cleared of topsoil, vegetation,

gravel, debris, and any other deleterious material.

Where fill is placed on existing slopes steeper than about 4H:1V, benches should be cut into the

existing slopes prior to fill placement. The benches should have a minimum vertical face height

of 1 foot and a maximum vertical face height of 3 feet and should be cut wide enough to

accommodate the compaction equipment. This benching will help provide a positive bond

between the fill and natural soils and reduce the possibility of failure along the fill/natural soil

interface.

Natural cuts and properly constructed new fills should be stable at 3H:1V slope configurations or

flatter. We recommend that fill slopes be over filled and then cut back to develop an adequately

compacted slope face.

After stripping and completing any cuts, the subgrade should be proofrolled to aid in locating

soft, unstable or otherwise unsuitable soils. Proofrolling should be performed with a loaded

tandem axle dump truck weighing at least 25 tons. Soft, unstable soils should be removed and

replaced full-depth, if they cannot be adequately stabilized in-place.

Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the recommended

subgrade moisture content prior to construction of foundations. The site should also be graded

to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the

subgrade should become frozen, excessively wet or dried, or disturbed, the affected material

should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and

recompacted prior to floor slab and pavement construction.

The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually 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. All excavations should

comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trench Safety

Standards.



4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

Reinforced concrete walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed

for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will

be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of

construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Active earth

pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes

wall movement. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of

safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.

Earth Pressure Coefficients

Earth Pressure

Conditions

Coefficient for

Backfill Type

Equivalent Fluid

Density (pcf)

Surcharge

Pressure, p1 (psf)

Earth Pressure,

p2 (psf)

Active (Ka) Granular - 0.33

Lean Clay - 0.42

40

50

(0.33)S

(0.42)S

(40)H

(50)H

Applicable conditions to the above include:

For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of

about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height

Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure

In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 120 pcf

Horizontal backfill, compacted between 95 and 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum

dry density

Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included

No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall



No dynamic loading

No safety factor included in soil parameters

Ignore passive pressure in frost zone

Backfill placed against walls should consist of granular soils or low plasticity cohesive soils. For

the granular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out from the base of the wall at

an angle of at least 45 degrees from vertical for the active case.

To control hydrostatic pressure behind the wall we recommend that a drain be installed at the

foundation wall with a collection pipe leading to a reliable discharge. If this is not possible, then

combined hydrostatic and lateral earth pressures should be calculated for lean clay backfill

using an equivalent fluid weighing 90 pcf for active conditions. For granular backfill, an

equivalent fluid weighing 85 pcf should be used for active conditions. These pressures do not

include the influence of surcharge, equipment or floor loading, which should be added.

Wall backfill should be moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent of the

material’s maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698). Compaction of each lift

adjacent to walls should be accomplished with lightweight compactors. Heavy equipment should

not operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of retaining walls to prevent lateral

pressures more than those provided. Overcompaction may cause excessive lateral earth

pressures which could result in wall movement.

The upper 2 feet of backfill placed adjacent to the walls should consist of a compacted, relatively

impermeable, clay material to limit the downward flow of surface water along the walls. Also,

positive surface drainage should be developed and maintained around the structures to prevent

the ponding of water and to divert drainage away from the structures.

4.4 Retaining Wall Drainage

As mentioned above, we recommend that a drain line be installed along the back of the walls to

reduce the potential for the build-up of hydrostatic forces behind the retaining walls. The drain

line should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter rigid, perforated plastic pipe, surrounded by at

least 6 inches of 3/4-inch, clean, free-draining, crushed gravel that is wrapped with a suitable

filter fabric. The drain line should be positively sloped to drain to a suitable discharge point.

Free-draining, granular backfill having less than 8 percent passing the number 200 sieve, based

on dry weight, should be placed above the 6-inch zone of free-draining gravel around the

perforated pipe and should extend out from the wall a minimum lateral distance of 2 feet. The

granular backfill will permit the flow of water to the drain line, thus, reducing the potential for

hydrostatic pressure build-up. The free-draining, granular backfill should be encased in a suitable

filter fabric. The upper 2 feet of backfill placed adjacent to the wall should consist of an approved,



compacted cohesive soil to provide confinement and reduce the potential for moisture infiltration.

Other drainage systems can be considered.

4.5 Results of Global Stability Analyses

We evaluated the global stability of the retaining wall at Station 22+00, based on the plans

provided to us and the results of our exploration. Computer software STABL for Windows

(Version 3.0), using Bishop’s limit equilibrium method of analysis for circular failures, was used

to perform the global stability analyses. The wall was modeled with a footing established a

minimum of 3 feet below final adjacent exterior grade, and the heel extending a minimum

distance of 3 feet behind the wall face. Computed minimum factors of safety are presented in

the following table.

Factor of Safety

End of Construction Long Term

5.9 4.0

GENERAL COMMENTS 5.0

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments

can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations

in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and

testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related

construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained

from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in

this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the

site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such

variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we

should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations

can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any

environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or

prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the

potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the

project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical

engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site



safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the

event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are

planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered

valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this

report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:

File No.Consulting Engineers and Scientists

EXHIBIT NO.

9522 EAST 47TH PLACE, UNIT D TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74146FAX. (918) 250-4570PH. (918) 250-0461

VER

DC

VER

MHH

04125294

SEE BAR SCALE

04125294

JULY 2013

SITE LOCATION MAP

A-1GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

RETAINING WALLBRIDGE NO. 75 OVER ELM CREEK

CRAIG COUNTY OKLAHOMA

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

© 2013 GOOGLE

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET

1600 0 800 1600

Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:

File No.Consulting Engineers and Scientists

EXHIBIT NO.

9522 EAST 47TH PLACE, UNIT D TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74146FAX. (918) 250-4570PH. (918) 250-0461

VER

DC

VER

MHH

04125294

SEE BAR SCALE

04125294

JULY 2013

BORING LOCATION PLAN

A-2GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

RETAINING WALLBRIDGE NO. 75 OVER ELM CREEK

CRAIG COUNTY OKLAHOMA

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

BORING STATION OFFSET** ELEV. (FT)RW-1 20+19 9' LT 678.8RW-2 21+51 9' LT 676.9RW-3 22+32 9' LT 677.4

LEGENDBORING LOCATION

BENC

HMAR

K: 80

D NA

IL IN

20-IN

CH O

AK T

REE

ELEV

ATIO

N 67

6.43 F

EET

STAT

ION

22+5

1, 15

' LT

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET

0 5050

**OFFSETS BASED ON S 4390 RD ℄

RW-3

RW-2

RW-1


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description

Terracon established the boring locations in the field by taping distances from existing site

features. We measured the ground surface elevation at the boring locations using an

engineer’s level. We used Benchmark #6 shown on the General Plan & Elevation sheet

provided by Guy Engineering, which had a reported elevation of 676.43 feet. The elevations are

shown near the top of the logs and have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 foot. The boring

locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the

methods used to define them.

The borings were drilled with an ATV-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight solid-stem

augers to advance the boreholes. Representative samples were obtained by the split-barrel

sampling procedure. The split-barrel sampling procedure uses a standard 2-inch, O.D. split-

barrel sampling spoon that is driven into the bottom of the boring with a 140-pound drive

hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the

last 12 inches, or less, of an 18-inch sampling interval or portion thereof, is recorded as the

standard penetration resistance value, N. The N value is used to estimate the in-situ relative

density of granular soils and, to a lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency of cohesive soils

and the hardness of weathered bedrock. The sampling depths, penetration distances and N

values are reported on the boring logs. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to

reduce moisture loss and returned to the laboratory for further examination, testing and

classification.

An automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings

performed on this site. Generally, a greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic hammer

compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. The effect of

the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the

subsurface information for this report.

A field log of each boring was prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual

classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller’s interpretation of

the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report

represent the engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on

laboratory observation and tests of the samples.

8.5

14.0

18.8

6" AspahltLEAN CLAY (CL), with sand, grayish-brown, stiff to verystiff

SHALEY FAT CLAY (CH), dark brown, stiff to very stiff

SHALE+, dark gray, soft to moderately hard

Boring Terminated at 18.8 Feet

18

18

18

18

12

3

670.5

665

660

5051 71

21

17

16

31

14

7

3-3-7N=10

4-4-5N=9

3-5-6N=11

18-50/6"N=50/6"

N=50/3"

110 43-26-17

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: Automatic+Classification estimated from disturbed samples. Coresamples and petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types.

Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

Station: 20+19 Offset: 9' LTGR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 0

412

529

4 R

ET

AIN

ING

WA

LL.G

PJ

Bridge No. 75 over Elm Creek Craig County, OklahomaSITE:

not encountered while drilling

not encountered after boring

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

PROJECT: Retaining Wall

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:Power Auger

Abandonment Method:

,

Notes:

Project No.: 04125294

Drill Rig: ATV

Boring Started: 7/8/2013

BORING LOG NO. RW-1Guy Engineering Services, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: CF

Boring Completed: 7/8/2013

A-4

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols andabbreviations.

See Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data (if any).

See Exhibit A-3 for description of fieldprocedures.

Exhibit:

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

psf)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

Surface Elev.: 678.8 (Ft.) DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

8.5

12.5

16.0

18.7

6" AspahltLEAN CLAY (CL), with sand, grayish-brown, mediumstiff to very stiff

SHALEY FAT CLAY (CH), dark brown, medium stiff

SHALEY LEAN CLAY (CL), gray, very stiff

SHALE+, dark gray, hard


18

18

18

18

18

2

668.5

664.5

661

658

5851 72

11

17

14

29

13

9

4-4-8N=12

2-2-4N=6

2-2-3N=5

6-18-32N=50

N=50/2"

107 39-28-11

See Exhibit A-2



LOCATION

DEPTH


AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 0

412

529

4 R

ET

AIN

ING

WA

LL.G

PJ






Page 1 of 1


Abandonment Method:

,

Notes:


Drill Rig: ATV



Driller: CF


A-5




Exhibit:

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

psf)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

9.0

13.5

16.5

18.8

6" AspahltLEAN CLAY (CL), with sand, brown, medium stiff to stiff

SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL (shale fragments) (GC), withsand, brownish-gray

SHALEY LEAN CLAY (CL), brownish-gray, medium stiff

SHALE+, dark brown, moderately hard


18

18

18

18

18

18

668.5

664

661

658.5

21

17

16

16

18

25

15

4-3-5N=8

6-4-5N=9

3-3-3N=6

3-4-3N=7

N=50/4"

103 30-26-4

See Exhibit A-2



LOCATION

DEPTH


AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 0

412

529

4 R

ET

AIN

ING

WA

LL.G

PJ






Page 1 of 1


Abandonment Method:

,

Notes:


Drill Rig: ATV



Driller: CF


A-6




Exhibit:

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

psf)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

APPENDIX B

SUPPORTING INFORMATION


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing

Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further

observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Appendix A. Samples of bedrock were

classified in accordance with the general notes for Sedimentary Rock Classification. At that

time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable

laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the

subsurface materials. The laboratory test results are reported on the boring logs in Appendix A.

Selected soil and bedrock samples obtained from the site were tested for the following

engineering properties:

Water Content

Atterberg Limits

Sieve analysis

Unconfined compressive strength

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

TraceWithModifier

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGYRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

TraceWithModifier

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

Loose

Very Stiff

Exhibit C-1

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Medium Dense

Dense

Very Dense

0 - 1 < 3

4 - 9 2 - 4 3 - 4

Medium-Stiff 5 - 9

30 - 50

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

Auger

Shelby Tube

Ring Sampler

Grab Sample

8 - 15

Split Spoon

Macro Core

Rock Core

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Term

< 1515 - 29> 30

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Water InitiallyEncountered

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Major Componentof Sample

Percent ofDry Weight

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

Includes gravels, sands and silts.

Hard

Very Loose 0 - 3 0 - 6 Very Soft

7 - 18 Soft

10 - 29 19 - 58

59 - 98 Stiff

less than 500

500 to 1,000

1,000 to 2,000

2,000 to 4,000

4,000 to 8,000> 99

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

SA

MP

LIN

G

FIE

LD

TE

ST

S

(HP)

(T)

(b/f)

(PID)

(OVA)

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Descriptive Term(Density)

Non-plasticLowMediumHigh

BouldersCobblesGravelSandSilt or Clay

10 - 18

> 50 15 - 30 19 - 42

> 30 > 42

_

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Standard PenetrationTest (blows per foot)

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Water levels indicated on the soil boringlogs are the levels measured in theborehole at the times indicated.Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils,accurate determination of groundwaterlevels is not possible with short termwater level observations.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field

visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

> 8,000

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracyof such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey wasconducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographicmaps of the area.

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dryweight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils haveless than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, andsilts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may beadded according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are definedon the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

Plasticity Index

01 - 1011 - 30

> 30

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Percent ofDry Weight

< 55 - 12> 12

No Recovery

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Particle Size

Over 12 in. (300 mm)12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mmPassing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

ST

RE

NG

TH

TE

RM

S Unconfined CompressiveStrength, Qu, psf

4 - 8

GENERAL NOTES

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name

B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of

coarse

fraction retained on

No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E

GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E

GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse

fraction passes

No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E

SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E

SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line

J CL Lean clay

K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt

K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay

K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay

K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay

K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name. C

Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly

graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D

Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded

sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded

sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with

gravel,” whichever is predominant. L

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy”

to group name. M

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name. N

PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O

PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P

PI plots on or above “A” line. Q

PI plots below “A” line.

GENERAL NOTES Sedimentary Rock Classification

DESCRIPTIVE ROCK CLASSIFICATION:

LIMESTONE

DOLOMITE

CHERT

SHALE

SANDSTONE

CONGLOMERATE

Sedimentary rocks are composed of cemented clay, silt and sand sized particles. The most common minerals are clay, quartz and calcite. Rock composed primarily of calcite is called limestone; rock of sand size grains is called sandstone, and rock of clay and silt size grains is called mudstone or claystone, siltstone, or shale. Modifiers such as shaly, sandy, dolomitic, calcareous, carbonaceous, etc. are used to describe various constituents. Examples: sandy shale; calcareous sandstone.

Light to dark colored, crystalline to fine-grained texture, composed of CaCo3, reacts readily with HCI.

Light to dark colored, crystalline to fine-grained texture, composed of CaMg(CQ3)., harder than limestone, reacts with HCI when powdered.

Light to dark colored, very fine-grained texture, composed of micro-crystalline quartz (Si02), brittle, breaks into angular fragments, will scratch glass.

Very fine-grained texture, composed of consolidated silt or clay, bedded in thin layers. The unlaminated equivalent is frequently referred to as siltstone, claystone or mudstone.

Usually light colored, coarse to fine texture, composed of cemented sand size grains of quartz, feldspar, etc. Cement usually is silica but may be such minerals as calcite, iron-oxide, or some other carbonate.

Rounded rock fragments of variable mineralogy varying in size from near sand to boulder size but usually pebble to cobble size (1/2 inch to 6 inches). Cemented together with various cementing agents. Breccia is similar but composed of angular, fractured rock particles cemented together.

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES:

DEGREE OF WEATHERING

Slight

Moderate

High

Slight decomposition of parent material on joints. May be color change.

Some decomposition and color change throughout.

Rock highly decomposed, may be extremely broken.

HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION

Limestone and Dolomite:

Hard Difficult to scratch with knife.

Moderately Hard

Soft

Can be scratched easily with knife, cannot be scratched with fingernail.

Can be scratched with fingernail.

Shale, Siltstone and Claystone

Hard Can be scratched easily with knife, cannot be scratched with fingernail.

Moderately Hard

Soft

Can be scratched with fingernail.

Can be easily dented but not molded with fingers.

Sandstone and Conglomerate

Well Capable of scratching a knife blade. Cemented

Cemented

Poorly Cemented

Can be scratched with knife.

Can be broken apart easily with fingers.

BEDDING AND JOINT CHARACTERISTICS

Bed Thickness Very Thick

Thick Medium

Thin Very Thin Laminated

Bedding Plane

Joint

Seam

Joint Spacing Very Wide

Wide Moderately Close

Close Very Close

Dimensions >10'

3' - 10' 1' - 3' 2" - 1'

.4" - 2"

.1". .4"

A plane dividing sedimentary rocks of the same or different lithology.

Fracture in rock, generally more or less vertical or transverse to bedding, along which no appreciable movement has occurred.

Generally applies to bedding plane with an unspecified degree of weathering.

SOLUTION AND VOID CONDITIONS

Solid

Vuggy (Pitted)

Porous

Cavernous

Contains no voids.

Rock having small solution pits or cavities \JP to 1/2 inch diameter, frequently with a mineral lining.

Containing numerous voids, pores, or other openings, which may or may not interconnect.

Containing cavities or caverns, sometimes quite large.

__________ lrerracon_ Form 110-6-85

Documents

Geotechnical Engineering Report - odot.org · GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT BRIDGE NO. 75 OVER ELM CREEK RETAINING WALL CRAIG COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Terracon Project No. 04125294 July