View
9
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2
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.
Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek – Retaining Wall ■ Craig County, Oklahoma July 16, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 04125294
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3
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.
Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek – Retaining Wall ■ Craig County, Oklahoma July 16, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 04125294
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4
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.
Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek – Retaining Wall ■ Craig County, Oklahoma July 16, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 04125294
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5
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
Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek – Retaining Wall ■ Craig County, Oklahoma July 16, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 04125294
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6
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,
Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek – Retaining Wall ■ Craig County, Oklahoma July 16, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 04125294
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7
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
Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek – Retaining Wall ■ Craig County, Oklahoma July 16, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 04125294
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8
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
Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek – Retaining Wall ■ Craig County, Oklahoma July 16, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 04125294
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
Boring Terminated at 18.7 Feet
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
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: 21+51 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-2Guy Engineering Services, Inc.CLIENT:
Driller: CF
Boring Completed: 7/8/2013
A-5
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.: 676.9 (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
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
Boring Terminated at 18.8 Feet
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
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: 22+32 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-3Guy Engineering Services, Inc.CLIENT:
Driller: CF
Boring Completed: 7/8/2013
A-6
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.: 677.4 (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
APPENDIX B
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Geotechnical Engineering Report Bridge No. 75 Over Elm Creek – Retaining Wall ■ Craig County, Oklahoma July 16, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 04125294
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
Recommended