FINAL Geotechnical Engineering Report Northcreek Road ... GEOTECHNICAL Report_217-112...exploration...

FINAL

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Northcreek Road Culverts Replacement

Beulah, Pueblo County, Colorado

Yeh Project No.: 217-112

October 9, 2017

Prepared for:

Wilson & Company, Inc. Attn: Don Garcia, P.E.

5755 Mark Dabling Blvd., Suite #220 Colorado Springs, CO 80919

Prepared by:

Yeh and Associates, Inc. 627 Elkton Dr.

Colorado Springs, CO 80907

Phone: 719-434-1643

FINAL

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Northcreek Road Culverts Replacement

Beulah, Pueblo County, Colorado

Yeh Project No.: 217-112

October 9, 2017

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Hai Ming Lim, P.E. Hsing-Cheng Liu, P.E., Ph.D. Project Manager Senior Project Manager

Independent Reviewer: Michael L. Kiefer, P.E. Senior Project Manager

10-9-17

i

Table of Contents

1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ....................................................................... 1

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 1

3 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND SITE CONDITION .................................................. 2

4 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .............................................................................. 2

5 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................ 3

6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 3

7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 4

7.1 SITE PREPARATION ............................................................................................... 4

7.2 UNDERCUTTING AND SUBGRADE STABILIZATION ...................................................... 4

7.3 FILL MATERIALS ................................................................................................... 5

7.4 SITE GRADING ...................................................................................................... 5

7.5 CONCRETE AND CORROSION POTENTIAL ................................................................ 6

8 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 7

8.1 BEARING AND SLIDING RESISTANCES ..................................................................... 7

8.2 SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................ 8

8.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ................................................................................ 8

8.4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 9

9 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................... 9

10 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 10

List of Tables

Table 1 – Analytical Test Results ............................................................................................... 6

Table 2 – Bearing and Sliding Resistances for Wingwalls .......................................................... 7

Table 3 – Soil Strength Parameters for Earth Loads .................................................................. 9

Table 4 – Seismic Design Parameters for Site Class C .............................................................. 9

ii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Northcreek Road Culverts Replacement, Pueblo County, CO

(Google Earth) ................................................................................................................. 122

Figure 2 Geologic Map of Area, Northcreek Road Culvert Replacement ................................. 133

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Boring Location Plans

Appendix B. Legend, Boring Logs and Laboratory Test Results

FINAL Geotechnical Engineering Report YA Project No. 217-112 Northcreek Road Culverts Replacement October 9, 2017 Beulah, Pueblo County, Colorado

1

1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

This report presents the results of Yeh and Associates, Inc.’s (Yeh) geotechnical engineering

evaluation and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed two culverts replacement on

Northcreek Road in Beulah, Pueblo County, Colorado. The purpose of this report is to provide

geotechnical engineering recommendations for use by Wilson & Company, and Pueblo County

for the design and construction of the proposed culvert replacements. The subsurface

exploration and engineering evaluation were conducted in general accordance with the

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) guidelines and American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials Seventh Edition, 2014 (AASHTO, 2014).

Our scope of services includes the following:

• Drilling 2 borings at each culvert replacement sites, for a total of 4 borings to obtain

subsurface information.

• Performing laboratory testing on select soil and bedrock samples collected during our

investigation.

• Preparing a report that summarizes the field and laboratory data, presents the results of

geotechnical engineering analyses for the design of concrete box culverts (CBC), and

provides geotechnical engineering recommendations.

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

It is our understanding that the existing culverts over North Creek were damaged in a 2015 flood

event, and were temporary repaired with 60 inch diameter corrugated steel pipes (CSP). Both

culverts are on Northcreek Road, with the north culvert approximately 0.9 miles north of the

south culvert. The proposed project is to replace both 60 inch CSPs with 8 feet wide by 8 feet

high CBCs as part of the Pueblo County Flood Recovery projects. Installation of bank

protection (e.g. rip rap) and replacement of the approach pavements at the box structures

(approximately 100 feet at each location) are also planned as part of the project. The

approximate location of the planned CBC are shown on Figure 1 and Boring Location Plans

presented in Appendix A.


2

3 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND SITE CONDITION

The project is located in the Fountain formation of Permian and Pennsylvanian age. The

Fountain formation is comprised of red conglomerate and sandstone. The Glen Eyrie Shale

member composed of sandstone, sandy shale, and fossiliferous black shale is present at the

base of the unit. The Fountain formation can be as much as 4,400 feet thick. A geologic map

of the project area is included in Figure 2.

The surficial soils at the proposed culverts locations are mapped by NRCS as Larkson series.

The Larkson series is comprised of sandy soils over heavy clayey soils. Based on subsurface

data obtained during this exploration, the subsurface soils at the proposed culvert locations

consist primarily of sandy soils that are underlain at varying depths by claystone and sandstone

bedrock. The subsurface materials encountered in the borings are generally consistent with the

surficial soils mapped by USGS and NRCS, except that the heavy clay soils were not

encountered in the borings.

4 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

A total of four borings (YA-B-1 through YA-B-4) were drilled by Yeh at the locations of the

proposed culvert structures, with two borings generally drilled diagonally at each culvert

location. At the proposed northern culvert, the borings were drilled on the same side of the road

for traffic safety concerns. The boring locations are shown in on Figure 3 and 4, Boring Location

Plans presented in Appendix A. The locations of the borings were estimated based on the

distances measured from the existing CSPs. The locations and elevations of the existing

ground at the boring locations were not surveyed. The borings were drilled by Vine

Laboratories using drill rigs equipped with an automatic hammer and nominal 4-inch outside

diameter solid-stem augers as noted on the boring logs. Upon completion of drilling, the borings

were backfilled with drill cuttings and on-site soils. The subsurface conditions encountered in

the borings were logged by a representative of Yeh. The legends and borings logs are

presented in Appendix B.

Modified California (MC) tube samples were obtained during the Yeh site investigation. The MC

sampler is 12 inches in length with an inside diameter of 2.0 inches, an outside diameter of 2.5

inches, and uses 4-inch long brass liners to collect samples. The sampler was seated at the

bottom of the boring, then advanced by a 140 pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches.


3

The modified California penetration resistance value was recorded as the total number of blows

required to advance the sampler during the final two 6-inch intervals of drive penetration. If 50

blows could not advance the sampler in a 6-inch interval, driving was terminated.

5 LABORATORY TESTING

The samples collected during the subsurface investigation were transported to Yeh’s laboratory.

They were examined and a program of laboratory testing was developed to evaluate the

engineering properties of the collected subsurface materials. Selected soil samples were tested

to evaluate their engineering properties, using the following tests:

• natural moisture content

• grain size analysis

• Atterberg limits

• pH

• resistivity

• water soluble chlorides and sulfates

The test results are shown on the boring logs and are included in Appendix B. Following the

completion of the laboratory testing, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as

necessary and boring logs were finalized.

6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Four borings were performed for the subsurface exploration, with 2 borings at each culvert

location. Based on the borings, the existing pavement is approximately 4” of asphalt over 2

inches of aggregate base course at the south culvert. The asphalt pavement at the north culvert

is approximately 3.5” thick, with approximately 2 inches of aggregate base course on the south

approach and no aggregate base course was encountered on the north approach. Fill materials

consisting of varying amounts of broken shale, clay, sand and gravel was encountered below

the pavement and extended to approximately 8 to 8.5 feet below the existing ground surface at

the south culvert, and to approximately 4.5 to 6 feet at the north culvert. Sand with varying

amounts of clay and gravel was encountered below the fill materials and extends to depths

ranging from approximately 11 to 21 feet below the existing ground surface. Claystone and

sandstone were encountered below the sand soils and extended to the terminated depths.


4

Groundwater observations at the time of drilling were made and are shown on the boring logs.

Groundwater was encountered at approximate depths of 10 to 17 feet below the existing ground

surface at the end of drilling. Based on the site observation and features observed during field

explorations, the proposed culvert areas are also impacted by creek water. Depending on

foundation elevations, groundwater and surface water may be encountered during construction

and should be considered for the design. Groundwater and surface water variations can occur

during different seasons, following precipitation events, after site grading changes, and due to

changes in surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of the site and/or the surrounding

area. Year-round groundwater conditions were beyond the scope of this project.

7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Site Preparation

Subgrade to receive embankemnt fill should be prepared in accordance with Section 203 of

CDOT Standard Specifications. Initial sitework should consist of stripping organic materials or

other deleterious materials, and removing existing structures from areas of the proposed

construction. The exposed subgrade should be free of all organics, topsoil, debris, and loose or

soft material. Deleterious materials should be removed and stockpiled for future use in

proposed landscaped or non-structural areas. Areas to receive fill as part of the site grading

operations should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of any new

fill materials.

After stripping and over excavation, the exposed subgrade soils should be scarified to a

minimum of 12 inches at the channel bottom and in other areas (channel side slope, below

pavement), moisture conditioned, and recompacted according to Section 203.07 of the CDOT

Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, dated 2011.

7.2 Undercutting and Subgrade Stabilization

Based on the field observation, it is anticipated that the existing subsurface materials in the

creek channel may be wet and loose. Creek diversion and de-watering techniques may be

required for foundation subgrade preparation and general construction. If unstable conditions

are encountered or develop during construction, the existing subgrade could be undercut to firm

soil below the soft layer and replaced with properly compacted structural fill in accordance with

Section 7.3 of this report. Additionally, if isolated areas of deep soft soil are encountered,


5

stabilization of the subgrade using geogrid is acceptable. In these isolated areas, the over-

excavation should extend to a depth of approximately 12 inches below the planned over-

excavation. After the over-exacavation, approximately 3 to 6 inches of aggregate base

materials should be placed at the bottom of the excavation and lightly compacted. A geogrid

should then be placed on top of this aggregate base layer. A minimum of 6 inches of aggregate

base should then be placed on top of the geogrid. The stabilized subgrade should be approved

by a geotechnical engineer. After a stable platform is constructed, the remaining earthwork

construction can commence. The geogrid should be designated by the manufacturer for

stabilization/reinforcement purposes and should be equivalent or better than Tensar TX5.

7.3 Fill Materials

On-site sandy soils or imported granular fill can be used for backfill material around the box

culverts if placed and compacted as Engineered Fill discussed herein. The existing broken

shale fill is not recommended to be used as backfill materials around the box culverts.

The imported granular fill materials should meet the requirements of Class 1 structure backfill

materials specified in Section 703.08 of the CDOT Standard Specifications. All fill placed on

the site should be compacted in accordance with Section 203 of the CDOT Standard

Specifications, and the moisture content should be within 2% of the optimum moisture content.

All fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts that are 8-inches or less in loose thickness,

using equipment and procedures that will produce a uniform fill with the recommended moisture

contents and densities throughout the lift.

7.4 Site Grading

We recommend that all fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2.5H: 1V. Cut slopes should

be protected from surface water runoff to prevent erosion and slope failure. Surface drainage

should be provided around all permanent cuts and fills to direct surface runoff away from the

slope faces. Fill slopes, cut slopes, and other stripped areas should be protected against

erosion by re-vegetation or other methods.

Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of

the structures. The final slope adjacent to the top of the box culverts should be 10 percent or

steeper to facilitate surface water drainage away from structures. This includes water ponding


6

temporarily, such as from an overflow, drainage pipe, or other similar cases. Proper design of

drainage should include prevention of ponding of water. Backfill around box culverts should be

well compacted and free of all construction debris in order to reduce the possibility of moisture

infiltration and migration. Concentrated runoff should be avoided in areas susceptible to erosion

and slope instability.

The Contractor is responsible for the stability of temporary excavation slopes and should

observe the nature and conditions of the materials encountered during excavation, including

groundwater. If temporary excavations are made, they should be protected from surface water

runoff to prevent erosion and slope failure. All construction traffic should be set back from the

edge of temporary slopes a minimum of 5 feet, and excavated material, stockpiles of

construction materials, and construction equipment should not be placed closer to the edge of

any excavation than the depth of the excavation. We recommend that the contractor perform

periodic, daily monitoring of excavations and cut slopes to check for displacement,

deformations, bulges, and/or cracks in the soil.

7.5 Concrete and Corrosion Potential

Concrete and metal in contact with soils and bedrock may be subject to sulfate attack and

corrosion. Based on the proposed culvert box size, it is anticipated that the culvert structures will

be supported in the sand soils. The results of the analytical testing are summarized in Table 1

and in Appendix C.

Table 1 – Analytical Test Results

Sample Resistivity, ohm-

cm pH

Water Soluble Chloride (%)

Water Soluble Sulfates (%)

YA-B-1, 15’ 7536 7.8 0.0004 0.0002

YA-B-4, 9’ N/A1 N/A1 0.0006 0.003

1 Not enough sample for testing

The CDOT requirements for concrete mix design to protect against damage to concrete by sulfate

attack from external sources of sulfate are presented in Table 601-2, CDOT Standard

Specifications. Based on the analytical test results, the existing subsurface soils in the vicinity of

the proposed box culverts are classified as Class 0. The analytical testing results suggest a mild


7

to no corrosion potential towards metal based on values per Table C.1 of FHWA report FHWA0-

IF-3-017, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 – Soil Nail Walls.

8 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our geotechnical site evaluation and understanding of the proposed box culvert

structures, it is our opinion that the box culverts and wingwalls supported on properly prepared

subgrade is a viable option, provided that the subgrade are prepared in accordance with

Sections 7 of this report. The bottom of the culvert will work as a mat foundation footing to

support the weight of the structure. The wingwalls are anticipated to be supported on strip

footings that are separated from the box structure.

8.1 Bearing and Sliding Resistances

The subsurface materials encountered in the borings are suitable for mat foundations

proportioned using a nominal bearing resistance of 6,700 psf, and a factored bearing resistance

of 3,000 psf with a resistance factor of 0.45. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pci based

on a 1-foot by 1-foot plate can be used for the design. The modulus of subgrade reaction

should be modified according to the actual size of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the

bottom of foundations can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction at the interface

between the concrete and the foundation soils. We recommend the factored coefficient of

friction of 0.5 (a resistance factor of 0.80 is incorporated) for the structure placed on the properly

prepared granular subgrade.

The subsurface materials are also suitable to support strip footings for the wingwalls. The

bearing resistance and coefficients of sliding for the wingwalls foundation system are presented

in Table 2.

Table 2 – Bearing and Sliding Resistances for Wingwalls

Locations Materials Nominal Resistance

Factor Factored

North Culvert Wingwalls

Native Soils or Class 1

Structure Fill1

5,500 psf2 0.45 2,500 psf2

0.633 0.80 0.503

South Culvert Wingwalls

Sandstone Bedrock

28,000 psf2 0.45 12,600 psf2

0.733 0.80 0.583


8

1 Due to potential dip in bedrock elevation, the wingwall foundation is recommended to be founded in

native soils or structure fill materials. If claystone bedrock is encountered below the foundation during

construction, the claystone should be excavated and replaced with Class 1 Structure Fill Materials to at

least 2 feet below the bottom of the footings. The Class 1 Structure Fill should be compacted to at least

95% of the maximum dry density, and within +/- 2% of the optimum moisture content as determined from

modified proctor test.

2 Bearing Resistance. Wingwall footings should have a minimum foundation width of 18 inches, and

founded at a minimum of 3-feet below the final grade for frost protection.

3 Coefficient of sliding resistance

8.2 Settlement

Based on the anticipated bearing materials and the recommended factored bearing resistance,

total settlement of shallow mat and spread footings due to structural loads are estimated to be

0.5 inch, and the differential settlement across the box culvert structure is estimated to be less

than 0.5 inch. The settlement is anticipated to occur within a short period of time (less than 20

days) after the construction and placement of the embankment materials above the box

culverts.

8.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

Concrete box culvert walls and wing walls will be subject to load from earth and other surcharges.

We anticipate the walls will be backfilled with imported material meeting the requirements of

CDOT Class I backfill within the wedge areas at 1:1 (H:V) slope behind the wall from the heel of

the walls. The box culvert walls will be restrained from rotation therefore should be designed with

an “at-rest” earth pressure. We understand wingwalls could be cantilevered walls on spread

footings and attached to the box culvert, but allowing for wall rotation such that they can be

designed with an “active” earth pressure. Table 3 provides nominal values for evaluation of lateral

earth loads. Hydrostatic load due to creek water level and additional surcharge due to sloping

backfill surfaces or other surcharged loading conditions should be considered and applied where

appropriate.


9

Table 3 – Soil Strength Parameters for Earth Loads

Backfill Material

Total Unit

Weight (pcf)

Internal Angle of Friction

(Degrees)

At Rest Earth

Pressure Coefficient

Active Earth


Passive Earth


Factored Friction

Coefficient

CDOT Class I

Structural Backfill (Box)

130 34 0.44 0.28 N/A(1) N/A(1)

Existing Fill-

Granular Soils

125 32 N/A N/A 3.25(2) 0.31(3)

(1) Not anticipated to be used for the design

(2) The passive resistance of the top 3 feet, or the height of the slope in front of the wingwall, whichever is

greater, should be neglected while applying the passive pressure resistance

(3) A resistance factor of 0.85 is applied to the friction coefficient for cast in place concrete on granular soils

8.4 Seismic Considerations

No current active faults are known to exist in the immediate vicinity of the proposed box culvert

structures. The proposed project sites can be classified as Site Class C, based on the

recommendations in Table 3.10.3.1-1 of AASHTO (2014). Based on the recommendations in

Table 3.10.6.1 of AASHTO (2014), the project sites can be classified as a Seismic Zone 1.

The peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the short- and long- period spectral acceleration

coefficients (Ss and S1, respectively) for a Site Class B (reference site class) were determined

using the seismic design maps from the USGS website. The seismic design parameters for a

Site Class C are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 – Seismic Design Parameters for Site Class C

PGA As SS SDS S1 SD1

0.064 g 0.077 g 0.140 g 0.168 g 0.042 g 0.072 g

9 LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared for the exclusive use by Wilson & Company, and Pueblo County for

the design and construction of the two box culverts replacement on Northcreek Road in Pueblo

County, Colorado. Within the limitations of the scope, schedule, and budget, the work


10

presented in this report was performed in accordance with generally accepted principles and

practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either

express or implied.

The classifications, conclusions, and recommendations submitted in this report are based on

the data obtained from published and unpublished maps, reports, geotechnical analyses, and

our exploratory borings. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on our

understanding of the project as described in this report and the site conditions as interpreted

from the explorations. This data may not necessarily reflect variations in the subsurface

conditions and water levels occurring at other locations.

The nature and extent of subsurface variations may not become evident until excavation is

performed. Variations in the data may also occur with the passage of time. If during

construction, fill, soil, rock, or groundwater conditions appear to be different from those

described in this report, this office should be advised immediately so we could review these

conditions and reconsider our recommendations. If there is a substantial lapse of time between

the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed

because of natural forces or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, we recommend

that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and

recommendations concerning the changed conditions or time lapse. We recommend on-site

observation of foundation excavations and foundation subgrade conditions by the geotechnical

engineer of record or the engineer’s representative.

The scope of work of this investigation did not include hazardous materials sampling or

environmental sampling, investigation, or analyses. In addition, we did not evaluate the site for

potential impacts to natural resources, including wetlands, endangered species, or

environmentally critical areas.

10 REFERENCES

AASHTO, 2014. AASHTO Load-Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, Seventh Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2014.

Colorado Department of Transportation, 2011. CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and

Bridge Construction. Denver, Co. 2011 Edition.


11

Glenn R. Scott, Richard B. Taylor, Rudy C. Epis, and Reinhard A. Wobus, 1976, Geologic Map of the Pueblo 1o x 2o Quadrangle, South-Central Colorado, Department of The Interior, United States Geological Survey

Colorado Department of Transportation, 2012. Bridge Design Manual


12

Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Northcreek Road Culverts Replacement, Pueblo County, CO (Google Earth)

North Culvert

South Culvert


13

Figure 2 Geologic Map of Area, Northcreek Road Culvert Replacement

(USGS, Scott, G.R., Taylor R.B., Epis, R.C., Wobus W.A., 1976)

North Culvert

South Culvert

Appendix A

Boring Location Plans

Appendix B

Legend, Boring Logs and Laboratory Test Results

Project Number: 217-112

Northcreek Road Culvert Replacement

Legend for Symbols Used on Borehole Logs

Yeh and Associates, Inc.C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Sample Types

Auger Cuttings

Modified CaliforniaSampler(2.5 inch OD, 2.0inch ID)

Lithology Symbols

Project:

(see Boring Logs for complete descriptions)

Bedrock CLAYSTONE Sandstone

Asphalt Fill (made ground) USCS Clayey Sand USCS Silty Sand

USCS Poorly-gradedSand with Silt

USCS Well-gradedSand with Silt

1. "Penetration Resistance" on the Boring Logs refers to the N value for SPT samples only, as per ASTMD1586. For samples obtained with a Modified California sampler, drive depth was 12 inches, and"Penetration Resistance" refers to the sum of all blows. For all sample types, where blow counts were morethan 50 for the last increment, the blows and length for the last increment are reported under "PenetrationResistance."

2. The Modified California sampler used to obtain samples is a 2.5-inch OD, 2.0-inch ID (1.95-inch ID withliners), split-barrel sampler with internal liners, as per ASTM D3550. Sampler is driven with a 140-poundhammer, dropped 30 inches per blow.

Lab Test Standards Other Lab Test AbbreviationspH Soil pH (AASHTO T289-91)S Water-Soluble Sulfate Content (AASHTO T290-91,

ASTM D4327)Chl Water-Soluble Chloride Content (AASHTO T291-91,

ASTM D4327)S/C Swell/Consolidation (ASTM D4546)UCCS Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM D2166)R-Value Resistance R-Value (ASTM D2844)DS (C) Direct Shear cohesion (ASTM D3080)DS (phi) Direct Shear friction angle (ASTM D3080)Re Electrical Resistivity (AASHTO T288-91)PtL Point Load Strength Index (ASTM D5731)

Notes

Moisture Content ASTM D2216Dry Density ASTM D7263Sand/Fines Content ASTM D421, ASTM C136,

ASTM D1140Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318AASHTO Class. AASHTO M145,

ASTM D3282USCS Class. ASTM D2487(Fines = % Passing #200 SieveSand = % Passing #4 Sieve, but not passing #200 Sieve)

8-8

4-7

8-11

25-20

22-12

21-50:5"

50:5"

50:4"

16

11

19

45

34

50:5"

50:5"

50:4"

0.0 - 0.3 ft. Asphalt 3".0.3 - 8.0 ft. silty SAND, brown-dark brown andreddish brown, moist, loose to dense, gravel.

8.0 - 18.0 ft. silty SAND, reddish brown, wet,medium dense to dense, gravel.

18.0 - 24.0 ft. sandy CLAY, reddish brown, wet, verydense, some gravel.

24.0 - 30.3 ft. SANDSTONE, reddish brown, veryhard.

Bottom of Hole at 30.3 ft.

Total Depth: 30.3 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: 145297.0 E: 525151.0

Location: 3 miles NB Northcreek Rd.

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: R. Desterhouse

Final By: R. Desterhouse

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes: Clear

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Boring Began: 3/17/2017

Boring Completed: 3/17/2017

Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (4" OD)

Driller: Vine Laboratories

Drill Rig: Vine

Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)11.0 ft3/17/17

--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1

AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations

Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex



AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: YA-B-1Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-1

12.

GP

J 2

015

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

201

5 L

IBR

AR

Y.G

LB 5

/10

/17

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Material Description

Soil Samples

5-9

4-7

12-14

16-30

50:4"

50:0"

50:4"

14

11

26

46

50:4"

50:0"

50:4"

0.0 - 0.3 ft. Asphalt 3".0.3 - 3.5 ft. clayey SAND, dark brown, moist,medium dense, gravel.

3.5 - 7.0 ft. sandy CLAY, dark brown, moist, stiff,gravel.

7.0 - 8.5 ft. silty CLAY, dark brown to reddish brown,moist, medium stiff, gravel.

8.5 - 12.0 ft. silty SAND, reddish brown andmulti-colored, moist, dense.

12.0 - 25.3 ft. CLAYSTONE, reddish brown, veryhard, gravel and sand.



Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: 145296.0 E: 525213.0


Groundwater Levels:



SymbolDepthDate







Drill Rig: Vine


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex



AtterbergLimits


Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

15

20

25

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-1

12.

GP

J 2

015

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

201

5 L

IBR

AR

Y.G

LB 5

/10

/17

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy


Soil Samples

6-6

3-4

11-17

10-50:1"

0-0

12

7

28

50:1"

0

0.0 - 0.3 ft. Asphalt 3.5".0.3 - 3.0 ft. clayey SAND, dark brown, moist, loose,gravel.

3.0 - 4.5 ft. sandy CLAY, brown and yellowish brown,moist, medium stiff, gravel.

4.5 - 12.0 ft. silty SAND, reddish brown, moist,medium dense, gravel.

12.0 - 12.1 ft. SANDSTONE, very hard.Bottom of Hole at 12.0 ft.


Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: 143347.0 E: 529135.0


Groundwater Levels:



SymbolDepthDate







Drill Rig: Vine


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex



AtterbergLimits


Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-1

12.

GP

J 2

015

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

201

5 L

IBR

AR

Y.G

LB 5

/10

/17

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy


Soil Samples

3-3

4-5

1-1

9-19

50:1"

0

6

9

2

28

50:1"

0

0.0 - 0.4 ft. Asphalt 3.5", gravel.0.4 - 6.0 ft. clayey SAND, dark brown to reddishbrown, moist, loose, gravel.

6.0 - 7.5 ft. sandy CLAY, reddish brown, moist, soft.

7.5 - 11.0 ft. silty SAND, reddish brown, moist towet, medium dense.

11.0 - 20.0 ft. SANDSTONE, reddish brown, veryhard.



Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: 143331.0 E: 529171.0


Groundwater Levels:



SymbolDepthDate







Drill Rig: Vine


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex



AtterbergLimits


Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

15

20

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-1

12.

GP

J 2

015

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

201

5 L

IBR

AR

Y.G

LB 5

/10

/17

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy


Soil Samples

Project No: Date: 3/30/2017

Gradation Atterberg

Chloride

%

B-1 15 CA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7.8 0.002 7536 0.0004_ _

B-1 20 CA 17.2_

33 38 29 42 23 19_ _ _ _

A-2-7 ( 0 ) SC

B-1 25 CA 23.4_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

B-1 30 CA 15.0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

B-2 5 CA 9.2_

29 36 35 31 19 12_ _ _ _

A-6 ( 0 ) SC

B-3 7 CA 4.9_

49 35 16 NV NP NP_ _ _ _

A-1-b ( 0 ) GM

B-4 7 CA 21.2_

0 20 80 NV NP NP_ _ _ _

A-4 ( 0 ) ML

B-4 9 CA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0.003_

0.0006_ _

PL PIAASHTO USCS

Resistivity

ohm.cm

CLASSIFICATIONWater

Soluble

Sulfate %

Sample

Type

Gravel

> #4

(%)

Sand

(%)

Fines <

#200

(%)

217-112 Project Name:

LL

YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC

Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Sample Location Natural

Moisture

Content

(%)

Natural

Dry

Density

(pcf)

PH

ES North Creek Road Culvert Replacement

Boring No. Depth (ft)

Rev 2 - 8/02 Page 7 of 8

Drawn By: M.A

Date: 03/30/17

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

-

-

-

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

Sample

Description:A-2-7 (0) / SC

Project No.: 217-112

Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 29 PI 19

ES North Creek Road Culvert

replacement Project Name:

Sample ID: B-1

Sample

Depth (ft.):20

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

33

38

LL

PL

¾ "

½"

42

23

-

-

51

34

100

89

81

67

#200 29

Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants

SIEVE ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16

Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis

Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm

100

The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

2"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: M.A

Date: 03/30/17

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

-

-

-

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

Sample

Description:A-6 (0) / SC


Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 35 PI 12



Sample ID: B-2

Sample

Depth (ft.):5

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

29

36

LL

PL

¾ "

½"

31

19

-

100

61

43

85

81

78

71

#200 35


SIEVE ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16



100


2"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: M.A

Date: 03/30/17

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

-

-

-

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

Sample

Description:A-1-b (0) / GM


Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 16 PI NP



Sample ID: B-3

Sample

Depth (ft.):7

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

49

35

LL

PL

¾ "

½"

NV

NP

100

72

38

18

67

64

60

51

#200 16


SIEVE ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16



100


2"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: M.A

Date: 03/30/17

¾ "

½"

NV

NP

-

-

98

86

-

-

100

100

#200 80


SIEVE ANALYSIS

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

0

20

LL

PL



Sample ID: B-4

Sample

Depth (ft.):7

Sample

Description:A-4 (0) / ML


Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 80 PI NP

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

-

-

-

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16



100


2"

Revised 04/27/2004

Appendix C

Analytical Test Results

FINAL Geotechnical Engineering Report Northcreek Road ... GEOTECHNICAL Report_217-112...exploration...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL Geotechnical Engineering Report Northcreek Road ... GEOTECHNICAL Report_217-112...exploration...