of the toll plaza and pavements had not been determined at ... Coweta Toll Plaza... · the toll...

Muskogee Turnpike Toll Plaza 11 December 2015 Coweta, Oklahoma Project No. CG-15-01

4071 NW 3RD STREET ▪ OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73107 ▪ 405.942.4090 ▪ 405.942.4057 FAX ▪ WWW.HINDERLITERGEO.COM

PROUDLY SERVING OKLAHOMA, TEXAS & MISSOURI

cg-15-01 report revised

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1 2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................. 2 3.0 Site Exploration ...................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Boring Layout & Elevations ........................................................................ 2 3.2 Subsurface Investigation ............................................................................ 2 4.0 Laboratory Evaluation ............................................................................................ 4 4.1 Moisture Content ........................................................................................ 4 4.2 Liquid & Plastic Limits................................................................................. 4 4.3 Sieve Analysis ............................................................................................ 4 4.4 Moisture-Density Relationship .................................................................... 5 4.5 Resilient Modulus ....................................................................................... 5 4.6 Total Soluble Sulfates................................................................................. 5 5.0 Findings & Recommendations ............................................................................... 5 5.1 Site Conditions ........................................................................................... 6 5.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................... 6 5.3 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................. 6 5.4 General Site Development ......................................................................... 7 5.5 Floor Slab Subgrade – Buildings ................................................................ 7 5.6 Shallow Footing Foundations – Buildings ................................................... 9 5.7 Spread Footing Foundations – Awning / Roofs ........................................... 10 5.8 Pavement Thickness & Subgrade Development ......................................... 11 6.0 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................. 12 Appendix A Boring Locations Subsurface Fence Diagram Boring Logs Appendix B Liquid & Plastic Limits Results Moisture-Density Relationship – BCS-1 Resilient Modulus Summary – BCS-1 Moisture-Density Relationship – BCS-2 Resilient Modulus Summary – BCS-2 Total Soluble Sulfates General Notes on Soil Classification Appendix C WinPAS Rigid Design Inputs WinPAS ESAL Data by Vehicle Type



PROUDLY SERVING OKLAHOMA, TEXAS & MISSOURI 1


1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subsurface exploration and laboratory soil testing is complete for the proposed improvements to the toll plaza located on the Muskogee Turnpike at SH-51 near Coweta, Oklahoma. We understand an updated toll plaza will be constructed along with mainline pavements and ramps. Configuration of the toll plaza and pavements had not been determined at the time of this report. Information provided to us indicates the current ADT is 19,399 vehicles of which approximately 11 percent are T3 trucks. Fourteen soil test borings advanced to depths of approximately 5 feet to 20 feet were included in the subsurface exploration for the toll plaza. HGE personnel located the borings in the field based on the aerial photo provided to us by the project engineer. Borings were located adjacent to existing or proposed ramps, adjacent to the existing toll plaza buildings and at the location of proposed toll plaza buildings. The approximate location of each boring is displayed on the Boring Locations diagram and recorded on the Boring Logs, both attached within Appendix A of this report. Highly plastic clay soils were frequently encountered within the borings. In general, the soils encountered within the borings were lean clays, lean to fat clays and fat clays. AASHTO classifications of these soils were A-6 and A-7-6. Existing fill materials encountered within the borings were similar to the native subgrade soils. Hard bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 7 feet to 16-1/2 feet within borings B-02, B-04 and P-09. Based on available geology maps, it appears most likely that the bedrock is sandstone of the Bluejacket Unit (Pbj). Two bulk composite soil samples were obtained from the site; one of existing fill materials and one of native subgrade. These samples displayed standard-effort maximum dry densities of 109.7 and 110.2 pcf with optimum moistures of 15.4 percent and 16.8 percent. When molded at optimum moisture, resilient modulus values of the soils ranged from 9,962 psi to 17,497 psi. When molded at 2 percent above optimum the resilient modulus values ranged from 5,882 psi to 10,291 psi. The borings were monitored for groundwater while drilling. Groundwater was encountered within borings B-02, B-03 and B-04 at depths ranging from approximately 10-1/2 feet to 19-1/2 feet. Groundwater was not encountered within the remaining borings at the time of this investigation. The borings were backfilled or plugged per OWRB requirements immediately after boring completion. Based on the traffic data provided to us, pavements should be designed using 85.8 M Rigid ESAL’s. Shallow footings can be used to support the proposed buildings while spread footings can be used to support the proposed awning / roof structures. Specific geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and foundation construction are presented subsequently in this report.





2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

We understand the existing toll plaza located at the intersection of the Muskogee Turnpike and SH-51 near Coweta, Oklahoma will be updated. New toll plaza buildings and awning / roof structures, along mainline and ramp pavements will be included. Final configuration of the toll plaza and pavements were not determined at the time of this report. New pavements will be constructed using Portland cement concrete. The ADT of the mainline pavements was reported to be 19,399 vehicles of which approximately 11 percent are T3 trucks.

3.0 SITE EXPLORATION

3.1 Boring Layout & Elevations Fourteen soil test borings were advanced adjacent to the existing toll plaza, proposed north location for a toll plaza and the existing ramps. Borings were advanced to depths ranging from about 5 feet to 20 feet. Borings advanced for the toll plaza were labeled B-01 through B-04 while borings advanced for pavements were designated P-01 through P-10. The approximate locations of the borings are displayed on the Boring Locations diagram and are recorded on the Boring Logs, both included in Appendix A of this report. Borings were located in the field using a measuring wheel; right angles were estimated. Elevations at the boring locations were estimated from the survey conducted at the site which included shots at each specific boring location. Estimated elevations at the boring locations ranged from approximately 562 at boring P-09 to 589 at boring P-01 Boring locations and elevations should be considered only roughly accurate and not survey quality. For specific boring locations and elevations, the project survey should be consulted. Borings are often offset in the field by drill operators to locations accessible to the drill rig or to avoid utilities. Significant offsets are typically noted on the boring logs. 3.2 Subsurface Investigation A track-mounted CME-55 rotary drill rig outfitted with 6” solid-stem augers was used to advance the boreholes. Representative soil samples were obtained using either the split-barrel or thin-walled tube sampling procedure as detailed in ASTM D 1586 and ASTM D 1587, respectively. Bulk composite samples were obtained from the augers.





The split-barrel sampling procedure is commonly referred to as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). The split-barrel sampling process requires a split-barrel (two-piece) sampling tube be used to obtain soil samples. A two-inch outside diameter sampling tube is hammered into the bottom of the boring with a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampling tube the last 12 inches, or less, of an 18-inch sampling interval is recorded as the SPT resistance value, N. The in-situ relative density of granular soils, consistency of cohesive soils, and the hardness of weathered bedrock can be estimated from the N value. The N values recorded for each test are displayed on the attached boring logs adjacent to their relative sampling depths. In addition, a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) was used to evaluate the sedimentary rock encountered at the site. The DCP is a standard test developed by the Texas Department of Transportation to determine the strength and hardness of foundation materials in bridge foundation exploration work. The test is performed by attaching a 3-inch diameter penetrometer cone to the drill pipe and lowering it to the bottom of the borehole. The cone is seated and driven with a 140 pound drive hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration after 50 hammer blows into the bearing material is measured to the nearest 1/16th-inch. The process is repeated for another 50 blows. The total penetration for 100 blows is used to determine the strength of the bearing materials. An automatic drive hammer was used to advance both the split-barrel sampler and the cone penetrometer. A greater mechanical efficiency is achieved using an automatic drive hammer when compared to a conventional safety drive hammer operated with a cathead and rope. The effect of this higher efficiency on the N values has been considered in our interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information provided with this report. In the thin-walled tube sampling procedure, a seamless steel tube with a sharpened cutting end is pushed into the bottom of the borehole using the hydraulic head of the drill rig. The tube is carefully extruded from the borehole and sealed to preserve moisture. Once returned to the laboratory, the sample is extruded using a hydraulic ram. An HGE geotechnical engineer prepared field boring logs as part of the subsurface investigation. Samples retrieved during the drilling operations were examined and a material description was recorded on the logs. The split-barrel samples were packaged in plastic bags to reduce moisture loss, tagged for identification and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation. The field logs also include visual classifications of the cutting materials encountered during drilling which include the engineer’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions between sampling depths. This report contains the final boring logs that represent modifications based on laboratory test results of the soil samples. The borings were plugged per OWRB requirements immediately after drilling operations were completed. Groundwater level measurements are discussed in Section 5.3 of this report.





4.0 LABORATORY EVALUATION As part of the geotechnical investigation, selected soil samples obtained from the borings were evaluated for moisture content, liquid and plastic limits and grain size. Samples obtained within thin-walled tubes were evaluated for in-situ density and unconfined compressive strength. Strength properties of re-molded bulk samples were determined by resilient modulus. These test results provide the information required to classify the soils and help to determine their engineering properties. The engineer reviewed all soil descriptions and made modifications based on the materials plasticity, texture, and color along with the laboratory test results. The laboratory test results and group symbol from the USCS system are displayed on the Boring Logs included in Appendix A of this report and on the laboratory report sheets located in Appendix B. The following sections provide brief information about the tests performed. 4.1 Moisture Content The in-situ moisture content of soil samples was determined in the laboratory in general accordance with specification AASHTO T 265. The results of these tests have been provided in the appropriate column of the boring logs. Used appropriately with the SPT N-values, these results give indication of subsurface features such as groundwater levels and material consistency. The moisture content is expressed as a percentage and is the ratio of the weight of water in a given amount of soil to the weight of solid particles. 4.2 Liquid & Plastic Limits The Liquid Limit (LL) and Plastic Limit (PL) of selected soil samples were determined in the laboratory in general accordance with test methods AASHTO T89 and T90. The Liquid Limit (LL) of a soil is the water content at which the soil passes from a liquid state to a plastic state and is essentially a flow test. The Plastic Limit (PL) of a soil is the water content at which the soil passes from a plastic state to a semi-solid state. The Plasticity Index (PI) is the difference between the Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit (PI = LL – PL). There is a correlation between these limits and experimental shrink / swell data. 4.3 Sieve Analysis Test The amount of material passing the No. 4, No. 10, No. 40 and No. 200 U.S. Standard Sieves was determined in the laboratory in general accordance with test method AASHTO T11 and T88 (sans hydrometer). Determination of the material grading, combined with the LL, PL and PI provide the





information needed to classify the soil. The amount retained on any sieve is expressed as a percentage of the ratio of the accumulated mass retained on the sieve divided by the total sample weight and multiplied by 100. 4.4 Moisture-Density Relationship The moisture-density relationship of the bulk composite soil sample obtained from the borings was determined in general accordance with AASHTO T 99 (commonly referred to as the standard-effort Proctor test). The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the sampled materials are determined from this test. These values are used to determine the target molding properties of resilient modulus specimens. 4.5 Resilient Modulus Resilient Modulus is a soil parameter determined by re-molding cylindrical specimens to density and moisture contents determined from the materials moisture-density relationship. Typically, specimens are molded to 95 percent of the materials maximum dry density at optimum moisture with a second specimen molded to optimum plus two percent. The specimen is subjected to repeated axial impulse loadings at varying confining pressures. Resilient Modulus, Mr, is the ratio of the peak axial stress to the corresponding recoverable axial strain. Reference test method AASHTO T 307. 4.6 Total Soluble Sulfates Total soluble sulfate content of bulk samples was determined in general accordance with test method OHD L-49. The results are used to determine whether chemical stabilization of the tested soil is appropriate.

5.0 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Highly plastic clay soils are present at this site. Recommendations are made herein to mitigate damage that could occur to floor slabs, foundations and pavements due to shrinking and swelling of the clay soils as changes in moisture content occur. However, even when these precautions are taken damage could still occur due to excessive pressures placed on structures by swelling soils. Vegetation with a high demand for water should not be planted close to structures or pavements due to the potential for shrinkage of the highly plastic clays.





5.1 Site Conditions We understand the existing Toll Plaza on the Muskogee Turnpike near Coweta, Oklahoma will be modernized through construction of a new toll plaza, ramps and mainline pavements. The toll plaza is located at the intersection with SH-51. At the time of our investigation the turnpike and crossing highway were subject to relatively heavy traffic. Boring locations were covered with native or landscaped vegetation. Borings along the existing ramps to SH-51 were conducted through fill materials. Borings adjacent to the existing mainline pavements generally encountered native materials. However, all materials encountered were relatively similar. 5.2 Subsurface Conditions Highly plastic clay soils were frequently encountered within the borings. In general, the soils encountered within the borings were lean clays, lean to fat clays and fat clays. AASHTO classifications of these soils were A-6 and A-7-6. Existing fill materials encountered within the borings were similar to the native subgrade soils. Hard bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 7 feet to 16-1/2 feet within borings B-02, B-04 and P-09. Based on available geology maps, it appears most likely that the bedrock is sandstone of the Bluejacket Unit (Pbj). Two bulk composite soil samples were obtained from the site; one of existing fill materials and one of native subgrade. These samples displayed standard-effort maximum dry densities of 109.7 and 110.2 pcf with optimum moistures of 15.4 percent and 16.8 percent. When molded at optimum moisture, resilient modulus values of the soils ranged from 9,962 psi to 17,497 psi. When molded at 2 percent above optimum the resilient modulus values ranged from 5,882 psi to 10,291 psi. Results of each boring are included in the appendices of this report. Every attempt is made to accurately reflect the depths of material change; however, stratification boundaries should be considered approximate. Specific recommendations concerning the design of floor slabs, foundations and full-depth pavement reconstruction are presented in the following sections of this report. 5.3 Groundwater Conditions The borings were monitored for groundwater while drilling. Groundwater was encountered within borings B-02, B-03 and B-04 at depths ranging from approximately 10-1/2 feet to 19-1/2 feet. Groundwater was not encountered within the remaining borings at the time of this investigation. The borings were backfilled or plugged per OWRB requirements immediately after boring completion.





To obtain more accurate groundwater level information, long-term observations in a well or piezometer that is sealed from the influence of surface water would be needed. Groundwater level fluctuations and / or perched water conditions may occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall and other factors such as drainage characteristics. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered during the preparation of construction plans. 5.4 General Site Development Site preparation for the proposed buildings and pavements should include removing all existing vegetation and topsoil to a depth of approximately 12 inches. Any roots larger than 1 inch in diameter, rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter, and any matted roots should also be removed from the proposed construction area. Any other unsuitable materials encountered during construction operations should be removed. After removing the recommended deleterious materials and before placing concrete, pavement or fill, we recommend the site be proof-rolled to identify any soft or loose areas. Proof-rolling operations should be observed by qualified geotechnical personnel to identify soft or loose areas to be removed or stabilized, and to verify that all unsuitable materials have been removed. Proof-rolling should be performed using a loaded, tandem-axle dump truck having a minimum gross weight of 25 tons, or other equipment having a similar subgrade loading. Proof-rolling should be performed slowly and in overlapping passes, repeating the process in a perpendicular direction. Any areas of rutting or pumping should be removed and replaced with moisture-conditioned, low volume change soil (defined in section 5.5 of this report). The soils encountered on site are susceptible to becoming soft with the addition of moisture. During periods of rain, the site may become unworkable and difficult to travel across. If wet subgrade conditions are encountered during construction, we recommend reducing the soil’s moisture content by aeration. If the construction schedule cannot accommodate the time required to reduce the soil moisture content by aeration, addition of a calcium-based admixture (lime, fly ash, cement kiln dust, etc.) to dry the soil can be discussed if needed. 5.5 Floor Slab Subgrade – Buildings One factor affecting on-grade slab support is the shrink-swell potential of the subgrade materials due to seasonal variations in the subgrade moisture content. Typically, some increase in moisture content will occur as a result of gradual accumulation of capillary moisture after a slab is constructed. The shrink-swell potential of the soil beneath an on-grade slab is dependent on its plasticity, moisture content, density, confining pressure provided by the weight of the slab and the





overburden pressure (including the fill required to develop design grade). Higher plasticity and density and lower confining pressure and moisture content result in greater swell potential of the soils. The existing near surface soils at both potential building locations consist of moderately to highly plastic clay soils for which significant volume changes due to variations in subgrade moisture content could occur. Typically, buildings such as those proposed for this site are designed to tolerate vertical floor slab movements of approximately 1-inch or less. Based on the soils liquid limit, plastic limit and an expected moisture change zone of about 8 feet, we predict a potential vertical rise (PVR) at the south building location between 2 inches and 2-1/4 inches. At the north building location, the predicted PVR is between 1-3/4 inches and 2 inches. Therefore, the existing subgrade soils are considered to be unsuitable for direct support of floor slabs. We recommend constructing a low volume change soil support zone at least 48 inches in thickness for the south location and at least 30 inches for the north location. The following recommendations are provided to develop this low volume change soil zone beneath the floor slabs. After performing any required cuts, but before placing any fill, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by test method ASTM D 698 (commonly referred to as the standard Proctor) at a moisture content at optimum or above. Any soft or loose areas observed, or over-saturated, rutting or pumping soils observed during the compaction operation should be removed and replaced with moisture-controlled, low volume change soils. All fill required to develop the 48-inch (south location) or 30-inch (north location) soil support zone should consist of suitable low volume change (LVC) fill materials. The LVC pad should extend laterally at least one foot outside the slab footprint for every foot of fill placed. Suitable LVC soils are considered to be lean, cohesive materials with a liquid limit less than 40 and a plasticity index between 5 and 18, or cohesion-less materials with at least 25 percent passing the standard No. 200 sieve. All fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 9 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density. Fill soils should be placed at a moisture content within two percent of optimum (test method ASTM D 698). During compaction operations, the exposed subgrade and each lift of compacted fill should be tested for moisture and density and reworked as necessary until the lift is approved by the geotechnical engineer’s representative prior to the placement of additional material. We recommend the scarified surface and each lift of fill be tested for density and moisture content at a rate of one test per 2,500 square feet of compacted area with a minimum of two tests per compacted area. In addition, we recommend one test per lift for every 100 linear feet of compacted utility trench backfill.





The ground surface should be sloped away from on-grade slabs on all sides to prevent water collection. Water should not be allowed to pond near the slab during or after construction. The moisture content of the soil pad should be maintained near optimum until the slab is constructed. We recommend the moisture content of the on-grade slab subgrade be evaluated just before concrete for the slab is placed. If floor slabs will be covered with materials that are impervious to moisture migration, we recommend taking precautions to minimize the potential for floor covering problems relative to moisture emission. These precautions should include the following: Place a heavy-duty vapor retarder immediately below the floor slabs and seal the retarder at all penetration points. All fill materials should be placed below the vapor retarder. Concrete for the floor slabs should have a low slump and should be carefully cured due to the retention of mix water at the base of the slab over the vapor retarder. To maximize effectiveness, floor slab concrete should be water-cured for at least 7 days, which will also reduce the potential for slab edge curling. Lastly, after the buildings are enclosed and the HVAC is operating, slab moisture emission tests should be performed to confirm that vapor emission levels comply with the floor covering manufacturer’s specifications. 5.6 Shallow Footing Foundations – Buildings Shallow footing foundations can be used to support the proposed buildings at the locations of both potential plaza sites. To provide protection against frost heave and shrinking or swelling of the subgrade soils due to moisture change, footings should bear at a depth of at least 2-1/2 feet below the final adjacent subgrade elevation. For the design of footings bearing within undisturbed, native soils or tested and approved fill at the recommended depth, a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot can be used for foundation design. This is the pressure at the base of the footing in excess of the adjacent overburden pressure. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should be retained to evaluate that footings bear on soils suitable for the design pressure prior the placement of concrete. Continuous formed footings should have a minimum width of at least 16 inches, and isolated column footings should have a minimum width of at least 30 inches. Earth formed trench footings also could be used and should have a minimum width of at least 12 inches. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Any extremely wet or dry material, or any loose or disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations, should be removed prior to placing concrete.





Long-term movement is expected to be less than 1 inch for footings bearing within the materials described above and proportioned for the recommended maximum net allowable bearing pressure. Differential footing movement across the building is not expected to exceed approximately 1/2 of this value. Post-tensioned slab foundations could also be used to support the proposed buildings. A post-tensioned slab is generally capable of tolerating more differential movement than the conventional slab and footing design. Post-tensioned slab foundations should be designed to tolerate 2-1/4 inches of differential movement at the south building location and 2 inches of differential movement at the north location. If other design parameters are needed, then additional analysis of the on-site soil will be required. 5.7 Spread Footing Foundations – Awnings / Roofs We anticipate that awning / roof structures tall enough to allow trucks to pass underneath will be constructed over the toll booths. These roof structures could have significant overturning loads. Resistance to overturning can be provided using spread footings with soil compacted above the foundations. Spread footings are expected to bear at a depth at least 5 feet below existing grade. For the design of spread footings bearing within undisturbed, native materials at this depth, a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot can be used for foundation design. This is the pressure at the base of the footing in excess of the adjacent overburden pressure. Soil compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density over the spread footings can be considered to have a total unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a value of 0.25 should be used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the footing and the underlying soil. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should be retained to evaluate that footings bear on soils suitable for the design pressure prior the placement of concrete. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Any extremely wet or dry material, or any loose or disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations, should be removed prior to placing concrete. Long-term movement is expected to be less than 1 inch for footings bearing within the materials described above and proportioned for the recommended maximum net allowable bearing pressure. Differential footing movement across the building is not expected to exceed approximately 1/2 of this value.





5.8 Pavement Thickness & Subgrade Development Information provided to us for the design of rigid pavements is as follows: ADT 2015 19,399 T3 (% of ADT) 11% Based on this information we calculated 85.8 M Rigid ESAL’s based on an estimated annual growth rate of 3.0 percent and a design life of 20 years. Details are included in Appendix C of this report. Following are the minimum pavement thickness recommendations for new pavement construction. A light-duty section for building access drives has also been included.

MINIMUM PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Rigid Pavement Mainline &

Ramps Option 1

10-1/2” Doweled Portland Cement Concrete (3,000 psi minimum) 4” Type S3 Asphaltic Cement Concrete (PG 64-22 OK)

12” Type A Aggregate Base Separator Fabric (non-woven)

8” Stabilized Subgrade (hydrated lime)

Rigid Pavement Mainline &

Ramps Option 2

11-1/2” Doweled Portland Cement Concrete (3,000 psi minimum) 8” Type A Aggregate Base

Separator Fabric (non-woven) 8” Stabilized Subgrade (hydrated lime)

Light-Duty Rigid

Pavement Driveways

7” Reinforced Portland Cement Concrete (3,000 psi minimum) 8” Stabilized Subgrade (hydrated lime)

All fill should be placed in loose lifts of 9 inches or less. Each lift of fill should be adjusted to within two percent of the materials maximum dry density and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soils maximum dry density as determined by test method AASHTO T 99.





Once proofrolling is complete and all areas of rutting or pumping have been repaired, the top 8 inches of the subgrade soils should be stabilized using an estimated 5 percent hydrated lime. The estimated percentage of hydrated lime should be verified at the time of construction for the actual exposed soils. Soils with a liquid limit in excess of 50 may require 6 percent hydrated lime. Once final mixing of the soil and additive has occurred, the moisture content of the stabilized soil should be adjusted to within two percent of its optimum value and should be compacted to 100 percent of the mixtures maximum dry density as determined by test method AASHTO T99. Aggregate Base materials should conform to ODOT requirements for Type A. Aggregates should be separated from the underlying stabilized subgrade by a non-woven separator fabric. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the materials maximum dry density per test method AASHTO T 99, at a moisture content within 3 percent of optimum. Minimizing subgrade saturation is an important factor in maintaining subgrade strength. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to pavements could saturate the subgrade and cause premature pavement deterioration. The pavement and subgrade should be sloped approximately ¼ inch per foot to provide rapid surface drainage, and positive surface drainage should be maintained away from the edge of the paved areas. Design alternatives that would reduce the risk of subgrade saturation and improve long-term pavement performance include crowning the pavement subgrade to drain toward the edges, rather than to the center of the pavement areas and installing surface drains next to any areas where surface water could pond. Maintenance of the pavement will be required to obtain a satisfactory design life. Maintenance should include crack sealing, surface sealing and patching of any deteriorated areas. In addition, thicker pavement sections could be used to reduce the required maintenance and extend the service life of the pavement.

6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS Recommendations provided in this report are based on information from discrete borings (generally 4 to 8 inches in diameter) and, in some cases, from an engineer’s general surficial observations. All site conditions cannot be detailed based on a limited number of borings and increasing the number of borings so that all site conditions can be defined is generally not practical. Variations in site conditions between boring locations should be expected and, on occasion, revised recommendations will be required. Hinderliter Geotechnical Engineering, LLC (HGE) should be retained to review final plans and specifications so that comments can be provided regarding the





implementation of recommendations provided in this report. HGE should also be retained to provide monitoring of site construction. This report provides recommendations concerning site construction and, while it may provide limited analysis of soil corrosiveness and / or contaminant content, is not an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). If the Owner is concerned about environmental and / or biological assessment, a separate study specifically focused on environmental issues should be undertaken. This report has been prepared specifically for the referenced project and for the exclusive use of our Client. Third-party reliance may be granted upon specific written request of the Client. This report has been prepared using locally specific and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices based on structural information provided by the Client and information gained from the site. No warranties are implied or granted regarding site recommendations not specifically discussed in this report.


4071 NW 3RD STREET ▪ OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73107 ▪ 405.942.4090 ▪ 405.942.4057 FAX ▪ WWW.HINDERLITERGEO.COM PROUDLY SERVING OKLAHOMA, TEXAS & MISSOURI


APPENDIX A

BORING LOCATIONS SUBSURFACE FENCE DIAGRAM

BORING LOGS

PROPOSED TOLL PLAZA IMPROVEMENTSCOWETA, OKLAHOMA

BORING LOCATIONS DECEMBER 2015PROJECT: CG-15-01

HINDERLITER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, LLC4071 NW 3RD STREETOKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73107OFFICE: (405) 942-4090WWW.HINDERLITERGEO.COM

P-01 P-02

P-03 P-04

P-05

B-1 B-2

P-07 P-06 P-08

B-3 B-4

P-09 P-10

550

552

554

556

558

560

562

564

566

568

570

572

574

576

578

550

552

554

556

558

560

562

564

566

568

570

572

574

576

578

9

7

19

100/0.3

12

13

5

5

100/0.3

7

78

8

9

9

10

11

3/6 50/4

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAM

Subsurface Fence Diagram

Project: Muskogee Turnpike Toll Plaza

Location: Coweta, Oklahoma

Number: CG-15-01

US

FE

NC

E C

G-1

5-01

.GP

J M

B-1

4-01

.GP

J 1

2/10

/15

Hinderliter Geotechnical Engineering, LLC4071 NW 3rd StreetOklahoma City, OK 73107Telephone: (405) 942-4090Fax: (405) 942-4057

B-02

B-04

P-04

P-07

P-09

N = 7

UC=16 psi

N = 11

N = 10

N = 13

N = 16

24

22

21

22

28

25

49

55

15

15

97

91102

34

40 100

100

99

99

93

Vegetation & approximately 12" Topsoil

LEAN TO FAT CLAY (CL-CH)blackmedium stiff to stiff

FAT CLAY (CH)olive, brown, graystiff

Bottom of boring approximately 20 feet

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)

Cowan Group Engineering

Muskogee Turnpike Toll Plaza

Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:

N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCEP - POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCET - TXDOT CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCER - ROCK CORE RECOVERYRQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

6" solid augers. SPT penetration testing & sampling.

SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10

15

20

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION:

PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-01

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

DATE(S) DRILLED: 12/6/15

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SURFACE ELEVATION: 583.3

No groundwater encountered

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

Approximate Boring Location:SW of existing Toll Gates

SO

IL S

YM

BO

LHinderliter Geotechnical Engineering, LLC4071 NW 3rd StreetOklahoma City, OK 73107Telephone: (405) 942-4090Fax: (405) 942-4057

LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 9

N = 7

N = 19

T =100/0.3

NoRecovery

19

20

25

46 15 9631 100 98


LEAN TO FAT CLAY (CL-CH)black

FAT CLAY (CH)yellowish-brownstiff to medium stiff

FAT CLAY (CH)blackvery stiff

Auger refusal at approximately 16-1/2 feet. ProbableBluejacket Unit (Pbj) Sandstone.

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:


6" solid augers. SPT penetration testing & sampling. DCPpenetration testing on rock.

SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10

15

20

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-02

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS


Groundwater encountered at a depth of approximately 13 feet.


Approximate Boring Location:SE of existing Toll Gates

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 14

N = 13

UC=79 psi

N = 13

N = 17

N = 36

17

16

13

31

24

16

35 15 9311220 100 99 96


FAT CLAY (CH)olive-yellowstiff

LEAN CLAY (CL)brownvery stiff to stiff

FAT CLAY (CH)blackvery stiff to hard


N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10

15

20

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-03

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS


Groundwater encountered at a depth of approximately 19-1/2feet.


Approximate Boring Location:Possible North Toll Plaza - West

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 12

N = 13

N = 5

N = 5

T =100/0.3

18

18

23

21

49 16 9633 100 99


LEAN TO FAT CLAY (CL-CH)tan, redstiff to medium stiff

FAT CLAY (CH)black, brown

Auger refusal at approximately 12-1/2 feet. ProbableBluejacket Unit (Pbj) Sandstone.

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:


6" solid augers. SPT penetration testing & sampling. DCPpenetration testing on rock.

SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10

15

20

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-04

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS


Groundwater encountered at a depth of approximately 10-1/2feet.


Approximate Boring Location:Possible North Toll Plaza - East

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 5

N = 14

N = 7

N = 10

22

21

22

21

37 18 9719 100 99


FILL - dark brown & olive CLAY

LEAN CLAY (CL)blackstiff

LEAN TO FAT CLAY (CL-CH)olivemedium stiff to stiff

Bottom of boring approximately 10 feet. Fill depthestimated.

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-01

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:South end of SW Ramp - West Side

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 8

N = 13

20

24

51 16 9735 100 99


FAT CLAY (CH)blackstiff

FAT CLAY (CH)yellowish-brownstiff


N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-02

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:South end of SE Ramp - East Side

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 11

N = 9

18

22

34 17 7317 100 97 87


FILL - Black, Yellowish-Brown Clay

Undetermined Fill


N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-03

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:North end of SE Ramp - East Side

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 7

N = 7

19

20

41 15 9526 100 98


LEAN CLAY (CL)black, brownmedium stiff


N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-04

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:North of existing Toll Plaza - West of existing Ramp

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 13

N = 5

16

18 35 16 8819 100 95


Approximately 12" Aggregate Base

FILL - Dark Brown, Gray Clay

Undetermined Fill


N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-05

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:North end of SW Ramp - West Side

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 6

N = 9

22

24

49 16 9433 100 97



Undetermined Fill

Bottom of the boring approximately 5 feet. Fill depthestimated.

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-06

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:South end of NW Ramp - West Side

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 8

N = 8

N = 9

N = 9

19

19

21

21

44 15 9529 100 99


LEAN CLAY (CL)yellowish-brown, graystiff


N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-07

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:South of Possible North Toll Plaza - East Side

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 9

N = 8

18

23

41 17 8124 100 97 88



Undetermined Fill


N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-08

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:South end of NE Ramp - East Side

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 10

N = 11

N = 3/650/4

21

20

28 61 26 7735 100 84

Vegetation & approximately 6" Gravelly Topsoil

FILL - Tan, Red Clay

FAT CLAY (CH)brown, tan, red, blackstiff to medium stiff

Auger refusal at approximately 7 feet. ProbableBluejacket Unit (Pbj) Sandstone. Fill depth estimated.

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-09

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:North end of NE Ramp - East Side

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5

N = 8

N = 7

21

21

46 16 9830 100


FILL - Black Clay

LEAN TO FAT CLAY (CL-CH)olive, tanmedium stiff


N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

T: B

LOW

SR

: %R

QD

: %

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

MIN

US

NO

. 4 S

IEV

E (

%)

MIN

US

NO

. 10

SIE

VE

(%

)

MIN

US

NO

. 40

SIE

VE

(%

)



Coweta, Oklahoma

CG-15-01

REMARKS:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:



SA

MP

LES

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING P-10

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL


ATTERBERGLIMITS




Approximate Boring Location:North end of NW Ramp - West Side

SO

IL S

YM

BO


LOG

A G

NN

L01

CG

-15-

01.G

PJ

LO

G A

GN

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

10/1

5




APPENDIX B

LIQUID & PLASTIC LIMITS RESULTS MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP – BCS-1

RESILIENT MODULUS SUMMARY – BCS-1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP – BCS-2

RESILIENT MODULUS SUMMARY – BCS-2 TOTAL SOLUBLE SULFATES

GENERAL NOTES ON SOIL CLASSIFICATION

PROJECT NO(S): HGE# CG-15-01 CLIENT: ODOTPROJECT NAME: Muskogee Turnpike Toll PlazaCOUNTY/STATE NAME: /Oklahoma OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, %: 15.4SOURCE OF MATERIAL: BCS-1 at OMC MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, pcf: 109.7REMOLDING TARGETS: 95% Maximum Dry Density at 15.4% Moisture Content 95% MDD, pcf: 104.2MATERIAL TYPE (Type 1 or Type 2) 2TEST DATE 12-08-2015

NET DIAMETER, in: 2.9 PRECONDITIONING-PERMANENT STRAIN>5% NINITIAL SPECIMEN HEIGHT, in: 5.6 TESTING-PERMANENT STRAIN>5% NWET WEIGHT, g: 1140.8 NUMBER OF LOAD SEQUENCES COMPLETED 15COMPACTION WATER CONTENT, %: 15.4 QUICK SHEAR TEST YCOMPACTION DRY DENSITY, pcf: 103.5MOISTURE CONTENT AFTER Mr TEST, %: 15.2

COLUMN # 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Chamber Nominal Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Recov. Def. Recov. Def. Average Resilient Acutal PredictedConfining Maximum Applied Applied Applied Applied Applied Applied LVDT LVDT Recov Def. Strain Resilient Resilient

PARAMETER Pressure Axial Max. Axial Cyclic Load Contact Max. Cyclic Contact #1 Reading #2 Reading LVDT 1 Modulus Modulus*Stress Load Load Axial Stress Stress and 2

StressDESIGNATION 3 cyclic Pmax Pcyclic Pcontact max cyclic contact H1 H2 Havg r Mr Mr

UNIT psi psi lbs lbs lbs psi psi psi in in in in/in psi psiPRECISION _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ ._ _ _ ._ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .

SEQUENCE 1 6.0 2.0 11.6 10.3 1.4 1.8 1.6 0.2 0.00050 0.00051 0.00051 0.00009 17,497 17,057SEQUENCE 2 6.0 4.0 22.2 20.1 2.1 3.4 3.1 0.3 0.00103 0.00104 0.00104 0.00018 16,770 15,685SEQUENCE 3 6.0 6.0 33.0 29.8 3.2 5.1 4.6 0.5 0.00161 0.00163 0.00162 0.00029 15,851 14,934SEQUENCE 4 6.0 8.0 43.7 39.4 4.3 6.7 6.1 0.7 0.00228 0.00231 0.00229 0.00041 14,843 14,423SEQUENCE 5 6.0 10.0 54.3 48.9 5.4 8.4 7.5 0.8 0.00302 0.00304 0.00303 0.00054 13,908 14,039SEQUENCE 6 4.0 2.0 12.0 10.2 1.8 1.8 1.6 0.3 0.00053 0.00054 0.00053 0.00010 16,461 16,338SEQUENCE 7 4.0 4.0 22.0 20.0 2.1 3.4 3.1 0.3 0.00109 0.00110 0.00110 0.00020 15,704 15,023SEQUENCE 8 4.0 6.0 33.0 29.8 3.2 5.1 4.6 0.5 0.00171 0.00173 0.00172 0.00031 14,911 14,304SEQUENCE 9 4.0 8.0 43.7 39.4 4.3 6.7 6.1 0.7 0.00237 0.00240 0.00239 0.00043 14,269 13,815

SEQUENCE 10 4.0 10.0 54.3 49.0 5.4 8.4 7.5 0.8 0.00308 0.00310 0.00309 0.00055 13,673 13,447SEQUENCE 11 2.0 2.0 12.3 10.2 2.2 1.9 1.6 0.3 0.00057 0.00058 0.00057 0.00010 15,296 15,177SEQUENCE 12 2.0 4.0 22.1 19.9 2.2 3.4 3.1 0.3 0.00117 0.00120 0.00119 0.00021 14,466 13,957SEQUENCE 13 2.0 6.0 32.8 29.6 3.2 5.1 4.6 0.5 0.00182 0.00185 0.00183 0.00033 13,955 13,288SEQUENCE 14 2.0 8.0 43.6 39.3 4.3 6.7 6.1 0.7 0.00251 0.00254 0.00253 0.00045 13,426 12,834SEQUENCE 15 2.0 10.0 54.2 48.8 5.4 8.3 7.5 0.8 0.00325 0.00328 0.00326 0.00058 12,907 12,492

*Predicted Mr values determined using the equation shown on Figure 1 sheet.

LABORATORY: Boudreau Engineering, Inc.TESTED BY RLB DATE 12-08-2015 Lawrenceville, Georgia

AASHTO T307-99 SUMMARY SHEETResilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils and Untreated Base/Subbase Materials

1. PROJECT NO(S): HGE# CG-15-012. PROJECT NAME: Muskogee Turnpike Toll Plaza3. SOURCE OF MATERIAL: BCS-1 at OMC4. REMOLDING TARGETS: 95% Maximum Dry Density at 15.4% Moisture Content

5. LAYER TYPE (1 - subgrade, 2 - base/subbase) 16. MATERIAL TYPE (Type 1 or Type 2) 27. TEST DATE 12-08-2015

MR = K1 (SC)K2 (S3)K5

K1 = 15,333K2 = -0.12099K5 = 0.10626R2 = 0.95

AASHTO T307-99

FIGURE 1 - Logarithmic Plot of Resilient Modulus (MR) vs Cyclic Stress (SC)

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1 10

Res

ilien

t M

odul

us,

psi

Cyclic Stress, psi

Resilient Modulus QA Plot

S3 = 6 psi

S3 = 4 psi

S3 = 2 psi



FIGURE 2 - Quick Shear Stress vs Strain

AASHTO T307-99

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 1 2 3 4 5

Axi

al S

tres

s (p

si)

Axial Strain (%)

PROJECT NO(S): HGE# CG-15-01 CLIENT: ODOTPROJECT NAME: Muskogee Turnpike Toll PlazaCOUNTY/STATE NAME: /Oklahoma OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, %: 15.4SOURCE OF MATERIAL: BCS-1 at 2% above OMC MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, pcf: 109.7REMOLDING TARGETS: 95% Maximum Dry Density at 17.4% Moisture Content 95% MDD, pcf: 104.2MATERIAL TYPE (Type 1 or Type 2) 2TEST DATE 12-08-2015











1. PROJECT NO(S): HGE# CG-15-012. PROJECT NAME: Muskogee Turnpike Toll Plaza3. SOURCE OF MATERIAL: BCS-1 at 2% above OMC4. REMOLDING TARGETS: 95% Maximum Dry Density at 17.4% Moisture Content


MR = K1 (SC)K2 (S3)K5

K1 = 8,576K2 = -0.17716K5 = 0.16262R2 = 0.94

AASHTO T307-99


100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1 10

Res

ilien

t M

odul

us,

psi

Cyclic Stress, psi


S3 = 6 psi

S3 = 4 psi

S3 = 2 psi




AASHTO T307-99

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5

Axi

al S

tres

s (p

si)

Axial Strain (%)

PROJECT NO(S): HGE# CG-15-01 CLIENT: ODOTPROJECT NAME: Muskogee Turnpike Toll PlazaCOUNTY/STATE NAME: /Oklahoma OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, %: 16.8SOURCE OF MATERIAL: BCS-2 at OMC MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, pcf: 110.2REMOLDING TARGETS: 95% Maximum Dry Density at 16.8% Moisture Content 95% MDD, pcf: 104.7MATERIAL TYPE (Type 1 or Type 2) 2TEST DATE 12-08-2015













MR = K1 (SC)K2 (S3)K5

K1 = 14,895K2 = -0.20433K5 = 0.07804R2 = 0.92

AASHTO T307-99


100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1 10

Res

ilien

t M

odul

us,

psi

Cyclic Stress, psi


S3 = 6 psi

S3 = 4 psi

S3 = 2 psi




AASHTO T307-99

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5

Axi

al S

tres

s (p

si)

Axial Strain (%)

PROJECT NO(S): HGE# CG-15-01 CLIENT: ODOTPROJECT NAME: Muskogee Turnpike Toll PlazaCOUNTY/STATE NAME: /Oklahoma OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, %: 16.8SOURCE OF MATERIAL: BCS-2 at 2% above OMC MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, pcf: 110.2REMOLDING TARGETS: 95% Maximum Dry Density at 18.8% Moisture Content 95% MDD, pcf: 104.7MATERIAL TYPE (Type 1 or Type 2) 2TEST DATE 12-08-2015













MR = K1 (SC)K2 (S3)K5

K1 = 10,384K2 = -0.29451K5 = 0.10168R2 = 0.93

AASHTO T307-99


100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1 10

Res

ilien

t M

odul

us,

psi

Cyclic Stress, psi


S3 = 6 psi

S3 = 4 psi

S3 = 2 psi




AASHTO T307-99

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5

Axi

al S

tres

s (p

si)

Axial Strain (%)

General Notes on Soil Classification

GENERAL NOTES ON SOIL CLASSIFICATIONHinderliter Geotechnical Engineering classifies soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). In some cases, the AASHTO Classification System is also used.

Most naturally-occuring materials have some portion of fine-grained and coarse-grained materials. Modifiers are used to describe the relative percentage of minor-occurring materials in the following fashion:

USCS soil classifications are derived from soil grain size and material plasticity. Materials with more than 50 percent passing the No. 200 U.S. Sieve (aperture opening = 0.075 mm) are considered to be fine-grained soils (silts or clays). Materials with less than 50 percent passing the No. 200 sieve are considered to be coarse-grained soils (sands, gravels, etc). Coarse-grained soils are classified by the USCS System by plotting the Grain Size in Millimeters vs. Percent Finer by Weight. Depending on the grain size, the materials are classified as cobbles, gravel, sand, or silt / clay. Material plasticity is determined from the Liquid Limit test and the Plastic Limit test. The Liquid Limit (LL) of a soil is the point where, when mixed with water, a pat of soil transitions from a liquid state to a plastic state. The Plastic Limit (PL) is the point where the soil transitions from a plastic state to a solid state. The difference between the LL and PL is known as the Plasticity Index (PI).

Fine-Grained Soil Modifiers Coarse-Grained Soil ModifiersModifier Percentage of Dry Weight Modifier Percentage of Dry WeightTrace < 15 Trace < 5With 15 - 29 With 5-12

Very Loose

Sandy, Gravelly, etc. > 30 Silty, Clayey, etc. > 12

The consistency of fine-grained soils and the relative density of coarse-grained soils is generally included on the boring logs as part of the material description. Consistency and relative density are generally defined as follows:

Fine-Grained Soils Coarse-Grained Soils

Loose< 500 Very Soft < 2 0 - 3

Unconfined Compressive

Strength, Qu, psfConsistency Standard Penetration

Test, N, blows / footStandard Penetration Test, N, blows / foot Relative Density

5 - 7 10 - 29500 - 1000 Soft 2 - 4 4 - 9

16 - 30 50+

Medium Dense2000 - 4000 Stiff 8 - 15 30 - 49 Dense1000 - 2000 Medium

Hinderliter Geotechnical Engineering, LLC 4071 NW 3rd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73107 Telephone: (405) 942-4090 Fax: (405) 942-4057

Very Dense8000+ Hard 30+

4000 - 8000 Very Stiff




APPENDIX C

WINPAS RIGID DESIGN INPUTS WINPAS ESAL DATA BY VEHICLE TYPE

WinPAS

Pavement Thickness Design According to

1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements Structures

American Concrete Pavement Association

Rigid Design Inputs

Agency:

Company:

Contractor:

Project Description:

Location:

Oklahoma Turnpike Authority


Toll Plaza Improvements

Muskogee Turnpike; Coweta, Oklahoma

Rigid Pavement Design/Evaluation

PCC Thickness

Design ESALs

Reliability

Overall Deviation

Modulus of Rupture

Modulus of Elasticity

10.46

85,824,461

85.00

0.35

727

4,907,250

inches

psi

psi

percent

Load Transfer, J

Mod. Subgrade Reaction, k

Drainage Coefficient, Cd

Initial Serviceability

Terminal Serviceability

2.70

736

0.95

4.80

2.00

psi/in

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value) Determination

Resilient Modulus of the Subgrade

Resilient Modulus of the Subbase

Subbase Thickness

Depth to Rigid Foundation

Loss of Support Value (0,1,2,3)

5,900.0

300,000.0

12.00

0.00

0.0

psi

psi

inches

feet

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 736.10 psi/in

Monday, December 14, 2015 2:30:45PM Engineer: Hinderliter Geotechnical Engineering

WinPAS




Rigid Design Inputs

Agency:

Company:

Contractor:

Project Description:

Location:

Oklahoma Turnpike Authority


Toll Plaza Improvements

Muskogee Turnpike; Coweta, Oklahoma

Rigid Pavement Design/Evaluation

PCC Thickness

Design ESALs

Reliability

Overall Deviation

Modulus of Rupture

Modulus of Elasticity

11.02

85,824,461

85.00

0.35

727

4,907,250

inches

psi

psi

percent

Load Transfer, J

Mod. Subgrade Reaction, k

Drainage Coefficient, Cd

Initial Serviceability

Terminal Serviceability

2.70

340

0.95

4.80

2.00

psi/in

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value) Determination

Resilient Modulus of the Subgrade

Resilient Modulus of the Subbase

Subbase Thickness

Depth to Rigid Foundation

Loss of Support Value (0,1,2,3)

5,900.0

25,000.0

8.00

0.00

0.0

psi

psi

inches

feet

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 339.50 psi/in


WinPAS




Traffic Input by Day

Annual Growth Rate 3.00 percent

Design Life 20 years

Terminal Serviceability 2.0

Estimated Structural Number 5.0

Estimated Rigid Thickness 10.00 inches Design Lane

Traffic Factor Traffic Input by

Location: Muskogee Turnpike; Coweta, Oklahoma

Project Description: Toll Plaza Improvements

Contractor:

Company: Cowan Group Engineering

Agency: Oklahoma Turnpike Authority

ESAL Data by Vehicle Type

Vehicle Axle Load Axle Type Number

2.00 Single

0.00

2.00 Single 19,399

10.00

0.00

24.00

Single

Single 0

12.00

0.00

34.00

Single

Tandem 0

NumberAxle TypeAxle LoadVehicle

12.00 Single

0

16.00

34.00

Single

Tandem

12.00

34.00

34.00

Single

Tandem

Tandem 2,134

12.00

34.00

34.00

Single

Tandem

Tandem

34.00

34.00

Tandem

Tandem 0

Total Rigid ESALs Total Flexible ESALs 85,824,461 48,778,807


of the toll plaza and pavements had not been determined at ... Coweta Toll Plaza... · the toll...

Documents

Transcript of of the toll plaza and pavements had not been determined at ... Coweta Toll Plaza... · the toll...