SUBSURFACE INFORMATION for Mayes County, … · Laboratory Testing was performed by Rone...

SUBSURFACE INFORMATION

for

161-kV Transmission Line Mid-America Industrial Park Mayes County, Oklahoma

for

Grand River Dam Authority

THERE IS NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED GUARANTEE AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION AND DATA CONTAINED HEREIN, NOR OF THE INTERPRETATION THEREOF BY THE OWNER, BURNS & McDONNELL

ENGINEERING COMPANY, OR ANY OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.

THE SUBSURFACE INFORMATION AND DATA CONTAINED HEREIN DO NOT FORM A PART OF ANY CONTRACT DOCUMENT ISSUED BY BURNS &

McDONNELL.

IF THIS SUBSURFACE INFORMATION IS BEING ISSUED IN ELECTRONIC (PDF) FORMAT IT SHALL ONLY BE ISSUED IN ITS ENTIRETY, CONSISTING OF THE 4-PAGE FRONT-END DOCUMENT WITH A 51-PAGE

APPENDIX (FLYSHEET AND REPORT BY RONE ENGINEERING).

BURNS & McDONNELL PROJECT 82888

Burns & McDonnell

Engineers-Architects-Consultants Kansas City, Missouri

May 21, 2015

COPYRIGHT © 2008 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

GRDA Task 4 May 21, 2015 Project No. 82888

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. GENERAL ...........................................................................................................................1 II. DESIGN NOTES ................................................................................................................1 III. WATER LEVEL INFORMATION .....................................................................................1 IV. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE INFORMATION .............................................................1 V. LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................2

A. Document Use ..........................................................................................................2 B. Variations .................................................................................................................2

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1

Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed GRDA 161-kV Transmission Line, MidAmerica Industrial Park, Mayes County, Oklahoma; prepared by Rone Engineering, May 21, 2015.

* * * * *

GRDA Task 4 1 May 21, 2015 Project No. 82888

I. GENERAL This subsurface information document consists of the data and results of a subsurface investigation described in a report titled Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed GRDA 161-kV Transmission Line, MidAmerica Industrial Park, Mayes County, Oklahoma, dated May 21, 2015. The investigation was performed by Rone Engineering of Dallas, Texas. The report, as prepared by Rone Engineering, is included in Appendix 1 of this document.

Drilling for this investigation was performed by Rone Engineering. The drilling phase was performed on May 4, 2015 through May 6, 2015. It included the completion of three (3) exploratory borings drilled to a depth of approximately 34 feet below ground surface. Laboratory Testing was performed by Rone Engineering. Laboratory tests were conducted on select samples following the completion of drilling operations. Boring logs and laboratory test results, as prepared by Rone Engineering, are included in the report in Appendix 1 of this document. Samples recovered during the subsurface investigation were transported to the laboratory by Rone Engineering. Rone Engineering was not compensated to store the samples after testing and reporting beyond their customary retention period prior to disposal.

II. DESIGN NOTES Geotechnical design notes as prepared by Burns & McDonnell pertinent to the current project are available for inspection at Burns & McDonnell’s Houston, Texas office upon prior written request.

III. WATER LEVEL INFORMATION

Water levels were observed by Rone Engineering; see Appendix 1, Section 5.3. It should be noted by the reader that fluctuations in water levels may occur over more prolonged periods of readings and can be influenced by various outside factors. It may take groundwater several days to reach its hydrostatic levels in holes in cohesive soils.

Seasonal variations in rainfall, changes to on-site conditions, and changes to off-site conditions can affect groundwater levels. Fluctuations in groundwater levels from those noted in logs should be anticipated during construction. Water levels observed and recorded by others reflect only those conditions that existed at the time of investigation and may vary from true phreatic groundwater levels.

IV. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE INFORMATION The following Subsurface Information is available upon written request: Subsurface Information for the MidAmerica Industrial Park, 161-kV Transmission Line, Pryor, Oklahoma, prepared for Burns & McDonnell Engineering company, Inc.; prepared by Kleinfelder Central, Inc., dated July 12, 2007.

V. LIMITATIONS A. DOCUMENT USE

The information provided in Appendix 1 has been prepared for the use of Burns & McDonnell for design purposes. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the

GRDA Task 4 2 May 21, 2015 Project No. 82888

information included in this document. In the event that conclusions and recommendations based on data contained in this document are made by others, such conclusions and recommendations are the responsibility of others.

The information gathered and presented in this document was not obtained for an environmental audit or to evaluate the potential for hazardous materials at the Site. The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform geoenvironmental exploration differ substantially from those applied in soil and foundation engineering. The purpose of this document is not intended as preparation for a Geotechnical Baseline Report, nor to provide information for use in developing construction cost estimates.

B. VARIATIONS

The subsurface information submitted in this document is based upon data obtained from test borings completed at the approximate locations indicated in Appendix 1 (PLATE B.2). If during construction, soil, rock, and/or groundwater conditions appear to be different from those described herein, Burns & McDonnell should be advised at once so that recommendations made may be evaluated and modified, if necessary. Water levels, as described in this document, reflect only those conditions that existed at the time that this particular subsurface investigation was performed by Rone Engineering. Fluctuations or changes in water levels and groundwater conditions can be influenced by sources outside the site investigated, by seasonal rainfall, and by changes in drainage conditions in and around the Site. Fluctuations can occur and should be anticipated between the time of investigation and the time of construction.

* * * * *

APPENDIX 1

Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed GRDA 161-kV Transmission Line, MidAmerica Industrial Park, Mayes County, Oklahoma; prepared by Rone Engineering,

dated May 21, 2015.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED GRDA 161-KV TRANSMISSION LINE

MIDAMERICA INDUSTRIAL PARK

MAYES COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Prepared For:

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.

1700 West Loop South, Suite 1500

Houston, Texas 77027

Attention: Mr. C.K. Ong, P.E.

May 21, 2015

PROJECT NO. 15-20118

DALLAS | FORT WORTH | AUSTIN | SAN ANTONIO | HOUSTON

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL TESTING

May 21, 2015

Mr. C.K. Ong, P.E. Burns & McDonnell 1700 West Loop South, Suite 1500 Houston, Texas 77027

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed GRDA 161kV Transmission Line

MidAmerica Industrial Park

Mayes County, Oklahoma

Rone Project No. 15-20118

Dear Mr. Ong:

Submitted herewith are the results of a geotechnical investigation conducted for the referenced project. This investigation was performed in accordance with our Proposal No. P-20858-15 dated March 20, 2015 and Technical Guideline for Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Report, provided to us for this project.

Engineering analyses and recommendations for design and construction of transmission line foundations are contained in the narrative section of the report.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project, and we would appreciate the opportunity to provide the materials engineering-testing and geotechnical observation services during the construction phase of this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or need any additional services.

Respectfully submitted,

Xuhui Chang, P.E. John A. Focht III Geotechnical Manager Technical Director Dallas Division

Oklahoma Engineering Firm Registration Number 876

5.21.2015

Table of Contents

Page

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

2.0 PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF STUDY .............................................................................. 1

3.0 FIELD OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 2

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................. 3

5.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 4

5.1 Site Geology ................................................................................................................ 4

5.2 Site and Subsurface Soil Conditions ........................................................................ 4

5.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 5

6.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 5

6.1 Geotechnical Considerations .......................................................................................... 5

6.2 Drilled Pier Foundations ............................................................................................ 6

6.2.1 Axial Loading………………………………………………………………………….6

6.2.2 Lateral Loading……………………………………………………………………….8

6.2.3 Drilled Pier Construction Considerations……………………………………….9

6.3 Corrosive Properties of Soils .................................................................................. 11

6.4 Site Drainage ............................................................................................................. 12

6.5 Other Considerations ............................................................................................... 12

7.0 REPORT CLOSURE ........................................................................................................ 12

Appendix

Design Tables ........................................................................................................... Appendix A Vicinity Map and Boring Location Diagram ................................................................ Appendix B Boring Logs ............................................................................................................. Appendix C Subsurface Profiles ................................................................................................... Appendix D Rock Core Photos ...................................................................................................... Appendix E

Project No. 15-20118 Page 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED GRDA 161KV TRANSMISSION LINE



1.0 INTRODUCTION

We understand the project consists of a new transmission tap line about one mile in length. The tap

line will connect an existing 161kV transmission line to an existing transmission line using double

circuits to the MidAmerica Industrial Park in Mayes County, Oklahoma.

The primary structure type will be monopoles with braced post insulator and some double circuit H-

Frame with suspension insulators. Direct embedded poles with crushed aggregate backfill will likely

be utilized for tangent structures. Drilled shaft foundations will be utilized for deadend and angle

structures. The estimated foundation loads are as follows:

Foundation Type Shear (kips) Moment (kips-ft) Compression

(kips)

Uplift (kips)

Tangent Monopoles 20 1,000 40 -

Tangent H-Frame 15 600 70 40

Angles and Deadends 250 10,000 60 -

The general location of the proposed transmission line is shown on the vicinity map and boring

location diagrams in Appendix B.

2.0 PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF STUDY

The principal purposes of this investigation were to evaluate the general soil, rock and groundwater

conditions along the proposed transmission line and to develop geotechnical recommendations for

the design and construction of foundations. To accomplish its intended purposes, the study was

conducted in the following phases:

(1) Drill sample borings to evaluate the soil and rock conditions at the boring locations and to

obtain soil and rock samples;

(2) Conduct laboratory tests on selected samples recovered from the borings to establish the

pertinent engineering characteristics of the foundation soils and rock, and


(3) Perform engineering analyses, using field and laboratory data, to develop foundation

design criteria.

3.0 FIELD OPERATIONS

The field exploration for this project consisted of drilling three exploratory soil borings (B-1 through B-

3). The boring locations were established in the field by Rone using a hand-held recreation-grade GPS

unit. As requested, the ground surface elevations at the boring locations were obtained from Google

EarthTM. The boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied

by the methods used to define them.

One boring (B-14) was previously drilled by others. The results of this boring was provided to Rone

and are included in the report. We developed recommended design parameters for this boring

assuming the information presented in this boring log (by others) is representative of the conditions at

the boring location.

The exploratory borings were drilled to depths of approximately 30 to 34 feet below the existing ground

surface. The field exploration was performed on May 4 through 6, 2015. The boring locations are

shown on the boring location diagrams in Appendix B. Sample depth, description of soils, and

classification (based on the Unified Soil Classification System) are presented on the Logs of Boring

in Appendix C. Keys to terms and symbols used on the logs are also shown in Appendix C following

the boring logs.

Borings were drilled using a track-mounted ATV drill rig equipped with a rotary head. Hollow stem

auger drilling methods were used to advance the borings. For borings B-2 and B-3, hydro-

excavation was used to advance the borings to a depth of about 10 feet to avoid damage to the

potential private underground utilities. As a result, we were only able to visually log the upper 10 feet

of those two borings and the strength parameters for the top 10 feet were estimated based on

observations made in the field. Soil sampling was performed in general accordance with ASTM

procedures. Three samples were generally collected from the upper 10 feet of the borings.

Samples were then collected at 5-foot intervals to boring termination depths. The samples obtained

from the borings were identified by boring number and depth. The samples were transported to

Rone’s laboratory for further observation, classification, and testing.


Soils were sampled using split-spoon sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM

D1586. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows required to drive a split-spoon

sampler into the ground per 12 inches using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) were performed and

blow counts were recorded to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and

consistency of cohesive soils.

An automatic SPT drive hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler. The drill rig model

number and hammer energy transfer ratio for the drill rig used on this project are shown on the

boring logs.

The borings were advanced below auger refusal depths or competent bedrock using diamond-bit

core barrels. After the core samples were retrieved, they were placed in a box and logged. The rock

was visually classified, and the percent recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) was

determined for each run. Photos of the recovered rock cores were included in Appendix E.

A Rone field engineer supervised the drill crew and prepared field logs during the drilling operation.

The boring logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and the

engineer’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The final boring logs

include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in the laboratory.

After groundwater level measurements, the borehole were backfilled with soil cuttings to depths of

about 14 feet below the existing ground surface and were then backfilled with bentonite chips to

depths of about 4 feet below the ground surface. The upper 4 feet of the boreholes were backfilled

with auger cutting.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory tests were performed to define pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils

encountered. The laboratory tests included moisture content, Atterberg limits determination,

gradation, unconfined compression tests on rock cores, and visual classification.

Classification of soils was verified by natural moisture content, gradation (percentage of material

passing through a standard U.S. No. 200 sieve), and Atterberg limits determinations. These tests

were performed in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Procedures. The results of those tests are presented at the respective sample depths on the Logs


of Boring. The results of Atterberg limits are also presented in the plasticity chart following the boring

logs.

Unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on select rock cores in general accordance

with ASTM D7012. Strengths determined by this test are tabulated at their respective sample depths

on the boring logs.

5.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Site Geology

Based on the results of our borings and information published in the Geologic Map of Oklahoma, dated

1954, the project site is mapped as being underlain by the Atoka Formation (IPa), and Pitkin limestone,

Fayetteville shale, Batesville sandstone, Hindsville limestone and Moorefield formation (Mp). Those

formations generally consist of limestone, shale and sandstone.

5.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

The various strata and their approximate depths and thickness are shown on the boring logs.

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

rock types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. A brief summary of the

stratigraphy indicated by the borings is given below.

Boring B-1 encountered dark brown, fat clay (CH) to a depth of about 3.5 feet underlain by gray silty

shale and limestone gravel (GM) to a depth of about 8.5 feet. Beneath the silty gravel, the boring

encountered gray shale with limestone seams to a depth of about 19 feet followed by gray limestone

with shale seams to the termination depth of about 34 feet.

Borings B-2 and B-3 encountered reddish brown, light brown to yellowish brown fat clay (CH) and lean

clay (CL) to depths of about 13.5 feet and 23.5 feet, respectively. Beneath the clays, gray limestone

with shale seams was encountered to boring termination depths of about 30 and 34 feet.

The subsurface conditions identified are shown on the boring logs included in this report in Appendix

C. A key to terms and symbols used on the logs is also located in Appendix C, following the boring

logs. Selected soil and rock samples were tested in the laboratory to determine the engineering

properties for evaluation. The laboratory test results are shown on the boring logs.


5.3 Groundwater

The boreholes were observed for water while drilling. Water was introduced into the boreholes

during our coring procedure and masked the true groundwater level. Groundwater was not

measured after boring completion. As shown near the top of the boring logs, water was encountered

at depths of about 13 feet and 19.5 feet during drilling in borings B-1 and B-3 respectively. Water

was not observed during drilling in boring B-2.

Fluctuations of the groundwater level can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall;

site topography and runoff; hydraulic conductivity of soil strata; and other factors not evident at the

time the borings were performed. It is difficult to predict the magnitude of subsurface water

fluctuations that might occur based on short term observations. The possibility of groundwater level

fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the

project.

6.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Our engineering analyses included developing soil and rock parameters that can be used to design

new drilled pier foundations for the proposed structures. The foundations being considered to

provide support for the proposed structures must satisfy two independent engineering criteria with

respect to the soil and rock encountered in the borings. First, the foundation system must be

designed with an appropriate factor of safety, or a performance limit state, to reduce the possibility

of soil failure when subjected to axial and lateral load conditions. Second, foundation movements,

whether vertical, horizontal or rotational, must be within allowable operational limits of the structures.

These criteria can be achieved for the proposed structures provided that the foundations are

designed to resist the applied loads within the strength and deflection parameters of the supporting

soil and rock at the boring/structure locations.

Design soil and rock parameters are provided in the tables in Appendix A of this report. The design

parameters presented in these tables are for cast-in-place concrete piers supporting the proposed

dead-end and large/medium angle structures and direct embedded foundations with concrete or

gravel backfill supporting the proposed tangent or small angle structures. It should be noted that

design soil and rock parameters provided in those tables are for undisturbed native soils.


The subsurface conditions between the borings cannot be interpreted with any certainty. We

therefore recommend the following foundation design procedure:

Structures planned at the boring locations should be designed according to the noted soil

groups as shown on the tables in Appendix A of the report.

Structures located between borings should be designed according to both soil groups

located on either side of the structure location. The design which gives the greatest

embedment depth and largest structural capacity should be chosen as the controlling

condition.

The geotechnical engineer should observe foundation excavations to confirm that conditions

in the foundation excavations are consistent with those encountered in the borings.

6.2 Drilled Pier Foundations

Subsurface conditions at the boring locations are generally suitable for installing straight sided (non-

underreamed) drilled shafts. Recommendations for straight-sided drilled piers are provided in the

following sections.

6.2.1 Axial Loading

Compressive axial loads on pier foundations are resisted by both skin friction along the shaft and by

end bearing at the base of the shaft, while uplift loads are resisted by skin friction along the shaft

and by the weight of the shaft. The following equations are recommended to evaluate the pier

foundation sizes for both compressive and tensile (uplift) axial loading:

Qc = Qs + Qb

Qs = d (fs)(h)

Qb = 0.25d2(qeb)

Qt = d (fs)(h)(R)+W

Where: Qc = ultimate pier capacity in compression

Qs = ultimate skin friction capacity

Qb = ultimate end bearing capacity

Qt = ultimate pier capacity in tension (uplift)

d = pier diameter


fs = ultimate skin friction

h = pier segment length

qeb = ultimate end bearing pressure

R = uplift reduction factor (equal to 0.7 for sands, 0.9 for clays

and 1.0 for rock)

W = effective weight of the pier foundation

The computations of ultimate skin friction, fs, and ultimate end bearing pressure, qeb, are dependent

upon whether the soils are cohesive or cohesionless as follows:

Cohesive soils: fs = cu

qeb = cuNc

Cohesionless soils: fs = 'Ktan

qeb = 'Nq

Where: cu = undrained shear strength of the soil

= skin friction adhesion factor

Nc = end bearing capacity factor for clay soils

' = effective vertical overburden pressure

K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure

= soil to pier friction angle (equal to soil angle of internal

friction () for concrete piers or piles and equal to -4

degrees for steel piles)

Nq = end bearing capacity factor for granular soils

The above equations will yield ultimate capacities. We recommend that an appropriate factor of

safety be applied to the ultimate capacities. Generally, a factor of safety of three (3) is applied to

end bearing, two (2) to side shear (skin friction), and two (2) to uplift (tension). The actual factor of

safety should be chosen by the foundation designer and will depend on several factors including:

the type of structure, location of the structure, intended performance of the structure, use of the

structure, and applicable code requirements. The adhesion factor for clay soils is often taken as

zero (0) for the upper four (4) feet of the shaft for compressive and uplift loading.

SHAFT 2012TM software from Ensoft, Inc. can also be used for the axial load capacity analysis.


Appropriate soil and rock parameters for evaluation of the above equations and for the SHAFT

2012TM software are provided on Tables A.1 through A.4 in Appendix A of this report. The

parameters shown on the tables are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the

borings. These parameters are intended to be used for undisturbed native soils.

Settlements due to compression loading are expected to be about half of one inch for adequately

designed and installed pier foundations. Settlement of drilled piers will be more sensitive to installation

techniques than to soil-structure interaction.

6.2.2 Lateral Loading

A number of methods, including hand solutions and computer programs, are available for calculating

the lateral behavior of drilled piers. The majority of these methods rely on “key” soil parameters

such as soil elastic properties (E and ks), strain at 50 percent of the principal stress difference (50),

undrained shear strength (c), angle of internal friction (), and load-deflection (p-y) criteria. The p-y

criteria, which are commonly used to model soil reaction, were developed from instrumented load

tests and are generally considered to provide the best model of soil behavior under short term lateral

loading. It should be noted that the p-y criteria is not only a function of the soil properties but also

the diameter of the structure foundation.

The majority of p-y curve models use a form of parabola to describe the initial portion of a p-y curve;

at small deflections the slope of these p-y curves approach infinity. The initial secant modulus, Es, is

used to prevent the initial slope of the p-y curve from becoming too steep. This is an important

consideration, since most laterally loaded pile analysis programs use p-y curves to develop

equivalent soil springs in their computations. These soil springs are defined as the soil reaction, p,

divided by the soil deflection, y.

Factors of safety are not generally applied to the lateral load analysis. A performance criteria, or “limit

state” is usually considered. The analysis is generally conducted using the working loads and the limit

state values. The applied loads are then doubled to evaluate the deflection and rotation at the top of

the pier to determine if the foundation will topple over under extreme overload. This overload condition

may indicate that the foundation would deflect or rotate such that the tower will tilt but not experience

failure.


The choice of the final design embedment depth is also evaluated by determining the critical depth of

the foundation. The critical depth is actually a depth range and can be defined as that range in depth

at which a small decrease in the pier embedment depth will result in a large increase in the groundline

deflection of the pier. The analysis is conducted by incrementally decreasing the embedment depth

and plotting the resultant groundline deflection versus embedment depth. The embedment depth is

then chosen below the critical depth range.

Soil and rock parameters for the LPILE and FAD series programs are provided in Tables B.1

through B.4, and C.1 through C.4, respectively, in Appendix A of this report. The parameters

provided on these tables can be used for undisturbed native soils.

We estimated the modulus of deformation values for soil presented for use with FAD software using

published correlations in the MFAD 5.1/HFAD 5.1 software manual.

The near surface soils will be prone to strength loss due to the effects of moisture variation,

freeze/thaw, shrink/swell, and drilling disturbance. The frost depth in the project area should be

about 24 inches. The shear strength and deformation modulus values provided in the tables are

based on the soil strength at the time our borings were drilled, and have not been reduced for the

effects of moisture variations, freeze/thaw, shrink/swell, or drilling disturbance. To account for these

potential effects, we recommend that the top 3 feet of soil below the final adjacent grade be

neglected for lateral support.

6.2.3 Drilled Pier Construction Considerations

Based on soil and water conditions encountered in the borings, temporary casing may be required.

However, the contractor should determine if temporary steel casing are required based on

subsurface conditions encountered during construction. Care should be taken so that the sides and

bottom of the excavations are not disturbed during construction. A heavy-duty drill rig equipped with

rock coring capabilities will be required to penetrate the limestone and shale bedrock to construct

the drilled pier foundations.

The bottom of the foundation excavation should be free of loose material and water at the time of

concrete placement. Concrete should be placed as soon as possible after the foundation excavation

is completed to reduce the potential disturbance of the bearing surface.


If temporary casing is used, a concrete slump of at least 6 inches is recommended to facilitate

casing removal. While withdrawing casing, care should be exercised to maintain concrete inside the

casing at a sufficient level to resist earth and hydrostatic pressures acting on the casing exterior.

Arching of the concrete, loss of seal and other problems can occur during casing removal and result

in contamination of the drilled shaft. These conditions should be considered during the design and

construction phases. Placement of loose soil backfill should not be permitted around the casing

prior to removal. If water cannot be removed in the excavations by pumping, the concrete should be

tremied completely to the bottom of the excavation with a closed-end tremie.

Concrete aggregates in the area could have a history of problems associated with Alkali Silica

Reactivity (ASR). The following sources should be consulted to help determine if the proposed

aggregates are reactive regarding ASR:

AASHTO Guide Specification for ASR –Resistant Concrete

ODOT Personnel/ODOT Records

QA/QC Personnel for Aggregate/Concrete Supplier.

If it is determined that aggregates are known to have a history of ASR, then one of the following

should be incorporated in the concrete used for the foundations:

Option 1: Replace 20 to 35% of the cement with Class C or Class F fly ash.

However, if sulfate resistant concrete is required, do not use a Class C fly

ash and do not use Type I Portland cement.

Option 2: Use a lithium nitrate admixture at a minimum dosage of 0.55 gallons of

30% lithium nitrate solution per pound of alkalies present in the Portland

cement. Coordinate with admixture supplier.

Option 3: When using Portland cement only, ensure that the total alkali contribution

from the cement in the concrete does not exceed 4.00 lb. per cubic yard

of concrete when calculated as follows:

Pounds of alkali per cu yd. = (pounds of cement per cu yd) x (%Na2O

equivalent in cement)/100


In the above calculation, use the maximum cement alkali content reported

on the cement mill certificate.

Option 4: Test the proposed cementitious materials – aggregate mix in accordance

with ASTM C1567. Before use of the mix, provide the certified test report,

signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer, demonstrating

that mortar bar expansion at 16 days exposure per ASTM C1567 does not

exceed 0.10%.

A Rone representative should observe all drilled pier excavations to evaluate the suitability of the

bearing materials and to confirm that conditions in the drilled pier excavations are consistent with

those encountered in the test borings. If unsuitable materials are encountered at planned depths, it

may be necessary to deepen the excavations.

6.3 Corrosive Properties of Soils

Water soluble sulfate, chloride content, pH, electrical resistivity, redox potential and sulfide tests

were performed in the laboratory on one selected sample. The sample was a composite sample

created by combination of split-spoon samples within specified depth range.

As requested, the water soluble sulfate test was performed in accordance with ASTM C1580 and

the chloride content test was performed using Silver Nitrate Titration method. The test results are

summarized in the following table.

Test

Sample No.

Chlorides

(mg/kg)

Electrical

Resistivity

(ohm-cm)

Sulfide

(mg/kg)

Red-Ox

Potential

(mV)

pH

(units)

Water

Soluble

Sulfate

(% by wt)

B-3, 10-20’ 50 2,230 Nil 534 8.86 0.0066

The sulfate test results indicated water soluble sulfate contents for the soils tested are less than 0.1

percent. Based on these test results and our local experience, Type I Portland cement should be

suitable for below-grade concrete as regards interaction with surrounding soil.

The electrical resistivity value was 2,230 ohm-cm. The value indicates the soils may be slightly

corrosive to uncoated steel.


The measured chloride content of the sample that was tested was 50 mg/kg. Based on the results, the

risk of chloride exposure to reinforcing steel should be low.

We recommend that a certified corrosion engineer be employed to determine the need for corrosion

protection and to design appropriate protective measures.

6.4 Site Drainage

The performance of the foundations will not only be dependent upon the quality of construction but

also upon the stability of the moisture content of the near surface soils. We recommend that

positive drainage be developed adjacent to all foundations so ponding of surface water near the

foundations does not occur. We recommend that as a minimum 1 percent of slope be maintained

from all foundations. Accumulations of water near the foundations may cause significant moisture

variations in the soils adjacent to the foundations, increasing the potential to weaken the soils or

cause excessive movements of the foundations.

6.5 Other Considerations

The active zone (depth of seasonal moisture variation) in this area is about 8 feet deep. Therefore,

we recommend that as a minimum the top 3 feet of the soils be ignored for lateral and the top 4 feet

of soils be ignored for skin friction.

Based on our experience and the boring information, the on-site soil materials may be susceptible to

dispersion, and should not be susceptible to wetting-induced collapse and liquefaction. Also,

limestone formation encountered at this site may have the risk for sinkhole development and/or the

presence of voids. Relatively large voids (on the order of 2 feet) were encountered in the similar

limestone formation for a previous project, located about 1-1/4 miles south of the proposed

transmission line alignment in the MidAmerica Industrial Park. Even though no noticeable voids

were observed in the borings during our drilling for this project, it may be prudent to disregard end

bearing from the limestone when designed transmission line foundations.

7.0 REPORT CLOSURE

The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site

conditions as they existed at the time of the field investigation and further on the assumption that the

exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site; that is, the

subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings


at the time they were completed. If during construction, different subsurface conditions from those

encountered in our borings are observed, or appear to be present in excavations, we must be

advised promptly so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations

where necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the

start of the work at the site, if conditions have changed due either to natural causes or to

construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or if structure locations, structural loads or finish

grades are changed, we urge that we be promptly informed and retained to review our report to

determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations, considering the changed

conditions and/or time lapse.

Further, it is urged that Rone Engineering Services, Ltd. be retained to review those portions of the

plans and specifications for this particular project that pertain to and foundations as a means to

determine whether the plans and specifications are consistent with the recommendations contained

in this report. In addition, we are available to observe the construction of foundations as

recommended in the report, and such other field observations as might be necessary.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Burns & McDonnell Engineering, inc. and

their designated agents for specific application to design of this project. We have used that degree

of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of our

profession practicing in the same or similar locality. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or

intended

APPENDIX A

Design Tables

Depth to Total Undrained Horizontal

Shaft 6.0 Bottom of Unit Shear Adhesion Friction Stress

Soil Soil/Rock Soil Layer Weight Strength Factor Angle Coefficient Nc4

Nq Ng

Layer Type (feet) (pcf) (psf) (-) (degrees) (-) (-) (-) (-)

1 Clay 3.5 125 1,500 ---- 0 ---- 6 1 0

2 Sand 8.5 120 0 ---- 34 0.75 42 29 41

3 Shale 13 140 7,200 0.30 0 ---- 6 1 0

4 Shale 19 140 7,200 0.30 0 ---- 6 1 0

5 Weak Rock5

34 140 72,000 0.30 0 ---- 9 1 0

NOTES:

1. Design depth to subsurface water is about 13 feet.

2. For uplift conditions, the computed skin friction should be multiplied by 0.9 for clays, 0.7 for sands and 1 for rock.

3. The unit allowable end bearing should not exceed 50 kips per square foot.

4. The Nc value of 9 for non-granular soils is for D/B ratios greater than 4. Otherwise, use Nc = 6.

5. Unconfined compressive strength: 1000 psi, Interface condition: rough surface

w/closed joints, Interface friction angle: 300, Elastice modulus: 300 ksi, RQD: 100%

Bearing Capacity Factors

TABLE A.1

B-1

AXIAL CAPACITY ANALYSES

DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS FOR

UNDRAINED CONDITIONS




Project No. 15-20118 Rone Engineering Services, Ltd




Nq Ng


1 Clay 15 120 1,000 0.72 0 ---- 6 1 0

2 Weak Rock5

19.5 140 72,000 0.30 0 ---- 6 1 0

3 Weak Rock5

30 140 72,000 0.30 0 ---- 9 1 0

NOTES:

1. Design depth to subsurface water is about 19.5 feet.





w/closed joints, Interface friction angle: 300, Elastice modulus: 300 ksi, RQD: 88% (2nd layer) & 100% (3rd layer)

TABLE A.2

B-2












Nq Ng


1 Clay 19.5 120 1,000 0.72 0 ---- 6 1 0

2 Clay 24 120 1,000 0.72 0 ---- 9 1 0

3 Weak Rock5

34 140 72,000 0.30 0 ---- 9 1 0

NOTES:







TABLE A.3

B-3












Nq Ng


1 Clay 2.5 120 1,000 ---- 0 ---- 6 1 0

2 Clay 7 125 2,000 0.50 0 ---- 6 1 0

3 Clay 13.5 120 1,000 0.72 0 ---- 6 1 0

4 Weak Rock5

24.5 140 7,200 0.30 0 ---- 9 1 0

5 Weak Rock5

34.5 140 72,000 0.30 0 ---- 9 1 0

NOTES:










TABLE A.4

B-14






LPILE LPILESoil Effective Undrained Internal Soil

Modulus Unit Shear Friction Strain

Soil Top Bottom k2

Weight Strength4

Angle RQD3

Factor

Layer (feet) (feet) (pci) (pcf) (psf) (degrees) (%) e50/krm

1 Stiff Clay without Free Water (3) 0 3.5 525 125 1500 0 0.008

2 Sand (4) 3.5 8.5 170 120 0 34 ----

3 Weak Rock (9) 8.5 13 10,000 140 100 0 0 0.0005

4 Weak Rock (9) 13 19 10,000 78 100 0 0 0.0005

5 Weak Rock (9) 19 34 300,000 78 1000 0 100 0.0005

NOTES:

1. Design depth to subsurface water is about 13 feet.

2. Value given for Weak Rock is E ri in psi.

3. Value given for RQD estimated from field data and sample examination.

4. Uniaxial compressive strength for rock, in psi.

TABLE B.1

B-1

LATERAL CAPACITY ANALYSES






Depth to Soil Layer

LPILE

Soil Type




Soil Top Bottom k2

Weight Strength4

Angle RQD3

Factor


1 Stiff Clay without Free Water (3) 0 15 428 120 1000 0 0.010

2 Weak Rock (9) 15 19.5 300,000 140 1000 0 88 0.0005

3 Weak Rock (9) 19.5 30 300,000 78 1000 0 100 0.0005

NOTES:











B-2

TABLE B.2

Depth to Soil Layer

Soil Type

LPILE




Soil Top Bottom k2

Weight Strength4

Angle RQD3

Factor



2 Stiff Clay without Free Water (3) 19.5 24 428 58 1000 0 0.010

3 Weak Rock (9) 24 34 300,000 78 1000 0 80 0.0005

NOTES:






TABLE B.3


B-3



LPILE

Soil Type

Depth to Soil Layer






Soil Top Bottom k2

Weight Strength4

Angle RQD3

Factor



2 Stiff Clay without Free Water (3) 2.5 7 622 125 2000 0 0.007


4 Weak Rock (9) 13.5 24.5 10,000 78 100 0 0 0.0005

5 Weak Rock (9) 24.5 34.5 300,000 78 1000 0 85 0.0005

NOTES:





Depth to Soil Layer

LPILE

Soil Type







B-14

TABLE B.4


1 Soil 3.5 125 0.90 0 1.5 ---

2 Soil 8.5 120 1.50 34 0 ---

3 Weak Rock 19 140 10.00 26 1.3 2.5

4 Weak Rock 34 140 300.00 31 2.2 5

1. Design depth to groundwater is 13 feet.

Layer

Number

Layer

Type

Depth to

Bottom

of Layer

(feet)

TABLE C.1

MFAD 5.1TM / HFAD 5.1TM ANALYSES

SOIL / ROCK PARAMETERS

Boring: B-1

Effective

Friction

Angle

(degrees)

Undrained Soil

Shear Strength or

Rock Effective

Cohesion

(ksf)

Allowable

Rock/Concrete

Bond Strength

(ksf)

Total Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Deformation

Modulus

(ksi)


1 Soil 15 120 0.60 0 1 ---

2 Weak Rock 30 140 300.00 31 2.2 5

1. Design depth to groundwater is 19.5 feet.


Effective

Friction

Angle

(degrees)

Undrained Soil

Shear Strength or

Rock Effective

Cohesion

(ksf)

Allowable

Rock/Concrete

Bond Strength

(ksf)

Boring: B-2

Layer

Number

Layer

Type

Depth to

Bottom

of Layer

(feet)

Total Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Deformation

Modulus

(ksi)

TABLE C.2



1 Soil 24 120 0.60 0 1 ---

2 Weak Rock 34 140 300.00 31 2.2 5


Total Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Allowable

Rock/Concrete

Bond Strength

(ksf)

Undrained Soil

Shear Strength or

Rock Effective

Cohesion

(ksf)

Effective

Friction

Angle

(degrees)

Boring: B-3



TABLE C.3

Depth to

Bottom

of Layer

(feet)

Layer

Type

Layer

Number

Deformation

Modulus

(ksi)


1 Soil 2.5 120 0.60 0 1 ---

2 Soil 7 125 1.20 0 2 ---

3 Soil 13.5 120 0.60 0 1 ---

4 Weak Rock 24.5 140 10.00 26 1.3 2.5

5 Weak Rock 34.5 140 300.00 31 2.2 5


Undrained Soil

Shear Strength or

Rock Effective

Cohesion

(ksf)

Allowable

Rock/Concrete

Bond Strength

(ksf)

TABLE C.4



Boring: B-14

Layer

Number

Layer

Type

Depth to

Bottom

of Layer

(feet)

Total Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Deformation

Modulus

(ksi)

Effective

Friction

Angle

(degrees)


APPENDIX B

Vicinity Map and Boring Location Diagram

APPENDIX C

Boring Logs

633.5

628.5

618.0

603.0

FAT CLAY (CH) - dark brown, trace organic andgravel

SILTY SHALE AND LIMESTONE GRAVEL(GM) - gray, with clays

SHALE - gray, with limestone seams

LIMESTONE - gray, with shale seams - auger refusal at 19 feetRock Core between 19 and 21 FeetRecovery=100%, RQD=100%

Rock Core between 21 and 26 FeetRecovery=100%, RQD=100%



Boring Terminated at 34 Feet

Boring Started: 8:30am 5-4-2015Boring Completed: 11:00am 5-5-2015Driller: Kevin MurphyHelper: Jeff BreckenridgeField Engineer: Ryan FengDrill Rig: CME-55SPT Hammer Energy Transfer Ratio: 86.7%

16

8

4

3

21

20

14

27

50/4"

50/3"

50/2"50/1"

23

4

6

15

91

6340 psi

3520 psi

3940 psi

Liq

uid

Lim

it, %

CompletionDate

LOG OF BORING NO.

Pla

stic

Lim

it, %

Pen

etro

met

erR

ead

ing

, T

SF

637.0

Dep

th, F

t.

Plate C.1

CompletionDepth

Project No.15-20118

36.241604 -95.288033

RE

C (

inch

es)

Location

Dry

Un

it W

eig

ht

pcf

GRDA 161-kV Transmission LineMayes County, Oklahoma

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Mo

istu

reC

on

ten

t, %

34.0'

Pas

sin

g N

o.

200

Sie

ve, %

HSA

UU

Qu

(p

sf)

for

So

ilC

om

pre

ssio

n (

psi

)fo

r R

ock

Type

Stratum Description

B-1

Boring No.B-1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Surface Elevation

Sym

bol

5-5-15S

ampl

esApprox. 24hrs After Boring Completion

Immediately After Boring Completion

While Drilling

Water Observations (feet)

13

not measured

not measured

SP

T N

, B

low

s/F

oo

tT

CP

, 10

0 B

low

s/In

ches

TR

AN

SM

ISS

ION

AN

D S

UB

ST

AT

ION

15-

201

18.G

PJ

RO

NE

.GD

T 5

/27/

15

599.5

583.0

FAT CLAY (CH) - reddish brown






Boring Started: 13:30pm 5-5-2015Boring Completed: 18:30pm 5-5-2015Driller: Kevin MurphyHelper: Jeff BreckenridgeField Engineer: Ryan FengDrill Rig: CME-55SPT Hammer Energy Transfer Ratio: 86.7%

1 50/2" 6

4180 psi

4650 psi

4570 psi

Liq

uid

Lim

it, %

CompletionDate

LOG OF BORING NO.

Pla

stic

Lim

it, %

Pen

etro

met

erR

ead

ing

, T

SF

613.0

Dep

th, F

t.

Plate C.3

CompletionDepth

Project No.15-20118

36.238235 -95.284253

RE

C (

inch

es)

Location

Dry

Un

it W

eig

ht

pcf


Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Mo

istu

reC

on

ten

t, %

30.0'

Pas

sin

g N

o.

200

Sie

ve, %

HSA

UU

Qu

(p

sf)

for

So

ilC

om

pre

ssio

n (

psi

)fo

r R

ock

Type

Stratum Description

B-2

Boring No.B-2

5

10

15

20

25

30

Surface Elevation

Sym

bol

5-5-15S

ampl



While Drilling


not encountered

not measured

not measured

SP

T N

, B

low

s/F

oo

tT

CP

, 10

0 B

low

s/In

ches

TR

AN

SM

ISS

ION

AN

D S

UB

ST

AT

ION

15-

201

18.G

PJ

RO

NE

.GD

T 5

/27/

15

597.0

588.5

578.0

20

15

FAT CLAY (CH) - light brown to yellowish brown

LEAN CLAY (CL) - light brown to yellowish brown





Boring Started: 8:30am 5-6-2015Boring Completed: 15:00pm 5-6-2015Driller: Kevin MurphyHelper: Jeff BreckenridgeField Engineer: Ryan FengDrill Rig: CME-55SPT Hammer Energy Transfer Ratio: 86.7%

18

16

1

92

92

54

31

14

6

50/1"

22

24

11

12910 psi

2230 psi

34

16L

iqu

idL

imit

, %

CompletionDate

LOG OF BORING NO.

Pla

stic

Lim

it, %

Pen

etro

met

erR

ead

ing

, T

SF

612.0

Dep

th, F

t.

Plate C.2

CompletionDepth

Project No.15-20118

36.238495 -95.282591

RE

C (

inch

es)

Location

Dry

Un

it W

eig

ht

pcf


Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Mo

istu

reC

on

ten

t, %

34.0'

Pas

sin

g N

o.

200

Sie

ve, %

HSA

UU

Qu

(p

sf)

for

So

ilC

om

pre

ssio

n (

psi

)fo

r R

ock

Type

Stratum Description

B-3

Boring No.B-3

5

10

15

20

25

30

Surface Elevation

Sym

bol

5-6-15S

ampl



While Drilling


19.5

not measured

not measured

SP

T N

, B

low

s/F

oo

tT

CP

, 10

0 B

low

s/In

ches

TR

AN

SM

ISS

ION

AN

D S

UB

ST

AT

ION

15-

201

18.G

PJ

RO

NE

.GD

T 5

/27/

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

CH

MH

LL PL ClassificationFines

B-3

B-3

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

13.5

18.5

Specimen Identification

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

54

31

20

15

34

16

92

92

FAT CLAY CH

LEAN CLAY CL

PI

CL-ML ML

CL

GRDA 161-kV Transmission LineProject No. 15-20118

5/18/2015

US

_AT

TE

RB

ER

G_L

IMIT

S 1

5-20

118

.GP

J U

S_L

AB

.GD

T 5

/18/

15

APPENDIX D

Subsurface Profiles

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

350 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

Burns & McDonnellGRDA 161-kV Transmission Line

Mayes County, Oklahoma

Rone Project Number: 15-20118

Dep

th (

feet

)

PR

OF

ILE

- T

RA

NS

MIS

SIO

N L

INE

PR

OJE

CT

S 1

5-2

0118

PR

OF

ILE

S.G

PJ

RO

NE

.GD

T

5/27

/15

FAT CLAY (CH) - darkbrown, trace organic andgravel

SILTY SHALE ANDLIMESTONE GRAVEL(GM) - gray, with clays

SHALE - gray, withlimestone seams

LIMESTONE - gray, withshale seams - auger refusal at 19 feet

Rock Coring REC=100% RQD=100%




SPT N=14 MC=23%

SPT N=27 MC=4%P200=20%

SPT N=50/4" MC=6%

SPT N=50/3" MC=15%

SPT N=50/2" MC=9%SPT N=50/1" MC=1%

B-1

Elevation: 637 feet36.241604 -95.288033

FAT CLAY (CH) -reddish brown






SPT N=50/2" MC=6%

B-2

Elevation: 613 feet36.238235 -95.284253

FAT CLAY (CH) - lightbrown to yellowish brown

LEAN CLAY (CL) - lightbrown to yellowish brown





SPT N=14 MC=22%LL=54 PI=34 P200=92%

SPT N=6 MC=24%LL=31 PI=16 P200=92%

SPT N=50/1" MC=11%

B-3

Elevation: 612 feet36.238495 -95.282591

APPENDIX E

Rock Core Photos

SUBSURFACE INFORMATION for Mayes County, … · Laboratory Testing was performed by Rone...

Documents

Transcript of SUBSURFACE INFORMATION for Mayes County, … · Laboratory Testing was performed by Rone...