ECS-BIG_CREEK_BRIDGEGeotech_Report.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

BIG CREEK/LITTLE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, TEXAS

ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.

METAIRIE, LOUISIANA

Report No. 04.55184048 September 14, 2018

ENGINEEING CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.

4515 Shores Drive, Suite 200

Metairie, Louisiana 70006

Attention: Dr. Jay Jani, P.E.

President & CEO

Geotechnical Study Big Creek/Little Creek Bridge Replacements

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas

Introduction

Fugro USA Land, Inc. (Fugro) is pleased to submit this report of our geotechnical study for the above referenced project. Dr. Jay Jani, P.E. authorized this study with his signature of Work

Order number USFS-001 dated August 9, 2018. We performed this study in general accordance with our Proposal No. 04.50184048-rev 1, dated July 24, 2018. This report contains discussions and results of our geotechnical field exploration and laboratory testing programs and our engineering recommendations to guide in the geotechnical aspects of the design and installation of foundations for the bridge replacements associated with this project.

Project Description. We understand that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is planning to replace two (2) bridges in the Sam Houston National Forest in Texas. The two bridges are located along

National Forest Service Road (NFSR) 217 in San Jacinto County, Texas. A Site / Vicinity Map, showing the approximate locations of each of the sites, is provided on Plate 1 of this report. PE

Structural Consultants Incorporated provided bridge condition surveys for the existing Little and

Big Creek Bridges. ECS performed an inspection on both bridges, and compiled a report to present their findings and recommendations for repair and/or rehabilitation of the bridges. It was determined that due to the damage to the existing piles, abutment, and wingwalls; as well as rapid degradation of the piles according to the inspection reports, both Little and Big Creek Bridges will need to be completely replaced.

Based on field observations from PE Structural Consultants, Little Creek Bridge is a 3-Span

Prestressed Concrete Channel Beam Bridge, founded on timber piles, with a total bridge length of

45’-0” (3@15’-0”). Overall deck width is 24’-10” (22’-10” overall roadway width).

FUGRO USA LAND INC.

4233 Rhoda Drive

Baton Rouge, LA 70816

T 225 800 5400

F 225 800 5421

A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world.

Big Creek Bridge is a 3-Span Prestressed Concrete Channel Beam Bridge, also founded on timber piles, with a total bridge length 60’-0” (3@20’-0”). There is an overall deck width of 25’-0” (23’-3” overall roadway width). Both Little and Big Creek Bridges were built in 1967.

Purposes and Scope. The purposes of our geotechnical study were to 1) explore and evaluate soil and groundwater conditions at the project sites, and 2) develop geotechnical engineering recommendations to guide in the design and installation of foundations for the replacement bridge structures and allowable soil bearing for the design of the box culvert. We accomplished these purposes by:

drilling two (2) geotechnical soil borings; one (1) each to a depth of 70-ft below the existing grade at each existing bridge structure.

taking depth-to-water measurements at each boring;

sampling the borings continuously from the existing grade to a depth of 16-ft, then at 5-ft centers thereafter to completion. This resulted in a total of 140 lineal feet of drilling;

performing field and laboratory tests on recovered soil samples to assess pertinent geotechnical engineering properties;

analyzing the field and laboratory data to develop engineering recommendations to guide in the geotechnical aspects of the design and installation of foundations for the replacement bridges associated with this project; and preparing this engineering report summarizing our findings and recommendations.

Environmental assessment, compliance with State and Federal Regulatory requirements, assessment of potential migration, and/or environmental analyses were beyond the scope of this geotechnical study. A geological fault study was also beyond the scope of our services.

Applicability of Report. The explorations and analyses for this study, as well as the conclusions and recommendations in this report, were selected or developed based on our understanding of the project as described above and in later sections of this report. If pertinent details of the project differ from the descriptions provided in this report, we should be authorized to review the discrepancies and, if necessary, modify our conclusions and recommendations.

Fugro's scope of work does not include the investigation, detection, or design related to the presence of any biological pollutants. The term 'biological pollutants' includes, but is not limited to, mold, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and the byproducts of any such biological organisms.

We have prepared this report exclusively for Engineering Consulting Services, Inc. to guide in the geotechnical aspects of the design and installation of driven square precast concrete and timber pile foundations for the replacement bridges associated with this project. We have conducted this study using the standard level of care and diligence normally practiced by recognized engineering firms performing similar services under similar circumstances. We intend for this report, including all illustrations, to be used in its entirety. The observations, conclusions, and recommendations provided in this report may not be applicable at locations not explored by borings or in areas outside the project boundaries. This report should be made available for information only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions.

Field Exploration

Our field activities are discussed in this section. We have included a general discussion as well as discussions on drilling methods, sampling methods, depth-to-water observations, and borehole completion.

General. Fugro explored subsurface conditions at the project sites between August 22 and

August 23, 2018, by drilling a total of two geotechnical soil borings; one each to a depth of 70-ft below existing grade at each of the existing bridge structures. The approximate locations of the borings, labeled as Borings B-1 and B-2 are shown on the Plan of Borings provided on Plate 1 of this report. The boring locations were selected and identified in the field by Fugro personnel prior to our field exploration. Our field professional obtained the coordinates of the boring locations at the time of our field activities using a hand-held GPS unit. The coordinates obtained at the boring locations are approximate and should not be construed to represent surveyed locations. In addition, the coordinates are presented on the boring logs on Plates 2 and 3 of this report. We selected the boring depths based on our understanding of the project requirements.

Drilling Methods. The geotechnical borings for this project were drilled with a truck-mounted drilling rig using a combination of dry-auger and wet-rotary drilling methods. We initially drilled the borings using dry-auger drilling methods in an effort to determine depth-to-water levels at the project sites. Wet-rotary methods were used to efficiently remove cuttings, clean out the boreholes, and prevent the boreholes from caving. A discussion on short-term depth-to-water observations is provided later in this section of the report.

Sampling Methods. Soil sampling was conducted continuously at 2-ft intervals to a depth of 16 ft below existing grade and at 5-ft intervals thereafter to the completion depth of the borings.

Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered in the borings drilled for this project are presented on the boring logs on Plates 2 and 3 of this report. A key identifying the terms and symbols used on the boring logs is presented on Plates 4a and 4b herein.

Undisturbed samples of cohesive soils were obtained by hydraulically pushing a 3-inch-diameter, thin-walled tube sampler a distance of about 24 inches. Our field procedure for cohesive soil sampling was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1587, “Standard Practice for Thin- Walled Tube Sampling of Soils.” The samples were described in the field by our field professional then later extruded in the laboratory and visually classified by our laboratory professional. We obtained field estimates of the undrained shear strength of the recovered samples using a hand penetrometer or torvane. These measurements were repeated for confirmation upon extrusion in our laboratory. Penetrometer readings were not modified for overconsolidated, natural, cohesive soils as described on Plate 4b.

Cohesionless soil samples were obtained using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), as described on Plate 4b. Our field professional recorded the hammer blows for each sample interval. An automatic hammer was used when performing the SPT. The uncorrected SPT

N-values, as described on Plate 4b, are recorded on the boring logs. The soil samples obtained from the split-barrel sampler were then visually classified and placed into appropriate containers for transportation to our laboratory. Our field procedure for split-barrel soil sampling was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, “Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soil.”

Depth-to-Water Observations. As stated previously, the borings were initially drilled using dry-auger techniques in an effort to determine depth-to-water levels at the project site. When water was encountered, drilling was temporarily halted and short-term depth-to-water level readings were recorded. The interpreted short-term depth-to-water conditions are discussed further in the General Site Conditions section of this report.

Borehole Completion. The borings for this project were backfilled with cement-bentonite grout from the bottom up using a tremie pipe upon completion of soil sampling. When the grout returned to the surface, the tremie pipe was removed and the boreholes were topped off by pouring grout from the surface.

Laboratory Testing

The laboratory-testing program for this study was directed primarily toward evaluating the classification properties of the subsurface soils and the undrained shear strength of the cohesive soils. Our laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable American

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards as tabulated at the end of this section.

Classification Tests. The classification tests included tests for moisture content, liquid and plastic limits (collectively termed Atterberg Limits), particle size distribution, material finer than the

No. 200 sieve, and unit weight. These tests aid in classifying the soils and are used to correlate the results of other tests performed on samples taken from different depths. The results of the classification tests are presented on the boring logs on Plates 2 and 3 of this report. The particle size distributions are presented on Appendix A.

Undrained Shear Strength Tests. We measured the undrained shear strength of selected undisturbed samples of cohesive soils by performing unconfined compression tests and unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression tests. Moisture contents and unit weights were determined as routine portions of the compression tests. The results of the undrained shear strength tests are presented on the boring logs on Plates 2 and 3 herein.

Summary of Laboratory Testing. The laboratory-testing program performed for this study and the applicable ASTM standards are summarized in the following table:

Type of Test Number of Tests Test Designation Moisture Content 17 ASTM D 2216

Atterberg Limits 17 ASTM D 4318

Percent Finer than a No. 200 sieve 9 ASTM D 1140

Particle Size Distribution 31 ASTM D 422

Unit Weight 8 ASTM D 2937

Unconfined Compression Test 4 ASTM D 2166

Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test

4 ASTM D 2850

General Site Conditions

The interpreted site and subsurface soil conditions are discussed in this section. Our interpretation of the general site and subsurface conditions are based on the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing programs and our experience. This section also includes discussions on the interpreted depth-to-water conditions at the time of our field exploration.

Site Location. The project locations are located at existing bridges along NFSR 217 in San

Jacinto County, Texas. The Site / Vicinity Map and Plan of Borings, provided on Plate 1 of this report, shows the approximate locations of the bridges associated with this project. The approximate boring locations performed for this project are also included on Plate 1.

Generalized Subsurface Conditions. Based on our review of both the field observations and laboratory tests performed on the soils encountered in the borings drilled for this study, we have generalized the subsurface conditions in the following discussion.

The soil boring for Little Creek Bridge (B-1) was drilled adjacent to the road, immediately northeast of Little Creek. The surficial soils consisted of poorly graded sand with clay ranging from very dense at the surface, becoming increasingly less dense, and then turning loose from a depth of

12-ft to 23-ft below the ground surface. From a depth of 23-ft to 33-ft, we encountered fat clay with trace sand and sand pockets followed by clayey sand to a depth of 48-ft. From 48-ft to 53-ft we encountered a sandy lean clay layer underlain by clayey sand from 53-ft to 63-ft. We encountered fat clay at 63-ft which became lean clay at 68-ft and extended to the completion depth at 70-ft below ground surface.

The material encountered for Boring B-2 consisted of surficial lean clay with gravel and wood fragments to a depth of 4-ft below the ground surface. From a depth of 4-ft to 28-ft, clayey sand and sand with clay material was encountered. This was underlain by sandy lean clay to a depth of

33-ft, then clayey sand to a depth of 53-ft. From a depth of 53-ft to 58-ft below existing grade, we encountered sandy fat clay followed by fat clay from 58-ft to completion at 70-ft below existing grade.

Additional subsurface information is provided on the boring logs presented on Plates 2 and 3 of this report. The results of field and laboratory testing are also presented on the boring logs.

Interpreted Depth-to-Water Conditions. Free water was initially encountered at 11.5-ft below existing grade in the dry-auger drilling interval of both Borings B-1 and B-2, then rose to a depth of

8-ft and 8.5-ft, respectively after 15 minutes.

Short-term water levels recorded in the open boreholes should not be considered to represent a long-term condition because the water levels may not have had enough time to approach equilibrium. More accurate determinations of groundwater levels are usually made from long-term standpipe piezometer readings. It should be stated that groundwater levels will fluctuate with seasonal variations in rainfall and surface runoff, especially during extended periods of inclement weather.

Variations in Subsurface Conditions. Our interpretations of soil and depth-to-water conditions, as described in this report, are based on data obtained from our visual observations, the sample borings, field and laboratory tests, and our experience. Although we have allowed for minor variations in the subsurface conditions, our recommendations may not be appropriate for subsurface conditions other than those reported herein. It is likely that some variations in soil and/or groundwater conditions may occur away from or between boring locations, especially with respect to the depth and lateral extent of materials and surficial soils. We recommend careful observations during construction to verify our interpretations. If variations in soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction, we should evaluate what, if any, revisions should be made to our recommendations.

Concrete and Timber Pile Foundation Recommendations

This section of the report presents recommendations for driven square precast concrete piles and timber piles for the replacement bridges associated with this project. As previously mentioned, we understand that 14-, 16-, and 18-inch square driven precast concrete piles, and 14-inch butt/7-inch tip and 16-inch butt/8-inch tip timber piles are being considered for support of the replacement bridges at Big Creek and Little Creek along USFS 217. Our computations of ultimate axial capacities are based on the soil conditions encountered in the borings performed for this project.

It should be noted that we performed our pile capacity from an elevation corresponding to the existing ground surface. Pile capacity should be neglected from the top elevation to a depth that corresponds to the lowest mudline elevation in the creek. In addition, potential scour was not considered in our analyses. Additional capacity reduction should be considered if scour is anticipated.

Discussions on evaluation of axial capacity, estimated settlement, and installation and monitoring of driven piles are provided herein.

Evaluation of Axial Capacity. We computed the ultimate axial geotechnical soil capacity, in both compression and tension, for a 14-inch square precast concrete pile, a 16-inch square precast concrete pile, and an 18-inch square precast concrete pile to a penetration of 65-ft below existing grade of the roadway. It should be noted that the structural capacity of the piles should be verified by the Structural Engineer. The ultimate axial capacity of the individual, isolated driven piles was computed using the computer program APILE developed by Ensoft, Inc. In this method, the ultimate compressive capacity of a pile is taken as the sum of the skin friction on the pile and the end bearing on the pile tip. The weight of the pile is neglected in the computations. When computing ultimate tensile capacity, the end-bearing component is also neglected.

The computed ultimate axial capacity data for tension and compression of the individual piles are presented in graphical format on Plates 5a through 5e for the various pile sizes at Big Creek and

Plates 6a through 6e for the various pile sizes at Little Creek. It should be noted that we did not account for any scour in our analyses. Any capacity within a potential scour zone should be neglected when determining pile lengths. It should be noted that the reported ultimate capacities should be reduced by an appropriate factor of safety to obtain allowable capacities. We recommend a factor of safety of at least 3 be applied to the ultimate axial capacity of driven precast concrete piles loaded in compression and tension unless field verification using a load test or dynamic monitoring is performed.

The uplift capacity of the concrete piles may be increased by adding the weight of the piles. The buoyant weight of the pile should be used. A buoyant unit weight of 90 pcf is typically used for reinforced concrete. A factor of safety of 1.2 should be applied to the pile weight.

Estimated Settlement. Detailed settlement analyses for deep foundations were beyond the scope-of-work for this study. However, we expect that long-term consolidation settlements for piles designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report could be on the order ¼- to ½-inch for sustained loading conditions.

Installation and Monitoring of Driven Piles. This subsection presents our recommendations for installation and monitoring of driven square precast concrete and timber piles. Discussions on pile driving specifications, pile driving equipment, driven pile installation, and pile driving records are provided.

Pile Driving Specifications. Detailed pile driving specifications should be prepared by the design engineer in conjunction with the geotechnical consultant. The specifications should cover the project requirements for furnishing and installing the piles including the scope of work, necessary submittals, piling details, equipment requirements, installation requirements and tolerances, capacity evaluation, and construction records. The specification should require the contractor to submit a complete package detailing the proposed piling equipment and installation procedures for approval prior to mobilization to the site. The complete package should also include the results of a wave equation analysis to evaluate the proposed pile-driving hammer and cushion system prior to approval for mobilization to the site.

We recommend that the specification establish a pile-driving criterion to clearly define the required pile capacities, pile penetrations, and/or final driving resistance for acceptance. The results of the wave equation analysis should be used to establish the pile-driving criterion. Requirements for pile load tests, dynamic monitoring of piles, and capacity evaluation should be stated. The specification should require the contractor to notify the engineer of any changes to the pile driving equipment and methods so that the pile-driving criterion can be adjusted, if necessary. Remedial measures should be presented to address piles not achieving the specified criterion, out of tolerance piles, or piles with questionable driving records.

Pile Driving Equipment. Piles should be driven using a hammer of adequate size in as nearly a continuous operation as feasible, without interruption, if possible. Pile driving hammers may be diesel, steam, or air operated. The use of a drop hammer, with a light ram and a large stroke, is discouraged since this type of hammer can produce exceedingly high and damaging stresses. As previously stated, we recommend that the contractor perform a wave equation analysis to evaluate the proposed pile driving hammer and cushion system prior to approval for mobilization to the site.

The results of the wave equation analysis should be used to demonstrate that the proposed hammer has sufficient energy to install the piles to the required capacity and/or penetration, and that the hammer is properly cushioned to avoid structurally damaging the piles. To avoid damaging the pile and/or pile driving equipment, refusal criteria should be determined and agreed upon by all parties involved prior to the start of actual pile driving.

Driven Pile Installation. Piles at this site should be properly installed to their required depth at each pile location. We also recommend that all production piles be surveyed to detect possible vertical and/or horizontal movement (commonly referred to as heave), which may result from soil displacement associated with the installation of adjacent piles. Piles which heave after the driving of adjacent piles should be re-driven to at least their original penetration and final driving resistance. Potential contractors should be made aware of the very dense to medium dense granular soils encountered at various depths at both Big and Little Creek, which could cause difficulties during driving. Pre-drilling a small diameter pilot hole (diameter of the pilot hole should be limited to no greater than 2/3 of the pile width) may be acceptable if the depth of the pilot hole does not exceed the scour depth used for pile foundation design.

Pile Driving Records. An independent inspector should keep an accurate and detailed driving log during production pile driving operations. The log should provide a complete record of hammer blows per foot of penetration from the initial to the final blow for each pile installed. The records for each pile should also include the driving date, piles information, hammer information, cushion information, hammer and compressor operation information, pile tip elevations, and notes on installation delays, problems, or unusual occurrences.

The following illustrations are attached and complete this report:

ILLUSTRATIONS

Plate

Site Vicinity Map / Plan of Borings

Logs of Borings ......................................................................................... 2 through 3

Terms and Symbols Used on Boring Logs ................................................. 4a and 4b

Ultimate Axial Capacity Tables:

Big Creek - 14-inch Square Driven Precast Concrete Pile ................. 5a

Big Creek - 16-inch Square Driven Precast Concrete Pile ................. 5b

Big Creek - 18-inch Square Driven Precast Concrete Pile ................. 5c

Big Creek - 16-inch Butt Diameter Tapered Timber Pile .................... 5d

Big Creek - 14-inch Butt Diameter Tapered Timber Pile .................... 5e

Little Creek - 14-inch Square Driven Precast Concrete Pile ............... 6a

Little Creek - 16-inch Square Driven Precast Concrete Pile ............... 6b

Little Creek - 18-inch Square Driven Precast Concrete Pile ............... 6c

Little Creek - 16-inch Butt Diameter Tapered Timber Pile .................. 6d

Little Creek - 16-inch Butt Diameter Tapered Timber Pile .................. 6e

Grain Size Curves and Summary of Test Results ...................................... Appendix A

ILLUSTRATIONS

BIG CREEK / LITTLE CREEK

BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, TEXAS

PLAN OF BORINGS AND SITE/VICINITY MAP

SIZE

B PROJECT NO. 04.55184048 REV.

SCALE:

AS SHOWN

DRAWN BY: dms CHKD BY: DATE:

9/14/2018 Plate No. 1

³

PROJECT AREA

SITE MAP

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT AREA

0 400 800 1,200200 Feet

SOIL BORING LOCATION

LEGEND

!>C:\ Us ers \m ey er-sa ye rd\ De sk top

\04 .55

\04

.55

.m xd

, 9 /14

/20

, d .m ey er-sa ye r

N=50/4"

N=50/4"

N=50/3"

N=50/3"

N=13

N=4

N=7

N=5

N=8

N=5

N=6

12.0

23.0

33.0

SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, tan, with gravel

- medium-dense below 10'

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), loose, gray and tan

- red below 18'

FAT CLAY (CH), reddish brown, with sand pockets

- with gravel at 28'

SILTY SAND (SM), reddish brown

- tan below 35'

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas Project No.

PLATE 2a

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

COMPLETION DATE: August 23, 2018

TOTAL DEPTH: 70.0'

CAVED DEPTH: Not Applicable

DRY AUGER: 0' to 16'

WET ROTARY: 16' to 70'

BACKFILL: Cement-Bentonite Grout

LOGGER: W. Ritter

DRILL RIG: CME 75

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

: Water First Noticed.1.

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

Triaxial

NOTES:

: Depth To Water after 15 minutes.

KIPS PER SQ FTP

A

S S

IN

G

N O

S

IE

V

E

04.55184048

D E

P T

H , F

T COORDINATES: Penetrometer

Torvane

LOCATION: See Plate 1

Hand Vane

U N

IT

D

R Y

W T

P

C F

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

S T

R A

T U

M D

E P

T H

, F T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

Big Creek Bridge / Little Creek Bridge Replacements

SURFACE EL.: Not Available

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1

2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 4a and 4b.

Miniature Vane

CLASSIFICATION

Unconfined

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P I)

SHEAR STRENGTH

S A

M P

LE

S

B

LO

W S

P E

R F

O O

T

S Y

M B

O L N 30° 30' 58.53"

W 95° 04' 26.64"

F C

B R

_L O

G

F

IN

A L

4.

8.

G P

J F

U G

R O

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

.G

D T

9/

4/

N=5

N=8

N=12

N=11

48.0

53.0

63.0

68.0

70.0

SILTY SAND (SM), reddish brown

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), tan

SILTY SAND (SM), medium-dense, tan

- with clay pockets at 53'

FAT CLAY (CH), very stiff, reddish brown and gray

LEAN CLAY (CL), reddish brown and gray, with organics

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas Project No.

PLATE 2b

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

COMPLETION DATE: August 23, 2018

TOTAL DEPTH: 70.0'

CAVED DEPTH: Not Applicable

DRY AUGER: 0' to 16'

WET ROTARY: 16' to 70'

BACKFILL: Cement-Bentonite Grout

LOGGER: W. Ritter

DRILL RIG: CME 75

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

: Water First Noticed.1.

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

Triaxial

NOTES:

: Depth To Water after 15 minutes.

KIPS PER SQ FTP

A

S S

IN

G

N O

S

IE

V

E

04.55184048

D E

P T

H , F

T COORDINATES: Penetrometer

Torvane

LOCATION: See Plate 1

Hand Vane

U N

IT

D

R Y

W T

P

C F

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

S T

R A

T U

M D

E P

T H

, F T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

Big Creek Bridge / Little Creek Bridge Replacements

SURFACE EL.: Not Available

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1

2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 4a and 4b.

Miniature Vane

CLASSIFICATION

Unconfined

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P I)

SHEAR STRENGTH

S A

M P

LE

S

B

LO

W S

P E

R F

O O

T

S Y

M B

O L N 30° 30' 58.53"

W 95° 04' 26.64"

F C

B R

_L O

G

F

IN

A L

4.

8.

G P

J F

U G

R O

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

.G

D T

9/

N=17

N=12

N=2

N=2

N=9

N=4

N=21

N=13

N=13

4.0

8.0

14.0

23.0

28.0

33.0

LEAN CLAY (CL), gray and red

- with gravel at 0'

- red, with wood fragments at 2'

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), tan and reddish brown

SILTY SAND (SM), very loose to medium-dense, gray, with gravel

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM),

very loose to medium-dense, gray, with gravel

- red below 18'

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), tan, with clay pockets

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), gray and reddish brown

CLAYEY SAND (SC), gray and reddish brown

- with silt pockets at 33'

- with gravel at 38'

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas Project No.

PLATE 3a

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

COMPLETION DATE: August 22, 2018

TOTAL DEPTH: 70.0'

CAVED DEPTH: Not Applicable

DRY AUGER: 0' to 16'

WET ROTARY: 16' to 70'

BACKFILL: Cement-Bentonite Grout

LOGGER: W. Ritter

DRILL RIG: CME 75

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

: Water First Noticed.1.

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

Triaxial

NOTES:

: Depth To Water after 15 minutes.

KIPS PER SQ FTP

A

S S

IN

G

N O

S

IE

V

E

04.55184048

D E

P T

H , F

T COORDINATES: Penetrometer

Torvane

LOCATION: See Plate 1

Hand Vane

U N

IT

D

R Y

W T

P

C F

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

S T

R A

T U

M D

E P

T H

, F T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

Big Creek Bridge / Little Creek Bridge Replacements

SURFACE EL.: Not Available

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

LOG OF BORING NO. B-2

2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 4a and 4b.

Miniature Vane

CLASSIFICATION

Unconfined

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P I)

SHEAR STRENGTH

S A

M P

LE

S

B

LO

W S

P E

R F

O O

T

S Y

M B

O L N 30° 30' 23.3"

W 95° 05' 15.26"

F C

B R

_L O

G

F

IN

A L

4.

8.

G P

J F

U G

R O

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

.G

D T

9/

18 5.1

N=18

N=17

58.0

70.0

CLAYEY SAND (SC), gray and reddish brown

- gray below 43'

- with gravel at 53'

FAT CLAY (CH), yellowish red and light gray

- with slickensides at 58'

- reddish brown and tan, with sand seams at 63'

- light gray and reddish brown below 68'

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas Project No.

PLATE 3b

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

COMPLETION DATE: August 22, 2018

TOTAL DEPTH: 70.0'

CAVED DEPTH: Not Applicable

DRY AUGER: 0' to 16'

WET ROTARY: 16' to 70'

BACKFILL: Cement-Bentonite Grout

LOGGER: W. Ritter

DRILL RIG: CME 75

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

: Water First Noticed.1.

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

Triaxial

NOTES:

: Depth To Water after 15 minutes.

KIPS PER SQ FTP

A

S S

IN

G

N O

S

IE

V

E

04.55184048

D E

P T

H , F

T COORDINATES: Penetrometer

Torvane

LOCATION: See Plate 1

Hand Vane

U N

IT

D

R Y

W T

P

C F

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

S T

R A

T U

M D

E P

T H

, F T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

Big Creek Bridge / Little Creek Bridge Replacements

SURFACE EL.: Not Available

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

LOG OF BORING NO. B-2

2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 4a and 4b.

Miniature Vane

CLASSIFICATION

Unconfined

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P I)

SHEAR STRENGTH

S A

M P

LE

S

B

LO

W S

P E

R F

O O

T

S Y

M B

O L N 30° 30' 23.3"

W 95° 05' 15.26"

F C

B R

_L O

G

F

IN

A L

4.

8.

G P

J F

U G

R O

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

.G

D T

9/

PLATE 4a04.55184048

10 20

SILTY C

LAYS

CLAYS

Thin-walled Tube

(mm)

Boulders Cobbles

19.0 4.75

SOIL GRAIN SIZE

FineCoarse Silt

Medium

103/4" Gravel

Fine

U.S. Standard Sieve

Clay Coarse

3"6"

2.00

Sand

CLA

YS

0.425 0.075 0.005

LIQUID LIMIT

SOIL STRUCTURE

Having planes of weakness that appear slick and glossy.

Containing shrinkage or relief cracks, often filled with fine sand or silt; usually more or less vertical.

Inclusion of material of different texture that is smaller than the diameter of the sample.

Inclusion less than 1/8 inch thick extending through the sample.

Inclusion 1/8 inch to 3 inches thick extending through the sample.

Inclusion greater than 3 inches thick extending through the sample.

Soil sample composed of alternating partings or seams of different soil type.

Soil sample composed of alternating layers of different soil type.

Soil sample composed of pockets of different soil type and layered or laminated structure is not evident.

Having appreciable quantities of carbonate.

Having more than 50% carbonate content.

ORGANIC

CLAYS

A-LIN

E

SILTS

SANDY OR

SILTY CLAYS TO

CLAYEY SILTS

50 8070

ORGANIC SILTS OR

CLAYEY SILTS

Liner

Partial Recovery w/ Tube

Pitcher

9030 40

SOIL CLASSIFICATION (1 of 2)

TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS

SOIL TYPES

Auger

U-L

IN

E

Split-

SAMPLER TYPES

No Recovery barrel

Slickensided Fissured Pocket Parting Seam Layer Laminated Interlayered Intermixed Calcareous Carbonate

PLASTICITY CHART

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

SANDY C

LA

YS

75.0

Project No.

Fat clay, high plasticity

Lean clay, low to moderate plasticity

Sandy, lean clay, low to moderate plasticity

Clayey sand

Silty Sand Clean sand, poorly graded

GeoprobePiston

04.55184048 PLATE 4b

Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard*Estimated from sampler driving record.

**Requires correction for depth, groundwater level, and grain size.

SHEAR STRENGTH TEST METHOD

HAND PENETROMETER CORRECTION

A 2-in.-OD, 1-3/8-ID split spoon sampler is driven 1.5 ft into undisturbed soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 in. After the sampler is seated 6 in. into undisturbed soil, the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 in. is the Standard Penetration Resistance or "N" value, which is recorded as blows per foot as described below.

< 15 15 to 35 35 to 65 65 to 85

> 85

0 to 4 5 to 10

11 to 30 31 to 50

> 50

0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8

8 to 16 16 to 32

> 32

25 blows drove sampler 12 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating.

50 blows drove sampler 7 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating.

50 blows drove sampler 3 inches during initial 6-inch seating interval.

< 0.25

0.25 to 0.50

0.50 to 1.00

1.00 to 2.00

2.00 to 4.00

> 4.00

Term

Our experience has shown that the hand penetrometer generally overestimates the in-situ undrained shear strength of over consolidated Pleistocene Gulf

Coast clays. These strengths are partially controlled by the presence of macroscopic soil defects such as slickensides, which generally do not influence smaller scale tests like the hand penetrometer. Based on our experience, we have adjusted these field estimates of the undrained shear strength of natural, overconsolidated Pleistocene Gulf Coast soils by multiplying the measured penetrometer reading by a factor of 0.6. These adjusted strength estimates are recorded in the "Shear Strength" column on the boring logs. Except as described in the text, we have not adjusted estimates of the undrained shear strength for projects located outside of the Pleistocene Gulf Coast formations.

Information on each boring log is a compilation of subsurface conditions and soil or rock classifications obtained from the field as well as from laboratory testing of samples. Strata have been interpreted by commonly accepted procedures. The stratum lines on the logs may be transitional and approximate in nature. Water level measurements refer only to those observed at the time and places indicated, and can vary with time, geologic condition, or construction activity.

Blows Per Foot (SPT) (approximate)

STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS

SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER DRIVING RECORD

NOTE: To avoid damage to sampling tools, driving is limited to 50 blows during or after seating interval.

50/7" Ref/3"

Descriptive Term **Blows Per Foot (SPT)

Blows Per Foot

Undrained Shear Strength, ksf

*Relative Density, %

Description

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense

DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS

Project No.

(2 of 2)

U = Unconfined Q = Unconsolidated - Undrained Triaxial

P = Pocket Penetrometer T = Torvane V = Miniature Vane F = Hand Vane

0 100 200 300 400 500

Ultimate Axial Capacity, kips

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

Tension

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY CURVE

14-IN SQUARE DRIVEN PRECAST CONCRETE PILE - BIG CREEK

BIG CREEK BRIDGE / LITTLE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, TEXAS

Project No.: 04.55184048

PLATE 5aReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

Tension

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY CURVE

16-IN SQUARE DRIVEN PRECAST CONCRETE PILE - BIG CREEK

BIG CREEK BRIDGE / LITTLE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, TEXAS

PLATE 5bReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

Tension

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY CURVE

18-IN SQUARE DRIVEN PRECAST CONCRETE PILE - BIG CREEK

BIG CREEK BRIDGE / LITTLE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, TEXAS

PLATE 5cReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

TENSION

Fugro Consultants, Inc.

Project No.: 04.55184005

PLATE 5dReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

16-INCH DIAMETER BUTT, 7-INCH DIAMETER TIP TAPERED TIMBER PILE

BIG CREEK BRIDGE / LITTLE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACMENTS

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, TEXAS

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

TENSION

Fugro Consultants, Inc.

Project No.: 04.55184005

PLATE 5eReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

14-INCH DIAMETER BUTT, 7-INCH DIAMETER TIP TAPERED TIMBER PILE

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

Tension

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY CURVE

14-IN SQUARE DRIVEN PRECAST CONCRETE PILE - LITTLE CREEK

BIG CREEK BRIDGE / LITTLE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, TEXAS

PLATE 6aReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

Tension

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY CURVE

16-IN SQUARE DRIVEN PRECAST CONCRETE PILE - LITTLE CREEK

BIG CREEK BRIDGE / LITTLE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, TEXAS

PLATE 6bReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

Tension

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY CURVE

18-IN SQUARE DRIVEN PRECAST CONCRETE PILE - LITTLE CREEK

BIG CREEK BRIDGE / LITTLE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, TEXAS

PLATE 6cReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

TENSION

Fugro Consultants, Inc.

Project No.: 04.55184005

PLATE 6dReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

16-INCH DIAMETER BUTT, 7-INCH DIAMETER TIP TAPERED TIMBER PILE

0 40 80 120 160 200 Ultimate Axiaal Capacity, kips

Pe ne tra tio n

Be lo w E xi st in g

G ro un d

Su rfa ce fe et

COMPRESSION

TENSION

Fugro Consultants, Inc.

Project No.: 04.55184005

PLATE 6eReviewed by: Jack Koban Date: 09/14/18 Approved by: Eric Marx Date: 09/14/18

14-INCH DIAMETER BUTT, 7-INCH DIAMETER TIP TAPERED TIMBER PILE

APPENDIX A

0.0010.010.1110

2001" 3/4"2" 16

Big Creek Bridge / Little Creek Bridge Replacements

12.5

9.5

9.5

0.356

0.239

0.447

0.167

0.124

0.213 0.119 3.76

9/7/2018Allen Bentley

SILTY SAND (SM), tan, with gravel

SILTY SAND, gray and tan, with few gravel

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), gray and tan, with few gravel

50 0.0050.050.55 EFFECTIVE PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R b y w ei g h t)

D60 PL PIBoring Number

CLAYSANDGRAVEL

04.55184048

301/2" 3/8" 4 1008 10 50401/4" 201 1/2"

Hydrometer Analysis

SILT

B-1

B-1

B-1

9/13/2018

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R b y w ei g h t)

Project No.

LLCc CuD100 D10Sample Number %Silt D30%Clay%Sand%Gravel

PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS

Tested By: Date Tested: Reviewed By: Date Reviewed:

Deborah Meyer-Sayer

Material Description

ASTM D422/D6913/C136

USA Standard Sieve Sizes (meets ASTM E11)

10.2

0.7

0.5 0.85

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas

74.8

80.2

96.1

Depth (ft)

0-1.5

10-11.5

14-15.5

F C

B R

G S

A L

A N

D S

C A

P E

4.

8.

G

P J

F U

G R

O D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

9/

/1

0.0010.010.1110

2001" 3/4"2" 16

Big Creek Bridge / Little Creek Bridge Replacements

12.5

0.19

0.363

0.385

0.14

0.154

0.192

9/11/2018Allen Bentley

SILTY SAND, light brown and pink, with clay pockets

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, with some clay pockets

SILTY SAND (SM), gray, with gravel and some clay pockets

50 0.0050.050.55 EFFECTIVE PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R b y w ei g h t)

D60 PL PIBoring Number

CLAYSANDGRAVEL

04.55184048

301/2" 3/8" 4 1008 10 50401/4" 201 1/2"

Hydrometer Analysis

SILT

B-1

B-2

B-2

9/13/2018

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R b y w ei g h t)

Project No.

LLCc CuD100 D10Sample Number %Silt D30%Clay%Sand%Gravel

PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS

Tested By: Date Tested: Reviewed By: Date Reviewed:

Deborah Meyer-Sayer

Material Description

ASTM D422/D6913/C136

USA Standard Sieve Sizes (meets ASTM E11)

0.0

20.7

7.0

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas

84.9

62.7

80.6

Depth (ft)

53-55

6-8

12-13.5

F C

B R

G S

A L

A N

D S

C A

P E

4.

8.

G

P J

F U

G R

O D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

9/

0.0010.010.1110

2001" 3/4"2" 16

Big Creek Bridge / Little Creek Bridge Replacements

12.5

4.75

0.269

0.346

0.17

0.166

0.18

0.11

0.083 3.23

9/7/2018Allen Bentley

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), orange, with some clay pockets and few gravel SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), orange and white, with clay lenses

CLAYEY SAND, gray

50 0.0050.050.55 EFFECTIVE PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R b y w ei g h t)

D60 PL PIBoring Number

CLAYSANDGRAVEL

04.55184048

301/2" 3/8" 4 1008 10 50401/4" 201 1/2"

Hydrometer Analysis

SILT

B-2

B-2

B-2

9/13/2018

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R b y w ei g h t)

Project No.

LLCc CuD100 D10Sample Number %Silt D30%Clay%Sand%Gravel

PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS

Tested By: Date Tested: Reviewed By: Date Reviewed:

Deborah Meyer-Sayer

Material Description

ASTM D422/D6913/C136

USA Standard Sieve Sizes (meets ASTM E11)

6.3

17.1

0.0

1.23

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas

84.9

68.0

77.7

Depth (ft)

18-19.5

23-24.5

43-45

F C

B R

G S

A L

A N

D S

C A

P E

4.

8.

G

P J

F U

G R

O D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

9/

1 0.0-1.5 11 15

6 10.0-11.5 17 19

8 14.0-15.5 20 3

9 18.0-19.5 28 7

10 23.0-24.5 57 18 39 23

11 28.0-30.0 36 88 99 UU 35 22.5 2.54 1.4 88 10.6 C

12 33.0-35.0 32 30

14 38.0-39.5 30 16

16 48.0-49.5 46 18 28 33 64

17 53.0-55.0 29 15

20 63.0-65.0 90 32 58 35 90 UU 34 50 2.87 0.6 90 2.3 B

21 68.0-70.0 28 19 9 26

04.55184048 Project No.

Penetrometer (ksf)

Notes:

NP = Non-Plastic Material

TYPE OF FAILURE

A - Bulge B - Single Shear Plane C - Multiple Shear Plane D - Vertical Fracture

TYPE OF TEST

U - Unconfined Compression UU - Unconsolidated - Undrained Triaxial CU - Consolidated - Undrained Triaxial

Big Creek Bridge / Little Creek Bridge Replacements

LELAP Lab ID #10001

Type of Failure

Dry Unit Weight

(pcf)

Confining Pressure

(psi)

Failure Strain

E50 Strain

Shear Strength

(ksf)

Moisture Content

Torvane (ksf)

Shear Strength

(ksf)

Remolded Shear

Strength (ksf)

Type Test

Identification Tests Miniature Vane

Tests Field Shear

Strength Estimate

Depth (ft)

Passing No. 200 Sieve

Dry Unit Weight

(pcf)

Moisture Content

Sample

No.

Remolded Shear

Strength (ksf)

Compression Tests

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS - BORING B-1

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas

Plastic Limit (%)

Liquid Limit (%)

Plasticity Index

(PI)

3 4.0-6.0 5 25

4 6.0-8.0 8 17

7 12.0-13.5 21 12

9 18.0-19.5 19 9

10 23.0-24.5 21 15

11 28.0-29.5 39 16 23 22 52

12 33.0-35.0 33 16 17 15 120 45 UU 15 26.5 5.06 0.9 120 5.3 A

13 38.0-40.0 35 15 20 21 103 33 UU 22 30 0.32 1.9 103 13.8 A

14 43.0-45.0 22 22

16 53.0-54.5 27 51

17 58.0-60.0 89 34 55 35 87 UU 34 48 2.75 1.0 87 3.5 C

18 63.0-65.0 87 28 59 36 88 92 UU 33 50 2.71 1.0 88 3.1 C

19 68.0-70.0 93 31 62 36 87 UU 34 54 1.88 0.6 87 6.2 C

04.55184048 Project No.

Penetrometer (ksf)

Notes:

NP = Non-Plastic Material

TYPE OF FAILURE

A - Bulge B - Single Shear Plane C - Multiple Shear Plane D - Vertical Fracture

TYPE OF TEST

U - Unconfined Compression UU - Unconsolidated - Undrained Triaxial CU - Consolidated - Undrained Triaxial

Big Creek Bridge / Little Creek Bridge Replacements

LELAP Lab ID #10001

Type of Failure

Dry Unit Weight

(pcf)

Confining Pressure

(psi)

Failure Strain

E50 Strain

Shear Strength

(ksf)

Moisture Content

Torvane (ksf)

Shear Strength

(ksf)

Remolded Shear

Strength (ksf)

Type Test

Identification Tests Miniature Vane

Tests Field Shear

Strength Estimate

Depth (ft)

Passing No. 200 Sieve

Dry Unit Weight

(pcf)

Moisture Content

Sample

No.

Remolded Shear

Strength (ksf)

Compression Tests

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS - BORING B-2

Sam Houston National Forest, Texas

Plastic Limit (%)

Liquid Limit (%)

Plasticity Index

(PI)