325033_Project_Manual.pdf

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

PROJECT MANUAL

DANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION

1919 ALLIANT ENERGY CENTER WAY

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53713

RFB NO. 325033

REQUEST FOR BIDS NO. 325033

GARFOOT CREEK BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

AT COUNTY HIGHWAY KP

TOWN OF CROSS PLAINS, WISCONSIN

RFB No. 325033 Table of Contents rev. 09/23 00 01 10 - 1

SECTION 00 01 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 01 01 - Project Manual Cover Page 00 01 07 - Seals Page 00 01 10 - Table of Contents 00 21 13 - Instructions to Bidders 00 31 32 - Geotechnical Data Subsurface Drilling and Sampling Information 00 52 96 - Sample Public Works Construction Contract 00 72 12 - General Conditions of Contract 00 73 00 - Supplementary Conditions

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 00 00 - General Requirements 01 74 19 - Construction Waste Management, Disposal & Recycling

DIVISION 2000 - STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION

WisDOT Specifications

DRAWINGS

Plot drawings on 11” x 17” (ANSI B) paper for correct scale or size. See drawing set for listing of drawings.

END OF SECTION

RFB No. 325033 Instructions to Bidders rev. 11/23 00 21 13 - 1

SECTION 00 21 13

INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

1. GENERAL

2. QUALIFICATIONS OF BIDDER (CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR)

3. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS

4. INTERPRETATION

5. BID GUARANTEE

6. WITHDRAWAL OF BIDS

7. CONTRACT FORM

8. CONTRACT INTERESTS BY COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIALS

9. EMERGING SMALL BUSINESS PROVISIONS

10. METHOD OF AWARD - RESERVATIONS

11. SECURITY FOR PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENTS

12. TAXES

13. SUBMISSION OF BIDS

14. SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING

1. GENERAL

1. Before submitting Bid, bidder shall thoroughly examine all Construction Documents.

Successful Bidder shall be required to provide all the Work that is shown on Drawings, set forth in Specifications, or reasonably implied as necessary to complete Contract for this project.

2. Bidder shall visit site to become acquainted with adjacent areas, means of approach to site, conditions of actual site and facilities for delivering, storing, placing, and handling of materials and equipment.

3. Before award of Contract can be approved, Owner shall be satisfied that Bidder involved meets following requirements:

1. Has completed at least one (1) project of at least fifty percent (50%) of size or value of Division of work being bid and type of work completed is similar to that being bid. If greater magnitude of experience is deemed necessary, other than size or value of work, such requirements will be described in appropriate section of Specifications.

4. County’s Highway Project Manager will make such investigations as are deemed necessary to determine ability of bidder to perform the Work, and bidder shall furnish to County’s Highway Project Manager or designee all such information and data for this purpose as County’s Highway Project Manager may request. Owner reserves right to reject Bid if evidence submitted by, or investigation of, bidder fails to satisfy Owner that bidder is responsible and qualified to carry out obligations of Contract and to complete the Work contemplated therein.

2. QUALIFICATIONS OF BIDDER (CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR)

1. Before award of Contract can be approved, Owner shall be satisfied that Bidder involved meets following requirements:

1. Is listed on the latest edition of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Prequalified Contractor List for the type of construction being performed.

rev. 11/23 00 21 13 - 2

2. Has completed at least one (1) project of at least fifty percent (50%) of size or value of Division of work being bid and type of work completed is similar to that being bid. If greater magnitude of experience is deemed necessary, other than size or value of work, such requirements will be described in appropriate section of Specifications.

3. Maintains permanent place of business.

4. Can be bonded for terms of proposed Contract.

2. Has record of satisfactorily completing past projects. Criteria which will be considered in determining satisfactory completion of projects by bidder will include:

1. Completed contracts in accordance with drawings and specifications.

2. Diligently pursued execution of work and completed contracts according to established time schedule unless Owner grants extensions.

3. Fulfilled guarantee requirements of construction documents.

4. Is not presently on ineligible list maintained by County’s Department of Administration for noncompliance with equal employment opportunities and affirmative action requirements.

5. Authorized to conduct business in Wisconsin. By submitting Bid, bidder warrants that it has: complied with all necessary requirements to do business in State of Wisconsin; that persons executing contract on its behalf are authorized to do so; and, if corporation, that name and address of bidder’s registered agent are as set forth in Contract. Bidder shall notify Owner immediately, in writing, of any change in its registered agent, their address, and bidder’s legal status. For partnership, term “registered agent” shall mean general partner.

3. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS

1. Drawings and Specifications that form part of this Contract, as stated in Article 1 of General

Conditions of Contact, are enumerated in Table of Contents of these Construction Documents.

2. Complete sets of Drawings and Specifications for all trades will be available to all Bidders, irrespective of category of work to be bid on, in order that all Bidders may be familiar with work of other trades as they affect their bid.

4. INTERPRETATION

1. No verbal explanation or instructions will be given in regard to meaning of Drawings or

Specifications before Bid Due Date. Bidders shall bring inadequacies, omissions or conflicts to Owner & Architect, Engineer or Consultant’s attention at least ten (10) calendar days before Bid Due Date. Prompt clarification will be available to all bidders by Addendum.

2. Failure to so request clarification or interpretation of Drawings and Specifications will not relieve successful Bidder of responsibility. Signing of Contract will be considered as implicitly denoting that Contractor has thorough understanding of scope of the Work and comprehension of Construction Documents.

rev. 11/23 00 21 13 - 3

3. Owner, Architect, Engineer, or Consultant will not be responsible for verbal instructions.

5. BID GUARANTEE

1. Bank certified check, cashier’s check or Bid Bond, payable to County in amount not less than five percent (5%) of maximum bid, shall accompany each Bid as guarantee that if Bid is accepted, Bidder will execute and return proposed Contract and Performance and Payment Bond within ten (10) business days after being notified of acceptance of Bid. Company issuing bonds must be licensed to do business in Wisconsin.

2. Any bid, which is not accompanied by bid guarantee, will be considered “No Bid” and will not be read at Bid Due Date.

3. If successful Bidder so delivers Contract, Certificate of Insurance, and Performance and Payment Bond, check will be returned to Bidder. In case Bidder fails to deliver such Contract, insurance, and bond, amount of bid guarantee will be forfeited to County as liquidated damages.

4. All checks tendered as bid guarantee, except those of three (3) lowest qualified, responsible bidders, will be returned to their makers within three (3) business days after Bid Due Date.

All such retained checks will be returned immediately upon signing of Contract and Performance and Payment Bond by successful Bidder.

6. WITHDRAWAL OF BIDS

1. Bids may only be withdrawn before Bid Due Date as authorized by Wis. Stat. s. 66.0901(5).

2. No Bid may be withdrawn for a period of ninety (90) calendar days after Bid Due Date.

7. CONTRACT FORM

1. Sample copy of contract that successful Bidder will be required to enter into is included in these Construction Documents and bidders are required to familiarize themselves with all conditions contained therein.

8. CONTRACT INTERESTS BY COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIALS

1. In accordance with Wisconsin Statute 946.13, county official may not bid for or enter into any contract involving receipts or disbursements of more than $15,000.00 in a year, in which they have private pecuniary interest, direct or indirect if at same time they are authorized to take official action with respect to making of this Contract. Any contract entered into in violation of this Statute is void and County incurs no liability thereon. This subsection does not affect application and enforcement of Wisconsin Statute 946.13 by state prosecutors in criminal courts of this state.

9. EMERGING SMALL BUSINESS PROVISIONS

1. Emerging Small Business (ESB) Goal. The goal of this project is ten percent (10%) ESB participation. ESBs utilizations are shown as a percentage of the total Bid.

2. Emerging Small Business Involvement. Bidder shall make good faith effort to award minimum of ten percent (10%) of the Work to ESBs. Good faith effort means significant rev. 11/23 00 21 13 - 4 contact with ESBs for purposes of soliciting bids from them. Failure to make or demonstrate good faith efforts will be grounds for disqualification.

3. Emerging Small Business Report. Bidder shall submit ESB Report demonstrating good faith efforts to Dane County Tamara D. Grigsby Office for Equity and Inclusion within ten

(10) business days of Bid Due Date. ESB Report should be sent to Contract Compliance Specialist via email at oei@danecounty.gov or mailed to Dane County Tamara D. Grigsby Office for Equity and Inclusion, City-County Building, Room 356, 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Madison, WI 53703. Bidders who fail to submit ESB Report shall be deemed unresponsive.

4. Emerging Small Business Instructions & Forms. Bidders may locate ESB instructions and forms on Dane County Tamara D. Grigsby Office for Equity and Inclusion website:

equity.danecounty.gov/contract-compliance.

5. Emerging Small Business Questions. Questions concerning ESB provisions shall be directed to:

OEI@danecounty.gov or

Dane County Contract Compliance Specialist City-County Building, Room 356 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.

Madison, WI 53703 608/283-1391

10. METHOD OF AWARD - RESERVATIONS

1. Following will be basis of award of Contract, providing cost does not exceed amount of funds then estimated by County as available to finance Contract(s):

1. Lowest dollar amount submitted by responsible bidder on Base Bid for all work comprising project, combined with such additive Owner accepted alternates.

2. Owner reserves right to reject all bids or any bid, to waive any informality in any bid, and to accept any bid that will best serve interests of County.

3. Unit Prices and Informational Bids will not be considered in establishing low bidder.

11. SECURITY FOR PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENTS

1. Simultaneous with delivery of signed Contract, Bidder shall be required to furnish

Performance and Payment Bond as specified in Article 29 of General Conditions of Contract, “Contract Security”. Surety Company shall be licensed to do business in Wisconsin.

Performance and Payment Bond must be dated same date or subsequent to date of Contract.

Performance and Payment Bond must emulate information in standard AIA Document A312 for Performance and Payment Bond.

2. Provide certified copy of power of attorney from Surety Company showing that agent who signs Bond has power of attorney to sign for Surety Company. Secretary or Assistant Secretary of company must sign this certification, not attorney-in-fact. Certification must bear same or later date as Bond. Power of Attorney must emulate model power of attorney information detailed in standard AIA Document A312 for Sample Performance and Payment Bond.

mailto:oei@danecounty.gov https://equity.countyofdane.com/contract-compliance mailto:OEI@danecounty.gov rev. 11/23 00 21 13 - 5

3. If Bidder is partnership or joint venture, State certified list, providing names of individuals constituting partnership or joint venture must be furnished. Contract itself may be signed by one partner of partnership, or one partner of each firm comprising joint venture, but Performance and Payment Bond must be signed by all partners.

4. If Bidder is corporation, it is necessary that current certified copy of resolution or other official act of directors of corporation be submitted showing that person who signs Contract is authorized to sign contracts for corporation. It is also necessary that corporate seal be affixed to resolution, contract, and performance and payment bond. If your corporation has no seal, it is required that above documents include statement or notation to affect that corporation has no seal.

12. TAXES

1. Wisconsin Statute 77.54 (9m) allows building materials that become part of local unit government facilities to be exempt from sales & use tax. Vendors & materials suppliers may not charge Bidders sales & use tax on these purchases. This does not include highways, streets or roads. Any other Sales, Consumer, Use & other similar taxes or fees required by law shall be included in Bid.

2. In accordance with Wisconsin Statute 71.80(16)(a),successful nonresident bidder, whether incorporated or not, and not otherwise regularly engaged in business in this state, shall file surety bond with State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue payable to Department of Revenue, to guarantee payment of income taxes, required unemployment compensation contributions, sales and use taxes and income taxes withheld from wages of employees, together with any penalties and interest thereon. Amount of bond shall be three percent (3%) of Contract or subcontract price on all contracts of $50,000 or more.

13. SUBMISSION OF BIDS

1. All Bids shall be submitted electronically through Dane County’s Procurement Portal via

OpenGov: procurement.opengov.com/portal/countyofdane.

2. Submit completed Bid Bond electronically with Bid.

3. No bids for any subdivision or any sub-classification of the Work, except as indicated, will be accepted. Any conditional Bid, amendment to Bid Pricing Table or appended item thereto, or inclusion of any correspondence, written or printed matter, or details of any nature other than that specifically called for, which would alter any essential provision of Construction Documents, or require consideration of unsolicited material or data in determining award of Contract, will disqualify Bid. Telecommunication alterations to Bid will not be accepted.

4. Bidders must submit single Bid for all the Work.

5. Bid amounts shall be inserted numerically in spaces provided on Bid Pricing Table in OpenGov submission.

6. Addenda issued after Bid Letting shall become part of Construction Documents. Bidders shall acknowledge receipt of such addenda in OpenGov submission. Bid may be rejected if receipt of any particular addendum applicable to award of Contract has not been acknowledged in OpenGov.

7. Faxed, hand-delivered or emailed Bids will not be accepted.

https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/countyofdane rev. 11/23 00 21 13 - 6

14. SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING

1. Bidders may be required to submit Section 00 43 36, Proposed Subcontractors Form listing all subcontractors for this project including committed prices for each subcontractor. See OpenGov “Bid Submission - Checklist” for requirements.

END OF SECTION

RFB No. 325033 Geotechnical Data rev. 01/22 00 31 32 - 1

SECTION 00 31 32

GEOTECHNICAL DATA

SUBSURFACE DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION

INVESTIGATION DATA

ECS Midwest, LLC have made subsurface investigations and soil boring report ([48] pages) that is included following this page. The designers used this information in preparing their work;

however, Bidders shall draw their own conclusions therefrom. Architect / Engineer or Owner assumes no responsibility for subsoil quality or conditions.

ECS Midwest, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Report

CTH KP Bridge

CTH KP over Garfoot Creek Cross Plains, Dane County, Wisconsin

ECS Project Number 42:2685

February 19, 2025 (revised September 11, 2025)

February 19, 2025 (revised September 11, 2025) Mr. Keith Behrend Strand Associates, Inc.

910 W. Wingra Dr.

Madison, Wisconsin 53715

ECS Project No. 42:2685

Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report

CTH KP over Garfoot Creek Cross Plains, Dane County, Wisconsin

Dear Mr. Behrend:

ECS Midwest, LLC (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above-referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with our agreed scope of services. This report presents our understanding of the geotechnical aspects of the project, the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing conducted, and our design and construction recommendations. This report was revised to include considerations for a three-sided culvert and correct the culvert type. Further revision was made to include a 12¾-inch CIP pile.

It has been our pleasure to be of service to you on this project. ECS would like to continue its services during design and provide our services during construction to check the assumptions of subsurface conditions made for this report. Please contact us should you have questions about the information contained in this report, or if ECS can be of further assistance to you.

Respectfully submitted, ECS Midwest, LLC

Lauren McGovern Darin Maciolek, P.E.

Geotechnical Staff Project Manager Principal, Geotechnical Dept. Manager LMcGovern@ecslimited.com DMaciolek@ecslimited.com mailto:LMcGovern@ecslimited.com mailto:DMaciolek@ecslimited.com

CTH KP Bridge –Dane County, WI February 19, 2025 (rev September 11, 2025) ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Location/Current Site Use/Past Site Use

2.2 Proposed Construction

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Field Exploration

3.2 Subsurface Characterization

3.3 Groundwater Observations

3.4 Laboratory Testing

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Pile Foundations

4.2 Spread Foundations

4.3 Retaining Wing Walls

4.4 Pavement Design Considerations

5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Engineered Fill and Backfill

5.2 Pile Installation

5.3 Excavation Safety

5.4 Bidding/Estimating Considerations

6.0 CLOSING

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Drawings & Reports

• Site Location Diagram

• Boring Location Diagram

• Generalized Subsurface Soil Profile

• Soil Survey Map Appendix B – Field and Laboratory Operations

• Reference Notes for Boring Logs

• Subsurface Exploration Procedures: SPT

• Boring Logs Appendix B – Laboratory Testing

• Laboratory Testing Procedures: Index Testing

• AASHTO Soil Classification

• Particle Size Distribution Appendix D – Supplemental Report Documents

• Corrected SPT N-Values

• Recommended Soil Parameters

• Pile Resistance Graphs Appendix E – Other Information

• Important Information about This Geotechnical-Engineering Report

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Executive Summary is intended as a very brief overview of the primary geotechnical conditions expected to affect design and construction. Information gleaned from this Executive Summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

• The project is planned to consist of a bridge replacement.

• The results of the subsurface exploration program indicate the site has subsurface conditions suitable to support the proposed structure on a driven pile foundation system. A deep foundation system consisting of HP10x42, 10¾-inch diameter CIP or 12¾-inch diameter CIP piles could be used for support of the structure. It should be noted drilling difficulties occurred due to blow-in sands.

Additionally, full structural capacity is not expected to be achieved within the boring depths and potentially not within 120 percent of the boring depths. An amendment is recommended to drill deeper test borings with a drilling rig better equipped to handle the blow-in sands.

• A spread foundation system bearing in competent native (Strata II or III) soils at approximately 7 feet below grade or on engineered fill/lean concrete overlying competent native soils may be designed for a factored bearing resistance of 3,600 psf. Some undercut may be needed to reach capable bearing soil depending on final structure bearing elevation.

• ECS recommends designing the cast-in-place cantilever wing walls based on “at-rest” or “active” earth pressures, depending on whether movement at the top of the wall is acceptable, plus any surcharges. We recommend the walls be backfilled with a free-draining granular material. Wing walls bearing on competent native soils may be designed for a factored bearing resistance of 4,400 psf.

• The recommended pavement design parameters, based on the boring information, are presented in the report text. The existing soils are expected to have variable pavement support characteristics.

Excavation below subgrade (EBS) and replacement with select material is anticipated to be approximately 12 to 18 inches based on the material encountered at the borings located in the roadway.

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical information for the design of foundations, retaining walls, and pavements for the proposed bridge replacement. The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by Strand Associates, Inc.

Our services were provided in accordance with ECS Proposal No. 42:3743, dated December 2, 2024, as authorized through the Task Order between ECS Midwest, LLC and Strand Associates, Inc., dated December 23, 2024.

This report contains the procedures and results of the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing programs, a description of existing site conditions, engineering analyses, and geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction.

The report includes the following items:

• A brief description of the field and laboratory test procedures and results.

• A description of the observed surface topographical features and site conditions.

• A description of area and site geologic conditions.

• A description of the interpreted subsurface soil stratigraphy with pertinent available physical properties.

• Records of the subsurface explorations (test boring logs).

• Foundation recommendations.

• Recommendations for design of retaining wing walls.

• General pavement subgrade design parameter recommendations.

• Recommendations for site preparation and construction of engineered fills, including an evaluation of on-site soils for use as engineered fills, and delineation of potentially unsuitable soils and/or soils exhibiting excessive moisture at the time of sampling.

• General considerations relative to groundwater.

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 3

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION/CURRENT SITE USE/PAST SITE USE

The project site is located at CTH KP over Garfoot Creek in the Town of Cross Plains, Dane County, Wisconsin. The site location is shown in Figure 2.1.1 below, and on the Site Location Diagram in Appendix A.

Figure 2.1.1 Site Location (approximate site outlined in red)

Existing conditions include a two-lane asphalt paved roadway and a single-span bridge over Garfoot Creek. The existing roadway over the bridge is straight and relatively flat. The pavement surface elevations in the bridge area, estimated from the topographic information on DCiMap website, vary from approximately EL. 847 to EL. 849 feet, MSL.

2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

We understand the proposed project will include replacement of the existing single-span bridge. We understand the proposed replacement structure may be a single-span bridge or a three-sided box culvert. The bottom of substructure elevations for the new structure were not known at the time of this report. It is anticipated no significant grade raises are planned. The new construction will also include the associated paved bridge approaches. Our understanding of the project is noted in the Table below.

DESIGN INFORMATION

Subject Expectation

Bridge

Construction Alt 1- Single-Span, 15.5‐foot-long, 32.2 feet wide, no skew Alt 2 – Three-sided concrete box culvert

R

Abutments Type Alt 1 - 5-foot minimum vertical pile encased (A5) Alt 2 – Three-sided concrete box culvert

B

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 4

DESIGN INFORMATION

Subject Expectation

Bottom Elevation

West Abutment: 841± East Abutment: 841±

B

Foundation Type HP10x42 or 10¾-inch CIP piles Spread footings

B

Settlement Tolerance 2 inches total and 1 inch differential B

Pavement

Type Asphalt B

Traffic 900 vehicles and is functionally classified as a major collector R

Design Service Life 20 years B

Grading Cut Less than 1 foot R

Fill Less than 1 foot R R: Reported by client and/or design team B: Based on ECS estimates in absence of information from client and/or design team

The structure loads were not provided, but it is anticipated the piling will be driven with a required driving resistance of 180 tons/pile with HP 10x42 steel piles or 150 tons/pile with 10 ¾-inch CIP concrete piles to support the bridge structure.

If ECS’ understanding of the project is not correct or the design changes, please contact ECS so that we may review these changes and revise our recommendations, as appropriate.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

The exploration procedures are described in greater detail in Appendix B in the insert titled Subsurface Exploration Procedures: SPT.

A handheld GPS was used to locate the borings relative to existing site features. The approximate as-drilled boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were estimated from the available topographic information on the DCiMap website. Ground surface elevations and boring locations determined without professional survey are approximate and may not be appropriate for final design.

After utilities had been located and marked, two borings were advanced by a subcontracted drilling crew at the site on January 27, 2025. The drill crew utilized a 7822DT Geoprobe track-mounted rotary drilling rig equipped with 3¼-inch I.D. continuous flight, hollow stem augers. The borings were extended to the following approximate depths below the existing pavement and bridge surface. It should be noted drilling difficulties occurred due to blow-in sands. Additionally, full structural capacity is not expected to be achieved within the boring depths and potentially not within 120 percent of the boring depths. An amendment is recommended to drill deeper test borings with a drilling rig better equipped to handle the blow-in sands.

BORING DEPTHS

Boring Location Depth (feet) Notes

B-01 West Abutment 55 Blow-in Sands

B-02 East Abutment 60 End of Boring

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 5

The drill crew backfilled the boreholes at completion of drilling and patched the pavement and bridge deck. Settlement or expansion of borehole backfill can occur over time resulting in a hazard. Monitoring the boreholes after initial drilling activities is not within our scope but should be done by the client or property owner.

3.2 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The observed subsurface conditions were generally consistent with published geological mapping.

Information regarding the site geology (Soil Survey Mapping) is included in Appendix A. Well records for nearby wells indicate bedrock may be around 96 feet deep in the area. Additionally, the Bedrock Topography of Dane County map prepared by the University of Wisconsin Extension Geological and Natural History Survey dated 1972 indicates bedrock is below EL. 700 feet MSL. Below is a generalized characterization of the subsurface materials observed at the boring locations. Please refer to the Boring Logs in Appendix B.

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

Approx. Depth to Stratum

Bottom (feet)

3.2.1.1 Strata Description

SPT (1)

N-value Range (bpf)

Surface -- Asphalt (4 and 5 inches ±) Concrete (4 and 9 inches ±) --

6½ I (CL) LEAN CLAY, firm to stiff 2 - 50

8 II (SC) CLAYEY SAND, medium dense 18 - 23

55 to 60 III (GP/SP) GRAVEL WITH SAND/SAND WITH GRAVEL and (SP) SAND, loose to dense

6 - 39

1. Standard Penetration Test

The soil stratification shown on the boring logs represents the interpreted soil conditions at the boring locations. Variations in the stratification can occur between sample intervals and between boring locations. The subsurface conditions at other times and locations on the site may differ from those found at the boring locations. If different site conditions are encountered during construction, ECS should be contacted to review our recommendations relative to the new information.

Because the split-spoon sampler has a 1⅜‐inch inside diameter, the soil classifications noted on the boring logs may not be representative of the entire soil matrix. Material larger than the 1⅜‐inch inside diameter of the split-spoon sampler cannot be collected and observed directly.

3.3 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

The drillers observed the boreholes for the presence of measurable free water during drilling. The approximate depths and elevations of measurable water observed at the boring locations are listed on the boring logs in Appendix B.

Based on the boring data, ECS estimates the static groundwater level to be at a depth of approximately 6 to 7 feet below the site surface at the boring locations.

Variations in the water table elevation may result because of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors. Perched water conditions may also develop and/or exist at shallower or variable depths seasonally, particularly within more permeable soil underlain by less permeable soil, within existing fill, within existing utility/structure backfill.

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 6

3.4 LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory services performed by ECS for this project included classification and index property tests on select representative soil samples.

Each soil sample was visually classified based on texture and plasticity using ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures) as a general guideline.

After classification, the samples were grouped into the major zones noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The USCS group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses along with the soil descriptions. The stratification lines between strata on the boring logs are approximate; in-situ, the transitions may be gradual.

The results of the laboratory tests are included on the boring logs in Appendix B or separate test sheets in Appendix C. These tests included:

• Moisture content (ASTM D2216)

• Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance

• Particle Size Distribution (ASTM D6913)

The laboratory procedures are described in greater detail in Appendix C including the insert titled Laboratory Procedures.

The soil samples will be retained in our laboratory for a period of 60 days, after which, the samples will be discarded, unless other instructions are received as to their disposal.

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The following sections contain geotechnical design recommendations for foundations and retaining walls.

4.1 PILE FOUNDATIONS

Geotechnical Design Profiles and Subsurface Properties: The generalized subsurface profiles and geotechnical engineering properties of the soil used for the analyses and recommended for design are included in Appendix D.

Pile Structural Properties: The structural resistance of the selected pile sections has been estimated using procedures included in the July 2023 WisDOT LRFD Bridge Manual (Bridge Manual). These values are listed in the table below. The resistance of the HP sections assumes a steel yield stress of 50 ksi (maximum allowed by WisDOT for design). ASTM A252, Grade 3 steel, which has a steel yield stress of 45 ksi, is anticipated for the CIP piles. Concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi is recommended to be used to fill the CIP piles but is limited to 3,500 psi for design.

AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRUCTURAL RESISTANCE

Pile Section Axial Compressive Structural Resistance (tons)

Nominal Factored (1)

HP 10x42 310 90

10¾-inch Dia. CIP (0.365-inch shell) 93.8 75

12¾-inch Dia. CIP (0.375-inch shell) 134.6 105 1 Based on the FHWA-modified Gate method of field verification and a resistance factor of 0.5.

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 7

Scour: The soils encountered within the anticipated scour zone were variable and consisted of lean clay, silt, sandy silt, clayey sand, and gravel with clay. The D50 and D95 values of the soil are commonly used for scour analysis. Particle size distribution analyses of the two tested samples indicate the following D50 and D95 values:

D50 AND D95 VALUES

Boring Depth (feet) Description D95 (mm) D50 (mm)

B-01 6½ to 7½ Clayey Sand with Gravel 22.3 0.53

B-02 6½ to 7½ Clayey Sand with Gravel 21.9 0.35

Note the depth of scour was not known at the time of our analysis and was therefore not considered. If scour projections and/or the scour protection design indicate that the piles could be exposed below the estimated bottom of abutment elevations, appropriate reductions in the axial resistance should be made.

Downdrag: Very little grade change is expected. Therefore, dragload on the piles is not expected. Note that up to 45 tons dragload for an HP 10x42 pile is allowed when the required driving resistance is determined by the FHWA-modified Gates formula.

Axial Compressive Geotechnical Resistance: Preliminary estimated pile tip elevations are listed below for geotechnical resistance. The estimated bottom of substructure footing used is as noted in the Proposed Construction section.

SUMMARY OF PILE RECOMMENDATIONS

Location West Abut. (B-01) East Abut. (B-02)

10¾- inch O.D. CIP (0.365-inch wall)

FACR (1) (tons) 45 34

RDR (2) (tons) 90 68

Est. Tip Elevation (3) 794 789

12¾- inch O.D. CIP (0.375-inch wall)

FACR (1) (tons) 65 52

RDR (2) (tons) 130 104

Est. Tip Elevation (3) 794 789

HP 10x42 (4)

FACR (1) (tons) 46 64

RDR (2) (tons) 92 128

Est. Tip Elevation (3) 794 789

1 Factored axial compressive resistance (FACR) based on FHWA-modified Gates verification (resistance factor of 0.5).

2 Required Driving Resistance (RDR).

3 Approximate tip elevation.

4 For the HP10x42 pile resistance, the development or lack of development of a plug can greatly affect the final depth. The estimated tip elevations are based on no plug forming.

The factored axial compressive resistances in the table above are based on static analysis and use of the FHWA-modified Gates field verification method during installation. Use of PDA with CAPWAP or the use of a Static Pile Load Test and the PDA with CAPWAP may provide more economical piles over the use of the FHWA-modified Gates pile resistance verification method.

The above estimated pile tip elevations were based on static soil parameters at the test boring location.

The estimates are for planning and feasibility studies. The actual tip elevation may vary and should be checked via a test pile program at the start of construction. We recommend driving at least one test pile at each substructure unit. It is recommended the ordered pile lengths be longer than the design length

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 8 to help account for potential variability of the subsurface conditions and reduce the potential need for splices should the piles drive longer than anticipated.

Pile Spacing: The Bridge Manual states piles should have a minimum plan spacing (center-to-center) of

2.5 feet or 2.5 pile diameters, whichever is further, and a maximum pile spacing of 8 feet.

Pile Settlement: Provided the foundations are designed and constructed as recommended in this report, post-construction total settlement of an individual pile foundation is estimated to be less than 1 inch.

Settlement estimates for individual piles do not include an estimate of elastic compression shortening of the pile.

Axial Uplift Geotechnical Resistance: It is anticipated the foundations will not be subject to significant uplift loads.

Lateral Geotechnical Resistance: Significant lateral loading is not expected for the proposed replacement bridge. The design soil parameters included in Appendix D may be used for lateral pile analyses. Battered piles could also be used to resist lateral loads. The lateral capacity of the battered piles may be estimated by multiplying the vertical capacity of the pile times the sine of the angle between the batter pile and vertical. We recommend the lateral resistance of vertical piles to be limited to 5 kips per pile unless additional analyses are performed to check capacity and deflection.

Drivability: The WisDOT Bridge Manual states the goal of the drivability analysis is to evaluate the potential for excessive driving stresses and to determine that the hammer-pile-soil system during driving will result in reasonable blow counts. The drivability analysis is not intended to evaluate the nominal pile resistance or establish the pile lengths. The stress and blow count criteria used in the drivability analysis are recommended to include:

• Maximum driving stress in the pile should not be allowed to exceed 90 percent of the yield strength of steel (45 ksi for the 10x42HP piles, and 40.5 ksi for the 10¾ inch CIP piles).

• Blow count during pile driving does not exceed practical refusal. Practical refusal is typically considered to be 120 blows per foot (bpf) at the maximum fuel or energy setting.

• Blow count at end of initial drive not less than 25 bpf.

The default manufacturer’s recommended hammer cushion within GRLWEAP was selected for each analysis. Drivability analyses included an assumption of shear strength loss based on soil type according to Table 11.3-4 of the WisDOT Bridge Manual. The hammer(s) and hammer cushion listed in the table along with the assumption of strength loss during driving were used in the analysis.

PILE HAMMER/CUSHION ASSUMPTIONS

Pile Hammer Hammer

Energy (kip-ft) Hammer Cushion

10¾-inch O.D. CIP (0.365-inch wall)

Delmag D-15 27.093 default manufacturer’s recommended

12¾-inch O.D. CIP (0.375-inch wall)

Delmag D-15 27.093 default manufacturer’s recommended

HP 10x42 Delmag D-15 27.093 default manufacturer’s recommended

Based on the drivability analysis results, it may be feasible to drive the piles through the soil to the estimated tip elevation without overstressing the piles. However, some preboring may be needed

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 9 around boring B-02 between approximately 42 and 48 feet where higher stresses could develop in a dense gravel with sand/sand with gravel strata. We recommend a pile driving program be implemented to further evaluate driving conditions, particularly those potentially associated with the dense soil layer encountered.

Other hammers may be adequate to drive piles at this site. We recommend a drivability analysis be performed based on the actual driving system prior to pile installation to check that the pile-hammer system can install the piles without overstressing or damaging the piles. Additionally, we recommend a pile driving program be implemented to confirm the anticipated pile driving conditions.

Lateral Squeeze Potential: FHWA indicated lateral squeeze of the foundation soil and tilting of the abutment may result when the new fill's weight exceeds 3 times the shear strength of the underlying soil. Based on the borings and anticipated grades, pile lateral squeeze is not expected. However, when the thickness of the soft soil deposit is greater than the width of the new fill embankment, global stability may govern design. Global stability was beyond the scope of this report. It is recommended ECS be provided with the final grades to evaluate if global stability analysis is warranted.

4.2 SPREAD FOUNDATIONS

Provided subgrades and engineered fills are prepared as discussed herein, the proposed structures may bear on competent native soil and/or engineered fill placed from a competent bearing native soil subgrade. The parameters in the table below are recommended for foundation design:

FOUNDATION DESIGN (1)

Design Parameter Foundations Retaining Walls

Factored Bearing Resistance (2) 3,600 psf 4,400 psf

Acceptable Bearing Material Stratum II and III (4) Stratum II and III (4)

Minimum Frost Depth (below final grade)

48 inches 48 inches

Post-Construction Estimated Settlement (3)

Total 2 inch or less 2 inch or less

Differential 1 inch or less 1 inch or less

1. ECS recommends the structural engineer provide specific foundation details including footing dimensions, reinforcing, and other details.

2. The applied pressure more than the surrounding overburden soils above the base of the foundation includes a resistance factor of 0.45 for the bridge foundations, and a resistance factor of 0.55 for retaining walls.

3. Preliminary based on estimated structural loads and bearing elevations. If final loads and bearing elevations are different, ECS must be contacted to update foundation recommendations and settlement estimates. Differential settlement is based on estimated loads and variability among the borings. Differential settlement can be re-evaluated once the foundation plans and loads are available.

4. With corrected N-values of at least 8 bpf.

Potential Undercuts: Based on the anticipated substructure foundation bearing elevations and anticipated elevations of bearing material at the boring locations, some undercut may be needed, depending on final bearing elevation, particularly around boring B-02. Where very loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable soils are observed at the bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed.

Foundation Lateral Loading: Lateral load resistance will be developed by friction or cohesion acting at the base of foundations, and the passive earth pressure developed by the footings below-grade. Passive pressure and sliding resistance (friction or cohesion) may be used in combination in estimating the

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 10 lateral resistance. The parameters in the table in Appendix D are recommended for lateral foundation loading. Neglect the passive resistance in the frost zone due to loss of strength seasonally and strain required to mobilize.

The nominal sliding resistance from passive pressure is recommended to be multiplied by a resistance factor of 0.5. If the soil to provide passive resistance against the side of the foundation may not be present during the structure's life (e.g., the soil could be excavated or be subject to scour/erosion), then passive pressure should be ignored.

4.3 RETAINING WING WALLS

Retaining walls are often constructed “bottom-up” and therefore the type of soil used to backfill the wall is chosen or specified by contract. The lateral earth pressures developed behind site retaining walls is a function of the backfill and retained soil type, and the zone of backfill behind the walls. Refer to the Foundation Design sections for support of the walls.

Lateral Earth Pressures: Design the walls to withstand the lateral earth pressures exerted by the backfill, water, and surface or other surcharges. For rigid walls, use the "at-rest" (ko) soil condition in the wall design and evaluation. For walls that are free to deflect at their tops, use the "Active" (ka) soil condition in the wall design and evaluation. The parameters below are recommended for retaining wall design assuming the critical zone is backfilled as described below.

RECOMMENDED LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS

Zone Soil Parameter Estimated value

Aggregate

Backfill

(in Critical Zone)

Unit Weight (γ) 120 pcf

Angle of Internal Friction (φ) 32°

Cohesion (C) 0 psf

Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest (Ko) 0.47

At-rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure 57H (psf/ft)

Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure (Ka) 0.31

Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure 37H (psf/ft)

Backslope 0° (flat)

Surcharge Pressures 0 psf (none)

The lateral pressure design parameters indicated above are based upon drained conditions and free-draining granular material assumed for the backfill behind the walls. If submerged or not drained higher nominal equivalent fluid pressures will result.

These parameters assume free-draining granular aggregate meeting the recommendations herein for retaining wall backfill will be placed throughout the “critical zone” and the backfill will be properly drained. The critical zone is defined as the area between the back of the retaining wall structure and an imaginary line projected upward and rearward from the bottom back edge of the wall footing at a 45-degree angle as conceptually illustrated below. The parameters provided assume that the grade behind the wall and the grade in front of the wall is level. If the grade behind or in front of the wall is sloped, contact us for revised parameters.

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 11

Refer to the Foundation Design section for lateral resistance. Avoid the operation of heavy equipment to compact the wall backfill since it may overload and damage the wall. Such loads are often not considered in the design of site retaining walls and are not considered for in our recommendations.

Retaining Wall Backfill: The backfill within the critical zone behind retaining walls is recommended to consist of crushed stone aggregate with a maximum of 15 percent fines (i.e., percentage of material passing a No. 200 Sieve), and minimum angle of internal friction of 32 degrees when compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. Remove any material within the Critical Zone not meeting these criteria.

Wall Drains: Retaining walls should be drained so that hydrostatic pressures do not build up behind the walls. Wall drains may consist of a 12-inch-wide zone of free draining gravel, such as ASTM No. 57 Stone, placed directly behind the wall and separated from the soils beyond with a non-woven filter geotextile.

Alternatively, the wall drain may consist of an appropriate geocomposite drainage board material. The wall drain should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain discussed below.

Foundation Drains: Include a foundation drainage system to help relieve hydrostatic pressures which may develop in the wall backfill. This system should consist of weep holes through the wall and/or a 4-inch perforated, closed joint drain line located along the backside of the walls above the top of the footing. Surround the drain lines with a minimum of 8 inches of drainage aggregate, such ASTM Size No.

57 Stone, wrapped with an appropriate non-woven geotextile that meets the requirements of AASHTO M288, Class 3, nonwoven, separation geotextile.

4.4 PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The following sections provide recommendations for pavements.

Subgrade Characteristics: The subgrade soils encountered at the boring locations generally appear like those described in the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The recommended pavement design parameters listed below are based on the boring information, and the primary pedological units described in the Web Soil Survey and the WisDOT Geotechnical Manual.

Because the soil conditions encountered are variable, a pavement section design based on these parameters may be over-designed in some areas and under-designed in others.

The pavement subgrade soil will impact the design and performance of the pavements. The project alignment falls within the area identified for inclusion of select materials in the pavement subgrade per Chapter 11-5, Attachment 15.1 of the WisDOT Facilities Development Manual (FDM). Considering the soils encountered, select material could be considered below the pavement to improve long-term pavement performance.

H

ECS Project No. 42:2685 Page 12

PAVEMENT SUBGRADE DESIGN PARAMETERS

Parameter Properties With Select Material

AASHTO Classification A-6 A-6

Design Group Index 18 14

Soil Support Value, SSV 3.3 3.9

Frost Index, FI F-4 F-4

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 75 psi/in 125 psi/in

Resilient Modulus 4,500 psi 9,000 psi

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) 3 5

The design parameters assume the grading and subgrade preparation will be performed in accordance with the appropriate specifications included in the State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation Standard Specification, current Edition. These values are recommended with the assumption the subgrade will be closely observed and tested; the subgrade will be properly compacted; wet zones will be dried, drained or removed; zones of dissimilar material will be removed, replaced or mixed to achieve a homogeneous subgrade; and adequate subgrade drainage will be provided.

Excavation Below Subgrade (EBS): The estimated EBS is based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations at the time of drilling. Approximately 12 to 18 inches of EBS is anticipated based on the soil encountered at the boring locations at the anticipated subgrade. The estimated EBS may vary elsewhere outside the boring locations.

EBS will also depend on the conditions just prior to and at the time of construction and appropriate precautions taken to protect the subgrade during construction from weather and construction traffic related effects. During construction the subgrade soil is often adversely impacted by construction equipment (i.e., traffic disturbance) and/or unfavorable weather (i.e., ponding of water or freeze-thaw).

The degree of impact is generally a function of the soil type, presence of groundwater, weather conditions prior to and during construction, and the construction methods and equipment used. For these reasons, some additional EBS could be required during construction. We recommend an undistributed quantity of EBS be included to help account for these potential impacts during construction. Where EBS is needed, an additional foot of lateral excavation (from edge of shoulder) is recommended for each vertical foot of EBS to help provide adequate lateral confinement of the backfill fill below the roadway.

The EBS could be reduced with the use of a geogrid. The geogrid, where used, is recommended to consist of a geogrid such as Tensar TX5 or Tensar InterAX NX650. Depending on the geogrid used, it is anticipated the EBS could be reduced significantly. The geogrid should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.