Soils_and_Foundations_Report.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 12-14

PROJECT PRA-OZAR 10(2)

REPLACEMENT OF BIG SPRING BRIDGE

STATE ROUTE 103 OVER SPRING BRANCH

(Structure Number 6640-001P)

OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

CARTER COUNTY, MISSOURI

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166

March 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Project Description

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 Regional Geology

2.2 Soil Survey

3 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

3.1 General

3.2 Sampling

3.3 Field Tests and Measurements

3.4 Seismic Refraction Survey

3.5 Data Summary

3.6 Laboratory Testing

3.7 Findings

4 DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 General

4.2 Seismic Design Considerations

4.3 Scour

4.4 Bridge Loading

4.5 Foundation Type Considerations

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Bridge Foundations

5.1.1 Compression Resistance

5.1.2 Lateral Deflection

5.2 Abutment Walls

5.3 Micropile Load Testing

5.4 Corrosion Protection

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Borings and Seismic Location Map and Subsurface Profile APPENDIX C – Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Testing Results APPENDIX E – Seismic Refraction Profile APPENDIX F – Design Analysis APPENDIX G – Representative Photographs

Note: Design changes made subsequent to distribution of this report and prior to project advertisement will be documented in a memo inserted after the title page.

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 12-14

PROJECT PRA-OZAR 10(2)

REPLACEMENT OF BIG SPRING BRIDGE

STATE ROUTE 103 OVER SPRING BRANCH

(Structure Number 6640-001P)

CARTER COUNTY, MISSOURI

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and design analyses and presents our evaluations and recommendations for the replacement of Big Spring Bridge. The site is located with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) in Carter County, Missouri. A project location map is provided as Figure 1 of Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

The existing 120 ft long, six-span Big Spring Bridge (Structure Number 6640-001P) was built in 1977 and is supported on timber piles. The bridge inspection report of August 27, 2014 indicated that the bridge was in fair to poor condition. The report listed extensive decay of the deck and railings and significant decay of the timber piles. Additionally, both abutment back-walls, consisting of timber piles and lagging, are experiencing fill loss thought the lagging, resulting in settlement of the bridge approaches that require periodic repair and maintenance. The bridge carries several utilities across, including a USGS stream gauge station located on the downstream side of the bridge.

The new 2-span bridge will be 140 ft long and 40 ft wide, and will have precast concrete box beams deck.

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 Regional Geology

The Geologic Map of the Big Spring Quadrangle1 indicates that the site is predominantly underlain by the Eminence Dolomite Formation, which is described as Upper Cambrian in age, “light-gray to medium-gray, occasionally mottled red, pink, or green; medium-grained to coarse-grained, medium-bedded to thick-bedded, commonly massive; minor amounts of chert, locally oolitic or drusy, in nodules or angular fragments, mostly in upper half of formation; sandstone, thin-bedded to medium-bedded, in discreet interval about 10 ft thick, 80 to 90 ft below the top of the formation…maximum thickness in the map area of 349 ft near Big Spring.” The USGS describes the carbonate rock within the Big Spring Quadrangle as karstified, and containing numerous sinkholes, springs, caves, and losing streams. The mapping indicates near-horizontal bedding and widely-spaced

Project: PRA-OZAR 10(2) Soils and Foundations Report Replacement of Big Spring Bridge No. 12-14 Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Carter County, Missouri

2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

(>6 feet) vertical joints within the eminence dolomite in the project vicinity. A Site Geologic Map is included as Figure 2 of Appendix A.

2.2 Soil Survey

According to the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey3 for Carter County, Missouri (2013), the Big Spring Bridge is underlain by the Alred-Rueter complex (73055) at the south abutment and the Gladden silt loam (75451) and the Wideman fine sandy loam (75430) at the north abutment. These three map units can be described collectively as slope alluvium over residuum derived from dolomite, with profiles including gravelly, sandy silt loam and gravelly silty clay. A Soil Survey Map is included as Figure 3 of Appendix A.

3 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

3.1 General

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division’s (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team performed the drilling operations for this site on August 26th and 27th, 2014. Two (2) soil borings and two (2) soil probes, to verify auger refusal depths, were drilled along the proposed alignment. The borings, designated B-1, B-2, P-1, and P-2, were extended to depths of 28.2 ft, 35.6 ft, 28.5 ft and 30.1 ft below existing site grades, respectively. The borings were drilled using a CME 750 all-terrain vehicle (ATV)-mounted rotary drill rig.

Appendix B contains the Borings and Seismic Location Plan and Subsurface Profile.

Borings were laid out by EFLHD field personnel by referencing ground surface topography, measuring distances from existing surface features, and estimating right angles. Due to the methods used to locate the borings in the field, borings location shown in Appendix B should be considered approximate. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were determined from topography plans provided by the EFLHD Survey Division.

3.2 Sampling

Borings were advanced using 3¾- inch (ID) hollow-stem augers. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) was performed using a 2¼-inch (OD) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T206. SPT samples were recovered by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24 inches, or until refusal, into the soil under the action of a 140-pound automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-inch sample is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-Value. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-in. interval was recorded on field boring logs. Split-spoon refusal is defined by 50 blows per 1 inch of penetration of the split-spoon sampler.

Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars and

3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, Tennessee for testing and storage. The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring may be referenced on the boring logs in Appendix C.

3.3 Field Tests and Measurements

A field description by color and texture was made for each recovered soil sample and are included in the boring logs.

3.4 Seismic Refraction Survey

Two (2) seismic refraction lines were performed at the site using a Geometrics Geode 24-channel Seismograph with14-Hz geophones spaced at 5-foot intervals. Seven shots were taken for each seismic line, including one shot offset 10 feet from each end geophone.

Shots were produced with a sledge hammer on a striker plate, with three shot stacks per shot location. The seismic refraction surveys were performed to further evaluate subsurface conditions and depths to bedrock. Field data was analyzed with SeisImager software.

Seismic Lines 1 and 2 were located in the vicinity of the north and south abutments, respectively. The approximate location of the seismic lines is included in Appendix B.

Profiles of the resulting seismic refraction 2-D models are included in Appendix E.

3.5 Data Summary

The results of field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheets in the field. These data sheets and logs contain information concerning the boring methods, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various material such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, etc. and observations of groundwater. They also contain interpretations by the exploration foreman of the subsurface conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings brought to the surface by the drilling tools; therefore, the field data represents both factual and interpretative information.

The boring logs represent an interpretation of field data and description of the soil samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally do not include all data recorded on driller’s logs and field data sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this memorandum.

Groundwater level readings were made at the time of drilling and are included in the boring logs. Fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

3.6 Laboratory Testing

A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration. The main purpose of the testing program was to aid in classification and evaluation of the engineering properties of subsurface soils at the site.

Laboratory testing included gradation analysis by sieve (AASHTO T 11/T 27), natural moisture content (AASHTO T 265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T 89 & T 90), and classification (AASHTO M 145). All tests were conducted in general accordance with applicable ASTM/AASHTO standard test methods. The results of the laboratory testing program are presented in Appendix D and are summarized in Table 1 below:

Table 1 - Summary of Laboratory Testing Results

J = Jar sample, Bu = Bucket sample (auger cuttings), ND = not determined, NP = non-plastic, * = Combined sample

B or in g

N o.

Sa m pl e

N um be r

Sa m pl e

D ep th (f t)

P as si ng

Si ev e

F in es

L iq ui d

L im it

Pl as tic L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

N at ur al

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D

(i n.

A A

SH

T

O G ro up

D es cr ip tio n

B-1 Bu-1 10-15 1.5 ND ND ND ND 0.26 A-1-a(0) Well-graded gravel with sand

B-1 J-3 5-7 22.2 NP NP NP 14.4 0.006 A-2-4(0) Silty sand

B-1 J-5 10-12 1.9 ND ND ND ND 0.28 A-1-a(0) Well-graded gravel with sand

B-1 J-8 & J-9* 18-22 1.3 ND ND ND ND 0.16 A-1-a(0) Well-graded sand with gravel

B-2 Bu-2 10-15 3.5 ND ND ND ND 0.25 A-1-a(0) Poorly-graded gravel with sand

B-2 J-2 & J-3* 3-7 7.1 NP NP NP 8.7 0.20 A-1-a(0) Poorly-graded gravel with silt and sand

B-2 J-5 & J-6* 10-15 4.2 ND ND ND ND 0.25 A-1-a(0) Poorly-graded gravel with sand

B-2 J-8 & J-9* 18-22 1.6 ND ND ND ND 0.20 A-1-a(0) Well-graded gravel with sand

5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Additionally, laboratory testing was performed to evaluate the electrochemical properties of the soils encountered. Resistivity (AASHTO T 288) and pH (AASHTO T 289) tests were performed on select samples collected. The results of electrochemical testing are presented in Appendix D and are summarized in Table 2 below. Based on the results of these tests, and the criteria provided by Elias et al.4, the soils tested can be classified as non-aggressive, or having low corrosion potential.

Table 2 - Summary of Electrochemical Testing

Boring No.

Sample Number

Sample Depth

(ft) Resistivity (ohm-cm) pH

B-1 Bu-1 10-15 7340 ND

B-1 J-5 10-12 ND 7.8

B-2 Bu-2 10-15 8000 ND

B-2 J-5 & J-6* 10-15 ND 7.5

J = Jar sample, Bu = Bucket sample (auger cuttings), ND = not determined,* = Combined sample

3.7 Findings

A brief description of the soil conditions encountered during our drilling operation is presented below. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the boring logs in Appendix C represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. It should be noted that one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

Pavement – A 6 inch thick asphalt pavement was encountered in Boring B-1.

Fill – Fill, likely associated with the construction of the existing bridge, was encountered in the borings and extended to approximate depths of 10.0 ft. and 9.0

ft. below existing site grades in Borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. The fill consisted primarily of loose to dense, silty sand, with various amounts and sizes of gravel. SPT N-values in this layer range from 4 to 37 blows/ft (bpf). Cobbles and boulders were encountered within auger probe P-2.

Alluvial Deposits – Underneath the fill materials, wet, loose to medium dense sandy gravel was encountered from depths of 9.0 ft.to 30.1 ft. These natural deposits appeared to originate from surrounding cherty dolomite parent rock, and had SPT N-values ranging from 7 to 23 bpf.

6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weathered Dolomite – Weathered dolomite was encountered at a depth of 30.0 ft.

below site grade and extended to the termination depth of Boring B-2.

Bed Bedrock – Auger refusal was encountered at depths of 28.2 ft. and 35.6 ft.

below existing site grades in borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. No rock coring was performed in this study, auger refusal depths are listed in Table 3 below:

Table 3 – Estimated Bedrock Elevations

Boring No.

Ground Surface

Elevation (ft)

Depth to Auger

Refusal (ft)

Estimated Bedrock Elevation

(ft)

B-1 441.4 28.2 413.2

P-1 441.0 28.5 412.5

B-2 441.1 35.6 405.5

P-2 440.7 30.1 410.6

It should be noted that the estimated bedrock elevations listed in Table 3 are based on the soil profile encountered in the soil borings, and the depth of auger refusal at each location. Bedrock depths are expected to vary across the site.

Data obtained from the seismic refraction analyses agreed with the results of our drilling operations.

Groundwater – The highest groundwater was encountered at a depth of 11.1 ft below existing site grades in P-2.

4 DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 General

Foundation design was performed in general accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications5 (AASHTO).

4.2 Seismic Design Considerations

Based on the criteria contained within AASHTO5 Table 3.10.3.1-1, and the results of our subsurface exploration, the project site can be classified as Seismic Site Class D.

According to the USGS Seismic Design Maps web application, the project location corresponds to a 1-Second Period Acceleration Coefficient (SD1) of 0.279g for Seismic

7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Site Class D. According to AASHTO Table 3.10.6-1, this value of SD1 corresponds to a Seismic Zone 2 classification.

4.3 Scour

Table 4 contains the results of a scour analysis, provided by the Hydraulics Division.

Results are reported here for the 2-year return period, which was determined to be the controlling case.

Table 4 - Scour Elevations

Foundation Element

Total Scour (ft)

Scour Elevation

(ft)

Abutment 1.0 421.0

Pier 4.3 417.7

4.4 Bridge Loading

Structural loads provided by the Bridge Division are listed in Table 5 below:

Table 5 - Structural Loads

Foundation Element

Load Combination Limit State

Fy (kip)

Fz (kip)

Fx (kip)

Mxx (kip-ft)

Mzz (kip-ft)

Abutment Maximum 930 140 20 245 2870

Abutment Service 730 125 15 210 1790

Pier Maximum 1666 390 120 8415 1500

Pier Service 1464 185 15 4290 1375

Fy = Axial Compressive Load; Fz = Longitudinal Lateral Load; Fx = Transverse Lateral Load; Mxx = Longitudinal Moment; Mzz = Transverse Moment

4.5 Foundation Type Considerations

Based on the subsurface profile encountered and the proposed construction, several alternatives were considered for the bridge foundations. Decision criteria included cost, constructability, environmental impacts, limits of disturbance, and familiarity with

8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

similar projects and soil profiles. Table 6 provides a summary of the foundation types considered:

Table 6 - Foundation Type Summary Foundation Type Advantages Disadvantages

Driven Steel Piles - Common foundation type – leading to lower costs

- If end-bearing on rock, pile tip protection should be considered

- Significant noise and vibration impacts during driving

- Presence of cobbles and boulders creates installation risks

Precast-Prestressed Concrete Piles

- More resistant to corrosion than steel piles

- If end-bearing on rock, pile tip protection should be included

- Significant noise and vibration impacts during driving

- Presence of cobbles and boulders creates installation risks

Drilled Shafts - Can accommodate large compressive and lateral loads

- Significant costs

- Less redundancy

- Problems encountered during construction can be extremely costly

Spread Footings (Shallow Foundations)

- Relatively low cost - Not suitable due to potential for undermining scour

Micropiles - Relatively low installation noise and ground disturbance, and smaller installation equipment requirements

- Grouted bond zone provides a positive connection between the foundation and bedrock

- Specialty contractors required

Based on the considerations presented in Table 6, we conclude that micropiles are the preferred foundation type for this project.

9 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Bridge Foundations

A system of Type A (A3) micropiles founded in bedrock is recommended to support the abutments and pier of the new bridge. Table 7 provides a summary of micropile design properties and assumption considered for design. Core steel reinforcing bar should extend the full height of the micropile, from the top anchor plate completely through the 10-ft minimum length competent rock bond zone. Steel casing should extend from the pier cap to the top of bedrock.

Table 7 - Micropile Design Properties and Assumptions

Property Pier Abutment

Number of Rows of Micropiles, Ny 2 1

Number of Columns of Micropiles, Nx 11 12

Total Number of Micropiles per each Foundation Element 22 12

Micropile Row Center-to-Center Spacing, Sy (in.) 81 -

Micropile Column Center-to-Center Spacing, Sx (in.) 44.625 43.375

Micropile Outside Diameter (in.) 11.875 11.875

Micropile Insider Diameter (in.) 10.711 10.711

Wall Thickness (in.) 0.582 0.582

Micropile Yield Stress, fy.casing (ksi) 80 80

Reinforcing Bar Diameter (in [mm]) 2.5 [64] 2.5 [64]

Reinforcing Bar Size #20 #20

Reinforcing Bar Yield Stress, fy.bar (ksi) 75 75

10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Grout Unconfined Compressive Strength, f’c (ksi) 4.0 4.0

Minimum Depth of Bond Zone Embedment in Rock (ft) 10.0 10.0

Grout-to-Ground Bond Value, αb (ksf [psi]) 21.6 [150] 21.6 [150]

Battered micropiles are not recommended due to the potential for reduced performance during seismic loading.

An experienced geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist should evaluate and approve the abutment and pier cap foundations immediately prior to placing the precast abutment and pier caps. Undercutting and replacement with foundation fill according to FP-14 Section 208, or lean concrete may be allowed to establish firm foundation soils.

5.1.1 Compression Resistance

Micropile design was evaluated in general accordance with AASHTO Article 10.9 and FHWA-NHI-05-0394. A resistance factor for compression resistance of a single micropile (φstat) of 0.55 was utilized for side resistance in the bond zone, as listed in AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.5-1.

Side resistance along the cased length of micropiles and tip resistance along the uncased length of micropiles were neglected for the determination of compression resistances.

Bearing resistance calculations and computer output is included in Appendix F.

Table 8 – Calculated Compression Resistances Resistance Value

Nominal Compression Resistance (kip) 605.7 Factored Compression Resistance (kip) 333.1

5.1.2 Lateral Deflection

Lateral deflections were evaluated and micropiles were sized to bound service limit state deflections to less than 1 inch. In accordance with AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1, a lateral resistance factor (φlat) of 1.0 was utilized. Sample lateral deflection computer output is included in Appendix F, with output files provided for service limit load condition, under free head fixity, for both the abutment and pier conditions. A summary of results for the various loading and head fixity conditions considered is provided in Table 9.

11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Table 9 – Lateral Analysis Results

Pile Configuration

Loading Condition

Micropile Head Fixity

Maximum Lateral

Deflection at Top of

Pile (in)

Maximum Bending Moment in Pile (kip-ft)

Maximum Shear in

Pile (kip)

Abutment Maximum Free 1.280 128.3 25.7 Abutment Maximum Fixed 0.314 109.2 24.6 Abutment Service Free 0.986 102.5 21.7 Abutment Service Fixed 0.260 93.3 21.4

Pier Maximum Free 0.936 87.5 22.0 Pier Maximum Fixed 0.549 150.8 30.9 Pier Service Free 0.696 79.2 19.7 Pier Service Fixed 0.112 50.8 13.2

5.2 Abutment Walls

The soil properties presented in Table 10 are recommended for the design of abutment walls.

Table 10 - Soil Design Parameters for Abutment Walls Parameter Value

Moist Soil Unit Weight, γ (kcf) 0.125

Friction Angle, φ (deg.) 32 Active Earth Pressure Coeff., Ka 0.31 Passive Earth Pressure Coeff., Kp 3.25 At-rest Earth Pressure Coeff., Ko 0.47

5.3 Micropile Load Testing

Micropile load testing should be performed in accordance with Subsection 567.06 of the FP-14. Design and Alignment Load values for the piers and abutments are listed in Table 11 below:

Table 11 - Loads for Micropile Testing and Stressing Load Pier Abutment

Design Load, DL (kip) 75.0 77.5

Alignment Load, AL (kip) 7.5 7.75

12 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

5.4 Corrosion Protection

As a result of laboratory test results provided in Table 2, soils present on site can be classified as non-aggressive. According to Corrosion Protection Guidelines4, Table 12

Table 12 – Corrosion Protection Recommendations for Micropiles Loading Tension1 Compression

Casing Do not rely on casing for load capacity None

Core Steel Reinforcing Bar1 Grout Cover2 Grout Cover2

1 = Permanent tension or temporary tension (e.g., wind, seismic, impact) on critical structures. For temporary tension on normal structures, corrosion protection for compression may be used. The recommendations for corrosion protection for micropiles subject to tension loadings should also be used for that length of the micropile subject to tension as a result of lateral loads and/or overturning moments at the ground surface.

2 = Minimum 1 inch in soil and 0.5 inch in rock. If protective coatings (epoxy, galvanization, or encapsulation) are provided in compression, minimum cover may be 0.25 inches in soil or rock.

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Excavations: All excavations should be performed in accordance with applicable Federal, state, local, and OSHA standards and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Structural Backfill and Backfill Drainage: Weepholes with 6-inch diameter through abutment walls and wingwalls should be installed at a maximum spacing of 10 feet.

Weepholes should be installed above the top of backfill at front face. All weepholes should be approved non-perforated PVC pipes per Subsection 706.08(e) of the FP-03 Specifications. Approved geocomposite drains as per Subsection 714.02(b) of the FP-14 Specifications should be placed against the back face of the walls. The geocomposite drains should extend from the top of the weepholes to the bottom of the proposed aggregate base course at approaches. Type II-B geotextile fabric should be placed between the on-site soil backfill material and the granular select borrow for separation/filtration. Backfilling behind and in front of all walls and pier footings should be done in accordance with Subsection 208.10 and compacting per Subsection 208.11 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Micropile Casing Termination at Bedrock: Drilling methods proposed by the Contractor should ensure that an adequate seal is achieved between the micropile casing and the top

13 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

of bedrock (top of bond zone) to ensure borehole stability during micropile excavation and grout placement, in accordance with FP-14 Subsection 567.04(l). Due to the potential for variable depths to bedrock across the site, careful observation of drilling tools and response during drilling will be required to determine the depths the top of bedrock at each micropile location, to determine the required depth of installation.

Casing may extend beyond the top of bedrock (to lower elevations).

Grout Placement in Bond Zone/Bedrock: Contamination of the bond zone due to ingress of soils should be prevented. Investigation of the bottom of the excavated hole prior to grout placement should be completed using mechanical probing devices or other suitable electronic methods. The excavated hole should be cleared of any contaminants that would negatively impact the required grout-to-rock bond strength. Due to the potential for voids in the weathered dolomite bedrock anticipated for the bond zone, grout levels in micropiles should be carefully observed following initial grouting to determine if any grout loss is occurring at any location along the micropile. Contractor submittals as required by FP-14 Subsection 567.04 should also include a remedial plan in the event that grout losses or leakage are observed during grouting.

14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests described in the section on Procedures and Results have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these explorations and tests represent conditions at the specific locations indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary.

The Design Analysis and Conclusions section and the Recommendations section in this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Christopher Lynch, EIT Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

15 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

REFERENCES

1 Weary, D.J. and McDowell, R.C. (2006). Geologic Map of the Big Spring Quadrangle, Carter County, Missouri. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2006/2804/

2 Imes, J.L., Plummer, L.N., Kleeschulte, M.J., and Schmacher, J.G. (2007). Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5049: Recharge Area, Base-Flow and Quick-Flow Discharge Rates and Ages, and General Water Quality of Big Spring in Carter County, Missouri, 2000-04. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5049/

3 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed September 17, 2014.

4 Sabatini, P.J., Tanyu, B., Armour, T., Groneck, P., and Keeley, J. (2005). Report No.

FHWA-NHI-05-039: Micropile Design and Construction, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

5 AASHTO (2014). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 7th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

APPENDIX A

Figures

MW 1MO

FIGURE 1

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA 1

STATEREG

OZAR 10(2)

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

Source: Weary, D.J. and McDowell, R.C. (2006). Geologic Map of the Big Spring Quadrangle, Carter County, Missouri. USGS, Reston, VA.

MW MO OZAR 10(2)STERLING, VIRGINIA

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

REG STATE PROJECT SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

1 2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

OZAR 10(2)

MO

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA MW

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

STATEREG

OZAR 10(2)

TOTAL

SHEETS

MW

NO. PROJECT

STATEREG

OZAR 10(2)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

2MO

FIGURE 3

SOIL SURVEY MAP EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

TOTAL

SHEETS

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

MW MO OZAR 10(2) 2 2STERLING, VIRGINIA

FIGURE 3

SOIL SURVEY MAP

REG STATE PROJECT

APPENDIX B

Borings and Seismic Location Map and Subsurface Profile

APPENDIX C

Borings Logs

SOIL BORING GENERAL NOTES

Drilling and Sampling Symbols

SS: Split Spoon - 1 3/8” I.D., 2” O.D., except where noted ST: Shelby Tube - 2” O.D., except where noted PA: Power Auger Sample

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground water elevations is not possible, even after several days, and additional evidence on ground water elevations must be sought.

VISUAL METHODS FOR SOILS CLASSIFICATION

Component Distinguishing Features

Boulders Larger than 12” (300 mm)

Cobbles 3” to 12” (75 mm to 12 mm)

Gravel Larger than No. 4 sieve and smaller than a 3” sieve, described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse 3” to 3/4” (75 mm to 19 mm) sieve Medium 3/4” to 3/8” (19 mm to 9.5 mm) sieve Fine 3/8” to No. 4 (9.5 mm to 4.75 mm) sieve

Sand The finest sand grains are just visible to the naked eye, while the largest would pass a No. 4

(4.75mm) sieve (pinhead size). Described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse No. 4 to No. 10 (4.75 mm to 2.0 mm) sieve Medium No. 10 to No. 40 (2.0 mm to 0.42 mm) sieve Fine No. 40 to No. 200 (0.42 mm to 0.075 mm) sieve

Silt 1. Lumps are easily crumbled when are-dried.

2. Feels gritty between the teeth.

3. A moist pat when shaken in the palm of the hand will appear shiny and wet. When squeezed it will appear dry and dull.

Clay 1. Lumps are comparatively hard when air-dried.

2. Threads (1/8” diameter) of considerable length will support their own weight when held by one end.

3. A moist pat will appear the same whether shaken in the palm of the hand or squeezed.

Order of Description

1. Soil Density (or consistency) – see table below

2. Color

3. Major Grain Size – Composes more than 50% of the sample

4. Modifying Term – “and” : 40% to 50% of the minor grain size

“some” : 30% to 40% “little” : 10% to 30%

“trace” : 10% or less

5. Minor Grain Size(s)

6. Other (plasticity, etc.)

7. Moisture Content (by field test) – “dry” : Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch “moist” : Damp but no visible water

“wet” : Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

8. General Classification – Fill, Residual Soil, Weathered Rock

SOIL DENSITY (OR CONSISTENCY) TABLE

Coarse-Grained Soil (Gravel, Sand) Fine-Grained Soil (Clay, Silt)

Apparent Density SPT (# blows / ft) Consistency SPT (# blows / ft) Very loose 0-4 Very soft 0-2

Loose 5-10 Soft 3-4 Medium dense 11-30 Medium stiff 5-8

Dense 31-50 Stiff 9-15 Very dense >50 Very stiff 16-30

Hard >30

Examples:

1. Dense to very dense, brown to light brown, SILTY SAND, some gravel [A-7-6(10)]

(Moist)

-FILL-

Criteria for Describing Soil Structure

Description Criteria

Bed A sedimentary layer bounded by depositional surfaces.

Blocky A characteristic in which cohesive soil can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown.

Bonded Attached or adhering.

Fissured Broken along definite planes of fracture.

Foliated Planar arrangement of textural or structural features.

Frequent More than one per foot of thickness.

Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.

Interbedded Alternating soil layers of different composition.

Laminae A very thin cohesive layer.

Layer A general term for material lying essentially parallel to the surfaces against which it was formed.

Lens A lenticular deposit, larger than a pocket.

Occasional One or less per foot of thickness.

Parting A very thin granular layer.

Pocket Small erratic deposits less than 12” in thickness.

Seam A thin layer separating two distinctive layers of different composition or greater magnitude.

Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color.

Stratum A stratigraphic unit.

Varve A cyclic sedimentary couplet consisting of a coarser and a finer layer representing the variation in depositional energy resulting from the annual freeze-thaw cycle typically found in glaciolacustrine environments.

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

0.5

10.0

28.2

1.4

0.0

1.1

1.3

1.2

0.8

0.7

0.5

0.5

Asphalt pavement Very loose to dense, light brown to brown Silty SAND, with various amounts of gravel. [A-2-4(0)] (Moist)

-FILL-

Medium dense, light brown Sandy GRAVEL with sand. [A-1-a(0)] (Wet)

-ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS-

Auger refusal and bottom of boring at 28.2 ft.

16-20-17-12

12-13-8-6

4-2-2-1

3-2-3-4

7-7-15-13

8-11-12-25

5-12-10-10

3-6-7-7

9-10-10-5

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Sunny, Hot

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 407306 Easting: 676529.3

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Carter County, Missouri Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

441.4 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

8/26/14

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Ty pe

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r 6 in

. Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings and topped with cold patch asphalt upon completion.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

N/A

8/26/14 D. Hutchins R. KingsleyOperator:

North Abutment, Sta. 106+59.5, 3.5' RT hrs

13.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

PRA-OZAR 10(2)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

E le va tio n (fe et

HSA

B-1

P P

US State Plane NAD 1983, Missouri East 2401

3.75 in.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

3/

/1

:3

- M

:\P R

O

JE

C

TS

\O

ZA

R \1

0( 2)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\S U

B S

U R

FA

C

E

IN

V E

S

TI

G A

TI

O

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \O

ZA

R

0(

2) M

A .G

P J

440.9

431.4

413.2

Sheet: 1 of 1

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

J-11

J-12

9.0

30.0

35.6

0.5

0.8

0.3

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.7

0.5

0.5

1.0

0.2

0.0

Very loose to loose, brown Silty SAND, some gravel.

[A-1-a(0)] (Moist)

-FILL-

Loose to medium dense, light brown Sandy GRAVEL [A-1-a(0)] (Wet)

-ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS-

Hard, light grey, Weathered DOLOMITE, medium texture, with sand. (Wet)

-EMINENCE DOLOMITE-

Auger refusal and bottom of boring at 35.6 ft.

4-2-3-2

2-2-2-3

3-3-2-3

3-5-5-6

5-9-5-5

3-5-4-7

5-8-7-6

2-4-6-5

2-4-3-2

3-10-9-6

50/2"

50/3"

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Sunny, Hot

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 407203.3 Easting: 676408.4

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Carter County, Missouri Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

441.1 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

8/27/14

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Ty pe

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r 6 in

. Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

17.0 ft

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

N/A

8/27/14 D. Hutchins R. KingsleyOperator:

South Abutment, Sta. 105+02, 19.0' LT hrs

13.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

PRA-OZAR 10(2)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

E le va tio n (fe et

HSA

B-2

P P

US State Plane NAD 1983, Missouri East 2401

3.75 in.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

3/

/1

:4

- M

:\P R

O

JE

C

TS

\O

ZA

R \1

0( 2)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\S U

B S

U R

FA

C

E

IN

V E

S

TI

G A

TI

O

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \O

ZA

R

0(

2) M

A .G

P J

432.1

411.1

405.5

Sheet: 1 of 1

2"

3"

28.5

Brown Silty SAND, some gravel. (Moist to Wet)

-FILL AND ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS-

Auger refusal and bottom of boring at 28.5 ft.

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Sunny, Hot

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 407330.9 Easting: 676566.5

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Carter County, Missouri Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

441.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

8/26/14

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Ty pe

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r 6 in

. Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

14.0 ft

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

N/A

8/26/14 D. Hutchins R. KingsleyOperator:

North Abutment, Sta. 107+03, 17.0' RT hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

PRA-OZAR 10(2)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

E le va tio n (fe et

HSA

P-1

P P

US State Plane NAD 1983, Missouri East 2401

3.75 in.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

3/

/1

:4

- M

:\P R

O

JE

C

TS

\O

ZA

R \1

0( 2)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\S U

B S

U R

FA

C

E

IN

V E

S

TI

G A

TI

O

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \O

ZA

R

0(

2) M

A .G

P J

412.5

30.1

Brown Silty SAND, with various amounts of gravel and clay (Moist to Wet)

-FILL AND ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS-

Cobbles and boulders encountered from depths of 1.0 to 2.0 feet. Boring relocated 3 feet south of original location.

Auger refusal and bottom of boring at 30.1 ft.

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Sunny, Hot

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 407167.4 Easting: 676379.6

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Carter County, Missouri Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

440.7 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

8/26/14

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Ty pe

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r 6 in

. Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

11.1 ft

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

N/A

8/26/14 D. Hutchins R. KingsleyOperator:

South Abutment, Sta. 104+56, 20.5' LT hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

PRA-OZAR 10(2)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

E le va tio n (fe et

HSA

P-2

P P

US State Plane NAD 1983, Missouri East 2401

3.75 in.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

3/

/1

:4

- M

:\P R

O

JE

C

TS

\O

ZA

R \1

0( 2)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\S U

B S

U R

FA

C

E

IN

V E

S

TI

G A

TI

O

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \O

ZA

R

0(

2) M

A .G

P J

410.6

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Testing Results

SOIL DATA

NO. AASHTODESCRIPTIONDEPTHSAMPLESOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 11.2 44.7 17.4 14.7 10.5 1.5

(ft.)

OZAR 10(2)

Big Spring Bridge Pee Vine Rd

FHWA/EFLHD

N. Abutment B-01/B-1 10-15 T-288 (Restivity)=7340

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 77.2 22.2

N. Abutment B-01/J-3 5-7

0.0 11.9 45.6 17.3 13.5 9.8 1.9

N. Abutment B-01/J-5 10-12 Note: T-289 (ph)= 7.8

0.0 4.1 41.3 18.0 19.4 15.9 1.3

N. Abutment B-01/J-8&9 18-22

Note 1: T-288 Resistivity = 7340 ohm·cm Note 2: T-289 pH = 7.8

Note 1

Note 2

Well-graded gravel with sand

Silty sand

Well-graded gravel with sand

Well-graded sand with gravel

A-1-a(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-1-a(0)

A-1-a(0)

Big Spring Bridge, Pea Vine Rd.

NO. AASHTODESCRIPTIONDEPTHSAMPLESOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 12.1 44.1 17.2 7.1 16.0 3.5

(ft.)

OZAR 10(2)

Big Spring Bridge Pee Vine Rd

FHWA/EFLHD

S. Abutment B-02/B-2 10-15 Note: T-288 (Resistivity)= 8000

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 12.9 39.1 12.0 6.8 22.1 7.1

S. Abutment B-02/J-2&3 3-7

0.0 11.2 44.8 15.7 9.7 14.4 4.2

S. Abutment B-02/J-5&6 10-15 Note: T-289 (ph)= 7.5

0.0 10.8 40.9 21.5 20.4 4.8 1.6

S. Abutment B-02/J-8&9 18-22

Note 1

Note 2

Note 1: T-288 Resistivity = 8000 ohm·cm Note 2: T-289 pH = 7.5

A-1-a(0)

A-1-a(0)

A-1-a(0)

A-1-a(0)

Poorly-graded gravel with sand

Poorly-graded gravel with silt and sand

Poorly-graded gravel with sand

Well-graded gravel with sand

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

OZAR 10(2)

Big Spring Bridge Pee Vine Rd

FHWA/EFLHD

NPNVNP5-7B-01/J-3N. Abutment

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

OZAR 10(2)

Big Spring Bridge Pee Vine Rd

FHWA/EFLHD

NPNVNP3-7B-02/J-2&3S. Abutment

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

Sample # Jar # Wet Wt (g) Dry Wt (g) Jar Wt (g) Total Sample

Wt (g)

T-265 MC

E-15-0065 B01-/J-3 1140.0 1050.7 429.6 621.1 14.4

0069 B-02/J-2,3 860.4 826.1 430.2 395.9 8.7

APPENDIX E

Seismic Refraction Profile

Depth (ft)

P-2 Rec.Depth (ft) N

B-2

1.4

0.0

1.1

1.3

1.2

0.8

0.7

0.5

0.5

Depth (ft) N

B-1 Depth (ft)

P-1 0.5

10.0

0.5

0.8

0.3

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.7

0.5

0.5

1.0

0.2

0.0

FILL

FILL

35.6

30.0

28.5

28.2

9.0

30.1

50/3"

50/2"

SEISMIC LINE 2 SEISMIC LINE 1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

REG STATE PROJECT SHEET NO.

NO.

PMIS

NO.

NPS

1 OF 1MW MO OZAR 10(2)

BIG SPRING BRIDGE

PROFILE

SEISMIC REFRACTION

f h f l1 f il e s e r v e .f lh d .f h w a .d o t.

g o v d a ta P

R O J E

C T

S o z a r (2

T e c h s e r v G e o te c h C

A D

D S e is m ic

R e f r a c ti o n

P r o f il e

D 1-

O Z

A R

(2 d g n

:4

:1

A M

-S e p -2

:4

A M

Begin Bridge 105+13.67

End Bridge 106+53.68

NOT TO SCALE

APPENDIX F

Design Analysis

Micropile Design Calculations OZAR 10(2)

References:

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014)

AASHTO Article 10.9.3.5 - Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of a Single Micropile

RR = ϕRn = ϕqpRp + ϕqsRs

Neglecting tip resistance, Rp 0

Resistance factor for grout-to-ground bond resistance:

ϕqs 0.55 Per AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.5-1

Nominal grout-to-ground bond resistance:

Rs = πdbαbLb

Diameter of micropile drill hole through bonded length:

db 10.711in 0.893 ft Insidecasingdiameter( )

Nominal micropile grout-to-ground bonded strength:

αb 21.6ksf Per AASHTO Table C10.9.3.5.2-1

Micropile bond length:

Lb 10ft minimum( )

Rs π db αb Lb 605.7 kip

Factored grout-to-ground bond resistance:

RR ϕqs Rs 333.131 kip

Depth from Ground-ft

Elevation from Ground-ft

0 433

10 423

20 413

30 403

40 393

50 383

60 373

(Pile diameter not to scale) Surface Angle=0Batter Angle=0

Depth -lb/f3 C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 % Nspt

0.0 67.5 35.1 0.00 78.2 15

Sand/Gravel

22.4 82.6 45 2 1000 0.06 100 Porous limestones

Depth Width-in A'-in2 Per.-in I'-in4 E -kp/i2 W -kp/f

0.0 11.875 30.0 37.3 396.9 29000 0.164

Steel (smooth)

22.4 10.711 799.9 33.6 5272.3 3000 0.286 Grouted

32.4

For uplift and compression, one no-friction steel casing section and one high pressure grouted section.FOUNDATION PROFILE & SOIL CONDITIONS

FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SOIL PROPERTIES

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

Abutment - Twelve 11.875-in-Dia Micropiles

Loads:

Load Factor for Vertical Loads= 1.0 Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0 Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 % Shear Condition: Static

Vertical Load, Q= 730.0 -kp Shear Load, P= 125.0 -kp Moment, M= 1790.0 -kp-f

Profile:

Pile Length, L= 32.4 -ft Top Height, H= 0 -ft Slope Angle, As= 0 Batter Angle, Ab= 0

* Zero Friction * Zero Friction Start: 0 -ft End: 22.4 -ftGroup and Boundary Condition:

Free Head Sx= 43.375 -in Sy= 10.7 -in Nx= 12 Ny= 1

Soil Data:

Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt -ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 % 0 67.5 35.1 0.00 78.2 45.92 15

22.4 82.6 45 2 1000 0.06 100

Pile Data:

Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight -ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f

0.0 11.875 30.0 37.3 396.9 29000 0.164

22.4 10.711 799.9 33.6 5272.3 3000 0.286 32.4

Group Vertical capacity:

Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 11435.512-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 7317.731-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 6927.256-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 3689.271-kp OK! Qallow > Q

Group Settlement Calculation:

At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 99999.00-kp At Q= 730.00-kp Settlement= 0.01059-in

Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.

VERTICAL ANALYSIS Figure 1

Micropile (MiniPile)

CivilTech Software

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.60

Total Side Tip

Total Settlement, X -in

C om pr es si on

L oa d, Q dw -k p Vertical Load vs. Total Settlement

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

Depth (Zp)

Pile Top-ft

Elevation from Pile Top-ft

0 433

10 423

20 413

30 403

40 393

50 383

60 373

Tip yt=0E+0 Top yt=9.86E-1 Max. yt=9.86E-1 Top St=-1.17E-2

0-1.00 +1.00 yt=0 at 11.3-ft

St=0 at 14.2-ft

Top Moment=0.0 Max. Moment=102.5

0-200 +200

Top Shear=21.5 Max. Shear=21.7

0-50 +50 -lb/f3 C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %

67.5 35.1 0.00 78.2 Sand/Gravel

E -kp/i2=3000 I'-in4=5272

82.6 45 2 1000 0.06 Porous limestones

E -kp/i2=3000 I'-in4=5272

DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp

X-Front, Single Pile, Kbc=1 PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

0 0

20 20

40 40

60 60

80 80

100 100

120 120

140 140

160 160

180 180

200 200

0.0 00.2 200.4 400.6 600.8 801.0 1001.2 1201.4 1401.6 1601.8 1802.0 200

Top Deflection, yt -in Max. Moment in Single Pile, Mmax -kp-f

La te ra l L oa d, P -k p

La te ra l L oa d, P -k p

X-Direction, Group Piles

LATERAL LOAD vs DEFLECTION & MAX. MOMENT

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Depth

Ground-ft

Elevation from Ground-ft

0 417

5 412

10 407

15 402

20 397

25 392

30 387

(Pile diameter not to scale) Surface Angle=0Batter Angle=0

Depth -lb/f3 C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 % Nspt

0.0 67.5 35.1 0.00 78.2 15

Sand/Gravel

4.7 82.6 45 2 1000 0.06 100 Porous limestones

Depth Width-in A'-in2 Per.-in I'-in4 E -kp/i2 W -kp/f

0.0 11.875 30.0 37.3 396.9 29000 0.164

Steel (smooth)

4.7 10.711 799.9 33.6 5272.3 3000 0.286 Grouted

14.7

For uplift and compression, one no-friction steel casing section and one high pressure grouted section.FOUNDATION PROFILE & SOIL CONDITIONS

FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SOIL PROPERTIES

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

Pier - Twenty-two 11.875-in-Dia Micropiles

Loads:

Load Factor for Vertical Loads= 1.0 Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0 Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 % Shear Condition: Static

Vertical Load, Q= 1464.0 -kp Shear Load, P= 185.0 -kp Moment, M= 4290.0 -kp-f

Profile:

Pile Length, L= 14.7 -ft Top Height, H= 0 -ft Slope Angle, As= 0 Batter Angle, Ab= 0

* Zero Friction * Zero Friction Start: 0 -ft End: 4.7 -ftGroup and Boundary Condition:

Free Head Sx= 44.625 -in Sy= 81 -in Nx= 11 Ny= 2

Soil Data:

Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt -ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 % 0 67.5 35.1 0.00 78.2 45.92 15

4.7 82.6 45 2 1000 0.06 100

Pile Data:

Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight -ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f

0.0 11.875 30.0 37.3 396.9 29000 0.164

4.7 10.711 799.9 33.6 5272.3 3000 0.286 14.7

Group Vertical capacity:

Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 20584.625-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 13353.988-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 12506.938-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 6710.137-kp OK! Qallow > Q

Group Settlement Calculation:

At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 99999.00-kp At Q= 1464.00-kp Settlement= 0.00418-in

Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.

VERTICAL ANALYSIS Figure 1

Micropile (MiniPile)

CivilTech Software

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.50

Total Side Tip

Total Settlement, X -in

C om pr es si on

L oa d, Q dw -k p Vertical Load vs. Total Settlement

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

Depth (Zp)

Pile Top-ft

Elevation from Pile Top-ft

0 417

5 412

10 407

15 402

20 397

25 392

30 387

Tip yt=-4.32E-2 Top yt=6.96E-1 Max. yt=6.96E-1 Top St=-7.94E-3

0-1.00 +1.00 yt=0 at 11.7-ft

Top Moment=0.0 Max. Moment=79.2

0-100 +100

Top Shear=16.5 Max. Shear=19.7

0-20 +20 -lb/f3 C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %

67.5 35.1 0.00 78.2 Sand/Gravel

E -kp/i2=3000 I'-in4=5272

82.6 45 2 1000 0.06 Porous limestones

E -kp/i2=3000 I'-in4=5272

DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp

X-Front, Single Pile, Kbc=1 PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

0 0

30 30

60 60

90 90

120 120

150 150

180 180

210 210

240 240

270 270

300 300

0.0 00.2 200.4 400.6 600.8 801.0 1001.2 1201.4 1401.6 1601.8 1802.0 200

Top Deflection, yt -in Max. Moment in Single Pile, Mmax -kp-f

La te ra l L oa d, P -k p

La te ra l L oa d, P -k p

X-Direction, Group Piles

LATERAL LOAD vs DEFLECTION & MAX. MOMENT

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Design Maps Detailed Report

From Figure 3.4.1-2[1]

From Figure 3.4.1-3[2]

From Figure 3.4.1-4[3]

2009 AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (36.95101°N, 90.99191°W)

Site Class D – “Stiff Soil”

Article 3.4.1 — Design Spectra Based on General Procedure

Note: Maps in the 2009 AASHTO Specifications are provided by AASHTO for Site Class B.

Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Article 3.4.2.3.

PGA = 0.212 g

S…