17M7972I_Geotechnical_Letter_of_Results_FS_199-C.PDF

17M7972 Page 1 of 8

September 10, 2018 TPT Project 17M7972I

Martha Alunkal, PE

WSP USA

13530 Dulles Technology Drive, Suite 300

Herndon, Virginia 20171

Re: Letter of Results and Recommendations

DSR FS 199-C

Roadway Reconstruction, Stream Culvert Replacement, and Retaining Wall Construction

Town of Marengo, Ashland County, Wisconsin

Dear Ms. Alunkal:

This letter presents the results of our field explorations performed on Forest Road (FR) 199 (Four

Corners Store Road) in the Town of Marengo, Ashland County, Wisconsin. The DSR FS 199-C site consists of three project sites for our geotechnical exploration as follows: W19 - retaining wall construction, W17

- roadway reconstruction, and S7 – culvert replacement and roadway reconstruction.

The W19 site is located around 3,100 feet south of the intersection of FR 199 with County Road 253

(Tober Road), the W17 site is located around 3,700 feet south of the intersection of FR 199 with County

Road 253, and the S7 site is located around 6,000 feet south of the intersection of FR 199 with County

Road 253. This work covers DSR FS 199-C as part of the WI ERFO FS 2016-1(5) project.

Project

It is our understanding that WSP USA is in the design process for culvert replacement, roadway reconstruction, and retaining wall construction at the above referenced sites. It is our understanding that the culvert and roadway sustained damage from a large rain event in July 2016. Based upon preliminary designs and discussions with the design team an 11 foot wide corrugated metal pipe culvert will be constructed at the S7 site, the roadway reconstructed at the W17 washout site, and a segmented concrete retaining wall constructed at the W19 site. As part of the design process geotechnical services were requested.

Additional work will consist of cleaning and adding riprap to existing roadway culverts, repairing shoulder and ditch washouts, and adding additional embankment and aggregate surfacing along FR 199.

Our scope of services for this project consisted of performing one (1) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring at the S7 culvert replacement site to a depth of 20 feet below creek bottom or refusal, two (2)

SPT borings at the W17 washout, and two (2) SPT borings at the W19 retaining wall site. We were authorized to proceed with the proposed scope of services in a signed subcontractor agreement dated

February 26, 2018.

1301 N 3 rd St. Superior WI 54880 715 - 392 - 7114 1 - 800 - 373 - 2562 F 715 - 392 - 7163 www.twinportstesting.com

17M7972 Page 2 of 8

Field Exploration

Field procedures for this project were performed on July 3rd, 2018, July 6th, 2018, and July 18th, 2018 using our Geoprobe Systems 7822DT track mounted drill rig and hollow stem auger drilling methods.

Boring FS 199-S7 was performed to the south of the roadway washout at the S7 site to the auger refusal depth of 12 ½ feet on apparent boulders or bedrock. Auger refusal was also encountered at a depth of 3

½ feet in an offset boring attempt on apparent cobbles and boulders.

Boring FS 199-W17 (North) was performed to the north of the roadway washout to the auger refusal depth of 19 feet on apparent bedrock or boulders. The boring location to the south of the W17 washout was not accessible due to washouts both to the north and south of the boring location.

Borings FS-W19 (North) and FS-W19 (South) were performed at the W19 retaining wall site spaced around 60 feet apart. Borings FS-W19 (North) and Boring FS-W19 (South) encountered auger at depths of six feet and 10 feet, respectively, on apparent boulders or bedrock. Rock coring or test pits would be required to confirm the presence or quality of bedrock at this site.

The boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Sketch attached to this letter. Surface elevations were recorded by our field crew using a surveyors level and rod and were referenced to benchmark

5251 which has an elevation of 1260.6 feet, benchmark 5252 which has an elevation of 1307.34, and benchmark 5205 which has an elevation of 1344.6.

Laboratory Testing Results of the field testing and observed subsurface conditions were evaluated to develop a laboratory testing program. The final laboratory testing program included visual classification by a geotechnical engineer, water content testing, and sieve analysis testing.

Laboratory water content testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D2216 on collected samples from the field exploration. Results of water content tests are shown on the borings logs in the

Appendix.

Sieve analysis testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D422 procedures on three samples.

Test results for percent passing the #200 sieve are provided in Table 1 below and on the boring logs in the Appendix.

Table 1: Summary of Sieve Analysis Results

Boring Depth (feet) Description of Material

% Passing #200

FS 199-S7 2-3.5

SP-SM (Fill)

AASHTO A-1-b 8.4

FS 199-W19

(South)

2-3.5 SM (Fill)

AASHTO A-2-4

41.9

FS 199-W19

(North)

2-3.5 SP-SM (Fill)

AASHTO A-1-b 5.6

*SM = Silty Sand

*SP-SM = Poorly Graded Sand with silt

17M7972 Page 3 of 8

Subsurface Conditions - Soil DSR FS 199-S7

Fill soils consisting of poorly graded sand with silt (AASHTO A-1-b) were encountered at the surface to depths up to four feet. Fill soils generally contained gravel, ranged from fine to coarse grained, were brown in color, and were moist.

Native silty sand soils (AASHTO A-2-4) were encountered below the fill soils to the boring termination depth of 12 ½ feet. Silty sand soils were generally fine to coarse grained, contained trace clay, were brown in color, and were moist to waterbearing. Based upon results of SPT N-values native silty sand soils appear to be generally range from medium dense to very dense in relative density.

Subsurface Conditions - Soil DSR FS 199-W17

Fill soils consisting of silty sand (AASHTO A-2-4) were encountered at the surface to depths up to 6 ½ feet. Fill soils generally contained gravel, ranged from fine to coarse grained, were brown in color, and were moist.

Native silty sand soils (AASHTO A-2-4) were encountered below the fill soils to the auger refusal depth of

19 feet. Silty sand soils were generally fine to coarse grained, contained gravel, were brown in color, and were moist to wet. Based upon results of SPT N-values native silty sand soils appear to generally range from medium dense to very dense in relative density.

Subsurface Conditions - Soil DSR FS 199-W19

Fill soils consisting of poorly graded sand (AASHTO A-1-b) were encountered at the surface to a depth of four feet in Boring FS 199-W19 (North). Fill soils consisting of silty sand (AASHTO A-2-4) were encountered at the surface to the auger refusal depth of 10 feet in Boring FS 199-W19 (South). Fill soils generally contained gravel, ranged from fine to coarse grained, were brown in color, and ranged from moist to wet.

Native silty sand soils (AASHTO A-2-4) were encountered below the fill soils in Boring FS 199-W19

(North) to the auger refusal depth of six feet. Silty sand soils were generally fine to coarse grained, were brown in color, and were moist. Based upon results of SPT N-values native silty sand soils appear to be generally dense in relative density.

Subsurface Conditions - Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in Boring FS 199-S7 (South) at a depth of around 10 feet below the ground surface of our boring while drilling and sampling at this site. Groundwater levels at S7 site are anticipated to correspond with the surface level of the adjacent unnamed creek. Groundwater was not encountered in Borings FS 199-W17, FS 199-W19 (North), and FS 199-W19 (South) while drilling and sampling.

Design Considerations and Recommendations Site S7: Culverts bearing on aggregate bedding or spread footings appear to be the most economical options for this site. Alternative structure options for this site include bottomless arches or bridges bearing on spread footings.

17M7972 Page 4 of 8

Site W19: Auger refusal was encountered at both boring locations at this site as shallow as 6 feet. We recommend that test pits be performed at multiple locations along the proposed retaining wall section to help determine the presence of bedrock at this site. Contingencies should be made for rock removal, if necessary. Due to the risk of differential settlement we recommend that retaining wall footings be designed to bear entirely on bedrock or entirely on soil.

Site W17: Fill soils were encountered to depths up to 6 ½ feet within the existing roadway section. Based upon visual classification, the silty sand and poorly graded sand fill soils encountered are considered suitable for roadway support and reconstruction.

Site Preparation – Culvert Replacement S7 Site

Field explorations at the DSR FS 199-C S7 site encountered fill soils at the surface to depths of about four feet. The conditions and compactive effort under which fill soils were placed is unknown and it is possible that these soils would settle significantly when loaded.

Although soils beneath new construction are expected to experience little to no increase in net stresses, we do not recommend placing shallow foundations over uncontrolled fill soils. We recommend stripping all surface fill soils and any organic soils encountered within the footprint and influence area (1H:1V out from the outside edge of footings) of the proposed foundations and replacing with compacted engineered fill to reach design elevations. Excavations for the placement of culverts should be excavated to a minimum depth of six inches below the bottom of culvert elevation to insure the removal of any projections or boulders.

Minimum excavations for the removal of fill soils at the DSR FS 199-C S7 site are expected to be about four feet.

Site Preparation – Road Reconstruction W17

We anticipate that roadway reconstruction will consist of reconstructing the embankments and roadway section at this site. The sections below for Backfill and Fill, Compaction Standard, Density, and Lift Thickness outline our recommendations for reconstruction of the roadway.

Shallow Foundations – Site S7 It appears that shallow foundations, consisting of spread footings or culverts bearing on aggregate bedding, may be used for foundation support when bearing on native sands or engineered fill over native sands. It is expected that culverts will be placed on a minimum of six inches of aggregate bedding overlying native soil.

Recommendations for foundation design are provided below.

Net Allowable Bearing Stress

Results of the field and laboratory testing program were used to evaluate the net allowable bearing stress for shallow foundations. In our opinion, a net allowable bearing stress (with a minimum factor of safety of at least 2.5) of 3,000 psf (pounds per square foot) may be used to design footings placed on native soils or engineered fill over native soils.

Settlement Estimate

For foundations bearing on native soils or engineered fill over native soils and designed according to the net allowable bearing stresses outlined above, we estimate total settlement of less than one inch and differential settlements less than one-half inch.

17M7972 Page 5 of 8

Frost Protection We recommend that culvert foundations be placed at a minimum depth of six feet below finished exterior grade (surface of soil directly above foundation) to provide frost protection. We also recommend that roadway surface be a minimum of five feet above the water table to minimize frost heave.

In areas where new culvert construction tie into existing roadways, we recommend that excavations extend from the bottom of culverts at a slope of 1:20 (Vertical:Horizontal) to provide frost differential protection.

Backfill and Fill A wide variety of materials can be considered as suitable for engineered backfill placed in a controlled manner or for general fill soils at non-structural locations. The choice of materials is a function of structural requirements, water table conditions, seasonal construction constraints, placement and compaction methods, and other site or project specific needs. Soils which classify as SP, SP-SM, or SM in the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487) or AASHTO A-1 and AASHTO A-2 in the AASHTO Soil Classification System are usually the most available suitable soils for engineered backfill and fill.

For this project, we recommend that Aggregate Bedding meeting the gradation outlined below for direct culvert support/bedding.

Table 2: Gradation for the entire sample

Sieve Percent Passing by Weight (%)

1 ¼ inch 100

No. 4 25-100

Table 3: Gradation for the portion of the sample passing the No. 4 sieve, conform to the following limits

Sieve Percent Passing by Weight (%)

No. 4 100

No. 40 --

No. 100 0-30

No. 200 0-15

Other gradations for backfill of over excavations or embankment construction may also be suitable as approved by the project geotechnical engineer. Existing fill and native soils may be suitable for re-use, but should be verified through sieve analysis of representative bulk samples.

We recommend that a geotextile fabric (WisDOT Type SAS or equivalent) be placed between native soils and engineered fill/aggregate bedding to promote drainage and provide separation.

Compaction Standard We recommend using ASTM D698 - Standard Proctor as the laboratory compaction standard.

Density

We recommend compacting each lift to a minimum of the following percentage of the above compaction standard for the respective types of fill materials:

Table 4: Compaction Recommendation

Type of Engineered Fill % Minimum Compaction

Foundation Structural Backfill 98%

Aggregate Bedding 98%

Non-structural Foundation Backfill 95%

Within 3 Feet of Pavement or Aggregate Base Section 100%

17M7972 Page 6 of 8

Lift Thickness Place engineered backfill and fill materials in lifts not to exceed eight inches in a loose condition, unless the contractor can demonstrate satisfactory results when placing thicker lifts. Maximum compacted lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches in a loose condition.

Moisture In general, granular fill materials should be place and compacted within two percent of optimum moisture content, as determined by the above referenced compaction standard. When the moisture content of fill materials is not in this range, compaction to the required density may be difficult if not impossible. The excavating contractor is responsible for controlling and adjusting moisture content of backfill materials.

Scour and Riprap We recommend the use of concrete end treatments (headwalls and wingwalls) combined with riprap to prevent the erosion of embankment soils and to provide protection against scour. Culvert foundations should be placed at an adequate depth to avoid scour. A detailed scour analysis was not included in our scope of work.

Retaining Wall Design Site W19

We understand that retaining wall construction will consist of a concrete segmental retaining wall. Concrete segmental retaining walls are typically designed and contructed by specialty contractors. Recommendations for estimated soils parameters, lateral earth pressures, and drainage are provided below. Additional recommendations can be provided upon request.

Estimated Soil Parameters and Lateral Earth Pressures

Lateral earth pressures are an important aspect of designing underground structures including driven piles, sheet piles, and abutment walls. Lateral earth pressures are generally calculated for three modes of soil stress referred to as the at-rest condition, active condition, and the passive condition. For cohesionless soils or cohesive soils under long term loading, lateral earth pressures for each of the three conditions are calculated based upon soil friction angle and the respective earth pressure coefficients (Ko, Ka, and Kp) using an effective stress analysis. Estimated lateral earth pressure coefficients and soil parameters are shown in the Table 2 below.

Free standing walls where some displacement at the top of the wall is acceptable can be designed to resist active lateral earth pressures. If no displacement at the top of the wall is acceptable, walls should be designed to resist at-rest lateral earth pressures. Anchored walls should be designed to resist passive lateral earth pressures.

Table 2: Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure

Depth (feet) Dry Unit

Weight (pcf) φ' (deg) Cu (psf)

At-Rest

Ko

Passive

Kp

Active

Ka

0-6.5 120 33 0 0.45 3.4 0.30

6.5-11.5 120 33 0 0.45 3.4 0.30

11.5-19 120 33 0 0.45 3.4 0.30

17M7972 Page 7 of 8

Retaining Wall Drainage

If water percolates down alongside a wall it may become perched within the wall backfill. Collecting run-off and discharging it well away from the foundation(s) and sloping the surface down and away from the retaining wall are two common methods of reducing infiltration and percolation. To collect surface water infiltration within the wall backfill we recommend installing a perimeter foundation drain system. The drain system should consist of perforated pipe embedded in gravel and placed at an invert within two inches of the bottom-of-footing elevation. A geotextile filter fabric should encase the pipe and gravel. The drain system should be routed to a storm sewer, sump pump, low area on the site, or other suitable drainage channels. Another suitable drainage system includes placing a layer of free-draining granular material behind the walls, connected to “weep holes” in the face of the walls. This method should only be used for exterior walls where water “weeping” out of the face of the wall is acceptable.

Dewatering Groundwater was observed at a depth of around 10 feet in Boring FS 199-S7 during drilling and sampling.

Groundwater within excavations for construction of the proposed culvert is expected to be directly related to the levels of the adjacent unnamed creek. If excavations extend below the groundwater surface and dewatering is necessary for construction, a large scale dewatering plan will be required. Dewatering options include diverting the unnamed creek around the excavation or installing temporary sheet pile cofferdams with sumps and pumps.

Over Sizing Excavations for the placement of engineered backfill should extend horizontally at least a minimum of one foot beyond the bottom edge of footing for every one foot of over excavation depth required below the footing.

Temporary Shoring Temporary shoring of excavations may be required for this project. Any temporary shoring systems should be designed by a registered professional engineer.

Frozen Materials If construction occurs during temperatures below freezing, the base of all excavations and backfill materials should be protected from freezing. Excavated surfaces which become frozen should be completely thawed prior to placing backfill, concrete, or pavements. If freezing has loosened and reduced the bearing capacity of the excavation surface, remove the frozen material to the undisturbed surface. Frozen material should not be used as backfill.

Observation - Excavations Excavation bottoms and engineered fill operations should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or a designated representative to assure that the recommendations in this report are being followed. In-place density testing should be performed to document that project specifications are met.

Observation - Foundations Installation of foundations should be observed and documented by a qualified technician or engineer. We recommend that at a minimum, concrete be tested for air content, temperature, slump, and compressive strength.

Frequency of Testing

For this project, we recommend a minimum density testing frequency of one test per 1,000 square feet of backfill area per lift. If the project area is smaller than this, we recommend a minimum of one test per lift. For isolated locations or questionable areas, we recommend a minimum of one test per occasion.

17M7972 Page 8 of 8

General

If you have any questions regarding our results, or if we may be of further service on this project, please call us at 715.392.7114.

Twin Ports Testing II, Inc.

Brett Carlson, PE

Project Engineer

Martin L. Halvorson, PE

Senior Engineer

Attachments:

Boring Location Sketch (1 Page)

Boring Logs (4 Pages)

Boring Log Notes (2 Pages)

N

Approximate Boring Location

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

DATE: SCALE:

DRAWING NO:

TPT PROJECT NO:

DRAWING NO:

1/1

REV:

BMC MLH

7/20/2018 N/A

17M7972I-01

17M7972I

A

BORING LOCATION SKETCH

DSR FS 199-C

Town of Marengo

Ashland County, Wisconsin

T win

P orts

T esting

FS 191-W19(North)

FS 199-S7

F

R

F o u r

C o r n e s

S t o e

R o a d

FS 199-W19(South)

FS 199-W17

SS

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

SS

4.0

12.5

(FILL) Poorly Graded Sand with silt and gravel, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist (AASHTO A-1-b)

*Sieve analysis of % passing #200 sieve test performed at 3 feet = 8.4 %

(SM) SILTY SAND with gravel, trace clay, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist to waterbearing (AASHTO A-2-4)

Auger refusal at 12.5 feet Boring then backfilled with bentonite End of Boring

CLIENT:

DSR FS 199-C

PROJECT:

7/20/18

9.6 feet WD River Elev 1335.2 ft

Autohammer

CAVE IN LEVELWATER LEVEL

SITE LOCATION:

WSP USA

RIGSPT HAMMER

None Encountered

BORING STARTED

CREW CHIEF

JJ

WATER LEVEL

WSP USA Town of Marengo, Ashland County, Wisconsin

ARCHITECT - ENGINEER:

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES

IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

07/18/16 07/18/16

REPORT DATE:

7822DT

WATER LEVEL BORING COMPLETED ABBREVIATIONS: ACR-After Casing Removal, BCR-Before Casing Removal, AB-After Boring, WD-While Drilling, WS-While Sampling, NE-None Encountered, DB-Diamond Bit, HSA-Hollow Stem Auger, RB-Rock Bit, SS-Split Spoon, ST-Shelby Tube, PA-Power Auger, MR-Mud Rotary, CS-Continuous, RP-Rock Probe, PH-Percussion Hammer, WL-Water Level, WOH-Weight of Hammer, EIL-Exceeds Instrument Level, TS-Topsoil, PP-Pocket Penetrometer

17M7972I

SA

M

PL

E

N O

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

(f t)

0.0

10.0

1344.2

1334.2

SA

M

PL

E

D

IS

TA

N

C E

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

TPT Project No.:

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TONS/FT2)

PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE

10 20 30 40 50

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

FS 199-S7

See Boring Location Sketch

R

EC

O

VE

R Y

10 20 30 40 50

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BORING LOCATION:

BORING LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N-VALUE

BOREHOLE LOG 17M7972I DSR FS199C.GPJ TWINPORT.GDT 9/10/18

G R

AP

H

IC

L

O G

SURFACE ELEVATION:

1344.2 feetST

R

AT

A C

H

AN

G E

D

EP

TH

50/4

SS

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

6.5

11.5

19.0

(FILL) Silty Sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist (AASHTO A-2-4)

(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel, fine to coarse grained, brown, wet (AASHTO A-2-4)

(SM) SILTY SAND with fragmented rock, fine to coarse grained, reddish brown to reddish gray, moist (AASHTO A-2-4)

Auger refusal at 19 feet Boring then backfilled with bentonite End of Boring

CLIENT:

DSR FS 199-C

PROJECT:

7/20/18

NE WD

Autohammer

CAVE IN LEVELWATER LEVEL

SITE LOCATION:

WSP USA

RIGSPT HAMMER

None Encountered

BORING STARTED

CREW CHIEF

JJ

WATER LEVEL

WSP USA Town of Marengo, Ashland County, Wisconsin

ARCHITECT - ENGINEER:

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES

IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

07/06/18 07/06/18

REPORT DATE:

7822DT

WATER LEVEL BORING COMPLETED ABBREVIATIONS: ACR-After Casing Removal, BCR-Before Casing Removal, AB-After Boring, WD-While Drilling, WS-While Sampling, NE-None Encountered, DB-Diamond Bit, HSA-Hollow Stem Auger, RB-Rock Bit, SS-Split Spoon, ST-Shelby Tube, PA-Power Auger, MR-Mud Rotary, CS-Continuous, RP-Rock Probe, PH-Percussion Hammer, WL-Water Level, WOH-Weight of Hammer, EIL-Exceeds Instrument Level, TS-Topsoil, PP-Pocket Penetrometer

17M7972I

SA

M

PL

E

N O

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

(f t)

0.0

10.0

20.0

1307.8

1297.8

1287.8

SA

M

PL

E

D

IS

TA

N

C E

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

TPT Project No.:

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TONS/FT2)

PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE

10 20 30 40 50

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

FS 199-W17

See Boring Location Sketch

R

EC

O

VE

R Y

10 20 30 40 50

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BORING LOCATION:

BORING LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N-VALUE

BOREHOLE LOG 17M7972I DSR FS199C.GPJ TWINPORT.GDT 9/10/18

G R

AP

H

IC

L

O G

SURFACE ELEVATION:

1307.8 feetST

R

AT

A C

H

AN

G E

D

EP

TH

68/8

SS

SS

HSA

SS

4.0

6.0

(FILL) Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist (AASHTO A-1-b)

*Sieve analysis of % passing #200 sieve test performed at 3 feet = 5.6 %

(SM) SILTY SAND with gravel, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist (AASHTO A-2-4)

Auger refusal at 6 feet Boring then backfilled with bentonite End of Boring

CLIENT:

DSR FS 199-C

PROJECT:

7/20/18

NE WD

Autohammer

CAVE IN LEVELWATER LEVEL

SITE LOCATION:

WSP USA

RIGSPT HAMMER

None Encountered

BORING STARTED

CREW CHIEF

JJ

WATER LEVEL

WSP USA Town of Marengo, Ashland County, Wisconsin

ARCHITECT - ENGINEER:

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES

IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

07/18/18 07/18/18

REPORT DATE:

7822DT

WATER LEVEL BORING COMPLETED ABBREVIATIONS: ACR-After Casing Removal, BCR-Before Casing Removal, AB-After Boring, WD-While Drilling, WS-While Sampling, NE-None Encountered, DB-Diamond Bit, HSA-Hollow Stem Auger, RB-Rock Bit, SS-Split Spoon, ST-Shelby Tube, PA-Power Auger, MR-Mud Rotary, CS-Continuous, RP-Rock Probe, PH-Percussion Hammer, WL-Water Level, WOH-Weight of Hammer, EIL-Exceeds Instrument Level, TS-Topsoil, PP-Pocket Penetrometer

17M7972I

SA

M

PL

E

N O

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

(f t)

0.0

10.0

1264.5

1254.5

SA

M

PL

E

D

IS

TA

N

C E

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

TPT Project No.:

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TONS/FT2)

PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE

10 20 30 40 50

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

FS 199-W19 (North)

See Boring Location Sketch

R

EC

O

VE

R Y

10 20 30 40 50

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BORING LOCATION:

BORING LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N-VALUE

BOREHOLE LOG 17M7972I DSR FS199C.GPJ TWINPORT.GDT 9/10/18

G R

AP

H

IC

L

O G

SURFACE ELEVATION:

1264.5 feetST

R

AT

A C

H

AN

G E

D

EP

TH

SS

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

SS

HSA

SS

10.0

(FILL) Silty Sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist to wet (AASHTO A-2-4)

*percent passing #200 sieve test performed at 3 feet = 41.9 %

*Rock fragments in end of sample at 10 feet

Auger Refusal at 10 feet Boring then backfilled with bentonite End of Boring

CLIENT:

DSR FS 199-C

PROJECT:

7/20/18

NE WD

Autohammer

CAVE IN LEVELWATER LEVEL

SITE LOCATION:

WSP USA

RIGSPT HAMMER

None Encountered

BORING STARTED

CREW CHIEF

JJ

WATER LEVEL

WSP USA Town of Marengo, Ashland County, Wisconsin

ARCHITECT - ENGINEER:

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES

IN-SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

07/03/18 07/03/18

REPORT DATE:

7822DT

WATER LEVEL BORING COMPLETED ABBREVIATIONS: ACR-After Casing Removal, BCR-Before Casing Removal, AB-After Boring, WD-While Drilling, WS-While Sampling, NE-None Encountered, DB-Diamond Bit, HSA-Hollow Stem Auger, RB-Rock Bit, SS-Split Spoon, ST-Shelby Tube, PA-Power Auger, MR-Mud Rotary, CS-Continuous, RP-Rock Probe, PH-Percussion Hammer, WL-Water Level, WOH-Weight of Hammer, EIL-Exceeds Instrument Level, TS-Topsoil, PP-Pocket Penetrometer

17M7972I

SA

M

PL

E

N O

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

(f t)

0.0

10.0

1265.2

1255.2

SA

M

PL

E

D

IS

TA

N

C E

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

TPT Project No.:

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TONS/FT2)

PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE

10 20 30 40 50

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

FS 199-W19 (South)

See Boring Location Sketch

R

EC

O

VE

R Y

10 20 30 40 50

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BORING LOCATION:

BORING LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N-VALUE

BOREHOLE LOG 17M7972I DSR FS199C.GPJ TWINPORT.GDT 9/10/18

G R

AP

H

IC

L

O G

SURFACE ELEVATION:

1265.2 feetST

R

AT

A C

H

AN

G E

D

EP

TH

50/5

BORING LOG NOTES

Water Level Water levels indicated on the boring logs are as measured at stated times. In clean sand soils, the elevations indicated are considered relatively reliable levels. However, in less permeable soils, even after several days of monitoring, accurate determinations may not be possible. Therefore, additional/alternative methods of groundwater elevation monitoring should be sought.

Commonly Used Moisture Conditions of Soils Term Meaning Dry Requires the addition of considerable moisture to attain optimum for compaction Moist Near optimum moisture for compaction Wet Requires drying to attain optimum moisture for compaction Waterbearing Saturated granular soils

Gradation Description and Terminology Soil Type Particle Name Size Range Coarse Grained Soils Boulders Over 12”

Cobbles 3”-12” Gravels #4-3” Gravels – Coarse ¾”-3” Gravels – Fine #4-¾” Sands #200-#4 Sands – Coarse #10-#4 Sands – Medium #40-#10 Sands – Fine #200-#40

Fine Grained Soils Silt 0.005 mm-#200 Clay Less than 0.005 mm

Descriptive Terms of Components Present in Sample (other than ASTM D 2487) Term Percent of Dry Weight Trace 1-5% With 5-12% Some 12-30% And 30-50%

Relative Density of Granular Soils N-Value (SPT) Relative Density Standard “N” Penetration 0-4 Very Loose Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer 5-10 Loose falling 30” on a 2” outside diameter 11-30 Medium Dense split barrel sampler 31-50 Dense Over 50 Very Dense

Consistency of Cohesive Soils N-Value (SPT) Consistency (Q, tsf or kg/cm2) 0-2 Very Soft Less than 0.25 3-4 Soft 0.25-0.50 5-8 Medium 0.50-1.00 9-15 Stiff 1.00-2.00 16-30 Very Stiff 2.00-4.00 Over 30 Hard 4.00-8.00

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM – ASTM D 2487