Geotech Report_Aug 2023.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATION REPORT

NO. 04-21

PROJECT NP-ROCR 910(1)

(Structure No. 3450-033P)

REPLACEMENT OF EDGEWATER STABLE ACCESS BRIDGE

ROCK CREEK NATIONAL PARK

WASHINGTON, DC

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 22001 Loudoun County Parkway

Building E-2, Suite 200 Ashburn, VA 20147

November 2022 (Amended August 2023)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. General

1.2. Project Description

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

3 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

3.1. General

3.2. Sampling

3.3. Field Tests and Measurements

3.4. Data Summary

3.5. Laboratory Testing

3.6. Findings

3.7. Groundwater

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. Corrosion Protection

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

8 REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Borings Location Plan and Subsurface Profile APPENDIX C – Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Testing Results APPENDIX E – Design Analysis APPENDIX F – Selected Photographs

Project: NP-ROCR 910(1) Bridge Replacement Rock Creek National Park Soils and Foundation Report Washington, DC No. 04-21

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

SOILS AND FOUNDATION REPORT

NO. 04-21

PROJECT NP-ROCR 910(1)

REPLACEMENT OF STABLE ACCESS BRIDGE

(Structure No. 3450-033P)

ROCK CREEK NATIONAL PARK

WASHINGTON, DC

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. General

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and design analyses, and presents recommendations regarding the foundations for the replacement of Edgewater Stable Access Bridge. The project site is located along Access Road, perpendicular to Beach Drive, in Rock Creek National Park in Washington, DC.

The bridge serves as the main access to US Park Police, US Secret Service and WMATA facilities. The site location map is shown on Figure 1, Appendix A.

1.2. Project Description

We understand that the existing bridge 3-span bridge was built in 1958, it’s 102.4 ft long.

Bridge inspection performed in 2019 yielded some structural deficiencies and it was concluded that the bridge should be replaced.

The bridge spans Rock Creek which is a Potomac River tributary. Bridge data are listed in Table 1 below. The new 2-span bridge will be 104 ft 5 in long and 20 ft wide and will have a precast concrete box beams deck.

Table 1 – Bridge Data

Approximate Mile Point

Approximate Coordinates

Bridge Designation

EFLHD

Structure Number

Waterway Crossed

0.02 N 38° 55' 18.8976"

W 77° 2' 59.5032"

Edgewater Stable Access Bridge 3450-033P Rock Creek

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

The Geologic map of the Washington, DC, West quadrangle (USGS, 1994), indicates that the parent rock are metamorphic rocks that correspond to the Lower Cambrian and/or

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Late Proterozoic age. It appears that the bedrock at the project site is predominantly Actinolite schist (ꞒZu). Site geology is shown in Figure 2, 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 project between August 25th and August 28th, 2020. The field operations included drilling and coring two (2) soil borings (BH20-01 and BH20-02).

Soil borings were staked out by EFLHD field personnel by referencing ground-surface topography, measuring distances from existing surface features, estimating right-angles, and the use of a hand-held GPS unit. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were determined from the topography plans provided by the Survey Division. Borings were advanced to auger refusal depths using hollow-stem augers by a CME 750 ATV-mounted rotary drill rig. Rock coring was performed, and core samples were retrieved using an NQ core barrel and wireline. Upon completion of rock coring, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings and patched with cold asphalt mix. The approximate locations of borings and cores drilled at the site are graphically depicted on the Borings Location Plan and Subsurface Profile are presented in Appendix B.

3.2. Sampling

Borings were advanced to the auger refusal depths using 3¾-in. (inside diameter) hollow stem augers. Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was performed using a 2¼-in. (outside diameter) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T206. SPT soil samples were typically recovered at 2.5 ft intervals for the top 20 ft and at 5-foot intervals thereafter.

Samples were obtained by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24-in., into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-lb. automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches.

The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-in. sample interval 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.

Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars for laboratory testing. Rock cores were placed in wooden boxes. All soil and core samples were later transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, Tennessee for laboratory testing and storage. The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring are presented on its appropriate Boring Log in Appendix C.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Groundwater level readings were made in the boreholes at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. However, fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

3.3. Field Tests and Measurements

The EFLHD geotechnical crew performed field tests and took measurements during the course of the subsurface exploration. A field description by color and texture was made for each recovered soil sample. Percent core recovery (CR) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) were determined for each core run.

3.4. 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 materials such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, 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 in Appendix C represent a compilation of field and laboratory data and descriptions of the soil and rock samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally may 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 report.

3.5. Laboratory Testing

A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil samples and rock cores recovered during the subsurface exploration. The primary purpose of the testing program was to aid in classification and evaluation of the engineering properties of soils and rock present at the site. Laboratory tests included natural moisture content (AASHTO T-265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89 & T-90), particle size analysis (AASHTO T- 11/T-27). Other tests, such as, organic content (AASHTO T-267), pH testing (AASHTO T-289), concentration of sulfate (AASHTO T-290), and of Chlorides (AASHTO T-291) were also performed on representative soil samples. Unconfined compressive strength (ASTM D 7012) tests were performed on representative rock core samples. All tests were conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM/AASHTO standard test methods. The results of the laboratory testing program are presented in Appendix D and summarized in Table 2 and Table 3 below.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Table 2 - Summary of Laboratory Test Results - Soil Samples

Boring No. Sample No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

Moisture Content Fines AASHTO

Classification USCS pH Sulfates (ppm)

Chlorides (ppm)

BH 20-01 J-2 5-7 18.7 33.2 A-2-4(0) SM - - -

BH 20-01 J-4 15-17 34.0 11.9 A-2-4(0) SP-SM - - -

*BH 20-01 J-5 20-22 34.2 52.7 A-4(0) ML 6.01 7.5 4.1

BH 20-02 J-4 15-17 17.2 31.9 A-2-4(0) SM - 27.5 4.9

BH 20-02 J-6 25-27 6.7 13.5 A-1-b SM - - - Note: J = Jar sample

* Organic Content = 2.2%

Table 3 - Summary of Laboratory Test Results - Rock Cores

Boring No.

Ground surface elevation (ft)

Run Depth

(ft)

Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi)

Estimated bedrock elevation (ft) Location

BH20-01 38.7 31.7 - 43.1 7,269 7.0 Northwest abutment

BH20-02 41.0 33.5 - 38.5 3,645 7.5 Southeast abutment

3.6. Findings

The boring logs in Appendix C represent a compilation of field and laboratory data and descriptions of the soil samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally may 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 memo.

The Boring Location Plan and Subsurface Profile sheets in Appendix B represent generalized subsurface profile illustrating the general soil conditions that may be anticipated. A brief description of the soil conditions encountered in the borings is presented below. The stratification lines designating soil types and the interfaces between soil types in the boring logs in Appendix C represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. Each of the soil types has been grouped according to its engineering properties and classification. It should be noted that one or

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

more of the units may be absent at specific locations. Cobles and boulders may be encountered at different depths and locations along the site.

Stratum I - Fill: Silty SAND (SM)

Fill material was encountered underneath the existing grass surface and extended to an approximate depth of 15.0 ft below existing site grades. The fill consisted primarily of silty sand with various amounts of clay and gravel. SPT N-values recorded ranged from 2 to 9 blows/ft (bpf), indicating very loose to loose relative densities.

Stratum II - Natural Deposits: Silty SAND (SM), Poorly-graded SAND with SILT (SP- SM), and Sandy SILT (ML)

Underneath the fill, various layers of poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM), sandy silt (ML), and silty sand (SM) were encountered. SPT-N-values recorded within these layers ranged from 1 bpf to 50 bpf, indicating very loose to very dense relative densities. These layers extended to auger refusal depths.

Bedrock-SCHIST

Dark gray, highly weathered to slightly weathered schist was encountered in Borings BH 20-01 and BH 20-02 at depths of 31.7 ft and 33.5 ft, below existing site grades, respectively. Rock quality designation (RQD) values measured from the retrieved rock cores varied from 22% to 98% indicating highly weathered to sound rock. Rock coring was terminated at depths of 43.1 ft and 38.5 ft in Borings BH 20-01 and BH 20-02, respectively. Bedrock depths are expected to vary across the site.

3.7. Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at an approximate depth of 20.0 ft below existing site grades in Boring BH 20-01 during our drilling operations. However, fluctuations in the groundwater conditions due to seasonal weather changes should be anticipated.

4 DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1. General

Foundation design was performed in general accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, 2020.

4.2. Seismic Design Considerations

Based on the criteria contained within AASHTO Table 3.10.3.1-1, and the results of our subsurface exploration, the project site can be classified as Seismic Site Class E. Table 4

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

provides seismic design parameters according to the USGS Seismic Design Maps web application based on the approximate coordinates of the project location as presented in Table 1. Based on the seismic design parameters, and as per AASHTO 3.10.3-3.10.6, the project location corresponds to a 1-Second Period Acceleration Coefficient (SD1) of 0.105g. According to AASHTO Table 3.10.6-1, this value of SD1 corresponds to a Seismic Zone 1 classification. See Appendix E for computations.

Table 4 - USGS Seismic Design Maps parameters Seismic Design

Parameter Description Value

PGA Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration 0.038g

Ss Short-period (0.2-second) spectral acceleration 0.088g

S1 1-second spectral acceleration 0.03g

4.3. Scour

Table 5 contains the results of a scour analysis, provided by the Hydraulics Division.

Results are reported here for the 50-year return period, which was determined to be the controlling case.

Table 5 - Scour Elevations

Foundation Element Total Scour (ft) Scour Elevation (ft)

West Abutment ~ 21.0 (from elev. 28.0 to 7.0) 7.0 (rock elevation)

Pier ~ 9.5 (from elev. 16.5 to 7.0) 7.0 (rock elevation)

East Abutment ~ 23.5 (from elev. 30.50 to 7.0) 7.0 (rock elevation)

Note: Total scour elevations are based on the Hydraulic memo and plans

For more information, refer to the December 2021 ROCR 910(1) Scour Analysis and Temporary Access Road Memo.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

4.4. Bridge Loading

Structural loads provided by the Bridge Division are listed in Table 6 below. The provided loads are the maximum load combination related to design wind, 50-yr flood, temperature, breaking force, live load, and dead load.

Table 6 - Structural Loads

Load West Abutment Pier East Abutment

STRENGTH LIMIT STATE

Max axial - Single Pile 125.0 kip 205.0 kip 125.0 kip Lateral Fx - Single Pile 2.0 kip 7.5 kip 1.5 kip Lateral Fz - Single Pile 11.0 kip 8.5 kip 6.5 kip

SERVICE LIMIT STATE

Max axial - Single Pile 85.0 kip 155.0 kip 86.0 kip Lateral Fx - Single Pile 1.75 kip 6.5 kip 1.5 kip Lateral Fz - Single Pile 7.0 kip 6.5 kip 4.0 kip

Fx = Lateral Load on X direction; Fy = Lateral load on Z direction The X-direction is longitudinal to the bridge; the Z-direction is transversal to the bridge

4.5. Foundation Type Considerations

Based on the subsurface profile encountered, the scour report and the proposed construction, several alternatives were considered for the bridge foundations. Decision criteria included scour, cost, constructability, environmental impacts, limits of disturbance, and familiarity with similar projects and soil profiles. Table 7 provides a summary of the foundation types considered.

Table 7 - Foundation Type Summary

Foundation Type Advantages Disadvantages Drilled shafts • Suitable to a wide range of ground conditions

• Low noise and vibration, and therefore well suited to use in urban areas and near existing structures

• Can penetrate below scour zone into stable, scour-resistant formation

• Construction is sensitive to groundwater or difficult drilling conditions

• Performance of the drilled shaft may be influenced by the method of construction

• Requires an experienced, capable contractor, usually performed as specialty work by a subcontractor

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Foundation Type Advantages Disadvantages Micropiles • High load capacity in both tension and compression

• Minimal vibration and disturbance

• Installation possible in difficult or limited access site

• Can be socketed in bedrock

• Moderate lateral load

• Soils and grout spoils created during drilling

Based on the considerations presented in Table 7, we conclude that drilled shafts present the most suitable foundation alternative.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Bridge Foundations

Design analyses for the new abutments and pier were performed based on the strength parameters of onsite soils and bedrock encountered within the depths of our subsurface exploration. Based on the anticipated design loads, we recommend the new abutments and pier, to be supported on a deep foundation system of drilled shafts, socketed in the schist bedrock stratum.

The system of drilled shafts will be cast-in-place deep foundation elements constructed in a drilled hole. Reinforcement will consist of HP-Pile 12x84. Table 8 provides a summary of drilled shafts design properties and design assumptions.

Table 8 – Drilled Shafts Design Properties and Assumptions

Property West Abutment Pier East

Abutment Total Number of Drilled Shafts per Foundation Element 22 10 22

Drilled Shaft Center-to-Center Spacing on X-axis (ft)

4.0 4.0 4.0

Drilled Shaft Center-to-Center Spacing on Z-axis (in) 4.5 4.0

Minimum Embedment depth in Rock, l (ft) 15.0 10.0 15.0

Drilled Shaft Diameter, D (in.) 18

Reinforcement HP-Pile 12 x 84 Concrete Unconfined Compressive Strength, fc (psi) 4,000

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

5.1.1. Compression Resistance

Drilled shaft design was evaluated in general accordance with AASHTO Article 10.8 and Brow et. al. (2018). Nominal rock end-bearing resistance was analyzed based on Hoek- Brown Shear Strength Criteria. A tip resistance factor (φqp) of 0.50 was utilized to analyze the Factored resistance, as listed in AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.4-1. Table 9 provides the computed nominal and factored compression resistances.

Side resistance along the socket length of drilled shaft was neglected for the determination of compression resistance. Drilled shafts are designed as end-bearing.

Compression resistance calculations and computer output is included in Appendix E.

Table 9 – Calculated Compression Resistance Resistance Value

Nominal Compression Resistance (kip) 724 Factored Compression Resistance (kip) 362

5.1.2. Lateral Deflection

Lateral deflections were evaluated and drilled shafts were sized to bound service limit state deflections to less than 1 inch. In accordance with AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.4-1, a lateral resistance factor (φlat) of 1.0 was utilized. Sample lateral deflection computer output is included in Appendix E, with output files provided for maximum limit load condition, under fixed head fixity for the abutments and the pier. A summary of results for the various loading using a fixed head, service load condition is provided in Appendix E.

The effects of group interaction were taken into account as per AASHTO 10.7.2.4. Pile P-multipliers where estimated based on AASHTO Table 10.7.2.4-1. A summary of results for the various loading using a fixed head, service load conditions is provided in the Appendix E.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

5.2. Abutment Walls

According to FP-14, Section 258, structural fill should be used for the construction of abutment walls. Structural fill should be a free draining material with a maximum particle size of 3 in, maximum 15.0 percent fines and a maximum plasticity index of 6. Based on these specifications, the range of soil properties presented in Table 10 are recommended for the design of abutment walls. These soil properties should be used to compute the Active (Ka), Passive (Kp) and At-Rest (Ko) Earth Pressure Coefficients.

Table 10 - Soil Design Parameters for Abutment Walls

Parameter Value

Moist Soil Unit Weight, γ (pcf) 120 - 124

Friction Angle, φ (deg.) 30 - 32

To mitigate the potential for hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls, install a drainage system conforming to Section 605 of the FP-14.

5.3. Corrosion Protection

Based on laboratory test results provided in Table 2, and according to FHWA (2005) and AASTHO (2020) Article 10.7.5, soils present on the project site can be classified as non-aggressive. We recommend that concrete be placed on the pile above rock elevation as a corrosion protection measurement.

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Excavation - All excavations should be performed in accordance with applicable Federal, state, local, and OSHA standards and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-14 Specifications. It is anticipated that temporary or permanent casings will be required for shaft construction due to possible caving soils, voids in the overlying weathered sandstone, and/or water entering the borehole. Field bottom boreholes cleanliness are to be performed in accordance with the FP-14 Specifications.

Cofferdam - Based on the bridges site condition and proposed foundation type, a cofferdam system would be required during construction of the bridge substructures. It is recommended that the cofferdam system be designed by the contractor’s professional engineer based on the soil and rock strength parameters provided in this report and submitted for review in accordance with FP-14.

Concrete Placement - Concrete mix design and placement should be in accordance with FP-14 Specification requirements. If water is present in the boreholes, all water should be

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

pumped out of the boreholes prior to placement of concrete. All loose and otherwise deleterious material should be removed from the borehole prior to concrete placement.

Structural Backfill - Backfill behind abutment walls and wingwalls should consist of structural backfill in accordance with Section 704 of the FP-14 Specifications.

Backfill Drainage - Weep holes with 3-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 weep holes should be approved non-perforated PVC pipes per Subsection 708.05 of the FP-14 Specifications. Approved geocomposite drains as per Subsection 714.02 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 weep holes 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

208.09 and compacting per Subsection 208.10 of the FP-14 Specifications.

7 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

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

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

Prepared by:

Lourdes P. Boulware, Ph.D.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

8 REFERENCES

AASHTO (2020). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Ed. Washington, DC:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Geologic map of the Washington West quadrangle, District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia. Authors: Fleming, A.H., Drake, A.A., and McCartan, Lucy. Scale - 1:24,000, USGS (1994). Retrieved on October 27, 2020: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_277.htm

FHWA (2014). Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14), Washington D.C.: US Department of Transportation.

FLH (2017). Rock Characterization Guidelines. Washington D.C.: US Department of Transportation – FHWA, Federal Lands Highway.

FLH (2017). Soil Description and Identification Guidelines., Washington D.C.: US Department of Transportation – FHWA, Federal Lands Highway.

FHWA (2018), Brown, Dan A.; Turner, John P.; Castelli, Raymond J.; Loehr Erik J.

(2018). Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods, FHWA NHI-10-016, NHI Course No. 132014, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 10, September 2018.

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_277.htm

APPENDIX A

Figures

U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VIRGINIA

FIGURE 1 REG

Site Location and Vicinity Map EAST

STATE

DC

PROJECT

NP ROCR 910(1)

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

Data to create map retrieved from ArcGIS Online t

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.60.2 Miles

NP ROCR 910(1)

Geologic map of the Washington West quadrangle, District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia

Authors: Fleming, A.H., Drake, A.A., and McCartan, Lucy Retrieved on October 27, 2020: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_277.htm

Scale - 1:24,000, USGS (1994)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VIRGNIA

FIGURE NO. 2

Geologic Map

STATE PROJECT SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

DC NP-ROCR 910(1) 2 2

APPENDIX B

Borings Location Plan and Subsurface Profile

-5

-5

1.1

1.2

0.8

1.8

1.3

0.8

0.6

1.4

0.8

1.0

1.1

1.5

0.9

0.7

LEGEND

N SUBSURFACE PROFILE

SHEET NO.

E le va tio n (f t)

Groundwater depth encountered during drilling.

Rec.

STATE PROJECT

Rock Quality Designation (%)

E le va tio n (f t)

Recovery (ft)

RQD

Standard Penetration Test Resistance in Blows per Foot

Groundwater depth at boring completion. FILL SP-SM ML SM BEDROCK

THE BORING LOGS ON THIS SHEET REPRESENT THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED

AT THE BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY VARY BETWEEN THESE LOCATIONS.

Groundwater depth monitored after boring completion.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

NP_ROCR 910(1)

X

S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E P

R O

F

IL

E

/1

/2

:2

M

P R

O

JE

C T

S \R

O C

R \9

(1

T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G

IN

T \R

O C

R _9

(1

G

P J

31.7

33.1

38.1

43.1

Depth (ft) N

BH 20-01

Rec.

33.5

38.5

Depth (ft) N

BH 20-02

Rec.

BH 20-01 BH 20-02

DC

APPENDIX C

Boring Logs

1.1

1.2

0.8

1.8

1.3

0.8

Topsoil 2" thick, Silty SAND (SM), very loose to loose, pale brown to reddish-brown, moist, fine to coarse-grained. Fill. A-2-4(0).

Poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), very loose, gray, very moist, fine to medium-grained. A-2-4(0)

Sandy Silt (ML), very loose to loose, dark gray, moist, non-plastic. A-4(0).

pH = 6.01

SO4

2- = 7.5 Cl- = 4.1 Organic content T-267= 2.2%

Silty Sand, very loose to very dense, greenish brown, moist, micaceous.

1.25

1-3-4-7

2-2-4-5

1-2-3-5

0-0-1-2

1-1-1-8

4-10-15-21

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

(Blows / ft)

38.7 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

8/25/20

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3"

8/26/20 Doug Hutchins Jason FarleyOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 20' during our drilling operation.

hrs

20.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

NP_ROCR 910(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Rock Creek Park - Washington, DC

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 20-01

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 85°F

NW side of Edgewater Stable Access Rd. Bridge

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

Northing: 4310116.51 Easting: 322296.63

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

2/

1/

:1

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\R O

C R

\9

(1

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G

IN

T \R

O C

R _9

(1

G

P J

23.7

18.7

13.7

8.7

Sheet: 1 of 2

0.6

72.0

40.0

100.0

Auger refusal at depth 31.7'.

SCHIST, dark gray, higly weathered rock.

RQD ~ 17%

SCHIST, dark gray, higly weathered rock.

RQD ~ 22%

SCHIST, dark gray, moderately weathered rock.

Qunconfined = 7,269 psi

RQD ~ 68%

Boring was terminated at 43.1'

10-50/2J-7

31.7

33.1

38.1

43.1

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

(Blows / ft)

38.7 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

8/25/20

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3"

8/26/20 Doug Hutchins Jason FarleyOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 20' during our drilling operation.

hrs

20.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

NP_ROCR 910(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Rock Creek Park - Washington, DC

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 20-01

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 85°F

NW side of Edgewater Stable Access Rd. Bridge

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

Northing: 4310116.51 Easting: 322296.63

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

2/

1/

:1

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\R O

C R

\9

(1

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G

IN

T \R

O C

R _9

(1

G

P J

7.0

5.6

0.6

-4.4

Sheet: 2 of 2

210"

1.4

0.8

1.0

1.1

1.5

0.9

Topsoil 2" thick, Silty SAND with gravel, Gravel encountered 1' to 3.5' deep and 5' to 7' deep, very loose to medium dense, brown and gray, moist. Fill.

Silty SAND (SM), very loose to medium dense, brown to gray, moist, fine-grained. A-2-4(0)

Silty SAND (SM), medium dense to very dense, gray with trace of brown, moist, fine to medium-grained.

A-1-b.

1-4-8-10

6-5-4-25

1-1-1-3

1-2-5-5

2-6-17-12

11-37-50/4"

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

15.0

25.0

30.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

(Blows / ft)

41.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

8/26/20

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3"

8/27/20 Doug Hutchins Jason FarleyOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was not encountered during our drilling operation.

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

NP_ROCR 910(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Rock Creek Park - Washington, DC

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 20-02

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 90°F

SE side of Edgewater Stable Access Rd. Bridge

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

Northing: 4310070.91 Easting: 322324.23

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/5

/2

:5

M

P R

O

JE

C T

S \R

O C

R \9

(1

T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\R O

C R

_9

(1

G P

J

26.0

16.0

11.0

Sheet: 1 of 2

10"

0.7

100.0

SCHIST, gray and some brown, higly weathered rock.

Auger refusal at depth 33.5'.

SCHIST, dark gray, slightly weathered rock.

Qunconfined = 3,645 psi

RQD ~ 98%

Boring was terminated at 38.5'

16-50/4"J-7

33.5

38.5

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

(Blows / ft)

41.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

8/26/20

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3"

8/27/20 Doug Hutchins Jason FarleyOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was not encountered during our drilling operation.

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

NP_ROCR 910(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Rock Creek Park - Washington, DC

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 20-02

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 90°F

SE side of Edgewater Stable Access Rd. Bridge

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

Northing: 4310070.91 Easting: 322324.23

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/5

/2

:5

M

P R

O

JE

C T

S \R

O C

R \9

(1

T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\R O

C R

_9

(1

G P

J

7.5

2.5

Sheet: 2 of 2

4"

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Testing Results

SOIL DATA

NO.

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% COBBLES

% 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 1.5 2.0 1.7 8.6 53.0 33.2

(ft.)

NP ROCR 910(1)

Rock Creek Park

FHWA/EFLHD

NW Side B20-01/J-2 5-7 Silty sand SM

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 86.8 11.9

NW Side B20-01/J-4 15-17 Poorly graded sand with silt SP-SM

0.0 3.8 0.9 6.3 7.4 28.9 52.7

NW Side B20-01/J-5 20-22 Sandy silt/ T-289= 6.01 ML

NO.

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% COBBLES

% 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 6.2 3.1 0.8 4.0 54.0 31.9

(ft.)

NP ROCR 910(1)

Rock Creek Park

FHWA/EFLHD

SE Side B20-02/J-4 15-17 Silty sand SM

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 47.5 36.8 13.5

SE Side B20-02/J-6 25-27 Silty sand SM

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

NP ROCR 910(1)

Rock Creek Park

FHWA/EFLHD

A-2-4(0)2262418.75-7B20-01/J-2NW Side

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP34.015-17B20-01/J-4NW Side

A-4(0)4302634.220-22B20-01/J-5NW Side

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

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

NP ROCR 910(1)

Rock Creek Park

FHWA/EFLHD

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP17.215-17B20-02/J-4SE Side

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-1-bNPNVNP6.725-27B20-02/J-6SE Side

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

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

Project X REPORT S200922G

Corrosion Engineering Page 1

Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab

29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com

Results Only Soil Testing for

September 24, 2020

Prepared for:

Randy Rainwater

S&ME, Inc.

1413 Topside Rd

Louisville, TN 37777 rrainwater@smeinc.com

Project X Job#: S200922G

Client Job or PO#: 3243-19-092 Ph. 450

Respectfully Submitted, Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E.

Sr. Corrosion Consultant

NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592

Professional Engineer

California No. M37102 ehernandez@projectxcorrosion.com mailto:ehernandez@projectxcorrosion.com

Project X REPORT S200922G

Corrosion Engineering Page 2

Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab

29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com

Soil Analysis Lab Results Client: S&ME, Inc.

Job Name: NP ROCR 910(1)

Client Job Number: 3243-19-092 Ph. 450

Project X Job Number: S200922G

September 24, 2020

Method

Bore# / Description Depth

(ft) (mg/kg) (wt%) (mg/kg) (wt%)

BH20-01, J-5 / Gray Silty

Sand

20-22 7.5 0.0008 4.1 0.0004

AASHTO T290 AASHTO T291

Sulfates

SO4

2-

Chlorides

Cl

Cations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight

ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract

Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Materials Testing Laboratory

1827 Jack Delozier Drive, Sevierville, TN 37876

Rock Creek Park

NP ROCR 910(1)

Lourdes Boulware

9/2/2020

Lab sample Taken at 41.0 Ft.

Schist

Project Name:

Submitted By:

Date Sample Received:

Source Location:

Boring No: Sample No:

Material

Project Number:

Core Depth: 38.1-43.1 FtBH20-01

*Disclaimer: EFLHD Materials Laboratory is responsible for the quality of the tests upon receipt of the sampled materials. However, EFHLD Materials Laboratory has no control over field material sampling and therefore has no responsibility for any sampling error, the sample integrity, and shipping methods prior to receipt in the laboratory.

Report of Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Cores

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core (ASTM D 7012)-Not AAP accredited test

Method C

Maximum Load, Lbs 19750

Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi 7269

Time to failure, second 142

ASTM D 4543 not performed which may cause variation in resultsRemarks:

Page 1 of 1 9/18/2020 09:39 AM

Jason A. Moore. - Laboratory Team Leader Date

Lab Control No: E-20-0625

Uncontrolled Copy

Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Materials Testing Laboratory

1827 Jack Delozier Drive, Sevierville, TN 37876

Rock Creek Park

NP ROCR 910(1)

Lourdes Boulware

9/2/2020

Lab sample Taken at 33.5 Ft.

Schist

Project Name:

Submitted By:

Date Sample Received:

Source Location:

Boring No: Sample No:

Material

Project Number:

Core Depth: 33.5-38.5 FtBH20-02

*Disclaimer: EFLHD Materials Laboratory is responsible for the quality of the tests upon receipt of the sampled materials. However, EFHLD Materials Laboratory has no control over field material sampling and therefore has no responsibility for any sampling error, the sample integrity, and shipping methods prior to receipt in the laboratory.

Report of Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Cores

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core (ASTM D 7012)-Not AAP accredited test

Method C

Maximum Load, Lbs 9905

Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi 3645

Time to failure, second 136

ASTM D 4543 not performed which may cause variation in resultsRemarks:

Page 1 of 1 9/18/2020 09:40 AM

Jason A. Moore. - Laboratory Team Leader Date

Lab Control No: E-20-0626

Uncontrolled Copy

APPENDIX E

Design Analysis

Seismic Site Class computation as per AASTHO (2020) ROCR 910(1)

From To

Silty Sand 0.0 15.0 15.0 7 6 5 6 2.50 Poorly-graded Sand with silt 15.0 20.0 5.0 1 1 5.00

Sandy Silt 20.0 25.0 5.0 2 2 2.50 Silty Sand 25.0 30.0 5.0 25 25 0.20 Silty Sand 30.0 31.7 1.7 100 100 0.02

Rock 31.7 43.1 11.4 100 100 0.11

From To

Silty Sand with gravel 0.0 15.0 15.0 12 9 2 8 1.96 Silty Sand 15.0 25.0 10.0 7 23 15 0.67 Silty Sand 25.0 30.0 5.0 100 100 0.05 Silty Sand 30.0 33.5 3.5 100 100 0.04 Silty Sand 33.5 38.5 5.0 100 100 0.05

Site Class definition E

Ni (blows/ft) Average N (blows/ft) di/Ni

Note: When using Method B, values are for cohesionless soils and cohesive soil and rock layers within the upper 100 ft. Where refusal is met for a rock layer, Ni should be taken as 100 blows/ft.

Site Class Definition - AASHTO Table 3.10.3.1-1

BORING ID - BH20-02

Soil Unit Depth (ft) Layer

Thickness (ft)

Ni (blows/ft) Average N (blows/ft) di/Ni

BORING ID - BH20-01

Soil Unit Depth (ft) Layer

Thickness (ft)

�N

�N

�N

�N

Prepared by: Lourdes Boulware

United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical

Project: NP ROCR 910(1) - Seismic Zone classification

≔NBar 9 ≔Site_Class if else

>NBar 50 ‖“C” if else

>NBar 15 ‖“D”

‖“E” =Site_Class “E”

Site Factors - AASHTO 3.10.3.2

≔PGA 0.038

Since PGA < 0.1 then ≔Fpga 2.5

≔SS 0.088

Since SS < 0.25 then ≔Fa 2.5

≔S1 0.03

Since S1 < 0.1 then ≔Fv 3.5

United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical

Project: NP ROCR 910(1) - Seismic Zone classification

Modified Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficients - AASHTO 3.10.4.2

≔As =⋅Fpga PGA 0.095 g

≔SDS =⋅Fa SS 0.22 g≔SD1 =⋅Fv S1 0.105 g

≔Ts =――

SD1

SDS

0.477 s

≔To =⋅0.2 Ts 0.095 s

≔Sa =―――

SD1

⋅1.5 Ts

0.147 s

≔Tm , ‥0.0 0.001 1.5

Design Response Spectrum (AASHTO 3.10.4.1)

Seismic Zones - AASHTO 3.10.6

≔Seismic_Zone if else

≤SD1 0.15

‖ 1 if else

≤SD1 0.30

‖ 2 if else

≤SD1 0.50

‖ 3

‖ 4 =Seismic_Zone 1

Conclusion The retaining structure located in N 38° 55' 18.8976" W 77° 2' 59.5032" does not require a seismic analysis. .

Single Pile Lateral Analysis Results

SERVICE LOAD

Pile Configuration

Lateral Loading

Maximum Lateral Deflection at Top of

Pile (in)

Maximum Bending Moment in Pile

(kip-ft)

Maximum Shear in Pile (kip)

SINGLE PILE

West

Abutment Fx 0.49 21.1 10.9 Fz 0.63 81.1 40.3

Pier Fx 0.35 43.2 9.6 Fz 0.17 50.2 7.5

East Abutment Fx 0.63 21.1 10.1 Fz 0.53 52.8 24.7

GROUP PILE

West

Abutment Fx 0.50 21.2 10.5 Fz 0.67 82.6 36.9

Pier Fx 0.44 46.0 7.8 Fz 0.23 54.8 6.8

East Abutment Fx 0.64 21.2 9.9 Fz 0.56 53.8 22.9

Note: For lateral loads, refer to Table 6. Lateral load FX loads the HP-Pile on the weak axis and, lateral load FZ loads the HP-Pile on the strong axis.

WEST ABUTMENT

LATERAL ANALYSES

ABUTMENT – Single Pile - PFACTORED = 125 Kip – Shear VX = 2 kip

ABUTMENT – Single Pile - PFACTORED = 125 Kip – Shear VZ = 11 kip

ABUTMENT – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 85 Kip – Shear VX = 1.75 kip

ABUTMENT – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 85 Kip – Shear VZ = 7 kip

ABUTMENT – Group Pile - PFACTORED = 125 Kip – Shear VX = 2 kip

ABUTMENT – Group Pile - PFACTORED = 125 Kip – Shear VZ = 11 kip

ABUTMENT – Group Pile - PSERVICE = 85 Kip – Shear VX = 1.75 kip

ABUTMENT – Group Pile - PSERVICE = 85 Kip – Shear VZ = 7 kip

PIER

Pier – Single Pile - PFACTORED = 205 Kip – Shear VX = 7.5 kip

Pier – Single Pile - PFACTORED = 205 Kip – Shear VZ = 8.5 kip

Pier – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 155 Kips – Shear VX = 6.5 kips

Pier – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 155 Kips – Shear VZ = 6.5 kips

Pier – Group Pile - PFACTORED = 205 Kip – Shear VX = 7.5 kip

Pier – Group Pile - PFACTORED = 205 Kip – Shear VZ = 8.5 kip

Pier – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 155 Kips – Shear VX = 6.5 kips

Pier – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 155 Kips – Shear VZ = 6.5 kips

EAST ABUTMENT

ABUTMENT 2 – Single Pile - PFACTORED = 125 Kip – Shear VX = 1.5 kip

ABUTMENT 2 – Single Pile - PFACTORED = 125 Kip – Shear VZ = 6.5 kip

ABUTMENT 2 – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 86 Kip – Shear VX = 1.5 kip

ABUTMENT 2 – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 86 Kip – Shear VZ = 4.0 kip

ABUTMENT 2 – Group Pile - PFACTORED = 125 Kip – Shear VX = 1.5 kip

ABUTMENT 2 – Group Pile - PFACTORED = 125 Kip – Shear VZ = 6.5 kip

ABUTMENT 2 – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 86 Kip – Shear VX = 1.5 kip

ABUTMENT 2 – Single Pile - PSERVICE = 86 Kip – Shear VZ = 4.0 kip

APPENDIX F

Representative Photographs

Photo No. 1: Subject Bridge (picture taken from SE abutment)

Photo No. 2: Subject Bridge (picture taken from NW abutment)

Photo No. 3: Edgewater Stable Access Bridge, note the water level

Photo No. 4: Boring BH 20-01

Photo No. 5: Boring BH 20-02