ATTACHMENT K-GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.pdf

Geotechnical Report (Final Design Phase) for

Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration

Bridge Replacement Project for

Bridge No. Y-01-002 (9LV)

Route 28 (Main Street) over Parkers River

Yarmouth, Massachusetts

Revised Date: 11/05/2018 Date: 09/12/2013

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Louis Berger Lamson Engineering Corporation 117 Kendrick Street, Suite 400 437 Cherry Street, Room # 109 Needham, Massachusetts 02494 Newton, Massachusetts 02465 Phone: 781-444-3330 Phone: 617-558-0101

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bridge No. Y-02-002 (9LV)

1.0 Executive Summary

2.0 Introduction

3.0 Subsurface Conditions

4.0 Foundation Recommendations

5.0 Construction Considerations

6.0 Summary

Figures

1 Project Location Plan 2 As-Drilled 2013 Boring Location Plan 3 Soil Profile – Pictorial View 4 Soil Profile – Descriptive View 5 Proposed Bridge Plan 6 Proposed Bridge Cross Section 7 Proposed Bridge Elevation 8 Construction Phases

Appendices

1 2013 Subsurface Exploration Results 2 Calculations 3 Seismic Design Maps 4 Loads from Louis Berger

Bridge No. Y-01-002 (9LV), Yarmouth Route 28 (Main Street) over Parkers River

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is prepared to describe geotechnical investigation and conditions for a replacement bridge on Route 28 over Parkers River in Yarmouth, Massachusetts. Based on the 2013 boring exploration results, the proposed single span bridge replacement structure is recommended to be supported by precast integral abutments on one row of steel piles HP 12x84, Grade 50, bearing on medium dense Fine Sand materials. Steel sheeting is installed in front of the proposed abutments for scour countermeasure and temporary support system during stage construction.

The bottom of pile cap for the both abutments is estimated at Elev.-9.4. The estimated pile tip is at approximately Elev.-102.0. Piles driven in soil must be deeper than the design point of fixity at Elev.- 46.4.

The nominal pile geotechnical resistance and the factored pile geotechnical resistance values are included in Section 6.0, ‘Summary’ of this report.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Scope of Report

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the substructure foundation types for the proposed superstructure system based on the 2013 boring exploration results, make recommendations for the proposed foundation system, develop engineering design values, and identify possible construction issues. The design values are prepared in AASHTO LRFD format to be compatible with the current bridge design approach.

2.2 Existing Bridge & Foundation

Bridge No. Y-01-002 is located on Route 28 (Main Street) over Parkers River in the Town of Yarmouth, as illustrated on Figure 1, ‘Project Location Plan’. The existing bridge is a single span structure consisting of a reinforced concrete slab supported by stone masonry abutments. The bridge carried 1-lane of traffic in each direction with sidewalk on north side. The bridge structure length is 24’±, the curb to curb width is 40’± with 5’-0”± wide sidewalk on the westbound lane of the road. The vertical under-clearance is approximately 10’ to the riverbed and approximately 2’ to the Mean High Water level.

The existing abutment consists of stone masonry wall and bridge seats. Existing wingwalls were constructed of stone masonry.

The reasons for replacement of the old bridge structure are due to its non-standard features, substandard superstructure load carrying capacity, and its deteriorated condition.

2.3 Proposed Bridge

The proposed replacement bridge is to be constructed at approximately the original location with similar alignment and profile as the existing bridge.

The design concept of the proposed single-span bridge structure can be found on the Bridge Plan Submittal prepared by Louis Berger Group. The proposed plan, elevation and section of the proposed bridge structure are included on Figures 5 to 7 of this report. The proposed bridge is also a single-span structure with one lane of traffic in each direction. It consists of 3” superpave wearing surface on 6” HP cement concrete deck slab composite with prestressed concrete deck beam S36-12. The proposed out-to-out width of the bridge is 57’-0” and the bridge structure length is 33’-8”.

The proposed bridge will be designed according to the current AASHTO LRFD requirements with a vehicular live loading of HL-93. The geotechnical design bearing values to be provided will be nominal geotechnical resistance and factored geotechnical resistance values.

2.4 References

The following references were used in the preparation of this report:

- MassDOT LRFD Bridge Manual, 2013 Edition.

- AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2017, 8th Edition.

- AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2011, 2nd Edition with

2012, 2014, and 2015 Interim Revisions.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Local Geology

Surficial geologic deposits consist of loose to very dense, sand materials. Bedrock is not encountered during the 2013 subsurface exploration program.

3.2 2013 Subsurface Exploration Program A subsurface exploration program consisting of two (2) test borings. Borings BB-1 and BB-2 was completed in Jun 2013. Borings BB-1 and BB-2 were conducted for the west abutment and east abutment, respectively. Boring BB-2 and BB-2 were located behind the existing abutments on eastbound lane and westbound lane, respectively. The logs of these borings are included in this report and on the longitudinal soil profile on the attached Figure 3.

The borings were conducted by New Hampshire Boring, Inc. of Brockton, Massachusetts, and the monitoring was performed by Lamson Engineering Corporation. Materials recorded on the boring logs are in general agreement with the observations by our engineers at the site. These engineers are also involved in the preparation of this report.

The soil samples were taken using a 2” outside diameter split spoon sampler driven 24” into soil by a 140-pound hammer free falling 30”. Per Standard Penetration Test requirements, blows per 6” were recorded. The materials at the site, as indicated by the obtained samples, are included on the attached boring logs and are also included on the soil profiles in Figures 3 & 4 of this report.

As indicated on the logs, the predominant materials at the site below west abutment and east abutment are comprised of very loose to loose to medium dense to dense and very dense fine sand materials. No peat or clay materials were found at the site during the exploration operation. For detailed information for each boring, refer to the log of each individual boring included in the Appendix 1 of this report.

3.3 Subsurface Profiles

The subsurface conditions, as reflected in the 2013 boring exploration results, are presented below.

Soil profiles of the site, based on the boring results, are included in Figure 3 and Figure 4 of the report.

Boring BB-1 (For West Abutment) Ground Surface is at Elevation 5.47’ Sample Depth (ft) Soil Description 1’ – 3’ Medium dense, Fine Sand 3’ – 5’ Loose, Fine Sand 5’ – 10’ Very loose, Fine Sand 10’ – 15’ Medium dense, Fine Sand 15’ – 30’ Loose, Fine Sand 30’ – 35’ Medium dense, Fine to Coarse Sand 35’ – 40’ Loose, Fine Sand 40’ – 95’ Medium dense, Fine Sand 95’ – 100’ Dense, Fine Sand 100’ – 105’ Medium dense, Fine Sand 105’ – 110’ Dense, Fine Sand 110’ – 115’ Very Dense, Fine Sand Ground water was recorded at a depth of 5’ (Elev. 0.47).

Boring BB-2 (For East Abutment) Ground Surface is at Elevation 5.46’ 1’ – 3’ Medium dense, Fine Sand 3’ – 5’ Loose, Fine Sand 5’ – 10’ Very loose, Fine Sand 10’ – 30’ Loose, Fine Sand 30’ – 35’ Medium dense, Fine to Coarse Sand 35’ – 50’ Loose, Fine Sand 50’ – 60’ Very loose, Fine Sand 60’ – 65’ Medium dense, Fine Sand Ground water was recorded at a depth of 5’ (Elev. 0.46).

3.3 Loose Soils Information

Loose soils are encountered in both borings. Their information is included in Table 3.3 below:

Table 3.3: Loose Soils Information

Boring No.

Ground Elevation Depth from Existing Ground Layer

Thickness

* Blow Count per Foot

Materials

BB-1 Elev. 5.47 3’ to 5’ (Elev. 2.47 to Elev. 0.47) 2’ 4 Loose, Fine

Sand 5’ to 10’

(Elev. 0.47 to Elev. -4.53) 5’ 2 Very loose, Fine Sand

15’ to 30’ (Elev. -9.53 – Elev. -24.53) 15’ 8 to 10 Loose, Fine

Sand 35’ to 40’

(Elev. -29.53 – Elev. -34.53) 5’ 8 Loose, Fine

Sand BB-2 Elev. 5.46 3’ to 5’

(Elev. 2.46 to Elev. 0.46) 2’ 8 Loose, Fine Sand

5’ to 10’ (Elev. 0.46 to Elev. -4.54) 5’ 1 Very loose, Fine Sand 10’ to 30’

(Elev. -4.54 to Elev. -24.54) 20’ 5 to 10 Loose, Fine Sand

35’ to 50’ (Elev. -29.54 to Elev. -44.54)

15’ 5 to 8 Loose, Fine Sand

50’ – 60’ (Elev. -44.54 – Elev. -54.54)

10’ 3 to 4 Very Loose, Fine Sand

* “Very Loose” = Uncorrected blow count per foot less than 4 “Loose” = Uncorrected blow count per foot between 4 and 10

3.5 Groundwater Information

The groundwater information obtained from the borings operation is summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 3.5: Groundwater Information

Boring No. Surface Elevation (ft)

Depth of Boring (ft)

Ground Water Depth (ft)

Ground Water Elevation (ft)

BB-1 5.47 115 5 0.47

BB-2 5.46 65 5 0.46

Based on the logs, groundwater information can be obtained. The groundwater level is likely to be affected by the Parkers River surface water elevations. However, the obtained groundwater information from the washed boring operation is not accurate. It is presented above for preliminary reference only. The mean high water from Parkers River is used for design.

The mean high water is at Elev. 1.7 for downstream.

3.8 Seismic Design Category Evaluation

Based on the 2013 MassDOT Bridge Manual 3.4.1, all seismic analysis and design of bridges shall be performed in accordance with the ‘AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design’.

Based on 2011 Guide Specifications, Table 3.4.2.1-1 (same as AASHTO Table 3.10.3.1-1) for site soil type and profile, the site class is E (Fpga = 2.5, Fa = 2.5, Fv = 3.5). With these results and Appendix 3, ‘USGS Seismic Hazard Map for the 2,500-year return period’, the following can be obtained:

Acceleration Coefficient (As) = 0.160g Design Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at 0.2-sec Period (SDS) = 0.275g Design Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at 1.0-sec Period (SD1) = 0.149g

Since SD1 is less than 0.15g, the Seismic Design Category (SDC) is A. This is based on Guide Specifications Table 3.5-1 (same as AASHTO Table 4.7.4.3.1-1).

3.9 Liquefaction Potential

A liquefaction assessment is not required for structures in Seismic Design Category (SDC) A. The proposed piles are not susceptible to the seismic soil liquefaction effect since the piles are driven deep into medium dense sand materials. Therefore, the foundations are not susceptible to the seismic soil liquefaction effect.

4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION

4.1 Proposed Bridge Foundation

Shallow Foundation One foundation option for support of the replacement bridge is shallow spread footings. The footing would be supported on sand at approximately elevation -4.13 which is similar to the existing foudantion.

As shown in Borings BB-1 and BB-2 in the Appendix 1 and the soil profile in Figures 3 & 4 of this report, there are layers of very loose fine sand below the existing bottom of footing elevation. These materials are not suitable to be used as bearing materials for the proposed bridge.

In addition, according to the Hydraulic Report, the maximum scour depth at the bridge is estimated to be 22.5’ (Elev. -28.9 +/-). This scour depth is significantly lower than the bottom of spread footings for the replacement bridge.

Therefore, considering the presence of poor materials for foundation support and the potential impact of scour, it is recommended that shallow foundation not be considered.

Deep Foundation Deep foundations, such as piles, are suitable to support the proposed bridge loads. Piles will carry loads through the loose fine sand materials to competent materials below. Based on the information shown on the boring logs, the proposed single-span superstructure can be supported by the proposed integral abutment on one row of steel piles HP12x84, Grade 50.

The bottom of pile cap for the both abutments is estimated at Elev.-9.4. The estimated pile tip is at approximately Elev.-102.0. Piles driven in soil must be deeper than the design point of fixity at Elev.-

46.4. Based on the 2013 boring logs, the piles are driven into medium dense sand materials. These are competent materials capable of supporting the proposed bridge superstructure. The factored geotechnical resistance values for both abutments are included in Section 6 and Appendix 2 of the report.

4.2 Pile Foundation Design Parameters

Factored Structural Pile Resistance We recommend 245 kips for the factored structural vertical pile resistance per pile. The recommended resistance value is a product of the nominal structural axial pile resistance of 491 kips and a resistance factor of 0.5. For conservative purposes, a 1/16” future section loss around the pile was assumed for any future pile deterioration or corrosion.

Factored Geotechnical Pile Resistance We recommend the factored geotechnical vertical pile resistance be 150 kips. With a recommended resistance factor of 0.45, the nominal geotechnical vertical pile resistance is 333 kips.

We recommend that the Contractor perform the Wave Equation Analysis Program (WEAP), based on his driving equipment, to establish the required pile resistance for the Engineer’s review. The related Standard Specifications on this matter can be found in Section 940.61.

Load Test We recommend a ‘Static – Cyclic (Express) Load Test’ (Item 948.31) and a ‘Dynamic Load Testing by Contractor’ (Item 948.41) be performed on a sacrificial pile prior to ordering of production piles (Per Standard Specifications Article 940.63). The minimum number of sacrificial pile should be one for this bridge, but no less than 2% of production piles. The sacrificial pile shall be located at a minimum of 5 feet but preferably no greater than 15 feet from the nearest production pile. It is recommended that the sacrificial pile be located at the southwest corner of the bridge.

We also recommend another ‘Dynamic Load Testing by Contractor’ (Item 948.41) be performed on the first production pile at the other end but on the opposite abutment of the sacrificial pile, meaning that the tested production pile is located at the northeast corner of the bridge..

Table 4.2: Load Test

Pile Type Location of Testing Pile

No. of Testing

Pile

Static-Cyclic (Express) Load Test

(Item 948.31)

Dynamic Load Testing by Contractor (Item 948.41)

Remark

Sacrificial Pile

West Abut., South End 1 1 1

Prior to ordering of production piles

Production Pile

East Abut., North End 1 - 1

1st production pile for East Abutment

Pile Tip Elevation Piles should be driven through the loose Fine Sand layer. The estimated pile tip elevation is at approximately Elev.-102.0. It is recommended that the Contractor provide extra pile length to account for any variations of the actual pile tip elevation in the field.

Resistance Factor and Pile Length Discussion A resistance factor of 0.45 was used in the calculations of this Report. The method utilized to analyze the pile axial capacity was Driven, a static method based on Nordland. The proposed driven piles derive their resistance through soil skin friction. Therefore, in accordance with AASHTO (2017, 8th Edition), Table 10.5.5.2.3-1, the resistance factor for this static analysis is 0.45. Per AASHTO, a resistance factor of 0.65 should be utilized during dynamic analysis design, such as utilizing PDA during a preliminary pile testing program. Per AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1, a resistance factor of

0.80 is recommended if dynamic load tests and static load tests are conducted prior to ordering and driving production piles. The differences (i.e. shorter pile lengths) are to be resolved during construction.

Settlement The materials below steel piles are medium dense to very dense sand materials. The elastic settlement is likely to be approximately 0.9”. This settlement is small and will be completed upon application of loads. There is no long term consolidation settlement involved.

Spacing: The minimum pile spacing should not be less than 3’-6”, and the maximum pile spacing shall be 10’-0”.

Battered Piles: There are no battered pile for integral abutment.

Embedment: The piles shall be embedded at a minimum 24” into a concrete cap/foundation.

Edge Distance: The minimum and maximum distances between the centerline of pile and edge of concrete abutment, measured along the skew, shall be 18” and 3’-0”, respectively.

Pile Location Tolerance: Prior to driving, each pile is held by template to within 1” of the plan location. After driving, the top of the pile shall be within 3” of the plan dimension.

Pile Tip Reinforcement: Pile Shoe should be used for each pile. The related Item number is 948.5.

Pile Splice Pile splice may be needed for this project. The splices, if needed, should be performed according to the details shown on MassDOT Bridge Manual Drawing Number 3.6.8 and these pile splice details should be shown on the final plans.

Pile Corrosion Protection It is our opinion that pile corrosion protection is not needed due to the following reasons: a.) In our analysis, a 1/16” sacrificial section loss around the proposed pile cross section is assumed in the calculations. b.) The top portion of the pile pre-drilled hole is backfilled with crushed stone, eliminating the direct contact of any corrosive agent, if any, from the steel pile.

Pile Setup & Restrike Pile setup is an increase in the nominal axial resistance that develops over time predominantly along the pile shaft. Pore pressures increase during pile driving due to a reduction of the soil volume, reducing the effective stress and the shear strength. Setup may occur rapidly in cohesionless soils and more slowly in finer grained soils as excess pore water pressures dissipate.

According to AASHTO Article 10.7.3.4.3, setup in the nominal axial resistance may be used to support the applied load. Where increase in resistance due to setup is utilized, the existence of setup shall be verified after two (2) days by re-striking the pile.

Where practicable, piles shall be driven continuously first to an elevation that is equal to or greater than the design point of fixity, then to the factored driven resistance that is equal to or greater than the factored axial resistance. When the continuous installation of a pile has been stopped for any reason, the pile advancement shall be started in a manner which will not damage the pile. Any pile restarted shall be advanced no less than three (3) inches before determining the final driving resistance.

Pile Group Effect Based on the Stantec provided proposed plan with pile spacing and configuration information, a group reduction factor of 0.95 (P-multiplier) is considered in the lateral analysis.

Downdrag It is expected that there is no downdrag problem on the axial pile capacity since there is no soft clay, peat, drawdown of water table, etc. factors causing the negative skin friction on the abutment piles.

Lateral Pile Analysis Lateral pile analysis was performed using the LPILE computer program for east abutment. Based on the analysis, the design point of fixity is at Elev. -46.4. This elevation is much higher than the estimated pile tip elevations.

4.3 Abutment Wall & Wingwall Design Parameters

The related parameters at the back of the proposed walls for design are as follows:

Moist Unit Weight of Soil = 120 pcf Soil Friction Angle = 32 Active Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient = 0.275 At-Rest lateral Soil Pressure Coefficient = 0.470

Seismic Active Pressure Coefficient = 0.375 Resistance Factor for Sliding for Cast in Place Concrete on Sand = 0.8 (Based on AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1)

Unreinforced embankment slope should in general be no steeper than 1:2 (V:H).

Lateral earth pressure values used for design shall be in conformance with massDOT BM 3.1.6. 4” diameter weep holes shall be used behind the proposed retaining walls at 10’ maximum on center to minimize hydrostatic pressure on the back of the walls.

4.4 Soil Parameters

Based on the information on the boring logs, the following soil parameters are recommended:

Table 4.4: Recommended Soil Parameters

Soil below Integral

Abutment

Total Soil Unit Weight, Soil Friction Angle, f

Soil Modulus for Sand, k

(lb/in3) Very Loose to Loose, Fine

Sand 110 pcf 28° 30

Medium Dense, Fine Sand 120 pcf 32° 60

Other applicable parameters are also included in the attached calculations

4.5 Proposed Steel Sheeting

Steel sheeting is needed in front of the proposed abutments for scour countermeasure and temporary support system during stage construction. The final top of sheeting cut off elevation is at Elev. -8.4.

The proposed steel sheeting can be used to retain the soil during the stage construction under the 2-year scour effect. The steel sheeting will serve as the scour countermeasure for the proposed substructure after cutting down to its final top of sheeting elevation.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Water Control

The bottom of proposed precast integral abutments will be located below the ground water elevation, behind existing abutments and temporary cofferdam system to allow work to be completed in the dry.

The dewatering will consist of a pump to remove water from the areas of excavation during the construction. The method of dewatering will depend on the time of year the work is performed, size of the open excavation, and the length of time the excavation is left open.

Water levels recorded on the field logs were not accurate due to the washed boring operation.

The following factors should be taken into consideration for the recorded water level:

• Groundwater levels obtained from boring exploration operation are generally not reliable and are provided for reference only.

• Groundwater level fluctuates over time due to tidal and seasonal changes.

• The Groundwater level is likely to be influenced by the water level of the Parkers River.

Water control can be handled by means of cofferdam installation and pumping operation, and it must satisfy the MassDOT Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges, Section 140.60, E, Water Control in Foundation Area. Furthermore, cofferdam seal at the bottom of excavation, if needed, should be detailed per requirements of Mass DOT Bridge Manual Drawing Number 3.6.9.

5.2 Temporary Earth Support System

A temporary cofferdam system is expected to be needed. It shall be designed by Contractor in accordance with the Standard Specifications Section 950, ‘Sheeting’. The sheeting is expected to serve as temporary cofferdam system during stage construction. At the final stage, the top of the sheeting will be cut down to Elev.-8.6 and left as permanent scour countermeasure for the proposed substructure.

5.3 Utilities

There are underground water main and gas main, and overhead electric lines near the bridge. The contractor should ensure that all existing utilities are relocated prior to the proposed foundation construction.

5.4 Obstructions

Underground utilities, and unknown previous construction materials are potential obstruction materials that may be encountered at the site during construction.

6.0 SUMMARY

6.1 Integral Abutments (12 piles, 1 Row of Piles, Pm = 0.95)

Steel Piles, HP 12x84, Grade 50 (Consider 1/16” Future Section Loss)

Nominal Structural Pile Resistance = 491 kips

Structural Resistance Factor = 0.50

Factored Structural Pile Resistance = 245 kips

Nominal Geotechnical Pile Resistance = 333 kips

Resistance Factor = 0.45

Factored Geotechnical Pile Resistance = 150 kips

Bottom of Pile Cap = Elev. -9.4

Design Point of Fixity = Elev. -46.4

Estimated Pile Tip = Elev. -102.0

Table: Pile-Head Deflection and Service Lateral Load Resistance – Fixed Head

Pile-Head Deflection Service Lateral Resistance per Pile

0.25” 1.25 kips

0.5” 2.55 kips

0.75” 3.80 kips

1.0” 5.05 kips

FIGURES

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG. 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY LAMSON ENGINEERING CORP. NEWTON, MASS.

AutoCAD SHX Text LOUIS BERGER GROUP BRIDGE NO. Y-01-002 ROUTE 28 (MAIN STREET) OVER PARKERS RIVER YARMOUTH, MA

AutoCAD SHX Text

YARMOUTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

BOSTON

AutoCAD SHX Text N

PROJECT LOCATION NOT TO SCALE

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

AS-DRILLED 2013 BORING LOCATION PLAN NOT TO SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG. 2

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY LAMSON ENGINEERING CORP. NEWTON, MASS.

AutoCAD SHX Text LOUIS BERGER GROUP BRIDGE NO. Y-01-002 ROUTE 28 (MAIN STREET) OVER PARKERS RIVER YARMOUTH, MA

AutoCAD SHX Text

BB-1

BB-2

BB-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text -10

AutoCAD SHX Text -20

AutoCAD SHX Text -30

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEVATION (FT)

AutoCAD SHX Text Boring Location and Identification

AutoCAD SHX Text

BB-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text N Value (Blows/12")

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER TABLE

AutoCAD SHX Text

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text N 2,699,754 E 1,005,041

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEV. 5.47

AutoCAD SHX Text -40

AutoCAD SHX Text -50

AutoCAD SHX Text -60

AutoCAD SHX Text -70

AutoCAD SHX Text -80

AutoCAD SHX Text -90

AutoCAD SHX Text -100

AutoCAD SHX Text -110

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

BB-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text N 2,699,785 E 1,005,062

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEV. 5.46

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

BEARING WEST ABUT. STA. 138+73.64

AutoCAD SHX Text

BEARING EAST ABUT. STA. 139+07.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOP OF EXISTING ROADWAY SURFACE

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER TABLE ELEV. 0.47

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER TABLE ELEV. 0.46

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERY LOOSE TO LOOSE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text NOTES: 1. NUMBER IN COLUMNS INDICATE NUMBER OF BLOWS PER 12" ON A 2" SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER PRODUCED BY A 30 INCH FALL OF A 140 LB HAMMER. 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON 1988 ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON 1988 NAVD DATUM.

AutoCAD SHX Text

SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERY LOOSE TO LOOSE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text GENERAL NOTE: SOIL MATERIALS SHOWN BETWEEN BORINGS ARE PRELIMINARY BASED ON CONDUCTED BORINGS INFORMATION, AND THEY ARE NOT GUARANTEED TO BE THE MATERIALS TO BE ENCOUNTERED AT THE SITE.

AutoCAD SHX Text

ESTIMATED PILE TIP ELEV. -102.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

ESTIMATED SHEETING TIP ELEV. -56.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

SOIL PROFILE - PICTORIAL VIEW SCALE: " = 1'-0"116" = 1'-0"

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG. 3

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY LAMSON ENGINEERING CORP. NEWTON, MASS.

LOUIS BERGER GROUP BRIDGE NO. Y-01-002 ROUTE 28 (MAIN STREET) OVER PARKERS RIVER YARMOUTH, MA

BB-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

MEDIUM DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text -10

AutoCAD SHX Text -20

AutoCAD SHX Text -30

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEVATION (FT) - BASED ON 1988 NAVD

AutoCAD SHX Text Boring Location and Identification

AutoCAD SHX Text

BB-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text N Value (Blows/12")

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER TABLE

AutoCAD SHX Text

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text N 2,699,754 E 1,005,041

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEV. 5.47

AutoCAD SHX Text -40

AutoCAD SHX Text -50

AutoCAD SHX Text -60

AutoCAD SHX Text -70

AutoCAD SHX Text -80

AutoCAD SHX Text -90

AutoCAD SHX Text -100

AutoCAD SHX Text -110

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERY LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

MEDIUM DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

MEDIUM DENSE, COARSE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

MEDIUM DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

MEDIUM DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERY DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

BB-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

MEDIUM DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text N 2,699,785 E 1,005,062

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEV. 5.46

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERY LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERY LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

MEDIUM DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

BEARING WEST ABUT. STA. 138+73.64

AutoCAD SHX Text

BEARING EAST ABUT. STA. 139+07.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

ESTIMATED PILE TIP ELEV. -102.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

MEDIUM DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

MEDIUM DENSE, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, FINE TO COARSE SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, COARSE SAND, COARSE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOSE, FINE SAND, FINE SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOP OF EXISTING ROADWAY SURFACE

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOP OF EXISTING ROADWAY SURFACE

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER TABLE ELEV. 0.47

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER TABLE ELEV. 0.46

AutoCAD SHX Text NOTES: 1. NUMBER IN COLUMNS INDICATE NUMBER OF BLOWS PER 12" ON A 2" SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER PRODUCED BY A 30 INCH FALL OF A 140 LB HAMMER. 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON 1988 NAVD ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON 1988 NAVD DATUM.

AutoCAD SHX Text

ESTIMATED SHEETING TIP ELEV. -56.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

SOIL PROFILE - DESCRIPTIVE VIEW SCALE: " = 1'-0"116" = 1'-0"

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG. 4

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY LAMSON ENGINEERING CORP. NEWTON, MASS.

PROPOSED BRIDGE PLAN SCALE: " = 1'-0"18" = 1'-0"

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG. 5

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY LAMSON ENGINEERING CORP. NEWTON, MASS.

PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSS SECTION SCALE: " = 1'-0"18" = 1'-0"

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG. 6

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY LAMSON ENGINEERING CORP. NEWTON, MASS.

PROPOSED BRIDGE ELEVATION SCALE: " = 1'-0"18" = 1'-0"

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG. 7

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY LAMSON ENGINEERING CORP. NEWTON, MASS.

CONSTRUCTION PHASES SCALE: " = 1'-0"18" = 1'-0"

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG. 8

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY LAMSON ENGINEERING CORP. NEWTON, MASS.

APPENDIX 1

2013 Subsurface Exploration Results

Note:

- The 2013 exploration results are for borings BB-1 & BB-2.

- For locations of the boring on plan, see Figure 2.

Sheet of1 of 5 Boring No. BB-1

PROJECT NAME: Rt. 28 over Parkers River

Inspector's Name (Print): J. J. Li & S. Saelim Inspector's Company: Lamson Engineering

0-6 6-12 12-18

S-1 1-3 9 7 7 6 10 Dry, medium dense, brown, FINE SAND, trace coarse sand

S-2 3-5 5 2 2 2 16 Wet, loose, brown, FINE SAND, trace medium sand

S-3 8-10 2 2 1 1 6 Wet, loose, brown, FINE SAND, some medium sand, trace coarse sand

S-4 13-15 8 5 7 8 4 Wet, medium dense, light brown, FINE SAND, some coarse sand, trace medium sand

S-5 18-20 5 4 5 6 6 Wet, loose, light brown, FINE SAND, some medium sand, trace coarse sand

S-6 23-25 5 3 4 5 6 Wet, loose, light brown, FINE SAND, some medium sand

Remarks: 4 signs 40 cones

AUGER SIZE:

HW/NW

CASING SIZE: 4" & 3"

SPLIT SPOON SIZE: 2"

DRILL RIG TYPE: D-90

Hard

Very Dense

Client Name

Lamson Engineering Corp.

New Hampshire Boring, Inc.

1215 W. Chestnut Street

Brockton, MA 02301

Stiff

Very StiffOver 50

Very Loose

Loose

N = Sum of Second and Third 6" Blow Counts

Field Description

8 - 15

15 - 30

Over 30

Dense

Relative Density Penetration Resistance

Cohesionless Soils (Sands, Gravels)

Medium Dense

0 - 4

4 - 10

10 - 30

18-24

Date & Time Started

Blow Counts per 6 Inches

DRILLER: Donald Dunklee

Ground Elevation: 5.47

HELPER: Tyler Lancaster

30 - 50

4 - 8

Consistency

Very Soft

Soft

Medium Stiff

NHB JOB NUMBER: PRKRSRIVERPLMDESFY13

City/Town: Yarmouth, MA

Groundwater Depth (Feet): 5' Date & Time: 6/18/13; 9:00pm

Location: 691 Main Street Total Hours WorkedDate & Time Completed

6/17/13; 9:00 pm 6/19/13; 5:00 am 16 Hours

Terms Used for Second Entry of Descriptions: and = 40-50%, some = 10-40%, trace = 10% or less

Sample

Number

Recovery

(inches)

Strata

Changes

Depth Range

(Feet)

Penetration Resistance (N) Guide

Cohesive Soils (Silts, Clays)

Penetration Resistance

0 - 2

2 - 4

Sheet of2 of 5 Boring No. BB-1

Inspector's Name (Print): J. J. Li & S. Saelim Inspector's Company: Lamson Engineering

0-6 6-12 12-18

S-7 28-30 4 4 6 6 8 Wet, medium dense, brown, MEDIUM SAND and FINE

SAND, trace coarse sand

S-8 33-35 5 6 6 5 8 Wet, medium dense, brown, MEDIUM SAND and FINE

SAND, trace coarse sand

S-9 38-40 2 3 5 6 12 We, loose, gray, FINE SAND

S-10 43-45 4 5 6 8 10 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-11 48-50 3 3 5 6 14 Wet, loose, gray, FINE SAND

Remarks:

AUGER SIZE:

HW/NW

CASING SIZE: 4" & 3"

SPLIT SPOON SIZE: 2"

DRILL RIG TYPE: D-90

N = Sum of Second and Third 6" Blow Counts Terms Used for Second Entry of Descriptions: and = 40-50%, some = 10-40%, trace = 10% or less

Very Dense Over 50 Very Stiff 15 - 30

Hard Over 30

Medium Dense 10 - 30 Medium Stiff 4 - 8

Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15

Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 2

Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 4

Penetration Resistance (N) Guide

Cohesionless Soils (Sands, Gravels) Cohesive Soils (Silts, Clays)

Relative Density Penetration Resistance Consistency Penetration Resistance

DRILLER: Donald Dunklee HELPER: Tyler Lancaster

Ground Elevation: 5.47

Sample

Number

Depth Range

(Feet)

Blow Counts per 6 Inches Recovery

(inches) Field Description

Strata

Changes 18-24

Location: 691 Main Street Date & Time Started Date & Time Completed Total Hours Worked

Groundwater Depth (Feet): 5' Date & Time: 6/18/13; 9:00pm 6/17/13; 9:00 pm 6/19/13; 5:00 am 16 Hours

Client Name

New Hampshire Boring, Inc.

1215 W. Chestnut Street

Brockton, MA 02301

Lamson Engineering Corp. NHB JOB NUMBER: PRKRSRIVERPLMDESFY13

City/Town: Yarmouth, MA

Sheet of3 of 5 Boring No. BB-1

Inspector's Name (Print): J. J. Li & S. Saelim Inspector's Company: Lamson Engineering

0-6 6-12 12-18

S-12 53-55 3 6 7 9 14 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-13 58-60 6 6 11 9 12 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-14 63-65 6 5 8 7 12 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-15 69-70 3 4 6 6 12 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-16 73-75 6 7 8 9 18 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

Remarks:

AUGER SIZE:

HW/NW

CASING SIZE: 4" & 3"

SPLIT SPOON SIZE: 2"

DRILL RIG TYPE: D-90

N = Sum of Second and Third 6" Blow Counts Terms Used for Second Entry of Descriptions: and = 40-50%, some = 10-40%, trace = 10% or less

Very Dense Over 50 Very Stiff 15 - 30

Hard Over 30

Medium Dense 10 - 30 Medium Stiff 4 - 8

Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15

Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 2

Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 4

Strata

Changes18-24

Penetration Resistance (N) Guide

Cohesionless Soils (Sands, Gravels) Cohesive Soils (Silts, Clays)

Relative Density Penetration Resistance Consistency Penetration Resistance

Ground Elevation: 5.47

Sample

Number

Depth Range

(Feet)

Blow Counts per 6 Inches Recovery

(inches) Field Description

Groundwater Depth (Feet): 5' Date & Time: 6/18/13; 9:00pm 6/17/13; 9:00 pm 6/19/13; 5:00 am 16 Hours

DRILLER: Donald Dunklee HELPER: Tyler Lancaster

City/Town: Yarmouth, MA

Location: 691 Main Street Date & Time Started Date & Time Completed Total Hours Worked

Client Name New Hampshire Boring, Inc.

1215 W. Chestnut Street

Brockton, MA 02301

Sheet of4 of 5 Boring No. BB-1

Inspector's Name (Print): J. J. Li & S. Saelim Inspector's Company: Lamson Engineering

0-6 6-12 12-18

S-17 78-80 8 9 9 14 10 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-18 83-85 9 11 17 14 18 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-19 88-90 8 9 10 13 14 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-20 93-95 9 14 18 21 18 Wet, dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-21 98-100 10 12 14 20 16 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

Remarks:

AUGER SIZE:

HW/NW

CASING SIZE: 4" & 3"

SPLIT SPOON SIZE: 2"

DRILL RIG TYPE: D-90

N = Sum of Second and Third 6" Blow Counts Terms Used for Second Entry of Descriptions: and = 40-50%, some = 10-40%, trace = 10% or less

Very Dense Over 50 Very Stiff 15 - 30

Hard Over 30

Medium Dense 10 - 30 Medium Stiff 4 - 8

Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15

Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 2

Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 4

Strata

Changes18-24

Penetration Resistance (N) Guide

Cohesionless Soils (Sands, Gravels) Cohesive Soils (Silts, Clays)

Relative Density Penetration Resistance Consistency Penetration Resistance

Ground Elevation: 5.47

Sample

Number

Depth Range

(Feet)

Blow Counts per 6 Inches Recovery

(inches) Field Description

Groundwater Depth (Feet): 5' Date & Time: 6/18/13; 9:00pm 6/17/13; 9:00 pm 6/19/13; 5:00 am 16 Hours

DRILLER: Donald Dunklee HELPER: Tyler Lancaster

City/Town: Yarmouth, MA

Location: 691 Main Street Date & Time Started Date & Time Completed Total Hours Worked

Client Name New Hampshire Boring, Inc.

1215 W. Chestnut Street

Sheet of5 of 5 Boring No. BB-1

Inspector's Name (Print): J. J. Li & S. Saelim Inspector's Company: Lamson Engineering

0-6 6-12 12-18

S-22 103-105 14 16 18 18 12 Wet, dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-23 108-110 7 10 14 16 16 Wet, medium dense, gray, FINE SAND

S-24 113-115 18 28 33 39 24 Wet, very dense, gray, FINE SAND

BOE 115'

Remarks:

AUGER SIZE:

HW/NW

CASING SIZE: 4" & 3"

SPLIT SPOON SIZE: 2"

DRILL RIG TYPE: D-90

N = Sum of Second and Third 6" Blow Counts Terms Used for Second Entry of Descriptions: and = 40-50%, some = 10-40%, trace = 10% or less

Very Dense Over 50 Very Stiff 15 - 30

Hard Over 30

Medium Dense 10 - 30 Medium Stiff 4 - 8

Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15

Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 2

Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 4

Strata

Changes18-24

Penetration Resistance (N) Guide

Cohesionless Soils (Sands, Gravels) Cohesive Soils (Silts, Clays)

Relative Density Penetration Resistance Consistency Penetration Resistance

Ground Elevation: 5.47

Sample

Number

Depth Range

(Feet)

Blow Counts per 6 Inches Recovery

(inches) Field Description

Groundwater Depth (Feet): 5' Date & Time: 6/18/13; 9:00pm 6/17/13; 9:00 pm 6/19/13; 5:00 am 16 Hours

DRILLER: Donald Dunklee HELPER: Tyler Lancaster

City/Town: Yarmouth, MA

Location: 691 Main Street Date & Time Started Date & Time Completed Total Hours Worked

Client Name New Hampshire Boring, Inc.

1215 W. Chestnut Street

Sheet of1 of 3 Boring No. BB-2

Inspector's Name (Print): Suthichai Saelim Inspector's Company: Lamson Engineering

0-6 6-12 12-18

S-1 1-3 5 9 10 17 14 Dry, medium dense, light brown, FINE SAND, trace medium sand

S-2 3-5 8 4 4 6 4 Dry, loose, dark brown, FINE SAND, some coarse sand, trace fine gravel

S-3 8-10 2 1-1' 0 2 8 Wet, very loose, gray, FINE SAND, trace medium sand

S-4 13-15 4 4 6 6 8 Wet, loose, light brown, FINE SAND, some medium sand

S-5 18-20 6 4 4 7 10 Wet, loose, light brown, MEDIUM SAND, some fine gravel

S-6 23-25 3 3 6 7 4 Wet, loose, light brown, MEDIUM SAND, some coarse sand, trace fine sand

Remarks: 4 Signs 40 Cones

AUGER SIZE:

HW/NW

CASING SIZE: 4" & 3"

SPLIT SPOON SIZE: 2"

DRILL RIG TYPE: D-90

Terms Used for Second Entry of Descriptions: and = 40-50%, some = 10-40%, trace = 10% or less

Sample

Number

Recovery

(inches)

Strata

Changes

Depth Range

(Feet)

Penetration Resistance (N) Guide

Cohesive Soils (Silts, Clays)

Penetration Resistance

0 - 2

2 - 4

NHB JOB NUMBER: PRKRSRIVERPLMDESFY13

City/Town: Yarmouth, MA

Groundwater Depth (Feet): 5' Date & Time: 6/19/13

Location: 700 Main Street Total Hours WorkedDate & Time Completed

6/19/2013; 9:00pm 6/20/2013; 5:00am 8 Hours

30 - 50

4 - 8

Consistency

Very Soft

Soft

Medium StiffMedium Dense

0 - 4

4 - 10

10 - 30

18-24

Date & Time Started

Blow Counts per 6 Inches

DRILLER: Donald Dunklee

Ground Elevation: 5.46

HELPER: Tyler Lancaster

N = Sum of Second and Third 6" Blow Counts

Field Description

8 - 15

15 - 30

Over 30

Dense

Relative Density Penetration Resistance

Cohesionless Soils (Sands, Gravels)

Hard

Very Dense

Client Name

Lamson Engineering Corp.

New Hampshire Boring, Inc.

1215 W. Chestnut Street

Brockton, MA 02301

Stiff

Very StiffOver 50

Very Loose

Loose

Sheet of2 of 3 Boring No. BB-2

Inspector's Name (Print): Suthichai Saelim Inspector's Company: Lamson Engineering

0-6 6-12 12-18

S-7 28-30 2 2 3 3 4 Wet, loose, light brown, MEDIUM SAND and COARSE

SAND, trace fine sand

S-8 33-35 2 2 3 5 4 Wet, loose, brown, COARSE SAND, some medium sand, trace fine gravel

S-9 38-40 2 3 3 4 14 Wet, loose, gray, FINE SAND

S-10 43-45 3 2 4 4 16 Wet, loose, gray, FINE SAND

S-11 48-50 4 3 5 6 12 Wet, loose, gray, FINE SAND

Remarks:

AUGER SIZE:

HW/NW

CASING SIZE: 4" & 3"

SPLIT SPOON SIZE: 2"

DRILL RIG TYPE: D-90

Client Name

New Hampshire Boring, Inc.

1215 W. Chestnut Street

Brockton, MA 02301

Lamson Engineering Corp. NHB JOB NUMBER: PRKRSRIVERPLMDESFY13

City/Town: Yarmouth, MA

Location: 700 Main Street Date & Time Started Date & Time Completed Total Hours Worked

Groundwater Depth (Feet): 5' Date & Time: 6/19/13 6/19/2013; 9:00pm 6/20/2013; 5:00am 8 Hours

DRILLER: Donald Dunklee HELPER: Tyler Lancaster

Ground Elevation: 5.46

Sample

Number

Depth Range

(Feet)

Blow Counts per 6 Inches Recovery

(inches) Field Description

Strata

Changes 18-24

Penetration Resistance (N) Guide

Cohesionless Soils (Sands, Gravels) Cohesive Soils (Silts, Clays)

Relative Density Penetration Resistance Consistency Penetration Resistance

Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 2

Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 4

Medium Dense 10 - 30 Medium Stiff 4 - 8

Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15

Very Dense Over 50 Very Stiff 15 - 30

Hard Over 30

N = Sum of Second and Third 6" Blow Counts Terms Used for Second Entry of Descriptions: and = 40-50%, some = 10-40%, trace = 10% or less

Sheet of3 of 3 Boring No. BB-2

Inspector's Name (Print): Suthichai Saelim Inspector's Company: Lamson Engineering

0-6 6-12 12-18

S-12 53-55 3 2 1 5 10 Wet, very loose, tan, FINE SAND

S-13 58-60 3 2 2 3 10 Wet, very loose, gray, FINE SAND

S-14 63-65 3 5 6 5 14 Wet, medium dense, tan, FINE SAND

BOE 65'

Remarks:

AUGER SIZE:

HW/NW

CASING SIZE: 4" & 3"

SPLIT SPOON SIZE: 2"

DRILL RIG TYPE: D-90

Client Name New Hampshire Boring, Inc.

1215 W. Chestnut Street

Brockton, MA 02301

Lamson Engineering Corp. NHB JOB NUMBER: PRKRSRIVERPLMDESFY13

City/Town: Yarmouth, MA

Location: 700 Main Street Date & Time Started Date & Time Completed Total Hours Worked

Groundwater Depth (Feet): 5' Date & Time: 6/19/13 6/19/2013; 9:00pm 6/20/2013; 5:00am 8 Hours

DRILLER: Donald Dunklee HELPER: Tyler Lancaster

Ground Elevation: 5.46

Sample

Number

Depth Range

(Feet)

Blow Counts per 6 Inches Recovery

(inches) Field Description

Strata

Changes18-24

Penetration Resistance (N) Guide

Cohesionless Soils (Sands, Gravels) Cohesive Soils (Silts, Clays)

Relative Density Penetration Resistance Consistency Penetration Resistance

Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 2

Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 4

Medium Dense 10 - 30 Medium Stiff 4 - 8

Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15

N = Sum of Second and Third 6" Blow Counts Terms Used for Second Entry of Descriptions: and = 40-50%, some = 10-40%, trace = 10% or less

Very Dense Over 50 Very Stiff 15 - 30

Hard Over 30

APPENDIX 2

Calculations

Calculations Index

Description Page

Summary 1

Steel Pile Design

Pile Model 2

Structural Pile Resistance 3

Geotechnical Pile Resistance 4

L-Pile Analysis 10

Pile Settlement 26

Steel Sheeting Design 30

APPENDIX 3

Seismic Design Maps

(5 Sheets)

LAMSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION Final Page No.:

Project: Bridge No. Y-01-002, Yarmouth Job No.: Preliminary Sheet No.:

Subject: Seismic Calculations Prepared by: JJL Date: 5/2016 Detail: N1 blow count & Seismic Design Coefficients Checked by: Date: 5/2016

BB-1

Depth Soil N Ave. N d i d i / N i ft Layer blows/ft blows/ft ft ft2/blow

1.00 14

5.00 4

10.00 3

15.00 12

20.00 9

25.00 7

30.00 10

35.00 12

40.00 8

45.00 11

50.00 8

55.00 13

60.00 17

65.00 13

70.00 10

75.00 15

80.00 18

85.00 28

90.00 19

95.00 32

100.00 26

105.00 34

110.00 24

115.00 61

Sum 115 15

= < 15

Therefore, the site class is E per Table 3.4.2.1-1 of AASHTO Guide Specification.

From Appendix 3:

PGA = 0.064 g Ss = 0.11 g S1 = 0.0425 g

Per Tables 3.4.2.3-1 & 3.4.2.3-2 of AASHTO Guide Specification

Fpga = 2.5 Fa = 2.5 Fv = 3.5

1 12 90 7

2 35 25 7

Ground Surface Elev. 5.47

�𝑁𝑁

LAMSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION Final Page No.:

Project: Bridge No. Y-01-002, Yarmouth Job No.: Preliminary Sheet No.:

Subject: Seismic Calculations Prepared by: JJL Date: 5/2016 Detail: N1 blow count & Seismic Design Coefficients Checked by: Date: 5/2016

Therefore, As = 0.160 g SDS = 0.275 g SD1 = 0.149 g < 0.15g

Seismic Design Category (SDC) = A

PG

A

.0

Jacky Line

Callout Ss = 0.11

Callout S1 = 0.0425

APPENDIX 4

Loads from Louis Berger

(1 Sheet)

1 BY DATE SHEET

CHKD BY DATE PROJECT

SUBJECT Route 28 Over Parkers River (Y-01-002)

Maximum Pile Reactions - Service (Unfactored)

Units: kip, ft-kip

Loads Vertical Horizontal Moment

DL Br. 15.62 17.2

DL Abtm. 19.75 27.15

LL Br. 19.14 21.1

Earth Surcharge Reaction 16.53 119.84

Earth Horizontal Reaction 59.96 289.91

Total 54.51 76.49 475.2

Total 54.51 76.49 355.36 if LL surcharge is disregarded

Maximum Pile Reactions - Strength (Factored)

Units: kip, ft-kip

Loads Vertical Horizontal Moment

DL Br. 19.84 21.84

DL Abtm. 33.5 36.93

LL Br. 24.69 33.94

Earth Surcharge Reaction 24.8 179.76

Earth Horizontal Reaction 89.94 434.72

Total 78.03 114.74 707.19

Total 78.03 114.74 527.43 if LL surcharge is disregarded

Kp = 0.98 MassDOT 3.10.8

IAS 9/21/2017

HH 9/22/2017

c:\projectwisebin8i\lbg2014\lbguser\d0248984\Loads for Geotech_8.31.2017.xls Summary

Seismic Maps