1 of 2_Version2 Geo Rpt 07-09 Green Apple Creek_OR Hwy 35 Prelim.pdf

Draft Geotechnical Data

OR FS ERFO 2007(1)-11(1)

Highway 35 Betterment

This document is a draft and should NOT be relied upon to determine final conditions for bidding.

Final documents will be available during the advertisement period.

Geotechnical Report No. 07-09

Oregon Highway 35 Betterment Green Apple Creek Bridge

OR FS ERFO 2007(1)-11(1), Mount Hood National Forest

Hood River County, Oregon October 2009

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve rsi on

Intentionally blank.

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

CONTENTS

PAGE

1. Introduction 1

2. White River Debris Flows at Green Apple Creek 1 3 Surface Conditions 2

4. Bridge Foundation Investigation 2

4.1 Drilling Investigation 2

4.2 Investigation Results 3

4.3 Subsurface Water Levels 4

5. Laboratory Materials Testing 4

6. Bridge Foundation Considerations 4

7. Lateral Loading by Debris Flow Impacts 4

8. Drilled Shaft Foundation Analysis and Design 5

8.1 Scour Recommendations 5

8.2 Earthquake Effects 5

8.3 Liquefaction 7

8.4 SPT N-value Corrections 7

8.5 Soil Strength Parameters 9

8.6 Drilled Shaft Analysis and Design 9

8.6a Design Loads 10 8.6b Preliminary Drilled Shaft Recommendations 12 8.6c Settlement 13 8.6d Lateral Analysis 13

9. Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations 15

10. Approach Embankments and Abutment Backfill 15

11. Use of this Report 16

12. References 17

FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Project Location Map iii FIGURE 2. Green Apple Creek Culverts after November 2006 Debris Flow 2 FIGURE 3. 5-Percent-Damped-Design Response Spectrum 6 FIGURE 4. Corrected SPT (N1)60 Values Plotted Versus Depth 8 Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve ii

TABLES

TABLE 1. Boring Locations, Elevations, and Groundwater Levels 3 TABLE 2. Summary of Seismic Parameters (7% PE in 75 years) 6 TABLE 3. Subsurface Layers and Strength Parameters 9 TABLE 4. Preliminary Unfactored Axial Loads 10 TABLE 5. Calculated Preliminary Factored Axial Loads 11 TABLE 6. Preliminary Drilled Shaft Recommendations 13 TABLE 7. Recommended Soil Parameters for Lateral Analysis 14 TABLE 8 Recommended Soil Parameters for Abutment Wall Design 16

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Boring Location Map APPENDIX B: Boring Logs & Core Photographs APPENDIX C: Unified Soil Classification System APPENDIX D: SPT N-Value Corrections APPENDIX E: Drilled Shaft Design Charts APPENDIX F: p-y Curves im inary

- 2 nd ve iii

Figure 1. Green Apple Creek Bridge Project Location Map.

GREEN APPLE CREEK

GOVERNMENT CAMP

1 MILE

N

35 Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve im inary

- 2 nd ve

1. INTRODUCTION

This report provides geotechnical investigation results, analysis, and foundation recommendations for a bridge over Green Apple Creek on Oregon Highway 35 on the southeast side of Mount Hood (Figure 1). Construction of a bridge at Green Apple Creek is part of a larger project encompassing sections of Highway 35 located at White River and between Clark and Newton Creeks about three miles north of White River.

This report provides foundation recommendations for bridge design based on preliminary loading information. The recommendations contained in this report should be reevaluated by the WFLHD Geotechnical Section once the bridge loads and layout are finalized.

2. WHITE RIVER DEBRIS FLOWS AT GREEN APPLE CREEK

Green Apple Creek is located about 400-600 feet north of White River and is affected by White River debris flows to the same extent as White River. The creek occupies two, closely-spaced channels that are currently carried beneath Highway 35 by two large pipe culverts about 110 feet apart. The culverts suffered major damage during the major flood event of November, 2006, as shown in Figure 2. During the design process for construction of a new bridge at White River, a decision was made to replace the twin Green Apple Creek culverts with a bridge.

The history and nature of debris flows in the White River Valley were comprehensively addressed in the report “White River Highway 35 Betterment Project, OR FS ERFO 2007 (1)-11(1): Geomorphic Assessment (December, 2007)”, prepared for the WFLHD’s Hydraulic Section by Pacific Water Resources, Inc., and R. W. Beck. The reader is referred to that report for additional geological, geomorphological, and hydrological information regarding White River debris flows.

inary

- 2 nd ve

Figure 2. Green Apple Creek after Nov. 2006 Debris Flow (taken by Doug Jones, Mt.

Hood National Forest, who estimated about 2/3 of White River flowing here at the time).

3. SURFACE CONDITIONS

The project site is located on the north side of the alluvial flood plain of White River, which is approximately 3000 feet wide where it is crossed by Highway 35. The flood plain is an aggrading deposit consisting predominantly of poorly-graded, fine to coarse silty sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders that is classified as SM, SP-SM, and GP-GM soil in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

The aggrading nature of White River Valley is the result of periodic debris flows that are unleashed from glacial moraines high on the slopes of Mount Hood following “rain-on-snow” events in the headwaters of White River.

4. BRIDGE FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION

4.1 Drilling Investigation

Three foundation investigation borings were drilled for the Green Apple Creek bridge at the approximate abutment and center pier locations of the new bridge. All three borings were advanced by HQ wireline coring. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at depth intervals of 5 feet with a 2 inch diameter split spoon sampler.

inary

- 2 nd ve

Boring locations are shown on the Green Apple Creek Preliminary Bridge Layout in Appendix A. The approximate design centerline locations, ground surface elevations, and water levels observed in the borings are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Boring Locations, Elevations, and Groundwater Levels

Boring No. Station and Offset

Ground Surface

Elevation1 (ft)

Boring Depth

(ft)

Water Depth

(ft)

Water Elevation

(ft) GA-13 45+65, 29 ft. rt. 4241.5 99.5 12.6 4228.9

GA-14 46+75, 5 ft. lt. 4248.5 80 18 4230.5

GA-15 48+10, 2 ft. rt. 4242.5 100 13.5 4229.0

NOTES:

1Determined from contours on Preliminary Layout.

4.2 Investigation Results

Boring logs for the Green Apple Creek Bridge foundation investigation are contained in Appendix B. Photographs of the core samples obtained in the borings are also contained in Appendix B. The materials encountered in the Green Apple Creek borings consisted predominantly of damp to wet, loose to very dense, silty, fine to coarse gravelly sand with cobbles and boulders, and were nearly identical to the materials encountered in the White River Bridge investigation borings (see discussion in Geotechnical Report No. 01- 09, “Oregon Highway 35 White River Bridge Replacement Foundation Investigation”, March, 2009”).

Because of their similarity to the White River subsurface materials, laboratory testing was not performed on samples obtained from the Green Apple Creek foundation investigation. The subsurface materials were visually classified as “SP-SM - poorly graded sand with silt and gravel”, “SM – silty sand and silty sand with gravel”, and “GP- GM – poorly graded gravel with silt and sand” in the Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS).

Boulders ranging from 12-25 inches in cored dimension were encountered in boring GA-13. A 12 inch boulder was encountered in boring GA-14, and several boulders ranging in cored dimension from 20-26 inches in size were encountered in boring

GA-15.

Observations of the surface cobbles and boulders in the flood plain of White River indicate that material is primarily andesite lava and pyroclastic volcanic rock typical of the Cascade volcanoes. Boulders up to 10 feet or more in longest dimension are visible on the surface of the White River and Green Apple Creek alluvial fan and boulders of that size may be encountered in the drilled shaft foundation excavations. The drilled shaft construction contractor for this project should be prepared to reduce boulders

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve to a manageable and removable size should boulders of any size be encountered during shaft excavation and construction.

4.3 Subsurface Water Levels

Subsurface water levels were measured at depths of 12.6, 18, and 13.5 feet in borings GA-13, 14, and 15, respectively. The ground elevations corresponding to the water levels are 4228.9, 4230.5, and 4229.0 for borings GA-13, 14, and 15, respectively. Reference to the preliminary bridge layout in Appendix A shows that the subsurface water elevations are slightly lower than the streambed elevation of 4231 at the downstream face of the proposed bridge. Subsurface water is likely to be encountered during drilled shaft construction at or near the elevation of the streambed and water elevations are likely to fluctuate with fluctuations of Green Apple Creek, particularly during spring thaw and following periods of heavy precipitation.

5. LABORATORY MATERIALS TESTING

Due to the observed consistency and similarity of the samples from the White River investigation borings, it was not considered necessary to perform laboratory testing of samples from the Green Apple Creek borings. A discussion of White River material properties can be found in the previously-referenced geotechnical report for the White River foundation investigation.

6. BRIDGE FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS

Due to scour depth and constructability, drilled shafts were selected over spread footings or driven piles for foundation support at the White River Bridge and drilled shafts are the recommended foundation at Green Apple Creek Bridge. The design and construction methodology for drilled shafts at White River Bridge are applicable to the design and construction of drilled shafts at Green Apple Creek. The following discussions regarding shaft design and construction were excerpted from Geotechnical Report No. 01-09 and modified as appropriate for the site conditions at Green Apple Creek.

7. LATERAL LOADING BY DEBRIS FLOW IMPACTS

The potential for debris flows to exert significant lateral loads on structures in the White River Valley was addressed during the design process for the new White River Bridge. It was determined that the existing White River Bridge had not sustained damage due to lateral loads from past debris flows. It was also determined that, due to the 3000 foot width and 6-8 percent gradient of the White River Valley at the bridge location, the energy available in debris flows by the time they reach the bridge to exert significant lateral loads is relatively low and not sufficient to control the foundation design.

Green Apple Creek Bridge will be located approximately 400 feet north of White River Bridge, on the north side of White River Valley. The potential for debris flow lateral loading to occur at Green Apple Creek Bridge is considered to be the same as or possibly

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve less than the potential for debris flow loading at White River Bridge; therefore, lateral load forces exerted by debris flows debris are not expected to be sufficient to control the foundation design for Green Apple Creek Bridge.

8. DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

8.1 Scour Recommendations

The Preliminary Bridge Layout for the Green Apple Creek Bridge shows the channel elevations at the upstream and downstream ends of the bridge to be 4236 and 4231 feet, respectively. Based on analyses performed by the WFLHD’s Hydraulics Section, the following scour depths and elevations were recommended for both the White River and Green Apple Creek Bridge drilled shaft foundations:

• Scour elevation at bridge piers: 4200 feet.

• Scour elevation at bridge abutments: 4225 feet.

The estimated scour elevation of 4200 feet at the pier locations is based on a glacial outburst of 20,000 cfs, past debris removal operations, and a qualitative assessment of debris-related erosion (Browning, 2008).

8.2 Earthquake Effects

Seismic sources that contribute to the regional seismic hazard include shallow crustal sources (local faults and gridded seismicity) and Cascadia Subduction Zone interplate (mega-thrust) earthquakes.

The procedures outlined in Section 3.10 of the 4th Edition of the LRFD Manual with the 2008 Interims were followed to characterize the seismic hazard. (Note that these procedures use a design earthquake with a return period of 1000 years, or a 7 percent probability of exceedance (PE) in 75 years. This is a departure from earlier AASHTO Specifications which used a design earthquake with a return period of 500 years, or a 10 percent PE in 50 years.) The USGS interactive deaggregation website (2002) was used to determine the peak ground acceleration and spectral accelerations. The results of the hazard analysis are presented in Table 2.

inary

- 2 nd ve

Table 2. Summary of Seismic Parameters (7% PE in 75 years).

Site Class (by Soil Type and Profile) C – very dense soil

Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.167g

Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 0.2 sec (Ss) 0.393g

Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 1.0 sec (S1) 0.142g

As 0.200 g

SDS 0.471 g

SD1 0.236 g

Seismic Zone 2

The values in Table 2 were used to develop the 5-percent-damped-design response spectrum shown in Figure 3 below.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Period, Tm (seconds)

El as tic S ei sm ic C oe ffi ci en t, C sm

Figure 3. 5-Percent-Damped-Design Response Spectrum.

inary

- 2 nd ve

8.3 Liquefaction

The procedures outlined in Subsection 6.5.2 of the Oregon Department of Transporation (ODOT) Geotechnical Design Manual (2008) were used to assess the liquefaction potential at the site.

One of the conditions for preliminary screening of liquefaction potential is an assessment of the (N1)60 values in the upper 75 feet of the soil profile. (N1)60 values greater than 25 blows per foot (bpf) indicate that the soils are not susceptible to liquefaction and a detailed liquefaction analysis is not necessary. Average (N1)60 values were all much greater than 25 bpf, indicating that none of the layers are susceptible to liquefaction. (See Figure 4 in Section 8.4) Thus no additional liquefaction analysis is considered necessary for the Green Apple Creek bridge foundation materials.

8.4 SPT N-Value Corrections

The SPT N-values obtained from the Green Apple Creek subsurface borings were corrected for hammer energy and overburden pressure to determine the N60 values and the (N1)60 values. N60 values were corrected for hammer efficiency only. (N1)60 values were corrected for hammer efficiency and overburden pressure. The corrected N60 and (N1)60 values are contained in spreadsheet format in Appendix D. The (N1)60 values were averaged in 5-foot layers to calculate the average (N1)60 versus depth shown in Figure 4 below.

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

(N1)60 (blows/ft)

El ev at io n (ft

B-13 B-14 B-15

B-1 B-4 AVERAGE

Figure 4. Corrected SPT (N1)60 Values Plotted Versus Depth.

inary

- 2 nd ve

8.5 Soil Strength Parameters

The subsurface profile was divided into layers based on the soil descriptions and the SPT values. The soil profile near Abutment 1 was generally less dense than the Pier 1 and Abutment 2 locations. Therefore different profiles were established for Abutment 1 and Pier 1/Abutment 2 designs. The layers and their associated soil strength parameters are shown in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3. Subsurface Layers and Strength Parameters.

Abutment 1

Elevation (feet) Soil Description N60 φ’

(deg.)

Cohesion

(psf) Moist Unit

Wt (pcf)

4195 – existing grade cohesionless IGM 68 42 0 135

4182 – 4195 silty SAND 18 34 0 120

4163 - 4182 cohesionless IGM 61 37 0 130

4145 – 4163 cohesionless IGM 100 42 0 140

Pier 1 & Abutment 2

Elevation (feet) Soil Description N60 φ’

(deg.)

Cohesion

(psf) Moist Unit

Wt (pcf) 4235 – existing grade gravelly SAND 10 32 0 115

4220 – 4235 cohesionless IGM 54 40 0 135

4145 – 4220 cohesionless IGM 100 42 0 140

New Fill Above Existing Grade – Abutments 1 and 2

Elevation (feet) Soil Description N60 φ’

(deg.)

Cohesion

(psf) Moist Unit

Wt (pcf) above existing grade new fill:

sandy GRAVEL - 34 0 130

8.6 Drilled Shaft Analysis and Design

The proposed bridge will have two122-foot long spans. The distance from the proposed bridge deck elevation to the scour elevation is about 35 and 60 feet at the abutments and pier, respectively. As discussed in Section 6, drilled shafts were selected over spread footings and driven piling as the preferred foundation type because drilled shafts can be more easily constructed to transmit loads below the scour elevation and they have relatively higher lateral load capacity than driven piles. WFLHD Structures indicated

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve that both Clark Creek and White River preliminary bridge designs utilize three 4-foot diameter drilled shafts at the abutments. The preliminary White River bridge design has two 6-foot diameter drilled shafts at each pier. Since the bridge configurations and subsurface conditions at all three sites are similar, it will be most economical to construct drilled shafts of the same size at the Green Apple Creek bridge. The discussions and recommendations that follow are based on utilizing three 4-foot diameter drilled shafts to support each abutment and two 6-foot diameter drilled shafts to support the pier at Green Apple Creek.

8.6.a Design Loads

The WFLHD Structures Section provided the following unfactored preliminary axial loads.

TABLE 4. Preliminary Unfactored Axial Loads.

DC-Super DC-Sub DW LL

Abutments 435 Kips 365 Kips 45 Kips 200 Kips

Pier 1450 Kips 790 Kips 145 Kips 340 Kips

NOTES:

DC-Super = dead load of structural components of superstructure.

DC-Sub = dead load of structural components of substructure.

DW = dead load of wearing surfaces.

LL = vehicular live load.

Factored axial load were calculated using the load factors specified in Table 3.4.1-1 in

AASHTO (2008).

inary

- 2 nd ve

TABLE 5. Calculated Preliminary Factored Axial Loads.

ABUTMENTS 1 and 2

Service I

Limit State Strength I Limit State

Extreme Event I Limit State

Load Designation

Unfactored Load (kips)

Load Factor

(γ)

Factored Load (kips)

Load Factor

(γ)

Factored Load (kips)

Load Factor

(γ)

Factored Load (kips)

DC-Super 435 1.0 435 1.25 544 1.25 544 DC-Sub 518 1.0 518 1.25 648 1.25 648

DW 45 1.0 45 1.50 68 1.5 68

LL 200 1.0 200 1.75 350 0.5 100

Total 1198 1198 1609 1359

PIER 1

Service I

Limit State Strength I Limit State

Extreme Event I Limit State

Load Designation

Unfactored Load (kips)

Load Factor

(γ)

Factored Load (kips)

Load Factor

(γ)

Factored Load (kips)

Load Factor

(γ)

Factored Load (kips)

DC-Super 1450 1.0 1450 1.25 1813 1.25 1813 DC-Sub 1036 1.0 1036 1.25 1295 1.25 1295

DW 145 1.0 145 1.50 218 1.5 218

LL 340 1.0 340 1.75 595 0.5 170

Total 2971 2971 3920 3495

NOTES:

DC-Super = dead load of structural components of superstructure.

DC-Sub = dead load of structural components of substructure. The dead load of three 4-foot diameter drilled shafts at the abutments and two 6-foot diameter drilled shafts at the pier above the scour elevation was added to the loads from Table 5.

DW = dead load of wearing surfaces.

LL = vehicular live load.

The loads in Table 5 include the dead load of three 4-foot diameter drilled shafts at the abutments and two 6-foot diameter drilled shafts at the pier above the scour elevation.

Downdrag loads due to settlement are not anticipated.

WFLHD Structures has also indicated that up to ½ inch of settlement is tolerable for the loads listed above.

Drilled shaft axial load design will be controlled by the Strength I Limit State loading.

Using the loads from Table 5, the factored geotechnical axial resistance of each drilled shaft at the abutments must exceed 540 kips per drilled shaft and the factored geotechnical axial resistance of each drilled shaft at the piers must exceed 1960 kips per drilled shaft.

inary

- 2 nd ve

8.6.b Preliminary Drilled Shaft Recommendations

The soil layer depths and strength parameters discussed in Section 8.5 were used in drilled shaft design. The recommendations contained in this report are for three 4-foot diameter drilled shafts at each abutment and two 6-foot diameter drilled shafts at the pier at Green Apple Creek. Drilled shafts were analyzed for axial capacity provided by both skin friction and end-bearing by the methods recommended in the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specifications (2008) and the FHWA drilled shaft design manual (O’Neil and Reese, 1999).

Charts of factored geotechnical axial resistance versus depth for each bent are contained in Appendix E.

The lines on the Charts in Appendix E for the service limit state were developed using a resistance factor of 1.0 and include the design scour.

The resistance factors listed in Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2008) was used to calculate the strength limit state factored axial resistance lines on the Charts in Appendix E and include the design scour.

The lines on the Charts in Appendix E for the extreme event limit states were developed using a resistance factor of 1.0. Each chart includes both a capacity line for the extreme event limit state with and without the design scour included. Scour should be included in evaluation of the extreme event limit state when relevant.

It is assumed the center-to-center spacing of drilled shafts will be at least 4.0 diameters or more; therefore, no interaction effects were evaluated.

Constructability of drilled shafts will become more difficult with increasing depth. Most drilled shaft contractors are equipped to install drilled shafts up to 100 feet below the existing grade. The maximum depth of the drilled shafts should be limited to elevation 4150 feet.

Recommendations for drilled shafts are summarized in Table 6. Recommended drilled shaft tip elevations were determined using the loads from Section 8.6a and the design charts in Appendix E.

inary

- 2 nd ve

Table 6. Preliminary Drilled Shaft Recommendations.

Abutment 1 Pier 1 Abutment 2

Station at Centerline of Bridge 45+53 46+75 47+97

Finished Bridge Deck Elevation (feet) 4263.9 4260.9 4256.9

Approximate Top of Drilled Shaft Elevation (feet) 4252 4229 4245

Proposed Final Ground Surface Elevation (feet) 4263.9 4247 4256.9

Design Scour Elevation (feet) 4225 4200 4225

Recommended Number of Drilled Shafts 3 2 3

Recommended Diameter of Drilled Shaft (feet) 4 6 4

Recommended Drilled Shaft Tip Elevation (feet) 4210 4170 4210

In addition to the design loading, the subsurface conditions, settlement criteria, and design scour elevations were considered when setting the uppermost tip elevation. The recommended tip elevations were set at least three diameters below the design scour elevation.

8.6.c Settlement

Extensive settlement analyses were not warranted since each bent will have multiple shafts founded in very dense cohesionless intermediate geo-materials. For the factored service limit state loads listed in Table 5, settlement of the abutments is estimated to be less than 0.1 inch and settlement at the pier is estimated to be less than 0.2 inch.

8.6.d Lateral Analysis

Lateral loads were not provided, but they are anticipated to be significant due to the seismic hazard at the site. Seismic lateral load analysis is an extreme event limit state so scour is not included in the analysis.

Table 7 provides the soil parameters that are recommended to analyze lateral foundation loads. The values in Table 7 do not include factors of safety or resistance factors. A

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve resistance factor of 1.0 is specified in AASHTO (2008) for horizontal geotechnical resistance of a single shaft or shaft group. Horizontal loads should be factored for lateral analysis. The values in Table 7 were used to develop p-y curves. The p-y curves for lateral analysis are attached in Appendix F.

For preliminary design, the estimated depth of fixity is 15 feet for 4-foot diameter drilled shafts and 20 feet for 6-foot diameter drilled shafts.

Table 7. Recommended Soil Parameters for Lateral Analysis.

Abutment 1

Elevation (feet)

Soil Description

Moist Unit Wt

(pcf)

Effective Unit Wt

(pcf) φ’

(deg.)

Cohesion

(psf) nh note 2

(ksi/ft) 4235 – existing grade cohesionless

IGM 135 135 42 0 2.78

4195 – 4235 cohesionless

IGM 135 72.6 42 0 1.39

4182 – 4195 silty SAND 120 57.6 34 0 0.556

4163 - 4182 cohesionless

IGM 130 67.6 37 0 1.39

4145 – 4163 cohesionless

IGM 140 77.6 42 0 1.39

Pier 1 & Abutment 2

Elevation (feet)

Soil Description

Moist Unit Wt

(pcf)

Effective Unit Wt

(pcf) φ’

(deg.)

Cohesion

(psf) nh note 2

(ksi/ft) 4235 – existing grade gravelly

SAND 115 115 32 0 1.11

4220 – 4235 cohesionless

IGM 135 72.6 40 0 1.39

4145 – 4220 cohesionless

IGM 140 77.6 42 0 1.39

New Fill Above Existing Grade – Abutments 1 and 2

Elevation (feet)

Soil Description

Moist Unit Wt

(pcf)

Effective Unit Wt

(pcf) φ’

(deg.)

Cohesion

(psf) nh note 2

(ksi/ft) above existing grade new fill:

sandy

GRAVEL

130 130 34 0 1.11

Notes:

1 Water level elevation estimated to be 4235. Effective unit weights above the water table are the same as the moist unit weight for that layer.

2 nh is the constant giving the variation of soil modulus with depth in the equation Es = nhz, where Es = soil modulus, and z = depth below the ground surface. nh values taken values from Table C10.4.6.3-2 in

AASHTO (2008).

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

9. DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Based on both surface observations of the Green Apple Creek channel and adjacent flood plain and the subsurface investigation borings, it is anticipated that boulders up to 10 feet in diameter may be encountered during the drilling and installation of drilled shaft foundations at the new Green Apple Creek bridge. The contractor should be prepared to remove boulders that are encountered during shaft installation that impede or prevent advancement of the shaft by approved methods.

The soils encountered in the borings are likely to cave below the water table if excavated with an open hole. Wet methods of drilled shaft construction will likely be required to protect the side walls of the drilled shaft excavation during construction. The drilled shaft design includes a significant amount of skin friction along the sides of the drilled shaft. Therefore, any temporary casing must be removed from the completed drilled shaft. Very permeable layers of coarse gravel, cobbles and boulders are likely to be encountered which may exclude the use of drilling slurry. The contractor should consider the subsurface conditions carefully when choosing the method of drilled shaft construction. An adequate head of water (casing method) or drilling slurry should be maintained inside of the drilled shaft excavation to prevent heaving of the soils at the bottom of the excavation.

Cross-hole Sonic Logging (CSL) should be completed on each drilled shaft to insure the integrity of the shaft. Each rebar cage should include one CSL access tube per foot diameter of drilled shaft (i.e., at least 4 CSL access tubes for a 4-foot diameter drilled shaft). The access tubes should be spaced evenly on the rebar cage and securely fastened to either the inside or outside of the cage.

The WFLHD Geotechnical Team should be part of the reviewing effort of the contractor’s drilled shaft submittals to evaluate shaft design and construction appropriateness based on the subsurface conditions. A member of the Geotechnical Team should also be present when excavation of the drilled shafts begins to ensure that the subsurface conditions are consistent with the materials encountered in the subsurface exploration.

10. APPROACH EMBANKMENTS AND ABUTMENT BACKFILL

The approach embankment will likely be constructed with nearby material deposited during the 2006 debris flow event consisting of gravelly sand and cobbles or with shot rock material from a nearby Forest Service quarry. These materials are adequate for use as backfill and fill behind abutments and wing walls; however, the material should be screened with a grizzly or by other means to remove particles greater than 6 inches in size. A perforated corrugated polyethylene drain should be installed behind walls to ensure drainage. The soil parameters listed in Table 8 may be used to determine the lateral earth pressures exerted on the abutment walls and wing walls.

inary

- 2 nd ve

Table 8. Recommended Soil Parameters for Abutment Wall Design.

Parameter Design Value* Moist Unit Weight 130 pcf

Angle of Internal Friction 34 degrees

Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka 0.28

Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure 36 psf/ft

At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, K0 0.44

At-Rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure 57 psf/ft

Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient, Kp 3.54

Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure 460 psf/ft

Wall-Backfill Interface Friction Angle, δ 26 degrees

*Design values based on a drained condition behind the wall.

The above values do not include factors of safety or resistance factors. Appropriate factors of safety or resistance factors should be used with these parameters. It is generally assumed that compacted backfill creates at-rest lateral earth pressure behind unyielding walls and that a slight movement at the top of the wall (0.002 x wall height) creates active lateral earth pressures behind walls. When passive lateral earth pressures are applicable, wall movements of 0.02 x wall height at the top of the wall are necessary to reach the earth pressures listed above.

The procedures outlined in Appendix A11 of LRFD (2008) should be used to determine the seismic forces exerted on the walls. Once the wall geometry is determined, the Geotechnical Team can assist in development of the seismic active pressure.

Embankments constructed with these materials can safely be constructed as steep as 1V:1.5H. However, embankments constructed 1V:2H or steeper with the nearby sandy gravel material will be highly susceptible to erosion and shallow failures during spring thaw and periods of heavy precipitation. Embankment protection (riprap or shot-rock) or aggressive revegetation and erosion control will be needed to protect slopes 1V:2H or steeper.

11. USE OF THIS REPORT

Professional judgments and recommendations are presented in this report. They are based partly on evaluation of the technical information gathered, partly on historical reports and partly on the WFLHD Geotechnical Team’s general experience with subsurface conditions in the area. It should be noted the borings might not represent potentially unfavorable subsurface conditions between borings. If, during construction, soil conditions are encountered that vary from those discussed in this report or historical

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve reports, or if design loads and/or configurations change, the Geotechnical Team should be notified immediately in order that it may evaluate effects, if any, on foundation performance.

For questions regarding this report, please contact WFLHD Engineering Geologist Dave Lofgren at 360-619-7706 (david.lofgren@dot.gov) or WFLHD Geotechnical Engineer Brian Collins at 360-619-7657 (brian.collins@dot.gov).

12. REFERENCES

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2008 Interim Revisions (2008) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

Browning, M.C. (2008) November 6 Memorandum to Khoa Nguyen, Bridge Engineer, with subject heading “Hydraulic Information, White River Bridge, Highway 35, PFH 49, Oregon”, 8p.

ODOT Geotechnical Design Manual (2008) Oregon Department of Transportation, Technical Services Branch, Geo-Environmental Section, 325 p.

O’Oneil, M. W., and Reese, L. C. (1999) Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods, FHWA Report No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 758 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Earthquake Hazards Program website, 2002 Interactive Deaggregations, http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2002/index.php, accessed September 16, 2009.

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve im inary

- 2 nd ve

APPENDIX A

Boring Location Map im inary

- 2 nd ve im inary

- 2 nd ve

Scale in feet

30 0 30 60

BH

BH

SHEET

NUMBER

OR

FS ERFO 2007(1)-11(2)

9/25/2009C:\Myfiles\PW_Production\dms06131\Green_Apple_Bridge_Borings.dgn

PROJECTSTATE

Checked by:Designed by:

PRELIMINARY GREEN APPLE

BRIDGE LAYOUT

SHOWING APPROXIMATE

BORING LOCATIONS

N

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve im inary

- 2 nd ve

APPENDIX B

Boring Logs & Core Photographs im inary

- 2 nd ve im inary

- 2 nd ve

PROJECT:

>>S-5

NQ CORE

8 in H-S AUGER

R-6

26.0

R-5

S-4

R-4

S-3

S-2

GRAVEL and cobbles, subangular to subrounded, volcanic, mostly gray/red/brown.

S-1

R-1

R-7

Two rock pieces of 8" and 11"" with gravel and cobbles, rock brown/gray unfractured fresh to slightly weathered hard (R4) volcanic rock.

40-47-46 (Rec: 14in)

25-44-33 (Rec: 12in)

21-17-12 (Rec: 9in)

17-28-30 (Rec: 10in)

29.5 Silty fine to medium SAND with a trace of gravel to 1", dense, GRAVEL and cobbles with silty well graded sand.

Silty sandy GRAVEL, sand fine to medium with a trace of coarse, gravel to 1" suba to subr, very dense, gray, wet.

GRAVEL and cobble fragments, subangular to subrounded, volcanic, mostly gray/red/brown.

Silty sandy GRAVEL, sand fine to medium with a trace of coarse, gravel to 1" suba to subr, very dense, gray, wet.

GRAVEL and cobble fragments, subangular to subrounded, volcanic, mostly gray/red/brown.

Silty coarse to medium SAND with a few pieces of gravel to 1 1/2", medium dense, gray, wet.

GRAVEL and cobble fragments, subangular to subrounded, volcanic, mostly gray/red/brown. Water depth 11.9 Feet.

Silty coarse to medium SAND with a few pieces of gravel to 1 1/2", very dense, gray, wet.

GRAVEL and cobble fragments, subangular to subrounded, andesitic, mostly gray/red/brown.

Coarse to medium SAND with gravel, rock fragments, and a trace of silt, medium dense, brown/gray, wet. 6-9-18

(Rec: 10in)

R-3

24.5

21.0

19.5

16.0

14.5

11.0

9.5

6.0

4.5

27.0

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

RECOVERY (%)

R-2

WATER LEVEL

AUGER

Sheet 1 of 4

D E

P

TH

(f t)

Sunny Breezy Warm

RQD (%)

45+65, 29' RT

Highway 35 Betterment

BEGAN:

6 in H-S AUGER

LIQUID LIMIT

6/27/09

DESCRIPTION

WEATHER:

BORING GA-13

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

BORING LOG (English Units) OTHER:

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

50G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

76 mm SHELBY TUBE

6/28/09

STATION, OFFSET:

4241.50

D E

P

TH

(f t)

S A

M P

LE

WATER CONTENT (%)

Chris Peterson

CME-850

CORE

S A

M P

LE BLOW

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

COUNT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

PLASTIC LIMIT

ELEV:

COMPLETED:

DRILL:

HQ CORE

DRILLER:

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

NQ CORE

59.5

S-10

8 in H-S AUGER

R-13

R-12

R-11

S-9

R-10

S-8

S-7 gray, wet. S-6

51.0

S-11

Cored through boulder of 12". Matrix between rocks composed of gravel with a trace of sand.

56.0 15-11-6

(Rec: 7in)

0-4-6 (Rec: 5in)

50/3 (Rec: 0in)

50/3 (Rec: 1in)

20-25-31 (Rec: 11in)

Sandy silty GRAVEL to 1 1/2", sand coarse/fine, dense, gray, Silty SAND with gravel, sand mostly fine/coarse, gravel to 1", medium dense, brown, wet.

Cored through boulder of 17". Matrix between rocks composed of silty sand with gravel.

Sandy SILT with gravel to 2", loose, brown, wet.

Cored through boulder of 25", gray, unfractured, fresh, hard (R4) rock. Matrix between rocks composed of silty sand with gravel.

No Sample.

COBBLES, boulders, and gravel, rocks brown to gray, fresh to moderately weathered (R2-R4) andesitic with silty sand/gravel in matrix between rocks.

Gray rock fragments.

COBBLES, boulders, and gravel, rocks brown to gray, fresh to moderately weathered (R2-R4) andesitic with silty sand/gravel in matrix between rocks.

Silty fine to medium SAND with a trace of gravel to 1", very dense, brown, wet.

COBBLES, boulders, and gravel, rocks brown to gray fresh to moderately weathered (R2-R4) volcanic.

17-20-16 (Rec: 12in)

R-9

49.5

44.8 44.5

39.8 39.5

36.0

34.5

31.0

54.5

RECOVERY (%)

R-8

WATER LEVEL

PROJECT:

Sheet 2 of 4

D E

P

TH

(f t)

Highway 35 Betterment

RQD (%)

45+65, 29' RT

BEGAN:6 in H-S AUGER

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

6/27/09

DESCRIPTION

WEATHER:

BORING GA-13

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

BORING LOG (English Units) OTHER:

D E

P

TH

(f t)

LIQUID LIMIT

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

50G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Sunny Breezy Warm

76 mm SHELBY TUBE

STATION, OFFSET:

S A

M P

LE

WATER CONTENT (%)

Chris Peterson

CME-850

CORE

AUGER

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

S A

M P

LE BLOW

COUNT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

PLASTIC LIMIT

6/28/09

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

COMPLETED:

DRILL:

DRILLER:

HQ CORE

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

90.0 89.5

R-16

8 in H-S AUGER

S-18

R-19

S-17

R-18

S-16

S-15

S-14

R-15

S-13

R-14

S-12wet.

80.4

R-17

COBBLES and gravel.

85.0

50/5

50/5.5 (Rec: 2in)

38-50/4 (Rec: 8in)

22-21-22 (Rec: 10in)

48-25-23 (Rec: 14in)

36-30-23 (Rec: 11in)

Coarse SAND and a few pieces of gravel.

GRAVEL with a trace of silty sand.

COBBLES and gravel.

Coarse sandy SILT with a few pieces of gravel, very dense, brown/gray, wet.

COBBLES and gravel.

Sandy silty GRAVEL, gravel to 2", sand well graded, dense, grayish brown, wet.

One 7" COBBLE, gravel and silty sand.

Gravelly silty well graded SAND, dense, gray, wet.

Cored through one 12" BOULDER, gravel, and cobbles.

Silty well graded sandy GRAVEL, very dense, gray, wet.

COBBLES/gravel/silty well graded sand, gray/brown.

23-19-19 (Rec: 11in)

79.5

76.0

74.5

71.0

69.5

66.0

64.5

61.0

84.5

D E

P

TH

(f t)

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

RECOVERY (%)

WATER LEVEL

Highway 35 Betterment Sheet 3 of 4

OTHER:

D E

P

TH

(f t)

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

RQD (%)

45+65, 29' RT

WEATHER:

PLASTIC LIMIT

6 in H-S AUGER

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

6/27/09

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

BORING LOG (English Units)

DESCRIPTION

BORING GA-13

50G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

LIQUID LIMIT

BEGAN:

STATION, OFFSET:

76 mm SHELBY TUBE

S A

M P

LE

6/28/09

WATER CONTENT (%)

Chris Peterson

CME-850

CORE

AUGER

PROJECT:

NQ CORE

Sunny Breezy Warm

S A

M P

LE BLOW

COUNT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

HQ CORE

COMPLETED:

DRILL:

DRILLER:

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE 50

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

CORE

CME-850

Chris Peterson

WATER CONTENT (%)

S A

M P

LE

DRILLER:

COBBLES and gravel.

STATION, OFFSET:

10076 mm SHELBY TUBE

6/28/09

NQ CORE

COMPLETED:

AUGER

99.5

94.9 94.5

50/4 (Rec: 1in)

(Rec: 1in)

Boring Terminated at a Depth of 99 Feet 6 Inches.

COBBLES and gravel.

Coarse sand and a few pieces of gravel.

HQ CORE

8 in H-S AUGER

PROJECT:

R-21

S-19

R-20

RECOVERY (%)

WEATHER:

D E

P

TH

(f t)

Sheet 4 of 445+65, 29' RT

DRILL:

BORING GA-13

6/27/09

WATER LEVEL

BLOW

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

RQD (%)

COUNT

DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

Sunny Breezy Warm

BEGAN:FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

OTHER:

PLASTIC LIMIT

D E

P

TH

(f t)

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

6 in H-S AUGER

Highway 35 Betterment

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

BORING LOG (English Units)

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

LIQUID LIMIT

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-13, 0.0-29.5 feet depth

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-13, 29.5 – 44.5 feet depth im inary

- 2 nd ve

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-13, 44.5 – 59.0 feet depth

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-13, 59.0 – 79.5 feet depth inary

- 2 nd ve

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-13, 79.5 - 99.5 feet depth im inary

- 2 nd ve

Chris Peterson

R-1

R-2

S-38

8 in H-S AUGER

CME-850

CORE

AUGER

PROJECT:

NQ CORE

S-37

R-6

R-5

GRAVEL, subangular to subrounded.

R-4

S-39

R-3

GRAVEL.

23-46-31 (Rec: 11in)

5-11-15 (Rec: 11in)

19-21-20 (Rec: 13in)

2-4-9 (Rec: 10in)

Gravelly silty sand, gravel to 3/4", sand mostly fine, very dense, pinkish gray, wet.

GRAVEL and cobbles.

Gravelly SAND with a trace of silt, gravel to 1", sand mostly fine, medium dense, gray, wet.

One cobble/boulder of 11" and gravel.

Water depth 17.1 Feet.

Gravelly SAND with a trace of silt, gravel to 1", sand mostly fine, dense, gray, moist.

GRAVEL and cobbles.

Gravelly SAND with a trace of silt, gravel to 1", sand well graded, very dense, gray, moist.

COBBLES and gravel.

Gravelly SAND with a trace of silt, gravel to 1", subrounded to angular, sand well graded, medium dense, gray, moist.

20-29-37 (Rec: 10in)

5.0

S-41

30.0

26.5

25.0

21.5

20.0

16.5

15.0

11.5

6.5

10.0

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

D E

P

TH

(f t)

S-40

RQD (%)

WATER LEVEL

BEGAN:

OTHER:

Sunny Breezy Warm

S A

M P

LE

46+75, 5' LT

BORING LOG (English Units)

BORING GA-14

DESCRIPTION

RECOVERY (%)

6/30/09

WEATHER:

Sheet 1 of 3

BLOW LIQUID LIMIT

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

COMPLETED:

10076 mm SHELBY TUBE

ELEV:

6/30/09

STATION, OFFSET:

DRILL:

4248.50 0

S A

M P

LE

WATER CONTENT (%)

COUNT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

Highway 35 Betterment

DRILLER:

HQ CORE

6 in H-S AUGER

PLASTIC LIMIT

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

D E

P

TH

(f t)

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

R-7

R-12

S-44

R-11

R-10

R-9

8 in H-S AUGER

S-43

S-42 >>

R-8

S A

M P

LE

WATER CONTENT (%)

CME-850

CORE

PROJECT:

Sandy SILT with a few pieces of gravel and rock fragments, very dense, brownish gray, wet.

Chris Peterson

24-41-37 (Rec: 12in)

50/5 (Rec: 1in)

COBBLES up to 7", gravel with a trace of sandy silt in matrix.

No Sample.

One boulder of 13" with RQD of 10", gravel, and cobbles with some sandy silt in matrix.

One rock of 7", one at 6", gravel, and cobbles with some sandy silt in matrix.

GRAVEL and cobbles with some sandy silt in matrix.

GRAVEL and cobbles with some sandy silt in matrix.

GRAVEL and coarse sand.

GRAVEL, bottom 6" of sample made of gravel in matrix of sandy silt, matrix pinkish gray.

50/2.5 (Rec: 0in)

35.0

AUGER

60.0

55.2 55.0

50.0

45.0

35.4

31.5

40.0

46+75, 5' LT

NQ CORE

BEGAN:

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Sunny Breezy Warm

S A

M P

LE BLOW

COUNT

Sheet 2 of 3

6/30/09

WATER LEVEL

D E

P

TH

(f t)

RECOVERY (%)

BORING GA-14

LIQUID LIMIT

RQD (%)

WEATHER:

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

BORING LOG (English Units)

DESCRIPTION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

HQ CORE DRILLER:

DRILL:

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

10076 mm SHELBY TUBE

6/30/09

STATION, OFFSET:

COMPLETED:

OTHER:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

Highway 35 Betterment

6 in H-S AUGER

D E

P

TH

(f t)

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

PLASTIC LIMIT

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

8 in H-S AUGER

AUGER

PROJECT:

NQ CORE

R-13

CME-850

R-16

S-47

R-15

R-14

76 mm SHELBY TUBE

6/30/09

STATION, OFFSET:

CORE

Coarse to medium SAND.

S A

M P

LE

WATER CONTENT (%)

Chris Peterson

S-45 50/5 (Rec: 2in)

S-46 45-50/4 (Rec: 6in)

Boring Terminated at a Depth of 80 Feet.

One boulder of 12", cobbles, gravel, and coarse sand with a trace of pink silt on rock faces.

A few pieces of small GRAVEL and coarse sand.

A few COBBLES, gravel, and sandy silt, silt pinkish gray/brown.

Driller noted about 3' of soft layer "felt like sand."

One COBBLE (boulder) of 5" in bit, gravel with a trace of sandy silt in matrix.

Gravelly silty SAND, gravel to 1 1/2", sand fine/medium, very dense, brown, wet.

One COBBLE of 6", gravel with a trace of sandy silt in matrix.

50/3 (Rec: 1in)

75.0 75.3

70.0

65.9

65.0

60.4

80.0

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

Sunny Breezy WarmWEATHER:

S A

M P

LE BLOW

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

10044 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

BORING LOG (English Units)

RQD (%)

COUNT

RECOVERY (%)

46+75, 5' LT

D E

P

TH

(f t)

Sheet 3 of 3

BEGAN: 6/30/09

BORING GA-14

DESCRIPTION

WATER LEVEL

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

PLASTIC LIMIT

6 in H-S AUGER

HQ CORE DRILLER:

DRILL:

COMPLETED:

LIQUID LIMIT

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

D E

P

TH

(f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

OTHER:

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

Highway 35 Betterment

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-14, 0.0 – 34.5 feet depth

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-14, 34.5 – 50.0 feet depth im inary

- 2 nd ve

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-14, 50.0 – 61.0 feet depth

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-14, 61.0 – 80.0 feet depth im inary

- 2 nd ve

R-1

R-2

S-21

Chris Peterson

8 in H-S AUGER

CME-850

CORE

AUGER

PROJECT:

NQ CORE

S-20

S-24

No Sample.

S-23

R-4

S-22

R-3

Boulder of 12", coble, gravel with a trace of fines, mostly gray, fines silty and pinkish gray.

45-50/5 (Rec: 10in)

33-18-22 (Rec: 9in)

14-19-21 (Rec: 7in)

2-2-1 (Rec: 0in)

Sandy silty GRAVEL to 1", sand mostly fine to medium, very dense, yellow gray, wet.

GRAVEL to 2", gray/brown.

Silty well graded SAND with gravel, dense, gray, wet.

GRAVEL and cobbles, mostly gray, volcanic.

Silty well graded SAND with gravel, dense, gray, moist.

GRAVEL to 2", subangular to subrounded, mostly gray, volcanic.

Well graded sandy GRAVEL with a trace of silt, gravel to 3/4", very dense, gray, moist.

COBBLES and gravel, subangular to subrounded, mostly gray.

A few pieces of angular GRAVEL.

14-23-34 (Rec: 13in)

5.0

30.0

26.0

25.0

21.5

20.0

16.5

15.0

11.5

6.5

R-6

10.0

BEGAN:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

D E

P

TH

(f t)

R-5

RQD (%)

48+10, 2' RT Sheet 1 of 4

OTHER: Sunny Breezy Warm

BLOW

BORING GA-15

RECOVERY (%)

DESCRIPTION

6/29/09

WEATHER:

WATER LEVEL

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

BORING LOG (English Units)

LIQUID LIMIT

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

STATION, OFFSET:

COMPLETED:

S A

M P

LE

10076 mm SHELBY TUBE

ELEV:

6/29/09

COUNT

DRILL:

4242.50 0

S A

M P

LE

WATER CONTENT (%)

6 in H-S AUGERFEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

Highway 35 Betterment

DRILLER:

HQ CORE

D E

P

TH

(f t)

PLASTIC LIMIT

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

>>S-26

CORE

AUGER

PROJECT:

NQ CORE

S-25 30

R-7

R-12

R-11

R-10

Gravelly silty SAND, gravel to 3/4", sand mostly fine, very dense, pinkish gray, wet.

R-9

S-27

R-8

60.0

8 in H-S AUGER

Top of sample had 3" of last boulder for a total size of 26", cobbles, gravel and sandy silt, silt pinkish gray.

50/3 (Rec: 1in)

50/3 (Rec: 1in)

50/5.5 (Rec: 5in)

50/4 (Rec: 4in)

Boulder of 23" at bottom of sample, cobbles, gravel silty sand, rocks mostly gray, sand well graded, silt brown.

Gravelly coarse SAND with a trace of silt, very dense, brown, wet.

COBBLES, gravel, silty sand, rocks mostly gray, sand well graded, silt pinkish gray.

Sandy GRAVEL to 1" with a trace of silt, very dense, reddish brown, wet.

COBBLES, gravel, silty sand, rocks mostly gray, sand well graded, silt pinkish gray.

Sandy gravelly silt, sand mostly fine, gravel to 3/4", very dense, pinkish gray, wet.

Boulder of 21", cobbles, gravel, small amount of gray sandy silt.

Boulder dark gray, unfractured, fresh, hard (R4) volcanic rock.

Gravelly silty SAND, gravel to 3/4", sand mostly fine, very dense, pinkish gray, wet.

Boulder of 16", cobbles, gravel and silty sand, boulder dark gray, fresh, unfractured volcanic rock (R4), fines mostly gray with pink blotches.

50/4 (Rec: 4in)

S-29

55.0

50.3 50.0

45.3 45.0

40.5 40.0

35.4

30.3

35.0

BLOW

D E

P

TH

(f t)

S-28

CME-850

RQD (%)

WATER LEVEL

BEGAN:

OTHER:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

48+10, 2' RT

BORING LOG (English Units)

BORING GA-15

DESCRIPTION

RECOVERY (%)

6/29/09

WEATHER:

Sheet 2 of 4

S A

M P

LE LIQUID LIMIT

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

Sunny Breezy Warm

10076 mm SHELBY TUBE

6/29/09

DRILL:

COMPLETED:

S A

M P

LE

WATER CONTENT (%)

Chris Peterson

STATION, OFFSET:

COUNT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

Highway 35 Betterment

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

6 in H-S AUGER

DRILLER:

D E

P

TH

(f t)

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

PLASTIC LIMIT

HQ CORE

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

80.0

90.0

85.0

>>75.3 75.0

70.8

70.0

66.5

65.0

60.1

85.1

S-33

8 in H-S AUGER

R-18

S-34

R-16

R-15

S-32

S-31

S-30

R-17

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

Mostly GRAVEL with one cobble and a 12" thick layer of sandy silt with gravel, silt matrix pinkish gray.

Gravelly silty sand, gravel to 1 1/2", sand mostly fine, very dense, pinkish gray, wet.

GRAVEL and a cobble.

Silty fine SAND, very dense, brown, wet.

COBBLES, gravel, silty sand, rocks mostly gray, sand well graded, silt pinkish gray.

Blackish rock fragments.

GRAVEL and cobbles.

One 12" boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, and a trace of silt on boulder.

R-14

Sand with a piece of gravel of 1/2".

50/1

50/3 (Rec: 1in)

32-50/4 (Rec: 6in)

43-45-41 (Rec: 18in)

50/2 (Rec: 1in)

GRAVEL and cobbles.

SAND and rock fragments.

S A

M P

LE LIQUID LIMIT

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

R-13

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

NQ CORE

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

BLOW

OTHER:

COUNT

WATER LEVEL

BEGAN:

Sunny Breezy Warm

48+10, 2' RT

RQD (%)

BORING LOG (English Units)

Sheet 3 of 4

RECOVERY (%)

BORING GA-15

DESCRIPTION

6/29/09

WEATHER:

D E

P

TH

(f t)

10076 mm SHELBY TUBE

6/29/09

STATION, OFFSET:

DRILL:

COMPLETED:

S A

M P

LE

WATER CONTENT (%)

Chris Peterson

CME-850

CORE

AUGER

PROJECT:

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

Highway 35 Betterment

6 in H-S AUGER

D E

P

TH

(f t)

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

PLASTIC LIMIT

DRILLER:HQ CORE

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

100.0

95.2 95.0

91.4

DRILLER:

50/2 (Rec: 1in)

24-36-50/4 (Rec: 12in)

Boring Terminated at a Depth of 100 Feet.

R-20

DRILL:

COMPLETED:

S-36

R-19

S-35

GRAVEL and cobbles.

6/29/09

One boulder of 20", gravel, cobbles, sandy silt.

CORE

AUGER

PROJECT:

NQ CORE CME-850

Chris Peterson

8 in H-S AUGER

Gravelly fine SAND with a trace of silt, gravel to 2", very dense, gray, wet.

STATION, OFFSET:

A few pieces of gravel to 1/2" and a trace of sand.

S A

M P

LE

WATER CONTENT (%)

DESCRIPTION

D E

P

TH

(f t)

Sheet 4 of 4

WATER LEVEL

RECOVERY (%)

BORING GA-15

RQD (%)

6/29/09

WEATHER:

76 mm SHELBY TUBE

HQ CORE

Sunny Breezy Warm

44 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

COUNT

S A

M P

LE

BEGAN:

48+10, 2' RT

BORING LOG (English Units)

BLOW

STANDARD BLOWS PER FOOT

(140 lb mass, 30 in drop)

83 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (D & M)

Highway 35 Betterment

6 in H-S AUGER

51 mm O.D. SPLIT TUBE SAMPLE (SPT)

OTHER:

PLASTIC LIMIT

D E

P

TH

(f t)

LIQUID LIMIT

SAMPLE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Prel im inary

- 2 nd ve

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-15, 5.0 – 34.0 feet depth

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-15, 34.0 – 49.5 feet depth inary

- 2 nd ve

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-15, 49.5 – 62.0 feet depth

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-15, 62.0 – 80 feet depth inary

- 2 nd ve

Green Apple Creek Boring GA-15, 80.0 – 100.0 feet depth im inary

- 2 nd ve