Physical_data_Geotech_Report__05-16_-_West_Rosebud.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Allen Grade Bridge over West Rosebud Creek West Rosebud Creek Road Reconstruction

MT STILLWATER 207(1)

IDIQ Contract DTFH70-10-D-00016

Task Order 14-501 Project 14-3227G

Submitted by

2511 Holman Avenue P. O. Box 80190

Billings, Montana 59108-0910

Prepared for

Robert Peccia & Associates P. O. Box 5653

Helena, Montana 59604-5653

January 25, 2016 david.l.mariman Typewritten Text WFLH Geotechnical Report #05-16

January 25, 2016 Project 14-3227G-R1

Mr. Brian Wacker, PE Robert Peccia & Associates P. O. Box 5653 Helena, Montana 59604-5653 Via Email: bwacker@rpa-hln.com

Dear Mr. Wacker:

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report, Allen Grade Bridge over West Rosebud Creek, West Rosebud

Creek Road Reconstruction, MT STILLWATER 207(1), IDIQ Contract DTFH70-10-D-00016, Task Order 14-501

The geotechnical engineering report for the above-referenced project has been completed. This work was performed in accordance with our Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Task Order 14-501 dated September 8, 2014. This revised report includes LPile analysis for the selected 16-inch pile.

Introduction

As requested by Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA), SK Geotechnical is providing this geotechnical engineering report for the Allen Grade Bridge. This report includes the results of the subsurface exploration, laboratory tests, analysis, and geotechnical recommendations for the design of the structure.

Project Information

The proposed bridge will be a single-span structure constructed over West Rosebud Creek as part of the West Rosebud Creek Road Reconstruction project. The plans provided indicate the bridge will be constructed at Station 206+12, and the location of the bridge is shown on the attached Bridge Boring Location Sketch.

The proposed bridge will be approximately 105 feet in length with a width of approximately 24feet. The bridge will be a single-span structure supported on two end abutments. The Plan and Profile drawings provided indicate the new bridge will be shifted south of the current bridge location and will require about 3 to 6 feet of additional fill to reach road grade elevation of about 5486.5.

The anticipated abutment loads for different load combinations were provided by RPA and are summarized in Table 1.

2511 Holman Avenue

P. O. Box 80190 Billings, Montana 59108-0190 p: 406.652.3930; f: 406.652.3944 www.skgeotechnical.com mailto:bwacker@rpa-hln.com

Robert Peccia & Associates January 25, 2016 Project 14-3227G Page 2

Table 1. Summary of Abutment Loads

Load Combination Load, kips Comments

Strength I Max Down 922.8 --- 19.8 Basic Load Combo, normal vehicles, no wind Min Down 731.3 --- 9.9

Strength V Max Down 827.4 11.7 19.8 Basic Load Combo, normal vehicles, 55 mph wind Min Down 625.0 11.7 9.9

Extreme Event I

Max Down 517.5 19.8 11.9 Basic Dead + Earthquake

Min Down 326.0 19.8 11.9

Service I Max Down 635.7 10.1 --- Normal Operational Use w/Wind=55 mph Min Down 584.5 5.1 ---

Bottom-of-cap elevation will range from 5477.72 to 5478.28 at the west and east abutments, respectively.

Due to the presence of large to very large boulders (3 to 6 feet or greater), it is anticipated the foundations will need to consist of either a pre-bored driven pile, drilled pile, or micropile foundation. Spread footing foundations, while more susceptible to scour, could also be considered.

Area Geology and Seismicity

As indicated on the attached Geologic Map, the uppermost geology consists of Quaternary age alluvium deposits overlying Quaternary glacial deposits. These deposits were generally encountered by the soil borings performed for the proposed bridge. The uppermost bedrock is indicated to likely be the Hell Creek Formation. Several faults are located in the general project area, but review of the current United States Geological Survey (USGS) website information none of the faults shown on the attached Geologic Map have shown Quaternary age activity. The USGS website indicates the nearest Quaternary age fault unnamed fault near the Burnt River Creek area approximately 60 miles southwest of the project. This fault is "outside of and parallel to the northwest margin of the Yellowstone Caldera."

Personnel with the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology were contacted to discuss the possible presence of active Holocene-age faults in the area. They indicated the area was "aseismic" defined as not characterized by earthquake activity. They were not aware of any active faults situated in the Quaternary-age formations, therefore, the faults would be considered inactive.

Results

Two soil borings were performed in the proposed bridge area, one near each bridge abutment. The borings were performed with a combination of hollow-stem auger, NW casing advancer, and HQ rock coring methods. The drilling was very difficult due to the presence of large to very large boulders as well as cobbles throughout the soil profile. As the borings were advanced, penetration tests were obtained, where feasible, through the casing advancer and/or HQ core rods. In addition to HQ core samples of the

Project 14-3227G Page 3 cobbles and boulders, penetration test sampling for the borings was conducted in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils." Using this method, we advanced the borehole with hollow-stem auger, NW casing advance equipment, or HQ coring equipment to the desired test depth. Then a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches drove a standard, 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler below the tip of the drill string. Refusal blow counts were commonly observed, and the distance the sampler was driven after 50 blows was recorded. At some locations, the split-spoon would simply bounce on a cobble or boulder at the base of the drill stem. At these locations, sampling was halted since it would break the sampler.

Our field engineer visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the borings in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual – Manual Procedures)." A summary of the ASTM classification system is attached.

The depth to groundwater, once first encountered, was recorded. Since the borings were advanced with rotary drilling methods, additional water level measurements could not be obtained. After completion of the borehole, the boring was backfilled with a combination of auger cuttings and bentonite chips.

Subsurface Investigation

Two soil borings, ST-19 and ST-20, were performed in the area of the proposed bridge structure. The locations of these borings are shown on the attached Bridge Boring Location Sketch. The boring station and offset are shown on the attached Log of Boring sheets. Graphical Log of Boring sheets showing the depth and identification of the various soil strata are attached.

The proposed bridge centerline was staked by RPA. Boring locations were then selected by our personnel and referenced to the centerline stationing. Ground surface elevations at the borings were determined by our personnel and were referenced to the existing wood deck on the east side of the bridge, elevation of

5482.7 per RPA. The accuracy of these elevations should be considered plus/minus 1/2 foot.

Soils Above about 5 to 10 feet, the borings encountered varying soil conditions. Boring ST-19 encountered about 2 1/2 feet of poorly graded sand with silt overlying poorly graded gravel to a depth of about 6 feet and then sandy silt to a depth of about 9 feet. Boring ST-20 encountered sandy lean clay to a depth of about 3 feet and then clayey gravel.

Beneath the sandy silt in Boring ST-19 and sandy lean clay in Boring ST-20, the borings then generally encountered a similar profile consisting of very coarse sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders that primarily extended to the termination depths of the boreholes. A layer of clayey sand and lean clay was encountered between depths of about 13 1/2 and 19 1/2 feet in Boring ST-20. The sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder mix was estimated to classify as poorly graded gravel, clayey gravel, and poorly graded gravel with clay, cobbles, and boulders. All of the gravels also contained cobbles and boulders throughout the profile. Core samples retrieved of the boulders indicate boulders up to about 2 feet in dimension are present within the profile at the boring locations. It should be noted, using the casing advancer methodology does not allow one to retrieve core samples of the boulders, and boulders greater than 2 feet in dimension could be present. We observed boulders up to about 8 feet in size near the bridge in West Rosebud Creek. A boulder up to 14 feet was observed along the project. Based on the

Project 14-3227G Page 4 subrounded nature of the gravel, cobbles, and boulders, and general clayey matrix, we anticipate the gravels below a depth of about 20 to 25 feet are generally of a glacial till origin.

Penetration resistances recorded in the upper sands and silts ranged from 3 to 17 blows per foot (BPF), indicating loose to medium dense conditions. Penetration resistances recorded in the upper clays ranged from 3 to 6 BPF, indicating soft to medium conditions. Beneath the upper sands, silts, and clays, the penetration resistances were generally very high and were greatly affected by the presence of cobbles and boulders. Penetration resistances were commonly between 50 blows for 0.3 feet and 50 blows for 0.5 feet.

Several penetration samples with no penetration were also encountered due to cobbles or boulders. The cobbles and boulders greatly influence the penetration test values and should not be considered to represent the true density of the sand, gravel, cobble, or boulder matrix. Even so, due to the high penetration resistances and very difficult drilling, we judged the soil matrix to generally be dense to very dense.

Groundwater Groundwater was generally encountered at depths ranging from about 6 to 10 feet while drilling. Once the large to very large boulders as well as cobbles were encountered, we switched to rotary drilling methods, and water or drilling mud was injected into the borehole to flush the cuttings from the hole.

Therefore, additional water level measurements could not be obtained. We anticipate groundwater levels will generally be near the current level of West Rosebud Creek.

Laboratory Test Results

Several laboratory tests were performed on samples obtained from the borings. Moisture content tests were performed on all of the penetration test samples that were suitable for testing. Atterberg limits and sieve analysis tests were also performed on selected samples. We wish to point out that penetration test samples were selected for laboratory tests, which do not include any gravels, cobbles, or boulders greater than 2 inches. The laboratory test results are presented on the Log of Boring sheets and summarized in Table 2. Sieve analysis results are attached.

Project 14-3227G Page 5

Table 2. Summary of Soil Property Tests

Boring Station, Offset

Surface Elevation

Depth (feet)

ASTM

Symbol

Moisture Content

LL PL PI P200

ST-19 205+30,

15'Lt 5479.5

1 SP-SM 13.3

2 1/2 SP-SM 14.5

5 GP 3.2

7 1/2 ML 23.4

15 GP-GC 1.8

31 GP-GC 10.3

41 1/2 GC 10.2

ST-20 206+73,

5'Rt 5483.0

1 CL 11.4

2 1/2 ML 11.4 NP NP NP

5 GC 6.8 19 18 1 22

7 1/2 GC 7.1

10 GC 4.5

12 1/2 GC 5.7 17

15 SC 10.5

20 GC 20.3 35 13 22

30 GC 10.7 14

39 GC 12.0

54 GC 10.1

72 GM 7.4

Design and Construction Recommendations

General The soil borings generally encountered dense to very dense gravels, cobbles, and boulders. Due to the presence of cobbles and boulders, installing deep foundations into these materials will be very difficult.

Spread footing foundations can be considered, but will need to bear on the dense to very dense gravels and cobbles below a depth of about 9 feet in Boring ST-19. This will require dewatering and temporary shoring. For deep foundation alternatives, it is our opinion the preferred alternative will be either a drilled pile or micropile foundation system. Pre-bored pile, which are similar to drilled pile, could also be considered, but have greater risk of problems during construction than the drilled pile. These alternatives are discussed in further detail below.

Seismic Considerations Based on the results of available geologic information and the results of the soil borings, we recommend using Site Class C for a very dense soil and soft rock profile as outlined in American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD 2012, Table 3.10.3.1-1 for design. Seismic design parameters were obtained from the USGS website for the site location and site class determination.

Project 14-3227G Page 6

The results of this USGS report are attached, and indicate the modified peak ground acceleration AS equals 0.114 g.

A simplified liquefaction analysis was performed for the soil profile at Boring ST-19, where medium dense sandy silt was encountered. For our analysis, we utilized a magnitude earthquake of 6.2, and the modified peak ground acceleration of 0.114 g. Our analysis indicates the soil profile will have a factor of safety in excess of 5.0 under the anticipated seismic forces. Seismic induced settlement is estimated to be less than 1/4 inch. Therefore, it is our opinion the subsurface soils are not potentially liquefiable and seismic induced settlement will be less than 1/4 inch.

Spread Footing Foundations

Scour Protection. Spread footing foundations are often susceptible to failure due to excessive scour.

Therefore, if spread footing foundations are used, it is critical the abutments be adequately protected against scour. Riprap protection must be designed to resist scour, particularly when considering a layer of silt is present at Boring ST-19, which would be highly susceptible to scour.

Depth. We recommend spread footing foundations bear a minimum depth of 5 feet below finished grade for frost protection. Additional depth may also be required for scour protection. Scour protection requirements will be determined by others.

Subgrade. To avoid concentrated stresses on cobbles or boulders, we recommend providing a minimum of 1 foot of 2-inch minus Foundation Fill per Subsection 704.01 directly below the spread footings. At Boring ST-19, about 2 feet of subexcavation of the very loose sands will be required from beneath a spread footing foundation. Any silts, fine sands, or loose or soft materials, if encountered, should also be subexcavated from beneath the footing and within an oversize zone extending 1/2 foot horizontal for every 1 foot vertical of subexcavation required beneath bottom-of-footing elevation (1/2:1 oversizing). A layer of silt was encountered in Boring ST-19 between the 6- and 9-foot depths that should be removed, if encountered, and replaced with Foundation Fill.

Depending on the final footing elevation and current creek level, dewatering may be required. We recommend groundwater be drawn down a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the anticipated subexcavation, prior to subexcavation, so the excavation bottom will be stable. Due to the close proximity of West Rosebud Creek, substantial dewatering should be anticipated. The method of dewatering should be determined by the contractor and approved by the Engineer. Temporary shoring, such as sheet pile, would need to be installed to control groundwater depending on the footing and subexcavation depth.

Once the unsuitable soils have been subexcavated, we recommend they be replaced with compacted Foundation Fill, meeting the requirements of 704.01. The backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 698 (standard Proctor). Spread footings can therefore bear on a minimum of 1 foot of Foundation Fill placed over native gravels.

Bearing Pressure. It is our opinion spread footing foundations bearing directly on a minimum of 1 foot of Foundation Fill placed over the native gravels can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This value includes a minimum factor of safety of 3.0 against bearing capacity failure.

Project 14-3227G Page 7

Settlement. We estimate total settlement of a spread footing foundation will be less than 1 inch total and 3/4 inch differential.

Pre-Bored Pile or Drilled Pile

Methodology. Pre-bored pile consists of pre-drilling a hole at the planned location prior to driving to allow the pile to penetrate difficult formations, such as the cobbles and boulders, without becoming damaged or seriously misaligned. One disadvantage of the pre-boring at this site is the pre-boring will encounter large to very large boulders as well as cobbles, and since the pre-bored hole will not be cased, there is a risk that during or after the pre-boring is completed, the boreholes could collapse. The cobbles and boulders falling into the collapsed hole could prevent the pile from reaching the bottom of the pre-bore elevation. Also, the pre-boring may result in relatively large oversized holes, which could impact adjacent piling.

Drilled piling are similar to pre-bored pile, but a steel open-ended pipe pile is advanced along with the drilling by rotary drilling methods, which provides permanent casing of the borehole, and prevents borehole collapse. We are aware Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) has used this system recently on a project near Helena, Montana. After the pre-boring or drilling is completed, the piling are then driven or seated into the underlying formation until the desired capacity is obtained.

Ironically, once the open ended piling is driven into the gravel and cobble formation, there is some risk the piling could "run" in the gravel deposits. It is thought the gravel deposits can sometimes "arch" around the piling as they are driven, resulting in very little skin friction as the pile are driven. Also, since the pile are open ended, they do not obtain large end bearing capacities until very dense or large material is encountered. This problem has occurred fairly frequently on steel pile driven into gravel deposits throughout western Montana. Therefore, we recommend that once the pile is driven to within 5 feet of the specified tip elevation, the remaining portion of the pile be filled with 2-inch minus Foundation Fill meeting the requirements of Subsection 704.01. The pile should then be driven deeper. The gravel fill will "force" the pile to plug, resulting in much higher end bearing capacities. The pile should then be driven to the specified tip elevation, if possible, and the specified capacity.

It is our opinion the drilled pile are the preferred choice. Drilled pile have less risk of change orders and difficulties during installation.

We recommend conducting dynamic load tests on the steel pile while driving. This will allow utilization of a higher resistance factor, resulting in fewer pile. The dynamic load testing will also allow evaluation of the pile hammer performance, actual pile capacity, and pile damage, which could occur on the very dense cobbles and boulders.

Pile Type and Size. We recommend utilizing a 16-inch diameter by 1/2-inch wall thickness steel pipe pile for support of the proposed bridge. The pile should be fitted with an inside fit cutting shoe. The drilled pile also need to have the cutting shoe equipped with cutting teeth to aid in penetrating rocks, boulders, and formation material.

Depth and Axial Capacity. We recommend the pile locations be pre-bored or drilled to elevation 5460.0, which is a minimum depth of about 10 feet below the channel bottom and below anticipated scour elevation. After the pile location has been drilled, the piling should then be driven to the specified capacity. Based on the most recent loads provided, we calculated a minimum ultimate capacity of about

Project 14-3227G-R1 Page 8

422 kips will be required during driving. This assumes four pile per bent and a resistance factor of 0.65 utilizing dynamic load testing for construction control. We estimate the pile will need to be driven about 20 to 25 feet below the bottom of the pre-bore/drilled elevation of 5460.0. We recommend using a design tip elevation of 5436.0 for design. A summary of the estimated lengths, capacities, and tip elevations is included in Table 4 below. Graphs of the pile capacity versus depth are attached.

Table 4. Summary of Drilled Pile or Pre-Bored Pile

Abutment Driven Pile

Maximum Axial

Capacity (kips)

Maximum Factored

Load (kips)

Bottom-of-Cap

Elevation

Top-of-Pile Elevation

Design Tip

Elevation

Pile Length (feet)

East 16" x ½" 422 274 5478.28 5479.78 5436.0 44 West 16" x ½" 422 274 5477.72 5479.22 5436.0 44

*Includes a resistance factor of 0.65 per AASHTO 2012 Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

As indicated above, to reduce the risk of the pile "running" we recommend that once the pile are driven to elevation 5444, driving be halted, and the pile filled with 2-inch minus Foundation Fill. The pile should then be driven to design tip elevation and the specified capacity. The granular backfill will force the pile to "plug" and greatly increase the pile end bearing. It is our opinion this is warranted since the unit cost for the drilled pile is often very high, approximately $300 per foot. Therefore, pile overruns could result in substantial additional costs very quickly. If testing during pile installation indicates the granular backfill is not warranted, it can be eliminated and replaced with concrete backfill.

Lateral Capacity. Lateral load analysis was performed for the 16-inch pile with the most current loading conditions provided on December 17, 2015. We utilized LPILE v2015 to conduct our lateral load analysis. A summary of the anticipated pile head loading conditions and pile reactions are summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Summary of Lateral Pile Analysis

Limit State

Applied Loads, per pile Calculated Reactions, per pile

Axial Load (kips)

Bending Moment (ft-kips)

Shear (kips)

Horizontal Deflection (inches)

Bending Moment (ft-kips)

Shear (kips)

Strength 1 274 0 Trans 0 Trans --- --- --- 0 Long 16 Long 0.06 in -54.5 16

Extreme 1 167 0 Trans 23 Trans 0.10 in -81.0 23 0 Long 8 Long 0.03 in -27.1 8

Service 1 198 0 Trans 3 Trans 0.01 in -10.2 3 0 Long 0 Long --- --- ---

Project 14-3227G Page 9

Since the horizontal loads will be primarily transient in nature, the lateral capacities were developed for level ground conditions. If larger sustained horizontal loads are anticipated, values for sloping ground should be used, which will be less, and we should be contacted for additional analysis. The ultimate capacities indicated above should be reduced due to group effects when the load is applied in line with the pile group. These modifiers are summarized in Table 6 below (see AASHTO LRFD C.10.7.2.4 for details). The bridge designer should also review the calculated moments and shear forces to determine if they are acceptable.

Table 6. Summary of Recommended Pile Load Modifiers

Pile Center-to-Center Spacing (in the direction of loading)

Pile Load Modifiers, P Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 and Higher

3D 0.80 0.40 0.30 4D 0.90 0.62 0.50 5D 1.00 0.85 070

Construction Control. As indicated above, we recommend utilizing dynamic load testing during construction to establish an appropriate driving criteria. This will also allow evaluation of the hammer performance, pile capacity, and integrity. Driven pile should be installed in accordance with Section 551

– Driven Piles.

Micropile

Methodology. Micropile generally consist of a smaller diameter pile, approximately 6 to 12 inches in dimension, that are drilled into place with a rotary or percussion method. Once installed to depth, the pile are grouted in place. Section 567 – Micropiles of the Standard Specifications indicate the micropile are to be a contractor design/build. Therefore, the specialty pile contractor/subcontractor will determine the final micropile design, diameter, depth, and capacity. The owner/engineer is to provide the following information.

• Determine the design and pile layout.

• Minimum pile working load (axial tension, axial compression, and lateral) and ultimate/seismic load and tolerable deflections.

• Geotechnical baseline report.

• Identification of ground zones which cannot be used for pile capacity, such as weak soil, scour, and liquefiable zones.

The first two items will need to be provided by the project structural engineer. The geotechnical baseline report will consist of this document. Based on the results of the soil borings, zones which cannot be used for pile capacity were not identified, such as weak soil, or liquefiable zones. Therefore, the full soil profile can be used for pile capacity provided the soils below the pile cap are protected against scour.

Preliminary Depth and Capacity. For general feasibility and cost estimates, we have estimated the preliminary capacity of an 8-inch diameter micropile. Since the micropile will be installed primarily into sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder deposits, it is our opinion a nominal bond strength of 3 kips per square

Project 14-3227G Page 10 foot (ksf) can be used for design. Utilizing a resistance factor of 0.60, we calculated the micropile would have a design strength value of 3.73 kips per lineal foot of grouted micropile. Assuming about eight micropile per abutment, we calculated the minimum capacity per pile would need to be about 115 kips.

Utilizing the design strength of 3.73 ksf, we calculated a micropile length of about 31 feet. We recommend using a length of 35 feet for estimating purposes.

Again, the actual micropile size, design, and capacity will be determined by the specialty subcontractor, per Section 567 – Micropiles.

Abutment Backfill Abutment backfill should consist of 2-inch minus Foundation Fill compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its standard Proctor density.

Lateral Earth Pressure Assuming GP or GW sandy gravel compacted to 100 percent will be placed against the abutment walls and wing walls, we recommend using the following parameters for estimating lateral forces.

• At-rest pressure (wall restrained): 60 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (psf/ft) plus 0.5 times surcharge load.

• Active earth pressure (wall free to move away from backfill): 38 psf/ft plus 0.31 times surcharge load.

• Passive pressure: 180 psf/ft (spread footing foundations only)

• Coefficient of friction: 0.55 (spread footing foundations only)

The values indicated above do not include factors of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be included when designing the abutment and walls to resist lateral earth forces. Passive forces and frictional resistance should not be relied upon for resisting lateral movement for pile supported foundations since the material in front of the abutments/wing walls could be removed (scour) and they will be on the pile, not the soil subgrade.

Conclusions Based on the results of our fieldwork and analysis, it is our opinion the drilled pile will be the best foundation alternative. The drilled pile will support the proposed structure and provide the best scour protection. The spread footing foundation will likely be less expensive, but will be more susceptible to scour failure.

General Recommendations

Basis of Recommendations The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketch. Often, variations occur between these borings, the nature and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any variations.

Dynamic pile testing is recommended during pile installation. The variations may result in additional foundation costs, and it is suggested a contingency be provided for this purpose.

Project 14-3227G Page 12

Sieve Analysis Results Calculations USGS Design Maps Detailed Report

SITE LOCATION SKETCH

MT Stillwater 207(1)

West Rosebud Creek Road Reconstruction

Custer National Forest Stillwater County Montana

Drawn by: Google/SK Geo Date 6/10/14

Project: 14-3227G

Scale: None FIGURE

Sheet 1 of 1 1

North

Begin Sta. 20+00

End Sta. 210+50

Allen Grade Bridge Sta. 206+12

Qal = Alluvium Qls = Landslide Deposits Qg = Glacial Deposits Qpg = Pediment Gravel Deposits Kjr = Judith River Formation Khc = Hell Creek Formation

Anticline Syncline Reverse Fault

GEOLOGIC MAP

West Rosebud Creek Road Reconstruction

Custer National Forest Stillwater County Montana

Drawn by: MB&G SK Geo Date 7/22/15

Project: 14-3227G

Scale: None FIGURE

North

Begin Sta. 20+00

End Sta. 210+50

Allen Grade Bridge Sta. 206+12

BRIDGE BORING LOCATION SKETCH

West Rosebud Creek Road Reconstruction Custer National Forest

Stillwater County Montana

Drawn by: RPA/SKG Date 7/22/15

Project: 14-3227G

Scale: 1” = 100’ +/- FIGURE

N

David Boring Location

David Typewritten Text

ST-19

David Typewritten Text

ST-20

David Boring Location

Elevation Reference:

wood bridge deck along east side of existing bridge, elev. = 5482.7.

Switch to HQ-3 impregnated core bit at 6'

1 - 2 - 1

1 - 1 - 5

18 - 35 - 22

5 - 6 - 11

50/0.0ft

25 - 50/0.3ft

50/0.3ft

Poorly-Graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), loose, brown, moist, fine grained. (Alluvium).

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL (GP), loose to very dense, brown, moist, fine to coarse grained, subrounded.

(Alluvium).

Sandy SILT (ML), medium dense, brown, waterbearing. (Alluvium).

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with clay, sand, cobbles, and boulders (GP-GC), very dense, light gray, waterbearing, fine to coarse grained, subrounded.

Boulders up to 2' in dimension. (Alluvium).

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with clay, cobbles, and boulders (GP-GC), very dense, gray to dark gray, waterbearing, fine to coarse grained, subrounded.

Boulders up to 2' in dimension. (Till).

2.5 5477.0

6.0 5473.5

9.0 5470.5

25.0 5454.5

Township, Range, and Section:

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

P L

L L

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Location Source:

RPA Survey

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

5474.5

5469.5

5464.5

5459.5

5454.5

5449.5

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

(2

M D

T L

O G

O F

B O

R

IN

G

M D

T _R

E V

IS

E

D _2

9+

(C P

T _I

M P

O R

T

G D

T

/2

/1

6:

C

:\U S

E R

S \P

U B

LI

C

\D O

C U

M E

N T

S \B

E N

T

LE

Y \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \3

1-

\3

7- S

T .G

P J

Logger: B. Western

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 1 of 2

Station:

Offset:

205 + 30 15 ft L

System: MT S.P. (E)

Driller: C. Larsen

Project:

Elevation Source:

RPA Survey

Date Started:

6/15/15

Project Number:

14-3227G

UPN:

Date Finished:

6/19/15

Rig: CME 75HT Hammer: Auto Boring Diameter:

7.6"

Drilling Fluid:

Water/Mud Abandonment Method:

Bentonite

MT Stillwater 207(1) West Rosebud Creek Bridge

Top of Boring Elevation: 5479.5 ft

Boring Location Coordinates

After Drilling: ()

Water Level Observations Remarks:

After Drilling: 6.0 ft (5473.5 ft), Augers In

During Drilling: Not Encountered

Boring ST-19

Core refusal at 51'

37 - 50/0.3ft

50/0.0ft

50/0.6ft

50/0.3ft

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with clay, cobbles, and boulders continued.

Clayey GRAVEL with cobbles and boulders (GC), very dense, gray, waterbearing, fine to coarse grained, subrounded. Boulders up to 2' in dimension.

(Till).

Boring Depth: 51.0 ft, Elevation: 5428.5 ft

41.0 5438.5

51.0 5428.5

Township, Range, and Section:

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

P L

L L

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Location Source:

RPA Survey

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

5444.5

5439.5

5434.5

5429.5

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

(2

M D

T L

O G

O F

B O

R

IN

G

M D

T _R

E V

IS

E

D _2

9+

(C P

T _I

M P

O R

T

G D

T

/2

/1

6:

C

:\U S

E R

S \P

U B

LI

C

\D O

C U

M E

N T

S \B

E N

T

LE

Y \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \3

1-

\3

7- S

T .G

P J

Logger: B. Western

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 2 of 2

Station:

Offset:

205 + 30 15 ft L

System: MT S.P. (E)

Driller: C. Larsen

Project:

Elevation Source:

RPA Survey

Date Started:

6/15/15

Project Number:

14-3227G

UPN:

Date Finished:

6/19/15

Rig: CME 75HT Hammer: Auto Boring Diameter:

7.6"

Drilling Fluid:

Water/Mud Abandonment Method:

Bentonite

MT Stillwater 207(1) West Rosebud Creek Bridge

Top of Boring Elevation: 5479.5 ft

Boring Location Coordinates

After Drilling: ()

Water Level Observations Remarks:

After Drilling: 6.0 ft (5473.5 ft), Augers In

During Drilling: Not Encountered

Boring ST-19

NP

Switch to NW Casing Advancer bit at 13.5'

Pen: 0.5 tsf 1 - 1 - 2

2 - 3 - 3

4 - 6 - 20

7 - 31 - 24

12 - 20 - 22

23 - 50 - 50/0.5ft

50/0.5ft

24 - 50/0.2ft

50/0.0ft

24 - 25 - 49

Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), soft, dark brown to brown, moist, fine grained. 1.5" topsoil, trace salts, roots, slightly plastic to low plasticity. (Alluvium).

SILT (ML), loose, brown, moist. nonplastic.

(Alluvium).

Clayey GRAVEL with sand and cobbles (GC), medium dense to very dense, brown, moist to wet, fine to coarse grained, subrounded. low plasticity to slightly plastic, oxide stains. (Alluvium).

Clayey SAND with gravel, cobbles, and boulders (SC), very dense, olive, waterbearing, fine to coarse grained, subrounded. (Alluvium).

Lean CLAY with sand, cobbles, and boulders (CL), very stiff, olive brown, waterbearing, fine grained, subrounded. (Alluvium).

Clayey GRAVEL with sand, cobbles, and boulders (GC), very dense, brown, waterbearing, fine to coarse grained, subrounded. Boulders up to 2' in dimension. (Till).

5482.0

2.0 5481.0

1.0

13.5 5469.5

17.3 5465.7

19.5 5463.5

Township, Range, and Section:

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

P L

L L

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Location Source:

RPA Survey

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

5478.0

5473.0

5468.0

5463.0

5458.0

5453.0

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

(2

M D

T L

O G

O F

B O

R

IN

G

M D

T _R

E V

IS

E

D _2

9+

(C P

T _I

M P

O R

T

G D

T

/2

/1

6:

C

:\U S

E R

S \P

U B

LI

C

\D O

C U

M E

N T

S \B

E N

T

LE

Y \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \3

1-

\3

7- S

T .G

P J

Logger: B. Western

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 1 of 3

Station:

Offset:

206 + 73 5 ft R

System: MT S.P. (E)

Driller: C. Larsen

Project:

Elevation Source:

RPA Survey

Date Started:

6/22/15

Project Number:

14-3227G

UPN:

Date Finished:

6/26/15

Rig: CME 75HT Hammer: Auto Boring Diameter:

7.6"

Drilling Fluid:

Water/Mud Abandonment Method:

Bentonite

MT Stillwater 207(1) West Rosebud Creek Bridge

Top of Boring Elevation: 5483.0 ft

Boring Location Coordinates

After Drilling: ()

Water Level Observations Remarks:

After Drilling: 11.0 ft (5472.0 ft), Augers In

During Drilling: 9.8 ft (5473.2 ft)

Boring ST-20

Spoon bouncing on rock.

Switch to HQ-3 impregnated core bit at 53'

50/0.0ft

50/0.3ft

50/0.1ft

17 - 50/0.3ft

Clayey GRAVEL with sand, cobbles, and boulders continued.

Township, Range, and Section:

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

P L

L L

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Location Source:

RPA Survey

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

5448.0

5443.0

5438.0

5433.0

5428.0

5423.0

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

(2

M D

T L

O G

O F

B O

R

IN

G

M D

T _R

E V

IS

E

D _2

9+

(C P

T _I

M P

O R

T

G D

T

/2

/1

6:

C

:\U S

E R

S \P

U B

LI

C

\D O

C U

M E

N T

S \B

E N

T

LE

Y \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \3

1-

\3

7- S

T .G

P J

Logger: B. Western

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 2 of 3

Station:

Offset:

206 + 73 5 ft R

System: MT S.P. (E)

Driller: C. Larsen

Project:

Elevation Source:

RPA Survey

Date Started:

6/22/15

Project Number:

14-3227G

UPN:

Date Finished:

6/26/15

Rig: CME 75HT Hammer: Auto Boring Diameter:

7.6"

Drilling Fluid:

Water/Mud Abandonment Method:

Bentonite

MT Stillwater 207(1) West Rosebud Creek Bridge

Top of Boring Elevation: 5483.0 ft

Boring Location Coordinates

After Drilling: ()

Water Level Observations Remarks:

After Drilling: 11.0 ft (5472.0 ft), Augers In

During

5 - 50/0.0ft

50/0.4ft

Silty GRAVEL with sand, cobbles, and boulders (GM), very dense, gray to dark gray, waterbearing, fine to coarse grained, subrounded. Boulders up to 2' in dimension. (Till).

Boring Depth: 71.4 ft, Elevation: 5411.6 ft

60.0 5423.0

71.4 5411.6

Township, Range, and Section:

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

P L

L L

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Location Source:

RPA Survey

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

5418.0

5413.0

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

(2

M D

T L

O G

O F

B O

R

IN

G

M D

T _R

E V

IS

E

D _2

9+

(C P

T _I

M P

O R

T

G D

T

/2

/1

6:

C

:\U S

E R

S \P

U B

LI

C

\D O

C U

M E

N T

S \B

E N

T

LE

Y \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \3

1-

\3

7- S

T .G

P J

Logger: B. Western

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 3 of 3

Station:

Offset:

206 + 73 5 ft R

System: MT S.P. (E)

Driller: C. Larsen

Project:

Elevation Source:

RPA Survey

Date Started:

6/22/15

Project Number:

14-3227G

UPN:

Date Finished:

6/26/15

Rig: CME 75HT Hammer: Auto Boring Diameter:

7.6"

Drilling Fluid:

Water/Mud Abandonment Method:

Bentonite

MT Stillwater 207(1) West Rosebud Creek Bridge

Top of Boring Elevation: 5483.0 ft

Boring Location Coordinates

After Drilling: ()

Water Level Observations Remarks:

After Drilling: 11.0 ft (5472.0 ft), Augers In

During

Boring ST-19, looking west Boring ST-19, looking east

Boring ST-19 while drilling with CME 75HT Boring ST-20, looking east

Existing Rosebud Creek Bridge Near Boring ST-20, 8-foot or bigger boulder.

Existing bridge looking south (upstream), not large to very large boulders. Existing bridge looking north (downstream), note large to very large boulders.

Boring ST-19, 9' to 41' Boring ST-19, 41' to 51'

Boring ST-19, 53' to 71'st project

Project: 14-3227G Client: FHWA Project Description: Geotechnical Investigation MT Stillwater207(1) Date: 8/21/15 West Rosebud Creek Road Reconstuction

IDIQ Contract No. DTFH70-10-D00016 Task Order No. T-5001 Stillwater County, Montana

Gradation Analysis ASTM C117 & C136

ST-20 ST-20 ST-20

5 ' 12.5' 30' jar 12B jar 15 jar 19

3" (75) #REF! #REF! 100 100 100

1-1/2" (37.5) #REF! #REF! 100 100 100

1" (25.0) #REF! #REF! 100 100 100

3/4" (19.0) #REF! #REF! 100 84 96

1/2" (12.5) #REF! #REF! 96 80 90

3/8" (9.5) #REF! #REF! 94 74 85

#4 (4.75) #REF! #REF! 89 65 73

#10 (2) #REF! #REF! 77 56 60

#20 (.85) #REF! #REF! 60 45 45

#40 (.425) #REF! #REF! 47 36 33

#80 (.18) #REF! #REF! 34 26 22

#100 (.15) #REF! #REF! 31 24 19

#200 (.075) #REF! #REF! 22 17 14

C566 Moisture Content, % 6.8 5.7 10.7

Proctor Max Density, Opt Mst D4318 Plasticity, LL, PL, PI

CBR @ 0.1"

MT-232 Sulfate, % weight

AASHTO Classification

Soil Properties

Sieve Standard

(mm) Average St Dev Spec

Abutment Settlement Output Sheet

ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENTS BENEATH A RECTANGULAR LOADED AREA

(Version 3.0, Copyright 2005, Developed By: GeoSoftware Solutions, All Rights Reserved) (Licensed to: SK Geotechnical, Inc. - Billings, Montana)

PROJECT INFORMATION ** SUMMARY OF RESULTS **

Project Name Rosebud Creek Bridge Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Project No. 14-3227G Total Elastic Settlement (inches) 3.50 0.88 1.90 Prepared By: ________________ Date: ____________

Location Stillwater County, Montana Total Consol. Settlement (inches) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reviewed By: ________________ Date: ____________

Total Settlement (inches) 3.50 0.88 1.90

INPUT PARAMETERS

Description Boring ST-19 REFERENCES:

Stress Analysis Method Boussinesq Method 1. Bowles, J. (1988), Found. Analysis and Design, Width of Loaded Area, B 5.00 feet 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., pp. 240-256.

Length of Loaded Area, L 40.00 feet 2. Bhushan, K. and Haley, S. (1976), "Stress Dist.

Applied Pressure, p 4.00 ksf for Heavy Embedded Structures," JGED, ASCE, Embedment Depth of Loaded Area, D 6.00 feet Vol. 102, No. GT7, pp. 807-810.

Bottom Elevation of Loaded Area 5,478.50 feet 3. Cheney, R.S. and Chassie, R.G. (1982), Soils

GWT Elevation for Design 5,473.50 feet and Foundations Workshop Manual, FHWA, Chapter 5.

INPUT SOIL PROFILE DATA SOIL STRESS AND SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS

Top of Bottom of Soil Type Total Elastic Poisson's Comp. Recomp. Overconsol. BOLA to Layer Ini. Effective Ini. Effective Maximum Load-Induced Stress Change Elastic Settlement Consolidation Settlement

Elevation Elevation Model Soil Unit Modulus Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Soil Depth Thickness Vert. Stress Vert. Stress Past ∆p (ksf) Se (inches) Sc (inches)

Weight z Hi (bottom) (mid-layer) Pressure Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 (feet) (feet) γt (pcf) Es (ksf) ν Cc / (1 + e0) Cr / (1 + e0) OCR (feet) (feet) pvob' (ksf) pvom' (ksf) pc (ksf)

5,484.50 5,477.00 Cohesionless Soil 120.0 100.0 0.30 -2.25 7.50 0.90 0.45 N/A 3.40 0.97 1.94 3.082 0.717 1.581 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,477.00 5,473.50 Cohesionless Soil 135.0 1,000.0 0.25 3.25 3.50 1.37 1.14 N/A 2.90 0.92 1.85 0.115 0.033 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,473.50 5,470.50 Cohesionless Soil 110.0 200.0 0.30 6.50 3.00 1.70 1.54 N/A 1.78 0.72 1.44 0.250 0.098 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,470.50 5,464.50 Cohesionless Soil 140.0 2,500.0 0.25 11.00 6.00 2.17 1.94 N/A 1.09 0.51 1.00 0.027 0.012 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,464.50 5,454.50 Cohesionless Soil 140.0 2,500.0 0.25 19.00 10.00 2.94 2.56 N/A 0.59 0.32 0.57 0.024 0.013 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,454.50 5,450.00 Cohesionless Soil 140.0 2,500.0 0.25 26.25 4.50 3.29 3.12 N/A 0.38 0.23 0.38 0.007 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000

2 2

B

L

Abutment Settlement - Subecavation Output Sheet

ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENTS BENEATH A RECTANGULAR LOADED AREA

(Version 3.0, Copyright 2005, Developed By: GeoSoftware Solutions, All Rights Reserved) (Licensed to: SK Geotechnical, Inc. - Billings, Montana)

PROJECT INFORMATION ** SUMMARY OF RESULTS **

Project Name Rosebud Creek Bridge Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Project No. 14-3227G Total Elastic Settlement (inches) 0.72 0.23 0.48 Prepared By: ________________ Date: ____________

Location Stillwater County, Montana Total Consol. Settlement (inches) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reviewed By: ________________ Date: ____________

Total Settlement (inches) 0.72 0.23 0.48

INPUT PARAMETERS

Description Boring ST-19 - Subexcavation REFERENCES:

Stress Analysis Method Boussinesq Method 1. Bowles, J. (1988), Found. Analysis and Design, Width of Loaded Area, B 5.00 feet 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., pp. 240-256.

Length of Loaded Area, L 40.00 feet 2. Bhushan, K. and Haley, S. (1976), "Stress Dist.

Applied Pressure, p 4.00 ksf for Heavy Embedded Structures," JGED, ASCE, Embedment Depth of Loaded Area, D 6.00 feet Vol. 102, No. GT7, pp. 807-810.

Bottom Elevation of Loaded Area 5,478.50 feet 3. Cheney, R.S. and Chassie, R.G. (1982), Soils

GWT Elevation for Design 5,473.50 feet and Foundations Workshop Manual, FHWA, Chapter 5.

INPUT SOIL PROFILE DATA SOIL STRESS AND SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS

Top of Bottom of Soil Type Total Elastic Poisson's Comp. Recomp. Overconsol. BOLA to Layer Ini. Effective Ini. Effective Maximum Load-Induced Stress Change Elastic Settlement Consolidation Settlement

Elevation Elevation Model Soil Unit Modulus Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Soil Depth Thickness Vert. Stress Vert. Stress Past ∆p (ksf) Se (inches) Sc (inches)

Weight z Hi (bottom) (mid-layer) Pressure Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 (feet) (feet) γt (pcf) Es (ksf) ν Cc / (1 + e0) Cr / (1 + e0) OCR (feet) (feet) pvob' (ksf) pvom' (ksf) pc (ksf)

5,484.50 5,477.00 Cohesionless Soil 135.0 1,000.0 0.30 -2.25 7.50 1.01 0.51 N/A 3.40 0.97 1.94 0.301 0.071 0.155 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,477.00 5,473.50 Cohesionless Soil 135.0 1,000.0 0.25 3.25 3.50 1.49 1.25 N/A 2.90 0.92 1.85 0.113 0.033 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,473.50 5,470.50 Cohesionless Soil 110.0 200.0 0.30 6.50 3.00 1.82 1.65 N/A 1.78 0.72 1.44 0.248 0.098 0.199 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,470.50 5,464.50 Cohesionless Soil 140.0 2,500.0 0.25 11.00 6.00 2.28 2.05 N/A 1.09 0.51 1.00 0.027 0.012 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,464.50 5,454.50 Cohesionless Soil 140.0 2,500.0 0.25 19.00 10.00 3.06 2.67 N/A 0.59 0.32 0.57 0.024 0.013 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000

5,454.50 5,450.00 Cohesionless Soil 140.0 2,500.0 0.25 26.25 4.50 3.41 3.23 N/A 0.38 0.23 0.38 0.007 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000

2 2

B

L

SK Geotechnical Corp Jan 21 2016 Pre-Bored 16" Pile, ICE 42-S

Gain/Loss 1 at Shaft and Toe 1.000 / 1.000 GRLWEAP Version 2010

D ep th (f t)

0 25 50 75 100

Blow Count (blows/ft)

D ep th (f t)

0 150 300 450 600

Ult. Capacity (kips)

0 10 20 30 40

Tension (ksi)

0 10 20 30 40

Comp. Stress (ksi)

0 3 6 9 12

Stroke (ft)

0 5 10 15 20

ENTHRU (kips-ft)

SK Geotechnical Corp Jan 21 2016 GRLWEAP Version 2010Pre-Bored 16" Pile, ICE 42-S

Gain/Loss 1 at Shaft and Toe 1.000 / 1.000

Ultimate End Blow Comp. Tension Depth Capacity Friction Bearing Count Stress Stress Stroke ENTHRU ft kips kips kips blows/ft ksi ksi ft kips-ft

6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 10.27 0.0

12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 10.27 0.0

18.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 10.27 0.0

24.0 272.8 21.5 251.3 41.4 27.563 -0.847 9.64 16.0

30.0 359.0 44.8 314.2 59.2 30.647 -2.192 10.27 17.6

36.0 382.8 68.7 314.2 70.1 28.898 -2.619 10.27 17.4

39.1 395.3 81.1 314.2 75.6 28.046 -2.976 10.27 17.4

40.0 399.1 85.0 314.2 78.1 27.876 -3.075 10.27 17.3

45.0 420.0 105.8 314.2 89.8 27.815 -3.483 10.27 17.2

Total Continuous Driving Time 41.00 minutes; Total Number of Blows 1529

Lateral Pile Deflection (inches) Bending Moment (in-kips) Shear Force (kips) D ep th ft

D ep th ft

D ep th ft

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

-1000-800-600-400-200 0 200

0 10 20

Strength 1

Extreme 1

Extreme 1

Service 1

Sand

Sand

Sand

Sand

Sand

Bent 1, ST-19.lp8o

LPile for Windows, Version 201 5-08.007

Analysis of Individual Piles and D rilled Shafts Subjected to Lateral Loading Using the p-y Method © 1985-2015 by Ensoft, I nc.

All Rights Reserved

This copy of LPile is being used by:

SK Geotechnical 2511 Holman Ave, Billings, MT 59102

Serial Number of Security Device: 162975018

This copy of LPile is licensed for exclusive use by :

SK Geotechnical, Billings, MT

Use of this program by any entity other than SK Geo technical, Billings, MT is a violation of the software license agreement.

Files Used for Analysi s

Path to file locations:

\\FILESERVER\Network\Network\PROJECTS\2014\3227G W est Rosebud Creek Road\Analysis\

Name of input data file:

Bent 1, ST-19.lp8d

Name of output report file:

Bent 1, ST-19.lp8o

Name of plot output file:

Bent 1, ST-19.lp8p

Name of runtime message file:

Bent 1, ST-19.lp8r

Date and Time of Analys is

Date: January 22, 2016 T ime: 10:35:54

Problem Title

Project Name: West Rosebud Bridge

Job Number: 14-3227G

Client: RPA

Engineer: BWestern

Description: Laterial deflections on bridge 16" pip e piles.

Program Options and Setti ngs

Computational Options:

- Use unfactored loads in computations (convention al analysis) Engineering Units Used for Data Input and Computati ons:

- US Customary System Units (pounds, feet, inches)

Analysis Control Options:

- Maximum number of iterations allowed = 500

- Deflection tolerance for convergence = 1.0000E-05 in

- Maximum allowable deflection = 100.0000 in

- Number of pile increments = 100

Loading Type and Number of Cycles of Loading:

- Static loading specified

- Use of p-y modification factors for p-y curves n ot selected

- No distributed lateral loads are entered

- Loading by lateral soil movements acting on pile not selected

- Input of shear resistance at the pile tip not se lected

- Computation of pile-head foundation stiffness ma trix not selected

- Push-over analysis of pile not selected

- Buckling analysis of pile not selected

Output Options:

- Output files use decimal points to denote decima l symbols.

- Values of pile-head deflection, bending moment, shear force, and soil reaction are printed for full length of pil e.

- Printing Increment (nodal spacing of output poin ts) = 1

- No p-y curves to be computed and reported for us er-specified depths

- Print using wide report formats

Pile Structural Properties and Geometry

Number of pile sections defined = 1 Total length of pile = 37.000 ft Depth of ground surface below top of pile = 0.0000 ft

Pile diameters used for p-y curve computations are defined using 2 points.

p-y curves are computed using pile diameter values interpolated with depth over the length of the pile. A summary of values of pile diameter vs. depth follows.

Depth Below Pile Point Pile Head Diameter No. feet inches 1 0.000 16.0000 2 37.000 16.0000

Input Structural Properties for Pile Sections:

Pile Section No. 1:

Section 1 is an elastic pile Cross-sectional Shape = Circular Pipe Length of section = 37.000000 ft Width of top of section = 16.000000 in Width of bottom of section = 16.000000 in Wall Thickness at Top = 0.500000 in Wall Thickness at Bottom = 0.500000 in Top Area = 24.347343 sq. in Bottom Area = 24.347343 sq. in

Moment of Inertia at Top = 731.942001 in^4 Moment of Inertia at Bottom = 731.942001 in^4 Elastic Modulus = 29000000. psi

Ground Slope and Pile Batter Angles

Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees = 0.000 radians

Pile Batter Angle = 0.000 degrees = 0.000 radians

Soil and Rock Layering Infor mation

The soil profile is modelled using 5 layers

Layer 1 is sand, p-y criteria by Reese et al., 1974

Distance from top of pile to top of layer = 0.0000 ft Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer = 3.200000 ft Effective unit weight at top of layer = 134.000000 pcf Effective unit weight at bottom of layer = 134.000000 pcf Friction angle at top of layer = 38.000000 deg.

Friction angle at bottom of layer = 38.000000 deg.

Subgrade k at top of layer = 150.000000 pci Subgrade k at bottom of layer = 150.000000 pci

Layer 2 is sand, p-y criteria by Reese et al., 1974

Distance from top of pile to top of layer = 3.200000 ft Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer = 9.000000 ft Effective unit weight at top of layer = 72.000000 pcf Effective unit weight at bottom of layer = 72.000000 pcf Friction angle at top of layer = 38.000000 deg.

Friction angle at bottom of layer = 38.000000 deg.

Subgrade k at top of layer = 90.000000 pci Subgrade k at bottom of layer = 90.000000 pci

Layer 3 is sand, p-y criteria by Reese et al., 1974

Distance from top of pile to top of layer = 9.000000 ft Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer = 14.000000 ft Effective unit weight at top of layer = 71.000000 pcf Effective unit weight at bottom of layer = 71.000000 pcf Friction angle at top of layer = 36.000000 deg.

Friction angle at bottom of layer = 36.000000 deg.

Subgrade k at top of layer = 125.000000 pci Subgrade k at bottom of layer = 125.000000 pci

Layer 4 is sand, p-y criteria by Reese et al., 1974

Distance from top of pile to top of layer = 14.000000 ft Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer = 28.000000 ft Effective unit weight at top of layer = 87.000000 pcf Effective unit weight at bottom of layer = 87.000000 pcf Friction angle at top of layer = 34.000000 deg.

Friction angle at bottom of layer = 34.000000 deg.

Subgrade k at top of layer = 125.000000 pci Subgrade k at bottom of layer = 125.000000 pci

Layer 5 is sand, p-y criteria by Reese et al., 1974

Distance from top of pile to top of layer = 28.000000 ft Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer = 48.000000 ft Effective unit weight at top of layer = 87.000000 pcf Effective unit weight at bottom of layer = 87.000000 pcf Friction angle at top of…