Geotechnical_Report_06-14.pdf

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14

Geotechnical Design and Construction Information

Gardiner Gateway Project, PH-I

MT PARK 2013(1)

August 2014

Final Geotechnical Recommendations Gardiner Gateway, PH I, MT PARK 2013(1)

Index Page

Introduction 1

Project Scope 2

Subsurface Investigation & Results Site Geology 3 Field Reconnaissance 5 Subsurface Investigations 6 Laboratory Testing & Subsurface Materials 7

Recommendations & Design Analyses Proposed Retaining Wall Recommendations 9 Wall Analyses 12

Construction Advisory & Recommendations MSE Wall Site Conditions 14 Stockpile Area & Borrow Sources 14 Stone Masonry 16 Groundwater 16 Pavement Recommendations 16 Construction Requirements 16 Drainage 17 Installation Damage 17

Concluding Remarks 18

References 19

Final Geotechnical Recommendations

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14

Figures

Figure 1: Project Location Map 1

Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map 2

Figure 3: Geologic Map Excerpt 3

Figure 4: Plan View of Arch Park Stage Wall Location 9

Figure 5: Conceptual Illustration of a Geosynthetically 10 Reinforced MSE Retaining Wall with Welded Wire Forms and Mortared Stone Masonry Facing

Figure 6: Conceptual Illustration of a Seat-Type Wall with 10 Mortared Stone Masonry Facing

Figure 7: Location of Reese Pit relative to Gardiner 15

Figure 8: Location of the Black Diamond Quarry 16 relative to Gardiner

Tables

Table 1: Recent Active Faults within 50 Miles of Gardiner 5

Table 2: Laboratory Test Results—Subgrade Borings 7

Table 3: Soil Properties used in Analyses 12

Table 4: Critical Stability Analyses Results 13

Appendices

Appendix A:

Boring Locations (Figures A-1 and A-2), USCS & ASSHTO Soil Descriptive Terminology, Boring Logs, Laboratory Test Results

Appendix B:

Project Photos

Appendix C Wall Layout Details MSEW LRFD Critical Analyses Results Seatwall Overturning & Sliding Analyses 5% damped design response spectrum and seismic parameters

Appendix D Final Pavement Recommendations Memorandum

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 1

INTRODUCTION

This report provides geotechnical information and final recommendations pertaining to the design and construction of retaining walls located near the north entrance of Yellowstone National Park (the Park or YNP) and Gardiner, MT. Gardiner borders the northern boundary of YNP and is located approximately 48 miles directly south-southeast from Bozeman, Montana—approximately 80 miles driving distance. A project location map is provided as Figure 1.

Figure 1: Project Location Map

Figure 2 shows the location of the Roosevelt Arch and Arch Park relative to Gardiner. West Park Street lies at the south boundary of Gardiner (roughly the north boundary of the Park) and wraps back around to the North Entrance Road at the west side (a.k.a. the hairpin curve). Arch Park is located approximately 150 feet to the northwest of the Roosevelt Arch and west of the hairpin curve. Most of Arch Park lies within the Park boundary as can be seen in figure. The Park’s north entrance station is located in the lower right corner of the figure.

Project

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 2

Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map

This report provides final wall design recommendations for walls proposed at Arch Park (stage walls) and information regarding the geotechnical investigations performed for the project that included subgrade explorations and geotechnical investigations conducted within the Park and Gardiner, and information pertaining to percolation tests conducted to measure surface water infiltration rates.

During the preliminary design level several retaining wall alternatives were considered for the project including soldier pile, concrete cast-in-place cantilever, rockery, full-width mortared Ashlar type landscape “walls,” and mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls for areas located at Pocket Park, adjacent to the Yellowstone Association Building at the east side of the Institute Building Parking area, and in Arch Park. (Note that Pocket Park and the Yellowstone Association and Institute Buildings are not shown on Figure 2 as they are not germane to the focus of this report.) Following preliminary design it was understood that the majority of geotechnical, technical involvement would be required for the walls proposed for the Arch Park stage area. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was recommended that landscape-type seat walls requiring minimal geotechnical involvement could be used at Pocket Park and adjacent to the Yellowstone Association Building (YA Building) as well as at other locations on the project. As a result landscape-type seat walls used in areas other than the stage walls location are not discussed in this report. For historic information regarding early wall design considerations refer to Geotechnical Memorandum No. GM02-14, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations, Gardiner Gateway, PH-I, MT PARK 2013(1), March 3, 2013.

PROJECT SCOPE

YNP was established by congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1872, and is widely considered to be the world’s first national park. The north entrance portal to the Park is located in Gardiner, which is considered to be the oldest entry portal to YNP and the State of Montana. The development and growth of Gardiner and YNP has occurred simultaneously with visitor traffic that

Arch Park

Roosevelt Arch

943 ft 0

Gardiner, MT

N

Yellowstone North

Entrance Station

Yellowstone River

North Entrance Road

Yellowstone National Park

Stage Walls Area

Approx. Park Boundary

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 3

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14 passes through the city. This 19th century portal is experiencing challenges that come with the modern day demands resulting from Park and area visitors.

The larger Gardiner Gateway project resulted from a multi-agency effort to improve fundamental health, life and safety issues associated with vehicular traffic congestion, parking, streets, pedestrian access/sidewalks, drainage/utilities, infrastructure, lighting, public restrooms, park facilities, signage and other public amenities. Additional themes/components of the project include: economic development, marketing/advertising, tourism and business development for the community of Gardiner, the state of Montana and YNP.

With the above goal in mind, in addition to the stage walls described in this report the first phase of Gardiner Gateway improvements will include repaving portions of road in Gardiner, drainage improvements, construction of a bypass road between South 3rd Street in Gardiner and the North Entrance Road in YNP, repaving a portion of the North Entrance Road (US 89) and Robert Reamer Blvd in YNP, and construction of low-height landscape-type seat walls.

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION & RESULTS

Site investigations consisted of literature review, field reconnaissance and subsurface investigations.

Field reconnaissance involved visual observation of geologic features and surficial deposits at, and in the vicinity of, the project and exposed cut slopes.

Site Geology

Geology in the vicinity of the project is generally reported to consist of glacial deposits (Qg), undivided (Holocene and Pleistocene), described as Dominantly unsorted and unstratified sediment of Pleistocene glacial moraines and other associated glacial and glaciofluvial deposits. Also includes Holocene glacial deposits and rock glacier deposits. May include subordinate alluvium, colluvium, talus, landslide deposits, and boulder fields (after Wilson and Elliott, 1977, also shown for those areas mapped by Van Gosen, et al., 1993 and U.S. Geological Survey, 1972). A Geologic Map excerpt is presented as Figure 3.

The referenced geologic map shows a thrust fault or reverse fault trending northwest to southeast to be located approximately 1 mile to the northeast, normal faults trending roughly north to south to the west and east of the project, and a grouping of faults of various orientations with unknown sense of movement located to the southwest of the project, to name several. The activity level of the faults appearing on the geologic map excerpt is unknown.

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 4

Figure 3: Geologic Map excerpt (Berg, Lonn, Locke, 1999)

A search was conducted using the USGS 2008 National Seismic Hazards Map utility for recent active faults located within 50 miles of Gardiner. The search returned six active faults ranging in distance from about 15 miles (Emigrant fault) to approximately 50 miles (Red Rock Hills fault). Limited information regarding UGGS fault ID, name and location, distance, time of most recent deformation, dip direction, sense of movement and recurrence interval for the faults are listed in Table 1. Most of the faults appearing in the table have more than one component as evidenced by the Fault ID. For example, the Emigrant fault (Fault ID 642) has an ‘a’ component and a ‘b’ component, signifying the northern and southern sections of the larger fault, respectively. As will be discussed later, seismic analyses were not performed for the project. The seismic information appearing herein is presented for consideration but not as a germane aspect of the project. The reader may refer to the USGS for more complete seismic hazards information and/or design parameters.

Normal Faults Thrust Fault or Reverse Fault

Project

Faults (Sense of Movement Unknown)

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 5

Table 1: Recent Active Faults within 50 miles of Gardiner, MT

Fault

ID

Name, State Distance from

Gardiner, MT (mi)

Slip Rate Category (mm/yr)

Time of Most Recent

Deformation1.

Dip Direction

Sense of Movement

Recurrence Interval2.

642ab Emigrant fault, MT

15.17 0.2 - 1.0 Late to Latest Quaternary

(<15 ka to <130 ka)

W (a) NW (b)

Normal 10.0 -

15.0 k. a.

656 Hebgen-Red Canyon fault, MT

26.13 < 0.2 1959 Hebgen Lake earthquake

SW Normal 5.4 -

29.8 k.a.

757abc Eagle Bay fault, WY

37.91 < 0.2 - 1.0 Middle and Late

Quaternary (<750 ka) to

Latest Quaternary (<

15 ka)

E Normal ?

655abc Madison fault, MT

38.62 < 0.2 - 1.0 Latest Quaternary

(<15 ka) to Late Quaternary (<130 ka)

W (a & b) SW (c )

Normal 10 - 25 k.a.

643abcd Centennial fault, MT

44.84 <0.2 - 5.0 Latest Quaternary (<15 ka) to Quaternary (<1.6 Ma)

N; NE; SW Normal 2 - >65(?) k.a.

766 East Mount Sheridan faults, WY

49.52 1.0 - 5.0 Latest Quaternary

(<15 ka)

E Normal ?

1. ka is an abbreviation for kilo-annum, which is the Latin term for “thousand years” ago. Ma is an abbreviation for mega-annum , which is the Latin term for “millions of years."

2. k.a. is an abbreviation for kilo-years, or thousand years.

Field Reconnaissance

Unconsolidated surface soils with differing constituent quantities of silt, sand, gravel and cobbles were observed during the site reconnaissance. Boulders ranging in size from 18 to 36 inches were observed to be scattered on the surface of native soils in the vicinity of the project with boulders up to 30 inches observed in disturbed areas, such as along road cuts. Slopes along the stream channel of the Yellowstone River near the center of town, just north of the project location, exhibit what appear to be unconsolidated glacial deposits with large boulders of indeterminate size, as can be seen below in Photo 1. These conditions are assumed to be typical of the undisturbed subsurface conditions throughout the project area.

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 6

Photo 1: Stream channel slopes along the Yellowstone River. Photo taken from top of the south bank at the end of South 4th St. (South side of Scott Street West can be seen above the north bank slope.)

Subsurface Investigations

Subsurface investigations were conducted in October and November 2013 by Johnson Exploration, Rathdrum, ID, and consisted of sixteen subgrade borings (NE2013-SG01 through NE2013-SG16), nine percolation tests (NE2013-PT01 to NE2013-PT09), and four geotechnical borings (NE2013-B01 through NE2013-B04). One geotechnical boring was located adjacent (west) of the Arch House (NE2013-B01), one located adjacent (west) of the YA Building (NE2013-B02), and two were drilled within the Arch Park stage wall footprint (NE2013-B03 and NE2013-B04). (Note that geotechnical borings NE2013-B01 and NE2013-B02 were drilled when walls were considered at those locations earlier in the design process.)

The subgrade borings were drilled at various locations throughout the project area. All holes were drilled using a truck-mounted mobile B-53 drill rig. Boring logs appear in Appendix A. Plan views of the boring locations are contained at the beginning of the appendix as Figures A-1 and A-2.

Subgrade holes were drilled using a 12 inch solid stem auger with a flat profile 15 inch diameter bit to depths ranging from 2.5 to 5.1 feet. Pavement, base, subbase, and subgrade thicknesses were measured for each material (when/if present) and samples were obtained. Samples were shipped to the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) Materials Testing Laboratory in Vancouver, WA. Select samples were submitted for laboratory tests to characterize base and subgrade materials following examination by the project geotechnical and materials engineers. Laboratory test results are also contained in Appendix A.

Holes for the percolation tests were drilled using an 8 inch outside diameter (OD) hollow stem auger adjacent to many of the subgrade holes. Subgrade holes were drilled to a depth of 5 feet or to auger refusal, and percolation test holes were drilled to a maximum depth of 10 feet or to auger refusal.

Boring logs for both the subgrade and percolation test holes were prepared and are contained in Appendix A. Percolation tests were conducted in the first 5 feet of hole depth by adding water and measuring the drop in level over time for that depth interval. Where possible, the hole was advanced an additional 5 feet (10 feet total) and another test was performed to measure the rate of drop over that

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 7

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14 depth interval. In cases when the boring met refusal above 10 feet the test was conducted between 5 feet and the bottom of the boring. Percolation test observations and measurements appear on the relevant boring logs contained in the appendix. Percolation test results were provided to the project Hydraulics Engineer for hydraulic design purposes and as such are no longer discussed in this report.

Holes for the geotechnical borings were drilled utilizing an 8 inch OD hollow stem auger. The geotechnical borings ranged in depth from 20.0 to 30.5 feet. Drive samples were collected by means of a standard 2 inch inside diameter (ID) split spoon sampler [Standard Penetration Test (SPT)] and “core” samples were collected utilizing HQ3 coring tools with a 3.7 inch OD, 2.75 inch inside diameter (ID) between the SPT test intervals. SPTs resulted in minimal sample recoveries in many cases due to the nature of the granular soils encountered and coring tools were used to obtain larger samples for assessment. Bedrock was not encountered in any of the geotechnical borings. Samples were visually and texturally identified in the field. Laboratory testing of these samples was not considered necessary for the project.

Laboratory Testing and Subsurface Materials

Laboratory assessments on select samples from the subgrade borings included tests to determine Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) soil classifications, sieve and hydrometer results, apparent specific gravity, natural moisture content, Atterberg Limits, and R-values for pavement design. Not all tests were performed on all of the samples. Test results are shown in Table 2 relative to existing pavement structural layers or potential structural layer when subgrade holes were not located within currently paved areas. (E.g., SG-14 where the planned bypass road will be located between South 3rd Street and the North Entrance Road.) Not all structural pavement layers were tested in each subgrade hole. Details of the USCS and AASHTO soil classification accompany the laboratory test results appearing in Appendix A.

Table 2: Laboratory Test Results – Subgrade Borings Boring Designation

Depth Interval (ft) / Pavement Structural Component Tested

USCS Soil Description / Soil Classification

AASHTO Soil Description / Soil Classification

% Passing #200 Sieve (P200)

[AASHTO

T88] / % Smaller than 2µm

[AASHTO

T88]*

Apparent Specific Gravity / Natural Moisture Content

[AASHTO

T100 &

AASHTO

T265]

Liquid Limit / Plasticity Index

[AASHTO

T89/T90]**

R Value / Density at R Value / Moisture at R Value

[AASHTO

T190]

SG03 0.17 - 1.5 /

Subgrade(?)

Sandy lean clay / CL

GR-SA-CL /

A-6(11)

68.7 / 22.6 2.668 / 22.2 39 / 19 24 / 95.9 / 22.2

SG03 1.5 – 2.1 /

Subgrade

Sandy Lean Clay / CL

GR-SA-CL /

A-6(9)

63.4 / 20.7 2.668 / 19.7 36 / 18 NT

SG07 0.33 – 0.75

/ Base rock(?)

Silty sand with gravel / SM

SI-SA-GR /

A-1-a(0)

13.3 / NT NT / 7.4 NP NT

SG07 0.75 – 1.5 /

Subbase(?)

Silty sand with gravel / SM

SI-SA-GR /

A-1-a(0)

13.1 / NT NT / 7.5 NP NT

SG07 1.5 – 2.0 /

Subgrade

Well-graded gravel with silt and sand /

GW-GM

SI-SA-GR /

A-1-a(0)

7.3 / NT NT / 5.3 NP NT

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 8

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14

Table 2: Laboratory Test Results – Subgrade Borings (cont.)

Boring Designation

Depth Interval (ft) / Pavement Structural Component Tested

USCS Soil Description / Soil Classification

AASHTO Soil Description / Soil Classification

% Passing #200 Sieve (P200)

[AASHTO

T88] / % Smaller than 2µm

[AASHTO

T88]*

Apparent Specific Gravity / Natural Moisture Content

[AASHTO

T100 &

AASHTO

T265]

Liquid Limit / Plasticity Index

[AASHTO

T89/T90]**

R Value / Density at R Value / Moisture at R Value

[AASHTO

T190]

SG09 1.25 – 2.0 /

Subgrade

Silty sand with gravel / SM

SI-GR-SA /

A-1-b(0)

15.5 / NT NT / 12.4 NP 58 / 110.3

/ 11.9

SG11 0.39 – 1.02

/ Baserock

Clayey sand with gravel /

SC

CL-GR-SAND / A-2-

6(0)

21.9 / 8.9 2.648 / 6.3 29 / 12 44 / 121.9 / 10.3

SG11 1.5 – 2.5 /

Subgrade

Well-graded sand with gravel / SW-

SM

SI-SA-GRAVEL / A-

1-b(0)

8.8 / NT NT / 9.6 NP NT

SG14 0.67 – 1.5 /

Subgrade

Clayey sand /

SC

GR-SA-CLAY / A-

6(5)

46.3 / 23.8 2.671 / 17.2 35 / 19 NT

SG14 1.5 – 2.2 /

Subgrade

Clayey gravel with sand / GC

CL-SA-GRAVEL / A-

2-6(0)

21.1 / NT NT / 9.3 33 / 18 NT

SG15 0.58 – 1.4 /

Base

Clayey gravel with sand / GC

CL-SA-GRAVEL / A-

2-6(0)

17.0 / NT NT / 7.6 29 / 11 NT

SG15 1.6 – 3.2 /

Subgrade(?)

Sandy lean clay / CL

GR-SA-CLAY /

A-6(10)

55.0 / 25.5 2.666 / 16.3 39 / 24 22 / 106.1 / 17.6

SG15 3.2 – 4.0 /

Subgrade

Lean clay with sand / CL

GR-SA-CLAY /

A-7-6(22)

70.5 / 38.0 2.710 / 24.7 48 / 33 5 / 98.1 / 23.9

* NT signifies that the sample was Not Tested for a particular parameter ** NP signifies a sample that was tested and found to be Non Plastic

The subgrade borings encountered cohesive and granular soils. With respect to the encountered soils that underwent laboratory testing, cohesive soils (such as clay or soils with a cohesive constituent) were generally encountered within the Park boundaries. (Approximate Park boundaries are shown in Figures A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A.) Soils that were predominantly granular and non-plastic were encountered at all other subgrade boring locations. Laboratory tests classified the cohesive soils as sandy lean clay or lean clay with sand (CL in the USCS), clayey sand or clayey sand with gravel (SC), or clayey gravel with sand (GC). Tested granular soils (non-plastic) were shown to classify as silty sand with gravel (SM), well-graded gravel with silt and sand (GW-GM), and well-graded sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM).

Laboratory test results are shown on the boring logs appearing in Appendix A. All other descriptions appearing on the logs are field descriptions. Note that the test results apply only to those samples that underwent laboratory testing and that cohesive or non-cohesive soils might exist outside the areas where they were encountered in the borings.

Two of the geotechnical borings are located in Arch Park. Boring NE2013-B03 and NE2013-B04 are provided in Appendix A and the locations are shown in Figure A-1. Boring NE2013-B03 encountered dense sand with gravel (SP) and boulders in the upper 3.2 feet, which was underlain by medium dense to dense, subangular to rounded, gravel with sand and cobbles (GP) to the bottom of the hole at 21.3 feet. NE2013-B04 encountered dense silt with sand and organics (ML) in the upper 3.4 feet underlain by medium dense to very dense, angular to subround gravel with sand (GP) down to hole termination at

30.0 feet, including some cobbles and boulders between 3.4 and 4.3 feet and some silt (GM) encountered between 9.8 and 11.2 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in either of the geotechnical borings. No laboratory tests were performed on the samples obtained from the geotechnical borings. The descriptions appearing on the geotechnical boring logs are field descriptions.

The two remaining geotechnical borings (Boring NE2013-B01 located at Pocket Park adjacent to the Arch House and Boring NE2013-B02 located in the Institute Building parking lot adjacent to the YA building) are described in Geotechnical Memorandum No. GM02-14, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations, Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 9

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14

Gardiner Gateway, PH-I, MT PARK 2013(1), March 3, 2013, and as such are not contained in this report.

The reader may refer to that memorandum for information regarding the subsurface conditions at the Pocket Park and Institute Building locations.

In most cases wall system designs would take into account heave caused by frost action and the footing of the system would be constructed beneath the frost line. This is not considered to be a concern on the Gardiner Gateway project as groundwater levels are thought to be deep enough to not contribute to frost heaving.

RECOMMENDATIONS & DESIGN ANAYSES

Proposed Retaining Wall Recommendations

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls are proposed for the Arch Park location—an upper wall (back-of-stage) and a lower wall (front of stage)—with the area between the two walls functioning as the “stage” area. (See Figure 4 for a plan view showing the Arch Park stage walls location.) The proposed upper wall will be tapered on one end to allow an ADA compliant ramp to be constructed leading up to the stage area from the west. The back wall will increase in height at stepped increments from 6 feet to 12 feet (total height) with exposed wall heights of about 4 to 10 feet. Approximately 30 inches high seat-type walls are proposed at the front of the stage to define the front limits of the stage area. The width of the proposed stage area will range from about 6 feet at its narrowest location at the top of the ramp to approximately 27 feet at its widest point near the middle of the stage.

Figure 4: Plan View of Arch Park Stage Wall Location.

The proposed MSE wall defining the ramp and back-of-stage will have a total length of about 345 feet.

The seat-type wall defining the front of the stage area will extend for about 190 feet. A conceptual illustration of a geosynthetically reinforced MSE retaining wall with welded wire forms and mortared stone masonry facing is shown below in Figure 5. The proposed seat-type wall defining the front of the stage area is provided as Figure 6. Proposed wall layout details, including reinforcement lengths, are contained in Appendix C.

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 10

Figure 5: Conceptual Illustration of a Geosynthetically Reinforced MSE Retaining Wall with Welded Wire Forms and Mortared Stone Masonry Facing.

Figure 6: Conceptual Illustration of a Front-of-stage Seat-Type Wall with Mortared Stone Masonry Facing.

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 11

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14

All walls will be faced with mortared stone masonry facing. The mortared stone masonry facing will be constructed to simulate stone columns at prescribed locations along the wall alignments. At the time of report preparation it is expected that simulated stone columns will be proposed for the wall ends and possibly at other locations within the wall alignments. All exposed wall and stone columns areas will be faced with mortared stone masonry that is intended to emulate the historic stone work exhibited in the Roosevelt Arch, wingwalls and columns. Basalt will be the preferred stone type. Photos 2 and 3 show the Roosevelt Arch and the desired historic masonry work to be emulated. Additional photos are provided as Photos B-11 through B-19 in Appendix B.

Photo 2: Roosevelt Arch, wingwall and end column illustrates the desired appearance to be emulated on the Arch Park Stage walls and columns.

Photo 3: Roosevelt Arch end column illustrating desired stone pattern to be emulated on the Arch Park Stage walls and columns.

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 12

The first course of the MSE wall will serve as the footing for the mortared, full-width basalt facing stones in the MSE wall and column areas. (MSE column areas are not shown in the figure.) The mortared stones will be attached to the MSE wall using a tie (mechanical connection) between the mortared joints in-between the stones and the welded wire forms that define the front face of the MSE wall. The MSE walls will be constructed to have a front batter of 12:1 (V:H) with a 12 inch high, 18 inch deep capstone at the top. See the final contract plan set for final MSE wall and column requirements.

Wall Analyses

The MSE wall sections were analyzed following the procedures and guidelines set forth in the Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-025, “Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes” and the guidelines appearing in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, 2010. The computer software design programs MSEW Version 3.0 (a wall design analysis program developed by ADAMA Engineering) was used to analyze and design the walls. Global stability analyses were not performed owing to the fact that the walls will not be constructed on hillsides or steeply slope grades but with level grades in front, anticipated low groundwater elevation and granular native materials with adequate shear strength beneath the wall foundations. The walls were analyzed and designed to meet minimum requirements to satisfy resistance against sliding at individual reinforcement levels, resistance to sliding at the base (translational failure), eccentricity (overturning), reinforcement strength, and reinforcement pullout capacity. Reinforcement lengths and vertical spacing were determined during the analyses.

Soils within the reinforced zone of the MSE wall were modeled to have a minimum internal strength (angle of internal friction) of 34 degrees with no cohesion. Retained soils behind the MSE wall were modeled to have a minimum angle of internal friction of 32 degrees with no cohesion and the foundation soils were modelled with internal strength of 35 degrees with cohesion of 25 psf.

Soil properties used in the analyses are presented in Table 3. The assumed soil properties for the retained soils and the foundation soils were based on site observations made during reconnaissance, material descriptions in the subsurface borings, correlation of the standard penetration test (SPT) results to typical soil strength values, and in the case of the reinforced backfill in the MSE walls the minimum requirement of 34 degrees internal strength was used in accordance with WFLHD standard specifications.

Table 3: Soil Properties Used in Analyses Property Reinforced Backfill Retained Soils Foundation Soils Moist Unit Weight, γ (lb/ft3) 125 125 128 Friction Angle, ϕ (degrees) 34 32 35 Cohesion, c (lb/ft2) 0 0 25

A uniform surcharge of 175 psf was modeled above the reinforced zone of the MSE walls and on the slope above the walls to simulate snow loads. Traffic loads were modelled by applying a 250 psf strip load (live load) on the modelled roadway surface behind the MSE structures. Groundwater was not considered in the analyses as it was considered very unlikely to be present.

The critical MSE wall sections were analyzed to ensure the designs met acceptable minimum Capacity Demand Ratios (CDRs) under appropriate load combinations for internal stability criteria, direct sliding, Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 13

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14 eccentricity, strength and pullout, and bearing capacity as determined under LRFD methodology.

Minimum CDRs in all cases under LRFD are 1.0.

A total of 9 wall cross-sections representing the interpreted critical wall sections were selected for analyses. Reinforcement long term tensile strength (Ta) of 1200 lb/ft was used in the analyses as determined through the design and analysis process. The wall sections were analyzed at the Service Limit state and Strength I Limit states under appropriate load combinations following LRFD methodology. Critical failure modes/states signify those modes/states that required the longest reinforcement lengths (and strength requirement) to achieve stability under a particular LRFD limit state, and as such became the recommended design length requirements for the walls. Results of the analyses appear in Table 4. MSEW LRFD critical analyses results are provided in Appendix C.

Table 4: Critical Stability Analyses Results1 Wall Chain Station 10+20 10+45 10+70 11+00 11+15 11+55 11+90 12+10 12+80 Limit State Strength 1 Strength 1 Strength 1 Strength 1 Strength 1 Strength 1 Strength 1 Strength 1 Strength 1 Analyzed Wall Height, ft

6.0 10.0 9.0 10.5 10.5 12.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

Load Combination Failure Mode

Direct Sliding

Direct Sliding

Direct Sliding

Direct Sliding

Direct Sliding

Direct Sliding

Direct Sliding

Direct Sliding

Direct Sliding

CDR (LRFD) 1.345 1.267 1.194 1.065 1.034 1.018 1.034 1.087 1.049

1. All analyses conducted using long term tensile strength = 1200 lb/ft.

The results of the analyses show that the critical analysis occurred in direct sliding under the LRFD Strength I Limit State for all analyzed sections. The design wall embedment at the toe is approximately 2 feet owing to the presence of the stage. This embedment was neglected during direct sliding analysis so the actual CDR would be somewhat higher than what is shown in the table. The higher CDRs appearing in the table (i.e., 10+20, 10+45 and 10+70) can be attributed to modelling minimum recommended reinforcement lengths of 8 feet for those wall sections. In those cases the analyses suggest that reinforcement lengths shorter than 8 feet could be used for those sections (thus a CDR nearer to 1.0);

however, reinforcements with minimum length of 8 feet are typically used as a minimum for low wall sections to enhance constructability. Proposed wall layout details, including design heights, reinforcement lengths, height above toe, etc. appear in Appendix C.

Settlement of the MSE wall is expected to be negligible due to the medium dense to very dense, granular foundation materials. Any settlement that does occur in foundation materials should occur during construction. The foundation soils are not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. The foundation soils were not shown to be saturated and therefore not susceptible to liquefaction.

Under AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications a seismic analysis (Extreme Event I) is not required for walls located in Seismic Zones 1 through 3, or for walls at sites where the site adjusted peak ground acceleration, As, is less than or equal to 0.4g. The exception to this would be if a potential exists for liquefaction induced lateral spreading or slope failure due to the presence of sensitive clays that lose strength during a seismic event, or if the wall supports another structure for which seismic design is required (critical structure). It has been determined that the proposed wall is located in Seismic Zone 3, the peak ground acceleration is less than 0.4g, the chances of liquefaction are remote, and the walls will not be supporting a critical structure. For these reasons seismic analyses were not performed. For completeness the project 5% damped design response spectrum and seismic parameters are provided in Appendix C.

Approximately 30 inch high seat-type walls are proposed to define the front of the stage area. The seat walls will be constructed on a concrete footing having a mortared and reinforced concrete masonry core

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 14

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14 with mortared masonry facing. Like the MSE stage walls, the stone facing will emulate the historic stone work appearing in the Roosevelt Arch, as shown previously in Photos 2 and 3 and photos B-11 through B-19 in Appendix B. A conceptual illustration of the proposed seat-type walls for the front of the stage area was provided as Figure 6.

The seat walls were analyzed for sliding at the base and for overturning. A 250 psf live surcharge was modelled on the stage surface behind the seat walls to account for the possibility of motorized maintenance equipment being on the stage surface. The results of the analyses appear in Appendix C. As the results show the minimum factor of safety required against sliding and overturning is 1.5. Analysis has shown that a minimum base width of 2.15 feet (26 inches) is required to satisfy sliding and overturning requirements, with resulting safety factors of 1.60 and 1.55, respectively.

CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY & RECOMMENDATIONS

MSE Wall Site Conditions

The Arch Park Stage wall site is located at the east side of Arch Park, north of the Yellowstone Trail Road and west of the hairpin curve of West Park Street. A plan view of the site is shown in Figure 4. The site is located within the boundaries of Arch Park. The existing ground surface at the stage site generally slopes moderately from east to the west, with vertical offsets ranging from approximately 4 feet to 23 feet as measured from the centerline of the Yellowstone Trail Road or West Park Street to the finished “toes” of the ramp leading up to the stage or the seat-type wall defining the front of the stage. At the time of report preparation the horizontal offsets measure from about 26 to 90 feet from the centerlines.

Vertical and horizontal offsets increase from south to north. Excavation for the stage walls and stage will be into native materials. The stage site can be easily accessed from the west using Main Street. (Main Street does not appear in the figure but can be seen in Figure A-1 in Appendix A.)

It is expected that the temporary excavation for the MSE walls will be into medium dense to very dense granular soils consisting of varying constituent quantities of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders. The contractor should expect to encounter boulders up to 24 inches (possibly larger) in the excavations.

Recommendation for temporary backslope excavation is 1:1. At 1:1 the temporary backslopes will extend marginally into the Yellowstone Trail Road and West Park Street through some wall sections based on the position of the stage at the time of report preparation.

Stockpile Area and Borrow Sources

At the time of report preparation it is anticipated that project-generated unsuitable materials will be wasted at Reese Pit. Reese Pit is a Government provided waste site that is located about 4 miles to the northwest of Gardiner, off the Yellowstone Trail Road, as shown in Figure 7. (Note that pavement millings are not considered to be unsuitable materials.) It is expected that unsuitable materials will be spread into the floor of the pit upon project completion. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to determine where project-generated pavement millings will be sorted and stockpiled.

Government provided material (pavement millings) will be made available for use on this project. At the time of report preparation it is anticipated that the pavement millings will have been stockpiled at Brogan Pit. Brogan pit is located approximately 7.0 miles north of Gardiner along US 89 as shown in Figure 7. Pavement millings may be utilized in the pavement structure, as discussed in the final pavement recommendations memorandum in Appendix D.

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 15

Excavated materials from the Arch Park location may be used as discussed below. Refer to the final contract plan set for specific information regarding stockpiling materials, the use of stockpiled materials and requirements for Reese Pit.

Figure 7: Location of Reese Pit relative to Gardiner.

The excavated material at the wall location may not meet the requirements for MSE wall backfill (Select Granular Backfill) without requiring a significant amount of processing. However, much of the granular soil material (sand and gravel) is considered suitable to be used for stage construction, backfill above the walls, and for backfill behind the reinforced zone of the MSE wall as long as it meets the specifications appearing in the contract. Oversized material may need to be removed in order to use the excavated material depending on the contract requirements. Generally, granular soils were encountered in the two borings (NE2013-03 and NE2013-04) located in Arch Park, with dense silt and sand with organics encountered in the upper 3.4 feet of NE2013-B04. Organic materials are considered unsuitable and should not be incorporated into backfill or embankment materials. Excavated materials should be closely monitored to ensure that unsuitable materials are not used. It is possible that the standard practice of stripping and stockpiling of topsoil prior to wall excavation will remove the majority of organic material.

With the exception of pavement millings as discussed earlier and suitable excavated materials government provided borrow sources will not be provided. Commercial or private sources will be required to provide select granular backfill required for construction of the Arch Park stage walls and will be the responsibility of the construction contractor.

Yellowstone Trail Road

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 16

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14

Stone Masonry

The MSE walls and seatwalls will be faced with mortared stone masonry. A possible source for stone that can be used as masonry is the Black Diamond Quarry (a private source). Black Diamond Quarry is located off Highway 89, approximately 29 miles north of Gardiner near Emigrant, MT, as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Location of the Black Diamond Quarry relative to Gardiner.

Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in the subsurface investigations and is not expected to be encountered during construction.

Pavement Recommendations

Final pavement recommendations for the project were provided to the design team by the WFLHD Materials Group under a Memorandum titled Information: Final Pavement Recommendations, Gardiner Gateway, PH-I, dated May 29, 2014. For convenience this memorandum is included as Appendix D.

Construction Requirements

The Arch Park MSE walls have been designed to be constructed using varying reinforcement lengths that increase with wall height, as can be seen in the table appearing in Appendix C.

7.7 mi. 0

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 17

Geotechnical Report No. 06-14

The backslope of the temporary excavation should be constructed no steeper than 1:1. It is unlikely that temporary excavation slopes will need to be cut flatter than 1:1, but final determination is the responsibility of the construction contractor for worker safety and/or to meet federal regulations.

Where the travelway of the Yellowstone Trail Road is impacted by stage wall construction activities, some traffic control measures may be required. Refer to the final contract documents for construction restrictions pertaining to traffic requirements on the Yellowstone Trail Road and on West Park Street.

The MSE walls should be constructed in accordance with the lift heights (1.5 feet max.) and reinforcement lengths shown in the project plans and following the requirements appearing in the FP-03 and Special Contract Requirements (SCRs). Shortening of the reinforcement lengths is not permitted without prior approval from the Contracting Officer (CO).

Foundations for the all embankments and walls should be compacted prior to construction in accordance with the requirements in the FP-03 and the SCRs. Although considered to be unlikely, if loose foundation materials or voids are encountered, or the materials cannot be adequately compacted, the contractor should consult the CO before proceeding with construction. A site review by the project geotechnical engineer may also be required.

Compaction lifts should not exceed 6 inches of compacted thickness within all Select Granular and Structural Backfill zones.

Minimum internal strength for the MSE wall backfill is 34 degrees.

Drainage

A drainage system has been designed for the Stage Walls. The drainage system will be comprised of perforated collector pipe that is placed at the bottom back of the reinforced zone and connected to solid outlet pipes that drain beneath the stage area and through the seatwall. Drainage will be from the end of the stage area to the beginning of the stage area (roughly east to west) with the outlet pipes located at the west stage area. For the portion of the stage wall leading up to the stage area the drainage will also be from the east to west with the outlet pipes near the beginning of the wall (west end). Refer to the final plan set for final drainage details.

Installation Damage

To minimize installation damage to the reinforcement the use of a sheep’s foot type roller is not permitted to compact within the reinforced zone of MSE walls. Construction equipment is not permitted directly on exposed reinforcement without the minimum backfill cover required by the contract.

The partial factor of safety against installation damage (FSID) used in calculating the long term tensile strength (Ta) of the reinforcement used within the MSE stage walls is critically dependent on the angularity and maximum size of the backfill material. Generally, as angularity increases, installation damage increases, thus requiring a higher FSID and a heavier reinforcement product. Refer to the FP-03 Section 720 for the requirements for calculating Ta.

Final Geotechnical Design & Construction Information P a g e | 19

REFERENCES

Berg, Richard B., Lonn, Jeffrey D., and Locke, William W., (1999) Geologic Map of the Gardiner 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, South-Central Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Open File No. 387.

USGS Geologic Hazards Center, USGS 2008 Interactive Deaggregations http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/, accessed 7/18/2014.

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, 2008 National Seismic Hazards Maps—Fault Parameters. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/hf_search_res.cfm?hazmap=2007, accessed 7/22/2014.

Determination of 5% Damped Design Response Spectrum, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Section 3.10, 4th edition, with 2008 Interims and 5th Edition, 2010.

http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/ http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/hf_search_res.cfm?hazmap=2007

(Intentionally left blank)

Appendix A

Boring Locations (Figures A-1 and A-2)

USCS & AASHTO Soil Descriptive Terminology

Boring Logs

Laboratory Test Results

Figure A-1 Drilling Plan View

Gardiner Gateway Project

MT PARK 2013(1)

Approx. Park Boundary

Stage Walls Area

Figure A-2 Drilling Plan View

Gardiner Gateway Project

MT PARK 2013(1)

Approx. Park Boundary

A

A

SH

TO

M

-2

SO

IL

D E

SC

R

IP

T

IV

E

T E

R M

IN

O

L O

G Y

C O

N

SI

ST

E

N C

Y O

F C

O H

E

SI

V E

S O

IL

S

SP

T

N -V al ue

(b lo w s/ ft

C on si st en cy

Fi el d Id en tif ic at io n

0-

V er y So ft Ea si ly p en et ra te d se ve ra l i nc he s b y fir st

2-

So ft

Ea si ly p en et ra te d se ve ra l i nc he s b y th um b

5-

Fi rm

M od er at e ef fo rt re qu ire d to p en et ra te se ve ra l i nc he s b y th um b

9-

St iff

R ea di ly in de nt ed b y th um b bu t p en et ra te d on ly w ith g re at e ff or t

-3

V er y St iff ea di ly in de nt ed b y th um bn ai l

H ar d

In de nt ed w ith d iff ic ul ty b y th um bn ai l

E

L A

T

IV

E D

E N

SI

T

Y O

F C

O H

E

SI

O N

L E

SS

S

O

IL

S

SP

T N

-V al ue

(b lo w s/ ft

R el at iv e D en si ty

- 4

V er y

Lo os e

- 1

Lo os e

M ed iu m

D

D y

D

PA

T

IC

L E

S

IZ

T m

S ie ve

S iz e B ou ld

>3 m m

C ob bl e

3” m m

0m m

G ra ve l – c oa rs e

¾

- 3

(1 9m m m m

G ra ve l – fi ne

#4

¾

4.

m m m m

Sa nd c oa rs e #1

(2

.0 0m m

4.

m m

Sa nd m ed iu m

#4

(0 .4 m m

2.

m m

Sa nd fi ne

#2

#4

(0

.0 m m

0.

5m m

Si lt

C la y

#2

0.

5m m

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T ry us ty

, d ry to th e to uc h

M oi st am p, b ut n o vi si bl e fr ee w at

W et is ib le fr ee w at er

, s at ur at ed , o ve r o pt im um

SAND with gravel (SP) and boulders up to 12", dense, gray/black.

GRAVEL with sand and cobbles (GP), subangular to rounded, medium dense to very dense, gray/black.

Bottom of Boring NE 2013-B03 at 21.3'. No groundwater encountered.

R-1

S-1

S-2

S-4

R-2

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

50/6" (6" = 100%)

9-10-11 (10" = 56%)

8-12-50 (9" = 63%)

25-21-24 (0" = 0%)

35-24-28 (6" = 33%)

15-11-12 (0" = 0%)

23-37-19 (8" = 44%)

29-27-15 (7" = 39%)

50/3.5" (0" = 0%)

50/5" (1" = 17%)

25-41-50/2" (8" = 51%)

3.2

21.3

WATER LEVELS

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

Proposed Stage Wall North BoringNOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 21.3'

RQD (%)

RECOVERY (%)

0 100

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

Bob & Jim Johnson

WEATHER:

DRILL: B-53

D

E P

T H ft

11/18/2013

S A

M P

LE

R

11/20/2013

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

2" OD Split Spoon (SPT)

Hollow Stem Auger

Rock / Soil Core

STATION, OFFSET:

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: C :\M

Y F

IL

E

S \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\N O

R T

H E

N T

R A

N C

E P

A R

K S

T R

E E

T

IM

P R

O V

E M

E N

T \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \D

R

IL

LI

N

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

D A

T A

B A

S E

\N O

R T

H E

N T

R A

N C

E G

A R

D

IN

E R

G A

T E

W A

Y

IM

P R

O V

E M

E N

T S

F

IN

A

L D

R A

F T

G

P J

Li b:

C

:\M Y

F

IL

E S

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \P

A

LM

E R

J U

N C

T

IO

N R

O A

D \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \G

IN

T

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y

.G

LB

ri nt ed : 8

/2 5/

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Johnson Exploration

LOGGER:

Dry Dry

Seth Brundige

DATE STARTED:

0.0

BORING NE2013 B03

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

DATE FINISHED:

Dry

PROJECT: North Entrance/Gardiner Gateway Improvements, MT PRA YELL 11(2) and MT PARK 2013

Manual 8" Hollow Stem

Auger, SPT, HQ Core

FIELD "N" VALUE

LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 45° 1' 47.76" (45.029934°)

LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W 110° 42' 32.35" (110.708986°)

D E

P T

H ft

Sheet 1 of 1

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

SILT with sand and organics (ML), dense, brown, moist.

GRAVEL with sand and cobbles/boulders (GP), angular to subrounded, very dense, gray.

GRAVEL with sand (GP), subangular to subrounded, dense, gray/black.

GRAVEL with silt and sand (GM), angular to subrounded, medium dense to very dense, gray.

GRAVEL and cobble with sand (GP), angular to subangular, medium dense to very dense, gray/black.

Bottom of Boring NE 2013-B04 at 30'. No groundwater encountered.

R-1

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

6-12-48 (8" = 44%)

50/1" (0" = 0%)

19-24-38 (12" = 67%)

50/1" (0" = 0%)

15-58 (9" = 75%)

5-13-20 (12" = 67%)

50/4" (3" = 75%)

50/0" (0" = 0%)

25-50/3" (4" = 44%)

50/1" (0" = 0%)

(6" = 100%)

16-26-23 (6" = 33%)

45-33-41 (5" = 28%)

3.4

4.3

9.8

11.2

30.0

WATER LEVELS

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

Proposed Stage Wall South BoringNOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 30'

RQD (%)

RECOVERY (%)

0 100

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

Bob & Jim Johnson

WEATHER:

DRILL: B-53

D

E P

T H ft

11/17/2013

S A

M P

LE

R

11/18/2013

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

2" OD Split Spoon (SPT)

Hollow Stem Auger

Rock / Soil Core

STATION, OFFSET:

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: C :\M

Y F

IL

E

S \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\N O

R T

H E

N T

R A

N C

E P

A R

K S

T R

E E

T

IM

P R

O V

E M

E N

T \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \D

R

IL

LI

N

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

D A

T A

B A

S E

\N O

R T

H E

N T

R A

N C

E G

A R

D

IN

E R

G A

T E

W A

Y

IM

P R

O V

E M

E N

T S

F

IN

A

L D

R A

F T

G

C

:\M Y

F

IL

E S

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \P

A

LM

E R

J U

N C

T

IO

N R

O A

D \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \G

IN

T

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed : 2

/2 8/

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Johnson Exploration

LOGGER:

Dry Dry

Seth Brundige

DATE STARTED:

0.0

BORING NE2013 B04

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

DATE FINISHED:

Dry

PROJECT: North Entrance/Gardiner Gateway Improvements, MT PRA YELL 11(2) and MT PARK 2013

Manual 8" Hollow Stem

Auger, SPT, HQ Core

FIELD "N" VALUE

LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 45° 1' 47.14" (45.02976°)

LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W 110° 42' 33.34" (110.70926°)

D E

P T

H ft

Sheet 1 of 1

0.0

3.5

7.0

10.5

14.0

17.5

21.0

24.5

28.0

31.5

35.0

ASPHALT

GRAVEL with silt and sand, black, moist.

SAND with gravel, brown, moist.

CLAY/SILT, hard, brown, moist.

CLAY with gravel, hard, brown, moist.

SAND with silt and gravel, very dense, brown, moist.

SAND with silt and gravel, dense to very dense, gray, moist.

Bottom of Boring NE 2013 PT-01 at 10.5'. No groundwater encountered.

Infiltration Test:

0'-5' Start Time: 12:22 Beginning Water Level: 0' Drop: 4.5" in 45 minutes

5'-10.5' Start Time: 14:12 Beginning Water Level: 5' Drop: 8.0" in 45 minutes

R-1

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

10-11-16-37 (17" = 71%)

20-37-36 (0" = 0%)

45-50/4" (7" = 58%)

21-23-40 (4" = 22%)

30-44-54 (18" = 100%)

20-20-20 (10" = 56%)

0.7

1.5

2.0

2.9

5.9

7.5

10.5

WATER LEVELS

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

Boring for percolation test near Boring SG01NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 10.5'

RQD (%)

RECOVERY (%)

0 100

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

Bob & Jim Johnson

WEATHER:

DRILL: B-53

D

E P

T H ft

10/20/2013

S A

M P

LE

R

10/20/2013

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

2" OD Split Spoon (SPT)

Hollow Stem Auger

3" OD Split Spoon (D&M)

STATION, OFFSET:

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: C :\M

Y F

IL

E

S \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\N O

R T

H E

N T

R A

N C

E P

A R

K S

T R

E E

T

IM

P R

O V

E M

E N

T \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \D

R

IL

LI

N

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

D A

T A

B A

S E

\N O

R T

H E

N T

R A

N C

E G

A R

D

IN

E R

G A

T E

W A

Y

IM

P R

O V

E M

E N

T S

F

IN

A

L D

R A

F T

G

C

:\M Y

F

IL

E S

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \P

A

LM

E R

J U

N C

T

IO

N R

O A

D \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \G

IN

T

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed : 2

/2 8/

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Johnson Exploration

LOGGER:

Dry Dry

Seth Brundige

DATE STARTED:

0.0

BORING NE2013 PT01

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUI…