ShoupBridgeFinalGeotechReport_20151109.pdf

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

ID PFH 91(1), WILLIAMS CREEK SHOUP BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NO. 16‐15

November 9, 2015

Prepared for:

Federal Highway Administration

Western Federal Lands Division

Prepared by:

Final Geotechnical Report Williams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement

BLANK PAGE

November 2015 Page | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Description

2. Geotechnical Exploration and Conditions

2.1 Surface Conditions

2.2 Geologic Setting and Conditions

2.3 Field Investigations

2.4 Subsurface Condtions

2.5 Groundwater

2.6 Lab Testing

3. Seismic

3.1 Regional Seismic Setting

3.2 Design Ground Motions and Site Classification

3.3 Seismic Hazards

4. Foundation Design and Analysis

4.1 General

4.2 Foundations Considered

4.3 Driven Piles

5. Cut and Fill Slopes/Retaining Walls

6. Pavement

7. Material Source

8. References

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Ground motion parameters for site class D (AASHTO LRFD, 2014)

Table 2 – Lateral Soil Parameters at Abutments

Table 3 –Encountered Geotechnical Conditions and Recommended Pile Schedule

Table 4 – Pavement Design Parameters

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Project Vicinity Map

Figure 2 – Site Class D, Spectral Response Acceleration

Figure 3 – Proposed Typical Abutment Pile Layout

Appendix A – Geotechnical Exploration Logs Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Appendix C – Exploration Photographs Appendix D – Project Photographs

November 2015 Page | ii

Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By:

Evan Garich, PE John Horne, PhD, PE

Kyle Romney, EIT

November 2015 Page | 1

1. INTRODUCTION

This Geotechnical Report has been prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for use on the Williams Creek

Shoup Bridge Replacement Project (Project). It is intended to be the source of geotechnical information used to support the final design of the Project. The recommendations contained in this report are based on project‐specific geotechnical data gathered for this project.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Western Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with the Salmon‐Challis National Forest, Lemhi County, and the Bureau of Land

Management Salmon Field Office is proposing to replace the Williams Creek (Shoup) Bridge. The project is located in east‐central Idaho approximately 5 miles south of Salmon, Idaho in Lemhi County.

The project consists of the replacement of the existing bridge and a minor realignment of the western approach of Williams Creek Road near the bridge to improve the geometry of the roadway. Williams

Creek Road provides the primary access to over 4.3 million acres in the Salmon‐Challis National Forest, recreational areas such as Williams Lake, commercial mining operations, and numerous private properties. The Salmon River crossing at the Shoup Bridge is a critical transportation link. The existing single lane bridge was constructed in 1952 and is a three span steel girder bridge with an overall length of 212’‐0”. Two bents are currently within the Salmon River.

The current bridge is functionally obsolete. With a deck width of 13’‐6”, the bridge can only carry a single lane of traffic at a time. During peak traffic times, this causes traffic queuing and congestion, as vehicles in opposing directions have to wait their turn to cross the bridge. Additionally, the existing bridge is under‐capacity for legal truck loads. The project vicinity is displayed in Figure 1.

The proposed structure is a single span, 224 foot long network arch bridge. Loads for the new bridge have been developed by the structural team. The following factored loads were used in the development of the geotechnical recommendations.

Maximum vertical load per abutment – 2,069 kips

Maximum lateral load in the longitudinal direction, per abutment – 394 kips

Maximum lateral load in the transverse direction, per abutment – 193 kips

No appreciable uplift loading

November 2015 Page | 2

Figure 1 – Project Vicinity Map

2. GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND CONDITIONS

2.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS

The existing bridge is approximately 5 miles south of Salmon, Idaho, crossing the Salmon River. The site vicinity is relatively flat, consisting of the river channel, riparian zone, and developed locations. The developed areas include the intersection of Williams Creek Road and US 93, Shoup Bridge Recreation

Site, and residential homes and their associated structures. The intersection of Williams Creek Road and

US 93 is located at the eastern termini of the project, and the Shoup Bridge Recreation Site, a Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) park, is located along the eastern end and just south of the project area. The residential properties are located at the northern and western end of the project area and generally consist of rural homes and outbuildings, pastures, and landscaped yards. The natural areas are vegetated by deciduous trees and shrubs along the riparian corridor of the Salmon River.

November 2015 Page | 3

The existing bridge was constructed north of the original bridge at the project site. Concrete and steel remnants of the original bridge’s west abutment and foundation were observed south of the existing west abutment.

The existing roadway was constructed on an embankment and ranges in elevation from approximately

4,050 feet at the abutments to 4,046 feet within the project area. The flood plain below the embankment has an approximate average elevation of 4,040 feet and the Salmon River has an Ordinary

High Water (OHW) level of 4,037 feet. All elevations are based on the NAVD88 datum.

2.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND CONDITIONS

The project site is located within the Challis Volcanics physiographic province of Central Idaho. The project site is located in the Salmon Valley which is bordered by the Salmon River Mountains to the west and the northern terminus of the Lemhi Range to the east. The project corridor is generally flat and crosses the Salmon River. The geology of the area is mapped as alluvium of the Salmon River and

Holocene to Pleistocene terrace deposits (Lewis et al., 2013). The alluvium is characterized by rounded gravel to boulder sized clasts in the main channel with areas of sand, silt, and clay in floodplains.

Generally, alluvial deposits are 10 to 40 feet thick in the vicinity and underlain by sedimentary rock consisting of sandstone, siltstone, and claystone interbedded with conglomerate. These sedimentary rocks consist of the Salmon City, Carmen Creek, and Kriley Gulch Formations and may be interfingered with tuffaceous volcanic rocks of the Challis Volcanic Group. The east side of the site is mapped as ancestral terrace deposits. This terrace deposit is generally located 10 to 20 feet above current stream channels (Lewis et al., 2013).

2.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

A field exploration and testing program was undertaken as part of the engineering design of the Project.

The field work consisted of the following items:

1 bridge boring at each abutment (2 total) drilled to a depth of 100 feet;

1 embankment/culvert boring drilled to a depth of 21.5 feet;

1 pavement/subgrade borings on each side of bridge (2 total) drilled to a depth of 6.5 feet;

5 test pits were excavated from depths of 5 to 14 feet, 2 on the south side of each abutment (4 total) and 1 along the Fife Lane.

The field exploration program was performed under the direction of a PB geotechnical engineer. The drilling was performed by Haz‐Tech Drilling, Inc. of Meridian, Idaho and occurred December 2 to 5, 2014.

Borings were advanced with a truck mounted CME 85 drill rig. Drilling methods included hollow stem auger, casing advancer, and wireline rock coring (size HQ core). Soil samples were collected at increments of 2.5 and 5 feet for all borings. At borings B‐2 and B‐3 continuous rock core samples were taken in 5 foot increments starting at bedrock to a final depth of 100 feet. Boring B‐2 was drilled from the BLM site at the toe of the southeast embankment and bedrock was encountered at a depth of 17.5 feet. Boring B‐3 was drilled through the east embankment and bedrock was encountered at a depth of

41 feet below the roadway.

November 2015 Page | 4

Test Pit excavation was performed with a backhoe operated by the U.S. Forest Service to depths up to

14 feet. Test Pits TP‐1 and TP‐2 were left open overnight to observe sidewall stability. Before leaving the site, the open excavations were covered by sheets of plywood and caution tape was tied to traffic cones surrounding the holes to indicate a hazard. Good sidewall stability with minimal sloughing was observed during the 24‐hour period. Bulk and moisture grab samples were taken from the five test pits and a bulk grab sample was taken from the river’s edge underneath the east side of the bridge for scour analysis.

Additional details, including locations, boring and test pit logs, and laboratory test data are provided in

Appendix A and B. Selected exploration photographs are provided in Appendix C.

2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDTIONS

The subsurface conditions along the alignment includes three primary soil units. These soils consist of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders, which are associated with fill, alluvial, and sedimentary rock deposits. The soil units are as follows:

Fill: Loose to medium‐dense silty sand and gravel and cobbles increasing with depth with blow counts ranging from 6 to 27 blows per foot (bpf). This soil unit is found in the embankments and extends from the ground surface to a maximum depth of approximately 12 feet.

Alluvium; Salmon River Main‐Stream Alluvium: Medium‐dense to very dense gravel with silt, sand, cobbles, and boulders. Blow counts range from 36 bpf to refusal. This soil unit, underlain by bedrock, begins below the fill along the embankment or at the ground surface. This unit is approximately 20 feet thick.

Rock; Tertiary Sedimentary Deposits of the Salmon Basin, Salmon City, Carmen Creek, and Kriley

Gulch Formations: This unit contains siltstone, sandstone, claystone, and conglomerate with varying amounts of weathering. The bottom of this layer was not penetrated by any of the explorations and is expected to be more than 80 feet thick in the project area. Unconfined compressive strength tests ranged from 940 to 5,200 psi on rock core samples.

2.5 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater in the vicinity of the project is interpreted to be near the level of the adjacent Salmon

River (ordinary high water elevation 4,037 feet, generally expected during May‐June). During field explorations along the alignment, groundwater was encountered as high as elevation 4,035 feet and as low as elevation 4,030 feet. The adjacent Salmon River water level was approximately elevation 4,035 feet during the geotechnical exploration. Boring 2, drilled from the south toe of the east abutment

(surface elevation 4,041 ft.) encountered groundwater at a depth of 6 feet (El. 4,035 ft.). Boring 3, drilled through the west abutment (surface elevation 4,050 ft.) encountered groundwater at a depth of

20 feet (El. 4,030 ft.). Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 12.5 feet (El. 4,033 ft.) at Boring 4.

The remaining shallow borings and all five test pits did not encounter groundwater. Groundwater is expected to fluctuate seasonally with the level of the Salmon River. Dewatering will likely be required for any excavations extending below the adjacent river level. It is recommended to minimize the depths of the footings or pile caps to the extent practicable to reduce the need for dewatering during construction.

November 2015 Page | 5

2.6 LAB TESTING

Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil and rock samples obtained during subsurface explorations to assist in the classification and evaluation of engineering properties of the soils.

Laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix B. The following tests were performed:

Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)

Hydrometer and Sieve Analysis (ASTM D422)

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)

Unconfined‐Compression (ASTM D2166)

Corrosivity – pH only (SW9045D)

Sulfate (SM4500‐SO4‐E)

Resistivity (SM2510B)

Chloride (SW9251)

3. SEISMIC

3.1 REGIONAL SEISMIC SETTING

The project site is located within a seismically active area. Central Idaho is vulnerable to shallow crustal earthquakes such as the magnitude 6.9 Borah Peak earthquake which occurred near Challis, Idaho in

1983 and the magnitude 7.3 Hebgen Lake, Montana earthquake which occurred in 1959.

There are no known active faults within the project site. Geologic mapping (Lewis et al., 2013) indicates a fault in the vicinity of the project site. This fault, and the several potentially associated faults do not appear to have displaced during the Miocene age (5‐23M years ago) or after (Breckenridge et al., 2003;

Tysdal, 2002) and are not included in the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database.

Three potentially active faults have been mapped within 50 miles of the project site. These include: the

Beaverhead Fault, the Lemhi Fault, and the Lost River Fault (USGS, 2008).

Beaverhead Fault – A northwest trending fault located approximately 20 miles southeast of the project site. The total length of the fault is estimated to be 80 miles. Portions of this fault may have displaced in the last 15,000 years.

Lemhi Fault – A northwest trending fault located approximately 30 miles south of the project site. The total length of the fault is estimated to be 90 miles. This fault has ruptured in the last

10,000 years.

Lost River Fault – A northwest trending fault located approximately 40 miles south of the project site. The total length of the fault is estimated to be 90 miles. This fault ruptured during 1983

Borah Peak earthquake, resulting in significant ground shaking and surface scarp formation.

3.2 DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS AND SITE CLASSIFICATION

Design ground motions at the site have been developed using the USGS seismic design mapping tool following the 7th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014). The design

November 2015 Page | 6 ground motion parameters are based on a 7 percent probability of exceedance in 75 years, a recurrence interval of approximately 1,000 years. These ground motion parameters were developed based on a site location of 45.0984 degrees N, 113.8947 degrees W. The soil type was assessed to be “Stiff Soil” (site class D) based on boring SPT “N” values. Table 1 provides a summary of the site specific ground motion parameters and Figure 2 displays the design spectral response acceleration.

Table 1 – Ground motion parameters for site class D (AASHTO LRFD, 2014)

Parameter Value

Site Class D

Site Class B PGA (g) 0.16

Design Acceleration Coefficient, AS (g) 0.23

Short Period Acceleration Coefficient, SDS (g) 0.57

Long Period Acceleration Coefficient, SD1 (g) 0.28

Seismic Design Category B

Figure 2 – Site Class D, Spectral Response Acceleration

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Sp ec tr al A cc el er at io n , S a (g

Period, T (sec)

Site Class D

November 2015 Page | 7

3.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS

3.3.1 GROUND SHAKING

Earthquakes from the above mapped faults and unknown crustal faults could result in strong ground shaking at the project site. Ground shaking is responsible for generating high inertial forces and excessive dynamic movements that can impart unacceptable damage to structures. Ground shaking should be mitigated by using the design ground motions and site classification given in Section 3.2. With no known active faults crossing the project site, a surface fault rupture is not expected during a seismic event.

3.3.2 LIQUEFACTION/LATERAL SPREADING

The AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design recommend performing liquefaction screening for sites with a Seismic Design Category (SDC) B and Acceleration Coefficient, As, of 0.15 or higher (AASHTO, 2012). The project site meets these criteria, therefore an initial liquefaction screening was performed. An interactive deaggregation was performed to analyze the components of the probabilistic seismic hazard (USGS, 2002). The hazard is dominated (>97% contribution) by “random” crustal faults with a mean magnitude of 5.97. Field “N” values as low as 6 were encountered during explorations. However, soils in this unit (fill) were found only above the OHW of 4,037 feet and are expected to remain above the groundwater level. Groundwater is expected to be encountered in the

Alluvium where blowcounts ranged from 36 to refusal. Given the dense to very dense nature of the alluvial deposits and the expected groundwater level, the design ground motions are not expected to induce liquefaction or lateral spreading at the project site.

4. FOUNDATION DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

4.1 GENERAL

The existing Shoup Bridge is founded on spread footings. Based on as‐built drawings, each abutment consists of two 5’ X 10’ footings that are estimated to be approximately at elevation 4,029.5 feet (a depth of approximately 10 feet below the toe of the embankments and 20 feet below the roadway).

Each interior pier is supported by one 7’ X 19’ footing that are estimated to be at an elevation of 4,020 feet. The depth of the interior footings is estimated to be 10.5 to 12.5 feet below the existing river bottom. The existing footings are likely founded on alluvium. The foundations of the existing bridge appear to be performing adequately. No indications of excessive settlement of the structure were observed by the project team.

Spread footings, driven piles, drilled shafts, and micropiles have been considered as foundation alternatives. Site conditions, subsurface conditions, seismicity, scour, constructability, and loading must be considered when evaluating foundation alternatives. Electro‐chemical classification tests (resistivity, pH, chloride, and sulfate content) indicate the soils at the site are non‐aggressive.

November 2015 Page | 8

Contraction scour of 1.8 feet is predicted for a 100 year flood event while 2.8 feet of contraction scour is predicted for a 500 year flood event at the bridge site (PB, 2015). Additionally, abutment scour is predicted during a flood event. Riprap protection of the bridge abutments has been designed to protect the structure during flood events. The 500 year event included the consideration of one or both abutments washing out. The predicted scour depth elevation for this case is 4023.1 feet. Additional details are provided in the project Final Hydraulics Report (PB, 2015).

4.2 FOUNDATIONS CONSIDERED

A slide‐in‐bridge technique has been proposed for this project. The construction stages generally would consist of the following: construct temporary supports, construct bridge on temporary alignment, move traffic onto temporary alignment, demolish existing bridge, close bridge, slide‐in new bridge to permanent alignment, construct tie‐ins, open bridge.

Several foundation types were considered during the preliminary design phase of the project including spread footings, driven piles, drilled shafts, and micropiles. Driven piles have been selected as the foundation type. Considerations that informed the foundation selection type are discussed below.

4.2.1 SPREAD FOOTINGS

The existing spread footings have performed very well, experiencing minimal horizontal and vertical displacements. New footings would need to be founded deep enough to protect against scour, approximately 14 feet below the ordinary high water elevation. This would require a large area of excavation, groundwater control measures, and likely temporary support of excavation. These requirements, along with the time required to form, pour, and cure the foundation result in a less cost effective solution than deep foundation alternatives.

4.2.2 DRILLED SHAFTS AND MICROPILES

Relatively small diameter drilled shafts are considered feasible at the project site. Preliminary calculations indicate nominal axial compressive capacities in excess of 5,000 kips could be obtained for a

4‐foot diameter drilled shaft socketed two shaft diameters into bedrock. Two, 4‐foot diameter shafts could likely provide the required axial capacity at each abutment. However, lateral loading, superstructure bearing pad locations, and bridge slide‐in would likely necessitate the inclusion of additional shafts. Shaft excavations within the embankment fill and alluvium would likely encounter cobbles and boulders. The contractor would need to be prepared to drill through these conditions while providing sidewall stability. Temporary casing would likely be required to maintain shaft excavation stability. Communication of drilling fluids with the Salmon River is possible and would need to be prevented.

A preliminary assessment of micropiles was performed to determine an estimated number and length of micropiles required to support the abutments. Preliminary calculations indicate a 12‐inch diameter micropile can achieve a factored geotechnical capacity of 300 kips with 20 to 25 feet of embedment into bedrock. It is estimated 6 to 8 micropiles per would be required to support each abutment.

November 2015 Page | 9

The time required to install drilled shafts and micropiles is anticipated to be longer than that of driven piles. The presence of boulders and cobbles could adversely impact drilling rates. The contractor would be required to allow the concrete to cure prior to construction of the abutment. It is expected these considerations would result in a less cost effective foundation system than driven piles.

4.3 DRIVEN PILES

As indicated previously, driven piles were selected as the preferred foundation type. Factors that led to driven piles’ cost effectiveness include:

Speed of installation (1‐2 days per abutment) with no wait time for concrete curing.

Contractor expected to have required installation equipment onsite or available because temporary work structure will be supported by piles.

Efficient section ‐ pile capacity limited by structural section rather than geotechnical capacity.

Pile driving conditions are expected to be relatively difficult, requiring penetration of the dense to very dense alluvium containing cobbles and boulders. However, non‐displacement H piles with hardened driving shoes are considered capable of achieving the required penetration and capacity. Piles would be driven into the generally weak bedrock and would be primarily end bearing. It is expected the structural capacity of the piles would be approached within 10 feet of penetration into bedrock.

Resistivity testing of soils near the groundwater level was performed on several soil samples. Results were all greater than 4,000 ohm‐cm, indicating corrosion of steel piles is not anticipated at the project site.

4.3.1 AXIAL AND LATERAL RESISTANCE

Pile type selection was driven by the structural capacity of the piles due to the expected high geotechnical capacity of soils/rock at the project site. HP 12x74 piles, with a factored structural service capacity of 320 kips per pile, were analyzed. Figure 3 displays the proposed pile layouts at the bridge abutments, 9 piles spaced at 60‐inches center to center.

November 2015 Page | 10

Figure 3 – Proposed Typical Abutment Pile Layout

Axial geotechnical capacity of H‐piles were calculated using the program Apile v.2014. Geotechnical capacities of single piles were developed based on the lowest unconfined compressive strength test from laboratory testing (UCS = 923, psi; design Su = 450 psi). Nominal geotechnical capacities in excess of

650 kips per pile we calculated based minimal penetration into bedrock. The factored axial load per abutment is 2,069 kips. With 9 piles at each abutment the required factored resistance per pile is 230 kips. Piles should be driven to a minimum nominal capacity of 355 kips. This assumes dynamic load testing is performed and a resistance factor (φdyn) of 0.65 is appropriate.

Due to the single row layout of the piles, uplift demands are expected to be negligible.

A lateral loading analysis of the piles was performed using the program Group v.2013. Parameters used in the lateral analysis are presented in Table 2. A pile spacing of 60‐inches leads to an equivalent spacing slightly less than 5B (where B is the pile width = 12.2 inches). P‐reduction factors (Pm) were applied in the transverse loading direction in accordance with LRFD guidelines as follows (Table 10.7.2.4‐1;

AASHTO, 2014):

1st row – Pm = 1.0

2nd row – Pm = 0.85

3rd row and higher – Pm = 0.7

Based on the lateral loading analysis, it is expected fixity will be developed at a depth of approximately

13 feet for all load cases except the scour extreme event. The depth to fixity is above the recommended minimum pile tip penetration.

November 2015 Page | 11

Table 2 – Lateral Soil Parameters at Abutments

Soil Unit 1 2 4 5

Description Fill (above WT)

Fill (below WT)

Alluvium (below WT)

Rock

Abutment 1 (east)– Depth (ft.) 0 – 2 2 – 3 3 – 16 16+

Abutment 2 (west) – Depth (ft.) 0 – 2 N/A 2 – 30 30+

Soil Type for Group Analysis Sand Sand Sand Weak Rock

Effective Unit Weight (pcf) 125 62 73 73

Friction Angle, φ (degrees) 36° 36° 41° ~ p‐y subgrade modulus, k (pci) 90 60 100 ~

UCS (psi) ~ ~ ~ 1,000

Young’s Modulus (psi) ~ ~ ~ 10,000

KRM ~ ~ ~ 0.0001

RQD (%) ~ ~ ~ 50

Note – for the lateral analyses zero depth is taken as the bearing seat (top of pile cap).

As discussed in Section 4.1, the maximum depth of scour is predicted to reach an elevation of 4,023.1 feet during a 500 year flood event. This elevation is approximately 14 feet above the anticipated bedrock elevation of 4,009 feet at Abutment 2. However, at Abutment 1 boring B‐2 encountered weathered claystone and sandstone at an elevation of 4,024 feet. Although rock was encountered at

4,024 feet, the boring was advanced with hollow stem augers to an elevation of 4,015 feet prior to switching to coring. A split spoon sampler was driven at an elevation of 4,021 feet with an N value of

80/11”. It is considered feasible to drive the pile to depths below the maximum scour elevation based the ground conditions encountered in boring B‐2. A lateral loading analysis indicates adequate geotechnical capacity during the scour extreme event for piles driven to the “highest tip elevation” shown in Table 3.

The right‐of‐way restriction at the north side of Abutment 2 requires the placement of a 21 foot long wall (Wingwall D). Although Wingwall D will be lightly loaded in relation to the abutment, it is recommended to support the wall on driven piles to reduce differential settlement and the required moment connection between the wall and abutment.

Based on the bridge loading, scour extreme event, and geotechnical conditions at the project site, the following pile installation depths are recommended:

November 2015 Page | 12

Table 3 –Encountered Geotechnical Conditions and Recommended Pile Schedule

Location Pile Cut‐Off El. (ft.)

Anticipated Weathered Rock El. (ft.)

Anticipated Fresh Rock El.

(ft.)

Estimated Tip El. (ft.)

Highest Tip El. (ft.)

Abutment 1 4,041.26 4,024 4,015 4,015 4,020

Abutment 2 4,041.26 4,009 4,008 4,008 4,009

Wingwall D 4,041.26 4,009 4,008 4,008 4,009

4.3.2 DRIVEN PILE CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

It is recommended to drive the permanent piles with a vibratory hammer to a depth approximately 5 feet above the estimated tip elevation and then drive to design capacity with an impact hammer. It is recommended that the acceptance criteria for piles be established by dynamic testing with signal matching at the end of drive (EOD). A minimum of one pile per abutment should be tested. A resistance factor of 0.65 is recommended based on these criteria.

A wave equation analysis should be performed by the contractor prior to beginning pile driving activities to ensure the selected hammer will not damage the piles during installation.

Final design of all temporary construction structures will be the responsibility of the contractor. It is anticipated the required pile capacity for temporary structures can be achieved via installation with a suitably sized vibratory hammer.

5. CUT AND FILL SLOPES/RETAINING WALLS

Construction activities will require cutting into existing embankment slopes and creating fills in new locations. Cut and fill slopes are expected within/over the existing embankment fill and alluvium. The slope and retaining wall recommendations provided below are applicable to the embankment and abutment construction for the project.

Permanent cut and fill slopes should be constructed not to exceed 1V:1.5H. Constructed slopes that are not composed of angular granular backfill should be vegetated as soon as possible after grading to provide for protection against erosion. Surface water runoff should be collected and directed away from the face of the slope.

In locations where right‐of‐way or adjacent construction activities limit slopes, retaining walls will be required. Due to the limited cut heights in areas where retaining walls will be required, permanent cut walls are not required. However, the contractor may elect to erect temporary cut wall walls during construction. These cut walls would generally be expected to be less than 10 feet in height. During field explorations two test pits were excavated into the existing embankment and left “open” for a 24 hour period to evaluate the sidewall stability. Minimal sidewall sloughing was observed during this period indicating adequate standup time of the vertical soil face to facilitate the construction of a soldier pile or

November 2015 Page | 13 soil nail wall. We estimate the stand‐up time to be about one day. Cobbles and boulders would likely be encountered during cut wall construction. For instance, the contractor should anticipate the use of tooling to advance through cobbles and boulders while providing shaft/boring stability during any potential temporary cut wall construction. Modular block walls may be appropriate for temporary cut walls during construction and would be designed by the contractor. Sheet pile excavation support is not considered feasible due to the presence of cobbles and boulders at the project site.

Gravity, semi‐gravity, and MSE walls are considered feasible fill walls at the project site. A factored bearing capacity for the abutment wing wall foundations of 6.2 ksf is recommended based on an 18‐inch wide strip footing. A contractor designed MSE wall is proposed extending beyond the northwest abutment wing wall (Abutment 2). A factored bearing capacity of 6.1 ksf is recommended for the MSE wall based on a minimum reinforcement length of 8 feet. Retaining wall settlement at the project site will be experienced as the load is applied and is expected it be less than 0.5‐inches. A factored coefficient of sliding of 0.39 is recommended for all retaining walls, passive earth pressure should not be relied on in front of the retaining walls due to the sloping ground. Global static and seismic stability analyses for the maximum wall height of 10 feet have been performed; factors of safety in excess of 1.5 were calculated for both cases.

The MSE wall at Abutment 2 will be a contractor supplied system. As such, final design including internal, sliding, and overturning stability analyses will be performed by the contractor or the designer/wall supplier for the contractor. A live load surcharge of 200 psf should be included in the design.

Construction activities and final embankment slopes may impact wetlands. Based on field investigations, weak subgrade soils are not expected to be encountered. However, relatively thin (1‐2 feet), localized deposits of soft silt or clay may be present and should be excavated and replaced to provide adequate embankment and retaining wall support.

6. PAVEMENT

Pavement recommendations for the project have been developed following Chapter 11 of the PDDM using the procedures of the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO, 1993).

Design recommendations are based on a 25 year design life, assuming the roadway will be fully reconstructed within the project area. A traffic count was performed for the project on December 30, 2013 to January 6th, 2014. A traffic count performed in 2011 resulted in a higher vehicle and truck volume. These higher volumes were used as the basis of design for the pavement section. Further details regarding the traffic count are presented in the Traffic Reconnaissance Report Memorandum by

Sanderson Stewart dated January 14, 2014 (PB, 2014). Pavement design parameters are presented below in Table 4.

November 2015 Page | 14

Table 4 – Pavement Design Parameters

Parameter Value

Two Way ADT (2013) 877

Percent Trucks 13%

Annual Growth Rate 2%

Direction Breakdown 54%WB, 46%EB

Design Life 25 yr.

End of Construction 2016

Truck Factor 2.3

Calculated ESAL’s 1,791,716

Design ESAL’s 2,000,000

Subgrade Modulus 7,000 psi

Reliability Level 75%

Standard Deviation 0.49

Layer Coefficient ‐ AC 0.42

Layer Coefficient – Agg. Base 0.12

Serviceability Loss 1.7 (4.2‐2.5)

An asphalt concrete pavement section consisting of 6 inches of AC over 10 inches of aggregate base on compacted subgrade is recommended. Lemhi County Road Standards require that driveway roads be constructed to standard engineering specifications for an “All Weather Surface,” with 6 inches of crushed aggregate qualifying has an “All Weather Surface.” In driveway locations a minimum of 6 inches of aggregate base is recommended to be placed, alternatively a pavement section of 4 inches of AC over

6 inches of aggregate is recommended if a paved section is desired.

7. MATERIAL SOURCE

The Tolman gravel pit is a private material source site located approximately 0.75 miles west of the

Shoup Bridge site on Corbet Lane. Tolman gravel pit is a County approved pit‐run aggregate source in active operation. The pit has a surface area of approximately 5 acres and is estimated to have more than

10,000 CY of material available. The geology of the pit is mapped as “Older alluvial fan deposit” consisting of angular to subrounded gravel in a matrix of sand, silt, and clay (Lewis et al., 2013).

The Ziegler rock pit is located approximately 10 miles north of the project site adjacent to Highway 93 near Carmen, Idaho. The Ziegler pit is a County owned source that contains material which is expected to be suitable for rip rap. The geology of the pit is mapped as Mesoproterozoic aged “Siltite, quartzite, and argillite” metasedimentary rocks (Lewis et al., 2012).

November 2015 Page | 15

8. REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993; AASHTO Guide for

Design of Pavement Structures

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2012, Guide

Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd Edition with 2012 Interim Revisions

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2014, LRFD Bridge

Design Specifications, 7th Edition

Breckenridge, R.M., Lewis, R.S., Adema, G.W., Weisz, D.W., 2003, Miocene and Younger Faults in Idaho, Idaho Geologic Survey

Lewis, R.S., Othberg, K.L., Burmester, R.F., Stanford, L.R., McFaddan, M.D., and Lonn, J.D., 2012, “Geologic Map of the Salmon Quadrangle, Lemhi County, Idaho,” Idaho Geological Survey

Lewis, R.S., Othberg, K.L., McFaddan, M.D, Burmester, R.F., Stewart, D.E., Stanford, L.R., and Stewart, E.D, 2013, “Geologic Map of the Williams Lake Quadrangle, Lemhi County, Idaho,” Idaho Geological

Survey

Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2014; Williams Creek (Shoup) Bridge Replacement Project Scoping Report, February 5, 2014

Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2015, Williams Creek (Shoup) Bridge Replacement Project, Final Hydraulics Report, October 12, 2015

Tysdal, R.G., 2002, Structural Geology of Western Part of Lemhi Range, East‐Central Idaho: U.S.

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1659

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002; National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 Interactive

Deaggregation, https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2002/

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008; Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/

November 2015 Page | A‐1

APPENDIX A: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION LOGS

ASPHALT: approximately 4 inches thick

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND (GP), loose to medium dense, reddish brown and gray, dry

Inspector Remarks: Heavy grinding with 3" gravel spoils through entire hole

Bottom of boring at approximately 6.5 ft below ground surface. Groundwater not encountered.

6-7-5 (2" = 11%)

2.5' - 4'

12-12-9 (6" = 33%)

5' - 6.5'

0.3

6.5

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,122.99 E: 68,425.74NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 6.5' (BOTTOM ELEV: 4039.5')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/2/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Split Spoon

Hollow Stem Auger

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4046

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G P

J

Li b:

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y

.G

LB

ri nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech LOGGER: C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

0.0

BORING B-1

Sheet 1 of 1

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/2/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger

FIELD "N" VALUE

114+50.00 12' R

4046.0

4045.0

4044.0

4043.0

4042.0

4041.0

4040.0

4039.0

4038.0

4037.0

4036.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

RQD (%)

RECOVERY (%)

TOPSOIL

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM), loose, dark brown to dark gray, moist

Inspector Remarks: Heavy grinding with 3" gravel spoils

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND (GP-GM), medium dense to very dense, brown, black and gray, wet Ground Water ATD

Becomes well graded

Inspector Remarks: Amount of grinding decreased below 17' (less cobbles?)

Interlayered CLAYSTONE and SANDSTONE, very weak to weak, completely weathered to slightly weathered, bluish green

Split Spoon Sample collected at 20' classified as CLAYEY SAND (SC), completely weathered

3-4-3 (6" = 33%)

2.5' - 4'

10-29-33 (6" = 33%)

5' - 6.5'

28-21-24 (12" = 67%)

7.5' - 9'

15-18-18 (6" = 33%) 10' - 11.5'

21-25-23 (12" = 67%) 15' - 16.5'

21-30-50/5" (12" = 70%) 20' - 21.42'

0.5

5.0

17.5

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,086.64 E: 68,259.76NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 100' (BOTTOM ELEV: 3941')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/5/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Split Spoon

Hollow Stem Auger

Rock Core

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4041

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech

LOGGER:

6'

C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

0.0

BORING B-2

Sheet 1 of 4

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/4/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger to 25 feet, Coring to bottom of boring

FIELD "N" VALUE

112+85.00 50' R

4041.0

4038.5

4036.0

4033.5

4031.0

4028.5

4026.0

4023.5

4021.0

4018.5

4016.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

RQD (%)

RECOVERY (%)

Interlayered SILTSTONE, SANDSTONE and CONGLOMERATE, weak to strong, slight to moderate weathering, brownish red

40.0

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,086.64 E: 68,259.76NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 100' (BOTTOM ELEV: 3941')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/5/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Split Spoon

Hollow Stem Auger

Rock Core

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4041

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech

LOGGER:

6'

C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

BORING B-2

Sheet 2 of 4

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5

35.0

37.5

40.0

42.5

45.0

47.5

50.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/4/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger to 25 feet, Coring to bottom of boring

FIELD "N" VALUE

112+85.00 50' R

4016.0

4013.5

4011.0

4008.5

4006.0

4003.5

4001.0

3998.5

3996.0

3993.5

3991.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

Interlayered SILTSTONE, SANDSTONE and CONGLOMERATE, weak to strong, slight to moderate weathering, greenish gray

70.0

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,086.64 E: 68,259.76NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 100' (BOTTOM ELEV: 3941')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/5/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Split Spoon

Hollow Stem Auger

Rock Core

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4041

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech

LOGGER:

6'

C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

BORING B-2

Sheet 3 of 4

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

50.0

52.5

55.0

57.5

60.0

62.5

65.0

67.5

70.0

72.5

75.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/4/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger to 25 feet, Coring to bottom of boring

FIELD "N" VALUE

112+85.00 50' R

3991.0

3988.5

3986.0

3983.5

3981.0

3978.5

3976.0

3973.5

3971.0

3968.5

3966.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

SANDSTONE, weak to strong, slightly weathered to fresh, greenish gray to brownish red

Bottom of boring at approximately 100 ft below ground surface. Groundwater encountered at approximately 6 feet.

85.0

100.0

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,086.64 E: 68,259.76NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 100' (BOTTOM ELEV: 3941')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/5/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Split Spoon

Hollow Stem Auger

Rock Core

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4041

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech

LOGGER:

6'

C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

BORING B-2

Sheet 4 of 4

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

75.0

77.5

80.0

82.5

85.0

87.5

90.0

92.5

95.0

97.5

100.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/4/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger to 25 feet, Coring to bottom of boring

FIELD "N" VALUE

112+85.00 50' R

3966.0

3963.5

3961.0

3958.5

3956.0

3953.5

3951.0

3948.5

3946.0

3943.5

3941.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

ASPHALT: approximately 2 inches thick POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND (GP-GM), loose, brown and gray, moist

Inspector Remarks: Heavy grinding with 3" gravel spoils

WELL GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND and intermitant boulders/cobbles (GW-GM), loose to very dense, brown, black and gray, moist to wet

Silty Sand from 10'-10.5'

Inspector Remarks: Cobbles and boulders below 10.5'.

Ground Water ATD

4a

4b

5-4-5 (3" = 17%)

2.5' - 4'

5-4-4 (6" = 33%)

5' - 6.5'

10-5-11 (12" = 67%)

7.5' - 9'

3-16-11 (7" = 39%) 10' - 11.5'

25-44-37 (12" = 67%) 15' - 16.5'

25-48-39 (12" = 67%) 20' - 21.5'

0.2

7.0

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,126.34 E: 67,979.90NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 100' (BOTTOM ELEV: 3950')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/4/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Rock Core

Casing Advancer

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4050

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech

LOGGER:

20'

C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

0.0

BORING B-3

Sheet 1 of 4

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

Hollow Stem Auger

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

Split Spoon

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/3/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger to 10 feet, Casing Advancer to 38 feet, Coring to bottom of boring

FIELD "N" VALUE

110+05.00 12' R

4050.0

4047.5

4045.0

4042.5

4040.0

4037.5

4035.0

4032.5

4030.0

4027.5

4025.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

RQD (%)

RECOVERY (%)

POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL and intermitant boulders/cobbles (SP), very dense, black to dark brown, wet

SILTSTONE or SHALE, weak to strong, slight to moderate weathering, brownish red

50/5" (4" = 79%) 25' - 25.42'

50/6" (6" = 100%) 30' - 30.5'

48-50/6" (12" = 100%)

35' - 36'

4-24-50/4" (12" = 75%) 40' - 41.33'

31.0

41.0

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,126.34 E: 67,979.90NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 100' (BOTTOM ELEV: 3950')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/4/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Rock Core

Casing Advancer

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4050

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech

LOGGER:

20'

C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

BORING B-3

Sheet 2 of 4

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

Hollow Stem Auger

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5

35.0

37.5

40.0

42.5

45.0

47.5

50.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

Split Spoon

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/3/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger to 10 feet, Casing Advancer to 38 feet, Coring to bottom of boring

FIELD "N" VALUE

110+05.00 12' R

4025.0

4022.5

4020.0

4017.5

4015.0

4012.5

4010.0

4007.5

4005.0

4002.5

4000.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

RQD (%)

RECOVERY (%)

CLAYSTONE, very weak to weak, moderate weathering, bluish to greenish gray

SANDSTONE with CLAYSTONE layers, weak to strong, moderate to slight weathering, bluish gray to gray

51.0

70.0

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,126.34 E: 67,979.90NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 100' (BOTTOM ELEV: 3950')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/4/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Rock Core

Casing Advancer

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4050

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech

LOGGER:

20'

C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

BORING B-3

Sheet 3 of 4

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

Hollow Stem Auger

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

50.0

52.5

55.0

57.5

60.0

62.5

65.0

67.5

70.0

72.5

75.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

Split Spoon

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/3/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger to 10 feet, Casing Advancer to 38 feet, Coring to bottom of boring

FIELD "N" VALUE

110+05.00 12' R

4000.0

3997.5

3995.0

3992.5

3990.0

3987.5

3985.0

3982.5

3980.0

3977.5

3975.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

Bottom of boring at approximately 100 ft below ground surface. Groundwater encountered at approximately 20 feet.

100.0

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,126.34 E: 67,979.90NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 100' (BOTTOM ELEV: 3950')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/4/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Rock Core

Casing Advancer

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4050

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech

LOGGER:

20'

C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

BORING B-3

Sheet 4 of 4

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

Hollow Stem Auger

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

75.0

77.5

80.0

82.5

85.0

87.5

90.0

92.5

95.0

97.5

100.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

Split Spoon

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/3/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger to 10 feet, Casing Advancer to 38 feet, Coring to bottom of boring

FIELD "N" VALUE

110+05.00 12' R

3975.0

3972.5

3970.0

3967.5

3965.0

3962.5

3960.0

3957.5

3955.0

3952.5

3950.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

ASPHALT: approximately 3 inches thick SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM), loose to medium dense, light brown, dry to moist

Inspector Remarks: Heavy grinding with 3" gravel spoils

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND (GP-GM), very dense, brown, moist to wet

Ground Water ATD

Bottom of boring at approximately 21.5 ft below ground surface. Groundwater encountered at approximately 12.5 feet.

5-9-9 (6" = 33%)

2.5' - 4'

2-3-3 (18" = 100%)

5' - 6.5'

19-38-40 (6" = 33%)

7.5' - 9'

34-40-74 (18" = 100%)

15' - 16.5'

29-40-44 (12" = 67%) 20' - 21.5'

0.3

7.0

21.5

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,133.83 E: 67,830.00NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5' (BOTTOM ELEV: 4023.5')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/2/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Split Spoon

Hollow Stem Auger

STATION, OFFSET:

ELEVATION: 4045

BORING LOG (US Customary Units)

AFTER DRILLING

F ile

: Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\8

W

_W M

S C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E _B

L

C O

P Y

.G

Q :\G

E O

\0

P R

O

JE

C T

S \W

F L\

W

IL

LI

A

M S

C R

E E

K S

H O

U P

B R

ID

G

E \0

F

IE

LD

L O

G S

\F H

W A

LI

B

R A

R Y nt ed

: 9 /1

/2

AT COMPLETION

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DESCRIPTION

Haztech

LOGGER:

12.5'

C. Cummins

DATE STARTED:

0.0

BORING B-4

Sheet 1 of 1

COMPANY:

S A

M P

LE

DRILLING METHODS:

WATER CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMITFIELD

BLOW

COUNT

(Recovery)

Limits

DATE FINISHED:

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

Aaron Delvalle

WEATHER:

DRILL: CME 85

D

E P

T H ft

12/2/2014

PROJECT: Willams Creek Shoup Bridge Replacement, ID PFH 91(1)

Automatic Hollow Stem Auger

FIELD "N" VALUE

108+55.00 9' R

4045.0

4042.5

4040.0

4037.5

4035.0

4032.5

4030.0

4027.5

4025.0

4022.5

4020.0

D E

P T

H ft

E

LE

V ft)

RQD (%)

RECOVERY (%)

ASPHALT: approximately 4 inches thick

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND (GP-GC), reddish brown and gray, medium dense

Inspector Remarks: Heavy grinding with 2-3" gravel spoils through entire hole

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND (GP-GM), reddish brown, medium dense, moist

Bottom of boring at approximately 6.5 ft below ground surface. Groundwater not encountered.

7-6-21 (12" = 67%)

2.5' - 4'

9-7-6 (10" = 56%)

5' - 6.5'

0.3

4.5

6.5

WATER LEVELS 0 100

HAMMER:

WHILE DRILLING

DRILLER:

N: 51,240.62 E: 67,193.06NOTES:

TOTAL DEPTH: 6.5' (BOTTOM ELEV: 4039.5')

S A

M P

LE

R

12/2/2014

20 40

PLASTIC LIMIT

Split Spoon

Hollow Stem Auger

STATIO…