Soils and Foundation Report.pdf

PDF 3 MB Posted Apr 1, 2009

Attached to: Shawnee National Forest 400(3) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: DTFH71-09-B-00012
Issued by: Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

About this file

From the source

Soils and Foundation Report

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Shawnee National Forest 400(3), newest first.
File	Type	Posted
Plans.pdf	PDF	Apr 1, 2009
FP03_Eng .pdf	PDF	Apr 1, 2009
ADV_Bidder's Qualifications Form.doc	DOC document	Apr 1, 2009
FP03 Errata.pdf	PDF	Apr 1, 2009
IFB Solicitation.pdf	PDF	Apr 1, 2009

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

SOILS AND FOUNDATION

REPORT NO. 04-09

PROJECT ERFO/IL FSR 400(3)

EMERGENCY LANDSLIDES REPAIRS

JOHNSON CREEK AND PINE HILLS ROAD

SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

JACKSON AND UNION COUNTIES, ILLINOIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

December 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOLOGIC SETTING

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

GENERAL

SAMPLING

FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS

DATA SUMMARY

LABORATORY TESTING

FINDINGS

DESIGN ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

ANALYSES

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Boring Location Maps APPENDIX C – Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX E – Design Analysis APPENDIX F – Typical Details APPENDIX G – Special Contract Requirements APPENDIX H – Representative Photographs

Note: Design changes made subsequent to distribution of this report and prior to project advertisement will be documented in a memo inserted after the title page.

SOILS AND FOUNDATION

REPORT NO. 04-09

EMERGENCY LANDSLIDES REPAIRS

JOHNSON CREEK AND PINE HILLS ROAD

JACKSON AND UNION COUNTIES, ILLINOIS

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL

This report provides the results of our site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, laboratory testing, design analysis and presents recommendations for repair of the failed slopes in Project IL FSR 400(3).

A total of six (6) slides and one (1) sinkhole were identified at three different locations within the Shawnee national Forest as follows:

- Johnson Creek Road (FR 724), Jackson County

- Pine Hills Road (FR 236), Union County

- McCraven Road (FR 220), Alexander County

Based on discussions with Highway Design the slides at Mc Craven Road will be design and repair under Project IL FSR 220(1). The general site locations maps are presented in Appendix A Figure 1 “Site Location and Vicinity Map”.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project IL FSR 400(3) located at Johnson Creek Road consists of the repair of one (1) landslide along an approximate 82.0 feet long section of FR 724. Additional repair work will include reconditioning and resurfacing of the aggregate roadway within the limits of the project.

The slide is located at Johnson Creek Recreational Area at a latitude/longitude of 37º 49’ 59.02031” N and 89º 30’ 59.07213”W, respectively. The slide starts near the centerline of the road and is approximately 11.0 feet high with 49.0 feet from the roadway embankment to the toe of the slope. The roadway embankment settled down approximately 2.5 feet.

The road is closed to the public. The bulging toe of the slide is encroaching into a horse trail and completely blocking it.

Project IL FSR 400(3) at Pine Hills Road consists of the repair of a cut slope landslide along an approximate 85.0 feet long section of FR 263. Slide material and debris was observed to cover the road and the downhill side of the road. Additional repair work will

EMERGENCY LANDSLIDES REPAIR

JACKSON AND UNION COUNTIES, ILLNOIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

include reconditioning and resurfacing of the aggregate roadway within the limits of the project and removing or stabilizing debris on the downhill side of the road.

The slide is located at a latitude/longitude of 37º 30’ 22.04657” N and 89º 25’ 29.14356” W at approximately 0.1-mi north of the intersection of SH 13 with FR 236. The cut slope is approximately 30.0 feet high. A stream was identified at approximately 20.0-feet east from the downhill side of the road.

GEOLOGIC SETTING

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

According to Illinois Geological Survey (ILGS) Map “Bedrock Geology of Illinois (2005)”, Jackson County is located within the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Formation.

The Mississipian Formation consists of Upper Pope Group (Tar Springs Sandstone through Kinkaid Limestone). The Pennsylvanian formation consists of Caseyville. Caseyville is a variable unit consisting primarily of medium to coarse grained, thick bedded to massive sandstone, but containing minor amounts of shale and quartz pebble conglomerate.

Union County is located within the Devonian and Sirulian Formation. The Devonian formation in southern, IL consists of Tamms Group which includes Grand Tower Limestone and St. Laurent (Alto and Lingle) Limestone. The Sirulian formation in southern, IL includes Sexton Creek Limestone, St. Clair Limestone, and Moccasin Spring Formation. The Moccasin Spring Formation consists of reddish marlstone embedded with limestone. Refer to Figure 2 of Appendix A, for a Geologic Map of the project areas.

SOIL SURVEY

According to the United States Department of Agricultures (USDA), “Soil Survey of Jackson and Union Counties, Illinois”, Jackson County site is underlain predominantly by soils identified as Menfro-Wellston Silt Loams and Neotoma-Wellston Complex. These soils are predominantly on hilly slopes which are stable to marginally stable without surcharged load. The soils consist of a combination of well drained, silty clay loam and silt loam.

Union County site is underlain predominantly by soils identified as Clarksville-Menfro Complex and Elsah Silt Loam. These soils are predominantly hilly to plain slopes which are stable to marginally stable without surcharged load. The soils consist of a combination of excessively drained to occasionally flooded; gravelly silt loam to very gravelly silty clay and silt loam to silty clay loam.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

GENERAL

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division’s (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team conducted a subsurface investigation program at the project sites between June 10 and 11, 2008. The subsurface investigation program consisted of drilling a total of two (2) boreholes, designated as JC-1 and PH-1 within the project limits with a CME 750 rubber-tired rotary drill rig. In addition to subsurface investigation, the characteristics of subsurface material within the failed slope limits were determined by visually observing and recording the type and nature of accumulated slide debris and material within the face of the failure.

The location of borings may be referenced on the Boring Location Maps sheets in Appendix B.

SAMPLING

Boreholes were drilled to depths of 21.5 and 27.0 feet below the existing ground surface.

Borings were advanced to depth using a 3 ¾ -in. (inside diameter) hollow stem augers.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed using a 2¼ -in. (outside diameter) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO 7200 and AASHTO T206.

Representative portions of soil samples recovered were preserved in glass jars and were later transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, Tennessee for laboratory testing and storage. The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring are presented on its appropriate Boring Log in Appendix C.

FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Borings locations were recorded using a Global positioning System (GPS) device. SPT soil samples were typically continuously recovered from ground surface to a depth of 12.0 ft;

thereafter, samples were typically recovered at 10.0 ft intervals to borehole termination depths. Samples were recovered by driving a split-spoon sampler a distance of 24-in., or until refusal, into the undisturbed soil under the impact of 140 pound automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-in. sample interval is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-Value. Split-spoon refusal is defined by 50 blows per 1-in. of penetration of the split-spoon sampler. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-in. interval was recorded on field boring logs. The relative consistency of each cohesive sample was estimated using a calibrated pocket penetrometer.

A field description by color and texture was made for each recovered sample.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Groundwater levels, if present, were measured in the boreholes at the time and under the conditions stated on boring logs.

DATA SUMMARY

The EFLHD Subsurface Investigation Team performed the following field tests and measurements during the course of the subsurface exploration. The results of field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheets in the field.

These data sheets and logs contain information concerning the boring methods; samples attempted and recovered; indications of the presence of various material such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, etc.; and observations of groundwater. They also contain interpretations by the exploration team leader of the subsurface conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings brought to the surface by the drilling tools.

Therefore, the field data represents both factual and interpretative information.

The boring logs in Appendix C represent a compilation of field laboratory data and description of the soil samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally do not include all data recorded on driller’s logs and field data sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this report.

Groundwater level readings were made at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. However, fluctuations in groundwater level may occur due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made.

LABORATORY TESTING

A laboratory testing program was conducted on select soil samples recovered during the subsurface field investigation so that they may aid in soil classification and the determination of engineering properties required for design analyses. The testing program included grain size distribution (AASHTO T-88), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89, T-90), and natural moisture content (AASHTO T-265). All tests were conducted in accordance with applicable AASHTO standard test methods.

Laboratory test results are summarized in Table I and may also be referenced in Appendix D.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Table 1 – Summary of Laboratory Test Result

Boring No.

Sample No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

Moisture Content

Liquid Limit(1)

Plastic Limit(2)

Fines Content

Description AASHTO

Classification

JC-1

J-3

7.5-9.5

17.3

46.8

Clay

A-7-6(6)

PH-1

J-3

8-10

21.2

88.3

Silt

A-4(7)

FINDINGS

Borings logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered in each boring may be referenced in Appendix C. The approximate location of borings drilled may be referenced on the Boring Location Map sheets in Appendix B. Descriptions of soil conditions encountered during the subsurface explorations conducted at the site are presented below.

The categories and descriptions below are indicative of the various types of subsurface soils encountered and does not suggest stratification. Stratifications lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the logs of borings represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual and one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

Johnson Creek Road (Boring JC-1);

Fill - This stratum consists of gray, gravelly sand, little silt and was encountered from the ground surface to a depth of 6 feet. This stratum was identified as embankment fill. SPT resistance values recorded within this material varied from 5 to 7 blows per foot (bpf) indicating loose condition.

Clay – Beneath the embankment fill, gray to mottled brown-gray, clay and sand with trace of gravel was encountered to a depth of 9.5 feet. SPT resistance value recorded within this material was 7 bpf indicating medium stiff conditions. AASHTO classification of this stratum is A-7-6(6) with a plastic index of 21 and 46.8 % of fines.

Weathered Shale - Gray to mottled brown-gray, weathered shale was encountered from beneath the silty clay to a termination depth of 21.5 feet. SPT resistance values recorded within this material varied between 16 and 71 bpf, indicating medium dense to very dense conditions.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings during or after completion of drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Pine Hills Road (Boring PH-1);

Slide material - The slide material consists of gray-brown silt, little clay, trace of fine sand.

The slide material was encountered from the ground surface to a depth of 4.5 feet. SPT resistance value of 2 bpf was recorded indicating very soft conditions.

Fill - This stratum consists of olive-brown clayey silt. The fill was encountered from beneath the slide material to a depth of 6.0 feet. SPT resistance value recorded within this material was 4 bpf, indicating soft consistency.

Silt - Beneath the fill, red-brown silt, little sand, some clay was encountered to a depth of

25.0 feet. SPT resistance values recorded within this material varied from 6 to 11 bpf, indicating medium stiff to stiff consistencies. AASHTO classification of this stratum is A- 4(7) with a plastic index of 8 and 88.3 % of fines.

Gravel – Light gray to red-yellow gravel with some clay and little silt layers were encountered embedded into the silt layer between depths of 13.5 and 17.0 feet and from a depth of 25.0 feet to the termination of boring PH-1 at 27.0 feet. SPT resistance values recorded within the gravelly layers varied from 12 to 40 bpf, indicating medium dense to dense conditions. Boring PH-1 was terminated within the gravelly layer at a depth of 27 feet. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 26.3 feet during drilling.

DESIGN ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Johnson Creek - Design alternatives considered for stabilizing the side slope and reinforcing the roadway against failure were evaluated in terms of cost, serviceability and constructability.

The design alternative for Johnson Creek slope slide consists of stabilizing the roadway by removing the un-compacted roadway fill material and clay from the roadway embankment, within the limits of the slide until reaching stable material. Then re-constructing the embankment from the base of the excavation up to roadway grade. Reusing the on site portion of the roadway fill material, that meet the unclassified borrow material requirements, and adding compacted backfill reinforced with alternating layers of geogrid.

Two alternatives were evaluated for the slope facing:

1. Alternative No. 1 – Wire baskets

2. Alternative No. 2 – Top soil and seed with turf reinforcement mat

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Alternative No. 2 was selected as the most suitable alternative for facing the slope. The high unit price of gabion wire basket units and imported rock made Alternative No. 1 a less desirable alternative.

Additional work includes roadway reconstruction and drainage improvement.

Pine Hills- Design alternatives were considered for keeping the slide material out of the roadway and assisting in stabilizing the slide slope against failure. Two design alternatives were considered for the repair of the slope. The two alternatives considered for each site are presented below and were evaluated in terms of cost.

1. Alternative No. 1 – The first alternative consists of repairing the failed slope by constructing a modular gabion gravity wall along the toe of the slope. Using backfill material behind the wall and cover slide area with turf reinforcement mat, top soil and seed. A gabion gravity wall is comprised of stacked steel wire baskets filled with rocks.

Gabion gravity walls are typically constructed with a 6 degree batter from the vertical with either a stepped front face or stepped back face.

2. Alternative No. 2 - The second alternative consists of repairing the landslide by installing a cantilevered retaining wall at the toe of the slope and a reinforced soil slope (RSS) from the top of the wall.

Alternative No. 1 was selected as the most suitable and cost effective alternative for the repair of the uphill slope. The high unit price of a cantilever retaining wall made Alternative No. 2 a less desirable alternative.

Additional work will include roadway reconstruction, drainage improvement, and stabilization of slide material on the downhill side of the road. The downhill slope will be restored by compacting existing material placing reinforcement mat, topsoil and seed.

ANALYSES

The geometry of the critical slope sections were developed using a cross section drawing obtained from EFLHD’s Highway Design Section.

Global Stability, Translational and 3-Parts Wedge Analyses of the proposed repair for Johnson Creek were evaluated using the computer program ReSSA (2.0). The proposed repair satisfied global stability, translational and 3-parts wedge stability requirements with a factor of safety of 1.80, 1.72 and 4.23, respectively. The soil properties used in the design analysis are listed in table 2.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Table 1 – Johnson Creek Soil Properties

Based on design analyses results a minimum 16.0 ft depth of repair is required to stabilize the roadway. Additionally, a minimum of 5 layers of geogrid reinforcement with a minimum of long term design strength (LTDS) of 3150 lb/ft is also required.

Global Stability of the proposed repair for Pine Hills was also evaluated using the computer program ReSSA (2.0). The proposed repair satisfied the minimum global stability requirement with a factor of safety of 1.3. The soil properties used in the design analysis are listed in table 3.

Table 1 – Pine Hills Soil Properties

Soil Layer

Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

Internal Angle of Friction

(deg.)

Cohesion

(lb/ft2)

Gabion Retaining Wall

Retaining Wall Backfill

Very soft SILT, little clay, trace fine sand

Medium stiff, SILT, little sand, some clay

A gabion retaining wall height of 6.0 feet was analyzed. Gabions are free draining walls constructed by filling galvanized steel mesh baskets with broken stone or course, granular material. Turf reinforcement mat, topsoil and seed will be used to restore the uphill slide slope. Design analysis computations may be referenced in Appendix E.

Soil Layer Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

Internal Angle of Friction

(deg.)

Unclassified Borrow

Shale

Soil Layer Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

Internal Angle of Friction

(deg.)

Unclassified Borrow

Shale

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the subsurface field investigation findings, laboratory testing results, design analysis and projects requirements is recommend that the failed slope embankment at Johnson Creek Road be repaired by reconstructing the road embankment in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03 specifications, except as detailed herein.

1. Excavate roadway embankment for a maximum depth of 16.0 feet or to the top of competent dense weathered rock material and 5.0 feet behind the failure line.

2. Bench the back of the excavation to provide benches that are maximum 8.0 feet high and a minimum of 5.0 feet horizontally. Grade the bottom of the bench on a 5% slope toward the underdrain along the excavation.

3. Establish the face of the repair on a 2(H):1(V) slope to match original conditions.

4. Grade the bottom on the excavation on a negative 5% slope toward the underdrain along the excavation.

5. Provide a geogrid with a minimum LTDS of 3,150 lb/ft. Extend geogrid a minimum of 18.0 ft of embedment depth.

6. Provide a minimum of 5 layer of geogrid reinforcement beginning at 0.5 feet from the bottom of the excavated bench. Geogrid layers should be spaced no more than

1.5 feet apart vertically.

7. Select unclassified borrow material in accordance with Section 704.06 of the FP-03.

The portion of the on site roadway fill material that meets unclassified borrow requirements in accordance with Section 704.06 of the FP-03 can be used. Before placing the backfill remove all the clay and soft material.

8. Backfill material should be placed and compacted in lifts not to exceed 6.0 inches and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03.

9. To improve drainage, provide underdrain outlets at all low points and intervals no exceeding 25.0 feet.

10. Placed conserved topsoil, seeding, and mulch using hydraulics method according to Section 624 and 625.

A typical embankment repair detail is provided in Appendix E.

We recommend the failed uphill slope area at Pine Hills Road be repair by the construction of a gravity gabion retaining wall in accordance with Section 253 of the FP-03 specifications and including the following:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. Provide a minimum gabion basket retaining wall of 6.0 ft height.

2. Provide a standard gabion basket size of 3.0 ft x 3.0 ft x 6.0 ft (W x H x L), for construction of the retaining wall.

3. Embed the gabion baskets a minimum of 2.0 feet depth into the ground.

4. Grade the bottom of the excavation on a 12(H):1(V) slope.

5. Set back the gabion baskets to achieve an overall wall slope face of 1(H): 6(V).

6. Use rock conforming to Section 705.01 of the FP-03 to fill the gabion baskets.

7. Use select granular backfill conforming to Section 704.10 of the FP-03 behind the gabion retaining wall.

8. Place Type II-B geotextile between the gabion basket and the select granular backfill.

9. To improve drainage, provide underdrain outlets at all low points and intervals no exceeding 25.0 feet.

10. Backfill material should be placed and compacted in lifts not to exceed 6.0 inches and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03.

11. Placed conserved topsoil, seeding, and mulch using hydraulics method according to Section 624 and 625.

A detail drawing of the gabion retaining wall system is provided in Appendix E.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Excavations – All excavations are to be performed in accordance with applicable OSHA standards and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Backfill Material –Backfill material should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 204, and the specified maximum dry density should be achieved within a water content of ±2%.

Lightweight compaction equipment should be used within 3-feet of the slope face. This equipment will reduce the possibility of triggering additional movement of the uncompacted fill soils within the existing slope. Examples of acceptable lightweight equipment include small single or double drum, walk behind vibratory rollers or vibratory plate compactors. Sheepsfoot, grid, or other types of equipment employing a foot are not recommended.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Aggregate Surface – The placement of new aggregate surface course material may be required for a depth of 6-in. along repair sections of FR 724. Aggregate surface course material should be in accordance with subsection 703.05. Placement of the aggregate surface course material should be completed in accordance to Section 301.

Underdrain outlets - Provide underdrain outlets at all low points, and intervals not to exceed 25 feet.

The subsurface explorations and tests described in the section on Procedures and Results have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these explorations and tests represent conditions at the specific locations indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary. The Analysis and Conclusions section and the Recommendations section in this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

trt~2- RJ~ .

Prared by: 5 Maria Rosa Geotechnical Engineer

{;2~74;

Reviewed by:

Khalid T. Mohamed, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

APPENDIX A

Figures

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REG STATE PROJECT SHEET TOTAL

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 1 NO.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION SITE VICINITY MAP IL IL FSR 400(3) 1 4

STERLING, VA

FR 724

Johnson Creek Rd

FR 236

Pine Hills Rd

FR 220

McCraven Rd

Upper Pope Group (Tar Springs Sandstone through Kinkaid Limestone)

Caseyville Formation

4IL FSR 400(3)

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

STATEREG

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Source:

Geologic Map of the Bedrock Geology of Illinois (2005)

Illinois State Geological Survey

MISSISSIPPIAN FORMATION

PENNSYLVANIAN FORMATION

DEVONIAN FORMATION

SILURIAN FORMATION

Includes Sexton Creek Limestone, St. Clair Limestone, and Moccasin Spring Formation in southern IL.

Tamms Group, includes Grand tower Limestone and St. Laurent(Alto and Lingle) Formation in southern IL.

Johnson Creek Rd (FR 724)

Pine Hills Rd (FR236)

McCraven Rd (FR 220)

Menfro-Wellston Silt Loams: Hillslopes, welldrained silt loam, silty clay loam

REG STATE PROJECT SHEET TOTAL

NO SHEETS

IL IL FSR 400(3) 3 4

Johnson Creek Rd, Jackson County and channery silty loam. Bedrock expected at 60 to 70-inches.

Eroded.

channery loam. Bedrock expected at 60 to 75-in.

Neotoma-Wellston Complex: Hillslopes, well drained, very flaggy silt loam to very

STERLING, VA

SOIL SURVEY MAP

Jackson County

FIGURE 3U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Source: USDA National Resources Conservation Center http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

Map Unit Symbol 692F

Map Unit Name

79C2 and 79D3 Menfro Silt Loam: Loess hills, well drained silt loam and silty clay loam.

977G

REG STATE PROJECT SHEET TOTAL

NO SHEETS

IL IL FSR 400(3) 4 4EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION SOIL SURVEY MAP

STERLING, VA Union County

Pine Hills Rd, Union County

832G Clarksville-Menfro Complex: Hillslope soils consists of excessively drained silty clay loam.

Elsah Silt Loam: Flood plain soils consists of ocassionally flooded, silt loam, very gravelly silt loam and very gravelly loam.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FIGURE 4

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

8475B

Source: USDA National Resources Conservation Center http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ gravelly silt loam to very gravelly silty clay. Loess hills well drained silt loam and

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name

APPENDIX B

Boring Location Maps

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 1 NO.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION Boring Location IL IL FSR 400(3) 1 2 STERLING, VA Johnson Creek

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 2 NO.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION Boring Location Map IL IL FSR 400(3) 2 2 STERLING, VA Pine Hills

APPENDIX C

Boring Logs

M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr400(3)\techserv\geotech\Borings\Boring Log_Soil Description Standard.doc

SOIL BORING GENERAL NOTES

Drilling and Sampling Symbols

SS: Split Spoon - 1 3/8” I.D., 2” O.D., except where noted ST: Shelby Tube - 2” O.D., except where noted PA: Power Auger Sample

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground water elevations is not possible, even after several days, and additional evidence on ground water elevations must be sought.

VISUAL METHODS FOR SOILS CLASSIFICATION

Component Distinguishing Features

Boulders Larger than 12” (300 mm)

Cobbles 3” to 12” (75 mm to 12 mm)

Gravel Larger than No. 4 sieve and smaller than a 3” sieve, described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse 3” to 3/4” (75 mm to 19 mm) sieve Medium 3/4” to 3/8” (19 mm to 9.5 mm) sieve Fine 3/8” to No. 4 (9.5 mm to 4.75 mm) sieve

Sand The finest sand grains are just visible to the naked eye, while the largest would pass a No. 4

(4.75mm) sieve (pinhead size). Described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse No. 4 to No. 10 (4.75 mm to 2.0 mm) sieve Medium No. 10 to No. 40 (2.0 mm to 0.42 mm) sieve Fine No. 40 to No. 200 (0.42 mm to 0.075 mm) sieve

Silt 1. Lumps are easily crumbled when are-dried.

2. Feels gritty between the teeth.

3. A moist pat when shaken in the palm of the hand will appear shiny and wet. When squeezed it will appear dry and dull.

Clay 1. Lumps are comparatively hard when air-dried.

2. Threads (1/8” diameter) of considerable length will support their own weight when held by one end.

3. A moist pat will appear the same whether shaken in the palm of the hand or squeezed.

Order of Description

1. Soil Density (or consistency) – see table below

2. Color

3. Major Grain Size – Composes more than 50% of the sample

4. Modifying Term – “and” : 40% to 50% of the minor grain size

“some” : 30% to 40% “little” : 10% to 30%

“trace” : 10% or less

5. Minor Grain Size(s)

6. Other (plasticity, etc.)

M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr400(3)\techserv\geotech\Borings\Boring Log_Soil Description Standard.doc

7. Moisture Content (by field test) – “dry” : Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch “moist” : Damp but no visible water

“wet” : Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

8. General Classification – Fill, Residual Soil, Weathered Rock

SOIL DENSITY (OR CONSISTENCY) TABLE

Coarse-Grained Soil (Gravel, Sand) Fine-Grained Soil (Clay, Silt)

Apparent Density SPT (# blows / ft) Consistency SPT (# blows / ft) Very loose 0-4 Very soft 0-2

Loose 5-10 Soft 3-4 Medium dense 11-30 Medium stiff 5-8

Dense 31-50 Stiff 9-15 Very dense >50 Very stiff 16-30

Hard >30

Examples:

1. Dense to very dense, brown to light brown, SILTY SAND, some gravel [A-7-6(10)]

(Moist)

-FILL-

Criteria for Describing Soil Structure

Description Criteria

Bed A sedimentary layer bounded by depositional surfaces.

Blocky A characteristic in which cohesive soil can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown.

Bonded Attached or adhering.

Fissured Broken along definite planes of fracture.

Foliated Planar arrangement of textural or structural features.

Frequent More than one per foot of thickness.

Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.

Interbedded Alternating soil layers of different composition.

Laminae A very thin cohesive layer.

Layer A general term for material lying essentially parallel to the surfaces against which it was formed.

Lens A lenticular deposit, larger than a pocket.

Occasional One or less per foot of thickness.

Parting A very thin granular layer.

Pocket Small erratic deposits less than 12” in thickness.

Seam A thin layer separating two distinctive layers of different composition or greater magnitude.

Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color.

Stratum A stratigraphic unit.

Varve A cyclic sedimentary couplet consisting of a coarser and a finer layer representing the variation in depositional energy resulting from the annual freeze-thaw cycle typically found in glaciolacustrine environments.

Medium stiff, gray to mottled brown-gray, CLAY, and sand, trace gravel. [A-7-6(6)] (moist)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Auger Refusal at 21.5 ft.

Very dense, gray to mottled brown-gray, weathered SHALE (moist)

Medium dense, gray, weathered SHALE (moist)

Medium stiff, gray to mottled brown-gray, CLAY, and sand, trace gravel. [A-7-6(6)] (moist)

Vane Shear

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th (f t)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Loose, gray, gravelly SAND, little silt (moist)

Note: Fragments of geotextile (1/2 in sq) encountered at 6 ft.

-FILL-

B O

G L

O G

E R

).G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Ty pe

6.0

Soft, white, CLAY (moist to wet)

21.5

14.5

9.5

0.2

8.5 1.0

J-6

J-5

J-4

J-3

J-2

J-1

8.7

13-29-39-51

11-29-42-43

4-7-9-10

1-2-5-7

0.6 3-4-3-1

1.7

1.3

1.7

4-2-3-1

Sunny 80s

SPT

Water Content %

E le va tio n (fe et

M. Rosa/ B. Lawrence

N/A

HSA

6/10/08Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

1- Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

2-Groundwater not encounted

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Johnson Creek Rd, Jackson County

Plastic Limit

Rock Core Penetrometer

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

6/10/08 Inspector:

B lo w s pe r in hrs

Jackson and Union Counties, IL

ERFO/IL FSR 400(3) : Shawnee National Forest, IL

R. Kingsley/D. HutchinsOperator:

Weather:

JC-1

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

R ec

8.0 in.

Caved at:

BORING LOG

SAMPLE

501.9 ft

Remarks:

140 lbs/Auto

806020

30 in.

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

480.4

487.4

492.4

493.2493.4

495.9

Stiff, yellow-brown SILT, some clay, some gravel (moist)

Dense, light gray to red-yellow GRAVEL, little clay (moist to wet)

Medium dense, yellow, GRAVEL, some clay (moist) Loose, red-brown, sandy GRAVEL, little silt (moist)

Medium stiff, red-brown, SILT,little sand, some clay (moist) [A-4(7)]

Soft, olive-brown clayey SILT (moist)

-FILL-

Very soft, gray-brown SILT, little clay, trace fine sand (moist)

Note: Slide material

Bottom of Boring at 27 ft.

Completed:

Ty peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

Rock Core Diam:

Hole Diameter:

3-5-6-23

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

B O

G L

O G

E R

).G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

Groundwater Depth:

26.3 ft

(Blows / ft)

Boring Method:

J-6

27.0

25.0

17.0

15.0 13.5

6.0 4.5

J-7

J-5

J-4

J-3

J-2

J-1

J-8

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

4-5-7-9

1-2-4-8

2-4-4-5

1-3-3-3

1-1-3-2

1-1-1-1

0.7

2.0

0.5

1.8

1.9

1.6

0.6

0.3

10-21-19-12

6/11/08

Water Content %

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

Sunny 80s R. Kingsley/D. Hutchins M. Rosa/ B. Lawrence

At Completion:

Boring Location:

Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop:

Caved at:

BORING LOG

380.3 ft

8.0 in.140 lbs/Auto N/A

1- Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Pine Hills Rd, Union County

Plastic Limit

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

HSA

Jackson and Union Counties, IL

ERFO/IL FSR 400(3) : Shawnee National Forest, IL

SAMPLE

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

PH-1

Standard Penetration Test Data

6/11/08

Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

30 in.

Boring No.:

20R ec

Auger Cuttings

B lo w s pe r in

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

hrs

353.3

366.8

363.3

365.3

374.3 375.8

355.3

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Test Results

SOIL DATA

NO.

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

0.0 31.5 49.0 19.5

(ft.)

VA ERFO ASSESSMENT MYR

ERFO Shawnee and Ozark Nat. Forests

FHWA/EFLHD Geotech

Gunner Rd. G-1/J-3 10-12 Silty sand with gravel A-2-7(0)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 9.8 43.4 46.8

Johnson Rd. JC-1/J-3 7.5-9.5 Silty sand A-7-6(6)

0.0 0.2 11.5 88.3

Pines Hills PH-1/J-3 8-10 Silt A-4(7)

0.0 0.9 4.8 94.3

Oxford Rd. MC-1/J-2 5-7 Silt A-4(0)

0.0 0.2 5.2 94.6

Oxford Rd. MC-2/J-2 5-7 Silt A-4(2)

SOIL DATA

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

VA ERFO ASSESSMENT MYR

ERFO Shawnee and Ozark Nat. Forests

FHWA/EFLHD Geotech

A-2-7(0)16442818.510-12G-1/J-3Gunner Rd.

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-7-6(6)21492817.37.5-9.5JC-1/J-3Johnson Rd.

A-4(7)83123 21.28-10PH-1/J-3Pines Hills

A-4(0)NP27NP 14.25-7MC-1/J-2Oxford Rd.

A-4(2)NP33NP23.65-7MC-2/J-2Oxford Rd.

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

S T

D E

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

APPENDIX E

Design Analysis Computations

Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0

ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis IL FSR 400(3) : SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST Present Date/Time: Tue Nov 18 13:51:41 2008 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr400(3)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Johnson Creek\DP_JC_Latest Coordinates.MSE

IL FSR 400(3) : SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Title: IL FSR 400(3) : SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST Project Number: - Client:

Designer: Maria Rosa

Description:

Johnson Creek

Company's information:

Name: Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Street: 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20148 Telephone #: 703-404-6347 Fax #: 703-404-6217 E-Mail: maria.rosa@fhwa.dot.gov

Original file path and name: M:\Project ..... nalysis\Johnson Creek\DP_JC_Latest Coordinates.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Mon Nov 17 15:15:13 2008

PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using GEOSYNTHETIC as reinforcing material.

IL FSR 400(3) : SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

Present Date/Time: Tue Nov 18 13:51:41 2008 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr400(3)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Johnson Creek\DP_JC_Latest Coordinates.MSE

INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT)

SOIL DATA

=========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³]

Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c

[lb/ft ²] γ φ

...........................................................................1 Unclassified Borrow 120.0 32.0 0.0

...........................................................................2 Shale 140.0 38.0 1000.0

REINFORCEMENT

R e i n f o r c e m e n t

Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name

Ultimate Strength, Tult

Reduction Factor for Installation Damage, RFid

Reduction Factor for Durability, RFd

Reduction Factor for Creep, RFc

Coverage Ratio, Rc

[lb/ft]

1 Geosynthetic type #1 6851.90 1.20 1.10 1.67 1.00

I n t e r a c t i o n P a r a m e t e r s

Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name

== Direct Sliding == ==== Pullout ====

Cds-phi Cds-c Ci Alpha

1 Geosynthetic type #1 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.80

Relative Orientation of Reinforcement Force, ROR = 0.00. Assigned Factor of Safety to resist pullout, Fs-po = 1.50

WATER

Water is not present

SEISMICITY

Not Applicable

IL FSR 400(3) : SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

Present Date/Time: Tue Nov 18 13:51:41 2008 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr400(3)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Johnson Creek\DP_JC_Latest Coordinates.MSE

DRAWING OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY - COMPLEX - Quick Input

-- Problem geometry is defined along sections selected by user at x,y coordinates.

-- X1,Y1 represents the coordinates of soil surface. X2,Y2 represent the coordinates of the end of soil layer 1 and start of soil layer 2, and so on.

GEOMETRY

Soil profile contains 2 layers (see details in next page)

UNIFORM SURCHARGE

Load Q1 = 250.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 39.62 and ends at X1e = 47.24 [ft].

.......................................................................Surcharge load, Q2 None .......................................................................Surcharge load, Q3 None

STRIP LOAD

.......................................................................None

Toe point

3 4 5

SCALE:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 [ft]

IL FSR 400(3) : SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

Present Date/Time: Tue Nov 18 13:51:41 2008 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr400(3)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Johnson Creek\DP_JC_Latest Coordinates.MSE

TABULATED DETAILS OF QUICK SPECIFIED GEOMETRY

Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.]

# Xi Yi Top of Layer 1 1 70.00 90.00

2 99.00 99.00 3 130.00 115.00 4 155.00 115.00

Top of Layer 2 5 70.00 90.00 6 99.00 99.00 7 147.00 99.00 8 155.00 115.00

IL FSR 400(3) : SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

Present Date/Time: Tue Nov 18 13:51:41 2008 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr400(3)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Johnson Creek\DP_JC_Latest Coordinates.MSE

TABULATED DETAILS OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY

Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.]

# X Y1 Y2 1 70.00 90.00 90.00 2 99.00 99.00 99.00 3 130.00 115.00 99.00 4 147.00 115.00 99.00 5 155.00 115.00 115.00

IL FSR 400(3) : SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

Present Date/Time: Tue Nov 18 13:51:41 2008 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr400(3)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Johnson Creek\DP_JC_Latest Coordinates.MSE

DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE STRENGTH ALONG EACH REINFORCEMENT LAYER

Tavailable

Tfe

A B

L1 L3 L2

A = Front-end of reinforcement (at face of slope) B = Rear-end of reinforcement AB = L1 + L2 + L3 = Embedded length of reinforcement

Tavailable = Long-term strength of reinforcement Tfe = Available front-end strength (e.g., connection to facing)

L1 = Front-end 'pullout' length L2 = Rear-end pullout length Tavailable prevails along L3

Factor of safety on resistance to pullout on either end of reinforcement, Fs-po = 1.50

Reinforcement Layer #

Designated Name

Height Relative to Toe [ft]

L [ft]

L1 [ft]

L2 [ft]

L3 [ft]

Tfe [lb/ft]

Tavailable [lb/ft]

1 Geosynthetic type #1 0.50 18.00 0.00 6.36 11.64 3108.28 3108.28 2 Geosynthetic type #1 2.00 18.00 0.00 6.36 11.64 3108.28 3108.28 3 Geosynthetic type #1 3.50 18.00 0.00 6.36 11.64 3108.28 3108.28 4 Geosynthetic type #1 5.00 18.00 0.00 6.36 11.64 3108.28 3108.28 5 Geosynthetic type #1 6.50 18.00 0.00 6.36 11.64 3108.28 3108.28

IL FSR 400(3) : SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

Present Date/Time: Tue Nov 18 13:51:41 2008 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr400(3)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Johnson Creek\DP_JC_Latest Coordinates.MSE

RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS

Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.)

The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points.

Critical circles for each entry point (considering all specified exit points) Entry Point #

E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y )

[ft]

E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y )

[ft]

C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R )

[ft] Fs STATUS

1 115.40 107.47 68.94 90.07 88.78 107.81 26.62 8.96 2 120.26 109.97 68.99 90.01 90.65 110.19 29.61 7.55 3 125.12 112.48 68.50 90.43 91.04 116.27 34.29 6.41 4…

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.