Geotechnical Report.pdf

PDF 4 MB Posted Jul 15, 2009

Attached to: Shawnee National Forest Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: DTFH71-09-B-00021
Issued by: Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

About this file

From the source

Geotechnical Report

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Shawnee National Forest, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
SF 30 - Amendment 005.pdf	PDF	Aug 19, 2009
SF 30 - Amendment 004.pdf	PDF	Aug 18, 2009
SF 30 - Amendment 003.pdf	PDF	Aug 17, 2009
SF 30 - Amendment 002.pdf	PDF	Aug 12, 2009
SF 30 - Amendment 001.pdf	PDF	Aug 11, 2009
ADV_Bidder's Qualifications Form.doc	DOC document	Jul 15, 2009
IFB Solicitation.pdf	PDF	Jul 15, 2009
FP03 Errata.pdf	PDF	Jul 15, 2009
Subcontracting plans.doc	DOC document	Jul 15, 2009
Plans.pdf	PDF	Jul 15, 2009
FP03_Eng .pdf	PDF	Jul 15, 2009

Show all 11

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. 06-09

PROJECT ERFO/IL FSR 220(1)

EMERGENCY LANDSLIDES REPAIRS

McCRAVEN ROAD

SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

ALEXANDER COUNTY, ILLINOIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

April 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOLOGIC SETTING

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

SOIL SURVEY

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. 06-09

EMERGENCY LANDSLIDES REPAIRS

McCRAVEN ROAD

ALEXANDER COUNTY, ILLINOIS

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL

This memorandum provides the results of our site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, laboratory testing, design analysis and presents recommendations for the repair of the failed slopes in Project IL FSR 220(1). The project is located along McCraven Forest Road (FR

220) starting at 480 ft east of the intersection of Grapevine Trail and County Line Rd within the Shawnee National Forest in Alexander County, Illinois. The general site location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project IL FSR 220(1) consists of the repair of four (4) slides and one (1) sinkhole along an approximately 6300.0 ft long section of FR 220. Additional repair work will include reconditioning and resurfacing of the aggregate roadway within the limits of the project.

Slide #1 is located at approximately 6300 ft from the intersection of Grapevine Trail and County Line Rd. Slide #1 is approximately 25.0 ft long and 13.0 ft high. The reconstruction site extends from Sta. 141+85 to 142+35.

Slide #2 is located at approximately 4190 ft from the intersection of Grapevine Trail and County Line Rd. Slide #2 is approximately 50.0 ft long and 30.0 ft high. The reconstruction site extends from Sta.137+00 to 137+70.

Slide #3 is located at approximately 2350 ft from the intersection of Grapevine Trail and County Line Rd. Slide #3 is approximately 65.0 ft long and 27.0 ft high. The reconstruction site extends from Sta.122+85 to 123+80.

Slide #4 is located at approximately 1800 ft from the intersection of Grapevine Trail and County Line Rd. Slide #4 is approximately 30.0 ft long and 23.0 ft high. The reconstruction site extends from Sta. 114+20 to 114+80.

The sinkhole is located at an approximate distance of 480 ft east from the intersection of Grapevine Trail and County Line Rd. The developed sinkhole is approximately 12.0 ft in diameter and is about 8.0 ft deep. The reconstruction site extends from Sta. 105+95 to 106+55. A longitudinal crack also developed along the edge of the roadway embankment.

Refer to Appendix H for representative photographs.

EMERGENCY LANDSLIDES REPAIR

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

GEOLOGIC SETTING

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

According to the Illinois Geological Survey (ILGS) “Bedrock Geology of Illinois, 2005”, the project site lies 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 area.

SOIL SURVEY

According to the United States Department of Agricultures (USDA), “Soil Survey of Alexander Counties, Illinois”, the project site is underlain by Menfro-Clarksville Complex, Stookey Silt Loam, Winfield Silt Loam and Clarkville-Menfro Complex. These soils are predominantly hilly slope, which are stable to marginally stable without surcharge load.

The soils consists of a combination of well drained to excessively drained, silt loam, silty clay loam, gravelly to very gravelly silty loam, and very gravelly silty clay loam.

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

GENERAL

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division’s (EFLHD) subsurface exploration team conducted a subsurface investigation program at the project site between June 11 and 13, 2008. The subsurface investigation program consisted of drilling a total of five (5) boreholes designated as MC-1 to MC-5 at the slide sites using a CME 750/ATV-mounted rotary drill rig. One boring was performed per slide. MC-1 to MC-5 corresponds to Slide #1, #2, #3, #4 and sinkhole, respectively. The location of borings may be referenced on the Boring Location Plan sheet in Appendix B.

SAMPLING

Boreholes were drilled to depths ranging from 12.0 to 42.0 feet. Borings were advanced to depth using 3¾ inches (inside diameter) hollow stem augers. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed using a 2¼ inches (outside diameter) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T206.

Representative portion of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars and were transported to EFLHD’s materials testing laboratory in Sevierville, Tennessee for

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

laboratory testing and storage. The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring are presented on the boring logs in Appendix C.

FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Borings locations were recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS) device. The SPT soil samples were typically recovered from the ground surface at 5.0 ft intervals to borehole termination depths. Samples were recovered using a 140-pound automatic hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler in the middle foot of the 24 inches sample interval is designated as the Standard Penetration Resistance or N-value. Spoon refusal is defined by 50-blows per 1 inch of penetration of the split spoon sampler. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6 inches interval was recorded on the boring logs. The 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. 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.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

LABORATORY TESTING

A laboratory testing program was conducted on select soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to aid in soil classification and for determination of engineering properties. Testing included grain size distributions (AASHTO T-88), Atterberg Limits (AASHTO T-89, T-90) and natural water contents (AASHTO T-265). Results of the laboratory-testing program are summarized in Table 1 and reference in Appendix D. MC-1 to MC-5 corresponds to Slide #1, #2, #3, #4 and sinkhole, respectively.

Table 1- Summary of Laboratory Testing Results

Boring

No.

Sample

No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

PL(1)

LL(2)

PI(1)

Gravel

Sand

Fines

AASHTO

Classification

MC-1

Slide #1

J-2

5-7

14.2

0.9

4.8

94.3

A-4(0)

MC-2

Slide #2

23.6

0.2

5.2

94.6

A-4(2)

MC-2

J-7

30-32

20.4

0.0

4.8

95.2

A-4(2)

MC-3

Slide #3

21.4

0.0

1.4

98.6

A-4(11)

J-7

30-32

22.5

24.1

41.5

34.4

A-2-4(0)

MC-4

Slide #4

J-3

10-12

10.3

2.3

10.3

87.4

A-4(1)

MC-5

Sinkhole

3-5

20.0

1.8

90.1

A-4(8)

(1)NP = Non-plastic (2)NV = No Value

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

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

on the Boring Location Plan 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.

Borings MC-1 to MC-5 findings are expounded as follows:

Aggregate Surface Course- Aggregate was encountered at the surface of all borings and consists of loose, light gray to gray sandy gravel with trace of silt. Aggregate surface course thickness varied from 0.2 to 0.3 ft.

Subbase Material- This stratum consisted of loose light brown to brown gravelly sand and some silt. Measured layer thickness was approximately 0.3 ft.

Silt - Beneath the subbase in all borings, brown to yellowish and reddish brown silt, with some clay, trace of sand, and little to trace gravel was encountered to depths varying from

27.0 ft to termination depth at 42.0 ft. SPT resistance values recorded within this material varied between 4 and 16 blows per foot (bpf) indicating soft to stiff consistency.

Laboratory test results indicates AASHTO classifications of the tested material as A-4(0), A-4(1),A-4(2), A-4(8)and A-4(11).

AASHTO

Classification

% Fines

Plasticity Index*

A-4(0) 94.3 NP

A-4(1) 87.4 NP

A-4(2) 95.2 NP

A-4(8) 90.1 9 A-4(11) 98.6 10

*NP = Non-plastic

Silty Sand - A light brown to light gray silty sand with little gravel was encountered in Borings MC-3 and MC-5 at a depth of 27.0 ft and 7 ft, respectively. SPT resistance values recorded within this material were between 18 and 40 bpf indicating medium dense to dense conditions. Laboratory test results indicateAASHTO classification for the material in Boring MC-3 is A-2-4(0) with no plasticity index and 34.4% fines. The deepest boring was terminated within a silt stratum at a depth of 42.0 ft. Groundwater was encountered during drilling at a depth of 39.0 ft in Boring MC-2. The remaining borings were dry. Fluctuations in groundwater levels due to seasonal and climatic effects should be anticipated.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

DESIGN ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Design alternatives considered for stabilizing and reinforcing the roadway against failure were evaluated in terms of cost, serviceability and constructability. The design alternatives for all the sites consists of stabilizing the roadway by replacing the in-place fill material with compacted backfill material and reinforcing the compacted backfill with alternating layers of geogrid.

Two alternatives were evaluated for the slope facing:

Alternative No. 1 – Wire baskets

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

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

Additional work includes roadway reconstruction and drainage improvement.

ANALYSES

The geometry of the critical slope sections were developed using a cross section drawing obtained from EFLHD’s Highway Design Section. Coordinates were established for the highest slope section, generally along the centerline of the slide.

The soil strength properties used in the design analyses are listed in table 2. Global stability, translational and 3-parts wedge analyses of the proposed slope repairs were evaluated using computer program ReSSA (2.0). The proposed repairs satisfied global stability, translational and 3-parts wedge stability requirements with acceptable factor of safety listed in Table 3.

Based on design analyses results, the minimum excavation depths, geogrid reinforcement minimum long- term design strength (LTDS), embedment depths and vertical spacing that is required to repair the roadway embankment are listed in Table 4. Design analysis computations may be referenced in Appendix E.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Table 2 –Soil Properties of McCraven Sites

Soil Layer

Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

Internal Angle of

Friction (deg.)

Cohesion

(lb/ft2)

Sinkhole (Sta. 105+95 to 106+55 )

Unclassified Borrow 120 32 0

Silt 115 20 0

Sand 120 32 0

Slide#4 (Sta. 114+20 to 114+80)

Unclassified Borrow 120 32 0

Silt 115 25 0

Slide#3 (Sta. 122+85 to 123+80)

Unclassified Borrow 120 32 0

Silt 115 25 0

Sand 125 36 0

Slide #2 (Sta. 137+00 to 137+70)

Riprap 125 43 0

Unclassified Borrow 125 32 0

Silt 120 29 0

Slide #1 (Sta.141+85 to 142+35)

Unclassified Borrow 120 32 0

Silt 120 29 0

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Table 3 – Slope Stability Analysis Factors of Safety

Site

Stations

Global Stability

Translational

3-Parts Wedge

105+95 to 106+55

1.72

2.11

2.62

Slide#4

114+20 to 114+80

1.35

1.94

1.42

122+85 to 123+60

1.31

1.50

1.43

123+60 to 123+80

1.45

1.91

1.50

137+00 to 137+70

1.23

1.85

1.34

Slide#1

141+85 to 142+35

1.48

2.54

1.68

Table 4 –McCraven Design Analyses Results

Site

Stations

Excavation Depths (ft)

Geogrid

LTDS

(lb/ft)

Geogrid Embedment

Depths

Geogrid Vertical Spacing

105+95 to 106+55

3.0

Slide#4

114+20 to 114+80

Benches 20 and

20 and across the embankment

1.5

122+85 to 123+60

Benches 30, 20 and 10

15, 32 and across the

Slide#3

123+60 to 123+80

Benches 21 and

10.

25 and across the

137+00 to 137+70

Benches 30 and

10 and across the

Slide #1

141+85 to 142+35

Benches 16 and

12 and across the

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the subsurface field investigation findings, laboratory testing results and design analysis it is recommend that the failed slope embankments at McCraven be repaired by reconstructing the roadway embankment as detailed herein and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03.

Sinkhole (Sta. 105+95 to 106+55)

1. Excavate roadway embankment to a depth of approximately 10.0 feet.

2. Extend embankment repair 10.0 feet behind the failure line and 30.0 feet from the center of the sinkhole or approximately from Sta. 105+95 to 106+55.

3. Establish the back of the excavation at a 2(H):1(V) slope. Grade the bottom of the excavation on a 5% slope toward the underdrain along the back of the excavation.

4. Place underdrain along the back of the excavated bench using #57 stone and a 6” diameter pipe wrapped in Geotextile Type I-C.

5. Place a drainage layer consisting of #57 stone along the back of the excavation with a thickness of 1.0 ft and wrapped with Geotextile Type I-C.

6. Provide a minimum of 2 underdrain outlets at equal spacing using a 6” diameter pipe, embedded in #57 stone and wrapped in Geotextile Type I-C.

7. Establish the face of the repair at a 1(H):1(V) slope. Offset the toe of the repair slope approximately 5.0 ft from the existing slope edge.

8. Provide a geogrid with a minimum LTDS of 1,900 lb/ft. Extend geogrid a minimum of 15.0 feet of embedment depth at 3.0 feet vertical spacing. Establish the first geogrid layer at 0.5 feet from the bottom of the excavation.

9. Use backfill material consisting of unclassified borrow in accordance with Section

704.06 of the FP-03.

10. Backfill material should be placed and compacted in lifts not to exceed 12.0 inches and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03.

11. Place a turf reinforcement mat behind the face of the slope and 0.5 feet of topsoil and seed following Sections 624, 625 and 629.

12. Backfill at the toe of the newly constructed geogrid reinforced soil embankment using riprap class 1 with a minimum of 2.5 ft wide base and 2.5 ft high.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Slide #4 (Sta. 114+20 to 114+80)

1. Excavate roadway embankment to a depth of approximately 20.0 feet.

2. Bench the back of the excavation a maximum of 10.0 feet high and approximately

22.0 feet horizontally. Grade the bottom of the bench on a 5% slope toward the underdrain at the back of the bench. Establish the bench on a 1(H):1(V) slope.

3. Extend embankment repair 10.0 feet beyond failure limits.

4. Place a drainage layer consisting of #57 stone along the back side of the bench with a thickness of 1.0 ft wrapped with Geotextile Type I-C.

5. Place underdrains along the back of the excavated bench using #57 stone and 6” diameter pipe wrapped in Geotextile Type I-C

7. Establish the face of the repair at a 1(H):1(V) slope. Offset the toe of the repair

8. Provide a geogrid with a minimum LTDS of 3,200 lb/ft. Place the first geogrid at

0.5 feet above the bottom of the excavation. Extend geogrid located on the first bench a minimum of 20.0 feet of embedment depth at 1.5 feet vertical spacing.

9. Extend geogrid located on the second bench across the embankment width at 1.5 feet vertical spacing.

10. Use backfill material consisting of unclassified borrow in accordance with Section

11. Backfill material should be placed and compacted in lifts not to exceed 12.0 inches

13. Place a turf reinforcement mat behind the face of the slope and 0.5 feet of topsoil and seed following Sections 624, 625 and 629.

14. Backfill at the toe of the newly constructed geogrid reinforced soil embankment

Slide #3A (Sta. 122+85 to 123+60)

1. Excavate roadway embankment to a maximum depth of 30.0 feet using three equal benches.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

2. Extend embankment repair to 10.0 feet beyond failure limits.

3. Bench the back of the excavation a maximum of 10.0 feet high and approximately

18.0 feet horizontally. Grade the bottom of the benches on a 5% slope toward the underdrains along the back of the excavation. Establish the bench on a 1(H):1(V) slope.

4. Place a drainage layer consisting of #57 stone along the back of the bench with a thickness of 1.0 ft wrapped with Geotextile Type I-C.

7. Provide geogrids with a minimum LTDS of 3,200 lb/ft. Place the first geogrid layer at 0.5 feet above the bottom of the excavation. Extend geogrid layers located on the first and second bench a minimum of 15.0 and 32.0 feet of embedment depth at 3.0 feet vertical spacing, respectively.

8. Extend geogrid located on the third bench across the embankment width at 3.0 feet vertical spacing.

9. Establish the face of the repair at a 1(H):1(V) slope. Offset the toe of the repair

12. Place a turf reinforcement mat behind the face of the slope and 0.5 feet of topsoil

13. Backfill at the toe of the newly constructed geogrid reinforced soil embankment

Slide #3B (Sta. 123+60 to 123+80)

1. Excavate roadway embankment to a maximum depth of 21.0 feet using two benches.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

3. Bench the back of the excavation a maximum of 10.0 feet high and approximately

26.0 feet horizontally. Grade the bottom of the benches on a 5% slope toward the

5. Place underdrain along the back of the excavated bench using #57 stone and 6” first bench a minimum of 25.0 feet of embedment depth at 3.0 feet vertical spacing, respectively.

8. Extend geogrid located on the second bench across the embankment width at 3.0

Slide#2 (Sta. 137+00 to 137+70)

1. Excavate roadway embankment to a maximum depth of 30.0 feet.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

3. Bench the back of the excavation a maximum of 15.0 feet high and approximately

11.0 feet horizontally. Grade the bottom of the benches on a 5% slope toward the first bench a minimum 10.0 feet of embedment depth at 1.5 feet vertical spacing.

8. Extend geogrid located on the second bench across the embankment width at 1.5

14. Backfill at the toe of the existing embankment 10.0 ft wide, 10.0 ft high and 2.0 ft into the ground using riprap class 1.

Slide #1 (Sta. 141+85 to 142+35)

1. Excavate roadway embankment to a depth of approximately 16.0 feet.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

3. Bench the back of the excavation a maximum of 6.0 feet high and approximately

13.0 feet horizontally. Grade the bottom of the bench on a 5% slope toward the

4. Establish the face of the repair at a 0.75(H):1(V) slope. Offset the toe of the repair

5. Provide geogrids with a minimum LTDS of 3,200 lb/ft. Place the first geogrid layer first bench a minimum 12.0 feet of embedment depth at 1.5 feet vertical spacing.

6. Extend geogrid located on the second bench across the embankment width at 1.5

7. Establish the faces of the repair on a 0.75(H):1(V) slope at an offset of approximately 5.0 feet from the slope edge.

8. Use backfill material consisting of unclassified borrow in accordance with Section

9. Backfill material should be placed and compacted in lifts not to exceed 12.0 inches

10. Place a turf reinforcement mat behind the face of the slope and 0.5 feet of topsoil

11. Backfill at the toe of the newly constructed geogrid reinforced soil embankment

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Excavations – All excavations are to be performed in accordance with applicable OSHA standards and 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.

APPENDIX A

Figures

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Source:

Geologic Map of the Bedrock Geology of Illinois (2005)

Illinois State Geological Survey

DEVONIAN FORMATION

SILURIAN FORMATION

REG

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

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

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

3IL FSR 220(1)

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

NE 2

STATE

McCraven Rd (FR 220)

REG STATE PROJECT SHEET TOTAL

NO SHEETS

NE IL IL FSR 220(1) 3 3SOIL SURVEY MAP

STERLING, VA

832G

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FIGURE 5

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

477E3 and 477D3 Winfield Silt Loam: Loess hills, moderately well drained silt loam and silty clay loam.

Severely eroded.

216F Stookey Silt Loam: Loess hills, well drained silt loam.

hillslopes, somewhat excessively drained gravelly silt loam, very gravelly silty clay loam and very gravelly silty clay.

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name 832F Menfro-Clarksville Complex: Loess hills, well-drained silt loam and silty clay loam with

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

McCraven Road, Alexander County very gravelly silty clay loam with loess hills, well drained silt loam and silty clay loam.

Clarkville-Menfro Complex: Hillslopes, excessively drained gravelly silt loam, APPENDIX B

Boring Location Plans

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.

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

Vane Shear

Boring No.:

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

MC-1

Standard Penetration Test Data

B O

G L

O G

E R

-IL

-F S

).G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

Boring Location:

At Completion:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

0.2

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

1.3

2.0

1.4

1.3

0.6

22.0

J-5

J-4

J-3

J-2

J-1 Gray brown, sandy GRAVEL, trace silt (moist) Note: Aggregate surface pavement

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

Stiff, light brown SILT, trace to little clay, trace sand [A-4(0)] (moist to wet)

Liquid Limit

4-6-6-7

3-5-6-7

4-7-8-8

5-7-9-9

6-5-4-5

Bottom of Boring at 22 ft.

N/A

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

R ec

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

Sunny 80s R. Kingsley B. Lawrence

6/11/08

Water Content %

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

Slide #1 Approx. Sta. 142+10

Plastic Limit

N o.

Project Location:

After

UDAuger Cuttings

HSA

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in

G ra ph ic

Lo g hrs

McCraven Rd, Alexander County

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

SAMPLE

6/11/08Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop:

Caved at:

BORING LOG

30 in.

685.8 ft

20 60

140 lbs/Auto 8.0 in.

685.6

663.8

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Completed:

Ty peD ep th

S ca le (f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

39.1 ft

Weather:

Hole Diameter:

MC-2

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Vane Shear

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

B O

G L

O G

E R

-IL

-F S

).G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

J-4

(Blows / ft)

2.0

0.9

1.4

1.30.6 0.3

1.8

J-5

J-3

J-2

J-1

J-6

3-4-4-5

Medium stiff to stiff, light brown to redish brown SILT, trace to some clay,trace to little sand [A-4(2)] (moist to wet)

Loose, light brown gravelly SAND, some silt (moist)

Note: Aggregate subbase

Loose, light gray gravelly SAND, trace silt (moist)

Note: Aggregate surface pavement

2.0 1-3-3-4

5-6-7-8

1-2-3-5

9-10-5-5

2-2-5-5

HSA

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Water Content %

N o.

Sample Types:

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

Hazy 80s R. Kingsley

M. Rosa 6/12/08

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 2

Slide #2 Approx. Sta. 137+35

Plastic Limit

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in

6/12/08

Auger Cuttings hrs

McCraven Rd, Alexander County

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

SAMPLE

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

673.1 ft

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

Caved at:

BORING LOG

8.0 in.

806020

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto

Boring Began:

672.5672.8

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

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

Vane Shear

Operator:

McCraven Rd, Alexander County

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

B O

G L

O G

E R

-IL

-F S

).G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

R ec

Inspector:

Weather:

MC-2

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1.6

4-6-7-9

1-2-5-8

2-4-5-6 Medium stiff to stiff, light brown to redish brown SILT, trace to some clay,trace to little sand [A-4(2)] (moist to wet) (Continued)

2.0

Bottom of Boring at 42-ft.

2.0

42.0

J-9

J-8

J-7

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

39.1 ft

(Blows / ft)

Hazy 80s

Sample Types:

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

After

Water Content %SAMPLE hrs

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

1- Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 2 of 2

Slide #2 Approx. Sta. 137+35

Plastic Limit

Encountered at:

Project Location:

30 in.

R. Kingsley

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in

Auger Cuttings

Boring Began:

M. Rosa 6/12/08

N/A

HSA

6/12/08

Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop:

Caved at:

BORING LOG

673.1 ft

8.0 in.140 lbs/Auto

631.1

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft) Standard Penetration Test DataD ep th

S ca le (f t)

B O

G L

O G

E R

-IL

-F S

).G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Dense, light brown to light gray, silty SAND, little gravel [A-2-4(0)] (moist to wet)

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

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

Vane Shear

J-5

1.5

1.4

1.0

27.0

0.6

2.0

J-6 0.8

J-4

J-3

J-2

J-1 0.3

2-2-3-2 Medium stiff to stiff, brown, SILT, trace sand, trace clay [A-4(11)] (moist to wet)

Loose, brown, gravelly SAND, some silt (moist)

Note: Aggregate subbase

Loose, gray, sandy GRAVEL, trace silt (dry)

Note: Aggregate surface pavement

2-3-5-5

3-3-4-5

1.9

2-5-6-6

6-6-6-6

2-5-6-7

E le va tio n (fe et

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Water Content %

Boring Began:

Sample Types:

MC-3

Sunny, 80s R. Kingsley

M. Rosa 6/12/08

N/A

HSA

6/12/08

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 2

Slide #3 Approx. Sta. 123+32

Plastic Limit

N o.

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Project Name:

McCraven Rd, Alexander County

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in

Surface Elevation:

hrs

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

SAMPLE

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

8.0 in.

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Auger Cuttings

BORING LOG

677.0 ft

Hammer Wt. & Type: 140 lbs/Auto

30 in.

20 60 676.7676.4

650.0

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

B O

G L

O G

E R

-IL

-F S

).G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

B lo w s pe r in hrs

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

Weather:

SAMPLE

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Boring Location:McCraven Rd, Alexander County

Bottom of Boring at 32 ft.

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

7-15-25-380.7

32.0

J-7

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

Vane Shear

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

Penetrometer

E le va tio n (fe et

SPT

Water Content %

Remarks:

Rock Core

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: 2 of 2

Slide #3 Approx. Sta. 123+32

Plastic Limit

After

Project Location:

Project Name:

140 lbs/Auto

30 in.

677.0 ft

8.0 in.

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

6/12/08

Sunny, 80s R. Kingsley

M. Rosa 6/12/08

HSA

N/A

Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop:

Caved at:

BORING LOG

645.0

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

MC-4

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B O

G L

O G

E R

-IL

-F S

).G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

Vane Shear

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

Ty pe

J-5

1.3

0.9

2.0

1.0

27.0

0.5

J-6

J-4

J-3

J-2

J-1 0.2

3-6-7-8

Bottom of Boring at 27 ft.

Medium stiff to stiff, brown to yellowish brown, SILT, little sand, trace clay, trace gravel [A-4(1)] (moist)

Loose, brown gravelly SAND, some silt (moist)

Note: Aggregate subbase

Loose, light gray, gravelly SAND, trace silt (dry)

Note: Aggregate surface pavement

1.4 3-5-6-6

1.5

4-4-5-6

2-3-3-6

7-4-3-3

2-5-4-5

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Water Content %

6/12/08

Sample Types:

Weather:

Project Name:

Sunny 80s R. Kindsley

M. Rosa 6/12/08

N/A

HAS

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

Slide #4 Approx. Sta. 114+50

Plastic Limit

N o.

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

E le va tio n (fe et

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in

Boring Began:

Auger Cuttings

McCraven Rd, Alexander County

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

SAMPLE

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Surface Elevation:

Hammer Drop:hrs Hammer Wt. & Type:

BORING LOG

690.8 ft Caved at:

8.0 in.140 lbs/Auto

806020

30 in.

690.6690.3

663.8

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

Vane Shear

Groundwater Depth:

Boring No.:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

MC-5

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

B O

G L

O G

E R

-IL

-F S

).G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

Boring Location:

12.0

1.8

1.4

1.3

At Completion:

7.0

5.0

J-4

J-3

J-2

J-1

Soft to medium stiff, brown, SILT, trace sand, trace gravel [A-4(8)] (dry to moist)

(Blows / ft)

Bottom of Boring at 12 ft.

Stiff, brown, SILT, trace clay (dry to moist)

3-7-11-14

3-4-6-8

1-3-3-5

3-2-2-3

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Medium dense, orangish brown, silty fine SAND, trace clay (dry)

N/A

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

Clear/Hot R. Kingsley K. Thornton

6/13/08

Water Content %

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

Sinkhole Approx. Sta. 106+25

Plastic Limit

N o.

Project Location:

After

UDAuger Cuttings

HSA

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B lo w s pe r in hrs

McCraven Rd, Alexander County

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

SAMPLE

R ec

6/13/08Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop:

Remarks:

Caved at:

BORING LOG

570.2 ft

140 lbs/Auto

8.0 in.

30 in.

565.2 5

563.2

558.2

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)

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

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 0.0 4.8 95.2

(ft.)

VA ERFO ASSESSMENT MYR

ERFO Shawnee and Ozark Nat. Forests

FHWA/EFLHD Geotech

Oxford Rd. MC-2/J-7 30-32 Silt A-4(2)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 1.4 98.6

Oxford Rd. MC-3/J-2 5-7 Lean clay A-4(11)

0.0 24.1 41.5 34.4

Oxford Rd. MC-3/J-7 30-32 Silty sand with gravel A-2-4(0)

0.0 2.3 10.3 87.4

Oxford Rd. MC-4/J-3 10-12 Silt A-4(1)

0.0 1.8 8.1 90.1

Oxford Rd. MC-5 3-5 Lean clay A-4(8)

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-4(2)NP32NP20.430-32MC-2/J-7Oxford Rd.

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-4(11)10332321.45-7MC-3/J-2Oxford Rd.

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP22.530-32MC-3/J-7Oxford Rd.

A-4(1)NP31NP10.310-12MC-4/J-3Oxford Rd.

A-4(8)9322320.03-5MC-5Oxford 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 220(1) :Shawnee National Forest Present Date/Time: Tue Apr 07 15:10:30 2009 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr220(1)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Sinkhole_MC-5 _ Final.MSE

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Title: IL FSR 220(1) :Shawnee National Forest Project Number: Sinkhole - MC-5 Client: Forest Service Designer: Maria Rosa Station Number: STA 105+95 to 106+55

Description:

Company's information:

Name: EFLHD Street: 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling , VA 20166 Telephone #: 703-404-6349 Fax #: 703-404-6217 E-Mail: maria.rosa@fhwa.dot.gov

Original file path and name: M:\Project ..... echserv\geotech\Analysis\Sinkhole_MC-5 _ Final.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Thu Feb 05 16:25:36 2009

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

Present Date/Time: Tue Apr 07 15:10:30 2009 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr220(1)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Sinkhole_MC-5 _ Final.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 SILT 115.0 20.0 0.0

...........................................................................3 SAND 120.0 32.0 0.0

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 Geogrid 4000.00 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 Geogrid 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

Present Date/Time: Tue Apr 07 15:10:30 2009 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr220(1)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Sinkhole_MC-5 _ Final.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 3 layers (see details in next page)

UNIFORM SURCHARGE

Load Q1 = 250.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 96.62 and ends at X1e = 104.55 [ft].

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

STRIP LOAD

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

Toe point

3 4 5 6

SCALE:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 [ft]

Present Date/Time: Tue Apr 07 15:10:30 2009 M:\Projects\fs\il\fsr220(1)\techserv\geotech\Analysis\Sinkhole_MC-5 _ Final.MSE

TABULATED DETAILS OF QUICK SPECIFIED GEOMETRY

Soil profile contains 3 layers. Coordinates in [ft.]

# Xi Yi Top of Layer 1 1 300.00 300.00

2 307.00 301.00 3 317.00 311.00 4 339.00 311.00 5 343.00 311.00 6 358.00 301.00

Top of Layer 2 7 300.00 300.00 8 307.00 301.00 9 334.00 301.00 10 339.00 311.00 11 343.00 311.00 12 358.00 301.00

Top of Layer 3 13 300.00 300.00 14 307.00 301.00 15 334.00 301.00 16 358.00 301.00

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…

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.