Soils and Foundation Report.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATION

REPORT NO. 09-10

PROJECT GA ERFO FSR 54C1

EMERGENCY LANDSLAIDE REPAIR AND CULVERTS REPLACEMENT

NFSR 92, NFSR 92E, NFSR 389, NFSR 907, NFSR 908 AND NFSR 1043

CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL FOREST

STEPHENS AND JONES COUNTIES, GEORGIA

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

May 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT PAGE

INTRODUCTION

General

Project Description

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

Soil Borings

Sampling

Laboratory Testing

Findings

DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Landslide Repair - NFSR 92

Culverts Replacement

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures

APPENDIX B – Boring Location Maps

APPENDIXC – Boring Logs

APPENDIX D – Laboratory Data

APPENDIX E – Design Calculations

APPENDIX F – Typical Sections

APPENDIX G – Photographs

Note: Design changes subsequent to publication of this report and prior to the project’s advertisement will be documented by a memo inserted after the title page.

SOILS AND FOUNDATION

REPORT NO. 09-10

PROJECT GA ERFO FSR 54C1

EMERENCY LANDSLIDE REPAIR AND CULVERTS REPLACEMENT

NFSR 92, NFSR 92E, NFSR 389, NFSR 907, NFSR 908 AND NFSR 1043

CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL FOREST

STEPHENS AND JONES COUNTIES, GEORGIA

INTRODUCTION

General

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, design analyses, and summarizes our evaluations and recommendations for the landslide repair and replacement of five (5) culverts for Project GA ERFO FSR 54C1. The project consists of six (6) sites located in the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest in Stephens and Jones Counties, Georgia. The Site Location Maps are presented in Figures 1 in Appendix A.

Project Description

The sites covered in this study are NFSR 92E, NFSR 389, and NFSR 92 in Stephens County and NFSR 907, NFSR 908, and NFSR 1043 in Jones County. The above-listed sites are located within the National Forest System Roads (NFSR). Culverts failure and the landslide were reported after the heavy rainfall of September, 2009 that caused overflow of rivers and creeks and resulted in the damages in aforementioned sites. The project scope and description for each site is as follows:

NFSR 92E (Farmer Mountain Road)

This site is located in Stephens County, GA. Excessive rainfall overtopped and scoured away the roadway and exposed the dual 78 in. diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert.

Temporary fill has been placed on the top of the failed culvert to maintain traffic. The damaged culvert will be replaced with an Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) type structure.

NFSR 389 (Frady Branch Road)

This site is located in Stephens County, GA. Floodwater from Mill Creek caused the washout of the 16 ft diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert and dispersed the backfill material around the culvert leaving a 31 ft wide by 16 ft deep void in the travel way.

The culvert was carried away approximately 900 ft downstream. The damaged culvert will also be replaced with an AOP type structure.

Project: GA ERFO FSR 54C1 Soils and Foundation Report Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest No. 09-10 Stephens and Jones Counties, Georgia

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

NFSR 92 (Red Root Road)

This site is located in Stephens County, GA. Excessive rainfall caused the river embankments to erode along NFSR 92 and a section of the roadway material slid into the river. The embankment along the affected section is sloped approximately 1(H):1(V).

During our drilling operations at this site in April, 2010, a riprap was observed on the face of the slope at the east terminus of the damaged section. Also, an approximately 100 ft long by 5 ft high tire-retaining wall was observed along its mid section. The bottom of the retaining wall was undermined and seemed to be unstable. The damaged embankment will be replaced with reinforced soil slopes (RSS).

NFSR 907(Power Line Road)

This site is located in Jones County, GA. We understand that the existing bottomless metal arch structure has been damaged by several overtopping floods since its construction in 2007. The structural damage included the footings, headwalls and wingwalls. Portions of the roadway embankment have also been washed out.

Approximately 2 ft of scour undermining beneath the footings has been observed. The damaged culvert will be replaced with an AOP type structure.

NFSR 908 (Long Hole Road)

This site is located in Jones County, GA. Excessive rainfall caused overtopping and washed out the 6 ft diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert. The damaged culvert will be replaced with an AOP type structure.

NFSR 1043 (Goolsby Road)

This site is located in Jones County, GA. The existing, 11 ft diameter, corrugated pipe culvert has been completely washed-out, together with the backfill material around the pipe due to overtopping of floodwater from the stream. The repair work will include in-kind replacement of the damaged pipe culvert. The damaged culvert will be replaced with an AOP type structure.

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Geologic Map of Georgia (1976) indicates that all project sites are located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, which is underlain by metamorphic rock formations, consisting of Gneiss and Schist of Precambrian age. The metamorphic formations include various intrusive igneous rocks, such as Granite and Diabase (Waisnor et al 2001). The residual soil is underlain by weathered rock that grades into competent rock. The rocks found are Quartzite, Biotite Gneiss, and Metagraywacke/Mica Schist. Geologic maps for the project area are provided in Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A.

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

Soil Borings

A subsurface exploration program was performed between April 21 and 27, 2010 and was conducted by the Eastern Federal Land Highway Division (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team. The field exploration program consisted of drilling the total of nine

(9) soil borings at six (6) sites. One (1) boring was drilled at each culvert location and four (4) borings were drilled at the landslide location. Boreholes were laid out by EFLHD field personnel by measuring distances from mapped landmarks, and the use of a hand held GPS. Boring elevations were determined from plan topography provided by Survey. Boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings and soil upon completion .The approximate location of the borings is shown on the Borings Location Maps in Appendix B.

Sampling

The borings were drilled with a CME 750 ATV-mounted rotary drill rig to depths ranging from 19.3 to 34.5 ft below the existing grades. The boreholes were advanced using 3-3/4 inches hollow stem augers (HSA) in soils and weathered rock. Upon encountering auger refusal above planned termination depth, rock coring was performed using rotary drilling technique.

Soil samples were obtained using 2 inches diameter split-barrel (split-spoon) sampler driven during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in general accordance with AASHTO 7200-87 and AASHTO T206-87. SPT soil samples were typically recovered at 2.5 ft intervals by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24 inches into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140 lb. automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The total number of blows recorded for the middle twelve inches of the 24-inch sample range is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value. Spoon refusal is defined by greater than 50 blows per 6-inches 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. Upon completion of the SPT’s, the sampler was removed from the ground and sample recovery measurements were made and recorded for each sampling event. A field description by color, texture, and moisture was made for each recovered sample. Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars for laboratory testing. The SPT N-values have been recorded on the boring logs.

Rock coring was performed for all borings except Boring NFSR 92E-B1 which was augered through soils and highly weathered rock to its termination depth. Rock coring was performed using rotary drilling technique and samples were retrieved using NQ solid core barrel. Rock samples recovered were visually examined then percent core recovery (CR) and rock quality designation (RQD) were determined for each core run to provide a quantitative basis for evaluation of the condition of the rock. Rock core samples were preserved in wooden boxes.

After examination by the drilling personnel, all information was logged. Soil and rock samples collected in the field were delivered to EFLHD Materials Testing facility in Sevierville, TN for laboratory testing and storage. The sampling sequence and associated samples for each boring are presented on its appropriate boring log in Appendix C.

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

Water levels, if present, were measured at the time of completion of each boring, again prior to backfilling the borehole and occasionally at 24-hours after completion of drilling However, it must be noted that 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 representative soil and rock samples recovered during the subsurface explorations to determine soil and rock engineering properties required for the design analyses. The materials assigned for testing included jar samples collected from split spoon sampler, bulk samples collected from auger cuttings and rock core samples. The laboratory tests assigned for select soils samples included, Natural moisture content (AASHTO T-265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T- 89/90), Particle size analysis (AASHTO T-88), Soil resistivity (AASHTO T-288), pH of soil (AASHTO T-289), Standard proctor (AASHTO T-99) and Soil classification (AASHTO M-145). The unconfined compressive strength (ASTM 2938) laboratory test was assigned for the rock samples.

The results of the laboratory testing program are presented in Appendix D and summarized in Tables 1-A, 1-B and 2.

Table 1-A – Summary of Laboratory Testing Results-Soils Boring

No.

Sample

No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

AASHTO

Classification

MC

LL

PL

PI

%Percent

Gravel Sand Fines

NFSR907B1 Bulk 0-5 A-2-4(0) -- -- -- -- 14.9 57.9 27.2

NFSR907B1 J-1 0-2 A-2-4(0) 31 -- -- -- 7.3 73.2 19.5

NFSR908B1 Bulk 0-5 A-6(3) -- 32 19 13 0.7 53.1 46.2

NFSR908B1 J-1 0-2 A-6(8) 12.3 40 21 19 2.3 41.8 55.9

NFSR908B1 J-2 5-7 A-4(0) 23.9 27 NP NP 1.5 54.7 43.8

NFSR1043B1 Bulk 0-5 A-6(11) -- 38 17 21 47 30.5 64.8

NFSR1043B1 J-1 0-2 A-7-5(27) 17.4 73 38 35 5.9 22.8 71.3

NFSR1043B1 J-3 10-12 A-2-4(0) 20.1 -- -- -- 19.6 50 30.4

NFSR54C Bulk 0-5 A-1-B(0) -- -- -- -- 48 40.1 11.9 NFSR92EB1 Bulk 6-15 A-2-4(0) -- 28 18 10 4.7 61.6 33.8

NFSR92EB1 J-1 0-2 A-2-6(1) 17.4 40 21 19 39.8 34.1 26.1

NFSR92EB1 J-3 10-12 A-2-4(0) 19.7 31 21 10 4.7 68.3 27.0

NFSR92EB1 J-4 15-17 A-6(1) 13.7 31 20 11 1.2 59.9 38.9

NFSR92EB1 J-5 20-22 A-6(1) 17.6 32 21 11 0 62.3 37.7

NFSR92EB1 J-7 30-32 A-2-4(0) 21.9 26 18 8 0 69.5 30.5

NFSR389B1 Bulk 0-5 A-2-6(1) -- 33 18 15 33.2 34.4 32..4

NFSR389B1 J-1 0-2 A-6(6) 18.7 40 22 18 5.1 45.6 49.2

NFSR389B1 J-3 4-6 A-6(3) 9.0 35 19 16 11 47.5 41.5

NFSR389B1 J-4 7-9 A-7-6(4) 20.6 48 22 26 26.3 38.2 35.6

NFSR92B1 Bulk 0-5 A-4(0) -- 27 17 10 20.6 42.3 37.1 NFSR92B1 J-1 0-2 A-1-a(0) 3.5 NP NP NP 66.5 24.2 9.2

NFSR92B1 J-3 10-10.7 A-4(0) 5.6 24 17 7 18.8 39.5 41.7

MC = Moisture Content, LL = Liquid limit, PL = Plastic limit, NP = Non-Plastic

Table 1-B – Summary of Laboratory Testing Results-Soils

Boring No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

Max.

Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum

MC

pH Resistivity (Ωcm)

NFSR54C 0-5 108.2 18.2 4.8 12,181

NFSR92EB1 5-16 116.1 14.0 5.8 19,824

NFSR389B1 0-5 121.7 11.4 6.3 32,924

NFSR92B2 0-5 119.8 11.7 6.7 26,751

MC = Moisture Content

Table 2 – Summary of Laboratory Testing Results-Rock

Boring No.

Sample Depth (ft)

Unconfined Compression

(psi)

NFSR908B1 9.5 to 14.3 10,325 NFSR908B1 14.3 to 19.3 6,767 NFSR907B1 18.8 to 23.8 3,129 NFSR907B1 23.8 to 28.8 2,435

NFSR1043B1 29.5 to 34.5 12,497 NFSR389B1 18.7 to 23.7 19,510 NFSR389B1 28.7 to 33.7 20,400 NFSR92B1 17.0 to 22.0 1,425 NFSR92B1 22.0 to 27.0 3,140 NFSR92B2 13.0 to 18.0 9,835 NFSR92B2 18.0 to 23.0 6,270 NFSR92B3 14.0 to 19.0 2,425 NFSR92B3 19.0 to 24.0 6,650 NFSR92B3 22.0 to 27.0 8,085 NFSR92B4 13.2 to 18.2 9,605 NFSR92B4 23.2 to 28.2 4,535

Findings

The description of the subsurface conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration is provided below. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the boring logs in Appendix C represent approximate boundaries. In the field, the transition between materials may be gradual or may not exist. It should be noted that one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

NFSR 92E

Boring NFSR 92E B-1 was drilled to a depth of 31.3 ft below the existing grade. The subsurface profile encountered in this boring can be summarized as follows:

Fill – The fill material encountered consisted of tan and brown loose silty sand and extended from ground surface to depth of 7 ft below the existing grade with SPT N-values ranging from 5 to 10 blows per foot (bpf).

Sandy Clay – A layer of gray sandy clay was encountered underneath the fill material and extended to a depth of 17 ft below the existing grade. N-values within this layer ranged between 16 to 63 bpf, indicating very stiff to hard consistencies.

Silty Sand – A layer of brown silty sand was encountered below the sandy clay strata and extended to the termination depth of the boring. N-values within this layer ranger from 54 bpf to 50 blows/3”, indicating very dense relative density.

NFSR 389

Boring NFSR 389 B-1 was drilled to a depth of 33.7 ft below the existing grade. The subsurface profile encountered in the boring can be summarized as follows:

Fill – The fill material encountered consisted of red sandy clay and extended from the ground surface to a depth of 14 ft below the existing grade. N-values within this layer ranged from 8 bpf to 50 blow/2” indicating medium stiff to hard consistencies.

Bedrock – Rock coring began at depth of 14 ft below the existing grade and extended to the termination depth. The bedrock consisted of gray and white moderately hard to hard rock of different types including Sandstone, Conglomerate, Granite and Marble with RQD values ranging from 55 to 100. The rock samples tested yielded unconfined compressive strength values ranging from 19,510 to 20,400 psi. The presence of Iron Pyrite was observed at various depths of the boring. The boring was terminated at a depth of 31.3 ft below existing ground surface.

NFSR 92

Four (4) borings were drilled along the portion of the road that experienced the landslide and were designated as NFSR 92 B-1 through B-4. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 23 and 32 ft below the existing grades. The generalized subsurface conditions encountered in the borings can be summarized as follows:

Fill – Medium dense brown sand and gravel fill was encountered in all of the borings from the ground surface to depths ranging from 7 ft (Boring 92 B-2) to 11.7 ft (Boring 92 B-4) below the existing site grades. N-values within this layer ranged from 11 to 12 bpf.

It should be noted that SPT sampling was performed in Boring 92 B-2 only.

Bedrock – The bedrock encountered in the boring locations consisted predominantly of gray and brown moderately hard Sandstone with occasional Shale. RQD values ranged from 67 to 100. Lower RQD values of 12 and 37 were encountered at boring NFSR 92B- 1at depths of 10 to 22 ft, respectively, below the existing grade. Unconfined compressive strength values performed on selected core samples ranged from 1,425 to 9,835 psi with an average value of 5,800 psi.

It should be noted that a 6 ft thick layer of weathered sandstone was encountered at a depth of 7.0 ft below existing site grade in Boring 92B-2.

NFSR 907

Boring NFSR 907 B-1 was drilled to the depth of 28.8 ft below the existing grade. The subsurface profile encountered in this boring can be summarized as follows:

Fill – The fill material encountered consisted of brown sandy gravel and extended from the ground surface to a depth of 10 ft below the existing grade. N-values within this layer ranged from 11 to 13 bpf indicating a medium dense relative density.

Silty Sand – A layer of brown silty sand was encountered underneath the fill material and extended to a depth of 18.8 ft below existing site grade, at which depth auger refusal was encountered. SPT N-values within this layer ranged from 11 to 49 bpf indicating medium dense to dense relative densities.

Bedrock – Rock coring started from the depth of 18.8 ft below the existing grade and extended to the boring termination depth of 28.8 ft below the existing grade. The bedrock encountered comprised of a gray, hard to very hard Quartzite with an RQD value of 100.

Unconfined compressive strength values obtained from laboratory testing ranged from 2,435 to 3,130 psi.

NFSR 908

Boring NFSR 908B-1 was drilled to a depth of 19.3 ft below the existing grade. The subsurface profile encountered in the borings can be summarized as follows:

Fill – The fill material encountered consisted of red stiff sandy clay and loose silty sand extending from the ground surface to depth of 9.5 ft below the existing grade.

Bedrock – Rock coring began at depth of 9.5 ft below the existing grade. A hard to very hard gray Granite with RQD values ranging from 79 to 100 was encountered at the boring location. Laboratory unconfined compressive strength values ranged from 6,767 to 10,325 psi. The boring was terminated at a depth at 19.3 ft below the existing grade.

NFSR 1043

Boring NFSR 1043B-1 was drilled to the depth of 34.5 ft below the existing site grade.

The subsurface profile encountered in the boring can be summarized as follows:

Fill– A fill layer consisting of red soft to medium stiff elastic silt was encountered from the ground surface to the depth of 8 ft below the existing grade. N-values within this layer ranged from 4 to 7 bpf.

Silty Sand – A layer of gray silty sand with various amounts of gravel and rock fragments was encountered below the fill material and extended to a depth of 24.8 ft below the existing grade. SPT N-values within this layer ranged from 24 to 43 bpf, indicating medium dense to dense conditions.

Bedrock – The bedrock consisted of gray moderately hard Sandstone and Shale with RQD values ranging from 0 to 40. Unconfined compressive strength value of 12,500 psi was obtained from a laboratory testing. The boring was terminated at a depth of 34.5 ft below existing site grade.

Groundwater – Groundwater was not encountered at any of the borings during the soil drilling. It should be noted that water was used for rock coring; therefore groundwater was not monitored during coring. Fluctuations in the groundwater level due to seasonal and climatic effects should be expected.

DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Landslide Repair - NFSR 92

The following two (2) alternatives were considered for the landslide repair:

1. Replacement- In-Kind (RIK). This alternative consists rebuilding the failed embankment slope to its as-built condition by removing the loose material and rebuilding the embankment, and placing riprap for scour protection.

2. Construction of a Reinforced Soil Slope (RSS) on top of a Cellular Confinement System (CCS) retaining wall.

Alternative 1 (RIK) represents the least cost re-construction alternative. However, it would not protect the newly constructed embankment from the effects of heavy precipitation and a rise in the Broad River water and frequent and costly repairs will be needed.

Alternative 2 offers the advantage of protecting the toe of the newly constructed embankment from erosion as well as providing a stable slope that would require minimum maintenance and/or repairs. RSS embankments are known for their ease of construction, flexibility, and their abilities to tolerate settlements. Therefore, alternative 2 shall be considered as the preferred alternative if future cost of repair cycles is considered.

In general, alternative 2 can be described as follows:

1. Constructing the CCS retaining wall at the toe of the slope, and

2. Constructing the RSS (with geogrid reinforcement) from the top of the retaining wall to the existing roadway level.

The CCS retaining wall is designed to protect the toe of the slope against erosion during periods of heavy precipitation and rise in Broad River water level. The design analysis considered a partially concrete-filled CCS wall founded on rock.

The soil properties presented in Table 3 below were used in the design analysis.

Table 3 – Soils and Rock Parameters used for the Design Analyses of the CCS Retaining Wall and the RSS

Material Type Unit Weight, γ

(pcf)

Friction Angle, φ

(deg.)

Cohesion, c

(psf) Concrete 150 40 3,000 Select Fill 120 30 0

Retained Soil (FILL) 120 28 0 Retained Soil (Weathered Rock) 135 34 500

Bedrock 145 40 3,000

The overall global stability for the CCS retaining wall and the RSS was evaluated using the computer program SLIDE 6.0. The CCS retaining wall was designed using principles for a gravity retaining wall following AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, 2010 and Interim Revisions. The RSS was designed following FHWA publication “Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes”, FHWA-NHI-10-024. The design analyses were performed for the most critical section along the slope. The design analysis of the RSS was performed using the computer program ReSSA 3.0. A uniform surcharge of 250 psf was used at the top of the slope along the full width of the roadway to model the live load from the traffic loading. The design analyses calculations and the computer program output are provided in Appendix E.

Settlement Consideration

The wall will be supported on bedrock. Therefore settlement is considered to be negligible.

Recommendations for the CCS and RSS Systems

Based on the design analysis results, we recommend the following:

The CCS retaining wall should be doweled into the bedrock.

The bottom and the two outermost, wall facing, geocell sections, should be filled with concrete. The rest of the geocell sections should be filled with select granular material.

Install a 4-inch diameter weepholes, spaced 10 ft on-center to reduce hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.

Geogrid should have a minimum embedment length of 10 ft with a maximum vertical spacing of 1.5 ft for the RSS stability requirements. Geogrid should have a minimum Long-Term Design Strength (LTDS) of 2,500 lb/ft.

Culverts Replacement

The geotechnical analyses included evaluation of foundation bearing resistance and settlement. The analyses were performed based on each site specific condition. EFLHD considered AOP design alternative for all five (5) sites (i.e., NFSR 92E, 389, 907, 908, and 1043). Hydraulic and structural data were incorporated in our analysis and design. .

Table 4 provides a summary of the culvert dimensions and elevations for each site.

Table 4 – Summary of Culverts Design Parameters Culvert

Location Flowline Invert

Elevation (ft)

Length

Span

Rise

US DS

NFSR 92E 720.52 720.16 28 12 8

NFSR 389 754.88 754.50 38 14 12.5

NFSR 907 336.57 336.48 22 8 6

NFSR 908 352.32 351.88 32 6 7.75

NFSR 1403 481.50 480.77 40 12 9

US/DS=upstream/downstream.

Bearing Capacity Analyses

The damaged culverts will be replaced with either box or bottomless ones. The bottomless culvert at sites NFSR 389 and NFSR 908 will be supported on rock, and the embedded reinforced concrete box culverts at sites NFSR 92E, NFSR 907 and NFSR 1403 will be supported soils.

The bearing capacity was evaluated using the conventional equation and bearing capacity factors presented in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, 2010 and Interim Revisions.

Rock Mass Rating (RMR) methodology was used to determine the quality and classification of the rock mass encountered at the recommended bearing elevations for the bottomless culverts at NFSR 389 and NFSR 908. In the RMR methodology, the rock is rated based on rock strength, rock quality designation (RQD), rock joints spacing, conditions of joints and ground water conditions. The RMR values determined for the rock conditions at NFSR 389 and NFSR 908 were 71 and 67 respectively. Therefore, the rock conditions at both abutments are classified as good rock. Shear strength parameters of the rock mass were determined based on the Hoek-Brown Criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1988) described in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, 2010 and Interim Revisions.

An angle of internal friction of 45 degrees along with cohesion value of 8,300 psf, were used in our analysis for the shear strength of the rock at both culvert locations. Based on these parameters and using the Semi-empirical procedure, as specified in Article 10.4.6., AASHTO, the presumptive values for bearing resistance at the service limit state (Table C.10.6.2.6.1-1) would control. Therefore, a limiting bearing resistance of 20 ksf is recommended for the culvert foundation at NFSR 389 and NFSR 908 sites.

Table 6 provides our recommendations for the foundation bottom elevations and bearing resistance at each site.

Table 5 – Summary of Culverts Recommended Bearing Resistance Culvert Location

NFSR #

Structure Type

Bearing Foundation Bottom of the

Footing Elev.

(f)

Bearing Resistance psf

92E Box Culvert Very stiff to hard sandy clay 717.0 3,000

Opened- Bottom

Rock 750.0A 20,000

907 Box Culvert Medium dense to dense silty sand

332.5 3,000

Opened- Bottom

Rock 346.7A 20,000

1403 Box Culvert Medium dense to dense silty sand (decomposed rock)

477.7 3,000

A Footing should be embedded minimum of 2 ft into rock.

For culvert supported on soils, we recommend that the box culvert to be supported on two

(2) layers of Cellular Confinement System (CCS) filled with select granular material. The foundation soils underneath the CCS should be cleared of any soft or loose material. If such soil is encountered during construction, over excavate and backfill with either compacted fill or “lean concrete”.

Settlement

Settlement is expected to be negligible as the culverts will be supported on either rock or competent soils. Anticipated settlement would predominantly be elastic settlement that will occur over a short period of time.

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% of the optimum. Lightweight compaction equipment should be used within 3-feet of the slope face, or the face of the AOP. This equipment will reduce the possibility of triggering additional movement of the un-compacted fill soils within the existing slope. The select granular material should be in accordance with Section 704.10 of the FP-03.

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations procedures and results described in this report have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these exploration and test represent conditions at the specific dates and locations indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary. The Geotechnical Design Analyses and Recommendations Section of 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.

Prepared by:

Mohammed Elias, Ph.D., P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Acting Division Geotechnical Engineer

REFERENCES

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition, 2010.

Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown. 1988. “The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion” In Proc., 15th Canadian Rock mechanics Symposium, Toronto, Canada.

APPENDIX A

Figures

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

Figure 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATEREG

GA ERFO FSR 54C1GA

Source:

Geologic Map of Georgia, (1976)

Geologic map of Georgia: Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA 8

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

STATE

TOTAL

SHEETS

GA

Figure 2 Geologic Map of Stephens County , GA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REG

3GA ERFO FSR 54C1

NFSR 389, NFSR 92E & NFSR92

Stephens County

Source:

Geologic Map of Georgia, (1976)

Geologic map of Georgia: Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

8 GA GA ERFO FSR 54C1STERLING, VIRGINIA

Figure 3 Geologic Map of Jones County, GA

REG STATE PROJECT

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

3 3

Project Sites: NFSR 907, NFSR 908 & NFSR 1043, Jones County

APPENDIX B

Boring Location Maps

APPENDIX C

Boring Logs

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.)

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.

ROCK CORING GENERAL NOTES

Depth and Elevation: Use large marks as 1’ (300mm) increments. Record proper elevations.

Core: Draw sketch of core breaks as it is oriented in the core box (align all core breaks so they fit together properly before drawing sketch). Starting at the top of core measure each piece of core down its centerline to 1/100 of a foot. Record this measurement along the left side of the core sketch at the break.

VISUAL METHODS FOR ROCK IDENTIFICATION

Description: 1. Draw a heavy line through description at depth to which core run penetrated.

2. Describe the rock type.

3. Note the condition of the core break on the right side of the core sketch

Mud seam (MS); Sand seam (SS); Weathered surface (WS); Fresh break (FB)

4. Record coring time in minutes.

5. Record to nearest 1/100 foot the core recovered (after alignment in core box). Discard any debris at top of core, which obviously fill into the core hole.

6. Calculate per cent core recovery and record: CR = Ufeet of core recoveredU feet cored

Color: Wet the rock with water and describe the color including the color of any unusual or reoccurring markings on the core (i.e. light green with dark green bands, foliation lines).

Foliation: Foliation planes are parallel planes of different minerals forming a banded appearance on the rock.

The foliation planes are usually of a different color than the surrounding rock. Also the rock shears along the foliation planes if struck with a hammer. Record the following:

Close spaced (CS) – 1/8” (3mm) or closer; Medium spaced (MS) – 1/8” to 1/4” (3mm to 6mm);

Open spaced (OS) – 1/4” (6mm) or larger

The angle to the horizontal should be measured (with a protractor) and recorded for the rock core.

(Several different angles can be found in each 5’ to 10’ core.)

Hardness: Very Soft (VS) – Can be deformed or crumbled by hand; Soft (S) – Can be scratched with a fingernail Moderately Hard (MH) – Can be scratched easily with a knife; Hard (H) – Can be scratched with difficulty with a knife; Very hard (VH) – Cannot be scratched with a knife

Weathering: Use the proper number 1 through 5.

1. UUnweathered:U No evidence of any mechanical or chemical alteration along discoloration evidenced.

2. USlightly weatheredU: Discoloration is evident, on surface, slight alteration no discontinuities, less than 10% of the volume is altered, strength is substantially unaffected.

3. UModerately weathered:U Discoloring is evident, surface is pitted and altered with alteration penetrating will below rock surfaces, weathering "halos” evident, 10% to 50% of the rock is altered, strength is noticeably less than fresh rock.

4. UHighly weathered: UEntire mass is discolored; alteration pervades nearly all of the rock with some pockets of slightly weathered rock noticeable, some minerals leached away, retains only a fraction of original strength (with wet strength usually lower than dry strength).

5. UDecomposed:U Rock is reduced to a soil with relict rock structure (saprolite), can be generally molded and crumbled by hand.

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) = UΣ[Lengths of all pieces of the core ≥ 4” (100mm)]U x 100 Total length of core run

Soundness: Use the proper number 1 through 5

1. Weathered RQD = 0% to 25%

2. Highly jointed to Jointed RQD = 25% to 50%

3. Jointed to Relatively sound RQD = 50% to 75%

4. Relatively sound to Sound RQD = 75% to 100%

Rock Quality: Use the proper number 1 through 5

1. Very Poor RQD = 0% to 25%

2. Poor RQD = 25% to 50%

3. Fair RQD = 50% to 75%

4. Good RQD = 75% to 90%

5. Excellent RQD = 90% to 100%

Order of Description

1. Hardness

2. Color

3. Soundness (a.k.a. Weathering and Rock Quality)

4. Main Rock Formation – Composes more than 50% of the core run

5. Texture – Very Fine (VF), Fine (F), Medium (M), and Coarse (C)

6. Modifying Term – “and” : 40% to 50% of the core run “some” : 30% to 40% “little” : 10% to 30%

“trace” : 10% or less

7. Minor Rock Type(s)

8. Other (Foliation angle, etc.)

UExamples:U

1. Moderately hard, blue-gray to gray, weathered BIOTITE GNEISS BOULDER, medium texture

Recovery = 24%

RQD = 17%

2. Very hard, gray and white, relatively sound to sound BIOTITE GNEISS, medium to fine texture, some quartz veins, foliation angle = 20 degrees

Recovery = 100%

RQD = 100%

-Fresh break @ approximately 47’

2-2-2-1

2-3-4-5

5-11-24-27

11-21-22-26

5-8-16-24

0.7

0.8

1.6

2.0

1.9

3.8

8.0

24.5

29.5

J - 1

J - 2

J - 3

J - 4

J - 5

R - 1

R - 2

Soft to medium stiff, red, elastic SILT [A-7-5(27)] (Moist)

- FILL -

Medium dense to dense, gray and green, SILTY SAND , little gravel [A-2-4(0)] (Moist)

-DECOMPOSED ROCK-

Moderately hard, gray, weathered, SANDSTONE , coarse texture clayey sand seams at the mid of the run

Recovery = 24%, RQD = 0%

2.5

2.5

4.0

4.5

2.5

(Blows / ft)

493.7 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le ft)

1. No ground water was encountered during our drilling operation.

2. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

SPT

Clear

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th ft)

GA ERFO FSR 54C1, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 4/22/10

HSA/RW

2 in.

4/22/10 K. Thornton R. KingsleyOperator:

26 ft east of existing culvert center @ CL

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3 3/4 in.

B lo w s pe r in

NFSR 1043-B1

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Stephens and Jones Counties, GA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

5/

/1

:1

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\F S

\G A

\5 4C

1_ E

T C

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N F

O R

M A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G A

E R

F O

N F

S

4C

(1

G

P J

485.7

469.2

464.2

2.0

34.5

R - 2

Moderately hard, gray, weathered, SHALE and SANDSTONE , coarse texture

Recovery = 40%, RQD = 40% (Continued)

End of boring @ 34.5 ft

(Blows / ft)

493.7 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le ft)

1. No ground water was encountered during our drilling operation.

2. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

SPT

Clear

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th ft)

GA ERFO FSR 54C1, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 4/22/10

HSA/RW

2 in.

4/22/10 K. Thornton R. KingsleyOperator:

26 ft east of existing culvert center @ CL

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3 3/4 in.

B lo w s pe r in

NFSR 1043-B1

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Stephens and Jones Counties, GA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O

/1

:1

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\F S

\G A

\5 4C

1_ E

T C

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N F

O R

M A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G A

E R

F O

N F

S

4C

(1

G

P J

459.2

7-6-6-7

3-4-4-7

5-7-12-13

19-16-9-5

1-50/2"

12-50/2"

1.0

1.4

0.9

0.9

0.2

0.6

3.6

4.4

4.9

14.0

15.0

16.8

18.7

20.4

21.3

23.7

28.7

J - 1

J - 2

J - 3

J - 4

J - 5

J - 6

R - 1

R - 2

R - 3

R - 4

Medium stiff to hard, red, SANDY CLAY (Moist)

-FILL-

Moderately hard, gray, jointed to relatively sound, SANDSTONE , trace iron pyrite , coarse texture

Recovery = 76% , RQD = 55%

Hard, white and brown, jointed to relatively sound, CONGLOMERATE , trace iron pyrite , coarse texture

Recovery = 76% , RQD = 55%

Very hard, gray, jointed to relatively sound, SANDSTONE , trace iron pyrite , coarse texture

Recovery = 76% , RQD = 55%

Very hard, gray, jointed to relatively sound, SANDSTONE and CONGLOMERATE , trace of iron pyrite, coarse texture

Recovery = 88% , RQD = 55%

Brown, SILTY CLAY with gravel seam

Very hard, gray and brown, jointed to relatively sound, GRANITE and MARBLE , trace of iron pyrite, coarse texture, foliation angle = 40º

Recovery = 88% , RQD = 55%

Very hard, gray and white, sound, GRANITE and MARBLE , coarse texture, foliation angle = 40º

Recovery = 97% , RQD = 94%

3.0

4.5

4.0

1.5

(Blows / ft)

769.9 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le ft)

1. No ground water was encountered during our drilling operation.

2. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

SPT

Clear

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th ft)

GA ERFO FSR 54C1, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 4/23/10

HSA/RW

2 in.

4/25/10 K. Thornton R. KingsleyOperator:

East side, 60 Rt of CL

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3 3/4 in.

B lo w s pe r in

NFSR 389-B1

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Stephens and Jones Counties, GA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O

/1

:1

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\F S

\G A

\5 4C

1_ E

T C

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N F

O R

M A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G A

E R

F O

N F

S

4C

(1

G

P J

755.9

754.9

753.1

751.2

749.5

748.6

746.2

741.2

2"

5.0

33.7

R - 4

Very hard, white and gray, sound, CONGLOMERATE, trace of iron pyrite , coarse texture

Recovery = 100% , RQD = 100% (Continued)

End of boring @ 33.7 ft

(Blows / ft)

769.9 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le ft)

1. No ground water was encountered during our drilling operation.

2. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

SPT

Clear

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th ft)

GA ERFO FSR 54C1, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 4/23/10

HSA/RW

2 in.

4/25/10 K. Thornton R. KingsleyOperator:

East side, 60 Rt of CL

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3 3/4 in.

B lo w s pe r in

NFSR 389-B1

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Stephens and Jones Counties, GA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O

/1

:1

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\F S

\G A

\5 4C

1_ E

T C

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N F

O R

M A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G A

E R

F O

N F

S

4C

(1

G

P J

736.2

3-5-6-6

3-7-6-5

3-5-6-6

9-23-26-33

1.4

1.8

5.0

5.0

10.0

18.8

23.8

28.8

J - 1

J - 2

J - 1

J - 2

R - 1

R - 2

Medium dense, brown, SANDY GRAVEL (Moist)

-FILL-

Medium dense to dense, brown, SILTY

SAND[A-2-4(0)]

(Moist)

Very hard, gray, relatively sound to sound, QUARTZITE , coarse texture, foliation angle = 8º

Recovery = 100% , RQD = 100

Very hard, gray, relatively sound to sound, QUARTZITE , coarse texture

Recovery = 100% , RQD = 100

End of bearing @ 28.8 ft

1.75

(Blows / ft)

346.6 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le ft)

1. No ground water was encountered during our drilling operation.

2. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

SPT

Clear

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th ft)

GA ERFO FSR 54C1, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 4/21/10

HSA/RW

2 in.

4/21/10 K. Thornton R. KingsleyOperator:

40 ft east of existing culvert center

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3 3/4 in.

B lo w s pe r in

NFSR 907-B1

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Stephens and Jones Counties, GA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O

/1

:1

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\F S

\G A

\5 4C

1_ E

T C

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N F

O R

M A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G A

E R

F O

N F

S

4C

(1

G

P J

336.6

327.8

322.8

317.8

4-5-4-5

2-3-3-3

0.8

1.4

4.8

5.0

5.0

9.5

10.5

14.3

19.3

J - 1

J - 2

R - 1

R - 2

Stiff, red, SANDY CLAY [A-6(8)] (Moist)

-FILL-

Loose, red, SILTY SAND [A-4(0)] (Moist)

Moderately hard, gray, relatively sound to sound, GRANITE , coarse texture

Recovery = 100% , RQD = 79%

Very hard, white and gray, relatively sound to sound, QUARTZITE , coarse texture

Recovery = 100% , RQD = 79%

Very hard, black and gray, relatively sound to sound, GRANITE , coarse texture

Recovery = 100% , RQD = 100%

End of boring @ 19.3 ft

4.5

2.0

(Blows / ft)

361.2 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le ft)

1. No ground water was encountered during our drilling operation.

2. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

SPT

Clear

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th ft)

GA ERFO FSR 54C1, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 4/21/10

HSA/RW

2 in.

4/21/10 K. Thornton R. KingsleyOperator:

14 ft east of existing culvert center

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3 3/4 in.

B lo w s pe r in

NFSR 908-B1

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Stephens and Jones Counties, GA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O

/1

:1

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\F S

\G A

\5 4C

1_ E

T C

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N F

O R

M A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G A

E R

F O

N F

S

4C

(1

G

P J

356.2

351.7

350.7

346.9

341.9

1.0

1.1

2.8

5.0

5.0

11.0

12.0

17.0

22.0

27.0

R - 1

R - 2

R - 3

R - 4

R - 5

Medium dense, brown, SAND and GRAVEL (Moist)

- FILL -

Moderately hard, brown and gray, jointed to relatively jointed, SANDSTONE , coarse texture

Recovery = 100% , RQD = 70%

Moderately hard, gray, weathered, SANDSTONE , coarse texture

Recovery = 22% , RQD = 12%

Moderately hard, gray and brown, highly jointed to jointed, SANDSTONE , coarse texture

Recovery = 56% , RQD = 37%

Moderately hard, gray, relatively sound to sound, SANDSTONE , trace of Shale , coarse texture

Recovery = 100% , RQD = 100%

(Blows / ft)

896.9 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le ft)

1. No ground water was encountered during our drilling operation.

2. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

SPT

cool/showers

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th ft)

GA ERFO FSR 54C1, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 4/26/10

HSA/RW

2 in.

4/26/10 K. Thornton R. KingsleyOperator:

Sta. 101+60

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3 3/4 in.

B lo w s pe r in

NFSR 92-B1

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Stephens and Jones Counties, GA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O

/1

:1

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\F S

\G A

\5 4C

1_ E

T C

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N F

O R

M A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\G A

E R

F O

N F

S

4C

(1

G

P J

885.9

884.9

879.9

874.9

869.9

32.0

R - 5 Moderately hard, gray and black, relatively sound to sound, SANDSTONE , coarse texture soft black material is found @ 30 ft depth

Recovery = 100% , RQD = 90% (Continued)

End of boring @ 32 ft

(Blows / ft)

896.9 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le ft)

1. No ground water was encountered during our drilling operation.

2. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

SPT

cool/showers

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th ft)

GA ERFO FSR 54C1, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 4/26/10

HSA/RW

2 in.

4/26/10 K. Thornton R. KingsleyOperator:

Sta. 101+60

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EA…