Report_Geotech.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

REPORT NO. 11-10

PROJECT AR PFH 159-1(2)

CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, BRIDGE, CULVERT, AND MSE WALLS

SHADY LAKE RECREATION AREA

OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST

HOWARD AND POLK COUNTIES, ARKANSAS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

January, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT .................................................................................................................. PAGE

INTRODUCTION

General Project Description Regional Geology

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

General Sampling Data Summary Laboratory Testing Findings

DESIGN ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Bridge Foundations MSE Walls Box Culvert Foundation Slope Stability of Cut/Fill Slopes

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

General Considerations

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Boring Location Map and Subsurface Profile APPENDIX C – Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Testing Results APPENDIX E – Design Analyses

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.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

REPORT NO. 11-10

CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, BRIDGE, CULVERT, AND MSE WALLS

SHADY LAKE RECREATION AREA

HOWARD AND POLK COUNTIES, ARKANSAS

INTRODUCTION

General

This report provides the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analysis and presents our evaluations and recommendations for the construction of new roadway, box culvert, bridge and mechanically stabilized earth retaining structures (MSE walls) for Project AR PFH 159-1(2). The project site is located in the Ouachita National Forest (ONF) in Howard and Polk Counties, AR. The site location and vicinity map is presented in Figure 1 in Appendix A.

Project Description

The project consists of the construction of approximately two (2) miles of County Roadway, 0.8 mile of new roadway, a bridge, four MSE retaining walls, culverts and drainage improvements and other miscellaneous work. The County Roadway will provide new access to Shady Lake Recreation Area and the proposed 0.8 mile roadway will connect the existing Shady Lake (Caddo Road), crossing Saline Road.

The proposed bridge will carry Caddo Road over Saline River. The single span bridge will be 120 ft long. The superstructure will consist of AASHTO Type V Girders. The bridge will be supported on semi-integral Abutments, which are supported on spread footings. Four MSE walls will be constructed at each abutment to minimize the footprint of the roadway embankment. The two walls along the west approach embankment will extend from the west abutment to station 68+85. The two walls along the east approach embankment will extend from the east abutment to station 71+30. A new concrete box culvert will be installed at station 63+31.

Regional Geology

According to the “Geologic Map of Arkansas”, Arkansas Geological Commission and U.S. Geological Survey (1993), the project site is underlain by two major formations, namely the Stanley formation and the Arkansas Novaculite formation. The Stanley formation is described as Inter-bedded gray-black to brownish-green Shale with minor quantities of thin-bedded to massive-bedded, fine-grained to silty, Feldspathic, brown

CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, BRIDGE, CULVERTS, AND MSE WALLS

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

to gray Sandstone. Some thin black Siliceous Shales and Cherts are also present. Minor conglomeratic and tuff beds occur in the lower part of the unit. Bedded Barite is known to occur in the basal part of the unit in the Hot Springs and Glenwood, AR areas. The formation ranges from 1,000 to 12,000 feet in thickness. The Arkansas Novaculite formation is described as white, light gray and black Novaculite with lesser amounts of gray Chert, olive-green to black Shale, white to gray Siltstones and Sandstones.

Novaculite is a nearly pure silica rock and is thin to massive bedded. The formation ranges from about 60 to 900 feet in thickness. The Geologic Map of the project area is presented in Figure 2 in Appendix A.

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

General

A subsurface exploration program was conducted by EFLHD subsurface exploration team from May 12 to 17, and July 14 to 20, 2010. A total of 18 borings were drilled to depths ranging from 5.5 to 28.7 ft below existing site grades. Table 1 provides the depth and location of borings drilled for this project.

Table 1 – Drilled boring location and depth Boring No. Station Depth

(ft) Structure

B-1 13+00 17 Roadway

B-2 25+00 17 Roadway

B-3 30+00 15.9 Roadway

B-4 30+50 12.5 Roadway

B-5 40+00 17 Roadway

B-6 49+00 15.2 Roadway

B-7 57+60 13.8 Roadway

B-8 63+00 13.2 Culvert

B-10 65+85 11.9 Roadway

B-11 69+55 24.1 Bridge/MSE

B-12 70+75 28.7 Bridge/MSE

B-13 77+50 16.1 Roadway

B-14 79+70 15.1 Roadway

B-15 83+50 5.5 Roadway

B-16 88+00 6.6 Roadway

B-17 91+00 8.1 Roadway

B-18 94+20 15.4 Roadway

B-19 101+94.5 14.6 Roadway

Note: Boring B-9 was cancelled due to accessibility difficulties.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Sampling

Soil borings were drilled using CME 750 ATV-mounted and CME 850 track-mounted drill rigs. Boreholes were advanced using 3 3/4 inches hollow stem augers (HSA) in soil and highly weathered rock. Upon encountering auger refusal above planned termination depth, rock coring was performed using rotary drilling techniques and core samples were retrieved using an NQ core barrel and wireline.

Soil samples were obtained using 2 ¼-in. (outside diameter) split-barrel (split-spoon) sampler driven during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, Standard Method of Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils. 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 number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-inch sample interval is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-in. interval was recorded on field boring logs. SPT refusal is defined by 50 blows per 6-in. (or less) of the split – spoon sampler.

Representative portions of the split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars for laboratory testing. The drilling personnel visually examined samples recovered from the SPT sampler. The relative consistency of cohesive samples was estimated in the field using a calibrated pocket penetrometer.

Rock coring was performed in borings B-8, B-11, B-12, B-16 and B-19 using rotary drilling technique. Rock samples were retrieved using NQ solid core barrel. Recovered rock samples were visually examined then percent recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) values were determined and recorded. Rock core samples were preserved in wooden boxes.

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

Groundwater levels, if encountered, 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.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Data Summary

The results of field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheet 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 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 provided in Appendix C 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 driller’s logs and field data sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this report.

Groundwater level was measured in the boreholes at the times and under the conditions stated in the boring logs. However, fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

Laboratory Testing

A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil and rock samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to aid in classification and evaluation of engineering properties of soils and rocks present at the site. Laboratory tests 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). Unconfined compressive strength (ASTM 2938) testing was assigned for selected rock samples. Summary of the laboratory test results conducted on selected soils and rock samples are presented in Tables 2-A, 2-B and 3. The laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix D.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Table 2-A – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

Boring No.

Sample No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

MC

LL

PL

Fines

Max.

DD

(pcf)

Opt.

MC

AASHTO

CLASSIFICATION

B-1 Bulk 0.0-5.0 N/A 37 20 57.8 105.8 18.1 A-6(7)

B-1 J-1 0.0-2.0 22.7 27 NP 43.9 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-1 J-3 8.0-10.0 25.6 29 20 36.2 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-1 J-5 15.0-17.0 27.0 31 20 31.4 N/A N/A A-2-6(0)

B-2 Bulk 0.0-5.0 N/A 23 16 N/A 118.7 13.1 A-4(1)

B-2 J-1 0.0-2.0 N/A 24 NP N/A N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

B-2 J-3 5.0-7.0 26.6 24 15 N/A N/A N/A A-4(3)

B-2 J-5 15.0-17.0 24.9 31 NP N/A N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-3 Bulk 0.0-5.0 N/A 26 21 63.1 111.8 16.7 A-4(1)

B-3 J-1 0.0-2.0 18.9 30 21 19.8 N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

B-3 J-2 5.0-7.0 26.7 NP NP 30.2 N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

B-3 J-5 15.0-15.9 6.3 NP NP 35.5 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-4 Bulk 0.0-5.0 N/A 37 21 55.1 106.7 18.6 A-6(6)

B-4 J-1 0.0-2.0 22.0 21 NP 38.9 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-4 J-2 5.0-7.0 31.7 34 NP 38.3 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-4 J-4 10.0-12.0 37.1 26 NP 27.5 N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

B-5 Bulk 0.0-5.0 N/A 30 22 47.4 112.8 14.9 A-4(1)

B-5 J-1 0.0-2.0 22.0 27 NP 46.0 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-5 J-2 5.0-7.0 31.4 41 23 45.0 N/A N/A A-7-6(4)

B-5 J-4 10.0-12.0 12.2 25 NP 36.6 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-6 Bulk 0.0-5.0 N/A 28 20 50.3 115.1 14.6 A-4(1)

B-6 J-1 0.0-2.0 28.3 22 NP 40.1 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-6 J-2 5.0-7.0 33.9 30 NP 35.8 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-6 J-4 10.0-12.0 28.5 25 NP 34.5 N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

B-7 Bulk 0.0-5.0 N/A 33 23 45.8 115.2 14.3 A-4(2)

B-7 J-1 1.0-3.0 24.6 28 20 42.2 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-7 J-2 3.0-5.0 25.8 32 22 45.2 N/A N/A A-4(2)

B-7 J-4 8.0-10.0 15.9 29 19 39.8 N/A N/A A-4(1)

B-10 Bulk 0.0-5.0 N/A 34 23 18.5 118.0 14.5 A-2-6(0)

B-10 J-1 0.0-2.0 21.2 30 20 46.0 N/A N/A A-4(2)

B-10 J-2 5.0-7.0 16.1 NP NP 32.1 N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

B-10 J-3 8.0-10.0 24.0 NP NP 29.3 N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

MC=Moisture content; LL=Liquid limit; PL= Plastic limit; DD=Dry density; N/A= Not available; NP = Non-plastic.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Table 2-B – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

Boring No.

Sample No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

MC

LL

PL

Fines

Max.

DD

(pcf)

Opt.

MC

AASHTO

CLASSIFICATION

B-13 J-2 5.0-7.0 8.0 32 18 8.9 N/A N/A A-2-6(0)

B-13 J-3 8.0-10.0 N/A N/A N/A 25.8 N/A N/A N/A

B-13 J-5 15.0-17.0 61.0 NP NP 57.7 N/A N/A A-4(0)

B-14 Bulk 0.0-5.0 ND 25 18 34.4 126.2 10.3 A-2-4(0)

B-14 J-2 5.0-7.0 36.8 29 20 28.7 N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

B-14 J-3 8.0-10.0 8.6 25 17 17.2 N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

B-15 J-1 0.0-2.0 N/A N/A N/A 17.2 N/A N/A A-2-4(0)

B-17 J-1 0.0-2.0 10.6 NP NP 12.3 N/A N/A A-1-a

MC=Moisture content; LL=Liquid limit; PL= Plastic limit; DD=Dry density; N/A= Not available; NP = Non-plastic.

Table 3 – Summary of Rock Field and Laboratory Test Results

No.

Depth

(ft) Rock Type

RQD

UC

(psi)

B-8 7.2-7.7 Sandstone 100 1,240

B-8 10.1-10.6 Shale 100 4,060

B-11 12.4-12.9 Sandstone 100 2,950

B-11 16.1-16.5 Sandstone 100 8,010

B-11 22.2-22.7 Sandstone 100 2,920

B-12 7.3-7.8 Shale 95 5,930

B-12 16.6-17.1 Sandstone 100 930

B-12 25.6-26.4 Sandstone 100 6,080

RQD=Rock Quality Designation; UC=Unconfined compression.

Findings

Boring logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered in each boring are located in Appendix C of this report. Boring Location Plan is provided in Appendix B. Descriptions of the soil conditions encountered during the subsurface explorations conducted at the site are presented below. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the boring logs in Appendix C represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Roadway Borings

A total of fifteen (15) soil borings were drilled in the proximity of the proposed roadway. Borings B-1 through B-7 and B-10 were drilled west of Saline River and Borings B-13 through B-19 were drilled east of Saline River. Rock coring was performed in borings B-16 and B-19. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from

5.5 ft to 17 ft below existing site grades. In general, the borings encountered one basic stratum within the termination depths:

Residual Soil – Residual soil encountered consisted primarily of gray silty sand, sandy silt, and clayey sand with various amounts of gravel. This stratum extended to borings termination depths or auger refusal. SPT N-values recorded within this stratum ranged from 8 blows per foot (bpf) to greater than 50 bpf indicating medium dense to very dense relative densities.

It should be noted that one foot thick layer of medium dense sandy gravel or silty sand (fill) was encountered in Borings B-1, B-2, and B-18

Bedrock – Bedrock encountered in the cored borings consisted of moderately hard, weathered to relatively sound to sound Shale and Sandstone and very hard, weathered to relatively sound to sound Quartzite and Marble. RQD values ranged from 0 to 100.

Groundwater – Groundwater was encountered at 8 ft bgs in boring B-3. No groundwater was encountered at any of the remaining borings during the drilling operation.

Bridge Borings

Borings B-11 and B-12 were drilled in the proximity of the west and east abutments and extended to depths of 24.1 ft and 28.7 ft below existing site grades, corresponding to elevations 1039 and 1043 ft, respectively. The soil strata consisted of the following:

Residual Soil – Residual soils consisted primarily of brown silty sandy gravel.

The overburden layers extended from the ground surface to depths ranging from

3.7 to 4.1 ft below existing site grades, corresponding to elevations of 1068 and 1059 ft, respectively. No SPT sampling was performed within this stratum.

Bedrock – Bedrock encountered underneath the residual soils was predominantly Shale in the upper (4 to 9 ft bgs) layer followed by Sandstone to the termination depths of the soil borings. The bedrock consisted of moderately hard weathered to sound Shale and Sandstone. RQD values ranged from 48 to 100.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Groundwater – No groundwater was encountered during or at the completion of the drilling operation.

Box Culvert

Boring B-8 was drilled in the proximity of the centerline of the proposed box culvert location and extended to a depth of 13.2 ft below existing site grades. The subsurface conditions at the culvert location can be described as follows:

Bedrock – The bedrock encountered consisted of gray, moderately highly jointed to jointed and relatively sound to sound Sandstone. RQD values ranged from 42 to 100 in the upper 9 ft bgs. The Sandstone was underlained by relatively sound to sound Shale with RQD value of 100.

Groundwater – No groundwater was encountered during our drilling operation.

DESIGN ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our recommendations were based on the soil and groundwater conditions reported on the boring logs and geometry and loading information from the Bridge and Highway Design branches.

Bridge Foundations

It’s our understanding that the proposed bridge will be supported on semi-integral Abutments on spread footings. Recommended bearing elevations for the bridge abutments are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 – Recommended Bearing Elevations for the Bridge Abutments

No.

Location Station Offset from

Roadway C/L (ft)

TBE

(ft)

Rec. BFE/(RQD)

B-11 Abutment 1 (West)

69+55

2 LT

1063.1

1054.0 ft/(100%)

B-12 Abutment 2 (East)

70+75

4 LT

1071.7 1064.7 ft/(95%)

Note: TBE = Top of boring elevation; Rec. BFE = Recommended Bottom of Foundation Elevation; RQD = Rock Quality Designation; LT = Left.

Bearing Resistance

Bearing resistance was computed according to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2010). Rock Mass Rating (RMR) methodology was used to determine the quality and classification of the rock mass encountered at the recommended bearing

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

elevations for the proposed bridge abutments. In the RMR methodology, the rock is rated based on its strength, rock quality designation (RQD), rock joints spacing, conditions of joints and ground water conditions. The RMR values determined for the rock conditions at the west and east abutments were 52 and 54 respectively. Therefore, the rock conditions at both abutments are classified as fair to good rock. Shear strength parameters of the rock mass were determined based on Hoek and Brown criteria described in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design 2007 Specifications, Section 10.4.6.4.

Table 5 presents computed rock mass strength parameters at each Abutment.

Table 5 – Rock Mass Strength Parameters Location RMR Friction Angle

(deg.)

Cohesion

(psf)

Abutment 1 (West) 52 50 2,600

Abutment 2 (East) 54 53 5,700

An angle of internal friction of 45 degrees was used for the analysis of both abutments.

The results of the bearing resistance analysis showing the variation of factored bearing resistance (under strength limit state) with effective footing widths are provided in Appendix E. A resistance factor of 0.45 was applied to the nominal bearing resistances to obtain factored bearing resistances following AASHTO (2010) Specifications, Table 10.5.5.2.2-1. Factored bearing resistance shall not exceed the factored compressive resistance of the footing concrete (AASHTO 10.6.3.2.2).

Lateral loads can be resisted by sliding friction along the bottom of the footing-rock interface. A maximum friction factor of 0.7 should be used for sliding resistance along the base of the footing.

Settlement

Settlement of less than 1/2-in. was estimated using Service Limit State (Service-I) for both abutments. Therefore, bearing resistance at strength limit state would control the effective footing dimensions and should be considered for design.

MSE Walls

MSE retaining walls are planned to retain the sides of the approach embankments for both abutments. The MSE walls are approximately 50 ft and 71 ft long in the west and east sections respectively. A minimum embedment depth of 2.0 feet is recommended.

Table 6 presents a summary of MSE walls geometry.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Table 6 – General MSE Retaining Wall Design Information

Wall Location

Station Wall Length (ft)

Maximum Design Wall Height, H 1,2

(ft) NW (LT) 68+85 to 69+35 50 19.2 SW (RT) 68+85 to 69+35 50 12.3 NE (LT) 70+55 to 71+30 71 17.3 SE (RT) 70+60 to 71+30 71 14.2

1 The wall height is the distance from the top of the leveling pad to the roadway grade above the wall.

2 An embedment depth of 2 ft was assumed for wall leveling pad.

The MSE wall evaluated in the analysis consisted of geogrid soil reinforcement attached to a non-load carrying facing, such as precast concrete panels. The fill material consisted of structural backfill in accordance with Section 704.10 of FP-03. A uniformly distributed load of 250 psf was assumed to account for traffic loading in accordance with AASHTO Specifications. Data from borings B-11 and B-12, which were drilled in the west and east abutments respectively, was used for the design.

Summary of soil strength parameters used in the stability analyses of the MSE walls are presented in Table 7.

Table 7 – Summary of Soil Properties

Material Type

Unit Weight (γ)

(pcf)

Friction Angle (φ)

(deg.)

Cohesion(c)

(psf)

Reinforced Soil (Select Granular Backfill)

125 34 0

Retained Soil (Unclassified Borrow)

120 30 0

Foundation Soil (Medium dense silty sand)

125 30 0

Bedrock 145 40 4,000

Design of the MSE walls was conducted using LRFD design methodology, in general accordance with the design concepts and procedures presented in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2010) and FHWA Publication No. FHWA-GEC 011, “Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes”, (2010). Global and external stability analyses were performed to evaluate minimum factors of safety and required embedment lengths.

Load and resistance factors have been selected in accordance with AASHTO. MSE wall load combinations for strength, extreme events, and service limit states are provided in AASHTO (2010), Section 3.4.1. Summary of applicable load factors used for the analyses is provided in Table 8.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Table 8 – LRFD Load Factors used in the analyses1

Load Factors Load Factor

Minimum Maximum

Horizontal Earth Pressure, EH 0.9 1.5

Vertical Earth Pressure, EV 1.00 1.35

Earth Surcharge, ES 0.75 1.5

Live Load , LL -- 1.75

Earthquake Load, EQ 1.00 -- 1AASHTO(2010), Section 3.4.1.

Resistance factors and target CDR and FS for the different analyses modes are provided in Table 9.

Table 9 – Design Stability Criteria

Failure Mode Resistance Factor

Target CDR, FS or emax

Static Seismic Static Seismic

Sliding 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Eccentricity -- -- B/4 B/5

Bearing Resistance 0.65 0.65 1.0 1.0

Global 0.75 0.9 1.3 1.1 Note: B represents the geogrid reinforcement length; CDR: Capacity/Demand Ratio;

FS: Factor of Safety.

Slope stability analyses were performed based on a minimum wall reinforcement length equals to 0.7H, as specified by AASHTO. Where, H is the wall height. Stability analyses were performed using the computer programs MSEW (3) and ReSSA (3). The computer output files are included in Appendix E and are summarized in Tables 10 through 14. The output files provide the soil input properties, wall sections geometry analyzed, reinforcement spacing, type, strength and interaction parameters, the calculated safety factors for the stability criteria presented above, and plots of the calculated critical failure plane.

Table 10 – Summary of Sliding Resistance Analyses Results Wall

Section Station H

(ft) B

(ft)

CDR

Static Seismic NW (LT) 68+85 to 69+35 19.2 13.5 1.5 1.2 SW (RT) 68+85 to 69+35 12.3 10 1.7 1.3 NE (LT) 70+60 to 71+30 17.3 12.5 1.5 1.2 SE (RT) 70+60 to 71+30 14.2 10 1.5 1.1

B = Minimum required reinforcement length, CDR=capacity/demand ratio

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Table 11 – Summary of Bearing Resistance Analyses Results Wall

Section Station H

(ft) B

(ft)

CDR

Static Seismic NW (LT) 68+85 to 69+35 19.2 13.5 1.7 1.2 SW (RT) 68+85 to 69+35 12.3 10 2.2 1.7 NE (LT) 70+60 to 71+30 17.3 12.5 1.8 1.3 SE (RT) 70+60 to 71+30 14.2 10 1.6 1.1

Table 12 – Summary of Overturning Analyses Results

Section Station H

(ft) B

(ft)

CDR

Static Seismic NW (LT) 68+85 to 69+35 19.2 13.5 2.6 1.8 SW (RT) 68+85 to 69+35 12.3 10 3.2 2.3 NE (LT) 70+60 to 71+30 17.3 12.5 2.7 1.9 SE (RT) 70+60 to 71+30 14.2 10 2.4 1.7

Table 13 – Summary of Eccentricity Analyses Results

Section Station H

(ft) B

(ft)

CDR

Static Seismic NW (LT) 68+85 to 69+35 19.2 13.5 0.19 0.27 SW (RT) 68+85 to 69+35 12.3 10 0.16 0.22 NE (LT) 70+60 to 71+30 17.3 12.5 0.19 0.27 SE (RT) 70+60 to 71+30 14.2 10 0.21 0.29

Table 14 – Summary of Global Analyses Results

Wall Section

Station H (ft)

B (ft)

CDR

Static Seismic

CIR WDG CIR WDG

NW (LT) 68+85 to 69+35 19.2 13.5 4.4 1.6 3.9 1.4 SW (RT) 68+85 to 69+35 12.3 10 5.6 N/A 4.7 N/A NE (LT) 70+60 to 71+30 17.3 12.5 3.2 1.6 2.9 1.4 SE (RT) 70+60 to 71+30 14.2 10 4.1 1.6 3.6 1.4

B = Minimum required reinforcement length; CDR=capacity/demand ratio; CIR = Circular (Rotational) failure mode; Wedge (Translational) failure mode; N/A=Not available (circular slip surface is outside the soil domain).

The results of our design indicate that the proposed MSE wall satisfies all stability requirements. We recommend that the MSE walls be constructed with the configurations listed in Table 15.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Table 15 – Retaining Wall Configuration

Wall Section

Maximum Proposed

Wall Height(1)

(ft)

Geogrid Reinforcement Minimum Foundation Embedment

Depth (ft)

Minimum Geogrid

Embedme nt Length

(ft)

Maximum Vertical Spacing

(ft)

Long-Term Design Tensile

Strength

(LTDS)

(lb/ft)

NW (LT) 19.2 13.5

1.5

4,200

SW (RT) 12.3 10

NE (LT) 17.3 12.5

SE (RT) 14.2 10

1The retaining wall height does not include the wall embedment.

It’s anticipated that sections of the MSE walls will be founded on rock. Where the wall is set on rocky foundation, 6 inches of select granular backfill should be placed under the reinforcing mesh according to FP-3, Section 255.03.

Structural Backfill should be used for the reinforced fill material and in the areas beyond the MSE wall reinforcement (i.e., confined between the two walls for each section). The structure backfill should be in accordance with FP-3, Section 704.10.

Box Culvert Foundation

Based on Hydraulics recommendations, the proposed box culvert will be 107 ft long, 6 ft wide, and 6 ft high reinforced concrete box culvert with beveled headwalls. The proposed upstream and downstream invert elevations are at EL 1078.5 and EL 1069.6, respectively and it will be embedded 2 ft. The subsurface profile indicated that the culvert will be supported on Sandstone or Shale.

Bearing Capacity Analyses

An RMR rating value of 66 was determined based on the rock condition. Therefore, the rock condition at culvert location is classified as good rock. Table 16 presents computed rock mass strength parameters at the culvert location.

Table 16 – Rock Mass Strength Parameters Location RMR Friction Angle

(deg.)

Cohesion

(psf)

Sta. 63+00 66 59 7,600

An angle of internal friction of 45 degrees along with cohesion value of 6 ksf, were used in our analysis for the shear strength of the rock for the culvert foundation. Based

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

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. Based on our design the bearing resistance at the foundation bottom elevations will be 10 ksf at elevation 1073.

Settlement

Provided that the culvert will directly supported on rock, only elastic settlement (less than 1/2-inches) is anticipated during construction that will occur over a short period of time.

Slope Stability of Cut/Fill Slopes

We recommend that that slopes of 2H: 1V or flatter be used for the fill slopes.

Localized rock slope instabilities may be encountered during excavation. In which case, soil nails or rock bolts or other mitigation measures may be needed to maintain stability.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

General Considerations

Construction shall be performed following the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-03) and the Special Contract Requirements (SCR) provided.

Excavations:

In general, all temporary cut slopes constructed in soils should not be steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V), unless otherwise allowed by OSHA. All excavations are to be performed in accordance with applicable OSHA standards and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03 Specifications. Temporary excavation in fill and/or natural material should be achievable using conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working condition. Any unsuitable materials encountered below proposed footing elevations should be removed. Foundation preparation should be done in accordance with Subsection 208.09 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Ground and Surface Water Management:

On-site soils can be very susceptible to disturbance following contact with water. Control of storm water or seepage water flowing into open excavations may be necessary in order to retain the integrity of the natural bearing soils. The contractor should control the flow of surface water and seepage water into excavations at all times. Storm water collection and control during construction may be performed using collection trenches and sumps, if accumulation does occur. Cofferdams, if needed, should to be designed in accordance with Subsection 208.06 of the FP-03 Specifications.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Backfill Material: Backfill material for the MSE walls should consist of select granular as specified in the FP-03 subsection 704.10. Backfill material should be placed and compacted in lifts not to exceed 12 inches, per Section 204 of the FP-03 Specifications.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and test described in the section Procedures and Results 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 locations and dates indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary. The Geotechnical Design Analysis and Recommendations Sections 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.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

APPENDIX A

Figures

Project: PRA PFH 159-1(2)

Project: PRA PFH 159-1(2)

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATEREG

AR PFH 159-1(2)AR

STANLEY FORMATION

Interbedded gray-black to brownish-green shale with minor quantities of thin- to massive-bedded, fine-grained to silty, feldspathic, brown to gray sandstone.

Some thin black siliceous shales and cherts are also present. Minor conglomeratic and tuff beds occur in the lower part of the unit. Bedded barite is known to occur in the basal part of the unit in the Hot Springs and Glenwood, AR areas. The formation ranges from 1,000 to 12,000 feet in thickness.

ARKANSAS NOVACULITE FORMATION

White, light gray and black novaculite with lesser amounts of gray chert, olive-green to black shale, white to gray siltstones and sandstones.

Novaculite is a nearly pure silica rock and is thin- to massive-bedded. The unit can be split into three members; the lower massive-bedded part, the middle black siliceous shale rich part, and the upper thin-bedded part. The formation ranges from about 60 to 900 feet in thickness.

The best known use for novaculite is as a raw material for whetstones and tripoli.

Source: Geologic Map of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission and U.S. Geological Survey (1993); and Geologic Map of the Ouachita Mountain Region and a Portion of the Arkansas Valley Region in Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission (2006)

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATEREG

AR PFH 159-1(2)AR

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

FIGURE 2

Site Geologic Map

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Project AR PFH 159-1(2)

APPENDIX B

Boring Location Map and Subsurface Profile

...\geotech\CADD\profile.dxf 8/5/2010 3:43:33 PM

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’

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

Medium dense, brown, SILTY SAND (Dry)

-FILL

Medium dense, orange, SILTY SAND [A-4(0)] (Dry)

Dense to very dense, orange, CLAYEY SAND, trace shale fragments [A-4(0)] (Dry)

Borehole termination depth @ 17 ft

0.8 1.4

17.0

1.4

1.9

1.9

1.3

1.8

8-19-5-8

8-16-25-29

8-20-30-29

15-38-50/3

9-13-34-50/3

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture Ty pe

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75"

1168.1 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 5/17/10

HSA

5/17/10 Elias

Kingsley

Project Name:

E le va tio n (fe et

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test Data

B-1

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

Sta. 13+00

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered during auger drilling.

2. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

R ec

SAMPLE

AR PFH 159-1(2) - OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST

Shady Lake Recreational Area, Howard & Polk Counties, AR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

A R

P

FH

-1 (2

)-1 1-

.G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/5 /1

1167.3 1166.7

1151.1

33821"

J-3

J-4

J-5

Medium dense, brown, SILTY SAND (Moist to dry)

-FILL

Medium dense, brown and orange, SILTY SAND [A-2-4(0)] (Moist to dry)

Loose, tan, CLAYEY SAND [A-4(3)] (Moist to dry)

Medium dense, brown, SILTY SAND [A-4(0)] (Moist)

Borehole termination depth @ 17 ft

0.5

5.0

7.0

17.0

1.4

1.6

1.7

1.1

1.9

4-7-10-9

3-4-4-6

10-25-35-50/4

22-50/0

16-30-42-50/4

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture Ty pe

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75"

1148.5 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 5/17/10

HSA

5/17/10 Elias

Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (fe et

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test Data

B-2

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

Sta. 25+00

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered during auger drilling.

2. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

R ec

SAMPLE

AR PFH 159-1(2) - OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST

Shady Lake Recreational Area, Howard & Polk Counties, AR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

A R

P

FH

-1 (2

)-1 1-

.G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/5 /1

1148.0

1143.5

1141.5

1131.5

22"

J-3

J-4

J-5

Medium dense, gray and brown, CLAYEY SAND, some gravel [A-2-4(0)] (Dry)

Medium dense, gray and brown, SILTY SAND , little gravel (Dry)

[A-2-4(0)]

[A-4(0)]

Borehole termination depth @ 15.9 ft (auger refusal)

2.0

15.9

1.6

1.3

1.1

1.0

0.9

3-5-8-6

5-7-4-5

9-22-50/4

37-50/1

30-50/4

(Blows / ft)

8.0 ft Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture Ty pe

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75"

1154.3 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 5/17/10

HSA

5/17/10 Elias

Kingsley Clear

Project Name:

E le va tio n (fe et

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test Data

B-3

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

Sta. 30+00

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. Water entered in from above at 8 ft

2. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

R ec

SAMPLE

AR PFH 159-1(2) - OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST

Shady Lake Recreational Area, Howard & Polk Counties, AR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

A R

P

FH

-1 (2

)-1 1-

.G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/5 /1

1152.3

1138.4

4235"

137"

430"

J-3

J-4

Medium dense to dense, orange-brown, SILTY SAND (Moist to dry) [A-4(0)]

[A-2-4(0)]

Borehole terminated @ 12.5 ft (auger refusal) 12.5

1.5

1.9

2.0

2.0

3-6-6-3

5-18-24-29

9-13-19-28

7-8-20-27

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture Ty pe

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75"

1191.0 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 5/17/10

HSA

5/17/10 Elias

Kingsley Clear

Project Name:

E le va tio n (fe et

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test Data

B-4

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

Sta. 30+50

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered during auger drilling.

2. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

R ec

SAMPLE

AR PFH 159-1(2) - OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST

Shady Lake Recreational Area, Howard & Polk Counties, AR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

A R

P

FH

-1 (2

)-1 1-

.G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/5 /1

1178.5

J-3

J-4

J-5

Loose, orange, SILTY SAND [A-4(0)] (Moist to dry)

Medium dense, orange, CLAYEY SAND (Moist to dry)

Very dense, orange, SILTY SAND [A-4(0)] (Moist to dry)

Borehole termination depth @ 17 ft

5.0

10.0

17.0

1.2

1.8

1.4

0.9

0.4

3-5-3-3

8-11-15-19

16-33-50/4

36-50/4

50/3

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture Ty pe

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75"

1218.3 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 5/17/10

HSA

5/17/10 Elias

Kingsley Clear/Hot

Project Name:

E le va tio n (fe et

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test Data

B-5

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

Sta. 40+00

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered during auger drilling.

2. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

R ec

SAMPLE

AR PFH 159-1(2) - OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST

Shady Lake Recreational Area, Howard & Polk Counties, AR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

A R

P

FH

-1 (2

)-1 1-

.G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/5 /1

1213.3

1208.3

1201.3

43322"

436"

3"

J-3

J-4

J-5

Medium dense, orange-brown, SILTY SAND [A-4(0)] (Dry)

[A-2-4(0)]

Borehole termination depth @ 15.2 ft (auger refusal) 15.2

1.8

2.0

2.0

1.8

0.0

4-8-7-6

8-9-18-26

18-40-36-32

8-15-37-50/3

50/2

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture Ty pe

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75"

1190.0 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 5/17/10

HSA

5/17/10 Elias

Kingsley Clear/Hot

Project Name:

E le va tio n (fe et

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test Data

B-6

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

Sta. 49+00

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered during auger drilling.

2. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

R ec

SAMPLE

AR PFH 159-1(2) - OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST

Shady Lake Recreational Area, Howard & Polk Counties, AR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

A R

P

FH

-1 (2

)-1 1-

.G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/5 /1

1174.8

2"

J-3

J-4

J-5

Medium dense to very dense, orange, CLAYEY SAND, trace silt (Dry) [A-4(0)]

[A-4(2)]

[A-4(1)]

Borehole termination depth @ 13.8 ft (auger refusal) 13.8

1.7

2.0

1.5

1.1

0.8

5-9-12-18

7-19-26-39

15-27-50

20-28-50/3

29-50

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture Ty pe

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75"

1127.9 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 7/17/10

HSA

7/17/10 Thornton Kingsley

Hot

Project Name:

E le va tio n (fe et

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test Data

B-7

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

Sta. 57+60

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered during auger drilling.

2. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

R ec

SAMPLE

AR PFH 159-1(2) - OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST

Shady Lake Recreational Area, Howard & Polk Counties, AR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

A R

P

FH

-1 (2

)-1 1-

.G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/5 /1

1114.1

32826"

C-1

C-2

C-3

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

Recovery = 71%

RQD = 42%

Moder…