Report_2_-_Soils_and_Foundations.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 05-15

PROJECT MS FLTP FS 967(1)

REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE OVER CHOCTAW LAKE SPILLWAY

TOMBIGBEE NATIONAL FOREST

CHOCTAW COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

August 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Project Description

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 Regional Geology

2.2 Soil Survey

2.3 Previous Geotechnical Studies

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil Sampling

3.2 Field Testing

3.3 Laboratory Testing

3.4 Subsurface Conditions

4 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GRS-IBS Abutments

4.1.1 Bridge Loading

4.1.2 Geotechnical Design Parameters

4.1.3 Settlement

4.1.4 External Stability

4.1.5 Internal Stability

4.2 Spillway Foundation

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 GRS-IBS General Construction Requirements

5.1.1 Excavation

5.1.2 GRS Foundation

5.1.3 GRS Facing

5.1.4 Reinforcement Length

5.1.5 Geosynthetics

5.2 Spillway Foundation

6 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Bridge Layout Plans APPENDIX C – Boring Location Map, Subsurface Profile, and Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Data APPENDIX E – Design Calculations APPENDIX F – Representative Photographs APPENDIX G – Reference Materials - Soil data from the 1963&2013 Geotechnical Reports

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 05-15

PROJECT MS FLTP FS 967(1)

REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE OVER CHOCTAW LAKE SPILLWAY

CHOCTAW COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and presents the design analyses and recommendations for Choctaw Lake Spillway Bridge replacement project. The project site is located in Tombigbee National Forest in Choctaw County, Mississippi. The general site location is provided in Figure 1, Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

The project consists of replacement of the Choctaw Lake Spillway Bridge and rehabilitation of the spillway structure. The existing four-span bridge is supported on timber piles. The proposed bridge will be 76 ft long single-span supported on Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS).

A GRS-IBS consists of a reinforced soil foundation (RSF), Geosynthetic-reinforced soils (GRS) abutments, and an integrated reinforced fill approach. The bridge superstructure rests directly on the GRS abutments. GRS-IBS is an accelerated bridge construction technology that offers flexible, simple and rapid construction. The GRS-OBS is considered a cost effective alternative compared to traditional bridge substructure design.

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 Regional Geology

The Geologic Map of Mississippi (1969) indicates that the project site is located within the Ackerman Formation which is a part of the Wilcox group. The Ackerman formation is described as an irregularly bedded and consists of sand, sandstone, clay shale, clay silt, lignite and iron ore. The Geologic Map of the project area is provided in Figure 2, Appendix A.

2.2 Soil Survey

Data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS), obtained through the Web Soil Survey (WSS), was used to determine the major soil map units within the limits of the project area. The data indicates that the project is located within the Maben-Providence Association soil unit. The parent material for this soil unit is generally described as stratified sand to clayey marine deposits. The soil survey map is provided in Figure 3, Appendix A.

Project: MS FLTP FS 967(1) Soils and Foundations Report Tombigbee National Forest No. 05-15 Choctaw County, Mississippi

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

2.3 Previous Geotechnical Studies

Data listed in the 1963 soils investigation report by Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. and the 2013 geotechnical report by Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc., was utilized in our evaluation and analyses of the proposed bridge foundations. Selected information regarding previous investigations is included in Appendix G.

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND CONDITIONS

A subsurface exploration program was conducted from June 3rd to 5th, 2015. The program consisted of drilling four soil borings. Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled in the vicinity of the existing south and north abutments, respectively. Borings B-3 and B-4 were drilled near of the spillway. In addition, two concrete cores, C-1 and C-2, were extracted from the spillway concrete slab. The borings were drilled using a CME-750, rotary, ATV-mounted drill rig. The boring locations were chosen by EFLHD geotechnical engineer based on the accessibility of the drilling rig and proximity of the borings to the existing utilities and structures.

3.1 Soil Sampling

Borings were advanced to their termination depths using 3¾ -inch. (inside diameter) hollow stem augers (HSA). Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed using a 2¼ -inch. (outside diameter) split-spoon sampler in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, Standard Method of Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils. SPT soil samples were typically recovered by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24-inches, or until refusal, into the undisturbed soil under the impact of 140 pounds 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. Auger refusal is defined by 50 blows per 6 inches, or less, of penetration of the split-spoon sampler. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-inch interval was recorded on field boring logs. Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars. All samples were later transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, TN for laboratory testing and storage. Upon completion of drilling, all boreholes were filled and sealed with cement-bentonite grout. The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring are presented on its appropriate boring log in Appendix C.

3.2 Field Testing

The EFLHD subsurface exploration team performed the following field tests and took measurements during the course of the subsurface exploration. A field description by color and texture was made for each recovered sample. The relative consistency of each cohesive sample was estimated using a calibrated pocket Penetrometer. Boring locations were determined by measuring distances from features present on-site and boring elevations were determined from plan topography. The approximate locations of the borings are provided in the Boring Locations Map. The Boring Location Map, Subsurface Profile, and Boring Logs are provided in Appendix C.

The results of the tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheets in the field. These data sheets and logs typically contain information concerning the boring methods; samples attempted and recovered;

indications of the presence of various material such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, etc.; and observations of groundwater. They also contain interpretations by the exploration foreman 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 represent an interpretation of field data and description of the soil samples by the 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 memorandum.

Groundwater level readings were made in the boreholes at the times and under the conditions stated on 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.

3.3 Laboratory Testing

A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to aid in the classification and evaluation of the engineering properties of the existing subsurface soils. Laboratory tests included natural moisture content (AASHTO T-265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89/90) and grain size distribution (AASHTO T-27). The laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix D.

The results summary is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results Boring

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(ft)

MC

PL

LL

PI

Fines

Classification

USCS AASHTO

B-1

J-3 10-12 27.2 25 39 14 89.8 CH/CL(1) A-6(14)

J-5 15-17 32.0 31 73 42 99.0 CH A-7-5(50)

J-7 20-22 24.2 25 55 30 90.5 CH A-7-6(30)

B-2

J-3 10-12 31.0 26 52 26 85.7 CH A-7-6(24)

J-4 15-20 24.2 24 55 31 98.7 CH A-7-6(35)

J-7 23-25 27.3 23 56 33 98.2 CH A-7-6(37)

B-3 J-6 13-15 26.3 30 73 43 99.1 CH A-7-5(51)

B-4

J-6 13-15 23.1 NV NV NP 29.3 SM A-2-4(0)

J-7 18-20 29.3 27 35 8 79.6 ML A-4(7)

MC = Moisture Content; LL = Liquid Limit; PL = Plastic Limit; PI = Plasticity Index; NP = Non-plastic; NV = No Value USCS = Unified Soil Classification System. (1)Sample was taken at the interface of layer below.

3.4 Subsurface Conditions

The soil subsurface profiles provided in Appendix C represent generalized soil conditions that may be anticipated at the proposed bridge abutments locations. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries. Boring elevations were determined from plan topography.

It should be noted that transition between materials may be gradual and that one or more of the soil units may be absent at specific locations. Summary descriptions of the soil conditions encountered during the subsurface exploration are provided below.

Fill – Fill materials were encountered in all of the borings. The fill materials consisted primarily of clay, silty clay and silty sand. Borings B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 yielded fill thicknesses of 9.4 ft, 10.5 ft, 7.2 ft and 10.2 ft, respectively, corresponding to bottom of fill elevations ranging from 461.4 ft to 439.5 ft. N-values recorded in the fill layer for the borings drilled relatively closer to the bridge ranged from 4 to 8 blows per foot (bpf).

Fat Clay –Fat clay (CH) was encountered underneath the fill materials, in all the borings at elevations ranging from 461.4 ft to 439.3 ft with N-values ranging from 10 to greater than 50 bpf.

Clayey Silt – A clayey silt (ML) layer was encountered in borings B-1, B-2 and B-3. In borings B-1 and B-2, medium dense to dense clayey silt was encountered from elevation

439.3 ft to 429.3 ft with N-values ranging from 22 to 34 bpf. In boring B-3, medium dense clayey silt was encountered from elevation 451.4 ft to 448.9 ft with an N-value of 20 bpf.

Silty Sand – A silty sand (SM) layer was encountered in boring B-4 between elevations

439.5 ft and 434 ft with N-values ranging from 3 to 9 bpf.

Silt – Silt (ML) layer was encountered in boring B-4 between elevations 434 ft and 430 ft with an N-value of 31 bpf.

Groundwater– Groundwater was encountered in borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 at depths (elevations) of 47 ft (422.3 ft), 49.8 ft (419.5 ft) and 12 ft (438 ft) respectively. Boring B- 3 caved-in at depth of 15.8 ft (elevation 453.1 ft). Therefore, a reliable depth to groundwater could not be obtained. Fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

4 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing indicated that the proposed bridge can be supported on a deep foundations system consisting of driven or auger cast piles. However, such system is likely to be costly and time consuming.

Supporting single span bridges on GRS-IBS abutments has been gaining a lot of attention and momentum lately because of the significant advantages and flexibilities it offers. The GRS-IBS technology has been adopted by FHWA and many transportation agencies.

GRS-IBS system offers the most economic support system for the proposed bridge.

4.1 GRS-IBS Abutments

The GRS-IBS abutment consists of closely spaced layers of reinforced compacted high quality fill with the superstructure typically placed directly on the geosynthetic reinforced soils (GRS). The abutments are supported on reinforced soil foundation (RSF).

The design analyses of the GRS-IBS included evaluation of internal and external stability of the system as well as settlement. The analyses were performed in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, 2012 and Interim Revisions and FHWA-HRT-11-026 "Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System Interim Implementation Guide".

4.1.1 Bridge Loading

Design parameters provided by the Structural Engineer, are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 – Bridge Data Abutment

Width

(ft)

Bridge Clear Width

Span Length(1)

Total Dead Load Reaction @ Bearing

(Un-factored)

(kip)

Total Live Load Reaction @ Bearing

(Un-Factored)

(kip)

31.25 28 76 333.5 223.6 (1)Distance between the two abutment facings.

4.1.2 Geotechnical Design Parameters

The geotechnical design parameters used for GRS abutments were selected based on the subsurface conditions encountered during the subsurface exploration. The design parameters are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 – Design Parameters for the backfill and In-situ Materials Description Total Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Short-Term Strength

Parameters

Long-Term (Effective) Strength Parameters

(deg) cu (psf)

(deg) c′ (psf)

Foundation Soil 125 0 2000 16 300

Retained Soil/Backfill 125 0 2000 16 300

Reinforced Soil Fill 120 39 0 39 0 RSF &Road base backfill 140 39 0 39 0

RSF = Reinforced Soil Foundation; friction angle; ' effective-friction angle, cu = un-drained cohesion/shear strength; c′ = drained cohesion

4.1.3 Settlement

Our analysis indicated that total settlement in the order of 1.0 inch is anticipated.

4.1.4 External Stability

External stability analyses included sliding, bearing resistance, and overall global stability. Information regarding reinforcement length, abutment height, and foundation dimensions used in the analyses are listed in Table 4. A uniformly distributed load of 417 psf was applied to account for traffic surcharge.

Table 4 –GRS Abutment Dimensions and Reinforcement Lengths GRS Abutment

Height (ft)

Base Length (Btotal)

(1)

RSF

Length (sides)

(ft)

RSF

Depth

(height) (2)

(ft)

Design Bearing Width

(ft)

Length of RSF in front of Facing

7.63 9.5 12 2.5 5.0 2.5 (1)

Base length including CMU facing;

(3)

Minimum depth of excavation should be below scour depth

The results of the external stability analyses are provided in Table 5. The results indicate that the proposed GRS abutments meet or exceed minimum stability requirements. The design analysis is provided in Appendix E.

Table 5 –Summary of External Stability Analysis for GRS Abutments

Failure Mode Actual CDR(1) Minimum Required

CDR(1) Short-term

Long-term

Direct Sliding (GRS-RSF interface) 1.05 1.81 1.0 Direct Sliding (RSF-Foundation soil interface) 1.46 1.41 1.0 Bearing Resistance 1.75 1.13 1.0 (1)

CDR=Capacity-demand ratio.

Global stability analysis was performed using ReSSA (3) computer program. A summary of the results are listed in Table 6 and the analysis output is provided in Appendix E. The results indicate that the proposed GRS abutment meets or exceeds global stability requirements.

Table 6 –Summary of Global Stability Analysis for GRS Abutment Failure Mode Actual FS Required FS

Rotational 1.73 1.5

Translational 1.78 1.5

Three-part wedge failure mechanism 3.37 1.5

4.1.5 Internal Stability

Internal stability analysis to determine nominal capacity of the GRS abutment was performed using the analytical method (soil-geosynthetic capacity method) described in the FHWA-HRT-11-026 manual. The input data and results of the analysis are presented in Table 7. The results indicate that the proposed GRS abutment satisfies minimum vertical capacity requirements. The design analysis is provided in Appendix E.

Table 7 –Results of Internal Stability Analysis (Analytical Method) Description Unit Value

Reinforcement vertical spacing (Sv) inches 8 Maximum particle size, inches (dmax) inches 1.0 Ultimate reinforcement strength (Tf) lb/ft 4,800 Factored-Applied stress on top of GRS mass (Vapplied) psf 5,773 Nominal load-carrying capacity of the foundation using the analytical method (qnan) psf 19,670

Factored load-carrying capacity of the foundation using the analytical method (cap*qnan) psf 8,851 cap (resistance factor) =0.45

The maximum required reinforcement strength was also computed using the equation described in the FHWA-HRT-11-026 manual, Section 4.4.7.3 and was checked against the allowable reinforcement strength of 1,370 lb/ft (i.e., using a factor of safety of 3.5).

The design calculation is provided in Appendix E.

4.2 Spillway Foundation

No boring was conducted inside the spillway structure during the recent subsurface exploration. However, information from the 1963 soil investigation report indicated that the soil in the vicinity of the spillway was generally firm and an allowable bearing capacity value of 3,600 psf was assigned for the spillway foundation.

The condition of the existing spillway concrete slab foundation is unknown. However, we anticipate deterioration of the subgrade material due to water seeping through slab joints and cracks in the spillway. This might also include the loss of subgrade material.

We recommend the following for the reconstruction of the spillway slab:

1. Remove the existing concrete slab.

2. Remove any crushed stone/riprap material supporting the concrete slab, if encountered.

3. Undercut the exposed subgrade to a minimum depth of 2 ft and remove all soft, wet, loose, and unsuitable materials.

4. Place a separation geotextile on top of the newly exposed subgrade.

5. Replace the excavated materials using a Cellular Confinement System (CCS) filled with No. 57 stone.

6. Pour the concrete slab.

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 GRS-IBS General Construction Requirements

Construction procedures are outlined in Chapter 7 of the FHWA-HRT-11-026 "Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System Interim Implementation Guide".

5.1.1 Excavation

In general, all temporary cut slopes constructed in soils should not be steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V). All excavations are to be performed in accordance with applicable OSHA, federal, state, and county requirements and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-14 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 foundation elevations should be removed and replaced with suitable material.

5.1.2 GRS Foundation

The GRS foundation subgrades should not be left exposed to rain, flooding, or weathering conditions. It is recommended to place the geosynthetics reinforcement and select granular backfill immediately after excavation or to cover the GRS foundation subgrades with plastic during wet weather. It is not recommended to sub-excavate below the planned bottom of the GRS foundation.

The excavations should be kept dry at all times and control of storm 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 and seepage water into excavations at all times. Storm water collection and control during construction may be achieved using collection trenches and sumps, if accumulation does occur. All dewatering must be conducted in a manner that avoids undermining foundation subgrades and limits the pumping of fines.

5.1.3 GRS Facing

The CMU will insure compaction every 8-inch lift before placement of the next geosynthetic layer. The CMU should have minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi and water absorption limit of 5 percent.

5.1.4 Reinforcement Length

Extend reinforcement length as specified and provided in the plan with except to the upper layers that should be extended beyond the cut slope to prevent moisture infiltration.

5.1.5 Geosynthetics

Furnish geosynthetics consisting of geogrid or geotextile for the GRS abutment. Furnish geotextile for the RSF and integrated approach.

Geosynthetics material may be manufactured from Polypropylene (PP), High Density

Polyethylene (HDPE) or Polyester (PET).

Geosynthetics can be either uniaxial or biaxial. When a uniaxial type is used, the higher strength axis must be placed perpendicular to the wall face.

Furnish geosynthetic composed of a minimum ultimate tensile strength of 4,800 lb/ft according to ASTM D 4595 for geotextile or ASTM D 6637 for geogrid.

Geosynthetic reinforcement strength at 2 percent strain shall be greater than the unfactored required reinforcement strength.

5.2 Spillway Foundation

The spillway foundation subgrades should not be left exposed to rain, flooding, or weathering conditions. The excavations should be kept dry at all times and control of storm 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 and seepage water into excavations at all times. Storm water collection and control during construction may be achieved using collection trenches and sumps, if accumulation does occur. All dewatering must be conducted in a manner that avoids undermining foundation subgrades and limits the pumping of fines.

6 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface exploration 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 explorations and tests represent conditions at the specific locations and dates 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.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

APPENDIX A

Figures

3MS

FIGURE 1

Site Location and Vicinity Map

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

STATEREG

MS FLTP FS 967(1)

TOTAL

SHEETS

Project: MS FLTP FS 967(1)

Source:

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

TOTAL

SHEETS

3MS FLTP FS 967(1)MS

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATEREG

Geologic Map of Mississippi (1969) U.S. Geological Survey

Wilcox Formation, Irregularly bedded fine to coarse sand, more or less lignitic clay and lignite; includes bauxite bearing Fearn Springs sand member at base.

MS FLTP FS 967(1)

Choctaw Lake Road

MP-Maben-Providence association, hilly, 12 to 35 percent slopes Parent material: Stratified sandy to clayey marine deposits

Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: silt loam H2 - 5 to 22 inches: clay H3 - 22 to 35 inches: stratified loam to weathered bedrock H4 - 35 to 67 inches: stratified fine sandy loam to weathered bedrock

Ce-Chenneby silt loam, occasionally flooded, 0 to 2 percent slopes Parent material: Silty alluvium deposits

Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: silt loam H2 - 9 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam

TaC2-Tippah silt loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded Parent material: Loess deposits

Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: silt loam H2 - 5 to 28 inches:silty clay loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: silty clay

Source:

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

TOTAL

SHEETS

STATE

MS

Available Soil Survey Data, Monday, April 20, 2015 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

FIGURE 3

SOIL SURVEY MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

REG

MS FLTP FS 967(1)

Project: MS FLTP FS 967(1)

Available Soil Survey Data

APPENDIX B

Bridge Layout Plans

R03

-A u g -2

:0

A M

M

P R

O J E

C T

S F

S M

S p tn r d e l\ m s f lt p f s (1

B r id g e M ic r o s ta ti o n B r id g e

D e s ig n

F il e s P

R O J E

C T

S .d g n

NO. DATE BY REVISIONS NO. DATE BY REVISIONS

Notes:

1.

PLAN AND ELEVATION

'' = 1'-0'' 8

A C

T U

A L F I L E R

M S F L T P F S P

E .D

G N

PLAN

ELEVATION

Bridge length: 88'-6"

Begin Bridge

Elev. 470.28

Sta. 21+93.25

P T

.1

22+00 23+0022+50

P T

.8

21+50 N 32° 13' 33'' E

End Bridge

Elev. 469.60

Sta. 22+81.75

S

' 2

'' E

POT 2+00 Spillway

POT 22+37.09 on

BL

Roadway

StructureCL

CL 1

SpillwayBL

Choctaw Lake Road

88'-6"

W-Beam Steel Guardail

TXDOT Type T631LS

Choctaw Lake Road wall (Typ.)

spillway side

Top of proposed

4" dia. waterline

Remove and install reconstruction and replaced after spillway to be temporarily removed

Existing pedestrian bridge covered riprap side slope concrete spillway and concrete

Remove and replace existing

-0.769%

@ 16' right of Rdwy.

Approx. Existing ground

BL Spillway Box Beams

Prestressed

(Typ.)

ground line

Proposed

ABUTMENT 1

GRS-IBS

ABUTMENT 2

GRS-IBS

CL Proposed spillway450

PROFILE GRADE

NO SCALE

E le v .4

V P I S ta

E le v .5

V P I S ta

E le v .3

V P

T S ta

E le v .5

V P

C S ta

-0.769%

E le v .7

V P

T S ta

5-7.925%

50' VC

K = 7

K = 14

40' VC

-3.563% Bridge sidewalk

Existing wood board information.

See ''SPILLWAY DETAILS - 1'' sheet for additional1.

N

See Detail E617-22A

Cable Releasing End Terminal (Typ.)

STATE PROJECT

NUMBER

SHEET

MS MS FLTP FS 967(1)

PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY

Dan WestonOA OA DW of

DATE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BRP NO.BRIDGE PLAN SHEET

BRP-122724

TOMBIGBEE NATIONAL FOREST

CHOCTAW LAKE BRIDGE AND SPILLWAY REPLACEMENT

R04

-A u g -2

M

P R

O J E

C T

S F

S M

S p tn r d e l\ m s f lt p f s (1

B r id g e M ic r o s ta ti o n B r id g e

D e s ig n

F il e s P

R O J E

C T

S .d

Ashpalt

Sand

Clay

Gravel

Fill

Clayey Silt

Sta. 21+89.17, 4.83' LT Sta. 22+84.66, 5.75' RT

PLAN

ELEVATION

" = 1'-0"8

N

Roadway

StructureCL

CL

22+00 22+50 23+00

B-1

B-2

P T

.8

P T

.1

Choctaw Lake Road Choctaw Lake Road

N 32° 13' 33'' E

Note:

1.

@ 16' right of Rdwy.

Approx. Existing ground

CL@ Rdwy.

Existing ground

Profile grade

BORING LOGS

A C

T U

A L F I L E R

M S F L T P F S

B O

R I N

G

L O

G S .D

G N

53/2.0

18/2.0

19/2.0

22/2.0

74/2.0

30/2.0

23/2.0

4/0.7

10/1.2

24/2.0

4/1.0

16/2.0

20/2.0

14/1.8

1.1

0.3

13.5

21/2.0

18.5

38.5

7/1.0

8/1.5

10/1.8

8/2.0

8/1.9

1.7

1.3

0.3

11.1

33.5

22/2.0

29/2.0

23/2.0

24/2.0

22/2.0

22/2.0

26/2.0

34/1.6

64/2.0

18/2.0

Subsurface conditions may vary between boring.

conditions encountered at the boring locations shown.

Boring logs on this sheet represent the subsurface of

DATE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TOMBIGBEE NATIONAL FOREST

CHOCTAW LAKE BRIDGE AND SPILLWAY REPLACEMENT

August 2016

PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY

Dan WestonOA OA DW

STATE PROJECT

NUMBER

SHEET

MS MS FLTP FS 967(1)

LEGEND

N

Rec. Recovery (ft)

Standard Penetration Test

Resistance in Blows per Foot

N/Rec

B-2

Depth (ft)Depth (ft) N/Rec

B-1

R05

-A u g -2

M

P R

O J E

C T

S F

S M

S p tn r d e l\ m s f lt p f s (1

B r id g e M ic r o s ta ti o n B r id g e

D e s ig n

F il e s P

R O J E

C T

S .d

Notes:

KEY

Foam board

Aggregate base

Solid CMU

Hollow CMU

Hollow CMU filled with concrete and rebar

Reinforced Soil Foundation

Concrete masonry unit

RSF

CMU

" = 1'-0"8

A C

T U

A L F I L E R

M S F L T P F S

G R

S I B

S

A B

T .D

G N

EL. 459.39

EL. 456.89

"2 111'-8 "2

111'-8"2 11'-7 "2

11'-7 opening

4" Dia. waterline

B

B

(Typ.)

coping

Wet cast

R S F

ELEVATION

no vertical joints greater than one CMU block height.

CMU blocks are staggered, including corners, so there are

Utilities not shown for clarity.

''GRS-IBS DETAILS-3'' sheet for SECTION B-B.

See ''GRS-IBS DETAILS-1'' sheet for SECTION A-A, and

A

A

2'-6""2 115'-7"2

115'-72'-6"

B B

Beam seat zone Begin Bridge

(T y p

Wingwall B with geotextile

Aggregate base wrapped

Structure CL CLRoadway

PLAN

GRS-IBS ABUTMENT - 1

N ground line

Proposed

Structure CL

14'-0"14'-0" with geotextile

Aggregate base wrapped

EL. 464.47 EL. 464.47

EL. 459.39

EL. 456.89

Wingwall A

W in g w a ll

T y p

Wingwall B (folded out) Wingwall A (folded out)

EL. 469.55* EL. 469.55*

EL. 469.55* EL. 469.55*

CMU's and corner CMU's and fill with concrete Class A(AE).

Insert 20-inch long #4 epoxy rebars into the top 3 rows of of abutment

Front face

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

* Elevation is at top of CMU block.

EL. 467.01* EL. 467.01*

1-inch thick and slope to drain.

On the top row of CMU's create a mortar capping approx.

STATE PROJECT

NUMBER

SHEET

MS MS FLTP FS 967(1)

PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY

Dan WestonOA OA DW of

DATE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TOMBIGBEE NATIONAL FOREST

R06

-A u g -2

M

P R

O J E

C T

S F

S M

S p tn r d e l\ m s f lt p f s (1

B r id g e M ic r o s ta ti o n B r id g e

D e s ig n

F il e s P

R O J E

C T

S .d

KEY

Foam board

Aggregate base

Solid CMU

Hollow CMU

Hollow CMU filled with concrete and rebar

Reinforced Soil Foundation

Concrete masonry unit

RSF

CMU

" = 1'-0"8

A C

T U

A L F I L E R

M S F L T P F S

G R

S I B

S

A B

T .D

G N

EL. 458.80

EL. 456.30

"2 111'-8 "2

111'-8"2 11'-7 "2

11'-7

B

B

(Typ.)

coping

Wet cast

R S F

ELEVATION

A

A

2'-6""2 115'-7"2

115'-72'-6"

B B

Beam seat zone

(T y p with geotextile

Aggregate base wrapped

Structure CL CLRoadway

PLAN

GRS-IBS ABUTMENT - 2

ground line

Proposed

Structure CL

14'-0"14'-0" with geotextile

Aggregate base wrapped

N

EL. 463.89 EL. 463.89

EL. 458.80

EL. 456.30

opening

4" Dia. Waterline

Wingwall C Wingwall D

EL. 468.97*

EL. 468.97* EL. 468.97*

EL. 466.43* EL. 466.43*

EL. 468.97*

of abutment

Front face

End Bridge

Wingwall C (folded out) Wingwall D (folded out)

Notes:

no vertical joints greater than one CMU block height.

CMU blocks are staggered, including corners, so there are

Utilities not shown for clarity.

''GRS-IBS DETAILS-3'' sheet for SECTION B-B.

See ''GRS-IBS DETAILS-1'' sheet for SECTION A-A, and

CMU's and corner CMU's and fill with concrete Class A(AE).

Insert 20-inch long #4 epoxy rebars into the top 3 rows of

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

* Elevation is at top of CMU block.

1-inch thick and slope to drain.

On the top row of CMU's create a mortar capping approx.

W in g w a ll

T y p

STATE PROJECT

NUMBER

SHEET

MS MS FLTP FS 967(1)

PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY

Dan WestonOA OA DW of

DATE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TOMBIGBEE NATIONAL FOREST

R07

-A u g -2

M

P R

O J E

C T

S F

S M

S p tn r d e l\ m s f lt p f s (1

B r id g e M ic r o s ta ti o n B r id g e

D e s ig n

F il e s P

R O J E

C T

S .d

Notes:

1.

A

C T

U A

L F I L E R

M S F L T P F S

G R

S I B

S

D T S .D

G N

GRS-IBS DETAILS - 1

KEY

Foam board

Solid CMU

Hollow CMU

Hollow CMU filled with concrete and rebar

RSF

CMU

Aggregate base

Open Graded Backfill

As shown

SECTION A-A

Scale 12'' = 1'-0''

Scale 34'' = 1'-0''

DETAIL A

5'-0"13'-0" reinforcement

Geosynthetic

(See Note 4) block face

GRS wall CMU

S o li d C

M U

L a y e r s

H o ll o w C

M U

L a y e r s

C M

U fi ll e d

C o n c r e te

L a y e r s

C lr s p a c e

Bridge beam

Bridge deck

2'-6"9'-6"

12'-0"

1H backfill

GRS open-graded

(See Note 7)

Excavation limits z o n e a p p r o a c h

I te g r a te

Aggregate Base See DETAIL A

Begin/End bridge

6'-6"

G R

S z o n e z o n e s e a t

B e a m z o n e

Aggregate base

(See Note 5) reinforcement (Typ.)

Bearing bed geosynthetic a p p r o a c h

I n te g r a

B a r in g b e d top of beam geotextile and

2" Min. between Top of roadway reinforcement tail (Typ.)

Wrap 4-foot geosynthetic

Aluminum flashing

2" Clr. from top

#4 Epoxy Rebar, Vertical wall face batter = 0°.

maximum of 6-feet with a conventional 4-foot tail.

The first beam seat reinforcement layer length is a girders, slope to drain.

Strike CMU concrete fill flush with top of CMU's under bridge specified cannot be obtained.

than 30 days or if the required short term back slope ratio be required if the short term back slope will be open more

(29CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, excavation). Shoring may

Short term back slope ratio per OSHA Safety Regulations approach is a maximum of 12 inches.

Primary wrap reinforcement vertical spacing for the intergrated

G R

S o p e n g r a d e d b a c k fi ll z o n e

R S F geotextile wrapped with

Aggregate base

Minimum of 5 layers of bearing bed reinforcement.

Top of roadway CMU's and corner CMU's and fill with concrete Class A(AE).

Insert 20-inch long #4 epoxy rebars into the top 3 rows of

EL. A

EL. B

two courses of CMU blocks to accept rebar and concrete.

Cut "X" into bottom geosynthetic reinforcement of upper

8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

foam board

4" x 12" or two layer of 2" x 12"

Reinforced Soil Foundation

Concrete masonry unit

ELEVATION TABLE

ELEVATION Abutment 1 Abutment 2

A

B 467.01 466.43

467.27 466.68

STATE PROJECT

NUMBER

SHEET

MS MS FLTP FS 967(1)

PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY

Dan WestonOA OA DW of

DATE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TOMBIGBEE NATIONAL FOREST

R08

-A u g -2

M

P R

O J E

C T

S F

S M

S p tn r d e l\ m s f lt p f s (1

B r id g e M ic r o s ta ti o n B r id g e

D e s ig n

F il e s P

R O J E

C T

S .d

Notes:

GRS-IBS DETAILS - 2

A C

T U

A L F I L E R

M S F L T P F S

G R

S I B

S

D T S .D

G N

" = 1'-0"2

"8 55'-5 6'-3"

KEY

Foam board

Solid CMU

Hollow CMU

Hollow CMU filled with concrete and rebar

Reinforced Soil Foundation

Concrete masonry unit

RSF

CMU

Aggregate base

Open Graded Backfill

Begin/End bridge

(Typ.)

coping Wet cast Top of roadway

R S F geotextile wrapped with

Aggregate base

Solid CMU

(See Note 5) block face

GRS wall CMU fi ll e d C

M U c o n c r

L a y e r s

H o ll o w C

M U

L a y e r s

S o li d C

U

L a y e r s

(See Note 6)

Excavation limits backfill

GRS open-graded

Aggregate base no vertical joints greater than one CMU block height.

CMU blocks are staggered, including corners, so there are

Vertical wall face batter = 0°.

specified cannot be obtained.

than 30 days or if the required short term back slope ratio be required if the short term back slope will be open more

(29CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, excavation). Shoring may

Short term back slope ratio per OSHA Safety Regulations6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

WINGWALL ELEVATION

CMU's and corner CMU's and fill with concrete Class A(AE).

Insert 20-inch long #4 epoxy rebars into the top 3 rows of

12'-0"

2'-6"9'-6"

(Wingwall B shown) two courses of CMU blocks to accept rebar and concrete.

Cut "X" into bottom geosynthetic reinforcement of upper

1-inch thick and slope to drain.

On the top row of CMU's create a mortar capping approx.

StructureCL

Wingwall A

Wingwall B

Wingwall C

Wingwall D

Abutment 2Abutment 1

RoadwayCL ground line

Proposed

STATE PROJECT

NUMBER

SHEET

MS MS FLTP FS 967(1)

PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY

Dan WestonOA OA DW of

DATE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TOMBIGBEE NATIONAL FOREST

R09

-A u g -2

M

P R

O J E

C T

S F

S M

S p tn r d e l\ m s f lt p f s (1

B r id g e M ic r o s ta ti o n B r id g e

D e s ig n

F il e s P

R O J E

C T

S .d

Notes:

1.

A

C T

U A

L F I L E R

M S F L T P F S

G R

S I B

S

D T S .D

G N

GRS-IBS DETAILS - 3

KEY

Foam board

Solid CMU

Hollow CMU

Hollow CMU filled with concrete and rebar

Reinforced Soil Foundation

Concrete masonry unit

RSF

CMU

Aggregate base

Open Graded Backfill

Vertical wall face batter = 0°.

" = 1'-0"2

SECTION B-B

geotextile wrapped with

Aggregate base b e d z o n e

R S

F G

R S

B e a r in g

Beam seat zone z o n e a p p r o a c h

I n te g r a

2'-9""2 11'-10

Solid CMU

Hollow CMU backfill

GRS, open-graded reinforcement

Geosynthetic

CMU with #4 rebar

Concrete filled hollow

(Typ.)

coping Wet cast

11'-0"

Structure CL CLRoadway

"2 115'-7

Aggregate base Roadway

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

CRT post

CMU's and corner CMU's and fill with concrete Class A(AE).

Insert 20-inch long #4 epoxy rebars into the top 3 rows of two courses of CMU blocks to accept rebar and concrete.

Cut "X" into bottom geosynthetic reinforcement of upper

1-inch thick and slope to drain.

On the top row of CMU's create a mortar capping approx.

method to install CRT post.

Install CRT post in a pre-aguered hole, submit for approval

STATE PROJECT

NUMBER

SHEET

MS MS FLTP FS 967(1)

PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY

Dan WestonOA OA DW of

DATE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TOMBIGBEE NATIONAL FOREST

APPENDIX C

Boring Location Map, Subsurface Profiles, and Boring Logs

1.0

1.5

1.9

2.0

1.8

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.6

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.2

0.7

1.0

1.8

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

LEGEND

N SUBSURFACE PROFILE

SHEET NO.

E le va tio n (f t)

Groundwater depth encountered during drilling.

Rec.

STATE PROJECT

Rock Quality Designation (%)

E le va tio n (f t)

Recovery (ft)

RQD

Standard Penetration Test Resistance in Blows per Foot

Groundwater depth at boring completion. ASPHALT GRAVEL SAND FILL CLAY

CLAYEY

SILT

THE BORING LOGS ON THIS SHEET REPRESENT THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED

AT THE BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY VARY BETWEEN THESE LOCATIONS.

Groundwater depth monitored after boring completion.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

MS FLTP FS 967(1)

X

S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E P

R O

F

IL

E

2/

/1

3:

M :\P

R O

JE

C

T S

F

S \M

S \P

T N

R _D

E L\

M S

_F

LT

P _F

S _9

(1

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

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\2

B

O R

IN

G

S \C

H O

C T

A W

L A

K E

S P

IL

LW

A Y

_M E

.G P

J

0.3 1.3 1.7

11.1

33.5

Depth (ft) N B-1

Rec.

0.3 1.1

13.5

18.5

38.5

Depth (ft) N B-2

Rec.

B-1 B-2

1.2

1.0

1.3

1.3

1.5

1.8

1.9

2.0

1.1

1.5

1.5

1.8

1.6

1.3

1.7

1.5

LEGEND

N SUBSURFACE PROFILE

SHEET NO.

E le va tio n (f t)

Groundwater depth encountered during drilling.

Rec.

STATE PROJECT

Rock Quality Designation (%)

E le va tio n (f t)

Recovery (ft)

RQD

Standard Penetration Test Resistance in Blows per Foot

Groundwater depth at boring completion. TOPSOIL FILL CLAY CLAYEY

SILT TOP SOIL

SILTY SAND

SILT WITH

SOME F

SAND

THE BORING LOGS ON THIS SHEET REPRESENT THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED

AT THE BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY VARY BETWEEN THESE LOCATIONS.

Groundwater depth monitored after boring completion.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

MS FLTP FS 967(1)

X

S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E P

R O

F

IL

E

2/

/1

3:

M :\P

R O

JE

C

T S

F

S \M

S \P

T N

R _D

E L\

M S

_F

LT

P _F

S _9

(1

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

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\2

B

O R

IN

G

S \C

H O

C T

A W

L A

K E

S P

IL

LW

A Y

_M E

.G P

J

0.3 0.8

2.5

7.5

17.5

Depth (ft) N B-3

Rec.

0.3

10.5

Depth (ft) N B-4

Rec.

B-3 B-4

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.

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

0.3

1.3 1.7

11.1

18.0

30.0

1.0

1.5

1.9

2.0

1.8

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

2.25

2.0

2.0

4.0

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

ASPHALT PAVEMENT (3.6")

ROADWAY BASE (15.6") (Crushed stone) (Dry)

ROADWAY SUBBASE (4.8"), loose , Sand, some medium gravel (Dry)

Medium stiff, brownish gray, FAT CLAY (CH), trace sand [A-6(14)] (Moist)

-FILL-

Medium stiff to stiff, gray, brown and black, FAT CLAY (CH) , trace organic [A-7-5(50)] (Moist to wet)

Very stiff, some silt [A-7-6(30)] below 18'

6-3-4-3

1-3-5-6

2-3-5-8

3-3-5-6

2-4-6-7

6-10-12-15

6-10-12-16

6-10-14-17

6-12-14-18

6-7-11-15

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Clear 87 F

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 1371990.67 Easting: 890477.71

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Tombigbee National Forest Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

469.3 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

6/4/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

- Borehole filled with cement-bentonite grout tremie after completion of drilling and sampling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

47.0 ft

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

6/4/15 D. Hutchins B. KingsleyOperator:

Bridge Abutment-South hrs

47.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MS FLTP FS 967(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA

B-1

P P

3 3/4"

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/9 /1

:3

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

F

S \M

S \P

T N

R

D E

L\ M

S _F

LT

P

_F S

_9

(1

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 V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \2

B O

R

IN

G S

\C H

O C

T A

W L

A K

E S

P

IL

LW

A

Y _M

E .G

P J

469.0

468.0 467.6

458.2

451.3

439.3

Sheet: 1 of 2

J-11

J-12

J-13

J-14

J-15

33.5

40.0

52.0

2.0

1.6

2.0

2.0

2.0

4.5

3.0

3.25

4.0

4.5

Hard, gray and black below 30'

Dense, gray, CLAYEY SILT (ML), trace sand (Moist to wet)

Hard, gray, FAT CLAY (CH), some silt (Moist)

End of Boring at 52.0 ft

11-36-28-45

7-13-21-33

7-10-13-19

8-14-15-18

6-9-13-13

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Clear 87 F

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 1371990.67 Easting: 890477.71

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Tombigbee National Forest Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

469.3 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

6/4/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

- Borehole filled with cement-bentonite grout tremie after completion of drilling and sampling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

47.0 ft

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

6/4/15 D. Hutchins B. KingsleyOperator:

Bridge Abutment-South hrs

47.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MS FLTP FS 967(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA

B-1

P P

3 3/4"

B O

R

IN

G L

O

/9 /1

:3

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

F

S \M

S \P

T N

R

D E

L\ M

S _F

LT

P

_F S

_9

(1

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 V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \2

B O

R

IN

G S

\C H

O C

T A

W L

A K

E S

P

IL

LW

A

Y _M

E .G

P J

435.8

429.3

417.3

Sheet: 2 of 2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

0.3 1.1

3.0

13.5

18.5

28.0

30.0

1.2

0.7

1.0

1.8

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

0.5

0.5

4.0

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

ASPHALT PAVEMENT (3.6")

ROADWAY BASE (9.6") (Crushed stone) (Dry)

ROADWAY SUBBASE (22.8") , loose, reddish brown, coarse SAND, with medium gravel (Dry)

Soft, brownish gray, FAT CLAY (CH) [A-7-6(24)] (Moist)

-FILL-

Stiff, light gray, FAT CLAY (CH) [A-7-6(35)] (Moist)

Very stiff, brownish gray, [A-7-6(37)] below 18.5'

Slight iron deposit at end of spoon 25'

Hard, black to light gray below 28'

4-6-4-3

1-2-2-2

1-2-2-3

3-6-8-11

5-9-11-14

5-7-9-12

5-8-11-14

4-7-11-12

5-20-33-27

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Clear 83 F

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 1372065.93 Easting: 890537.69

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Tombigbee National Forest Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

469.3 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

6/5/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

- Borehole filled with cement-bentonite grout tremie after completion of drilling and sampling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

49.8 ft

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

6/5/15 D. Hutchins B. KingsleyOperator:

Bridge Abutment-North hrs

49.8 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MS FLTP FS 967(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA

B-2

P P

3 3/4"

B O

R

IN

G L

O

/9 /1

:3

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

F

S \M

S \P

T N

R

D E

L\ M

S _F

LT

P

_F S

_9

(1

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 V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \2

B O

R

IN

G S

\C H

O C

T A

W L

A K

E S

P

IL

LW

A

Y _M

E .G

P J

469.0 468.2

466.3

455.8

450.8

441.3

439.3

Sheet: 1 of 2

J-10

J-11

J-12

J-13

J-14

J-15

38.5

42.0

52.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

2.5

2.5

2.5

4.0

4.5

Medium dense to dense, light to dark gray, CLAYEY

SILT (ML)

(Moist)

Hard, light gray to black, friable FAT CLAY (CH) (Moist)

Very stiff, light to dark gray, some silt below 42'

End of Boring 52.0 ft

6-9-13-18

5-10-13-16

5-12-18-24

12-45-29-32

4-9-12-15

7-10-14-16

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Clear 83 F

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 1372065.93 Easting: 890537.69

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Tombigbee National Forest Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

469.3 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

6/5/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

- Borehole filled with cement-bentonite grout tremie after completion of drilling and sampling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

49.8 ft

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

6/5/15 D. Hutchins B. KingsleyOperator:

Bridge Abutment-North hrs

49.8 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MS FLTP FS 967(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA

B-2

P P

3 3/4"

B O

R

IN

G L

O

/9 /1

:3

M

P

R O

JE

C

T S

F

S \M

S \P

T N

R

D E

L\ M

S _F

LT

P

_F S

_9

(1

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 V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \2

B O

R

IN

G S

\C H

O C

T A

W L

A K

E S

P

IL

LW

A

Y _M

E .G

P J

430.8

427.3

417.3

Sheet: 2 of 2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

0.3 0.8

2.5

7.5

17.5

20.0

1.2

1.0

1.3

1.3

1.5

1.8

1.9

2.0

1.75

1.5

3.0

2.5

4.25

4.5

4.0

TOPSOIL (3.6")

Very loose, reddish brown, SILTY SAND , trace gravel (6") (Dry)

-FILL-

Soft, brownish gray, SILTY CLAY (Moist)

-FILL-

Medium stiff, brownish gray, FAT CLAY (CH), trace silt (Moist)

-FILL-

Stiff to very stiff, brownish gray to black, FAT CLAY (CH), trace silt [A-7-5(51)] (Moist)

Medium dense, brown, CLAYEY SILT (ML) , trace sand (Moist)

End of Boring 20.0 ft

1-2-2-2

2-2-4-5

1-2-4-3

1-4-6-6

3-4-6-7

1-6-7-9

6-9-13-15

6-9-11-15

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

P. Cloudy 78 F

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 1371967.52 Easting: 890496.45

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Tombigbee National Forest Project Datum:

15.8 ft

(Blows / ft)

468.9 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

6/3/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

- Borehole filled with cement-bentonite grout tremie after completion of drilling and sampling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in…