Geotech Report.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

REPORT NO. 02-20

MO_ERFO_NPS_OZAR_2017-1(1)

JACKS FORK AND ALLEY SPRING BRIDGES REPLACEMENT

SHANNON COUNTY, MISSOURI

OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

April 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT PAGE

INTRODUCTION

General Project Description

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

General Sampling Field Tests and Measurements Data Summary Laboratory Testing

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Regional Geology Stratification

DESIGN ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Jacks Fork Bridge Alley Spring Bridge

REFERENCES

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Borings Location Plans and Subsurface Profiles APPENDIX C – Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Data APPENDIX E – Selected Photographs

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

Project: MO_ERFO_NPS_OZAR_2017-1(1) Bridge Replacement Ozark National Scenic Riverway Soils and Foundation Report Shannon County, MO No. 02-20

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION STERLING, VA

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

REPORT NO. 02-20

MO_ERFO_NPS_OZAR_2017-1(1)

JACKS FORK AND ALLEY SPRING BRIDGES REPLACEMENT

SHANNON COUNTY, MISSOURI

OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY

INTRODUCTION

General This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analysis and provides our evaluations and recommendations for the replacement of Jacks Fork and Alley Spring Bridges in Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Shannon County, Missouri.

A site location and vicinity map is presented in Figure 1, Appendix A.

Project Description

Jacks Fork and Alley Spring Bridges were damaged during the April 2017 flood event.

We understand that the flood water caused the bents at Jacks Fork bridge to tilt and detach from the foundation, making the bridge unsafe and in need for replacement. At the Alley Spring, the flood water washed away the entire superstructure leaving behind the abutment at the west end.

The new Jacks Fork and Alley Spring Bridges will be approximately 450 ft, and 60 ft long, respectively.

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

General

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division’s (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team performed the drilling and coring operations for this project in March of 2019. The field operations included drilling four (4) soil borings and performing rock coring in the proximity of the existing abutments.

Soil borings were staked out by EFLHD field personnel by referencing ground-surface topography, measuring distances from existing surface features, and estimating right-angles, as well as using a hand-held GIS equipment. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were determined from the topography plans provided by EFL’s Survey Team. Prior to rock coring, borings were advanced to auger refusal or boring termination depths using hollow-stem augers by a CME 750 ATV-mounted rotary drill rig. Rock core samples were retrieved using an NQ core barrel and wireline. Upon completion of rock coring, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings and patched with cold asphalt mix. The approximate location of borings and cores are graphically depicted on the Borings Location Plans and Subsurface Profiles presented in Appendix B.

Sampling

Borings were advanced to the auger refusal or boring termination depths using 3¾-in.

(inside diameter) hollow stem augers. Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was performed using a 2¼-in. (outside diameter) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T206. SPT soil samples were typically recovered at 2.5 and 5-foot intervals. Samples were obtained by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24-in., 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-in. 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.

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

Field Tests and Measurements

The EFLHD geotechnical crew performed 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. Percent core recovery (CR) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values were determined for each core run.

Data Summary

The results of field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheets in the field. These data sheets and logs contain information concerning the boring methods, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, 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 in Appendix C represent a compilation of field and laboratory data and descriptions of the soil and rock samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally may not include all data recorded on driller’s logs and field data sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this report.

Groundwater level readings were made in the boreholes at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. 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 samples and rock cores recovered during the subsurface exploration. The primary purpose of the testing program was to aid in classification and evaluation of the engineering properties of soils and rock present at the site. Laboratory tests included natural moisture content (AASHTO T-265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89 & T-90), particle size analysis (AASHTO T- 88), and classification (AASHTO M-145) on soil samples. Compressive strength (ASTM D7012) tests were performed on representative rock core samples to evaluate their strength parameters. All tests were conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM/AASHTO standard test methods. The results of the laboratory testing program are presented in Appendix D and summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below:

Table 1 – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results Boring

No.

Sample

No.

Sample Depth

(ft.)

Gravel

Sand

Fines

Moisture Content (%)

BH19-01 J-4 8-10 27.8 26.8 45.4 25.2

BH19-01 J-9 20-22 43.3 52.9 3.8 11.8

BH19-02 J-6 13-15 45.0 52.8 2.2 14.3

BH19-02 J-4 8-10 29.5 67.8 2.7 7.8

BH19-03 J-4 8-10 8.8 87.0 4.2 16.0

BH19-04 J-5 10-12 41.8 52.7 5.5 26.5

BH19-04 J-2 3-5 23.7 71.3 4.0 19.9

Note: All samples tested for liquid and plastic limits were found to be non-plastic

Table 2 - Summary of Laboratory Test Results - Rock Cores

Boring No.

Run Depth (ft.)

Unconfined Compressive Strength

(psi)

Top of Tested Sample depth (ft.)

BH19-02 34.3‐39.3 770 37.6

BH19-02 39.3‐44.3 2510 40.2

BH19-03 19.1‐24.1 1090 21.3

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Regional Geology USGS Geologic map of the Alley Spring Quadrangle (2012) indicated that the surface deposits at the project site are predominantly Alluvium (Qa), Terrace deposits (Qt), and Gasconade Dolomite (Og). The Qa unit generally consists of gravel sand and clay. The Qt unit consists of clasts, chert and sandstone. The Gasconade Dolomite unit primarily consist of dolomite, chert, sandstone, and orthoquartzite.

A geologic map of the project area is provided as Figure 2 in Appendix A of this report.

Stratification A brief description of the subsurface conditions encountered during our field work is presented below. Generalized subsurface profiles are presented in Appendix B of this report. Note that stratification lines designating the interfaces between layers on the boring logs and the subsurface profiles represent approximate boundaries while the transition between materials may be gradual. It should be noted that one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

The subsurface profile can be classified into the following strata based on descriptions on the boring logs, where classifications of the samples are recorded.

Jacks Fork Bridge (Borings BH 19-01 through BH 19-03)

Fill Fill was encountered in the three borings and consisted primarily of poor to well graded, loose to medium dense sand. SPT N-values recorded ranged from 4 to 19 blows per foot (bpf). The fill materials extended to depths of 2 ft., 12 ft. and 3 ft. below existing site grades in borings BH19-01, BH19-02, and BH19-03, respectively.

Silty gravel with sand (GM). Poorly graded sand (SP), and Well-graded sand (SW)

Underneath the above listed fill stratum, Silty gravel with sand (GM), poorly graded sand (SW), and well graded sand were encountered and extended to auger refusal depths. N-values range from 5 to 38 bpf, indicating loose to dense relative densities.

Bedrock Moderately to highly weathered limestone was encountered at a depth of 32 ft., 25 ft., and 15 ft. below existing site grades in borings BH19-01, BH19-02 and BH19-03, respectively.

Alley Spring Bridge Boring BH 19-04

Fill Fill was encountered and extended to a depth of 5 ft. below existing site grades. The fill materials consisted primarily of very loose to loose poorly graded sand (SP) with silt and gravel. N-values recorded ranged from 4 to 6 blows per foot (bpf).

Poorly graded sand (SP) Underneath the fill materials, loose poorly graded sand with silt and gravel was encountered and extended to the auger refusal depth of 12.4 ft. below existing site grades.

N-values range from 5 to 8 bpf,.

Groundwater Groundwater was encountered during our drilling operations in all four (4) borings.

Elevations of where groundwater was encountered are summarized in Table 3 below.

Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated due to seasonal variations, precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, and other reasons.

Table 3 – Summary of Groundwater Depths Boring

No.

Depth to Groundwater

(ft) Groundwater Elevation

(ft)

BH19-01 23.5 657.5

BH19-02 13.0 661.7

BH19-03 3.5 659.8

BH19-04 3.0 668.5

DESIGN ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Jacks Fork Bridge In our opinion, supporting the proposed bridge on a system of shallow foundations (footings) is not an applicable option due to the presence of man-placed fill, very loose and loose Alluvium deposits, anticipated structural loads, and scour depths, A deep foundation system consisting of socketed drilled shafts would be capable of withstanding the anticipated bridge loads and addressing the scour concern.

Design of the drilled shaft foundation was made in general accordance with the design concepts and procedures presented in FHWA Publication FHWA-GEC 010, “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods” (2010). A 48-inch diameter drilled shaft socketed 20 ft. into bedrock and a 36-inch diameter drilled shaft, socketed 15 ft. into rock were considered for analysis and evaluation of the pier and abutment foundations, respectively. Table 4 below presents the axial capacity of drilled shafts.

Table 4 – Estimated Drilled Shaft Axial Capacity

Location Shaft

Diameter

Estimated Bottom

Elevation ft.

Resistance Factors φ Axial Capacity

(Compression) kips

Axial Capacity (Uplift) kips

Side End Bearing

Uplift

Abutment 36-inch 635

0.55 0.50 0.40

1,900 700 Pier 48-inch 630 3,500 1,300

The lateral capacity was evaluated using the software LPILE by Ensoft, Inc. (Reese and others, 2019). A summary of material properties used in our analysis in Table 5.

Table 5 – LPILE Material Properties

Soil Layer Layer Elevation*

L-Pile Model γ1 ϕ2 k3 qu

(top - bottom) (pcf) (deg) (pci) (psi)

Existing Soil Fill** Existing Grade – 660 ft. Sand (Reese) - - - -

Alluvium 660 ft. – 648 ft. Sand (Reese) 60 30 60 -

Bedrock 648 ft. – 618 ft. Vuggy Limestone*** 62 - - 700

Notes:

1 γ = Effective unit weight in pounds per cubic foot (pcf).

2 ϕ = Drained friction angle in degrees (deg).

3 k = Modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction.

4 Su and ε50 are not presented in the table since they are properties of fine grained soil and the soil at the site is generally characterized as granular.

deg = degrees psf = pounds per square foot pci = pound per cubic inch

* The layer elevation is generalized for use in LPILE. For actual elevations check boring logs and subsurface profiles.

** Fill layer is not included in the analysis.

***Vuggy Limestone is the rock model used in L-Pile to model strong rock.

We evaluated lateral capacity of the drilled shaft and considered scour depths provided to us by the Hydraulics Division. A summary of the analysis results is presented in Table 6 below.

Table 6 – Summary of LPILE Analysis Location Loading

Shear

(kips)

Loading Elevation

(ft.)

Location of Maximum

Shear * (ft)

Maximum Moment

(in- kips)

Location of Maximum Moment *

(ft)

Top Deflection

(in)

Abutment 33 683.3 27 6,000 17 2.0 Pier 63 683.3 41 29,000 38 6.0

* Depth measured from top of pile.

Alley Spring Bridge We recommend that the proposed bridge be supported on footings placed on competent material at an approximate of elevation 665 ft.. Based on our analyses, a nominal bearing resistance of 4,000 psf should be used with a resistance factor of 0.50 (AASHTO 2017, table 10.5.5.2.2-1). For sliding, we recommended using a coefficient of friction of 0.31 (AASHTO 2017, table C3.11.5.3-1) and a factor of 0.8 (AASHTO 2017, table 10.5.5.2.2- 1).

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2017), “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", 8th Edition, Washington D.C.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Brown, D.A., Turner, J.P., and Castelli, R.J. (2010). “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods”, FHWA-NHI-10-016, GEC 010. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Reese, L. C.; Wang, S. T.; Isenhower, W. M.; and Arrellaga, J. A., 2019, LPILE v. 2019:

Austin, Texas, Ensoft, Inc.

Sabatini, P. J., R. C. Bachus, P. W. Mayne, J. A. Schneider, and T. E. Zettler (2002), Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 (GEC 5)- Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties, FHWA Report No. FHWA-IF-02- 034. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C..

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway Division (FLH), (2014), “Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM)”.

Weary, D.J., and Orndorff, R.C., 2012, Geologic map of the Alley Spring Quadrangle, Shannon County, Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map SIM- 3161, scale 1:24,000 Zhang, L. (2005). Engineering Properties of Rocks. 1st ed. Kidlington: Elsevier.

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_97186.htm https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_97186.htm

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests 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 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:

Majed Abdelhadi, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

APPENDIX A – FIGURES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY

DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGNIA

FIGURE NO. 1

Site Location and Vicinity

Map

STATE PROJECT SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEET

S

MO MO ERFO NPS OZAR 2017-1(1) 1 2

Alluvium (Holocene) Gravel, sand and clay along the bed and active flood plains of modern stream valleys. Material consists mostly of subrounded to subangular chert, sandstone, and quartzite clasts in a matrix of sand containing silt and clay.

Terrace deposit (Holocene and Pleistocene?)

Large cobble-size to sand-size, subrounded to subangular chert, sandstone, and quartzite clasts within a matrix of sand, silt, and clay. In some locations, a significant fraction of the matrix is silt-size reworked loess.

Gasconade Dolomite (lower Ordovivian) Dolomite, chert, sandstone, and orthoquartzite. Formation is divided in three informal units.

Dolomite of upper unit, light-gray, medium-grained to coarse-grained. Dolomite of middle unit, light-gray, fine-grained to coarse-grained, medium-bedded to thick-bedded, with white to light-gray chert nodules and lenses. Lower unit: Gunter Sandstone Member, light-gray to white sandstone, sandy dolomite, or orthoquartzite interbedded with light-gray to tan, fine-grained, thin-bedded dolomite.

Source:

Geologic Map of the Alley Spring Quadrangle, Shannon County, Missouri, (2012)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY

DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGNIA

FIGURE NO. 2

Geologic Map

STATE PROJECT SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEET

S

MO MO ERFO NPS OZAR 2017-1(1) 2 2

Project: MO ERFO NPS OZAR 2017-1(1)

APPENDIX B – BORING LOCATION MAPS AND SUBSURFACE PROFILES

D

.L.E.G..E.til..

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

� BORING LOCATION

STATE PROJECT

5 50

SCALE IN FEET

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

SHEET NO.

OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

BORING LOCATION PLAN

.L.E.G.E.til.[l

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

� BORING LOCATION

N

ALLEY SPRIN

INFORMATION SIGN

REG STATE

MO

PROJECT

NPS OZARK 2017(1)

5 50

SCALE IN FEET

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

SHEET NO.

OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

BORING LOCATION PLAN

-01 BH

APPENDIX C – BORING LOGS

1.3

0.7

0.7

1.4

1.3

1.5

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.7

Poorly-graded SAND (SP) with gravel, medium dense, reddish brown, moist. Fill.

Silty GRAVEL with Sand (GM), loose to medium dense, reddish brown, moist, nonplastic fines. A-4(0).

Poorly-graded SAND (SP) with gravel, medium dense, brown to reddish brown, moist to wet, fine to coarse.

1.5

1.5

11-12-7-6

3-4-5-4

3-3-2-3

3-3-3-5

4-5-9-11

5-10-10-7

8-9-5-9

6-6-7-6

6-7-8-5

1-3-12-13

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-9

J-8

J-9

J-10

2.0

12.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 479852.526 Easting: 545247.627

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

681.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/17/19

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/18/19 Glenn Moody

Doug HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 23.5' during our drilling operation.

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings.

hrs

23.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MO_ERFO_ NPS_OZAR_2017 (1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, MO

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 19-01

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 60°F

Jacks Fork Bridge

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/1

9/

:3

\\F

H F

L1 5F

IL

E

S E

R V

E .F

L H

D .F

H W

A .D

O T

.G O

V \D

A T

A \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\O Z

A R

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

-1 (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

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

.G P

J

679.0

669.0

Sheet: 1 of 3

0.8

1.7

1.0

2.3

2.8

2.7

Poorly-graded SAND (SP) with gravel, medium dense, brown to reddish brown, moist to wet, fine to coarse. (Continued)

Highly weathered limestone.

Auger refusal at depth 34.4'

Limestone, gray, slightly to moderately weathered.

RQD = 0%

1-3-10-5J-11

32.0

34.4

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 479852.526 Easting: 545247.627

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

681.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/17/19

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/18/19 Glenn Moody

Doug HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 23.5' during our drilling operation.

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings.

hrs

23.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MO_ERFO_ NPS_OZAR_2017 (1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, MO

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 19-01

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 60°F

Jacks Fork Bridge

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/1

9/

:3

\\F

H F

L1 5F

IL

E

S E

R V

E .F

L H

D .F

H W

A .D

O T

.G O

V \D

A T

A \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\O Z

A R

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

-1 (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

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

.G P

J

649.0

646.6

Sheet: 2 of 3

2.0

Limestone, gray, slightly to moderately weathered.

RQD = 0% (Continued)

Boring was terminated at 64.8' 64.8

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 479852.526 Easting: 545247.627

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

681.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/17/19

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/18/19 Glenn Moody

Doug HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 23.5' during our drilling operation.

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings.

hrs

23.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MO_ERFO_ NPS_OZAR_2017 (1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, MO

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 19-01

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 60°F

Jacks Fork Bridge

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/1

9/

:3

\\F

H F

L1 5F

IL

E

S E

R V

E .F

L H

D .F

H W

A .D

O T

.G O

V \D

A T

A \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\O Z

A R

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

-1 (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

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

.G P

J

616.2 65

Sheet: 3 of 3

1.0

0.1

1.4

0.8

0.9

0.7

0.9

0.9

0.2

Poorly-graded SAND (SP), loose to medium dense, brown, moist, fine to medium. Fill.

Well-graded SAND (SW) with gravel, medium dense, brown, wet, fine to coarse.

Highly weathered limestone.

Auger refusal at depth 34.1'.

1-3-4-5

3-4-5-5

3-2-2-4

7-10-6-5

6-9-4-4

2-5-8-10

4-6-5-6

2-10-11-8

6-11-11-9

50/3"

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

12.0

25.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 480271.7911 Easting: 545475.666

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

674.7 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/14/19

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/17/19 Glenn Moody

Doug HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 13' during our drilling operation.

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings.

hrs

13.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MO_ERFO_ NPS_OZAR_2017 (1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, MO

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 19-02

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 58°F

Jacks Fork Bridge

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/1

9/

:3

\\F

H F

L1 5F

IL

E

S E

R V

E .F

L H

D .F

H W

A .D

O T

.G O

V \D

A T

A \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\O Z

A R

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

-1 (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

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

.G P

J

662.7

649.7

Sheet: 1 of 2

3"

0.1

0.3

5.0

5.0

5.0

3.8

Highly weathered limestone.

Auger refusal at depth 34.1'. (Continued)

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock. RQD ~ 0%

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock.

Qunconfined= 770 psi

RQD ~ 60%

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock.

Qunconfined= 2,510 psi

RQD ~ 60%

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock.

RQD ~ 40%

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock.

RQD ~ 20%

50/1"J-11

34.1 34.3

39.3

44.3

49.3

54.3

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 480271.7911 Easting: 545475.666

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

674.7 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/14/19

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/17/19 Glenn Moody

Doug HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 13' during our drilling operation.

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings.

hrs

13.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MO_ERFO_ NPS_OZAR_2017 (1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, MO

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 19-02

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 58°F

Jacks Fork Bridge

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/1

9/

:3

\\F

H F

L1 5F

IL

E

S E

R V

E .F

L H

D .F

H W

A .D

O T

.G O

V \D

A T

A \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\O Z

A R

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

-1 (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

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

.G P

J

640.6 640.4

635.4

630.4

625.4

620.4

Sheet: 2 of 2

1"

0.1

0.9

1.1

0.9

0.9

0.1

0.1

0.0

5.0

4.2

Well-graded SAND (SW), medium dense, brown, moist, medium sand. Fill.

Well-graded SAND (SW) with gravel, loose to dense, brown, wet, fine to coarse sand. A-1-a.

highly weathered limestone

Auger refusal at depth 18.8'.

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock. RQD = 0%

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock.

Qunconfined= 1,090 psi

RDQ ~ 45%

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock.

RQD = 30%

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock.

RQD = 7%

2-7-8-6

6-3-3-3

3-4-5-7

12-15-9-7

1-4-4-8

2-10-28-50/4"

50/4"

50/2"

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

3.0

15.0

18.8 19.1

24.1

28.0

29.1

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 479929.687 Easting: 545288.842

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

663.3 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/19/19

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/19/19 Glenn Moody

Doug HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 3.5' during our drilling operation.

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings.

hrs

3.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MO_ERFO_ NPS_OZAR_2017 (1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, MO

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 19-03

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 55°F

Jacks Fork Bridge

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/1

9/

:3

\\F

H F

L1 5F

IL

E

S E

R V

E .F

L H

D .F

H W

A .D

O T

.G O

V \D

A T

A \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\O Z

A R

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

-1 (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

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

.G P

J

660.3

648.3

644.5 644.2

639.2

635.3

634.2

Sheet: 1 of 2

4"

2"

3.5

4.6

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock.

RQD = 7% (Continued)

Limestone, gray, moderately weathered rock.

RQD = 50%

Bottom of the boring at 39.1'

34.1

39.1

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 479929.687 Easting: 545288.842

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

663.3 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/19/19

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/19/19 Glenn Moody

Doug HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 3.5' during our drilling operation.

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings.

hrs

3.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MO_ERFO_ NPS_OZAR_2017 (1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, MO

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 19-03

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Clear, 55°F

Jacks Fork Bridge

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/1

9/

:3

\\F

H F

L1 5F

IL

E

S E

R V

E .F

L H

D .F

H W

A .D

O T

.G O

V \D

A T

A \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\O Z

A R

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

-1 (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

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

.G P

J

629.2

624.2

Sheet: 2 of 2

0.9

1.2

0.8

0.3

1.1

Poorly-graded SAND (SP) with silt and gravel, very loose to loose, brown, moist, fine to coarse. Fill.

Poorly-graded SAND (SP-SM) with silt and gravel, loose, reddish brown, wet, fine to coarse. A-1-b.

Auger refusal at depth 12.4'

1-4-0-4

2-2-4-5

3-4-4-1

1-2-3-2

3-2-3-13

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

5.0

12.4

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 482025.1406 Easting: 545774.5215

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

671.5 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/20/19

Project Name:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/20/19 Glenn Moody

Doug HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 3' during our drilling operation.

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings.

hrs

3.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

MO_ERFO_ NPS_OZAR_2017 (1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

D ep th S ca le ft)

N o.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, MO

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

NAD83

HSA

BH 19-04

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Cloudy, 40°F

Alley Spring Bridge

Inspector:

R ec ft/

P P

R

Q D

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/1

9/

:3

\\F

H F

L1 5F

IL

E

S E

R V

E .F

L H

D .F

H W

A .D

O T

.G O

V \D

A T

A \P

R O

JE

C

T S

\O Z

A R

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

-1 (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

IN

V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \G

IN

T

\M O

_E R

F O

_N P

S _O

Z A

R _2

.G P

J

666.5

659.1

Sheet: 1 of 1

APPENDIX D – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Sample # E-19- Jar # Wet Wt (g) Dry Wt (g) Jat Wt (g)

Total Sample Wt (g)

T-265 MC

0144 BH19-01/J-4 1210.5 1054.6 435.2 619.4 25.2

0145 BH19-01/J-9 1023.4 961.4 436.2 525.2 11.8

0146 BH19-02/J-6 1064.3 985.5 435.8 549.7 14.3

0149 BH19-03/J-4 1181.8 1079.2 436.3 642.9 16.0

0151 BH19-04/J-5 906.9 808.2 435.7 372.5 26.5

0169 BH19-02/J-4 1248.5 1189.3 431.2 758.1 7.8

0170 BH19-04/J-2 1157.0 1036.8 431.2 605.6 19.9

MO ERFO NPS OZAR 2017-1(1)

SOIL DATA

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

NPS OZAR 2017-1(1)

Ozark National Scenic Riverways

FHWA/EFLHD

A-4(0)NPNVNP25.28-10B19-01/J-4Jacks Fork

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-1-aNPNVNP14.08-10B19-03/J-4Jacks Fork

A-1-bNPNVNP26.513-15B19-04/J-5Ally Springs

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

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

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

NO.

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% COBBLES

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 2.5 25.3 17.8 4.5 4.5 45.4

(ft.)

NPS OZAR 2017-1(1)

Ozark National Scenic Riverways

FHWA/EFLHD

Jacks Fork B19-01/J-4 8-10 Silty gravel with sand GM

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 13.8 29.5 16.4 26.7 9.8 3.8

Jacks Fork B19-01/J-9 20-22 Poorly graded sand with gravel SP

0.0 0.0 45.0 16.4 18.1 18.3 2.2

Jacks Fork B19-02/J-6 13-15 Well-graded sand with gravel SW

0.0 6.5 23.0 21.2 31.3 15.3 2.7

Jacks Fork B19-03/J-4 8-10 Well-graded sand with gravel SW

0.0 0.0 8.8 6.0 39.6 41.4 4.2

Jacks Fork B19-02/J-4 8-10 Poorly graded sand SP

NO.

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% COBBLES

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 14.6 27.2 11.1 16.1 25.5 5.5

(ft.)

NPS OZAR 2017-1(1)

Ozark National Scenic Riverways

FHWA/EFLHD

Ally Springs B19-04/J-5 13-15 Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel SP-SM

Br

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 4.8 19.9 10.9 22.2 38.2 4.0

Ally Springs B19-04/J-2 3-5 Poorly graded sand with gravel SP

Br lourdes.boulware Sticky Note Typo: distance should be 10-12'

E‐19‐ 147 148 150

Boring # BH19‐02 BH19‐02 BH19‐03

Depth Ft. 34.3‐39.3 39.3‐44.3 19.1‐24.1

Length (in) 3.9 4.1 4.0

Diameter Ave. 1.87 1.87 1.87

Cross Sectional Area 2.75 2.75 2.75

Max. Load 2120 6890 2990

UCS Rock Cores

Compressive Strength

(psi)

Depth Top of Sample

(ft)

770 2510 1090

37.6 40.2 21.3

APPENDIX G – SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS

Figure No. 1: Approximate location of BH19-03 (down the slope from BH19-01)

Figure No. 2: Location of BH19-01

Figure No. 3: Location of BH19-02

Figure No. 4: Location of BH19-03

Figure No. 5: Location of BH19-04