KS FTFW MACY 10(2) FINAL Geotechnical Design Report.pdf

SUBMITTED TO:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202

BY:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock St. Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80204

(303) 825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT

KS FTFW MACY 10(2)

Marais de Cygnes NWR

LINN COUNTY, KANSAS

April 2020

Shannon & Wilson No: 103390-001

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020 ii

CO

NT

EN

TS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2 Project and Site Description

3 Subsurface Explorations and Laboratory Testing

3.1 Field Investigation

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

4 Regional Geology and Subsurface Conditions

4.1 Regional Geology

4.2 Subsurface Conditions

4.3 Groundwater

5 Geologic Hazard Evaluation

5.1 Seismic Hazards

5.2 Corrosion

5.3 Karst Potential in Soluble Rocks

6 Foundation Recommendations

6.1 Shallow Foundations

6.1.1 Bearing Resistance

6.1.2 Lateral Loads and Resistance

6.1.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures

6.1.2.2 Lateral Resistance

6.1.3 Wall Drainage

6.2 Micropiles

7 Construction Considerations

7.1 Dewatering Considerations

7.2 Temporary Excavation Slopes

7.3 Subgrade Preparation

7.4 Fill Placement

7.5 Micropile Installation

8 Closure

9 References iii

CO

NT

EN

Exhibits Exhibit 5-1: Seismic Design Ground Motion Parameters Exhibit 6-1: Bearing Resistance Recommendations Exhibit 6-2: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters Exhibit 6-3: Recommended Lateral Resistance Design Parameters Exhibit 7-1: Recommended Materials for Construction

Tables Table 1: Recommended Parameters for Lateral Analysis of Deep Foundations

Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site and Exploration Map Figure 3: Recommended Surcharge Loading for Temporary and Permanent Walls Figure 4: Recommended P-Multipliers for Laterally Loaded Groups of Piles or Shafts

Appendices Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results Appendix C: Exploration Photographs Important Information

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

1 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program and presents geotechnical design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed Marais de Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Pedestrian Bridge Project (the Project) in Linn County, Kansas. Our services were completed in general accordance with our Task Order Agreement No. 010/10001000042531 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) dated June 28, 2019. Our conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on:

The limitations of our approved scope, schedule, and budget described in our contract;

Our understanding of the Project and information provided by HDR;

Subsurface conditions observed in the borings at the time our explorations were completed; and

The results of testing performed on samples collected from the explorations.

The objective of our geotechnical studies was to provide recommendations and construction considerations, as presented herein, for the proposed pedestrian bridge. The authorized scope of services was based on this objective and this report should not be used for other purposes without Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s (Shannon & Wilson’s) review. If a service is not specifically indicated in this report, do not assume that it was performed.

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The Project is located within the Marais de Cygnes NWR in Linn County, Kansas (Figure 1).

The proposed work within the Marias de Cygnes NWR consists of adding a new pedestrian bridge for the new Refuge Orientation Trail. We understand that the proposed pedestrian bridge will consist of a prefabricated single span bridge founded on either micropiles or shallow foundations. Based on preliminary plans provided by HDR the bridge will be approximately 60 feet long. As part of the project the grades will be raised approximately 3 to 5 feet at the bridge locations and may require short abutment and wing walls. Refer to Figure 2 for a project map with the boring locations and proposed trail layout.

The Entrance Road to the NWR currently consists of an aggregate surfaced roadway and may be paved as part of the project. One boring was completed for data purposes only and pavement design was not completed as part of our scope of work.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY

TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

Shannon & Wilson conducted a field exploration program on August 7, 2019, to explore subsurface conditions at the project site. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling three borings (designated SW-01 through SW-03). The locations of the borings are shown in Figure 2.

Appendix A presents a discussion of the drilling and sampling procedures used to complete the borings. Appendix A also presents the individual exploration logs and an explanation of the symbols and terminology used. Photographs of the drilling locations are included in Appendix C.

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical laboratory tests were completed on selected samples retrieved from the borings to estimate index and engineering properties. Index tests included natural water content, grain size analysis, percent fines, and Atterberg limits. Engineering properties tests included corrosion testing and unconfined compressive strength testing. Laboratory test results and a discussion of the testing procedures are included in Appendix B. The natural water content, fines content, and Atterberg limits are also shown on the individual boring logs included in Appendix A.

4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE

CONDITIONS

4.1 Regional Geology

Geologic mapping in the area indicates that the site is overlain by Wisconsinan and recent alluvial deposits in addition to Illinoisan terrace deposits. The deposits consist of silt, clay, sand and gravel in and adjacent to stream beds. The Tacket Formation underlies the alluvial and terrace deposits. The Tacket Formation is characterized by a gray to buff, thinly-bedded, flaggy limestone bed. Siltstone and sandstone beds have been observed in the formation (Seevers, 1969).

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

4.2 Subsurface Conditions

Boring SW-01 was drilled along the west bank of the creek channel at the location of the proposed pedestrian bridge. The subsurface conditions consisted of medium stiff to stiff lean to fat clay to a depth of 12.5 feet. Medium strong limestone rock was then encountered where drilling methods were converted to rock coring. A total of 10 feet of rock coring was completed in the limestone to a final boring depth of 22.5 feet.

Boring SW-02 was drilled along the eastern bank of the proposed pedestrian bridge and encountered soft to medium stiff clay to a depth of 9.4 feet where auger refusal was encountered on limestone bedrock.

Boring SW-03 was drilled along the centerline of the Entrance Road to the refuge. The subsurface profile consisted of 6 inches of coarse crushed limestone aggregate surfacing followed by 5 feet of medium stiff to stiff fat clay to the termination depth of the boring at

5.5 feet.

The explorations were performed to evaluate geotechnical soil conditions at the project site.

Our observations are specific to the locations, depths, and times noted on the logs and may not be applicable to all areas of the site. No amount of explorations or testing can precisely predict the characteristics, quality, or distribution of subsurface and site conditions.

Potential variation includes, but is not limited to:

The conditions between explorations may be different.

The passage of time or intervening causes (natural and manmade) may result in changes to site and subsurface conditions.

If conditions different from those described herein are encountered during construction, we should review our description of the subsurface conditions and reconsider our conclusions and recommendations.

4.3 Groundwater

During drilling, groundwater was encountered in borings SW-01 and SW-02 at depths of 7.0 and 4.5 feet respectively. Groundwater was not encountered in boring SW-03. The groundwater level at the time of drilling is noted on each boring log included in Appendix A. Groundwater fluctuations are likely and will depend on seasonal variations, local precipitation and runoff, and other factors, but will primarily be influenced by water levels in the adjacent creek and flood events.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

5 GEOLOGIC HAZARD EVALUATION

5.1 Seismic Hazards

Eastern Kansas, including Linn County, is an area of low potential for damaging earthquakes. Based on the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States by the U.S Geological Survey (USGS), the nearest fault is greater than 200 miles from the project location. Taking into consideration the distance to known fault zones, the potential for fault rupture to impact the Project is low, in our opinion.

Liquefaction may occur in loose, saturated cohesionless soils when subject to earthquake induced ground shaking. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site and the low peak ground acceleration (PGA) for this area, it is our opinion that the risk of liquefaction is low.

Using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2017) criteria, and based on subsurface conditions encountered in our borings at the proposed pedestrian bridge (assuming that similar conditions are present from the maximum depth of our boring to a depth of 100 feet), Site Class D is recommended for the proposed bridge structure.

Ground motion parameters were determined for the project site using the USGS AASHTO 2009 Web Service Documentation Web Application (USGS, 2009) and procedures recommended by AASHTO (2017). Exhibit 5-1 presents recommended seismic design ground motion parameters.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

Exhibit 5-1: Seismic Design Ground Motion Parameters

Design Parameter Value

Site Class D

Short-period Spectral Acceleration, SS 0.077 g

Long-period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.038 g

Site Factor, FPGA 1.6

Site Factor, Fa 1.6

Site Factor, FV 2.4

Peak Design Spectral Acceleration, AS 0.053 g

Short-period Design Spectral Acceleration, SDS 0.124 g

Long-period Design Spectral Acceleration, SD1 0.091 g

TO 0.734 sec.

TS 0.147 sec.

NOTES:

Based on AASHTO 2009 Guide Specifications.

g = gravity; sec. = seconds

5.2 Corrosion

Clayey soil materials, such as those encountered at the Project site, can be corrosive to substructure elements. To assist in estimating the corrosion potential, samples of clay were tested for pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The results are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B.

The resistivity measured in the samples ranged from 1,772 to 2,121 ohm-centimeters. Based on correlations developed by Roberge (2012), these values suggest a highly corrosive subsurface.

The concentration of water-soluble sulfates measured in the samples was less than

0.01 percent by weight (100 parts per million). Based on classifications as defined by ACI- 318-14 (ACI, 2014), these test results suggest a negligible degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S0).

5.3 Karst Potential in Soluble Rocks

Near surface Karst topography is primarily dependent on the presence of soluble rock at or near the ground surface and annual rainfall in exceedance of 30 inches per year (Weary and Doctor, 2014). Most caves and other karstic features, such as sinkholes, primarily develop in carbonate rocks in humid regions of the United States.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

The Tacket Formation is composed of a flaggy carbonate limestone bed. The limestone bed encountered in one of the borings drilled at the site indicates that the formation is near the ground surface. Annual rainfall totals in Pleasanton, Kansas near the site indicate annual rainfall totals in exceedance of 30 inches per year. Based on Weary and Doctor (2014), it appears believe there is a risk for karst features to develop or exist in this formation. It is difficult to predict the exact location and time at which sinkholes may appear. After a desktop data review of karst features in the region, including literature review, evaluation of local and regional topographic maps, and our site reconnaissance, we found that karst features were not immediately visible in the vicinity of the project location.

6 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

As discussed in Section 2, we understand the proposed pedestrian bridge will consist of a prefabricated single span bridge founded on either micropiles or shallow foundations. In our opinion, shallow foundations or micropiles are feasible foundation systems for the bridge based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site.

6.1 Shallow Foundations

6.1.1 Bearing Resistance

Shallow foundation load capacity is governed by the strength and settlement characteristics of the underlying soil strata. Our recommendations are based on LRFD criteria that were developed based on AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2017).

Borings SW-01 and SW-02 encountered soft to medium stiff clay over limestone bedrock at a depth of approximately 12 and 9 feet, respectively. Based on discussions with HDR, we understand that foundation support at each abutment may consist of spread footings founded on the limestone bedrock. As an alternative, consideration could be given to overexcavating down to the bedrock elevation and building back up with foundation fill, however we understand that this is not preferable due to scour concerns. We recommend placing a minimum 6 inches of Foundation Fill (FP-14 704.01) below the foundations (on top of the limestone) to create a level working surface and to avoid localized hard spots below the abutment. Refer to Exhibit 6-1 for bearing resistance and resistance factors.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

Exhibit 6-1: Bearing Resistance Recommendations

Limit State Nominal Bearing Resistance

Resistance Factor

Strength Limit State 22 ksf

0.45

Extreme Limit State 1.0

NOTES:

ksf = kips per square foot

We conservatively reduced the nominal bearing resistance on the limestone (which was shown to have unconfined compressive strengths in excess of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi)). Regarding settlement, for the strength limit state indicated (10 ksf), we estimate that settlement will be about 1/2 inch.

6.1.2 Lateral Loads and Resistance

6.1.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures

The lateral earth pressures on abutment and wing walls depend on many factors, including surcharge loads, the soil type, drainage provisions, and whether or not the top of the wall can yield or deflect laterally/rotate during and after excavation. Where walls are free to deflect, they can be designed for the active condition. Where a deflection greater than

0.001 times the height of the wall (0.001H) cannot occur, walls should be designed for at-rest conditions. Active and at-rest earth pressures provided in Exhibit 6-2 assume the walls are backfilled with properly compacted Structural Backfill in accordance with FP-14 Section

704.04 in a 1 vertical to 1 horizontal (1V:1H) zone extending upward from the base of the wall from a point 1.5 feet behind the wall. Onsite clays are not suitable for wall backfill.

Exhibit 6-2: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

Design Parameter Value Structural Backfill - FP-14 Section 704.04

Total Unit Weight (pcf) 135

Effective Friction Angle (degrees) 34

Cohesion (psf) 0

Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, KA 0.28

Equivalent Fluid Density for Active Conditions (pcf) 40

At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, KO 0.44

Equivalent Fluid Density for At-Rest Conditions (pcf) 60

NOTES:

pcf = pounds per cubic foot; psf = pounds per square foot

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

The parameters provided in Exhibit 6-2 assume a free-draining backfill condition; refer to Section 6.1.2.3 for wall drainage recommendations.

Surcharge loads from motor vehicles/traffic and construction equipment will induce additional lateral loads on walls. The pressures provided in Exhibit 6-2 do not account for surcharge loads. Lateral loads due to various types of surcharges may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by the active or at-rest earth pressure coefficient (KA or KO). The earth pressure coefficients are also shown in Exhibit 6-2. Surcharge loads should be applied as recommended on Figure 3.

6.1.2.2 Lateral Resistance

For structures founded on shallow foundations, lateral loads from wind, seismic, retained fill, and other loads may be resisted by frictional resistance along the base of the footing.

Passive pressure should be neglected in front of footings and walls due to the proximity to the creek embankments and potential for scour. Our recommended lateral resistance parameters for design of abutment and wing walls are provided in Exhibit 6-3.

Exhibit 6-3: Recommended Lateral Resistance Design Parameters

Design Parameter Value

Nominal Coefficient of Friction for Sliding 1 0.60

Strength Limit Resistance Factor for Sliding 2 0.85

NOTES:

Value assumes cast-in-place concrete on Foundation Fill. If the concrete is precast, the provided value should be multiplied by a factor of 0.80.

Sliding resistance factor based on AASHTO (2017), Table 10.5.5.2.2-1.

Passive pressure should be ignored in front of abutment walls.

6.1.3 Wall Drainage

The earth pressure parameters provided for the proposed retained fill assume a free-draining backfill condition. Based on discussions with HDR, the design high water elevation is above wall elements of the bridge. As such, it will be important to control surface water and to provide drainage measures that reduce the potential for water to accumulate behind walls, particularly considering the proximity of walls to the creek channel.

Surface water behind walls should not be allowed to discharge directly into the wall backfill materials. In addition, water should not be allowed to discharge or pond around retaining structures. We recommend sloping the ground surface in front of walls a minimum of 5 percent away from the wall face for a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet measured from the face of the wall (or until a paved surface is encountered, whichever is less).

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

In general, materials with greater than about 3 percent fines content are not considered free draining. Assuming Structural Backfill is used, the backfill will not be free draining, and a rapid drawdown condition could occur following flood events, i.e., water could be trapped in the backfill after flood waters recede. This condition could be addressed by designing the wall for appropriate water pressures or by including internal drainage features to reduce the potential for water to accumulate in the backfill. Appropriate drainage features could include:

Placement of a 12-inch thick drainage layer on the back face of the wall, with a discharge system (e.g., weep holes or a perforated collector pipe at the base of the drainage layer, daylighting to a suitable discharge point).

Installation of geocomposite drainage boards on the back face of the wall, with a suitable discharge system (e.g., weep holes or a perforated collector pipe, daylighting to a suitable discharge point)

Limiting the fines content of the wall backfill to 3 percent.

6.2 Micropiles

The following summarizes our recommendations for the design of micropiles to support the abutments.

Permanent casing should extend from the pile cap to at least the limestone bedrock contact.

The axial compression of the micropiles should be based on a nominal grout bond strength of 100 pounds per square inch (psi) in uncased limestone. The contractor should be responsible for determining the appropriate construction method to achieve this bond strength.

The minimum bond length (below the bottom of casing) should be 10 feet.

Micropiles should be spaced a minimum of 3 diameters center-to-center.

In accordance with AASHTO, we recommend a resistance factor of 0.50 for nominal bond strength in compression. For uplift, we recommend a resistance factor of 0.55.

Axial resistance should be ignored within the cased section of micropiles.

Corrosion protection is required for the reinforcing center bar according to the FHWA Micropile Design and Construction Manual (Sabatini and others, 2005). The corrosion protection should include grout cover. In addition, because of the permanent nature of the micropiles, we recommend one of the following: epoxy coating, galvanization, or encapsulation.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

Corrosion protection for permanent casing should include a sacrificial steel section loss of 0.063 inches in accordance with the FHWA Micropile Design and Construction Manual (Sabatini and others, 2005).

We understand that HDR will analyze the lateral deflection, shear, and moment of the micropiles using the computer program LPILE (Ensoft, Inc., 2017). Sloping ground should be accounted for and p-multipliers (Figure 4) should be used, as appropriate.

Total settlement of individual micropiles are anticipated to be less than ½ inch.

Differential settlement between adjacent micropiles would be expected to be about 50 to 75 percent of this value. This assumes the micropiles are constructed using good installation techniques and equipment based on criteria described in FHWA Micropile Design and Construction Manual (Sabatini and others, 2005).

To verify the assumed bond strengths used for design, a sacrificial load test should be completed on one micropile in accordance with the FHWA Micropile Design and Construction Manual (Sabatini and others, 2005). The verification load test can be conducted in either tension or compression. The micropile used for the verification tests should be loaded to at least 2.0 times the design load of the installed micropile.

Production proof tests should be completed at each substructure unit. The micropile used for proof testing should be loaded to 1.6 times the design load of the installed micropile. Provided the proof tests meet the test requirements, the micropiles may be incorporated as production micropiles.

Given the project size, low number of production micropiles and relatively low loads, consideration could be given to reducing or eliminating the sacrificial load test for the project. If the sacrificial load testing is eliminated, we recommend decreasing the resistance factor to 0.33.

If the required capacities are not demonstrated in the verification test longer micropiles may be required depending on the installation means and methods of the contractor

7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The applicability of the design parameters in Section 6.0 is contingent on good construction practice. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those upon which our recommendations are based, and therefore result in poor performance. Our analyses assume that this project will be constructed according to FP-14 U.S. Customary Units (USDOT and FHWA, 2014) standards. The following sections provide additional construction considerations for this project.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

7.1 Dewatering Considerations

Based on groundwater levels encountered in our explorations, the proposed excavation for the bridge foundations may extend below groundwater levels. The presence of groundwater may cause instability of open-cut excavations and subgrades. The contractor should consider these conditions in planning the work and the groundwater control measures.

Throughout the project area, the groundwater table is perched on the bedrock and the soils overlying the bedrock generally consist of clays. The groundwater level should be drawn down prior to excavating and should be maintained in a dewatered state until the abutment foundation is constructed and backfilled. Groundwater control is anticipated be accomplished using sump pumping. The top of bedrock is anticipated to be the base of the excavation, groundwater may remain above the rock and the bottom of sumps may need to be below the top of the bedrock.

Consistent with typical practice, the contractor will be responsible for control of surface water and groundwater. In this regard, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering and other measures should be employed, as necessary, to direct water away from the excavations, to prevent ponding of water next to the work zone, and to permit proper completion of the work.

7.2 Temporary Excavation Slopes

Temporary excavation slopes should be constructed in accordance with FP-14 Section 208.

The safe slope for the excavation of subsurface materials depends on many factors, including: (a) the presence of groundwater; (b) the type, density, and shear strength of the subsurface materials; (c) the depth of excavation; (d) the presence of adjacent facilities;

(e) surcharge loading adjacent to the excavation (including excavated material, existing dead or live loads, and construction equipment); and (f) time of construction. Considering these factors, unshored, temporary excavation slopes may be possible in areas around the site.

Temporary excavation slopes are anticipated to be relatively flat because of the presence of the soft to medium stiff clay soil and groundwater. For cost estimating and planning purposes only, we recommend assuming temporary excavations above the groundwater level are sloped at 1V:1.5H in soil. These temporary excavation slopes assume no construction loading at the crest of the slope. If groundwater is seeping into the excavation, flatter slopes may be required.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

Consistent with conventional practice, the contract documents should require the Contractor to be responsible for the actual temporary excavation slopes, including methods, sequence, and schedule of construction. The Contractor is able to observe the nature and conditions of the subsurface materials encountered and should evaluate the factors discussed above. If instability is observed, slopes should be flattened or shored. In this regard, we recommend that unshored, temporary excavation slopes be monitored closely for seeping water entering the excavation as excavation slopes below the groundwater level generally need to be flatter than those above the groundwater level. All excavations should be accomplished in accordance with local, state, and federal safety regulations.

7.3 Subgrade Preparation

Foundation subgrades should be excavated to the limestone bedrock. A minimum 6 inches of Foundation Fill (FP-14 704.01) should then be placed and compacted to create a level working surface.

7.4 Fill Placement

Fill should be placed in uniform, horizontal layers with the loose lift thickness not exceeding 8 inches for heavy, self-propelled compactors, or 4 inches for hand-operated mechanical compactors. Thinner lifts may be required, depending on the contractor’s equipment.

Compaction of backfill adjacent to walls can result in higher lateral earth pressures against the walls. Therefore, small equipment that is hand-operated should be required within a line extending upward from the base of the structure at 2V:1H, to a maximum horizontal distance of 5 feet from the face any walls to reduce this potential.

All fill should be compacted to a dense/firm and unyielding condition in accordance with FP-14 Section 204 or 208.

Exhibit 7-1 summarizes our recommendations for fill and construction material selection.

All specification sections reference the FP-14 U.S. Customary Units, (USDOT and FHWA, 2014).

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

Exhibit 7-1: Recommended Materials for Construction

Locations Specification Material Type Additional Requirements/Comments

Foundation Bedding FP-14 704-01 Foundation Fill AASHTO Soil Classification: A-1-a

Max. Fines Content: 6 percent

Abutment and Wing Wall

Backfill FP-14 704.04 Structural Backfill

Max. Particle Size: 3 inches Max. Fines Content: 15 percent Max. PI: 6

Landscaping

Common Fill (on-site material)

No minimum requirements

Max. = Maximum; PI = Plasticity Index

7.5 Micropile Installation

Micropiles should be constructed in accordance with our recommendations, the guidelines in the Section 567 of FP-14 (FHWA, 2014), and the FHWA Reference Manual, “Micropile Design and Construction” (Sabatini and others, 2005). The drilling and grouting process should be relatively continuous with minimal stoppage of work between the completion of drilling and cleaning the hole and placement of grout after setting the reinforcing bar, and under no circumstances after the day of drilling. If water is present in the excavation at the time of grout placement, the grout should be placed using a tremie tube.

We recommend that micropile contractors who participate on this project be required to demonstrate that they have suitable equipment for this project and adequate experience in construction with similar subsurface conditions.

8 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of HDR Engineering, Inc. and Central Federal Lands Highway Division for the purpose of providing geotechnical recommendations for the Marais de Cygnes NWR project. This geotechnical design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Assumptions stated in this report have changed.

Project details change or new information becomes available such that our analyses and recommendations may be affected.

A substantial period of time has passed since the date of this report.

If any of these occur, we should be retained to review the applicability of our analyses and recommendations.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, the analyses, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical and geological principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has prepared “Important Information about Your Geotechnical Report,” to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports.

Geotechnical Design Report

103390-001 April 2020

9 REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, Farmington Hills, Mich., ACI 318-14.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2017, AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, Customary U.S. units, 8th edition:

Washington, D.C., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Ensoft, Inc., 2017, LPILE Plus 2017, A Program for Analysing Stress and Deformation of Individual Piles or Drilled Shafts Under Lateral Load, Austin, Texas.

Roberge, P.R., 2012, Handbook of corrosion engineering, Second Edition: McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.

Sabatini and others, 2005, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway Institute (NHI) Course No. 1320789, Micropile Design and Construction, Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-039, December.

Seevers, W.J., 1969. Geologic Map of Linn County, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey, Geologic Bulletin 193, Plate 1, scale 1: 63,360.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2014, Federal standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal Highway projects, FP-14 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) AASHTO 2009 Web Service Documentation Web Application (USGS, 2009). Available from:

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States.

Available from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/

Weary D.J. and Doctor D.H., 2014. Karst in the United States: A Digital Map Compilation and Database: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1156, 23 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141156 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/

Geotechnical Design Report

Table 1 - Recommended Parameters for Lateral Analysis of Deep Foundations

Bridge Top Bottom Lpile

Soil Type

Effective Unit Weight

Drained Friction Angle

Undrained Shear Strength

Su

Unconfined Compressive

Strength qu

(Boring ID) (ft) (ft) (pcf) (deg) (psf) (psi)

0 12.5 Medium Stiff Clay Soft Clay 53 - 500 -

12.5 22.5 LIMESTONE: medium strong Strong Rock (Vuggy Limestone) 135 - - 2,500

0 10 Soft to Medium Stiff Clay Soft Clay 53 - 500 -

10 - LIMESTONE: medium strong Strong Rock (Vuggy Limestone) 135 - - 2,500

NOTES:

3 The LPile parameters shown are for a horizontal ground surface. Sloping ground surface modifications should be included per Ensoft, Inc.'s recommendations for Lpile.

deg = degrees; ft = foot; pcf = pounds per cubic foot; psf = pounds per square foot; psi = pounds per square inch

1 We assume the groundwater is perched on top of the limestone.

Representative Soil/ Rock Description

Depth Below Existing Ground Surface

West Abutment

(SW-01)

5 The lateral loading analysis should consider the potential for loss of material from flooding and scour.

LPILE PARAMETERS FOR

LATERAL ANALAYSIS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

East Abutment

(SW-02)

2 The LPile parameters shown are for a single pile. For group effects, see Figure 4 for recommended p-multipliers.

4 A resistance factor of 1.0 should be used for lateral analyses.

103390-001 Page 1 of 1 103390-001_T1 - L-Pile.xlsx - 2/29/2020

VICINITY MAP

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

KS FTFW MACY 10(2)

Marais de Cygnes NWR

Linn County, Kansas

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™

Mapping Service.

NOTE

Approximate Scale in Miles

2 4

April 2020 103390-001

F i l e n a m e

I E

F D

E N s

C

F L

K

S

M a r a i s d D r a f t i n g F i g u r e d w g

D a t e

L o g i n j c g

FIG. 1

Pleasanton

Lacygne

Kansas

Topeka

Kansas City

Trading Post

Project

Location

PROJECT

LOCATION

C

T M

K a n s a s

M i s s o u r i

F i l e n a m e

I E

F D

E N s

C

F

K

S

M a r a i s d

D r a f t i n g

F i g u r e d a t e o g i n j c g

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth

Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™

Mapping Service.

NOTE

200' 400'

Scale in Feet

103390-001

SITE AND EXPLORATION MAP

April 2020

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

LEGEND

Boring Designation and Approximate Location

SW-03

SW-02

KS FTFW MACY 10(2)

Marais de Cygnes NWR

Linn County, Kansas

SW-01

Marais de Cygnes NWR

Headquarters

FIG. 2

SW-03

℄ PROPOSED

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

REFUGE

ORIENTATION TRAIL

C

T M

For m ≤ 0.4: H = 0.28 (psf) (see Note 3)

Fi le

: I :\E

F\ D

E N

\1

0s

\1

C

FL

K S

M ar ai s d\ D el iv er ab le s\

Fi gu re s\

-0

_F ig ur e 3-

Ty p

S ur ch ar ge .d at e:

1-

-2

A ut ho r:

jc g

W al l

PLAN VIEW

2.0

1.5

D ep th F ac to r, Z/

B

1.0

0.0

0.5

W al l

Z

Wall Line

UNIFORM SURCHARGE

EARTH BERM

(see Note 4)

Note:

H z=nH

Bottom of Excavation x = mH

Point Load in Pounds

H (psf)

ELEVATION VIEW

x = mH

H

Bottom of Excavation

W al l z=nH

H (psf)

Line Load in Pounds/Foot

B) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO LINE LOAD

i.e. NARROW CONTINUOUS FOOTING

PARALLEL TO WALL

C) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO STRIP LOAD

W al l

W al l

W al l

A) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO POINT LOAD

i.e. SMALL ISOLATED FOOTING OR WHEEL LOAD

D) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO EARTH BERM

OR UNIFORM SURCHARGE

Bottom of Excavation

Bottom of Excavation

E) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE

TO ADJACENT FOOTING

(see Notes 5 and 6)

0 0.5 1.0

L

B

NOTES

Figures are not drawn to scale.

Applicable surcharge pressures should be added to appropriate temporary and permanent wall lateral earth and water pressure.

If point or line loads are close to the back of the wall such that m 0.4, it may be more appropriate to model the actual load distribution (i.e., Detail E) or use more rigorous analysis methods.

See text for recommended K values.

The stress is estimated on the back of the wall at the center of the length, L, of loading.

The estimated stress is based on a Poisson's ratio of 0.5.

W al l

Bearing Pressure q (psf)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Ip, Influence Factor

H = 2(Ip) qs

Lateral Footing Pressure on Wall

(derived from NAVFAC DM 7.02, 1986; and Sandhu, Earth Pressure on Walls Due to Surcharge, 1974)

(derived from Poulos and Davis, Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics, 1974; and Terzaghi and

Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1967)

(NAVFAC DM 7.02, 1986)

(derived from Fang, Foundation Engineering Handbook, 1991)

(NAVFAC DM 7.2, 1986)

Point Load in Pounds

= Unit Weight of Earth Berm

Bearing Pressure

Earth Berm

H = Lateral Pressure in radians

ELEVATION VIEW

(see Note 3) (see Note 3) qs

L 2B

Qp

H2 n2

(0.16 + n2)3

For m > 0.4: H = 1.77 (psf) Qp

H2 m2n2

(m2 + n2)3

Qp

H

'H = H cos2 (1.1 ) (psf)

'H 'H

For m ≤ 0.4: H = 0.20 (psf) (see Note 3) Ql

H n

(0.16 + n2)2

For m > 0.4: H = 1.28 (psf) Ql

H m2n

(m2 + n2)2

QlQp

≤ 33° Hs ≤ 15 Feet

(K)( )(Hs) 2H

Hs

H = (K)qs (see Note 4) qs (psf)

H = ( - sin cos2 ) (psf)2q

L

= 0.25 = 0.5

= 1

H

L 2B

L 2B

L 2B

RECOMMENDED SURCHARGE

LOADING FOR TEMPORARY AND

PERMANENT WALLS

FIG. 3

KS FTFW MACY 10(2)

Marais de Cygnes NWR

Linn County, Kansas

103390-001April 2020

103390-001_Figure 4 - P-Multipliers.xlsx

NOTE:

Reference: AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2012) - Table 10.7.2.4-1 (from Hannigan et al., 2006)

The P-multipliers provided above were developed for vertical piles/shafts only. Batter piles provide a much stiffer response than vertical piles/shafts when loaded in the direction of the batter.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

2 3 4 5 6 p- M ul tip lie r

S/B

1st Row 2nd Row 3rd Row or Higher

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

RECOMMENDED P-MULTIPLIERS

FOR LATERALLY LOADED

GROUPS OF PILES OR SHAFTS

2nd Row

3rd Row

1st Row

4th Row

Load Direction

Trailing Rows

Leading Row For Load acting in this direction, use p-Multiplier of the 1st Row

S

B

April 2020 103390-001

FIG. 4

KS FTFW MACY 10(2)

Linn County, Kansas

4/23/2020-103390-001_AA.docx A-i

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

IO

NS

Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations

Appendix A

Subsurface Explorations

CONTENTS

A.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... A-1

A.2 Explorations ........................................................................................................................... A-1

A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System ...................................................................... A-1

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ............................................................................ A-2

A.2.3 Rock Core Sampling ................................................................................................ A-2

A.2.4 Bulk Sampling .......................................................................................................... A-2

Figures Figure A-1: Soil Description and Log Key Figure A-2: Rock Classification and Log Key Figure A-3 through A-5: Log of Borings SW-01 through SW-03 Figure A-6: Rock Core Photographs Boring SW-01

A-1

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s (Shannon & Wilson’s) field exploration program was conducted on August 7, 2019, and consisted of drilling three borings designated SW-01 through SW-03 at the locations shown on Figure 2. Photographs of boring locations are provided in Appendix C. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination and utility locates) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figure A-3 through A-5. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing. The borings were drilled by Industrial and Petroleum Environmental Services, Inc. (IPES, Inc.) of Hallsville, Missouri (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a CME 45C track-mounted drill rig. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter solid-stem augers to depths of approximately 5.0 to 12.5 feet. In boring SW-01, rock coring was performed between 12.5 and 22.5 feet. Where encountered, groundwater was measured at the time of drilling. On completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with cuttings.

A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System

During exploration, our representative collected samples and prepared field logs of the explorations. Soil classification for this project was based on ASTM International (ASTM) Designation: D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), and ASTM Designation: D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The Unified Soil Classification System is summarized in Figure A-1.

The Shannon & Wilson representative classified rock samples in general accordance with the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) classification method. According to this system, rocks are classified based on the stratigraphic structure, rock strength, degree of weathering, and other properties. The rock classification system is summarized in Figure A-2.

A-2

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in the borings in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter, 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. An automatic hammer system was used to advance the samplers. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each 6-inch increment of penetration and summed the blow counts for the last two 6-inch increments. This sum is recorded as the penetration resistance number, or N-value. If high penetration resistance prevented driving the total length of the sampler, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the partial penetration depth and blow count. The N-values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine-grained) soils (see Figure A-1). The raw N-values are shown on the individual boring logs. Representative portions of the split-spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in a screw-top plastic jar and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.3 Rock Core Sampling

Rock samples were collected using NQ double tube wireline coring methods (1.87-inch nominal diameter rock core). During coring, cuttings were removed from the borehole by circulating water down through the drill rods and back up the annulus of the boring. Core runs were approximately 5 feet in length. Percent recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) values are shown on the boring log where coring was completed. Percent recovery is the ratio of the length of recovered core to the total length of the core run. RQD is the ratio, expressed as a percent, of the sum of the length of intact core pieces greater than 4 inches long in a run to the total length of the core run. Following drilling, the core was logged by the Shannon & Wilson field representative, then stored in cardboard core boxes and transported to the Shannon & Wilson laboratory for further testing. Rock core photographs are provided in Figure A-6.

A.2.4 Bulk Sampling

A bulk soil sample was obtained by collecting the drill cuttings from the upper 4 feet of boring SW-03. Approximately 20 pounds of cuttings were placed in a sealed plastic bag and transported to our laboratory for further analysis and testing.

Linn County, Kansas

103390-001April 2020

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. A-1

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

1All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.

2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors.

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

30% or more total coarse-grained and lesser coarse-grained constituent is 15% or more:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

1Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.

2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm

NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer.

10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches

Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments.

Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches.

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

15% or more of a second coarse-grained constituent:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)

#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)

#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)

3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

CONSTITUENT2

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

-0

M A

R A

IS

D

E C

Y G

N E

S .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

1/

/1

103390-001

Marais de Cygnes NWR

Linn County, Kansas

April 2020

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

(more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve)

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

(50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve)

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Silt

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

GW

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

(less than 5% fines)

PT

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

FIG. A-1

OL

(less than 5% fines)

NOTES

1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a combination of the two graphic symbols (e.g., SP and SM).

2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CL/ML, Lean Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM, Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between two groups.

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

-0

M A

R A

IS

D

E C

Y G

N E

S .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

1/

/1

NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)

103390-001

Marais de Cygnes NWR

Linn County, Kansas

April 2020

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range…