MI_NP_PIRO_11(2)_GEO_Memo.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATION REPORT

NO. 04-23

PROJECT MI NP PIRIO 11(2)

REPLACEMENT OF MINERS RIVER BRIDGE

PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE

ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 22001 Loudoun County Parkway

Building E-2, Suite 200 Ashburn, VA 20147

April 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Project Description

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

4 DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General

4.2 Seismic Design Considerations

4.3 Scour

4.4 Bridge Loading

4.5 Foundation Type Considerations

4.6 Micropile Foundation Recommendations

4.7 Micropile Load Testing

4.8 Corrosion Protection

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

6 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

7 REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Geotechnical Data Report, Stantec Octoctober 2022 APPENDIX C – AllPile Lateral Deflection Output

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: MI NP PIRO 11(2) Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Michigan

Miners River Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation Report No.

04-23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

SOILS AND FOUNDATION REPORT

NO. 04-23

PROJECT MI NP PIRIO 11(2)

REPLACEMENT OF MINERS RIVER BRIDGE

PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE

ALGER COUNTY, MICHIGAN

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and design analyses and presents foundation design recommendations for the replacement of Miners River Bridge in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Alger County, Michigan.

The Project Location Map is provided as Figure 1 in Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

The purpose of this project is to replace Miners River bridge (Structure No. 6320-001P).

The existing bridge is a single span, approximately 20 ft-long steel structure, supported on shallow foundations. The bridge includes an integrated lamprey fish barrier on the south side.

The proposed bridge will be a 40 ft-long single span structure with the new East and West abutments set back approximately 10 ft from the existing bridge abutments. The existing bridge abutments and lamprey barrier are to remain in place.

The Design Scoping Report provided by the National Park Service (NPS), dated February 2022, indicated that the bridge replacement can be supported on micropiles.

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

The Quaternary Geologic Map of the Lake Superior indicates that the project site is underlain by Late Wisconsin End Moraine Loamy Till deposits consisting of brown and reddish grown to gray, poorly sorted silt and sandy loam with scattered pebbles, cobbles and boulders composed predominantly of limestone and dolomite. The till is interbedded with outwash and ice contact sand and gravel. These deposits are typically greater that 20 m (65 ft) in thickness. Bedrock at the project site, based on the Pre-cambrian Rocks of the Lake Superior Region Map, consists of Cambrian and later Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, including limestone, shale, sandstones and conglomerate.

Michigan

Miners River Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation Report No.

04-23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

The subsurface exploration at the project site was carried out by Stantec on September 12 and 13, 2022. Two (2) borings, BH22-01 and BH22-02, extending 50 feet below existing site grades were drilled in the vicinity of the new West and East Abutments, respectively.

The details of field and laboratory testing procedures and results of the subsurface exploration are presented in Stantec's Report titled: 'Geotechnical Data Report, MI-NP- PIRO 11(2) Subsurface Exploration of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Alger County, Michigan", dated October 13, 2022, provided in Appendix B. The report includes descriptions of site geology, drilling and sampling methods, in-situ and laboratory testing results, subsoil and groundwater conditions encountered in the borings and site photographs.

Although not encountered in the borings, given the nature of the existing glacial deposits, cobbles and boulders may be present at the project site

4 DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General

Foundation design was performed in general accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, 2020.

4.2 Seismic Design Considerations

Based on the criteria provided in AASHTO Table 3.10.3.1-1, and the results of our subsurface exploration, the project site can be classified as Seismic Site Class D. The SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool was used to determine the Seismic Site Coefficients. The corresponding horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient (SD1) at 1-Second was 0.031g. The project site is considered in Seismic Zone 1 (i.e., SD1 ≤ 0 .15) in accordance with AASHTO Table 3.10.6-1.

4.3 Scour

Based on the scour analysis performed, EFL Hydraulics Team recommended that the bridge foundations be placed below the total scour elevation of EL 603.58 ft.

4.4 Bridge Loading

Structural loads provided by the Bridge Division are listed in Table 1 below.

Michigan

Miners River Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation Report No.

04-23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Table 1 –Structural Loads

LOAD STRENGTH LIMIT STATE SERVICE LIMIT STATE

Max. Axial -Single Pile 116.4 kip 88 kip Total Axial- Pile Group 1227.5 kip 925.7 kip Lateral Fy -Single Pile* 6.4 kip 4.6 kip Total Lateral Fy -Pile Group* 89.5 kip 64.6 kip

* Based on an estimated 14 micropile per foundation element.

4.5 Foundation Type Considerations

Based on the subsurface profile encountered and the proposed construction, several alternatives were considered for the bridge foundations. Decision criteria included project conditions, cost, constructability, environmental impacts, limits of disturbance, and familiarity with similar projects. Table 2 provides a summary of the foundation types considered.

Table 2 - Foundation Type Summary

Foundation Type Advantages Disadvantages

Footings • Relatively affordable

• Well known construction procedure

• Non-specialized labor

• Deep excavation likely needed to support footings on competent natural soil

• Foundation subjected to scour

• May interfere with existing foundations at the site Precast- Prestressed Concrete or Driven Steel Piles

• Concrete piles are more resistant to corrosion than steel piles

• Steel piles are common foundation type – leading to lower costs than concrete piles

• Quick installation and no maintenance

• Good QA/QC during driving

• Relatively costly

• Significant noise and vibration impact during driving

• potential presence of cobbles and boulders creates installation risks

Micropiles • High load capacity in both tension and compression

• Minimal vibrations and disturbances

• Installation is possible in difficult or limited access sites

• Moderate lateral load capacity

• Require a specialty contractor

Based on the considerations presented in Table 2 and on project requirements, we concluded that a system of micropiles presents the best alternative to support the proposed structure.

Michigan

Miners River Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation Report No.

04-23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

4.6 Micropile Foundation Recommendations

A system of micropiles with a minimum length of 45 feet, is recommended to support the abutments of the new bridge. Table 3 provides a summary of micropile design properties and assumptions considered. Core steel reinforcing bar should extend the full length of the micropile, from the top anchor plate completely through the 30-ft minimum length bond zone. Steel casing may extend from the abutment cap to a minimum of 3 ft into the bond zone (plunge length).

Table 3 - Micropile Design Properties and Assumptions

Property Value Number of Rows of Micropiles, Ny 2 Number of Columns of Micropiles, Nx 7 Total Number of Micropiles per Foundation Element 14 Micropile Row Center-to-Center Spacing, Sy (in) 30 Micropile Column Center-to-Center Spacing, Sx (in.) 56 Micropile Outside Diameter, OD (in.) 9.625 Micropile Insider Diameter, ID (in.) 8.03 Wall Thickness, tw (in.) 0.797 Micropile Casing Yield Stress, fy.Ncasing (ksi) 80 Reinforcing Bar Diameter, Dbar (in) 2.5 Reinforcing Bar Size #20 Reinforcing Bar Yield Stress, fy.steel (ksi) 80 Grout Unconfined Compressive Strength, fc_grout (ksi) 6 Grout-to-Ground Bond Value, αb (ksf) AASHTO Table C10.9.3.5.2-1 4.0

The Micropile foundation design was evaluated in general accordance with AASHTO, Section 10.9 and the FHWA “Micropile Design and Construction Reference Manual” (2005). A resistance factor for compression resistance of a single Micropile (φstat) of

0.55 was utilized for side resistance in the bond zone, as listed in AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.5-1. The micropiles were sized to bound estimated service limit state lateral deflections to less than 1 inch. In accordance with AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1, a lateral resistance factor (φlat) of 1.0 was utilized. Lateral deflection values obtained using AllPile analysis software, are included in Appendix C.

A summary with recommendations for Micropile foundations including factored geotechnical resistance, is provided in Table 4.

Michigan

Miners River Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation Report No.

04-23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Table 4 – Micropile Foundation Recommemdations

Property Value

Minimum Length of Micropiles (ft) 45 Minimum Length of Bond Zone (ft) 30 Plunge Length (ft)* 3 Nominal Geotechncial Resistance (Kip) 300 Factored Geotechnical Resistance (Kip) 165

* cased bond length, typical.

Although not encountered in the borings advanced at this site, cobbles and boulders may be encountered within the lower deposits at this site.

4.7 Micropile Load Testing

Micropile verification and proof load testing should be performed in accordance with Subsection 567.06 of the FP-14. At least one proof load testing should be performed at each substructure where Micropiles are installed.

4.8 Corrosion Protection

Provide corrosion protection of the Micropile elements in accordance with the Corrosion Protection Guidelines provided in the FHWA “Micropile Design and Construction Reference Manual”, (2005). Table 5 provides corrosion protection recommendations.

Table 5 – Corrosion Protection Recommendations for Micropiles

Micropile Element Description Casing None

Core Steel Reinforcing Bar Cement Grout Cover1 1 Minimum 1-inch in soil and 0.5 inches in rock. If protective coatings (epoxy, galvanization, or encapsulation) are provided in compression, minimum cover may be 0.25 inches in soil or rock.

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Excavation - All excavations should be performed following applicable Federal, State, local, and OSHA standards and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-14 Specifications.

Michigan

Miners River Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation Report No.

04-23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Embankment Reconstruction – Any embankment reconstruction should be performed following Section 204 of the FP 14 Specifications.

Micropile Installation – Drilling and micopile installation should be carried out in accordance with FP-14 Subsection 567.05. An adequate soil seal around the micopile casing should be maintained to contain pressurized grout. Upon completion of the grouting operations, there should be no significant loss of grout from any part of the micropile that will be relied upon for load bearing or corrosion protection. Contractor submittals as required by FP-14 Subsection 567.04 should include a grout quality control plan.

The design minimum bond length is based on nominal grout-to-ground as described in Table 3 that is to be confirmed by field load testing. The bond length may be adjusted based on the results of the load tests.

Micropile Construction Tolerance: Micropile construction tolerance including center of Micropile, pile-hole alignment, top elevation and center of reinforcing steel should be within allowable construction tolerance stated in Table 567-1 of the FP-14. Any deviation outside the tolerances provided in the FP-14 specifications should be viewed as a design change and the contractor must notify the Contractor Officer (CO).

6 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests described in the section Procedures and Results have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these exploration and tests represent conditions at the specific locations indicated and to the depths explored. Subsurface conditions between and beyond these locations may vary. The Analysis and Conclusions sections and the Recommendations section of this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing this report. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Houda Jadi, Ph.D.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

Michigan

Miners River Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation Report No.

04-23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

7 REFERENCES

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Quaternary Geology of Northern Michigan, Farrand, W.R., and Bell, D.L., 1982 https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71890.htm

U.S. Geological Survey, Pre-Cambrian rocks of the Lake Superior Region, Leith, C.K., Lund, R.J., and Leith, Andrew, 1935.

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_4179.htm

AASHTO (2020). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Ed. Washington, DC:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

FHWA (2005), "Micropile Design and Construction, NHI Course No. 132078, Reference Manual", Washington D.C., National Highway Institute, U.S. DOT, FHWA

(FHWANHI05039).

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71890.htm https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_4179.htm

APPENDIX A

Figures

Project No.:

MI-NP-PIRO 11 (2)

Date: April, 2023

Project Location Map

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Divion

Figure 1

APPENDIX B

Geotechnical Data Report Stantec, October 2022

GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT

MI NP-PRIO 11(2) SUBSURFACE

EXPLORATION IN PICTURED ROCKS

NATIONAL LAKESHORE IN ALGER

COUNTY, MICHIGAN

October 13, 2022

Prepared for:

Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Contract Number: 693C7321D000006 Task Order Number: 6937322F00084N

MI NP-PRIO 11(2) Subsurface Exploration in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Alger County, Michigan

Revision Description Author Date Quality Check

Date Independent Review

Date

000 DRAFT PFC 10/3/22 EMK 10/4/22 JMM 10/5/22

000 FINAL PFC 10/12/22 EMK 10/13/22

The conclusions in the Report titled MI NP-PRIO 11(2) Subsurface Exploration in Pictured Rocks National

Lakeshore in Alger County, Michigan are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk.

Stantec has assumed all information received from Federal Highway Administration (the “Client”) and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein.

This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client.

While the Report may be provided to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and others for whom the

Client is responsible, Stantec does not warrant the services to any third party. The report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written consent of Stantec, which may be withheld at

Stantec’s discretion.

Prepared by:

Signature

Paul Cichocki, P.E

Reviewed by:

Signature

Eric Kistner, P.E

11/28/22

Project Number: 175538117 i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. II

1 INTRODUCTION

2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

2.1 General

2.2 Soil Geology

3 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND TESTING

3.1 Geotechnical Field Exploration

3.1.1 Drilling Methods

3.1.2 Sampling Methods

3.2 Results of Exploration

3.2.1 Encountered Subsurface Conditions

3.2.2 Laboratory Testing

4 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 – Summary of Soil Classification Table 3.2 – Summary of Standard Proctor Compaction Testing Table 3.3 – California Bearing Ratio (98% Maximum Dry Density)

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL BORING PLAN

APPENDIX B SUBSURFACE LOGS

APPENDIX C PHOTO LOGS

APPENDIX D LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

Project Number: 175538117 ii

Executive Summary

The Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) is proposing to replace a bridge in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. The project site is located in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan near Munising, MI in Alger County. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. has been contracted by

FHWA to perform a geotechnical exploration for the proposed bridge replacement. This report summarizes the findings during the geological study and geotechnical exploration phases of the project.

Geologic, hydraulic and hydrogeologic mapping was reviewed and summarized. GIS data from Michigan

Department of Natural Resources and other resources were utilized to create referenced mapping included in Appendix A.

Four test borings were performed for this project. Overall, the soils encountered in the borings consisted predominately of dense to very dense coarse-grained soils. These coarse-grained soils ranged from dry to wet, and generally increased in density with depth. A thin clay seam was encountered in borings BH22-01 and BH22-02 ranging at a depth between 6 and 20 feet below the ground surface.

Groundwater was encountered during drilling activities in two of the four borings. Groundwater measurements ranged in depth from 6.0 feet below ground surface in Boring BH22-01 to 15.0 feet below ground surface in Boring BH22-02. Water levels were observed in coarse-grained soils. Water level readings were obtained during drilling and at completion of drilling prior to backfilling.

Bedrock was not encountered in the test borings performed for this project. All borings were terminated at their initially planned cutoff depths of approximately 50 feet in overburden material.

Laboratory and field testing was performed on the soils at the project site and are discussed throughout this report. This testing consisted of soil characterization and moisture-density relationship testing.

Project Number: 175538117 1

1 Introduction

The Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) is proposing to replace a bridge in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. The project site is located on Miners Beach Road in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan near Munising, MI in Alger County. Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

has been contracted by FHWA to perform a geotechnical exploration for the proposed bridge replacement.

This report summarizes the findings during the geological study and exploration phases of the project.

2 Geology and Hydrogeology

2.1 General

The Physiographic Regions of Michigan Map, (WMICH, 2009) indicates that the project site is located within the Munising Moraine and Fans. This region is described as having low elevation and low relief landscapes that have been variously influenced by glacial deposition, glacial meltwater, and post-glacial lacustrine and eolian processes. Soil or sediments of this region are mostly somewhat excessively to excessively drained, sandy soils, except for a few areas of wetter soils along kettle chains.

2.2 Soil Geology

Published soils information for Alger County, obtained from United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) website (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.

usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) in July 2022 identifies two primary natural soil units mapped within the project limits. Most of the project site contains Shelldrake sand (232B) of 0 to 8 percent slopes, excessively drained with moderately high to high conductivities ranging from 0.20 to 6.00 inches per hour. The area surrounding the bridge also contains Deer Park sand (11C) with slopes ranging from 0 to 10 percent, excessively drained with a high to very high conductivities ranging from 6.00 to 20.00 inches per hour.

3 Geotechnical Exploration and Testing

A geotechnical exploration and testing program was developed for the project, consisting of a field exploration (geotechnical borings) and laboratory testing of the recovered soil samples.

3.1 Geotechnical Field Exploration

Prior to mobilizing to the site, the boring locations were staked in the field. Approximate boring locations were determined by the Federal Highway Administration. The central contact for the protection of underground utilities in Michigan (MISS DIG) was contacted to locate and mark all public utilities. No underground utilities/obstructions were detected near the boring locations.

Project Number: 175538117 2

The geotechnical field exploration consisted of performing one 50.0 ft deep soil boring, one 5 ft deep pavement boring, and extracting one pavement core in the vicinity of each of the two existing abutments of

Miners River Bridge. To minimize damage to the pavement within the site, the pavement cores were taken at the same locations as the pavement borings (PV22-01 and PV22-02). Therefore, a total of four (4) borings were performed. As-drilled boring location coordinates and elevations were obtained from Google Earth and based off of field measurements and site knowledge of the area. The locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Boring Plan included in Appendix A.

3.1.1 DRILLING METHODS

The Miners River Bridge in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore project borings were proposed to be advanced to the specified depths above or auger refusal, whichever was encountered first. The borings were completed by MATECO Drilling Inc. using a track mounted drill rig (CME 55) equipped with an automatic sampling hammer with an efficiency rating of 83.4 percent. The borings were advanced with a track-mounted drill rig equipped with 4.25-inch inner diameter hollow stem augers (HSA). Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed at 2.5 feet intervals for the top 20 feet and at 5 feet intervals thereafter until termination depth was reached in the deep soil borings with continuous sampling performed in the pavement borings. Hollow stem augering was completed in general accordance with ASTM D6151.

The borings were logged in the field by a Stantec engineer observing the auger cuttings and recovered soil samples while paying particular attention to soil type, color, moisture content, and strength consistency.

Borings were checked for the presence of groundwater during and after drilling operations. Upon completion of drilling, borings were backfilled with auger cuttings and effort was made to restore each boring location to pre-work site conditions.

3.1.2 SAMPLING METHODS

3.1.2.1 Bulk Sampling

Bulk samples were obtained from two borings from auger cuttings at selected intervals for additional laboratory testing. The samples were collected by shoveling auger cuttings into a large plastic proctor bag spun and taped to ensure an air-tight seal and transported to Stantec’s geotechnical laboratory for testing.

3.1.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampling

Disturbed SPT sampling was performed in all four borings to provide specimens for subsequent laboratory index testing used in characterizing the soil profiles. The SPT samples were driven with an automatic hammer and were collected in accordance with ASTM D1586. The SPT sampling consisted of dropping a 140-pound weight from a height of 30 inches to drive a 2-inch split-spoon sampler 18 inches.

Soil properties can be estimated by the SPT N-value, which is the number of blows it takes to drive the spoon the last 12 inches. This method is typically used to obtain soil samples, estimate the consistency or relative density of the soil, and to estimate the vertical extents of the subsurface soil horizons. The

Project Number: 175538117 3 samples were logged in the field, placed into jars with an air-tight lids and transported to Stantec’s geotechnical laboratory for testing.

3.2 Results of Exploration

3.2.1 ENCOUNTERED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The locations of the borings performed are shown on the Geotechnical Boring Plan provided in Appendix

A. Subsurface logs and soil profiles of the borings are provided in Appendix B. Photo logs of each soil sample collected during drilling and site photos are provided in Appendix C.

Coarse-grained soils were encountered in the borings extending to depths of greater than 50 feet. Fine sand, silty sand, and silty gravel with sand were encountered at various depths across the project site.

These soils were described as dry to wet and medium dense to very dense, generally increasing in moisture and density with depth. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values ranged from 8 to more than 50 blows per foot. An N-value of more than 50 blows was encountered in boring BH22-02 with no observed advancement of the split spoon. In accordance with ASTM D1586, this would be considered refusal, however after inspection of the bottom shoe of the split spoon no evidence of bedrock was encountered so the boring progressed with drilling and sampling as planned.

Groundwater was encountered during drilling activities in two of the four borings. Groundwater measurements ranged in depth from 6.0 feet below ground surface in Boring BH22-01 to 15.0 feet below ground surface in Boring BH22-02. Water level readings were observed in coarse-grained soil types. Water level readings were obtained during drilling and at completion of drilling prior to backfilling as outlined in the scope of the project. Due to the nature of the coarse-grained material predominately encountered, 24-hour water level readings were unable to be recorded due to the borehole caving in upon removal of the augers.

A 3 to 5-inch thick clay seam was encountered in two of the four borings typically coinciding within 5 feet of the groundwater table. The clay seam ranged between a depth of 6 to 20 feet below the ground surface in borings BH22-01 and BH22-02, respectively.

Two pavement cores were taken from borings PV22-01 and PV22-02 and both samples were 0.3 feet thick.

Bedrock was not encountered in any of the borings prior to planned depth termination of approximately 50 feet.

3.2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

The samples were transported to a soils laboratory where natural moisture content (MC) was measured on selected samples. Engineering classification testing was performed on select SPT samples reflecting the primary soil horizons. The engineering classification tests conducted on the samples included sieve and hydrometer analysis and Atterberg Limits. The samples were classified in accordance with the USCS and

AASHTO Classification Systems. Bulk bag samples were subjected to standard Proctor moisture-density testing and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing. The laboratory testing was performed in accordance

Project Number: 175538117 4 with AASHTO and ASTM standards. Detailed results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix D and a summary of the results are provided in the following sections.

3.2.2.1 Summary of Soils

Eight soil samples were selected for soil classification testing from the recovered field soil samples to identify the soil horizons across the project site. Table 3.1 below presents the results of the testing using

USCS and AASHTO classification methods.

Table 3.1 – Summary of Soil Classification

Boring

Approximate

Depth (feet)

Classification

USCS AASHTO

PV22-01 1.8 to 3.3 SW-SM A-1-b

PV22-02 1.8 to 3.3 SP-SM A-1-b

BH22-01 25.0 to 26.5 SM A-1-b

BH22-01 40.0 to 41.5 SP-SM A-2-4

BH22-01 45.0 to 46.5 GM A-1-b

BH22-02 30.0 to 31.5 SM A-1-b

BH22-02 40.0 to 41.5 SM A-1-b

BH22-02 50.0 to 51.5 SP-SM A-3

3.2.2.2 Moisture-Density Relationship

Two (2) bulk samples of near-surface soils chosen to represent the soils encountered at each bridge approach were subjected to Standard Proctor tests. Table 3.2 below presents the results of the testing.

Table 3.2 – Summary of Standard Proctor Compaction Testing

Boring

Approximate

Depth (feet)

Max Dry

Density (lb/ft3)

Optimum

Moisture

Content

BH22-01 0.0 to 15.0 109.4 9.2

BH22-02 0.0 to 15.0 110.2 7.0

Project Number: 175538117 5

3.2.2.3 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

A California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was performed on the sample in boring BH22-02 that was previously tested for moisture-density relationship. Based upon the result of the Proctor testing, the bulk sample was compacted at near optimum moisture content in a standard CBR mold prior to testing. The CBR test provides a value that indicates the potential performance of soils as a pavement subgrade and is typically used in pavement designs. Generally, the higher the CBR value, the better the pavement subgrade will perform under traffic loading. Table 3.3 below summarizes the results of the testing.

Table 3.3 – California Bearing Ratio (98% Maximum Dry Density)

Boring CBR Value

BH22-02 9.8

4 Closure and Limitations of Study

This geotechnical exploration was performed to provide a general summary of the geotechnical characteristics within the project site at Pictured Rock National Lakeshore.

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information gathered from the borings advanced during the investigation using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by competent members of the engineering profession.

The subsurface logs and related information presented in this report depict approximate subsurface conditions only at specific boring locations noted and at the time of drilling. No warranties can be made regarding the continuity of conditions between borings. Conditions at other locations may differ from those occurring at the boring locations. In addition, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface conditions at the site.

This report was prepared for our client, the Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands

Highway Division (EFLHD). This report may not be relied upon for use in other projects, additions to the current project, or any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended by Stantec without

Stantec’s express written permission.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Geotechnical Boring Plan

A

AA

A

PV22-02

PV22-01 BH22-02

BH22-01

\\u s0

8-pp fs s0 1\ sh ar ed _p ro je ct s\

7\ G eo te ch ni ca l\D ra w in gs

\F H

W A

G eo te ch ni ca l S ite

P la n (8

.5 x1

1) .m xd

R ev is ed : 2

2-

-0

B y:

rk irk br id e

A-1

175538117 REV0

FHWA

MI NP-PRIO 11(2) Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Subsurface Exploration

Alger County Michigan

Prepared by RJK on 2022-10-06 TR by JM on 2022-10-06

IR Review by PC on 2022-10-06

Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

Notes

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Ohio South FIPS 3402 Feet

2. Data Sources:

3. Background:

Exhibit

Title

Project Location

Client/Project (At original document size of 8.5x11)

0 80 16040 Feet

1 inch = 80 feet

Legend

A Boring Locations

Geotechnical Boring Plan

Appendix B Subsurface Logs

Strata Graphics Symbol Strata

Fill

Topsoil

Gravel

Well Graded Gravel (GW)

Poorly Graded Gravel (GP)

Silty Gravel (GM)

Silty, Clayey Gravel (GC-GM)

Clayey Gravel (GC)

Well Graded Gravel with Silt (GW-GM)

Well Graded Gravel with Clay (GW-GC)

Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt (GP-GM)

Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay (GP-GC)

Well Graded Sand (SW)

Poorly Graded Sand (SP)

Silty Sand (SM)

Silty, Clayey Sand (SC-SM)

Clayey Sand (SC)

Well Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM)

Well Graded Sand with Clay (SW-SC)

Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

Poorly Graded Sand with Clay (SP-SC)

Silt (ML)

Silty Clay (CL-ML)

Lean Clay (CL)

Organic Silt (OL)

Elastic Silt (MH)

Fat Clay (CH)

Organic Clay (OH)

Non-Durable Shale

Durable Shale

Coal

Dolomite

Sandstone

Water Level Graphics Symbol Description

First Water Level Reading

Second Water Level Reading

Sampler Graphics Symbol Sampler

SPT Standard Penetration Test with Split

Spoon (2-in dia.)

ST Shelby Tube

RC Rock Core

Consistency of Fine-Grained Soils Description N-Value (blows/ft)

Very Soft <2

Soft 2 – 4

Firm 4 – 15

Hard 15 – 30

Very Hard >30

Density of Coarse-Grained Soils

Description N-Value (blows/ft) Very Loose <4

Loose 4 – 10

Medium Dense 10 – 30

Dense 30 – 50

Very Dense >50

Description of Plasticity Description Plasticity Index Non-Plastic 0

Low Plasticity 1 – 15

Medium Plasticity 15 – 30

High Plasticity >30

Modified from Sowers, 1979

Degree of Fracturing

Description Spacing Unfractured > 10 ft

Intact 3 ft – 10 ft

Slightly Fractured 1 ft – 3 ft

Moderately Fractured 4 in – 12 in

Fractured 2 in – 4 in

Highly Fractured < 2 in

Common Abbreviations B Bulk Sample

HSA Hollow Stem Auger

LL Liquid Limit

NP Non-Plastic

PL Plastic Limit

RQD Rock Quality Designation

SS Split Spoon

WC Water Content

WOH Weight of Hammer

WOR Weight of Rod

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH

GRAVEL, SP, light brown, fine to coarse, non-plastic, medium dense, dry

WELL GRADED SAND TRACE

SAND, SW, light brown to tan, fine, non-plastic, medium dense to dense, damp to moist

4.8-Inch Clay Seam

POORLY GRADED SAND TRACE

CLAY, SP, dark brown to gray, coarse, non-plastic, medium dense to very dense, moist to wet

SILTY SAND TRACE CLAY, SM,

gray, fine to coarse, non-plastic, medium dense to dense, wet, (Soil

Categorizes as AASHTO A-1-b)

1.5

1.2

1.5

1.3

1.5

1.2

0.5

0.7

1.5

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

624.7

616.0

608.5

8-8-8

3-3-5

4-5-8

5-8-19

6-4-7

7-18-20

5-6-9

5-11-13

7-7-10

SOIL/ROCK DESCRIPTION

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

S T

R A

T A

P L

O

T SAMPLES

M O

N

IT

O R

W E

L L

P

IE

Z

O M

E T

E R

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, BLOWS/FOOT

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

R E

C O

V E

R Y ft

P R

E S

S p si

B L

O W

S

R Q

D

WATER CONTENT & ATTERBERG LIMITS

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH - tsf

1 2 3 4

D E

P T

H (f t)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Pocket Penetrometer/Torvane (tsf)

W LWPW

4-1/4" HSA, 2" SS w/o liners

83.4%

Project Name

Project Location

Inspector

Drilling Contractor

Overburden Drilling and Sampling Tools (Type and Size)

Rock Drilling and Sampling Tools (Type and Size)

Sampler Hammer Type

Borehole Azimuth

P.C

N/A

30"

9/13/22

9/13/22

MI NP-PIRO 11(2)

Automatic

Date/TimeMunising, MI

Date/Time

Borehole Inclination (from Vertical)

Completed

626.0

140 lb

Date Started

Depth to Water

Depth to Water

Drill Rig Type and ID CME 55 (MATECO)

Vertical

6.0 ft

N/A

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Weight Drop Efficiency

8.0 ft 9/13/22

9/13/22

622,036.4 N; 26,362,333.3 E

Google Earth626.0 ft

Boring Location

Surface Elevation

Page:

LOG

175538117 Elevation Datum

Printed on 10/12/22

SUBSURFACE

BH22-01

Client

Project Number

Boring No.

FHWA

SILTY SAND TRACE CLAY, SM,

gray, fine to coarse, non-plastic, medium dense to dense, wet, (Soil

Categorizes as AASHTO A-1-b)

(Continued)

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

TRACE CLAY, SP-SM, brown, fine to coarse, non-plastic, medium dense, moist, (Soil Categorizes as AASHTO

A-2-4)

SILTY GRAVEL TRACE CLAY, GM,

brown, fine to coarse, non-plastic, dense, wet, (Soil Categorizes as

AASHTO A-1-b)

SILTY SAND LITTLE GRAVEL, SM,

brown, fine to coarse, non-plastic, dense, wet

1.0

0.8

1.1

0.9

0.8

1.5

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

586.0

581.0

576.0

574.5

4-5-12

4-4-17

9-7-7

4-7-13

24-8-17

10-11-20

Boring terminated at a depth of 51.5 ft BGS and backfilled with soil cuttings

SOIL/ROCK DESCRIPTION

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

S T

R A

T A

P L

O

T SAMPLES

M O

N

IT

O R

W E

L L

P

IE

Z

O M

E T

E R

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, BLOWS/FOOT

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

R E

C O

V E

R Y ft

P R

E S

S p si

B L

O W

S

R Q

D

WATER CONTENT & ATTERBERG LIMITS

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH - tsf

1 2 3 4

D E

P T

H (f t)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Pocket Penetrometer/Torvane (tsf)

W LWPW

622,036.4 N; 26,362,333.3 E

Google Earth626.0 ft

Boring Location

Surface Elevation

Page:

LOG

175538117 Elevation Datum

Printed on 10/12/22

SUBSURFACE

BH22-01

Client

Project Number

Topsoil

WELL GRADED SAND TRACE

GRAVEL, SW, light brown, fine, non-plastic, medium dense to dense, damp

3.6-inch Clay Seam

CLAYEY SAND TRACE GRAVEL,

SC, gray, fine to coarse, non-plastic, dense, moist to wet

1.5

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.0

1.3

0.7

1.3

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

631.7

611.4

5-5-5

4-5-11

7-8-10

5-7-10

9-14-20

11-14-22

12-13-22

45-50/3.6"

27-15-9

SOIL/ROCK DESCRIPTION

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

S T

R A

T A

P L

O

T SAMPLES

M O

N

IT

O R

W E

L L

P

IE

Z

O M

E T

E R

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, BLOWS/FOOT

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

R E

C O

V E

R Y ft

P R

E S

S p si

B L

O W

S

R Q

D

WATER CONTENT & ATTERBERG LIMITS

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH - tsf

1 2 3 4

D E

P T

H (f t)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Pocket Penetrometer/Torvane (tsf)

W LWPW

4-1/4" HSA, 2" SS w/o liners

83.4%

Project Name

Project Location

Inspector

Drilling Contractor

Overburden Drilling and Sampling Tools (Type and Size)

Rock Drilling and Sampling Tools (Type and Size)

Sampler Hammer Type

Borehole Azimuth

P.C

N/A

30"

9/12/22

9/12/22

MI NP-PIRO 11(2)

Automatic

Date/TimeMunising, MI

Date/Time

Borehole Inclination (from Vertical)

Completed

632.0

140 lb

Date Started

Depth to Water

Depth to Water

Drill Rig Type and ID CME 55 (MATECO)

Vertical

10.0 ft

N/A

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Weight Drop Efficiency

15.0 ft 9/12/22

9/12/22

622,066.7 N; 26,362,473.1 E

Google Earth632.0 ft

Boring Location

Surface Elevation

Page:

LOG

175538117 Elevation Datum

Printed on 10/12/22

SUBSURFACE

BH22-02

Client

Project Number

POORLY GRADED SAND LITTLE TO

SOME GRAVEL, SP, gray, fine to coarse, non-plastic, medium dense, moist

SILTY SAND TRACE CLAY, SM,

gray, fine to coarse, non-plastic to low plasticity, medium dense to dense, wet, (Soil Categorizes as AASHTO

A-1-b)

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

TRACE CLAY, SP-SM, dark brown to gray, fine to coarse, non-plastic, dense, moist to wet, (Soil Categorizes as AASHTO A-3)

0.7

1.1

1.5

1.2

1.3

1.1

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

607.0

602.0

582.0

580.5

4-5-6

8-11-19

13-11-7

4-4-6

5-7-7

9-10-16

Boring terminated at a depth of 51.5 ft BGS and backfilled with soil cuttings

SOIL/ROCK DESCRIPTION

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

S T

R A

T A

P L

O

T SAMPLES

M O

N

IT

O R

W E

L L

P

IE

Z

O M

E T

E R

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, BLOWS/FOOT

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

R E

C O

V E

R Y ft

P R

E S

S p si

B L

O W

S

R Q

D

WATER CONTENT & ATTERBERG LIMITS

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH - tsf

1 2 3 4

D E

P T

H (f t)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Pocket Penetrometer/Torvane (tsf)

W LWPW

622,066.7 N; 26,362,473.1 E

Google Earth632.0 ft

Boring Location

Surface Elevation

Page:

LOG

175538117 Elevation Datum

Printed on 10/12/22

SUBSURFACE

BH22-02

Client

Project Number

Asphalt

Aggregate Base

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT

TRACE CLAY, SW-SM, light brown to tan, fine to coarse, non-plastic, medium dense, dry to damp, (Soil

Categorizes as AASHTO A-1-b)

1.5

1.5

1.5

SPT

SPT

SPT

628.7 628.2

624.2

15-12-10

7-6-6

6-9-17

Boring terminated at a depth of 4.8 ft BGS and backfilled with soil cuttings, Top 1.0 ft placed cold patch asphalt

SOIL/ROCK DESCRIPTION

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

S T

R A

T A

P L

O

T SAMPLES

M O

N

IT

O R

W E

L L

P

IE

Z

O M

E T

E R

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, BLOWS/FOOT

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

R E

C O

V E

R Y ft

P R

E S

S p si

B L

O W

S

R Q

D

WATER CONTENT & ATTERBERG LIMITS

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH - tsf

1 2 3 4

D E

P T

H (f t)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Pocket Penetrometer/Torvane (tsf)

W LWPW

4-1/4" HSA, 2" SS w/o liners

83.4%

Project Name

Project Location

Inspector

Drilling Contractor

Overburden Drilling and Sampling Tools (Type and Size)

Rock Drilling and Sampling Tools (Type and Size)

Sampler Hammer Type

Borehole Azimuth

P.C

N/A

30"

9/12/22

N/A

MI NP-PIRO 11(2)

Automatic

Date/TimeMunising, MI

Date/Time

Borehole Inclination (from Vertical)

Completed

629.0

140 lb

Date Started

Depth to Water

Depth to Water

Drill Rig Type and ID CME 55 (MATECO)

Vertical

N/A

N/A

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Weight Drop Efficiency

N/A N/A

9/12/22

622,059.3 N; 26,362,271.7 E

Google Earth629.0 ft

Boring Location

Surface Elevation

Page:

LOG

175538117 Elevation Datum

Printed on 10/12/22

SUBSURFACE

PV22-01

Client

Project Number

Asphalt

Aggregate Base

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

TRACE CLAY, SP-SM, light brown to gray, fine to coarse, non-plastic, medium dense to dense, dry, (Soil

Categorizes as AASHTO A-1-b)

1.5

1.5

1.5

SPT

SPT

SPT

633.7 633.2

629.2

19-12-12

13-25-27

14-20-23

Boring terminated at a depth of 4.8 ft BGS and backfilled with soil cuttings, Top 1.0 ft placed cold patch asphalt

SOIL/ROCK DESCRIPTION

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

S T

R A

T A

P L

O

T SAMPLES

M O

N

IT

O R

W E

L L

P

IE

Z

O M

E T

E R

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, BLOWS/FOOT

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

R E

C O

V E

R Y ft

P R

E S

S p si

B L

O W

S

R Q

D

WATER CONTENT & ATTERBERG LIMITS

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH - tsf

1 2 3 4

D E

P T

H (f t)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Pocket Penetrometer/Torvane (tsf)

W LWPW

4-1/4" HSA, 2" SS w/o liners

83.4%

Project Name

Project Location

Inspector

Drilling Contractor

Overburden Drilling and Sampling Tools (Type and Size)

Rock Drilling and Sampling Tools (Type and Size)

Sampler Hammer Type

Borehole Azimuth

P.C

N/A

30"

9/12/22

N/A

MI NP-PIRO 11(2)

Automatic

Date/TimeMunising, MI

Date/Time

Borehole Inclination (from Vertical)

Completed

634.0

140 lb

Date Started

Depth to Water

Depth to Water

Drill Rig Type and ID CME 55 (MATECO)

Vertical

N/A

N/A

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Weight Drop Efficiency

N/A N/A

9/12/22

622,057.7 N; 26,362,489.8 E

Google Earth634.0 ft

Boring Location

Surface Elevation

Page:

LOG

175538117 Elevation Datum

Printed on 10/12/22

SUBSURFACE

PV22-02

Client

Project Number

Appendix C Photo Logs

Soil Sample Photographs Project Name: MI NP-PIRO11(2)

March 13 – March 14, 2022 Contract No. 693C7321D000006

Observation Type: Split Spoon

Observation ID: SPT-1

Boring: BH22-01

Depth (ft): 0.0’ to 1.5’

Remarks: Sample 1 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-2

Depth (ft): 2.5’ to 4.0’

Remarks: Sample 2 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-3

Depth (ft): 5.0’ to 6.5’

Remarks: Sample 3 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-4

Depth (ft): 7.5’ to 9.0’

Remarks: Sample 4 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-5

Depth (ft): 10.0’ to 11.5’

Remarks: Sample 5 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-6

Depth (ft): 12.5’ to 14.0’

Remarks: Sample 6 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-7

Depth (ft): 15.0’ to 16.5’

Remarks: Sample 7 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-8

Depth (ft): 17.5’ to 19.0’

Remarks: Sample 8 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-9

Depth (ft): 20.0’ – 21.5’

Remarks: Sample 9 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-10

Depth (ft): 25.0’ to 26.5’

Remarks: Sample 10 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-11

Depth (ft): 30.0’ to 31.5’

Remarks: Sample 11 or 15

Observation ID: SPT-12

Depth (ft): 35.0’ to 36.5’

Remarks: Sample 12 or 15

Observation ID: SPT-13

Depth (ft): 40.0’ to 41.5’

Remarks: Sample 13 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-14

Depth (ft): 45.0’ to 46.5’

Remarks: Sample 14 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-15

Depth (ft): 50.0’ to 51.5

Remarks: Sample 15 of 15

Boring: BH22-02

Remarks: Sample 1 of 15

Depth (ft): 2.5’ to 4.0’

Remarks: Sample 2 of 15

Depth (ft): 5.0’ to 6.5’

Remarks: Sample 3 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-4

Depth (ft): 7.5’ to 9.0’

Remarks: Sample 4 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-5

Depth (ft): 10.0’ to 11.5’

Remarks: Sample 5 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-6

Depth (ft): 12.5’ to 14.0’

Remarks: Sample 6 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-7

Depth (ft): 15.0’ to 16.5’

Remarks: Sample 7 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-8

Depth (ft): 17.5’ to 18.2’

Remarks: Sample 8 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-9

Depth (ft): 20.0’ – 21.5’

Remarks: Sample 9 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-10

Depth (ft): 25.0’ to 26.5’

Remarks: Sample 10 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-11

Depth (ft): 30.0’ to 31.5’

Remarks: Sample 11 or 15

Observation ID: SPT-12

Depth (ft): 35.0’ to 36.5’

Remarks: Sample 12 or 15

Observation ID: SPT-13

Depth (ft): 40.0’ to 41.5’

Remarks: Sample 13 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-14

Depth (ft): 45.0’ to 46.5’

Remarks: Sample 14 of 15

Observation ID: SPT-15

Depth (ft): 50.0’ to 51.5

Remarks: Sample 15 of 15

Observation Type: Pavement Core

Observation ID: CORE-1

Boring: PV22-01

Depth (ft): 0.0’ to 0.3’

Remarks: Sample 1 of 1

Depth (ft): 0.3’ to 1.8’

Remarks: Sample 1 of 3

Depth (ft): 1.8’ to 3.3’

Remarks: Sample 2 of 3

Depth (ft): 3.3’ to 4.8’

Remarks: Sample 3 of 3

Observation Type: Pavement Core

Observation ID: CORE-1

Boring: PV22-02

Depth (ft): 0.0’ to 0.3’

Remarks: Sample 1 of 1

Depth (ft): 0.3’ to 1.8’

Remarks: Sample 1 of 3

Depth (ft): 1.8’ to 3.3’

Remarks: Sample 2 of 3

Depth (ft): 3.3’ to 4.8’

Remarks: Sample 3 of 3

Site Photographs Project Name: MI NP-PIRO11(2)

September 07 – September 16, 2022 Contract No. 693C7321D000006

Observation Type: Site Reconnaissance

Observation ID: 1

Boring: BH22-02 & PV22-02

Remarks: Photo 1 of 15

Observation ID: 2

Depth (ft):

Remarks: Photo 2 of 15

Observation ID: 3

Boring: BH22-01 & PV22-01

Remarks: Photo 3 of 15

Observation ID: 4

Remarks: Photo 4 of 15

Observation Type: Geotechnical Exploration

Observation ID: 5

Remarks: Photo 5 of 15

Observation ID: 6

Remarks: Photo 6 of 15

Observation ID: 7

Remarks: Photo 7 of 15

Observation ID: 8

Remarks: Photo 8 of 15

Observation ID: 9

Remarks: Photo 9 of 15

Observation ID: 10

Remarks: Photo 10 of 15

Observation ID: 11

Remarks: Photo 11 or 15

Observation ID: 12

Remarks: Photo 12 or 15

Observation ID: 13

Boring: BH22-01 & PV22-01

Remarks: Photo 13 of 15

Observation ID: 14

Remarks: Photo 14 of 15

Observation ID: 15

Remarks: Photo 15 of 15

Appendix D Laboratory Testing Results

APPENDIX C

All Pile Lateral Deflection Output

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

Elevation from Pile Top-ft

0 622

10 612

20 602

30 592

40 582

50 572

60 562

Ground

Tip yt=4.81E-10 Top yt=3.06E-1 Max. yt=3.06E-1 Top St=0E+0

0-0.50 +0.50 yt=0 at 15.6-ft

St=0 at 19.2-ft

Top Moment=-32.2 Max. Moment=32.2

0-50 +50

Top Shear=4.6 Max. Shear=4.8

0-5 +5

G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %

56.6 33.0 0.00 49.8 Sand

58.2 34.0 0.00 59.6 Silty Sand and Gravel

58.9 33.0 0.00 66.3 Sand, some gravel & silt

60.0 36.0 0.00 81.7 Sandy Gravel, some silt

60.8 34.0 0.00 98.7 Silty Sand, some gravelLast Section: E -kp/i2=3000

Last Section: I'-in4=21

DEFLECTION, yt -in SHEAR -kp

Single Pile, Khead=5, Kbc=2

MOMENT -kp-f

PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

F ig u r e 3M I N P P I R O 1 1 ( 2 )M in e r 's R iv e r B r id g e - P r o f ile B H 2 2 - 0 1

Service Limit State Estimated scour depth at proposed west abutment location = 6 ft

AllPile- Single Pile Lateral Analysis, Fixed Head Subsurface Conditions: BH22-01

Pile Top-ft

Elevation from Pile Top-ft

0 622

10 612

20 602

30 592

40 582

50 572

60 562

Ground

Tip yt=1.43E-9 Top yt=6.87E-1 Max. yt=6.87E-1 Top St=1.02E-17

0-1.00 +1.00 yt=0 at 16.3-ft

St=0 at 19.4-ft

Top Moment=-66.3 Max. Moment=66.3

0-100 +100

Top Shear=9.0 Max. Shear=9.4

0-10 +10

G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %

56.6 33.0 0.00 49.8 Sand

58.2 34.0 0.00 59.6 Silty Sand and Gravel

58.9 33.0 0.00 66.3 Sand, some gravel & silt

60.0 36.0 0.00 81.7 Sandy Gravel, some silt

60.8 34.0 0.00 98.7 Silty Sand, some gravelLast Section: E -kp/i2=3000

Last Section: I'-in4=21

DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp

PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH Y-Front,Single Pile, Kbc =2

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

F ig u r e 3M I N P P I R O 1 1 ( 2 )M in e r 's R iv e r B r id g e - P r o f ile B H 2 2 - 0 1

AllPile- Lateral Analysis Pile Group- Front, Fixed Head Subsurface Conditions: BH22-01

Strength Limit State Estimated scour depth at proposed west abutment location = 6 ft

Pile Top-ft

Elevation from Pile Top-ft

0 622

10 612

20 602

30 592

40 582

50 572

60 562

Ground

Tip yt=-1.25E-9 Top yt=6.71E-1 Max. yt=6.71E-1 Top St=0E+0

0-1.00 +1.00 yt=0 at 19.0-ft

St=0 at 21.4-ft

Top Moment=-37.0 Max. Moment=37.0

0-50 +50

Top Shear=3.8 Max. Shear=4.1

0-5 +5

G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %

56.6 33.0 0.00 49.8 Sand

58.2 34.0 0.00 59.6 Silty Sand and Gravel

58.9 33.0 0.00 66.3 Sand, some gravel & silt

60.0 36.0 0.00 81.7 Sandy Gravel, some silt

60.8 34.0 0.00 98.7 Silty Sand, some gravelLast Section: E -kp/i2=3000

Last Section: I'-in4=21

DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp

PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH Y-Back, Single Pile, Kbc =2

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

F ig u r e 3M I N P P I R O 1 1 ( 2 )M in e r 's R iv e r B r id g e - P r o f ile B H 2 2 - 0 1

AllPile- Lateral Analysis Pile Group- Back, Fixed Head Subsurface Conditions: BH22-01

Strength Limit State Estimated scour depth at proposed west abutment location = 6 ft