MI_NP_PIRO_11(2)_PVT_Memo.pdf

Page 1 of 4 Pages

Form FHWA-201 (Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA-121 for informal correspondence. MINUTE-MEMO

SUBJECT: MI NP PIRO 11(2) –Pavement Recommendations

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

J. Bains Project Manager

S. Nawaz Highway Design Manager

This memorandum serves to support 70% PS&E development for Project MI NP PIRO 11(2) located in Alger County, Michigan. The purpose of the project is to repair or replace the steel bridge and the integrated lamprey barrier on Miners River within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. A Project Location Map is included in Appendix A.

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Road Inventory Program (RIP) collected data on routes within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore during Cycle 6 (C6) in 2018. EFLHD also conducted a scoping visit in August 2021. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. performed the subsurface investigation for the bridge and pavement structures in September 2022.

BACKGROUND

Miners River Bridge is a 20-foot long, 30-foot wide, two-lane, two-way bridge that provides access to Miners Beach. The bridge was constructed in 1953 and is approaching its end of service life. Based on the conditions observed during the scoping site visit, the pavement at the bridge approaches is in excellent condition with no noticeable distresses. However, the replacement of the bridge would warrant new construction of the pavement structure at the bridge approaches.

This memorandum presents our recommendations for the pavement structure in the locations included within the scope of work based on the findings from the field assessment performed by EFLHD, the subsurface investigation. The subsurface investigation was conducted by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec)

Subsurface Exploration and Pavement Coring Stantec performed subsurface investigation in September 2022, consisting of extracting a total of 2 pavement cores and drilling 4 soil borings. The approximate locations of the soil borings and pavement cores are included in the Geotechnical Data Report inside of Appendix B.

Both extracted pavement cores (PV22-01 and PV22-02) were intact and showed that the existing asphalt thickness is approximately 3.6 inches. The Pavement Coring Log showing photographs and location of the pavement cores is included in Appendix B.

The soil borings were drilled to a depth of approximately 5 feet below the existing subgrade for the pavement borings (PV22-01 and PV22-02) and approximately 52 feet below the existing subgrade for the geotechnical boring (BH22-01 and BH22- 02). Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed using a 3 ¾-inch (outer diameter) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T-206 for the roadway borings.

Laboratory testing of soil samples included Particle Size Analysis Preparation, Gradation, and Hydrometer Method (AASHTO T-87, and AASHTO T-88), Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Natural Moisture Content of soils (AASHTO T-89, J. Aponte- Rivera Pavement Engineer

Through:

M. Elias Pavements Team Leader

06/20/2023

Page 2 of 4 Pages

(Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA-121 for informal correspondence. MINUTE-MEMO

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

AASHTO T-90, and AASHTO T-265). California Bearing Ratio (CBR) (AASHTO T-183) was only obtained from a soil sample (0 to 15 feet deep) from BH22-02. It is to be noted that this boring was drilled on the roadway unpaved shoulder and might not represent the subgrade strength directly below the pavement mainline.

Table 1 summarizes the laboratory testing results for the subgrade soil. Boring logs from the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing results are included Appendix B.

Table 1. Laboratory Testing Results

Boring ID Depth (Feet)

Moisture Content

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

PI AASHTO

Classification

Description CBR

PV22-01 4.8 4.1 NP NP NP A-1-b(0) Well Graded Sand with Silt

PV22-02 4.8 1.2 NP NP NP A-1-b(0) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt

BH22-01 25 18.2 NP NP NP A-1-b(0) Silty Sand with Gravel

BH22-02 30 18.4 NP NP NP A-1-b(0) Silty Sand with Gravel

BH22-02 0-15 - - - - - - 9.8

The pavement borings (PV22-01 and PV22-02) encountered Sand with Silt based on the lab testing results. Sand sampled was classified as Medium Dense to Very Dense with N-values ranging from 17 to 72 blows per foot (bpf). The soil borings (BH22- 01 and BH22-02) that were drilled on the roadway unpaved shoulders encountered Silty Sand based on the lab testing results. Sand sampled was classified as Medium Dense with N-values ranging from 11 to 25 bpf. Table 2 summarizes the results of N values and density classification per boring source.

Table 2. Soil Classification per Boring Source

Source Nvalues Density Classification PV 22-01 17 to 36 bpf Medium Dense to Dense PV 22-02 33 to 72 bpf Dense to Very Dense BH 22-01 11 to 22 bpf Medium Dense BH 22-02 14 to 25 bpf Medium Dense

Soil strength in terms of CBR was tested from a soil sample obtained from BH22-02 at an approximate depth of 0 to 15 feet. The CBR value obtained was 9.8 which corresponds to a resilient modulus (Mr) of 14,700 psi. For pavement design purposes a conservative Mr value of 5,000 psi will be used.

Page 3 of 4 Pages

(Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA-121 for informal correspondence. MINUTE-MEMO

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The design for the pavement structure for routes in this project was performed in accordance with the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, AASHTOWare Darwin software (Version 3.1) and the Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM). The recommendations included here reference the FP-14, “Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects”.

For the Miners Castle Road, a Two-Way Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1,650 vehicles was used based on the Project DSR. The effective roadbed soil resilient modulus was determined based on information obtained from the subsurface investigation via CBR correlation. For pavement design purposes a conservative Mr value of 5,000 psi was used for the analysis. An initial serviceability of 4.2 was used, in addition to a terminal serviceability of 2.5, reliability level of 75 percent, and an overall standard deviation of 0.49.

Based on the pavement conditions observed during the field view, pavement cores and results from the subsurface investigation, we recommend the pavement structure summarized in Table 3 for the Miner Rivers Bridge approaches. Appendix C includes the Pavement Design Analysis with the assumptions used for the analysis. The recommendations included here reference the FP-14, “Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects”.

Table 3. Miners River Bridge Approach Reconstruction

Layer Minimum Thickness

(in) Comments

AC Surface Course 2

Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP), Type 1, 1/2” Nominal

Maximum Size Aggregate (NMSA), as per Section 403

Asphalt Tack Coat -- AC Tack Coat as per Section 412

AC Base Course 2 HACP, Type 1, 1/2” NMSA as per Section 403

Aggregate Base 8 Aggregate Base Course, Grading C or D, as per Section 301

Geotextile --- Separation/Stabilization Geotextile (Class 2, Type E) as per Section 207

Page 4 of 4 Pages

(Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA-121 for informal correspondence. MINUTE-MEMO

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Project Location Map Appendix B: Stantec Geotechnical Data Report (Subsurface Exploration) Appendix C: Pavement Design Analysis cc: Highway Design BC, TS BC w/ attachments

Appendix A

Project Location Map

Project Location Map

Route 0012 – Miners Beach Road

Miners River Bridge

Appendix B

Stantec Geotechnical Data Report

(Subsurface Exploration)

GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT (DRAFT)

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

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-p pfs s0

1\s ha red _p roj ec ts\

7\G eo tec hn ica l\D raw ing s\F

HW

A G eo tec hn ica l S ite

Pl an

(8 .5x

).m xd

R ev ise d:

-10 -06

B y:

rki rkb rid e

A-1

175538117 REV0FHWA

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

Pavement Design Analysis

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

Analysis using 1650 ADT (Reconstruction)

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 112,095 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 5,000 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.57 in

Simple ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 25 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,650 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater 1 % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) 1 Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate 0 % Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate 2 % Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 112,095

Specified Layer Design

Layer Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width (ft)

Calculated SN (in)

1 ACP 0.44 1 4 - 1.76

2 Aggregate Base 0.12 1 8 - 0.96

Total - - - 12.00 - 2.72

Appendix Combined