ora-polk-mitchell1_GR 7-20 Final Foundation Report OR Polk 2016(1) Little Luckiamute Bridge.pdf

Mitchell Street and Black Rock Road Reconstruction June 2021

Table of Contents 1-i

Geotechnical Report No. GR 7-20

Mitchell Street and Black Rock Road Reconstruction Little Luckiamute Bridge Replacement

FINAL FOUNDATION REPORT

OR POLK 2016(1)

Polk County, Oregon

June 2021

This page intentionally left blank

Little Luckiamute Bridge Replacement June 2021

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

1.2 Purpose and Scope

2 GEOLOGY

2.1 Geologic Hazards

2.1.1 Design Ground Motions

2.1.2 Liquefaction

2.1.3 Surface Rupture

3 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 Average Temperatures and Precipitation

3.2 Scour

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Borings

4.2 Groundwater

5 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Foundation Loads

5.2 Resistance Factors

5.3 Bearing Capacity

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Excavation

6.2 Dewatering

7 LIMITATIONS

8 REFERENCES

List of Figures ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map

Figure 1-2 Vicinity Topographic Map

Figure 2-1 Excerpt from the Geologic Map of Oregon (Walker and MacLeod, 1991)

Figure 2-2 5-Percent-Damped-Design Response Spectrum

Figure 2-3 Excerpt from USGS Quaternary Faults website

Figure 3-1 View of Existing Bridge Facing East

Figure 3-2 View of Existing Bridge Facing West

Figure 3-3 View of the Stream Under the Existing Bridge Facing North (Upstream)

Figure 3-4 View of the Stream Under the Existing Bridge Facing South (Downstream)

Figure 3-5 View of West Former Bridge Foundation Facing West

Figure 3-6 View of West Former Bridge Foundation Facing West

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Summary of Seismic Parameters

Table 3-1 Climate Data Summary

Table 5-1 Summary of Total Abutment Loads

Table 5-2 Resistance Factors

Table 5-3 Bearing Resistance Values

Table 5-4 Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures for Foundation Design

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Figure A-1 Boring Locations Map

APPENDIX B

Descriptive Terminology for Boring Logs Boring Log Legend Boring Logs BH19-01 to BH19-02 Rock Core Photos

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Test Results

Introduction 3

1 INTRODUCTION

This report provides geotechnical investigation results, analyses, and final foundation recommendations for the Little Luckiamute Bridge replacement, which is a part of the Mitchell Street and Black Rock Road Reconstruction Project. The project is located approximately 1 mile west-northwest of Falls City, Idaho along Black Rock Road in Polk County, Oregon.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project begins on Black Rock Road in Polk County, Oregon jurisdiction west of Falls City, Oregon. At the city limits near Dutch Creek crossing, the road becomes Mitchell Street. The project length is approximately 0.95 miles from the west end to the east end near the intersection with Park Street. The existing single-lane gravel roadway is proposed to be widened to a paved two-lane roadway up to 22 to 26 feet in width in the County limits and up to 24 feet in City limits.

The existing County Bridge, which spans Little Luckiamute River, is a steel Warren truss bridge that was constructed in 1963 from what is believed to be a relocated State Highway Bridge.

Although the exact age of the bridge is unknown, it is believed to have been constructed in the 1920’s. The single-lane bridge has an operating load rating of 45 ton, which is insufficient for the heavy equipment required by timber harvesting and aggregate production in the area.

Additionally, the bridge is used to access local recreational areas, and the single lane width of the bridge, combined with limited sight distance, is a safety risk. Design of the replacement bridge consists of a single-span, two-lane, concrete superstructure using prestressed concrete deck bulb-tee girders and shallow spread footings.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical recommendations for bridge foundation design and construction. The geotechnical scope of work included a visual reconnaissance along the proposed alignment, a subsurface exploration program consisting of two geotechnical test borings near the planned bridge abutments, laboratory soil and rock testing, preparation of interim memorandums, participation in bridge foundation selection meetings, and preparation of this report. The geotechnical borings and laboratory tests were completed by Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) and a drilling subcontractor under the direction of WFLHD. Additional geotechnical subsurface explorations were completed along the project alignment and will be discussed in a separate geotechnical report.

The following documents were previously prepared by WFLHD regarding the bridge replacement and are available by request:

• Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Results Memorandum, GM 35-19, dated November 15, 2019

This report supersedes these previous documents for this project.

4 Introduction

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map

Figure 1-2 Vicinity Topographic Map

Little

Luckiamute

Bridge

Geology 5

2 GEOLOGY

As shown in Figure 1-2, the bridge site is located in a relatively narrow valley within the Central Oregon Coast Range. Little Luckiamute River flows southeast in the vicinity of the bridge. Based on the Geologic Map of Oregon (Walker and MacLeod, 1991), displayed in Figure 2-1, the eastern bank of Little Luckiamute River near the bridge site, the area is mapped as Ty, Yamhill Formation (upper and middle Eocene). The Yamhill Formation is described as massive to thin-bedded marine siltstone and thin interbeds of arkosic, glauconitic, and basaltic sandstone (Walker and MacLeod, 1991).

On the western bank near bridge site, the area is mapped as Qal, alluvium (Holocene) and Ti, mafic intrusions (Oligocene). The alluvium is described as sand gravel, and silt forming flood plains; includes soils containing organic material and thin peat beds. The mafic intrusions are described as sheets, sills, and dikes of massive ferrogabbro; some bodies may be strongly differentiated (Walker and MacLeod, 1991).

As discussed in the Subsurface Conditions section below, silty sand, sandy silt, well-graded sand with silt and gravel interpreted to be alluvium, and rock interpreted to be gabbro, were encountered in the borings and are consistent with the geologic mapping.

Figure 2-1 Excerpt from the Geologic Map of Oregon (Walker and MacLeod, 1991)

Little

Luckiamute

6 Geology

2.1 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Geologic hazards can include surface rupture, liquefaction and related phenomenon, soft or subsiding ground, strong ground shaking, and landsliding, among other natural hazards. Our literature search did not discover a published geologic hazard map for the vicinity. Based on the geologic mapping and the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings (discussed later in this report), it is our opinion that the relevant geologic hazards in the site vicinity could include:

surface rupture, liquefaction/lateral spreading, and strong ground shaking. These hazards are discussed further in the Site Seismicity section below.

2.1.1 DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS

The procedures outlined in Section 3.10 of the 8th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) were followed to characterize the seismic hazard. The seismic hazard at the site and the importance of the proposed bridge dictate the level of seismic analysis that is required for the design. The seismic hazard principles within the AASHTO BDS are that bridges shall be designed to have a low probability of collapse but may suffer significant damage and disruption to service when subject to earthquake ground motions that have a seven percent probability of exceedance in 75 years. Partial or complete replacement may be required (AASHTO, 2017).

Based on the AASHTO procedures and the N60 standard penetration resistance of the soil profile at the project site, we recommend a Site Class of “B” for the site. The U.S. Seismic Design Maps website (USGS, 2020) were used to determine the base peak ground acceleration and spectral accelerations at the project site for basement rock. The spectral accelerations were then scaled to the Site Class using the site factors recommended by AASHTO to represent the seismic accelerations amplified at the ground surface. The results of this analysis presented in Table 2-1.

Geology 7

Table 2-1 Summary of Seismic Parameters

Site Latitude 44.8698° Site Longitude -123.4509°

Site Class at Project Site (by Soil Type and Penetration Resistance in Top 100 feet of Soil

Profile) B

Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration on Site Class B Rock (PGA) 0.281 g Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at a

Period of 0.2 sec on Site Class B Rock (Ss)

0.667 g

Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at a Period of 1.0 sec on Site Class B Rock (S1)

0.303 g

Mapped Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient, FPGA 1.00 Mapped Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Coefficient, Fa 1.00 Mapped 1-sec Period Spectral Acceleration Coefficient, Fv 1.00

Scaled Peak Ground Acceleration for Project Site, Site Class B (As)

0.281 g

Scaled Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at a Period of 0.2 sec for Project Site, Site Class B (SDS)

0.667 g

Scaled Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at a Period of 1.0 sec for Project Site, Site Class B (SD1)

0.303 g

AASHTO Seismic Zone 3

The values in Table 2-1 were used to develop the 5-percent-damped-design response spectrum shown in Figure 2-2 below for the project site.

Figure 2-2 5-Percent-Damped-Design Response Spectrum

8 Geology

2.1.2 LIQUEFACTION

Following the AASHTO procedures, this site was determined to be in Seismic Zone 3. A site in Seismic Zone 3 requires a liquefaction analysis if saturated, loose or very loose cohesionless soils are present, and the Scaled Peak Ground Acceleration for Project Site (As) is 0.15 g or greater. Because the Little Luckiamute Bridge foundations will be supported on bedrock, the risk of liquefaction is low and a liquefaction analysis was not necessary.

2.1.3 SURFACE RUPTURE

Information from the USGS Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States website, displayed in Figure 2-3 was used to locate nearby active faults. The closest mapped quaternary fault is the Salem-Eola Hills homocline, which is located approximately 15 miles to the east. Due to the large distance to the fault, the risk of surface rupture from active faults is considered low.

Figure 2-3 Excerpt from USGS Quaternary Faults website

Little Luckiamute

Salem-Eola

Hills Homocline

Site Conditions 9

3 SITE CONDITIONS

The existing Little Luckiamute Bridge crosses Little Luckiamute River along Black Rock Road. At the location of the bridge, the river flows within a valley at the eastern edge of the Central Oregon Coastal Mountain Range. The river flows generally eastwardly but at the bridge location the flow is approximately north to south.

The existing bridge is an 85-foot span, single-lane pony-truss bridge, that is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The bridge is not load restricted, but cannot handle overloads (Miller, 2018). Photos of the existing Little Luckiamute Bridge approaches and stream bank are shown in Figure 3-1, Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3, Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5, and Figure 3-6 below.

Remnants of the foundations of a former bridge and visible upstream of the existing bridge. The west former bridge foundation is sitting directly on a competent gabbro bedrock outcrop. The east foundation of the bridge is also visible under some brush. However, this foundation appears to be sitting on alluvial sediments, although the bottom was not visible. It is our understanding that this former bridge was damaged by river flow many years ago.

10 Site Conditions

Figure 3-1 View of Existing Bridge Facing East

Figure 3-2 View of Existing Bridge Facing West

Site Conditions 11

Figure 3-3 View of the Stream Under the Existing Bridge Facing North (Upstream).

Figure 3-4 View of the Stream Under the Existing Bridge Facing South (Downstream).

Bedrock outcrop at former west bridge foundation

12 Site Conditions

Figure 3-5 View of West Former Bridge Foundation Facing West.

Figure 3-6 View of West Former Bridge Foundation Facing West.

Site Conditions 13

3.1 AVERAGE TEMPERATURES AND PRECIPITATION

Table 3-1 shows the average maximum and minimum temperatures, average monthly precipitation, and average monthly snowfall data for the period from 1986 to 2016 for the Fall City, Oregon (352800) weather station (Western Region Climate Center, 2020), located approximately 1 mile from the project site.

Table 3-1 Climate Data Summary

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average Max.

Temperature (F)

44.6 49.2 53.9 60.4 66.6 71.7 80.4 80.4 74.3 63.3 52.2 46.2 61.9

Average Min.

Temperature

(F)

31.5 33.3 35.3 37.9 41.8 45.9 48.4 48.2 46.4 42.0 36.2 33.4 40.0

Average Total

Precipitation (in.)

12.5 10.2 9.16 4.36 2.65 1.50 0.30 0.56 1.90 5.22 11.8 13.6 73.8

Average Total

SnowFall (in.)

7.8 2.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.4 16.0

Average Snow Depth

(in.)

2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note:

1) Period of Record : 08/01/1896 to 04/30/2016.

2) Percent of possible observations for period of record: Max. Temp.: 99.7% Min. Temp.: 99.9%

Precipitation: 100% Snowfall: 99.9% Snow Depth: 99.9%.

3.2 SCOUR

WFLHD Hydraulics Engineer, Sven Leon, prepared a memorandum titled, “Little Luckiamute River Bridge Waterway Design Hydraulics Memo”, dated April 23, 2019. At the time, the memorandum preliminary recommended Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil – Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) abutments supported directly on the bedrock visible in the channel bottom.

No abutment scour was predicted if the abutment were founded on bedrock.

14 Subsurface Conditions

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 BORINGS

A subsurface exploration program was completed at the Little Luckiamute Bridge site on September 6, 2019 consisting of one boring at each abutment. Additional subsurface explorations were also completed as part of this project. The findings from the other explorations will be discussed in a separate geotechnical report.

Boring BH19-01 was drilled near the east abutment, and boring BH19-02 was drilled near the west abutment at the approximate locations shown on attached Figure A-1, Boring Locations Map.

The borings were drilled from the existing roadway and were both advanced to a depth of 40 feet below ground surface. The boring logs and laboratory testing results are included in the appendix of this report.

Subsurface conditions in boring BH19-01 consisted of loose to medium dense, moist, silty sand and sandy silt with gravel in the upper 13 feet, which we interpreted to be alluvium. Very dense, moist, silty sand and extremely weak, residual rock was encountered from approximately 13 to

24.5 feet, which we interpreted to be weathered gabbro. At approximately 24.5 feet to the bottom of the boring at 40 feet, rock coring encountered medium strong to strong rock, which we interpret to be intact gabbro. The rock cores had closely spaced discontinuities and joint/fracture ranges from 25 to 85 degrees from horizontal.

Subsurface conditions in boring BH19-02 consisted of medium dense, moist to dry, silty sand well-graded sand with silt and gravel in the upper 12 feet, which we interpreted to be alluvium and residual soil to completely weathered gabbro rock. At approximately 12 feet to the bottom of the boring at 40 feet, rock coring encountered medium strong to strong rock, which we interpret to be intact gabbro. The rock cores had closely spaced discontinuities in good condition and joint/fracture ranges from 0 to 85 degrees from horizontal.

4.2 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was encountered in BH19-01 during drilling at 17.9 feet (elevation 422.1 feet) below ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered in boring BH19-02 prior to switching over to rock coring operations, which introduce water to the hole as a drilling fluid. It should be noted that groundwater and soil moisture conditions should be expected to fluctuate with adjacent river levels, precipitation, and other seasonal factors.

Foundation Analysis and Recommendations 15

5 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the observed subsurface conditions and discussions with the WFLHD Structures and Hydraulics group during a foundation selection team meeting, shallow spread footings founded on scour resistant rock were selected for this project. The east abutment should be founded on completely weathered gabbro rock (weathered to very dense silty sand), and the west abutment should be founded on slightly weathered gabbro rock.

5.1 FOUNDATION LOADS

We understand that the bridge superstructure will consist of precast concrete bulb-tee girders and concrete deck. Final bridge loads were provided by the WFLHD Structural Group and are summarized in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Summary of Total Abutment Loads

Limit State Abutment 1 - West (kips)

Abutment 2 - East (kips)

Service I 1,100 1,350 Strength I 1,525 1,825 Extreme I 850 1,100

The maximum factored bearing pressure load of 8.3 ksf for Abutment 1 and 8.1 ksf for Abutment 2 for the Strength I limit state.

5.2 RESISTANCE FACTORS

Per Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 of the AASHTO BDS and our experience, the following resistance factors were used for Strength Limit States:

Table 5-2 Resistance Factors

Method / Soil / Condition Resistance Factor

Bearing Resistance b

Semi-empirical methods (Meyerhof, 1957), all soils 0.45 b Footings on rock 0.45

Sliding

Precast Concrete placed on sand 0.90

Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand 0.80

Cast-in-Place Concrete on rock 0.80 ep Passive earth pressure component of sliding resistance 0.50

16 Foundation Analysis and Recommendations

As discussed in the AASHTO BDS section 10.5.5.1 and 10.5.5.3.3, resistance factors for Service and Extreme Limit states should be 1.0, except as provided for overall stability in Article 11.6.2.3.

5.3 BEARING CAPACITY

Bearing capacity for shallow foundations was estimated using AASHTO BDS section 10.6.2.4 Settlement Analysis for Service Limit State Design and section 10.6.3 for Strength Limit State Design. Bearing resistance values for the east and west abutments are shown in Table 5-3.

The west abutment foundation was assumed to be 8 feet in width and 42 feet in length and founded on competent rock observed at approximately elevation 430 feet. The east abutment foundation was assumed to be 10 feet in width and 42 feet in length and founded at least 2 feet below very dense weathered rock, which was observed at approximately elevation 427 feet. A reduction factor of 0.45 was used to calculate the factored bearing resistance values. Settlement is estimated to be less than 1 inch provided foundation subgrades are as described in this report.

Table 5-3 Bearing Resistance Values

Table 5-4 Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures for Foundation Design

Description Value Soil Angle of Internal Friction, ’ 34 deg

Moist Unit Weight, T 120 pcf Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka 0.28 Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure 35 psf/ft At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, K0 0.44 At-Rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure 50 psf/ft Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient, Kp 3.54 Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure 425 psf/ft

Friction angle, , between cast-in-place concrete 24 deg The above values are unfactored.

Structural Backfill per FP-14 Subsection 704.04 should be used as backfill behind abutment foundation walls and wing walls, if any. Geocomposite sheet drains connected to a perforated footing drain pipe should be installed behind abutment/walls and drained to daylight to ensure adequate drainage. The soil parameters listed in Table 5-4 may be used to determine the lateral earth pressures exerted and sliding resistance of the abutment foundation and wing walls. The parameters listed above assume a vertical abutment/wall with level backfill.

General Location

Bottom of Footing

Elevation (ft)

Factored Bearing, qR

(ksf)

Nominal Bearing, qn

(ksf) West Bridge

Abutment 430 9 20

East Bridge Abutment 425 9 20

Construction Considerations 17

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 EXCAVATION

The proposed west foundation should bear on competent, fresh to slightly weathered gabbro rock.

Excavation into the rock is expected to be very difficult, and the foundation can be constructed directly on the competent rock estimated to be at elevation 430 feet. The east foundation will likely bear on completely weathered gabbro rock, which has weathered to a very dense silty sand soil material. Based on the soil explorations, this bearing stratum appears highly fractured and should be excavatable using buckets with rock teeth and/or hydraulic rams. Excavation on the east abutment should bear approximately 2 feet into the weathered rock (estimated to be elevation 425 feet) per Hydraulics recommendations. All final foundation subgrades may vary in elevation and should be evaluated by the project engineer, hydraulics engineer, and/or geotechnical engineer.

We anticipate that the foundation excavations can be performed using temporary slope cuts, which should be the responsibility of the contractor based on site conditions, including soil and rock conditions and surface and ground water conditions. If necessary, shoring should be the responsibility of the contractor to design and monitor.

6.2 DEWATERING

Groundwater is expected at or near the elevation of the stream. Bottom of foundation elevations are anticipated to be at elevation 430 and 425 feet for the west and east abutments, respectively.

Ordinary high water is estimated at elevation 434.5 feet. Therefore, some seepage and/or wet conditions may be encountered at the time of construction. The contractor should be prepared to temporarily dewater the excavations, if necessary.

The placement of riprap and other in-stream work may require channel diversions, cofferdams, or other flow barriers. These should be the responsibility of the contractor to design and monitor during construction. We understand that there may be an in-water work window due to certain fish species in the creek. This in-water work window would be listed in the contract documents under environmental requirements.

18 Limitations

7 LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared to provide subsurface investigation results and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Little Luckiamute Bridge replacement foundations.

Professional judgments and recommendations are presented in this report based partly on evaluation of the technical information gathered and partly on the Geotechnical Team’s general experience with similar projects. It should be noted the borings might not represent potentially unfavorable subsurface conditions away from the borings. The observed water levels and/or conditions indicated on the logs are as recorded at the time of the exploration. The water levels and/or conditions may vary considerably, with season/time, changes in climate, rainfall, and other factors and are otherwise dependent on the duration of, and methods used in, and interpretations made from the exploration program.

If conditions are encountered during construction that vary from those discussed in this report, or if design loads, project stationing, and/or structure locations change, the WFLHD Geotechnical Team should be notified immediately in order to evaluate what effects, if any, the changes have on the recommendations contained in this report. The recommendations presented in this report are applicable only to this specific site. These data are not to be used for other purposes.

Questions regarding this report should be addressed to Eric Lim, WFLHD Senior Geotechnical Engineer, at (360) 619-7826, or eric.lim@dot.gov.

mailto:eric.lim@dot.gov

Limitations 19

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NO. 7-20

FINAL FOUNDATION REPORT

Mitchell Street and Black Rock Road Reconstruction, Luckiamute Bridge

OR POLK 2016(1)

Polk County, Oregon

June 2021

Prepared by: _________________________________________ Sean Hayter, Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by: _________________________________________ Eric Lim, Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Approved by: _________________________________________ Douglas A. Anderson, Supervisory Geotechnical Engineer

20 References

8 REFERENCES

AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition, 2017, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

Miller, Matthew, 2018, Project Plan, Mitchell Street and Black Rock Road Reconstruction, Western Federal Lands Highway Division, Vancouver, Washington.

USGS, 2017, USGS Earthquake Hazards Program website, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php, accessed June 9, 2020, U.S.

Geological Survey.

USGS, 2018a, Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States Interactive Fault Map website, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/, accessed June 9, 2020.

USGS, 2018b, Unified Hazard Tool website, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/index.php, accessed June 9, 2020, U.S.

Geological Survey.

Walker, G.W. and MacLeod, N.N., 1991, Geologic Map of Oregon, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Western Regional Climate Center (2020), Cooperative Climatological Data Summaries, Falls

City, Oregon (352800): https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?or2800, accessed June 8, 2020.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/index.php https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?or2800%20

APPENDIX A

Site Plans

Figure A-1, Boring Locations Map

Figure A-1: Boring Locations Map

Note: Boring Locations Maps are based off the 95% plan set and are not for construction.

BH19-02

BH19-01

APPENDIX B

Exploration Logs

Descriptive Terminology for Boring Logs Boring Log Legend

Boring Logs BH19-01 to BH19-02 Rock Core Photos

10/04/2018

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Name Using Laboratory TestsA Group

Symbol Group NameB

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

More than 50% retained on No. 200 Sieve

GRAVELS

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve

Clean GRAVELS Less than 5% fines E

Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3C GW Well-graded GRAVEL D

Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 C GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL D

GRAVELS with fines More than 12% fines E

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty GRAVEL D,F Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey GRAVEL D,F

SANDS

Less than 50% retained on No. 4 Sieve

Clean SANDS Less than 5% fines I

Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 C SW Well-graded SAND H

Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 C SP Poorly-graded SAND H

SANDS with fines More than 12% fines I

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty SAND F,H Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey SAND F,H

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

50% or more passes the No. 200 Sieve

SILTS and CLAYS Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above the “A” line J CL Lean CLAY K,L,M PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML SILT K,L,M

Organic Liquid limit – oven dried Liquid limit – not dried < 0.75 OL Organic CLAY K,L,M,N

Organic SILT K,L,M,O

SILTY and CLAYS Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat CLAY K,L,M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic SILT K,L,M

Organic Liquid limit – oven dried Liquid limit – not dried < 0.75 OH Organic CLAY K,L,M,P

Organic SILT K,L,M,Q

HIGHLY ORGANIC

SOILS Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT PEAT A Based on material passing the 3-inch sieve.

B If field sample contains cobbles or boulders, add “with cobbles” or “boulders” or both, to group name.

C Cu = D60/D10 Cc = (D30)2 / (D10 x D60) D If soil contains ≥15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

E Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay GP-GM poorly-graded GRAVEL with silt GP-GC poorly-graded GRAVEL with clay

F If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM G If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

H If soil contains ≥15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

I Sand with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay SP-SM poorly-graded SAND with silt SP-SC poorly-graded SAND with clay J If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty

CLAY.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel”, whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to beginning of group name.

M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to beginning of group name.

N PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

APPARENT DENSITY OF COARSE-

GRAINED SOIL

SPT N-value (blows per foot) Apparent Density

0 to 4 Very Loose

5 to 10 Loose

11 to 30 Medium Dense

31 to 50 Dense

> 50 Very Dense

CONSISTENCY OF

FINE-GRAINED SOIL

SPT N-value (blows per foot) Consistency

0 to 1 Very Soft

2 to 4 Soft

5 to 8 Firm

9 to 15 Stiff

16 to 30 Very Stiff

> 30 Hard

SOIL STRUCTURE TERMS

Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers > 1/4 inch (6 mm), note thickness and inclination.

Laminated(1) Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers < 1/4 inch (6 mm), note thickness and inclination.

Fissured(1) Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing.

Slickensided(1) Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.

Blocky(1) Cohesive soil that can be broken down into smaller angular lumps which resists further breakdown.

Disrupted Soil structure is broken and mixed. Infers that material has moved substantially -landslide debris.

Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.

Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soil, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay; < 1/4 inch (6 mm) note thickness.

(1) Do not use laminated, fissured, slickensided, or blocky for coarse-grained soils.

Descriptive Terminology for Boring Logs

Field descriptions of borings are based on the FLH Soil and Rock Description and Identification Guidelines that generally follow the Visual-Manual Procedure (ASTM D 2488). The soil classifications shown on the boring logs are based on laboratory tests (ASTM D 2487) when the two-letter group symbol follows the group name in parenthesis.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT): the SPT consists of driving a 2 in (50 mm) O.D. split barrel sampler a depth of 18 in (450 mm) or 24 in (600 mm) using a 140 lb (63.6 kg) hammer with a 30 in (750 mm) drop. The blow count is the number of blows recorded for each 6 inch (50 mm) increment.

The N-value is the total number of blows for the second and third increments. Note that the N-values shown on the boring logs do not include any corrections for non-standard sampler size, hammers, drill rods, etc.

ANGULARITY OF

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Angular

Sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces

Subangular

Similar to angular description, but with rounded edges

Subrounded

Nearly plane sides, but will have well-rounded corners and edges.

Rounded

Smoothly curved sides and no edges

PARTICLE SIZE OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Component Grain Size Limits

Boulders > 12” (> 300 mm)

Cobbles 3 – 12” (75 – 300 mm)

Coarse Gravel 3/4 - 3" (19 - 75 mm)

Fine Gravel #4 Sieve - 3/4" (4.75 - 19 mm)

Coarse Sand #10 - #4 Sieve (2.00 - 4.75 mm)

Medium Sand #40 - #10 Sieve (0.425 - 2.00 mm)

Fine Sand #200 - #40 Sieve (0.075 - 0.425 mm)

10/04/2018

GRAIN/CRYSTAL SIZE FOR ROCKS (MODIFIED AFTER WENTWORTH, 1972)

Grain Size Description Criteria Less than 0.003 inches (<0.075 mm)

Very fine grained Cannot be distinguished by unaided eye. Few to no mineral grains are visible with a hand lens.

0.003 to 0.02 inches (0.075 to 0.425 mm) Fine grained

Few grain/crystal boundaries are visible; grains can be distinguished with difficulty by the unaided eye but can be somewhat distinguished by hand lens.

0.02 to 0.08 inches (0.425 to 2 mm) Medium grained Most grain/crystal boundaries are visible; grains distinguishable by eye and with the aid of a hand lens.

0.08 to 0.2 inches

(2 to 4.75 mm) Coarse grained Grain/crystal boundaries are visible; grains distinguishable with the naked eye and hand lens.

Greater than 0.2 inches

(>4.75 mm)

Very coarse grained

Grain/crystal boundaries are Clearly visible; grains are distinguishable with the naked eye.

GRAIN SHAPE (FOR SEDIMENTARY ROCKS)

Description Characteristic

Angular Showing very little evidence of wear. Grain edges and corners are sharp. Secondary corners are numerous and sharp.

Subangular

Showing definite effects of wear. Grain edges and corners are slightly rounded off. Secondary corners are slightly less numerous and slightly less sharp than in angular grains.

Subrounded Showing considerable wear. Grain edges and corners are rounded to smooth curves. Secondary corners are reduced greatly in number and highly rounded.

Rounded Showing extreme wear. Grain edges and corners are smoothed off the broad curves. Secondary corner are few in number and rounded.

Well-rounded Completely worn. Grain edges or corners are not present. No secondary edges or corners are present. DEGREE OF WEATHERING

Term Description Grade

Fresh No visible sign of rock material weathering; slight discoloration on major discontinuity surface is possible. I

Slightly Weathered

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All rock material may be discolored by weathering and the external surface may be somewhat weaker than in its fresh condition.

II

Moderately Weathered

Less than half the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil.

Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones. A minimum 2-inch (50 mm) diameter sample cannot be broken readily by hand across the rock fabric.

III

Highly Weathered

More than half of the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones.

A minimum 2-inch (50 mm) diameter sample can be broken readily by hand across the rock fabric.

IV

Completely Weathered

All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact. Material can be granulated by hand. If rock is considered to be completely weathered, use FLH Soil Description and Identification Guidelines to describe the residual soil material.

V

Residual Soil

All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed but the apparent structure remains intact. There may be a large change in volume, but the soil has not been significantly transported. Material can be easily broken-down by hand. If rock is considered to be completely weathered, use FLH Soil Description and Identification Guidelines to describe the residual soil material.

VI

RELATIVE STRENGTH OF SOIL INFILLING (ISRM, 1978 & 1981)

Grade Description Field Identification Approximate

Uniaxial Compressive

Strength

S1 Very Soft Easily penetrated several inches by fist

<3.5 psi (<25 kPa)

S2 Soft Easily penetrated severl inches by thumb

3.5 - 7 psi (25 - 50 kPa)

S3 Firm

Can be penetrated several inches by thumb with moderate effort

7 - 14.5 psi (50 - 100 kPa)

S4 Stiff

Readily indented by thumb but penetrated only with great effort

14.5 - 36 psi (100 - 250 kPa)

S5 Very Stiff Readily indented by thumbnail

36 - 72.5 psi (250 - 500 kPa)

S6 Hard Indented with difficulty by thumbnail

>72 psi (>500 kPa)

RELATIVE STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK SPECIMENS (ISRM, 1978 &1981)

Grade Description Field Indentificaiton Approximate Uniaxial Compressive Strength

R0 Extremely Weak Rock Specimen can be indented by thumbnail 35 - 150 psi

(250 - 1,000 kPa)

R1 Very Weak Rock

Specimen crumbles under sharp blow with point of geological hammer, and can be peeled with a pocket knife.

150 - 725 psi (1,000 - 5,000 kPa)

R2 Weak Rock Shallow cuts or scrapes can be made in a specimen with a pocket knife. A firm blow with a geological hammer point creates shallow indents.

725 - 3,500 psi (5,000 - 25,000 kPa)

R3 Medium Strong Rock

Specimen cannot be scraped or cut with a pocket knife.

Specimen can be fractured with a single firm blow with a geologic hammer point.

3,500 - 7,250 psi (25,000 - 50,000 kPa)

R4 Strong Rock Specimen requires more than one firm blow of the geologic hammer point to fracture.

7,250 - 14,500 psi (50,000 - 100,000 kPa)

R5 Very Strong Rock

Specimen requires many firm blows from the hammer end of the geologic hammer to fracture.

14,500 - 36,250 psi (100,000 - 250,000 kPa)

R6 Extremely Strong Rock

Specimen can only be chipped with firm blows from the hammer end of the geologic hammer.

>36,250 psi (>250,000 kPa)

JRC RANGES (ISRM, 1978 &1981)

DISCONTINUITY CONDITION (ISRM, 1978, 1981)

Condition Description

Excellent Condition

Very rough surfaces, no separation, hard discontinuity wall (>R2).

Good Condition

Slightly rough surfaces, separation less than ~0.04 inches (1 mm), hard discontinuity wall (>R2).

Fair Condition

Slightly rough surface, separation greater than ~0.04 inches (1 mm), soft discontinuity wall (<R3).

Poor Condition

Slickensided surfaces, or soft gouge less than ~0.2 inches (5 mm) thick, or open discontinuities between ~0.4 and 0.2 inches (1 to 5 mm).

Very Poor Condition

Soft gouge greater than ~0.2 inches (5 mm), or open discontinuities greater than ~0.2 inches (5 mm).

DISCONTINUITY SPACING (INCLUDES

JOINTS/FRACTURES, BEDDING, AND FAULTS

Description Spacing of Discontinuity Extremely Widely

Spaced >20 feet (>6 m)

Very Widely Spaced

~6 to 20 feet (2 to 6 m)

Widely Spaced ~2 to 6 feet (600 mm to 2 m)

Moderately Spaced

~8 inches to 2 feet (200 to 600 mm)

Closely Spaced ~2 to 8 inches (60 to 200 mm)

Very Closely Spaced

~3/4 to 2 inches (20 to 60 mm)

Extremely Closely Spaced

<3/4 inches (<20 mm)

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 (%) =

𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 > 4 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (100 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

𝑥𝑥 100

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =

𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (%) = �

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷

� ∗ 100

Photo 2, Cores for BH19-01 at 35.5-40 feet.

Photo 1, Cores for BH19-01 at 25-35.5 feet.

Photo 4, Cores for BH19-02 at 22.3-32 feet.

Photo 3, Cores for BH19-02 at 12.5-22.3 feet.

Photo 5, Cores for BH19-02 at 32-40 feet.

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Test Results

WFLHD Laboratory Reports

Western Federal Lands Highway Division

Materials Testing Laboratory

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1823-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-1

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11/04/2019 - 11/19/2019

BH19-01 2.5

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 230 °F), % 22.5

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

For: Megan Chatfield, Materials Engineer

Page 1 of 1 pages (W-19-1823-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1824-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-2

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11-04-19 to 11-26-19

BH19-01 5

Sieve Analysis As Received Sieve Size % Passing

3/4" 100.0 1/2" 98.6 3/8" 98.6 #4 97.7 #10 91.5 #40 59.5 #200 38.0 20 m 28.1 10 m 20.6 5 m 13.3 2 m 9.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Particle Size

Percent Passing

0.001mm0.01mm0.1mm1mm10mm100mm

AASHTO Gravel Cse Sand Fine Sand Silt Clay

UNIFIED Cse G. Fine G. Cse S. Med. S. Fine S. Fines

3/4"1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #40 #200 20µm 10µm 5µm 2µm

Soil Classification (DL145)

AASHTO A-4(0) GR-SI-SAND

Unified SM; Silty sand

Apparent Specific Gravity (T100) 2.877

Page 1 of 2 pages (W-19-1824-SO)

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 140 °F), % 14.1

Atterberg Limits (T89) Liquid Limit 36 Plasticity Index 6

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 2 of 2 pages (W-19-1824-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1825-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-3

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11-04-19 to 11-27-19

BH19-01 7.5

Sieve Analysis As Received Sieve Size % Passing

1/2" 100.0 3/8" 99.7 #4 98.9 #10 97.4 #40 84.4 #200 55.6 20 m 37.3 10 m 30.3 5 m 21.4 2 m 15.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Particle Size

Percent Passing

0.001mm0.01mm0.1mm1mm10mm100mm

AASHTO Gravel Cse Sand Fine Sand Silt Clay

UNIFIED Cse G. Fine G. Cse S. Med. S. Fine S. Fines

1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #40 #200 20µm 10µm 5µm 2µm

Soil Classification (DL145)

AASHTO A-4(3) GR-SA-SILT

Unified ML; Sandy silt

Apparent Specific Gravity (T100) 2.817

Page 1 of 2 pages (W-19-1825-SO)

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 140 °F), % 15.6

Liquid Limit 37 Plasticity Index 9

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 2 of 2 pages (W-19-1825-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1826-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-4

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11/04/2019 - 11-19-2019

BH19-01 10

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 230 °F), % 21.6

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 1 of 1 pages (W-19-1826-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1827-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-5

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11/04/2019 - 11/19/2019

BH19-01 12.5

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 230 °F), % 8.5

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 1 of 1 pages (W-19-1827-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1828-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-6

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11/04/2019 - 11-21-2019

BH19-01 15

Sieve Analysis As Received Sieve Size % Passing

3/8" 100.0 #4 98.2 #10 88.3 #40 47.8 #100 31.3 #200 22.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Particle Size

Percent Passing

0.001mm0.01mm0.1mm1mm10mm100mm

AASHTO Gravel Cse Sand Fine Sand Silt Clay

UNIFIED Cse G. Fine G. Cse S. Med. S. Fine S. Fines

3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200

Soil Classification (DL145) AASHTO A-1-b(0) GR-SI-SAND Unified SM; Silty sand

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 140 °F), % 18.8

Atterberg Limits (T89) Liquid Limit 32 Plasticity Index 4

Page 1 of 2 pages (W-19-1828-SO)

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 2 of 2 pages (W-19-1828-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1829-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-7

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11/04/2019 - 11/19/2019

BH19-01 17.5

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 230 °F), % 13.2

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 1 of 1 pages (W-19-1829-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1830-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-8

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11/04/2019 - 11/19/2019

BH19-01 20

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 230 °F), % 13.1

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 1 of 1 pages (W-19-1830-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1831-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-9

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11/04/2019 - 11/19/2019

BH19-01 22.5

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 230 °F), % 8.9

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 1 of 1 pages (W-19-1831-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1833-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-1

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11-04-19 to 11-26-19

BH19-01 2.5

Sieve Analysis As Received Sieve Size % Passing

1" 100.0 3/4" 96.8 1/2" 94.8 3/8" 93.0 #4 87.8 #10 70.9 #40 39.8 #100 24.4 #200 17.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Particle Size

Percent Passing

0.001mm0.01mm0.1mm1mm10mm100mm

AASHTO Gravel Cse Sand Fine Sand Silt Clay

UNIFIED Cse G. Fine G. Cse S. Med. S. Fine S. Fines

1"3/4"1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200

Soil Classification (DL145) AASHTO A-1-b(0) SI-GR-SAND Unified SM; Silty sand

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 140 °F), % 14.3

Page 1 of 2 pages (W-19-1833-SO)

Liquid Limit NP Plasticity Index NP

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 2 of 2 pages (W-19-1833-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1834-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-3

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11/04/2019 - 11/20/2019

BH19-01 7.5

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 230 °F), % 11.1

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

For: Megan Chatfield, Materials Engineer

Page 1 of 1 pages (W-19-1834-SO)

610 E. Fifth St, Vancouver, WA 98661

Test Report Issued:

Lab Control Number:

10 Dec 2019

W-19-1835-SO

Project Name: Sample No:

Project Number: Sampled By:

Acct. No.: Date Sampled:

Submitted By: Address:

Phone:

Sample of: Date Received:

Quantity Rep: No. & Containers:

Dates Tested:

Boring No./Test Pit: Depth:

MITCHELL STREET AND BLACK ROCK ROAD RECONSTRU S-4

OR POLK 2016(1) VERDIS/S.B.

1517415300161 510.PE.K200.41 9/06/2019

ERIC LIM

360-619-7826

11/04/2019

1 BAG

11-04-19 to 11-26-19

BH19-01 10

Sieve Analysis As Received Sieve Size % Passing

1" 100.0 3/4" 91.4 1/2" 80.8 3/8" 71.0 #4 54.0 #10 40.6 #40 19.8 #100 11.3 #200 8.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Particle Size

Percent Passing

0.001mm0.01mm0.1mm1mm10mm100mm

AASHTO Gravel Cse Sand Fine Sand Silt Clay

UNIFIED Cse G. Fine G. Cse S. Med. S. Fine S. Fines

1"3/4"1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200

Soil Classification (DL145) AASHTO A-1-a(0) SI-SA-GRAVEL Unified SW-SM; Well-graded sand with silt and gravel

Natural Moisture (T265) (Sample dried at 140 °F), % 10.9

Page 1 of 2 pages (W-19-1835-SO)

Liquid Limit NP Plasticity Index NP

Reported results apply to the sample as received

Walt Stong, Materials Laboratory Chief

Page 2 of 2 pages (W-19-1835-SO)