cost effective foundation options technical memorandum · 2017. 2. 28. · appendix b: pile...

P a g e | i

Rainy River International Crossing Cost Effective Foundation Options Technical Memorandum

Rainy River International Crossing Preliminary Engineering

Trunk Highway (TH) 72, S.P. 3905-09

April 13, 2016

Prepared for:

Joe McKinnon, MnDOT

Tony Lesch, MnDOT

Kevin Saunders, MTO

Tyler McQuaker, MTO

Prepared by:

Darin Maciolek, P.E.

Richard Lyons, P.E.

Brianna Turley, EIT

P a g e | i

CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

Background............................................................................................................................... 1

Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................ 1

Corrosion.................................................................................................................................. 2

Scour ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Geotechnical-Related Foundation Considerations........................................................................... 3

Foundation Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 4

Driven Piles ........................................................................................................................... 4

Drilled Shafts ......................................................................................................................... 8

Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix A: Subsurface Information............................................................................................. A

Appendix B: Pile Foundation Resistance Graphs & Driveability Results ............................................... B

Appendix C: Drilled Shaft Foundation Resistance Graphs ................................................................. C

April 13, 2016

Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e | 1

INTRODUCTION Preliminary analysis was done to aid in the selection of the foundation type for the proposed

Baudette/Rainy River International Bridge. The analysis included estimates of foundation resistance for

drilled shafts, driven H-pile sections, driven closed-end pipe piles filled with concrete (CIP piles), and

large diameter open-ended pipe piles.

Below is a brief discussion of the project background, the subsurface conditions, and geotechnical-

related considerations for foundation type selection. Consideration was given to site accessibility,

construction season limitations, scour and microbiologically influenced corrosion.

BACKGROUND The existing Trunk Highway 72/Highway 11 Rainy River crossing located in Baudette, Minnesota and

Rainy River, Ontario, built in 1959, is nearing the end of its service life. The bridge serves as a

connection between the United States and Canadian full-service Port of Entry facilities. The border

crossing project is a collaborative effort between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)

and the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. The location of the crossing will remain within the

existing corridor. Construction is currently scheduled for 2018.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Three borings (B100, B101 and B102) performed by EPC were provided for our analysis. The borings

were drilled from a barge. The depth of water at the boring locations varied from approximately 11 to

18 feet deep. The borings were drilled to depths of approximately 46 to 93 feet below the river bottom.

The subsurface soils are reported to consist of approximately 5 to 13.5 feet of very loose to medium

dense relative density sand followed by 15 to 16.5 feet of soft to very stiff consistency clay. Layers of

stiff clay and loose sandy loam were reported above the sand at boring B100. The clay was underlain by

very dense relative density sandy loam. The sandy loam extended to depths of at least 61.1 and 45.7

feet below river bottom at borings B100 and B101 where auger refusal on a probable boulder occurred.

At boring B102 the sandy loam extended to a depth of approximately 37.5 feet below the river bottom,

and was underlain by at least 55.5 feet of boulders and cobbles mixed with apparent sandy loam to at

least the boring termination depth.

Water surface at the time of the subsurface exploration was reported to be at elevation 1058.9 feet,

which was approximately 11 to 18 feet above the river bottom.

The Geologic Map of Minnesota Quaternary Geology by Hobbs and Goebel (1982) indicate the site area

on the U.S. side consists of lake-modified till deposits; wave-planed, mantled with lake sediments

(considered too thin and patchy to map separately) associated with the Des Moines Lobe (Pleistocene,

late Wisconsin) Erskine Moraine Association.

April 13, 2016


CORROSION No test data or other information was available at the time of our analysis to provide foundation

corrosion analysis, but it is understood that structural elements are actively corroding. It is also

understood substantial section loss (up to 50%) has been observed on some members. Microbial-

induced corrosion and trusses displaying free edge distortion/pack rust on many gusset plate

connections are understood to be known issues.

Some of the typical factors that may contribute to corrosion include the presence of soluble salts

(chloride, sulfate, sulfide), soil and water resistivity, soil and water pH, soil moisture, and the presence

of oxygen. Measurement of these parameters can give an indication of the corrosion potential. A site

specific corrosion investigation is recommended to better assess the corrosion potential and develop

design criteria. Because of the number of factors involved and the complex nature of their interaction,

actual corrosion rates of driven steel piles cannot be determined by measuring these parameters.

Instead, an estimate of the potential for corrosion can be made by comparing site conditions and soil

corrosion parameters at a proposed site with historical information at similar sites.

There are many different types of bacteria that can cause corrosion, including anaerobic, aerobic, acid

producing and metal oxidizing. A particularly common example of microbiologically influenced corrosion

is sulfate-reducing bacteria. Typical environments where sulfate-reducing bacteria occur are wet,

swampy areas, and clay soil with decaying vegetation. Sulfate-reducing bacteria are anaerobic, but

chemical conditions within a bacteria colony can be widely different than in the surrounding

environment. Acid producing bacteria produce either inorganic or organic acids that attack metal. Acid

producing bacteria can also promote the growth of sulfate-reducing bacteria by providing the

environment and nutrients for sulfate-reducing bacteria growth.

When steel piles are used in corrosive soil or corrosive water, special corrosion protection

considerations for the steel may be needed. Steel piling may be used in corrosive soil and water

environments provided that adequate corrosion reduction measures are used. Corrosion reduction

measures may include sacrificial metal (corrosion allowance), the use of protective coatings, and/or

cathodic protection.

A corrosion allowance (sacrificial metal loss) for steel pile foundations is commonly used. Sacrificial

metal or corrosion allowance is the thickness of metal (beyond what is structurally required for the pile)

needed to compensate for the loss of metal that will occur as the pile corrodes. This extra metal

thickness is added to all surfaces of the pile exposed to the corrosive soil or water.

The corrosion rates listed below may be considered for a preliminary estimate of the thickness of

sacrificial steel needed for the piles. The thickness below should be doubled for steel H-piling since there

are two surfaces on either side of the web and flanges that are exposed to the corrosive soil and/or

water.

April 13, 2016


Soil Embedded Zone (undisturbed soil) 0.001 inch per year

Soil Embedded Zone (fill or disturbed soil) 0.003 inch per year

Immersed Zone 0.004 inch per year

Scour Zone 0.005 inch per year

Corrosion allowance for steel casing is not needed when used only for constructability, and are not

intended to carry axial, lateral or other structural loads.

Scour because of its abrasive nature can accelerate material loss and corrosion.

SCOUR A technical Memorandum dated February 10, 2016 prepared by HZ United, LLC was provided for our

analysis. The memorandum provided estimated pier scour, contraction scour and total scour for three

alternative pier arrangements. The memorandum indicates pier scour, depending on pier location and

arrangement, will be 2.11 to 6.29 meters deep (6.92 to 20.64 feet deep). Pier (local) scour and involves

removal of material from around the piers caused by an acceleration of flow and resulting vortices

induced by obstructions to the flow. The memorandum also indicates contraction scour, depending on

pier location and arrangement, will be 0 to 0.86 meters deep (0 to 2.82 feet deep). Contraction scour is a

lowering of the streambed across the stream or waterway bed at the bridge. The memorandum lists

total scour, which is the sum of the pier scour and contraction scour as 2.11 to 7.15 meters deep (6.92

to 23.46 feet deep), depending on pier location and arrangement.

Scour within the Rainy River will affect the estimated foundation lengths. Soil resistance within the

potential scour depth should be ignored when calculating the design factored resistance. But, the

ignored soil resistance should still be included when calculating the nominal resistance to be obtained

during the dynamic testing.

It is understood the provided scour results may be revised and be deeper than those provided. For our

analysis we assumed total scour associated with a 100-year flood would extend to the top of the very

dense relative density sandy loam layer, which was at a depth of approximately20 to 30 feet below the

river bottom.

GEOTECHNICAL-RELATED FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS 1. Contractor Qualifications

The use of a qualified contractor experienced in installing the proposed type of foundation(s)

ultimately used for this project is expected to reduce the potential for construction problems.

Prequalification of foundation subcontractors is recommended.

April 13, 2016


2. Obstructions

Cobbles and boulders were reported on the boring logs and are expected to be present, considering

the depositional environment and as indicated by the relatively high standard penetration test N-

values at locations. Excavation, foundation installation and other construction difficulties are

expected to occur because of interference from cobbles and boulders, and very dense soil. The

degree of excavation and construction difficulty will generally depend, in part, upon the soil strata

encountered and equipment capabilities.

3. Water

To help facilitate installation of foundations within the river, construction of cofferdams,

construction from barges and/or temporary rock fill causeway within the river is assumed to be

needed. Construction from a barge is anticipated to be feasible at the boring locations based on the

conditions at the time of drilling. Depending on the depth of penetration required for construction

of cofferdams, installation of sheeting may be difficult due to interference from cobbles and

boulders.

The foundations will be constructed under wet conditions. Use of dewatering and wet condition

construction techniques are expected to be needed.

4. Excavation Instability

The foundations will be constructed in soils susceptible to caving and flowing and under wet

conditions. Use of methods to control ground loss is expected to be needed.

FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES Driven piles and drilled shafts were the considered alternatives for this evaluation. These alternatives

are discussed further below. Caissons or micropiles are also feasible alternatives, but because these

alternatives are not as commonly used in the area and are anticipated to be more costly they were not

evaluated in any detail at this time.

DRIVEN PILES Closed-end pipe piles, open-ended pipe piles and H-piles were the driven pile alternatives considered.

1. Closed-End Pipe Piles

For CIP piles, we assumed 16-inch outside diameter piles with a 0.5-inch wall thickness. ASTM A252

Grade 3 steel with yield strength of at least 45 kips per square inch (ksi) was assumed. The 16-inch

diameter piles were assumed to be driven closed-end.

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of this pile type for the project are listed below.

April 13, 2016


Advantages:

Relatively high load capacities can be achieved.

High bending resistance in both axes for supported and unsupported lengths

Can be inspected for damage after driving.

Can be filled with concrete for increased structural capacity and corrosion resistance.

Local experience with this type of foundation.

Easy to field splice.

Disadvantages:

Susceptible to early refusal on obstructions and/or overstress during hard driving.

Pre-boring is expected to be required to get the piles installed a reasonable depth below the

scour line.

Difficulties maintaining an open pre-borehole are expected because of caving of granular soils

and the water table.

Public nuisance as a result of noise and vibrations during pile driving.

Driven closed-end piles will derive their resistance from a combination of side and end bearing

resistance. End bearing resistance was calculated using the steel tip area of the pile. Side resistance

was obtained utilizing the perimeter of the steel section below scour zone. No resistance through

the scour zone was considered to contribute to the axial pile resistance. The driveability analysis

indicates difficulties will occur. Pre-boring is expected to be needed to install piles an adequate

depth below the scour zone. If pre-boring is performed, side resistance will also need to be

neglected or reduced along that portion of the pile, depending on the pre-boring details. Results of

the resistance and driveability analyses are summarized in Appendix B.

The actual minimum wall thickness of the 16-inch CIP piles is recommended to be the thickness

required to avoid damage during driving plus an appropriate amount for sacrificial steel to account

for corrosion loss. The corrosion rates listed previously may be preliminarily used to estimate the

thickness of sacrificial steel needed for the piles.

2. Large Diameter Open-Ended Pipe Piles

For CIP piles, we assumed ASTM A252 Grade 3 steel with yield strength of at least 45 kips per square

inch (ksi). We assumed a 1-inch wall thickness for the 42-inch diameter Piles. The 42-inch diameter

piles were assumed to be driven open-ended. It is assumed the open-ended piles would not be

drilled out to the tip after installation, but it is assumed any open portion of the pile after it is driven

to the required depth would be filled with concrete.


April 13, 2016


Advantages:

High load capacities can be achieved.

High bending resistance in both axes for supported and unsupported lengths.

Can be cleaned out for inspection after driving and driven deeper if necessary.

Can be cleaned out and filled with concrete for increased structural resistance.

A cutting shoe can be used to help penetrate obstructions.

Easy to field splice.

Low displacement pile results in less heave and densification; improved pile group installation.

Disadvantages:

Limited local experience.

Production and bidding may be restricted by the limited number of contractors and equipment.

Potential for plugging makes capacity more difficult to predict than for closed-end pipe.


Driven open-ended piles will derive their resistance from a combination of skin friction and end

bearing. End bearing resistance was calculated using the steel tip area of the pile. The steel tip area

was used in lieu of a plugged area because a soil plug cannot be reasonably assured to occur in a

large diameter pipe pile. Skin friction resistance was obtained utilizing the perimeter of the steel

section. No resistance through the scour zone was considered to contribute to the axial pile

resistance. The driveability analysis indicates driving difficulties will occur prior to reaching the

depth need to use full structural axial capacity of the pile, but may be driven an adequate depth

below the scour zone. Results of the resistance and driveability analyses are summarized in

Appendix B.

The actual minimum wall thickness of the 42-inch pipe piles is recommended to be the thickness

required to avoid damage during driving plus an appropriate amount for sacrificial steel to account

for corrosion loss. The corrosion rates listed previously may be preliminarily used to estimate the

thickness of sacrificial steel needed for the piles.

3. H-Piles

For H-piles, we assumed ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel with yield strength of at least 50 ksi. For the H-

piles a 14x73 section was assumed.


Advantages

Available in various lengths and sizes.

High axial capacities without significant deformation.

High bending capacities about the strong axis.

High resistance to driving stresses.

April 13, 2016


May be able to penetrate through obstructions such cobbles or gravel layers and light surface

debris; pile shoe (toe protection) will improve penetration through harder layers and

obstructions.

Local experience with this foundation type.

Low displacement pile; results in less heave and soil densification; reduce pile group installation

difficulties.

Easy to splice

Disadvantages

May be damaged or deflected by major subsurface obstruction (e.g. boulders or existing piles)

and damage may not be detected during construction.

Less effective as a friction pile in granular materials.

Use as friction pile in granular soils can result in cost overruns.


Susceptible to corrosion. Corrosion rates for H-piles are expected to be greater than for CIP

piles.

Driven H-piles will derive their resistance from a combination of skin friction and end bearing. End

bearing resistance was calculated using the steel tip area of the pile. The steel tip area was used in

lieu of a box area because a soil plug cannot be reasonably assured to occur. Skin friction resistance

was obtained utilizing the box perimeter of the steel section. It was assumed that soil arching

between the steel flanges results in the perimeter of the steel H-pile being treated as a box. No

resistance through the scour zone was considered to contribute to the axial pile resistance. The

driveability analysis indicates driving difficulties will occur prior to reaching the depth need to use

full structural axial capacity of the pile, but may be driven an adequate depth below the scour zone.

Results of the resistance and driveability analyses are summarized in Appendix B.

Pile driving shoes are recommended to protect the H-pile toe while driving. If pile driving shoes are

oversized, pile resistance and estimated lengths will need to be reevaluated. Driven piles sometimes

overrun because of oversized driving shoes.

The structural axial resistance of the pile should account for corrosion-induced steel loss. The

corrosion rates listed previously may be preliminarily used to estimate the thickness of steel loss for

the design life of the piles. Alternatively, a larger section with an appropriate amount for sacrificial

steel to account for corrosion loss could be used. The corrosion rates listed previously may be

preliminarily used to estimate the thickness of sacrificial steel needed for the piles.

If further evaluation of the corrosion potential indicates corrosion reduction measures are warranted,

the piles may need to be coated with a fusion bonded epoxy that extends from the top of the pile to at

least 2 feet below the maximum scour elevation to reduce corrosion. The contractor must use care

during pile handling, storage and installation to prevent damage to the fusion bonded epoxy coating. In

addition, considering the anticipated driving stresses on the piles and to provide a secondary corrosion

April 13, 2016


protection a thicker wall section is recommended provide sacrificial steel that will be lost due to

corrosion over time.

Because of the potential driveability issues pre-augured holes are recommended. Pre-augured holes will

also reduce the required driving resistance, which would be much higher for piles driven through the

potential scour material than those pre-augured, and would reduce abrasion of any pile coating used.

The pile locations should be pre-augured to the maximum scour depth. It is recommended that each pile

tip be reinforced with a drive point or shoe to reduce twisting, buckling or tearing of the pile section. For

the calculations presented herein, it was assumed that pile installation would proceed after pre-boring

through any causeway to the assumed scour depth. Deeper pre-boring may be needed, as is the case for

closed-end CIP piles, to get piles an adequate depth below the scour zone.

DRILLED SHAFTS Six-foot and 8-foot diameter drilled shafts were considered for this evaluation. Drilled shafts were

assumed to be constructed with 5,000 psi concrete.

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of drilled shafts for the project are listed below.

Advantages:

High axial and lateral capacities can be achieved.

Applicable for a wide variety of soil conditions; possible to drill through obstructions.

Excavated material can be observed for agreement with design assumptions.

Most compact foundation type and may allow for a reduction or elimination of the cap.

The circular shape of the drilled shaft may be more resistant to development of localized sour

around the river bridge foundation compared to a large cap foundation.

Can be installed with limited vertical clearance and in areas of limited mobility.

Reduced noise and vibration compared to methods of construction such as driven piles.

Production rates for single shaft foundations are generally greater than for large pile group

foundations.

Non-destructive testing available for QA/QC.

Load test capability (e.g., Osterberg Load Test).

Disadvantages:

Quality and performance of drilled shafts are sensitive to construction procedures.

Experienced construction personal and inspectors are required.

No driving results to assess capacity.

Reduced foundation redundancy with several individual shafts compared to a large pile group.

Granular profile and water create the need for shafts to be constructed using cased and slurry.

Potential significant cost overruns and schedule delays with unforeseen soil conditions (i.e.

excessively large boulders).

Results of the resistance analyses are summarized in Appendix C.

April 13, 2016


Cobbles and boulders are noted on Boring B102 and expected elsewhere. The contractor must be

prepared to remove and/or core through obstructions where encountered. As the shafts are drilled,

obstructions may be encountered that cannot be removed with conventional drilling equipment. In our

opinion, an obstruction can be considered to consist of a dense concentration of cobbles and/or

boulders, detached rock slabs, or other material, either natural or man-made, that impedes drilling with

conventional augers and requires special equipment, including but not limited to core barrels, air

compressors, or hand excavation tools to penetrate. The obstruction can be considered to have been

penetrated once conventional auguring can resume.

It is assumed the drilled shaft foundations will be constructed with permanent casings. Selection of the

method of construction is the responsibility of the contractor. But, given the expected high relative

permeability of the sand soils and sandy loam soils, and the lack of low permeability soil in which to seat

the casing, it is unlikely that the contractor will be able to achieve a watertight seal. Therefore, it is

anticipated that wet construction methods will be necessary for construction of the drilled shafts. It is

anticipated that the contractor will advance the casing as the shaft is drilled, with drilling conducted

under a head of polymer slurry to prevent heave or boiling of soil into the casing. The contractor could

also elect to vibrate or oscillate the casing into place for a portion of its depth.

Because the shafts are anticipated to be constructed with casing, it is recommended the shafts be

considered end bearing only. Depending on the installation method side resistance could be used but a

lower end bearing resistance than presented herein would be likely be needed because of strain

compatibility.

Because wet construction methods are anticipated it is not possible to visually observe the unexposed

portion of a finished shaft. Means of inspection and structural integrity testing, such as Cross-hole Sonic

Logging (CSL), have been devised and are recommended to be used.

If further evaluation of the corrosion potential indicates corrosion reduction measures are warranted,

consideration should be given to using a centrifugally-cast fiberglass-reinforced polymer mortar

(CCFRPM) sleeve for added corrosion protection from the top of the shaft to at least 2 feet below the

maximum scour elevation.

CONCLUSIONS Experienced contractors will be required to successfully construct the foundation system. Subsurface

conditions, such as dense glacial deposits, which include cobbles and boulders, will present foundation

construction difficulties. Based on the evaluation, each of the foundation types are considered

technically feasible, but some may present more challenges than others.

Based on the currently available information, each pier cap supported by a group of drilled shafts rather

than a group of driven piles is expected to be the preferred alternative. Drilled shafts better limit risks

associated with a deep scour event and corrosion, and are expected to have less obstruction

interference from cobbles and boulders. Additionally, because of the deep scour zone a much greater

required driving resistance is needed to offset the resistance developed through the scour zone that

April 13, 2016


may not be relied upon for long-term pile resistance. Pre-boring and/or jetting would be needed to

install piles an adequate depth below the scour zone.

Micropiles and caissons should be considered if risk of delay and increased cost from obstructions

cannot be tolerated. Another possible alternative is a modified drilled shaft design that incorporates a

drilled shaft for the upper portion to resist lateral loads and better performance in the scour zone, and

micropiles in the deeper portion for increased axial resistance in difficult drilling/driving conditions..

P a g e | A

Appendix A: Subsurface Information

23

23

12

5.01058.9

16.01047.9

19.51044.4

21.01042.9

23.51040.4

29.51034.4

46.01017.9

77.1986.8

10

8

10

16

10

9

11

13

85

121

336

134

68

75

20

20

17

19

23

19

14

9

10

9

15

9

7

11

11

9

9

8

14

50/5"

50/.5"

50/3"

50/3"

50/1"

50/4"

50/3"

50/3"

50/5"

50/4"75/0"

Top of Driling Platform (0.0 feet ; Elevation 1063.9)

Water

Clay (C), gray, wet to waterbearing, trace sand, tracegravel, stiff consistency.Sandy Loam (SL) gray, wet to waterbearing, trace gravel,slightly plastic, loose relative density.Clay (C), gray to grayish brown, wet, stiff consistency.

Sand (S), gray to grayish brown, waterbearing, fine tocoarse grained, medium dense to loose relative density.

Clay (C), gray, wet, trace gravel, little sand, stiffconsistency.

Sandy Loam (SL), gray, moist to wet, trace to little gravel,slightly plastic, very dense relative density.

1690

1250

101

106

106

106

128

134

133

134

127

State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc.

B1009412Ground Elevation

(survey)MN Trunk Highway 72Boring No.

3905-09 1063.9Trunk Highway/Location

(ft.) Drill Machine

Hammer

Location

CME Automatic 9/17/13CompletedLongitude (West)=94°35'31.24"Drilling

SHEET 1 of 1Lake of the Woods/South Zone Co. Coordinate: X=570333 Y=228620

Latitude (North)=48°43'05.77"

CME 750 ATV

No Station-Offset Information Available

or Member

UNIQUE NUMBER 77676

Depth

COH

Soil Class:GEH Rock Class: Edit: Date: 10/16/13

Breaks

Or Remarks

Elev.

SPT

(%)

U.S. Customary Units

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

(%) (ft)

(pcf)N60

Formation

MC(%)

Classification

Other Tests

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

LABORATORY LOG & TEST RESULTS - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

REC ACL

Dril

ling

Op

era

tion

Lith

olo

gy

RQD Core

Index Sheet Code 3.0G:\GINT\PROJECTS-ACTIVE\3905-09 BAUDETTE INTL BRIDGE.GPJ

Roc

k

DE

PT

H

(psf) So

il

This boring was taken by EPC under a consultantcontract for Mn/DOT

SPT hammer calibrated to67% efficiency on 9/6/13

Drill Rig Platform includingbarge deck spuddedapproximateley 50'Northeast of 1st pier.Rainy River

Boulder encountered

Hand Pen. = 1.7 tsf

Hydrometer gradationperformed on shelby tubefrom 31 - feet.Hand Pen. = 1.7 tsfHand Pen. = 1.7 tsfHand Pen. = 1.7 tsfShelby tube pushed a rock.HardHand Pen. = 5.9 tsfDrillers note: w/gravel, harddrillingHand Pen. = 4.8 tsfDrillers note: drilled througha boulder at 47.5'

Auger refusal at 77.1'probable boulder.

20

20

19

25

24

23

25

15

13

7

8

8

10

10

8

17

15

10

10

5.51058.9

23.51040.9

28.51035.9

43.51020.9

68.6995.869.2

995.2

6

6

6

20

12

28

19

224

50/4"

50/4"

50/4"

50/4"

50/2"

50/4"

50/5"

50/3"

50/3"

50/1"


Water

Sand (S), gray to grayish brown, waterbearing, trace to littlegravel, fine to coarse grained, loose relative density.

Clay(C), gray, wet, trace gravel, stiff to very stiffconsistency.

Sandy Loam (SL), gray, moist to wet to waterbearing, traceto little gravel, trace clay, very dense relative density.

Probable boulder, auger refusal at 69.2'.

2000

104

103

105

136





(ft.) Drill Machine

Hammer

Location




CME 750 ATV


or Member

UNIQUE NUMBER 77677

(Continued Next Page)

Depth

COH


Breaks

Or Remarks

Elev.

SPT

(%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

(%) (ft)

(pcf)N60

Formation

MC(%)

Classification

Other Tests



REC ACL

Dril

ling

Op

era

tion

Lith

olo

gy

RQD Core


Roc

k

DE

PT

H

(psf) So

il



Drill Rig Platform includingbarge deck spuddedapproximateley 50'Northeast of 2nd pier.

Rainy River

Hand Pen. = 1.0 tsf

Hand Pen. = 1.8 tsf

Hand Pen. = 1.4 tsf

Boulder at 38', attemptedshelby tube. Crushed tube.

Hydrometer gradationperformed on samples from48.5' to 56.2'.

Hydrometer gradationperformed on samples from58.5' to 66.3'.

Cobbles and BouldersencounteredDrillers note: drilled for 1hour on boulder/bedrock toget from 67' to 69'. Spent





Mn/DOT GEOTECHNICAL SECTION - LOG & TEST RESULTS SHEET 2 of 2

or Member

UNIQUE NUMBER 77677

Depth

COH


Breaks

Or Remarks

Elev.

SPT

(%)


(%) (ft)

(pcf)N60

Formation

MC(%)

Classification

Other Tests



REC ACL

Dril

ling

Op

era

tion

Lith

olo

gy

RQD Core

G:\GINT\PROJECTS-ACTIVE\3905-09 BAUDETTE INTL BRIDGE.GPJ

Roc

k

DE

PT

H

(psf) So

il


1/2 hour drilling from 69' to69.2'.

10

40

18

18

21

24

23

32

11

12

9

10

9

13

9

5.01058.9

23.01040.9

33.01030.9

48.01015.9

0

3

2

4

8

7

10

16

73

50/5"

50/5"

50/5"

50/2"


Water

Sand (S), brown to gray, wet to waterbearing, coarse to finegrained, very loose relative density.

Clay (C), gray, wet, trace gravel, little to some sand,medium to soft consistency.

Sandy Loam (SL), gray, moist to wet, trace to little gravel,trace clay, slightly plastic, very dense relative density.

1400

560

109

101

100

95

128





(ft.) Drill Machine

Hammer

Location




CME 750 ATV


or Member

UNIQUE NUMBER 77678

(Continued Next Page)

Depth

COH


Breaks

Or Remarks

Elev.

SPT

(%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

(%) (ft)

(pcf)N60

Formation

MC(%)

Classification

Other Tests



REC ACL

Dril

ling

Op

era

tion

Lith

olo

gy

RQD Core


Roc

k

DE

PT

H

(psf) So

il



Drill Rig Platform includingbarge deck spuddedapproximateley 50'Northeast of 3rd pier.

Wood noticed in sample.Hydrometer gradationperformed on samples from25.5' to 32'.

Hand Pen. = 1.5 tsf

Hand Pen. = 1.6 tsf

Hand Pen. = 1.3 tsf

Hand Pen. = 1.8 tsfHydrometer gradationperformed on shelby tubefrom 41'.

18

20

20

19

60.51003.4

116.0947.9

24

0

8

6

5

7

7

5

50/0.5"

Boulders and Cobbles (4" - 12") mixed with apparent SandyLoam, gray.

End of boring at 116'

0.58

0.00

0.33

0.00

0.00

10

5





Mn/DOT GEOTECHNICAL SECTION - LOG & TEST RESULTS SHEET 2 of 2

or Member

UNIQUE NUMBER 77678

Depth

COH


Breaks

Or Remarks

Elev.

SPT

(%)


65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

(%) (ft)

(pcf)N60

Formation

MC(%)

Classification

Other Tests



REC ACL

Dril

ling

Op

era

tion

Lith

olo

gy

RQD Core

G:\GINT\PROJECTS-ACTIVE\3905-09 BAUDETTE INTL BRIDGE.GPJ

Roc

k

DE

PT

H

(psf) So

il


Substantial auger refusal at60.6' - boulder, set up forrock coring.

Samples 17- 26 were eitherboulders that were in thecore barrel or cuttings fromreturn water.

Drillers Note: Sandrecovered in wash cuttings.



Formation started caving inaround drill rod. Unable tospin drill rod.

P a g e | B

Appendix B: Pile Foundation Resistance Graphs & Driveability Results

SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS

Pile Type: HP 14x73

Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 770 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0

Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 385 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0

Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4

Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0

Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): 120.0

Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction

Driving Elevation (feet): 1,047.9

Total Pile Length (feet): 89.0

Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 30.0

Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00

Depth Side Tip Total Side Tip Total Uplift

(feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($)

Driving Elev 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,500.805 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,340.80

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,180.8015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,020.80

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,860.8025 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,700.80

30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,540.8031 9.4 56.9 66.3 14.2% 3.8 22.8 26.5 2.4 -$1,225.82 -$32,508.80

32 15.3 75.8 91.1 16.8% 6.1 30.3 36.4 3.8 -$891.24 -$32,476.8034 28.2 87.6 115.8 24.4% 11.3 35.0 46.3 7.1 -$699.76 -$32,412.80

36 42.3 95.7 138.0 30.7% 16.9 38.3 55.2 10.6 -$586.03 -$32,348.8038 57.6 103.4 161.0 35.8% 23.0 41.4 64.4 14.4 -$501.32 -$32,284.80

40 74.2 108.2 182.4 40.7% 29.7 43.3 73.0 18.6 -$441.62 -$32,220.8042 92.0 109.6 201.6 45.6% 36.8 43.8 80.6 23.0 -$398.77 -$32,156.80

44 111.1 109.6 220.7 50.3% 44.4 43.8 88.3 27.8 -$363.53 -$32,092.8046 131.4 109.6 241.0 54.5% 52.6 43.8 96.4 32.9 -$332.25 -$32,028.80

48 153.0 109.6 262.6 58.3% 61.2 43.8 105.0 38.3 -$304.31 -$31,964.8050 175.8 109.6 285.4 61.6% 70.3 43.8 114.2 44.0 -$279.44 -$31,900.80

52 199.9 109.6 309.5 64.6% 80.0 43.8 123.8 50.0 -$257.16 -$31,836.8054 225.2 109.6 334.8 67.3% 90.1 43.8 133.9 56.3 -$237.25 -$31,772.80

56 251.7 109.6 361.3 69.7% 100.7 43.8 144.5 62.9 -$219.41 -$31,708.8058 279.5 109.6 389.1 71.8% 111.8 43.8 155.6 69.9 -$203.32 -$31,644.80

60 308.5 109.6 418.1 73.8% 123.4 43.8 167.2 77.1 -$188.84 -$31,580.8062 338.8 109.6 448.4 75.6% 135.5 43.8 179.4 84.7 -$175.72 -$31,516.80

64 370.3 109.6 479.9 77.2% 148.1 43.8 192.0 92.6 -$163.85 -$31,452.80

66 403.1 109.6 512.7 78.6% 161.2 43.8 205.1 100.8 -$153.06 -$31,388.80

68 437.1 109.6 546.7 80.0% 174.8 43.8 218.7 109.3 -$143.24 -$31,324.80

70 472.4 109.6 582.0 81.2% 189.0 43.8 232.8 118.1 -$134.28 -$31,260.80

72 508.9 109.6 618.5 82.3% 203.6 43.8 247.4 127.2 -$126.10 -$31,196.80

74 546.6 109.6 656.2 83.3% 218.6 43.8 262.5 136.7 -$118.61 -$31,132.80

76 585.6 109.6 695.2 84.2% 234.2 43.8 278.1 146.4 -$111.73 -$31,068.80

78 625.8 109.6 735.4 85.1% 250.3 43.8 294.2 156.5 -$105.40 -$31,004.80

80 667.3 109.6 776.9 85.9% 266.9 43.8 310.8 166.8 -$99.56 -$30,940.80

82 710.0 109.6 819.6 86.6% 284.0 43.8 327.8 177.5 -$94.18 -$30,876.80

84 754.0 109.6 863.6 87.3% 301.6 43.8 345.4 188.5 -$89.20 -$30,812.80

86 799.2 109.6 908.8 87.9% 319.7 43.8 363.5 199.8 -$84.59 -$30,748.80

88 845.6 109.6 955.2 88.5% 338.2 43.8 382.1 211.4 -$80.31 -$30,684.80

89 869.3 109.6 978.9 88.8% 347.7 43.8 391.6 217.3 -$78.28 -$30,652.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date:

Project No.: 58900 Checker: DMM Date:

Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date:

Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date:

Boring: B100 Verifier: DMM Date:

Total Pile

Cost

4/8/2016

Nominal Resistance% of Resistance

from Side

Resistance

Factored ResistanceCost per

Kip of

Resistance

4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

Pile Type: HP 14x73


Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 385 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0



Bottom of Abutment Elevation (feet): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): 120.0

Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction








4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

4/8/2016

Factored Resistance versus Pile Length

958.9

963.9

968.9

973.9

978.9

983.9

988.9

993.9

998.9

1,003.9

1,008.9

1,013.9

1,018.9

1,023.9

1,028.9

1,033.9

1,038.9

1,043.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425

Pile E

mb

ed

men

t (f

eet)

belo

w d

rivin

g e

levati

on

Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips)

Tip

Side

Total

Uplift

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Clay

Sand

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Water,

1047.9

958.9

963.9

968.9

973.9

978.9

983.9

988.9

993.9

998.9

1003.9

1008.9

1013.9

1018.9

1023.9

1028.9

1033.9

1038.9

1043.9

958.9

963.9

968.9

973.9

978.9

983.9

988.9

993.9

998.9

1,003.9

1,008.9

1,013.9

1,018.9

1,023.9

1,028.9

1,033.9

1,038.9

1,043.9


Pile Type: CIP 16 inch














2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,436.803 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,404.80

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,372.805 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,340.80

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,308.807 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,276.80

8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,244.809 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,212.80

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,180.8011 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,148.80

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,116.8013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,084.80

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,052.8015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,020.80

16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,988.8017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,956.80

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,924.8019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,892.80

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,860.8021 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,828.80

22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,796.8023 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,764.80

24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,732.80

25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,700.80

26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,668.80

27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,636.80

28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,604.80

29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,572.80

30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,540.80

31 9.5 550.7 560.2 1.7% 3.8 220.3 224.1 2.4 -$145.08 -$32,508.80

32 17.5 747.2 764.7 2.3% 7.0 298.9 305.9 4.4 -$106.17 -$32,476.80

33 26.0 785.2 811.2 3.2% 10.4 314.1 324.5 6.5 -$99.99 -$32,444.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80

#N/A -$33,500.80






Total Pile

Cost

4/8/2016


from Side

Resistance


Kip of

Resistance

4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016















4/8/2016


4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

1,014.9

1,019.9

1,024.9

1,029.9

1,034.9

1,039.9

1,044.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350

Pile E

mb

ed

men

t (f

eet)

belo

w d

rivin

g e

levati

on


Tip

Side

Total

Uplift

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Clay

Sand

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Water,

1047.9

1014.9

1019.9

1024.9

1029.9

1034.9

1039.9

1044.9

1,014.9

1,019.9

1,024.9

1,029.9

1,034.9

1,039.9

1,044.9



Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 4,637 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0

Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 2,319 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0












2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,436.804 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,372.80

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,308.808 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,244.80

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,180.8012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,116.80

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,052.8016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,988.80

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,924.8020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,860.80

22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,796.8024 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,732.80

26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,668.8028 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,604.80

30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,540.8031 349.8 489.3 839.1 41.7% 139.9 195.7 335.6 87.5 -$96.86 -$32,508.80

32 364.0 527.2 891.2 40.8% 145.6 210.9 356.5 91.0 -$91.10 -$32,476.8034 394.7 605.1 999.8 39.5% 157.9 242.0 399.9 98.7 -$81.05 -$32,412.80

36 428.4 685.9 1114.3 38.4% 171.4 274.4 445.7 107.1 -$72.58 -$32,348.8038 465.1 769.5 1234.6 37.7% 186.0 307.8 493.8 116.3 -$65.38 -$32,284.80

40 504.7 842.4 1347.1 37.5% 201.9 337.0 538.8 126.2 -$59.80 -$32,220.8042 547.4 882.9 1430.3 38.3% 219.0 353.2 572.1 136.9 -$56.21 -$32,156.80

44 593.0 926.4 1519.4 39.0% 237.2 370.6 607.8 148.3 -$52.81 -$32,092.80

46 641.5 972.6 1614.1 39.7% 256.6 389.0 645.6 160.4 -$49.61 -$32,028.80

48 693.1 1021.7 1714.8 40.4% 277.2 408.7 685.9 173.3 -$46.60 -$31,964.80

50 747.6 1073.6 1821.2 41.0% 299.0 429.4 728.5 186.9 -$43.79 -$31,900.80

52 805.1 1128.4 1933.5 41.6% 322.0 451.4 773.4 201.3 -$41.16 -$31,836.80

54 865.5 1185.9 2051.4 42.2% 346.2 474.4 820.6 216.4 -$38.72 -$31,772.80

56 928.9 1246.4 2175.3 42.7% 371.6 498.6 870.1 232.2 -$36.44 -$31,708.80

58 995.4 1309.6 2305.0 43.2% 398.2 523.8 922.0 248.9 -$34.32 -$31,644.80

60 1064.7 1375.7 2440.4 43.6% 425.9 550.3 976.2 266.2 -$32.35 -$31,580.80

65 1251.2 1553.3 2804.5 44.6% 500.5 621.3 1121.8 312.8 -$28.01 -$31,420.80

70 1456.2 1748.5 3204.7 45.4% 582.5 699.4 1281.9 364.1 -$24.39 -$31,260.80

75 1679.8 1961.5 3641.3 46.1% 671.9 784.6 1456.5 420.0 -$21.35 -$31,100.80

80 1922.0 2192.2 4114.2 46.7% 768.8 876.9 1645.7 480.5 -$18.80 -$30,940.80

85 2182.8 2440.5 4623.3 47.2% 873.1 976.2 1849.3 545.7 -$16.64 -$30,780.80

90 2462.2 2706.6 5168.8 47.6% 984.9 1082.6 2067.5 615.6 -$14.81 -$30,620.80

95 2760.2 2990.4 5750.6 48.0% 1104.1 1196.2 2300.2 690.1 -$13.24 -$30,460.80

96 2822.0 3049.2 5871.2 48.1% 1128.8 1219.7 2348.5 705.5 -$12.96 -$30,428.80

#N/A -$33,500.80






Total Pile

Cost

4/8/2016


from Side

Resistance


Kip of

Resistance

4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016



Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 2,319 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0












4/8/2016


4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

951.9

956.9

961.9

966.9

971.9

976.9

981.9

986.9

991.9

996.9

1,001.9

1,006.9

1,011.9

1,016.9

1,021.9

1,026.9

1,031.9

1,036.9

1,041.9

1,046.90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Pile E

mb

ed

men

t (f

eet)

belo

w d

rivin

g e

levati

on


Tip

Side

Total

Uplift

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Clay

Sand

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Water,

1047.9

951.9

956.9

961.9

966.9

971.9

976.9

981.9

986.9

991.9

996.9

1001.9

1006.9

1011.9

1016.9

1021.9

1026.9

1031.9

1036.9

1041.9

1046.9

951.9

956.9

961.9

966.9

971.9

976.9

981.9

986.9

991.9

996.9

1,001.9

1,006.9

1,011.9

1,016.9

1,021.9

1,026.9

1,031.9

1,036.9

1,041.9

1,046.9


Pile Type: HP 14x73














2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,212.804 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,148.80

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,084.808 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,020.80

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,956.8012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,892.80

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,828.8016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,764.80

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,700.8020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,636.80

21 10.9 38.9 49.8 21.9% 4.4 15.6 19.9 2.7 -$1,636.79 -$32,604.8022 14.9 52.0 66.9 22.3% 6.0 20.8 26.8 3.7 -$1,217.22 -$32,572.80

24 23.9 62.5 86.4 27.7% 9.6 25.0 34.6 6.0 -$940.65 -$32,508.8026 34.1 70.7 104.8 32.5% 13.6 28.3 41.9 8.5 -$773.97 -$32,444.80

28 45.6 78.9 124.5 36.6% 18.2 31.6 49.8 11.4 -$650.22 -$32,380.8030 58.4 87.1 145.5 40.1% 23.4 34.8 58.2 14.6 -$555.27 -$32,316.80

32 72.4 95.3 167.7 43.2% 29.0 38.1 67.1 18.1 -$480.81 -$32,252.8034 87.7 103.2 190.9 45.9% 35.1 41.3 76.4 21.9 -$421.54 -$32,188.80

36 104.3 108.1 212.4 49.1% 41.7 43.2 85.0 26.1 -$378.12 -$32,124.8038 122.1 109.6 231.7 52.7% 48.8 43.8 92.7 30.5 -$345.93 -$32,060.80

40 141.2 109.6 250.8 56.3% 56.5 43.8 100.3 35.3 -$318.95 -$31,996.8042 161.6 109.6 271.2 59.6% 64.6 43.8 108.5 40.4 -$294.37 -$31,932.80

44 183.2 109.6 292.8 62.6% 73.3 43.8 117.1 45.8 -$272.10 -$31,868.80

46 206.0 109.6 315.6 65.3% 82.4 43.8 126.2 51.5 -$251.94 -$31,804.80

48 230.2 109.6 339.8 67.7% 92.1 43.8 135.9 57.6 -$233.53 -$31,740.80

50 255.6 109.6 365.2 70.0% 102.2 43.8 146.1 63.9 -$216.85 -$31,676.80

52 282.2 109.6 391.8 72.0% 112.9 43.8 156.7 70.6 -$201.72 -$31,612.80

54 310.1 109.6 419.7 73.9% 124.0 43.8 167.9 77.5 -$187.92 -$31,548.80

56 339.3 109.6 448.9 75.6% 135.7 43.8 179.6 84.8 -$175.34 -$31,484.80

58 369.7 109.6 479.3 77.1% 147.9 43.8 191.7 92.4 -$163.89 -$31,420.80

60 401.4 109.6 511.0 78.6% 160.6 43.8 204.4 100.4 -$153.41 -$31,356.80

62 434.4 109.6 544.0 79.9% 173.8 43.8 217.6 108.6 -$143.81 -$31,292.80

64 468.6 109.6 578.2 81.0% 187.4 43.8 231.3 117.2 -$135.03 -$31,228.80

66 504.1 109.6 613.7 82.1% 201.6 43.8 245.5 126.0 -$126.95 -$31,164.80

68 540.8 109.6 650.4 83.1% 216.3 43.8 260.2 135.2 -$119.54 -$31,100.80

70 578.9 109.6 688.5 84.1% 231.6 43.8 275.4 144.7 -$112.70 -$31,036.80

72 618.1 109.6 727.7 84.9% 247.2 43.8 291.1 154.5 -$106.41 -$30,972.80

74 658.7 109.6 768.3 85.7% 263.5 43.8 307.3 164.7 -$100.58 -$30,908.80

76 700.4 109.6 810.0 86.5% 280.2 43.8 324.0 175.1 -$95.20 -$30,844.80

78 743.5 109.6 853.1 87.2% 297.4 43.8 341.2 185.9 -$90.20 -$30,780.80

80 787.8 109.6 897.4 87.8% 315.1 43.8 359.0 197.0

82 833.4 109.6 943.0 88.4% 333.4 43.8 377.2 208.4

83 856.6 109.6 966.2 88.7% 342.6 43.8 386.5 214.2






Total Pile

Cost

4/11/2016


from Side

Resistance


Kip of

Resistance

4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

Pile Type: HP 14x73














4/11/2016


4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

957.9

967.9

977.9

987.9

997.9

1,007.9

1,017.9

1,027.9

1,037.9

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

64

68

72

76

80

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425

Pil

e E

mb

ed

men

t (f

eet)

be

low

dri

vin

g e

leva

tio

n


Tip

Side

Total

Uplift

Sand

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Sandy

Loam

w/Boul

ders

Water,

1040.9

957.9

962.9

967.9

972.9

977.9

982.9

987.9

992.9

997.9

1002.9

1007.9

1012.9

1017.9

1022.9

1027.9

1032.9

1037.9

957.9

962.9

967.9

972.9

977.9

982.9

987.9

992.9

997.9

1,002.9

1,007.9

1,012.9

1,017.9

1,022.9

1,027.9

1,032.9

1,037.9
















2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,212.803 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,180.80

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,148.805 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,116.80

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,084.807 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,052.80

8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,020.809 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,988.80

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,956.8011 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,924.80

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,892.8013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,860.80

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,828.8015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,796.80

16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,764.8017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,732.80

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,700.8019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,668.80

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,636.8021 10.3 374.7 385.0 2.7% 4.1 149.9 154.0 2.6 -$211.72 -$32,604.80

22 15.7 510.5 526.2 3.0% 6.3 204.2 210.5 3.9 -$154.75 -$32,572.8023 21.5 549.0 570.5 3.8% 8.6 219.6 228.2 5.4 -$142.60 -$32,540.80

24 27.8 587.6 615.4 4.5% 11.1 235.0 246.2 7.0 -$132.06 -$32,508.80

25 34.5 626.1 660.6 5.2% 13.8 250.4 264.2 8.6 -$122.91 -$32,476.80

26 41.6 664.6 706.2 5.9% 16.6 265.8 282.5 10.4 -$114.86 -$32,444.80

27 49.1 703.1 752.2 6.5% 19.6 281.2 300.9 12.3 -$107.73 -$32,412.80

28 57.1 741.6 798.7 7.1% 22.8 296.6 319.5 14.3 -$101.35 -$32,380.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80






Total Pile

Cost

4/11/2016


from Side

Resistance


Kip of

Resistance

4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016















4/11/2016


4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

1,012.9

1,017.9

1,022.9

1,027.9

1,032.9

1,037.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350

Pil

e E

mb

ed

men

t (f

eet)

be

low

dri

vin

g e

leva

tio

n


Tip

Side

Total

Uplift

Sand

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Water,

1040.9

1012.9

1017.9

1022.9

1027.9

1032.9

1037.9

1,012.9

1,017.9

1,022.9

1,027.9

1,032.9

1,037.9
















10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,956.8015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,796.80

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,636.8021 337.9 313.5 651.4 51.9% 135.2 125.4 260.6 84.5 -$125.13 -$32,604.80

22 347.5 347.3 694.8 50.0% 139.0 138.9 277.9 86.9 -$117.20 -$32,572.8024 369.0 417.2 786.2 46.9% 147.6 166.9 314.5 92.3 -$103.37 -$32,508.80

26 393.5 489.8 883.3 44.5% 157.4 195.9 353.3 98.4 -$91.83 -$32,444.8028 421.0 565.4 986.4 42.7% 168.4 226.2 394.6 105.3 -$82.07 -$32,380.80

30 451.5 643.8 1095.3 41.2% 180.6 257.5 438.1 112.9 -$73.76 -$32,316.8032 485.1 725.1 1210.2 40.1% 194.0 290.0 484.1 121.3 -$66.63 -$32,252.80

34 521.6 809.3 1330.9 39.2% 208.6 323.7 532.4 130.4 -$60.46 -$32,188.8036 561.2 883.6 1444.8 38.8% 224.5 353.4 577.9 140.3 -$55.59 -$32,124.80

38 603.8 924.1 1527.9 39.5% 241.5 369.6 611.2 151.0 -$52.46 -$32,060.8040 649.4 967.6 1617.0 40.2% 259.8 387.0 646.8 162.4 -$49.47 -$31,996.80

42 698.0 1013.9 1711.9 40.8% 279.2 405.6 684.8 174.5 -$46.63 -$31,932.8044 749.6 1063.1 1812.7 41.4% 299.8 425.2 725.1 187.4 -$43.95 -$31,868.80

46 804.3 1115.1 1919.4 41.9% 321.7 446.0 767.8 201.1 -$41.43 -$31,804.8048 862.0 1170.0 2032.0 42.4% 344.8 468.0 812.8 215.5 -$39.05 -$31,740.80

50 922.6 1227.8 2150.4 42.9% 369.0 491.1 860.2 230.7 -$36.83 -$31,676.8052 986.3 1288.5 2274.8 43.4% 394.5 515.4 909.9 246.6 -$34.74 -$31,612.80

54 1053.0 1352.0 2405.0 43.8% 421.2 540.8 962.0 263.3 -$32.80 -$31,548.8056 1122.8 1418.4 2541.2 44.2% 449.1 567.4 1016.5 280.7 -$30.97 -$31,484.80

58 1195.5 1487.7 2683.2 44.6% 478.2 595.1 1073.3 298.9 -$29.28 -$31,420.80

60 1271.3 1559.8 2831.1 44.9% 508.5 623.9 1132.4 317.8 -$27.69 -$31,356.80

62 1350.0 1634.8 2984.8 45.2% 540.0 653.9 1193.9 337.5 -$26.21 -$31,292.80

64 1431.8 1712.7 3144.5 45.5% 572.7 685.1 1257.8 358.0 -$24.83 -$31,228.80

66 1516.6 1793.5 3310.1 45.8% 606.6 717.4 1324.0 379.2 -$23.54 -$31,164.80

68 1604.4 1877.1 3481.5 46.1% 641.8 750.8 1392.6 401.1 -$22.33 -$31,100.80

70 1695.2 1963.6 3658.8 46.3% 678.1 785.4 1463.5 423.8 -$21.21 -$31,036.80

72 1789.1 2053.0 3842.1 46.6% 715.6 821.2 1536.8 447.3 -$20.15 -$30,972.80

74 1885.9 2145.2 4031.1 46.8% 754.4 858.1 1612.4 471.5 -$19.17 -$30,908.80

76 1985.8 2240.4 4226.2 47.0% 794.3 896.2 1690.5 496.5 -$18.25 -$30,844.80

78 2088.7 2338.3 4427.0 47.2% 835.5 935.3 1770.8 522.2 -$17.38 -$30,780.80

80 2194.6 2439.2 4633.8 47.4% 877.8 975.7 1853.5 548.7 -$16.57 -$30,716.80

82 2303.5 2542.9 4846.4 47.5% 921.4 1017.2 1938.6 575.9 -$15.81 -$30,652.80

84 2415.4 2649.5 5064.9 47.7% 966.2 1059.8 2026.0 603.9 -$15.10 -$30,588.80

86 2530.4 2759.0 5289.4 47.8% 1012.2 1103.6 2115.8 632.6 -$14.43 -$30,524.80

88 2648.4 2871.3 5519.7 48.0% 1059.4 1148.5 2207.9 662.1 -$13.80 -$30,460.80

90 2769.3 2986.6 5755.9 48.1% 1107.7 1194.6 2302.4 692.3 -$13.20 -$30,396.80

91 2830.9 3045.2 5876.1 48.2% 1132.4 1218.1 2350.4 707.7 -$12.92 -$30,364.80






Total Pile

Cost

4/11/2016


from Side

Resistance


Kip of

Resistance

4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016















4/11/2016


4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

949.9

959.9

969.9

979.9

989.9

999.9

1,009.9

1,019.9

1,029.9

1,039.90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Pile E

mb

ed

men

t (f

eet)

belo

w d

rivin

g e

levati

on


Tip

Side

Total

Uplift

Sand

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Sandy

Loam

w/Bould

ers

Water,

1040.9

949.9

954.9

959.9

964.9

969.9

974.9

979.9

984.9

989.9

994.9

999.9

1004.9

1009.9

1014.9

1019.9

1024.9

1029.9

1034.9

1039.9

949.9

954.9

959.9

964.9

969.9

974.9

979.9

984.9

989.9

994.9

999.9

1,004.9

1,009.9

1,014.9

1,019.9

1,024.9

1,029.9

1,034.9

1,039.9


Pile Type: HP 14x73













Driving Elev 0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ########## -$33,276.805 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0% 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 ########## -$33,116.80

10 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0% 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 -$58,851.43 -$32,956.8015 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0% 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 -$63,070.77 -$32,796.80

20 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0% 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 -$62,763.08 -$32,636.8025 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,476.80

26 6.8 44.1 50.9 13.4% 2.7 17.6 20.4 1.7 -$1,593.56 -$32,444.8028 16.4 65.6 82.0 20.0% 6.6 26.2 32.8 4.1 -$987.22 -$32,380.80

30 27.0 73.0 100.0 27.0% 10.8 29.2 40.0 6.8 -$807.92 -$32,316.8032 38.8 80.4 119.2 32.6% 15.5 32.2 47.7 9.7 -$676.44 -$32,252.80

34 51.8 87.8 139.6 37.1% 20.7 35.1 55.8 13.0 -$576.45 -$32,188.8036 65.9 95.3 161.2 40.9% 26.4 38.1 64.5 16.5 -$498.21 -$32,124.80

38 81.1 102.7 183.8 44.1% 32.4 41.1 73.5 20.3 -$436.08 -$32,060.8040 97.6 107.9 205.5 47.5% 39.0 43.2 82.2 24.4 -$389.26 -$31,996.80

42 115.4 109.6 225.0 51.3% 46.2 43.8 90.0 28.9 -$354.81 -$31,932.8044 134.5 109.6 244.1 55.1% 53.8 43.8 97.6 33.6 -$326.39 -$31,868.80

46 155.1 109.6 264.7 58.6% 62.0 43.8 105.9 38.8 -$300.39 -$31,804.8048 176.9 109.6 286.5 61.7% 70.8 43.8 114.6 44.2 -$276.97 -$31,740.80

50 200.1 109.6 309.7 64.6% 80.0 43.8 123.9 50.0 -$255.71 -$31,676.8052 224.7 109.6 334.3 67.2% 89.9 43.8 133.7 56.2 -$236.41 -$31,612.80

54 250.6 109.6 360.2 69.6% 100.2 43.8 144.1 62.7 -$218.97 -$31,548.8056 277.8 109.6 387.4 71.7% 111.1 43.8 155.0 69.5 -$203.18 -$31,484.80

58 306.5 109.6 416.1 73.7% 122.6 43.8 166.4 76.6 -$188.78 -$31,420.8060 336.4 109.6 446.0 75.4% 134.6 43.8 178.4 84.1 -$175.77 -$31,356.80

62 367.7 109.6 477.3 77.0% 147.1 43.8 190.9 91.9 -$163.91 -$31,292.80

64 400.4 109.6 510.0 78.5% 160.2 43.8 204.0 100.1 -$153.08 -$31,228.80

66 434.4 109.6 544.0 79.9% 173.8 43.8 217.6 108.6 -$143.22 -$31,164.80

68 469.7 109.6 579.3 81.1% 187.9 43.8 231.7 117.4 -$134.22 -$31,100.80

70 506.4 109.6 616.0 82.2% 202.6 43.8 246.4 126.6 -$125.96 -$31,036.80

72 544.4 109.6 654.0 83.2% 217.8 43.8 261.6 136.1 -$118.40 -$30,972.80

74 583.8 109.6 693.4 84.2% 233.5 43.8 277.4 146.0 -$111.44 -$30,908.80

76 624.6 109.6 734.2 85.1% 249.8 43.8 293.7 156.2 -$105.03 -$30,844.80

78 666.7 109.6 776.3 85.9% 266.7 43.8 310.5 166.7 -$99.13 -$30,780.80

80 710.1 109.6 819.7 86.6% 284.0 43.8 327.9 177.5 -$93.68 -$30,716.80

82 754.9 109.6 864.5 87.3% 302.0 43.8 345.8 188.7 -$88.64 -$30,652.80

84 801.0 109.6 910.6 88.0% 320.4 43.8 364.2 200.3 -$83.98 -$30,588.80

86 848.5 109.6 958.1 88.6% 339.4 43.8 383.2 212.1 -$79.65 -$30,524.80

87 872.7 109.6 982.3 88.8% 349.1 43.8 392.9 218.2 -$77.61 -$30,492.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80






Total Pile

Cost

4/11/2016


from Side

Resistance


Kip of

Resistance

4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

Pile Type: HP 14x73














4/11/2016


4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

953.9

963.9

973.9

983.9

993.9

1,003.9

1,013.9

1,023.9

1,033.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425

Pile E

mb

ed

men

t (f

eet)

belo

w d

rivin

g e

levati

on


Tip

Side

Total

Uplift

Sand

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Sandy

Loam

w/Boul

ders

Water,

1040.9

953.9

958.9

963.9

968.9

973.9

978.9

983.9

988.9

993.9

998.9

1003.9

1008.9

1013.9

1018.9

1023.9

1028.9

1033.9

1038.9

953.9

958.9

963.9

968.9

973.9

978.9

983.9

988.9

993.9

998.9

1,003.9

1,008.9

1,013.9

1,018.9

1,023.9

1,028.9

1,033.9

1,038.9
















2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,212.803 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,180.80

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,148.805 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,116.80

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,084.807 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,052.80

8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$33,020.809 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,988.80

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,956.8011 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,924.80

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,892.8013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,860.80

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,828.8015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,796.80

16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,764.8017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,732.80

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,700.8019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,668.80

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,636.8021 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,604.80

22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,572.8023 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,540.80

24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,508.80

25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,476.80

26 7.1 426.2 433.3 1.6% 2.8 170.5 173.3 1.8 -$187.20 -$32,444.80

27 13.3 581.6 594.9 2.2% 5.3 232.6 238.0 3.3 -$136.21 -$32,412.80

28 19.9 616.4 636.3 3.1% 8.0 246.6 254.5 5.0 -$127.22 -$32,380.80

29 26.9 651.2 678.1 4.0% 10.8 260.5 271.2 6.7 -$119.26 -$32,348.80

30 34.2 686.0 720.2 4.7% 13.7 274.4 288.1 8.6 -$112.18 -$32,316.80

31 42.0 720.8 762.8 5.5% 16.8 288.3 305.1 10.5 -$105.81 -$32,284.80

32 50.1 755.7 805.8 6.2% 20.0 302.3 322.3 12.5 -$100.06 -$32,252.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80

#N/A -$33,276.80






Total Pile

Cost

4/11/2016


from Side

Resistance


Kip of

Resistance

4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016















4/11/2016


4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

1,008.9

1,013.9

1,018.9

1,023.9

1,028.9

1,033.9

1,038.9

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

320 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350

Pile E

mb

ed

men

t (f

eet)

belo

w d

rivin

g e

levati

on


Tip

Side

Total

Uplift

Sand

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Water,

1040.9

1008.9

1013.9

1018.9

1023.9

1028.9

1033.9

1038.9

1,008.9

1,013.9

1,018.9

1,023.9

1,028.9

1,033.9

1,038.9
















10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,956.8015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,796.80

25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A -$32,476.8026 176.2 368.2 544.4 32.4% 70.5 147.3 217.8 44.1 -$148.99 -$32,444.80

28 199.0 434.4 633.4 31.4% 79.6 173.8 253.4 49.8 -$127.81 -$32,380.8030 224.5 503.3 727.8 30.8% 89.8 201.3 291.1 56.1 -$111.01 -$32,316.80

32 252.7 574.8 827.5 30.5% 101.1 229.9 331.0 63.2 -$97.44 -$32,252.8034 283.6 648.8 932.4 30.4% 113.4 259.5 373.0 70.9 -$86.31 -$32,188.80

36 317.3 725.5 1042.8 30.4% 126.9 290.2 417.1 79.3 -$77.02 -$32,124.8038 353.6 804.7 1158.3 30.5% 141.4 321.9 463.3 88.4 -$69.20 -$32,060.80

40 393.0 884.1 1277.1 30.8% 157.2 353.6 510.8 98.3 -$62.64 -$31,996.8042 435.6 924.6 1360.2 32.0% 174.2 369.8 544.1 108.9 -$58.69 -$31,932.80

44 481.4 968.2 1449.6 33.2% 192.6 387.3 579.8 120.4 -$54.96 -$31,868.8046 530.4 1014.9 1545.3 34.3% 212.2 406.0 618.1 132.6 -$51.45 -$31,804.80

48 582.6 1064.7 1647.3 35.4% 233.0 425.9 658.9 145.7 -$48.17 -$31,740.8050 638.1 1117.5 1755.6 36.3% 255.2 447.0 702.2 159.5 -$45.11 -$31,676.80

52 696.8 1173.4 1870.2 37.3% 278.7 469.4 748.1 174.2 -$42.26 -$31,612.8054 758.7 1232.4 1991.1 38.1% 303.5 493.0 796.4 189.7 -$39.61 -$31,548.80

56 823.8 1294.4 2118.2 38.9% 329.5 517.8 847.3 206.0 -$37.16 -$31,484.8058 892.2 1359.5 2251.7 39.6% 356.9 543.8 900.7 223.1 -$34.89 -$31,420.80

60 963.8 1427.7 2391.5 40.3% 385.5 571.1 956.6 241.0 -$32.78 -$31,356.8062 1038.6 1498.9 2537.5 40.9% 415.4 599.6 1015.0 259.7 -$30.83 -$31,292.80

64 1116.6 1573.2 2689.8 41.5% 446.6 629.3 1075.9 279.2 -$29.03 -$31,228.80

66 1197.8 1650.6 2848.4 42.1% 479.1 660.2 1139.4 299.5 -$27.35 -$31,164.80

68 1282.3 1731.1 3013.4 42.6% 512.9 692.4 1205.4 320.6 -$25.80 -$31,100.80

70 1370.0 1814.6 3184.6 43.0% 548.0 725.8 1273.8 342.5 -$24.36 -$31,036.80

72 1460.9 1901.2 3362.1 43.5% 584.4 760.5 1344.8 365.2 -$23.03 -$30,972.80

74 1555.1 1990.8 3545.9 43.9% 622.0 796.3 1418.4 388.8 -$21.79 -$30,908.80

76 1652.4 2083.5 3735.9 44.2% 661.0 833.4 1494.4 413.1 -$20.64 -$30,844.80

78 1753.0 2179.3 3932.3 44.6% 701.2 871.7 1572.9 438.3 -$19.57 -$30,780.80

80 1856.8 2278.2 4135.0 44.9% 742.7 911.3 1654.0 464.2 -$18.57 -$30,716.80

82 1963.8 2380.1 4343.9 45.2% 785.5 952.0 1737.6 491.0 -$17.64 -$30,652.80

84 2074.1 2485.1 4559.2 45.5% 829.6 994.0 1823.7 518.5 -$16.77 -$30,588.80

86 2187.5 2593.2 4780.7 45.8% 875.0 1037.3 1912.3 546.9 -$15.96 -$30,524.80

88 2304.2 2704.3 5008.5 46.0% 921.7 1081.7 2003.4 576.1 -$15.20 -$30,460.80

90 2424.2 2818.5 5242.7 46.2% 969.7 1127.4 2097.1 606.1 -$14.49 -$30,396.80

92 2547.3 2935.8 5483.1 46.5% 1018.9 1174.3 2193.2 636.8 -$13.83 -$30,332.80

94 2673.7 3056.1 5729.8 46.7% 1069.5 1222.4 2291.9 668.4 -$13.21 -$30,268.80

96 2803.2 3179.6 5982.8 46.9% 1121.3 1271.8 2393.1 700.8 -$12.62 -$30,204.80

#N/A -$33,276.80






Total Pile

Cost

4/11/2016

Nominal Resistance % of

Resistance

from Side

Resistance


Kip of

Resistance

4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016






Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): 120.0









4/11/2016


4/12/2016

4/12/2016

4/12/20164/12/2016

944.9

954.9

964.9

974.9

984.9

994.9

1,004.9

1,014.9

1,024.9

1,034.9

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

64

68

72

76

80

84

88

92

960 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Pil

e E

mb

ed

men

t (f

eet)

be

low

dri

vin

g e

leva

tio

n


Tip

Side

Total

Uplift

Sand

Clay

Sandy

Loam

Sandy

Loam

w/Bould

ers

Water,

1040.9

944.9

949.9

954.9

959.9

964.9

969.9

974.9

979.9

984.9

989.9

994.9

999.9

1004.9

1009.9

1014.9

1019.9

1024.9

1029.9

1034.9

1039.9

944.9

949.9

954.9

959.9

964.9

969.9

974.9

979.9

984.9

989.9

994.9

999.9

1,004.9

1,009.9

1,014.9

1,019.9

1,024.9

1,029.9

1,034.9

1,039.9

Project: Rainy River Bridge GRL WEAP Output

Structure: B-9412

Location: Pier

Boring: B100

Pile Type: HP Hammer: Delmag D-44

Diameter/Size: 14x73 Hammer Energy: 90.2 kip-ft

Wall Thickness: n/a

Steel Area: 21.40 in2

Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default

Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 385 kips Pile Cushion: None

Yield Stress: 43.9 ksi

Maximum Allowable Stress: 39.5 ksi

Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No

Construction Verification Method: Gates

Required Driving Resistance: 963 kips

Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 77 feet

Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 76 feet

Driving Limitation(s): Excessive Stresses

Refusal

Notes: 1. For the analysis it was assumed piles will be pre-bored through the scour zone

2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAPTM

Version 2010 by

Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters,

including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer

recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis.

3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet

as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability

model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material

is encountered.

4. When driving H-piles in the glacial soils in the region, it has been found at times that the piles

drive longer than expected. This is anticipated to be because of loss of shear strength during driving.

The wave equation analysis performed did not consider any shear strength loss during driving. Only

to check that piles could be driven to the estimated depth.

5. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal).

MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: 59800 Sheet No.: 1 Driveability ResultsRainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM

Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016


Structure: B-9412

Location: Pier

Boring: B100

Pile Type: CIP Hammer: Delmag D-22

Diameter/Size: 16 inches Hammer Energy: 40.6 kip-ft

Wall Thickness: 0.5 inches











Driving Limitation(s): Refusal

Excessive Stresses



Version 2010 by







is encountered.





Structure: B-9412

Location: Pier

Boring: B100

Pile Type: CIP Hammer: Pileco D280-22


Wall Thickness: 1 inches












Excessive Stresses

Notes: 1. Estimated pile embedment required to meet the factored axial compressive resistance


Version 2010 by







is encountered.





Structure: B-9412

Location: Pier

Boring: B101



Wall Thickness: n/a












Refusal



Version 2010 by







is encountered.









Structure: B-9412

Location: Pier

Boring: B101















Excessive Stresses



Version 2010 by







is encountered.





Structure: B-9412

Location: Pier

Boring: B101















Refusal



Version 2010 by







is encountered.





Structure: B-9412

Location: Pier

Boring: B102



Wall Thickness: n/a












Excessive Stresses



Version 2010 by







is encountered.









Structure: B-9412

Location: Pier

Boring: B102















Excessive Stresses



Version 2010 by







is encountered.





Structure: B-9412

Location: Pier

Boring: B102















Refusal



Version 2010 by







is encountered.




P a g e | C

Appendix C: Drilled Shaft Foundation Resistance Graphs

For Baudette/Rainy River Bridge Project No. 59800 Sheet No. 1

Originator DMM Checker Backchecker

Date 4/7/2016 Date Date

GEOTECHNICAL AXIAL RESISTANCE

6-foot Diameter, 48-foot Length

Boring B100

FIGURE 1.1

Assumed Design

Subsurface Profile

Estimated Factored Axial Resistance (kips)

NOTES: 1. Static drilled shaft axial resistance estimate based on Section 10 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Sixth Edition,dated 2012, and FHWA GEC 10, dated 2010. 2. Estimate is based on a single shaft. Does not include group efficiency factors specified in AASHTO LRFD for shafts with a center to center spacing between 2 to 3 shaft diameters. 3. Estimated factored axial shaft compressive resistances are illustrated in Figure 1.1 for the Strength I limit state and do not account for weight of the components attached to the shaft or the weight of the shaft. 4. Factored axial shaft resistances are based on the assumption no permanent casing will be used. 5. A portion of the upper shaft side resistance has been neglected because of effects from scour. 6. For cohesive soil, unit side resistance fSN = αSu < 4 ksf, where α = 0.55 for Su/pa <= 1.5 and α = 0.55 - 0.1(Su/pa - 1.5) for 1.5<=Su/pa<= 2.5, pa is atmospheric pressure in the same units as Su (for example, 2116 psf). Unit end bearing qBN = Nc * Su < 80 ksf where Nc = 6[1 + 0.2(Z/B)] <=9, if Su is <0.5 ksf, multiply Nc by 0.67, where Z is the shaft penetration depth. 7. For cohessionless soil fSN = β*s'v < 4 ksf where β = K*tan(δ=φ'), K=Ko=1-sin(φ')OCRsinФ. Unit end bearing qBN = 1.2*N60avg (ksf) < 60 ksf where N60avg. is the average N60 for a depth of 2B below the drilled shaft tip. 8. Axial load - settlement relationships have not been evaluated in this analysis, which may limit the axial resistance. 9.Consolidation settlement evaluated separately. 10. The reported resistances do not consider the structural resistance of the shaft. 11. Strength Limit State End Bearing Resistance factor, ΦB, 0.5 for cohesionless soil and 0.4 for cohesive soil. 12. Strength Limit State Skin Friction Resistance factor, ΦS, 0.55 for cohesionless soil and 0.45 for cohesive soil.

1047.9

1044.4 1042.9

1040.4

1034.4

1017.9

986.8

1058.9

980

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

1040

1050

1060

Sandy Loam Clay

Sandy Loam

Sand

Clay

Clay

-12.1

-2.1

7.9

17.9

27.9

37.9

47.9

57.9

67.9980

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

1040

1050

1060

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Dep

th (

feet)

Ele

vati

on

(fe

et)

NA

VD

88

End Bearing

Side

Total

dmaciolek

Line






Boring B100

FIGURE 1.1

Assumed Design

Subsurface Profile



1047.9

1044.4 1042.9

1040.4

1034.4

1017.9

986.8

1058.9

980

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

1040

1050

1060

Sandy Loam Clay

Sandy Loam

Sand

Clay

Clay

-12.1

-2.1

7.9

17.9

27.9

37.9

47.9

57.9

67.9980

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

1040

1050

1060

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Dep

th (

feet)

Ele

vati

on

(fe

et)

NA

VD

88

End Bearing

Side

Total

dmaciolek

Line




Assumed Design

Subsurface Profile




Boring B101

FIGURE 1.1


1040.9

1035.9

1020.9

995.2

1058.9

980

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

1040

1050

1060

Sandy Loam

Sand

Clay

-19.1

-9.1

0.9

10.9

20.9

30.9

40.9

50.9

60.9980

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

1040

1050

1060

0 200 400 600 800

Dep

th (

feet)

Ele

vati

on

(fe

et)

NA

VD

88

End Bearing

Side

Total

dmaciolek

Line




Assumed Design

Subsurface Profile




Boring B102

FIGURE 1.1


1040.9

1030.9

1015.9

1003.4

947.9

1058.9

940

960

980

1000

1020

1040

1060

Sandy Loam

Cobbles, Boulders & Sandy Loam

Sand

Clay

-19.1

0.9

20.9

40.9

60.9

80.9

100.9940

960

980

1000

1020

1040

1060

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Dep

th (

feet)

Ele

vati

on

(fe

et)

NA

VD

88

End Bearing

Side

Total

dmaciolek

Line




Assumed Design

Subsurface Profile




Boring B102

FIGURE 1.1

NOTES: 1. Static drilled shaft axial resistance estimate based on Section 10 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Sixth Edition,dated 2012, and FHWA GEC 10, dated 2010. 2. Estimate is based on a single shaft. Does not include group efficiency factors specified in AASHTO LRFD for shafts with a center to center spacing between 2 to 3 shaft diameters. 3. Estimated factored axial shaft compressive resistances are illustrated in Figure 1.1 for the Strength I limit state and do not account for weight of the components attached to the shaft or the weight of the shaft. 4. Factored axial shaft resistances are based on the assumption no permanent casing will be used. 5. A portion of the upper shaft side resistance has been neglected because of effects from scour. 6. For cohesive soil, unit side resistance fSN = αSu < 4 ksf, where α = 0.55 for Su/pa <= 1.5 and α = 0.55 - 0.1(Su/pa - 1.5) for 1.5<=Su/pa<= 2.5, pa is atmospheric pressure in the same units as Su (for example, 2116 psf). Unit end bearing qBN = Nc * Su < 80 ksf where Nc = 6[1 + 0.2(Z/B)] <=9, if Su is <0.5 ksf, multiply Nc by 0.67, where Z is the shaft penetration depth. 7. For cohessionless soil fSN = β*s'v < 4 ksf where β = K*tan(δ=φ'), K=Ko=1-sin(φ')OCRsinФ. Unit end bearing qBN = 1.2*N60avg (ksf) < 60 ksf where N60avg. is the average N60 for a depth of 2B below the drilled shaft tip. 8. Axial load - settlement relationships have not been evaluated in this analysis, which may limit the axial resistance. 9.Consolidation settlement evaluated separately. 10. The reported resistances do not consider the structural resistance of the shaft.

11. Strength Limit State End Bearing Resistance factor, ΦB, 0.5 for cohesionless soil and 0.4 for cohesive soil. 12. Strength Limit State Skin Friction Resistance factor, ΦS, 0.55 for cohesionless soil and 0.45 for cohesive soil.

1040.9

1030.9

1015.9

1003.4

947.9

1058.9

940

960

980

1000

1020

1040

1060

Sandy Loam

Cobbles, Boulders & Sandy Loam

Sand

Clay

-19.1

0.9

20.9

40.9

60.9

80.9

100.9940

960

980

1000

1020

1040

1060

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Dep

th (

feet)

Ele

vati

on

(fe

et)

NA

VD

88

End Bearing

Side

Total

dmaciolek

Line

cost effective foundation options technical memorandum · 2017. 2. 28. · appendix b: pile...

Documents