geotechnical data report - nevada

GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT STRUCTURE B-287 WIDENING

ON SR 756 CENTERVILLE LANE

DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEVADA

August 2018

STATE OF NEVADA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MATERIALS DIVISION

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

STRUCTURE B-287 WIDENING

ON SR 756 CENTERVILLE LANE

DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEVADA

August 2018

EA 73867

Prepared by: Keith Conrad Staff Geotechnical Specialist Reviewed by: Jeff Palmer, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Reviewed by: Mike Griswold, P.E. Chief Geotechnical Engineer Approved by: Darin Tedford, P.E. Chief Materials Engineer

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................................... 3

3.1 Geologic Setting .................................................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Seismicity and Faulting ....................................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Site Classification and Seismic Parameters ......................................................................................... 4

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................................. 5

4.1 Exploratory Borings ............................................................................................................................. 5

4.2 Geophysical Site Investigation ............................................................................................................ 5

4.3 Laboratory Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 6

5.0 FOUNDATION .......................................................................................................................................... 6

5.1 Structure Loads ................................................................................................................................... 6

5.2 Construction Platform ......................................................................................................................... 6

5.3 Geotextile Specifications ..................................................................................................................... 6

5.4 Soil Bearing Resistance ....................................................................................................................... 6

5.5 Settlement........................................................................................................................................... 8

5.6 Wingwall Lateral Earth Pressure ......................................................................................................... 8

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 9

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………………….. Site Location Map Seismic Hazard Map Borings and ReMi Location Map APPENDIX B……………………………………………………………………………….. Boring Log Key and Boring Logs APPENDIX C……………………………………………………………………………….. Laboratory Test Summary and Results APPENDIX D………………………………………………………………………………..Geophysical Test Results

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Location The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) will be widening the bridge structure B-287 on State Route 756, Centerville Lane at milepost DO 3.68, Douglas County, Nevada. The bridge project location is in Township 12 North, Range 20 East, in Lot 02 of Section 05, M.D.B.&M. The structure is west of US 395 and south of Gardnerville at coordinates 38°56'21.07" N, 119°45'06.26" W.

Figure 1. Photo of original construction of Structure B-287

1.2 Project Description Structure B-287 was built in 1935, reconstructed in 1951, and crosses over the Cottonwood Slough. Structure B-287 was originally designed and built as a four-cell Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) Culvert and was lengthened by two cells along the south side of the bridge to a six-cell RCB Culvert in 1951, allowing for higher flood flows and thus alleviating flood-caused damage. The bridge is in good condition (sufficiency rating = 67.0) with plans for minor repairs to be performed during project construction.

2

Figure 2. Current Condition of Structure B-287

The project is to widen the existing bridge structure by extending the RCB culvert by 10.5 feet on each end. New wing walls will be constructed on all four corners of the RCB culvert. The bridge structure will have the same length and be 21 feet wider after construction.

The completed bridge structure will continue to convey one lane of traffic in each direction over the waterway. The widened sections of the bridge structure will be used to add sidewalks, gutters and bike lanes in both directions of travel. The project includes removing the existing bridge rails and wing walls, perform minor repairs and cleaning. The final dimensions of the RCB culvert will be 66 feet, 8 inches wide by 51 feet long and is not skewed with the direction of the canal. The completed structure will have an increased footprint and will retain the same road surface elevation as the current structure. Traffic will use local roads for detours during project construction.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK 2.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of the work is to widen the current bridge structure with RCB culvert extensions on both sides and add sidewalks, gutters and bike lanes to make the structure more functional. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to provide data regarding the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the proposed bridge site and provide recommended geotechnical design values.

The scope of the geotechnical investigation is to:

• review published maps and reports

3

• gather data from past field explorations and reports • perform field reconnaissance • conduct subsurface explorations consisting of two borings • obtain soil samples from field tests • analyze field and laboratory testing data.

This report includes boring logs and summaries of test results from the field investigations and the laboratory testing regimen. The boring logs and summaries are in Appendices B and C.

3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND SEISMICITY 3.1 Geologic Setting The project site for Structure B-287 is in Carson Valley, which is bounded by the Carson Range of the Sierra Nevada Mountain on the west and by the Pine Nut Mountain Range on the east. Geologic map references show the site is located on the following geologic units:

• Qpl - quaternary playa, lakebed and flood plain deposits [United State Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Map of Nevada]

• Qmb1 – quaternary deposits of the East Fork Carson River, later meander-belt and floodplain deposits including cobbles, pebble gravels, sands and silts (Geologic map of the Gardnerville Quadrangle)

• Qfp & Qbf – quaternary alluvial flood-plain deposits (Qfp-gravelly to silty sand and sandy to clayey silt) and quaternary alluvial basin-fill deposits (Qbf-flood plain alluvium, alluvial fan deposits, eolian sand and silt); Geologic map of the Freel Peak 15' quadrangle and Reconnaissance Surficial Geologic Map of the Mt. Siegel Quadrangle

The Web Soil Survey (USDA-WSS) maps the upper five feet of soils near B-287 as Milkiway clay loam (Unit 6214) which is very near Mackranch loam (Unit 6283) and Morwen loam (Unit 6284) units. WSS typical profile of Milkiway clay loam is upper clay layers, sandy clay loam, sandy loam and stratified coarse sandy loam. WSS typical profile of Mackranch loam is upper loam layers, and extremely gravelly coarse sand. WSS typical profile of Morwen loam is upper loam layer, fine sandy loam, very gravelly loamy coarse sand. Boring data shows a mix of layers found in these units including sandy clay near surface, gravel layers, sand layers, etc. Due to the potential of meander-belt, flood-plain and alluvial deposition at the site, lateral and horizontal soil layer variability over short distances is expected.

3.2 Seismicity and Faulting The Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States shows several Quaternary fault zones within 6 miles of the project site as shown in the seismic hazards map in Appendix A. Carson Valley contains numerous north-south trending, Quaternary, normal faults located within the valley that are grouped within either the East Carson Valley Fault Zone (east-side) or the Genoa Fault Zone (west-side).

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_59121.htm





4

The Genoa Fault Zone is the predominant fault near the project site and is located along the base of the Carson Range at the west of the valley. The Genoa Fault Zone is one of the most active faults in Nevada producing up to magnitude 7.4 earthquakes every 3,000 years. The East Carson Valley Fault Zone is a highly distributed fault zone located in the east side of the valley that has small slip rates and produces earthquakes up to magnitude 6.3. Predicted ground accelerations for the project area are the highest in Nevada. The ground accelerations that should be used in the design are discussed below.

3.3 Site Classification and Seismic Parameters The seismic provisions of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO) Article 3.10 are applied to bridge design in Nevada. Earthquake force effects were determined in accordance with AASHTO Article 3.10. Seismic coefficients from AASHTO must meet or exceed the minimum seismic coefficients shown in Figure 12.3-H of the NDOT Structures Manual unless otherwise approved by the Chief Structures Engineer (NDOT Structures Manual, pp. 12-21). The coefficients for Douglas County are shown below along with other seismic design parameters.

PGA Ss S1

AASHTO 0.60 1.25 0.50

USGS 0.539 1.282 0.512

NDOT Minimum for Douglas County from NDOT Structure Manual 0.50 1.25 0.50

Table 1. Seismic Design Parameters

AASHTO Article 3.10.1 recommends selecting peak ground acceleration (PGA) based on the horizontal peak ground acceleration coefficient with seven percent probability of exceedance in 75 years (approximately 1000-year return period). The PGA, short-period response spectral acceleration (SS) and long-period response spectral accelerations (S1) for the site were obtained using AASHTO figure 3.10.2.1, USGS U.S. Seismic Design Maps online tool (2009 AASHTO) and NDOT Structure Manual Figure 12.3-H. These seismic design parameters are based on Site Class D Soil Type and adjustments should be made based on the average shear wave velocity of the upper 100 feet of soil (Vs100) at the project site, as shown in AASHTO Table 3.10.3.2. The acceleration response spectrum shall be comprised of data from AASHTO since it has the highest PGA.

The site class for the project location is Site Class D (AASHTO Table 3.10.3.1-1) based on the Vs100. The average shear wave velocity was obtained utilizing the Refraction MicroTremor (ReMiTM) geophysical testing method discussed later in this report. ReMiTM Vs100 results for the site were 1,184 feet per second.

5

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 4.1 Exploratory Borings The NDOT Geotechnical Section performed site investigations at the project site in June 2017 and November 2017 at the locations shown on the boring location map in Appendix A. The subsurface exploration consisted of two exploratory borings drilled with a Diedrich D-120 truck-mounted drill rig (NDOT #1082) utilizing six-inch hollow-stem auger without drilling fluid. Soil samples and standard penetration resistance values (N-values) were obtained utilizing the Standard Penetration Test (SPT, ASTM D1586) and ring-lined Modified California Sampler (CMS, ASTM D3550). The uncorrected field blow counts are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. The uncorrected blow counts have not been corrected for hammer energy, sampler type, rod length or hammer type. The Energy Transfer Ratio (ER) for NDOT #1082 is 86%. Field CMS N-values are converted to field SPT N-values by a multiplication factor of 0.62, as stated in the Key to Boring Logs found in Appendix B. All soil samples were either classified using Unified Soil Classification System (USCS, ASTM D2487) laboratory testing or described and identified according to Visual-Manual Procedures (ASTM D2488).

Groundwater was encountered at an elevation of 4,740.7’ (8.0’ below road surface) during the drilling of Boring #2. Surface water elevation of Cottonwood Slough was measured at 4,741.8’. A survey of the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources well logs within the project area shows relatively stable groundwater depths of 6-10 feet below land surface over the period of the last 60-plus years.

4.2 Geophysical Site Investigation Seismic Data Collection The ReMiTM seismic survey was performed using a twelve-geophone set with each geophone spaced 20 feet apart, starting on the southeast side of the bridge and continuing to the south, parallel to the road. See the map of seismic line layout in Appendix A. Background ‘noise’ consisting of roadway traffic and walking the seismic line were used to generate seismic waves during the ReMiTM survey. The field exploration, noise data acquisition, location survey and preliminary data verification was performed by NDOT geotechnical staff.

ReMi Seismic Data Analysis The analysis and interpretation of the seismic data collected for this project was performed by Optim, Incorporated of Reno, Nevada. Ten total 30-second data acquisition recordings were made and processed by Optim. The noise data collected for ReMiTM was analyzed using the proprietary SeisOpt ReMiTM software developed by Optim. See the geophysical test results in Appendix D.

6

4.3 Laboratory Analysis Laboratory analyses were performed on soil samples collected from the boreholes. The testing program consisted of sieve, hydrometer, specific gravity, Atterberg limits, moisture content and dry unit weights analyses. Test result summary information is presented in Appendix C.

5.0 FOUNDATION 5.1 Structure Loads Anticipated structure loads were provided by the NDOT Structures Division. The anticipated unfactored dead load of the final, completed structure is 2400 kips for the existing bridge and both extended sides. The anticipated unfactored live load of the final, completed structure is 340 kips for the existing bridge and both extended sides. Distributing these loads uniformly over the structure results in an estimated bearing pressure of 0.81 ksf. Loading for each anticipated 10.5 feet by 66.67 feet extended side results in an anticipated bearing load of 567 kips after construction.

5.2 Construction Platform The RCB culvert extensions shall be bedded on 4 inches of Class C Bedding material (2017 NDOT Standard Plans, Drawing R-1.1.6) and backfilled in accordance with 2017 NDOT Standard Plans, Drawing R-1.1.4. It is likely that unstable foundation conditions will be encountered during construction due to migration of saturated sands, seepage, and/or yielding conditions, which prevent proper compaction of the foundation soils. Therefore, both the RCB culvert extensions and wingwall footings, including the 4 inches of Class C Bedding material, shall be founded on top of construction platforms consisting of Class 150 Riprap Bedding wrapped in Nonwoven Geotextile Class 1 fabric. The thickness of the wrapped Riprap Bedding is 36 inches under the RCB culvert extensions and 18 inches under the wingwalls. Place Riprap Bedding, for the construction platforms, in lifts and properly compact in accordance with Section 208. The initial lift of Riprap Bedding should be approximately 12 inches and following lifts should be no more than 8 inches. Locations and elevations of the construction platforms are depicted in the construction plans.

5.3 Geotextile Specifications NDOT Nonwoven Geotextile Class 1 will be installed as part of the construction platforms. Geotextile installation procedures and material specifications for both applications shall be in conformance with Sections 203 and 731.

5.4 Soil Bearing Resistance Bearing resistances of the soil under the RCB culvert extensions were analyzed assuming a 10.5 foot wide by 68 feet, 8 inches long RCB culvert extension founded on top of a forty inch thick sand layer and construction platform at an elevation of 4741 feet. Bearing resistances of the soil under the RCB culvert

7

extensions, including the sand and construction platform, are summarized in Table 1 and are further explained in the following sections. Table 1. Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert Foundation Bearing Resistances

Service Limit State Strength Limit State Extreme Limit State

Nominal Resistance

(ksf)

Factored Resistance

(ksf)

Nominal Resistance

(ksf)

Factored Resistance

(ksf)

Nominal Resistance

(ksf)

Factored Resistance

(ksf)

3.0 3.0 18 8 25 25

Service Limit State

The resistance factor for the service limit state shall be taken as 1.0 in accordance with AASHTO Article 10.5.5.1. Therefore, nominal and factored resistances at the service limit states are equal. For this project, the factored bearing resistance at the Service I Limit State is defined as the net bearing pressure that is estimated to produce 1 inch of total settlement. The net bearing pressure is defined as the bearing pressure applied by the RCB culvert extensions. Bearing resistance of the soil was calculated by using an elastic half-space settlement equation in accordance with AASHTO Article 10.6.2.4 with the maximum allowed settlement of 1 inch for the proposed RCB culvert. From the equation, this sett lement would occur by applying a net bearing pressure of approximately 3 ksf. Therefore, the nominal and factored bearing resistances of the soil at the Service I Limit State are both 3 ksf. Strength Limit State

Nominal bearing resistance at the Strength Limit State was calculated using the nominal bearing resistance equation in accordance with AASHTO Article 10.6.3.1.2a. The bearing resistance factor for the Strength Limit state is 0.45, which is used in our analysis based on the theoretical method, in sand, using SPT from AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1. Therefore, the nominal bearing resistance at the Strength Limit State for the proposed RCB culvert is calculated to be 18 ksf, and the factored bearing resistance is 8 ksf. Extreme Event Limit State

The bearing resistance factor for the Extreme Event Limit State is equal to 1.0 according to AASHTO Article 10.5.53 and is applicable to both scour and earthquake loading. The nominal bearing resistance at the Extreme Event Limit State is calculated to be 25 ksf, in accordance with AASHTO 10.6.3.1.3 and the factored bearing resistance is also 25 ksf.

8

5.5 Settlement

A settlement analyses for the RCB culvert on top of the sand layer and construction platform was made using the elastic half-space settlement equation with actual loads provided by NDOT Structures Division. Settlement analyses using computational methods based on the results of laboratory and in situ testing were performed in accordance with AASHTO Article 10.6.2.4. The maximum total settlement calculated was 0.22 inches and consisted entirely of immediate settlement. Consolidation settlement was 0.0 inches.

5.6 Wingwall Lateral Earth Pressure

The at-rest earth pressure coefficient Ko is 0.5 and equivalent fluid unit weight is 60 pcf for horizontal backfill conditions for the wingwalls. These values are based on the assumption that the wingwalls will be backfilled with on-site excavated materials. These materials have soil strength parameters of friction angle of 30 degrees, a cohesion of 0 and a unit weight of 120 pcf in the calculations. Little movement is expected with the wingwalls and the following active and passive lateral wingwall pressure coefficients of Ka = 0.33 and Kp = 3.0 are appropriate.

9

6.0 REFERENCES 1. Seismic Hazards in the Reno-Carson City Urban Corridor: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/_docs/Newsletters/nl14.htm

2. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States (U.S. Geological Survey): https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/qfault/show_report_AB_archive.cfm?fault_id=1286&section_id

3. Hydrologic Data https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/0464/report.pdf

4. Geologic Map of Douglas County, Nevada

5. United State Geological Survey (USGS) Data Series 249: Geologic Map of Nevada (digital)

6. Geologic map of the Gardnerville Quadrangle, Douglas County, Nevada; 1:24,000; 2000

7. Geologic map of the Freel Peak 15' quadrangle, California and Nevada; 1:62,500; 1983

8. Reconnaissance Surficial Geologic Map of the Mt. Siegel Quadrangle, Nevada - California; 1:62,500; 1981

9. United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey (USDA-WSS)

10. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition

11. NDOT Structures Manual 2008

12. 2017 NDOT Standard Plans

http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/_docs/Newsletters/nl14.htm

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/qfault/show_report_AB_archive.cfm?fault_id=1286&section_id

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/0464/report.pdf




APPENDIX A

Site Location Map Seismic Hazard Map

Boring and ReMi Location Map

1

2

123456789101112

³

1 inch = 83 feet

0 55 110 165 220Feet

1:1,000

BoringsGeophonesSeismic Line

h9028jap

Typewritten Text

B-287 Centerville Boring and ReMi Location Map

APPENDIX B

Boring Log Key Boring Logs

KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS

USCS GROUP TYPICAL SOIL DESCRIPTION

GW GP GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT

Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands with slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat and other highly organic soils

MOISTURE CONDITION CRITERIA SOIL CEMENTATION CRITERIA

Description Criteria Description Criteria Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or little

dry to touch. finger pressure. Moist Damp, no visible free water. Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable Wet Visible free water, usually below finger pressure.

groundwater table. Strong Won’t break or crumble w/finger pressure

Ñ Groundwater Elevation Symbols

Field Blow counts on California

Modified Sampler (NCMS) can be

converted to NSPT field by:

(NCMS field )(0.62) = NSPT field

Blow counts from Automatic Hammer can be converted

to Standard SPT N60 by:

Rig #1627: (NSPT field)(1.2) =N60

Rig #1082: (NSPT field)(1.45) =N60

TEST ABBREVIATIONS

CD CONSOLIDATED DRAINED CH CHEMICAL (CORROSIVENESS) CM COMPACTION CU CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED D DISPERSIVE SOILS DS DIRECT SHEAR E EXPANSIVE SOIL G SPECIFIC GRAVITY H HYDROMETER HC HYDRO-COLLAPSE K PERMEABILITY

OC ORGANIC CONTENT C CONSOLIDATION PI PLASTICITY INDEX RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION RV R-VALUE S SIEVE ANALYSIS SL SHRINKAGE LIMIT U UNCONFINED COMPRESSION UU UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED UW UNIT WEIGHT W MOISTURE CONTENT

SAMPLER NOTATION

CMS CALIF. MODIFIED SAMPLER1

CPT CONE PENETRATION TEST

CS CONTINUOUS SAMPLER2

PB PITCHER BARREL

RC ROCK CORE3

SH SHELBY TUBE4

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST TP TEST PIT

1- I.D.= 2.421 inch

2- I.D.=3.228 inch with tube; 3.50 inch w/o tube

3- NXB I.D.= 1.875 inch

4- I.D.= 2.875 inch

SOIL COLOR DESIGNATIONS ARE FROM THE MUNSELL SOIL/ROCK COLOR

CHARTS.

EXAMPLE: (7.5 YR 5/3) BROWN

Revised August 2010

PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS

FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE

.002 mm #200 #40 #10 #4 ¾ inch 3 inch 12 inch

STANDARD PENETRATION CLASSIFICATION*

GRANULAR SOIL CLAYEY SOIL

BLOWS/FT DENSITY BLOWS/FT CONSISTENCY

0 - 4

5 – 10

11 - 30

31 - 50

OVER 50

VERY LOOSE

LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

0 - 1 VERY SOFT

2 - 4 SOFT

5 - 8 MEDIUM STIFF

9 - 15 STIFF

16 - 30 VERY STIFF

31 - 60 HARD

OVER 60 VERY HARD

*Standard Penetration Test (N) 140 lb hammer

30 inch free fall on 2 inch O.D. x 1.4 inch I.D. sampler.

2.00

2.40

3.50

4.20

7.00

8.50

10.30

10.80

11.50

13.30

13.80

14.50

2.40

2.70

4.20

5.70

8.50

10.00

10.80

11.30

13.00

14.80

A

B

C

D

E

F

G1

G2

H

I1

I2

RR

R

42

99

71

87

67

53

33RR

30

20

27

17

15

25

49

37

224047

37

20

Well Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel

Silty Gravel with Sand

Clayey Sand with Gravel

Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Well Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand

Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel

Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand



Down Pressureat 300 psi

3.00

4.20

6.00

8.50

10.00

11.50

13.00

13.80

17

50

34

30

33

SW-SM

GM

SC

GP

GW-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

GP

SP

CMS

SPT

CMS

SPT

CMS

SPT

CMS

CMS

SPT

CMS

CMS

95

100

80

100

100

80

100

LL,PI,S

S

LL,PI,S

LL,PI,H

LL,PI,H

LL,PI,S

W,S,G,UW

W,LL,PI,S,G,UW

LL,PI,S

W,S,G,UW

W,LL,PI,S,G,UW

4744.0

4739.0

5

10

5

10

10.00

NO.

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

6/28/2017

SHEET 1 OF 2

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Bridge Widening of B-287 on SR756

BACKFILLED

6/27/17

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

6/27/17

TYPE

SAMPLE

4739.0Auto

DEPTH ft

DATE

1

DRILLINGMETHOD

Centerville Lane, Gardnerville, Nevada - Douglas County

PercentRecov'd

73867 GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

Hollow Stem Auger

Yes

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

6/28/17

LAB TESTS

4749 ft

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM

Xa 19915 Feet RightK. ConradDietrich D-120 Truck MountO.J. Altamirano

NV

_DO

T B

-287

.GP

J N

V_D

OT

.GD

T 8

/2/1

8

16.40

16.70

17.3017.50

19.80

20.50

15.30

16.00

17.90

18.20

18.8019.00

21.30

22.00

J

K1

K2

K3

L

M3

N

55

86

105

39

20

11

31

4

28

24

31

55

50

11

3

Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand

Poorly Graded Sand with Silty Clay and Gravel

Poorly Graded Sand

Bottom of Hole at 22 Feet Deep, Elevation at 4727 Feet

16.00

16.70

17.50

19.00

22.00

15

5555

2

17

SM

SP

GW-GM

SP-SC

W,LL,PI,S,G,UW,S

SP

SPT

CMS

SPT

CMS

SPT

70

100

100100

75

100

50

LL,PI,S

W,S,G

W,LL,PI,S,G

S,LL,PI,

S

4729.0

4724.0

20

25

20

25

10.00

NO.

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

6/28/2017

SHEET 2 OF 2



BACKFILLED

6/27/17

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

6/27/17

TYPE

SAMPLE

4739.0Auto

DEPTH ft

DATE

1

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd


EXPLORATION LOG

Hollow Stem Auger

Yes

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

6/28/17

LAB TESTS

4749 ft

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


NV

_DO

T B

-287

.GP

J N

V_D

OT

.GD

T 8

/2/1

8

5.00

10.00

15.00

6.50

11.50

A

B

25

50

5

15

5

19

Pavement

Sandy Silty Gravel

Silty, Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand with Gravel


0.70

5.00

7.00

10.00

20

31

GM

SC-SM

GC

GP

SPT

SPT

75

15

LL, PI, H

LL, PI, S

4743.0

4738.0

5

10

5

10

8.00

NO.

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

6/28/2017

SHEET 1 OF 3



BACKFILLED

6/28/17

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

6/28/17

TYPE

SAMPLE

4740.0Auto

DEPTH ft

DATE

2

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd


EXPLORATION LOG

Hollow Stem Auger

Yes

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

6/28/17

LAB TESTS

4748 ft

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


NV

_DO

T B

-287

.GP

J N

V_D

OT

.GD

T 8

/2/1

8

Down Pressure Pressureat 200 psi

Down Pressureat 300 psi

2020.20

20.70

21.70

23.00

30.00

16.50

20.70

21.70

23.20

24.50

C

D1

D2

E

F

12

70

54

13

2

7

2

3

2446

31

4

Poorly Graded Sand



Silty Sand

Heaving SandsNo SampleRecovered

19.00

20.70

21.50

23.00

9

10

23

9

SP

GP

SP-SM

SPT

CMS

CMS

SPT

CMS

30

100

100

80

0

LL, PI, S

W, S, G,UW

LL, PI, G

LL, PI, S

4728.0

4723.0 2525

8.00

NO.

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

6/28/2017

SHEET 2 OF 3



BACKFILLED

6/28/17

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

6/28/17

TYPE

SAMPLE

4740.0Auto

DEPTH ft

DATE

2

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd


EXPLORATION LOG

Hollow Stem Auger

Yes

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

6/28/17

LAB TESTS

4748 ft

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


NV

_DO

T B

-287

.GP

J N

V_D

OT

.GD

T 8

/2/1

8

31.5031.50

33.00

G

H

20

2

4

3

7

1

Bottom of Hole at 37.0 feet, Elevation at 4711 Feet



37.00

13

1

SM

CMS

SPT

0

0

4713.0

4708.0

35

40

35

40

8.00

NO.

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

6/28/2017

SHEET 3 OF 3



BACKFILLED

6/28/17

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

6/28/17

TYPE

SAMPLE

4740.0Auto

DEPTH ft

DATE

2

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd


EXPLORATION LOG

Hollow Stem Auger

Yes

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

6/28/17

LAB TESTS

4748 ft

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


NV

_DO

T B

-287

.GP

J N

V_D

OT

.GD

T 8

/2/1

8

APPENDIX C:

Laboratory Test Summary Laboratory Test Results

EA/Cont # 73867 B-287 Widening Project

Boring No. 1 Elevation (ft) 4748.9 Station Date 6/27/2017

SAMP- DRY %SAMPLE LER SOIL W% UW PASS LL PL PI TEST Φ C Φ C COMMENTS

NO. TYPE GROUP pcf #200 % % % TYPE deg. psi deg. psi

A CMSbag SW-SM 7.0 20 NP NP

B SPT 10.2

C CMSbag GM 16.4 19 16 3

D SPT SC 28.7 26 18 8

E CMSbag GP 3.9 17 NP NP

F SPT GW-GM 5.9 17 NP NP

G1 CMS 8.2 131.2 5.2

G2 CMS SP-SM 8.3 133.1 5.9 18 NP NP

H SPT GP-GM 6.9 17 NP NP

I1 CMS GP 10.8 127.0 4.3

I2 CMS SP-SM 11.9 120.5 6.3 19 NP NP

J SPT SP-SM 8.7 20 17 3

CMS = California Modified Sampler 2.42" ID U = Unconfined Compressive H = Hydrometer CM = CompactionSPT = Standard Penetration 1.38" ID UU = Unconsolidated Undrained S = Sieve E = Swell/Pressure on Expansive SoilsCS = Continuous Sample 3.23" ID CD = Consolidated Drained G = Specific Gravity SL = Shrinkage LimitRC = Rock Core CU = Consolidated Undrained PI = Plasticity Index UW= Unit WeightPB = Pitcher Barrel DS = Direct Shear LL = Liquid Limit W = Moisture ContentCSS = Calif. Split Spoon 2.42" ID Φ = Friction PL = Plastic Limit K = PermeabilityCPT = Cone Penetration Test C = Cohesion NP = Non-Plastic O = Organic ContentTP = Test Pit N = No. of blows per ft., sampler OC = Consolidation D = DispersiveP = Pushed, not driven Ch = Chemical RQD = Rock Quality DesignationR = Refusal N = Field SPT N = (Ncss)(0.62) RV = R - Value X = X-Ray DefractionSh = Shelby Tube 2.87" ID MD = Moisture Density HCpot = Hydro-Collapse Potential

* = Average of subsamples

13.8 - 14.2 G = 2.657

14.5 - 16.0 55

11.5 - 13.0 67

13.3 - 13.8 53 G = 2.687

10.3 - 10.8 87 G = 2.733

10.8 - 11.3 G = 2.672

7.0 - 8.5 99

8.5 - 10.0 71

3.5 - 4.2 R

4.2 - 5.7 42 H

Peak Residual

2.0 - 2.4 R

2.4 - 2.7 R

DEPTH BLOWS(ft) per ft.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

N.D.O.T. GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

Job Description

SAMPLE N STRENGTH TEST





K1 CMS SP 12.2 1.7

K2 CMS GW-GM 8.7 125.2 5.1 19 NP NP

K3 CMSbag 10.0

L SPT SP-SC 10.3 19 15 4

M3 CMS SP 12.0 106.9 2.1 17 NP NP

N SPT 6.1



19.8 - 20.3 39 G = 2.660

20.5 - 23.0 20

17.3 - 17.5

17.5 - 19.0 105

Peak Residual

16.4 - 16.7

16.7 - 17.3 86

DEPTH BLOWS(ft) per ft.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS


Job Description

SAMPLE N STRENGTH TEST





A SPT SC-SM 24.8 25 21 4

B SPT GP 4.6

C SPT 8.7

D1 CMS SP 17.5 106.6 1.5

D2 CMSbag GP 3.0 18 NP NP

E SPT SP-SM 8.2 16 NP NP

F CMS

G CMS

H SPT


SUMMARY OF RESULTS


Job Description

SAMPLE N STRENGTH TESTDEPTH BLOWS

(ft) per ft.Peak Residual

5.0 - 6.5 25 H

10.0 - 11.5 50

15.0 - 16.5 12

20.2 - 20.7 70 G = 2.690

20.7 - 21.5

21.5 - 23.0 54

23.0 - 24.5 13 No Sample

30.0 - 31.5 20 No Sample

31.5 - 33.0 2 No Sample


NEVADADEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

well-graded sand with silt and gravel

silty gravel with sand

inches numbersize size

0.0 45.8 47.2 7.0 SW-SM A-1-a NP 20

0.0 33.2 56.6 10.2

0.0 42.4 41.2 16.4 GM A-1-b 16 19

2"1.5"1"

3/4"1/2"3/8"

100.084.184.184.172.268.2

100.095.689.582.0

100.094.394.381.672.968.8

#4#10#16#40#50

#100#200

54.237.930.517.414.0

9.47.0

66.851.443.125.120.113.710.2

57.646.841.130.527.021.216.4

6.1008 3.3020 5.5490

1.1393 0.5677 0.4060

0.1706

1.25

35.76

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 2.0' - 2.4' Sample Number: A

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 2.4' - 2.7' Sample Number: B

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 3.5' - 4.2' Sample Number: C

+3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY USCS AASHTO PL LL

SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description

GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00

Particle Size Distribution Report

NEVADADEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

clayey sand with gravel

poorly graded gravel with sand

well-graded gravel with silt and sand


0.0 26.0 45.3 22.9 5.8 SC A-2-4(0) 18 26

0.0 58.9 37.2 3.9 GP A-1-a NP 17

0.0 63.9 30.2 5.9 GW-GM A-1-a NP 17

3"2"

1.5"1"

3/4"1/2"3/8"

100.089.286.882.3

100.0100.0

89.483.077.761.955.9

100.059.849.846.2

#4#10#16#40#50

#100#200

74.060.3

49.0

37.528.7

41.130.624.811.6

8.45.13.9

36.127.122.314.111.7

8.15.9

1.9555 11.8379 19.0907

0.0826 1.8891 2.7127

0.0069 0.3619 0.2265

0.50 0.83 1.70

281.99 32.71 84.28

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 4.2' - 5.7' Sample Number: D

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 7.0' - 8.5' Sample Number: E

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 8.5' - 10.0' Sample Number: F



GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


NEVADADEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

poorly graded sand with silt and gravel

poorly graded gravel with silt and sand


0.0 52.9 41.9 5.2

0.0 44.0 50.1 5.9 SP-SM A-1-a NP 18

0.0 48.5 44.6 6.9 GP-GM A-1-a NP 17

1"3/4"1/2"3/8"

100.084.668.761.1

100.092.678.4

100.086.067.665.7

#4#10#16#40#50

#100#200

47.137.531.516.011.9

7.25.2

56.042.133.517.413.0

8.05.9

51.541.334.920.115.3

9.86.9

9.0803 5.6909 6.7166

1.0602 0.9566 0.8357

0.2431 0.2132 0.1571

0.51 0.75 0.66

37.34 26.70 42.75

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 10.3' - 10.8' Sample Number: G1

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 10.8' - 11.3 Sample Number: G2

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 11.5' - 13.0' Sample Number: H



GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


NEVADADEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION





0.0 51.7 44.0 4.3 GP

0.0 33.7 60.0 6.3 SP-SM A-1-b NP 19

0.0 39.4 51.9 8.7 SP-SM A-1-b 17 20

1.5"1"

3/4"1/2"3/8"

100.066.262.657.555.0

100.086.380.375.8

100.082.377.470.1

#4#10#16#40#50

#100#200

48.339.132.714.210.1

6.14.3

66.357.249.721.514.5

8.56.3

60.651.042.422.017.311.9

8.7

15.0835 2.6203 4.4196

1.0012 0.5782 0.6481

0.2967 0.1972 0.1018

0.22 0.65 0.93

50.83 13.29 43.43

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 13.3' - 13.8' Sample Number: I1

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 13.8' - 14.2' Sample Number: I2

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 14.5' - 16.0' Sample Number: J



GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


NEVADADEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

poorly graded sand with gravel

well-graded gravel with silt and sand


0.0 39.9 58.4 1.7 SP

0.0 58.5 36.4 5.1 GW-GM A-1-a NP 19

0.0 42.2 47.8 10.0

1.5"1"

3/4"1/2"3/8"

100.094.994.987.579.2

100.077.767.656.354.4

100.088.178.474.9

#4#10#16#40#50

#100#200

60.140.227.6

7.14.62.41.7

41.529.524.215.612.4

7.45.1

57.844.238.026.021.313.810.0

4.7386 15.0097 5.1819

1.3006 2.1014 0.5898

0.5276 0.2252

0.68 1.31

8.98 66.65

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 16.4' - 16.7' Sample Number: K1





GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


NEVADADEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

poorly graded sand with siltyclay and gravel

poorly graded sand


0.0 43.4 46.3 10.3 SP-SC A-1-a 15 19

0.0 4.5 93.4 2.1 SP A-1-b NP 17

0.0 31.1 62.8 6.1

1"3/4"1/2"3/8"

100.086.677.467.9 100.0

100.097.388.982.6

#4#10#16#40#50

#100#200

56.644.137.726.021.414.010.3

95.576.953.5

9.85.73.12.1

68.953.040.217.312.3

8.16.1

6.4651 1.3451 2.8468

0.5875 0.7417 0.7818

0.4300 0.2288

0.95 0.94

3.13 12.44

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 17.5' - 19.0' Sample Number: L

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 19.8' - 20.3' Sample Number: M3

Source of Sample: 1 Depth: 20.5' - 23.0' Sample Number: N



GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


NEVADADEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

silty, clayey sand with gravel



0.0 30.4 44.8 20.5 4.3 SC-SM A-1-b 21 25

0.0 51.9 43.5 4.6 GP

0.0 30.3 61.0 8.7

1"3/4"1/2"3/8"

100.092.979.979.9

100.060.256.153.5

100.080.877.076.5

#4#10#16#40#50

#100#200

69.657.6

47.8

35.724.8

48.137.929.111.2

8.96.24.6

69.759.648.522.517.211.5

8.7

2.5339 18.7295 2.0446

0.1042 1.2413 0.5934

0.0169 0.3662 0.1073

0.25 0.22 1.60

149.90 51.15 19.05

Source of Sample: 2 Depth: 5.0' - 6.5' Sample Number: A

Source of Sample: 2 Depth: 10.0' - 11.5' Sample Number: B

Source of Sample: 2 Depth: 15.0' - 16.5' Sample Number: C



GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


NEVADADEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

poorly graded sand




0.0 4.1 94.4 1.5 SP

0.0 54.9 42.1 3.0 GP A-1-a NP 18

0.0 35.1 56.7 8.2 SP-SM A-1-b NP 16

3"2"

1.5"1"

3/4"1/2"3/8" 100.0

100.079.079.073.268.260.754.8

100.082.075.371.3

#4#10#16#40#50

#100#200

95.985.469.510.2

5.32.21.5

45.135.125.5

9.26.84.23.0

64.959.053.528.520.412.1

8.2

0.9935 12.2990 2.2905

0.6330 1.4903 0.4507

0.4225 0.4591 0.1075

0.95 0.39 0.83

2.35 26.79 21.31

Source of Sample: 2 Depth: 20.2' - 20.7' Sample Number: D1

Source of Sample: 2 Depth: 20.7' - 21.5' Sample Number: D2

Source of Sample: 2 Depth: 21.5' - 23.0' Sample Number: E



GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


APPENDIX D:

Geophysical Test Results

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

00 500 1000 1500 2000

Dep

th, f

t

Shear-Wave Velocity, ft/s

Vs100' = 1184 ft/s

Shear Wave Velocity Profile Structure B-287 Centerville

geotechnical data report - nevada

Documents