table of contents - egram.co.hennepin.mn.us135+… · deep foundations - driven piles ... table of...

Table of Contents

Description Page A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

A.1. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1

A.2. Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 1

A.3. Background Information and Reference Documents .......................................................... 1

A.4. Site Conditions..................................................................................................................... 1

A.5. Scope of Services ................................................................................................................. 2

B. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 2

B.1. Boring Locations and Elevations .......................................................................................... 2

B.2. Exploration Logs .................................................................................................................. 3

B.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets ............................................................................................... 3

B.2.b. Geologic Origins ..................................................................................................... 3

B.3. Geologic Profile ................................................................................................................... 3

B.3.a. Pavement Section ................................................................................................... 3

B.3.b. Fill ........................................................................................................................... 4

B.3.c. Swamp Deposits ..................................................................................................... 4

B.3.d. Alluvial Deposits ..................................................................................................... 4

B.3.e. Glacial Deposits ...................................................................................................... 4

B.3.f. Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 5

B.4. Laboratory Test Results ....................................................................................................... 5

C. Basis for Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 5

C.1. Design Details ...................................................................................................................... 5

C.1.a. Bridge Foundation Loads and Pile Types ................................................................ 5

C.1.b. Bridge Approach Embankments ............................................................................. 6

C.1.c. Wing/Retaining Walls ............................................................................................. 6

C.1.d. Anticipated Grade Changes .................................................................................... 6

C.1.e. Precautions Regarding Changed Information ........................................................ 6

C.2. Design Considerations ......................................................................................................... 6

C.3. Construction Considerations ............................................................................................... 7

D. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 7

D.1. Deep Foundations - Driven Piles ......................................................................................... 7

D.1.a. Calculation Method ................................................................................................ 7

D.1.b. Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 8

D.1.c. Pile Capacities ......................................................................................................... 8

D.1.d. Pile Settlement ..................................................................................................... 10

D.1.e. Pile Specification and Driving ............................................................................... 10

D.1.f. Lateral Earth Pressure Calculations for P-Y Curves and Lateral Earth Forces ...... 10

D.1.g. Pile Spacing and Group Effect .............................................................................. 11

D.1.h. Pile Driving System ............................................................................................... 11

D.2. Bridge Approach Embankments ........................................................................................ 12

Table of Contents (continued)

Description Page

D.2.a. Subgrade Preparation .......................................................................................... 12

D.2.b. Backfill and Compaction ....................................................................................... 12

D.2.c. Design Soil Parameters ......................................................................................... 12

D.2.d. Embankment Settlement ..................................................................................... 12

D.3. Retaining Walls .................................................................................................................. 13

D.3.a. Foundations .......................................................................................................... 13

D.3.b. Drainage Control .................................................................................................. 13

D.3.c. Selection, Placement and Compaction of Backfill ................................................ 13

D.3.d. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads............................................................... 14

D.4. Construction Quality Control ............................................................................................ 14

D.4.a. Observations ........................................................................................................ 14

D.4.b. Materials Testing .................................................................................................. 14

D.4.c. Pile Quality Control .............................................................................................. 14

D.4.d. Cold Weather Precautions ................................................................................... 15

E. Procedures...................................................................................................................................... 15

E.1. Penetration Test Borings ................................................................................................... 15

E.2. Material Classification and Testing ................................................................................... 15

E.2.a. Visual and Manual Classification .......................................................................... 15

E.2.b. Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 16

E.3. Groundwater Measurements ............................................................................................ 16

F. Qualifications .................................................................................................................................. 16

F.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................. 16

F.1.a. Material Strata ..................................................................................................... 16

F.1.b. Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................. 16

F.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility .......................................................................... 17

F.2.a. Plan Review .......................................................................................................... 17

F.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing ............................................................... 17

F.3. Use of Report..................................................................................................................... 17

F.4. Standard of Care ................................................................................................................ 17

Appendix Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets: ST-1 and ST-2 Laboratory Test Results Descriptive Terminology

A. Introduction

A.1. Project Description

This Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the proposed reconstruction of Bridge No. 90621 along

CSAH 135 over the Maxwell Channel in Orono, Minnesota. The bridge is anticipated to have tall parapet

abutments with long wing walls that may become retaining walls.

Our services on this project also included performing a Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

and an Asbestos and Regulated Waste Assessment. These assessments will be provided under separate

cover.

A.2. Purpose

The purpose of the geotechnical evaluation is to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected

exploration locations and evaluate their impact on the design and construction of the bridge

replacement.

A.3. Background Information and Reference Documents

To facilitate our evaluation, we were provided with or reviewed the following information or documents:

Project Location Map, dated June 7, 2011.

Email and phone correspondences between Braun Intertec and Hennepin County.

We reviewed aerial photographs of the project site using Google Earth®.

A.4. Site Conditions

The site currently resides as an existing two lane overpass bridge that was constructed in 1930. Bridge

90621 is a one span bridge with an approximate structure length of 33 feet. The main span is supported

by steel beams with a treated timber deck material and a bituminous wear surface.

Hennepin County Transportation Department Project B14-04099 September 3, 2014 Page 2

A.5. Scope of Services

Our scope of services for this project was originally submitted as a Proposal for a Geotechnical

Evaluation. We received authorization to proceed from Mr. James Archer on June 11, 2014. Tasks

completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services are described below.

Staking and clearing exploration locations of underground utilities.

Performing two penetration test borings to depths to meet the MnDOT 2500 aggregate blow

count criteria.

Providing flaggers to safely facilitate completion of the penetration test borings along two

lane CSAH 135.

Performing laboratory testing on selected penetration test samples collected in the field to

meet MnDOT requirements.

Performing one Hveem Stabilometer R-value test and associated standard proctor test.

Preparing this report containing a CAD sketch, exploration logs, a summary of the geologic

materials encountered, results of laboratory tests, and recommendations for structure

subgrade preparation and foundation design of the replacement bridge.

Our scope of services was performed under the terms of our First Amendment to our Master Service

contract with Hennepin County under Contract number A101903.

B. Results

B.1. Boring Locations and Elevations

We performed two standard penetration test soil borings for our evaluation, denoted as ST-1 and ST-2.

Boring ST-1 was located on the north side of the channel bridge and Boring ST-2 was located on the south

side. The approximate locations are shown on the Soil Boring Location Sketch included in the Appendix.


The borings locations were selected by Hennepin County and staked by Braun Intertec personnel.

Exploration surface elevations at the exploration locations were determined using GPS (Global

Positioning System) technology that utilizes the Minnesota Department of Transportation's permanent

GPS Virtual Reference Network (VRN).

B.2. Exploration Logs

B.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets

Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings are included in the Appendix. The logs identify and

describe the geologic materials that were penetrated, and present the results of penetration resistance

tests performed within them, laboratory tests performed on penetration test samples retrieved from

them, and groundwater measurements.

Strata boundaries were inferred from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings.

Because sampling was not performed continuously, the strata boundary depths are only approximate.

The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may

also occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions.

B.2.b. Geologic Origins

Geologic origins assigned to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report were

based on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual

classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface

exploration, (3) penetration resistance testing performed for the project, (4) laboratory test results, and

(5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the

site and surrounding area in the past.

B.3. Geologic Profile

The types of soils encountered in the borings are described below. The soils are generally described in

the order they were encountered; i.e., beginning at the ground surface. Please refer to the soil boring

logs in the Appendix for a more in-depth summary of the observed soils.

B.3.a. Pavement Section

Borings ST-1 and ST-2 both encountered a bituminous pavement section. Below the pavement section, a

layer of aggregate base was encountered. Based on the condition of the aggregate base material

encountered in the field it does not appear, in its current condition, to consist of a material meeting

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Class 5 or 6 requirements.


Table 1. Approximate Pavement Section Thickness

Boring

Location

Bituminous Thickness (inches)

Aggregate Base Thickness (inches)

ST-1 North side of Bridge 90621 12 12

ST-2 South side of Bridge 90621 18 6

B.3.b. Fill

Below the pavement section, fill soils were encountered in both borings. The fill soils generally consisted

of poorly graded sand with silt, silty sand and clayey sand and were encountered to approximate depths

of 15 and 19 feet (approximate elevation 923 1/2 and 919 1/2) below existing grade in Borings ST-1 and

ST-2, respectively. The recorded penetration resistances in the fill soils ranged from 1 to 15 blows per

foot (BPF), indicating variable levels of compaction within the fill.

B.3.c. Swamp Deposits

Below the fill, swamp deposits were encountered in both borings that generally consisted of partially

decomposed peat and slightly organic lean clay with a trace of shells. The swamp deposits were

encountered to approximate depths of 25 and 24 feet (approximately elevations 913 1/2 and 914 1/2) in

Borings ST-1 and ST-2, respectively.

B.3.d. Alluvial Deposits

Underlying the swamp deposits in Boring ST-1, a layer of alluvium was encountered to a depth of 34 feet

(approximate elevation 904 1/2) below existing grade. The alluvium generally consisted of fat clay and silt

with sand. The recorded penetration resistance in the fat clay was weight of hammer (WH), indicating a

very soft consistency and the recorded penetration resistances in the sandy silt soils ranged from 4 to 9

BPF, indicating very loose to loose relative densities.

B.3.e. Glacial Deposits

Glacial soils were encountered below the alluvium in Boring ST-1 and below the swamp deposits in

Boring ST-2. The glacial soils generally consisted of poorly graded sand, well-graded sand with silt, poorly

graded sand with silt, silty sand, clayey sand, and sandy lean clay. The glacial soils contained variable

amounts of gravel and have the potential to contain cobbles and boulders.

The recorded penetration resistances in the non-cohesive glacial soils (poorly graded sand, well-graded

sand with silt, poorly graded sand with silt and silty sand) ranged from 8 BPF to 50 blows per 6 inches of

penetration, indicating loose to very dense relative densities. The recorded penetration resistances in the

cohesive glacial soils (clayey sand and sandy lean clay) ranged from 9 to 27 BPF, indicating soft to very

stiff consistencies.


B.3.f. Groundwater

Groundwater was measured or estimated to be between approximately 9 to 12 feet below existing grade

as our borings were advanced. These depths correspond to elevations 926 1/2 to 929 1/2 feet Mean Sea

Level (MSL) based on our reported datum. The ground water elevation encountered in the borings is

likely near the surface elevation of the lake, which is near elevation 931 feet MSL when recorded on

July 17, 2014.

Seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater should also be anticipated.

B.4. Laboratory Test Results

We performed moisture content, density, organic content and unconfined compressive strength tests on

the thin walled sample collected from Boring ST-1; moisture contents, sieve analyses, organic contents

and an atterberg limit test on selected jar samples from the borings and a standard proctor and R-value

test on the bag sample recovered from Boring ST-1 in accordance with ASTM or AASHTO procedures.

The moisture content test results indicated the in-place soils are generally near to above their estimated

optimum moisture contents. The organic content tests performed on swamp deposits indicated those

layers consisted of peat or slightly organic lean clay. The sieve analyses performed on granular soil

samples collected generally consisted of silty sand or well-graded sand with silt. Atterberg limits

determined the soil sample collected in Boring ST-1 at a depth near 25 feet consisted of fat clay. The R-

value test on the recovered subgrade material in Boring ST-1 indicated an R-value of 12.

The test results are shown on the Log of Boring Sheets included in the appendix, across from the

associated soil sample. The sieve analyses, unconfined compressive strength, standard Proctor and R-

value test results are shown on separate test result sheets included in the Appendix of this report.

C. Basis for Recommendations

C.1. Design Details

C.1.a. Bridge Foundation Loads and Pile Types

Structural details, including anticipated foundation loads, are not available at this time. Based on the soils

encountered in the borings, we have assumed deep foundations to support the new bridge will

experience a factored design load of 100 tons (200 kips) for each 12-inch closed-ended pipe (CEP) pile

and 135 tons (270 kips) for each 16-inch CEP pile.


C.1.b. Bridge Approach Embankments

We have assumed bridge approach embankments are designed for side slopes approximately equal to

those of the existing bridge.

C.1.c. Wing/Retaining Walls

Long wing walls that may become retaining walls are anticipated to retain soils placed along the

approach embankments. Specific details for support of the wing/retaining walls are not known at this

time, but based on the soils borings, we anticipate these structures being supported by driven pile,

similar to the types assumed for support of the new bridge abutments.

C.1.d. Anticipated Grade Changes

We understand existing ground surface elevations are generally consistent (within a couple inches) to the

proposed roadway alignment. Therefore, any fills associated with construction of the new bridge

approaches are considered negligible.

C.1.e. Precautions Regarding Changed Information

We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed construction to the extent it was

reported to us by others. Depending on the extent of available information, assumptions may have been

made based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the

project details, we should be notified. New or changed information could require additional evaluation,

analyses and/or recommendations.

C.2. Design Considerations

The geotechnical issues influencing design of a bridge supported on shallow foundations may be

complicated due to the potential for scour of the supporting soils and the presence of swamp deposits

extending between 24 and 25 feet below existing grade. Therefore, we recommend supporting the

proposed bridge on deep foundations.

The presence of medium dense sands and stiff to rather stiff glacial clays at depth makes driven steel CEP

piles the preferred pile type as it appears the depth to reach a hard bearing layer is below the depths

explored by the borings and the majority of the geotechnical resistance will be developed through side

friction resistance.


C.3. Construction Considerations

From a construction perspective, the project team should also be aware that:

The existing fill soils encountered in the borings do not meet MnDOT Specification 3149.2B2

for Select Granular Borrow. Therefore, it is anticipated material for use as abutment backfill

will need to be imported. Much of the existing on-site fill soils, encountered above the

swamp deposits, generally consist of silty sand that can be difficult to reuse as fill due to its

sensitivity to moisture. Moisture conditioning may be necessary to reuse on-site materials as

fill in other areas on the site.

Excavations will penetrate the groundwater surface at a depth of approximately 9 feet, near

the anticipated channel elevation near 831 feet MSL. Depending on the depth of the

proposed abutment foundations, temporary dewatering and placement of crushed rock

likely will be needed to help control groundwater seepage with sumps and provide a stable

working platform during pile installation and placement of the pile caps.

D. Recommendations

In accordance with our findings and correspondences with you, our recommendations for support of the

replacement bridge and approach embankments are provided below.

D.1. Deep Foundations - Driven Piles

At your request and as mentioned in Section C.1.a, we evaluated design requirements for 12-inch and 16-

inch CEP pile sections.

D.1.a. Calculation Method

We used the computer program UniPile, version 5.0.0.33, to estimate the static nominal geotechnical

resistance (Rn) of the 12- and 16-inch outside-diameter, CEP piles for support of the replacement bridge.

UniPile software was developed by UniSoft Geotechnical Solutions Ltd. and can calculate pile resistance

using a variety of methods.

For our analysis, we utilized the Beta-method, an effective stress method, to estimate the static

geotechnical resistance for these pile. This method determines shaft resistance using Bjerrum-Burland

beta coefficients (β), which are based on soil type and effective friction angle. We estimated the β values


for each layer using Figure 9.20 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Publication No. NHI-

05-042, Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, April 2006. The Beta-method determines

end bearing resistance using toe bearing capacity factors (Nt), which are also based on soil type and

effective friction angle. We estimated the Nt values from Table 9-6 of the April 2006 FHWA publication

identified previously.

There are numerous methods of predicting the static capacities of piles based on the results of borings,

and the results of the various methods often differ by a factor of two or more. Evaluating the nominal

resistance of a pile during or after installation also depends on the method selected. The measured

capacity depends on the method used (dynamic formula, wave equation, Pile Dynamic Analyzer (PDA) or

static load test) and the criteria used with each method.

D.1.b. Assumptions

We based the effective unit weights input into UniPile on estimations of the measured moisture contents

and past experience on other projects. We used the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Soil

Mechanics Design Manual (pg. 7.1-149, Figure 7) to estimate friction angles of coarse-grained soils. We

estimated the un-drained shear strengths of fine-grained soils based on the SPT values obtained.

We assumed the bottom of pile cap (BOPC) elevations for the north and south abutments will be about

929 feet MSL. We assumed the pile cut-off elevations would be approximately 1 foot above the BOPC

elevations.

D.1.c. Pile Capacities

Factored geotechnical pile capacities are determined by multiplying the pile driving resistance factor

(dynamic) by the nominal pile resistance (Rn). The American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the MnDOT recommend relating dynamic to the degree of

construction control. For situations where subsurface exploration and static calculations have been

completed, MnDOT recommends the following dynamic factors.

Table 2. Recommended Pile Driving Resistance Factors

Specified Construction Control dynamic

MnDOT Pile Formula 2012 (MPF12) for Pipe Pile Sections

0.50

Dynamic testing with signal matching (PDA) on at least 2 piles per site condition but not less than 2% of production piles

a 0.65

a Based on Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 of the current AASHTO’s LRFD Bridge Design Specification.


We evaluated the necessary pile lengths to achieve the required geotechnical resistance for the MnDOT

LRFD dynamic pile capacity formula and the wave equation with PDA methods of field control. For the

Mn/DOT LRFD dynamic pile capacity formula method, we used a dynamic of 0.50 to estimate the desired Rn

capacities (Rn = Qn / dynamic). We used a dynamic of 0.65 in our evaluation for the PDA method. If a

different construction control method is performed, the pile lengths or capacities may need to be

revised.

Based on the anticipated factored design load of 100 tons (200 kips) for the 12-inch CEP pile and 135 tons

(270 kips) for the 16-inch CEP pile and the pile driving resistance factors discussed above, we estimated

the pile lengths for nominal resistances for each pile type if the MnDOT MPF 12 Formula and PDA

construction control method is used. The estimated lengths provided in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 below are

from the assumed BOPC elevations provided in section D.1.b of this report.

Table 3. Summary of Anticipated Pile Lengths – 12”x1/4” CEP, Qn=100 tons, PDA

Substructure Boring

Cutoff Elevation

(feet) Rn

(tons)

Approximate Tip Elevation

(feet)

Approximate Pile Length (feet)

North Abutment

ST-1 930 154 845 85

South Abutment

ST-2 930 154 850 80

Table 4. Summary of Anticipated Pile Lengths – 12”x1/4” CEP, Qn=100 tons, MPF 12

Substructure Boring

Cutoff Elevation

(feet) Rn

(tons)


(feet)


North Abutment

ST-1 930 200 835 95

South Abutment

ST-2 930 200 840 90

Table 5. Summary of Anticipated Pile Lengths – 16”x1/4” CEP, Qn=135 tons, PDA

Substructure Boring

Cutoff Elevation

(feet) Rn

(tons)


(feet)


North Abutment

ST-1 930 208 850 80

South Abutment

ST-2 930 208 855 75


Table 6. Summary of Anticipated Pile Lengths – 16”x1/4” CEP, Qn=135 tons, MPF 12

Substructure Boring

Cutoff Elevation

(feet) Rn

(tons)


(feet)


North Abutment

ST-1 930 270 840 90

South Abutment

ST-2 930 270 845 85

As stated in section C.3, the majority of the geotechnical resistance will be developed through skin

friction, therefore, we recommend supporting the new bridge structure on driven pipe piles. The depths

estimated in Tables 3 through 6 are estimated based on inferred strata changes shown in the borings,

actual site conditions may vary.

D.1.d. Pile Settlement

We anticipate total and differential deformation of the pile heads will be less than 1 inch under the

assumed loads. Driven with the aforementioned design or construction control methods, driven pile is

not designed to settle. The majority of deformation at the pile head is due to elastic shortening of the

pile under the design loads.

D.1.e. Pile Specification and Driving

We anticipate the pipe piles will conform to MnDOT Specification 2452 and 3371. The minimum required

wall thickness is 1/4 inch.

If a pile's resistance to driving is not obtained at the anticipated length, we recommend driving be halted,

and that the capacity be evaluated on restrike after a wait period of at least 3 days. If the pile toe is

driven past the estimated toe elevations shown in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6, it is probable the piles have been

overdriven and, after soil setup occurs, the pile capacities will be adequate. The MPF12 pile installation

construction control criterion is much more likely to cause overdriving of pile deeper than necessary than

the PDA method.

D.1.f. Lateral Earth Pressure Calculations for P-Y Curves and Lateral Earth Forces

The following table provides earth pressure soil parameters for lateral pile analysis and p-y curve

generation using the current version of the computer program LPILE. Based on the soils encountered in

the borings, we recommend using the default lateral modulus of subgrade reaction values included in

LPILE.


Table 7. Soil Parameters for p-y Curve Generation

Layer Top Depth Below

Existing Grade (feet)

Layer Bottom Depth Below

Existing Grade (feet)

Effective Unit Weight

(pounds per cubic foot)

Internal Angle of Friction

(degrees)

Undrained Shear Strength

(pounds per square foot) Material Type

0 9 120 27 NA Sand (Reese)


15 27 15 NA 150 Soft Clay (Matlock)



42 74 63 NA 1200 Stiff Clay without

Free Water (Reese)

74 117 63 NA 1800 Stiff Clay without

Free Water (Reese)

117 120 56 40 NA Sand (Reese)

D.1.g. Pile Spacing and Group Effect

In our opinion, the nominal vertical resistances of piles spaced at least 3 pile diameters apart need not be

reduced due to group effects. If a closer spacing is ultimately selected, we recommend having a

geotechnical engineer evaluate the magnitude of the group effect, and the extent to which the nominal

resistances should be reduced.

If pile layout and spacing dictates, the calculated lateral pile capacities are recommended to be reduced

by p-multipliers identified in Table 10.7.2.4-1 of the recent AASHTO’s LRFD Bridge Design Specification.

For a more refined analysis, GROUP or similar pile analysis software could be used to develop

appropriate shading factors based on the interaction between the actual pile spacing with the soil

conditions encountered at each substructure unit.

D.1.h. Pile Driving System

Using an under or oversized pile-driving hammer can be detrimental to the successful installation of

piling. Prior to system acceptance, we therefore recommend performing a wave equation analysis

modeling prospective contractors’ pile installation systems. The wave equation analysis is used to

estimate probable driving stresses and pile penetration resistance based on the type of hammer

proposed, the specified pile type/size and the site-specific material conditions which, when combined,

help evaluate system suitability. Our firm can discuss the requirements and limitations of wave equation

analyses and, if needed, perform them.


D.2. Bridge Approach Embankments

D.2.a. Subgrade Preparation

We recommend the pavements (within the existing roadway) and topsoil, organic soil or loose fill

(outside of the existing pavements) be removed from the proposed fill and pavement areas after site

stripping is complete. We recommend the subgrade be surface compacted with a self-propelled vibratory

sheepsfoot compactor. The purpose of the surface compaction is to densify any loose fill and to provide a

more uniform subgrade for fill support.

D.2.b. Backfill and Compaction

Fill should consist of debris-free, non-organic mineral soil placed in a controlled manner. We recommend

the abutment excavation and backfill meet MnDOT Specification 2451 and 2105. We recommend using

MnDOT Specification 3149.2B2, Select Granular Borrow, for backfill adjacent to the abutment. This will

help in decreasing settlement at the bridge approach, decrease hydrostatic earth pressures on the

abutment wall, and allow for more uniform compaction adjacent to the bridge.

D.2.c. Design Soil Parameters

The recommended soil parameters to be used for abutment design are as follows:

Table 8. Lateral Soil Load Parameters

Soil Type Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)

Effective unit Weight

(pcf)

Coefficient of Sliding Friction Rough Concrete

Active Earth

Pressure Coefficient

At-Rest Earth Pressure

Coefficient

Select Granular Borrow

35 125 0.60 0.27 0.43

Granular Borrow 30 120 0.50 0.33 0.50

D.2.d. Embankment Settlement

We anticipate minimal (less than 1/2 foot) new fill will be placed in the vicinity of the north and south

abutments. Therefore, embankment settlement of existing soil below the new fill will be less than 1 inch

in the vicinity of these abutments due to new fill loads. However, there will be some consolidation of the

fill and underlying organic soil, especially the in-place soils that are disturbed during abutment

foundation and stem wall construction. Organic soils are more susceptible to settlement (compressibility)

than non-organic soils, however, since the proposed grade at the bridge approach embankments are

anticipated to be generally consistent with existing grades, significant additional settlement from those


layers should be minimal. Maximizing the amount of time between subgrade and pavement placement

will help minimize long-term and differential settlement. Bituminous pavements are easier to replace

and maintain if settlement causes pavement movement compared to concrete pavements.

It is our understanding the new embankment will have the same layout and size of the existing

embankment with no widening or lengthening. If the embankment is lengthened, widened or

significantly raised, pre-loading and/or surcharging may be needed. Slope stability analyses may also be

required.

D.3. Retaining Walls

D.3.a. Foundations

Based on the fill and organic soils encountered at depth in the borings, we recommend supporting the

retaining walls on driven pipe piles. We recommend the retaining wall foundations be designed to meet

the driven pile recommendations provided in section D.1 of this report.

D.3.b. Drainage Control

We recommend installing subdrains behind the retaining walls, adjacent to the wall footings, at the

bottom of the sand layer and above the existing water table. Preferably the subdrains should consist of

perforated pipes embedded in washed gravel, which in turn is wrapped in filter fabric. Perforated pipes

encased in a filter “sock” and embedded in washed gravel, however, may also be considered.

We recommend routing the subdrains to a sump and pump capable of routing any accumulated

groundwater to a storm sewer or other suitable disposal site.

General waterproofing of retaining walls surrounding occupied or potentially occupied areas is

recommended even with the use of free-draining backfill because of the potential cost impacts related to

seepage after construction is complete.

D.3.c. Selection, Placement and Compaction of Backfill

We recommend backfill placed within 2 horizontal feet of those walls consist of sand having less than 50

percent of the particles by weight passing a #40 sieve and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight

passing a #200 sieve. Sand meeting this gradation will need to be imported. Outside of this zone, because

subsurface conditions do not favor the accumulation of water against retaining walls, it is our opinion the

rest of the active wedge be backfilled with sand containing up to 20 percent of the particles by weight

passing a #200 sieve.


We recommend a walk behind compactor be used to compact the backfill placed within about 5 feet of

the retaining walls. Further away than that, a self-propelled compactor can be used. Compaction criteria

for below-grade walls should be determined based on the compaction recommendations provided above

in Section D.2.b.

Exterior backfill not capped with slabs or pavement should be capped with a low-permeability soil to limit

the infiltration of surface drainage into the backfill. The finished surface should also be sloped to divert

water away from the walls.

D.3.d. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads

The retaining wall design can be based on active earth pressure conditions if the walls are allowed to

rotate slightly. If rotation cannot be tolerated, then design should be based on at-rest earth pressure

conditions. Rotation up to 0.002 times the wall height is generally required to mobilize active earth

pressures when walls are backfilled with sand. We recommend design for earth pressure coefficients

provided in Table 8 above. Our design values also assume that the walls are drained so that water cannot

accumulate behind the walls.

D.4. Construction Quality Control

D.4.a. Observations

We recommend having a geotechnical engineer or MnDOT-certified grading and base (soils) technician

on the subgrade soils prior to the placement of embankment fills or pavements. The technician should

verify that the soils are similar to those found in the soil borings and that they are suitable for support of

the proposed construction.

D.4.b. Materials Testing

We recommend materials tests for the embankment fill, aggregate base, asphalt and concrete

pavements be performed at the frequencies dictated in the most recent version of the MnDOT Schedule

of Materials Control.

D.4.c. Pile Quality Control

We based the nominal resistance for the driven pile foundation system on our calculations using the soil

conditions present at the boring locations. To more accurately predict actual pile lengths and capacities,

we recommend designing at least 1 pile per abutments as a test pile. We recommend dynamically

monitoring these test piles in general accordance with ASTM International D 4945. Data accumulated

from dynamic testing should be used to formulate a driving/length criterion by which the remainder of

the pile should be driven. We provide this service and will gladly discuss it with you further.


We recommend having the remaining foundation piles driven under the continuous observation of a

geotechnical engineer or a MnDOT-certified bridge inspector. Information noted for each production pile

should include but may not be limited to driving criterion, pile length, tip elevation, driving resistance,

splices and any observed damage.

After the piles have been driven to adequate bearing and have been cut off at design elevations, we

recommend inspecting them for damage and plumbness/batter. Should the piles be damaged during

driving, or should they be driven at an angle outside the plumbness or batter specifications, the

geotechnical and structural engineers should review their load-carrying capabilities. We recommend

including contingencies in the project budget for additional piles and/or longer piles in such cases.

D.4.d. Cold Weather Precautions

If site grading is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend following the cold weather precautions

cited in specification 2105.3E for embankment construction.

For concrete paving that will take place in cold weather, precautions regarding curing should be

completed per specification 2301.3M, Concrete Curing and Protection.

E. Procedures

E.1. Penetration Test Borings

The penetration test borings were drilled with a truck-mounted core and auger drill equipped with

hollow-stem auger. The borings were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. Penetration test

samples were taken at 2 1/2-, 5- or 10-foot intervals. Actual sample intervals and corresponding depths

are shown on the boring logs.

Penetration test boreholes that met the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Environmental

Borehole criteria were sealed with an MDH-approved grout.

E.2. Material Classification and Testing

E.2.a. Visual and Manual Classification

The geologic materials encountered were visually and manually classified in accordance with ASTM

Standard Practice D 2488. A chart explaining the classification system is attached. Samples were placed in

jars or bags and returned to our facility for review and storage.


E.2.b. Laboratory Testing

The results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples are noted on or follow the

appropriate attached exploration logs. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM or AASHTO

procedures.

E.3. Groundwater Measurements

The drillers checked for groundwater as the penetration test borings were advanced, and again after

auger withdrawal. The boreholes were then backfilled or allowed to remain open for an extended period

of observation as noted on the boring logs.

F. Qualifications

F.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions

F.1.a. Material Strata

Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations were developed from a limited amount of site and

subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from

exploration locations continuously with depth, and therefore strata boundaries and thicknesses must be

inferred to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and can be expected to vary

in depth, elevation and thickness away from the exploration locations.

Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until

additional exploration work is completed, or construction commences. If any such variations are

revealed, our recommendations should be re-evaluated. Such variations could increase construction

costs, and a contingency should be provided to accommodate them.

F.1.b. Groundwater Levels

Groundwater measurements were made under the conditions reported herein and shown on the

exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. It should be noted that the observation

periods were relatively short, and groundwater can be expected to fluctuate in response to rainfall,

flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal

and annual factors.


F.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility

F.2.a. Plan Review

This report is based on a limited amount of information, and a number of assumptions were necessary to

help us develop our recommendations. It is recommended that our firm review the geotechnical aspects

of the designs and specifications, and evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes

have affected the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly

interpreted and implemented in the designs and specifications.

F.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing

It is recommended that we be retained to perform observations and tests during construction. This will

allow correlation of the subsurface conditions encountered during construction with those encountered

by the borings, and provide continuity of professional responsibility.

F.3. Use of Report

This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to which it has been addressed. Without written

approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses

and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.

F.4. Standard of Care

In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under

similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No

warranty, express or implied, is made.

Appendix

13

7

5

3

1

1

4

TW

WH

WH

4

6

Bag samplecollected forR-value testing.

An open triangle inthe water level(WL) columnindicates the depthat whichgroundwater wasobserved whiledrilling.Groundwaterlevels fluctuate.

Sieve Analysis

Switched to mudrotary drillingmethod at 11 feet.

OC=18%

DD=28.1 pcfOC=33%UC=0.574 tsf

OC=2%

LL=52, PL=27,PI=25

6

10

10

21

25

27

165

195

176

30

49

34

27

BIT

AGG

FILL

FILL

FILL

PT

CL

CH

ML

BIT - 12 inches.

AGG BASE - 12 inches.

FILL: Clayey Sand, with Gravel, dark brown and brown,moist to wet.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moistto 9 feet then waterbearing.

With coarse grains at 9 1/2 feet.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown,waterbearing.

PEAT, partially decomposed, with shells and fibers,dark brown, wet.

(Swamp Deposit)

LEAN CLAY, slightly organic, trace shells, black, wet.(Swamp Deposit)

FAT CLAY, with Silt lenses, gray to dark gray, wet, verysoft.

(Alluvium)

SILT with SAND, fine- to medium-grained, dark gray,waterbearing, very loose.

(Alluvium)

937.3

936.3

932.3

926.3

923.3

916.3

913.3

911.3

1.0

2.0

6.0

12.0

15.0

22.0

25.0

27.0

7/7/14 1" = 4'DATE: SCALE:DRILLER:

Tests or NotesWL

Braun Intertec Corporation ST-1 page 1 of 4

3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden

L O G O F B O R I N G(S

ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

she

et fo

r ex

plan

atio

n of

abb

revi

atio

ns)

LOCATION: Northing: 159567; Easting: 440944.See attached sketch.

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

Description of Materials

ST-1

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

B14-04099

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

AX P

ROJE

CTS\

2014

\040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

9/3

/14

10:5

1

Braun Project B14-04099GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONBridge ReconstructionCSAH 135 over Maxwell ChannelOrono, Minnesota

qptsf

MC%Symbol

Elev.feet938.3

Depthfeet

0.0

9

10

12

12

14

9

16

16

14

16

1

1

1 1/2

1 1/2

1 1/4

1 1/4

Sieve Analysis25

23

25

24

28

23

24

18

25

28

SM

CL

SILT with SAND, fine- to medium-grained, dark gray,waterbearing, very loose.

(Alluvium) (continued)

SILTY SAND, fine-grained, dark gray, waterbearing,loose to medium dense.

(Glacial Till)

Trace Gravel encountered at 37 feet.

SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel to with Gravel, gray,wet, rather stiff to stiff.

(Glacial Till)

904.3

896.3

34.0

42.0


Tests or NotesWL




ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

she

et fo

r ex

plan

atio

n of

abb

revi

atio

ns)




ST-1 (cont.)

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

B14-04099

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

AX P

ROJE

CTS\

2014

\040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

9/3

/14

10:5

1


qptsf

MC%Symbol

Elev.feet906.3

Depthfeet32.0

14

12

17

19

14

14

17

1 1/4

1

1 1/2

1 1/2

1 1/2

No samplerecovery.

No samplerecovery.

28

28

19

20

18

SC

CL

SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel to with Gravel, gray,wet, rather stiff to stiff.

(Glacial Till) (continued)

CLAYEY SAND, trace Gravel, gray, wet, rather stiff.(Glacial Till)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, stiff tovery stiff.

(Glacial Till)

869.3

864.3

69.0

74.0


Tests or NotesWL




ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

she

et fo

r ex

plan

atio

n of

abb

revi

atio

ns)




ST-1 (cont.)

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

B14-04099

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

AX P

ROJE

CTS\

2014

\040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

9/3

/14

10:5

1


qptsf

MC%Symbol

Elev.feet874.3

Depthfeet64.0

14

22

50/6"

2

No samplerecovery.

15

11

SP

SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, stiff tovery stiff.


Cobble layer encountered at 106 feet.

Cobbles encountered between 116 and 117 feet.

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, withGravel and Cobbles, gray, waterbearing, very dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

END OF BORING.

Water observed at 9 feet with 9 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground.

Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout.

821.3

817.8

117.0

120.5


Tests or NotesWL




ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

she

et fo

r ex

plan

atio

n of

abb

revi

atio

ns)




ST-1 (cont.)

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

B14-04099

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

AX P

ROJE

CTS\

2014

\040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

9/3

/14

10:5

1


qptsf

MC%Symbol

Elev.feet842.3

Depthfeet96.0

9

5

4

5

6

15

7

7

5

8

16

17

Sieve Analysis

Switched to mudrotary drillingmethod at 11 feet.

Sieve Analysis

OC=17%

OC=2%

Sieve Analysis

3

11

12

20

18

24

34

19

154

28

24

23

28

BIT

AGGFILL

FILL

FILL

PT

CL

SP-SM

SW-SM

BIT - 18 inches.

AGG BASE - 6 inches.FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, traceGravel, brown.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to coarse-grained, trace Gravel,with wood pieces and trace organics, brown to 12 feetthen gray, moist to 12 feet then waterbearing.

FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- tocoarse-grained, with Silt inclusions, gray, waterbearing.

PEAT, partially decomposed, with shells and fibers,dark brown, wet.

(Swamp Deposit)

LEAN CLAY, slightly organic, trace shells, black, wet.(Swamp Deposit)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- tocoarse-grained, trace Gravel, gray, waterbearing, looseto medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- tocoarse-grained, trace Gravel, gray, waterbearing,medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

937.1936.6

929.6

921.6

919.6

916.6

914.6

909.6

1.52.0

9.0

17.0

19.0

22.0

24.0

29.0


Tests or NotesWL


3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerS. McLean


ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

shee

t for

exp

lana

tion

of a

bbre

viat

ions

)




ST-2

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

B14-04099

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

AX P

ROJE

CTS\

2014

\040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/2

6/14

13:

45


qptsf

MC%Symbol

Elev.feet938.6

Depthfeet

0.0

16

13

15

11

21

18

19

13

23

12

30

26

31

33

25

29

25

30

25

27

SP-SM

SM

CL

WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- tocoarse-grained, trace Gravel, gray, waterbearing,medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash) (continued)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- tocoarse-grained, trace Gravel, dark gray, waterbearing,medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, gray,waterbearing, medium dense.

(Glacial Till)

SANDY LEAN CLAY, gray, wet, rather stiff.(Glacial Till)

901.6

894.6

879.6

874.6

37.0

44.0

59.0

64.0


Tests or NotesWL




ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

shee

t for

exp

lana

tion

of a

bbre

viat

ions

)




ST-2 (cont.)

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

B14-04099

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

AX P

ROJE

CTS\

2014

\040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/2

6/14

13:

45


qptsf

MC%Symbol

Elev.feet906.6

Depthfeet32.0

12

16

21

20

27

25

26

1

1 1/2

1 1/2

1 1/2

2

2

2

28

23

19

22

20

20

17

CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, ratherstiff to very stiff.

(Glacial Till)


Tests or NotesWL




ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

shee

t for

exp

lana

tion

of a

bbre

viat

ions

)




ST-2 (cont.)

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

B14-04099

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

AX P

ROJE

CTS\

2014

\040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/2

6/14

13:

45


qptsf

MC%Symbol

Elev.feet874.6

Depthfeet64.0

24

21

15

2

1 1/2

1

19

20

16

SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, ratherstiff to very stiff.


Gravel layer encountered at 101 feet.


Tests or NotesWL




ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

shee

t for

exp

lana

tion

of a

bbre

viat

ions

)




ST-2 (cont.)

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

B14-04099

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

AX P

ROJE

CTS\

2014

\040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/2

6/14

13:

45


qptsf

MC%Symbol

Elev.feet842.6

Depthfeet96.0

96 20

SP-SM

Gravel and Cobbles encountered between 128 and 129feet.POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- tocoarse-grained, with Gravel, gray, wet, very dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

END OF BORING.

Water observed at 12 feet with 12 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground.

Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout.

809.6

807.6

129.0

131.0


Tests or NotesWL




ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

shee

t for

exp

lana

tion

of a

bbre

viat

ions

)




ST-2 (cont.)

METHOD:

BORING:

BPF

B14-04099

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

AX P

ROJE

CTS\

2014

\040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/2

6/14

13:

45


qptsf

MC%Symbol

Elev.feet810.6

Depthfeet128.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110

SILTY SAND(SM)GRAVELSANDFINES

1.5%85.6%12.9%

D60=0.438D30=0.234D10=

Cu=Cc=

CLASSIFICATION:

GRAVELCOARSE MEDIUM

FINES

GRAIN SIZE ACCUMULATION CURVE (ASTM)

COARSE FINE SILT CLAYFINESAND

BORING: ST-1 DEPTH: 10.0'

PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm

20010040 60201043/8"1/2"3/4"1"3"

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G

Braun Intertec CorporationB14-04099

GS

ASTM

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

X-G

EOLA

B\1-

GIN

T FI

LES\

AX P

ROJE

CTS

GEO

LAB

\B14

-040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/1

3/14

08:

40


U.S. SIEVE SIZES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110

SILT with SAND(ML)GRAVELSANDFINES

0.0%19.1%80.9%

D60=D30=D10=

Cu=Cc=

CLASSIFICATION:

GRAVELCOARSE MEDIUM

FINES





20010040 60201043/8"1/2"3/4"1"3"

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GS

ASTM

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

X-G

EOLA

B\1-

GIN

T FI

LES\

AX P

ROJE

CTS

GEO

LAB

\B14

-040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/1

3/14

08:

40


U.S. SIEVE SIZES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110


0.0%86.4%13.6%

D60=0.295D30=0.165D10=

Cu=Cc=

CLASSIFICATION:

GRAVELCOARSE MEDIUM

FINES





20010040 60201043/8"1/2"3/4"1"3"

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GS

ASTM

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

X-G

EOLA

B\1-

GIN

T FI

LES\

AX P

ROJE

CTS

GEO

LAB

\B14

-040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/1

3/14

08:

40


U.S. SIEVE SIZES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110


8.5%77.0%14.5%

D60=0.423D30=0.183D10=

Cu=Cc=

CLASSIFICATION:

GRAVELCOARSE MEDIUM

FINES





20010040 60201043/8"1/2"3/4"1"3"

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GS

ASTM

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

X-G

EOLA

B\1-

GIN

T FI

LES\

AX P

ROJE

CTS

GEO

LAB

\B14

-040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/1

3/14

08:

40


U.S. SIEVE SIZES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110

WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT(SW-SM)GRAVELSANDFINES

5.9%83.8%10.2%

D60=0.836D30=0.300D10=

Cu=11.6Cc=1.5

CLASSIFICATION:

GRAVELCOARSE MEDIUM

FINES





20010040 60201043/8"1/2"3/4"1"3"

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GS

ASTM

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

X-G

EOLA

B\1-

GIN

T FI

LES\

AX P

ROJE

CTS

GEO

LAB

\B14

-040

99.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

8/1

3/14

08:

40


U.S. SIEVE SIZES

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

Project No.: B14-04099

Date Sampled:

Remarks:

Figure 1

Client:

Project: Bridge Reconstruction

CSAH 135 over Maxwell Channel, Orono, MN

Sample Number: ST-1 Depth: 19.5-21.5'

Description: PEAT, brown (PT)

LL = PI = PL = Assumed GS= 2.70 Type: Thinwall

Sample No.

Unconfined strength, tsf

Undrained shear strength, tsf

Failure strain, %

Strain rate, %/min.

Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio

Specimen diameter, in.

Specimen height, in.

Height/diameter ratio

1

0.574

0.287

7.8

1.00

176.2

77.7

28.1

95.2

4.9951

2.783

5.598

2.01

Com

pre

ssiv

e S

tress, ts

f

0

0.15

0.3

0.45

0.6

Axial Strain, %

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

1

Sample DetailsSample ID: W14-004800-S1 Alternate Sample ID: P-01

Date Sampled: 7/17/2014 Date Submitted: 7/17/2014

Sampled By: Matt Nolden Sampling Method: Auger Sample

Source: Insitu Soil

Material: Sandy Loam

Specification:

Location: Boring B-1

Date Tested: 7/19/2014

Test ResultsMnDOT 1305*

Maximum DryDensity (lb/ft³):

115.8

Optimum MoistureContent (%):

12.7

Material on 19.0mm Sieve: Replaced

Retained on 4.75mm Sieve(%):

10.0

Rammer Type: Hand round

Visual Description: SL Sandy Loam,fine-medium grained, brown

Dry Density - Moisture Content Relationship

Proctor Report

Braun Intertec Corporation

11001 Hampshire Avenue South

Report No: PTR:W14-004800-S1Issue No: 1

Project: B14-04099

Client: James Archer

CSAH 135 over Maxwell Channel

Hennepin County Transportation Depa1600 Prairie DriveMedina, MN, 55340

Valerie Wood, [email protected]

Bridge Reconstruction

TR:

Laboratory Results Reviewed by:

Engineering Technician II

7/19/2014Date of Issue:

Kanhai Seokaran

Phone: 952.995.2000

Minneapolis, MN 55438

Page 1 of 1Form No: 110031, Report No: PTR:W14-004800-S1 © 2000-2011 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com

# Only ASTM and AASHTO equivalent test methods are covered by our current AAP accreditation.The 200 wash value equals 23%Phase 3, Activity 3.3

Comments

Sample DetailsSample ID: W14-004800-S1 Alternate Sample ID: P-01

Date Sampled: 7/17/2014 Date Submitted: 7/17/2014

Sampled By: Matt Nolden Sampling Method: Auger Sample

Source: Insitu Soil

Material: Sandy Loam

Specification:

Location: Boring B-1

Date Tested: 7/27/2014

Test ResultsMnDOT 1307 - 95*

R Value at 240 psi Exudation: 12

MDD (lb/ft³): 115.8

OMC (%): 12.7

R Value

Specimen ResultsNo

1Moisture Content (%) 12.4

Dry Density (lb/ft³)

Exudation Load (psi) 5895

R Value 34

213.5

3776

17

No3

Moisture Content (%) 14.7

Dry Density (lb/ft³)

Exudation Load (psi) 2638

R Value 10

R Value Report

Braun Intertec Corporation

11001 Hampshire Avenue South

Report No: RV:W14-004800-S1Issue No: 1

Project: B14-04099

Client: James Archer

CSAH 135 over Maxwell Channel

Hennepin County Transportation Depa1600 Prairie DriveMedina, MN, 55340

Valerie Wood, [email protected]

Bridge Reconstruction

TR:

Laboratory Results Reviewed by:

Laboratory Supervisor

7/28/2014Date of Issue:

Dallas Miner

Phone: 952.995.2000

Minneapolis, MN 55438

Page 1 of 1Form No: 18964, Report No: RV:W14-004800-S1 © 2000-2011 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com

# Only ASTM and AASHTO equivalent test methods are covered by our current AAP accreditation.Phase 3

Comments

Descriptive Terminology of SoilStandard D 2487 - 00Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes(Unified Soil Classification System)

Rev. 7/07

DD Dry density, pcfWD Wet density, pcfMC Natural moisture content, %LL Liqiuid limit, %PL Plastic limit, %PI Plasticity index, %P200 % passing 200 sieve

OC Organic content, %S Percent of saturation, %SG Specific gravityC Cohesion, psf

Angle of internal frictionqu Unconfined compressive strength, psfqp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf

Liquid Limit (LL)

Laboratory Tests

Plas

ticity

Inde

x (P

I)

Drilling Notes

Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4” or 6 1/4”ID hollow-stem augers unless noted otherwise, Jetting water was usedto clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on logs.Standard penetration test borings are designated by the prefix “ST”(Split Tube). All samples were taken with the standard 2” OD split-tubesampler, except where noted.

Power auger borings were advanced by 4” or 6” diameter continuous-flight, solid-stem augers. Soil classifications and strata depths were in-ferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface and are, therefore,somewhat approximate. Power auger borings are designated by theprefix “B.”

Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2” or 3 1/4”diameter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger couldbe manually withdrawn. Hand auger borings are indicated by the prefix“H.”

BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetrationtest, also known as “N” value. The sampler was set 6” into undisturbedsoil below the hollow-stem auger. Driving resistances were then countedfor second and third 6” increments and added to get BPF. Where theydiffered significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for thesecond and third 6” increments, respectively.

WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammerand rods alone; driving not required.

WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rodsalone; hammer weight and driving not required.

TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample.

Note: All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTMstandards.

Particle Size IdentificationBoulders ............................... over 12”Cobbles ............................... 3” to 12”Gravel

Coarse ............................ 3/4” to 3”Fine ................................. No. 4 to 3/4”

SandCoarse ............................ No. 4 to No. 10Medium ........................... No. 10 to No. 40Fine ................................. No. 40 to No. 200

Silt ....................................... No. 200, PI 4 or below “A” line

Clay ..................................... No. 200, PI 4 and on or above “A” line

Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils

Very loose ................................ 0 to 4 BPFLoose ....................................... 5 to 10 BPFMedium dense ......................... 11 to 30 BPFDense ...................................... 31 to 50 BPFVery dense ............................... over 50 BPF

Consistency of Cohesive SoilsVery soft ................................... 0 to 1 BPFSoft ....................................... 2 to 3 BPFRather soft ............................... 4 to 5 BPFMedium .................................... 6 to 8 BPFRather stiff ............................... 9 to 12 BPFStiff ....................................... 13 to 16 BPFVery stiff ................................... 17 to 30 BPFHard ....................................... over 30 BPF

a. Based on the material passing the 3-in (75mm) sieve.b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders or both” to group name.c. Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = (D30)

2

D10 x D60

d. If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.e. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded gravel with siltGW-GC well-graded gravel with clayGP-GM poorly graded gravel with siltGP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay

f. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.g. If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.h. If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.i. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded sand with siltSW-SC well-graded sand with claySP-SM poorly graded sand with siltSP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

j. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel” whichever is predominant.l. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.m. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.n. PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.o. PI 4 or plots below “A” line.p. PI plots on or above “A” line.q. PI plots below “A” line.

Poorly graded sand h

Peat

Well-graded gravel d

PI plots on or above “A” line

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line j

PI 4 or plots below “A” line j

Fine

-gra

ined

Soi

ls50

% o

r mor

e pa

ssed

the

No.

200

sie

ve

Coa

rse-

grai

ned

Soils

mor

e th

an 5

0% re

tain

ed o

nN

o. 2

00 s

ieve

Soils Classification

GravelsMore than 50% of

coarse fractionretained onNo. 4 sieve

Sands50% or more ofcoarse fraction

passesNo. 4 sieve

Silts and ClaysLiquid limit

less than 50

Highly Organic Soils

Silts and claysLiquid limit50 or more

Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor

GroupSymbol

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols andGroup Names Using Laboratory Tests a

Group Name b

GW

GPGMGCSWSPSM

CLMLOLOL

SC

Poorly graded gravel d

Silty gravel d f g

Clean Gravels5% or less fines e

Gravels with FinesMore than 12% fines e

Clean Sands5% or less fines i

Sands with FinesMore than 12% i

Fines classify as ML or MHFines classify as CL or CH Clayey gravel d f g

Well-graded sand h

Fines classify as CL or CHFines classify as ML or MH Silty sand f g h

Clayey sand f g h

Inorganic

Organic Liquid limit - oven driedLiquid limit - not dried

0.75

Inorganic

Organic

PI plots below “A” line

Lean clay k l m

Liquid limit - oven driedLiquid limit - not dried

0.75

CHMH

OHOH

Fat clay k l m

Elastic silt k l m

Organic clay k l m n

Organic silt k l m o

Organic clay k l m p

Organic silt k l m q

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 C

PT

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 C

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 C

Cu 6 and/or 1 CC 3 C

0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

7

“U” L

ine

“A” Line

10

20

30

40

50

60

4 0

ML or OL

MH or OHCL or O

L

CH or O

H

CL - ML

Silt k l m