april 21, 2005 · 2018. 8. 9. · • moisture content, aashto t265 • soluble sulfate content,...

REDROCK CONSULTING

Report of Geotechnical Investigation

OF

EMBANKMENT SLOPE & FOUNDATION SOIL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS HIGHWAY 64 OVER RED HORSE CREEK

WOODS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

BRFY-176B(195); 27010(04)

Prepared For:

Mehlburger Brawley Inc. 5500 North Western, Suite 215

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118

Prepared By:

Red Rock Consulting , LLC PO Box 30591

Edmond, Oklahoma 73003 (405) 562-3328

March 12, 2012 Project No. 11058

REDROCK CONSULTING

March 12, 2012

Mehlburger Brawley Inc.

5500 North Western , Suite 250

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118

Attention: Ms. Felicia Jackson, PE

Re: Report of Geotechnical Investigation

Embankment Slope & Foundation Soil Settlement Analysis Highway 64 over Red Horse Creek Woods County, Oklahoma BRFY-176B(195); 27010 (04) Project No. 11058

Dear Ms . Jackson,

Red Rock Consulting is pleased to submit herewith this report entitled "Report of

Geotechnical Investigation, Embankment Slope & Foundation Soil Settlement Analysis,

Highway 64 over Red Horse Creek, Woods County, Oklahoma, BRFY-176B(195);

27010(04 )."

In an effort to provide a more environmentally friendly service , this report has been

printed double sided on 1 00% recycled paper.

It has been our pleasure to assist you with this project. Should you have any questions

regarding the contents of this report, please contact us at your convenience.

Yours very truly, RED ROCK CONSULTING, LLC CA No. 5707 Exp. 06/30/13

~If!~ Project Specialist

~h~ Kristi K. Bumpas, PE , LEED AP

Project Engineer

po. BOX 30)91 • I-DMONI . OK 730( 3 • "}05- 562- 3328 • WWVv'.REDROCKCEO.COM

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

EMBANKMENT SLOPE & FOUNDATION SOIL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS STATE HIGHWAY 64 OVER RED HORSE CREEK


BRFY-176B(195) 27010(04)

PROJECT NO. 11058

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................... 1

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................. 3 FIELD EXPLORATION...................................................................................................... 3 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................. 4

SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 5 SURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 5 SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 7 SOLUBLE SULFATES ...................................................................................................... 7 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 8

EMBANKMENT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 9 FILL MATERIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 9 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF FOUNDATION MATERIALS .................................................... 10 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 12

CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................................15

APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Field Investigation APPENDIX B – Laboratory Results APPENDIX C – Settlement Analysis Results APPENDIX D – GeoStase Analysis Results APPENDIX E – General Notes

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

EMBANKMENT SLOPE & FOUNDATION SOIL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS STATE HIGHWAY 64 OVER RED HORSE CREEK


BRFY-176B(195) 27010(04)

PROJECT NO. 11058

INTRODUCTION

General This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation performed for the embankment and foundation soil settlement analysis associated with the replacement of the triple span bridge over Red Horse Creek located along a new alignment of State Highway 64 approximately 5.3 miles east of the State Highway 50 in Woods County, Oklahoma. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide information pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. Proposed Construction The project will include the replacement of the bridge including new piers and abutments along a new alignment that is to the north of the current alignment. The new alignment will require two large embankment sections to the east and west of the proposed bridge. There are also two large cut sections to the east and west of the proposed bridge. The cut material will be used in the construction of embankments in the fill areas of the project. Scope of Work The scope of this investigation includes the following:

1. Review of previous geotechnical and geological information of sites near this site. This was augmented with data obtained during the field investigation phase of the project.

2. Investigation of the subsurface soils by drilling and testing a total of 5

boreholes within the planned project area.

Embankment Slope & Foundation Soil Settlement Analysis SH 64 over Red Horse Creek, Woods Co. BRFY-176-B(195); 27010(04) RRC Project No. 11058 March 12, 2012

2

3. A laboratory testing program consisting of moisture content, Atterberg limits, sieve analysis, one-dimensional consolidation, consolidated untrained tri-axial shear and soluble sulfate testing on the soils encountered.

4. Analysis of the fill material properties

5. Settlement analysis for the foundation material consisting of ultimate

settlement and rate of settlement for existing foundat6ion soils under the proposed load of embankment materials

6. Slope stability analysis of the proposed embankment design


3

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS

Field Exploration Subsurface exploration was performed November 8, 9 and 10, 2011. The borings were located in the field by a representative of Red Rock Consulting by measuring distances from known site reference points as depicted on plans provided by Mehlburger Brawley. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to define them. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling 5 borings under the full time supervision of an engineer. The borings were located in areas where the proposed fill heights are greatest. The boring locations are shown on the boring location diagram, which is included in Appendix A. The embankment borings ranged in depths between 30 and 60 feet, which was equal to twice the proposed embankment height at the boring location. The borings were advanced using wet rotary drilling methods with auger casing from an all-terrain CME-75 drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer. Samples of the overburden materials were obtained in the borings as per Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) specifications. Representative samples were obtained by split-barrel sampling procedures (Standard Penetration Test, SPT) in general accordance with ASTM Specifications D-1586 and thin walled tube (3 inch Shelby tubes) sampling procedures in general accordance ASTM Specifications D-1587. After auger refusal was attained, the hardness of bedrock was evaluated using a Texas Cone Penetrometer in accordance with the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigation and as modified by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. The SPT test uses a standard, 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampling spoon that is driven into the bottom of the boring with a 140 pound automatic drive hammer that falls 30 inches. The blows per foot, N, is the number of hammer blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches, or less, of an 18-inch sampling interval. The N value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of granular soils, the consistency of cohesive soils, and the hardness of weathered bedrock. The Texas Highway Department cone penetrometer test is a standard test developed by the Texas Highway Department to evaluate the consistency or hardness of the bedrock material. The Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) test drives a penetrometer cone into the bedrock material with a 140 pound automatic drive hammer that falls 30 inches. The TCP is driven for a series of blows, the first being seating blows, followed by two 50 blow


4

counts. After 50 blows of the automatic hammer, the distance the TCP has advanced is measured and recorded. The distance the TCP is driven is used to estimate the hardness of bedrock. After performing SPT and TCP tests, the holes were backfilled with grout and cuttings as required by the Oklahoma State Statutes for Geotechnical drilling. Samples were collected and transported back to the lab for further classification and testing. The final boring logs were developed from the draft logs, observations and test results of the samples returned to the laboratory. The stratigraphic contacts indicated are only for the specific dates and locations reported, and therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. The boring logs, presenting conditions encountered at each location explored, are included in Appendix A. Laboratory Testing Representative soil samples were tested to refine the field classifications and evaluate physical properties of the soils which may affect the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. The laboratory testing program included the following:

• Liquid Limit, AASHTO T90 • Plastic Limit, AASHTO T89 • Full Sieve Gradation, AASHTO T88 • Moisture Content, AASHTO T265 • Soluble Sulfate Content, OHD L-49 • Standard Proctor, AASHTO T99 • Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial, ASTM D4767 • One-Dimensional Consolidation, AASHTO T216

The results of the physical laboratory tests conducted are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A and included in Appendix B.


5

SITE DESCRIPTION Surface Conditions At the time of this investigation, an existing triple span bridge was present along the alignment of SH 64 over Red Horse Creek. The creek banks were lined with tall weeds and moderately sized trees. The creek was approximately 25 feet wide and was approximately 25 feet below the existing bridge. The water in the creek was approximately 1 foot deep and was flowing slowly. The boring locations were covered with grass. All of the borings were located on the north side of existing SH 64 in the current right of way. Borings B-1E, B-2E, and B-3E were the three western-most borings and were approximately 10 to 30 feet lower in elevation than the existing roadway. The area appeared to have been cleared for the installation of a new fence. Borings B-5E and B-6E were located on the east side of the creek and were approximately 15 feet lower in elevation than the existing roadway. The boring locations were dry at the time of drilling and the ATV drill rig did not experience difficulty moving around the site. The surface elevations at the boring locations were approximated from the cross section plans provided by Mehlburger Brawley. Based on the plans, the approximate elevations of the borings varied between 1632 and 1645 feet. The approximate elevation at each location is shown on the boring location diagram in Appendix A. Site Geology Division Six of the “Engineering Classification of Geological Materials” (Red Book), published by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) indicates the project site was underlain by the Blaine (Pb) and Flowerpot (Pf) units. The Blaine unit consists of three prominent gypsum beds (four in Harper and Woodward Counties) separated by red-brown shales which are locally gypsiferous. The gypsum beds in ascending order and thicknesses are: the Medicine Lodge gypsum (12-31 feet), the Nescatunga gypsum (10-22 feet) the Shimer gypsum (0-21 feet), generally 11-15 feet thick), and the Haskew gypsum (4 feet in Harper and Woodward Counties, absent or mapped in Dog Creek Unit elsewhere). The Medicine Lodge, Nescatunga, and Shimer gypsums have thin dolomite beds at the base which are generally less than 1 foot thick, but locally may thicken to 2 feet. Then dolomite beds are light gray to tan, fine-grained, and in ascending order: the Cedar Springs dolomite, the Magpie dolomite, and the Altona dolomite. The Magpie dolomite grades into a greenish-gray siltstone in


6

northwestern Woods County. The shale sequences separating the gypsum beds vary from 4 to 20 feet in thickness. The total thickness of the unit varies from 50 to 90 feet. In Division 6, the Blaine Unit outcrops in a 1 mile to 6 miles wide northwest-southeast irregular band across Major, Northern Woodward, eastern Harper, and Western Woods Counties. Topographically, the unit forms the most pronounced escarpment in western Oklahoma. The Thick gypsum beds form ledges that extend the entire length of the outcrop of the Blaine Unit. These ledges form the noted “Gypsum Hills” of northwestern Oklahoma. Underlying the resistant gypsum of the Blaine Unit are the weakly resistant shales of the Flowerpot Unit. These shales are eroded much faster than the gypsums, thus leaving an escarpment that is 200 to 300 feet higher than the near level terrain of the Flowerpot Unit. Isolated buttes and highly dissected canyons are common along the outcrop contact of the two units. Short grass and prickly pear are the common vegetation on the Blaine Unit, but much of the gypsums are barren of vegetation. Many salt and gypsum springs flow from the Blaine escarpment. Numerous sinkholes and caverns are evident along the outcrop of the thick gypsum beds. The Flowerpot unit consists dominantly of reddish-brown, block, silty clay shale with a few thin sandstone, siltstone, and dolomite beds. The shales contain salt beds along the Cimarron River south of Plainview in western Woods County and also in northern Woodward County. The sandstone and siltstone beds are less than 3 feet thick, often gypsiferous, and generally thin southward. The total thickness increases southward from about 220 feet in northern Woods County to about 440 feet in southern Major County. In Division 6, the Flowerpot Unit outcrops in a 5 to 25 mile wide northwest-southeast band across Woods, southwestern Alfalfa, and Major Counties. It also outcrops along the Cimarron River and its tributaries in northern Woodward and eastern Harper Counties. Much of the outcrop of the unit is covered by alluvium and terrace deposits of the Cimarron River in southern Woods and Major Counties. Topographically, the unit generally forms broad flats and gently rolling hills. The upper portion forms the steep slope of scarps and buttes capped by gypsums of the overlying Blaine Unit. Locally, resistant siltstones and dolomites in the upper portion of the unit cap buttes and small scarps. Vegetation on this unit ranges from barren salty areas to short grass prairies containing scattered mesquite.


7

Subsurface Conditions Information collected during this investigation indicates that the overburden materials consist of various combinations of silt, sand and lean clay that extended from the surface to the top of bedrock or the boring termination depth. Borings B-1E, B-2E, and B-3E were drilled for the proposed western embankment section. The overburden for this section primarily consisted of lean clay and lean clay with sand. In borings B-2E and B-3E a 1 to 2 foot layer of sandy gravel was present at approximately 8 feet. Bedrock was not encountered in boring B-3E, but was in borings B-1E and B-2E at 26 and 31 feet, respectively. The bedrock in boring B-1E and B-2E was very soft to hard shale that extended to the boring termination depths. In boring B-2E, the lean clay overburden from approximately 15 feet and the shale bedrock contained gypsum. Borings B-5E and B-6E were drilled for the proposed eastern embankment section. The overburden for this section consisted of various combinations of lean clay, silt and sand. Soft to moderately hard shale was encountered at depths of 56 and 58 feet in borings B-5E and B-6E, respectively. The shale bedrock extended to the boring termination depths. In boring B-6E, the shale bedrock contained gypsum. Subsurface conditions are described in greater detail on the boring logs in Appendix A. Soluble Sulfates Sulfates are naturally occurring in some soils. If combined with calcium based materials, such as cement, lime, fly ash and cement kiln dust, sulfate rich soils can expand up to 250 percent of the original size when exposed to moisture. Based on soluble sulfate test results from the embankment borings B-2E and B-3E and cut borings B-4C, B-7C and B-8C (including bulk samples from these borings), low to very high levels of soluble sulfates were encountered. Levels encountered ranged from 1,200 ppm to greater than 8,000 ppm, with a large majority being greater than 8,000 ppm. Soluble sulfate levels are included in the laboratory results in Appendix B. A level of “less than 200 ppm” is the lowest and “greater than 8,000 ppm” is the highest reportable level when using the colorimeter method OHD L-49. Soluble sulfate levels less than 3,000 ppm are considered to be too low to be of concern when considering the use of calcium based construction materials. Soluble sulfate levels in excess of 8,000 ppm are considered to be high risk.


8

Soluble sulfates levels for this project site exceed 8,000 ppm. Therefore, this site should be considered high risk. Calcium-based materials used in the concrete mix or to stabilize the subgrade/embankment soils should not be used for this project. It should be noted that sulfates can move upward through soil as long as there is moisture movement towards the surface. This upward moisture movement can occur through the rise of groundwater (though not likely at this site), as a result of plants obtaining moisture through roots or through transpiration. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater conditions were monitored in the borings immediately after and approximately 24 hours after drilling operations. It should be noted that the water levels measured immediately after drilling may not be precise due to the nature of wet rotary drilling. Water levels and cave in depths were measured as summarized in Table 1. Cave-in depth can be an indicator of the actual groundwater depth.

Table 1 – Approximate Groundwater Levels

Boring

Immediately After Drilling 24 to 48 Hours After Drilling

Depth (feet)

Elevation (feet)

Depth (feet)

Elevation (feet)

Cave-In Depth (feet)

Cave-In Elevation

(feet)

B-1E 18 1642 15.7 1644.3 32 1628 B-2E 2.5 1640.5 1.3 1641.7 44 1599 B-3E 5 1640 7.7 1637.3 25 1620 B-5E 8 1624 6.8 1625.2 6.8 1625.2 B-6E 10.5 1627.5 10.2 1627.8 10.4 1627.6

To obtain more accurate groundwater level information, long-term observations in a well or piezometer that is sealed from the influence of surface water would be needed. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, altered drainage paths, and other factors not evident at the time borings were advanced. Consequently, the contractor should be aware of these possibilities while constructing this project.


9

EMBANKMENT ANALYSIS The geotechnical aspects pertaining to the design and construction of the proposed embankment include embankment fill material analysis, foundation soil settlement analysis and embankment slope stability analysis. Fill Material Analysis The proposed embankment fill material will be excavated from the proposed cut sections of this project. The complete field investigation and laboratory test results for the cut section of this project are included in the “Cut Analysis” report, project number 11058, dated January 17, 2012. The laboratory results (including the soil classification test results) are included in Appendix B of this report. The fill material primarily consisted of lean clay and gypsum, with small amounts of silt and sand. Very soft to moderately hard shale was encountered in 2 of the 3 cut section borings. This shale is expected to behave as a clay material within the embankment fill. It is anticipated that the embankment fill will consist of blended portions of the cut material. Standard Proctor and soil classification testing was performed on 3 bulk samples of all encountered materials from the cut section as well as on 1 bulk sample of gypsum from the cut section. The results of laboratory testing on the bulk samples are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Bulk Sample Laboratory Results

Sample Depth (feet)

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

(%)

Soluble Sulfates (ppm)

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

Soil Classification

AASHTO Classification

B-4C Bulk

15 - 40 108.4 18.8 > 8,000 30 15 Lean Clay A-6(12)

B-7C Bulk

24 - 50 114.3 16.1 > 8,000 26 11 Lean Clay A-6(8)

B-8C Bulk

17.5 - 50 109.4 18.2 > 8,000 33 17 Lean Clay A-6(14)

B-8C Gypsum

0 - 17.5 94.0 30.6 -- 0 NP Silty Sand A-2-4


10

The bulk samples do not meet ODOT requirements for select borrow material as per Section 705 of the ODOT “Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, 2009”. Soluble sulfate levels at this site consistently test as greater than 8,000 ppm. Section 202.02A of the ODOT specifications states that for projects in Division 6, borrow material which exceeds the soluble sulfate testing thresholds of OHD L-50 and OHD L-51 is not allowed in the top 12 inches of the grading section. The proposed fill material for this site should not be anticipated for use in the top 12 inches of the grading section. Please see the Soluble Sulfates section of this report, above. All excavation of the cut sections and construction of the embankment fill should be performed in accordance with ODOT specifications. Settlement Analysis of Foundation Materials Settlement analysis was performed for the foundation materials of the embankment sections. One dimensional consolidation testing was performed on select thin-walled tube (undisturbed) samples from embankment borings B-2E, B-3E, B-5E and B-6E. The total settlement in the borings was calculated based on consolidation results and the proposed embankment design. The settlement was calculated using two methods. The first method was hand calculation using traditional one-dimensional settlement equations. The second method was a one-dimensional settlement analysis program, SAF-1. In both cases, the most significant settlement calculated was in borings B-2E, B-3E and B-5E. The rate of settlement was calculated using one-dimensional consolidation theory of time factor (T) for average degrees of consolidation (U). This method utilizes the coefficient of consolidation (Cv) at the proposed load from the consolidation test results. In the case of boring B-5E, the anticipated load did not correlate to a coefficient of consolidation because the sample had not begun to consolidate at the proposed embankment load during testing. The total settlement and the rate of settlement were calculated for the embankment foundation material at the boring locations and depths as tabulated below in Table 3. The rate of settlement was calculated for achieving 1 inch or less of settlement as well as for achieving 95% settlement.


11

Table 3. Embankment Foundation Soil Settlement

Boring

Bowles Equations SAF-1

Stotal (inches)

1 inch or less tmax (days)

95% Settlement tmax (days)

Stotal (inches)

1 inch or less tmax (days)

95% Settlement tmax (days)

B-2E 2.7 28 92 2.5 23 92 B-3E 3.6 28 71 4.2 28 65 B-5E 1.4 --* --* 0 0 0

*not calculated due to lack of consolidation lab data at the required stress level To achieve 95% of the total anticipated settlement of the foundation materials, the site should be allowed to settle for a period of 90 days following placement of the embankment fill material. Ninety-five percent settlement correlates to less than 0.2 inches of remaining settlement. If all ODOT specifications for fill placement and compaction are followed, less than 0.2 inches of settlement can be expected. If the roadway can tolerate at least 1 inch of settlement, and the client is aware of the probable movement, the settlement period can be reduced to 30 days. Thirty days would allow for the foundation materials to consolidate enough that 1 inch or less settlement would be remaining. If all ODOT specifications for fill placement and compaction are followed, 1 inch (or less) of settlement can be expected. If the foundation materials are not allowed to consolidate under the load of the embankment material, approximately 0 to 4.5 inches of settlement can be expected in various areas and at various rates. It is recommended that the settlement be monitored during the consolidation stage before construction. The most accurate and construction-friendly method of settlement monitoring is the use of settlement cells. Settlement plates are less accurate, but can be used as an alternative to settlement cells, if necessary.


12

Slope Stability Analysis The proposed slopes of the embankment fill range from 3V:1H to 28V:1H. Embankment slopes for a large amount of the project are steeper than 1.5H:1V and the embankment material is comprised of predominantly clay (and gypsum). Therefore, slope stability analysis is required, as per ODOT specifications. The steepest slope (3V:1H) at the greatest height (30 feet) is proposed between stations 132+50.83 and 133+00. This is the embankment slope angle and height used in the analysis. Consolidated-Undrained (CU) Triaxial testing was performed on 3 remolded samples of the proposed fill material. Average shear strength parameters from these tests were used in the embankment slope analysis. Based on these conditions, GeoStase was used to analyze the slope under different water conditions. The general limit equilibrium method was used to analyze the slope as this method satisfies both force and moment equilibrium. Each scenario was analyzed to ascertain if the factor of safety for the embankment slope would be greater than 1 under the simulated conditions. A factor of safety of less than 1 indicates a slope failure. The factor of safety was 1.2 or above for all scenarios except for the saturated embankment scenario. The first scenario analyzed was for short term conditions, such as when a load or surcharge has been quickly placed. This simulates when a load is placed so quickly that the water is not able to flow in or out of the soil voids, leading to an increase in the pore water pressure in response to the load. A typical design factor of safety for this condition is 1.3. Geostase analysis for this scenario resulted in a factor of safety of slightly greater than 1.9. The remaining scenarios were all for long term conditions. Long term refers to day to day occurrences over the life of the slope. Various water level situations were used to analyze the embankment slope. Table 4 summarizes elevations used in the slope analysis.


13

Table 4. Slope Analysis Elevations Feature Elevation

Toe of Slope 1636

Actual Groundwater Elevation

1625.2

100 Year Flood Elevation 1636.4

Water Elevation to Achieve FS = 1.5

1645.1

Top of Embankment 1659

A typical design factor of safety for long term conditions is 1.5. GeoStase analysis of the proposed slope resulted in factors of safety greater than 1.5 for water levels less than 1,645.1 feet in elevation. An exception to this is when the friction angle, phi (φ), was reduced to 23 degrees. The water elevation to achieve a factor of safety of 1.5 with the friction angle of 28 degrees, which was determined through laboratory testing, was determined to be 1645.1. The friction angle was reduced to 23 degrees and the slope was again analyzed with the water elevation at 1645.1. This scenario was explored as a lower-bound case to account for a lower friction angle that may have been present, but was not determined due to the small amount of testing performed. In this case, the resulting factor of safety was approximately 1.2. For lower-bound cases, we should expect a factor of safety between approximately 1.1 and 1.2. For the saturated embankment scenario, the slope was analyzed with a water depth of 30 feet above grade, which was the top of the embankment (elevation = 1659 feet). This is highly unlikely to occur in the field, but the factor of safety in this case was still slightly greater than 1. The results of the embankment slope stability analysis are summarized in Table 5. The GeoStase analysis profile results are included in Appendix D. The GeoStase text output for the critical failure surface for the short term undrained condition and the long term 100 year flood elevation condition are included in Appendix D.


14

Table 5. Embankment Slope Stability Analysis Results

Analysis Water Condition Cohesion, c

(psf) Friction Angle, φ (degrees)

Factor of Safety

Short Term

Undrained 575 0 1.904

Long Term

None 0 28 2.110

Long Term

Actual Groundwater

Elevation 0 28 2.110

Long Term

100 Year Flood Elevation

0 28 2.103

Long Term

Water Elevation at 1645.1 feet,

φ=28 ̊0 28 1.500

Long Term

Water Elevation at 1645.1 feet,

φ=23 ̊0 23 1.198

Long Term

Saturated Embankment

0 28 1.020

Based on the GeoStase analysis of this embankment slope at the steepest proposed slope (3V:1H) and the greatest proposed height (30 feet), this embankment slope will remain stable under the conditions summarized above, which are believed to be the worst-case scenarios for this site.


15

CLOSURE The data presented in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of the field exploration. The conditions encountered in the exploratory borings are representative subsurface conditions within the study area. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Mehlburger Brawley, ODOT and their agents and consultants. It should be made available to prospective contractors for information and factual data only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions similar to those interpreted from the boring logs or discussions presented herein.

APPENDIX A

I I

.. Iii I I I j I

•

I I I I I I

I Vi

Plans provided by Mehlburger Brawley All elevations estimated from plans Approximate offsets are from the existing center line

4 , I,

,

r -'

\

B-2E

B-7C

"

\,

\

/ • • , .

--- \ , '-I.

.-. !""':' , '

- • ~

, < ~--\ . - ~ ,- ~-• "r >'"

\ " :1 :'

'< \ ','

121+50 120' Left of CL 1643'

\ " \

REDROCK CONSULTING

P.o. Box 30591 Edmond, Oklahoma 73003

BORING LOCATION OIAGRAM US 64 OVER RED HORSE CREEK BRFY-176-B(195); 27010(04)

WOODS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA CUT AND EMBANKMENT ANALYSIS

138+00 140' Left Of~C~L~::i1~70~8~':::l ________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~ar~~~~~

All elevations estimated from plans Approximate offsets are from the existing center line

REDROCK CONSULTING

P.O. Box 30591 Edmond. 73003

BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM US 64 OVER RED HORSE CREEK BRFY-176-B(195); 27010(04)

WOODS COUNTY OKLAHOMA

50

45

42

37

32

24

23

22

17

15

26

22

20

20

17

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

TC

TC

TC

TC

87.5

85.5

87.8

91.8

90.4

FAT CLAY, shaley, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4), very stiff

LEAN CLAY, shaley, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4), hard

SHALE, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4) with greenish gray (GLEY1 6/1), very soft to hard

Boring Completed 11/10/2011 and Grouted 11/11/2011

15

33

66

50

2334

50/5.5"50/5.5"50/2.1"50/1.1"50/0.9"

50/2.8"50/1.9"

50/3"50/2"

27

27

26

22

21

NOTES BRFY-176B(195); 27010(04)

GROUND ELEVATION 1660 ft

LOGGED BY JTU

DRILLING METHOD Wet rotary with auger casing - CME 75

HOLE SIZE 6 in

DRILLING CONTRACTOR DSO - Drilling Services of Oklahoma GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY KKB

DATE STARTED 11/9/11 COMPLETED 11/10/11

0 hrs AFTER DRILLING 18.0 ft / Elev 1642.0 ft

Cave In Depth 32.0 ft / Elev 1628.0 ft

DURING DRILLING NA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E ATTERBERGLIMITS

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B-1E

PROJECT NAME US 64 over Red Horse Creek, Woods Co.

PROJECT LOCATION Woods County

CLIENT Mehlburger Brawley

PROJECT NUMBER 11058 B - Embankment & Foundation Soil Analysis

PO Box 30591Edmond, Oklahoma 73003Telephone: 405-562-3328

GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

1105

8 LO

G.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

3/1

3/1

2

33

34

36

34

43

42

44

15

21

17

17

23

22

25

18

13

19

17

20

20

19

SPT

ST

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

71.4

70.3

83.7

94.8

85.5

91.4

86.8

LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown (7.5YR 3/3), medium stiff

POORLY GRADED SANDY GRAVEL

LEAN CLAY, shaley, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) to greenish gray (GLEY1 5/1), very stiffto hard

Gypsum interbedded from approximately 15 feet

SHALE gypsum interbedded, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3), very soft to moderately hard


8

30

63

74

71

1730

50/5"50/3"

50/2.4"50/2.3"50/1.8"

50/3.6"50/2.6"

50/1.6"50/1.4"

50/2.1"50/1.8"

22

18

24

20

27

25

25

NOTES BRFY-176B(195); 27010(04)


LOGGED BY JTU


HOLE SIZE 6 in


CHECKED BY KKB




DURING DRILLING NA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E ATTERBERGLIMITS

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50


BLO

WC

OU

NT

S

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)







GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

1105

8 LO

G.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

3/1

3/1

2

37

36

34

49

40

40

39

19

18

18

27

23

23

20

18

18

16

22

17

17

19

SPT

SPT

SPT

ST

SPT

SPT

SPT

81.8

90.1

90.6

90.1

94.7

92.9

95.3

LEAN CLAY with SAND, gypsum interbeded, brown (5YR 4/4), stiff

POORLY GRADED SANDY GRAVEL

LEAN CLAY, shaley, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4) with greenish gray (GLEY1 6/1), verystiff to hard


13

22

35

40

44

68

20

28

23

32

26

28

28

NOTES BRFY-176B(195); 27010(04)


LOGGED BY JTU


HOLE SIZE 6 in


CHECKED BY KKB




DURING DRILLING NA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E ATTERBERGLIMITS

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30


BLO

WC

OU

NT

S

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)







GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

1105

8 LO

G.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

3/1

3/1

2

42

39

29

0

40

31

36

42

18

19

16

0

17

17

19

22

24

20

13

NP

23

14

17

20

SPT

SPTTC

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

89.5

90.6

96.3

97.9

99.2

89.1

86.8

85.1

GYPSUM with sand seams, white (7.5YR 9.5/1), moderately hard to hard

LEAN CLAY, shaley, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) to dark red (2.5YR 3/6), soft to very stiff

SILT, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4), dense

LEAN CLAY with gypsum interbedded, shaley, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/6) withgreensih gray (GLEY1 5/1), hard

Boring Completed 11/9/2011 and Grouted 11/10/2011Bulk sample collected from 15 to 40 feet (lab results in Appendix B)

229

50/4.5"

50/4.3"50/2"

50/0.2"

4

21

21

44

34

62

56

57

32

21

18

23

18

22

26

23

NOTES BRFY-176B(195); 27010(04) Auger cased to 40 feet


LOGGED BY JTU


HOLE SIZE 6 in


CHECKED BY KKB




DURING DRILLING 17.0 ft / Elev 1681.0 ft

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E ATTERBERGLIMITS

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50


BLO

WC

OU

NT

S

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B-4C






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

1105

8 LO

G.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

3/1

3/1

2

0

30

31

28

40

0

0

19

40

39

41

0

15

15

15

17

0

0

11

23

19

23

NP

15

16

13

23

NP

NP

8

17

20

18

SPT

SPT

ST

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

TC

43.0

75.8

73.3

88.7

96.2

7.3

8.5

53.2

90.1

90.8

86.8

SILT with SAND, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3), loose

LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2), soft

LEAN CLAY, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2), soft to medium stiff

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, brown (7.5YR 4/4), loose

SANDY LEAN CLAY, very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1), stiff

LEAN CLAY, very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1), hard

SHALE, dusky red (2.5YR 3/2) with bluish gray (GLEY2 5/1), soft to moderately hard


6

4

3

3

7

5

6

12

41

62

3939

50/4"

50/2.1"50/1.6"

19

25

25

35

34

19

15

20

26

21

25

NOTES BRFY-176B(195); 27010(04) Auger Cased to 45 feet


LOGGED BY JTU


HOLE SIZE 6 in


CHECKED BY KKB





LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E ATTERBERGLIMITS

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


BLO

WC

OU

NT

S

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)







GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

1105

8 LO

G.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

3/1

3/1

2

0

0

34

35

28

0

21

0

21

43

0

0

17

16

20

0

18

0

14

25

NP

NP

17

19

8

NP

3

NP

7

18

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

ST

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

4.8

10.5

90.2

96.4

60.7

78.6

73.9

64.8

55.7

88.7

POORLY GRADED SAND, reddish yellow (5YR 6/8), medium dense

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, reddish yellow (5YR 6/8), loose

LEAN CLAY, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2), soft

SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2), very soft

N=0, weight of hammer at 25 feet

SILT with SAND, dark brown (7.5YR 3/3), loose to medium dense

SANDY SILT, yellowish red (5YR 5/8), medium dense

SANDY SILTY CLAY, yellowish red (5YR 5/8), medium stiff

POORLY GRADED GRAVELSHALE gypsum interbeded, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3), soft


12

9

4

4

0

10

5

20

8

2531

50/5"

2

14

34

32

34

25

24

19

19

28



LOGGED BY JTU


HOLE SIZE 6 in


CHECKED BY KKB





LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E ATTERBERGLIMITS

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50


BLO

WC

OU

NT

S

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)







GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

1105

8 LO

G.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

3/1

3/1

2

39 14 25

SPTTC

TC

GB

SPT

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

73.2

GYPSUM, white (7.5YR 9.5/1), soft to hard

~0.5 foot thick void infilled with soft clay from ~2.5 to 3 feet

~1.5 foot thick void infilled with soft clay from ~11.5 to 13 feet~0.5 foot thick void infilled with soft clay from ~13.5 to 14 feet

~0.5 foot thick void infilled with soft clay from ~15 to 15.5 feet

SHALE, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) to dark red (2.5YR 3/6), very soft to soft

Boring Completed 11/10/2011 and Grouted 11/11/2011Bulk samples collected from 24 to 35 feet and 35 to 50 feet (lab results in Appendix B)

50/5.8"50/1.8"50/0.3"

50/0.8"50/0.3"

050/2"

50/0.5"50/0.3

50/0.8"50/0.3"

50/3"50/3.5"

50/2"50/1"

50/3.3"50/2.3"

50/5.8"50/4.8"

50/4.3"50/4"

50/4.5"50/1.8"

22

28



LOGGED BY JTU


HOLE SIZE 6 in


CHECKED BY KKB


0 hrs AFTER DRILLING None

Cave In Depth Open

DURING DRILLING None

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E ATTERBERGLIMITS

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50


BLO

WC

OU

NT

S

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)







GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

1105

8 LO

G.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

3/1

3/1

2

31

37

31

0

14

17

17

0

17

20

14

NP

SPTTC

TC

TC

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

TC

TC

TC

TC

82.6

94.7

89.0

93.8

GYPSUM, white (7.5YR 9.5/1), very soft to very hard

LEAN CLAY with SAND, iron stains, red brown (5YR 4/3), very stiff

LEAN CLAY, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 2.5/3) with greenish gray (GLEY1 5/1), hard

SILTSTONE, red (2.5YR 4/6), cemented

SHALE, red (2.5YR 4/6), very soft to soft

Boring Completed 11/10/2011 and Grouted 11/11/2011Bulk samples collected 17.5 to 25 feet and 25 to 50 feet (lab results in Appendix B)

50/6"50/1.9"50/0.3"

50/0.4"50/0.1"

50/0.8"50/0.5"

19

36

43

2025

50/6"50/2.8"50/2"41/6"

50/3.5"

50/5.1"50/4.1"

50/3.1"50/2.5"

18

19

20

20



LOGGED BY JTU


HOLE SIZE 6 in


CHECKED BY KKB


0 hrs AFTER DRILLING None

Cave In Depth Open

DURING DRILLING None

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E ATTERBERGLIMITS

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50


BLO

WC

OU

NT

S

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)







GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

1105

8 LO

G.G

PJ

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

3/1

3/1

2

APPENDIX B

Tested By:Project #

Ordered By:

Bore Hole Depth Liquid LimitPlastic Index

% Moist.

- 200 Sieve

-80 Sieve

- 40 Sieve

-10 Sieve

-4 Sieve

-3/8' Sieve

-1/2" Sieve

-3/4" Sieve

-1" Sieve -1.5" Sieve

Sulfates (PPM)

B-1E 5' 48 23 27.1 87.5 91 94 100 100

B-1E 10' 45 22 26.6 85.5 92 96 100 100

B-1E 15' 42 20 26.0 87.8 94 98 100 100

B-1E 20' 37 20 21.5 91.8 96 98 100

B-1E 25' 32 17 21.1 90.4 94 97 100 100

B-2E 5' 33 18 21.6 71.4 80 90 98 100 100 >8000

B-2E 10' 36 19 23.5 83.7 92 94 98 98 99 99 100 >8000

B-2E 15' 34 17 20.0 94.8 98 99 100 100 >8000

B-2E 20' 43 20 27.2 85.5 92 96 98 100 100 >8000

B-2E 25' 42 20 25.0 91.4 96 98 100 >8000

B-2E 30' 44 19 25.0 86.8 93 98 100 100 >8000

B-3E 5' 37 18 19.7 81.8 87 91 98 100 100

B-3E 10' 36 18 27.9 90.1 97 98 99 100 100

B-3E 15' 34 16 23.1 90.6 97 100 100

B-3E 20' 40 17 25.8 94.7 99 100 100

B-3E 25' 40 17 28.1 92.9 98 99 100 100

B-3E 30' 39 19 28.3 95.3 99 100 100 100

B-5E 5' NV NP 19.4 43.0 63 85 100 >8000

B-5E 10' 30 15 24.5 75.8 84 89 100 >8000

B-5E 15' 28 13 34.7 88.7 98 99 100 100 >8000

B-5E 25' 40 23 34.4 96.2 99 100 100 >8000

B-5E 30' NV NP 18.7 7.3 17 62 99 100 100 1200

B-5E 35' NV NP 15.1 8.5 16 47 95 99 100 1267

B-5E 40' 19 8 20.3 53.2 78 85 88 98 99 100 1413

B-5E 45' 40 17 25.8 90.1 97 99 100 100 1307

B-5E 50' 39 20 21.1 90.8 95 97 100 >8000

B-5E 55' 41 18 25.2 86.8 94 98 100 >8000

Date Received: 11/14/2011 Report Date: 01/18/2012Project: US-64 over Red Horse Woods Co. J. Riggs ODOT #2311

SUMMARY SHEET

11058 Cobb # 09061.110Client: Red Rock Consulting, LLC K.Bumpas

Tested By:Project #

Ordered By:


% Moist.

- 200 Sieve

-80 Sieve

- 40 Sieve

-10 Sieve

-4 Sieve

-3/8' Sieve

-1/2" Sieve

-3/4" Sieve

-1" Sieve -1.5" Sieve

Sulfates (PPM)

B-6E 5' NV NP 2.2 4.8 10 35 90 96 99 100

B-6E 10' NV NP 13.7 10.5 19 33 78 91 96 98 100

B-6E 15' 34 17 33.6 90.2 98 99 100

B-6E 20' 35 19 31.6 96.4 99 99 100

B-6E 30' NV NP 25.0 78.6 98 100 100

B-6E 35' 21 3 24.4 73.9 98 100 100

B-6E 40' NV NP 19.1 64.8 96 99 99 100

B-6E 45' 21 7 18.7 55.7 74 78 83 91 93 97 100

B-6E 50' 43 18 27.7 88.7 96 99


SUMMARY SHEET


Tested By:Project #

Ordered By:


% Moist.

- 200 Sieve

-80 Sieve

- 40 Sieve

-10 Sieve

-4 Sieve

-3/8' Sieve

-1/2" Sieve

-3/4" Sieve

-1" Sieve

-1.5" Sieve

Sulfates (PPM)

B-4C 15' 42 24 32.0 89.5 92 95 99 100 >8000

B-4C 20' 39 20 21.4 90.6 92 94 99 100 >8000

B-4C 25' 29 13 17.8 96.3 100 100 100 2640

B-4C 30' NV NP 22.6 97.9 100 100 100 2000

B-4C 35' 40 23 18.3 99.2 100 100 100 2400

B-4C 40' 31 14 21.7 89.1 93 95 97 100 100 >8000

B-4C 45' 36 17 25.8 86.8 91 96 100 100 >8000

B-4C 50' 42 20 23.3 85.1 90 94 100 100 >8000

B-7C 10-15' 39 25 22.4 73.2 85 92 99 100 >8000

B-8C 20' 31 17 18.0 82.6 91 94 98 99 100 100 >8000

B-8C 25' 37 20 19.4 94.7 97 98 100 100 >8000

B-8C 30' 31 14 19.9 89.0 95 97 100 >8000

B-8C 35' NV NP 20.3 93.8 98 100 100 2080

B-4C 15-40' 30 15 24.3 92.2 95 97 99 100 >8000

B-7C 24-50' 26 11 17.6 93.2 97 98 100 >8000

B-8C 17.5-50' 33 17 18.6 88.5 94 96 99 100 >8000

B-8C 0-17.5' NV NP 9.1 28.7 43 60 100

B-7C 15' 28.1

SUMMARY SHEET



ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF COHESIVE SOILS

ASTM 02435

0.55 ~- -.

0.54

0 .53

0.52

0.51

0.50 , 0.49

0.48 , " 0.47 6 ~ 0.46 Q 045 o . > i 0.44

0.43

0.42

0.41

0.40

0.39

i 0.38

0.37 0.01 0 .1 1 10 100

PRESSURE, tsl

DIAMETER, mm I 63.65 I HEIGHT, mml 18.98 PROPERTY BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST OVERBURDEN PRESSURE, Isf 0.45 MOISTURE, % 17.6 16.8 PRECONSOL. PRESSURE, tsf 0.65 DRY DENSITY, pef 109.1 115.5 OVER CONSOLIDATION RATIO 1.4 SATURATION, % 87 105 COMPRESSION INDEX 0.91 VOID RATIO 0.545 0.423 REBOUND INDEX 0.014 SAMPLE TYPE UNDISTURBED

LIQUID LIMIT I I PLASTIC LIMIT I I PLASTICITY INDEX I I SPECIFIC GRAVITY I 2.7 ESTIMATED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION SANDY LEAN ClAY WITH PIECES OF SHALE , REDDISH BROWN

BORING No.1 8-2E I SAMPLE NO·1 I DE PTH, feet I 7.0

RED ROCK CONSULTING TESTED BY Project # 11058

03101097 APPROVED BY 12/6/2011

N:lProjltCls\201 0\031 01097\2011 PrOject Info\[03101 097 Consolidation B6E·22 O.x1s)(jDATA lrerraccn

PRESSURE, Cv50, tsf cm2/sec

0 O.OS 0 .2S S.70E-04

O.S 6.79E-04 1.22E-02

2 1.60E-03

4 2.19E-03

S 2.71 E-03

16 5.60E-03

AVERAGE 3.64E-03

RED ROCK CONSULTING Project #11058

03101097 12/6/2011

ADDITIONAL CONSOLIDATION DATA

B-2E

7.0

Cv90, 8:!.,. cm2/sec cm2/g

9.71E-OS S.73E-04 B.76E-OS 6.S3E-04 4 .31 E-OS 1.22E-02 3.67E-05 1.61E-03 2.S3E-OS 2.20E-03 1.20E-OS 2.72E-03 S.SOE-06 S.63E-03 3.2SE-06

3.66E-03 3.92E-OS

N"\Projects\2010\03101 097\2011 Projecl lnfo\f03101 097 Consolidation 86E-22 O,xlsx]DATA

~ ~ cm2/g em/sec

6.29E-05 S.69E-OS 3.24E-OS 2.S3E-OS 1.92E-OB 2.43E-OS 2.96E-07 nOE-OS 2 .71 E-OS S.19E-06 1.79E-OS S.SSE-06 1.S9E-OS 2.30E-06 1.29E-OB

2.S7E-OS 6.0 1E-OB

lrerracon

SIEVE DIAMETER, PASS,SIZE mm %

4" 100.0 1003.5" 90.0 1003" 75.0 100

2.5" 63.0 1002" 50.0 100

1.5" 37.5 1001" 25.0 100

3/4" 19.0 1001/2" 12.5 1003/8" 9.50 100#4 4.75 100#10 2.00 100#20 0.850 100#40 0.425 99#80 0.180 99#140 0.106 91#200 0.075 70.3

SAMPLE USCS NATID DESCRIPTION SYMBOL M% LL PL PI

PROJECT RED ROCK CONSULTIING

JOB NO. DATE

P:\RRC\Reports\2011\11058 US 64 over Red Horse Creek, Woods Co. (Embankment)\[03101097 200 Wash Plot B2E-7.0.xlsx]REPORT

03101097 1/20/2012

BORINGID

DEPTH,feet

CLB-2E 7 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND

REDDISH BROWN

ASTM D1140 / C117 #200 WASH SIEVE AND C136 SIEVE ANALYSIS

13

ATTERBERG LIMITS

34 21

USCS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PA

SS

ING

, %

PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm


ASTM 02435

1.02 .

1.01

1.00

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95

0.94

0.93

Ql 0.92

ci f= 0 .91 ~ 0.90 0 15 0 .89 >

0.88

0.87

0 .86

0.85

0.84

0.83

0.82

0.81

0.80

0.79 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PRESSURE, tsf

DIAMETER, mm I 63.45 I HEIGHT, mml 19.04 PROPERTY BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST OVERBURDEN PRESSURE, tsf 0.95 MOISTURE, % 32.4 35.3 PRECONSOL. PRESSURE, tsf 2.41 DRY DENSITY, pet 84.0 85.2

OVER CONSOLIDATION RATIO 2.6 SATURATION, % 87 103 COMPRESSION INDEX 0.22 VOID RATIO 1.008 0.885

REBOUND INDEX 0.036 SAMPLE TYPE UNDISTURBED

LIQUID LIMIT I I PLASTIC LIMIT I I PLASTICITY INDEX I I SPECIFIC GRAVITY I 2.7 ESTIMATED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FAT CLAY, REDDISH BROWN

BORING NO.1 B·3E I SAMP LE NOI I DEPTH, feet I 17.0

RED ROCK CONSULTING TESTED BY Project #11058

03101097 APPROVED BY 12/6/2011

N:\Projects\2Q10\0310 1097\2Q 11 Project Inro\[031 01097 Consolidation B6E-220.xlsx)DATA lrerracon

PRESSURE, Cv50, Isf cm2/sec

0

0.1

0.25 4.93E-03

0.5 1.64E-03

3.24E-03

2 3.4SE-03

4 6.4SE-03

B 4.27E-03

16 3.44E-03

AVERAGE 3.92E-03

RED ROCK CONSULTING PROJECT #11058

03101097 12/612011


8-3E

17.0

Cv90, ~ cm2/sec cm21g

2. 19E-OS

4.96E-03 3.l 0E-OS

1.6SE-03 2.30E-05

3.26E-03 2.S7E-OS

3.47E-03 2.22E-05

6.49E-03 1.B2E-05

4.29E-03 1.3SE-OS

3.46E-{)3 B.3BE-06

3.94E-{)3 2.0SE-OS

N:\ProJects\2Q10103101 097\2011 Projecllnfo\[03101097 Consolidallon 66E-22 0 x1sxjDATA

~ !5.. c m2/g em/sec

1.09E-OS

1.SSE-OS 7.63E-OB 1.1 SE-OS 1.BBE-OB 1.29E-05 4.1BE-OB 1.12E-OS 3.B6E-OB 9.2BE-06 S.99E-08

7.00E-06 2.99E-OB 4.4BE -{)6 1.S4E-OB

1.03E-OS 4.01 E-08

lrerracon


4" 100.0 1003.5" 90.0 1003" 75.0 100

2.5" 63.0 1002" 50.0 100

1.5" 37.5 1001" 25.0 100

3/4" 19.0 971/2" 12.5 953/8" 9.50 95#4 4.75 94#10 2.00 94#20 0.850 93#40 0.425 92#80 0.180 91#140 0.106 91#200 0.075 90.1



JOB NO. DATE


03101097 1/20/2012

BORINGID

DEPTH,feet

CLB-3E 17 LEAN CLAY

REDDISH BROWN


22

ATTERBERG LIMITS

49 27

USCS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PA

SS

ING

, %


ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF COHESIVE SOilS ASTM 02435

0.72 - - - - -0.71

0.70

0.69

0.68

0.67

0. 66

0.65

0.64

0.63

0.62 Q)

0" 0.61

~ 0.60 o 0.59

~ 0.58 0.57

0.56

0.55

0 .54

0 .53

0 .52

0.51

0.50

0 .49

0 .48 0.01 0. 1 1 10 100

PRESSURE, l sf

DIAMETER, mm I 63.64 I HEIGHT, mmJ 25.30 PROPERTY BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST OVERBU RDEN PRESSURE, tsf 0.73 MOISTURE, % 24.5 21.2

PRECONSOL. PRESSURE, tsf 2.1 1 DRY DENSITY, pef 98. 3 105.6 OVER CONSOLIDATION RATIO 2.9 SATURATION, % 93 100

COMPRESSION INDEX 0.19 VOID RATIO 0.715 0.560

REBOUND INDEX 0.021 SAMPLE TYPE UNDISTURBED

LIQU ID LIMIT I J PlASTIC LIMIT I I PLASTICITY INDEX I I SPECIFIC GRAVITY J 2.7 ESTIMATED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION SANDY LEAN CLAY, VERY DARK REDDISH BROWN

BORI NG NO. 1 B-5E I SAMPLE NO.1 DEPTH, feet I 12.0

RED ROCK CONSULTING TESTED BY Project #11058

03101097 APPROVED BY 12/6/2011

N:\Projeclsl2010\03101097\201 1 Project Info,",031 01097 Coosolldlltloo B6E·22 O.xlsxjOATA lrerracon

PRESSURE, Cv50, tsl cm2/sec

0 0.05 0.2S S.63E-Q3

O.S 5 .66E-Q3 1 9ASE-03

2 7.7SE-03 4 9.04E-03

B 1.09E-02 16 1.19E-02

AVERAGE B.B2E-03

RED ROCK CONSULTING

PROJECT #11056

03101097 12/6/2011


B-SE

12.0

Cv90, 8Y.. cm2lsec cm21g

B.09E-QS

S.66E-03 B.27E-Q5 S.69E-03 4.S7E-05 9.50E-03 3.31 E-QS 7.79E-03 2.60E-OS 9.09E-03 1.71E-QS

1.10E-02 1.17E-OS 1.20E-02 7.17E-06

B.67E-03 3.S0E-OS

N:\Projecls\2010\OJ101097\2011 Project /nfol(03101097 Consolldallon B6E-22 O.Jdsx]OATA

~ .!!. cm2/g em/sec

4.72E-OS 4.B3E-OS 2.72E-07 2.70E-QS 1.53E-07 1.96E-05 I .B6E-Q7 1.56E-05 1.21 E-07 1.04E-05 9AOE-OB 7.25E-06 7.90E-OS 4.S9E-06 SABE-OB

2.2SE-OS 1.37E-07

lren:acon


4" 100.0 1003.5" 90.0 1003" 75.0 100

2.5" 63.0 1002" 50.0 100

1.5" 37.5 1001" 25.0 100

3/4" 19.0 1001/2" 12.5 1003/8" 9.50 100#4 4.75 100#10 2.00 98#20 0.850 94#40 0.425 89#80 0.180 85#140 0.106 81#200 0.075 73.3



JOB NO. DATE



16

ATTERBERG LIMITS

31 15

USCS

03101097 1/20/2012

BORINGID

DEPTH,feet

CLB-5E 12 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND

VERY DARK REDDISH BROWN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PA

SS

ING

, %



ASTM 02435

r-r '-" -- -- I 0. 92

,

0.90

0 .88

0. 86 ,

0.84

0. 82 I

0.80

'" 0. 78

0 i= 0.76

i? o 0.74 (5

> 0.72 ~

0.70

068

0.66 ,

0.64

0.62 I

0.60 ,

0.58 0.01 0. 1 1 10 100

PRESS URE, tsf

DIAMETER, mm I 63.59 I HEIGHT, mml 25.36 PROPERTY BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST OVERBURDEN PRESSURE, Isf 1.29 MOISTURE , % 33.5 26.2 PRECONSOL. PRESSURE, Isf 2.56 DRY DENSITY, pef 87.9 97.9 OVER CONSOLIDATION RATIO 2.0 SATURATION, % 99 99 COMPRESSION INDEX 0.33 VOID RATIO 0.918 0.704 REBOUND INDEX 0.043 SAMPLE TYPE UNDISTURBED LIQUID LIMIT I I PLASTIC LIMIT I I PLASTICITY INDEX I I SPECIFIC GRAVITY I 2.7 ESTI MATED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, DARK REDDISH BROWN

BORING NO. 1 B-

PRESSURE, Cv50,

Isf cm2lsec

0 O.OS 0.2S 4.75E-04

O.S S.84E-04

1 7.09E-04

2 S,41E-04

4 4.20E-04

B 3.S7E-04

16 2.97E-04

AVERAG E 4.83E-04

RED ROCK CONSULTING

PROJECT #11058

03101097 12/6/2011


B-6E

22_0

Cv90, ~ cm2lsec cm2 /g

2.7SE-OS

4.78E-04 8.73E-OS

S.87E-04 S.89E-OS

7.13E-04 4.SSE-OS

S,44E-04 4.02E-OS

4.22E-04 2.73E-OS

3.S9E-04 1.93E-OS

2.99E-Q4 1.24E-OS

4.86E-04 3.9BE-OS

N:\Pro;ects\2010\0310 1097\2011 Project Info1,{03101097 Consolidation B6E-220.xlsxJOATA

MY. Js. cm2/g cmlsec

1A3E-OS 4.S6E-OS 2. 16E-08

3.10E-OS 1.81E-OB

2A2E-OS 1.71E-OB

2. 16E-OS 1.17E-OB

1.S0E-OS 6.2BE-09

1.09E-OS 3.B9E-Q9

7.30E-06 2.17E-09

2.12E-OS 1.16E-OB

lrerracon


4" 100.0 1003.5" 90.0 1003" 75.0 100

2.5" 63.0 1002" 50.0 100

1.5" 37.5 1001" 25.0 100

3/4" 19.0 1001/2" 12.5 1003/8" 9.50 100#4 4.75 97#10 2.00 94#20 0.850 87#40 0.425 76#80 0.180 65#140 0.106 63#200 0.075 60.7



JOB NO. DATE



8

ATTERBERG LIMITS

28 20

USCS

03101097 1/20/2012

BORINGID

DEPTH,feet

CLB-6E 22 SANDY LEAN CLAY

DARK REDDISH BROWN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PA

SS

ING

, %


APPENDIX C

B2E

uAAAAAAA ONE DIMENSIONAL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS/PROTOTYPE ENGINEERING INC. AAAAAAAL 3 USER DEFINED INCREMENT OF VERTICAL STRESS WITH DEPTH 3

3 project Name 3 project Number 3 Date

Red Horse creek Emb 11058

client project Manager computed by

Mehlburger-Brawley KKB

03/08/ 12 KKB

3 Foundation Elev. -30.00 (ft) 3 water table Elev. -32.50 (ft)

Ground surface Elev.= Unit weight of Wat . =

-30.00 (ft ) 62.40 (pcf)

LAYER COEFFICIENT UNIT SPECIFIC VOID 3 N§. TYPE THICK. COMPo RECOMP. SWELL. WEIGHT GRAVITY RATIO settlement

(ft) (pcf) (i n.)

1 COMPo 8.5 0.090 0.017 0.000 128.30 2 . 70 0.55 2.53 2 INCOMP. 1.5 115.00 3 COMP o 21. 0 0.113 0 . 035 0.000 111.20 2.70 1.01 0.00

Total Settlement = 2.53

SUB LAYER SOIL STRESSES N§. THICK. ELEV. INITIAL INCREMENT MAX. PAST PRESS. SETTLEMENT

(ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf ) (i n.)

1 8.50 - 34.25 436.08 451. 37 332.00 2.53 2 INCOMP. 3 21.00 -50.50 1307.45 -1. 02 6052.00 0.00

Total Settlement 2.53 (i n.)

3

3

AAAAAA Hit arrow keys to display next screen. print. Main Menu AAAAAu

page 1

B3E

UAAAAAAA ONE DIMENSIONAL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS / PROTOTYPE ENGINEERING INC. AAAAAAAL 3 USER DEFINED INCREMENT OF VERTICAL STRESS WITH DEPTH 3

3 project Name 3 proJect Number 3 Date

3 Foundation Elev. 3 Water table Elev.

LAYER

Red Horse Creek Emb 11058 03 / 08/ 12

-30.00 (ft) -35.00 (ft)

COEFFICIENT

Client project Manager Computed by

Mehlburger-Brawley KKB KKB

Ground surface Elev.= unit weight of Wat. =

UNIT SPECIFIC VOID

-30.00 (ft) 62.40 (pcf)

3 N§ . TYPE THICK. COMPo RECOMP. SWELL. WEIGHT GRAVITY RATIO settlement 3 (ft ) (pcf) (i n.)

1 COMPo 7.5 0.090 0.017 0.000 128.30 2.70 0.55 4.18 2 INCOMP . 2.0 115.00 3 COMPo 22 .0 0.113 0 .035 0.000 111. 20 2.70 1.01 0.01

Total Settlement = 4.19

SUB LAYER SOIL STRESSES N§ . THICK. ELEV. INITIAL INCREMENT MAX. PAST PRESS. SETTLEMENT

( ft) ( ft) (psf) (psf) ( psf) ( i n.)

1 7 . 50 -33.75 481.13 502.13 156.00 4.18 2 INCOMP. 3 22.00 -50.50 1448.25 9.69 6052.00 0.01

Total settlement 4 . 19 (i n.) 3

AAAAAA Hit arrow keys to display next screen. print. Main Menu AAAAAU

page 1

B5E

uAAAAAAA ONE DIMENSIONAL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS/ PROTOTYPE ENGINEERING INC. AAAAAAAL 3 USER DEFINED INCREMENT OF VERTICAL STRESS WITH DEPTH 3

3 project Name 3 project Number 3 Date

3 Foundation Elev . 3 Water table Elev .

LAYER

Red Horse creek Emb 11058 03/08/12

-30.00 (ft) -36.80 (ft)

COEFFICIENT

client project Manager computed by

Mehlburger-Brawley KKB KKB

Ground surface Elev.= unit weight of wat. =

UNIT SPECIFIC VOID

-30.00 (ft) 62.40 (pcf)

3 N§. TYPE THICK . (ft )

COMPo RECOMP. SWELL. WEIGHT GRAVITY RATIO Settlement 3

1 2 3

INCOMP. 6 . 0 9.0

15 .0 COMPo COMPo

0.l30 0.113

SUBLAYER N§. THICK . ELEV.

(ft ) (ft)

1 INCOMP . 2 9.00 -40.50 3 15.00 -52.50

0.023 0.035

INITIAL (psf )

919.47 1555.02

(pcf) (i n.)

100.00 0.000 122.30 2.70 0 . 72 0.02 0.000 111.20 2.70 1.01 0.00

Total settlement = 0.02

SOIL STRESSES INCREMENT MAX. PAST PRESS . SETTLEMENT

(psf) (psf) (i n.)

28.99 4040.00 0.02 -7.25 5480.00 0.00

Total settlement 0.02 ( i n.) 3

AAAAAA Hit arrow keys to display next screen. print. Main Menu AAAAAU

page 1

APPENDIX D

11058 US 64 over Red Horse Creek, Woods CoShort Term Analysis

Red Rock Consulting, LLC \11058 Slope Analysis.gsd

GLE (Spencer) Method

PLATE C.1

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 2401571

1601

1631

1661

1691

1721

1571

1601

1631

1661

1691

1721Soil Soil Moist Wt Sat Wt c Phi ru Pconst Piez SurfNo. Desc. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (psf) No. 1 Embankment Fil 123.6 126.9 575.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 Silt with Sand 100.0 115.3 0.0 22.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 Ln Clay w Sand 122.3 124.3 200.0 20.0 0.00 0.0 1 4 Lean Clay 111.2 115.3 500.0 15.5 0.00 0.0 1 5 PG Sand w Silt 110.0 119.4 0.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 6 Lean Clay 111.2 115.3 200.0 20.0 0.00 0.0 1 7 Shale 140.0 140.0 500.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 1

No. FS 1 1.904 2 1.921 3 1.932 4 1.934 5 1.947 6 1.956 7 1.963 8 1.964 9 1.96610 1.974

GEOSTASE FSmin = 1.904

6 2 8 9 3 1 10 5 4 7

B 1 S 2

B 2 S 1

B 3 S 1

B 4 S 3

B 5 S 4

B 6 S 5 B 7 S 6

B 8 S 7

*** GEOSTASE *** ** GEOSTASE (c)Copyright by Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D., P.E.,D.GE ** ** Current Version 4.10.0000, July 2011 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SOFTWARE Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic , Fiber-Reinforced , Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Date: 3/ 8/ 2012 Analysis Time: 10 :44 AM Analysis By: Red Rock Consulting, LLC Input File Name: P:\RRC\Reports\2011\11058 US 64 over Red Horse Creek, Woods Co. (Embankment)\11058 Slope Analysis.gsd Output File Name: P:\RRC\Reports\2011\11058 US 64 over Red Horse Creek, Woods Co. (Embankment)\11058 Slope Analysis.OUT Unit System: English PROJECT: 11058 US 64 over Red Horse Creek, Woods Co DESCRIPTION: Short Term Analysis BOUNDARY DATA 3 Surface Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries Boundary X - 1 Y - 1 X - 2 Y - 2 Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 1636.00 50.00 1636.00 2 2 50.00 1636.00 138.00 1659.00 1 3 138.00 1659.00 198.00 1659.00 1 4 0.00 1630.00 198.00 1630.00 3 5 0.00 1621.00 198.00 1621.00 4 6 0.00 1606.00 198.00 1606.00 5 7 0.00 1599.50 198.00 1599.50 6 8 0.00 1580.00 198.00 1580.00 7 User Specified Y-Origin = 1571.00(ft) Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft) Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)

BASIC SOIL PARAMETERS 7 Type(s) of Soil Defined Soil Number Moist Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Water and Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface Option Description (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ratio(ru) (psf) No. 1 Embankment Fil 123.6 126.9 575.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 0 2 Silt with Sand 100.0 115.3 0.0 22.0 0.00 0.0 1 0 3 Ln Clay w Sand 122.3 124.3 200.0 20.0 0.00 0.0 1 0 4 Lean Clay 111.2 115.3 500.0 15.5 0.00 0.0 1 0 5 PG Sand w Silt 110.0 119.4 0.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 0 6 Lean Clay 111.2 115.3 200.0 20.0 0.00 0.0 1 0 7 Shale 140.0 140.0 500.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 1 0 WATER SURFACE DATA 1 Water Surface(s) Defined Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 Specified by 5 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 1636.00 2 50.00 1636.00 3 90.00 1646.60 4 138.00 1653.50 5 198.00 1653.50 WATER SURFACE DATA HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE DATA Circular Trial Failure Surfaces Have Been Generated Using A Random Procedure. 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 1000 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 50.00(ft) and X = 50.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 138.00(ft) and X = 198.00(ft) Unless Limit Lines Were Specified, The Minimum Elevation To Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 1580.00(ft) 3.00(ft) Line Segments Were Used For Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -45.0 And -1.0 deg. FS CALCULATION DATA The Ten Most Critical Trial Failure Surfaces Of Those Analyzed Are Presented Below Beginning With The Lowest FS. The GLE (Spencer) Method (0-1) Was Selected for FS Analysis.

Selected fx function = Constant (1.0) SELECTED CONVERGENCE PARAMETERS FOR GLE METHOD: Initial estimate of FS = 0.000 (A value of zero indicates initial FS value for GLE Method was calculated by Bishop or Janbu Method.) FS tolerance = 0.00100 Initial estimate of theta(deg) = 7.00 Theta tolerance(radians) = 0.00100 Minimum theta(deg) = 0.00 ; Maximum theta(deg) = 90.00 Theta convergence Step Factor = 100.00 Maximum number of iterations = 20 Selected Lambda Coefficient = 1.00 Forces from Reinforcement, Piers/Piles, Soil Nails, and Applied Forces (if applicable) have been applied to the slice base(s) on which they intersect. Specified Tension Crack Water Force Factor = 0.000 Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 1000 Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 1000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 4.199 FS Min = 1.904 FS Ave = 2.762 Standard Deviation = 0.394 Coefficient of Variation = 14.26 % ((FS for Modified Bishop Critical Surface = 1.904)) Critical Surface is Sequence Number 316 of Those Analyzed. Theta FS FS (deg) (Moment) (Force) (fx=1.0) (Equil.) (Equil.) Lambda 7.00 1.932 1.899 0.123 9.31 1.788 1.921 0.164 7.45 1.906 1.904 0.131 7.51 1.903 1.904 0.132 7.49 1.904 1.904 0.132 Failure Surface No. 1 is Defined By 40 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.000 1636.000 2 52.848 1635.058 3 55.722 1634.197 4 58.619 1633.417 5 61.537 1632.720 6 64.473 1632.105 7 67.426 1631.574 8 70.392 1631.126 9 73.370 1630.762 10 76.357 1630.482 11 79.350 1630.287 12 82.348 1630.177 13 85.348 1630.151 14 88.348 1630.210 15 91.344 1630.354 16 94.336 1630.582

17 97.319 1630.895 18 100.293 1631.292 19 103.254 1631.773 20 106.201 1632.337 21 109.130 1632.984 22 112.040 1633.714 23 114.928 1634.526 24 117.792 1635.419 25 120.630 1636.392 26 123.439 1637.446 27 126.217 1638.578 28 128.962 1639.788 29 131.671 1641.075 30 134.344 1642.439 31 136.976 1643.877 32 139.568 1645.389 33 142.115 1646.974 34 144.616 1648.630 35 147.070 1650.356 36 149.474 1652.151 37 151.826 1654.013 38 154.125 1655.941 39 156.368 1657.932 40 157.504 1659.000 Circle Center At X = 84.756(ft) ; Y = 1736.289(ft) ; and Radius = 106.141(ft) *** FS = 1.904 Theta (fx = 1.0) = 7.49 *** Lambda = 0.132 Force data on the 40 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 2.85 296.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2.87 885.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 2.90 1456.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2.92 2007.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 2.94 2535.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 2.95 3039.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 2.97 3517.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 2.98 3965.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 2.99 4384.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 2.99 4771.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 3.00 5125.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 3.00 5444.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 3.00 5727.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 3.00 5975.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 2.99 6185.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 2.98 6357.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 2.97 6491.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 2.96 6587.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 2.95 6645.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 2.93 6666.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 2.91 6648.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 2.89 6594.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 2.86 6503.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 2.84 6377.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 2.81 6217.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 2.78 6024.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 2.75 5800.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 2.71 5546.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0

29 2.67 5264.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 2.63 4956.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 1.02 1858.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 1.57 2725.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 2.55 4035

april 21, 2005 · 2018. 8. 9. · • moisture content, aashto t265 • soluble sulfate content,...

Documents