geotechnical engineering report cut sections state … · 2018. 8. 9. · q nfelder ~bright...

TUL13R0330 Page i of iii Copyright 2013 Kleinfelder

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CUT SECTIONS STATE HIGHWAY 32 FROM STATE HIGHWAY 96 TO INTERSTATE 35 STATE J/P NO. 10147(04) LOVE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

March 27, 2013 Project No. 129724-3

This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational, and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a “fair use” and not a violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received.

Q NFELDER ~Bright People. Right Solutions.

March 27, 2013

Mr. Don Steel, P.E. Cobb Engineering Company, Inc. 6940 South Utica Avenue Tulsa, OK 7 4136

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Cut Section on State Highway 32 from State Highway 96 to Interstate 35 State J/P No. 10147(04); 10147(05) Love County, Oklahoma Project No.: 129724-3

Dear Mr. Steel:

Kleinfelder has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above referenced project. The purpose of the geotechnical study was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the proposed cut section sites, as well as develop geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the proposed project. The attached Kleinfelder report contains a description of the findings of our field exploration and laboratory testing program, our engineering interpretation of the results with respect to the project characteristics and construction guidelines for the planned project.

Recommendations provided herein are contingent on the provisions outlined in the ADDITIONAL SERVICES and LIMITATIONS sections of this report. The project Owner should become familiar with these provisions in order to assess further involvement by Kleinfelder and other potential impacts to the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and are prepared to provide the recommended additional services. Please call us if you have any questions concerning this report.

Sincerely, KLEINFELDER CENTRAL, INC. Certificate of Authorization #3036, Expires 06/30113

Simon Wang, EIT Professional

SYW/HML:wt Attachments:

TUL13R0330 Copyright 2013 Kleinfelder

Page ii of iv

Interchange Business Park, 10835 East Independence, Suite 102, Tulsa, OK 74116-5680 p I 918.627.6161 f I 918.627.6262

TUL13R0330 Page iii of iv March 27, 2013 Copyright 2013 Kleinfelder

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................. 1

2. SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 3 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 3 2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................... 3 2.3 GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY ...................................................................... 4 2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS ........................................................ 5

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 7 3.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................. 7 3.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing .................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Excavation ....................................................................................... 8

3.3 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 8 3.4 STRUCTURAL FILL .................................................................................. 8

3.4.1 Materials .......................................................................................... 8 3.4.2 On-Site Soils ................................................................................... 8 3.4.3 On-Site Rock ................................................................................... 9 3.4.4 Compaction Criteria ......................................................................... 9

3.5 EXCAVATIONS ......................................................................................... 9 3.5.1 Excavations and Rippability ............................................................. 9 3.5.2 Temporary Excavation Slopes ....................................................... 10 3.5.3 Permanent Rock Slopes ................................................................ 11 3.5.4 Construction Considerations ......................................................... 11

4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES ................................................................................... 12 4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW .............................................. 12 4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ................................ 12

5. LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 13

TUL13R0330 Page iv of iv March 27, 2013 Copyright 2013 Kleinfelder

PLATES 1 Site Location Map 2 Boring Location Diagram 3-4 Plan and Profile View 5-7 Cross Sections Plans

APPENDICES

A Field Exploration Program B Laboratory Testing Program C ASFE Document

TUL13R0330 Page 1 of 13 March 27, 2013 Copyright 2013 Kleinfelder

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CUT SECTION

STATE HIGHWAY 32 FROM STATE HIGHWAY 96 TO INTERSTATE 35

STATE J/P No. 10147(04); 10147(05) LOVE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Kleinfelder has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical

engineering evaluation for the proposed cut section associated with the proposed

improvements on State Highway 32 from State Highway 96 to Interstate 35 in Love County,

Oklahoma. The services provided were in general accordance with our proposal

TUL10P189-REV5 dated August 3, 2012. This report includes our recommendations related

to the geotechnical aspects of the cut section design and construction. Conclusions and

recommendations presented in the report are based on the subsurface information

encountered at the location of our exploration and the provision and requirements outlined in

the ADDITIONAL SERVICES and LIMITATIONS sections of this report. In addition, an article

prepared by The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (ASFE),

Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, has been included in

APPENDIX C. We recommend that all individuals read the report limitations along with the

included ASFE document.

1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

We understand that the proposed project will consist of reconstructing/improving State

Highway 32 from the junction with State Highway 96 to the junction with Interstate 35 in Love

County, Oklahoma. The general location of the site is shown on Plate 1, Site Location

Diagram.


Two sections are included in this project:

(i) West Project (J/P 10147(04)): Begins approximately 0.43 miles west of State Highway 96

(Station 506+00) and extends east approximate 4.3 miles to Station 733+00 and ties into the

existing bridge over Rock Creek.

(ii) East Project (J/P 10147(05)): Begins at the east end of the Rock Creek Bridge (Station

768+00), and extends east approximately 3.84 miles to the existing divided section near the

Interstate 35 ramps (Station 970+90).

Based on the provided information the proposed roadway improvements will include: pavement

widening, mill/overlay, full pavement reconstruction, and new roadway alignments. The new

roadway alignment is mainly on the west project, and will include both cut and embankment

sections. The embankment study will be addressed in a separate report. Mr. Jeff Dean of

ODOT (Oklahoma Department of Transportation) requested exploratory borings be drilled at

four proposed cut slope locations as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Boring Locations and Depths

Station Offset Maximum Depth of Cut (ft)

614+00 Approx. 50’ Rt. Of CRL 15



640+00 On CRL 10

The locations of these borings are shown on Plate 2, Boring Location Diagram. The cross

sections of these stations are shown on Plate 5 to 7, Cross Section Plan.

The scope of the exploration and engineering evaluation for this study, as well as the

conclusions and recommendations in this report, were based on our understanding of the

project as described above. If pertinent details of the project have changed or otherwise

differ from our descriptions, we must be notified and engaged to review the changes and

modify our recommendations, if needed. As directed by Mr. Jeff Dean, slope stability of the

proposed cut section is not included in Kleinfelder’s scope of the work of the project.


2. SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The project is located along State Highway 32 from the junction with State Highway 96 to the

junction with Interstate 35 in Love County, Oklahoma. The general location of the site is

shown in Plate 1, Site Location Diagram. The project extents are discussed in Section 1.2 of

this report. The existing roadway alignment transitions between areas that have been

constructed on embankments, at-grade or in cut sections. Except for that portion of the

roadway that has recently been reconstructed in the vicinity of Rock Creek, existing State

Highway 32 is a two-lane asphaltic concrete highway with narrow paved and grass covered

shoulders. Trees were noted in some areas within the existing right of way. Existing utilities

are noted within the current right-of-way, include phone lines, water lines, overhead power

lines, and fiber optic lines. Additional utilities should be anticipated within the proposed

construction area.

2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Kleinfelder explored the subsurface conditions at the site by performing four (4) borings (C-1

to C-4) at approximate Station 614+00, 615+00, 617+00, and 640+00 between January 3 and

January 5, 2013. The approximate boring locations are shown on Plate 2, Boring Location

Diagram.

The field exploration and laboratory testing programs are presented in APPENDIX A and

APPENDIX B, respectively. The following presents a general summary of the major strata

encountered during our subsurface exploration and includes a discussion of the results of the

field and laboratory tests conducted. Specific subsurface conditions encountered at the

boring location are presented on the respective boring log in APPENDIX A. The stratification

lines shown on the log represent the approximate boundaries between material types; in-situ,

the transitions may vary or be gradual.

The borings were performed at the top of the existing grade, located on the south side of the

existing State Highway 32. Approximately 2 to 6 inches of topsoil was encountered at the

ground surface in Borings C-1 to C-4. Native soils consisting of gravel with varying amounts

of clay and cobbles were encountered below the topsoil and continued to an approximate


depths ranging from 0.5 feet to 2 feet below the existing ground surface (approximate

elevation ranging from 883.4 feet to 866.5 feet). The color of the overburden encountered in

the boring was generally dark brown. Atterberg limits test performed on selected soil sample

from Boring C-2 indicated liquid limit (LL) value of 17, plastic limit (PL) value of 16, and

plasticity index (PI) value of 1. No. 200 Sieve Analysis test indicated that the fines content of

the soil was approximately 6.7 percent and No. 4 Sieve Analysis tests indicated that the

gravel content of the soil was approximately 34 percent. The moisture content of the

samples ranged from approximately 2 to 18 percent. A more detailed discussion about the

laboratory testing program is presented in APPENDIX B.

Limestone and Shale bedrock interbedded with Sandstone seams were encountered below

the native soils at an approximate depths ranging from 0.5 to 2 feet below the existing ground

surface (approximate elevation ranging from 883.4 to 866.5 feet) and continued to the bottom

of the boring at an approximate depth of 20 to 26.4 feet below the existing ground surface

(approximate elevation ranges from 860.4 to 847.5 feet). The limestone bedrock was weak

to medium strong, fine grained and had gray and light gray color. The limestone bedrock is

also intensely to moderately fracture, with RQD (Rock Quality Designation) ranging from 10

to 100 percent. The shale bedrock was generally weathered, extremely weak and had a tan

mixed with brown color. The sandstone was generally weathered, very weak, and had a tan

and light gray color.

2.3 GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY

According to the "Engineering Classification of Geologic Materials – Division Seven" from the

Oklahoma Highway Department, 1970, the site appears to be located within the

Fredericksburg Unit (Kf) and Paluxy Unit (Kpy).

Fredericksburg (Kf): This unit consists of limestone and clay shale of near equal

proportions. The base of the unit consists of a prominent thin-bedded to massive, light gray

fossiliferous limestone commonly called the Goodland limestone. This limestone is generally

about 24 feet thick. It is locally underlain by brown clay up to 3 feet thick.

The upper portion of the Fredericksburg Unit consists of dark brown to blue-gray, marly clays

and shales. This portion is commonly called the Kiamichi clays and it comprises a thickness

of about 30 feet. The total thickness of the unit is about 60 feet.


In Division 7, the unit outcrops in a narrow band which is horseshoe shaped and distinctively

marks the Marietta Syncline portion of the Marietta Basin in Love County.

Topographically, the limestone at the base of the unit generally caps a scarp some 75 to 100

feet above the topography of the underlying Paluxy Unit. The upper clays and shale are

generally obscured by weathering and slumping. The clays form prairie slopes in a narrow

band, commonly less than one-half miles wide paralleling the Goodland Limestone. The

contact with the overlying Washita Unit is nearly indistinguishable.

Paluxy Unit (Kpy): This unit consists dominantly of sandstone with some interbedded clay

shale and conglomerate. The sandstones are mostly soft, loosely cemented, and generally

vary from yellow to maroon in color. The weathered sandstones are often referred to as

“packsand.” The conglomerates are confined to the lower part of the unit.

The total thickness of the Paluxy Unit varies from 200 to 600 feet with a general thickening

southward.

The unit outcrops in Division 7 in an irregular band 5 to 15 miles wide across southern Carter

County and Love County. The unit rests on the highly folded beds of the Ardmore Basin and

Criner Hills Uplift. It also rests upon the more gently folded “redbeds” of the Marietta Basin.

Topographically, the unit generally forms rolling hills with many deep gullies common.

Numerous oak trees generally cover the unit, but extensive areas have been cleared for

ranching and farming.

2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater observations were made prior to rock coring operation. No groundwater

seepage was observed prior to the rock coring operations. Introduction of water as drilling

fluid was required during the rock coring, which limited further observation of groundwater

conditions in the Borings at completion of drilling operations. Therefore, no groundwater

measurement after the boring was completed.

The materials encountered in the test borings have a wide range of permeabilities and

observations over an extended period of time through use of piezometers or cased borings


would be required to better define groundwater conditions. Fluctuations of groundwater levels

can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not

evident at the time the borings were performed. The possibility of groundwater level

fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the

project.


3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 GENERAL

Based on the results of our evaluation, it is our professional opinion that the proposed

bedrock slope will be easy to rip in the shale and sandstone, but potentially easy to

extremely difficult to rip in the limestone. Pneumatic breakers or blasting may be

required during construction. Recommendations regarding geotechnical aspects of the

project design and construction are presented below.

The recommendations submitted herein are based, in part, upon data obtained from our

subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of subsurface variations that may exist at the

proposed project site will not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident,

then the recommendations presented in this report should be evaluated. In the event that

any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed project are planned, the

conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless

the changes are reviewed and our recommendations modified in writing.

3.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT

3.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing

Clearing and grubbing should be performed in accordance with the more stringent of the

procedures outlined in this section or as specified by the Oklahoma Department of

Transportation (ODOT) “Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2009)”, Section

201. We recommend that all unsuitable materials be removed from the site prior to placement

of structural fill. We recommend that qualified engineering personnel monitor the stripping

operations to observe that all unsuitable materials have been removed. Soils removed during

stripping operations could be wasted outside of the project site. Care should be exercised to

separate these materials to avoid incorporation of the organic matter in structural fill sections.

Any required tree removal should also be accomplished at this time. Care should be taken to

thoroughly remove all root systems from the proposed construction area. Materials disturbed

during removal of stumps should be undercut and replaced with structural fill. A zone of

desiccated soils may exist in the vicinity of the trees. The desiccated soils have a higher swell

potential and should also be undercut and replaced with structural fill.


3.2.2 Excavation

Excavation construction procedures should be performed in accordance with the more

stringent of the procedures as outlined in this section or as specified by the Oklahoma

Department of Transportation (ODOT) “Standard Specifications for Highway Construction

(2009)”, Section 202. Detailed recommendations for excavation in the existing slope are

presented in “Section 3.5 EXCAVATIONS” of this report.

3.3 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Weather conditions will influence the site preparation required. In spring and late fall,

following periods of rainfall, the moisture content of the near surface soils may be significantly

above the optimum moisture content. These conditions could seriously impede grading by

causing an unstable subgrade condition. Typical remedial measures include aerating the wet

subgrade, removal of the wet materials and replacing them with dry materials, or treating the

material with cement kiln dust or Class “C” fly ash.

If site grading commences during summer months, moisture contents may be low and higher

plasticity clay soils could have a high swell potential. Typically discing and moisture

conditioning of the exposed subgrade materials to the moisture content criteria outlined in the

STRUCTURAL FILL section will reduce this swell potential of the dry materials. As an

alternative, the dry materials could be undercut and replaced with structural fill.

3.4 STRUCTURAL FILL

3.4.1 Materials

For the upper 2 feet below the pavement subgrade, fill required to achieve design grades

should consist of approved materials, free of organic matter and debris, and have a maximum

particle size of 3 inches. All general fill are defined as those soils classified by ASTM D 2487

as CL, CH, GW, GP, GC, SM, SW, SC and SP. Unsuitable materials are defined as those

soils classified by ASTM D 2487 as GM, MH, ML, OL, OH, and PT. Materials encountered

that are free of debris or topsoil would be suitable for use as structural fill or backfill.

3.4.2 On-Site Soils

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, it appears that the onsite soils

limited for use as structural fill. Additional testing and observation of these soils is

recommended at the time of construction to further evaluate the suitability of these soils for


use as structural fill. Soils used as structural fill should be free of organics and any other

deleterious materials.

3.4.3 On-Site Rock

Embankment sections are expected within the proposed new alignment and the embankment

study will be included in a separate report. No slake durability test was performed on the

rock core samples. However, it is expected that the limestone bedrock is suitable to be used

for rock fill materials. The shale and sandstone are expected to be suitable for fill materials at

the core of the embankment where surface water is present. However, these materials

should be broken and used as select borrow in accordance with ODOT “Standard

Specifications for Highway Construction (2009)”, Section 705.

3.4.4 Compaction Criteria

Earth fill should be placed in lifts having a maximum loose lift thickness of 8 inches. All fill

should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density as

determined by AASHTO T99 (standard Proctor compaction). The moisture content of the fill

at time of compaction should be within percent points of the optimum moisture content as

determined by AASHTO T99 method. The Resident Engineer may adjust the moisture

content range for earth fill compaction to address unusual conditions and constructability.

3.5 EXCAVATIONS

3.5.1 Excavations and Rippability

It is anticipated that excavations at the site will be in the native soils and bedrock. Typical

temporary dewatering techniques are anticipated to be sufficient to remove water seepage

that may be encountered in shallow excavations.

Excavation of the native soils should be possible with appropriately sized conventional

equipment such as backhoes, loaders, etc. A seismic refraction survey to determine the

rippability of the bedrock was not performed as part of this study. Rippability of the bedrock

was estimated based on the results of point load tests and unconfined compression tests,

and the fracture/discontinuity spacing of the bedrock cores based on the “Excavatability

Assessment Chart” published by “Pettifer and Fookes, 1994”. The Discontinuity Spacing

Index, If, Point Load Index, Is(50), and excavatability for each of the rock formation encountered

and rock core point load test results are presented in Tables 2.


Table 2. Rippability/Excavability of Bedrock(1)

Borings Materials Depths (ft) Elevation (ft) Rippability/Excavability

B-1 Limestone 0.8-8.5 883.3-875.6 Easy ripping to hard

ripping

Shale 8.5-14.5 875.6-869.6 Hard digging(2)

Sandstone 14.5-26.4 869.6-857.7 Hard digging to easy

ripping(2)

B-2 Limestone 0.5-8.6 879.5-871.4 Easy ripping

Shale 8.6-23.0 871.4-857.0 Easy ripping

Limestone 23.0-25.0 857.0-855.0 Easy ripping

B-3 Limestone 2.0-18.0 883.4-867.4 Hard ripping to

extreme hard ripping

or hydraulic breaking

Shale 18.0-25.0 867.4-860.4 Hard digging

B-4 Limestone 1.0-20.0 866.5-847.5 Very hard ripping (1) Based on Excavatability Assessment Chart, Pettifer and Fookers, 1994 (2) No laboratory test results, estimated based on local experience with similar geological materials

Based on the results presented in Table 2, and “Excavatability Assessment Chart” (Pettifer

and Fookes, 1994), the sandstone and shale bedrock encountered in the borings are

expected to be rippable. The limestone bedrock is relatively harder to excavate and hydraulic

breaker or even blasting should be planned. Pictures of the rock cores are presented in

APPENDIX A.

3.5.2 Temporary Excavation Slopes

Temporary excavations should be cut to a stable slope or be temporarily braced, depending

on the excavation depths and the subsurface conditions encountered. Temporary

construction slopes should be designed in strict compliance with the most recent

governing regulations. The contractor should also be aware that slope height, slope

inclination or excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) should in no case

exceed those specified in local, state and/or federal safety regulations, such as OSHA Health

and Safety Standard for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations.


Construction slopes should be closely observed for signs of mass movement: tension cracks

at the crest, bulging at the toe, etc. If potential stability problems are observed, a

geotechnical engineer should be contacted immediately. The responsibility for excavation

safety and stability of temporary construction slopes lie solely with the contractor.

Shoring, bracing or underpinning, may be required to provide structural stability and to protect

personnel working within the excavation.

3.5.3 Permanent Rock Slopes

The slope stability of the proposed cut sections is beyond the scope of this project. However,

in the area where the limestone bedrock requires pneumatic breaker or blasting, a steeper

slope inclination may be feasible but a slope stability analysis should be performed.

3.5.4 Construction Considerations

Stockpiles should be placed well away from the edge of the excavation and their height

should be controlled so they do not surcharge the sides of the excavation. Surface drainage

should be carefully controlled to prevent flow of water into the excavations. It is also

recommended that permanent slopes be vegetated, as soon as practical, in order to minimize

the potential for erosion.


4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES

4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW

We recommend that Kleinfelder conduct a general review of the final plans and specifications

to evaluate that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented

during design. In the event Kleinfelder is not retained to perform this recommended review,

we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.

4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

We recommend that earthwork be monitored by a representative from Kleinfelder, including

site preparation and placement of all engineered fill. The purpose of these services would be

to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions encountered

during construction, evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this

report to the subsurface conditions encountered, and recommend appropriate changes in

design or construction procedures if conditions differ from those described herein.


5. LIMITATIONS

Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and

subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed

construction. It is possible that subsurface conditions could vary between or beyond the

points explored. If subsurface conditions are encountered during construction that differ from

those described herein, we should be notified immediately in order that a review may be

made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed

construction, including the proposed loads or structural locations, changes from that

described in this report, our recommendations should also be reviewed.

We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted

geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No

warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations provided in this report are based on

the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by

Kleinfelder during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with our

recommendations. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment

or exploration for the presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water,

groundwater or air, on, below or around this site.

This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a

reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than three years from the date of

report. Land use, site conditions (both on-site and off-site), regulations, or other factors may

change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party

other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended

use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be

performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these

requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting

from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and client agrees to defend, indemnify

and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized or

non-compliance.

TUL13R0330 March 27, 2013 Copyright 2013 Kleinfelder

PLATES

PLATE 1. SITE VICINITY MAP PLATE 2. BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

PLATE 3-4. PLAN AND PROFILE VIEW PLATE 5-7. CROSS SECTIONS PLAN

PROJECT NO. 129724-3

Source: ESRI DRAWN: 1/21/2013

DRAWN BY: WLT

CHECKED BY: SYW

FILE NAME:

SITE LOCATION DIAGRAMPLATE

1SH-32 FROM SH-96 TO I-35 CUT SECTION

STATE J/P NO. 10147(04)

LOVE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA129724-3

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations of warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor it is designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the soile risk of the party using or misusing

TULSA, OKLAHOMA

End West

Project

SH-9

6

Begin West

Project

NORTH

Begin East

Project

End East

Project


Source: ESRI DRAWN: 1/21/2013

DRAWN BY: WLT

CHECKED BY: SYW

FILE NAME:2

BORING LOCATION DIAGRAMPLATE

129724-3

SH-32 FROM SH-96 TO I-35

CUT SECTION

STATE J/P NO. 10147(04)

LOVE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA


TULSA, OKLAHOMA

NORTH

SH-32

Ind

ian

Me

rid

ian

Ro

ad


DRAWN: 3/21/2013

DRAWN BY: WLT

CHECKED BY: SYW

FILE NAME:

Source: Cobb Engineering PLAN AND PROFILE

PLATE


STATE J/P NO. 10147(04)



TULSA, OKLAHOMA


DRAWN: 3/21/2013

DRAWN BY: WLT

CHECKED BY: SYW

FILE NAME:

Source: Cobb Engineering CROSS SECTION PLAN

PLATE


STATE J/P NO. 10147(04)



TULSA, OKLAHOMA


DRAWN: 3/21/2013

DRAWN BY: WLT

CHECKED BY: SYW

FILE NAME:


PLATE


STATE J/P NO. 10147(04)



TULSA, OKLAHOMA


APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM


APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

DRILLING & SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Kleinfelder conducted the field work for this study between January 3 and January 5, 2013.

The exploration consisted of four (4) borings performed near the location indicated on the

Boring Location Diagram, Plate 2. The boring was terminated at approximate depth ranging

from 20 to 26.4 feet below existing ground surface (approximate elevation ranges from 860.4

to 847.5 feet). Boring locations were established in the field by representatives of Kleinfelder.

A measuring tape was used to measure distances from the existing State Highway 32. Right

angles were estimated. Approximate elevations at the boring locations were determined

through use of an engineer's level. The elevations at the borings C-1 to C-3 were referenced

to the existing Benchmark #25, ODOT Brass Cap, located at Station 621+84.15, 44.80 feet Lt

of centerline of survey with an elevation of 880.42 feet. The elevations at the boring C-4

were referenced to the existing Benchmark #30, “X” on NE Cor. N. HDWL X-Drain, located at

Station 637+43.16, 36.40 feet Lt of centerline of survey with an elevation of 863.28 feet.

Locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree

implied by the methods used. The following table lists the approximate boring locations and

the respective ground surface elevations.

Approximate Boring Locations and Ground Surface Elevations

Boring No. Ground Elevation*,

Feet

Approximate Location

Station Offset from CRL

C-1 884.1 614+00 80’ RT

C-2 880.0 615+00 67’ RT

C-3 885.4 616+84 40’ RT

C-4 867.5 640+00 On CRL

* Elevations based on site datum.

Borings: The drilled borings were performed with a truck-mounted (CME 550X) rotary drill rig

using a combination of solid stem augers and rock coring techniques. Samples were

obtained by performing a standard penetration test (SPT) using a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel


sampler. The SPT and split-barrel sampling were conducted in general accordance with

ASTM D 1586 (ASTM D 1586, Standard Test Method for Penetration and Split-Barrel

Sampling of Soils). The split-barrel sampler is driven into the bottom of the boring over an

18-inch sampling interval by a 140-pound hammer (with efficiency of 78.3%) that is dropped a

distance of 30 inches. A CME automatic hammer was utilized to advance the split-barrel

sampler. The SPT N-value, recorded on the boring log, is the number of blows required to

drive the split-barrel sampler the final 12 inches of the 18-inch sampling interval. The

samples were sealed and returned to our laboratory for further examination, classification and

testing.

Bedrock was cored using NQ-diamond bit coring procedures. This diameter core barrel

provides a sample having an approximate diameter of 2 inches. Description of the rock core

is presented on the boring log in addition to recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) for

the core recovered. Recovery is defined as the length of core obtained expressed as a

percentage of the total length cored. Rock Quality Designation is defined as the total length

of core pieces, 4 inches or greater in length, expressed as a percentage of the total length

cored. Rock Quality Designation provides an indication of the integrity of the rock mass and

relative extent of seams and bedding planes.

Boring logs included in this APPENDIX, present such data as soil and bedrock descriptions,

consistency, relative density and relative hardness evaluations, depths, sampling intervals

and observed groundwater conditions. Conditions encountered in the boring were monitored

and recorded by the drill crew. Field log included visual classification of the materials

encountered during drilling, as well as drilling characteristics. Our final boring log represents

the engineer’s interpretation of the field log combined with laboratory observation and testing

of the samples. Stratification boundaries indicated on the boring log were based on

observations during our field work, an extrapolation of information obtained by examining

samples from the boring and comparisons of soils with similar engineering characteristics.

Locations of these boundaries are approximate, and the transitions between material types

may be gradual rather than clearly defined.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

3 in.13in.

51in.

52in.

NR

16in.

NR

NR

12in.

SM 17.7 94 20 NV NP

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: Groundwater was not encountered prior to coring.GENERAL NOTES:**Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visualobservation of core samples. Petrographic analysis of thin sectionsof the core samples may reveal other rock types.The exploration location and elevation are approximate and wereestimated by Kleinfelder.

883.3Clayey GRAVEL (GC): brown anddark brown

LIMESTONE: light gray, fine-grained, highly tomoderately fractured, strong

SHALE: brown and tan, fine-grained, highlyweathered, moderately fractured, extremelyweak

SANDSTONE: tan and light gray, highlyweathered, thinly bedded limestone, very weak

The exploration was terminated atapproximately 26.4 ft. below ground surface.The exploration was backfilled with bentonite onJanuary 03, 2013.

Unc. Comp. Str.= 8750psiUnc. Comp. Str.= 14010psi

BC=50/4.0"RQD=28

RQD=37

RQD=80

RQD=0

BC=5450/4.0"

RQD=0

RQD=0

BC=291050/5.0"

PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

BORING LOG C-1

1 of 1

BORING LOG C-1

PLATE

C-1

LABORATORY RESULTS

App

roxi

mat

eE

leva

tion

(fee

t)

880

875

870

865

860

855

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Pas

sing

No.

4S

ieve

(%

)

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve (

%)

Liqu

id L

imit

(NV

=N

o V

alue

)

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

o P

last

icity

)

DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW

KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com

SH 32 from SH 96 to I-35Cut Section

State J/P No. 10147(04)Love County, Oklahoma

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\lab

1\gi

nt\p

roje

cts\

klf 2

013

Sta

nda

rd L

ibra

ry\1

2972

4-3

.gpj

R

:KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_SR

.1.1

.GLB

[K

LF_B

OR

ING

/TE

ST

PIT

SO

IL L

OG

]

PROJECT NO.: 129724-3

DATE: 1/8/2013

REVISED:

No Coordinates AvailableApproximate Surface Elevation (ft.): 884.1

Sta. 614+00 Offset 80 ft. Rt. of CRL

S. Wang

Exploration Method:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather: 40° and Sunny

Drill Equipment:

Drill Crew:

Drill Company:

Hammer Efficiency: 78.3%

Hammer Cal. Date:

0 degrees

Hammer Type - Drop:

Angle from Vert.:

Not Available

NQ Coring

CME-550X

R. Campbell

R.C Drilling

Auger Diameter:

1/03/2013 - 1/03/2013

11/13/2012

140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

6 in. O.D.

Oth

er T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

blo

ws/

6 in

.

RQ

D=

%

Sam

ple

Typ

e

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6 in.50in.

27in.

41in.

47in.

37in.

10in.

2.4 34 6.7 17 1


879.5Clayey GRAVEL (GC): dark brown

LIMESTONE: gray, fine-grained, highlyfractured with thin bedded shale, strong

SHALE: brown and gray, moderatelyweathered, moderately fractured with thin tomedium bedded sandstone, extremely weak

LIMESTONE: light gray, fine-grained, highlyfractured, weak to medium strong

The exploration was terminated atapproximately 25 ft. below ground surface. Theexploration was backfilled with bentonite onJanuary 03, 2013.

Unc. Comp. Str.= 6210psi


Unc. Comp. Str.= 54 psi

Unc. Comp. Str.= 28 psi


BC=3250/1.5"

RQD=17.3

RQD=18.3

RQD=39.2

RQD=44.2

RQD=64.9

RQD=0

PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

BORING LOG C-2

1 of 1

BORING LOG C-2

PLATE

C-2

LABORATORY RESULTS

App

roxi

mat

eE

leva

tion

(fee

t)

875

870

865

860

855

850

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Pas

sing

No.

4S

ieve

(%

)

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve (

%)

Liqu

id L

imit

(NV

=N

o V

alue

)

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

o P

last

icity

)

DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW




gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\lab

1\gi

nt\p

roje

cts\

klf 2

013

Sta

nda

rd L

ibra

ry\1

2972

4-3

.gpj

R

:KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_SR

.1.1

.GLB

[K

LF_B

OR

ING

/TE

ST

PIT

SO

IL L

OG

]


DATE: 1/8/2013

REVISED:

No Coordinates AvailableApproximate Surface Elevation (ft.): 880


S. Wang

Exploration Method:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:


Drill Equipment:

Drill Crew:

Drill Company:


Hammer Cal. Date:

0 degrees

Hammer Type - Drop:

Angle from Vert.:

Not Available

NQ Coring

CME-550X

R. Campbell

R.C Drilling

Auger Diameter:

1/03/2013 - 1/03/2013

11/13/2012

140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

6 in. O.D.

Oth

er T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

blo

ws/

6 in

.

RQ

D=

%

Sam

ple

Typ

e

1

2

3

4

5

6

6 in.

27in.

60in.

60in.

60in.

31in.


883.4

Clayey GRAVEL (GC): brown

LIMESTONE: gray, fine-grained, highly tomoderately fractured, strong

- gray below 16.5 feet

SHALE: gray and dark gray, slightly tomoderately weathered, moderately fractured,extremely weak









BC=3050/3.0"

RQD=9.8

RQD=59.2

RQD=62.5

RQD=68.3

RQD=36.3

PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

BORING LOG C-3

1 of 1

BORING LOG C-3

PLATE

C-3

LABORATORY RESULTS

App

roxi

mat

eE

leva

tion

(fee

t)

885

880

875

870

865

860

855

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Pas

sing

No.

4S

ieve

(%

)

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve (

%)

Liqu

id L

imit

(NV

=N

o V

alue

)

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

o P

last

icity

)

DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW




gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\lab

1\gi

nt\p

roje

cts\

klf 2

013

Sta

nda

rd L

ibra

ry\1

2972

4-3

.gpj

R

:KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_SR

.1.1

.GLB

[K

LF_B

OR

ING

/TE

ST

PIT

SO

IL L

OG

]


DATE: 1/8/2013

REVISED:



S. Wang

Exploration Method:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:


Drill Equipment:

Drill Crew:

Drill Company:


Hammer Cal. Date:

0 degrees

Hammer Type - Drop:

Angle from Vert.:

Not Available

NQ Coring

CME-550X

R. Campbell

R.C Drilling

Auger Diameter:

1/04/2013 - 1/04/2013

11/13/2012

140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

6 in. O.D.

Oth

er T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

blo

ws/

6 in

.

RQ

D=

%

Sam

ple

Typ

e

1

2

3

4

5

6

3 in.

18in.

50in.

60in.

60in.

21in.


866.5Clayey GRAVEL and Cobbles (GC): brownand light gray

LIMESTONE: light gray, fine-grained, intenselyto highly fractured, medium strong to strong

- with clay infilling at 6.6 feet

- with gypsum infilling at 7.9 feet

- thin bedded sandstone at 12.4 feet






Unc. Comp. Str.= 8940psiUnc. Comp. Str.= 12860psi


BC=2050/2.0"

RQD=16.7

RQD=50.9

RQD=80

RQD=78.3

RQD=100

PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

BORING LOG C-4

1 of 1

BORING LOG C-4

PLATE

C-4

LABORATORY RESULTS

App

roxi

mat

eE

leva

tion

(fee

t)

865

860

855

850

845

840

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

Pas

sing

No.

4S

ieve

(%

)

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve (

%)

Liqu

id L

imit

(NV

=N

o V

alue

)

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

o P

last

icity

)

DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW




gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\lab

1\gi

nt\p

roje

cts\

klf 2

013

Sta

nda

rd L

ibra

ry\1

2972

4-3

.gpj

R

:KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_SR

.1.1

.GLB

[K

LF_B

OR

ING

/TE

ST

PIT

SO

IL L

OG

]


DATE: 1/8/2013

REVISED:


Sta. 640+00 On CRL

S. Wang

Exploration Method:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:


Drill Equipment:

Drill Crew:

Drill Company:


Hammer Cal. Date:

0 degrees

Hammer Type - Drop:

Angle from Vert.:

Not Available

NQ Coring

CME-550X

R. Campbell

R.C Drilling

Auger Diameter:

1/05/2013 - 1/05/2013

11/13/2012

140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

6 in. O.D.

Oth

er T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

blo

ws/

6 in

.

RQ

D=

%

Sam

ple

Typ

e

A-1

PLATEPROJECT NO.: 129724-3



State J/P No. 10147(04)Love County, OklahomaREVISED:

DRAWN BY: BJM

EpFe

Albite Al

Rock reduced to soil with relict rock texture/structure; Generally molded and crumbled by hand.

No evidence of chemical/mechanical alternation; rings with hammer blow.

0.25 - 1.0

JointShear

DESCRIPTION

TightOpenWide

< 0.04 (< 1)

RECOGNITION

Manganese

BiClCa

Apatite Ap

Planes dividing the individual layers, beds, or stratigraphy of rocks.

NAME

R4

> 3612 - 36

NAME ABBR

ChloriteEpidote

Iron Oxide

ROCK DESCRIPTION KEY

DESCRIPTION

Very PoorPoorFair

0.04 - 0.20 (1 - 5)> 0.20 (> 5)

GoodExcellent

RQD (%)

0 - 2525 - 5050 - 75

> 6 ft.

75 - 9090 - 100

Muscovite Mus

BiotiteClay

Calcite

R1

GRADE

Extremely Weak Indented by thumbnail

R2

RQD

Vesicle(Vesicular)

ABBR

Mn

None

QuartzSand

SericiteSiltTalc

Pyrite

Unknown

NoPyQzSaSerSiTaUk

Surface Stain

DESCRIPTION

Thinly LaminatedLaminated

Very Thin Bedded

Entire mass discolored; Alteration pervading most rock, some slight weathering pockets; some minerals may be leached out.

If numerous enough that only thinwalls separate individual pits orvugs, this term further describesthe preceding nomenclature toindicate cell-like form

DESCRIPTION

Pit (Pitted)

Vug (Vuggy)

Cavity

Honeycombed

Small openings in volcanic rocksof variable shape and size formedby entrapped gas bubbles duringsolidification

R0

R3

Slightly Weathered

1.0 - 5.0

Moderately Weathered

Slight discoloration on surface; slight alteration along discontinuities; 915305 - 915102 - 305

Thin BeddedMedium Bedded

Thick Bedded

SpottyPartially Filled

FilledNone

Ch

25 - 10210 - 252.5 - 10

< 2.5Bedding PlanesJointSeam

Fracture in rock, generally more or less vertical or traverse to bedding.

Applies to bedding plane with unspecified degree of weather.

Very Thick Bedded

TERM

R5

R6

Very Weak

Weak

Medium Strong

Strong

Very Strong

Extremely Strong

Crumbles under firm blows of geological hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife

Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty, shallow indentations made by firm blow with point of geological hammer5.0 - 25

25 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 250

> 250

Specimen requires more than one blow of geological hammer to fracture it

Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife, specimen can be fractured with a single firm blow of a geological hammer

Specimen requires many blows of geological hammer to fracture it

Specimen can only be chipped with a geological hammer

Unweathered

Highly Fractured

DESCRIPTION

UnfracturedSlightly Fractured

Moderately Fractured(.061 - 1.83 meters)

Intensely Fractured

SPACING CRITERIA

(> 1.83 meters)

Thickness (in.) Thickness (mm.)

CRITERIA [in.(mm.)]2 - 6 ft.8 in - 2 ft.2 - 8 in.< 2 in. (< 50.80 mm.)

(50.80 - 203.30 mm.)(203.20 - 609.60 mm.)

Pinhole to 0.03 ft. (3/8 in.)(>1 to 10 mm.) openings

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\lab

1\gi

nt\p

roje

cts\

klf 2

013

Sta

nda

rd L

ibra

ry\1

2972

4-3

.gpj

R

:KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_SR

.1.1

.GLB

[G

EO

-LE

GE

ND

3 (

RO

CK

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N K

EY

)]

10 cm5 cm0

4 - 6

6 - 8

INFILLING AMOUNT

JOINT ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT (JRC)

2 - 4

8 - 10

INFILLING TYPE

ADDITIONAL TEXTURAL ADJECTIVES

BEDDING CHARACTERISTICS

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)

0 - 2

DEGREES OF WEATHERING

10 - 12

12 - 14

18 - 20

14 - 16

16 - 18

APERTURE

DISCONTINUITY TYPE

RELATIVE HARDNESS / STRENGTH DESCRIPTIONS

(Bar

ton

and

Cho

ubey

, 19

77)

DENSITY/SPACING OF DISCONTINUITIES

CHECKED BY: SYW

DATE: 1/8/2013

SH 32 Cut Section from SH 96 to I-35 Osage County, Oklahoma

Project No.: 129724-3

3.31.8

8.3

13.3



1.0

5.4

10.4

15.4



15.4

20.4

23.5

25.0



2.2 5.3

10.3



25.0

10.3

15.3

20.3



20.3

25.0



1.8 3.8

8.3

11.5



13.3

8.3



18.3

20.0

13.3


APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM


APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

GENERAL

Laboratory tests were performed on select, representative samples to evaluate pertinent

engineering properties of these materials. We directed our laboratory testing program

primarily toward classifying the subsurface materials and measuring index values of the on-

site materials. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable

standards. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the respective boring logs.

The laboratory testing program consisted of the following:

• Moisture content tests, ASTM D 2216, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water

• Atterberg limits, ASTM D 4318, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

• Particle Size Analysis of Soil, ASTM D 422, Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

• Rock Unconfined Compression, Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens in Uniaxial Compression

• Point Load Test, D 5731, Standard Test Method For Determination of the Point Load Strength Index of Rock and Application to Rock Strength Classifications

• Visual classification, ASTM D 2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)

C-1 17.0 6 SILTY SAND SM A-2-4 0.0 17.7 NV NP NP 94 93 90 29 20

C-2 0.5 1 LIMESTONE - - - 2.4 17 16 1 34 23 14 9 6.7

Passing#40

Sieve (%)

Passing#4

Sieve (%)

Sieve Analysis

Sample DescriptionExploration ID SampleNo.

LABORATORY TESTRESULT SUMMARY

Approx.SampleDepth

(ft.)

TABLE

Passing#100

Sieve (%)

Passing#200

Sieve (%)

Passing#10

Sieve (%)

USCS AASHTOMoistureContent

(%)

Atterberg Limits

C-1

OK

LA

HO

MA

SO

IL IN

DE

X (

OS

I)

Liq

uid

Lim

its

Pla

stic

Lim

its

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex




gINT FILE: L:\lab 1\gint\projects\klf 2013 Standard Library\129724-3.gpj R:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_SR.1.1.GLB [OKLAHOMA_SOIL LAB SUMMARY TABLE]


REVISED:

DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW

DATE: 1/8/2013

Data checked by:_CRL____________ Date:_02/22/13___________

Boring No. Depth (ft) Test NumberTest

Type* Rock Type Width, W (in)Depth or Diameter,

D (in)

Failure Load, P

(lbs)De2 (in2)

Point Load Strength

Index, Is(50) (PSI)

Uniaxial Compressive

Strength, UCS (PSI)

Valid/ Invalid

C-1 2 1 d Limestone 1.83 1.16 0.6 1.01 464 11371 VC-1 3 2 a Limestone 1.85 1.85 1.4 4.36 326 7994 VC-2 5 3 i Limestone 1.80 1.10 0.5 2.52 181 4443 VC-2 7 4 d Limestone 1.86 1.71 0.8 2.24 318 7781 VC-2 23.6 5 d Limestone 1.84 1.81 0.1 2.91 42 1028 VC-3 2.31 6 d Limestone 1.85 1.84 2.2 2.28 841 20592 VC-3 17.5 7 i Limestone 1.76 1.49 0.6 3.34 172 4211 VC-4 2 8 d Limestone 1.86 1.79 1.7 2.45 614 15035 VC-4 5 9 d Limestone 1.84 1.81 1.7 2.57 605 14810 VC-4 19 10 d Limestone 1.81 1.83 0.4 3.35 105 2562 V

Point Load Strength IndexIs(50) 348 psi or 50,112 psf or 2.40 MPa

Uniaxial Compressive Strengthσc= 8,526 psi or 1,227,744 psf or 59 MPa

*Test Typed = diametrala = axialb = blocki = irregular lump

Kleinfelder1/8/2013DATE SAMPLED:

2/22/2013B. Della

DATE TESTED:REPORTED BY:

SAMPLED BY:

Point Load Strength Index Test Results ASTM D-573111074

C-1PROJECT:

PROJECT NO.:PROJECT LOCATION: LimestoneSAMPLE DESCRIP:

SH-32 LAB SAMPLE NO.:SAMPLE NO.:129724-3

Love County, OK

KLEINFELDER 14710 NE 87th St, Suite 100, Redmond, WA 98052 Office (425) 636-7900 Fax (425) 636-7901 © September 2011

Point Load Strength Index Test Results ASTM D-5731

KLEINFELDER 14710 NE 87th St, Suite 100, Redmond, WA 98052 Office (425) 636-7900 Fax (425) 636-7901 © September 2011


APPENDIX C

ASFE DOCUMENT

Geotechnical Services Are Performed forSpecific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs oftheir clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even anothercivil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, eachgeotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Noone except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report withoutfirst conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one— not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or projectexcept the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full ReportSerious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnicalengineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific FactorsGeotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac-tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: theclient's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the generalnature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location ofthe structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless thegeotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:• not prepared for you,• not prepared for your project,• not prepared for the specific site explored, or• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnicalengineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a

parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,

• composition of the design team, or• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of projectchanges—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact.Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problemsthat occur because their reports do not consider developments of whichthey were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can ChangeA geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed atthe time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage oftime; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the reportto determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing oranalysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are ProfessionalOpinionsSite exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points wheresubsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professionaljudgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout thesite. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly—from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineerwho developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipatedconditions.

A Report's Recommendations Are Not FinalDo not overrely on the construction recommendations included in yourreport. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnicalengineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

Important Information About Your

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

Geotechnical Engineering ReportThe following information is provided to help you manage your risks.

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnicalengineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not performconstruction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject toMisinterpretationOther design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineeringreports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team aftersubmitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors canalso misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk byhaving your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstructionconferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer's LogsGeotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upontheir interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors oromissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report shouldnever be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognizethat separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report andGuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can makecontractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting whatthey provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with aclearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that thereport was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that thereport's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnicalengineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or toconduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information theyneed or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might yoube in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilitiesstemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize thatgeotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that

have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the riskof such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety ofexplanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations"many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsi-bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilitiesand risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnicalengineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnicalstudy. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usuallyrelate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks orregulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have ledto numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared forsomeone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with MoldDiverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold fromgrowing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should bedevised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professionalmold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water ormoisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have beenaddressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findingsare conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of thisproject is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s studywere designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyedin this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moldfrom growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your ASFE-Member GeotechncialEngineer for Additional AssistanceMembership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnicalengineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be ofgenuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Conferwith you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017

e-mail: [email protected] www.asfe.org

Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for

purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any otherfirm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

IIGER06045.0M

geotechnical engineering report cut sections state … · 2018. 8. 9. · q nfelder ~bright...

Documents