odessa - county road bridge replacement planning …€¦ · 26/03/2020 · geotechnical...

ODESSA - COUNTY ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PLANNING PROJECT Geotechnical Engineering Report Prepared for: Nicholls Kovich Engineering

Project No. 190352 March 26, 2020

ODESSA - COUNTY ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PLANNING PROJECT Geotechnical Engineering Report Prepared for: Nicholls Kovich Engineering

Project No. 190352 March 26, 2020

Aspect Consulting, LLC

Nicholas C. Szot, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer [email protected]

Erik O. Andersen, PE Principal Geotechnical Engineer [email protected]

Mari Otto, EIT Project Geotechnical Engineer [email protected]

V:\190352 E Low Canal Prototype Bridge Rplcmnts\Deliverables\Geotech Report_Bridge Rep Planning Final\Geotech Report_Bridge Rep Planning_03262020.docx

e a r t h + w a t e r Aspect Consulting, LLC 23 S. Mission Street, Suite C Wenatchee, WA 98801 509.888.5766 www.aspectconsulting.com

03/26/2020

ASPECT CONSULTING

PROJECT NO. 190352 MARCH 26, 2020 i

Contents

Contents ............................................................................................................... i

List of Appendices .............................................................................................. ii

1 Introduction and Project Description ........................................................ 1

2 Site Conditions ............................................................................................ 2 2.1 Geology ...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Surface Conditions ..................................................................................... 3 2.3 Subsurface Explorations and Water Wells By Others ................................. 3 2.4 Stratigraphy ................................................................................................ 4

2.4.1 Silt and Sand ........................................................................................ 4 2.4.2 Caliche ................................................................................................. 4 2.4.3 Basalt ................................................................................................... 5

2.5 Groundwater ............................................................................................... 5

3 Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................... 5 3.1 Summary .................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Seismic Design Considerations .................................................................. 6 3.3 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ................................................ 6

3.3.1 Spread Footings ................................................................................... 6 3.3.2 Driven H-Piles ....................................................................................... 7

4 Recommendations for Future Geotechnical Services ............................. 8 4.1 Contracted Design and Consultation Services ............................................ 8 4.2 Additional Services ..................................................................................... 8

References .......................................................................................................... 9

Limitations ......................................................................................................... 10

ASPECT CONSULTING

ii PROJECT NO. 190352 MARCH 26, 2020

List of Tables 1 Estimated Depth to Bedrock

List of Figures 1 Bridge Locations Map

2 Bridge Locations Map, North Area

3 Bridge Locations Map, Central Area

4 Bridge Locations Map, South Area

List of Appendices A Previous Subsurface Explorations

B Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

ASPECT CONSULTING

PROJECT NO. 190352 MARCH 26, 2020 1

1 Introduction and Project Description Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect) completed this preliminary geotechnical study to support the Odessa - County Road Bridge Replacement Planning Project (Project) led by Adams County and Nicholls Kovich Engineering (NKE). The Project consists of assessing type, size, and location (TSL) and cost estimating for replacement of ten bridges that span over the recently widened East Low Canal (canal) in Grant and Adams Counties, Washington (Project area). The replacement bridges are proposed to be single-span.

The 10 bridges that are part of this study (and their associated roads) are listed below and shown on Figures 1- 4:

Grant County:

247 W SE at East Low (Rd W SE)

248 11 SE at East Low (Rd 11 SE)

Adams County:

411-3 Sackman (Sackman Road)

413-3 Haystack (Providence Road)

414-3 Simenson (Herman Road)

415-3 Bruce East Low (Booker Road)

416-3 Fillerup (Foley Road)

417-3 Kansas Prairie (Cunningham Road)

418-3 Spud Palace (Lucy Road)

419-3 Shano (Hatton Road)

Two recently modified bridges in Adams County designated “410-3 Leisle” and “412-3 Duck Pond” are also shown. 410-3 Leisle was previously replaced and is supported by driven steel H-pile foundations. 412-3 Duck Pond is supported on shallow spread footings and was modified by steepening and lining canal sideslopes with concrete.

Based on our review of as-built bridge plans, the existing 10 bridges to be replaced are all founded on conventional shallow spread footings (spread footings). From discussions with NKE and Adams County, we understand that the preferred foundation types for the replacement bridges include, in order of preference, driven steel H-piles (driven H-piles) and conventional shallow spread footings.

The primary input for this Project includes a feasibility assessment of spread footings and driven H-piles for the ten bridge replacements, preliminary bearing capacity (for spread footings), and depth to bedrock (for driven piles) to inform approximate foundation sizing/depth.

ASPECT CONSULTING

2 PROJECT NO. 190352 MARCH 26, 2020

Aspect reviewed as-built bridge drawings and nearby subsurface data from multiple sources, and completed a field reconnaissance at each bridge location to observe bedrock outcrops, composition of the canal sidewalls and nearby excavation stockpiles, and settlement performance of existing grade-supported bridge abutments.

The following sections present the culmination of our review and field reconnaissance to inform assessment of spread footing and driven H-pile and preliminary design input at each bridge.

This report was completed in general accordance with the NKE Subconsultant Services Agreement with Aspect, with an understanding of the Project based on verbal and email communications provided by NKE and Adams County.

This report should not be used for final design of replacement bridges. Final design support and construction should generally consist of bridge-specific geotechnical explorations, analysis, and recommendations.

2 Site Conditions

2.1 Geology The surficial geology in the area of the bridge replacements is mostly mapped as Palouse Formation loess with smaller localized areas of outburst flood deposits or Columbia River basalt bedrock (basalt). The loess is reported to consist of windblown silt and fine sand. The outburst flood deposits are reported to consist of lacustrine silt and fine sand. (Reidel et al, 1994). The surficial geology mapped at each bridge location is listed below.

Loess:

413-3 Haystack

414-3 Simenson

415-3 Bruce East Low

416-3 Fillerup

417-3 Kansas Prairie

418-3 Spud Palace

419-3 Shano

Outburst Flood Deposits:

247 W SE at East Low

411-3 Sackman

Basalt:

248 11 SE at East Low

ASPECT CONSULTING


For all ten bridge locations, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mapped basalt to underly any surficial loess and/or outburst flood deposits (USGS, 2019).

2.2 Surface Conditions Aspect conducted a field reconnaissance on November 27, 2019, to observe soil, rock, groundwater, and existing bridge foundation conditions at the 10 bridge locations and the previously replaced/modified bridges (410-3 Leisle and 412-3 Duck Pond). We observed shallow subsurface conditions by examining the canal sidewalls and conducting shallow probe and hand tool excavations (less than 2 feet deep) at the canal base.

We understand the canal was empty of water for about 1 month prior to the field reconnaissance, except for shallow standing water observed at the canal base at the 248 11 SE at East Low and 412-3 Duck Pond bridge locations.

The canal section is roughly trapezoidal and extends approximately 15 to 22 vertical feet below the bridge deck/surface elevation. The canal sidewalls are generally sloped at 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). The canal is not lined.

Surficial soils at all the bridge locations were generally observed as silt or sandy silt (ML)1 and silty sand (SM), and scattered layers of caliche,2 seen throughout the canal sidewalls and at the base of the canal. Shallow hand tool excavations and probing indicate that these soil conditions continued to within 2 feet of the bottom of the canal.

We did not observe basalt outcrops or significant basalt fragments in large stockpiles derived from the excavation of the canal, with the exception of 248 11 SE at East Low, where abundant basalt fragments were observed atop the stockpile.

We observed the roadway surface at the bridge approaches are paved with asphalt concrete (pavement). We observed some minor to moderate cracking and settlement of the pavement at the approaches but not above the bridge foundation itself.

2.3 Subsurface Explorations and Water Wells By Others We reviewed logs of nearby test pit data collected during original design of the canal in the 1950s, geotechnical borings and test pit explorations at nearby bridge replacements, and logs of nearby water wells drilled by private property owners.

The approximate locations of the relevant explorations and water wells are shown on Figures 2 - 4. The logs are included in Appendix A (grouped by bridge) and are summarized below (grouped by source):

Eight test pit explorations recorded on the East Low Canal as-built drawings (CBP, 1950).

1 Soil Classification per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Refer to ASTM D2488 (ASTM, 2017). 2 Caliche is a common soil feature in arid or semi-arid regions, in which gravel, sand, clay, and silt sediments are cemented together, usually by calcium carbonate precipates.

ASPECT CONSULTING


Four soil borings at 410-3 Leisle Road bridge, designated B-1 through B-4, performed by Budinger & Associates in 2014 (B&A, 2014a)

Six soil borings and two test pit explorations at 412-3 Duck Pond bridge, (designated B-1401 through B-1406 and TP-1407 and TP-1408), performed by Budinger & Associates in 2014 (B&A, 2014b)

Two test pits at the 413-3 Haystack bridge, designated TP-1 and TP-2, performed by Adams County in 2003 (ACPW, 2003)

31 well logs, designated Well Log #1 through #31 (naming by Aspect for simplicity) drilled between 1957 and 2019 (Ecology, 2019)

2.4 Stratigraphy In general, we interpret stratigraphy at the ten bridge locations to be primarily loess deposits, and to a lesser extent outburst flood deposits, consisting of mixtures of silt and fine sand with layers of caliche. We estimate these deposits extend to depths of approximately 13 to over 70 feet below ground surface (bgs) and overlie basalt. These soil/rock units are described below in general order of shallowest to deepest.

2.4.1 Silt and Sand We observed mixtures of silt, sandy silt (ML), and silty sand (SM); moist, brown and light brown, at the ground surface and throughout the canal sidewalls to the bottom of the canal at each bridge location. These soils are likely predominantly loess, but might also include outburst flood deposits. The silt was generally observed to be non-plastic, with the exception of 419-3 Shano, where localized layers of silt were observed to be low plasticity.

Nearby soil stockpiles excavated from and placed near the canal were largely made up of silt and sand soils. Logs of nearby explorations and water wells generally report similar descriptions of silt and sand soils.

The silt and sand soils exhibit relatively low shear strength characteristics, moderate elastic compressibility under new loads, and high sensitivity to moisture as it relates to earthwork and compaction.

Because of the soil structure, silt and sand loess deposits (but not outburst flood deposits) are susceptible to collapse when initially saturated and subjected to new loads which can result in vertical settlement.

2.4.2 Caliche We observed caliche layers up to several feet thick comprised of stiff to hard, brown, white and tan soil cemented by calcium carbonate precipitates throughout the canal sidewalls and/or at the canal base at the bridge locations.

We observed gravel- to boulder-sized particles of caliche within nearby soil stockpiles excavated from and placed near the canal. Logs of nearby explorations and water wells report similar descriptions of the caliche.

ASPECT CONSULTING


The caliche exhibits high shear strength, low permeability, low compressibility, and high sensitivity to moisture. The caliche can be difficult to excavate, and may require ripping with toothed-buckets and/or bulldozer shank.

2.4.3 Basalt Basalt was not directly observed at/near the bridge replacement locations, but was inferred to be present at or relatively close to the base of the canal at 248 11 SE at East Low. This inference is based on the observation of standing water at the canal base and abundance of basalt fragments along the canal sidewalls and top of nearby canal excavation stockpile.

The basalt bedrock exhibits high shear strength, low permeability, and very low compressibility.

The estimated depth to basalt at each bridge location is presented in Table 1 and is based primarily on the data review and field reconnaissance results detailed above in Sections 2.1 through 2.3. The actual depth to bedrock will vary from these estimates.

2.5 Groundwater Shallow standing water observed at the canal base at 248 11 SE at East Low, and logs of water wells located near 419-3 Shano, indicate perched groundwater levels ranging from 12 to 30 feet bgs atop the basalt and/or caliche layers at those locations.

We expect groundwater levels at the bridge replacement locations will dramatically increase around the canal when filled with water and decrease rapidly over several days/weeks after emptying. Groundwater levels might also fluctuate due to seasonal changes such as weather and local irrigation practices.

We do not expect the regional groundwater table, expected to be deeper than about 40 feet bgs, or significant seepage will dramatically affect construction or cost of spread footing or driven H-pile foundations.

3 Conclusions and Recommendations

3.1 Summary Based on the observed surficial conditions and the inferred subsurface conditions, we consider spread footings designed at relatively low vertical bearing pressures to limit settlement to be a feasible foundation option. There is an apparent risk that spread footings supported on silt and sand loess deposits (but not outburst flood deposits) could suddenly settle several inches if the loess is saturated for the first time by water.

We also consider impact-driven H-piles to bear on basalt to be a feasible foundation option, provided the piles can be embedded at least approximately 15 to 20 feet for lateral fixity.

ASPECT CONSULTING


The following sections present seismic design considerations and additional preliminary design recommendations for spread footings and driven H-pile foundations to support cost estimating by NKE.

3.2 Seismic Design Considerations The bridges are located within an area of active tectonic forces associated with the interaction of tectonic plates and subduction zone earthquakes. Earthquakes from these sources present the possibility of causing significant hazards, including ground shaking, soil liquefaction, and surficial ground rupture.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bridge Design Manual (BDS) response spectra for design are based on local seismicity and Site soil conditions. The 7 percent probability of exceedance in the 75-year design event (approximately 1,000-year recurrence interval) is the design seismic event for this Project.

The peak ground and spectral accelerations (ground shaking) adjusted for seismic Site Classes B, C, or D (depending primarily on depth to basalt beneath each bridge replacement) is relatively low.

Liquefaction can occur when loose, saturated, and relatively cohesionless soil deposits temporarily lose strength from ground shaking. Based on the expected low-levels of ground shaking, estimated depth to basalt, and the depth, variability and presence/absence of perched groundwater (if any) most of the year, we preliminarily assess the likelihood of soil liquefaction to be low and not likely a design consideration for the bridge replacements.

Traces of a thrust fault zone are present to the southwest of the Project area located 10 miles or more to the southwest of the Project area (Reidel et al., 1994). With this, the potential for surficial ground rupture at the Site is considered to be very low and not a design consideration.

3.3 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations 3.3.1 Spread Footings

Based on the anticipated stratigraphy and performance of the observed existing bridge and recently replaced bridge spread footing, we consider spread footings designed at relatively low bearing pressures to be geotechnically feasible for all bridge replacements.

We preliminarily estimate spread footings designed to an allowable bearing pressure of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) and bearing on a 1-foot-thick pad of compacted crushed rock overlying native silt and sand soils will settle less than about 1 inch total as bridge loads (Service Limit State) are applied.

The risk of slow, long-term settlement – typically a problem for footings overlying saturated fine-grained silt, clay, and organic-rich peat – is not anticipated to be a design consideration.

In our opinion, there is an apparent risk that spread footings founded on silt and sand loess deposits (but not outburst flood deposits) could settle on the order of several inches

ASPECT CONSULTING


if saturated for the first time (saturation-induced settlement). The saturation-induced settlement is a result of a sudden ‘collapse’ of the loess soil structure caused by wetting. The unlined canal has been filled and emptied presumably 50 times or more since its construction. The surrounding loess soil (if present) has presumably been wetted and dried as many times and likely undergone most of the potential saturation-induced settlement. We expect that loess deposits located above the canal water level (when full) most likely have not been saturated before and are still vulnerable to saturation-induced settlement. Saturation of these shallower loess deposits could occur from unforeseen incidents such as a sudden break or slow leak in a nearby water line, or significant changes in surface and perched groundwater flow regimes.

Based on the perceived low risk of saturation of the shallower loess deposits, we consider the apparent risk of saturation-induced settlement to be low, and should be evaluated for each bridge in final design. If saturation-induced settlement risk is present at a particular bridge site, over-excavating and replacing loess soils with compacted structural fill, such as crushed rock, could be implemented to reduce the risk.

Scour potential (determined by others) and proximity to canal sideslopes should also be considered.

We estimate basalt may exist at/near the spread footing elevation at the 248 11 SE at East Low bridge. Spread footings overlying basalt can be designed to an allowable bearing pressure of 10,000 psf or more.

We expect excavations for spread footing construction will require tracked excavators with toothed-buckets to excavate through layers of hard caliche within the silt and sand soils. Assuming excavation would occur after the canal is empty of water, we estimate an active dewatering system is not needed and perched groundwater (if present) could be handled using sumps and pumps to dewater the excavation.

3.3.2 Driven H-Piles Based on the estimated depth to basalt and the Counties’ accounts of excellent performance of H-pile-supported bridges in Adams and Grant Counties, we consider steel H-piles driven to bear on basalt to be feasible for all bridge replacements, with an exception. Of exception, minimum pile embedment (below pile cap) to attain lateral fixity should be carefully considered where basalt rock is anticipated to be relatively shallow at less than about 15 to 20 feet bgs.

Driven H-piles are typically readily available, economical, and quick to install with practical ways to verify their capacity in the field during construction. H-pile sections are preferred over closed-ended pipe sections because they can cut through hard caliche layers (when present) located above the basalt.

Given the rural bridge locations, the risk of damaging nearby buildings and infrastructure from pile driving vibration appears low.

The nominal axial resistance of steel H-piles driven to practical refusal on basalt is controlled by the structural limit state and not geotechnical resistance. We expect H-piles driven with an appropriately sized impact hammer will settle less than 1 inch for all loading cases.

ASPECT CONSULTING


The estimated depth to basalt bearing layer is shown on Table 1. Design lateral loading on the bridges is expected to be relatively low, and minimum pile embedment of approximately 15 to 20 feet for lateral resistance should be considered for final design. This may control design at locations where the basalt is shallow (i.e., limited pile embedment). At locations where the basalt bearing layer is estimated to be relatively shallow (listed below), the basalt may be pre-drilled using air rotary methods to allow the pile to be driven and socketed into the basalt.



413-3 Haystack

414-3 Simenson


416-3 Fillerup

Excavations for driven H-pile caps are expected to be relatively smaller than excavation for spread footings. The possibility of encountering perched groundwater atop caliche layers is possible, but can likely be handled using sumps and pumps.

4 Recommendations for Future Geotechnical Services

4.1 Contracted Design and Consultation Services Per our scope of work and as part of the preliminary design phase process, Aspect will review and provide input to construction cost estimates for bridge foundations prepared by NKE.

4.2 Additional Services We are available to provide design-level geotechnical explorations, detailed foundation analysis and recommendations to support final design of the bridge replacements at your request.

ASPECT CONSULTING


References Adams County Public Works (ACPW), 2003, Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation,

Adams County Public Works Bridges #413-3 and #434-3, Adams County, WA.

Budinger & Associates (B&A), 2014a, Leisle Road Bridge Replacement, Warden WA, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Report.

Budinger & Associates (B&A), 2014b, Calloway Bridge, Adams County, WA, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Report.

Columbia Basin Project – Washington (CBP), 1950, United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Columbia Basin Project – Washington, East Low Canal Test Pit Data.

Reidel, Stephen P.; Fecht, Karl R., compilers, 1994, Geologic map of the Priest Rapids 1:100,000 quadrangle, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 94-13, 22 p., 1 plate.

U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, 2019, A Three-Dimensional Hydrogeologic Framework Model of Columbia Plateau Regional Aquifer System, https://or.water.usgs.gov/proj/cpras/index.html, Accessed, January 1, 2020.

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2019, Washington State Well Report Viewer, https://appswr.ecology.wa.gov/wellconstruction/map/WCLSWebMap/WellConstructionMapSearch.aspx, accessed December 15, 2019.

https://or.water.usgs.gov/proj/cpras/index.html

https://appswr.ecology.wa.gov/wellconstruction/map/WCLSWebMap/WellConstructionMapSearch.aspx

https://appswr.ecology.wa.gov/wellconstruction/map/WCLSWebMap/WellConstructionMapSearch.aspx

ASPECT CONSULTING

10 PROJECT NO. 190352 MARCH 26, 2020

Limitations Work for this project was performed for Nicholls Kovich Engineering (Client), and this report was prepared consistent with recognized standards of professionals in the same locality and involving similar conditions, at the time the work was performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made by Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect).

Recommendations presented herein are based on our interpretation of site conditions, geotechnical engineering calculations, and judgment in accordance with our mutually agreed-upon scope of work. Our recommendations are unique and specific to the project, site, and Client. Application of this report for any purpose other than the project should be done only after consultation with Aspect.

Variations may exist between the soil and groundwater conditions reported and those actually underlying the site. The nature and extent of such soil variations may change over time and may not be evident before construction begins. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site that are different from those described in this report, Aspect should be notified immediately to review the applicability of our recommendations.

It is the Client's responsibility to see that all parties to this project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, and agents, are made aware of this report in its entirety. At the time of this report, design plans and construction methods have not been finalized, and the recommendations presented herein are based on preliminary project information. If project developments result in changes from the preliminary project information, Aspect should be contacted to determine if our recommendations contained in this report should be revised and/or expanded upon.

The scope of work does not include services related to construction safety precautions. Site safety is typically the responsibility of the contractor, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s site safety methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures. The scope of our work also does not include the assessment of environmental characteristics, particularly those involving potentially hazardous substances in soil or groundwater.

All reports prepared by Aspect for the Client apply only to the services described in the Agreement(s) with the Client. Any use or reuse by any party other than the Client is at the sole risk of that party, and without liability to Aspect. Aspect’s original files/reports shall govern in the event of any dispute regarding the content of electronic documents furnished to others.

Please refer to Appendix B titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information governing the use of this report.

We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions please call Nick Szot, PE, 509.888.7218.

TABLES

Table 1. Estimated Depth to BedrockProject No. 190352, Grant County and Adams County, Washington

Bridge I.D. (Stationing)1Estimated Depth to Basalt

Bedrock2(feet bgs) Nearby Test Pit3

Maximum Test Pit Exploration Depth (feet

bgs); Basalt Encountered?

(Yes/No)

Most Relevant Nearby Water

Well(s)Distance and Direction of Water Well from Bridge4

247 W SE at East Low (STA 2337 + 85) 20 none n/a Well #01 700 feet SW

248 11 SE at East Low (STA 3543 + 10) 15 TP 3542+80 13; Yes Well #05 1200 feet NW

411-3 Sackman(STA 2689 + 89.3) 75 none n/a Well #04 1800 feet SW

413-3 Haystack(STA 3604 + 35.54) 15 - 20 TP 3604+45 20; No Wells #06, 07 2600 feet W

414-3 Simenson(STA 3769 + 38.27) 20 - 30 TP 3769+30 17; No Wells #08, 09 2500 feet NE & SE

415-3 Bruce East Low(STA 3843 + 15) 30 TP 3843+05 15; No Well #09 2500 feet NW

416-3 Fillerup(STA 3951 + 28.23) 20 - 70 TP 3951+20 13; No Wells #10, 11 1300 feet NW, 1400 feet SE

417-3 Kansas Prairie(STA 4202 + 20) 20 TP 4202+00 20; No Well #12 500 feet NE

418-3 Spud Palace(STA 4372 + 31.0) 70 TP 4372+14 15; No Well #14 70 feet north5

419-3 Shano(STA 4539 + 34) 25 TP 4539+10 25; No Wells #16-31 4000 feet NE

1. Stationing with respect to the East Low Canal As-Built plans.2. Rounded to the nearest 5 feet. Estimate considers the aggregate of all reviewed data weighted toward exploration/well log data geographically closest to the bridge.3. All nearby test pits are within 30 feet of the bridge location, as shown on the East Low Canal As-Built plans. No nearby test pits for 247 W SE at East Low and 411-3 Sackman shown on the As-Built plans.4. Well log locations are approximate. Mapped well logs are accurate to the nearest quarter-quarter of a township section (a 40 acre area, or 0.6 square mile area).5. Aspect confirmed the location of Well #14 during our site recon on November 27, 2019.

Aspect Consulting3/26/2020V:\190352 E Low Canal Prototype Bridge Rplcmnts\Deliverables\Geotech Report_Bridge Rep Planning Final\Table 1. Bridge Estimated Depth to Bedrock

Table 1Odessa - County Road Bridge Replacement Planning Geotechnical Engineering Report

Page 1 of 1

FIGURES

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

419-3 Shano

410-3 Leisle(previously replaced)

411-3 Sackman

416-3 Fillerup

414-3 Simenson

413-3 Haystack

412-3 Duck Pond(previously modified)

418-3 Spud Palace



415-3 Bruce East Low


GIS Path: T:\projects_8\EastLowCanalBridge_190352\Delivered\01 Bridge Location Map.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 2020-01-27 || User: trulien || Print Date: 2020-01-27

Bridge Locations MapGeotechnical Engineering Report

Odessa - County Road Bridge Replacement Planning ProjectGrant and Adams Counties, Washington

FIGURE NO.

1JAN-2020PROJECT NO.190352

BY:MOO / TDR

REVISED BY:- - -

0 15,000 30,000

Feet

!

!

!

!

#!

!

!

!

W A S H I N G T O N

Wenatchee

Othello

Bellingham

Olympia

Port Angeles

Seattle

Spokane

Tacoma

Yakima

!

!

!!

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

W A S H I N G T O N

GRANTCOUNTY

ADAMSCOUNTY

FRANKLINCOUNTY

Connell

Othello

RoxboroWarden

Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user communitySources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community

SITE

UV26

BRIDGE LOCATIONS§̈¦90

UV17 East Low CanalAD

AMS C

OUNT

YGR

ANT C

OUNT

Y

Warden

Othello

(

(

(

(

!>

!>

!>

!>

411-3 SACKMAN411-3 SACKMAN

247 W SE AT247 W SE ATEAST LOWEAST LOW

412-3 DUCK POND412-3 DUCK POND(PREVIOUSLY MODIFIED,(PREVIOUSLY MODIFIED,

INSET MAP)INSET MAP)

410-3 LEISLE410-3 LEISLE(PREVIOUSLY REPLACED,(PREVIOUSLY REPLACED,INSET MAP)INSET MAP)

Well #01

Well #02

Well #03

Well #04

GIS Path: T:\projects_8\EastLowCanalBridge_190352\Delivered\02 Bridge Location Map, North.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 2020-01-27 || User: trulien || Print Date: 2020-01-27

Bridge Locations Map - North AreaGeotechnical Engineering Report


FIGURE NO.


BY:MOO / TDR

REVISED BY:- - -

!

!

!!

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

W A S H I N G T O N

GRANTCOUNTY

ADAMSCOUNTY

FRANKLINCOUNTY

Connell

Othello

RoxboroWarden

Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user communitySource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityCopyright:(c) 2014 Esri

BRIDGE LOCATIONS

!. !.

!. !.

!. !.

!. !.

B-4 B-2

B-3 B-1

410-3 LEISLE

LEISLE RD

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

""")

""")

W CALLOWAY RD

B-1401

B-1402

B-1403

B-1404

B-1405

B-1406

TP-1407

TP-1408

412-3 DUCK POND

!> Well Log (DOE, 1957-2019)!. Boring (B&A, 2014)""") Test Pit (B&A, 2014)

( Bridge LocationEast Low CanalCounty Line

0 150

Feet

0 150

Feet

ADAM

S COU

NTY

GRAN

T COU

NTY

0 4,000

Feet

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

"Ñ)

"Ñ)

"Ñ)

"Ñ)

(

(

(

(

(

(413-3 HAYSTACK413-3 HAYSTACK(INSET MAP)(INSET MAP)

414-3414-3SIMENSONSIMENSON

415-3 BRUCE415-3 BRUCEEAST LOWEAST LOW

416-3416-3FILLERUPFILLERUP

417-3 KANSAS417-3 KANSASPRAIRIEPRAIRIE

248 11 SE248 11 SEAT EAST LOWAT EAST LOWWell #05

Well #06Well #07

Well #08

Well #09

Well #10

Well #11

Well #12

TP-3542+80

TP-3769+30

TP-3843+05

TP-3951+20

GIS Path: T:\projects_8\EastLowCanalBridge_190352\Delivered\03 Bridge Location Map, Central.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/13/2020 || User: trulien || Print Date: 1/13/2020

Bridge Locations Map - Central AreaGeotechnical Engineering Report


FIGURE NO.


BY:MOO / TDR

REVISED BY:- - -

!

!

!!

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

W A S H I N G T O N

GRANTCOUNTY

ADAMSCOUNTY

FRANKLINCOUNTY

Connell

Othello

RoxboroWarden


BRIDGE LOCATIONS

""")

""")"Ñ)

""")

""")"Ñ)

TP-1

TP-2TP-3604+45

413-3 HAYSTACK

12 SE RD

0 150

Feet

0 4,000

Feet

!> Well Log (DOE, 1957-2019)""") Test Pit (Adams County, 2003)"Ñ) Test Pit (Canal As-Builts, 1951)


ADAMS COUNTYGRANT COUNTY

!>

!>

"Ñ)

"Ñ)

(

(

(

Well #12

TP-4202+00417-3 KANSAS417-3 KANSASPRAIRIEPRAIRIE

418-3 SPUD PALACE418-3 SPUD PALACE(INSET MAP)(INSET MAP)

419-3 SHANO419-3 SHANO

Well #16 - #31

TP-4539+10

GIS Path: T:\projects_8\EastLowCanalBridge_190352\Delivered\04 Bridge Location Map, South.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/13/2020 || User: trulien || Print Date: 1/13/2020

Bridge Locations Map - South AreaGeotechnical Engineering Report


FIGURE NO.


BY:MOO / TDR

REVISED BY:- - -

!

!

!!

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

W A S H I N G T O N

GRANTCOUNTY

ADAMSCOUNTY

FRANKLINCOUNTY

Connell

Othello

RoxboroWarden


UV26

BRIDGE LOCATIONS

!>

!>

!>

"Ñ)

!>

!>

!>

"Ñ) TP-4372+14

Well #13

Well #14

Well #15

418-3 SPUD PALACE

S LUC

Y RD

!> Well Log (DOE, 1957-2019)"Ñ) Test Pit (Canal As-Builts, 1951)


0 800

Feet

UV26

0 4,000

Feet

APPENDIX A

Previous Subsurface Explorations

PREVIOUS SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS NEAR

247 W SE AT EAST LOW

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #01 (DOE, 1995)

motto

Text Box

Well #01


410-3 LEISLE (PREVIOUSLY REPLACED)

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #02 (DOE, 1995)

WELL #03 (DOE, 1990)

B-1 to B-4 (B&A, 2014a)

motto

Text Box

Well #02

motto

Text Box

Well #03

11

9

13

30

21

R

28

R

R

(95%)

(90%)

(100%)

(97%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

dry, gray, mediumdense

moist, brown, loose tomedium dense

moist, dark brown,loose

moist to wet, brown,medium dense

wet, brown, mediumdense to very dense

moist to wet, brown,medium dense

moist to wet, pinkishtan, very dense

wet, reddish brown,medium dense to verydense

wet, reddish brown togray, very dense

wet, gray and white,very dense

wet, dark gray, verydense

Crushed GRAVEL, angular (FILL)

SILT, micaceous (FILL)

SILT, micaceous (original topsoil)

SILT, micaceous

SILTY SAND, angular

SILT, micaceous

Sandy SILT with Carbonate precipitate(Caliche), micaceous

SILTY SAND, angular

BASALT Boulder

SAND (fine), angular

BASALT, fresh to slightly weathered,moderately strong to moderately weak, closediscontinuities in fair condition

End of Boring @ 34 ft

(6-6-5-6)

(3-5-4)

(6-7-6)

(10-12-18)

(8-9-12)

(33-50(3.5))

(10-12-16)

(16-19-50(5))

(50(4))

BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:

STANDARD PEN TEST, N-VALUE (OBSERVED)

RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:

Project: Leisle Bridge

Location: Warden, Washington

Number: S14287

PL

gravel

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 1

D.Lehnair rotary overburdensystem, 4.5 in O.D. casing

LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-1

WATER CONTENT

3" SPLIT SPOON PENETRATION, BLOWS/FT

7-29-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerLeft side (E) south corner of new bridge

Elevation: 1257 ft

NE

B

S1

42

87

LE

ISL

E B

RID

GE

.GP

J

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14

+100

+100

+100

42

16

9

9

34

R

21

59

0

0

(85%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(87%)

(100%)

(40%)

(50%)




moist to wet, brown,loose to medium dense




wet, reddish brown,very dense

wet, reddish brown todark gray, very dense




SILT, micaceous (original topsoil layer)

SILT, micaceous

SILTY SAND, angular

(Increasing Caliche with depth)

SANDY SILT with Carbonate precipitate(Caliche), micaceous

SILTY SAND, angular

Highly to Completely weathered BASALT,very weak to extremely weak, closely spaceddiscontinuities in poor conditon

Moderately weathered BASALT, moderatelyweak to very weak, closely spaceddiscontinuities in poor conditon


End of Boring @ 36.9 ft

(22-23-19-17)

(6-7-9)

(6-5-4)

(5-4-5)

(11-13-21)

(14-41-50(3.5))

(16-27-32)

(16-27-32)

BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:


RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:



Number: S14287

PL

gravel

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 2


LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-2

WATER CONTENT


7-29-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerLeft side (E) north corner of new bridge

Elevation: 1257 ft

NE

B

S1

42

87

LE

ISL

E B

RID

GE

.GP

J

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14

+100

27

13

9

7

14

17

17

8

R

(68%)

(97%)

(12%)

(67%)

(95%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)



dry, gray, loose


wet, brown, mediumdense




wet, reddish brown todark gray, very dense




GRAVEL with Sand and Silt, (FILL)

SILT, micaceous

SILTY SAND to Sandy SILT, angular

Sandy SILT with Carbonate precipitate(Caliche), micaceous

SILTY SAND, angular


Moderately weathered BASALT, moderatelyweak to very weak, closely spaceddiscontinuities in poor conditon



(10-13-14-11)

(6-6-7)

(4-4-5)

(1-2-5)

(6-6-8-11)

(7-8-9)

(8-7-10)

(6-3-5)

(50(5.5))

BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:


RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:



Number: S14287

PL

gravel

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 3


LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-3

WATER CONTENT


7-31-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerRight side (W) south corner of existing bridge

Elevation: 1257 ft

NE

B

S1

42

87

LE

ISL

E B

RID

GE

.GP

J

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14

+100

9

6

17

4

26

14

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)






wet, brown, loose tomedium dense

wet, reddish brown,medium dense





SILT, micaceous (original topsoil)

SILT, micaceous

SILTY SAND, slight Carbonate precipitate(Caliche) development, angular

SILT, micaceous

SILTY SAND, angular




(4-4-5)

(6-3-3)

(7-8-9)

(1-2-2)

(6-11-15)

(5-5-9)

BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:


RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:



Number: S14287

PL

gravel

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 4


LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-4

WATER CONTENT


7-31-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerRight side (W) north corner of existing bridge

Elevation: 1256 ft

NE

B

S1

42

87

LE

ISL

E B

RID

GE

.GP

J

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14


411-3 SACKMAN

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #04 (DOE, 1976)

motto

Text Box

Well #04


412-3 DUCK POND (PREVIOUSLY MODIFIED)

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

B-1401 to B-1406 (B&A, 2014b)

TP 1407 and TP-1408 (B&A, 2014b)

37

7

71

R

27

(100%)

(89%)

(87%)

(100%)

(80%)

moist, brown, dense

moist, brown, loose

moist to wet, brown,dense to very dense

wet, dark gray withwhite and red, verydense

wet, dark gray

GRAVEL with Sand and Silt, (coarse to fine)angular (FILL)

Sandy SILT

Highly weathered BASALT, very weak, closelyspaced discontinuities in poor condition

Moderately weathered BASALT, moderatelyweak, closely spaced discontinuities in poorcondition

Slightly weathered to fresh BASALT,moderately strong, closely spaceddiscontinuities in fair condition


(21-22-15-14)

(4-4-3)

(32-36-35)

(50(2.5))

(13-14-13)

BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:


RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:

Project: Calloway Bridge


Number: S14285

PL

gravel

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 1401


LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-1

WATER CONTENT


7-30-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerLeft side (E), north end of new retaining wall

Elevation: 1262 ft

NE

B

S1

42

85

CA

LL

OW

AY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14

+100

moist, brown, dense

moist, brown, loose

moist to wet, brown andgray, dense to verydense

dry to moist, dark gray,dense to very dense

brown

dark gray

brown

dark gray

brown

dark gray

brown

dark gray

brown

dark gray


Sandy SILT






BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:


RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:



Number: S14285

PL

gravel

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 1402


LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-2

WATER CONTENT


7-30-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerLeft side (E), mid-length of new retaining wall

Elevation: 1262 ft

NE

B

S1

42

85

CA

LL

OW

AY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14

0 (100%)

moist, brown, dense

moist, brown, loose

moist to wet, brown andgray, dense to verydense

dry, dark gray, verydense


Sandy SILT




BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:


RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:



Number: S14285

PL

gravel

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 1403


LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-3

WATER CONTENT


7-30-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerLeft side (E), south end of new retaining wall

Elevation: 1262 ft

NE

B

S1

42

85

CA

LL

OW

AY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14

52

12

2

14

(55%)

(12%)

(90%)

(77%)

dry, brown, mediumdense to dense



wet, brown, very dense

dry, dark gray

wet, brown

dry, dark gray

SILTY GRAVEL with Cobbles, Boulders, andSand, angular (FILL)

Sandy SILT





(51-29-23-23)

(6-6-6)

(1-1-1)

(1-6-8)

BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:


RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:



Number: S14285

PL

gravel

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 1404


LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-4

WATER CONTENT


7-31-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerRight side (W), south end of new retaining wall

Elevation: 1258 ft

NE

B

S1

42

85

CA

LL

OW

AY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14

moist, brown, mediumdense

moist, brown, loose

wet, brown, dense

dry, dark gray, verydense

wet, brown

dry, dark gray

Crushed GRAVEL with Sand and Silt, angular(FILL)

Sandy SILT




BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:


RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:



Number: S14285

PL

gravel

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 1405


LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-5

WATER CONTENT


7-31-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerRight side (W), mid-length of new retaining wall

Elevation: 1259 ft

NE

B

S1

42

85

CA

LL

OW

AY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14

dry, brown, mediumdense to dense

moist, brown, mediumdense to dense

moist to wet, brown,loose

wet, brown, very dense

dry, dark gray

Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 3-inches

Crushed GRAVEL with Cobbles, Sand, andSilt, angular (FILL)

SILTY GRAVEL with Cobbles, Boulders, andSand, Basaltic, angular (FILL)

Sandy SILT




BORING LOGS

Surface:

SO

IL L

OG

(blo

ws/

6" (

italic

s))

Location:


RQ

D, B

LO

WC

OU

NT

S N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Date of Boring:



Number: S14285

PL

asphalt concrete pavement

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE

PT

H

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

TEST BORING 1406


LL

Type of Drill:

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

FIGURE 4-6

WATER CONTENT


7-31-14Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerRight side (W), north end of new retaining wall

Elevation: 1259 ft

NE

B

S1

42

85

CA

LL

OW

AY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

8

/11

/14

Sandy SILT


End of Excavation @ 6 ft


wet, brown and darkgray, very dense

no free groundwaterobserved


wet, brown and darkgray, very dense


Sandy SILT


DESCRIPTION

D.Lehn

FIGURE 4-7

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:7-30-14

0

5

10

15

20

25

Equipment:

Location:

Surface:

ECBID

VOLVO Excavator

Left side (E), mid-length of new retaining wall

gravel

Excavator:

1262 ftLogged by:

Date: 7-30-14

0

5

10

15

20

25

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

TEST PIT 1407TEST PIT 1407

D.Lehn

FIGURE 4-7

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

DE

PT

H



Number: S14285

Logged by:

TEST PIT LOGS

Date:

Size of hole: 4 ft. x 10 ft.



Number: S14285

SA

MP

LE

1262 ft

TEST PIT LOGS

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

DE

PT

H

DESCRIPTION

TE

ST

PIT

S

14

28

5 C

AL

LO

WA

Y B

RID

GE

.GP

J

8

/11

/14

Silty GRAVEL with Cobbles, Boulders, andSand, angular (FILL)

Sandy SILT


End of Excavation @ 11 ft

moist, brown, verydense


moist, dark gray, verydense


moist, brown, verydense


moist, dark gray, verydense


Silty GRAVEL with Cobbles, Boulders, andSand, angular (FILL)

Sandy SILT


DESCRIPTION

D.Lehn

FIGURE 4-8

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:7-30-14

0

5

10

15

20

25

Equipment:

Location:

Surface:

ECBID

VOLVO Excavator

Right side (W), mid-length of new retaining wall

gravel

Excavator:

1259 ftLogged by:

Date: 7-30-14

0

5

10

15

20

25

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

TEST PIT 1408TEST PIT 1408

D.Lehn

FIGURE 4-8

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

DE

PT

H



Number: S14285

Logged by:

TEST PIT LOGS

Date:

Size of hole: 6 ft. x 14 ft.



Number: S14285

SA

MP

LE

1259 ft

TEST PIT LOGS

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LO

R,

CO

ND

ITIO

N

DE

PT

H

DESCRIPTION

TE

ST

PIT

S

14

28

5 C

AL

LO

WA

Y B

RID

GE

.GP

J

8

/11

/14


248 11 SE AT EAST LOW

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #05 (DOE, 1977)

TP-3542+80 (East Low Canal As-Builts, 1951)

motto

Text Box

Well #05

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020


413-3 HAYSTACK

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #06 (DOE, 1995)

WELL #07 (DOE, 2001)

TP-1 and TP-2 (ACPW, 2003)


motto

Text Box

Well #06

motto

Text Box

Well #07

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020


414-3 SIMENSON

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #08 (DOE, 1975)


motto

Text Box

Well #08

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020


415-3 BRUCE EAST LOW

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #09 (DOE, 1975)


motto

Text Box

Well #09

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020


416-3 FILLERUP

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #10 (DOE, 2012)

WELL #11 (DOE, 1974)


motto

Text Box

Well #10

motto

Text Box

Well #11

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020


417-3 KANSAS PRAIRIE

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #12 (DOE, 1973)


motto

Text Box

Well #12

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020


418-3 SPUD PALACE

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

WELL #13 (DOE, 1987)

WELL #14 (DOE, 1993)

WELL #15 (DOE, 1993)


motto

Text Box

Well #13

motto

Text Box

Well #14

motto

Text Box

Well #15

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020


419-3 SHANO

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

Wells #16-31 (DOE, 2019)


motto

Text Box

Well #16

motto

Text Box

Well #17

motto

Text Box

Well #18

motto

Text Box

Well #19

motto

Text Box

Well #20

motto

Text Box

Well #21

motto

Text Box

Well #22

motto

Text Box

Well #23

motto

Text Box

Well #24

motto

Text Box

Well #25

motto

Text Box

Well #26

motto

Text Box

Well #27

motto

Text Box

Well #28

motto

Text Box

Well #29

motto

Text Box

Well #30

motto

Text Box

Well #31

Appendix A

Project No. 190352


1/13/2020

APPENDIX B

Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

ASPECT CONSULTING

REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE

Geoscience is Not Exact The geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology, and environmental science) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. It is important to recognize this limitation in evaluating the content of the report. If you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or property, you should contact Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect).

This Report and Project-Specific Factors Aspect’s services are designed to meet the specific needs of our clients. Aspect has performed the services in general accordance with our agreement (the Agreement) with the Client (defined under the Limitations section of this project’s work product). This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the purpose described in the Agreement.

Aspect considered many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the Scope of Work for this project and report. You should not rely on this report if it was:

• Not prepared for you;

• Not prepared for the specific purpose identified in the Agreement;

• Not prepared for the specific subject property assessed; or

• Completed before important changes occurred concerning the subject property, project, or governmental regulatory actions.

If changes are made to the project or subject property after the date of this report, Aspect should be retained to assess the impact of the changes with respect to the conclusions contained in the report.

Reliance Conditions for Third Parties This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limitations. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and recognized geoscience practices in the same locality and involving similar conditions at the time this report was prepared

Property Conditions Change Over Time This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by events such as a change in property use or occupancy, or by natural events, such as floods,

ASPECT CONSULTING

earthquakes, slope instability, or groundwater fluctuations. If any of the described events may have occurred following the issuance of the report, you should contact Aspect so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations.

Geotechnical, Geologic, and Environmental Reports Are Not Interchangeable

The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study differ significantly from those used to perform an environmental study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually address any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations (e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants). Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding the subject property.

We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions please contact the Aspect Project Manager for this project.

odessa - county road bridge replacement planning …€¦ · 26/03/2020 · geotechnical...

Documents