pavement design report - browncountywi.gov
TRANSCRIPT
Approved by WisDOT NE Region Local Program Management Consultant:
%~.Jf
PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT
for
Project l.D. 4616-03-00/71 T Wrightstown - T Rockland
Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd CTH ZZ
Brown County
OMNNI Associates One Systems Drive
Appleton, WI 54914
Report Date - November 9, 2016 Updated June 15, 2017
OMNNI Project No. E2166A 15
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
SUBJECT ...................................................................................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 3
TRAFFIC DATA ............................................................................................................................ 6
SOIL PARAMETERS ................................................................................................................... 7
PAVEMENT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 9
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 10
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................. 11
OTHER DISCUSSION............................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX A – Project Location Map
APPENDIX B – Existing and Proposed Typical Sections
APPENDIX C – Traffic Forecast Documentation
APPENDIX D – WisPave 4 Exhibits
APPENDIX E – LCCA Unit Price Information
APPENDIX F – Regional Pavement Engineers Memo
APPENDIX G – Geotechnical Exploration Report
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 1
SUBJECT
Project I.D. 4616-03-00/71
T Wrightstown – T Rockland
Clay St – Tetzlaff Rd
CTH ZZ
Brown County
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject project is a 3.6-mile reconstruction project on CTH ZZ from Clay Street in
the Village of Wrightstown to Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland. The project is
located in Sections 24, 25, 35 and 36 in the Town of Wrightstown, T22N, R19E, and
Section 19 in the Town of Rockland, T22N, R20E, Brown County. This section will be
reconstructed as a rural two-lane section.
Project Type
Reconstruction
Pavement Design Method
WisPAVE
Recommended Pavement Structure
Pavement Material: 4 ½ inches HMA Pavement
2 inch Upper Layer – 4 LT 58-28 S
2 ½ inch Lower Layer – 3 LT 58-28 S
Warranted: N/A
Base Material: 6 inches Base Aggregate Dense 1¼-inch
Subbase Material: 12 inches Breaker Run
Pavement Related Special Provisions:
QMP Base Aggregate
Unique Pavement Related Issues:
− Underdrain is not required for base drainage.
− Excavation below subgrade (EBS) is not anticipated, however, if
isolated areas of soft or wet soil subgrade are encountered, it is
recommended that the soft/wet areas be dried and compacted in place
or removed and replaced with dense graded aggregate base.
− Roadway will be closed to thru traffic during construction. CTH MW,
WIS 96 and WIS 32/57 will serve as the detour route.
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 2
Pavement Type Selection Basis
The pavement type selection basis is LCCA. Based on the LCCA, the Concrete
pavement section is the low cost alternative for this project. However, the HMA
pavement section is within 5% of the low cost alternative. The HMA pavement section
is the pavement section preferred by the Local Agency.
Local Road Project Information
Classification/Type Rural Major Collector
Posted Speed Varies 30 mph to 55 mph
Construction Year AADT (2019) 2200 vpd
Design Year AADT (2039) 2950 vpd
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Description
The subject project is a 3.6-mile reconstruction project on CTH ZZ from Clay Street in
the Village of Wrightstown to Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland. The project is
located in Sections 24, 25, 35 and 36 in the Town of Wrightstown, T22N, R19E, and
Section 19 in the Town of Rockland, T22N, R20E, Brown County. This section will be
reconstructed as a rural two-lane section.
Purpose of Project
The purpose of the project is to enhance the safety and maintainability of County ZZ by:
• Upgrading the deteriorated pavement structure • Stabilizing the slopes between the roadway and the Fox River • Improving the drainage along the corridor • Upgrading the roadway section to current standards • Improving the roadway alignment and profile • Improving the existing bridge over the East River • Improving roadway safety for errant vehicles • Accommodating alternate modes of transportation
Project Length
3.6 Miles
Functional Class
Major Collector
Roadway Design Classification
Urban Section Design Class: 2a
Rural Section Design Class: C3
Posted Speed
Clay Street to Wrightstown Village Limits 30 mph Wrightstown Village Limits to Moonriver Drive 35 mph Moonriver Drive to Masse Circle 45 mph Masse Circle to Tetzlaff Road 55 mph
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 4
Existing Facility
Year Built
Clay Street to approx. 1000 feet south of Wrightstown Village Limits 2002
1,000 feet south of Wrightstown Village Limits to Tetzlaff Road 1952
Number of Lanes 2
Cross Section
• Clay Street to 1000 feet south of Wrightstown Village Limits : 2-lane urban roadway
o East side of County ZZ: 14’ travel lane, 30” curb and gutter and abutting 5’ sidewalk
o West side of County ZZ: 12’ travel lane and 4’-6’ shoulders (3’ paved)
• 1000 feet south of Wrightstown Village Limits to Tetzlaff Road: 2-lane rural roadway with 11’ travel lanes and 3-4’ shoulders (0’ paved)
• Existing typical sections are included in Appendix B.
Rehabilitation History
Clay Street to Mallard Road None recorded
Mallard Road to Wrightstown Road HMA overlay in 1996
Wrightstown Road to Tetzlaff Road HMA overlay in 1981
Existing Pavement Structure
The soil borings indicated asphalt pavement thicknesses ranging from 4 inches to 18
inches with the average thickness at approximately 6 inches. Beneath the asphalt
pavement, the soil borings encountered base course averaging 15 inches in thickness
and generally consisting of silty sand with gravel of varying relative densities. Fill was
encountered beneath the base course in most of the borings. The fill was encountered
to depths of 2 feet to 8 feet beneath the ground surface in the roadway borings;
however, the majority of the fill depths were within 4 feet of the ground surface. The fill
generally consisted of lean clay with various amounts of sand and gravel and with trace
to little amounts of organics.
Pavement Condition
The IRI and PCI values are not available for this report. PASER ratings were obtained
from WISLR as follows:
Location PASER Rating (Year)
Between Clay Street and 1000’ south of Wrightstown Village Limits
4 (2015)
Between 1000’ south of Wrightstown Village Limits and Wrightstown Road
3 (2015)
Between Wrightstown Road and Tetzlaff 3 (2015)
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 5
The PASER rating for a major portion of the project length was a 3 in 2015, which
indicates that the pavement condition is “poor”, and needs either patching and major
overlay, or complete recycling. A PASER rating of 4 indicates that the pavement is in
“fair” condition and is showing signs of significant aging. The roadway has a significant
amount of longitudinal and transverse cracking, alligator cracking, and rutting in some
locations. The existing pavement has served its useful life and has deteriorated beyond
the point of repair.
Proposed Cross Section
CTH ZZ will be reconstructed as follows:
• Clay Street to approximate 1,000’ south of Wrightstown Village Limits: 2-lane
urban roadway with 4’ bicycle accommodations and 30” curb and gutter on
both sides of the roadway.
• 1,000’ south of Wrightstown Village Limits to Tetzlaff Road: 2-lane rural
roadway section consisting of one 12 foot wide lane and an adjacent 6’ wide
shoulder (5’ paved) in each direction.
Proposed typical sections are also included in Appendix B.
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 6
TRAFFIC DATA
Existing and forecasted traffic data was provided by the Wisconsin DOT. The Traffic
Forecast Report from October 13, 2015 is attached as Appendix C.
AADT
Year CTH ZZ
AADT
2009 Existing AADT 1,800
2019 Construction Year AADT 2,200
2039 Design Year AADT 2,950
Truck Traffic
Truck Class Percentage
2D 2.2 %
3AX 1.4 %
2S1+2S2 1.0 %
3-S2 1.3 %
DBL-BTM 0.1 %
Totals 6.0 %
Directional factor 0.5
Lane distribution factor 1.0
Equivalent single axle loads (ESAL’s)
ESAL Type ESAL’s
HMA Daily ESAL’s 46
HMA Design ESAL’s 340,000
PCC Daily ESAL’s 67
PCC Design ESAL’s 500,000
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 7
SOIL PARAMETERS
The Geotechnical Investigation Report for this project was prepared by Kyle Weeks and
reviewed by Timothy A. Bolwerk, both of OMNNI Associates in October 2016, and is
attached as Appendix G. A summary from the report follows.
Parameter Value
Design Group Index (DGI) 14
Frost Index (FI) F-3
Soil Support Value (SSV) 3.9
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 125
Predominate Soil Types The project area extended across two mapping units as indicated by the United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) soil survey for Brown County, Wisconsin. The mapping units were as follows: (OnB, OnD2) Oshkosh silt loam (KkD3, KkE3) Kewaunee soils According to the Soil Conservation Service soil survey for Brown County, the soil series indicated above consist of the following: Oshkosh: Gently sloping, deep, well drained and moderately well drained soils on
lacustrine plains dissected by V-shaped valleys. Soils are in old glacial lake basins and have medium available water capacity and slow permeability.
Kewaunee: Steeply sloping, severely eroded, deep, well drained and moderately well drained soils on ridges in glacial till plains. Soils have high available water capacity and slow permeability.
Special Information Based on the soil and water conditions encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that the existing natural tills and lean clay fills will be suitable for support of the planned pavement sections. It is also our opinion that isolated areas of soft or unsuitable soils may be encountered at planned pavement section subgrade elevations, and the soft or unsuitable soils will be required to either be removed and replaced with a compacted suitable fill material or moisture conditioned and compacted in place to provide a suitable pavement section subgrade. It is not anticipated that subsurface water will impact construction though isolated areas of perched water may be encountered particularly in existing ditch and drainage areas. Lastly, the existing lean clay fill and natural till are susceptible to disturbance in the presence of water and construction traffic and as a result, it is recommended that all
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 8
pavement subgrade surfaces be graded to keep water from ponding on the surfaces during construction. Subgrade Information Subgrade improvements are not planned as part of this project.
Additional information on the existing soils throughout the project limits can be found in the Geotechnical Investigation Report.
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 9
PAVEMENT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
PCC and HMA pavement design alternatives were generated based on the traffic and
soil parameters previously discussed. CTH ZZ will be reconstructed as follows:
• Clay Street to WWTP: 2-lane urban roadway with 4’ bicycle accommodations
and 30” curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway.
• WWTP to Tetzlaff Road: 2-lane rural roadway section consisting of one 12
foot wide lane and an adjacent 6’ wide shoulder (5’ paved) in each direction.
The WisPAVE 4 software was utilized to calculate the required concrete thickness and
the structure number for HMA pavement design.
Existing base course or fill was not used as part of the pavement design strength. The
existing pavement and base course will be removed to the proposed subgrade in all
alternatives. WisPAVE calculated a minimum concrete depth of 6”, but an alternative of
7” was considered in order to use doweled concrete pavement. Descriptions of the
pavement alternatives are listed below.
PCC Alternative 1
7” Concrete Pavement
6” Base Aggregate Dense, 1 ¼-inch
HMA Alternative 1
4.5” HMA Pavement
2” - 4 LT 58-28 S
2.5” - 3 LT 58-28 S
6” Base Aggregate Dense, 1 ¼-inch
12” Breaker Run
WisPave pavement design printouts for each pavement design are located in Appendix D.
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 10
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS A Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) was conducted using WisPAVE 4 software and the
pavement options above. A printout of WisPAVE LCCA inputs and results is located in
Appendix D. For all alternatives, the same general cross section was used. This cross
section consists of a two-lane rural section consisting of one 12 foot wide lane and an
adjacent 6’ wide shoulder (5’ paved) in each direction.
The bid costs used represent average costs on roadway projects in the area based on a
review of prices in Estimator for similar quantities. See Appendix E for additional
information. In addition to the typical quantities calculated by WisPAVE for the LCCA,
common excavation quantities were included to account for the increased excavation
costs associated with thicker pavement sections.
The following rehabilitation scenarios were used for the LCCA:
PCC Rehabilitation #1: repair 5% of surface area, no grinding.
PCC Rehabilitation #2: repair 5% of surface area, grind 100% of pavement area.
PCC Rehabilitation #3: repair 5% of surface area, 2” HMA overlay
HMA Rehabilitation #1: mill 2” and overlay 2” over entire pavement area*
HMA Rehabilitation #2: mill 4” and overlay 4” over entire pavement area*
HMA Rehabilitation #3: mill 4” and overlay 4” over entire pavement area*
*See Appendix F for direction from the WisDOT Pavement Engineers Users
Group for rehabilitation alternatives.
The table below shows the LCCA results as calculated using WisPAVE 4.
PCC
Alternative #1
HMA Alternative
#1
Initial Construction
Costs
$2,045,161.63 $1,793,289.98
Maintenance Costs $74,833.86 $35,745.64
Rehabilitation
Costs
$228,677.58 $626,054.15
Rehab Salvage
Costs
($18,665.10) ($31,044.64)
Total Facility
Costs
$2,330,007.97 $2,424,045.12
Percent Difference + 0.00% +4.04%
LCCA Results
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc. 11
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The recommended pavement section for the CTH ZZ reconstruction project is as
follows:
4 ½ inches HMA Pavement
2 inch Upper Layer – 4 LT 58-28 S
2 ½ inch Lower Layer – 3 LT 58-28 S
6 inches Base Aggregate Dense 1¼-inch
12 inches Breaker Run
Based on the LCCA, the Concrete pavement section is the low cost alternative for this
project. However, the HMA pavement section is within 5% of the low cost alternative. It
should also be noted that Brown County has seen lower prices for HMA in recent
projects than what is shown in BidX, Estimator and the WisDOT HMA graph. Based on
FDM 14-15.1.6, since the preferred pavement section is within 5% of the LCCA low-cost
option, then the pavement selection is at the pavement designer’s discretion. The HMA
pavement section is the pavement section preferred by the Local Agency.
The pavement structure special provisions should include the following:
QMP Base Aggregate
Underdrain is not required for base drainage. Excavation below subgrade (EBS) is not
anticipated, however, if isolated areas of soft or wet soil subgrade are encountered, it is
recommended that the soft/wet areas be dried and compacted in place or removed and
replaced with dense graded aggregate base.
OTHER DISCUSSION
Detour Route – During the majority of construction, CTH ZZ will be closed to thru traffic
with a detour on CTH MW, WIS 96 and WIS 32/57.
Based on Brown County knowledge and experience, side road intersections intersecting
CTH ZZ will be reconstructed with the following pavement structure:
3 ½ inches HMA Pavement
1 ¾ inch Upper Layer – 4 LT 58-28 S
1 ¾ inch Lower Layer – 3 LT 58-28 S
6 inches Base Aggregate Dense 1¼-inch
12 inches Breaker Run
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX A
Project Location Map
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX B
Existing and Proposed Typical Sections
E
22
46160371-020301-ts
E
22
46160371-020302-ts
E
22
46160371-020303-ts
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX C
Traffic Forecast Documentation
Region/COUNTY(IES):
LOCATION:
COMPLETED:
Developed By: Vu Dang
Phone: (608) 266-2571
FAX #: (608) 267-0294
E-Mail: [email protected]
Site(s) 050261
Routes(s) CTH ZZ
Volume(s) 2930
Site Growth % 2.04%
K250 9.7
K100 10.7
K30 11.9
P 14.9
D(Dsgn. Hr.) 60/40
T(DHV) 5.1
T(PHV) 2.7
-000- 2009 Count
(000) 2019 AADT
[000] 2029 AADT
000 2039 AADT
Trucks 050261
AADTT 110
2D 2.2
3AX 1.4
2S1+2S2 1.0
3-S2 1.3
DBL-BTM 0.1
Total % 6.0%
Traffic Forecasting Section; Bureau of Planning and Economic Development; Division of Transportation Investment Management
CTH ZZ
NE/BROWN
Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd
10/13/2015
Design Values (%)
2. Truck classification percentages were taken from a table representative
of similar facilities and locations throughout the state of Wisconsin.
1. This projection assumes that no major new traffic generators will be
added to the development already included in the 2010/2045 Northeast
Regional Travel Demand Model.
NOTES ON THE FORECAST:
3. CTH ZZ is a Factor Group IV (Rural-Other) roadway (indicating low to
moderate fluctuation in traffic from a seasonal perspective). It is functionally
classified as a Rural Major Collector (7) for count purposes.
4. The 2010/2045 Northeast Regional Travel Demand Model was used to
complete this forecast. Traffic Analysis Forecasting Information System
output was used as a comparison tool to check against the model output.
Adjustments were made as needed.
5. Roadway improvements coded within the existing plus committed (E+C)
network of the 2010/2045 Northeast Regional Travel Demand Model were
assumed to be in place for the purposes of developing this forecast.
WisDOT TRAFFIC FORECAST REPORT
ROUTE(S):
PROJECT ID(S): 4616-13-00
SITE ID = Colored, bolded, and underlined
N
050261 -1800- (2200) [2600] 2950
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX D
WisPAVE 4 Exhibits
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Edit Pavement Design General Information
* Project ID: 4616-03-00 * Designer's Name:OMNNI Transportation
* Design Name: T Wrightstown - T Rockland * Design Date: 11/09/2016
* Roadway Name: CTH ZZ * Type: Local
* Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd * Status: Draft
* Highway Name: CTH ZZ * Design Source:
* Region: NE Select
* County: Brown Select
Comments:
Traffic numbers from Traffic Forecast dated 10/13/2015
Back Save As New Next
Last Updated date and Time: 05/01/2017 12:18:38 PM
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 1 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Pavement Design Details
Project ID: 4616-03-00 Design Name:T Wrightstown - T Rockland
Design Date: 11/09/2016
Highway: CTH ZZ Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd County: Brown
Designer: OMNNI Transportation
Soil Parameters
*Design Group Index (DGI): 14
*Subgrade Improvement: Yes No
*Soil Support Value(SSV): 3.9
*Modulus of Subgrade Reaction(k): 125
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 2 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Pavement Design Details
Project ID: 4616-03-00 Design Name:T Wrightstown - T Rockland
Design Date: 11/09/2016
Highway: CTH ZZ Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd County: Brown
Designer: OMNNI Transportation
Traffic Parameters
*Construction Year: 2019 *Design Year: 2039
*Construction Year AADT: 2200 *Design Year AADT: 2950
*Directional Factor(DF): 0.5 *Lane Distribution Factor(LDF): 1.0
Truck Classification
% of AADT
2D 2.2
3SU 1.4
2S-1,-2 1.0
3S-2 1.3
2-S1-2 0.1
Total % Truck Traffic
6
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 3 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Pavement Design Details
Project ID: 4616-03-00 Design Name:T Wrightstown - T Rockland
Design Date: 11/09/2016
Highway: CTH ZZ Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd County: Brown
Designer: OMNNI Transportation
Concrete Pavement Design
Truck Type
% of AADT
DLT# of Trucks
ESAL Load Factor
ESALs
2D 2.2 1,288 28 0.3 8
3SU 1.4 1,288 18 1.2 22
2S-1,-2 1.0 1,288 13 0.6 8
3S-2 1.3 1,288 17 1.6 27
2-S1-2 0.1 1,288 1 2.1 3
Design Lane Daily ESALs: 67
Design Lane Total Life ESALs: 491,555 Rounded to: 500,000
Soil Parameters
Subgrade Improvement Flag selected: No
k : 125
Design Calculation
Calculated Pavement Thickness: 6
Pavement Thickness(ALT# 1): 7.0
Pavement Thickness(ALT# 2): 0.0
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 4 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Pavement Design Details
Project ID: 4616-03-00 Design Name:T Wrightstown - T Rockland
Design Date: 11/09/2016
Highway: CTH ZZ Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd County: Brown
Designer: OMNNI Transportation
HMA Pavement Design
Truck Type
% of AADT
DLT# of Trucks
ESAL Load Factor
ESALs
2D 2.2 1,288 28 0.3 8
3SU 1.4 1,288 18 0.8 14
2S-1,-2 1.0 1,288 13 0.5 6
3S-2 1.3 1,288 17 0.9 15
2-S1-2 0.1 1,288 1 2.0 3
Design Lane Daily ESALs: 46
Design Lane Total Life ESALs: 335,800 Rounded to: 340,000
Soil Parameters
DGI : 14
Subgrade Improvement Flag selected: No
SSV : 3.9
Design Calculation
Calculated Required SN: 3.49
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 5 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next Alternative LCCA
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Pavement Design Details
Project ID: 4616-03-00 Design Name:T Wrightstown - T Rockland
Design Date: 11/09/2016
Highway: CTH ZZ Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd County: Brown
Designer: OMNNI Transportation
HMA ALT#1 Layer Thickness DesignTitle: HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard
Add Layer Delete Layer
LayersExistingPavement
UppermostBase Agg.
OtherMaterialType
UnitType
LayerCoefficient
Thicknessin.
StructuralNumber
1 4 LT 58-28 S -------- 0.44 2.0 0.88
2 3 LT 58-28 S -------- 0.44 2.5 1.1
3 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch -------- 0.1 6.0 0.6
4 Breaker Run -------- 0.1 12.0 1.2
Note: You can add only 10 layers (including 'Other' layers)
No.of Layers: 4 No.of Other Layers: 0 Total SN: 3.78
Required SN: 3.49
Note 1. If the structural design includes a granular subbase, then the layer can only contribute a maximum of 10% of the required SN (see FDM 14-10-5.8), regardless of the material's strength coefficient or the thickness of the layer.
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 6 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Pavement Design Details
Project ID: 4616-03-00 Design Name:T Wrightstown - T Rockland
Design Date: 11/09/2016
Highway: CTH ZZ Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd County: Brown
Designer: OMNNI Transportation
LCCA Parameters
* Project Type: Urban Rural
* LCCA Length: 3.6 Miles
No. of HMA Alternatives: 2
* Select HMA Alternatives to include in LCCA: HMA Alt# 1 HMA Alt# 2
No. of Concrete Alternatives: 1
* Select Concrete Alternatives to include in LCCA: Concrete Alt# 1
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 7 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
HMA Alt#1 DescriptionHMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard
LayersExistingPavement
MaterialType
Thicknessin.
Unit Weightlbs/SY/in
# of TackCoat Layers
Tack CoatCoverage Gal/SY
1 N 4 LT 58-28 S 2.0 110.0 1 0.05
2 N 3 LT 58-28 S 2.5 110.0 1 0.05
3 N Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch 6.0 2.0 -------- --------
4 N Breaker Run 12.0 1.8 -------- --------
Shoulders
Material TypeThickness
in.# of TackCoat Layers
Tack CoatCoverage Gal/SY
N/A
Additional Construction Process
Add Construction Process Delete Construction Process
Layers Other Process Description
% of LCCA LengthRequiring Process
ExistingPavementWidth ft.
% of Surface Area
Requiring Repair
# ofStations
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 8 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
HMA Alt#1 Quantities HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard
Additional Initial Construction Quantities :
Other Quantities :
Back Next
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
LayersBid Item No
Bid Item Desc Units Quantity
1 460.5224 4 LT 58-28 S TON 5,575.7
455.0605 Tack Coat GAL 2,534.4
2 460.5223 3 LT 58-28 S TON 6,969.6
455.0605 Tack Coat GAL 2,534.4
3 305.0120 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch TON 28,864
4 311.0110 Breaker Run TON 59,558.4
Bid Item No
Bid Item Desc Units Quantity
No Additional Initial Construction Quantites Found
Other Description Unit Quantity
Common Excavation - HMA CY 47500.0
Select 0.0
Select 0.0
Page 9 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Pavement Design Details
Project ID: 4616-03-00 Design Name:T Wrightstown - T Rockland
Design Date: 11/09/2016
Highway: CTH ZZ Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd County: Brown
Designer: OMNNI Transportation
HMA Alt#1 Rural Cross SectionHMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard
*Roadway Width: 36.0 *Side Slope: 4 : 1
*Paved Left Shoulder Width: 5.0 *Paved Right Shoulder Width: 5.0
*Number of Travel Lanes : 2
Lane 1 Width : 12.0 Lane 2 Width : 12.0
Number of Center/Shared Lanes : 0
Pavement Structure Width: 24
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 10 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next Alternative
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
HMA Alternative − Maintenance & Rehabilitation Summary − Alt #1HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard
Add Delete
54
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Year Type of Work ActivityService Life
Cost per Lane Mile Calculate
0 Initial Construction - Traditional or Deep 18
6 HMA Maintenance 1st Cycle $2000.0
12 HMA Maintenance 2nd Cycle $2500.0
18 HMA Rehabilitation Mill & HMA Overlay 12 Calculate
22 HMA Maintenance 1st Cycle $2000.0
26 HMA Maintenance 2nd Cycle $2500.0
30 HMA Rehabilitation Mill & HMA Overlay 12 Calculate
34 HMA Maintenance 1st Cycle $2000.0
38 HMA Maintenance 2nd Cycle $2500.0
42 HMA Rehabilitation Mill & HMA Overlay 12 Calculate
46 HMA Maintenance 1st Cycle $2000.0
50 HMA Maintenance 2nd Cycle $2500.0
Page 11 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Save
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
HMA Alt #1 : HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County StandardRehabilitation #1: Mill & HMA Overlay
Milling Limits: Pavement Structure and Shoulders Milling Depth: 2.0 (in)
Overlay Limits: Pavement Structure and Shoulders
Type HMA Mix Type Thickness# of
Tack Coat Layers
Tack CoatCoverageGAL/SY
Overlay 4 LT 58-28 S 2.0 1 0.05
Calculate
Item Units Quantity
Removing Asphaltic Surface Milling SY 71,808
4 LT 58-28 S TON 7,898.9
Tack Coat(Pavement Structure) GAL 3,590.4
Base Aggregate Dense 3/4-inch(Shoulder Gravel) TON 0
0.0
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 12 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Save
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
HMA Alt #1 : HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County StandardRehabilitation #2: Mill & HMA Overlay
Milling Limits: Pavement Structure and Shoulders Milling Depth: 4.0 (in)
Overlay Limits: Pavement Structure and Shoulders
Type HMA Mix Type Thickness# of
Tack Coat Layers
Tack CoatCoverageGAL/SY
Overlay 4 LT 58-28 S 4.0 1 0.05
Calculate
Item Units Quantity
Removing Asphaltic Surface Milling SY 71,808
4 LT 58-28 S TON 15,797.8
Tack Coat(Pavement Structure) GAL 3,590.4
Base Aggregate Dense 3/4-inch(Shoulder Gravel) TON 0
0.0
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 13 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Save
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
HMA Alt #1 : HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County StandardRehabilitation #3: Mill & HMA Overlay
Milling Limits: Pavement Structure and Shoulders Milling Depth: 4.0 (in)
Overlay Limits: Pavement Structure and Shoulders
Type HMA Mix Type Thickness# of
Tack Coat Layers
Tack CoatCoverageGAL/SY
Overlay 4 LT 58-28 S 4.0 1 0.05
Calculate
Item Units Quantity
Removing Asphaltic Surface Milling SY 71,808
4 LT 58-28 S TON 15,797.8
Tack Coat(Pavement Structure) GAL 3,590.4
Base Aggregate Dense 3/4-inch(Shoulder Gravel) TON 0
0.0
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 14 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Concrete Alt#1 DescriptionTitle: Conc Alt #1
Add Layer Delete Layer
LayersExistingPavement
UppermostBase Agg.
OtherMaterialType
UnitType
Thicknessin.
# of TackCoat Layers
Tack CoatCoverage Gal/SY
1 Concrete Pavement, 7 inch -------- 7.0 -------- --------
2 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch -------- 6.0 -------- --------
Shoulders
Shoulder Materials: HMA
Material TypeThickness
in.# of TackCoat Layers
Tack CoatCoverage Gal/SY
N/A
Additional Construction Process
Add Construction Process Delete Construction Process
Layers Other Process Description
% of LCCA LengthRequiring Process
ExistingPavementWidth ft.
% of Surface Area
Requiring Repair
# ofStations
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 15 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Concrete Alt#1 QuantitiesConc Alt #1
Additional Initial Construction Quantities:
Other Quantities:
Back Next
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
LayersBid Item No
Bid Item Desc Units Quantity
1 415.0070 Concrete Pavement, 7 inch SY 50,688
2 305.0120 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch TON 30,037.3
Bid Item No
Bid Item Desc Units Quantity
No Additional Initial Construction Quantites Found
Other Description Unit Quantity
Common Excavation - ConcCY 27500.0
Select 0.0
Select 0.0
Page 16 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Pavement Design Details
Project ID: 4616-03-00 Design Name:T Wrightstown - T Rockland
Design Date: 11/09/2016
Highway: CTH ZZ Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd County: Brown
Designer: OMNNI Transportation
Concrete Alt#1 Rural Cross SectionConc Alt #1
*Roadway Width: 36.0 *Side Slope: 4 : 1
*Paved Left Shoulder Width: 5.0 *Paved Right Shoulder Width: 5.0
*Number of Travel Lanes : 2
Paved Lane1 Width : 12.0 Paved Lane2 Width : 12.0
Number of Center/Shared Lanes : 0
Pavement Structure Width: 24
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 17 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Next Alternative
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Concrete Alternative − Maintenance & Rehabilitation Summary − Alt #1Conc Alt #1
Add Delete
56
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Year Type of Work ActivityService Life
Cost per Lane Mile Calculate
0 Initial Construction 25
8 Concrete Maintenance 1st Cycle $4000.0
16 Concrete Maintenance 2nd Cycle $8000.0
25 Concrete Rehabilitation Concrete Repair & Grind 8 Calculate
28 Concrete Maintenance 1st Cycle $4000.0
31 Concrete Maintenance 2nd Cycle $8000.0
33 Concrete Rehabilitation Concrete Repair & Grind 8 Calculate
36 Concrete Maintenance 1st Cycle $4000.0
39 Concrete Maintenance 2nd Cycle $8000.0
41 Concrete Rehabilitation Concrete Repair & HMA Overlay 15 Calculate
46 Concrete Maintenance 1st Cycle $2000.0
51 Concrete Maintenance 2nd Cycle $2500.0
Page 18 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Save
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Concrete Alt #1 : Conc Alt #1Rehabilitation #1: Concrete Repair & Grind
% of Surface Area to be Repaired: 5.0
Grind Limits: None
Calculate
Item Units Quantity
Concrete Pavement Repair SY 2,536
Drilled Dowel Bars EACH 5,072
Sawing Concrete LF 11,412
Concrete Pavement Continuous Diamond Grinding SY 0
0.0
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 19 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Save
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Concrete Alt #1 : Conc Alt #1Rehabilitation #2: Concrete Repair & Grind
% of Surface Area to be Repaired: 5.0
Grind Limits: Pavement Structure Only
Calculate
Item Units Quantity
Concrete Pavement Repair SY 2,536
Drilled Dowel Bars EACH 5,072
Sawing Concrete LF 11,412
Concrete Pavement Continuous Diamond Grinding SY 50,688
0.0
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 20 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Back Save
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Concrete Alt #1 : Conc Alt #1Rehabilitation #3: Concrete Repair & HMA Overlay
% of Surface Area to be Repaired: 5.0
Removing Concrete Surface Partial Depth Limits: None
Overlay Limits: Pavement Structure Only
Type HMA Mix Type Thickness# of
Tack Coat Layers
Tack CoatCoverageGAL/SY
Overlay 4 LT 58-28 S 2.0 1 0.05
Calculate
Item Units Quantity
Base Patching Concrete SY 2,536
Drilled Dowel Bars EACH 5,072
Sawing Concrete LF 11,412
Removing Concrete Surface Partial Depth SF 0
4 LT 58-28 S TON 5,575.7
Tack Coat(Pavement Structure) GAL 2,534.4
Base Aggregate Dense 3/4-inch(Shoulder Gravel) TON 0
0.0
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 21 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
HMA Bid Items
Back Next
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Bid Item DescBid Item No
Units Unit Cost
Tack Coat 455.0605 GAL 2.75
HMA Pavement Type E-1
460.1101 TON 68.0
3 LT 58-28 S 460.5223 TON 66.5
4 LT 58-28 S 460.5224 TON 68.0
Page 22 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Concrete Bid Items
Back Next
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Bid Item DescBid Item No
Units Unit Cost
Base Patching Concrete 390.0303 SY 51.5
Concrete Pavement, 7 inch
415.0070 SY 35.0
Drilled Dowel Bars 416.0620 EACH 10.5
Concrete Pavement Repair
416.1710 SY 68.0
Concrete Pavement Continuous Diamond
Grinding420.1000 SY 5.0
Sawing Concrete 690.0250 LF 1.75
Page 23 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Base Course Bid Items
Back Next
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Bid Item DescBid Item No
Units Unit Cost
Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch
305.0120 TON 9.0
Page 24 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Sub-base Bid Items
Back Next
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Bid Item Desc Bid Item No Units Unit Cost
Breaker Run 311.0110 TON 8.75
Page 25 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Remove Pavement Bid Items
Back Next
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Bid Item DescBid Item No
Units Unit Cost
Removing Asphaltic Surface Milling
204.0120 SY 1.3
Page 26 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
Other Layer Items
Other Additional Construction Items:
Other Additional Rehabilitation Items:
Other Alternative Items:
Back Next
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Other Material Description Units Unit Cost
No Other Layers Items Found
Other Material Description Unit Cost
No Other Additional Construction Items Found
Other Material Description Units Unit Cost
No Other Rehabilitation Items Found
Other Material Description Units Unit Cost
Common Excavation - Conc CY 7.65
Common Excavation - HMA CY 7.15
Page 27 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Version A - 34 - 34
WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit
User: OMNNI Transportation
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS RESULTS
Current Year: 2017 Project Length: 3.6 Miles
Construction Year: 2019 Analysis Basis: LCCA Length
Analysis Period: 50 yrs Discount Rate(%): 5
Present Worth Costs
Concrete Alt#1
Conc Alt #1
HMA Alt#1
HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard
Initial Construction Costs $2,045,161.63 $1,793,289.98
Maintenance Costs $74,833.86 $35,745.64
Rehabilitation Costs $228,677.58 $626,054.15
Rehabilitation Salvage Value ($18,665.10) ($31,044.64)
Total Facility Costs $2,330,007.97 $2,424,045.12
+ 0.00% + 4.04%
Back
Project ID: 4616-03-00
Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050
Page 28 of 29WisPave Reporting
5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX E
LCCA Unit Price Information
WisDOT
Estimate 4616-03-71
Estimated Cost:$2,027,846.17
Contingency: 0.00%
Estimated Total: $2,027,846.17
Estimate for LCCA Calculations Only
County: Brown
Season: Winter
Urban/Rural Type: Rural
Highway Type: Undivided, Collector (Major)
Work Type: Asphalt Paving
Unit System: E
Spec Year: 03
Base Date: 12/11/18
Latitude of Midpoint: 0
Longitude of Midpoint: 0
District: NE
Federal/State Project Number:
Prepared by Generic User
Line # Item Number Quantity Units
WisDOTEstimate: 4616-03-71
Unit Price Extension
DescriptionSupplemental Description
Group 0010: HMA Alternative Items
0010 204.0120 71,810.000 SY $1.31009 $94,077.56Removing Asphaltic Surface Milling
Regression price 204.0120 Active: Y Unit Price: $1.31009
0020 205.0100 47,500.000 CY $7.11630 $338,024.25Excavation Common
Regression price 205.0100 Active: Y Unit Price: $7.11630
0030 305.0120 27,985.000 TON $8.84968 $247,658.29Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-Inch
Regression price 305.0120 Active: Y Unit Price: $8.84968
0040 311.0110 56,075.000 TON $8.76705 $491,612.33Breaker Run
Regression price 311.0110 Active: Y Unit Price: $8.76705
0050 455.0605 5,070.000 GAL $2.72204 $13,800.74Tack Coat
Regression price 455.0605 Active: Y Unit Price: $2.72204
0060 460.5223 6,970.000 TON $66.50000 $463,505.00HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S
Used combined asphalt cost spreadsheet = $66.23. Used $66.50/ton
0070 460.5224 5,576.000 TON $68.00000 $379,168.00HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S
Used combined asphalt cost spreadsheet = $67.57. Used $68/ton
Total for Group 0010:$2,027,846.17
Page 2 of 211:45:02AMWednesday, November 09, 2016
WisDOT
Estimate 4616-03-71
Estimated Cost:$3,253,037.54
Contingency: 0.00%
Estimated Total: $3,253,037.54
Estimate for LCCA Calculations Only
County: Brown
Season: Winter
Urban/Rural Type: Rural
Highway Type: Undivided, Collector (Major)
Work Type: Asphalt Paving
Unit System: E
Spec Year: 03
Base Date: 12/11/18
Latitude of Midpoint: 0
Longitude of Midpoint: 0
District: NE
Federal/State Project Number:
Prepared by Generic User
Line # Item Number Quantity Units
WisDOTEstimate: 4616-03-71
Unit Price Extension
DescriptionSupplemental Description
Group 0010: Concrete Alternative Items
0010 205.0100 27,500.000 CY $7.63166 $209,870.65Excavation Common
Regression price 205.0100 Active: Y Unit Price: $7.63166
0020 305.0120 28,864.000 TON $8.81738 $254,504.86
Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-Inch
Regression price 305.0120 Active: Y Unit Price: $8.81738
0030 390.0303 2,536.000 SY $51.13397 $129,675.75
Base Patching Concrete
Regression price 390.0303 Active: Y Unit Price: $51.13397
0040 415.0070 50,688.000 SY $35.00000 $1,774,080.00
Concrete Pavement 7-Inch
No bid history in estimatorBidx history - range from $24.84 to $48/SY for conc pvt 7-inch, avg = $35.83Bidx history - range from $23.74 to $57/SY for conc pvt 8-inch, avg =$33.53Used $35/sy
0050 416.0620 5,072.000 EACH $10.45188 $53,011.94Drilled Dowel Bars
Regression price 416.0620 Active: Y Unit Price: $10.45188
0060 416.1710 2,536.000 SY $67.79602 $171,930.71
Concrete Pavement Repair
Regression price 416.1710 Active: Y Unit Price: $67.79602
0070 420.1000 50,688.000 SY $5.00000 $253,440.00
Continuous Diamond Grinding Concrete Pavement
Bidx costs ranged from $3/SY to $8/SYUsed $5/Sy based on project bids for similar qtys. See printout
0080 455.0605 2,534.000 GAL $3.26108 $8,263.58Tack Coat
Regression price 455.0605 Active: Y Unit Price: $3.26108
0090 460.5224 5,576.000 TON $68.00000 $379,168.00
HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S
Used combined asphalt cost spreadsheet = $67.57. Used $68/ton
Page 2 of 312:08:10PMWednesday, November 09, 2016
Line # Item Number Quantity Units
WisDOTEstimate: 4616-03-71
Unit Price Extension
DescriptionSupplemental Description
0100 690.0250 11,412.000 LF $1.67298 $19,092.05Sawing Concrete
Regression price 690.0250 Active: Y Unit Price: $1.67298
Total for Group 0010:$3,253,037.54
Page 3 of 312:08:10PMWednesday, November 09, 2016
Welcome [email protected]!Logout
Bid Tab Analysis Search
Export (csv) | Export (tab)
Item Description Average High Low Unit Bid Count
415.0070Concrete Pavement 7-Inch **P**
$39.50 $40.00 $38.00 SY 4 Bids
Letting
Date Proposal County
Proposal
Average
Proposal
High
Proposal
Low Quantity
Proposal
Bid
Count
11/10/2015 011 - 20151110011 Milwaukee $39.50 $40.00 $38.00 5,339.00000 SY 4 Bids
Total
Quantity: 5,339.00000 SY
415.0070CONCRETE PAVEMENT 7-INCH
$35.83 $48.00 $24.84 SY 35 Bids
Letting
Date Proposal County
Proposal
Average
Proposal
High
Proposal
Low Quantity
Proposal
Bid
Count
09/13/2016 004 - 20160913004 Milwaukee $37.26 $46.26 $28.75 5,495.00000 SY 7 Bids
04/12/2016 008 - 20160412008 Milwaukee $25.93 $27.52 $24.84 16,030.00000 SY 3 Bids
11/10/2015 012 - 20151110012 Washington $34.00 $35.24 $32.81 19,690.00000 SY 7 Bids
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Bid Tab Analysis Search
Clear Search
Item: 415.0070
Smart Item Search
Description: Any
Proposal Items:Any
County: Any
Unit: Any
Low Bidders: Any
From:
08/09/2013
To:
11/09/2016
Date Range:
From:
1000
To:Quantity Range:
Any
From: To:Price Range:
Any Any
Page 1 of 2Bid Tab Analysis Search
11/9/2016https://www.bidx.com/wi/btasearch
Item Description Average High Low Unit Bid Count
07/14/2015 009 - 20150714009 Milwaukee $40.02 $48.00 $34.44 1,772.00000 SY 4 Bids
02/10/2015 015 - 20150210015 Kenosha $33.31 $39.86 $29.79 20,160.00000 SY 6 Bids
12/09/2014 001 - 20141209001 SAUK $42.60 $45.00 $42.00 1,575.00000 SY 5 Bids
12/10/2013 018 - 20131210018 MANITOWOC $34.85 $37.04 $33.00 5,025.00000 SY 3 Bids
Total
Quantity: 69,747.00000 SY
Copyright © 2016, Info Tech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 2 of 2Bid Tab Analysis Search
11/9/2016https://www.bidx.com/wi/btasearch
Welcome [email protected]!Logout
Bid Tab Analysis Search
Export (csv) | Export (tab)
Item Description Average High Low Unit Bid Count
415.0080CONCRETE PAVEMENT 8-INCH
$33.53 $57.00 $23.74 SY 102 Bids
Letting
Date Proposal County
Proposal
Average
Proposal
High
Proposal
Low Quantity
Proposal
Bid
Count
06/14/2016 010 - 20160614010 Kenosha $36.50 $40.00 $33.00 26,299.00000 SY 2 Bids
05/10/2016 018 - 20160510018 Milwaukee $36.20 $38.30 $34.05 12,200.00000 SY 4 Bids
03/08/2016
015 - 20160308015 Milwaukee $30.71 $35.00 $27.81 22,300.00000 SY 4 Bids
020 - 20160308020 Outagamie $32.28 $33.92 $31.46 20,275.00000 SY 5 Bids
021 - 20160308021 Winnebago $32.47 $34.15 $30.74 11,772.00000 SY 4 Bids
01/12/2016 022 - 20160112022 Sheboygan $35.60 $38.12 $31.55 24,295.00000 SY 4 Bids
12/08/2015 002 - 20151208002 Monroe $32.83 $37.32 $31.21 20,540.00000 SY 7 Bids
004 - 20151208004 La Crosse $36.44 $37.58 $36.15 19,396.00000 SY 5 Bids
05/12/2015 025 - 20150512025 Milwaukee $32.15 $38.83 $27.03 29,500.00000 SY 4 Bids
038 - 20150512038 Door $45.12 $57.00 $37.70 19,660.00000 SY 3 Bids
04/14/2015 013 - 20150414013 Dodge $30.05 $30.92 $28.95 13,366.00000 SY 3 Bids
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Bid Tab Analysis Search
Clear Search
Item: 415.0080
Smart Item Search
Description: Any
Proposal Items:Any
County: Any
Unit: Any
Low Bidders: Any
From:
08/09/2013
To:
11/09/2016
Date Range:
From:
10000
To:Quantity Range:
Any
From: To:Price Range:
Any Any
Page 1 of 2Bid Tab Analysis Search
11/9/2016https://www.bidx.com/wi/btasearch
Item Description Average High Low Unit Bid Count
03/10/2015 010 - 20150310010 Juneau $38.92 $39.00 $38.84 10,498.00000 SY 2 Bids
031 - 20150310031 Oconto $36.90 $43.97 $34.52 31,175.00000 SY 7 Bids
02/10/2015 005 - 20150210005 Dane $42.25 $46.00 $38.99 14,635.00000 SY 4 Bids
013 - 20150210013 Milwaukee $30.33 $33.72 $26.73 173,358.00000 SY 8 Bids
01/13/2015 008 - 20150113008 Milwaukee $30.64 $34.40 $28.83 45,250.00000 SY 8 Bids
12/09/2014 008 - 20141209008 SHEBOYGAN $34.49 $39.90 $32.88 18,531.00000 SY 7 Bids
08/12/2014 002 - 20140812002 COLUMBIA $37.30 $37.90 $36.43 16,059.00000 SY 4 Bids
04/08/2014 017 - 20140408017 MILWAUKEE $27.54 $34.25 $23.74 32,600.00000 SY 4 Bids
03/11/2014 015 - 20140311015 BROWN $31.04 $31.36 $30.60 32,750.00000 SY 5 Bids
12/10/2013 003 - 20131210003 LA CROSSE $28.83 $41.25 $25.25 103,354.00000 SY 8 Bids
Total
Quantity: 697,813.00000 SY
415.0080CONCRETE PAVEMENT 8-INCH **P**
$36.11 $50.00 $28.00 SY 26 Bids
Letting
Date Proposal County
Proposal
Average
Proposal
High
Proposal
Low Quantity
Proposal
Bid
Count
11/10/2015 011 - 20151110011 Milwaukee $39.00 $40.50 $38.50 15,760.00000 SY 4 Bids
03/10/2015 002 - 20150310002 Dane $34.85 $35.09 $34.75 19,345.00000 SY 7 Bids
014 - 20150310014 Milwaukee $42.66 $47.31 $38.00 15,601.00000 SY 2 Bids
08/26/2014 001 - 20140826001 MILWAUKEE $38.88 $39.00 $38.75 10,999.00000 SY 2 Bids
09/10/2013 002 - 20130910002 MILWAUKEE $32.44 $40.00 $30.15 72,131.00000 SY 6 Bids
003 - 20130910003 MILWAUKEE $36.26 $50.00 $28.00 10,699.00000 SY 5 Bids
Total
Quantity: 144,535.00000 SY
Copyright © 2016, Info Tech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 2 of 2Bid Tab Analysis Search
11/9/2016https://www.bidx.com/wi/btasearch
Welcome [email protected]!Logout
Bid Tab Analysis Search
Export (csv) | Export (tab)
Item Description Average High Low Unit Bid Count
420.1000Continuous Diamond Grinding Concrete Pavement
$5.18 $6.45 $4.23 SY 4 Bids
Letting
Date Proposal County
Proposal
Average
Proposal
High
Proposal
Low Quantity
Proposal
Bid
Count
06/14/2016 005 - 20160614005 La Crosse $6.08 $6.45 $5.70 9,514.00000 SY 2 Bids
010 - 20160614010 Kenosha $4.29 $4.35 $4.23 89,499.00000 SY 2 Bids
Total
Quantity: 99,013.00000 SY
420.1000.S
CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONTINUOUS DIAMOND GRINDING
$4.84 $8.00 $3.00 SY 17 Bids
Letting
Date Proposal County
Proposal
Average
Proposal
High
Proposal
Low Quantity
Proposal
Bid
Count
11/10/2015 014 - 20151110014 Ozaukee $4.84 $5.07 $4.25 30,250.00000 SY 7 Bids
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Bid Tab Analysis Search
Clear Search
Item: 420.1000
Smart Item Search
Description: Any
Proposal Items:Any
County: Any
Unit: Any
Low Bidders: Any
From:
08/09/2014
To:
11/09/2016
Date Range:
From: To:Quantity Range:
Any Any
From: To:Price Range:
Any Any
Page 1 of 2Bid Tab Analysis Search
11/9/2016https://www.bidx.com/wi/btasearch
Item Description Average High Low Unit Bid Count
04/14/2015 003 - 20150414003 Dodge $3.05 $3.13 $3.00 62,900.00000 SY 3 Bids
017 - 20150414017 Waukesha $6.63 $7.25 $6.00 12,720.00000 SY 2 Bids
03/10/2015 006 - 20150310006 Rock $5.49 $5.49 $5.49 4,010.00000 SY 1 Bid
02/10/2015 006 - 20150210006 Dane Rock $4.12 $4.33 $3.90 2,950.00000 SY 2 Bids
11/11/2014 023 - 20141111023 ADAMS $6.17 $8.00 $4.33 62,520.00000 SY 2 Bids
Total
Quantity: 175,350.00000 SY
Copyright © 2016, Info Tech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 2 of 2Bid Tab Analysis Search
11/9/2016https://www.bidx.com/wi/btasearch
Qty: 6,970
Cost: $66.23
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
0.00 1,000.002,000.003,000.004,000.005,000.006,000.007,000.008,000.009,000.0010,000.00
Co
st (
$/t
on
)
Mix (Tons)
Combined Asphalt CostFilter Criteria: {Region=ALL} / {Mix Qty=1060 - 9341} / {Combined Asphalt Items=460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225}
Source: F:\TR\JOBS\E2166A15\Reports\Pavement\LCCA info\asphalt20132014.xlsx
Contract ID Mix Bid Item Item DescriptionMix Quantity
(Tons)Oil Bid Item
Oil Quantity
(tons)Total Asphalt Price Bid$/Ton Bidder Percent AC Region
Number of
E-MixesCOUNTY Program CONCEPT Program Code Description Combined Asphalt Items
20130108007 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,730.00 455.0105 204.00 $294,443.10 $78.94 EA15 5.50% NC 1 WOOD 302 RECOND MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130312024 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,315.00 455.0105 182.00 $166,979.05 $50.37 PE23 5.50% NEL 1 OUTAGAMIE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130409006 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,705.00 455.0105 219.00 $191,551.95 $51.70 MCI008 5.90% SWL 1 LAFAYETTE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130409008 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,610.00 455.0105 220.00 $179,179.40 $49.63 HO10 6.10% SWL 1 JUNEAU 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130514001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,190.00 455.0105 135.00 $143,970.00 $65.74 RO42 6.20% SW 2 ROCK 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130514030 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5,517.00 455.0105 303.50 $398,859.90 $72.30 MA67 5.50% NE 2 SHEBOYGAN 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130514036 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 9,000.00 455.0105 550.00 $441,460.00 $49.05 NO14 6.10% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130514043 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,126.00 455.0105 227.00 $288,909.52 $70.02 SN05 5.50% NC 1 MARATHON 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130611016 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,785.00 455.0105 154.00 $182,208.00 $65.42 NO14 5.50% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130709010 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 7,700.00 455.0105 425.00 $450,600.00 $58.52 RO42 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130709021 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,125.00 455.0105 235.00 $126,575.00 $59.56 PA70 11.10% SEL 1 WAUKESHA 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130813002 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,803.00 455.0105 153.20 $284,379.97 $101.46 PA70 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130813021 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,890.00 455.0105 104.00 $167,986.10 $88.88 EA15 5.50% NC 1 WOOD 302 RECST MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130827001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 7,161.00 455.0105 401.00 $644,966.17 $90.07 WCC005 5.60% SE 2 MILWAUKEE 304 BRRHB MAJOR INTERSTATE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20131112007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,390.00 455.0105 170.00 $170,058.50 $50.16 MU41 5.00% NE 1 OUTAGAMIE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20131210018 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,830.00 455.0105 104.00 $149,354.00 $81.61 KR50 5.70% NE 1 MANITOWOC 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140114003 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,200.00 455.0105 66.00 $106,200.00 $88.50 LA40 5.50% SW 1 CRAWFORD 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140211005 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,818.00 455.0105 210.00 $297,842.42 $78.01 GE33 5.50% SW 1 LA CROSSE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140311013 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,290.00 455.0105 72.00 $87,264.00 $67.65 VI18 5.60% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 303 PVRPLA STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140311019 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,366.00 455.0105 240.00 $228,339.60 $52.30 MI06 5.50% NEL 1 WINNEBAGO 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140311023 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,073.00 455.0105 60.90 $70,148.10 $65.38 SO20 5.70% NC 1 SHAWANO 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140408026 460.1101HMA Pavement Type E-1
1,100.00 455.0105 60.00 $90,227.00 $82.02 EA15 5.50% NCL 1 PORTAGE 207 MISC RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENT, PROTECTION AND REPAIR ASSIST460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140513026 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,313.00 455.0105 72.00 $127,390.75 $97.02 MA67 5.50% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140513031 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,820.00 455.0105 212.00 $335,094.00 $87.72 NO14 5.50% NE 1 DOOR 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140610009 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,280.00 455.0105 70.00 $71,051.20 $55.51 KR10 5.50% SW 1 SAUK 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140610011 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,060.00 455.0105 60.00 $65,890.00 $62.16 IV05 5.70% SW 1 IOWA 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140708001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,783.00 455.0105 208.00 $250,235.70 $66.15 CUL000 5.50% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140708003 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,383.00 455.0105 215.90 $316,273.50 $93.49 HO10 6.40% SW 3 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140708004 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5,102.00 455.0105 288.20 $283,492.00 $55.56 RO42 5.60% SW 1 ROCK 302 RESURF MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140708009 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,250.00 455.0105 136.00 $133,160.00 $59.18 MC25 6.00% SWL 2 SAUK 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140812002 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,747.00 455.0105 269.00 $322,717.55 $67.98 VI18 5.70% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140812012 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,545.00 455.0105 196.00 $362,628.80 $102.29 LU08 5.50% NE 2 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140812016 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,150.00 455.0105 120.00 $150,062.10 $69.80 ZE15 5.60% NC 2 WAUSHARA 303 BRSHRM STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20141111015 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,660.00 455.0105 100.00 $142,375.20 $85.77 CH13 6.00% NW 1 DOUGLAS 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150113011 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 6304 455.0105 347 $630,116.60 $99.96 HO10 5.50% NE 2 BROWN 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150210002 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3303 455.0105 181.8 $225,621.90 $68.31 MA67 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150210007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1500 455.0105 86 $119,968.75 $79.98 IGA000 5.70% SW 3 DANE 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150210027 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5342 455.0105 294 $763,291.25 $142.88 VI18 5.50% NE 2 OUTAGAMIE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310013 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3451 455.0105 239 $196,519.02 $56.95 KNA000 6.90% SWL 1 JUNEAU 205 BRRPL HIGHWAY AND LOCAL BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310023 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 8859 455.0105 578 $553,775.20 $62.51 HO10 6.50% NE 4 BROWN 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310024 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3500 455.0105 190 $269,450.00 $76.99 JA25 5.40% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 302 RECST MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310029 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4200 455.0105 231 $244,650.00 $58.25 PE40 5.50% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310034 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3150 455.0105 180 $196,258.50 $62.30 AM16 5.70% NCL 1 WAUSHARA 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150512048 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 6,530.00 455.0105 360 $360,083.90 $55.14 HA05 5.50% NWL 1 EAU CLAIRE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150609001 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,475.00 455.0105 137 $293,525.00 $118.60 RO42 5.50% SW 1 ROCK 302 MISC MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714002 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,405.00 455.0105 84.1 $99,716.00 $70.97 LU08 6.00% SW 2 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714005 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 6,150.00 455.0105 340 $461,425.00 $75.03 CUL000 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714013 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,021.00 455.0105 111 $161,137.70 $79.73 PE23 5.50% NE 1 DOOR 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714017 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,940.00 455.0105 162 $287,352.00 $97.74 LU08 5.50% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714019 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,410.00 455.0105 134 $238,439.65 $98.94 HO10 5.60% NE 2 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150811010 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 8,385.00 455.0105 475 $836,360.50 $99.74 VI18 5.70% NE 2 CALUMET 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20151208004 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 4,093.00 455.0105 235.9 $331,023.09 $80.88 HO10 5.80% SW 2 LA CROSSE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20151208010 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,642.00 455.0105 147 $176,943.45 $66.97 ZE15 5.60% SE 2 MILWAUKEE 301 BRRPL SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN FREEWAY MEGAPROJECTS 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112004 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,575.00 455.0105 252 $404,925.00 $88.51 ZI11 5.50% SW 1 CRAWFORD 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 9,341.00 455.0105 527 $692,932.14 $74.18 GE33 5.60% SW 1 LA CROSSE 303 RECSTE STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112008 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,502.00 455.0105 155 $272,876.70 $77.92 LU08 4.40% SE 4 WAUKESHA 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112014 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,060.00 455.0105 115 $133,537.00 $64.82 HA05 5.60% NWL 1 BARRON 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112019 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 9,096.00 455.0105 500 $432,668.72 $47.57 GA40 5.50% SW 1 SAUK 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112024 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 7,704.00 455.0105 424 $509,416.48 $66.12 AM16 5.50% NC 1 PORTAGE 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160308012 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 9,075.00 455.0105 502 $570,651.25 $62.88 SA04 5.50% SW 1 MONROE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510005 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,649.00 $209,732.26 $79.17 GE33 SW 2 MONROE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510006 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 2,197.00 $152,691.50 $69.50 PA70 SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510033 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,800.00 $316,268.00 $46.51 GA40 NC 1 ADAMS 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510037 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 5,510.00 $374,680.00 $68.00 SN05 NCL 2 MARATHON 206 RESURF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510045 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 2,050.00 $232,941.50 $113.63 CUL000 NW 2 CHIPPEWA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510052 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,928.00 $400,680.88 $57.84 MO14 NWL 2 SAWYER 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510055 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 9,268.00 $568,052.88 $61.29 ZE15 SW 3 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160614007 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,257.00 $137,634.70 $60.98 LU08 SE 3 WAUKESHA 301 BRRPLE SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN FREEWAY MEGAPROJECTS 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160614010 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 3,348.00 $190,456.80 $56.89 CUL000 SE 3 KENOSHA 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160614013 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,543.00 $325,121.67 $49.69 HA05 NWL 1 CHIPPEWA 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160712003 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,500.00 $204,325.00 $81.73 CH13 SW 2 MONROE 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
Qty: 5,576
Cost: $67.57
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 7,000.00 8,000.00 9,000.00 10,000.00
Co
st (
$/t
on
)
Mix (Tons)
Combined Asphalt CostFilter Criteria: {Region=ALL} / {Mix Qty=1060 - 9341} / {Combined Asphalt Items=460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225}
Source: F:\TR\JOBS\E2166A15\Reports\Pavement\LCCA info\asphalt20132014.xlsx
Contract ID Mix Bid Item Item DescriptionMix Quantity
(Tons)Oil Bid Item
Oil Quantity
(tons)Total Asphalt Price Bid$/Ton Bidder Percent AC Region
Number of
E-MixesCOUNTY Program CONCEPT Program Code Description Combined Asphalt Items
20130108007 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,730.00 455.0105 204.00 $294,443.10 $78.94 EA15 5.50% NC 1 WOOD 302 RECOND MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130312024 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,315.00 455.0105 182.00 $166,979.05 $50.37 PE23 5.50% NEL 1 OUTAGAMIE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130409006 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,705.00 455.0105 219.00 $191,551.95 $51.70 MCI008 5.90% SWL 1 LAFAYETTE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130409008 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,610.00 455.0105 220.00 $179,179.40 $49.63 HO10 6.10% SWL 1 JUNEAU 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130514001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,190.00 455.0105 135.00 $143,970.00 $65.74 RO42 6.20% SW 2 ROCK 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130514030 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5,517.00 455.0105 303.50 $398,859.90 $72.30 MA67 5.50% NE 2 SHEBOYGAN 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130514036 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 9,000.00 455.0105 550.00 $441,460.00 $49.05 NO14 6.10% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130514043 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,126.00 455.0105 227.00 $288,909.52 $70.02 SN05 5.50% NC 1 MARATHON 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130611016 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,785.00 455.0105 154.00 $182,208.00 $65.42 NO14 5.50% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130709010 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 7,700.00 455.0105 425.00 $450,600.00 $58.52 RO42 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130709021 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,125.00 455.0105 235.00 $126,575.00 $59.56 PA70 11.10% SEL 1 WAUKESHA 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130813002 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,803.00 455.0105 153.20 $284,379.97 $101.46 PA70 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130813021 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,890.00 455.0105 104.00 $167,986.10 $88.88 EA15 5.50% NC 1 WOOD 302 RECST MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20130827001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 7,161.00 455.0105 401.00 $644,966.17 $90.07 WCC005 5.60% SE 2 MILWAUKEE 304 BRRHB MAJOR INTERSTATE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20131112007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,390.00 455.0105 170.00 $170,058.50 $50.16 MU41 5.00% NE 1 OUTAGAMIE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20131210018 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,830.00 455.0105 104.00 $149,354.00 $81.61 KR50 5.70% NE 1 MANITOWOC 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140114003 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,200.00 455.0105 66.00 $106,200.00 $88.50 LA40 5.50% SW 1 CRAWFORD 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140211005 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,818.00 455.0105 210.00 $297,842.42 $78.01 GE33 5.50% SW 1 LA CROSSE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140311013 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,290.00 455.0105 72.00 $87,264.00 $67.65 VI18 5.60% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 303 PVRPLA STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140311019 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,366.00 455.0105 240.00 $228,339.60 $52.30 MI06 5.50% NEL 1 WINNEBAGO 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140311023 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,073.00 455.0105 60.90 $70,148.10 $65.38 SO20 5.70% NC 1 SHAWANO 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140408026 460.1101HMA Pavement Type E-1
1,100.00 455.0105 60.00 $90,227.00 $82.02 EA15 5.50% NCL 1 PORTAGE 207 MISC RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENT, PROTECTION AND REPAIR ASSIST460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140513026 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,313.00 455.0105 72.00 $127,390.75 $97.02 MA67 5.50% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140513031 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,820.00 455.0105 212.00 $335,094.00 $87.72 NO14 5.50% NE 1 DOOR 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140610009 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,280.00 455.0105 70.00 $71,051.20 $55.51 KR10 5.50% SW 1 SAUK 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140610011 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,060.00 455.0105 60.00 $65,890.00 $62.16 IV05 5.70% SW 1 IOWA 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140708001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,783.00 455.0105 208.00 $250,235.70 $66.15 CUL000 5.50% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140708003 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,383.00 455.0105 215.90 $316,273.50 $93.49 HO10 6.40% SW 3 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140708004 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5,102.00 455.0105 288.20 $283,492.00 $55.56 RO42 5.60% SW 1 ROCK 302 RESURF MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140708009 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,250.00 455.0105 136.00 $133,160.00 $59.18 MC25 6.00% SWL 2 SAUK 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140812002 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,747.00 455.0105 269.00 $322,717.55 $67.98 VI18 5.70% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140812012 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,545.00 455.0105 196.00 $362,628.80 $102.29 LU08 5.50% NE 2 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20140812016 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,150.00 455.0105 120.00 $150,062.10 $69.80 ZE15 5.60% NC 2 WAUSHARA 303 BRSHRM STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20141111015 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,660.00 455.0105 100.00 $142,375.20 $85.77 CH13 6.00% NW 1 DOUGLAS 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150113011 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 6304 455.0105 347 $630,116.60 $99.96 HO10 5.50% NE 2 BROWN 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150210002 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3303 455.0105 181.8 $225,621.90 $68.31 MA67 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150210007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1500 455.0105 86 $119,968.75 $79.98 IGA000 5.70% SW 3 DANE 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150210027 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5342 455.0105 294 $763,291.25 $142.88 VI18 5.50% NE 2 OUTAGAMIE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310013 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3451 455.0105 239 $196,519.02 $56.95 KNA000 6.90% SWL 1 JUNEAU 205 BRRPL HIGHWAY AND LOCAL BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310023 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 8859 455.0105 578 $553,775.20 $62.51 HO10 6.50% NE 4 BROWN 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310024 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3500 455.0105 190 $269,450.00 $76.99 JA25 5.40% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 302 RECST MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310029 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4200 455.0105 231 $244,650.00 $58.25 PE40 5.50% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150310034 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3150 455.0105 180 $196,258.50 $62.30 AM16 5.70% NCL 1 WAUSHARA 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150512048 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 6,530.00 455.0105 360 $360,083.90 $55.14 HA05 5.50% NWL 1 EAU CLAIRE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150609001 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,475.00 455.0105 137 $293,525.00 $118.60 RO42 5.50% SW 1 ROCK 302 MISC MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714002 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,405.00 455.0105 84.1 $99,716.00 $70.97 LU08 6.00% SW 2 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714005 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 6,150.00 455.0105 340 $461,425.00 $75.03 CUL000 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714013 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,021.00 455.0105 111 $161,137.70 $79.73 PE23 5.50% NE 1 DOOR 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714017 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,940.00 455.0105 162 $287,352.00 $97.74 LU08 5.50% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150714019 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,410.00 455.0105 134 $238,439.65 $98.94 HO10 5.60% NE 2 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20150811010 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 8,385.00 455.0105 475 $836,360.50 $99.74 VI18 5.70% NE 2 CALUMET 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20151208004 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 4,093.00 455.0105 235.9 $331,023.09 $80.88 HO10 5.80% SW 2 LA CROSSE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20151208010 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,642.00 455.0105 147 $176,943.45 $66.97 ZE15 5.60% SE 2 MILWAUKEE 301 BRRPL SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN FREEWAY MEGAPROJECTS 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112004 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,575.00 455.0105 252 $404,925.00 $88.51 ZI11 5.50% SW 1 CRAWFORD 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 9,341.00 455.0105 527 $692,932.14 $74.18 GE33 5.60% SW 1 LA CROSSE 303 RECSTE STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112008 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,502.00 455.0105 155 $272,876.70 $77.92 LU08 4.40% SE 4 WAUKESHA 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112014 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,060.00 455.0105 115 $133,537.00 $64.82 HA05 5.60% NWL 1 BARRON 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112019 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 9,096.00 455.0105 500 $432,668.72 $47.57 GA40 5.50% SW 1 SAUK 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160112024 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 7,704.00 455.0105 424 $509,416.48 $66.12 AM16 5.50% NC 1 PORTAGE 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160308012 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 9,075.00 455.0105 502 $570,651.25 $62.88 SA04 5.50% SW 1 MONROE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510005 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,649.00 $209,732.26 $79.17 GE33 SW 2 MONROE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510006 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 2,197.00 $152,691.50 $69.50 PA70 SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510033 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,800.00 $316,268.00 $46.51 GA40 NC 1 ADAMS 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510037 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 5,510.00 $374,680.00 $68.00 SN05 NCL 2 MARATHON 206 RESURF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510045 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 2,050.00 $232,941.50 $113.63 CUL000 NW 2 CHIPPEWA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510052 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,928.00 $400,680.88 $57.84 MO14 NWL 2 SAWYER 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160510055 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 9,268.00 $568,052.88 $61.29 ZE15 SW 3 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160614007 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,257.00 $137,634.70 $60.98 LU08 SE 3 WAUKESHA 301 BRRPLE SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN FREEWAY MEGAPROJECTS 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160614010 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 3,348.00 $190,456.80 $56.89 CUL000 SE 3 KENOSHA 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160614013 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,543.00 $325,121.67 $49.69 HA05 NWL 1 CHIPPEWA 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
20160712003 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,500.00 $204,325.00 $81.73 CH13 SW 2 MONROE 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX F
Regional Pavement Engineers Memo
WisPave Development Meeting with Regional Pavement Engineers
There was discussion about cutting back PEUG meetings to twice a year and having 2 meetings a year
with just the pavement engineers.
Deb was asked to look into centerline joint clear sealant longevity, thickness, friction reducing
characteristics, etc. based on recommendations given at the centerline joint workshop.
WisPave Discussion
WisPave 1st
page design – no comments on color preference or design. Deb was asked to decide.
All cross-section drawings will be replaced with two standard drawings – 1 for rural and 1 for urban.
Photo will depict 8 or 10 lanes. All lanes (e.g. driving lanes, bike lanes, parking lanes) will just be referred
to as “lane”.
Sort bid items numerically by number, not alphabetically by name.
Prior to getting to the list of all projects, pavement engineers prefer a filter before getting a full list of
projects. Preferably the filter should include Region and/or State vs Local. Pavement Engineers will only
want to see their pavement designs the majority of the time.
HMA Maintenance & Rehabilitation Summary
Rehabilitation Options are:
• HMA Overlay
• Mill & HMA Overlay
• Mill, Repair & HMA Overlay
• Mill, Rubblize & HMA Overlay?
• Pulverize & HMA Overlay?
• HMA Reconstruct
Set WisPave HMA Rehab defaults as follows:
Rehab 1 – Mill 2” & Overlay 2”; Under the “Limits” field, change “RDWY” to “Pvmt Structure”; set
default of mill and overlay limits = Pvmt Structure & Shldrs (Urban & Rural).
Rehabs 2 & 3 = Mill 4” & Overlay 4”. Limits are the same as above.
Be sure to include HMA milling and Concrete Partial Depth Milling bid items in WisPave.
Concrete Maintenance & Rehabilitation Summary
Top of screen (year 0) options are:
• Initial Construction
• Grind
• DBR & Grind
• Repair (Lane Patches) & Grind
• Reconstruct (Rubblization)
• Not Specified
This was not discussed at meeting, but “Grind,” “DBR & Grind,” and “Repair & Grind” can be eliminated
from the list. An LCCA would not be done for those scenarios.
Rehabilitation Options are:
• Repair & Grind
• Repair & Overlay
• Mill, Repair & Overlay
• Concrete Rubblization
• Concrete Reconstruction
Set WisPave Concrete Rehab defaults as follows:
Rehab 1 – Repair and/or grind; 5% (percent of surface area) repair and 0% grind (Urban & Rural).
Rehab 2 – Repair and/or grind; 5% repair and 100% grind; limits = pvmt structure (not shldrs) (Urban &
Rural).
Rehab 3 – Repair & HMA Overlay; 5% repair (ranges of 0%-20%) and 2”Overlay (ranges = 0-10”).
For Concrete Rehabs involving “Repair”, currently the user enters the # of PCC Patches & WisPave
calculates & displays the % of joint repair. Instead of “# of PCC Patches”, the user will enter the
“Percentage of Surface Area” in the new WisPave.
Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71
OMNNI Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX G
Geotechnical Exploration Report
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM
FOR
PROJECT I.D. 4616-03-00
TOWN OF WRIGHTSTOWN – TOWN OF ROCKLAND
CLAY STREET – TETZLAFF ROAD
CTH ZZ
BROWN COUNTY
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED SHEET PILE WALLS
PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS
SLOPE STABILITY REVIEW
PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
OCTOBER 2016
OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Project Information ..................................................................................... 1
1.2. Scope of Services ........................................................................................ 3
1.3. Purpose of Report ....................................................................................... 4
2.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM RESULTS ............................................................. 4
2.1. Scope of Exploration................................................................................... 4
2.2. Surface Conditions ...................................................................................... 5
2.3. Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................ 8
2.4. Soil Profile – Literature Review ............................................................... 11
2.5. Water Level Observations......................................................................... 11
2.6. Laboratory Tests ....................................................................................... 12
3.0 ENGINEERING REVIEW ................................................................................... 12
3.1. Roadway Reconstruction .......................................................................... 12
3.1.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 12
3.1.2. Discussion ................................................................................................. 15
3.1.3. Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 16
3.1.4. Embankment Fill and Trench Backfill ...................................................... 18
3.1.5. Embankment Slopes.................................................................................. 19
3.1.6. Drainage .................................................................................................... 19
3.1.7. Pavement Indices ...................................................................................... 19
3.2. Sheet Pile Retaining Walls........................................................................ 20
3.2.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 20
3.2.2. Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................... 21
3.3. Modular Block Retaining Wall ................................................................. 22
3.3.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 22
3.3.2. Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................... 23
3.4. Slope Stability ........................................................................................... 24
3.4.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 24
3.4.2. Slope Distress Review .............................................................................. 27
3.4.3. Discussion ................................................................................................. 31
3.4.4. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 32
3.5. Drainage Structure at Plan Roadway Station 265+08 .............................. 35
3.5.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 35
3.5.2. Discussions and Recommendations .......................................................... 36
3.5.3. Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 38
3.5.4. Foundation Recommendations.................................................................. 39
3.5.5. Structural Fill and Backfill........................................................................ 40
4.0 STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................... 41
APPENDICES
Soil Boring Location Plan ................................................................................................ A
Soil Boring Log Notes & Logs ........................................................................................ B
Laboratory Test Results ................................................................................................... C
Shear Key & Roadway Cross Section ............................................................................. D
Field Exploration Procedures ............................................................................................ E
Classification of Soils ....................................................................................................... F
1
REPORT OF
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM COUNTY TRUNK HIGHWAY ZZ
TOWN OF WRIGHTSTOWN – TOWN OF ROCKLAND CLAY STREET – TETZLAFF ROAD
BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED SHEET PILE WALLS PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS
SLOPE STABILITY REVIEW PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
STATE PROJECT ID: 4616-03-00
OMNNI REPORT E2166A15
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Project Information
Brown County and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Northeast Region have
contracted with OMNNI Associates, Inc. (OMNNI) to develop construction plans as part
of a highway reconstruction project for an approximate 4.0-mile section of CTH ZZ from
Clay Street in the Village of Wrightstown to Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland in
Brown County, Wisconsin. The overall project site of this section of CTH ZZ begins at
Clay Street, located in Section 2 of T21N, R19E in the Village of Wrightstown. From
Clay Street, CTH ZZ extends north through Sections 35, 36, and 25 of T22N, R19E in the
Town of Wrightstown and also extends through Section 24 of T22N, R19E, into Section
19 of T22N, R20E, and along the section line between Section 18 and 19 of T22N, R20E
in the Town of Rockland. The project site ends at Tetzlaff Road which is located in
Section 19 T22N, R20E in the Town of Rockland. CTH ZZ, in the Village of
Wrightstown and extending approximately 0.4 miles north of Clay Street from the
beginning of the project to the village limits, is generally an urban two lane road
consisting of asphaltic pavement and a paved shoulder on the west side of the road and
curb and gutter on the east side. CTH ZZ, through the Town of Wrightstown and the
Town of Rockland, is a rural, two-lane road consisting of asphaltic pavement and gravel
shoulders and generally parallels the Fox River on the eastern embankment. The
reconstruction project of CTH ZZ between Clay Street and Tetzlaff Road is given the
following State Project I.D.: 4616-03-00.
Approximately 574 feet of the CTH ZZ highway reconstruction between Mallard Road
and Meadowlark Road in the Town of Wrightstown has been reported in a separate
2
geotechnical review and is to be used as a supplemental reference to this report. This
section of the CTH ZZ project is identified as the ZZ-17 project and is given a County
Project I.D. ZZ-17 / 4616-04-00. The excluded limits begin at approximate plan roadway
Station 124+78.68 and end at approximate plan roadway Station 130+52.60. The section
of CTH ZZ between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road has exhibited slope stability
issues between CTH ZZ and the Fox River that generally consist of shoulder and
embankment slope subsidence, and this section of CTH ZZ has been deemed an
emergency fix project. As a result, this portion of the reconstruction of CTH ZZ between
Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road is to be completed as an emergency project prior to
reconstruction of the remainder of CTH ZZ and will be constructed by Brown County
forces. Geotechnical review of this section of CTH ZZ and identified as the ZZ-17
project has been completed and can be found in a separate report entitled “Geotechnical
Report ZZ-17_20160826”.
As part of the CTH ZZ project, it is estimated that two sheet pile retaining structures will
be required to support the embankment slope soils on the west side of CTH ZZ between
the river and the roadway in the Village of Wrightstown and at the intersection with
Mallard Road. The southern sheet pile retaining structure is estimated to extend from
approximate plan roadway Station 64+25 to approximate plan roadway Station 82+50 for
a total wall length of approximately 1825 feet. The northern sheet pile retaining structure
is estimated to extend from approximate plan roadway Station 98+25 to approximate plan
roadway Station 105+25 for a total wall length of approximately 700 feet. Based on the
soil conditions encountered, both sheet pile retaining structures are planned to be driven
into the existing embankment and retain both existing embankment as well as fill soils.
The back slope on both walls is estimated to be generally level and at the same elevation
as the new roadway profile.
In addition to the sheet pile retaining structures, six (6) modular block retaining structures
are also estimated along the project and will retain the embankment slope soils. Four (4)
retaining structures are located along CTH ZZ between the proposed roadway shoulder
and the eastern right of way. It is estimated that the four modular block retaining
structures along CTH ZZ along the eastern right of way will be located at the following
plan stations and wall lengths: Wall 1 – Station 117+75 to 119+00 at 125 feet in length;
Wall 2 – Station 173+90 to 176+00 at 210 feet in length; Wall 3 – Station 182+00 to
183+50 at 150 feet in length; and Wall 4 – Station 185+60 to 187+75 at 230 feet in
length. It is estimated that the remaining two (2) modular block retaining structures will
be located on the south side of two local roads that intersect CTH ZZ. The two structures
are estimated to be located at the following plan roadway and secondary roadway stations
as well as wall lengths and distances from the road intersections: Wall 5 at Meadowlark
Road – roadway Station 133+35, secondary roadway Station 12+80 ME to 14+40 ME at
160 feet in length and 120 feet west of intersection with CTH ZZ and Wall 6 at Partridge
Road – roadway Station 160+97, secondary roadway Station 32+75 PA to 33+75 PA at
100 feet in length and 175 west of intersection with CTH ZZ.
3
As part of this effort, OMNNI conducted a subsurface geotechnical investigation to
determine the subsurface profile and engineering properties of the soils for pavement
design and slope stability review parameters as well as for preliminary design of the
estimated sheet pile and modular block retaining wall structures. Eighteen (18) soil
borings (B01 through B18) using standard penetration testing were extended through the
pavement in the CTH ZZ project boundaries. The borings were advanced to various
depths ranging from 6 feet to 90.5 feet. Also, in order to obtain more information for the
slope stability review, several hand auger borings were extended into the western
embankment along CTH ZZ between the roadway and the Fox River shoreline. In
addition, two borings using standard penetration testing, SB1 and SB2, were taken near a
proposed drainage structure. These two borings were extended to a depth of 25 feet each
and were taken to determine the subsurface soil profile and engineering properties of the
soils for the drainage structure design parameters and construction considerations. The
boring locations performed for the CTH ZZ roadway reconstruction and slope stability
review project are indicated on the prints located in Appendix A of this report. The
boring notes and logs are included in Appendix B of this report.
1.2. Scope of Services
The work scope for this project was as follows:
1. Mobilize to the site to locate and mark the boring locations.
2. Mobilize a drill rig to the site to perform the subsurface exploration. The drillers
contacted Diggers Hotline for utility locates. Traffic control consisting of signage
and flagging was provided by the Brown County Highway Department.
3. In the CTH ZZ roadway, perform soil borings using standard penetration testing
and advanced to various depths necessary for soil investigation for roadway
design, slope stability review, and drainage structure design as well as preliminary
sheet pile and modular block retaining wall design for estimated retaining
structures. Borings were to be located in the existing roadway and had pavement
and base course measurements taken for thickness determination. Soil borings
B01 through B18 and were advanced to depths of 6 feet in borings B01 through
B06 and B16, 8 feet in boring B15, 25 feet in borings B07, B08, SB1 and SB2, 40
feet in borings B09, B12 through B14, B17 and B18, and 90.5 feet in boring B11.
Soil borings taken to a depth of six feet or eight feet were sampled continuously.
Remaining soil borings were sampled at 2.5 foot intervals to a depth of 15 feet
and every 5 feet thereafter. Shelby tube samples of soils were obtained at various
depths for differing soil types during the exploration for additional laboratory
testing. At the time of drilling, one Shelby tube was obtained in boring B07, two
Shelby tubes were obtained in borings B09, B10, B12, through B14, B17, and
B18, and three Shelby tubes were obtained in boring B11.
4
4. Perform hand-auger borings on the CTH ZZ western embankment between the
roadway and the Fox River shoreline to verify embankment soils for roadway
stability calculations and construction considerations. Hand auger borings HA-1R,
HA-1S, HA-2R, HA-2S, HA-3R, HA-3S, HA-4R, HA-4S, HA-5R, and HA-5S
were located between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road.
5. Fill all boreholes in compliance with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) specifications. Patch any asphalt penetrations with asphalt cold mix.
6. Return samples obtained to OMNNI’s laboratory for classification and testing.
7. Perform laboratory tests of soils including moisture content, moisture/density and
unconfined compression. In addition, triaxial compression testing was performed
on soil samples from boring B11.
8. Prepare a written report documenting our field and laboratory testing program and
presenting our engineering review and recommendations for preliminary sheet
pile retaining structure design and preliminary modular block retaining structure
design, pavement section design, drainage structure design and embankment
stability review as well as a discussion of construction considerations relative to
the subsurface conditions. The report will also include a discussion of additional
exploration recommendations for estimated modular block walls and estimated
sheet pile walls. Boring logs with Unified Soil Classification of soils, test results,
water level information, relative surface elevations at boring locations, and a site
sketch showing boring locations will also be included in the report.
1.3. Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to present the results of our field and laboratory testing
program and to provide our engineering recommendations for design and construction
considerations for the site.
The authorized scope of services for this report is intended for geotechnical purposes
only, and not to document or detect the presence or absence of any environmental
contamination at the site.
2.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM RESULTS
2.1. Scope of Exploration
Between September 2 and September 10, 2015, twenty (20) soil borings were performed
with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig using standard penetration test sampling as part of
the roadway reconstruction of CTH ZZ between Clay Street in the Village of
Wrightstown and Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland. Of the twenty (20) soil borings
performed along the CTH ZZ roadway, eighteen (18) soil borings (B01 through B18)
were used to determine the subsurface profile and engineering properties of the soils for
pavement design and slope stability review parameters as well as for preliminary design
of the estimated sheet pile and modular block retaining wall structures. The remaining
5
two (2) soil borings (SB-1 and SB-2) were located near and used for determining a
proposed drainage structure. All of the borings were taken in the southbound lane or
shoulder of CTH ZZ with the exception of borings B02, B05 and SB1 which were taken
in the northbound lane or shoulder of CTH ZZ. Boring specific stations and offsets can be
found on the Soil Boring Plan located in Appendix A. Elevations were obtained from a
topographic survey performed for the project and ranged from elevation 603.0 feet at
boring B09 to elevation 637.5 feet at boring B01. Borings were extended using solid stem
augers to various depths after which mud rotary drilling was used to the extent of the
borings. Borings B01 through B06, and B16 were extended to a depth of 6 feet, boring
B15 was extended to a depth of 8 feet, and borings B07, B08, SB1 and SB2 were
extended to a depth of 25 feet. The remaining borings, B09, B12 through B14, B17, and
B18 were extended to a depth of 40 feet, boring B10 and boring B11 were extended to
depths of 50 feet and 90.5 feet, respectively. Six-foot-deep and eight-foot-deep borings
were sampled using continuous standard penetration sampling while the deeper borings
were sampled using standard penetration sampling at 2 ½ foot intervals to a depth of 15
feet and at five foot intervals thereafter. At completion of drilling, all borings were then
filled in compliance with WDNR requirements, and pavement penetrations were patched
with asphalt cold mix.
On October 26, 2015 OMNNI Associates, Inc. performed five (5) hand auger borings as
part of the slope stability review of CTH ZZ between Mallard Road and Meadowlark
Road in the Town of Wrightstown. These five borings were labeled with an “R”
designation. On October 28, 2015, OMNNI Associates, Inc. performed five (5) additional
hand auger borings along with dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing near the
location of the hand auger borings taken on October 26. The borings performed with
DCP testing were labeled with an “S” designation. The hand auger borings were
performed in lieu of standard penetration test sampling as a result of the steep slope and
thick tree cover of the embankment as these areas were not accessible with a drill rig. The
hand auger pair HA-1 and HA-2 were located approximately 100 feet and 530 feet,
respectively north of Mallard Road. The hand auger pair HA-3, HA-4, and HA-5 were
located approximately 1450 feet and 680 feet south of Meadowlark Road. Hand auger
pair HA-5 was located approximately 60 feet north of Meadowlark Road. In each hand
auger pair, the boring labeled with an “R” designation was taken approximately 30 feet
to40 feet west of the CTH ZZ centerline, and the boring labeled with an “S” designation
was taken farther down the embankment from the “S” labeled boring in the pair.
2.2. Surface Conditions
In the Village of Wrightstown, CTH ZZ is an urban street with a gravel shoulder on the
side of the roadway adjacent to the Fox River to the west and with curb and gutter on the
opposite side of the roadway. In the Village of Wrightstown, CTH ZZ extends 0.4 miles
north of Clay Street from the beginning of the project to the village limits. Curb and
gutter ends on the west side of CTH ZZ approximately 20 feet north of Clay Street and
6
ends on the east side of CTH ZZ approximately 0.4 miles north of Clay Street. Starting at
Clay Street and working northward for approximately 0.2 miles, seven (7) single family
homes followed by three (3) multi-family homes are located on the east side of the road
with ten (10) driveways spaced less than 100 feet apart. The residential homes are then
followed by the Village of Wrightstown wastewater treatment plant. Beyond the
wastewater treatment plant, one single family home is located east of the CTH ZZ right-
of-way. In the Village limits, the embankment between the river and the southbound
shoulder of CTH ZZ is sloped at approximately 30 to 40 degrees from horizontal and
extends to approximate plan roadway Station 82+50. Heavy riprap has been placed along
the embankment on the western right-of-way in two locations. The heavy riprap is
located at approximate plan roadway Station 68+50 to 69+00 and at plan roadway Station
81+50 to 82+00. The embankment between the Fox River and CTH ZZ is predominantly
wooded.
Outside the village limits and through the extent of the project, CTH ZZ is a rural road
consisting of two asphaltic pavement lanes each 11 feet wide with approximate 4-foot
gravel shoulders on each side of the road. The road is built into and on the eastern
embankment of the Fox River and generally parallels the river from Clay Street to
approximately 0.7 miles west of Tetzlaff Road. CTH ZZ then bends away from the river
to the east in the northernmost section of roadway reconstruction in a relative east/west
direction for approximately 0.7 miles until intersecting with Tetzlaff Road. Where the
existing road centerline is near the Fox River, the centerline offset from the river
shoreline at normal water elevation ranges from approximately 40 feet to 60 feet through
the extents of the project. The roadway profile begins around elevation 609 feet at
beginning plan roadway Station 64+25 in the Village of Wrightstown, follows numerous
vertical curves with crests and swales ranging between elevation 630 feet and elevation
600 feet. Where the roadway begins to turn from a more north to south direction to a
more west to east direction, the roadway profile begins to increase in elevation at
approximate plan roadway Station 231+50 where the approximate existing roadway
elevation is 602 feet. The elevation then increases and crests at approximate plan
roadway Station 247+00 at elevation 637 feet.
The overhead powerlines crossover the roadway again from the west side to the east side
approximately 200 feet south of the intersection with Mallard Road. Heavy riprap has
also been placed along the western embankment between the river and the roadway at the
following approximate plan roadway station locations: Station 99+50 to 100+50 south of
Mallard Road, Station 101+00 to 102+00 directly across from the Mallard Road
intersection, Station 107+00 to 108+50 north of Mallard Road, and at Station 111+00 to
118+00 north of Mallard Road. Asphalt pavement has been replaced in the southbound
lane for approximately 80 feet at the intersection of CTH ZZ with Mallard Road at
approximate plan roadway Station 101+00 to Station 102+00 and again for
approximately 150 feet at approximate plan roadway Station 116+50 to Station 118+00
above where heavy riprap has been placed.
7
Between Wrightstown Road which is located at approximate plan roadway station
187+80 and Moonriver Road which is located at approximate plan roadway station
207+50, the CTH ZZ roadway is offset up to 200 feet from the river edge, and a
residential property with other building structures are located between the river and the
roadway. Continuing north from approximate plan roadway Station 220+00 to the end of
the project, residential properties are also located on the north/west side of CTH ZZ with
the properties still having predominantly wooded vegetation. Two side-by-side 72-inch
diameter reinforced concrete pipe culverts are located at approximate plan roadway
Station 265+08. Beam guard is in place in the approaching shoulders of the roadway in
the region of the existing reinforced concrete pipes as the embankments on both sides of
CTH ZZ have steeper slopes. An asphalt pavement overlay, approximately 50 feet in
length has been laid in the northbound / westbound lane where the roadway crosses over
the creek.
In the portions of the project where the Fox River is within 40 to 60 feet of the roadway
centerline, the existing cross section through the project starting at the Fox River
generally consists of the Fox River at approximate elevation 595 feet and then an
embankment that slopes upward to CTH ZZ to the east. The embankment height varies
between the approximate river elevation and the roadway elevation, with a differential
height range between 5 and 35 feet. The embankment is generally steep and there is
evidence of erosion at the river edge and evidence of slope instability along several
portions of the project. Subsidence of the embankment and road shoulder were evident in
several locations and large rip rap was placed along portions of the project. From CTH
ZZ and east, the embankment continues to slope upward to approximate crest elevations
varying from 620 feet to 640 feet at approximately 50 to 150 feet east of CTH ZZ.
The vegetation along CTH ZZ north of the Village of Wrightstown limits and along the
embankment between the river and the roadway is predominantly wooded, and the land
east of the roadway is generally open field and farmland with residential homes located
around east/west roads that intersect with CTH ZZ. CTH ZZ intersects seven (7) roads
along the project, and the roads are orientated in an east/west direction and all roads with
the exception of one, Masse Circle, extend east of CTH ZZ. The road names and their
intersection plan roadway stationing are identified as follows, working in a northerly
direction: Mallard Road at Station 101+30, Meadowlark Road at Station 133+35,
Partridge Road at Station 160+97, Wrightstown Road at Station 187+79, and Moonriver
Drive at Station 207+49, Masse Circle at Station 252+40, and Tetzlaff Road at Station
274+50.
The roadway asphaltic pavement on CTH ZZ throughout the project has longitudinal and
transverse cracking as well as alligator cracking with the exception of the areas of
roadway repairs. From aerial photos taken of the roadway prior to the roadway pavement
repairs as well as the roadway conditions surrounding the pavement repairs, the pavement
8
section has been subject to settlement and cracking. Pavement distress can be found in
both northbound and southbound lanes, and the more extensive distress is located in
regions of the southbound lane where the roadway offset is smallest and elevation is
largest from the Fox River edge.
2.3. Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered at the test boring locations are shown on the
boring log notes and logs included in Appendix B in this report. We wish to point out
that the subsurface conditions at other times and locations on this site may differ from
those found at our test locations. The test boring logs also indicate the possible geologic
origin of the materials encountered. Boring numbers are in the reverse order of project
stationing increments with the higher boring numbers located to the south and lower
boring numbers to the north.
Soil borings B18 and B17 were taken in the southbound lane of CTH ZZ in the
Wrightstown village limits between Clay Street and the wastewater treatment plant at
approximate plan roadway Station 66+40 and plan roadway Station 78+75, respectively,
and at elevation 610.0 feet and 609.7 feet, respectively. Soil boring B18 and B17
indicated 4 inches and 6 inches of asphalt pavement, respectively, over approximately 12
inches of base course. The base course consisted of firm and loose silty sand with gravel.
Beneath the base course, fill was encountered to a depth of 4.5 to 5 feet in both borings or
to an approximate elevation of 605 feet. The fill consisted of soft to stiff lean clay with
various amounts of gravel and sand. Beneath the fill, glacial till was encountered in both
borings and consisted of lean clay to depths of approximately 576 feet and fat clay below
the lean clay to the extent of the borings at depth of 40 feet. The lean clay had firm, stiff,
and very stiff consistencies and had various amounts of gravel. The lean clay encountered
in boring B18 was generally firm and the lean clay in boring B17 was generally stiff to
very stiff. The fat clay had a soft consistency in boring B18 and a firm consistency in
boring B17.
Soil borings B16 and B15 were taken in the southbound lane of CTH ZZ outside the
Wrightstown village limits at approximate plan roadway Station 85+60 and plan roadway
Station 96+60, respectively, and at elevation 605.5 feet and 626.7 feet, respectively. Soil
boring B16 indicated 8 inches of asphalt pavement over approximately 14½ inches of
base course, and soil boring B15 indicated 18 inches of asphalt pavement over
approximately 2½ inches of base course. The base course in boring B16 consisted of very
firm silty sand with gravel and trace amounts of asphalt and clay, and the base course in
boring B15 consisted of firm sand with gravel and silt and trace clay. Beneath the base
course, fill was encountered to the extent of the borings at a depth of 6 feet or
approximate elevation 599.5 feet in boring B16 and at a depth of 8 feet or approximate
elevation 618.7 feet in boring B15. In boring B16, the fill consisted of firm to very stiff
lean clay with gravel and sand to depth of 5 feet and consisted of very firm silty sand
9
with gravel and trace clay from a depth of 5 feet to the end of the boring at 6 feet. In
boring B15, the fill consisted of firm and soft lean clay with various amounts of gravel,
sand, and organics.
Soil borings B14 and B13 were taken in the southbound lane of CTH ZZ at approximate
plan roadway Station 107+90 and plan roadway Station 117+00, respectively, and at
elevation 610.2 feet and 613.2 feet, respectively. Soil boring B14 and B13 indicated 5
inches and 4 inches of asphalt pavement, respectively, over approximately 12 inches and
14 inches of base course, respectively. The base course consisted of loose silty sand with
gravel and loose silty gravel with sand. Beneath the base course, fill was encountered to a
depth of 3.5 feet or to an approximate elevation 606.7 feet in boring B14 and to a depth
of 2.25 feet or to an approximate elevation 611.0 feet in boring B13. The fill consisted of
firm to stiff lean clay with various amounts of gravel and sand in boring B14 and stiff
lean clay with gravel and trace amounts of organics, sand, and silt in boring B13. Beneath
the fill, glacial till was encountered in both borings and consisted of lean clay to the
extent of the boring in B14 at a depth of 40 feet or to approximate elevation 570.2 feet. In
boring B13, the glacial till consisted of lean clay to a depth of 38.5 feet or to approximate
elevation 574.7 feet and consisted of fat clay from a depth of 38.5 feet to the extent of the
boring at a depth of 40 feet. The lean clay in both borings had firm, stiff, and very stiff
consistencies and had various amounts of gravel, sand, and silt. The fat clay in boring
B13 had a firm consistency and was layered alternately with lean clay.
Soil borings B12, B11, and B10 were taken in the southbound lane of CTH ZZ near
Meadowlark Road. Geotechnical review of CTH ZZ at Meadowlark Road and
approximately 570 feet south of Meadowlark Road identified as the ZZ-17 project has
been completed and can be found in a separate report. For review of these borings, see
the subsurface conditions section of the separate report entitled “Geotechnical Report ZZ-
17_20160826”.
North of the ZZ-17 project, borings B09, B08, and B07 were taken in the southbound
lane of CTH ZZ between Meadowlark Road and Wrightstown Road at approximate plan
roadway Station 142+80, plan roadway Station 156+20, and plan roadway Station
169+20, respectively. Boring B09 was taken at an approximate ground surface elevation
603.0 feet, boring B08 was taken at an approximate elevation 606.4 feet, and boring B07
was taken at an approximate elevation 604.6 feet. The borings indicated asphalt pavement
and base course thicknesses ranging from 5 inches to 8 inches and 11 inches to 17 inches,
respectively. The base course in the borings consisted of loose and firm silty sand with
gravel. Beneath the base course, fill was encountered to depths of 4.5 feet in borings B09
and B07 with no fill encountered beneath the base course in B08. The fill consisted of
soft to stiff lean clay with various amounts of gravel and sand and trace amounts of
organics. Beneath the fill in the three borings, glacial till was encountered and consisted
of firm, stiff, and very stiff lean clay with various amounts of gravel and sand. In boring
B09 and B07, fat clay was encountered beneath the lean clay at a depth of 28 feet and 23
10
feet, respectively, or at approximate elevation 575 feet and 582 feet, respectively. In this
stratum, alternating layers of lean clay and fat clay were encountered in the upper portion
of the fat clay. Boring B09 was extended to a depth of 40 feet and borings B08 and B07
were both extended to a depth of 25 feet.
From Wrightstown Road to the end of the project at Tetzlaff Road, six borings were
taken in the roadway to a depth of 6 feet beneath the ground surface. Borings B06
through B01 were taken at the following approximate plan stationing and elevations:
Station 192+40 and elevation 609.7 feet in boring B06, Station 210+10 and elevation
605.0 feet in boring B05, Station 221+80 and elevation 604.7 feet in boring B04, Station
233+40 and elevation 610.1 feet in boring B03, Station 248+60 and elevation 637.0 in
boring B02 and Station 270+70 and elevation 637.5 feet in boring. These six borings
indicated asphalt pavement thicknesses ranging from 4 inches to 6 inches and base course
thicknesses ranging from 8 inches to 44 inches. The base course predominantly consisted
of very loose, loose, and firm silty sand with gravel. Beneath the base course, fill was
encountered except for in boring B01, and the fill consisted of firm to hard lean clay with
various amounts of gravel and sand in borings B06, B05, and B03. In borings B04 and
B02, the fill consisted of very stiff sandy lean clay with gravel. Boring B02 also
encountered a loose silty sand stratum from a depth of 2 feet to 4 feet. The fill extended
to the extent of the boring in boring B06 and B03 and extended to a depth of 4 feet in
boring B05, B04, and B02. Beneath the fill in borings B05, B04 and B02 and beneath the
base course in boring B01, glacial till was encountered and consisted of very stiff lean
clay with gravel, stiff lean clay, and very stiff lean clay and trace organics.
Two soil borings, SB1 and SB2, were drilled near the proposed drainage structure at
approximate plan roadway station 265+50 and 264+70, respectively. These borings were
extended to a depth of 25 feet. Boring SB1 was taken on the south side of CTH ZZ at
elevation 620.6 feet and boring SB2 was taken on the north side at elevation 622.3 feet.
Boring SB1 indicated 8 inches of asphaltic pavement over fill to a depth of 18 feet. The
fill consisted of soft to firm lean clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel. Beneath
the fill, glacial till consisting of hard lean clay was encountered to the end of the boring.
In boring SB2, 9 inches of asphaltic pavement was encountered over fill to a depth of 9½
feet. The fill consisted of firm lean clay with traces of gravel and organics. Beneath the
fill, very stiff lean clay and lean clay with gravel was encountered to the extent of the
boring.
Hand auger borings HA-1R, HA-1S, HA-2R, HA-2S, HA-3R and HA-3S were taken on
the embankment west of the CTH ZZ roadway, with borings HA-1R and HA-1S taken at
approximate Station 102+30, with borings HA-2R and HA-2S taken at approximate
Station 106+60, and with borings HA-3R and HA-3S taken at approximate Station
118+75. Soil borings HA-1R, HA-2R, and HA-3R taken on the upper section of the
embankment encountered a fill soils through the extent of the boring to a depth of 4 feet
in borings HA-1R and HA-2R and to a depth of 5.3 feet in boring HA-3R. The fill in
11
hand auger boring HA-1R consisted of silty sand with gravel and organics, and lean clay
with gravel and organics and with little sand. The fill in hand auger boring HA-2R and
HA-3R consisted of lean clay with various amounts of sand, organics and gravel. The
hand auger borings denoted with an “S” were taken farther down the embankment and
consisted of natural glacial till from the surface to a depth of 4 feet. The till generally
consisted of lean clay with various amounts of gravel, sand, and organics.
2.4. Soil Profile – Literature Review
The project area extended across two mapping units as indicated by the United States
Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) soil
survey for Brown County, Wisconsin. The mapping units were as follows:
(OnB, OnD2) Oshkosh silt loam
(KkD3, KkE3) Kewaunee soils
According to the Soil Conservation Service soil survey for Brown County, the soil series
indicated above consist of the following:
Oshkosh: Gently sloping, deep, well drained and moderately well drained soils on
lacustrine plains dissected by V-shaped valleys. Soils are in old glacial
lake basins and have medium available water capacity and slow
permeability.
Kewaunee: Steeply sloping, severely eroded, deep, well drained and moderately well
drained soils on ridges in glacial till plains. Soils have high available water
capacity and slow permeability.
Review of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) soil parameter
database for the above soils suggests the following general parameters:
WisDOT SOIL PARAMETERS
Symbol Pedological
Name
Design Group
Index B / C
Frost Index
B / C
Estimated Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction (psi/in.) B / C
(OnB) Oshkosh 14 / 12 F-3 / F-3 125 / 150
(KkD3) Kewaunee 12 / 12 F-3 / F-3 150 / 150
2.5. Water Level Observations
For the soil borings taken in the roadway, a groundwater level was noted in boring B07.
In boring B07, the first observation of groundwater was measured at a depth of 17 feet or
approximate elevation 587.6 feet and the water level observation at the completion of the
drilling was measured at a depth of 15 feet or approximate elevation 589.6 feet. Soil
samples were generally moist throughout the extents of the borings. The soil sample in
boring B14 at approximate elevation 577 feet was observed to be wet. In boring SB1
12
taken for the proposed drainage structure, a water level was noted at boring completion at
a depth of 17.5 feet beneath the surface or approximate elevation 603 feet. It is our
opinion that the mud rotary drilling used during the subsurface exploration likely
impacted the groundwater levels measured in the borings. It is also our opinion that static
groundwater levels are likely near or below the Fox River water elevation.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the hand borings taken in the project
boundaries.
The Fox River flows from south to north and has several dams to control the water
elevation between Menasha and Green Bay. The approximate water elevation of the Fox
River was 595 feet at the time of our subsurface exploration on the CTH ZZ project. The
100-year flood elevation for design purposes range from elevation 601.37 feet to
elevation 599.20 feet.
Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate, both seasonally and annually, and from
place to place on the site.
2.6. Laboratory Tests
Samples obtained during the subsurface exploration were returned to the laboratory to be
visually and manually classified in the laboratory. Samples were classified in accordance
with the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS) and the probable geologic origin
was noted. Testing of select soil samples including spring penetrometer testing of soils
for estimates of unconfined compressive strength, unconfined compression testing of
soils, moisture content, and moisture/density testing of soils were performed. Results are
indicated on the boring logs included in Appendix B of this report. Laboratory test results
are included in Appendix C of this report.
3.0 ENGINEERING REVIEW
3.1. Roadway Reconstruction
3.1.1. Project Data
We understand that an approximately 4.0-mile section of CTH ZZ that generally parallels
the Fox River on the eastern embankment is proposed to be reconstructed. The project
begins at Clay Street in the Village of Wrightstown, crosses through the Town of
Wrightstown and ends at Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland. This report will
exclude approximately 574 feet of the CTH ZZ highway reconstruction between Mallard
Road and Meadowlark Road in the Town of Wrightstown identified as the ZZ-17 project.
The section of CTH ZZ between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road has existing slope
stability issues that has been deemed an emergency fix project. As a result, the
reconstruction of CTH ZZ between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road is to be
13
completed prior to reconstruction of the remainder of CTH ZZ between Clay Street and
Tetzlaff Road and will also be constructed by Brown County forces.
In the village of Wrightstown, CTH ZZ is currently an urban road with a gravel shoulder
on the river side (west side) of the roadway and a curb and gutter on the opposite side of
the roadway for approximately 0.4 miles from the beginning of the project to the village
limits. Beyond the village limits, CTH ZZ is a rural road consisting of two asphaltic
pavement lanes each 11 feet wide with 4-foot gravel shoulders on each side of the road.
The road is built into and on the eastern embankment of the Fox River and generally
parallels the river from Clay Street to approximately 0.7 miles west of Tetzlaff Road.
CTH ZZ bends away from the river to the east in the northernmost section of roadway
reconstruction in a relative east/west direction for approximately 0.7 miles until
intersecting with Tetzlaff Road. Where CTH ZZ is near the Fox River, the existing road
centerline offset from the river shoreline at normal water elevation ranges from 40 feet to
60 feet. The roadway profile begins around elevation 609 feet at beginning plan roadway
Station 64+25 in the village of Wrightstown, follows numerous vertical and horizontal
curves with crests and swales ranging between elevation 630 feet and elevation 600 feet.
The roadway profile begins to increase in elevation at approximate plan roadway Station
231+50 at approximate elevation 602 feet and crests at approximate plan roadway Station
247+00 at elevation 637 feet. Numerous existing corrugated metal pipes (CMP’s) cross
beneath the roadway along the CTH ZZ project to allow surface water runoff from the
eastern side of CTH ZZ to flow beneath the roadway and down to the river.
Vegetation consists of residential home mowed lawns and crop land separated by wooded
regions along the eastern right-of-way. The embankment between the roadway and the
shoreline is predominantly wooded with the exception of several areas in which the
heavy riprap has been placed.
The roadway asphaltic pavement has longitudinal and transverse cracking as well as
alligator cracking along the length of the project. The southbound lane and shoulder at
numerous areas along the project have experienced settlement and cracking. At select
areas of the roadway adjacent to where the heavy riprap has been placed, the asphalt
pavement in the southbound lane has been replaced.
The existing roadway alignment and profile along the portions of the project specific to
this report are proposed to be adjusted to meet current design standards as well as to
decrease slope stability issues on the embankment between the Fox River and CTH ZZ.
In general, the horizontal alignment is being shifted to the east in several locations along
the project and the roadway elevation is being decreased where possible.
Several retaining structures are proposed to be constructed along CTH ZZ to assist in
adjusting the roadway profile and alignment. In the southern region of the project, two (2)
sheet pile retaining structures are being proposed to assist with embankment slope
14
stability issues within the village limits and for several hundred feet beyond the village
limits. Also, as a result of shifting the roadway alignment east, six additional retaining
structures likely consisting of modular block walls are proposed to retain embankment
soils east of the roadway.
The proposed roadway profile will generally be at a higher elevation than the existing
roadway profile from the beginning of the project to Wrightstown Road. From
Wrightstown Road to the end of the project, the proposed roadway profile will follow the
existing roadway profile. Adjusting the roadway profile is in part the result of the
roadway being realigned to the east and upslope on the embankment, but also in order to
reduce vertical grades at swales as well as bringing up swale elevations. Fill locations on
the proposed roadway profile are to the result of shifting the proposed roadway profile
centerline above the existing east side ditch. Cut locations at the proposed roadway
profile are the result of shifting the proposed roadway profile centerline beyond the east
side ditch and into the embankment on the east side of the roadway. Fill heights between
the proposed roadway profile and the existing surface at the proposed roadway centerline
alignment vary between 2 feet to 4 feet and have a maximum of 6.5 feet at plan roadway
Station 85+50. Cut locations are limited to two locations, approximate plan roadway
Station 167+00 and Station 175+50, at heights of approximately 3 feet and 4.5 feet,
respectively.
In areas of CTH ZZ that are near the Fox River, the existing and proposed road centerline
minimum offset from the river shoreline at normal water elevation is approximately 35
feet at station 68+00. The general offset of the proposed roadway centerline to the river
shoreline at normal water elevation ranges from 50 feet to 80 feet, however at various
locations, the offset extends greater than 250 feet. The proposed roadway alignment will
be offset from the existing roadway alignment at various locations along the project with
maximum offsets reaching 45 feet eastward and inland.
CTH ZZ intersects seven (7) roads along the project, and the roads are orientated in an
east/west direction and all roads with the exception of one, Masse Circle, extend east of
CTH ZZ. The four (4) southernmost roads are offset approximately 0.5 miles from each
other with the remaining three (3) roads at infrequent distances. The road names and their
intersection plan roadway stationing are identified as follows, working in a northerly
direction: Mallard Road at Station 101+30, Meadowlark Road at Station 133+35,
Partridge Road at Station 160+97, Wrightstown Road at Station 187+79, and Moonriver
Drive at Station 207+49, Masse Circle at Station 252+40, and Tetzlaff Road at Station
274+50. These roads that intersect CTH ZZ are also proposed to have approximately 150
feet of roadway reconstructed extending east of CTH ZZ with the exception of
Meadowlark Road and Partridge Road which are proposed to have approximately 482
feet and 365 feet, respectively, of roadway reconstructed.
15
Reinforced concrete pipe culverts and storm sewer piping are anticipated to cross beneath
CTH ZZ for drainage from the east side of CTH ZZ to the Fox River.
A new drainage structure is proposed to be constructed as part of the overall project. An
unnamed tributary to the Fox River passes underneath CTH ZZ approximately 950 feet
east of the intersection with Tetzlaff Road at the northern portion of the project. The
creek generally flows north and has several other tributary drainage creeks that originate
south and east of CTH ZZ. The outlet of the creek is approximately 0.5 miles due north
of the crossing as it feeds into the Fox River. The creek currently passes underneath the
roadway in two (2) 72-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe culverts located side-by-
side. The pipe culverts are orientated in a north-south direction and are approximately
100 feet in length, centered about the existing roadway centerline. It was originally
anticipated that the proposed culvert crossing would consist of a reinforced concrete box
culvert. However, based on the hydraulic study, twin 72-inch concrete pipe will be used
to replace the existing culverts. These pipes will be approximately 150 feet in length and
centered about the proposed roadway centerline. These pipes will be near the existing
invert elevations of the existing pipes. The pipe inverts on the south side of CTH ZZ will
be near elevation 604 feet and on the north side near elevation 602 feet.
3.1.2. Discussion
The soil borings indicated asphalt pavement thicknesses ranging from 4 inches to 18
inches with the average thickness at approximately 6 inches. Beneath the asphalt
pavement, the soil borings encountered base course averaging 15 inches in thickness and
generally consisting of silty sand with gravel of varying relative densities. Fill was
encountered beneath the base course in all of the borings except borings B01, B08 and
B11. The fill was encountered to depths of 2 feet to 8 feet beneath the ground surface in
the roadway borings; however, the majority of the fill depths were within 4 feet of the
ground surface. The fill generally consisted of lean clay with various amounts of sand
and gravel and with trace to little amounts of organics. In the northern region of the
project including borings B01 through B05, the fill had a larger sand content with boring
B02 also having a loose silty sand fill stratum. Also, in boring B16, the fill strata from a
depth of 5 feet to 6 feet consisted on very firm silty sand with gravel and with trace clay.
Natural glacial till was encountered beneath the fill through the extent of the borings and
also generally consisted of lean clay with various amounts of gravel and sand. The lean
clay had stiff to very stiff consistencies with the exception of borings B07, B08, B14, and
B18 which had some lean clay stratums with firm consistencies. In borings B07, B09,
B13, B17 and B18, fat clays were encountered in the glacial till and beneath the lean clay
at approximate elevation 575 feet. The fat clays in the glacial till beneath the lean clays
had generally soft to firm consistencies.
Based on our review of the test boring data and laboratory results, it is our opinion that
the existing pavement section subgrade is generally comprised of fill with an approximate
16
thickness ranging from 2 feet to 4 feet and with natural glacial till soils directly beneath
either the fill or the pavement base course. The fill generally consists of lean clay with
varying amounts of sand and gravel, and the natural glacial till soil which generally
consists of stiff to very stiff lean clay.
Based on the soil and water conditions encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that
the existing natural tills and lean clay fills will be suitable for support of the planned
pavement sections. It is also our opinion that isolated areas of soft or unsuitable soils may
be encountered at planned pavement section subgrade elevations, and the soft or
unsuitable soils will be required to either be removed and replaced with a compacted
suitable fill material or moisture conditioned and compacted in place to provide a suitable
pavement section subgrade. It is not anticipated that subsurface water will impact
construction though isolated areas of perched water may be encountered particularly in
existing ditch and drainage areas. Lastly, the existing lean clay fill and natural till are
susceptible to disturbance in the presence of water and construction traffic and as a result,
it is recommended that all pavement subgrade surfaces be graded to keep water from
ponding on the surfaces during construction.
3.1.3. Site Preparation
Based on the soils encountered in the borings and observations through the project site,
an existing asphaltic pavement surface was observed with approximately 4 to 8 inches in
thickness. Aggregate base course beneath the asphalt pavement was observed with a
varied thickness from 2 inches up to 44 inches. Based on the existing pavement section, it
is recommended that the existing asphalt surface be removed down to the aggregate base
course and transported off-site and that the existing aggregate base course be salvaged
and reused as an embankment fill. It is not recommended that the existing aggregate base
course be re-used as a dense aggregate base beneath the new pavement section. As an
alternate, instead of removing the existing asphaltic pavement, the existing asphaltic
pavement could be pulverized with the existing aggregate base course and reused as
either roadway base material or embankment fill.
We recommend that the bottom of the base course and subgrade of the pavement section
be above the high water level throughout the extent of the project. In areas where the
roadway cross-section is to be widened or where embankment slopes are to be altered, all
existing topsoil, vegetation and unsuitable soils are recommended to be removed from
existing side slopes. Topsoil, vegetation, and soft/organic soils are recommended to be
removed at the toe of the embankment. Existing side slopes are also recommended to be
“benched” prior to adding embankment fills over existing slope areas. Where the
roadway is to be constructed in areas of cut, the existing soil is to be graded to plan
pavement section subgrade. Once the soils are graded to plan pavement section subgrade,
it is recommended that the pavement section subgrade be proofrolled with a fully loaded
tri-axle dump truck and that any unsuitable or soft or yielding areas of subgrade be
17
removed and replaced with suitable fill material and compacted to a minimum of 95% of
the standard Proctor maximum dry density or moisture conditioned and compacted in
place. Where the roadway is to be constructed in areas of fill that are constructed over
existing ditches or grassy areas, it is recommended that once the topsoil is removed that
the subgrade be proofrolled prior to any fill placement. Fill over existing side slopes can
consist of existing aggregate base course, existing site fill or embankment fill conforming
to Section 207, “Embankment”, of the 2017 Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Standard Specifications for Highway and Structure Construction (2017 WisDOT
Standard Specifications).
In areas of existing roadway that are to be cut or filled to plan pavement section subgrade
elevations, it is also recommended that subgrade be prepared in the same manner as noted
above for areas outside of the existing pavement area.
Once the pavement section subgrade is prepared, placement of new 1¼ inch dense graded
base course or pulverized reclaimed asphaltic pavement can be placed. It is recommended
that the dense graded base course be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard
Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density.
For areas outside of existing pavement section areas and in which culverts are to be
removed, replaced or installed, it is recommended that all topsoil and unsuitable soils be
stripped from proposed areas of extension prior to excavation.
Soils at the planned pavement section subgrade will likely consist of fine-grained soils
such as clays or clays with silt. These soils are susceptible to disturbance and strength
loss, particularly in the presence of water and heavy (construction) traffic. As a result, we
do recommend that surface drainage be maintained during construction such that water
not be allowed to pond on pavement section subgrades and that construction traffic be
minimized on exposed pavement section subgrades. We also recommend a geotechnical
engineer be on site at the time of proofrolling subgrade soils such that if subsurface
conditions vary from those encountered in the borings, geotechnical recommendations
can then be made. Lastly, we recommend that all fill soils placed beneath the pavement
section be tested for compaction to the required compaction specifications noted above.
We recommend that if pulverization of the existing pavement section is planned to be
used as pavement base, the pulverized material be placed and compacted per Section 325,
“Pulverized and Re-Laid Pavement”, requirements in the 2017 WisDOT Standard
Specifications. Following compaction of the pulverized material, we recommend that the
exposed surface be proofrolled with a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck. Any areas of
discernable rutting or deflection should then, in our opinion, be undercut to suitable
underlying soils and brought back to grade with pulverized material, compacted 1¼ inch
dense graded stone meeting the requirements of Section 305, “Dense Graded Base”, of
18
the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications, or be moisture conditioned in place and
recompacted.
It is anticipated that soils encountered at proposed reinforced concrete culvert pipe and
reinforced concrete storm sewer pipe base bearing elevations will likely consist of natural
stiff lean clay glacial tills. The natural soils may be susceptible to disturbance particularly
in the presence of water and construction traffic. As a result, we recommend that the lean
clay be removed to a minimum depth of 6 inches below the proposed pipe bearing
elevation and that 6 inches of bedding material be placed and compacted beneath the
pipe. For installation of pipe culverts or pipe culvert extensions, provide a granular
foundation per the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications, Section 520, “Pipe Culverts”.
Excavations for placement of the storm sewer pipes are recommended to be sloped in
accordance to 29 CFR part 1926, OSHA subpart P. Fill placed beneath the pipe structure
is also recommended to be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM: D698). After placement of the pipe on the prepared
subgrade, structural backfill as noted in Section 3.1.4, Roadway Reconstruction –
Embankment Fill and Trench Backfill, is recommended to be placed along the pipe in
areas to receive new pavement. The structural backfill is again recommended to be
compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:
D698).
At the southern and northern boundaries with the ZZ-17 project, there is planned to be
approximately 430 feet and 530 feet, respectively, of temporary roadway reconstruction
on CTH ZZ that is to be constructed in the ZZ-17 project. These sections of CTH ZZ are
proposed to be replaced and realigned. At the project limits where the pavement section
subgrade is to transition with the existing CTH ZZ roadway subgrade and the ZZ-17
project subgrade, we recommend that in the pavement section subgrade areas where there
is a transition between two differing pavement section subgrade elevations, that a 10:1
horizontal to vertical slope transition be planned between the two differing elevations.
3.1.4. Embankment Fill and Trench Backfill
Embankment fill can consist of existing suitable site soils consisting of lean clays,
existing aggregate base course, pulverized base course or imported embankment fill. All
embankment fill placed in areas of pavements or structures are recommended to be
compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry
density.
We recommend that trench backfill, placed to a minimum depth of 2 feet above the
planned stormwater pipe, conform to the grading requirements of Section 209, “Granular
Backfill” Grade 1, of the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications. We recommend that
the trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor (ASTM
19
D698) maximum dry density. Above the pipe and to planned pavement section subgrade,
trench backfill is recommended to consist of existing embankment soils or existing
aggregate base course compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density.
Also, fill in structural areas or pavement areas in which the fill is deeper than 10 feet are
recommended to be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the standard Proctor (ASTM
D698) maximum dry density. Fill placed to depths less than 10 feet in depth are
recommended to be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor (ASTM
D698) maximum dry density.
Any fill in non-structural areas can consist of imported soils or site soils compacted to a
minimum of 90% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D698).
3.1.5. Embankment Slopes
We recommend that the embankment at the gravel shoulders on both sides of the
roadway have a maximum vertical to horizontal slope of 1:3.
For embankment recommendations beyond the roadway pavement section, see Section
3.4.4 Slope Stability – Conclusions and Recommendations included in the engineering
review of the slope stability section of this report. See also the typical cross section in
Appendix D for proposed grades and as well as overall alterations from the existing
roadway cross section and embankment cross section between CTH ZZ and the Fox
River.
3.1.6. Drainage
Soils at the planned pavement section subgrade will likely consist of fine-grained soils
such as clays or clays with silt. These soils are susceptible to disturbance and strength
loss, particularly in the presence of water and heavy (construction) traffic. As a result, we
do recommend that surface drainage be maintained during construction such that water
not be allowed to pond on pavement subgrades and that construction traffic be minimized
on exposed pavement section subgrades. We also recommend a geotechnical engineer be
on site at the time of proofrolling subgrade soils such that if subsurface conditions vary
from those encountered in the borings, geotechnical recommendations can then be made.
Lastly, we recommend that all fill soils placed beneath the pavement section be tested for
compaction to required compaction specifications noted above.
3.1.7. Pavement Indices
A review of the pedological soils classification system and the USDA – NRCS Brown
County soil survey indicated the majority of the natural soils within the project area to be
Oshkosh silt loam. The borings indicated that the soil subgrade beneath the existing
20
pavement section was similar to those indicated by the soil survey. Therefore, based on
soils encountered and their soil parameters, we recommend that the following pavement
design indices be used:
Frost Index F-3
Design Group Index 14
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (psi/in) 125
Soil Support Value 3.9
3.2. Sheet Pile Retaining Walls
3.2.1. Project Data
It is our understanding that the proposed roadway reconstruction project of CTH ZZ is
estimated to include the design and construction of two (2) sections of sheet pile retaining
wall structures along the west side of CTH ZZ between Clay Street in the Village of
Wrightstown and Mallard Road in the Town of Wrightstown in Brown County,
Wisconsin. The southern sheet pile wall is being estimated to extend along the western
right of way on CTH ZZ from approximate plan roadway Station 64+25 to approximate
Station 82+50 for a total wall length of approximately 1825 feet. The northern sheet pile
retaining wall is also proposed on the west side of CTH ZZ and is being estimated to
extend from approximate plan roadway Station 98+25 to approximate Station 105+25 for
a total wall length of approximately 700 feet.
The two sheet pile wall sections are planned to be driven into the existing embankment at
the shoreline and to retain both existing embankment soils as well as fill soil and/or
structural backfill as well as potential traffic loads. Based on existing site grades, it is
estimated that the back slope on both walls will be generally level and at the same
elevation as the proposed roadway surface. The southern wall is estimated to have an
average exposed wall height of 12 feet with an estimated minimum exposed wall height
of 8 feet and an estimated maximum exposed wall height of 16 feet. The northern
exposed wall height near the beginning of the wall at plan roadway Station 99+00 is
estimated at 10 feet and is then estimated to drop approximately 1 foot in height over the
next 100 feet in wall length before increasing to an estimated peak exposed wall height of
15 feet at approximate plan roadway Station 102+00. The proposed northern sheet pile
wall is then estimated to gradually decrease in wall height to the end of the wall with an
estimated height of 8 feet at approximate plan roadway Station 105+25. The front face of
the proposed southern and northern sheet pile walls is estimated to be offset 34.0 feet and
38.5 feet west of the adjacent CTH ZZ roadway reference line, respectively. Curb and
gutter storm sewer drainage systems are proposed to extend along CTH ZZ from the
beginning of the project at Clay Street to the north end of the northern sheet pile wall.
21
3.2.2. Discussion and Recommendations
It is our understanding that the two (2) estimated sheet pile retaining walls along the Fox
River in the Village and Town of Wrightstown are planned to be driven through the
existing topsoil and/or fill soils and into underlying existing natural soils approximately
at the shoreline. Based on drill rig soil borings B18 and B17 performed in the southbound
lane of CTH ZZ near the proposed southern wall location, the natural glacial till soils
were encountered at approximate elevation 595 feet. Based on boring B14 which was
taken approximately 250 feet north of the northern end of the proposed northern sheet
pile wall, it is our opinion that the natural glacial till soils may be encountered as shallow
as elevation 606 feet. As only two soil borings, B18 and B17, were performed near the
estimated locations of the two sheet pile walls, a single soil profile and corresponding soil
engineering properties were used for preliminary design of the walls.
As stated previously, only two soil borings were performed near the proposed location of
the two estimated sheet pile walls. The southern sheet pile wall has a proposed length of
1825 feet, and the northern sheet pile wall has a proposed length of 700 feet. The
combined length of the sheet pile walls are approximately 2525 feet. Chapter 10 –
“Geotechnical Investigation” of the WisDOT Bridge Manual references Table 10.4.2-1 of
the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for determining the number of soil
borings to take per length of retaining wall. Table 10.4.2-1 of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications recommends the following minimum number of
exploration points, “For retaining walls more than 100 ft. in length, exploration points
spaced every 100 to 200 ft.”. The site exploration performed in September 2015 does not
meet the required number of soil borings to adequately design for the sheet pile retaining
walls. As a result, we recommend performing an additional site exploration with the
necessary amount of soil borings performed along the estimated sheet pile retaining walls
in order to comply with WisDOT soil boring requirements. These additional soil borings
are recommended to be performed to provide soil profiles and engineering properties
along the full length of the proposed sheet pile retaining structures such that design of the
estimated sheet pile retaining walls can be completed.
A preliminary cantilevered sheet pile retaining wall design was performed. The soil
profiles and engineering properties encountered in soil borings B18 and B17 and the
triaxial compression results from Shelby tube samples in boring B11 were applied to the
proposed roadway profile and alignment. The wall was preliminarily designed against a
100-year flood elevation of 601.37 feet and a normal water elevation of 595 feet due to
the close proximity of the wall to the river edge. The maximum allowable exposed wall
height was determined using the following limiting factors to control the design: wall
embedment, wall strength, and wall deflection.
Based on the preliminary review performed, a cantilevered sheet pile wall could be
designed with an exposed wall height of 14 feet, however an acceptable deflection
22
criteria will need to be established. As the maximum proposed exposed wall height for
sections of both the southern and northern sheet pile walls is greater than 14 feet, it is our
opinion that an anchored or tie-back wall system will likely be required at various
locations. Also, as it is our opinion that an undetermined length of wall on both the
southern and northern sheet pile walls will require anchoring, additional soil borings are
recommended to be performed at the location of the potential anchorage systems.
Excavation back slopes will need to follow the minimum OSHA requirements for
excavations. Based on soils encountered and in accordance to 29 CFR Part 1926, OSHA
subpart P, the minimum required excavation back slope would be 1½ horizontal to 1
vertical unless other measures, such as temporary retaining structures or sheet pile walls,
are constructed to prevent sloughing of the soils during construction.
The existing slope from the Fox River shoreline to the shoulder of the roadway ranges
from approximately a 1:1 to a 2:1 horizontal to vertical slope. As the estimated sheet pile
walls will be driven at the shoreline, fill material will be required behind the walls in
order to match the planned roadway grade to the back of the wall.
Backfill type, excavation extents, and placement methods behind the sheet pile wall are
required in order to adequately design a sheet pile wall. As a result, we again recommend
performing an additional site exploration with the necessary amount of soil borings
performed along the estimated sheet pile retaining walls in order to comply with
WisDOT soil boring requirements. These additional soil borings are recommended to be
performed to provide soil profiles and engineering properties along the full length of the
proposed sheet pile retaining structures such that design of the estimated sheet pile
retaining walls can be completed.
3.3. Modular Block Retaining Wall
3.3.1. Project Data
It is our understanding that six (6) modular block retaining structures are estimated along
the CTH ZZ project and will retain embankment slope soils. Four (4) modular block
retaining structures (Wall 1 through Wall 4) are estimated to be located along CTH ZZ
between the proposed roadway shoulder and the eastern right of way. Wall 1 is estimated
to be located approximately 0.3 miles north of Mallard Road at plan roadway Station
117+75 to Station 119+00 at 125 feet in length and with a 7.5-foot max exposed height.
Wall 2 is estimated to be located at plan roadway Station 173+90 to Station 176+00 at
210 feet in length and with a 15.0-foot max exposed height. Wall 3 is estimated to be
located at plan roadway Station 182+00 to Station 183+50 at 150 feet in length and with
a 6.0-foot max exposed height. Wall 4 is estimated to begin at plan roadway Station
185+60 and wraps around the southeast corner of CTH ZZ and Wrightstown Road to an
approximate plan roadway Station 187+75 or plan Wrightstown Road Station 41+75
‘WR’ for an approximate wall length of 230 feet at a max wall height of 5.0 feet. The
23
remaining two (2) modular block retaining structures (Wall 5 and Wall 6) are estimated
to be located on the south side of two local roads that intersect CTH ZZ. Wall 5 is
estimated to be located along the south side of Meadowlark Road approximately 110 feet
east of the CTH ZZ centerline at plan roadway Station 133+35 and plan Meadowlark
Road Station 12+80 ‘ME’ to Station 14+40 ‘ME’ at approximately 160 feet in length and
approximately 4.5 feet in max height. Wall 6 is estimated to be located on the south side
of Partridge Road approximately 175 east of the CTH ZZ centerline at plan roadway
Station 161+00 plan Partridge Road Station 32+75 ‘PA’ to Station 33+75 ‘PA’ at
approximately 100 feet in length and approximately 4.0 feet in max height.
The retaining wall sections are planned to be mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls
constructed with modular block facing and either geosynthetic or metallic soil
reinforcement. The front face of the walls at the finished grade are estimated to be offset
29.0 feet from the proposed centerline of CTH ZZ, Meadowlark Road, or Partridge Road.
Based on planned road grades and preliminary wall elevations, it is estimated that
foundations will be buried a minimum depth of 1½ feet and that the exposed face height
will remain constant for the majority of the length of the wall sections as previously
indicated.
The retained slope behind the walls is proposed to pitch downward away from the wall at
approximately 4.00 percent slope at lengths ranging from 2 feet to 5 feet. Behind the
slope down from the top of the walls, this low point is a drainage point that ties into the
existing surface grade, and the existing embankment slopes continue beyond the wall
section. The existing embankment behind the wall varies from relatively flat to a 3 to 1
horizontal to vertical slope.
3.3.2. Discussion and Recommendations
The site exploration performed in September 2015 did not perform soil borings at the
proposed locations of the six (6) proposed modular block retaining wall sections. Also,
the proposed wall lengths were stated previously with all walls having proposed lengths
over 100 feet and Wall 2 and Wall 4 having proposed lengths of 210 feet and 230 feet,
respectively. Chapter 10 – “Geotechnical Investigation” of the WisDOT Bridge Manual
references Table 10.4.2-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for the
required number of borings for a retaining structure. Table 10.4.2-1 of the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications requires the following minimum number of
exploration points, “For retaining walls more than 100 ft. in length, exploration points
spaced every 100 to 200 ft.”. As a result, we recommend performing an additional site
exploration with the necessary amount of soil borings performed along the proposed
modular block retaining walls in order to comply with WisDOT soil boring requirements.
24
3.4. Slope Stability
3.4.1. Project Data
The proposed roadway reconstruction project of CTH ZZ between Clay Street and
Tetzlaff Road included slope stability review of the soil embankment between CTH ZZ
and the Fox River. Proposed roadway reconstruction limits begin in the Village of
Wrightstown, extend through the Town of Wrightstown, and end in the Town of
Rockland, Brown County, Wisconsin.
The sections of roadway that were reviewed for slope stability were in close proximity to
the river, and parts of the reviewed sections of existing roadway showed signs of slope
instability. The slope stability review has been broken into three (3) sections. The first
section is the southern section and is located between the two estimated sheet pile
retaining wall locations. Approximate stationing in this southern section extends from
plan roadway Station 82+50 at the north end of the estimated southern sheet pile wall to
plan roadway Station 97+75 at the south end of the estimated northern sheet pile wall for
a total length of approximately 1525 feet. The second, center section is located between
the estimated northern sheet pile wall and the beginning of the ZZ-17 project.
Approximate stationing for the second, center section extends from plan roadway Station
105+25 at the north end of the estimated northern retaining wall to plan roadway Station
120+50 at the beginning of the ZZ-17 project for a total length of approximately 1525
feet. The third section, denoted as the northern section, is located from the north end of
the ZZ-17 project to the region of CTH ZZ in which the road profile begins to increase in
elevation extending to the east. Approximate stationing for the third, northern section
extends from plan roadway Station 130+52.60 at the north end of the ZZ-17 project to
plan roadway Station 240+00 where the road no longer parallels the river for a total
length of approximately 10,950 feet or approximately 2.1 miles. Excluded sections of
CTH ZZ not reviewed for this report are the two (2) regions in the southern portion of the
project in which sheet pile walls are estimated to support the right-of-way, the ZZ-17
portion of the section of roadway between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road, as well
as roadway from approximately 0.6 miles north of Moonriver Drive to the end of the
project at Tetzlaff Road. The two (2) sheet pile wall regions have been reviewed for wall
stability, and the results can be found in Section 3.2 Sheet Pile Retaining Walls.
Review of the section of road between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road has been
completed and can be found in a separate report denoted as the ZZ-17 project. Roadway
approximately 0.6 miles north of Moonriver Road to Tetzlaff Road is not located on a
slope or embankment of the Fox River as the roadway bends away from the river and in a
more easterly direction, and therefore slope stability is not applicable.
CTH ZZ through the three sections of the roadway reconstruction subject to slope
stability review is a rural road consisting of two asphaltic pavement lanes each 11 feet
wide with approximate 4-foot gravel shoulders on each side of the road. The road is built
into and on the eastern embankment of the Fox River and generally parallels the river
25
from Clay Street to approximately 0.7 miles west of Tetzlaff Road. CTH ZZ bends away
from the river in the northernmost section of roadway reconstruction in a relative
east/west direction for approximately 0.7 miles until intersecting with Tetzlaff Road. The
road centerline offset from the river shoreline at normal water elevation ranges from
approximately 40 feet to 60 feet through the portions of the project noted. The roadway
profile begins around elevation 609 feet at beginning plan roadway Station 64+25 in the
Village of Wrightstown, follows numerous vertical curves with crests and swales ranging
between elevation 630 feet and elevation 600 feet. At approximate plan roadway Station
231+50, the roadway profile begins to increase in elevation at approximate elevation 602
feet and crests the embankment at approximate plan roadway Station 247+00 at elevation
637 feet.
Vegetation along CTH ZZ consists of residential lawns and crop land separated by
narrow wooded areas along the eastern right-of-way. The embankment between the
roadway and the Fox River shoreline is wooded with the exception of placed riprap along
portions of the center and northern sections of review. Heavy riprap has been placed
along the majority of the embankment in the center section. In addition to the riprap,
approximately 100 feet of asphalt pavement has been overlaid in the southbound lane in
the center section. In the northern section of the slope review, riprap has been placed
along the embankment in three separate areas. The regions of placed riprap are located on
approximately 1500 feet of the embankment between Meadowlark Road and Partridge
Road, on approximately 350 feet of embankment approximately 100 feet north of
Partridge Road, and on another 350-foot embankment section approximately 500 feet
south of Wrightstown Road. Generally, riprap has been placed in areas where the offset
of the roadway centerline is closest to the river’s edge. The existing embankment
between the Fox River and CTH ZZ in the project has existing embankment slopes that
are relatively steep and are generally steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical with some
areas having near vertical banks in areas of river erosion. In areas where riprap had not
been placed, erosion at the toe of the embankment was evident and in some areas,
undercutting of the embankment was also noted.
The roadway profile in the three sections of interest, the southern, center, and northern
sections, has gradual vertical curves with shallow crests and swales. Existing profiles
range from elevation 599.8 feet to elevation 629.9 feet in the southern section, from
elevation 602.3 feet to elevation 615.7 feet in the center section, and from elevation 598.1
feet to 632.7 feet in the northern section. From Station 231+50 the roadway profile
increases in elevation at a maximum grade of approximately 5.0% before cresting the
embankment at approximately Station 247+50 at elevation 637.1 feet. The southern,
center, and northern sections have four (4), two (2), and fourteen (14) existing stormwater
culverts crossing beneath the roadway, respectively.
26
The elevation of the Fox River at the time of our site observations and survey was near
elevation 595 feet with a 100-year flood elevation ranging from elevation 601.37 feet to
elevation 599.20 feet. feet.
There is visible slope movement and distortion of the embankment slope surface in the
southbound lane of the CTH ZZ roadway in several locations along the roadway. Prior to
placement of riprap in all locations in the center and northern sections as well as the
placement of an overlay of asphalt pavement in the center section, the southbound lane
and gravel shoulder of CTH ZZ showed signs of subsidence and cracking. Excessive
settlement of the embankment slope and longitudinal asphalt cracking was visible in
many of the areas in which the rip rap was placed. The embankment had moved
downward between the shoreline and the gravel shoulder on the west side of CTH ZZ at
many of the locations where riprap had been placed along the shoreline prior to placing
the riprap. In addition to longitudinal cracking, the asphalt pavement also has signs of
rutting and alligator cracking occurring in the southbound lanes in regions where the
roadway alignment is closer to the river.
The existing roadway alignment and profile of the CTH ZZ project is proposed to be
adjusted to meet current design standards and reduce embankment slopes between the
Fox River and CTH ZZ, as well as to design the alignment to address slope stability
issues. In general, the horizontal alignment is being shifted to the east. As far as the
vertical grades for CTH ZZ, the new roadway profile will generally be at the same
elevation of the existing roadway profile with several locations being raised and other
locations being lowered approximately 2 feet. One exception to the profile consistency is
between approximate plan roadway Station 117+00 to Station 120+00 where the new
roadway profile is proposed to be lowered approximately 2 feet from the existing
roadway profile. Also, the proposed centerline of the new roadway is generally to be
located in line with the existing drainage ditch on the east side of the roadway.
In addition to the roadway alignment being shifted to the east away from the river and
roadway grades being adjusted several feet, it is our understanding that the embankment
slope cross section between the new CTH ZZ roadway and the Fox River will be
flattened and have soil removed to decrease the slope loading. The proposed cross section
of the embankment will have slope designations as follows. The cross section is
anticipated to be approximately a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope from the estimated river
edge to a benched area which is at a variable height near the middle part of the
embankment between the river and the roadway. The bench is anticipated to have a 2.0%
slope towards the river. From the inside edge of the bench, the cross section is anticipated
to be a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slope to the outside edge of the pavement section
subgrade followed by a 4 horizontal to 1 vertical slope to the roadway shoulder.
Based on the above information, an initial investigation of the slope failure areas, in
addition to pavement areas and structure areas, was authorized to determine the probable
27
cause of the failures and to provide recommendations for remediation and/or additional
investigation.
3.4.2. Slope Distress Review
Subsurface geotechnical investigation within the project included soil borings performed
with a drill rig and hand auger borings. The borings taken and corresponding descriptions
are as follows:
• Roadway Borings: Soil borings were performed with a drill rig using standard
penetration testing and advanced to various depths. Borings were located in the
existing roadway and had pavement and base course measurements taken for
thickness determination. Borings B16 and B15 were located in the southern
section to be reviewed for slope stability and were drilled to depths of 6 feet and 8
feet, respectively. Borings B14 and B13 were located in the center section to be
reviewed for slope stability and were each drilled to a depth of 40 feet. Borings
B09 through B03 were located in the northern section to be reviewed for slope
stability. Boring B09 was drilled to a depth of 40 feet, borings B08 and B07 were
each drilled to a depth of 25 feet, and borings B06 through B03 were each drilled
to a depth of 6 feet. Shallow roadway borings were sampled continuously to a
depth of 6 feet or 8 feet and were mainly intended for pavement section
investigation. Deeper soil borings were intended for slope investigation
information and were sampled at 2.5 foot intervals to a depth of 15 feet and every
5 feet thereafter to the previously mentioned depths. Shelby tube samples were
obtained of soils at various depths for differing soil types during the exploration.
At the time of drilling, two Shelby tubes were obtained in borings B14, B13, and
B09, and one Shelby tube was obtained in boring B07.
• Embankment Borings: Hand-auger borings were performed along the CTH
ZZ western embankment between the roadway and the Fox River shoreline to
verify slope soils for roadway stability calculations and construction
considerations. Hand auger borings HA-1R and HA-1S were located behind the
proposed northern sheet pile wall. Hand auger borings HA-3R, HA-3S, HA-2R,
and HA-2S were located in the center section of the slope stability review
between the north end of the proposed northern sheet pile wall and the southern
end of the ZZ-17 project.
Based on existing soil and water conditions encountered as well as existing site cross
sections and alignment of the roadway on the embankment, several slope stability models
were constructed based on the estimated worst case scenario for the existing embankment
slopes in the southern, center and northern section of CTH ZZ. The embankment was
reviewed for distress based on circular failure planes and block sliding failure planes. The
circular failure planes were evaluated based on a total stress method using undrained
28
laboratory tests to determine soil shear strength and cohesion values as well as to estimate
internal friction angles. The program used for circular failure plane analysis was the
WinStabl program as developed by the University of Wisconsin. The slope was modeled
in its current condition with the riprap placed on the embankment as well as modeled in
the condition prior to placement of the riprap based on historical survey data.
In areas where riprap was placed and visual slope distress was noted, the existing riprap
was placed on the embankment from the toe of the embankment at the river water edge
up to the shoulder of the road. As the slope had visual signs of distress, a subsurface
investigation using hand augers was proposed near these locations in the center section of
the project. Sampling, however, was unable to be performed in the riprap zones and some
estimates were made as to the type and strength of soil parameters to use. Hand auger
borings HA-2R and HA-3R were each taken on the upper half of the embankment south
and north of an existing placed riprap region and were located north of Mallard Road and
south of the ZZ-17 project. These two hand auger borings encountered lean clay fill
through the extent of the borings to a depth of 4 feet. While hand auger borings HA-2S
and HA-3S, which were each taken on the lower half of the embankment, did not
encounter any fill, softer surficial soils were noted at the toe of the slope to depths of less
than 6 inches. Therefore, it was estimated that fill extended down the slope from the CTH
ZZ west side shoulder at a near 1 to 1 horizontal to vertical slope to the normal river level
where the softer surficial soils were noted near the toe.
From the roadway subsidence and longitudinal cracking of the asphalt pavement noted in
many locations along the roadway that was either currently visible or had been visible
prior to placing an asphalt overlay on the southbound lane as well as placing riprap on the
embankment, it was our opinion that tension cracking of the soil was occurring in the
western shoulder of the roadway and extending through the existing fill material. In
order to model the slope stability with the estimated tension cracking, the fill material
beneath the riprap was assigned a friction angle of 20 degrees and was assumed to have
no cohesive strength. In modeling the slope stability prior to tension cracking occurring,
the fill material beneath the riprap was modeled using the same soil properties as the
natural glacial till layers, and therefore the riprap and roadway was supported on the
natural glacial till layers according to the soil parameters from the nearest borings.
As natural glacial till consisting of lean clays was encountered in the upper strata of the
borings beginning at a depth of 2 to 4 feet below the pavement surface and as fat clays
were encountered in the lower strata of the borings generally below elevation 575 feet in
part of the center section, some assumptions were made as to strength parameters to use
on the clay soil, as variable conditions would be anticipated along the length of the
project. Based on pocket penetrometer recordings and unconfined compression tests
conducted on the natural lean clays in roadway borings B07, B08, B13, and B14, as well
as triaxial tests performed on extracted Shelby tube soils in boring B11, the soil profiles
were broken up and assigned cohesive strengths and friction angles.
29
The upper natural lean clay in the southern and center sections as well as the northern
section up to Partridge Road were assigned a cohesive strength of 1000 psf and the
friction angles were assumed as zero degrees. The lower, weaker natural lean clays and
fat clays were assigned a cohesive strength of 400 psf and were also assigned friction
angles of 24 degrees and 20 degrees respectively. The assumptions for the friction angles
in the lean clay were based on triaxial tests performed on extracted Shelby tube soils in
the lower natural lean and fat clays encountered in boring B11. The entire soil profile in
the remainder of the northern section north of Partridge Road was assigned a cohesive
strength of 750 psf and a friction angle of zero degrees was conservatively assumed. A
highway loading surcharge of 240 psf was placed on the roadway footprint of the model
in order to represent vehicular loading on the embankment. Models were reviewed with
the river water at normal elevation 595 feet as well as at 100-year flood elevation 601.37
feet. The boring logs are included in Appendix B of this report, and laboratory test results
are included in Appendix C of this report.
The assumptions for the friction angles in the lean clay were based on triaxial tests
performed on extracted Shelby tube soils in boring B11. Testing was performed on lean
clays extracted from the boring at a depth of 40 feet to 42.5 feet and fat clays at a depth
of 55 feet to 57.5 feet corresponding to elevation 572.4 feet to 569.9 feet and elevation
557.4 feet to 554.9 feet. Test results indicated the lean clay at elevation 572.4 feet to
569.9 feet had an effective friction angle of 26.4 degrees, and the fat clay at elevation
557.4 feet to 554.9 feet had an effective friction angle of 21.6 degrees. Results of the
triaxle compression tests are included in Appendix C of this report.
The model constructed for the worst case existing embankment in the southern section
used a cross section at approximate plan roadway Station 96+00 as the existing roadway
crests a vertical curve and the river bends and creates a faster current on the shoreline at
this location. The slope stability model approximated soil parameters and profile using
boring B14. The upper natural lean clay was assigned a cohesive strength of 1000 psf,
and a friction angle was assumed as zero degrees. The lower natural lean clay from
elevation 575 feet and below was assigned a cohesive strength of 400 psf and a friction
angle of 24 degrees.
The model constructed for the worst case existing embankment in the central section used
a cross section at approximate plan roadway Station 116+00, and this stationing was used
for the following reasons: 1) riprap has been placed on the embankment between the
roadway and the shoreline at this location, 2) the existing slope between the roadway and
the shoreline is steepest and, 3) the roadway alignment is closest to the shoreline
compared to the remainder of the central section. The slope stability model approximated
soil parameters and profile using boring B13. The upper natural lean clay was assigned a
cohesive strength of 1000 psf, and a friction angle was assumed as zero degrees. The
middle natural lean clay from elevation 593 feet to elevation 575 feet was assigned a
30
cohesive strength of 400 psf and a friction angle of 24 degrees. The lower natural lean
clay from elevation 575 feet and below was assigned a cohesive strength of 400 psf and a
friction angle of 20 degrees.
The model constructed for the worst case existing embankment in the northern section
was estimated in three (3) locations. The cross sections used for modeling were at
approximate plan roadway Station 157+00, Station 166+00, and Station 183+00, and the
approximated soil parameters and profiles used for the three models used boring B08,
boring B07, and boring B07, respectively. The model at plan roadway Station 157+00
approximated soil parameters and profile using boring B08. At plan roadway Station
157+00, the roadway profile crests a vertical curve and riprap is located along the
embankment south of Partridge between the shoreline and the roadway. For this location,
the upper natural lean clay was assigned a cohesive strength of 1000 psf, and a friction
angle was assumed as zero degrees. The lower natural lean clay from elevation 588 feet
and below was assigned a cohesive strength of 400 psf and a friction angle of 24 degrees.
At plan roadway Station 166+00, the roadway alignment is close to the shoreline
compared to the remainder of the northern section. At plan roadway Station 183+00, not
only is the roadway alignment close to the shoreline as compared to the remainder of the
northern section, but riprap has also been placed on the embankment between the
roadway and the shoreline. The models at plan roadway Station 166+00 and plan
roadway Station 183+00 approximated soil parameters and profile using boring B07.
Only one soil layer was used to define the clay in the soil profile with an assigned
cohesive strength of 750 psf, and an assumed friction angle was of zero degrees.
Based on this input data as well as estimated original slope conditions and existing
subsurface water conditions, models were evaluated without tension cracking at all three
sections. Models were also evaluated with tension cracking at the central and northern
section. The worst case existing embankment in the southern section at approximate plan
roadway Station 96+00 resulted in a suitable safety factor of 1.90. In the worst case
existing embankment in the central section at approximate plan roadway Station 116+00,
a suitable safety factor greater than 2.0 was obtained on the embankment slope. Once
tension cracking, as evident in this central section, was introduced into the evaluation,
safety factors were encountered that were less than 1 for shallow failure plane surfaces.
Safety factors of less than 1 are indicative of a failure condition. Prior to applying tension
cracking along the existing embankment at the three worst case locations in the northern
section at approximate plan roadway Station 157+00, 166+00, and 183+00, the evaluated
models resulted in safety factors of 1.90 and greater. Again, once tension cracking, as
evident in these select locations, was introduced into the evaluation, safety factors were
encountered that were less than 1 for shallow failure plane surfaces.
The embankment between the Fox River and CTH ZZ was also evaluated for failure
based on block sliding. A potential block sliding surface was evaluated at the interface of
the fill material and natural clay soil as well as within the fill material and within the
31
natural clay soil. Based on a static analysis of driving and resisting forces as well as soil
parameters and water parameters used in the failure plane analysis, safety factors of
greater than 1.5 were obtained in the natural clay soil and at the interface of the fill
material and the natural clay soil based on block sliding.
Based on this preliminary review and visual observations on site, it is our opinion that the
slope distress noted is the result of shallow circular failure plane sliding of the soil mass
with the circular failures initiated as a result of erosion at the toe of the embankment and
weak surficial fills and/or weak natural glacial tills that are unable to resist sliding forces.
As soils are eroded at the toe of the embankment and then mobilize and move
horizontally, tension zones are set up in the soils resulting in tension cracks. These
tension zones have little or no shear strength. These tension cracks are also susceptible to
moisture entering the cracks resulting in additional hydraulic forces acting on the soil
mass adding to both a horizontal driving force as well as a circular slip plane driving
force. As these driving forces increase, the resisting forces are exceeded and failure
planes develop. This opinion is also based on the following observations ; 1) little passive
resistance exists at the toe of the slope; 2) a subsurface water profile exists that would at
various times of the year provide saturated soils, particularly in the surficial fill material
resulting in low soil shear strength; 3) continued erosion potential at the toe of the
embankment slope exists as a result of the Fox River flow (higher flow velocities occur at
high water resulting in obvious erosion) particularly in areas where the toe is not
protected by riprap; and 4) visual soil cracks were evident at various locations on the
embankment slope, indicating tension cracking as well as a source for additional surface
water to increase hydraulic forces. It should also be noted that the riprap, while protecting
the shoreline from further soil erosion, was also placed along and near the crest of the
embankment resulting in an added driving force.
3.4.3. Discussion
Based on our preliminary review of the test boring data, laboratory results, visual
observations, and slope modeling, it is our opinion that the embankment distress between
CTH ZZ and the shoreline of the Fox River at the three identified sections along the
project is the result of shallow circular failure planes that develop within tension zones in
the weaker fill and/or surficial glacial till as well as at the interface between the surficial
fill material and the natural clay soil encountered below the pavement/ground surface
initiated by soil erosion at the toe of the embankment.
In our opinion, based on the soil and water information available from the borings taken,
the circular failure planes are the result of five major factors specific to the project
location and are listed on the following page:
32
1. Limited passive soil resistance at the toe of the slope.
2. Erosion of the toe soils due to the faster water current particularly on the outer bends
in the river.
3. Weight of the embankment as the roadway profile is at a higher elevation.
4. Steep angle of the embankment as the roadway alignment is closer to the river and at
the higher elevations
5. Weaker surficial fill and/or glacial till at the top of the embankment and extending to
the toe of the embankment.
It is our opinion that these items will need to be addressed in the final design of the CTH
ZZ project. Also, in areas where the existing rip rap has been placed on the embankment
between the roadway and the shoreline, the erosion of the toe soils has been minimized.
However, with the rip rap in place, slope stability modeling projects the failure planes
beneath the existing riprap and beyond the extent of the riprap into the river. As a result,
the shallow failure planes beneath the existing rip rap need to also be addressed.
Our testing and observations indicated that the natural clay soils were encountered from
shallow depths below the roadway surface and on the eastern side of the roadway and
continued to the extent of the borings at depths of 40 feet to 50 feet beneath the surface.
Our tests of samples of these clays indicated that the shear strength as well as the internal
angle of friction of the clay was not unusually low. The soils along the shoreline, prior to
placement of the riprap and in areas where rip rap has not been placed, were observed to
be sloughing into the river at various locations within the project area.
3.4.4. Conclusions and Recommendations
In the modeling constructed to determine the stability of the embankment between the
Fox River and CTH ZZ, assumptions were made as to the strength of the soils and where
existing natural soils and fill soils would be encountered. To verify those models, it is
recommended that additional soil borings with a drill rig be performed to better delineate
soil conditions along the CTH ZZ route. Soil borings performed did indicate that
conditions did vary along the proposed route. It is also recommended that additional hand
auger borings be performed along the length of the shoreline to better identify those areas
in which fill soil exist verses natural soil and particularly where weaker surficial soil
conditions exist verses soils with higher shear strengths. Identifying these soil and water
conditions will be influential in determining remedial actions required along the length of
CTH ZZ that is adjacent to the Fox River.
Based on assumed soil and water conditions and based on sections reviewed in our
stability models, it is currently our opinion that lateral resistance to the slope movement
will be required at or near the slope toe in order to achieve long-term slope stability, and
that repair of the slope area in the several previously noted areas along CTH ZZ can be
achieved as follows on the next page:
33
1. Construct a shear key along the embankment slope toe near the western right-of-way
line.
The shear key is recommended to consist of a trench, excavated to below the
anticipated shallow soil slip plane, and filled with, at minimum, medium riprap to
provide shear and weight resistance to counter the force of the moving slope soils. It
is our opinion that the riprap will also protect the shoreline from soil erosion. A
typical shear key trench is shown on the typical cross section in Appendix E. The
height and width of the shear key would need to be determined for individual areas
based on soil loadings and soil strength. It is our opinion that it will also be necessary
to place a non-woven geotextile fabric between the soil and the riprap completely
surrounding the riprap in the shear key trench. We recommend that the fabric
conform, at a minimum, to Section 645.2.7 Geotextile Fabric, Type HR (Heavy
Riprap) of the 2016 Wisconsin DOT Standard Specifications for Highway and
Structure Construction. We recommend that riprap consist of “Medium Riprap”
conforming to Section 606 of the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications.
Prior to construction of a shear key, we recommend that level benches be excavated
along the slope to allow the backhoe to be level during excavation of the key and to
allow for construction of a temporary road for trucks to access the backhoe for
removal of excavated soil and importing riprap.
2. Install a suitable surface drainage system of ditches and drains to control surface
water flow.
We recommend that surface water be drained through ditches and culverts on the east
side of CTH ZZ and that surface water drainage over the embankment be minimized
as much as possible.
3. Remove and replace the disturbed soils in noted failure zones.
We recommend that, following placement of the shear key near the slope toe, the
soils be removed from the disturbed section of the slope. The disturbed soils could
consist of existing soft fill, soft natural lean clays and/or existing rip rap. The area of
slope to be excavated (in addition to reconstruction of the pavement section) would
be extended from the toe of the slope to the proposed right of way boundary on the
east side of the roadway. The excavation bottom would consist of relatively
horizontal bench cuts with near vertical transitions for upslope/downslope elevation
changes. Fill, consisting of lean clay, is then recommended to be placed to bring the
slope back to approximately a maximum slope of 3:1, horizontal to vertical, from the
toe of the slope to the road shoulder. See the typical recommended cross section in
Appendix D for proposed grades and as well as overall alterations from the existing
34
roadway cross section and embankment cross section between CTH ZZ and the Fox
River cross section. Clay fill placed on the embankment is recommended to be
placed in maximum 1-foot thick lifts and compacted to 95% of the Standard Proctor
(ASTM: D698) maximum dry density. Moisture contents of the clay fill are
recommended to be within ±3% of the Standard Proctor optimum moisture.
Please note that we highly recommend that erosion mat be placed on all areas of the
reconstructed slope once the areas are shaped and seeded. The slope also is also
recommended to be seeded as soon as practical following placement of topsoil on the
embankment slope. Excavations are recommended to be sloped or supported in
accordance to 29 CFR Part 1926, OSHA subpart P requirements, assuming Type C
soils. Also, we recommend that at the time of slope reconstruction, a geotechnical
engineer be present to document the existing soil conditions and placement of fill
soils.
4. Road profiles are recommended to be lowered as much as possible and the horizontal
alignment moved as far east of the Fox River as is reasonable.
By lowering the profile and/or moving the alignment as far east of the Fox River as
practical, slopes from the road elevation to the Fox River can be decreased from
existing steep slopes and the soil load reduced that is part of the driving forces in the
failure area.
5. Miscellaneous Items.
For new pipe culverts extended to drain out on the embankment between CTH ZZ
and the Fox River, it is recommended that the pipe extend down the slope as far as
possible to not be allowing free flowing water on the embankment slope. If water is to
be flowing on the embankment slope, provide provisions to protect the embankment
from erosion control soil saturation.
The above mentioned recommendations were modeled in order to anticipate the level of
improvement on the stability of the proposed slope and determine if suitable safety
factors for embankment stability could be obtained. The model included the shear key
near the toe of the slope filled with riprap, removal of disturbed soil as well as placement
and regrading of lean clay fill soil at a more gradual slope between the toe of the slope
and the shoulder of the roadway. The same water conditions as modeled in the existing
conditions were applied as well as the same soil parameters with the exception of the
soils on the embankment. In addition, the projected design roadway elevation and
alignment were applied to the model with the controlling roadway height and offset used
in order to obtain the lowest anticipated safety factors. Based on modeled conditions,
safety factors of greater than 1.5 were then obtained. The anticipated slip failure planes
follow a much longer circular path that is forced to extend deeper below the embankment
35
surface and into more competent and stable soil, therefore increasing and improving the
safety factor of slope stability.
As was previously noted, the above models were based on estimated soil and water
conditions. It should be noted that if soil conditions vary from those indicated or assumed
in this report, that the above noted slope recommendations may be revised for all or parts
of the CTH ZZ project.
3.5. Proposed Drainage Structure at Plan Roadway Station 265+08
3.5.1. Project Data
In addition to reconstruction of the CTH ZZ roadway as well as construction of several
retaining wall structures, a new drainage structure is proposed to be constructed as part of
the overall project. An unnamed tributary to the Fox River passes underneath CTH ZZ
approximately 950 feet east of the intersection with Tetzlaff Road in the northern portion
of the project. The creek generally flows north and has several other tributary drainage
creeks that originate south and east of CTH ZZ. The outlet of the creek is approximately
0.5 miles due north of the CTH ZZ crossing as it feeds into the Fox River.
The creek currently passes underneath the roadway in two (2) 72-inch diameter
reinforced concrete pipe culverts located side-by-side. The pipe culverts are orientated in
a north-south direction and are approximately 100 feet in length, centered about the
existing roadway centerline. It was originally anticipated that the proposed culvert
crossing would consist of a reinforced concrete box culvert. However, based on the
hydraulic study, twin 72-inch concrete pipe will be used to replace the existing culverts.
These pipes will be approximately 150 feet in length and centered about the proposed
roadway centerline. These pipes will be near the existing invert elevations of the existing
pipes. The pipe inverts on the south side of CTH ZZ will be near elevation 604 feet and
on the north side near elevation 602 feet. With these invert elevations, pipe bearing
elevations were estimated at 6 inches deeper and would bear near elevation 603.5 feet on
the south side of CTH ZZ and 601.5 feet on the north side.
The current roadway profile is in a vertical curve that descends a hill from both the east
and west as the roadway crosses the creek. Beam guard is located on both shoulders of
the roadway. An asphalt pavement overlay has been laid in the northbound / eastbound
lane. The overlay is approximately 50 feet in length and is located slightly offset to the
west of the creek crossing, The current roadway alignment as well as the proposed
alignment curves from the southwest to a more easterly direction as the roadway profile
increases in elevation as the roadway bends away from the Fox River. The proposed new
CTH ZZ alignment is shifted approximately 25 feet south of the existing roadway
centerline. Also, the proposed new profile will increase the roadway grade at the twin
pipe culvert crossing by approximately 8 feet. Existing roadway grades are currently near
elevation 621 feet with proposed grades near elevation 629 feet at the proposed crossing.
36
3.5.2. Discussions and Recommendations
Site investigation for the proposed drainage structure included two (2) soil borings which
were performed using standard penetration sampling. Soil boring SB-1 was performed in
the northbound/eastbound shoulder of the highway approximately 40 feet east of the
existing creek crossing at approximate plan roadway Station 265+50. Soil boring SB-2
was performed in the southbound/westbound shoulder of the highway approximately 40
feet west of the existing creek crossing at approximate plan roadway Station 264+70.
Elevations at the borings were approximately elevation 620.6 feet at boring SB-1 and
elevation 622.3 feet at boring SB-2.
Boring SB-1 indicated 9 inches of asphalt pavement over fill to a depth of 18 feet or
approximate elevation 602.6 feet. Similarly, boring SB-2 indicated 8 inches of asphalt
pavement over fill to a depth of 9½ feet or approximate elevation 612.8 feet. Fill in both
borings generally consisted of firm to soft lean clay with various amounts of gravel, sand
and organics. No base course subgrade beneath the asphalt pavement was noted. Beneath
the fill, glacial till was encountered to the extent of the borings at a depth of 25 feet. The
glacial till consisted of hard lean clay with little gravel in boring SB-1 and very stiff lean
clay with gravel to a depth of 15 feet and very stiff lean clay to the depth of the boring in
boring SB-2.
The groundwater level was recorded in boring SB-1 at the time of drilling the soil
borings. The depth of the water level at completion of the drilling was recorded at 17.5
feet beneath the ground surface which corresponds to approximate elevation 603.1 feet.
As this water level recording was obtained in the fall season of the year, it is anticipated
that the creek level may rise above elevation 603 feet and will generally fluctuate both
seasonally and annually.
Based on our review of the test boring data and laboratory results, it is our opinion that
the glacial till soils that were encountered in the borings near the planned twin 72-inch
pipe culvert bearing elevations of 601.5 feet to the north of CTH ZZ and 603.5 feet to the
south of CTH ZZ generally consist of very stiff to hard lean clay and these soils would be
suitable for pipe culvert support. It is also our opinion that these soils would be suitable
for supporting a net allowable bearing capacity of up to 3000 pounds per square foot
(psf). Although it is our opinion that twin 72 inch concrete pipe culverts can bear on the
natural lean clays encountered at the assumed bearing elevation of ranging from 601.5
feet to 603.5 feet, it is our opinion that these soils are susceptible to strength loss in the
presence of water and construction traffic, and as a result, because of the fact that
excavations will be made in a watercourse, the depth to groundwater or the presence of
surface water in relation to the planned twin pipe culvert base depth will be an important
consideration during construction.
37
As previously indicated, the main area of concern during the twin 72-inch pipe base
construction will be the elevation of the groundwater table or presence of surface water.
It is anticipated that soils encountered at the bearing elevation will generally consist of
lean clay. Though the lean clay encountered in the borings are suitable for supporting a
net allowable bearing capacity of 3000 psf, these soils are also susceptible to disturbance
and strength loss in the presence of water and construction traffic. As a result, controlling
surface and subsurface water in the base excavation at the time of construction will be
very important to maintaining the integrity of the bearing soils.
It should be noted that the fill soils encountered directly above the natural lean clays were
in a firm to soft condition. As a result, if these soils are encountered at planned pipe
bearing grades, it is recommended that the softer existing lean clay fills be removed down
to the stiffer natural lean clays. Fill placed to planned pipe bearing grades is then
recommended to consist of pipe bedding material.
During the drainage structure excavation, we also recommend having the geotechnical
engineer of record on site to determine if water conditions and soils encountered at the
exposed excavated elevation are indeed suitable for support of anticipated pipe culverts.
Based on potential groundwater and surface water issues as well as the soils encountered
in the borings, it is possible that softer lean clays could be encountered that may require
additional undercut prior to fill or culvert placement, and it is recommended that the
geotechnical engineer of record be on site to document these conditions and to provide
recommendations to the excavating contractor should unsuitable conditions be
encountered. If additional undercut is required, we recommend the undercut area be
backfilled in accordance with Section 3.5.5, Proposed Drainage Structure at Plan
Roadway Station 265+08 – Structural Fill and Backfill.
Based on the existing site grades and the proposed bearing elevations of the 72-inch twin
pipe culverts, the depth of excavation to remove the existing pipe culverts and place new
pipe culverts will be approximately 14 to 19 feet below the existing surface grades. All
excavations are recommended to be in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926
estimating Type B soils. With the type B soils, excavation side slopes are recommended
to be a maximum of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical for excavations less than 20 feet in depth.
In addition to an excavation depth of up to 19 feet, fill depths are anticipated up to a
depth of 27 feet. It is our opinion that with fill placement of this depth, that placement
and compaction of the fill material will be an important consideration in reconstructing
the roadway subgrade. It is our opinion that the fill placed above the twin culvert pipes
and pipe bedding can consist of structural fill or existing site soils (lean clays), however,
for the deeper fills, we do recommend a higher degree of compaction. We recommend
that all fill placed above the pipes, be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the standard
Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density. The purpose of the higher degree of
compaction is to minimize the amount of total settlement of the fill section. If fill material
38
above the planned twin pipe culverts is to consist of lean clays or finer grained soils, it is
our opinion that the finer grained soils will need to be moisture conditioned to within
±3% of the optimum moisture content to achieve the higher degree of compaction.
Also, it should be noted, that in filling to an additional 8 feet above existing grades, it is
our opinion that little additional settlement would be anticipated in the very stiff to hard
natural lean clays that will be supporting the twin 72-inch pipe culverts and the additional
fill.
Lastly, it is recommended that final slope grades from the road shoulder to the pipe
culvert grades not exceed a 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical grade.
3.5.3. Site Preparation
Based on the soils encountered in the borings and observations at the project site, an
asphaltic pavement surface was observed with approximately 8 inches to 9 inches in
thickness. Base course beneath the asphalt pavement was not noted. For general site
preparation, we recommend that the asphalt layer be removed down to the fill material
within the roadway area. If an aggregate base course is encountered beneath the asphalt
pavement in this area, we would recommend salvaging the material to be used for
embankment fill.
For new culvert construction, the asphalt pavement, and fill material above the existing
culvert and including the existing culvert should be removed down to the glacial till soils
within the proposed culvert replacement area. It is our opinion that existing base course
material along the extents of the project and encountered at neighboring borings B-01 and
B-02 which generally consisted of silty sand with gravel will be suitable for re-use as
embankment fill above the proposed culvert. Excavations are to be sloped in accordance
with current OSHA standards.
For areas outside of existing pavement section areas and in which culverts are to be
extended, it is recommended that all topsoil and unsuitable soils be stripped from
proposed areas of extension prior to twin 72-inch pipe culvert excavation.
It is anticipated that soils encountered at the twin 72” pipe culvert base bearing elevation
will generally consist of stiff to hard lean clay. The lean clay may be susceptible to
disturbance particularly in the presence of water and construction traffic. As a result, we
recommend that the lean clay be removed to a minimum depth of 6 inches below the
proposed 72-inch pipe culvert bearing elevation for bedding material. The bedding
material is recommended to meet the requirements of Section 209, Granular Backfill, of
the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications for bedding beneath a culvert pipe. If the
natural lean clay encountered below the proposed 72” twin pipe culvert bearing elevation
is in a wet condition, we recommend that the subgrade soil also be removed with a
39
smooth bladed bucket and that construction traffic not be allowed on the subgrade.
Bedding placed beneath the culvert structure is also recommended to be compacted to a
minimum of 98% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM: D698). After
placement of the 72-inch twin pipe culverts on the prepared subgrade, granular backfill
meeting the requirements of Section 209 in the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications, is
recommended to be placed along and to one foot above the 72-inch twin pipe culverts in
areas to receive new pavement. The granular backfill is again recommended to be
compacted to a minimum of 98% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:
D698). All fill placed above the granular backfill may consist of structural fill as noted in
Section 3.5.5, Proposed Drainage Structure at Plan Roadway Station 265+08 –
Structural Fill and Backfill, or existing site soils classified as lean clay. As previously
noted, all embankment fill placed above the twin pipe culverts is recommended to be
compacted to 98% of the standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density, and it is
our opinion that existing lean clay fill, if used, will be required to be moisture
conditioned to ±3% of optimum moisture content to meet the recommended compaction.
As previously indicated, though the soils encountered in the borings are suitable for
supporting a net allowable bearing capacity of 3000 psf, these soils are also susceptible to
disturbance and strength loss in the presence of water and construction traffic. As a result,
controlling surface and subsurface water in the drainage structure base excavation at the
time of construction will be very important to maintain the integrity of the bearing soils.
In our opinion, soils consisting of silts or organic soils are not recommended to be used
as fill beneath pavements on this site. Theses soils can be used as backfill in any green or
non-structural fill areas, however soils in non-structural areas are recommended to be
compacted to a minimum of 90% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:
D698). In areas to receive pavement, fill is recommended to consist of re-used existing
base course and/or structural fill as indicated in Section 3.5.5, Proposed Drainage
Structure at Plan Roadway Station 265+08 – Structural Fill and Backfill. Fill placed
beneath pavements or structures that are not deep fill is recommended to be compacted to
95% standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM: D698).
3.5.4. Foundation Recommendations
Based on our review of the test boring data and laboratory results, it is our opinion that
the soils at the planned twin 72-inch pipe culvert base bearing grade of approximate
elevation 601.5 to 603.5 feet are suitable for supporting a net allowable bearing capacity
of up to 3000 pounds per square foot (psf). In our opinion, the 72-inch pipe culvert base
subgrade excavation is recommended to be extended through any topsoil or existing fill
soil and be placed directly on a granular fill section with a 6-inch minimum thickness and
bearing on the natural glacial till. The natural glacial till consists of stiff to hard lean clay.
40
The recommended net allowable bearing pressure should, in our opinion, provide a factor
of safety of at least 3.0 against a general shear failure. We estimate that the pipe culverts
will experience settlements of less than 1 inch total and ½ inch differential, based on
culvert and roadway fill loads. If the culverts at this location are to consist of pipe
culverts or pipe culvert extensions, provide a granular foundation per the 2017 WisDOT
Standard Specifications, Section 520, Pipe Culverts.
3.5.5. Structural Fill and Backfill
For backfill and bedding of pipe culverts, it is recommended that a granular backfill be
provided per 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications, Section 520, Pipe Culverts and
Section 209, Granular Backfill.
For backfill of structural elements, we recommend the use of a granular material having a
maximum size of 3" and less than 12 percent passing the #200 sieve size with the
following grading specification:
As an alternate to the above grading specification for structural fill, it is also our opinion
that using a 1¼ inch dense graded base per Section 305 of the 2017 WisDOT Standard
Specifications could be used. Structural backfill and structural fill are recommended to be
placed in lifts of 8 inches or less. Each lift of backfill is recommended to be compacted
to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor
(ASTM: D698).
As an alternate to the above structural fill requirements, in areas of mass excavation and
filling, site soils may be used as structural fill/embankment fill. Site soils consisting of
lean clay are recommended to be moisture conditioned to ±3% of the optimum moisture
content of the standard Proctor (ASTM D698) during placement.
Also, fill in structural areas or pavement areas in which the fill is deeper than 10 feet are
recommended to be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the standard Proctor (ASTM
D698) maximum dry density. Fill placed to depths less than 10 feet in depth are
recommended to be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor (ASTM
D698) maximum dry density. Any fill in non-structural areas can consist of imported
soils or site soils compacted to a minimum of 90% of the standard Proctor maximum dry
density (ASTM:D698).
Sieve Size Percent Passing
3" 100
3/4" 75-100
#4 50-100
#40 10-70
#200 0-12
Appendix A
Soil Boring
Location Plan
CTH
ZZ R
econ
stru
ctio
n(C
lay
St. -
Tet
zlaff
Rd.)
Brow
n Co
unty
, WI
CTH
ZZ R
econ
stru
ctio
n(C
lay
St. -
Tet
zlaff
Rd.)
Brow
n Co
unty
, WI
CTH
ZZ R
econ
stru
ctio
n(C
lay
St. -
Tet
zlaff
Rd.)
Brow
n Co
unty
, WI
CTH
ZZ R
econ
stru
ctio
n(C
lay
St. -
Tet
zlaff
Rd.)
Brow
n Co
unty
, WI
CTH
ZZ R
econ
stru
ctio
n(C
lay
St. -
Tet
zlaff
Rd.)
Brow
n Co
unty
, WI
CTH
ZZ R
econ
stru
ctio
n(C
lay
St. -
Tet
zlaff
Rd.)
Brow
n Co
unty
, WI
CTH
ZZ R
econ
stru
ctio
n(C
lay
St. -
Tet
zlaff
Rd.)
Brow
n Co
unty
, WI
Appendix B
Soil Boring Log Notes
& Logs
Brown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
0-45-1011-2021-3031-5051+
CONSISTENCYTERM
Very SoftSoftFirmStiffVery StiffHard
"N" VALUE
0-12-45-89-1516-3031+
Very LooseLooseFirmVery FirmDenseVery Dense
Standard "N" Penetration: Blows Per Foot of a 140 PoundHammer Falling 30 inches on a 2 inchO.D. Split Spoon Sampler
LaminationLayerLensVarved
DryMoistWetWater-bearing
Up to ½" thick stratum½" to 6" thick stratum½" to 6" discontinuous stratum, pocketAlternating laminations of clay, silt and/or finegrained sand, or colors thereofPowdery, no noticeable waterBelow saturationSaturated, above liquid limitPervious soil below water
Over 12"3"-12"
¾"-3"#4-¾"
#4-#10#10-#40#40-#200-#200, Based on Plasticity
LITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS (Unified Soil Classification System)
ASPHALT: Asphalt CH: USCS High Plasticity Clay
CL: USCS Low Plasticity Clay FILL: Fill (made ground)
GP-GM: USCS Poorly-graded Gravel with Silt SM: USCS Silty Sand
SPG: USCS Poorly-graded Gravelly Sand
No Recovery
Standard Penetration Test
Shelby Tube
ABBREVIATIONSSAMPLER SYMBOLS
WATER LEVELSWater levels shown on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time and under the conditions indicated. In sand,the indicated levels may be considered reliable groundwater levels. In clay soil, it may be possible to determine the groundwater levelwithin the normal time required for test borings, except where lenses or layers of more pervious waterbearing soil are present. Eventhen, an extended period of time may be necessary to reach equilibrium. Therefore, the position of the water level symbol for cohesiveor mixed texture soils may not indicate the true level of the ground water table. Perched water refers to water above an imperviouslayer, thus impeded in reaching the water table. The available water level information is given at the top of the log sheet.
DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY
Cave-In Level at End of Drilling
Water Level After 24 Hours
Water Level at End of Drilling
Water Level at Time Drilling
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LL
PI
W
DD
NP
-200
PP
Qu
Qc
RQD
OC
SPT
SCP
RELATIVE GRAVEL PROPORTIONS RELATIVE SIZES
RELATIVEDENSITY
TERM "N" VALUE
TERMlittle gravelwith gravel
little gravelwith gravel
little gravelwith gravelgravelly
CONDITIONCoarse Grained Soils
Fine Grained Soils15-29% + No. 20015-29% + No. 200
30% + No. 20030% + No. 20030%+No. 200
RANGE2-14%15-49%
2-7%8-29%
2-14%15-24%16-49%
BoulderCobbleGravelCoarseFine
SandCoarseMediumFine
Silt & Clay
LOG NOTES & KEY TO SYMBOLS
LIQUID LIMIT (%) - ASTM:D4318
PLASTIC INDEX (%) - ASTM:D4318
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) - ASTM:D2216
DRY DENSITY (PCF)
NON PLASTIC
PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)
UNCONFINED COMP. STRENGTH (TSF) - ASTM:D2166
TRIAXIAL COMP. STRENGTH (TSF)
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (%)
ORGANIC CONTENT - COMBUSTION METHOD
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
STATIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST
KE
Y T
O S
YM
BO
LS -
OM
NN
I_B
OR
.GD
T -
10/
12/1
6 0
9:51
- F
:\TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
1 Systems DriveAppleton, WI 54914Telephone: 920-735-6900Fax: 920-830-6100
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATION
18
3
6
PAVEMENT - 5'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 15'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, lightyellowish brown and brown, moist,firm (SM)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, reddishbrown, moist, stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Organics, reddishbrown, moist, very stiff (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet.
7
4
8
5
6
11
9
13
13.2
2424
637.1
635.8
633.5
631.5
12
10
19
Light reddish brownmottling, 2 - 4'
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
3.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B01
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/10/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
637.5 ft 9/10/2015
---6.0 ft / Elev. 631.5 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
3
8
5
3
PAVEMENT - 4'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 8'' of BASE COURSE- SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tocoarse grained, light yellowish brownand brown, moist, very loose (SM)
FILLSANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL,dark yellowish brown and yellowishred, moist, very stiff (CL)
SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained,yellowish brown and dark brown,moist, loose (SM)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, reddish brown mottledwith gray, moist, stiff (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet.
10
5
4
3
6
2
6
612
2424
636.7
636.0
635.0
633.0
631.0
8
10 Light reddish brownmottling and <1mm-widegray SILT veins, 4 - 6'
SP
T1
SP
T1A
SP
T2
SP
T3
2.3 (PP)
3.0 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B02
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/10/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
637 ft 9/10/2015
---6.0 ft / Elev. 631.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
18
3
3
PAVEMENT - 6'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 18'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, lightyellowish brown, moist, firm (SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, trace Organics, brown and darkbrown, moist, firm (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet.
9
3
3
5
4
4
5
4
1824
24
609.6
608.1
604.1
14
7
7
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
2.0 (PP)
2.3 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B03
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/10/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
610.1 ft 9/10/2015
---6.0 ft / Elev. 604.1 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
19
6
5
PAVEMENT - 6'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 18'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, little Clay, fine to coarsegrained, light yellowish brown, moist,firm (SM)
FILLSANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL,with Silt, strong brown and yellow,moist, very stiff (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, brown,moist, very stiff (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet.
11
8
9
6
9
10
13
1824
24
604.2
602.7
600.7
598.7
17
17
19
Light reddish brownmottling and <1mm-wideSILT veins, 4 - 6'
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
3.0 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B04
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/10/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
604.7 ft 9/10/2015
---6.0 ft / Elev. 598.7 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
18
3
6
PAVEMENT - 5'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 19'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, little Clay, fine to coarsegrained, organic odor, light yellowishbrown and black, moist, loose (SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY WITH SAND, withGravel, dark brown and brown, moist,firm (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, brownbrown, moist, very stiff (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet.
5
3
9
5
3
11
4
14
14.4
21.6
24
604.6
603.0
601.0
599.0
10
6
20
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
1.8 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B05
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/10/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
605 ft 9/10/2015
---6.0 ft / Elev. 599.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
18
8
9
PAVEMENT - 4'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 44" of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, little Clay, fine to coarsegrained, light yellowish brown andblack, moist, firm (SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, brown,moist, hard (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet.
9
7
15
9
8
20
8
17
1819
.218
609.4
605.7
603.7
18
15
35 <1mm-wide gray SILTveins, 4 - 6'
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
>4.5 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B06
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/9/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
609.7 ft 9/9/2015
---6.0 ft / Elev. 603.7 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
5.9 ft / Elev. 603.8 ft ---9/9/2015
2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
5
3
7
2
2
3
3
PAVEMENT - 7 1/2'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tocoarse grained, brown and darkbrown, moist, loose (SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, dark brown andbrown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Organics, organicodor, dark brown, moist, stiff (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown andreddish brown, moist, firm to stiff (CL)
3
6
3
4
3
3
7
4
6
6
6
66
7.2
9.6
14.4
1818
604.0
603.1
602.1
600.1
13
7
10
9
9
19
21
21
Greenish gray SILTlaminations/veins, approx.7.5 - 14.5'
SP
T1
SP
T1A
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
1.0 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
2.5 (PP)
4.0 (PP)
4.0 (PP)
3.5 (PP)
17.0 ft / Elev. 587.6 ft9/9/2015
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER B07
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/9/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
604.6 ft 9/9/2015
---25.0 ft / Elev. 579.6 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
15.0 ft / Elev. 589.6 ft ---9/9/2015
2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
2
5
LEAN CLAY, reddish brown, moist,firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, reddishgray, moist, (CL)
FAT CLAY, reddish brown and darkgrayish brown, moist, very stiff (CH)
Bottom of borehole at 25.0 feet.
3
8
4
10
1812
18
590.1
586.4
581.9
579.6
7
18
24
16
27
120
Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand dark grayish brownLEAN CLAY, approx. 22.75- 25'
SP
T7
ST
8S
PT
9
1.5 (PP)
4.5 (PP)
4.0 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER B07
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
20
3
4
6
6
5
PAVEMENT - 5'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, withAsphalt, fine to coarse grained,yellowish brown and black, moist, firm(SM)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, brown,moist, stiff to very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, very stiff to stiff(CL)
8
5
8
8
10
8
7
8
12
12
14
11
1818
1818
1818
606.0
604.6
599.4
15
13
20
20
24
19
18
20
20
21
109
SILT veins, approx. 5 - 9'
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
4.0 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER B08
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/9/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
606.4 ft 9/9/2015
---25.0 ft / Elev. 581.4 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
5
4
4
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, very stiff to stiff(CL) (continued)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, brown, moist, stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, stiff (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 25.0 feet.
6
5
5
7
5
5
1818
18
588.2
583.9
581.4
13
10
10
21
20
24 103
SP
T7
SP
T8
SP
T9
4.0 (PP)
1.5 (PP)
1.0 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER B08
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
8
4
3
3
6
6
6
4
PAVEMENT - 8'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tocoarse grained, brown, moist, firm(SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, brown, moist, soft (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Organics, traceSand, reddish brown and black, moist,firm (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, trace Organics, brown,moist, stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, brown, moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, brown, moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,brown, moist, firm (CL)
3
3
4
10
10
9
8
4
6
16
13
13
11
9.6
612
1818
1818
15.6
602.3
601.0
600.5
598.5
596.0
593.5
591.0
584.8
7
10
26
23
22
19
25
15
101
112
Reddish brown mottling, 5 -6.5'
Gray SILT veins, 10 - 11.5'
Light reddish brownmottling, 12.5 - 14'
Casing installed at 20'
SP
T1
SP
T1A
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
SP
T7
3.3 (PP)
3.0 (PP)
2.0 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
4.0 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER B09
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/9/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
603 ft 9/9/2015
---40.0 ft / Elev. 563.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
3
WOH
WOH
LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,brown, moist, firm (CL) (continued)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, brown and reddish brown,moist, (CL)
FAT CLAY, reddish brown andreddish gray, moist, soft to firm (CH)
Bottom of borehole at 40.0 feet.
3
1
2
5
1
3
1818
1824
18
579.8
574.8
563.0
8
2
5
27 98
Casing installed at 20'
Grayish brown SILTlaminations, approx. 23.25 -28.25'
Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand reddish gray LEANCLAY, approx. 28.25 - 40'
SP
T8
ST
9S
PT
10S
T11
SP
T12
1.0 (PP)
2.0 (PP)
0.5 (PP)
1.0 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER B09
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
15
2
4
6
11
6
6
5
PAVEMENT - 5'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tocoarse grained, light yellowish brown,moist to dry, firm (SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY WITH SAND, littleGravel, dark grayish brown and darkbrown, moist, firm (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist, stiff(CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,trace Organics, brown and lightreddish brown, dry to moist, very stiff(CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleSilt, brown, dry to moist, hard to verystiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist to wet, stiff (CL)
8
3
5
9
15
9
9
7
4
5
7
15
18
15
12
11
14.4
1214
.418
1818
018
610.2
608.4
606.1
604.6
601.1
587.4
12
8
12
24
33
24
21
18
26
17
16
17
19
115 Light reddish brown veins,6 - 9.5'
No recovery after twoattempts.
Casing installed @ 20'
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
NR
7S
PT
8
3.3 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
3.8 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER B10
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/9/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
610.6 ft 9/9/2015
---50.0 ft / Elev. 560.6 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
5
4
1
2
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist to wet, stiff (CL)(continued)
LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, brown,moist, (CL)
FAT CLAY, reddish brown and gray,moist, firm to soft (CH)
Bottom of borehole at 50.0 feet.
6
3
2
2
5
3
2
3
10.8
16.8
1818
249
582.4
577.4
560.6
11
6
4
5
33
22
34
36
40
43
38
56
15
21
23
35
105
81
Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand gray LEAN CLAY,approx. 33 - 50'
SP
T9
ST
1S
PT
10S
PT
11S
T2
SP
T12
2.0 (PP)0.7 (Qu)
0.8 (PP)
0.5 (PP)
1.5 (PP)1.3 (Qu)
0.8 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER B10
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
17
2
3
7
4
4
4
4
1
3
PAVEMENT - 7'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tomedium grained, pale brown, dry, veryfirm (SM)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,trace Organics, reddish brown, moist,soft (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleSilt, brown and light reddish brown,dry to moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,trace Sand, brown, moist, very stiff tostiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Wood, brown,moist, stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,trace Sand, brown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Wood, traceGravel, brown and gray, moist, stiff(CL)
17
1
8
8
7
5
14
4
4
5
6
2
9
12
8
9
10
7
4
6
7.2
8.4
1818
1818
1818
1818
611.8
610.2
607.9
605.4
595.4
592.9
590.4
587.9
23
3
17
20
15
14
24
11
8
11
15
16
17
19
19
24
20
19
112
Reddish brown veins, 4.5 -7'
Gray mottling around woodpieces, 22 - 24.5'
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
SP
T7
SP
T8
SP
T9
SP
T10
1.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
4.3 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
2.8 (PP)
2.3 (PP)
1.8 (PP)
1.5 (PP)
27.1 ft / Elev. 585.3 ft9/2/2015
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 4BORING NUMBER B11
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/2/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
612.4 ft 9/3/2015
29.0 ft / Elev. 583.4 ft90.5 ft / Elev. 521.9 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
3
1
2
1
WOH
LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, little Silt,brown, moist, stiff (CL) (continued)
LEAN CLAY, trace Sand, brown,moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,brown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleSand, brown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, dark grayish brown,moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, brown, moist, soft (CL)
FAT CLAY, reddish brown andgrayish brown, moist, soft to firm (CH)
4
2
2
1
1
6
3
3
2
1
1820
.418
3.6
27.6
1218
585.4
582.9
578.7
573.7
568.7
564.2
10
5
5
3
2
17
23
25
15
32
45
44
106
91
Drillers hit gravel and bentshelby tube.
Boulder 34.8 - 35.8'(Driller's description)
Reddish brown FAT CLAYwith grayish brown SILTlaminations, approx. 48 -78'
SP
T11
ST
12S
PT
13S
PT
14S
T15
SP
T16
SP
T17
1.3 (PP)
1.4 (Qu)
0.8 (PP)
0.8 (PP)
1.3 (PP)1.5 (Qu)
0.0 (PP)
0.0 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 4BORING NUMBER B11
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
1
WOH
WOH
WOH
35
FAT CLAY, reddish brown andgrayish brown, moist, soft to firm (CH)(continued)
HARDPANSILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, finegrained, grayish brown and darkgrayish brown, dry to moist, verydense (SM)
2
1
1
2
47
2
1
1
3
39
26.4
1818
3.6
1818
534.2
4
2
2
5
86
47
40
42
68
50
24
19
44
31
75
Dark greenish gray mottlingwithin Silt, 73.25 - 78.25'
ST
18S
PT
19S
PT
20S
PT
21S
PT
22S
PT
23
1.5 (PP)1.5 (Qu)
1.3 (PP)
0.8 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 3 OF 4BORING NUMBER B11
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
28
61
HARDPANSILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, finegrained, grayish brown and darkgrayish brown, dry to moist, verydense (SM) (continued)
Bottom of borehole at 90.5 feet.
27
30
186
521.9
57
SP
T24
SP
T25
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 4 OF 4BORING NUMBER B11
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
4
4
5
7
6
5
5
PAVEMENT - 5'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSESILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND,yellowish brown, dry, loose (GP-GM)
FILLLEAN CLAY, little Sand, little Gravel,brown and black, moist, stiff (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, little Silt, little Gravel,strong brown and light reddish brown,moist to dry, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Sand,strong brown, dry to moist, very stiff(CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, trace Sand,brown, dry to moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Silt, little Gravel,brown, moist to dry, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist to dry, very stiff(CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, brown,moist, stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, firm (CL)
4
7
9
13
10
10
5
5
11
16
16
13
13
5
9.6
1818
1218
1818
614.0
613.4
611.4
609.9
607.4
604.9
602.4
599.9
596.2
9
18
25
29
23
23
10
16
17
22
Light reddish brownmottling, 3.0 - 4.5'
Casing installed at 20'
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
SP
T7
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
4.0 (PP)
1.5 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER B12
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/2/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
614.4 ft 9/2/2015
---40.0 ft / Elev. 574.4 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
2
4
2
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, firm (CL) (continued)
Bottom of borehole at 40.0 feet.
2
4
3
3
4
3
2418
2418
18
574.4
5
8
6
22
27
22
27
26
42 16 26
108
107
Casing installed at 20'
ST
1S
PT
8S
T2
SP
T9
SP
T10
1.5 (PP)1.6 (Qu)
0.5 (PP)
1.5 (PP)1.8 (Qu)
0.5 (PP)
0.5 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER B12
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
9
2
6
6
6
7
4
PAVEMENT - 4'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSESILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, palebrown, moist, loose (GP-GM)
FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, trace Sand, trace Silt,brown, moist, stiff (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, little Silt, trace Organics, brown,moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, strong brown and lightreddish brown, moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, strong brownand light gray, moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, very stiff to stiff (CL)
5
4
7
8
7
10
6
5
3
11
12
11
13
8
1214
.418
1818
1818
612.9
611.7
611.0
608.7
606.2
603.7
10
7
18
20
18
23
14
18
17
20
18
22 108
Light reddish brownmottling, 4.5 - 7'
Light reddish brown andlight gray mottling, 7 - 9.5'
Casing installed at 20'(Driller's description)
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
SP
T7
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
3.8 (PP)
2.0 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER B13
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/2/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
613.2 ft 9/2/2015
---40.0 ft / Elev. 573.2 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
5
2
3
2
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, very stiff to stiff (CL)(continued)
FAT CLAY, reddish brown andgrayish brown, moist, firm (CH)
Bottom of borehole at 40.0 feet.
5
5
5
3
7
7
7
5
012
180
1818
574.7
573.2
12
12
12
8
31
23
24
39 69 22 48
Casing installed at 20'(Driller's description)No recovery, pushed tubebent due to large gravel(Driller's description).
Rough drilling, 28.5 - 30'(Driller's description)
Gravel while drilling, 32.1 -32.3' (Driller's description)
No recovery, pushed tubebent due to large gravel(Driller's description).
Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand grayish brown LEANCLAY, 38.5 - 40'
ST
1S
PT
8S
PT
9S
T2
SP
T10
SP
T11
0.8 (PP)
1.0 (PP)
0.8 (PP)
0.5 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER B13
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
8
4
8
6
6
6
4
PAVEMENT - 5'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tomedium grained, olive brown, moist,loose (SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Sand, reddishbrown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Sand, trace Gravel,strong brown and dark brown, moist,stiff (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, little Sand, trace Gravel,reddish brown, moist, stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, strong brown and lightreddish brown, moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, brown,moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Silt, trace Gravel,strong brown and light brownish gray,moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, strong brown, moist, very stiff(CL)
LEAN CLAY, brown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Sand, brown,moist, (CL)
3
5
10
13
9
7
4
4
5
13
17
12
9
4
14.4
1818
1818
1818
609.8
608.7
608.0
606.7
605.7
603.2
600.7
598.2
595.7
592.0
7
10
23
30
21
16
8
11
15
16
20
21
24
Light reddish brownmottling, 4.5 - 7'
Light brownish graymottling, 9.5 - 12'
Casing installed at 20'
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
SP
T7
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
4.0 (PP)
2.8 (PP)
1.8 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER B14
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/3/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
610.2 ft 9/3/2015
---40.0 ft / Elev. 570.2 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
3
3
2
LEAN CLAY, trace Sand, brown,moist, (CL) (continued)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, trace Sand,brown, moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, little Sand,brown, moist to wet, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Silt, trace Gravel,brown, moist, stiff (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 40.0 feet.
4
3
4
9
4
5
1218
249.
618
587.2
582.0
576.7
572.7
570.2
13
7
9
22
25
24
29
24
108
104
Casing installed at 20'
Shelby tube only pushed 1'due to obstruction (driller'sdescription).
ST
1S
PT
8S
T2
SP
T9
SP
T10
2.8 (PP)2.4 (Qu)
0.8 (PP)
1.8 (PP)1.4 (Qu)
>0.5 (PP)
1.3 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER B14
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
29
3
2
2
PAVEMENT - 18'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 2.4'' of BASECOURSE - SAND WITH GRAVEL,with Silt, trace Clay, fine to coarsegrained, yellowish brown, moist, firm(SP-SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Organics, traceSand, yellowish red and reddishbrown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, brown and dark brown, moist,soft (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, reddish brown,moist, firm (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 8.0 feet.
6
3
2
2
8
4
2
3
5
3
3
1818
20.4
18
625.2
625.0
622.7
620.7
618.7
14
7
4
5
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
2.3 (PP)
2.3 (PP)
1.5 (PP)
1.0 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B15
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/3/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
626.7 ft 9/3/2015
---8.0 ft / Elev. 618.7 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
18
5
4
5
12
PAVEMENT - 8'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 14.4'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, trace Asphalt, trace Clay,fine to coarse grained, yellowishbrown, moist, very firm (SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, with Sand,trace Organics, reddish brown anddark reddish brown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleSilt, reddish brown and dark reddishbrown, moist, stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, dark brown and yellowish red,moist, very stiff (CL)
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, traceClay, yellowish brown, moist to dry,very firm (SM)
Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet.
9
5
12
13
6
7
14.4
3.6
19.2
1212
604.8
603.8
603.5
601.5
600.5
599.5
11
SP
T1
SP
T1A
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
3.5 (PP)
3.3 (PP)
2.5 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B16
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/3/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
605.5 ft 9/3/2015
---6.0 ft / Elev. 599.5 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
13
4
4
6
6
5
4
3
PAVEMENT - 6'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 12'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, trace Asphalt, fine tocoarse grained, yellowish brown,moist, loose (SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, reddish brown and yellowishbrown, moist, soft (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, dark reddish brown andyellowish red, moist, stiff (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, yellowish red, moist, very stiff(CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, reddish brown and brown,moist, very stiff to stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, dark brown and brown, moist,stiff to very stiff (CL)
5
5
8
10
6
5
4
5
9
13
8
5
5
186
1812
1818
1818
609.2
608.2
607.5
605.2
602.7
595.2
10
17
23
14
10
9
20
25
22
Light reddish brownmottling, 7.5 - 9'
Gray mottling, 12.5 - 14'
Casing installed at 20'
SP
T1
SP
T1A
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
SP
T7
2.0 (PP)
2.5 (PP)
1.8 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
3.8 (PP)
1.8 (PP)
1.3 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER B17
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/3/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
609.7 ft 9/4/2015
---40.0 ft / Elev. 569.7 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
8
3
2
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, dark brown and brown, moist,stiff to very stiff (CL) (continued)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, reddish brown, moist, stiff (CL)
FAT CLAY, reddish brown and darkreddish gray, moist, firm (CH)
Bottom of borehole at 40.0 feet.
8
4
3
9
6
4
1820
.418
1824
586.5
581.2
576.5
569.7
17
10
7
22
30
29
40
41
30
81
Casing installed at 20'
Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand dark reddish grayLEAN CLAY, approx. 33.25- 40'
SP
T8
ST
9S
PT
10S
PT
11S
T12
1.0 (PP)
2.5 (PP)
0.8 (PP)
0.8 (PP)
2.8 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER B17
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
11
2
2
3
2
2
1
PAVEMENT - 4'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
BASE COURSE - 12'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, fine to coarse grained,brown, moist, firm (SM)
FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, reddish brown and dark brown,moist, firm (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,reddish brown, moist, firm to stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, strong brown and brown, moist,firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, (CL)
4
3
2
4
2
3
2
3
4
3
5
3
4
3
8.4
1212
14.4
1818
18
609.7
608.5
605.0
600.5
595.5
591.8
7
7
5
9
5
7
5
25
25
Light gray mottling, 7.5 - 9'
Light reddish brownmottling, 12.5 - 14'
Casing installed at 20'
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
SP
T7
2.5 (PP)
2.5 (PP)
3.5 (PP)
2.8 (PP)
2.8 (PP)
1.0 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER B18
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/4/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
610 ft 9/4/2015
---40.0 ft / Elev. 570.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
1
1
1
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, (CL) (continued)
LEAN CLAY, trace Sand, brown,moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, black,moist, (CL)
FAT CLAY, reddish brown andreddish gray, moist, soft (CH)
Bottom of borehole at 40.0 feet.
3
1
1
2
2
2
1824
1818
586.3
581.8
576.3
570.0
5
3
3
23
32
38
42
107
86
Casing installed at 20'
Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand reddish gray LEANCLAY, approx. 33.75 - 40'
ST
8S
PT
9S
T10
SP
T11
SP
T12
2.0 (PP)
1.0 (PP)
1.0 (PP)
0.5 (PP)
0.8 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER B18
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
1
1
1
1
WOH
1
PAVEMENT - 9'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Organics, traceSand, brown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, dark brown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Sand, trace Gravel,trace Organics, reddish brown, moist,soft (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, brown and dark brown,moist, soft to firm (CL)
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
1
3
127.
26
3.6
68.
4
619.9
618.1
616.1
613.6
5
6
2
3
2
5
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
3.5 (PP)
3.0 (PP)
2.5 (PP)
1.5 (PP)
0.5 (PP)
1.5 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER SB-1
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/10/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
620.6 ft 9/10/2015
---25.0 ft / Elev. 595.6 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
17.5 ft / Elev. 603.1 ft ---9/10/2015
2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
1
8
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, brown and dark brown,moist, soft to firm (CL) (continued)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, little Gravel, brown,moist, hard (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 25.0 feet.
2
15
4
27
14.4
018
602.6
595.6
6
42
No recovery due tobent/smashed tube (driller'sdescription).
SP
T7
ST
8S
PT
9
1.5 (PP)
3.5 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER SB-1
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
2
2
2
1
4
5
PAVEMENT - 8'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT
FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown and darkbrown, moist, firm (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Organics, reddishbrown and dark grayish brown, moist,firm (CL)
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, brown, moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, reddishbrown and brown, moist, very stiff(CL)
3
2
2
2
10
7
5
3
3
4
9
10
8.4
9.6
66
9.6
14.4
621.6
619.8
612.8
610.3
8
5
5
6
19
17
SP
T1
SP
T2
SP
T3
SP
T4
SP
T5
SP
T6
2.5 (PP)
3.0 (PP)
1.8 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
6
8
10
12
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER SB-2
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
9/10/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
622.3 ft 9/10/2015
---25.0 ft / Elev. 597.3 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
Subsurface Exploration Services
CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger
--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
140 30CMESAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
5
11
7
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, reddishbrown and brown, moist, very stiff(CL) (continued)
LEAN CLAY, reddish brown andbrown, moist, very stiff (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, very stiff (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 25.0 feet.
9
11
9
12
17
15
1818
18
607.3
599.8
597.3
21
28
24
Cobbles, 14.9 - 15.6'(Driller's description)
SP
T7
SP
T8
SP
T9
>4.5 (PP)
>4.5 (PP)
2.0 (PP)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 2 OF 2BORING NUMBER SB-2
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 1
0/1
2/16
11:
33 -
F:\
TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
.GP
J
SAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
Brown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
0-45-1011-2021-3031-5051+
CONSISTENCYTERM
Very SoftSoftFirmStiffVery StiffHard
"N" VALUE
0-12-45-89-1516-3031+
Very LooseLooseFirmVery FirmDenseVery Dense
Standard "N" Penetration: Blows Per Foot of a 140 PoundHammer Falling 30 inches on a 2 inchO.D. Split Spoon Sampler
LaminationLayerLensVarved
DryMoistWetWater-bearing
Up to ½" thick stratum½" to 6" thick stratum½" to 6" discontinuous stratum, pocketAlternating laminations of clay, silt and/or finegrained sand, or colors thereofPowdery, no noticeable waterBelow saturationSaturated, above liquid limitPervious soil below water
Over 12"3"-12"
¾"-3"#4-¾"
#4-#10#10-#40#40-#200-#200, Based on Plasticity
LITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS (Unified Soil Classification System)
CL: USCS Low Plasticity Clay FILL: Fill (made ground)
Auger Cuttings
ABBREVIATIONSSAMPLER SYMBOLS
WATER LEVELSWater levels shown on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time and under the conditions indicated. In sand,the indicated levels may be considered reliable groundwater levels. In clay soil, it may be possible to determine the groundwater levelwithin the normal time required for test borings, except where lenses or layers of more pervious waterbearing soil are present. Eventhen, an extended period of time may be necessary to reach equilibrium. Therefore, the position of the water level symbol for cohesiveor mixed texture soils may not indicate the true level of the ground water table. Perched water refers to water above an imperviouslayer, thus impeded in reaching the water table. The available water level information is given at the top of the log sheet.
DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY
Cave-In Level at End of Drilling
Water Level After 24 Hours
Water Level at End of Drilling
Water Level at Time Drilling
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LL
PI
W
DD
NP
-200
PP
Qu
Qc
RQD
OC
SPT
SCP
RELATIVE GRAVEL PROPORTIONS RELATIVE SIZES
RELATIVEDENSITY
TERM "N" VALUE
TERMlittle gravelwith gravel
little gravelwith gravel
little gravelwith gravelgravelly
CONDITIONCoarse Grained Soils
Fine Grained Soils15-29% + No. 20015-29% + No. 200
30% + No. 20030% + No. 20030%+No. 200
RANGE2-14%15-49%
2-7%8-29%
2-14%15-24%16-49%
BoulderCobbleGravelCoarseFine
SandCoarseMediumFine
Silt & Clay
LOG NOTES & KEY TO SYMBOLS
LIQUID LIMIT (%) - ASTM:D4318
PLASTIC INDEX (%) - ASTM:D4318
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) - ASTM:D2216
DRY DENSITY (PCF)
NON PLASTIC
PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)
UNCONFINED COMP. STRENGTH (TSF) - ASTM:D2166
TRIAXIAL COMP. STRENGTH (TSF)
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (%)
ORGANIC CONTENT - COMBUSTION METHOD
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
STATIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST
KE
Y T
O S
YM
BO
LS -
OM
NN
I_B
OR
.GD
T -
5/1
9/16
09
:13
- F
:\TR
\JO
BS
\E21
66A
15\R
EP
OR
TS
\GE
OT
EC
H\G
INT
\E21
66A
15_S
OIL
LO
GS
- H
AN
D A
UG
ER
BO
RIN
GS
.GP
J
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATION
FILLSILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, withOrganics, fine to coarse grained, olivebrown, dry, (SM)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withOrganics, little Sand, yellowish redand brown, moist, (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 3.3 feet.
608.2
607.0
AU
1A
U2
AU
3
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-1R
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/26/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
610.3 ft 10/26/2015
---3.3 ft / Elev. 607.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
N/A N/AN/ASAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,brown, moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Sand, trace Gravel,brown, moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Sand, brown,moist, (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 4.0 feet.
588.6
587.6
586.6
AU
1A
U2
AU
3A
U4
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-1S
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/28/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
590.6 ft 10/28/2015
---4.0 ft / Elev. 586.6 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
10.1 N/ADCPSAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
FILLLEAN CLAY WITH SAND, withOrganics, with Gravel, brown, dry,(CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Organics, withSand, trace Gravel, brown, dry, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, withOrganics, brown, dry, (CL)
Refusal at 3.0 feet.Bottom of borehole at 3.0 feet.
606.6
605.5
604.6 Rock refusal @ 3'
AU
1A
U2
AU
3A
U4
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-2R
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/26/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
607.6 ft 10/26/2015
---3.0 ft / Elev. 604.6 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
N/A N/AN/ASAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, with Sand, brown, moist,(CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, brown,moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Sand, trace Gravel,brown, moist, (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 4.0 feet.
589.8
588.8
586.8
AU
1A
U2
AU
3A
U4
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-2S
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/28/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
590.8 ft 10/28/2015
---4.0 ft / Elev. 586.8 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
10.1 N/ADCPSAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
FILLLEAN CLAY, with Organics, withGravel, with Sand, dark brown, dry,(CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown andreddish yellow, dry, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown, dry tomoist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, little Organics, traceGravel, trace Sand, strong brown, dryto moist, (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 5.3 feet.
606.5
604.9
604.1
603.2
AU
1A
U2
AU
3A
U4
AU
5
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-3R
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/26/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
608.4 ft 10/26/2015
---5.3 ft / Elev. 603.2 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
N/A N/AN/ASAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, brown, moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 4.0 feet.
589.2
586.2
AU
1A
U2
AU
3A
U4
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-3S
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/28/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
590.2 ft 10/28/2015
---4.0 ft / Elev. 586.2 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
10.1 N/ADCPSAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withOrganics, with Sand, dark brown, dryto moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, withOrganics, trace Sand, dark brown,moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Organics, traceGravel, trace Sand, strong brown anddark brown, moist, (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 4.0 feet.
613.0
611.5
609.5
AU
1A
U2
AU
3
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-4R
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/26/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
613.5 ft 10/26/2015
---4.0 ft / Elev. 609.5 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
N/A N/AN/ASAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, brown,moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown, moist,(CL)
LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,trace Organics, organic odor, brown,moist, (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 4.0 feet.
588.8
587.8
585.8
AU
1A
U2
AU
3A
U4
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-4S
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/28/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
589.8 ft 10/28/2015
---4.0 ft / Elev. 585.8 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
10.1 N/ADCPSAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
FILLGRAVELLY SAND, with Clay, traceOrganics, fine to coarse grained, verydark grayish brown, dry, (SP)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withOrganics, brown, moist to dry, (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleOrganics, trace Sand, trace Silt,reddish brown, moist to dry, (CL)
Bottom of borehole at 4.0 feet.
609.6
608.6
606.6
AU
1A
U2
AU
3
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-5R
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/26/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
610.6 ft 10/26/2015
---4.0 ft / Elev. 606.6 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
N/A N/AN/ASAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, brown, moist, (CL)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown, moist,(CL)
LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown, moist,(CL)
Bottom of borehole at 4.0 feet.
593.0
592.0
590.0
AU
1A
U2
AU
3A
U4
---
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PE
NE
TR
.R
ES
IST
BL/
6in
TY
PE
RE
CO
V.
(in)SYMBOL
LOGELEV.
(ft)DEPTHSCALE
2
4
N-V
ALU
EB
LOW
S/F
T
MO
IST
UR
EC
ON
T. (
%)
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT (
%)
PLA
ST
ICLI
MIT
(%
)
PLA
ST
ICIT
YIN
DE
X (
%)
% P
AS
SIN
G#2
00 S
IEV
E
UN
IT D
RY
WT
. (P
CF
)
REMARKS
NU
MB
ER
CO
MP
RE
SS
IVE
ST
RE
NG
TH
(PP
/Qu/
Qc)
(T
SF
)
PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-5S
OM
NN
I SO
IL B
OR
ING
LO
G -
TE
ST
S+
RE
M 2
015
- O
MN
NI_
BO
R.G
DT
- 5
/19
/16
09:
13 -
F:\T
R\J
OB
S\E
2166
A15
\RE
PO
RT
S\G
EO
TE
CH
\GIN
T\E
2166
A15
_SO
IL L
OG
S -
HA
ND
AU
GE
R B
OR
ING
S.G
PJ
DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED
COMPLETION DEPTH
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
SAMPLER
WEIGHT (lbs)
10/28/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH
594 ft 10/28/2015
---4.0 ft / Elev. 590.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY
Brynley M. Nadziejka
WATERLEVEL (ft)
FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.
ELEVATION & DATUM
DROP (in)
OMNNI Associates
1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger
--- ---Auger Cuttings
10.1 N/ADCPSAMPLE DATA
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County
E2166A15
CTH ZZ
Brown County, WI
Appendix C
Laboratory Test Results
Type:
26.4 o
0.24
Before Consolidation A B C D E
1.44 1.44 1.43
2.85 2.85 2.87
41.1 41.9 38.8
80.5 80.6 82.7
1.11 1.11 1.05
1.43 1.42 1.42
2.84 2.82 2.83
39.6 38.3 36.7
81.8 83.2 85.0
1.08 1.04 1.00
5.5 10.0 10.0
0.50 1.50 2.50
1.32 2.04 2.59
1.27 1.65 1.69
1.00 2.01 2.59
0.31 0.87 1.37
0.95 0.95 0.95
1.1 1.8 1.2
o c'= 0.24 (tsf)
α = 23.9 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.25 (tsf)
10098
11/20/15 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767
Job No.Date:
Rupture Envelope at Failure ------------ 26.4Effective φ':
Max. Deviator Stress (tsf)
Minor Principal Stress (tsf)
Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf)
Diameter (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf)
Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf)
Void Ratio
Back Pressure (tsf)
40.5-42.5Depth (ft):
Failure Criterion: Max. Stress Ratio
(tsf)Apparent Cohesion, c' =
Strain Rate (%/min):
Strain Rate (in/min): 0.00071
B-11 Sample #: ST-15 3T
Project:
Boring #:
Brown CTH ZZ
_______ 16.6Total φ:
Angle of internal friction, φφφφ' =
CU w/pp
Soil Type: Fat Clay (CH)
Remarks: Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured
until "B" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and
immediately sheared.
+
X
2.72
Plasticity Index:
Height (in)
After Consolidation
Spec. Gravity (Assumed):0.025
Test Date:
Test Type:
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
11/13/15
2401 W 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2031
"These test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design"
Void Ratio
Pore Pressure Parameter "B"
Pct. Axial Strain at Failure
Diameter (in)
Height (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Po
re P
ressu
re (
tsf)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 5 10 15 20
Axial Strain (%)
Str
ess R
ati
o
0
1
2
3
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Normal Stress (tsf)
0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Stress (p') (tsf)
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
q)
(ts
f)
Type:
27.9 o
0.18
Before Consolidation A B C D E
1.44 1.44 1.43
2.85 2.85 2.87
41.1 41.9 38.8
80.5 80.6 82.7
1.11 1.11 1.05
1.43 1.42 1.42
2.84 2.82 2.83
39.6 38.3 36.7
81.8 83.2 85.0
1.08 1.04 1.00
5.5 10.0 10.0
0.50 1.50 2.50
1.32 2.04 2.59
1.27 1.65 1.69
1.32 2.04 2.59
0.31 0.87 1.37
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 2.3 1.2
o c'= 0.18 (tsf)
α = 25.1 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.40 (tsf)
10098
11/20/15 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767
Job No.Date:
Rupture Envelope at Failure ------------ 27.9Effective φ':
Max. Deviator Stress (tsf)
Minor Principal Stress (tsf)
Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf)
Diameter (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf)
Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf)
Void Ratio
Back Pressure (tsf)
40.5-42.5Depth (ft):
Failure Criterion: Max. Deviator Stress
(tsf)Apparent Cohesion, c' =
Strain Rate (%/min):
Strain Rate (in/min): 0.00071
B-11 Sample #: ST-15 3T
Project:
Boring #:
Brown CTH ZZ
_______ 13.9Total φ:
Angle of internal friction, φφφφ' =
CU w/pp
Soil Type: Fat Clay (CH)
Remarks: Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured
until "B" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and
immediately sheared.
+
X
2.72
Plasticity Index:
Height (in)
After Consolidation
Spec. Gravity (Assumed):0.025
Test Date:
Test Type:
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
11/13/15
2401 W 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2031
"These test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design"
Void Ratio
Pore Pressure Parameter "B"
Pct. Axial Strain at Failure
Diameter (in)
Height (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Po
re P
ressu
re (
tsf)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 5 10 15 20
Axial Strain (%)
Str
ess R
ati
o
0
1
2
3
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Normal Stress (tsf)
0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Stress (p') (tsf)
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
q)
(ts
f)
Type:
18.1 o
0.31
Before Consolidation A B C D E
1.44 1.44 1.43
2.85 2.85 2.87
41.1 41.9 38.8
80.5 80.6 82.7
1.11 1.11 1.05
1.43 1.42 1.42
2.84 2.82 2.83
39.6 38.3 36.7
81.8 83.2 85.0
1.08 1.04 1.00
5.5 10.0 10.0
0.50 1.50 2.50
1.32 2.04 2.59
1.27 1.65 1.69
1.31 1.72 1.86
0.31 0.87 1.37
0.95 0.95 0.95
15.0 15.0 15.0
o c'= 0.31 (tsf)
α = 17.3 o a = 0.3 (tsf) o c= 0.54 (tsf)
10098
11/20/15 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767
Job No.Date:
Rupture Envelope at Failure ------------ 18.1Effective φ':
Max. Deviator Stress (tsf)
Minor Principal Stress (tsf)
Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf)
Diameter (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf)
Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf)
Void Ratio
Back Pressure (tsf)
40.5-42.5Depth (ft):
Failure Criterion: Given Strain of: 15%
(tsf)Apparent Cohesion, c' =
Strain Rate (%/min):
Strain Rate (in/min): 0.00071
B-11 Sample #: ST-15 3T
Project:
Boring #:
Brown CTH ZZ
_______ 7.0Total φ:
Angle of internal friction, φφφφ' =
CU w/pp
Soil Type: Fat Clay (CH)
Remarks: Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured
until "B" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and
immediately sheared.
+
X
2.72
Plasticity Index:
Height (in)
After Consolidation
Spec. Gravity (Assumed):0.025
Test Date:
Test Type:
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
11/13/15
2401 W 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2031
"These test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design"
Void Ratio
Pore Pressure Parameter "B"
Pct. Axial Strain at Failure
Diameter (in)
Height (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Po
re P
ressu
re (
tsf)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 5 10 15 20
Axial Strain (%)
Str
ess R
ati
o
0
1
2
3
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Normal Stress (tsf)
0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Stress (p') (tsf)
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
q)
(ts
f)
Date:
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.18 0.40 0.18 0.18 0.64 0.28 0.18 1.09 0.520.36 0.64 0.26 0.35 0.96 0.47 0.35 1.69 0.840.53 0.77 0.30 0.53 1.22 0.59 0.53 2.13 1.060.71 0.89 0.31 0.71 1.44 0.68 0.71 2.36 1.170.88 0.95 0.31 0.89 1.63 0.76 0.88 2.50 1.241.06 1.00 0.30 1.06 1.74 0.81 1.06 2.56 1.281.24 1.03 0.29 1.24 1.84 0.85 1.24 2.59 1.301.41 1.06 0.28 1.42 1.92 0.87 1.42 2.57 1.311.59 1.07 0.27 1.60 1.98 0.87 1.59 2.53 1.311.77 1.09 0.26 1.77 2.01 0.87 1.77 2.47 1.321.94 1.10 0.24 1.95 2.03 0.87 1.95 2.43 1.322.12 1.11 0.23 2.13 2.03 0.84 2.12 2.39 1.322.30 1.12 0.22 2.31 2.04 0.81 2.30 2.34 1.332.47 1.13 0.21 2.48 2.03 0.81 2.48 2.31 1.332.65 1.14 0.20 2.66 2.02 0.80 2.65 2.29 1.332.82 1.15 0.19 2.84 1.99 0.79 2.83 2.26 1.333.00 1.17 0.19 3.02 1.97 0.78 3.01 2.25 1.333.18 1.17 0.18 3.19 1.95 0.77 3.18 2.23 1.333.35 1.19 0.17 3.37 1.92 0.76 3.36 2.21 1.333.53 1.20 0.17 3.55 1.90 0.76 3.54 2.19 1.333.88 1.22 0.15 3.90 1.87 0.75 3.89 2.17 1.334.23 1.23 0.14 4.26 1.86 0.74 4.24 2.14 1.334.59 1.24 0.13 4.61 1.84 0.74 4.60 2.12 1.334.94 1.26 0.12 4.97 1.84 0.73 4.95 2.11 1.335.29 1.27 0.11 5.32 1.83 0.73 5.30 2.09 1.335.64 1.27 0.11 5.68 1.82 0.73 5.66 2.07 1.346.35 1.29 0.09 6.39 1.81 0.71 6.37 2.05 1.347.05 1.30 0.08 7.10 1.81 0.70 7.07 2.03 1.347.76 1.31 0.07 7.45 1.81 0.70 7.78 2.02 1.348.46 1.31 0.06 7.81 1.81 0.69 8.49 1.99 1.349.17 1.30 0.04 8.16 1.80 0.69 9.19 1.95 1.349.87 1.30 0.03 8.52 1.81 0.68 9.90 1.94 1.34
10.58 1.30 0.02 8.87 1.81 0.68 10.61 1.93 1.3411.28 1.31 0.01 9.23 1.81 0.67 11.32 1.92 1.3411.99 1.32 -0.01 9.58 1.80 0.67 12.02 1.90 1.3412.69 1.32 -0.02 9.94 1.79 0.66 12.73 1.89 1.3413.40 1.32 -0.02 10.29 1.79 0.66 13.44 1.88 1.3414.10 1.31 -0.03 10.65 1.79 0.66 14.14 1.86 1.3415.87 1.28 -0.04 11.36 1.79 0.65 15.91 1.80 1.3517.63 1.26 -0.05 12.07 1.77 0.64 17.68 1.73 1.3619.39 1.28 -0.06 12.78 1.74 0.63 19.45 1.70 1.3720.00 1.27 -0.06 13.49 1.73 0.63 20.00 1.69 1.37
14.20 1.72 0.6215.97 1.72 0.6117.75 1.69 0.6019.52 1.66 0.6120.00 1.65 0.61
Job:
Sample: ST-15 Depth: 40.5-42.510098
11/20/15
Sample 5Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Triaxial Data
Boring: B-11
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
Type:
21.6 o
0.18
Before Consolidation A B C D E
1.43 1.44 1.44
2.85 2.86 2.85
53.1 46.3 47.8
70.1 75.6 74.0
1.42 1.25 1.30
1.42 1.41 1.39
2.81 2.80 2.70
49.4 41.5 37.7
72.5 79.8 83.8
1.34 1.13 1.03
4.4 7.5 5.5
1.00 2.00 3.25
1.11 1.63 2.08
0.97 1.35 1.63
1.08 1.59 2.06
0.55 1.06 2.03
0.95 0.95 0.95
2.0 5.4 5.6
o c'= 0.18 (tsf)
α = 20.2 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.28 (tsf)
10098
11/13/15 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767
Job No.Date:
Rupture Envelope at Failure ------------ 21.6Effective φ':
Max. Deviator Stress (tsf)
Minor Principal Stress (tsf)
Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf)
Diameter (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf)
Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf)
Void Ratio
Back Pressure (tsf)
55-66Depth (ft):
Failure Criterion: Max. Stress Ratio
(tsf)Apparent Cohesion, c' =
Strain Rate (%/min):
Strain Rate (in/min): 0.000701
B-11 Sample #: ST-18 3T
Project:
Boring #:
Brown CTH ZZ
_______ 10.3Total φ:
Angle of internal friction, φφφφ' =
CU w/pp
Soil Type: Fat Clay (CH)
Remarks: Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured
until "B" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and
immediately sheared.
+
X
2.72
Plasticity Index:
Height (in)
After Consolidation
Spec. Gravity (Assumed):0.025
Test Date:
Test Type:
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
11/20/15
2401 W 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2031
"These test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design"
Void Ratio
Pore Pressure Parameter "B"
Pct. Axial Strain at Failure
Diameter (in)
Height (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Po
re P
ressu
re (
tsf)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 5 10 15 20
Axial Strain (%)
Str
ess R
ati
o
0
1
2
3
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Normal Stress (tsf)
0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Stress (p') (tsf)
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
q)
(ts
f)
Type:
22.2 o
0.16
Before Consolidation A B C D E
1.43 1.44 1.44
2.85 2.86 2.85
53.1 46.3 47.8
70.1 75.6 74.0
1.42 1.25 1.30
1.42 1.41 1.39
2.81 2.80 2.70
49.4 41.5 37.7
72.5 79.8 83.8
1.34 1.13 1.03
4.4 7.5 5.5
1.00 2.00 3.25
1.11 1.63 2.08
0.97 1.35 1.63
1.11 1.63 2.08
0.55 1.06 2.03
0.95 0.95 0.95
5.7 3.2 5.2
o c'= 0.16 (tsf)
α = 20.7 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.30 (tsf)
10098
11/13/15 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767
Job No.Date:
Rupture Envelope at Failure ------------ 22.2Effective φ':
Max. Deviator Stress (tsf)
Minor Principal Stress (tsf)
Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf)
Diameter (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf)
Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf)
Void Ratio
Back Pressure (tsf)
55-66Depth (ft):
Failure Criterion: Max. Deviator Stress
(tsf)Apparent Cohesion, c' =
Strain Rate (%/min):
Strain Rate (in/min): 0.000701
B-11 Sample #: ST-18 3T
Project:
Boring #:
Brown CTH ZZ
_______ 10.2Total φ:
Angle of internal friction, φφφφ' =
CU w/pp
Soil Type: Fat Clay (CH)
Remarks: Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured
until "B" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and
immediately sheared.
+
X
2.72
Plasticity Index:
Height (in)
After Consolidation
Spec. Gravity (Assumed):0.025
Test Date:
Test Type:
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
11/20/15
2401 W 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2031
"These test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design"
Void Ratio
Pore Pressure Parameter "B"
Pct. Axial Strain at Failure
Diameter (in)
Height (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Po
re P
ressu
re (
tsf)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 5 10 15 20
Axial Strain (%)
Str
ess R
ati
o
0
1
2
3
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Normal Stress (tsf)
0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Stress (p') (tsf)
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
q)
(ts
f)
Type:
18.8 o
0.18
Before Consolidation A B C D E
1.43 1.44 1.44
2.85 2.86 2.85
53.1 46.3 47.8
70.1 75.6 74.0
1.42 1.25 1.30
1.42 1.41 1.39
2.81 2.80 2.70
49.4 41.5 37.7
72.5 79.8 83.8
1.34 1.13 1.03
4.4 7.5 5.5
1.00 2.00 3.25
1.11 1.63 2.08
0.97 1.35 1.63
1.03 1.36 1.72
0.55 1.06 2.03
0.95 0.95 0.95
15.0 15.0 15.0
o c'= 0.18 (tsf)
α = 17.9 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.32 (tsf)
10098
11/13/15 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767
Job No.Date:
Rupture Envelope at Failure ------------ 18.8Effective φ':
Max. Deviator Stress (tsf)
Minor Principal Stress (tsf)
Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf)
Diameter (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf)
Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf)
Void Ratio
Back Pressure (tsf)
55-66Depth (ft):
Failure Criterion: Given Strain of: 15%
(tsf)Apparent Cohesion, c' =
Strain Rate (%/min):
Strain Rate (in/min): 0.000701
B-11 Sample #: ST-18 3T
Project:
Boring #:
Brown CTH ZZ
_______ 7.6Total φ:
Angle of internal friction, φφφφ' =
CU w/pp
Soil Type: Fat Clay (CH)
Remarks: Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured
until "B" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and
immediately sheared.
+
X
2.72
Plasticity Index:
Height (in)
After Consolidation
Spec. Gravity (Assumed):0.025
Test Date:
Test Type:
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
11/20/15
2401 W 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2031
"These test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design"
Void Ratio
Pore Pressure Parameter "B"
Pct. Axial Strain at Failure
Diameter (in)
Height (in)
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Po
re P
ressu
re (
tsf)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 5 10 15 20
Axial Strain (%)
Str
ess R
ati
o
0
1
2
3
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Normal Stress (tsf)
0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Stress (p') (tsf)
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
q)
(ts
f)
Date:
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.18 0.46 0.26 0.18 0.55 0.30 0.19 0.79 0.350.36 0.63 0.36 0.36 0.79 0.47 0.37 1.05 0.600.53 0.74 0.42 0.54 0.98 0.60 0.56 1.22 0.790.72 0.83 0.46 0.71 1.12 0.69 0.74 1.32 0.920.89 0.90 0.50 0.89 1.22 0.76 0.93 1.41 1.051.07 0.96 0.52 1.07 1.31 0.81 1.12 1.48 1.151.25 1.00 0.53 1.25 1.40 0.87 1.30 1.56 1.241.43 1.03 0.54 1.43 1.45 0.90 1.48 1.63 1.331.60 1.06 0.55 1.61 1.51 0.94 1.67 1.68 1.391.79 1.07 0.55 1.79 1.55 0.96 1.85 1.73 1.461.96 1.08 0.55 1.97 1.57 0.98 2.04 1.78 1.512.14 1.09 0.55 2.14 1.59 0.98 2.23 1.82 1.562.32 1.09 0.54 2.32 1.60 1.00 2.41 1.85 1.612.49 1.10 0.54 2.50 1.61 1.00 2.60 1.89 1.662.67 1.10 0.54 2.68 1.62 1.01 2.78 1.92 1.692.85 1.10 0.53 2.86 1.62 1.02 2.97 1.94 1.723.03 1.10 0.53 3.04 1.62 1.02 3.16 1.96 1.763.21 1.10 0.53 3.22 1.63 1.03 3.34 1.98 1.783.39 1.10 0.52 3.40 1.63 1.03 3.52 1.99 1.813.56 1.10 0.52 3.57 1.63 1.04 3.71 2.01 1.833.92 1.10 0.51 3.93 1.62 1.03 4.08 2.04 1.874.28 1.10 0.51 4.29 1.62 1.04 4.45 2.06 1.904.63 1.11 0.51 4.65 1.62 1.04 4.82 2.07 1.934.99 1.10 0.51 5.00 1.61 1.05 5.19 2.08 1.955.35 1.10 0.50 5.36 1.59 1.06 5.57 2.06 1.965.70 1.11 0.50 5.72 1.59 1.05 5.93 2.02 1.976.42 1.09 0.50 6.43 1.58 1.04 6.68 1.93 1.977.13 1.08 0.49 7.15 1.55 1.04 7.42 1.84 1.967.48 1.06 0.48 7.86 1.53 1.05 8.16 1.76 1.957.84 1.06 0.48 8.58 1.50 1.06 8.90 1.71 1.968.20 1.05 0.48 9.29 1.48 1.04 9.64 1.69 1.968.55 1.04 0.48 10.01 1.47 1.04 10.38 1.69 1.978.91 1.03 0.48 10.72 1.43 1.04 11.13 1.68 1.979.27 1.02 0.48 11.44 1.40 1.04 11.87 1.66 1.969.62 1.03 0.48 12.15 1.38 1.05 12.61 1.66 1.979.98 1.02 0.47 12.87 1.37 1.05 13.35 1.68 1.99
10.33 1.02 0.47 13.58 1.37 1.05 14.09 1.71 1.9910.69 1.03 0.47 14.30 1.36 1.05 14.83 1.72 1.9811.41 1.03 0.47 16.08 1.36 1.04 16.69 1.66 2.0012.12 1.03 0.46 17.87 1.35 1.03 18.54 1.64 2.0212.83 1.03 0.46 19.66 1.35 1.03 20.00 1.63 2.0313.54 1.02 0.47 20.01 1.35 1.0314.26 1.03 0.4516.04 1.02 0.4417.82 0.99 0.4419.60 0.97 0.4320.00 0.97 0.43
Job:
Sample: ST-18 Depth: 55-6610098
11/13/15
Sample 5Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Triaxial Data
Boring: B-11
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
Str
ain
(%
)
Devia
tor
Str
ess (
tsf)
Pore
Pre
ssure
(tsf)
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: WisDOT Northeast Region DATE:
Sample Number: ST-8
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B07
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, reddish gray (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
9656
4.83
16.0
9/9/2015
120.0
10/12/2016
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: WisDOT Northeast Region DATE:
Sample Number: ST-9
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B09
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, reddish brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
2434
1.22
27.0
9/9/2015
98.0
10/12/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: Brown County DATE:
Sample Number: ST-1
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B10
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
1382
0.69
22.0
9/9/2015
105.2
8/23/2016
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: Brown County DATE:
Sample Number: ST-2
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B10
Soil Description: FAT CLAY, reddish brown (CH)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
2513
1.26
40.1
9/9/2015
81.0
8/23/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: Brown County DATE:
Sample Number: ST-12
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B11
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
2851
1.43
23.4
9/2/2015-9/3/2015
106.1
8/23/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: Brown County DATE:
Sample Number: ST-15
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B11
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, dark grayish brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
2933
1.47
32.4
9/2/2015-9/3/2015
91.4
8/23/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: Brown County DATE:
Sample Number: ST-18
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B11
Soil Description: FAT CLAY, reddish brown (CH)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
2934
1.47
47.2
9/2/2015-9/3/2015
75.3
8/23/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: Brown County DATE:
Sample Number: ST-1
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B12
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
3102
1.55
22.4
9/2/2015
108.2
8/23/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: Brown County DATE:
Sample Number: ST-2
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B12
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
3544
1.77
22.0
9/2/2015
106.9
8/23/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: WisDOT Northeast Region DATE:
Sample Number: ST-1
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B-14
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
4701
2.35
22.2
9/3/2015
108.0
10/12/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: WisDOT Northeast Region DATE:
Sample Number: ST-2
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B-14
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
2724
1.36
24.2
9/3/2015
103.9
10/12/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: WisDOT Northeast Region DATE:
Sample Number: ST-9
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B17
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
3625
1.81
29.7
9/3-9/4/2015
94.4
10/12/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: WisDOT Northeast Region DATE:
Sample Number: ST-12
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B17
Soil Description: FAT CLAY, reddish brown (CH)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
3020
1.51
40.7
9/3-9/4/2015
81.4
10/12/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: WisDOT Northeast Region DATE:
Sample Number: ST-8
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B18
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
3107
1.55
22.7
9/4/2015
106.8
10/12/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15
CLIENT: WisDOT Northeast Region DATE:
Sample Number: ST-10
Date of Sample:
Sample Location: Boring B18
Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)
Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density
TEST RESULTS:
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf
tsf
Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
REMARKS:
Reviewed By:
Paul R. Eggen
REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS
The above sample was .
2176
1.09
37.7
9/4/2015
86.2
10/12/2016
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Str
ess
(psf
)
Axial Strain (%)
Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve
One Systems Drive
Appleton, WI 54914
Ph. 920/735-6900
Form 112B
Effective Date: 6/29/2015
QM Section: G
Project: Brown Cty CTH ZZ- Wrightstown OMNNI Prj. No.: E2166A15
Report To: Brown County Highway Department
Tested By: P. Coyne Date:
Reviewed By: P. Eggen Date:
Boring No.: B1-S
Location: Sta. , Edge of river
Required Bearing Capacity (psf): Starting Depth: 8.5 inches 8 kg/17.6 lb mass X 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
No. of Blows
Reading
(mm)
Total
Penetration
(mm)
Total
Depth
(in)
Blows
Per
Inch
Penetration
Per Set
(mm)
Penetration
Per Blow
(mm)
Hammer
Factor
DCP
Index
CBR %
(CL)
CBR
%
(CH)
CBR %
(Other)
Bearing
(psf) (CL)
Bearing
(psf)
(CH)
Bearing
(psf)
(Other)
Soil
Type
N Value
(CH) Consistency
- 215.9 0
2 368.3 152.4 14.6 0.3 152.4 76.2 2 152.4 0 2 1 200 900 600 CH 3.6 soft
3 457.2 241.3 18.2 0.8 88.9 29.6 2 59.3 1 6 3 500 1800 1100 CH 7.1 firm
5 539.75 323.85 21.5 1.5 82.55 16.5 2 33.0 3 11 6 1200 2600 1800 CH 10.3 stiff
5 600.96 385.064 23.9 2.0 61.214 12.2 2 24.5 6 14 8 1700 3200 2200 CH 12.6 stiff
10 685.8 469.9 27.3 0.4 84.836 8.5 2 17.0 12 21 12 2800 4100 2900 CH 16.2 very stiff
10 749.3 533.4 29.8 3.9 63.5 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff
10 795.78 579.882 31.7 5.4 46.482 4.6 2 9.3 40 37 24 6300 6100 4500 CH 24.1 very stiff
15 857.25 641.35 34.2 6.1 61.468 4.1 2 8.2 51 42 28 7500 6600 5000 CH 26.1 very stiff
15 914.4 698.5 36.4 0.4 57.15 3.8 2 7.6 59 46 30 8200 6900 5200 CH 27.2 very stiff
20 977.9 762 39.0 7.9 63.5 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 hard
10 1028.7 812.8 41.0 4.9 50.8 5.1 2 10.2 33 34 22 5600 5700 4200 CH 22.5 very stiff
20 1079.5 863.6 43.0 9.8 50.8 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 hard
25 1124 908.05 44.8 0.6 44.45 1.8 2 3.6 273 98 71 22700 11500 9200 CH 45.4 hard
30 1181.1 965.2 47.1 13.1 57.15 1.9 2 3.8 238 91 65 20700 11000 8800 CH 43.4 hard
41 1219.2 1003.3 48.6 26.9 38.1 0.9 2 1.9 1000 187 146 53600 17600 14900 CH 69.5 hard
*Hammer Factor of 1 if using 8 kg/17.6 lb mass
Remarks *Hammer Factor of 2 if using 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
Est Bearing (psf)
CL soils CBR<10: CBR = 1/(0.017018*DCP Index)2
N Value Consistency Lean Clay
CH soils: CBR = 1/(0.002871*DCP Index) <2 Very Soft <510
All Other: CBR = 292/DCP Index1.12
2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010
4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030
Bearing Capacity (psf)= 144*3.794*CBR0.664
8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800
Uc lean clays (tsf)= (Bearing Capacity/.95)/2000 15 - 30 Very Stiff 3800 - 7600
N Value (lean clays)= Uc (tsf)*7.5 (Terzaghi & Peck) >30 Hard >7600
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER - FIELD DATA SHEETASTM: D6951
10/27/2015
10/29/2015
One Systems Drive
Appleton, WI 54914
Ph. 920/735-6900
Form 112B
Effective Date: 6/29/2015
QM Section: G
Project: Brown Cty CTH ZZ- Wrightstown OMNNI Prj. No.: E2166A15
Report To: Brown County Highway Department
Tested By: P. Coyne Date:
Reviewed By: P. Eggen Date:
Boring No.: B2-S
Location:
Required Bearing Capacity (psf): Starting Depth: 9.25 inches 8 kg/17.6 lb mass X 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
No. of Blows
Reading
(mm)
Total
Penetration
(mm)
Total
Depth
(in)
Blows
Per
Inch
Penetration
Per Set
(mm)
Penetration
Per Blow
(mm)
Hammer
Factor
DCP
Index
CBR
%
(CL)
CBR
%
(CH)
CBR %
(Other)
Bearing
(psf)
(CL)
Bearing
(psf)
(CH)
Bearing
(psf)
(Other)
Soil
Type
N Value
(CH) Consistency
- 234.95 0
5 266.7 31.75 10.5 3.9 31.75 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff
12 292.1 57.15 11.5 11.8 25.4 2.1 2 4.2 193 82 58 18000 10200 8100 CH 40.3 hard
5 355.6 120.65 14.1 2.0 63.5 12.7 2 25.4 5 14 8 1700 3100 2100 CH 12.2 stiff
3 406.4 171.45 16.1 1.5 50.8 16.9 2 33.9 3 10 6 1100 2600 1700 CH 10.3 stiff
5 514.35 279.4 20.4 0.3 107.95 21.6 2 43.2 2 8 4 800 2200 1400 CH 8.7 stiff
6 590.55 355.6 23.5 2.0 76.2 12.7 2 25.4 5 14 8 1700 3100 2100 CH 12.2 stiff
9 692.15 457.2 27.5 2.2 101.6 11.3 2 22.6 7 15 9 1900 3400 2300 CH 13.4 stiff
5 723.9 488.95 28.8 3.9 31.75 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff
10 781.05 546.1 31.1 0.3 57.15 5.7 2 11.4 26 30 19 4800 5300 3900 CH 20.9 very stiff
10 812.8 577.85 32.4 7.9 31.75 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 hard
20 876.3 641.35 34.9 7.9 63.5 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 hard
20 933.45 698.5 37.2 8.7 57.15 2.9 2 5.7 106 61 41 12100 8400 6500 CH 33.2 hard
30 977.9 742.95 39.0 0.8 44.45 1.5 2 3.0 393 118 86 28900 12900 10600 CH 50.9 hard
30 1054.1 819.15 42.0 9.8 76.2 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 hard
30 1111.3 876.3 44.3 13.1 57.15 1.9 2 3.8 238 91 65 20700 11000 8800 CH 43.4 hard
20 1155.7 920.75 46.1 0.5 44.45 2.2 2 4.4 175 78 55 16800 9900 7800 CH 39.1 hard
32 1219.2 984.25 48.6 12.6 63.5 2.0 2 4.0 219 88 62 19600 10700 8500 CH 42.2 hard
*Hammer Factor of 1 if using 8 kg/17.6 lb mass
Remarks *Hammer Factor of 2 if using 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
Est Bearing (psf)
CL soils CBR<10: CBR = 1/(0.017018*DCP Index)2
N Value Consistency Lean Clay
CH soils: CBR = 1/(0.002871*DCP Index) <2 Very Soft <510
All Other: CBR = 292/DCP Index1.12
2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010
4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030
Bearing Capacity (psf)= 144*3.794*CBR0.664
8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800
Uc lean clays (tsf)= (Bearing Capacity/.95)/2000 15 - 30 Very Stiff 3800 - 7600
N Value (lean clays)= Uc (tsf)*7.5 (Terzaghi & Peck) >30 Hard >7600
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER - FIELD DATA SHEETASTM: D6951
10/27/2015
10/29/2015
One Systems Drive
Appleton, WI 54914
Ph. 920/735-6900
Form 112B
Effective Date: 6/29/2015
QM Section: G
Project: Brown Cty CTH ZZ- Wrightstown OMNNI Prj. No.: E2166A15
Report To: Brown County Highway Department
Tested By: P. Coyne Date:
Reviewed By: P. Eggen Date:
Boring No.: B3-S
Location:
Required Bearing Capacity (psf): Starting Depth: 12.5 inches 8 kg/17.6 lb mass X 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
No. of Blows
Reading
(mm)
Total
Penetration
(mm)
Total
Depth
(in)
Blows
Per
Inch
Penetration
Per Set
(mm)
Penetration
Per Blow
(mm)
Hammer
Factor
DCP
Index
CBR
%
(CL)
CBR
%
(CH)
CBR %
(Other)
Bearing
(psf)
(CL)
Bearing
(psf)
(CH)
Bearing
(psf)
(Other)
Soil
Type
N Value
(CH) Consistency
- 317.5 0
2 457.2 139.7 18.1 0.4 139.7 69.9 2 139.7 0 2 1 200 1000 600 CH 3.9 soft
3 546.1 228.6 21.6 0.8 88.9 29.6 2 59.3 1 6 3 500 1800 1100 CH 7.1 firm
5 622.3 304.8 24.7 1.6 76.2 15.2 2 30.5 4 11 6 1300 2800 1900 CH 11.1 stiff
5 685.8 368.3 27.2 2.0 63.5 12.7 2 25.4 5 14 8 1700 3100 2100 CH 12.2 stiff
5 736.6 419.1 29.3 0.2 50.8 10.2 2 20.3 8 17 10 2200 3600 2500 CH 14.2 stiff
10 800.1 482.6 31.8 3.9 63.5 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff
5 850.9 533.4 33.8 2.5 50.8 10.2 2 20.3 8 17 10 2200 3600 2500 CH 14.2 stiff
10 914.4 596.9 36.4 3.9 63.5 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff
10 958.85 641.35 38.2 0.3 44.45 4.4 2 8.9 44 39 25 6700 6200 4700 CH 24.5 very stiff
10 996.95 679.45 39.7 6.6 38.1 3.8 2 7.6 59 46 30 8200 6900 5200 CH 27.2 very stiff
20 1079.5 762 43.0 6.1 82.55 4.1 2 8.3 51 42 27 7400 6600 4900 CH 26.1 very stiff
20 1143 825.5 45.5 7.9 63.5 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 hard
20 1212.9 895.35 48.3 0.4 69.85 3.5 2 7.0 71 50 33 9200 7300 5600 CH 28.8 hard
5 1219.2 901.7 48.6 19.7 6.35 1.3 2 2.5 535 137 103 35400 14300 11800 CH 56.4 hard
*Hammer Factor of 1 if using 8 kg/17.6 lb mass
Remarks *Hammer Factor of 2 if using 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
Est Bearing (psf)
CL soils CBR<10: CBR = 1/(0.017018*DCP Index)2
N Value Consistency Lean Clay
CH soils: CBR = 1/(0.002871*DCP Index) <2 Very Soft <510
All Other: CBR = 292/DCP Index1.12
2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010
4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030
Bearing Capacity (psf)= 144*3.794*CBR0.664
8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800
Uc lean clays (tsf)= (Bearing Capacity/.95)/2000 15 - 30 Very Stiff 3800 - 7600
N Value (lean clays)= Uc (tsf)*7.5 (Terzaghi & Peck) >30 Hard >7600
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER - FIELD DATA SHEETASTM: D6951
10/27/2015
10/29/2015
One Systems Drive
Appleton, WI 54914
Ph. 920/735-6900
Form 112B
Effective Date: 6/29/2015
QM Section: G
Project: Brown Cty CTH ZZ- Wrightstown OMNNI Prj. No.: E2166A15
Report To: Brown County Highway Department
Tested By: P. Coyne Date:
Reviewed By: P. Eggen Date:
Boring No.: B4-S
Location:
Required Bearing Capacity (psf): Starting Depth: 9 inches 8 kg/17.6 lb mass X 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
No. of Blows
Reading
(mm)
Total
Penetration
(mm)
Total
Depth
(in)
Blows
Per
Inch
Penetration
Per Set
(mm)
Penetration
Per Blow
(mm)
Hammer
Factor
DCP
Index
CBR
%
(CL)
CBR
%
(CH)
CBR %
(Other)
Bearing
(psf)
(CL)
Bearing
(psf)
(CH)
Bearing
(psf)
(Other)
Soil
Type
N Value
(CH) Consistency
- 228.6 0
5 406.4 177.8 16.1 0.7 177.8 35.6 2 71.1 1 5 2 400 1600 1000 CH 6.3 frim
5 488.95 260.35 19.4 1.5 82.55 16.5 2 33.0 3 11 6 1200 2600 1800 CH 10.3 stiff
5 539.75 311.15 21.4 2.5 50.8 10.2 2 20.3 8 17 10 2200 3600 2500 CH 14.2 stiff
10 622.3 393.7 24.7 3.0 82.55 8.3 2 16.5 13 21 13 2900 4100 2900 CH 16.2 very stiff
10 692.15 463.55 27.5 0.4 69.85 7.0 2 14.0 18 25 15 3700 4600 3300 CH 18.2 very stiff
10 736.6 508 29.3 5.6 44.45 4.4 2 8.9 44 39 25 6700 6200 4700 CH 24.5 very stiff
10 781.05 552.45 31.1 5.6 44.45 4.4 2 8.9 44 39 25 6700 6200 4700 CH 24.5 very stiff
20 825.5 596.9 32.9 11.2 44.45 2.2 2 4.4 175 78 55 16800 9900 7800 CH 39.1 hard
20 850.9 622.3 33.9 0.6 25.4 1.3 2 2.5 535 137 103 35400 14300 11800 CH 56.4 hard
15 895.35 666.75 35.7 8.4 44.45 3.0 2 5.9 98 59 40 11500 8200 6300 CH 32.4 hard
20 952.5 723.9 38.0 8.7 57.15 2.9 2 5.7 106 61 41 12100 8400 6500 CH 33.2 hard
30 1028.7 800.1 41.0 9.8 76.2 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 hard
30 1104.9 876.3 44.1 0.7 76.2 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 hard
30 1168.4 939.8 46.6 11.8 63.5 2.1 2 4.2 193 82 58 18000 10200 8100 CH 40.3 hard
21 1219.2 990.6 48.6 0.5 50.8 2.4 2 4.8 147 72 50 15000 9300 7300 CH 36.7 hard
*Hammer Factor of 1 if using 8 kg/17.6 lb mass
Remarks *Hammer Factor of 2 if using 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
Est Bearing (psf)
CL soils CBR<10: CBR = 1/(0.017018*DCP Index)2
N Value Consistency Lean Clay
CH soils: CBR = 1/(0.002871*DCP Index) <2 Very Soft <510
All Other: CBR = 292/DCP Index1.12
2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010
4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030
Bearing Capacity (psf)= 144*3.794*CBR0.664
8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800
Uc lean clays (tsf)= (Bearing Capacity/.95)/2000 15 - 30 Very Stiff 3800 - 7600
N Value (lean clays)= Uc (tsf)*7.5 (Terzaghi & Peck) >30 Hard >7600
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER - FIELD DATA SHEETASTM: D6951
10/27/2015
10/29/2015
One Systems Drive
Appleton, WI 54914
Ph. 920/735-6900
Form 112B
Effective Date: 6/29/2015
QM Section: G
Project: Brown Cty CTH ZZ- Wrightstown OMNNI Prj. No.: E2166A15
Report To: Brown County Highway Department
Tested By: P. Coyne Date:
Reviewed By: P. Eggen Date:
Boring No.: B5-S
Location:
Required Bearing Capacity (psf): Starting Depth: 9 inches 8 kg/17.6 lb mass X 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
No. of Blows
Reading
(mm)
Total
Penetration
(mm)
Total
Depth
(in)
Blows
Per
Inch
Penetration
Per Set
(mm)
Penetration
Per Blow
(mm)
Hammer
Factor
DCP
Index
CBR
%
(CL)
CBR
%
(CH)
CBR %
(Other)
Bearing
(psf)
(CL)
Bearing
(psf)
(CH)
Bearing
(psf)
(Other)
Soil
Type
N Value
(CH) Consistency
- 25.4 0
5 88.9 63.5 11.5 2.0 63.5 12.7 2 25.4 5 14 8 1700 3100 2100 CH 12.2 Stiff
5 158.75 133.35 14.3 1.8 69.85 14.0 2 27.9 4 12 7 1500 2900 2000 CH 11.4 Stiff
5 209.55 184.15 16.4 2.5 50.8 10.2 2 20.3 8 17 10 2200 3600 2500 CH 14.2 Stiff
5 256.54 231.14 18.2 2.7 46.99 9.4 2 18.8 10 19 11 2500 3800 2700 CH 15.0 Stiff
5 311.15 285.75 20.4 0.3 54.61 10.9 2 21.8 7 16 9 2000 3400 2400 CH 13.4 Stiff
5 330.2 304.8 21.2 6.6 19.05 3.8 2 7.6 59 46 30 8200 6900 5200 CH 27.2 very stiff
5 342.9 317.5 21.7 9.8 12.7 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 Hard
10 368.3 342.9 22.7 9.8 25.4 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 Hard
10 393.7 368.3 23.7 0.5 25.4 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 Hard
10 425.45 400.05 25.0 7.9 31.75 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 Hard
20 495.3 469.9 27.8 7.2 69.85 3.5 2 7.0 71 50 33 9200 7300 5600 CH 28.8 very stiff
30 571.5 546.1 30.8 9.8 76.2 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 Hard
30 688.34 662.94 35.5 0.9 116.84 3.9 2 7.8 57 45 29 8000 6800 5100 CH 26.8 very stiff
25 787.4 762 39.5 6.3 99.06 4.0 2 7.9 55 44 29 7800 6700 5100 CH 26.4 very stiff
30 895.35 869.95 43.8 0.7 107.95 3.6 2 7.2 67 48 32 8900 7200 5500 CH 28.4 very stiff
30 946.15 920.75 45.8 0.7 50.8 1.7 2 3.4 301 103 74 24200 11800 9600 CH 46.6 Hard
45 1041.4 1016 49.6 11.8 95.25 2.1 2 4.2 193 82 58 18000 10200 8100 CH 40.3 Hard
40 1092.2 1066.8 51.7 19.7 50.8 1.3 2 2.5 535 137 103 35400 14300 11800 CH 56.4 Hard
30 1136.7 1111.3 53.5 16.9 44.5 1.5 2 3.0 392 117 86 28800 12900 10600 CH 50.9 Hard
*Hammer Factor of 1 if using 8 kg/17.6 lb mass
Remarks *Hammer Factor of 2 if using 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass
Est Bearing (psf)
CL soils CBR<10: CBR = 1/(0.017018*DCP Index)2
N Value Consistency Lean Clay
CH soils: CBR = 1/(0.002871*DCP Index) <2 Very Soft <510
All Other: CBR = 292/DCP Index1.12
2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010
4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030
Bearing Capacity (psf)= 144*3.794*CBR0.664
8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800
Uc lean clays (tsf)= (Bearing Capacity/.95)/2000 15 - 30 Very Stiff 3800 - 7600
N Value (lean clays)= Uc (tsf)*7.5 (Terzaghi & Peck) >30 Hard >7600
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER - FIELD DATA SHEETASTM: D6951
10/27/2015
10/29/2015
Appendix D
Shear Key &
Roadway Cross Section
Appendix E
Field Exploration Procedures
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Soil sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM:D1586. Using this procedure, a 2” O.D.
split barrel sampler is driven into the soil by a 140 pound weight falling 30”. After an initial set
of 6”, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12” is known as the
penetration resistance or N value. The N value is an index of the relative density of cohesionless
soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. Thin-wall tube samples were obtained according to
ASTM:D1587 where indicated by appropriate symbol on the boring logs. Rock core samples, if
taken, were obtained by rotary drilling in accordance with ASTM:D2113. Power auger borings,
if performed, were done in general accordance with ASTM:D1452.
The samples were visually and manually classified by the crew chief in accordance with
ASTM:D2488. Representative portions of the samples were then returned to the laboratory for
further examination and for verification of the field classifications. Logs of the borings indicating
the depth and identification of the various strata, the N value, the laboratory test data, water level
information and pertinent information regarding the method of maintaining and advancing the
drill holes are attached. Charts illustrating the soils classification procedure, the descriptive
terminology and symbols used on the boring logs are also attached.
Appendix F
Classification of Soils