report of geotechnical engineering services · 09-11-2016 · contents and 5 atterberg limits...

DRAFT

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES McGilchrist Street SE Corridor Improvements 12th Street SE to 25th Street SE Salem, Oregon For City of Salem c/o Otak, Inc. November 8, 2016 City of Salem Project No. 687002 GeoDesign Project: Salem-38-01

Lynda

Text Box

Updated Project Information (as of August 11, 2017) STIP Project Name: McGilchrist St SE: 12th St SE to 25th St SE (Salem) City of Salem, Marion County, Oregon ODOT Region #2, Key #20739 Federal Aid Number: Pending

DRAFT

November 8, 2016 Otak, Inc. 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Attention: Ken Ackerman, P.E.

Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services McGilchrist Street SE Corridor Improvements

12th Street SE to 25th Street SE Salem, Oregon

City of Salem Project No. 687002 GeoDesign Project: Salem-38-01

GeoDesign, Inc. is pleased to submit this geotechnical report for the proposed McGilchrist Street SE Corridor Improvements project in Salem, Oregon. Our services have been provided in accordance with our Subconsultant Agreement with Otak, Inc. dated November 16, 2015. Please contact us if you have questions regarding this report. Sincerely, GeoDesign, Inc. Krey D. Younger, P.E., G.E. George Saunders, P.E., G.E. Senior Associate Engineer Principal Engineer KDY:GPS:kt

Attachments

One copy submitted (via email only)

Document ID: Salem-38-01-110816-geor-DRAFT2.docx

© 2016 GeoDesign, Inc. All rights reserved.

ktebbe

Draft

ktebbe

Draft

DRAFT

Salem-38-01:110816

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Understanding 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Surface Conditions 2 3.2 Subsurface Conditions 2 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 4.1 Site Preparation 3 4.2 Trench Excavations 5 4.3 Erosion Control 5 5.0 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SLOPES 5 5.1 Temporary Slopes 5 5.2 Permanent Slopes 6 6.0 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 6 6.1 General 6 6.2 Bearing Pressures and Settlement 6 6.3 Lateral Resistance 7 7.0 CULVERT FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 7 7.1 General 7 7.2 Foundation 7 7.3 Wing Walls 8 7.4 Construction Considerations 8 8.0 SIGNAL POLE RECOMMENDATIONS 10 8.1 General 10 8.2 Design Recommendations 10 8.3 Non-Standard Luminaire Supports 12 9.0 MATERIALS 12 9.1 Structural Fill 12 9.2 Geotextile Fabric 14 10.0 OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION 14 11.0 LIMITATIONS 14 FIGURES Vicinity Map Figure 1 Site Map Figure 2 AREMA Temporary Shoring Figure 3

DRAFT

Salem-38-01:110816

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. APPENDIX Field Explorations A-1 Laboratory Testing A-2 Exploration Key Table A-1 Soil Classification System Table A-2 Core Logs Figures A-1 – A-5 Boring Logs Figures A-6 – A-16 Core Atterberg Limits Test Results Figure A-17 Boring Atterberg Limits Test Results Figure A-18 Core Summary of Laboratory Data Figure A-19 Boring Summary of Laboratory Data Figure A-20 SPT Hammer Calibration ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

DRAFT

1 Salem-38-01:110816

1.0 INTRODUCTION GeoDesign, Inc. is pleased to present this geotechnical report for the proposed McGilchrist Street SE Corridor Improvements project in Salem, Oregon. The approximate location of this road section is shown on Figure 1. Exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. Our geotechnical design recommendations are based on information provided by the design team and on-site subsurface explorations and input from the design team. Pavement recommendations were completed previously and are presented in a separate pavement report1. Acronyms and abbreviations used herein are defined at the end of this document. 1.1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The proposed improvements include road widening and improvements of McGilchrist Street SE within the project limits. Improvements include additional road width, adjusted traffic signals, a pedestrian bridge at the Clark Creek crossing, and new culvert crossings at the east and west forks of Pringle Creek. Traffic signal modifications are anticipated at the intersections with 13th Street SE, Pringle Road SE, 22nd Street SE, and 25th Street SE. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our services was to explore existing pavement sections and subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical design recommendations for design and construction of the proposed improvements. Our specific scope of work was as follows:

Obtained necessary traffic permits to work within the ROW. Coordinated and managed the field investigation, including utility locates, site access

authorizations, access preparation, and scheduling of contractors and GeoDesign staff. Completed utility locates at each boring location using the required One Call public utility

locate service to assist in determining locations of subsurface explorations. Provided traffic control during the explorations. Explored subsurface conditions by completing the following explorations:

Seven borings at creek crossings. Four borings at signal pole locations Ten pavement core borings within the proposed widening areas

Classified the materials encountered in the explorations. Maintained a detailed log of the explorations.

Performed laboratory testing on the collected soil samples consisting of 28 moisture contents and 5 Atterberg limits tests.

Provided foundation recommendations for creek crossing structures. Provided foundation design parameters for signal poles. Provided recommendations for earthwork, including cut and fill volume relationships,

seasonal material usage, compaction criteria, cut and fill slopes, and utility trench backfill.

1 (Draft) Pavement Report; McGilchrist Street SE Corridor Improvements; 12th Street SE to 25th Street SE; Salem, Oregon, dated January 26, 2016. GeoDesign Project Salem-38-01

DRAFT

2 Salem-38-01:110816

Provided this draft report summarizing the results of our geotechnical evaluation. Provide a final report summarizing our recommendations and incorporating the review

comments of the City of Salem and the design team. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS McGilchrist Street SE, within the limits of our investigation, is AC-surfaced with one lane in each direction, with the exception of some turning lanes at 12th Street SE, 13th Street SE, Pringle Road SE, and 25th Street SE. Road edges include a variety of ditches and shoulder areas, with curb and gutter from 12th Street SE to Pringle Road SE. A rail line crosses the alignment between Pringle Road SE and 16th Street SE. The ground surface is generally flat along the alignment. Creek crossings include Clark Creek to the west of 13th Street SE, the west fork of Pringle Creek to the east of the railroad, and the east fork of Pringle Creek to the west of 22nd Street SE. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS We completed a total of 21 explorations on the alignment with 10 explorations (C-1 through C-10) (hereinafter referred to as “cores”) specific for pavement design and 11 borings (B-1 through B-11) (hereinafter referred to as “borings) for geotechnical investigation. All explorations with the exception of B-11 were completed in the AC pavement. Cores C-1 through C-7 and C-9 were advanced through the AC, aggregate base, and into the subgrade to depths ranging from 3.0 feet to 8.0 feet BGS. Cores C-8 and C-10 were terminated at the base of the AC due to potential utility conflicts. Borings B-1 through B-11 were drilled to depths ranging from 20.3 to 21.5 feet BGS. The cores were placed along the project for pavement design purposes as well as utility trenching information. The boring locations were selected based on the following design features: C-1 through C-10: Pavement design and utility trenching B-1 and B-2: Clark Creek crossing B-3: 13th Street SE signal pole B-4: Pringle Road SE signal pole B-5 through B-7: west fork of Pringle Creek crossing B-8 and B-9: east fork of Pringle Creek crossing B-10: 22nd Street SE signal pole B-11: 25th Street SE signal pole The following is a summary of the cores and borings. Specific consistencies and layer thicknesses are identified on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. 3.2.1 Pavement Cores Pavement thicknesses and pavement conditions are discussed in our pavement design report. In general, the subgrade beneath the pavement consists of soft to very stiff silt to clay over medium dense to very dense gravel. Gravel was encountered at varying depths from 13 to 7.0 feet BGS. Laboratory testing of clay soil samples in cores C-4 and C-9 indicates plasticity index from 25 to

DRAFT

3 Salem-38-01:110816

33 and moisture content from 29 to 45 percent. Details of the results are presented in the Appendix. Additional information on pavement cores and condition is available in our pavement report. 3.2.2 Borings The clay layer (fill and/or native) varies in thickness from zero (B-8 through B-10) to 12.7 feet (B-2). In addition, we encountered fill material in some of the borings with up to 3.2 feet of soft to medium stiff clay fill at B-2, B-5, and B-11 and 2.5 feet and 1.9 feet of gravel fill at B-1 and B-7, respectively. The gravel beneath the clay is medium dense to very dense and extends to the depth of explorations. In addition, we encountered a void under the pavement at B-6 and caving during drilling in B-1, B-4, B-5, B-8, B-9, and B-11. The void under the pavement is discussed in our pavement report. Laboratory testing of clay soil samples in borings B-1 and B-3 indicates plasticity index from 34 to 35 and moisture content from 32 to 39 percent. Details of the results are presented in the Appendix. 3.2.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered at the time of our explorations; however, the gravel is generally moist to wet. A search at the Oregon Water Resources Department Well Log Query (http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/well_log/Default.aspx) revealed explorations with water levels from 4 to 30 feet BGS on properties along the alignment and at various times throughout the year. In addition, we expect that groundwater can become perched on the silt and clay layers at relatively shallow depths during the wet season. Groundwater is expected to fluctuate throughout the year with changes in precipitation. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our site reconnaissance, explorations, laboratory testing, and analyses, it is our opinion that the subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed roadway widening, provided the site is prepared as recommended in this report. The following sections discuss geotechnical design considerations for the proposed development. 4.1 SITE PREPARATION 4.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing The existing root zone, organic material, and pavements should be stripped and removed from the site in all proposed structural fill, pavement widening, and improvement areas and for a 5-foot margin around such areas. Based on our experience, we anticipate a general stripping depth of approximately 3 to 4 inches over the vegetated areas of the site. Greater stripping depths may be required to remove localized zones of loose or organic soil, particularly within ditches or drainage areas, and the actual stripping depth should be based on field observations at the time of construction. Stripped material should be transported off site for disposal or used in landscaped areas. Following stripping and grubbing and demolition, the subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of AASHTO T 99. However, we note that the subgrade over much of the roadway will

DRAFT

4 Salem-38-01:110816

consist of fine-grained silt and clay with high moisture contents. These soils will be sensitive to disturbance and impossible to compact with elevated moisture contents. We recommend using the following section of this report for subgrade evaluation rather than attempting scarification and compaction at the subgrade. 4.1.2 Subgrade Evaluation A member of our geotechnical staff should observe the exposed subgrade after stripping and site cutting have been completed to determine if there are additional areas of unsuitable or unstable soil. In addition to compaction testing of the subgrade, our representative should observe a proof roll with a fully loaded dump truck or similarly heavy rubber-tired construction equipment to identify soft, loose, or unsuitable areas. Areas that appear to be too wet and soft to support proof rolling equipment should be evaluated by probing and prepared in accordance with the recommendations for wet weather construction presented in the following section of this report. 4.1.3 Wet Weather/Wet Soil Grading Trafficability of the site will be difficult during or after extended wet periods or when the moisture content of the surface soil is more than a few percentage points above optimum. We anticipate the existing subgrade will be wet following demolition of the existing gravel or AC pavement areas and during the rainy season. When wet, the silt and clay at the site are easily disturbed and may provide inadequate support for construction equipment. Proof rolling of the subgrade should not be performed during wet weather or if wet ground conditions exist. Instead, the subgrade should be evaluated by probing. Soil that has been disturbed during site preparation activities, or soft or loose zones identified during probing, should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The aggregate base thickness for pavement areas is intended to support post-construction design traffic loads. This design aggregate base thickness may not support construction traffic or pavement construction when the subgrade soil is wet. Accordingly, the use of granular haul roads and staging areas will be necessary for support of construction traffic during the rainy season or when the moisture content of the surficial soil is more than a few percentage points above optimum. If construction is planned for periods when the subgrade soil is wet, staging and haul roads with increased thicknesses of aggregate base will be required. The amount of staging and haul road areas as well as the required thickness of granular material will vary with the contractor’s sequencing of a project and type/frequency of construction equipment. Generally, a 12- to 18-inch-thick mat of granular material is sufficient for light staging areas but is generally not expected to be adequate to support heavy equipment or truck traffic. Assuming the same subgrade assumption, the granular mat for haul roads and areas with repeated heavy construction traffic typically needs to be increased to between 18 and 24 inches. The granular haul road material should be placed in one lift over the prepared, undisturbed subgrade and compacted using a smooth-drum, non-vibratory roller. The granular material should meet the specifications for stabilization material, imported granular material, or pavement aggregate base in the “Materials” section of this report. In addition, a geotextile fabric

DRAFT

5 Salem-38-01:110816

should be placed as a barrier between the subgrade and granular material in areas of repeated construction traffic. The geotextile should meet the requirements provided in the “Materials” section of this report. 4.2 TRENCH EXCAVATIONS If utilities are installed along the road alignment, we anticipate trench cuts should stand near vertical to a depth of approximately 4 feet in the silt or clay, provided groundwater seepage is not observed in the sidewalls. However, some caving was observed during exploratory borings and groundwater seepage is likely at the gravel or within old fills or utility trenches; therefore, we anticipate that utility trench excavations may result in caving and sloughing. If caving or sloughing occurs, the sidewalls should be flattened or shored. Trench dewatering will be required to maintain dry working conditions if the invert elevations of the proposed utilities encounter groundwater. Given the predominately soft to medium stiff nature of the silt and clay, as well as the gravel below the silt and clay, pumping from sumps located within the trench may result in excessive sloughing, caving, or running conditions, and dewatering by well points will likely be required. If groundwater is present at the base of utility excavations, we recommend placing stabilization material at the base of the excavation meeting the requirements indicated in the “Materials” section of this report. The material should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material and should be placed in one lift and compacted until "well keyed." While we have described certain approaches to the trench excavation, it is the contractor's responsibility to select the excavation and dewatering methods, monitor the trench excavations for safety, and provide shoring required to protect personnel and adjacent improvements. All trench excavations should be in accordance with applicable OSHA and state regulations. Trench backfill for the utility pipe base, pipe zone, and general backfill should meet the requirements provided in the “Materials” section of this report. 4.3 EROSION CONTROL The fine-grained soil at this site is eroded easily by wind and water; therefore, erosion control measures should be carefully planned and in place before construction begins. Measures that can be employed to reduce erosion include the use of silt fences, hay bales, buffer zones of natural growth, sedimentation ponds, and granular haul roads. 5.0 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SLOPES 5.1 TEMPORARY SLOPES Based on soil conditions encountered during our explorations, temporary slopes of 1½H:1V may be used to vertical depths of 10 feet or less, provided groundwater seepage is not encountered and groundwater remains below the base of the excavation. If seepage is encountered, it will be necessary to flatten the slopes and implement a dewatering program. All cut slopes should be protected from erosion by covering them with plastic sheeting or other stabilizing cover during the rainy season. If sloughing or instability is observed, the slope may need to be flattened or the cut supported by shoring.

DRAFT

6 Salem-38-01:110816

5.2 PERMANENT SLOPES We understand that no significant slopes are planned for the site. Permanent cut and fill slopes up to 10 feet tall may be built to a gradient as steep as 2H:1V. Slopes that will be maintained by mowing should not be constructed steeper than 3H:1V. Newly constructed fill slopes should be over-built by at least 12 inches and then trimmed back to the required slope to maintain a firm face. Access roads and pavements should be located at least 5 feet from the top of cut and fill slopes. Slopes should be planted with appropriate vegetation to provide protection against erosion as soon as possible after grading. Surface water runoff should be collected and directed away from slopes to prevent water from running down the face of the slope. 6.0 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 GENERAL We understand that two pedestrian bridges will be constructed along McGilchrist Street SE between 12th Street SE and 13th Street SE as part of the project. According to Otak, the bridges will be approximately 5 feet wide and 50 feet long with a combined total load (dead load plus live load) of approximately 53 kips at each abutment. We understand the base of the foundations will be located between elevations of 180 and 182 feet. We evaluated the subsurface conditions near the proposed bridges by completing two drilled borings (B-1 and B-2) through the roadway to a depth of 21.5 feet BGS. The soil conditions consist of an approximately 1.5- to 1.8-foot-thick pavement section underlain by soft to medium stiff silt and clay that extends to depths between 15.3 and 17.0 feet BGS. Underlying the silt and clay is very dense gravel that extends to the maximum depth explored. Based on the footing elevations provided by Otak, soil at the base of the foundations will consist of medium stiff silt and clay. Based on the results of our explorations and loads provided by Otak, the proposed bridges can be supported by conventional spread footings resting on 2-foot-thick granular pads. There should be a minimum horizontal distance of at least 5 feet between the near face of the footing and nearest face of a 2H:1V plain extending down to the toe of the slope. 6.2 BEARING PRESSURE AND SETTLEMENT Footings established on minimum 2-foot-thick granular pads underlain by firm, undisturbed native soil should be proportioned for allowable bearing pressures of 2,500 psf. The value above is a net bearing pressure; the weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be ignored in calculating footing sizes. The recommended allowable bearing pressure applies to the total of dead plus long-term live loads and can be doubled for short-term loads resulting from wind or seismic forces (if applicable). Granular pads should extend 6 inches beyond the margins of the footings for every foot excavated below the footings’ base grade. The granular pads should consist of imported granular material compacted as structural fill. The imported granular material should be

DRAFT

7 Salem-38-01:110816

compacted to not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T 99, or, as determined by qualified personnel, that it is well keyed. Total post-construction consolidation-induced settlement of spread footings should be less than 1.0 inch, with differential settlement up to approximately 0.5 inch between bridge abutments. 6.3 LATERAL RESISTANCE Lateral loads on footings can be resisted by passive earth pressure on the sides of the structures and by friction on the base of the footings. Our analysis indicates that the available passive earth pressure for footings confined by on-site soil and structural fill is 250 pcf, modeled as an equivalent fluid pressure. A coefficient of friction equal to 0.40 can be used for the resistance to sliding for footings in contact with the crushed rock pads. 7.0 CULVERT FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 GENERAL Replacement culverts will be required for both the west and east forks of Pringle Creek as part of the project. According to Otak, the west culvert crossing will be a four-sided, concrete box culvert and have a footing base elevation of approximately 172.5 feet (approximately 10 feet below existing grade). The culvert will be approximately 16 feet wide and 110 feet long with foundation loads of approximately 14.1 kips per foot (dead load) and 4.1 kips per foot (live load). Load will be spread across the single 19-foot-wide foundation, with load concentration directly under the culvert walls. The east culvert will be a curved bridge core box culvert. The culvert will be 23 feet wide and 175 feet long with a footing base elevation of approximately 169 feet (approximately 13 feet below existing grade). According to Otak, the foundation loads for the culvert will approximately 11.3 kips per foot (dead load) and 4.4 kips per foot (live load). Loads will be divided between continuous footings on either side of the culvert. In order to provide a basis for foundation recommendations, two borings were completed on west and east sides of both planned culvert locations (B-5 and B-6 for the west culvert crossing and B-8 and B-9 for the east culvert crossing). The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. The subsurface conditions at the west culvert location consist of an approximately 2-foot-thick pavement section underlain by medium stiff to very stiff native or fill clay. The clay extends to depths between 9 and 10 feet BGS and is underlain by very dense gravel with silt, sand, and clay to the maximum depth explored of up to 21.5 feet BGS. The subsurface conditions at the east culvert consist of an approximately 1.5- to 2-foot-thick pavement section underlain by gravel with silt, clay, and sand to the maximum depth explored of approximately 20.5 feet BGS. The gravel is medium dense to dense to a depth of 5 feet BGS then dense to very dense below that depth. 7.2 FOUNDATION Based on the plans and boring information, it is our opinion that the proposed culverts can be founded on conventional concrete spread footings resting on native dense to very dense gravel beneath the project alignment. Based on the borings, dense to very dense gravel should be

DRAFT

8 Salem-38-01:110816

present at the anticipated elevation of the footings; however, the gravel interface of the west culvert is close to the anticipated base of the footing. Foundation excavations should extend to the native dense to very dense gravel and backfilled with granular structural fill encountered at the planned base of the footings. Provided the recommendations described above are adhered to, an allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 psf should be used to design the foundations. The recommended allowable bearing pressure applies to the total of dead plus long-term live loads and may be doubled for short-term loads, such as those resulting from wind or seismic forces. The footings should be a minimum of 24 inches wide and embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the subgrade or 12 inches below the scour depth. The culvert, weight of the overlying soil, and foundation elements should be included when sizing the foundations. Based on our experience with similar soil, total post-construction settlement should be less than 1.0 inch, with differential settlement of approximately half the total over the length of the proposed culvert. 7.3 WING WALLS Lateral loads on footings can be resisted by passive earth pressure on the sides of the structures and by friction on the base of the footings. An allowable passive earth pressure of 150 pcf may be used for footings confined by native soil and new structural fill beneath the water table. For footings in contact with crushed rock, a coefficient of friction equal to 0.4 may be used when calculating resistance to sliding. We recommend the lateral earth pressures on the culvert walls be designed as follows. If the wall is not restrained and is allowed to yield with the application of fill, then we recommend using an equivalent earth pressure of 40 pcf. For non-yielding or braced walls, we recommend using an equivalent earth pressure of 55 pcf. Based on our explorations, the groundwater at the site could within 7.5 feet of the ground surface during certain times of the year. Accordingly, the culvert walls could be below the water table and will be subject to hydrostatic forces. Due to the hydrostatic pressures, the recommended lateral earth pressures should be increased to 78 pcf and 88 pcf for unrestrained and restrained walls, respectively, where walls are constructed below the water table. In addition, a uniform vehicle traffic load of 70 psf should be applied to the backside of the culverts where they are perpendicular to vehicle traffic. All footing subgrades should be evaluated by qualified personnel to confirm suitable bearing conditions. Observations should also confirm that loose or soft material, organics, unsuitable fill, and softened subgrades (if present) have been removed. Localized deepening of footing excavations may be required to penetrate any deleterious material. 7.4 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.4.1 General Excavations on the order of 15 feet will be required to construct the culverts associated with the project. Due to the proximity to rail lines, all excavations should be performed in accordance with the AREMA Guidelines for Temporary Shoring (2004). Figure 3 provides the general excavation zones per AREMA.

DRAFT

9 Salem-38-01:110816

Due to the distance from the railroad to the culvert, temporary slopes, shoring, or a combination of the two may be required. The following sections provide recommendations for temporary slopes and shoring. 7.4.2 Temporary Slopes Based on strength testing and soil conditions, temporary slopes of 1.5H:1V for excavations may be used to vertical depths of 10 feet or less, provided groundwater is not encountered. If seepage occurs, it might be necessary to flatten the slopes to protect the surface from raveling. All cut slopes should be protected from erosion by covering them with plastic sheeting or other stabilizing cover during the rainy season. If sloughing or instability is observed, the slope might need to be flattened or the cut supported by shoring. Excavations should not undermine adjacent utilities, foundations, walkways, streets, or other hardscapes unless special shoring or underpinned support is provided. Unsupported excavations should not be conducted within a downward and outward projection of a 1H:1V line from 2 feet outside the edge of an adjacent structural feature. 7.4.3 Temporary Cantilevered Shoring Temporary support for culvert excavations can be provided by installing cantilevered shoring. Cantilevered shoring should be designed to resist an active lateral earth pressure that has an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf above the groundwater table. The pressures should be increased to 78 pcf where groundwater is not maintained below the base of the excavation. These values assume that walls can rotate slightly around their base. A passive pressure of 300 psf should be used for soil above the groundwater table. A passive pressure of 150 psf should be used for soil below the groundwater table, which should be assumed at 7.5 feet BGS. If soldier piles are used, the passive pressure should be taken over two pile diameters. If the retained soil is sloped, the recommended lateral earth pressures should be multiplied by the factors provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Lateral Earth Pressure Increase Factors for Sloped Soil

Slope of Retained Soil (degrees)

Lateral Earth Pressure Increase Factor

0 1.00

5 1.06

10 1.12

20 1.33

25 1.52

30 2.27 The above equivalent fluid pressures do not include effect from surcharge loads. We recommend a horizontal live load of 70 psf be applied to the back of the retained soil where the wall shoring retains roadways and the applicable railroad live loads as indicated on Figure 3.

DRAFT

10 Salem-38-01:110816

8.0 SIGNAL POLE RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 GENERAL We understand that mast-arm signal poles will be installed near the intersection of McGilchrist Street SE with 13th Street SE, Pringle Road SE, 22nd Street SE, and 25th Street SE. The design of traffic control structures is generally subject to the requirements of Chapter 16 to the ODOT Geotechnical Design Manual (ODOT, 2015) and Section 13 of AASHTO’s Standard Specifications for Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition with 2015 interim revisions (AASHTO, 2013). The design recommendations for the signal poles are based on borings B-3 (McGilchrist Street SE and 13th Street SE), B-4 (McGilchrist Street SE and Pringle Road SE), B-10 (McGilchrist Street SE and 22nd Street SE), and B-11 (McGilchrist Street SE and 25th Street SE). The locations of the boring are shown on Figure 2. Based on the explorations, the soil conditions at the intersections generally consist of approximately 3 to 7.5 feet of clay underlain by gravel. The clay is soft to medium stiff and the gravel is medium dense to very dense. The gravel is silty and extends to the maximum depth explored in all borings. 8.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The foundations for most traffic signal pole foundations consist of 36- to 42-inch-diameter drilled shafts. These shafts can be designed in accordance with the Brom’s method outlined in Section 13.6 – Drilled Shafts of AASHTO (2013) or using procedures outlined in Chapter 8 of (ODOT, 2015) for lateral load analysis of deep foundations (i.e., p-y analysis). However, due to the variability of the subsurface soil at the site, it is our opinion that Brom’s method is not appropriate and a p-y analysis using the software program LPILE 6.0 should be used. The recommended parameters for design of the signal poles using LPILE 6.0 (Ensoft) are provided in Tables 2 and 3. We recommend the deflection of the foundations should be limited to ½ inch at the shaft head

Table 2. Soil Parameters for Traffic Structure Foundation Design

Location Depth

(feet BGS) General

Soil Type

Effective Unit

Weight, ' (pcf)

Cohesion, C (psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

13th Street SE and McGilchrist Street SE

0 to 9.5 Soft to Medium

Stiff Clay 110 (48)1 50 28

9.5 to 20 Dense to Very Dense Gravel

125 (63)1 0 38

Pringle Road SE and McGilchrist

Street SE

0 to 8 Soft to Medium

Stiff Clay 110 (48)1 50 28

8 to 20 Dense to Very Dense Gravel

125 (63)1 0 38

DRAFT

11 Salem-38-01:110816

Table 2. Soil Parameters for Traffic Structure Foundation Design (continued)

Location Depth

(feet BGS) General

Soil Type

Effective Unit

Weight, ' (pcf)

Cohesion, C (psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

22nd Street SE and McGilchrist Street SE

0 to 21 Dense to Very Dense Gravel

125 (63)1 0 38

25th Street SE and McGilchrist Street SE

0 to 3 Medium Stiff Clay 110 (48)1 50 28

3 to 7.5 Medium Dense

Gravel 125 (63)1 0 35

7.5 to 21 Dense to Very Dense Gravel

125 (63)1 0 38

1. Values in parentheses are buoyant unit weights for soil below the groundwater table. 2. Groundwater level should be assumed to be at 7.5 feet BGS for the intersections. 3. Soil parameters based on assumed soil conditions from explorations. Assumed soil conditions should be verified

during construction.

Table 3. Additional LPILE Soil Parameters for Traffic Structure Foundation Design

Location Depth

(feet BGS) General

Soil Type LPILE

Soil Model

Undrained Shear

Strength, c (psf)

Strain Value,

50

k (pci)

13th Street SE and

McGilchrist Street SE

0 to 9.5 Soft to

Medium Stiff Clay

Soft Clay 500 0.01 NA

9.5 to 20 Dense to

Very Dense Gravel

Sand (Reese)

NA NA 175

(100)1

Pringle Road SE

and McGilchrist Street SE

0 to 8 Soft to

Medium Stiff Clay


8 to 20 Dense to

Very Dense Gravel

Sand (Reese)

NA NA 175

(100)1

22nd Street SE and


0 to 21 Dense to

Very Dense Gravel

Sand (Reese)

NA NA 175

(100)1

DRAFT

12 Salem-38-01:110816

Table 3. Additional LPILE Soil Parameters for Traffic Structure Foundation Design (continued)

Location Depth

(feet BGS) General

Soil Type

LPILE Soil

Model

Undrained Shear

Strength, c (psf)

Strain Value,

50

k (pci)

25th Street SE and


0 to 3 Medium Stiff Clay


3 to 7.5 Medium Dense Gravel

Sand (Reese)

NA NA 90

7.5 to 21 Dense to

Very Dense Gravel

Sand (Reese)

NA NA 175

(100)1

1. Values in parentheses are k values for soil below the groundwater table. 2. Groundwater level should be assumed to be at 7.5 feet BGS at the sign structure location. 3. Soil parameters based on assumed soil conditions from explorations. Assumed soil conditions should be verified

during construction.

8.3 NON-STANDARD LUMINAIRE SUPPORTS Non-standard luminaire supports may be designed in accordance with the simplified method outlined in Section 13.10 – Embedment of Lightly Loaded Small Poles and Posts of AASHTO (2013). An allowable soil bearing pressure (S

1) of 1.5 ksf may be assumed.

9.0 MATERIALS 9.1 STRUCTURAL FILL 9.1.1 General Fill should only be placed over a subgrade that has been prepared in conformance with the “Site Preparation” section of this report. All material used as structural fill should be free of organic matter or other unsuitable material. The material should meet the specifications provided in OSSC 00330 (Earthwork), depending on the application. Unless otherwise indicated, all structural fill should have a maximum particle size of 4 inches. A brief characterization of some of the acceptable materials and our recommendations for their use as structural fill is provided below. A submittal should be made for each material prior to the start of construction. Each submittal should include the test information necessary to evaluate the degree to which the material’s properties comply with the properties that were recommended or specified. The geotechnical engineer and other appropriate members of the design team should review each submittal. 9.1.2 On-Site Soil The near-surface native silty and clayey soils are suitable for use as structural fill provided they meet the requirements provided in OSSC 00330.12 (Borrow Material). Based on laboratory test results, the moisture content of the on-site soil was significantly above optimum at the time of

DRAFT

13 Salem-38-01:110816

our exploration. We anticipate significant moisture conditioning will be required to dry the soil to a moisture content near optimum. This will require an extended period of dry weather, typically experienced between early July and mid-October. When used as structural fill, the on-site soil should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of 8 inches and compacted to not less than 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T 99. When used as structural fill, the on-site silt or clay should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of 6 to 8 inches and compacted to not less than 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T 99. 9.1.3 Imported Granular Material Imported granular material used for structural fill should be pit- or quarry-run rock, crushed rock, or crushed gravel and sand and should meet the requirements set forth in OSSC 00330.14 (Selected Granular Backfill) and OSSC 00330.15 (Selected Stone Backfill). Imported granular material should be fairly well graded between coarse and fine material, have less than 5 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, and have at least two mechanically fractured faces. When used as structural fill, imported granular material should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of 12 inches and compacted to not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T 99. 9.1.4 Trench Backfill Trench backfill for the utility pipe base and pipe zone should consist of crushed, well-graded, granular material with a maximum particle size of 1 inch and less than 5 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve and should meet OSSC 00405.14 (Trench Backfill, Class B). The material should be free of roots, organic matter, and other unsuitable material. Backfill for the pipe base and pipe zone should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T 99, or as recommended by the pipe manufacturer. Within building, pavement, and other structural areas, trench backfill placed above the pipe zone should consist of imported granular material as specified above. The backfill should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T 99, at depths greater than 2 feet below the finished subgrade and 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T 99, within 2 feet of finished subgrade. In all other areas, trench backfill above the pipe zone should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T 99. 9.1.5 Stabilization Material Stabilization material should consist of pit- or quarry-run rock, crushed rock, or crushed gravel and sand and should meet the requirements set forth in OSSC 00330.14 (Selected Granular Backfill) and OSSC 00330.15 (Selected Stone Backfill), consist of 4- to 6-inch-minus material, and

DRAFT

14 Salem-38-01:110816

have less than 5 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve. The material should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material. Stabilization material should be placed in one lift and compacted to a firm condition. 9.2 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 9.2.1 Subgrade Geotextile Fabric A subgrade geotextile fabric should be placed as a barrier between the subgrade and granular material in staging areas, haul road areas, or in areas of repeated construction traffic. The geotextile should have a minimum Mullen burst strength of 250 psi for puncture resistance and an AOS between U.S. Standard No. 70 and No. 100 sieves. 9.2.2 Drainage Geotextile Fabric Drain rock and other granular material used for subsurface drains should be wrapped in a geotextile fabric that meets the specifications provided in OSSC 00350 (Geosynthetic Installation) and OSSC 02320 (Geosynthetics) for drainage geotextiles. 10.0 OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION Satisfactory earthwork and pavement performance depends to a large degree on the quality of construction. Sufficient observation of the contractor's activities is a key part of determining that the work is completed in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications. Subsurface conditions observed during construction should be compared with those encountered during the subsurface explorations. Recognition of changed conditions often requires experience; therefore, qualified personnel should visit the site with sufficient frequency to determine if subsurface conditions change significantly from those anticipated. We recommend that GeoDesign be retained to observe earthwork activities, including stripping; proof rolling of the subgrade and repair of soft areas; performing laboratory compaction and field moisture-density tests; observing final proof rolling of the pavement subgrade and base rock; asphalt placement and compaction; and the placing, mixing, and compacting of any cement-amended subgrade. 11.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Otak, the City of Salem, and the design and construction team for the proposed project. The report can be used for bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as warranty of the subsurface conditions and are not applicable to other sites. Soil explorations indicate soil conditions only at specific locations and only to the depths penetrated. They do not necessarily reflect soil strata or water level variations that may exist between exploration locations. If subsurface conditions differing from those described are noted during the course of excavation and construction, re-evaluation will be necessary. The site development plans and design details were not finalized at the time this report was prepared. When the design has been finalized and if there are changes in the site grades or location, configuration, design loads, or type of construction for the buildings, the conclusions

DRAFT

15 Salem-38-01:110816

and recommendations presented may not be applicable. If design changes are made, we should be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide a written evaluation or modification. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Please call if you have questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services. Sincerely, GeoDesign, Inc. Krey D. Younger, P.E., G.E. Senior Associate Engineer George Saunders, P.E., G.E. Principal Engineer

ktebbe

Draft

ktebbe

Draft

FIGURES

SITE

Prin

ted B

y: a

day

| P

rint

Dat

e: 1

1/8

/20

16

3:0

8:4

0 P

M

Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068

Portland OR 97224

15575 SW Sequoia Parkway - Suite 100

File

Nam

e: J:\S

-Z\S

alem

\Sal

em-3

8\S

alem

-38

-01

\Fig

ure

s\C

AD

\Sal

em-3

8-0

1-V

M0

1.d

wg | L

ayout:

FIG

UR

E 1

VICINITY MAP

MCGILCHRIST ST. SE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTSSALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01

NOVEMBER 2016 FIGURE 1

0

(SCALE IN APPROXIMATE FEET)

N

2000 4000VICINITY MAP BASED ON AERIALPHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROMGOOGLE EARTH PRO®

ktebbe

Draft

B-3B-1

B-2

B-4 B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10B-11C-1C-2C-3

C-4C-5C-6C-7

C-8C-9C-10

MCGILCHRIST STREET SE

13T

H S

TR

EET

SE

12T

H S

TR

EET

SE

16T

H S

TR

EET

SE

22N

D S

TR

EET

SE

FO

RD

ST

REET

SE

23R

D S

TR

EET

SE

25T

H S

TR

EET

SE

HOYT STREET SE

PR

ING

LE

RO

AD

SE

RA

ILRO

AD

R.O

.W.

22N

D S

TR

EET

SE

19T

H S

TR

EET

SE

Prin

ted B

y: a

day

| P

rint

Dat

e: 1

1/8

/20

16

3:0

8:4

2 P

M

Off

50

3.9

68

.87

87

Fa

x 5

03

.96

8.3

06

8

Port

land O

R 9

72

24

15

57

5 S

W S

equoia

Par

kw

ay -

Suit

e 1

00

File

Nam

e: J:\S

-Z\S

alem

\Sal

em-3

8\S

alem

-38

-01

\Fig

ure

s\C

AD

\Sal

em-3

8-0

1-S

P01

.dw

g | L

ayout:

FIG

UR

E 2

SIT

E P

LA

N

MC

GIL

CH

RIS

T S

T.

SE C

OR

RID

OR

IM

PRO

VEM

ENT

SSA

LEM

, O

R

SALE

M-3

8-0

1

NO

VEM

BER

20

16

FIG

UR

E 2

SITE PLAN BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHOBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH PRO®,DECEMBER 30, 2015

0

(SCALE IN FEET)

N

400 800

LEGEND:

BORING

PAVEMENT CORE

B-1

C-1

ktebbe

Draft


Portland OR 97224 Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068

SALEM-38-01 AREMA TEMPORARY SHORING

NOVEMBER 2016 MCGILCHRIST ST. SE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS

SALEM, OR FIGURE 3

Salem-38-01-F3.docx Print Date: 11/8/16

ktebbe

Draft

APPENDIX

DRAFT

A-1 Salem-38-01:110816

APPENDIX FIELD EXPLORATIONS GENERAL We explored the existing pavement and subsurface conditions along the roadway alignment by recovering ten pavement cores (C-1 through C-10) on November 30, 2015 by Dan J. Fischer Excavating, Inc. Borings (B-1 through B-11) were completed on November 13, December 9, and December 10, 2015 by Western States Soil Conservation. The locations of these explorations are shown on Figure 2. The pavement cores were recovered using a portable core drill with a 5-inch-diameter, diamond core barrel and were advanced with a 4-inch-diameter, solid-stem auger. The borings were completed using mud rotary method with a bit diameter of 4 7/8 inches. The explorations were backfilled in accordance with state regulations and capped with polymer modified cold-patch asphalt in existing pavement areas. The exploration logs are presented in this appendix. SOIL SAMPLING A member of our geology staff observed the explorations. We obtained representative samples of the various soil encountered in the explorations for geotechnical laboratory testing. Samples were obtained from the explorations using 1½-inch-inside diameter, split-spoon sampler (SPT). The split-spoon sampling was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The split-spoon samplers were driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-falling 30 inches. The samplers were driven a total distance of 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is recorded on the exploration logs, unless otherwise noted. In addition, higher quality, relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a standard Shelby tube in general accordance with ASTM D 1587, the Standard Practice for Thin-walled Tube Sampling of Soils. Representative grab samples of the soil were obtained from the auger cuttings. Sample types and sampling intervals are shown on the exploration logs. We understand that calibration of the SPT hammer used by Dan J. Fischer Excavating, Inc. has not been completed. The SPT blow counts completed by Dan J. Fischer Excavating, Inc. were conducted using two wraps around the cathead. The calibration factor for the auto SPT hammer used by Western States Soil Conservation was 92.6 percent. The calibration testing results are presented at the end of this appendix. SOIL CLASSIFICATION The soil samples were classified in accordance with the “Exploration Key” (Table A-1) and “Soil Classification System” (Table A-2), which are presented in this appendix. The exploration logs indicate the depths at which the soil or its characteristics change, although the change actually could be gradual. Classifications are shown on the exploration logs.

DRAFT

A-2 Salem-38-01:110816

LABORATORY TESTING CLASSIFICATION AND MOISTURE CONTENT We tested the natural moisture content of selected soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 2216. The natural moisture content is a ratio of the weight of the water to soil in a test sample and is expressed as a percentage. The test results are presented in this appendix. ATTERBERG LIMITS The plastic limit and liquid limit (Atterberg limits) of selected samples were determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318. The Atterberg limits and the plasticity index were completed to aid in the classification of the soil. The plastic limit is defined as the moisture content (in percent) where the soil becomes brittle. The liquid limit is defined as the moisture content where the soil begins to act similar to a liquid. The plasticity index is the difference between the liquid and plastic limits. The test results are presented in this appendix.

SYMBOL SAMPLING DESCRIPTION

Location of sample obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 Standard Penetration Test with recovery Location of sample obtained using thin-wall Shelby tube or Geoprobe® sampler in general accordance with ASTM D 1587 with recovery Location of sample obtained using Dames & Moore sampler and 300-pound hammer or pushed with recovery Location of sample obtained using Dames & Moore and 140-pound hammer or pushed with recovery Location of sample obtained using 3-inch-O.D. California split-spoon sampler and 140-pound hammer Location of grab sample Rock coring interval Water level during drilling Water level taken on date shown

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING EXPLANATIONS

ATT

CBR

CON

DD

DS

HYD

MC

MD

OC

P

Atterberg Limits

California Bearing Ratio

Consolidation

Dry Density

Direct Shear

Hydrometer Gradation

Moisture Content

Moisture-Density Relationship

Organic Content

Pushed Sample

PP

P200

RES

SIEV

TOR

UC

VS

kPa

Pocket Penetrometer

Percent Passing U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve

Resilient Modulus

Sieve Gradation

Torvane

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Vane Shear

Kilopascal

ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING EXPLANATIONS

CA

P

PID

ppm

Sample Submitted for Chemical Analysis

Pushed Sample

Photoionization Detector Headspace Analysis

Parts per Million

ND

NS

SS

MS

HS

Not Detected

No Visible Sheen

Slight Sheen

Moderate Sheen

Heavy Sheen



EXPLORATION KEY TABLE A-1

Graphic Log of Soil and Rock Types

Inferred contact between soil or rock units (at approximate depths indicated)

Observed contact between soil or rock units (at depth indicated)

RELATIVE DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Relative Density Standard Penetration

Resistance Dames & Moore Sampler

(140-pound hammer) Dames & Moore Sampler

(300-pound hammer)

Very Loose 0 – 4 0 - 11 0 - 4

Loose 4 – 10 11 - 26 4 - 10

Medium Dense 10 – 30 26 - 74 10 - 30

Dense 30 – 50 74 - 120 30 - 47

Very Dense More than 50 More than 120 More than 47

CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Consistency Standard Penetration

Resistance Dames & Moore Sampler

(140-pound hammer) Dames & Moore Sampler

(300-pound hammer) Unconfined Compressive

Strength (tsf)

Very Soft Less than 2 Less than 3 Less than 2 Less than 0.25

Soft 2 - 4 3 – 6 2 - 5 0.25 - 0.50

Medium Stiff 4 - 8 6 – 12 5 - 9 0.50 - 1.0

Stiff 8 - 15 12 – 25 9 - 19 1.0 - 2.0

Very Stiff 15 - 30 25 – 65 19 – 31 2.0 - 4.0

Hard More than 30 More than 65 More than 31 More than 4.0

PRIMARY SOIL DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

(more than 50%

retained on No. 200 sieve)

GRAVEL

(more than 50% of coarse fraction

retained on No. 4 sieve)

CLEAN GRAVELS (< 5% fines)

GW or GP GRAVEL

GRAVEL WITH FINES (≥ 5% and ≤ 12% fines)

GW-GM or GP-GM GRAVEL with silt

GW-GC or GP-GC GRAVEL with clay

GRAVELS WITH FINES (> 12% fines)

GM silty GRAVEL

GC clayey GRAVEL

GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL

SAND

(50% or more of coarse fraction

passing No. 4 sieve)

CLEAN SANDS (<5% fines)

SW or SP SAND

SANDS WITH FINES (≥ 5% and ≤ 12% fines)

SW-SM or SP-SM SAND with silt

SW-SC or SP-SC SAND with clay

SANDS WITH FINES (> 12% fines)

SM silty SAND

SC clayey SAND

SC-SM silty, clayey SAND

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more

passing No. 200 sieve)

SILT AND CLAY

Liquid limit less than 50

ML SILT

CL CLAY

CL-ML silty CLAY

OL ORGANIC SILT or ORGANIC CLAY

Liquid limit 50 or greater

MH SILT

CH CLAY

OH ORGANIC SILT or ORGANIC CLAY

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT

MOISTURE CLASSIFICATION

ADDITIONAL CONSTITUENTS

Term Field Test

Secondary granular components or other materials such as organics, man-made debris, etc.

Percent

Silt and Clay In:

Percent

Sand and Gravel In:

dry very low moisture, dry to touch

Fine-Grained Soils

Coarse-Grained Soils

Fine-Grained Soils

Coarse-Grained Soils

moist damp, without visible moisture

< 5 trace trace < 5 trace trace

5 – 12 minor with 5 – 15 minor minor

wet visible free water, usually saturated

> 12 some silty/clayey 15 – 30 with with

> 30 sandy/gravelly Indicate %



SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TABLE A-2

CORE DETAILS:No patch observed.No crack on core.

Dense to very dense gravel andcobbles should be anticipatedbelow refusal depth.







0.8

1.8

2.3

3.5

ASPHALT CONCRETE (8.7 inches).

AGGREGATE BASE (13.3 inches).

Medium stiff, gray CLAY (CH), minorsand, trace gravel; moist.Medium dense, gray to brown-orangeGRAVEL with clay and sand (GW-GC),trace silt; moist.Exploration terminated at a depth of3.5 feet due to auger refusal.

Hammer efficiency factor is unknown.SPT completed using two wraps with acathead.Latitude: 44.916651Longitude: -123.011930(determined from GPS)

BORING

COMMENTSCOMMENTSCOMMENTS MOISTURECONTENT % MOISTURECONTENT % COMMENTS

BLOW COUNTBO

RIN

G L

OG

- 2

PER

PA

GE

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-C1

_C1

0.G

PJ

GEO

DES

IGN

.GD

T

PRIN

T D

AT

E: 1

1/8

/16

:RC

COMPLETED: 11/30/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-1

BORING BIT DIAMETER: 5 inches/4 inches

SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01

MCGILCHRIST ST. SE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS

GR

APH

IC L

OG

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH

NOVEMBER 201615575 SW Sequoia Parkway - Suite 100

Portland OR 97224Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068

BORING METHOD: core drill/solid-stem auger (see document text)

DRILLED BY: Dan J. Fischer Excavating, Inc.

CORE DETAILS:No patch observed.Cored on moderate fatigue crack.








0.6

1.3

1.7

3.0

ASPHALT CONCRETE (7.0 inches).AGGREGATE BASE (9.0 inches).Medium stiff to stiff, gray-brown CLAYwith gravel and sand (CL/CH), some silt;moist.Dense, brown-gray GRAVEL with clayand sand (GW-GC), trace silt; moist.Exploration terminated at a depth of3.0 feet due to auger refusal.


C-10.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100C-2

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100

171717

404040

ktebbe

Draft

CORE DETAILS:No patch observed.Cored on moderate longitudinalcrack.








0.7

1.4

2.0

3.0

ASPHALT CONCRETE (7.7 inches).AGGREGATE BASE (9.3 inches).Stiff to very stiff, gray SILT with gravel(ML), some clay, minor sand; moist towet.Very dense, brown-orange, silty GRAVELwith sand (GM), trace clay; moist.Exploration terminated at a depth of3.0 feet due to auger refusal.


BORING


BLOW COUNTBO

RIN

G L

OG

- 2

PER

PA

GE

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-C1

_C1

0.G

PJ

GEO

DES

IGN

.GD

T

PRIN

T D

AT

E: 1

1/8

/16

:RC

COMPLETED: 11/30/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-2


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

(continued)

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





LL = 49%PL = 24%

LL = 53%PL = 25%

CORE DETAILS:No patch observed.Cored on low fatigue crack.

LL = 49%PL = 24%

LL = 53%PL = 25%


LL = 49%PL = 24%

LL = 53%PL = 25%


LL = 49%PL = 24%

LL = 53%PL = 25%


0.8

1.8

4.5

7.0

8.0

7.0

fee

t, d

uri

ng d

rillin

gATT

ATT



Medium stiff, brown-gray CLAY (CL/CH),some silt, minor sand, trace gravel;moist.

Soft, light gray SILT (ML), some clay,minor sand; moist to wet, sand is fine.

Very dense, gray-brown GRAVEL withsand and silt (GW-GM), trace clay; wet.Exploration completed at a depth of 8.0feet.


13-9-50/5"

C-30.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100

23-50/6"

C-40.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100

5

2

5

2

5

2

ktebbe

Draft









0.9

1.3

6.0

7.5


AGGREGATE BASE (4.0 inches).Stiff, gray to brown-orange CLAY withgravel and sand (CL/CH), some silt;moist.

light gray; trace sand, without gravel at4.0 feetmoist to wet at 5.0 feet

Very dense, brown-gray GRAVEL withsand and silt (GW-GM), trace clay; moist.

Exploration terminated at a depth of7.5 feet due to auger refusal.


BORING


BLOW COUNTBO

RIN

G L

OG

- 2

PER

PA

GE

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-C1

_C1

0.G

PJ

GEO

DES

IGN

.GD

T

PRIN

T D

AT

E: 1

1/8

/16

:RC

COMPLETED: 11/30/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-3


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

(continued)

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





Minor cement odor observed inbase, some bound particles from10.5 to 12.5 inches.












0.9

1.8

4.5

6.5

6.8

5.0

fee

t, d

uri

ng d

rillin

g



Medium stiff, gray CLAY (CH), some silt,minor gravel; moist.

Medium stiff, light gray SILT with sand(ML), some clay; moist to wet, sand isfine.

Very dense, gray-brown GRAVEL withsand (GP/GW), trace silt and clay; wet.Exploration terminated at a depth of6.8 feet due to auger refusal.


C-50.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100

50/3"

C-60.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100

10

9

74

10

9

74

10

9

74

7

6

7

6

7

6

ktebbe

Draft









0.8

2.6

4.5

6.0

5.0

fee

t, d

uri

ng d

rillin

g



Very stiff, gray CLAY with gravel toclayey GRAVEL (CL/GC), minor sand,trace silt; moist.

Dense, gray GRAVEL with clay (GP-GC),trace silt; wet.

Exploration terminated at a depth of6.0 feet due to auger refusal.


BORING


BLOW COUNTBO

RIN

G L

OG

- 2

PER

PA

GE

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-C1

_C1

0.G

PJ

GEO

DES

IGN

.GD

T

PRIN

T D

AT

E: 1

1/8

/16

:RC

COMPLETED: 11/30/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-4


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

(continued)

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





Aggregate base well keyed basedon foundation probe.








0.7

ASPHALT CONCRETE (7.7 inches).Exploration terminated at a depth of0.7 foot due to potential utility conflict.


C-70.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100C-8

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100

17

31

17

31

17

31

ktebbe

Draft

LL = 58%PL = 25%



LL = 58%PL = 25%



LL = 58%PL = 25%



LL = 58%PL = 25%



1.2

1.7

4.8

5.5

ATT


AGGREGATE BASE (6.3 inches).Medium stiff, gray CLAY (CH); moist.

Very dense, gray GRAVEL with clay andsand (GP-GC), trace silt; moist.Exploration terminated at a depth of5.5 feet due to auger refusal.


BORING


BLOW COUNTBO

RIN

G L

OG

- 2

PER

PA

GE

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-C1

_C1

0.G

PJ

GEO

DES

IGN

.GD

T

PRIN

T D

AT

E: 1

1/8

/16

:RC

COMPLETED: 11/30/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-5


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

(continued)

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





CORE DETAILS:No patch observed.Cored on severe longitudinalcrack.




0.4ASPHALT CONCRETE (5.3 inches).Exploration terminated at a depth of0.4 foot due to potential utility conflict.


16-50/5"

C-90.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100C-10

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

0 50 100

0 50 100

555

ktebbe

Draft

LL = 58%PL = 24%

Driller Comment: hard from12.0 to 12.5 feet.

Driller Comment: cavingwhile drilling from 15.0 to20.0 feet.

Surface elevation was notmeasured at the time ofexploration.

P

0.7

1.5

4.0

10.0

14.5

15.3

21.5

ATT



Very loose to loose, GRAVEL (GP);minor sand; moist to wet, rounded tosubrounded - FILL.

Medium stiff, brown-orange to grayCLAY (CL/CH), some silt, minor sand,trace organics; moist, sand is medium,organics are 1/4-inch diameter (rootsand woody debris).

Medium stiff to stiff, gray-orange SILTwith sand (ML), some clay; moist to wet.

Medium stiff to stiff, gray CLAY (CL/CH),some silt, trace sand and gravel; moistto wet.Very dense, gray-brown GRAVEL withsilt and sand (GP-GM), trace clay; moist.

moist to wet at 20.0 feet

Exploration completed at a depth of21.5 feet.

Hammer efficiency factor is 92.6percent.Latitude: 44.916903Longitude: -123.029994(determined from GPS)

INSTALLATION ANDCOMMENTS

MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-1

COMPLETED: 11/13/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-6

BORING BIT DIAMETER: 4 7/8 inches

SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH



BORING METHOD: mud rotary (see document text)

DRILLED BY: Western States Soil Conservation, Inc.

BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

9-44-50/5"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

0

5

8

97

ktebbe

Draft

Poor recovery but clayey.

Moderate chatter at 17.0feet.


P

0.7

1.8

5.0

14.5

17.0

21.5



Soft to medium stiff, dark brown CLAY(CL/CH), some silt, minor sand, traceorganics (carbonized wood); moist -FILL.

Medium stiff, light brown-orange CLAY(CL), some silt, trace sand; moist.

gray to brown-orange; moist to wet at10.0 feet

Soft to medium stiff, gray SILT (ML),some clay, trace sand and organics(woody debris); moist to wet, organicsare <1/8-inch diameter.

Very dense, gray GRAVEL with sand andsilt (GP-GM), trace clay; wet, stratifiedbeds of silt (8 inches thick).




MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-2

COMPLETED: 11/13/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-7


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

11-17-50/5"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

4

5

7

6

4

ktebbe

Draft

LL = 57%PL = 22%

Driller Comment: gravel at9.5 feet.


0.4

1.9

9.5

15.0

20.3

ATT

ASPHALT CONCRETE (5.3 inches).AGGREGATE BASE (16.3 inches).

Soft to medium stiff, dark brown CLAY(CL/CH), trace sand; moist.

medium stiff; trace gravel at 5.0 feet

without gravel at 7.5 feet

Dense, brown-gray GRAVEL with clayand sand (GP-GC), trace silt; moist towet.

Very dense, brown-gray GRAVEL withsand and silt (GP-GM); moist to wet.




MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-3

COMPLETED: 11/13/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-8


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

50/4"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

4

6

7

35

96

ktebbe

Draft

Some caving during drillingto 15.0 feet.


0.6

1.6

7.8

10.0

20.9


Soft to medium stiff, dark gray to darkbrown CLAY (CL/CH), some silt, tracesand; moist.

medium stiff, brown to dark brown;trace silt at 5.0 feet

Very dense, gray-brown, clayey GRAVELwith sand (GC), trace silt; moist.

Very dense, brown-gray GRAVEL withsand and silt (GP-GM); moist to wet.

wet at 15.0 feet

moist to wet at 20.0 feet




MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-4

COMPLETED: 11/13/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-9


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

46-50/5"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

4

7

69

73

65

ktebbe

Draft

Gravel chatter at 9.0 feet.

Driller Comment: minorcaving at 14.5 feet.

Cobbles to boulders shouldbe anticipated.

Rods hanging up at ~18.0feet. Possible cobbles,boulder, caving.


0.6

1.8

5.0

7.5

9.0

20.8


Medium stiff, gray CLAY (CL), somesilt, minor sand; moist, sand is fine tomedium - FILL.

brown-gray, with sand at 3.5 feet

Stiff, gray to brown CLAY (CH); moist.

Very stiff, light brown-light gray CLAYwith sand (CL), some silt, minor gravel;moist.Very dense, gray-brown GRAVEL withsilt and sand (GP-GM), trace clay; wet.




MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-5

COMPLETED: 12/09/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-10


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

24-50/5"

40-50/3"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

6

9

20

56

ktebbe

Draft


P

1.0

1.9

4.0

10.0

15.0

21.5



Void

Medium stiff, gray CLAY (CH); moist.

very stiff, light gray to brown, withsand, some silt; sand is fine to mediumat 9.0 feetVery dense, light gray-brown, clayeyGRAVEL with sand (GC), some silt;moist.

Very dense, gray-brown GRAVEL withsand and silt (GP-GM), trace clay; moistto wet.




MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-6

COMPLETED: 12/09/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-11


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

5-14-50/5"

30-50/4"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

7

84

ktebbe

Draft

Gravelly to 2.5 feet.

Gravel chatter at 9.0 feet.


0.7

1.4

3.3

5.0

7.5

8.8

10.0

20.4



Medium dense, brown-gray, siltyGRAVEL (GM), trace sand; moist - FILL.

Stiff, brown SILT (ML), trace clay; moist.

Medium stiff, brown-gray CLAY (CL/CH),trace silt and sand; moist.

Stiff to very stiff, brown SILT (ML), tracesand and clay; moist, sand is fine.

Medium dense, brown, silty GRAVEL(GM), minor sand; moist.

Dense, brown-gray GRAVEL with silt andsand (GP-GM), trace clay; moist to wet.

very dense at 15.0 feet




MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-7

COMPLETED: 12/09/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-12


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

50/5"

50/5"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

9

5

23

37

ktebbe

Draft

Minor caving at 9.0 feet.


0.8

1.8

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.8



Medium dense, gray-brown, clayeyGRAVEL (GC), minor sand, trace silt;moist.

Dense, light gray-brown GRAVEL withsand and clay (GP-GC), trace silt; moist.


Very dense, gray-brown GRAVEL withsand (GP/GW), trace silt and clay; wet.




MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-8

COMPLETED: 12/09/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-13


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

38-50/4"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

18

46

81

75

ktebbe

Draft

Gravelly to 2.5 feet.

Minor to moderate caving at10.0 feet.

Minor caving at 15.0 feet.


0.6

1.4

5.0

10.0

20.5


Dense, gray-brown GRAVEL with clayand sand (GP-GC), trace silt; moist.

Very dense, brown-gray GRAVEL withsilt and sand (GP-GM), trace clay; moistto wet.

Dense, brown-gray GRAVEL with sand(GP/GW), trace silt and clay; moist towet.

very dense at 15.0 feet




MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-9

COMPLETED: 12/10/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-14


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

35-50/5"

50/6"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

45

59

55

48

ktebbe

Draft

Driller Comment: gravellyto 2.5 feet.


0.5

1.5

7.5

15.0

20.0

20.9


Very dense, light gray-brown GRAVELwith clay and sand to clayey GRAVEL(GP-GC/GC), trace silt; moist.

medium dense at 5.0 feet


Very dense, brown-gray GRAVEL withsand (GP/GW), trace silt and clay; moistto wet.

Very dense, brown-gray GRAVEL withsand and silt (GP-GM), trace clay; wet.Exploration completed at a depth of20.9 feet.



MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-10

COMPLETED: 12/10/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-15


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

34-50/4"

27-50/5"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

80

24

59

52

ktebbe

Draft

Soft at 1.5 feet.

Occasional gravel to 2.5feet.

Firmer at ~4.0 feet.More chatter at 4.0 feet.

Minor caving to 10.0 feet.


3.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

21.5

Medium stiff, gray-brown CLAY withgravel and sand to clayey GRAVEL(CL/GC), trace silt; moist - FILL.

Medium dense, brown-gray, clayeyGRAVEL (GC), minor sand; moist.

with sand at 5.0 feet

Very dense, brown-gray GRAVEL withsand and silt (GP-GM), trace clay; moistto wet.

Dense, brown-gray GRAVEL with sand(GP/GW), trace silt and clay; moist towet.

Very dense, brown-gray GRAVEL withsand and silt (GP-GM), trace clay; moistto wet.




MOISTURE CONTENT %

CORE REC%RQD%

BLOW COUNT

BORING B-11

COMPLETED: 12/10/15

ELEV

AT

ION

DEP

TH

SAM

PLE

FIGURE A-16


SALEM, OR

SALEM-38-01


GR

APH

IC L

OG


TES

TIN

G

DEPTHFEET

LOGGED BY: JGH





BO

RIN

G L

OG

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11/8

/16

:RC

25-36-50/6"

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

15

24

35

68

59

ktebbe

Draft

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MH or OH

ML or OL

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

CL-ML

CL or OL

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

CH or OH

"A" LINE

LIQUID LIMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

SALEM-38-01

NOVEMBER 2016 MCGILCHRIST ST. SE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTSSALEM, OR FIGURE A-17

15575 SW Sequoia Parkway - Suite 100Portland OR 97224

Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068

MOISTURE CONTENT(PERCENT)

2.0

4.5

2.0

29

45

36

EXPLORATIONNUMBER

SAMPLE DEPTH(FEET)

25

28

33

49

53

58

24

25

25

C-4

C-4

C-9

KEY LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX

AT

TER

BER

G_L

IMIT

S 7

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-C1

_C1

0.G

PJ

GEO

DES

IGN

.GD

T

PRIN

T D

AT

E: 1

1/8

/16

:KT

ktebbe

Draft

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MH or OH

ML or OL

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

CL-ML

CL or OL

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

CH or OH

"A" LINE

LIQUID LIMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

SALEM-38-01



Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068

MOISTURE CONTENT(PERCENT)

8.0

7.5

39

32

EXPLORATIONNUMBER

SAMPLE DEPTH(FEET)

34

35

58

57

24

22

B-1

B-3

KEY LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX

AT

TER

BER

G_L

IMIT

S 7

SA

LEM

-38

-01

-B1

_11

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11

/8/1

6:K

T

ktebbe

Draft

C-2 1.5 8

C-3 1.5 8

C-4 2.0 29 49 24 25

C-4 4.5 45 53 25 28

C-6 2.0 28

C-7 4.5 13

C-9 2.0 36 58 25 33

C-9 4.5 32

GRAVEL(PERCENT)

SAMPLEDEPTH(FEET)

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DATA

ELEVATION(FEET)

P200(PERCENT)

SIEVE

PLASTICLIMIT

PLASTICITYINDEX

ATTERBERG LIMITSMOISTURECONTENT(PERCENT)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

EXPLORATIONNUMBER

SAND(PERCENT)

DRYDENSITY

(PCF)LIQUIDLIMIT

SALEM-38-01



Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068

LAB S

UM

MA

RY

SALE

M-3

8-0

1-C

1_C

10

.GPJ

G

EOD

ESIG

N.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE:

11

/8/1

6:K

T

ktebbe

Draft

B-1 8.0 39 58 24 34

B-1 15.0 9

B-2 5.0 34

B-2 15.0 51

B-3 7.5 32 57 22 35

B-4 2.5 33

B-4 10.0 9

B-5 2.5 34

B-5 7.5 37

B-6 7.0 38

B-7 5.0 39

B-8 2.5 26

B-8 15.0 11

B-9 2.5 12

B-9 7.5 11

B-10 2.5 11

B-10 15.0 11

B-11 2.5 17

B-11 15.0 11

GRAVEL(PERCENT)

SAMPLEDEPTH(FEET)

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DATA

ELEVATION(FEET)

P200(PERCENT)

SIEVE

PLASTICLIMIT

PLASTICITYINDEX

ATTERBERG LIMITSMOISTURECONTENT(PERCENT)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

EXPLORATIONNUMBER

SAND(PERCENT)

DRYDENSITY

(PCF)LIQUIDLIMIT

SALEM-38-01



Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068

LAB S

UM

MA

RY

SALE

M-3

8-0

1-B

1_1

1.G

PJ

GEO

DES

IGN

.GD

T

PRIN

T D

AT

E: 1

1/8

/16

:KT

ktebbe

Draft

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

DRAFT

Salem-38-01:110816

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AC asphalt concrete AOS apparent opening size AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BGS below ground surface H:V horizontal to vertical ksf kips per square foot NA not applicable ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSSC Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction (2015) pcf pounds per cubic foot pci pounds per cubic inch psf pounds per square foot psi pounds per square inch ROW right-of-way SPT standard penetration test

report of geotechnical engineering services · 09-11-2016 · contents and 5 atterberg limits...

Documents