geotechnical study txdot on-system bridge fm 407 at...

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY TXDOT ON-SYSTEM BRIDGE FM 407 AT DENTON CREEK

CSJ: 1310-01-027

SUBMITTED TO

TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC. 1100 MACON ST.

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102

BY HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC.

DALLAS, TEXAS.

MAY 25, 2016

REPORT NO. DG-13-16566.1

May 25, 2016 Mr. Joseph W. Atwood, P.E. Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. 1100 Macon St. Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Re: TxDOT On-System Bridge FM 407 at Denton Creek CSJ: 1310-01-027 Owner: TxDOT HVJ Project No. DG1316566.1 Dear Mr. Atwood: Submitted herein is the report of our geotechnical investigation for the above referenced project. The study was performed in accordance with the contract number 36-436P5011 and our proposal number DG1316566.1 and is subject to the limitations presented in this report. We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. Please read the entire report and notify us if there are questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC. Texas Firm Registration No. F-000646

Jae Hyun Park, PE Ravi Teja. Elepe, EIT Department Manager, Dallas Staff Engineer JP/RE/FF 05/25/2016 The seal appearing on this document was authorized by Jae Hyun Park, PE 103692 on May 25, 2016. Alteration of a sealed document without proper notification to the responsible engineer is an offense under the Texas Engineering Practice Act.

Main Text – 13 pages Appendix B – 2 pages Plates – 6 pages Appendix C – 3 pages Appendix A – 5 pages Appendix D – 3 pages

Houston 8701 John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 250

Austin Dallas, Texas 75247-4640

Dallas 214.678.0227 Ph

San Antonio 214.678.0228 Fax

www.hvj.com

www.hvj.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................1

2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................3 2.1 General ............................................................................................................................3 2.2 Geotechnical Study Program ............................................................................................3

3 FIELD EXPLORATION .........................................................................................................3 3.1 General ............................................................................................................................3 3.2 Sampling Methods ............................................................................................................3 3.3 Groundwater Observations ..............................................................................................4

4 LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................................4

5 SITE CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................5 5.1 General Geology ..............................................................................................................5 5.2 Soil Stratigraphy ...............................................................................................................5 5.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................6

6 BRIDGE FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................6 6.1 General ............................................................................................................................6 6.2 Foundation .......................................................................................................................6 6.3 Analysis Criteria ...............................................................................................................6 6.4 Drilled Shaft Axial Capacity .............................................................................................7 6.5 Lateral Capacity ................................................................................................................8 6.6 Group Effects ..................................................................................................................8 6.7 Settlement ........................................................................................................................8 6.8 Drilled Shaft Construction Recommendations .................................................................8

7 SITE PREPARATION .............................................................................................................9

8 DESIGN REVIEW ...................................................................................................................9

9 LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................................9

PLATES

Plate

SITE VICINITY................................................................................................................................................ 1

GEOLOGY MAP ............................................................................................................................................. 2

PLAN OF BORINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 3

KEY TO TERMS & SYMBOLS ......................................................................................................... 4A&4B

APPENDICES

Appendix

BORING LOGS............................................................................................................................................... A

HYDROMETER AND SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS .............................................................. B

WINCORE SKIN FRICTION CURVES ................................................................................................... C

WINCORE END BEARING CURVES ..................................................................................................... D

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 4-1 – Type and Number of Laboratory Tests .................................................................. 4 Table 5-1 – Stratum Types Encountered ..................................................................................... 5 Table 6-1 – Drilled Shaft Design Values ..................................................................................... 7

1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HVJ Associates, Inc. was retained by Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. to perform a geotechnical investigations for the proposed bridge along FM 407 at Denton Creek in Denton County, Texas. The purpose of this study is to provide design and construction recommendations for deep foundations for the proposed bridge. Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling and sampling two (2) borings (B2-1, and B2-2) to a depth of approximately 50 feet below the existing ground surface. A brief summary of the investigational findings are as follow:

1. Subsurface conditions encountered during our field activity in the borings are summarized in the following table.

Stratum Types Encountered

Stratum Type

Approximate Depths of Strata Encountered at Borings (feet)

B2-1 B2-2

Lean/Sandy Clay

(CL)(1)

0-8

13-23 0-17

Clayey Sand/Sand

(SC)(2)

8-13

23-27 17-26

Gravel(3) - 26-34

Weathered

Limestone(4) 27-33 -

Shale(5) 33-39 -

Limestone(6) 39-50(7) 34-50(5)

Note:

(1) Sandy or with sand, soft to very stiff. (2) Clayey with gravel, loose to compact. (3) Poorly graded with clay and sand, compact. (4) Hard, tan, weathered, (5) Very hard, dark gray. (6) Very hard, gray, with shale seams. (7) Boring termination depth.

2. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 24 feet in borings B2-1 and B2-2 during drilling operations. It should be noted that drilling fluids were used for rock coring. However, it is anticipated that groundwater levels will fluctuate due to seasonal variations in climactic conditions.

3. A laboratory testing program, consisting of moisture contents, Atterberg limits, % passing #200 sieve, sieve analysis and unconfined compressive strength tests, were

2

performed on select soil and rock samples. The test results are included in boring logs presented in Appendix A.

4. The creek bed sample at Denton Creek was not obtained due to lack of access to the creek bottom. However sample at a depth of 25 to 30 feet from boring B2-2 was selected to run the sieve analysis test to determine the D50 and D95. The test results are included in Appendix B.

5. We recommend using straight shaft foundations penetrating to a minimum depth of two shafts diameter or 10 feet into the intact rock, whichever is greater. Intact rock consisting of shale and limestone, was encountered at a depth of approximately 33 feet in boring B2-1 and limestone with shale seams, was encountered at a depth of approximately 34 feet in boring B2-2 below the existing ground surface. Wincore generated skin friction and end bearing capacity curves are provided in Appendices C and D, respectively.

Please note that this executive summary does not fully relate our findings and opinions. Those findings and opinions are only presented through our full report.

3

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 General

HVJ Associates, Inc. was retained by Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. to perform a geotechnical investigations for the proposed bridge along FM 407 at Denton Creek in Denton County, Texas. The purpose of this study is to provide design and construction recommendations for deep foundations for the proposed bridge. A site vicinity map is presented on Plate 1.

2.2 Geotechnical Study Program

The primary objectives of this study were to gather information on subsurface conditions at the project site and to develop design and construction recommendations for the proposed foundations. The objectives were accomplished by:

1. Drilling two (2) soil borings to determine soil stratigraphy and to obtain samples for laboratory testing;

2. Performing laboratory tests to determine physical characteristics of the soils, and

3. Performing engineering analyses to develop design guidelines and recommendations for the proposed structure.

Subsequent sections of this report contain descriptions of the field exploration, laboratory testing program, general site and subsurface conditions, design recommendations, and construction considerations.

3 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 General

The field exploration program was performed on February 11, 2016 and February 12, 2016. Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling and sampling a total of two (2) borings (B2-1 and B2-2) drilled to a depth of approximately 50 feet below the existing ground surface. A site plan showing the approximate boring locations are presented on the Plan of Borings, Plate 3.

3.2 Sampling Methods

Samples were obtained continuously to a depth of 10 feet and every 5-foot there after to the maximum termination depth of approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Cohesive soil samples were obtained with a three-inch thin-walled (Shelby) tube sampler in general accordance with ASTM D-1587 standard. Granular cohesionless soils were sampled with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler in accordance with ASTM D1586 standard. Each sample was removed from the sampler in the field, carefully examined and then classified. The shear strength of the cohesive soils was estimated by a hand penetrometer in the field. Suitable portions of each sample were sealed and packaged for transportation to our laboratory.

Rock encountered was cored continuously to the maximum termination depth of approximately 50 feet below ground surface. The coring method employed consisted of a wire-lined NX core barrel with an inside diameter of 2 inches and length of 5 feet. Water was used as the drilling fluid to facilitate the coring process. The core samples were retrieved from the borehole and the percent

4

recovery (REC) and the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) were recorded for each 5-foot run. The REC value was obtained by dividing the total length of core recovered by the total length of the core run. The RQD value was obtained by dividing the total length of sound core pieces with a minimum length of 4 inches by the total length of the core run. The core samples were visually examined for rock type and features, which were properly documented on boring logs along with the REC and RQD values. The samples were then wrapped and secured in core boxes for transported to our laboratory

TxDOT cone penetrometer test was performed starting at 5 feet and at approximately 5-foot intervals thereafter to the termination depth of approximately 50 feet. The test consists of driving a 3-inch diameter cone with a 170-pound hammer, which is dropped for a distance of 2 feet. The cone is seated and driven to 12 blows or 12 inches whichever comes first. Then it is driven for two consecutive 6-inch increments, and the blow counts for each increment are noted. In hard materials, the cone is driven with the resulting penetration in inches recorded for the 50 blows. The numbers of blows for each 6-inch increment and/or the amount of penetration for each 50 blows are presented on the boring logs. Detailed descriptions of the soils and rocks encountered in the borings are given on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. Keys to the terms and symbols used for soil and rock classification on the boring logs are presented on Plates 4A & 4B. 3.3 Groundwater Observations

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 24 feet in borings B2-1 and B2-2 during drilling operations. It should be noted that drilling fluids were used for rock coring. However, it is anticipated that groundwater levels will fluctuate due to seasonal variations in climactic conditions.

4 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine applicable physical and engineering properties. All tests were performed according to TxDOT and/or ASTM standards. These tests consisted of moisture content measurements, Atterberg limits, percent finer than No. 200 sieve, sieve analysis, unconfined compression (UC), and unit dry weight tests on rock.

The moisture content, Atterberg limits, and percent finer than No. 200 sieve results were utilized to verify field classifications by the Unified Soils Classification System. The unconfined compression tests were performed to obtain the compressive strength of the soil and compressive strength of the rock. The type and number of tests performed for this investigation are summarized in the following Table:

Table 4-1 – Type and Number of Laboratory Tests

Type of Test Number of Tests Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) 12 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) 7 Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM D1140) 7 Unconfined Compression – Soil (UC) (ASTM D2166) 3 Unconfined Compression – Rock (UC) (ASTM D7012) 4 Unit Dry Weight (ASTM D 2166) 7 Sieve Analysis (ASTM D422) 1

The laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. Sieve analysis chart is presented in Appendix B.

5

5 SITE CHARACTERIZATION

5.1 General Geology

According to the University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology “Geologic Atlas of Texas Sherman Sheet,” the project site area is located in region of alluvium deposits (map symbol Qal) overlying by Pawpaw formation, Denton clay and Weno limestone undivided (map symbol Kpd) and Fort Worth limestone and Duck creek formation undivided (map symbol Kfd). Alluvium deposits consists of gravel, sand, silt, and clay in contiguous terraces of different ages.

Undivided Kpd consists of sandstone, some sandy clay, marl and limestone.

Undivided Kfd consists of limestone interbedded with gray marl.

A Geology map is presented on Plate 2.

5.2 Soil Stratigraphy

Our interpretation of soil and groundwater conditions at the project site is based on information obtained at the boring locations only. This information has been used as the basis for our conclusions and recommendations. Significant variations at areas not explored by the project borings may require reevaluation of our findings and conclusions. Based on our field investigation, the subsurface soils observed are presented below:

Table 5-1 – Stratum Types Encountered

Stratum Type

Approximate Depths of Strata Encountered at Borings (feet)

B2-1 B2-2

Lean/Sandy Clay

(CL)(1)

0-8

13-23 0-17

Clayey Sand/Sand

(SC)(2)

8-13

23-27 17-26

Gravel(3) - 26-34

Weathered

Limestone(4) 27-33 -

Shale(5) 33-39 -

Limestone(6) 39-50(7) 34-50(5)

Note:

(1) Sandy or with sand, soft to very stiff. (2) Clayey with gravel, loose to compact. (3) Poorly graded with clay and sand, compact. (4) Hard, tan, weathered, (5) Very hard, dark gray. (6) Very hard, gray, with shale seams. (7) Boring termination depth.

6

Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in the borings are given on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. Key to the terms and symbols used for soil and rock classification on the boring logs is given on Plates 4A and 4B.

5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 24 feet in borings B2-1 and B2-2 during drilling operations. It should be noted that drilling fluids were used for rock coring. However, it is anticipated that groundwater levels will fluctuate due to seasonal variations in climactic conditions.

6 BRIDGE FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

We understand that the project involves the design and construction of bridge along FM 407 at Denton Creek in Denton County, Texas. The foundation recommendations provided below are based on our findings.

6.2 Foundation

Foundations for the structure must satisfy two basic design criteria. First, bearing pressure transmitted to the foundation soils should not exceed the allowable bearing pressures computed with an adequate factor of safety. Second, foundation movement due to soil volume change must be within desirable limits. A deep foundation system will be required for foundation support.

6.3 Analysis Criteria

It is recommended that the proposed bridge be supported on a system of drilled straight shaft piers. The drilled shaft capacity was calculated using the procedures described in the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Geotechnical Manual dated December 2012.

For bridge foundations the maximum allowable drilled shaft service loads recommended without conducting a detailed structural analysis for 30, 36, 42, 48, 54, and 60-inch are 275, 400, 525, 700, 900, and 1100 tons, respectively.

The drilled shafts shall be founded at the design elevations or deeper as necessary to obtain a minimum of two shafts diameter or 10 feet penetration into the intact rock, whichever is greater.

Skin friction should be ignored in the upper soils above the intact rock.

The Wincore computer program that incorporates TxDOT standard procedures was used to compute the allowable unit, accumulative skin friction and allowable unit point bearing data for straight-sided drilled shafts for the project bridge structures. The soil design parameters were developed based on the TxDOT cone penetrometer blow counts data and the rock compressive strength from the laboratory tests.

7

6.4 Drilled Shaft Axial Capacity

Allowable skin friction and end bearing for drilled shafts were calculated using the Wincore program. Because the upper soft layers do not contribute significant resistance, we recommend ignoring the skin friction in the upper soils above the intact rock, and relying only on end bearing and skin friction from the hard intact rock. Drilled shafts should be founded a minimum depth of two shafts diameter or 10 feet into the intact rock, whichever is greater. Intact rock consisting of shale and limestone was encountered at a depth of approximately 33 feet in boring B2-1 and limestone with shale seams was encountered at a depth of approximately 34 feet in boring B2-2 below the existing ground surface. Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in the borings are given on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. The recommended design parameters for shaft capacity are presented in the tables below.

Table 6-1 – Drilled Shaft Design Values

Boring Bearing Stratum

Approximate Depth below Existing Ground Surface

(feet)

Allowable End Bearing Pressure

(tsf)

Allowable Skin Friction

Compression (tsf) Tension (tsf)

B2-1

Overburden Soils

0-27 - - -

Weathered Limestone

27-33 - 1.9 1.3

Shale 33-39 8 1.4 0.98

Limestone 39-50 32 3.2 2.2

B2-2

Overburden Soils

0-34 - - -

Limestone 34-50 32 3.2 2.2

1) We recommend the drilled shafts be founded a minimum of two shafts diameter or 10 feet into intact rock, whichever is greater.

2) The diameter of the shafts were unknown at this time. 3) Deeper penetrations will be required to develop additional skin friction and /or

uplift resistance. 4) Skin friction should only be considered for that portion of the shaft embedded in the

intact rock below any temporary casing.

Wincore generated skin friction and end bearing capacity curves are provided in Appendices C and D, respectively. Due to the difference in strength, the upper soils above the limestone should be neglected in skin friction calculations. Care should be taken to terminate the shafts in an intact layer of limestone instead of the softer layers occasionally encountered. A factor of safety of 2.0 was used for both end bearing and skin friction. Settlements for properly constructed drilled shafts should be less than one inch.

For tension loads we recommend using uplift resistance of 2/3rd of the allowable skin friction in the intact limestone.

8

6.5 Lateral Capacity

Foundation elements often have to withstand significant lateral loads in addition to axial loads. Wind forces on bridges are forms of lateral loading. Lateral loads on a drilled shaft will be countered by the mobilization of resistance in the surrounding soils as the shaft deflects. The lateral load capacity of the shaft, therefore, will depend on its relative stiffness, and the strength of the surrounding soils. A rational analysis of a problem involving lateral loading on a shaft must consider the interaction of the soil and the structure. Equilibrium of forces and compatibility of displacements throughout the total system are the two fundamental conditions that are to be satisfied in the analysis.

If high lateral loads must be resisted with vertical shafts, a detailed study should be done to provide lateral load capacity curves. Lateral load analysis should be performed using software such as LPILE.

6.6 Group Effects

Groups of shafts should have a center-to-center spacing of at least 2.5D when designing foundations using one row group of shafts and 3D for foundations using two or more rows of shafts where D is the diameter of the shaft. For greater spacing, the total capacity will be equal to the sum of the capacities of the individual shafts in the group. The group capacity may be less than the sum of individual capacities at closer spacing. If spacing smaller than 3D is planned, HVJ Associates, Inc. should be contacted to assess group capacity.

6.7 Settlement

Movements will consist generally of elastic shortening of the shaft and soil deformation at the shaft tip. It is our opinion that shaft head settlement will be less than 1 inch at interior bent foundation locations.

6.8 Drilled Shaft Construction Recommendations

Drilled shaft construction and installation should follow TxDOT Standard Specification Item 416. Slurry displacement methods for drilled shaft construction are allowed under TxDOT Standard Specifications. Presented below are a few specific recommendations.

1. Drilled shaft excavations should be inspected for verticality and side sloughing. Verticality is specified at one inch in ten feet of the shaft length, and should be checked to the full depth of dry auguring prior to introducing drilling mud.

2. Before placing concrete, the shaft bottom should be cleaned out with a drilling bucket in order to remove any sediments that may not be displaced by the concrete. The shaft bottoms should be cleaned with a "clean-out" bucket until rotation on the bottom without crowd (i.e. penetration under force) produces little spoil. Probing after clean out is essential to verify the condition of the base of the shaft.

3. Concrete placement should be accomplished as directed in TxDOT Standard Specification Item 416. The tremie pipe diameter should be at least eight times as large as the largest concrete aggregate size.

9

4. A computation of the final concrete volume for each shaft should be made. Shafts taking an unreasonably high or low volume of concrete should be cored to check their integrity.

5. Due to the fact that clayey sand, gravel and groundwater were encountered in the

borings, we anticipate that casing and/or slurry may be needed to prevent caving in. If casing is used, the level of concrete within the casing should be maintained well above the groundwater level outside the casing prior to and during extraction. The casing should be extracted slowly and smoothly with a vibratory hammer without rotation. Our analyses assume no casing will be left in place. We should be informed if casing will be left in place so we may provide revised shaft capacity calculations.

6. Appropriate shaft excavation equipment should be used for shaft excavation in limestone layers.

7. Shaft excavations should not be made within three shaft diameters (edge to edge) of shafts that have been concreted within the last 24 hours.

7 SITE PREPARATION

The site should be cleared, grubbed and stripped of all organic material, soft soils and foreign material within the proposed development area. Stripped areas should be appropriately graded and shaped to prevent ponding of water. Pumping may occur if the site becomes wet. All subgrade soils should be proof rolled in accordance with TxDOT Standard Specifications prior to placement of fill or paving. Fill material that is used should be placed and compacted in accordance with TxDOT Standard Specifications.

8 DESIGN REVIEW

HVJ Associates, Inc. should review the design and construction plans and specifications prior to release to make certain that the geotechnical recommendations and design criteria presented herein have been properly interpreted.

9 LIMITATIONS

This investigation was performed for the exclusive use of Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. to perform a geotechnical investigations for the proposed bridge along FM 407 at Denton Creek in Denton County, Texas. HVJ Associates, Inc. has endeavored to comply with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common in the local area. HVJ Associates, Inc. makes no warranty, express or implied. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on data obtained from subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, the project information provided to us and our experience with similar soils and site conditions. The methods used indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific locations where samples were obtained, only at the time they were obtained, and only to the depths penetrated. Samples cannot be relied on to accurately reflect the strata variations that usually exist between sampling locations. Should any subsurface conditions other than those described in our boring logs be encountered, HVJ Associates, Inc. should be immediately notified so that further investigation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

PLATES

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY : 119.4 pcfOPT. MOISTURE CONTENT : 11.3 %

APPROVED BY:

6120 S. Dairy Ashford RoadHouston, Texas 77072-1010281.933.7388 Ph281.933.7293 Fax

PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

DATE: 2/23/2016 RE PS

SITE VICINITY MAP FM 407 AT DENTON CREEK

DG-13-16566.1 PLATE 1

8701 John Carpenter Fwy Suite 250 Dallas, TX 75247 214-678-0227 Ph 214-678-0228 Fax

N

B-5 B-3 B-4 B-2 B-1 B-6

PCE - 2 FM 346

F

Site Area

APPROVED BY:


PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

DATE: 02/23/2016 /30/2009

PS

GEOLOGY MAP FM 407 AT DENTON CREEK

DG-13-16566.1

PLATE 2

N


Qal: Alluvium Qt: Fluviatile Terrace deposits Kpd: Pawpaw Formation, Weno Limestone, and Denton Clay undivided Kfd: Fort Worth Limestone and Duck Creek Formation undivided

Source: Geologic Atlas of Texas Sherman Sheet UT Austin Bureau of Economic Geology

Site Area

Qal Qt

Kpd Kfd

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY : 119.4 pcfOPT. MOISTURE CONTENT : 11.3 %

APPROVED BY:


PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

DATE: 02/23/2016 PS

PLAN OF BORINGS FM 407 AT DENTON CREEK

DG-13-16566.1

PLATE 3


N

B-5 B-3 B-4 B-2 B-1 B-6

PCE - 2 FM 346

F

Approximate Boring location

B2-2

B2-1


DRAWING NO.:PROJECT NO.:

KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLSUSED ON BORING LOGS

Sampler penetrated full depth under weight of drill rods and hammer

SOIL GRAIN SIZE

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

TERMS DESCRIBING SOIL STRUCTURE

* The N value is taken as the blows required to penetrate the final 12 inches

If more than 50 blows are required, driving is discontinued and penetration at 50 blows is notedBlows required to penetrate each of three consecutive 6-inch increments per ASTM D-1586 *

ConcreteCementPortland

Cemented

75 - 200 mm4.75 - 75 mm

0.075 - 4.75 mm0.002 - 0.075 mm

< 0.002 mm

Particle Size

DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS

Descriptive

Very Dense

Medium Dense

Very Loose

0/18"50/4"3/6

Fracture planes appear polished or

seams or layers of different soil typeSoil sample composed of alternating

partings of different soil typeSoil sample composed of alternating

extending through the sampleInclusion greater than 3 inches thick

extending through the sampleInclusion 1/4 inch to 3 inches thickextending through the sampleInclusion less than 1/4 inch thick

as small lenses of sand scatteredSmall pockets of different soils, suchwith little resistance to fracturingBreaks along definite planes of fracture

glossy, sometimes striated

through a mass of clay

Resistance "N" *

Dense

Loose

Term Blows/Foot

Penetration

> 5030 - 5010 - 304 - 100 - 4

ConcreteAsphaltic

Clayey

Clay

Construction Materials

Classification

Silt

BoulderCobbleGravelSand

Clay

StabilizedBase

Silty

DebrisFill or

Sandy

SOIL SYMBOLSSoil Types

Silt

Modifiers

Sand Gravel

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

A small mass of irregular shape

Having appreciable quantities of iron

Having appreciable quantities of calcium

stratified structure is not evidentdifferent soil type and laminated orSoil sample composed of pockets of

carbonate

Very Stiff

Very Soft

Consistency

Hard

StiffFirmSoft

> 2.01.0 - 2.00.5 - 1.00.25 - 0.5

0.125 - 0.250 - 0.125

Strength (tsf)Undrained Shear

SAMPLER TYPES

WATER LEVEL SYMBOLS

open borehole or piezometerGroundwater level after drilling in

Groundwater level determined during

> 8 in.3 in. - 8 in.

#4 sieve - 3 in.#200 sieve - #4 sieve

0.002 mm - #200 sieve< 0.002 mm

No. (U.S. Standard)Particle Size or Sieve

Liner Tube

> 200 mm

drilling operations

Split Barrel

Shelby TubeThin Walled

Jar Sample

Auger

No Recovery

Plate 4A DG-13-16566.1

9200 King Arthur Dr. Dallas, TX 75247 214-678-0227 214-678-0228 Fax

9200 King Arthur Dr. Dallas, TX 75247 214-678-0227 214-678-0228 Fax

Consistency

Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff

Very Stiff Hard

Undrained Shear Strength (tsf)

0 - 0.125

0.125 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.5 0.5 – 1.0 1.0 – 2.0

> 2.0

Penetration Resistance “N” *

(Blows/ft) < 2 2-4 4-8 8-15 15-30 >30

(4/6”) Texas Cone Penetration blows required penetrating each of two consecutive 6-inches per TEX- 132-E

#-#-# Blows required penetrating each of three consecutive 6-inches per ASTM D-1586*


Groundwater measured after drilling operations

Groundwater measured during drilling operations


DRAWING NO.:PROJECT NO.:

KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLSUSED ON BORING LOGS

HorizontalShallow

ModerateSteep

Vertical

Information on each boring log is a compilation of subsurface conditions and soil and rock classifications obtained from the field as well as from laboratory testing of samples. Strata have been interpreted by commonly accepted procedures. The stratum lines on the logs may be transitional and approximate in nature. Water level measurements refer only to those observed at the times and places indicated, and may vary with time, geologic condition or construction activity.

REFERENCES:

(1) British Standard (1981) Code of Practice for Site Investigation, BS 5930.

(2) The Bridge Div., Tx. Highway Dept. Foundation Exploration & Design Manual, 2nd Division, revised June, 1974.

JOINT DESCRIPTION

Interstice; a general term for pore space or other openings in rock.

Small solutional concavities.

Containing small cavities, usually lined with a mineral of different composition from that of the surrounding rock.

Containing numerous small, unlined cavities, formed by expansion of gas bubbles or steam during solidification of the rock.

Containing pores, interstices, or other openings which may or may not interconnect.

Containing cavities or caverns, sometimes quite large. Most frequent in limestones and dolomites.

Void

Cavities

Vuggy

Vesicular

Porous

Cavernous

Very CloseClose

Medium CloseWide

<2"2"-12"12"-3'>3'

SPACING

SOLUTION AND VOID CONDITIONS

Highly Weathered Limestone

Weathered Limestone

Limestone

Dolomite

ROCK TYPES

Weathered Shale

Shale

Slightly

Moderately

Highly

Completely

Residual Soil

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces.

Less than half of the rock material is decomposed or disintegrated to a soil.

More than half of the rock material is decomposed or disintegrated to a soil.

All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact.

All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed.

SlickensidedSmoothIrregularRough

BEDDING THICKNESSVery Thick

ThickThin

Very ThinLaminated

Thinly Laminated

INCLINATION

0-55-3535-6565-8585-90

(2)

>4'2'-4'2"-2'

1/2"-2"0.08"-1/2"

<0.08"

Polished, groovedPlanar

Undulating or granularJagged or pitted

SURFACES

THD Cone PenetrationTest

Standard PenetrationTest

Thin-WalledTube

WEATHERING GRADES OF ROCKMASS

HARDNESSCrumbles under hand pressureCan be carved with a knifeCan be scratched easily with a knifeCannot be scratched with a knife

SAMPLER TYPES

FriableLow HardnessModerately HardVery Hard

Granite

Weathered Sandstone

Sandstone

Bag Sample

(1)

Rock Core

Auger Sample

Plate 4B DG-13-16566.1


APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

DRILLING LOG 1 of 2

WinCoreVersion 3.1

County DentonHighway FM 407 at Denton CreekCSJ 1310-01-027

Hole B2-1Structure BridgesStationOffset

District Fort WorthDate 2/12/2016Grnd. Elev. 100.00 ftGW Elev. N/A

Elev.(ft)

LOG

Texas ConePenetrometer Strata Description

Triaxial Test PropertiesLateral DeviatorPress. Stress (psi) (psi)

MC LL PIWetDen.(pcf)

Additional Remarks

Driller: Kraatz Logger: EK Organization: HVJ Associates, Inc.

G:\DALLAS\DAL PS\GEO\PROJECTS\13\DG-13-16566 TxDOT On-Off System Bridges; Contract No. 36-436P5011, TNP\Wincore\DG-13-16566.1.CLG

5 (6) 6 (6)

7 (6) 7 (6)

4 (6) 4 (6)

5 (6) 8 (6)

17 (6) 24 (6)

50 (3) 50 (0.5)

PP:2.5

14.9 23 13 PP:2.5, % Pass #200 Sieve:55.8

PP:1.5

PP:1.5

14.2 24 13 % Pass #200 Sieve:42.0

PP:1.5

17.5 28 14 PP:0.5, % Pass #200 Sieve:51.5

REC=53%, RQD=25%

CLAY, sandy, soft, moist, dark gray and brown (CL)

92.SAND, clayey, loose, moist, dark gray and brown (SC)

87.CLAY, sandy, soft, moist, dark gray and brown (CL)

77.SAND, clay and gravel, compact, wet, brown, with limestone seams (SC)

73.LIMESTONE, hard, tan, weathered

Remarks: PP:Pocket Penetrometer readings in tsf. Groundwater was encountered at 24 feet during drilling. Elevation was assumed. Survey data was not available.

The ground water elevation was not determined during the course of this boring.

5

10

15

20

25

30

DRILLING LOG 2 of 2

WinCoreVersion 3.1




Elev.(ft)

LOG




Additional Remarks



50 (0.5) 50 (0.25)

50 (0.5) 50 (0.25)

50 (0.25) 50 (0.25)

50 (0.25) 50 (0.25)

0 223.5 9.3 145.1

0 78.9 12.3 135 REC=60%, RQD=10%

REC=53%, RQD=10%

REC=53%, RQD=0%

0 372.3 5.2 151.2 REC=80%, RQD=22%

LIMESTONE, hard, tan, weathered

67.SHALE, very hard, dark gray

61.LIMESTONE, very hard, gray, with shale seams

49.5



35

40

45

50

55

60

DRILLING LOG 1 of 2

WinCoreVersion 3.1




Elev.(ft)

LOG




Additional Remarks



12 (6) 14 (6)

7 (6) 8 (6)

11 (6) 15 (6)

16 (6) 26 (6)

35 (6) 44 (6)

26 (6) 38 (6)

PP:1.0

PP:2.0

0 22.3 22.3 35 23 147.6 PP:2.5, % Pass #200 Sieve:78.3

PP:2.5

0 27.1 21.8 38 26 119.8 PP:2.0, % Pass #200 Sieve:74.2

0 28.8 20.6 35 22 134.9 PP:3.0, % Pass #200 Sieve:81.8

15.1 26 13 % Pass #200 Sieve:15.9,% Pass #4 Sieve:83.5

% Pass #200 Sieve: 10.3,% Pass #4 Sieve:50.5

CLAY, lean with sand, soft to very stiff, moist, dark brown and gray (CL)

83.SAND, clayey with gravel, compact, wet, dark brown and gray, with tan limestone seams (SC)

74.GRAVEL, poorly graded with clay and sand, compact, wet, brown



5

10

15

20

25

30

DRILLING LOG 2 of 2

WinCoreVersion 3.1




Elev.(ft)

LOG




Additional Remarks



50 (0.75) 50 (0.5)

50 (0.5) 50 (0.125)

50 (0.25) 50 (0.25)

50 (0.5) 50 (0.125)

REC=52%, RQD=0%

REC=65%, RQD=8% 0 3659.2 3.4 156.3

0 319.8 7.8 156.5 REC=67%, RQD=20%

GRAVEL, poorly graded with clay and sand, compact, wet, brown

66.LIMESTONE, very hard, gray, with shale seams

49.5



35

40

45

50

55

60

APPENDIX B

HYDROMETER AND SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100Grain Size in Millimeters

SampleB2-2

25'-30'(Creek bed sample was not obtained due to lack of access to the bottom

of creek)

U.S. Standard Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer

No. 2003" 2" 1 1/2" 1" 1/2" 1/4" No. 4 No. 10 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100

Percent Coarser By WeightPe

rcen

t Fin

er B

y Wei

ght

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ProjectDG-13-16566.1

On-System Bridge Denton County - FM 407 at Denton Creek

ClassificationPoorly graded GRAVEL with sand

and clay (GP-GC)

D50= 4.7D95= 17

5/8"7/8"

APPENDIX C

Wincore Skin Friction Curves

SKIN FRICTION DESIGNWinCoreVersion 3.1 County Denton

Highway FM 407 at Denton CreekControl 1310-01-027




Drilled Shaft Design: Soil Reduction Factor = 0.7 Minimum Friction Values Used

0 20

0

40

1

60

2

80

3

100

4

120

0 + 100

10 + 90

20 + 80

30 + 70

40 + 60

50 + 50

60 + 40

70 + 30

D

e

p

t

h

(Ft)

E

l

e

v

.

(Ft)

Accumulative Friction (T/F)

Unit Frictional Resistance (T/SF)

SKIN FRICTION DESIGNWinCoreVersion 3.1 County Denton





Drilled Shaft Design: Soil Reduction Factor = 0.7 Minimum Friction Values Used

0 20

0

40

1

60

2

80

3

100

4

120

0 + 100

10 + 90

20 + 80

30 + 70

40 + 60

50 + 50

60 + 40

70 + 30

D

e

p

t

h

(Ft)

E

l

e

v

.

(Ft)

Accumulative Friction (T/F)

Unit Frictional Resistance (T/SF)

APPENDIX D

Wincore End Bearing Curves

POINT BEARING DESIGNWinCoreVersion 3.1 County Denton





Diameters Below Tip Checked = 2 Minimum Bearing Values Used

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 + 100

10 + 90

20 + 80

30 + 70

40 + 60

50 + 50

60 + 40

70 + 30

D

e

p

t

h

(Ft)

E

l

e

v

.

(Ft)

Point Bearing (TSF)

geotechnical study txdot on-system bridge fm 407 at...

Documents