BRIDGE B-1658 REPLACEMENT EDEN VALLEY ROAD HUMBOLDT …

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

BRIDGE B-1658 REPLACEMENT

EDEN VALLEY ROAD

HUMBOLDT COUNTY, NEVADA

APRIL 2017

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MATERIALS DIVISION

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EDEN VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE B-1658 REPLACEMENT

HUMBOLDT COUNTY, NEVADA

E.A. 73701

April 2017

Prepared by: ______________________________

Jesse Ruzicka, P.E. Principal Materials Engineer - Geotechnical

Reviewed by: ______________________________

Mike Griswold, P.E. Assistant Chief Materials Engineer - Geotechnical

Approved by: ______________________________

Darin Tedford, P.E. Chief Materials Engineer

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Project Location and Purpose 1

1.2 Project Description 2

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND REPORT LIMITATIONS 3

3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND SEISMICITY 4

3.1 Local Site Geology 4

3.2 Geologic Setting 5

3.3 Site Classification and Seismic Parameters 6

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 8

4.1 Geophysical Site Investigation 9

4.2 Exploratory Boreholes 14

5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 15

5.1 General 15

5.2 Foundation Loads 16

5.3 Pile Design Recommendations 19

5.4 Lateral Earth Pressure on Abutment Walls 21

5.5 Approach Embankment Settlement 23

5.6 Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction 23

5.7 Earthquake-Induced Downdrag 23

6.0 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS: PILE DRIVABILITY 24

7.0 REFERENCES 26

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Boring Logs

APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results

iii

Bridge B-1658 Replacement April 2017 Eden Valley Road

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Location and Purpose

The Nevada Department of Transportation

(NDOT), in cooperation with Humboldt

County, will be replacing substandard

structure, B-1658, on Eden Valley Road north

of Golconda, Nevada in Township 36 North ,

Range 40 East, Section 21. This structure

crosses the Humboldt River roughly 2 miles

north of Interstate 80, 1.8 miles Northeast of

Golconda, Nevada, and roughly 15 miles

Northeast of Winnemucca, NV. Eden Valley

Road is a Humboldt County maintained road

that generally runs North/South and provides

access to agriculture, ranching, and public

lands. Eden Valley road connects I-80 with US95 and SR290 approximately 22 miles north of Winnemucca

through Paradise Valley.

B-1658 Project Location Map

B-1658 Project Location Map


2

1.2 Project Description

Structure B-1658 was built in 1974

and crosses the primary Humboldt

River channel, utilizing a two-span,

simply supported, reinforced

concrete girder bridge. The

existing central pier appears to be a

concrete curtain wall with 8

embedded cylindrical steel pipe

piles driven to an unknown depth.

The abutments appear to be

standard vertical concrete wall

abutments with 5 cylindrical steel

pipe piles driven to an unknown

depth. B-1658 received an overall sufficiency rating of 42.1 during its inspection in 2010. This substandard

score is attributed to the overall scour potential at the center pier, exposed piles at both the center pier and

west abutment, as well as previous scour/undermining at the west abutment. These factors as well as the

overall condition of the structure makes this a candidate for replacement.

Eden Valley Bridge B-1658 -Scour

Eden Valley Bridge B-1658


3

The proposed new structure will be approximately 50 feet from the center of the existing bridge to the north

on downstream side. The new bridge will be a single span, simply supported structure, roughly 30 ft. longer

than the original structure. This will eliminate the center pier, as well as set back the abutments from the

active channel. The proposed foundation type will be driven steel pipe piles. The proposed superstructure

will be precast concrete box girders founded on standard seat type abutments. The increased span will

result in higher loads, increasing the overall depth of the superstructure, which will result in an increased

roadway grade. The preliminary plans call for a realignment of Eden Valley road to the north, allowing the

new structure to be built while using the existing structure for traffic.

2.0 Scope of Work and Limitations

2.1 Scope of Work

The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to determine the subsurface soil and groundwater

conditions, evaluate the feasibility of the proposed foundation type, provide recommended geotechnical

design values, and identify potential risk factors for construction. The actual scope of work completed for

this report was a review of published maps and reports, three subsurface exploratory borings, a geophysical

survey, laboratory soil testing, geotechnical engineering analysis, design, and documentation of the

findings.

The report appendices contain supporting documents including the boring logs, laboratory test summaries,

the results of geophysical testing, and associated calculations. The calculations follow the guidelines of

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Sixth Edition, 2012, with interims where appropriate.

2.2 Limitations

This report follows the guidelines of generally accepted geotechnical practice. The Geotechnical Report is

based on field observations of the project Geotechnical Engineer, a summary of the subsurface exploration,

and the results of laboratory testing of collected soil samples. The report is based on our interpretations of

the findings in the three exploratory borings and the geophysical investigation. Therefore, this report may

not quantify the exact natural variation of in-situ soils or depth to water. Depth to water can vary based on


4

overall weather patterns, seasonal variation, and local agricultural practice making it difficult to predict at

any given time. Any additional analysis or interpretations of the boring logs and other test data, provided

by third parties, are not the responsibility of the Department (NDOT). If conditions are encountered during

construction, which differ from those found in this report, or if the scope of construction is significantly

changed, the Geotechnical Section should be notified to provide additional recommendations.

3.0 Geologic Conditions and Seismicity

3.1 Local Site Geology This site is primarily mapped in the geologic unit, Qya (Quaternary Younger Alluvium). The near surface

deposits are likely flood plain deposits from the Humboldt River, lake bed deposits from pre-late

Pleistocene Lake Lahontan, as well as alluvial deposits from the mountain ranges to the north and east. The

United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey (USDA-WSS) maps the upper 5 ft. of soils near

B-1658 as Humboldt silty clay loam (Unit 321) defined by silty clay loam and stratified silty clay loam to

clay. These descriptions are similar to the conditions encountered during the site visit and subsequent

exploration. Ariel imagery indicates the possible presence of long term Humboldt River channel instability

in the area which may cause some variability in the near surface deposits both laterally and vertically.

Geologic Map USGS DS249 1:250,000 scale


5

3.2 Geologic Setting: Seismicity and Faulting

Geologic Setting

The project is generally located in the Basin and Range province which encompasses the majority of the

State of Nevada. The Basin and Range province is generally composed of north trending mountain ranges

separated by alluvial, normal-fault bounded basins. Regionally, the project falls on alluvial and flood plain

deposits from Osgood range to the North and Humboldt River flood plain.

Seismicity and Faulting

The Winnemucca region has four major fault-block mountain ranges. There are numerous mapped

Quaternary faults located in the region which run along the boundary of the alluvial basins and mountain

ranges. The closest fault zones to the project site are the Eastern Osgood mountains fault zone, Eastern

Osgood piedmont fault, Edna mountain fault, and the Grass Valley fault zone. Although earthquakes can

be triggered along these fault lines, the predicted ground accelerations are lower than other regions in

Nevada, especially along the Eastern Sierra Range. The ground accelerations that should be used in the

design are discussed further below.

USGS Fault Mapping


6

3.3 Site Class Determination and Seismic Parameters

The seismic provisions of the AASHTO LRFD specifications Article 3.10 are applied to bridge design in

Nevada. Earthquake force effects were determined in accordance with AASHTO LRFD article 3.10.

Seismic coefficients from the AASHTO LRFD Specifications used for design must meet or exceed the

minimum seismic coefficients shown in Figure 12.3-H of the NDOT Structures Manual unless otherwise

approved by the Chief Structures Engineer (NDOT Structures Manual, pg. 12-21).

AASHTO 3.10.1 recommends selecting your Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) based on the Horizontal

Peak Ground acceleration coefficient with seven percent probability of exceedance in 75 years (Approx.

1000 year return period). The PGA, short, and long period response spectral accelerations Ss and S1 for the

site were obtained using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Design Maps Tool. For the project

site, AASHTO recommends a PGA of 0.158g, from figure 3.4.1-2. These seismic design parameters are

based on Site Class B and adjustments should be made for other site classes, as needed, as shown in

AASHTO 3.4.2.3.

Seismic Design Parameters

Humboldt County

PGA(g) SS(g) S1(g)

0.186 0.45 0.15(1) (1) Based on minimum value provided in NDOT Structures Manual.

The Site Class for the project location is Site Class D, in accordance with Table 3.10.3.1-1 of AASHTO

Guide Specifications for LRFD Bridge Design, based on the average shear wave velocity of the upper 100

ft. (Vs100). The average shear wave velocity was obtained utilizing Refraction MicroTremor (ReMiTM)

geophysical testing methods as discussed further below in Field Investigation.


7

Eden Valley Road B-1658 Site Classification

Average Shear Wave Velocity by ReMiTM Method (VS100)

Seismic Line Average Shear Wave Velocity ,VS100 (ft/s) Site Classification

Seismic Line #1 1132 Site Class D



Site Classification from ReMiTM Shear Wave Velocity Measurement

The general Humboldt County, NV seismic design parameters must be modified from Site Class B to Site

Class D. The final recommended design response spectrum is shown below:

B-1658 Design Response Spectrum

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500

Spec

tral

Res

pons

e Ac

cler

atio

n Sa

(g)

Period, Tm (seconds)

B-1658 Eden Valley Road Design Response Spectrum

Site Class D: As=0.27g SDS=0.65g SD1= 0.33g


8

4.0 Field Investigation The NDOT Geotechnical section performed site investigations at the project site in October 2013, April

2014, and September 2016 at the locations shown on the following map:

Field Investigation Map: Seismic Lines & Boring Locations

Seismic Line 3

Boring EVB-4

Boring EVB-5


9

4.1 Geophysical Site Investigation

Seismic Data Collection

For this survey, geophones were spaced 20ft. apart for all lines. Background (ambient) noise was used to

generate seismic waves during the ReMiTM survey. Occasionally, light hammer strikes offset from the end

of the seismic line were utilized to increase the high frequency energy during noise recordings. This process

can aid interpretation of subsurface shear wave velocity at shallow depths. Occasionally, walking and other

light disturbances can be used to increase the amplitude of noise energy over a variety of frequencies when

working in quiet environments. Noise recordings for ReMiTM analysis were 30 second recording periods

with a 2 ms sampling interval. Each individual record is stored in SEG-Y format. In general, 10 individual

noise recordings are made for each line. Individual records are not stacked or modified until final

processing.

ReMiTM Seismic Data Analysis

The analysis and interpretation of the seismic data collected for this project was performed by a consultant,

Optim of Reno, NV. The field exploration, noise data acquisition, location survey, and preliminary data

verification was performed by geotechnical staff at NDOT. The noise data collected for ReMiTM was

analyzed using the proprietary software SeisOpt ReMiTM, developed by Optim of Reno, NV.


10

Seismic Line 1

Seismic Line 2


11

Seismic Line 3


12

4238.4

4248.4

4258.4

4268.4

4278.4

4288.4

4298.4

4308.4

4318.4

4328.4

4338.4

4348.4

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Dep

th, f

t

Vs100' (Line 1)= 1132 ft/s

Vs100' (Line 2) = 1109 ft/s

Seismic Lines 1&2 ReMi Vs Model


13

Zero depth refers to elevation 4339 feet.

4239.0

4249.0

4259.0

4269.0

4279.0

4289.0

4299.0

4309.0

4319.0

4329.0

4339.00 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Dep

th, f

t

Vs100' = 1148 ft/s

Seismic Line 3 ReMi Vs Model


14

4.2 Exploratory Borings

The subsurface exploration consisted of five exploratory borings drilled with a Diedrich D-120 truck

mounted drilling rig, NDOT unit #1082. Soil samples and standard penetration resistance values (N-values)

were obtained utilizing the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586). The test was performed with a

sampler driven 18” (unless otherwise noted in the logs) into the bottom of the boring using a 30 in. drop of

a 140 lb. automatic hammer. Soil samples were collected using a Standard Penetration Test Sampler (SPT

Sampler) and ring-lined (ASTM D 3550) Modified California Sampler (CMS). The uncorrected field blow

counts are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. These blow counts have not been corrected for energy,

sampler type, rod length, or hammer type. The energy transfer ratio (ER) for NDOT Unit 1082 is 86%.

Field CMS blow counts can be converted to field SPT blow counts by multiplying the field CMS blow

counts by a factor of 0.62 as stated in the Key to the Boring Logs (Appendix A). All soil samples were

either classified, using laboratory testing data, according to ASTM D 2487 or described and identified

according to ASTM D 2488. SPT-Torque (SPT-T) values were also obtained on selected depth intervals,

to estimate unit skin friction values. This procedure is based on the ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering/Volume 130 Issue 5 – May 2004, “Unit Skin Friction from the Standard

Penetration Test Supplemented with the Measurement of Torque”.


15

5.0 Foundation Design Recommendations

5.1 General We recommend driven pile foundations, using closed-ended pipe piles for the replacement structure B-

1658. The pipe piles should be 18 inches in diameter with the nominal wall thickness of 0.5 inches and

Grade 3 steel.

The proposed pile foundation arrangement as provided by the Structural Engineers for B-1658 is as follows:

B-1658 Bridge Foundation Piles

Two Pile Rows per Abutment

Abutment 1 5 per row

Abutment 2 5 per row

The estimated pile lengths are determined based on scour depth, soil bearing capacity, and drivability

analysis.

Based on the provided information from NDOT Hydraulic Section, the contraction scour elevation for the

100-year event (Design Flood) is 4314 feet and the contraction scour elevation for 500-year event (Check

Flood) is 4308 feet. NDOT Hydraulic Section is proposing to install riprap to mitigate scour. However,

riprap revetment can only eliminate the abutment scour. The bridge still has to be designed for contraction

scour.


16

5.2 Foundation Loads The Structural Engineer provided the following foundation design loads:

Since the proposed pile group arrangements are simple (two rows of piles per support), the group capacity

was analyzed using Simple Static Equilibrium (“Push-Pull couple) method to calculate axial compression,

axial pull-out, and lateral loads on top of each pile. The applied overturning moments at the top of the pile

groups were resolved into these axial compression and axial pull-out loads using this method.


17

Plan

The geotechnical axial compression resistance of a single driven pile at Strength I includes the

effect of scour at the design flood (100-year flood).

For Service I, the settlement (vertical deformation) includes the effect of scour at the design flood

(100-year flood).

For Extreme Event I, the critical load case consists of applying the full factored force effect in the

longitudinal direction with 30 percent of the force effects in the transverse direction (AASHTO

3.10.8).


18

Load combinations that represent the maximum vertical load, the maximum overturning moment,

the maximum horizontal load, and the maximum overturning moment combined with the

minimum vertical load produce the controlling effects in the piles as provided below.

Factored Force Effect

Abutment 1

LIMIT STATE AXIAL LOAD

(Kips)

TRANSVERSE

SHEAR

(Kips)

MOMENT

(ft-kips)

Strength I 2273.7 0.0 4851.2

Strength II 2394.3 0.0 3848.2

Service I 1696.1 0.0 2716.8

Extreme Event I 1528.4 724.0 7208.7

Factored Force Effect

Abutment 2

LIMIT STATE AXIAL LOAD

(Kips)

TRANSVERSE

SHEAR

(Kips)

MOMENT

(ft-kips)

Strength I 2249.1 0.0 1131.1

Strength II 2375.3 0.0 978.4

Service I 1682.1 0.0 591.0

Extreme Event I 1524.9 683.8 6677.2

5.3 Driven Pipe Pile Design Recommendations The soil profile below the pile caps mainly consists of cohesionless sand and gravel with

occasional cobbles/boulders. The soil below the 100-year scour depth is very dense. The pile

capacity is a combination of side resistance and end-bearing. The side resistance and the end-


19

bearing capacities were estimated using the Nordlund/Thurman Method (AASHTO Table

10.5.5.2.3-1).

LIMIT STATE RESISTANCE FACTOR

NOMINAL AXIAL

COMPRESSION

APPLICATION

Strength φdyn = 0.65 Based on Field Dynamic Analysis (PDA) AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

Service 1.0 AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 Extreme Event I (EQ)

1.0 AASHTO Table 10.5.5..3.3

Extreme Event II (Check Flood, 500-year flood event)

1.0 AASHTO Table 10.5.5..3.2

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.000 100 200 300 400 500 600

Dept

h (ft

)

Capacity (kips)

Eden Valley Bridge B-1658, 18" Pipe Pile Capacity

Pile Capacity SPT Blowcounts

Pile Cap Elevation 4330 feet

100-year Scour Depth Elevation 4314 feet

AASHTO LRFD Resistance Factors


20

SUMMARY TABLE We suggest that the following summary tables be included in the bridge construction plans:

BRIDGE B-1658

LOCATION MIN. TIP

ELEVATION

(FEET)

DESIGN TIP

ELEVATION

(FEET)

REQUIRED

PILE DRIVING RESISTANCE

(KIPS)

ABUTMENT #1 4295 4290 430

ABUTMENT # 2 4295 4290 430

We anticipate that piles lengths of 40 feet will be acceptable for the project.

Difficult driving conditions are anticipated and preboring of holes should be anticipated. If preboring is used to advance through cobbles/boulders, the maximum boring diameter shall not exceed 2/3 of the pile diameter. Preboring shall be in accordance with Section 508.03.04 of the 2014 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

Soil Parameters for Laterally Loaded Piles

Soil Effective Unit Weight (buoyant = 58 lb/ft3)

Soil internal Friction Angle = 36° (4330 to 4300 feet)

Soil internal Friction Angle = 38° (4300 to 4250 feet)

Soil Subgrade Modulus (KS) = 90 lb/in3 (4330 to 4300 feet)

Soil Subgrade Modulus (KS) = 140 lb/in3 (4300 to 4250 feet)

Pile Cap Elevation = 4330 to 4329 feet

100-Year Scour Depth Elevation = 4314 feet


21

5.4 Lateral Earth Pressure on Abutment Walls and Wing Walls

Seat Type Abutment: We understand that the bridge abutments will be cast in place pile caps with abutment walls supported on the pile caps. The abutment walls will be seat-type, which can deflect at the top and cause the lateral active earth pressure to develop. The following soil parameters are recommended for the structural design of the abutment walls:

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN PARAMETERS

SEAT-TYPE ABUTMENTS

(Deflection at the top of the wall is more than 0.5% of the wall height.)

(with no build-up of hydrostatic pressure)

* Where heavy static and dynamic compaction equipment is used within a distance of one-half the wall height behind the wall, the effect of additional earth pressure that may be induced by compaction shall be taken into account.

Static Active Earth Pressure Coefficient = KA = 0.256 (Coulomb’s equation for δ/φf = 0.5)

Static Active Earth Pressure = KA γ H

Static Active Earth Force by the Driving Wedge = ½ KA γ H2 ; (located at 1/3 from the bottom of the wall footing)

(Static + Seismic) Active Earth Pressure Coefficient = KAE (Mononobe and Okabe) = 0.330

Kh0 = Fpga PGA = As = (1.5) (.186) = 0.279 with zero wall displacement.

Kh = 0.5 Kh0 where wall is capable of displacement of 1.0 to 2.0 in. = 0.140

(Static + Seismic) Active Earth Pressure = KAE γ H

(Static + Seismic) Active Earth Force by the Driving Wedge = ½ KAE γ H2

Abutment Backfill Internal Friction Angle (φf) 34 degrees

Backfill Unit Weight (γf) 0.125 kcf

Interface Friction Coefficient (tan δ) for formed concrete against soil

Interface Friction Coefficient (tan δ) for mass concrete on soil

tan δ = 0.35

tan δ = 0.50


22

General Seismic Design Parameters

Nevada Humboldt County: Based on NDOT Bridge Structures Division policy:

• Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (PGA) = 0.186g

• Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Coefficient (Ss) = 0.45

• Long-Period Spectral Acceleration Coefficient (S1) = 0.15

AASHTO LRFD Table 3.10.33.1-1, Site Class Definitions: the site generally can be classified

as Site Class D.

Response Modification Factor = R = varies, see AASHTO Table 3.10.7.1-1

Vertical Acceleration Coefficient = 0 [AASHTO Appendix A11]

Poisson’s ratio for granular backfill material = µ = 0.30

Young Modulus for granular backfill material (Es; AASHTO Table C10.4.6.3-1):

• Es= 0.139N160 (ksi) ≈ 4.448 ksi ; for N160 = 32 (estimated)]

Shear Modulus (G) for granular backfill material = Es / 2(1+µ) ≈1.7 ksi


23

5.5 Approach Embankment Settlement Settlement for the abutment approach fills were analyzed based on a maximum fill height of 20

feet, with 2(H):1(V) side slopes. Based on our analysis, we estimate that the proposed approach

fills will experience less than 1 inch of total settlement and the differential settlement of 0.5 inches. 5.6 Earthquake-induced soil liquefaction (AASHTO 10.7.4) is evaluated under Extreme Event

I limit state. Initial liquefaction screening criteria to determine whether or not a liquefaction

analysis is needed for this bridge were done according to AASHTO 10.5.4.2 Since (N1)60 of the

soil layers is greater than 25 blows/ft and the normalized shear wave velocity, VS1, is greater than

660 feet/second for soils below the design scour depth, the potential for soil liquefaction

occurrence at this site is minimal.

5.7 Earthquake-induced downdrag (AASHTO 10.7.4, 3.11.8) were applied to the piles in

combination with other applied loads under Extreme Event I limit state (AASHTO 3.11.8). Since

all piles resistance are based on combination of skin friction and end bearing and the pile tips will

be tipped into very dense soils and the equivalent footing will be located within the very dense

granular soil or very stiff to hard cohesive soil, the possibility of downdrag force on piles are

negligible.


24

6.0 Dynamic Analysis: Pile Drivability

Pile drivability is truly a construction limit state, but it is treated as a strength limit state.

Driving resistance of the driven piles (the ability of the piles to withstand stresses induced during installation) was evaluated by wave equation method, using computer program GRLWEAP 2010. In addition, the wave equation analyses determine the driving stresses and blow counts based upon hammer size. Thus, the wall thickness and required hammer size were determined to reach a desired capacity. In these analyses, high strength steel (50 ksi) was used to allow for higher driving stress.

Pile driving stress (σdr) anywhere in the pile determined from the analysis shall be as:

σdr ≤ 0.9 φdafy

φda: AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

We recommend pile driving points (shoes) be used on all the piles to minimize the pile damage during the driving.

A trial hammer Delmag D30-32 was used in GRLWEAP 2010 to check the drivability of the piles at this bridge. The output shows that the piles are drivable and the compression stresses on the piles are within the limit.


25

02-Sep-2016NDOT Geotechnical GRLWEAP Version 2010Bridge B-1658, Eden Valley Road

02-Sep-2016NDOT Geotechnical GRLWEAP Version 2010Bridge B-1658, Eden Valley Road

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ss (k

si)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Tens

ion

Stre

ss (k

si)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Blow Count (bl/ft)

Ulti

mat

e C

apac

ity (k

ips)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Blow Count (bl/ft)

Stro

ke (f

t)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

2

4

6

8

10

DELMAG D 30-32

Ram Weight 6.60 kipsEfficiency 0.800Pres sure 1260 (90%) ps i

Helm et Weight 3.40 kipsHam m er Cushion 109975 kips /inCOR of H.C. 0.800

Skin Quake VariableToe Quake VariableSkin Dam ping VariableToe Dam ping Variable

Pile LengthPile Top Area

40.00 27.49

ft ft in2

Pile Model

Res . Shaft = 16 %(Proportional)


26


27

NDOT Geotechnical 02-Sep-2016Bridge B-1658, Eden Valley Road GRLWEAP Version 2010

Maximum Maximum Ultimate Compression Tension Blow Capacity Stress Stress Count Stroke Energy

kips ksi ksi bl/ft ft kips-ft

100.0 19.31 0.34 6.3 5.08 30.53 200.0 24.11 0.05 15.6 6.16 26.97 300.0 26.73 0.08 26.3 6.88 26.26 400.0 28.23 0.16 37.8 7.29 26.14 500.0 31.12 0.58 53.0 7.66 26.64 600.0 33.41 1.17 77.6 7.98 26.87 700.0 35.66 1.34 117.2 8.40 28.04 800.0 37.54 1.67 198.7 8.79 29.46 900.0 38.42 1.67 399.1 8.96 29.99

1000.0 39.23 1.59 1273.6 9.16 30.57


28

7.0 References

1. FHWA Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, Publication No. FHWA

NHI-05-042, April 2006

2. Adams, K.Kenneth, and Sawyer, T.L., compilers, 1999, Fault number 1294, Singatse

Range fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S.

Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed

06/30/2014 02:48 PM.

3. California Department of Transportation, CALTRANS Acceleration Response Spectra

(ARS), ARS Online Version 2.3.06, accessed at,

http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online/index.php, accessed date: 07/29/2014.

4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2012,

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary, U.S. Units, 6th Edition:

Washington DC

5. Hunt, John H, Ayres Associates, Nevada Department of Transportation, 2010, Scour

Critical Bridge Plan of Action B-1610.

6. Crafford, A.E.J., 2007, Geologic Map of Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 249.

7. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of

Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Accessed on 07/24/2014.

8. Optim Software, Available online at http://www.optimsoftware.com, Accessed on

12/14/2014.

9. Nevada Department of Transportation, NDOT Structures Manual, 2008.

http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online/index.php

http://www.optimsoftware.com/

Field Investigation Map: Seimic Lines & Borings

Seismic Line 3

Boring EVB-4

Boring EVB-5

S,W,PI

S,W,PI

S,W,PI

S,W

S,W,PI

S,W,PI

S,PI

S,PI

18

17

15

16

19

7

38

20

6" H.S.A. on the shoulder of gravel road

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL , moist, lightyellowish brown (10YR 6/4), subangular tosubrounded gravel, -200=21% , Sand=63%,Gravel=16%, -3/4"=94%

SILTY SAND , moist, light yellowish brown(10YR 6/4), -200=20% , Sand=70%,Gravel=10%, -3/4"=100%

SILTY SAND ,moist, dark greyish brown(10YR 4/2), -200=24% , Sand=64%,Gravel=12%, -3/4"=100%

SANDY SILTY CLAY ,moist , dark greyishbrown (10YR 4/2), -200=70% , PI=6,Sand=30%

POORLY GRADED SAND ,moist, dark greygravel, -200=2% , Sand=84%, Gravel=14%,-3/4"=100%

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT OR CLAYAND GRAVEL , moist, dark greygravel,subangular to subrounded gravel,-200=6% , Sand=66%, Gravel=28%,-3/4"=100%

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT ANDGRAVEL , wet, dark grey gravel,subangularto subrounded gravel, -200=7% , Sand=77%,Gravel=16%, -3/4"=100%

LEAN CLAY , wet, dark grey (5YR 4/1),PI=31

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL ,wet,subangular to subrounded gravel, -200=3%, Sand=71%, Gravel=26%, -3/4"=98%

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ANDGRAVEL , wet, subangular to subroundedgravel, -200=6% , Sand=63%, Gravel=31%,-3/4"=100%

*SPT-T=SPTTorque(Peak-Residual),referenceGeotechnicalReport fordetails.

(C) SPT-T(75-55) lb-ft

* coarsergravel? somedrill vibration

(D)SPT-T(220-80) lb-ft

(F)SPT-T(60-45) lb-ft;Sampler Wet

(H)SPT-T(55-35) lb-ft

10.90

13.00

16.50

21.10

23.00

26.50

10

7

6

8

11

3

19

9

SM

CLML

SP

SWSM

CL

SP

SP

SPT

SPT

SPT

CMS

SPT

SPT

CMS

SPT

75

80

80

85

80

85

80

80

2.50

5.00

10.00

15.00

16.50

20.00

25.00

26.50

4.00

6.50

11.50

16.50

18.00

21.50

26.50

28.00

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

8

8

10

5

7

5

15

8

8

10

9

8

8

4

19

11

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 1 OF 2

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

73701 Eden Valley Bridge Replacement (B-1658)

BACKFILLED

10/29/13

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

10/29/13

TYPE

SAMPLE

4331.9Automatic (ETR 86%)

DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-1

DRILLINGMETHOD

Eden Valley Road, Humboldt County, NV

PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM

LawrenceDiedrich D-120 (Unit 1082)Altamirano

4345.9

4340.9

4335.9

4330.9

4325.9

5

10

15

20

25

5

10

15

20

25

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

6" H.S.A.

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

10/29/13

LAB TESTS

4350.90 (ft)19.00

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

S,PI25

POORLY GRADED SAND , wet, samplelikely heaving sand into auger, -200=4% ,Sand=94%, Gravel=2%, -3/4"=100%,-3/8"=100%

END EVB-1 @ 36.5'

* sands heavinginto stem,difficulty pullinginner string forsamplerattachment, drillto 35'.

(I) *sandheaving intoauger stem

33.00

36.5019

SM

SP

SPT 75

35.00

36.50I

26

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 2 OF 2



BACKFILLED

10/29/13

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

10/29/13

TYPE

SAMPLE


DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-1

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


4315.9

4310.9

4305.9

4300.9

4295.9

35

40

45

50

55

35

40

45

50

55

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

6" H.S.A.

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

10/29/13

LAB TESTS

4350.90 (ft)19.00

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

6" H.S.A. from ground surface

Immediatly Adjacent to EVB-1, drill straightdown to 40.0' to try and bypass heaving sands


2.00

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 1 OF 3



BACKFILLED

10/30/13

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

10/30/13

TYPE

SAMPLE


DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-1A

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


4345.9

4340.9

4335.9

4330.9

4325.9

5

10

15

20

25

5

10

15

20

25

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

6" H.S.A.

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

10/30/13

LAB TESTS

4350.90 (ft)19.00

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

S

S

S

S

S,PI

43

21

64

75-.45'

68

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT , wet,dark grey gravel, -200=6%, Sand=62%,Gravel=32%, -3/4"=100%

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL ,wet, dark grey gravel ,-200=1%, Sand=57%,Gravel=42%, -3/4"=83%

WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT ANDSAND , wet, dark grey gravel ,-200=7%,Sand=39% ,Gravel=54%, -3/4"=68%

WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT ANDSAND , wet, dark grey gravel ,-200=5%,Sand=42% ,Gravel=52%, -3/4"=89.3%

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ANDGRAVEL , wet, dark grey gravel,-200=10%,Sand=56% ,Gravel=34%, -3/4"=87%

(A) +/- 1 ft. ofcuttingsmeasured priorto sampling

(B) +/- 1.5 ft.cuttingsmeasured priortosampling,SPT-T(55-40) lb-ft

(C) +/- 1 ft.cuttingsmeasured priorto sampling

(D) +/- 0.5 ft. ofcuttingsmeasured priorto sampling(E) SPT-T(240-165) lb-ft

39.00

44.00

48.00

55.90

59.00

24

13

48

35

SWSM

SP

GWGM

SPSM

SPT

SPT

SPT

CMS

SPT

45

15

15

80

80

40.00

45.00

50.00

55.00

55.90

60.00

41.50

47.00

52.00

55.90

57.40

A

B

C

D

E

6

2/3

1/1

15

65

19

8

16

75-.45'

33

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 2 OF 3



BACKFILLED

10/30/13

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

10/30/13

TYPE

SAMPLE


DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-1A

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


4315.9

4310.9

4305.9

4300.9

4295.9

35

40

45

50

55

35

40

45

50

55

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

6" H.S.A.

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

10/30/13

LAB TESTS

4350.90 (ft)19.00

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

S,PI

S,PI

S,PI

S

S

S

65-.35'

88

125

2

75-.3'

54

22

45

WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL ,wet, dark grey gravel,-200=5%, Sand=54%,Gravel=41%, -3/4"=91%

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILTY CLAYAND GRAVEL ,wet, dark greygravel,-200=9%, Sand=57% ,Gravel=34%,-3/4"=89%

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL ,wet, dark grey gravel,-200=5%, Sand=63%,Gravel=32%, -3/4"=100%

POORLY GRADED SAND , wet, * holecollapse behind CMS,-200=1%, Sand=94%,Gravel=5%, -3/4"=100%

* Heaving sand, unable to clear auger stem forsampling.

*Gravel/Cobbles at 76.0 ft based on drilloperation

WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY ANDSAND , wet, Heaving sand intoauger,-200=7%, PI=17, Sand=42%,Gravel=51%, -3/4"=87%

WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY ANDSAND , wet, -200=9%, PI=11, Sand=44%,Gravel=47%, -3/4"=89%

END EVB-1A @84.0'

(F) 0.5 ft.ofcuttingsmeasured priorto sampling,CMS-T(340-260) lb-ft(G) SPT-T(220-150) lb-ft

(H) 0.5 ft. ofcuttingsmeasured priortosampling,CMS-T(350-260) lb-ft(I) SPT-T(40-10) lb-ft *hole collapsebelow CMS aftersampling?(J) 3.0 ft +/- ofcuttingsmeasured priorto sampling(hammerpushing augersdown)(K) 3.0' ft.cuttingsmeasured priorto sampling

(L)+/- 3.0 ft ofcuttingsmeasured priorto sampling

(M) SPT-T(250-140) lb-ft

61.40

64.00

69.00

79.00

82.00

84.00

65-.35'

56

61

1

75-.3'

38

16

22

SW

SWSC

SP

GWGC

GWGC

CMS

SPT

CMS

SPT

CMS

SPT

CMS

SPT

95

55

85

85

0

0

0

95

61.40

65.00

66.50

70.00

71.30

80.00

82.00

61.40

62.90

66.50

68.00

71.30

73.30

82.00

84.00

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

48

30

33

4

12

2/4

1/2

14/21

75

32

64

1

71

16

6

23

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 3 OF 3



BACKFILLED

10/30/13

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

10/30/13

TYPE

SAMPLE


DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-1A

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


4285.9

4280.9

4275.9

4270.9

4265.9

65

70

75

80

85

65

70

75

80

85

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

6" H.S.A.

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

10/30/13

LAB TESTS

4350.90 (ft)19.00

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

S,W,PI,H

S,W

S

S

S

9

14

8

16

22

6" H.S.A

LEAN CLAY , stiff, moist, greyish brown(2.5YR 5/2), -200= 91%, PI=18

WELL GRADED SAND WITH CLAY ANDGRAVEL , moist, mottled dark gravels,-200=5%, Sand=68%, Gravel=27%,-3/4"=100%

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL , wet, mottleddark gravels,-200=13%, Sand=58%,Gravel=29%, -3/4"=100%

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL ,wet, mottled dark gravels, -200=2%,Sand=69%, Gravel=29%, -3/4"=81%,-1.5"=100%

POORLY GRADED SAND , wet,-200=2%,Sand=94%, Gravel=4%, -3/4"= 100%


(B) SPT-T(35-15) lb-ft

(C) SPT-T(25-15) lb-ft

(D) 0.5' cuttingsmeasured,SPT-T (95-65)lb-ft, rock inshoe

(E) 2.5' cuttingsmeasured,drove sampler24"

2.00

9.80

13.50

17.50

5

7

8

10

15

CL

SWSC

SM

SP

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

45

65

25

35

85

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

6.50

11.50

16.50

21.50

27.00

A

B

C

D

E

4

6

1

2

1/2

4

7

0

6

7

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 1 OF 2



BACKFILLED

10/31/13

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

10/31/13

TYPE

SAMPLE


DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-2

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


4333.4

4328.4

4323.4

4318.4

4313.4

5

10

15

20

25

5

10

15

20

25

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

6" H.S.A.

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

10/31/13

LAB TESTS

4338.40 (ft)6.50

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

S

100-.5'

76

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL ,wet, -200=3%, Sand=81%, Gravel=16%,-3/4"=91%, -1.5"=100%

END EVB-2 @ 33 ft.

(F) 2.0' cuttingsmeasured, nosample recovery(G) drovesampler 24",sand heavinginto augerstem?

33.0038

CMS

SPT

0

85

31.0031.00

33.00

F

G

24

3/13100-.5'

38

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 2 OF 2



BACKFILLED

10/31/13

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

10/31/13

TYPE

SAMPLE


DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-2

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


4303.4

4298.4

4293.4

4288.4

4283.4

35

40

45

50

55

35

40

45

50

55

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

6" H.S.A.

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

10/31/13

LAB TESTS

4338.40 (ft)6.50

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

5

12

37

13

6" H.S.A.

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND ,moist, olive grey(5YR 4/1), PI=14, -200= 84%, Sand=16%.

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ,moist, -200=5%, Sand=81%, Gravel=14%.

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT ANDGRAVEL , wet, subrounded to subanglulargravels, -200=5%, Sand =55%, Gravel 40%,-3/4"=95%.

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT ANDGRAVEL , wet, subrounded to subangulargravels, -200=5%, Sand=60%, Gravel=35%,-3/4"=100%.

END EVB-3 @ 25.0 ft.


(A) SPT-T(50-45) ft-lb

(B) CMS-T(90-70) ft-lb

(C) CMS-T(90-60) fl-lb

(D) SPT-T(40-25) ft-lb

* formationheaves intoauger @ 25.0 ft.when pullinginner string, 1.5ft. heavemeasured,terminateborehole.

2.00

12.50

18.00

25.00

3

6

20

6

CL

SPSM

SWSM

SPT

CMS

CMS

SPT

40

85

95

65

10.00

15.00

20.00

21.50

11.50

16.50

21.50

23.00

A

B

C

D

1

5

14

7

2

6

17

7

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 1 OF 1



BACKFILLED

4/2/14

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

4/2/14

TYPE

SAMPLE


DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-3

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM

LawrenceDiedrich D-120 (Unit 1082)Baker

4345.8

4340.8

4335.8

4330.8

4325.8

5

10

15

20

25

5

10

15

20

25

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

6" H.S.A.

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

4/12/14

LAB TESTS

4350.80 (ft)18.90

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

40

25

13

4" Rotary Wash, immeidiatly adjacent toEVB-3

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL ,wet, -200=4%, Sand=54%, Gravel=42%,-3/4"=100%

POORLY GRADED SAND , wet, -200=3%,Sand=85%, Gravel=12%, -3/4"=100%



* drilling withbentonitemineral slurry,1.5 bags per300 gallons +/-

(A) CMS-T(90-60) ft-lb

(B) CMS-T(80-65) ft-lb, 0.2ft. cuttingsmeasured(C) SPT-T(55-30) ft-lb

18.00

29.00

18

11

8

SP

CMS

CMS

SPT

65

50

15

20.00

25.00

26.50

30.00

21.50

26.50

28.00

A

B

C

15

9

4

22

14

5

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 1 OF 2



BACKFILLED

4/2/14

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

4/3/14

TYPE

SAMPLE

Automatic (ETR 86%)

DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-3A

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


4345.8

4340.8

4335.8

4330.8

4325.8

5

10

15

20

25

5

10

15

20

25

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

4" Rotary Wash

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

LAB TESTS

4350.80 (ft)

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

41

28

44

77

83

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND ,wet,-200=2%, Sand=47%, Gravel=51%,-3/4"=78%

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT ANDGRAVEL , wet, -200=5%, Sand=65%,Gravel=30%, -3/4"=100%



* scattered cobbles & boulders encounteredfrom 42.5 ft. to 44.0 ft.

WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND ,wet, -200=2%, Sand=33%, Gravel=65%,-3/4"=86%

* scattered cobbles and & bouldersencountered from 52 ft. to 53.5 ft.

END EVB-3A @ 55.0 ft.

(D) CMS-T(110-90) ft-lb

(E) SPT-T(60-45) ft-lb

(F) CMS-T(180-140) ft-lb

(G) CMS-T(195-160) ft-lb,1.0 ft. cuttingsmeasured

*cobbles orbouldersencountered

(H) CMS-T(180-160) ft-lb,0.3 ft. cuttingsmeasured

*cobbles orbouldersencountered

* ran out ofwater/mudsupply at 55 ft. ,could not clearcuttings tosample,terminateborehole.

31.50

34.00

42.50

44.00

48.00

52.00

53.50

55.00

19

15

21

45

43

GP

SW

SP

GW

CMS

SPT

CMS

CMS

CMS

60

50

65

60

55

31.50

35.00

40.00

45.00

31.50

33.00

36.50

41.50

46.50

D

E

F

G

H

16

6

13

13

15

22

13

23

32

40

STATION

OFFSET

ENGINEER

EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR

SHEET 2 OF 2



BACKFILLED

4/2/14

ELEV. ft

6 inchIncrements

4/3/14

TYPE

SAMPLE

Automatic (ETR 86%)

DEPTH ft

DATE

EVB-3A

DRILLINGMETHOD


PercentRecov'd

73701

START DATE

END DATE

JOB DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

BORING

E.A. #

GROUND ELEV.

HAMMER DROP SYSTEM


4315.8

4310.8

4305.8

4300.8

4295.8

35

40

45

50

55

35

40

45

50

55

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

EXPLORATION LOG

4" Rotary Wash

USCSGroupLast

1 footDEPTH

(ft)ELEV.

(ft)

DATE

REMARKSBLOW COUNT

LAB TESTS

4350.80 (ft)

NO.

NV

_DO

T 7

3701

_E

DE

NV

ALL

EY

BR

IDG

E.G

PJ

NV

_DO

T.G

DT

6/1

9/15

Documents

BRIDGE B-1658 REPLACEMENT EDEN VALLEY ROAD HUMBOLDT …