KING SALMON HEIGHTS ROAD REHABILITATION KING S A · GEOTECHNICAL REPORT KING SALMON HEIGHTS ROAD REHABILITATION KING SALMON, ALASKA 8 February 2012 Page 4 R&M 1773.01 NOTE: A field

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

KING SALMON HEIGHTS ROAD REHABILITATION KING SALMON, ALASKA

PREPARED FOR:

BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH P.O. Box 189

Naknek, Alaska 99633

PREPARED BY:

R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. 9101 Vanguard Drive

Anchorage, Alaska 99507

8 FEBRUARY 2012

8 February 2012 Page i R&M No. 1773.01

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT KING SALMON HEIGHTS ROAD REHABILITATION

KING SALMON, ALASKA This report presents the results of R&M Consultants’ geotechnical investigation for the King Salmon Heights Road Rehabilitation project, at King Salmon, Alaska; authorized and completed under contract with the Bristol Bay Borough (BBB). This report includes both factual and interpretative information, and establishes the basis for design of the road improvements. The discussions of the project setting and geotechnical conditions presented in this report reflect our interpretation of the cited information, the findings from our explorations, and our understanding of the project as described hereafter. Alteration or deviation from any of these elements during subsequent phases of design or construction could have substantial effects on the foregoing geotechnical interpretations and recommendations, and therefore should be investigated without delay to evaluate their influence on the project. R&M Consultants, Inc. has performed this work in a manner consistent with the level of skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions. No warranty, express or implied, beyond exercise of reasonable care and professional diligence, is made. This report is intended solely for use by the BBB and its consultants that are directly involved with the project; and given the reader possesses a basic understanding of physical geology, soil mechanics, and geotechnical principals.

__________________________________ ROBERT L. SCHER, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer

REVIEWED BY:

__________________________________ CHARLES H. RIDDLE, C.P.G. Vice President

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT KING SALMON HEIGHTS ROAD REHABILITATION KING SALMON, ALASKA

8 February 2012 Page ii R&M 1773.01

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

PART 1: INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 PART 2: PROJECT SETTING ....................................................................................................2

2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ..............................................................................................2 2.2 CLIMATE ..................................................................................................................2

PART 3: GEOTECHNIAL INVESTIGATION .........................................................................2 3.1 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATIONS ..........................................................2 3.2 FIELD EXPLORATIONS .............................................................................................3 3.3 LABORATORY TESTING ...........................................................................................4

PART 4: GEOTECHNICAL SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................4 4.1 ROADWAY SURFACE ................................................................................................4 4.2 SOIL COLUMN ..........................................................................................................6

PART 5: GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................7 5.1 EMBANKMENT/SURFACING DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................7 5.2 ROADWAY SECTION ................................................................................................8

PART 6: REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................9 TABLES: 1: Resilient Modulus v. Season ........................................................................................................ 7 2: Aggregate Surface Course Grading ............................................................................................. 8 FIGURES: 1: Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 1 2: McMillen Auger Drill .................................................................................................................. 3 3: Potholes, Medium Severity .......................................................................................................... 5 4: Corrugations, Low Severity ......................................................................................................... 5 5: Roadside Drainage, Low Severity ............................................................................................... 6 APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATIONS APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX C – SITE PHOTOS

8 February 2012 Page 1 R&M 1773.01


KING SALMON, ALASKA

PART 1: INTRODUCTION The Bristol Bay Borough (BBB) contracted R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M) to provide professional civil engineering services associated the King Salmon Heights Road Rehabilitation project in King Salmon, Alaska (Figure 1). The scope of R&M’s services included a geotechnical investigation, the results of which are reported hereafter.

FIGURE 1: PROJECT VICINITY MAP King Salmon Heights Road is an aggregate surfaced, rural local roadway leading north from the Alaska Peninsula Highway (APH) along the west side of the King Salmon Creek drainage. The purpose of the subject project is to rehabilitate about one mile of the roadway (grade and section), between the APH and Kvichak Street (see Appendix A, Drawing A-01). The scope of R&M’s geotechnical investigation included drilling eight shallow test holes, limited laboratory soil testing, and developing geotechnical recommendations for the new



roadway section; but did not include research or investigation of either a material source (borrow or aggregate), or hydrocarbons and other hazardous materials. The following presents the results of R&M’s geotechnical investigation including our interpretations of the subsurface conditions, and general recommendations for project design and construction.

PART 2: PROJECT SETTING 2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The King Salmon Heights Road is located near the western limits of the Nushagak-Bristol Bay Lowland physiographic division (Wahrhaftig, 1965); which is characterized by relatively flat and low elevation terrain (local relief typically < 50-250 feet; elevation typically less than 300-500 feet), dotted with small lakes, and draining westerly into Bristol Bay. The surficial geology consists of Quaternary age alluvial, colluvial, and glacial outwash and morainal deposits, up to several hundred feet thick, locally mantled with recent fine-grained eolian and organic deposits (Riehle and Detterman, 1993; Wahrhaftig, 1965). Permafrost is considered to be largely absent, or possibly locally isolated in the King Salmon area (Jorgenson et al., 2008). 2.2 CLIMATE The climate at King Salmon is characterized by moderate annual and daily temperature variations, relatively low precipitation, and generally light winds. Based on climate records1 from 1955 through 2010, King Salmon experiences a mean annual air temperature of about 34 °F, with mean monthly temperatures ranging between approximately 15-16 °F in December/January and 54-55 °F in July/August (see also Part 5.1); and roughly 20 inches of total annual precipitation (about 45 inches of total snowfall).

PART 3: GEOTECHNIAL INVESTIGATION The following describes the methods R&M used to investigate the geotechnical conditions along King Salmon Heights Road; our interpretations of the findings are discussed in Part 4. 3.1 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATIONS R&M is aware of at least two previous investigations that included geotechnical explorations in the vicinity of the project. In 1990 R&M drilled eight test holes, ranging from five to 30 feet deep, for the post office located at the intersection of the Alaska Peninsula Highway and King Salmon Heights Road (R&M, 1990). And in the [late?] 1990’s, USKH drilled a number of test holes for the BBB King Salmon Sewer Project, including at least eight, ranging from six to 30 feet deep, along King Salmon Heights Road (USKH, 2000)2.

1 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmak.html 2 The findings of the USKH geotechnical explorations are largely unknown, being limited to simplified, unannotated stick logs illustrated on the sewer project plan and profile sheets.

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmak.html



3.2 FIELD EXPLORATIONS On 21 September 2011, R&M completed eight geotechnical test holes (designated TH-01 through TH-08), to depths between 6.5 and seven feet, under the direct supervision of R&M geotechnical engineer Robert Scher. Appendix A contains a map illustrating the location of these explorations, a log for each test hole (see below), and keys to the format, symbols and terminology contained on the logs. The boring locations were determined by the BBB; although the actual locations were shifted slightly in order to maintain room for thru traffic (the GPS coordinates are provided on the test hole logs in Appendix A). All of the test holes were drilled using a Takeuchi TL150 Skid Steer, equipped with a McMillen X1975 planetary drive and four-foot long, four-inch diameter continuous-flight auger (Figure 2), provided by ATC Snowplow & Brush Cutting of King Salmon. While drilling, disturbed soil samples were periodically collected from the auger, visually classified (see below), and then sealed in double plastic bags to preserve the natural moisture condition. After drilling the holes were backfill with the recovered cuttings (see post-drilling photos in Appendix C).

FIGURE 2: MCMILLEN AUGER DRILL (TH06; 21 Sep 2011)



NOTE: A field log was maintained for each test hole that documented: the drilling method, progress, and samples attempted and recovered; description of the recovered soil (following ASTM D 2488); and interpretation of the geotechnical conditions between the recovered samples. The final test hole logs (Appendix A) incorporate additional modifications and/or interpretations based on further visual inspection of the recovered samples, and the factual results of the laboratory testing. When reviewing the final logs it is critical to understand:

• The logs include factual data (e.g. field and laboratory test results), as well as interpretative information (e.g. relative density, consistency, estimated classification, moisture, geotechnical conditions between sample depths, etc.).

• Soil group names and symbols were assigned following the Unified Soil

Classification System (ASTM D 2487), when fully based on laboratory testing. Group symbols annotated with an asterisk (e.g. SM*, ML*) indicate that either the grain-size distribution or plasticity was measured, while the other component was estimated using visual-manual procedures (ASTM D 2488).

• Abbreviated group symbols are used in tables and the test hole logs, where there

is not space for the full soil group name, using lower case letters ‘b’ for boulders, ‘c’ for cobbles, ‘g’ for gravel, ‘s’ for sand, and ‘o’ for organic matter, for example: s(ML)o = sandy silt with organics, and (SM)g = silty sand with gravel.

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING All of the soil samples returned to R&M’s laboratory in Anchorage were visually inspected. Most of these samples were also tested (ASTM, 2011) to measure particle size distribution (ASTM D 422 and 1140), moisture content (ASTM D 2216), and Atterberg limits (ASTM D 4318) to support classification and estimating general engineering parameters. The results of the laboratory testing are provided in Appendix B, are shown on the individual test hole logs in Appendix A, and are discussed in Part 4.2.

PART 4: GEOTECHNICAL SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 ROADWAY SURFACE At the time of R&M’s field work (late September 2011) the roadway surface appeared to be in relatively good condition (see site photos in Appendix C), but with localized sections of visible surface distress (as defined in Eaton and Beaucham, 1992) including potholing, corrugations, poor roadside drainage, and dust. Potholes were the most notable form of surface distress observed, with severity ranging from low (avg diameter < 2 feet and <2 inches deep) to medium (avg diameter > 1-2 feet, 2-4 inches deep), and being more prevalent at sharp bends in the road (Figure 3) and at intersections with side streets and driveways. The other noted surface distresses were characterized to be of low severity (i.e. corrugations < 1-3 inches deep, Figure 4; and roadside drainage, Figure 5).



FIGURE 3: POTHOLES, MEDIUM SEVERITY (View west from ≈ Station 27+00; 20 September 2011)

FIGURE 4: CORRUGATIONS, LOW SEVERITY (View south from ≈ Station 55+75; 21 September 2011)



FIGURE 5: ROADSIDE DRAINAGE, LOW SEVERITY (View south from ≈ Station 26+25; 20 September 2011)

4.2 SOIL COLUMN The R&M explorations, as well as the findings from the previous explorations (Part 3.1) indicate the shallow soil profile is relatively uniform along the project, which for the purpose of this report has been grouped into three general soil units, including the roadway embankment (sand and gravel fill), overlying organic soil (intermittent) and/or fine sand with variable silt. No groundwater3, frozen soil, or bedrock was interpreted in any of the R&M test holes. These general conditions are considered to be consistent with the mapped surficial geology for the area (Part 2.1) and the findings from the previous geotechnical explorations along King Salmon Heights Road (Part 3.1). The roadway embankment (fill) along the project appeared to range from roughly 1.5 to five feet thick. The embankment was comprised of brown to dark brown, poorly graded, sand with silt and gravel, (SP-SM*)g to (SM*)g, generally about 0.5 to two feet thick (max 3.5 feet at the B.O.P. and plus-four feet thick adjacent the culvert at Station 49+50), overlying dark brown, sand with silt and trace of small gravel, SM* (not observed in every boring). The gravel sized particles (3 inch to #4 sieve) in the upper portion of the embankment were typically less than ¾ to one inch in diameter (max about two inches), hard, subrounded to subangular, and made up an estimated 25 to 50 percent of the total weight. The sand sized particles (#4 sieve to #200 sieve) were course to fine, and made up an estimated 50 to 90 percent of the total weight. The silt and clay sized particles (passing the #200 sieve, P200; aka fines) were nonplastic, and made up an 3 Previous geotechnical explorations along King Salmon Heights Road (Part 3.1) reported groundwater at depths ranging from about seven to eight feet (near the culvert at Station 49+50) to over 25 feet below existing ground.



estimated ten to 15 percent of the total weight (laboratory P200 values ranged from 8.9 to 13 percent). At the time of drilling, the fill was described as being moist; laboratory moisture contents ranged from 4.6 to 11 percent. A general unit of organic soil, about one foot thick, was observed directly under the embankment fill in two of R&M’s eight test holes (TH-03 and TH-04, both at the 90° curve at Station 26+00). However, it is likely that a thin layer of similar organic soil underlies the fill intermittently along the entire project4. In the R&M borings, this unit was described a black, nonplastic, moist (laboratory moisture contents of 45 and 82 percent), and containing a trace of fine rootlets. The foundation soils underlying the embankment fill, or organic unit where present, were comprised of dark brown to reddish-brown, poorly graded, nonplastic, sand with silt to silty sand, SM*. Based on previous test holes for other projects (Part 3.1), this general soil unit appears to extend to a depth of at least 20 to 30 feet below existing ground. The fines made up an estimated ten to ≈30 percent of the total weight (although the laboratory P200 values measured on three samples ranged from 10 to 16 percent). At the time of drilling, these soils were typically described as being moist; laboratory moisture contents ranged from 4.8 to about 26 percent (max 29 percent in the sample collected adjacent the culvert at Station 49+50), and visually appeared to correlate directly with the estimated fines content.

PART 5: GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarizes the geotechnical recommendations for developing the project design and construction documents, given the understanding the roadway will be completed with an aggregate surface course, the alignment will not be changed, and the new centerline profile will be adjusted no more than a few feet from the existing grades. 5.1 EMBANKMENT/SURFACING DESIGN PARAMETERS

• Table 1 summarizes the recommended soil parameters to determine the required minimum embankment and aggregate surface section, as a function of vehicle loadings, following AASHTO and FHWA procedures (e.g. in Skorseth and Selim, 2000).

TABLE 1: RESILIENT MODULUS, MR, KSI, V. SEASON (FRACTION OF YEAR)

Material Spring/Thawing (0.1)

Summer/Dry (0.25)

Spring &Fall/ Wet (0.25)

Winter/Frozen (0.4)

Embankmenta 20 25 25 50

Foundation Silty Sand

Organic Soil

4

1.5

10 4

6 3

20 20

a. Existing material classified as (SP-SM)g and (SM)g, and new aggregate surface course.

4 The logs for five of the eight test holes completed along the road illustrated in USKH (2000) indicate a layer of “ML” soil one to two feet thick under the embankment fill. While USKH logs do not include any verbal descriptions or laboratory test data, it is possible that the soil so designated “ML” also included organic material.



• For thermal evaluations, use a mean annual air temperature 34 °F with an annual amplitude of 22 °F; mean air freeze and thaw indices of 2,115 and 2,955 °F-Days, respectively; and design air freeze and thaw indices (as the average three coldest/warmest seasons over the previous 30 years) of 3,245 and 3,410 °F-Days, respectively.

5.2 ROADWAY SECTION

• The types of surface distress most commonly observed included potholes and corrugations (see Part 4.1), which are indicative of such factors as inadequate surface drainage (e.g. flat crown); poor surface course (i.e. poor grading, rounded particles, low quality aggregate, inadequate compaction, etc.); excessive vehicle speeds, wheel loads, or poor suspensions; or weak subgrade. The most common and effective means to mitigate these types of surface distress in aggregate roads have been found to include maintaining an appropriate crown (for surface drainage), and using high quality surface course (for wear) (Eaton and Beaucham, 1992; Skorseth and Selim, 2000; and Spencer, 1965).

• The road should be shaped with a peaked crown, or flat banked profile through sharp

curves, with a transverse slope as steep as possible for safe vehicle traffic. Skorseth and Selim (2000) recommend a cross slope of four percent; although a slope of at least five percent may be preferable where the longitudinal grade is less than about one percent (based on information in Spencer, 1965).

• The road should be completed with at least four inches of Crushed Aggregate Surface

Course (CASC) compacted to a density not less than 95 percent of the maximum (as determined by ASTM D 1557, or equivalent). Subject to project cost limits, additional CASC would be beneficial to offset material lost over time associated with daily traffic and routine maintenance (e.g. grading, snow removal, etc.).

• Crushed Aggregate Surface Course should be a blend of fractured course aggregate and

sand, with some silt and clay sized particles, meeting the gradation limits in Table 2 and being “well-graded” as defined in ASTM D 2487 (i.e. Cu ≥ 4, 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3). The CASC should also meet all of the requirements in Table 703-1 of Alaska DOT&PF (2004), except that the plastic index should be between four and 10.

TABLE 2: AGGREGATE SURFACE COURSE GRADING

U.S. Sieve Percent Passing, by Weight 1”

3/4” 3/8” #4 #10 #40 #200

100 85 – 100 65 – 88 50 – 75 35 – 60 20 – 37 8 – 15

• The undisturbed in situ soils underlying the embankment are not expected to consolidate

significantly so long as the roadway grade is not increased more than a few feet.



• Construct the roadway embankment following Section 203 of Alaska DOT&PF (2004) using Classified Material (i.e. shape, scarify, and recompact existing embankment before adding new fill; compact with moisture and density control, etc.). Where the existing roadway embankment is to be widened, clear and grub all vegetation, stumps, roots, peat, organic matter, and in situ soil to a depth of at least 2.5 feet below finish grade, and replace with Classified Material. Continue to over-excavate to a depth of at least four feet where the excavation encounters peat or organic soil (i.e. ash content ≤ 98% as determined by ASTM D 2974).

• Classified Material should meet the requirements of Selected Material, Type B in Section

703 of Alaska DOT&PF (2004); with the exceptions that it should (i) have a maximum particle size of no more than four inches, and (ii) the particles passing the three inch sieve should contain at least 25 percent, by weight, retained on the No. 4 sieve (i.e. gravel).

• The scope of R&M’s work did not include investigation or identification of any potential

material source(s). It is understood that the contractor will be responsible for identifying, permitting, developing, and restoring the source(s) it uses to obtain all Classified Material and Crushed Aggregate Surface Course required for the project.

• The long-term performance of the roadway could be improved by recompacting the

surface immediately after routine grading.

PART 6: REFERENCES Alaska DOT&PF. 2004. Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2011. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Soil

and Rock. Eaton, R.A., and R.E. Beaucham. 1992. Unsurfaced Road Maintenance Management. U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers CRREL, Special Report 92-26. Jorgenson, T, et al. 2008. Permafrost Characteristics of Alaska. Institute of Northern Engineering,

University of Alaska Fairbanks. Riehle, J.R., and R.L. Detterman. 1993. Quaternary Geologic Map of the Mount Katmai Quadrangle

and Adjacent Parts of the Naknek and Afognak Quadrangles, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I-2032.

R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M). 1990. Subsurface Soils Investigation and Foundation

Recommendations, King Salmon Post Office, King Salmon, Alaska. Prepared for the U.S. Postal Service, Anchorage Field Division.

Skorseth, K., and A.A. Selim. 2000. Gravel Roads, Maintenance and Design Manual. FHWA/South

Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program. Spencer, J.W. 1965. Crown on soil-aggregate roads. Highway Research Record, 91:48-58. USKH. 2000. Record Drawings - King Salmon Sewer Project, Phase IIA and Phase IIC (Asbuilt

Drawings), Constructed 1998-1999. Prepared for the Bristol Bay Borough. Wahrhaftig, C. 1965. Physiographic Divisions of Alaska. U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 482.


8 February 2012 R&M 1773.01

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATIONS Test Hole Location/Project Area Map ................................................ Drawing A-01 Test Hole Logs ...................................................................... Drawings A-02 to A-09 Test Hole Log Keys General Notes ............................................................................ Drawing A-10 Explanation of Selected Symbols .............................................. Drawing A-11


8 February 2012 Drawing A-01 R&M 1773.01

Test Hole Location/Project Area Map

TH-08

TH-07 TH-06 TH-05 TH-04

TH-03

TH-02

TH-01 U.S. Post Office

King Salmon Heights Road

E.O.P. Sta 66+00 (Kvichak Street)

King Salmon Creek

20+00

30+00

40+00

50+00

60+00

B.O.P. 12+40

1

3.5

6.5

0.0

NA

A-02

2

All Samples C

MA

ST

ER

ON

E C

OL/

PA

GE

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J M

AS

TE

R2.

GD

T

12/1

2/1

1

DE

PT

H

0

2

4

6

LOG OF TEST BORING

FB:

GRID:

DWN:

CKD:

PROJ.NO:

KING SALMON, ALASKA

DATE:

SCALE: DWG.NO:

MC=26%

9/21/11

1"=2'

KING SALMON HEIGHTS ROADB.M.M.

MC=20%, P200=13%

C.H.R.

1773.01

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

HD

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\T

ES

T P

IT L

OG

S.G

PJ

TH-01

TH-01

Dec 2011

N 58o 41.979'W 156o 42.449'

3

No groundwater observed while drilling

* Estimated classification based in part following ASTM D 2488

NA

POORLY GRADED SAND W/SILT AND GRAVEL (FILL)(Dk. brown; Gravel typically < 3/4"-1" (max ~2"),subrounded to subangular; Fine to coarse sand; Moist)

MC=8.4%, (SM*)g, P200=13%

SILTY SAND (Dk. brown to red-brown; Very fine tofine sand; Nonplastic; Moist; Less sand with depth)

3

1.5

3.0

1

6.5

0.0

MC=8.3%

MC=4.8%

All Samples C

MA

ST

ER

ON

E C

OL/

PA

GE

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J M

AS

TE

R2.

GD

T

12/1

2/1

1

DE

PT

H

0

2

4

6

TH-02

MC=9.3%

MC=29%

4

LOG OF TEST BORING

N 58o 42.053'W 156o 42.439'

A-03

FB:

SAND W/SILT (Red-brown; Fine sand; Damp tomoist)

GRID:

DWN:

CKD:

PROJ.NO:

KING SALMON, ALASKA

DATE:

SCALE: DWG.NO:1"=2'


C.H.R.

1773.01

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

HD

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\T

ES

T P

IT L

OG

S.G

PJ

TH-02

2


9/21/11

Dec 2011

NA

NA

POORLY GRADED SAND W/SILT AND GRAVEL (FILL)(Dk. brown; Gravel typically <3/4"-1" (max ~2"),subrounded to subangular; Fine to coarse sand; Moist)

SILTY SAND (Dk. brown to red-brown; Very finesand; Nonplastic; Moist)

1

0.5

2.5

3.5

36.5

0.0

All Samples C

MA

ST

ER

ON

E C

OL/

PA

GE

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J M

AS

TE

R2.

GD

T

12/1

2/1

1

DE

PT

H

0

2

4

6

2

MC=28%

LOG OF TEST BORING

9/21/11

FB:

NA

Dec 2011

MC=10%, P200=13%

SILTY SAND (Red-brown; Very fine to fine sand;Nonplastic; Moist to wet)

SAND AND GRAVEL (FILL) (Dk. brown; Graveltypically < 1" (max ~2"); Fine to coarse sand; Moist)

GRID:

DWN:

CKD:

PROJ.NO:

KING SALMON, ALASKA

DATE:

SCALE: DWG.NO:1"=2'


C.H.R.

1773.01

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

HD

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\T

ES

T P

IT L

OG

S.G

PJ

TH-03

TH-03

MC=82%

N 58o 42.190'W 156o 42.450'


A-04

NA

SAND W/SILT (FILL) (Dk. brown; Trace small gravel;Fine sand; Nonplastic; Damp)

ORGANIC SOIL (Blackish; Trace very fine rootlets;Nonplastic; Moist)

2

0.5

2.5

MC=20%

3.5

6.5

0.0

All Samples C

MA

ST

ER

ON

E C

OL/

PA

GE

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J M

AS

TE

R2.

GD

T

12/1

2/1

1

DE

PT

H

0

2

4

6

1

3

MC=45%

LOG OF TEST BORING

FB:

N 58o 42.197'W 156o 42.415'9/21/11

A-05

SAND AND GRAVEL (FILL) (Dk. brown; Graveltypically < 1" (max ~2"); Fine to coarse sand; Moist)

MC=9.5%, P200=10%


GRID:

DWN:

CKD:

PROJ.NO:

KING SALMON, ALASKA

DATE:

SCALE: DWG.NO:1"=2'


C.H.R.

1773.01

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

HD

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\T

ES

T P

IT L

OG

S.G

PJ

TH-04

TH-04

Dec 2011

NA

NA

SILTY SAND (Red-brown; Fine to medium sand;Nonplastic; Moist)

SAND W/SILT (FILL) (Dk. brown; Trace smallgravel; Fine sand; Nonplastic; Damp)

ORGANIC SOIL (Blackish; Trace very fine rootlets;Fine sand; Nonplastic; Moist)

1

2

1.5

3.5

7.0

0.0

MC=20%

A-06

All Samples C

MA

ST

ER

ON

E C

OL/

PA

GE

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J M

AS

TE

R2.

GD

T

12/1

2/1

1

DE

PT

H

0

2

4

6

LOG OF TEST BORING

FB:

GRID:

MC=7.7%

3

DWN:

CKD:

PROJ.NO:


*Estimated classification based in part following ASTM D 2488

SILTY SAND (Dk. red-brown; Very fine to finesand; Nonplastic; Moist)

SAND W/SILT (Fill?) (Brown; Fine to mediumsand; Damp)

KING SALMON, ALASKA

DATE:

SCALE: DWG.NO:1"=2'


C.H.R.

1773.01

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

HD

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\T

ES

T P

IT L

OG

S.G

PJ

TH-05

TH-05

9/21/11

N 58o 42.199'W 156o 42.015'

Dec 2011

NA

NA


MC=4.6%, (SP-SM*)g, P200=8.9%

1

2.0

4.0

7.0

0.0

MC=32%

A-07

All Samples C

MA

ST

ER

ON

E C

OL/

PA

GE

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J M

AS

TE

R2.

GD

T

12/1

2/1

1

DE

PT

H

0

2

4

6

LOG OF TEST BORING

FB:

2

GRID:

DWN:

CKD:

N 58o 42.199'W 156o 41.711'

9/21/11


NA

PROJ.NO:

SILTY SAND (Dk. brown-blackish; Very fine to finesand; Nonplastic; Moist to wet)

MC=29%, P200=16%, LL=NV, PI=NP

KING SALMON, ALASKA

DATE:

SCALE: DWG.NO:1"=2'


C.H.R.

1773.01

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

HD

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\T

ES

T P

IT L

OG

S.G

PJ

TH-06

MC=4.1%

3

TH-06

Dec 2011

NA


SILTY SAND (FILL) (Dk. brown; Very fine to fine sand;Trace scattered fine rootlets at 4 ft.; Nonplastic; Moist)

1

2

1.5

4.0

6.5

0.0

All Samples C

3

MC=26%

MA

ST

ER

ON

E C

OL/

PA

GE

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J M

AS

TE

R2.

GD

T

12/1

2/1

1

DE

PT

H

0

2

4

6

LOG OF TEST BORING

FB:

GRID:

DWN:

CKD:

N 58o 42.216'W 156o 41.624'


NA

PROJ.NO:

KING SALMON, ALASKA

DATE:

SILTY SAND (Dk. brown; Very fine to fine sand;Nonplastic; Moist)

SCALE:

SAND W/SILT (Brown; Fine sand; Moist)

DWG.NO:1"=2'


C.H.R.

1773.01

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

HD

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\T

ES

T P

IT L

OG

S.G

PJ

TH-07

TH-07

9/21/11

Dec 2011

NA

A-08


MC=11%, P200=11%

MC=6.6%, P200=10%

2

1.5

3.0

6.5

0.0

1

MC=9.9% in sand, MC=21% in silt seam


A-09

All Samples C

MA

ST

ER

ON

E C

OL/

PA

GE

TE

ST

PIT

LO

GS

.GP

J M

AS

TE

R2.

GD

T

12/1

2/1

1

DE

PT

H

0

2

4

6

LOG OF TEST BORING

FB:

GRID:

DWN:

CKD:

PROJ.NO:

KING SALMON, ALASKA

DATE:

SCALE: DWG.NO:

TH-08

9/21/11

1"=2'

KING SALMON HEIGHTS ROAD

Dec 2011

B.M.M.

C.H.R.

1773.01

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

HD

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\T

ES

T P

IT L

OG

S.G

PJ

TH-08

N 58o 42.262'W 156o 41.621'


MC=5.7%, P200=11%

SILTY SAND (Dk. brown; Fine sand; Nonplastic; Moist)

NA

NA

SAND W/SILT (Dk. brown; Fine to medium sand;Nonplastic; Moist; Scattered discrete, thin (<1") seams ofblackish silty sand to sandy silt)

A.T.B.

COHESIVE

DescriptionLooseMedium DenseDenseVery Dense

FB:

PROJ.NO:

N/A

NONE

SOIL DENSITY/CONSISTENCY - CRITERIA: Soil density/consistency as defined belowand determined by normal field and laboratory methods applies only to non-frozenmaterial. For these materials, the influence of such factors as soil structure, i.e. fissuresystems shrinkage cracks, slickensides, etc., must be taken into consideration in makingany correlation with the consistency values listed below. In permafrost zones, theconsistency and strength of frozen soil may vary significantly and inexplicably with icecontent, thermal regime and soil type.

DWG.NO:

DWN:

SCALE:

SOILSCLASSIFICATIONS, CONSISTENCY AND SYMBOLS

DATE:

Shear Strength (TSF) Unconfined Compressive Strength (TSF)

GENERALNOTES GENERAL

PPP200P.02SGTV

KEY TO TEST RESULTS

N/AGRID:

0.0 - 0.250.25 - 0.50.5 - 1.01.0 - 2.02.0 - 4.0OVER 4.0

No call <4.0% Trace 4.0 - 12.0% Some >12.0% Major Modifier (-y) >30%

GENERAL

CLASSIFICATION: Identification and classification of the soil is accomplished in generalaccordance with the ASTM Soil Classification System. Normally, the grain sizedistribution determines classification of the soil. The soil is defined according to majorand minor constituents with the minor elements serving as modifiers of the other majorelements. For cohesive soils, the clay becomes the principal noun with the other majorsoil constituents used as modifier: i.e. silty clay, when the clay particles are such thatthe clay dominates soil properties. Minor soil constituents may be added to theclassification breakdown in accordance with the particle size proportion listed below:i.e. gravelly sand with some silt.

CKD:

- Dry Density- Liquid Limit- Moisture Content- Organic Content- Plastic Index- Plastic Limit

DDLLMCOrgPIPL

Very SoftSoftFirmStiffVery StiffHard

0.0 - 0.50.5 - 1.01.0 - 2.02.0 - 4.04.0 - 8.0OVER 8.0

* Standard Penetration "N": Blows per foot of a 140-pound manual hammer (lifted with rope & cathead)falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split-spoon sampler except where noted.

Relative Density

C.H.R.

COHESIONLESS

- Pocket Penetrometer- % Passing #200 Screen- % Passing 0.02 mm- Specific Gravity- Torvane

Consistency

N * (blows/ft.)0 - 1010 - 3030 - 60

>60

0 to 40%40 to 70%70 to 90%

90 to 100%

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

H D

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\A

-10

& 1

1.G

DW

(D

RA

WIN

G A

- B

-01

EN

GLI

SH

(R

&M

)) 2

/8/1

2 0

9:52

AM

A-10

All Samples Sh

GENERALIZED SOIL OR ROCK DESCRIPTION

PROJ.NO:

ICE - SILT

SAMPLER TYPE **

6-20-04

< 0.002mm, Plastic

* W.D. - WHILE DRILLING, A.B. - AFTER BORING, Ref. - SAMPLER REFUSAL** - REFER TO SAMPLER SYMBOL (Ss, Sh, ETC.) FOR SAMPLER I.D. & HAMMER WEIGHT/TYPE

0.002mm, - #200

DATE DRILLED

CLAY

SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM, AASHTO, ETC.)

BORING OR TEST PITNUMBER

DRILL DEPTH

ACCdCtCsG

SANDY GRAVEL CONTAINING COBBLES AND BOULDERS

ICE CRYSTALS IN CLAY

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

H D

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\A

-10

& 1

1.G

DW

(D

RA

WIN

G N

- B

-02

R&

M (

EN

G.)

) 2

/8/1

2 0

9:52

AM

(The symbols shown above are frequently used in combinations, e. g. SANDY GRAVEL W/TRACE SILT)

2

1

INTERVAL SAMPLEDW/% RECOVERY SHADED

STRATA CHANGE

ICE W/SOILINCLUSIONS

#200, - #4

LOCATION OF DRILL REACTION THAT INDICATED COBBLES AND BOULDERS

WATER TABLE *

#4, - 3"

3" - 12" & > 12"

2.5 In. Split Spoon Pushed1.4 In. Split Spoon w/340 lb. HammerShelby TubeModified Shelby TubeSampler I. D. (Added to Symbol)

SpSzTsTm[ x ]

2.5 In. Split Spoon w/340 lb. Manual Hammer2.5 In. Split Spoon w/340 lb. Auto Hammer2.5 In. Split Spoon w/140 lb. Hammer1.4 In. Split Spoon w/140 lb. Manual Hammer1.4 In. Split Spoon w/140 lb. Auto Hammer

ShShaSlSsSsa

SCHIST BEDROCK

SYMBOL SYMBOL

12.0W.D.

30.0

BLOWS/FOOT *

N/A

DWG.NO:

12.0

Elev. 34

Sh

TYPICAL BORING AND TEST PIT LOG

CKD:

COBBLES &BOULDERS

N/A

SAMPLE NUMBER

3

PARTICLE SIZENAME NAME

GENERAL

DWN:

NONE

FROZEN GROUND

A.T.B.

STANDARD SYMBOLS

PERCENT ICE & CLASSIFICATION

NOTE: Water levels shown on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated.

APR. 10

Ss

Cd[NX]

DATE:

SCALE:

ORGANIC MATERIAL

SANDY SILT (Dk. brown)

26.0

C.H.R.

TH-05

1.0

ICE LENSE IN SOIL

WATER CONTENT

GRAVEL

NOTE: Sampler types are either noted above the boring log or adjacent to it at therespective depth. An individual log may not utilize all of the items listed.

APPROX. STRATA CHANGE

ELEVATION IN FEET

ORGANICS

SAMPLER TYPE SYMBOLS

FB:

7.0

SAMPLER TYPE **

ICE

0.0

EXPLANATION OFSELECTED SYMBOLS

Auger SampleCuttings SampleDouble Tube Core BarrelTriple Tube Core BarrelAuger Core BarrelGrab Sample

90, 256.2%Estimated 60% Visible Ice, ICE + SOIL

SILT

SAND

USCOE FROST CLASS.

A-11

GRID:

N=72, MC=12.7%, GW, S1


8 February 2012 R&M 1773.01

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING Summary of Laboratory Soil Test Results ............................................ Drawing B-01 ASTM D 2487 – Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes ..... Drawing B-02

6 February 2012 Drawing B-01 R&M 1773.01

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY SOIL TEST RESULTSKING SALMON HEIGHTS ROAD REHABILITATION

SAMPLE PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (% Finer by Weight) ATTERBERG MOISTUREIDENTIFICATION Standard Sieve Size LIMITS CONTENT USC

Hole No. Depth, ft 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 LL PL PI %TH-01 1 1 - 1.5 100 90 84 79 74 66 59 51 39 26 15 13 8.4 (SM*)g

2 3.5 - 4 13 203 6 - 6.5 26

TH-02 1 1 - 1.5 9.32 1.5 - 1.7 293 3.5 - 4 8.34 6 - 6.5 4.8

TH-03 1 1 - 1.5 13 102 3 - 3.5 823 6 - 6.5 28

TH-04 1 0.5 - 1 10 9.52 2.5 - 3 453 6 - 6.5 20

TH-05 1 0.5 - 1 100 96 89 79 71 58 48 40 30 20 11 8.9 4.6 (SP-SM*)g2 2 - 2.5 7.73 6.5 - 7 20

TH-06 1 0.5 - 1 4.12 3.5 - 4 323 6.5 - 7 16 NV NV NP 29

TH-07 1 0.5 - 1 11 112 2 - 2.5 263 6 - 6.5 10 6.6

TH-08 1 1 - 1.5 11 5.72a 3.5 - 4 9.92b 3.5 - 4 21

* Soil classification determined in part (e.g. grading or plasticity) based on visual manual methods (ASTM D 2488)

OROH

"A" L

INE

"U" L

INE

CLOL

Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve.If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name.Gravel with 5 to 12 % fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly-graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly-graded gravel with claySands with 5 to 12 % fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly-graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly-graded sand with clay

Clean GravelsLess than 5% fines

PT

110

ML OR

Z:\

PR

OJE

CT

\177

3.01

BB

B S

CH

OO

L B

US

RO

UT

ES

KS

H D

ES

IGN

\EA

RT

H\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\B

-02

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

OF

SO

ILS

.GD

W (

DR

AW

ING

AS

TM

CLA

SS

) 2

/8/1

2 09

:53

AM

30 40 50 60

PROJ.NO:

CKD:

Silty gravel F,G,H

Clayey gravel F,G,H

D

D

MH

GENERAL

ASoil Classification

K, L, M

inorganic

organic

PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line

Organic SiltOH

100

F

Poorly-graded gravel F

Liquid limit - oven dried

Liquid limit - not dried

GM

I

Poorly-graded sand I

Silty sand G,H,I

Clayey sand G,H,I

Lean clay

Group Name B

Sands50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

FB:

K, L, M

E

Organic Clay

P.K.H.

If soil contains > 15% sand, add"with sand " to group name.If fines classify as CL-ML, usedual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.If fines are organic, add "withorganic fines" to group name.If soil contains > 15% gravel, add"with gravel" to group name.If Atterberg limits plot in hatchedarea, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.If soil contains 15 to 29% plusNo. 200, add "with sand" or "withgravel," whichever is predominant.If soil contains > 30% plus No. 200,predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name.

60Cc =

PI < 4 and plots below "A" line

DWN:

DWG.NO:

SW

CL-ML

PI plots below "A" line

PI plots on or above "A" line

GroupSymbol

Clean SandsLess than 5 % fines

Sands with FinesMore than 12 % fines

10 16 20

Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3

If soil contains > 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name.PI > 4 and plots on or above "A" line.PI < 4 and plots below "A" line.PI plots on or above "A" line.PI plots below "A" line.

J

L

60Cu = D /D

C.H.R.

Cu > 6 and 1 < Cc < 3

NONE

N/A

Organic Clay K, L, M,NOL

Fat clayCH

K, L, M,P

Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3

K, L, M,Q

Organic Silt K, L, M,O

70 80 90

SCALE:

Coa

rse-

grai

ned

Soi

lsM

ore

than

50%

ret

aine

don

the

No.

200

sie

ve

organic

inorganic

Cu > 4 and 1 < Cc < 3

E

E

Fines classify as ML or MH

Fines classify as CL or CH

Fines classify as CL or CH

10E

10D x D

( D )

OR

J

J

C

C

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

PI)

A

B

C

D

H

G

F

I

K

GravelsMore than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Silts and ClaysLiquid Limit less than 50

Silts and ClaysLiquid Limit 50 or more

CL

SC

Equation of "A"-lineHorizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5, then PI=0.73 (LL-20)Equation of "U"-lineVertical at LL=16 to PI=7, then PI=0.9 (LL-8)

50

SP

SM

CLASSIFICATION OF SOILSFOR

ENGINEERING PURPOSESASTM D 2487

ML Silt K, L, M

DATE:

302

M

NOP

Q

60

< 0.75

< 0.75Liquid limit - not dried

GC

CH

For classification of fine-grained soilsand fine-grained fraction ofcoarse-grained soils.

OL

MH OH

Elastic silt K, L, M

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests

GP

40

30

20

10740

0

Peat

GRID:

GENERAL

OR

E

Fines classify as ML or MH

N/A

Fin

e-gr

aine

d S

oils

50%

or

mor

e pa

sses

the

No.

200

sie

ve

Hig

hly

orga

nic

soil

sWell-graded gravel

Well-graded sand

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

GW

Liquid limit - oven dried

Gravels with FinesMore than 12% fines

B-02


8 February 2012 R&M 1773.01

APPENDIX C

SITE PHOTOS Test Hole (TH) Locations .................................................. Drawings C-01 thru C-04


8 February 2012 Drawing C-01 R&M 1773.01

TH-01 (9/21/2011) View south

TH-02 (9/21/2011) View south



TH-03 (9/21/2011) View north

TH-04 (9/21/2011) View west



TH-05 (9/21/2011) View west

TH-06 (9/21/2011) View west



TH-07 (9/21/2011) View south

TH-08 (9/21/2011) View south

KING SALMON HEIGHTS ROAD REHABILITATION KING S A · GEOTECHNICAL REPORT KING SALMON HEIGHTS ROAD REHABILITATION KING SALMON, ALASKA 8 February 2012 Page 4 R&M 1773.01 NOTE: A field

Documents