AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Ken Upmal, Highway .
AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Ken Upmal, Highway Safety and Design, Project Manager From: Marcy Meyers, Geotechnical Engineer, via Callie Ewald, P.E., Senior Geotechnical Engineer Date: April 28th, 2014 Subject: Bakersfield STP SCRP (11) – Geotechnical Data Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION We have completed our geotechnical investigation for the Bakersfield STP SCRP (11) project located along VT Route 108 (and intersecting with VT Route 36) in the Town of Bakersfield, Vermont. The proposed project consists of new utility placement, roadway reconstruction, and construction of a new retaining wall. This report summarizes the boring and laboratory testing information from our subsurface investigation and contains geotechnical foundation recommendations for the retaining wall design. 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was conducted between March 24th and April 9th, 2014. A total of sixteen borings were drilled to determine the soil strata for the proposed project. Eight solid stem roadway borings were performed approximately every 500 feet in alternating lanes of the roadway along the length of the project. Seven additional borings were performed between the roadway borings along the shoulders, using a larger 3-inch split spoon sampler to obtain subsurface information for the proposed utility placement. Finally, one boring was performed using the standard 2-inch split spoon sampler to obtain information for the construction of the new retaining wall. Northings and Eastings were attained using a handheld Trimble GPS unit and are based on the Vermont State Plane Grid NAD 83 coordinate system. Stations, offsets, and elevations were found using the Northings and Eastings and an existing survey. Boring location information is summarized below in Table 2.1. Boring Scope B-101 B-102 B-103 B-104 B-105 B-106 B-107 B-108 B-109 B-110 B-111 Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway - Utility Roadway - Utility Roadway - Utility Table 2.1: Boring Locations Station Offset Northing (ft) (ft) (ft) 182 35 6.0 830876.10 187 34 -9.0 831295.83 193 00 7.0 831851.43 198 15 -8.5 832345.32 203 47 6.0 832876.79 208 95 -5.5 833389.40 214 12 7.0 833900.53 216 80 -5.5 834184.96 184 00 -15.0 830978.06 190 50 -12.0 831612.08 131 45 9.0 832000.07 Easting (ft) 1561898.72 1561977.04 1562106.13 1562185.27 1562295.59 1562371.95 1562487.84 1562556.32 1561907.52 1562040.11 1562029.35 Elevation (ft) 739.2 739.7 740.5 744.3 740.9 734.8 722.7 730.9 737.7 740.8 741.2
BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP (11) Boring Scope B-112 B-113 B-114 B-115 B-116 Roadway - Utility Roadway - Utility Retaining Wall Roadway - Utility Roadway - Utility Station (ft) 200 22 206 00 209 47 211 50 194 20 Page 2 of 10 Offset (ft) 10.0 11.3 23.0 -14.0 93.0 Northing (ft) 832522.08 833104.99 833410.52 833650.16 831954.84 Easting (ft) 1562235.48 1562341.22 1562405.52 1562410.32 1562216.29 Elevation (ft) 743.7 738.8 736.4 723.7 743.5 The solid stem roadway auger borings were performed in general accordance with AASHTO T306, Processing Auger Borings for Geotechnical Explorations, to determine the subsurface profile to aid in the design and reconstruction of VT Route 108. A 4-inch sold stem auger flight was rotary drilled to 5 feet below the top of the roadway for the 8 roadway borings. The auger was then removed so that a visual observation of the soil profile could be made. This method has proven to be an efficient and reasonably accurate way to view changes in strata and obtain samples off the auger flights. The additional 7 roadway borings were performed using a 3-inch split spoon, also known as a California Sampler, for sampling. This sampler was used to attain a larger sample of material for testing directly under the pavement layer. The use of the 3-inch sampler is considered a modified penetration test, and therefore the N-values typically found according to AASHTO T206 Standard Method of Test for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils, cannot be used to determine soil parameters. The 3-inch split spoon samples were taken continuously from below the pavement layer to depths between 8 and 9 feet. This information was collected to determine the in-situ material at the location of the new drainage system along VT 108 and VT 36 and to determine whether or not the material excavated can be reused as backfill over the proposed pipe. The retaining wall boring was done using the standard 2 inch sampler in accordance with AASHTO T206, Standard Method of Test for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. Split spoon samples and standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed continuously from below the ground surface to 12 feet, and then at 5 foot intervals until 25 feet. Soil samples were visually identified in the field and SPT blow counts were recorded on the boring logs when applicable. Soil samples were preserved and returned to the Materials and Research laboratory for testing and further evaluation. Upon completion of the laboratory testing, the boring logs were revised to reflect the results of the laboratory classification results. 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS The standard penetration resistance of the in-situ soil is determined by the number of blows required to drive a 2 inch OD split barrel sampler into the soil with a 140 pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches, in accordance with procedures specified in AASHTO T206. It is important to note that only boring B-114 was performed according to AASHTO T206. During the standard penetration test (SPT), the sampler is driven for a total length of 2 feet, while counting the blows for each 6 inch increment. The SPT N-value, which is defined as the sum of the number of blows required to drive the sampler through the second and third increments, is commonly used with established correlations to estimate a number of soil parameters, particularly the shear strength and density of cohesionless soils. The N-values provided on the
BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP (11) Page 3 of 10 boring log are raw values and have not been corrected for energy, borehole diameter, rod length, or overburden pressure. The VT Agency of Transportation has determined a hammer correction value, CE, to account for the efficiency of the SPT hammer on the drill rig. For this project, a CME 55 track rig was used, with a CE 1.46. This value, included on the boring log, was used in soil parameter calculations for the proposed retaining wall. Laboratory tests were conducted on all samples to evaluate grain size, moisture content, percent finer than No. 200 sieve, and liquid and plastic limits when applicable. 4.0 SOIL PROFILE Borings were performed in the roadway throughout the project extents to determine the thickness of the asphalt pavement, classify the subbase and subgrade material, and gauge the groundwater level for excavation purposes. The boring in the location of the proposed retaining wall was performed to provide geotechnical foundation design recommendations for the retaining wall design. Review of the laboratory data and boring logs revealed the following information pertaining to the soil strata for both the roadway and the retaining wall foundation: 4.1 Roadway Borings (B-101 through B-108) The thickness of the asphalt pavement varied from 0.44 to 0.64 feet thick. The pavement overlies a layer of silty gravelly sand, which was encountered the entire length of the project. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. All samples were deemed non-plastic. Attached is a visual representation of the subsurface profile, interpreted by the borings, showing the various strata. Also attached are the drilling notes which contain specific information regarding soil classifications, particle percentages, and depths of material. 4.2 Roadway Utility Borings (B-109 through B-116, except B-114) The thickness of the asphalt pavement varied from 0.34 to 0.74 feet thick. The pavement overlies a sandy gravel layer with a fines content of less than 18 percent to a depth of approximately 4 feet below the top of pavement. A mixture of silt and sand with a percent fines ranging as high as 48 percent exists below the sandy gravel layer. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. All samples were deemed non-plastic. Attached is a visual representation of the subsurface profile, interpreted by the borings, showing the various strata. The attached boring logs contain specific information regarding particle percentages, depths, and additional tests, if applicable. Also attached is a visual representation of the subsurface profile, interpreted by the borings, showing the various strata.
BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP (11) Page 4 of 10 4.3 Retaining Wall Boring (B-114) One boring was performed for the proposed retaining wall. The ground surface elevation at B-114 was 736.4 feet. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 10.6 feet below ground surface during drilling operations and 14.2 feet below the ground surface once the casing was removed. Depth (Below Ground Surface Elevation) 0 – 6 ft 6 – 15 ft 15 – 20 ft 20 – 27 ft 5.0 Soil Profile Very Loose Gravelly Silty Sand Medium Dense Sand Medium Dense Silty Sand Medium Dense Sand RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Roadway Utility Borings Based on the information available in the two borings along VT 36, it appears the in-situ material to depth contains less than 12% fines. As a result, the in-situ material that will be excavated for the drainage system installation along VT 36 may be reused as backfill. The material in the borings taken along VT 108 contained a fines content up to 18% to a depth of 4 feet. The material became more silty with higher fines percentages below a depth of 4 feet. As a result, we recommend only the material to a depth of 4 feet below the pavement be reused as backfill for the drainage system installation along VT Route 108. 5.2 Retaining Wall AASHTO’s LRFD Bridge Design Manual (2012) was used as the reference for settlement and bearing capacity equations. Section 10.6.3.1.2 contains the equation used for bearing capacity. Neither depth factors nor load inclination factors were used in analysis as they were not considered pertinent. Hough’s Method, used to calculate settlement in normally consolidated cohesionless soils, can be found in section 10.6.2.4.2. We recommend the bottom of footing to be 4 feet below the ground surface based on frost susceptibility and the silty sand bearing stratum at this site. A wall length of 165 feet was assumed for analysis based off the conceptual plans dated August 14, 2013. Although groundwater was encountered approximately 2 feet below the bottom of footing during boring operations, a conservative groundwater depth at the bottom of footing was used in analysis. As per section 10.5.5.1 of the 2012 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, a resistance factor of 1.0 should be applied to the unfactored bearing resistance for use in service limit state design. Service limit state design includes, but is not limited to, settlement. Section 10.5.5.2.2 specifies that a resistance factor of 0.45 should be applied to the unfactored bearing resistance for use in strength limit state design for spread footings on rock and soil. Strength limit state design includes, but is not limited to, checks for bearing resistance, sliding and constructability. Potential for overturning is limited by controlling the location
BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP (11) Page 5 of 10 of the resultant of the reaction forces (eccentricity). Eccentricity, e, shall be limited as follows: Foundations on soil: e b/3 Foundations on rock: e 0.45b Eccentricity should be considered for settlement and bearing resistance design of spread footings by using effective footing widths based on AASHTO Section 10.6.1.3. All footing widths presented in this report are effective footing widths. 5.2.1 Bearing Resistance Based on the profile in Boring B-114, an assumed bottom of footing elevation located in the sand stratum, as well as empirical relationships, it was determined the soil has a friction angle, φ 33 and density, γ 115 lbs/ft3. Figure 5.1 below displays the minimum effective footing width per maximum bearing resistance, factored due to LRFD strength limit. For footing widths of 2, 4, 6 and 8 feet, the maximum bearing resistance is 3.6, 4.5, 5.5 and 6.4 kips/ft2 (ksf), respectively. Effective Footing Width vs. Bearing Resistance (factored) Bearing Resistance (ksf) 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Footing Width (ft) Figure 5.1 Factored bearing resistance. Load resistance factor, Φ 0.45 Soil settlement values were calculated for various footing widths based on the nominal bearing pressure. Found in Figure 5.2 are the settlement values for bearing pressures ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 ksf. Due to the more granular nature of the soils at the footing elevation, settlement is expected to occur during or immediately after construction.
BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP (11) Bearing Pressure (ksf) 4 Page 6 of 10 Settlement Based Upon Effective Footing Width and Bearing Pressure 3 2 1 0 0.00 0.50 B 2' 1.00 1.50 Settlement (in) B 4' B 6' B 8' Figure 5.2 Settlement vs. nominal bearing pressure These calculations are based on the geometric and geotechnical assumptions outlined above. Sections 10.5.2 and 10.5.3 of AASHTO outline all design states relevant to spread footing design and their respective resistance factors. Table 5.1 shows the appropriate resistance factors for various design states. Table 5.1 Summary of resistance factors Design State Resistance Factor, φ Settlement 1.0 Scour 1.0 Bearing Resistance 0.45 Sliding 0.80 5.2.2 Global Stability Analysis A global stability analysis was conducted to evaluate the overall stability of the soil slope and proposed retaining wall. Using Slide version 6.0 developed by Rocscience, a slope stability analysis was performed which evaluated both compound and deep-seated failures for an 8.5 foot tall section of wall. According to the FHWA Soils and Foundations Manual Volume I, the Bishop Method is recommended to be used for slope stability analysis for non-cohesive soils. As a result, the Bishop Method produced a factor of safety against slope failure of greater than 1.3. A factor of safety of 1.3 is equivalent to a resistance factor of Φ 0.75, which according to AASHTO LRFD Section 11.6.2.3, is the resistance factor for overall stability of a retaining wall that does not support or contain a structural element. Figure 5.3 below shows an image of the retaining wall with the groundwater table at 2.9 feet below the ground surface, and the most critical failure surface using the Bishop Method.
BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP (11) Page 7 of 10 Figure 5.3 Retaining wall modeled in Slide 6.0 5.3 Retaining Wall Selection: A conceptual plan (end result) approach to retaining wall solicitation is recommended for all wall systems except conventional reinforced concrete walls and bin walls in which case detailed plans should be included in the bidding documents. In accordance with the Agency standard practice, projects containing earth retaining structures (except conventionally reinforced concrete and bin walls) shall use a concept drawing approach, i.e. fully detailed set of retaining wall plans will not be contained in the bidding documents. The design shall meet the requirements the 2012 LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The concept drawing, furnished in the bidding documents will contain the following geometric and design project specific information: A. Geometric 1. Beginning and end of wall stations. 2. Elevations on top of wall at beginning and end of wall station as well as all profile break points. 3. Original and proposed ground line profiles in front of and behind the retaining wall. 4. Cross sections at the retaining wall location at 24 foot intervals. 5. Horizontal wall alignment. 6. Details of wall appurtenances such as traffic barriers, coping, fencing, drainage, location and configurations of signs and lighting including conduit locations. 7. Right of way limits.
BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP (11) Page 8 of 10 8. Construction sequence requirements if applicable, including traffic control, access, and stage construction sequences. 9. Elevation of highest permissible level for foundation construction. Location, depth and extent of any unsuitable material to be removed and replaced. 10. Quantities table showing estimated square feet of wall area, and quantity of appurtenances and traffic barriers. B. Design 1. 2. 3. 4. Shear strength and consolidation properties of foundation soils. Shear strength and unit weight of select backfill. Shear strength of random fill or in-situ soil behind the wall. Required design life of the structure (example: permanent mechanically stabilized earth walls are commonly designed, based on corrosion, for minimum service lives of 75 years). 5. Nominal bearing resistance for the foundation soil and minimum footing embedment depth. 6. Maximum tolerable total and differential settlement. 7. Magnitude, location and direction of external loads due to bridges, overhead signs and lights, traffic surcharge and rapid groundwater draw down. 8. Limits and requirements for drainage features beneath, behind, or through the retaining structure. 9. Backfill requirements for both within and behind the retaining structure. (Both material and placement requirements should be specified, i.e., gradation, plasticity index, electrochemical, soundness, maximum loose lift thickness, minimum density and allowable moisture content). 10. Special facing panel and module finishes or colors. Geometric, geotechnical and structural considerations must be complementary for the conceptual plan to convey the desired end product to the bidders. In general, the specifications should refer to the Agency’s list of Approved Wall Systems in following link. http://vtransengineering.vermont.gov/sites/aot program development/files/documents/mate rialsandresearch/MandRSoilAPPROVED Retaining Walls 8-2012 Final.pdf. It is recommended that the Redi-Rock, Recon, and T-wall systems be identified as acceptable options for this project and that other systems will be considered on a case by case basis. 5.4 Design Parameters Based on the soil profiles above, laboratory testing, and attached boring logs, the in-situ soil properties as well as engineering values for common construction materials can be found in Table 5.2. These values should be used in the design of the retaining wall foundation for this project. The table below highlights the geotechnical design parameters of the in-situ soils as well as regularly specified aggregates. These values should be used when designing any substructure units. It is recommended that values of K0 be used for calculating earth pressures where the structure is not allowed to deflect longitudinally, away from or into the retained soil mass. Values for Ka should be utilized for an active earth pressure condition
BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP (11) Page 9 of 10 where the structure is moving away from the soil mass and Kp where the structure is moving toward the soil mass. Ka and Kp values are based on a vertical back of wall and a horizontal ground surface behind the wall or structure. Table 5.2 Engineering Properties of In-Situ Soils & Construction Materials Density, γ (lbs/ft3): In-Situ V. Loose GrSiSa 110 In-Situ M. Dense Sa* 115 704.08 – Granular Backfill for Structures 140 Internal Friction Angle, φ (degrees) 28 33 34 0.35 0.50 0.55 - soil against precast /formed concrete: 0.31 0.35 0.45 Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka: 0.36 0.29 0.28 Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient, Kp: 2.77 3.39 3.54 At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ko: *Retaining wall bearing stratum 0.53 0.46 0.44 Design Parameter Coefficient of Friction, f - mass concrete cast against soil: If a non-horizontal ground surface behind the wall or structure is used in design, the following equations should be used to determine the active earth pressure coefficient, Ka (AASHTO LRFD Section 3.11.5.3). sin2 (θ ′ ) f k a Γ[sin2θ sin(θ δ)] in which sin( ′ f δ) sin( ′ f β) 2 ] sin(θ δ) sin(θ β) Γ [1 (3.11.5.3-1) (3.11.5.3-2) Where: δ friction angle between fill and wall taken as specified in Table 3.11.5.3-1 (degrees) β angle of fill to the horizontal as shown in Figure 3.11.5.3-1 (degrees) θ angle of back face of wall to the horizontal as shown in Figure 3.11.5.3-1 (degrees) ϕ’f effective angle of internal friction (degrees) Refer to AASHTO LRFD Section 3.11.5.4 to determine the passive earth pressure coefficient, Kp for a non-horizontal ground surface.
BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP (11) Page 10 of 10 5.5 Construction Considerations 5.5.1 Construction Dewatering Temporary construction dewatering may be required to install the utilities and retaining wall, which can likely be accomplished by open pumping from shallow sumps, temporary ditches, and trenches within and around the excavation limits. Sumps should be provided with filters suitable to prevent pumping of fine-grained soil particles. The water trapped by the temporary dewatering controls should be discharged to settling basins or an approved filter “sock” so that the fine particles suspended in the discharge have adequate time to “settle out” prior to discharge. All effluent, or discharge, should comply with all applicable permits and regulations. Sumps and trenches should lie outside a 1V:1H line extending downward and outward from the edge of the footing. Installation and operation of the Contractor’s dewatering system should be integrated with other earthwork operations and sequence of cutting, filling, foundation construction, and backfilling. 5.5.2 Placement and Compaction of Soils Fills should be placed systematically in horizontal layers not more than 12 inches in thickness, prior to compaction. Cobbles larger than 8 inches should be removed from the fill prior to placement. Compaction equipment should preferably consist of large, selfpropelled vibratory rollers. Where hand-guided equipment, such as a small vibratory plate compactor, is used the loose lift thickness shall not exceed 6 inches. Cobbles larger than 4 inches should be removed from the fill prior to placement. Embankment fills should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90% of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with AASHTO T-99. Granular Backfill for Structures, or other select materials placed within the roadway base section shall be compacted to a dry density of 95% of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with AASHTO T-99. 6.0 CONCLUSION We recommend this report be included with the contract documents when the project is advertised. Please feel free to contact us at (802) 828-2561 if you have any questions, or you would like to further discuss this report. Typed boring logs are attached and are available in the CADD design files: M:\Projects\10B248\Materials&Research Attachments: Boring Logs (8 Pages) Roadway Boring Profile Sheet (2 Pages) Auger Notes (2 Pages) cc: Read File/WEA Project File/CEE MLM Z:\PDD\MaterialsAndResearch\Soils and Foundations\Projects\Bakersfield STP SCRP (11)\REPORTS\Bakersfield STP SCRP (11) Geotechnical Report.doc
STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS & RESEARCH SECTION SUBSURFACE INFORMATION Boring Crew: 3/27/14 VTSPG NAD83: Offset: Page No.: 3/27/14 E 1561907.52 ft -15.00 737.7 ft 10B248 Checked By: Sampler Type: H.S.A. 3.0" S.S. I.D.: 3.5 in 3 in Hammer Wt: N.A. 140 lb. Hammer Fall: N.A. 30 in. Hammer/Rod Type: Auto/AWJ Rig: CME 45C SKID CE 1 of 1 Pin No.: MLM Groundwater Observations Date Depth (ft) 03/27/14 Notes No water to depth. 52.5 36.4 11.1 32-5748-35 14.4 5.3 77.2 17.5 A-3, Sa, brn, Moist, Rec. 1.8 ft 8-12-9-8 4.2 0.3 97.8 1.9 A-3, Sa, brn, Moist, Rec. 1.8 ft 6-9-9-6 6.4 94.5 5.5 Fines % 7.5 Sand % 200 CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (Description) Gravel % Moisture Content % Strata (1) Ground Elevation: Depth (ft) N 830978.06 ft 184 00 BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP(11) VT-108 B-109 Blows/6" (N Value) Station: Date Finished: Boring No.: Casing DAIGNEAULT, JUDKINS Date Started: BORING LOG Asphalt Pavement, 0.0 ft - 0.56 ft A-1-a, SaGr, brn, Moist, Rec. 0.5 ft, Lab Note: Broken Rock was within sample. 2.5 A-2-4, Sa, brn, Moist, Rec. 1.8 ft 5.0 7.5 Hole stopped @ 8.0 ft BORING LOG 2 BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP(11).GPJ VERMONT AOT.GDT 4/28/14 10.0 Remarks: 1. Drillers used a 3" split spoon sampler. 2. Hole collapsed at 1.5 ft. 12.5 15.0 17.5 Notes: 1. Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between material types. Transition may be gradual. 2. N Values have not been corrected for hammer energy. CE is the hammer energy correction factor. 3. Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated. Fluctuations may occur due to other factors than those present at the time measurements were made.
STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS & RESEARCH SECTION SUBSURFACE INFORMATION Boring Crew: 3/27/14 VTSPG NAD83: Offset: Page No.: 3/27/14 E 1562040.11 ft -12.00 740.8 ft 10B248 Checked By: Sampler Type: H.S.A. 3.0" S.S. I.D.: 3.5 in 3 in Hammer Wt: N.A. 140 lb. Hammer Fall: N.A. 30 in. Hammer/Rod Type: Auto/AWJ Rig: CME 45C SKID CE 1 of 1 Pin No.: MLM Groundwater Observations Date Depth (ft) 03/27/14 Notes No water to depth. 42.5 45.5 12.0 A-1-b, Sa, brn, Moist, Rec. 1.8 ft 60-5638-32 8.4 18.6 72.2 A-2-4, SiSa, Lt/brn, Moist, Rec. 1.6 ft 22-1617-20 4.2 0.4 A-4, SiSa, Lt/brn, Moist, Rec. 1.5 ft 11-1112-16 6.7 Fines % 8.8 Sand % 200 CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (Description) Gravel % Moisture Content % Strata (1) Ground Elevation: Depth (ft) N 831612.08 ft 190 50 BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP(11) VT-108 B-110 Blows/6" (N Value) Station: Date Finished: Boring No.: Casing DAIGNEAULT, JUDKINS Date Started: BORING LOG Asphalt Pavement, 0.0 ft - 0.48 ft A-1-b, GrSa, brn, Moist, Rec. 0.4 ft 2.5 9.2 66.1 33.5 5.0 51.7 48.3 7.5 Hole stopped @ 8.0 ft BORING LOG 2 BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP(11).GPJ VERMONT AOT.GDT 4/28/14 10.0 Remarks: 1. Drillers used a 3" split spoon sampler. 2. Hole collapsed at 2.5 ft. 12.5 15.0 17.5 Notes: 1. Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between material types. Transition may be gradual. 2. N Values have not been corrected for hammer energy. CE is the hammer energy correction factor. 3. Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated. Fluctuations may occur due to other factors than those present at the time measurements were made.
VTSPG NAD83: Station: Strata (1) Depth (ft) N 832000.07 ft 131 45 Ground Elevation: Date Finished: 3/26/14 E 1562029.35 ft Offset: 9.00 741.2 ft Casing CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (Description) 10B248 Checked By: Sampler Type: H.S.A. 3.0" S.S. I.D.: 3.5 in 3 in Hammer Wt: N.A. 140 lb. Hammer Fall: N.A. 30 in. Hammer/Rod Type: Auto/AWJ Rig: CME 45C SKID CE 1 of 1 Pin No.: MLM Groundwater Observations Date Depth (ft) 03/26/14 Notes No water to depth. 200 5.3 56.1 34.1 9.8 Fines % 3/26/14 Page No.: Sand % Date Started: BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP(11) VT-108 B-111 Gravel % DAIGNEAULT, HOOK, JUDKINS Boring No.: Moisture Content % Boring Crew: BORING LOG Blows/6" (N Value) STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS & RESEARCH SECTION SUBSURFACE INFORMATION Asphalt Pavement, 0.0 ft - 0.74 ft 2.5 A-1-a, SaGr, brn, Moist, Rec. 0.4 ft Field Note:, No Recovery, Sampler stopped at 2.1 ft. 100 A-3, Sa, brn, Moist, Rec. 1.7 ft 19-3626-25 4.0 5.8 91.0 3.2 A-3, Sa, brn, Moist, Rec. 1.8 ft 9-10-913 6.7 14.3 80.3 5.4 5.0 7.5 Hole stopped @ 8.0 ft BORING LOG 2 BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP(11).GPJ VERMONT AOT.GDT 4/28/14 10.0 Remarks: 1. Drillers used a 3" split spoon sampler. 2. Hole collapsed at 3.2 ft. 12.5 15.0 17.5 Notes: 1. Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between material types. Transition may be gradual. 2. N Values have not been corrected for hammer energy. CE is the hammer energy correction factor. 3. Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated. Fluctuations may occur due to other factors than those present at the time measurements were made.
STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS & RESEARCH SECTION SUBSURFACE INFORMATION Boring Crew: 3/25/14 VTSPG NAD83: Offset: Page No.: 3/25/14 E 1562235.48 ft 10.00 743.7 ft 10B248 Checked By: Sampler Type: H.S.A. 3.0" S.S. I.D.: 3.5 in 3 in Hammer Wt: N.A. 140 lb. Hammer Fall: N.A. 30 in. Hammer/Rod Type: Auto/AWJ Rig: CME 45C SKID CE 1 of 1 Pin No.: MLM Groundwater Observations Date Depth (ft) 03/25/14 Notes No water to depth. 55.5 35.6 8.9 A-1-b, Sa, brn, Moist, Rec. 1.9 ft 28-3127-26 4.2 15.8 80.4 3.8 A-1-b, GrSa, brn, Moist, Rec. 1.8 ft 10-1211-8 4.5 38.4 56.8 4.8 A-1-b, GrSa, brn, Moist, Rec. 1.4 ft 4-7-6-7 5.2 20.3 72.2 7.5 Fines % 4.6 Sand % 200 CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (Description) Gravel % Moisture Content % Strata (1) Depth (ft) Ground Elevation: Date Finished: N 832522.08 ft 200 22 BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP(11) VT-108 B-112 Blows/6" (N Value) Station: Boring No.: Casing DAIGNEAULT, HOOK Date Started: BORING LOG Asphalt Pavement, 0.0 ft - 0.34 ft A-1-a, SaGr, brn, Moist, Rec. 0.3 ft 2.5 5.0 7.5 Hole stopped @ 9.0 ft 10.0 BORING LOG 2 BAKERSFIELD STP SCRP(11).GPJ VERMONT AOT.GDT 4/28/14 Remarks: 1. Drillers used a 3" split spoon sampler. 2. Hole collapsed at 2.2 ft. 12.5 15.0 17.5 Notes: 1. Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between material types. Transition may be gradual. 2. N Values have not been corrected for hammer energy. CE is the hammer energy correction factor. 3. Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated. Fluctuations may occur due to other factors than those present at the time measurements were made.
STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS & RESEARCH SECTION SUBSURFACE INFORMATION Boring Crew: 3/25/14 VTSPG NAD83: Offset: Page No.: 3/25/14 E 1562341.22 ft 11.30 738.8 ft 10B248 Checked By: Sampler Type: H.S.A. 3.0" S.S. I.D.: 3.5 in 3 in
The additional 7 roadway borings were performed using a 3-inch split spoon, also known as a California Sampler, for sampling. This sampler was used to attain a larger sample of material for testing directly under the pavement layer. The use of the 3inch sampler is considered a modified -
Confidential Information Memorandum June 30, 2011 Sample Industries, Inc. (Not a real company.) Prepared by: John Smith, CPA Middle Market Business Advisors 500 North Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL. 60600 This Memorandum is confidential and private. Distribution is restricted.File Size: 211KBPage Count: 16Explore furtherInformation Memorandum Disclaimer - Free Template Sample .lawpath.com.auConfidential Information Memorandum (CIM): Detailed Guide .www.mergersandinquisitions.comInformation Memorandum Template for Investors Property .businessplans.com.auRecommended to you b
‘‘Memorandum’’ the memorandum of association of the Company, as amended from time to time ‘‘Memorandum Amendments’’ the proposed amendments to the Memorandum subject to the approval of the Shareholders by way of a special resolution at the EGM ‘‘Second Amended M&A’’ the second amended and restated Memorandum and Articles,
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Defense Commissary Agency. Defense Contract Audit Agency. Defense Contract Management Agency * Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Defense Health Agency * Defense Information Systems Agency * Defense Intelligence Agency * Defense Legal Services Agency. Defense Logistics Agency * Defense POW/MIA .
1 Reg Office: Cmd Line Reg Office: Cmd Line 2 Reg Office: Desktop v1 Reg Office: Desktop v1 3 Reg Office: Desktop v2 Reg Office: Web v1 4 Reg Office: Web v1 Reg Office: Web v2 5 Reg Office: Web v2 Reg Office: Desktop v2. Client-Side Web Programming: CSS . - book.py, database.py
Transportation Engineering The transportation engineering faculty offer graduate course in transportation planning, design, operations and safety with an emphasis on surface transportation. The faculty are engaged in research in transportation planning and safety, intelligent transportation systems, transportation systems analysis, traffic flow .
21. Unlimited company to have share capital. 22. Company limited by guarantee. Memorandum of association 23. Requirements with respect to memorandum of company. 24. Form of memorandum. 25. Name as stated in memorandum. 26. Exemption from requirement of using “Limited” as part of name. 27. Provision applicable to company exempted under .
See Distribution List 1. Purpose. This memorandum establishes VA’s Small Business Program procurement review policy and process and complements the Small Business Operating Plans prepared in accordance with VAAR 819.202-70. The review procedure is effective as of the date of this memorandum. This memorandum supersedes and replaces OSDBU Small .
All of the provisions of these memoranda remain in effect except where noted herein. This memorandum supplements the existing guidance. 2 . 1 . This memorandum reissued prior guidance provided in a memorandum with the same title on May 12, 2005 without change except to clarify the answer to question 1 in Section I.
