Geotechnical Engineering Report...Geotechnical Engineering Report Fitts Park Pedestrian Bridge South...

REPORT C OVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report Fitts Park Pedestrian Bridge

South Salt Lake, Utah

July 26, 2018

Terracon Project No. 61175201

Prepared for:

Kinley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake City, UT

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Midvale, Utah

Responsive Resourceful Reliable

REPORT TOPICS

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 2 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... 2 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 3 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................ 4 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................... 7

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 10 LIQUEFACTION ........................................................................................................... 10 GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 12

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced

section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the

logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at

client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS (Boring Logs and Laboratory Data)

SUPPORTING INFORMATION (General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System)

http://client.terracon.com/

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 1

INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Fitts Park Pedestrian Bridge

3050 South 500 East

South Salt Lake, Utah Terracon Project No. 61175201

July 26, 2018

INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering

services performed for the proposed Fitts Park Pedestrian Bridge to be located at 3050 South

500 East in South Salt Lake, Utah. The purpose of these services is to provide information and

geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

The geotechnical engineering scope of services for this project included the advancement of two

test borings to depths of approximately 50 feet below existing site grades.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration

Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples

obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs in the

Exploration Results section of this report.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the

field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information 3050 South 500 East in South Salt Lake, Utah.

See Site Location

Existing

Improvements Existing public park surrounded by residential properties.

Subsurface soil conditions Foundation design and construction

Groundwater conditions Frost considerations

Site preparation and earthwork Seismic site classification per IBC

Excavation considerations Lateral earth pressures


Fitts Park Pedestrian Bridge South Salt Lake, Utah

July 26, 2018 Terracon Project No. 61175201


Item Description

Current Ground

Cover Trees, grass, shrubs, and landscaping.

Existing Topography Moderate to steep slopes along Mill Creek.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed in the

project planning stage. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated,

and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Project Description Planned construction of a pedestrian bridge over Mill Creek in Fitt’s Park in South Salt Lake, Utah.

Proposed Structure Pedestrian bridge structure. The bridge structure will be single-span and approximately 45 to 50 feet long.

Bridge Construction Reinforced concrete or metal girders supported on reinforced concrete abutments supported on shallow or deep foundations.

Maximum Loads

Factored Loads

Dead Load: 87.5 kips (reported) Live Load: 39.4 kips (reported)

Grading/Slopes Minimal cut and fills expected to be 3 feet or less.

Below Grade Structures None

Free-Standing Retaining Walls

None

Below Grade Areas None

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Subsurface Profile

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions

based upon our review of the data and our understanding of the geologic setting and planned

construction. The following table provides our geotechnical characterization.

The geotechnical characterization forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation

of site preparation, foundation options and pavement options. As noted in General Comments,

the characterization is based upon widely spaced exploration points across the site, and variations

are likely.





Stratum Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Description Consistency/Density

Surface 6 inches Topsoil N/A

1 7 to 9½ Silt with sand, silty sand Medium stiff / very

loose to loose

2 51½ 1 Lean clay, silty clay, occasional silt

with sand layers Very soft to stiff

1. Maximum depth explored

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs shown

in the Exploration Results section and are attached to this report. Stratification boundaries on

the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in native soil types; in situ, the

transition between materials may be gradual.

Groundwater Conditions

The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of

groundwater. The water levels observed in the boreholes can be found on the boring logs in

Exploration Results, and are summarized below.

Boring Number Approximate Depth to Groundwater while

Drilling (feet) 1

B-1 10

B-2 8

1. Below ground surface

Due to water content of the soil samples, groundwater is expected to be at an approximate depth of

5’ deep. Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall,

runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore,

groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher

or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level

fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the

project.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Based on the results of the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and our analyses, it is our

opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction, provided the recommendations

presented in this report are followed. Geotechnical considerations for this project include:





Near Surface Soils – Fine-grained near-surface soils are susceptible to pumping and

rutting under the weight of construction equipment, especially when wetted. Special

measures will be required to complete earthwork activities and and foundation

construction. The use of crushed stone (Stabilization Fill) in combination with geotextiles

may be required to form stable surfaces for construction.

Shallow Foundations – Relatively soft compressible native clay soils were encountered

at the bridge foundation locations. Structural Fill or a Compacted Aggregate Pier (CAP)

improved subgrade is required below shallow footings to provide support for bearing and

limit settlement to 1 inch or less. Shallow spread footings may require embedment beyond

frost depth for lateral resistance or scour. Dewatering may be required in foundation

excavations.

Shallow Groundwater - Shallow groundwater is anticipated at this site. Excavations

extending deeper than about 5 feet below existing grade are anticipated to encounter

groundwater. The presence of groundwater at these depths will present difficulties during

construction that may impact the long-term performance of the structure. De-watering

during construction may be required.

Geotechnical engineering recommendations for the planned pedestrian bridge and other earth-

connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this

report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in

Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed

project.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork will include clearing and grubbing landscaped areas, and possible excavations and fill

placement. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of

specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria as necessary to

render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundations,

floor slabs, and pavements.

Site Preparation

Topsoil, deleterious materials, fill, loose or disturbed soil, and any other unsuitable materials

should be removed from within construction areas. Following removal of unsuitable materials, the

exposed subgrade below foundations, including areas which will receive fill, should be proofrolled





to aid in assessing subgrade condition. Proofrolling should be performed using rubber-tired

equipment. Soft, pumping or otherwise unsuitable conditions, identified during proof rolling,

should be removed and replaced with Structural Fill or stabilized using geotextiles and

Stabilization Fill.

Backfill of excavations above the groundwater level should be completed using properly placed

and compacted Structural Fill. Backfill of excavations below groundwater level should be

completed using properly placed and compacted Free-Draining Granular Backfill.

The site should be initially graded to create a relatively level surface to receive fill, and to provide

for a relatively uniform thickness of fill beneath foundations and site grading areas.

Stabilization of subgrade may also be accomplished using lime or cement to treat the clay

subgrade soils. Additional testing will be required to determine the percent lime or cement

required.

Although evidence of underground facilities, such as septic tanks, cesspools, and unknown

utilities, was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features could be encountered

during construction. If unexpected underground facilities are encountered, such features should

be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction.

Fill Material Types

Fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1

Recommended Use Acceptable Parameters (for Structural Fill)

Structural Fill

Below foundations,

above groundwater

level

Liquid Limit less than 32. Plasticity index less than 6

Less than 15% retained on #200 sieve

Free-Draining

Granular Backfill

Below groundwater

level

1½ inch minus, 25% to 60% particles passing ½ inch

sieve, less than 5% passing #200 sieve

Stabilization Fill Soft spot repair 6 inch minus with 5% max passing No. 200 sieve.

1. Structural and general fill should consist of approved materials free of organic matter and debris. Frozen

material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material

type should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for evaluation prior to use on this site.

Fill Compaction Requirements

Engineered fill should meet the following compaction requirements.





Item Structural Fill Free-Draining Granular

Backfill

Maximum Lift Thickness

8 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used

4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used

Same as Structural Fill

Minimum Compaction

Requirements 1, 2, 3

95% of max. Same as Structural Fill

Water Content

Range 1

+/-2% of optimum

As required to achieve min. compaction requirements

1. Maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557). 2. If the granular material is a coarse sand or gravel, or of a uniform size, or has a low fines content,

compaction comparison to relative density may be more appropriate. In this case, granular materials should be compacted to at least 70% relative density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254).

Stabilization Fill should be densified using a smooth drum roller with a minimum of 4 passes.

Grading and Drainage

Any areas of standing surface water should be drained as far in advance of construction as possible.

Any saturated soils should be removed prior to placing fill or proceeding with construction.

Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the site and soak into the soil during construction.

Construction staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from

structures. Any water that collects over or adjacent to construction areas should be promptly

removed, along with any softened or disturbed soils. Surface water control in the form of sloping

surfaces, drainage ditches and trenches, and sump pits and pumps will be important to avoid ponding

and associated delays due to precipitation and seepage.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Excavations for the proposed construction are anticipated to be accomplished with conventional

construction equipment.

Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be minimized to reduce damage to the

subgrade. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared

subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become frozen, desiccated, saturated, or

disturbed, the affected material should be removed and replaced with compacted Structural Fill

or the materials moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to foundation construction





The groundwater table could affect over-excavation efforts, especially for over-excavation and

replacement of lower strength soils. A temporary dewatering system consisting of sumps with pumps

could be necessary to achieve the recommended depth of over-excavation.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926,

Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, and/or

state regulations.

Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means,

methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the

information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for

construction site safety, or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied

nor inferred.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Monitoring should include documentation of adequate removal of vegetation and top soil, proof-

rolling and mitigation of areas delineated by the proof-roll to require mitigation.

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked as necessary until approved

by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill for bridge

construction components should be tested for density and water content

In areas of foundation excavations, the bearing subgrade should be evaluated under the direction

of the Geotechnical Engineer. In the event that unanticipated conditions are encountered, the

Geotechnical Engineer should prescribe mitigation options.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the

continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the

continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including

assessing variations and associated design changes.

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

In our opinion, the proposed pedestrian bridge may be supported on a lightly loaded, shallow

spread footing foundation system bearing on a minimum of 24 inches of properly placed and

compacted Structural Fill or on a CAP improved subgrade. If the site has been prepared in

accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the following design parameters are

applicable for shallow foundations.





Design Parameters – Compressive Loads

Item Description

Maximum Net Allowable Bearing

pressure by footing dimension 1, 2

6’ x 12’ 2200 psf

8’ X 12’ 1300 psf

10 x 12 1100 psf

Minimum Foundation Dimensions 6’ wide x 12’ long

Ultimate Coefficient of Sliding Friction 3

0.40 (granular material)

Minimum Embedment below

Finished Grade 4, 6

30 inches

Estimated Total Settlement from

Foundation Loads 5

Approximately 1 inch

Estimated Differential Settlement from

Foundation Loads 5

< ½ inch over 12 feet

1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. An appropriate factor of safety has been applied. These bearing pressures can be increased by 1/3 for transient loads unless those loads have been factored to account for transient conditions. Values assume that exterior grades are no steeper than 20% within 10 feet of structure.

2. Values provided are for maximum loads noted in Project Description.

3. The sides of excavations for spread footings must be nearly vertical and the concrete should be placed neat against these vertical faces for the passive earth pressure values to be valid. If the loaded side is sloped or benched, and then backfilled, the allowable passive pressure will be significantly reduced. Passive resistance in the upper 2.5 feet of the soil profile should be neglected. If passive resistance is used to resist lateral loads, the base friction should be neglected.

4. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content variations. For sloping ground, maintain depth below the lowest adjacent exterior grade within 5 horizontal feet of the structure.

5. The foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural

loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footings, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of

the earthwork operations.

6. Additional embedment may be required to resist lateral loading or uplift.

Foundation Construction Considerations

As noted in Earthwork, the footing excavations should be evaluated under the direction of the

Geotechnical Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose

soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing

soil disturbance. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during

construction. Excessively wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the

footing excavations should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.

If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered at the base of the planned footing excavation, the

excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils, and the footings can bear directly on

properly placed and compacted Structural Fill or Free-Draining Granular Backfill extending to the





suitable soil. Fill placed above the groundwater table should be Structural Fill and fill below the

groundwater table should be Free-Draining Granular Backfill.. This is illustrated on the sketch

below.

Over-excavation for structural fill placement below footings should be conducted as shown below.

The over-excavation should be backfilled up to the footing base elevation, with Structural Fill

placed, as recommended in the Earthwork section.

Compacted Aggregate Pier Soil Reinforcement

To control settlement and increase bearing capacity proposed foundations may be supported on a

compacted aggregate pier improved subgrade. Aggregate pier systems are proprietary and

designed by a specialty contractor. The selected aggregate pier specialty contractor should be

contacted to provide engineering analysis and project-specific design information. Based on our

experience on other similar projects, a bearing capacity on the order of 3,000 psf to 4,000 psf may

be achieved. However, the actual spacing, depth, and bearing capacity should be designed by the

specialty contractor and reviewed and approved by Terracon’s geotechnical engineer.

Aggregate pier soil reinforcement systems consists of highly densified aggregate piers.

Reinforcing elements are constructed by excavating a cylindrical cavity (typically 30-inch

diameter) with conventional drilling equipment. The soils at the bottom of the cavity are densified

and prestressed by repeated impact from a specially designed tamper with a beveled head. The

excavation is then backfilled with well-graded crushed stone in compacted lifts. The process

effectively prestressed the soils at the bottom of the cavity vertically and the adjacent matrix soils

laterally. The resulting subgrade is a composite reinforced aggregate pier and soil matrix of

improved shear strength (bearing capacity), stiffness, and capacity to control settlement.

Compacted aggregate pier specialty contractors are design-build organizations and should be

contacted to provide detailed design and feasibility information for this project. We will work with





the specialty contractor to provide the soil information to assist in this system design. If this type

of system is selected, Quality Assurance testing should be performed during installation, including

the observation and documentation of the soil conditions encountered, shaft lengths, amount of

aggregate used, modulus test readings, and tests on the compacted aggregate lifts. Terracon

would be pleased to provide these Quality Assurance services.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design

Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted

average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear

strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7-10.

Description Value

Site Class 1

E 2,3

Site Latitude 40.7047

Site Longitude 111.8800

So PGA 0.667

SS Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 3

1.523g

S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 3

0.584g

Fa Site Coefficient for a Short Period 0.9

Fv Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period 2.4

1. Seismic site classification in general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code.

2. The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) uses a site profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic

site classification. Borings at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 51½ feet. The site properties

below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic

conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm

the conditions below the current boring depth. 3. These values were obtained using online seismic design maps and tools provided by the USGS

(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/).

LIQUEFACTION

Potentially liquefiable soils were encountered in the soil profile of borings B-1, and B-2. Liquefaction

settlement on the order of 1 inch is expected during an earthquake event with a 2% probability of

exceedance in 50 years (PGA = 0.667g). CORROSIVITY

The table below lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, electrical resistivity,

and pH testing. The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the on-

site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be used for

project construction.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/





Corrosivity Test Results Summary

Boring

Sample

Depth

(feet)

Soil Description Sulfate

(ppm)

Electrical

Resistivity

(Ω-cm)

pH

B-2 5 Silty Sand 523 611 7.66

An aggressive subsurface environment where corrosion can deteriorate the buried steel over its

design life can generally be identified by soil resistivity and pH tests. The following criteria for

corrosive soil are specified in AASHTO LRFD Section 10.7.5.

Electrical resistivity less than 2,000 ohm-cm

pH less than 5.5

pH between 5.5 and 8.5 in soils with high organic content

On-site soils are considered aggressive to buried steel based on laboratory test results.

Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate samples of the on-site soils tested possess moderate

sulfate concentrations when classified in accordance with Table 4.3.1 of the ACI Design Manual.

Concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual,

Section 318, Chapter 4.

A corrosion engineer should be retained to provide additional corrosion protection

recommendations.





GENERAL COMMENTS

As the project progresses, we address assumptions by incorporating information provided by the

design team, if any. Revised project information that reflects actual conditions important to our

services is reflected in the final report. The design team should collaborate with Terracon to

confirm these assumptions and to prepare the final design plans and specifications. This facilitates

the incorporation of our opinions related to implementation of our geotechnical recommendations.

Any information conveyed prior to the final report is for informational purposes only and should

not be considered or used for decision-making purposes.

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical

conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur

between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in the final report, to

provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations

appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are

noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately

notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our scope of services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or

biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of

pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for

such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the

sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and

are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with

no third party beneficiaries intended. Any third party access to services or correspondence is

solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client. Reliance

upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties.

Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No

warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any

use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there

may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact

excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site

characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering

requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location

of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid

unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

ATTACHM ENTS

ATTACHMENTS





EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

2 50 Bridge abutments

Boring Layout and Elevations: Unless otherwise noted, Terracon personnel provide the boring

layout. Coordinates are obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of

about ±10 feet) and approximate elevations are obtained by interpolation from historical maps. If

elevations and a more precise boring layout are desired, we recommend borings be surveyed

following completion of fieldwork.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a truck-mounted, track-

mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight augers (solid stem and/or hollow stem as necessary

depending on soil conditions). Four samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of each boring

and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the thin-walled tube sampling procedure, a thin-walled,

seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting edge is pushed hydraulically into the soil to obtain a relatively

undisturbed sample. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter

split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a

distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12

inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the

boring logs at the test depths. We observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and

sampling. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with auger cuttings after their

completion.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information were recorded on the

field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory

for testing and classification by a geotechnical engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring

logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs include visual classifications of the materials

encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples.

Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the

geotechnical engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on

observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviews the field data and assigns various laboratory tests to better

understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata as necessary for this project.

Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases,





variations to methods are applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards

noted below include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily

applicable to describe the specific test performed.

ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)

Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of

Soils

ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

ASTM D2850 Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression

Test on Cohesive Soils

ASTM D2435/D2435M Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation

Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading

The laboratory testing program often includes examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based

on the material’s texture and plasticity, we describe and classify the soil samples in accordance

with the Unified Soil Classification System.

SITE LOC ATION AND EXPLOR ATION PLAN S

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

SITE LOCATION

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.-Fitts Park Ped Bridge South Salt Lake, UT

June 28, 2018 Terracon Project No. 61175201

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: SALT LAKE CITY SOUTH, UT (1/1/1999) and SUGAR

HOUSE, UT (1/1/1998).

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

SITE

EXPLORATION PLAN

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.-Fitts Park Ped Bridge South Salt Lake, UT

June 28, 2018 Terracon Project No. 61175201

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED

BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

EXPLOR ATION RESULTS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

UU

33

30

30

35

43

96

80

32-24-8

38-19-19

34-19-15

42-22-20

2-1-2N=3

2-3-2N=5

0-0-0N=0

TV=1.5 ksfPP=3.5 ksf

0-2-2N=4

0-3-2N=5

2-4-8N=12

2-1-0N=1

0-0-0N=0

0-0-1N=1

0-0-0N=0

8

9

0

18

18

18

12

18

18

18

18

81

96

94

92

0.5

9.5

20.0

24.5

51.5

TOPSOILSILT WITH SAND (ML), brown, moist,medium stiff

no recovery at 7.5

LEAN CLAY (CL), greenish gray, wet, soft

SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), brown, wet, stiff

LEAN CLAY (CL), greenish gray to gray,wet, very soft

Boring Terminated at 51.5 Feet

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

117

520

1 F

ITT

S P

AR

K P

ED

BR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 7

/26/

18

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

ST

RA

IN (

%)

TE

ST

TY

PE

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

()

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

East Front Ave South Salt Lake, UTSITE:

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:

Abandonment Method:Boring backfilled with Auger Cuttings and/or Bentonite

Notes:

Project No.: 61175201

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 6620 DT

Boring Started: 06-11-2018

BORING LOG NO. B-1Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.CLIENT:Salt Lake City, UT

Driller: Direct Push

Boring Completed: 06-11-2018

Exhibit: A-1

See Exhibit A-3 for description of fieldprocedures.See Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols andabbreviations.

PROJECT: Fitts Park Ped Bridge

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100Midvale, UT

10 feet while drilling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

DEPTH

LOCATION See Exhibit A-2

Latitude: 40.7047° Longitude: -111.8799°

UU

2-2-1N=3

3-4-3

3-3-4N=7

3-3-3N=6

0-0-2N=2

6-9-8N=17

1-1-1N=2

0-0-1N=1

0-0-0N=0

0-0-0N=0

0-0-0N=0

4-3-3N=6

36

32

26

37

43

88

NP

29-19-10

NP

29-19-10

38-22-16

5

12

18

18

18

12

10

15

18

18

18

18

42

87

75

91

92

0.5

7.0

18.5

23.0

51.5

TOPSOIL, reddish brownSILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, veryloose to loose

LEAN CLAY (CL), light gray to greenishgray, moist, medium stiff to very soft

SILT WITH SAND (ML), brown, wet, stiff

LEAN CLAY (CL), greenish gray, wet, verysoft to medium stiff, silt lenses

trace silt lenses at 45'

Boring Terminated at 51.5 Feet

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

117

520

1 F

ITT

S P

AR

K P

ED

BR

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 7

/26/

18

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

ST

RA

IN (

%)

TE

ST

TY

PE

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

RE

CO

VE

RY

()

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

East Front Ave South Salt Lake, UTSITE:

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:

Abandonment Method:Boring backfilled with Auger Cuttings and/or Bentonite

Notes:

Project No.: 61175201

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 6620 DT

Boring Started: 06-11-2018

BORING LOG NO. B-2Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.CLIENT:Salt Lake City, UT

Driller: Direct Push

Boring Completed: 06-11-2018

Exhibit: A-2

See Exhibit A-3 for description of fieldprocedures.See Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols andabbreviations.

PROJECT: Fitts Park Ped Bridge

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100Midvale, UT

8 feet while drilling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

DEPTH

LOCATION See Exhibit A-2

Latitude: 40.7047° Longitude: -111.8797°

Before Consolidation

Sample Diameter (in): 2.50 Moist Unit Weight (pcf): 120

Sample Height (in): 1 Moisture Content (%): 25

Sample Volume (cf): 0.0028 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 96

After Consolidation


Sample Height (in): 0.91276 Moisture Content (%): 24


Liquid Limit: 38 Percent Fines: 96

Plasticity Index: 19 Classification: Lean Clay (CL)

Project Name:

Project No.:

Location:

Sample:

Consolidation Test Data (ASTM D 2435-04 )

Fitt's Park Pedestrian Bridge

61175201

B-1 @10 ft.

Salt Lake City, UT

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

0.1 1 10 100

VER

TIC

AL

STR

AIN

, %

VERTICAL STRESS, ksf





After Consolidation






Project Name:

Project No.:

Location:

Sample:



61175201

B-1 @35 ft.

Salt Lake City, UT

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

0.1 1 10 100

VER

TIC

AL

STR

AIN

, %






After Consolidation






Project Name:

Project No.:

Location:

Sample:



61175201

B-2 @12.5 ft.

Salt Lake City, UT

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0.1 1 10 100

VER

TIC

AL

STR

AIN

, %


Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils(ASTM D2850) © IGES 2005, 2018

Project: Boring No.:No: Sample:

Location: Depth:Date: Sample Description:

By: Sample type:

Specific gravity, Gs 2.70 AssumedSample height, H (in.) 5.989

Sample diameter, D (in.) 2.867

Sample volume, V (ft3) 0.0224 Wet soil + tare (g) 494.28

Wt. rings + wet soil (g) 1136.25 Dry soil + tare (g) 379.97Wt. rings/tare (g) 0.00 Tare (g) 127.48

Moist soil, Ws (g) 1136.25 Water content, w (%) 45.3Moist unit wt., m (pcf) 112.0 Confining stress,3 (psf) 4320

Dry unit wt., d (pcf) 77.1 Shear rate (in/min) 0.0180

Saturation (%) 102.6 Strain at failure, f (%) 1.95

Void ratio, e 1.19 Deviator stress at failure, 1-3)f (psf) 1751

Axial d Q Shear stress at failure, qf = 1-3)f/2 (psf) 876

Strain 1-3 1/2 d

(%) (psf) (psf)0.00 0.0 0.00.05 131.8 65.90.10 210.7 105.40.15 313.0 156.50.20 353.7 176.90.25 464.6 232.30.30 546.1 273.1 Maximum data point 160.35 621.7 310.9 Strain at max deviator stress 1.9510.40 700.2 350.1 Max deviator stress 1751.480.45 758.1 379.0 Max shear stress 875.740.70 1093.3 546.60.95 1371.7 685.81.20 1570.3 785.11.45 1678.3 839.11.70 1733.7 866.81.95 1751.5 875.72.20 1717.4 858.72.45 1675.0 837.52.70 1627.0 813.52.95 1573.5 786.73.20 1545.8 772.93.45 1535.3 767.63.70 1536.1 768.03.95 1534.0 767.04.20 1537.6 768.84.45 1532.7 766.34.70 1547.4 773.74.95 1575.9 787.95.45 1604.7 802.35.95 1627.5 813.76.45 1600.6 800.36.95 1576.5 788.27.45 1539.1 769.57.95 1528.9 764.48.45 1556.4 778.28.95 1567.4 783.79.45 1554.3 777.19.95 1538.5 769.210.45 1514.9 757.410.95 1488.9 744.411.45 1494.2 747.111.95 1512.3 756.112.45 1514.6 757.312.95 1473.4 736.713.45 1450.3 725.113.95 1414.6 707.314.45 1396.9 698.414.95 1396.8 698.4

Z:\PROJECTS\M00385_Terracon\260_Fitts_Park_Ped_Bridge\[UUv1.xlsm]1Reviewed:___________

Entered by:___________

Terracon B-1M00385-260 (61175201)

EH Undisturbed

Fitts Park Ped Bridge 35.0-36.5'6/18/2018 Grey clay

1751

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 5 10 15

Dev

iato

r st

ress

, 1- 3

(psf

)

Axial strain (%)

Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils(ASTM D2850) © IGES 2005, 2018

Project: Boring No.:No: Sample:

Location: Depth:Date: Sample Description:

By: Sample type:

Specific gravity, Gs 2.80 AssumedSample height, H (in.) 6.003

Sample diameter, D (in.) 2.856

Sample volume, V (ft3) 0.0223 Wet soil + tare (g) 490.80

Wt. rings + wet soil (g) 1224.88 Dry soil + tare (g) 403.35Wt. rings/tare (g) 0.00 Tare (g) 127.15

Moist soil, Ws (g) 1224.88 Water content, w (%) 31.7Moist unit wt., m (pcf) 121.3 Confining stress,3 (psf) 1500

Dry unit wt., d (pcf) 92.2 Shear rate (in/min) 0.0180

Saturation (%) 98.5 Strain at failure, f (%) 14.95

Void ratio, e 0.90 Deviator stress at failure, 1-3)f (psf) 2297

Axial d Q Shear stress at failure, qf = 1-3)f/2 (psf) 1148

Strain 1-3 1/2 d

(%) (psf) (psf)0.00 0.0 0.00.05 101.8 50.90.10 170.5 85.30.15 218.2 109.10.20 262.9 131.40.25 304.5 152.20.30 340.1 170.0 Maximum data point 480.35 381.6 190.8 Strain at max deviator stress 14.9510.40 420.1 210.1 Max deviator stress 2296.990.45 458.6 229.3 Max shear stress 1148.4950.70 650.3 325.10.95 826.2 413.11.20 983.4 491.71.45 1128.0 564.01.70 1248.2 624.11.95 1356.0 678.02.20 1448.6 724.32.45 1529.0 764.52.70 1606.1 803.02.95 1676.8 838.43.20 1735.7 867.83.45 1791.2 895.63.70 1837.8 918.93.95 1881.2 940.64.20 1921.5 960.74.45 1955.9 977.94.70 1987.1 993.54.95 2012.5 1006.25.45 2057.0 1028.55.95 2095.3 1047.66.45 2130.3 1065.16.95 2156.4 1078.27.45 2182.0 1091.07.95 2207.2 1103.68.45 2221.1 1110.58.95 2231.9 1115.99.45 2239.7 1119.89.95 2252.7 1126.310.45 2262.6 1131.310.95 2269.7 1134.811.45 2284.5 1142.211.95 2280.4 1140.212.45 2281.5 1140.712.95 2285.0 1142.513.45 2288.4 1144.213.95 2286.3 1143.114.45 2294.4 1147.214.95 2297.0 1148.515.45 2291.9 1145.915.95 2286.7 1143.316.45 2286.3 1143.116.95 2285.7 1142.817.45 2287.5 1143.717.95 2284.1 1142.018.45 2283.0 1141.518.95 2269.6 1134.819.45 2263.4 1131.719.95 2254.6 1127.3

Z:\PROJECTS\M00385_Terracon\260_Fitts_Park_Ped_Bridge\[UUv1.xlsm]2

Entered by:___________

Reviewed:___________

6/20/2018 Grey clay

BRR Undisturbed

Terracon B-2M00385-260 (61175201) Fitts Park Ped Bridge 12.5-14.0'

2297

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 5 10 15 20

Dev

iato

r st

ress

, 1- 3

(psf

)

Axial strain (%)

SUPPORTING INFORM ATION

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Steeplechase Project Phase 2 Eagle Mountain, Utah

7/6/2018 Terracon Project No. 61185018A

500 to 1,000

> 8,000

4,000 to 8,000

2,000 to 4,000

1,000 to 2,000

less than 500

Unconfined Compressive StrengthQu, (psf)

AugerCuttings

ModifiedCaliforniaRingSampler

ModifiedCaliforniaRingSampler

GrabSample

ShelbyTube

StandardPenetrationTest

Trace

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs arethe levels measured in the borehole at the timesindicated. Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils, accuratedetermination of groundwater levels is notpossible with short term water levelobservations.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONSGENERAL NOTES

> 30

11 - 30

1 - 10Low

Non-plastic

Plasticity Index

#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm

Boulders

12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)Cobbles

3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)Gravel

Sand

Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm)Silt or Clay

Particle Size

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Water InitiallyEncountered

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of theirdry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soilshave less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic,and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituentsmay be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils aredefined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINESRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTSN

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

UC

(PID)

(OVA)

Standard Penetration TestResistance (Blows/Ft.)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Unconfined CompressiveStrength

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Medium

0Over 12 in. (300 mm)

>12

5-12

<5

Percent ofDry Weight

TermMajor Component of Sample

Modifier

With

Trace

Descriptive Term(s) ofother constituents

>30Modifier

<15

Percent ofDry Weight

Descriptive Term(s) ofother constituents

With 15-29

High

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. Theaccuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographicalsurvey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined fromtopographic maps of the area.

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

0 - 6

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Hard

Very Loose

Loose

Medium Dense

Dense

Very Dense

Descriptive Term(Density)

Standard Penetrationor N-ValueBlows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

0 - 3

4 - 9 7 - 18

10 - 29 19 - 58

30 - 50 59 - 98

> 30

> 50 > 99 Very Stiff

Stiff

Medium Stiff

Soft

Very Soft

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual

procedures or standard penetration resistance

STRENGTH TERMS

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

0 - 1

2 - 4

4 - 8

8 - 15

15 - 30

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM



UNIFIED SOIL C LASSIFIC ATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of

coarse fraction

retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse

fraction passes No. 4

sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A”

line J

CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels 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 clay.

D Sands 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

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with

gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

Geotechnical Engineering Report...Geotechnical Engineering Report Fitts Park Pedestrian Bridge South...

Documents

Transcript of Geotechnical Engineering Report...Geotechnical Engineering Report Fitts Park Pedestrian Bridge South...