PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT - browncountywi.gov

Approved by WisDOT NE Region Local Program Management Consultant:

%~.Jf

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

for

Project l.D. 4616-03-00/71 T Wrightstown - T Rockland

Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd CTH ZZ

Brown County

OMNNI Associates One Systems Drive

Appleton, WI 54914

Report Date - November 9, 2016 Updated June 15, 2017

OMNNI Project No. E2166A 15

Pavement Design Report 4616-03-00/71

OMNNI Associates, Inc. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

SUBJECT ...................................................................................................................................... 1

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 3

TRAFFIC DATA ............................................................................................................................ 6

SOIL PARAMETERS ................................................................................................................... 7

PAVEMENT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 9

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 10

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................. 11

OTHER DISCUSSION............................................................................................................... 11

APPENDIX A – Project Location Map

APPENDIX B – Existing and Proposed Typical Sections

APPENDIX C – Traffic Forecast Documentation

APPENDIX D – WisPave 4 Exhibits

APPENDIX E – LCCA Unit Price Information

APPENDIX F – Regional Pavement Engineers Memo

APPENDIX G – Geotechnical Exploration Report


OMNNI Associates, Inc. 1

SUBJECT

Project I.D. 4616-03-00/71

T Wrightstown – T Rockland

Clay St – Tetzlaff Rd

CTH ZZ

Brown County

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subject project is a 3.6-mile reconstruction project on CTH ZZ from Clay Street in

the Village of Wrightstown to Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland. The project is

located in Sections 24, 25, 35 and 36 in the Town of Wrightstown, T22N, R19E, and

Section 19 in the Town of Rockland, T22N, R20E, Brown County. This section will be

reconstructed as a rural two-lane section.

Project Type

Reconstruction

Pavement Design Method

WisPAVE

Recommended Pavement Structure

Pavement Material: 4 ½ inches HMA Pavement

2 inch Upper Layer – 4 LT 58-28 S

2 ½ inch Lower Layer – 3 LT 58-28 S

Warranted: N/A

Base Material: 6 inches Base Aggregate Dense 1¼-inch

Subbase Material: 12 inches Breaker Run

Pavement Related Special Provisions:

QMP Base Aggregate

Unique Pavement Related Issues:

− Underdrain is not required for base drainage.

− Excavation below subgrade (EBS) is not anticipated, however, if

isolated areas of soft or wet soil subgrade are encountered, it is

recommended that the soft/wet areas be dried and compacted in place

or removed and replaced with dense graded aggregate base.

− Roadway will be closed to thru traffic during construction. CTH MW,

WIS 96 and WIS 32/57 will serve as the detour route.



Pavement Type Selection Basis

The pavement type selection basis is LCCA. Based on the LCCA, the Concrete

pavement section is the low cost alternative for this project. However, the HMA

pavement section is within 5% of the low cost alternative. The HMA pavement section

is the pavement section preferred by the Local Agency.

Local Road Project Information

Classification/Type Rural Major Collector

Posted Speed Varies 30 mph to 55 mph

Construction Year AADT (2019) 2200 vpd

Design Year AADT (2039) 2950 vpd



PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Description

The subject project is a 3.6-mile reconstruction project on CTH ZZ from Clay Street in

the Village of Wrightstown to Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland. The project is

located in Sections 24, 25, 35 and 36 in the Town of Wrightstown, T22N, R19E, and

Section 19 in the Town of Rockland, T22N, R20E, Brown County. This section will be

reconstructed as a rural two-lane section.

Purpose of Project

The purpose of the project is to enhance the safety and maintainability of County ZZ by:

• Upgrading the deteriorated pavement structure • Stabilizing the slopes between the roadway and the Fox River • Improving the drainage along the corridor • Upgrading the roadway section to current standards • Improving the roadway alignment and profile • Improving the existing bridge over the East River • Improving roadway safety for errant vehicles • Accommodating alternate modes of transportation

Project Length

3.6 Miles

Functional Class

Major Collector

Roadway Design Classification

Urban Section Design Class: 2a

Rural Section Design Class: C3

Posted Speed

Clay Street to Wrightstown Village Limits 30 mph Wrightstown Village Limits to Moonriver Drive 35 mph Moonriver Drive to Masse Circle 45 mph Masse Circle to Tetzlaff Road 55 mph



Existing Facility

Year Built

Clay Street to approx. 1000 feet south of Wrightstown Village Limits 2002

1,000 feet south of Wrightstown Village Limits to Tetzlaff Road 1952

Number of Lanes 2

Cross Section

• Clay Street to 1000 feet south of Wrightstown Village Limits : 2-lane urban roadway

o East side of County ZZ: 14’ travel lane, 30” curb and gutter and abutting 5’ sidewalk

o West side of County ZZ: 12’ travel lane and 4’-6’ shoulders (3’ paved)

• 1000 feet south of Wrightstown Village Limits to Tetzlaff Road: 2-lane rural roadway with 11’ travel lanes and 3-4’ shoulders (0’ paved)

• Existing typical sections are included in Appendix B.

Rehabilitation History

Clay Street to Mallard Road None recorded

Mallard Road to Wrightstown Road HMA overlay in 1996

Wrightstown Road to Tetzlaff Road HMA overlay in 1981

Existing Pavement Structure

The soil borings indicated asphalt pavement thicknesses ranging from 4 inches to 18

inches with the average thickness at approximately 6 inches. Beneath the asphalt

pavement, the soil borings encountered base course averaging 15 inches in thickness

and generally consisting of silty sand with gravel of varying relative densities. Fill was

encountered beneath the base course in most of the borings. The fill was encountered

to depths of 2 feet to 8 feet beneath the ground surface in the roadway borings;

however, the majority of the fill depths were within 4 feet of the ground surface. The fill

generally consisted of lean clay with various amounts of sand and gravel and with trace

to little amounts of organics.

Pavement Condition

The IRI and PCI values are not available for this report. PASER ratings were obtained

from WISLR as follows:

Location PASER Rating (Year)

Between Clay Street and 1000’ south of Wrightstown Village Limits

4 (2015)

Between 1000’ south of Wrightstown Village Limits and Wrightstown Road

3 (2015)

Between Wrightstown Road and Tetzlaff 3 (2015)



The PASER rating for a major portion of the project length was a 3 in 2015, which

indicates that the pavement condition is “poor”, and needs either patching and major

overlay, or complete recycling. A PASER rating of 4 indicates that the pavement is in

“fair” condition and is showing signs of significant aging. The roadway has a significant

amount of longitudinal and transverse cracking, alligator cracking, and rutting in some

locations. The existing pavement has served its useful life and has deteriorated beyond

the point of repair.

Proposed Cross Section

CTH ZZ will be reconstructed as follows:

• Clay Street to approximate 1,000’ south of Wrightstown Village Limits: 2-lane

urban roadway with 4’ bicycle accommodations and 30” curb and gutter on

both sides of the roadway.

• 1,000’ south of Wrightstown Village Limits to Tetzlaff Road: 2-lane rural

roadway section consisting of one 12 foot wide lane and an adjacent 6’ wide

shoulder (5’ paved) in each direction.

Proposed typical sections are also included in Appendix B.



TRAFFIC DATA

Existing and forecasted traffic data was provided by the Wisconsin DOT. The Traffic

Forecast Report from October 13, 2015 is attached as Appendix C.

AADT

Year CTH ZZ

AADT

2009 Existing AADT 1,800

2019 Construction Year AADT 2,200

2039 Design Year AADT 2,950

Truck Traffic

Truck Class Percentage

2D 2.2 %

3AX 1.4 %

2S1+2S2 1.0 %

3-S2 1.3 %

DBL-BTM 0.1 %

Totals 6.0 %

Directional factor 0.5

Lane distribution factor 1.0

Equivalent single axle loads (ESAL’s)

ESAL Type ESAL’s

HMA Daily ESAL’s 46

HMA Design ESAL’s 340,000

PCC Daily ESAL’s 67

PCC Design ESAL’s 500,000



SOIL PARAMETERS

The Geotechnical Investigation Report for this project was prepared by Kyle Weeks and

reviewed by Timothy A. Bolwerk, both of OMNNI Associates in October 2016, and is

attached as Appendix G. A summary from the report follows.

Parameter Value

Design Group Index (DGI) 14

Frost Index (FI) F-3

Soil Support Value (SSV) 3.9

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 125

Predominate Soil Types The project area extended across two mapping units as indicated by the United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) soil survey for Brown County, Wisconsin. The mapping units were as follows: (OnB, OnD2) Oshkosh silt loam (KkD3, KkE3) Kewaunee soils According to the Soil Conservation Service soil survey for Brown County, the soil series indicated above consist of the following: Oshkosh: Gently sloping, deep, well drained and moderately well drained soils on

lacustrine plains dissected by V-shaped valleys. Soils are in old glacial lake basins and have medium available water capacity and slow permeability.

Kewaunee: Steeply sloping, severely eroded, deep, well drained and moderately well drained soils on ridges in glacial till plains. Soils have high available water capacity and slow permeability.

Special Information Based on the soil and water conditions encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that the existing natural tills and lean clay fills will be suitable for support of the planned pavement sections. It is also our opinion that isolated areas of soft or unsuitable soils may be encountered at planned pavement section subgrade elevations, and the soft or unsuitable soils will be required to either be removed and replaced with a compacted suitable fill material or moisture conditioned and compacted in place to provide a suitable pavement section subgrade. It is not anticipated that subsurface water will impact construction though isolated areas of perched water may be encountered particularly in existing ditch and drainage areas. Lastly, the existing lean clay fill and natural till are susceptible to disturbance in the presence of water and construction traffic and as a result, it is recommended that all



pavement subgrade surfaces be graded to keep water from ponding on the surfaces during construction. Subgrade Information Subgrade improvements are not planned as part of this project.

Additional information on the existing soils throughout the project limits can be found in the Geotechnical Investigation Report.



PAVEMENT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

PCC and HMA pavement design alternatives were generated based on the traffic and

soil parameters previously discussed. CTH ZZ will be reconstructed as follows:

• Clay Street to WWTP: 2-lane urban roadway with 4’ bicycle accommodations

and 30” curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway.

• WWTP to Tetzlaff Road: 2-lane rural roadway section consisting of one 12

foot wide lane and an adjacent 6’ wide shoulder (5’ paved) in each direction.

The WisPAVE 4 software was utilized to calculate the required concrete thickness and

the structure number for HMA pavement design.

Existing base course or fill was not used as part of the pavement design strength. The

existing pavement and base course will be removed to the proposed subgrade in all

alternatives. WisPAVE calculated a minimum concrete depth of 6”, but an alternative of

7” was considered in order to use doweled concrete pavement. Descriptions of the

pavement alternatives are listed below.

PCC Alternative 1

7” Concrete Pavement

6” Base Aggregate Dense, 1 ¼-inch

HMA Alternative 1

4.5” HMA Pavement

2” - 4 LT 58-28 S

2.5” - 3 LT 58-28 S

6” Base Aggregate Dense, 1 ¼-inch

12” Breaker Run

WisPave pavement design printouts for each pavement design are located in Appendix D.



LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS A Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) was conducted using WisPAVE 4 software and the

pavement options above. A printout of WisPAVE LCCA inputs and results is located in

Appendix D. For all alternatives, the same general cross section was used. This cross

section consists of a two-lane rural section consisting of one 12 foot wide lane and an

adjacent 6’ wide shoulder (5’ paved) in each direction.

The bid costs used represent average costs on roadway projects in the area based on a

review of prices in Estimator for similar quantities. See Appendix E for additional

information. In addition to the typical quantities calculated by WisPAVE for the LCCA,

common excavation quantities were included to account for the increased excavation

costs associated with thicker pavement sections.

The following rehabilitation scenarios were used for the LCCA:

PCC Rehabilitation #1: repair 5% of surface area, no grinding.

PCC Rehabilitation #2: repair 5% of surface area, grind 100% of pavement area.

PCC Rehabilitation #3: repair 5% of surface area, 2” HMA overlay

HMA Rehabilitation #1: mill 2” and overlay 2” over entire pavement area*



*See Appendix F for direction from the WisDOT Pavement Engineers Users

Group for rehabilitation alternatives.

The table below shows the LCCA results as calculated using WisPAVE 4.

PCC

Alternative #1

HMA Alternative

#1

Initial Construction

Costs

$2,045,161.63 $1,793,289.98

Maintenance Costs $74,833.86 $35,745.64

Rehabilitation

Costs

$228,677.58 $626,054.15

Rehab Salvage

Costs

($18,665.10) ($31,044.64)

Total Facility

Costs

$2,330,007.97 $2,424,045.12

Percent Difference + 0.00% +4.04%

LCCA Results



RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

The recommended pavement section for the CTH ZZ reconstruction project is as

follows:

4 ½ inches HMA Pavement

2 inch Upper Layer – 4 LT 58-28 S

2 ½ inch Lower Layer – 3 LT 58-28 S

6 inches Base Aggregate Dense 1¼-inch

12 inches Breaker Run

Based on the LCCA, the Concrete pavement section is the low cost alternative for this

project. However, the HMA pavement section is within 5% of the low cost alternative. It

should also be noted that Brown County has seen lower prices for HMA in recent

projects than what is shown in BidX, Estimator and the WisDOT HMA graph. Based on

FDM 14-15.1.6, since the preferred pavement section is within 5% of the LCCA low-cost

option, then the pavement selection is at the pavement designer’s discretion. The HMA

pavement section is the pavement section preferred by the Local Agency.

The pavement structure special provisions should include the following:

QMP Base Aggregate

Underdrain is not required for base drainage. Excavation below subgrade (EBS) is not

anticipated, however, if isolated areas of soft or wet soil subgrade are encountered, it is

recommended that the soft/wet areas be dried and compacted in place or removed and

replaced with dense graded aggregate base.

OTHER DISCUSSION

Detour Route – During the majority of construction, CTH ZZ will be closed to thru traffic

with a detour on CTH MW, WIS 96 and WIS 32/57.

Based on Brown County knowledge and experience, side road intersections intersecting

CTH ZZ will be reconstructed with the following pavement structure:

3 ½ inches HMA Pavement

1 ¾ inch Upper Layer – 4 LT 58-28 S

1 ¾ inch Lower Layer – 3 LT 58-28 S

6 inches Base Aggregate Dense 1¼-inch

12 inches Breaker Run


OMNNI Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX A

Project Location Map

hawleym

Text Box

4616-02-00/71 East River Bridge and Approaches Construction 2018

hawleym

Line

hawleym

Text Box

ZZ-15 Tetzlaff - STH 57 Construction 2018

hawleym

Line

hawleym

Line

hawleym

Text Box

4616-04-00/71 ZZ-17 Mallard - Meadowlark Construction 2016

hawleym

Line

hawleym

Line

hawleym

Text Box

4616-03-00/71 T Wrightstown - T Rockland Clay - Tetzlaff Construction 2019

hawleym

Line

hawleym

Line



APPENDIX B

Existing and Proposed Typical Sections

E

22

46160371-020301-ts

E

22

46160371-020302-ts

E

22

46160371-020303-ts



APPENDIX C

Traffic Forecast Documentation

Region/COUNTY(IES):

LOCATION:

COMPLETED:

Developed By: Vu Dang

Phone: (608) 266-2571

FAX #: (608) 267-0294

E-Mail: [email protected]

Site(s) 050261

Routes(s) CTH ZZ

Volume(s) 2930

Site Growth % 2.04%

K250 9.7

K100 10.7

K30 11.9

P 14.9

D(Dsgn. Hr.) 60/40

T(DHV) 5.1

T(PHV) 2.7

-000- 2009 Count

(000) 2019 AADT

[000] 2029 AADT

000 2039 AADT

Trucks 050261

AADTT 110

2D 2.2

3AX 1.4

2S1+2S2 1.0

3-S2 1.3

DBL-BTM 0.1

Total % 6.0%

Traffic Forecasting Section; Bureau of Planning and Economic Development; Division of Transportation Investment Management

CTH ZZ

NE/BROWN

Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd

10/13/2015

Design Values (%)

2. Truck classification percentages were taken from a table representative

of similar facilities and locations throughout the state of Wisconsin.

1. This projection assumes that no major new traffic generators will be

added to the development already included in the 2010/2045 Northeast

Regional Travel Demand Model.

NOTES ON THE FORECAST:

3. CTH ZZ is a Factor Group IV (Rural-Other) roadway (indicating low to

moderate fluctuation in traffic from a seasonal perspective). It is functionally

classified as a Rural Major Collector (7) for count purposes.

4. The 2010/2045 Northeast Regional Travel Demand Model was used to

complete this forecast. Traffic Analysis Forecasting Information System

output was used as a comparison tool to check against the model output.

Adjustments were made as needed.

5. Roadway improvements coded within the existing plus committed (E+C)

network of the 2010/2045 Northeast Regional Travel Demand Model were

assumed to be in place for the purposes of developing this forecast.

WisDOT TRAFFIC FORECAST REPORT

ROUTE(S):

PROJECT ID(S): 4616-13-00

SITE ID = Colored, bolded, and underlined

N

050261 -1800- (2200) [2600] 2950



APPENDIX D

WisPAVE 4 Exhibits

Version A - 34 - 34

WisPave Home | File | Design | LCCA | Reports | Exit

User: OMNNI Transportation

Edit Pavement Design General Information

* Project ID: 4616-03-00 * Designer's Name:OMNNI Transportation

* Design Name: T Wrightstown - T Rockland * Design Date: 11/09/2016

* Roadway Name: CTH ZZ * Type: Local

* Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd * Status: Draft

* Highway Name: CTH ZZ * Design Source:

* Region: NE Select

* County: Brown Select

Comments:

Traffic numbers from Traffic Forecast dated 10/13/2015

Back Save As New Next

Last Updated date and Time: 05/01/2017 12:18:38 PM

Direct questions to the WisDOT Computer Help Desk 1-800-362-3050

Page 1 of 29WisPave Reporting

5/1/2017https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/wispave/wispaveReport.do?action=wisPaveRpt

Back Next

Version A - 34 - 34



Pavement Design Details

Project ID: 4616-03-00 Design Name:T Wrightstown - T Rockland

Design Date: 11/09/2016

Highway: CTH ZZ Project Termini: Clay St - Tetzlaff Rd County: Brown

Designer: OMNNI Transportation

Soil Parameters

*Design Group Index (DGI): 14

*Subgrade Improvement: Yes No

*Soil Support Value(SSV): 3.9

*Modulus of Subgrade Reaction(k): 125




Back Next

Version A - 34 - 34








Traffic Parameters

*Construction Year: 2019 *Design Year: 2039

*Construction Year AADT: 2200 *Design Year AADT: 2950

*Directional Factor(DF): 0.5 *Lane Distribution Factor(LDF): 1.0

Truck Classification

% of AADT

2D 2.2

3SU 1.4

2S-1,-2 1.0

3S-2 1.3

2-S1-2 0.1

Total % Truck Traffic

6




Back Next

Version A - 34 - 34








Concrete Pavement Design

Truck Type

% of AADT

DLT# of Trucks

ESAL Load Factor

ESALs

2D 2.2 1,288 28 0.3 8

3SU 1.4 1,288 18 1.2 22

2S-1,-2 1.0 1,288 13 0.6 8

3S-2 1.3 1,288 17 1.6 27

2-S1-2 0.1 1,288 1 2.1 3

Design Lane Daily ESALs: 67

Design Lane Total Life ESALs: 491,555 Rounded to: 500,000

Soil Parameters

Subgrade Improvement Flag selected: No

k : 125

Design Calculation

Calculated Pavement Thickness: 6

Pavement Thickness(ALT# 1): 7.0

Pavement Thickness(ALT# 2): 0.0




Back Next

Version A - 34 - 34








HMA Pavement Design

Truck Type

% of AADT

DLT# of Trucks

ESAL Load Factor

ESALs

2D 2.2 1,288 28 0.3 8

3SU 1.4 1,288 18 0.8 14

2S-1,-2 1.0 1,288 13 0.5 6

3S-2 1.3 1,288 17 0.9 15

2-S1-2 0.1 1,288 1 2.0 3

Design Lane Daily ESALs: 46

Design Lane Total Life ESALs: 335,800 Rounded to: 340,000

Soil Parameters

DGI : 14

Subgrade Improvement Flag selected: No

SSV : 3.9

Design Calculation

Calculated Required SN: 3.49




Back Next Alternative LCCA

Version A - 34 - 34








HMA ALT#1 Layer Thickness DesignTitle: HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard

Add Layer Delete Layer

LayersExistingPavement

UppermostBase Agg.

OtherMaterialType

UnitType

LayerCoefficient

Thicknessin.

StructuralNumber

1 4 LT 58-28 S -------- 0.44 2.0 0.88

2 3 LT 58-28 S -------- 0.44 2.5 1.1

3 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch -------- 0.1 6.0 0.6

4 Breaker Run -------- 0.1 12.0 1.2

Note: You can add only 10 layers (including 'Other' layers)

No.of Layers: 4 No.of Other Layers: 0 Total SN: 3.78

Required SN: 3.49

Note 1. If the structural design includes a granular subbase, then the layer can only contribute a maximum of 10% of the required SN (see FDM 14-10-5.8), regardless of the material's strength coefficient or the thickness of the layer.




Back Next

Version A - 34 - 34








LCCA Parameters

* Project Type: Urban Rural

* LCCA Length: 3.6 Miles

No. of HMA Alternatives: 2

* Select HMA Alternatives to include in LCCA: HMA Alt# 1 HMA Alt# 2

No. of Concrete Alternatives: 1

* Select Concrete Alternatives to include in LCCA: Concrete Alt# 1




Back Next

Version A - 34 - 34



HMA Alt#1 DescriptionHMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard


MaterialType

Thicknessin.

Unit Weightlbs/SY/in

# of TackCoat Layers

Tack CoatCoverage Gal/SY

1 N 4 LT 58-28 S 2.0 110.0 1 0.05

2 N 3 LT 58-28 S 2.5 110.0 1 0.05

3 N Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch 6.0 2.0 -------- --------

4 N Breaker Run 12.0 1.8 -------- --------

Shoulders

Material TypeThickness

in.# of TackCoat Layers


N/A

Additional Construction Process

Add Construction Process Delete Construction Process

Layers Other Process Description

% of LCCA LengthRequiring Process

ExistingPavementWidth ft.

% of Surface Area

Requiring Repair

# ofStations

Project ID: 4616-03-00




Version A - 34 - 34



HMA Alt#1 Quantities HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard

Additional Initial Construction Quantities :

Other Quantities :

Back Next



LayersBid Item No

Bid Item Desc Units Quantity

1 460.5224 4 LT 58-28 S TON 5,575.7

455.0605 Tack Coat GAL 2,534.4

2 460.5223 3 LT 58-28 S TON 6,969.6

455.0605 Tack Coat GAL 2,534.4

3 305.0120 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch TON 28,864

4 311.0110 Breaker Run TON 59,558.4

Bid Item No


No Additional Initial Construction Quantites Found

Other Description Unit Quantity

Common Excavation - HMA CY 47500.0

Select 0.0

Select 0.0



Back Next

Version A - 34 - 34








HMA Alt#1 Rural Cross SectionHMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard

*Roadway Width: 36.0 *Side Slope: 4 : 1

*Paved Left Shoulder Width: 5.0 *Paved Right Shoulder Width: 5.0

*Number of Travel Lanes : 2

Lane 1 Width : 12.0 Lane 2 Width : 12.0

Number of Center/Shared Lanes : 0

Pavement Structure Width: 24




Back Next Alternative

Version A - 34 - 34



HMA Alternative − Maintenance & Rehabilitation Summary − Alt #1HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard

Add Delete

54



Year Type of Work ActivityService Life

Cost per Lane Mile Calculate

0 Initial Construction - Traditional or Deep 18

6 HMA Maintenance 1st Cycle $2000.0

12 HMA Maintenance 2nd Cycle $2500.0

18 HMA Rehabilitation Mill & HMA Overlay 12 Calculate











Back Save

Version A - 34 - 34



HMA Alt #1 : HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County StandardRehabilitation #1: Mill & HMA Overlay

Milling Limits: Pavement Structure and Shoulders Milling Depth: 2.0 (in)

Overlay Limits: Pavement Structure and Shoulders

Type HMA Mix Type Thickness# of

Tack Coat Layers

Tack CoatCoverageGAL/SY

Overlay 4 LT 58-28 S 2.0 1 0.05

Calculate

Item Units Quantity

Removing Asphaltic Surface Milling SY 71,808

4 LT 58-28 S TON 7,898.9

Tack Coat(Pavement Structure) GAL 3,590.4

Base Aggregate Dense 3/4-inch(Shoulder Gravel) TON 0

0.0





Back Save

Version A - 34 - 34







Tack Coat Layers


Overlay 4 LT 58-28 S 4.0 1 0.05

Calculate

Item Units Quantity


4 LT 58-28 S TON 15,797.8



0.0





Back Next

Version A - 34 - 34



Concrete Alt#1 DescriptionTitle: Conc Alt #1

Add Layer Delete Layer


UppermostBase Agg.

OtherMaterialType

UnitType

Thicknessin.

# of TackCoat Layers


1 Concrete Pavement, 7 inch -------- 7.0 -------- --------

2 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch -------- 6.0 -------- --------

Shoulders

Shoulder Materials: HMA

Material TypeThickness

in.# of TackCoat Layers


N/A

Additional Construction Process

Add Construction Process Delete Construction Process

Layers Other Process Description

% of LCCA LengthRequiring Process

ExistingPavementWidth ft.

% of Surface Area

Requiring Repair

# ofStations





Version A - 34 - 34



Concrete Alt#1 QuantitiesConc Alt #1

Additional Initial Construction Quantities:

Other Quantities:

Back Next



LayersBid Item No


1 415.0070 Concrete Pavement, 7 inch SY 50,688

2 305.0120 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch TON 30,037.3

Bid Item No


No Additional Initial Construction Quantites Found

Other Description Unit Quantity

Common Excavation - ConcCY 27500.0

Select 0.0

Select 0.0



Back Next

Version A - 34 - 34








Concrete Alt#1 Rural Cross SectionConc Alt #1

*Roadway Width: 36.0 *Side Slope: 4 : 1

*Paved Left Shoulder Width: 5.0 *Paved Right Shoulder Width: 5.0

*Number of Travel Lanes : 2

Paved Lane1 Width : 12.0 Paved Lane2 Width : 12.0

Number of Center/Shared Lanes : 0

Pavement Structure Width: 24




Back Next Alternative

Version A - 34 - 34



Concrete Alternative − Maintenance & Rehabilitation Summary − Alt #1Conc Alt #1

Add Delete

56



Year Type of Work ActivityService Life

Cost per Lane Mile Calculate

0 Initial Construction 25

8 Concrete Maintenance 1st Cycle $4000.0

16 Concrete Maintenance 2nd Cycle $8000.0

25 Concrete Rehabilitation Concrete Repair & Grind 8 Calculate



33 Concrete Rehabilitation Concrete Repair & Grind 8 Calculate



41 Concrete Rehabilitation Concrete Repair & HMA Overlay 15 Calculate





Back Save

Version A - 34 - 34



Concrete Alt #1 : Conc Alt #1Rehabilitation #1: Concrete Repair & Grind

% of Surface Area to be Repaired: 5.0

Grind Limits: None

Calculate

Item Units Quantity

Concrete Pavement Repair SY 2,536

Drilled Dowel Bars EACH 5,072

Sawing Concrete LF 11,412

Concrete Pavement Continuous Diamond Grinding SY 0

0.0





Back Save

Version A - 34 - 34



Concrete Alt #1 : Conc Alt #1Rehabilitation #2: Concrete Repair & Grind


Grind Limits: Pavement Structure Only

Calculate

Item Units Quantity

Concrete Pavement Repair SY 2,536



Concrete Pavement Continuous Diamond Grinding SY 50,688

0.0





Back Save

Version A - 34 - 34



Concrete Alt #1 : Conc Alt #1Rehabilitation #3: Concrete Repair & HMA Overlay


Removing Concrete Surface Partial Depth Limits: None

Overlay Limits: Pavement Structure Only


Tack Coat Layers


Overlay 4 LT 58-28 S 2.0 1 0.05

Calculate

Item Units Quantity

Base Patching Concrete SY 2,536



Removing Concrete Surface Partial Depth SF 0

4 LT 58-28 S TON 5,575.7



0.0





Version A - 34 - 34



HMA Bid Items

Back Next



Bid Item DescBid Item No

Units Unit Cost

Tack Coat 455.0605 GAL 2.75

HMA Pavement Type E-1

460.1101 TON 68.0

3 LT 58-28 S 460.5223 TON 66.5

4 LT 58-28 S 460.5224 TON 68.0



Version A - 34 - 34



Concrete Bid Items

Back Next




Units Unit Cost

Base Patching Concrete 390.0303 SY 51.5

Concrete Pavement, 7 inch

415.0070 SY 35.0

Drilled Dowel Bars 416.0620 EACH 10.5

Concrete Pavement Repair

416.1710 SY 68.0

Concrete Pavement Continuous Diamond

Grinding420.1000 SY 5.0

Sawing Concrete 690.0250 LF 1.75



Version A - 34 - 34



Base Course Bid Items

Back Next




Units Unit Cost

Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-inch

305.0120 TON 9.0



Version A - 34 - 34



Sub-base Bid Items

Back Next



Bid Item Desc Bid Item No Units Unit Cost

Breaker Run 311.0110 TON 8.75



Version A - 34 - 34



Remove Pavement Bid Items

Back Next




Units Unit Cost

Removing Asphaltic Surface Milling

204.0120 SY 1.3



Version A - 34 - 34



Other Layer Items

Other Additional Construction Items:

Other Additional Rehabilitation Items:

Other Alternative Items:

Back Next



Other Material Description Units Unit Cost

No Other Layers Items Found

Other Material Description Unit Cost

No Other Additional Construction Items Found


No Other Rehabilitation Items Found


Common Excavation - Conc CY 7.65

Common Excavation - HMA CY 7.15



Version A - 34 - 34



LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS RESULTS

Current Year: 2017 Project Length: 3.6 Miles

Construction Year: 2019 Analysis Basis: LCCA Length

Analysis Period: 50 yrs Discount Rate(%): 5

Present Worth Costs

Concrete Alt#1

Conc Alt #1

HMA Alt#1

HMA Alt #1 - 4.5" Brown County Standard

Initial Construction Costs $2,045,161.63 $1,793,289.98

Maintenance Costs $74,833.86 $35,745.64

Rehabilitation Costs $228,677.58 $626,054.15

Rehabilitation Salvage Value ($18,665.10) ($31,044.64)

Total Facility Costs $2,330,007.97 $2,424,045.12

+ 0.00% + 4.04%

Back







APPENDIX E

LCCA Unit Price Information

WisDOT

Estimate 4616-03-71

Estimated Cost:$2,027,846.17

Contingency: 0.00%

Estimated Total: $2,027,846.17

Estimate for LCCA Calculations Only

County: Brown

Season: Winter

Urban/Rural Type: Rural

Highway Type: Undivided, Collector (Major)

Work Type: Asphalt Paving

Unit System: E

Spec Year: 03

Base Date: 12/11/18

Latitude of Midpoint: 0

Longitude of Midpoint: 0

District: NE

Federal/State Project Number:

Prepared by Generic User

Line # Item Number Quantity Units

WisDOTEstimate: 4616-03-71

Unit Price Extension

DescriptionSupplemental Description

Group 0010: HMA Alternative Items

0010 204.0120 71,810.000 SY $1.31009 $94,077.56Removing Asphaltic Surface Milling

Regression price 204.0120 Active: Y Unit Price: $1.31009

0020 205.0100 47,500.000 CY $7.11630 $338,024.25Excavation Common


0030 305.0120 27,985.000 TON $8.84968 $247,658.29Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-Inch


0040 311.0110 56,075.000 TON $8.76705 $491,612.33Breaker Run


0050 455.0605 5,070.000 GAL $2.72204 $13,800.74Tack Coat


0060 460.5223 6,970.000 TON $66.50000 $463,505.00HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S

Used combined asphalt cost spreadsheet = $66.23. Used $66.50/ton

0070 460.5224 5,576.000 TON $68.00000 $379,168.00HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S

Used combined asphalt cost spreadsheet = $67.57. Used $68/ton

Total for Group 0010:$2,027,846.17

Page 2 of 211:45:02AMWednesday, November 09, 2016

WisDOT

Estimate 4616-03-71

Estimated Cost:$3,253,037.54

Contingency: 0.00%

Estimated Total: $3,253,037.54

Estimate for LCCA Calculations Only

County: Brown

Season: Winter

Urban/Rural Type: Rural

Highway Type: Undivided, Collector (Major)

Work Type: Asphalt Paving

Unit System: E

Spec Year: 03

Base Date: 12/11/18

Latitude of Midpoint: 0

Longitude of Midpoint: 0

District: NE

Federal/State Project Number:

Prepared by Generic User





Group 0010: Concrete Alternative Items

0010 205.0100 27,500.000 CY $7.63166 $209,870.65Excavation Common


0020 305.0120 28,864.000 TON $8.81738 $254,504.86

Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-Inch


0030 390.0303 2,536.000 SY $51.13397 $129,675.75

Base Patching Concrete


0040 415.0070 50,688.000 SY $35.00000 $1,774,080.00

Concrete Pavement 7-Inch

No bid history in estimatorBidx history - range from $24.84 to $48/SY for conc pvt 7-inch, avg = $35.83Bidx history - range from $23.74 to $57/SY for conc pvt 8-inch, avg =$33.53Used $35/sy

0050 416.0620 5,072.000 EACH $10.45188 $53,011.94Drilled Dowel Bars


0060 416.1710 2,536.000 SY $67.79602 $171,930.71

Concrete Pavement Repair


0070 420.1000 50,688.000 SY $5.00000 $253,440.00

Continuous Diamond Grinding Concrete Pavement

Bidx costs ranged from $3/SY to $8/SYUsed $5/Sy based on project bids for similar qtys. See printout

0080 455.0605 2,534.000 GAL $3.26108 $8,263.58Tack Coat


0090 460.5224 5,576.000 TON $68.00000 $379,168.00

HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S

Used combined asphalt cost spreadsheet = $67.57. Used $68/ton

Page 2 of 312:08:10PMWednesday, November 09, 2016





0100 690.0250 11,412.000 LF $1.67298 $19,092.05Sawing Concrete


Total for Group 0010:$3,253,037.54

Page 3 of 312:08:10PMWednesday, November 09, 2016

Welcome [email protected]!Logout

Bid Tab Analysis Search

Export (csv) | Export (tab)

Item Description Average High Low Unit Bid Count

415.0070Concrete Pavement 7-Inch **P**

$39.50 $40.00 $38.00 SY 4 Bids

Letting

Date Proposal County

Proposal

Average

Proposal

High

Proposal

Low Quantity

Proposal

Bid

Count

11/10/2015 011 - 20151110011 Milwaukee $39.50 $40.00 $38.00 5,339.00000 SY 4 Bids

Total

Quantity: 5,339.00000 SY

415.0070CONCRETE PAVEMENT 7-INCH

$35.83 $48.00 $24.84 SY 35 Bids

Letting


Proposal

Average

Proposal

High

Proposal

Low Quantity

Proposal

Bid

Count



11/10/2015 012 - 20151110012 Washington $34.00 $35.24 $32.81 19,690.00000 SY 7 Bids

Wisconsin Department of Transportation


Clear Search

Item: 415.0070

Smart Item Search

Description: Any

Proposal Items:Any

County: Any

Unit: Any

Low Bidders: Any

From:

08/09/2013

To:

11/09/2016

Date Range:

From:

1000

To:Quantity Range:

Any

From: To:Price Range:

Any Any

Page 1 of 2Bid Tab Analysis Search

11/9/2016https://www.bidx.com/wi/btasearch



02/10/2015 015 - 20150210015 Kenosha $33.31 $39.86 $29.79 20,160.00000 SY 6 Bids

12/09/2014 001 - 20141209001 SAUK $42.60 $45.00 $42.00 1,575.00000 SY 5 Bids

12/10/2013 018 - 20131210018 MANITOWOC $34.85 $37.04 $33.00 5,025.00000 SY 3 Bids

Total


Copyright © 2016, Info Tech, Inc. All rights reserved.







415.0080CONCRETE PAVEMENT 8-INCH

$33.53 $57.00 $23.74 SY 102 Bids

Letting


Proposal

Average

Proposal

High

Proposal

Low Quantity

Proposal

Bid

Count

06/14/2016 010 - 20160614010 Kenosha $36.50 $40.00 $33.00 26,299.00000 SY 2 Bids


03/08/2016

015 - 20160308015 Milwaukee $30.71 $35.00 $27.81 22,300.00000 SY 4 Bids

020 - 20160308020 Outagamie $32.28 $33.92 $31.46 20,275.00000 SY 5 Bids

021 - 20160308021 Winnebago $32.47 $34.15 $30.74 11,772.00000 SY 4 Bids

01/12/2016 022 - 20160112022 Sheboygan $35.60 $38.12 $31.55 24,295.00000 SY 4 Bids

12/08/2015 002 - 20151208002 Monroe $32.83 $37.32 $31.21 20,540.00000 SY 7 Bids

004 - 20151208004 La Crosse $36.44 $37.58 $36.15 19,396.00000 SY 5 Bids


038 - 20150512038 Door $45.12 $57.00 $37.70 19,660.00000 SY 3 Bids

04/14/2015 013 - 20150414013 Dodge $30.05 $30.92 $28.95 13,366.00000 SY 3 Bids



Clear Search

Item: 415.0080

Smart Item Search

Description: Any

Proposal Items:Any

County: Any

Unit: Any

Low Bidders: Any

From:

08/09/2013

To:

11/09/2016

Date Range:

From:

10000

To:Quantity Range:

Any


Any Any




03/10/2015 010 - 20150310010 Juneau $38.92 $39.00 $38.84 10,498.00000 SY 2 Bids

031 - 20150310031 Oconto $36.90 $43.97 $34.52 31,175.00000 SY 7 Bids

02/10/2015 005 - 20150210005 Dane $42.25 $46.00 $38.99 14,635.00000 SY 4 Bids



12/09/2014 008 - 20141209008 SHEBOYGAN $34.49 $39.90 $32.88 18,531.00000 SY 7 Bids

08/12/2014 002 - 20140812002 COLUMBIA $37.30 $37.90 $36.43 16,059.00000 SY 4 Bids

04/08/2014 017 - 20140408017 MILWAUKEE $27.54 $34.25 $23.74 32,600.00000 SY 4 Bids

03/11/2014 015 - 20140311015 BROWN $31.04 $31.36 $30.60 32,750.00000 SY 5 Bids

12/10/2013 003 - 20131210003 LA CROSSE $28.83 $41.25 $25.25 103,354.00000 SY 8 Bids

Total

Quantity: 697,813.00000 SY

415.0080CONCRETE PAVEMENT 8-INCH **P**

$36.11 $50.00 $28.00 SY 26 Bids

Letting


Proposal

Average

Proposal

High

Proposal

Low Quantity

Proposal

Bid

Count


03/10/2015 002 - 20150310002 Dane $34.85 $35.09 $34.75 19,345.00000 SY 7 Bids




003 - 20130910003 MILWAUKEE $36.26 $50.00 $28.00 10,699.00000 SY 5 Bids

Total

Quantity: 144,535.00000 SY








420.1000Continuous Diamond Grinding Concrete Pavement

$5.18 $6.45 $4.23 SY 4 Bids

Letting


Proposal

Average

Proposal

High

Proposal

Low Quantity

Proposal

Bid

Count

06/14/2016 005 - 20160614005 La Crosse $6.08 $6.45 $5.70 9,514.00000 SY 2 Bids

010 - 20160614010 Kenosha $4.29 $4.35 $4.23 89,499.00000 SY 2 Bids

Total


420.1000.S

CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONTINUOUS DIAMOND GRINDING

$4.84 $8.00 $3.00 SY 17 Bids

Letting


Proposal

Average

Proposal

High

Proposal

Low Quantity

Proposal

Bid

Count

11/10/2015 014 - 20151110014 Ozaukee $4.84 $5.07 $4.25 30,250.00000 SY 7 Bids



Clear Search

Item: 420.1000

Smart Item Search

Description: Any

Proposal Items:Any

County: Any

Unit: Any

Low Bidders: Any

From:

08/09/2014

To:

11/09/2016

Date Range:

From: To:Quantity Range:

Any Any


Any Any




04/14/2015 003 - 20150414003 Dodge $3.05 $3.13 $3.00 62,900.00000 SY 3 Bids

017 - 20150414017 Waukesha $6.63 $7.25 $6.00 12,720.00000 SY 2 Bids

03/10/2015 006 - 20150310006 Rock $5.49 $5.49 $5.49 4,010.00000 SY 1 Bid

02/10/2015 006 - 20150210006 Dane Rock $4.12 $4.33 $3.90 2,950.00000 SY 2 Bids

11/11/2014 023 - 20141111023 ADAMS $6.17 $8.00 $4.33 62,520.00000 SY 2 Bids

Total

Quantity: 175,350.00000 SY




Qty: 6,970

Cost: $66.23

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

0.00 1,000.002,000.003,000.004,000.005,000.006,000.007,000.008,000.009,000.0010,000.00

Co

st (

$/t

on

)

Mix (Tons)

Combined Asphalt CostFilter Criteria: {Region=ALL} / {Mix Qty=1060 - 9341} / {Combined Asphalt Items=460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225}

Source: F:\TR\JOBS\E2166A15\Reports\Pavement\LCCA info\asphalt20132014.xlsx

Contract ID Mix Bid Item Item DescriptionMix Quantity

(Tons)Oil Bid Item

Oil Quantity

(tons)Total Asphalt Price Bid$/Ton Bidder Percent AC Region

Number of

E-MixesCOUNTY Program CONCEPT Program Code Description Combined Asphalt Items

20130108007 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,730.00 455.0105 204.00 $294,443.10 $78.94 EA15 5.50% NC 1 WOOD 302 RECOND MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130312024 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,315.00 455.0105 182.00 $166,979.05 $50.37 PE23 5.50% NEL 1 OUTAGAMIE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130409006 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,705.00 455.0105 219.00 $191,551.95 $51.70 MCI008 5.90% SWL 1 LAFAYETTE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130409008 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,610.00 455.0105 220.00 $179,179.40 $49.63 HO10 6.10% SWL 1 JUNEAU 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130514001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,190.00 455.0105 135.00 $143,970.00 $65.74 RO42 6.20% SW 2 ROCK 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130514030 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5,517.00 455.0105 303.50 $398,859.90 $72.30 MA67 5.50% NE 2 SHEBOYGAN 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130514036 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 9,000.00 455.0105 550.00 $441,460.00 $49.05 NO14 6.10% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130514043 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,126.00 455.0105 227.00 $288,909.52 $70.02 SN05 5.50% NC 1 MARATHON 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130611016 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,785.00 455.0105 154.00 $182,208.00 $65.42 NO14 5.50% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130709010 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 7,700.00 455.0105 425.00 $450,600.00 $58.52 RO42 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130709021 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,125.00 455.0105 235.00 $126,575.00 $59.56 PA70 11.10% SEL 1 WAUKESHA 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130813002 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,803.00 455.0105 153.20 $284,379.97 $101.46 PA70 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130813021 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,890.00 455.0105 104.00 $167,986.10 $88.88 EA15 5.50% NC 1 WOOD 302 RECST MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130827001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 7,161.00 455.0105 401.00 $644,966.17 $90.07 WCC005 5.60% SE 2 MILWAUKEE 304 BRRHB MAJOR INTERSTATE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20131112007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,390.00 455.0105 170.00 $170,058.50 $50.16 MU41 5.00% NE 1 OUTAGAMIE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20131210018 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,830.00 455.0105 104.00 $149,354.00 $81.61 KR50 5.70% NE 1 MANITOWOC 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140114003 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,200.00 455.0105 66.00 $106,200.00 $88.50 LA40 5.50% SW 1 CRAWFORD 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140211005 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,818.00 455.0105 210.00 $297,842.42 $78.01 GE33 5.50% SW 1 LA CROSSE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140311013 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,290.00 455.0105 72.00 $87,264.00 $67.65 VI18 5.60% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 303 PVRPLA STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140311019 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,366.00 455.0105 240.00 $228,339.60 $52.30 MI06 5.50% NEL 1 WINNEBAGO 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140311023 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,073.00 455.0105 60.90 $70,148.10 $65.38 SO20 5.70% NC 1 SHAWANO 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140408026 460.1101HMA Pavement Type E-1

1,100.00 455.0105 60.00 $90,227.00 $82.02 EA15 5.50% NCL 1 PORTAGE 207 MISC RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENT, PROTECTION AND REPAIR ASSIST460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140513026 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,313.00 455.0105 72.00 $127,390.75 $97.02 MA67 5.50% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140513031 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,820.00 455.0105 212.00 $335,094.00 $87.72 NO14 5.50% NE 1 DOOR 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140610009 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,280.00 455.0105 70.00 $71,051.20 $55.51 KR10 5.50% SW 1 SAUK 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140610011 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,060.00 455.0105 60.00 $65,890.00 $62.16 IV05 5.70% SW 1 IOWA 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140708001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,783.00 455.0105 208.00 $250,235.70 $66.15 CUL000 5.50% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140708003 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,383.00 455.0105 215.90 $316,273.50 $93.49 HO10 6.40% SW 3 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140708004 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5,102.00 455.0105 288.20 $283,492.00 $55.56 RO42 5.60% SW 1 ROCK 302 RESURF MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140708009 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,250.00 455.0105 136.00 $133,160.00 $59.18 MC25 6.00% SWL 2 SAUK 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140812002 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,747.00 455.0105 269.00 $322,717.55 $67.98 VI18 5.70% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140812012 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,545.00 455.0105 196.00 $362,628.80 $102.29 LU08 5.50% NE 2 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140812016 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,150.00 455.0105 120.00 $150,062.10 $69.80 ZE15 5.60% NC 2 WAUSHARA 303 BRSHRM STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20141111015 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,660.00 455.0105 100.00 $142,375.20 $85.77 CH13 6.00% NW 1 DOUGLAS 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150113011 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 6304 455.0105 347 $630,116.60 $99.96 HO10 5.50% NE 2 BROWN 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150210002 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3303 455.0105 181.8 $225,621.90 $68.31 MA67 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150210007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1500 455.0105 86 $119,968.75 $79.98 IGA000 5.70% SW 3 DANE 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150210027 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5342 455.0105 294 $763,291.25 $142.88 VI18 5.50% NE 2 OUTAGAMIE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310013 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3451 455.0105 239 $196,519.02 $56.95 KNA000 6.90% SWL 1 JUNEAU 205 BRRPL HIGHWAY AND LOCAL BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310023 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 8859 455.0105 578 $553,775.20 $62.51 HO10 6.50% NE 4 BROWN 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310024 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3500 455.0105 190 $269,450.00 $76.99 JA25 5.40% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 302 RECST MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310029 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4200 455.0105 231 $244,650.00 $58.25 PE40 5.50% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310034 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3150 455.0105 180 $196,258.50 $62.30 AM16 5.70% NCL 1 WAUSHARA 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150512048 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 6,530.00 455.0105 360 $360,083.90 $55.14 HA05 5.50% NWL 1 EAU CLAIRE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150609001 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,475.00 455.0105 137 $293,525.00 $118.60 RO42 5.50% SW 1 ROCK 302 MISC MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714002 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,405.00 455.0105 84.1 $99,716.00 $70.97 LU08 6.00% SW 2 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714005 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 6,150.00 455.0105 340 $461,425.00 $75.03 CUL000 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714013 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,021.00 455.0105 111 $161,137.70 $79.73 PE23 5.50% NE 1 DOOR 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714017 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,940.00 455.0105 162 $287,352.00 $97.74 LU08 5.50% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714019 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,410.00 455.0105 134 $238,439.65 $98.94 HO10 5.60% NE 2 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150811010 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 8,385.00 455.0105 475 $836,360.50 $99.74 VI18 5.70% NE 2 CALUMET 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20151208004 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 4,093.00 455.0105 235.9 $331,023.09 $80.88 HO10 5.80% SW 2 LA CROSSE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20151208010 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,642.00 455.0105 147 $176,943.45 $66.97 ZE15 5.60% SE 2 MILWAUKEE 301 BRRPL SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN FREEWAY MEGAPROJECTS 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112004 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,575.00 455.0105 252 $404,925.00 $88.51 ZI11 5.50% SW 1 CRAWFORD 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 9,341.00 455.0105 527 $692,932.14 $74.18 GE33 5.60% SW 1 LA CROSSE 303 RECSTE STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112008 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,502.00 455.0105 155 $272,876.70 $77.92 LU08 4.40% SE 4 WAUKESHA 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112014 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,060.00 455.0105 115 $133,537.00 $64.82 HA05 5.60% NWL 1 BARRON 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112019 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 9,096.00 455.0105 500 $432,668.72 $47.57 GA40 5.50% SW 1 SAUK 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112024 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 7,704.00 455.0105 424 $509,416.48 $66.12 AM16 5.50% NC 1 PORTAGE 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160308012 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 9,075.00 455.0105 502 $570,651.25 $62.88 SA04 5.50% SW 1 MONROE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510005 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,649.00 $209,732.26 $79.17 GE33 SW 2 MONROE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510006 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 2,197.00 $152,691.50 $69.50 PA70 SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510033 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,800.00 $316,268.00 $46.51 GA40 NC 1 ADAMS 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510037 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 5,510.00 $374,680.00 $68.00 SN05 NCL 2 MARATHON 206 RESURF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510045 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 2,050.00 $232,941.50 $113.63 CUL000 NW 2 CHIPPEWA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510052 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,928.00 $400,680.88 $57.84 MO14 NWL 2 SAWYER 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510055 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 9,268.00 $568,052.88 $61.29 ZE15 SW 3 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160614007 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,257.00 $137,634.70 $60.98 LU08 SE 3 WAUKESHA 301 BRRPLE SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN FREEWAY MEGAPROJECTS 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160614010 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 3,348.00 $190,456.80 $56.89 CUL000 SE 3 KENOSHA 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160614013 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,543.00 $325,121.67 $49.69 HA05 NWL 1 CHIPPEWA 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160712003 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,500.00 $204,325.00 $81.73 CH13 SW 2 MONROE 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

Qty: 5,576

Cost: $67.57

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 7,000.00 8,000.00 9,000.00 10,000.00

Co

st (

$/t

on

)

Mix (Tons)

Combined Asphalt CostFilter Criteria: {Region=ALL} / {Mix Qty=1060 - 9341} / {Combined Asphalt Items=460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225}

Source: F:\TR\JOBS\E2166A15\Reports\Pavement\LCCA info\asphalt20132014.xlsx

Contract ID Mix Bid Item Item DescriptionMix Quantity

(Tons)Oil Bid Item

Oil Quantity

(tons)Total Asphalt Price Bid$/Ton Bidder Percent AC Region

Number of

E-MixesCOUNTY Program CONCEPT Program Code Description Combined Asphalt Items

20130108007 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,730.00 455.0105 204.00 $294,443.10 $78.94 EA15 5.50% NC 1 WOOD 302 RECOND MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130312024 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,315.00 455.0105 182.00 $166,979.05 $50.37 PE23 5.50% NEL 1 OUTAGAMIE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130409006 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,705.00 455.0105 219.00 $191,551.95 $51.70 MCI008 5.90% SWL 1 LAFAYETTE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130409008 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,610.00 455.0105 220.00 $179,179.40 $49.63 HO10 6.10% SWL 1 JUNEAU 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130514001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,190.00 455.0105 135.00 $143,970.00 $65.74 RO42 6.20% SW 2 ROCK 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130514030 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5,517.00 455.0105 303.50 $398,859.90 $72.30 MA67 5.50% NE 2 SHEBOYGAN 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130514036 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 9,000.00 455.0105 550.00 $441,460.00 $49.05 NO14 6.10% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130514043 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,126.00 455.0105 227.00 $288,909.52 $70.02 SN05 5.50% NC 1 MARATHON 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130611016 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,785.00 455.0105 154.00 $182,208.00 $65.42 NO14 5.50% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130709010 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 7,700.00 455.0105 425.00 $450,600.00 $58.52 RO42 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130709021 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,125.00 455.0105 235.00 $126,575.00 $59.56 PA70 11.10% SEL 1 WAUKESHA 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130813002 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,803.00 455.0105 153.20 $284,379.97 $101.46 PA70 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130813021 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,890.00 455.0105 104.00 $167,986.10 $88.88 EA15 5.50% NC 1 WOOD 302 RECST MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20130827001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 7,161.00 455.0105 401.00 $644,966.17 $90.07 WCC005 5.60% SE 2 MILWAUKEE 304 BRRHB MAJOR INTERSTATE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20131112007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,390.00 455.0105 170.00 $170,058.50 $50.16 MU41 5.00% NE 1 OUTAGAMIE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20131210018 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,830.00 455.0105 104.00 $149,354.00 $81.61 KR50 5.70% NE 1 MANITOWOC 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140114003 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,200.00 455.0105 66.00 $106,200.00 $88.50 LA40 5.50% SW 1 CRAWFORD 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140211005 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,818.00 455.0105 210.00 $297,842.42 $78.01 GE33 5.50% SW 1 LA CROSSE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140311013 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,290.00 455.0105 72.00 $87,264.00 $67.65 VI18 5.60% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 303 PVRPLA STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140311019 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,366.00 455.0105 240.00 $228,339.60 $52.30 MI06 5.50% NEL 1 WINNEBAGO 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140311023 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,073.00 455.0105 60.90 $70,148.10 $65.38 SO20 5.70% NC 1 SHAWANO 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140408026 460.1101HMA Pavement Type E-1

1,100.00 455.0105 60.00 $90,227.00 $82.02 EA15 5.50% NCL 1 PORTAGE 207 MISC RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENT, PROTECTION AND REPAIR ASSIST460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140513026 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,313.00 455.0105 72.00 $127,390.75 $97.02 MA67 5.50% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140513031 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,820.00 455.0105 212.00 $335,094.00 $87.72 NO14 5.50% NE 1 DOOR 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140610009 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,280.00 455.0105 70.00 $71,051.20 $55.51 KR10 5.50% SW 1 SAUK 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140610011 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,060.00 455.0105 60.00 $65,890.00 $62.16 IV05 5.70% SW 1 IOWA 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140708001 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,783.00 455.0105 208.00 $250,235.70 $66.15 CUL000 5.50% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140708003 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3,383.00 455.0105 215.90 $316,273.50 $93.49 HO10 6.40% SW 3 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140708004 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5,102.00 455.0105 288.20 $283,492.00 $55.56 RO42 5.60% SW 1 ROCK 302 RESURF MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140708009 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,250.00 455.0105 136.00 $133,160.00 $59.18 MC25 6.00% SWL 2 SAUK 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140812002 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,747.00 455.0105 269.00 $322,717.55 $67.98 VI18 5.70% SW 1 COLUMBIA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140812012 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,545.00 455.0105 196.00 $362,628.80 $102.29 LU08 5.50% NE 2 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20140812016 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,150.00 455.0105 120.00 $150,062.10 $69.80 ZE15 5.60% NC 2 WAUSHARA 303 BRSHRM STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20141111015 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 1,660.00 455.0105 100.00 $142,375.20 $85.77 CH13 6.00% NW 1 DOUGLAS 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150113011 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 6304 455.0105 347 $630,116.60 $99.96 HO10 5.50% NE 2 BROWN 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150210002 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 3303 455.0105 181.8 $225,621.90 $68.31 MA67 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150210007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1500 455.0105 86 $119,968.75 $79.98 IGA000 5.70% SW 3 DANE 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150210027 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 5342 455.0105 294 $763,291.25 $142.88 VI18 5.50% NE 2 OUTAGAMIE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310013 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3451 455.0105 239 $196,519.02 $56.95 KNA000 6.90% SWL 1 JUNEAU 205 BRRPL HIGHWAY AND LOCAL BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310023 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 8859 455.0105 578 $553,775.20 $62.51 HO10 6.50% NE 4 BROWN 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310024 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3500 455.0105 190 $269,450.00 $76.99 JA25 5.40% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 302 RECST MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310029 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4200 455.0105 231 $244,650.00 $58.25 PE40 5.50% NE 1 SHEBOYGAN 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150310034 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3150 455.0105 180 $196,258.50 $62.30 AM16 5.70% NCL 1 WAUSHARA 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150512048 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 6,530.00 455.0105 360 $360,083.90 $55.14 HA05 5.50% NWL 1 EAU CLAIRE 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150609001 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,475.00 455.0105 137 $293,525.00 $118.60 RO42 5.50% SW 1 ROCK 302 MISC MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714002 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 1,405.00 455.0105 84.1 $99,716.00 $70.97 LU08 6.00% SW 2 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714005 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 6,150.00 455.0105 340 $461,425.00 $75.03 CUL000 5.50% SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714013 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,021.00 455.0105 111 $161,137.70 $79.73 PE23 5.50% NE 1 DOOR 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714017 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,940.00 455.0105 162 $287,352.00 $97.74 LU08 5.50% NE 1 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150714019 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 2,410.00 455.0105 134 $238,439.65 $98.94 HO10 5.60% NE 2 WINNEBAGO 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20150811010 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 8,385.00 455.0105 475 $836,360.50 $99.74 VI18 5.70% NE 2 CALUMET 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20151208004 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 4,093.00 455.0105 235.9 $331,023.09 $80.88 HO10 5.80% SW 2 LA CROSSE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20151208010 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,642.00 455.0105 147 $176,943.45 $66.97 ZE15 5.60% SE 2 MILWAUKEE 301 BRRPL SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN FREEWAY MEGAPROJECTS 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112004 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 4,575.00 455.0105 252 $404,925.00 $88.51 ZI11 5.50% SW 1 CRAWFORD 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112007 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 9,341.00 455.0105 527 $692,932.14 $74.18 GE33 5.60% SW 1 LA CROSSE 303 RECSTE STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112008 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 3,502.00 455.0105 155 $272,876.70 $77.92 LU08 4.40% SE 4 WAUKESHA 303 BRRPL STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112014 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 2,060.00 455.0105 115 $133,537.00 $64.82 HA05 5.60% NWL 1 BARRON 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112019 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 9,096.00 455.0105 500 $432,668.72 $47.57 GA40 5.50% SW 1 SAUK 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160112024 460.1101 HMA Pavement Type E-1 7,704.00 455.0105 424 $509,416.48 $66.12 AM16 5.50% NC 1 PORTAGE 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160308012 460.1100 HMA Pavement Type E-0.3 9,075.00 455.0105 502 $570,651.25 $62.88 SA04 5.50% SW 1 MONROE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510005 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,649.00 $209,732.26 $79.17 GE33 SW 2 MONROE 303 RECST STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510006 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 2,197.00 $152,691.50 $69.50 PA70 SW 1 DANE 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510033 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,800.00 $316,268.00 $46.51 GA40 NC 1 ADAMS 303 RESURF STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510037 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 5,510.00 $374,680.00 $68.00 SN05 NCL 2 MARATHON 206 RESURF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510045 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 2,050.00 $232,941.50 $113.63 CUL000 NW 2 CHIPPEWA 303 RDMTN STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510052 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,928.00 $400,680.88 $57.84 MO14 NWL 2 SAWYER 206 PVRPLA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160510055 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 9,268.00 $568,052.88 $61.29 ZE15 SW 3 DANE 302 RECSTE MAJOR HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160614007 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,257.00 $137,634.70 $60.98 LU08 SE 3 WAUKESHA 301 BRRPLE SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN FREEWAY MEGAPROJECTS 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160614010 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 3,348.00 $190,456.80 $56.89 CUL000 SE 3 KENOSHA 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160614013 460.5224 HMA Pavement 4 LT 58-28 S 6,543.00 $325,121.67 $49.69 HA05 NWL 1 CHIPPEWA 206 RECST LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225

20160712003 460.5223 HMA Pavement 3 LT 58-28 S 2,500.00 $204,325.00 $81.73 CH13 SW 2 MONROE 303 MISC STATE HIGHWAY REHABILITATION 460.5223, 460.5224, 460.5225



APPENDIX F

Regional Pavement Engineers Memo

WisPave Development Meeting with Regional Pavement Engineers

There was discussion about cutting back PEUG meetings to twice a year and having 2 meetings a year

with just the pavement engineers.

Deb was asked to look into centerline joint clear sealant longevity, thickness, friction reducing

characteristics, etc. based on recommendations given at the centerline joint workshop.

WisPave Discussion

WisPave 1st

page design – no comments on color preference or design. Deb was asked to decide.

All cross-section drawings will be replaced with two standard drawings – 1 for rural and 1 for urban.

Photo will depict 8 or 10 lanes. All lanes (e.g. driving lanes, bike lanes, parking lanes) will just be referred

to as “lane”.

Sort bid items numerically by number, not alphabetically by name.

Prior to getting to the list of all projects, pavement engineers prefer a filter before getting a full list of

projects. Preferably the filter should include Region and/or State vs Local. Pavement Engineers will only

want to see their pavement designs the majority of the time.

HMA Maintenance & Rehabilitation Summary

Rehabilitation Options are:

• HMA Overlay

• Mill & HMA Overlay

• Mill, Repair & HMA Overlay

• Mill, Rubblize & HMA Overlay?

• Pulverize & HMA Overlay?

• HMA Reconstruct

Set WisPave HMA Rehab defaults as follows:

Rehab 1 – Mill 2” & Overlay 2”; Under the “Limits” field, change “RDWY” to “Pvmt Structure”; set

default of mill and overlay limits = Pvmt Structure & Shldrs (Urban & Rural).

Rehabs 2 & 3 = Mill 4” & Overlay 4”. Limits are the same as above.

Be sure to include HMA milling and Concrete Partial Depth Milling bid items in WisPave.

Concrete Maintenance & Rehabilitation Summary

Top of screen (year 0) options are:

• Initial Construction

• Grind

• DBR & Grind

• Repair (Lane Patches) & Grind

• Reconstruct (Rubblization)

• Not Specified

This was not discussed at meeting, but “Grind,” “DBR & Grind,” and “Repair & Grind” can be eliminated

from the list. An LCCA would not be done for those scenarios.

Rehabilitation Options are:

• Repair & Grind

• Repair & Overlay

• Mill, Repair & Overlay

• Concrete Rubblization

• Concrete Reconstruction

Set WisPave Concrete Rehab defaults as follows:

Rehab 1 – Repair and/or grind; 5% (percent of surface area) repair and 0% grind (Urban & Rural).

Rehab 2 – Repair and/or grind; 5% repair and 100% grind; limits = pvmt structure (not shldrs) (Urban &

Rural).

Rehab 3 – Repair & HMA Overlay; 5% repair (ranges of 0%-20%) and 2”Overlay (ranges = 0-10”).

For Concrete Rehabs involving “Repair”, currently the user enters the # of PCC Patches & WisPave

calculates & displays the % of joint repair. Instead of “# of PCC Patches”, the user will enter the

“Percentage of Surface Area” in the new WisPave.



APPENDIX G

Geotechnical Exploration Report

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM

FOR

PROJECT I.D. 4616-03-00

TOWN OF WRIGHTSTOWN – TOWN OF ROCKLAND

CLAY STREET – TETZLAFF ROAD

CTH ZZ

BROWN COUNTY

ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED SHEET PILE WALLS

PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS

SLOPE STABILITY REVIEW

PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE

OCTOBER 2016

OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Project Information ..................................................................................... 1

1.2. Scope of Services ........................................................................................ 3

1.3. Purpose of Report ....................................................................................... 4

2.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM RESULTS ............................................................. 4

2.1. Scope of Exploration................................................................................... 4

2.2. Surface Conditions ...................................................................................... 5

2.3. Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................ 8

2.4. Soil Profile – Literature Review ............................................................... 11

2.5. Water Level Observations......................................................................... 11

2.6. Laboratory Tests ....................................................................................... 12

3.0 ENGINEERING REVIEW ................................................................................... 12

3.1. Roadway Reconstruction .......................................................................... 12

3.1.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 12

3.1.2. Discussion ................................................................................................. 15

3.1.3. Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 16

3.1.4. Embankment Fill and Trench Backfill ...................................................... 18

3.1.5. Embankment Slopes.................................................................................. 19

3.1.6. Drainage .................................................................................................... 19

3.1.7. Pavement Indices ...................................................................................... 19

3.2. Sheet Pile Retaining Walls........................................................................ 20

3.2.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 20

3.2.2. Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................... 21

3.3. Modular Block Retaining Wall ................................................................. 22

3.3.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 22

3.3.2. Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................... 23

3.4. Slope Stability ........................................................................................... 24

3.4.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 24

3.4.2. Slope Distress Review .............................................................................. 27

3.4.3. Discussion ................................................................................................. 31

3.4.4. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 32

3.5. Drainage Structure at Plan Roadway Station 265+08 .............................. 35

3.5.1. Project Data ............................................................................................... 35

3.5.2. Discussions and Recommendations .......................................................... 36

3.5.3. Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 38

3.5.4. Foundation Recommendations.................................................................. 39

3.5.5. Structural Fill and Backfill........................................................................ 40

4.0 STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................... 41

APPENDICES

Soil Boring Location Plan ................................................................................................ A

Soil Boring Log Notes & Logs ........................................................................................ B

Laboratory Test Results ................................................................................................... C

Shear Key & Roadway Cross Section ............................................................................. D

Field Exploration Procedures ............................................................................................ E

Classification of Soils ....................................................................................................... F

1

REPORT OF

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM COUNTY TRUNK HIGHWAY ZZ

TOWN OF WRIGHTSTOWN – TOWN OF ROCKLAND CLAY STREET – TETZLAFF ROAD

BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN

ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED SHEET PILE WALLS PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS

SLOPE STABILITY REVIEW PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE

STATE PROJECT ID: 4616-03-00

OMNNI REPORT E2166A15

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Project Information

Brown County and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Northeast Region have

contracted with OMNNI Associates, Inc. (OMNNI) to develop construction plans as part

of a highway reconstruction project for an approximate 4.0-mile section of CTH ZZ from

Clay Street in the Village of Wrightstown to Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland in

Brown County, Wisconsin. The overall project site of this section of CTH ZZ begins at

Clay Street, located in Section 2 of T21N, R19E in the Village of Wrightstown. From

Clay Street, CTH ZZ extends north through Sections 35, 36, and 25 of T22N, R19E in the

Town of Wrightstown and also extends through Section 24 of T22N, R19E, into Section

19 of T22N, R20E, and along the section line between Section 18 and 19 of T22N, R20E

in the Town of Rockland. The project site ends at Tetzlaff Road which is located in

Section 19 T22N, R20E in the Town of Rockland. CTH ZZ, in the Village of

Wrightstown and extending approximately 0.4 miles north of Clay Street from the

beginning of the project to the village limits, is generally an urban two lane road

consisting of asphaltic pavement and a paved shoulder on the west side of the road and

curb and gutter on the east side. CTH ZZ, through the Town of Wrightstown and the

Town of Rockland, is a rural, two-lane road consisting of asphaltic pavement and gravel

shoulders and generally parallels the Fox River on the eastern embankment. The

reconstruction project of CTH ZZ between Clay Street and Tetzlaff Road is given the

following State Project I.D.: 4616-03-00.

Approximately 574 feet of the CTH ZZ highway reconstruction between Mallard Road

and Meadowlark Road in the Town of Wrightstown has been reported in a separate

2

geotechnical review and is to be used as a supplemental reference to this report. This

section of the CTH ZZ project is identified as the ZZ-17 project and is given a County

Project I.D. ZZ-17 / 4616-04-00. The excluded limits begin at approximate plan roadway

Station 124+78.68 and end at approximate plan roadway Station 130+52.60. The section

of CTH ZZ between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road has exhibited slope stability

issues between CTH ZZ and the Fox River that generally consist of shoulder and

embankment slope subsidence, and this section of CTH ZZ has been deemed an

emergency fix project. As a result, this portion of the reconstruction of CTH ZZ between

Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road is to be completed as an emergency project prior to

reconstruction of the remainder of CTH ZZ and will be constructed by Brown County

forces. Geotechnical review of this section of CTH ZZ and identified as the ZZ-17

project has been completed and can be found in a separate report entitled “Geotechnical

Report ZZ-17_20160826”.

As part of the CTH ZZ project, it is estimated that two sheet pile retaining structures will

be required to support the embankment slope soils on the west side of CTH ZZ between

the river and the roadway in the Village of Wrightstown and at the intersection with

Mallard Road. The southern sheet pile retaining structure is estimated to extend from

approximate plan roadway Station 64+25 to approximate plan roadway Station 82+50 for

a total wall length of approximately 1825 feet. The northern sheet pile retaining structure

is estimated to extend from approximate plan roadway Station 98+25 to approximate plan

roadway Station 105+25 for a total wall length of approximately 700 feet. Based on the

soil conditions encountered, both sheet pile retaining structures are planned to be driven

into the existing embankment and retain both existing embankment as well as fill soils.

The back slope on both walls is estimated to be generally level and at the same elevation

as the new roadway profile.

In addition to the sheet pile retaining structures, six (6) modular block retaining structures

are also estimated along the project and will retain the embankment slope soils. Four (4)

retaining structures are located along CTH ZZ between the proposed roadway shoulder

and the eastern right of way. It is estimated that the four modular block retaining

structures along CTH ZZ along the eastern right of way will be located at the following

plan stations and wall lengths: Wall 1 – Station 117+75 to 119+00 at 125 feet in length;

Wall 2 – Station 173+90 to 176+00 at 210 feet in length; Wall 3 – Station 182+00 to

183+50 at 150 feet in length; and Wall 4 – Station 185+60 to 187+75 at 230 feet in

length. It is estimated that the remaining two (2) modular block retaining structures will

be located on the south side of two local roads that intersect CTH ZZ. The two structures

are estimated to be located at the following plan roadway and secondary roadway stations

as well as wall lengths and distances from the road intersections: Wall 5 at Meadowlark

Road – roadway Station 133+35, secondary roadway Station 12+80 ME to 14+40 ME at

160 feet in length and 120 feet west of intersection with CTH ZZ and Wall 6 at Partridge

Road – roadway Station 160+97, secondary roadway Station 32+75 PA to 33+75 PA at

100 feet in length and 175 west of intersection with CTH ZZ.

3

As part of this effort, OMNNI conducted a subsurface geotechnical investigation to

determine the subsurface profile and engineering properties of the soils for pavement

design and slope stability review parameters as well as for preliminary design of the

estimated sheet pile and modular block retaining wall structures. Eighteen (18) soil

borings (B01 through B18) using standard penetration testing were extended through the

pavement in the CTH ZZ project boundaries. The borings were advanced to various

depths ranging from 6 feet to 90.5 feet. Also, in order to obtain more information for the

slope stability review, several hand auger borings were extended into the western

embankment along CTH ZZ between the roadway and the Fox River shoreline. In

addition, two borings using standard penetration testing, SB1 and SB2, were taken near a

proposed drainage structure. These two borings were extended to a depth of 25 feet each

and were taken to determine the subsurface soil profile and engineering properties of the

soils for the drainage structure design parameters and construction considerations. The

boring locations performed for the CTH ZZ roadway reconstruction and slope stability

review project are indicated on the prints located in Appendix A of this report. The

boring notes and logs are included in Appendix B of this report.

1.2. Scope of Services

The work scope for this project was as follows:

1. Mobilize to the site to locate and mark the boring locations.

2. Mobilize a drill rig to the site to perform the subsurface exploration. The drillers

contacted Diggers Hotline for utility locates. Traffic control consisting of signage

and flagging was provided by the Brown County Highway Department.

3. In the CTH ZZ roadway, perform soil borings using standard penetration testing

and advanced to various depths necessary for soil investigation for roadway

design, slope stability review, and drainage structure design as well as preliminary

sheet pile and modular block retaining wall design for estimated retaining

structures. Borings were to be located in the existing roadway and had pavement

and base course measurements taken for thickness determination. Soil borings

B01 through B18 and were advanced to depths of 6 feet in borings B01 through

B06 and B16, 8 feet in boring B15, 25 feet in borings B07, B08, SB1 and SB2, 40

feet in borings B09, B12 through B14, B17 and B18, and 90.5 feet in boring B11.

Soil borings taken to a depth of six feet or eight feet were sampled continuously.

Remaining soil borings were sampled at 2.5 foot intervals to a depth of 15 feet

and every 5 feet thereafter. Shelby tube samples of soils were obtained at various

depths for differing soil types during the exploration for additional laboratory

testing. At the time of drilling, one Shelby tube was obtained in boring B07, two

Shelby tubes were obtained in borings B09, B10, B12, through B14, B17, and

B18, and three Shelby tubes were obtained in boring B11.

4

4. Perform hand-auger borings on the CTH ZZ western embankment between the

roadway and the Fox River shoreline to verify embankment soils for roadway

stability calculations and construction considerations. Hand auger borings HA-1R,

HA-1S, HA-2R, HA-2S, HA-3R, HA-3S, HA-4R, HA-4S, HA-5R, and HA-5S

were located between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road.

5. Fill all boreholes in compliance with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) specifications. Patch any asphalt penetrations with asphalt cold mix.

6. Return samples obtained to OMNNI’s laboratory for classification and testing.

7. Perform laboratory tests of soils including moisture content, moisture/density and

unconfined compression. In addition, triaxial compression testing was performed

on soil samples from boring B11.

8. Prepare a written report documenting our field and laboratory testing program and

presenting our engineering review and recommendations for preliminary sheet

pile retaining structure design and preliminary modular block retaining structure

design, pavement section design, drainage structure design and embankment

stability review as well as a discussion of construction considerations relative to

the subsurface conditions. The report will also include a discussion of additional

exploration recommendations for estimated modular block walls and estimated

sheet pile walls. Boring logs with Unified Soil Classification of soils, test results,

water level information, relative surface elevations at boring locations, and a site

sketch showing boring locations will also be included in the report.

1.3. Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to present the results of our field and laboratory testing

program and to provide our engineering recommendations for design and construction

considerations for the site.

The authorized scope of services for this report is intended for geotechnical purposes

only, and not to document or detect the presence or absence of any environmental

contamination at the site.

2.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM RESULTS

2.1. Scope of Exploration

Between September 2 and September 10, 2015, twenty (20) soil borings were performed

with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig using standard penetration test sampling as part of

the roadway reconstruction of CTH ZZ between Clay Street in the Village of

Wrightstown and Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland. Of the twenty (20) soil borings

performed along the CTH ZZ roadway, eighteen (18) soil borings (B01 through B18)

were used to determine the subsurface profile and engineering properties of the soils for

pavement design and slope stability review parameters as well as for preliminary design

of the estimated sheet pile and modular block retaining wall structures. The remaining

5

two (2) soil borings (SB-1 and SB-2) were located near and used for determining a

proposed drainage structure. All of the borings were taken in the southbound lane or

shoulder of CTH ZZ with the exception of borings B02, B05 and SB1 which were taken

in the northbound lane or shoulder of CTH ZZ. Boring specific stations and offsets can be

found on the Soil Boring Plan located in Appendix A. Elevations were obtained from a

topographic survey performed for the project and ranged from elevation 603.0 feet at

boring B09 to elevation 637.5 feet at boring B01. Borings were extended using solid stem

augers to various depths after which mud rotary drilling was used to the extent of the

borings. Borings B01 through B06, and B16 were extended to a depth of 6 feet, boring

B15 was extended to a depth of 8 feet, and borings B07, B08, SB1 and SB2 were

extended to a depth of 25 feet. The remaining borings, B09, B12 through B14, B17, and

B18 were extended to a depth of 40 feet, boring B10 and boring B11 were extended to

depths of 50 feet and 90.5 feet, respectively. Six-foot-deep and eight-foot-deep borings

were sampled using continuous standard penetration sampling while the deeper borings

were sampled using standard penetration sampling at 2 ½ foot intervals to a depth of 15

feet and at five foot intervals thereafter. At completion of drilling, all borings were then

filled in compliance with WDNR requirements, and pavement penetrations were patched

with asphalt cold mix.

On October 26, 2015 OMNNI Associates, Inc. performed five (5) hand auger borings as

part of the slope stability review of CTH ZZ between Mallard Road and Meadowlark

Road in the Town of Wrightstown. These five borings were labeled with an “R”

designation. On October 28, 2015, OMNNI Associates, Inc. performed five (5) additional

hand auger borings along with dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing near the

location of the hand auger borings taken on October 26. The borings performed with

DCP testing were labeled with an “S” designation. The hand auger borings were

performed in lieu of standard penetration test sampling as a result of the steep slope and

thick tree cover of the embankment as these areas were not accessible with a drill rig. The

hand auger pair HA-1 and HA-2 were located approximately 100 feet and 530 feet,

respectively north of Mallard Road. The hand auger pair HA-3, HA-4, and HA-5 were

located approximately 1450 feet and 680 feet south of Meadowlark Road. Hand auger

pair HA-5 was located approximately 60 feet north of Meadowlark Road. In each hand

auger pair, the boring labeled with an “R” designation was taken approximately 30 feet

to40 feet west of the CTH ZZ centerline, and the boring labeled with an “S” designation

was taken farther down the embankment from the “S” labeled boring in the pair.

2.2. Surface Conditions

In the Village of Wrightstown, CTH ZZ is an urban street with a gravel shoulder on the

side of the roadway adjacent to the Fox River to the west and with curb and gutter on the

opposite side of the roadway. In the Village of Wrightstown, CTH ZZ extends 0.4 miles

north of Clay Street from the beginning of the project to the village limits. Curb and

gutter ends on the west side of CTH ZZ approximately 20 feet north of Clay Street and

6

ends on the east side of CTH ZZ approximately 0.4 miles north of Clay Street. Starting at

Clay Street and working northward for approximately 0.2 miles, seven (7) single family

homes followed by three (3) multi-family homes are located on the east side of the road

with ten (10) driveways spaced less than 100 feet apart. The residential homes are then

followed by the Village of Wrightstown wastewater treatment plant. Beyond the

wastewater treatment plant, one single family home is located east of the CTH ZZ right-

of-way. In the Village limits, the embankment between the river and the southbound

shoulder of CTH ZZ is sloped at approximately 30 to 40 degrees from horizontal and

extends to approximate plan roadway Station 82+50. Heavy riprap has been placed along

the embankment on the western right-of-way in two locations. The heavy riprap is

located at approximate plan roadway Station 68+50 to 69+00 and at plan roadway Station

81+50 to 82+00. The embankment between the Fox River and CTH ZZ is predominantly

wooded.

Outside the village limits and through the extent of the project, CTH ZZ is a rural road

consisting of two asphaltic pavement lanes each 11 feet wide with approximate 4-foot

gravel shoulders on each side of the road. The road is built into and on the eastern

embankment of the Fox River and generally parallels the river from Clay Street to

approximately 0.7 miles west of Tetzlaff Road. CTH ZZ then bends away from the river

to the east in the northernmost section of roadway reconstruction in a relative east/west

direction for approximately 0.7 miles until intersecting with Tetzlaff Road. Where the

existing road centerline is near the Fox River, the centerline offset from the river

shoreline at normal water elevation ranges from approximately 40 feet to 60 feet through

the extents of the project. The roadway profile begins around elevation 609 feet at

beginning plan roadway Station 64+25 in the Village of Wrightstown, follows numerous

vertical curves with crests and swales ranging between elevation 630 feet and elevation

600 feet. Where the roadway begins to turn from a more north to south direction to a

more west to east direction, the roadway profile begins to increase in elevation at

approximate plan roadway Station 231+50 where the approximate existing roadway

elevation is 602 feet. The elevation then increases and crests at approximate plan

roadway Station 247+00 at elevation 637 feet.

The overhead powerlines crossover the roadway again from the west side to the east side

approximately 200 feet south of the intersection with Mallard Road. Heavy riprap has

also been placed along the western embankment between the river and the roadway at the

following approximate plan roadway station locations: Station 99+50 to 100+50 south of

Mallard Road, Station 101+00 to 102+00 directly across from the Mallard Road

intersection, Station 107+00 to 108+50 north of Mallard Road, and at Station 111+00 to

118+00 north of Mallard Road. Asphalt pavement has been replaced in the southbound

lane for approximately 80 feet at the intersection of CTH ZZ with Mallard Road at

approximate plan roadway Station 101+00 to Station 102+00 and again for

approximately 150 feet at approximate plan roadway Station 116+50 to Station 118+00

above where heavy riprap has been placed.

7

Between Wrightstown Road which is located at approximate plan roadway station

187+80 and Moonriver Road which is located at approximate plan roadway station

207+50, the CTH ZZ roadway is offset up to 200 feet from the river edge, and a

residential property with other building structures are located between the river and the

roadway. Continuing north from approximate plan roadway Station 220+00 to the end of

the project, residential properties are also located on the north/west side of CTH ZZ with

the properties still having predominantly wooded vegetation. Two side-by-side 72-inch

diameter reinforced concrete pipe culverts are located at approximate plan roadway

Station 265+08. Beam guard is in place in the approaching shoulders of the roadway in

the region of the existing reinforced concrete pipes as the embankments on both sides of

CTH ZZ have steeper slopes. An asphalt pavement overlay, approximately 50 feet in

length has been laid in the northbound / westbound lane where the roadway crosses over

the creek.

In the portions of the project where the Fox River is within 40 to 60 feet of the roadway

centerline, the existing cross section through the project starting at the Fox River

generally consists of the Fox River at approximate elevation 595 feet and then an

embankment that slopes upward to CTH ZZ to the east. The embankment height varies

between the approximate river elevation and the roadway elevation, with a differential

height range between 5 and 35 feet. The embankment is generally steep and there is

evidence of erosion at the river edge and evidence of slope instability along several

portions of the project. Subsidence of the embankment and road shoulder were evident in

several locations and large rip rap was placed along portions of the project. From CTH

ZZ and east, the embankment continues to slope upward to approximate crest elevations

varying from 620 feet to 640 feet at approximately 50 to 150 feet east of CTH ZZ.

The vegetation along CTH ZZ north of the Village of Wrightstown limits and along the

embankment between the river and the roadway is predominantly wooded, and the land

east of the roadway is generally open field and farmland with residential homes located

around east/west roads that intersect with CTH ZZ. CTH ZZ intersects seven (7) roads

along the project, and the roads are orientated in an east/west direction and all roads with

the exception of one, Masse Circle, extend east of CTH ZZ. The road names and their

intersection plan roadway stationing are identified as follows, working in a northerly

direction: Mallard Road at Station 101+30, Meadowlark Road at Station 133+35,

Partridge Road at Station 160+97, Wrightstown Road at Station 187+79, and Moonriver

Drive at Station 207+49, Masse Circle at Station 252+40, and Tetzlaff Road at Station

274+50.

The roadway asphaltic pavement on CTH ZZ throughout the project has longitudinal and

transverse cracking as well as alligator cracking with the exception of the areas of

roadway repairs. From aerial photos taken of the roadway prior to the roadway pavement

repairs as well as the roadway conditions surrounding the pavement repairs, the pavement

8

section has been subject to settlement and cracking. Pavement distress can be found in

both northbound and southbound lanes, and the more extensive distress is located in

regions of the southbound lane where the roadway offset is smallest and elevation is

largest from the Fox River edge.

2.3. Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions encountered at the test boring locations are shown on the

boring log notes and logs included in Appendix B in this report. We wish to point out

that the subsurface conditions at other times and locations on this site may differ from

those found at our test locations. The test boring logs also indicate the possible geologic

origin of the materials encountered. Boring numbers are in the reverse order of project

stationing increments with the higher boring numbers located to the south and lower

boring numbers to the north.

Soil borings B18 and B17 were taken in the southbound lane of CTH ZZ in the

Wrightstown village limits between Clay Street and the wastewater treatment plant at

approximate plan roadway Station 66+40 and plan roadway Station 78+75, respectively,

and at elevation 610.0 feet and 609.7 feet, respectively. Soil boring B18 and B17

indicated 4 inches and 6 inches of asphalt pavement, respectively, over approximately 12

inches of base course. The base course consisted of firm and loose silty sand with gravel.

Beneath the base course, fill was encountered to a depth of 4.5 to 5 feet in both borings or

to an approximate elevation of 605 feet. The fill consisted of soft to stiff lean clay with

various amounts of gravel and sand. Beneath the fill, glacial till was encountered in both

borings and consisted of lean clay to depths of approximately 576 feet and fat clay below

the lean clay to the extent of the borings at depth of 40 feet. The lean clay had firm, stiff,

and very stiff consistencies and had various amounts of gravel. The lean clay encountered

in boring B18 was generally firm and the lean clay in boring B17 was generally stiff to

very stiff. The fat clay had a soft consistency in boring B18 and a firm consistency in

boring B17.

Soil borings B16 and B15 were taken in the southbound lane of CTH ZZ outside the

Wrightstown village limits at approximate plan roadway Station 85+60 and plan roadway

Station 96+60, respectively, and at elevation 605.5 feet and 626.7 feet, respectively. Soil

boring B16 indicated 8 inches of asphalt pavement over approximately 14½ inches of

base course, and soil boring B15 indicated 18 inches of asphalt pavement over

approximately 2½ inches of base course. The base course in boring B16 consisted of very

firm silty sand with gravel and trace amounts of asphalt and clay, and the base course in

boring B15 consisted of firm sand with gravel and silt and trace clay. Beneath the base

course, fill was encountered to the extent of the borings at a depth of 6 feet or

approximate elevation 599.5 feet in boring B16 and at a depth of 8 feet or approximate

elevation 618.7 feet in boring B15. In boring B16, the fill consisted of firm to very stiff

lean clay with gravel and sand to depth of 5 feet and consisted of very firm silty sand

9

with gravel and trace clay from a depth of 5 feet to the end of the boring at 6 feet. In

boring B15, the fill consisted of firm and soft lean clay with various amounts of gravel,

sand, and organics.

Soil borings B14 and B13 were taken in the southbound lane of CTH ZZ at approximate

plan roadway Station 107+90 and plan roadway Station 117+00, respectively, and at

elevation 610.2 feet and 613.2 feet, respectively. Soil boring B14 and B13 indicated 5

inches and 4 inches of asphalt pavement, respectively, over approximately 12 inches and

14 inches of base course, respectively. The base course consisted of loose silty sand with

gravel and loose silty gravel with sand. Beneath the base course, fill was encountered to a

depth of 3.5 feet or to an approximate elevation 606.7 feet in boring B14 and to a depth

of 2.25 feet or to an approximate elevation 611.0 feet in boring B13. The fill consisted of

firm to stiff lean clay with various amounts of gravel and sand in boring B14 and stiff

lean clay with gravel and trace amounts of organics, sand, and silt in boring B13. Beneath

the fill, glacial till was encountered in both borings and consisted of lean clay to the

extent of the boring in B14 at a depth of 40 feet or to approximate elevation 570.2 feet. In

boring B13, the glacial till consisted of lean clay to a depth of 38.5 feet or to approximate

elevation 574.7 feet and consisted of fat clay from a depth of 38.5 feet to the extent of the

boring at a depth of 40 feet. The lean clay in both borings had firm, stiff, and very stiff

consistencies and had various amounts of gravel, sand, and silt. The fat clay in boring

B13 had a firm consistency and was layered alternately with lean clay.

Soil borings B12, B11, and B10 were taken in the southbound lane of CTH ZZ near

Meadowlark Road. Geotechnical review of CTH ZZ at Meadowlark Road and

approximately 570 feet south of Meadowlark Road identified as the ZZ-17 project has

been completed and can be found in a separate report. For review of these borings, see

the subsurface conditions section of the separate report entitled “Geotechnical Report ZZ-

17_20160826”.

North of the ZZ-17 project, borings B09, B08, and B07 were taken in the southbound

lane of CTH ZZ between Meadowlark Road and Wrightstown Road at approximate plan

roadway Station 142+80, plan roadway Station 156+20, and plan roadway Station

169+20, respectively. Boring B09 was taken at an approximate ground surface elevation

603.0 feet, boring B08 was taken at an approximate elevation 606.4 feet, and boring B07

was taken at an approximate elevation 604.6 feet. The borings indicated asphalt pavement

and base course thicknesses ranging from 5 inches to 8 inches and 11 inches to 17 inches,

respectively. The base course in the borings consisted of loose and firm silty sand with

gravel. Beneath the base course, fill was encountered to depths of 4.5 feet in borings B09

and B07 with no fill encountered beneath the base course in B08. The fill consisted of

soft to stiff lean clay with various amounts of gravel and sand and trace amounts of

organics. Beneath the fill in the three borings, glacial till was encountered and consisted

of firm, stiff, and very stiff lean clay with various amounts of gravel and sand. In boring

B09 and B07, fat clay was encountered beneath the lean clay at a depth of 28 feet and 23

10

feet, respectively, or at approximate elevation 575 feet and 582 feet, respectively. In this

stratum, alternating layers of lean clay and fat clay were encountered in the upper portion

of the fat clay. Boring B09 was extended to a depth of 40 feet and borings B08 and B07

were both extended to a depth of 25 feet.

From Wrightstown Road to the end of the project at Tetzlaff Road, six borings were

taken in the roadway to a depth of 6 feet beneath the ground surface. Borings B06

through B01 were taken at the following approximate plan stationing and elevations:

Station 192+40 and elevation 609.7 feet in boring B06, Station 210+10 and elevation

605.0 feet in boring B05, Station 221+80 and elevation 604.7 feet in boring B04, Station

233+40 and elevation 610.1 feet in boring B03, Station 248+60 and elevation 637.0 in

boring B02 and Station 270+70 and elevation 637.5 feet in boring. These six borings

indicated asphalt pavement thicknesses ranging from 4 inches to 6 inches and base course

thicknesses ranging from 8 inches to 44 inches. The base course predominantly consisted

of very loose, loose, and firm silty sand with gravel. Beneath the base course, fill was

encountered except for in boring B01, and the fill consisted of firm to hard lean clay with

various amounts of gravel and sand in borings B06, B05, and B03. In borings B04 and

B02, the fill consisted of very stiff sandy lean clay with gravel. Boring B02 also

encountered a loose silty sand stratum from a depth of 2 feet to 4 feet. The fill extended

to the extent of the boring in boring B06 and B03 and extended to a depth of 4 feet in

boring B05, B04, and B02. Beneath the fill in borings B05, B04 and B02 and beneath the

base course in boring B01, glacial till was encountered and consisted of very stiff lean

clay with gravel, stiff lean clay, and very stiff lean clay and trace organics.

Two soil borings, SB1 and SB2, were drilled near the proposed drainage structure at

approximate plan roadway station 265+50 and 264+70, respectively. These borings were

extended to a depth of 25 feet. Boring SB1 was taken on the south side of CTH ZZ at

elevation 620.6 feet and boring SB2 was taken on the north side at elevation 622.3 feet.

Boring SB1 indicated 8 inches of asphaltic pavement over fill to a depth of 18 feet. The

fill consisted of soft to firm lean clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel. Beneath

the fill, glacial till consisting of hard lean clay was encountered to the end of the boring.

In boring SB2, 9 inches of asphaltic pavement was encountered over fill to a depth of 9½

feet. The fill consisted of firm lean clay with traces of gravel and organics. Beneath the

fill, very stiff lean clay and lean clay with gravel was encountered to the extent of the

boring.

Hand auger borings HA-1R, HA-1S, HA-2R, HA-2S, HA-3R and HA-3S were taken on

the embankment west of the CTH ZZ roadway, with borings HA-1R and HA-1S taken at

approximate Station 102+30, with borings HA-2R and HA-2S taken at approximate

Station 106+60, and with borings HA-3R and HA-3S taken at approximate Station

118+75. Soil borings HA-1R, HA-2R, and HA-3R taken on the upper section of the

embankment encountered a fill soils through the extent of the boring to a depth of 4 feet

in borings HA-1R and HA-2R and to a depth of 5.3 feet in boring HA-3R. The fill in

11

hand auger boring HA-1R consisted of silty sand with gravel and organics, and lean clay

with gravel and organics and with little sand. The fill in hand auger boring HA-2R and

HA-3R consisted of lean clay with various amounts of sand, organics and gravel. The

hand auger borings denoted with an “S” were taken farther down the embankment and

consisted of natural glacial till from the surface to a depth of 4 feet. The till generally

consisted of lean clay with various amounts of gravel, sand, and organics.

2.4. Soil Profile – Literature Review

The project area extended across two mapping units as indicated by the United States

Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) soil

survey for Brown County, Wisconsin. The mapping units were as follows:

(OnB, OnD2) Oshkosh silt loam

(KkD3, KkE3) Kewaunee soils

According to the Soil Conservation Service soil survey for Brown County, the soil series

indicated above consist of the following:

Oshkosh: Gently sloping, deep, well drained and moderately well drained soils on

lacustrine plains dissected by V-shaped valleys. Soils are in old glacial

lake basins and have medium available water capacity and slow

permeability.

Kewaunee: Steeply sloping, severely eroded, deep, well drained and moderately well

drained soils on ridges in glacial till plains. Soils have high available water

capacity and slow permeability.

Review of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) soil parameter

database for the above soils suggests the following general parameters:

WisDOT SOIL PARAMETERS

Symbol Pedological

Name

Design Group

Index B / C

Frost Index

B / C

Estimated Modulus of Subgrade

Reaction (psi/in.) B / C

(OnB) Oshkosh 14 / 12 F-3 / F-3 125 / 150

(KkD3) Kewaunee 12 / 12 F-3 / F-3 150 / 150

2.5. Water Level Observations

For the soil borings taken in the roadway, a groundwater level was noted in boring B07.

In boring B07, the first observation of groundwater was measured at a depth of 17 feet or

approximate elevation 587.6 feet and the water level observation at the completion of the

drilling was measured at a depth of 15 feet or approximate elevation 589.6 feet. Soil

samples were generally moist throughout the extents of the borings. The soil sample in

boring B14 at approximate elevation 577 feet was observed to be wet. In boring SB1

12

taken for the proposed drainage structure, a water level was noted at boring completion at

a depth of 17.5 feet beneath the surface or approximate elevation 603 feet. It is our

opinion that the mud rotary drilling used during the subsurface exploration likely

impacted the groundwater levels measured in the borings. It is also our opinion that static

groundwater levels are likely near or below the Fox River water elevation.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the hand borings taken in the project

boundaries.

The Fox River flows from south to north and has several dams to control the water

elevation between Menasha and Green Bay. The approximate water elevation of the Fox

River was 595 feet at the time of our subsurface exploration on the CTH ZZ project. The

100-year flood elevation for design purposes range from elevation 601.37 feet to

elevation 599.20 feet.

Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate, both seasonally and annually, and from

place to place on the site.

2.6. Laboratory Tests

Samples obtained during the subsurface exploration were returned to the laboratory to be

visually and manually classified in the laboratory. Samples were classified in accordance

with the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS) and the probable geologic origin

was noted. Testing of select soil samples including spring penetrometer testing of soils

for estimates of unconfined compressive strength, unconfined compression testing of

soils, moisture content, and moisture/density testing of soils were performed. Results are

indicated on the boring logs included in Appendix B of this report. Laboratory test results

are included in Appendix C of this report.

3.0 ENGINEERING REVIEW

3.1. Roadway Reconstruction

3.1.1. Project Data

We understand that an approximately 4.0-mile section of CTH ZZ that generally parallels

the Fox River on the eastern embankment is proposed to be reconstructed. The project

begins at Clay Street in the Village of Wrightstown, crosses through the Town of

Wrightstown and ends at Tetzlaff Road in the Town of Rockland. This report will

exclude approximately 574 feet of the CTH ZZ highway reconstruction between Mallard

Road and Meadowlark Road in the Town of Wrightstown identified as the ZZ-17 project.

The section of CTH ZZ between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road has existing slope

stability issues that has been deemed an emergency fix project. As a result, the

reconstruction of CTH ZZ between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road is to be

13

completed prior to reconstruction of the remainder of CTH ZZ between Clay Street and

Tetzlaff Road and will also be constructed by Brown County forces.

In the village of Wrightstown, CTH ZZ is currently an urban road with a gravel shoulder

on the river side (west side) of the roadway and a curb and gutter on the opposite side of

the roadway for approximately 0.4 miles from the beginning of the project to the village

limits. Beyond the village limits, CTH ZZ is a rural road consisting of two asphaltic

pavement lanes each 11 feet wide with 4-foot gravel shoulders on each side of the road.

The road is built into and on the eastern embankment of the Fox River and generally

parallels the river from Clay Street to approximately 0.7 miles west of Tetzlaff Road.

CTH ZZ bends away from the river to the east in the northernmost section of roadway

reconstruction in a relative east/west direction for approximately 0.7 miles until

intersecting with Tetzlaff Road. Where CTH ZZ is near the Fox River, the existing road

centerline offset from the river shoreline at normal water elevation ranges from 40 feet to

60 feet. The roadway profile begins around elevation 609 feet at beginning plan roadway

Station 64+25 in the village of Wrightstown, follows numerous vertical and horizontal

curves with crests and swales ranging between elevation 630 feet and elevation 600 feet.

The roadway profile begins to increase in elevation at approximate plan roadway Station

231+50 at approximate elevation 602 feet and crests at approximate plan roadway Station

247+00 at elevation 637 feet. Numerous existing corrugated metal pipes (CMP’s) cross

beneath the roadway along the CTH ZZ project to allow surface water runoff from the

eastern side of CTH ZZ to flow beneath the roadway and down to the river.

Vegetation consists of residential home mowed lawns and crop land separated by wooded

regions along the eastern right-of-way. The embankment between the roadway and the

shoreline is predominantly wooded with the exception of several areas in which the

heavy riprap has been placed.

The roadway asphaltic pavement has longitudinal and transverse cracking as well as

alligator cracking along the length of the project. The southbound lane and shoulder at

numerous areas along the project have experienced settlement and cracking. At select

areas of the roadway adjacent to where the heavy riprap has been placed, the asphalt

pavement in the southbound lane has been replaced.

The existing roadway alignment and profile along the portions of the project specific to

this report are proposed to be adjusted to meet current design standards as well as to

decrease slope stability issues on the embankment between the Fox River and CTH ZZ.

In general, the horizontal alignment is being shifted to the east in several locations along

the project and the roadway elevation is being decreased where possible.

Several retaining structures are proposed to be constructed along CTH ZZ to assist in

adjusting the roadway profile and alignment. In the southern region of the project, two (2)

sheet pile retaining structures are being proposed to assist with embankment slope

14

stability issues within the village limits and for several hundred feet beyond the village

limits. Also, as a result of shifting the roadway alignment east, six additional retaining

structures likely consisting of modular block walls are proposed to retain embankment

soils east of the roadway.

The proposed roadway profile will generally be at a higher elevation than the existing

roadway profile from the beginning of the project to Wrightstown Road. From

Wrightstown Road to the end of the project, the proposed roadway profile will follow the

existing roadway profile. Adjusting the roadway profile is in part the result of the

roadway being realigned to the east and upslope on the embankment, but also in order to

reduce vertical grades at swales as well as bringing up swale elevations. Fill locations on

the proposed roadway profile are to the result of shifting the proposed roadway profile

centerline above the existing east side ditch. Cut locations at the proposed roadway

profile are the result of shifting the proposed roadway profile centerline beyond the east

side ditch and into the embankment on the east side of the roadway. Fill heights between

the proposed roadway profile and the existing surface at the proposed roadway centerline

alignment vary between 2 feet to 4 feet and have a maximum of 6.5 feet at plan roadway

Station 85+50. Cut locations are limited to two locations, approximate plan roadway

Station 167+00 and Station 175+50, at heights of approximately 3 feet and 4.5 feet,

respectively.

In areas of CTH ZZ that are near the Fox River, the existing and proposed road centerline

minimum offset from the river shoreline at normal water elevation is approximately 35

feet at station 68+00. The general offset of the proposed roadway centerline to the river

shoreline at normal water elevation ranges from 50 feet to 80 feet, however at various

locations, the offset extends greater than 250 feet. The proposed roadway alignment will

be offset from the existing roadway alignment at various locations along the project with

maximum offsets reaching 45 feet eastward and inland.

CTH ZZ intersects seven (7) roads along the project, and the roads are orientated in an

east/west direction and all roads with the exception of one, Masse Circle, extend east of

CTH ZZ. The four (4) southernmost roads are offset approximately 0.5 miles from each

other with the remaining three (3) roads at infrequent distances. The road names and their

intersection plan roadway stationing are identified as follows, working in a northerly

direction: Mallard Road at Station 101+30, Meadowlark Road at Station 133+35,

Partridge Road at Station 160+97, Wrightstown Road at Station 187+79, and Moonriver

Drive at Station 207+49, Masse Circle at Station 252+40, and Tetzlaff Road at Station

274+50. These roads that intersect CTH ZZ are also proposed to have approximately 150

feet of roadway reconstructed extending east of CTH ZZ with the exception of

Meadowlark Road and Partridge Road which are proposed to have approximately 482

feet and 365 feet, respectively, of roadway reconstructed.

15

Reinforced concrete pipe culverts and storm sewer piping are anticipated to cross beneath

CTH ZZ for drainage from the east side of CTH ZZ to the Fox River.

A new drainage structure is proposed to be constructed as part of the overall project. An

unnamed tributary to the Fox River passes underneath CTH ZZ approximately 950 feet

east of the intersection with Tetzlaff Road at the northern portion of the project. The

creek generally flows north and has several other tributary drainage creeks that originate

south and east of CTH ZZ. The outlet of the creek is approximately 0.5 miles due north

of the crossing as it feeds into the Fox River. The creek currently passes underneath the

roadway in two (2) 72-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe culverts located side-by-

side. The pipe culverts are orientated in a north-south direction and are approximately

100 feet in length, centered about the existing roadway centerline. It was originally

anticipated that the proposed culvert crossing would consist of a reinforced concrete box

culvert. However, based on the hydraulic study, twin 72-inch concrete pipe will be used

to replace the existing culverts. These pipes will be approximately 150 feet in length and

centered about the proposed roadway centerline. These pipes will be near the existing

invert elevations of the existing pipes. The pipe inverts on the south side of CTH ZZ will

be near elevation 604 feet and on the north side near elevation 602 feet.

3.1.2. Discussion

The soil borings indicated asphalt pavement thicknesses ranging from 4 inches to 18

inches with the average thickness at approximately 6 inches. Beneath the asphalt

pavement, the soil borings encountered base course averaging 15 inches in thickness and

generally consisting of silty sand with gravel of varying relative densities. Fill was

encountered beneath the base course in all of the borings except borings B01, B08 and

B11. The fill was encountered to depths of 2 feet to 8 feet beneath the ground surface in

the roadway borings; however, the majority of the fill depths were within 4 feet of the

ground surface. The fill generally consisted of lean clay with various amounts of sand

and gravel and with trace to little amounts of organics. In the northern region of the

project including borings B01 through B05, the fill had a larger sand content with boring

B02 also having a loose silty sand fill stratum. Also, in boring B16, the fill strata from a

depth of 5 feet to 6 feet consisted on very firm silty sand with gravel and with trace clay.

Natural glacial till was encountered beneath the fill through the extent of the borings and

also generally consisted of lean clay with various amounts of gravel and sand. The lean

clay had stiff to very stiff consistencies with the exception of borings B07, B08, B14, and

B18 which had some lean clay stratums with firm consistencies. In borings B07, B09,

B13, B17 and B18, fat clays were encountered in the glacial till and beneath the lean clay

at approximate elevation 575 feet. The fat clays in the glacial till beneath the lean clays

had generally soft to firm consistencies.

Based on our review of the test boring data and laboratory results, it is our opinion that

the existing pavement section subgrade is generally comprised of fill with an approximate

16

thickness ranging from 2 feet to 4 feet and with natural glacial till soils directly beneath

either the fill or the pavement base course. The fill generally consists of lean clay with

varying amounts of sand and gravel, and the natural glacial till soil which generally

consists of stiff to very stiff lean clay.

Based on the soil and water conditions encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that

the existing natural tills and lean clay fills will be suitable for support of the planned

pavement sections. It is also our opinion that isolated areas of soft or unsuitable soils may

be encountered at planned pavement section subgrade elevations, and the soft or

unsuitable soils will be required to either be removed and replaced with a compacted

suitable fill material or moisture conditioned and compacted in place to provide a suitable

pavement section subgrade. It is not anticipated that subsurface water will impact

construction though isolated areas of perched water may be encountered particularly in

existing ditch and drainage areas. Lastly, the existing lean clay fill and natural till are

susceptible to disturbance in the presence of water and construction traffic and as a result,

it is recommended that all pavement subgrade surfaces be graded to keep water from

ponding on the surfaces during construction.

3.1.3. Site Preparation

Based on the soils encountered in the borings and observations through the project site,

an existing asphaltic pavement surface was observed with approximately 4 to 8 inches in

thickness. Aggregate base course beneath the asphalt pavement was observed with a

varied thickness from 2 inches up to 44 inches. Based on the existing pavement section, it

is recommended that the existing asphalt surface be removed down to the aggregate base

course and transported off-site and that the existing aggregate base course be salvaged

and reused as an embankment fill. It is not recommended that the existing aggregate base

course be re-used as a dense aggregate base beneath the new pavement section. As an

alternate, instead of removing the existing asphaltic pavement, the existing asphaltic

pavement could be pulverized with the existing aggregate base course and reused as

either roadway base material or embankment fill.

We recommend that the bottom of the base course and subgrade of the pavement section

be above the high water level throughout the extent of the project. In areas where the

roadway cross-section is to be widened or where embankment slopes are to be altered, all

existing topsoil, vegetation and unsuitable soils are recommended to be removed from

existing side slopes. Topsoil, vegetation, and soft/organic soils are recommended to be

removed at the toe of the embankment. Existing side slopes are also recommended to be

“benched” prior to adding embankment fills over existing slope areas. Where the

roadway is to be constructed in areas of cut, the existing soil is to be graded to plan

pavement section subgrade. Once the soils are graded to plan pavement section subgrade,

it is recommended that the pavement section subgrade be proofrolled with a fully loaded

tri-axle dump truck and that any unsuitable or soft or yielding areas of subgrade be

17

removed and replaced with suitable fill material and compacted to a minimum of 95% of

the standard Proctor maximum dry density or moisture conditioned and compacted in

place. Where the roadway is to be constructed in areas of fill that are constructed over

existing ditches or grassy areas, it is recommended that once the topsoil is removed that

the subgrade be proofrolled prior to any fill placement. Fill over existing side slopes can

consist of existing aggregate base course, existing site fill or embankment fill conforming

to Section 207, “Embankment”, of the 2017 Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Standard Specifications for Highway and Structure Construction (2017 WisDOT

Standard Specifications).

In areas of existing roadway that are to be cut or filled to plan pavement section subgrade

elevations, it is also recommended that subgrade be prepared in the same manner as noted

above for areas outside of the existing pavement area.

Once the pavement section subgrade is prepared, placement of new 1¼ inch dense graded

base course or pulverized reclaimed asphaltic pavement can be placed. It is recommended

that the dense graded base course be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard

Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density.

For areas outside of existing pavement section areas and in which culverts are to be

removed, replaced or installed, it is recommended that all topsoil and unsuitable soils be

stripped from proposed areas of extension prior to excavation.

Soils at the planned pavement section subgrade will likely consist of fine-grained soils

such as clays or clays with silt. These soils are susceptible to disturbance and strength

loss, particularly in the presence of water and heavy (construction) traffic. As a result, we

do recommend that surface drainage be maintained during construction such that water

not be allowed to pond on pavement section subgrades and that construction traffic be

minimized on exposed pavement section subgrades. We also recommend a geotechnical

engineer be on site at the time of proofrolling subgrade soils such that if subsurface

conditions vary from those encountered in the borings, geotechnical recommendations

can then be made. Lastly, we recommend that all fill soils placed beneath the pavement

section be tested for compaction to the required compaction specifications noted above.

We recommend that if pulverization of the existing pavement section is planned to be

used as pavement base, the pulverized material be placed and compacted per Section 325,

“Pulverized and Re-Laid Pavement”, requirements in the 2017 WisDOT Standard

Specifications. Following compaction of the pulverized material, we recommend that the

exposed surface be proofrolled with a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck. Any areas of

discernable rutting or deflection should then, in our opinion, be undercut to suitable

underlying soils and brought back to grade with pulverized material, compacted 1¼ inch

dense graded stone meeting the requirements of Section 305, “Dense Graded Base”, of

18

the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications, or be moisture conditioned in place and

recompacted.

It is anticipated that soils encountered at proposed reinforced concrete culvert pipe and

reinforced concrete storm sewer pipe base bearing elevations will likely consist of natural

stiff lean clay glacial tills. The natural soils may be susceptible to disturbance particularly

in the presence of water and construction traffic. As a result, we recommend that the lean

clay be removed to a minimum depth of 6 inches below the proposed pipe bearing

elevation and that 6 inches of bedding material be placed and compacted beneath the

pipe. For installation of pipe culverts or pipe culvert extensions, provide a granular

foundation per the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications, Section 520, “Pipe Culverts”.

Excavations for placement of the storm sewer pipes are recommended to be sloped in

accordance to 29 CFR part 1926, OSHA subpart P. Fill placed beneath the pipe structure

is also recommended to be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor

maximum dry density (ASTM: D698). After placement of the pipe on the prepared

subgrade, structural backfill as noted in Section 3.1.4, Roadway Reconstruction –

Embankment Fill and Trench Backfill, is recommended to be placed along the pipe in

areas to receive new pavement. The structural backfill is again recommended to be

compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:

D698).

At the southern and northern boundaries with the ZZ-17 project, there is planned to be

approximately 430 feet and 530 feet, respectively, of temporary roadway reconstruction

on CTH ZZ that is to be constructed in the ZZ-17 project. These sections of CTH ZZ are

proposed to be replaced and realigned. At the project limits where the pavement section

subgrade is to transition with the existing CTH ZZ roadway subgrade and the ZZ-17

project subgrade, we recommend that in the pavement section subgrade areas where there

is a transition between two differing pavement section subgrade elevations, that a 10:1

horizontal to vertical slope transition be planned between the two differing elevations.

3.1.4. Embankment Fill and Trench Backfill

Embankment fill can consist of existing suitable site soils consisting of lean clays,

existing aggregate base course, pulverized base course or imported embankment fill. All

embankment fill placed in areas of pavements or structures are recommended to be

compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry

density.

We recommend that trench backfill, placed to a minimum depth of 2 feet above the

planned stormwater pipe, conform to the grading requirements of Section 209, “Granular

Backfill” Grade 1, of the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications. We recommend that

the trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor (ASTM

19

D698) maximum dry density. Above the pipe and to planned pavement section subgrade,

trench backfill is recommended to consist of existing embankment soils or existing

aggregate base course compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor

maximum dry density.

Also, fill in structural areas or pavement areas in which the fill is deeper than 10 feet are

recommended to be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the standard Proctor (ASTM

D698) maximum dry density. Fill placed to depths less than 10 feet in depth are


D698) maximum dry density.

Any fill in non-structural areas can consist of imported soils or site soils compacted to a

minimum of 90% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D698).

3.1.5. Embankment Slopes

We recommend that the embankment at the gravel shoulders on both sides of the

roadway have a maximum vertical to horizontal slope of 1:3.

For embankment recommendations beyond the roadway pavement section, see Section

3.4.4 Slope Stability – Conclusions and Recommendations included in the engineering

review of the slope stability section of this report. See also the typical cross section in

Appendix D for proposed grades and as well as overall alterations from the existing

roadway cross section and embankment cross section between CTH ZZ and the Fox

River.

3.1.6. Drainage

Soils at the planned pavement section subgrade will likely consist of fine-grained soils

such as clays or clays with silt. These soils are susceptible to disturbance and strength

loss, particularly in the presence of water and heavy (construction) traffic. As a result, we

do recommend that surface drainage be maintained during construction such that water

not be allowed to pond on pavement subgrades and that construction traffic be minimized

on exposed pavement section subgrades. We also recommend a geotechnical engineer be

on site at the time of proofrolling subgrade soils such that if subsurface conditions vary

from those encountered in the borings, geotechnical recommendations can then be made.

Lastly, we recommend that all fill soils placed beneath the pavement section be tested for

compaction to required compaction specifications noted above.

3.1.7. Pavement Indices

A review of the pedological soils classification system and the USDA – NRCS Brown

County soil survey indicated the majority of the natural soils within the project area to be

Oshkosh silt loam. The borings indicated that the soil subgrade beneath the existing

20

pavement section was similar to those indicated by the soil survey. Therefore, based on

soils encountered and their soil parameters, we recommend that the following pavement

design indices be used:

Frost Index F-3

Design Group Index 14

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (psi/in) 125

Soil Support Value 3.9

3.2. Sheet Pile Retaining Walls

3.2.1. Project Data

It is our understanding that the proposed roadway reconstruction project of CTH ZZ is

estimated to include the design and construction of two (2) sections of sheet pile retaining

wall structures along the west side of CTH ZZ between Clay Street in the Village of

Wrightstown and Mallard Road in the Town of Wrightstown in Brown County,

Wisconsin. The southern sheet pile wall is being estimated to extend along the western

right of way on CTH ZZ from approximate plan roadway Station 64+25 to approximate

Station 82+50 for a total wall length of approximately 1825 feet. The northern sheet pile

retaining wall is also proposed on the west side of CTH ZZ and is being estimated to

extend from approximate plan roadway Station 98+25 to approximate Station 105+25 for

a total wall length of approximately 700 feet.

The two sheet pile wall sections are planned to be driven into the existing embankment at

the shoreline and to retain both existing embankment soils as well as fill soil and/or

structural backfill as well as potential traffic loads. Based on existing site grades, it is

estimated that the back slope on both walls will be generally level and at the same

elevation as the proposed roadway surface. The southern wall is estimated to have an

average exposed wall height of 12 feet with an estimated minimum exposed wall height

of 8 feet and an estimated maximum exposed wall height of 16 feet. The northern

exposed wall height near the beginning of the wall at plan roadway Station 99+00 is

estimated at 10 feet and is then estimated to drop approximately 1 foot in height over the

next 100 feet in wall length before increasing to an estimated peak exposed wall height of

15 feet at approximate plan roadway Station 102+00. The proposed northern sheet pile

wall is then estimated to gradually decrease in wall height to the end of the wall with an

estimated height of 8 feet at approximate plan roadway Station 105+25. The front face of

the proposed southern and northern sheet pile walls is estimated to be offset 34.0 feet and

38.5 feet west of the adjacent CTH ZZ roadway reference line, respectively. Curb and

gutter storm sewer drainage systems are proposed to extend along CTH ZZ from the

beginning of the project at Clay Street to the north end of the northern sheet pile wall.

21

3.2.2. Discussion and Recommendations

It is our understanding that the two (2) estimated sheet pile retaining walls along the Fox

River in the Village and Town of Wrightstown are planned to be driven through the

existing topsoil and/or fill soils and into underlying existing natural soils approximately

at the shoreline. Based on drill rig soil borings B18 and B17 performed in the southbound

lane of CTH ZZ near the proposed southern wall location, the natural glacial till soils

were encountered at approximate elevation 595 feet. Based on boring B14 which was

taken approximately 250 feet north of the northern end of the proposed northern sheet

pile wall, it is our opinion that the natural glacial till soils may be encountered as shallow

as elevation 606 feet. As only two soil borings, B18 and B17, were performed near the

estimated locations of the two sheet pile walls, a single soil profile and corresponding soil

engineering properties were used for preliminary design of the walls.

As stated previously, only two soil borings were performed near the proposed location of

the two estimated sheet pile walls. The southern sheet pile wall has a proposed length of

1825 feet, and the northern sheet pile wall has a proposed length of 700 feet. The

combined length of the sheet pile walls are approximately 2525 feet. Chapter 10 –

“Geotechnical Investigation” of the WisDOT Bridge Manual references Table 10.4.2-1 of

the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for determining the number of soil

borings to take per length of retaining wall. Table 10.4.2-1 of the AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications recommends the following minimum number of

exploration points, “For retaining walls more than 100 ft. in length, exploration points

spaced every 100 to 200 ft.”. The site exploration performed in September 2015 does not

meet the required number of soil borings to adequately design for the sheet pile retaining

walls. As a result, we recommend performing an additional site exploration with the

necessary amount of soil borings performed along the estimated sheet pile retaining walls

in order to comply with WisDOT soil boring requirements. These additional soil borings

are recommended to be performed to provide soil profiles and engineering properties

along the full length of the proposed sheet pile retaining structures such that design of the

estimated sheet pile retaining walls can be completed.

A preliminary cantilevered sheet pile retaining wall design was performed. The soil

profiles and engineering properties encountered in soil borings B18 and B17 and the

triaxial compression results from Shelby tube samples in boring B11 were applied to the

proposed roadway profile and alignment. The wall was preliminarily designed against a

100-year flood elevation of 601.37 feet and a normal water elevation of 595 feet due to

the close proximity of the wall to the river edge. The maximum allowable exposed wall

height was determined using the following limiting factors to control the design: wall

embedment, wall strength, and wall deflection.

Based on the preliminary review performed, a cantilevered sheet pile wall could be

designed with an exposed wall height of 14 feet, however an acceptable deflection

22

criteria will need to be established. As the maximum proposed exposed wall height for

sections of both the southern and northern sheet pile walls is greater than 14 feet, it is our

opinion that an anchored or tie-back wall system will likely be required at various

locations. Also, as it is our opinion that an undetermined length of wall on both the

southern and northern sheet pile walls will require anchoring, additional soil borings are

recommended to be performed at the location of the potential anchorage systems.

Excavation back slopes will need to follow the minimum OSHA requirements for

excavations. Based on soils encountered and in accordance to 29 CFR Part 1926, OSHA

subpart P, the minimum required excavation back slope would be 1½ horizontal to 1

vertical unless other measures, such as temporary retaining structures or sheet pile walls,

are constructed to prevent sloughing of the soils during construction.

The existing slope from the Fox River shoreline to the shoulder of the roadway ranges

from approximately a 1:1 to a 2:1 horizontal to vertical slope. As the estimated sheet pile

walls will be driven at the shoreline, fill material will be required behind the walls in

order to match the planned roadway grade to the back of the wall.

Backfill type, excavation extents, and placement methods behind the sheet pile wall are

required in order to adequately design a sheet pile wall. As a result, we again recommend

performing an additional site exploration with the necessary amount of soil borings

performed along the estimated sheet pile retaining walls in order to comply with

WisDOT soil boring requirements. These additional soil borings are recommended to be

performed to provide soil profiles and engineering properties along the full length of the

proposed sheet pile retaining structures such that design of the estimated sheet pile

retaining walls can be completed.

3.3. Modular Block Retaining Wall

3.3.1. Project Data

It is our understanding that six (6) modular block retaining structures are estimated along

the CTH ZZ project and will retain embankment slope soils. Four (4) modular block

retaining structures (Wall 1 through Wall 4) are estimated to be located along CTH ZZ

between the proposed roadway shoulder and the eastern right of way. Wall 1 is estimated

to be located approximately 0.3 miles north of Mallard Road at plan roadway Station

117+75 to Station 119+00 at 125 feet in length and with a 7.5-foot max exposed height.

Wall 2 is estimated to be located at plan roadway Station 173+90 to Station 176+00 at

210 feet in length and with a 15.0-foot max exposed height. Wall 3 is estimated to be

located at plan roadway Station 182+00 to Station 183+50 at 150 feet in length and with

a 6.0-foot max exposed height. Wall 4 is estimated to begin at plan roadway Station

185+60 and wraps around the southeast corner of CTH ZZ and Wrightstown Road to an

approximate plan roadway Station 187+75 or plan Wrightstown Road Station 41+75

‘WR’ for an approximate wall length of 230 feet at a max wall height of 5.0 feet. The

23

remaining two (2) modular block retaining structures (Wall 5 and Wall 6) are estimated

to be located on the south side of two local roads that intersect CTH ZZ. Wall 5 is

estimated to be located along the south side of Meadowlark Road approximately 110 feet

east of the CTH ZZ centerline at plan roadway Station 133+35 and plan Meadowlark

Road Station 12+80 ‘ME’ to Station 14+40 ‘ME’ at approximately 160 feet in length and

approximately 4.5 feet in max height. Wall 6 is estimated to be located on the south side

of Partridge Road approximately 175 east of the CTH ZZ centerline at plan roadway

Station 161+00 plan Partridge Road Station 32+75 ‘PA’ to Station 33+75 ‘PA’ at

approximately 100 feet in length and approximately 4.0 feet in max height.

The retaining wall sections are planned to be mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls

constructed with modular block facing and either geosynthetic or metallic soil

reinforcement. The front face of the walls at the finished grade are estimated to be offset

29.0 feet from the proposed centerline of CTH ZZ, Meadowlark Road, or Partridge Road.

Based on planned road grades and preliminary wall elevations, it is estimated that

foundations will be buried a minimum depth of 1½ feet and that the exposed face height

will remain constant for the majority of the length of the wall sections as previously

indicated.

The retained slope behind the walls is proposed to pitch downward away from the wall at

approximately 4.00 percent slope at lengths ranging from 2 feet to 5 feet. Behind the

slope down from the top of the walls, this low point is a drainage point that ties into the

existing surface grade, and the existing embankment slopes continue beyond the wall

section. The existing embankment behind the wall varies from relatively flat to a 3 to 1

horizontal to vertical slope.

3.3.2. Discussion and Recommendations

The site exploration performed in September 2015 did not perform soil borings at the

proposed locations of the six (6) proposed modular block retaining wall sections. Also,

the proposed wall lengths were stated previously with all walls having proposed lengths

over 100 feet and Wall 2 and Wall 4 having proposed lengths of 210 feet and 230 feet,

respectively. Chapter 10 – “Geotechnical Investigation” of the WisDOT Bridge Manual

references Table 10.4.2-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for the

required number of borings for a retaining structure. Table 10.4.2-1 of the AASHTO

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications requires the following minimum number of

exploration points, “For retaining walls more than 100 ft. in length, exploration points

spaced every 100 to 200 ft.”. As a result, we recommend performing an additional site

exploration with the necessary amount of soil borings performed along the proposed

modular block retaining walls in order to comply with WisDOT soil boring requirements.

24

3.4. Slope Stability

3.4.1. Project Data

The proposed roadway reconstruction project of CTH ZZ between Clay Street and

Tetzlaff Road included slope stability review of the soil embankment between CTH ZZ

and the Fox River. Proposed roadway reconstruction limits begin in the Village of

Wrightstown, extend through the Town of Wrightstown, and end in the Town of

Rockland, Brown County, Wisconsin.

The sections of roadway that were reviewed for slope stability were in close proximity to

the river, and parts of the reviewed sections of existing roadway showed signs of slope

instability. The slope stability review has been broken into three (3) sections. The first

section is the southern section and is located between the two estimated sheet pile

retaining wall locations. Approximate stationing in this southern section extends from

plan roadway Station 82+50 at the north end of the estimated southern sheet pile wall to

plan roadway Station 97+75 at the south end of the estimated northern sheet pile wall for

a total length of approximately 1525 feet. The second, center section is located between

the estimated northern sheet pile wall and the beginning of the ZZ-17 project.

Approximate stationing for the second, center section extends from plan roadway Station

105+25 at the north end of the estimated northern retaining wall to plan roadway Station

120+50 at the beginning of the ZZ-17 project for a total length of approximately 1525

feet. The third section, denoted as the northern section, is located from the north end of

the ZZ-17 project to the region of CTH ZZ in which the road profile begins to increase in

elevation extending to the east. Approximate stationing for the third, northern section

extends from plan roadway Station 130+52.60 at the north end of the ZZ-17 project to

plan roadway Station 240+00 where the road no longer parallels the river for a total

length of approximately 10,950 feet or approximately 2.1 miles. Excluded sections of

CTH ZZ not reviewed for this report are the two (2) regions in the southern portion of the

project in which sheet pile walls are estimated to support the right-of-way, the ZZ-17

portion of the section of roadway between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road, as well

as roadway from approximately 0.6 miles north of Moonriver Drive to the end of the

project at Tetzlaff Road. The two (2) sheet pile wall regions have been reviewed for wall

stability, and the results can be found in Section 3.2 Sheet Pile Retaining Walls.

Review of the section of road between Mallard Road and Meadowlark Road has been

completed and can be found in a separate report denoted as the ZZ-17 project. Roadway

approximately 0.6 miles north of Moonriver Road to Tetzlaff Road is not located on a

slope or embankment of the Fox River as the roadway bends away from the river and in a

more easterly direction, and therefore slope stability is not applicable.

CTH ZZ through the three sections of the roadway reconstruction subject to slope

stability review is a rural road consisting of two asphaltic pavement lanes each 11 feet

wide with approximate 4-foot gravel shoulders on each side of the road. The road is built

into and on the eastern embankment of the Fox River and generally parallels the river

25

from Clay Street to approximately 0.7 miles west of Tetzlaff Road. CTH ZZ bends away

from the river in the northernmost section of roadway reconstruction in a relative

east/west direction for approximately 0.7 miles until intersecting with Tetzlaff Road. The

road centerline offset from the river shoreline at normal water elevation ranges from

approximately 40 feet to 60 feet through the portions of the project noted. The roadway

profile begins around elevation 609 feet at beginning plan roadway Station 64+25 in the

Village of Wrightstown, follows numerous vertical curves with crests and swales ranging

between elevation 630 feet and elevation 600 feet. At approximate plan roadway Station

231+50, the roadway profile begins to increase in elevation at approximate elevation 602

feet and crests the embankment at approximate plan roadway Station 247+00 at elevation

637 feet.

Vegetation along CTH ZZ consists of residential lawns and crop land separated by

narrow wooded areas along the eastern right-of-way. The embankment between the

roadway and the Fox River shoreline is wooded with the exception of placed riprap along

portions of the center and northern sections of review. Heavy riprap has been placed

along the majority of the embankment in the center section. In addition to the riprap,

approximately 100 feet of asphalt pavement has been overlaid in the southbound lane in

the center section. In the northern section of the slope review, riprap has been placed

along the embankment in three separate areas. The regions of placed riprap are located on

approximately 1500 feet of the embankment between Meadowlark Road and Partridge

Road, on approximately 350 feet of embankment approximately 100 feet north of

Partridge Road, and on another 350-foot embankment section approximately 500 feet

south of Wrightstown Road. Generally, riprap has been placed in areas where the offset

of the roadway centerline is closest to the river’s edge. The existing embankment

between the Fox River and CTH ZZ in the project has existing embankment slopes that

are relatively steep and are generally steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical with some

areas having near vertical banks in areas of river erosion. In areas where riprap had not

been placed, erosion at the toe of the embankment was evident and in some areas,

undercutting of the embankment was also noted.

The roadway profile in the three sections of interest, the southern, center, and northern

sections, has gradual vertical curves with shallow crests and swales. Existing profiles

range from elevation 599.8 feet to elevation 629.9 feet in the southern section, from

elevation 602.3 feet to elevation 615.7 feet in the center section, and from elevation 598.1

feet to 632.7 feet in the northern section. From Station 231+50 the roadway profile

increases in elevation at a maximum grade of approximately 5.0% before cresting the

embankment at approximately Station 247+50 at elevation 637.1 feet. The southern,

center, and northern sections have four (4), two (2), and fourteen (14) existing stormwater

culverts crossing beneath the roadway, respectively.

26

The elevation of the Fox River at the time of our site observations and survey was near

elevation 595 feet with a 100-year flood elevation ranging from elevation 601.37 feet to

elevation 599.20 feet. feet.

There is visible slope movement and distortion of the embankment slope surface in the

southbound lane of the CTH ZZ roadway in several locations along the roadway. Prior to

placement of riprap in all locations in the center and northern sections as well as the

placement of an overlay of asphalt pavement in the center section, the southbound lane

and gravel shoulder of CTH ZZ showed signs of subsidence and cracking. Excessive

settlement of the embankment slope and longitudinal asphalt cracking was visible in

many of the areas in which the rip rap was placed. The embankment had moved

downward between the shoreline and the gravel shoulder on the west side of CTH ZZ at

many of the locations where riprap had been placed along the shoreline prior to placing

the riprap. In addition to longitudinal cracking, the asphalt pavement also has signs of

rutting and alligator cracking occurring in the southbound lanes in regions where the

roadway alignment is closer to the river.

The existing roadway alignment and profile of the CTH ZZ project is proposed to be

adjusted to meet current design standards and reduce embankment slopes between the

Fox River and CTH ZZ, as well as to design the alignment to address slope stability

issues. In general, the horizontal alignment is being shifted to the east. As far as the

vertical grades for CTH ZZ, the new roadway profile will generally be at the same

elevation of the existing roadway profile with several locations being raised and other

locations being lowered approximately 2 feet. One exception to the profile consistency is

between approximate plan roadway Station 117+00 to Station 120+00 where the new

roadway profile is proposed to be lowered approximately 2 feet from the existing

roadway profile. Also, the proposed centerline of the new roadway is generally to be

located in line with the existing drainage ditch on the east side of the roadway.

In addition to the roadway alignment being shifted to the east away from the river and

roadway grades being adjusted several feet, it is our understanding that the embankment

slope cross section between the new CTH ZZ roadway and the Fox River will be

flattened and have soil removed to decrease the slope loading. The proposed cross section

of the embankment will have slope designations as follows. The cross section is

anticipated to be approximately a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope from the estimated river

edge to a benched area which is at a variable height near the middle part of the

embankment between the river and the roadway. The bench is anticipated to have a 2.0%

slope towards the river. From the inside edge of the bench, the cross section is anticipated

to be a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slope to the outside edge of the pavement section

subgrade followed by a 4 horizontal to 1 vertical slope to the roadway shoulder.

Based on the above information, an initial investigation of the slope failure areas, in

addition to pavement areas and structure areas, was authorized to determine the probable

27

cause of the failures and to provide recommendations for remediation and/or additional

investigation.

3.4.2. Slope Distress Review

Subsurface geotechnical investigation within the project included soil borings performed

with a drill rig and hand auger borings. The borings taken and corresponding descriptions

are as follows:

• Roadway Borings: Soil borings were performed with a drill rig using standard

penetration testing and advanced to various depths. Borings were located in the

existing roadway and had pavement and base course measurements taken for

thickness determination. Borings B16 and B15 were located in the southern

section to be reviewed for slope stability and were drilled to depths of 6 feet and 8

feet, respectively. Borings B14 and B13 were located in the center section to be

reviewed for slope stability and were each drilled to a depth of 40 feet. Borings

B09 through B03 were located in the northern section to be reviewed for slope

stability. Boring B09 was drilled to a depth of 40 feet, borings B08 and B07 were

each drilled to a depth of 25 feet, and borings B06 through B03 were each drilled

to a depth of 6 feet. Shallow roadway borings were sampled continuously to a

depth of 6 feet or 8 feet and were mainly intended for pavement section

investigation. Deeper soil borings were intended for slope investigation

information and were sampled at 2.5 foot intervals to a depth of 15 feet and every

5 feet thereafter to the previously mentioned depths. Shelby tube samples were

obtained of soils at various depths for differing soil types during the exploration.

At the time of drilling, two Shelby tubes were obtained in borings B14, B13, and

B09, and one Shelby tube was obtained in boring B07.

• Embankment Borings: Hand-auger borings were performed along the CTH

ZZ western embankment between the roadway and the Fox River shoreline to

verify slope soils for roadway stability calculations and construction

considerations. Hand auger borings HA-1R and HA-1S were located behind the

proposed northern sheet pile wall. Hand auger borings HA-3R, HA-3S, HA-2R,

and HA-2S were located in the center section of the slope stability review

between the north end of the proposed northern sheet pile wall and the southern

end of the ZZ-17 project.

Based on existing soil and water conditions encountered as well as existing site cross

sections and alignment of the roadway on the embankment, several slope stability models

were constructed based on the estimated worst case scenario for the existing embankment

slopes in the southern, center and northern section of CTH ZZ. The embankment was

reviewed for distress based on circular failure planes and block sliding failure planes. The

circular failure planes were evaluated based on a total stress method using undrained

28

laboratory tests to determine soil shear strength and cohesion values as well as to estimate

internal friction angles. The program used for circular failure plane analysis was the

WinStabl program as developed by the University of Wisconsin. The slope was modeled

in its current condition with the riprap placed on the embankment as well as modeled in

the condition prior to placement of the riprap based on historical survey data.

In areas where riprap was placed and visual slope distress was noted, the existing riprap

was placed on the embankment from the toe of the embankment at the river water edge

up to the shoulder of the road. As the slope had visual signs of distress, a subsurface

investigation using hand augers was proposed near these locations in the center section of

the project. Sampling, however, was unable to be performed in the riprap zones and some

estimates were made as to the type and strength of soil parameters to use. Hand auger

borings HA-2R and HA-3R were each taken on the upper half of the embankment south

and north of an existing placed riprap region and were located north of Mallard Road and

south of the ZZ-17 project. These two hand auger borings encountered lean clay fill

through the extent of the borings to a depth of 4 feet. While hand auger borings HA-2S

and HA-3S, which were each taken on the lower half of the embankment, did not

encounter any fill, softer surficial soils were noted at the toe of the slope to depths of less

than 6 inches. Therefore, it was estimated that fill extended down the slope from the CTH

ZZ west side shoulder at a near 1 to 1 horizontal to vertical slope to the normal river level

where the softer surficial soils were noted near the toe.

From the roadway subsidence and longitudinal cracking of the asphalt pavement noted in

many locations along the roadway that was either currently visible or had been visible

prior to placing an asphalt overlay on the southbound lane as well as placing riprap on the

embankment, it was our opinion that tension cracking of the soil was occurring in the

western shoulder of the roadway and extending through the existing fill material. In

order to model the slope stability with the estimated tension cracking, the fill material

beneath the riprap was assigned a friction angle of 20 degrees and was assumed to have

no cohesive strength. In modeling the slope stability prior to tension cracking occurring,

the fill material beneath the riprap was modeled using the same soil properties as the

natural glacial till layers, and therefore the riprap and roadway was supported on the

natural glacial till layers according to the soil parameters from the nearest borings.

As natural glacial till consisting of lean clays was encountered in the upper strata of the

borings beginning at a depth of 2 to 4 feet below the pavement surface and as fat clays

were encountered in the lower strata of the borings generally below elevation 575 feet in

part of the center section, some assumptions were made as to strength parameters to use

on the clay soil, as variable conditions would be anticipated along the length of the

project. Based on pocket penetrometer recordings and unconfined compression tests

conducted on the natural lean clays in roadway borings B07, B08, B13, and B14, as well

as triaxial tests performed on extracted Shelby tube soils in boring B11, the soil profiles

were broken up and assigned cohesive strengths and friction angles.

29

The upper natural lean clay in the southern and center sections as well as the northern

section up to Partridge Road were assigned a cohesive strength of 1000 psf and the

friction angles were assumed as zero degrees. The lower, weaker natural lean clays and

fat clays were assigned a cohesive strength of 400 psf and were also assigned friction

angles of 24 degrees and 20 degrees respectively. The assumptions for the friction angles

in the lean clay were based on triaxial tests performed on extracted Shelby tube soils in

the lower natural lean and fat clays encountered in boring B11. The entire soil profile in

the remainder of the northern section north of Partridge Road was assigned a cohesive

strength of 750 psf and a friction angle of zero degrees was conservatively assumed. A

highway loading surcharge of 240 psf was placed on the roadway footprint of the model

in order to represent vehicular loading on the embankment. Models were reviewed with

the river water at normal elevation 595 feet as well as at 100-year flood elevation 601.37

feet. The boring logs are included in Appendix B of this report, and laboratory test results

are included in Appendix C of this report.

The assumptions for the friction angles in the lean clay were based on triaxial tests

performed on extracted Shelby tube soils in boring B11. Testing was performed on lean

clays extracted from the boring at a depth of 40 feet to 42.5 feet and fat clays at a depth

of 55 feet to 57.5 feet corresponding to elevation 572.4 feet to 569.9 feet and elevation

557.4 feet to 554.9 feet. Test results indicated the lean clay at elevation 572.4 feet to

569.9 feet had an effective friction angle of 26.4 degrees, and the fat clay at elevation

557.4 feet to 554.9 feet had an effective friction angle of 21.6 degrees. Results of the

triaxle compression tests are included in Appendix C of this report.

The model constructed for the worst case existing embankment in the southern section

used a cross section at approximate plan roadway Station 96+00 as the existing roadway

crests a vertical curve and the river bends and creates a faster current on the shoreline at

this location. The slope stability model approximated soil parameters and profile using

boring B14. The upper natural lean clay was assigned a cohesive strength of 1000 psf,

and a friction angle was assumed as zero degrees. The lower natural lean clay from

elevation 575 feet and below was assigned a cohesive strength of 400 psf and a friction

angle of 24 degrees.

The model constructed for the worst case existing embankment in the central section used

a cross section at approximate plan roadway Station 116+00, and this stationing was used

for the following reasons: 1) riprap has been placed on the embankment between the

roadway and the shoreline at this location, 2) the existing slope between the roadway and

the shoreline is steepest and, 3) the roadway alignment is closest to the shoreline

compared to the remainder of the central section. The slope stability model approximated

soil parameters and profile using boring B13. The upper natural lean clay was assigned a

cohesive strength of 1000 psf, and a friction angle was assumed as zero degrees. The

middle natural lean clay from elevation 593 feet to elevation 575 feet was assigned a

30

cohesive strength of 400 psf and a friction angle of 24 degrees. The lower natural lean

clay from elevation 575 feet and below was assigned a cohesive strength of 400 psf and a

friction angle of 20 degrees.

The model constructed for the worst case existing embankment in the northern section

was estimated in three (3) locations. The cross sections used for modeling were at

approximate plan roadway Station 157+00, Station 166+00, and Station 183+00, and the

approximated soil parameters and profiles used for the three models used boring B08,

boring B07, and boring B07, respectively. The model at plan roadway Station 157+00

approximated soil parameters and profile using boring B08. At plan roadway Station

157+00, the roadway profile crests a vertical curve and riprap is located along the

embankment south of Partridge between the shoreline and the roadway. For this location,

the upper natural lean clay was assigned a cohesive strength of 1000 psf, and a friction

angle was assumed as zero degrees. The lower natural lean clay from elevation 588 feet

and below was assigned a cohesive strength of 400 psf and a friction angle of 24 degrees.

At plan roadway Station 166+00, the roadway alignment is close to the shoreline

compared to the remainder of the northern section. At plan roadway Station 183+00, not

only is the roadway alignment close to the shoreline as compared to the remainder of the

northern section, but riprap has also been placed on the embankment between the

roadway and the shoreline. The models at plan roadway Station 166+00 and plan

roadway Station 183+00 approximated soil parameters and profile using boring B07.

Only one soil layer was used to define the clay in the soil profile with an assigned

cohesive strength of 750 psf, and an assumed friction angle was of zero degrees.

Based on this input data as well as estimated original slope conditions and existing

subsurface water conditions, models were evaluated without tension cracking at all three

sections. Models were also evaluated with tension cracking at the central and northern

section. The worst case existing embankment in the southern section at approximate plan

roadway Station 96+00 resulted in a suitable safety factor of 1.90. In the worst case

existing embankment in the central section at approximate plan roadway Station 116+00,

a suitable safety factor greater than 2.0 was obtained on the embankment slope. Once

tension cracking, as evident in this central section, was introduced into the evaluation,

safety factors were encountered that were less than 1 for shallow failure plane surfaces.

Safety factors of less than 1 are indicative of a failure condition. Prior to applying tension

cracking along the existing embankment at the three worst case locations in the northern

section at approximate plan roadway Station 157+00, 166+00, and 183+00, the evaluated

models resulted in safety factors of 1.90 and greater. Again, once tension cracking, as

evident in these select locations, was introduced into the evaluation, safety factors were

encountered that were less than 1 for shallow failure plane surfaces.

The embankment between the Fox River and CTH ZZ was also evaluated for failure

based on block sliding. A potential block sliding surface was evaluated at the interface of

the fill material and natural clay soil as well as within the fill material and within the

31

natural clay soil. Based on a static analysis of driving and resisting forces as well as soil

parameters and water parameters used in the failure plane analysis, safety factors of

greater than 1.5 were obtained in the natural clay soil and at the interface of the fill

material and the natural clay soil based on block sliding.

Based on this preliminary review and visual observations on site, it is our opinion that the

slope distress noted is the result of shallow circular failure plane sliding of the soil mass

with the circular failures initiated as a result of erosion at the toe of the embankment and

weak surficial fills and/or weak natural glacial tills that are unable to resist sliding forces.

As soils are eroded at the toe of the embankment and then mobilize and move

horizontally, tension zones are set up in the soils resulting in tension cracks. These

tension zones have little or no shear strength. These tension cracks are also susceptible to

moisture entering the cracks resulting in additional hydraulic forces acting on the soil

mass adding to both a horizontal driving force as well as a circular slip plane driving

force. As these driving forces increase, the resisting forces are exceeded and failure

planes develop. This opinion is also based on the following observations ; 1) little passive

resistance exists at the toe of the slope; 2) a subsurface water profile exists that would at

various times of the year provide saturated soils, particularly in the surficial fill material

resulting in low soil shear strength; 3) continued erosion potential at the toe of the

embankment slope exists as a result of the Fox River flow (higher flow velocities occur at

high water resulting in obvious erosion) particularly in areas where the toe is not

protected by riprap; and 4) visual soil cracks were evident at various locations on the

embankment slope, indicating tension cracking as well as a source for additional surface

water to increase hydraulic forces. It should also be noted that the riprap, while protecting

the shoreline from further soil erosion, was also placed along and near the crest of the

embankment resulting in an added driving force.

3.4.3. Discussion

Based on our preliminary review of the test boring data, laboratory results, visual

observations, and slope modeling, it is our opinion that the embankment distress between

CTH ZZ and the shoreline of the Fox River at the three identified sections along the

project is the result of shallow circular failure planes that develop within tension zones in

the weaker fill and/or surficial glacial till as well as at the interface between the surficial

fill material and the natural clay soil encountered below the pavement/ground surface

initiated by soil erosion at the toe of the embankment.

In our opinion, based on the soil and water information available from the borings taken,

the circular failure planes are the result of five major factors specific to the project

location and are listed on the following page:

32

1. Limited passive soil resistance at the toe of the slope.

2. Erosion of the toe soils due to the faster water current particularly on the outer bends

in the river.

3. Weight of the embankment as the roadway profile is at a higher elevation.

4. Steep angle of the embankment as the roadway alignment is closer to the river and at

the higher elevations

5. Weaker surficial fill and/or glacial till at the top of the embankment and extending to

the toe of the embankment.

It is our opinion that these items will need to be addressed in the final design of the CTH

ZZ project. Also, in areas where the existing rip rap has been placed on the embankment

between the roadway and the shoreline, the erosion of the toe soils has been minimized.

However, with the rip rap in place, slope stability modeling projects the failure planes

beneath the existing riprap and beyond the extent of the riprap into the river. As a result,

the shallow failure planes beneath the existing rip rap need to also be addressed.

Our testing and observations indicated that the natural clay soils were encountered from

shallow depths below the roadway surface and on the eastern side of the roadway and

continued to the extent of the borings at depths of 40 feet to 50 feet beneath the surface.

Our tests of samples of these clays indicated that the shear strength as well as the internal

angle of friction of the clay was not unusually low. The soils along the shoreline, prior to

placement of the riprap and in areas where rip rap has not been placed, were observed to

be sloughing into the river at various locations within the project area.

3.4.4. Conclusions and Recommendations

In the modeling constructed to determine the stability of the embankment between the

Fox River and CTH ZZ, assumptions were made as to the strength of the soils and where

existing natural soils and fill soils would be encountered. To verify those models, it is

recommended that additional soil borings with a drill rig be performed to better delineate

soil conditions along the CTH ZZ route. Soil borings performed did indicate that

conditions did vary along the proposed route. It is also recommended that additional hand

auger borings be performed along the length of the shoreline to better identify those areas

in which fill soil exist verses natural soil and particularly where weaker surficial soil

conditions exist verses soils with higher shear strengths. Identifying these soil and water

conditions will be influential in determining remedial actions required along the length of

CTH ZZ that is adjacent to the Fox River.

Based on assumed soil and water conditions and based on sections reviewed in our

stability models, it is currently our opinion that lateral resistance to the slope movement

will be required at or near the slope toe in order to achieve long-term slope stability, and

that repair of the slope area in the several previously noted areas along CTH ZZ can be

achieved as follows on the next page:

33

1. Construct a shear key along the embankment slope toe near the western right-of-way

line.

The shear key is recommended to consist of a trench, excavated to below the

anticipated shallow soil slip plane, and filled with, at minimum, medium riprap to

provide shear and weight resistance to counter the force of the moving slope soils. It

is our opinion that the riprap will also protect the shoreline from soil erosion. A

typical shear key trench is shown on the typical cross section in Appendix E. The

height and width of the shear key would need to be determined for individual areas

based on soil loadings and soil strength. It is our opinion that it will also be necessary

to place a non-woven geotextile fabric between the soil and the riprap completely

surrounding the riprap in the shear key trench. We recommend that the fabric

conform, at a minimum, to Section 645.2.7 Geotextile Fabric, Type HR (Heavy

Riprap) of the 2016 Wisconsin DOT Standard Specifications for Highway and

Structure Construction. We recommend that riprap consist of “Medium Riprap”

conforming to Section 606 of the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications.

Prior to construction of a shear key, we recommend that level benches be excavated

along the slope to allow the backhoe to be level during excavation of the key and to

allow for construction of a temporary road for trucks to access the backhoe for

removal of excavated soil and importing riprap.

2. Install a suitable surface drainage system of ditches and drains to control surface

water flow.

We recommend that surface water be drained through ditches and culverts on the east

side of CTH ZZ and that surface water drainage over the embankment be minimized

as much as possible.

3. Remove and replace the disturbed soils in noted failure zones.

We recommend that, following placement of the shear key near the slope toe, the

soils be removed from the disturbed section of the slope. The disturbed soils could

consist of existing soft fill, soft natural lean clays and/or existing rip rap. The area of

slope to be excavated (in addition to reconstruction of the pavement section) would

be extended from the toe of the slope to the proposed right of way boundary on the

east side of the roadway. The excavation bottom would consist of relatively

horizontal bench cuts with near vertical transitions for upslope/downslope elevation

changes. Fill, consisting of lean clay, is then recommended to be placed to bring the

slope back to approximately a maximum slope of 3:1, horizontal to vertical, from the

toe of the slope to the road shoulder. See the typical recommended cross section in

Appendix D for proposed grades and as well as overall alterations from the existing

34

roadway cross section and embankment cross section between CTH ZZ and the Fox

River cross section. Clay fill placed on the embankment is recommended to be

placed in maximum 1-foot thick lifts and compacted to 95% of the Standard Proctor

(ASTM: D698) maximum dry density. Moisture contents of the clay fill are

recommended to be within ±3% of the Standard Proctor optimum moisture.

Please note that we highly recommend that erosion mat be placed on all areas of the

reconstructed slope once the areas are shaped and seeded. The slope also is also

recommended to be seeded as soon as practical following placement of topsoil on the

embankment slope. Excavations are recommended to be sloped or supported in

accordance to 29 CFR Part 1926, OSHA subpart P requirements, assuming Type C

soils. Also, we recommend that at the time of slope reconstruction, a geotechnical

engineer be present to document the existing soil conditions and placement of fill

soils.

4. Road profiles are recommended to be lowered as much as possible and the horizontal

alignment moved as far east of the Fox River as is reasonable.

By lowering the profile and/or moving the alignment as far east of the Fox River as

practical, slopes from the road elevation to the Fox River can be decreased from

existing steep slopes and the soil load reduced that is part of the driving forces in the

failure area.

5. Miscellaneous Items.

For new pipe culverts extended to drain out on the embankment between CTH ZZ

and the Fox River, it is recommended that the pipe extend down the slope as far as

possible to not be allowing free flowing water on the embankment slope. If water is to

be flowing on the embankment slope, provide provisions to protect the embankment

from erosion control soil saturation.

The above mentioned recommendations were modeled in order to anticipate the level of

improvement on the stability of the proposed slope and determine if suitable safety

factors for embankment stability could be obtained. The model included the shear key

near the toe of the slope filled with riprap, removal of disturbed soil as well as placement

and regrading of lean clay fill soil at a more gradual slope between the toe of the slope

and the shoulder of the roadway. The same water conditions as modeled in the existing

conditions were applied as well as the same soil parameters with the exception of the

soils on the embankment. In addition, the projected design roadway elevation and

alignment were applied to the model with the controlling roadway height and offset used

in order to obtain the lowest anticipated safety factors. Based on modeled conditions,

safety factors of greater than 1.5 were then obtained. The anticipated slip failure planes

follow a much longer circular path that is forced to extend deeper below the embankment

35

surface and into more competent and stable soil, therefore increasing and improving the

safety factor of slope stability.

As was previously noted, the above models were based on estimated soil and water

conditions. It should be noted that if soil conditions vary from those indicated or assumed

in this report, that the above noted slope recommendations may be revised for all or parts

of the CTH ZZ project.

3.5. Proposed Drainage Structure at Plan Roadway Station 265+08

3.5.1. Project Data

In addition to reconstruction of the CTH ZZ roadway as well as construction of several

retaining wall structures, a new drainage structure is proposed to be constructed as part of

the overall project. An unnamed tributary to the Fox River passes underneath CTH ZZ

approximately 950 feet east of the intersection with Tetzlaff Road in the northern portion

of the project. The creek generally flows north and has several other tributary drainage

creeks that originate south and east of CTH ZZ. The outlet of the creek is approximately

0.5 miles due north of the CTH ZZ crossing as it feeds into the Fox River.

The creek currently passes underneath the roadway in two (2) 72-inch diameter

reinforced concrete pipe culverts located side-by-side. The pipe culverts are orientated in

a north-south direction and are approximately 100 feet in length, centered about the

existing roadway centerline. It was originally anticipated that the proposed culvert

crossing would consist of a reinforced concrete box culvert. However, based on the

hydraulic study, twin 72-inch concrete pipe will be used to replace the existing culverts.

These pipes will be approximately 150 feet in length and centered about the proposed

roadway centerline. These pipes will be near the existing invert elevations of the existing

pipes. The pipe inverts on the south side of CTH ZZ will be near elevation 604 feet and

on the north side near elevation 602 feet. With these invert elevations, pipe bearing

elevations were estimated at 6 inches deeper and would bear near elevation 603.5 feet on

the south side of CTH ZZ and 601.5 feet on the north side.

The current roadway profile is in a vertical curve that descends a hill from both the east

and west as the roadway crosses the creek. Beam guard is located on both shoulders of

the roadway. An asphalt pavement overlay has been laid in the northbound / eastbound

lane. The overlay is approximately 50 feet in length and is located slightly offset to the

west of the creek crossing, The current roadway alignment as well as the proposed

alignment curves from the southwest to a more easterly direction as the roadway profile

increases in elevation as the roadway bends away from the Fox River. The proposed new

CTH ZZ alignment is shifted approximately 25 feet south of the existing roadway

centerline. Also, the proposed new profile will increase the roadway grade at the twin

pipe culvert crossing by approximately 8 feet. Existing roadway grades are currently near

elevation 621 feet with proposed grades near elevation 629 feet at the proposed crossing.

36

3.5.2. Discussions and Recommendations

Site investigation for the proposed drainage structure included two (2) soil borings which

were performed using standard penetration sampling. Soil boring SB-1 was performed in

the northbound/eastbound shoulder of the highway approximately 40 feet east of the

existing creek crossing at approximate plan roadway Station 265+50. Soil boring SB-2

was performed in the southbound/westbound shoulder of the highway approximately 40

feet west of the existing creek crossing at approximate plan roadway Station 264+70.

Elevations at the borings were approximately elevation 620.6 feet at boring SB-1 and

elevation 622.3 feet at boring SB-2.

Boring SB-1 indicated 9 inches of asphalt pavement over fill to a depth of 18 feet or

approximate elevation 602.6 feet. Similarly, boring SB-2 indicated 8 inches of asphalt

pavement over fill to a depth of 9½ feet or approximate elevation 612.8 feet. Fill in both

borings generally consisted of firm to soft lean clay with various amounts of gravel, sand

and organics. No base course subgrade beneath the asphalt pavement was noted. Beneath

the fill, glacial till was encountered to the extent of the borings at a depth of 25 feet. The

glacial till consisted of hard lean clay with little gravel in boring SB-1 and very stiff lean

clay with gravel to a depth of 15 feet and very stiff lean clay to the depth of the boring in

boring SB-2.

The groundwater level was recorded in boring SB-1 at the time of drilling the soil

borings. The depth of the water level at completion of the drilling was recorded at 17.5

feet beneath the ground surface which corresponds to approximate elevation 603.1 feet.

As this water level recording was obtained in the fall season of the year, it is anticipated

that the creek level may rise above elevation 603 feet and will generally fluctuate both

seasonally and annually.


the glacial till soils that were encountered in the borings near the planned twin 72-inch

pipe culvert bearing elevations of 601.5 feet to the north of CTH ZZ and 603.5 feet to the

south of CTH ZZ generally consist of very stiff to hard lean clay and these soils would be

suitable for pipe culvert support. It is also our opinion that these soils would be suitable

for supporting a net allowable bearing capacity of up to 3000 pounds per square foot

(psf). Although it is our opinion that twin 72 inch concrete pipe culverts can bear on the

natural lean clays encountered at the assumed bearing elevation of ranging from 601.5

feet to 603.5 feet, it is our opinion that these soils are susceptible to strength loss in the

presence of water and construction traffic, and as a result, because of the fact that

excavations will be made in a watercourse, the depth to groundwater or the presence of

surface water in relation to the planned twin pipe culvert base depth will be an important

consideration during construction.

37

As previously indicated, the main area of concern during the twin 72-inch pipe base

construction will be the elevation of the groundwater table or presence of surface water.

It is anticipated that soils encountered at the bearing elevation will generally consist of

lean clay. Though the lean clay encountered in the borings are suitable for supporting a

net allowable bearing capacity of 3000 psf, these soils are also susceptible to disturbance

and strength loss in the presence of water and construction traffic. As a result, controlling

surface and subsurface water in the base excavation at the time of construction will be

very important to maintaining the integrity of the bearing soils.

It should be noted that the fill soils encountered directly above the natural lean clays were

in a firm to soft condition. As a result, if these soils are encountered at planned pipe

bearing grades, it is recommended that the softer existing lean clay fills be removed down

to the stiffer natural lean clays. Fill placed to planned pipe bearing grades is then

recommended to consist of pipe bedding material.

During the drainage structure excavation, we also recommend having the geotechnical

engineer of record on site to determine if water conditions and soils encountered at the

exposed excavated elevation are indeed suitable for support of anticipated pipe culverts.

Based on potential groundwater and surface water issues as well as the soils encountered

in the borings, it is possible that softer lean clays could be encountered that may require

additional undercut prior to fill or culvert placement, and it is recommended that the

geotechnical engineer of record be on site to document these conditions and to provide

recommendations to the excavating contractor should unsuitable conditions be

encountered. If additional undercut is required, we recommend the undercut area be

backfilled in accordance with Section 3.5.5, Proposed Drainage Structure at Plan

Roadway Station 265+08 – Structural Fill and Backfill.

Based on the existing site grades and the proposed bearing elevations of the 72-inch twin

pipe culverts, the depth of excavation to remove the existing pipe culverts and place new

pipe culverts will be approximately 14 to 19 feet below the existing surface grades. All

excavations are recommended to be in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926

estimating Type B soils. With the type B soils, excavation side slopes are recommended

to be a maximum of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical for excavations less than 20 feet in depth.

In addition to an excavation depth of up to 19 feet, fill depths are anticipated up to a

depth of 27 feet. It is our opinion that with fill placement of this depth, that placement

and compaction of the fill material will be an important consideration in reconstructing

the roadway subgrade. It is our opinion that the fill placed above the twin culvert pipes

and pipe bedding can consist of structural fill or existing site soils (lean clays), however,

for the deeper fills, we do recommend a higher degree of compaction. We recommend

that all fill placed above the pipes, be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the standard

Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density. The purpose of the higher degree of

compaction is to minimize the amount of total settlement of the fill section. If fill material

38

above the planned twin pipe culverts is to consist of lean clays or finer grained soils, it is

our opinion that the finer grained soils will need to be moisture conditioned to within

±3% of the optimum moisture content to achieve the higher degree of compaction.

Also, it should be noted, that in filling to an additional 8 feet above existing grades, it is

our opinion that little additional settlement would be anticipated in the very stiff to hard

natural lean clays that will be supporting the twin 72-inch pipe culverts and the additional

fill.

Lastly, it is recommended that final slope grades from the road shoulder to the pipe

culvert grades not exceed a 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical grade.

3.5.3. Site Preparation

Based on the soils encountered in the borings and observations at the project site, an

asphaltic pavement surface was observed with approximately 8 inches to 9 inches in

thickness. Base course beneath the asphalt pavement was not noted. For general site

preparation, we recommend that the asphalt layer be removed down to the fill material

within the roadway area. If an aggregate base course is encountered beneath the asphalt

pavement in this area, we would recommend salvaging the material to be used for

embankment fill.

For new culvert construction, the asphalt pavement, and fill material above the existing

culvert and including the existing culvert should be removed down to the glacial till soils

within the proposed culvert replacement area. It is our opinion that existing base course

material along the extents of the project and encountered at neighboring borings B-01 and

B-02 which generally consisted of silty sand with gravel will be suitable for re-use as

embankment fill above the proposed culvert. Excavations are to be sloped in accordance

with current OSHA standards.

For areas outside of existing pavement section areas and in which culverts are to be

extended, it is recommended that all topsoil and unsuitable soils be stripped from

proposed areas of extension prior to twin 72-inch pipe culvert excavation.

It is anticipated that soils encountered at the twin 72” pipe culvert base bearing elevation

will generally consist of stiff to hard lean clay. The lean clay may be susceptible to

disturbance particularly in the presence of water and construction traffic. As a result, we

recommend that the lean clay be removed to a minimum depth of 6 inches below the

proposed 72-inch pipe culvert bearing elevation for bedding material. The bedding

material is recommended to meet the requirements of Section 209, Granular Backfill, of

the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications for bedding beneath a culvert pipe. If the

natural lean clay encountered below the proposed 72” twin pipe culvert bearing elevation

is in a wet condition, we recommend that the subgrade soil also be removed with a

39

smooth bladed bucket and that construction traffic not be allowed on the subgrade.

Bedding placed beneath the culvert structure is also recommended to be compacted to a

minimum of 98% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM: D698). After

placement of the 72-inch twin pipe culverts on the prepared subgrade, granular backfill

meeting the requirements of Section 209 in the 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications, is

recommended to be placed along and to one foot above the 72-inch twin pipe culverts in

areas to receive new pavement. The granular backfill is again recommended to be


D698). All fill placed above the granular backfill may consist of structural fill as noted in

Section 3.5.5, Proposed Drainage Structure at Plan Roadway Station 265+08 –

Structural Fill and Backfill, or existing site soils classified as lean clay. As previously

noted, all embankment fill placed above the twin pipe culverts is recommended to be

compacted to 98% of the standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density, and it is

our opinion that existing lean clay fill, if used, will be required to be moisture

conditioned to ±3% of optimum moisture content to meet the recommended compaction.

As previously indicated, though the soils encountered in the borings are suitable for

supporting a net allowable bearing capacity of 3000 psf, these soils are also susceptible to

disturbance and strength loss in the presence of water and construction traffic. As a result,

controlling surface and subsurface water in the drainage structure base excavation at the

time of construction will be very important to maintain the integrity of the bearing soils.

In our opinion, soils consisting of silts or organic soils are not recommended to be used

as fill beneath pavements on this site. Theses soils can be used as backfill in any green or

non-structural fill areas, however soils in non-structural areas are recommended to be


D698). In areas to receive pavement, fill is recommended to consist of re-used existing

base course and/or structural fill as indicated in Section 3.5.5, Proposed Drainage

Structure at Plan Roadway Station 265+08 – Structural Fill and Backfill. Fill placed

beneath pavements or structures that are not deep fill is recommended to be compacted to

95% standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM: D698).

3.5.4. Foundation Recommendations


the soils at the planned twin 72-inch pipe culvert base bearing grade of approximate

elevation 601.5 to 603.5 feet are suitable for supporting a net allowable bearing capacity

of up to 3000 pounds per square foot (psf). In our opinion, the 72-inch pipe culvert base

subgrade excavation is recommended to be extended through any topsoil or existing fill

soil and be placed directly on a granular fill section with a 6-inch minimum thickness and

bearing on the natural glacial till. The natural glacial till consists of stiff to hard lean clay.

40

The recommended net allowable bearing pressure should, in our opinion, provide a factor

of safety of at least 3.0 against a general shear failure. We estimate that the pipe culverts

will experience settlements of less than 1 inch total and ½ inch differential, based on

culvert and roadway fill loads. If the culverts at this location are to consist of pipe

culverts or pipe culvert extensions, provide a granular foundation per the 2017 WisDOT

Standard Specifications, Section 520, Pipe Culverts.

3.5.5. Structural Fill and Backfill

For backfill and bedding of pipe culverts, it is recommended that a granular backfill be

provided per 2017 WisDOT Standard Specifications, Section 520, Pipe Culverts and

Section 209, Granular Backfill.

For backfill of structural elements, we recommend the use of a granular material having a

maximum size of 3" and less than 12 percent passing the #200 sieve size with the

following grading specification:

As an alternate to the above grading specification for structural fill, it is also our opinion

that using a 1¼ inch dense graded base per Section 305 of the 2017 WisDOT Standard

Specifications could be used. Structural backfill and structural fill are recommended to be

placed in lifts of 8 inches or less. Each lift of backfill is recommended to be compacted

to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor

(ASTM: D698).

As an alternate to the above structural fill requirements, in areas of mass excavation and

filling, site soils may be used as structural fill/embankment fill. Site soils consisting of

lean clay are recommended to be moisture conditioned to ±3% of the optimum moisture

content of the standard Proctor (ASTM D698) during placement.

Also, fill in structural areas or pavement areas in which the fill is deeper than 10 feet are


D698) maximum dry density. Fill placed to depths less than 10 feet in depth are


D698) maximum dry density. Any fill in non-structural areas can consist of imported

soils or site soils compacted to a minimum of 90% of the standard Proctor maximum dry

density (ASTM:D698).

Sieve Size Percent Passing

3" 100

3/4" 75-100

#4 50-100

#40 10-70

#200 0-12

Appendix A

Soil Boring

Location Plan

CTH

ZZ R

econ

stru

ctio

n(C

lay

St. -

Tet

zlaff

Rd.)

Brow

n Co

unty

, WI

Appendix B

Soil Boring Log Notes

& Logs

Brown County

E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

0-45-1011-2021-3031-5051+

CONSISTENCYTERM

Very SoftSoftFirmStiffVery StiffHard

"N" VALUE

0-12-45-89-1516-3031+

Very LooseLooseFirmVery FirmDenseVery Dense

Standard "N" Penetration: Blows Per Foot of a 140 PoundHammer Falling 30 inches on a 2 inchO.D. Split Spoon Sampler

LaminationLayerLensVarved

DryMoistWetWater-bearing

Up to ½" thick stratum½" to 6" thick stratum½" to 6" discontinuous stratum, pocketAlternating laminations of clay, silt and/or finegrained sand, or colors thereofPowdery, no noticeable waterBelow saturationSaturated, above liquid limitPervious soil below water

Over 12"3"-12"

¾"-3"#4-¾"

#4-#10#10-#40#40-#200-#200, Based on Plasticity

LITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS (Unified Soil Classification System)

ASPHALT: Asphalt CH: USCS High Plasticity Clay

CL: USCS Low Plasticity Clay FILL: Fill (made ground)

GP-GM: USCS Poorly-graded Gravel with Silt SM: USCS Silty Sand

SPG: USCS Poorly-graded Gravelly Sand

No Recovery

Standard Penetration Test

Shelby Tube

ABBREVIATIONSSAMPLER SYMBOLS

WATER LEVELSWater levels shown on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time and under the conditions indicated. In sand,the indicated levels may be considered reliable groundwater levels. In clay soil, it may be possible to determine the groundwater levelwithin the normal time required for test borings, except where lenses or layers of more pervious waterbearing soil are present. Eventhen, an extended period of time may be necessary to reach equilibrium. Therefore, the position of the water level symbol for cohesiveor mixed texture soils may not indicate the true level of the ground water table. Perched water refers to water above an imperviouslayer, thus impeded in reaching the water table. The available water level information is given at the top of the log sheet.

DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY

Cave-In Level at End of Drilling

Water Level After 24 Hours

Water Level at End of Drilling

Water Level at Time Drilling

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

LL

PI

W

DD

NP

-200

PP

Qu

Qc

RQD

OC

SPT

SCP

RELATIVE GRAVEL PROPORTIONS RELATIVE SIZES

RELATIVEDENSITY

TERM "N" VALUE

TERMlittle gravelwith gravel

little gravelwith gravel

little gravelwith gravelgravelly

CONDITIONCoarse Grained Soils

Fine Grained Soils15-29% + No. 20015-29% + No. 200

30% + No. 20030% + No. 20030%+No. 200

RANGE2-14%15-49%

2-7%8-29%

2-14%15-24%16-49%

BoulderCobbleGravelCoarseFine

SandCoarseMediumFine

Silt & Clay

LOG NOTES & KEY TO SYMBOLS

LIQUID LIMIT (%) - ASTM:D4318

PLASTIC INDEX (%) - ASTM:D4318

MOISTURE CONTENT (%) - ASTM:D2216

DRY DENSITY (PCF)

NON PLASTIC

PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)

UNCONFINED COMP. STRENGTH (TSF) - ASTM:D2166

TRIAXIAL COMP. STRENGTH (TSF)

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (%)

ORGANIC CONTENT - COMBUSTION METHOD

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

STATIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST

KE

Y T

O S

YM

BO

LS -

OM

NN

I_B

OR

.GD

T -

10/

12/1

6 0

9:51

- F

:\TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

1 Systems DriveAppleton, WI 54914Telephone: 920-735-6900Fax: 920-830-6100

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT LOCATION

18

3

6

PAVEMENT - 5'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT

BASE COURSE - 15'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, lightyellowish brown and brown, moist,firm (SM)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, reddishbrown, moist, stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Organics, reddishbrown, moist, very stiff (CL)

Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet.

7

4

8

5

6

11

9

13

13.2

2424

637.1

635.8

633.5

631.5

12

10

19

Light reddish brownmottling, 2 - 4'

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

3.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

---

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B01

OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

DATE STARTED DATE FINISHED

COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)

9/10/2015CAVE-IN DEPTH

637.5 ft 9/10/2015

---6.0 ft / Elev. 631.5 ft

HAMMER TYPE LOGGED BY

Brynley M. Nadziejka

WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

Subsurface Exploration Services

CME Mobile Drill Rig / Hollow Stem Auger

--- ---2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler

140 30CMESAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT LOCATIONBrown County

E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

3

8

5

3


BASE COURSE - 8'' of BASE COURSE- SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tocoarse grained, light yellowish brownand brown, moist, very loose (SM)

FILLSANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL,dark yellowish brown and yellowishred, moist, very stiff (CL)

SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained,yellowish brown and dark brown,moist, loose (SM)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, reddish brown mottledwith gray, moist, stiff (CL)


10

5

4

3

6

2

6

612

2424

636.7

636.0

635.0

633.0

631.0

8

10 Light reddish brownmottling and <1mm-widegray SILT veins, 4 - 6'

SP

T1

SP

T1A

SP

T2

SP

T3

2.3 (PP)

3.0 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


637 ft 9/10/2015

---6.0 ft / Elev. 631.0 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

18

3

3


BASE COURSE - 18'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, lightyellowish brown, moist, firm (SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, trace Organics, brown and darkbrown, moist, firm (CL)


9

3

3

5

4

4

5

4

1824

24

609.6

608.1

604.1

14

7

7

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

2.0 (PP)

2.3 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


610.1 ft 9/10/2015

---6.0 ft / Elev. 604.1 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

19

6

5


BASE COURSE - 18'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, little Clay, fine to coarsegrained, light yellowish brown, moist,firm (SM)

FILLSANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL,with Silt, strong brown and yellow,moist, very stiff (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, brown,moist, very stiff (CL)


11

8

9

6

9

10

13

1824

24

604.2

602.7

600.7

598.7

17

17

19

Light reddish brownmottling and <1mm-wideSILT veins, 4 - 6'

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

3.0 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


604.7 ft 9/10/2015

---6.0 ft / Elev. 598.7 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

18

3

6


BASE COURSE - 19'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, little Clay, fine to coarsegrained, organic odor, light yellowishbrown and black, moist, loose (SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY WITH SAND, withGravel, dark brown and brown, moist,firm (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, brownbrown, moist, very stiff (CL)


5

3

9

5

3

11

4

14

14.4

21.6

24

604.6

603.0

601.0

599.0

10

6

20

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

1.8 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


605 ft 9/10/2015

---6.0 ft / Elev. 599.0 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

18

8

9


BASE COURSE - 44" of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, little Clay, fine to coarsegrained, light yellowish brown andblack, moist, firm (SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, brown,moist, hard (CL)


9

7

15

9

8

20

8

17

1819

.218

609.4

605.7

603.7

18

15

35 <1mm-wide gray SILTveins, 4 - 6'

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

>4.5 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


609.7 ft 9/9/2015

---6.0 ft / Elev. 603.7 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)



5.9 ft / Elev. 603.8 ft ---9/9/2015

2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler


CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

5

3

7

2

2

3

3

PAVEMENT - 7 1/2'' of ASPHALTPAVEMENT

BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tocoarse grained, brown and darkbrown, moist, loose (SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, dark brown andbrown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Organics, organicodor, dark brown, moist, stiff (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown andreddish brown, moist, firm to stiff (CL)

3

6

3

4

3

3

7

4

6

6

6

66

7.2

9.6

14.4

1818

604.0

603.1

602.1

600.1

13

7

10

9

9

19

21

21

Greenish gray SILTlaminations/veins, approx.7.5 - 14.5'

SP

T1

SP

T1A

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

1.0 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

2.5 (PP)

4.0 (PP)

4.0 (PP)

3.5 (PP)

17.0 ft / Elev. 587.6 ft9/9/2015


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


604.6 ft 9/9/2015

---25.0 ft / Elev. 579.6 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)



15.0 ft / Elev. 589.6 ft ---9/9/2015



CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

2

5

LEAN CLAY, reddish brown, moist,firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, reddishgray, moist, (CL)

FAT CLAY, reddish brown and darkgrayish brown, moist, very stiff (CH)


3

8

4

10

1812

18

590.1

586.4

581.9

579.6

7

18

24

16

27

120

Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand dark grayish brownLEAN CLAY, approx. 22.75- 25'

SP

T7

ST

8S

PT

9

1.5 (PP)

4.5 (PP)

4.0 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

20

3

4

6

6

5


BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, withAsphalt, fine to coarse grained,yellowish brown and black, moist, firm(SM)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, brown,moist, stiff to very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, very stiff to stiff(CL)

8

5

8

8

10

8

7

8

12

12

14

11

1818

1818

1818

606.0

604.6

599.4

15

13

20

20

24

19

18

20

20

21

109

SILT veins, approx. 5 - 9'

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

4.0 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


606.4 ft 9/9/2015

---25.0 ft / Elev. 581.4 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

5

4

4

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, very stiff to stiff(CL) (continued)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, brown, moist, stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, stiff (CL)


6

5

5

7

5

5

1818

18

588.2

583.9

581.4

13

10

10

21

20

24 103

SP

T7

SP

T8

SP

T9

4.0 (PP)

1.5 (PP)

1.0 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

8

4

3

3

6

6

6

4


BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tocoarse grained, brown, moist, firm(SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, brown, moist, soft (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Organics, traceSand, reddish brown and black, moist,firm (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, trace Organics, brown,moist, stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, brown, moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, brown, moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,brown, moist, firm (CL)

3

3

4

10

10

9

8

4

6

16

13

13

11

9.6

612

1818

1818

15.6

602.3

601.0

600.5

598.5

596.0

593.5

591.0

584.8

7

10

26

23

22

19

25

15

101

112

Reddish brown mottling, 5 -6.5'

Gray SILT veins, 10 - 11.5'

Light reddish brownmottling, 12.5 - 14'

Casing installed at 20'

SP

T1

SP

T1A

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

SP

T7

3.3 (PP)

3.0 (PP)

2.0 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

4.0 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


603 ft 9/9/2015

---40.0 ft / Elev. 563.0 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

3

WOH

WOH

LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,brown, moist, firm (CL) (continued)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, brown and reddish brown,moist, (CL)

FAT CLAY, reddish brown andreddish gray, moist, soft to firm (CH)


3

1

2

5

1

3

1818

1824

18

579.8

574.8

563.0

8

2

5

27 98


Grayish brown SILTlaminations, approx. 23.25 -28.25'

Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand reddish gray LEANCLAY, approx. 28.25 - 40'

SP

T8

ST

9S

PT

10S

T11

SP

T12

1.0 (PP)

2.0 (PP)

0.5 (PP)

1.0 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

15

2

4

6

11

6

6

5


BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tocoarse grained, light yellowish brown,moist to dry, firm (SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY WITH SAND, littleGravel, dark grayish brown and darkbrown, moist, firm (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist, stiff(CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,trace Organics, brown and lightreddish brown, dry to moist, very stiff(CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleSilt, brown, dry to moist, hard to verystiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist to wet, stiff (CL)

8

3

5

9

15

9

9

7

4

5

7

15

18

15

12

11

14.4

1214

.418

1818

018

610.2

608.4

606.1

604.6

601.1

587.4

12

8

12

24

33

24

21

18

26

17

16

17

19

115 Light reddish brown veins,6 - 9.5'

No recovery after twoattempts.

Casing installed @ 20'

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

NR

7S

PT

8

3.3 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

3.8 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


610.6 ft 9/9/2015

---50.0 ft / Elev. 560.6 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

5

4

1

2

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist to wet, stiff (CL)(continued)

LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, brown,moist, (CL)

FAT CLAY, reddish brown and gray,moist, firm to soft (CH)


6

3

2

2

5

3

2

3

10.8

16.8

1818

249

582.4

577.4

560.6

11

6

4

5

33

22

34

36

40

43

38

56

15

21

23

35

105

81

Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand gray LEAN CLAY,approx. 33 - 50'

SP

T9

ST

1S

PT

10S

PT

11S

T2

SP

T12

2.0 (PP)0.7 (Qu)

0.8 (PP)

0.5 (PP)

1.5 (PP)1.3 (Qu)

0.8 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

17

2

3

7

4

4

4

4

1

3


BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tomedium grained, pale brown, dry, veryfirm (SM)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,trace Organics, reddish brown, moist,soft (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleSilt, brown and light reddish brown,dry to moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,trace Sand, brown, moist, very stiff tostiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Wood, brown,moist, stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,trace Sand, brown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Wood, traceGravel, brown and gray, moist, stiff(CL)

17

1

8

8

7

5

14

4

4

5

6

2

9

12

8

9

10

7

4

6

7.2

8.4

1818

1818

1818

1818

611.8

610.2

607.9

605.4

595.4

592.9

590.4

587.9

23

3

17

20

15

14

24

11

8

11

15

16

17

19

19

24

20

19

112

Reddish brown veins, 4.5 -7'

Gray mottling around woodpieces, 22 - 24.5'

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

SP

T7

SP

T8

SP

T9

SP

T10

1.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

4.3 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

2.8 (PP)

2.3 (PP)

1.8 (PP)

1.5 (PP)

27.1 ft / Elev. 585.3 ft9/2/2015


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


612.4 ft 9/3/2015

29.0 ft / Elev. 583.4 ft90.5 ft / Elev. 521.9 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

3

1

2

1

WOH

LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, little Silt,brown, moist, stiff (CL) (continued)

LEAN CLAY, trace Sand, brown,moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Gravel,brown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleSand, brown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, dark grayish brown,moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, brown, moist, soft (CL)

FAT CLAY, reddish brown andgrayish brown, moist, soft to firm (CH)

4

2

2

1

1

6

3

3

2

1

1820

.418

3.6

27.6

1218

585.4

582.9

578.7

573.7

568.7

564.2

10

5

5

3

2

17

23

25

15

32

45

44

106

91

Drillers hit gravel and bentshelby tube.

Boulder 34.8 - 35.8'(Driller's description)

Reddish brown FAT CLAYwith grayish brown SILTlaminations, approx. 48 -78'

SP

T11

ST

12S

PT

13S

PT

14S

T15

SP

T16

SP

T17

1.3 (PP)

1.4 (Qu)

0.8 (PP)

0.8 (PP)

1.3 (PP)1.5 (Qu)

0.0 (PP)

0.0 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

1

WOH

WOH

WOH

35

FAT CLAY, reddish brown andgrayish brown, moist, soft to firm (CH)(continued)

HARDPANSILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, finegrained, grayish brown and darkgrayish brown, dry to moist, verydense (SM)

2

1

1

2

47

2

1

1

3

39

26.4

1818

3.6

1818

534.2

4

2

2

5

86

47

40

42

68

50

24

19

44

31

75

Dark greenish gray mottlingwithin Silt, 73.25 - 78.25'

ST

18S

PT

19S

PT

20S

PT

21S

PT

22S

PT

23

1.5 (PP)1.5 (Qu)

1.3 (PP)

0.8 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

28

61

HARDPANSILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, finegrained, grayish brown and darkgrayish brown, dry to moist, verydense (SM) (continued)


27

30

186

521.9

57

SP

T24

SP

T25


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

4

4

5

7

6

5

5


BASE COURSESILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND,yellowish brown, dry, loose (GP-GM)

FILLLEAN CLAY, little Sand, little Gravel,brown and black, moist, stiff (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, little Silt, little Gravel,strong brown and light reddish brown,moist to dry, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Silt, trace Sand,strong brown, dry to moist, very stiff(CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, trace Sand,brown, dry to moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Silt, little Gravel,brown, moist to dry, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist to dry, very stiff(CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, brown,moist, stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, firm (CL)

4

7

9

13

10

10

5

5

11

16

16

13

13

5

9.6

1818

1218

1818

614.0

613.4

611.4

609.9

607.4

604.9

602.4

599.9

596.2

9

18

25

29

23

23

10

16

17

22

Light reddish brownmottling, 3.0 - 4.5'


SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

SP

T7

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

4.0 (PP)

1.5 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


614.4 ft 9/2/2015

---40.0 ft / Elev. 574.4 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

2

4

2

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, firm (CL) (continued)


2

4

3

3

4

3

2418

2418

18

574.4

5

8

6

22

27

22

27

26

42 16 26

108

107


ST

1S

PT

8S

T2

SP

T9

SP

T10

1.5 (PP)1.6 (Qu)

0.5 (PP)

1.5 (PP)1.8 (Qu)

0.5 (PP)

0.5 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

9

2

6

6

6

7

4


BASE COURSESILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, palebrown, moist, loose (GP-GM)

FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, trace Sand, trace Silt,brown, moist, stiff (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, little Silt, trace Organics, brown,moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, strong brown and lightreddish brown, moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, strong brownand light gray, moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, very stiff to stiff (CL)

5

4

7

8

7

10

6

5

3

11

12

11

13

8

1214

.418

1818

1818

612.9

611.7

611.0

608.7

606.2

603.7

10

7

18

20

18

23

14

18

17

20

18

22 108


Light reddish brown andlight gray mottling, 7 - 9.5'

Casing installed at 20'(Driller's description)

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

SP

T7

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

3.8 (PP)

2.0 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


613.2 ft 9/2/2015

---40.0 ft / Elev. 573.2 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

5

2

3

2

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, very stiff to stiff (CL)(continued)

FAT CLAY, reddish brown andgrayish brown, moist, firm (CH)


5

5

5

3

7

7

7

5

012

180

1818

574.7

573.2

12

12

12

8

31

23

24

39 69 22 48

Casing installed at 20'(Driller's description)No recovery, pushed tubebent due to large gravel(Driller's description).

Rough drilling, 28.5 - 30'(Driller's description)

Gravel while drilling, 32.1 -32.3' (Driller's description)

No recovery, pushed tubebent due to large gravel(Driller's description).

Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand grayish brown LEANCLAY, 38.5 - 40'

ST

1S

PT

8S

PT

9S

T2

SP

T10

SP

T11

0.8 (PP)

1.0 (PP)

0.8 (PP)

0.5 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

8

4

8

6

6

6

4


BASE COURSESILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine tomedium grained, olive brown, moist,loose (SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Sand, reddishbrown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Sand, trace Gravel,strong brown and dark brown, moist,stiff (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, little Sand, trace Gravel,reddish brown, moist, stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, strong brown and lightreddish brown, moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, brown,moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Silt, trace Gravel,strong brown and light brownish gray,moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, strong brown, moist, very stiff(CL)

LEAN CLAY, brown, moist, firm (CL)


3

5

10

13

9

7

4

4

5

13

17

12

9

4

14.4

1818

1818

1818

609.8

608.7

608.0

606.7

605.7

603.2

600.7

598.2

595.7

592.0

7

10

23

30

21

16

8

11

15

16

20

21

24


Light brownish graymottling, 9.5 - 12'


SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

SP

T7

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

4.0 (PP)

2.8 (PP)

1.8 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


610.2 ft 9/3/2015

---40.0 ft / Elev. 570.2 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

3

3

2

LEAN CLAY, trace Sand, brown,moist, (CL) (continued)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, trace Sand,brown, moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, little Sand,brown, moist to wet, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Silt, trace Gravel,brown, moist, stiff (CL)


4

3

4

9

4

5

1218

249.

618

587.2

582.0

576.7

572.7

570.2

13

7

9

22

25

24

29

24

108

104


Shelby tube only pushed 1'due to obstruction (driller'sdescription).

ST

1S

PT

8S

T2

SP

T9

SP

T10

2.8 (PP)2.4 (Qu)

0.8 (PP)

1.8 (PP)1.4 (Qu)

>0.5 (PP)

1.3 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

29

3

2

2


BASE COURSE - 2.4'' of BASECOURSE - SAND WITH GRAVEL,with Silt, trace Clay, fine to coarsegrained, yellowish brown, moist, firm(SP-SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Organics, traceSand, yellowish red and reddishbrown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, brown and dark brown, moist,soft (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, reddish brown,moist, firm (CL)


6

3

2

2

8

4

2

3

5

3

3

1818

20.4

18

625.2

625.0

622.7

620.7

618.7

14

7

4

5

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

2.3 (PP)

2.3 (PP)

1.5 (PP)

1.0 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


626.7 ft 9/3/2015

---8.0 ft / Elev. 618.7 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

18

5

4

5

12


BASE COURSE - 14.4'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, trace Asphalt, trace Clay,fine to coarse grained, yellowishbrown, moist, very firm (SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, with Sand,trace Organics, reddish brown anddark reddish brown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleSilt, reddish brown and dark reddishbrown, moist, stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, dark brown and yellowish red,moist, very stiff (CL)

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, traceClay, yellowish brown, moist to dry,very firm (SM)


9

5

12

13

6

7

14.4

3.6

19.2

1212

604.8

603.8

603.5

601.5

600.5

599.5

11

SP

T1

SP

T1A

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

3.5 (PP)

3.3 (PP)

2.5 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


605.5 ft 9/3/2015

---6.0 ft / Elev. 599.5 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

13

4

4

6

6

5

4

3


BASE COURSE - 12'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, trace Asphalt, fine tocoarse grained, yellowish brown,moist, loose (SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withSand, reddish brown and yellowishbrown, moist, soft (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, dark reddish brown andyellowish red, moist, stiff (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, yellowish red, moist, very stiff(CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, reddish brown and brown,moist, very stiff to stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, dark brown and brown, moist,stiff to very stiff (CL)

5

5

8

10

6

5

4

5

9

13

8

5

5

186

1812

1818

1818

609.2

608.2

607.5

605.2

602.7

595.2

10

17

23

14

10

9

20

25

22


Gray mottling, 12.5 - 14'


SP

T1

SP

T1A

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

SP

T7

2.0 (PP)

2.5 (PP)

1.8 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

3.8 (PP)

1.8 (PP)

1.3 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


609.7 ft 9/4/2015

---40.0 ft / Elev. 569.7 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

8

3

2

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, dark brown and brown, moist,stiff to very stiff (CL) (continued)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, reddish brown, moist, stiff (CL)

FAT CLAY, reddish brown and darkreddish gray, moist, firm (CH)


8

4

3

9

6

4

1820

.418

1824

586.5

581.2

576.5

569.7

17

10

7

22

30

29

40

41

30

81


Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand dark reddish grayLEAN CLAY, approx. 33.25- 40'

SP

T8

ST

9S

PT

10S

PT

11S

T12

1.0 (PP)

2.5 (PP)

0.8 (PP)

0.8 (PP)

2.8 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

11

2

2

3

2

2

1


BASE COURSE - 12'' of BASECOURSE - SILTY SAND WITHGRAVEL, fine to coarse grained,brown, moist, firm (SM)

FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, reddish brown and dark brown,moist, firm (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,reddish brown, moist, firm to stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, strong brown and brown, moist,firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, (CL)

4

3

2

4

2

3

2

3

4

3

5

3

4

3

8.4

1212

14.4

1818

18

609.7

608.5

605.0

600.5

595.5

591.8

7

7

5

9

5

7

5

25

25

Light gray mottling, 7.5 - 9'



SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

SP

T7

2.5 (PP)

2.5 (PP)

3.5 (PP)

2.8 (PP)

2.8 (PP)

1.0 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


610 ft 9/4/2015

---40.0 ft / Elev. 570.0 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

1

1

1

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown,moist, (CL) (continued)

LEAN CLAY, trace Sand, brown,moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, black,moist, (CL)

FAT CLAY, reddish brown andreddish gray, moist, soft (CH)


3

1

1

2

2

2

1824

1818

586.3

581.8

576.3

570.0

5

3

3

23

32

38

42

107

86


Alternating layers ofreddish brown FAT CLAYand reddish gray LEANCLAY, approx. 33.75 - 40'

ST

8S

PT

9S

T10

SP

T11

SP

T12

2.0 (PP)

1.0 (PP)

1.0 (PP)

0.5 (PP)

0.8 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

1

1

1

1

WOH

1


FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Organics, traceSand, brown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, dark brown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Sand, trace Gravel,trace Organics, reddish brown, moist,soft (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, brown and dark brown,moist, soft to firm (CL)

3

2

1

1

1

2

2

4

1

2

1

3

127.

26

3.6

68.

4

619.9

618.1

616.1

613.6

5

6

2

3

2

5

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

3.5 (PP)

3.0 (PP)

2.5 (PP)

1.5 (PP)

0.5 (PP)

1.5 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)

PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NUMBER SB-1

OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


620.6 ft 9/10/2015

---25.0 ft / Elev. 595.6 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)



17.5 ft / Elev. 603.1 ft ---9/10/2015



CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

1

8

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, brown and dark brown,moist, soft to firm (CL) (continued)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, little Gravel, brown,moist, hard (CL)


2

15

4

27

14.4

018

602.6

595.6

6

42

No recovery due tobent/smashed tube (driller'sdescription).

SP

T7

ST

8S

PT

9

1.5 (PP)

3.5 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

2

2

2

1

4

5


FILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown and darkbrown, moist, firm (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Organics, reddishbrown and dark grayish brown, moist,firm (CL)

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, brown, moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, reddishbrown and brown, moist, very stiff(CL)

3

2

2

2

10

7

5

3

3

4

9

10

8.4

9.6

66

9.6

14.4

621.6

619.8

612.8

610.3

8

5

5

6

19

17

SP

T1

SP

T2

SP

T3

SP

T4

SP

T5

SP

T6

2.5 (PP)

3.0 (PP)

1.8 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

6

8

10

12

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


622.3 ft 9/10/2015

---25.0 ft / Elev. 597.3 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)





CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

5

11

7

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, reddishbrown and brown, moist, very stiff(CL) (continued)

LEAN CLAY, reddish brown andbrown, moist, very stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, very stiff (CL)


9

11

9

12

17

15

1818

18

607.3

599.8

597.3

21

28

24

Cobbles, 14.9 - 15.6'(Driller's description)

SP

T7

SP

T8

SP

T9

>4.5 (PP)

>4.5 (PP)

2.0 (PP)


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 1

0/1

2/16

11:

33 -

F:\

TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

.GP

J

SAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

Brown County

E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

0-45-1011-2021-3031-5051+

CONSISTENCYTERM

Very SoftSoftFirmStiffVery StiffHard

"N" VALUE

0-12-45-89-1516-3031+

Very LooseLooseFirmVery FirmDenseVery Dense

Standard "N" Penetration: Blows Per Foot of a 140 PoundHammer Falling 30 inches on a 2 inchO.D. Split Spoon Sampler

LaminationLayerLensVarved

DryMoistWetWater-bearing

Up to ½" thick stratum½" to 6" thick stratum½" to 6" discontinuous stratum, pocketAlternating laminations of clay, silt and/or finegrained sand, or colors thereofPowdery, no noticeable waterBelow saturationSaturated, above liquid limitPervious soil below water

Over 12"3"-12"

¾"-3"#4-¾"

#4-#10#10-#40#40-#200-#200, Based on Plasticity

LITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS (Unified Soil Classification System)

CL: USCS Low Plasticity Clay FILL: Fill (made ground)

Auger Cuttings

ABBREVIATIONSSAMPLER SYMBOLS

WATER LEVELSWater levels shown on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time and under the conditions indicated. In sand,the indicated levels may be considered reliable groundwater levels. In clay soil, it may be possible to determine the groundwater levelwithin the normal time required for test borings, except where lenses or layers of more pervious waterbearing soil are present. Eventhen, an extended period of time may be necessary to reach equilibrium. Therefore, the position of the water level symbol for cohesiveor mixed texture soils may not indicate the true level of the ground water table. Perched water refers to water above an imperviouslayer, thus impeded in reaching the water table. The available water level information is given at the top of the log sheet.

DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY

Cave-In Level at End of Drilling

Water Level After 24 Hours

Water Level at End of Drilling

Water Level at Time Drilling

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

LL

PI

W

DD

NP

-200

PP

Qu

Qc

RQD

OC

SPT

SCP

RELATIVE GRAVEL PROPORTIONS RELATIVE SIZES

RELATIVEDENSITY

TERM "N" VALUE

TERMlittle gravelwith gravel

little gravelwith gravel

little gravelwith gravelgravelly

CONDITIONCoarse Grained Soils

Fine Grained Soils15-29% + No. 20015-29% + No. 200

30% + No. 20030% + No. 20030%+No. 200

RANGE2-14%15-49%

2-7%8-29%

2-14%15-24%16-49%

BoulderCobbleGravelCoarseFine

SandCoarseMediumFine

Silt & Clay

LOG NOTES & KEY TO SYMBOLS

LIQUID LIMIT (%) - ASTM:D4318

PLASTIC INDEX (%) - ASTM:D4318

MOISTURE CONTENT (%) - ASTM:D2216

DRY DENSITY (PCF)

NON PLASTIC

PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)

UNCONFINED COMP. STRENGTH (TSF) - ASTM:D2166

TRIAXIAL COMP. STRENGTH (TSF)

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (%)

ORGANIC CONTENT - COMBUSTION METHOD

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

STATIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST

KE

Y T

O S

YM

BO

LS -

OM

NN

I_B

OR

.GD

T -

5/1

9/16

09

:13

- F

:\TR

\JO

BS

\E21

66A

15\R

EP

OR

TS

\GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

\E21

66A

15_S

OIL

LO

GS

- H

AN

D A

UG

ER

BO

RIN

GS

.GP

J

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT LOCATION

FILLSILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, withOrganics, fine to coarse grained, olivebrown, dry, (SM)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withOrganics, little Sand, yellowish redand brown, moist, (CL)


608.2

607.0

AU

1A

U2

AU

3

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)

PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-1R

OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


610.3 ft 10/26/2015

---3.3 ft / Elev. 607.0 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates

1 ½" Dia. Screw Auger

--- ---Auger Cuttings

N/A N/AN/ASAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,brown, moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Sand, trace Gravel,brown, moist, (CL)



588.6

587.6

586.6

AU

1A

U2

AU

3A

U4

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)

PAGE 1 OF 1HAND AUGER BORING NUMBER HA-1S

OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


590.6 ft 10/28/2015

---4.0 ft / Elev. 586.6 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates



10.1 N/ADCPSAMPLE DATA

CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

FILLLEAN CLAY WITH SAND, withOrganics, with Gravel, brown, dry,(CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Organics, withSand, trace Gravel, brown, dry, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, withOrganics, brown, dry, (CL)

Refusal at 3.0 feet.Bottom of borehole at 3.0 feet.

606.6

605.5

604.6 Rock refusal @ 3'

AU

1A

U2

AU

3A

U4

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


607.6 ft 10/26/2015

---3.0 ft / Elev. 604.6 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates




CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, with Sand, brown, moist,(CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, brown,moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Sand, trace Gravel,brown, moist, (CL)


589.8

588.8

586.8

AU

1A

U2

AU

3A

U4

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


590.8 ft 10/28/2015

---4.0 ft / Elev. 586.8 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates




CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

FILLLEAN CLAY, with Organics, withGravel, with Sand, dark brown, dry,(CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown andreddish yellow, dry, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown, dry tomoist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, little Organics, traceGravel, trace Sand, strong brown, dryto moist, (CL)


606.5

604.9

604.1

603.2

AU

1A

U2

AU

3A

U4

AU

5

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


608.4 ft 10/26/2015

---5.3 ft / Elev. 603.2 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates




CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, brown, moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceSand, brown, moist, (CL)


589.2

586.2

AU

1A

U2

AU

3A

U4

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


590.2 ft 10/28/2015

---4.0 ft / Elev. 586.2 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates




CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

FILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withOrganics, with Sand, dark brown, dryto moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, withOrganics, trace Sand, dark brown,moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Organics, traceGravel, trace Sand, strong brown anddark brown, moist, (CL)


613.0

611.5

609.5

AU

1A

U2

AU

3

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


613.5 ft 10/26/2015

---4.0 ft / Elev. 609.5 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates




CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, brown,moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown, moist,(CL)

LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, trace Sand,trace Organics, organic odor, brown,moist, (CL)


588.8

587.8

585.8

AU

1A

U2

AU

3A

U4

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


589.8 ft 10/28/2015

---4.0 ft / Elev. 585.8 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates




CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

FILLGRAVELLY SAND, with Clay, traceOrganics, fine to coarse grained, verydark grayish brown, dry, (SP)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, withOrganics, brown, moist to dry, (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, littleOrganics, trace Sand, trace Silt,reddish brown, moist to dry, (CL)


609.6

608.6

606.6

AU

1A

U2

AU

3

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


610.6 ft 10/26/2015

---4.0 ft / Elev. 606.6 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates




CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

GLACIAL TILLLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceSand, brown, moist, (CL)

LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown, moist,(CL)

LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, traceOrganics, trace Sand, brown, moist,(CL)


593.0

592.0

590.0

AU

1A

U2

AU

3A

U4

---


PE

NE

TR

.R

ES

IST

BL/

6in

TY

PE

RE

CO

V.

(in)SYMBOL

LOGELEV.

(ft)DEPTHSCALE

2

4

N-V

ALU

EB

LOW

S/F

T

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

T. (

%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT (

%)

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X (

%)

% P

AS

SIN

G#2

00 S

IEV

E

UN

IT D

RY

WT

. (P

CF

)

REMARKS

NU

MB

ER

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(PP

/Qu/

Qc)

(T

SF

)


OM

NN

I SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G -

TE

ST

S+

RE

M 2

015

- O

MN

NI_

BO

R.G

DT

- 5

/19

/16

09:

13 -

F:\T

R\J

OB

S\E

2166

A15

\RE

PO

RT

S\G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

T\E

2166

A15

_SO

IL L

OG

S -

HA

ND

AU

GE

R B

OR

ING

S.G

PJ


COMPLETION DEPTH

DRILLING CONTRACTOR


SAMPLER

WEIGHT (lbs)


594 ft 10/28/2015

---4.0 ft / Elev. 590.0 ft



WATERLEVEL (ft)

FIRST COMPL. 24 HR.

ELEVATION & DATUM

DROP (in)

OMNNI Associates




CLIENT

PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME


E2166A15

CTH ZZ

Brown County, WI

Appendix C

Laboratory Test Results

Type:

26.4 o

0.24

Before Consolidation A B C D E

1.44 1.44 1.43

2.85 2.85 2.87

41.1 41.9 38.8

80.5 80.6 82.7

1.11 1.11 1.05

1.43 1.42 1.42

2.84 2.82 2.83

39.6 38.3 36.7

81.8 83.2 85.0

1.08 1.04 1.00

5.5 10.0 10.0

0.50 1.50 2.50

1.32 2.04 2.59

1.27 1.65 1.69

1.00 2.01 2.59

0.31 0.87 1.37

0.95 0.95 0.95

1.1 1.8 1.2

o c'= 0.24 (tsf)

α = 23.9 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.25 (tsf)

10098

11/20/15 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767

Job No.Date:

Rupture Envelope at Failure ------------ 26.4Effective φ':

Max. Deviator Stress (tsf)

Minor Principal Stress (tsf)

Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf)

Diameter (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf)

Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf)

Void Ratio

Back Pressure (tsf)

40.5-42.5Depth (ft):

Failure Criterion: Max. Stress Ratio

(tsf)Apparent Cohesion, c' =

Strain Rate (%/min):

Strain Rate (in/min): 0.00071

B-11 Sample #: ST-15 3T

Project:

Boring #:

Brown CTH ZZ

_______ 16.6Total φ:

Angle of internal friction, φφφφ' =

CU w/pp

Soil Type: Fat Clay (CH)

Remarks: Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured

until "B" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and

immediately sheared.

+

X

2.72

Plasticity Index:

Height (in)

After Consolidation

Spec. Gravity (Assumed):0.025

Test Date:

Test Type:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

11/13/15

2401 W 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2031

"These test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a

qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are

appropriate for any particular design"

Void Ratio

Pore Pressure Parameter "B"

Pct. Axial Strain at Failure

Diameter (in)

Height (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Po

re P

ressu

re (

tsf)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 5 10 15 20

Axial Strain (%)

Str

ess R

ati

o

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (tsf)

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5

Normal Stress (p') (tsf)

Sh

ear

Str

ess (

q)

(ts

f)

Type:

27.9 o

0.18


1.44 1.44 1.43

2.85 2.85 2.87

41.1 41.9 38.8

80.5 80.6 82.7

1.11 1.11 1.05

1.43 1.42 1.42

2.84 2.82 2.83

39.6 38.3 36.7

81.8 83.2 85.0

1.08 1.04 1.00

5.5 10.0 10.0

0.50 1.50 2.50

1.32 2.04 2.59

1.27 1.65 1.69

1.32 2.04 2.59

0.31 0.87 1.37

0.95 0.95 0.95

12.0 2.3 1.2

o c'= 0.18 (tsf)

α = 25.1 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.40 (tsf)

10098


Job No.Date:





Diameter (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)



Void Ratio

Back Pressure (tsf)

40.5-42.5Depth (ft):

Failure Criterion: Max. Deviator Stress





Project:

Boring #:

Brown CTH ZZ

_______ 13.9Total φ:


CU w/pp





+

X

2.72

Plasticity Index:

Height (in)

After Consolidation


Test Date:

Test Type:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

11/13/15





Void Ratio



Diameter (in)

Height (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Po

re P

ressu

re (

tsf)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 5 10 15 20

Axial Strain (%)

Str

ess R

ati

o

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (tsf)

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5


Sh

ear

Str

ess (

q)

(ts

f)

Type:

18.1 o

0.31


1.44 1.44 1.43

2.85 2.85 2.87

41.1 41.9 38.8

80.5 80.6 82.7

1.11 1.11 1.05

1.43 1.42 1.42

2.84 2.82 2.83

39.6 38.3 36.7

81.8 83.2 85.0

1.08 1.04 1.00

5.5 10.0 10.0

0.50 1.50 2.50

1.32 2.04 2.59

1.27 1.65 1.69

1.31 1.72 1.86

0.31 0.87 1.37

0.95 0.95 0.95

15.0 15.0 15.0

o c'= 0.31 (tsf)

α = 17.3 o a = 0.3 (tsf) o c= 0.54 (tsf)

10098


Job No.Date:





Diameter (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)



Void Ratio

Back Pressure (tsf)

40.5-42.5Depth (ft):

Failure Criterion: Given Strain of: 15%





Project:

Boring #:

Brown CTH ZZ

_______ 7.0Total φ:


CU w/pp





+

X

2.72

Plasticity Index:

Height (in)

After Consolidation


Test Date:

Test Type:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

11/13/15





Void Ratio



Diameter (in)

Height (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Po

re P

ressu

re (

tsf)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 5 10 15 20

Axial Strain (%)

Str

ess R

ati

o

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (tsf)

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5


Sh

ear

Str

ess (

q)

(ts

f)

Date:

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.18 0.40 0.18 0.18 0.64 0.28 0.18 1.09 0.520.36 0.64 0.26 0.35 0.96 0.47 0.35 1.69 0.840.53 0.77 0.30 0.53 1.22 0.59 0.53 2.13 1.060.71 0.89 0.31 0.71 1.44 0.68 0.71 2.36 1.170.88 0.95 0.31 0.89 1.63 0.76 0.88 2.50 1.241.06 1.00 0.30 1.06 1.74 0.81 1.06 2.56 1.281.24 1.03 0.29 1.24 1.84 0.85 1.24 2.59 1.301.41 1.06 0.28 1.42 1.92 0.87 1.42 2.57 1.311.59 1.07 0.27 1.60 1.98 0.87 1.59 2.53 1.311.77 1.09 0.26 1.77 2.01 0.87 1.77 2.47 1.321.94 1.10 0.24 1.95 2.03 0.87 1.95 2.43 1.322.12 1.11 0.23 2.13 2.03 0.84 2.12 2.39 1.322.30 1.12 0.22 2.31 2.04 0.81 2.30 2.34 1.332.47 1.13 0.21 2.48 2.03 0.81 2.48 2.31 1.332.65 1.14 0.20 2.66 2.02 0.80 2.65 2.29 1.332.82 1.15 0.19 2.84 1.99 0.79 2.83 2.26 1.333.00 1.17 0.19 3.02 1.97 0.78 3.01 2.25 1.333.18 1.17 0.18 3.19 1.95 0.77 3.18 2.23 1.333.35 1.19 0.17 3.37 1.92 0.76 3.36 2.21 1.333.53 1.20 0.17 3.55 1.90 0.76 3.54 2.19 1.333.88 1.22 0.15 3.90 1.87 0.75 3.89 2.17 1.334.23 1.23 0.14 4.26 1.86 0.74 4.24 2.14 1.334.59 1.24 0.13 4.61 1.84 0.74 4.60 2.12 1.334.94 1.26 0.12 4.97 1.84 0.73 4.95 2.11 1.335.29 1.27 0.11 5.32 1.83 0.73 5.30 2.09 1.335.64 1.27 0.11 5.68 1.82 0.73 5.66 2.07 1.346.35 1.29 0.09 6.39 1.81 0.71 6.37 2.05 1.347.05 1.30 0.08 7.10 1.81 0.70 7.07 2.03 1.347.76 1.31 0.07 7.45 1.81 0.70 7.78 2.02 1.348.46 1.31 0.06 7.81 1.81 0.69 8.49 1.99 1.349.17 1.30 0.04 8.16 1.80 0.69 9.19 1.95 1.349.87 1.30 0.03 8.52 1.81 0.68 9.90 1.94 1.34

10.58 1.30 0.02 8.87 1.81 0.68 10.61 1.93 1.3411.28 1.31 0.01 9.23 1.81 0.67 11.32 1.92 1.3411.99 1.32 -0.01 9.58 1.80 0.67 12.02 1.90 1.3412.69 1.32 -0.02 9.94 1.79 0.66 12.73 1.89 1.3413.40 1.32 -0.02 10.29 1.79 0.66 13.44 1.88 1.3414.10 1.31 -0.03 10.65 1.79 0.66 14.14 1.86 1.3415.87 1.28 -0.04 11.36 1.79 0.65 15.91 1.80 1.3517.63 1.26 -0.05 12.07 1.77 0.64 17.68 1.73 1.3619.39 1.28 -0.06 12.78 1.74 0.63 19.45 1.70 1.3720.00 1.27 -0.06 13.49 1.73 0.63 20.00 1.69 1.37

14.20 1.72 0.6215.97 1.72 0.6117.75 1.69 0.6019.52 1.66 0.6120.00 1.65 0.61

Job:

Sample: ST-15 Depth: 40.5-42.510098

11/20/15

Sample 5Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Triaxial Data

Boring: B-11

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

Type:

21.6 o

0.18


1.43 1.44 1.44

2.85 2.86 2.85

53.1 46.3 47.8

70.1 75.6 74.0

1.42 1.25 1.30

1.42 1.41 1.39

2.81 2.80 2.70

49.4 41.5 37.7

72.5 79.8 83.8

1.34 1.13 1.03

4.4 7.5 5.5

1.00 2.00 3.25

1.11 1.63 2.08

0.97 1.35 1.63

1.08 1.59 2.06

0.55 1.06 2.03

0.95 0.95 0.95

2.0 5.4 5.6

o c'= 0.18 (tsf)

α = 20.2 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.28 (tsf)

10098


Job No.Date:





Diameter (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)



Void Ratio

Back Pressure (tsf)

55-66Depth (ft):

Failure Criterion: Max. Stress Ratio





Project:

Boring #:

Brown CTH ZZ

_______ 10.3Total φ:


CU w/pp





+

X

2.72

Plasticity Index:

Height (in)

After Consolidation


Test Date:

Test Type:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

11/20/15





Void Ratio



Diameter (in)

Height (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Po

re P

ressu

re (

tsf)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 5 10 15 20

Axial Strain (%)

Str

ess R

ati

o

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (tsf)

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5


Sh

ear

Str

ess (

q)

(ts

f)

Type:

22.2 o

0.16


1.43 1.44 1.44

2.85 2.86 2.85

53.1 46.3 47.8

70.1 75.6 74.0

1.42 1.25 1.30

1.42 1.41 1.39

2.81 2.80 2.70

49.4 41.5 37.7

72.5 79.8 83.8

1.34 1.13 1.03

4.4 7.5 5.5

1.00 2.00 3.25

1.11 1.63 2.08

0.97 1.35 1.63

1.11 1.63 2.08

0.55 1.06 2.03

0.95 0.95 0.95

5.7 3.2 5.2

o c'= 0.16 (tsf)

α = 20.7 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.30 (tsf)

10098


Job No.Date:





Diameter (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)



Void Ratio

Back Pressure (tsf)

55-66Depth (ft):

Failure Criterion: Max. Deviator Stress





Project:

Boring #:

Brown CTH ZZ

_______ 10.2Total φ:


CU w/pp





+

X

2.72

Plasticity Index:

Height (in)

After Consolidation


Test Date:

Test Type:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

11/20/15





Void Ratio



Diameter (in)

Height (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Po

re P

ressu

re (

tsf)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 5 10 15 20

Axial Strain (%)

Str

ess R

ati

o

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (tsf)

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5


Sh

ear

Str

ess (

q)

(ts

f)

Type:

18.8 o

0.18


1.43 1.44 1.44

2.85 2.86 2.85

53.1 46.3 47.8

70.1 75.6 74.0

1.42 1.25 1.30

1.42 1.41 1.39

2.81 2.80 2.70

49.4 41.5 37.7

72.5 79.8 83.8

1.34 1.13 1.03

4.4 7.5 5.5

1.00 2.00 3.25

1.11 1.63 2.08

0.97 1.35 1.63

1.03 1.36 1.72

0.55 1.06 2.03

0.95 0.95 0.95

15.0 15.0 15.0

o c'= 0.18 (tsf)

α = 17.9 o a = 0.2 (tsf) o c= 0.32 (tsf)

10098


Job No.Date:





Diameter (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)



Void Ratio

Back Pressure (tsf)

55-66Depth (ft):

Failure Criterion: Given Strain of: 15%





Project:

Boring #:

Brown CTH ZZ

_______ 7.6Total φ:


CU w/pp





+

X

2.72

Plasticity Index:

Height (in)

After Consolidation


Test Date:

Test Type:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

11/20/15





Void Ratio



Diameter (in)

Height (in)

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Po

re P

ressu

re (

tsf)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 5 10 15 20

Axial Strain (%)

Str

ess R

ati

o

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (tsf)

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5


Sh

ear

Str

ess (

q)

(ts

f)

Date:

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.18 0.46 0.26 0.18 0.55 0.30 0.19 0.79 0.350.36 0.63 0.36 0.36 0.79 0.47 0.37 1.05 0.600.53 0.74 0.42 0.54 0.98 0.60 0.56 1.22 0.790.72 0.83 0.46 0.71 1.12 0.69 0.74 1.32 0.920.89 0.90 0.50 0.89 1.22 0.76 0.93 1.41 1.051.07 0.96 0.52 1.07 1.31 0.81 1.12 1.48 1.151.25 1.00 0.53 1.25 1.40 0.87 1.30 1.56 1.241.43 1.03 0.54 1.43 1.45 0.90 1.48 1.63 1.331.60 1.06 0.55 1.61 1.51 0.94 1.67 1.68 1.391.79 1.07 0.55 1.79 1.55 0.96 1.85 1.73 1.461.96 1.08 0.55 1.97 1.57 0.98 2.04 1.78 1.512.14 1.09 0.55 2.14 1.59 0.98 2.23 1.82 1.562.32 1.09 0.54 2.32 1.60 1.00 2.41 1.85 1.612.49 1.10 0.54 2.50 1.61 1.00 2.60 1.89 1.662.67 1.10 0.54 2.68 1.62 1.01 2.78 1.92 1.692.85 1.10 0.53 2.86 1.62 1.02 2.97 1.94 1.723.03 1.10 0.53 3.04 1.62 1.02 3.16 1.96 1.763.21 1.10 0.53 3.22 1.63 1.03 3.34 1.98 1.783.39 1.10 0.52 3.40 1.63 1.03 3.52 1.99 1.813.56 1.10 0.52 3.57 1.63 1.04 3.71 2.01 1.833.92 1.10 0.51 3.93 1.62 1.03 4.08 2.04 1.874.28 1.10 0.51 4.29 1.62 1.04 4.45 2.06 1.904.63 1.11 0.51 4.65 1.62 1.04 4.82 2.07 1.934.99 1.10 0.51 5.00 1.61 1.05 5.19 2.08 1.955.35 1.10 0.50 5.36 1.59 1.06 5.57 2.06 1.965.70 1.11 0.50 5.72 1.59 1.05 5.93 2.02 1.976.42 1.09 0.50 6.43 1.58 1.04 6.68 1.93 1.977.13 1.08 0.49 7.15 1.55 1.04 7.42 1.84 1.967.48 1.06 0.48 7.86 1.53 1.05 8.16 1.76 1.957.84 1.06 0.48 8.58 1.50 1.06 8.90 1.71 1.968.20 1.05 0.48 9.29 1.48 1.04 9.64 1.69 1.968.55 1.04 0.48 10.01 1.47 1.04 10.38 1.69 1.978.91 1.03 0.48 10.72 1.43 1.04 11.13 1.68 1.979.27 1.02 0.48 11.44 1.40 1.04 11.87 1.66 1.969.62 1.03 0.48 12.15 1.38 1.05 12.61 1.66 1.979.98 1.02 0.47 12.87 1.37 1.05 13.35 1.68 1.99

10.33 1.02 0.47 13.58 1.37 1.05 14.09 1.71 1.9910.69 1.03 0.47 14.30 1.36 1.05 14.83 1.72 1.9811.41 1.03 0.47 16.08 1.36 1.04 16.69 1.66 2.0012.12 1.03 0.46 17.87 1.35 1.03 18.54 1.64 2.0212.83 1.03 0.46 19.66 1.35 1.03 20.00 1.63 2.0313.54 1.02 0.47 20.01 1.35 1.0314.26 1.03 0.4516.04 1.02 0.4417.82 0.99 0.4419.60 0.97 0.4320.00 0.97 0.43

Job:

Sample: ST-18 Depth: 55-6610098

11/13/15

Sample 5Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Triaxial Data

Boring: B-11

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

Str

ain

(%

)

Devia

tor

Str

ess (

tsf)

Pore

Pre

ssure

(tsf)

PROJECT: CTH ZZ Road Reconstruction OMNNI PROJECT NO. E2166A15

CLIENT: WisDOT Northeast Region DATE:

Sample Number: ST-8

Date of Sample:

Sample Location: Boring B07

Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, reddish gray (CL)

Tests Performed: Unconfined Compression, Moisture/Density

TEST RESULTS:

Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM:D2166): psf

tsf

Moisture/Density Determination of Cohesive Soils (ASTM: D2216)

Dry Density (pcf)

Moisture Content (%)

REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen

REPORT OF: LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS

The above sample was .

9656

4.83

16.0

9/9/2015

120.0

10/12/2016

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)

Unconfined Compression - Stress-Strain Curve



Sample Number: ST-9

Date of Sample:


Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, reddish brown (CL)


TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



2434

1.22

27.0

9/9/2015

98.0

10/12/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)



CLIENT: Brown County DATE:

Sample Number: ST-1

Date of Sample:


Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, brown (CL)


TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



1382

0.69

22.0

9/9/2015

105.2

8/23/2016

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)




Sample Number: ST-2

Date of Sample:


Soil Description: FAT CLAY, reddish brown (CH)


TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



2513

1.26

40.1

9/9/2015

81.0

8/23/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)




Sample Number: ST-12

Date of Sample:




TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



2851

1.43

23.4

9/2/2015-9/3/2015

106.1

8/23/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)





Date of Sample:


Soil Description: LEAN CLAY, dark grayish brown (CL)


TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



2933

1.47

32.4

9/2/2015-9/3/2015

91.4

8/23/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)





Date of Sample:




TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



2934

1.47

47.2

9/2/2015-9/3/2015

75.3

8/23/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)




Sample Number: ST-1

Date of Sample:




TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



3102

1.55

22.4

9/2/2015

108.2

8/23/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)




Sample Number: ST-2

Date of Sample:




TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



3544

1.77

22.0

9/2/2015

106.9

8/23/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)




Sample Number: ST-1

Date of Sample:

Sample Location: Boring B-14



TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



4701

2.35

22.2

9/3/2015

108.0

10/12/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)




Sample Number: ST-2

Date of Sample:

Sample Location: Boring B-14



TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



2724

1.36

24.2

9/3/2015

103.9

10/12/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)




Sample Number: ST-9

Date of Sample:




TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



3625

1.81

29.7

9/3-9/4/2015

94.4

10/12/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)





Date of Sample:




TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



3020

1.51

40.7

9/3-9/4/2015

81.4

10/12/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)




Sample Number: ST-8

Date of Sample:




TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



3107

1.55

22.7

9/4/2015

106.8

10/12/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)





Date of Sample:




TEST RESULTS:


tsf


Dry Density (pcf)


REMARKS:

Reviewed By:

Paul R. Eggen



2176

1.09

37.7

9/4/2015

86.2

10/12/2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Str

ess

(psf

)

Axial Strain (%)


One Systems Drive

Appleton, WI 54914

Ph. 920/735-6900

Form 112B

Effective Date: 6/29/2015

QM Section: G

Project: Brown Cty CTH ZZ- Wrightstown OMNNI Prj. No.: E2166A15

Report To: Brown County Highway Department

Tested By: P. Coyne Date:

Reviewed By: P. Eggen Date:

Boring No.: B1-S

Location: Sta. , Edge of river

Required Bearing Capacity (psf): Starting Depth: 8.5 inches 8 kg/17.6 lb mass X 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass

No. of Blows

Reading

(mm)

Total

Penetration

(mm)

Total

Depth

(in)

Blows

Per

Inch

Penetration

Per Set

(mm)

Penetration

Per Blow

(mm)

Hammer

Factor

DCP

Index

CBR %

(CL)

CBR

%

(CH)

CBR %

(Other)

Bearing

(psf) (CL)

Bearing

(psf)

(CH)

Bearing

(psf)

(Other)

Soil

Type

N Value

(CH) Consistency

- 215.9 0

2 368.3 152.4 14.6 0.3 152.4 76.2 2 152.4 0 2 1 200 900 600 CH 3.6 soft

3 457.2 241.3 18.2 0.8 88.9 29.6 2 59.3 1 6 3 500 1800 1100 CH 7.1 firm

5 539.75 323.85 21.5 1.5 82.55 16.5 2 33.0 3 11 6 1200 2600 1800 CH 10.3 stiff

5 600.96 385.064 23.9 2.0 61.214 12.2 2 24.5 6 14 8 1700 3200 2200 CH 12.6 stiff

10 685.8 469.9 27.3 0.4 84.836 8.5 2 17.0 12 21 12 2800 4100 2900 CH 16.2 very stiff

10 749.3 533.4 29.8 3.9 63.5 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff

10 795.78 579.882 31.7 5.4 46.482 4.6 2 9.3 40 37 24 6300 6100 4500 CH 24.1 very stiff

15 857.25 641.35 34.2 6.1 61.468 4.1 2 8.2 51 42 28 7500 6600 5000 CH 26.1 very stiff

15 914.4 698.5 36.4 0.4 57.15 3.8 2 7.6 59 46 30 8200 6900 5200 CH 27.2 very stiff

20 977.9 762 39.0 7.9 63.5 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 hard

10 1028.7 812.8 41.0 4.9 50.8 5.1 2 10.2 33 34 22 5600 5700 4200 CH 22.5 very stiff

20 1079.5 863.6 43.0 9.8 50.8 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 hard

25 1124 908.05 44.8 0.6 44.45 1.8 2 3.6 273 98 71 22700 11500 9200 CH 45.4 hard

30 1181.1 965.2 47.1 13.1 57.15 1.9 2 3.8 238 91 65 20700 11000 8800 CH 43.4 hard

41 1219.2 1003.3 48.6 26.9 38.1 0.9 2 1.9 1000 187 146 53600 17600 14900 CH 69.5 hard

*Hammer Factor of 1 if using 8 kg/17.6 lb mass

Remarks *Hammer Factor of 2 if using 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass

Est Bearing (psf)

CL soils CBR<10: CBR = 1/(0.017018*DCP Index)2

N Value Consistency Lean Clay

CH soils: CBR = 1/(0.002871*DCP Index) <2 Very Soft <510

All Other: CBR = 292/DCP Index1.12

2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010

4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030

Bearing Capacity (psf)= 144*3.794*CBR0.664

8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800

Uc lean clays (tsf)= (Bearing Capacity/.95)/2000 15 - 30 Very Stiff 3800 - 7600

N Value (lean clays)= Uc (tsf)*7.5 (Terzaghi & Peck) >30 Hard >7600

DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER - FIELD DATA SHEETASTM: D6951

10/27/2015

10/29/2015

One Systems Drive

Appleton, WI 54914

Ph. 920/735-6900

Form 112B


QM Section: G





Boring No.: B2-S

Location:


No. of Blows

Reading

(mm)

Total

Penetration

(mm)

Total

Depth

(in)

Blows

Per

Inch

Penetration

Per Set

(mm)

Penetration

Per Blow

(mm)

Hammer

Factor

DCP

Index

CBR

%

(CL)

CBR

%

(CH)

CBR %

(Other)

Bearing

(psf)

(CL)

Bearing

(psf)

(CH)

Bearing

(psf)

(Other)

Soil

Type

N Value

(CH) Consistency

- 234.95 0

5 266.7 31.75 10.5 3.9 31.75 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff

12 292.1 57.15 11.5 11.8 25.4 2.1 2 4.2 193 82 58 18000 10200 8100 CH 40.3 hard

5 355.6 120.65 14.1 2.0 63.5 12.7 2 25.4 5 14 8 1700 3100 2100 CH 12.2 stiff

3 406.4 171.45 16.1 1.5 50.8 16.9 2 33.9 3 10 6 1100 2600 1700 CH 10.3 stiff

5 514.35 279.4 20.4 0.3 107.95 21.6 2 43.2 2 8 4 800 2200 1400 CH 8.7 stiff

6 590.55 355.6 23.5 2.0 76.2 12.7 2 25.4 5 14 8 1700 3100 2100 CH 12.2 stiff

9 692.15 457.2 27.5 2.2 101.6 11.3 2 22.6 7 15 9 1900 3400 2300 CH 13.4 stiff

5 723.9 488.95 28.8 3.9 31.75 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff

10 781.05 546.1 31.1 0.3 57.15 5.7 2 11.4 26 30 19 4800 5300 3900 CH 20.9 very stiff

10 812.8 577.85 32.4 7.9 31.75 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 hard

20 876.3 641.35 34.9 7.9 63.5 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 hard

20 933.45 698.5 37.2 8.7 57.15 2.9 2 5.7 106 61 41 12100 8400 6500 CH 33.2 hard

30 977.9 742.95 39.0 0.8 44.45 1.5 2 3.0 393 118 86 28900 12900 10600 CH 50.9 hard

30 1054.1 819.15 42.0 9.8 76.2 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 hard

30 1111.3 876.3 44.3 13.1 57.15 1.9 2 3.8 238 91 65 20700 11000 8800 CH 43.4 hard

20 1155.7 920.75 46.1 0.5 44.45 2.2 2 4.4 175 78 55 16800 9900 7800 CH 39.1 hard

32 1219.2 984.25 48.6 12.6 63.5 2.0 2 4.0 219 88 62 19600 10700 8500 CH 42.2 hard



Est Bearing (psf)





2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010

4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030


8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800




10/27/2015

10/29/2015

One Systems Drive

Appleton, WI 54914

Ph. 920/735-6900

Form 112B


QM Section: G





Boring No.: B3-S

Location:


No. of Blows

Reading

(mm)

Total

Penetration

(mm)

Total

Depth

(in)

Blows

Per

Inch

Penetration

Per Set

(mm)

Penetration

Per Blow

(mm)

Hammer

Factor

DCP

Index

CBR

%

(CL)

CBR

%

(CH)

CBR %

(Other)

Bearing

(psf)

(CL)

Bearing

(psf)

(CH)

Bearing

(psf)

(Other)

Soil

Type

N Value

(CH) Consistency

- 317.5 0

2 457.2 139.7 18.1 0.4 139.7 69.9 2 139.7 0 2 1 200 1000 600 CH 3.9 soft

3 546.1 228.6 21.6 0.8 88.9 29.6 2 59.3 1 6 3 500 1800 1100 CH 7.1 firm

5 622.3 304.8 24.7 1.6 76.2 15.2 2 30.5 4 11 6 1300 2800 1900 CH 11.1 stiff

5 685.8 368.3 27.2 2.0 63.5 12.7 2 25.4 5 14 8 1700 3100 2100 CH 12.2 stiff

5 736.6 419.1 29.3 0.2 50.8 10.2 2 20.3 8 17 10 2200 3600 2500 CH 14.2 stiff

10 800.1 482.6 31.8 3.9 63.5 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff

5 850.9 533.4 33.8 2.5 50.8 10.2 2 20.3 8 17 10 2200 3600 2500 CH 14.2 stiff

10 914.4 596.9 36.4 3.9 63.5 6.4 2 12.7 21 27 17 4200 4900 3600 CH 19.3 very stiff

10 958.85 641.35 38.2 0.3 44.45 4.4 2 8.9 44 39 25 6700 6200 4700 CH 24.5 very stiff

10 996.95 679.45 39.7 6.6 38.1 3.8 2 7.6 59 46 30 8200 6900 5200 CH 27.2 very stiff

20 1079.5 762 43.0 6.1 82.55 4.1 2 8.3 51 42 27 7400 6600 4900 CH 26.1 very stiff

20 1143 825.5 45.5 7.9 63.5 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 hard

20 1212.9 895.35 48.3 0.4 69.85 3.5 2 7.0 71 50 33 9200 7300 5600 CH 28.8 hard

5 1219.2 901.7 48.6 19.7 6.35 1.3 2 2.5 535 137 103 35400 14300 11800 CH 56.4 hard



Est Bearing (psf)





2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010

4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030


8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800




10/27/2015

10/29/2015

One Systems Drive

Appleton, WI 54914

Ph. 920/735-6900

Form 112B


QM Section: G





Boring No.: B4-S

Location:

Required Bearing Capacity (psf): Starting Depth: 9 inches 8 kg/17.6 lb mass X 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass

No. of Blows

Reading

(mm)

Total

Penetration

(mm)

Total

Depth

(in)

Blows

Per

Inch

Penetration

Per Set

(mm)

Penetration

Per Blow

(mm)

Hammer

Factor

DCP

Index

CBR

%

(CL)

CBR

%

(CH)

CBR %

(Other)

Bearing

(psf)

(CL)

Bearing

(psf)

(CH)

Bearing

(psf)

(Other)

Soil

Type

N Value

(CH) Consistency

- 228.6 0

5 406.4 177.8 16.1 0.7 177.8 35.6 2 71.1 1 5 2 400 1600 1000 CH 6.3 frim

5 488.95 260.35 19.4 1.5 82.55 16.5 2 33.0 3 11 6 1200 2600 1800 CH 10.3 stiff

5 539.75 311.15 21.4 2.5 50.8 10.2 2 20.3 8 17 10 2200 3600 2500 CH 14.2 stiff

10 622.3 393.7 24.7 3.0 82.55 8.3 2 16.5 13 21 13 2900 4100 2900 CH 16.2 very stiff

10 692.15 463.55 27.5 0.4 69.85 7.0 2 14.0 18 25 15 3700 4600 3300 CH 18.2 very stiff

10 736.6 508 29.3 5.6 44.45 4.4 2 8.9 44 39 25 6700 6200 4700 CH 24.5 very stiff

10 781.05 552.45 31.1 5.6 44.45 4.4 2 8.9 44 39 25 6700 6200 4700 CH 24.5 very stiff

20 825.5 596.9 32.9 11.2 44.45 2.2 2 4.4 175 78 55 16800 9900 7800 CH 39.1 hard

20 850.9 622.3 33.9 0.6 25.4 1.3 2 2.5 535 137 103 35400 14300 11800 CH 56.4 hard

15 895.35 666.75 35.7 8.4 44.45 3.0 2 5.9 98 59 40 11500 8200 6300 CH 32.4 hard

20 952.5 723.9 38.0 8.7 57.15 2.9 2 5.7 106 61 41 12100 8400 6500 CH 33.2 hard

30 1028.7 800.1 41.0 9.8 76.2 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 hard

30 1104.9 876.3 44.1 0.7 76.2 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 hard

30 1168.4 939.8 46.6 11.8 63.5 2.1 2 4.2 193 82 58 18000 10200 8100 CH 40.3 hard

21 1219.2 990.6 48.6 0.5 50.8 2.4 2 4.8 147 72 50 15000 9300 7300 CH 36.7 hard



Est Bearing (psf)





2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010

4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030


8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800




10/27/2015

10/29/2015

One Systems Drive

Appleton, WI 54914

Ph. 920/735-6900

Form 112B


QM Section: G





Boring No.: B5-S

Location:

Required Bearing Capacity (psf): Starting Depth: 9 inches 8 kg/17.6 lb mass X 4.6 kg/10.1 lb mass

No. of Blows

Reading

(mm)

Total

Penetration

(mm)

Total

Depth

(in)

Blows

Per

Inch

Penetration

Per Set

(mm)

Penetration

Per Blow

(mm)

Hammer

Factor

DCP

Index

CBR

%

(CL)

CBR

%

(CH)

CBR %

(Other)

Bearing

(psf)

(CL)

Bearing

(psf)

(CH)

Bearing

(psf)

(Other)

Soil

Type

N Value

(CH) Consistency

- 25.4 0

5 88.9 63.5 11.5 2.0 63.5 12.7 2 25.4 5 14 8 1700 3100 2100 CH 12.2 Stiff

5 158.75 133.35 14.3 1.8 69.85 14.0 2 27.9 4 12 7 1500 2900 2000 CH 11.4 Stiff

5 209.55 184.15 16.4 2.5 50.8 10.2 2 20.3 8 17 10 2200 3600 2500 CH 14.2 Stiff

5 256.54 231.14 18.2 2.7 46.99 9.4 2 18.8 10 19 11 2500 3800 2700 CH 15.0 Stiff

5 311.15 285.75 20.4 0.3 54.61 10.9 2 21.8 7 16 9 2000 3400 2400 CH 13.4 Stiff

5 330.2 304.8 21.2 6.6 19.05 3.8 2 7.6 59 46 30 8200 6900 5200 CH 27.2 very stiff

5 342.9 317.5 21.7 9.8 12.7 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 Hard

10 368.3 342.9 22.7 9.8 25.4 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 Hard

10 393.7 368.3 23.7 0.5 25.4 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 Hard

10 425.45 400.05 25.0 7.9 31.75 3.2 2 6.4 86 55 37 10500 7800 6000 CH 30.8 Hard

20 495.3 469.9 27.8 7.2 69.85 3.5 2 7.0 71 50 33 9200 7300 5600 CH 28.8 very stiff

30 571.5 546.1 30.8 9.8 76.2 2.5 2 5.1 134 69 47 14100 9000 7100 CH 35.5 Hard

30 688.34 662.94 35.5 0.9 116.84 3.9 2 7.8 57 45 29 8000 6800 5100 CH 26.8 very stiff

25 787.4 762 39.5 6.3 99.06 4.0 2 7.9 55 44 29 7800 6700 5100 CH 26.4 very stiff

30 895.35 869.95 43.8 0.7 107.95 3.6 2 7.2 67 48 32 8900 7200 5500 CH 28.4 very stiff

30 946.15 920.75 45.8 0.7 50.8 1.7 2 3.4 301 103 74 24200 11800 9600 CH 46.6 Hard

45 1041.4 1016 49.6 11.8 95.25 2.1 2 4.2 193 82 58 18000 10200 8100 CH 40.3 Hard

40 1092.2 1066.8 51.7 19.7 50.8 1.3 2 2.5 535 137 103 35400 14300 11800 CH 56.4 Hard

30 1136.7 1111.3 53.5 16.9 44.5 1.5 2 3.0 392 117 86 28800 12900 10600 CH 50.9 Hard



Est Bearing (psf)





2 - 4 Soft 510 - 1010

4 - 8 Firm 1010 - 2030


8 - 15 Stiff 2030 - 3800




10/27/2015

10/29/2015

Appendix D

Shear Key &

Roadway Cross Section

Appendix E

Field Exploration Procedures

FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Soil sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM:D1586. Using this procedure, a 2” O.D.

split barrel sampler is driven into the soil by a 140 pound weight falling 30”. After an initial set

of 6”, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12” is known as the

penetration resistance or N value. The N value is an index of the relative density of cohesionless

soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. Thin-wall tube samples were obtained according to

ASTM:D1587 where indicated by appropriate symbol on the boring logs. Rock core samples, if

taken, were obtained by rotary drilling in accordance with ASTM:D2113. Power auger borings,

if performed, were done in general accordance with ASTM:D1452.

The samples were visually and manually classified by the crew chief in accordance with

ASTM:D2488. Representative portions of the samples were then returned to the laboratory for

further examination and for verification of the field classifications. Logs of the borings indicating

the depth and identification of the various strata, the N value, the laboratory test data, water level

information and pertinent information regarding the method of maintaining and advancing the

drill holes are attached. Charts illustrating the soils classification procedure, the descriptive

terminology and symbols used on the boring logs are also attached.

Appendix F

Classification of Soils

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT - browncountywi.gov

Documents

Transcript of PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT - browncountywi.gov