GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Dougherty Mills Bridge over Slippery Rock Creek Slippery Rock Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania

Prepared for: Shelley Stoffels Associate Professor of Civil Engineering 208 Sackett Building University Park, PA 16802

Prepared by: Sackett Engineering Inc. 439 West Beaver State College, PA 16801

March 24, 2014

INDEX Page INTRODUCTION..1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION......1 GENERAL.... 2 GEOLOGIC INFORMATION..2 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS...4 CHEMICAL TESTING..5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.. 6 EXCAVATIONS....6 LIMITATIONS & DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS......6 APPENDIX

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Dougherty Mills Bridge over Slippery Rock Creek Slippery Rock Twp, Butler County, Pennsylvania March 24, 2014

INTRODUCTION
This report contains the subsurface exploration and geotechnical analysis for the proposed construction for Dougherty Mills Bridge over Slippery Rock Creek, located at Slippery Rock Township in Butler County Pennsylvania. PennDOT is replacing the existing structure. Sackett Engineering is tasked, by PennDOT, with analyzing the geotechnical data provided by R.Peel/Kimball and to provide recommendations for the foundation of the proposed bridge. Sackett Engineering services also entail future consulting on the project, however services do not cover environmental aspects of design.

SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This project involves the replacement of the Dougherty Mills Bridge located approximately 2 miles south of Slippery Rock University. The proposed replacement of the existing concrete arch bridge is located on PA 173 (Centreville Pike) over the Slippery Rock Creek in Slippery Rock Township, Butler County, PA. The location of the bridge is indicated in figure 1 in appendix A. The existing bridge is located in Rock Falls Park and is considered a historic location. It was built in 1929 as a two-lane 140-foot roadway bridge with a pedestrian walkway and sees an average daily traffic of approximately 6370 vehicles. To the north of the bridge and surrounding the park is Stoughton Beach Rd. This road intersects PA 173 approximately 30 feet from the north end of the bridge. Both ends of the bridge are heavily forested. Topographic information was taken from USGS topographic mapping from the Slippery Rock US Topo map dated 2013. At both ends of the bridge, the road slopes inward where they level out at the location of the bridge. The slope on the road north of the bridge is more gradual while the south road is steeper. The Slippery Rock US Topo

map can be seen in figure 2 in appendix A.

The bridge is known to be a historic site; some features exist from previous structures both above and below ground. There is a historic cut-stone arch near the south section of the bridge. The stone-cut arch was from a previous bridge that crossed at a similar location. This structure has historical importance, and plans should be made to preserve this structure.

GENERAL
The recommendations provided are based on the data available from the boring logs in Appendix B. The boring logs only depict the subsurface profiles of the locations drilled. It is important to note variations in subsurface profiles between boreholes are probable and should be expected. Being that variations in subsurface conditions can potentially undermine the integrity of the structure and/or the foundation, it is imperative to consult the Geotechnical Engineer if any variations are encountered. If the designs for the structure are submitted to revisions, the Geotechnical Engineer should be informed, as changes to foundation recommendations may be required as well. Generally accepted geotechnical principles and practices were used to evaluate the data provided by R.Peel/Kimball. Assumptions and conclusions made by others based upon the data herein are not the responsibility of Sackett Engineering. A proposed plan for boring logs was developed using FHWA regulations. This plan calls for 4 borings to be made at both the north and south ends of the bridge, two being positioned at the beginning of the approach and two at the end of the abutment for each side. On the north end the estimated depth to bedrock is 25 feet. Because bedrock is expected near the surface, borings should reach a maximum depth of 32 feet if bedrock is not encountered or 10 feet into bedrock once encountered. On the south end the estimated depth to bedrock is approximately 20 feet. Because bedrock is expected near the surface, borings should reach a maximum depth of 32 feet if bedrock is not encountered or 10 feet into bedrock once encountered. An additional boring should be taken on each end to determine if there are any inconsistencies in soil types. If any differences are encountered, additional borings are recommended.

From the observed geological data, there are no obstructions affecting the site that need further consideration.

GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
In May of 2009 an on site field investigation was performed in which 14 boring holes were drilled at varying locations as shown in figure 1 in Appendix B. These drillings were performed by R.Peel/Kimball using hollow stem augers/NQ2 wire line coring. The results of these test borings are numbered DOU-001- DOU-005 and DOU901- DOU-908 and DOU-905a. Of these borings, three were taken at various locations around the bridge. During the boring, the hole was abandoned because of a crooked hole. The debris encountered should not pose any major threat to future foundations. Most pertinent information is at location DOU-005, in which a small patch of coal was found. However, this layer seems to be localized and shallow which does not cause a threat to the integrity of this bridge. In addition, the geologic strata at the site contains no sinkholes, and no visible sources that may be a hazard in the future. On the north side of the bridge, borehole DOU-905, debris was found 20.5ft under the ground surface. Among the debris found was concrete fragments and wood. The boring was soon abandoned due to the debris. These fragments could be the footing to a prior bridge. Additional bedrock information was gathered using a geologic map of the Mercer quadrangle published by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey in 1962, Figure 3 Appendix A. According to the map, this region has underlying Hempfield shale which is described as a sandy to silty shale and fine-grained sandstone. After comparing the geologic map to our own site findings, it was found to be concurrent with each other. The underlying bedrock at our site is mostly fine-grained Sandstone with moderately to slightly weathered rock. Over the extent of the bridge, the rock quality designation of the bedrock ranges from 34%-85%. Most have values in the upper range which is essential for resisting seismic activity and rock flex. Referencing Engineering Rock Mass Classification by Z. T. Bieniawski. in Table 1 below.

Table 1 - Rock Mass Classification

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

The samples obtained from drilling were brought back to the laboratory for

testing. All soil samples were categorized and tested using AASHTO classifications. Sieve analyses were determined for five samples of data. Atterberg Limit tests were conducted in order to determine the plasticity index, liquid limit, and plastic limit. The uniformity coefficient (Cu) and coefficient of curvature (Cc) were determined from the particle size distribution data. General soil properties such as water content, dry density, saturation, void ratio, and specific gravity were determined for the soil samples. Results of the soil testing are summarized below. The full lab test results are in Appendix C.

Table 2 - Soil Testing Summary

Source

Sample No.

Depth (ft)

USCS

AASHTO

LL (%)

PI(%)

PL(%)

Wn (%)

DOU001 DOU002 DOU003 DOU003 DOU905

ST

6-8

CH

A-7-6

60

37

23

30.8

S10-S13 S3-S6 S13-15 S8-S11

16.5-22.5 CL 6-12 21-25.5 SM GW-GM

A-7-6 A-2-4 A-1-a A-6

42 NV NV 30

19 NP NP 12

23 NP NP 18

31.1 33.5 11.2 20.4

13.5-19.5 CL

A consolidated undrained tri-axial shear test was also used to determine soil properties. Three test samples were taken from one of the borings to determine total and effective stress, as well as the pore pressures. The initial results from the in situ soil are listed in the table but both initial and at test results are listed later in Appendix C. Some of the results for the tri-axial shear test are listed in the following table.

Table 3 - Triaxial Shear Test Results

Sample No. Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio Eff. Cell Pressure (tsf) Failure Stress (tsf) Total Pore Pressure (tsf) 91.8 .9039 0.72 0.58 5.47

1 91.8 .9036 1.44 .070 6.22

2 91.7 .9055 2.88 0.62 7.49

Strain (%) 1 Failure (tsf) 3 Failure (tsf)

13.5 0.87 0.29

11.4 0.95 0.26

15.9 1.05 0.43

Chemical Testing
Chemical Testing was performed at multiple boring locations to determine the corrosive properties of the soil. The results of the tested soil are represented in the following table. The peak resistivity for samples DOU-903 and DOU-907 were calculated to be 1,083(ohm*cm) and 1,575(ohm*cm) respectively. These values occurred at 20% moisture content, and are considered to be poor against corrosion resistance.
Table 4 Chemical Soil Analysis

Sample Number S9-S11 S4-S7

Boring Number DOU-903 DOU-907

Depth (ft) 15.0-19.0 6.0-12.0

pH Determination 6.1 3.2

Chloride Determination (ppm) 406 466

Sulfate Determination (ppm) 200 300

Min. Resistivity (ohm*cm) 1,083 1,575

A summary of the general guidelines given by USCS for the soil samples is shown in Table 5. The soils used for design are clays, silty sand, and gravel with well graded silt. The rocks encountered in the bores are siltstone, sandstone

Table 5 Required Geotechnical Engineering Analysis

Sample Number Boring Number USCS Soil Type Slope Stability Analysis Settlement Analysis Bearing Capacity Analysis Required, Deep foundation generally required unless soil has been preloaded Settlement Analysis Lateral Earth Pressure Stability Analysis

ST

DOU-001

CH

Clay

Required

Required

Required, Consolidation test data needed to estimate setlement amount and time

Not recommended for use directly behind or in retaining walls

All walls should be designed to provide minimum F.S. = 2 against overturning & F.S. = 1.5 against sliding along base. External slope stability considerations same as previously given for cut slopes &

embankments S10S13 S8-S11 DOU-002 DOU-905 CL Clay Required Required These soils are not recommended for use directly behind or in retaining or reinforced soil walls. All walls should be designed to provide minimum F.S. = 2 against overturning & F.S. = 1.5 against sliding along base. External slope stability considerations same as previously given for cut slopes & embankments.

S3-S6

DOU-003

SM

Sand, Silty

Generally not required if cut or fill slope is 1.5H to 1V or flatter, and underdrains are used to draw down the water table in a cut slope. Erosion of slopes may be a problem.

Generally not required

Required for spread footings, pile or drilled shaft foundations. Spread footings generally adequate except possibly for SC soils

Generally not needed Empirical correlations with SPT values usually used to estimate settlement

generally suitable if have less than 15% fines. Lateral earth pressure analysis required using soil angle of internal friction.

All walls should be designed to provide minimum F.S. = 2 against overturning & F.S. = 1.5 against sliding along base. External slope stability considerations same as previously given for cut slopes & embankments. All walls should be designed to provide minimum F.S. = 2 against overturning & F.S. = 1.5 against sliding along base. External slope stability considerations same as previously given for cut slopes & embankments.

S13S15

DOU-003

GW-GM

Gravel, well graded, silty

Generally not required if cut or fill slope is 1.5H to 1V or flatter, and underdrains are used to draw down the water table in a cut slope.

Generally not required

Required for spread footings, pile or drilled shaft foundations.

Generally not needed Empirical correlations with SPT values usually used to estimate settlement

GW, soils generally suitable for backfill behind or in retaining or reinforced soil walls. GM, soils generally suitable if have less than 15% fines. Lateral earth pressure analysis required using soil angle of internal friction.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface profiles (Figure 1 and 2 in Appendix B) were created from the boring log data for six stations parallel to the roadway, and four perpendicular to the roadway. These figures are an interpretation of the boring logs, and indicate a shallow depth of bedrock between 10-20 feet.

EXCAVATIONS
The excavations are to be performed by the contractor. The contractor is required to follow the current standards set down by the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administrations in order to ensure the safety of

the project site for employees. The contractor is responsible to follow, The Solid Waste Management Act (35 P.S. 6018.101 et seq.), and the Department of Environmental Protection Municipal Waste Regulations (25 Pa. Code Chapters 271, 273, 279, 281, 283, and 285), for proper disposal procedures. The Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Regulations, 25 Pa. Code Section 271.101(b)(5), state that the Department will prepare a manual for the management of waste from land clearing, grubbing, and excavation, including trees, brush, stumps and vegetative material which identifies best management practices and may approve additional best management practices on a case-by-case basis.

LIMITATIONS & DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

All engineering recommendations provided in this report are based on the information obtained from the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. Due to the shallow depth of bedrock, only shallow foundations will be considered for this project. From the laboratory tests of the foundation yielded high RQD values indicating stable soil under the proposed locations for the abutments as seen in Appendix C. The design for both spread footings and drilled shafts will be analyzed for the foundation design. Spread footings are most commonly used when the depth of bedrock is found at shallow depths. Drilled shafts increase the lateral strength for bridge foundations and help to decrease the vibration that is created in the foundation. For the design of spread footings at the bridge abutments, the following design considerations are recommended: Backfill Layer Clay Layer with a unit weight of 130 lb/ft^3 Friction angle taken as 33 degrees Abutment 1: 16.6 foot thick layer Abutment 2: 14.7 foot thick layer Both Foundations lay on top of the Sandstone bedrock Foundation Base Width = 10 Feet Base Length = 45 Feet

 Concrete thickness = 2 Feet Use Concrete with a unit weight of 150 lb/ft^3 All information provided was checked against bearing capacity, sliding and tipping resistance. Forces Lateral Water pressure from the water table present on both sides of abutment which counteract each other's forces Compressive Strength Co taken as 1,500 ksf For the design for drilled shafts at Abutment 1, the following are design considerations that should be used in the analysis: The subsurface for design for the Abutment 1 should be based off of Boring Log DOU-903. This site should be used as the representative location for calculations because it has the shallowest depth to bedrock. The soil found during the site exploration was a layer of sand gravelly with trace clay, and sandy clayey. The Unified Soil Classification System classifies these as SP and SC respectively. The average unit weights according to USCS are 124.15 lb/ft3 and 117.78 lb/ft3 respectively. The starting elevation for design should be based off the elevation of 1148.5 ft. The water table is found at 4.4ft under the starting elevation of 1148.5 ft. The soil profile is two sand layers, so the design cohesion less soils is to be followed. N60 values should be based off of the N values obtained in the boring log. An average value for each layer shall be taken, and this should be corrected using appropriate constants. The bedrock encountered for this location is sandstone. The reduction factor to account for rock joints, e, should be according to DM-4 (10.4.6.5-2). The RQD for this rock sample is 64%. A reference stress of 2.12 k/ft2 is should be used in calculations for the rock socketed drilled shafts. An average compressive strength of 648 k/ft 2 should be used for concrete in the design. The uniaxial compressive strength of the sandstone should be 1500 k/ft2. This is a conservative value based on the range of 1400-3600 k/ft2 according to DM-4 Table 10.6.3.2.2-2. Based on the rock qualities, an m value of 1.231

and an s value of .00293 shall be used, according to AASHTO Table 10.4.6.4-4. Resistance factors for the tip resistance in rock and side resistance should be .55 and .50 respectively. The side resistance in sand shall be .65. The resistance factors used are from DM-4 Table 10.5.5.2.4-1. For the design for drilled shafts at Abutment 2, the following are design considerations that should be used in the analysis: The subsurface for design for the Abutment 2 should be based off of Boring Log DOU-906. This site should be used as the representative location for calculations because it represents an average depth to bedrock. The soil found during the site exploration was a layer of sandy clay with some gravel, and silty clay. The Unified Soil Classification System classifies these as CL and CH respectively. The average unit weights according to USCS are 121 lb/ft3 and 127lb/ft3 respectively. The starting elevation for design should be based off the elevation of 1149 ft. The water table is found at 10ft under the starting elevation of 1149 ft. The soil profile is two clay layers, so the design for cohesive soils is to be followed. N60 values should be based off of the N values obtained in the boring log. An average value for each layer shall be taken, and this should be corrected using appropriate constants. The bedrock encountered for this location is a small layer of siltstone, with underlying sandstone. The reduction factors to account for rock joints, e, should be according to DM-4 (10.4.6.5-2). The RQD values for the siltstone and sandstone are 0% and 62%. A reference stress of 2.12 k/ft2 is should be used in calculations for the rock socketed drilled shafts. An average compressive strength of 648 k/ft2 should be used for concrete in the design. The uniaxial compressive strength of the sandstone should be 1500 k/ft2. This is a conservative value based on the range of 1400-3600 k/ft2 according to DM-4 Table 10.6.3.2.2-2. Based on the rock qualities, an m value of 1.231 and an s value of .00293 shall be used, according to AASHTO Table 10.4.6.4-4. The resistance factors used for the side resistance in the siltstone are 0.5. The resistance factors for the tip and side in the sandstone should be .55 and .50 respectively. The resistance

factors used are from DM-4 Table 10.5.5.2.4-1. Due to the shallow depth of bedrock underlying the project site, any type of deep foundation design will not be considered for this project. Deep foundations are only required when shallow soils are not strong enough to maintain the load of the structure. Since our bedrock is rather shallow, there is no need for the load to be transferred to deeper soils. In addition, such method is used for hard driving conditions such as cobbles and boulders, which is not present in this site. Sackett Engineering has prepared this geotechnical report and all its contents. All of the content in the report express Sackett Engineerings interpretations of the subsurface conditions, tests, and results of the conducted analyses. The opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they pertain to the recommendations contained in this report would be appreciated in order to submit further comments or feedback based on this review.

APPENDIX A Figure 1:

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C