GeotechnicalReport MtPisgahSlide

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Mt. Pisgah Road Slide

Paradise, Utah
January 15, 2013

Terracon Project No. 61115029
Prepared for:
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
1047 S 100 W, Suite 180
Logan, UT 84321
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
14850 Pony Express Road, Suite 150 N
Bluffdale, Utah 84065
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 1
2.1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 1
2.2 Site Location and Description ................................................................................ 1
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2
3.1 Typical Profile ........................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 2
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION....................................... 3
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations................................................................................. 3
4.2 Earthwork .............................................................................................................. 3
4.2.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 3
4.2.2 Excavation ................................................................................................. 4
4.2.3 Material Requirements............................................................................... 4
4.2.4 Compaction and Placement Requirements ............................................... 4
4.2.5 Grading and Drainage ............................................................................... 5
4.2.6 Construction Considerations...................................................................... 5
4.3 Seismic Considerations ......................................................................................... 5
4.4 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................ 6
4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures ......................................................................................... 7
4.6 Soil Nail Wall Design Recommendations .............................................................. 7
4.7 Soldier Pile Retaining System ............................................................................... 8
4.8 Soil Corrosion ........................................................................................................ 9
5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................... 9
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION
Exhibit A-1 Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan
Exhibit A-3 to A-6 Boring Logs
Exhibit A-7 Field Exploration Description
APPENDIX B SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing
Exhibit B-2 Grain Size Distribution
Exhibit B-3 UU Triaxial Test Result
Exhibit B-4 to B-5 Direct Shear Test Results
Exhibit B-6 Rock Unconfined Strength Test Results
Exhibits B-7 to B-9 Analytical Results
APPENDIX C GLOBAL STABILITY
APPENDIX D SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit D-1 General Notes
Exhibit D-2 Unified Soil Classification System
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
MT. PISGAH ROAD SLIDE
PARADISE, UTAH
January 15, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the Mt. Pisgah Road slope erosion area
located near the intersection of Mt. Pisgah Road and Paradise Drive in Paradise, Utah. Two (2)
soil borings, designated B-01 and B-02, were performed to depths of approximately 70 feet
below the existing ground surface on both sides of the slope erosion area.
Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site appears to be
suitable for the proposed improvements. The following geotechnical considerations were
identified:
Site Soils: Native soils general consisted of silt underline by layers of silty sand, silty
gravel, silt and sandy silt. Sedimentary bedrock was encountered at approximately 47
feet below ground surface. Groundwater was encountered in the borings at
approximately 40 while drilling.
Slope Stabilization: Scour protection and slope stabilization should be provided to
protect the existing slope from erosion caused by stream flows. We understand that a
combined soil nail and gabion basket reinforced slope is the preferred stabilization
method.
In order to meet acceptable long-term global safety requirements, a combination of soil
nails and gabion baskets is required.
Global Stability: The factor of safety for global stability of the slope with soil nail and
gabion basket reinforcement was determined to be 1.25. This value meets or exceeds
UDOT published global stability requirements for walls and slopes located away from
adjacent impact. Due to the slope being located away from adjacent structures, seismic
loading was not considered.
Construction: Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be
critical in achieving proper placement, embedment and backfill for gabion baskets, and soil
nail construction. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to monitor this
portion of the work.
This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It
should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the
report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained
herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the
report limitations.
Responsive Resourceful Reliable i

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
MT. PISGAH ROAD SLIDE
PARADISE, UTAH
January 15, 2013
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the Mt. Pisgah Road slope erosion area
located near the intersection of Mt. Pisgah Road and Paradise Drive in Paradise, Utah. Two (2)
soil borings, designated B-01 and B-02, were performed to depths of approximately 70 feet
below the existing ground surface on both sides of the erosion area. Logs of the borings along
with a project vicinity map and boring location plan are included in Appendix A of this report.
The purpose of the exploration was to provide information and geotechnical engineering
recommendations relative to:
subsurface soil conditions slope stabilization and erosion control

groundwater conditions methods
global slope stability foundation design and construction
seismic considerations
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description
Item Description
Structures Gabion basket and soil nail reinforced slope.
Anticipated Slope Exposed face height: 31 to 33 feet
Stabilization Structure Embedment: 5 to 6 feet
Configuration1 Slope Lengths: 90 to 110 feet (estimated)
Grading The stabilized slope will be constructed no steeper than 1:1.
1. Based on cross-section provided by client
2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description
This project will be located near the intersection of Mt. Pisgah Road (8700
South) and Paradise Drive (approximately 900 West) in Paradise, UT.
The site consists of a moderate to steep sloping stream channel located
along the south side of Mt. Pisgah Road. The existing slope near the West
Location Paradise Drive intersection has been undermined by the stream below,
resulting in sloughing of the channel side slope. Sloughing of the slope is
advancing toward Mt. Pisgah Road and poses a long-term threat to stability
of the roadway. The slope at this location is estimated to be approximately
35 feet high.
Responsive Resourceful Reliable

Mt. Pisgah Road Slide Paradise, Utah
January 15, 2013 Terracon Project No. 61115029
Item Description
Existing improvements Existing roadway and stream channel slope.
Current ground cover Bare soil and native vegetation consisting of grass and brush.
Moderately to steeply sloping toward the stream channel along the south
Existing topography
side of Mt. Pisgah Road.
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile
Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be
generalized as follows:
Approximate Approximate
Material
Description Depth to Bottom Elevation at Bottom Consistency/Density
Description
of Stratum (feet)1 of Stratum (feet)2
Stratum 1 25 to 30 4736 to 4738 Silt Medium Stiff to Stiff
Silty Sand with
Medium Dense to
Stratum 2 33 to 36 4730 Gravel to Silty
Dense
Gravel with Sand
Stratum 3 38 to 42 4724 to 4726 Silt to Sandy Silt Medium Stiff
Sandy Silt to Silty
Stratum 4 47 4716 Loose to Dense
Sand with Gravel
70 Bedrock: alternating
Varying degrees of
layers of sandstone
Stratum 5 (termination depth 4693 to 4696 weathering and
and
of B-01 and B-02) fracturing
mudstone/claystone
1. From existing roadway surface.
2. Based on topographic information provided by the client.
Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs.
Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in
soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the
borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A.
3.2 Groundwater
The borings were monitored while drilling for the presence and level of groundwater.
Groundwater was encountered within the depths explored at approximately 40 feet. It should be
recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table may occur due to seasonal variations in the
amount of rainfall, runoff, stream flow, upstream and surrounding irrigation practices, future
construction and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Evaluation of
these factors is beyond the scope of this exploration.
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations
Slope stabilization and erosion protection may consist of a combination gabion baskets and soil
nails. Soil nails and gabion baskets should be placed to the lines and grades shown on the
project plans and as generally depicted on Exhibit C-1. Gabion baskets at the toe of the slope
should be embedded to resist scour. The bottom basket should be placed at a maximum
elevation of 4724 feet. The vertical cut portion on the lower portion of the slope should be
retained long-term with a soil nail wall or soldier pile wall. Gabion baskets should extend up the
face of the slope for slope face stabilization.
Access onto the slope for construction will be difficult and may require use of small, light-weight
equipment. The contractor should be made aware of site constraints so that proper equipment
can be determined.
Temporary cut slopes and methods of bracing or maintaining excavation stability is the
responsibility of the contractor and is important for long-term stability of this project. The vertical
cut portion of the slope should be retained long-term using a soil nail wall or soldier pile wall
along with other measures determined by the contractor to provide proper excavation support.
The soil nail wall or soldier pile wall should be considered permanent for the purpose of
maintaining slope stability.
Gabion baskets placed at the bottom of the slope should be embedded for scour protection.
Gabion baskets placed on the slope face should be properly benched into the slope face. A
filter fabric should be placed behind the gabion baskets to provide protection from fines
migration from the native soils into the baskets along the entire length of the wall.
Geotechnical engineering recommendations for slope and bank protection and other earth
connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this
report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in
Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed
project.
4.2 Earthwork
4.2.1 Site Preparation
Prior to placing gabion basket slope protection elements, topsoil and any loose or unstable
material should be removed from the slope face. Spot compaction or tamping may be required
to densify loose areas on the slope face. Individual rows of gabion baskets should be benched
into the slope face.

4.2.2 Excavation
Groundwater seepage should be anticipated for excavations approaching the level of bedrock or
extending below water level in the adjacent stream channel. Pumping from sumps may be
utilized to control water within the excavations. Well points may be required for significant
groundwater flow, or where excavations penetrate groundwater to a significant depth.
4.2.3 Material Requirements
All fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and fragments larger than
four inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials
should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer. Fill
material should meet the following requirements:
Requirements
Fill Type 1
Application Gradation
Percent finer Plasticity
Size by weight
6 inch 100 Liquid Limit 35 max
Embankment Slope backfill No. 200 Sieve 50 max Plasticity Index 10 max
1. All fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen
material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of
each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.
Near-surface onsite materials generally consist of silt, underlain by layers of silty sand and silty
gravel. It has been our experience that when reusing silt soils, moisture conditioning and
compaction to reach required percent compaction can be time consuming and difficult. Also,
silty or fine-grained soils that are compacted may become unstable under repetitive construction
traffic. Granular soil is recommended.
4.2.4 Compaction and Placement Requirements
Limited fill may be required for minor grading and incidental repair to the roadway and shoulder
during or after construction of the wall. Where placed, fill should meet the requirements
presented in the following table.
Item Description
Maximum Fill Lift Thickness 12 inches in loose thickness
95% of the materials maximum dry density (modified
Compaction Requirements 1 Proctor ASTM D1557) below roadway and slope
stabilization elements.
Moisture Content Within 2% of the optimum moisture content
1. We recommend that structural fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during
placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or
compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and
retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

Fill placed in areas of the site where existing slopes are steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical)
should be benched to reduce the potential for slippage between existing slopes and fills.
Benches should be wide enough to accommodate compaction and earth moving equipment,
and to allow placement of horizontal lifts of fill.
4.2.5 Grading and Drainage
Final road surface should be graded to prevent water from infiltrating into the gabion baskets zone.
A surface drainage ditch should be constructed between the roadway and slope face. Collected
water should be directed away from the slope.
4.2.6 Construction Considerations
Soft, pumping, rutting or otherwise unstable subgrade conditions may be encountered during
general construction operations, especially if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive
construction traffic. Special consideration will be required during excavation for embedment of
the gabion baskets at the toe of the slope. Should pumping, rutting or otherwise unstable
conditions be encountered or develop, crushed, angular stone may be required to form a stable
surface for construction.
A filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or similar approved product should be placed between the
gabion baskets and the native soil to prevent the migration of fine-grained soils into the gabion
basket zone. Placement of the fabric should begin at the top of the slope and extend down the
full slope face.
It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide safe working conditions in connection with
underground excavations. Temporary construction excavations should be properly sloped or
shored. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations,
including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.
Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of
earthwork should include observation and testing of structural fill, site grading, subgrade
preparation and proof rolling, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions
exposed during the construction of the project.
4.3 Seismic Considerations

Based on the results of our exploration, the subsurface soil profile is best represented by Site
Class D according to the 2009 AASHTO LRFD Seismic Bridge Design Manual. The National
Seismic Hazard Map database was searched to identify the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for
a 7% probability of exceedence (PE) in 75 years at the project site.

Description Value
1
Site Class D2
Site Latitude N 41.575
Site Longitude W 111.858
So PGA 0.29g
1
Note: In general accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Seismic Bridge Design Manual, Table 3.10.3.1-1. Site Class is based on
the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile.
2
Note: The 2009 AASHTO LRFD Seismic Bridge Design Manual requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of
100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. The
boring extended to a maximum depth of 70 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that similar soil conditions continue
below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration.
4.4 Slope Stability

The computer program SLIDE 5.0 was used to model global stability of the slope. Soil strength
parameters used in our analysis were developed from laboratory testing of collected soil
samples and back-calculated values fitting observed slope failure conditions in the field. The
existing slope configuration was evaluated for stability and the soil parameters adjusted until
modeled failures were representative of observed field conditions and the factor of safety was
near 1.0. The adjusted soil parameters were then used to model the improved slope condition.
Modeled slope improvements included soil nail stabilization and retainage of the lower near
vertical portion of the slope as shown on Exhibit C-1. A soldier pile wall system was not
evaluated as part of this scope of work.
For modeling purposes, soil nails were spaced in a square grid at 5-foot, angled at 5 degrees
from horizontal and were 15 feet long. Final configuration and depth of soil nails for this wall
type would be determined by the contractor. Gabion baskets were included on the slope face
and in front of the vertical cut slope. Gabion baskets at the toe of the slope and in front of the
vertical cut consisted of three columns extending vertically 15 to 18 feet. These baskets were
embedded for scour protection. Gabion baskets on the slope face consisted of 2 to 3 basket
rows offset horizontally one basket as the rows extended up the slope face. Gabion baskets
were placed along the entire face of the slope.
Critical failure surfaces were modeled using Spencers approach for circular and non-circular
failure geometry. The cross section of the slope was developed using plans provided by J-U-B
Engineers. As per Table 5-2 of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Geotechnical
Design Manual (GDM), Pseudo-static Seismic stability was not included in our analysis because
the slope is not adjacent to any other structures.
The critical slope stability profiles is included in Appendix C. Soil strength data used in our
analysis are presented on the individual slope stability profile.

The minimum required long-term factor of safety (FOS) from the UDOT GDM for a slope not
located next to a bridge or other critical structure is 1.2. Based on the cross section provided
and soil parameters developed, results of global slope stability analysis indicate a long term
FOS of 1.2 or greater.
Soil nails should be designed and constructed for a permanent condition and in accordance with
FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7. Gabion baskets should be constructed and
placed in accordance with manufacturer guidelines and specifications.
Rock material placed in gabion baskets should consist of hard, angular to sub-rounded, durable
stone that is of such quality that it will not disintegrate on exposure to water or weathering
during the life of the structure. Gabion stone should be between 4 inches and 8 inches in
nominal diameter. The range in size should allow for a variation of 5 percent oversize and/or 5
percent undersized rock. The size should be such that a minimum of three layers of rock be
achieved when filling the gabion baskets.
4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures

We understand that the bottom 18 feet of the slope will be excavated vertically and stabilized
with soil nails.
Due to the steep nature of the slope (approximately 45 degrees), the earth pressure acting on
the back of the wall could not be calculated with traditional Coulomb or Rankine earth pressure
equations. Therefore, the earth pressure was calculated using the General Limit Equilibrium
method in the SLIDE 5.0 slope stability program. In this method, all resistance is removed from
in front of the wall and the failure surface is forced through the bottom of the wall. A force is
then placed in front of the wall to achieve equilibrium in the system. An equivalent fluid
pressure is then back-calculated from the force.
Based on the GLE analysis, the equivalent fluid density acting on the back of the wall is 167 pcf
and the earth pressure is 167*H psf, with H taken from the top of the vertical cut.
4.6 Soil Nail Wall Design Recommendations

We understand that soil nails will be used to support the vertical cut near the bottom of the slope
behind the gabion baskets. The contractor is responsible for final design and installation of the
soil nails and facing.
Care should be taken during installation of soil nails to not destabilize the native soil slopes.
Soil nails are typically installed into a nearly vertical cut face. This works well if the soil will
stand unsupported for sufficient time to construct the soil nail wall. The borings indicate that the
soil encountered in the area of the proposed wall is generally silt, silty sand, and silty gravel.
Due to the consistency and density of these soils, the soil nails should be installed as the cut is
advanced from the top down. Otherwise, sloughing or failure of the cut may occur. A
reinforced, shotcrete facing should be installed immediately following installation of the soil
nails. Casing may be required to maintain stability of the nail excavations.

The parameters used in the design of a soil nail wall include the moist unit weight, cohesion,
and friction angle. In addition, classification of the soil in contact with the soil nail grout is
important for utilization in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) design tables regarding
ultimate bond strength. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were used to
develop soil parameters for use in estimating ultimate bond strength for the soil nails. We
understand that this information will be used by the contractor to aid in the design of a soil nail
wall system. The following table summarizes laboratory test results and estimated soil
parameters. Bond strength values should be determined by the wall designer based on the soil
parameters encountered at the site and summarized in the following table. We recommend that
the ultimate bond strength not exceed 22psi (150KPa) for rotary drilled borings.
Soil Properties for Soil Nail Design

Effective Unit Friction
Elevation Cohesion, C
Soil Type Weight Of Soil, Angle,
(ft) (psf)
(pcf) (degrees)
4740 to 4730 Silty Sand 115 30 --
4730 to 4720 Silt 115 28 --
Soil nails should be a minimum of 15 feet long to meet global stability requirements.
The soil nail retaining system should be designed to resist a minimum lateral equivalent fluid
pressure of 167pcf.
Quality control should be completed in accordance with UDOT and FHWA requirements. We
recommend that soil nail quality control testing include at least one verification test prior to
installation of production nails and a sufficient number of production proof tests to meet 5% of
the total number of nails installed. Creep tests should be performed with each of the verification
and proof tests. The verification test should be performed on a sacrificial soil nail incrementally
loaded while measuring creep at specified loads. Verification tests should include loading the
soil nail to the ultimate design load. The proof tests should consist of loading the nails to at
least 130% of the design load.
4.7 Soldier Pile Retaining System

As an alternative to soil nails, the slope may be retained using soldier piles and lagging. The
contractor is responsible for the proper design and installation of a soldier pile and lagging
retaining system. The following L-pile soil parameters may be used to aid in design of the wall
system. The wall design should be reviewed by the project engineer prior to installation.

L-Pile Soil Parameters
Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Angle Soil Modulus K

Soil Type E50
(pcf) (psf) (degrees) (pci)
Silt 115 1,900 0 100 0.01
Silty Sand 115 0 30 60 ---
Gravel 125 0 34 125 ---
Rock 135 4,0001 301 2000 0.001
1
Based on RMI of 45, Fair Rock.
The soldier pile retaining system should be designed to resist a minimum lateral equivalent fluid
pressure of 167pcf. A row of anchors may be required to retain the slope and prevent the
soldier piles from rotating.
4.8 Soil Corrosion

The results of analytical tests performed on samples from the site are presented in the following
table.
Laboratory Resistivity
Sample pH
(ohm-cm)
B-01 @ 35 ft 8.66 1,410
B-01 @ 50 ft 9.00 --
B-02 @ 40 ft 9.26 --
Resistivity values less than 2,000 ohm-cm indicate corrosive conditions for buried metal. These
test results are provided to assist in determining the type and degree of corrosion protection that
may be required. We recommend that a certified corrosion engineer determine the need for
corrosion protection and design appropriate protective measures. Complete test results are
included in Appendix B.
5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments
can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations
in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and
testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related
construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in
this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the
site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such
variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we
should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations
can be provided.
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or
prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the
potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the
project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. Site
safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the
event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this
report in writing.

APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBJECT SITE
REFERENCE: MICROSOFT VIRTUAL EARTH

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
Project Mngr: Project No. PROJECT VICINITY MAP

JWG 61115029 FIGURE
Drawn By: Task No.
CRC 01
Checked By: Scale:
Approved By:
JWG
Date:
Not to Scale Paradise, Utah A-1
14850 S. Pony Express Road, Suite 150N J-U-B Engineers
RLC 8/08/2011 Bluffdale, Utah 84065
B-01
B-02
LEGEND:
Approximate Boring Location
REFERENCE: MICROSOFT VIRTUAL EARTH

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
Project Mngr: Project No. BORING LOCATION PLAN

JWG 61115023 FIGURE
Drawn By: Task No.
CRC 01
Checked By: Scale:
JWG Not to Scale Paradise, Utah A-2
Approved By: Date: 14850 S. Pony Express Road, Suite 150 N J-U-B Engineers
RLC 8/05/2011
LOG OF BORING NO. B-01 Page 1 of 2
CLIENT
J-U-B Engineers
SITE Mt. Pisgah Road and Paradise Drive PROJECT
Paradise, UT Mt. Pisgah Road Slide
Boring Location: Western side of slide SAMPLES TESTS
USCS Soil Symbol
RECOVERY, in.
PENETRATION
GRAPHIC LOG
NO. 200 SIEVE

WEIGHT, PCF
RESISTANCE
Elevation: 4766 ft
CONTENT, %
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY
% PASSING
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
DRY UNIT
NUMBER
WATER
INDEX
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
OTHER
SILT:
1
soft to stiff, light brown to grayish brown
2
3
4
5
1 SS 18 15
6
7
8
9
10
2 SS 18 5 34 41 13
11
12
13
14
15
3 SS 18 6
16
17
18
19
20
4 SS 18 5 36 42 14
21
22
23
24
25
5 SS 18 3
26
27
28
29
30 4736
30
SILTY SAND: 6 SS 18 12
31
with gravel, medium dense, gray
32
33
34
BOREHOLE_99 61115029.GPJ TERRACON.GDT 11/16/12
35
36 4730 7 SS 18 9 27 45 Sieve
36
SANDY SILT:
37
medium stiff to stiff, gray
38
39
40
Continued Next Page
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines Sieve = grain size distribution, DS = Direct Shear Test, UC = Unconfined Compression Test
between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 8-2-11

WL 40 WD BORING COMPLETED 8-2-11
WL RIG Simco FOREMAN CRC
WL CRC JOB # 61115029
CLIENT
J-U-B Engineers
SAMPLES TESTS
USCS Soil Symbol
RECOVERY, in.
PENETRATION
GRAPHIC LOG
NO. 200 SIEVE

WEIGHT, PCF
RESISTANCE
CONTENT, %
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY
% PASSING
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
DRY UNIT
NUMBER
WATER
INDEX
TYPE
OTHER
ML 8 SS 18 7 34 26 2 66 DS, Sieve
41
42 4724
42
SILTY SAND:
43
with gravel, dense, gray
44
45
9 SS 16 31
46
47 4719
47
BEDROCK:
48
Alternating layers of sandstone and softer
49
mudstone/claystone, decreased weathering
with depth 50
10 SS 8 50/2
51
52
53
54
55
11 RC 60 --
56
57
58
59
60
12 RC 60 --
61
62
63
64
65
13 RC 60 -- 29 86
66
67
UC
68
69
70 4696
70
BOTTOM OF BORING AT
APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET

WL CRC JOB # 61115029
CLIENT
J-U-B Engineers
Boring Location: Eastern side of slide SAMPLES TESTS
USCS Soil Symbol
RECOVERY, in.
PENETRATION
GRAPHIC LOG
NO. 200 SIEVE

WEIGHT, PCF
RESISTANCE
Elevation: 4763.5 ft
CONTENT, %
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY
% PASSING
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
DRY UNIT
NUMBER
WATER
INDEX
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
OTHER
SILT:
1
medium stiff to stiff, light brown
2
3
4
5
1 SS 8 10
6
7
8
9
10
2 ST 24 --
11 UU Triaxial
12
13
14
15
3 SS 18 4 41 43 13
16
17
18
19
20
4 SS 18 4
21
22
23
24
25 4738.5
25
SILTY SAND: 5 ST 20 -- 28 36
26 DS, Sieve
gray, trace gravel
27
28
29 4734.5
29
SILTY GRAVEL:
30
with sand, dense, gray 6 SS 16 47 9 20
31 Sieve
32
33 4730.5
33
SILT:
34
medum stiff, brown to greenish gray
35
7 SS 18 4 28 66 24
36
37
38 4725.5
38
SILTY SAND:
39
40
Continued Next Page

WL CRC JOB # 61115029
CLIENT
J-U-B Engineers
SAMPLES TESTS
USCS Soil Symbol
RECOVERY, in.
PENETRATION
GRAPHIC LOG
NO. 200 SIEVE

WEIGHT, PCF
RESISTANCE
CONTENT, %
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY
% PASSING
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
DRY UNIT
NUMBER
WATER
INDEX
TYPE
OTHER
SILTY SAND: 8 SS 6 44
41
42
43
44
45
9 SS 6 48 21 18 Sieve
46
47 4716.5
47
BEDROCK:
48
Alternating layers of mudstone/claystone
49
and sandstone with layers of poorly
cemented gravel, greenish gray, heighly 50
10 RC 24 --
weathered and fractured 51
52
53
54
55
11 RC 24 -- 14 118
56
57
UC
58
59
60
12 RC 36 --
61
62
63
64
65
13 RC 24 --
66
67
68
69
70 4693.5
70
BOTTOM OF BORING AT
APPROXIMATEY 70 FEET

WL CRC JOB # 61115029
Field Exploration Description
The boring locations were laid out at the site by our field engineer based on existing site
features. Right angles for the boring locations were estimated. The locations of the borings
should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to
define them.
The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight hollow-stem
augers to advance the boreholes. Samples of the soil encountered in the borings were obtained
using the split-barrel and thin-walled shelby tube sampling procedures.
In the split-barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-
inch O.D. split-barrel sampler the last 12 inches of the typical total 18-inch penetration by means
of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance
value (SPT-N). This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils
and consistency of cohesive soils.
An automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings
performed on this site. A significantly greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic hammer
compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. This higher
efficiency has an appreciable effect on the SPT-N value. The effect of the automatic hammer's
efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information
for this report.
The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our
laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring
logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths,
sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings
prior to the drill crew leaving the site.
A field log of each boring was prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual
classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the field engineers
interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with
this report represent the engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications
based on laboratory observation and tests of the samples.
Exhibit A-7
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory Testing
Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with the
enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated
Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is attached
to this report. All classification was by visual manual procedures. Selected samples were
further classified using the results of Atterberg limit and sieve analysis testing. The Atterberg
limit and sieve analysis test results are also provided on the boring logs.
Representative soil samples were selected for testing to determine physical and engineering
properties and to aid in classification. Following are the laboratory tests performed and a brief
description of each test:
Natural Water Content: The percentage of water in the soil at the sample location.
Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve: Amount of combined clay and silt-sized particles in
the soil sample.
Atterberg Limits: Consistency and range of moisture content within which the material is
workable.
Sieve Analysis: Measurement of the grain-size distribution of a soil sample as a
percentage of total dry sample weight.
UU Triaxial Compression: Shear strength under loading conditions.
Direct Shear: Shear strength under loading conditions.
Unconfined Compression: Compressive strength.
Results of the laboratory tests are summarized on the boring logs in Appendix A, reported in
Appendix B, and in this report.
Exhibit B-1
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu

B-01 35.0ft
B-01 40.0ft SANDY SILT(ML) 26 24 2
B-02 25.0ft
B-02 30.0ft
B-02 45.0ft
TC_GRAIN_SIZE 61115029.GPJ TERRACON.GDT 11/15/12
Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
B-01 35.0ft 25 0.207 24.0 31.2 44.8
B-01 40.0ft 0.075 0.0 0.0 66.3
B-02 25.0ft 9.5 0.227 1.4 62.8 35.8
B-02 30.0ft 25 5.635 0.458 43.9 36.4 19.8
B-02 45.0ft 25 4.917 0.271 40.6 41.2 18.2
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Project: Mt. Pisgah Road Slide
Site: Mt. Pisgah Road and Paradise Drive Paradise, UT
Job #: 61115029
Date: 11-15-12 Exhibit B-2
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test (ASTM D2850)
Axial Deviator Shear

4500 Strain Stress Stress
(%) (psf) (psf)
3990.1
0.00 0.0 0.0
4000 0.08 34.0 17.0
0.16 29.1 14.6
0.25 22.3 11.1
0.51 16.1 8.0
3500 0.66 13.5 6.8
0.85 307.9 153.9
1.01 539.9 270.0
2.01 1752.8 876.4
3000
3.00 2807.9 1404.0
4.00 3296.2 1648.1
5.02 3235.5 1617.8
2500 6.04 3242.7 1621.4
7.05 3307.5 1653.8
8.08 3366.7 1683.4
Deviator Stress, psf
9.09 3433.3 1716.7

2000 10.11 3505.1 1752.6
11.12 3571.6 1785.8
12.14 3690.4 1845.2
13.14 3748.4 1874.2
1500
14.14 3820.8 1910.4
15.16 3910.1 1955.1
16.17 3980.4 1990.2
1000 17.18 3883.6 1941.8
17.37 3990.1 1995.1
500
0
0 10 20 30
Strain, %
Sample Diameter (in): 2.76 Moist Unit Weight (pcf): 120

Sample Height (in): 6.47 Moisture Content (%): --
Sample Volume (cf): 0.0224 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): --
Confining Stress (psf): 890.67 Strain at Falure (%) 17

Strain Rate (%/min): 1.00 Shear Stress at Falure (psf) 1995
Strain Rate (in/min): 0.0654
Project Name: Mt. Pisgah Road Slide

Project No.: 61115029
Location: Mt. Pisgah Road and Paradise Drive
Sample: B-02 @ 10'
Sample Description: SILT
Exhibit B-3
Las Vegas, Nevada (64) Laboratory
61115029
SOIL DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS
Shear Strength
3,000
2,000
Maximum Shear Stress (psf)
1,000
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Normal Stress (psf)
Test Parameters
Sample Information Test Stresses Initial Conditions Final Conditions
Test Sample Depth Diameter Normal Max Shear Height Moisture Density Height Moisture
# Lab ID (ft) (in) (psf) (psf) (in) (%) (pcf) (in) (%)
A B-1 40 2.41 1,003.6 876.9 1.00 11 105.6 1.01 15.8
B B-1 40 2.41 1,997.5 1,370.9 1.00 11 105.6 0.99 15.5
C B-1 40 2.41 3,996.8 2,450.7 1.00 11 105.6 0.99 15.7
Notes and Special Test Conditions
Project Information Test Results

Project Name Mt. Pisgah Road Slide Friction Angle () 28
Location Mt. Pisgah Road, Paradise, Utah Cohesion (psf) 335
Client J-U-B Engineers, Inc. Shear Rate (in/min) 0.02
Exhibit B-4
Las Vegas, Nevada (64) Laboratory
61115029
SOIL DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS
Shear Strength
3,000
2,000
Maximum Shear Stress (psf)
1,000
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Normal Stress (psf)
Test Parameters
Sample Information Test Stresses Initial Conditions Final Conditions
Test Sample Depth Diameter Normal Max Shear Height Moisture Density Height Moisture
# Lab ID (ft) (in) (psf) (psf) (in) (%) (pcf) (in) (%)
A B-2 25 2.41 999.8 631.7 1.00 9.8 109.7 1.00 14.8
B B-2 25 2.41 2,001.3 1,340.6 1.00 9.8 109.7 1.01 14.6
C B-2 25 2.41 4,006.7 2,370.9 1.00 9.8 109.7 0.99 14.1
Notes and Special Test Conditions
Project Information Test Results

Project Name Mt. Pisgah Road Slide Friction Angle () 30
Location Mt. Pisgah Road, Paradise, Utah Cohesion (psf) 118
Client J-U-B Engineers, Inc. Shear Rate (in/min) 0.02
300000
250000
200000
Stress, psf
150000
100000
50000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Strain, %
Specimen Identification Classification Moisture Content, % Dry Density, pcf

1 at 65-70 ft Sandstone 29 78
2 at 55-60 ft Sandstone 14 115
x
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS
Project Name: Mt. Pisgah Road Slide
Location: Paradise, Utah
Project No.: 61115029
Date: 11/15/2012 Exhibit B-6
Exhibit B-7
Exhibit B-8
Exhibit B-9
APPENDIX C
GLOBAL STABILITY
Project Mngr: Project No. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE STABILITY ANALYSIS
RLC 61115029 EXHIBIT
Drawn By: Task No.
ABD 01
Checked By: Scale:
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS RLC As Shown Paradise, Utah C-1
NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
Approved By: Date: 14850 S Pony Express Rd, Ste 150N
RLC 11/15/12 J-U-B Engineers
APPENDIX D
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
3
SS: Split Spoon - 1- /8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger
ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger
RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger
DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit
BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary
The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch
penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the Standard Penetration or N-value.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:

WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling N/E: Not Encountered
WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling
DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal
AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other
times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In
low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have
more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine
Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are
plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be
added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis
of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
Standard
Unconfined Penetration or Standard Penetration
Compressive N-value (SS) or N-value (SS)
Strength, Qu, psf Blows/Ft. Consistency Blows/Ft. Relative Density
< 500 0-1 Very Soft 03 Very Loose
500 1,000 2-4 Soft 49 Loose
1,000 2,000 4-8 Medium Stiff2,000 10 29 Medium Dense
2,000 4,000 8 - 15 Stiff 4,000 30 49 Dense
4,000 8,000 15 - 30 Very Stiff > 50 Very Dense
8,000+ > 30 Hard
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Descriptive Term(s) of other Percent of Major Component
constituents Dry Weight of Sample Particle Size
Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)

With 15 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm)
Modifier > 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)
Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm)
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)
Descriptive Term(s) of other Percent of PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

constituents Dry Weight
Term Plasticity Index
Trace <5 Non-plastic 0
With 5 12 Low 1-10
Modifiers > 12 Medium 11-30
High > 30
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification
Group
Symbol Group NameB
Coarse Grained Soils Gravels Clean Gravels Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3E GW Well-graded gravelF
More than 50% of coarse Less than 5% finesC E
More than 50% retained Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 GP Poorly graded gravelF
fraction retained on
on No. 200 sieve No. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF,G, H
More than 12% finesC
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF,G,H
E
Sands Clean Sands Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 SW Well-graded sandI
50% or more of coarse Less than 5% finesD
Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3E SP Poorly graded sandI
fraction passes
No. 4 sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG,H,I
More than 12% finesD
Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG,H,I
Fine-Grained Soils Silts and Clays inorganic PI 7 and plots on or above A line J
CL Lean clayK,L,M
50% or more passes the Liquid limit less than 50
PI 4 or plots below A line J
ML SiltK,L,M
No. 200 sieve
organic Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,N
0.75 OL
Liquid limit - not dried Organic siltK,L,M,O
Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above A line CH Fat clayK,L,M
Liquid limit 50 or more
PI plots below A line MH Elastic SiltK,L,M
organic Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,P
0.75 OH
Liquid limit - not dried Organic siltK,L,M,Q
Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A H
Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve If fines are organic, add with organic fines to group name.
B I
If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add with cobbles If soil contains 15% gravel, add with gravel to group name.
or boulders, or both to group name. J
If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
C
Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded K
If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add with sand or with
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly gravel, whichever is predominant.
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. L
D If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add
Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sandy to group name.
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded M
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel,
add gravelly to group name.
2
N
E (D30 ) PI 4 and plots on or above A line.
Cu = D60/D10 Cc = O
D10 x D60 PI 4 or plots below A line.
P
F
If soil contains 15% sand, add with sand to group name. PI plots on or above A line.
Q
G
If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. PI plots below A line.

GeotechnicalReport MtPisgahSlide

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

GeotechnicalReport MtPisgahSlide

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Mt. Pisgah Road Slide

January 15, 2013

APPENDIX B SUPPORTING INFORMATION

APPENDIX C GLOBAL STABILITY

APPENDIX D SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Responsive Resourceful Reliable i

subsurface soil conditions slope stabilization and erosion control

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.2 Site Location and Description

Responsive Resourceful Reliable

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 3

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 4

4.3 Seismic Considerations

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 5

4.4 Slope Stability

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 6

4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.6 Soil Nail Wall Design Recommendations

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 7

Soil Properties for Soil Nail Design

4740 to 4730 Silty Sand 115 30 --

4730 to 4720 Silt 115 28 --

4.7 Soldier Pile Retaining System

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 8

L-Pile Soil Parameters

Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Angle Soil Modulus K

Silt 115 1,900 0 100 0.01

Silty Sand 115 0 30 60 ---

Gravel 125 0 34 125 ---

Rock 135 4,0001 301 2000 0.001

4.8 Soil Corrosion

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 9

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 10

REFERENCE: MICROSOFT VIRTUAL EARTH

Project Mngr: Project No. PROJECT VICINITY MAP

REFERENCE: MICROSOFT VIRTUAL EARTH

Project Mngr: Project No. BORING LOCATION PLAN

USCS Soil Symbol

NO. 200 SIEVE

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 8-2-11

USCS Soil Symbol

NO. 200 SIEVE

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 8-2-11

USCS Soil Symbol

NO. 200 SIEVE

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 8-3-11

USCS Soil Symbol

NO. 200 SIEVE

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 8-3-11

Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu

Axial Deviator Shear

9.09 3433.3 1716.7

Sample Diameter (in): 2.76 Moist Unit Weight (pcf): 120

Confining Stress (psf): 890.67 Strain at Falure (%) 17

Project Name: Mt. Pisgah Road Slide

SOIL DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS

Notes and Special Test Conditions

Project Information Test Results