Ch10Geotechnical Investigation

WisDOT Bridge Manual Chapter 10 Geotechnical Investigation
Table of Contents
10.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 2

10.2 Subsurface Exploration .................................................................................................... 3
10.3 Soil Classification ............................................................................................................. 8
10.4 Site Investigation Report ................................................................................................ 10
July 2015 10-1

10.1 General
The purpose of the Geotechnical Investigation is to provide subsurface information for the
plans and to develop recommendations for the construction of the structure at reasonable
costs versus short and long term performance. The level of Geotechnical Investigation is a
function of the type of the structure and the associated performance. For example, a box
culvert under a low ADT roadway compared to a multi-span bridge on a major interstate
would require a different level of Geotechnical Investigation. The challenge for the
geotechnical engineer is to gather subsurface information that will allow for a reasonable
assessment of the soil and rock properties compared to the cost of the investigation.
The geotechnical engineer and the structure engineer need to work collectively when
evaluating the loads on the structures and the resistance of the soil and rock. The
development of the geotechnical investigation and evaluation of the subsurface information
requires a degree of engineering judgment. A guide for performing the Geotechnical
Investigation is provided in WisDOT Geotechnical Bulletin No. 1, LRFD [10.4] and
Geotechnical Engineering Circular #5 Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties (Sabatini,
2002).
The following structures will require a Geotechnical Investigation:
Bridges
Box Culverts
Retaining Walls
Non-Standard Sign Structures Foundations
High Mast Lighting Foundations
Noise Wall Foundations
July 2015 10-2

10.2 Subsurface Exploration
The Geotechnical Engineering Unit (or geotechnical consultant) prepares the Site
Investigation Report (SIR) and the Subsurface Exploration (SE) sheet. The SIR describes the
subsurface investigation, laboratory testing, analyses, computations and recommendations
for the structure. All data relative to the underground conditions which may affect the design
of the proposed structures foundation are reported. Further information describing this
required investigation can be found in the Departments Geotechnical Bulletin #1 document.
The Subsurface Exploration sheet is a CADDS drawing that illustrates the soil boring
locations and is a graphical representation of the drillers findings. This sheet is included in
the structure plans. If the Department is not completing the geotechnical work on the project,
the SIR and SE sheet(s) are the responsibility of the consultant.
The subsurface investigation is composed of two areas of investigation: the Surface Survey
and the detailed Site Investigation.
Surface Surveys include studies of the site geology and air-photo review, and they can
include geophysical methods of exploration. This work should include a review of any
existing structure foundations and any existing geotechnical information. Surface Surveys
provide valuable data indicating approximate soil conditions during the reconnaissance
phase.
Based on the results of the Surface Survey information, the plans for a Detailed Site
Investigation are made. The subsurface investigation needs to provide the following
information:
Depth, extent and thickness of each soil or rock stratum
Soil texture, color, mottling and moisture content
Rock type, color and condition
In-situ field tests to determine soil and rock parameters
Laboratory samples for determining soil or rock parameters
Water levels, water loss during drilling, utilities and any other relevant information
The number and spacing of borings is controlled by the characteristics and sequence of
subsurface strata and by the size and type of the proposed structure. Depending upon the
timing of the Geotechnical Investigation the required information may not be available and
the geotechnical engineer may have to develop a subsurface investigation plan based on the
initial design. The Department understands that additional investigation may be required
once the preliminary design is completed. The challenge for the Department and the
consultant is to develop a geotechnical investigation budget without knowing the subsurface
conditions that will be encountered. Existing subsurface information from previous work can
July 2015 10-3

help this situation, but the plans should be flexible to allow for some unforeseen subsurface
conditions.
One particular subsurface condition is the presence of shallow rock. In some cases, borings
should be made at a frequency of one per substructure unit to adequately define the
subsurface conditions. However, with shallow rock two or more borings may be necessary to
define the rock line below the foundation. Alternatively, where it is apparent the soil is
uniform, fewer borings are needed. For example, a four span bridge with short (less than30
foot) spans at each end of a bridge may only require three borings versus the five borings
(one per substructure).
Borings are typically advanced to a depth where the added stress due to the applied load is
10 percent of the existing stress due to overburden or extended beyond the expected pile
penetration depths. Where rock is encountered, borings are advanced by diamond bit coring
according to ASTM D2113 to determine rock quality according to ASTM D6032.
LRFD [Table 10.4.2-1] Minimum Number of Exploration Points and Depth of Exploration
(modified after Sabatini et al., 2002) provides guidelines for an investigation of bridges
(shallow foundations and deep foundations) and retaining walls. The following presents the
typical subsurface investigation guidelines for the other structures:
Box Culverts: The recommended spacing of the borings would be 1/every 200 feet of
length of the box culvert with a minimum of two boring for a new box culvert. The
borings should have 15 feet of continuous SPT samples below the base of the box
culvert.
Box Culvert Extensions: May require a boring depending upon the length of the
extension and the available information from the existing box culvert. If a boring is
recommended then it would follow the same procedures as for a new box culvert.
Non-Standard Sign Structure Foundations: The recommended spacing would be one

for each sign structure site. If the sign structure is a bridge with two foundations then
one boring may still be adequate. The borings should have 20 feet of continuous
SPT samples and a SPT sample at 25 feet and 30 feet below the ground surface at
the sign structure site.
High Mast Lighting Foundations: The recommended spacing would be one for each
site. The borings should have 15 feet of continuous SPT samples and a SPT sample
every 5 feet to a depth of 40 feet below the ground surface at the site.
Noise Wall Foundations: The recommended spacing would be one for every 200 feet
to 300 feet of wall. The borings should have 20 feet of continuous SPT samples
below the ground surface.
The Department generally follows AASHTO laboratory testing procedures. Any or all of the
following soil tests may be considered necessary or desirable at a given site:
July 2015 10-4

In-situ (field) Tests
Standard penetration
Pocket penetrometer (cohesive soil)
Vane shear (cohesive soil)
Cone penetration (seldom used)
Rock core recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
Laboratory Tests
Moisture, density, consistency limits and unit weight
Unconfined compression (cohesive soils and rock cores)
Grain size analysis (water crossings) - This test is required for streambed sediments
of multi-span structures over water to facilitate scour computations.
One-dimensional consolidation (seldom used)
Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression (seldom used)
Consolidated undrained triaxial compression with pore water pressure readings

(seldom used)
Corrosion Tests (pH, resistivity, sulfate, chloride and organic content)
One of the most widely used in-situ tests in the United States is the Standard Penetration
Test (AASHTO T-206) as described in the AASHTO Standard Specifications. This test
provides an indication of the relative density of cohesionless soils and, along with the pocket
penetrometer readings, predicts the consistency and undrained shear strength of cohesive
soils. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) generally consist of driving a 2-inch O.D. split
barrel sampler into the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling over a height of 30 inches.
The split-barrel sampler is driven in 6-inch increments for a total of 18-inches and the number
of blows for each 6-inch increment is recorded. The field blow-count, SPT N-value, equals
the number of blows that are required to drive the sampler the last 12-inches of penetration.
Split-barrel samplers are typically driven with a conventional donut, safety or automatic-trip
hammer. Hammer efficiencies, ER, are determined in accordance with ASTM D 4945. In lieu
of a more detailed assessment, ER values of 45, 60 and 80 percent may be used to compute
corrected blow counts, N60, for conventional, safety and automatic-trip hammers,
respectively, in accordance with LRFD [10.4.6.2.4]. Correlation between standard
penetration values and the resulting soil bearing value approximations are available from
many sources. Standard penetration values can be used by experienced Geotechnical
Engineers to estimate pile shaft resistance values by also considering soil texture, moisture
July 2015 10-5

content, location of water table, depth below proposed footing and method of boring
advance.
For example, DOT Geotechnical Engineers using DOT soil test information know that certain
sand and clays in the northeastern part of Wisconsin have higher load-carrying capacities
than tests indicate. This information is confirmed by comparing test pile data at the different
sites to computed values. The increased capacities are realized by increasing the design
point resistance and/or shaft resistance values in the Site Investigation Report.
Wisconsin currently uses most of the soil tests previously mentioned. The soil tests used for
a given site are determined by the complexity of the site, size of the project and availability of
funds for subsurface investigation. The scope and extent of the laboratory testing program
should take into consideration available subsurface information obtained during the initial site
reconnaissance and literature review, prior experience with similar subsurface conditions
encountered in the project vicinity and potential risk to structure performance. Detailed
information about how to develop a laboratory testing program and the type of tests required
is presented in previous sited reference or refer to a soils textbook for a more detailed
description of soil tests.
Laboratory tests of undisturbed samples provide a more accurate assessment of soil

settlement and structural properties. Unconfined compression tests and other tests are
employed to measure the undrained shear strength and to estimate pile shaft resistance in
clay soils by assuming:
qu
c=
2
Where:
c = cohesion of soil
qu = unconfined compression strength
It is worthy to note that pile shaft resistance is a function of multiple parameters, including but
not limited to stress state, depth, soil type and foundation type.
In addition to the tests of subsurface materials, a geological and/or geophysical study may be
conducted to give such geological aspects as petrology, rock structure, rock quality,
stratigraphy, vegetation and erosion. This can include in-situ and laboratory testing of
selected samples, as well as utilizing non-destructive geophysical techniques, such as
seismic refraction, electromagnetic or ground penetrating radar (GPR)
Boring and testing data analysis, along with consideration of the geology and terrain, allow
the geotechnical engineer to present the following in the bridge SIR:
The preferred type of substructure foundation (i.e. shallow or deep).
The factored bearing resistance for shallow foundations.
July 2015 10-6

The settlement for the shallow foundations.
If piles are required, recommend the most suitable type and the support values (shaft
resistance and point resistance) furnished by the different soil strata.
A discussion of any geotechnical issues that may affect construction.
The presence and affect of water, including discussion of dewatering impact and cut-
slope impact under abutments.
When piles are recommended, suitable pile types, estimated length requirements, pile
drivability and design loads are discussed. Adverse conditions existing at abutments due to
approach fills being founded on compressible material are pointed out, and recommended
solutions are proposed. Unfactored resistance values at various elevations are given for
footing foundation supports. Problems associated with scour, tremie seals, cofferdams,
settlement of structure or approach fill slopes and other conditions unique to a specific site
are discussed as applicable.
July 2015 10-7

10.3 Soil Classification
The total weight of the structure plus all of the forces imposed upon the structure is carried
by the foundation soils. There are many ways to classify these soils for foundation purposes.
An overall geological classification follows:
1. Bedrock - This is igneous rock such as granite; sedimentary rock such as limestone,
sandstone and shale; and metamorphic rock such as quartzite or marble.
2. Glacial soils (Intermediate Geo Material- IGM) - This wide variety of soils includes
granular outwash, hard tills, bouldery areas and almost any combination of soil that
glaciers can create and are typically defined to have a SPT number greater than 50.
3. Alluvial soils - These are found in flood plains and deltas along creeks and rivers. In
Wisconsin, these soils normally contain large amounts of sand and silt. They are
highly stratified and generally loose. Pockets of clay are found in backwater areas.
4. Residual soils - These soils are formed as a product of weathering and invariably
reflect the parent bedrock material. They may be sands, silts or clay.
5. Lacustrine soils - These soils are formed as sediment and are deposited in water
environments. In Wisconsin, they tend to be clayey. One example of these soils is the
red clay sediments around Lakes Superior and Michigan.
6. Gravel, cobbles and boulders - These are particles that have been dislodged from
bedrock, then transported and rounded by abrasion. Some boulders may result from
irregular weathering.
Regardless of how the materials are formed, for engineering purposes, they are generally
broken into the categories of bedrock, gravel, sand, silt, clay or a combination of these. The
behavioral characteristics of any soil are generally based on the properties of the major
constituent(s). Listed below are some properties associated with each of these material
types.
1. Sand - The behavior of sand depends on grain size, gradation, density and water
conditions. Sand scours easily, so foundations on sand must be protected in areas
subject to scour.
2. Silt - This is a relatively poor foundation material. It scours and erodes easily and
causes large volume changes when subject to frost.
3. Clay - This material needs to be investigated very carefully for use as a bearing
material. Long-term consolidation may be an issue.
4. Bedrock - This is generally the best foundation material. Wisconsin has shallow
weathered rock in many areas of the state. Weathered granite and limestone become
sands. Shale and sandstone tend to weather more on exposure.
July 2015 10-8

5. Mixture of soils - This is the most common case. The soil type with predominant
behavior has the controlling name. For example, a soil composed of sand and clay is
called sandy clay if the clayey fraction controls behavior.
July 2015 10-9

10.4 Site Investigation Report
The following is a sample of a Site Investigation Report for a two-span bridge and retaining
wall. The subsurface exploration drawing is also submitted with the reports.
July 2015 10-10

CORRESPONDENCE/MEMORANDUM ___________________State of Wisconsin
DATE: February 17, 2015
TO: Casey Wierzchowski, P.E.

Southeast Region Soils Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey D Horsfall, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer
SUBJECT: Site Investigation Report

Project I.D. 1060-33-16
B-40-0880
Center Street over USH 45
Milwaukee County
Attached is the Site Investigation Report for the above project.
Please call if you have any questions.
Attachments
cc: Southeast Region (via e-mail)

Bureau of Structures, Structures Design (via e-submit)
Geotechnical File (original)
Site Investigation Report
Project I.D. 1060-33-16
Structure B-40-0880
Milwaukee County
February 17, 2015
1. GENERAL
The project is Center Street over USH 45, Milwaukee County. The proposed structure has two spans
and will replace the existing structure with four spans (B-40-284). The existing structure is supported
on spread footings with an allowable bearing capacity of 5,000 psf. The end slope in front of the
abutments is to be supported with MSE walls with precast concrete panels. The current topography
near the proposed structure is a rolling terrain in an urban area.
The Southeast Region requested that the Geotechnical Engineering Unit evaluate the foundation
support for the proposed new structure. The following report presents results of the subsurface
investigation, design evaluation, findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Wisconsin Department of Transportation contracted with Gestra to completed one boring and PSI, Inc.
to complete three borings near the proposed structure. Samples were collected in the borings with a
method conforming to AASHTO T-206, Standard Penetration Test, in October and November 2014,
using automatic hammers (with an efficiency ranging from 84 percent (Gestra) to 69 percent (PSI)).
Attachment 1 presents tables showing the summary of subsurface conditions logged in the borings at
this site and at the time of drilling for the structure. Attachment 2 presents a figure that illustrates the
boring locations and graphical representations of the boring logs. The original borings logs are
available at the Geotechnical Engineering Unit and will be made available upon request.
The following describes subsurface conditions in the four borings:
0.7 feet of topsoil or 1.0 feet to 2.0 feet of pavement structure, overlying
0.0 feet to 7.0 feet of brown, dense to very dense, fine to course, sand and gravel, overlying
20.0 feet to 43.0 feet of brown to gray, medium hard, clay, some silt, trace sand, overlying
0.0 feet to 8.0 feet of gray, loose to dense, fine sand, little silt, overlying
0.0 feet to 26.0 feet of gray, medium hard, clay, some silt, trace sand, overlying
Gray, very hard, clay and silt, some gravel
The observed groundwater elevation at the time of drilling ranged from 714 feet to 732 feet as
determined by the drillers describing the samples as wet. However, not all of the borings encountered
samples that were wet.
3. ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
Foundation analyses are separated into shallow foundations (spread footings) and deep foundations
(piling supports). The analyses used the following assumptions:
Structure B-40-0880
Page 2
Shallow Foundation
1. The groundwater elevation ranged from 714 feet to 732 feet.
2. The base of the foundations are at the following elevations
Table 1: Foundation Elevations

West Abutment 755.9 feet
Pier 733.3 feet
East Abutment 754.4 feet
3. The abutment end slopes are MSE Walls with precast panel facing.
4. The width of the pier footing is 10 feet and the width of the abutment footing is 6 feet.
5. The resistance factor of 0.55 for the factored bearing resistance.
Pile Supported Deep Foundation

1. Soil pressures for displacement piles are based upon a 10 3/4-inch diameter cast-in-place pile.
2. The groundwater elevation ranged from 714 feet to 732 feet.
3. Table 1 presents elevations at the base of the foundations.
4. Nominal soil pressures determined using the computer program APILE.
5. The drivability evaluation was performed using the computer program GRLWEAP.
The design shear strength, cohesion and unit weight for this analyses are presented latter in this report.
The values are based upon empirical formulas for internal friction angles using blow counts from the
AASHTO T-206 Standard Penetration Test results and the effective overburden pressure for the
granular soils, the pocket penetrometer values for the cohesive soils and published values for the
bedrock.
4. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
Shallow Foundation
The results of the shallow foundation evaluation indicated that the factored bearing resistance was
6,000 psf for the west abutment and east abutment and 5,000 psf for the pier. The soils are relatively
uniform. The estimated settlement from the bridge loads at the abutments and piers was excessive.
The time for settlement would occur over a relatively long period of time.
Deep Foundation
Table 2 shows estimated nominal skin friction and end bearing values for deep foundation pilings.
Drivability
The drivability evaluation used a Delmag D 16-32 diesel hammer to determine if the pile would be
overstressed during pile installation. The results of the evaluation indicated that 10 x 42 H-pile at the
abutments and the 12 x 53 H-piles at the pier should not be overstressed.
Lateral Earth Pressure

The lateral earth pressure for the backfill material will exert 40 psf for sandy soils. The backfill
material will be granular, free draining and locally available.
Structure B-40-0880
Page 3
Table 2: Soil Parameters and Foundation Capacities

Soil Description Friction Angle Cohesion Unit Weight Skin Friction1 End Bearing1
(degrees) (psf) (pcf) (psf) (psf)
B-40-0880 West Abutment (B-1)
MSE Wall 30 0 120 NA NA
(Elevation 755.9 ft 738.6 ft)
Clay, gray, trace gravel 0 3,000 125 640 19,100
Clay, gray, trace gravel 0 2,500 120 1,075 21,700
Clay, gray, trace gravel 0 2,000 120 1,370 17,900
Clay and Silt, gray, trace sand and gravel 0 4,500 135 1,210 40,500
Silt, gray, trace sand 0 2,000 120 1,720 17,900
Silt, gray, some sand, trace gravel 0 25,000 135 NA Refusal
(Elevation 700.4 ft and below)
B-40-0880 Pier (B-1Gestra)
Clay, brown to gray, trace sand, trace gravel 0 2,000 120 340 15,800
Silt, gray, trace gravel 0 3,500 130 495 31,600
Silt, gray, trace gravel 40 0 135 470 417,800
Silt, Sand, Gravel, gray 0 25,000 135 NA Refusal
1. Skin friction and end bearings vales are the nominal capacities
2. NA - not applicable
Structure B-40-0880
Page 4
Table 2: Soil Parameters and Foundation Capacities

Soil Description Friction Angle Cohesion Unit Weight Skin Friction1 End Bearing1
(degrees) (psf) (pcf) (psf) (psf)
B-40-0880 East Abutment (B-2 and B-3)
MSE Wall 30 0 120 NA NA
Sand, gray, some silt 36 0 130 620 45,900
Sand, gray, some silt 30 0 115 340 19,700
Clay, gray, trace sand, trace gravel 0 2,500 125 2,380 22,500
Clay, gray, trace sand, trace gravel 0 2,000 120 1,830 17,900
Silt, gray, trace sand 33 0 125 890 50,000
Clay, gray 0 3,000 125 1,730 27,000
Clay and Gravel, gray, some silt 0 25,000 135 NA Refusal
1. Skin friction and end bearings vales are the nominal capacities
2. NA - not applicable
Structure B-40-0880
Page 5
5. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS

The following findings and conclusions are based upon the subsurface conditions and analysis:
1. The following describes the subsurface conditions in the four borings:
0.7 feet of topsoil or 1.0 feet to 2.0 feet of pavement structure, overlying
0.0 feet to 7.0 feet of brown, dense to very dense, fine to course, sand and gravel, overlying
20.0 feet to 43.0 feet of brown to gray, medium hard, clay, some silt, trace sand, overlying
0.0 feet to 8.0 feet of gray, loose to dense, fine sand, little silt, overlying
0.0 feet to 26.0 feet of gray, medium hard, clay, some silt, trace sand, overlying
Gray, very hard, clay and silt, some gravel
2. The observed groundwater elevation at the time of drilling ranged from 714 feet to 732 feet as
determined by the drillers describing the samples as wet.
3. The results of the shallow foundation evaluation indicated that the factored bearing resistance
was 6,000 psf for the west abutment and east abutment and 5,000 psf for the pier. The soils are
relatively uniform. The calculations used a resistance factor of 0.55.
4. The estimated settlement from the bridge loads on the shallow foundations would be excessive.
The time for settlement would occur over a long period of time.
5. If used the support of the piles will occur in the very hard clay and silt. The pile tip elevation
will range from 692 feet to 700 feet. The driven pile lengths will depend upon the type of pile
hammer used and actual subsurface conditions encountered.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based upon the findings and conclusions:
1. The recommended support system for the abutments are 10 x 42 H-piles driven to a Required
Driving Resistance of 180 tons and for the pier footings are 12 x 53 H-piles driven to a
Required Driving Resistance of 220 tons. Table 3 presents the estimated pile tip elevation
for the piles. The actual driven length may be shorter due to the very hard clay.
Table 3: Estimated H-Pile Tip Elevations

Substructure Pile Type Pile Tip Elevation
West Abutment 10 x 42 H-pile 700 feet
Pier 12 x 53 H-pile 694 feet
East Abutment 10 x 42 H-pile 692 feet
2. The field pile capacity should be determined by using the modified Gates dynamic formula.
This method will use of a resistance factor of 0.50.
Structure B-40-0880
Page 6
3. Pile points should be used to reduce the potential for damage during driving through the very
hard clay and silts.
4. Shallow foundation should not be used based upon the anticipated settlement at the pier and the
MSE walls at the abutments.
5. Granular 1 backfill should be used behind the abutments.

Structure B-40-0880
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Tables of Subsurface Conditions
Structure B-40-0880
Attachment 1
B-40-0880 Subsurface Conditions

B-1 Station 19+00.0 B-1Gestra Station 20+11.3
22.4 feet left of CE RL 38.2 feet left of CE RL
Top of Soil Soil SPT Corr. Top of Soil Soil SPT Corr.
Layer Description Blow SPT Layer Description Blow SPT
Elevation count Blow Elevation count Blow
(feet) count1 (feet) count
762.6 Pavement 742.7 Pavement 6 14
Structure Structure
761.6 Clay, dark 4 7 740.7 Clay, brown to 6,9, 12,17,
brown, trace gray, trace 9,13 16,21
sand and sand, trace
gravel (fill) gravel
Qp=1.0 3.0
754.1 Clay, brown, 18 25 731.7 Clay, gray, 9,10, 14,15,
some silt, trace trace gravel 11,13, 16,18,
sand and Qp=3.0 4.0 14,12 19,15
gravel
Qp=3.0
749.6 Clay, gray, 15,13, 18,14, 715.7 Silt, gray, trace 24,33, 27,36,
trace gravel 14 15 sand 31 31
Qp=1.75 3.5 Qp=4.0
739.6 Clay, gray, 20,14, 21,14, 698.7 Silt, gray, with 50/6 51/6
trace gravel 18 17 gravel
Qp=3.0 3.75 Qp=4.5
733.6 Clay, gray, 23,29 22,26 694.2 Silt, Sand, 79, 78,
trace gravel Gravel, gray 50/2 48/2
Qp=2.0 2.5 Qp=4.5
729.6 Clay, gray, 13,15, 12,13, 689.7 EOB
trace gravel 24,17 20,13
Qp=1.5 3.0
717.6 Clay and Silt, 66,67 49,47
gray, trace
sand and
gravel
Qp=3.0 - 4.5+
705.6 Silt, gray, trace 28 18
sand
Qp=1.5
700.6 Silt, gray, 78,42, 49,25,
some sand, 59, 34,
trace gravel 60/4 33/4
Qp=4.5+
682.6 EOB
1. Blow counts are corrected for SPT hammer efficiency and overburden pressure.
2. First elevation is the surface elevation for the boring
3. Qp = Unconfined compression strength as determined by a pocket penetrometer, tons/ft2
4. EOB is the end of boring.
Structure B-40-0880
Attachment 1
B-40-0880 Subsurface Conditions

B-3 Station 21+10.0 B-2 Station 21+14.8
40.6 feet right of CE RL 23.3 feet left of CE RL
Top of Soil Soil SPT Corr. Top of Soil Soil SPT Corr.
Layer Description Blow SPT Layer Description Blow SPT
Elevation count Blow Elevation count Blow
(feet) count (feet) count
759.4 Topsoil 760.5 Pavement
Structure
758.7 Sand, light 14,13 32,24 759.5 Sand and 31 49
brown to Gravel, brown
brown, fine to
course, trace
silt and gravel
755.4 Clay, brown, 14,32, 23,48, 752.5 Clay and Silt, 11,15 15,18
some silt, trace 16,50 22,65 brown, trace
sand and gravel
gravel Qp=2.5 3.0
Qp=4.5 4.5+
747.4 Clay, gray, 32,13, 40,15, 742.5 Clay, gray, 18,22, 19,23,
trace sand and 14,15 15,15 trace gravel 24,15, 24,15,
gravel Qp=1.75 19 18
Qp=2.5 3.25 4.5+
730.4 Sand, gray, 29 27 732.5 Sand, gray, 38 35
fine, little silt some silt
726.4 Sand, gray, 9 8 730.5 Sand, gray, 9 8
fine, little silt some silt
722.4 Silt, gray, little 15 13 728.5 Clay, gray, 22,14, 20,12,
sand, trace trace sand and 17,20, 15,17,
clay gravel 21 17
Qp=3.0 Qp=2.5 3.0
719.4 EOB 711.0 Silt, gray, trace 38 30
sand
Qp=1.0
702.5 Clay, gray 21,27 16,20
Qp=1.75 3.0
692.5 Clay and 117, 85,
Gravel, gray, 108, 76,
some silt 60/2 41/2
Qp=4.5+
680.5 EOB
2. First elevation is the surface elevation for the boring
3. Qp = Unconfined compression strength as determined by a pocket penetrometer, tons/ft2
Structure B-40-0880
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Bridge Figure
STATE PROJECT NUMBER
463+00
ZOO INTERCHANGE, NORTH LEG
CENTER STREET OVER USH 45 1060-33-16
NS
MATERIAL SYMBOLS
boring # date completed northing (y) easting (x)
1 11/3/2014 310125.9 567409.9

ASPHALT TOPSOIL PEAT
GESTRA 1 10/16/2014 310131.3 567531.0
2 11/4/2014 310125.5 567623.7
3 11/5/2014 310040.4 567628.0

CONCRETE FILL GRAVEL
borings completed by: PSI/GESTRA
report completed by: WISDOT SAND CLAY SILT

all coordinates referenced to wccs nad 83(91) MILWAUKEE county BOR-1 GESTRA
boulders
or LIMESTONE BEDROCK
cobbles (unknown)
BOR-2
BOR-1
shale SANDSTONE IGNEOUS/
meta
2+00CE
1 LEGEND OF BORING
462+00NS
20+00CE
9
1+00CE
.
L
CENTER STREET ~
T
/
E
#
S
F
G
F
N
I
O
R
./
O
A
B
T
S
BOR-3 st
(1) (2)
R-40-578
0.25 17
R-40-577 f-c
USH 45 NS ~ cobble or boulder
WEATHERED LIMESTONE
~
core run #1 - 24-29
~
F
REC=80%, RQD=72%
O
F
.
O
T
4
.
~
L
.6
T
4
L
.4
F
2
.5
3
6
.3
2
.4
0
7
.
2
3
(1)
6
.
T
,
2
7
Unconfined STRENGTH, as determined by a pocket
L
R
E
,
.
19 1,E
7
C
E
.6
L
penetrometer (tsf)
.
0
C
1+ ,E
L
-
.8
1+ ,E
4
B
2
(2)
14
,
-
3
UNLESS OTHERWISE, SPECIFIED THE SPT n VALUE IS
R
10
B
-
.
770 770
O
B
A
BASED ON AASHTO T-206, STANDARD PENETRATION
2
B
R
T
.
2
O
R
.7
S
TEST. THE SPT n vaLUE PRESENTED HAS NOT BEEN
A
.
B
O
T
L 42
A
B
~
CORRECTED FOR OVERBURDEN PRESSURE OR HAMMER
S
T
.
7
S
T
EFFICIENCY.
.
L
E
.2
,
760 760 ground water elevation
8
a
3
r
,
11 st
4 F-C
E
14 at time of drilling
C
e
F-M
.3
G
13 31
1
4.5
end of drilling
-
3.0 14
+
B
18 4.5
0
3.0
2
32
.
750 4.5 11 750 after drilling
A
16
B
3.5
T
4.5
S
15 50
3.0 2.5
32 15 ABBREVIATIONS
2.5
1.75 13
13 2.0 F-Fine M-Medium C-Coarse st-shelby tube
1.75 1.0 3.5
740 14 3.0 6 3.25 18 740
3.75 2.5 14 2.5
20 3.0 6 22
3.5 2.5 2.5 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION FOR FOUNDATION
14 2.0 9 24
3.0 1.5 2.5 1.75 DESIGN AND BIDDERS INFORMATION
18 2.5 9 15 15
2.0 2.0 4.5
23 3.0 13 19 Borings were completed at points approximately
2.5 3.0
730 29 3.5 9 38 730 as indicated on this drawing to obtain information
1.5 3.0 29
13 3.5 10 9 concerning the character of subsurface materials
2.5 3.5 3.0
15 11 F 22 found at the site. Because the investigated
3.5
3.0 2.5
4.0 13 9 14 depths are limited and the area of the borings
2.75
24 14 is very small in relation to the entire site,
2.75 the Wisconsin Department of Transportation does
720 3.0 3.0 17 720
15 not warrant similar subsurface conditions below,
3.0 3.0
17 12
2.75
20
between, or beyond these borings.
soil conditions should be expected and
Variations in
8
4.5 4.0 fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur.
66 24
1.5
710 21 710
3.0
67 33
1.0
38
1.5
28 29
3.0
700 21 700
50/6" NO. DATE REVISION BY
4.5 4.5
78
1.75 STATE OF WISCONSIN
27
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4.5 79 CAVE IN @ END
42 STRUCTURES DESIGN SECTION
OF DRILLING 4.5
4.5 60/5"
690 50/2" 690
4.5
59 STRUCTURE b-40-880
60/4" DRAWN PLANS
4.5 60/4" BY pr CKD.
SCALE =
680 680
60/2" SHEET
subsurface
exploration
WI Dept. of Transportation WISDOT PROJECT ID:
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-1
3502 Kinsman Blvd. PAGE NO:
Madison, WI 53704
WISDOT STRUCTURE ID:
B-40-880-2 1 of 4
WISDOT PROJECT NAME: CONSULTANT: CONSULTANT PROJECT NO: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE:
Center Street over US Highway 45 Professional Service Industries, Inc. 0052853-7 N43 04.048' W88 03.229'
ROADWAY NAME: DRILLING CONTRACTOR: DRILLING CONTRACTOR PROJECT NO: NORTHING: EASTING:
Center Street Over USH 45 PSI 0052853-7
DATE STARTED: CREW CHIEF: DRILL RIG: COORDINATE SYSTEM:
11/03/14 P. Rotaru Freightliner Lat/Long
DATE COMPLETED: LOGGED BY: HOLE SIZE: HORIZONTAL DATUM: VERTICAL DATUM:
11/03/14 D. Zuydhoek 10 in WGS 1984 MSL
COUNTY: LOG QC BY: HAMMER TYPE: STREAMBED ELEVATION:
Milwaukee Automatic NA
STATION OFFSET TOWNSHIP: RANGE: SECTION: 1/4 SECTION: 1/4 1/4 SECTION: SURFACE ELEVATION:
462+35 112.5' LT 762.64 ft
RECOVERY (in)
Plasticity Index (%)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Soil / Rock Description
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
and Geological Origin for Notes
Each Major Unit / Comments
0.5 ASPHALT, (5.5" Thick) 762.1 HSA

0.9 BASE COURSE, (5" Thick) 761.7 GPS
1
CLAY, Fill, Dark Brown, Soft, Trace Sand and Gravel
2
3
SPT 3-2-2-3
4 M 4
1 (4)
CL
5
8 8.5 754.1
SPT 5-6-12-17 CLAY, Brown, Very Stiff, Trace Sand and Gravel
24 M 9 3.0
2 (18)
10
CL
11
12
13.0 749.6
13 CLAY, Gray, Very Stiff, Trace to Few Sand and Gravel
SPT 8-8-7-11
24 M 14 3.5
3 (15)
15
16
17
18
SPT 4-5-8-7
24 M 19 1.75
4 (13)
20 Stiff
SPT 4-6-8-8
24 M 21 1.75
5 (14) CL
22 Very Stiff
P:\GINT\WISDOT GINT PROJECTS\GINT_40\B-40-880.GPJ Center Street over US Highway 45 2/11/15
SPT 6-9-11-10
24 M 23 3.75
6 (20)
24
SPT 6-6-8-11
24 M 25 3.5
7 (14)
26
SPT 7-8-10-11
24 M 27 3.0
8 (18)
28
11-11-12-
SPT
24 M 12 29 2.0
9
(23)
WATER LEVEL & CAVE-IN OBSERVATION DATA
WET
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING: NE CAVE - IN DEPTH AT COMPLETION: NMR DRY
WET
WATER LEVEL AT COMPLETION: NMR CAVE - IN DEPTH AFTER 0 HOURS: NMR DRY
NOTES: 1) Stratification lines between soil types represent the approximate boundary; gradual transition between in-situ soil layers should be expected.
2) NE = Not Encountered; NMR = No Measurement Recorded
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-1
Madison, WI 53704
B-40-880-2 2 of 4
RECOVERY (in)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
CLAY, Gray, Very Stiff, Trace to Few Sand and Gravel

16-15-14-
SPT
24 M 17 31 2.5
10
(29)
32 Stiff
SPT 5-6-7-10
24 M 33 1.5
11 (13)
34
SPT 4-7-8-11
24 M 35 2.5
12 (15) Very Stiff
36
37
38
10-12-12-
SPT
24 M 15 39 2.75
13
(24)
40
41 CL
42
43
SPT 6-7-10-13
24 M 44 3.0
14 (17)
45 MR
46
47
48
17-33-33-
SPT
24 M 51 49 4.5
15
(66)
50 Hard
51
52.0 710.6
52 SILT, Gray, Very Stiff, Trace Sand
53
13-25-42-
SPT
24 M 60 54 3.0
16
(67)
55
56
57 ML
58
SPT 8-12-16-18
24 M 59 1.5
17 (28)
60 Stiff
61
62.0 700.6
62 SILT, Gray, Hard, Some Sand, Trace Gravel
63
30-43-35-
SPT
15 M 46 64 4.5
18
(78) ML
65
66
67.0 695.6
67 CLAY, Gray, Hard, Little Sand, Trace Gravel
68 CL
11-20-22-
SPT
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-1
Madison, WI 53704
B-40-880-2 3 of 4
RECOVERY (in)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
19 24 M 27 CLAY, Gray, Hard, Little Sand, Trace Gravel 4.5

(42)
70
71
72
73 CL
15-23-36-
SPT
24 M 31 74 4.5
20
(59)
75
76
77.0 685.6
77 SILT, Gray, Hard, Some Sand, Trace Gravel
78
SPT 8 M 58-60/4" ML 4.5
21 79
80.0 682.6
80 End of Boring at 80.0 ft.
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY (in)
(RQD)
Moisture
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
Madison, WI 53704
3502 Kinsman Blvd.
Depth
(ft)
WI Dept. of Transportation
Graphic
WISDOT PROJECT ID:

and Geological Origin for
B-40-880-2
1060-33-16
USCS / AASHTO
Strength Qp
(tsf)
Liquid Limit (%)
PAGE NO:
Boulders
BORING ID:
Drilling Method
Notes
4 of 4
B-1
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-1 Gestra
Madison, WI 53704
B-40-880 1 of 2
Center Street over US Highway 45 Professional Service Industries, Inc. 0052853-7
Center Street Over USH 45 GESTRA
10/16/14 A. Woerpel CME-75 WCCS
10/16/14 A. Woerpel 3.25 in WCCS Milwaukee MSL
462+42 ON R/L 742.7 ft
RECOVERY (in)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
Asphalt Concrete
SPT 3-3
5 M 1 2.0 HSA 3 1/4 Hollowstem
1 (6)
2.0 740.7 Auger
2 Moist Brown Clay with Trace Gravel Trace Sand
SPT 2-3-3-4
10 M 3 1.0
2 (6)
3.0
4
SPT 2-3-6-7
22 M 5 2.5
3 (9) Color Change To Gray Moist Clay Trace Gravel
3.0
6
SPT 3-4-5-6
24 M 7 2.5
4 (9)
2.0
8
SPT 3-6-7-9
24 M 9 1.5
5 (13)
2.5
10
SPT 2-3-6-7
24 M 11 2.0
6 (9)
3.0
12
SPT 2-4-6-7
24 M 13 3.0
7 (10)
3.5
14 Moist Gray Clay Trace Gravel
SPT 2-5-6-8
24 M 15 3.0
8 (11)
3.5
16
SPT 2-5-8-10
24 M 17 3.5
9 (13)
3.5
18
SPT 2-5-9-10
24 M 19 3.0
10 (14)
4.0
20 Wet Pockets
21
22
23
SPT 3-5-7 24 3.0

18 M
11 (12) 3.0
25
26
27.0 715.7
27 Moist Gray Silt With Trace Sand
28
SPT 5-10-14 29
18 M 4.0
12 (24)

WET
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING: NMR CAVE - IN DEPTH AT COMPLETION: NMR DRY
WET
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-1 Gestra
Madison, WI 53704
B-40-880 2 of 2
RECOVERY (in)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
Moist Gray Silt With Trace Sand

31
32
33
SPT 10-14-19 34
18 M
13 (33)
35 Wet Silt And Sand Mix
36
37 Wet Gray Silt

38
SPT 12-13-16 39
18 W
14 (29)
40
41
42
43
SPT 12 M 20-50 44
44.0 698.7
4.5
15 Moist Silt With Gravel
45
46
47
48.0 694.7
48 Saturated Gray Sand & Gravel
SPT 16-35-44 49
12 W
16 (79)
50
51 51.5 691.2
Moist Silt With Gravel
52
53.0 689.7
53 4.5
SPT 2 M 50/2" End of Boring at 53.0 ft.
17
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-2
Madison, WI 53704
B-40-880-3 1 of 4
Center Street over US Highway 45 Professional Service Industries, Inc. 0052853-7 N43 04.048' W88.03.181'
Center Street PSI 0052853-4
11/04/14 P. Rotaru Freightliner Lat/Long
462+20 102' RT 760.54 ft
RECOVERY (in)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
0.3 ASPHALT, (4" Thick) 760.2 HSA

0.6 CONCRETE, (3" Thick) 759.9 GPS
1 0.8 BASE COURSE, (3" Thick) 759.7
2 SAND, Brown, Dense, Some Gravel
3
17-15-16-
SPT
12 M 10 4
1 SP
(31)
5
7
8.0 752.5
8 CLAY, Brown, Very Stiff, Trace Sand and Gravel
SPT 9-5-6-8
24 M 9 3.0
2 (11)
10
CL
11
12
13.0 747.5
13 CLAY, Brown, Very Stiff, Trace Silt, Sand and Gravel
SPT 5-7-8-11
24 M 14 2.5
3 (15)
15
CL
16
17
18.0 742.5
18 CLAY, Gray, Very Stiff, Trace Sand and Gravel
SPT 6-7-11-13
24 M 19 3.5
4 (18)
20
12-10-12-
SPT
24 M 12 21 2.5
5
(22)
22
11-13-11-
SPT
24 M 12 23 CL 2.5
6
(24)
24
SPT 4-7-8-11
24 M 25 1.75
7 (15) Stiff
26
SPT 5-6-13-15
18 M 27 4.5
8 (19) Hard
28.0 732.5
28 SAND, Gray, Dense, Little Silt
19-22-16-
SPT
24 W 16 29 SP
9
(38)
WET
WET
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-2
Madison, WI 53704
B-40-880-3 2 of 4
RECOVERY (in)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
SAND, Gray, Dense, Little Silt

SPT 2-3-6-9
24 W 31 SP
10 (9) Loose
32.0 728.5
SPT 6-9-13-15
24 W 33 3.0
11 (22)
34
SPT 4-6-8-8
24 W 35 2.5
12 (14)
36
37 Little Sand
CL
38
SPT 5-6-11-12
24 W 39 2.75
13 (17)
40
41
42
43.0 717.5
43 CLAY, Gray, Very Stiff, Trace Gravel
SPT 7-8-12-12
24 M 44 2.75
14 (20)
45
CL
46
47
48.0 712.5
48 SILT, Gray, Stiff, Trace Sand
SPT 6-9-12-19
24 W 49 1.5
15 (21)
50 MR
51
52
53 ML
17-18-20-
SPT
18 W 22 54 1.0
16
(38)
55
56
57
58.0 702.5

SPT 5-8-13-16
24 W 59 3.0
17 (21)
60
CL
61
62
63.0 697.5
63 SILT, Gray, Stiff, Trace Sand
10-13-14-
SPT
18 W 27 64 1.75
18
(27)
65
66 ML
67
68
SPT 37-57-
17 W 69.0 691.5 4.5
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-2
Madison, WI 53704
B-40-880-3 3 of 4
RECOVERY (in)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
19 60/5" SILTY CLAY, Gray, Hard, Trace Sand and Gravel

70
71 CL-ML
72
73.0 687.5
73 SAND, Gray, Very Dense, Some Gravel, Trace Silt
SPT 53-48-
12 W
20 60/4" 74
75
76
SP
77
78
SPT 2 W 60/2"
21 79
80.0 680.5
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY (in)
(RQD)
Moisture
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
Madison, WI 53704
3502 Kinsman Blvd.
Depth
(ft)
WI Dept. of Transportation
Graphic
WISDOT PROJECT ID:

and Geological Origin for
B-40-880-3
1060-33-16
USCS / AASHTO
Strength Qp
(tsf)
Liquid Limit (%)
PAGE NO:
Boulders
BORING ID:
Drilling Method
Notes
4 of 4
B-2
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-3
Madison, WI 53704
R-40-578-3 1 of 2
Center Street over US Highway 45 Professional Service Industries, Inc. 0052853-7 N43 04.034' W88 03.180'
Center Street Over USH 45 PSI 0052853-4
11/05/14 M. Ball Diedrich D-50 Lat/Long
461+60 94' RT 759.43 ft
RECOVERY (in)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
0.7 TOPSOIL, (8" Thick) 758.7

SPT 3-5-9-10
18 D 1 SAND, Brown, Firm, Fine to Coarse, Trace Silt and Gravel HSA
1 (14)
2 SP
SPT 12-7-6-6 3.0 756.4

24 D 3
2 (13) SAND, Light Brown, Firm, Fine to Medium
SP
4.0 755.4
4 SILTY CLAY, Brown, Hard, Trace Sand and Gravel
SPT 4-6-8-11
24 M 5 4.5
3 (14)
6
SPT 7-12-20-18
12 M 7 4.5
4 (32)
8 CL-ML
SPT 5-6-10-12
24 M 9 4.5
5 (16)
10
12-25-25-
SPT
24 M 23 11 4.5
6
(50) 12.0 747.4
18-15-17-
SPT
24 M 17 13 3.0
7
(32)
14
SPT 4-6-7-7
24 M 15 2.5
8 (13)
16
17
18
SPT 5-6-8-10
24 M 19 3.25
9 (14)
20
CL
21
22
23
SPT 9-7-8-8
24 M 24 2.5
10 (15)
25
26
27
28
28-16-13-
SPT 29.0 730.4
24 W 13 29
11 SAND, Gray, Firm, Fine, Little Silt
(29) SP

WET
WET
1060-33-16 BORING ID: B-3
Madison, WI 53704
R-40-578-3 2 of 2
RECOVERY (in)

SAMPLE TYPE
USCS / AASHTO
Drilling Method
Liquid Limit (%)
Strength Qp
(N VALUE)
NUMBER
COUNTS
Moisture
Boulders
BLOW
(RQD)
Graphic
Depth
(tsf)
(ft)
SAND, Gray, Firm, Fine, Little Silt

31
32
33
SP
SPT 3-3-6-6
24 W 34
12 (9)
35 Loose
36
37.0 722.4
37 SILT, Gray, Very Stiff, Little Sand, Trace Clay
38
ML
SPT 4-8-7-8
24 W 39 3.0
13 (15)
40.0 719.4
CORRESPONDENCE/MEMORANDUM ___________________State of Wisconsin
DATE: April 10, 2015
TO: Casey Wierzchowski, P.E.

Southeast Region Soils Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey D Horsfall, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer
SUBJECT: Site Investigation Report

Project I.D. 1060-33-16
R-40-0577
(West Abutment B-40-0880)
Milwaukee County
Attached is the Site Investigation Report for the above project.
Please call if you have any questions.
Attachments
cc: Southeast Region (via e-mail)

Bureau of Structures, Structures Design (via e-submit)
Geotechnical File (original)
Project I.D. 1060-33-16
Structure R-40-0577
(West Abutment B-40-0880)
Milwaukee County
April 10, 2015
1. GENERAL
The project is a retaining wall located along the west side of USH 45 near Center Street,
Milwaukee County. A portion of the proposed retaining wall supports the West Abutment of B-
40-0880. Table 1 presents the location of the wall compared to the wall stationing
Table 1: Wall Locations

USH 45 Roadway Station Wall Station Description
457+75.0, 92.0 left 10+00.0 Beginning of Wall and supports side slope
463+22.0, 94.0 left 12+33.8 End of Wall and supports side slope
The maximum exposed height is 24.9 feet. The proposed wall type is a MSE wall with precast
concrete panels. Aesthetics is a key item to consider in the evaluation of the wall. A portion of
the wall is located within a cut section of the roadway. Topography in the general vicinity is
urban with a bridge approach located near the wall.
The Southeast Region requested that the Geotechnical Unit evaluate a MSE wall with precast
concrete panels. The following report presents the results of the subsurface investigation, the
design evaluation, the findings, the conclusions and the recommendations.
2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Wisconsin Department of Transportation contracted with PSI to completed three borings near the
proposed wall. Samples were collected with a method conforming to AASHTO T-206, Standard
Penetration Test, using an automatic hammer. The purpose of the borings was to define
subsurface soil conditions at this site. Soil textures in the boring logs were field identified by the
drillers. Attachment 1 presents tables showing the summaries of subsurface conditions logged in
the borings at this site and at the time of drilling for the retaining wall. Attachment 2 presents a
figure that illustrates the boring locations and graphical representations of the boring logs. The
original borings logs are available at the Central Office Geotechnical Engineering Unit and will
be made available upon request.
The following describes the subsurface conditions in the three borings:
0.0 feet to 1.0 foot of pavement structure, overlying

0.0 feet to 7.5 feet of dark brown, soft, clay, trace sand and gravel (fill, B-1), overlying
3.0 feet to 36.5 feet of brown, medium hard to hard, clay, trace sand and gravel, overlying
5.0 feet to 25.0 feet of brown to gray, fine to medium, firm to very dense, sand or silt,
trace gravel, overlying
Gray, very hard, silt and clay, little sand, trace gravel
Structure R-40-0577
Page 2
Generally, groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
3. ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
Chapter 14 of the WisDOT Bridge Manual describe ten different types of retaining structures:
reinforced cantilever, gabion, post and panel, sheet pile, modular block gravity, mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE) with 4 types of facings, and modular bin and crib walls. Geotechnical
Engineering Unit procedures require that the wall alternatives requested by the region be
evaluated to determine the feasibility at a particular location, from a geotechnical standpoint.
Table 2 presents the design soil parameters utilized for the analyses, which approximate the
conditions at B-7, B-6 and B-1.
Table 2: Soil Parameters

Soil Description Friction Angle Cohesion Unit Weight
(degrees) (psf) (pcf)
Granular Backfill 30 0 120
Within the wall in the reinforcing zone
Fill 31 0 120
Behind and below the reinforcing zone
B-7, 11+00
Silt, gray, trace sand and gravel 0 4,500 135
Sand, gray, fine to medium 36 0 135
Silt, gray, trace sand, trace clay 0 2,500 125
Silt, gray, trace sand, trace clay 0 4,500 135
B-6, 12+00
Silt, gray, trace clay, trace sand, trace gravel 0 4,500 135
Sand, gray, fine to medium 32 0 120
Clay, gray, little silt, trace sand, trace gravel 0 3,000 128
Clay, gray, little silt, trace sand, trace gravel 0 4,500 135
B-1, 14+60
Clay, gray, trace gravel 0 3,000 125
Clay and Silt, gray, trace sand and gravel 0 4,500 135
Structure R-40-0577
Page 3
Table 2: Soil Parameters

Soil Description Friction Angle Cohesion Unit Weight
(degrees) (psf) (pcf)
B-1, 14+60 (continued)
Clay, gray, trace sand 0 2,000 120
Silt, gray, some sand, trace gravel 0 25,000 135
The typical wall section used in the analyses had an exposed height that varies from 8.7 feet to
24.9 feet. The following assumptions are also included in the analyses:
1. The slope in front and behind the wall is horizontal.

2. Groundwater was not used in the analyses.
3. The granular backfill is free draining and will not become saturated.
4. The minimum embedment depth is 1.5 feet.
5. A surcharge load of 240 psf is included to model pedestrian and lightweight
construction equipment.
6. An additional surcharge load equivalent to the weight of the soil behind the
abutment is also included in the design.
7. Global stability factor of safety was determined by the computer program
STABLPRO.
8. Bearing resistance is determined by Terzaghis bearing capacity equation.
9. Settlement of the foundation on cohesionless and cohesive soil is based upon
methods described in the FHWA Soils and Foundations Manual.
4. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
The Geotechnical Unit evaluated a MSE wall with precast concrete facing for the project. The
wall was evaluated for sliding, overturning, bearing resistance, global stability and settlement.
Table 3 presents the results of the evaluation and the Capacity to Demand Ratio (CDR).
The exposed wall height examined varied from 8.7 feet to 24.9 feet. The length of reinforcement
for the wall is determined by meeting the eccentricity requirements (B/4>e) and a minimum
embedment length of 8 feet.
The results of the evaluation indicated that if the sliding and bearing resistance requirements are
met, then the eccentricity is also met. The global stability of the wall at the critical location was
stable with a CDR of greater than 1.0.
The settlement of the foundation was estimated to be less than 1 inches and should occur within
years of loading of the wall. The subsurface soils are relatively uniform; therefore, differential
settlement should not be an issue.
Structure R-40-0577
Page 4
Table 3: Results of MSE Wall External Stability Evaluation

Dimensions
1
Wall Height (feet) 10.2 13.2 18.8 26.4
Exposed Wall Height (feet) 8.7 11.7 17.3 24.9
3
Length of Reinforcement (feet) 8.0 9.2 17.4 18.5
Length of Rein. / Wall Height NA 0.70 0.93 0.70
Wall Station 11+00.0 12+00.0 14+50.0 14+67.2
Boring Used B-7 B-6 B-1 B-1
4
Capacity to Demand Ratio (CDR)
Sliding (CDR > 1.0) 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.5
Eccentricity (CDR > 1.0) 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.3
Global Stability (CDR > 1.0) NA NA 2.1 NA
Bearing Resistance (CDR > 1.0) 2.4 1.8 1.1 1.1
Required Bearing Resistance (psf) 6,000 6,000 7,000 7,000
1. The wall height includes an embedment of 1.5 feet.
2. The wall stability evaluation included a surcharge load that was equal to the weight of the
soil behind the abutment.
3. The length of reinforcement is the minimum required length.
4. CDR requirements and load and resistance factors are presented in Chapter 14 of the
Bridge Manual.
5. NA not applicable, global slope stability was evaluated at the critical wall location.
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The following findings and conclusions are based upon the subsurface conditions and the
analysis:
1. The following describes the subsurface conditions in the three borings:
0.0 feet to 1.0 foot of pavement structure, overlying

0.0 feet to 7.5 feet of dark brown, soft, clay, trace sand and gravel (fill, B-1), overlying
3.0 feet to 36.5 feet of brown, medium hard to hard, clay, trace sand and gravel, overlying
5.0 feet to 25.0 feet of brown to gray, fine to medium, firm to very dense, sand or silt,
trace gravel, overlying
Gray, very hard, silt and clay, little sand, trace gravel
2. The groundwater was not encountered in the investigation.
3. Table 3 presents the results of the external stability evaluation and shows that if the
sliding and bearing resistance requirements are satisfied, then the eccentricity and global
stability will also be satisfied.
Structure R-40-0577
Page 5
4. Settlement of the foundation was estimated to be less than 2 inches and should occur
within months of loading of the wall. The subsurface soils are relatively uniform;
therefore, differential settlement should not be an issue.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based upon the findings and conclusions:
1. The MSE wall with precast concrete panels will achieve the external stability factors of
safety if the sliding and bearing resistance requirements are met. Table 3 presents the
minimum length of the reinforcement at the locations evaluated. In the area of the wall
that supports the abutment, the ratio of length of reinforcement to total height of wall
should be increased from 0.70 to 0.93.
2. The contractor should remove 6-inches of topsoil and silt and clay below the reinforcing
zone and replace with granular fill in the areas that the topsoil and silt and clay are
encountered.
3. The backfill behind the MSE wall with precast concrete facing should be granular and
free draining.
4. The Southeast Region soils engineer should review the fill subsurface conditions prior to
construction of the wall.
Structure R-40-0577
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Tables of Subsurface Conditions
Structure R-40-0577
Attachment 1
Subsurface Conditions: R-40-0577

B-7 Station 458+75 B-6 Station 459+75
85.5 feet left of USH 45 RL 85.5 feet left of USH 45 RL
Estimated Soil SPT Blow Corr. SPT Estimated Soil SPT Blow Corr. SPT
Top of Description count Blow Top of Description count Blow
Soil Layer count Soil Layer count
Elevation Elevation
(feet) (feet)
751.4 Clay, brown, trace 9 20 749.4 Clay, brown, trace 7,12, 16,22,
sand and gravel sand and gravel 8 13
Qp=3.5 Qp=2.25 2.5
748.4 Sand, brown, fine to 18 33 743.9 Silt, gray, trace 42,26 63,36
medium, trace clay clay, trace sand,
trace gravel
Qp=4.5 4.5+
747.4 Silt, gray, trace sand 36,56, 58,82, 738.4 Sand, gray, fine to 12,31, 16,39,
and gravel 62 85 medium 26 31
Qp=3.0 4.5+
741.4 Sand, gray, fine to 55,47 71,57 732.4 Clay, gray, little 23,17, 25,17,
medium silt, trace sand, 15,18 14,16
trace gravel
Qp=3.25 4.5
737.4 Silt, gray, trace 18,25, 21,27, 710.4 Clay, gray, little 43 35
sand, trace clay 18 18 silt, trace sand,
Qp=2.5 4.5+ trace gravel
Qp=3.5
723.4 Silt, gray, trace 108, 100, 709.4 EOB
sand, trace clay 60/4 51/4
Qp=3.5
716.4 EOB
2. First elevation is the surface elevation for the boring.
3. Qp = Unconfined compression strength as determined by a pocket penetrometer, tons/ft2.
Structure R-40-0577
Attachment 1
Subsurface Conditions: R-40-0577

B-1 Station 462+35.0
112.5 feet left of USH 45 RL
Estimated Soil SPT Blow Corr. SPT
Top of Description count Blow
Soil Layer count
Elevation
(feet)
762.6 Pavement Structure
761.6 Clay, dark brown, 4 7
trace sand and
gravel (fill)
754.1 Clay, brown, some 18 25
silt, trace sand and
gravel
Qp=3.0
749.6 Clay, gray, trace 15,13,14 18,14,15
gravel
Qp=1.75 3.5
739.6 Clay, gray, trace 20,14,18 21,14,17
gravel
Qp=3.0 3.75
733.6 Clay, gray, trace 23,29 22,26
gravel
Qp=2.0 2.5
729.6 Clay, gray, trace 13,15,24,17 12,13,20,13
gravel
Qp=1.5 3.0
717.6 Clay and Silt, gray, 66,67 49,47
trace sand and
gravel
Qp=3.0 - 4.5+
705.6 Silt, gray, trace sand 28 18
Qp=1.5
700.6 Silt, gray, some 78,42,59, 49,25,34,
sand, trace gravel 60/4 33/4
Qp=4.5+
682.6 EOB
1. Blow counts are corrected for SPT hammer efficiency
and overburden pressure.
2. First elevation is the surface elevation for the boring.
3. Qp = Unconfined compression strength as determined
by a pocket penetrometer, tons/ft2.
Structure R-40-0577
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Wall Figure
STATE PROJECT NUMBER
ZOO INTERCHANGE, NORTH LEG

CENTER STREET OVER USH 45 1060-33-16
MATERIAL SYMBOLS
boring # date completed northing (y) easting (x)
1 11/3/2014 310125.9 567409.9

ASPHALT TOPSOIL PEAT
6 11/7/2014 309858.5 567454.0
7 11/7/2014 309749.1 567476.0

CENTER STREET ~
CONCRETE FILL GRAVEL
borings completed by: PSI
1
9+00CE
report completed by: WISDOT BOR-1 SAND CLAY SILT
all coordinates referenced to wccs nad 83(91) MILWAUKEE county
boulders
or LIMESTONE BEDROCK
cobbles (unknown)
B-40-880
BOR-7 shale SANDSTONE IGNEOUS/
BOR-6
meta
LEGEND OF BORING
.
L
E
T
/
E
#
S
F
G
F
N
I
O
R
./
O
A
B
T
S
20+00CE
USH 45 NS ~ 463+00NS
st
462+00NS (1) (2)

457+00NS 458+00NS 459+00NS 460+00NS 461+00NS 0.25 17
f-c
cobble or boulder
WEATHERED LIMESTONE
core run #1 - 24-29
~
REC=80%, RQD=72%
F
O
.
.5 4
T
.6
L
2
6
7
2
11
(1)
.
Unconfined STRENGTH, as determined by a pocket
,
E
5
~
penetrometer (tsf)
1,
3
+
F
-
~
2
O
6
(2)
.
4
.5 3
UNLESS OTHERWISE, SPECIFIED THE SPT n VALUE IS
R
T
O
4
.
770 770
L
O
1.
.
5
A
BASED ON AASHTO T-206, STANDARD PENETRATION
B
T
.4
5
T
L
7
S
9
TEST. THE SPT n vaLUE PRESENTED HAS NOT BEEN
5
.
.2
8
L
7
CORRECTED FOR OVERBURDEN PRESSURE OR HAMMER
,
6
E
.
5
8
,
EFFICIENCY.
7
,
7
E
+
5
-
,
8
7
B
6
5
ground water elevation

-
760 760
4
9
R
B
.
5
O
4
B
4
T
at time of drilling
.
O
S
A
B
T
S
3.0 end of drilling

18
750 3.5 750 after drilling
9
F-M 2.5 3.5
18 7 15
4.5 2.25
36 12 ABBREVIATIONS
4.5 4.5
56 8 1.75
3.0 4.5 13 F-Fine M-Medium C-Coarse st-shelby tube
62 42 1.75
740 F-M 4.0 14 740
55 26 3.75
20
47 12 3.5 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION FOR FOUNDATION
2.5 F-M 14
18 31 3.0 DESIGN AND BIDDERS INFORMATION
18
26 2.0
4.5 23 Borings were completed at points approximately
25 2.5
730 4.5 29 730 as indicated on this drawing to obtain information
23 1.5
13 concerning the character of subsurface materials
3.0 2.5
18 15 found at the site. Because the investigated
3.5
17 depths are limited and the area of the borings
2.75
3.5 24 is very small in relation to the entire site,
108 the Wisconsin Department of Transportation does
720 3.25 720
15 not warrant similar subsurface conditions below,
3.0
60/4" 3.5
18
17 between, or beyond these borings.
soil conditions should be expected and
Variations in
8
4.5 fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur.
66
710 3.5 710
43
3.0
67
1.5
28
700 700
NO. DATE REVISION BY
4.5
78
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4.5
42 STRUCTURES DESIGN SECTION
690 690
4.5
59 STRUCTURE R-40-577
DRAWN PLANS
4.5 60/4" BY pr CKD.
SCALE =
680 680
SHEET
subsurface
exploration
WisDOT Bridge Manual
This page intentionally left blank.

Ch10Geotechnical Investigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch10Geotechnical Investigation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch10Geotechnical Investigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WisDOT Bridge Manual Chapter 10 Geotechnical Investigation

10.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 2

July 2015 10-1

The following structures will require a Geotechnical Investigation:

July 2015 10-2

10.2 Subsurface Exploration

Depth, extent and thickness of each soil or rock stratum

Soil texture, color, mottling and moisture content

Rock type, color and condition

In-situ field tests to determine soil and rock parameters

Laboratory samples for determining soil or rock parameters

July 2015 10-3

Non-Standard Sign Structure Foundations: The recommended spacing would be one

July 2015 10-4

In-situ (field) Tests

Pocket penetrometer (cohesive soil)

Vane shear (cohesive soil)

Cone penetration (seldom used)

Rock core recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

Moisture, density, consistency limits and unit weight

Unconfined compression (cohesive soils and rock cores)

One-dimensional consolidation (seldom used)

Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression (seldom used)

Consolidated undrained triaxial compression with pore water pressure readings

Corrosion Tests (pH, resistivity, sulfate, chloride and organic content)

July 2015 10-5

Laboratory tests of undisturbed samples provide a more accurate assessment of soil

qu = unconfined compression strength

The preferred type of substructure foundation (i.e. shallow or deep).

The factored bearing resistance for shallow foundations.

July 2015 10-6

The settlement for the shallow foundations.

A discussion of any geotechnical issues that may affect construction.

July 2015 10-7

10.3 Soil Classification

July 2015 10-8

July 2015 10-9

10.4 Site Investigation Report

July 2015 10-10

DATE: February 17, 2015

TO: Casey Wierzchowski, P.E.

FROM: Jeffrey D Horsfall, P.E.

SUBJECT: Site Investigation Report

Attached is the Site Investigation Report for the above project.

Please call if you have any questions.

cc: Southeast Region (via e-mail)

The following describes subsurface conditions in the four borings:

Table 1: Foundation Elevations

Pile Supported Deep Foundation

Lateral Earth Pressure

Table 2: Soil Parameters and Foundation Capacities

Table 2: Soil Parameters and Foundation Capacities

5. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS

1. The following describes the subsurface conditions in the four borings:

Table 3: Estimated H-Pile Tip Elevations

5. Granular 1 backfill should be used behind the abutments.

B-40-0880 Subsurface Conditions

B-40-0880 Subsurface Conditions

1 11/3/2014 310125.9 567409.9