Kleinfelder - Geotech - Embankment Study

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
EMBANKMENT STUDY
NORTH 145TH EAST AVENUE BRIDGE
OVER INTERSTATE 44
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
June 14, 2013

Project No. 126899-5
This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance.
Non-commercial, educational, and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a “fair use” and not a
violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be
made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to
reprint has been received.
TUL13R00470 Page i of iii

Copyright 2013 Kleinfelder
G NFELDER
~ Bright People. Right Solutions.
June 14, 2013
Kevin Moore, PE, Project Manager

Garver, LLC
6450 South Lewis Avenue, Suite 300
Tulsa, OK 74136
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Embankment Study
North 145th East Avenue Bridge over Interstate 44
State J/P No. 21899(04)
Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Project No.: 126899~5
Dear Mr. Moore:
Kleinfelder has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical

engineering evaluation for the above referenced project. The purpose of the geotechnical
study was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the proposed
embankments, perform settlement and slope stability analyses, as well as develop
geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the proposed project. The
attached Kleinfelder report contains a description of the findings of our field exploration and
laboratory testing program, our engineering interpretation of the results with respect to the
project characteristics and construction guidelines for the planned project.
Recommendations provided herein are contingent on the provisions outlined in the

ADDITIONAL SERVICES and LIMITATIONS sections of this report. The project Owner
should become familiar with these provisions in order to assess further involvement by
Kleinfelder and other potential impacts to the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and are prepared to
provide the recommended additional services. Please call us if you have any questions
concerning this report.
Sincerely,
KLEINFELDER CENTRAL, INC.
Certificate of Authorization #3036, Expires 06/30113
Samuel F. Cain Ill, PE (VA, IN)

Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Page ii of iv June 14, 2013
p I 918.627.61 6 1 f I 918.627.6262
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................. 1
2. SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 3
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 3
2.2 GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY ...................................................................... 3
2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................. 4
2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS ........................................................ 5
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 6
3.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................. 6
3.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 6
3.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing .................................................................... 6
3.2.2 Moisture Conditioning, and Compaction ......................................... 7
3.2.3 Test Rolling (Proofrolling) ................................................................ 7
3.2.4 Excavation and Embankment ......................................................... 7
3.2.5 Climatic Conditions ......................................................................... 8
3.3 STRUCTURAL FILL .................................................................................. 8
3.3.1 Materials ......................................................................................... 8
3.3.2 Compaction Criteria ........................................................................ 8
3.4 SETTLEMENT ANALYSES ...................................................................... 9
3.4.1 General ........................................................................................... 9
3.4.2 Settlement Analysis......................................................................... 9
3.5 EMBANKMENT SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ................................... 10
3.5.1 Shear Strength Parameters .......................................................... 11
3.5.2 Summary of Results ...................................................................... 11
4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES .................................................................................. 13
4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW .............................................. 13
4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING................................ 13
5. LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... 14
TUL13R0470 Page iii of iv June 14, 2013

PLATES
1 Site Location Diagram
2 Boring Location Diagram
APPENDICES
A Field Exploration Program

B Laboratory Testing Program
C Cross Sections (Plate C-1)
Slope Stability Analyses Results (Plates C-2 through C-9)
D ASFE Document
TUL13R0470 Page iv of iv June 14, 2013

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
EMBANKMENT STUDY
NORTH 145TH EAST AVENUE BRIDGE
OVER INTERSTATE 44
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Kleinfelder has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical
engineering evaluation for the new embankments associated with the proposed North
145th East Avenue Bridge over Interstate 44, located approximately 1/2 mile east of the
Interstate 44 and Interstate 244 interchange in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. These
services were provided in general accordance with our proposal (TUL11P167) dated
September 28, 2011. This report includes our recommendations related to the
geotechnical aspects of the embankment section design and construction. Conclusions
and recommendations presented in the report are based on the subsurface information
encountered at the locations of our exploration and the provision and requirements
outlined in the ADDITIONAL SERVICES and LIMITATIONS sections of this report. In
addition, an article prepared by The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the
Geosciences (ASFE), Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering
Report, has been included in APPENDIX D. We recommend that all individuals read
the report limitations along with the included ASFE document.
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

We understand that the proposed project will consist of reconstructing/improving the
bridge located on North 145th East Avenue over Interstate 44, approximately 1/2 mile
east of the Interstate 44 and Interstate 244 interchange in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
Based on the plans provided by Garver LLC, dated February 11, 2013, we anticipate
that the existing roadway will be widened to accommodate a wider new bridge structure
on an offset alignment approximately 17-foot west of the existing alignment. The
widening will result in the placement of as much as 25 feet and 15 feet of new fill
material on the west and east slope of the existing embankment, respectively. The final
embankment configuration will have a maximum design slope of 3H:1V.
TUL13R0470 Page 1 of 14 June 14, 2013

For the purpose of this embankment study, we evaluated the east slopes of the southern
and northern bridge approaches, at Station 105+26 and Station 108+58, respectively. The
embankment cross sections at these stations are shown on Plate C-1.
This report has been prepared, and the corresponding work performed, in general
accordance with the “State of Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Geotechnical Specifications for Roadway Design” dated June 29, 2011. The
geotechnical engineering reports for the proposed bridge and in-place study of the
existing pavement subgrade soils are addressed in separate reports.
The scope of the exploration and engineering evaluation for this study, as well as the
conclusions and recommendations in this report, were based on our understanding of
the project as described above. If pertinent details of the project have changed or
otherwise differ from our descriptions, we must be notified and engaged to review the
changes and modify our recommendations, if needed.
TUL13R0470 Page 2 of 14 June 14, 2013

2. SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed bridge is located on North 145th East Avenue over Interstate 44, located
approximately 1/2 mile east of the Interstate 44 and Interstate 244 interchange in Tulsa
County, Oklahoma. The existing bridge is a four-span, concrete box and girder type
bridge structure. The general location of the site is shown on Plate 1, Site Location
Diagram.
The existing roadway is generally raised above the surrounding area by embankments
up to 20 feet high. North 145th East Avenue is a two-lane asphaltic concrete roadway
with grass covered shoulders. A few trees and bushes were observed on the slopes of
North 145th East Avenue embankment. The area southwest of the existing bridge is
owned by Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) and used for storage of
construction materials. During the time of field exploration, a pile of construction debris
consisted of sands, gravels and broken concrete was observed at this location. Boring
F-1 was moved from planned location away from this pile of construction debris.
Existing utilities noted within the current right-of-way include overhead lines, fiber optic
lines, and sewer lines. Additional utilities should be anticipated within the proposed
construction area.
2.2 GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY
According to the "Engineering Classification of Geologic Materials – Division Eight" from

the Oklahoma Highway Department, 1970, the bridge location appears to be located
within the Oologah Unit (Po). The following information is summarized from the
referenced report.
Oologah Unit (Po): This unit consists of limestone, shale, and some sandstone. The
limestone is hard, gray to dark gray, mostly massive bedded, and locally contains some
chert. The shale is dark to black, flaky, fissile, and calcareous.
TUL13R0470 Page 3 of 14 June 14, 2013

The total thickness of this unit is about 165 feet at the Kansas-Oklahoma line, 60 feet at
Oologah, 100 feet near Catoosa, and thins to approximately 40 feet of shale just north
of Broken Arrow. The limestones range up to about 50 feet in thickness but are mostly
less than 10 feet thick. Usually, thin stringers of shale are within the limestone. The
shale is in zones up to about 120 feet thick, but is generally less than 50 feet thick.
The Oologah unit outcrops in Craig, Nowata, Rogers, and Tulsa Counties of Division 8.
Most often, the Oologah unit forms a prominent eastward-facing escarpment.
2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Kleinfelder explored the subsurface conditions at the site by performing two soil test
borings, F-1 and F-2, at approximate Stations 104+90 and 109+65, respectively. The
subsurface exploration was performed on April 27, 2013. Additionally, Borings B-4 and
B-6 drilled on the existing embankment for the proposed bridge structure were also
used for the study. More detailed information regarding the locations of the test borings
can be found in APPENDIX A. The approximate boring locations are shown on Plate 2,
Boring Location Diagram.
The field exploration and laboratory testing programs are presented in APPENDIX A
and APPENDIX B, respectively. The following presents a general summary of the major
strata encountered during our subsurface exploration and includes a discussion of the
results of the field and laboratory tests conducted. Specific subsurface conditions
encountered at the boring location are presented on the respective boring log in
APPENDIX A. The stratification lines shown on the log represent the approximate
boundaries between material types; in-situ, the transitions may vary or be gradual.
Boring F-1 encountered approximately 4.3 feet of existing fill consisting primarily of sand
with varying amounts of clay and gravel. Borings B-4 and B-6 were advanced through
the existing embankment fill. The existing embankment fill encountered in these boring
consisted primarily of clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel. Also, the existing
embankment fill sections that were encountered in Borings B-4 and B-6 were noted to
have intermittent cobbles and boulders.
Native soils comprised of lean clay, fat clay and clayey gravel were encountered below
the existing fill in F-1, and below approximately 3 inches of topsoil in F-2. These native
soils were underlain by limestone bedrock.
TUL13R0470 Page 4 of 14 June 14, 2013
Due to the gravel content of the existing fill soils and native clay, Shelby tube samples
and Marchetti dilatometer sounding was not conducted at the site. Shear strength and
compressibility parameters were derived from published correlations and past
experience.
2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
Groundwater observations were made during and after completion of drilling operations.
Borings F-1 and F-2 remained dry and no visible groundwater seepage was observed.
Borings B-4 and B-6 were dry prior to coring of the bedrock. Groundwater was
observed at approximately 18 and 17 feet below the existing ground surface in Borings
B-4 and B-6 at the completion of drilling, respectively. Introduction of water as drilling
fluid was required during coring operations in B-4 and B-6, thus limiting the reliability of
further observation of groundwater conditions until the water level in the boring could
equalize with the groundwater depth. For this reason, the groundwater readings in B-4
and B-6 were not included in modeling the slope stability or settlement characteristics of
the embankments.
The materials encountered in the test borings have a wide range of permeabilities and
observations over an extended period of time through use of piezometers or cased
borings would be required to better define groundwater conditions. Fluctuations of
groundwater levels can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff,
river/creek level, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed.
The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing
the design and construction plans for the project.
TUL13R0470 Page 5 of 14 June 14, 2013

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 GENERAL
Based on the results of our evaluation, it is our professional opinion that the proposed
project site can be developed for the proposed embankment section using conventional
grading and construction techniques. Recommendations regarding geotechnical
aspects of the project design and construction are presented below.
The recommendations submitted herein are based, in part, upon data obtained from our
subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of subsurface variations that may exist
at the proposed project site will not become evident until construction. If variations
appear evident, then the recommendations presented in this report should be
evaluated. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the
proposed project are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this
report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and our
recommendations modified in writing.
3.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT

3.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Clearing and grubbing should be performed in accordance with the procedures outlined
in this section and as specified by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT)
“Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2009)”, Section 201. We
recommend that all unsuitable materials be removed from the site prior to placement of
structural fill. We recommend that qualified engineering personnel monitor the stripping
operations to observe that all unsuitable materials have been removed. Soils removed
during stripping operations could be wasted outside of the project site. Care should be
exercised to separate these materials to avoid incorporation of the organic matter in
structural fill sections.
Any required tree removal should also be accomplished at this time. Care should be
taken to thoroughly remove all root systems from the proposed construction area.
Materials disturbed during removal of stumps should be undercut and replaced with
structural fill. A zone of desiccated soils may exist in the vicinity of the trees. The
TUL13R0470 Page 6 of 14 June 14, 2013

desiccated soils have a higher swell potential and should also be undercut and replaced
with structural fill.
3.2.2 Moisture Conditioning, and Compaction
Prior to placement of any required structural fill, the moisture content of the exposed
subgrade should be evaluated. Depending on the in-situ moisture content of the
subgrade exposed, moisture conditioning of the exposed grade may be required prior to
proofrolling and/or fill placement. The moisture content of the exposed grade in these
fill areas should be adjusted to within the range recommended for structural fill, to allow
the exposed material to be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the standard
Proctor density. Extremely wet or unstable areas that hamper compaction of the
subgrade may require undercutting and replacement with structural fill or other
stabilization techniques. Suitable structural fill should be placed to design grade as
soon as practical after reworking the subgrade to avoid moisture changes in the
underlying soils.
3.2.3 Test Rolling (Proofrolling)
Following moisture conditioning, it is recommended that the exposed grade be test

rolled. Test Rolling should be performed in accordance as specified by the Oklahoma
Department of Transportation (ODOT) “Standard Specifications for Highway
Construction (2009)” Section 203.
3.2.4 Excavation and Embankment

Excavation and embankment construction procedures should be performed in
accordance with procedures as specified by the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation (ODOT) “Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2009)”
Section 202.
Where the new embankment ties into the existing embankments, we recommend that
new fill be benched laterally into the existing slopes at least 5 feet to allow compaction
of any loose zones. This benching must be done in a manner that will not reduce the
stability of the existing slopes. It is recommended benches have a maximum height of 3
feet. The existing slopes should be monitored each day both visually and with elevation
points to detect zones of instability. If fill placement during construction of the
TUL13R0470 Page 7 of 14 June 14, 2013

embankments is not continuous, the surface of each lift should be scarified and
moisture conditioned prior to placement of the next lift.
3.2.5 Climatic Conditions
Weather conditions will influence the site preparation required. In spring and late fall,
following periods of rainfall, the moisture content of the near surface soils may be
significantly above the optimum moisture content. These conditions could seriously
impede grading by causing an unstable subgrade condition. Typical remedial measures
include aerating the wet subgrade, removal of the wet materials and replacing them with
dry materials, or treating the material with cement kiln dust (CKD) or Class “C” fly ash.
If construction of the project is to be performed during winter months, appropriate steps

shall be taken to prevent the soils from freezing. In no case shall the fill or other exterior
flat work be placed on or against frozen or partially frozen materials. Frozen materials
shall be removed and replaced with a suitable material. Frozen materials shall not be
included in any compacted fills.
3.3 STRUCTURAL FILL

3.3.1 Materials
All structural fill and backfill should consist of approved materials, free of organic matter
(< 5 percent by weight) or deleterious debris and have a maximum particle size of 3
inches. Approved materials are defined as those soils classified by ASTM D2487 as
CL, CH, ML, MH, SM, SW, SC, SP, GW, GP, GM, and GC. Unsuitable materials are
defined as those soils classified by ASTM D2487 as OL, OH, and PT. Materials
encountered that are free of debris or topsoil would be suitable for use as general fill.
3.3.2 Compaction Criteria

Fill should be placed in lifts having a maximum loose lift thickness of 8 inches. All new
embankment fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material's
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 (standard Proctor compaction). If
the plasticity index of the soils is less than or equal to 20 percent, the moisture content
of the fill at time of compaction should be within a range of 2 percent below to 2 percent
above optimum moisture content as defined by the standard Proctor compaction
procedure. If the plasticity index of the soils is greater than 20, the moisture content of
the fill at time of compaction should be within a range of 0 percent to 4 percent above
TUL13R0470 Page 8 of 14 June 14, 2013

optimum moisture content as defined by the standard Proctor compaction procedure.
Moisture contents should be maintained within this range until completion of the upper
lift.
3.4 SETTLEMENT ANALYSES

3.4.1 General
The preliminary cross-sections dated February 11, 2013 were provided in an electronic
format and were used for the analyses. The settlement evaluations were performed for
the cross sections at Stations 105+26 and 108+58, where the heights of the proposed
embankment are approximately 19.5 and 25 feet, respectively. Cross-sections at the
locations analyzed are included in Plate C-1, Cross Section.
Settlement analyses consisted of evaluation the estimated settlement of existing

foundation soils, along with settlement of the embankment fill. Foundation soil
settlement analyses were completed using laboratory test results, correlations of SPT to
constraint modulus of foundation soils, and past experience with similar soil conditions.
An estimated bulk density of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) was used for the analysis.
Seismic conditions were not considered in the analysis.
3.4.2 Settlement Analysis

Based on our analyses, the estimated foundation soil and embankment fill settlement
amounts are summarized in Table 1. Based on our experience with similar subsurface
conditions and anticipated embankment material soil types, we anticipate the amount of
internal embankment settlement will range between 1 and 2 percent of the proposed
embankment height. The table below uses an estimated internal embankment
settlement of 2 percent to indicate the maximum anticipated settlement values.
TUL13R0470 Page 9 of 14 June 14, 2013

Table 1. Summary of Estimated Soil Settlement
Foundation Soils Internal
Total
Immediate Consolidation Embankment
Location Settlement,
Settlement, Settlement, Settlement,
in.
in. in.* in.
105+26 (South
<0.5 -- 5 5.5
Approach)
108+58 (North
<0.5 -- 6 6.5
Approach)
* Based on the groundwater conditions encountered during field exploration
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, native soils
appear to be over-consolidated cohesive clay above the water table. As such, it is
anticipated that settlement will generally consist of elastic/immediate settlement that
should occur as fill is being placed. However, predicting time rate of settlement of
partially saturated and/or over-consolidated clay soils is difficult, and in some cases,
settlement occurs more slowly than predicted. Because of this uncertainty, it is
recommended that settlement be continuously monitored during construction of the
proposed embankments for a minimum of 14 days after construction of the fill materials
to confirm the estimated settlement amount. The settlement of the embankment can be
monitored through the installation of settlement plates. Alternatively, since the majority
of the settlement is expected to be immediate/elastic, monitoring of the foundation soils
and embankment internal settlement can be performed by setting monitoring points at
the top of the fill AFTER the final grade is reached. These monitoring points should be
continuously monitored for a minimum of 14 days. The results of the monitoring should
be submitted and reviewed by Kleinfelder or an ODOT geotechnical engineer to ensure
that the estimated settlement has occurred and the post construction settlement is
limited to less than 1.0 inch.
3.5 EMBANKMENT SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

Based on the preliminary cross section plans provided, the proposed embankment side
slopes range from 3H:1V to 6H:1V. To evaluate the stability of the proposed
embankment slopes, we performed slope stability analyses for two different potential
failure modes: 1) end of construction of the embankment (undrained case) and 2) long
term (drained case). Slope stability calculations were performed using the computer
program "SlopeW" which calculates the factor of safety (FOS) of a slope using the
Spencer limit equilibrium method of slices. The analyses were performed using the
TUL13R0470 Page 10 of 14 June 14, 2013
provided cross-sections at approximate stations 105+26 and 108+58. The FOS, by
definition, is equal to the ratio of resisting forces to driving forces. The minimum slope
stability FOS against failure for the purpose of this project has been taken as 1.3 for the
undrained case and 1.5 for the drained case. Each analysis assumed 150 psf
surcharge across the entire roadway width to account for traffic loading.
3.5.1 Shear Strength Parameters
Shear strength parameters for the existing fill and native soils were estimated based on
SPT N-values and index testing correlations along with our experience with similar soil
conditions. Shear strength parameters for the new embankment fill were estimated
based on our experience with native soils in the area. Slope stability analyses were
performed assuming that embankments will be constructed with either cohesive soils
(clay/silt) or cohesionless soils (sand). The estimated shear strength parameters used
in the analyses are presented in Table C-1, and the graphical Slope/W output files
presented in Plates C-2 through C-9, in APPENDIX C. Based on subsurface
exploration results obtained in borings B-4 and B-6, we anticipate the shear strength
parameters for the existing fill will be similar to the new embankment fills. Therefore the
right side of the embankment was analyzed, which includes the existing embankment
materials.
3.5.2 Summary of Results
The factor of safeties computed for the sections analyzed are summarized in Table 2,
and graphical Slope/W output files are provided in Plates C-2 through C-9 in APPENDIX
C. As indicated by the stability analyses results, the proposed cross-sections and
slopes exhibit a calculated FOS (≥1.3 or 1.5, respectively) against overall slope failure
in the short-term and long-term. If instability of the embankment slope is observed
during construction, all fill placement activities should cease immediately and the
geotechnical engineer contacted.
The slope stability analyses were performed based on estimated shear strength
properties of the fill materials. The shear strength parameters of the soils
proposed for new embankment fill should be evaluated via proper laboratory
testing once the borrow material source has been selected. Additional slope
stability analyses may be required to assess the influence of the shear strength
parameters of the selected new fill material(s).
TUL13R0470 Page 11 of 14 June 14, 2013

Table 2. Slope Stability Analysis Results
(Calculated Safety Factors)
Cohesive Embankment Fill Granular Embankment Fill
Station Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term
(Undrained) (Drained) (Undrained) (Drained)
105+26 3.5 1.5 1.8 1.7
108+58 2.5 1.5 1.8 1.5
For embankments constructed from cohesionless soils (sand, gravel, silt or

combinations thereof) slope stability was analyzed using a minimum slip surface depth
of 5 feet. The use of this constraint ignores failure surfaces shallower than 5 feet in
depth, as shallow surface or “skin” slides are generally considered a maintenance issue
and should be addressed through operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures, such
as observation of the slope on a periodic basis and after prolonged precipitation events.
Embankments constructed with cohesionless materials are more subject to
erosion and scour due to water flow over the embankment face. Although
erosion analysis is beyond the scope of our analysis, it is generally
recommended that embankment slopes be armored and/or well vegetated (with
appropriate grass cover) to assist in reducing the influence of water that may flow
over the face of the embankment, regardless of embankment material type. Water
should be channeled away from the slope face to reduce the possibility of erosion due
to water flow.
TUL13R0470 Page 12 of 14 June 14, 2013

4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW

We recommend that Kleinfelder conduct a general review of the final plans and
specifications to evaluate that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and
implemented during design. In the event Kleinfelder is not retained to perform this
recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our
recommendations.
4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
We recommend that earthwork be monitored by a representative from Kleinfelder,

including site preparation and placement of all engineered fill. The purpose of these
services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the subsurface
conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the
recommendations presented in this report to the subsurface conditions encountered,
and recommend appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions
differ from those described herein.
TUL13R0470 Page 13 of 14 June 14, 2013

5. LIMITATIONS
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and
subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the
proposed construction. It is possible that subsurface conditions could vary between or
beyond the points explored. If subsurface conditions are encountered during
construction that differ from those described herein, we should be notified immediately
in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided.
If the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed loads or structural
locations, changes from that described in this report, our recommendations should also
be reviewed.
We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study.
No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations provided in this report are
based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be
conducted by Kleinfelder during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance
with our recommendations. The scope of our services did not include any
environmental assessment or exploration for the presence of hazardous or toxic
materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on, below or around this site.
This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a
reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than three years from the date
of report. Land use, site conditions (both on-site and off-site), regulations, or other
factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of
time. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify
Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder
may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued.
Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release
Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized
party and client agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any
claim or liability associated with such unauthorized or non-compliance.
TUL13R0470 Page 14 of 14 June 14, 2013

PLATES
PLATE 1: SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM

PLATE 2: BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

TULSA, OKLAHOMA
Approximate Location
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT NO. 126899-5 PLATE

Source: ESRI DRAWN: 5/8/2013 SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM
The information included on this graphic representation has been
compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations of DRAWN BY: WLT
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document
is not intended for use as a land survey product nor it is designed
or intended as a construction design document. The use or
misuse of the information contained on this graphic
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
SYW
NORTH 145TH EAST AVENUE OVER INTERSTATE 44
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
1
representation is at the soile risk of the party using or misusing TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
126899-5
TULSA, OKLAHOMA
F-1 F-2
B-4 B-6
PROJECT NO. 126899-5 PLATE

Source: Garver DRAWN: 5/8/2013 BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations of DRAWN BY: WLT
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
SYW
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
2
126899-5
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
DRILLING & SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Kleinfelder conducted the field work for this study April 27, 2013. The exploration consisted
of two soil test borings performed near the location indicated on the Boring Location Diagram,
Plate 2. The borings were drilled to the top of bedrock, and terminated at approximate
depths of 7.4 and 3.7 feet (elevations of 699.2 and 690.7) below existing ground surface in
Borings F-1 and F-2, respectively. Additionally, Borings B-4 and B-6 drilled for the proposed
bridge structure were also used for the study.
Boring locations were established in the field by representatives of Kleinfelder. A measuring

tape was used to measure distances from the existing landmarks. Right angles were
estimated. Approximate elevations at the boring locations were determined through use of
an engineer's level. The elevations were referenced to the existing benchmarks/control
points established at the project site. Benchmark information from utilized for the boring and
sounding locations are summarized below in Table A1.
Table A1. Benchmark/Control Point Description, Location, and Elevation
Benchmark/
Benchmark/ Ground
Control Point
Control Point No. Elevation* (feet) Off Set From CL
Description Station
of Survey
Brass cap at
existing bridge
ODOT BM northwest 720.92 107+76.40 14.72’ Lt.
headwall
Bennett Surveying ½” Rebar in
ground 718.65 108+32.87 18.96’ Lt.
Control Point #100
Table A2 lists the approximate boring locations and the respective ground surface elevations.
Locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the methods used.
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

Table A2. Approximate Boring Locations and Ground Surface Elevations
Ground Elevation* Offset from Construction
Boring No.
(feet) Station Reference Line of 145th East
Avenue
F-1 706.6 104+90 73’ Lt.
F-2 694.4 109+65 62’ Lt.
B-41 719.6 105+73 32’ Rt.
1
B-6 719.6 108+06 30’ Rt.
1
* Elevations based on site datum Bridge Borings
Borings: The drilled borings were performed with a track-mounted (CME 550X) rotary drill rig
using solid stem augers. Soil Samples were obtained by Shelby tube, and Standard
Penetration test (SPT) using a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler. The Shelby tube sampling
procedure was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1587, utilizes a thin-walled,
steel tube with a sharp cutting edge that is pushed hydraulically into the bottom of the boring
to obtain relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive or moderately cohesive soils. Split-
barrel sampling was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D1586 (Standard Test
Method for Standard Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils). The split-barrel
sampler is driven into the bottom of the boring over an 18-inch sampling interval by a 140-
pound hammer (CME automatic hammer with measured efficiency of 78.3%) that is dropped
a distance of 30 inches. The SPT N-value, recorded on the boring logs, is the number of
blows required to drive the split-barrel sampler the final 12 inches of the 18-inch sampling
interval. The samples were sealed and returned to our laboratory for further examination,
classification and testing.
Boring logs included in this APPENDIX, present such data as soil and bedrock descriptions,
consistency, relative density and relative hardness evaluations, depths, sampling intervals
and observed groundwater conditions. Conditions encountered in the boring were monitored
and recorded by the drill crew. Field log included visual classification of the materials
encountered during drilling, as well as drilling characteristics. Our final boring log represents
the engineer’s interpretation of the field log combined with laboratory observation and testing
of the samples. Stratification boundaries indicated on the boring log were based on
observations during our field work, an extrapolation of information obtained by examining
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

samples from the boring and comparisons of soils with similar engineering characteristics.
Locations of these boundaries are approximate, and the transitions between material types
may be gradual rather than clearly defined.
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

Date Begin - End: 4/27/2013 - 4/27/2013 Drill Company: R.C. Drilling BORING LOG F-1
Logged By: S. Wang Drill Crew: R. Campbell
Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drill Equipment: CME-550X Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Exploration Plunge: -90 degrees Exploration Method: Solid Stem Auger Hammer Efficiency: 78%
Weather: Auger Diameter: 4.5 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: 11/13/2012
FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS
(NP=No Plasticity)
(NR=No Recovery)
Dry Density (pcf)
#200 Sieve (%)
(NV=No Value)
Elevation (feet)
Plasticity Index
Uncorr. blows/6 in.
Blow Counts(BC)=
Graphical Log
Passing No.4
Sample Type
Approximate
Other Tests/
No Coordinates Available
Content (%)
Depth (feet)
Liquid Limit
Approximate Surface Elevation (ft.): 706.6
Sieve (%)
Remarks
Recovery
Number
Passing
Sta. 104+90 Offset 73 ft. Lt. of CRL
Sample
Symbol
USCS
Water
FILL
Sandy Gravelly CLAY: dark brown
706 1 BC=2 11 SC 9.4 61 21 27 9

in.
5
4
1
705
2
2 BC=6 18 SC-SM 12.3 75 28 27 6
in.
4
9
704
3
C:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_SR.1.2.GLB [KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG]
703 3 BC=5 16 CL 23.8 99 93 43 17

in.
3
5
4
702.3
Silty Clayey SAND with Gravel (SC-SM):
702 reddish brown, soft
5
4 BC=4 15 GC 10.6 51 34 31 9
in.
29
20
701
700.8
**Weathered LIMESTONE: light gray, soft
6
700 5 BC=16 9 in.

50/4.5"
699.6
7
**LIMESTONE: gray, hard
699.2
699
The exploration was terminated at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
approximately 7.5 ft. below ground surface. The Groundwater was not encountered during drilling or after
8 exploration was backfilled with bentonite on completion.
gINT FILE: C:\pwworking\dms14222\126899-5_i-44 & 145th Street.gpj
GENERAL NOTES:
April 27, 2013. **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visual
observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required
698 for exact classification.**
The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were
estimated by Kleinfelder.
9
697
PROJECT NO.: 126899-5 PLATE

BORING LOG F-1
DRAWN BY: BJM
CHECKED BY: SFC

North 145th East Avenue F-1
DATE: 5/1/2013 over Interstate 44
State J/P No. 21899(04)
REVISED: Tulsa County, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 1
KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com
Date Begin - End: 4/27/2013 - 4/27/2013 Drill Company: R.C. Drilling BORING LOG F-2
Exploration Plunge: -90 degrees Exploration Method: Solid Stem Auger Hammer Efficiency: 78%
Weather: Auger Diameter: 4.5 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: 11/13/2012
(NP=No Plasticity)
(NR=No Recovery)
Dry Density (pcf)
#200 Sieve (%)
(NV=No Value)
Elevation (feet)
Plasticity Index
Uncorr. blows/6 in.
Blow Counts(BC)=
Graphical Log
Passing No.4
Sample Type
Approximate
Other Tests/
Content (%)
Depth (feet)
Liquid Limit
Sieve (%)
Remarks
Recovery
Number
Passing
Sta. 109+65 Offset 62 ft. Lt. of CRL
Sample
Symbol
USCS
Water
TOPSOIL 694.2
Fat CLAY (CH): dark brown, firm
694
1 BC=2 12 CH 25.0 100 95 52 24
in.
4
5
1
693
692.4
2
Clayey GRAVEL (GC): dark brown, medium 2 BC=4 11 GC 19.3 58 47 51 23
dense in.
8
692 4
3
691 690.9
**LIMESTONE: gray, hard 690.7 3 BC=50/3.0" 3 in.
4 The exploration was terminated at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:

approximately 3.5 ft. below ground surface. The Groundwater was not encountered during drilling or after
completion.
690 exploration was backfilled with bentonite on GENERAL NOTES:
April 27, 2013. **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visual
observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required
for exact classification.**
5 The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were
689
688
687
8
686
685

BORING LOG F-2
DRAWN BY: BJM
CHECKED BY: SFC

North 145th East Avenue F-2
State J/P No. 21899(04)
Date Begin - End: 4/25/2013 - 4/25/2013 Drill Company: R.C. Drilling BORING LOG B-4
Exploration Plunge: -90 degrees Exploration Method: Core-NQ Hammer Efficiency: 78%
Weather: Auger Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: 11/13/2012
(NP=No Plasticity)
(NR=No Recovery)
Dry Density (pcf)
#200 Sieve (%)
(NV=No Value)
Elevation (feet)
Plasticity Index
Uncorr. blows/6 in.
Blow Counts(BC)=
Graphical Log
Passing No.4
Sample Type
Approximate
Other Tests/
Content (%)
Depth (feet)
Liquid Limit
Sieve (%)
Remarks
Recovery
Number
Passing
Sta. 105+73 Offset 32 ft. Rt. of CRL
Sample
Symbol
USCS
Water
TOPSOIL 719.4
FILL
Lean CLAY with Sand: brown and dark brown
1 BC=2 16 CL 25.8 90 82 37 16
4 in.
715 4
5
713.6
FILL
Sandy Lean CLAY: dark brown and tan 2 10 CH 26.0 98 81 55 28
in.
3 BC=3 10 MH 26.4 74 63 62 30
4 in.
710 7
10
709.1
FILL
**Weathered SANDSTONE with Boulders and
Gravels: gray and tan
4 BC=14 13 GC 5.3 33 21 26 8
705.1 11 in.
705 16
15
FILL
Lean CLAY: bluish gray
5 BC=4 14 CL 16.3 72 66 42 17
10 in.
700 26
20
697.4
**LIMESTONE: light gray, fine-grained, 6 BC=50/1.0" NR
unweathered to slightly weathered, massive, 7 57
in.
highly fractured, medium strong to strong, tight
joint
695 Unc. Comp. Str.= 9080

25
psi
8 60
in.
690

BORING LOG B-4
DRAWN BY: BJM
CHECKED BY: SFC

North 145th East Avenue B-4
State J/P No. 21899(04)
(NP=No Plasticity)
(NR=No Recovery)
Dry Density (pcf)
#200 Sieve (%)
(NV=No Value)
Elevation (feet)
Plasticity Index
Uncorr. blows/6 in.
Blow Counts(BC)=
Graphical Log
Passing No.4
Sample Type
Approximate
Other Tests/
Content (%)
Depth (feet)
Liquid Limit
Sieve (%)
Remarks
Recovery
Number
Passing
Sample
Symbol
USCS
Water
**LIMESTONE: light gray, fine-grained,
unweathered to slightly weathered, massive,
highly fractured, medium strong to strong, tight
Unc. Comp. Str.= 7850
joint
psi
- moderately to highly fractured below 32.2 feet 9 60
in.
685
35

psi
10 60
in.
680
40 Unc. Comp. Str.= 9690
psi
- highly to intensely fractured below 42.2 feet 11 60

in.
psi
675
45
- thinly bedded shale at 45.0 feet
12 60
in.
- moderately bedded shale at 48.5 feet

670
50

667.4 psi

approximately 52 ft. below ground surface. The Groundwater was observed at approximately 14.5 ft. below ground
exploration was backfilled with bentonite on surface during drilling.
Groundwater was observed at approximately 18 ft. below ground

665 April 25, 2013. surface after drilling completion.
55
NOTE: Dry prior to coring.
GENERAL NOTES:
**Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visual
observation of core samples. Petrographic analysis of thin sections
of the core samples may reveal other rock types.
660

BORING LOG B-4
DRAWN BY: BJM
CHECKED BY: SFC

State J/P No. 21899(04)
Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drill Equipment: CME-55 Track Rig Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
(NP=No Plasticity)
(NR=No Recovery)
Dry Density (pcf)
#200 Sieve (%)
(NV=No Value)
Elevation (feet)
Plasticity Index
Uncorr. blows/6 in.
Blow Counts(BC)=
Graphical Log
Passing No.4
Sample Type
Approximate
Other Tests/
Content (%)
Depth (feet)
Liquid Limit
Sieve (%)
Remarks
Recovery
Number
Passing
Sample
Symbol
USCS
Water
TOPSOIL 719.4
FILL
Sandy Lean CLAY: dark brown
- gravels below 1.0 foot
- cobbles below 2.5 feet
1 BC=4 12 ML 26.9 94 85
3 in.
715 4
5
- cobbles at 6.3 - 10.0 feet
2 BC=5 2 in. GM 7.1 53 27

8
710 5
10
- cobbles at 10.8 - 11.5 feet 708.1

FILL
Lean CLAY: brown, yellowish brown, olive
green, tan and dark brown
3 BC=4 13 CL 12.1 86 75 31 12
4 in.
705 4
15
703.6
FILL
BOULDERS AND CLAY
4 BC=4 18 CL 15.7 88 73 35 14
8 in.
700 10
20
5 BC=4 14 CL 19.8 82 76 44 20
in.
695.1 6
695 50/2.5"
25
**LIMESTONE: light gray and gray, 6 34
unweathered to slightly weathered, massive, in.
moderately to intensely fractured, medium
strong to strong, tight joint

psi
690

BORING LOG B-6
DRAWN BY: BJM
CHECKED BY: SFC

State J/P No. 21899(04)
Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drill Equipment: CME-55 Track Rig Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
(NP=No Plasticity)
(NR=No Recovery)
Dry Density (pcf)
#200 Sieve (%)
(NV=No Value)
Elevation (feet)
Plasticity Index
Uncorr. blows/6 in.
Blow Counts(BC)=
Graphical Log
Passing No.4
Sample Type
Approximate
Other Tests/
Content (%)
Depth (feet)
Liquid Limit
Sieve (%)
Remarks
Recovery
Number
Passing
Sample
Symbol
USCS
Water
**LIMESTONE: light gray and gray, 7 60
unweathered to slightly weathered, massive, in.
moderately to intensely fractured, medium Unc. Comp. Str.= 6150
strong to strong, tight joint psi
685
35 8 60
in.

psi
680
40 9 60
in.

psi
675
45 10 60
- thinly bedded shale at 45.1 feet in.

psi
670
50 11 60
- thinly bedded shale at 50.0 feet in. Unc. Comp. Str.= 3030
psi
665 664.9
55
approximately 54.5 ft. below ground surface. Groundwater was observed at approximately 17 ft. below ground
The exploration was backfilled with bentonite on surface after drilling completion.
NOTE: Dry prior to coring.
April 27, 2013. GENERAL NOTES:
**Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visual
observation of core samples. Petrographic analysis of thin sections
of the core samples may reveal other rock types.
660 estimated by Kleinfelder.

BORING LOG B-6
DRAWN BY: BJM
CHECKED BY: SFC

State J/P No. 21899(04)
gINT FILE: C:\pwworking\dms14222\126899-5_i-44 & 145th Street.gpj C:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_SR.1.2.GLB [8.5X11 PROFILE]
A A'
B-4 B-6
720 720
715 715
710 710
F-1
705 705
700 700
F-2
695 695
ELEVATION (feet)
ELEVATION (feet)
690 690
685 685
680 680
675 675
670 670
665 665
660 660
NOTE: PLATE
Refer to Individual Logs for detailed information and the PROJECT NO.: 126899-5
Graphic Legend Keys for graphical symbol information. SUBSURFACE CROSS-SECTION
DRAWN BY: BJM
CHECKED BY: SFC

North 145th East Avenue
A-1
State J/P No. 21899(04)
REVISED: Tulsa County, Oklahoma
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
GENERAL
Laboratory tests were performed on select, representative samples to evaluate pertinent
engineering properties of these materials. We directed our laboratory testing program
primarily toward classifying the subsurface materials and measuring index values of the on-
site materials. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable
standards. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the respective boring logs.
The laboratory testing program consisted of the following:
• Moisture content tests, ASTM D 2216, Standard Test Method for Laboratory
Determination of Water
• Atterberg limits, ASTM D 4318, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit,
Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
• Particle Size Analysis of Soil, ASTM D422, Standard Test Methods for
Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
• Visual classification, ASTM D 2488, Standard Practice for Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

gINT FILE: C:\pwworking\dms14222\126899-5_i-44 & 145th Street.gpj C:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_SR.1.2.GLB [OKLAHOMA LAB SUMMARY WITHOUT -]
SOIL INDEX (OSI)

Atterberg Limits Sieve Analysis
OKLAHOMA
Approx.
Moisture
Plastic Limits
Liquid Limits
Sample Sample
Exploration ID Sample Description USCS AASHTO Content Passing Passing Passing Passing Passing
Depth No.
(%)
Plasticity
(ft.) #4 #10 #40 #100 #200
Sieve (%) Sieve (%) Sieve (%) Sieve (%) Sieve (%)
Index
B-4 3.5 - 5.0 1 LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL CL A-6(13) 13.8 25.8 37 21 16 90 88 86 85 82
B-4 6.5 - 8.5 2 FAT CLAY WITH SAND CH A-7-6(25) 22.2 26.0 55 27 28 98 95 88 84 81
B-4 8.5 - 10.0 3 GRAVELLY ELASTIC SILT MH A-7-5(18) 23.08 26.4 62 32 30 74 71 65 64 63
B-4 13.5 - 15.0 4 CLAYEY GRAVEL GC A-2-4 0.48 5.3 26 18 8 33 27 23 22 21
B-4 18.5 - 20.0 5 GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY CL A-7-6(10) 15.11 16.3 42 25 17 72 70 69 68 66
B-6 3.5 - 5.0 1 ML A-4 26.9 94 91 88 87 85
B-6 8.5 - 10.0 2 GM A-2-4 7.1 53 43 32 29 27
B-6 13.5 - 15.0 3 LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL CL A-6(7) 11 12.1 31 19 12 86 80 78 77 75
B-6 18.5 - 20.0 4 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND CL A-4(0) 4 15.7 35 21 14 88 84 83 82 73
B-6 23.5 - 24.7 5 LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL CL A-7-6(15) 16.8 19.8 44 24 20 82 81 79 78 76
F-1 0.5 - 2.0 1 CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL SC A-2-4 0.54 9.4 27 18 9 61 49 35 26 21
F-1 2.0 - 3.5 2 SILTY, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL SC-SM A-2-4 0.78 12.3 27 21 6 75 62 46 36 28
F-1 3.5 - 5.0 3 LEAN CLAY CL A-7-6(18) 15.4 23.8 43 26 17 99 98 97 95 93
F-1 5.0 - 6.5 4 CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND GC A-2-4 1.71 10.6 31 22 9 51 45 39 36 34
F-2 0.5 - 2.0 1 FAT CLAY CH A-7-6(27) 20 25.0 52 28 24 100 99 97 96 95
F-2 2.0 - 3.5 2 CLAYEY GRAVEL GC A-7-6(7) 16.82 19.3 51 28 23 58 53 49 48 47
PROJECT NO.: 126899-5 TABLE

LABORATORY TEST
DRAWN BY: BJM RESULT SUMMARY
CHECKED BY: SFC
State J/P No. 21899(04)
REVISED: Tulsa County, Oklahoma
APPENDIX C
CROSS SECTIONS
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES RESULTS
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

Table C-1. Shear Strength Parameters
Undrained Drained
Unit (Short Term) (Long Term)
Material Weight, Friction Friction
Cohesion, Cohesion,
pcf angle, angle,
psf psf
degrees degrees
Cohesive
125 0 1,000 26 0
Embankment Fill
Cohesionless
125 30 0 30 0
Embankment Fill
Existing Embankment Fill 125 0 1,000 26 0
Native Clay 115 0 1,200 25 0
Bedrock Considered impenetrable in analysis
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

TULSA, OKLAHOMA
105+26
108+58
SOURCE: Preliminary X-Sec Plans dated 2-11-13 PROJECT NO. 126899-5 PLATE
DESIGN CROSS SECTION AT
DRAWN: 5/21/2013
The information included on this graphic representation has been STATION 105+26 and 108+58
without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations of DRAWN BY: SFC
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
HML
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
C-1
126899-5
TULSA, OKLAHOMA
PROJECT NO. 126899-5 SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS PLATE

DRAWN: 5/21/2013 Station 105+26 Cohesionless Fill
DRAWN BY: SFC Drained Condition
without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations of
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
HML
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
C-2
126899-5
TULSA, OKLAHOMA

DRAWN BY: SFC Undrained Condition
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
HML
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
C-3
126899-5
TULSA, OKLAHOMA

DRAWN: 5/21/2013 Station 105+26 Cohesive Fill
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
HML
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
C-4
126899-5
TULSA, OKLAHOMA

CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
HML
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
C-5
126899-5
TULSA, OKLAHOMA

CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
HML
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
C-6
126899-5
TULSA, OKLAHOMA

CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
HML
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
C-7
126899-5
TULSA, OKLAHOMA

CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
HML
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
C-8
126899-5
TULSA, OKLAHOMA

CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
HML
STATE J/P NO. 21899(04)
C-9
126899-5
APPENDIX D
ASFE DOCUMENT
TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

Important Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed structure,
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of • composition of the design team, or
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- • project ownership.
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact.
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
— not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project they were not informed.
except the one originally contemplated.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
Read the Full Report A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
Do not read selected elements only. time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- analysis could prevent major problems.
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of Opinions
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
• not prepared for you, site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly—
• not prepared for your project, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
• completed before important project changes were made. most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations"
construction observation. many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
Misinterpretation engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
conferences, and by providing construction observation. regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or someone else.
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
Give Contractors a Complete Report and devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
Guidance prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, from growing in or on the structure involved.
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial
Engineer for Additional Assistance
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910

Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s
specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.0M

Kleinfelder - Geotech - Embankment Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Kleinfelder - Geotech - Embankment Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

June 14, 2013

TUL13R00470 Page i of iii

June 14, 2013

Kevin Moore, PE, Project Manager

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Dear Mr. Moore:

Kleinfelder has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical

Recommendations provided herein are contingent on the provisions outlined in the

Samuel F. Cain Ill, PE (VA, IN)

Page ii of iv June 14, 2013

TUL13R0470 Page iii of iv June 14, 2013

A Field Exploration Program

TUL13R0470 Page iv of iv June 14, 2013

1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

TUL13R0470 Page 1 of 14 June 14, 2013

TUL13R0470 Page 2 of 14 June 14, 2013

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.2 GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY

According to the "Engineering Classification of Geologic Materials – Division Eight" from

TUL13R0470 Page 3 of 14 June 14, 2013

2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

TUL13R0470 Page 5 of 14 June 14, 2013

3.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT

TUL13R0470 Page 6 of 14 June 14, 2013

3.2.2 Moisture Conditioning, and Compaction

3.2.3 Test Rolling (Proofrolling)

Following moisture conditioning, it is recommended that the exposed grade be test

3.2.4 Excavation and Embankment

TUL13R0470 Page 7 of 14 June 14, 2013

3.2.5 Climatic Conditions

If construction of the project is to be performed during winter months, appropriate steps

3.3 STRUCTURAL FILL

3.3.2 Compaction Criteria

TUL13R0470 Page 8 of 14 June 14, 2013

3.4 SETTLEMENT ANALYSES

Settlement analyses consisted of evaluation the estimated settlement of existing

3.4.2 Settlement Analysis

TUL13R0470 Page 9 of 14 June 14, 2013

3.5 EMBANKMENT SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

3.5.1 Shear Strength Parameters

3.5.2 Summary of Results

TUL13R0470 Page 11 of 14 June 14, 2013

105+26 3.5 1.5 1.8 1.7

108+58 2.5 1.5 1.8 1.5

For embankments constructed from cohesionless soils (sand, gravel, silt or

TUL13R0470 Page 12 of 14 June 14, 2013

4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW

4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

We recommend that earthwork be monitored by a representative from Kleinfelder,

TUL13R0470 Page 13 of 14 June 14, 2013

TUL13R0470 Page 14 of 14 June 14, 2013

PLATE 1: SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM

TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

PROJECT NO. 126899-5 PLATE

PROJECT NO. 126899-5 PLATE

FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

TUL13R0470 June 14, 2013

DRILLING & SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Boring locations were established in the field by representatives of Kleinfelder. A measuring

Table A1. Benchmark/Control Point Description, Location, and Elevation