HomeMy WebLinkAbout20170968 Ver 1_REDWOOD ROAD STUDY FINAL REPORT_20170804
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
7/24/2017
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | i
Executive Summary
Located within the City of Durham’s jurisdiction, Redwood Road crosses a finger of Falls Lake that is fed
by Panther Creek on the south side. Redwood Road provides a link to I-85 for the communities bordering
Falls Lake, north and south of Cheek Road. Following Hurricane Matthew in October 2016, the NC
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) identified two failed 10-foot diameter corrugated metal pipes
that created a large sinkhole on the existing causeway, prompting NCDOT to close the road.
The collapse produced an initial sinkhole approximately 3 feet in diameter in the middle of the roadway
approximately halfway across the 920-foot long causeway. Continued storm water level rise contributed
to the widening of the sinkhole to approximately 15 feet in diameter. Currently the road is closed and
barricaded to pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and the size of the sinkhole has expanded to nearly the entire
roadway width. NCDOT currently proposes to replace the failed pipes with a new bridge on the existing
roadway alignment. Because the project is located on a causeway over a finger of Falls Lake, options for
in-water bridge construction that minimize the impacts to Falls Lake to the extent practicable are needed.
The objectives of this study are (1) to develop feasible bridge channel construction alternatives, (2) to
study the cost effectiveness and impacts of the selected alternatives, and (3) to compare the alternatives
and provide an engineering basis for NCDOT Division 5 to select a recommended alternative in
consultation with the coordinating jurisdictional agencies for design and permitting purposes. This study
assessed four construction options, including two options for dry excavation (inflatable dams and cellular
cofferdams) and two options for wet excavation (turbidity curtains and sheet pile cofferdam). The
following study report was presented to NCDOT and jurisdictional agencies on June 13, 2017, and the wet
excavation alternative involving turbidity curtains (Alternative III) was selected for channel construction.
A field scoping meeting was conducted on July 19, 2017 where it was determined from recent photographs
that the sinkhole had further collapsed and widened to approximately 30 feet in diameter. This continued
widening of the sinkhole, threatening to washout the embankment section completely at the location of
the pipes, necessitates that channel construction proceed under emergency construction status.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report |ii
Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. i
I. OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 1
II. DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
A. Location ....................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 2
III. PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................................................................... 3
A. Roadway Alignment and Typical Section ........................................................................... 3
B. Bridge Type, Size, and Location ............................................................................................ 3
C. Utility Considerations ............................................................................................................... 4
D. Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................................. 4
E. Lake Resource Considerations ............................................................................................. 4
F. Other Recreational Considerations ...................................................................................... 4
G. Seismic Considerations ........................................................................................................... 4
IV. CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................ 5
A. Dewatering Options .................................................................................................................. 5
B. Wet Excavation Options .......................................................................................................... 7
V. CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ..................................................................... 8
A. Dewatering Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 8
Alternative I: Inflatable Dams: ...................................................................................................... 8
B. Wet Excavation, Alternative III ............................................................................................. 12
C. Modified Wet Excavation, Alternative IV ........................................................................... 13
VI. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 15
VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 16
References ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix A: Alternative Summary Table ........................................................................................ 20
Appendix B: Figures ............................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix C: Preliminary OPC ............................................................................................................ 34
Appendix D: Subsurface Investigation ............................................................................................ 36
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 1
Redwood Road (SR 1637)
Emergency Pipe Replacement
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study
I. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are:
(1) To develop feasible bridge channel construction alternatives for replacement of two
10-foot diameter corrugated metal pipes with a new bridge. The pipes are located
under Redwood Road (SR 1637) in Durham County, 1.0 mile south of the junction
with SR 1670. The pipes failed during the Hurricane Matthew storm event of October
2016. Redwood Road crosses over a finger of Falls Lake fed from the flow of Panther
Creek.
(2) To study the cost effectiveness and impacts of the selected alternatives for removal of
the existing pipes and construction of a new channel through the causeway in Falls
Lake at the same location.
(3) To compare the alternatives and provide an engineering basis for NCDOT Division 5
to select a recommended alternative with the concurrence of the coordinating
jurisdictional agencies for design and permitting purposes. The Department will
make the final selection and design determination.
II. DESCRIPTION
A. Location
Redwood Road (SR 1637) crosses Falls Lake in the east-west direction where Panther
Creek flows into a finger of Falls Lake from the southwest. Redwood Road starts from
NW of I-85 and crosses under the interstate to run SW over the finger of Falls Lake and
continues south to the intersection with Fletchers Chapel Road. Redwood Road provides
a link to I-85 for the communities bordering Falls Lake, north and south of Cheek Road.
The closure of Redwood Road cuts off boating ramp access located west of the project
location.
The segment of Redwood Road, in this feasibility study, contains two 10-foot diameter
metal corrugated pipes located under the road at approximate Station 14+63.50 –L-. The
purpose of the pipes is to discharge the flow from Panther Creek on the south side of the
road into Falls Lake on the north side and equalize the water levels. The segment of
Redwood Road across the finger is approximately 920 feet long and is located at
approximately 36.052N latitude and 78.775W longitude. The project site is located
within the jurisdiction of the City of Durham.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 2
Figure 1: Existing Roadway Alignment View
B. Existing Conditions
Redwood Road was constructed over the Falls Lake finger around 1980. At the time of
construction, two 10-foot diameter corrugated metal pipes were placed at a depth of
approximately 26’-0” and at a 120 degree skew to the roadway. The length of the pipes
along the roadway and along the centerline of the pipes is 26’-5” and 119’-0”, respectively.
The pipe extends past the shoulder with the inlet and outlet of the pipes cut off with the
existing slope. The pipes are typically submerged or nearly submerged with the normal
water surface elevation approximately 1’ -2’ below the crown on the pipes. The bed of
Panther Creek is approximately 26’ below the crown of existing roadway at the project
location with shallow bedrock located approximately 3’ below the creek bottom. The
shallow bedrock prohibits the use of temporary cantilever sheet piles at the project site
for construction dewatering.
The post-Hurricane Matthew evaluation of Redwood Road showed that both pipes had
failed from collapse producing a sinkhole approximately 3 feet in diameter in the
roadway. One pipe had completely collapsed, while the other pipe was partially
collapsed. An underwater inspection showed both pipes to be filled with sediment.
Continued storm water level rise contributed to the widening of the sinkhole to
approximately 15 feet diameter. Currently the road is closed and barricaded.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 3
Figure 2: View of Existing Sinkhole
III. PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Roadway Alignment and Typical Section
The Redwood Road crossing of Falls Lake is approximately a 920 foot long tangent
causeway generally running west to east with right-hand curves approaching and
departing. See Appendix A for roadway alignment and typical section. This study is based
on retaining approximately the same top width of the causeway from shoulder point to
shoulder point as existing conditions. Other alternatives that may widen the causeway are
not addressed, although similar construction alternatives may be applicable.
B. Bridge Type, Size, and Location
Although the preliminary hydraulic study is in progress and no recommendation is
available at this time, it is understood that the site conditions are not suitable to replacing
the existing pipes in kind. It is concluded that the existing pipes must be removed and
replaced with a bridge. The proposed channel width, bridge length and span
arrangement are to be determined by hydraulic analysis. The replacement structure is to
be centered at the current location and at the current skew of 120 degrees to expedite the
removal and replacement of the existing pipes and to align the new channel with the old
submerged creek channel. For the purposes of this study the excavated earth channel is
assumed to be 20 feet wide at the base with 2:1 slopes and 2 feet thickness of dumped rip
rap stone on the slopes.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 4
C. Utility Considerations
There are no existing or proposed utilities at the project location. The nearest overhead
utility pole is located at the west side of the project location at the intersection of
Redwood Road and the boat ramp access road, therefore, outside the project limits.
D. Geotechnical Considerations
The NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit performed a Structure Subsurface
Investigation (Ref. #310072) that included four borings at the project site. These boring
were located 14 feet north and south of the roadway centerline at the proposed location of
End Bent #1 and End Bent #2. At EB#1, red and brown, sandy clay alluvial was found at
a depth of 16.5 feet below the roadway embankment, and at EB#2, gray, sandy clay
alluvial was found at a depth of 16.5 feet below the roadway embankment. Borings were
terminated with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refusal in non-crystalline rock
(siltstone) at 29.5 feet below the roadway embankment for EB#1A, 28.4 feet for EB#1B,
28.5 feet for EB#2A, and 28.4 feet for EB#2B. See Appendix D for the Subsurface
Investigation Report.
E. Lake Resource Considerations
Panther Creek flows to Falls Lake, which provides drinking water to the City of Raleigh.
The creek water surface elevations near the existing pipes are controlled by the lake
elevations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has confirmed that the water level in Falls
Lake could not be lowered to accommodate working in the dry. The Lake is a significant
recreational resource for the area and the causeway is frequently used for access for
fishing in the lake. The most probable potential impact to the lake resulting from project
activities would be disturbance of lake-bottom sediments and creation of additional
turbidity in the water due to excavation of existing embankment soils and project related
stormwater run-off. The use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required to
minimize these potential impacts. Additionally, a recent assessment by NCDOT indicates
that no threatened or endangered species are anticipated in the project area.
F. Other Recreational Considerations
The NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail and NC-2 Bicycle Trail are carried by the Redwood Road
causeway. There are future plans for a Durham County greenway trail to be carried by the
causeway.
G. Seismic Considerations
The project site is located in LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Seismic Zone 1.
According to NCDOT Structures Management Design Manual, all bridges shall be
designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications criteria for
Seismic Zone 1.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 5
IV. CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
A. Dewatering Options
Available Types of Cofferdams: To construct an excavated channel through an existing
earth causeway in a lake, the most common approach would be to build cofferdams on
each side of the causeway and dewater the site of the excavation. This approach is
referred to as a dewatering or “dry” option. The advantages of working in the “dry” are
higher production rates for construction activities once the site is dewatered and
complete confinement of the excavated materials and associated silt and sediments after
the cofferdams are in place and until they are removed. Disadvantages can be the land
disturbing activities to prepare the footprint and install the dams, the larger size of the
site footprint to accommodate the dams, the increase in construction duration and the
higher cost of construction. The typical types of cofferdams available for the dewatering
approach and their applicability at this location are as follows:
i. Earthen Cofferdam: This type of cofferdam is not an option for this project site
due to the water level to be contained and the stream velocity. Earthen
cofferdams are constructed in places where the depth of the water is 3m (10 feet)
or less and the current velocity is very low. Due to the potential 12 to 14 ft. water
depth at the project site, this system would not be able to accommodate dry
working conditions.
ii. Rock-fill Cofferdam: This type of cofferdam is not an option for this project site
due to the water level to be contained and the availability of stone in the nearby
areas. Rock-fill Cofferdams are constructed in areas where the depth of the water
is 3m or less. Due to the potential 12 to 14 ft. water depth at the project site, this
system would not be able to accommodate dry working conditions.
iii. Single Sheet Pile Cofferdam: This type of cofferdam is not an option for this
project site due to the water level to be contained and shallow bedrock depth
preventing sufficient pile penetration for stability. Due to the potential 12 to 14
ft. water depth at the project site, this system would not be able to accommodate
dry working conditions.
iv. Double-wall Sheet Piling Cofferdam: This type of cofferdam consists of two
straight, parallel vertical walls of sheet piling, tied to each other and the space
between the walls is filled with soil or other granular material with a high
coefficient of friction and unit weight. For this project site, the height of the
cofferdam would be higher than 2.5m, therefore, it would need to be strutted at
the top. Penetration of the sheet piling into the foundation is important for
stability of the system. Due to the presence of shallow rock in the streambed, this
option is not considered feasible for this project site.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 6
v. Braced (Crib) Cofferdam: This type of cofferdam is used in deep waters where it
is difficult to penetrate the guide piles or sheet piles into the hard bed below.
Braced Cofferdams are formed by driving two rows of vertical sheeting and
bracing between them with wale and struts. Penetration of the sheet piling into
the foundation is important for stability of the system. Due to the presence of
shallow rock in the streambed, this option is not considered feasible for this
project site.
vi. Cellular Cofferdam: This type of cofferdam is mostly used for de-watering large
areas with water depths between 18-21m (60-70ft.). Cellular cofferdams are
mostly used during the construction of large scale marine structures like dams,
locks, etc. A cellular cofferdam is made by driving or vibrating straight web steel
sheet piles into the ground to form a series of inter-connected cells. The cells are
constructed in various shapes and styles to suit the requirements of the project
site. The cells are then filled with sand or gravel to make them stable against the
various forces applied.
There are two types of Cellular Cofferdams, Circular and Diaphragm. The
Circular Cellular Cofferdam consists of a set of large diameter main circular cells
interconnected by arcs of smaller cells. The walls of the connecting cells are
perpendicular to the walls of the main circular cell of large diameter. The
segmental arcs are joined by special T-piles to the main cells. The Diaphragm
Cellular Cofferdam consists of circular arcs on the inner and outer sides, which
are connected by straight diaphragm walls. The connection between the curved
parts and the diaphragms are made by means of a specially fabricated Y-element.
The cells are filled with coarse-grained soils for stability and reduction of leakage
through the cofferdam.
vii. Portable Wedge Dam (Portadam) Type: The portable wedge dam system is a
lower cost, freestanding structure that has a skeletal steel framework and
requires no ground penetration. The system is used primarily to divert
floodwaters away from key infrastructure or for water storage. The skeletal steel
framework can be pre-installed and the liner placed when the system is ready to
operate. There is minimal environmental impact because of the freestanding
nature of the system. The Army Corps of Engineers has tested and vetted the
Portadam system. However, currently the equipment is only offered in various
heights from 3 feet high to 12 feet high. Due to the potential 12 to 14 ft. water
depth at the project site, this system would not be able to accommodate dry
working conditions. Also, the steel frames are typically installed in the dry, which
is not feasible at this site.
viii. Inflatable Dam (AquaDam) Type: The inflatable dam concept combines
multiple inner tubes within an outer tube to provide an effective portable dam to
control water flow. The multiple impermeable inner tubes are filled with water to
provide the mass needed for stability. For the AquaDam system a woven outer
tube contains the inner tubes and provides the structural integrity of the system.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 7
The local water supply provides the water for mass weight. A coupling collar,
made from the same high-strength material as the outer tube, is available to join
two or more of the inflatable dams together. The closed end is fitted with the
collar and the system is filled from the open end. This option would be necessary
to customize an Aquadam for this site. All materials used in the construction of
the inflatable dams are flexible to allow them to conform to uneven terrain and
provide an effective seal between the ground and the dam.
In order to contain the estimated 12 to 14 feet of water depth in the channel plus
typical water level fluctuation, wave heights and necessary freeboard, a minimum
of 24 feet in height would be needed for the primary inflatable dam. At a 24 feet
height the expected width would be approximately 47 feet. A secondary support
dam is recommended by the manufacturers where warranted by site conditions
to reduce risk of foundation seal failure and risk from water level fluctuation. For
this site a secondary dam is recommend by the manufacturers and would be
required by the Department for safety during construction. The secondary dam
would be 16 feet tall by approximately 33 feet wide. The two inflatable dam
systems are placed concentrically around the project site. It is important that
adequate clearance between the work area and the dam be provided to reduce the
potential threat of puncturing the dam if heavy equipment is used in the work
area.
An underwater survey would be required within the footprint and adjacent areas
of the dams to identify water depths and any potential hazards such as debris or
stumps that could penetrate the membranes or break the bottom seal of the
foundation. It is estimated that considerable debris and stump removal would be
needed to ensure that the seal between the ground and the inflatable dam system
would be impervious, as well as, reduce the threat of puncture to the tubes.
Turbidity curtains would be needed to work in the wet to remove the debris and
stumps.
The number of laborers and time required to install a portable dam system is
related to the size of the dam needed, the worksite terrain, water depths, and
water flows.
B. Wet Excavation Options
Excavation without dewatering is most frequently done in coastal or port construction
environments using dredges and pad or barge-supported clam shells, draglines or track
mounted excavators. Typically the work is contained within a floating turbidity curtain or
silt containment curtain. The reasons for considering a wet excavation approach for
removing the existing pipes and constructing the new channel for the Redwood Road
replacement are the high cost, higher failure risk, longer construction time and larger
impacts of working in the “dry” utilizing cofferdams in consideration of the shallow rock
depths and variable water depth at the site. The “wet” excavation method offers the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 8
advantages of smaller disturbed areas, shorter construction time, lower cost and lower
failure risk.
The general approach for wet excavation at the Redwood Road site is to first complete as
much “dry” excavation above the water line by conventional methods as feasible before
excavating the channel below the waterline within double turbidity curtains, one
containment line of curtains at the boundary of the disturbed areas and another farther
out to encircle any escaping turbidity. Excavation is performed by land-based excavators
or mat or barge supported drag line and clamshell operations. Any proposed drilled piers
for construction of the bridge are coordinated with the excavation operations and
constructed in permanent casings. After the wet excavation is completed and the slopes
are prepared, remaining loose material and debris is removed with a vacuum dredge pipe
and the embankment stabilized with rip rap, stone mats and other permanent slope
protection materials. The bridge is then constructed above the channel and the normal
lake level in the “dry.”
A modified approach for minimizing the amount of wet excavation at the Redwood Road
site would be to excavate the channel in multiple stages utilizing a braced cofferdam
system constructed within the roadway embankment for stability. The braced cofferdam
system would contain as much excavation below the waterline within the limits of the
proposed bridge channel as feasible. The final stage of excavation would take place in
water and include the cofferdam removal, soil between the dams and the pipe removal
within the double turbidity curtains. Excavation would be performed by track-mounted
excavators until the wet excavation stage, when the clam shell and buckets are used. The
disadvantages of introducing the braced cofferdams is substantial added expense, slower
production rates, and extended project duration. The use of the braced cofferdams result
in a comparatively small overall decrease in the amount of wet excavation.
V. CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
A. Dewatering Alternatives
Alternative I: Inflatable Dams:
(See Appendix B, Figure 1 for a plan view of Alternative I, Inflatable
Dam Alternative)
i. Advantages: Lightweight construction, environmentally safe and specifically
engineered to provide rapid deployment. The on-site requirements are only a
portable pump and the local water supply. The inflation water is fresh water with
no additives and can be released into the lake at the end of the project.
ii. Disadvantages: A large footprint that is dependent on water depth and the need
for a relatively smooth foundation surface to avoid punctures of the rubber
membranes. Also, relatively calm water conditions with low wind and current are
necessary for installation, and dam stability is sensitive to water level
fluctuations. The length and width of inflatable dam needed to provide adequate
work area will depend upon the final bridge length and channel width
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 9
determination. The impacted area of the installation will be increased along with
the cost of construction due to the necessary surveys and clearing, grubbing and
smoothing of the installation footprint area to minimize the risk that the
inflatable dam will be punctured by debris or stumps and too optimize the seal of
the dam to the lake floor.
iii. Impacts: For the inflatable membrane cofferdam system, the disturbed area
includes the footprint of the cofferdam, the area inside the cofferdam, plus a
buffer area of about 10 to 15 feet outside the dam for construction operations,
setting and stabilizing the dam and containing sediment and turbidity from
construction operations.
iv. Risks: The predominant risk for inflatable dams in a lake location is the
variability of the lake level and creek flow due to storm events that may overtop
the dams. Potential puncture from hidden objects in the muck, from storm debris
impact or vandalism are anticipated risk. Above average variability in the
bedrock profile or the lake bottom strata may create a highly irregular bottom
profile and inconsistent foundation materials that may prohibit the ability of the
inflatable dam to obtain a foundation seal against the lake bottom.
v. Construction Sequence:
1. Perform bathometric survey of disturbed area.
2. Install turbidity curtains at max. 15’ from inflatable dam.
3. Remove stumps, debris and sharp stones or objects that may puncture
dams.
4. Assemble equipment and labor needed to install dams per
manufacturer’s guidelines
5. Install inflatable dams following manufacturer’s procedures
6. Install creek flow bypass pumps.
7. Dewater the construction site within the inflatable dams.
8. Install erosion control measures within the construction site in
preparation for excavation operations.
9. Perform excavation operations within the dewatered site.
10. Install slope/channel protection (rip rap).
11. Flood channel to remove inflatable dams.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 10
12. Remove inflatable dams.
13. Remove turbidity curtains.
vi. Construction Time: The time needed to prepare the area for placement of the
inflatable dams, install the dams, complete the channel construction, remove the
inflatable dams and perform any necessary clean up, is approximately 3 months.
Alternative II: Cellular Cofferdam:
(See Appendix B, Figure 2 for a plan view of Alternative II, Cellular
Cofferdam Alternative)
i. Advantages: The cellular cofferdam system has an advantage with greater
scalability for increased stability against larger fluctuations in water depth and
wave heights. The system also has a reasonably controlled and more predictable
level of risk through long established design and construction procedures.
Compared to the Diaphragm Cellular Cofferdam, each circular cell functions as a
self-stabilizing unit, independent of, but connected to the adjacent circular cell by
connector walls. A cellular cofferdam can support the required water depth
effectively and drilled piles or rock anchors can be added if required for improved
stability. Berms can be added to reinforce the stability of cells and reduce the cell
sizes in some cases.
ii. Disadvantages: The high cost and potential complication of installation due to
shallow rock depths. The use of cellular cofferdams is dependent on the
availability of the large amount of “flat” steel sheet pile sections that are required
for the system. Also, if the interlocking steel sheet piles that comprise the cells
cannot be driven sufficiently deep to self-stabilize during installation, then a
temporary steel template framework may be required to assemble the cells,
adding to the already high cost of the system. The cellular cofferdam is a driven
pile or vibrated pile system with characteristic noise and vibration impacts. The
completed steel cells are typically filled with sand that provides the weight and
stability of the system. The sand must be removed from the cells and disposed of
at the end of the project, adding to the cost of the system. Setting the circular
cells requires a high level of technical skills in setting and driving the piles in
accordance with the template and the ability to bear solidly on the rock
foundation without breaking the sheet pile interlock. Also, because the diameter
of the circular cells is limited by interlock tension, their ability to resist lateral
pressure due to high heads is limited. The availability of steel sheet piling, the
extensive pile driving and stabilizing of the structure during construction, the
sensitivity of the cell filling operations to avoid internally overstressing or
destabilizing the system and the logistics of the site access and necessary barge
and boat operations to install and fill the cells could extend the project schedule
by several months in comparison to the other alternatives.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 11
iii. Impacts: The disturbed area for the cellular cofferdam system includes the
footprint of the cofferdam, the area inside the cofferdam, plus a buffer area of
about 10 to 15 feet outside the cells for construction operations, setting and
stabilizing pile templates and containing sediment and turbidity from
construction operations.
vii. Risks: The predominant risk for cofferdams in a lake location is the variability of
the lake level and creek flow due to storm events that may overtop the dams.
Variability in the bedrock profile or the lake bottom strata may create a highly
irregular bottom profile and inconsistent foundation materials that may interfere
with the ability to obtain a foundation seal against the lake bottom.
iv. Construction Sequence:
1. Perform bathometric survey of disturbed area.
2. Install turbidity curtains at max. 15’ from cofferdam installation location.
3. Remove stumps, debris and sharp stones and other underwater objects
that may impede cofferdam construction.
4. Assemble equipment and labor needed to install cofferdams.
5. Preassemble cells outside of contained area.
6. Set cofferdam cells within 15’ of turbidity curtains.
7. Drive cells to required depth.
8. Remove water and debris from inside cells.
9. Fill cells with sand.
10. Install creek flow bypass pumps.
11. Dewater the construction site within the cellular cofferdams
12. Install erosion control measures within the construction site in
preparation for excavation operations.
13. Perform excavation operations within the dewatered site.
14. Install slope/channel protection (rip rap).
15. Flood channel to remove cofferdams.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 12
14. Remove and dispose of sand inside cells.
15. Remove and salvage sheeting/steel.
16. Remove turbidity curtains.
viii. Construction Time: The time needed to prepare the area for placement of the
cellular cofferdams, install the dams, complete the channel construction, remove
the cellular cofferdams and perform any necessary clean up, is approximately
seven months. The additional construction time is associated with the required
lead time to order and fabricate the sheet piles and brace frames and templates
needed for the cofferdam installation, and to place, excavate, fill and remove
them.
B. Wet Excavation, Alternative III
(See Appendix B, Figure 3 for a plan view of Alternative III, Wet
Excavation Alternative)
i. Advantages: The reduced area of primary impacts, reduced costs, and minimized
construction time. The impacted area is reduced by the absence of the
substantially large cofferdam footprints and the associated need to clear and
remove stumps and debris from those footprints. The primary containment
curtain will surround the disturbed area, while the secondary curtain contains the
turbidity and silt load that may escape the primary curtain. The elimination of
cofferdams drastically reduces the cost of construction by eliminating the cost of
labor, materials and task duration to prepare and construct the cofferdams and
dewater the site.
ii. Disadvantages: The increased difficulty of achieving and monitoring the normal
construction quality and tolerances required by the NCDOT standard
specifications as compared to working in the dry is one disadvantage. There is a
need for modified or non-standard procedures for excavation, loading, hauling,
disposal and silt control procedures as compared to “dry” excavation procedures.
Larger volumes of disturbed soil materials and silt in the water are expected
using the wet excavation methods and potentially less control of those materials.
The additional disadvantage of wet excavation methods is that the turbidity
curtains do not completely isolate the work area as in a dry condition. The
curtains do not prevent the loss or movement of streambed sediments within the
stream, but only contain turbid water. Wet methods such as vacuum dredge pipe
will be used to reclaim material disturbed during construction; however, there
will be a certain amount of material (including turbid water) that cannot be
retrieved or collected. Non-conventional excavation or cleanup methods such as
vacuum dredge pipes may be required for clearing loose debris to prepare
underwater areas for placing slope protection and for final cleanup before
removing the primary turbidity curtains. These non-conventional excavation and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 13
cleanup methods are anticipated to be more costly and time consuming than
conventional dry methods.
iii. Impacts: The disturbed area for the wet excavation method includes the
footprint of the excavated area within the existing embankment footprint and
pipe bed in the lake, plus a buffer area of about 20 feet beyond the toe of slope,
which is the control area for the primary turbidity curtain. The secondary
control area is located outside of and enclosing the primary curtain to control
turbidity escaping the primary curtain.
iv. Risks: Primary risks are from storm events overwhelming the turbidity curtains.
Other risks include damage or disruption by floating debris or recreational boats.
An irregular bottom profile can also make the curtains less effective.
v. Construction Sequence: (See Appendix B, Figure 3a-3b)
1. Install turbidity curtains at max. 20’ from toe of pipe.
2. Install erosion control measures within construction site in preparation
for excavation operations.
3. Perform wet excavation operations within the construction site.
4. Cleanup underwater debris and loose material.
5. Install slope/channel protection (rip rap)
6. Remove turbidity curtains.
vi. Construction Time: The time needed to install the turbidity curtains, complete
the wet excavation and channel construction, remove the turbidity curtains and
perform any necessary clean up, is approximately two months.
C. Modified Wet Excavation, Alternative IV
(See Appendix B, Figure 4 for a plan layout of Alternative IV, Modified
Wet Excavation Alternative)
i. Advantages: The reduced area of primary impacts, reduced costs and minimized
construction time. The impacted area is reduced by the absence of the
substantially large cofferdam footprints and the associated need to clear and
remove stumps and debris from those footprints. The primary turbidity curtain
will surround the disturbed area while the secondary curtain is located to the
outside and enclosing the primary curtain to control turbidity that may escape
the primary. The limited used of braced cofferdams reduces the amount of
excavation in water by containing some of the material below the waterline
within the cofferdams for excavation by track-mounted excavators.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 14
ii. Disadvantages: The increased difficulty of achieving and monitoring the normal
construction quality and tolerances required by the DOT standard specifications
as compared to working in the dry is one disadvantage. There is a need for
modified or non-standard procedures for excavation, loading, hauling, disposal
and silt control procedures as compared to “dry” excavation procedures. Larger
volumes of disturbed sediments and silt in the water are expected compared to
the dry methods but less material compared to the wet method without the
partial cofferdam. The additional disadvantage of wet excavation methods is
that the turbidity curtains do not completely isolate the work area as in a dry
condition. The curtains do not prevent the loss or movement of streambed
sediments within the stream, but only contain turbid water. Wet methods such
as vacuum dredge pipe will be used to reclaim material disturbed during
construction; however, there will be a certain amount of material (including
turbid water) that cannot be retrieved or collected. Non-conventional excavation
or cleanup methods such as vacuum dredge pipes may be required for clearing
loose debris to prepare underwater areas for placing slope protection and for final
cleanup before removing the primary turbidity curtains. These non-conventional
excavation and cleanup methods are anticipated to be more costly and time
consuming than conventional dry methods. The use of braced cofferdams to
contain some of the excavation below the waterline substantially increases the
cost and duration and slows the production rates of construction. The resulting
reduction in wet excavation is small by comparison to the increased cost.
iii. Impacts: The disturbed area for the wet excavation method includes the
footprint of the excavated area within the existing embankment footprint and
pipe bed in the lake, plus a buffer area of about 20 feet beyond the toe of slope,
which is the control area for the primary turbidity curtain. The secondary
control area is located outside of and enclosing the primary curtain.
iv. Risks: Primary risks are from storm events overwhelming the cofferdams or
turbidity curtains. Other risks include damage or disruption to the curtains by
floating debris or recreational boats. An irregular bottom profile can also make
the curtains less effective.
v. Construction Sequence: (See Appendix B, Figure 4a-4e)
1. Install turbidity curtains 20’ from toe of pipe.
2. Install erosion control measures within construction site in preparation
for excavation operations.
3. Excavate to 15’ above the bottom of the pipes within the right of way
boundary.
4. Install sheet pile cofferdam.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 15
5. Excavate material from within cofferdams.
6. Remove cofferdams, excavate remaining material in water and remove
pipes.
7. Cleanup underwater debris and loose material.
8. Install slope/channel protection (rip rap)
9. Remove turbidity curtains.
vii. Construction Time: The time needed to complete the dry excavation, install the
turbidity curtains and cofferdam, complete the wet excavation and channel
construction, remove the cofferdams and perform any necessary clean up, is
approximately five months. The additional construction time is associated with
the required lead time to order and fabricate the sheet piles, brace frames and
templates needed for the cofferdam installation.
VI. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Dry Excavation: The two alternatives considered for dry excavation are inflatable dams
(Alternative I) and cellular cofferdams (Alternative II). These alternatives were determined
to have the least overall impact on the aquatic environment. The impacts of both alternatives
would come from lake-bottom clearing, stump and debris removal needed to place the dams,
and dewatering. These impacts would be mitigated by the Best Management Practices
utilizing turbidity curtains for bottom clearing and silt bags for pumping of the site water.
For both alternatives, the clearing of debris and excavation would be performed by barge or
mat mounted clam shell excavators and track mounted excavators. The estimated
temporarily disturbed and impacted area for the inflatable dams is 2.11 acres due to the large
dam size needed to contain the channel depth. The construction time for the inflatable dams
is estimated at 3 months. The estimated temporarily disturbed and impacted area for the
cellular cofferdam is 0.75 acres, with a channel construction time of 7 months, due to the lead
time needed to fabricate the necessary sheet piles. The risks and vulnerabilities for the
inflatable dams include the potential for the dams to be punctured by foundation debris or
vandalism. The shallow bedrock has a variable profile which may affect the foundation seal
and stability of the dams. Another risk for the inflatable dams is the potential for the flood
water level to overtop the temporary dam or for the flood velocity to overwhelm the turbidity
curtains during the clearing phase of installation. The risks and vulnerabilities for the cellular
cofferdams include the potential for the shallow bedrock variable profile to affect the
foundation seal and dam stability. Another risk for the cellular cofferdams is the potential for
overtopping of the dams and turbidity curtains by the flood level and velocity. The inflatable
dam option has an approximate cost of $2,042,000. The cellular cofferdam option has the
highest approximate cost of all the alternatives at $2,704,000.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 16
Wet Excavation: The two alternatives considered for wet excavation are to excavate in water
working inside turbidity curtains (Alternative III), and to excavate in water while maximizing
dry excavation methods using a sheet pile cofferdam (Alternative IV). There are primary and
secondary impact areas associated with both wet excavation alternatives. The impacts for
both alternatives include disturbance of embankment soils and lake-bottom sediments from
debris removal and excavation in water resulting in silt and turbidity. The secondary (outer)
turbidity curtain for both alternatives is intended to control turbidity escaping from the inner
curtain. These impacts would be mitigated by the Best Management Practices utilizing
turbidity curtains around the site for to control turbid water, silt bags or basins for dredging
or pumping of site water, and silt fences and other conventional methods for the dry portion
of the excavation. For both alternatives, the clearing of debris and excavation can be
performed by barge or mat mounted clam shell excavators and track mounted excavators.
The estimated temporarily disturbed and impacted area for both wet excavated alternatives is
approximately 0.49 acres. The construction time for the wet excavation method within the
turbidity curtains is approximately two months. The construction time for the wet excavation
utilizing the maximum dry excavation possible with sheet pile cofferdams is approximately
five months due to the lead time needed to fabricate the sheet piles for the cofferdam. The
risks and vulnerabilities of both wet excavation alternatives include the potential for the flood
velocity to overwhelm the turbidity curtains or for any recreation craft to damage or disrupt
the curtains. The approximate cost for complete wet excavation is the least of the four
alternatives at $420,000. The approximate cost for the wet excavation while maximizing the
dry excavation with a sheet pile cofferdam is also one of the least expensive at $832,000.
For all the presented alternatives, the cost and construction time include the channel
excavation, construction, and clean-up. The cost and construction time for the bridge is not
included in this study. See Appendix A: Alternatives Summary Table for a tabulated
summary of the costs, construction time, and impacts for each alternative. See
Appendix B, Figure 5 for a section view of the proposed completed bridge
channel.
VII. CONCLUSION
The construction alternatives presented in this study report include two dewatering
alternatives, Alternative I (inflatable dams) and Alternative II (cellular cofferdams), and two
wet excavation construction alternatives, Alternative III (turbidity curtains) and Alternative
IV (turbidity curtains and sheet pile cofferdam). All of the construction alternatives in this
study generate impacts to the adjacent lake area due to the required debris removal and
excavation of the causeway and the lake bottom necessary to install the required turbidity
curtains and construct the new bridge channel. All alternatives will utilize track or barge
mounted excavators, clam shell excavators or drag lines for the necessary excavation and
clearing of debris. All of the construction alternatives studied are vulnerable to the risk of
overwhelming the turbidity curtains and/or overtopping temporary dams by rising flood
waters from storm events. Additional vulnerabilities for all construction alternatives include
recreational craft or floating debris damage to the turbidity curtains, the potential for the
temporary dams to be damaged, or difficulty with the foundation seal due to irregular
bedrock profiles or bottom strata or debris. The wet excavation alternatives have less area of
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 17
impact and less disturbed area than the dry excavation alternatives. The construction time to
excavate the channel with the wet excavation alternative is the least of all the alternatives
examined. Finally, the cost for channel construction is less when performed with the wet
excavation alternative than the modified wet excavation or the dry excavation alternatives.
On June 13, 2017, Division 5 and Dewberry conducted a meeting with the jurisdictional
permitting agencies to present the draft study alternatives and a summary of the alternatives
analysis developed herein with the objective of reaching a consensus of opinion for selecting a
preferred alternative for construction. The analysis summary included anticipated impacts,
durations and concept level costs for constructing a channel through the existing causeway
for a bridge to replace the existing pipes. Present at the Feasibility Study Coordination
Meeting were: NCDOT Division 5, NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division, US Army Corps
of Engineers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and NCDEQ – Division of Water
Resources. After presentation of the study alternatives and analysis, the
consensus of opinion among those present and participating by phone was that
the wet excavation method (Alternate III) detailed in this report is the
recommended alternative for development of the pipe replacement project for
construction and permitting. The primary environmental issue of concern expressed by
the permitting agencies present is control of additional turbidity potentially generated by
construction activities. The method of control during construction is to be turbidity curtains
and turbidity monitoring. The details of the turbidity monitoring are to be determined. (See
Appendix B, Figure 3 and Figures 3a-3b).
Emergency Repair – Pipe Removal Utilizing Alternate III – Wet Excavation Method
The rapid and continuing deterioration of the site caused by substantial loss of embankment
around the failed pipes into the lake has forced an emergency response by the NCDOT to
remove the existing pipe and stabilize an open channel for the flow of Panther Creek through
the embankment.
Figure 3: Collapse of Roadway Section at Pipes (July 18, 2017)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 18
The Department is implementing the recommended alternative using the wet excavation
method (Alternative III) for this emergency work. The Department will commit to installing
turbidity curtains up and downstream of the work area in an effort to contain all turbidity in
the lake that results from excavation of the failed pipes. Project personnel will routinely
observe the turbidity curtains to ensure that minimal turbidity escapes these containment
devices. If significant turbidity generated from excavation is observed to escape the turbidity
curtains so as to degrade the lake water quality, the project will be temporarily halted until
corrective action can be made. Advance warning notifications will be installed around the
turbidity curtains to alert boaters of the construction area.
Figure4: Severe Erosion Condition (July 18, 2017)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 19
References
1. Turbidity Barriers & Silt Curtain, N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2017. www.erosionpollution.com/turbidity-
barriers.html.
2. Types of Cofferdams and Their Construction Details. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2017.
https://theconstructor.org/water-resources/types-of-cofferdams-construction-details/13807
3. Arora, K. R. Cofferdam. Web. 8 September 2015, http://www.civilblog.com/cofferdam
4. AquaDam. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2017. http://aquadam.net
5. PortaDam. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2017. http://portadam.com
6. North Carolina Department of Transportation Statewide Bid Tabulations. 2015 & 2016
7. US Steel Sheet Pile Design Manual
8. USACE. Silt Curtains as a Dredging Project Management Practice, ERDC TN-DOER-E21, September
2005.
9. Control of Suspended Solids in Dredging Projects, NR Francing and DW Thompson, 2006.
Proceedings of WEDZ XXVI Annual Meeting and 38th TAMU Dredging Seminar.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 20
Appendix A: Alternative Summary Table
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Co
s
t
(3
)
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ti
m
e
(M
o
n
t
h
s
)
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
Im
p
a
c
t
e
d
/
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
Ar
e
a
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Ty
p
e
s
of
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
/
Me
t
h
o
d
s
Be
s
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Practices (BMP)Risks/Vulnerabilites
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
II
I
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
e
in
Wa
t
e
r
:
(W
o
r
k
In
s
i
d
e
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
Cu
r
t
a
i
n
s
)
$4
1
9
,
8
0
0
2.
0
0
0
.
4
9
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
:
La
k
e
bo
t
t
o
m
de
b
r
i
s
re
m
o
v
a
l
an
d
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
:
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
an
d
tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
es
c
a
p
i
n
g
th
e
in
n
e
r
cu
r
t
a
i
n
an
d
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ou
t
e
r
cu
r
t
a
i
n
.
Tr
a
c
k
or
ba
r
g
e
mo
u
n
t
e
d
ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
,
cl
a
m
sh
e
l
l
or
dr
a
g
li
n
e
.
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
Cu
r
t
a
i
n
s
(Primary &
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
)
.
Silt bags for pumped
si
t
e
water.Flood velocity overwhelms curtains. Recreation craft damage/disrupt curtains
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
IV
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
e
in
Wa
t
e
r
:
(M
a
x
i
m
i
z
e
Dr
y
Ex
c
a
v
.
w/
Co
f
f
e
r
d
a
m
)
$8
3
2
,
2
0
0
5
.
0
0
0
.
4
9
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
:
La
k
e
bo
t
t
o
m
de
b
r
i
s
re
m
o
v
a
l
an
d
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
:
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
an
d
tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
es
c
a
p
i
n
g
th
e
in
n
e
r
cu
r
t
a
i
n
an
d
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ou
t
e
r
cu
r
t
a
i
n
.
Tr
a
c
k
or
ba
r
g
e
mo
u
n
t
e
d
ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
,
cl
a
m
sh
e
l
l
or
dr
a
g
li
n
e
s
.
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
Cu
r
t
a
i
n
s
(Primary &
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
)
.
Silt bags for pumped
si
t
e
water.Flood velocity overwhelms curtains. Recreation craft damage/disrupt curtains
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
In
f
l
a
t
a
b
l
e
Da
m
s
:
(D
e
w
a
t
e
r
e
d
)
$2
,
0
4
1
,
6
0
0
3.
0
0
2
.
1
1
La
k
e
bo
t
t
o
m
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
,
st
u
m
p
an
d
de
b
r
i
s
re
m
o
v
a
l
fo
l
l
o
w
e
d
by
de
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
Tr
a
c
k
mo
u
n
t
e
d
ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
.
Ba
r
g
e
(o
r
ma
t
)
mo
u
n
t
e
d
cl
a
m
sh
e
l
l
fo
r
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
de
b
r
i
s
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
Cu
r
t
a
i
n
s
for bottom
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
.
Si
l
t
bags for pumped
si
t
e
water.Potential for inflatable dams to be punctured by foundation debris or vandalism. Shallow bedrock with variable profile may affect foundation seal and stability. Flood level overtops temporary dam. Flood velocity overwhelms curtains during clearing phase.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
II
Ce
l
l
u
l
a
r
Co
f
f
e
r
d
a
m
s
:
(D
e
w
a
t
e
r
e
d
)
$2
,
7
0
4
,
2
0
0
7
.
0
0
0
.
7
5
La
k
e
bo
t
t
o
m
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
,
st
u
m
p
an
d
de
b
r
i
s
re
m
o
v
a
l
fo
r
co
f
f
e
r
d
a
m
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
fo
l
l
o
w
e
d
by
de
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
Tr
a
c
k
mo
u
n
t
e
d
ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
.
Ba
r
g
e
(o
r
ma
t
)
mo
u
n
t
e
d
cl
a
m
sh
e
l
l
fo
r
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
de
b
r
i
s
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
Cu
r
t
a
i
n
s
for bottom
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
.
Si
l
t
bags for pumped
si
t
e
water.Shallow bedrock with variable profile may affect foundation seal and stability. Flood level overtops temporary dam. Flood velocity overwhelms curtains during clearing phase.
(1
)
We
t
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
in
wa
t
e
r
wi
t
h
i
n
tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
cu
r
t
a
i
n
s
(n
o
de
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
)
.
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
ab
o
v
e
th
e
wa
t
e
r
su
r
f
a
c
e
wi
l
l
us
e
co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
me
t
h
o
d
s
.
(2
)
Dr
y
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
ar
e
a
de
w
a
t
e
r
e
d
us
i
n
g
in
f
l
a
t
a
b
l
e
or
ce
l
l
u
l
a
r
co
f
f
e
r
d
a
m
s
.
Cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
co
f
f
e
r
d
a
m
s
wi
t
h
i
n
tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
cu
r
t
a
i
n
s
.
Nu
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
Va
l
u
e
s
Su
b
j
e
c
t
to
Ch
a
n
g
e
as
Co
n
c
e
p
t
s
Ar
e
Re
f
i
n
e
d
.
(3
)
Th
e
co
s
t
sh
o
w
n
is
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
an
d
is
an
Op
i
n
i
o
n
of
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Co
s
t
ba
s
e
d
on
a co
n
c
e
p
t
le
v
e
l
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
an
d
is
su
b
j
e
c
t
to
ch
a
n
g
e
.
Th
i
s
is
th
e
co
s
t
of
ch
a
n
n
e
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
on
l
y
.
Br
i
d
g
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
is
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
i
s
co
s
t
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
.
PI
P
E
RE
M
O
V
A
L
/
B
R
I
D
G
E
CH
A
N
N
E
L
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
OF
CO
S
T
S
,
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
TI
M
E
AN
D
IM
P
A
C
T
S
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
We
t
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
(1
)
Dr
y
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
(2
)
Do
c
u
S
i
g
n
E
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
I
D
:
3
A
4
B
1
3
0
D
-
D
E
0
A
-
4
E
0
4
-
8
5
F
4
-
A
A
2
1
3
3
5
0
D
6
E
4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 21
Appendix B: Figures
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 22
Figure 1: Inflatable Dam Alternative I Plan View
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 23
Figure 2: Cellular Cofferdam Alternative II Plan View
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 24
Figure 3: Wet Excavation Alternative III Plan View
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 25
Figure 3a: Stage 1 - Wet Excavation Alternative III Construction Sequence
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 26
Figure 3b: Stage 2 - Wet Excavation Alternative III Construction Sequence
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 27
Figure 4: Modified Wet Excavation Alternative IV Plan View
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 28
Figure 4a: Stage 1 – Modified Wet Excavation Alternative IV Construction Sequence
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 29
Figure 4b: Stage 2 – Modified Wet Excavation Alternative IV Construction Sequence
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 30
Figure 4c: Stage 3 – Modified Wet Excavation Alternative IV Construction Sequence
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 31
Figure 4d: Stage 4 – Modified Wet Excavation Alternative IV Construction Sequence
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 32
Figure 4e: Stage 5 – Modified Wet Excavation Alternative IV Construction Sequence
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 33
Figure 5: Proposed Bridge Channel Section
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 34
Appendix C: Preliminary OPC
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 35
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
Bridge Construction Feasibility Study Report | 36
Appendix D: Subsurface Investigation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
YELTRAWS
T
T
E
RAJ
LICEN
S
E
D
G
E
O LOG IS
N ORTH CARO
LINA
T2296
SEAL
THE SITE DIFFERING FROM THOSE INDICATED IN THE SUBSURFACE INFORMATION.
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ANY REASON RESULTING FROM THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED AT
PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE NO CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OR FOR AN
AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY TO SATISFY HIMSELF AS TO CONDITIONS TO BE ENCOUNTERED ON THE
THE BIDDER OR CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE SUCH INDEPENDENT SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS
OPINION OF THE DEPARTMENT AS TO THE TYPE OF MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS TO BE ENCOUNTERED.
SUFFICIENCY OR ACCURACY OF THE INVESTIGATION MADE, NOR THE INTERPRETATIONS MADE, OR
DESIGN INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT. THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT WARRANT OR GUARANTEE THE
AND CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, REFER TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL
PRELIMINARY ONLY AND IN MANY CASES THE FINAL DESIGN DETAILS ARE DIFFERENT. FOR BIDDING
THE BIDDER OR CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT DETAILS SHOWN ON THE SUBSURFACE PLANS ARE
PRECIPITATION AND WIND, AS WELL AS OTHER NON-CLIMATIC FACTORS.
CONSIDERABLY WITH TIME ACCORDING TO CLIMATIC CONDITIONS INCLUDING TEMPERATURES,
TIME OF THE INVESTIGATION. THESE WATER LEVELS OR SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS MAY VARY
MOISTURE CONDITIONS INDICATED IN THE SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS ARE AS RECORDED AT THE
OF RELIABILITY INHERENT IN THE STANDARD TEST METHOD. THE OBSERVED WATER LEVELS OR SOIL
SAMPLE DATA AND THE IN SITU (IN-PLACE) TEST DATA CAN BE RELIED ON ONLY TO THE DEGREE
NECESSARILY REFLECT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS BETWEEN BORINGS. THE LABORATORY
ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS BETWEEN SAMPLED STRATA AND BOREHOLE INFORMATION MAY NOT
UNLESS ENCOUNTERED IN A SAMPLE. INTERPRETED BOUNDARIES MAY NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT
SOIL AND ROCK BOUNDARIES WITHIN A BOREHOLE ARE BASED ON GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION
BORING LOGS, ROCK CORES AND SOIL TEST DATA ARE NOT PART OF THE CONTRACT.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT AT (919) 707-6850. THE SUBSURFACE PLANS AND REPORTS, FIELD
BE REVIEWED OR INSPECTED IN RALEIGH BY CONTACTING THE N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
PROPOSAL. THE VARIOUS FIELD BORING LOGS, ROCK CORES AND SOIL TEST DATA AVAILABLE MAY
MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING THE SCOPE OF WORK TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST FOR
THE SUBSURFACE INFORMATION AND THE SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
:
1
5
0
0
5
.
1
0
3
2
0
1
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
:
COUNTY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
D EPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
D IVISION OF H IGH W AYS
GEOTECH NICAL ENGINEERING U NIT
STR U CTU R E
SU BSU R FACE IN VESTIG ATIO N
CAU TION NOTICE
D ESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.
CONTENTS
CONDITIONS INDICATED HEREIN AND THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE.
FOR INCREASED COMPENSATION OR EXTENSION OF TIME BASED ON DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
BY HAVING REQUESTED THIS INFORMATION, THE CONTRACTOR SPECIFICALLY WAIVES ANY CLAIMS2.
OR CONTRACT FOR THE PROJECT.
OF TRANSPORTATION AS ACCURATE NOR IS IT CONSIDERED PART OF THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS NOT IMPLIED OR GUARANTEED BY THE N. C. DEPARTMENT1.
NOTES:
1
4-7
TITLE SHEET
BORE LOG(S)
1310072
STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.STATE NO.
SHEET
SHEETS
TOTAL
N.C.
2, 2A
7
CHECKED BY
SUBMITTED BY
DATE
INVESTIGATED BY
DRAWN BY
PERSONNEL
D .G. PINTER
J.R. SW ARTLEY
O.B. OTI
J.R. SW ARTLEY
J.R. SW ARTLEY
N.T. ROBERSON
N.T. ROBERSON
D ECEM BER 2016
DATESIGNATURE
D O CU M EN T N O T C O N SID ER ED FIN A L
U N LESS A LL SIG N A TU R ES CO M PLETED
3 SITE PLAN
LEGEND (SOIL & ROCK)
D U RH AM
3
1
0
0
7
2
REPLACE STRU CTU RE NO.
72 ON SR 1637 OVER FINGER TO FALLS LAK E
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL LEGEND AND AASHTO CLASSIFICATION
CONSISTENCY OR DENSENESS
TEXTURE OR GRAIN SIZE
SOIL M OISTURE - CORRELATION OF TERM S
PLASTICITY
COLOR
ORGANIC MATERIALS
A-1 A-3 A-2 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7
A-1-a A-1-b A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7
15 MX
30 MX
50 MX
25 MX
50 MX
10 MX
51 MN
35 MX 35 MX 36 MN
10 MX
40 MX
10 MX
41 MN
11 MN
40 MX
11 MN
41 MN
10 MX
41 MN
11 MN
41 M N
11 MN
40 MX
10 MX
40 MX
0 0 0 4 MX 8 MX 12 MX 16 MX
SOILS
CLAYEY MATTER
ORGANIC
AMOUNTS OF
MODERATE
LITTLE OR
SOILS WITH
SOILS
ORGANIC
HIGHLY
EXCELLENT TO GOOD FAIR TO POOR POOR UNSUITABLE
2
N/A
OPENING (MM)
U.S. STD. SIEVE SIZE
SAND
FINE
SAND
COARSE
BOULDER COBBLE GRAVEL SILT CLAY
SIZE
GRAIN
IN.
MM 0.25
(PI)
RANGE
PLASTIC
LL
PL
OM
SL
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTIC LIMIT
OPTIMUM MOISTURE
SHRINKAGE LIM IT
(SAT.)
- SATURATED -
- W ET - (W)
- M OIST - (M)
- DRY - (D)
FROM BELOW THE GROUND W ATER TABLE
USUALLY LIQUID; VERY W ET, USUALLY
ATTAIN OPTIMUM M OISTURE
SEMISOLID; REQUIRES DRYING TO
SOLID; AT OR NEAR OPTIMUM M OISTURE
ATTAIN OPTIMUM M OISTURE
REQUIRES ADDITIONAL WATER TO
GRADATION
ANGULARITY OF GRAINS
M INERALOGICAL COM POSITION
COM PRESSIBILITY
HIGHLY COMPRESSIBLE
MODERATELY COMPRESSIBLE
SLIGHTLY COM PRESSIBLE
GROUND W ATER
0.005
40
0.42 0.25
4.76
10
2.00 0.075 0.053
0.052.0
MODIFIERS SUCH AS LIGHT, DARK, STREAKED, ETC. ARE USED TO DESCRIBE APPEARANCE.
(BLDR.)(COB.)(GR.)
(CSE. SD.)
(SL.)(CL.)
PERCENTAGE OF M ATERIAL
HIGHLY
SOME
LITTLE
TRACE
35% AND ABOVE
20 - 35%
10 - 20%
1 - 10%
HIGHLY ORGANIC
MODERATELY ORGANIC
LITTLE ORGANIC MATTER
TRACE OF ORGANIC M ATTER
W ATER LEVEL IN BORE HOLE IM MEDIATELY AFTER DRILLING
PW
24
SPRING OR SEEP
STATIC W ATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS
PERCHED WATER, SATURATED ZONE, OR W ATER BEARING STRATA
DESCRIPTIONS M AY INCLUDE COLOR OR COLOR COMBINATIONS (TAN, RED, YELLOW -BROW N, BLUE-GRAY).
THE ANGULARITY OR ROUNDNESS OF SOIL GRAINS IS DESIGNATED BY THE TERM S:
36 MN36 MN36 MN35 MX35 MX
NO MX
(NON-COHESIVE)
M ATERIAL
GRANULAR
GENERALLY
(COHESIVE)
M ATERIAL
SILT-CLAY
GENERALLY
4 60 200 270
12
305
3
75
(ATTERBERG LIM ITS)
SOIL M OISTURE SCALE
DESCRIPTION
FIELD MOISTURE
GUIDE FOR FIELD MOISTURE DESCRIPTION
(F SD.)
CLASS.
GENERAL
CLASS.
GROUP
SYMBOL
GROUP INDEX
MATERIALS
OF MAJOR
USUAL TYPES
#200
#40
#10
% PASSING
( 35% PASSING #200)
GRANULAR MATERIALS
( 35% PASSING #200)
SILT-CLAY MATERIALS
PI OF A-7-5 SUBGROUP IS LL - 30 ; PI OF A-7-6 SUBGROUP IS LL - 30
A-3
A-1, A-2
A-6, A-7
A-4, A-5
SAND
GRAVEL, AND
STONE FRAGS.
SAND
FINE
GRAVEL AND SAND
SILTY OR CLAYEY
SOILS
SILTY
POOR
FAIR TO
(N-VALUE)
PENETRATION RESISTENCE
RANGE OF STANDARD
(TONS/FT )
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
RANGE OF UNCONFINED
CONSISTENCY
COMPACTNESS OR
PRIMARY SOIL TYPE
VERY DENSE
DENSE
MEDIUM DENSE
LOOSE
VERY LOOSE
HARD
VERY STIFF
STIFF
MEDIUM STIFF
SOFT
VERY SOFT
> 4
2 TO 4
1 TO 2
0.5 TO 1.0
0.25 TO 0.5
< 0.25
> 30
15 TO 30
8 TO 15
4 TO 8
2 TO 4
< 2
> 50
30 TO 50
10 TO 30
4 TO 10
< 4
26 OR MORE
16-25
6-15
0-5
HIGH
MEDIUM
SLIGHT
VERY LOW
> 10%
5 - 10%
3 - 5%
2 - 3%
SOILS
GRANULAR
SOILS
SILT - CLAY
> 20%
12 - 20%
5 - 12%
3 - 5%
A-7-6
A-7-5,
LL > 50
LL = 31 - 50
LL < 31
AS SUBGRADE
GEN. RATING
PI
LL
PASSING #4O
MATERIAL
6 MX NP
SOILS
GRANULAR
SOILS
CLAY
SILT-
PEAT
MUCK,
VERY STIFF, GRAY, SILTY CLAY, MOIST WITH INTERBEDDED FINE SAND LAYERS, HIGHLY PLASTIC, A-7-6
ANGULAR, SUBANGULAR, SUBROUNDED, OR ROUNDED.
HIGHLY PLASTIC
M ODERATELY PLASTIC
SLIGHTLY PLASTIC
NON PLASTIC
AS MINERALOGICAL COMPOSITION, ANGULARITY, STRUCTURE, PLASTICITY, ETC. FOR EXAMPLE,
CONSISTENCY, COLOR, TEXTURE, MOISTURE, AASHTO CLASSIFICATION, AND OTHER PERTINENT FACTORS SUCH
IS BASED ON THE AASHTO SYSTEM. BASIC DESCRIPTIONS GENERALLY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (AASHTO T 206, ASTM D1586). SOIL CLASSIFICATION
BE PENETRATED WITH A CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER AND YIELD LESS THAN 100 BLOWS PER FOOT
SOIL IS CONSIDERED UNCONSOLIDATED, SEMI-CONSOLIDATED, OR WEATHERED EARTH MATERIALS THAT CAN
UNIFORMLY GRADED - INDICATES THAT SOIL PARTICLES ARE ALL APPROXIM ATELY THE SAM E SIZE.
GAP-GRADED - INDICATES A MIXTURE OF UNIFORM PARTICLE SIZES OF TWO OR MORE SIZES.
WELL GRADED - INDICATES A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF PARTICLE SIZES FROM FINE TO COARSE.
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)DRY STRENGTH
ORGANIC MATERIAL OTHER MATERIAL
M INERAL NAMES SUCH AS QUARTZ, FELDSPAR, MICA, TALC, KAOLIN, ETC.
ARE USED IN DESCRIPTIONS WHEN THEY ARE CONSIDERED OF SIGNIFICANCE.
SOIL AND ROCK LEGEND , TERM S, SYM BOLS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
D IVISION OF H IGH W AYS
GEOTECH NICAL ENGINEERING U NIT
SU BSU R FACE IN VESTIG ATIO N
(PAGE 1 OF 2)
NORTH CAROLINA D EPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
M ISCELLANEOUS SYM BOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
CL. - CLAY
CSE. - COARSE
FOSS. - FOSSILIFEROUS
M ED. - M EDIUM
SL. - SILT, SILTY
SLI. - SLIGHTLY
TCR - TRICONE REFUSAL
BT - BORING TERMINATED
FRAGS. - FRAGMENTS
VST - VANE SHEAR TEST
DPT - DYNAMIC PENETRATION TEST
CPT - CONE PENETRATION TEST
DMT - DILATOM ETER TEST
SD. - SAND, SANDY
M ICA. - MICACEOUS
M OD. - M ODERATELY
NP - NON PLASTIC
SAP. - SAPROLITIC
d - DRY UNIT W EIGHT
- UNIT W EIGHT
AR - AUGER REFUSAL
w
HI. - HIGHLY
SOIL SYMBOL
INFERRED SOIL BOUNDARY
TEST BORING
AUGER BORING
CORE BORING
INSTALLATION
SLOPE INDICATOR
L
L
L
MW
SPT
DPT
VST
DMT
PMT
ALLUVIAL SOIL BOUNDARY
INFERRED ROCK LINE
SPT N-VALUE
SOUNDING ROD
25/025
TEST
CONE PENETROM ETER
ADVANCING TOOLS:
HAND TOOLS:
POST HOLE DIGGER
HAND AUGER
SOUNDING ROD
VANE SHEAR TEST
PORTABLE HOIST
CME-550
CLAY BITS
6" CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
8" HOLLOW AUGERS
HARD FACED FINGER BITS
TUNG.-CARBIDE INSERTS
CASING W/ ADVANCER
TRICONE
TRICONE " TUNG.-CARB.
CORE BIT
CORE SIZE:
-B
-N
HAMMER TYPE:
AUTOMATIC
EQUIPM ENT USED ON SUBJECT PROJECT
RECOM M ENDATION SYM BOLS
-H
MANUAL
" STEEL TEETH
DRILL UNITS:
VANE SHEAR TEST
CBR - CALIFORNIA BEARING
RATIO
M ONITORING WELL
OF ROCK STRUCTURES
DIP & DIP DIRECTION
SAMPLE ABBREVIATIONS
F - FINE
FRAC. - FRACTURED, FRACTURES
ORG. - ORGANIC
PMT - PRESSUREM ETER TEST
- M OISTURE CONTENT
V - VERY
RT - RECOMPACTED TRIAXIAL
RS - ROCK
ST - SHELBY TUBE
SS - SPLIT SPOON
S - BULK
WEA. - W EATHERED
W ITH CORE
TEST BORING
- VOID RATIOe
X
X
CME-55
CME-45C
INSTALLATION
PIEZOMETER
WITH SOIL DESCRIPTION
ROADWAY EMBANKMENT (RE)
THAN ROADW AY EMBANKMENT
ARTIFICIAL FILL (AF) OTHER
310072
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
2
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION -
UNSUITABLE WASTE
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION -
ACCEPTABLE DEGRADABLE ROCK
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION -
ACCEPTABLE, BUT NOT TO BE
EMBANKMENT OR BACKFILL
USED IN THE TOP 3 FEET OFSHALLOW
UNDERCUT
UNDERCUT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
ROCK DESCRIPTION
ROCK (W R)
WEATHERED
ROCK (CR)
CRYSTALLINE
ROCK (NCR)
NON-CRYSTALLINE
(CP)
SEDIMENTARY ROCK
COASTAL PLAIN
VERY HARD
HARD
SOFT
ROCK HARDNESS
FRACTURE SPACING BEDDING
THINLY LAM INATED
THICKLY LAMINATED
VERY THINLY BEDDED
THINLY BEDDED
THICKLY BEDDED
VERY THICKLY BEDDED
INDURATION
FRIABLE
MODERATELY INDURATED
INDURATED
EXTREMELY INDURATED
COMPLETE
SHELL BEDS, ETC.
SPT REFUSAL. ROCK TYPE INCLUDES LIMESTONE, SANDSTONE, CEMENTED
COASTAL PLAIN SEDIMENTS CEM ENTED INTO ROCK, BUT M AY NOT YIELD
(SEV.)
SEVERE
(MOD. SEV.)
SEVERE
MODERATELY
(MOD.)
MODERATE
WITH FRESH ROCK.
DULL SOUND UNDER HAM MER BLOWS AND SHOWS SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF STRENGTH AS COMPARED
GRANITOID ROCKS, MOST FELDSPARS ARE DULL AND DISCOLORED, SOME SHOW CLAY. ROCK HAS
SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF ROCK SHOW DISCOLORATION AND W EATHERING EFFECTS. IN
(SLI.)
SLIGHT
CRYSTALS ARE DULL AND DISCOLORED. CRYSTALLINE ROCKS RING UNDER HAMMER BLOWS.
1 INCH. OPEN JOINTS M AY CONTAIN CLAY. IN GRANITOID ROCKS SOME OCCASIONAL FELDSPAR
ROCK GENERALLY FRESH, JOINTS STAINED AND DISCOLORATION EXTENDS INTO ROCK UP TO
FRESH
VERY CLOSE
CLOSE
MODERATELY CLOSE
WIDE
VERY WIDE
HARD
MODERATELY
HARD
MEDIUM
SOFT
VERY
TO DETACH HAND SPECIM EN.
CAN BE SCRATCHED BY KNIFE OR PICK ONLY WITH DIFFICULTY. HARD HAMMER BLOWS REQUIRED
FINGERNAIL.
OR M ORE IN THICKNESS CAN BE BROKEN BY FINGER PRESSURE. CAN BE SCRATCHED READILY BY
CAN BE CARVED W ITH KNIFE. CAN BE EXCAVATED READILY W ITH POINT OF PICK. PIECES 1 INCH
GENTLE BLOW BY HAMMER DISINTEGRATES SAM PLE.
RUBBING WITH FINGER FREES NUMEROUS GRAINS;
DIFFICULT TO BREAK WITH HAMM ER.
GRAINS ARE DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE WITH STEEL PROBE;
SAMPLE BREAKS ACROSS GRAINS.
SHARP HAM MER BLOWS REQUIRED TO BREAK SAMPLE;
W EATHERING
ALSO AN EXAMPLE.
SCATTERED CONCENTRATIONS. QUARTZ M AY BE PRESENT AS DIKES OR STRINGERS. SAPROLITE IS
ROCK REDUCED TO SOIL. ROCK FABRIC NOT DISCERNIBLE, OR DISCERNIBLE ONLY IN SMALL AND
TERM S AND DEFINITIONS
LENS - A BODY OF SOIL OR ROCK THAT THINS OUT IN ONE OR MORE DIRECTIONS.
JOINT - FRACTURE IN ROCK ALONG WHICH NO APPRECIABLE MOVEM ENT HAS OCCURRED.
FISSILE - A PROPERTY OF SPLITTING ALONG CLOSELY SPACED PARALLEL PLANES.
ARENACEOUS - APPLIED TO ROCKS THAT HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM SAND OR THAT CONTAIN SAND.
AQUIFER - A WATER BEARING FORMATION OR STRATA.
OF SLOPE.
COLLUVIUM - ROCK FRAGMENTS MIXED WITH SOIL DEPOSITED BY GRAVITY ON SLOPE OR AT BOTTOM
ROCK LINE INDICATES THE LEVEL AT WHICH NON-COASTAL PLAIN MATERIAL W OULD YIELD SPT REFUSAL.
TOPSOIL (TS.) - SURFACE SOILS USUALLY CONTAINING ORGANIC MATTER.
ALLUVIUM (ALLUV.) - SOILS THAT HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED BY W ATER.
RESIDUAL (RES.) SOIL - SOIL FORM ED IN PLACE BY THE W EATHERING OF ROCK.
(V SLI.)
VERY SLIGHT
OF A CRYSTALLINE NATURE.
CRYSTALS ON A BROKEN SPECIMEN FACE SHINE BRIGHTLY. ROCK RINGS UNDER HAM MER BLOWS IF
ROCK GENERALLY FRESH, JOINTS STAINED, SOME JOINTS M AY SHOW THIN CLAY COATINGS IF OPEN,
SEVERAL HARD BLOWS OF THE GEOLOGIST'S PICK.
CANNOT BE SCRATCHED BY KNIFE OR SHARP PICK. BREAKING OF HAND SPECIMENS REQUIRES
BY M ODERATE BLOW S.
EXCAVATED BY HARD BLOW OF A GEOLOGIST'S PICK. HAND SPECIMENS CAN BE DETACHED
CAN BE SCRATCHED BY KNIFE OR PICK. GOUGES OR GROOVES TO 0.25 INCHES DEEP CAN BE
POINT OF A GEOLOGIST'S PICK.
CAN BE EXCAVATED IN SMALL CHIPS TO PEICES 1 INCH MAXIMUM SIZE BY HARD BLOW S OF THE
CAN BE GROOVED OR GOUGED 0.05 INCHES DEEP BY FIRM PRESSURE OF KNIFE OR PICK POINT.
LESS THAN 0.16 FEET
0.16 TO 1 FOOT
1 TO 3 FEET
3 TO 10 FEET
MORE THAN 10 FEET
< 0.008 FEET
0.008 - 0.03 FEET
0.03 - 0.16 FEET
0.16 - 1.5 FEET
1.5 - 4 FEET
4 FEET
GNEISS, GABBRO, SCHIST, ETC.
W OULD YIELD SPT REFUSAL IF TESTED. ROCK TYPE INCLUDES GRANITE,
FINE TO COARSE GRAIN IGNEOUS AND METAM ORPHIC ROCK THAT
ROCK TYPE INCLUDES PHYLLITE, SLATE, SANDSTONE, ETC.
SEDIMENTARY ROCK THAT WOULD YEILD SPT REFUSAL IF TESTED.
FINE TO COARSE GRAIN METAM ORPHIC AND NON-COASTAL PLAIN
HAMMER IF CRYSTALLINE.
ROCK FRESH, CRYSTALS BRIGHT, FEW JOINTS MAY SHOW SLIGHT STAINING. ROCK RINGS UNDER
TO SOME EXTENT. SOME FRAGMENTS OF STRONG ROCK USUALLY REMAIN.
REDUCED IN STRENGTH TO STRONG SOIL. IN GRANITOID ROCKS ALL FELDSPARS ARE KAOLINIZED
ALL ROCK EXCEPT QUARTZ DISCOLORED OR STAINED. ROCK FABRIC CLEAR AND EVIDENT BUT
CALCAREOUS (CALC.) - SOILS THAT CONTAIN APPRECIABLE AMOUNTS OF CALCIUM CARBONATE.
FLOOD PLAIN (FP) - LAND BORDERING A STREAM, BUILT OF SEDIMENTS DEPOSITED BY THE STREAM.
USUALLY INDICATES POOR AERATION AND LACK OF GOOD DRAINAGE.
MOTTLED (MOT.) - IRREGULARLY MARKED W ITH SPOTS OF DIFFERENT COLORS. MOTTLING IN SOILS
THE TOTAL LENGTH OF STRATA AND EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE.
LENGTH OF ROCK SEGM ENTS WITHIN A STRATUM EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 4 INCHES DIVIDED BY
STRATA ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (SRQD) - A M EASURE OF ROCK QUALITY DESCRIBED BY TOTAL
ITS LATERAL EXTENT.
LEDGE - A SHELF-LIKE RIDGE OR PROJECTION OF ROCK W HOSE THICKNESS IS SMALL COMPARED TO
ROCK.
SAPROLITE (SAP.) - RESIDUAL SOIL THAT RETAINS THE RELIC STRUCTURE OR FABRIC OF THE PARENT
A NOTABLE PROPORTION OF CLAY IN THEIR COM POSITION, SUCH AS SHALE, SLATE, ETC.
ARGILLACEOUS - APPLIED TO ALL ROCKS OR SUBSTANCES COMPOSED OF CLAY MINERALS, OR HAVING
SURFACE.
WHICH IT IS ENCOUNTERED, BUT WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARILY RISE TO OR ABOVE THE GROUND
ARTESIAN - GROUND W ATER THAT IS UNDER SUFFICIENT PRESSURE TO RISE ABOVE THE LEVEL AT
BY TOTAL LENGTH OF CORE RUN AND EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE.
CORE RECOVERY (REC.) - TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL MATERIAL RECOVERED IN THE CORE BARREL DIVIDED
ROCKS OR CUTS MASSIVE ROCK.
DIKE - A TABULAR BODY OF IGNEOUS ROCK THAT CUTS ACROSS THE STRUCTURE OF ADJACENT
HORIZONTAL.
DIP - THE ANGLE AT WHICH A STRATUM OR ANY PLANAR FEATURE IS INCLINED FROM THE
LINE OF DIP, MEASURED CLOCKWISE FROM NORTH.
DIP DIRECTION (DIP AZIM UTH) - THE DIRECTION OR BEARING OF THE HORIZONTAL TRACE OF THE
SIDES RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER PARALLEL TO THE FRACTURE.
FAULT - A FRACTURE OR FRACTURE ZONE ALONG W HICH THERE HAS BEEN DISPLACEMENT OF THE
PARENT MATERIAL.
FLOAT - ROCK FRAGMENTS ON SURFACE NEAR THEIR ORIGiNAL POSITION AND DISLODGED FROM
FIELD.
FORMATION (FM.) - A M APPABLE GEOLOGIC UNIT THAT CAN BE RECOGNIZED AND TRACED IN THE
OF AN INTERVENING IMPERVIOUS STRATUM.
PERCHED W ATER - WATER MAINTAINED ABOVE THE NORMAL GROUND WATER LEVEL BY THE PRESENCE
RUN AND EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE.
ROCK SEGMENTS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 4 INCHES DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL LENGTH OF CORE
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) - A M EASURE OF ROCK QUALITY DESCRIBED BY TOTAL LENGTH OF
THE BEDDING OR SCHISTOSITY OF THE INTRUDED ROCKS.
RELATIVELY THIN COMPARED WITH ITS LATERAL EXTENT, THAT HAS BEEN EMPLACED PARALLEL TO
SILL - AN INTRUSIVE BODY OF IGNEOUS ROCK OF APPROXIMATELY UNIFORM THICKNESS AND
OR SLIP PLANE.
SLICKENSIDE - POLISHED AND STRIATED SURFACE THAT RESULTS FROM FRICTION ALONG A FAULT
TOTAL LENGTH OF STRATUM AND EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE.
STRATA CORE RECOVERY (SREC.) - TOTAL LENGTH OF STRATA MATERIAL RECOVERED DIVIDED BY
TO OR LESS THAN 0.1 FOOT PER 60 BLOWS.
WITH A 2 INCH OUTSIDE DIAM ETER SPLIT SPOON SAM PLER. SPT REFUSAL IS PENETRATION EQUAL
A 140 LB. HAM MER FALLING 30 INCHES REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A PENETRATION OF 1 FOOT INTO SOIL
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (PENETRATION RESISTANCE) (SPT) - NUMBER OF BLOWS (N OR BPF) OF
THICKNESSTERMSPACINGTERM
FOR SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, INDURATION IS THE HARDENING OF M ATERIAL BY CEMENTING, HEAT, PRESSURE, ETC.
BREAKS EASILY WHEN HIT WITH HAM MER.
GRAINS CAN BE SEPARATED FROM SAMPLE W ITH STEEL PROBE;
(V SEV.)
SEVERE
VERY
ROCK MATERIALS ARE TYPICALLY DIVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
SPT REFUSAL IS PENETRATION BY A SPLIT SPOON SAM PLER EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 0.1 FOOT PER 60
BLOWS IN NON-COASTAL PLAIN MATERIAL, THE TRANSITION BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK IS OFTEN
REPRESENTED BY A ZONE OF WEATHERED ROCK.
100 BLOWS PER FOOT IF TESTED.
NON-COASTAL PLAIN M ATERIAL THAT W OULD YIELD SPT N VALUES >
HARD ROCK IS NON-COASTAL PLAIN M ATERIAL THAT W OULD YIELD SPT REFUSAL IF TESTED. AN INFERRED
IF TESTED, W OULD YIELD SPT REFUSAL
IF TESTED, W OULD YIELD SPT N VALUES > 100 BPF
IF TESTED, WOULD YIELD SPT N VALUES < 100 BPF
PIECES CAN BE BROKEN BY FINGER PRESSURE.
FROM CHIPS TO SEVERAL INCHES IN SIZE BY M ODERATE BLOW S OF A PICK POINT. SMALL, THIN
CAN BE GROVED OR GOUGED READILY BY KNIFE OR PICK. CAN BE EXCAVATED IN FRAGMENTS
AND CAN BE EXCAVATED WITH A GEOLOGIST'S PICK. ROCK GIVES "CLUNK" SOUND WHEN STRUCK.
AND DISCOLORED AND A MAJORITY SHOW KAOLINIZATION. ROCK SHOWS SEVERE LOSS OF STRENGTH
ALL ROCK EXCEPT QUARTZ DISCOLORED OR STAINED. IN GRANITOID ROCKS, ALL FELDSPARS DULL
VESTIGES OF ORIGINAL ROCK FABRIC REMAIN.
REMAINING. SAPROLITE IS AN EXAMPLE OF ROCK WEATHERED TO A DEGREE THAT ONLY MINOR
BUT MASS IS EFFECTIVELY REDUCED TO SOIL STATUS, WITH ONLY FRAGMENTS OF STRONG ROCK
ALL ROCK EXCEPT QUARTZ DISCOLORED OR STAINED. ROCK FABRIC ELEMENTS ARE DISCERNIBLE
ELEVATION:
FEET
NOTES:
BENCH M ARK:
SOIL AND ROCK LEGEND , TERM S, SYM BOLS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
D IVISION OF H IGH W AYS
GEOTECH NICAL ENGINEERING U NIT
SU BSU R FACE IN VESTIG ATIO N
(PAGE 2 OF 2)
NORTH CAROLINA D EPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE: 8-15-14
310072
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
2A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
N
O
.
S
H
E
E
T
N
O
.
F
E
E
T
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
F
A
L
L
S
L
A
K
E
F
A
L
L
S
L
A
K
E
W
O
O
D
S
W
O
O
D
S
W
O
O
D
S
E
B
1
-
A
E
B
1
-
B
E
B
2
-
B
E
B
2
-
A
S
R
1
6
3
7
(
R
E
D
W
O
O
D
R
D
.
)
S
R
1
6
3
7
(
R
E
D
W
O
O
D
R
D
.
)
T
O
I
-
8
5
3
3
1
0
0
7
2
-
E
L
-
N AD 83
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
3.4
8.4
13.4
18.4
23.4
28.4
29.4
0.0
12.0
16.5
24.4
28.0
29.4
29.5
ROADWAY EMBANKMENT
RED AND BROWN, SANDY SILT AND
SANDY CLAY
ALLUVIAL
RED AND BROWN, SANDY CLAY
RESIDUAL
RED AND GRAY, SANDY CLAY
WEATHERED ROCK
(SILTSTONE)
NON-CRYSTALLINE ROCK
(SILTSTONE)
Boring Terminated with Standard
Penetration Test Refusal at Depth 29.5 ft IN
NON-CRYSTALLINE ROCK (SILTSTONE)
7
6
4
3
5
8
7
6
5
13
7
5
4
2
4
100/0.2
60/0.1
SHEET 4
DRIVE
ELEV
(ft)
DEPTH
(ft)DEPTH (ft)
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
L
O
G
SAMP.
NO.MOI ELEV. (ft)
BLOW COUNT
0.5ft 0.5ft0.5ft
BLOWS PER FOOT
25 50 750 100
BORE LOG
OFFSET 13 ft LT ALIGNMENT -EL-
EASTING 2,066,462
19.0
17.0
SITE DESCRIPTION SINK HOLE NEAR PIPE NO. 72 ON SR 1637 OVER FINGER TO FALLS LAKE
BORING NO.EB1-A
GROUND WTR (ft)
TOTAL DEPTH 29.5 ft
SURFACE WATER DEPTH N/ACOMP. DATE 12/20/16START DATE 12/20/16
GEOLOGIST Swartley, J. R.
STATION N/A
COLLAR ELEV.N/A
0 HR.
24 HR.NORTHING 837,801
DRILLER Pinter, D. G.
DRILL RIG/HAMMER EFF./DATE RFO0074 CME-55 90% 07/12/2016 DRILL METHOD H.S. Augers HAMMER TYPE Automatic
TIP 310072WBS15005.1032011 COUNTY DURHAM
ELEV
(ft)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING REPORT
NC
D
O
T
B
O
R
E
S
I
N
G
L
E
3
1
0
0
7
2
_
G
E
O
_
P
I
P
E
0
0
7
2
_
S
I
N
K
_
H
O
L
E
_
S
P
T
_
B
O
R
I
N
G
S
.
G
P
J
N
C
_
D
O
T
.
G
D
T
1
2
/
2
2
/
1
6
GROUND SURFACE
15
13
10
8
18
100/0.2
60/0.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
3.4
8.4
13.4
18.4
23.4
28.4
0.0
12.0
17.0
22.0
24.4
27.0
28.4
ROADWAY EMBANKMENT
RED AND BROWN, SANDY SILT AND
SANDY CLAY
ALLUVIAL
RED AND BROWN, SANDY CLAY
GRAY, SILTY SAND
RESIDUAL
GRAY, SANDY SILT
WEATHERED ROCK
(SILTSTONE)
Boring Terminated with Standard
Penetration Test Refusal at Depth 28.4 ft
ON NON-CRYSTALLINE ROCK
(SILTSTONE)
5
6
4
2
6
5
8
4
2
8
4
6
3
2
4
60/0.0
SHEET 5
DRIVE
ELEV
(ft)
DEPTH
(ft)DEPTH (ft)
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
L
O
G
SAMP.
NO.MOI ELEV. (ft)
BLOW COUNT
0.5ft 0.5ft0.5ft
BLOWS PER FOOT
25 50 750 100
BORE LOG
OFFSET 14 ft RT ALIGNMENT -EL-
EASTING 2,066,451
19.1
18.6
SITE DESCRIPTION SINK HOLE NEAR PIPE NO. 72 ON SR 1637 OVER FINGER TO FALLS LAKE
BORING NO.EB1-B
GROUND WTR (ft)
TOTAL DEPTH 28.4 ft
SURFACE WATER DEPTH N/ACOMP. DATE 12/20/16START DATE 12/20/16
GEOLOGIST Swartley, J. R.
STATION N/A
COLLAR ELEV.N/A
0 HR.
24 HR.NORTHING 837,773
DRILLER Pinter, D. G.
DRILL RIG/HAMMER EFF./DATE RFO0074 CME-55 90% 07/12/2016 DRILL METHOD H.S. Augers HAMMER TYPE Automatic
TIP 310072WBS15005.1032011 COUNTY DURHAM
ELEV
(ft)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING REPORT
NC
D
O
T
B
O
R
E
S
I
N
G
L
E
3
1
0
0
7
2
_
G
E
O
_
P
I
P
E
0
0
7
2
_
S
I
N
K
_
H
O
L
E
_
S
P
T
_
B
O
R
I
N
G
S
.
G
P
J
N
C
_
D
O
T
.
G
D
T
1
2
/
2
2
/
1
6
GROUND SURFACE
10
14
8
4
14
60/0.0
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
3.4
8.4
13.4
18.4
23.4
28.4
0.0
12.0
16.5
22.0
27.4
28.4
28.5
ROADWAY EMBANKMENT
RED AND BROWN, SANDY SILT AND
SANDY CLAY
ALLUVIAL
GRAY, SANDY CLAY
GRAY, SILTY SAND
WEATHERED ROCK
(SILTSTONE)
NON-CRYSTALLINE ROCK
(SILTSTONE)
Boring Terminated with Standard
Penetration Test Refusal at Depth 28.5 ft IN
NON-CRYSTALLINE ROCK (SILTSTONE)
6
6
6
3
5
7
9
7
3
6
8
6
3
2
3
60/0.1
SHEET 6
DRIVE
ELEV
(ft)
DEPTH
(ft)DEPTH (ft)
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
L
O
G
SAMP.
NO.MOI ELEV. (ft)
BLOW COUNT
0.5ft 0.5ft0.5ft
BLOWS PER FOOT
25 50 750 100
BORE LOG
OFFSET 14 ft LT ALIGNMENT -EL-
EASTING 2,066,553
19.2
16.8
SITE DESCRIPTION SINK HOLE NEAR PIPE NO. 72 ON SR 1637 OVER FINGER TO FALLS LAKE
BORING NO.EB2-A
GROUND WTR (ft)
TOTAL DEPTH 28.5 ft
SURFACE WATER DEPTH N/ACOMP. DATE 12/20/16START DATE 12/20/16
GEOLOGIST Swartley, J. R.
STATION N/A
COLLAR ELEV.N/A
0 HR.
24 HR.NORTHING 837,756
DRILLER Pinter, D. G.
DRILL RIG/HAMMER EFF./DATE RFO0074 CME-55 90% 07/12/2016 DRILL METHOD H.S. Augers HAMMER TYPE Automatic
TIP 310072WBS15005.1032011 COUNTY DURHAM
ELEV
(ft)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING REPORT
NC
D
O
T
B
O
R
E
S
I
N
G
L
E
3
1
0
0
7
2
_
G
E
O
_
P
I
P
E
0
0
7
2
_
S
I
N
K
_
H
O
L
E
_
S
P
T
_
B
O
R
I
N
G
S
.
G
P
J
N
C
_
D
O
T
.
G
D
T
1
2
/
2
2
/
1
6
GROUND SURFACE
13
15
13
6
11
60/0.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4
3.4
8.4
13.4
18.4
23.4
28.4
0.0
12.0
16.5
24.4
27.0
28.4
ROADWAY EMBANKMENT
RED AND BROWN, SANDY SILT AND
SANDY CLAY
ALLUVIAL
GRAY, SANDY CLAY
GRAY, SILTY SAND
WEATHERED ROCK
(SILTSTONE)
Boring Terminated with Standard
Penetration Test Refusal at Depth 28.4 ft
ON NON-CRYSTALLINE ROCK
(SILTSTONE)
4
6
5
2
2
8
7
6
4
4
4
7
4
3
3
60/0.0
SHEET 7
DRIVE
ELEV
(ft)
DEPTH
(ft)DEPTH (ft)
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
L
O
G
SAMP.
NO.MOI ELEV. (ft)
BLOW COUNT
0.5ft 0.5ft0.5ft
BLOWS PER FOOT
25 50 750 100
BORE LOG
OFFSET 14 ft RT ALIGNMENT -EL-
EASTING 2,066,542
18.7
17.6
SITE DESCRIPTION SINK HOLE NEAR PIPE NO. 72 ON SR 1637 OVER FINGER TO FALLS LAKE
BORING NO.EB2-B
GROUND WTR (ft)
TOTAL DEPTH 28.4 ft
SURFACE WATER DEPTH N/ACOMP. DATE 12/20/16START DATE 12/20/16
GEOLOGIST Swartley, J. R.
STATION N/A
COLLAR ELEV.N/A
0 HR.
24 HR.NORTHING 837,730
DRILLER Pinter, D. G.
DRILL RIG/HAMMER EFF./DATE RFO0074 CME-55 90% 07/12/2016 DRILL METHOD H.S. Augers HAMMER TYPE Automatic
TIP 310072WBS15005.1032011 COUNTY DURHAM
ELEV
(ft)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING REPORT
NC
D
O
T
B
O
R
E
S
I
N
G
L
E
3
1
0
0
7
2
_
G
E
O
_
P
I
P
E
0
0
7
2
_
S
I
N
K
_
H
O
L
E
_
S
P
T
_
B
O
R
I
N
G
S
.
G
P
J
N
C
_
D
O
T
.
G
D
T
1
2
/
2
2
/
1
6
GROUND SURFACE
12
13
11
6
6
60/0.0
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A4B130D-DE0A-4E04-85F4-AA213350D6E4