Rainy River International Crossing. Cost Effective Foundation Options Technical Memorandum. Preliminary Engineering

Transcription

1 Rainy River International Crossing Cost Effective Foundation Options Technical Memorandum Rainy River International Crossing Preliminary Engineering Trunk Highway (TH) 72, S.P April 13, 2016 Prepared for: Joe McKinnon, MnDOT Tony Lesch, MnDOT Kevin Saunders, MTO Tyler McQuaker, MTO Prepared by: Darin Maciolek, P.E. Richard Lyons, P.E. Brianna Turley, EIT P a g e i

2 CONTENTS Introduction... 1 Background... 1 Subsurface Conditions... 1 Corrosion... 2 Scour... 3 Geotechnical-Related Foundation Considerations... 3 Foundation Alternatives... 4 Driven Piles... 4 Drilled Shafts... 8 Conclusions... 9 Appendix A: Subsurface Information... A Appendix B: Pile Foundation Resistance Graphs & Driveability Results... B Appendix C: Drilled Shaft Foundation Resistance Graphs... C P a g e i

3 April 13, 2016 INTRODUCTION Preliminary analysis was done to aid in the selection of the foundation type for the proposed Baudette/Rainy River International Bridge. The analysis included estimates of foundation resistance for drilled shafts, driven H-pile sections, driven closed-end pipe piles filled with concrete (CIP piles), and large diameter open-ended pipe piles. Below is a brief discussion of the project background, the subsurface conditions, and geotechnicalrelated considerations for foundation type selection. Consideration was given to site accessibility, construction season limitations, scour and microbiologically influenced corrosion. BACKGROUND The existing Trunk Highway 72/Highway 11 Rainy River crossing located in Baudette, Minnesota and Rainy River, Ontario, built in 1959, is nearing the end of its service life. The bridge serves as a connection between the United States and Canadian full-service Port of Entry facilities. The border crossing project is a collaborative effort between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. The location of the crossing will remain within the existing corridor. Construction is currently scheduled for SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Three borings (B100, B101 and B102) performed by EPC were provided for our analysis. The borings were drilled from a barge. The depth of water at the boring locations varied from approximately 11 to 18 feet deep. The borings were drilled to depths of approximately 46 to 93 feet below the river bottom. The subsurface soils are reported to consist of approximately 5 to 13.5 feet of very loose to medium dense relative density sand followed by 15 to 16.5 feet of soft to very stiff consistency clay. Layers of stiff clay and loose sandy loam were reported above the sand at boring B100. The clay was underlain by very dense relative density sandy loam. The sandy loam extended to depths of at least 61.1 and 45.7 feet below river bottom at borings B100 and B101 where auger refusal on a probable boulder occurred. At boring B102 the sandy loam extended to a depth of approximately 37.5 feet below the river bottom, and was underlain by at least 55.5 feet of boulders and cobbles mixed with apparent sandy loam to at least the boring termination depth. Water surface at the time of the subsurface exploration was reported to be at elevation feet, which was approximately 11 to 18 feet above the river bottom. The Geologic Map of Minnesota Quaternary Geology by Hobbs and Goebel (1982) indicate the site area on the U.S. side consists of lake-modified till deposits; wave-planed, mantled with lake sediments (considered too thin and patchy to map separately) associated with the Des Moines Lobe (Pleistocene, late Wisconsin) Erskine Moraine Association. Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 1

4 April 13, 2016 CORROSION No test data or other information was available at the time of our analysis to provide foundation corrosion analysis, but it is understood that structural elements are actively corroding. It is also understood substantial section loss (up to 50%) has been observed on some members. Microbialinduced corrosion and trusses displaying free edge distortion/pack rust on many gusset plate connections are understood to be known issues. Some of the typical factors that may contribute to corrosion include the presence of soluble salts (chloride, sulfate, sulfide), soil and water resistivity, soil and water ph, soil moisture, and the presence of oxygen. Measurement of these parameters can give an indication of the corrosion potential. A site specific corrosion investigation is recommended to better assess the corrosion potential and develop design criteria. Because of the number of factors involved and the complex nature of their interaction, actual corrosion rates of driven steel piles cannot be determined by measuring these parameters. Instead, an estimate of the potential for corrosion can be made by comparing site conditions and soil corrosion parameters at a proposed site with historical information at similar sites. There are many different types of bacteria that can cause corrosion, including anaerobic, aerobic, acid producing and metal oxidizing. A particularly common example of microbiologically influenced corrosion is sulfate-reducing bacteria. Typical environments where sulfate-reducing bacteria occur are wet, swampy areas, and clay soil with decaying vegetation. Sulfate-reducing bacteria are anaerobic, but chemical conditions within a bacteria colony can be widely different than in the surrounding environment. Acid producing bacteria produce either inorganic or organic acids that attack metal. Acid producing bacteria can also promote the growth of sulfate-reducing bacteria by providing the environment and nutrients for sulfate-reducing bacteria growth. When steel piles are used in corrosive soil or corrosive water, special corrosion protection considerations for the steel may be needed. Steel piling may be used in corrosive soil and water environments provided that adequate corrosion reduction measures are used. Corrosion reduction measures may include sacrificial metal (corrosion allowance), the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. A corrosion allowance (sacrificial metal loss) for steel pile foundations is commonly used. Sacrificial metal or corrosion allowance is the thickness of metal (beyond what is structurally required for the pile) needed to compensate for the loss of metal that will occur as the pile corrodes. This extra metal thickness is added to all surfaces of the pile exposed to the corrosive soil or water. The corrosion rates listed below may be considered for a preliminary estimate of the thickness of sacrificial steel needed for the piles. The thickness below should be doubled for steel H-piling since there are two surfaces on either side of the web and flanges that are exposed to the corrosive soil and/or water. Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 2

5 April 13, 2016 Soil Embedded Zone (undisturbed soil) Soil Embedded Zone (fill or disturbed soil) Immersed Zone Scour Zone inch per year inch per year inch per year inch per year Corrosion allowance for steel casing is not needed when used only for constructability, and are not intended to carry axial, lateral or other structural loads. Scour because of its abrasive nature can accelerate material loss and corrosion. SCOUR A technical Memorandum dated February 10, 2016 prepared by HZ United, LLC was provided for our analysis. The memorandum provided estimated pier scour, contraction scour and total scour for three alternative pier arrangements. The memorandum indicates pier scour, depending on pier location and arrangement, will be 2.11 to 6.29 meters deep (6.92 to feet deep). Pier (local) scour and involves removal of material from around the piers caused by an acceleration of flow and resulting vortices induced by obstructions to the flow. The memorandum also indicates contraction scour, depending on pier location and arrangement, will be 0 to 0.86 meters deep (0 to 2.82 feet deep). Contraction scour is a lowering of the streambed across the stream or waterway bed at the bridge. The memorandum lists total scour, which is the sum of the pier scour and contraction scour as 2.11 to 7.15 meters deep (6.92 to feet deep), depending on pier location and arrangement. Scour within the Rainy River will affect the estimated foundation lengths. Soil resistance within the potential scour depth should be ignored when calculating the design factored resistance. But, the ignored soil resistance should still be included when calculating the nominal resistance to be obtained during the dynamic testing. It is understood the provided scour results may be revised and be deeper than those provided. For our analysis we assumed total scour associated with a 100-year flood would extend to the top of the very dense relative density sandy loam layer, which was at a depth of approximately20 to 30 feet below the river bottom. GEOTECHNICAL-RELATED FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS 1. Contractor Qualifications The use of a qualified contractor experienced in installing the proposed type of foundation(s) ultimately used for this project is expected to reduce the potential for construction problems. Prequalification of foundation subcontractors is recommended. Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 3

6 April 13, Obstructions Cobbles and boulders were reported on the boring logs and are expected to be present, considering the depositional environment and as indicated by the relatively high standard penetration test N- values at locations. Excavation, foundation installation and other construction difficulties are expected to occur because of interference from cobbles and boulders, and very dense soil. The degree of excavation and construction difficulty will generally depend, in part, upon the soil strata encountered and equipment capabilities. 3. Water To help facilitate installation of foundations within the river, construction of cofferdams, construction from barges and/or temporary rock fill causeway within the river is assumed to be needed. Construction from a barge is anticipated to be feasible at the boring locations based on the conditions at the time of drilling. Depending on the depth of penetration required for construction of cofferdams, installation of sheeting may be difficult due to interference from cobbles and boulders. The foundations will be constructed under wet conditions. Use of dewatering and wet condition construction techniques are expected to be needed. 4. Excavation Instability The foundations will be constructed in soils susceptible to caving and flowing and under wet conditions. Use of methods to control ground loss is expected to be needed. FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES Driven piles and drilled shafts were the considered alternatives for this evaluation. These alternatives are discussed further below. Caissons or micropiles are also feasible alternatives, but because these alternatives are not as commonly used in the area and are anticipated to be more costly they were not evaluated in any detail at this time. DRIVEN PILES Closed-end pipe piles, open-ended pipe piles and H-piles were the driven pile alternatives considered. 1. Closed-End Pipe Piles For CIP piles, we assumed 16-inch outside diameter piles with a 0.5-inch wall thickness. ASTM A252 Grade 3 steel with yield strength of at least 45 kips per square inch (ksi) was assumed. The 16-inch diameter piles were assumed to be driven closed-end. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of this pile type for the project are listed below. Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 4

7 April 13, 2016 Advantages: Relatively high load capacities can be achieved. High bending resistance in both axes for supported and unsupported lengths Can be inspected for damage after driving. Can be filled with concrete for increased structural capacity and corrosion resistance. Local experience with this type of foundation. Easy to field splice. Disadvantages: Susceptible to early refusal on obstructions and/or overstress during hard driving. Pre-boring is expected to be required to get the piles installed a reasonable depth below the scour line. Difficulties maintaining an open pre-borehole are expected because of caving of granular soils and the water table. Public nuisance as a result of noise and vibrations during pile driving. Driven closed-end piles will derive their resistance from a combination of side and end bearing resistance. End bearing resistance was calculated using the steel tip area of the pile. Side resistance was obtained utilizing the perimeter of the steel section below scour zone. No resistance through the scour zone was considered to contribute to the axial pile resistance. The driveability analysis indicates difficulties will occur. Pre-boring is expected to be needed to install piles an adequate depth below the scour zone. If pre-boring is performed, side resistance will also need to be neglected or reduced along that portion of the pile, depending on the pre-boring details. Results of the resistance and driveability analyses are summarized in Appendix B. The actual minimum wall thickness of the 16-inch CIP piles is recommended to be the thickness required to avoid damage during driving plus an appropriate amount for sacrificial steel to account for corrosion loss. The corrosion rates listed previously may be preliminarily used to estimate the thickness of sacrificial steel needed for the piles. 2. Large Diameter Open-Ended Pipe Piles For CIP piles, we assumed ASTM A252 Grade 3 steel with yield strength of at least 45 kips per square inch (ksi). We assumed a 1-inch wall thickness for the 42-inch diameter Piles. The 42-inch diameter piles were assumed to be driven open-ended. It is assumed the open-ended piles would not be drilled out to the tip after installation, but it is assumed any open portion of the pile after it is driven to the required depth would be filled with concrete. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of this pile type for the project are listed below. Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 5

8 April 13, 2016 Advantages: High load capacities can be achieved. High bending resistance in both axes for supported and unsupported lengths. Can be cleaned out for inspection after driving and driven deeper if necessary. Can be cleaned out and filled with concrete for increased structural resistance. A cutting shoe can be used to help penetrate obstructions. Easy to field splice. Low displacement pile results in less heave and densification; improved pile group installation. Disadvantages: Limited local experience. Production and bidding may be restricted by the limited number of contractors and equipment. Potential for plugging makes capacity more difficult to predict than for closed-end pipe. Public nuisance as a result of noise and vibrations during pile driving. Driven open-ended piles will derive their resistance from a combination of skin friction and end bearing. End bearing resistance was calculated using the steel tip area of the pile. The steel tip area was used in lieu of a plugged area because a soil plug cannot be reasonably assured to occur in a large diameter pipe pile. Skin friction resistance was obtained utilizing the perimeter of the steel section. No resistance through the scour zone was considered to contribute to the axial pile resistance. The driveability analysis indicates driving difficulties will occur prior to reaching the depth need to use full structural axial capacity of the pile, but may be driven an adequate depth below the scour zone. Results of the resistance and driveability analyses are summarized in Appendix B. The actual minimum wall thickness of the 42-inch pipe piles is recommended to be the thickness required to avoid damage during driving plus an appropriate amount for sacrificial steel to account for corrosion loss. The corrosion rates listed previously may be preliminarily used to estimate the thickness of sacrificial steel needed for the piles. 3. H-Piles For H-piles, we assumed ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel with yield strength of at least 50 ksi. For the H- piles a 14x73 section was assumed. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of this pile type for the project are listed below. Advantages Available in various lengths and sizes. High axial capacities without significant deformation. High bending capacities about the strong axis. High resistance to driving stresses. Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 6

9 April 13, 2016 May be able to penetrate through obstructions such cobbles or gravel layers and light surface debris; pile shoe (toe protection) will improve penetration through harder layers and obstructions. Local experience with this foundation type. Low displacement pile; results in less heave and soil densification; reduce pile group installation difficulties. Easy to splice Disadvantages May be damaged or deflected by major subsurface obstruction (e.g. boulders or existing piles) and damage may not be detected during construction. Less effective as a friction pile in granular materials. Use as friction pile in granular soils can result in cost overruns. Public nuisance as a result of noise and vibrations during pile driving. Susceptible to corrosion. Corrosion rates for H-piles are expected to be greater than for CIP piles. Driven H-piles will derive their resistance from a combination of skin friction and end bearing. End bearing resistance was calculated using the steel tip area of the pile. The steel tip area was used in lieu of a box area because a soil plug cannot be reasonably assured to occur. Skin friction resistance was obtained utilizing the box perimeter of the steel section. It was assumed that soil arching between the steel flanges results in the perimeter of the steel H-pile being treated as a box. No resistance through the scour zone was considered to contribute to the axial pile resistance. The driveability analysis indicates driving difficulties will occur prior to reaching the depth need to use full structural axial capacity of the pile, but may be driven an adequate depth below the scour zone. Results of the resistance and driveability analyses are summarized in Appendix B. Pile driving shoes are recommended to protect the H-pile toe while driving. If pile driving shoes are oversized, pile resistance and estimated lengths will need to be reevaluated. Driven piles sometimes overrun because of oversized driving shoes. The structural axial resistance of the pile should account for corrosion-induced steel loss. The corrosion rates listed previously may be preliminarily used to estimate the thickness of steel loss for the design life of the piles. Alternatively, a larger section with an appropriate amount for sacrificial steel to account for corrosion loss could be used. The corrosion rates listed previously may be preliminarily used to estimate the thickness of sacrificial steel needed for the piles. If further evaluation of the corrosion potential indicates corrosion reduction measures are warranted, the piles may need to be coated with a fusion bonded epoxy that extends from the top of the pile to at least 2 feet below the maximum scour elevation to reduce corrosion. The contractor must use care during pile handling, storage and installation to prevent damage to the fusion bonded epoxy coating. In addition, considering the anticipated driving stresses on the piles and to provide a secondary corrosion Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 7

10 April 13, 2016 protection a thicker wall section is recommended provide sacrificial steel that will be lost due to corrosion over time. Because of the potential driveability issues pre-augured holes are recommended. Pre-augured holes will also reduce the required driving resistance, which would be much higher for piles driven through the potential scour material than those pre-augured, and would reduce abrasion of any pile coating used. The pile locations should be pre-augured to the maximum scour depth. It is recommended that each pile tip be reinforced with a drive point or shoe to reduce twisting, buckling or tearing of the pile section. For the calculations presented herein, it was assumed that pile installation would proceed after pre-boring through any causeway to the assumed scour depth. Deeper pre-boring may be needed, as is the case for closed-end CIP piles, to get piles an adequate depth below the scour zone. DRILLED SHAFTS Six-foot and 8-foot diameter drilled shafts were considered for this evaluation. Drilled shafts were assumed to be constructed with 5,000 psi concrete. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of drilled shafts for the project are listed below. Advantages: High axial and lateral capacities can be achieved. Applicable for a wide variety of soil conditions; possible to drill through obstructions. Excavated material can be observed for agreement with design assumptions. Most compact foundation type and may allow for a reduction or elimination of the cap. The circular shape of the drilled shaft may be more resistant to development of localized sour around the river bridge foundation compared to a large cap foundation. Can be installed with limited vertical clearance and in areas of limited mobility. Reduced noise and vibration compared to methods of construction such as driven piles. Production rates for single shaft foundations are generally greater than for large pile group foundations. Non-destructive testing available for QA/QC. Load test capability (e.g., Osterberg Load Test). Disadvantages: Quality and performance of drilled shafts are sensitive to construction procedures. Experienced construction personal and inspectors are required. No driving results to assess capacity. Reduced foundation redundancy with several individual shafts compared to a large pile group. Granular profile and water create the need for shafts to be constructed using cased and slurry. Potential significant cost overruns and schedule delays with unforeseen soil conditions (i.e. excessively large boulders). Results of the resistance analyses are summarized in Appendix C. Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 8

11 April 13, 2016 Cobbles and boulders are noted on Boring B102 and expected elsewhere. The contractor must be prepared to remove and/or core through obstructions where encountered. As the shafts are drilled, obstructions may be encountered that cannot be removed with conventional drilling equipment. In our opinion, an obstruction can be considered to consist of a dense concentration of cobbles and/or boulders, detached rock slabs, or other material, either natural or man-made, that impedes drilling with conventional augers and requires special equipment, including but not limited to core barrels, air compressors, or hand excavation tools to penetrate. The obstruction can be considered to have been penetrated once conventional auguring can resume. It is assumed the drilled shaft foundations will be constructed with permanent casings. Selection of the method of construction is the responsibility of the contractor. But, given the expected high relative permeability of the sand soils and sandy loam soils, and the lack of low permeability soil in which to seat the casing, it is unlikely that the contractor will be able to achieve a watertight seal. Therefore, it is anticipated that wet construction methods will be necessary for construction of the drilled shafts. It is anticipated that the contractor will advance the casing as the shaft is drilled, with drilling conducted under a head of polymer slurry to prevent heave or boiling of soil into the casing. The contractor could also elect to vibrate or oscillate the casing into place for a portion of its depth. Because the shafts are anticipated to be constructed with casing, it is recommended the shafts be considered end bearing only. Depending on the installation method side resistance could be used but a lower end bearing resistance than presented herein would be likely be needed because of strain compatibility. Because wet construction methods are anticipated it is not possible to visually observe the unexposed portion of a finished shaft. Means of inspection and structural integrity testing, such as Cross-hole Sonic Logging (CSL), have been devised and are recommended to be used. If further evaluation of the corrosion potential indicates corrosion reduction measures are warranted, consideration should be given to using a centrifugally-cast fiberglass-reinforced polymer mortar (CCFRPM) sleeve for added corrosion protection from the top of the shaft to at least 2 feet below the maximum scour elevation. CONCLUSIONS Experienced contractors will be required to successfully construct the foundation system. Subsurface conditions, such as dense glacial deposits, which include cobbles and boulders, will present foundation construction difficulties. Based on the evaluation, each of the foundation types are considered technically feasible, but some may present more challenges than others. Based on the currently available information, each pier cap supported by a group of drilled shafts rather than a group of driven piles is expected to be the preferred alternative. Drilled shafts better limit risks associated with a deep scour event and corrosion, and are expected to have less obstruction interference from cobbles and boulders. Additionally, because of the deep scour zone a much greater required driving resistance is needed to offset the resistance developed through the scour zone that Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 9

12 April 13, 2016 may not be relied upon for long-term pile resistance. Pre-boring and/or jetting would be needed to install piles an adequate depth below the scour zone. Micropiles and caissons should be considered if risk of delay and increased cost from obstructions cannot be tolerated. Another possible alternative is a modified drilled shaft design that incorporates a drilled shaft for the upper portion to resist lateral loads and better performance in the scour zone, and micropiles in the deeper portion for increased axial resistance in difficult drilling/driving conditions.. Cost Effective Foundation Options P a g e 10

13 Appendix A: Subsurface Information P a g e A

14

15 State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc MN Trunk Highway 72 B Location 5 10 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - GEOTECHNICAL SECTION Top of Driling Platform (0.0 feet ; Elevation ) Water Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation (survey) Lake of the Woods/South Zone Co. Coordinate: X= (ft.) Y= Drill Machine CME 750 ATV SHEET 1 of 1 Drilling Latitude (North)=48 43'05.77" Longitude (West)=94 35'31.24" Hammer CME Automatic Completed 9/17/13 No Station-Offset Information Available Depth Elev. LABORATORY LOG & TEST RESULTS - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION This boring was taken by EPC under a consultant contract for Mn/DOT DEPTH Lithology UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units Classification Drilling Operation SPT N60 MC (%) COH (psf) REC RQD ACL (%) (%) (ft) (pcf) Soil Core Formation Breaks or Member SPT hammer calibrated to 67% efficiency on 9/6/13 Rock Other Tests Or Remarks Drill Rig Platform including barge deck spudded approximateley 50' Northeast of 1st pier. Rainy River Clay (C), gray, wet to waterbearing, trace sand, trace gravel, stiff consistency. Sandy Loam (SL) gray, wet to waterbearing, trace gravel, slightly plastic, loose relative density. Clay (C), gray to grayish brown, wet, stiff consistency. Sand (S), gray to grayish brown, waterbearing, fine to coarse grained, medium dense to loose relative density. Clay (C), gray, wet, trace gravel, little sand, stiff consistency /5" 50/.5" 50/3" 50/3" Boulder encountered Hand Pen. = 1.7 tsf Hydrometer gradation performed on shelby tube from 31 - feet. Hand Pen. = 1.7 tsf Hand Pen. = 1.7 tsf Hand Pen. = 1.7 tsf Shelby tube pushed a rock. Hard Hand Pen. = 5.9 tsf Drillers note: w/gravel, hard drilling Hand Pen. = 4.8 tsf Drillers note: drilled through a boulder at 47.5' 60 Sandy Loam (SL), gray, moist to wet, trace to little gravel, slightly plastic, very dense relative density /1" /4" /3" 50/3" /5" 50/4" 75/0" Auger refusal at 77.1' probable boulder. Index Sheet Code 3.0 Soil Class:GEH Rock Class: Edit: Date: 10/16/13 G:\GINT\PROJECTS-ACTIVE\ BAUDETTE INTL BRIDGE.GPJ

16 State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc. Trunk Highway/Location MN Trunk Highway 72 B Location 5 10 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - GEOTECHNICAL SECTION Top of Driling Platform (0.0 feet ; Elevation ) Boring No. Ground Elevation (survey) Lake of the Woods/South Zone Co. Coordinate: X= (ft.) Y= Drill Machine CME 750 ATV SHEET 1 of 2 Drilling Latitude (North)=48 43'06.8" Longitude (West)=94 35'28.82" Hammer CME Automatic Completed 9/18/13 No Station-Offset Information Available Depth Elev. LABORATORY LOG & TEST RESULTS - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION This boring was taken by EPC under a consultant contract for Mn/DOT DEPTH Lithology UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units Classification Drilling Operation SPT N60 MC (%) COH (psf) REC RQD ACL (%) (%) (ft) (pcf) Soil Other Tests Or Remarks Core Formation Breaks or Member SPT hammer calibrated to 67% efficiency on 9/6/13 Rock Drill Rig Platform including barge deck spudded approximateley 50' Northeast of 2nd pier. 15 Water Rainy River Sand (S), gray to grayish brown, waterbearing, trace to little gravel, fine to coarse grained, loose relative density Hand Pen. = 1.0 tsf Hand Pen. = 1.8 tsf Clay(C), gray, wet, trace gravel, stiff to very stiff consistency /4" Hand Pen. = 1.4 tsf Boulder at 38', attempted shelby tube. Crushed tube Sandy Loam (SL), gray, moist to wet to waterbearing, trace to little gravel, trace clay, very dense relative density. Probable boulder, auger refusal at 69.2'. 50/4" 50/4" 50/4" 50/2" 50/4" 50/5" 50/3" 50/3" 50/1" Hydrometer gradation performed on samples from 48.5' to 56.2'. Hydrometer gradation performed on samples from 58.5' to 66.3'. Cobbles and Boulders encountered Drillers note: drilled for 1 hour on boulder/bedrock to get from 67' to 69'. Spent Index Sheet Code 3.0 (Continued Next Page) Soil Class:GEH Rock Class: Edit: Date: 10/16/13 G:\GINT\PROJECTS-ACTIVE\ BAUDETTE INTL BRIDGE.GPJ

17 State Project MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - GEOTECHNICAL SECTION Mn/DOT GEOTECHNICAL SECTION - LOG & TEST RESULTS SHEET 2 of 2 Bridge No. or Job Desc. UNIQUE NUMBER Trunk Highway/Location Boring No. Ground Elevation MN Trunk Highway 72 B Depth Elev. LABORATORY LOG & TEST RESULTS - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION This boring was taken by EPC under a consultant contract for Mn/DOT DEPTH Lithology U.S. Customary Units Classification Drilling Operation SPT N60 MC (%) COH (psf) REC RQD ACL (%) (%) (ft) (pcf) Soil (survey) Other Tests Or Remarks Core Formation Breaks or Member 1/2 hour drilling from 69' to 69.2'. Rock Soil Class:GEH Rock Class: Edit: Date: 10/16/13 G:\GINT\PROJECTS-ACTIVE\ BAUDETTE INTL BRIDGE.GPJ

18 State Project Bridge No. or Job Desc MN Trunk Highway 72 B Location MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - GEOTECHNICAL SECTION Trunk Highway/Location Top of Driling Platform (0.0 feet ; Elevation ) Boring No. Ground Elevation (survey) Lake of the Woods/South Zone Co. Coordinate: X= (ft.) Y= Drill Machine CME 750 ATV SHEET 1 of 2 Drilling Latitude (North)=48 43'07.77" Longitude (West)=94 35'26.55" Hammer CME Automatic Completed 9/24/13 No Station-Offset Information Available Depth Elev. LABORATORY LOG & TEST RESULTS - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION This boring was taken by EPC under a consultant contract for Mn/DOT DEPTH Lithology UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units Classification Drilling Operation SPT N60 MC (%) COH (psf) REC RQD ACL (%) (%) (ft) (pcf) Soil Other Tests Or Remarks Core Formation Breaks or Member SPT hammer calibrated to 67% efficiency on 9/6/13 Rock Drill Rig Platform including barge deck spudded approximateley 50' Northeast of 3rd pier. 15 Water Sand (S), brown to gray, wet to waterbearing, coarse to fine grained, very loose relative density Wood noticed in sample. Hydrometer gradation performed on samples from 25.5' to 32'. Hand Pen. = 1.5 tsf Hand Pen. = 1.6 tsf Clay (C), gray, wet, trace gravel, little to some sand, medium to soft consistency /5" Hand Pen. = 1.3 tsf Hand Pen. = 1.8 tsf Hydrometer gradation performed on shelby tube from 41'. 55 Sandy Loam (SL), gray, moist to wet, trace to little gravel, trace clay, slightly plastic, very dense relative density. 50/5" 50/5" /2" 9 60 Index Sheet Code 3.0 (Continued Next Page) Soil Class:GEH Rock Class: Edit: Date: 10/16/13 G:\GINT\PROJECTS-ACTIVE\ BAUDETTE INTL BRIDGE.GPJ

19 State Project Elev Bridge No. or Job Desc MN Trunk Highway 72 B MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - GEOTECHNICAL SECTION Mn/DOT GEOTECHNICAL SECTION - LOG & TEST RESULTS SHEET 2 of 2 Depth LABORATORY LOG & TEST RESULTS - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION This boring was taken by EPC under a consultant contract for Mn/DOT DEPTH Lithology UNIQUE NUMBER U.S. Customary Units Trunk Highway/Location Classification Drilling Operation SPT N60 50/0.5" 24 MC (%) Boring No. COH (psf) REC RQD ACL (%) (%) (ft) 0.58 (pcf) Core Breaks Soil Rock Ground Elevation (survey) Other Tests Or Remarks Formation or Member Substantial auger refusal at 60.6' - boulder, set up for rock coring. Samples were either boulders that were in the core barrel or cuttings from return water Drillers Note: Sand recovered in wash cuttings Boulders and Cobbles (4" - 12") mixed with apparent Sandy Loam, gray. Drillers Note: Sand recovered in wash cuttings End of boring at 116' Drillers Note: Sand recovered in wash cuttings. Formation started caving in around drill rod. Unable to spin drill rod. Soil Class:GEH Rock Class: Edit: Date: 10/16/13 G:\GINT\PROJECTS-ACTIVE\ BAUDETTE INTL BRIDGE.GPJ

20

21 Appendix B: Pile Foundation Resistance Graphs & Driveability Results P a g e B

22 SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS Pile Type: HP 14x73 Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 770 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 385 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,047.9 Total Pile Length (feet): 89.0 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 30.0 Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00 Cost per Nominal Resistance Factored Resistance Kip of Total Pile % of Resistance Depth Side Tip Total Side Tip Total Uplift Resistance Cost from Side (feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) Resistance (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($) Driving Elev % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % $1, $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/8/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B100 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

23 Factored Resistance versus Pile Length 0 10 Tip Side Total Uplift 1, , , , , ,033.9 Water, Clay Sandy Loam Clay Sand Clay , , , , , , Pile Embedment (feet) below driving elevation 40 1, , , , , ,003.9 Sandy Loam Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips) Pile Type: HP 14x73 Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 770 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 385 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Abutment Elevation (feet): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,047.9 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 30.0 Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/8/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B100 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

24 SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS Pile Type: CIP 16 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 421 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 315 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,047.9 Total Pile Length (feet): 33.0 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 30.0 Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00 Cost per Nominal Resistance Factored Resistance Kip of Total Pile % of Resistance Depth Side Tip Total Side Tip Total Uplift Resistance Cost from Side (feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) Resistance (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($) Driving Elev % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/8/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B100 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

25 Factored Resistance versus Pile Length 0 Tip Water, Clay 5 Side Total Uplift 1, ,044.9 Sandy Loam Clay , ,039.9 Sand Pile Embedment (feet) below driving elevation 15 1, ,034.9 Clay , , , , , , Sandy Loam 1, , Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips) Pile Type: CIP 16 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 421 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 315 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Abutment Elevation (feet): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,047.9 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 30.0 Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/8/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B100 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

26 SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS Pile Type: CIP 42 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 4,637 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 2,319 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,047.9 Total Pile Length (feet): 96.0 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 30.0 Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00 Cost per Nominal Resistance Factored Resistance Kip of Total Pile % of Resistance Depth Side Tip Total Side Tip Total Uplift Resistance Cost from Side (feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) Resistance (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($) Driving Elev % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, #N/A -$33, Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/8/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B100 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

27 Factored Resistance versus Pile Length 0 Tip Side 1, , , ,041.9 Water, Clay Sandy Loam Clay Total Uplift 1, ,036.9 Sand , ,031.9 Clay , , , , , , Pile Embedment (feet) below driving elevation , , , , , , Sandy Loam Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips) Pile Type: CIP 42 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 4,637 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 2,319 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Abutment Elevation (feet): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,047.9 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 30.0 Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/8/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B100 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

28 SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS Pile Type: HP 14x73 Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 770 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 385 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Total Pile Length (feet): 83.0 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 20.0 Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00 Cost per Nominal Resistance Factored Resistance Kip of Total Pile % of Resistance Depth Side Tip Total Side Tip Total Uplift Resistance Cost from Side (feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) Resistance (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($) Driving Elev % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % $1, $32, % $1, $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % % % Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B101 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

29 Factored Resistance versus Pile Length Tip Side Total Uplift 1, , , , ,027.9 Water, Sand Clay , , ,017.9 Sandy Loam , Pile Embedment (feet) below driving elevation , , , Sandy Loam w/boul ders Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips) Pile Type: HP 14x73 Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 770 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 385 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Abutment Elevation (feet): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 20.0 Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B101 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

30 SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS Pile Type: CIP 16 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 421 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 315 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Total Pile Length (feet): 28.0 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 20.0 Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00 Cost per Nominal Resistance Factored Resistance Kip of Total Pile % of Resistance Depth Side Tip Total Side Tip Total Uplift Resistance Cost from Side (feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) Resistance (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($) Driving Elev % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B101 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

31 Factored Resistance versus Pile Length 0 Water, Tip Side Sand Total Uplift 1, , Clay 1, , Pile Embedment (feet) below driving elevation , , , , Sandy Loam 1, , , , Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips) Pile Type: CIP 16 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 421 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 315 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Abutment Elevation (feet): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 20.0 Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B101 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

32 SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS Pile Type: CIP 42 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 4,637 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 2,319 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Total Pile Length (feet): 91.0 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 20.0 Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00 Cost per Nominal Resistance Factored Resistance Kip of Total Pile % of Resistance Depth Side Tip Total Side Tip Total Uplift Resistance Cost from Side (feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) Resistance (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($) Driving Elev % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B101 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

33 Factored Resistance versus Pile Length 0 Tip Side 1, , ,034.9 Water, Sand Total Uplift 1, ,029.9 Clay , , , ,014.9 Sandy Loam , , Pile Embedment (feet) below driving elevation , Sandy Loam w/bould ers Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips) Pile Type: CIP 42 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 4,637 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 2,319 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Abutment Elevation (feet): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 20.0 Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B101 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

34 SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS Pile Type: HP 14x73 Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 770 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 385 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Total Pile Length (feet): 87.0 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 25.0 Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00 Cost per Nominal Resistance Factored Resistance Kip of Total Pile % of Resistance Depth Side Tip Total Side Tip Total Uplift Resistance Cost from Side (feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) Resistance (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($) Driving Elev % ########## -$33, % ########## -$33, % $58, $32, % $63, $32, % $62, $32, % #N/A -$32, % $1, $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B102 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

35 Factored Resistance versus Pile Length 0 Tip 1,038.9 Water, Sand Side Total Uplift 1, , , , ,023.9 Clay , Pile Embedment (feet) below driving elevation , , , , , Sandy Loam Sandy Loam w/boul ders Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips) Pile Type: HP 14x73 Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 770 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 385 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Abutment Elevation (feet): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 25.0 Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B102 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

36 SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS Pile Type: CIP 16 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 421 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 315 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Total Pile Length (feet): 32.0 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 25.0 Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00 Cost per Nominal Resistance Factored Resistance Kip of Total Pile % of Resistance Depth Side Tip Total Side Tip Total Uplift Resistance Cost from Side (feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) Resistance (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($) Driving Elev % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, #N/A -$33, Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B102 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

37 Factored Resistance versus Pile Length 0 Tip Side 1, ,038.9 Water, Sand Total Uplift 1, , Clay Pile Embedment (feet) below driving elevation , , , , , , , ,013.9 Sandy Loam , , Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips) Pile Type: CIP 16 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 421 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 315 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Abutment Elevation (feet): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 25.0 Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B102 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

38 SUMMARY OF APILE RESULTS Pile Type: CIP 42 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 4,637 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural FACR, Pr (kips): 2,319 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Bottom of Footing Elevation (feet): Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Footing (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Total Pile Length (feet): 96.0 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 25.0 Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot: $32.00 Nominal Resistance % of Cost per Factored Resistance Resistance Kip of Total Pile Depth Side Tip Total from Side Side Tip Total Uplift Resistance Cost (feet) (kips) (kips) (kips) Resistance (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) ($/Kip) ($) Driving Elev % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$33, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % #N/A -$32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $32, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $31, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, % $ $30, #N/A -$33, Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B102 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

39 Factored Resistance versus Pile Length Tip Side Total Uplift 1, , , , , ,024.9 Water, Sand Clay , , , ,009.9 Sandy Loam Pile Embedment (feet) below driving elevation , , Sandy Loam w/bould ers Factored Axial Compressive Resistance (kips) Pile Type: CIP 42 inch Structural Nominal Resistance, Pn (kips): 4,637 Estimated Drag Zone Depth Below G.S. (feet): 0.0 Structural Factored Resistance, Pr (kips): 2,319 Estimated Nominal Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Resistance Factor: Gates 0.40 Downdrag Load Factor: 1.4 Uplift Resistance Factor: 0.25 Estimated Factored Drag Load (kips): 0.0 Nominal DD Allowed per BM (kips): Embedment of Pile into Substructure (feet): 1.0 Reduced Structural FACR (kips): No Reduction Driving Elevation (feet): 1,040.9 Assumed Scour Depth (feet): 25.0 Project: Trunk Highway 72: Baudette, MN Originator BCT Date: 4/11/2016 Project No.: Checker: DMM Date: 4/12/2016 Structure: B-9421 Backchecker: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Location: Pier Updater: BCT Date: 4/12/2016 Boring: B102 Verifier: DMM Date: 4/12/2016

40 Project: Rainy River Bridge Structure: B-9412 Location: Pier Boring: B100 GRL WEAP Output Pile Type: HP Hammer: Delmag D-44 Diameter/Size: 14x73 Hammer Energy: 90.2 kip-ft Wall Thickness: n/a Steel Area: in 2 Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 385 kips Pile Cushion: None Yield Stress: 43.9 Maximum Allowable Stress: 39.5 ksi ksi Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No Construction Verification Method: Gates Required Driving Resistance: 963 kips Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 77 feet Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 76 feet Driving Limitation(s): Excessive Stresses Refusal Notes: 1. For the analysis it was assumed piles will be pre-bored through the scour zone 2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAP TM Version 2010 by Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters, including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis. 3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material is encountered. 4. When driving H-piles in the glacial soils in the region, it has been found at times that the piles drive longer than expected. This is anticipated to be because of loss of shear strength during driving. The wave equation analysis performed did not consider any shear strength loss during driving. Only to check that piles could be driven to the estimated depth. 5. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal). MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: Sheet No.: 1 Driveability Results Rainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016

41 Project: Rainy River Bridge Structure: B-9412 Location: Pier Boring: B100 GRL WEAP Output Pile Type: CIP Hammer: Delmag D-22 Diameter/Size: 16 inches Hammer Energy: 40.6 kip-ft Wall Thickness: 0.5 inches Steel Area: in 2 Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 315 kips Pile Cushion: None Yield Stress: 45.0 ksi Maximum Allowable Stress: 40.5 ksi Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No Construction Verification Method: Gates Required Driving Resistance: 788 kips Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 30 feet Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 30 feet Driving Limitation(s): Refusal Excessive Stresses Notes: 1. For the analysis it was assumed piles will be pre-bored through the scour zone 2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAP TM Version 2010 by Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters, including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis. 3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material is encountered. 4. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal). MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: Sheet No.: 1 Driveability Results Rainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016

42 Project: Rainy River Bridge Structure: B-9412 Location: Pier Boring: B100 GRL WEAP Output Pile Type: CIP Hammer: Pileco D Diameter/Size: 42 inches Hammer Energy: kip-ft Wall Thickness: 1 inches Steel Area: in 2 Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 2319 kips Pile Cushion: None Yield Stress: 45.0 ksi Maximum Allowable Stress: 40.5 ksi Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No Construction Verification Method: Gates Required Driving Resistance: 5798 kips Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 88 feet Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 88 feet Driving Limitation(s): Refusal Excessive Stresses Notes: 1. Estimated pile embedment required to meet the factored axial compressive resistance 2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAP TM Version 2010 by Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters, including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis. 3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material is encountered. 4. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal). MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: Sheet No.: 1 Driveability Results Rainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016

43 Project: Rainy River Bridge Structure: B-9412 Location: Pier Boring: B101 GRL WEAP Output Pile Type: HP Hammer: Delmag D-44 Diameter/Size: 14x73 Hammer Energy: 90.2 kip-ft Wall Thickness: n/a Steel Area: in 2 Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 385 kips Pile Cushion: None Yield Stress: 43.9 Maximum Allowable Stress: 39.5 ksi ksi Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No Construction Verification Method: Gates Required Driving Resistance: 963 kips Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 71 feet Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 70 feet Driving Limitation(s): Excessive Stresses Refusal Notes: 1. For the analysis it was assumed piles will be pre-bored through the scour zone 2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAP TM Version 2010 by Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters, including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis. 3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material is encountered. 4. When driving H-piles in the glacial soils in the region, it has been found at times that the piles drive longer than expected. This is anticipated to be because of loss of shear strength during driving. The wave equation analysis performed did not consider any shear strength loss during driving. Only to check that piles could be driven to the estimated depth. 5. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal). MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: Sheet No.: 1 Driveability Results Rainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016

44 Project: Rainy River Bridge Structure: B-9412 Location: Pier Boring: B101 GRL WEAP Output Pile Type: CIP Hammer: Delmag D-22 Diameter/Size: 16 inches Hammer Energy: 40.6 kip-ft Wall Thickness: 0.5 inches Steel Area: in 2 Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 315 kips Pile Cushion: None Yield Stress: 45.0 ksi Maximum Allowable Stress: 40.5 ksi Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No Construction Verification Method: Gates Required Driving Resistance: 788 kips Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 21 feet Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 21 feet Driving Limitation(s): Refusal Excessive Stresses Notes: 1. For the analysis it was assumed piles will be pre-bored through the scour zone 2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAP TM Version 2010 by Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters, including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis. 3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material is encountered. 4. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal). MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: Sheet No.: 1 Driveability Results Rainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016

45 Project: Rainy River Bridge Structure: B-9412 Location: Pier Boring: B101 GRL WEAP Output Pile Type: CIP Hammer: Pileco D Diameter/Size: 42 inches Hammer Energy: kip-ft Wall Thickness: 1 inches Steel Area: in 2 Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 2319 kips Pile Cushion: None Yield Stress: 45.0 ksi Maximum Allowable Stress: 40.5 ksi Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No Construction Verification Method: Gates Required Driving Resistance: 5798 kips Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 84 feet Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 76 feet Driving Limitation(s): Excessive Stresses Refusal Notes: 1. Estimated pile embedment required to meet the factored axial compressive resistance 2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAP TM Version 2010 by Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters, including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis. 3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material is encountered. 4. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal). MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: Sheet No.: 1 Driveability Results Rainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016

46 Project: Rainy River Bridge Structure: B-9412 Location: Pier Boring: B102 GRL WEAP Output Pile Type: HP Hammer: Delmag D-44 Diameter/Size: 14x73 Hammer Energy: 90.2 kip-ft Wall Thickness: n/a Steel Area: in 2 Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 385 kips Pile Cushion: None Yield Stress: 43.9 Maximum Allowable Stress: 39.5 ksi ksi Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No Construction Verification Method: Gates Required Driving Resistance: 963 kips Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 75 feet Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 75 feet Driving Limitation(s): Refusal Excessive Stresses Notes: 1. For the analysis it was assumed piles will be pre-bored through the scour zone 2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAP TM Version 2010 by Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters, including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis. 3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material is encountered. 4. When driving H-piles in the glacial soils in the region, it has been found at times that the piles drive longer than expected. This is anticipated to be because of loss of shear strength during driving. The wave equation analysis performed did not consider any shear strength loss during driving. Only to check that piles could be driven to the estimated depth. 5. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal). MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: Sheet No.: 1 Driveability Results Rainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016

47 Project: Rainy River Bridge Structure: B-9412 Location: Pier Boring: B102 GRL WEAP Output Pile Type: CIP Hammer: Delmag D-22 Diameter/Size: 16 inches Hammer Energy: 40.6 kip-ft Wall Thickness: 0.5 inches Steel Area: in 2 Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 315 kips Pile Cushion: None Yield Stress: 45.0 ksi Maximum Allowable Stress: 40.5 ksi Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No Construction Verification Method: Gates Required Driving Resistance: 788 kips Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 26 feet Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 26 feet Driving Limitation(s): Refusal Excessive Stresses Notes: 1. For the analysis it was assumed piles will be pre-bored through the scour zone 2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAP TM Version 2010 by Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters, including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis. 3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material is encountered. 4. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal). MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: Sheet No.: 1 Driveability Results Rainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016

48 Project: Rainy River Bridge Structure: B-9412 Location: Pier Boring: B102 GRL WEAP Output Pile Type: CIP Hammer: Pileco D Diameter/Size: 42 inches Hammer Energy: kip-ft Wall Thickness: 1 inches Steel Area: in 2 Hammer Cushion: GRL WEAP Default Factored Axial Compressive Resistance 2319 kips Pile Cushion: None Yield Stress: 45.0 ksi Maximum Allowable Stress: 40.5 ksi Soil Strength Loss Assumed: No Construction Verification Method: Gates Required Driving Resistance: 5798 kips Depth of Blow Count Limitation: 90 feet Depth of Comp. Stress Limitation: 80 feet Driving Limitation(s): Excessive Stresses Refusal Notes: 1. Estimated pile embedment required to meet the factored axial compressive resistance 2. Wave equation analyses in the computer program GRLWEAP TM Version 2010 by Pile Dynamics, Inc. was used to evaluate driveability. Default hammer parameters, including energy and efficiency provided in the GRLWEAP software, and manufacturer recommended cushion information was modeled in the analysis. 3. Larger material may be present within the soil matrix below an approximate depth of 37 feet as indicated by the boring information, which is not explicitly accounted for in the driveability model. It is conceivable piles could drive shorter than suggested by the analysis if larger material is encountered. 4. The range of blows per foot considered acceptable was 25 bpf to 120 bpf (practical refusal). MN Trunk Highway 72 Project: Rainy River Bridge Job No.: Sheet No.: 1 Driveability Results Rainy River Made By: BCT Checked By: DMM Back Checked By: DMM Baudette, MN Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016 Date: 4/12/2016