report of subsurface exploration and geotechnical ......retaining wall 1 alignment generally...

RETAINING WALL REPORT SR 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY) FROM SR 106 TO TOWNSEND BLVD

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study for

Proposed Retaining Wall Nos. 1 and 2 for Mack Hatcher Parkway Extension

Franklin, Tennessee

Submitted to: CDM Smith

Nashville, Tennessee

Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler

Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. Nashville, Tennessee

August 31, 2017

File No. 5-5129-0000

DRAFT

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. 3800 Ezell Road, Suite 100 Nashville, Tennessee 37211 (615) 333-0630 voice www.amec.com

August 31, 2017 CDM Smith Parkview Towers 210 25th Avenue North, Suite 1102 Nashville, TN 37203 USA (615) 320-3161 Attention: Ms. Brandie C. Cookston, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ. RE: Report of Subsurface Exploration and

Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Mack Hatcher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2

Franklin, Tennessee Amec Foster Wheeler File No. 5-5129-0000 Dear Ms. Cookston: Per authorization from CDM Smith, Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) has completed the referenced geotechnical engineering study at the above-referenced site. The purpose of this geotechnical study is to characterize general subsurface conditions and provide comments and recommendations concerning the subject retaining walls for the project based upon the information we gathered to date. Amec Foster Wheeler presents our opinions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of the design and construction of the subject project.

The GBA organization has prepared important information regarding studies of the type performed, and we attached their document for you to review. An assessment of the environmental aspects, regulated wetlands, groundwater recharge, or stormwater runoff conditions at the site is beyond the scope of our study.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to CDM Smith and the City of Franklin, Tennessee. At your convenience, we are available to discuss the details of this report.

Sincerely, Amec Foster Wheeler Reviewed by Douglas E. Tate P.E. Nathan Long, P.G., P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

DRAFT

Proposed Mack Hatcher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………… ......... ……………………. A 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................ 1

2.1 Seismic Hazard ............................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Site Conditions ............................................................................................................. 2

3.0 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION........................................................... 2 3.1 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................. 3

3.1.1 Wall 1 ..................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.2 Wall 2 ..................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Ground Water ............................................................................................................... 3 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 3

4.1 Permanent slopes ......................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Wall Design .................................................................................................................. 4

4.2.1 Wall 1, Station. 954+47.5 to 955+29.50, SR 397 .................................................... 4 4.2.2 Wall 2, Station 24+69.41, 45.8' RT to 28+00.00 57.67’ RT, SR 96 .......................... 4 4.2.3 Retaining Wall Design Notes .................................................................................. 4 4.2.4 Note Regarding Construction Slopes ...................................................................... 4 4.2.5 Wall Types .............................................................................................................. 5 4.2.6 Other Design Requirements .................................................................................... 5

4.3 Design Parameters ....................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Foundation Inspection .................................................................................................. 7 4.5 Backfill .......................................................................................................................... 7 4.6 Grading ........................................................................................................................ 8

5.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ................................................................................... 8 6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 8

TABLES

Table 1 Retaining wall Boring Summary .................................................................................... 2 Table 2 Wall Design Requirements and Parameters .................................................................. 6 Table 3 Foundation Parameters and Requirements for MSE Walls ............................................ 7 Table 4 Foundation Parameters and Requirements for Other Type Walls .................................. 7

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 GBA INFORMATION APPENDIX 2 EXPLORATION LOGS APPENDIX 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS APPENDIX 4 GEOTECHNICAL RETAINING WALL SHEETS

DRAFT

Proposed Mack Hatcher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - GEOTECHNICAL STUDY PROPOSED MACK HATCHER PARKWAY

RETAINING WALLS 1 AND 2 FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE

Amec Foster Wheeler prepared this geotechnical report for the design and construction of two retaining walls as part of the Mack Hatcher Parkway Extension in Franklin, Williamson County, Tennessee. Wall 1 is approximately 82 feet long and will be constructed within the eastern approach embankment for the new bridge associated with the project. The walls will have a maximum height of approximately 9.2 feet at Station 954+47.5, extending eastward from the bridge abutment. The wall area is approximately 664 square feet (ft2) plus a parapet of approximately 82 ft2. Wall 2 is on SR 96, and is approximately 331 feet long with a maximum height of approximately 12.6 feet at Station 24+69.4, extending eastward from a box-bridge; the wall area is 2,838 ft2 plus a parapet of approximately 331 ft2.

Based on the data provided to us, we estimate that the proposed finished grade for the top of Wall 1 changes about 2.15 feet and about 0.66 feet for Wall 2. Existing vegetation along the proposed retaining wall 1 alignment generally consists of mature trees and brush. We judge surface drainage along the proposed retaining wall as good. Existing vegetation along the proposed retaining wall 2 alignment generally consists of a mixture medium trees, thick brush, and weeds. We judge surface drainage along the proposed retaining wall as good.

Incline all permanent cut and fill slopes no steeper than as indicated in the alignment report. The contractor shall comply with all aspects of 29 CFR Part 1926 to protect workers.

Retaining Wall 1, from Station 954+47 to 955+29, the wall foundations will bear upon new engineered fill. At a minimum, the engineered fill shall consist of compacted firm to stiff silty clay. We encountered refusal at depths greater than 19.5 feet beneath the existing ground surface for this wall. Our analyses indicate that the existing subgrade does not require improvements prior to wall construction.

Retaining Wall 2, Station 24+69.41 to 28+00.00, foundations will bear upon existing firm to stiff residual soil consisting of silty clay. We encountered refusal at depths greater than 6.0 feet for this wall. It is possible that local pinnacles of bedrock or floating boulders could be present with the subgrade soil. Our analyses indicate that the existing subgrade does not require improvements prior to wall construction.

Allowed wall types shall include mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls with segmental precast concrete facing or prefabricated modular block facing, cast-in-place (CIP) reinforced concrete cantilever walls, or CIP concrete gravity retaining walls. Notice: Amec Foster Wheeler provides this Executive Summary solely for purposes of overview. We omit several details in the Executive Summary, any one of which could be crucial to the proper application of the data contained in this report. You must review the full report in its entirety to comprehend the complexities of this project.

**** END OF SUMMARY **

DRAFT

Proposed Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes our geotechnical study for Retaining Wall Nos. 1 and 2 for the proposed Mack Hatcher Parkway Extension project. We used borings that were drilled in 2009 as part of the bridge exploration to evaluate the subsurface conditions along the Retaining Wall 1 alignment. Retaining Wall 1 is along the north side of the eastern bridge approach embankment and extends east from the east abutment. Retaining Wall 2 extends eastward along the southern edge of SR 96 from a box bridge over an un-named creek at Station 24+25. Wall 1 is approximately 82 feet long with a maximum height of approximately 9.2 feet at Station 954+47.5. The wall area is approximately 664 square feet (ft2) plus a parapet of approximately 82 ft2. Wall 2 is on SR 96, and is approximately 330.6 feet long with a maximum height of approximately 12.6 feet at Station 24+69.41. The wall area is 2,838 ft2 plus a parapet of approximately 331 ft2.

2.0 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SITE CONDITIONS

The project site is located within the City of Franklin, Tennessee, along the eastern edge of the Leipers Fork, Tennessee quadrangle. Based on an examination of the 1963, 7.5-minute geologic quadrangle, the geology within the study area typically includes horizontally bedded sandy and shaly limestone members of the Bigby-Cannon Limestone (Obc) and shaley limestone of the Hermitage Formation (Oh).

The Bigby-Cannon limestone consists of three facies; the Bigby facies, which is blue gray, massive, granular, cross bedded, and phosphatic; the Dove facies, which is light gray, dense and fine grained; and the Cannon facies, which is blue gray, massive, medium grained and non-phosphatic. This relatively pure limestone formation is typically susceptible to solution weathering along near-vertical fractures and gently dipping bedding planes. This unit generally weathers to form a mantle of reddish-brown, phosphatic, sandy clay 15 feet or less in average thickness.

The Hermitage Formation lies beneath the Bigby-Cannon and consists of three members: the Curdsville Limestone member, the laminated argillaceous member, and the Dalmanella Coquina member. The average total thickness of the Hermitage Formation is about 70 feet and it typically weathers to a silty, sandy clay.

In addition, while not mapped, our current study has shown that areas adjacent to the Harpeth River contain alluvial sediments in addition to fill intervals (soil, concrete slabs, boulders, and other materials) that were placed along the cut banks of the river. Residual soils formed at the Bigby-Cannon Limestone/Hermitage Formation contact are typically clay that is rich in sandy phosphatic nodules.

2.1 Seismic Hazard

No significant faults or other geologic anomalies are noted on available geological mapping within proximity to the site. The 1963, 7.5-minute Franklin, Tennessee geologic quadrangle shows a minor thrust fault east of Interstate 65, about 2 miles east of the project site. While recent seismic events have been felt within the Franklin, Tennessee area, we believe that there are no active faults located within the Franklin, Tennessee area.

The site is near Latitude 35.938691°N, Longitude 86.911436°W, based upon the 2009 AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, for Site Class C, very dense soil and soft

DRAFT


rock, Ss = 0.216g, S1 = 0.080g, and PGA = 0.090g at the bedrock surface. Amplification factors are Fs = FPGA = 1.2, and Fv = 1.7, resulting in As = 0.108g, SDS = 0.259g, and SD1 = 0.135g.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Amec Foster Wheeler personnel returned selected soil samples to our Geotechnical and Construction Materials Laboratory. We tested selected soil samples to assess their engineering classification, such as natural moisture, plasticity, and grain size. We provide laboratory tests results in Appendix 4.

2.3 Site Conditions

Existing vegetation along the proposed retaining wall 1 alignment generally consists of mature trees and brush. We judge surface drainage along the proposed retaining wall as good. Existing vegetation along the proposed retaining wall 2 alignment generally consists of a mixture medium trees, thick brush, and weeds. We judge surface drainage along the proposed retaining wall as good.

Based on the data provided to us, the proposed finished grade change is less than one-foot along the proposed bottom of Wall 1 and approximately 7.7 feet along the proposed bottom of Wall 2. The location of Wall 1 was developed as single family homes and residential streets. The location of Wall 2, along the southern margin of SR 96 has about 3 feet of fill and was developed as roadside shoulder and ditch.

3.0 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

We used Borings B-5 and B-6 from the 2009 exploration for Retaining Wall 1 and conducted new explorations in 2017 by drilling three supplemental borings for Retaining Wall 2. We summarize the retaining wall boring locations and drilling/coring depths in Table 1.

Table 1 Retaining wall Boring Summary

Hole

Wa

ll

Sta

tio

n

(fe

et)

Off

se

t fr

om

ba

selin

e (

L

or

R) GS

Elev (feet)

Water(1), DWL, or DWR

Depth (feet)

Fill

Dep

th

(fe

et)

Refu

sal

Dep

th (

fee

t)

Core

Le

ng

th(2

)

(fe

et)

To

tal D

ep

th

(3) (f

ee

t)

Date Drilled

B-5 1 955+08 5.3 R 622.0 DWL 22.3 3.5 19.5 41.0 63.3 1/19/2009

B-6 1 954+45 8.9 R 621.8 DWL 25.4 --- 25.4 38.3 63.7 2/2/2009

B-132 2 25+36 46’ R 632.0 Dry 3.0 6.0 10.0 16.0 7/19/2017

B-133 2 26+40 49’ R 634.0 EOD 7.0 3.0 7.5 8.1 15.6 7/19/2017

B-134 2 27+42 49’ R 636.0 Dry 3.0 6.6 8.9 15.5 7/19/2017

(1) Water depth below ground surface, (2) Length of core drilled, (3) total depth of boring, “Dry” dry on completion, “DWL” 100% drill water lost during coring at depth shown, “EOD” at end of drilling, prior to coring, drill water retained.

The borings for Wall 1 were originally drilled to evaluate the subsurface conditions for the bridge abutment; we utilized them to evaluate the subsurface conditions for Retaining Wall 1. We drilled the new retaining wall borings for Wall 2 at locations accessible to the drill rig to evaluate the

DRAFT


proposed retaining wall foundation. Borings B-5 through B-6 are near the alignments for Wall 1 and Borings B-132 through B-134 are along the alignment for Wall 2.

3.1 Subsurface Conditions

3.1.1 Wall 1

Borings for Wall 1 encountered refusal between 19.5 and 27 feet BGS, averaging 24.0 feet BGS. The subsurface at Wall 1 consists of residual silty clay, sandy clay, and clayey and/or silty sand to refusal depth. Standard penetration test N-Values ranged from weight-of-tools (e.g., zero) to 50 blows per 0-inches, averaging 19 blows per foot. We cored the three borings for this portion of the project. Core lengths ranged from 10 feet to 41 feet long and averaged 29.8 feet. Except for the softening near the bedrock surface, the soil is predominantly very stiff clay.

3.1.2 Wall 2

Borings for Wall 2 encountered refusal between 6.0 and 7.5 feet BGS, averaging 6.7 feet BGS. The subsurface conditions encountered along Wall 2 consists of a three feet interval of fill overlying residual silty clay, sandy clay, and clayey and/or silty sand to refusal depth. Standard penetration test N-Values ranged from 11 to 50+, averaging 31 blows per foot. We cored the three borings for this portion of the project, and core lengths ranged from 8.1 feet to 10 feet long and averaged 9.0 feet. Except for slight softening near the bedrock surface, the soil is predominantly hard clay.

3.2 Ground Water

We encountered groundwater during drilling and prior to coring at Boring B-133 at a depth of 7.0 feet BGS. The remaining holes were dry prior to coring. Two of the core holes lost 100% of drilling fluid during coring.

We checked each boring for the presence or absence of water at the completion of drilling (prior to coring); however, we did not “develop” the holes or wait for ground water levels to stabilize. Ground water levels fluctuate seasonally and after periods of drought or excess precipitation. Therefore, ground water levels may be different at other times.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

Amec Foster Wheeler bases the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report on information provided to us at the time of exploration. We request that you provide any changes in design information that may affect wall design or construction that occur after publication of this geotechnical report to Amec Foster Wheeler for review.

4.1 Permanent slopes

We understand that the slope below Retaining Wall 1 is designed at an inclination of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1). We also understand that the City of Franklin asked that the other permanent slopes for the project shall be no steeper than 3:1 as designated by the Alignment and Bridge Reports for this project.

DRAFT


4.2 Wall Design

The two retaining walls are located at opposite ends of the project limits. Both proposed walls are fill walls. We understand that, in accordance with TDOT practice, the contractor will design the retaining walls based upon this report and the wall concept sheets in the Drawings. Retaining Wall 1 is along the north side of SR 397, at the southern bridge extending east from the east abutment. Retaining Wall 2 extends eastward from a box bridge over an un-named creek at Station 24+25 along the southern edge of SR 96.

4.2.1 Wall 1, Station. 954+47.5 to 955+29.50, SR 397

For Wall 1, the wall foundations will bear upon new engineered fill for the bridge approach. We presume the new engineered fill will, at a minimum, consist of compacted stiff silty clay. We encountered refusal at depths greater than 19.5 feet for this wall. At the time of the exploration in February 2009, the existing subgrade did not require improvement to support the wall. We recommend the contractor verify the subgrade conditions to assure themselves that soil conditions have not degraded in the interim.

4.2.2 Wall 2, Station 24+69.41, 45.8' RT to 28+00.00 57.67’ RT, SR 96

For Wall 2, the wall foundations will bear upon existing firm to stiff residual soil consisting of silty clay. We encountered refusal at depths greater than 6.0 feet for this wall. It is possible that local pinnacles of bedrock or floating boulders could be present with the subgrade soil. Our analyses indicate that the existing subgrade does not require improvements prior to wall construction.

4.2.3 Retaining Wall Design Notes

TDOT Special Provision 624 (1) regarding retaining walls governs the bidding for the design of Walls 1 and 2 and the construction of retaining Walls 1 and 2 shown in the plans. The Bidder/Contractor shall consider Special Provision 624 as one of those documents that they have examined and made themselves familiar with as described in section 102.04 - examination of the site, the work, the plans, and the specifications in the TDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2). Do not begin wall construction until Contractor has labor and material resources available to begin and continue wall construction immediately.

4.2.4 Note Regarding Construction Slopes

Contractor shall provide erosion protection prior to all ground disturbances, and immediately revegetate exposed soil.

The Contractor shall be responsible for making safe excavations in accordance with OSHA (3) and other applicable state and local regulations regarding construction slopes and trenches. As a minimum requirement, in addition to following applicable regulatory requirements, place all temporary construction slopes at no steeper than 1:1 slope in soil and weathered rock and they shall not be left open without shoring for any longer than necessary. The contractor shall ensure that these temporary slopes are not unstable and do not become unstable. If slope is unstable, becomes unstable, is cut steeper than a 1:1 slope, or is unacceptable for another reason, then temporary shoring shall be used. Report any unusual soil conditions, other than those assumed, to the project engineer.

DRAFT


4.2.5 Wall Types

Allowed wall types shall include the following:

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls with segmental precast concrete facing or

prefabricated modular block facing,

Cast-in-place (CIP) reinforced concrete cantilever walls, or

CIP concrete gravity retaining walls.

4.2.6 Other Design Requirements

Both retaining walls require a traffic barrier atop the wall. The traffic barriers will require that the contractor include integral moment slabs in the wall design.

We understand that CDM Smith will design the drainage system at the top of Wall 1 and 2 to carry surface runoff to either or both ends of walls; coordinate with contractor’s design for proper drainage.

Corrosion-protect all permanently installed steel structural elements (bolts, rebar, plates, etc.). Corrosion protection may include sacrificial section, galvanizing, corrosion resistant material, or a combination of acceptable materials or methods per AASHTO.

4.3 Design Parameters

The tables on the Wall Concept Sheets provide design parameters for the retaining walls. The Geotechnical design requirements and parameters for the proposed retaining wall are as provided in Tables 2 through 4. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to review the plans, this geotechnical report, and boring logs to become familiar with the subsurface conditions pertinent to the associated work conducted by the Contractor. The Contractor should base their bid upon and consider their experience in the project's geologic and subsurface setting, their experience in dealing with variable subsurface conditions across a project site, and decisions regarding appropriate equipment they will utilize.

DRAFT


Table 2 Wall Design Requirements and Parameters

DESCRIPTION VALUES

NOTE * MSE WALL

OTHER WALLS

DESIGN LIFE 75 YEARS 75 YEARS

SEISMIC ACCELERATION COEFFICIENT – (As) g 0.11 0.11

EFFECTIVE (DRAINED) FRICTION ANGLE

RETAINED BACKFILL – UNCLASSIFIED SITE SOIL OR BACKFILL

30° 30° 1

RETAINED BACKFILL – SELECT BACKFILL 34° 34° 1

REINFORCED BACKFILL 34° N/A

NATIVE IN-SITU SOIL 30° 30°

UNIT WEIGHT

RETAINED BACKFILL – UNCLASSIFIED SITE SOIL OR BACKFILL

125 PCF 125 PCF

RETAINED BACKFILL – SELECT BACKFILL SEE NOTE 1A, TABLE

1.1

SEE NOTE 1A, TABLE

1.1 1A

NATIVE IN-SITU SOIL 125 PCF 125 PCF

WEATHERED BEDROCK 155 PCF 155 PCF

UNWEATHERED BEDROCK 165 PCF 165 PCF

Design Basis

MINIMUM LENGTH OF SOIL REINFORCEMENT, B

GREATER OF 0.7H MIN. OR 8-FT OR

AS SPECIFIED

ON THE PLANS

N/A 2.2A

LIMITING ECCENTRICITY L/4 (SOIL),

3L/8 (ROCK)

B/3 (SOIL), 9B/20

(ROCK)

COEFFICIENT OF SLIDING FRICTION SEE TABLE 3 SEE TABLE 4 3

NOMINAL BEARING CAPACITY SEE TABLE 3 SEE TABLE 4 3

RESISTANCE FACTORS

SLIDING – STATIC 1.0 1.0 4

SLIDING – COMBINED STATIC AND EARTHQUAKE 1.0 1.0 4

BEARING – STATIC 0.65 0.45 5

BEARING - COMBINED STATIC AND EARTHQUAKE 0.9 0.8 5

PULLOUT RESISTANCE

STATIC 0.90 N/A 6

COMBINED STATIC AND EARTHQUAKE 1.20 N/A 6

TENSILE RESISTANCE OF METALLIC REINFORCEMENTS AND CONNECTORS

STATIC - STRIP REINFORCEMENT 0.75 N/A 7

STATIC - GRID REINFORCEMENT 0.65 N/A 7, 8

COMBINED STATIC AND EARTHQUAKE – STRIP 1.00 N/A 7

DRAFT


DESCRIPTION

VALUES NOTE

* MSE WALL OTHER WALLS

REINFORCEMENT

COMBINED STATIC AND EARTHQUAKE – GRID REINFORCEMENT

0.85 N/A 7, 8

TENSILE RESISTANCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENTS AND CONNECTORS

STATIC 0.90 N/A

COMBINED STATIC AND EARTHQUAKE 1.20 N/A * SEE CONCEPT SHEET TABLE 1.1 FOR NOTES

Table 3 Foundation Parameters and Requirements for MSE Walls

STATION LIMITS

ELEV. LIMITS (ft)

FOUNDATION (REINFORCED ZONE)

BEARING REQUIREMENTS

NOMINAL BEARING(1)

CAPACITY (PSF)

COEFFICIENT OF SLIDING FRICTION

Wall 1 630+ Engineered Fill 6,000 0.35

Wall 2 630+ Existing Silty Clay 6,000 0.35

(1) Apply appropriate resistance factor and proper load combinations and load factors.

Table 4 Foundation Parameters and Requirements for Other Type Walls

STATION LIMITS

ELEV. LIMITS

FOUNDATION BEARING REQUIREMENTS

NOMINAL BEARING(1)

CAPACITY (PSF)

COEFFICIENT OF SLIDING FRICTION

Wall 1 630+ Engineered Fill 6,000 0.35

Wall 2 630+ Existing Silty Clay 6,000 0.35

(1) Apply appropriate resistance factor and proper load combinations and load factors.

4.4 Foundation Inspection

A TDOT geotechnical engineer, or an experienced person responsible to that engineer, shall observe wall foundation excavations immediately prior to foundation construction to confirm and document that contractor removed all loose or otherwise undesirable materials and that the foundations bear on satisfactory material.

4.5 Backfill

Walls 1 and 2 are to be constructed using conventional construction methods. For MSE type walls, provide backfill material composed of durable, non-degradable, non-compressible material, that meets the “EFFECTIVE (DRAINED) FRICTION ANGLE’ requirement of

DRAFT


Table 2. For other wall types, provide an interval of drainage material behind the wall to assure positive drainage and prevent hydrostatic pressure build-up. Compact backfill material as required for stability. Place the backpack for the entire height of the wall. Coordinate wall design with CDM Smith, as needed, to provide positive lateral drainage atop the walls.

4.6 Grading

TDOT Specifications address general requirements for site preparation activities in Part 1 Earthwork, Sections 201 through 209. Pay attention to Section 209 of the TDOT specification, which addresses erosion and siltation control.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

The satisfactory, long-term performance of the retaining wall depends upon the quality of construction, especially as they relate to the geotechnical engineering aspects of the project. You should recognize that a contractor might encounter unanticipated or changed conditions during any site grading and/or foundation installation efforts. Because Amec Foster Wheeler is best qualified to recognize and deal with conditions that differ from those anticipated, and as a necessary continuation of our role as geotechnical engineer of record for this project, we strongly recommend that you retain Amec Foster Wheeler for the Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) phases of the construction. Specifically, we recommend that Amec Foster Wheeler provide observations and testing, on essentially a full-time basis, until completion of the geotechnical-engineering-related aspects of the project. Naturally, we will also be available to provide other, normally specified, construction observation and testing services, should you so desire.

If you elect to employ another firm to provide observations and testing during the geotechnical-engineering-related portions of the construction, please be aware that the field decisions made by that firm could detrimentally affect the cost of the construction as well as the performance of the proposed improvements. Accordingly, Amec Foster Wheeler will accept no responsibility for work performed by another firm or for the subsequent performance of the improvements resulting from that firm’s work.

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

Amec Foster Wheeler prepared this report with the assumption that the design will be in accordance with applicable standards and codes, regulations of authorities having jurisdiction, and prudent engineering practices. There should also be an ongoing liaison between TDOT and Amec Foster Wheeler during both the design and construction phases of the project to ensure that you interpret and implement the recommendations in this report correctly. In addition, you should contact Amec Foster Wheeler immediately if you need further clarifications and/or elaborations concerning the geotechnical aspects of this project. Amec Foster Wheeler bases the conclusions and recommendations we provide in this report upon our understanding of the proposed construction and the information determined at the exploration locations.

The information Amec Foster Wheeler provides in this report in no way reflects on the environmental aspects of the project, unless we state otherwise. Subsurface and ground water conditions between and beyond the explored locations may differ from those encountered at the

DRAFT


explored locations, and conditions may become apparent during construction, which we could not detect or anticipate at the time of the site investigation.

We intend the comments we make in this report relating to potential construction problems and possible methods of construction only for guidance of the designer. The number of borings is not sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction methods and costs. For example, the thickness of surficial topsoil or overburden thickness may vary markedly and unpredictably between and beyond the points of exploration. The contractor bidding or undertaking the construction should make their own interpretation of the facts presented and draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect their work. We undertook this work in accordance with normally accepted geotechnical engineering practices and neither express or imply any other warranty.

Amec Foster Wheeler prepared this report for the exclusive use of TDOT and its designers for the site and criteria stipulated herein. Amec Foster Wheeler should address questions or make interpretation regarding any portion of the report. Reliance upon, usage, or implementation of the information or recommendations stated in this report by any member of the project team should not be undertaken without direct consultation of TDOT and Amec Foster Wheeler. Amec Foster Wheeler accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party because of decisions made or actions based on this report.

DRAFT

Proposed SR 397 Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000-0001 Appendix

APPENDIX 1

GBA INFORMATION

Geotechnical-Engineering ReportImportant Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one – not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read this Report in FullCostly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about ChangeYour geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include: • the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences; • the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria; • the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and • other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:• the site’s size or shape;• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;• the composition of the design team; or• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

This Report May Not Be ReliableDo not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:• for a different client;• for a different project;• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional OpinionsBefore construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-DependentThe recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be MisinterpretedOther design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members, • help develop specifications, • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications, and • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may

perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not CoveredThe personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and MoldWhile your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any

kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

Telephone: 301/565-2733e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org


APPENDIX 2

EXPLORATION LOGS

Key to Symbols and Descriptions

Soil Description Legend

Boring Logs

Consistency SPT N-Value

Medium StiffStiff

Very StiffHard

Very Hard

Less than 23 - 45 - 89 - 1516 - 3031 - 50

Greater than 50

Very SoftSoft

LooseMedium Dense

5 - 1011 - 30

DenseVery Dense

SPT N-Value

Less than 4

Relative

DensityVery Loose

31 - 50Greater than 50

SOIL DESCRIPTION TERMINOLOGY

DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS Description N-Value Blows/ Foot Description N-Value qu-(tsf) Very loose 0 to 4 Very soft 0-2 0 to 0.25 Loose 5 to 10 Soft 3-4 0.25 to 0.50 Medium Dense 11 to 30 Medium Stiff 5-8 0.50 to 1.0 Dense 31 to 50 Stiff 9-15 1.0 to 2.0 Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 16-30 2.0 to 4.0 Hard > 30 > 4.0

PARTICLE SIZES SOIL MOISTURE Components Size or Sieve No. Descriptive Term Boulders over 12 inches Dry - Friable, dusty, hard clods Cobbles 3 to 12 inches Damp - Clumps, Gravel Coarse 3/4 to 3 inches Moist - Plastic, moldable, no free water Fine No. 4 to 3/4 inches Wet - Plastic, moldable, free water present Sand Coarse No. 10 to No. 4 Saturated - Liquid-like (muddy), slumps, free water Medium No. 40 to No 10 Fine No. 200 to No 40 Fines Below No 200 silt and clay

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATIONThe Rock Quality Designation (RQD) [Deere et al. 1969] is a rough measure of the degree of jointing or fracturing in a rock mass. RQD value is obtained by summing up the total length those pieces of core recovered that are four inches [100 mm] in length or longer and dividing by total core run length. Report the RQD as a percentage. If the core is broken by handing or by the drilling process, the fresh broken pieces are fitted together and counted as one piece provided that they form the required length of four inches [100 mm].

RQD AND ROCK QUALITY RECOVERY (REC)RQD (%) Rock Quality Recovery, denoted as REC, is the length of core 0 to 25 Very Poor recovered in a run divided by the length of the run, 25 to 50 Poor reported as a percentage. 50 to 75 Fair 75 to 90 Good 90 to 100 Excellent

BORING LOG LEGEND HSA – Hollow stem auger DWR – Drill water retained during coring SS – Split Tube Sampler DWL – Drill Water Lost during coring

UD – Undisturbed (Shelby) Tube Sample, or � ST – Undisturbed (Shelby) Tube Sample NP – Non Plastic SPT – Standard Penetration Test APR – Acid Producing Rock ATT. Limits – Atterberg Limits NQ – Wire line Rock Core Size = 2 inch diameter RC – Rock Core Run

4

PROJECT DRILLER

PROJECT NO. ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

REFUSAL: DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. COMPLETION: DEPTH FT.

SAMPLED FT. ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. ELEV. FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. LDW AT: DEPTH FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. ELEV. FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

SPLE/CORE

SAMPLE RECOV'D

TYPE (INCH.) 6" 6" 6" N

A

SS 4 5 7 12

A

SS 4 5 7 12

A

SS 4 6 7 13

A

SS 8 12 12 24

A

SS 14 9 11 20

A

SS 50/1" 50/1"

Auger Refusal @ 19.5', Dry On Completion

Rock recovered 19.5' to 19.9'.

TOPSOIL

GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

LS

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-5

TRI-STATE DRILLINGMACK HATCHER PARKWAY

5-5129-0000-0001

SAMPLE DEPTH

DEPTH

STRATUM

FROM

S-1

SAMPLE

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

(Moist)(Stiff)(FILL)

Clay, silty, slightly sandy, dark brown

22.3

599.7

Clay, very silty, light brown

(Moist)(Stiff)(NATURAL)

Sand, silty, clay, light brown

(Moist)(Medium Dense)

Sand, silty, clay, occasional chert, variegated browns


DRY ON COMPLETION ? YES, PRIOR TO CORING

SPT

VALUES

Station 955+08.36, Right 5.29'

WASHBORING

Sand, gravelly, orange-red (Moist)(Medium Dense)

SURFACE ELEV.

RUN NO.

POWER AUGERING

TO OR

S-2

Sand, silty, dark brown (Moist)(Very Dense)

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

REMARKS:

19.5

Continued on Page 2.

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

3.5

5.0

6.0

2.5

FT.

0.0

1.0

1.0

FT.

7.5

7.5

8.5

5.0

6.0

2.5

3.5

10.0

10.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

13.5

15.0

19.5

FT.

18.5

15.0

622.0

19.5 602.5

January 19, 2009

19.5

22.3 599.7

22.3 599.7

CORING

41.0

63.3 558.7

4

PROJECT DRILLER



DATE FT.







BORING ADVANCED BY: X

SPLE/CORE

SAMPLE RECOV'D

TYPE (INCH.) 6" 6" 6" N

32.3

32.3

22.3

22.3

FT.

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5

35.0

37.5

40.0

REMARKS: Continued on Page 3.

RAN 11.0

REC 4.7

RQD= 30.0

RUN 2

REC 3.6

RQD= 29.0

RUN 1

RAN 10.0

Limestone, sandy, light gray with open, stained

bedding planes, open, stained solution vugs, open

stained leached vertical fractures with part clay

filled cavity 33.4' to 34.2', filled cavity 37.2' to 38.0'

and 39.1' to 40.4', and open cavity 41.2' to 43.3'

CORING

DEPTH

STRATUM

FROM


SPT

VALUES


WASHBORING

622.0

Limestone, sandy, gray to light gray with open,

stained bedding planes with cavity 24.1' to 27.8' and

29.7' to 31.7'

100% DWL

Begin NQ Coring @ 22.3'

22.3

599.7

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

RUN NO.

POWER AUGERING

SAMPLE

FT.

SAMPLE DEPTH

TO OR

FT.

GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH


MACK HATCHER PARKWAY

5-5129-0000-0001

599.7

558.7

19.5

19.5

LS

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 2 OF

B-5

TRI-STATE DRILLING

Ran casing through clay filled void and pushed to a

hard seat for easy coring. Bottom at 22.3'

41.0

63.3


SURFACE ELEV.January 19, 2009

602.5

599.722.3

22.3

4

PROJECT DRILLER



DATE FT.







BORING ADVANCED BY: X .

SPLE/CORE

SAMPLE RECOV'D

TYPE (INCH.) 6" 6" 6" N

January 19, 2009

CORING

599.7

558.7

19.5

19.5

22.3

22.3

41.0

63.3

622.0

602.5

599.7


GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH


LS

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 3 OF

B-5


5-5129-0000-0001

SAMPLE

FT.

SAMPLE DEPTH

DEPTH

STRATUM

FROM

FT.

22.3

599.7

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

Limestone, gray with multiple open weathered

fractures, open stained solution vugs, and open

cavity 44.2' to 45.1', 46.0' to 46.3', and sand filled

cavity 50.9' to 51.4'


SPT

VALUES


WASHBORING

SURFACE ELEV.

RUN NO.

POWER AUGERING

TO OR

Limestone, light gray to medium gray with

some open stained diagonal fractures

RUN 3

RAN 10.0

REC 2.4

RQD= 5.0

RUN 4

RAN 10.0

REC 7.7

RQD = 51.0


42.5

45.0

47.5

50.0

52.5

55.0

57.5

60.0

43.3

FT.

43.3

53.3

53.3

4

PROJECT DRILLER



DATE FT.








SPLE/CORE

SAMPLE RECOV'D

TYPE (INCH.) 6" 6" 6" N

63.3

FT.

62.5

65.0

67.5

70.0

72.5

75.0

77.5

80.0

REMARKS: Boring backfilled and grouted after completion.

SURFACE ELEV.

RUN NO.

POWER AUGERING

TO OR


SPT

VALUES


WASHBORING

Boring Terminated @ 63.3'

100% DWL

22.3

599.7

STRATUM DESCRIPTIONDEPTH

STRATUM

FROM

SAMPLE

FT.

SAMPLE DEPTH

FT.

GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH


LS

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 4 OF

B-5


5-5129-0000-0001

622.0

602.5

599.7


January 19, 2009

CORING

599.7

558.7

19.5

19.5

22.3

22.3

41.0

63.3

4

PROJECT DRILLER



DATE FT.







BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

SPLE/CORE

SAMPLE RECOV'D

TYPE (INCH.) 6" 6" 6" N

A

SS 5 3 3 6

A

SS 5 5 8 13

A

SS 6 7 8 15

A

SS 7 9 11 20

A

SS 5 6 7 13

A

SS WT WT

CORING

38.3

63.7 558.1

25.4

25.4 596.4

25.4 596.4

621.8

25.4 596.4

February 2, 2009

FT.

18.5

15.0

18.5

13.5

15.0

13.5

10.0

10.0

8.5

5.0

6.0

2.5

3.5

7.5

7.5

8.5

FT.

0.0

1.0

1.0

FT.

2.5

3.5

5.0

6.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

REMARKS:

20.0

WT = Weight of Tools. Continued on Page 2.

S-6

S-5

S-4

S-3

Sand, slightly clayey, brown with gravel


SURFACE ELEV.

RUN NO.

POWER AUGERING

TO OR

S-2

DRY ON COMPLETION ? No

SPT

VALUES

Station 954+4565, Right 8.88

WASHBORING

Sand, clayey, brown to sand, clayey, brown with

mineral nodules (Moist)(Medium Dense)

(Moist)(Stiff)

Clay, sandy, silty, brown

Clay, very sandy, silty, brown

(Moist)(Stiff)


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

(Moist)(Medium Stiff)

Clay, silty, brown

25.4

596.4

S-1

SAMPLESAMPLE DEPTH

DEPTH

STRATUM

FROM

GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH


CLS

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-6


5-5129-0000-0001

Clay, very sandy, brown to dark brown

(Moist)(VerySoft)

TOPSOIL

4

PROJECT DRILLER



DATE FT.







BORING ADVANCED BY: X

SPLE/CORE

SAMPLE RECOV'D

TYPE (INCH.) 6" 6" 6" N

A

SS 20 50/.0 50/.0

February 2, 2009

CORING

596.4

558.1

25.4

25.4

25.4

25.4

38.3

63.7

621.8

596.4

596.4


S-7

GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH


CLS

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 2 OF

B-6


5-5129-0000-0001

DEPTH

STRATUM

FROM

SAMPLE

FT.

SAMPLE DEPTH

FT.

25.4

596.4

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

Mud, sandy, clayey, weathered rock (Wet)(Very Dense)

Auger Refusal @ 25.4', Wet on Completion

Begin NQ Coring @ 25.4'

100% DWL

Limestone, sandy, gray to light gray with open stained

leached bedding planes, shale bands, vugs, and

open cavity 32.6' to 32.9', 33.6' to 33.9', 34.1' to 34.7'


SPT

VALUES


WASHBORING

SURFACE ELEV.

RUN NO.

POWER AUGERING

TO OR

Limestone, sandy, light gray with vugs, clay seam

39.8' to 39.9', and open cavity 36.6' to 36.8'

RUN 1

RAN 10.3

REC 8.4

RQD= 63.0

RUN 2

RAN 6.2

REC 5.0

RQD= 56.4


22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5

35.0

37.5

40.0

24.5

25.0

25.4

FT.

20.0

25.0

25.4

24.5

35.7

35.7

4

PROJECT DRILLER



DATE FT.








SPLE/CORE

SAMPLE RECOV'D

TYPE (INCH.) 6" 6" 6" N

REC 5.2

RQD= 86.0

58.4

58.4

53.2

53.2

FT.

41.9

42.5

45.0

47.5

50.0

52.5

55.0

57.5

60.0


RAN 5.2

RUN 4

RAN 11.3

REC 4.75

RQD= 20.0

RUN 3

Limestone, gray with open leached bedding planes

SURFACE ELEV.

RUN NO.

POWER AUGERING

TO OR

February 2, 2009

CORING

STRATUM SAMPLESAMPLE DEPTH


SPT

VALUES


WASHBORING

621.8

Limestone, light gray to dark gray with open stained

weathered vertical fractures, vugs, and open cavity

43.3' to 48.2'

25.4

596.4

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

41.9

DEPTH FROM

FT.FT.

GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH


CLS

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 3 OF

B-6


5-5129-0000-0001


596.4

558.1

25.4

25.4

25.4

25.4

38.3

63.7

596.4

596.4

4

PROJECT DRILLER



DATE FT.








SPLE/CORE

SAMPLE RECOV'D

TYPE (INCH.) 6" 6" 6" N

February 2, 2009

CORING

596.4

558.1

25.4

25.4

25.4

25.4

38.3

63.7

621.8

596.4

596.4


Limestone, gray to dark gray with open leached

bedding planes

GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH


CLS

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 4 OF

B-6


5-5129-0000-0001

DEPTH

STRATUM

FROM

RAN 5.0

SAMPLE

FT.

SAMPLE DEPTH

FT.

REC 4.8

RQD= 80.0

25.4

596.4

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

Boring terminated @ 63.4'

100% DWL


SPT

VALUES


WASHBORING

RUN 5

SURFACE ELEV.

RUN NO.

POWER AUGERING

TO OR

REMARKS: Boring backfilled and grouted after completion.

62.5

65.0

67.5

70.0

72.5

75.0

77.5

80.0

FT.

63.4

SS1

SS2

RC1

RC2

96(64)

100(80)

5-9-15(24)

7-6-9(15)

6" Topsoil and thick root systems

SANDY CLAY, dark gray and brown, moist, very stiff, withgravel, (Fill)

SANDY CLAY, dark gray and brown, moist, stiff, with gravel

LIMESTONE, moderately weathered to slightly weathered,hard, moderately fractured, white to gray, few thin shalepartings

--- minor coquina from 10.5' to 11.0'

--- minor coquina from 12.5' to 13.4'

Refusal at 6.0 feet.Bottom of borehole at 16.0 feet.

LOGGED BY Nathan Brown

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY D Tate 24hrs AFTER DRILLING Boring backfilled upon completion

NOTES Sta 25+36, 46' R

DATE STARTED 7/19/17 COMPLETED 7/19/17

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Tri-State Drilling

DRILLING METHOD HSA / NQ Core

HAMMER TYPE Automatic

DRILLING EQUIPMENT CME 55

DRILLING TERMINATION DEPTH 16 ft / Elev 616 ft

REFUSAL DEPTH 6 ft / Elev 626 ft

AT END OF DRILLING Dry

HOLE SIZE 8"GROUND ELEVATION 632 ft

FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

ELE

V.

(ft)

632

627

622

617

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING B-132

PROJECT LOCATION Franklin, TennesseePROJECT NUMBER 551290002

PROJECT NAME Mack Hatcher Wall CLIENT TDOT

GE

OT

EC

H B

H P

LOT

S -

GIN

T S

TD

US

.GD

T -

8/1

5/1

7 1

4:50

- R

:\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

T F

ILE

S\2

007

PR

OJE

CT

S\W

ILB

UR

SM

ITH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S\M

AC

K H

AT

CH

ER

WE

ST

II\D

RIL

LIN

G\2

017

RE

TA

ININ

G W

ALL

S\B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

JAmec Foster Wheeler3800 Ezell Rd, Suite 100Nashville, TNTelephone: 615.333.0630

douglas.tate

Image

SS1

SS2

SS3

RC1

RC2

100(61)

100(76)

12-20-14(34)

5-6-7(13)

1-0-50/1"

6" Topsoil and thick root systems

CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist, dense, with gravel, (Fill),silty

SANDY CLAY, Mottled dark gray and brown, moist, stiff tovery soft

LIMESTONE, moderately weathered to slightly weathered,moderately hard to hard, moderately fractured to highlyfractured, gray, few thin shale partings

COQUINA, moderately weathered, moderately hard,moderately fractured, gray and tan, brittle, sandy, limey

LIMESTONE, slightly weathered, moderately hard to hard,slightly fractured, gray, few thin shale partings











DRILLING TERMINATION DEPTH 15.6 ft / Elev 618.4 ft

REFUSAL DEPTH 7.5 ft / Elev 626.5 ft

AT END OF DRILLING 7.00 ft / Elev 627.00 ft



20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

ELE

V.

(ft)

634

629

624

619




GE

OT

EC

H B

H P

LOT

S -

GIN

T S

TD

US

.GD

T -

8/1

5/1

7 1

4:50

- R

:\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

T F

ILE

S\2

007

PR

OJE

CT

S\W

ILB

UR

SM

ITH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S\M

AC

K H

AT

CH

ER

WE

ST

II\D

RIL

LIN

G\2

017

RE

TA

ININ

G W

ALL

S\B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP


>>

douglas.tate

Image

SS1

SS2

SS3

RC1

RC2

92(74)

84(24)

21-14-6(20)

4-4-7(11)

50/1"

4" Topsoil and thick root systemsCLAYEY SAND, brown and gray, moist, medium dense,with gravel, (Fill)

SANDY CLAY, Mottled gray and brown, moist, stiff

LIMESTONE, moderately to slightly weathered, moderatelyhard, moderately fractured, gray, few thin shale partings,slightly fossiliferous

COQUINA, moderately weathered, moderately hard,moderately fractured, gray and tan, brittle, sandy, limey











DRILLING TERMINATION DEPTH 15.5 ft / Elev 620.5 ft

REFUSAL DEPTH 6.6 ft / Elev 629.4 ft

AT END OF DRILLING Dry



20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

ELE

V.

(ft)

636

631

626

621




GE

OT

EC

H B

H P

LOT

S -

GIN

T S

TD

US

.GD

T -

8/1

5/1

7 1

4:50

- R

:\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

T F

ILE

S\2

007

PR

OJE

CT

S\W

ILB

UR

SM

ITH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S\M

AC

K H

AT

CH

ER

WE

ST

II\D

RIL

LIN

G\2

017

RE

TA

ININ

G W

ALL

S\B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP


>>

douglas.tate

Image


APPENDIX 3

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Laboratory Summary Sheet

Laboratory Test Reports

Amec Foster Wheeler

Geotechnical and Construction Materials Laboratory

5211 Linbar Drive, Suite 513

Nashville, Tennessee 37211 USA

615/831-9202

PROJECT: Mack Hatcher Parkway Extension PROJECT NO.: 5-5129-0002 DATE: 14-August-2017

BO

RIN

G N

UM

BE

R

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

DE

PT

H

NA

TU

RA

L

MO

IST

UR

E

PE

RC

EN

T

GR

AV

EL

PE

RC

EN

T S

AN

D

PE

RC

EN

T S

ILT

/CL

AY

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MA

XIM

UM

DR

Y

DE

NS

ITY

OP

TIM

UM

MO

IST

UR

E

CO

NT

EN

T

SOIL DESCRIPTION

( FT. ) ( % ) ( % ) ( % ) ( % ) ( pcf ) ( % ) ( Ω-cm )

B-133 S-1 SS 1.0-2.5 10.9 19.1 56.7 24.2 23 18 5 SC-SM silty, clayey sand with gravel, orange brown

B-133 S-2 SS 3.5-5.0 25.1 6.2 32.8 61.0 44 20 24 CL sandy lean clay, brown

B-134 S-2 SS 3.5-5.0 24.1 3.4 27.4 69.2 47 18 29CL

sandy lean clay, brown

* ST-SHELBY TUBE, SS-SPLIT SPOON / SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER, B-BAG / BULK, C-CORE

** C- Consolidation Test P-Proctor O-Fractional Organic Carbon pH-acidity Notes:

S-Sieve or Grain Size Analysis D-Direct Shear CBR-California Bearing Ratio K - Permeability

U-Unconfined Compression Test T-Triaxial Compression Test H-Hydrometer

R-Relative Density SL-Shrinkage Limits G-Specific Gravity

RE-Electrical Resistivity DATA CHECKED BY N. Jones

UN

IFIE

D S

OIL

CL

AS

SIF

ICA

TIO

N

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

ATTERBERG LIMITS

SO

IL p

H

STANDARD PROCTOR

EL

EC

TR

ICA

L

RE

SIS

TIV

ITY

Tested By: MH

AMEC Foster WheelerEnvironment and Infrastructure


8/2/17

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

silty, clayey sand with gravel, orange brown3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#10#16#30#50

#100#200

100.095.393.680.967.364.454.442.333.228.124.2

18 23 5

7.2954 5.7040 1.57230.9360 0.2027

SC-SM A-1-b

CDM Smith

Mack Hatcher Parkway Extension

551290002

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: B-133 Depth: 1.0'-2.5'Sample Number: SS-1 Date:

Client:Project:

Project No:

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

RC

EN

T FI

NE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% GravelFine Coarse Medium

% SandFine Silt

% FinesClay

0.0 0.0 19.1 16.5 27.1 13.1 24.2

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½ in

.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4 #10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200

Particle Size Distribution Report

Tested By: MH



8/2/17


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

sandy lean clay, brown3/8"#4#8#10#16#30#50

#100#200

100.093.884.982.875.970.367.164.161.0

20 44 24

3.4874 2.3773

CL A-7-6(12)

CDM Smith


551290002


Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:Project:

Project No:


PE

RC

EN

T FI

NE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse


% SandFine Silt

% FinesClay

0.0 0.0 6.2 11.0 14.2 7.6 61.0

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½ in

.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4 #10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200


Tested By: MH



8/2/17


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

sandy lean clay, brown1/2"3/8"#4#8#10#16#30#50

#100#200

100.099.596.692.791.688.083.979.873.169.2

18 47 29

1.5836 0.7377

CL A-7-6(18)

CDM Smith


551290002


Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:Project:

Project No:


PE

RC

EN

T FI

NE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse


% SandFine Silt

% FinesClay

0.0 0.0 3.4 5.0 9.5 12.9 69.2

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½ in

.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4 #10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200



APPENDIX 4

GEOTECHNICAL RETAINING WALL SHEETS

(separate cover)

report of subsurface exploration and geotechnical ......retaining wall 1 alignment generally...

Documents