Upload
others
View
8
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Proposed Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page 2
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 Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page 3
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
Proposed Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page 4
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
Proposed Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page 5
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
Proposed Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page 6
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
Proposed Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page 7
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
Proposed Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page 8
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
Proposed Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000 Page 9
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
Proposed SR 397 Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000-0001 Appendix
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
(Moist)(Medium Dense)
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
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
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
DRY ON COMPLETION ? YES, PRIOR TO CORING
SPT
VALUES
Station 955+08.36, Right 5.29'
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
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
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
WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)
SURFACE ELEV.January 19, 2009
602.5
599.722.3
22.3
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
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
WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)
GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
LS
LOG OF BORING
SHEET 3 OF
B-5
TRI-STATE DRILLINGMACK HATCHER PARKWAY
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'
DRY ON COMPLETION ? YES, PRIOR TO CORING
SPT
VALUES
Station 955+08.36, Right 5.29'
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
REMARKS: Continued on Page 4.
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
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
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
DRY ON COMPLETION ? YES, PRIOR TO CORING
SPT
VALUES
Station 955+08.36, Right 5.29'
WASHBORING
Boring Terminated @ 63.3'
100% DWL
22.3
599.7
STRATUM DESCRIPTIONDEPTH
STRATUM
FROM
SAMPLE
FT.
SAMPLE DEPTH
FT.
GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
LS
LOG OF BORING
SHEET 4 OF
B-5
TRI-STATE DRILLINGMACK HATCHER PARKWAY
5-5129-0000-0001
622.0
602.5
599.7
WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)
January 19, 2009
CORING
599.7
558.7
19.5
19.5
22.3
22.3
41.0
63.3
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 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
(Moist)(Medium Dense)
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)
WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)
STRATUM DESCRIPTION
(Moist)(Medium Stiff)
Clay, silty, brown
25.4
596.4
S-1
SAMPLESAMPLE DEPTH
DEPTH
STRATUM
FROM
GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
CLS
LOG OF BORING
SHEET 1 OF
B-6
TRI-STATE DRILLINGMACK HATCHER PARKWAY
5-5129-0000-0001
Clay, very sandy, brown to dark brown
(Moist)(VerySoft)
TOPSOIL
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 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
WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)
S-7
GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
CLS
LOG OF BORING
SHEET 2 OF
B-6
TRI-STATE DRILLINGMACK HATCHER PARKWAY
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'
DRY ON COMPLETION ? No
SPT
VALUES
Station 954+4565, Right 8.88
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
REMARKS: Continued on Page 3.
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
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
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
REMARKS: Continued on Page 4.
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
DRY ON COMPLETION ? No
SPT
VALUES
Station 954+4565, Right 8.88
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
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
CLS
LOG OF BORING
SHEET 3 OF
B-6
TRI-STATE DRILLINGMACK HATCHER PARKWAY
5-5129-0000-0001
WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)
596.4
558.1
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
38.3
63.7
596.4
596.4
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
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
WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)
Limestone, gray to dark gray with open leached
bedding planes
GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
CLS
LOG OF BORING
SHEET 4 OF
B-6
TRI-STATE DRILLINGMACK HATCHER PARKWAY
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
DRY ON COMPLETION ? No
SPT
VALUES
Station 954+4565, Right 8.88
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
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
Refusal at 7.5 feet.Bottom of borehole at 15.6 feet.
LOGGED BY Nathan Brown
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY D Tate 24hrs AFTER DRILLING Boring backfilled upon completion
NOTES Sta 26+40, 49' 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 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
HOLE SIZE 8"GROUND ELEVATION 634 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)
634
629
624
619
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING B-133
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
>>
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
Refusal at 6.6 feet.Bottom of borehole at 15.5 feet.
LOGGED BY Nathan Brown
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY D Tate 24hrs AFTER DRILLING Boring backfilled upon completion
NOTES Sta 27+42, 49' 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 15.5 ft / Elev 620.5 ft
REFUSAL DEPTH 6.6 ft / Elev 629.4 ft
AT END OF DRILLING Dry
HOLE SIZE 8"GROUND ELEVATION 636 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)
636
631
626
621
PAGE 1 OF 1BORING B-134
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
>>
Proposed SR 397 Mack Hatecher Parkway Retaining Walls 1 and 2 Franklin, Tennessee File No. 5-5129-0000-0001 Appendix
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
Nashville, Tennessee
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
AMEC Foster WheelerEnvironment and Infrastructure
Nashville, Tennessee
8/2/17
(no specification provided)
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
Mack Hatcher Parkway Extension
551290002
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: B-133 Depth: 3.5'-5.0'Sample Number: SS-2 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 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
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: MH
AMEC Foster WheelerEnvironment and Infrastructure
Nashville, Tennessee
8/2/17
(no specification provided)
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
Mack Hatcher Parkway Extension
551290002
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: B-134 Depth: 3.0'-5.0'Sample Number: SS-2 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 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
Particle Size Distribution Report