TOWN OF LINDENEAST MAIN STREET MULTIMODAL SIDEWALK PROJECT

PROPOSED 60’ PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEGEOTECHNICAL REPORT

HIGHWAY 13LINDEN, TENNESSEE

Construction Materials Laboratory, Inc.41 Heritage Square

Jackson, Tennessee 38305

Job No. 041902April 2019

Construction Materials Laboratory 2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview

This report prepared by Construction Materials Laboratory (CML) of Jackson, Tennessee, details the

informal subsurface investigation for the proposed 60’ pedestrian bridge on the east side of Highway 13 in

Linden, Tennessee. This report contains a description of the site conditions and foundation recommendations

based on exploratory test pits.

Based on current information, the proposed construction consists of a 60’ long bridge across an

unnamed tributary of the Buffalo River between the Fred’s store and the Shell gas station. Although the

loading is unknown, a conservative range of 50-60 kips has been assumed on each abutment.

2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.1 Summary Subsurface Investigation

The subsurface investigation was conducted by performing exploratory test pits with a mini excavator

under the direction of Construction Materials Lab. The in-situ conditions were tested at specific depth

intervals by field probing and Pocket Penetrometer (PPR). Based on the scope of the planned construction and

the accessible portions of the site due to underground and overhead utilities; 1 test pit was located on each side

of the bridge near the proposed footings. Test pits were taken to a depth of 6-7 feet. Detailed logs for each

test pit are found in Appendix A and the location of each pit is shown on the attached Location Map.

3. SUBSOIL INVESTIGATION RESULTS

3.1 Laboratory Testing Results

Samples taken from the test pits were sealed and returned to the lab for analysis. In addition to visual

classifications, each soil sample was tested for moisture content and certain samples were further analyzed for

Atterberg limits, grain size analysis and classification according to the Unified Soils Classification System

(USCS). The Atterberg limits consist of the liquid and plastic limits of the soil and are index tests that help to

further characterize the nature of the soil. All laboratory test results are found in Appendix A.

Construction Materials Laboratory 3

3.2 Soil Profile - North End

Test Pit #2 was located on the north side of the bridge and contained a top layer of topsoil, followed

by a stiff layer of sandy, gravelly clay with some large rock from a depth of 1-3 feet. From 3-5 feet, the soil

profile was a brown and gray, slightly firm and wet gravely lean clay with sand (CL). The in-place moisture

at the footing depth was28-30%, and field probing was 4-8 inches. Around 6 feet the soil transitioned to a

layer of firm, wet brown and yellow sandy clay with probing of 2-4 inches, but no large rock.

South End

Test Pit #1 was located on the south side of the bridge, inside the existing guard rail, with a layer of

gravel and rip-rap at the surface. From the surface down to about 4 feet, the profile consists of a mixture of

wet chert gravel with large pieces of concrete and asphalt debris. At 4.5 feet the profile is a mixture of rock

and stiff clayey chert gravel with probing of 2-6 inches and an in-place moisture of 27%. At a depth of 6 feet,

a layer of hard black shale rock and dense chert gravel was encountered.

4. SITE FEASIBILITY

4.1 Foundation Analysis from Subsoil Conditions

Based on the subsoil profile and the proposed construction, the new pedestrian bridges can be

supported by large shallow pier footings. However, during excavation, large rocks, asphalt debris and lenses

of wet clay will likely be encountered, particularly on the south side, where we understand a significant amount

of fill was placed. Preliminary information from the structural engineer indicates pier footings will have an

embedment depth of about 4.5 feet. Table 1 presents specific design recommendations and characteristics for

each side of the bridge. We recommend a layer of limestone base below the footing to help stabilize the base

and cushion the foundation for any large rocks or pieces of debris.

5. FOUNDATION TREATMENT

5.1 Shallow Foundation Design

Table 1 presents the foundation design recommendations for the new bridge. In this case bearing

pressure is defined as the vertical bearing load divided by the footing area. The final embedment will be around

4.5 feet. Regardless of the bearing capacity, isolated footings should be at least 3 feet wide for stability. The

bearing pressure can be increased by 1/3 for temporary transient loading. Prior to placement of the reinforcing

Construction Materials Laboratory 4

steel or concrete, we recommend the installation of an 18-inch layer of compacted Limestone Base to serve as

a stiff working layer, help reduce settlement, and act as a cushion against any large rocks below the footing.

Since these footings are near the creek slope, there should be a minimum of 5 lateral feet of soil between the

closest edge of the footing and the face of the bank to ensure stability and protection against erosion.

If the recommendations and procedures concerning site preparation, fill placement, bearing capacity

and quality control are adhered to, a total settlement of 1 inch and a differential settlement of less than 1/2 inch

are anticipated for the shallow footings.

Values in Table 1 can also be used for design of the north retaining wall.

Table 1. Shallow Foundation Design

Condition NORTH SOUTH

Total Soil Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 125 125

Active Earth Pressure (KA) 0.33 0.33

Passive Earth Pressure ( KP)1 3.50 3.50

Base Sliding Friction (μ)2 0.44 0.44

At Rest Earth Pressure (KO) 0.60 0.60

Allowable Bearing Pressure (psf) 2,200 2,200

Soil Characteristics at Ftg. Depth Wet, Firm Lean Gravelly Clay Firm Silty Gravelly Sand

Potential Undercut / Remarks

Recommend an additional 18 inch

undercut below the footing, and

installation of an 18-inch-thick

layer of Limestone Base (Type A,

Grading D) compacted in 2 lifts to

at least 97% compaction.

Will encounter large rock and

asphalt debris during excavation.

Recommend an additional 18 inch

undercut below the footing, and

installation of an 18-inch-thick

layer of Limestone Base (Type A,

Grading D) compacted in 2 lifts to

at least 97% compaction.

Notes:1. A reduction factor of 2 applied to passive pressure is recommended due to the large movement required tomobilize the passive resistance, particularly in clayey soils at these sites.2. The base sliding factor should apply only to the dead load. This is an allowable sliding factor and already has ainterface reduction factor and an overall safety factor of 1.5 applied and assumes the installation of limestone basebelow the footing.

Construction Materials Laboratory 5

6. INSPECTION AND CONTINGENCIES

6.1 Inspection and Quality Control

All modifications to the site should be monitored and inspected by a competent technician. This

includes excavations, undercutting, fill operations, and foundation preparation. Prior to fill placement;

proposed on-site or haul in fill material should be evaluated for suitable attributes, and ASTM D-698 moisture

density tests (Proctor tests) should be performed on every type of fill used on site. Moisture density tests of

compacted fill should be checked at a minimum of 1 test per 1,000 square feet for each layer of compacted fill

and at least 1 test for every lift of limestone base in the footings.

6.2 Contingencies and Limitations

All recommendations contained in this report are based on the interpretation of the limited test pit

investigation and current knowledge of the area. Although test pits were conducted at relevant locations

according to the proposed construction, it should be noted that the information obtained depicts the subsurface

conditions at the specific locations at the particular time of the investigation. Although only minor deviations

are expected, soil conditions could differ between locations as well as outside the area of the investigation.

Any significant deviations found during construction should be reported to this office in order to modify the

geotechnical report and subsequent recommendations.

The scope of this report does not contain any environmental investigation or assessment of the site or

any adjacent areas. This report does not address the corrosive potential or otherwise hazardous nature of any

soil found in the exploration. Any statements contained in this report concerning the location or conditions of

organic material are purely an assessment of the subsurface soil profile towards the evaluation of foundation

treatment.

Any changes or revisions to the final plans including loading conditions or locations of structures

should be reported to this office in order to modify this report and the subsequent recommendations.

US-57 ALIGNMENT

WM

WM

POST

BOLLARD

BOLLARD

WM

MB

WM

MB

WV

FH

T

T

D

H

W

Y

1

3

-

1

2

0

'

R

.

O

.

W

.

H

W

Y

4

1

2

(

E

M

A

I

N

S

T

)

-

6

0

'

R

.

O

.

W

.

1

5

+

0

0

1

6

+

0

0

1

7

+

0

0

1

8

+

0

0

1

9

+

0

0

20+00

20+21.12

END PROJECT

STA:20+21.12

N:473662.7730

E:1423816.0510

0

+

0

0

1

+

0

0

2

+

0

0

3

+

0

0

4

+

0

0

4

+

4

8

.

2

9

BP: 0+00.00

E

P

:

4

+

4

8

.

2

9

P

I

:

2

+

1

1

.

3

6

P

I

:

2

+

6

3

.

8

4

HIGHWAY 412 (E MAIN ST) - 18+62.40

HIGHWAY 13 - 0+00.00

N:473611.2732

E:423665.9358

LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

4+48.29

N:474051.7287

E:142358.4962

PAPER LOCATED CENTERLINE

EXISTING R.O.W.

EXISTING R.O.W.

UN-NAMED TRIBUTARY

TO THE BUFFALO RIVER.

STA:17+00.90

OFFSET:15.02L

STA:16+66.69

OFFSET:14.99L

STA:16+60.70

OFFSET:14.87L

STA:15+82.67

OFFSET:14.61L

STA:15+45.93

OFFSET:24.24L

STA:18+00.06

OFFSET:50.95L

STA:18+14.80

OFFSET:66.24L

STA:18+18.88

OFFSET:39.78L

STA:18+26.39

OFFSET:32.87L

STA:18+37.03

OFFSET:30.51L

STA:18+87.45

OFFSET:20.62L

STA:18+93.41

OFFSET:19.49L

R

5

'

R

5

'

R

3

'

R

3

'

R

5

'

R

5

'

R

5

'

R

3

'

R

3

'

R

2

8

'

STA:19+38.83

OFFSET:37.59L

STA:19+20.77

OFFSET:57.21L

STA:19+42.15

OFFSET:40.71L

STA:0+62.28

OFFSET:59.56L

STA:0+68.79

OFFSET:68.62L

2

'

STA:17+97.39

OFFSET:49.62L

STA:18+04.68

OFFSET:54.82L

STA:18+08.16

OFFSET:58.41L

STA:19+10.96

OFFSET:34.20L

STA:19+27.40

OFFSET:48.42L

STA:19+24.18

OFFSET:52.24L

2

.3

8

'

5

'3

.5

'

5

'

3

.5

'

473611.2732

1423665.9358

473466.9942

1423360.8215

473506.1773

1423420.9566

473531.1987

1423465.5270

473555.0960

1423514.0790

473565.6800

1423538.0840

473582.9320

1423581.8280

473608.4760

1423657.1820

473621.7090

1423698.5940

473627.9070

1423717.4240

473635.5450

1423740.1370

473640.9020

1423755.9220

473648.9330

1423778.1320

STA:17+00.70

OFFSET:30.26L

4

'

5

.

5

'

3

5

.

5

'

P

R

I

V

A

T

E

D

R

I

V

E

S

T

A

T

I

O

N

1

5

+

6

2

.

6

0

3

0

'

P

R

I

V

A

T

E

D

R

I

V

E

S

T

A

T

I

O

N

1

6

+

8

6

.

5

9

PROPOSED CURB

RAMP W/ DETECTABLE

WARNINGS. SEE TDOT

STD DWG RP-H-5.

PROPOSED CURB RAMP W/O

DETECTABLE WARNINGS. SEE

TDOT STD DWG RP-H-7.

PROPOSED CURB RAMP W/O

DETECTABLE WARNINGS. SEE

TDOT STD DWG RP-H-7.

PROPOSED CURB

RAMP W/ DETECTABLE

WARNINGS. SEE TDOT

STD DWG RP-H-5.

PROPOSED 6-30 CURB AND

GUTTER. SEE TDOT STD

DWG RP-VC-10.

PROPOSED DRIVE

APRON. SEE TDOT

STD DWG RP-D-16.

PROPOSED DRIVE SEE

SHEET 2A FOR DETAIL.

PROPOSED

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE.

SEE TDOT STD DWG

RP-H-6. (2 PLCS)

PROPOSED 60'

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE.

PROPOSED DRIVE

APRON. SEE TDOT STD

DWG RP-D-16.

PROPOSED 5' WIDE SIDEWALK.

MAX CROSS SLOPE 1.5%

SEE TDOT STD DWG RP-S-7.

PROPOSED CURB RAMP

W/O DETECTABLE

WARNINGS. SEE TDOT

STD DWG RP-H-7.

PROPOSED CURB RAMP W/O

DETECTABLE WARNINGS. SEE

TDOT STD DWG RP-H-10.

PROPOSED 5' WIDE SIDEWALK.

MAX CROSS SLOPE 1.5%

SEE TDOT STD DWG RP-S-7.

EXISTING EDGE OF

ASPHALT

PROPOSED CURB RAMP W/O

DETECTABLE WARNINGS. SEE

TDOT STD DWG RP-H-7.

PROPOSED CURB RAMP W/O

DETECTABLE WARNINGS. SEE

TDOT STD DWG RP-H-7.

PROPOSED DRIVE

APRON. SEE TDOT

STD DWG RP-D-16.

STA:15+29.65

OFFSET:15.29L

EXISTING

EDGE OF

ASPHALT

HWY 13

STA:1+74.56

OFFSET:24.51R

HWY 13

STA:1+44.38

OFFSET:24.17R

HWY 13

STA:1+92.98

OFFSET:24.72R

HWY 13

STA:3+05.02

OFFSET:26.92R

HWY 13

STA:3+03.00

OFFSET:38.55R

HWY 13

STA:3+67.98

OFFSET:36.77R

HWY 13

STA:4+37.83

OFFSET:36.20R

HWY 13

STA:1+69.51

OFFSET:29.95R

HWY 13

STA:1+97.96

OFFSET:30.28R

HWY 13

STA:2+96.42

OFFSET:44.65R

END OF SIDEWALK

CONSTRUCTION

HWY 13

STA:4+45.42

OFFSET:36.20R

HWY 13

STA:2+98.62

OFFSET:31.27R

LIMITS OF

CONSTRUCTION

0+25.04

LIMITS OF

CONSTRUCTION

0+26.21

BEGIN

RETAINING

WALL

STA:3+68.11

OFFSET:42.27R.

PROPOSED 8" RETAINING WALL.

SEE DETAIL SHEET 2C.

END

RETAINING

WALL

STA:3+80.11

OFFSET:42.25R

J:\5769 (Linden M

ultim

odal)\C

ivil\D

wg\4B

-7B

P

roposed Layout.dw

g P

rinted:2/14/2019 11:21:56 A

M ----

REVISIONS

CONSULTANT

DESC

RIPT

ION

NO

.DA

TEBY

TLM

ASS

OC

IATE

S, IN

C.

ARC

HIT

ECTS

+ E

NG

INEE

RS

731.

988.

9840

(pho

ne) -

731

.988

.995

9 (fa

x)11

7 Ea

st L

aFay

ette

Stre

et

Jack

son,

Tenn

esse

e 38

301

ww

w.tl

mae

.com

6BPr

opos

ed L

ayou

t

J:\5769 (Linden M

ultim

odal)\C

ivil\D

wg\4B

-7B

P

roposed Layout.dw

g P

rinted:2/14/2019 11:21:56 A

M ----

REVISIONS

CONSULTANT

DESC

RIPT

ION

NO

.DA

TEBY

J5769

February 22, 2019

TLM

ASS

OC

IATE

S, IN

C.

ARC

HIT

ECTS

+ E

NG

INEE

RS

731.

988.

9840

(pho

ne) -

731

.988

.995

9 (fa

x)11

7 Ea

st L

aFay

ette

Stre

et

Jack

son,

Tenn

esse

e 38

301

ww

w.tl

mae

.com

Linde

n, Te

nnes

see

(SR-

20) E

AST

MA

IN S

TREE

T MUL

TIMO

DAL

TOW

N O

F LI

NDE

Nfo

r

TYPE YEARPROJECT NO.

SHEET

NO.

R.O.W. 2018 68LPLM-S2-020

COORDINATES ARE NAD/83(1995),

ARE DATUM ADJUSTED BY THE

FACTOR OF 1.00005 AND TIED TO

THE TGRN. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE

REFERENCED TO THE NAVD 1988.

SIDE

WA

LK P

ROJE

CT

2018 68LPLM-S2-020

CONST. 2019 68LPLM-S3-020

6A

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

S

E

E

S

H

E

E

T

5

B

Horz. Scale: 1"=

0

20' 40'

20'

80'10'

6B

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N