A00881-610544.pdf

Massachusetts Department Of Transportation Highway Division Proposal No. 610544-135966

A00881 - 1

DOCUMENT A00881

GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

Massachusetts Department Of Transportation Highway Division Proposal No. 610544-135966

A00881 - 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT - REV-4

PEABODY INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER ROUTE 1 (P-03-018 CFC)

PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS

December 10, 2025

Project No: 21.262

Prepared by: Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc.

North Chelmsford, Massachusetts

Prepared for: Mr. Micah Morrison, P.E., S.E.

BSC Group

803 Summer St Floor 3

Boston, MA 02127

GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND RESEARCH, INC.

55 Middlesex Street, Suite 225, N. Chelmsford, MA 01863

Ph: (978)251-9395, Fx: (978)251-9396

REV-5

Proposal No. 610544 - 135966

A00881 - 3

December 10, 2025 GTR Project # 21.262

Mr. Micah Morrison, P.E., S.E.

BSC Group

803 Summer St Floor 3

Boston, MA 02127

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report – Rev 5

Independence Greenway Pedestrian Bridge over Route 1

Peabody, MA

Dear Micah:

Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc. (GTR) is pleased to present this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical engineering study for the above referenced project.

This study was carried out in general accordance with our proposal dated September 16, 2021.

This report is subject to the Limitations attached in Appendix A.

We appreciate this opportunity and look forward to working with you on rest of this project. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please contact us at (978) 251-9395.

Sincerely, Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc.

Jonathan Ernst, P.E. (RI) Les R. Chernauskas, P.E.

Project Manager Principal

Curtis A. George, P.E. (NJ)

Principal

Attachments: 21.262 Independence Greenway Pedestrian Bridge Over Rte 1 - Geotech - Rev 5

GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND RESEARCH, INC.

55 Middlesex Street, Suite 225, N. Chelmsford, MA 01863

Ph: (978)251-9395, Fx: (978)251-9396

A00881 - 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Summary…………………………………………………………. 1

2. Introduction……………………………………………………… 1

2.1. Scope of Study……………………………………………. 1

2.2. Existing Structures.…………………..…………………… 2

2.3. Proposed Construction……………………………....……. 2

3. Subsurface Conditions…………………………………………… 2

3.1. Subsurface Exploration Program …………………………. 2

3.2. Laboratory Testing……………...…………………………. 3

3.3. Subsurface Profile………………………………………… 3

3.3.1. Granular Fill……………………………………

3.3.2. Amorphous Peat…………………………………….3

3.3.3. Sand and Gravel….………….………………..…… 3

3.3.4. Bedrock….….….…………………………………. 3

3.3.5. Groundwater………………………………………. 4

3.4. Soil Design Parameters…………………………….……… 4

3.5. Seismic Design Parameters………………………………... 4

4. Recommended Foundation System………………………………. 5

4.1 Drilled Shafts …………………..…………………………...5

4.2 MSE Retaining Wall………………………………………...6

4.3 Bridge Abutment Foundation…………………………….…7

4.4 Earth Pressures…………………………………………….. 8

5. Construction Considerations …………………………………….. 8

Figure 1. Locus Plan

Figure 2. Boring Location Plan

Figure 3. Simplified Subsurface Profile

Table 1. Recommended Soil Design Parameters

Table 2. Recommended Seismic Design Parameters

Appendix A. Geotechnical Limitations

Appendix B. Site Information

Appendix C. Test Boring Logs and Rock Core Photos

Appendix D. Laboratory Results

Appendix E. Calculations

Appendix F. L-Pile Analyses

Appendix G. MSE Wall Global Stability Analyses

A00881 - 5

Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc. December 10, 2025

Project 21.262 Page 1

1. SUMMARY PROJECT

This report summarizes Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc. (GTR’s) geotechnical study to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Pedestrian Bridge over Route 1. The foundation system consists of piers supported on drilled shafts and abutments are proposed to be supported on shallow foundations within the Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls for the Approach Ways.

In general, the site is typically composed of a layer of granular fill overlying a relatively thick layer of Sand and Gravel over bedrock composed of Granite and Gabbro. Groundwater was encountered at around at 10 to 20 ft below ground surface during subsurface exploration program. Multiple cobbles/boulders were encountered within the Fill and Sand and Gravel.

GTR carried out this study in general accordance with our proposal dated September 16, 2021. Our design was performed based on 2020 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications (9th Edition) and the 100th Anniversary MassDOT Bridge Manual. This report is subject to the limitations in Appendix A.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Scope of Study

This report provides recommendations for the foundations for the proposed

Pedestrian Bridge and recommendations for the MSE retaining wall. The subsurface investigation and soil profile are described. Based on the subsurface investigation, soil design parameters, seismic design parameters, foundation recommendations, retaining wall and construction recommendations are provided for the proposed construction.

The scope of this study included the following tasks:

1. Perform subsurface exploration program consisting of fourteen (14) borings

2. Evaluate the soil conditions, liquefaction potential, bearing capacity, settlement, and earth pressures, and other soil parameters under or in the vicinity of the proposed abutments, piers and retaining wall.

3. Summarize the results and recommendations in this geotechnical report.

The information provided to us to prepare this report included the following (refer to

Appendix B):

1. Set of plans entitled “Independence Greenway Feasibility Study” dated April 2019 prepared by BSC Group.

2. Set of plans entitled “Peabody Independence Greenway” – Construction Plans dated

February 23, 2017.

3. Plan entitled “Proposed Bridge- MassDOT” dated on August, 31, 2021 prepared by

BSC Group.

4. A digital copy of historic borings and location plan entitled “Peabody Interstate

Route 95” prepared by E.Lionel Pavlo Engineering Co. Inc.

A00881 - 6

Project 21.262 Page 2

Our scope of services did not include an environmental assessment to evaluate the subsurface conditions related to hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, surface water, or groundwater around the site. Any statement in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, suspicious items or conditions is strictly for the information of the client.

We recommend engaging a qualified environmental professional, if necessary, to perform environmental services prior to/during construction.

2.2 Existing Structures

The site is located in the vicinity of Route 1 (State Road) and Interstate 95 near

Lowell Street in Peabody, Massachusetts (see Locus Plan in Figure 1). Former railroad bed is currently at the site owned by the City of Peabody that originally crossed the existing US

Route 1 North-South Highway and is paralleled by I-95. The former rail road elevation is around +74 to +83 feet within the footprint of the proposed work.

2.3 Proposed Construction

The proposed construction involves a pedestrian/bike path along former railroad bed with a Bridge over Route 1 in Peabody, MA. The bridge will be approximately 15 feet wide and 20 feet above the existing grade of Route 1. The approach ways will be filled up to 18 feet above current grade. Two parallel mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls tied back into each other are proposed to support the approach ways grade change. The approach ways are approximately 209 and 344 feet long. The bridge will be five (5) spans with the stub abutments within the MSE walls and four (4) hammer head piers. The hammer head pier are proposed to founded on drilled shafts.

3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Subsurface Exploration Program

The original subsurface exploration program was completed between October 12 and

25, 2021 and consisted of 12 borings (designated as BB-1 through BB-9, BB-10A, BB-10B and BB-11. Two (2) additional borings were requested due to the increased retaining wall length. Carr-Dee Corp. was contracted to complete the both subsurface exploration programs. An ATV Acker Soil Scout CME, a truck mounted Dietrich D50 drill rig, and a

Mobile AD-2 track rig were used to perform the boring installations. HW casing (4” ID) was used to advance 6 borings (BB-4, BB-5, BB-7, BB-9, BB-10B AND BB-11) and NW casing (3”ID) was used to advance BB-2, BB-1, and BB-13. Telescoping of the casing from

4 inches to 3 inches (HW/NW casing) was required to advance BB-6 and BB-8. Augers 2

¼” ID were used to advance BB-3, BB-10A, and BB-12. The borings were advanced to depths of 17 feet (El. +64.93 ft) and 34.3 feet (El. +47.35 ft) below ground surface (bgs), including the rock cores. Split spoon and rock core samples were obtained at six boring locations and only split spoon samples at eight boring locations. Refer to Boring Location

Plan 1 and 2.

The drilling techniques and sampling methods are noted on the logs. Typically, continuous soil sampling was performed for the first 10 feet and then 5 feet intervals until

A00881 - 7

Project 21.262 Page 3 top of the bedrock. The soil samples were collected using a 2-inch outside diameter, 24 inch long, split-spoon sampler in accordance with ASTM D1586 procedures. The sampler was inserted into the borehole and then advanced 24 inches into undisturbed materials using a

140-pound hammer and a 30-inch drop height. The total number of blows required to advance the sampler the second and third 6-inch intervals is referred to as the Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) N-value, which can be correlated to the shear strength and density of the soil. The rock cores were taken with an NX core barrel.

A GTR field representative was on-site during the boring program to observe the drilling activities and log the soil and rock samples. The soil samples were classified according to the Modified Burmeister classification system and subsequently collected in glass jars for further testing and/or identification. The rock cores were placed in core boxes.

Appendix C contains copies of the boring logs. Photos of the rock cores are presented in

Appendix C. The borings were backfilled upon completion.

3.2 Laboratory Testing

Soil and bedrock core samples were transported to GeoTesting Express in Acton, Massachusetts for laboratory testing. Compressive strength (Uniaxial Compressive Strength

Testing per ASTM D7012C) was performed on the rock cores to define strength characteristics of the bedrock. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix D.

3.3 Subsurface Profile

The subsurface conditions typically consist of granular fill in the rail track area, overlying sand and gravel, overlying bedrock. The boring logs and rock cores photos prepared by GTR are presented in Appendix C.

3.3.1 Granular Fill

The soil immediately beneath the rail track is typically granular fill composed of loose to medium dense, brown fine to medium sand, trace silt. Some boulder and cobbles were observed while performing the borings. The SPT-N values ranged between 2 and 100+ blows per foot (bpf) and typically were around 10 to 20 bpf. This layer extends to a depth of around 5 to 13 feet below ground surface. No information was identified on the placement the fill, however, based on the historical nature (in place for 100+ years) and use of the granular fill layer minimal future settlement is anticipated under current loading conditions.

3.3.2 Amorphous Peat

An approximately 1.5 foot thick layer of amorphous peat was observed underlying the Granular Fill layer in boring BB-13 at 13 feet below ground surface. The amorphous peat deposit consists of plant material that remains in which the original plant fibers/roots have been destroyed. The layer is considered soft with an SPT-N value of 3.

A00881 - 8

Project 21.262 Page 4

3.3.2 Sand and Gravel

Typically a deposit of medium dense to very dense sand and gravel composed of fine to medium sand and gravel with trace amounts of silt is underlying the granular fill layer.

This layer is around 5 to 26 feet below ground surface. The SPT-N values ranged between

11 and 50+ blows per foot (bpf).

3.3.3 Bedrock

Bedrock was encountered at around elevations +56 to +60 feet. Varying length rock cores were obtained in each boring due to the consistency of the rock and loss of water during drilling. Two type of rocks were encountered during the subsurface exploration. Granite was encountered in borings BB-7 through BB-9 which consisted of slightly weathered, moderately fractured, medium grain, very hard, white/pink rock. BB-4 through BB-6 are composed of gabbro with some intrusions of granite, the rock consists of slightly weathered, moderately fractured, medium grained, very hard, gray/pink rock. The rock-quality designation (RQD) ranged between 23% to 87%. The compressive strength based on the laboratory testing for two rock core samples in BB-6 and BB-7 are 20,971 and 13,719 psi respectively, with bulk densities of 174 and 161 pcf.

3.3.4 Groundwater

Groundwater, as measured in the casing during drilling, was encountered around 10 to 20 feet below grade at the time of drilling (corresponds to approximately elevation +66 to

+60 feet). This level may be inaccurate due to the drilling process, stabilization time. The groundwater levels represent conditions during field activities at the time of drilling and, therefore, different levels due to seasonal fluctuations should be anticipated.

3.4 Soil Design Parameters

Table 1 lists the soil parameters recommended for design based on our review of the boring logs and lab results. Representative SPT N-values of the soil layers were used to estimate the shear strength and density.

Table 1. Recommended Soil Design Parameters

Soil Description Unit

Weight

(lb/ft³)

Friction

Angle

( º )

Active

Earth

Pressure

, Ka

At Rest

Earth

Pressure

, Ko

Passive

Earth

Pressure, Kp

Gravel Borrow 130 36 0.27 0.5 6

Structural Fill (MSE Backfill) 130 34 0.27 0.5 5

Existing Fill 120 34 0.27 0.5 5

Sand and Gravel 125 35 0.27 0.5 5

A00881 - 9

Project 21.262 Page 5

3.5 Seismic Design Parameters

The recommended seismic design parameters are shown in Table 2 based on the

Mass DOT LRFD Bridge Manual and AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic

Bridge Design 2011 with 2022 Interim Revisions for the 1,000 year return period. The bridge is assumed to be non-essential/non-critical. The subsurface conditions at the site are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the sudden, temporary loss of soil shear strength due to earthquake motion for soils below the water table. The site is located in seismic design category (SDC) A based on the SD1 < 0.15. Table 3.5-1 - AASHTO Guide

Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd Edition.

Table 2. Recommended Seismic Design Parameters

Parameter Value

Site Class D

Peak seismic ground acceleration (PGA) coefficient on rock for site class D 0.144 g

Horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient at 0.2 sec period (Ss) on rock for site class D

0.275 g

Horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient at 1 sec period (S1) on rock for site class D

0.098 g

4. RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION SYSTEM

4.1 Drilled Shafts

1. Drilled shafts are proposed to support the hammerhead piers. The shafts shall be 5 feet in diameter with a 4.5 foot rock socket diameter and center-to-center spacings of approximately

4B minimum. The drilled shafts have been designed to carry their load entirely in friction within the socket. If uplift loads are deemed needed at a later stage, we can evaluate the uplift performance of the selected shaft at that time

2. The drilled shafts were analyzed for Strength 1, Strength 3, and Service 1 loading cases. The shafts were designed to resist a maximum factored axial compression load of 779 kips, a maximum factored lateral resultant load of 123 kips, and a factored moment of 2910.6 kip-

ft. The nominal structural axial compression resistance should be determined using

AASHTO Section 5.7.4. The axial structural compression resistance may be adjusted/determined by increasing the rock socket diameter or cage reinforcement.

3. For the Granite/Gabbro/Schist bedrock at this site we recommend an unconfined compressive strength for the rock of 10 ksi. This is a conservative value for undivided

Granite/Gabbro/Schist rock, however, it reflects variation in the rock weathering, fracturing/jointing and quality throughout the site. Refer to Table 3 for the nominal and factored geotechnical resistance of a five-foot diameter drilled shaft with a 10-foot rock socket (resistance factor of 0.55 used). We will also recommend adding additional socket

A00881 - 10

Project 21.262 Page 6 length after the socket geometry is chosen to account for rock variability, weathering, fracturing, etc. We anticipate less than ¼-inch settlement at the top.

4. The required length of the drilled shafts is based on the lateral performance of the shaft, not the axial resistance of the shaft.

5. We performed lateral pile analyses using the programs L-pile to assess the lateral performance of the shafts. The diameter and depth of the rock socket can be varied depending on loads and construction techniques. Refer to Appendix F for L-Pile analyses from our Drilled Shaft Design Submittal.

Table 3. Recommended Geotechnical Resistance for Drilled Shafts.

DRILLED SHAFT SOCKETED INTO ROCK - SHAFT

RESISTANCE

Drilled

Shaft

Diameter

(ft)

Rock

Socket

Diameter

(ft)

Rock

Socket

Length

(ft)

Nominal

Geotech

Axial

Resistance

(kips)

Factored

Geotech

Axial

Resistance

(kips)

5 4.5 10.0 5523 3037

(See Appendix F for Summary of Drilled Shaft Calculations table)

6. Due to the presence of granular material above the rock, we recommend using either temporary casing to prevent the sides of the shaft from caving in. To facilitate drilling through the casing, the shaft diameter is typically increased 6 inches above the rock socket diameter.

7. All shafts should be fabricated with access tubes to perform post construction Crosshole

Sonic Logging (CSL) testing to evaluate shaft integrity. Drilled shaft specifications and contractor submittals should contain items for shafts constructed on sloping bedrock, performance of CSL testing, temporary and/or permanent casing, etc.

4.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining Walls:

1. MSE retaining walls are the preferred retaining wall option for the proposed approach way grade change along the project alignment. The fill to be placed behind the permanent

MSE walls will be reinforced (i.e., mechanically stabilized) to achieve acceptable factors of safety for internal and external stability. The pedestrian bridge abutments are proposed to be supported by the MSE walls. MSE retaining walls should be designed by the

Contractor in accordance with Section 10 and 11 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications and Mass DOT. The project specifications should provide loading requirements and minimum criterion for design and construction of the walls. The contractor final design submittal should be prepared and stamped by a professional

A00881 - 11

Project 21.262 Page 7 engineer licensed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The final design should be reviewed by the engineer to ensure conformance with the project requirements.

2. All existing granular fill soils may be left in place below the MSE wall depending on the limits for potential total and differential settlement provided by the owner. Based on the nature of the subsurface materials (granular fill), the majority of the anticipated settlement from the construction of the MSE Wall Approach Ways is expected to be elastic and occur during construction of the wall. Ground improvement consisting of excavation and replacement or stone columns within the in-situ soil can also be performed to limit settlements of the Approach Ways. Ground improvement consisting of stone columns(aggregate piers), however, is likely not economically feasible for the project. Therefore, a hybrid approach of excavation and replacement of a portion of the existing granular fill is proposed. Up to 6 feet of the existing fill can be removed and replaced with material that satisfies Mass DOT Gravel Borrow M1.03 Type A specifications. The existing subgrade would be proof-rolled to identify additional areas that may be unsuitable and require removal below the preliminary excavation and replacement limits.

3. Boring BB-13 in the Western Approach Way’s MSE wall indicated a thin layer of amorphous peat at 13 to 14.5 feet below ground surface. Mitigation of this layer is required to limit settlements. Improvement of the in-place soils can be performed by using various construction techniques. However, Stone Columns (Rammed aggregate piers (RAPs)), is an applicable method of ground improvement for the subsurface conditions encountered, anticipated loads and project site logistics.

Stone columns/RAPs involve placing columns of compacted crushed stone into the existing material to stiffen the soil matrix. The stone is placed by advancing a vibratory mandrel (typically 16 to 20-inchs in diameter) to displace fill soil through weak strata and then placing controlled lifts of aggregate stone through the mandrel bearing on firm soil. The compaction is achieved through static force and dynamic impact energy from the hammer. After the first lift of stone is compacted, the mandrel is lifted and the process repeated. The stone can be mixed with grout if confining pressures of the in-situ soils are marginal.

Twenty to twenty five foot-long ground improvement elements bearing in the sand and gravel can be utilized at the site. The elements will be installed in a grid pattern within the MSE wall footprint at 5 to 8 ft spacing. A 1 to 3-foot-thick layer of structural fill is typically employed as a load transfer platform.

4. We recommend a net factored bearing resistance of 15.91 kips per square foot (ksf) be used for the proposed retaining wall footings founded on top of the in-situ granular fill, overlying sand and gravel overlying bedrock soil. Based on the proposed construction

(MSE Wall and Stub Abutments), it is anticipated that any settlement will be from any net loading conditions applied to the soil. For the proposed MSE Wall Approach Way, the total settlement at the footing elevation is estimated to be less than 1 inch (service state unfactored loading conditions) at the full wall height. This settlement is expected be less as the wall height decreases and to occur mostly during construction. Differential

A00881 - 12

Project 21.262 Page 8 settlement is expected to be 50% of the total settlement estimates. A net unfactored service load pressure of 9 ksf and an out to out width of the MSE wall of 18 feet was used in the analyses.

4.3 Bridge Abutment Footings:

1. Based on the project requirements, shallow foundations are recommended for the abutment foundations bearing within the structural fill of the MSE walls. The structural fill is proposed to be compacted Gravel Borrow fill (M1.03 Type B specifications). The footings are estimated to be 9 feet wide (effective footing width of ~5.5 feet) by 16.08 ft long and bear approximately 8 feet below the top of the bridge/road grade.

2. For footings bearing in the Gravel Borrow within the Reinforced soil zone, the factored bearing resistance is 4 ksf and 7 ksf for the service limit state and strength limit state, respectively, based on Section C11.10.11 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications. The resultant of the foundation pressures should fall within 1/3 of the center of the footing. If inclined loads or eccentricity are significant, we should review these recommended values.

3. For the proposed abutment footings the settlement of the Gravel Borrow is estimated to be less than 1/2 inch (service state unfactored loading conditions). The total settlement of the abutment when added to the MSE walls is anticipated to be around 1.5 inches.

This settlement is expected to occur mostly during construction. Differential settlement is expected to be 50% of the total settlement estimates. An unfactored service load pressure 5 ksf and a footing width of 9 feet (conservative) was used in this analysis. If higher service load is needed then indicated or if loads or footing geometry are different than what we have assumed, we may need to verify and/or revise our analyses.

4.4 Earth Pressures

1. For resistance to sliding, a friction factor (i.e. coefficient of friction) of 0.45 is recommended for the pre-cast concrete blocks on Gravel Borrow for the MSE wall. For resistance to sliding, a friction factor (i.e. coefficient of friction) of 0.57 is recommended for cast-in-place concrete on Gravel Borrow for the Stub Abutments. A resistance factor of 0.8 for cast concrete or 0.9 resistance for pre-cast concrete on the gravel borrow should be applied to the sliding resistance. The passive pressure in front of foundations below grade are not recommended to be used if the embedment footing depth is not considered permanent.

2. For the existing structural fill or any other compacted backfill acting on the abutment, an equivalent fluid unit weight of 60 lb/ft3 (at rest conditions) is recommended. For the retaining walls we recommend an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 lb/ft3 (active conditions). This assumes that the walls are allowed to rotate. If the walls are restrained from movement, the at rest value recommended above should be used. These values assume that there is free drainage of water behind the walls (Weep Holes provided).

Hydrostatic pressure must be included below the water table.

A00881 - 13

Project 21.262 Page 9

3. Where the equivalent fluid pressure is less than 300 psf behind the walls, use a pressure of 300 psf to account for compaction induced stresses. Within 4 feet behind the walls, we recommend limiting compaction effort to hand-operated plate compactors.

Additional surcharge loads from sloped backfill, vehicle traffic, etc. should also be applied when located within a line extending from the bottom heel of the footing at a slope of 1:1 and extending to the ground surface. To determine the lateral pressure associated with the vertical surcharge loads, multiply the vertical pressure by 0.5(At Rest earth pressure) for restrained walls or 0.3 (Active Earth Pressure) for unrestrained walls allowed to rotate. The walls should be designed for earthquake loads in accordance with

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, 2020, (11.6.5. Seismic

Design) and the MASSDOT Bridge Manual 2020 Part 1, Ch 3, 3.4 for seismic Analysis and Design.

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

1. Vibration inducing construction activities (drilling, compaction, etc.) are anticipated for the construction of the bridge. Pre-construction and post-construction surveys should be completed to identify any existing features (e.g. cracks, holes and damage) at adjacent properties. As a general guideline, the survey should be conducted for any structures within a 200 foot radius of the project site borders. In addition, for any structures located within 200 feet of the bridge site, vibration monitoring is also recommended, at least during vibration inducing activities based on the contractor’s means and methods, to assess the ground vibrations near the affected structures.

2. In accordance with OSHA regulations, excavation support is required for any excavation greater than 4 feet. Excavation depths of around 6 to 8 feet are anticipated depending on excavation and replacement of unsuitable soils, bottom of footing, existing grades, and proposed grades. Any sloping of excavations should be performed at a 1.5H:1V angle or shallower.

3. Temporary trestle/false work system to allow for setting and/or lifting the pre-constructed bridge may be required to set the bridge during construction. This will depend on the contractor’s means and methods, construction phasing and/or staging. The contractor should submit their chosen procedure and support system for review. The submittal should include the assumptions made regarding soil properties, and surcharge loads, staging and sequencing, and crane capacities calculations. The submittal should be prepared and stamped by a professional engineer licensed in the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts and designed in accordance with Mass DOT and AASHTO requirements.

4. The ground improvement specialty contractor should submit their design of their chosen proprietary system including the quality control program for review. A column/modulus load test should be performed on one sacrificial ground improvement element per element type proposed. Other quality control tests maybe applicable depending on the type of ground improvement selected and installation method of the system. The submittal should include the assumptions made regarding soil properties, lateral earth pressures and surcharge loads, testing, staging and sequencing, structural fill

A00881 - 14

Project 21.262 Page 10 requirements and design calculations. The submittal should be prepared and stamped by a professional engineer licensed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

5. The water levels are expected to be below the bottom of the excavations. Any dewatering of the excavations can most likely be accomplished using sumps (if required). Any water removed from the excavations should be evaluated and, if necessary, disposed of in accordance with local and federal regulations. Consideration should be given to the lead-time necessary to test the water and obtain the EPA permit for discharging back into local storm drains.

6. All trees, shrubs, vegetation, topsoil, uncontrolled miscellaneous/organic/cohesive fill, construction debris and other unsuitable material should be stripped from the proposed footprint of the construction areas defined above. Any underground objects or utilities should be removed. The exposed subgrades should be proof-rolled to densify the subgrade soils and detect any areas that may be relatively unsuitable or soft. The proof rolling is intended for the MSE walls, pavement areas, sidewalks, and other locations that may support surface loads. The proof rolling activities should be observed by a geotechnical engineer from our office to determine the acceptability of the subgrade.

Proof rolling should not be performed in wet areas. A base of ¾ inch crushed stone should be used in wet areas to create “dry” conditions. These “wet” conditions are expected to be worse during the winter/spring periods and extra precautions should be made during these times.

Proof rolling under the proposed MSE wall and pavement areas should be performed using a minimum of 6 to 8 passes with a vibratory drum roller (15,000 pound or 10,000 pound static weight, respectively) operating at maximum energy.

7. If any footing subgrades - not within the MSE wall mass - are disturbed or unsuitable, the material shall be excavated and a minimum of 12 inches of compacted Gravel Borrow fill (M1.03 Type A specifications) or ¾-inch crushed stone should be placed below the footing immediately after excavation to act as a cover and improve drainage. All subgrades should be protected from frost during construction. Compaction and backfill should be performed in accordance with Mass DOT Standard Specifications.

8. Any structural fill material behind any MSE retaining walls should satisfy Mass DOT

Gravel Borrow M1.03 Type B specifications. The Gravel Borrow should be placed in layers less than 12 inches in thickness and compacted to not less than 95% of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557, Method C. The Gravel Borrow should be free of organic material, trash, ice, frozen soil, and other deleterious material.

9. Excavated on-site fill meeting the requirements of compacted Gravel Borrow as described above may be re-used. Screening equipment may be necessary to allow the re-use of some of the excavated fill as acceptable backfill. The contractor will need to confirm this by performing selected grain size distribution analyses on the excavated and/or screened material. The results should be submitted to the engineer for review and assessment of suitability for on-site re-use. Any soil removed from the site should be evaluated, and if necessary, disposed of in accordance with local and federal regulations.

A00881 - 15

Project 21.262 Page 11

10. It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer or qualified technician be present during construction to observe pile driving activities and test pile foundations, observe and confirm that the soils used as fill and backfill and materials proposed for re-use are in accordance with the contract specifications, and observe and test the placement and compaction of Compacted Gravel Borrow and other compacted fills.

11. GTR should be given the opportunity to review final plans and specifications for the foundations systems, piles, earthwork, and other items related to our scope to confirm that the recommendations contained in our report are interpreted and implemented as intended.

A00881 - 16

FIGURES

A00881 - 17

BRIDGE NO. P-03-018 (CFC)

PROJECT

NORTH

A00881 - 18

(TEL) 978-251-9395

(FAX) 978-251-9396

55 MIDDLESEX STREET, SUITE 225

NORTH CHELMSFORD, MA. 01863

PDD

CAG 21.262

06/26/2023

N/ADESIGN BY:

UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT, THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND RESEARCH INC. (GTR). THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWING IS SOLELY FOR THE USE BY GTR'S CLIENT OR THE CLIENT'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND LOCATION IDENTIFIED ON THE DRAWING. THE DRAWING SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED, REUSED, COPIED, OR ALTERED IN ANY MANNER FOR USE AT ANY OTHER LOCATION OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GTR. ANY TRANSFER, REUSE, OR MODIFICATION TO THE DRAWING BY THE CLIENT OR OTHERS, WITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF GTR, WILL BE AT THE USER'S SOLE RISK WITHOUT ANY RISK OR LIABILITY TO GTR.

GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND

RESEARCH, INC.

N/A

DESCRIPTIONNO. BY DATE

SCALE:DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO.CHECKED BY:

SHEET NO.DATE:

PREPARED

BY:

PEABODY INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY

BRIDGE NO. P-03-018 (CFC)

PEABODY - MA

AS-BUILT BORING LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND:

NOTES:

1. THE LOCATIONS OF BORINGS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED TO LOCATE THEM. LOCATION DETERMINED BY TAPE AND MEASURE

FROM EXISTING SITE FEATURES.

2. ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ELEVATIONS AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED TO CALCULATE THEM.

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS AND DESIGNATION OF BORINGS PERFORMED BY CARR-DEECORP AND OBSERVED BY GTR PERSONNEL BETWEEN OCTOBER

BB - 1

12, 2021 AND OCTOBER 25, 2021 AND ON MAY 30, 2023

A00881 - 19

55 MIDDLESEX STREET, SUITE 225

NORTH CHELMSFORD, MA. 01863

PDD

CAG 21.262

06/26/2023

N/ADESIGN BY:

UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT, THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND RESEARCH INC. (GTR). THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWING IS SOLELY FOR THE USE BY GTR'S CLIENT OR THE CLIENT'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND LOCATION IDENTIFIED ON THE DRAWING. THE DRAWING SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED, REUSED, COPIED, OR ALTERED IN ANY MANNER FOR USE AT ANY OTHER LOCATION OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GTR. ANY TRANSFER, REUSE, OR MODIFICATION TO THE DRAWING BY THE CLIENT OR OTHERS, WITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF GTR, WILL BE AT THE USER'S SOLE RISK WITHOUT ANY RISK OR LIABILITY TO GTR.

GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND

RESEARCH, INC.

N/A

DESCRIPTIONNO. BY DATE

SCALE:DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO.CHECKED BY:

SHEET NO.DATE:

PREPARED

BY:

PEABODY INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY

BRIDGE NO. P-03-018 (CFC)

PEABODY - MA

AS-BUILT BORING LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND:

NOTES:

1. THE LOCATIONS OF BORINGS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED TO LOCATE THEM. LOCATION DETERMINED BY TAPE AND MEASURE

FROM EXISTING SITE FEATURES.

2. ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ELEVATIONS AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED TO CALCULATE THEM.

BB - 1

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS AND DESIGNATION OF BORINGS PERFORMED BY CARR-DEECORP AND OBSERVED BY GTR PERSONNEL BETWEEN OCTOBER

12, 2021 AND OCTOBER 25, 2021 AND ON MAY 30, 2023

A00881 - 20

55 MIDDLESEX STREET, SUITE 225

NORTH CHELMSFORD, MA. 01863

PEABODY INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY

PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS SUBSURFACE PROFILE

PDD

CAG 21.262

N/ADESIGN BY:

UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT, THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND RESEARCH INC. (GTR). THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWING IS SOLELY FOR THE USE BY GTR'S CLIENT OR THE CLIENT'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND LOCATION IDENTIFIED ON THE DRAWING. THE DRAWING SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED, REUSED, COPIED, OR ALTERED IN ANY MANNER FOR USE AT ANY OTHER LOCATION OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GTR. ANY TRANSFER, REUSE, OR MODIFICATION TO THE DRAWING BY THE CLIENT OR OTHERS, WITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF GTR, WILL BE AT THE USER'S SOLE RISK WITHOUT ANY RISK OR LIABILITY TO GTR.

GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND

RESEARCH, INC.

FIGURE 3

N/A

DESCRIPTIONNO. BY DATE

SCALE:

PROJECT NO.

SHEET NO.DATE:

PREPARED

BY:

01/06/2023

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

NOTES:

1. THE LOCATIONS OF BORINGS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED TO LOCATE THEM. BORING LOCATIONS DETERMINED BY TAPE AND MEASURE FROM EXISTING SITE FEATURES.

2. THE DRAWING IS BASED ON DRAFTS PROVIDED BY BSC GROUP NAMED "SKETCH PLANS OF PROPOSED BRIDGE"

REVISION 11 CAG 06/09/23

A00881 - 21

APPENDIX A

GEOTECHNICAL LIMITATIONS

A00881 - 22

GEOTECHNICAL LIMITATIONS

1. The analyses and recommendations in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations become evident, we will need to re-assess our recommendations provided in this report.

2. The simplified soil profile described in this report is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. Limited data was available. The boundaries between the strata are approximate and are idealized to convey trends in the subsurface information. The actual soil transitions are most likely more erratic than presented.

3. Water level readings from the borings are representative at the time of drilling. The data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the report. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in the groundwater level does occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors occurring since the measurements were made.

4. In the event that any changes in the nature, function, design, or location of the proposed construction are planned, then the conclusions of this report may become invalid.

Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc. (GTR) personnel must review these changes so that they may be incorporated into our report. It is recommended that GTR be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design and specifications so that our recommendations are properly interpreted and incorporated in the project documents.

5. It is recommended that GTR be retained to provide soil engineering services during the final design and/or construction phases of the project. This will enable compliance with our recommendations and to allow design changes as they become evident during construction as needed.

6. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of client as related to this project.

The report has been carried out in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

7. This geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this project by GTR, is for design purposes only, and is not intended for bidding purposes. Contractors wishing a copy of this report may do so with the understanding that the scope is limited to design issues only.

A00881 - 23

APPENDIX B

SITE INFORMATION

A00881 - 24

NAVD 88

BASE ELEV

50.00

26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00

.4

.6

26+00

.9

0.

27+00

0.

1.

28+00

1.

1.

29+00

.9

.5

30+00

.4

45.00

NAVD 88

BASE ELEV

50.00

.7

104+00

.8

104+00

45.00

City of

Peabody

No rri s Br oo k

ANDOVER STREET

Town of

Danvers

Crystal Lake

PINE

FOREST

G

O O

DALE

LOWELL

STREET

GREENWAY

NE

W

BU

RY

STREET

STREET

STREET

STREET

ST

RE

ET

LOWELL

INDEPENDENCE

GREENWAY

INDEPENDENCE

FED. AID PROJ. NO. SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETSSTATE

MA

PROJECT FILE NO.

_B

R 1-

2( P0

).D W

G 6-

Ja n-

1:

A

M Pl ot te d on

KEY PLAN, LOCUS & PROFILES

610544

158 247

INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY

PEABODY

F

O U

R

TH

S

TR

U C

TU

R

AL

S

U

BM

IT

TA

L (S

4)

7-

JA

N

U

AR

Y-

803 SUMMER STREET

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02127

617-896-4300 | www.bscgroup.com

INDEX

SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION

1 OF 35 KEY PLAN, LOCUS & PROFILES

2 OF 35 MSE WALL KEY PLANS & PROFILES

3 OF 35 GENERAL NOTES

4 OF 35 BORING LOGS 1 OF 6

5 OF 35 BORING LOGS 2 OF 6

6 OF 35 BORING LOGS 3 OF 6

7 OF 35 BORING LOGS 4 OF 6

8 OF 35 BORING LOGS 5 OF 6

9 OF 35 BORING LOGS 6 OF 6

10 OF 35 PLAN & ELEVATION 1 OF 3

11 OF 35 PLAN & ELEVATION 2 OF 3

12 OF 35 PLAN & ELEVATION 3 OF 3

13 OF 35 MSE WALL PLAN & ELEVATION 1 OF 3

14 OF 35 MSE WALL PLAN & ELEVATION 2 OF 3

15 OF 35 MSE WALL PLAN & ELEVATION 3 OF 3

16 OF 35 MSE WALL ABUTMENT PLAN & ELEVATION

17 OF 35 ABUTMENT SECTIONS & DETAILS

18 OF 35 APPROACH SLAB DETAILS

19 OF 35 MSE WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS

20 OF 35 PIER PLAN & ELEVATIONS

21 OF 35 PIER DETAILS 1 OF 2

22 OF 35 PIER DETAILS 2 OF 2

23 OF 35 DRILLED SHAFT DETAILS

24 OF 35 END DIAPHRAGM PLAN & SECTIONS

25 OF 35 END DIAPHRAGM & JOINT DETAILS

26 OF 35 CURTAIN WALL DETAILS

27 OF 35 TRANSVERSE SECTIONS

28 OF 35 FRAMING PLAN

29 OF 35 BEAM DETAILS

30 OF 35 BEAM CAMBER TABLES

31 OF 35 TOP OF FORM ELEVATIONS & DECK DETAILS

32 OF 35 DECK POUR SEQUENCE DETAILS

33 OF 35 BEARING DETAILS

34 OF 35 PEDESTRIAN RAIL DETAILS

35 OF 35 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS

A00881 - 25

NAVD 88

BASE ELEV

65.00

.5

30+00

.4

.0

31+00

.6

.2

32+00

.8

30+00 31+00 32+00

NAVD 88

BASE ELEV

65.00

.0

.4

23+00

.8

.2

24+00

.6

.0

25+00

.4

23+00 24+00 25+00

ROUTE 1 SOUTHBOUND

FED. AID PROJ. NO. SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETSSTATE

MA

PROJECT FILE NO.

_B

R 1-

2( P0

).D W

G 6-

Ja n-

1:

A

M Pl ot te d on

MSE WALL KEY PLANS & PROFILES

610544

159 247

INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY

PEABODY

F

O U

R

TH

S

TR

U C

TU

R

AL

S

U

BM

IT

TA

L

JA

N

U

AR

Y-

A00881 - 26

FED. AID PROJ. NO. SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETSSTATE

MA

PROJECT FILE NO.

_B

R 3(

P0

).D

W G

6- Ja n-

1:

A M

Pl ot te d on

GENERAL NOTES

610544

160 247

INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY

PEABODY

F

O U

R

TH

S

TR

U C

TU

R

AL

S

U

BM

IT

TA

L

JA

N

U

AR

Y-

A00881 - 27

55 Middlesex Street, Suite 225, North Chelmsford, MA.

Phone: (978) 251-9395 Fax: (978) 251-9396

Boring No:

GTR Project Number:

Project Name:

Location:

BB-1 Project No:

21.262

Peabody Independence Greenway Peabody - MA

Driller:

Start Date:

Steve Desimone 10/18/2021

Gnd Surface Elev (ft):

Location:

Note:

Helper(s):

End Date:

~+75.22'

3024121.6641 N , 794668.9491 E

Acker Soil Scout CME / Automatic Hammer

Sean Pfiztener 10/18/2021

Equipment Type

Size I.D.

Hammer Wt.

Hammer Fall

Sample Data No.

0 SS-1

SS-2

5 SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6A 24/8

SS-6B

SS-7A 24/17

SS-7B

SS-8 24/9 15-17 9 - 14

13 - 10

SS-9 24/7 20-22 9 - 5

9 - 17

SS-10 12/9 25-26.1 20 - 21

120 / <1"

M.Dense, gray, f- SAND, some Silt.

Silt.

M.Dense, brown, f-m SAND and Gravel, trace

10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

Pen/ Rcvy 24/13

24/13

24/12

24/8

24/13

Depth (El.)

0 - 2

2-4

4-6

6-8

8-10

Blows per 6in 3 - 3 4 - 4 5 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 9 8 - 7 5 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 3 3 - 3 5 - 2 2 - 7

10 - 10 13 - 18

Field Test

Description and Classification

Dry, loose, brown , f-c SAND, trace Organic/Inorganic Silt, trace Roots.

Dry, loose, brown , f-c SAND, trace Gravel, trace Inorganic Silt.

Dry, m.dense , brown , f-m SAND, some Gravel, trace Silt.

Dry, loose, brown , f-m SAND, trace Silt.

Moist, loose, brown, f-m SAND , trace Silt.

6A-Loose,black, f-m SAND,some Organic/Inorganic Silt.

6B-Loose, gray, f-m SAND some Gravel, trace Silt.

7A-Loose, gray, f-m SAND some Gravel, trace Silt.

7B-M.dense,brown, f-m SAND, some Gravel, trace Silt. 13' 2

GRANULAR

FILL

GTR Rep:

Chk'd By:

Drilling Company:

Casing Sampler

HW

3"

300 lb 30"

SS

1.375" 140 lb

30"

Core

N. Cotrina C.George Carr-Dee

Groundwater Depth (ft) Date

18-Oct

Time Water Casing Hole

EOD 12

25'

Stratum Additional DataDescription

26' 1"

PG 1 of 1

SAND AND

GRAVEL

V.Dense, brown, f-m SAND, trace Silt, trace Gravel.

Bottom of boring at 26' 1" feet below ground surface with roller bit and split spoon refusal.

NOTES:

1. 2 1/4" augers were used in the upper 10 feet of the boring.

2. Drilling action indicated change of stratum at 13' below ground surface.

26'1"

Order of Sample Description (Modified Burmister)

1. Moisture Content: Dry, Moist, Wet

2. Soil Relative Density or Consistency

3. Color

PENETRATION RESISTANCE (N) GUIDE

Cohesionless Soils (Sands)

Relative Density / Blows per Foot

4. Major Component: Should be capitalized

5. Minor Component: "and" - 35% to 50% minor grain size

"some" - 20% to 35% minor grain size "little" - 10% to 20% minor grain size "trace" - < 10% of minor grain size

Very Loose >> Loose

0 - 4 >> 4 - 10

Medium Dense >> 10 - 30 Dense >> 30 - 50

Very Dense >> Over 50

Cohesive Soils (Clays) Consistency / Blows per Foot Very Soft >> Below 2

Soft >> 2 - 4 Medium Stiff >> 4 - 8

Stiff >> 8 - 15 Very Stiff >> 15 - 30

Hard >> Over 30

D ep th

C as e

BP

F

N ot es

GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND RESEARCH, INC.

55 Middlesex Street, Suite 225, North Chelmsford, MA.

Phone: (978) 251-9395 Fax: (978) 251-9396

Boring No:

GTR Project Number:

Project Name:

Location:

BB-2 Project No:

21.262

Peabody Independence Greeway Peabody , MA

Driller:

Start Date:

Steve Desimone 10/15/2021

Gnd Surface Elev (ft):

Location:

Note:

Helper(s):

End Date:

~+75.90 ft

3024157.06 N , 794747.45 E

Acker Soil Scout CME / Automatic Hammer

Sean Pfistener 10/18/2021

Equipment Type

Size I.D.

Hammer Wt.

Hammer Fall

Sample Data No.

0 SS-1

SS-2

5 SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6 24/15 10-12

Pen/ Rcvy 24/11

24/12

24/11

24/10

24/15

Depth (El.)

0 - 2

2-4

4-6

6-8

8-10

Blows per 6in

1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-4 7-5

12-12 8-6 7-6 4-4 3-5

SS-7

SS-8

SS-9

SS-10

24/6

0/0

20-22

24/12

24/12

15-17

18-20

3-5 6-19

13-51 19-20 24-19 13-16

120/0

V.dense, f- SAND and Gravel, trace Silt.

Dense, f-SAND and Gravel , trace Silt.

No Recovery.

Bottom of boring at 23' feet below ground surface with roller bit and split spoon refusal.

23'

Field Test

Description and Classification

Dry, v.loose, brown, f-SAND, trace Silt, trace roots.

Dry, v.loose, brown, f-m SAND, trace Silt.

Dry, v.loose, brown f-m SAND, some Gravel, trace Silt.

Dry, m.dense, brown, f-m SAND, some Gravel, trace Silt.

Dry, m.dense, brown, f-m SAND, trace Silt, trace Gravel Dry, loose, brown, f-m SAND, trace Silt.

8'

GRANULAR

FILL

GTR Rep:

Chk'd By:

Drilling Company:

Casing Sampler

HW

3"

300 lb 30"

SS

1.375" 140 lb

30"

Core

PG 1 of 1 N. Cotrina C.George Carr-Dee

Groundwater Date

18-Oct Time

EOD 14

Depth (ft) Water Casing

23' Hole 23'

Stratum Description

Additional Data

1,2

M.dense, f- m SAND, trace Silt.

SAND AND

GRAVEL

NOTES:

1. Boring at 10ft from rail track center line.

2. 2 1/4" augers were used in the upper 20 feet of the boring.

Order of Sample Description (Modified Burmister)

1. Moisture Content: Dry, Moist, Wet

2. Soil Relative Density or Consistency

3. Color

PENETRATION RESISTANCE (N) GUIDE

Cohesionless Soils (Sands)

Relative Density / Blows per Foot

4. Major Component: Should be capitalized

5. Minor Component: "and" - 35% to 50% minor grain size

"some" - 20% to 35% minor grain size "little" - 10% to 20% minor grain size "trace" - < 10% of minor grain size

Very Loose >> Loose >>

0 - 4 4 - 10

Medium Dense >> 10 - 30 Dense >> 30 - 50

Very Dense >> Over 50

Cohesive Soils (Clays) Consistency / Blows per Foot Very Soft >> Below 2

Soft Medium Stiff

Stiff Very Stiff

Hard

>> 2 - 4 >> 4 - 8 >> 8 - 15 >> 15 - 30 >> Over 30

D ep th

C as e

BP

F

N ot es

GEOSCIENCES TESTING AND RESEARCH, INC.

55 Middlesex Street, Suite 225, North Chelmsford, MA.

Phone: (978) 251-9395 Fax: (978) 251-9396

Boring No:

GTR Project Number:

Project Name:

Location:

BB-13 Project No:

21.262

Peabody Independence Greenway Peabody - MA

Driller:

Start Date:

Steve Desimone 10/18/2021

Gnd Surface Elev (ft):

Location:

Note:

Helper(s):

End Date:

~+74.48'

3024083.4120 N , 794577.8863 E

Mobile AD-2 Track Rig / Automatic Hammer

No.

Pen/ Rcvy

S-1A 24/12 S-1B

S-2

S-3

S-4

10 S-5

S-6

24/4

24/4

24/8

24/11

S-7A 24/15 S-7B S-8A 24/16 S-8B

S-9 24/9 20-22 6 - 9

15 - 12

S-10 24/16 25-27 27 - 25

29 - 18

M.Dense, brown GRAVEL and f-c SAND, some Silt.

SAND AND

GRAVEL

V.Dense, gray, GRAVEL and f-m SAND, trace Silt

Bottom of boring at 28' feet below ground surface with roller bit refusal

NOTES:

1. 2 1/4" augers were used in the upper 14 feet of the boring.

2. Approximately 7" of Forest Mat

28'

4-6

6-8

8-10

10-11

12-13 13-14

14-14.5 14.5-16

24/11

Depth (El.)

0-1 1-2

2-4

Blows per 6in

4-3 3-3

4 - 5 4 - 5 1 - 2 3 - 2 1 - 1 3 - 3 2 - 2 3 - 3 1 - 1 2 - 2 2 - 2 1 - 4 8 - 9

11 - 9

Field Test

Sean Pfiztener 10/18/2021

Equipment Type

Size I.D.

Hammer Wt.

Hammer Fall

Sample Data Description and Classification

S-1A- Loose, dark brown, fine SAND, some Organic Silt, trace roots S-1B- Loose, brown f-c SAND, trace Gravel, trace Silt Dry, loose, brown , f-c SAND, little Gravel, trace Silt

Dry, loose , brown , f-m SAND, trace Silt

Dry, loose, brown, f-c SAND , trace Gravel,trace Silt.

Dry, loose, brown, f-c SAND , trace Gravel,trace Silt.

Moist, v. loose, brown, f-c SAND, trace Gravel,trace Silt.

7A-V. Loose, brown, f-c SAND, trace Gravel, trace Silt.

7B-Soft,black, Amorphous PEAT 8A-Soft,black, Amorphous PEAT 8B - M. Dense, brown, Gravel and f-c SAND, trace Silt

PEAT

16'

13' 2

GTR Rep:

Chk'd By:

Drilling Company:

Casing Sampler

HW

3"

300 lb 30"

SS

1.375" 140 lb

30"

Core

P. Dion C.George Carr-Dee

Groundwater Depth (ft) Date

18-Oct

Time Water Casing Hole

EOD 13

Stratum Description

FOREST MAT

7"

Additional Data

1,2

PG 1 of 1

GRANULAR

FILL

Order of Sample Description (Modified Burmister)

1. Moisture Content: Dry, Moist, Wet

2. Soil Relative Density or Consistency

3. Color

PENETRATION RESISTANCE (N) GUIDE

Cohesionless Soils (Sands)

Relative Density / Blows per Foot

4. Major Component: Should be capitalized

5. Minor Component: "and" - 35% to 50% minor grain size

"some" - 20% to 35% minor grain size "little" - 10% to 20% minor grain size "trace" - < 10% of minor grain size

Very Loose >> Loose

0 - 4 >> 4 - 10

Medium Dense >> 10 - 30 Dense >> 30 - 50

Very Dense >> Over 50

Cohesive Soils (Clays) Consistency / Blows per Foot Very Soft >> Below 2

Soft >> 2 - 4 Medium Stiff >> 4 - 8

Stiff >> 8 - 15 Very Stiff >> 15 - 30

Hard >> Over 30

D ep th

C as e

BP

F

N ot es

FED. AID PROJ. NO. SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETSSTATE

MA

PROJECT FILE NO.

_B

R 4-

9( P0

).D W

G 6-

Ja n-

1:

A

M Pl ot te d on

BORING LOGS 1 OF 6

610544

161 247

INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY

PEABODY

F

O U

R

TH

S

TR

U C

TU

R

AL

S

U

BM

IT

TA

L

JA

N

U

AR

Y-

A00881 - 28

Phone: (978) 251-9395 Fax: (978) 251-9396

Boring No:

GTR Project Number:

Project Name:

Location:

BB-3 Project No:

21.262

Peabody Independence Greenway Peabody , MA

Driller:

Start Date:

Steve…