B08_Attach_1-Specifications_FODO_253278_Final.pdf

FORT DONELSON NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD

DOVER, TENNESSEE

REHABILITATE VISITOR CENTER

FORT DONELSON NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD

PMIS NO. 253278

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DENVER SERVICE CENTER

FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

June 1, 2021

FODO - 253278 00 01 10 - 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

DIVISION 00 -- PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 01 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIFICATIONS

DIVISION 01 -- GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 11 00 - SUMMARY OF WORK

01 11 00A - SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT

01 26 01 - CONTRACT MODIFICATION PROCEDURES

01 27 00 – DEFINITION OF CONTRACT LINE ITEMS

01 31 00 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

01 32 16 - CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

01 32 33 - PHOTO DOCUMENTATION

01 33 23 - SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 23A - SUBMITTAL LIST

01 33 23B – PRIORITIZED LIST OF SUBMITTALS

01 35 13.22 – ARCHEOLOGICAL PROTECTION

01 35 23 - SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 35 91 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION TREATMENT PROCEDURES

01 40 00 - QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

01 40 00A - STATEMENT OF STRUCTURAL TESTS AND SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 42 00 - REFERENCE STANDARDS

01 50 00 - TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19.11 - INDOOR AIR QUALITY

01 57 19.12 - NOISE AND ACOUSTICS MANAGEMENT

01 57 23 - UNDER AN ACRE POLLUTION PREVENTION

01 67 00 - PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS

01 73 29 - CUTTING AND PATCHING

01 73 40 - EXECUTION

01 74 19 - CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT

01 74 19_WASTEMGMT_APPXA_3-14-14

01 74 19_WASTEMGMT_APPXB_3-14-14

01 77 00 - CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES

01 77 00A - CLOSEOUT - O&M LIST

01 78 23 - O&M DATA

01 81 13 - SUSTAINABLE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-LEED PROJECTS

FODO - 253278 00 01 10 - 2

01 91 00 - COMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS

DIVISION 02 -- EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 - SELECTIVE DEMOLITION

DIVISION 03 -- CONCRETE

03 30 00 - CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 30 55 - CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE - SITE

DIVISION 04 -- MASONRY

04 03 23 - HISTORIC BRICK UNIT MASONRY REPOINTING AND REPAIR

04 20 00 - UNIT MASONRY

DIVISION 05 -- METALS

05 03 71 - HISTORIC METAL CLEANING

05 12 00 - STRUCTURAL STEEL

05 30 10 - STEEL DECK

05 40 00 - COLD-FORMED STEEL FRAMING

05 50 00 - METAL FABRICATIONS

05 52 13 - PIPE AND TUBE RAILINGS

05 73 00 - DECORATIVE METAL RAILINGS

DIVISION 06 -- WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 - ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 20 00 - FINISH CARPENTRY

06 41 00 - ARCHITECTURAL WOOD CASEWORK

DIVISION 07 -- THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 13 00 - SHEET WATERPROOFING

07 21 00 - THERMAL INSULATION

07 25 00 - WEATHER BARRIERS

07 54 23 - THERMOPLASTIC POLYOLEFIN (TPO) MEMBRANE ROOFING

07 62 00 - SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM

07 84 00 – FIRESTOPPING

07 92 00 - JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 -- OPENINGS

08 11 13 - HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 14 16 - FLUSH WOOD DOORS

08 31 00 - ACCESS DOORS AND PANELS

FODO - 253278 00 01 10 - 3

08 43 13 - ALUMINUM-FRAMED STOREFRONTS

08 43 13.01 – ALUMINUM-FRAMES STOREFRONTS – STOREFRONT REPAIR

08 44 13 - GLAZED ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALLS

08 71 00 - DOOR HARDWARE

08 80 00 – GLAZING

08 80 00.01 – GLAZING – STOREFRONT REPAIR

08 91 00 - LOUVERS

DIVISION 09 -- FINISHES

09 03 20 - HISTORIC TREATMENT OF PLASTER

09 21 16 - GYPSUM BOARD ASSEMBLIES

09 21 16.23 - GYPSUM BOARD SHAFT WALL ASSEMBLIES

09 22 16 - NON-STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING

09 26 13 - GYPSUM VENEER PLASTERING

09 30 00 - TILING

09 65 00 - RESILIENT FLOORING

09 68 13 - TILE CARPETING

09 84 30 - SOUND-ABSORBING WALL AND CEILING UNITS

09 91 13 - EXTERIOR PAINTING

09 91 23 - INTERIOR PAINTING

09 96 00 - HIGH-PERFORMANCE COATINGS

DIVISION 10 -- SPECIALTIES

10 21 13.13 - METAL TOILET COMPARTMENTS

10 28 00 - TOILET, BATH, AND LAUNDRY ACCESSORIES

10 44 00 - FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALTIES

DIVISION 11 -- EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

DIVISION 12 -- FURNISHINGS (NOT USED)

DIVISION 13 -- SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION (NOT USED)

DIVISION 14 -- CONVEYING EQUIPMENT

14 24 00 - HYDRAULIC ELEVATORS

DIVISION 21 -- FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 13 00 - FIRE-SUPPRESSION

DIVISION 22 -- PLUMBING

FODO - 253278 00 01 10 - 4

22 08 00 - PLUMBING SYSTEMS COMMISSIOING

22 11 29 - PLUMBING SYSTEMS PUMPS

22 34 00 - DOMESTIC WATER HEATERS

22 40 00 - PLUMBING FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 23 -- HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 05 00 - BASIC MECHINCAL MATERIALS & METHODS

23 05 93 - TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 07 00 - MECHANICAL INSULATION

23 08 00 - HVAC SYSTEM COMMISSIONING

23 20 00 - BUILDING SERVICES PIPING

23 31 13 - DUCTS & DUCT ACCESSORIES

23 34 16 - FANS

23 37 13 - AIR OUTLETS & INLETS

23 70 00 - HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

23 72 13 - ENERGY RECOVERY EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 26 -- ELECTRICAL

26 00 50 - COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL

26 05 19 - LOW-VOLTAQGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES

26 05 26 - GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 29 - HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 33 - RACEWAYS AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 43 - UNDERGROUND DUCTS AND RACEWAYS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 44 - SLEEVES AND SLEEVE SEALS FOR ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS AND CABLING

26 05 48 - SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR ELECTRICAL DEVICES

26 05 53 - IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 72 - OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICE SHORT-CIRCUIT STUDY

26 05 74 - ARC-FLASH HAZARD ANALYSIS

26 09 23 - LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES

26 24 16 - PANELBOARDS

26 27 13 - ELECTRICITY METERING

26 27 26 - WIRING DEVICES

26 28 13 - FUSES

26 28 16 - ENCLOSED SWITCHES AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS

26 28 20 - ELEVATOR SHUNT-TRIP FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCHES

26 32 13.16 - GASEOUS EMERGENCY ENGINE GENERATORS

26 36 00 - TRANSFER SWITCHES

26 43 13 - SURGE PROTECTION FOR LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CIRCUITS

FODO - 253278 00 01 10 - 5

26 51 00 - LED INTERIOR LIGHTING

26 52 13 - EMERGENCY LIGHTING

DIVISION 27 – COMMUNICATIONS

27 05 26 - GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

27 05 28 - PATHWAYS FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

27 05 29 - HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

27 11 16 - COMMUNICATIONS RACKS, FRAMES, AND ENCLOSURES

27 15 13 - COMMUNICATIONS COPPER HORIZONTAL CABLING

27 51 30 – AREA OF REFUGE 2-WAY AV COMMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

DIVISION 28 -- ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 31 11 - ADDRESSABLE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

DIVISION 31 -- EARTHWORK

31 23 33 - UTILITY TRENCHING AND BACKFILLING

31 25 00 - EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS

DIVISION 32 -- EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 12 15 - TRENCH REPAIR ASPHALT PAVING

32 17 23 - PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 92 20 - SEEDING

DIVISION 33 -- UTILITIES

33 10 00 - WATER UTILITIES

33 40 00 - STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES

3 40 20 - WARNING AND TRACER TAPE

DIVISION 46 -- WATER AND WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

END OF SECTION

FODO - 253278 01 11 00 - 1

091015 SUMMARY OF WORK

SECTION 01 11 00 - SUMMARY OF WORK

PART 1 - GENERAL

1.1 SUMMARY

A. This Section includes the following:

1. Work covered by the Contract Documents.

2. Contractor Use of Site.

3. Public use of site.

4. Conduct of Operations.

5. Work Restrictions.

6. Soils Investigation Report.

7. Additional Reports.

1.2 WORK COVERED BY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

A. Project Location: Fort Donelson National Battlefield - Dover, Tennessee.

B. The Work consists of full renovation of the currently closed Visitor Center building to allow it to reopen to public and visitation. It also includes, as a separate bid option, removing existing vinyl weathering from existing-to-remain storefront window systems, installation of new seals, and re-installation of salvaged glass to form a complete weathertight assembly.

C. Project will be constructed under a single prime contract.

1.3 CONTRACTOR USE OF SITE

A. General: Contractor shall have full use of the site for construction operations during the construction period. Contractor's use of the site is limited only by the Government's right to perform work or to retain other contractors on portions of Project.

B. Storage of Materials: Confine storage of materials to areas of the existing Visitor Center parking lot and surrounding site as designated by the Contracting Officer. Submit for Contracting Officer approval a plan showing proposed staging and storage areas.

C. Preservation of Natural Features:

1. Prevent damage to natural surroundings. Restore damaged areas, repairing or replacing damaged trees and plants, at no additional expense to the Government.

2. Provide temporary barriers to protect existing trees and plants and root zones.

3. Do not remove, injure, or destroy trees or other plants without prior approval. Consult with

Contracting Officer and remove agreed-on roots and branches that interfere with construction.

4. Do not fasten ropes, cables, or guys to existing trees.

FODO - 253278 01 11 00 - 2

5. Carefully supervise excavating, grading, filling, and other construction operations near trees to prevent damage.

D. Driveways and Entrances: Except where specifically designated otherwise in writing by the

Contracting Officer, keep driveways, parking areas, and entrances serving premises clear and available to Government, Government's employees, and emergency vehicles at all times. Do not use these areas for parking or storage of materials.

1. Schedule deliveries to minimize use of driveways and entrances.

2. Schedule deliveries to minimize space and time requirements for storage of materials and equipment on-site.

E. Construction Camp: Establishment of a camp within the park will not be permitted.

F. Hauling Restrictions: Comply with all legal load restrictions in the hauling of materials. Load restrictions on park roads are identical to the state load restrictions with such additional regulations as may be imposed by the Park Superintendent. Information regarding rules and regulations for vehicular traffic on park roads may be obtained from the Office of the Park Superintendent. A special permit will not relieve Contractor of liability for damage which may result from moving of equipment.

G. Work Requirements (from Sheet C3):

1. Refer to Tennessee Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook: Fourth Edition for all erosion and sediment control specifications.

2. Protect trees that are to remain. Refer to tree protection detail on Sheet C8.

3. Place the excavated trench material upslope of the trench. If necessary to place material downslope, install silt fence down slope prior to excavating the trench.

4. Contractor shall coordinate closely with the Park on construction activity in this area.

Construction fencing shall allow public access to the sidewalk when work in the area is not occurring. Contractor shall minimize the time that the sidewalk is closed to visitor use.

5. Contractor shall coordinate closely with the Park regarding closing of park road and park access road. Contractor shall minimize the time that the road is closed to visitor use.

6. When the final route for the 4-inch sanitary sewer is confirmed, the route and work along the route will be submitted to NPS for review and to ensure that historic earthworks will not be disturbed by activities of this project.

7. See Sheet AS1 for layout of construction fencing.

8. All areas disturbed during construction and not receiving pervious surface shall receive 4” topsoil and permanent seeding.

1.4 PUBLIC USE OF SITE

A. The building will be closed to the public during construction.

1.5 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS

A. At all times the contractor shall conduct operations in conformance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior for the National Park Service, and applicable park rules and regulations prescribed by the Park Superintendent.

FODO - 253278 01 11 00 - 3

B. Submit requests 48 hours in advance of the work to the Contracting Officer for approval for work on

Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Night work may not be performed without prior written consent from the Contracting Officer.

C. No signs or advertisements (except those specified herein) shall be displayed on the construction site or within the park unless approved by the Contracting Officer.

1.6 WORK RESTRICTIONS

A. On-Site Work Hours: Work shall be generally performed during normal business working hours of

7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except when otherwise indicated.

1. Weekend and Federal Holiday Hours: Permitted on a case-by-case basis with 2-week advance written approval from the Contracting Officer.

2. Early Morning Hours: At the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

B. Existing Utilities

1. Existing Utilities: Notify Contracting Officer and utility companies of proposed locations and times for excavation.

2. Contractor shall be responsible for locating and preventing damage to known utilities. If damage occurs, repair utility at no additional expense to the Government.

3. If damage occurs to an unknown utility, repair utility. An equitable adjustment will be made in accordance with the Changes clause of the contract.

C. Existing Utility Interruptions: Do not interrupt utilities serving facilities occupied by Government or others unless permitted under the following conditions and then only after arranging to provide temporary utility services according to requirements indicated:

1. Notify Contracting Officer not less than two days in advance of proposed utility interruptions.

2. Do not proceed with utility interruptions without Contracting Officer’s written permission.

3. Maximum utility outage time shall be 2 hours.

D. Nonsmoking Building: Smoking is not permitted within the building or within 25 feet of the building.

1.7 SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT

A. A soils investigation report entitled “Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical

Engineering Fort Donelson National Battlefield Visitor Center Renovation” dated June 13, 2019 has been prepared by Froehling & Robertson, Inc.

B. A copy of the report is available to all plan holders with this package.

C. If conflicts occur between the report and drawings or specifications, the drawings and specifications govern.

FODO - 253278 01 11 00 - 4

PART 2 - PRODUCTS (Not Used)

PART 3 - EXECUTION (Not Used)

END OF SECTION 01 11 00

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering

Fort Donelson National Battlefield Visitor Center Renovation Fort Donelson Park Road Dover, Tennessee 37058

Prepared For:

GWWO, Inc.

800 Wyman Park Drive, Suite 300

Baltimore, Maryland 21211

June 13, 2019

F&R Project No. 63X-0053

FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.

Engineering Stability Since 1881

3300 International Airport Drive, Suite 600 Charlotte, North Carolina 28208

T 704.596.2889 | F 704.596.3784 NC License #F-0266

Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond, Virginia 23228 T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com

VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

A Minority-Owned Business

GWWO, Inc.

800 Wyman Park Drive, Suite 300 Baltimore, Maryland 21211

Attn: Mr. Brian D. Eschman, AIA, NCARB Associate

Re: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Fort Donelson National Battlefield Visitor Center Renovation Fort Donelson Park Road Dover, Tennessee 37058 F&R Project No. 63X-0053

Dear Mr. Eschman:

The enclosed report presents the results of the subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering evaluation undertaken by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R), in connection with the planned renovation project for the Fort Donelson National Battlefield Visitor Center. Our services were performed in general accordance with F&R Proposal No. 1963-00354G dated February 7, 2019.

This report presents our understanding of the project, reviews our exploration procedures, describes the general subsurface conditions at the boring locations, and presents our evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations. There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical reports. Some of these limitations are discussed in the information prepared by Geoprofessional Business Association

(GBA), provided in the Appendices of this report. We ask that you review the referenced GBA information.

GWWO, Inc. Fort Donelson National Battlefield F&R Project No. 63X-0053 Visitor Center Renovation June 13, 2019

We have enjoyed working with you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further service.

Sincerely, Marving L. Farmer, P.E. Alex B. Robinson, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Branch Manager

MLF/ABR

Email Distribution: beschman@gwwoinc.com

F:\Projects 63X\63X-0053 (GWWO, Inc. - Ft. Donelson National Battlefield Visitor Center)\Report\63X-0053.GEO1 (GWWO - Ft. Donelson Visitor's Center) Report.docx

June 13, 2019

Page i of ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT INFORMATION AND PLANNED CONSTRUCTION

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND CONCRETE EVALUATION

LABORATORY SOIL TESTING

LABORATORY CONCRETE TESTING

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

SURFICIAL MATERIALS

RESIDUAL SOILS

GROUNDWATER DATA

5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL

FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

EXISTING FOUNDATION UNDERPINNING

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE

EXISTING CONCRETE AND STEEL REINFORCEMENT CONSTRUCTION

EXPANSIVE SOIL EVALUATION

CUT AND FILL SLOPES

SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL

ELEVATOR ADDITION AREA PREPARATION

FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION

MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS

STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION

SURFACE WATER CONTROL

EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS

June 13, 2019

Page ii of ii

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

EXCAVATIONS

7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES

8.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1) Test Location Plan (Drawing No. 2) Typical Retaining Wall Detail (Drawing No. 3)

APPENDIX II

Photographs

APPENDIX III

OMI Field Report

APPENDIX IV

Examination of Hardened Concrete Test Report

APPENDIX V

GBA Publication “Important Information about This Geotechnical Engineering Report”

June 13, 2019

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The proposed scope of services from Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R) for the Fort Donelson Visitor

Center Renovation Project on Fort Donelson Park Road in Dover, Tennessee, included the following exploration and geotechnical engineering services:

Task 1 – Site Reconnaissance, Boring Location, and Utility Clearance

An F&R professional engineer visited the project site and observed potential boring locations at the renovation area to be explored. While on-site F&R observed the surrounding areas for evidence of any existing utilities that may potentially be impacted by soil borings. F&R met at the site with members from both the GWWO, Inc., design team and National Park Service. The previous renovation was reviewed by members of the design team for other potential geotechnical exploration that would be necessary at the time of the field testing.

Task 2 – Soil Borings and Field Exploration

Based on the site reconnaissance, outside access to the elevator addition area under construction was limited due to prior open excavation and completion of the concrete walls for the planned addition and elevator pit. F&R determined that a subsurface boring exploration near the exposed foundations for the concrete walls and elevator pit using hand auger probes and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing would be the best approach to provide data for F&R’s evaluation of the existing soil conditions in the area of the renovation.

Existing soil conditions were to be evaluated for suitable building support using shallow foundation systems. F&R estimated that six soil test probes near existing foundation locations would provide needed data for shallow foundation bearing capacity evaluation.

Field exploration also included obtaining information on the condition of the existing concrete. Two cores of both the concrete foundations and walls were planned to be retrieved for laboratory testing.

F&R also planned for the collection of a bulk soil sample of stockpiled excavated material for additional laboratory testing to determine the suitability for reuse of the excavated material as structural fill.

June 13, 2019

Task 3 – Laboratory Testing

Three laboratory classification tests including water content determinations (ASTM D2216), gradation of soils using sieve analysis (ASTM D6913), and Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318) were performed to confirm our visual observations. Also, one sample of the onsite soil stockpile was collected for classification testing in addition to a standard Proctor maximum dry density test (ASTM D698) to determine the suitability for reuse of the material.

Laboratory analyses for each concrete core was performed for unconfined compressive strength

(ASTM C42) and concrete condition evaluation by petrographic examination (ASTM C856).

Task 4 –Geotechnical Evaluations and Report

F&R performed our geotechnical engineering evaluations to provide the following:

Description of the existing site subsurface conditions in the renovation area;

Description of the encountered groundwater conditions;

Geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction;

Recommendations for site preparation and resumption of earthwork activities;

Recommendations for quality assurance and materials testing.

This geotechnical report includes the results of the site visits, evaluations, copies of the boring logs, generalized subsurface profile, and laboratory test results.

Our scope of services did not include topographic or field surveying, development of quantity estimates, preparation of plans and specifications, or an environmental site assessment.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Information and Planned Construction

The project consists of an assessment of the existing Fort Donelson Visitor Center at the Fort Donelson

National Battlefield in Dover, Tennessee, as shown on the Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1) included in Appendix I. The Visitor Center was originally constructed in 1962 with partial renovations being performed in 2016 as part of a design-build project. The project was abandoned in 2017 when the contractor went bankrupt, leaving the project incomplete.

June 13, 2019

Most of the demolition for the project had been completed and some new construction was started prior to demobilization. New construction that started included the concrete walls and elevator pit for the planned new elevator addition shown on the Test Location Plan (Drawing No. 2) included in

Appendix I. Foundations and bearing soil in the area of the existing building and elevator addition have remained exposed for over 2 years.

After bankruptcy of the contractor, a new design team led by GWWO, Inc. (GWWO) was selected by the National Park Service to complete the renovation design. As part of the new design team, Faisant

Associates, Inc. (FAI) visited the site in February 2019, to perform an initial structural assessment.

Results of the assessment were provided to the design team by FAI in their Structural Condition

Assessment Report dated February 5, 2019. F&R was retained by GWWO to provide geotechnical investigation and recommendations related to the soil conditions and new foundations that have been left exposed, the undermined condition of existing building foundations, and the condition of the concrete for the new foundations and walls that were constructed.

F&R’s exploration involved the new foundations, basement level foundation walls, elevator pit, and ramps for a new elevator addition on the east side of the Visitor Center. The elevator addition and ramps are being constructed to provide access to the basement, entry, and upper levels of the Visitor

Center. Photographs of the construction area and Visitor Center at the time of F&R’s exploration are provided in Appendix II.

The project is currently in the new design stages of the project and final plans detailing the finished construction are not available. However, new construction is anticipated to resemble the construction of the existing building, which is a steel framed structure supported by a system of shallow foundation with cast-in-place foundation walls and a brick veneer.

Based on the assumed type of construction for the elevator addition, F&R has assumed a maximum column load of 100 kips and a typical continuous foundation load of 5 kips per linear foot for our evaluations.

If the actual loads and provided information differ from that presented within this report, F&R should be notified to determine if modifications to our recommendations are warranted.

Site Location and Description

The project site is located on the east side of Fort Donelson Park Road about 550 feet from the entrance to Fort Donelson National Battlefield off Donelson Parkway near Dover, Stewart County, Tennessee. At

June 13, 2019 the time of our fieldwork, the Visitor Center was surrounded by construction fencing and closed to visitors to the park.

Based on provided information, the topography at the site generally slopes down from the entry level at the parking lot at about elevation (EL) 560 towards the east and back of the building to about EL 550.

The land immediately surrounding the building is grassed.

3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Subsurface Exploration and Concrete Evaluation

The initial site visit was performed by F&R on April 17, 2019, with other members of the GWWO design team. During this initial site visit, F&R observed site access restrictions, existing soil conditions, and derived an approach to gather the needed data for our geotechnical and concrete evaluations. Based on this site visit, it was determined to place six hand auger borings (B-1 through B-6) near the ramp and wall foundations.

To evaluate the condition of the concrete, two concrete cores from both the concrete foundation (F-1 and F-2) and the wall (W-1 and W-2) would be retrieved. Test locations are identified on the Test

Location Plan, Drawing No. 2, included in Appendix II.

A bulk soil sample from the onsite stockpile for determination of reuse of the soil as suitable backfill was planned. The soil sample was designated as P-1 and to be collected from stockpile on the east end of the building just outside the basement level offices. The stockpile material was generated from the excavation of the new elevator pit.

OMI, Inc. (OMI) of Huntsville, Alabama, under subcontract with F&R, on May 16 and 17, 2019, performed the subsurface exploration program, concrete coring, and bulk soil collection. Dynamic

Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed at varying depth intervals within each hand auger probe boring to determine the consistency of the soil underlying the exposed foundations. DCP testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Publication STP 399, Dynamic Cone for Shallow In-

Situ Penetration Testing.

Soil samples for laboratory analyses were obtained from the hand auger bucket at each boring location and placed in sealed plastic containers and returned to the OMI laboratory for review. The number of blows required to drive the cone penetrometer each 1¾-inch increment was recorded by OMI on their boring logs included with their field report in Appendix III. The recovered soil samples were visually

June 13, 2019 classified by OMI engineers in general accordance with the ASTM D2488. Note that the OMI designation for the hand auger boring locations are TP-1 through TP-6, correspond to F&R’s hand auger boring designations of B-1 through B-6.

Concrete foundation and wall cores were collected in general accordance with ASTM C42, Standard

Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete.

Laboratory Soil Testing

For geotechnical considerations, select soil samples from three of the soil test borings were subjected to laboratory classification testing. This testing included water content determinations (ASTM D2216), gradation of soils using sieve analysis (ASTM D6913), and Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318). Based on the results of these tests, the soil samples were then classified in general accordance with Unified Soil

Classification System (ASTM D2487).

The results of the laboratory test are summarized in Table 3.2.1 with complete results presented in the

OMI report in Appendix III.

Table 3.2.1- Soil Classification Test Summary

Boring No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

Water Content

Finer than

No. 200 Sieve

Atterberg Limits USCS Classification

L.L. P.L. P.I.

B-3 1.2 26 74.1 42 19 23 CL

B-4 1.6 25 62.8 45 18 27 CL

B-5 1.3 28 54.1 49 18 31 CL

The sample of the onsite soil stockpile was also analyzed for its standard Proctor maximum dry density

(SPMDD) and Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) by ASTM D698.

Table 3.2.2- Soil Proctor Results

Sample No.

SPMDD

(pcf)

OMC

P-1 105.4 19.3

June 13, 2019

Laboratory Concrete Testing

Compressive strength testing of the concrete foundation and wall cores was performed in general accordance with ASTM C42, Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed

Beams of Concrete. Compressive strength results for the cores test are summarized in Table 3.3.2.

Table 3.3.1- Core Compressive Strength Summary

Core Compressive Strength (psi)

W-1 7,380

W-2 7,140

F-1 7,780

F-2 7,980

Petrographic examination of each core was performed in general accordance with ASTM C856, Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete. Petrographic examination performed on each core indicated that:

The concrete was hard and compact.

The coarse aggregate was about ½-inch nominal diameter, well distributed, in good condition and did not show darkened rims associated with weathering or chemical activity; did not show evidence of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) and; the paste and aggregate bond was tight.

The fine aggregate displayed tight bond and good overall distribution.

The paste was hard and suggests a water to cement ration of 0.38 to 0.50. Slag was not observed to have been used in the concrete.

The concrete is air entrained with a content estimated to be 5% to 8% by volume in the wall cores and 6% to 9% by volume in the foundation cores.

Complete laboratory compressive strength and petrographic test results are presented in Appendix IV.

June 13, 2019

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the attached boring logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the field and laboratory data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments.

The following subsurface profile for the project stratigraphy has been prepared for convenience only.

Given the spacing between hand auger probe locations, it is possible that subsurface conditions may vary between each hand auger probe location. Strata breaks designated on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries between soil types. The transitions between different soil strata are usually less distinct than those shown on the boring logs. Although individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times. Subsurface data obtained by the soil borings is presented on the following Composite Subsurface Profile.

Figure 4.1.1 – Composite Subsurface Profile – North to South

Composite Profile Notes

Stratum I: Residuum, Firm the Very Stiff, Tan, Sandy Gravelly Clay (CL) moist.

June 13, 2019

Regional Geology

The project site is located in the northwestern edge of the Highland Rim physiographic province. The

Highland Rim is the largest physiographic province in Tennessee extending from the Tennessee River in the west to the western escarpment of the Cumberland Plateau in the east. A large part of the

Highland Rim’s center has been eroded out by the Cumberland River, forming the large, oval-shaped

Central Basin. The presence of Central basin, as well as the Highland Rim being relatively narrow in the State’s north and south borders, has led to the dividing of the Highland Rim into western and eastern divisions. The Western Highland Rim is the larger of the two divisions , varying from about 25 to 45 miles in width and consists of rolling terrain heavily dissected by stream erosion. Elevations on the Western Highland Rim’s tableland range from 800 to 1000 feet, while relief varies from 100 to 200 feet.

According to the Geologic Map of Tennessee (1966), the project site is underlain by the St. Louis

Limestone formation of the Mississippian period. St. Louis Limestone is described as fine grained, brownish-gray limestone, dolomitic and cherty.

The typical shallow residual soil profile consists of fine-grained cherty soil weathered from the parent limestone. Soils are generally described as pale brown cherty silty soil near the surface to yellowish-red cherty silty clay soil within a short depth from the surface.

Generalized Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface data obtained from the soil borings are discussed in the following paragraphs. The complete boring logs are presented in the OMI report in Appendix III.

Surficial Materials

As identified during the site visits, a 6- to 12-inch thick layer of leaves, sediment and soft soil were observed to exist in the bottom of the excavation, between foundation locations, both inside and outside the elevator addition. This layer of surficial material is generally unsuitable for engineering purposes. F&R has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic content or other horticultural properties of the observed surficial soil materials. Therefore, the term surficial soil is not intended to indicate suitability for landscaping and or other purposes.

The surficial soil depth provided in this report is based on visual observations and should be considered approximate. We note that the transition from surficial soil to underlying materials may be gradual

June 13, 2019 and, therefore, the observation and measurement of surficial soil is subjective. Actual surficial soil depths should be expected to vary across the site.

Residual Soils

Residual soils, formed by the in-place weathering of parent rock, were encountered at each of the hand auger probe borings. In general, below the soft surficial material, the residual soil consists of firm to very stiff, sandy gravelly Clay (CL). DCP values in the residual soils varied across the site and ranged from 8 to 38 blows. The hand auger probes were advanced as deep as possible by hand at each location and ranged from a shallow depth of 2 feet below the existing surface at boring B-4, to 5 feet below the existing surface at boring B-5. The depth of the hand auger probes was limited due to the high chert gravel content in the soil.

Groundwater Data

Standing water was pumped out of the elevator addition excavation and elevator pit in order for observations to be made and the hand auger probes to be performed. Groundwater was not observed to be flowing into the excavation after being pumped. The true groundwater elevation is estimated to be several feet deeper than our deepest hand auger probe.

After pumping, groundwater was encountered during drilling within a few inches of the exposed surface elevation at each hand auger probe location. The encountered groundwater was judged to be a perched groundwater condition that will dissipate and fluctuate depending on site drainage and precipitation events.

Actual groundwater levels fluctuate with seasonal changes, periods of heavy rainfall, drought and other factors. Therefore, our evaluations of the groundwater level do not reveal the actual year-round groundwater conditions.

June 13, 2019

5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

General

The following findings and recommendations are based on our observations at the site, interpretation of the field and laboratory data obtained during our subsurface exploration, and our experience with similar subsurface conditions and projects. Soil penetration data have been used to evaluate the subsurface conditions based on established correlations. Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered.

The subsurface exploration aids the geotechnical engineer in determining the soil stratum and conditions for appropriate structural support. This determination includes considerations with regard to both allowable bearing capacity and compressibility of the soil strata. Since the method of construction greatly affects the soils intended for structural support, consideration must also be given to the implementation of suitable methods of site preparation, fill compaction, and other aspects of construction. Please refer to the Construction Recommendations included in Section 6 of this report.

Foundation Design Recommendations

Based on the available project information and our evaluations, structures bearing in approved Stratum I and where they currently are bearing, or compacted structural fill placed in accordance with requirements in Section 6, may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system.

We recommend that wall and column shallow foundations be designed for a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf), for foundations bearing in approved subgrade soils. Continuous wall foundations should have a minimum width of 24 inches and column foundations should have a minimum width of 24 inches to reduce the possibility of a “punching” shear failure. The structural elements should be centered on the foundations to provide uniform load transfer, unless the foundations are proportioned for eccentric loads.

A friction coefficient against sliding of 0.35 may be used between mass concrete and soil.

Shallow, lightly loaded foundations should bear at a depth of 18 to 24 inches below the finish exterior site grades to lessen the potential for damage from frost penetration, and for bearing capacity considerations.

June 13, 2019

Existing Foundation Underpinning

Foundations for the existing building where excavation has occurred for the elevator addition were observed to be undermined in some locations. Undermining appeared to be sloughing of soil into the excavation as shown in photographs in the OMI Field Report included in Appendix III. After removal of surficial material from the excavation and partial backfilling of excavations to near the bottom of existing foundations, underpinning of the existing foundations using flowable fill should be performed.

The sides of the foundations may be formed by either earth fill or formwork to allow flowable fill to be used and flow under the existing foundations where soil has sloughed from below the foundation location.

Flowable fill should have a 6-inch slump, ±1-inch, and an unconfined compressive strength of at least

1,000 psi. The fill should be placed to flow freely under the foundation locations being underpinned and vibrated in-place to remove trapped air bubbles and to fill voids.

Lateral Earth Pressures

Earth pressures on retaining and below grade walls are influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and or compaction, and the strength of the materials being restrained. The most common conditions assumed for earth retaining wall design are the active and at-rest conditions. Active conditions apply to relatively flexible earth retention structures, such as freestanding walls, where some movement and rotation may occur to mobilize soil shear strength. Walls that are rigidly restrained, such as expected for wet well and elevator pit walls, require design using at-rest earth pressures.

A third condition, the passive state, represents the maximum possible pressure when a structure is pushed against the soil, and is used in wall foundation design to help resist active or at-rest pressures.

Because significant wall movements are required to develop the passive pressure, the total calculated passive pressure should be reduced by one-half to two-thirds for design purposes.

A granular material such as No. 57 or 67 crushed aggregate should be used for backfill behind retaining and the below grade walls. This material should meet the requirements for controlled structural fill, as outlined in Section 6 of this report.

A moist unit weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot and angle of internal friction of 35° should be used for design calculations for below grade walls backfilled with approved granular materials. Based on these values, recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid pressure

June 13, 2019 parameters for design of below grade walls using controlled structural fill as backfill are provided in the following Table 5.4.1.

Table 5.4.1 - Lateral Earth Pressure Design Data Backfill / Controlled Structural Fill

Earth Pressure

Conditions Coefficient

Recommended Equivalent Fluid

Pressure - Drained (psf/ft)1

Fully Submerged Equivalent Fluid

Pressures (psf/ft)1

Active (ka) 0.27 35 81

At-Rest(ko) 0.43 55 91

Passive (kp) 3.70 480 --

N NOTE: 1 – does not include a factor of safety.

An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the recommended equivalent fluid pressures for retaining and below grade wall design.

Foundation drains for retaining and below grade walls should be used, unless the wall is appropriately designed for a non-drained condition, and the drains designed to “daylight” to a suitable location or to a sump location for removal. The foundation drains will provide continuous drainage and prevent hydrostatic pressure build-up behind retaining and below grade walls. A typical retaining wall foundation drain and backfill are shown on Drawing No. 3 in Appendix II.

If heavy equipment, foundations or other surcharge loads are located a short distance from the edge of retaining and below grade walls, they may also exert appreciable additional lateral pressures. As a result, the below grade walls should be designed for a uniform lateral pressure acting over the full height of the wall calculated on the basis of 0.6 times the surcharge pressure in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure recommended in Table 5.4.1.

Concrete Slabs-On-Grade

Concrete slabs not structurally supported as part of the building may be placed on properly compacted controlled structural fill over an approved soil subgrade following subgrade preparation as discussed in Section 6. A standard modulus of subgrade reaction (“k”) of 150 pounds per square inch per inch

(psi/in) may be used for the design of the slabs-on-grade. Slabs should be structurally isolated (float freely) from the foundations to allow for differential movement between the slabs and the structure.

June 13, 2019

A six-inch thick layer of open graded coarse aggregate such as No. 57 or No. 67 should be placed beneath the floor slab. This granular base would function as a leveling and load distributing material as well as a capillary break beneath the slab.

A vapor retarder should be used beneath slabs that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable coatings, or if other moisture-sensitive equipment or materials will be in contact with the slab.

However, the use of vapor retarders may result in excessive curling of concrete slabs during curing.

We refer the concrete slab designer to ACI 302.1R-04, Sections 4.1.5 and 11.11, for further discussion on vapor retarders, curling, and the means to lessen potential concrete shrinkage and curling.

Proper jointing of the concrete slabs-on-grade is also essential to reduce cracking. ACI suggests that unreinforced, plain concrete slabs may be jointed at spacing of 24 to 36 times the slab thickness, up to a maximum spacing of 15 feet. Slab construction should incorporate isolation joints along walls and column locations to allow minor movements to occur without damage. Utility or other construction excavations in the prepared subgrade should be backfilled to a controlled fill criterion to provide uniform support.

Existing Concrete and Steel Reinforcement Construction

Existing concrete construction for the elevator addition has been left uncovered and exposed to the elements for an extended period. As such, the surfaces of the concrete are covered with sediment.

Concrete surfaces are to be pressure washed to remove sediment and be cleaned before being constructed upon.

Steel reinforcement that has been left exposed is rusted. Steel reinforcement is to be wire brushed to remove loose rust and scale prior to additional reinforcement being lapped and tied and enclosed in new formwork. If cleaned steel reinforcement is to be left exposed for an extended period, the reinforcement should be coated with a non-permanent rust inhibitor compatible with new concrete to be placed.

Expansive Soil Evaluation

The existing subgrade soils encountered by the soil test borings were evaluated for shrink-swell

(expansion) potential within the active zone, which typically extends to a depth of approximately three feet below the ground surface in the region of the proposed site.

June 13, 2019

The existing soils within the active zone were found to be sandy gravelly Clay (CL) in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Based on correlations provided in geotechnical literature, the soil within the active zone is judged to have low potential for shrink-swell activity.

Cut and Fill Slopes

F&R recommends designing any permanent project slopes at 3H:1V or flatter. The tops of slopes should be located a minimum of 10 feet from structural limits. If steeper slopes are planned, F&R should be contacted during early grading plan development to perform slope stability analyses prior to finalizing the grading plans. It is F&R’s opinion that 3H:1V slopes will be stable from a slope stability standpoint provided the fill slopes are constructed of properly compacted and tested structural fill. It is assumed that embankment slopes will not exceed 10 to 12 feet in height. However, seepage and surface runoff may cause the slopes to slough and erode resulting in shallow surface failures.

The slopes should be vegetated as soon as possible to minimize surface sloughing and erosion. A swale or shallow ditch should be constructed near the tops of slopes to prevent surface water from flowing onto the slopes. We recommend that all cut and fill slopes be observed by a geotechnical engineer or his representative during construction. Additional slope drainage and protection measures may be required in certain areas depending upon conditions observed at the time of slope construction.

Seismic Design Criteria

The seismic soil site class evaluation presented herein reference American Society of Civil Engineers

(ASCE) 7-10 as specified by Section 1613.3.2 of the International Building Code (IBC) 2015. Chapter

20.1 of ASCE 7-10 entails an evaluation of the top 100 feet of the subsurface soil profile in order to determine the seismic site class. A 100-foot deep boring or a seismic shear wave velocity study were not proposed or performed for this project.

ASCE 7-10 states that when soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to a depth of 100 feet, a

Site Class D shall be used unless the authority having jurisdiction or geotechnical data determine Site

Class E or F soils are present.

The soil borings for this project were terminated at shallow depths due to the soil type encountered and its very stiff consistency. Subsurface conditions requiring a Site Class E were not observed or judged to be applicable to this site location from review of readily available published information;

therefore, a Site Class D is recommended for this project site.

June 13, 2019

F&R notes that the recommended Site Class is based on information available at the time this report was written. If this classification should be so onerous to the project cost that further study is warranted, we can perform a site-specific geo-physical survey to attain sufficient detail to further define the project’s seismic Site Class definition. This additional testing would be beyond the currently authorized scope of services for this project.

6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

General

The principal purpose of this section is to comment in general on the items related to earthwork and associated geotechnical engineering aspects of construction that should be expected for this project.

It is recommended that F&R’s geotechnical engineer be retained to provide soil-engineering services during the construction phases of the project and perform appropriate evaluations to help assure that conditions encountered during construction are similar to conditions observed and encountered in the borings. The geotechnical engineer can also assist in interpretation of differing subsurface conditions that may be encountered and recommend remedial work, if needed.

Elevator Addition Area Preparation

Surficial, loose material in the elevator addition are to be removed before backfilling around and between existing concrete construction. After the surficial material is removed and prior to backfill being placed, the exposed subgrade surface should be densified using hand guided trench rollers or compactors. Depressions or low areas resulting from surficial material removal operations should be backfilled with approved structural fill and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report.

We recommend area preparation be monitored by the geotechnical engineer or his representative to verify that the recommendations presented herein are implemented.

Foundation Construction

For new foundation construction and to document suitable bearing within the new foundation excavation, we recommend that the near-surface bearing soils be evaluated by performing hand auger borings with DCP testing equipment or other suitable methods prior to foundation installation. Any unsuitable soils detected during this evaluation should be undercut and remediated as directed by the

June 13, 2019 geotechnical engineer. Depending on final design grades, some localized undercutting and or recompaction should be anticipated.

We recommend that foundations be concreted as soon after the evaluation as possible to minimize the potential disturbance of the bearing soils. If the foundation excavation subgrade soils must remain exposed for an extended period or during inclement weather, we recommend that a 2- to 4-inch thick

“mud-mat” of lean concrete be placed on the bearing soils, taking care to maintain the required thickness of foundation concrete and the design top of footing elevation.

The foundation bearing area should be free of any very loose or soft material, standing water, and debris at the time of concrete placement. Concrete should not be placed on soils that have been softened by precipitation or frost heave.