Geotechnical Memo.pdf

Page 1 of 12 Pages

Form FHWA-201 (Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA- 121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1) cc: Geotech, TS Reading, Highway Design (S. N.), Hydraulics (B.B.), All w/ attachment

M:\Projects\fs\tn\100(1)_364(1)\techserv\geotech\Design Analysis\Memo ERFO KY-TN.docx

SUBJECT: ERFO/KY FSR-166(1), 203(1), ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364(1)

Geotechnical Recommendations for Culverts Replacement and Embankment Reconstruction

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

Y. Kirtley Project Manager

Through:

A. Teikari Project Development Engineer

This memorandum summarizes the findings of our subsurface field investigation that was performed in January, 2010, and provides our recommendations for Project ERFO/KY FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1). The project is located in the Land Between the Lakes National Recreational Area (LBL-MRA) in Trigg County, KY and Stewart County, TN. Refer to Figure 1 for the Location Map attached at the end of this memorandum.

Project Description

The project involves the repair, rehabilitation and improvement of five US Forest Service (FS) routes within Trigg County, Kentucky and Stewart County, Tennessee. The project scope and description is explained as follow:

I. Stewart County, TN

Excessive rainfall caused an embankment failure at TN FSR 100. The FS has patched the asphalt pavement at this location. The work will include constructing headwalls and reconstructing the asphalt pavement above the pipe.

Excessive rainfall caused an embankment failure and crushing of the metal pipe culvert at TN FSR 364. The work will include replacing the pipe culvert, constructing headwalls, and reconstructing the embankment at this location.

II. Trigg County, KY

Excessive rainfall caused an embankment failure and a pipe culvert to wash away at KY FSR 203. The work will include replacing the pipe culvert, constructing headwalls, and reconstructing the embankment at this location.

Excessive rainfall caused an embankment failure and crushing of the metal pipe culvert at KY FSR 166. The work will include replacing the pipe culvert, constructing headwalls, and reconstructing the embankment at this location.

EFLHD constructed a box culvert for replacement of a washed out culvert recently as part of ERFO project at KY FSR 165. The new replacement culvert was constructed with deeper depth resulting in steep side slopes. The steep slopes would require installation of guardrail within the new culvert zone. Guardrail installation will be performed under current project.

J. Aviles Geotechnical

K. Mohamed Division Geotechnical

K. Dowden Acting Technical Services

04/14/2010

Page 2 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1)

Regional Geology

Stewart County, Tennessee

According to the Geologic Map of Tennessee (1966) large part of the geology composition of the Highland Rim and Cumberland Plateau is from Mississippian period, composed of sedimentary rocks (Msw, Mfp) such as limestone, chert, shale and dolomite from different formations (i.e. St. Louis Limestone, Fort Payne, etc.). The rest of the geologic formations are Tuscaloosa Formation (Kt) from Cretaceous period and Alluvial Deposits (Qal) from Quarternary period which are mainly gravel, sand, silt and clay deposits.

Trigg County, Kentucky

According to the Geologic Map of Kentucky (1981) the geologic formation is composed of sedimentary rocks such as limestone, shale, chert, dolomite from different formations (Mgl, Mw, Mbf) from Mississippian period. It is also composed from Quaternary (Qa, QTc) and Cretaceous (Kt, TKcm) period formations which are mainly gravel, sand, silt and clay deposits.

Refer to Figures 2 and 3 for the Geologic Maps presented in Attachment No. 1.

Soil Survey

Stewart County, Tennessee

Soil survey information of Stewart County, Tennessee was obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey site. The soil survey map indicated that the soil formation from the existing grade to 6 ft below the surface predominantly consists of Humphreys gravelly silt loam (Ga) and Sequatchie fine sandy loam (Hg). Both are from Alluvium formation and weathered products of sedimentary rocks (chert, dolomite, limestone, etc.).

Trigg County, Kentucky

Soil survey information of Trigg County, Kentucky was obtained from the USDA, NRCS web soil survey site. The soil survey map indicated that the soil formation from the existing grade to 8 ft below the surface predominantly consists of Lindside silt loam (Ln) and Nolin silt loam (No). Both are resulting from Alluvium formation and weathered products of sedimentary rocks (chert, dolomite, limestone, etc.).

Refer to Figure 4 for the Soil Survey Maps presented in Attachment No. 1.

Page 3 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1)

Subsurface Investigation

A field investigation was conducted by the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Geotechnical Subsurface Investigation Team between January 5th and January 12th, 2010. The field investigation consisted of drilling three (3) borings at routes TN FSR 364, KY FSR 203, KY FSR 166 close to the failed embankments. Borings were advanced to depth using hollow stem augers and a CME 850 rotary, track-mounted drill rig. All boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. Boreholes were laid out by EFLHD field personnel by measuring distances from mapped landmarks.

Refer to Boring Location Plan for the approximate location of borings presented in Attachment No. 2.

Sampling

Borings were advanced to termination/refusal depths using 3¾ -in. (inside diameter) hollow stem augers. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed using a 2¼ -in. (outside diameter) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO 7200-87 and AASHTO T206-87. SPT soil samples were typically recovered at 2.0 ft and 5.0 ft intervals by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24-in. into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140

lb. automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-in. sample interval is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-Value. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-in. interval was recorded on field boring logs. Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars. All samples were later transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, TN.

The sampling sequence and associated jar for each boring is summarized on the Boring Logs presented in Attachment No. 3.

Data Summary

The results of field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheets in the field. These data sheets and logs contain information concerning the boring methods; samples attempted and recovered;

indications of the presence of various material such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, etc.; and observations of groundwater. They also contain interpretations by the exploration foreman of the subsurface conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings brought to the surface by the drilling tools. Therefore, the field data represents both factual and interpretative information.

The attached boring logs represent an interpretation of field data and description of the soil samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally do not include all data recorded on driller’s logs and field data

Page 4 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1) sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this memorandum.

Groundwater level readings were made in the boreholes at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. However, fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

Laboratory Testing

A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface explorations. The primary purpose of the testing program was to aid in classification and evaluation of the engineering properties of soil present at the site. Testing included grain size distributions (AASHTO T-88), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89, T - 90), natural water contents (AASHTO T-265), soil resistivity (AASHTO T – 288), pH of soil (AASHTO T – 289) and moisture – density relations of soils (Standard Proctor Test) [AASHTO T – 99]. The results of the laboratory-testing program are summarized below in Table 1 and lab results are presented in Attachment No. 4.

Table 1 – Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Boring B – 1 @ TN FSR 364

Boring No.

Sample No.

Sample Depth

(ft) w

LL

PL

PI

Fines

Soil Classification

AASHTO USCS

B – 1 J – 2 5 – 7 26.5 57 24 33 61.6 A – 7 – 6(19) CH

B – 1 J – 4 15 – 17 26.6 40 22 18 79.2 A – 6(14) CL

B – 1 J – 7 30 – 32 42.4 80 36 44 76.9 A – 7 – 5(38) CH

Boring B – 1 @ KY FSR 203

Boring No.

Sample No.

Sample Depth

(ft) w

LL

PL

PI

Fines

Soil Classification

AASHTO USCS

B – 1 J – 2 5 – 7 21.0 41 20 21 61.6 A – 7 – 6(11) CL

B – 1 J – 4 15 – 17 18.8 42 23 19 36.6 A – 7 – 6(2) SC

B – 1 J – 6 25 – 27 21.0 43 28 15 28.1 A – 2 – 7(1) GM

Boring B – 1 @ KY FSR 166

Boring No.

Sample No.

Sample Depth

(ft) w

LL

PL

PI

Fines

Soil Classification

AASHTO USCS

B – 1 J – 3 10 – 12 24.6 48 23 25 53.5 A – 7 – 6(10) CL

B – 1 J – 5 20 – 22 11.8 50 21 29 73.2 A – 7 – 6(21) CH

B – 1 J – 7 30 – 32 21.4 48 29 19 22.4 A – 2 – 7(1) SM

Footnotes: w = natural moisture content , LL = liquid limit , PL = plastic limit, PI = plasticity index

Page 5 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1)

Table 1 – Summary of Laboratory Test Results (cont.)

Bulk Sample @ KY FSR 203

Bulk Sample w

LL

PL

PI

Fines

Soil Classification wopt γdry (pcf) pH

Ω (Ohm-cm)

AASHTO

27.7 63 28 35 66.3 A – 7 – 6(23) 11.9 119.3 4.5 68701

Footnotes: wopt = optimum water content , Ω = soil resistivity

General Subsurface Condition

TN FSR 364

Boring B – 1 was drilled at approximately 3 ft on the east side of the failed culvert to a depth of 37 ft. Subsurface conditions encountered in the boring is explained as follows:

Sandy Fat Clay – Orange sandy fat clay was found at depth from 0 to 10.0 ft.

N–values recorded within this stratum range from 6 to 16 blows per foot (bpf), indicating medium stiff to very stiff conditions. Laboratory test results indicate natural moisture content of 26.5%, Liquid limit of 57%, Plasticity index of 33% and 61.6% of fines. AASHTO classification of A – 7 – 6(19) was obtained.

Sandy Lean Clay – Brown and gray sandy lean clay was found at depth from

10.0 to 23.0 ft. N–values recorded within this stratum range from 3 to 7 blows per foot (bpf), indicating soft to medium stiff conditions. Laboratory test results indicate natural moisture content of 26.6%, Liquid limit of 40%, Plasticity index of 18% and 79.2% of fines. AASHTO classification of A – 6(14) was obtained.

Sandy Fat Clay – Orange sandy fat clay was found at depth from 23.0 to 37.0

ft. N–values recorded within this stratum range from 6 to 13 blows per foot (bpf), indicating medium stiff to stiff conditions. Laboratory test results indicate natural moisture content of 42.4%, Liquid limit of 80%, Plasticity index of 44% and 76.9% of fines. AASHTO classification of A – 7 – 5(38) was obtained.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings during or after completion of drilling. However, fluctuations in the groundwater conditions due to seasonal and climatic effects should be anticipated.

KY FSR 203

Boring B – 1 was drilled at approximately 15 ft south of the failed culvert to a depth of 37 ft. Subsurface conditions encountered in the boring is explained as follows:

Page 6 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1)

Sandy Lean Clay – Orange and brown sandy lean clay was found at depth from 0 to 13.0 ft. N–values recorded within this stratum ranged from 10 to 17 blows per foot (bpf), indicating stiff to very stiff conditions. Laboratory test results indicate natural moisture content of 21.0%, Liquid limit of 41%, Plasticity index of 21% and 61.6% of fines. AASHTO classification of A – 7 – 6(11) was obtained.

Clayey Sand – Orange and brown clayey sand was found at depth from 13.0 to

23.0 ft. N–values recorded within this stratum ranged from 20 to 34 blows per foot (bpf), indicating medium dense to dense condition. Laboratory test results indicate natural moisture content of 18.8%, Liquid limit of 42%, Plasticity index of 19% and 36.6% of fines. AASHTO classification of A – 7 – 6(2) was obtained.

Silty Gravel – Orange and brown silty gravel was found at depth from 23.0 ft to

37.0 ft. N–values recorded within this stratum range from 9 to 16 blows per foot (bpf), indicating loose to medium dense condition.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings during or after completion of drilling. However, fluctuations in the groundwater conditions due to seasonal and climatic effects should be anticipated.

KY FSR 166

Boring B – 1 was drilled at approximately 3 ft south of the failed culvert to a depth of 32 ft. Subsurface conditions encountered in the boring is explained as follows:

Sandy Lean Clay – Orange and brown sandy lean clay was found at depth from 0 to 15.0 ft. N–values recorded within this stratum ranged from 3 to 27 blows per foot (bpf), indicating soft to very stiff conditions. Laboratory test results indicate natural moisture content of 24.6%, Liquid limit of 48%, Plasticity index of 25% and 53.5% of fines. AASHTO classification of A – 7 – 6(10) was obtained.

Sandy Fat Clay – Brown and gray sandy fat clay was found at depths from 15.0 to 28.0 ft. N–values recorded within this stratum ranged from 8 to 15 blows per foot (bpf), indicating medium stiff to stiff conditions. Laboratory test results indicate natural moisture content of 11.8%, Liquid limit of 50%, Plasticity index of 29% and 73.2% of fines. AASHTO classification of A – 7 – 6(21) was obtained.

Silty Sand – Brown and gray silty sand was found at depth from 28.0 to 32.0 ft.

N–value recorded within this stratum was 25 blows per foot (bpf), indicating medium dense condition.

Page 7 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1)

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings during or after completion of drilling. However, fluctuations in the groundwater conditions due to seasonal and climatic effects should be anticipated.

Design Analysis

Based on the project scope, subsurface field investigation and laboratory testing results and our design analysis we recommend the following for the repair embankments and road drainage systems (box culverts) at TN FSR 364, KY FSR 166 and KY FSR 203 routes.

Embankments Repairs

The in – situ soil encountered at the project site consist predominantly of Alluvial Deposits that consist of high plasticity sandy clay with cherty gravel.

Laboratory test results indicate high fines content of 53% to 79%, average natural moisture content of 27.7%, optimum moisture content of 11.9% and

119.3 pcf maximum dry density. The geometry of the critical slope section was obtained from the drawings provided by Highway Design (HD). Table 2 shows the foundation soil parameters used in our design. A uniform surcharge of 250 psf was used at the crest of the slope along the full width of the roadway in order to model traffic loads.

Table 2 – Design Parameters for Embankment Repair

Route TN FSR 364

Layer Material Unit Weight, γ

(pcf) Friction Angle, φ (deg.)

Cohesion, c

(psf) 1 A – 2 – 4(0) 125 32 50 2 A – 7 – 6(19) 100 0 500 3 A – 6(14) 110 0 750 4 A – 7 – 5(38) 115 0 1000

Route KY FSR 203

Layer Material Unit Weight, γ (pcf)

Friction Angle, φ (deg.)

Cohesion, c (psf)

1 A – 2 – 4(0) 125 32 0

The minimum factor of safety required for each failure mode evaluated is summarized in Table 3. Earthquake loads were not considered in the slope stability analyses. Site is located in Seismic Zone I. Results of slope stability analyses met or exceeded the minimum factors of safety shown in Table 3.

Design analyses and stability results are presented in Attachment No. 5.

Page 8 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1)

Table 3 – Factors of Safety

Failure Mode Min. Factor of Safety

Internal Stability 1.3 Reinforcement Pullout 1.5

Compound Failure 1.3 Global Stability 1.3 Sliding Stability 1.3

Local Bearing Failure 1.3

Route TN FSR 364

The critical section provided by HD for this route is 1V:2H. Rotational Shear Stability Analysis was performed on this section to evaluate embankment soils resistance to induced shear stresses. A minimum factor of safety of 1.88 was obtained using Bishop Method. Based on that result we recommend unreinforced slope with vegetation cover along the slope face.

Route KY FSR 203

According to HD the critical slope for this route is 1V:1H. Based on the proposed slope ratio and slope stability analysis, a reinforced slope would be required. The left side slope of the embankment is proposed to consist of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Slope (GRS) with a maximum slope face of 1V:1H.

The new embankment section was designed according to FHWA – NHI – 10 – 025, Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, (2009), guidelines. The reinforcement utilized in this design was geogrid reinforcement with minimum long – term design strength (LTDS) of 1,000 lb/ft based on GRI-GG4 in sand and gravel. The vertical spacing of the geogrid used in the analysis is 1.5 ft. The geogrid embedment lengths will be 7 feet. Geogrid reduction factors and geogrid-soil interaction parameters applied to the geogrid reinforcement layers are included in the Slide

5.0 analyses results presented in Attachment No. 5.

Route KY FSR 166

Based on proposed embankment geometry and soil subsurface conditions we recommend similar design to Route TN FSR 364. Embankment maximum side slopes of 1V:2H are recommended.

Embankment Foundation

The embankment foundation consists of soft Sandy Fat Clay material (A – 7 – 6(19)). The design of the embankment foundation was performed according to FHWA – NHI – 07 – 092, Geosynthetic Design & Construction Guidelines, (2008), guidelines. Results of soft foundation analysis met or exceeded the minimum factors of safety shown in Table 4. Design analysis results are presented in Attachment No. 5.

Page 9 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1)

Table 4 – Factors of Safety

Failure Mode Min. Factor of Safety Overall Bearing Capacity 2.0 Local Bearing Capacity 2.0 Global Shear Stability 1.3 Internal Shear Stability 1.5

Lateral Spreading 1.5

Based on the design analysis results it is recommended to use one layer of Geotextile Type III – A. The stabilization Geotextile is recommended in order to provide separation and improve foundation stability.

The design analysis assumes that clay layer is preconsolidated and no grade changes are proposed in this project. In absence of actual field consolidation data we estimated consolidation parameters using correlations with Atterberg limits and natural water contents. These parameters are shown in table 4. For settlement calculations we assumed that the clay is overconsolidated (OCR > 1) and the sum of vertical stresses are less than maximum stress that the soil had seen in the past (preconsolidation stress).

Table 5 – Consolidation Parameters

Layer Material LL (%) Cr eo OCR

1 A – 7 – 6(19) 57 0.0361 1.13 7.65 2 A – 6(14) 40 0.0253 0.94 4.22 3 A – 7 – 5(38) 80 0.0506 1.09 2.34

We performed the analysis using theory of elasticity to estimate the vertical stress increase by the embankment loads and for settlement calculations we use AASHTO LRFD 2007 design specifications. Settlement calculations were performed using FoSSA (2.0) and a maximum settlement in the order of 1.69

in. was obtained. This value is within the expected range for this project. Past experience with previous culvert replacement close to this site indicate that large settlement was not observed after completion of construction.

Box Culvert Foundation

According to HD typical section drawings and Hydraulics Section memorandum, Precast Concrete Box Culverts are planned for replacement of washed out section. Detailed load calculations were performed using AASHTO LRFD 2007 Bridge Design Specification and are attached at the end of this memorandum. Bearing resistance computation was performed for soil stratum that is below culvert elevation and bearing resistance vs. culvert width graph is shown below at Figure 1. Settlement analysis wasn’t performed to culvert since it is assumed that the embankment and culvert will have a small uniform

Page 10 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1) settlement since no additional loads will be added. Table 5 shows the foundation parameters used to calculate bearing resistance.

Table 6 – Box Culvert Foundation Parameters

Material Unit Weight γ (pcf)

Friction Angle φ (deg.)

Cohesion c

(psf) A – 6(14) 110 0 750

Figure 1 – Box Culvert Bearing Resistance

Recommendations

Embankments Repairs

Geogrid Reinforced Soil Slope (GRS) at Route KY FSR 203

Install a geogrid-reinforced soil slope as described below.

Construct the face of the slope using 1(V):1(H) slope ratio or flatter.

Page 11 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1)

Provide geogrid reinforcement with a minimum of 1,000 lb/ft. LTDS.

Place the first geogrid layer at 0.5 feet above the bottom of the embankment. Extend geogrid layers to 7 feet from the slope face of the embankment at 16 in. vertical spacing.

Imported fill material for embankment repair should be in accordance with Subsection 704.06, and compaction as per Subsection 204.11 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Place topsoil and seed for vegetation growth at the slope face for stability and aesthetics. It is recommended that topsoil and seed mix be placed for the first 1-foot behind the face of the wrapped geogrid reinforcement and be encapsulated with a Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM). The TRM will facilitate the topsoil and seed placement and vegetation growth.

Slopes at Route TN FSR 364

Prepare the embankment slopes as describe below.

Imported fill material for embankment repair should be in accordance with Subsection 704.06, and compaction as per Subsection 204.11 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Place topsoil and seed at the slope face for stability and aesthetics.

Provide a Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM) and install along the slope faces.

Embankment Foundations

Prepare embankment foundation as describe below.

Foundation preparation should be done in accordance with Subsection

204.09 of the FP-03 Specifications. Compact the foundation according to the Subsection 204.11. Do not use vibration rollers during compaction process.

Install Geotextile Type III – A at the bottom of the excavation according to Section 207 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Place geotextile in a horizontal layer and in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The principle strength direction for the geotextile should be placed perpendicular to the embankment center line.

Page 12 of 12 Pages

121 for informal correspondence. MEMORANDUM:ERFO/KY FSR- FSR-166(1), 203(11) and ERFO/TN FSR-100(1), 364 (1)

Box Culvert Foundation

Prepare Box Culvert foundation as describe below.

Foundation preparation should be done in accordance with Subsection

208.09 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Install Geotextile Type III – A at the bottom of the excavation according to Section 207 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Install 8” thick perforated Geosynthetic Cellular Confinement System (GCCS) on top of the separation Geotextile Type III –A. Extent the GCCS one foot outside the culvert foundation area. Prepare, install and construct the GCCS according to the Section 630 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Enclosures

Attachment No. 1 – Figures Attachment No. 2 – Boring Location Plan Attachment No. 3 – Boring Logs Attachment No. 4 – Laboratory Data Attachment No. 5 – Design Calculations

Attachment No. 1

Figures

Attachment No. 2

Boring Location Plan

Attachment No. 3

Boring Logs

M:\Projects\fs\tn\100(1)_364(1)\techserv\geotech\Reports\Preliminary Memo\Appendices\Appendix C - Boring Logs

SOIL BORING GENERAL NOTES

Drilling and Sampling Symbols

SS: Split Spoon - 1 3/8” I.D., 2” O.D., except where noted ST: Shelby Tube - 2” O.D., except where noted PA: Power Auger Sample

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground water elevations is not possible, even after several days, and additional evidence on ground water elevations must be sought.

VISUAL METHODS FOR SOILS CLASSIFICATION

Component Distinguishing Features

Boulders Larger than 12” (300 mm)

Cobbles 3” to 12” (75 mm to 12 mm)

Gravel Larger than No. 4 sieve and smaller than a 3” sieve, described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse 3” to 3/4” (75 mm to 19 mm) sieve Medium 3/4” to 3/8” (19 mm to 9.5 mm) sieve Fine 3/8” to No. 4 (9.5 mm to 4.75 mm) sieve

Sand The finest sand grains are just visible to the naked eye, while the largest would pass a No. 4

(4.75mm) sieve (pinhead size). Described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse No. 4 to No. 10 (4.75 mm to 2.0 mm) sieve Medium No. 10 to No. 40 (2.0 mm to 0.42 mm) sieve Fine No. 40 to No. 200 (0.42 mm to 0.075 mm) sieve

Silt 1. Lumps are easily crumbled when are-dried.

2. Feels gritty between the teeth.

3. A moist pat when shaken in the palm of the hand will appear shiny and wet. When squeezed it will appear dry and dull.

Clay 1. Lumps are comparatively hard when air-dried.

2. Threads (1/8” diameter) of considerable length will support their own weight when held by one end.

3. A moist pat will appear the same whether shaken in the palm of the hand or squeezed.

Order of Description

1. Soil Density (or consistency) – see table below

2. Color

3. Major Grain Size – Composes more than 50% of the sample

4. Modifying Term – “and” : 40% to 50% of the minor grain size

“some” : 30% to 40% “little” : 10% to 30%

“trace” : 10% or less

5. Minor Grain Size(s)

6. Other (plasticity, etc.)

M:\Projects\fs\tn\100(1)_364(1)\techserv\geotech\Reports\Preliminary Memo\Appendices\Appendix C - Boring Logs

7. Moisture Content (by field test) – “dry” : Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch “moist” : Damp but no visible water

“wet” : Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

8. General Classification – Fill, Residual Soil, Weathered Rock

SOIL DENSITY (OR CONSISTENCY) TABLE

Coarse-Grained Soil (Gravel, Sand) Fine-Grained Soil (Clay, Silt)

Apparent Density SPT (# blows / ft) Consistency SPT (# blows / ft) Very loose 0-4 Very soft 0-2

Loose 5-10 Soft 3-4 Medium dense 11-30 Medium stiff 5-8

Dense 31-50 Stiff 9-15 Very dense >50 Very stiff 16-30

Hard >30

Examples:

1. Dense to very dense, brown to light brown, SILTY SAND, some gravel [A-7-6(10)]

(Moist)

-FILL-

Criteria for Describing Soil Structure

Description Criteria

Bed A sedimentary layer bounded by depositional surfaces.

Blocky A characteristic in which cohesive soil can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown.

Bonded Attached or adhering.

Fissured Broken along definite planes of fracture.

Foliated Planar arrangement of textural or structural features.

Frequent More than one per foot of thickness.

Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.

Interbedded Alternating soil layers of different composition.

Laminae A very thin cohesive layer.

Layer A general term for material lying essentially parallel to the surfaces against which it was formed.

Lens A lenticular deposit, larger than a pocket.

Occasional One or less per foot of thickness.

Parting A very thin granular layer.

Pocket Small erratic deposits less than 12” in thickness.

Seam A thin layer separating two distinctive layers of different composition or greater magnitude.

Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color.

Stratum A stratigraphic unit.

Varve A cyclic sedimentary couplet consisting of a coarser and a finer layer representing the variation in depositional energy resulting from the annual freeze-thaw cycle typically found in glaciolacustrine environments.

M:\Projects\fs\tn\100(1)_364(1)\techserv\geotech\Reports\Preliminary Memo\Appendices\Appendix C - Boring Logs

ROCK CORING GENERAL NOTES

Depth and Elevation: Use large marks as 1’ (300mm) increments. Record proper elevations.

Core: Draw sketch of core breaks as it is oriented in the core box (align all core breaks so they fit together properly before drawing sketch). Starting at the top of core measure each piece of core down its centerline to 1/100 of a foot. Record this measurement along the left side of the core sketch at the break.

VISUAL METHODS FOR ROCK IDENTIFICATION

Description: 1. Draw a heavy line through description at depth to which core run penetrated.

2. Describe the rock type.

3. Note the condition of the core break on the right side of the core sketch

Mud seam (MS); Sand seam (SS); Weathered surface (WS); Fresh break (FB)

4. Record coring time in minutes.

5. Record to nearest 1/100 foot the core recovered (after alignment in core box). Discard any debris at top of core, which obviously fill into the core hole.

6. Calculate per cent core recovery and record: CR = Ufeet of core recoveredU feet cored

Color: Wet the rock with water and describe the color including the color of any unusual or reoccurring markings on the core (i.e. light green with dark green bands, foliation lines).

Foliation: Foliation planes are parallel planes of different minerals forming a banded appearance on the rock.

The foliation planes are usually of a different color than the surrounding rock. Also the rock shears along the foliation planes if struck with a hammer. Record the following:

Close spaced (CS) – 1/8” (3mm) or closer; Medium spaced (MS) – 1/8” to 1/4” (3mm to 6mm);

Open spaced (OS) – 1/4” (6mm) or larger

The angle to the horizontal should be measured (with a protractor) and recorded for the rock core.

(Several different angles can be found in each 5’ to 10’ core.)

Hardness: Very Soft (VS) – Can be deformed or crumbled by hand; Soft (S) – Can be scratched with a fingernail Moderately Hard (MH) – Can be scratched easily with a knife; Hard (H) – Can be scratched with difficulty with a knife; Very hard (VH) – Cannot be scratched with a knife

Weathering: Use the proper number 1 through 5.

1. UUnweathered:U No evidence of any mechanical or chemical alteration along discoloration evidenced.

2. USlightly weatheredU: Discoloration is evident, on surface, slight alteration no discontinuities, less than 10% of the volume is altered, strength is substantially unaffected.

3. UModerately weathered:U Discoloring is evident, surface is pitted and altered with alteration penetrating will below rock surfaces, weathering "halos” evident, 10% to 50% of the rock is altered, strength is noticeably less than fresh rock.

4. UHighly weathered: UEntire mass is discolored; alteration pervades nearly all of the rock with some pockets of slightly weathered rock noticeable, some minerals leached away, retains only a fraction of original strength (with wet strength usually lower than dry strength).

5. UDecomposed:U Rock is reduced to a soil with relict rock structure (saprolite), can be generally molded and crumbled by hand.

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) = UΣ[Lengths of all pieces of the core ≥ 4” (100mm)]U x 100 Total length of core run

M:\Projects\fs\tn\100(1)_364(1)\techserv\geotech\Reports\Preliminary Memo\Appendices\Appendix C - Boring Logs

Soundness: Use the proper number 1 through 5

1. Weathered RQD = 0% to 25%

2. Highly jointed to Jointed RQD = 25% to 50%

3. Jointed to Relatively sound RQD = 50% to 75%

4. Relatively sound to Sound RQD = 75% to 100%

Rock Quality: Use the proper number 1 through 5

1. Very Poor RQD = 0% to 25%

2. Poor RQD = 25% to 50%

3. Fair RQD = 50% to 75%

4. Good RQD = 75% to 90%

5. Excellent RQD = 90% to 100%

Order of Description

1. Hardness

2. Color

3. Soundness (a.k.a. Weathering and Rock Quality)

4. Main Rock Formation – Composes more than 50% of the core run

5. Texture – Very Fine (VF), Fine (F), Medium (M), and Coarse (C)

6. Modifying Term – “and” : 40% to 50% of the core run “some” : 30% to 40% “little” : 10% to 30%

“trace” : 10% or less

7. Minor Rock Type(s)

8. Other (Foliation angle, etc.)

UExamples:U

1. Moderately hard, blue-gray to gray, weathered BIOTITE GNEISS BOULDER, medium texture

Recovery = 24%

RQD = 17%

2. Very hard, gray and white, relatively sound to sound BIOTITE GNEISS, medium to fine texture, some quartz veins, foliation angle = 20 degrees

Recovery = 100%

RQD = 100%

-Fresh break @ approximately 47’

J - 1

J - 2

J - 3

J - 4

15.0

1.1

0.8

1.9

2.0

21-21-6-4

2-1-2-5

6-2-1-2

4-7-8-8

Soft, orange and brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY , trace of Chert [A - 7 - 6(10)] (Moist)

Stiff, brown and gray, SANDY FAT CLAY [A - 7 - 6(21)] (Moist)

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B - 1

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

ERFO KY FSR 166(1) , Land between the Lakes N.R.A.

FSR 166, Trigg County, Kentucky hrs

B lo w s p e r in

Remarks:

G ra p h ic L o g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 8.0 in.

373.5 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/11/10

HSA

1/11/10 K. Thornton

R. Kingsley / D. Hutchins cold

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

FSR 166, 3.0 ft from culvert south side

Sheet: 1 of 2

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered below ground surface.

2. Groundwater could be present later due to seasonal variations and rainfall.

3. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

E

R F

O K

Y F

S R

(1

G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

D T

2/

/1

0 358.5

J - 5

J - 6

J - 7

28.0

32.0

2.0

2.0

1.5

3-3-5-6

3-5-6-7

3-8-17-32

Stiff, brown and gray, SANDY FAT CLAY [A - 7 - 6(21)] (Moist) (Continued)

Medium dense, brown and gray, SILTY SAND , some gravel [A - 2 - 7(1)] (Moist)

End of boring @ 32.0 ft

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B - 1

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

ERFO KY FSR 166(1) , Land between the Lakes N.R.A.

FSR 166, Trigg County, Kentucky hrs

B lo w s p e r in

Remarks:

G ra p h ic L o g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 8.0 in.

373.5 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/11/10

HSA

1/11/10 K. Thornton

R. Kingsley / D. Hutchins cold

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

FSR 166, 3.0 ft from culvert south side

Sheet: 2 of 2

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered below ground surface.

2. Groundwater could be present later due to seasonal variations and rainfall.

3. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

B O

R

IN

G L

F

O K

Y F

S R

(1

G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

/1

345.5

341.5

J - 3

J - 4

13.0

1.3

1.1

1.3

1.8

5-9-8-6

3-3-4-5

4-6-4-2

8-16-18-22

Stiff, orange and brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY , little gravel [A - 7 - 6(11)] (Moist)

Medium dense, orange and brown, CLAYEY SAND , little gravel [A - 7 - 6(2)] (Moist)

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B - 1

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

ERFO KY FSR 203(1) , Land between the Lakes N.R.A.

FSR 203, Trigg County, Kentucky hrs

B lo w s p e r in

Remarks:

G ra p h ic L o g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 8.0 in.

377.5 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/11/10

HSA

1/11/10 K. Thornton

R. Kingsley / D. Hutchins cold

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

FSR 203, 15.0 ft from culvert south side

Sheet: 1 of 2

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered below ground surface.

2. Groundwater could be present later due to seasonal variations and rainfall.

3. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

B O

R

IN

G L

F

O K

Y F

S R

(1

G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

/1

364.5

J - 7

23.0

37.0

0.9

1.0

0.9

8-11-9-8

8-8-8-9

3-4-5-5

Medium dense, orange and brown, CLAYEY SAND , little gravel [A - 7 - 6(2)] (Moist) (Continued)

Medium dense, orange and brown, SILTY GRAVEL , some sand [A - 2 - 7(1)] (Moist)

End of boring @ 37.0 ft

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B - 1

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

ERFO KY FSR 203(1) , Land between the Lakes N.R.A.

FSR 203, Trigg County, Kentucky hrs

B lo w s p e r in

Remarks:

G ra p h ic L o g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 8.0 in.

377.5 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/11/10

HSA

1/11/10 K. Thornton

R. Kingsley / D. Hutchins cold

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

FSR 203, 15.0 ft from culvert south side

Sheet: 2 of 2

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered below ground surface.

2. Groundwater could be present later due to seasonal variations and rainfall.

3. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

B O

R

IN

G L

F

O K

Y F

S R

(1

G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

/1

354.5

340.5

J - 3

J - 4

10.2

1.5

1.0

1.7

1.8

14-9-7-6

2-3-3-2

1-2-1-1

2-3-4-4

Medium stiff, orange, SANDY FAT CLAY , trace of gravel [A - 7 - 6(19)] (Moist)

Medium stif, brown and gray, SANDY LEAN CLAY [A - 6(14)] (Moist)

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B - 1

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

ERFO TN FSR 364(1) , Land between the Lakes N.R.A.

FSR 364, Stewart County, Tennessee hrs

B lo w s p e r in

Remarks:

G ra p h ic L o g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 8.0 in.

366.4 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/6/10

HSA

1/6/10 K. Thornton

R. Kingsley / D. Hutchins cold

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

FSR 364, 3.0 ft from culvert east side

Sheet: 1 of 2

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered below ground surface.

2. Groundwater could be present later due to seasonal variations and rainfall.

3. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

B O

R

IN

G L

F

O T

N F

S R

(1

G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

/1

356.2

J - 7

J - 8

23.0

37.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

1-2-3-4

4-5-6-10

3-3-3-4

2-6-7-10

Medium stif, brown and gray, SANDY LEAN CLAY [A - 6(14)] (Moist) (Continued)

Stiff, orange, SANDY FAT CLAY [A - 7 - 5(38)] (Moist)

End of boring @ 37.0 ft

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B - 1

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

ERFO TN FSR 364(1) , Land between the Lakes N.R.A.

FSR 364, Stewart County, Tennessee hrs

B lo w s p e r in

Remarks:

G ra p h ic L o g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in.

20 60 80

140 lbs/Automatic 8.0 in.

366.4 ft

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/6/10

HSA

1/6/10 K. Thornton

R. Kingsley / D. Hutchins cold

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

FSR 364, 3.0 ft from culvert east side

Sheet: 2 of 2

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1. No water was encountered below ground surface.

2. Groundwater could be present later due to seasonal variations and rainfall.

3. Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

B O

R

IN

G L

F

O T

N F

S R

(1

G P

J F

H W

A _V

A .G

/1

343.4

329.4

Attachment No. 4

Laboratory Data

SOIL DATA

NO.

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 10.0 28.4 61.6

(ft.)

ERFO/ KY FSR-166(1),203(11) TN FSR-100(1)

Land Between the Lakes NRA

FHWA/GEOTECH

TN Rt. 364 B-1/J-2 5-7 Sandy fat clay A-7-6(19)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.2 20.6 79.2

TN Rt. 364 B-1/J-4 15-17 Lean clay with sand A-6(14)

0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9

TN Rt. 364 B-1/J-7 30-32 Fat clay with sand A-7-5(38)

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 16.9 21.5 61.6

(ft.)

ERFO/ KY FSR-166(1),203(11) TN FSR-100(1)

Land Between the Lakes NRA

FHWA/GEOTECH

KY Rt. 203 B-1/J-2 5-7 Sandy lean clay with gravel A-7-6(11)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 24.1 39.3 36.6

KY Rt. 203 B-1/J-4 15-17 Clayey sand with gravel A-7-6(2)

0.0 37.2 34.7 28.1

KY Rt. 203 B-1/J-6 25-27 Silty gravel with sand A-2-7(1)

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 11.6 34.9 53.5

(ft.)

ERFO/ KY FSR-166(1),203(11) TN FSR-100(1)

Land Between the Lakes NRA

FHWA/GEOTECH

KY Rt. 166 B-1/J-3 10-12 Sandy lean clay A-7-6(10)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 2.9 23.9 73.2

KY Rt. 166 B-1/J-5 20-22 Fat clay with sand A-7-6(21)

0.0 33.5 44.1 22.4

KY Rt. 166 B-1/J-7 30-32 Silty sand with gravel A-2-7(1)

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

ERFO/ KY FSR-166(1),203(11) TN FSR-100(1)

Land Between the Lakes NRA

FHWA/GEOTECH

A-7-6(19)33572426.55-7B-1/J-2TN Rt. 364

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-6(14)18402226.615-17B-1/J-4TN Rt. 364

A-7-5(38)44803642.430-32B-1/J-7TN Rt. 364

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

ERFO/ KY FSR-166(1),203(11) TN FSR-100(1)

Land Between the Lakes NRA

FHWA/GEOTECH

A-7-6(11)21412021.05-7B-1/J-2KY Rt. 203

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-7-6(2)19422318.815-17B-1/J-4KY Rt. 203

A-2-7(1)15432821.025-27B-1/J-6KY Rt. 203

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

ERFO/ KY FSR-166(1),203(11) TN FSR-100(1)

Land Between the Lakes NRA

FHWA/GEOTECH

A-7-6(10)25482324.610-12B-1/J-3KY Rt. 166

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-7-6(21)29502111.820-22B-1/J-5KY Rt. 166

A-2-7(1)19482921.430-32B-1/J-7KY Rt. 166

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

Aviles, Jonathan (FHWA)

From: Johnson, James (FHWA) Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:26 AM To: Aviles, Jonathan (FHWA) Subject: Emailing: KY166(1)203(11)TN(1)364 Bag sample Attachments: KY166(1)203(11)TN(1)364.PDF; KY166(1)203(11)TN(1)364Limit4.PDF;

KY166(1)203(203(11)TN(1)364Grain4.PDF

Jonathan, Sorry it's taken so long to get these results to you. The ph and Soil Resistivity are below.

Soil ph = 4.5

Min. Resistivity= 68701 (ohm)

If you need anything else give me a call

Chris Johnson Materials Engineer Technician 1827 Jack Delozier Dr.

Sevierville, TN 37876 Tel. (865) 286-6123 Fax (865) 286-6157

Source

Location

Project No.ProjectRemarks

Max dry density, Optimum water content, percent

Natural water content, percent

Sample No.

#200GRAVITYDescriptionDepthNo.

OVERSIZEPLLL

SPECIFICMaterialElev. orSample pcf

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

TN/KY

Trigg Co. KY / Stewart Co. TN

ERFO/ KY FSR-

166(1),203(11)

119.3

11.9

27.7

Bag 1

66.3%>3/4 in.=3.32863Sandy fat clayBag 1

Land Between the Lakes NRA

D ry d en si ty

, p cf

Water content, %

100% SATURATION CURVES

FOR SPEC. GRAV. EQUAL TO:

2.8 2.7 2.6

COMPACTION TEST REPORT

PROJECT: Land Between the Lakes NRA

PROJECT NO.: ERFO/ KY FSR-166(1),203(11) TN FSR-100(1)

DATE: 3/11/2010

Test specification:

AASHTO T 99 Method D Standard

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

ERFO/ KY FSR-166(1),203(11) TN FSR-100(1)

Land Between the Lakes NRA

FHWA/GEOTECH

A-7-6(23)35632827.7Bag 1TN/KY

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 11.1 22.6 66.3

(ft.)

ERFO/ KY FSR-166(1),203(11) TN FSR-100(1)

Land Between the Lakes NRA

FHWA/GEOTECH

TN/KY Bag 1 Sandy fat clay A-7-6(23)

Particle Size Distribution Report

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Attachment No. 5

Design Calculations

0.627

1.457

2.812 6.484

0.627

250.00 lb/ft2

0.627

1.457

2.812 6.484

0.627

A - 2 - 4

Concrete Box Culvert

7.210

Factor of Safety Contours Simplified Bishop Method

Document Name File Name: ERFO KY FSR 203 File Location: M:\Projects\fs\tn\100(1)_364(1)\techserv\geotech Analysis Methods Bishop simplified

Support: Geogrid Tensile Strength: 1000 lb/ft Pullout Strength Adhesion: 0 lb/ft2 Pullout Strength Friction Angle: 22.6156 degrees ft

Embankment at Route KY FSR 203

1:

1:3

Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+

1.8781.878

250.00 lb/ft2

1.8781.878

Material Properties

Material: A - 2 - 4(0) Unit Weight: 125 lb/ft3 Cohesion: 50 psf Friction Angle: 32 degrees

Material: Sandy Fat Clay [A - 7 - 6(19)] Unit Weight: 100 lb/ft3 Cohesion: 500 psf Friction Angle: 0 degrees

Material: Sandy Lean Clay [A - 6(14)] Unit Weight: 110 lb/ft3 Cohesion: 750 psf Friction Angle: 0 degrees

Material: Sandy Fat Clay [A - 7 - 5(38)] Unit Weight: 115 lb/ft3 Cohesion: 1000 psf Friction Angle: 0 degrees

-75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75

A - 2 - 4(0)

A - 7 - 6(19)

A - 6(14)

A - 7 - 5(38)

File Name: ERFO TN FSR 364 File Location: M:\Projects\fs\tn\100(1)_364(1)\techserv\geotech Analysis Methods used:

Bishop simplified GLE/Morgenstern-Price with interslice force function: Half Sine Janbu corrected Ordinary/Fellenius Spencer

Limit State: Service I

Factor of Safety Contours Simplified Bishop Method

Distance (ft)

E le va ti on ft

Embankment at Route TN FSR 364

Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500

1.6391.639

250.00 lb/ft2

1.6391.639

Sliding Wedge Analysis

Document Name File Name: ERFO TN FSR 364_sliding File Location: M:\Projects\fs\tn\100(1)_364(1)\techserv\geotech Analysis Methods GLE/Morgenstern-Price with interslice force function: Half Sine Janbu corrected Spencer

Limit State: Service I

Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500

3.3093.309

Method: Ordinary Factor of Safety: 3.309 Total…