Report_5_Soils_and_Foundation.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 15-13

PROJECT TN PRA-NATR 1E10

LITTLE SWAN CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (MP 386.89)

(Structure Number 5570-004P)

NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY

LEWIS COUNTY, TENNESSEE

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166

March 2014

Page 1 of 2 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: NATR 1E10 cc: TS Reading, Bridge, w/ attachments

M:\PROJECTS\natr\1e10\Techserv\Geotech\Reports\Addendum\NATR 1E10 Report Addendum - Final.docx

SUBJECT: PRA-NATR 1E10 – Revised Foundation Recommendations for the South Abutment of Little Swan Creek Bridge

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

R. Satasiya Project Manager

Through:

A. Teikari Supervisor Highway Engineer

This memorandum is an addendum to the recommendations listed in our Geotechnical Report No. 15-13, dated March 2014. Revisions to the previously transmitted foundation recommendations were made in conjunction with EFLHD’s Bridge Division’s determination that the south abutment (Abutment

1) will be supported on a deep foundation system, consisting precast/prestressed concrete (PPC) piles, instead of spread footings.

DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Estimated bedrock elevations at the south abutment are based on the results of our subsurface exploration. Proposed pier elevations and pile lengths have been provided by the EFLHD Bridge Division, and are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 – Anticipated Elevations of Bedrock and Piles

Feet

Estimated Bedrock Elevation (from Boring B-1) EL 709.7

Bottom of Pier Cap Elevation EL 723.8

Embedment Depth of Pile into Pile Cap 1.0

Exposed Pile Length 14.1

Total Pile length 15.1

Anticipated loads are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 – Anticipated Unfactored Loads for South Abutment

South Abutment

Axial Compressive Load (kips) 2000

Lateral Load (kips) 400

Moment (kip-ft) 2800

Axial and lateral capacities of the piles were analyzed using AllPile version 7.12s software.

Bearing Resistance and Settlement Foundation bearing resistance was evaluated in accordance with Section 10 of AASHTO (2012) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. A bearing resistance factor for driven piles (φstat) of 0.65 was utilized, as listed in AASHTO Table

C. Lynch Geotechnical

M.

Abouzakhm Division Geotechnical

S. Whittemore Supervisor Technical Services

08/12/2014

Page 2 of 2 Pages

Form FHWA-201 (Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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: NATR 1E10

10.5.5.2.3-1, which requires dynamic testing of at least two piles during construction.

Lateral Resistance Analysis and Deflection Foundation lateral resistance was also evaluated. A lateral resistance factor for driven piles (φ) of 1.0 was utilized, as listed in AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A system of 14 inch by 14 inch precast concrete piles bearing on bedrock is recommended to support Abutment 1 and wingwalls. Our analysis indicated that piles supported on the bedrock can withstand factored axial compressive load of 120 kips. Our lateral analysis results indicate that the lateral resistance provided by the subsurface soils is adequate to limit pile head deflections to less than 1 inch. Computer outputs are included in Attachment 2.

Since PPC piles will be installed in more than 5 feet of compacted embankment (fill), pre-boring may be required as listed in Subsection 551.07 of FP-03. We recommend that the tips of concrete piles be protected by steel pile shoes to prevent damage during installation and dynamic load testing. A minimum of two (2) dynamic load tests shall be performed following pre-boring, pile placement, and backfilling. Re-strike may not be required if the design capacity is achieved at the end of the initial driving.

The Contractor shall submit shop drawings for the PPC piles in accordance with FP-03 Specifications, to include tip protection geometry, material properties, and method of attachment to the piles.

Attachments:

1. Foundation Layout

2. Pile Resistance Analysis Output

Attachment 1

Foundation Layout

Attachment 2

Pile Resistance Analysis Output

Depth from Ground-ft

Depth from Ground-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

(Pile diameter not to scale) Surface Angle=0Batter Angle=0

Depth -lb/f3 C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 % Nspt

0.0 115.7 33.3 0.00 151.0 11

Sand/Gravel-py

14.1 147.2 10.0 22.00 758.4 0.06 18 Porous limestones

Depth Width-in A'-in2 Per.-in I'-in4 E -kp/i2 W -kp/f

0.0 14 153.9 44.0 1885.7 3000 0.160

Concrete (smooth)

14.1

Displacement pile: Higher friction.

FOUNDATION PROFILE & SOIL CONDITIONS

FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SOIL PROPERTIES

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

NATR 1E10 - Little Swan Creek Bridge 14-in PPC Pile Group

Loads:

Load Factor for Vertical Loads= 1.0 Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0 Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 % Shear Condition: Static

Vertical Load, Q= 2000.0 -kp Shear Load, P= 400.0 -kp Slope Restain St= 0.00 -in/-in

Profile:

Pile Length, L= 14.1 -ft Top Height, H= 0 -ft Slope Angle, As= 0 Batter Angle, Ab= 0 Group and Boundary Condition:

Fixed Head Sx= 58 -in Sy= 60 -in Nx= 9 Ny= 2

Soil Data:

Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt -ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 % 0 115.7 33.3 0.00 151.0 36.52 11

14.1 147.2 10.0 22.00 758.4 0.06 18

Pile Data:

Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight -ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f

0.0 14 153.9 44.0 1885.7 3000 0.160 14.1

Group Vertical capacity:

Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 4347.306-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 302.262-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 2244.517-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 171.435-kp OK! Qallow > Q

Group Settlement Calculation:

At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 99999.00-kp At Q= 2000.00-kp Settlement= 0.10299-in

Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.

VERTICAL ANALYSIS Figure 1

Driving Concrete Pile

CivilTech Software

0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.50

Total Side Tip

Total Settlement, X -in

C o m p re ss io n

L o ad

Q d w kp Vertical Load vs. Total Settlement

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

0 0

2000 2000

4000 4000

6000 6000

8000 8000

10000 10000

12000 12000

14000 14000

16000 16000

18000 18000

20000 20000

0 02 24 46 68 810 1012 1214 1416 1618 1820 20

Foundation Depth, L -ft Foundation Depth, L -ft

C o m p re ss io n

C ap ac it y, Q d w kp

U p lif t

C ap ac it y, Q u p kp

ULTIMATE CAPACITY vs FOUNDATION DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

0 0

70 70

140 140

210 210

280 280

350 350

420 420

490 490

560 560

630 630

700 700

0.0 00.2 400.4 800.6 1200.8 1601.0 2001.2 2401.4 2801.6 3201.8 3602.0 400

Top Deflection, yt -in Max. Moment in Single Pile, Mmax -kp-f

L at er al

L o ad

P kp

L at er al

L o ad

P kp

X-Direction, Group Piles

LATERAL LOAD vs DEFLECTION & MAX. MOMENT

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Depth (Zp)

Pile Top-ft

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

Tip yt=-1.52E-1 Top yt=8.05E-1 Max. yt=8.05E-1 Top St=0E+0

0-1.00 +1.00 yt=0 at 11.8-ft St=0 at 0.1-ft

Top Moment=-100.8 Max. Moment=100.8

0-200 +200

Top Shear=18.9 Max. Shear=19.2

0-20 +20

Max. Pressure=0.91

0-1 +1

DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp Pressure -kp/f2

X-Back, Single Pile, Kbc =2 PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Pile Top-ft

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

0-1.00 +1.00

Lateral Slope Vertical yt Slope Max.

No. Load Restraint Load at Top at Top Moment (kip) (in/in) (kip) (in) (in/in) (kip-ft)

1 1.9 0.0 111.0 0.0 0.00 -5.7 2 5.7 0.0 111.0 0.1 0.00 -22.8 3 9.5 0.0 111.0 0.3 0.00 -42.9 4 13.2 0.0 111.0 0.5 0.00 -64.6 5 15.1 0.0 111.0 0.6 0.00 -75.7 6 17.0 0.0 111.0 0.7 0.00 -87.5 7 18.9 0.0 111.0 0.8 0.00 -100.8

DEFLECTION, yt -in

X-Back, Single Pile, Kbc =2 PILE DEFLECTION vs LOADING

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Pile Top-ft

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

Tip yt=-4.98E-2 Top yt=9.4E-1 Max. yt=9.4E-1 Top St=3.25E-17

0-1.00 +1.00 yt=0 at 11.3-ft

Top Moment=-197.5 Max. Moment=197.5

0-200 +200

Top Shear=48.7 Max. Shear=48.8

0-50 +50

Max. Pressure=2.36

0-5 +5

DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp Pressure -kp/f2

X-Front, Single Pile, Kbc=2 PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Pile Top-ft

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

0-1.00 +1.00

Lateral Slope Vertical yt Slope Max.

No. Load Restraint Load at Top at Top Moment (kip) (in/in) (kip) (in) (in/in) (kip-ft)

1 4.9 0.0 111.0 0.0 0.00 -12.4 2 14.6 0.0 111.0 0.2 0.00 -46.8 3 24.3 0.0 111.0 0.3 0.00 -86.7 4 34.1 0.0 111.0 0.5 0.00 -127.5 5 39.0 0.0 111.0 0.7 0.00 -149.2 6 43.8 0.0 111.0 0.8 0.00 -172.5 7 48.7 0.0 111.0 0.9 0.00 -197.5

DEFLECTION, yt -in

X-Front, Single Pile, Kbc=2 PILE DEFLECTION vs LOADING

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Pile Top-ft

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

Tip yt=-7.72E-2 Top yt=4.6E-1 Max. yt=4.6E-1 Top St=-1.62E-17

0-0.50 +0.50 yt=0 at 11.7-ft St=0 at 0.1-ft

Top Moment=-65.7 Max. Moment=65.7

0-100 +100

Top Shear=13.7 Max. Shear=13.7

0-20 +20

Max. Pressure=0.65

0-1 +1

DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp Pressure -kp/f2

Y-Back, Single Pile, Kbc =2 PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Pile Top-ft

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

0-0.50 +0.50

Lateral Slope Vertical yt Slope Max.

No. Load Restraint Load at Top at Top Moment (kip) (in/in) (kip) (in) (in/in) (kip-ft)

1 1.4 0.0 111.0 0.0 0.00 -3.7 2 4.1 0.0 111.0 0.1 0.00 -14.9 3 6.8 0.0 111.0 0.2 0.00 -28.1 4 9.6 0.0 111.0 0.3 0.00 -42.6 5 11.0 0.0 111.0 0.3 0.00 -50.2 6 12.3 0.0 111.0 0.4 0.00 -57.8 7 13.7 0.0 111.0 0.5 0.00 -65.7

DEFLECTION, yt -in

Y-Back, Single Pile, Kbc =2 PILE DEFLECTION vs LOADING

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Pile Top-ft

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

Tip yt=-1.84E-2 Top yt=4.75E-1 Max. yt=4.75E-1 Top St=-3.25E-17

0-0.50 +0.50 yt=0 at 10.8-ft

Top Moment=-113.3 Max. Moment=113.3

0-200 +200

Top Shear=30.7 Max. Shear=30.9

0-50 +50

Max. Pressure=1.18

0-2 +2

DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp Pressure -kp/f2

Y-Front,Single Pile, Kbc =2 PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

Pile Top-ft

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

0-0.50 +0.50

Lateral Slope Vertical yt Slope Max.

No. Load Restraint Load at Top at Top Moment (kip) (in/in) (kip) (in) (in/in) (kip-ft)

1 3.1 0.0 111.0 0.0 0.00 -7.8 2 9.2 0.0 111.0 0.1 0.00 -26.6 3 15.4 0.0 111.0 0.2 0.00 -49.8 4 21.5 0.0 111.0 0.3 0.00 -74.8 5 24.6 0.0 111.0 0.3 0.00 -87.5 6 27.7 0.0 111.0 0.4 0.00 -100.8 7 30.7 0.0 111.0 0.5 0.00 -113.3

DEFLECTION, yt -in

Y-Front,Single Pile, Kbc =2 PILE DEFLECTION vs LOADING

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Project Description

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 Regional Geology

2.2 Soil Survey

3 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

3.1 General

3.2 Sampling

3.3 Field Tests and Measurements

3.4 Data Summary

3.5 Laboratory Testing

3.6 Findings

4 DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Bearing Resistance and Settlement

4.2 Sliding Resistance

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Bridge Foundations

5.2 Abutment Walls

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

8 REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Boring Location Plan and Subsurface Profile APPENDIX C – Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Testing Results APPENDIX E – Design Analysis APPENDIX F – Representative Photographs

Note: Design changes made subsequent to distribution of this report and prior to project advertisement will be documented in a memo inserted after the title page.

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 15-13

PROJECT TN PRA-NATR 1E10

LITTLE SWAN CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (MP 386.89)

(Structure Number 5570-004P)

NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY

LEWIS COUNTY, TENNESSEE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and design analyses and presents our evaluations and recommendations for Little Swan Creek Bridge replacement. The site is located along the Natchez Trace Parkway in Lewis County, Tennessee. A project location map is provided as Figure 1 of Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

The existing 3-span Little Swan Creek Bridge (Structure Number 5570-004P) was built in 1962 and is supported on spread footings bearing on bedrock. The abutments and wing walls are also supported on spread footings. The bridge inspection report of August 1, 2013 indicated that the bridge was in poor condition and listed widespread cracking and delamination of the pier caps.

The new bridge will consist of two 120-foot long spans with two 11-foot wide lanes and 6-foot wide shoulders.

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 Regional Geology

USGS Open File Report No. 2005-13241 indicated that the Little Swan Creek Bridge is predominantly underlain by the Fort Payne Formation, which is described as Mississippian in age, “bedded chert, calcareous and dolomitic, somewhat crinoidal, and minor shale; thin green shale (Maury) at base; average thickness about 200 feet.” The bridge is also bounded by the St. Louis and Warsaw Limestones, which are described also as Mississippian in age, “nodules and blocks of chert in sandy clay (originally grayish-brown, medium-bedded limestone),” with thicknesses from 50 ft to 60 ft. A Site Geologic Map is included as Figure 2 of Appendix A.

2.2 Soil Survey

According to the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey2 for Lewis County, Tennessee (2013), the Little Swan Creek Bridge is predominantly underlain by the Tarkin-Humphreys Complex (TmC2) and the Riverby gravelly sandy loam (Rb), and is surrounded by the Biffle-Sulphura-Rock outcrop association (BOF). These three map units can be described collectively as loamy alluvium and/or colluvium and residuum, Project: TN PRA-NATR 1E10 Soils and Foundations Report Little Swan Creek Bridge (MP 386.89) No. 15-13 Natchez Trace Parkway, Lewis County, Tennessee

2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

derived from interbedded limestone or sedimentary rock, with profiles including gravelly silt loam and sandy loam. A Soil Survey Map is included as Figure 3 of Appendix A.

3 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

3.1 General

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division’s (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team performed the drilling operations for this site between June 10th and 12th, 2013. Three

(3) borings were drilled along the proposed alignment – one boring at each proposed abutment and one boring at the proposed pier location. The borings, designated B-1, B-2, and B-3, were extended to depths of 47.4 ft, 17.5 ft, and 27.5 ft below existing site grades, respectively. The borings were drilled using a CME 850, rotary, track-mounted drill rig. Appendix B contains the Boring Location Plan and Subsurface Profile. Borings were laid out in the field by EFLHD field personnel by referencing ground surface topography, measuring distances from existing surface features, and estimating right angles. Due to the methods used to locate the borings in the field, borings location shown in Appendix B should be considered approximate. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were determined from the topography plans provided by the Survey Division.

3.2 Sampling

Borings were advanced using 3-¾ inch (ID) hollow-stem augers. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed using a 2.0-inch (OD) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T206. SPT samples were recovered by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24 inches, or until refusal, into the soil under the action of a 140-pound automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-inch sample 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 and transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, Tennessee for testing and storage. Split-spoon refusal is defined by 50 blows per 1 inch of penetration of the split-spoon sampler. The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring may be referenced on the boring logs in Appendix C.

Rock coring also was performed at each boring location upon reaching auger refusal.

Coring was performed using the double-tube wireline method with an NQ-size core barrel.

3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

3.3 Field Tests and Measurements

A field description by color and texture was made for each recovered soil sample and rock core. Field descriptions of the recovered rock cores are included in the boring logs.

3.4 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 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 sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this memorandum.

No groundwater level readings were made at the time of drilling as drilling fluid was introduced during the rock coring; however, groundwater may be present within the depths drilled. Fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

3.5 Laboratory Testing

At the conclusion of the fieldwork laboratory testing was conducted on representative rock samples. The primary purpose of the testing was to evaluate the unconfined compressive strengths of the rock cores recovered. All tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM 2938. Laboratory test results are summarized in Table 1 and are included in Appendix D.

Table 1 – Laboratory Test Results

Boring No.

Core Depth (ft)

Unconfined Compressive

Strength (psi)

B-1 37.4 – 42.4 11,680

B-2 4.0 – 7.55 18,480

B-3 17.5 – 22.5 22,040

4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

3.6 Findings

A brief description of the soil and rock conditions encountered during our drilling operation is presented below. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the boring logs in Appendix C represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. It should be noted that one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

Pavement – Pavement thicknesses encountered in the soil borings ranged between 6 inches and 9.5 inches in borings B-1 and B-3, respectively.

Fill – Fill, probably associated with the existing embankments, was encountered underneath the pavement and extended to approximate depths of 37.4 ft and 16.2 ft below existing site grades in Borings B-1 and B-3, respectively. The fill consisted primarily of soft to stiff chert, clay, and shale, with various amounts of sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders. SPT N-values in this layer range from 4 to 11 bpf.

It should be noted that Boring B-2 yielded 4 ft of natural deposits before auger refusal was encountered.

Bedrock – Underneath the fill materials (Borings B-1 and B-3) and natural deposits (Boring B-2), limestone was encountered in all of the borings. Table 2 includes a summary of our field measurements. Rock core recovery values ranged from 16 to 100% and RQD values ranged from 8 to 100%. The unconfined compressive strength of the rock samples ranged from 11,680 to 22,040 psi.

Table 2 – Estimated Bedrock Elevations

Boring No.

Ground Surface

Elevation (ft)

Depth to Bedrock

(ft)

Estimated Bedrock Elevation

(ft)

B-1 747.1 37.4 709.7

B-2 714.4 4.0 710.4

B-3 747.4 16.2 731.2

It should be noted that the estimated bedrock elevations listed in Table 2 are based on the soil profile encountered in the soil borings. Bed rock depths, strengths, degree of weathering, and competency are expected to vary across the site.

5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

4 DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the subsurface profile encountered during this geotechnical study, structural loads, and scour analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed bridge can be supported on spread footings bearing on bedrock.

4.1 Bearing Resistance and Settlement

Foundation bearing resistance was evaluated in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications3. A bearing resistance factor for strength limit state of (b) of 0.45 was utilized, as listed in AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1. The service limit state bearing resistance was calculated assuming a maximum tolerable settlement of 0.50 inch.

Bearing resistance was evaluated in accordance with AASHTO Section 10.6.3. Potential settlement was evaluated in accordance with AASHTO Section 10.6.2.4.4. Computer output is included in Appendix E.

4.2 Sliding Resistance

Resistance to sliding was evaluated in accordance with AASHTO Section 10.6.3.4. An interface friction angle (δ) of 35 degrees was used for footings that are cast directly on rock, as listed in AASHTO Table 3.11.5.3-1. A resistance factor for shear resistance between soil and foundation (φτ) of 0.8 for cast-in-place concrete was chosen. The resistance factor for passive resistance (φep) is 0.5, as listed in AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Bridge Foundations

A system of spread footings bearing on bedrock is recommended to support the foundations of the new bridge. Footings should be sized to limit the factored bearing pressure to 8 ksf and to withstand a total vertical settlement on the order of 0.50 inch.

An experienced geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist should evaluate and approve the bedrock immediately prior to casting the foundation.

5.2 Abutment Walls

The soil properties presented in Table 3 are recommended for design of abutment walls.

6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Table 3 – Soil Design Parameters for Abutment Walls

Parameter Value

Moist Soil Unit Weight, γ (kcf) 0.125

Friction Angle, φ (deg.) 32

Active Earth Pressure Coeff., Ka 0.31

Passive Earth Pressure Coeff., Kp 3.25

At-rest Earth Pressure Coeff., Ko 0.47

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Excavations: All excavations should be performed in accordance with applicable Federal, state, local, and OSHA standards and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP- 03 Specifications. Any unsuitable materials encountered below proposed footing elevations should be removed.

Structural Backfill and Backfill Drainage: Weepholes with 6-inch diameter through abutment walls and wingwalls should be installed at a maximum spacing of 10 feet.

Weepholes should be installed above the top of backfill at front face. All weepholes should be approved non-perforated PVC pipes per Subsection 706.08(e) of the FP-03 Specifications. Approved geocomposite drains as per Subsection 714.02(b) of the FP-03 Specifications should be placed against the back face of the walls. The geocomposite drains should extend from the top of the weepholes to the bottom of the proposed aggregate base course at approaches. Type IV-A geotextile fabric per FP-03 Specifications should be attached to the core of the geocomposite drains. Type II-B geotextile fabric should be placed between the on-site soil backfill material and the granular select borrow for separation/filtration. Backfilling behind and in front of all walls and pier footings should be done in accordance with Subsection 208.10 and compacting per Subsection 208.11 of the FP-03 Specifications.

7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

7 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests described in the section on Procedures and Results have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these explorations and tests represent conditions at the specific locations indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary.

The Design Analysis and Conclusions section and the Recommendations section in this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Christopher Lynch, EIT Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

8 REFERENCES

1 Nicholson, S.W., Dicken, C. L., Horton, J. D., Labay, K. A., Foose, M. P., and Mueller, J. A. L. (2005). Preliminary Integrated Geologic Map Databases for the United States: Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1324, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/sgmc/tn.html

2 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed October 28, 2013.

3 AASHTO (2012). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 6th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

APPENDIX A

Figures

STATEREG

NATR 1E10

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

1SE 1TN

FIGURE 1

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

NATR 1E10

LITTLE SWAN CREEK BRIDGE

MP 386.89

Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS), "Tennessee Geologic Map Data" http://mrdata.usgs.gov/sgmc/tn.html

1TN

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA SE

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

STATEREG

NATR 1E10

TOTAL

SHEETS

Fort Payne Formation (Mfp): Bedded chert, calcareous and dolomitic, somewhat crinoidal; and minor shale. Thin green shale (Maury) at base. Average thickness about 200 feet.

Geologic Age: Mississippian Primary Rock Type: Chert Secondary Rock Type: Shale

St. Louis Limestone and Warsaw Limestone (Msw): Residuum of nodules and blocks of chert in sandy clay. (Originally grayish‐brown, medium‐bedded limestone.) Maximum preserved thickness about 50 feet. Warsaw Limestone ‐ Residuum of porous chert blocks in sandy clay. (Originally gray, medium‐ to coarse‐grained, thick‐ bedded limestone.) Thickness about 60 feet.

Geologic Age: Mississippian Primary Rock Type: clay or mud Secondary Rock Type: chert

Silurian Formations, including Decatur Limestone, Brownsport Group (Lobelville Formation, Bob Limestone, Beech River Formation), Wayne Group (Dixon Formation, Lego Formation, Waldron Shale, Laurel Limestone, Osgood Formation) and Brassfield Limestone (S): Silurian Formations ‐ A complete section of Silurian formations is not common because of pre‐Chattanooga and/or pre‐ Cretaceous erosion. Where preserved, Silurian formations are remarkably uniform in thickness and are characteristically light olive‐gray to greenish‐gray with variable reddish‐brown color in some area;. Decatur Limestone ‐ Thick‐bedded, medium‐ to coarse‐grained limestone, gray with reddish‐brown grains. Thickness 0 to 70 feet; Brownsport Group which includes 1) Lobelville Formation ‐ Shale with thin beds of limestone. Thickness 0 to 40 feet; 2) Bob Limestone ‐ Thick‐bedded, medium‐grained limestone, locally oolitic. Thickness 0 to 25 feet; and 3) Beech River Formation ‐ Shale with thin beds of limestone. Thickness 0 to 60 feet; Wayne Group which includes: 1) Dixon Formation ‐ Green and reddish‐brown argillaceous limestone, shale, and mudstone. Thickness 0 to 40 feet; 2) Lego Limestone ‐ Even‐bedded, olive‐gray limestone with scattered reddish‐brown grains. Thickness 0 to 30 feet; 3) Waldron Shale ‐ Greenish‐gray fossiliferous shale. Thickness 0 to 5 feet; 4) Laurel Limestone ‐ Even‐bedded, gray limestone with scattered reddish‐brown grains. Thickness 0 to 30 feet; 5) Osgood Formation ‐ Greenish‐ and reddish‐gray shale and argillaceous limestone. Thickness 0 to 15 feet.; and Brassfield Limestone ‐ Thin‐bedded cherty limestone, locally glauconitic. Thickness 0 to 20 feet.

Geologic Age: Silurian Primary Rock Type: limestone Secondary Rock Type: shale, mudstone

Ordovician [units] including Richmond Group (which includes Mannie Shale, Fernvale Limestone, Sequatchie Formation, and Arnheim Formation), the Maysville Group (which includes Leipers Formation), the Eden Group (which includes Inman Formation), and the Nashville Group (which includes Catheys Formation) (Ou): Ordovician [units] including Richmond Group (which includes Mannie Shale ‐ Olive‐gray shale. Thickness 0 to 20 feet; Fernvale Limestone ‐ Massive, coarsely crystalline, gray limestone with varicolored grains. Thickness 0 to 50 feet; Sequatchie Formation ‐ Olive‐gray and greenish‐gray shale, mudstone, and argillaceous limestone; dolomitic, laminated, and sandy. Thickness 0 to 100 feet; and Arnheim Formation Nodular, shaly, gray limestone. Thickness 0 to 20 feet; the Maysville Group (which includes Leipers Formation ‐ Nodular, shaly limestone; fine‐ to coarse‐grained limestone; and phosphatic calcarenite locally. Thickness 0 to 150 feet); the Eden Group (which includes the Inman Formation ‐ Thin‐bedded to laminated, fine‐grained, gray limestone with shale partings. Thickness 0 to 50 feet); and the Nashville Group (which includes Catheys Formation ‐ Nodular, shaly limestone; fine‐ to coarse‐grained limestone; phosphatic calcarenite; and light‐gray cryptograined limestone. Thickness 50 to 175 feet.)

Geologic Age: Ordovician Primary Rock Type: shale Secondary Rock Type: limestone

Mfp

Mfp

S

S

Ou

Ou

Msw

Msw

Little Swan Creek Bridge

Mfp

US 412

TN 99

Lewis County,Tennessee (2012) Source: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

TmC2 - Tarklin-Humphreys complex, eroded BOF - Biffle-Sulphura-Rock outcrop association, very steep Parent material: Loamy alluvium and/or Parent material: Loamy residuum weathered colluvium derived from limestone Typical profile Typical profile 0 to 5 inches: Gravelly silt loam 0 to 12 inches: Gravelly silt loam 5 to 22 inches: Gravelly silt loam 12 to 32 inches: Gravelly silt loam 22 to 60 inches: Very gravelly silt loam 32 to 42 inches: Bedrock from cherty limestone Rb - Riverby gravelly sandy loam, frequently flooded

Parent material: Gravelly alluvium derived from interbedded sedimentary rock Typical profile 0 to 10 inches: Gravelly sandy loam 10 to 60 inches: Extremely gravelly coarse sandy loam

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1TN

FIGURE 3

SOIL SURVEY MAP EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

TOTAL

SHEETS

SE

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

STATEREG

NATR 1E10

Little Swan Creek Bridge

APPENDIX B

Boring Location Plan and Subsurface Profile

REG STATE PROJECT

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

-M a r -2

:4

P

M :4

1:

P

M M

P R

O J E

C T

S n a tr 1e

T e c h s e r v G e o te c h C

A D

D B o r in g

P la n a n d

P r o f il e .d g n

STERLING, VIRGINIA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SYMBOL SYMBOLTYPE OF MATERIAL TYPE OF MATERIAL TEST BORING MISCELLANEOUS

S R

SE 1

AND SUBSURFACE PROFILE

BORING LOCATION PLAN

(MILEPOST 386.89)

OVER LITTLE SWAN CREEK

ON NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY

BRIDGE 5570-004P

ELEVATION

TN 1NATR 1E10

FILL

PLAN

Parkway

L Natchez TraceC

120'-8" 120'-8"

T y p

Little Swan Creek

Bridge length = 241'-4"

N

241'-4"

Cat 18'-0" left of L

Existing groundline

0.11%

1:2 1:

106+00 107+00 108+00

Existing Pier Locations bridge

Begin Existing

Bridge End Existing

B-1

B-2

B-3

Sta. 105+65

Begin bridge

CONDITIONS MAY VARY BETWEEN THESE LOCATIONS.

AT THE BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN. SUBSURFACE

THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED

THE BORING LOGS ON THIS SHEET REPRESENT

12" (SPT)

N BLOWS/

(24 HOURS)

WATER LEVEL (WL)

(TIME OF DRILLING)

WATER LEVEL (WL)

DEPTH MARKS

BHT OR BHR

(B-N)

BORING NUMBER

SCALE IN FEET

0 25 50

Sta. 108+06

End bridge at 18'-0" left of L

Existing groundline C

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NO. 15-13

PROJECT TN PRA-NATR 1E10

LIMESTONE

SAND AND GRAVEL

7. GEOPHYSICAL TEST SITE: SEISMIC RESISTIVITY

6. BHR - BORE HOLE REFUSAL

5. BHT - BORE HOLE TERMINATED

4. RQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

3. REC. - PERCENT OF RECOVERY

2. R - REFUSAL, SPT 100 BLOWS/12"

1. SPT - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST - AASHTO T206

RQD(%)

REC.(%) /

Anticipated top of rock

B-1

B-2

B-3

BHT

BHT

BHT

100 / 78

100 / 81

47.4

100 / 95

100 / 100

17.5

100 / 100

100 / 100

1.3

16.2

27.5

Depth (ft) N Rec. / RQD

Depth (ft) N Rec. / RQD

Depth (ft) N Rec. / RQD

37.4

100 / 88

APPENDIX C

Borings Logs

Asphalt pavement and base course

Soft to stiff, brown CHERT AND CLAY, trace sand (Moist)

Possible boulders between 3' to 5' depth. (Moist)

- FILL -

Auger Refusal at 8 ft

Brown and gray CHERT, CLAY, AND SHALE (Moist)

Possible cobbles and boulders at different depths

- FILL -

1.0

8.0

1.1 6-6-5-3

1-2-2-2

J-1

J-2

2 in.

6/11/13 K.Thornton

R.Kingsley/D.HutchinsOperator:

Sta. 105+67, 8' LT

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

Project Location:

P P

/R Q

D

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

US State Plane 1983, NAD 1983, Tennessee 4100; NAVD 1988 Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 6/11/13

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hot

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 434127 Easting: 1538136

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings and sand upon completion.

No groundwater was encountered during our drilling operation.

PRA-NATR 1E10 - Bridge (5570-004P) Over Little Swan Creek

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA/WL

B-1

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Natchez Trace Parkway-Milepost 386.89, Lewis County, Tennessee Project Datum:

15.8 ft

(Blows / ft)

747.1 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

R ec ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75 in.

Water Content % Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

/6 /1

:5

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \N

A T

R \1

E

0\ T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\N A

T R

E

M A

-C M

L.

G

P J

746.1

739.1

Brown and gray CHERT, CLAY, AND SHALE (Moist)

Possible cobbles and boulders at different depths

- FILL - (Continued)

Moderately hard, gray, slightly weathered LIMESTONE, fine texture

Recovery: 100% RQD: 78% Unconfined Compressive Strength = 11,680 psi

Recovery: 100% RQD: 81%

Boring was terminated at a depth of 47.4 ft

37.4

42.4

47.4

2 in.

6/11/13 K.Thornton

R.Kingsley/D.HutchinsOperator:

Sta. 105+67, 8' LT

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

Project Location:

P P

/R Q

D

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

US State Plane 1983, NAD 1983, Tennessee 4100; NAVD 1988 Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 6/11/13

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hot

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 434127 Easting: 1538136

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings and sand upon completion.

No groundwater was encountered during our drilling operation.

PRA-NATR 1E10 - Bridge (5570-004P) Over Little Swan Creek

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA/WL

B-1

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Natchez Trace Parkway-Milepost 386.89, Lewis County, Tennessee Project Datum:

15.8 ft

(Blows / ft)

747.1 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

R ec ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75 in.

Water Content % Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

/6 /1

:5

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \N

A T

R \1

E

0\ T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\N A

T R

E

M A

-C M

L.

G

P J 709.7

704.7

699.7

Medium dense, brown and black SAND AND GRAVEL (Moist)

- ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS -

Auger Refusal at 4 ft

Gray, slightly weathered LIMESTONE, very fine texture.

Reovery: 100% RQD: 95% Unconfined Compressive Strength = 18,480 psi

Recovery: 100% RQD: 88%

Recovery: 100% RQD: 100%

Boring was terminated at a depth of 17.5 ft

4.0

7.5

12.5

17.5

1.3 8-7-6-9J-1

2 in.

6/10/13 K.Thornton/E.Del Valle R.Kingsley/D.HutchinsOperator:

Sta. 106+89, 17' LT

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

Project Location:

P P

/R Q

D

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

US State Plane 1983, NAD 1983, Tennessee 4100; NAVD 1988 Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 6/10/13

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hot/Clear

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 434224 Easting: 1538209

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

No groundwater was encountered during our drilling operation.

PRA-NATR 1E10 - Bridge (5570-004P) Over Little Swan Creek

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA/WL

B-2

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Natchez Trace Parkway-Milepost 386.89, Lewis County, Tennessee Project Datum:

14.2 ft

(Blows / ft)

714.4 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

R ec ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 3.75 in.

Water Content % Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

/6 /1

:5

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \N

A T

R \1

E

0\ T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\N A

T R

E

M A

-C M

L.

G

P J

710.4

706.9

701.9

696.9

Asphalt pavement and base course

Gravel and boulders COBBLES & BOULDERS (Moist)

- FILL -

Gray, slightly weathered LIMESTONE, fine texture

Unconfined Compressive Strength = 22,040 psi

Recovery: 100% RQD: 100%

Recovery: 100% RQD: 100%

Boring was terminated at a depth of 27.5 ft

1.3

16.2

22.5

27.5

2 in.

6/12/13 K.Thornton/E.Del Valle R.Kingsley/D.HutchinsOperator:

Sta. 108+08, 6' LT

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

Project Location:

P P

/R Q

D

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

US State Plane 1983, NAD 1983, Tennessee 4100; NAVD 1988 Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 6/12/13

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hot

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 434307 Easting: 1538296

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings and sand upon completion.

No groundwater was encountered during our drilling operation.

PRA-NATR 1E10 - Bridge (5570-004P) Over Little Swan Creek

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

WL

B-3

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Natchez Trace Parkway-Milepost 386.89, Lewis County, Tennessee Project Datum:

13.1 ft

(Blows / ft)

747.4 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

R ec ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic 2 in.

Water Content % Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

/6 /1

:5

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \N

A T

R \1

E

0\ T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\N A

T R

E

M A

-C M

L.

G

P J

746.1

731.2

724.9

719.9

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Testing Results

Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Materials Testing Laboratory

1827 Jack Delozier Drive, Sevierville, TN 37876

Replacement of Little Swan Creek Bridge

NATR 1E10 Lewis

TN

Eva N. Valle-Valentin

B-1

Verification

Lewis County, Tn

Rock Core

Project Name: State:

County:

Submitted By:

Field Sample No:

Sample Type:

Source Location:

Boring No:

Material

Project Number:

Depth: 37.4 to 42.4 ft.B-1

Report of Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Cores

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core (ASTM 2938)

Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi 11680

Page 1 of 1 8/6/2013 10:52 AM

Charles W. McCown, Jr. - Laboratory Team Leader Date

Lab Control No: E-13-0663

Uncontrolled Copy

Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Materials Testing Laboratory

1827 Jack Delozier Drive, Sevierville, TN 37876

Replacement of Little Swan Creek Bridge

NATR 1E10 Lewis

TN

Eva N. Valle-Valentin

B-2

Verification

Lewis County, Tn

Rock Core

Project Name: State:

County:

Submitted By:

Field Sample No:

Sample Type:

Source Location:

Boring No:

Material

Project Number:

Depth: 4.0 to 7.55 ft.B-2

Report of Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Cores

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core (ASTM 2938)

Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi 18480

Page 1 of 1 8/6/2013 10:53 AM

Charles W. McCown, Jr. - Laboratory Team Leader Date

Lab Control No: E-13-0664

Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Materials Testing Laboratory

1827 Jack Delozier Drive, Sevierville, TN 37876

Replacement of Little Swan Creek Bridge

NATR 1E10 Lewis

TN

Eva N. Valle-Valentin

B-3

Verification

Lewis County, Tn

Rock Core

Project Name: State:

County:

Submitted By:

Field Sample No:

Sample Type:

Source Location:

Boring No:

Material

Project Number:

Depth: 17.5 to 22.5 ft.B-3

Report of Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Cores

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core (ASTM 2938)

Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi 22040

Page 1 of 1 8/6/2013 10:54 AM

Charles W. McCown, Jr. - Laboratory Team Leader Date

Lab Control No: E-13-0665

APPENDIX E

Design Analysis

7 9 11 13

N om in al

B ea ri n g R es is ta n ce k sf

Effective Footing Width, Bf or Radius, R (ft)

Little Swan Creek Bridge Nominal Bearing Resistance

Service Limit State shown for 0.25-inch Settlement

Service Limit State - South Abut.

Strength Limit State - South Abut.

APPENDIX F

Representative Photographs

F-1

Photo 1 – Apparent limestone outcrop, approx. station 108+25.00 to 109+10.00, RT.

Photo 2 – Existing Eastern pier in vicinity of boring B-2, looking south.

F-2

Photo 3 – Sample recovery for boring B-2.

Photo 4 – Sample recovery for boring B-3.

F-3

Photo 5 – Existing south abutment, looking west.

Photo 6 – Apparent limestone rock outcrops in vicinity of Little Swan Creek Bridge.