Geotechnical Report.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

REPORT NO. 02-22

PROJECT: BIG CLIFTY ROAD (FS 404), BRUSH CREEK ROAD (FS 209),

AND PAINT MOUNTAIN ROAD (FS 54) SLOPE FAILURE REPAIRS

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST

COCKE AND GREENE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

22001 LOUDON COUNTY PARKWAY

BUILDING E-2, SUITE 200

ASHBURN, VA 20147

MARCH 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Background

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

3.1 Subsurface Exploration

3.2 Field Testing and Sampling

3.3 Laboratory Testing

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General

4.2 Brush Creek Road, FS 209

4.2.1 MP 1.12 (Boring BH20-01)

4.2.2 MP 1.90 (Borings BH20-02)

4.3 Big Clifty Road, FS 404

4.3.1 MP 7.40 (Borings BH20-03 and BH20-04)

4.4 Paint Mountain Road, FS 54

4.4.1 MP 1.77, 1.82, 1.90, and 3.18

4.4.2 MP 4.21, 4.3, 4.45, and 4.64

4.4.3 MP 4.36

5 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Geotechnical Evaluation

5.2 Design Alternatives

5.3 Recommendations

5.3.1 Brush Creek Road

5.3.2 Big Cliffy Road

5.3.3 Paint Mountain Road

5.4 Analyses

6 REFERENCES

7 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – Borings Location Map Appendix C – Borings Logs Appendix D – Laboratory Testing Results Appendix E – Slope Stability Analyses Appendix F – Selected Photographs

Note: Design changes subsequent to publication of this report and prior to the project’s advertisement will be documented by a memo attached after the title page.

PROJECT: BIG CLIFTY ROAD, BRUSH CREEK ROAD, AND PAINT MOUNTAIN ROAD

PAGE 3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

REPORT NO. 01-22

PROJECT: BIG CLIFTY ROAD (FS 404), BRUSH CREEK ROAD (FS 209), AND PAINT

MOUNTAIN ROAD (FS 54) SLOPE FAILURE REPAIRS

COCKE AND GREENE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical analysis, and recommendations for the slope failures repair in Big Clifty Road (FS 404, MP 7.40), Brush Creek Road (FS 209, MP 1.12 and 1.90), and Paint Mountain Road (FS 54, from MP 1.7 to 4.96). The sites are located in Cocke and Greene Counties, Tennessee. The sites location is shown in Figure 1, Appendix A.

1.2 Background

A series of heavy rain events in spring of 2019 caused roadway damages within the Cherokee National Forest. Damages include landslides, roadway and shoulder washouts, and clogged or displaced culverts.

The damaged roadways prevented public access to various sections of the Forest.

The damage in Big Clifty Road MP 7.40 was Approximately 80 feet long. The damage at Brush Creek Road (FS 209, MP 1.12 and 1.90), was approximately 55 feet and 60 feet long, respectively. The damage at Paint Mountain Road (FS 54, MP from 1.70 to 4.96) was at multiple locations ranging from approximately 45 feet to 100 feet long.

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

Based on the Geology of the Southern Appalachian Mountains map (USGS, 2008), the parent rock at FS- 209 is limestone. The parent rocks of the Blue Ridge Province are from the Ordovician to Cambrian age.

The formations include locations that have basal sedimentary breccia, conglomerate and quartz sand. The geologic map also indicates that at FS-404 the parent rock is metamorphosed sandstone. The parent rocks of the Blue Ridge Province are from the late Proterozoic age and are of the Ocoee basin. The formations include locally cross-bedded, metamorphosed, interbedded siltstone and sandstone. The Geology Map is included in Figure 2 of Appendix A.

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

3.1 Subsurface Exploration

A subsurface exploration program was conducted at Big Clifty Road (FS 404, MP 7.40), and Brush Creek Road (FS 209, MP 1.12 and 1.90) on April 2 through April 6, 2021 by KS Ware & Associates (KSWA) subsurface exploration team. The program consisted of drilling four (4) soil borings (BH20-01, BH20-02, PAGE 4 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

BH20-03 and BH20-04) on either side of the slide. The borings were advanced to their termination depths with a CME 45 ATV-mounted rotary drill rig. The boring locations were selected by EFLHD geotechnical engineer based on the location of the observed damage, presence of underground utilities, and accessibility of the drilling rig. All boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings after completion. Boreholes were laid out by EFLHD field personnel by measuring distances from mapped landmarks and using a hand-held GPS units. Boring elevations were determined from the topographic plans. Borings extended to depths of 10.8

ft. to 16 ft. below existing site grades. Approximate boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan in Appendix B.

3.2 Field Testing and Sampling

The borings were advanced to the termination depths using 3-¾ –in. (ID) hollow stem augers (HSA). Soil samples were obtained using a 2¼- in (OD) split-barrel (split-spoon) sampler driven during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in general accordance with AASHTO T206. Soil samples were typically recovered at 2.50 ft intervals in the top 20 ft and at 5.0 ft intervals thereafter, by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-lb. automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The total number of blows recorded for the last twelve inches of the 18-inch sample range is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value. Spoon refusal, if encountered, is defined as greater than 50 blows per 6-inches of penetration of the split-spoon sampler.

The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-inch interval was recorded on the field boring logs. Upon completion of the SPT, the sampler was removed from the borehole and sample recovery measurements were made and recorded for each sampling event. A field description by color, texture, and moisture was made for each recovered sample. Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars for laboratory testing. The SPT N-values for each sampling event were recorded on the boring logs.

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 team 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.

Rock coring was performed in all the borings, using rotary drilling techniques and samples were retrieved using an NQ core barrel and wireline. Rock core samples were preserved in wooden boxes for laboratory testing.

KS Ware & Associates performed laboratory testing on representative soil and rock samples and the remaing of the samples collected in the field were delivered to EFLHD Materials Testing facility in Sevierville, TN for storage. The sampling sequence and associated samples for the boring is presented in Appendix C.

PAGE 5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

The boring logs in Appendix C represent a compilation of field data and description of the soil samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally do not include all data recorded on the driller’s logs and field data sheets, but include all information considered relevant to the analysis and preparation of this report.

Groundwater level measurements, if present, were conducted at the times and under the conditions stated in the boring logs. It must be noted that fluctuations in groundwater level may occur due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were taken.

3.3 Laboratory Testing

A laboratory-testing program was conducted on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to determine the soil engineering properties required for the analyses. The laboratory tests included, natural moisture content (AASHTO T-265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89/90), particle size analysis (AASHTO T-88), and soil classification (AASHTO M-145). Representative rock cores were tested for unconfined compressive strength (AASHTO D 7012). The results of the laboratory testing program are presented in Appendix D and summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 – Summary of Soil Laboratory Testing Results

USCS: Unified Soil Classification System

Table 2 - Summary of rock core UCS test results

Boring No. Sample Depth (ft)

Compressive Strength psi ksf

BH20-01 9.5-10 9,270 1,330

BH20-01 13-13.5 12,490 1,800

BH20-03 5-5.5 3,710 530

BH20-03 11-11.5 4,300 620

BH20-04 8.3-8.8 9,040 1,300

BH20-04 10.5-11 5,360 770

Boring

No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

AASHTO

Classification

USCS

Classification

MC

Gravel

Sand

Silt / Clay

BH20-01 1.0-2.5 A-2-4 Clayey gravel with sand 12.3 44.9 41.5 13.5 BH20-03 1.0-2.5 A-1-b Silty sand with gravel - 34.9 47.2 18.0

PAGE 6 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General

A brief description of the soil and rock conditions encountered during the subsurface exploration is presented below. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the boring logs 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. Subsurface conditions may vary between the boring locations.

The boring logs are included in Appendix C.

4.2 Brush Creek Road, FS 209

4.2.1 MP 1.12 (Boring BH20-01)

Natural Deposits Natural deposits were encountered and extended to the auger refusal depth and consisted primarily of medium dense clayey gravel with sand, layers of medium dense to very dense gravel, and a 0.3 ft. thick layer of a very stiff lean clay. Limestone was encountered underneath the sand layer.

Auger Refusal Auger refusal was encountered at a depth of 6.0 ft below existing site grades.

Rock Coring Rock coring was performed and extended to the termination depth of 16.0 ft below existing site grade.

Unconfined compressive strength of rock cores tested ranged from 9,270 to 12,490 lb/sq in (psi).

Groundwater No groundwater was encountered in the borings during drilling operations.

4.2.2 MP 1.90 (Boring BH20-02)

Natural Deposits A natural deposit was encountered and extended to the auger refusal depth and consisted primarily of medium dense clayey gravel with sand. Limestone was encountered underneath the gravel layer.

Auger Refusal Auger refusal was encountered at depths of 0.7 ft below existing site grades.

Rock Coring Rock coring was performed and extended to the termination depth of 10.8 ft below existing site grade.

Groundwater No groundwater was encountered in the borings during drilling operations.

PAGE 7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

4.3 Big Clifty Road, FS 404

4.3.1 MP 7.40 (Borings BH20-03 and BH20-04)

Natural Deposits Natural deposits were encountered and extended to the borings auger refusal depths. These deposits consisted primarily of medium dense to very dense sand, and a layer of hard lean clay.

Auger Refusal Auger refusal was encountered at depths of 5 ft. and 4 ft. below existing site grades in borings BH20-03 and BH20-04, respectively.

Rock Coring Rock coring was performed and extended to the termination depth of 15 ft. and 14 ft. below existing site grade in borings BH20-03 and BH20-04, respectively. Unconfined compressive strength of rock cores tested ranged from 3,710 to 9,040 lb/sq in (psi).

Groundwater No groundwater was encountered in the borings during drilling operations.

4.4 Paint Mountain Road, FS 54

No subsurface exploration was performed at these sites.

4.4.1 MP 1.77, 1.82, 1.90, and 3.18

Per the USDA Web Soil Survey, the surficial materials are described as Soco fine sandy loam. USDA described the engineering properties of these upper soils as follows:

0-1 in. – Moderately decomposed plant material, PT

1-4 in. – Fine sandy loam, MH, ML & SM, A-4 & A-5, LL of 30-55, PI of NP-7

4-30 in. – Fine sandy loam to silt loam, CL, ML, SC & SM, A-4 & A-6, LL of 25-40, PI of NP-11

30-45 in. – Weathered bedrock

The geologic map of the area indicates that the site is underlain by Hampton Formation (dark greenish-gray, silty and sandy, micaceous shale, thinly bedded sandstone).

4.4.2 MP 4.21, 4.3, 4.45, and 4.64

Per the USDA Web Soil Survey, the surficial materials are described as Northcove stony sandy loam.

USDA described the engineering properties of these upper soils as follows:

0-1 in. – Stony sandy loam, SC-SM & SM, A-1-b & A-2-4, LL of 12-23, PI of NP-7

1-24 in. – Very cobbly sandy loam to very flaggy loam, SM, GC-GM, GM, SC-SM, A-1-b, A-2-4 & A-4, LL of 15-30, PI of NP-7

PAGE 8 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

24-63 in. – Extremely cobbly sandy loam to extremely stony sand, GC-GM, GM & SM, A-1-b & A-2-4, LL of 10-30, PI of NP-7

The geologic map of the area indicates that the site is underlain by Hampton Formation (dark greenish-gray, silty and sandy, micaceous shale, thinly bedded sandstone) at depth.

4.4.3 MP 4.36

Per the USDA Web Soil Survey, the surficial materials are described as Cataska channery silt loam channery sandy loam. USDA described the engineering properties of these upper soils as follows:

0-2 in. – Very channery silt loam to channery loam, GC-GM & CL-ML, A-4, LL of 20-44, PI of 3-14

2-5 in. - Very channery silt loam to channery loam, GC-GM & CL, A-4, LL of 18-33, PI of 3-15

5-11 in. – Very flaggy loam to vey channery loam, GC-GM & GC, A-2-4 & A-4, LL of 18-33, PI of 3-15

11-19 in. - Very flaggy loam to flaggy loam, GC-GM & GC, A-2-4 & A-6, LL of 18-33, PI of 3-15

19-80 in. - Bedrock

The geologic map of the area indicates that the site is underlain by Hampton Formation (dark greenish-gray, silty and sandy, micaceous shale, thinly bedded sandstone).

5 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Geotechnical Evaluation

Landslides occur as a result of unbalanced pressures along the sloping ground. The presence of water acts as a trigger mechanism by increasing the driving forces and/or reducing the shear strength of the in-situ materials. To mitigate slope stability problems, various approaches can be used. One approach is to reduce the driving forces and increasing shear strength. The shear strength can be increased by lowering the groundwater table which can be attained by improving the surface and subsurface drainage systems.

Another approach is increasing the resisting forces. Increasing the resisting forces can be achived by buttressing the slope, adding a retaining structure, or by reinforcing the slope.

5.2 Design Alternatives

Various alternatives were considered given their feasibility and effectiveness, site subsurface conditions, constructability, cost, and our experience with similar projects. A brief discussion of each alternative is presented below.

Alternative No. 1 – Gabion Baskets Wall

This alternative consists of re-establishing the roads and stabilize the slope by constructing a gabion basket wall. These walls consist of wiremesh baskets that are filled with stone and placed on top of each other to form a self draining retaining wall. Gabion walls are essentially gravity type walls and would require considerable thickness in order to provide adequate stability. They can sustain considerable deformation and differential settlements.

PAGE 9 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Alternative No. 2 – Reinforced Soil Slope (RSS)

Reinforced soil slopes are constructed using common construction materials, and conventional equipment and techniques, providing an economical and durable structure. These type of walls are cost effective, self-draining, and can tolerate larger differential settlements compared to other repair alternatives and they can be more esthetically pleasant. The reinforcing can be achieved by placement of howizontal gyosynthetic or metal elements.

Alternative No. 3 – Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE)

This alternative consists of re-establishing the roadway and stabilize the slope by constructiing a retaining wall with geosynthetic reinforced soil. MSE walls typically have precast panel facing. Alternatively, these structures can be constructed with welded wire or gabion facing that provides the opportunity for vegetation to grow and mimic the surrounding landscape.

Alternative No. 4 –Soil Nail Reinforcing

Soil nails are reinforcing elements that are drilled and grouted in the ground to support unstable slopes.

They require a speciality contractor for construction and a through QA/QC program

5.3 Recommendations

5.3.1 Brush Creek Road

Based on our observations during the site reconnaissance, the results of our subsurface exploration program, geotechnical analyses, and discussions with our partner, it was concluded that gabion baskets wall with a maximum height of 9.0 ft and a base of 9.0 ft is recommended to be used at Brush Creck Road, MP 1.90.

For Brush Creek MP 1.12, we also recommend deep patch repairs for the paved road. The wall foundations should be supported on firm natural soils, engineered fill placed on firm natural soils, decomposed rock, or bedrock.

5.3.2 Big Cliffy Road

Big Clifty damage is approximately 80 feet long. A gabion baskets wall is recommended for this site as well.

5.3.3 Paint Mountain Road

Paint Mountain Road damage consists of several minor slope failures ranging from 4 to 6 feet in height and up to 100 feet long. We recommened that the sites to be repaired with MSE deep patch repairs. MSE deep patch repairs range from 4.5 to 6 feet high.

5.4 Geotechnical Analyses

The slope stability anlayses of the proposed earth retaining systems were conducted using limit equilibrium methodology, in general accordance with the design concepts and procedures presented in “AASHTO

PAGE 10 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Ed.” (2020) design requirements. A uniform distributed live surcharge load of 200 lb/sq ft (psf) was applied along the roads to account for traffic loading following AASHTO-LRFD, 2020, Section 3.11.6.4 requirements. A summary of the soil engineering parameters assumed in the external, internal, and global stability analyses of Brush Creck Road, MP 1.90, site are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 - Summary of assumed engineering properties for analysis.

Material Type Unit Weight (pcf) Cohesion (psf) Internal Friction Angle ϕ (°)

Clayey Gravel (GC) with sand 110 – 120 0.0 30° – 36°

Rock - Limestone 140 – 155 100 – 1,000 34° – 40°

Aggregate Base 115 – 120 0.0 34° – 36°

Granular Backfill 110 – 120 0.0 34° – 36°

Gabion Basket 110 – 115 Infinite Strength

The selected load factors and combinations are presented in Table 4. The factors follow (AASHTO-LRFD, 2020).

Table 4 – Retaining wall load factors and combinations.

Load Combination EH EV ES LS EQ

Strength I (Max) 1.50 1.35 1.50 1.75 -

Strength I (Min) 0.90 1.00 0.75 1.75 -

Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -

Extreme Event I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 or 0.50 1.00

Table 5 – Gravity Gabion Wall design resistance factors.

Analysis Resistance Factor

Sliding Φ: 0.90

Bearing Φ: 0.45

Overall/Global Φ: 0.75 (FS:1.3)

Internal Stability – Joint Resistance Φ: 0.75

Internal Stability - Overturning Φ: 1.00

Overall/Global Extreme Event I Φ: 0.9 (FS:1.1)

External and internal stability analysis computations were performed using PTC Mathcad Prime v. 6.0 software program by Computer Software Company (PTC) Inc., and the computer program Slide 2 by Rocscience, Inc. Copies of the computer output are included in Appendix E.

PAGE 11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

According to AASHTO 11.5.4.2, a seismic design shall not be considered mandatory for walls located in Seismic Zones 1 through 3, or for walls at Sites where the site adjusted peak ground acceleration is less than or equal to 0.4g, unless one or more of the following is true:

• Liquefaction induced lateral spreading or slope failure, or seismically induced slope failure, due to the presence of sensitive clays that lose strength during the seismic shaking, may impact the stability of the wall for the design earthquake.

• The wall supports another structure that is required, based on the applicable design code or specification for the supporting structure, to be designed for seismic loading and poor seismic performance of the wall could impact the seismic performance of that structure.

In addition, according to C11.5.4.2, paragraph 7, a seismic analysis should be considered mandatory if the wall is located in seismic zone 2 or higher, and if either of the following is greater than 30 feet:

• The exposed wall height plus the average depth over the width of the wall of any soil surcharge present.

• For tiered walls, the sum of the exposed height of all the tiers plus the average soil surcharge depth.

Based on the above listed criteria, we concluded that the proposed retaining walls do not require an external or internal seismic evaluation due to an adjusted PGA less than 0.4g, and the sites are located in Seismic Zones 1 to 3. However, an Extreme Event I global stability analysis is required for all sites. For this analysis, an assumed allowable lateral deformation was established based on the flexible nature of the types of structure. See the evaluation calculations in Appendix E for details.

The proposed retaining walls satisfied the minimum static and Extreme Event I (seismic) global stability requirements with the factors of safety listed in Table 6.

Table 6 – Global/Overall Stability Calculated Factors of Safety

Site

Calculated Factor of Safety

Static Seismic

MP 1.90 1.32 1.23

Details of the global stability analyses are included in Appendix E.

PAGE 12 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

6 REFERENCES

AASHTO-LRFD. (2020). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (9th ed.). Washington, D.C.:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

FHWA. (2014). Standard Specifications For Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14). US Department of Transportation. Washington D.C.: US Department of Transportation.

FHWA. (2015). Strength Characterization of Open-Graded Aggregates for Structural Backfills - FHWA- HRT-15-034. McLean: FHWA.

Clark, S.H.B., 2008, Geology of the Southern Appalachian Mountains: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2830, PAGE 13 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

7 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests described in this report have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these exploration and tests represent conditions at the specific locations and dates indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary. The Geotechnical Analyses and Recommendations Sections of 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:

Majed Abdelhadi, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

P ROJECT: KENDALL CAMPGROUND

RIVERBANK AND BOAT RAMP FIALURES REPAIR

RUSSELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 14 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – Borings Location Map Appendix C – Borings Logs Appendix D – Laboratory Testing Results Appendix E – Slope Stability Analyses Appendix F – Selected Photographs

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

APPENDIX A – FIGURES

U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VIRGINIA

FIGURE 1

REG

Site Location and Vicinity Map EAST

STATE

TN

PROJECT

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

Data to create map retrieved from ArcGIS Online

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

FS-209, Brush Creek Road: MP 1.12

FS-209, Brush Creek Road: MP 1.9

FS-404, Big Cliffty Road

U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VIRGINIA

FIGURE 1

REG

Site Location and Vicinity Map EAST

STATE

TN

PROJECT

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

Data to create map retrieved from ArcGIS Online t

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05 Miles

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

FS-209, Brush Creek Road: MP 1.12

FS-209, Brush Creek Road: MP 1.9

U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VIRGINIA

FIGURE 1

REG

Site Location and Vicinity Map EAST

STATE

TN

PROJECT

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

Data to create map retrieved from ArcGIS Online

0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.40.175 Miles

FS-404, Big Cliffty Road

Geology of the southern Appalachian Mountains Authors: Clark, S.H.B.

Retrieved on July 12, 2021: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_86253.htm Scale - 1:806,000, Professional Paper 1691, USGS (2008)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VIRGNIA

FIGURE NO. 2

Geologic Map

STATE PROJECT

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

TN TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3) 1 1

FS-404 Big Cliffty Rd FS-209: Brush Creek Rd.

MP 1.12/1.9

APPENDIX B – BORINGS LOCATION MAP

DESIGNER

OWNER

PROJECT

SHEET TITLE

# DATE CHANGE DESCRIPTION

1000 Corporate Centre Drive Suite 250

Franklin, TN 37067

615.771.2480 tel 615.771.2459 fax www.aecom.com

60654209

SHEET NUMBER

PROJECT NO:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

GRAPHIC SCALE

07/27/2021

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Quantam Park, 22001 Loudoun County Pkwy

Suite E2-3-300

Ashburn, VA 20147

KNN

BCA

KNN

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

FS-209 BRUSH CREEK ROAD

FS-404 BIG CLIFTY ROAD

CHEROKEE NATIONAL

FOREST, TN

2,214

2,216

2,218

2,220

2,222

2,224

2,226

2,228

2,230

2,232

2,214

2,216

2,218

2,220

2,222

2,224

2,226

2,228

2,230

2,232

50+

(27)

(70)

(71)

E le va tio n (f t)

Distance Along Baseline (ft)

SUBSURFACE FENCE DIAGRAM

CLIENT FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division PROJECT NAME TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

PROJECT LOCATION Brush Creek Rd, Cherokee National Forest, TNPROJECT NUMBER 60654209

FS-209 BH 20-01

N-value (RQD)

2,231

2,232

2,233

2,234

2,235

2,236

2,237

2,238

2,239

2,240

2,241

2,242

2,243

2,231

2,232

2,233

2,234

2,235

2,236

2,237

2,238

2,239

2,240

2,241

2,242

2,243

(0)

(16)

(0)

(0)

E le va tio n (f t)

Distance Along Baseline (ft)

SUBSURFACE FENCE DIAGRAM

CLIENT FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division PROJECT NAME TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

PROJECT LOCATION Brush Creek Rd, Cherokee National Forest, TNPROJECT NUMBER 60654209

FS-209 BH 20-02

2,138

2,140

2,142

2,144

2,146

2,148

2,150

2,152

2,154

2,156

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2,138

2,140

2,142

2,144

2,146

2,148

2,150

2,152

2,154

2,156

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

50+

(65)

(78)

(73)

50+

50+

(68)

(84)

(71)

(100)

E le va tio n (f t)

Distance Along Baseline (ft)

SUBSURFACE FENCE DIAGRAM

CLIENT FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division PROJECT NAME TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

PROJECT LOCATION Big Clifty Road, Cherokee National Forest, TNPROJECT NUMBER 60654209

FS-404 BH 20-03

N-value (RQD)

FS-404 BH 20-04

APPENDIX C – BORING LOGS

FIELD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Sands and Gravels Particle Size Identification

No. of Blows Relative Density Boulders: 8-inch diameter or more 0-5 Very Loose Cobbles: 3- to 8-inch diameter

6-10 Loose Gravel:

11-20 Firm Coarse: 1- to 3-inch 21-30 Very Firm Medium: 0.50- to 1-inch 31-50 Dense Fine: 0.25- to 0.50-inch 51+ Very Dense

Sand:

Silts and Clays Coarse: 2.00-mm to 0.25-inch (diameter of pencil lead)

No. of Blows Relative Consistency Medium: 0.074-mm to 2.00-mm 0-2 Very Soft (diameter of broom straw) 3-4 Soft Fine: 0.042-mm to 0.074-mm 5-9 Firm (diameter of human hair)

10-15 Stiff Silt: 0.002-mm to 0.042-mm 16-30 Very Stiff (Cannot see particles) 31+ Hard Clay: <0.002-mm

Relative Proportions Relative Quality of Rock Cores

Descriptive Term Percent Quality RQD

Trace 1-10 Very Poor 0-25%

Little 11-20 Poor 25-50%

Some 21-35 Fair 50-75%

And 36-50 Good 75-90% Excellent 90-100%

RQD = Total length of core recovered in pieces 4 inches long or longer x 100% Total length of core run

Rock Hardness

Very Soft Rock disintegrates or easily compresses to touch; can be hard to very hard soil.

Soft Rock is coherent but breaks easily to thumb pressure at sharp edges and crumbles with firm hand pressure.

Moderately Hard Small pieces can be broken off along sharp edges by considerable hard thumb pressure; can be broken by light hammer blows.

Hard Rock cannot be broken by thumb pressure, but can be broken by moderate hammer blows.

Very Hard Rock can be broken by heavy hammer blows.

LETTERGRAPH

SYMBOLS

MAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

PT

OH

CH

MH

OL

CL

ML

SC

SM

SP

COARSE

GRAINED

SOILS

SW

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO

FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE

OR NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

GC

GM

GP

GW

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO

FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

CLEAN

GRAVELS

GRAVELS WITH

FINES

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH

FINES

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

GRAVEL

AND

GRAVELLY

SOILS

(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

FINE

GRAINED

SOILS

SAND

AND

SANDY

SOILS

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

PASSING ON NO.

4 SIEVE

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

RETAINED ON NO.

4 SIEVE

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) with sand, light-medium brown, medium dense, moist

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL (GW) with sand, sandstone, angular to subround, medium grain to cobble, well graded, fresh, medium dense, dry

LEAN CLAY (CL) with sand and gravel, light-medium brown, very stiff, moist WELL-GRADED GRAVEL (GW) with sand, sandstone, angular to subround, medium grain to cobble, well graded, fresh, medium dense, dry POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL (GP) with sand, subround to angular, coarse grain to cobble, poorly graded, red/dark gray, very dense Auger Refusal at 6.2 FBGS Begin Coring LIMESTONE, medium grain to crystaline, hard, 30-45 degree bedding, thin to medium bedded, light-medium gray, sucrosic, highly weathered, vertical healed fractures Oxidation staining at bedding intervals (7.5'-12.5')

Fossiliferous (8.9'-9.3')

Highly weathered interval (14.2'-14.9')

Boring Terminated at 16 FBGS

2.3

3.5 3.8 4.1

6.0

16.0

7-12-12

19-50/1

50+

P la st ic ity I nd ex

Sheet 1 of 1

D ep th , f ee t

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

L og

Li qu id L im it

16.0 4/2/21 4/2/21 Stan White Matt Edmunds

Completion Depth (ft.):

Date Started:

Date Completed:

Drilled By:

Logged By:

Location:

PROJECT NAME:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

Brush Creek Rd, Cherokee National Forest, TN

300-21-0005

R ec ov er y

Truck-mounted CME 45 drill rig with automatic hammer.

SPT sampling. No groundwater encountered within boring.

Borings backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S am pl esApprox. Surface El. (feet, MSL):

KSWA BORING LOG

R Q

D

P oc ke t

P en ts f)

S P

T V al ue s

BORING NO. FS-209 BH 20-01

N -V al ue

W at er C o nt en t

P la st ic

L im it

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) with sand, light-medium brown, medium dense, moist Auger Refusal at 0.8 FBGS Begin Coring LIMESTONE, light-medium gray, hard, medium crystaline, thin to medium bedded, 0-15 degree bedding, moderately weathered, abundant oxidation staining

Moderate weathering at bedding contacts (5.3'-8.8')

Thin shale interbeds (8.8'-10.8')

Boring Terminated at 10.8 FBGS

0.7

10.8

P la st ic ity I nd ex

Sheet 1 of 1

D ep th , f ee t

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

L og

Li qu id L im it

10.8 4/2/21 4/2/21 Stan White Matt Edmunds

Completion Depth (ft.):

Date Started:

Date Completed:

Drilled By:

Logged By:

Location:

PROJECT NAME:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

Brush Creek Rd, Cherokee National Forest, TN

300-21-0005

R ec ov er y

Truck-mounted CME 45 drill rig with automatic hammer.

SPT sampling. No groundwater encountered within boring.

Borings backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S am pl esApprox. Surface El. (feet, MSL):

KSWA BORING LOG

R Q

D

P oc ke t

P en ts f)

S P

T V al ue s

BORING NO. FS-209 BH 20-02

N -V al ue

W at er C o nt en t

P la st ic

L

SILTY SAND (SM) with gravel, brown/white/orange, subround to subangular, fine to coarse grain, well-graded, moderately dense, dry

POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP), white/orange, subround, very fine to medium grain, poorly-graded, very dense, dry

Auger Refusal at 5 FBGS Begin Coring SANDSTONE, hard, medium to coarse grain, medium bedded, 30 to 40 degree bedding, highly to moderately weathered, high angle fractures oxidation banding (7'-15') trace clay seams (11'-15')

Boring Terminated at 15 FBGS

3.5

5.0

15.0

5-6-13

31-50/5

50+

P la st ic ity I nd ex

Sheet 1 of 1

D ep th , f ee t

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

L og

Li qu id L im it

15.0 4/3/21 4/3/21 Stan White Matt Edmunds

Completion Depth (ft.):

Date Started:

Date Completed:

Drilled By:

Logged By:

Location:

PROJECT NAME:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

Big Cliffty Rd, Cherokeen National Forest, TN

300-21-0005

R ec ov er y

Truck-mounted CME 45 drill rig with automatic hammer.

SPT sampling. No groundwater encountered within boring.

Borings backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S am pl esApprox. Surface El. (feet, MSL):

KSWA BORING LOG

R Q

D

P oc ke t

P en ts f)

S P

T V al ue s

BORING NO. FS-404 BH 20-03

N -V al ue

W at er C o nt en t

P la st ic

L

POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP) with gravel, white/orange, subangular, medium to coarse grain, poorly-graded, very dense, dry

LEAN CLAY (CL) with sand, light gray/white, hard, moist Auger Refusal at 4 FBGS Begin Coring SANDSTONE, light gray, hard, medium to coarse grain, medium bedded, 30 to 45 degree bedding angle, moderately to highly weathered, medium fracture spacing Clay Seam (5.7'-5.9')

Healed high-angle fractues, closely spaced (6.5'-9.0')

Clay Seam (7.2')

Wide fracture spacing (9.0'-13.5')

Multiple Clay Seams (9.5'-12.7')

Boring Terminated at 14 FBGS

3.5

4.0

14.0

50/5

50/4

50+

50+

P la st ic ity I nd ex

Sheet 1 of 1

D ep th , f ee t

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

L og

Li qu id L im it

14.0 4/6/21 4/6/21 Stan White Matt Edmunds

Completion Depth (ft.):

Date Started:

Date Completed:

Drilled By:

Logged By:

Location:

PROJECT NAME:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3)

Big Cliffty Rd, Cherokeen National Forest, TN

300-21-0005

R ec ov er y

Truck-mounted CME 45 drill rig with automatic hammer.

SPT sampling. No groundwater encountered within boring.

Borings backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S am pl esApprox. Surface El. (feet, MSL):

KSWA BORING LOG

R Q

D

P oc ke t

P en ts f)

S P

T V al ue s

BORING NO. FS-404 BH 20-04

N -V al ue

W at er C o nt en t

P la st ic

L

APPENDIX D – LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

PL PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS

TEST DATE: 5/12/2021

DATE:

698B

TESTED BY: S. Krikorian

REVIEWED BY:

EQUIPMENT USED: Standard Hammer, 4 inch Mold, Ohaus 3 kilogram Scale, Oven, Ohaus 8 kilogram Scale

STANDARD PROCTOR (ASTM D698)

SAMPLE

RECEIVED:

CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND

WATER CONTENT (%)

2.80

2.70

2.60

Sample ID

Description of Material

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y pc f)

Curves for 0 %air voids for specific gravities equal to:

Test Method

LL

FS-209 BH 20-01

52 Lindsley Avenue, Suite 101 Nashville,Tennessee 37210 Phone: (615) 255-9702 Fax: (615) 256-5873

PROJECT NUMBER 300-21-0005

CLIENT: AECOM PROJECT NAME: AECOM FHA Borings

PROJECT LOCATION: Cherokee National Forest, TN

Max dry density and optimum water content corrected for oversize particles

127.2

TEST RESULTS

Maximum Dry Density Optimum Water Content 9.9

PCF

Corrected Maximum Dry Density

Corrected Optimum Water Content

137.1 9.5

PCF

0.0010.010.1110100

SOIL DESCRIPTION:

FS-209 BH 20-01, 1.0'-2.5'

FS-404 BH 20-03, 1.0'-2.5'

44.9

34.9

13.5

18.0

41.5

47.2

%Clays

0.312

0.402

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

Spec. Grav.

10024 16 301

Description

%Silts

37.5

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification

PI Cc

D60 D30

501/2 1403 4 20 406 601.5 8 143/4 3/8

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERSU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER

%Gravel

6 103

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

D100 D10

7.826

3.608

COBBLES

GRAVEL

%Sand

SAND

coarse fine coarse

SILT OR CLAY

finemedium

CuLL PL

TESTED BY: S. Krikorian TEST DATE: 5/26/2021 REVIEWED BY: K. Andrus DATE: 6/2/2021

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

ASTM D6913 - COARSE GRAIN SIZE

ASTM D7928 - FINE GRAIN SIZE

52 Lindsley Avenue, Suite 101 Nashville,Tennessee 37210 Phone: (615) 255-9702 Fax: (615) 256-5873

PROJECT NUMBER 300-21-0005

CLIENT: AECOM PROJECT NAME: AECOM FHA Borings

PROJECT LOCATION: Cherokee National Forest, TN

FS-209 BH 20-01, 1.0'-2.5'

FS-404 BH 20-03, 1.0'-2.5'

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL

CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND

Test Pre-Test Post-Test CBR, % Line % # Blows DD % Max %m DD % Max %m 0.1" 0.2" Corr. Swell

10 117.2 92.1 9.9 116.0 91.2 12.8 3.2 3.1 0 -0.044 25 122.1 96.0 9.5 123.2 96.8 10.8 10.0 10.8 0 -0.087 65 125.9 99.0 9.6 128.9 101.3 9.8 8.3 10.6 0.05 -0.262

* for 98% max DD and

0.1 in. penetration

Submitted By: S. Krikorian Date:

Reviewed By: K. Andrus Date: 6/2/2021

K.S. Ware & Associates, LLC Phone (615) 255-9702 54 Lindsley Avenue Fax (615) 256-5873 Nashville, Tennessee 37210

Report of California Bearing Ratio Test (ASTM D1883)

Project Name:

Project Number:

Sample ID:

Proctor Type:

Maximum Dry Density:

Standard 127.2

Optimum Moisture: 9.9

AECOM FHA Fed Lands 300-21-0005 FS209 BH 20-01 Bulk

CBR* = 9.5

Sample Description:

Date Received: 3/5/2021

CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350

St re ss (p si

Penetration (in.)

Load Penetration Curve

10 Blows 25 Blows 56 Blows

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0 12.0

114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128

CB

R, Molded Density, pcf

54 Lindsley Avenue

Nashville, Tennessee 37210 tel: 615-255-9702 fax: 615-256-5873

Project Name:

Sample Description:

Date Received:

PSI KSF

FS 209 BH 20-01 1.873 4.120 2.200 2.754 25530 9,270 1330

FS 209 BH 20-01 1.865 4.158 2.229 2.732 34130 12,490 1800

FS 404 BH 20-04 1.878 4.140 2.205 2.769 25020 9,040 1300

FS 404 BH 20-04 1.876 4.151 2.213 2.763 14820 5,360 770

FS 404 BH 20-03 1.848 4.190 2.267 2.682 9940 3,710 530

FS 404 BH 20-03 1.843 4.090 2.220 2.666 11470 4,300 620

Remarks :

Date:

Date: 6/3/2021

5-5.5

11-11.5

13-13.5

9.5-10

8.3-8.8

10.5-11

Average

Diameter

(in)

3/5/2021

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF ROCK CORES (ASTM D7012 Method C)

AECOM FHWA Sub Ex Sample Type: NQ Rock Cores

Project Number: 300-21-0005 Test Date: 6/1/2021

Limestone/Sandstone

Surface

Area

(in

Total Load

(lbs)

Compressive Strength

Reviewed By: D. Hodnett

Sample ID Depth

(ft)

Results reported may differ from results obtained from a test specimen that meet the requirements of Practice D4543

Submitted By: S. Krikorian 6/1/2021

Average

Height

(in)

L/D Ratio

Chattanooga TN • Bowling Green, KY www.kswarellc.com

APPENDIX E – SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3) - Gravity Gabion Wall Design Calculations - MP 1.90

Design Calculations Description

The analysis and design calculations for a gravity gabion wall with an horizontal backslope and live load surcharge (Traffic) is shown in this report.

References

AASHTO (2020), "LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", 9th Edition, Washington D.C. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Leshchinsky, B. 2015. “Bearing Capacity of Footings Placed Adjacent to c′-ϕ′ Slopes,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, Vol. 141, No. 6, 04015022.

Leshchinsky, B. and Xie, Y. 2016. “Bearing Capacity of Footings Placed Near c′-ϕ′ Slopes,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.

Anderson, D. G., G. R. Martin, I. P. Lam, and J. N. Wang. 2008. Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Slopes and Embankments, and Buried Structures, NCHRP Report 611 National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Model

Data By: Yesenia Pérez Soto - Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Majed Abdelhadi, P.E.

Design Date: 10/13/2021

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\TN\2019-1(3)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Internal Analysis\TN-ERFO 2019-1(3) - Calcs.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3) - Gravity Gabion Wall Design Calculations - MP 1.90

Data

- Wall Geometry

≔H 9 ft Total height of wall.

≔hES 2.0 ft Total height of earth surcharge.

≔B 9 ft Total base width of wall.

≔b 3.7 ft Bench in front of wall.

≔θa “Angled” Angle of back of wall from horizontal, "Vertical" or "Angled".

≔β 0 ° Backslope angle from horizontal.

- Gabion Basket Schedule

≔Levels ―― H

3 ft ∴ =Levels 3.00

≔Gh 3.0 ft Height of gabion baskets.

≔G1b 3.0 ft @ ≔xA_1b 0.0 ft Base length of level 1 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G2b 6.0 ft @ ≔xA_2b 0.0 ft Base length of level 2 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G3b 9.0 ft @ ≔xA_3b 0.0 ft Base length of level 3 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G4b 00.0 ft @ ≔xA_4b 0.0 ft Base length of level 4 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G5b 00.0 ft @ ≔xA_5b 0.0 ft Base length of level 5 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G6b 00.0 ft @ ≔xA_6b 0.0 ft Base length of level 6 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G7b 00.0 ft @ ≔xA_7b 0.0 ft Base length of level 7 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G8b 0.0 ft @ ≔xA_8b 0.0 ft Base length of level 8 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G9b 0.0 ft @ ≔xA_9b 0.0 ft Base length of level 9 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G10b 0.0 ft @ ≔xA_10b 0.0 ft Base length of level 10 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G11b 0.0 ft @ ≔xA_11b 0.0 ft Base length of level 11 gabion basket and offset from point A.

≔G12b 0.0 ft @ ≔xA_12b 0.0 ft Base length of level 12 gabion basket and offset from point A.

- Retained Fill Engineering Properties

Description: Granular backfill - AASHTO 57 Stone (FP-14, 703.03)

≔γf 115 ―― lb ft3 Retained fill unit weight.

≔ϕf 36 ° Retained fill friction angle.

≔Cf 0.00 ―― lb ft2 Retained fill cohesion.

- Gabion Basket Engineering Properties By: Yesenia Pérez Soto - Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Majed Abdelhadi, P.E.

Design Date: 10/13/2021

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\TN\2019-1(3)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Internal Analysis\TN-ERFO 2019-1(3) - Calcs.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3) - Gravity Gabion Wall Design Calculations - MP 1.90

≔Cf 0.00 ―― lb ft2

- Gabion Basket Engineering Properties

≔γg 110 ―― lb ft3 Filled gabion unit weight (SCR, FP-14, 705.01).

≔δ ⋅0.75 ϕf ∴ =δ 27.00 ° Gabion backwall interface friction angle (AASHTO Table C3.11.5.9-1).

≔C 0.85 Foundation sliding interface friction angle reduction factor (0.8 to 1.0).

≔ϕg 30 ° Basket to basket interface friction angle (30° to 35°).

≔δJ tan ⎛⎝ϕg ⎞⎠ ∴ =δJ 0.58 Panel to panel joint coefficient of friction.

≔Gabion_Fastener_Contribution “No” Consider gabion to gabion fastener contribution? (Yes or No) .

- Foundation Soil Engineering Properties

Description: Limestone, medium grain to crystalline, hard, 30-45 degree bedding, thin to medium bedded, light-medium gray, sucrosic, highly weathered, vertical healed fractures.

≔γB 140 ―― lb ft3 Foundation soil unit weight.

≔ϕB 34 ° Foundation soil friction angle.

≔CB 500.00 ――

lb ft2 Foundation soil cohesion.

≔Foundation_Type “Soil” Specify foundation type for eccentricity limit ("Soil" or "Rock").

≔βSlope 44 ° Average embankment slope in front of wall.

≔Hs 10 ft Estimated height of sloping ground surface below bottom of footing.

≔Dw “No_GW” Groundwater depth from foundation base. If Ground water is not present, specify "No_GW".

- Live Load Surcharge (AASHTO 3.11.6.4)

≔γs 120 ―― lb ft3 Total unit weight of soil.

≔XTraffic 7.5 ft Distance from wall backface to edge of traffic.

≔heq_H5 -5 ft 3 ⎛⎝XTraffic

≔heq_H10 -3.5 ft 1.5 ⎛⎝XTraffic

≔heq_H20 2.0 ft

By: Yesenia Pérez Soto - Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Majed Abdelhadi, P.E.

Design Date: 10/13/2021

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\TN\2019-1(3)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Internal Analysis\TN-ERFO 2019-1(3) - Calcs.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3) - Gravity Gabion Wall Design Calculations - MP 1.90

≔heq if else

≥H 20.0 ft ‖ 2.0 ft if else

≥XTraffic 1.0 ft ‖ 2.0 ft if else

≤H 5.0 ft ‖ 5.0 ft if else

≤H 10.0 ft

+heq_H5

⎛⎝ -H 5.0 ft⎞⎠ ⎛⎝ -heq_H10 heq_H5

5.0 ft

+heq_H10

⎛⎝ -H 10.0 ft⎞⎠ ⎛⎝ -heq_H20 heq_H10

10.0 ft

=heq 2.0 ft

≔LS ⋅γs heq ∴ =LS 240 ―― lb ft2 Traffic surcharge pressure load.

- Earth Surcharge Load (AASHTO 3.11.6.1)

≔ES ⋅hES γs ∴ =ES 240.00 ―― lb ft2 Uniform earth surcharge pressure load over wall.

Coefficient of Active Horizontal Earth Pressure

≔θ | if else

＝θa “Vertical” ‖ 90.0 ° atan

H

-B G1b

∴ =θ 56.3 ° Angle of back of wall from horizontal.

≔Γ

+1

⋅sin ⎛⎝ +ϕf δ⎞⎠ sin ⎛⎝ -ϕf β⎞⎠

⋅sin ⎛⎝ -θ δ⎞⎠ sin ⎛⎝ +θ β⎞⎠

∴ =Γ 4.554 AASHTO Eq. 3.11.5.3-2

≔ka ―――――――― sin ⎛⎝ +θ ϕf

⋅Γ ⎝ ⋅sin ⎛⎝θ⎞⎠ sin ⎛⎝ -θ δ⎞⎠

∴ =ka 0.647 AASHTO Eq. 3.11.5.3-1

By: Yesenia Pérez Soto - Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Majed Abdelhadi, P.E.

Design Date: 10/13/2021

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\TN\2019-1(3)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Internal Analysis\TN-ERFO 2019-1(3) - Calcs.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3) - Gravity Gabion Wall Design Calculations - MP 1.90

Load Factors - AASHTO Table 3.4.1-1 & Table 3.4.1-2

≔EHmax 1.50 Maximum active horizontal earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EHmin 0.90 Minimum active horizontal earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EHSer 1.00 Active horizontal earth pressure load factor (Service I).

≔EVmax 1.35 Maximum vertical earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EVmin 1.00 Minimum vertical earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EVSer 1.00 Vertical earth pressure load factor (Service I).

≔ESmax 1.50 Maximum earth surcharge load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔ESmin 0.75 Minimum earth surcharge load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔ESSer 1.00 Earth surcharge load factor (Service I).

≔LSmax 1.75 Maximum live load surcharge load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔LSmin 1.75 Minimum live load surcharge load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔LSSer 1.00 Live load surcharge load factor (Service I).

Resistance Factors - AASHTO Table 11.5.7-1

≔φs 0.90 Sliding resistance factor (Table 10.5.5.2.2-1).

≔φb 0.45 Bearing resistance factor (Table 10.5.5.2.2-1).

≔φG 0.75 ∴ ≔FSG =φG -1 1.3 Overall stability resistance factor (AASHTO 11.6.3.7).

≔φJ 0.75 Shear strength (AASHTO 6.5.4.2).

By: Yesenia Pérez Soto - Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Majed Abdelhadi, P.E.

Design Date: 10/13/2021

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\TN\2019-1(3)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Internal Analysis\TN-ERFO 2019-1(3) - Calcs.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3) - Gravity Gabion Wall Design Calculations - MP 1.90

Loads (Unfactored)

- Total Loads

≔FT ―

⎛⎝γf

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝H⎞⎠2 ⎛⎝ka

⎞⎠ ∴ =FT 3013.06 ―

lb ft

≔ψ +⎛⎝ -90 ° θ⎞⎠ δ ∴ =ψ 60.69 ° Total active earth horizontal pressure angle from horizontal.

≔FES

⎛⎝ES⎞⎠ ⎛⎝H⎞⎠ ⎛⎝ka

⎞⎠ ∴ =FES 1397.36 ―

lb ft

≔FLS

⎛⎝LS⎞⎠ ⎛⎝H⎞⎠ ⎛⎝ka

⎞⎠ ∴ =FLS 1397.36 ―

lb ft

- Horizontal Loads

≔FTH ⋅FT cos ⎛⎝ψ⎞⎠ ∴ =FTH 1474.99 ― lb ft

@ ≔ATH ―

H

∴ =ATH 3.00 ft

≔FESH ⋅FES cos ⎛⎝ψ⎞⎠ ∴ =FESH 684.05 ― lb ft

@ ≔AESH ―

H

∴ =AESH 4.50 ft

≔FLSH ⋅FLS cos ⎛⎝ψ⎞⎠ ∴ =FLSH 684.05 ― lb ft

@ ≔ALSH ―

H

∴ =ALSH 4.50 ft

- Vertical Loads

≔FTV ⋅FT sin ⎛⎝ψ⎞⎠ ∴ =FTV 2627.34 ― lb ft

@ ≔ATV -B ―――

ATH

tan ⎛⎝θ⎞⎠ ∴ =ATV 7.00 ft

≔VG1

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G1b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG1 990.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG1 +xA_1b ――

G1b

∴ =AG1 1.50 ft

≔VG2

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G2b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG2 1980.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG2 +xA_2b ――

G2b

∴ =AG2 3.00 ft

≔VG3

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G3b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG3 2970.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG3 +xA_3b ――

G3b

∴ =AG3 4.50 ft

≔VG4

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G4b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG4 0.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG4 +xA_4b ――

G4b

∴ =AG4 0.00 ft

≔VG5

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G5b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG5 0.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG5 +xA_5b ――

G5b

∴ =AG5 0.00 ft

≔VG6

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G6b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG6 0.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG6 +xA_6b ――

G6b

∴ =AG6 0.00 ft

≔VG7

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G7b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG7 0.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG7 +xA_7b ――

G7b

∴ =AG7 0.00 ft

By: Yesenia Pérez Soto - Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Majed Abdelhadi, P.E.

Design Date: 10/13/2021

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\TN\2019-1(3)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Internal Analysis\TN-ERFO 2019-1(3) - Calcs.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: TN ERFO FS 2019-1(3) - Gravity Gabion Wall Design Calculations - MP 1.90≔AG7 +xA_7b ――

G7b

=VG7 0.00 ―

lb ft

≔VG7

⎛⎝Gh ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G7b

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg ⎞⎠ ∴ @ ∴ =AG7 0.00 ft

≔VG8

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G8b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG8 0.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG8 +xA_8b ――

G8b

∴ =AG8 0.00 ft

≔VG9

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G9b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG9 0.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG9 +xA_9b ――

G9b

∴ =AG9 0.00 ft

≔VG10

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G10b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG10 0.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG10 +xA_10b ――

G10b

∴ =AG10 0.00 ft

≔VG11

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G11b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG11 0.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG11 +xA_11b ――

G11b

∴ =AG11 0.00 ft

≔VG12

⎛⎝Gh

⎞⎠ ⎛⎝G12b ⎞⎠ ⎛⎝γg

⎞⎠ ∴ =VG12 0.00 ―

lb ft @ ≔AG12 +xA_12b ――

G12b

∴ =AG12 0.00 ft

Moments about Point A (Unfactored)

≔MTH ⋅FTH

⎛⎝ATH

⎞⎠ ∴ =MTH 4424.98 ――

⋅lb ft ft

≔MESH ⋅FESH

⎛⎝AESH

⎞⎠ ∴ =MESH 3078.25 ――

⋅lb ft ft

≔MLSH ⋅FLSH

⎛⎝ALSH

⎞⎠ ∴ =MLSH 3078.25 ――

⋅lb ft ft

≔MTV ⋅FTV

⎛⎝ATV

⎞⎠ ∴ =MTV 18391.37 ――

⋅lb ft ft

≔MG1 ⋅VG1

⎛⎝AG1

⎞⎠ ∴ =MG1 1485.00 ――

⋅lb ft ft

≔MG2 ⋅VG2

⎛⎝AG2

⎞⎠ ∴ =MG2 5940.00 ――

⋅lb ft ft

≔MG3 ⋅VG3

⎛⎝AG3

⎞⎠ ∴ =MG3 13365.00 ――

⋅lb ft ft

≔MG4 ⋅VG4

⎛…