Specs

CCIITTYY OOFF DDUULLUUTTHH

RROOGGEERRSS BBRRIIDDGGEE

PPAARRKK TTRRAAIILLHHEEAADD

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS

October 22, 2021

ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION

POND PROJECT#: 1190703

3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree Corners, GA 30092

678-336-7740 – www.pondco.com

RFP CP22-01

Advertised for Construction 11/5/21 http://www.pondco.com/

Rogers Bridge Park Trailhead 1190703

Duluth, GA 10/22/2021

SPECIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS - 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Division Section Title

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

003132 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

011000 SUMMARY

012900 PAYMENT PROCEDURES

013100 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

013300

014000

014001a

014001b

014001c

014001d

015000

015639

015723

017300

017419

017839

017823

017839

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

SPECIAL INSPECTIONS OF SEISMIC RESISTANCE

SPECIAL INSPECTIONS OF WIND RESISTANCE

SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

TEMPORARY TREE AND PLANT PROTECTION

TEMPORARY STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL

EXECUTION

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

024119 SELECTIVE DEMOLITION

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

033000 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

042200

044200

047300

CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY

CAST STONE

MANUFACTURERED STONE VENEER

DIVISION 05 - METALS

051200

053100

055000

STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING

STEEL DECKING

METAL FABRICATIONS

DIVISION 06 – WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

061000

061600

062013

ROUGH CARPENTRY

SHEATHING

EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR WOOD FINISH CARPENTRY

SPECIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS - 2

DIVISION 07 – THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

072100

072600

072726

074113.16

074646

079200

THERMAL INSULATION

VAPOR RETARDERS

FLUID-APPLIED MEMBRANE AIR BARRIERS

STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS

FIBER CEMENT SIDING

JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

080671

081113

085113

088000

089119

DOOR HARDWARE SCHEDULE

HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES

ALUMINUM WINDOWS

GLAZING

FIXED LOUVERS

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

092216

092400

092900

095113

096723

099113

099123

NON-STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING

CEMENT PLASTERING

GYPSUM BOARD

ACOUSTICAL PANEL CEILINGS

RESINOUS FLOORING

EXTERIOR PAINTING

INTERIOR PAINTING

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALITIES

101423.16

102113.19

102800

104416

ROOM-IDENTIFICATION PANEL SIGNAGE

PLASTIC TOILET COMPARTMENTS

TOILET & BATH ACCESSORIES

FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

220529

220553

220719

221113

221116

221119

221313

221316

221319

HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

IDENTIFICATION FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

PLUMBING PIPING INSULATION

FACILITY WATER DISTRIBUTION PIPING

DOMESTIC WATER PIPING

DOMESTIC WATER PIPING SPECIALITIES

FACILITY SANITARY SEWERS

SANITARY WASTE AND VENT PIPING

SANITARY WASTE PIPING SPECIALITIES

DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING

230413

230518

230529

COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT

ESCUTCHEONS FOR HVAC PIPING

HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

SPECIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS - 3

230548.13

230553

230593

230713

230716

233113

233300

233346

238126

238239.19

VIBRATION CONTROLS FOR HVAC

IDENTIFICATION FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

TESTING, ADJUSTING, BALANCING FOR HVAC

DUCT INSTALLATION

HVAC EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION

METAL DUCTS

AIR DUCT ACCESSORIES

FLEXIBLE DUCTS

SPLIT-SYSTEM AIR-CONDITIONERS

WALL AND CEILING UNIT HEATERS

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

260519

260526

260529

260533

260553

262416

262813

262816

265100

LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES

GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

RACEWAYS AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

PANELBOARDS

OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICES

CIRCUIT AND MOTOR DISCONNECTS

LUMINAIRES

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

270526

270528

270553

271116

271513

GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

PATHWAYS FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

IDENTIFICATION FOR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

COMMUNICATIONS RACKS, FRAMES, AND ENCLOSURES

COMMUCATIONS COPPER HORIZONTAL CABLING

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

311000 SITE CLEARING

312000 EARTH MOVING

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

321216 ASPHALT PAVING

321313 CONCRETE PAVING

321373 CONCRETE PAVING JOINT SEALANTS

321723

329115

329200

329300

PAVEMENT MARKINGS

SOIL PREPARATION

TURF AND GRASSES

PLANTS

SPECIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS - 4

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

330500

334200

COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR UTILITIES

STORMWATER CONVEYANCE

END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS

GEOTECHNICAL DATA 003132 - 1

DOCUMENT 003132 - GEOTECHNICAL DATA

1.1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

A. This Document with its referenced attachments is part of the Procurement and Contracting

Requirements for Project. They provide Owner's information for Bidders' convenience and are intended to supplement rather than serve in lieu of Bidders' own investigations. They are made available for Bidders' convenience and information. This Document and its attachments are not part of the Contract Documents.

B. Because subsurface conditions indicated by the soil borings are a sampling in relation to the entire construction area, and for other reasons, the Owner, the Architect, the Architect's consultants, and the firm reporting the subsurface conditions do not warranty the conditions below the depths of the borings or that the strata logged from the borings are necessarily typical of the entire site. Any party using the information described in the soil borings and geotechnical report shall accept full responsibility for its use.

C. A geotechnical investigation report for Project, prepared by GeoHydro Engineers dated July 9, 2019, is available for viewing as appended to this Document.

1. The opinions expressed in this report are those of a geotechnical engineer and represent interpretations of subsoil conditions, tests, and results of analyses conducted by a geotechnical engineer. Owner is not responsible for interpretations or conclusions drawn from the data.

2. Any party using information described in the geotechnical report shall make additional test borings and conduct other exploratory operations that may be required to determine the character of subsurface materials that may be encountered.

END OF DOCUMENT 003132

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

New Rogers Bridge Trailhead Duluth, Georgia Geo-Hydro Project Number 190576.20

Prepared for Pond & Company July 9, 2019

1000 Cobb Place Boulevard, Suite 290 • Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 o: 770.426.7100 • f: 770.426.5209 • www.geohydro.com

Mr. Kevin Hendrix, P.E., LEED AP July 9, 2019 Pond & Company 55 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, #850 Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

New Rogers Bridge Trailhead Duluth, Georgia

Geo-Hydro Project Number 190576.20 Dear Mr. Hendrix:

Geo-Hydro Engineers, Inc. has completed the authorized subsurface exploration for the above referenced project. The scope of services for this project was outlined in our proposal number 22712.2 REV1 dated May 30, 2019.

Project Information

Rogers Bridge Park is located at 4291 Rogers Bridge Road in Duluth, Georgia. Figure 1 in the Appendix shows the approximate site location.

The new trailhead will include a new one-story building with masonry walls and a concrete slab-on-grade floor, new surface parking lots, and a park with play and lawn areas. The building will contain restroom facilities, concession space, and storage area and will have plan dimensions of about 35 feet by 35 feet.

Figure 2 in the Appendix shows the proposed site layout.

The site is currently occupied by an existing restroom building and a gravel parking lot, both of which will be demolished as part of the project. We understand that site grading will be minimal and will primarily consist of the excavation necessary to construct the shallow foundations for the building. The annotated aerial photograph below shows the existing site conditions and the proposed location of the new building.

At the time of this report, no structural loading information has been provided to us. Based on our experience with similar projects, we have assumed that the maximum column load will not exceed 50 kips and maximum wall loads will be no greater than 3 kips per lineal foot.

Proposed Building Footprint

New Rogers Bridge Trailhead • Duluth, Georgia Project Number 190576.20

July 9, 2019 | 2

Exploratory Procedures

The subsurface exploration consisted of 12 machine-drilled soil test borings performed at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2 included in the Appendix. The test borings were located in the field by Geo-Hydro using a handheld GPS unit with preloaded boring coordiantes. In general, the locations of the borings should be considered approximate.

Standard penetration testing, as provided for in ASTM D-l586, was performed at select intervals in the soil test borings. Soil samples obtained from the drilling operation were examined and classified in general accordance with ASTM D-488 (Visual-Manual Procedure for Description of Soils). Soil classifications include the use of the Unified Soil Classification System described in ASTM D2487 (Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes). The soil classifications also include our evaluation of the geologic origin of the soils. Evaluations of geologic origin are based on our experience and interpretation and may be subject to some degree of error.

Descriptions of the soils encountered, groundwater conditions, standard penetration resistances, and other pertinent information are provided in the test boring records included in the Appendix.

Regional Geology

The project site is located within the Brevard Fault Zone which separates the Northern Piedmont geologic province from the Southern Piedmont geologic province. In this report, we will refer to the site as being within the Piedmont Region for the sake of simplicity. The Brevard Fault Zone is a narrow belt of deformed rocks, consisting primarily of mica schist, biotitic gneiss, and amphibolite in the project area. The area has undergone several episodes of deformation and metamorphism, the latest of which occurred some 200 to 300 million years ago. The Brevard Fault Zone is presently considered to be inactive.

With increased depth, the soil becomes less weathered, coarser grained, and the structural character of the underlying parent rock becomes more evident. These residual soils are typically classified as sandy micaceous silt (ML) or silty micaceous sand (SM). With a further increase in depth, the soils eventually become quite hard and take on an increasing resemblance to the underlying parent rock. When these materials have a standard penetration resistance of l00 blows per foot or greater, they are referred to as partially weathered rock. The transition from soil to partially weathered rock is usually a gradual one, and may occur at a wide range of depths. Lenses or layers of partially weathered rock are not unusual in the soil profile.

Partially weathered rock represents the zone of transition between the soil and the indurated metamorphic rocks from which the soils are derived. The subsurface profile is, in fact, a history of the weathering process that the crystalline rock has undergone. The degree of weathering is most advanced at the ground surface, where fine-grained soil may be present. Conversely, the weathering process is in its early stages immediately above the surface of relatively sound rock, where partially weathered rock may be found.

The thickness of the zone of partially weathered rock and the depth to the rock surface have both been found to vary considerably over relatively short distances. The depth to the rock surface may frequently

July 9, 2019 | 3 range from the ground surface to 80 feet or more. The thickness of partially weathered rock, which overlies the rock surface, may vary from only a few inches to as much as 40 feet or more.

Geologic conditions in parts of at the site have been modified by previous grading activities.

Soil Test Boring Summary

Starting at the ground surface, boring B-3 encountered about 4 inches of graded aggregate base. The remaining borings encountered topsoil at the ground surface ranging in thickness from about 4 to 5 inches.

Detailed measurements necessary for quantity estimation were not performed for this project. We suggest using an average surface material thicknesses of 8 inches for planning purposes.

Beneath the surface materials, borings B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 encountered fill materials extending to a depth of about 3 feet. The fill was classified as silty clay, clayey silt, and silty sand with varying amounts of rock fragments. Standard penetration resistances recorded in the fill ranged from 15 to 22 blows per foot. It is important to note that rock fragments and other hard inclusions will typically amplify standard penetration resistances. Such artificially inflated values should not be considered representative of the consistency of fill materials.

Beneath surface or fill materials, all of the borings encountered alluvial (water-deposited) soils extending to depths ranging from about 12 to 22 feet. Borings B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, and B-7 were terminated at a depth of 15 feet without fully penetrating the alluvial soils. The alluvial soils were classified as silty clay, sandy clay, clayey silt, sandy silt, clayey sand, and silty sand with varying amounts of rock fragments and varying plasticity. Standard penetration resistances recorded in the alluvial soils ranged from 4 to 55 blows per foot.

Beneath the alluvial soils, borings B-1, B-2, and B-8 through B-12 encountered residual soils or partially weathered rock typical of the Piedmont region. The residual soils were classified as silty sand with varying amounts of rock fragments. Standard penetration resistances in the residual soils ranged from 35 to 48 blows per foot.

Partially weathered rock was encountered in borings B-1, B-2, and B-9 at depths ranging from about 12 to 22 feet. Partially weathered rock is locally defined as residual material having a standard penetration resistance of 100 blows per foot or greater.

At the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered in all borings except B-11 and B-12 at depths ranging from 13 to 14 feet. For safety reasons the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. It should be noted that groundwater levels will fluctuate depending on yearly and seasonal rainfall variations and other factors such as the level of the Chattahoochee River and may rise in the future.

For more detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions, please refer to the test boring records and hand auger log included in the Appendix.

July 9, 2019 | 4

Test Boring Summary

Boring Bottom of Fill (feet) Depth to PWR (feet)

Depth to Auger Refusal (feet)

Boring Termination Depth (feet)

Depth to Groundwater (feet)

B-1 3 22 NE 25 14

B-2 3 22 NE 25 13

B-3 3 NE NE 15 14

B-4 3 NE NE 15 13

B-5 NE NE NE 15 13

B-6 NE NE NE 15 14

B-7 NE NE NE 15 13

B-8 NE NE NE 15 14

B-9 NE 12 NE 15 14

B-10 NE NE NE 15 14

B-11 NE NE NE 15 NE

B-12 NE NE NE 15 NE

All Depths in this Summary Table are Approximate NE: Not Encountered PWR: Partially Weathered Rock

Evaluations and Recommendations

The following evaluations and recommendations are based on the information available on the proposed construction, the data obtained from the test borings, and our experience with soils and subsurface conditions similar to those encountered at this site. Because the test borings represent a statistically small sampling of subsurface conditions, it is possible that conditions may be encountered during construction that are substantially different from those indicated by the test borings. In these instances, adjustments to the design and construction may be necessary.

Geotechnical Considerations

The following geotechnical characteristics of the site should be taken into account for planning and design:

• Borings B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 encountered fill materials extending to a depth of about 3 feet. We do not expect fill materials to have a significant impact on the proposed construction. However, variations within fill materials should be expected, and poor-quality fill may be encountered intermediate of the areas directly explored. Remedial measures such as excavation and replacement of poor-quality fill materials may be necessary. Thorough subgrade evaluations will be required during grading and construction.

• Neither partially weathered rock nor rock were encountered within 10 feet of the ground surface in the test borings. Based on the results of the borings, we expect fill materials and alluvial soils within anticipated excavation limits to be readily removable using conventional earth moving equipment such as loaders and backhoes.

July 9, 2019 | 5

• At the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered in all borings except B-11 and B-12 at depths ranging from about 13 to 14 feet. It is important to note that the groundwater level will fluctuate over time depending on local rainfall amounts and other factors including the level of the Chattahoochee River and may be encountered at higher elevations. Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, we do not expect groundwater to be encountered during construction of the building, parking lots, or during utility installation. However, it is important to note that the groundwater levels shown on the boring logs were recorded at the time of drilling. Stabilized groundwater levels are likely several feet higher than those recorded at the time of drilling. Groundwater may be encountered if any deep utility installation involves excavation more than about 10 feet below current grades or near the Chattahoochee River.

• Construction of the parking lots will involve stripping surface materials, installing any stormwater lines, and minor grading to facilitate surface drainage. After stripping surface materials, areas to receive structural fill should be proofrolled prior to placing structural fill. Areas of excavation should be proofrolled after rough subgrade elevation has been achieved. Based on the behavior of the existing subgrade under the weight of our drilling equipment, we do not expect widespread subgrade remediation to be necessary to facilitate site grading. However, it is important to note that near-surface soil conditions will be affected by weather patterns at the time of construction. Constructing the parking lots during winter months will increase the likelihood of unstable subgrade conditions due to wet weather patterns and make it impractical to dry soils on site. Constructing the parking lots during summer months will increase the ability to moisture condition unstable soils and recompact them in place.

• Contingent upon proper site preparation and thorough evaluation of the foundation excavations, it is our opinion that the proposed trailhead building can be supported using conventional shallow foundations and concrete slab-on-grade floors. For design purposes, we recommend an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf or less.

• Based on the results of the test borings and following the calculation procedure in the 2012 International Building Code (Chapter 20, ASCE 7-10), the Site Class for the site is C. The mapped and design spectral response accelerations are as follows: SS=0.202, S1=0.093, SDS=0.162, SD1=0.106.

The following sections provide recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical aspects of the project.

Existing Fill Materials

Existing fill materials were encountered in borings B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 extending to a depth of about 3 feet. There are several important facts that should be considered regarding existing fill materials and the limitations of subsurface exploration.

• The quality of existing fill materials can be highly variable, and test borings are often not able to detect all of the zones or layers of poor quality fill materials.

July 9, 2019 | 6

• Layers of poor quality fill materials that are less than about 2.5 to 5 feet thick may often remain undetected by soil test borings due to the discrete-interval sampling method used in this exploration.

• The interface between existing fill materials and the original ground surface may include a layer of organic material that was not properly stripped off during the original grading. Depending on its relationship to the foundation and floor slab bearing surfaces, an organic layer might adversely affect support of footings and floor slabs. If such organic layers are encountered during construction, it may be necessary to “chase out” the organic layer by excavating the layer along with overlying soils.

• The construction budget should include funds for management of poor quality existing fill materials.

• Subsurface exploration is simply not capable of disclosing all conditions that may require remediation.

General Site Preparation

Topsoil, roots, pavements, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed construction areas. All existing utilities should be excavated and removed unless they are to be incorporated into the new construction. Additionally, site clearing, grubbing, and stripping should be performed only during dry weather conditions. Operation of heavy equipment on the site during wet conditions will result in excessive subgrade degradation. All excavations resulting from rerouting of underground utilities should be backfilled in accordance with the Structural Fill section of this report.

We recommend that areas to receive structural fill be proofrolled prior to placement of structural fill. Areas of proposed excavation should be proofrolled after rough finished subgrade is achieved. Proofrolling should be performed with multiple passes in at least two directions using a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck weighing at least 18 tons. Proofrolling must be avoided within 10 feet of buildings and hardscapes to remain. If low consistency soils are encountered that cannot be adequately densified in place, such soils should be removed and replaced with well compacted fill material placed in accordance with the Structural Fill section of this report. Proofrolling should be observed by Geo-Hydro to determine if remedial measures are necessary.

For budgeting purposes, we suggest considering that approximately 30 percent of the planned buildings, pavement, and new hardscape areas will require undercutting and replacement extending to a depth of 2 feet below current grades. The suggested stabilization approach is intended only as a tool to estimate a cost associated with ground stabilization. Ground stabilization can be achieved by using geosynthetics, crushed stone, cement stabilization, etc. The need for, extent of, location, and optimal method of ground stabilization should be determined by Geo-Hydro at the time of construction based on actual site conditions.

The extent and cost of ground stabilization may exceed the suggested budgetary estimate.

During site preparation, burn pits or trash pits may be encountered. On sites located in or near developed areas, this is not an unusual occurrence. All too frequently such buried material occurs in isolated areas which are not detected by the soil test borings. Any buried debris or trash found during the construction operation should be thoroughly excavated and removed from the site.

July 9, 2019 | 7

Excavation Characteristics

Neither partially weathered rock nor rock were encountered within 10 feet of the ground surface. Based on the results of the borings, difficult excavation conditions are not expected within 10 feet of the ground surface. However, it is important to note that the depth to rock or partially weathered rock may vary drastically over relatively short distances. It would not be unusual for rock pinnacles, boulders, or rock lenses to occur at higher elevations between or around some of the soil test borings.

For construction bidding and field verification purposes it is common to provide a verifiable definition of rock in the project specifications. The following are typical definitions of mass rock and trench rock:

• Mass Rock: Material which cannot be excavated with a single-tooth ripper drawn by a crawler tractor having a minimum draw bar pull rated at 56,000 pounds (Caterpillar D-8K or equivalent), and occupying an original volume of at least one cubic yard.

• Trench Rock: Material occupying an original volume of at least one-half cubic yard which cannot be excavated with a hydraulic excavator having a minimum flywheel power rating of 123 kW (165 hp);

such as a Caterpillar 322C L, John Deere 230C LC, or a Komatsu PC220LC-7; equipped with a short tip radius bucket not wider than 42 inches.

The foregoing definitions are based on large equipment typically utilized for mass grading. Subsequent excavations for building foundations and underground utilities are often performed with smaller equipment such as rubber-tired backhoe/loaders or even mini-excavators. Small equipment will encounter difficult excavation during building construction and utility installation, and contractors will often request additional payment for mobilizing larger equipment than that which was anticipated during preparation of their construction bid. The amount of additional compensation, if any, and the minimum equipment size necessary to qualify for any additional compensation should be defined before the start of construction

Reuse of Excavated Materials

Based on the results of test boring and our observations, most of the existing fill materials and alluvial soils appear to be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Any excavated materials containing organics, construction debris, or other debris in quantities that cannot be readily removed should be considered unsuitable for reuse. Depending on their gradation and moisture content, the alluvial soils may require blending to facilitate reuse as structural fill. Geo-Hydro should observe the excavation of existing materials to evaluate their suitability for reuse. Soft, unstable soils free of deleterious materials may be reusable after routine moisture adjustment.

It is important to establish as part of the construction contract whether soils having elevated moisture content will be considered suitable for reuse. We often find this issue to be a point of contention and a source of delays and change orders. From a technical standpoint, soils with moisture contents wet of optimum as determined by the standard Proctor test (ASTM D698) can be reused provided that the moisture is properly adjusted to within the workable range. From a practical standpoint, wet soils can be very difficult to dry in small or congested sites and such difficulties should be considered during planning and

July 9, 2019 | 8 budgeting. A clear understanding by the general contractor and grading subcontractor regarding the reuse of excavated soils will be important to avoid delays and unexpected cost overruns.

If generated during construction, partially weathered rock materials will be suitable for reuse as structural fill only if they break down into a reasonably well-graded material that can be satisfactorily compacted.

The presence of cobble size or boulder size material, which does not break down under the action of compaction equipment, will limit the suitability of partially weathered rock materials. Engineering judgment will be required in the field to evaluate the acceptability of partially weathered rock materials for reuse as structural fill.

Structural Fill

Materials selected for use as structural fill should be free of organic debris, waste construction debris, and other deleterious materials. The material should not contain rocks having a diameter over 4 inches. It is our opinion that the following soils represented by their USCS group symbols will typically be suitable for use as structural fill and are usually found in abundance in the Piedmont: (SM), (ML), and (CL). The following soil types are typically suitable but are not abundant in the Piedmont: (SW), (SP), (SC), (SP-SM), and (SP-SC). The following soil types are considered unsuitable: (MH), (CH), (OL), (OH), and (Pt).

Laboratory Proctor compaction tests and classification tests should be performed on representative samples obtained from the proposed borrow material to provide data necessary to determine acceptability and for quality control. The moisture content of suitable borrow soils should generally be no more than 3 percentage points below or above optimum at the time of compaction. Tighter moisture limits may be necessary with certain soils.

Suitable fill material should be placed in thin lifts. Lift thickness depends on the type of compaction equipment, but a maximum loose-lift thickness of 8 inches is generally recommended. The soil should be compacted by a self-propelled sheepsfoot roller. Within small excavations such as in utility trenches, around manholes, above foundations, or behind retaining walls, we recommend the use of “wacker packers” or “Rammax” compactors to achieve the specified compaction. Loose lift thicknesses of 4 to 6 inches are recommended in small area fills.

We recommend that structural fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698). The upper 12 inches of floor slab subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Additionally, the maximum dry density of structural fill should be no less than 90 pcf. Following Georgia DOT guidelines, the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Geo-Hydro should perform density tests during fill placement.

Groundwater

At the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered in all borings except B-10 and B-11 at depths ranging from 13 to 14 feet. The groundwater levels shown on the boring logs were recorded at the time of drilling.

For safety reasons, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. The stabilized

July 9, 2019 | 9 groundwater level is likely several feet higher than the elevation recorded at the time of drilling. It is important to note that the groundwater level will fluctuate over time depending on local rainfall amounts and other factors and may be encountered at higher elevations. Depending on the site utility plan, groundwater may be encountered if excavation for any site utilities involves excavation beyond a depth of about 10 feet or excavation near the Chattahoochee River. Regardless of the groundwater conditions encountered in the borings, waterproofing and subsurface drainage is required for all retaining walls and building walls below grade.

Earth Slopes

Temporary construction slopes should be designed in strict compliance with OSHA regulations. The exploratory borings indicate that most soils at the site are Type C as defined in 29 CFR 1926 Subpart P.

This dictates that temporary construction slopes be no steeper than 1.5H:1V for excavation depths of 20 feet or less. Temporary construction slopes should be closely observed on a daily basis by the contractor’s “competent person” for signs of mass movement: tension cracks near the crest, bulging at the toe of the slope, etc. The responsibility for excavation safety and stability of construction slopes should lie solely with the contractor.

We recommend that extreme caution be observed in trench excavations. Several cases of loss of life due to trench collapses in Georgia point out the lack of attention given to excavation safety on some projects.

We recommend that applicable local and federal regulations regarding temporary slopes, and shoring and bracing of trench excavations be closely followed.

Formal analysis of slope stability was beyond the scope of work for this project. Based on our experience, permanent cut or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1V to maintain long term stability and to provide ease of maintenance. The crest or toe of cut or fill slopes should be no closer than 10 feet to any foundation.

The crest or toe should be no closer than 5 feet to the edge of any pavements. Erosion protection of slopes during construction and during establishment of vegetation should be considered an essential part of construction.

Earth Pressure (Cast-in-Place Structures)

Three earth pressure conditions are generally considered for retaining wall design: "at rest", "active", and "passive" stress conditions. Retaining walls which are rigidly restrained at the top and will be essentially unable to rotate under the action of earth pressure (such loading dock walls) should be designed for "at rest" conditions. Retaining walls which can move outward at the top as much as 0.5 percent of the wall height (such as free-standing walls) should be designed for "active" conditions. For the evaluation of the resistance of soil to lateral loads the "passive" earth pressure must be calculated. It should be noted that full development of passive pressure requires deflections toward the soil mass on the order of l.0 percent to 4.0 percent of total wall height.

Earth pressures may be evaluated using the following equation:

ph = K (DwZ + qs) + Ww(Z-d)

July 9, 2019 | 10 where: ph = horizontal earth pressure at any depth below the ground surface (Z).

Ww = unit weight of water Z = depth to any point below the ground surface d = depth to groundwater surface Dw = wet unit weight of the soil backfill (depending on borrow sources). The wet unit weight of most residual soils may be expected to range from approximately 115 to 125 pcf.

Below the groundwater level, Dw must be the buoyant weight.

qs = uniform surcharge load (add equivalent uniform surcharge to account for construction equipment loads)

K = earth pressure coefficient as follows:

Earth Pressure Condition Coefficient

At Rest (Ko) 0.5 Active (Ka) 0.33 Passive (Kp) 3.0

The groundwater term, Ww(Z-d), should be used if no drainage system is incorporated behind retaining walls. If a drainage system is included which will not allow the development of any water pressure behind the wall, then the groundwater term may be omitted. The development of excessive water pressure is a common cause of retaining wall failures. Drainage systems should be carefully designed to ensure that long term permanent drainage is accomplished.

The above design recommendations are based on the following assumptions:

• Horizontal backfill

• 95 percent standard Proctor compactive effort on backfill (ASTM D698)

• No safety factor is included

For convenience, equivalent fluid densities are frequently used for the calculation of lateral earth pressures.

For "at rest" stress conditions, an equivalent fluid density of 63 pcf may be used. For the "active" state of stress an equivalent fluid density of 42 pcf may be used. These equivalent fluid densities are based on the assumptions that drainage behind the retaining wall will allow no development of hydrostatic pressure; that native sandy silts or silty sands will be used as backfill; that the backfill soils will be compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density; that backfill will be horizontal; and that no surcharge loads will be applied.

For analysis of sliding resistance of the base of a cast-in-place concrete retaining wall, the coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.4 for the soils at the project site. This is an ultimate value, and an adequate factor of safety should be used in design. The force which resists base sliding is calculated by multiplying the normal force on the base by the coefficient of friction. Full development of the frictional force could require deflection of the base of roughly 0.l to 0.3 inches.

July 9, 2019 | 11

Foundation Design

At the time of this report, no foundations loads were available for the new buildings. The following recommendations are based on an assumed maximum column load of 50 kips and a maximum wall load of 3 kips per lineal foot. After general site preparation and site grading have been completed in accordance with the recommendations of this report, it is our opinion that the proposed trailhead building can be supported using conventional shallow foundations. We recommend that footings be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. In addition, we recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for column footings and 18 inches for continuous wall footings to prevent general bearing capacity failure.

Footings should bear at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the prevailing exterior ground surface elevation to avoid potential problems due to frost heave.

The recommended allowable soil bearing pressure is based on an estimated maximum total foundation settlement no greater than approximately 1 inch, with anticipated differential settlement between adjacent columns not exceeding about ½ inch. If the architect or structural engineer determine that the estimated total or differential settlement cannot be accommodated by the proposed structure, please contact us.

Foundation bearing surface evaluations should be performed in all footing excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel. These evaluations should be performed by Geo-Hydro to confirm that the design allowable soil bearing pressure is available. Foundation bearing surface evaluations should be performed using a combination of visual observation, hand augering, and portable dynamic cone penetrometer testing

(ASTM STP-399).

Because of natural variation, it is possible that some of the soils at the project site may have an allowable bearing pressure less than the recommended design value. Likewise, existing fill materials are highly variable, and may have an allowable bearing pressure less than the recommended design value. Therefore, foundation bearing surface evaluations will be critical to aid in the identification and remediation of these situations.

Remedial measures should be based on actual field conditions. However, in most cases we expect the use of the stone replacement technique to be the primary remedial measure. Stone replacement involves the removal of soft or loose soils, and replacement with well-compacted graded aggregate base (GAB) meeting Georgia Department of Transportation specifications for gradation. Stone replacement is generally performed to depths ranging from a few inches to as much as 2 times the footing width, depending on the actual conditions. For budgeting purposes, we suggest considering a contingency to treat approximately 30 percent of the foundation excavations using stone replacement extending to a depth of 3 feet below bearing elevation. The actual quantity of stone replacement will be different and may exceed the suggested estimate.

Seismic Design

Based on the results of the test borings and following the calculation procedure in the 2012 International Building Code (Chapter 20, ASCE 7-10), the Site Class for the site is C. The mapped and design spectral response accelerations are as follows: SS=0.202, S1=0.093, SDS=0.162, SD1=0.106.

July 9, 2019 | 12

Based on the information obtained from the soil test borings, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction of the residual soils at the site due to earthquake activity is relatively low.

Floor Slab Subgrade Preparation

The soil subgrade in the area of concrete slab-on-grade support is often disturbed during foundation excavation, plumbing installation, and superstructure construction. We recommend that the floor slab subgrade be evaluated by Geo-Hydro immediately prior to beginning floor slab construction.

If low consistency soils are encountered that cannot be adequately densified in place, such soils should be removed and replaced with well-compacted fill material placed in accordance with the Structural Fill section of this report or with well-compacted graded aggregate base (GAB).

Assuming that the top 12 inches of floor slab subgrade soils are compacted to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, we recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction of 120 pci be used for design.

Moisture Control for Concrete Slabs

To prevent the capillary rise of groundwater from adversely affecting the concrete slab-on-grade floor, we recommend that slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a minimum 4-inch thickness of open-graded stone.

Use of #57 crushed stone meeting Georgia DOT specifications for gradation is suggested. The stone must be covered by a vapor retarder. We suggest polyethylene sheeting at least 10 mils thick as a minimum vapor retarder.

Flexible Pavement Design

Based on our experience with similar projects, assuming standard pavement design parameters, and contingent upon proper pavement subgrade preparation, we recommend the following pavement sections:

Entrance/Exit Driveways, Main Drive Lanes, Bus Turnarounds, and Truck Traffic Areas Material Thickness (inches)

Asphaltic Concrete 9.5mm Superpave 2 Asphaltic Concrete 19mm Superpave 2

Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) (Base Course) 6 Subgrade compacted to at least 100% standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698) 12

Automobile Parking and Automobile Traffic Only

Material Thickness (inches) Asphaltic Concrete 9.5mm Superpave 2

Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) (Base Course) 6 Subgrade compacted to at least 100% standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698) 12

July 9, 2019 | 13

A concrete thickness of 7 inches is recommended for the approach and collection zone in front of the dumpster and in designated truck turn-around areas. Please refer to the Concrete Pavement section of this report for concrete pavement recommendations.

Similar to floor slab subgrades, pavement subgrades generally deteriorate due to constructions activities between the time of general site preparation and pavement construction. The top 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Scarification and moisture adjustment will likely be required to achieve the recommended subgrade compaction level. Allowances for pavement subgrade preparation should be considered for budgeting and scheduling.

GAB must be compacted to at least 100 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density

(ASTM D1557).

All pavement construction should be performed in general accordance with Georgia DOT specifications.

Proper subgrade compaction, adherence to Georgia DOT specifications, and compliance with project plans and specifications, will be critical to the performance of the constructed pavement.

Concrete Pavement

A rigid portland cement concrete pavement may be considered. Although usually more costly, a portland cement concrete pavement is typically more durable and requires less maintenance throughout the life cycle of the facility. We recommend concrete thicknesses of 5 inches in automobile parking areas and 6 inches in driveways, traffic lanes, and truck traffic areas.

A concrete thickness of 7 inches is recommended for the approach and collection zone in front of the dumpster and in designated truck turn-around areas.

A 600-psi flexural strength concrete mix (approximately 4,500 psi compressive strength) with 4 to 6 percent air entrainment should be used. The concrete pavement should be underlain by no less than 5 inches of compacted graded aggregate base (GAB). GAB should be compacted to at least 100 percent the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). The top 12 inches of soil subgrade should be compacted to at least 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698).

The concrete pavement may be designed as a “plain concrete pavement” with no reinforcing steel, or reinforcing steel may be used at joints. Construction joints and other design details should be in accordance with guidelines provided by the Portland Cement Association and the American Concrete Institute.

In general, all pavement construction should be in accordance with Georgia DOT specifications. Proper subgrade compaction, adherence to Georgia DOT specifications, and compliance with project plans and specifications will be critical to the performance of the constructed pavement.

July 9, 2019 | 14

Pavement Design Limitations The pavement sections discussed above are based on our experience with similar type developments. After traffic information has been developed, we recommend that you allow us to review the traffic data and revise our recommendations as necessary.

Pavement Materials Testing

To aid in verifying that the pavement system is installed in general accordance with the design considerations, the following materials testing services are recommended:

• Density testing of subgrade materials.

• Proofrolling of pavement subgrade materials immediately prior to placement of graded aggregate base

(GAB). This proofrolling should be performed the same day GAB is installed.

• Density testing of GAB and verification of GAB thickness. In-place density should be verified using the sand cone method (ASTM D1556).

• Coring of the pavement to verify thickness and density (asphalt pavement only).

• Preparation and testing of beams and cylinders for flexural and compressive strength testing (portland cement concrete only). The total number of test specimens required will depend on the number of concrete placement events necessary to construct the pavement.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant for this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or any of our services, please call us.

Sincerely, GEO-HYDRO ENGINEERS, INC.

A. Marty Peninger, P.E. Jeremy A. Thompson, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Materials / Geotechnical Engineer mpeninger@geohydro.com jthompson@geohydro.com

AMP/JAT/190576.20 - New Rogers Bridge Trailhead - Duluth - Geotechnical Report

APPENDIX

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Approximate Scale, Miles

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5

New Rogers Bridge Trailhead Duluth, Georgia Geo-Hydro Project Number 190576.20

Rogers Bridge Trailhead

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-11

B-12

B-10

B-3

B-2

B-1

B-4

Approximate Scale: 1"=120'

New Rogers Bridge Trailhead Duluth, Georgia Geo-Hydro Project Number 190576.20

Figure 2: Boring Location Plan

60 120 240 360

Symbols and Nomenclature

Symbols ▐ Thin-walled tube (TWT) sample recovered

Thin-walled tube (TWT) sample not recovered

● Standard penetration resistance (ASTM D1586)

50/2” Number of blows (50) to drive the split-spoon a number of inches (2)

65% Percentage of rock core recovered

RQD Rock quality designation - % of recovered core sample which is 4 or more inches long

GW Groundwater

Water level at least 24 hours after drilling

Water level one hour or less after drilling

ALLUV Alluvium

TOP Topsoil

PM Pavement Materials

CONC Concrete

FILL Fill Material

RES Residual Soil

PWR Partially Weathered Rock

SPT Standard Penetration Testing

Penetration Resistance Results Approximate Number of Blows, N Relative Density Sands 0-4 very loose

5-10 loose 11-20 firm 21-30 very firm 31-50 dense Over 50 very dense

Approximate Number of Blows, N Consistency Silts and 0-1 very soft Clays 2-4 soft 5-8 firm 9-15 stiff 16-30 very stiff 31-50 hard Over 50 very hard

Drilling Procedures Soil sampling and standard penetration testing performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The standard penetration resistance is the number of blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1.4-inch I.D. split-spoon sampler one foot. Rock coring is performed in accordance with ASTM D 2113. Thin-walled tube sampling is performed in accordance with ASTM D 1587.

50/6"

Brown silty sand with clay (SM) (FILL)*

Very stiff tan and gray fine sandy silt (ML)

(ALLUVIUM)

Very firm to dense gray-tan to tan silty fine sand (SM) with rock fragments (ALLUVIUM)

Partially weathered rock sampled as gray and brown silty fine to coarse sand (SM)

(RESIDUUM)

Boring Terminated at 25 feet

E le v.

(F t)

0 30 40 100

S ym bo l

Test Boring Record D ep th

(F t)

G W

T

GWT at Drilling: 14 feet

50 70

Date: 6/14/19

GWT at 24 hrs: N/A (Boring Backfilled) Logged By: CJA

Method: HSA- ASTM D1586

Project No: 190576.20Project: New Rogers Bridge Trailhead

Location: Duluth, Georgia

Remarks: *Penetration resistance not considered representative due to rocks in fill

Standard Penetration Test (Blows/Foot)

B-1

N

G.S. Elev:

Description

Driller: GCD(Rope and Cathead)

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G R

E C

O R

D B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J G

E O

H Y

D R

O .G

D T

6/

/1

50/6"

Brown silty clay (CL) (FILL)*

Very stiff to hard brown to gray-tan fine sandy silt (ML) (ALLUVIUM)

Very firm to dense tan silty fine to coarse sand (SM) with rock fragments (ALLUVIUM)

Partially weathered rock sampled as gray and white silty fine to coarse sand (SM)

(RESIDUUM)

Boring Terminated at 25 feet

E le v.

(F t)

0 30 40 100

S ym bo l

Test Boring Record D ep th

(F t)

G W

T

GWT at Drilling: 13.5 feet

50 70

Date: 6/14/19

GWT at 24 hrs: N/A (Boring Backfilled) Logged By: CJA

Method: HSA- ASTM D1586

Project No: 190576.20Project: New Rogers Bridge Trailhead

Location: Duluth, Georgia

Remarks: *Penetration resistance not considered representative due to rocks in fill

Standard Penetration Test (Blows/Foot)

B-2

N

G.S. Elev:

Description

Driller: GCD(Rope and Cathead)

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G R

E C

O R

D B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J G

E O

H Y

D R

O .G

Graded Aggregate Base (Approximately 4 inches) Red-brown fine silty fine to coarse sand (SM) with rock fragments (FILL)* Stiff to very stiff brown clayey silt (ML)

(ALLUVIUM)

Firm gray and tan clayey fine to coarse sand

(SC) (ALLUVIUM)

Boring Terminated at 15 feet

E le v.

(F t)

0 30 40 100

S ym bo l

Test Boring Record D ep th

(F t)

G W

T

GWT at Drilling: 14 feet

50 70

Date: 6/14/19

GWT at 24 hrs: N/A (Boring Backfilled) Logged By: CJA

Method: HSA- ASTM D1586

Project No: 190576.20Project: New Rogers Bridge Trailhead

Location: Duluth, Georgia

Remarks: *Penetration resistance not considered representative due to rocks in fill

Standard Penetration Test (Blows/Foot)

B-3

N

G.S. Elev:

Description

Driller: GCD(Rope and Cathead)

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G R

E C

O R

D B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J G

E O

H Y

D R

O .G

Very stiff brown and red clayey silt (ML)

(FILL)

Very stiff red-brown silty clay (CL)

(ALLUVIUM)

Very firm red-tan silty fine sand (SM)

(ALLUVIUM)

Firm gray-tan silty fine to coarse sand (SM)

(ALLUVIUM)

Bori…