W912QR25R0016_CERT_Final_Vol5_TunnelGDR_1of28_MainReport-0000.pdf

Solicitation For Rough River Dam Safety Modification Project Phase II - New Outlet Works and Cutoff Wall, Rough River Reservoir, Falls of Rough, KY

P2: 145870

Design-Bid-Build

Tunnel Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) Vol.5 (1 of 28) Main Report

Certified Final

20 December 2024

W912QR25R0016

ARIMS: 1200

Disposition: Permanent

W912QR25R0016_CERT_Final_Vol5_TunnelGDR_1of28_MainReport-0000

Rough River Dam

Geotechnical Data Report for Tunnel Construction

CUI

Controlled by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Controlled by: CELRL-EDT-D CUI Category: General Critical Infrastructure Info Limited Dissemination Control: FEDCON POC: John Baird, LRL, 502-315-6483

Rough River Dam (KY03012)

Geotechnical Data Report for Tunnel Construction

ROUGH RIVER, FALLS OF ROUGH, KY

LOUISVILLE DISTRICT, LRD DIVISION

Report Status: Certified Final, February 2021

CUI

i

CUI

CUI

ii

CUI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of Report .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Relation to Contract Documents ............................................................................................ 1-1

2 Description of Explorations .............................................................................................................. 2-2

2.1 2018 and 2019 Phase I&II Exploratory Investigation ............................................................. 2-2

2.2 2012 Geotechnical Exploration, Geophysics, and Piezometer Installation (1200 series) ..... 2-5

2.3 2015-2017 Grout Curtain Installation (Phase 1B) .................................................................. 2-6

3 Rock Laboratory Testing Procedures .............................................................................................. 3-9

3.1 Unconfined Compressive Strength. ....................................................................................... 3-9

3.2 Splitting Tensile Strength (Brazillian Method) ........................................................................ 3-9

3.3 Rock Anchor Bond “Pull-out” Strength ................................................................................... 3-9

3.4 Unit Weight ........................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.5 Resistance to Sliding Testing ............................................................................................... 3-10

3.6 Cerchar Abrasivity Index ...................................................................................................... 3-10

3.7 Rock Mechanics Summary Table......................................................................................... 3-10

APPENDIX

Appendix A .................................................................................................. Exploratory Drilling Phase I

Appendix B ................................................................................................. Exploratory Drilling Phase II

Appendix C .......................................................................................... 2012 Geotechnical Explorations

Appendix D .................................................................... 2015-2017 Grout Curtain (1b), Left Abutement

Appendix E ................................................................................................................ Groundwater Data

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS

ASTM ................................................................................. American Society for Testing and Meterials

CAI ................................................................................................................... Cerchar Abrasivity Index

GBR .......................................................................................................... Geotechnical Baseline Report

GDR ............................................................................................................... Geotechnical Data Report

GIR ...................................................................................................... Goetechnical Interpretive Report

MD ................................................................................................................................. Measured Depth

OATV ............................................................................................. Optical Accoustic Televiewer Survey

SPT ............................................................................................................... Standard Penetration Test

TVD .......................................................................................................................... Total Vertical Depth

UCS .................................................................................................. Unconfined Compressive Strength

Mh ........................................................................................................................ Hardinsburg Sanstone

CUI

iii

CUI

Mgh ............................................................................................................................. Haney Limestone

Mgb ........................................................................................................... Big Clifty Sandstone Member

Mgb (sh-u) ..................................................................................................... Upper Big Clifty Shale Bed

Mgb (ss) ...........................................................................................................Big Clifty Sandstone Bed

Mgb (int) ........................................................................................................ Big Clifty Interbedded Bed

Mgb (sh-l) ...................................................................................................... Lower Big Clifty Shale bed

Mgc .................................................................................................................... Beech Creek Limestone

El ........................................................................................................................................ Elwren Shale

Mr ........................................................................................................................... Reelsville Limestone

Ms .............................................................................................................................. Sample Sandstone

CUI

1-1

CUI

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Report

The Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) contains the raw data and assumptions that were the basis of the geotechnical and geologic conclusion detailed in the Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR). The purpose is to detail the extent and scope of field explorations, field methods, laboratory methods, and procedures employed to gather the data used to describe the geotechnical and geological conditions assumed for the construction of the Rough River Dam New Left Abutment Tunnel. Only the explorations and investigations used for the GBR are detailed in this report. Only the methods and procedures of the investigations are detailed in this report. Refer to the GBR for a description and interpretation of the units encountered.

1.2 Relation to Contract Documents

The GDR is a Contract Document and provides the basis for the conclusions detailed in the GBR.

Additional project history and investigation for the entire Rough River Dam Project are included in the Geotechnical Interpretive Report (GIR) provided FOR INFORMATION ONLY in Volume 6 of the technical package. The GBR is provided as a Contract Document in Volume 5 of the technical package. The Project Scope of Work is included in SPECIFICATION 01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK. Refer to the Contract Drawings for specific alignment, location, and details associated with the project. If there are any inconsistencies between the GBR and the GDR, the GBR shall take precedence.

CUI

2-2

CUI

2 DESCRIPTION OF EXPLORATIONS

2.1 2018 and 2019 Phase I&II Exploratory Investigation

Exploratory drilling, geophysics, and lab testing was performed at Rough River Dam to aid in the design of the planned new outlet works through the left abutment in two phases. During phase one, a total of 10 holes were drilled with one hole in the upstream approach channel, two holes in opposing corners of the tower footprint, four holes along the length of the tunnel, two holes in opposing corners of the stilling basin footprint, and one hole in the downstream retreat channel. All holes were vertical and extended two feet into the Elwren shale or approximately 35ft below the invert of the tunnel. The holes were labeled ADC-1801 through ADC-1810 starting from the upstream and continuing sequentially to the downstream. During phase, two a total 28 holes were drilled with 4 of those holes in an anticipated borrow area, 12 holes along the upstream approach channel, 1 hole in the tower footprint, 1 hole at the tower bridge abutment, 4 holes along the tunnel alignment, 3 holes within the stilling basin footprint, and 3 holes in the downstream retreat channel.

The second phase holes were labeled ADC-1901 through ADC-1920 beginning upstream and continuing sequentially downstream with the exception of ADC-1920 which moved prior to mobilization and A-1922 through A-1925. All holes were drilled vertically with varying depths, with the exception of ADC-1911 through ADC-1913 and ADC-1920 which were drilled at a 20 degree batter at specified azimuths.

The raw data from this investigation can be found in Appendix A (1800 Series) and Appendix B (1900 series) of this report.

2.1.1 Drilling

The location of the ten 1800 series holes were marked by a USACE survey crew and the horizontal and vertical information recorded. The soil was then drilled to the top of rock on all of the holes with an auger bit. Continuous SPT sampling was conducted on holes ADC-1801 and ADC-1810. Once the soil was augured on each hole, a PVC casing was set and the annular space grouted. The rock was then cored with a PQ bit, logged, and photographed in 5 ft stages. The core sections were then wrapped in plastic tube sheeting and taped shut to reduced drying. The wrapped core was placed in wooden core boxes and stored on-site in a heated container before being transported to the contractor’s facilities in Lexington at the end of each week.

The 28 subsequent 1900 series hole locations were marked by engineering division personnel and were surveyed by USACE survey crew members. The soil was drilled, Standard Penetration Tested (SPT), or undisturbed sampled (Shelby Tube) as directed. Where rock coring took place, soil was augured to the top of rock with a hollow stem auger. Once auguring was completed, a PVC casing (6” for PQ, 4” for NQ) was set and the annular space grouted. Rock coring was performed with a PQ bit for vertical holes, NQ bit for battered holes and holes drilled from a barge. The rock core was logged and photographed in 5 foot stages. The core was then wrapped in plastic tubing and taped shut to prevent drying. While drilling PQ sized holes, samples were taken from the core, wrapped in laboratory film, wrapped in plastic tubing, labeled, and separated for laboratory testing. All rock core was placed in wooden core boxes and stored on-site in a heated container prior to being transported to the drilling contractor’s laboratory facilities in Lexington at the end of each week.

2.1.2 Pressure Testing

After each 5 ft core run, a water pressure test was performed. The first two stages of each hole were not tested because the rods had to be raised 7.5 ft to accommodate the length of the

CUI

2-3

CUI

instrument. Once the rods were raised 7.5 ft, the packer assembly was inflated and water was introduced until the pressure was equal to ½ psi per foot of depth. A water pressure test was then performed. Once up to pressure, the valve was closed and the pressure drop recorded. If the pressure drop was <10 psi/min, a flow test was not conducted and drilling continued. If the pressure drop was ≥10 psi/minute, the flow test was performed. For the flow test, the prescribed pressure is maintained and the volume of water flow measured for 5 minutes. The result was recorded as Xgal/5min at Ypsi. The results of all tests were recorded. During Phase 2 drilling, only PQ sized boreholes were pressure tested. All data from the pressure tests, to include lugeons and permeability, is included in Appendix E of this report.

2.1.3 Optical Acoustic Televiewer Survey

Once all the holes were cored and pressure tested, an Optical Acoustic Televiewer Survey (OATV) survey was completed (Appendix, A & B). The collected surveys include optical, acoustic, gamma, and heat pulse. On battered holes the heat flow pulse meter survey was not run as the diverter flaps of the instrument were not strong enough to keep the instrument off of the rock face and seal the flow of water. Partial surveys were performed on ADC-1801 and ADC-1920 due karstic conditions.

On ADC-1920, no other surveys were completed except for the natural gamma after a large void space had been detected during drilling. No survey was performed on ADC-1810 because it only advanced to the top of rock.

2.1.4 Joint Study

Using information obtained during the acoustic and optical tele-viewer, a list of open fracture planes was generated by ARM Geophysics. ARM Geophysics reviewed all data and caliper results to determine if the feature is a bedding plane or a partially open feature. If a planar feature contains an open aperture, ARM defines that as a partially open fracture and not a bedding plane. During ARM’s statistical analysis, similarities in bedding and fracture set orientations can be interpreted such that the latter may be bedding partings. Using this interpretation, a partially open fracture differs from an open fracture in that the feature does not have a defined aperture in a complete 360° view. The data that was provided by ARM Geophysics was correlated with field data and split into separate strata based on elevations the strata was encountered in each borehole. Once lithological contacts were determined, data was entered into Stereonet Software and separated into two classifications:

Bedding Planes and Partially Open Fractures. Figure 2-1 is the Stereonet projection using the data obtained from the downhole geophysical surveys. The left image uses the classification of bedding planes and contained 134 data points (N=134). Partially open fractures contained 36 data points (N=36) and is depicted on the right. The center image is a compilation of all data, totaling 170 data points. Figure 2-2 uses the same information provided, creating Rose Diagrams depicting a visual representation of bedding and fracture plane trends by strike and dip. Figure 2-3 represents the angle of borings (measured depth) as opposed to vertical drilling (true vertical depth) and the horizontal distance between. During the 1900 series drilling, four boreholes were drilled at a batter of 20° to best intercept any unknown joint set orientations as defined in ETL 1110-2-581 Methods to Identify Optimum Drilling Direction for Geotechnical Exploration and Rock Engineering. A total of 170 data-points were collected in 3 of the 4 battered boreholes and the total horizontal distances covered within the Big Clifty Sandstone are greater than the width of the tunnel excavation.

CUI

2-4

Figure 2-1: Stereonets created from downhole geophysical data

Figure 2-2: Rose diagrams created using downhole geophysical data with strike and dip

CUI

2-5

Figure 2-3: Measured depth versus True Vertical Depth with horizontal difference

2.1.5 Backfilling

Once the OATV surveys were performed on all of the holes, they were backfilled with grout, allowed to harden, and the PVC casing removed flush with the ground surface. The elevations for top of ground on all holes were then confirmed by USACE. The backfill grout mix consisted of ~5% Bentonite and ~95% Portland cement with an approximate 28 day strength of ~500psi.

2.2 2012 Geotechnical Exploration, Geophysics, and Piezometer Installation (1200 series)

The 2012 Instrumentation Upgrade automated 59 existing piezometers and installed 2 new instruments in borings ADC-1203 and ADC-1205. Rock mechanics testing was performed on the cores from the two new borings. Detailed in this report are the data from the tests performed in the units that will be encountered during tunnel construction. 22 abrasivity tests were performed in accordance with the CERCHAR Method by ASTM D 7625 in the Big Clifty sandstone unit (Mgb ss).

12 uniaxial compression tests were performed in accordance with Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock by ASTM D 7012-Method D. 8 uniaxial compression tests were performed in the Big Clifty sandstone unit (Mgb ss) and 4 were performed in the Big Clifty interbedded unit (Mgb int).

Included within this section is the rock mechanic results from the installation of PZ-53. From this boring 2 abrasivity tests were performed in accordance with the CERCHAR Method by ASTM D 7625 in the Big Clifty sandstone unit (Mgb ss) and 2 uniaxial compression tests were performed in accordance with Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock by ASTM D 7012-Method D in

CUI

2-6

CUI

the Big Clifty sandstone. The raw data from this investigation can be found in Appendix C of this report.

2.3 2015-2017 Grout Curtain Installation (Phase 1B)

A double line grout curtain was installed along the crest of the dam in accordance with ER 1110-2- 1807 and EM 1110-2-3506, from station 9+16 to station 25+81, beginning in November 2015 and completing in April 2017. This feature was installed for the purpose of slurry control in preparation for a continuous concrete cutoff wall. The information gathered from this operation in the left abutment area was used in determining the stratigraphy, condition, and behavior of the rock formations to be encountered in tunnel construction. Details of the methods of exploration and field procedures are listed below with the raw data from each hole in Appendix D. Only those holes that will be encountered during tunnel construction (Stations 9+16 to 13+36) are included in this report.

In order to focus this report on those features encountered in tunnel construction, embankment grouting procedures have been omitted. Detailed grouting procedures along with drilling production rates per formation, and grouting results can be found in the Phase 1B Contractor’s Completion Report located in Volume 6 of the technical package. Phase 1B drilling logs with notes may be referenced in Volume 6: Phase 1B Boring Logs.

2.3.1 Grout Hole Placement

Grout holes were laid out on 20 ft centers at a 20° angle using split spacing over areas of concern.

Areas where the Beech Creek Limestone was assumed to be exposed at the top of rock were initially drilled on 5 ft centers. 5 ft centers were later designated for the areas where the Haney Limestone was assumed to be located at the top of rock, which included the large solution feature in the left abutment.

2.3.2 Embankment Drilling

All embankment drilling was performed with a rotary sonic drill equipped with a 7 inch override casing and a 6 inch core barrel. The embankment was sampled in 10 ft sections, logged, photographed, and measured on a representative section with a torvane and penetrometer.

Samples were taken for laboratory analysis as deemed necessary.

2.3.3 Rock Core Drilling/Grouting

The top 15 ft of rock in every hole was cored with an HQ (3 5/8th inch) triple tube wireline core barrel with a split inner tube. Each core was logged, photographed, and stored for later use. The hole was then washed until clear water was returned. Once this was performed the rock was grouted at gravity pressure. Refusal was determined to be 1 gpm for 10 minutes.

2.3.4 Rock Hammer Drilling

The rocks below 15 ft were drilled using a water-actuated downhole hammer in HQ size. The cuttings were examined as they were returned and the hole logged. The hole was then washed until clear water was returned.

2.3.5 Optical Acoustic Televiewer Survey

An OATV was performed on all primary holes on the base contract and verification holes. This included the optical image, acoustic amplitude, acoustic travel time, and acoustic caliper. This was

CUI

2-7

CUI

accompanied by a plane projection, dip direction, and stereonets and Schmidt plots. A deviation survey was also performed on each of these holes.

2.3.6 Water Testing Procedures

Water pressure testing was performed using either an instrumented double or single packer. The single packer was used for the bottom stage and the double packer used for the remainder of the hole. Pressures were set using ½ psi for every foot of overburden and 1 psi for every foot of rock.

Water was injected into the stage up to the prescribed pressure and held for two minutes. A lugeon value was then calculated from the pressure, volume, and time data.

0.01076𝑓𝑡2/𝑓𝑡/𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒 × 142𝑝𝑠𝑖

𝐼𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒

The first 15 ft of each hole was excluded from testing to help prevent the injection of water into the soil/rock interface.

Prior to water testing, the hole was washed until clear water was returned. For the base contract holes, pressure testing stages were determined by a USACE representative to correspond to and isolate individual formations. These determinations were primarily based upon the OATV images and downhole geophysics. For the holes on the contract modification, all stages were preset in 10 ft intervals except for the bottom stage. It was discovered during the base contract that the formation thicknesses at this site were in multiples of 10 ft ±2 ft.

2.3.7 Grouting Procedures

Prior to grouting, the hole was washed until clear water was returned. The first 15 ft of every hole was downstage grouted using gravity pressure. This was done to protect the soil/rock interface from the injection of grout. After the first 15 ft, upstage grouting was the preferred method. Apart from the first 15 ft, downstage grouting was to be used when there was a complete loss of fluid while drilling. It was used as a method to prevent collapse in the holes drilled on the modified contract between Stations 10+56 and 11+56. This section contains the sinkhole in the left abutment that had multiple successive hole collapses in the base contract between 55-75 ft Total Vertical Depth (TVD).

The grout pressures used after the initial 15 ft were equal to ½ psi for every foot of overburden and 1 psi for every foot of rock. Refusal for all stages, regardless of method, was <1 gpm for 10 minutes.

5 standard grout mixes were used on the operation (A-E) with increasing viscosities and final strengths (Table 2.3-1: Grout Mix Design Used in the 1B Grout Curtain ). The prescribed compressive strength of each mix after 28 day was:

A. 600psi B. 2,017psi C. 3.927psi D. 4,253psi E. 3,626psi

CUI

2-8

CUI

Table 2.3-1: Grout Mix Design Used in the 1B Grout Curtain

CUI

3-9

CUI

3 ROCK LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

Rock mechanics testing has been conducted on various rounds of drilling, including samples of PQ (3.3-inch diameter) core and some NQ (2.4-inch diameter). The majority of the testing was obtained from the two phases of subsurface exploration in 2018 and 2019 (see Geotechnical Appendix A & Appendix B). The majority of the testing was performed by the contractor, Stantec, Inc., located in Lexington, Kentucky. The contractor’s laboratory has been validated for rock mechanics testing by the Materials Testing Center at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC). All samples have been prepared and tested in general accordance with the applicable standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and when appropriate, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rock Testing Handbook (RTH).

The rock mechanics test results were analyzed to develop bedrock strength parameters in general accordance with EM 1110-1-2908, Rock Foundations, dated 30 November 1994 as well as EM 1110-2-2901, Tunnels and Shafts in Rock, dated 30 May 1997. Typically, tested rock samples do not represent the weakest rock types or features of the rock mass. The weakest materials were often lost during the drilling process, broken during shipment, or were of lengths unsuitable for testing. Therefore, bedrock design parameters were chosen based on combined consideration of rock test results, rock mass characteristics obtained from the exploration program, numerical analysis, the specific application, and engineering/geological judgment.

A summarized table of the bedrock strength parameters that will be encountered during tunnel construction is listed in Appendix E. More details on each test performed can be found in the Appendices A-D listed by exploration.

3.1 Unconfined Compressive Strength.

A total of forty-three (43) Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Tests have been conducted within the Big Clifty Sandstone (Mgb). The basic compression tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 7012 and were conducted at a total of three different laboratories, so the possibility of inter-laboratory variability is a possibility. Of these 43 UCS tests, a total of thirty-one (31) also measured Elastic Modulus (EM) and thirty (30) measured Poisson’s Ratio (PR), both of which were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 7012.

In the early stages of the investigations for the cutoff wall design, the initial testing was conducted on smaller samples of 1.8-inch and 2.0-inch diameters. Later, when it became apparent that a new outlet works was needed, larger 3.3-inch diameter rock cores were obtained for testing. For the purposes of this report, there was not a correction factor applied to any of the core sizes, as they are all relatively small diameter core sizes.

3.2 Splitting Tensile Strength (Brazilian Method)

All Brazilian Method Splitting Tensile testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM D3967 and was performed on PQ (3.3-inch) diameter core and was focused around the drilling conducted to investigate the new outlet works design.

3.3 Rock Anchor Bond “Pull-out” Strength

Pullout testing was conducted at Stantec Inc, in general accordance with the method suggested by David Lienhart and Terry Stransky in “Laboratory Testing as an Aid in the Design of Cable Anchor Systems for Rock Reinforcement”, dated 1990. The testing was conducted with grout obtaining at

CUI

3-10

CUI

least 7,000 psi on 2” cube compressive strength. In this case, the 1800-series tests had a grout cube compressive strength of 7,470psi and the 1900-series tests were run with grout cube compressive strength of 7,170 psi.

The shale units were not tested for working bond strength, since it will be assumed that no shale will be relied upon for any working bond.

3.4 Unit Weight

Unit weight tests were conducted on various rock core. They were mostly performed on UCS and Brazillian Tensile test specimens.

3.5 Resistance to Sliding Testing

Sliding Friction test samples were tested as part of both Natural Fracture and Smooth Sawn surfaces. The testing was run in general accordance with the ASTM 5607 method.

3.6 Cerchar Abrasivity Index

Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI) tests were conducted in various rounds of testing and conducted in general accordance with ASTM 7625. All testing was conducted with a stylus with hardness of 54- 56 HRC (Table 3.6-1).

Table 3.6-1: Classifications versus results of two stylus types (ASTM D7625-10)

3.7 Rock Mechanics Summary Table

The following tables contain a summary of all rock mechanic testing on units to be encountered during tunnel construction.

CUI

3-1

Table 3.7-1: Rock Mechanics Summary Mbg (sh-u)

Peak Strength

(psi)

Elastic Modulus

(x 106 psi) Poisson's Ratio

Grout Cube

Strength (psi)

Normal

Load

(psi)

Peak

Resistance

(psi)

Post-Peak Sliding

Resistance (psi)

Apparent Phi-angle (w/ no cohesion) (°)

Lab Sample Joint

Roughness

Coeficient (JRC)

ADC-1803 New Tower 541.22 57.1 to 57.4 484.12 to 483.82 3.3 Brazillian Tensile 155.7 131

ADC-1802 New Tower 528.27 45 to 45.3 483.27 to 482.97 3.3 Brazillian Tensile 155.2 122

ADC-1909 New Tower Bridge 540.75 55.7 to 55.9 485.05 to 484.85 3.3 Brazillian Tensile 156.1 381

ADC-1908 New Tower (just US) 508.81 21.2 to 21.6 487.61 to 487.21 3.3 Sliding Resistance (Natural Fracture) 25 14 10 22.4 8

Sliding Resistance (Natural Fracture) 50 12 13.8

Sliding Resistance (Natural Fracture) 75 23 16.8

ADC-1910 New Tower 538.72 51.1 to 51.3 487.62 to 487.42 3.3 Sliding Resistance (Natural Fracture) 25 20 12.5 26.6 18

Sliding Resistance (Natural Fracture) 50 20.0 21.8

Sliding Resistance (Natural Fracture) 75 28.2 20.6

ADC-1909 New Tower Bridge 540.75 55.4 to 55.7 485.35 to 485.05 3.3 Sliding Resistance (Natural Fracture) 25 11 8.3 18.4 8

Sliding Resistance (Natural Fracture) 50 12.7 14.3

Sliding Resistance (Natural Fracture) 75 16.5 12.4

ADC-1803 New Tower 541.22 56.7 to 57.1 484.52 to 484.12 3.3 Sliding Resistance (Smooth Sawn Surface) 25 8.6 6.3 14.1

Sliding Resistance (Smooth Sawn Surface) 50 7.7 8.8

Sliding Resistance (Smooth Sawn Surface) 75 9.6 7.3

ADC-1802 New Tower 528.27 44.4 to 44.7 483.87 to 483.57 3.3 Sliding Resistance (Smooth Sawn Surface) 25 12.3 26.2

Sliding Resistance (Smooth Sawn Surface) 50 19.5 21.3

Sliding Resistance (Smooth Sawn Surface) 75 25.9 19.1

ADC-1802 New Tower 528.27 44.7 to 45 483.57 to 483.27 3.3 Sliding Resistance (Smooth Sawn Surface) 25 8 17.7

Sliding Resistance (Smooth Sawn Surface) 50 11.5 13.0

Sliding Resistance (Smooth Sawn Surface) 75 14.8 11.2

ADC-1802 New Tower 528.27 40.8 to 42.6 487.47 to 485.67 3.3 Slake Durability 0.0

ADC-1803 New Tower 541.22 54.3 to 55.4 486.92 to 485.82 3.3 Slake Durability 0.0

ADC-1909 New Tower Bridge 540.75 52.7 to 53.7 488.05 to 487.05 3.3 Slake Durability 3.5

ADC-1910 New Tower 538.72 50.7 to 51 488.02 to 487.72 3.3 Slake Durability 0.2

ADC-1807 New DS Conduit 519.19 36.5 to 37.5 482.69 to 481.69 3.3 Slake Durability 0.6

ADC-1908 New Tower (just US) 508.81 19.5 to 20.1 489.31 to 488.71 3.3 Unconfined Compression w/ E.M & P.R. 146.0 180 0.04 0.21

ADC-1908 New Tower (just US) 508.81 20.7 to 21.2 488.11 to 487.61 3.3 Unconfined Compression w/ E.M & P.R. 154.0 340 0.07 0.15

ADC-1909 New Tower Bridge 540.75 53.6 to 54.2 487.15 to 486.55 3.3 Unconfined Compression w/ E.M & P.R. 149.0 130 0.14 0.12

ADC-1802 New Tower 528.27 43.1 to 44.1 485.17 to 484.17 3.3 Unconfined Compression w/ E.M & P.R. 146.0 330 0.07 0.21

AVG of data 151.7 245 0.08 0.17 211 0.9

STD Deviation of data 4.2 92 0.04 0.04 120 1.3

Lab Sample Information Test Result

Unit Sample Elevation

(ft)

Wet Unit

Weight

(pcf)

General Location on

Project

U p p e r Sh al e

B

IG

C

LI

FT

Y

S A

N D

ST

O

N E

Top of Hole

Elevation

(ft)

Sample Depth

(ft) rock core diameter

(in)

Laboratory Test Conducted

Uniaxial Compression Testing

Splitting

Tensile (psi)

Slake Duribility

(SDI) %

Cerchar

Abrasivity Index

(CAI)

Rock Anchor Pull Out (psi) Direct Shear/Sliding Resistance

Bond Strength (psi) y - plug pulled n- plug did not pull

Boring #

CUI

3-2

CUI

Table 3.7-2: Rock Mechanics Summary Mgb (ss) (Continued on Next Page)

CUI

3-3

CUI

Table 3.7-3: (Continued from Previous Page)

CUI

3-4

CUI

Table 3.7-4: Rock Mechanics Summary Mgb (int)

CUI

3-5

CUI

Table 3.7-5: Rock Mechanics Summary Mgb (sh-l)

CUI

3-1