Geotechnical Exploration Fort Nashborough New Construction

Transcription

Geotechnical Exploration
Fort Nashborough New Construction
Nashville, Tennessee
TTL Project No. 100814084
Prepared for:
Moody Nolan, Inc.
Prepared by:
TTL
geotechnical • analytical • materials • environmental
Report of
October 27, 2014
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION.......................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Proposed Construction .............................................................................................................. 1
2.2 Background Subsurface Data ................................................................................................... 1
3.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING .................................................................................................................. 2
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 3
5.0 GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................. 3
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 3
6.1 Soil and Rock Conditions........................................................................................................... 3
6.2 Groundwater Conditions............................................................................................................ 4
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 4
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 5
8.1 Site Preparation and General Grading Considerations........................................................... 5
8.2 Structural Fill .............................................................................................................................. 6
8.3 Foundation Design and Construction....................................................................................... 7
8.4 Pavement Design ....................................................................................................................... 8
8.4.1
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS .......................................................................... 8
8.4.2
GENERAL PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 9
8.5 Preliminary Seismic Considerations ......................................................................................... 10
9.0 MONITORING AND TESTING ................................................................................................................... 10
10.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 10
APPENDIX A:
Exploration Plan
APPENDIS B:
Logs and Legend
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
FORT NASHBOROUGH NEW CONSTRUCTION
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
TTL PROJECT NUMBER 100814084
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the data obtained from a subsurface exploration conducted at Fort Nashborough in
Nashville, Tennessee. The exploration consisted of advancing three hand auger borings at the site. Soil
samples obtained from the site were selected for laboratory testing to evaluate their fundamental soil
properties. Based on the data obtained, we have developed recommendations for earthwork and
foundation, and pavement design and construction. Our scope of services was described in our revised
Proposal No. P01814090, R1, dated September 30, 2014.
The scope of this geotechnical exploration did not include environmental assessment of the site.
Consequently, this report does not provide information regarding the presence or absence of toxic or
hazardous substances.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Proposed Construction
Information about the project was provided by Ms. Thompson in a “Request for Geotechnical Proposal”
document, dated September 8, 2014, transmitted via e-mail. The request included a site sketch
showing existing and proposed structures and locations of three suggested exploration locations. We
made a brief site visit on the morning of September 11, 2014, to assess site access conditions.
The project involves the design and construction of five new log cabin structures approximately 2,400
square feet in plan dimension within the fort walls. We understand from an e-mail communication from
the structural designer, Mr. Rao Patri, P.E., S.E., with Logan Patri Engineering, that design loads for the
proposed structures are not more than 1.5 kips per linear foot for walls and not more than 25 kips for
individual columns. Other loading, design, or construction information was not available.
2.2 Background Subsurface Data
TTL has data from a boring performed by TTL north of the fort as part of a previous exploration in 2010.
While we cannot include the boring log in this report, we have considered the conditions described on
Moody Nolan, Inc. – Fort Nashborough New Construction
October 27, 2014
Page 2
the boring log in our geotechnical evaluation for this project. The previous boring indicated existing fill
consisting of silt and clay containing brick, gravel, cinders, and occasional traces of organics extending
to a depth of 13 feet below grade. The fill typically had SPT N-values of 13 blows per foot (bpf) to 17
bpf. The fill was underlain by a layer of residual clay less than 1 foot thick. Below the clay, the boring
encountered limestone of the Bigby-Cannon formation. Core sampling of the limestone showed an
upper zone of weathered limestone that was 9 feet thick. The core sample from the weathered zone
had 43% recovery and an RQD of 27%. A soil-filled cavity approximately 3-½ feet thick was noted in the
weathered zone. The deeper, unweathered limestone had core recovery of 96% and RQD of 61%.
Groundwater was reported at a depth of 29 feet below grade.
3.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING
The subsurface exploration consisted of three hand augered borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) testing. The boring locations were determined in the field based on the provided drawing by
measuring from existing fort walls. Approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the appended
Exploration Plan.
The borings were advanced to hand auger refusal or, in the case of HA-02, to a planned depth of 10 feet
below existing grades. The borings were advanced by manually twisting a sharpened steel auger into the
soil. At regular depth intervals the auger was removed and the consistency of the soil below the hole
was evaluated by DCP testing. The DCP test involved driving a conical steel point into the soil with
repeated blows from a 15-lb hammer free-falling 20 inches. The point was driven through three
increments of 1-3/4 inches, and the number of hammer blows was recorded for each increment. The
average of the final two blow counts is termed the DCP resistance value. When properly evaluated, the
DCP value can be used to correlate with the strength, stiffness, and compressibility of the tested soils. A
member of our professional staff conducted the exploration and collected grab samples of soil that
appeared to be representative of the encountered strata. Records of the explorations, called boring
logs, were prepared for each hand auger boring. The logs, which are appended, provide visually
determined descriptions of the materials encountered and recorded the various thicknesses of
overburden layers, depths to refusal, and observed groundwater inflows. Upon completion, each boring
was backfilled with the soil cuttings.
A member of our professional staff visually classified the soil samples using the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) as a guide. Selected soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing in
October 27, 2014
Page 3
order to determine fundamental engineering characteristics. Specifically, we performed two tests for
Atterberg limits (ASTM D 4318) and five tests for natural moisture content (ASTM D 2216) on samples
from boring HA-02. Results of the laboratory testing are included on the appended logs.
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS
The site consists of the existing Fort Nashborough at 170 1st Avenue North in downtown Nashville. The
property sits between 1st Avenue North and the Cumberland River. The site is entirely surrounded by
wooden fort walls and/or log cabins with limited man-doors and no vehicular access. Sidewalks, paths,
and grass areas cover most of the interior area of the fort along with several small trees up to about 10
inches in diameter. Existing site grades appear relatively level inside the fort, but they are slightly higher
than the adjacent 1st Avenue sidewalk along the west side of the fort. The site grades are well above the
level of the river on the east side of the fort and the elevation change is maintained by several levels of
retaining walls.
5.0 GEOLOGY
The USGS Geologic Map, Nashville West Quadrangle, dated 1966, indicates this particular site is
underlain by limestone of the Bigby-Cannon formation. This formation is typically a medium to light gray,
coarse-grained, medium-bedded limestone with occasional shale partings and brown phosphate pellets.
The limestone weathers to produce a 5- to 15-foot thick layer of native soil (residuum) which is typically
brownish silty clay. The soil/rock interface can be highly irregular due to soil-filled slots extending deep
into the rock mass and rock pinnacles protruding into the soil overburden layer. Isolated “floating”
boulders frequently occur within the soil overburden.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
6.1 Soil and Rock Conditions
The hand auger borings encountered 3 to 6 inches of topsoil before reaching fill materials which
extended down to the termination depths of the borings. The fill consisted of clay (USCS CL) with some
limestone fragments. DCP values in the fill at boring HA-02 ranged from 4 to 25 blows per increment.
The moisture content of the fill at HA-02 ranged from 16% to 24% and generally decreased with depth.
The clay fill at HA-02 had Liquid Limits (LL) of 35 and 31, and the fill had Plasticity Indexes (PI) of 13 and
11, respectively.
October 27, 2014
Page 4
Two of the borings (HA-01 and HA-03) encountered shallow refusal, from 6 inches to 2-½ feet below
ground surface. Two offsets were made at each of these locations with similar refusal depths. Boring
HA-02 did not encounter refusal in the fill and was terminated at a depth of 10 feet below grade. In our
opinion, the hand auger refusal encountered at borings HA-01 and HA-03 and the offset locations was
likely the result of rock fragments or other inclusions within the fill. The hand auger refusal depths do
not suggest shallow bedrock.
6.2 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not observed or encountered during the hand auger exploration of the site.
Groundwater levels may fluctuate due to recent rainfall, construction activity, and other site-specific
hydrologic factors.
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
The primary geotechnical consideration affecting the project is the presence of existing fill at the site.
The hand auger borings encountered previously placed fill materials to a depth of 10 feet below existing
ground level. Data from borings performed by TTL north and south of the fort for other projects
indicates the fill extends 13 to 18 feet below ground surface. Documentation about the composition,
placement, and compaction of the existing fill was not available. However, data from previous borings
indicates the fill contains debris (brick, cinders, and gravel) mixed with silt and clay.
In our opinion, there is inherent risk of poor performance associated with supporting buildings and
pavements on the existing, undocumented fill because of the potential for undetected weak zones and
the possible inclusion of organic materials which can decay over time. Poor building performance may
include settlement of foundations, misalignment of doors and windows, and ponding of water on the
roof. Poor pavement performance may include faulting of joints (concrete), localized depressions, and
cracking.
To eliminate the risk of poor performance associated with existing fill, total undercut and replacement of
the existing fill would be needed. Complete removal of the existing fill is not practicable because of the
costs that would be required to maintain stability of the adjacent road, park, and utilities, as well as the
cost to completely rebuild the entire fort. We have prepared this report assuming that the existing fill
will not be completely removed and the owner is willing to accept the risks previously discussed. We
have developed our recommendations to help lower the risks of poor performance described above.
October 27, 2014
Page 5
Our recommended approach involves using a low design bearing pressure to reduce the magnitude of
potential settlement of shallow foundations along with thorough evaluation of the foundation bearing
materials during construction. Isolated undercutting of footings may also be required depending on the
bearing conditions exposed during construction.
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Final layout and site grading plans were not completed at the time of this report. We should be given
the opportunity to review the final site plans when they are completed to check whether or not
modifications to our recommendations are warranted.
8.1 Site Preparation and General Grading Considerations
Initially, grass and trees should be stripped to prepare the site for construction. The clearing, grubbing,
and stripping should extend at least 10 feet beyond the proposed construction limits or to the property
boundaries. Any resulting excavations should be backfilled with compacted structural fill. Waste
materials, including stripping vegetation, and other objectionable materials should be disposed of at an
off-site location.
If existing buildings will be demolished, the existing foundations should also be completely removed.
Existing underground utilities that will be relocated or abandoned should be completely removed,
including bedding and backfill. Excavations resulting from demolition activities should be replaced with
compacted structural fill. The sides of excavations resulting from removal of foundations or utilities
should be sloped and the backfill “benched” into the sides of the excavation as it is placed. Temporary
construction excavations should be sloped or shored by the contractor in accordance with OSHA
requirements. The existing fill encountered at the site should be classified as Type C soil according to
OSHA requirements. TTL assumes no responsibility for job site safety which is the sole responsibility of
the general contractor.
After the site has been prepared, and after cuts and before new fill placement, the exposed subgrade
should be proofrolled with heavily-loaded, rubber-tired equipment (such as a fully-loaded, tandem-axle
dump truck) to identify weak areas. If proofrolling is not practicable due to access constraints, then the
subgrade should be evaluated by our geotechnical personnel using probe rods and possibly E-rod DCP
testing. Weak materials identified during the proofrolling or subgrade evaluation should be undercut or
stabilized based on field recommendations from our geotechnical engineer.
October 27, 2014
Page 6
Clayey soils may be exposed at the subgrade level after grading is complete. Experience indicates that
these soils can degrade after repeated passes of heavy, rubber-tired equipment, particularly in wet
weather conditions. If possible, site development should be performed during seasonably dry weather
and excavation/site preparation should not be performed during or immediately following periods of
heavy precipitation. Positive surface drainage should be maintained during grading operations and
construction to prevent water from ponding on the surface. Surface water run-off from off-site areas
should be diverted around the site using berms or ditches. The surface should be rolled smooth to
enhance drainage if precipitation is expected. Subgrade damaged by construction equipment should be
promptly repaired to avoid further degradation in adjacent areas and water ponding. Our geotechnical
engineer should provide recommendations for treatment if the subgrade materials become wet, dry, or
frozen. Experience indicates some degradation of the near surface materials should be expected if they
are subjected to freeze/thaw.
Construction activities may be affected by seasonal conditions such as heavy rainfall. When work
activities are interrupted by heavy rainfall, fill operations should not resume until the moisture content
and density of the previously placed fill materials are as recommended in this report and are stable
under rubber-tired construction equipment.
8.2 Structural Fill
Fill operations should not begin until representative soil samples are collected and tested (allow 3 to 4
days for sampling and testing of soil). The test results should be used to evaluate whether or not the
proposed fill material meets appropriate specifications and for quality control during grading. Structural
fill should meet the criteria outlined in the following table. Fill placement and compaction should be
observed by our representative on a full-time basis.
Criteria for fill characteristics, compaction
procedures, and compaction control are listed in the table below.
October 27, 2014
Page 7
SUMMARY OF FILL CRITERIA
MATERIAL TYPE
CHARACTERISTICS
Maximum particle size – 4 inches
Maximum gravel and oversize
particle content – 30 percent
retained on a ¾-inch sieve
SOIL FILL
Maximum allowable organic
content– 3 percent by weight, but
no large roots should be allowed
Plasticity Index – less than 30
COMPACTION PROCEDURES
Maximum loose lift thickness – 8
inches
Compaction Requirement –
Compaction should be to at least 95
percent of the standard Proctor
maximum (ASTM D 698) and
increased to 98 percent in the
upper 8 inches.
Moisture content at time of
compaction – within plus or minus
2 percent of the optimum moisture
content.
COMPACTION CONTROL
Large Fill Areas – One compaction
test every 2,500 square feet per lift
in the building area and one
compaction test every 5,000 to
10,000 square feet per lift in
pavement areas.
Small Fill Areas – One compaction
test for every 50 cubic yards
(for preliminary planning only, our
technician/engineer should
determine the actual test frequency)
8.3 Foundation Design and Construction
As discussed in Section 7.0 of this report, we recommend the proposed construction be supported by
conventional spread foundations bearing on existing fill that has been evaluated by TTL at the time of
footing construction. We recommend shallow foundations be designed using an allowable net bearing
pressure of 1,000 psf. The low bearing pressure is intended to reduce the risks of poor foundation
performance associated with support over existing fill.
Using the structural loads provided and considering the bearing conditions and recommended bearing
pressure, we estimate total settlements of shallow footings could be on the order of 1 or 2 inches or
more, and differential settlements could approach 1-inch or more. We caution that foundation
settlements cannot be reliably predicted because of the variability and uncertainty associated with the
condition of the existing fill.
Continuous footings should be at least 18 inches wide and column footings should be at least 24 inches
wide for ease of construction and to improve the factor of safety against punching shear failure.
Footings should bear at least 18 inches below adjacent grade to provide frost protection and
confinement.
Lateral loads applied to the foundations will be resisted by the friction acting between the bearing
surface and the bottom of the concrete footing and by the passive resistance developed by the confining
overburden. The friction factor is estimated to be 0.35 between concrete and the anticipated bearing
materials. Assuming that the foundations are cast into unformed excavations or compacted backfill, the
October 27, 2014
Page 8
passive pressure acting against the vertical sides of the footings is estimated to be equivalent to fluid
pressure of 250 psf. A safety factor of at least 1.5 should be used in designing the foundations for
resistance to horizontal loads. Passive pressure should not be considered for footings that are formed.
Foundation concrete should be cast the same day the footing excavations are opened. If footing
excavations are left open for more than a day, we recommend protecting the excavation from the
elements by placing a “mud-mat” of lean concrete or other similar methods. Surface water should not
be allowed to pond within open excavations. The footing subgrade should be level and cleaned of soft,
loose, or wet materials prior to casting foundation concrete. Footings should be poured “neat” to the
excavation so that water cannot collect behind forms before backfilling. If the footings are formed, the
areas behind the forms should be backfilled with compacted fill as soon as practical.
A representative of our company should review the footing excavations during construction to confirm
that the materials exposed at the bearing elevation are suitable for support of the foundations based on
the design considerations described above. If soft zones or unsuitable materials are encountered, the
footing subgrade should be undercut to a stiff bearing stratum and replaced with low plasticity structural
fill, flowable fill, or lean concrete. Depending on the nature of the unsuitable conditions and the depth of
undercutting, it may be economical to backfill with compacted clean, washed stone (TN DOT No. 57). If
washed stone is used, it should be placed in lifts not more than 12 inches thick and each lift should be
densified by repeated tamping with the bucket of a backhoe or with a vibratory plate tamper. The
placement and densification of each lift of washed stone should be observed and documented by our
geotechnical field personnel.
8.4 Pavement Design
We have developed our recommendations based on the expectation of limited traffic loads for light-duty
flexible pavement. We have provided a minimum pavement design section.
8.4.1
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
We recommend the following flexible pavement section thicknesses:
Pavement Usage
Asphalt Surface Course
Asphalt Binder Course
Light Duty
2-1/2 inches
--
1Mineral
Proctor
Mineral Aggregate
Base1
6 inches
aggregate base should be compacted to 100 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the standard
October 27, 2014
Page 9
The pavement materials should conform to applicable sections of the Tennessee Department of
Transportation (TDOT) Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition.
Assuming the pavement soil subgrade provides a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of at least 3.0, we
anticipate the recommended pavement section should be capable of supporting up to 35,000 18-kips
Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL’s) during its service life. This ESAL total represents approximately
85,000 passenger cars and two tractor trailer trucks per week over a 20-year design life. If actual loads
will be greater than this, then additional pavement thickness and/or improved subgrade support will be
needed.
8.4.2
GENERAL PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Experience has shown that most pavement failures are caused by localized soft spots in the subgrade
or inadequate drainage. Proofrolling observed by our geotechnical engineer should help reduce the
incidence of weak spots in the subgrade, as discussed earlier. The civil design must include proper
drainage to reduce softening of the subgrade, soil migration, and pumping failures. The pavement
surface and subgrade should have a minimum slope of 2 percent. Good perimeter drainage around the
pavements is also recommended. Any isolated areas that experience premature failure should be
promptly repaired to prevent widespread problems from occurring.
Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However, as construction
proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or
rainfall. As a result, sections of the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction
and require corrective action. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of pavement
construction by proofrolling with a loaded, tandem-axle dump truck. Particular attention should be given
to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are
located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and replacing
the materials with compacted fill.
Maintenance is essential for good, long-term performance asphalt pavements. Distressed areas should
be promptly repaired to prevent the failure from spreading due to vehicular loading and water
infiltration. Cracks and joints should be sealed annually with a heavy-duty sealer. Additionally, a coal tar
seal should be applied every second or third year of service for the asphalt pavements. The seal will
retard the tendency of the asphalt to become brittle and will close small cracks that cannot be repaired
otherwise.
October 27, 2014
Page 10
8.5 Preliminary Seismic Considerations
Based on the 2006 edition of the International Building Code, and our interpretations of the site
conditions, we recommend the site be classified as a Site Class D. We expect this site class will result in
a Design Category D for the project. It is possible that additional testing to determine the onedimensional shear wave velocity profile at the site could allow the site to be classified as Site Class C
which would then result in a Design Category C. Please contact us to discuss additional seismic testing,
if desired.
9.0 MONITORING AND TESTING
The long-term performance of the foundation system and other site features will be highly dependent
upon workmanship during construction and the contractor’s compliance with project specifications.
The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon TTL’s continuing involvement with
the project to conduct additional exploration and observations. We should be given the opportunity to
observe the foundation installation and earthwork activities. Particularly, the placement of fill materials
should be observed by one of our experienced technicians. Immediately prior to concrete placement,
footing excavations should be evaluated by qualified personnel directly responsible to you and your firm.
We believe our technical overview during these activities is essential to provide a well-constructed
facility and to see that the design criteria are met.
10.0 LIMITATIONS
The foregoing recommendations were developed based on observations and analysis of soils from a
limited number of borings and with the assumption that the materials exposed therein represent
conditions existing across the site. It is possible that different conditions could exist between the
explored locations, and such unknown conditions could have an impact on design and construction.
Should conditions at variance with this report be encountered during construction, this office should be
notified immediately so further studies can be made and supplemental recommendations can be
provided.
All information (written or electronic) from TTL concerning TTL’s work is for the sole use and reliance of
TTL’s Client. TTL intends no third party beneficiaries (expressed or implied) and copies of such
October 27, 2014
Page 11
information received by any third parties are NOT for reliance unless TTL first receives a signed
Secondary Client Agreement from the third party.
For more information about the use and limitations of this report, please read the attached ASFE
document.
APPENDIX A
EXPLORATION PLAN
Geotechnical Study
Proposed Natatorium
Ensworth High School
APPENDIX B
LOGS AND LEGEND
LOG OF BORING
HA-01
Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee
Page 1 of 1
Remarks:
100814084
Driller:
M. Zlokovich
Date Drilled:
10/3/2014
Borings backfilled with auger cuttings.
Logged by:
M. Zlokovich
Boring Depth:
2.5 feet
Water was not encountered during exploration.
Equipment:
Hand Auger
Boring Elevation:
Not Available
Hammer Type:
DCP
Coordinates:
Drilling Method:
Hand Auger w/ DCP
CL
Two offset borings advanced to similar refusal.
Not Available
MATERIALS DESCRIPTION
PPV
(tsf)
TYPE
SAMPLE DATA
MOISTURE
(%)
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
TTL Job No.:
GRAPHIC
LOG
N/A
ELEVATION
(ft)
Drilling Co.:
DEPTH (ft)
Report:2013 HAND AUGER W/DCP
10/22/14
N:\SERVER\PROJECTS\2014 PROJECTS\GEO (1008)\100814084 MOODY NOLAN FORT NASHBOROUGH NEW CONSTRUCTION\DATA\14084 - LOGS.GPJ
MOODY NOLAN, INC.
DCP Count
(Blows per
1.75")
TOPSOIL
CLAY, silty, brown, moist (FILL)
1
2
8 - 11 - 14
AUGER REFUSAL AT 2.5 FEET.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER
BLOW COUNT
(Blows per 1.75 inch)
5
10
15
20
25
LOG OF BORING
HA-02
Page 1 of 1
Remarks:
100814084
Driller:
M. Zlokovich
Date Drilled:
10/3/2014
Logged by:
M. Zlokovich
Boring Depth:
10 feet
Equipment:
Hand Auger
Boring Elevation:
Not Available
Hammer Type:
DCP
Coordinates:
Drilling Method:
Hand Auger w/ DCP
CL
Not Available
PPV
(tsf)
TYPE
SAMPLE DATA
MOISTURE
(%)
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
TTL Job No.:
GRAPHIC
LOG
N/A
ELEVATION
(ft)
Drilling Co.:
DEPTH (ft)
10/22/14
MOODY NOLAN, INC.
DCP Count
(Blows per
1.75")
TOPSOIL
CLAY, silty, brown, moist (FILL)
1
2
24
4-5-6
19
5 - 14 - 22
16
11 - 24 - 25
16
9 - 20 - 21
17
5 - 13 - 16
3
4
LL=35, PI=13
5
6
7
8
LL=31, PI=11
9
10
BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET.
BLOW COUNT
5
10
15
20
25
LOG OF BORING
HA-03
Page 1 of 1
Remarks:
100814084
Driller:
M. Zlokovich
Date Drilled:
10/3/2014
Logged by:
M. Zlokovich
Boring Depth:
0.5 feet
Equipment:
Hand Auger
Boring Elevation:
Not Available
Hammer Type:
DCP
Coordinates:
Drilling Method:
Hand Auger w/ DCP
Not Available
AUGER REFUSAL AT 0.5 FEET.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PPV
(tsf)
TYPE
SAMPLE DATA
TOPSOIL, dark brown to black, with some rock
1
Two offset borings advanced to similar refusal.
MOISTURE
(%)
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
TTL Job No.:
GRAPHIC
LOG
N/A
ELEVATION
(ft)
Drilling Co.:
DEPTH (ft)
10/22/14
MOODY NOLAN, INC.
DCP Count
(Blows per
1.75")
BLOW COUNT
5
10
15
20
25
TEST BORING RECORD LEGEND
FINE AND COARSE GRAINED SOIL INFORMATION
N
FINE GRAINED SOILS
(SILTS AND CLAYS)
Estimated
Consistency
Qu, (TSF)
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
0–1
2–4
5–8
9 – 15
16 – 30
31 – Over
0 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.5
0.5 – 1.0
1.0 – 2.0
2.0 – 4.0
4.0+
COARSE GRAINED SOILS
(SANDS AND GRAVEL)
N
Relative Density
0–4
5 – 10
11 – 20
21 – 30
31 – 50
51 – Over
Very Loose
Loose
Firm
Very Firm
Dense
Very Dense
PARTICLE SIZE
Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand
Fine Sand
Silts and Clays
Greater than 300 mm (12 in)
75 mm to 300 mm (3 to 12 in)
4.75 mm to 75 mm (3/16 to 3 in)
2 mm to 4.75 mm
0.425 mm to 2 mm
0.075 mm to 0.425 mm
Less than 0.075 mm
ROCK CORE INFORMATION
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)
Quality
Percent RQD
0 – 25
25 – 50
50 – 75
75 – 90
90 – 100
Recovery (%) =
ROCK HARDNESS
Very Hard: Rock can be broken by heavy hammer blows.
Hard:
Rock cannot be broken by thumb pressure, but can be broken by
Very Poor
moderate hammer blows.
Poor
Moderately Small pieces can be broken off along sharp edges by considerable
Hard:
hard thumb pressure; can be broken with light hammer blows.
Fair
Soft:
Rock is cohesive but breaks very easily with thumb pressure at sharp
Good
edges and crumbles with firm hand pressure.
Excellent
Very Soft: Rock disintegrates or easily compresses when touched; can be hard
soil.
Sum of 4 in. and Longer Rock Pieces
Length of Rock Core Recovered
Recovered
X 100
X 100
RQD (%) =
Length of Core Run
Length of Core Run
SYMBOLS
SOIL AND ROCK TYPE SYMBOLS
SOIL SAMPLING
Split-Spoon Sample
Asphalt
Silty Clay
Weathered Limestone
Concrete
Clay
Limestone
Crushed Stone
Silt
Sandstone
Topsoil
Sand
Siltstone
Fill
Undifferentiated
Overburden
Shale
Undisturbed Sample
Grab Sample
ROCK PROPERTIES
Filled Cavity
Partially Filled Cavity
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Primary Constituent, Secondary Constituent with qualifier, Color, and additional Constituent with Qualifier
E.g. Clay, Very Silty, Reddish-Brown, with trace of Chert Gravel
QUALIFIERS
CONSTITUENT QUALIFIERS (percent by volume)
ROCK (bedding thicknesses)
Trace
1 – 10
Very thick
> than 6 feet
Little/Occasional
10 - 20
Thick
2 – 6 feet
Some
20 – 35
Medium
8 – 24 inches
Very/Abundant
35 - 50
Thin
2 ½ – 8 inches
Very thin
¾ - 2 ½ inches
Open Cavity
Open Bedding Plane
WATER
Water Level Initially
Delayed Water Level
DRILLING METHODS
HSA Hollow Stem Auger
SFA
Solid Flight Auger
TTL
GEOTECHNICAL
ANALYTICAL
MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL
Subsurface Investigations
Sinkhole Evaluation
Distress Studies
Engineering/Geology
Seismic Studies
Certified Analytical Laboratory
Biotoxicity Services
NPDES Permitting and Monitoring
Source Water Assessment Plans
Sampling and Field Services
Soil
Concrete
Steel
Aggregate
Pavement
Phase I & II Studies
Regulatory Permitting
Wetland Evaluations
Asbestos/Radon/Mold
Hydrogeology
P.O. Box 292950
Nashville, TN 37229
*
5010 Linbar Drive Nashville, TN 37211
*
Phone 615.331.7770 *
Fax 615.331.7771

Geotechnical Exploration Fort Nashborough New Construction

Transcription

Similar documents

DEMCO GRAIN CARTS

Untitled - Lennard AG

Corporate Social Responsibility

Amangalla RB 111011

railhead industrial park - Fine Line Diversified Development

Demco Gravity Flow Wagons and Grain Carts

Mini tours flyer - Dallas Fort Worth Area Tour Guide Association

Neon Lights Map V7

HOCKEY OpEN HOUSE

Diez Y Seis de Septiembre flyer Spanish and English FINAL