report of geotechnical exploration ornl sewage treatment

Report of Geotechnical Exploration ORNL Sewage Treatment Plant

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Prepared for: Oak Ridge National Laboratory


Prepared by: Shield Engineering, Inc.

300 Forestal Drive Knoxville, TN 37918

Shield Project No. 1205020-01

July 30, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 1

2.0 OBJECTIVE OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .......................................................... 2

3.0 GEOLOGY & GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................. 2

4.0 SINKHOLE DEVELOPMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................. 3

5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................... 4

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ............................................................................. 5

7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 6

7.1 Description of General Soil Profile: .................................................................................. 6 7.2 Groundwater Observations: .............................................................................................. 7

8.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 8

8.1 Undercut and Replacement ................................................................................................ 8 8.2 Deep Foundations................................................................................................................ 9 8.2.1 Drilled Piers....................................................................................................................... 9 8.2.2 Drilled Pier Construction................................................................................................ 10 8.2.3 Drilled Pier Construction Inspection ............................................................................. 10 8.2.4 Micropiles ........................................................................................................................ 11 8.2.5 Lateral Capacity Design of Deep Foundations .............................................................. 12 8.3 Retaining Walls and Small Ancillary Foundations ....................................................... 13 8.4 General Shallow Foundation Recommendations ........................................................... 13

9.0 SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 14

9.1 Site Preparation Recommendations ................................................................................ 14 9.2 Structural Fill Recommendations: .................................................................................. 15

10.0 SUBSURFACE WALL AND RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 16

11.0 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................ 17

12.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 17

13.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE ................................................................. 19

14.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... 20

Attachments: Appendix A Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figure 2 – Boring Location Plan Figure 3 – Typical Subsurface Wall Detail

Appendix B

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Key to Soil Classification Geotechnical Boring Logs

Appendix C

Rock Core Photos

Appendix D Well Plugging and Abandonment Forms

Appendix E Laboratory Test Results

300 Forestal Drive

Knoxville, TN 37918

Telephone 865.544.5959

Fax 865.544.5885 www.shieldengineering.com

July 30, 2020 Ms. Jane Ann Holly, P.E. Structural Engineer Modernization Project Office Oak Ridge National Laboratory Building 4500N P.O. Box 2008, Mail Stop 6331 Bethel Valley Road Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6331 Office Phone: (865) 576-6376 Cell Phone: (865) 300-6286 E-mail: [email protected] Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration ORNL Sewage Treatment Plant Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Shield Project No. 1205020-01

Dear Ms. Holly: Shield Engineering, Inc. (Shield) has completed our report of geotechnical exploration for the New Sewage Treatment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee in general accordance with our proposal P2020-730 dated March 31, 2020. The purpose of our geotechnical exploration was to determine general subsurface conditions and obtain data to provide geotechnical recommendations and considerations for design and construction of the proposed building and pavements. The scope of work authorized for this project included field activities, laboratory testing, and report preparation. Presented herein are the results of Shield’s subsurface exploration, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations as they relate to our understanding of the proposed project.

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Information has been provided by Ms. Jane Ann Holly, P.E. in an email dated March 27, 2020 as well as an email from Mr. Gerry Palau on July 23, 2020. Included in the email a sketch detailing the proposed outline of the building footprint and proposed boring locations. It is Shield’s understanding that building 2644 will be demolished and the new sewage treatment plant will be constructed. The site is relatively flat and is currently gravel parking areas around the perimeter of

Report of Geotechnical Exploration ORNL Sewage Treatment Plant Oak Ridge, Tennessee July 30, 2020 Shield Project No. 1205020-01 Page 2 of 20

the existing building. The sewage treatment plant will consist of 4 to 5 above-grade, rectangular concrete tanks, and associated pump & control infrastructure for sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technology. The two planned SBR tanks, and the potential future third tank will each have a footprint of approximately 40 feet by 40 feet and be 20 feet in height. The storage tanks will be constructed of cast in place concrete. The support infrastructure around the concrete tanks (e.g., electrical building, pump pads, etc.) are expected to be light-weight, prefab construction – generally on either a flat or turndown slab. The proposed site layout overlaid by the boring location plan is shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A. No structural loading information has been provided, however, based on a review of proposed footing layouts, the building will be supported by a combination of column and strip footings. We have assumed column and wall footings will not exceed a maximum loading condition of 75 kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively.

2.0 OBJECTIVE OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The objectives of this subsurface exploration will be to assess general subsurface conditions, assist in collection of soil samples for testing and provide geotechnical related recommendations and considerations for site preparation and foundations for the proposed tank.

3.0 GEOLOGY & GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is situated within the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province. This province is characterized by elongated, roughly parallel, northeasterly-trending ridges formed on more resistant sandstones, dolostones, and shales. Between ridges, broad valleys and rolling hills are formed on less resistant limestones, dolostones, and shales. Most of these strata have been folded and faulted in the ancient past and are now inclined. The bedrock has been subjected to an extended period of erosion since this period of structural deformation. The erosion has produced the characteristic subparallel alternating ridges and valleys of this physiographic province. The project site is underlain by bedrock of the Ordovician age Moccasin formation of the Knox Group (Hatcher et al. 1992). The Moccasin formation is recognized as an olive gray to light gray and pale maroon calcareous siltstone interbedded with light gray fine grained limestone. Typically, the upper portion of the Moccasin formation in Oak Ridge Reservation is described as maroon gray, shaly limestone and maroon mudstone. The strike of the rock (the line of intersection of an inclined plane with the horizontal) is approximately parallel to the east-west alignment of the ORNL plant grid. The dip of the rock (amount and direction of inclination from the horizontal) measured from outcrops near the site vary from about 30 to 60 degrees toward the south. However, minor folds in the rock strata give local changes in dip and the dip angle may vary throughout the site. Through differential weathering of the rock beds, ridges of more resistant rock are generally encountered along the east-west strike direction. Again, the rock surface is highly irregular.


4.0 SINKHOLE DEVELOPMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT The limestone bedrock underlying the proposed site is of great geologic age and over time has undergone a natural weathering process that sometimes results in the formation of solution features (e.g. sinkholes). The formation of a sinkhole occurs from the loss of surrounding soil into a solution feature or void in the underlying bedrock and the eventual collapse of the overlying soil dome. The development of sinkholes is a natural and ongoing geologic process facilitated by the in-place weathering of the parent bedrock and movement of groundwater. However, the formation of sinkholes is often accelerated during the construction grading process by the downward seepage of surface water through freshly exposed fractures in the soil which remain from the geologic structure of the parent bedrock. Based on a review of the 2019 Bethel Valley, Tennessee topographic quadrangle, it is Shield’s opinion the property has a “low” risk for the development of future sinkholes affecting structures. It is important an owner understand and be made conscious of the risk associated with building in an area with sinkhole development in order to make a well-informed decision regarding this risk. Shield has developed the three categories of “low risk,” “moderate risk,” and “high risk” to define the risk to the owner as follows:

Low Risk - Less than one in ten thousand buildings built in a geologic setting underlain by bedrock susceptible to sinkhole development will undergo significant structural distress requiring demolition or significant repair.

Moderate Risk - Between one in one thousand and one in ten thousand

buildings built in a geologic setting underlain by bedrock susceptible to sinkhole development will undergo significant structural distress requiring demolition or significant repair.

High Risk - More than one in one thousand buildings built in a geologic

setting underlain by bedrock susceptible to sinkhole development will undergo significant structural distress requiring demolition or significant repair.

As mentioned previously, the exposed soils during grading often contain relic structures of the parent bedrock. During grading and stripping of topsoil, the soils are exposed to surface water from rainfall and will transport groundwater downward more rapidly resulting in a greater possibility of new sinkhole formation. This risk increases in areas where the underlying bedrock has been exposed. To reduce the risk of sinkhole formation, designing and creating positive drainage to maintain a well-drained condition for the entire development area is imperative. The pooling or collection of standing water in areas other than designated and designed detention/retention ponds is discouraged. The continued formation and development of sinkholes cannot be eliminated, but during site development there are several good practices that can be utilized to further reduce the potential for sinkhole formation. The four recommended practices are as follows:


1. In areas of cut, scarify and recompact the exposed upper nine inches of soil to develop a less permeable layer of material.

2. In suspect areas, utilize a liner system for ditches and water collection

systems such as asphalt, concrete or geo-membranes. 3. Prior to slab placement, pressure test all under-slab piping before beginning

service. 4. Route roof drains away from structure and specifically not beneath the

structure.

5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES The field exploration was performed between May 28, 2020 through May 29, 2020 by our subcontractor, Tri-State Drilling, Inc., under the direction of Shield’s on-site representative. The borings were drilled with an CME 550X ATV-mounted drill rig. A total of 4 test borings were extended to auger refusal depths ranging from 19.1 feet to 20.5 feet. Upon refusal in borings B-2 and B-3, bedrock materials were sampled to a depth to achieve 10 feet of continuous bedrock using diamond rock coring techniques to retrieve NQ size rock core. The boring locations were selected by ORNL and located in the field by Shield using visual approximation methods and site features. The location of each boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2, in Appendix A). The test borings were advanced utilizing continuous flight hollow stem augers, with standard penetration test (SPT) and soil sampling performed by means of the split-barrel sampling procedure in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. In this procedure, a 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through the final 12 inches of penetration is termed the “standard penetration resistance” or “N-value” and is indicated for each sample on the boring logs in Appendix B. This value can be used as a qualitative indication of the consistency of cohesive soils. This indication is qualitative, because many factors can significantly affect the N-value and prevent direct correlation between samples obtained by various drill crews, drill rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer-rod-spoon assemblies. Rock coring was performed using diamond rock coring techniques in general accordance with ASTM D 2113. Two relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing a section of 3-inch O.D., 16-gauge steel tubing into the soil at the desired sampling level. The sampling procedure is described by ASTM D 1587. The tube, together with the encased soils, was carefully removed from the ground, made airtight, and transported to our laboratory. The recovered soil samples and rock cores were visually classified in the field by our staff professional. The soil samples and rock cores were labeled, placed in appropriate containers, and transported to Shield’s Knoxville laboratory where they were re-examined by our geotechnical


engineer and visually classified. Selected soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing and analysis. The laboratory-testing program is addressed in the subsequent section “Laboratory Testing Program”. The soil samples, rock cores, and the field data collected during the field exploration were used to assist in the description of the subsurface conditions, and for engineering evaluation purposes. The subsurface conditions observed at each test boring location are detailed on the Geotechnical Boring Logs in Appendix B, at the end of this report. In addition, select photos of rock core are in Appendix C. Groundwater measurements were taken after the completion of augering in each boring, at the termination of the boring, and at approximately 24 hours after the completion of the borings. The groundwater levels are shown on the Geotechnical Boring Logs in Appendix B. Upon completion of drilling, the borings were plugged and abandoned in general accordance with ORNL’s borehole abandonment procedures by backfilling full depth with cement-bentonite grout for rock core holes and backfilling full depth with bentonite pellets for soil borings. The borehole plugging and abandonment forms are included in Appendix D. Prior to the start of the exploration, ORNL Radiation Control Technicians (RCTs) checked the drill rig to verify that it was free of radiation above background level. Subsequently, upon completion of the subsurface exploration, ORNL RCTs verified that the soil samples, rock core, and our drilling equipment were free of significant amounts of radiological contamination prior to our demobilization from the site.

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM The purpose of the laboratory testing program was to evaluate the mechanical and index properties of the subsurface soils encountered, and to assist in soil classification and relative strength evaluations. The laboratory testing program was performed in general accordance with applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test procedures. The laboratory testing program included the following tests:

Moisture Content of Soils ASTM D 2216 Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit,

Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index) ASTM D 4318 Grainsize Analysis with Hydrometer ASTM D 422 USCS Soil Classification ASTM D 2487

Atterberg Limit testing was performed to assist in the classification and characterization of the encountered soils. Testing reveals the selected samples have Liquid Limits from 40 to 42 and Plasticity Indices of 23 to 24. Grainsize analysis was also performed in conjunction with the Atterberg Limits testing on the selected soil samples for classification with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). USCS classification of the selected samples indicate a clayey sand


with gravel (GC) and as a sandy lean clay (CL). Natural moisture content testing was performed on all samples and revealed natural moistures range from 12.5 percent to 27.4 percent. The results of our laboratory testing are included in Appendix E.

7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The Geotechnical Boring Logs in Appendix B represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on tests and observations performed during the drilling operations at the test boring locations and visual examination of the soil samples and rock cores. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata on the Geotechnical Boring Logs represent the approximate strata boundary; however, the transition between strata may be more gradual than shown, especially where indicated by a broken line. Subsurface conditions may vary between our boring locations. 7.1 Description of General Soil Profile: The following paragraphs provide a general description of the soil conditions encountered. For soil descriptions at a particular boring location and depth, the respective geotechnical boring log should be reviewed in Appendix B. Soils encountered on site were typically composed of topsoil, fill / possible fill, alluvial and residual soils. Topsoil is the dark-colored organic soil that develops naturally at the ground surface. Fill soil is composed of materials transported to its current location by man. Alluvial soil has been transported to its present location by water. In some cases, it was difficult to distinguish the origins of the soils recovered in the soil borings. Therefore, the soil origins depicted in the soil boring logs should be considered approximate. At the ground surface at all test boring locations, a layer of topsoil was encountered approximately 3 inches in thickness. Below the topsoil in all test borings, fill soils were encountered to depths ranging from 5.5 feet to 11.8 feet below existing grade. The fill soils generally consisted of brown to light brown, yellowish brown, brownish red, and gray clay with rock/chert fragments and traces of organic material. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance values ranged from 2 to 21 blows per foot (bpf), indicating a very soft to very stiff soil consistency. Underlying the fill soils in all test borings, alluvium was encountered to depths ranging from 16.8 feet to 20.5 feet below existing grade. The alluvium generally consisted of dark gray silty clay with black oxide nodules, black layers of sand, and with some of the samples observed to have an organic odor. SPT resistance values ranged from 1 bpf to greater than 100 bpf, indicating a very soft to very hard soil consistency. The soils generally ranged in the soft to stiff range with the higher blow counts observed just before encountering auger refusal material. Beneath the alluvium in test boring B-2, partially weathered rock was encountered to a depth of 19.1 feet below existing grade. The partially weathered rock was sampled as a light gray calcareous weathered shale.


Auger refusal was encountered in all borings at depths ranging from 19.1 feet to 20.5 feet. Diamond rock coring techniques were used to retrieve rock core specimens of refusal materials at test borings B-2 and B-3. The recovered rock core was typical of bedrock described as the Moccasin Formation. The bedrock was generally sampled as a low to moderately hard, weathered, light gray and maroon brown shaly limestone. The measured dip of the bedding plane of the bedrock was measured to be approximately 50 degrees. The Recovery Ratio and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of the rock core samples were determined in our laboratory. These values are used to evaluate the quality of bedrock in the general area of the boring. The Recovery Ratio is defined as the percentage ratio between the length of core recovered, to the length of core drilled in a given core run. The RQD is defined as the percentage ratio between the length of the recovered core pieces that are at least 4 inches in length, to the length of core drilled in a given core run. The rock core recovery ratio for the cored borings ranged from 19 to 56 percent but was typically greater than 30 percent. RQD percentages ranged from 0 percent to 8 percent. A very low Recovery Ratio and RQD value typically indicates the bedrock to be discontinuous, highly jointed, or fractured to very fractured as well as very poor quality. The driller did not indicate open voids were encountered during drilling, but some losses of rock were due to the breaking down of the softer more friable layers of the shaly limestone. It is not uncommon for soft/weak lenses of bedrock to break down during drilling and cause the rock core to exhibit low Recovery and RQD values. 7.2 Groundwater Observations: Groundwater measurements were recorded at the time of augering, completion of augering for all test borings. 24-hour ground water measurements were only recorded in test borings B-2 and B-4, as borings B-1 and B-3 were abandoned upon completion of drilling. Rock coring was performed at test boring B-2, and during rock coring, water is introduced into the subsurface as part of the coring process. Thus, water levels measured after rock coring can be influenced by water pumped into the borehole during rock coring. Therefore, after the completion of rock coring, water in the coreholes was bailed out and allowed to recharge prior to taking 24-hour water level readings. Groundwater was observed in boring B-2 during augering at depth of approximately 7 feet below existing grade. Groundwater measurements were also taken at the time of completion and after 24 hours in borings B-2 and B-4 at measured depths of 6.3 feet and 6.4 feet, respectively. It is important to note that fluctuations in the elevations of the static groundwater table may occur seasonally and are also influenced by variations in precipitation, evaporation, site grading activities, surface water run-off and/or the nearby presence of surface water features. The actual depth to groundwater at the time of site grading may be higher or lower than that encountered at the time of the subsurface exploration. Shield anticipates groundwater will be an issue during construction based on 24-hour water level readings and proximity of the creek adjacent to the property. Temporary construction dewatering can likely be accomplished by establishing a sump(s) in the excavation and pumping groundwater


from the sump. However, depending upon the type of foundation system selected, depth of excavation and the exposed material (e.g. soil versus rock), alternate methods of dewatering may be required.

8.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the subsurface information collected, the site is underlain by undocumented fil soils ranging in depth from 5.5 feet to 16.8 feet followed by an alluvial soil layer that is relatively soft in nature. Shield generally does not recommend supporting structures on undocumented fill due to the unknown nature of the fill material and the potential for differential and total settlement of the proposed structure. At this time, the proposed tank elevations have not been determined. Through discussions with ORNL’s design team the tank elevations will be decided on by the selected design-built contractor and analyzed for best value engineering depending upon the subsurface conditions encountered. Therefore, based on the subsurface information collected and dependent upon the finished floor elevations of the proposed structures for the treatment plant, Shield has prepared site preparation recommendations for support of shallow foundations as well as deep foundation recommendations in the event that the finished floor elevations are left at or near current grades. 8.1 Undercut and Replacement As previously mentioned, the site is underlain by a thick layer of undocumented fill and a soft alluvial layer. As of now the bearing elevation of the structures has not been set. Where possible, it may be more efficient and cost effective to set the bearing elevations of the tanks at a depth to minimize undercut and replacement of the fill and soft alluvial layer. The fill and soft alluvium will be removed as part of the excavation to achieve design grades but would not require backfilling. Otherwise, Shield recommends that the SBR tanks and other structure pads be undercut to a stiff or better alluvial soil profile or weathered rock surface. The undercut and replacement excavation should also extend a minimum of 10 feet outside of the proposed structures perimeter footprint. If a stiff or better alluvial soil profile is encountered prior to encountering weathered rock, the exposed subgrade should be evaluated by proofrolling with a loaded tandem axle truck where assessable or by performing Hand Auger / Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test to confirm the soil consistency. The proofroll and/or Hand Auger/DCP observation and testing should be performed by a Shield geotechnical engineer. In the event a weathered rock surface is encountered, any loose surface rock and slots containing soil should be removed from the excavation. Shield anticipates that the bedrock surface will have an irregular surface. Therefore, the excavation should be backfilled to a depth of 1 foot over the top of weathered rock surfaced with a controlled low-strength material (CLSM) such as flowable fill or lean concrete. CLSM should conform to the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association’s “Guide Specification for Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM).


The remaining portion of the excavation may then be backfilled back to design subgrade elevation with either soil fill or a dense graded stone engineered structural fill. Our structural fill recommendations, as outlined section 9.2 Structural Fill Recommendations of this report should be followed. The shallow foundations when bearing in the newly placed structural fill may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Undercut and replacement with an engineered structural fill will most likely be better suited when lowering the finished floor elevation of the proposed SBR tanks as this will require less backfill material. 8.2 Deep Foundations As an alternative to the undercut and replacement and if the design subgrade is desired to be at or near current grades, the proposed structures may be supported on deep foundations. The deep foundations will penetrate the undocumented fill and soft alluvial layers and be supported in the bedrock material. Shield has reviewed multiple deep foundation options given the structure type, subsurface conditions, and the subject sites geology. It is Shield’s opinion that either micropiles or drilled piers are the most suited deep foundation option for this site. The sections below provide recommendations for micropile and drilled pier design. 8.2.1 Drilled Piers Rock-supported drilled piers can be used to support the proposed heavier loaded structures. Based on the subsurface data obtained to date and our experience with similar projects in Oak Ridge, drilled piers bearing on the hard gray slightly weathered limestone bedrock may be designed for a maximum rock end bearing pressure of 50 kips per square foot (ksf). A minimum drilled pier diameter of 36 inches is recommended to provide reasonable entry space for cleaning, bottom preparation, and inspection. It has been our experience the rock near the soil/rock interface is typically discontinuous and not adequate to support the maximum allowable rock bearing pressure recommended. Therefore, you should anticipate extending the drilled piers through the discontinuous rock to the moderately hard to hard continuous rock. An inherent disadvantage to the use of drilled piers at this site is the discontinuous character of the rock. The discontinuous character of the rock causes drilled pier depths to vary. This makes it difficult to accurately estimate drilled pier lengths, bearing levels, and rock excavation quantities in advance, resulting in an uncertain final foundation cost. Based on a review of the boring logs and the dip of retrieved rock core bedding planes, Shield anticipates the drilled piers may require extending a minimum of 3 to 4 times the pier diameter into bedrock in the karst limestone once rock is encountered, to achieve continuous bearing material. These values are rough estimates of drilled pier lengths and are provided for budget estimating purposes only; actual drilled pier lengths may vary.


Should uplift resistance be needed in the drilled piers, Shield recommends an allowable rock to concrete adhesion value of 40 pounds per square inch (psi). Total and differential settlements of drilled pier foundations designed and constructed as recommended will be small (about ½ inch or less). 8.2.2 Drilled Pier Construction As the drilled pier hole is advance, a temporary protective steel casing should be installed in the drilled hole. A properly designed steel casing will greatly reduce the possibility of sidewall collapse. Additionally, properly designed steel casing will reduce excessive mud and water intrusion into the excavation and will allow workers to excavate, clean, and inspect the drilled pier. With the exception subsequently dissed in the next section, the protective steel casings may be extracted as the concrete is placed. However, the protective steel casing should not be moved until the concrete is above the ground-water level. A minimum 5-foot head of concrete should be maintained above the bottom of the casing during withdrawal and the contactor should prevent concrete from “hanging up” inside the casing that can cause souls and water intrusion below the casing. Ground-water conditions at this site may require the use of special procedures to achieve satisfactory foundation installation if substantial localized flows are encountered. If water is flowing into the drilled pier at less than 20 gallons per minute, pumps should be used to maintain less than 2 inches of water in the hole during cleaning and inspection. After verification that adequate bearing is obtained, the pumps should be pulled, and concreting commenced immediately. If more than 20 gallons per minute are flowing into the drilled pier, the water level should be allowed to stabilize before attempting to place the concrete. If the water is allowed to stabilize, we recommend the concrete be placed into the drilled pier through a tremmie pipe. The end of the pipe should be installed to the bottom of the drilled pier so the water will be displaced out the top of the pier during concrete placement. If the water is pumped out of the drilled pier, we recommend the concrete placement be directed through a centering chute or other commonly used methods at the surface so that fall is vertical down the center of the shaft without hitting the sides of reinforcing steel. This procedure is required to reduce side flow and segregation of the concrete. Concrete slumps ranging from 5 inches to 7 inches are recommended for the drilled pier construction. Concrete with slumps in this range will usually fill irregularities along the sides and bottom of the pier and displace water as it is placed. 8.2.3 Drilled Pier Construction Inspection An inherent disadvantage to the use of drilled piers in this geology is the uncertain final foundation cost caused by the discontinuous character of the rock. The discontinuous character of the rock


causes drilled pier depths to vary, which makes accurate length, bearing level, and soil and rock excavation estimates very difficult. (The discontinuous bedrock has a lesser impact on the alternative deep foundation system “micropiles” discussed in the subsequent section). In view of the above, it is imperative that a qualified geotechnical engineer observe the drilled pier construction. The geotechnical engineer wild document the shaft diameter, depth, cleanliness, plumbness, and type of suitability of the bearing material for the design bearing pressure. Significant deviations from the specified or anticipated conditions will be reported to the owner’s representative and the foundation designer. Each drilled pier excavation should be observed after the bottom of the pier is level, cleaned of any mud or extraneous material, and dewatered. We recommend the contractor drill at least one probe hole in the bottom of each drilled pier excavation. The probe hole should be at least 1.5 inches in diameter and should be drilled by the contractor with a pneumatic percussion drill. These probe holes should be drilled to a minimum depth of 2 times the drilled pier diameter. Each hole should be checked by one of our geotechnical engineers with a steel feeler rod to access the rock continuity. If this check indicated significant discontinuous rock or compressible seams that could contribute to excessive settlement, the drilled pier should be excavated deeper. Additional probe holes may be required by our geotechnical engineer to check the drilled piers supported on marginal materials. 8.2.4 Micropiles Micropiles can be used to support the proposed structures. We recommend that micropiles bear in the hard gray slightly weathered limestone bedrock. Based upon our previous experience, we anticipate the installation methodology at this site will consist of the following: Air-rotary drilling a socket into the bearing material

Tremie grouting the inside of the socket to the desired cutoff level with neat cement

grout, this may also be done last Setting a pipe casing in the borehole that is slightly smaller in diameter than the

borehole

Placing a high strength dowel inside the casing Because of uncertainty as to the amount of load that would actually be transferred to the tip of the pile and the inability to confirm the soundness of the bedrock below the tip of the pile, we recommend the capacity be computed conservatively based on rock to grout adhesion only. Furthermore, we recommend pile design (in both compression and uplift) be based on an allowable rock to grout adhesion of 40 psi. We recommend that soil adhesion be neglected in capacity design. Bedrock layers 12 inches or thicker can be utilized in computing the allowable rock to grout adhesion, provided cavities in the bedrock are soil-filled and the rock socket is terminated in at least 5 feet of continuous bedrock. We recommend that rock socket depths be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer.


Based on previous experience, it is typically more economical to allow your specialty contractor to select micropile diameters as well as design the micropiles to achieve the most economical cost for your project. The cost of micropiles at times can be dictated by the availability of excess steel casing on the market. We recommend the compressive capacity of the piles be confirmed by the performance of a load test (ASTM D 1143) on one pile prior to construction. A contingency for a second load test should be included. We recommend load testing to failure or 200 percent of design load, whichever is less. Production piles should not be used for testing, except for uplift reactions, and only if instrumented. We recommend that pile design and installation be performed by an experienced geotechnical specialty contractor having experience in this geologic setting. Pile design installation should be performed under our review. It is very important that the geotechnical engineer have an on-site representative to monitor pile installation and confirm that the interpretation of suitable bearing rock and depth of socket are consistent with this report. Total and differential settlements of micropile foundation elements designed and constructed as recommended will be small (about ½ inch or less). Based upon the boring information and proposed grades, we estimate an average coring length of about 8 feet to reach suitable bearing rock after the initial bedrock surface has been encountered. The actual depths to reach suitable bearing rock will likely range from about 16 to 20 feet below existing ground surface elevations. Based on previous experience at ORNL and in similar geologic settings, the socket length of each pile, with an allowance for some cavities or rock discontinuities in the limestone bedrock, should be added to this estimated drilling footage. These values are estimates and quantities will vary. 8.2.5 Lateral Capacity Design of Deep Foundations Per your request, Shield has prepared a table of recommended geotechnical parameters listed in the following table, for use in computing the lateral capacities of deep foundations (i.e., drilled piers and/or micropiles). We have derived these geotechnical parameters to be compatible with the computer programs LPILE by Ensoft, Inc. and AllPile by CivilTech. The recommended soil and bedrock strength parameters are not factored; therefore, appropriate safety factors should be applied to foundation design. Please refer to the attached Geotechnical Boring Logs for the approximate depth and thickness of each soil or rock layer. The lateral pile capacity analysis programs typically require input of moist unit weight above the groundwater table and submerged or effective unit weight below the groundwater table. Adding 0.0624 kips per cubic foot (kcf) to the effective or submerged unit weight values listed in the following table will compute saturated unit weights.


Table 1 - Recommended Geotechnical Parameters for Computing Lateral Capacities

Material Type

Effective or

Submerged Unit

Weight, ’

(kcf)*

Moist Unit

Weight, (kcf)**

Undrained Cohesion,

Cu (ksf)

Undrained Friction Angle,

Øu (degrees)

Soil Strain Parameter at

50% Maximum Stress 50

(dimensionless)

Static Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction,

khs (kcf)

Dynamic Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction,

khd (kcf)

Existing Fill or Alluvial

Soil 0.058 0.120 1.0 0 0.01 500 200

New Compacted Earth Fill

0.063 0.125 1.8 0 0.005 900 360

Weathered Bedrock

0.068 0.130 2.0 0 0.003 3,400 1,360

Bedrock 0.088 0.150 15.0 0 0.00005 9,000 4,500

* Below water table ** Above water table Lateral capacity design should consider group effects. The lateral soil resistance will be reduced for closely spaced micropiles or drilled piers because of the group effect. This group effect increases with decreasing spacing and increasing lateral deflection. 8.3 Retaining Walls and Small Ancillary Foundations We recommend sizing the shallow foundation footings for retaining walls bearing on soil and lightly loaded ancillary structures such as generator and air conditioner pads that are not sensitive to settlement for a design foundation bearing pressure of 1,500 psf when bearing on the existing fill soils, new structural fill placed above the existing soils, or alluvium. Shield recommends a subgrade modulus of 150 pci for soil. 8.4 General Shallow Foundation Recommendations In order to avoid a local shear or "punching" failure of the footings, we recommend minimum widths of 24-inches for isolated/rectangular footings and 18-inches for continuous footings. The footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the final exterior ground surface to provide adequate frost protection and confinement. The suitability of foundation and/or slab bearing soils in areas between borings should be verified by qualified visual inspection and/or proofrolling as described in subsequent sections. In addition, the opened footing excavations should be examined for uniformity of soil properties and tested using a hand auger and a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP). The footing evaluation should be performed by a geotechnical engineer and/or his representative prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. The purpose of the footing evaluation is to locate any unexpected soft soil areas or unsuitable soil areas which may require undercutting and backfilling. Areas in the foundation subgrade that are determined to be unsuitable should be repaired or modified as directed by the geotechnical engineer. It is important to note that the foundation


recommendations described above should not be considered valid unless a footing evaluation is conducted at the time of foundation installation. We recommend that the footings be poured as soon as possible after the geotechnical footing excavation evaluation in order to minimize potential disturbance of the bearing soil. The prepared foundation bearing soils should not be left exposed overnight or during inclement weather. If the subgrade soils are exposed overnight or during inclement weather, we recommend the placement of a two to four-inch-thick "mud-mat" of lean concrete on the bearing soils. Saturation and subsequent disturbance of the foundation subgrade soils can result in a loss of strength and bearing capacity, leading to increased settlement. We recommend that the slab-on-grade subgrade be carefully proofrolled under the supervision of a Shield geotechnical engineer to check for soft areas. The proofrolling for structural fill should be performed as recommended in the site preparation section of this report. The slab-on-grade should be placed only on soils which proofroll successfully and should have an adequate thickness of granular base. The floor slab should be designed with an adequate number of joints to minimize cracking. The slab should be designed as a floating slab, not rigidly connected to bearing walls or foundations in order to accommodate differential settlement between the foundation and the slab. The slab should be nominally reinforced to maintain its integrity should minor differential movement occur. In addition, aggregate, such as ASTM D 448 No. 57 or No. 67 stone, should be densified and placed beneath the slab to allow for a suitable base on which to work as well as reduce damage/degradation of the prepared subgrade during construction. The aggregate layer should be at least 4 inches thick. Subgrade soils to support floor slabs shall consist of suitable bearing natural soils and/or properly placed controlled structural fill and be firm and unyielding. Interior utility trenches should be properly backfilled and compacted as recommended herein. Proof rolling of the subgrade soils is recommended prior to placement of the recommended granular cushion to detect any possible soft or yielding areas which may be present. Any soft or unsuitable bearing subgrade areas which are detected during proof rolling should be removed and replaced with suitably compacted and controlled structural fill in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Passive earth pressures for soil adjacent to footings should be calculated using a coefficient kp=1.5 and dry density gd=90 pcf. The upper 2 feet of soil above the footing should be neglected.

9.0 SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Site Preparation Recommendations We recommend that all topsoil, asphalt, basestone, vegetation, debris, and surface soil containing organic material be stripped from areas to be graded. If suitable, topsoil can be reused in areas to be landscaped. Some of the alluvial soils may require additional undercut and replacement. After the completion of stripping and excavation to design subgrade elevations in cut areas, the exposed soil subgrade in cut and fill areas should be proofrolled with a fully loaded, tandem-axle


dump truck, or other similarly loaded, pneumatic-tired construction equipment. Proofrolling should be done after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading an otherwise acceptable subgrade. The proofrolling equipment should make at least four passes over each section, with the last two passes perpendicular to the first two, where accessible. Areas not accessible for proofrolling should be probed by the Shield geotechnical engineer or his representative. Proofrolling should be observed and documented by the Shield geotechnical engineer or his representative. Soft, rutting, or pumping soils should be undercut to stiffer, more competent soils and backfilled with structural fill or stabilized as recommended by Shield. 9.2 Structural Fill Recommendations: Representative samples of each proposed fill material should be collected and tested to determine the compaction and classification characteristics. Bulk samples were collected during our investigation for Proctor testing, but it is not uncommon during grading to expose soils for use as fill not identified during the investigation. Soils which are found to contain deleterious material, including organics and topsoil, should not be used as structural fill for the support of structures or pavement. In addition, soils having a Plasticity Index (PI) in excess of 30 and/or a Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density of less than 90 pcf should not be used without prior engineering evaluation and approval. We recommend that fill placement be carefully observed by a Shield representative to determine if proper compaction is being achieved within the building and other structural fill areas. Improper compaction may result in premature deterioration of the pavement areas and/or differential foundation settlement. The surface of the placed fill should be graded to provide positive drainage of surface water and prevent deterioration of the subgrade. We recommend that the contractor be responsible for maintaining a drained stable surface during and after the filling operations. All controlled fill beneath footings, floor slabs and pavement areas should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches loose (un-compacted) thickness and compacted to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). The upper 2 feet of fill beneath paved areas and upper 1 foot beneath floor slabs should be compacted to at least 100 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. The density of each lift should be tested and approved by a qualified soils technician prior to the placement of additional fill. Fill surfaces should be gently sloped and sealed with rubber tired or steel drummed equipment at the end of each day’s operations and when precipitation is expected. This will improve surface run-off and minimize construction delays caused by the effects of ponding water. All sloped areas to receive fill with slopes steeper than 5H:1V should be properly benched. The horizontal limits of the areas subject to these recommendations should include a minimum 10 feet outside proposed building footprints, as well as other areas to receive additional fill.


10.0 SUBSURFACE WALL AND RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS

It is our understanding depending upon final design of the tanks, the project may incorporate below-grade and/or retaining walls. The below-grade walls should be supported by shallow bearing foundations. The walls will be constructed of concrete and incorporated into the foundation design and be less than 20 feet high. Both wall types may be designed for the active earth pressure condition if the tops of the walls will not be restrained. However, at corners, such walls are typically restrained, and the structural rigidity is much greater. In these areas, the earth pressure on the wall will exceed the active pressure. Therefore, we recommend corners be designed to withstand at-rest pressures. The proposed walls must be designed to withstand lateral soil pressure. If placement interior wall design will eventually prevent their moving, they should be designed to withstand a residual or long-term at-rest pressure condition. We recommend clean aggregate, such as ASTM D 448 No. 57 or 67 stone, be used as backfill directly behind the walls to lessen lateral earth pressures exerted on the walls. The wedge of clean aggregate backfill should have a minimum width of 1 foot at the base of the wall or the width of the footing heel, whichever is greater, and increase in width a minimum of 0.6 feet per foot of wall height. The aggregate should be fully encapsulated with a properly designed geotextile (filter fabric) to prevent migration of the adjacent soils into the aggregate. Sketches showing our recommended backfill detail is shown on Figure 3, in Appendix A. Wall design should include a drainage interval and perforated piping behind the wall to intercept ground-water seepage and thereby reduce hydrostatic pressures. The pipe should be designed to prevent clogging by backfill particles and sloped to drain water from behind the wall. For maintenance purposes, cleanout ports for the piping system should be considered. Surface-water seepage into the backfill will increase lateral pressures on the wall. To reduce the possibility of excessive surface-water seepage, we recommend capping the backfill with a 1- to 2-foot-thick layer of clayey soil, sloping away from the structure. Compaction of backfill materials can cause excessive lateral pressure on the walls under certain circumstances. Heavy compactors and grading equipment should not be allowed to operate within 10 feet of the walls during the backfilling to lessen temporary and long-term lateral soil pressures. Backfill adjacent to the walls should be densified by light compaction equipment. Given the backfill, compaction, and drainage recommendations provided in this report, and assuming a horizontal backfill surface without a surcharge, the following values in Table 2 of equivalent fluid pressure may be used to design the proposed below-grade walls. Table 2 – Equivalent Fluid Pressure

Backfill Type Unified Soil

Classification Estimated Unit Weight (PCF)

Pressure per Foot of Depth (PSF)

Clean graded aggregate (either ASTM D 448 No. 57 or 67)

GP 100 Active

35 At Rest

55


The above equivalent fluid pressures are derived based on active and at rest earth pressure coefficients of 0.35 and 0.55, respectively. Shield recommends a sliding coefficient of friction for better soil of 0.3.

11.0 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION Shield has reviewed the soil Geotechnical Boring Logs, the site geology, and the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) / Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16 based on an assumed subgrade at or near current existing grade. The IBC and ASCE 7 requires that a site be evaluated for seismic forces based upon the characteristics of the subsurface profile within the upper 100 feet of the ground surface. Soil properties were developed from soil laboratory testing for this project and from our previous experience conducting subsurface explorations in the site area. Based upon the subsurface conditions it is Shield’s opinion that the site is consistent with the characteristics of a Site Class "D" as defined by the IBC and ASCE 7. Shield has obtained probabilistic ground acceleration values and site coefficients for the general site area from the USGS geohazards web page (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design). They are presented in the table below. Table 3 - Ground Motion Values*

Period(sec) Mapped MCE Spectral Response Acceleration**(g)

Site Coefficients

Adjusted MCE Spectral Response

Acceleration(g)

Design Spectral Response

Acceleration(g)

0.2 SS 0.535 Fa 1.372 SMS 0.734 SDS 0.4891.0 S1 0.126 Fv 2.349 SM1 0.295 SD1 0.197

*2% Probability of Event in 50 years for Latitude 35.922029 and Longitude -84.318015. **At B-C interface (i.e. top of bedrock). MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake The Site Coefficients, Fa and Fv, presented in the above table were also obtained from the noted USGS webpage, as a function of the site classification and mapped spectral response acceleration at the short (SS) and 1-second (S1) periods, but can also be interpolated from IBC Tables 1613.5.3(1) and 1613.5.3(2).

12.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the project information previously described, we anticipate that light-duty and heavy-duty pavement sections would be required for flexible pavements and a heavy-duty pavement section would be required for rigid pavements. The light-duty pavement section would be applicable to the passenger vehicle parking areas. The heavy-duty flexible pavement section would be applicable to access drives and loading dock / delivery areas. The heavy-duty rigid pavement section would be applicable to high-stress pavement areas such as dumpster pads, loading dock


aprons, and possibly turning and braking areas (i.e. parking lot entrances/exits). Pavement design requires knowledge of the soil subgrade strength and anticipated traffic conditions. Soil strength is typically expressed in terms of a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) for flexible pavement design and a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) for rigid pavement design. For the design of flexible and rigid pavements, proposed single- and tandem-axle loads of varying weights are described in terms of an equivalent number of 18-kip single-axle loads, which would affect the same wear on a similar pavement. This is termed an equivalent axle loading (EAL). We were not provided traffic loads for the anticipated pavement sections. In order to provide pavement thickness recommendations, we have estimated EALs for light-duty and heavy-duty pavement sections of 50,000 and 150,000, respectively. For comparison, an EAL value of 50,000 is typically used to design pavements in areas with light traffic with few or no loaded trucks such as a parking lot for a medium office building or a medium strip shopping center. An EAL value of 150,000 is typically used to design pavements in areas having heavy traffic with less than 30 percent loaded trucks such as a parking lot for a large office complex, warehouse, small manufacturing plant, city streets, a delivery lane for a strip shopping center, or secondary roads. No subgrade strength tests have been performed for this project. However, we have assumed a design CBR of 3 for flexible pavements and a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for rigid pavements. These estimated subgrade strength values are predicated on successful proofrolling in cut areas and in fill areas, a compaction of the soil subgrade to at least 100 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) as previously recommended. Thickness analyses for flexible and rigid pavements were performed in general accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) procedures. Based on the estimated EAL values, a terminal serviceability index of 2.0, a CBR value of 3, a k value of 100 pci, a 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) for Portland cement concrete, and our experience with similar projects, the following pavement sections are recommended in the table below: Table 4 - Flexible and Rigid Pavement Sections

Pavement Type

Material

Thickness (inches)

TDOT Section Reference

Light-Duty Flexible

Asphaltic Concrete Surface Bituminous Plant Mix Base

Mineral Aggregate Base

1-1/2 2-1/2

5

407, 411, and 903.11 307, 407, and 903.06

303 and 903.05Heavy-Duty

Flexible Asphaltic Concrete Surface Bituminous Plant Mix Base

Mineral Aggregate Base

1-1/2 2-1/2

10

407, 411, and 903.11 307, 407, and 903.06

303 and 903.05Heavy-Duty

Rigid Portland Cement Concrete Mineral Aggregate Base

6 4

501 303 and 903.05

Flexible and rigid pavement systems should generally conform to the requirements of the Tennessee Department of Transportation Bureau of Highways Standard Specifications for Road


and Bridge Construction (1995), except as recommended otherwise in this report. Asphaltic concrete surface should be in accordance with Section 411, with aggregate grading per Subsection 903.11, Grading “E”. Bituminous plant mix base should be in accordance with Section 307, with aggregate grading per Subsection 903.06, Grading “B”. Asphaltic concrete surface and bituminous plant mix base should be constructed in accordance with Section 407. Portland cement concrete pavement should be constructed in accordance with Section 501. Mineral aggregate base should conform to the requirements for Class “A” and Grading “D” per Subsection 903.05. Mineral aggregate base should be constructed in accordance with Section 303. Rigid pavements should be appropriately reinforced to control cracking associated with curing shrinkage and temperature effects. Please reference the PCA publications, Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas (1981) and Design of Heavy Industrial Concrete Pavements (1988), for recommendations regarding materials and proportioning, jointing, reinforcing, and other design considerations for rigid pavements. It is recommended that the concrete pads for loading dock aprons and dumpster pads be large enough to accommodate the entire length of the truck while loading. Also, the perimeter of concrete pads should be thickened to reduce the potential for pavement damage associated with overstressing of the pavement edges. Just before placement of the mineral aggregate base course, the subgrade should be proofrolled to detect soft areas, filled-in ruts, or poorly compacted material that may have been created during construction. If the prepared mineral aggregate base course is left in place for an extended period after construction or is rained on prior to placement of bituminous plant mix base or Portland cement concrete pavement, additional proofrolling should be performed to detect potentially weakened areas. Good surface drainage must be incorporated into pavement design to reduce the potential for saturating the mineral aggregate base course and/or soil subgrade. Experience has shown that most pavement failures are the result of poor soil subgrade preparation and improper soil subgrade drainage. Pavement design should include subsurface drains (i.e. French drains and/or blanket drains) in areas of high groundwater and/or areas of groundwater seeps. Curbs for grassed or otherwise landscaped islands should be provided with weep holes or other positive means of drainage. Perimeter curbs should be designed to intercept shallow upgradient groundwater seepage from unpaved areas and direct it away from the mineral aggregate base via a shallow interceptor ditch, French drain, or prefabricated edge drain.

13.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE We recommend that the geotechnical engineering firm of record (Shield) be retained to monitor the construction activities and to verify that the field conditions are consistent with the findings of our investigation. If significant variations are encountered or if the design is altered, Shield should be notified and given the opportunity to evaluate potential impacts on the geotechnical elements of the project. The geotechnical engineer of record should provide personnel full-time to monitor, test, and approve subgrades and fill layers before, during and after fill placement. The field density testing of the fill soils should be achieved by performing field density tests in accordance with


either ASTM D 2937 (Drive-Cylinder Method), ASTM D 1556 (Sand-Cone Method) or ASTM D 6938 (Nuclear Method). The contractor should provide at least 24 hours’ notice before starting operations and/or changing construction equipment or procedures. Regardless of notification, any fill placed by the contractor in the absence of the geotechnical engineer’s representative shall be removed and replaced at the contractor’s expense and under the full-time observation of the geotechnical engineer’s representative. Prior to completion of final design, we recommend Shield have the opportunity to review the drawings and specifications to verify the recommendations contained within this report have been properly interpreted.

14.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the subject site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The information and recommendations reported herein are presented to assist in the evaluation of the site for development. In the event there are any significant changes in the size, design, or location of the project, changes in the planned construction from the concepts previously outlined, or changes of the design parameters stated in this report, the Shield geotechnical engineer should be consulted. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless all changes have been reviewed and our conclusions and recommendations reaffirmed or appropriately modified, in writing. If we are not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, SHIELD ENGINEERING, INC. Justin A. Goss, P.E. C. Raymond Tant, P.E. Senior Engineer Principal Engineer

APPENDIX A

Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figure 2 – Boring Location Plan

Figure 3 – Typical Subsurface Wall Detail

ORNL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

SCALE:

DATE: DRAWN BY:

FIGURE:

7/23/2020

NTS 1

SITE VICINITY MAP

OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE

SHIELD PROJECT NO.: 1205020-01

300 FORESTAL DRIVEKNOXVILLE, TN 37918

OFFICE: (865)544-5959FAX: (865)544-5885

JAG

SITE LOCATION

SOURCE: “USGS Topographic map: BETHEL VALLEY QUADRANGLE,

7.5 Minute Series, Dated 2019”

ORNL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

SCALE:

DATE: DRAWN BY:

FIGURE:

7/23/2020

NTS 1

BORING LOCATION PLAN

SOURCE: “Google Earth Imagery Dated 4/12/2018”

OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE



OFFICE: (865)544-5959FAX: (865)544-5885

JAG

B-4B-3

B-1B-2

ORNL GRID NORTH

B-1Approximate Boring Location

ORNL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTOAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE


SCALE:

DATE: DRAWN BY:

FIGURE:

7/23/2020

NTS 3

TYPICAL SUBSURFACE WALL DETAIL


OFFICE: (865)544-5959FAX: (865)544-5885

JAG

APPENDIX B

Key to Soil Classification Geotechnical Boring Logs

KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Correlation of Standard Penetration Resistances with Relative Density and Consistency

Sands and Gravels Silts and Clays

Standard StandardPenetration Relative PenetrationResistance Density Resistance Consistency

0 – 4 Very Loose 0 – 2 Very Soft5 - 10 Loose 3 – 4 Soft

11 – 30 Medium 5 – 8 Firm31 – 50 Over 50

Dense Very Dense

9 – 15 16 – 30 31 – 50 Over 50

Stiff Very Stiff

Hard Very Hard

Particle Size Identification (Unified Soil Classification System)

Boulders – exceeds 12 inches diameter

Cobbles – greater than 3 inches to 12 inches diameter Coarse gravel – greater than ¾ inch to 3 inches diameter Fine gravel – greater than 4.75 mm to ¾ inches diameter Coarse sand – greater than 2.0 mm to 4.75 mm diameter

Medium sand – greater than 0.425 mm to 2.0 mm diameter Fine sand – greater than 0.075 mm to 0.425 mm diameter

Silt and clay – finer than 0.075 mm diameter (particles cannot be seen with the naked eye)

Secondary Modifiers

The second modifiers are generally included when a soil type comprises of less than 35 percent

of the entire sample.

Percent of Sample Modifier

0 - 10 Trace 11 – 20 Little 21 – 35 Some

8

14

11

9

2

25

8

5

10

4

2

2

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Topsoil 3 InchesSoft to Very Stiff, Brown to Light Brown toYellowish Brown to Brownish Red to GraySilty CLAY with Rock Fragments and TraceOrganics, Moist - Fill

Very Soft, Dark Brown and Gray Silty CLAYwith Rock Fragments and Organic Odor, Moist- Alluvium

Stiff, Dark Gray Silty CLAY with Black OxideNodules and Organic Odor, Moist - Alluvium

Auger Refusal at 20.5 Feet

2

4

4

UD

1

1

4

3

9

5

1

0

6

8

19

9

UD

3

2

13

14

14

16

21

23

17

0.3

11.8

16.8

20.5

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG

AutomaticBoring No.:

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS

B-1of:

Tri-State Drilling, Inc.Sheet:

Date Finished:

1Date Started:

6/22/2020

SDC

SPTSurface Elevation: +/-

Driller:S

ampl

e N

o.Hollow Stem Auger

Boring Location:Logged By:

Hammer Type:

blows per

Boring Method:

Rec

over

y(i

nche

s)

(Classification)6 in. foot

Report Date:

5/29/205/29/20

1

During Drilling:

5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dep

th (

feet

)

GENERAL REMARKS: GROUNDWATER DATA:

After 24 Hours:

FIN

ES

(%

)

Shield Project No.:

N/A

Datum:

Barge Design Solutions, Inc.

MC

(%

)

North: At Completion:

LL

East:

COMMENTS:

Ele

vati

on (

feet

)

N/ACaved:

ORNL Sewage Treatment Plant



N/A

Gro

undw

ater

Str

atum

1205020-01

FeetFeetFeetFeet

Shield Project No.: 1205020-01

GPS DATA:

Dry

PI

300 Forestal Dr.Knoxville, TN 37918Telephone: 865-544-5959Fax: 865-544-5885

8

10

12

10

12

8

5

3

5

9

10

7

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Topsoil 3 InchesFirm to Very Stiff, Brown to Orangish Brown toBrownish Red Silty CLAY with Trace Rockand Chert Fragments, Moist - Fill

Very Stiff to Very Soft, Brown to OrangishBrown to Brownish Red to Gray Silty CLAYwith Black Layers of Sand and Trace RockFragments, Moist - Alluvium

Gray, Probable Partially Weathered Rock

Begin Rock Coring at 19.1 Feet

Low to Moderatly Hard, Weathered, Light Grayand Maroon Brown Calcareous ShalyLimestone (Dip ~ 50 Degrees)

Rock Coring Terminated at 30.7 Feet

3

6

5

4

5

1

50/5

3

5

7

10

12

WOH

6

10

16

20

19

1

50/5Run #1:REC: 19%RQD:0%

Run #2:REC: 40%RQD: 8%


17

23

15

17

23

13

16

42 3223

0.3

5.5

16.8

19.1

20.7

25.7

30.7




B-2of:


Date Finished:

1Date Started:

6/22/2020

SDC


Driller:S

ampl

e N

o.Hollow Stem Auger


Hammer Type:

blows per

Boring Method:

Rec

over

y(i

nche

s)


Report Date:

5/28/205/28/20

1

During Drilling:

5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dep

th (

feet

)


After 24 Hours:

FIN

ES

(%

)

Shield Project No.:

N/A

Datum:


MC

(%

)


LL

East:

COMMENTS:

Ele

vati

on (

feet

)

6.3Caved:




7.0

Gro

undw

ater

Str

atum

1205020-01

FeetFeetFeetFeet


GPS DATA:

7.0

PI


14

13

13

14

5

18

10

4

6

4

3

2

1

50/5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Topsoil 3 InchesSoft to Stiff, Brown to Light Brown toYellowish Brown to Redish Brown Silty CLAYwith Little Rock Fragments and Trace ChertFragments and Organics, Moist - Fill

Very Soft to Very Hard, Brown to Gray SiltyCLAY with Trace Organics, Moist - Alluvium

Begin Coring at 19.8 Feet

Low to Moderatly Hard, Weathered, Light Grayand Maroon Brown Calcareous ShalyLimestone (Dip ~ 50 Degrees)

Rock Coring Terminated at 30.7 Feet

10

4

4

2

1

1

1

7

4

2

2

1

1

2

11

10

6

5

3

2

50/5 Run #1:REC: 33%RQD:0%

Run #2:REC: 30%RQD:0%


16

24

18

21

16

27

24

40 6523

0.3

11.8

19.8

20.7

25.7

30.7




B-3of:


Date Finished:

1Date Started:

6/22/2020

SDC


Driller:S

ampl

e N

o.Hollow Stem Auger


Hammer Type:

blows per

Boring Method:

Rec

over

y(i

nche

s)


Report Date:

5/29/205/29/20

1

During Drilling:

5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dep

th (

feet

)


After 24 Hours:

FIN

ES

(%

)

Shield Project No.:

N/A

Datum:


MC

(%

)


LL

East:

COMMENTS:

Ele

vati

on (

feet

)

N/ACaved:




N/A

Gro

undw

ater

Str

atum

1205020-01

FeetFeetFeetFeet


GPS DATA:

Dry

PI


14

6

12

16

18

10

10

3

5

14

7

3

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Topsoil 3 InchesFirm to Very Stiff, Brown to Light Brown toOrangish Brown Silty CLAY with Rock andChert Fragments and Trace Black OxideNodules, Moist - Fill

Firm to Stiff, Brown to Light Brown SiltyCLAY with Layers of Black Sand and TraceRock and Chert Fragments, Moist to VeryMoist - Alluvium

Hard, Brown to Gray Silty CLAY with OrganicOdor and Trace Rootlets, Very Moist -Alluvium

Auger Refusal at 20.5 Feet

3

3

3

UD

1

1

10

4

5

7

4

2

20

7

10

21

UD

11

5

39

23

20

25

27

25

13

0.3

7.8

16.8

20.5




B-4of:


Date Finished:

1Date Started:

6/22/2020

SDC


Driller:S

ampl

e N

o.Hollow Stem Auger


Hammer Type:

blows per

Boring Method:

Rec

over

y(i

nche

s)


Report Date:

5/28/205/28/20

1

During Drilling:

5

10

15

20

25

30

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dep

th (

feet

)


After 24 Hours:

FIN

ES

(%

)

Shield Project No.:

N/A

Datum:


MC

(%

)


LL

East:

COMMENTS:

Ele

vati

on (

feet

)

6.4Caved:




N/A

Gro

undw

ater

Str

atum

1205020-01

FeetFeetFeetFeet


GPS DATA:

Dry

PI


APPENDIX C

Rock Core Photos

Report of Geotechnical Exploration ONRL Sewage Treatment Plant

Oak Ridge, Tennessee Shield Project No. 1205020-01

July 28, 2020

Photo 1: Boring B-2 Rock Core

Photo 2: Boring B-3 Rock Core

APPENDIX D

Well Plugging and Abandonment Forms

Subject: Plugging and Abandonment of Wells and Coreholes at ORNL

Well Plugging and Abandonment Field Operations Planning Form

1. Well/Boring No.: B-1 Date Installed: May 29, 2020

2. Coordinates: Northing: N/A Easting: N/A Location: N/A

3. Total Depth (ft): 20.5 Inside Dia. (in): 3.25 Casing Length (ft): N/A

4. Screen Length (ft): N/A Ground Elev. (ft): N/A Casing Material: N/A

5. Reason for abandonment: Completion of Geotechnical Drilling

6. Required site preparation (removal of posts, pads, pumps, etc.): ------------------

7. Plugging specification document no.: --------- Section No.: ------------------

8. Health and safety considerations for well abandonment crew: ---------------------

9. Facility Manager: --------------------------------- Phone No.: -------------------

10. Proposed technical oversight: -----------------------------------------------------------

11. Approved by: ER Program PM: -------------------------------- Date: -----------

12. Approved by GWPC: ------------------------------------------- Date: -----------

Field Operations Planning Form

1. Well abandonment: Date Started: 5/29/2020 Date Completed: 5/29/2020

2. Observation via downhole camera: N/A

3. Actual method used to abandon this borehole/well: Bentonite Pellets / Auger

Trimmings

4. Actual depth backfilled (ft): 20.5

5. Was casing split, perforated, drilled etc.? If so, please provide dimensions and

locations: N/A

6. Problems and/or deviations from specifications: N/A

7. Date site cleanup completed: 5/29/2020

8. Comments: Total bentonite pellets weight (lbs) : 200

9. P&A report prepared by: Justin A. Goss, P.E. Date: 5/29/2020


















3. Actual method used to abandon this borehole/well: Cement Bentonite Grout



locations: N/A



8. Comments: Theoretical grout volume used (ft3) 7.4



















3. Actual method used to abandon this borehole/well: Bentonite Pellets / Auger

Trimmings



locations: N/A



8. Comments: Total bentonite pellets weight (lbs) : 200


APPENDIX E

Laboratory Test Results

Report of Geotechnical Exploration ORNL Sewage Treatment Plant Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Oak Ridge, Tennessee Shield Project No. 1205020-01

Laboratory Test Results

Boring

Sample

Depth (feet)

Natural

Moisture Content

(%)

Atterberg Limits

Liquid Limit (%)

Plasticity

Index (%)

B-1 1 0 - 1.5 14.2 B-1 2 1.5 – 3.0 14.2 B-1 3 3.5 – 5.0 16.2 B-1 5 8.5 – 10.0 20.5 B-1 6 13.5 – 15.0 23.0 B-1 7 18.5 – 20.0 16.9 B-2 1 0 - 1.5 17.0 B-2 2 1.5 – 3.0 23.4 B-2 3 3.5 – 5.0 15.1 42 24 B-2 4 6.0 – 7.5 16.6 B-2 5 8.5 – 10.0 22.9 B-2 6 13.5 – 15.0 12.8 B-2 7 18.5 – 20.0 16.1 B-3 1 0 - 1.5 16.3 B-3 2 1.5 – 3.0 23.8 B-3 3 3.5 – 5.0 18.2 B-3 4 6.0 – 7.5 20.9 40 23 B-3 5 8.5 – 10.0 15.9 B-3 6 13.5 – 15.0 27.1 B-3 7 18.5 – 20.0 24.4 B-4 1 0 - 1.5 22.6 B-4 2 1.5 – 3.0 19.9 B-4 3 3.5 – 5.0 24.8 B-4 5 8.5 – 10.0 27.4 B-4 6 13.5 – 15.0 24.8 B-4 7 18.5 – 20.0 12.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

Classification

19.0

33.8

D10

41 3/4 1/23/8 3

%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay

B-2

B-3

100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

4

B-2

B-3

LL PL

D30

4.3

6.8

16 20 30 40 50 200

D100 D60

6 810 14 60

fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

Orange Brown to Gray CLAYEY Gravel with Sand (GC)

Brown to Reddish Brown Sandy CLAY (CL)

24

23

18

17

42

40

43.9

10.8

23.9

24.5

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

1.5

13.3

30.9

6.262

0.042

37.5

19

0.036

0.004

Specimen Identification


4.3

6.8

Cu

PI Cc

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

C:\USERS\GINT-PC\SHIELD ENGINEERING\KNOXVILLE - ADMIN\GINT\PROJECTS\2020\1205020-01 ORNL STP.GPJB-37/23/2020 1:08:35 PM

Shield Project No.: 1205020-01Oak Ridge, Tennessee

ORNL Sewage Treatment Plant300 Forestal Dr.Knoxville, TN 37918Telephone: 865-544-5959Fax: 865-544-5885

coarse fine coarse medium

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS

Fines Classification

CL-ML

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

B-2

B-3

LL PL PI

4.3

6.8

32

65

42

40

18

17

24

23

Orange Brown to Gray CLAYEY Gravel with Sand (GC)

Brown to Reddish Brown Sandy CLAY (CL)


ML MH

CL CH

C:\USERS\GINT-PC\SHIELD ENGINEERING\KNOXVILLE - ADMIN\GINT\PROJECTS\2020\1205020-01 ORNL STP.GPJB-37/23/2020 1:08:35 PM


ORNL Sewage Treatment Plant(Barge Design Solutions, Inc.)

Oak Ridge, Tennessee1205020-01Shield Project No.:

report of geotechnical exploration ornl sewage treatment

Documents