geotechnical report - nysdot [PDF]

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 11 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DESIGN FOR REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN CREEK KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES PIN X729.77

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (BIN 1-07569-9)

Prepared by Iffland Kavanagh Waterbury, P. Ewell W. Finley, P. C

April, 2006

C./

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 11 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DESIGN FOR REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN CREEK KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES PIN X729.77

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (BIN 1-07569-9)

Prepared by lffland Kavanagh Waterbury, P. Ewell W. Finley, P. C

April, 2006

C./

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Geology of the Area Subsurface Investigation Borings Geophysical Exploration at Piers Laboratory Soil Testing Generalized Subsurface Conditions Soil Properties of Generalized Strata Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential and Its Potential Consequences

-

Functional Event (500 -yr Return Period) Safety Event (2500-yr Return Period) Recommendations Summary FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4

APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E

Boring Location Plan Generalized Subsurface Profile and Liquefaction Potential Functional Event Generalized Subsurface Profile and Liquefaction Potential Safety Event Generalized Subsurface Profile and Liquefaction Potential Functional and Safety Events

Boring Logs Geophysical Exploration Laboratory Soil Tests Representative Liquefaction Analysis Results and Sofnvare Manuel Bridge General Plan and Elevation and Typical Sections

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of a Geotechnical and Geophysical investigation of the Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to 54th Street in existing Kosciusko Bridge viaduct& Queens. The purpose of the investigation was to obtain subsurface data along the bridge's alignment and to evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction for two level earthquakes: a lower level (functional) event with a Return Period of 500-yrs and an upper level (safety) event with a Return Period of 2500-yrs. The present landform of the project area in eastern Brooklyn and western Queens is a result of Pleistocene deposits from glacial and post-glacial geological activity. Twenty three borings drilled for this investigation revealed subsurface conditions along the bridge alignment varying from recent soft organic clays beneath Newtown Creek to very dense granular moraine deposits. In most areas the natural soils are blanketed by a layer of recent man-made fill. A laboratory testing program was implemented to characterize the strength and compressibility of the soft deposits and to establish the grain size characteristics of the granular soils in order to estimate their engineering properties. A field geophysical investigation was undertaken to estimate the probable depths of the existing bridge piers' pile foundations. Static analyses of the existing foundations were made to estimate the capacity of these foundations based on the laboratory test results and the test boring data. Liquefaction analyses were conducted based on the borings' Standard Penetration Test results to estimate areas of probable liquefaction along the alignment during the two level earthquakes. The potential consequences of liquefaction were evaluated and recommendations are provided for mitigation where needed. The cohesive soils and the dense granular soils are generally not prone to liquefaction. In some areas the recent fill is very loose with very high liquefaction potential if subjected to a Functional or Safety Event earthquake of Magnitude 6. The consequences of such potential liquefaction are expected to be settlement of the fill at isolated piers, resulting in down drag loads on the pier foundations. Small, almost negligible pier settlements may result over a relatively short time period of a few minutes to a few days for the Functional Event. The bridge should be able to tolerate these settlements. However, the bridge should be inspected for damage soon after the occurrence of a significant seismic event. For the Safety Event, Piers Numbers 92 and 93 could experience significant settlements during or shortly after the event. Consequently, it is recommended that the subsoils surrounding these piers be densified using vibro-replacement stone columns or compaction grouting down to the tips of the piles. Because the evaluation at Piers 92 and 93 is based on a single boring drilled at each pier, it is recommended that an alternative approach be considered to obtain additional data to confirm the conditions, or possibly to indicate that no remediation is required.

Introduction This report presents the results of a Geotechnical and Geophysical investigation of the existing Kosciusko Bridge viaduct. The investigation was conducted in accordance with Supplemental Agreement Nos. 4 and 9 to Contract DO05554 (PIN X729.77.102). The purpose of the investigation was to obtain subsurface data along the bridge's alignment and to evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction for two level earthquakes: a lower level (functional) event with a Return Period of 500-yrs and an upper level (safety) event with a Return Period of 2500-yrs. The scope of services included: Preliminary review of existing data Development of a subsurface exploration program Preparation of a boring contract and engaging a Contractor to perform the work Supervision of the boring contract Development of a laboratory testing program and engaging a laboratory to perform the tests Development of an insitu geophysical exploration program and engaging a specialist firm to execute the work Evaluation of the data obtained Analyses of the bridge foundations as related to postulated seismic events Additional seismic related analyses including lateral and axial capacities and uplift resistance of pile foundations, stability of abutments, and bearing capacity and stability of spread footing foundations. Preparation of this report containing the data obtained and the results of our evaluation. The Kosciusko Bridge viaduct is approximately 1,690 linear meters (5,543 linear feet) long and carries the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (1-278) between Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn and 54thStreet in Queens. It consists of 103 spans with two ramps, each of 25 spans, for a total of 153 spans. The individual span lengths vary from 6 meters to 91 meters (20 feet to 300 feet) and the heights of piers vary from 5 meters to 30 meters (18 feet to 100 feet) (See Appendix E).

Spans 1 to 78 In general, Spans 1 thru 78 and the two ramps are of concrete construction. With the exception of Spans 8, 30, 31 and 71, superstructure construction consists of 3 span continuous concrete deck slab, spanning approximately 6 meters (20 feet). The deck slab is monolithic with reinforced concrete cap beams. Spans 8 and 71 are reinforced concrete rigid frames and Spans 30 and 31 consists of adjacent precast prestressed box beam construction overlaid with cast-in-place concrete decks.

With the exception of Spans 8, 3 1 and 71, the substructure consists of individual concrete columns connected at the top by reinforced concrete cap beams. The columns are supported on reinforced concrete spread footings. Spans 8 and 71 are rigid frames with the vertical walls supported on continuous concrete spread footings. Span 31 is supported by a cantilever abutment type structure.

Spans 79 to 88 and 90 to 100 Superstructure construction consists of concrete filled steel grating over steel I-shape cross-beams supported over wide flange stringers over floor beams. The floor beams are in turn supported by two deep steel trusses spanning between the piers. The substructure consists of two reinforced massive octagonal concrete columns per pier. Piers 79 to 82 and 95 to 99 consist of two columns with a tie beam connecting individual spread footings. Piers 83 to 87 and 90 to 94 consist of two columns on individual spread footings with a tie beam connecting the tops of the two columns. The columns for Piers 79 to 84, and 96 to 99 are supported on spread footings. Piers 85 to 87 and 90 to 93 are supported on pile foundations. The foundations for Piers 94 and 95 are not known since the Contractor was given the option to use either spread footings or pile foundations and as-built drawings are not available. Pier 100 is the original north abutment of the Kosciusko Bridge prior to the extension of the viaduct in 1967. The pier consists of two massive concrete columns connected by a reinforced concrete wall supported on spread footings.

Span 89 Span 89 is a 91 m (300-ft) long thru truss spanning over Newtown Creek. Except for the thru truss, the superstructure is of similar construction as for adjacent spans. The substructure of the main span consists of two steel towers (Piers 88 and 89), located on each side of the Creek, with steel truss tie beams at the tops of the towers. Pier 88 is supported on spread footing and Pier 89 is supported by pile foundation. Span 101 Superstructure construction consists of a reinforced monolithc deck spanning 4 m (12-ft) between Piers 100 and 101. Pier 101 is a solid reinforced concrete wall supported on a continuous spread footing. Spans 102 and 103 Superstructure construction consists of a monolithic reinforced concrete deck slab supported by welded steel stringers spanning between piers and the north abutment. Pier 102 consists of two frames with 3 concrete columns, tied together at the top by concrete cap beams. North Abutment and Wingwalls The north abutment and wingwalls are concrete cantilever walls supported on continuous concrete spread footings.

South Abutment and Wingwalls The south abutment and wingwalls are concrete walls supported on continuous concrete spread footings.

Geology of the Area The present landform of the project area in eastern Brooklyn and western Queens is a result of Pleistocene deposits from glacial and post-glacial geological activity. Geologists believe that the Wisconsin glacier advanced and deposited an end moraine at its terminus in present-day Queens. As the glacier receded, melt waters deposited stratified granular soils ("outwash" or "stratified drift"). Subsequently, the glacier returned, overriding the first moraine and the outwash and deposited the Harbor Hill Moraine south of Newtown Creek. Hilly land forms, composed of heterogeneous mixtures of a wide range of soil grain sizes, from silts to boulders, are characteristics of moraine deposits.

In between the moraines, the glacier deposited similar materials or ground moraine, generally known as "glacial till". Moraine soils and glacial tills are usually dense to very dense because of the method of deposition, as are the outwash soils where overridden by the glacier.

Subsurface Investigation Borings Twenty three (23) borings were drilled in accordance with the requirements of NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 17648, Subsurface Exploration. The borings were drilled by Warren George, Inc. at the locations shown in Fig. 1 using a Failing 1500 truckmounted mud rotary drill rig. The borings were drilled during the time period April 20 to June 24, 1998. Each boring was observed by a State approved inspector. Our geotechnical engineer and project manager monitored the drilling operations with periodic site visits. The borings were advanced using rotary drilling methods. Most of the borings were advanced using bio-degradable drilling mud as the drilling fluid. Several borings were advanced by driving a casing with a 136 kg (300-lb). hammer falling 457 mm (18-in.) and using water as the drilling fluid. The number of blows required to advance the casing each 0.3 meter (foot) is shown on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. Soil samples were obtained by the Standard Penetration Test Method (ASTM D 1586) (SPT). The SPT N-value is defined as the number of blows of a 63.5 kg (140-lb.) hammer falling freely through 762 mm (30-inches) required to advance the standard 51 rnm (2-in.) diameter sampler the last 305 mm (12-inches) of an 457 rnm (18-inch) sampling interval. The number of blows required to advance the sampler per 152 mm (6-inches) is reported on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. Undisturbed samples (76 mm diameter [3-inch diameter]) of cohesive soils were obtained with an Osterberg-type hydraulic piston sampler. Observation wells were installed in eight borings. The observation well consisted of a 5 1 rnm (2-in.) diameter PVC riser pipe, slotted at the bottom 3 m (10-ft), placed in the open boring and backfilled with clean silica sand. The upper 1.5 m (5-fi.) was sealed with bentonite pellets. Table A-1 (Appendix A) lists the observation wells and groundwater level readings. Geophysical Exploration at Piers A nondestructive geophysical investigation of foundation depths was conducted by Olson Engineering, Inc. at 12 bridge pier locations during June, 1998 in conjunction with the drilling program. The investigation utilized the parallel seismic method of testing, as described in Olson Engineering, Inc.'s Report, dated August 25, 1998 presented in Appendix B. Laboratory Soil Testing Laboratory testing was conducted by Geotesting Services, Inc. The testing program was developed by our geotechnical engineer and approved by the State.

The following types of tests were conducted: Index PropertiesGrain size analysis, and percent passing the No. 200 sieve Atterberg limits and moisture content Specific gravity Total unit weight Consistency Engineering PropertiesTriaxial compression (Unconsolidated Undrained) Consolidation

The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.

Generalized Subsurface Conditions Generalized subsurface conditions along the Bridge alignment are shown in Figures 2 and 4. The generalized conditions are based on the data from borings drilled during this investigation and interpretation of existing boring data without Standard Penetration Test data, dating from about 1932. Approximate bottom of bridge piers and estimated pile tip elevations ,are shown on the figures. Four primary strata and one secondary stratum have been generalized, as follows: Generalized Soils Stratum Number Fill: silty Sand & Gravel, cinders 1 2 Gray organic silty Clay, clayey Silt (CH, OH - MH) Brown silty Sand & Gravel, cobbles, boulders 3 3A 4

Typical Range of N-values 3 - loo+ 0-2

Brown & gray sandy Clay, clayey Silt, sandy Silt (SC, 0 - 32 (most ML) lenses values > 20 Gray sandy Clay, silty Clay, sandy Silt (SC, CL, ML) >50

The advancing and retreating glaciers, as described earlier, overrode strata 3, 3A and 4 in the geologic past. These strata are dense to very dense based on the recorded N-values. Stratum 2 is normally consolidated, as described below. Stratum 1 is a recent man made deposit with variable properties. . Soil Properties of Generalized Strata Soil properties of granular generalized Strata 1, 3 and 3A were estimated based on Nvalues and laboratory index tests (grain size analyses, moisture contents, and Atterberg limits) and correlation to data available in the engineering literature. The properties of Stratum 2 were estimated from laboratory physical property tests and compared to data available in the engineering literature for similar materials with similar stress history. Recommended soil properties for analysis and design are summarized below:

Granular soilsStratum 1 - Fill (including pile cap backfill) Unit weights: y = 1842 kg/m3 (1 15 lb/ft3) yy =849kg/m3(53 lb/ft3) Relative Density: DR= 25% Effective friction angle: 4' = 30'

Properties for Seismic Analysis: Shear modulus: G,,

= 34 MPa (360

t/ft2)

Poisson's Ratio: v = 0.35

Young's modulus: E = 93 MPa (975 t/ft2) Stratum 3 - Brown silty Sand & Gravel, cobbles, boulders

Unit weights: y

= 2034 kg/m3 (127

Relative Density: DR = 75%

lb/ft3)

y'

=

1041 kg/m3 (65 lb/ft3)

Effective friction angle: 4'

= 35'

Properties for Seismic Analysis: Shear modulus: Gmax= 287 MPa (3000 t/ft2) Young's modulus: E = 766 MPa (8000 t/ft2)

Poisson's Ratio: v = 0.35

Cohesive SoilsStratum 2- Gray organic silty Clay, clayey Silt (CH, O H - MH)

Unit weights: y = 1570 kg/m3 (98 lb/ft3) y ' = 577 kg/m3 (36 lb/ft3) Undrained strength: S, or "c" = 21 KPa (440 lb/ft2) Strain: E @ half of compressive strength = 1.3 % Undrained Young's Modulus: E = 5.7 MPa (60 t/ft2) (250 x S,) Maximum past consolidation pressure: o,,' = 67 - 115 KPa (0.7 - 1.2 t/ft2) normally consolidated (i.e. vertical effective stress o,,' = om') Compression Ratio: CR = 0.266 Recompression Ratio: RR = 0.03 1 Coefficient of Consolidation: Normally consolidated c, = 2 m2/yr (23 ft2/yr) Over consolidated c, = 9 m2/yr (100 ft2/yr) Coefficient of Secondary Compression: Normally consolidated c, = 0.015 ididlog t Over consolidated c, = 0.003 idinllog t Stratum 3A- Brown & gray sandy Clay, clayey Silt, sandy Silt (SC, ML) lenses

Unit weights: y = 1922 kg/m3 (120 lb/ft3) y' = 929 kg/m3 (58 lb/ft3) Undrained strength: S, or "c" = 96 KPa (2000 lb/ft2) Undrained Young's Modulus: E = 29 KPa (300 t/ft2) (300 x S,) Maximum past consolidation pressure: om' = 287 - 383 KPa (3 - 4 t/ft2) Compression Ratio: CR = 0.20 - 0.25 Recompression Ratio: RR = 0.01 - 0.02 Coefficient of Consolidation: Normally consolidated c, = 7.0 - 18.6 m2/yr (75 200 ft2/yr) Over consolidated c, = 28 - 93 m2/yr (300 1,000 ft2/yr)

Coefficient of Secondary Compression: Normally consolidated c, Over consolidated c,

= 0.001 =

.003 ididlog t < 0.001 inlidlog t

Stratum 4- Gray sandy Clay, silty Clay, sandy Silt (SC, CL, ML)

Unit weights: y = 2082 kg/m3 (130 lb/ft3) y' = 1089 kg/m3 (68 1b/ft3) Undrained strength: S, or "c" > 192 KPa (4000 1b/ft2) Undrained Young's Modulus: E = 192 KPa (2000 t/ft2) (500 x S,)

Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential and Its Potential Consequences The potential for liquefaction was evaluated at each of the bridge piers by analysis using the methods outlined in NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Procedure GDP-9, or by inspecting the recorded N-values and making judgments by comparing N-values to those at the piers where analyses were conducted. The analyses were conducted using the commercially available computer software "LiquefjPro" (CivilTech Software). A copy of the user's manual is presented in Appendix D. Analyses were conducted for two levels of earthquake: a lower level (functional) event with a Return Period of 500-yrs and an upper level (safety) event with a Return Period of 2500-yrs. Representative results of the analyses are included in Appendix D. We generalized the liquefaction potential as follows: Liquefaction Potential Very low LOW Moderate High Very high

Calculated Safety Factor >2.0 1.3 - 2.0 1.1 - 1.3 1.0 -1.1 2

0.4

2.7-5.2

19.2

132

>2

5+

>17.1

>2

5+

>17.1

83

2.7

No piles

2.0

No piles

298 268

3.0

No piles

2.1

No piles

* 10BP42 H-piles; all others 16" Dia. Octagonal reinforced concrete. Pile safety factor is calculated with respect to calculated static capacity

No piles

>2

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS RESULTS (Uplift and Lateral Loads)

-

Borinq No. Pier NO.

Static Analvsis

Functional Event lpqa = 0.15q)

Ultimate Lateral FSmin Uplift Capacity(kN) liquefaction Capacity at 25.4 mm (kN) deflection

Liquefied Pile Tip Depth Depth ( 4 (m)

S-102

94

365

289

1.47

S-103

93

102

>89

0.73

S-104

92

62

>89

0.96

S-106

90

67

>89

2.45

S-108

89

214

Batter piles

0.58

S-I1 1

88

No piles

S-113

87

>222

S-114

86

S-115

Ultimate Lateral FSmin Uplift Capacity(kN) liquefaction Capacity at 25.4 mm (kN) deflection

89

0.6

9.1-9.4

40.5

102

>89

0.33

6.7-7.6

89

0.27

8.8

67

>89

1 .O

214

Batter piles

0.23

4.6-5.8 25.9to 29.

1.34

No piles

>89

1.70

11.4

>222

>222

>89

1.02

19.2

85

>222

>89

5+

>17.1

S-116

83

No piles

2.74

S-122

298 268

No piles

2.99

* 10BP42 H-piles; all others 1 6 Dia. Octagonal reinforced concrete

Safetv Event lpqa = 0.37d Liquefied Depth ( 4

7.9-9.4

Pile Tip Depth (m)

89

93

>89

89

8.8

67

>89

214

Batter Piles

11.4

>222

>89

19.2

>222

>89

>222

>89

5.5-6.4;g.l-10.1 89

0.7

4.6-5.2i7.3-7.6

>222

>89

0.42

>222

>89

5+

>17.1

No piles

2

No piles

No piles

2.14

No piles

2.7-5.2

Ultimate Lateral Uplift Capacity(kN) Capacity at 25.4 mm (kN) deflection

Recommendations In our judgment, no remedial actions with respect to foundations are required for the bridge to survive the Functional Event. However, densification of the subsoils surrounding Piers 92 and 93 down to the tips of the piles should be undertaken for the bridge to properly function during or after the Safety Event. This could be accomplished with vibro-replacement stone columns or compaction grouting. This recommendation is based on the results of one boring drilled near each pier. Possibly, additional borings and insitu testing near the piers could indicate that t h s remedial action is unnecessary. Considering the considerable cost of the recommended remediation, we believe that the relatively smaller cost of additional exploration and testing is a justifiable expenditure. We recommend that four additional borings be drilled at both Piers 92 and 93, as close to each pier as is practical. They should penetrate to approximately el. -7.6 m (-25. ft). Also, we recommend that four to eight static cone penetration test (CPT) soundings be advanced near each of these piers. CPT soundings provide continuous penetration resistance data with depth that is less susceptible to variations and uncertainties caused by equipment and operator variability. The technology for evaluating liquefaction potential by means of the CPT is consistent with that of the SPT.

Summary The Kosciuszko Bridge site alignment is underlain by dense granular glacial deposits, overlain by post-glacial normally consolidated cohesive soils beneath Newtown Creek. Localized deposits of man-made fill are also present along the land portions of the alignment. The cohesive soils and the dense granular soils are not prone to liquefaction generally. In some areas the recent fill is very loose with very high liquefaction potential if subjected to a Functional or Safety Event earthquake of Magnitude 6. The consequences of such potential liquefaction are expected to be settlement of the fill at isolated piers, resulting in down drag loads on the pier foundations. Small, almost negligible pier settlements may result over a relatively short time period of a few minutes to a few days for the Functional Event. In our opinion, the bridge should be able to tolerate these settlements. However, the bridge should be inspected for damage soon after the occurrence of a significant seismic event. For the Safety Event, Piers Numbers 92 and 93 could experience significant settlements during or shortly after the event. Consequently, we recommend that the subsoils surrounding these piers be densified using vibro-replacement stone columns or compaction grouting down to the tips of the piles. Because the evaluation at Piers 92 and 93 is based on a single boring drilled at each pier, we recommend an alternative approach of obtaining additional data to confirm the conditions, or possibly to indicate that no remediation is required.

BOROUGH

OF QUEENS

LEGEND

a

EXISTING

80RlNG

PROPOSE0

80RlN6

n TEST

@

PIT

PROPOSED BORING WHERE GEOPHlSlCALTESTING WILL BE PERFOAMEO BY OTHERS

. Note: Test pit exploration was dcletcd. FIGURE 1 BORING LOCATION PLAN

LOW TO VERY LOW**

4

VERY HlGH

_

VERY

LOW TO VERY LOW

%3

LOW

RELATIVE PROBABILIM OF UQUEFACTION

MINIMUM CALCULATED SAFEW FACTOR WITH RESPECT TO UQUEFACTION

ZONE OF PROBABLE UPUEFACnON

-70,oj -80.0 -90.0

1

-100.0~

0

loo-s-ES EORINGS = NEW W N G S m1s CONrR4CT

1:

WATER L M L

9

WATER L M L NOT STABIUZEO

* ** 1

LU

-

I

I

WR W/H

@

-60.0

MISCELLANEOUS FILL (SILN S A N D / G W L CINDERS. BRICKS) -80.0 -90.0 BROWN OR GRAY SILTY SAND AND G M L . X I I O N A L BOUDERS AND/OR COBBLES (SM.SP.SP-SM)

LOW N-VALUE IN CLAY NEGLECTED. C L A W SOILS ARE NON-UQUEFIABLE

BY INSPECTION (N-VALUES) FACTOR NOT SHOWN

1

GRAY ORGANIC ClAY OR C L A W SILT CH-OH-MH)

L -1000

BROWN AND GRAY SANDY CLAY. C L A W SILT, OR SANDY SILT LENSES (SC.ML)

IF 5AFm

@1

BROWN OR GRAY ANDY CLAY. S I L N CLAY OR

BASED ON DESIGN DRAWINGS

SANDY SILT (SC.CL.ML)

APPROXIMATE BOnOM OF PIER

PROBABLE APPROXIWTE ELEVATION

FUNCTIONAL EVENT

PILE n P VERY LOW 1.3 - 2

150

STRATA DESCRIPTIONS PROBABLE APPROXIMATE PILE TIP ELEVATION

NUMBERS ADJACENT TO BORINGS REPRESENT STANDARD PENmRATION TEST N-VALUE WEIGHT OF RODS WEIGHT OF HAMMER

MODERATE

1.1 - 1.3

HIGH

1.0 - 1.1

500-YR R m R N PERIOD EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUTE PGA = 0.159 6

r

FIGURE 2

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL FUNCTIONAL EVENT

-

LOW TO VERY LOW*

-

VERY HIGH .

.

HIGH TO VERY HIGH

-

LOW TO VERY LOW**

RELATIVE PROBABILITY OF UQUEFACTION

MINIMUM CALCULATED WTIY FACTOR WITH RESPECT TO LIQUEFACTION

CALCULATED GROUND SmLEMENT DUE TO UQUEFACTION

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.2

1.O

0.6

0.7

I\{\! 1 ; 1 1 1 i i \ 1 1-1/2?

d

Y

-

d -

w

Y

3 TO 3-1/2'

4-1/22

--

-

Y

2?

Y W

w E

-

d w

d w

d -

d Y

d w

w

d -

d

n -

1/2?

1/22

-

2

5+

0.4

1/2&

{\;Ig

-.,

-8

8

; : \ ;

J .

z

-

w d

d

w d

cL Y

z

- d

d

i d

+15.0 -

-10.0-

-30.0-

+30.0

- +10.0

-30.0

- -10.0

-60.0

- -20.0

-40.0'

-15.0-

STRATA DESCRIPTIONS

-50.0-70.0-20.0

-

LEGEND

-60.0-80.0-

ZONE OF PROBABLE UQUEFACTION

.

0 , m] '

PROBABLE APPROXIMATE PILE TIP ELPIATION

0

-90.0SGN I R" , &R ' , " - sG

= N W BOWNGS

'

'

' " "

'

MISCELLAfiEOUS n u (SILN CINDERS. BRICKS)

WD/GRAvn

@

GRAY ORGANIC CLAY O R C L A W SlLT (CH.OH-MH)

@

BROWN OR GRAY S l L N SAND AN0 GRAVEL OCCASIONAL BOULDERS AND/OR COBBLES (SM.SP.SP-SM)

-100.0WATER LEVEL

*

** 1

LU

A 150 WR W/H

ELEVATION UNKNOWN AT PIER 8 9

LOW N-VALUE IN CLAY NEGLECTED. CLAYEY SOILS ARE NON-LIQUEFIABLE

BY INSPECTION (N-VALUES) FACTOR NOT SHOWN

I : : ( @

IF Y\FEM

BASED ON DESIGN DRAWINGS

1.3

PILE TIP

MODERATE

gEIFDzEN,"t

ELEVATION. W E D

NUMBERS ADJACENT TO BORINGS REPRESENT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N-VALUE

BROWN OR GRAY ANDY CUY. S l L N CLAY OR SANDY SlLT (SC.CLML)

S A F m EVENT VERY LOW

APPROXIMATE BOllOM OF PlER PROBABLE APPROXIMTE ELEVATION

BROWN AND GRAY SANDY CLAY. CLAYEY SILT. OR W D Y SlLT LENSES (SC.ML)

HIGH

-

2

1.1 - 1.3 1.0

-

2500-YR RETURN PERIOD EARTHQUAKE MAGNITWE 6 PGA = 0.3669

1.1

FIGURE 3

WEIGHT OF RODS WEIGHT OF HAMMER

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL SAFETY EVENT

-

RELATNE PROBABILITY OF LIQUEFACTION

WRY LOW

MINIMUM CALCULATED SAFElY FACTOR WITH RESPECT TO UQUEFACTION

2.99 (FUNCTIONAL EVENT) 2.14 (SAFEU EVENT)

CALCULATED GROUND SETTLEMENT DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

NONE

STRATA DESCRIPTIONS

,( O

LEGEND

'

ZONE OF PROBABLE UQUEFACTION

8 * ** 1

LU

A 1 50 WR W/H

MISCELLANEOUS FILL (SILW W D / G R A m . CINDERS. BRICKS)

.

GRAY ORGANIC CV\Y OR CUYEY SlLl CH.OH-MH)

100-SERIES BORINGS = NEW BORINGS THIS CONTRACT

BROWN OR GRAY SlLW W D AND GRAVEL. XoCCnsloNAL BOULDERS AND/OR COBBLES (SM.SP.SP-SM)

@

WATER LEVEL

g

.

WATER LEVEL NOT STABILIZED

BROWN AND GRAY W D Y CLAY, C v \ W SILT, OR W D Y SILT LENSES (SC.ML)

LOW N-VALUE IN CLAY NEGLECTED. C v \ m SOILS ARE NON-LIQUEFIABLE

BY INSPECTION (N-VWUES) FACTOR NOT SHOWN

W E D ON DESIGN DRAWINGS APPROXIMATE BOTrOM OF PIER PROBABLE APPROXIWE PILE TIP ELEVATION APPROXIMATE PILE TIP E L W O N . W E D ON DESIGN DRAWINGS NUMBERS ADJACENT TO BORINGS REPRESENT STANDARD PENFTRATION TEST N-VALUE

BROWN OR GRAY ANDY CLAY. SILTY CIAY OR W O Y SILT (SC.CL.ML)

@

IF WEW

1

VERY LOW LOW MODERATE

1.3 1.1 1.0

VERY HIGH

-2 - 1.3 - 1.1

FUNCTIONAL EVENT

SAFEW WENT

500-YR R m R N PERIOD EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUTE 6 PGA = 0.159

2500-YR RETURN PERIOD EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUTE 6 PGA = 0.3669

IZ"

CH, GP. SW. 9 GY CC S U SC

E ~ ~ ~ U N E ' C MEWROIC ES USE OF DW mm. I.E.:

SP-SY. GP-CU.

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC

$-lo1

HOLE LINE STA. OFFSET

REGION J 1 BORTNC. LOG COUNTY KING & QUEENS PIN X729.77 PROJECT REHABEITATION OF KOSCNSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN

1

CREEK ACTUAL COORDINATES S48185. E21761 DATUM Queens Borough Highway DATE START 4-20-98 CASING O.D. SAMPLER O.D.

2"

SURF. ELEV. 40.5' DEPTH TO WATER None taken

4-22-98

DATE F I N I S H

I.D.

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING

1.D. 1 518"

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER

LBS. HAMMER FALLCASING

140

LBS. HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

-

BLOWS ON CASING SAELE BLOWS (ft.) SAMPLER (n.)

CONT.

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

- 12', Y - 5' 12" asphalt and stone base Brown silty sand, gravelly, with wood 8" to 12") (SM) (Fill) Gravel 2' 4" to 2' 7"

(%)

1.01 1.5 1.51 2.0 Boring location X

o I .s

.SI 1.0

J-1

29

10012"

J-2

12

14 6011"

-

MNPREC8"

~ r o w silty n sand, with gravel (SM) Boulder 6' 1" to 9'

MNP REC 10"

Brown silty sand, with gravel (SM)

MNP 18"

2ndattempt - Brown silty sand, gravelly (SM) Note: used 3" spoon 2"* attempt

MNPREC 16"

Cobble 19' to 19' 8" Cobble 20' to 20' 4" Brown silty gravelly sand, clayey (SM-SC)

- -20- -

rown silty sand, with gravel

22.3

MNPREC8"

14.2

MNPREC 13"

18.8

35

J-8

- "- z

68

112

r

o

I

I

I

I

Brown gravelly sand ,silty (SM) Layers of Gravel to 40'

MNPREC8"

Brown silty sand, gravelly

MNPREC 14"

w 42

m

n silty sand

REC 16"

46 (SM)

I

The subsurface information shown here was obtainedfor design and estimatepurposes. I t is made available so that users may have access to the same information available to the State. I t is presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, the information represents only a small fNIction of the total volume of the material at the site. Interpolation befween data samples may not be indicative ofthe actual material encountered

CONTRACT

I

MOIST.

DEPTH

0

I

30"

CONTRACTOR WARREN GEORGE

DRILL RIG OPERATOR

GUS S c m

SOIL & ROCK DESCRIP.

REG. GEOTECH ENGINEER CHIEF INSPECTOR

STRUCTURE NAME B.I." SHEET

INsP. J. MAIELLo Kosciuszko Bridge

1-07569-9 I OF 7 -

HOLE

S-101

I

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC -11 BORING LOG HOLE S-101 KING & QUEENS LINE PIN X729.77 STA PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCNSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN OBBSET CREEK ACTUAL COORDINATES S48185, E21761 SURF. E L W . 40.5' DATUM Queens Borough Highway DEPTH TO WATER None taken DATE F I N I S H 4-22-98 DATE START 4-20-98 REGION COUNTY

.

CASMG O.D. SAMPLER O.D.

2"

DEPTH

CASING BLOWS

SURP.

(11.1

I.D.

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASMG

1.D. 1 518"

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.)

NO.

50

01.5

. 5 / 1.0 1.011.5

J-11

35

50

J-12

30

42

LBS. HAMMER FALL-CASMG

140

LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER

30" MOIST. CONT.

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

(%I

1.5/2.0

MNPREC17"

20.1

MNPREC 16"

19.9

55

60

56

46

70

Same (SM)

60

J-13

Same

40

33

Note:

----

18.4

Used Revert Gravel 2'4" to 2' 7" Boulder 6'1" to 9' 3-4- 2ndattempt 3" spoon Cobble 19' to 19'8" Cobble 20' to 20' 4" Layers of gravel 3 1' 2" to 40" Bonng moved fiom Y-0' to Y-5'

----

----

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

The subsurface information shown here was obtainedfor design and estimatepurposes. It is made available so t h d users may have access to the same information available to the S t d e I t ispresented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, the information represenis only a small fraction of the total volume of the material d the site Interpolation between

DRILL RIG OPERATOR

data samples may not be indicative of the actual material encountered.

B.LN. SHEET

CONTRACT

CONTRACTOR WARREN GEORGE

SOIL

Gus SUM

ROCKDESCRIP.

REG. GEOTECH. ENGINEER CHIEFINSPECTOR STRUCTURE NAME

1-07569-9 2 OF 2 - -

INSP. J. MAIELLO Kosciuszko Bridge

HOLE

S-101

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC 8-102 REGION 11 BORlNG LOG HOLE COUNTY KING & QUEENS LINE PIN X729.77 STA PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN OFFSET CREEK ACTUAL COORDINATES S48662. E21751 SURF. ELEV. 21.1' DATUM Queens Borough Highway DEPTH TO WATER None taken DATE START 6-17-98 DATE FINISH 6-18-98 WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING 300 LBS. HAMMER FALLCASING I.D. 4 %" CASING O.D. 4 1/11'

.

SAMPLER O.D.

I.D. 1 518"

2"

DEPTH BEJAW CASING SuRP. BLOWS SAMPLE NO. ([I.)

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.) 01.5

.SI 1.0

32 40 20

J-1

7

20

140

LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER

MOIST. CONT.

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

Boring located Y-23' - X 32' 12" Asphalt & Stone Brown silty sand, gravelly, with brick, cinders 16 'and wood (SP-SM) (Fill)

(%)

22

MNPREC18"

1

pieces wood (SC) used 3" spoon - out of fill

Cobble 25' to 25' 6"

MNPREC 10"

2"* attempt, gray silty sand, gravelly

(SM) used 3" spoon

estimatepurposes. I t is made available so that users may have access to the same information available to the Stale. I t ispresented in good faith. By the nature of the lora at ion process, the informafion represents only a small fraction of the total volume of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may not be indicative of the actual material encountered

SOIL 1 ROCKDESCRIP. REG. GEOTECII.ENGINEER CfflEFINsPECroR STRUCTURE NAME

CONTRACTOR WARREN GEORGE

INSP.J MAIELLO Kosciuszko

Bridge

"'A 1-07569-9 SHEET

CONTRACT

30"

1.01 1.5 1.51.2.0

DlA 1

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER

1 OF 2 -

HOLE

S-102

21.7

I

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC REGION 1 1 BORING LOG COUNTY KING & QUEENS PIN X729.77 PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN

HOLE LINE STA OPPBET

I

9-102

.

I

CREEK ACTUAL COORDINATES S48662. E2 1751 DATUM Queens Borough Highway DATE START 6-17-98 CASING O.D.

4

I.D.

SAMPLER O.D.

2"

1.D.

DEPTH

(ff.1

CASING SAMPLE BLOWS NO.

4 %"

1 518"

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.)

SURF. ELEV. 21.1' DEPTH TO WATER None taken DATE F I N I S H WEIGHT OF HAMMERCASING WEIGHT OF HAMMERSAMPLER

6-18-98

300 140

LBS. HAMMER FALGCASWG LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER

30" MOIST.

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

MNP REC 15"

MNP REC 6"

2"d attempt, brown silty sand

INSP. J. MAIELLO Ko~ciuszkoBridge SHEET

2 OF -

2 -

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC REGION 1 1 BORTNG LOG COUNTY KING & QUEENS PIN X729.77 PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN

HOLE LINE STA OFFSET

T-101

.

CREEK ACTUAL COORDINATES S48882. E21812 DATUM Queens Borough Highway DATE START 4-24-98

j

SURF. ELEV. 14.8' DEPTH TO WATER SeeTable

5

I.D. 'j I/,''

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING

SAMPLER O.D.

I..

1.D. 1 518"

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER

CASING

mows

4-27-98

DATE F I N I S H

CASING 0 . 0 .

LBS. HAMMER FALLCASING

140

LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER

30"

BLOWS ON

'*EESAMPLER (ft.)

MOIST. CONT.

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

silty sand, gravelly with pcs brick &glass

(Yo)

h4NP REC 7"

MNP REC 7"

wn,sandy gravel, silty with pieces brick

black silty sand, gravelly with cinders

PT-I

m

F

m

1

20'

2

Wash & Roller Bit indicated organics REC 100% Black clayey silt with organics (OL)

22'

1

PT-2 27.5 29.5 REC : s i l

c

MF'L REC 24"

clayey silt with organics

MPL REC 12"

clay with organics

MPL REC 24"

,

25% Red, brown silty sand intube t y

MNP REC 6"

c-f sand, with gravel, b. silt

Brown, silty sand, with mica S

D - -40- -

- -45- -

Brown, silty gravelly sand, clayey (SMISC) Pocket of clayey silt, mid recovery

MNP REC 19"

Brown, silty sand, gravelly (SM)

MNPREC 18"

I

The subsurface information shown here was obfainedfor design and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have access to the same information available to the State It b presented in good faith. By the nature ofthe exploration process, the information represents only a small fraction ofthe total volume ofthe materialat the site Interpolation behveen data samples may not be indicarive ofthe actual material encountered

ZONTRACT

CONTRACTOR

WARREN GEORGE

DRILL RIG OPERA TOR

GUS SUlU

SOIL & ROCKDESCRIP. REG. GEOTECH. ENGINEER

INSP. J. MAIELLO Kosciuszko Bridge

CHIEF I N S P E C ~ R STRUCTURE NAME

I

"I." SHEET

1-07569-9 I

OF

i

7

i

HOLE

S-103

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC REGION 11 BORTNC. LOG HOLE q-103 COUNTY KING & QUEENS LINE PIN X729.77 STA PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN OFFSET CREEK SURF. ELEV. 14.8' ACTUAL COORDINATES S48882. E21812 DEPTH TO WATER See Table DATUM Queens Borough Highway DATE START 4-24-98 DATE FINISH 4-27-98 CASING O.D. 5 I.D. 5 '/4" WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING LBS. HAMMER FALL-CASING

.

w'

SAMPLER O.D.

1 518"

2"

DEPTH

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.)

CASING SURF. BLOWS SAMPLE NO. (fi.)

50

J-11

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER

01.5

.5/ 1.0

18

33

140

LBS. HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

30" MOIST. CONT.

1.01 1.5 1 5 1 2.0

54

Brown, c-f sand, with gravel, with mica, tr. silt 61 (SP-SM)

MNPREC14"

MNF'REC 16"

ote:

Used Revert 64HR Water reading - 4' 4" - CS 19' Hole 20'

INSP. J. MAIELLO Kosciuszko Bridge data samples may not be indicative of the aciuol material encountered.

1-07569-9 SHfifiT

2 OF -

2 -

17.5

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC REGION 1 1 BORIh'G LOG COUNTY KING & QUEENS PIN X729.77 PROJ'ECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN

HOLE LINE STA OFFSET

$-I 04

.

CREEK SURF. ELEV. 13.5' DEPTII TO WATER SeeTable

ACTVAL COORDINATES S49032. E21730 DATUbl Queens Borough Highway DATE START 4-28-98 CASING 0 . 0 .

5 '/2"

1.0.

SAMPLER O.D. 2" D

m

BErnW SUM.

(It.)

CASING SAMPLE BLOWS NO.

1.D.

51/411 1 518"

.5 I 1.0

rilled dl Ahead 5 X"

J-1

14

54 l

LBS. HAMMER FALLCASMG

140

LBS. HAMhlER FALLSAMPLER

DESCRIPTION O F SOIL AND ROCK Boring location Y-24' X-37' (X-+5' due to underground utilities) 12" Asphalt & Stone r o w gray, n gravelly sand, silty with MNPRECY cinders and concrete, (SP) (Fill)

30" MOIST. CONT. (yo)

1.0 1 1.5 1.5I 2.0

DIA

I

WEIGHT OF HAMMERSAMPLER

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.) o 1 .s

4-28-98

DATE F I N I S H WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING

l ~ 5013"

wn, gravelly silty sand, clayey

MNP REC 2" rick and cinders, (SP-SM) (Fill)

WNP REC 4"

o recovery - Spoon dropped to 25.5'

c-f. sand, tr. f gravel, silt

INSP. J. MAIELLO Kosciuszko Bridge data samples may not be indicative of the actual material encountered

"I."

1-07569-9

16.4

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC REGION 1 1 BORTNG LOG COUNTY KING & QUEENS X729.11 PIN PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN

HOLE LINE STA OFFSET

7-104

.

CREEK

I

ACTUAL COORDINATES S49032. E21730 DARJM Queens Borough Highway DATE START 4-28-98

5 K,,

CASING OD.

I.D.

1.D.

SAMPLER O.D. 2" BELOW

SAMPLE

1~~~~

5 %"

NO.

SURF. ELEV. 13.5' DEPTH TO WATER See Table

4-28-98

DATE FINISH WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING

1 518"

WEIGHT OF HAMMERsAMPLER

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft,)

LBS. HAMMER FALLCASING

140

LBS. HAMMERFALLSAMPLER

30"

MOIST. CONT. ("A)

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

I

I

50

1 I used

01.5

.51 1.0 1.01 1.5 1.51 2.0

l ~ - 1 2 ~9 ( 1 10 Revert J- 12B

1

l~rown,silty sand (SM) 11 Brown, vaned, clayey silt (ML) Traces of sand at tip of sample

10

MNPREC4" MLP REC 18"

122.5

1

Brown silty, gravelly sand, clayey (SM-SC)

MPL REC 16"

Brown silty sand, gravelly

MNP REC 8"

1 1 1 : Used Rev" Out of Fill 29.5'

----

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have access to the same informalion avaihble to the State. It is presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, the in/ormation represents only a small fraction of the total volume of the material at the site Interpolation between data samples may not be indicative of the actual material encountered. CONTRACTOR WARREN GEORGE

I

GUS SURf

DRILL RIG OPERATOR SOIL & RoCK.DEsCRIP. REG. GEOTECX. ENGINEER

IMP. J. MAIELLO Kosciuszko Bridge

CHIEFINSPECTOR STRUCTURE NAME

I

B.L" SHEET

1-07569-9 7

OF

7

HOLE

S-104

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY,PLLC

1

REGION 11 BORING LOG COUNTY KING & QUEENS PIN X729.77 PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN

HOLE LINE STA. OFFSET

S-105

CREEK SURF. E L W . 14.1' DEPTH TO WATER None taken

ACTUAL COORDINATES S49197, E21780 DATUM Queens Borough Highway DATE START 6-15-98

6-16-98

DATE FINISH

CASING O.D.

4 1/t"

1.D. 4

WEIGHT OF HAMMERCASING

300

SAMPLER O.D.

2"

1.D.

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER

140LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER

1 518"

DEPTH BEwW (it)

CASING SAMPLE BLOWS NO. ,

SAMPLER (ft.) BLOWSON

I

LBS. HAMMER FALLCASING

30'' MOlST, CONT.

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL. AND ROCK

MNP REC 15"

MNPREC 10"

Same with pieces of brick

MLP REC 8"

MPL REC 18" MPL REC 18"

MPL REC 12" MNF' REC 4"

MNF' REC 6"

MNP REC 7"

MNPRECY

MNP REC 7"

INSP. J. MAIELLO Kosciuszko Bridge data samples may not be indicative ofthe actual material encountered SHEET

CONTRACTOR WARREN GEORGE

18"

1-07569-9 1 OF 2

-

-

HOLE

S-105

IFIXAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC REGION 11 BORING LOG HOLE S-105 COUNTY KING & QUEENS LINE PIN X729.77 STA PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN OFFSET CREEK ACTUAL COORDINATES S49 197. E21780 SURF. ELEV. 14.1' D A W Queens Borough Highway DEPTH TO WATER None taken DATE START 6-15-98 DATE FINISH 6-16-98 CASING O.D. 4 %" 1.D. 4 %" WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING 300 LBS. HAMMER FALL-CASING

.

I

LD. 1 518"

SAMPLER 0 . D 2" DEPTH

'.zw gzg ((0

77 77 108 119 103

- -55- -

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.)

SAMPLE NO.

50

J-11

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140

01.5

.5/ 1.0

23

30

LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER

18"

30" MOIST. CONT.

DESCRIPTION OF S O U AND ROCK

(O/O)

1.01 1.5 1.51.2.0

Brown silty sand 31

41

MNPREC 11"

19.7

(SM)

Same

MNP REC 14"

Same

MNP REC 15"

----MI rown, silty sand, clayey 43 (SM-SC)

MLP REC 13"

m , silty sand 57 (SM)

MNP REC 13"

142 143

- "-

m

/

r

o

11 1

- -.-- - - - -

I

Same 110 1 5-16 1 17 1 24 1 132 1 I I 1 -32- 1 44 .-Boulder 77'9" to 79' 2" 30019 1 rilled dl Gravel 79' 2" to 80' Ahead rown, sandy gravel, silty (GP) Cobble 81' to 81' 10" Dense navel laver 8 1' to 85'

MNPREC9"

----I* 80

MNF' REC 7"

MNP RECS" MNF' REC 3"

Brown, silty sand (SM)

1-

Gray gravelly sand, silt, (ML) ote: Pushed Tube 22' to 24' -Piston 0 . 0 , s - Dense gravel layer 81' 1O"to 10" to 85' Drove CS 1' to CS Rehsal at 77' 9" Used revert 80' to 90' Boulder 77' 9" to 79' 2" Gravel 79' 2" to 80' Cobble 81'- 81' 10"

- -90- -

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

DRILL RIG OPERATOR The subsurface information shown here was obtainedfor design and SOIL & ROCK DESCRIP. estimatepurposes. I t is made available so that users may have access to the REG. GEOTECH. ENGINEER same information avaihble to the State I t is presented in goodfaith. By the nature of the explorationprocess, the information represents only a small CHIEF INSPECTOR fiacfion of the total volume of the material at the site Interpolation between STRUCTUREN A M ~ data samples may not be indicative of the actual material encountered 1-07569-9

30NTRACT

CONTRACTOR WARREN GEORGE

I

SHEET

3

OF

E. THOMAS INSP. J MAIELLo Kosciuszko Bridge

3

HOLE

S-105

22.8

I

I

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC

REGION 11 HOLE S- 106 BORING LOG COUNTY KING & QUEENS LINE STA. PIN X729.77 OFFSET PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN CREEK SURF. ELEV. 13.4' ACTUAL COORDINATES S49328. E21697 DATUM Queens Borough Highway DEPTH TO WATER See Table DATE START 4-30-98 DATE FINISH 4-30-98 CMING O.D. 5 '/1" I.D. 5 1/4" WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING LBS. HAMMER FALLCASING SAMPLER O.D.

2"

DEPTH

BELOWCASING Sum. BLOWS SAMPLE NO. (11.)

1.D.

1 518"

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.)

WEIGHT OF HAMMERSAMPLER

140

LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL, AND ROCK

Same with pcs concrete, cinders & red brick

MNPREC6"

w odor o f petrol (PT-OH)

nd, gravelly w odor of petrol MNP REC 14" MNPREC 12"

MNPREC5"

MNP REC 14"

INSP.J. MAIELLO Kosciuszko Bridge

30" MOIST CONT. (Oh)

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC

I I

11 HOLE S-106 BORING LOG COUNTY KING & OUEENS LINE STA PIN X729.77 PROJECT OFFSFP REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN CREEK SURF. E L W . 13.4' ACTUAL COORDINATES S49328. E21697 DATUM Queens Borough Highway DEPTH TO WATER See Table DATE START 4-30-98 DATE FINISH 4-30-98 CASING O.D. 5 I.D. 5 WEIGHT OR HAMMER-CASING LBS. HAMMER FALLCASING REGION

.

SAMPLER O D . DEPTH

S"*. (it.)

CASING BLOWS

2..

.

1.D.

1 ,518''

WEIGHT OF HAMMERSAMPLER

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.)

140 LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER -

MOIST CONT.

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

(%)

Brown, sandy clayey silt, tr,m sand

Brown, silty sand, with mica ote:

Used Revert Attempted tube at 27.5' -Tube only BISW to 28' no recovery.

same information available to the &ate I t is presented in goodfaith. By the nature of the exploration process, the information represen@ only a small fraction ofthe total volume ofthe material at the site Interpolation between data samples may not be indicative of the actual material encountered.

REG. GEOTECH. ENGINEER

CHI~FINSPECT~R STRUCTURJINAME

""

SHEET

CONTRACT

CONTRACTOR WARREN GEORGE

INSP. J MAIELLO Kosciuszko Bridge

1-07569-9 2 OF 2 -

HOLE

30"

S-106

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC REGION 11 BORING LOG HOLE S-107 COUNTY KING & QUEENS LINX PIN X729.77 STA. PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN OFFSET CREEK ACTUAL COORDINATES S49549. E2 1615 SURF. E L W . 10.0' DAlTbl Queens Borough Highway DEPTH TO WATER None taken DATE START 4-22-98 DATE FINISH 4-24-98 CASING O.D. 5 %" 1.D. 5 WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING 300 LBS. HAMMER FALLCASING SAMPLER O.D. DEPrn BELOW CASING

SUM.

BLOWS

(ft)

2"

.$I 1.0 1.01 1.5 11

01.5

Drilled Ahead

- -5- -

J-1

WEICEIT OF HAMMERSAMPLER

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.)

SAMPLE NO.

0

10

1.D. 1 518"

8

1.51

5015

5-2

4

-

140 LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER -

5015

30" MOIST. CONT.

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK 2.0 Boring IocationX-27' &Y-70' Brown, gray, silty sand, gravelly with decomposed concrete, blue stone, pieces of brick and roots (SM) (Fill)

1s

("4

MNP REC 17"

33 .2

Gray silty sand, gravelly (decomposed concrete) (SM) (Fill)

MNP REC 5"

26.9

Gray sandy silt, with gravel, with slight petro odor (ML)

DNP REC 24"

148 .4

- 5-3

10

1

6

1 7 17

- -15 --.

3 1 J-4A J-4B PT-1 17' To REC 100% J-5 WR W/H

20

Note: J4A & J4B have petro odor Gray silty sand, clayey with gravel and pcs wood (SC-0H)MPL REC 5" Gray silty clay with fibers (OH) MPL REC 2" Gray silty clay, sandy (MH-OH) REC 24" Gray silty clay, with shells (OH) MPL REC 17" Gray silty clay, with shells & peat (CH-OH)

40.9 55 .6 76.2 81.5 62.3

Black sandy peat, clayey (PT-OH) Gray silty sand, clayey with fibers

MPLREC6" MPLREC12"

127.1 34.2

Gray silty sand with mica 14 (SM)

MNPREC13"

19.0

11

Brown silty sand (SM) 13 Brown sandy clayey silt (CL-ML)

MNP REC 2" MLP REC 10"

12.7 20 .6

MNPREC14"

23.8

21

25

MNPRECl8"

26.3

1

2

19'

25

- J-6 1

5

7

U

S E - -30 --. D

(SC)

5-7

10

13

R E

13

v - -35- -

E R T

J-8A J-8B

16

J-9

9

8

40

16

Brown silty sand with mica (SM)

45

J-10

13

15 Brown, gray, silty sand with mica 18

32

(SM)

The subsurjbce information shown here was obtainedfor design and eslimale purposes. I t is made available so that users may have access to the same hformation avaihble to the Statale. It is presented in good fa& By the nature of the exploration process, the infomation represents only a small fraction of the total volume of the material at the sire Interpolation between data samples may not be indicative of the actual material encountered

DRIU RIG OPERATOR

REG. GEOTECII. ENGINEER

CONTRACTOR WARREN GEORGE

INSP. J MMELLO K o s c i u s z k o Bridge

CHEFINSPECTOR STRUCTURE NAME

*,I." SHEET

CONTRACT

GUS SUM

SOIL 1ROCKDBSCRIP.

1-07569-9 2

1 OF -

-

HOLE

S-107

IFFLAND KAVANAGH WATERBURY, PLLC

I

I

HOLE S- 107 REGION 11 BORING LOG LINE COUNTY KING & QUEENS STA PIN X729.77 OFFSET PROJECT REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN CREEK ACTUAL COORDINATES S49549. E21615 SURF. ELEV. 10.0' DATDM Queens Borough Highway DEPTH TO WATER None taken DATE START 4-22-98 DATE FINISH 4-24-98

.

CASING O.D.

5

1.0.

5 y,"

SAMPLER O.D.

2"

1.D. 1 518"

300

WEIGHT OF HAMMER-CASING

140

WEIGHT OF HAMMERSAMPLER

I

LBS. HAMMER FALL-CASING

18

LBS. HAMMER FALLSAMPLER

313''

I

DErn

CASING

BLOWS (Ti)

SAMPLE NO.

BLOWS ON SAMPLER (ft.)

MOIST. CONT. ("1.)

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

Gray sandy silt, clayey (MH)

Gray, sandy clayey silt

Gray, sandy silt

MNPREC 19"

Gray silty clay (CH)

MPL REC 12" MPL REC 12" MNP REC 16"

24.1

65

p++qqqqY .,; 18

Brown silty sand, with gravel

16 (SM)

Brown silty sand, with mica (SM)

MNF'REC 14"

J

J-18

12

17 21

Gray silty sand with mica 28 (SM)

MNF' REC 21"

Gray sandy silt with mica

MNF' REC

red brown clayey silt

MLP REC 22"

Used Revert Tuber taken 17'

Thesubsurface information shown here was obtained for design and estimatepurposes. It is made available so thaf users may have access to the same injbrmation available to the State I t is presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may not be indicative of the actualmaterial encountered.

DRILL

REOPERATOR GUS S

CONTRACTOR WARREN GEORGE

~

REG. CEOTECH. ENGINEER CHIEFINSPECTOR STRUCTURE NAME

INsp, J. MAIELLO KOSC~USz ko Bridge

1-07569-9 SHEET

CONTRACT

U

SOIL & ROCK DESCRIP.

7 OF 7 -

HOLE

S-107

J

Table A-1 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS HOLE# HOUR

DATE

6:30 AM 2:15 PM 6:40 AM 8:36 AM 6:55 AM 10:45 AM 1:10 PM 6:30 AM

4-27-98 4-27-98 4-28-98 4-30-98 - .. . 5-4-98 6-17-98 6-17-98 6-18-98

-

S-103 HOLE 20' 60' 60' 60' 60'

-~

7 60' 60'

HOLE # 9:30 AM I 8:42 AM I 7:oo AM 10:50 AM 1:15 PM 6:30 AM

S-104 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60'

HOLE# 1:00 PM 12:30 PM 11:45 AM 7:OO AM I 12:30PM

S-106 60' 60' 60' 60' 60'

5-8-98 5-1 1-98 5-1 1-98

HOLE # 12:30 PM 10:39 AM 1:50 PM

S-113 60' 60' 60'

5-26-98 5-27-98 5-27-98 5-29-98 6-12-98

HOLE # S-114 2:30 PM 27' 6:45 AM 27' 2 3 0 PM 64' 6" 7:45 AM 64' 6" 7:25 AM 90'

5-6-98 5-7-98

HOLE # 2:00 PM 6:30 AM

4-29-98 4-30-98 5-4-98 6-17-98 6-17-98 6-18-98

5-1-98 5-5-98 6-15-98 6-16-98 6-16-98

1 1

I

1

1

'

DEPTH CASING WATER 19' 4' 4" 60' (PVC) GIL 60' (PVC) 12' 2" 60' (PVC) ' 14' 2" ~ O ' ~ P V C ~ 14' 5" 60' (PVC) 60' (PVC) 60' (PVC)

I

S-115 60' 60'

1 1

1 1

1 1

60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60'

(PVC) (PVC) ipvcj (PVC) (PVC) (PVC)

60' 60' 60' 60' 60'

(PVC) (PVC) (PVC) (PVC) (PVC)

I I '

I I

GIL 7' 3" 9' 9" 9' 6" 9' 6" 9' 6"

GIL 11' 10' 11" 10' 10" 11'

60' (PVC) 60' (PVC) 60' (PVC)

GIL 13' 9" 14' 4"

25' 25' 59' 8" 59' 8" 59' 8"

3' 9" 3' 11" 10' 8" 20' 16' 8"

60' (PVC) 60' (PVC)

I I

GIL 12'

Table A-1 (Continued) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

1

DATE

I 1

5-19-98 5-26-98 5-26-98

4-30-98 5-1-98 5-4-98 6-17-98 6-17-98 6- 18-98 6-18-98

1

1

1

HOLE # HOUR I

I

11:OOAM 8:45 AM 12:40 PM -

I

HOLE # 11:45AM I 12:Ol PM I 7:lOAM I 10:40 AM 1.00 PM 7:06 AM 12:22PM I

S-116 HOLE 60' 60' 60'

S-123 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60'

I 1

DEPTH CASING 60' (PVC) 60' i p v c j 60' (PVC)

I I

j

I

1 60' (PVC) ,- -, I

1

60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60'

(PVC) (PVC) (PVC) (PVC) IPVC), , (PVC) I \

I WATER GIL 19' 2" 19' 7"

GIL 10' 9'9" 24' 8" 24' 8" 24' 7" 24' 6" -

-

APPENDIX B Geophysical Exploration

NONDESTRUCTIVE DIAGNOSTICS OP CIVIL STRUCTURES

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING INVESTIGATION FOUNDATION DEPTH DETERMINATION USING THE PARALLEL SEISMIC METHOD KOSCIUSZXO BRIDGE NEW YORK, NY

Prepared for:

Iffland Kavanagh Waterbury P.C. 1501 Broadway New York, NY 10036 Attn: Mr. Frank Lin Oft: 2 121944-2000 Fax: 2 121302-4645

Olson Engineering Job No. 63 1 August 25, 1998 5 1 91 WPLRDRD., SUITE #I, WHEAT RIDGE, C0LORAE)B 80033-1905 USA PHONE: 303/423-1212 F M : 303/423-6071 EMAIL: [email protected]

WEBPAGE: www.oZsonengineering.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVESUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 TABLE I .Summary of Parallel Seismic Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

3.0 PARALLEL SEISMIC TEST METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Figure 1- Parallel Seismic Test Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3.1 Typical Setup of PS Tests Used in This Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Photo 1- 8-Channel Hydrophone String Used in Parallel Seismic Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Photo 2- 12-lb Instrumented Hammer Used to Generate the Wave Energy. . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.0 PARALLEL SEISMIC TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 4.2 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.5 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 4.6 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.7 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.8 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 4.9 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.10 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 4.1 1 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.12 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 5.0 CLOSURE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

APPENDIX A PA.RALLEL SEISMIC PLOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 83. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Figure A-1 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 85. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 Figure A-2 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 Figure A-3 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 87. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 Figure A-4 Figure A-5 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 88. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 89. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6 Figure A-6 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 90. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7 Figure A-7 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 91. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8 Figure A-8 Figure A-9 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 92. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 Figure A-10 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10 Figure A-1 1 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No. 94. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-11 Figure A-12 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No . 95. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of Parallel Seismic (PS) testing of 12 bridge foundations performed by Olson Engineering to determine the embedded depth of selected foundations of the Kosciuszko bridge in the Queens and Brooklyn Boroughs of New York City, New York. The testing was performed by Mr. Larry Olson, Principal Engineer, on June 29 and 30, 1998 with the assistance of Bland Kavanagh Waterbury P.C. personnel. The main objective of the testing was to determine the depth of concrete piles or spread footings underneath selected piers.

A summary of the results from Parallel Seismic tests is presented in Table I which includes the foundations tested, borehole identification next to each foundation and foundation bottom depths (below grade) from the Parallel Seismic tests. Plots of the PS data (hydrophone depths versus arrival times of compression wave) are presented in Appendix A-1. Note that the depths shown on the plots in Appendix A-1 are the depths in meter below the top of the borehole casings which coincide with the top of grade. All data above the water level in the boreholes should be disregarded as the hydrophones do not respond properly in a dry hole.

The foundations tested were Piers 83,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94 and 95. Based on the provided bridge plans, Piers 83,94 and 95 have spread footings without any piles underneath. The Parallel Seismic results of Pier 83 did not indicate the bottom of the spread footing because the water level was at 6.9 m (22.6 ft) below the top of the borehole and the expected bottom of the footing was at a depth of 4 m (13.1 ft). For Pier 85, a velocity of concrete-like material was identified to a depth equal to the depth of the borehole. It was concluded that the concrete piles of Pier 85 are at least as deep as the borehole. Clear pile foundation bottoms were identified for Piers 86,87 and 90. For Piers 88 and 89, the identified foundation bottoms are the bottoms of the massive piers (pile tips are not apparent due to source locations away from the boreholes). A tentative pile foundation bottom was identified for Pier 91. For Piers 92, 93, 94 and 95, the bottoms of the foundations are not deeper than certain depths as specified in Table I and in Figs A-9 through A-12. This was based on velocities lower than velocities of concrete below the specified depths. The exact depths of these foundations are not known. Olson Job No. 63 1

1

TABLE I - Summarv of Parallel Seismic Test Results Pier No.

Interpreted Foundation Bottom Depth (ft), Reference = Grade

Boring No.

Comments

Not identified

Water level in borehole at 22.6 ft and expected foundation bottom at 13.1 ft, no data at depth of footing, see Fig. A-1

Deeper than 56 ft

Concrete piles are deeper than 56 ft, see Fig. A-2

63 - pile

Distinct break in slope at a depth of 63 ft, see Fig. A-3

1 37.5 - pile 88 89

1~111

(65-pierbottom

I

1

S108

Break in slope at a depth of 37.5 ft, see Fig. A-4 Break in slope at a depth of 65 ft, bottom of Pier, no indication of concrete pile tips, see Fig. A-5

53 - pier bottom

Break in slope at a depth of 53 ft, bottom of Pier, no indication of concrete pile tips, see Fig. A-6

1 37.5 (Tentative pile depth)

S 105

91

Distinct break in slope at a depth of 43 ft, see Fig. A-7 Tentative break in slope at a depth of 37.5 ft, see Fig. A-8 Concrete piles tip (if present) shallower than 29.5 ft based on the velocity of 6600 Wsec below a depth of 29.5 ft, see Fig. A-9

I

, -

Olson Job No. 63 1

1

I

Concrete piles tip (if present) shallower than 34.5 ft based on the velocity of 8200 ft/sec below a depth of 34.5 ft, see Fig. A-10

< 36.5

Spread footings or concrete piles tip (if present) shallower than 36.5 ft based on the velocity of 6600 ft/sec below a depth of 36.5 f3, see Fig. A-1 1

< 29.5

Spread footings or concrete piles tip (if present) shallower than 29.5 ft based on the velocity of 6900 Wsec below a depth of 36.5 f3, see Fig. A12

2.0 SCOPEIOBJECTTVE Olson Engineering was contracted by Iffland Kavanagh Waterbury P.C. (TKW)to provide NDT investigations of selected foundations of Kosciuszko bridge in New York, NY. This report deals with piers 83, 85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94 and 95. The method used to determine the depth of the buried foundations was the Parallel Seismic (PS) method.

The PS method requires a boring or other access tube adjacent to the foundation. For this investigation, 2 inch I.D. PVC tubes were inserted into drilled holes adjacent to each foundation to be tested. The borings were drilled to at least 15 ft below the suspected bottom of the foundations.. The main objective of this investigation was to determine the depth of concrete piles and spread footings foundations at the selected piers. The borings were drilled within about 4 to 5 ft of the edges of footingslpilecaps based on available plans. The bottoms of footingslpilecaps were also shown to be nominally 14 ft below grade for the piers.

The NDT field investigation of the foundations was performed by Mr. Larry Olson, Principal Engineer, of Olson Engineering, Inc. with assistance from IKW personnel. The data analysis was performed by Mr. Mr. Larry Olson, Marwan Aouad, Project Manager and Grant Gilmore, NDT Specialist of Olson Engineering.

Olson Job No. 63 1

3.0 PARALLEL SEISMIC TEST METHOD The PS method is primarily used to determine the depth of unknown foundations. Typical PS test equipment includes an impulse hammer, hydrophone or geophone receivers, and dynamic signal analyzer or oscilloscope, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The spacing between adjacent data collection

i

locations (vertically) for the hydrophone tests was 0.5 rn (see Section 3.1). A 12-lb instrumented hammer and an 8-channel hydrophone string were used as source and receiver, respectively for all

c

-

r

-

PS tests . A 16-channel RC Electronics digital oscilloscope card was used to acquire the data in a portable PC.

The PS method involves impacting the top of the foundation or the substructure

,-

attached to the foundation to generate a wave which travels down the foundation. The wave travel is tracked by a hydrophone receiver suspended in a water-filled, cased borehole drilled typically within 5 ft of the

i

.-

foundation edge. The boring should ideally extend at least 15 ft deeper than the best available estimate of the expected or

k

-

F

-

L

-

c

-

minimum required foundation depth to help ensure clear identification of the foundation bottom depth. The PS tests typically involve lowering the hydrophone to the bottom of the borehole, impacting the Figure 1- Parallel Seismic Test Method exposed portion of the foundation structure and recording the hydrophone response. Then the hydrophone is raised 0.5 m for the next test elevation. This test sequence is repeated until the top

, .

of the boring is reached. The foundation tip depth is determined by plotting the hydrophone response

.-

from all depths on a single plot. For soils of constant velocity surrounding the foundation, a break

- i

.

,

-

in the slope of the line occurs below the tip of the foundation indicating the foundation depth For Olson Job No. 63 1

soil profiles with varying velocity versus depth, a break in the slope of the compression wave arrival time versus depth plot cannot always be located from the slope of the lines, but the bottom of the foundation can be identifiedby observing the trace of the hydrophone plot to identify changes in the response, such as a reduction in signal amplitude.

3.1 Typical Setup of PS Tests Used in This Investigation

In this investigation, an 8-channel hydrophone string (1 m spacing between hydrophones) was lowered to the bottom of the access tubes (see Photo 1). The response of the hydrophone to 10 hammer impacts on the exposed portion of the foundation (see Photo 2) above grade was collected simultaneously using the RC card. Next the hydrophone string was raised by 0.5 m and the impact and data collection repeated. The hydrophone string was then raised 7 m for the next measurement series and then 0.5 m again. This process was continued until the hydrophone string was above the water level in the tube to give a measurement resolution of 0.5 m through the entire length of the access tubes. The PS test results are described in Section 4.0.

Olson Job No. 63 1

Photo 1-

8-Channel Hydrophone String Used in Parallel Seismic Tests.

Photo 2-

12-lb Instrumented Hammer Used to Generate the Wave Energy.

Olson Job No. 63 1

4.0 PARALLEL SEISMIC TEST RESULTS The Parallel Seismic results are presented in Appendix A as plots of the averaged hydrophone receiver response versus time for each receiver depth in one plot. Discussions of the PS results are presented for each bridge below.

4.1 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 83 The Parallel Seismic (PS) tests at Pier 83 extended to a depth of 17 m (56 ft). The PS results are presented in Fig. A-1. The water level was at a depth of 6.9 m (22.6 ft) below the top of the borehole and the expected bottom of the footing was at a depth of 4 m (13.1 ft). The data above a depth of 22.6 ft is noisy because there is no water in the borehole. Therefore, the bottom of the footing cannot be determined from the PS measurements.

4.2 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 85 The Parallel Seismic (PS) tests at Pier 85 extended to a depth of 17 m (56 ft). The PS results ' are presented in Fig. A-2. The measured velocity down to the bottom of the access tube was about 3,400 mlsec (1 1,200 ft/sec) which is representative of the velocity of concrete. Therefore, it was concluded that the bottom of the foundation is deeper than the bottom of the access tube as no break in the slope of the line was observed.

4.3 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 86 The Parallel Seismic (PS) tests at Pier 86 extended to a depth of 27 m (88.5 ft). Tne PS results are presented in Fig. A-3. A distinct break in the slope of the line occurred at a depth of 19.3

m (63 ft) where the velocity changes from 3,300 d s e c (10,800 ft/sec) above this depth to a velocity of 1,800 d s e c (5,900 ftlsec) below this depth. The velocity of 10,800 Wsec is representative of concrete velocity and the velocity of 5,900 ft/sec is representative of the velocity of the material below the pile tip. Therefore, it was concluded that the bottom of the concrete piles is at a depth of 63 ft below grade.

Olson Job No. 63 1

4.4 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 87 The Parallel Seismic (PS) tests at Pier 87 extended to a depth of 18 m (59 ft). The PS results are presented in Fig. A-4. A break in the slope of the line occurred at a depth of 11.4 m (37.5 ft) where the velocity changes from 3,200 d s e c (10,500 Wsec) above this depth to a velocity of 2,100 d s e c (7,000 Wsec) below this depth. The velocity of 10,500 Wsec is representative of concrete velocity and the velocity of 7,000 ft/sec is representative of the velocity of the material below the pile tip. Therefore, it was concluded that the bottom of the concrete piles is at a depth of 37.5 ft be1ow grade.

4.5 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 88 The Parallel Seismic (PS) tests at Pier 88 extended to a depth of 31 m (102 ft). The PS results are presented in Fig. A-5. A break in the slope of the line occurred at a depth of 20 m (65 ft) where the velocity changes from 3,400 mlsec (1 1,200 Wsec) above this depth to a velocity of 1,800 d s e c (5,900 Wsec) below this depth. The velocity of 11,200 Wsec is representative of concrete velocity and the velocity of 5,900 Wsec is representative of the velocity of the material below the bottom of the pier. Therefore, it was concluded that the bottom of the pier is at a depth of 65 ft below grade. No indication of the concrete pile tips is present in the data. This is largely due to the source location being away from the borehole and little energy was transmitted to the piles.

4.6 Parallel Seismic test results of Pier 89 The Parallel Seismic (PS) tests at Pier 89 extended to a depth of 31 m (102 ft). The PS results are presented in Fig. A-6. A break in the slope of the line occurred at a depth of 16.2 m (53 ft) where the velocity changes from 3,300 d s e c (10,800 Wsec) above this depth to a velocity of 1,700 d s e c (5,600 Wsec) below this depth. The velocity of 10,800 Wsec is representative of concrete velocity and the velocity of 5,600 ft/sec is representative of the velocity of the material below the bottom of the pier. Therefore, it was concluded that the bottom of the pier is at a depth of 53 ft below grade. No indication of the concrete pile tips is present in the data. This is largely due to the source location being away from the borehole and little energy was transmitted to the piles. Olson Job No. 63 1

Bottom of Pier le tips not identil 20 m

/

Time (mSec>

Comments: Water level at a depth of 4.4 m (14.4 ft) Noisy data above water level Expected bottom of Pier at a depth of 18.6 m (61 ft) Velocity = 3,400 d s e c (1 1,200 Wsec) above a depth of 20 m (65 ft), representative of velocity of concrete, Velocity = 1,800 d s e c (5,900 Wsec) below a depth of 20 m (65 ft), representative of velocity of material below Bottom of Pier, Interpretation: Bottom of Pier at a depth of 20 m (65 ft); No indication of concrete pile tips because of source location.

Figure A-5

Olson Job No. 63 1

Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No. 88.

Concrete Piles (if present) Shallower than 9 m

Comments : Water level at a depth of 3.6 m (11.8 ft) Noisy data above water level Bottom of footing at a depth of 4.4 m (14.4 ft) Velocity of 2,000 rnlsec (6,600 ft/sec) below a depth of 9 m (29.5 ft), too low to be the velocity in concrete Interpretation: Concrete piles (if present) with bottom of piles shallower than 29.5 ft below grade.

Figure A-9 Olson Job No. 63 1

Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No. 92.

Concrete Piles (if present) Shallower than 10

i

1

1 t

1 1

, ,

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

, ,

1

,

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

,

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

,

1

1

0

1

1

.

'

1

7.5

10

12.5

1

1

1

1 1

1 ,

.

1

'

15

1

:

17.

Time CmSec)

Comments: Water level at a depth of 3.8 m (12.5 ft) Noisy data above water level Bottom of footing at a depth of 4.3 m (14.1 ft) Velocity of 2,500 d s e c (8,200 ft/sec) below a depth of 10.5 m (34.5 ft), too low to be the velocity in concrete Interpretation: Concrete piles (if present )with bottom of piles shallower than 34.5 ft below grade.

Figure A-10 Olson Job No. 63 1

Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No. 93.

Comments: Water level at a depth of 5.3 m (17.4 ft) Noisy data above water level Bottom of footing at a depth of 4.3 m (14.1 ft) Velocity of 2,000 mlsec (6,600 ftlsec) below a depth of 11.1 m (36.5 ft), too low to be the velocity in concrete Interpretation: Spread footings or Concrete Piles (if present) with bottom of foundation shallower than 36.5 ft below grade.

Figure A-1 1 Parallel Seismic Test Results from Pier No. 94.

Olson Job No. 63 1

Geotesting Services Ine. Mr. Frank Lin Iffland Kavanagh Waterbury

August 18,1998

Test Procedures Moisture Content

Moisture content was determined in accordance with ASTM Method D-2216 [l] by drying the sample in a 110°C oven to a constant weight. Moisture contents are expressed as the percentage of water weight to the dry weight of the specimen soil. A tterberg Limits

Atterberg limits were performed according to ASTM D-43 18 [ l ] on the fraction of material passing the No. 40 sieve. Limit determinations were made on material processed using the wet preparation method and cured prior to testing. Specific Gravity

Specific gravity determinations were performed according to ASTM D854 [I], Method B Procedure for Moist Specimens on material passing the No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve. Particle-Size Analysis

The particle-size analysis testing was generally performed using the sieve method as described in ASTM D422 [I]. In cases that only a % fines determination was assigned, the testing was performed according to ASTM D 1140 [I], method A. Total Unit Weight

Total unit weights on the tube samples were determined in general accordance with ASTM method D 2937 [I]. This procedure was modified so that the sampling tube replaced the drive cylinder, and the volumes of voids at the top and bottom of the sample were accounted for in the determination of the cylinder volume. Consistency Determinations

Standard pocket penetrometer and pocket vane measurements were made when consistency determinations were requested. Consolidation Tests

Col~solidationtests were performed according to ASTM D-2435 [I]. The preconsolidation stress was estimated using a Casagrande construction. Water contents and specimen unit weights were calculated from the initial and final specimen weights and the final dry weight of the specimen Triaxial Testing

Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial testing was performed on undisturbed tube samples according to ASTM D2850 [I]. Water contents and specimen unit weights were calculated from the initial and final specimen weights and the final dry weight of the specimen Page 2 of 3

Geotesting Services Drae. August 18, 1998

Mr. Frank Lin Iffland Kavanagh Waterbury

Test Results The results of the individual tests are reported in the accompanying test sheets. All tests are presented in a summarized form in the Laboratory Testing Data Summary Table. In addition, the results of the sieve analysis tests are presented graphically, grouped by boring, on separate data sheets. Individual sheets for .the W and Consolidation tests are provided providing general specimen characteristics and the test results.

References 1 ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 04.08, (1997).

Limitations Our professional services for this project have been performed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices; no other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

If you have any questions concerning the test results reported in this letter, please call me.

Sincerely yours,

Gregory Thomas Laboratory Director Geotesting Services, Inc.

cc:

R. Alperstein

Enclosure

Page 3 of 3

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY BORING

SAMPLE

NO.

NO.

DEPTH

IDENTIFICATIONTESTS WATER LIQUID PLASTIC PLAS. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT IND.

USCS SYMB. (1)

(ft)

S-101

J-I

Reviewed by:

1-1.6

1

("4 22.3

Date: 8125198

STRENGTH

CONSOLIDATION (2)

REMARKS

SPECIFIC TORVANE POCKET Type Test INITIAL CONDITIONS SATURVOID PENETR GRAVITY Su ATION RATIO NO. 200 WEIGHT 9u (2) SIEVE MINUS

TOTAL UNIT

("/.I

(pcf)

Project No. 8E04119

(ts9

us9

Indxl.xls Page 1 of 16

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY

Reviewed by:

A1

Date: 8/25/98

Project No. 8E04119

Indxl .XIS Page 3 of 16

-

,

.-

,

. - ,...

m .

,

*

,~,

,

~.

---.

.

F.

,

. '

-F

I

.

-

. -.

.

;-

.

.

,

. , 1

"

,..

......

.

I

..

.

~

.

.r

,

~J

,

. .

.

.

- ,.

..,

_

.

,

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY

S-106 S-106

J-13 J-14

Reviewed by:

55-57 60-62

31

28.9 29.9

Date: 8/25/98

CL-ML

51.2

Project No. 8E04119

Indx1.xls Page 4 of 16

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY

2 REMARKS

Reviewed by:

A '7

Date: 8125198

Project No. 8E04119

Indxl .XIS Page 5 of 16

6 11P038 ' O N p a b ~ d

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY

Reviewed by:

3.7

Date: 8125198

Project No. 8E04119

Indxl .XIS Page 7 of 16

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY

Reviewed by:

37

Date: 8/25/98

Project No. 8E04119

Indxl .XIS Page 8 of 16

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY BORING

SAMPLE

DEPTH

NO.

LIQUID PLASTIC PLAS. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT IND.

NO.

USCS SYMB. (1)

S-I II

J-I

Reviewed by:

(ft)

(Oh)

1-3

22.1

41

STRENGTH

IDENTIFICATION TESTS WATER

Date: 8/25/98

CONSOLIDATION (2)

REMARKS

SPECIFIC TORVANE POCKET Type Test INITIAL CONDITIONS SATURVOID PENETR GRAVITY Su ATlON RATIO NO. 200 WEIGHT 9u (2) SIEVE MINUS

("/.I

TOTAL UNIT

(PC~

Project No. 8E04119

(ts9

(ts9

Indxl .XISPage 9 of 16

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY

Reviewed by:

27

Date: 8125198

Project No. 8E04119

Indxl .XIS Page 10 of 16

SYtlVW3tl

NOllV

OllM

(2)

(Is11

(Is11

"b

(13d)

(%I

l H 3 1 3 M OOZ 'ON

tl13~3d MIAWE) ~IOA "S -tlnlvs S N O l l l a N 0 3 1VIlINI Is31 3 d L l 1 3 Y 3 0 d 3NVAtlOl 314133dS

llNn 1VlOl

SnNlW 3A31S

(44)

(%I

L-S E- L

0'9 1 v.9 1

Z 1-r

Ell-S E L L-s

(L) WAS S3Sn

'aNI 11~1111vull 1 ~ 3 1 ~ 0 3 ' S H d 3 I l S H d a l n D l l tl31VM

S l S 3 1 NOllV314llN3al

HlON3tllS

( I )NOIlVallOSN03

'ON Hld3a

3ldWVS

'ON E)Nltl08

SNtrVW3tr

ALIAW3 QIOA U13N3d llNn "S -trnl\d~ S N O l l l a N 0 3 lVI1INI I s a l a d A l 1 3 N 3 0 d 3NVAtrOl 314133dS l V 1 0 1

( z ) NOl1VallOSNO3

H13N3trlS

SnNlW 3A31S

'BWAS S3Sn

'aNI 1IWll 1lWn l N 3 l N 0 3 ' S W d 3 I l S W d alnoll t r 3 l V M

S I S 3 1 NOIlV31jllN3al

Hld3Q

'ON 3ldWVS

'ON 3Nlt108

Aawwwns wlwa 9 ~ 1 1 ~A~o1woawi 31

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY BORING

SAMPLE

DEPTH

NO.

LIQUID PLASTIC PLAS. LIMIT CONTENT LIMIT IND.

NO.

USCS SYMB. (1)

(ft )

(%I

87

Date: 8/25/98

I

CONSOLIDATION (2)

REMARKS

SIEVE TOTAL SPECIFIC TORVANE POCKET Type Test INITIAL CONDITIONS SATURVOID PENETR GRAVITY MINUS UNIT Su ATlON RATIO NO. 200 WEIGHT 9u (2)

(%I

I Reviewed by:

STRENGTH

IDENTIFICATION TESTS WATER

I

(pcfl

(tsfl

(tsfl

I

I

Project No. 8E04119

Indxl .XIS Page 13 of 16

SMHVW3H

Osl)

OsQ

@d)

z

WS

(%)

"b (1) lH013M 00Z 'ON OllW (z) NOllV l l ~ n S ~ N I V U 'BAAS tl13~3d ALIAWE) "S -tlnltl~ ~ I O A S3Sn SNOlllaN03 1VlllNI l s a l a d h l 13M30d 3NVAtlOl 314133dS l V l O 1 3A31S

(z)NOllVallOSN03

(14)

(%)

11-01 L-3 6- 1

8'91 v.3 1 3.1 1

' ~ N I 11~~11 l l ~ n 1 ~ 3 1 ~ 0 3 'SVld 3 I l S V l d a l n D l l t l 3 l V M

S l S 3 1 NOllV31~11N3QI

H13N3tllS

S-r I-r 1-r

'ON

Hld30

3ldVUVS

611-S 61 1-s 6 11-S

'ON 3Nltl09

-

F,

,

. .- ,

-.

.

:*

,

-

- ~. .

...

.

.

C . .

!

--

,--

-,

,,

. ~.

-.

,

.

~. .

-

GRAVEL COBBLES

COARSE

.-

F -

-

..

,-

-

;-

.,

-

?-

~

.

...

,.,. .

-..

--

-.

.

.--

,-.......-

\

I

,

COARSE

MEDIUM

SILT OR CLAY

FINE

U.S. Standard Sieve Size

f

& T-

=

$

s

O

$2

=tt

100

0

0 0

p

.

.

-

.

-

1

0

.~.

--

1

.

-

'

Boring

S-113

5-113

S-114

S-115

J-6

J-10

J-5

J-4

25-27

45-47

20-21.5

15-17

% +3" % Gravel

10.9

12.1

%SAND

62.8

81.7

% FINES

26.2

6.3

1

14.6

70

82.5

68.5

17.5

16.9

I

% -2p Cc

1.3

Cu

5.5

LL

(3

PL

W

60

PI

m

uscs w (%)

SO

40.3 sc

Particle Size

V)

2 40 W

(Sieve #)

%a

4"

0

30

I s:i:

SM

SM

11.3

24.1

PERCENT FINER H

0

100.0

100.0

3" 1 112"

20

314"

100.0

92.4

91.1

318"

96.4

89.4

87.4

10

4

89.1

87.9

85.4

100.0

10

82.4

84.7

79.7

99.9

0

20

75.2

74.1

69.2

99.0

40

58.7

38.8

50.1

85.8

60

43.5

21.6

33.7

69.3

100

33.4

11.9

23.7

46.2

200

26.2

6.3

16.9

17.5

100

10

1

0.1

PARTICLE SlZE -mm SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS dark gray c-f organic SAND, some clayey silt, trace f. gravel. dark brown m-f SAND, some gravel, trace c. sand, silt.

0

- -

Sample Depth

$2

80

Pgj

.

Spec

90

I

-

Symbol

SAND FINE

.. - - ~ . . ,~

brown c-f SAND, some gravel, silt.

brown rn-f SAND, some silt. -

Sievl e.xls 8112198

0.01

0.001

PARTICLE SIZE DlSTRlBUTlON Kosciuszko Bridge Project No. Figure August 1998 8E04119

Geotesting Services, Inc.

-

I

--",

PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT

E

~

0

~

A

0

-

-0

$ $ ? $

3

(D

(no2

0,

N" " - - * e m R g - rs, - S c g n r ~ ~ V ' ?) ~l m 0 ~ - - 0s ~ ~ r m ~z

-g x

A

2 5P, 0 - N

(n

$ CD

He. m r

-0

(n

rn

wen 2r 5 z

rn

2

z

" CD

.. $

5 i

0

co ~

E

J

?

G

~

~

C N - O C T l N C a 4 U l b

$

~

0 $ Z! z$

rn A

z

cp A

4

z ; ?0 o'

A

-I

u

c 2 ~ 3 o

@~

2

(n

" n

o i u m

2;

~ 8 . 1 N

b

W

, W

+ '9- o

-J

a

Y

GRAVEL COBBLES

COARSE

FINE

MEDIUM

COARSE

SILT OR CLAY

U.S. Standard Sieve Size

-

2

z

o

3

?k

0

O

° E

8 3

,

. .I. . . . .

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

%SAND

47.8 45.5

1

I

I

% FINES

6.7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1

.,,,.

1

8

a

a

1

I

I

,

1

1

1

I

I

1 1 1

1

I

1

1

1

I

I

,

1

,

,

I

I

1

I

I

1

.

1

1

I

1

,

1

1

I

I

I

1 1 1

1

1

I

I

I

1 1 1

1

1

I

I

I

1 1 1

1

1

I

I

I

,

1

I

1

1

1 . 1

1

1

1

1

1

I

I

I

1 , .

1

1

1

I

I

1 , .

1

.

1

1

I

1 1 1

1

1

I

I

I

1

1 . 1 ,

: : : a n l . n, . , , ,,I,,, , : :

40-::':::

1

1

m

'0

1

1

.

. .

I

1

1

I

I

m

a

n

8

I

I

I

I

,,I.,, , , a n *

. a

1 1 1 . , ,

..-a

-:-:::,-,:I,

a

0-"I"" 100

'

'

I

Cc LL PL

PI

,

1

m m ,

m

m

,

8

7 - . 1 . 1

1

1

I

I

I

1

I

. .. . ,

1 1 1

1

1

I

I

I

1 1 1

1

1

I

I

I

1 , .

1

1

1

I

I

1

1

I

I

I

1

1

I

I

I

I

I

1 1 1 1 1 I - I - . _ - . _ C ~ .

8

I

,

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

I

I

,

1

1

.

1

1

1

1

I

I

1 1 1

1

, 1 1 1

.,,,:I,

I

-.-.-.-.-.-.m m rn rn

.

.

0

,,,,:I: , a m . , ,I. 1 1 1 1

1

I

8

I

, a 8

m n m a

.

, 1 1 1 1

m

1

a

a

i

1

I

I

~-,-~,--,-,-,

I

10

1

1

,

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

.V 1 1

1

0.1 PARTICLE SlZE -mm

SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS light gray c-f sandy organic GRAVEL, trace silt.

1

1

I

I

1

,

1

,

I

1 1 1

1

,

I

I

I

s m m

1

1

1

I

a

,

1

1

1

I

1

,

-,-,-,-

.4.+,-,4 1 . 1

1

1

I

I

i

1 1 1

1

1

I

I

I

0.01

SM

SM

SM

10.4

1 1 .O

15.4

26.5

PERCENT FINER 0

(Sieve #)

I

1 1 1

1

GP-GM

w (%)

1

1

1

USCS

Particle Size

I

1

13.2

86.3 13.7

0.2 84.5

CU

.

1 1 1

,

, 1 1 1 ,

40-42

% -2p

-

: 8

I

% Gravel

-

.,,,,

_ 1 .

I

21.3 65.5

I

1

. , , a ,

1

18.1 68.8 13.1

J-9

% +3"

,

1

n

1

5-7

1

1

* 1 1 1

1 1 1

20-22

1

1

-.I.-.-.

35-37

1

1 1 1

0

J-8

1 1 1

, 1 1 1

z W

Sample

S-118 J-5

1 1 1

m , , , .

I-

S-117

Depth

1 . 1

, ,

rn

Boring Spec

,

,.I,,.

1

Symbol

SAND

FINE

0.001

4" 3" 1 112" 314" 318" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200

100.0

100.0

67.1 55.9

90.0 85.3

100.0 94.2

52.2

81.9

48.1 39.3 23.5 14.4 9.8 6.7

77.0 68.5 50.4 32.7 21.1 13.1

78.7 71.9 64.9 47.9 32.1 21.3 13.2

1

100.0 99.9 99.4 94.6 54.9 13.7

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Kosciuszko Bridge

dark brown c-f SAND, some gravel, silt.

Project No. 0

brown c-f SAND, some gravel, silt. light gray f. SAND, some silt; gasoline odor noted.

8E04119

August 1998

Figure

Geotesting Services, Inc.

GRAVEL

COBBLES

SAND

COARSE

COARSE

FINE

FINE

MEDIUM

SILT OR CLAY

5

h

:

=

j

z*

[

o

o

0

0

2%;;

0

0

2

/

Boring

i

Sample

U.S. Standard Sieve Size

i

Symbol

O S-122

S-122

S-123

J-3

J-8

J-6

10-12

35-37

25-27

1

°

Spec Depth

2

% +3" 1

1 . 1

, . m e

1

,

1 1 , 1 1

1

I

I

a

,

a

1

I

I

21.1

% Gravel

2.7

% SAND

58.6

54.2

61.5

% FINES

38.7

45.8

17.3

% -21.1 Cc Cu LL 1 , 1 1 1

1

I

I

1 1 1

1

1

1

I

I

1 1 1

1

1

I

I

I

PL PI USCS w (%)

SC-SM

SM

SM

15.4

27.9

13.5

Particle Size

PERCENT FINER

0

(Sieve #) 1 1 , 1 1 1 , , 1 1 8 1 ,

I

I

1 1 1 1

I

,.~,,-,,,,,I--1

. ,

20

.

1

1

.

I

1

1

1

I

1

1

,

I

1

1

,

I

8 1a

-,-,I

1

1

,

1

.

,

1

I

I

1

I

I

1 1 1

I

I

,

. .

a

I

1

I

,

1

1

.. .

,.I...

.

1

a

,

, ,

0

a

a

1

.

1

1

1

I

100

1

.

1

11

81,

1

1

1

I

I

'

'

I

.

I

I

I

8

rn

,

I

I

3" . . -. , 100.0 1 112"

I

1 1 1

..

I

I

I

1

1

1

I

I

I

1 . 1 1 ,

I

I

I

1

1

I

I

.

1

1

,

1

1

1

..

1

-re-I-, ,

.

1

1

1

1

I

I

I

i

i

I

I

1

1 . 1 1 ,

I

.,,,. ,

I

,

1

1

1

I

I

,

1

1

1

,

1

1

1

1

1

I

,

I

1

I

1 1 1

1

,

1

1

I

I

I I

I

I

1

I

I

I

, 1 1 1 1

1

I

I

1

1

. . t i , I

,

I

,

1

1 1 1 1

I

1

I

1

1

1

1

I

I

( 1 1

1

,

1

1

I

1

I

I

I

1

8

I

,

1

314"

100.0

91.7

318"

98.3

86.0

4

97.3 94.9

100.0

72.7

I

20

88.6

99.9

64.0

10

40

75.3

97.9

46.4

1 1 1 1

,

,

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

.

1

1

1

-

4

I

I

,

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

,

1

1

1

1

SYMBOL

I

,

I

1

I

1

I

,

1

1

1

1

v

1

0.1

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS brown clayey silty rn-f SAND, trace f. gravel to c. sand. brown silty f. SAND, trace m. sand. brown c-f SAND, some gravel, silt.

1

,

,

,

1

,

,

8

I

ce-8

PARTICLE SlZE -mm

0

1

, 1 1 1 1

10

,

, a , 1 -+&-,-a

I

1

1

1

1 1

1

. ,, ,,I,,, , . ,.#..I. . , ,I ; -, ,1I , , , , 1

1 .

- ~ ~ ~ O - ~ - ~ - O - ~ - ~ -

0-"I""

1

-*-.-,I1-,-,,,,,:I: ,

1

8

1

,

I

1-1-1-1-1--

,,I . . . lo-.., ,

1

4"

,,, , , ,

,

,

-,+I&CI-I-C-

1

I

I

1 1 1

1

1

1

I

,

1

1

0.01

1

,

0.001

78.9

60

60.8

88.9

33.3

100

49.1

74.3

24.6

200

38.7

45.8

17.3

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Kosciuszko Bridge Project No. Figure 8E04119 August 1998

Geotesting Services, Inc. Sievl h.xls 8112198

0.35

,

,

,

<

#

,

#

8

.

- - - -I - - -l - - -l - - - 1- - - - - - -! - - -: - - - I- - - -/ - - - - - -I - - - l - - - l- - - -1 - - - - - - 1 - - - 1- - - -1 - - -1 - I l l ! I l l ! / 1 1 - - - & - - 4 - - ~ , - - - l - - - - - - C - - i - - 4 - - - l - - - - - - L - - ~ - - 4 - - - I - - - . - - C - - I - - 4 - - - ; - . - 1

---

I

-

T -

I

I 1 - - -I-

I --I-

-- - --

,

1

--

-

1 --I-

-

1

--

-I-

- -

1

1

1

,

-r--7--l---1---------

I

I

!

I

1

1

1

1

7 - - 1 - - - I - - -

1

0.30

0.25

rC

V)

,-

Y

0.20

V)

E

z

1

1

1

1

1

\

1

1

1

1

1

1

,

1

8

--

1

1

1 1 - - 1 -- - I -

--

.w

'2

(II

0.15

r - - l

0

.

0.10

- T - - l - - - I 1

1

,

,

- - , 1- - - -

1

1

- -

------

l--l---;

- - - I - - - - - - T - -

1

1 --1-

1

1

1

1

1

1

r - - T - - l - - - l - - - - - - r - - T - - l - - - l - - -

- - - I - - - - - -

r - - T - - l 1

1

1

1

1

1

r - - T - - l - - - I - - -

1

1 1 1 1 , I l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . - L - - J ~ - ~ I - - - I - - - . - - L - - l - - A - - - , - - - . - - L - - I - - J - - - l - - - - - - L - - I - - L - - - I - ~ -

1 1

1 1

1 1

,--------. .-------------------------------------------------1

1

1

1 I

1

1

1

1

I

l

l

1

1

1

1

1

O

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

- - T - - l

--T--l--l--1

1

1

- - - T - -

1 1 T--l---l-I

1

1

1

1 1 1 r - - T - - l - - - l - - -

I

I

,

,

!

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

,

1

- - L - - A - - - I ~ - - l - - - - - - L - - I - - A - - - I - - - . - - L - ~ 1 - - J - - - I - - - - - - L - - I - - i - - - I - ~ I

0.05

I

I

1

1

,

,

1

I

1

l

l

1

,

,

,

l , I I - I - I - - - - I - - l- . 1 - -1 - -1 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 - -1 - - 1 - - 1- - . - , 1 1 1 , 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . - - L - - 3 - - - I - - - l - - - - - - L - - , ~ ~ A - - - I - - - - - - L - - J ~ ~ A - - ~ I - - - - - - L - - I - - A - - - I - - I

I

I

I

I

l

l

,

1

1

1

1

I

- - - r - - 1 - - - I - - - I - - - ^ - - r - - l - - 1 - - - I - - - - - - r - - T - - l - - - l - - - - - - r - - T - - l - - - l - - -

1

1

1

- - -1 - - -1 - - - 1 - - - 1- - - - - - -1 - - -1 - - - 1 - - - 1- - - - - - -1 - - -1 - - - 1 - - - 1- - - - - - -1 - - -1 - - - 1- - - -1 - 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.00 0

5

10

15

Specimen information LL

PI

Length

Diameter

(in) 5.989

(in) 2.848

Content (%) 63.6

Wet Unit

Dry Unit

Weight (pcf) Weight (pcf) 62.5

102.3

(7 1

20

Axial Strain, %

Water

1

-----FAILURE

CH, gray plastic CLAY, trace f. sand.

SKETCH

Test Summary Cell Pressure

Axial Strain during

Compressive Strength

Strain to

Strain Rate

(tst) 1.28

confinement (%)

(tsf) 0.31

Peak (%)

(%/rnin)

0.22

12.92

0.75

Project No.

Kosciuszko Bridge

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

8E04119

lffland Kavanagh Waterbury

TRlAXlAL COMPRESSION TEST

Geotesting Services, Inc. GSI Analysis File: UUVl .XIS

Boring No.: S-105 Sample No.: T-1B Depth (ft): 22:6

Uul89d.xls

August 1998

812 1I98

0.70

8

.

,

8

! , - -I - - - - I < - -: - - (- . - - 1 1 1 - -1 - - - - ,- - ! I - -l - -l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - 1 - - - C - - A

0

I I C - - 2

1

- - - l - - - l - - - - - -

I

i

-

l - - - I

I I I i - - l - - A - - - i

---------/

I

I

------

,

,

,

C - - I - - A - - - I . . - -

-- - . - -- -,- - -,- - -,.------------------------------------------------I

,

,

,

I

l

l

1

- - .- -

1

1

$

1

1 --I-

1 --I-

1

,

!

-

I

,

- - 7-

-

.

I

l

l

1

I

I

I

- - - , -I - - - - -

1

---,---.--

-

,

- -

1

1

1

1 - - 1 - - - I - - -

1

1

1

1

I

l

l

,

I

l

l

1

I

I

0.60

0.50

u-

9m

0.40

m

(I)

L

G

1

r -

5 u

'zm

1 1 -l --1-

-

1 - I - - -

--

- r - - 7 - -

r--T--l---i---

0.30

0 1

\

1

1

1

1

r - - 7 - - l

1

r--l--l---l---

0.20 I I I I r - - 7 - - l - - - l - - - . - - r - - l - -

l

1

1

1

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

l 1---1I

,

-----

I

--

I

I

I

T - I

1 - - - 1 - - I

I

0.10

0.00 0

5

15

10

20

Axial Strain, %

Specimen Information LL

Water

PI

Length

Diameter

(in) 5.987

(in) 2.837

Content (%) 78.7

Wet Unit

Dry Unit

Weight (pcf) Weight (pcf) 53.5

95.6

FAILURE

MH-OH, gray ORGANIC SILT, trace f. sand.

SKETCH

Test Summary Cell Pressure

Axial Strain during

(ts9 1.30

confinement (%) 0.12

Strain Rate

(tsf) 0.61

(%lmin)

8.01

0.74

Kosciuszko Bridge

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

8E04119

lffland Kavanagh Waterbury

TRlAXlAL COMPRESSION TEST

GSI Analysis File: UUVl .XIS .

Strain to Peak (%)

Project No.

Geotesting Services, Inc.

L

Compressive Strength

Boring No.: S-106 Sample No.: T-1 B Depth (ft): 24

August 1998

0.60 - -

,

,

,

1

1

1

,

,

,

,

(

I

l

l

A

- - - - - -- - -,, - - - -- - ---

1

'

1

,

,

1

- -

- -

!

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / I l l _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - I I I - I - I - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I , 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,

,

1

1

1

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

,

-, - - - - - - ,- - -

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

l

l

!

1

1

1

1

I

I

I

I

I

,

--

l

,

-, - - l

- -

,

I

,

1

1

1

1

I

l

l

1

,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.50

0.40

I

l

l

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

1

I

I

I

I

I

l

l

1

1

3

1

1

I

I

I

I

1

1

1

1

I

I

,

I

1

1

1

1

I

l

l

1

IC

Y

U) U)

2

0.30

b

--

.-re> 0" +I

I

l

l

,

1

1

1

,

r - - , - - l - - - l - - - - - - r - - T - -

I

I

i

1

2

1 7 -

I

I

I

- - -

I

-

1

-,,

---- ---

I

1 - - - 1 - - -

1 1 1 1 r - - T --1--I-

I

1

--T - - Tl

1 1 - - 7 - - - 1 l

1

,

I

,

,

I

l

l

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

-

- -

l--I---

r--T--l---I-

- -

0.20

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

,

,

1

1

1

1

1

1

,

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

!

!

I

I

I

I

1

- - I - - _ 1

I

0.10

- -

L _ - A - - - I 1 1

,

- 1

- -

l

1

_ - - - -L

J - - _ l - - - _ - _i - _Jl - -_ -iL l , I I I I

1

- - l - -

1

1

- ~ L - - J - - - I - - - l - - - - - - L - - J - - J - - ~ I - - - - - - L - ~ J - - J - - - I - - - - - - L - - 1 - - J - - - I ~ - I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1

0.00 0

5

10

15

Length

PI

Content (%)

(in) 5.685

71.6

Diameter (in) 2.821

1

7! 20

Specimen Information LL

1

r-------

Axial Strain, %

Water

J - _ - I _ - _ 1 1

Wet Unit

Dry Unit

Weight (pcf) Weight (pcf) 97.0

56.5

I I I

I

I

I

I I

-------

FAILURE

MH-OH, gray ORGANIC SILT, trace f. sand; shell fragments noted.

SKETCH

Test Summary Cell Pressure

Axial Strain during

Compressive Strength

Strain to

Strain Rate

(tsf) 1.05

confinement (%)

(ts9 0.53

Peak (%)

(%lmin)

0.38

Kosciuszko Bridge

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

8E04119

lffland Kavanagh Waterbury

TRlAXlAL COMPRESSION TEST

GSI Analysis File: UUVl .XIS

-

0.78

Project No.

Geotesting Services, Inc.

L

8.14

Boring No.: S-107 Sample No.: PT-1B Depth (ft): 17.95

August 1998

Permeability, k (cmlsec.)

Coef. of Consol., c.

Coef. of Sec. Comp., C,

Vertical Strain, E,

(fll/year)

(strainllog cycle time)

(%I

I

6 E

3'

10 I

a,

V)

S

C

2a

3

a

PPPPPP

g B ls B~2 y~ -F u -g c

V)

u n

rD

~ n. ~

-w

3

I]

0

PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: BORING: SAMPLE: TEST: DEPTH, feet: BY: TEST DATE:

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE 8E04119 Initial height: S-I 05 Initial water content: T-1 C Initial dry density: C98056 Initial total density: 23.15 Initial saturation: CMJ Initial void ratio: 718198

EQUIPMENT: Load Frame No.: Ring Diameter:

Load Load No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

us9 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.oo 2.00 1.oo 0.250 0.500 1.oo 2.00 4.00 8.00 4.00 1.oo 0.250 0.063

Analysis File: CONV3.0

0.614 inch 64.7 % 62.4 pcf 102.7 pcf 100 % 1.843

Final height: Final water content: Final dry density: Final total density: Final saturation: Final void ratio: Final strain:

0.490 45.0 78.1 113.2 100 1.271 20.2

inch

% pcf pcf %

%

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION: CH-OH, gray ORGANIC plastic CLAY 5 2.5 inch

dl00 (inch) 0.0013 0.0037 0.0071 0.0180 0.0335 0.0723 0.0804 0.0736 0.0714 0.0747 0.0800 0.1 233 0.1672 0.1723 0.1638 0.1528 0.1443

G 2.84

t1oo Strain

Goo

Void Ratio

(-1 0.215 0.606 1.159 2.925 5.450 11.776 13.098 11.993 11.629 12.176 13.037 20.092 27.242 28.072 26.687 24.902 23.514

1.837 1.826 1.811 1.760 I.689 1.509 1.471 1.502 1.513 1.497 1.473 1.272 1.069 1.045 1.085 1.135 1.175

Final Final Void Ratio Strain (%) (-1 0.219 I.837 0.793 1.821 1.337 1.805 3.482 1.744 6.448 1.660 13.274 1.466 13.053 1.472 11.564 1.515 11.764 1.509 12.324 1.493 13.894 1.448 21.309 1.238 28.265 1.040 28.023 1.047 26.516 1.089 24.498 1.147 23.074 1.187

Page 1 of 1

LL 58

PL 22

PI 36 Constrained Modulus (tsf) 29.07 15.98 22.59 14.16 19.81 15.81 75.65 67.90 68.73 91.43 116.12 28.35 55.95 481.72 216.68 42.00 13.51

Permeability (cmlsec) 2.20E-07 1.49E-07 1.27E-07 1.67E-07 7.59E-08 5.59E-08 9.88E-08 3.03E-08 1.07E-07 5.37E-08 5.46E-08 3.18E-08 1.88E-08 1.18E-08 6.1 9E-09 5.76E-09 3.95E-09

Test File: C98056.xls

SAMPLE INFORMATION Boring: Sample: Depth: Elevation: Type:

S-106 T-1 C 24.55 feet 3-inch thin wall tube MH-OH, gray ORGANIC plastic SILT; shells noted.

SPECIMEN INFORMATION (NOTE: lnitial and final states refer to beginning and end of test) Initial height: Diameter:

0.62 2.50

inch inch

Initial water content: Initial total unit weight: Initial dry unit weight: Initial void ratio: Initial degree of saturation:

69.0 98.2 58.1 1.792 100

% pcf pcf

Final water content: Final total unit weight: Final dry unit weight: Final void ratio: Final degree of saturation:

52.2 104.6 68.7 1.363 100

% pcf pcf

%

%

(assumed specific gravity = 2.60 )

TEST SUMMARY

0

-

g= 2

$

:: O

G 0

0

Construction Method: Casagrande (Log) 1.2 (Range: 1.0 to 1.4) Estimated preconsolidation stress (tsf): Estimated in situ effective overburden stress (tsf): Compression Ratio (strain per log cycle stress): 0.231 Compression Index (void ratio per log cycle stress): 0.645 Swell Ratio (strain per log cycle stress): 0.035

300

5

250 200 150

loo

Swell Index (void ratio per log cycle stress): Recompression Ratio (strain per log cycle stress): Recompression Index (void ratio per log cycle stress): Remarks:

50 0

LEGEND: Test Date:

End of primary

7/8/98

0 End of Stage

Tested By:

lffland Kavanagh Waterbury

-

0.098 0.027 0.075

Loading

CMJ

------- Unloading

Checked By:

37

ONE DIMENSIONAL

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE

CONSOLIDATION TEST

Subsurface Exploration Program

Boring: S-106Depth: 24.55feet

0.01

0.1

1 Vertical Stress (tsf)

10

100

Geotesting Services, Inc.

I

Project No. 8E04119

I

August 1998

Fig.

I

PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: BORING: SAMPLE: TEST: DEPTH, feet: BY: TEST DATE:

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE 8E04119 Initial height: S-I 06 Initial water content: T-1 C Initial dry density: C98057 Initial total density: 24.55 Initial saturation: CMJ Initial void ratio: 7/8/98

EQUIPMENT: Load Frame No.: Ring Diameter:

Load Load No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

(ts9 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.oo 2.00 4.00 2.00 0.500 1.oo 2.00 4.00 8.00 16.0 8.00 2.00 0.500 0.125

Analysis File: CONV3.0

(inch) 0.0009 0.0042 0.0077 0.0168 0.0280 0.0566 0.0992 0.1080 0.1010 0.1001 0.1 044 0.1101 0.1425 0.1817 0.1880 0.1784 0.1618 0.1486

t1oo Strain

(%I 0.153 0.679 1.247 2.720 4.539 9.160 16.066 17.486 16.361 16.204 16.899 17.832 23.068 29.423 30.445 28.882 26.195 24.066

t1oo Void Ratio (-) 1.788 1.773 1.757 1.716 1.666 1.537 1.344 1.304 1.335 1.340 1.320 1.294 1.148 0.971 0.942 0.986 1.061 1.120

Final Void Ratio (-) 0.120 1.789 0.835 1.769 1.450 1.752 3.081 1.706 5.218 1.647 10.676 1.494 17.844 1.294 17.418 1.306 16.002 1.345 16.259 1.338 17.024 1.317 18.593 1.273 24.550 1.107 30.779 0.933 30.390 0.944 28.430 0.998 1.072 25.799 22.1 16 1.175

Final Strain

Page 1 of 1

0.522 52.2 68.7 104.6 100 1.363 15.4

Final height: Final water content: Final dry density: Final total density: Final saturation: Final void ratio: Final strain:

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION: MH-OH, gray ORGANIC plastic SILT; shells noted. G LL PL 2.6

4 2.5 inch

dl00

0.618 inch 69.0 % 58.1 pcf 98.2 pcf 100 % 1.792

inch % pcf pcf Oh

%

PI

Constrained Permeability Modulus (cmlsec) us9 1.56E-07 40.76 1.58E-07 11.89 1.32E-07 21.99 1.61E-07 16.98 27.48 7.90E-08 21.64 4.72E-08 3.29E-08 28.96 140.87 4.89E-08 133.37 1.43E-08 318.63 1.15E-08 2.43E-08 143.96 2.57E-08 214.40 1.54E-08 76.39 1.02E-08 125.88 1.06E-08 783.00 383.76 4.40E-09 4.93E-09 55.83 17.61 8.84E-09

Test File: C98057.xls

Permeability, k (cmlsec.)

8 "0 7 (n X

?

N

4

-

2

-

5

5

5

0 0

0

Coef. of Consol., c, (ft2/year)

Coef. of Sec. Comp., C, (strainllog cycle time)

Vertical Strain, E,

(%)

2

0

<

5

0

-

-

N

N

0

W

a ,88::888

ai

5'8'8&R -.wru.brUw o m w - w m

=l

a

0-F W$ A-

n

2 S

8

o

o o

W

vl

W

o

N vl

h)

o

2

VI

A

o

vl

0

,

..

.

.

. .

-.

I

,

,

.

.

,

PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: BORING: SAMPLE: TEST: DEPTH, feet: BY: TEST DATE:

C

I

I

7

-

-~.

"

I

,

-~ ,-

..

.

. ~ . . . C

< I .

I

_

. ,

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE 8E04119 Initial height: S-107 Initial water content: PT-1A Initial dry density: C98058 Initial total density: 17.4 Initial saturation: CMJ Initial void ratio: 7/8/98

EQUIPMENT: Load Frame No.: Ring Diameter:

Load Load No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

..

(tsfl 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.oo 2.00 1.oo 0.250 0.500 1.oo 2.00 4.00 8.00 4.00 1.oo 0.250 0.125

Analysis File: CONV3.0

.-

~

,r

~~.

.,

~

r

.

0.617 83.4 48.9 89.6 96 2.129

.

~~

. 1

.

..

~

.

~

-7

,

inch % pcf pcf %

-..

% .

.-

-5

.

,

--

.-

.

'

Final height: Final water content: Final dry density: Final total density: Final saturation: Final void ratio: Final strain:

0.500 62.8 60.3 98.2 100 1.535 19.1

inch % pcf pcf % %

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION: MH-OH, black ORGANIC plastic SILT. 3 2.5 inch

dl00 (inch) 0.0034 0.0086 0.0135 0.0249 0.0429 0.0983 0.1098 0.0988 0.0967 0.1019 0.1097 0.1531 0.2018 0.2097 0.1998 0.1794 0.1438

t1oo Strain (%) 0.543 1.398 2.185 4.028 6.943 15.925 17.784 16.000 15.656 16.503 17.769 24.803 32.681 33.959 32.359 29.060 23.295

G 2.45 t1oo Void Ratio

(-1

Final Strain

PL

Final Void Ratio

(%I 2.112 2.085 2.061 2.003 1.912 1.631 1.573 1.629 1.639 1.613 1.573 1.353 1.107 1.067 1.117 1.220 1.400

LL

0.576 1.749 2.374 4.629 8.042 18.041 17.651 15.180 15.778 16.708 18.986 27.093 34.234 33.881 31.912 28.302 21522

Page 1 of 1

(-1 2.111 2.074 2.055 1.984 1.878 1.565 1.577 1.654 1.635 1.606 1.535 1.281 1.058 1.069 1.131 1.244 1.456

(strainllogt) 0.0012 0.0012 0.0016 0.0047 0.0108 0.0162 -0.0010 -0.0091 0.0010 0.0021 0.0051 0.0139 0.01 19 -0.0006 -0.0047 -0.01 55 -0.0253

PI

Constrained Permeability Modulus (tsfl (cmlsec) 2.89E-06 11.50 7.31 9.88E-07 15.89 1.75E-07 13.56 1.68E-07 17.15 5.01 E-08 2.09E-08 11.13 53.78 5.05E-08 42.03 1.22E-08 72.77 1.32E-08 59.04 1.64E-08 79.00 1.67E-08 28.43 7.27E-09 50.77 4.23E-09 312.89 5.65E-09 187.41 1.87E-09 22.74 2.72E-09 2.17 6.63E-09

Test File: C98058.xls

.

I

I

SAMPLE INFORMATION Boring: Sample: Depth: Elevation: Type:

S-107 PT-1C 18.50 feet 3-inch thin wall tube CH-OH, gray ORGANIC plastic CLAY

SPECIMEN INFORMATION (NOTE: lnitial and final states refer to beginning and end of test) 0.61 2.50

Initial height: Diameter:

inch inch

Initial water content: Initial total unit weight: Initial dry unit weight: Initial void ratio: Initial degree of saturation:

84.5 93.7 50.8 2.173 100

% pcf pcf

Final water content: Final total unit weight: Final dry unit weight: Final void ratio: Final degree of saturation:

64.1 99.3 60.6 1.660 100

% pcf pcf

O h

(assumed specific gravity = 2.58 )

%

TEST SUMMARY Casagrande (Log) Construction Method: 0.9 (Range: 0.7 to 1.O) Estimated preconsolidation stress (tsf): Estimated in situ effective overburden stress (tsf): 0.246 Compression Ratio (strain per log cycle stress): 0.781 Compression Index (void ratio per log cycle stress): 0.032 Swell Ratio (strain per log cycle stress): 0.1 02 Swell Index (void ratio per log cycle stress): 0.026 Recompression Ratio (strain per log cycle stress): 0.083 Recompression Index (void ratio per log cycle stress): Remarks:

LEGEND: Test Date:

End of primary

7/8/98

0 End of Stage

Tested By:

lffland Kavanagh Waterbury

-

Loading

CMJ

-------Unloading

Checked By:

-87

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE

ONE DIMENSIONAL

Subsurface Exploration Program

CONSOLIDATION TEST Boring: S-107 Depth: 18.50 feet

0.01

C98059.d~8/25/98

0.1

1 Vertical Stress (tsf)

10

100

Geotesting Services, Inc.

Project No. 8E04119

August 1998

Fig.

I

I

PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: BORING: SAMPLE: TEST: DEPTH, feet: BY: TEST DATE:

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE 8E04119 Initial height: S-107 Initial water content: PT-1C Initial dry density: C98059 Initial total density: 18.5 Initial saturation: CMJ Initial void ratio: 7/8/98

EQUIPMENT: Load Frame No.: Ring Diameter:

Load Load No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

(tsfl 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.oo 2.00 1.oo 0.250 0.500 1.oo 2.00 4.00 8.00 4.00 1.oo 0.250 0.063

Analysis File: CONV3.0

0.611 84.5 50.8 93.7 100 2.173

inch % pcf pcf

Final height: Final water content: Final dry density: Final total density: Final saturation: Final void ratio: Final strain:

O h

0.512 64.1 60.6 99.3 100 1.660 16.2

inch % pcf pcf O h

O h

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION: CH-OH, gray ORGANIC plastic CLAY 2 2.5 inch

dl00 (inch) 0.0010 0.0043 0.0086 0.0202 0.0372 0.0780 0.0864 0.0737 0.0726 0.0785 0.0878 0.1248 0.1686 0.1747 0.1630 0.1487 0.1286

G 2.58

t1oo Strain

(%I 0.164 0.697 1.413 3.308 6.084 12.750 14.125 12.061 11.867 12.837 14.361 20.41 8 27.575 28.574 26.663 24.314 21.032

t1oo Void Ratio (-) 2.168 2.151 2.129 2.068 1.980 1.769 1.725 1.791 1.797 1.766 1.718 1.525 1.298 1.267 1.327 1.402 1.506

Final Final Strain Void Ratio (%) (-) 0.157 2.168 0.845 2.147 1.641 2.121 3.757 2.054 7.386 1.939 14.405 1.716 14.016 1.729 11.624 1.805 12.063 1.791 13.131 1.757 15.225 1.690 21.947 1.477 28.916 1.256 28.502 1.269 26.404 1.336 23.375 1.432 20.183 1.533

Page 1 of 1

LL

PL

PI

Constrained Permeability Modulus (cmlsec) (tsfl 38.05 1.31E-07 11.74 1.24E-07 17.45 1.38E-07 13.19 1.72E-07 18.01 8.00E-08 15.00 4.96E-08 72.74 9.38E-08 36.34 2.79E-08 129.16 2.87E-08 51.54 5.35E-08 65.63 4.82E-08 33.02 2.80E-08 55.89 1.85E-08 1.64E-08 400.39 156.93 8.57E-09 31.93 9.12E-09 5.71 1.12E-08

Test ~ i l eC98059.xls :

I

SAMPLE INFORMATION Boring: Sample: Depth: Elevation: Type:

S-111 PT-1B 26.00 feet 3-inch thin wall tube CH-OH, gray ORGANIC plastic CLAY; fibers noted.

SPECIMEN INFORMATION (NOTE: lnitial and final states refer to beginning and end of test) Initial height: Diameter:

0.62 2.50

inch inch

Initial water content: Initial total unit weight: Initial dry unit weight: Initial void ratio: Initial degree of saturation:

84.8 93.6 50.7 2.229 100

% pcf pcf

Final water content: Final total unit weight: Final dry unit weight: Final void ratio: Final degree of saturation:

66.7 99.0 59.4 1.754 100

% pcf pcf

%

%

(assumed specific gravity = 2.62 )

TEST SUMMARY

,

Construction Method: Casagrande (Log) 0.7 (Range: 0.6 to 0.8) Estimated preconsolidation stress (tsf): Estimated in situ effective overburden stress (tsf): 0.276 Compression Ratio (strain per log cycle stress): 0.891 Compression Index (void ratio per log cycle stress): 0.038 Swell Ratio (strain per log cycle stress): 0.123 Swell Index (void ratio per log cycle stress): 0.048 Recompression Ratio (strain per log cycle stress): 0.155 Recompression Index (void ratio per log cycle stress): Remarks:

LEGEND: .

Test Date:

~ n of d primary

71/98

0 ~ n of d Stage

Te ed By:

lffland Kavanagh Waterbury

- Loading ------- Unloading CMJ

Checked By:

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE Subsurface Exploration Program

&J

'7

ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST Boring: S-I IIDepth: 26.00 feet

0.01

0.1

1

Vertical Stress (tsf)

10

100

I

Geotesting Services, Inc.

Project No. 8E04119

August 1998

Fig.

I

I

PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: BORING: SAMPLE: TEST: DEPTH, feet: BY: TEST DATE:

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE 8E04119 Initial height: S-I II Initial water content: PT-1B Initial dry density: C98055 Initial total density: 26 Initial saturation: CMJ Initial void ratio: 7/7/98

EQUIPMENT: Load Frame No.: Ring Diameter:

Load No. 1

Analysis File: CONV3.0

t1oo Strain (inch) 0.0014 0.0040 0.0080 0.0175 0.0450 0.0953 0.1059 0.0913 0.091 1 0.0982 0.1089 0.1477 0.1908 0.2028 0.1931 0.1747 0.1 513

Final height: Final water content: Final dry density: Final total density: Final saturation: Final void ratio: Final strain:

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION: CH-OH, gray ORGANIC plastic CLAY; fibers noted. G LL PL 2.62

6 2.5 inch

Load

0.619 inch 84.8 % 50.7 pcf 93.6 pcf 100 % 2.229

("/"I 0.223 0.642 1.287 2.828 7.274 15.394 17.114 14.756 14.728 15.865 17.596 23.863 30.831 32.766 31.210 28.234 24.451

t1oo Void Ratio (-)

2.222 2.208 2.187 2.138 1.994 1.732 1.676 1.752 1.753 1.717 1.661 1.458 1.233 1.171 1.221 1.317 1.439

Final Final Void Ratio Strain (Oh) (-) 0.269 2.220 2.203 0.804 2.180 1.499 3.417 2.1 19 9.030 1.937 17.375 1.668 17.018 1.679 14.360 1.765 14.959 1.746 16.119 1.708 1.627 18.653 25.363 1.410 32.950 1.165 32.654 1.174 30.896 1.231 27.362 1.345 1.493 22.778

Page 1 of 1

c, (ft21year) 376.64 60.99 118.77 98.11 24.41 23.12 185.43 27.58 93.61 66.16 76.26 27.04 26.62 262.93 41 .OO 7.13 1.97

0.528 inch 66.7 % 59.4 pcf 99.0 pcf 100 % 1.754 14.7 %

PI

ca

Constrained Permeability Modulus (cmlsec) (strainllogt) (ts9 4.05E-07 28.07 0.0010 1.23E-07 14.91 0.0008 1.85E-07 19.37 0.0016 1.82E-07 16.22 0.0045 6.55E-08 11.25 0.0180 5.67E-08 12.31 0.0196 9.62E-08 58.15 -0.0005 2.62E-08 31.82 -0.0024 3.18E-09 888.48 0.0016 4.54E-08 43.99 0.0023 3.98E-08 57.77 0.0071 2.56E-08 31.91 0.0148 1.40E-08 57.41 0.0109 3.84E-08 206.72 -0.0006 192.90 6.41 E-09 -0.0032 25.20 8.54E-09 -0.0090 1.20E-08 4.96 -0.0162

Test File: C98055.xls

APPENDIX D Representative Liquefaction Analysis results And Liquefypro Software Manual

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Rehabilitation of Kosciuszko Bridge

r

Hole No.=S-102

I

Water Depth=23.5 ff

Soil Description

(n).

Surface Elev.=23.5

Shear Stress Ratio 0

2

Factor of Safety 0 1 5

Raw Unit tines 1 SPT Wei ht % 42 1 2 I I I I I I I I I

Sefflement 0 (in.)

36 125 5

Wet-

Dly-

42 130 5

(Shaded Ama: Liquefied)

[

L Hland Kavanagh Waterbury

Fig D-I

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Rehabilitation of Kosciuszko Bridge

r

Hole No.=S-102

Water Depth=23.5 fi

Soil Description

Surface EIev.=23.5

Shear Stress Ratio 0

Factor of Safety 0 1 5

Setbement 0 (in.)

1

Fill- Sand, gravel, silt, brick, cinders, pcs of

Gravelly organic clayey silty SAND (SC)

Wet-

Dry-

42 130 5

(Shaded Area: Liquefied)

Fig D-2

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Rehabilitation of Kosciuszko Bridge Hole No.=S-104

Water Depth=l9.5 ff

Surface Elev.=12

'\

Soil Description

Shear Stress Ratio

Factor of Safety 0 1 5

Raw Unit tines SPT Wei ht % 100 126'

Silty SAND, with gravel (SM) (Shaded Area: Liquefied)

r

ifflaand Kavanagh Waterbury

Fig D-3

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Rehabilitation of Kosciuszko Bridge

r

Hole No.=S-104

Water Depth=f9.5 ff

Soil Description

Surface Elev.=12

Shear Stress Ratio 0

2

Factor of Safety 5 0 1

Sefflement 0 (in.)

Wet-

Raw Unit Fines 10 SPT We! ht % 100 1 d

Dry-

(Shaded Area: Liquefied)

r

h a n d Kavanagh Waferbury

Fig D-4

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Rehabilitation of Kosciuszko Bridge

r

Hole No.=S-106

Water Depth=9 ft

Soil Description

Surface Elev.=12

Shear Stress Ratio 0

Factor of Safefy

Sefflement

(Shaded Area: Liquefied)

r

lffland Kavanagh Waterbury

Fig D-5

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Rehabilitation of Kosciuszko Bridge

r

Hole No.=S-106

Water Depth=9 ff

Soil Description

Surface Elev.=12

Shear Stress Ratio

Factor of Safety 0 1 5 I

I I I I I I I -

Raw Unit Fines 1 SPT Wei ht % 100 1 2 I I I I I I I I I

0 (in,)

f

f Sitty sand (SM)

Wet-

Dry-

(Shaded Area: Liquefied)

1 .

Kavanagh Waterbury

Fig D-6

Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis CivilTech Software

CIVILTECH CORPORATION August, 1998

All the information, including technical and engineering data, processes and results, presented in this program have beep prepared according to recognized contracting andlor engineering principles, and are for general information only. If anyone uses this program for any specific application without an independent, competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability, by a licensed professional engineer, helshe should take hisher own risk and assume any and all liability resulting form such use. In no event will CivilTech be held liable for any damages including lost profits, lost savings or other incidental or consequential damages resulting from the use of or inability to use the information contained within. Information in this document is subject to change without notice and does not represent a commitment on the part of CivilTech Corporation. This program is furnished under a license agreement, and the program may be used only in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The program may be copied for backup purposes only. This program or users guide can not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any ofrm or by any means: electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission form the copyright holder.

Copyright 1998 CivilTech Corporation. All rights reserved Simultaneously published in the US and Canada. Printed and bound in the United States of America.

LIQUEFYPRO SOFTWARE MANUAL Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction About Liquefypro About User's Manual About CivilTech Chapter 2 - Installation & Registration Installation Registration Chapter 3 - Running the Program Toolbar File Menu Edit Menu Results Menu Settings Menu Help Menu Buttons Input Pages CPT Input Input Page 2 - Soil Profile Input Page 3 - Advanced Report Type Panel Report Format Panel Data Output Chapter 4 - Calculation Theory Cyclic Stress Ratio Computations Cyclic Resistance Ratio from SPTIBPT Step 1 - Correction of SPT Blow Count Data Step 2 - Fines Content Correction of SPT Blow Count Data Option 1 - Stark & Olsen 1995 Option 2 - Idriss & Seed, 1997 Step 3 - Calculation of CRR,., Step 4 - Overburden Stress Correction of CRR,,, Cyclic Resistance Ratio from CPT Data Seed's Method Step 1 - Overburden Stress Tip Resistance Correction

1 1 1

3 3

4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 7 8

10 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 15 16 17 17 18 18

Table of Contents (continued) Step 2 - Fines Content Correction of Tip Resistance, Stark & Olsen, 1995 Step 3 - Determine CRR,, Suzuki's Method Step 1 - Overburden Stress Tip Resistance Correction Step 2 - Calculation of Soil Type Behavior Index, I, Step 3 - Soil Type Behavior Index Adjustment of Corrected Tip Resistance Olsen's Method Robertson & Wride's Method Step 1 - Iteration Procedure to Calculate Soil Type Behavior Index, I, Step 2 - Normalization of Tip Resistance Step 3 - Fines Correction of Tip Resistance Step 4 - Calculation of CRR,, Factory of Safety Settlement Saturated Soil Settlement Method 1 - Tokimatsu & Seed, 1987 Step 1 - Evaluation Volumetric Strain Step 2 - Evaluation of Earthquake Induced Settlement of the Saturated Soil S,,, Method 2 - Ishihara & Yosemine, 1990 Step 1 - Evaluation of Volumetric Strain Step 2 - Evaluation of Earthquake Induced Settlement of the Saturated Soil S,,, Evaluation of Dry Soil Settlement for SPT or CPT Step 1 - Calculation of Shear Modulus, G,, Step 2 - Evaluation of Shear Strain-Shear Modulus Ratio Step 3 - Evaluation of Effective Shear Strain Step 4 - Evaluation of Volumetric Strain Step 5 - Magnitrude Correction of Volumetric Strain Step 6 - Evaluate Earthquake Induced Settlement of Dry Soil, S,, Total Settlement Chapter 5 - Examples AppendixReferences

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

About LiquefyPro LiquefyPro is a software program that evaluates liquefaction potential and calculates settlement of a soil deposit due to seismic loads. The seismic load is estimated using Seed's simplified method (Seed, 1971), which gives a Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR, earthquake "load") that is compared with the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR, soil "strength") of the soil. The CRR calculation is based upon input data from common insitu tests as SPT and CPT. Because the BPT test is more appropriate for gravel type soils, the user can also use BPT data as input for their liquefaction analysis. The program estimates the earthquake induced settlements using the results from the liquefaction evaluation. The user can choose between different methods for liquefaction evaluations. One method for SPT and BPT, and 4 methods for CPT data. Each method has different options that can be changed by the user. The options include: Fines Correction, Hammer Type for SPT test and Average Grain Size (D,,) for CPT. The settlement analysis can be performed with two different methods. LiquefyPro has a user friendly graphical interface malung the program easy to use and learn. Input data is entered in boxes and spread sheet type tables (see figures below). CPT data files can be imported to reduce the amount of time spent on entering and editing data. The results of the liquefaction evaluation and settlement calculations can be displayed graphically and/or sent to a text file. The graphic report can be printed to be included in engineering reports if desirable. The text file with result data can be imported and used in other software programs such as spreadsheets and word processors. LiquefyPro is developed for Windows 95/98 and Windows NT, and will not run under Windows 3.1 16 bit version.

User's Manual This manual: Describes software operation and hardware configuration. Introduces theory and methods of calculation used in the program (the user should be familiar with the mechanics of liquefaction phenomena). 3) Describes all input and output parameters. 4) Provides examples of typical problems. 1)

2)

CivilTech CivilTech Software is a subsidiary of CivilTech Corporation. CivilTech Software employs engineers with experience in structural, geotechnical, and software engineering. These engineers have many years of experience in design and analysis in these fields, as well as in special studies including: seismic analysis, soil-structure interaction and finite element analysis. Together, CivilTech has developed a series of LiquefyPro 1

engineering programs which are efficient, easy to learn, engineering orientated, practical and accurate. The CivilTech Software series includes WinMarket, Shoring, Heave, . Lpres, Epres, Tunnel, Buried Structures, All-Pile, SuperLog, Pinned Pile and Lab Testing programs. These programs are widely used in the US and around the world. For more information, visit our website at http://www.civiltech.com.

CivilTech Software

CHAPTER 2 INSTALLATION & REGISTRATION Installation Setup forfiles downloaded from internet

If you downloaded the program from our website, you will receive a self expanding file called LQSLFEX.EXE. Copy the file into a temporary directory. Execute the LQSLFEX.EXE by double clicking on the file or highlighting it and pressing enter. It will automatically expand to several files. Locate install.exe file and run the installation program by double cliclung on the file name or by highlighting it and pressing enter.

Setup from Disk Insert the setup Disk into floppy drive A: or B: Press and select [RUN] in Windows 951 NT. Type:A: install or B : install Press and then follow the directions on the screen. The installation program will automatically create an icon called LiquefyPro on your Windows screen. Don't forget, when you first start the program you will be in unregistered mode. To register the software see the process in the Registration Section below.

Registration The program disk you received, or downloaded from the Internet, will show you several examples of LiquefyPro. This is a demo program only. You cannot edit the data in this demo program. To access full functions of LiquefyPro, after payment, you must register your software with CivilTech,. To register your program, open the Registration panel from the Settings Menu. The program will frnd the CPU ID number of your computer and indcate it at the top of the registration panel. You may provide this number to CivilTech by telephone, email or fax. You will be given a registration code which you enter into the panel, along with user name and company name. Click Register to close the program. Then re-open LiquefyPro and you will have full program functions.

Figure 2- 1: Registration Window

You will need to have one license per each computer installed with the program. Additional licenses may be obtained at discounted rates. If further information is desired please contact CiviITech.

CivilTech Software

LiquefyPro 3

CHAPTER 3 RUNNING THE PROGRAM The User Intetface Toolbar At the top of the screen is the familiar windows toolbar with the following commands: File, Edit, Results, Settings, and Help.

-

File menu Command, Shortcut keys

Action

Alt+F

Opens File menu

New, Ctrl+N

Opens new file

Open, Ctrl+O

Opens existing file

Save, Ctrl+S

Saves open file. Note: The file has the extension ".liqY'.

Save As

Saves open file

Exit, Ctrl+X

Closes Liquefypro

Command, Shortcut keys

Action

Alt+E

Opens Edit menu

Copy, Ctrl+C

Copies selected or highlighted cells to clipboard. User can paste clipboard contents into word processors, spreadsheets etc.

Paste, Ctrl+V

. Pastes clipboard content into Liquefypro, making it easy

-

Edit menu

to import data from e.g. spreadsheets.

Results - menu Command, Shortcut keys

Action

Alt+R

Opens Result menu

Graphic Report, F6

Performs analysis and displays results graphically. (Same action as the Graphic Report button, see below).

CivllTech Software

LiquefyPro 4

Summary Report, F7

Performs analysis and displays summarized results in a small text file, which can be saved and retrieved from other programs. (Same action as the Summary Report button, see below).

Calculation Report, F8

Performs analysis and displays a comprehensive text file that can be saved and retrieved from other programs. (Same action as the Calculation Report button, see below).

-

Settings menu Command, Shortcut keys

Action

Alt+S

Opens Settings menu.

Report Type

Set report type. Nine different types are available.

Report Format

Set report format with logo, border, etc.

Registration

Opens register pop-up panel.

Command, Shortcut keys

Action

Alt+H

Opens Help menu.

Content, F 1

Displays help contents.

About

Displays information about program.

Help - menu

Buttons Below the toolbar is 4 buttons: Graphic Report, Summary Report, and Calculation Report and Exit. Button

Action

Graphic Report

Performs analysis and displays results graphically.

Summary Report

Performs analysis and displays summarized results in a small text file, which can be saved and retrieved from other programs.

Calculation Report

Performs analysis and displays a comprehensive text file that can be saved and retrieved from other programs.

CivilTech Software

Input Pages Beneath the buttons there are three tabs for the three different input pages. The program starts automatically when the frst input page is activated.

Input Page 1 - Data Input

Figure 3-1 Input Page I

Input cell

Description

Project Title

Choose a name for your project.

Project No.

Choose subtitle or any other comment you would like to add to the title. Enter the Peak horizontal Ground Acceleration for the earthquake. The unit is g (e.g 2.5 not 2.5g)

Magnitude

, Enter

the earthquake magnitude. Range is 5 through 9.

GWT

Depth to ground water table in appropriate units

Hole Depth

Distance measured from ground surface to the end of the hole for which SPT, CPT or BPT data is available. Liquefaction potential will be evaluated along the whole of this depth.

Hole No.

Boring log name.

Elevation

Ground surface elevation. For information purposes only. Parameter is not used in calculation.

In-Situ test type

Select appropriate input data type.

Units

Select preferred units. You can switch back and forth if you want to put in data of different unit systems.

Plot Scale

Choose between different plot scales of the graphical output. Makes it easy to fit the graphical report on one or more pages.

In-Situ test data table

Spreadsheet input table. Click with the mouse in the cell you want to enter data. The default setting is in overwrite mode. Press F2 to change the setting to edit mode. Move around with arrows or mouse pointer. Data can be entered manually or imported from a CPT data file (see CPT input further below). The depths can be generated automatically (see below).

Auto Depth Button

Generate depth automatically by entering start point and step length. The program will generate the depths until the end of the hole has been reached.

CPT Input The CPT data can be entered by hand as for the SPT and BPT data, but for convenience CPT data files can also be imported directly with the import utility. Select CPT input and then press the "Import CPT data from file" button and a panel opens up where the format and units of the data can be specified. For data of "Fixed Column" fonnat the start of each column can be specified in the provided boxes to the right in the import table. Press import and the data file is imported by LiquefyPro and entered in the spreadsheet table. Changes of the imported CPT data can be Figure 3.2: CPT Import Panel made by scrolling up and down, double clicking in the cells, and entering the new values.

a

CivilTech Software

LiquefyPro 7

Figure 3-3 Input Page 2. Double click on 2ndcolumn to get symbol plate.

Input Page 2 - Soil Profile Soil Profile Input

Description

Depth

Enter the distance from the ground surface to the top of each soil layer. The depth is measured from the surface. The top soil has a depth of zero.

Symbol (see figure below)

Double click in 2"* column and a pop-up window opens with USCS soil types. Select the appropriate soil type and LiquefyPro will add a nice looking bore hole log to the graphical output data. Clicking in between the soil types will close the window and no soil type will be entered.

Description

Enter comments or description of your choice about the soil deposit.

CivilTech Software

LiquefyPro 8

Figure 3-4 Soil Symbol Pop-up Plate.

Figure 3-5 Input Page 3

Input Page 3 -Advanced Input Cell

Description

Hammer

Select SPT Hammer type.

CPT Method

Select between 4 calculation methods. See chapter 4 for a description of methods.

Data Interpolation

Select interpolation method for result curves. None= No interpolation, zig zaggy curve Linear- Moving Average interpolation, smooth curve

Settlement Analysis

Select calculation method for liquefied sand settlement.

Fines Correction

Select fines content correction method. No= no correction l'driss/Seed= see chapter 4. Stark/Olsen= see chapter 4.

Average Grain Size

Select an average mean grain size for whole soil deposit. LiquefyPro uses different liquefaction curves for the CPT methods based on grain size.

Output Interval

Select output data per desired interval in text report.

Report Type Button

Open a Report Type Panel.

Report Format Button

Open a Report Format Panel

Report Type Panel There are 9 different report types available to choose from. The user may also chose to have graphics of Factor of Safety and Settlement plotted on either side of the liquefaction curve. This give the user 32 combinations of report types.

Report Format Panel When formatting the graphical reports, the user has the option of adjusting the border size and thickness to accommodate various printers (laser printer is preferred). The page number and page title can be edited as well. Company logo can be imported in BMP or WMF formats, with the ability to adjust the logo size and location. (See Figure 3.6).

a

CivilTech Software

LiquefyPro 10

Figure 3.6 Report Format Panel

Data Output The following parameters can be shown versus depth (see examples in Chapter 5).

Output parameter

Description

CSR

Cyclic Stress Ratio

CRR

Cyclic Resistance Ratio. (Magnitude Scaling Factor is applied to the resistance side.)

Settlement

Shows cumulative curve of settlement.

Factor of Safety

Shows the calculated factor of safety, against liquefaction versus depth.

Liquefied zone

Hatches the liquefied zone (FS