Report_Geotech.pdf

NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

REPAIRS TO WEST POND TRAIL

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 08-15

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

April 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT SECTION ............................................................................................... PAGE

Introduction General Project Location Background

Subsurface Exploration Program Drilling and Sampling Data Summary Laboratory Testing

Subsurface Conditions Regional Geology Stratification Groundwater

Design Analyses and Recommendations Geotechnical Evaluation Design Alternatives Design Analyses Recommendations

Construction Considerations

Disclaimer/Limitations Clause

APPENDICES

A Figures B Borings Location Maps C Subsurface Profiles D Boring Logs E Laboratory Test Results F Design Analyses G Photographs

Note: Design changes subsequent to publication of this report and prior to the project’s advertisement will be documented by a memo inserted after the title page.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

REPORT NO. 08-15

PROJECT NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATIONAL AREA

JAMAICA BAY WILDLIFE REUGE, KINGS & QUEENS COUNTIES, NY

INTRODUCTION

General

This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and provides our geotechnical analysis and recommendations for the repair of West Pond Trail within the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge.

Project Location

The project includes reconstruction and repairs to portions of West Pond Trail located within the Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area located in Broad Channel, Queens and Kings Counties, New York City.

The refuge is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of John F. Kennedy International Airport and is accessed via Cross Bay Boulevard.

Site vicinity and location maps are presented in Figures 1 and 2 provided in Appendix A of this report.

Background

The Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge includes a 45-acre pond that is formed by an earthen embankment. On top of the embankment is West Pond Trail, which is surfaced with gravel and provides access around the perimeter of the pond. According to the Damage Survey Report1 dated September 2011, some gravel washed out and was displaced from the West Pond Trail following the events of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. Subsequently, in October of 2012 Hurricane Sandy caused two breaches along the earthen embankment and several washouts as reported in the Damage Survey Report2 dated November 2012. The main breach is a complete washout of the earthen embankment and resulted in water flowing between the West Pond and Jamaica Bay. The main breach is located approximately 0.3 miles traveling west-southwest from the Visitor

1 Damage Survey Report, DSR No. GATE-W.POND-1. Disaster No. NY-2011-1-NPS, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway. (Sep 2011) 2 Damage Survey Report, DSR No. JABA-08, Disaster No. NY-2013-1-NPS, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway. (Nov 2013)

JAMAICA BAY WILDLIFE REFUGE, QUEENS, NY

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Center. The second breach consists of a localized washout of the trail along a small variable pool that has formed adjacent to the trail. The second breach is located approximately 1 mile traveling north and then west along the trail from the Visitor Center. Photographs of the site and the breached areas are provided in Appendix G.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

Drilling and Sampling

A subsurface exploration program consisting of soil borings and laboratory testing was conducted to characterize subsurface conditions. Drilling was performed by the EFLHD Subsurface Exploration Team between April 29 and May 1, 2015. The program consisted of drilling three (3) soil borings to depths ranging from approximately 25 to 57 feet below existing site grades. Table 1 provides a summary of the boring locations and depths.

Table 1 – Boring locations, depths, and ground surface elevations

Boring No.

Location Northing* Easting* Ground Surface EL** (feet)

Boring Depth (feet)

B-01 East of Main Breach 163616.4769 1031255.301 6.5 52

B-02 West of Main Breach 163579.2543 1031056.607 6.4 57

B-03 Secondary Breach 164283.2669 1030201.438 5.8 25

*Horizontal coordinates referenced to US State Plane Zone 3104 (NAD 1983) **Elevations referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 1988)

Borings were drilled using a CME 750 drill rig mounted on a rubber tired all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Boreholes were advanced using 3-¾-inch (inside diameter) hollow stem augers (HSA). Boring locations were laid out by EFLHD survey team. Drilling locations were field adjusted based on drill rig access. Upon boring completion, the distance of the final boring locations was determined by measuring to nearby survey pins placed by the EFLHD Survey Team along the trail alignment. Surface elevations and horizontal coordinates at each boring location were determined by placing the measured boring locations on the final survey mapping.

Soil samples were obtained using a standard split-barrel (split-spoon) sampler driven during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, Standard Method of Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils. SPT was performed by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24 inches into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-pound automatic hammer free falling 30 inches. SPT was generally performed at 2.5-foot intervals in the upper 20 feet and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-inch sample interval is designated as the “Standard Penetration

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Resistance” or N value. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-inch interval was recorded on field boring logs. SPT refusal is defined by achieving a minimum of 50 blows within 1 inch of penetration of the split-spoon sampler.

Representative portions of the split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars. The samples were visually classified and logged in the field by the crew team leader. Samples were then delivered to the EFLHD Materials Testing facility in Sevierville, Tennessee for testing and storage. Details on sampling and sample descriptions are provided in the boring logs included in Appendix D of this report. Boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Data Summary

Data collected from the exploratory borings was recorded on the driller’s logs. These data sheets and logs indicate the drilling method, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, and observations of groundwater. The logs also contain interpretations of the subsurface conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings brought to the surface by the drilling tools. Therefore, the field data represent both factual and interpretative information.

The boring logs provided in Appendix D represent a compilation of field and laboratory data and description of the soil samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally do not include all data recorded on driller’s logs and field data sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this report.

Groundwater levels, when encountered, were measured in the boreholes at the times and under the conditions stated in the boring logs. Fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, tidal influence, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to aid in classification and evaluation of engineering parameters of the subsurface materials. The following tests were performed on selected samples.

Particle size analysis (AASHTO T-11 and T-27) Moisture content (AASHTO T-265) Liquid Limit (AASHTO T-89) Plastic Limit (AASHTO T-90) Organic Content (AASHTO T-267)

A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Tables 2. Laboratory test results are provided in Appendix E.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Table 2 – Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Boring No.

Sample No.

Sample Depth (feet)

Gravel

Sand

Fines

Moisture Content

Organic Content

AASHTO

Soil

Classification

B-1 J-1 0-2 0.5 98.3 1.2 3.7 - A-3(0)

B-1 J-4 8-10 0 98.2 1.8 22.8 - A-3(0)

B-1 J-8 18-20 0 86.2 13.8 29.5 - A-2-4(0)

B-1 J-10* 25-27 0 72.9 27.1 31.9 - A-2-4(0)

B-1 J-11 30-32 0 96.6 3.4 24.8 - A-3(0)

B-2 J-2 3-5 10.4 86.4 3.2 4.4 - A-1-b(0)

B-2 J-8 20-22 0 88.8 11.2 30.3 - A-2-4(0)

B-2 J-15 50-57 0 93.7 6.3 32.0 - A-3(0)

B-3 J-3 5-7 0 98.3 1.7 24.0 - A-3(0)

B-3 J-4* 8-10 0 65.7 34.3 69.1 13.6 A-2-4(0)

B-3 J-6 15-17 0 93.9 6.1 36.2 - A-3(0) *Sample tested for liquid and plastic limits and found to be non-plastic

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Regional Geology

According to the “Geologic Map of New York State,” by D.W. Fisher, W. Isachsen, and L.V. Rickard published in 1970, the site lies within the Monmouth Group and the Matawan Group-Magothy Formation (undifferentiated). The unit (Km) is composed of Coastal Plain sediments including silty clay, glauconitic sandy clay, sand, and gravel.

The Monmouth Group is the youngest unit of the cretaceous period and was deposited in a shallow marine environment comprised of interbedded clay, silt, and sand. The unit contains the mineral glauconite (mica group), which is friable and has low weathering resistance. The Monmoth Group overlies the Magothy Formation along most of the south shore and has been found to be as thick as 200 feet.

The Magothy Formation consists of river delta sediments deposited over the Raritan Formation during the late Cretaceous period. The bedding planes of this formation generally tilt to the southeast and with an irregular upper surface. The thickness generally increases from north to south with the greatest thickness (up to 1,000 feet) along the southern shore.

A geologic map of the project area is provided as Figure 3 in Appendix A of this report.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Stratification

A brief description of the subsurface conditions encountered during our field work is provided below. A generalized profile of the subsurface along the main breach is presented in Appendix C of this report. Note that stratification lines designating the interfaces between layers on the boring logs and the subsurface profile represent approximate boundaries while the transition between materials may be gradual. Note that one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

The subsurface profile can be classified into the following strata based on descriptions on the boring logs, where classifications of the samples are recorded.

Fill Underneath the gravel surface, fill was encountered in all of the borings and consisted of very loose to loose, gray and brown, poorly graded sand with silt. SPT N-values recorded ranged from 2 to 8 blows per foot (bpf), with an average of approximately 5 bpf. The fill layer thickness varied from approximately 7 to 9 feet. Based on the variations in SPT N values noted in the borings, it appears the fill was placed in an uncontrolled manner, as the relative densities of these materials vary markedly with depth.

LAYER S1 or O1 At the main breach (borings B-01 and B-02), fill was underlain by gray, poorly-graded, very loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand with trace of silt. The bottom of the S1 layer extended to approximately EL. -8.5 feet. SPT N-values ranged from 1 to 3 bpf, with an average of 2 bpf.

At the secondary breach (Boring B-03), fill was underlain by a 2 ft thick layer of very loose silty sand with 13.6% organic content. The bottom of this layer was found to be at approximately EL. -4.2 feet.

LAYER S2

Underlying the S1 and O1 layers, a layer of gray, silty sand and poorly graded sand with silt was encountered. SPT N-values ranged from 1 to 22 bpf with an average of 7 bpf indicating very loose to medium dense relative densities. Slight to moderate amounts of shell fragments and pyritic (possibly glauconite or mica) minerals was also encountered within this layer giving indication that this layer represents the Monmouth Group described in the geologic section of this report. The bottom of this layer was found to be at approximately EL. -29 to -34 feet.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

LAYER S3

Underlying stratum S2, gray, poorly-graded sand with silt and trace of shell fragments and moderate to high content of pyritic (possibly glauconite or mica) minerals. The sand was generally medium to fine grained. SPT N-values ranged from 7 to 27 bpf with an average of 15 bpf indicating loose to medium dense relative densities. This layer also contains characteristics of the Monmouth Group and extended to the termination depths of the soil borings.

Groundwater

Along the main breach, groundwater levels during drilling generally coincided with mean sea level (i.e. EL. 0 ft). At the secondary breach, ground water was encountered at an elevation of approximately EL. +1 to +2 ft above mean sea level.

Note that groundwater levels throughout the site are influenced by the tidal variations of Jamaica Bay and water retained within the West Pond. Variations should also be expected due to seasonal changes, precipitation, evaporation, and surface water runoff.

DESIGN ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Geotechnical Evaluation

The observed washouts and breaches along the West Pond Trail appear to have occurred as a result of increased water pressures and erosive forces from heavy precipitation events. Erosion along the slopes of the embankment surrounding the West Pond results in a reduction in resistance. This effect combined with a reduction in strength due to increase in porewater pressures and seepage forces developing from the precipitation events created instability and ultimately lead to washout or breach of the embankment.

To mitigate potential instability or washout problems, two engineering approaches can be used. One approach is to restore the embankment with flatter side slopes. The second approach is to reconstruct the embankment and strengthen it with structural elements (such as sheetpile walls) or ground improvement to increase the internal strength of the embankment and allow for steeper side slopes.

Design Alternatives

Along the main breach, three alternatives were considered feasible to repair the West Pond Trail based on subsurface conditions, constructability, cost, and our experience with similar projects. The alternatives are briefly discussed below:

Alternative 1 – Rock Embankment Fill Reconstruct the embankment with crushed rock backfill from the channel bottom to the high tide elevation. Then, continue backfilling with granular soil above high tide

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

elevation and up to the final ground surface. A separation geotextile is recommended between the rock backfill and the granular soil backfill to prevent loss of the granular soil into the rock backfill. The steepness of the embankment side slopes for this alternative depends on the strength of the crushed rock backfill. Therefore, as compared with the subsequent alternatives, which include ground improvement or structural elements in the embankment, this alternative will require the greatest footprint due to the embankment side slope required to satisfy global stability requirements. Also, due to the size of the backfill material, this alternative likely provides the greatest hydraulic connectivity between the West Pond and Jamaica Bay.

Alternative 2 – Soil Embankment Fill with Ground Improvement Reconstruct the embankment with soil backfill from the channel bottom to above the high tide elevation. Then, strengthen the reconstructed earth embankment with ground improvement elements that consist of rigid or semi-rigid inclusions installed in the embankment or by strengthening the embankment using soil mixing. Semi-rigid inclusions may consist of compacted aggregate columns such as stone columns or cement stabilized columns installed in a grid pattern within the embankment. Rigid inclusions consist of drilled concrete elements or driven pile elements. Soil mixing consists of mixing the in place soil with a cementitious binder slurry. After installing the ground improvement elements, the final ground surface can be reached by backfilling with compacted granular soil over the strengthened embankment fill. Compared to Alternative 1, this alternative requires a smaller embankment footprint. Note that the hydraulic conductivity between the West Pond and Jamaica Bay may be influenced based on the ground improvement elements installed.

Alternative 3 – Sheetpile Walls with Soil Backfill This alternative consists of installing parallel sheetpile walls with adequate separation to provide the desired trail width and then placing soil backfill between the sheet piles until the final surface is achieved. The sheetpile wall system may require internal supports such as earth anchors or geosynthetic reinforcing within the backfill to ensure the walls are stable and with minimal lateral deflection. The bottom of the sheetpile walls must be sufficiently embedded into a suitable bearing stratum to satisfy stability requirements. The top of the sheet pile walls should extend above the high tide elevation. Compared to the alternatives 1 and 2, this alternative has the narrowest footprint. Note that due to the relatively impermeable nature of the sheetpile walls, this alternative provides the lowest hydraulic connectivity between West Pond and Jamaica Bay.

A comparison on the two alternatives previously described is provided in Table 3.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Table 3 –Comparison of Repair Alternatives

No. System Advantages Disadvantages

1 Rock Embankment Fill

Cost Simple and rapid construction

Requires high quality imported backfill material

Largest embankment footprint

2 Soil Embankment Fill with Ground Improvement

More flexibility is selection of backfill material

Smaller embankment footprint

Cost of ground improvement Staged Construction Specialty contractor to install ground improvement elements

3 Sheetpile Wall System with Soil Backfill

Rapid construction Smallest embankment footprint Use of available backfill material

Cost of sheetpile system Potential access constraints for equipment needed to install sheetpiles

Potential corrosion of sheetpiles Sheetpiles may not conform aesthetically to the surroundings

While Alternative 1 is advantageous due its simple construction approach and expected low cost compared to the other alternatives, preliminary global stability analyses indicate embankment slopes are required to be no steeper than 1V:3H resulting in too much site disturbance. As a result, Alternative 2 was selected due to its relatively low footprint.

The secondary breach will be repaired by placing embankment fill over the variable pool that has formed adjacent to the trail. The new embankment side slopes at the secondary breach will be constructed at a slope ratio of approximately 1V:20H, which is considered stable based on engineering judgement. Therefore, no further geotechnical analysis was performed for the secondary breach.

Design Analyses

Design of the breach repairs was conducted using limit equilibrium design methodology, in general accordance with the design concepts and procedures presented in Chapter 6 of the Federal Lands Highway (FLH) Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM) developed by the Federal Highway Administration.

A summary of soil and rock strength parameters used in the analyses are presented in Table 4.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Table 4 – Summary of Material Properties

Material Type

Unit Weight, γ (pcf)

Drained Cohesion, c’ (psf)

Drained Angle of Internal Friction, Φ’ (deg)

New Fill* 125 0 34-36

Existing Fill 115 0 28-30

Layer S1 110 0 27-30

Layer O1 110 0 25-27

Layer S2 120 0 30-32

Layer S3 125 0 32-35

* Material assumed to be suitable backfill meeting the requirements of FP-14 Section

252.04 and 705.04 for crushed rock backfill or select borrow according to FP-14 Section 704.07.

A uniformly distributed surcharge load of 250 psf was applied along the top of the slope to account for live loading.

Global stability analyses of the reconstructed embankment for the primary breach was performed using Slide v. 6.0, a software program developed by Rocscience, Inc.

Computer output files are included in Appendix F. The output files provide the soil input properties, geometry of sections analyzed, interaction parameters, the calculated safety factor for the stability, and plots of the calculated critical failure plane.

Recommendations

Along the main breach, we recommend placing embankment fill with side slopes at a ratio no steeper than 1V:2H and up to a height that is above the mean high water level.

After reaching the high water level, we recommend installing 12-inch diameter timber piles, or comparable fiber reinforced piles, through the embankment fill to an estimated depth of 30 feet below the mean high water level. The pile length was controlled by axial loading from the backfill above the piles required to restore the original surface elevation of the West Pond Trail. A minimum pile embedment of 27 feet is recommended to satisfy global stability requirements. Analysis results are provided in Appendix G.

A load transfer platform (LTP) consisting of geosynthetically reinforced, well-graded granular backfill is recommended over the pile reinforced embankment. The LTP minimizes the number of piles required to transfer the overburden load from the fill over the pile-reinforced portion of the embankment. The LTP should be 20 inches thick consisting of 4 layers of stabilization geosynthetic spaced 6 inches apart with a minimum nominal long-term strength of 1500 lb/ft. The first geosynthetic should be placed 2 inches above the pile head to protect the geosynthetic. If approved fiber reinforced polymer piles are used in lieu of timber piles, the piles should be capped to prevent damage to the LTP.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Above the LTP, we recommend backfilling with compacted select borrow backfill to restore the original trail. If a vegetative cover is desired along the face of the embankment slopes, the geosynthetics in the LTP may be set back 12 inches from the face of the slope to allow for development of a root system for the vegetation. Note that this analysis did not consider erosive shear forces due to wave action on the Jamaica Bay side of the fill embankment; therefore, riprap should be considered along the face of the embankment slope to protect against erosion due to wave action. Pipe culverts or other utility penetrations are not recommended at the main breach repair within the limits of the pile-reinforced embankment due to potential interference with proposed piles and the load transfer platform. Pipe penetrations through the pile-reinforced embankment or the LTP could present constructability challenges and may lead to weakening the integrity of the reinforcing system. Additionally, challenges associated with compaction of backfill around any pipe penetrations in the pile-reinforced embankment could lead to differential settlement that may be detrimental to the long-term performance of the pile-reinforced embankment system and the pipe.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Construction shall be performed following the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14) and the Special Contract Requirements (SCR).

All excavations are to be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, local, and OSHA requirements and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-14 Specifications.

Excavation in fill and/or natural material should be achievable using conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working condition.

Timber Piles

Pile must be driven in accordance with FP-14 Section 551.

Furnish treated timber piles meeting requirements of FP-14 Section 715.02.

Approved fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) piles may be used as an alternate to timber piles provided the FRP piles have equivalent (or greater) structural capacity and dimensions as the timber piles, and provide adequate protection against long-term corrosion.

The contractor may use a vibratory or impact hammer to drive the first 15 feet of each pile. The remainder of each pile must be driven using an impact hammer. A minimum of 10 feet of driving must be performed using an impact hammer.

Each pile must achieve a minimum driving resistance of 54 kips (nominal capacity).

Production pile lengths should be determined using a production driving criteria established based on results from dynamic load testing, signal matching analyses, and wave equation analysis of the test piles in accordance with FP-14 Section 551.13.

Dynamic load testing should be performed on at least 5 test piles. The estimated length for each test pile is 30 feet. Piles must be embedded a minimum of 27 feet to satisfy global stability requirements. Final production pile lengths should be determined based on the production driving criteria.

Load Transfer Platform

Construct using Select Granular Backfill meeting the requirements of FP-14 Section 704.08.

Furnish and install geosynthetic reinforcement conforming to FP-14 Section

714.04 Reinforcement Geotextile Type III.

Provide a 2-inch cover of select granular backfill over pile heads.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and test described in this report have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these exploration and test represent conditions at the specific locations and dates indicated.

Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary. The Geotechnical Design Analyses and Recommendations Sections of this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Francis A. Abreu, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

APPENDIX A

Figures

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

FIGURE 1

VICINITY MAP

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATE PROJECT

NY NY GATE JABA

2013-1(7)

SHEET

NO.

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

New York

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Connecticut

Massachusetts

E Project Location

!A!A

!A B-3

B-2 B-1

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

FIGURE 2

LOCATION MAP

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATE PROJECT

NY NY GATE JABA

2013-1(7)

SHEET

NO.

0 500 1,000250 Feet

E

Main Breach

Legend !A EFL Boring Locations (April 2015)

Secondary Breach

Existing Water Control Structure

!A!A

!A

Km h2o h2o

Km

Km

Km

Km

Km Km

Km

B-3

B-2 B-1

USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, National Elevation Dataset, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; U.S. Census Bureau - TIGER/Line; HERE Road Data

FIGURE 3

GEOLOGIC MAP

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATE PROJECT

NY NY GATE JABA

2013-1(7)

SHEET

NO.

0 1,250 2,500625 Feet

E

Legend !A EFL Boring Locations (April 2015)

Geologic Unit Km - clay or mud h2o - water

Geologic Data Source: NYS Museum, NYS Geological Survey, NYS Museum Technology Center, 1999, 1:250,000 Bedrock geology of NYS, http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/gis.html.

APPENDIX B

Boring Location Map

APPENDIX C

Subsurface Profile francis.abreu Line francis.abreu Line francis.abreu Line francis.abreu Line francis.abreu Callout Approx. Existing Grade (at time of drilling) francis.abreu Callout Proposed Final Grade francis.abreu Text Box

MAIN BREACH

francis.abreu Text Box Fill francis.abreu Text Box Layer: S1 francis.abreu Callout Approx. GWT (at time of drilling) francis.abreu Text Box Layer: S2 francis.abreu Text Box Layer: S3 francis.abreu Text Box Fill francis.abreu Text Box Layer: S1

APPENDIX D

Boring Logs

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

7.0

15.0

30.0

1.3

0.9

0.9

1.0

0.3

1.2

1.5

1.5

1.3

2.00.25

Poorly Graded SAND (SP), very loose to loose, gray-brown, dry. A-3(0). Fill.

becomes moist at 3 ft becomes wet, trace shell fragments

Poorly Graded SAND (SP), very loose, gray, wet, medium to fine, trace silt. A-3(0). Possible native soil.

becomes medium dense, gray, fine silty SAND (SM), very loose to loose, gray, wet, fine, contains sand-sized shell fragments. A-2-4(0).

faint organic odor

1-1-3-2

2-3-2-4

3-3-2-2

1-1-1-1

3-1-2-1

6-7-6-7

6-5-2-2

2-1-2-3

1-1-2-1

1-1-woh-1

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

67 deg, clear

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 163616.4769 Easting: 1031255.3014

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Broad Channel, Queens, NY Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

6.5 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

4/29/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Borehole backfilled with cuttings upon completion

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

n/a

4/29/15 D. Hutchings R. KingsleyOperator:

East side of main breach hrs

7.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3-3/4" ID HSA

B-01

P P

US State Plane Zone 3104 (NAD 1983)

7 inch

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

9/

:4

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

A T

E \N

Y

JA

B A

-1 (7

T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\N Y

JA

B

A

-1

(7

LO

G

S .G

P J

-0.5

-8.5

-23.5

Sheet: 1 of 2

J-11

J-12

J-13

J-14

J-15

52.0

1.2

0.3

0.9

0.0

0.1

Poorly Graded SAND (SP), loose to medium dense, gray, wet, medium to fine, trace silt. A-3(0).

no recovery poor recovery

Bottom of Boring (planned depth)

3-3-4-6

2-5-7-9

3-5-7-9

2-6-11-15

3-8-10-11

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

67 deg, clear

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 163616.4769 Easting: 1031255.3014

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Broad Channel, Queens, NY Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

6.5 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

4/29/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Borehole backfilled with cuttings upon completion

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

n/a

4/29/15 D. Hutchings R. KingsleyOperator:

East side of main breach hrs

7.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3-3/4" ID HSA

B-01

P P

US State Plane Zone 3104 (NAD 1983)

7 inch

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

9/

:4

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

A T

E \N

Y

JA

B A

-1 (7

T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\N Y

JA

B

A

-1

(7

LO

G

S .G

P J

-45.5

Sheet: 2 of 2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

0.2

9.0

15.0

1.2

1.1

1.5

1.0

1.2

0.4

0.8

1.3

1.6

0.25

Aggregate Surfacing

Poorly Graded SAND (SP), very loose to loose, gray-brown, moist, coarse to fine, trace silt. A-1-b(0). Fill.

becomes wet

Poorly Graded SAND (SP), very loose, gray, wet, medium to fine, trace silt. Possible native soil.

Poorly Graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), medium dense, gray, wet, fine. A-2-4(0).

becomes very loose to loose, contains sand-sized shell fragments

1-2-4-5

4-4-4-5

3-2-2-3

6-2-2-1

3-1-2-1

1-woh-1-2

4-8-14-14

2-2-1-1

1-1-2-1

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

65 deg, overcast

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 163579.2543 Easting: 1031056.6074

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Broad Channel, Queens, NY Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

6.4 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

4/29/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Borehole backfilled with cuttings upon completion

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

n/a

4/30/15 D. Hutchings R. KingsleyOperator:

West side fo main breach hrs

6.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3-3/4" ID HSA

B-02

P P

US State Plane Zone 3104 (NAD 1983)

7 inch

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

9/

:4

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

A T

E \N

Y

JA

B A

-1 (7

T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\N Y

JA

B

A

-1

(7

LO

G

S .G

P J

6.2

-2.6

-8.6

Sheet: 1 of 2

J-10

J-11

J-12

J-13

J-14

J-15

35.0

55.0

57.0

1.4

1.2

0.1

0.1

0.3

1.2

Poorly Graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), medium dense, gray, wet, fine. A-2-4(0). (Continued)

Poorly Graded SAND with silt, medium dense, very loose, gray, wet, medium to fine, trace shell fragments

Poorly Graded Sand with silt (SP-SM), loose, olive gray wet, medium to fine, trace shell fragments, contains pyrite throughout. A-3(0).

Bottom of Boring (planned depth)

1-3-3-6

3-5-7-8

5-5-9-9

3-8-13-13

10-16-11-7

1-4-6-9

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

65 deg, overcast

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 163579.2543 Easting: 1031056.6074

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Broad Channel, Queens, NY Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

6.4 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

4/29/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Borehole backfilled with cuttings upon completion

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

n/a

4/30/15 D. Hutchings R. KingsleyOperator:

West side fo main breach hrs

6.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3-3/4" ID HSA

B-02

P P

US State Plane Zone 3104 (NAD 1983)

7 inch

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

9/

:4

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

A T

E \N

Y

JA

B A

-1 (7

T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\N Y

JA

B

A

-1

(7

LO

G

S .G

P J

-28.6

-48.6

-50.6

Sheet: 2 of 2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

0.2

8.5

10.0

22.0

25.0

1.6

1.5

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.0

1.1

Aggregate Surfacing

Poorly Graded SAND (SP), very loose to loose, gray-brown, moist, coarse to fine, trace silt. A-1-b(0). Fill.

becomes gray, moist becomes wet

ORGANIC soil (OL), silty sand,very soft, dark olive, moist, medium to fine sand, low plasticity to non-plastic, heavy organic odor, organic content = 13.6%. A-8.

Poorly Graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), very loose to loose, gray, wet, medium to fine, slightly to moderately pyritic. A-3(0).

Bottom of Boring at 25 feet (could not advance further due to sand plugging inside augers)

1-1-2-3

3-2-3-2

6-1-1-2

1-1-woh-1

2-1-2-9

3-4-4-8

1-5-4-5

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

62 deg, overcast

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 164283.2669 Easting: 1030201.4375

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Broad Channel, Queens, NY Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

5.8 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

4/30/15

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Borehole backfilled with cuttings upon completion

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

n/a

4/30/15 D. Hutchings R. KingsleyOperator:

Near secondary breach hrs

4.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3-3/4" ID HSA

B-03

P P

US State Plane Zone 3104 (NAD 1983)

7 inch

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

9/

:4

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

A T

E \N

Y

JA

B A

-1 (7

T

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\N Y

JA

B

A

-1

(7

LO

G

S .G

P J

5.6

-2.7

-4.2

-16.2

-19.2

Sheet: 1 of 1

APPENDIX E

Laboratory Test Results

Sample # Jar # Wet Wt (g) Dry Wt (g) Jat Wt (g) Total Sample

Wt (g)

T-265 MC

E-15-0289 B-1/J-1 921.6 904.3 432.7 471.6 3.7 0290 B-1/J-4 1118.5 990.9 432.3 558.6 22.8 0291 B-1/J-8 1102.7 950.2 433.0 517.2 29.5 0292 B-1/J-10 1510.0 1249.2 432.6 816.6 31.9 0293 B-1/J-11 1102.8 969.8 432.9 536.9 24.8 0294 B-2/J-2 1086.2 1058.4 431.4 627.0 4.4 0295 B-2/J-8 1189.8 1013.9 433.6 580.3 30.3 0296 B-2/J-15 1184.6 1002.4 432.9 569.5 32.0 0297 B-3/J-3 1293.3 1126.3 429.8 696.5 24.0 0298 B-3/J-4 957.3 742.3 431.2 311.1 69.1 0299 B-3/J-6 919.1 790.1 433.7 356.4 36.2

NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

SOIL DATA

NO.

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 0.0 0.5 1.5 33.6 63.2 1.2

(ft.)

JABA 2013-1(7)

JAMAICA BAY WR

FHWA/EFLHD

W Pond Tr. B-1-J-1 0-2

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 30.9 66.8 1.8

W Pond Tr. B-1/J-4 8-10

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 81.8 13.8

W Pond Tr. B-1/J-8 18-20

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 61.8 27.1

W Pond Tr. B-1/J-10 25-27

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 31.4 64.5 3.4

W Pond Tr. B-1/J-11 30-32

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 0.0 10.4 8.9 34.0 43.5 3.2

(ft.)

JABA 2013-1(7)

JAMAICA BAY WR

FHWA/EFLHD

W Pond Tr. B-2/J-2 3-5

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 80.9 11.2

W Pond Tr. B-2/J-8 20-22

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.7 83.6 6.3

W Pond Tr. B-2/J-15 50-57

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 11.8 86.1 1.7

W Pond Tr. B-3/J-3 5-7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.8 31.9 34.3

W Pond Tr. B-3/J-4 8-10 Note: T-267= 13.6 %

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 6.6 86.6 6.1

(ft.)

JABA 2013-1(7)

JAMAICA BAY WR

FHWA/EFLHD

W Pond Tr. B-3/J-6 15-17

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

JABA 2013-1(7)

JAMAICA BAY WR

FHWA/EFLHD

NPNVNP31.925-27B-1/J-10W Pond Tr.

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

NPNVNP69.18-10B-3/J-4W Pond Tr.

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

APPENDIX F

Design Analyses

1.4281.428

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2

1.4281.428

18°

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3) Strength Type Cohesion

(psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Hu Type Hu

Fill 115 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 29 Water Surface Custom 1

S1 110 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1

S2 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1

S3 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 32 Water Surface Custom 1 rock‐embank 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 Water Surface Custom 1

14.1

11.8

40.2

13.6

Safety Factor 0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

5.500

6.000+

-2

-4

-6

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280

Analysis Description WPT Main Breach - Sta 12+40 Company FHWA - EFLHDScale 1:238Drawn By F. Abreu File Name rock-embank-2.slimDate

Project

NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

SLIDEINTERPRET 6.031

francis.abreu

ALTERNATIVE 1 - ROCK FILL EMBANKMENT

1.493

1.543

1.493

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2

1.493

1.543

1.493

11.8

5.0

27.0

6.0

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Sat. Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

Fill 115 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 30

S1 110 115 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 28

S2 120 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 30

S3 125 130 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 32 earthfill 115 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 32

26°

Safety Factor 0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

5.500

6.000+

-2

-4

-6

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Analysis Description WPT Main Breach - Sta 12+40 Company FHWA - EFLHDScale 1:200Drawn By F. Abreu File Name alt2_pile-embank-6ft.slimDate

Project

NY ERFO GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

SLIDEINTERPRET 6.031

francis.abreu

ALTERNATIVE 2 - PILE REINFORCED EMBANKMENT

Depth (Zp) from

Pile Top -ft

Depth (Zp) from Pile Top-ft

0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30Pile Tip Top Vertical Stress=0.000 Max. Vertical Stress=0.704

0-1.00 +1.00

Max. Side Resistance=0.68

Up 0 Down-1.00 +1.00 Up 0 Down-100 +100

Top Uplift=13.2 Top DownWard=53.1

G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %

40.0 29.5 0.00 12.8 Sand/Gravel

Atip=79-in

38.9 27.5 0.00 5.1 Sand/Gravel

Atip=79-in

48.4 31.3 0.00 21.1 Sand/Gravel

Atip=79-in

56.8 35.1 0.00 50.8 Sand/Gravel

Atip=79-in

Vertical Stress -kp/f2 Side Resistance-kp/f2 Axial Force -kp

Based on Ultimate Load Condition SOIL STRESS, SIDE RESISTANCE, & AXIAL FORCE vs DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

NY GATE JABA 2013-1(7)

Timber Pile Reinforced Embankment

0 0

8 8

16 16

24 24

32 32

40 40

48 48

56 56

64 64

72 72

80 80

0 04 48 812 1216 1620 2024 2428 2832 3236 3640 40

Foundation Depth, L -ft Foundation Depth, L -ft

C o m p re ss io n

C ap ac it y, Q d w kp

U p lif t

C ap ac it y, Q u p kp

ULTIMATE CAPACITY vs FOUNDATION DEPTH

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

0.00 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.31 0.35 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.66 0.70

Total Side Tip

Total Settlement, X -in

C o m p re ss io n

L o ad

Q d w kp Vertical Load vs. Total Settlement

ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

NY GATE JABA 2013-1(7) 12/29/2015

ALTERNATIVE 2 - PILE REINFORCED EMBANKMENT

TIMBER PILE STRUCTURAL CAPCITY

PILE PROPERTIES

dbutt 12in taper 0.1 in ft Lpile 30ft dtip dbutt taper Lpile dtip 9 in dpile dbutt taper 0.667 Lpile dpile 10 in

Apile π dpile

Apile 78.524 in

Fco 1.2ksi Fvo 0.11ksi Eo 1500ksi -- AASHTO 8.4.1.4

RESISTANCE FACTORS

ϕv 0.75 ϕc 0.9 -- AASHTO 8.5.2.2

ADJUSTMENT FACTORS: --AASHTO 8.4.4.1

CM_c 0.91 Ci 0.8 Cλ 0.8 CF 0.9

CM_v 1.0 Fco CF 1.08ksi

CM_E 1.0

CKF_v 2.5 ϕv CKF_v 3.333

CKF_c 2.5 ϕc CKF_c 2.778

Fv Fvo CKF_v CM_v Ci Cλ Fv 0.235ksi --AASHTO 8.4.4.1

Fc Fco CKF_c CM_c CF Ci Cλ Fc 1.747ksi --AASHTO 8.4.4.1

E Eo CM_E Ci E 1.2 10 ksi --AASHTO 8.4.4.1

AXIAL LOADING

sx 6ft pile spacing in the x direction sy 6ft pile spacing in the y direction

Atrib sx sy Atrib 36 ft

Hembank 4.5ft γembank 120pcf

EV Atrib Hembank γembank EV 19.44 kip

LL 250psf

ES Atrib LL ES 9 kip

LOAD FACTORS: --AASHTO Table 3.4.1-2 γEV 1.0 γES 1.5

Ru γEV EV γES ES Ru 32.94 kip

SHEAR

Vn

Fv Apile

1.5 Vn 12.285 kip

Vr ϕv Vn Vr 9.213kip

Vu 3.5kip --From global stability analysis

CDRv

Vr

Vu

2.632 if CDRv 1 "OK" "NO GOOD" "OK"

STRUCTURAL AXIAL COMPRESSION RESISTANCE

KcE 0.76 c 0.85

Le Lpile 30 ft

FcE

KcE E dpile

Le

FcE 0.704ksi

B FcE

Fc B 0.403

Cp 1 B

2 c 1 B

2 c

B c Cp 0.37

Pn Fc Apile Cp Pn 50.773kip

Pr ϕc Pn Pr 45.695kip

CDRco

Pr

Ru CDRco 1.387 if CDRco 1 "OK" "NO GOOD" "OK"

GEOTECHNICAL AXIAL RESISTANCE

ϕdyn_pda 0.65 resistance factor for capacity determined by PDA (AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1)

Qn 54kip geotechnical axial resistance from AllPile

Qr ϕdyn_pda Qn Qr 35.1kip

CDRgeo

Qr

Ru CDRgeo 1.066 if CDRgeo 1 "OK" "NO GOOD" "OK"

APPENDIX G

Photographs

Photo 1 – Looking west at main breach from east side of breach

Photo 2 – Looking east at West Pond Trail standing near east side of main breach

Photo 3 – Looking west at main breach standing on east side of breach

Photo 4 – Looking east at slope on east side of main breach

Photo 5 - Looking east from west side of main breach (far)

Photo 6 – Looking east from west side of main breach (near)

Photo 7 – Looking East at Main Breach

Photo 8 – Looking west at slope on west side of main breach

Photo 9 – Looking northeast at trail at location of secondary breach

Photo 10 – Looking north towards trail from small pond at secondary breach