Geotechnical_Report_-_Replacement_of_Brewers_Bridge_(ST._No._1511-005),_Twp._of_Jackson.pdf

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Structure No. 1511-005)

Brewers Bridge Road over South Branch of Metedeconk River Jackson Township, Ocean County, New Jersey

Prepared for:

Ocean County Engineering Office Attn: Mr. John N. Ernst, PE, PP 129 Hooper Avenue Toms River, NJ 08754

Prepared by:

Eduardo Freire, PE NJ Professional Engineer License No. 24GE04339100

Francisco Sanchez-Dominici, E.I.T.

Project Engineer

Colliers Engineering & Design

5439 Harding Highway Mays Landing, New Jersey 08330

Main: 877 627 3772 Colliersengineering.com

Project No. 24004483A

Geotechnical Evaluation Report

September 24, 2024

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024

Table of Contents Introduction

Site and Project Description

Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory Testing Program

Subsurface Conditions Regional Geology Subsurface Description Groundwater Conditions

Discussion and Recommendations Site Preparation Foundation Recommendations

Design Criteria

Seismic Design Parameters

Driven Pipe Piles

Axial Capacity and Pile Length

Lateral Capacity

Pile Installation Quality Control

Surface Water and Groundwater Control Temporary Excavations Below Grade Utilities Existing Utilities

Construction Observation

Closing

Clarification

Limitations

Figures

Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Exploration Location Plan

Tables

Table 1: Engineering Soil Parameters Table 2: Estimated Pile Axial Bearing and Uplift Capacities Table 3: Estimated Pile Lateral Capacities

Appendices

Appendix A: Test Boring Logs Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results Appendix C: Seismic Information

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 1

Introduction This report presents the results of the geotechnical exploration undertaken to provide geotechnical recommendations and subsurface conditions. Colliers Engineering & Design understands that the project includes the replacement of Brewers Bridge (Structure No. 1511-005) over South Branch of Metedeconk River located along Brewers Bridge Road, in Jackson Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The proposed replacement bridge consists of an adjacent precast/prestressed slab beam superstructure with a cast-in-place reinforced concrete deck and reinforced concrete stub abutment substructure with an approximate span of 46 feet and an out-to-out width of 57 feet.

The subsurface exploration was conducted in accordance with our On-Call Material Sampling, Inspection, and Testing Services contract QP2024-66, and your subsequent written authorization.

The purposes of this exploration are to evaluate the existing subsurface conditions at the project site, and to provide geotechnical-related design and construction recommendations for the proposed bridge and supporting site improvements.

Our scope of services for this exploration included the completion of two test borings within the roadway, one near each abutment, testing of representative soil samples, engineering analyses of the subsurface data obtained from this field exploration program, and the preparation of this report.

Site and Project Description The subject project site is located along Brewers Bridge Road over the South Branch of the Metedeconk River in Jackson Township, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. Site grades are generally level across the site.

The site at Structure No. 1511-005 bridge is generally bounded by undeveloped wooded land containing wetlands associated with the South Branch Metedeconk River to the east and west;

undeveloped wooded land and developed residential lots located along the Brewers Bridge Road to the north and south.

Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory Testing Program The subsurface conditions at the site were explored on August 5, 2024, through the advancement of two test borings, identified herein as TB-1 and TB-2. The test borings were performed within the roadway on opposite bridge approaches of the existing structure and were located in the field by CED at the time of our field exploration based on offsets from existing site features. The approximate test boring locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan, Figure 2.

The test borings were advanced to maximum exploration depth of approximately 77 feet below ground surface (bgs) by Craig Test Boring Company, Inc. of Mays Landing, New Jersey, using standard mud-rotary drilling techniques. Split spoon sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM D1586 (Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils). The number of

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 2 blows required to drive the split spoon every 6 inches into the soil was recorded and is shown on the test boring log. The sum of blows for the interval from 6 inches to 18 inches is the N-value. The N-value indicates the soil resistance encountered within each sampling interval. Upon completion, the test borings were backfilled according to NJDEP requirements.

The test borings were performed under the full-time technical observation of CED. Representative soil samples were collected and visually identified in accordance with the Burmister Soil Classification System. Details pertaining to the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the Test Boring Logs in Appendix A.

The laboratory testing was programmed to determine the physical properties of the subsoils, as well as to augment the field exploration. The stratigraphic continuity and physical characteristics of the subsoils were evaluated by the determinations of organic content and grain size distribution by mechanical sieve. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

Subsurface Conditions Regional Geology

The site is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of New Jersey. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil mapping and the Rutgers Engineering Soil Survey of New Jersey (No. 8) for Ocean County were reviewed for soil properties. Review of the published information revealed the site to be underlain by Berryland Sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (BerAt) and AR/Z soils. The near surface soils are derived from stratified, alluvial deposits with grain sizes ranging from silt with some clay to silt with fine sand and gravel. These soils are assorted by water action containing intermingling alluvium associated with man-made features, marine tidal marsh and swamp due to the local low-lying areas.

According to the Bedrock Geologic Map of New Jersey (Dalton, R. F., et. al., 2014), the surficial soils are underlain by the Brigantine Member (new name) (lower Miocene) (Tkbr). The Brigantine Member consists of an upper sand facies and a lower clay facies. The upper facies is composed of yellow to white, fine to medium grained sand with mica. The lower clay facies is composed of dark gray clay and clay-silt with mica and glauconite.

Subsurface Description

Based on the results of the test borings, the generalized subsurface conditions at the site may be described below, in order of depth:

• Surface Cover (Asphalt): The test borings encountered asphalt approximately 7 inches thick.

• Stratum S (Variable Granular Soils): Underlying the surface cover, the test borings encountered a stratum consisting of predominantly tan, brown, and gray coarse to fine sand with variable amounts of medium to fine gravel (trace to some) and moderate amounts of silt and clayey silt (trace to some). These soils extend to depths ranging from approximately 18 feet to 23.5 feet bgs. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) or N-values within the Stratum

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 3

S soils varied between 4 and 25 blows per foot (bpf), averaging approximately 11 bpf. The relative density was encountered to be very loose to medium dense.

• Stratum C1 (Medium Stiff Fine-Grained Soils): Underlying Stratum S, each of the test borings encountered a stratum consisting of predominantly dark gray and dark green silt with variable amounts of medium to fine sand (trace to some). This stratum contains glauconitic and micaceous constituents. These soils extend to depths of up to approximately

43.5 feet bgs. The SPT N-values within the Stratum C1 soils varied between 4 bpf and 15 bpf, averaging approximately 8 bpf. The relative consistency was generally encountered to be soft to medium stiff.

• Stratum C2 (Stiff Fine-Grained Soils): Underlying Stratum C1, the test borings encountered a stratum consisting of predominantly green to dark green, and gray silty clay or clay and silt with moderate amounts of medium to fine sand (trace to some). This stratum contains significant amounts of scattered shell fragments and glauconitic constituents throughout the stratum. These soils extend to the maximum test borings depths of approximately 102 feet bgs. The SPT N-values within the Stratum C2 soils varied between 12 bpf and greater than 50 bpf, averaging approximately 27 bpf. The relative consistency was encountered to be stiff to hard.

These subgrade findings are generally consistent with the mapped Regional Geology.

Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was encountered in each of the test borings at depths ranging from approximately 12 feet to 13 feet below existing grades. In our opinion, the groundwater conditions encountered appear to be indicative of the regional groundwater table. It should be noted that fluctuation in groundwater levels can occur due to several factors, including variations in precipitation, seasonal changes, and site development activities, which can alter surface water drainage paths.

Discussion and Recommendations Layers of loose granular soils encountered within Stratum S do not present stable conditions for shallow foundations. Shallow foundations bearing within this stratum may experience excessive total and differential settlement. As such, we propose a system of deep foundations consisting of driven steel pipe piles to support the proposed replacement bridge. The test borings indicate that the medium stiff to stiff soils of Stratum C1 and Stratum C2 are favorable for the support of the proposed bridge foundations. The driven pile foundations should extend a minimum of 40 feet below the proposed bridge abutments extending into the soils of Stratum C1 and Stratum C2. The following sections summarize our recommendations with respect to site preparation, as well as the design and construction of the proposed bridge replacement foundations with deep (pile) foundations.

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 4

Site Preparation

The following procedures should be performed under the technical supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer.

• Install soil erosion and sedimentation control devices, as well as temporary stormwater management facilities, as specified by Site/Civil Engineer.

• Site preparation and earthwork should be performed during dry and favorable weather conditions.

• Maintain positive drainage conditions throughout construction, avoiding unnecessary ponding of stormwater in excavations or low areas of the site. Seal-roll exposed soil or subgrade surfaces prior to rain or snow events, and promptly remove any standing water immediately afterwards.

• Any existing utility locations should be verified in the field and relocated or abandoned as necessary, prior to construction. If the option to abandon underground utilities in-place is chosen, we recommend that a lean cement grout (250 psi) be used to fill the underground utility lines.

• Remove and dispose of any vegetation, trees, stumps, and root balls at an appropriate off-site facility. Strip any topsoil and root mat in its entirety and stockpile onsite for later use within landscaped (non-structural) areas only.

• If any buried debris or obstructions are encountered, they should be removed in their entirety and backfilled with compacted load bearing fill.

• Complete excavations as necessary to achieve the proposed subgrade elevations. The existing in-situ soils may be excavated with conventional equipment (excavators, dozers, etc.).

• Following satisfactory subgrade preparation, place and compact load bearing fill, as needed, in thin, controlled, compacted lifts to achieve the final subgrade elevations in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Load Bearing Fill section of this report.

• Once the load bearing fill has been placed, monitored, and confirmed stabilized, install deep foundations.

• Load bearing fill and foundations should not be constructed on frozen ground. Any frozen subgrade should be removed in its entirety and backfilled with compacted load bearing fill or be permitted to thaw and recompacted prior to the placement of additional material, reinforcement, and concrete.

• Trench excavations should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Temporary Excavations and Surface Water and Groundwater Control sections of this report. Trench instability should be anticipated in open excavations.

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 5

• In accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, all excavations should be properly sloped or otherwise structurally retained to provide stable and safe working conditions.

Foundation Recommendations

The near surface subgrade within the site is susceptible to total and differential settlements which are not tolerable to the proposed bridge under the applied loading conditions of a shallow foundation system (spread footings). Therefore, the existing onsite soils are not suitable for the direct support of a shallow foundation system (spread footings) due to concerns with excessive settlement. Our recommendation is that the proposed bridge foundation be supported by a deep (pile) foundation system extending into the medium stiff to stiff soils of Stratum C1 and Stratum C2 to provide adequate support capacity and control settlements.

A variety of pile foundation types can provide support for the proposed development. Given the soil conditions encountered in our exploration and our understanding of the pile loads necessary to support the structures, we have provided considerations for driven open ended pipe piles for the proposed bridge foundation.

The pile should be embedded at least 40 feet below the proposed abutments to provide adequate axial capacity with minimal settlement for foundations. Embedment of the piles beyond this minimum depth may be required to achieve the required resistance to uplift, lateral and overturning forces and consider scour potential, as determined by the project Structural Engineer who is designing the foundation, based on the soil engineering parameters presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Engineering Soil Parameters

Subsurface Material

Total Unit Weight (pcf)+

Internal Friction Angle

(Φ, degree)

Undrained Shear

Strength (psf) Condition

Earth Pressure

Coefficient*

Stratum S1 (Sand)

120 30° -

At Rest, Ko 0.50

Active, Ka 0.33

Passive, Kp 3.00

Stratum C1 (Clay and Silt)

110 - 750

At Rest, Ko 1.00

Active, Ka 1.00

Passive, Kp 1.00

Stratum C2 (Silt and Clay)

120 - 1500

At Rest, Ko 1.00

Active, Ka 1.00

Passive, Kp 1.00 +Saturated effects (i.e. effective unit weights) should be considered below the groundwater table elevation.

^Undrained condition.

*Rankine Earth Pressure Coefficients, assumes backfill with no slope (0°).

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 6

Design Criteria

In accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, the following resistance factors for driven piles are used in the design:

• Structural Axial Strength Limit State Resistance Factor 0.60

• Geotechnical Axial Strength Limit State Resistance Factor 0.65

(Dynamic testing of at least two piles per substructure)

• Geotechnical Uplift Resistance Factor 0.20

(β-method)

• Lateral Geotechnical Resistance 1.00

In accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, foundations are to be designed to provide a total and differential settlement of 1 inch.

Seismic Design Parameters

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, the seismic design shall be considered Site Class D. The following represents the seismic design parameters in accordance with Section 3.10 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Manual (9th Edition). Based on the nature of soils encountered below the site, the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction.

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA): 0.122 Mapped Spectral Acceleration SS (period =0.2 S): 0.212 Mapped Spectral Acceleration S1 (period =1.0 S): 0.05 Site Coefficient Fa: 1.6 Site Coefficient Fv: 2.4 Design Spectral Accelerations:

SDS (g): 0.226 SD1 (g): 0.081

Driven Pipe Piles

The result of our evaluation and analysis indicates that the deeper, in-place subgrade of Stratum C1 and Stratum C2 are suitable for the support of a deep foundation system consisting of driven pipe piles. The pipe piles should have a yield stress of 50 ksi and a minimum wall thickness of 0.5 inch, extending within the in-place medium stiff to stiff soils of Stratum C1 and Stratum C2. The driven pile should be embedded at least 40 feet below the proposed abutments to provide adequate axial capacity with minimal settlement for foundation support.

The minimum center-to-center pile spacing is 3D (3 pile diameters). The piles should be embedded a minimum of 1.0 ft into the overlying cap or substructure. The distance from the side of any pile to the nearest edge of the pile cap shall not be less than 9 inches.

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 7

Axial Capacity and Pile Length

The estimated axial bearing and uplift capacities are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Estimated Pile Axial Bearing and Uplift Capacities

Pile Size

Estimated Minimum

Pile Length* (ft)

Geotechnical Nominal Bearing

Resistance (tons)

Geotechnical Factored Bearing

Resistance (Ø=0.65)

(tons)

Geotechnical Nominal Uplift

Resistance (tons)

Geotechnical Factored Uplift (Ø=0.20) (tons)

PP12x0.5 40 39 25 39 7.8

PP14x0.5 40 46 29 46 9.2

PP16x0.5 40 52 33 52 10.4

PP18x0.5 40 59 38 59 11.8

* Below bottom of pile cap or substructure

Lateral Capacity

The factored lateral resistance for vertical piles was evaluated using P-Y curves considering fixed-head conditions at a lateral deflection of 0.375 in. The analysis considered a minimum center-to-center pile spacing of 3D (3 pile diameters). A group reduction factor is required for the lateral capacity of the piles. Table 4 presents a summary of the analyses for 0.375 in lateral deflection.

Table 3: Estimated Pile Lateral Capacities

Shaft Diameter

Center-to- Center

Spacing (ft)

Average Group Multiplier

Geotechnical Factored Lateral Resistance (Ø=1.0) at 0.375 inch (tons)

PP12x0.5 3 0.3 3

PP14x0.5 3.5 0.3 3.5

PP16x0.5 4 0.3 4.5

PP18x0.5 4.5 0.3 5

Pile Installation Quality Control

We recommend the contractor perform and submit an independent drivability analysis for evaluation prior to pile installation to the Geotechnical Engineer for review. The drivability analysis should consider the variation in capacities between the installation and the final foundation configuration.

Additionally, we recommend a pile load test program consisting of dynamic testing to verify the pile capacities, and to evaluate the integrity of the piles during driving. We recommend a minimum of two test piles within each substructure.

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 8

Surface Water and Groundwater Control

Surface grading should be maintained on a continual basis during construction to direct surface water runoff away from open excavations and prevent water from pooling on subgrade soils. The contract documents should require the contractor to provide whatever means and methods are necessary to maintain stable, relatively dry excavations and subgrade conditions at all times during construction.

Based on the anticipated final site grades and below grade excavations, groundwater is anticipated to be encountered within the excavations. Should groundwater, perched water or seepage be encountered during installation of below grade structures, pumping using standard sump pit and pump techniques may be sufficient to control such water conditions, provided excavations do not extend below the groundwater level. If needed, sump pits should be installed outboard of the proposed foundation area and should be filled with minimum ¾-inch clean stone and lined with geotextile filter fabric to prevent excessive particle migration, particularly if heavy pumping is required. Pumped water should be filtered and discharged away from the structural areas and open excavations as per soil erosion / sediment control requirements and any applicable environmental regulations.

The dewatering specifications should be of the performance type requiring that the successful contractor provide an adequate dewatering system capable of maintaining the water table a minimum of 2 feet below the prevailing excavation bottom during each stage of construction to maintain stable excavations, provide appropriate subgrade preparation and allow placement of backfill. If applicable, dewatering should continue until adequate structural dead weight is available to resist uplift pressures. The required dewatering operation could be continuous for an extended period of time. Therefore, standby systems should be considered to assure the continuity of the dewatering operation. A dewatering plan should be submitted for review by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record prior to construction. The dewatering plan should consider the impact of the cone of depression on adjacent features and properties. The contractor should monitor existing nearby structures, as needed during the dewatering period. Groundwater discharge permits will need to meet local requirements.

Temporary Excavations

Temporary excavation stability is a function of many factors including the presence and abundance of groundwater, the type and density of the various soil strata, the depth of excavation, surcharge loadings adjacent to the excavation, and the length of time and weather conditions while the excavation remains open. The loose sandy (e.g. cohesionless) soils near the ground surface and any imported load bearing fill are likely to result in excavation bank stability problems for foundation and utility construction. Temporary bracing or “stay-forms” may be necessary to adequately prepare subgrades in shallow foundation and/or utility excavations.

For deeper excavations, the use of relatively flat slopes, benching, or temporary bracing and trench shields may be needed. All excavations should conform to applicable sloping or shoring standards for worker access. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to maintain safe excavations in conformance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations such as OSHA.

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 9

Our opinion is that the existing site soils and new load bearing fill will generally be classified as “Type C” soils under OSHA excavation regulations. Temporary sheeting and shoring should be designed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of New Jersey. These designs should be submitted for review by CED prior to construction.

Below Grade Utilities

The majority of site soils will be suitable for support of subsurface utilities. We offer the following recommendations specific to utility construction:

• Prior to installation, the bearing surface for utility structures (manholes, vaults, etc.) should be evaluated by the onsite representative of the Geotechnical Engineer. Should debris or unsuitable soils be encountered at the utility invert levels, the subgrade should be over-excavated a minimum depth of 6 inches and backfilled with load bearing fill material to provide uniform support.

• The utility structures should receive a bedding of at least 4 inches of dense-graded aggregate (DGA), as defined by current NJDOT construction standards.

Existing Utilities

Any existing underground utilities should be located, and those utilities which are not reused should be removed and capped. The utility trenches that are in the influence zone of new construction are recommended to be backfilled with load bearing fill or grouted, as needed. Underground utilities, which are to be reused, should be evaluated by the Structural Engineer and utility backfill should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine their suitability for support of the planned construction. If any existing utilities are to be preserved, grading operations must be carefully performed to not disturb or damage the existing utility.

Construction Observation Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical engineering exploration, there is always a possibility that conditions between the test borings and below the depths explored may be different from those encountered in the test borings, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the subsurface conditions. Therefore, geotechnical engineering construction observation should be performed under the supervision of a Geotechnical Engineer from CED who is familiar with the intent of the recommendations presented herein. This observation is recommended to evaluate whether the conditions anticipated in the design actually exist or whether the recommendations presented herein should be modified where necessary. CED should also provide on-site observation and testing on a full-time basis during excavation operations, subgrade remediation and preparation, foundation installation, and all critical earthwork operations. CED recommends that a representative from CED be on-site on a full-time basis during the earthwork construction and subgrade preparation. CED has the capability of providing these services and can provide a proposal to perform the on-site quality assurance observation and materials testing.

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 10

Closing The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations accomplished for this evaluation. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within the constraints of budget and site access to yield the information to formulate the recommendations. We recommend that we be provided the opportunity for general review of the project plans and specifications when they become available, to confirm that the recommendations and design considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented into the project design package.

We recommend that the test boring logs be a part of the specifications for the project along with a reference to the plan sheets that contain the test boring locations for informational purposes.

Should the data not be adequate for the Contractor's purposes, the Contractor may make, prior to bidding, his own explorations, tests, and analyses.

Clarification This report has not been prepared to serve as the plans and specifications for actual construction without the appropriate interpretation by the project Architect, Structural Engineer, and/or Civil Engineer. This report has been based on assumed conditions and characteristics of the proposed development where specific information was not available. The conclusions, projections, and recommendations presented in this report cannot be applied to other structure configurations or loads. The project plans and specifications should be submitted to us for review so that the geotechnical-related conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been correctly interpreted and are incorporated into the design.

We emphasize that this report should be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes. We would recommend that the project specifications contain the following statement:

"A geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this project by Colliers Engineering &

Design. This report is for informational purposes only and should not be considered part of the contract documents. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Geotechnical Engineer and represent their interpretation of the subsurface conditions, field and laboratory testing, and the results of analyses which they have conducted. Should the data contained in this report not be adequate for the Contractor's purposes, the Contractor may make, prior to bidding, his own investigation, tests, and analyses.”

Geotechnical Evaluation Report | September 24, 2024 Page 11

Limitations This geotechnical exploration program has been performed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice and applicable design standards as referenced herein. This report and its supporting documentation have been prepared exclusively for the use of our Client pursuant to the Agreement between CED, Inc. and the Client. All provisions set forth in the Agreement and the Business Terms and Conditions attached thereto are incorporated herein by reference. No warranty, express or implied, is made herein.

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on data revealed by limited exploration and testing of the subsurface at the referenced project site. The explorations indicate subsurface conditions at the specific locations and times explored, and only within the depths penetrated. Should deviations from the described subsurface conditions be encountered at any time prior to or during construction, CED should be notified immediately so that modifications to our recommendations can be made, if necessary.

This report is applicable only to the contemplated project design described herein, and any changes in the design should be brought to our attention so that we may evaluate whether our recommendations will be affected. CED is not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with interpretation of subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analysis without the expressed written authorization of CED. As such, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are pending our review of final plans and specifications, and verification of subsurface conditions by our direct observation at the time of construction.

This report and supporting documentation are instruments of service. The subject matter of this report is limited to the facts and matters stated herein.

Our recommendations are based upon the assumption that the services of a qualified Geotechnical Engineer will be retained for the observation of excavation operations, foundation installation, and all critical earthwork operations. CED has the capability of providing these services and can provide a proposal to perform the on-site quality assurance observation and materials testing.

The scope of this geotechnical program did not include investigation or evaluation of any environmental issues, such as wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials on, below, or in the vicinity of the subject site. Any statements in this report or supporting documentation regarding odors or unusual or suspicious items or conditions observed are strictly for the information of our Client.

\\corp.collierseng.com\corp\Mays Landing, NJ\Projects\2024\24004483A\Reports\Geotechnical\01-Exploration\GeoRpt-FND\Report Docs\240910_RR_GeoRpt-Brewers

Bridge Rd.docx

Figures

Appendix A Test Boring Logs

Burmister Soil Classification System

I - Soil and Fraction/Plasticity Definitions

Material Symbol Fraction Sieve Size Definition

Boulders Bldr ----- 9” + Material retained on 9” sieve.

Cobbles Cbl ----- 3” to 9” Material passing 9” sieve and retained on the 3” sieve.

Gravel G

Coarse (c)

Medium (m)

Fine (f)

1” to 3”

3/8” to 1”

No. 10 to 3/8”

Material passing the 3” sieve and retained on the No. 10 sieve.

Sand S

Coarse (c)

Medium (m)

Fine (f)

No. 30 to No. 10

No. 60 to No. 30

No. 200 to No. 60

Material passing No. 10 sieve and retained on the No. 200 sieve.

Material Symbol Plasticity Plasticity Index Definition

Silt $ Non-Plastic Passing No. 200

(0.075 mm) PI<1

Material passing the No. 200 sieve that is non-plastic in character and exhibits little or no strength when air-dried.

Clayey Silt cy$ Slight (SL) 1 to 5

Clay – Soil.

Material passing the No. 200 sieve which can be made to exhibit plasticity and clay qualities within a certain range of moisture content, and which exhibits considerable strength when air-dried.

Silt & Clay $ & C Low (L) 5 to 10

Clay & Silt C & $ Medium (M) 10 to 20

Silty Clay $C High (H) 20 to 40

Clay C Very High (VH) 40 Plus

Organic Silt (O$) ----- -----

Material passing the No. 200 sieve which exhibits plastic properties within a certain range of moisture content and exhibits fine granular and organic characteristics.

II - Proportion Definitions

* Minus sign (-) lower limit, plus sign (+) upper limit, no sign middle range.

III – Terminology for Stratified Soils

Terminology Definition

Parting 0 to 1/16” thickness

Seam 1/16” to ½” thickness

Layer ½” to 12” thickness

Occasional One or less per foot of thickness

Frequent More than one per foot of thickness

Alternating Stratification descriptor (non-varved)

Component Written Proportions Symbol Percentage Range by Weight*

Principal CAPITALS --- --- 50 or more

Minor Lower Case

And a. 35 to 50

Some s. 20 to 35

Little l. 10 to 20

Trace t. 0 to 10

S-1

1.0'-3.0'

S-2

3.0'-5.0'

S-3

5.0'-7.0'

S-4

7.0'-9.0'

S-5

9.0'-11.0'

S-6

11.0'-13.0'

S-7

13.0'-15.0'

S-8

20.0'-22.0'

S-9

25.0'-27.0'

S-10

30.0'-32.0'

S-11

35.0'-37.0'

S-12

40.0'-42.0'

1.0

23.5

43.5

Stratum S

Stratum C1

Stratum C2

±7" Asphalt

S-1: TOP 6": Tan cmf SAND, trace(+) Silt & Clay. (Moist).

BOT: Gray CLAY & SILT, trace f Sand. (Moist).

S-2: Tan, Brown cmf SAND, little mf Gravel, trace Silt & Clay. (Very Moist).

S-3: Tan, Brown cmf SAND, some mf Gravel, trace Silt & Clay. (Very Moist).

S-4: Same as S-3. (Very Moist).

S-5: Tan, Gray cmf SAND, some Silt & Clay. (Very Moist).

S-6: Dark Gray cmf SAND, some Silt & Clay, trace f Gravel. (Wet).

Organic Odor.

S-7: Same as S-6. (Wet). Organic Odor.

S-8: Same as S-6. (Wet).

S-9: Dark Gray SILT, some f Sand. (Wet). Micaceous.

S-10: Same as S-9. (Wet). Micaceous.

S-11: Same as S-9. (Wet). Micaceous.

S-12: Same as S-9. (Wet). Micaceous.

PROJECT: TEST BORING: TB-1

LOCATION: GROUND ELEVATION (ft): - ELEV. FROM: Exist. Grade

PROJECT NO. 24004483A

5439 Harding Highway, Mays Landing, NJ 08330

CONTRACTOR: Boring Brothers, Inc. DATE STARTED 8/5/2024 DRILLER: M. Beveridge GROUNDWATER: DEPTH (ft) DATE

FIRST ENCOUNTERED 13 8/5/24 DATE FINISHED 8/5/2024DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CMF LC55X

METHOD: HSA Mud Rotary x Other END OF DRILLING (0 hrs.)

HAMMER: CH Safety Automatic x FIELD OBSERVER: R. Macchia

RODS: AW x NW >15' Other ASTM D-1586 CHECKED BY: E. Freire

NOTES: 14' from bottom of creek to road.

TEST BORING: TB-1

DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(ft.) DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE

NUMBER

0-6"

BLOWS PER 6 INCHES

6-12" 12-18" 18-24" R

EC

O V

ER

Y

(i n)

PO

C

KE

T

PE

N

ET

R

O M

(t sf

M O

IS

TU

R E

W A

TE

R

SY

M

B O

L

DEPTH

ELEV.

PROFILE

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS / REMARKS

Form: CED-TB-GeoReport-R2.fdt 3/10/2022 File: Test Borings - Geotechnical - Structural

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc No. 1511-005) - Jackson Twp, NJ

(See Plan).

S-13

45.0'-47.0'

S-14

50.0'-52.0'

S-15

55.0'-57.0'

S-16

60.0'-62.0'

S-17

65.0'-67.0'

S-18

70.0'-72.0'

S-19

75.0'-77.0'

S-20

80.0'-82.0'

S-21

85.0'-87.0'

2.5

2.5

2.5

3.0

3.0

4.0

4.5

4.0

Stratum C2

S-13: Dark Gray, Green mf SAND, some Silt & Clay. (Wet; Glauconitic).

Micaceous.

S-14: Dark Gray, Green CLAY & SILT, some mf Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

Frequent Shell Fragments.

S-15: Same as S-14. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-16: Green SILTY CLAY, some mf Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-17: Same as S-16. (Wet; Glauconitic). Frequent Shell Fragments.

S-18: Same as S-16. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-19: Same as S-16. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-20: Green SILTY CLAY, trace mf Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-21: Green CLAY & SILT, some mf Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

PROJECT: TEST BORING: TB-1

LOCATION: GROUND ELEVATION (ft): - ELEV. FROM: Exist. Grade

PROJECT NO. 24004483A

5439 Harding Highway, Mays Landing, NJ 08330

CONTRACTOR: Boring Brothers, Inc. DATE STARTED 8/5/2024 DRILLER: M. Beveridge GROUNDWATER: DEPTH (ft) DATE

FIRST ENCOUNTERED 13 8/5/24 DATE FINISHED 8/5/2024DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CMF LC55X

METHOD: HSA Mud Rotary x Other END OF DRILLING (0 hrs.)

HAMMER: CH Safety Automatic x FIELD OBSERVER: R. Macchia

RODS: AW x NW >15' Other ASTM D-1586 CHECKED BY: E. Freire

NOTES: 14' from bottom of creek to road.

TEST BORING: TB-1

DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(ft.) DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE

NUMBER

0-6"

BLOWS PER 6 INCHES

6-12" 12-18" 18-24" R

EC

O V

ER

Y

(i n)

PO

C

KE

T

PE

N

ET

R

O M

(t sf

M O

IS

TU

R E

W A

TE

R

SY

M

B O

L

DEPTH

ELEV.

PROFILE

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS / REMARKS

Form: CED-TB-GeoReport-R2.fdt 3/10/2022 File: Test Borings - Geotechnical - Structural

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc No. 1511-005) - Jackson Twp, NJ

(See Plan).

S-22

90.0'-92.0'

S-23

95.0'-97.0'

S-24

100.0'-102.0'

50/4"

4.5

4.0

3.5

102.0

-102.0

Stratum C2

S-22: Green SILTY CLAY, trace mf Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-23: Green SILTY CLAY, trace f Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-24: Same as S-23. (Wet; Glauconitic).

END OF TEST BORING AT 102.0 FEET

PROJECT: TEST BORING: TB-1

LOCATION: GROUND ELEVATION (ft): - ELEV. FROM: Exist. Grade

PROJECT NO. 24004483A

5439 Harding Highway, Mays Landing, NJ 08330

CONTRACTOR: Boring Brothers, Inc. DATE STARTED 8/5/2024 DRILLER: M. Beveridge GROUNDWATER: DEPTH (ft) DATE

FIRST ENCOUNTERED 13 8/5/24 DATE FINISHED 8/5/2024DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CMF LC55X

METHOD: HSA Mud Rotary x Other END OF DRILLING (0 hrs.)

HAMMER: CH Safety Automatic x FIELD OBSERVER: R. Macchia

RODS: AW x NW >15' Other ASTM D-1586 CHECKED BY: E. Freire

NOTES: 14' from bottom of creek to road.

TEST BORING: TB-1

DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(ft.) DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE

NUMBER

0-6"

BLOWS PER 6 INCHES

6-12" 12-18" 18-24" R

EC

O V

ER

Y

(i n)

PO

C

KE

T

PE

N

ET

R

O M

(t sf

M O

IS

TU

R E

W A

TE

R

SY

M

B O

L

DEPTH

ELEV.

PROFILE

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS / REMARKS

Form: CED-TB-GeoReport-R2.fdt 3/10/2022 File: Test Borings - Geotechnical - Structural

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc No. 1511-005) - Jackson Twp, NJ

(See Plan).

S-1

0.0'-2.0'

S-2

2.0'-4.0'

S-3

4.0'-6.0'

S-4

6.0'-8.0'

S-5

8.0'-10.0'

S-6

10.0'-12.0'

S-7

12.0'-14.0'

S-8

14.0'-16.0'

S-9

20.0'-22.0'

S-10

25.0'-27.0'

S-11

30.0'-32.0'

S-12

35.0'-37.0'

S-13

40.0'-42.0'

0.5

1.5

1.0

0.75

1.75

18.0

43.5

Stratum S

Stratum C1

Stratum C2

S-1: ±7" Asphalt Tan, Brown cmf SAND, trace Clayey Silt. (Moist).

S-2: TOP 14": Tan mf SAND, little f Gravel, trace Clayey Silt. (Moist).

BOT: Black f SAND, little(+) Clayey Silt, trace f Gravel. (Moist).

S-3: Tan cmf(+) SAND, little Clayey Silt. (Moist).

S-4: Brown cmf SAND, little f Gravel. trace Clayey Silt. (Very Moist).

S-5: Gray cmf SAND, trace(+) f Gravel, trace Clayey Silt. (Very Moist).

S-6: Gray cmf(+) SAND, little(+) Clayey Silt. (Wet).

S-7: Gray f SAND, little(-) Clayey Silt. (Wet). Micaceous.

S-8: Dark Gray f SAND, little(-) Silt. (Wet). Micaceous.

S-9: Dark Green SILT, some f Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic). Micaceous.

S-10: Same as S-9. (Wet; Glauconitic). Micaceous.

S-11: Dark Gray SILT, and mf Sand. (Wet).

Seams & Partings of Light Gray SILT & CLAY.

S-12: Dark Gray SILT, some f Sand. (Wet). Micaceous.

S-13: Dark Gray SILT & CLAY, little f Sand. (Wet). Micaceous.

PROJECT: TEST BORING: TB-2

LOCATION: GROUND ELEVATION (ft): - ELEV. FROM: Exist. Grade

PROJECT NO. 24004483A

5439 Harding Highway, Mays Landing, NJ 08330

CONTRACTOR: Boring Brothers, Inc. DATE STARTED 8/5/2024 DRILLER: M. Beveridge GROUNDWATER: DEPTH (ft) DATE

FIRST ENCOUNTERED 12 8/5/24 DATE FINISHED 8/5/2024DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CMF LC55X

METHOD: HSA Mud Rotary x Other END OF DRILLING (0 hrs.)

HAMMER: CH Safety Automatic x FIELD OBSERVER: W. Bradford

RODS: AW x NW >14' Other ASTM D-1586 CHECKED BY: E. Freire

NOTES:

TEST BORING: TB-2

DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(ft.) DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE

NUMBER

0-6"

BLOWS PER 6 INCHES

6-12" 12-18" 18-24" R

EC

O V

ER

Y

(i n)

PO

C

KE

T

PE

N

ET

R

O M

(t sf

M O

IS

TU

R E

W A

TE

R

SY

M

B O

L

DEPTH

ELEV.

PROFILE

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS / REMARKS

Form: CED-TB-GeoReport-R2.fdt 3/10/2022 File: Test Borings - Geotechnical - Structural

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc No. 1511-005) - Jackson Twp, NJ

(See Plan).

S-14

45.0'-47.0'

S-15

50.0'-52.0'

S-16

55.0'-57.0'

S-17

60.0'-62.0'

S-18

65.0'-67.0'

S-19

70.0'-72.0'

S-20

75.0'-77.0'

S-21

80.0'-82.0'

S-22

85.0'-87.0'

4.5

4.5

4.25

4.5

4.0

3.0

Stratum C2

S-14: Dark Gray CLAY & SILT. (Wet; Glauconitic). Micaceous.

Seams & Partings of Light Gray f SAND.

S-15: Dark Green SILTY CLAY, little(-) f Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic). Micaceous, Frequent Shell Fragments.

S-16: Same as S-15. (Wet; Glauconitic). Micaceous. Frequent Shell Fragments.

S-17: Same as S-15. (Wet; Glauconitic). Micaceous. Frequent Shell Fragments.

S-18: Green SILTY CLAY, trace f Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-19: Same as S-18. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-20: Same as S-18. (Wet; Glauconitic). Frequent Shell Fragments.

S-21: Green SILTY CLAY, trace(+) f Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-22: Green, Dark Green CLAY & SILT, some f Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

PROJECT: TEST BORING: TB-2

LOCATION: GROUND ELEVATION (ft): - ELEV. FROM: Exist. Grade

PROJECT NO. 24004483A

5439 Harding Highway, Mays Landing, NJ 08330

CONTRACTOR: Boring Brothers, Inc. DATE STARTED 8/5/2024 DRILLER: M. Beveridge GROUNDWATER: DEPTH (ft) DATE

FIRST ENCOUNTERED 12 8/5/24 DATE FINISHED 8/5/2024DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CMF LC55X

METHOD: HSA Mud Rotary x Other END OF DRILLING (0 hrs.)

HAMMER: CH Safety Automatic x FIELD OBSERVER: W. Bradford

RODS: AW x NW >14' Other ASTM D-1586 CHECKED BY: E. Freire

NOTES:

TEST BORING: TB-2

DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(ft.) DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE

NUMBER

0-6"

BLOWS PER 6 INCHES

6-12" 12-18" 18-24" R

EC

O V

ER

Y

(i n)

PO

C

KE

T

PE

N

ET

R

O M

(t sf

M O

IS

TU

R E

W A

TE

R

SY

M

B O

L

DEPTH

ELEV.

PROFILE

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS / REMARKS

Form: CED-TB-GeoReport-R2.fdt 3/10/2022 File: Test Borings - Geotechnical - Structural

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc No. 1511-005) - Jackson Twp, NJ

(See Plan).

S-23

90.0'-92.0'

S-24

95.0'-97.0'

S-25

100.0'-102.0'

50/4"

4.0

3.5

4.25

102.0

-102.0

Stratum C2

S-23: Green, Dark Green CLAY & SILT, some f Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

S-24: Green, Dark Green CLAY & SILT, some(+) f Sand, trace f Gravel.

(Wet; Glauconitic).

S-25: TOP 18": Gray cmf SAND, some(+) mf Gravel, little Clay & Silt. (Wet).

BOT: Green CLAY & SILT, some f Sand. (Wet; Glauconitic).

END OF TEST BORING AT 102.0 FEET

PROJECT: TEST BORING: TB-2

LOCATION: GROUND ELEVATION (ft): - ELEV. FROM: Exist. Grade

PROJECT NO. 24004483A

5439 Harding Highway, Mays Landing, NJ 08330

CONTRACTOR: Boring Brothers, Inc. DATE STARTED 8/5/2024 DRILLER: M. Beveridge GROUNDWATER: DEPTH (ft) DATE

FIRST ENCOUNTERED 12 8/5/24 DATE FINISHED 8/5/2024DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CMF LC55X

METHOD: HSA Mud Rotary x Other END OF DRILLING (0 hrs.)

HAMMER: CH Safety Automatic x FIELD OBSERVER: W. Bradford

RODS: AW x NW >14' Other ASTM D-1586 CHECKED BY: E. Freire

NOTES:

TEST BORING: TB-2

DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(ft.) DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE

NUMBER

0-6"

BLOWS PER 6 INCHES

6-12" 12-18" 18-24" R

EC

O V

ER

Y

(i n)

PO

C

KE

T

PE

N

ET

R

O M

(t sf

M O

IS

TU

R E

W A

TE

R

SY

M

B O

L

DEPTH

ELEV.

PROFILE

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS / REMARKS

Form: CED-TB-GeoReport-R2.fdt 3/10/2022 File: Test Borings - Geotechnical - Structural

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc No. 1511-005) - Jackson Twp, NJ

(See Plan).

Appendix B Laboratory Test Results

5439 Harding Highway Mays Landing, New Jersey 08330 Main: 877 627 3772 colliersengineering.com

CLIENT: PROJECT: Project # DATE:

PAGE: of 1

CHECKED BY:

ATTN: TITLE:

SAMPLES RECEIVED: SAMPLES TESTED: LAB TECHNICIAN(S):

S-5 9-11 6.8 S-7 13-15 4.6 S-8 20-22 0.6 S-9 25-27 37.3 - Non-Plastic - PSA-1 S-11 35-37 35.0 - Non-Plastic - S-6 10-12 4.0 S-8 14-16 4.5 S-9 20-22 36.4 - Non-Plastic - PSA-2 2.1

S-11 30-32 PSA-3 1.0

S-12 35-37 35.4 - Non-Plastic - PSA-4

0 4 3 4

Comments/Remarks: * See attached Plate(s)

Geotechnical Laboratory (Colliers Engineering & Design)

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

24004483A

August 8, 2024

Ocean County Engineering Office 129 Hooper Avenue

Testing Total: 4

Liquid Limit

(LL)

Te st

B or in g

N o.

Sa m pl e

N o.

W at er C on te nt

(A

ST

M D

Plastic Limit

(PL)

Plasticity Index

(PI)

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc. No. 1511-005) Brewers Bridge Road over

August 22, 2024

K. Perry

Pa rti cl e

Si ze

A na ly si s (S ie ve

O nl y)

M

D

Pa ss in g #2

S ie ve

M

D pH o f S oi l

M

G

8/8/24 - 8/22/24

O rg an ic

C on te nt

M

D

D ep th (f t)

Toms River, NJ 08754

Mr. John N. Ernst, P.E., P.P.

South Branch of the Metedeconk River Jackson Township, NJ Eduardo M. Freire, P.E.

Laboratory Manager

Atterberg Limits

(ASTM D4318)

TB-1

TB-2

8/22/24

PSA-1

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Dark Gray SILT, some fine Sand #30 #60

#100 #200

100.0 99.7 98.6 74.5

NP

0.0967

ML:H

Water Content (WC): 37.3% NP: Non-Plastic Trace Mica

Ocean County Engineering Office

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc. No. 1511-005) Brewers Bridge Road - Jackson Township, NJ

24004483A

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: TB-1 Depth: 25'-27' Sample Number: S-9 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse Medium

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine % Fines

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 25.2 74.5 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Particle Size Distribution Report

PSA-2

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Dark Gray SILT, some fine Sand #16 #30 #60

#100 #200

100.0 99.8 99.4 96.3 76.8

NP

0.0981

ML:H

WC: 36.4%

Organic Content (OC): 2.1%

Ocean County Engineering Office

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc. No. 1511-005) Brewers Bridge Road - Jackson Township, NJ

24004483A

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: TB-2 Depth: 20'-22' Sample Number: S-9 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse Medium

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine % Fines

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 22.6 76.8 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

PSA-3

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Dark Gray [Fines: (SILT/CLAY)], and medium to fine Sand #16 #30 #60

#100 #200

100.0 99.9 93.4 90.8 58.5

0.1239 0.0774

CL:H\ML:H

OC: 1.0%

Ocean County Engineering Office

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc. No. 1511-005) Brewers Bridge Road - Jackson Township, NJ

24004483A

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: TB-2 Depth: 30'-32' Sample Number: S-11 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse Medium

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine % Fines

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.5 34.9 58.5 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

PSA-4

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Dark Gray SILT, some fine Sand #4 #8

#10 #16 #30 #60

#100 #200

100.0 99.9 99.8 99.2 98.9 98.3 97.0 65.0

NP

0.1074

ML:H

WC: 35.4%

Ocean County Engineering Office

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Struc. No. 1511-005) Brewers Bridge Road - Jackson Township, NJ

24004483A

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: TB-2 Depth: 35'-37' Sample Number: S-12 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse Medium

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine % Fines

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.6 33.3 65.0 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Appendix C Seismic Information

USGS web services were down for some period of time and as a result this tool wasn't operational, resulting in timeout error.

USGS web services are now operational so this tool should work as expected.

Replacement of Brewers Bridge (Structure No. 1511-005) - Brewers Bridge Road, Jackson Township, NJ Latitude, Longitude: 40.11599297, -74.26570890

Date 9/10/2024, 10:49:13 AM

Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16

Risk Category II

Site Class D - Stiff Soil

Type Value Description SS 0.212 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)

S1 0.05 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)

SMS 0.339 Site-modified spectral acceleration value

SM1 0.121 Site-modified spectral acceleration value

SDS 0.226 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA

SD1 0.081 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA

Type Value Description SDC B Seismic design category

Fa 1.6 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second

Fv 2.4 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second

PGA 0.122 MCEG peak ground acceleration

FPGA 1.556 Site amplification factor at PGA

PGAM 0.19 Site modified peak ground acceleration

TL 6 Long-period transition period in seconds

SsRT 0.212 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second)

SsUH 0.224 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration

SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second)

S1RT 0.05 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second)

S1UH 0.054 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.

S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second)

PGAd 0.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration)

PGAUH 0.122 Uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration

CRS 0.946 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods

CR1 0.941 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s

CV 0.724 Vertical coefficient

DISCLAIMER

While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website.

Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website.

Colliers Engineering & Design is a trusted provider of multi-discipline engineering, design and consulting services providing customized solutions…