GATE_200607B_FOWA_Geotech_Report_20151026.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

National Park Service Gateway National Recreation Area – Fort Wadsworth Staten Island, New York

Schnabel Reference 15615018.00 October 1, 2015

October 1, 2015

Graham H. Smith, PLA, ASLA, LEED ® AP DHM Design 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603

Subject: Project 15615018.00, Geotechnical Engineering Report NPS – Gateway National Recreation Area – Fort Wadsworth, Staten Island, New York

Dear Mr. Smith:

SCHNABEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (Schnabel) is pleased to submit our geotechnical engineering report for this project. This study was performed in accordance with our proposal dated June 11, 2015 (Revised June 19, 2015), as authorized by you on July 31, 2015. Note that the geotechnical report for the proposed facilities at Miller Field will be submitted under separate cover.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this report.

Sincerely, SCHNABEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.

William K. Petersen, PE Senior Associate

REA:WKP:CAL:hcf

October 1, 2015 Page i Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Project 15615018.00 ©2015 All Rights Reserved

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA – FORT WADSWORTH

STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

6.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Regional and Site Geology

6.2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

6.3 Groundwater

6.4 Seismic Site Classification

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Spread Footings

7.2 Floor Slab

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Foundations

8.2 Engineering Services During Construction

9.0 LIMITATIONS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Boring Location Plan Figure 3: Geologic Map

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data Appendix B: Soil Laboratory Test Data

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering recommendations developed for the design and construction of the proposed maintenance facility at Fort Wadsworth.

We are providing this executive summary solely for purposes of overview. Any party that relies on this report must read the full report. This executive summary omits several details, any one of which could be very important to the proper application of the report. Our executive summary is as follows:

The subsurface conditions at the site consist of approximately 15 ft of loose silty sand fill material (Stratum A) overlying glacial till (terminal moraine) deposits consisting of fine to medium sand (Stratum B).

We recommend shallow foundations to support the new maintenance building. Spread footings should be embedded a minimum 3.5 ft below the final ground surface for frost protection and designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf.

We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 50 pci for design of the new floor slab. The entire floor slab footprint should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 18 inches below the bottom of slab, and backfilled with compacted coarse aggregate.

We recommend that the subgrade of spread footings and the entire floor slab footprint be densified immediately following excavation using suitable vibratory compaction equipment.

A Geotechnical Engineer familiar with the design intent of this project should perform an inspection of the footing and floor slab subgrades to confirm their suitability, and to identify whether overexcavation and replacement with compacted coarse aggregate is necessary in localized areas.

The Seismic Site Classification according to the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) is “D.”

No groundwater was encountered during our subsurface investigation.

October 1, 2015 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The proposal from SCHNABEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (Schnabel) dated June 19, 2015, defines the scope of services for this project. The scope of services includes the following:

Coordinate access to the site with designated NPS personnel.

Obtain necessary permits to conduct site investigations.

Employ a private utility-locating service to clear all boring locations using a combination of ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic (EM) pipe locating techniques.

Drill two (2) test borings to depths of 30 ft each to collect soil samples, define the stratigraphy, and obtain geotechnical information at the site.

Oversee the drilling of the test borings, prepare field boring logs, and collect soil samples.

Obtain suitable disturbed and/or undisturbed soil samples.

Perform geotechnical laboratory testing to classify soil and develop site stratigraphy.

Prepare a geotechnical engineering report to present the results of our subsurface exploration and engineering recommendations for design and construction.

October 1, 2015 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Fort Wadsworth is a former military facility which is currently owned by the National Park Service (NPS) and is part of the NPS – Gateway National Recreation Area. The compound is located on the east side of Staten Island, immediately southwest of the Verrazano-Narrows bridge (I-278).

The project site at Fort Wadsworth is bound by Battery Road, USS Tennessee Road, and Loop Road, as shown on the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1). At this location, a new vehicle shelter will be constructed to replace facilities that were damaged by Hurricane Sandy at other locations.

The proposed vehicle shelter will be a steel structure having a footprint area of 58 ft x 18 ft. The structure will be located within an area that is presently paved with asphalt and used to store vehicles and heavy machinery.

The project site is roughly level, at an approximate elevation of 93 ft above mean sea level. Immediately to the east of the site, the ground surface drops towards the southeast in the direction of New York Bay.

October 1, 2015 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

We performed a subsurface exploration program to identify the subsurface stratigraphy underlying the site and to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the materials encountered. This program included two standard test borings, as discussed below. The appendices to this report contain the results of our exploration.

Our drilling subcontractor, SANO Drilling, drilled two (2) test borings, designated as FW-1 and FW-2, under our observation on September 9, 2015. The approximate boring locations are indicated on the Boring Location Plan in Figure 2. In both borings, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed continuously for the upper 10-ft depth, and then at 5-ft intervals to a total depth of 30 ft. Appendix A includes specific observations, remarks, and logs for the borings; classification criteria; drilling methods;

and sampling protocols. We will retain soil samples up to 45 days beyond the issuance of this report, unless you request other disposition.

Our utility locating subcontractor, Master Locators, did not encounter any buried utilities within the proposed structure footprint.

The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. However, we use corrected SPT N-values for the higher energy when using N-values in our analyses.

No previous subsurface information for the project site was made available to us as part of this study.

October 1, 2015 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Our laboratory performed tests on selected samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. The testing aided in the classification of materials encountered for use in the development of geotechnical recommendations.

We performed natural moisture content and gradation tests on five (5) soil samples representing Strata A and B. The test results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A, and the lab summary and gradation curves are presented in Appendix B. In addition, the results are summarized for each stratum in Section 6.0.

October 1, 2015 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

6.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Regional and Site Geology

A review of existing geologic data and the results of our subsurface exploration indicate that the project site is underlain by glacial till (terminal moraine), which was deposited over unconsolidated sediments of the Cretaceous-aged Raritan Formation. As shown by the Geologic Map in Figure 3, the project site is situated just north of the mapped contact separating surface exposures of till and glacial outwash deposits.

During our exploration, we encountered fill materials overlying glacial till (terminal moraine) deposits down to a depth of about 15 ft below the existing ground surface. These observations are consistent with the Geologic Map in Figure 3, and suggest that previous earthwork had been performed to create additional level ground above the naturally sloping ground surface dropping off toward the east.

6.2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

We characterized the following generalized subsurface stratigraphy based on the exploration and laboratory test data included in the appendices.

Ground Cover

The ground cover at the site consists of approximately 2 inches of asphalt overlying approximately 6 inches of aggregate base.

Stratum A: Existing Fill

Beneath the existing pavement, a layer of fill material was observed extending to an approximate depth of 15 ft below the existing ground surface. The fill is comprised primarily of reddish-brown silty sand with minor fine gravel, and locally containing black cinders. Urban fills typically consist of heterogeneous materials; however, the fill material at this site was found to be relatively uniform between the boring locations and with depth.

Corrected N-values with respect to hammer efficiency and overburden pressure range from 6 to 17 blows per foot (bpf), with an average of 11 bpf. These N-values are indicative of a loose to medium dense condition throughout Stratum A.

Laboratory moisture content values for Stratum A range from 6.1% to 10.4%, and all four of the tested samples are classified as silty sand (SM) by the United Soil Classification System (USCS).

Stratum B: Glacial Till

Underlying the fill of Stratum A, glacial till (terminal moraine) soil was encountered to depths of 30 ft in both borings. The glacially-deposited sand is poorly graded (fine to medium) and light brown in color. The corrected N-values in Stratum B vary from 9 to 24 bpf, with an average of 15 bpf.

October 1, 2015 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

One sample from Stratum B was tested for moisture content and gradation. The moisture content of sample FW-1 (S-7) was 2.5%. This sample is classified as poorly-graded sand (SP), containing only 3.8% silt (i.e., material passing the #200 sieve).

6.3 Groundwater

No groundwater was observed in either Boring FW-1 or FW-2, and both were observed to be dry upon completion. Based on the topography and depth of well-draining granular soils at the site, it is unlikely that the groundwater surface can ever rise to a level that would have any impact on the foundation for the proposed structure.

6.4 Seismic Site Classification

We evaluated the Seismic Site Class for this project according to the International Building Code (IBC) Section 1615 (2012). Our analysis indicates Site Class D for this location. This Site Class was evaluated based on corrected measured SPT N-values and extrapolated conditions below the termination depths of our test borings. Owing to the depth of groundwater, liquefaction potential for this site is low, in our opinion.

October 1, 2015 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

We based our geotechnical engineering analysis and recommendations on the information developed from our subsurface exploration and soil laboratory testing, along with the project development plans, site plans, and structural loading furnished to our office. We recommend shallow spread footings for support of the proposed vehicle shelter based on our analyses. The following sections provide our detailed recommendations.

7.1 Spread Footings

We consider spread footings suitable for support of the proposed vehicle shelter. Footings may be founded directly on silty sand (fill) Stratum A, as long as deleterious unsuitable materials (i.e., organic soils, buried trash, etc.) are not encountered. We recommend that spread footings be designed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. This bearing pressure provides a minimum factor of safety against general bearing capacity failure of 3.0.

The above allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by 33 percent for wind and seismic loads when used in conjunction with load combinations defined in IBC Section 1605.3.2, Alternative Basic Load Combinations for use with allowable stress design. This increase is not applicable for other allowable stress load combinations, strength design, or load and resistance factor design.

We recommend that the subgrade of spread footings be densified upon exposure using small hand-operated vibratory compaction equipment. If unsuitable fill soils are encountered locally at the footing subgrade, these soils should be removed and replaced as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer on site. Unsuitable soils should be replaced with compacted aggregate, consisting of open graded crushed stone such as AASHTO No. 57 or No. 78 coarse aggregate.

Settlements of shallow foundations supported on suitable fill soils (or on properly placed compacted aggregate) are not expected to exceed about ½ inch. Differential settlements between similarly loaded footings are not anticipated to exceed roughly half this value.

Exterior footings should be founded at least 3.5 ft below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior footings may be founded at nominal depths below the floor slabs. Interior footings subject to freezing should be founded at least 3.5 ft below slab grade.

7.2 Floor Slab

The entire floor slab footprint should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 18 inches below the bottom of slab elevation and backfilled with compacted No. 57 coarse aggregate. Prior to placement of the aggregate, the subgrade soils should be densified using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. Based on this provision, we recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 50 pci for design of the new floor slab. The recommended modulus value is for a 1-ft square plate. Some slab design software may consider different definitions of k for input. The Structural Engineer should contact our office if their software considers a different definition of k.

October 1, 2015 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Foundations

The Contractor should exercise care during excavation for spread footings and the floor slab to minimize disturbance at the foundation level. A Geotechnical Engineer from our firm should observe the footing and slab subgrades during construction to evaluate whether subgrade soils meet the requirements as recommended in this report. As necessary, the Contractor should carefully remove unsuitable soils from the bottom of the excavation at locations determined by the Geotechnical Engineer before placing concrete.

Footing subgrades needing undercut may be concreted at the elevation of undercut or backfilled to the original design subgrade elevation with compacted aggregate, as recommended in Section 7.1. The aggregate should extend at least 12 inches laterally beyond the footing in all directions. Concreting should take place on the same day as the excavation of footings.

Although the shallow fill soils at this site are generally free-draining, the Contractor should take provisions to prevent surface water from draining directly into footing excavations. Owing to the apparent depth of groundwater, we do not anticipate that dewatering of excavations is required.

8.2 Engineering Services During Construction

Subsurface conditions at the site may vary between the discrete locations observed at the time of our subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until during construction.

To account for this variability, we highly recommend that our firm provide professional observation and testing of subsurface conditions revealed during construction as an extension of our engineering services.

These services will also help in evaluating the Contractor's conformance with the plans and specifications. Additionally, we should be retained to review the final construction documents to verify that the recommendations presented herein are reflected in the drawings and specifications.

October 1, 2015 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

9.0 LIMITATIONS

We based the analyses and recommendations submitted in this report on the information revealed by our exploration. We attempted to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction.

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist in the design of the project.

It is intended for use concerning this specific project. We based our recommendations on information on the site and proposed construction as described in this report. Substantial changes in loads, locations, or grades should be brought to our attention so we can modify our recommendations as needed. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they pertain to the recommendations contained in this report, and to submit our comments to you based on this review.

We have endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included or intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report, or other instrument of service.

October 1, 2015 Page 10 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Boring Location Plan Figure 3: Geologic Map

October 1, 2015 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Project 16515018.00 ©2015 All Rights Reserved

³ arc gis 9/2

3/2

Th is Ma p w as

C rea ted In

Sc hn ab el

En gin ee rin gs Si te Vic ini ty

Ma p A pp lica tio n

NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT NO. 15615018

SITE VICINITY

MAP

FIGURE 1

NPS -

FORT WADSWORTH

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, © Schnabel Engineering, 2015. All Rights Reserved.#

NPS – GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION

AREA

FORT WADSWORTH – STATEN ISLAND, NY

PROJECT NO. 15615018.00

© Schnabel Engineering 2015 All Rights Reserved

BORING LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 2

BORING LOCATION (APPROX.)

NPS – GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION

AREA

FORT WADSWORTH – STATEN ISLAND, NY

PROJECT NO. 15615018.00

© Schnabel Engineering 2015 All Rights Reserved

GEOLOGIC MAP

FIGURE 3

PROJECT LOCATION

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION DATA

Subsurface Exploration Procedures General Notes for Subsurface Exploration Logs Identification of Soil

Boring Logs: FW-1 and FW-2

Project 16515018.00 ©2015 All Rights Reserved

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers

The borings are advanced by turning an auger with a center opening of 4¼ inches. A plug device blocks off the center opening while augers are advanced. Cuttings are brought to the surface by the auger flights. Sampling is performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger by standard methods after removal of the plug. Usually, no water is introduced into the boring using this procedure.

Standard Penetration Test Results

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is performed in the borings at regular depth intervals to collect soil samples. The numbers in the Sampling Data column of the boring logs represent SPT results. Each number represents the blows needed to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. split-spoon sampler 6 inches, using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler is typically driven a total of 18 or 24 inches.

The first 6 inches are considered a seating interval. The total of the number of blows for the second and third 6-inch intervals is the SPT “N value.” The Standard Penetration Test is performed according to

ASTM D1586.

The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. However, we use corrected SPT N-values for the higher energy when using N-values in our analyses.

Soil Classification Criteria

The group symbols on the logs represent the Unified Soil Classification System Group Symbols (ASTM D2487) based on visual observation and limited laboratory testing of the samples. Criteria for visual identification of soil samples are included in this appendix. Some variation can be expected between samples visually classified and samples classified in the laboratory.

Boring Locations and Elevations

Boring locations were staked by Schnabel personnel by taking measurements from site features.

Approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were estimated from site plans provided to our office. Locations and elevations should be considered no more accurate than the methods used to determine them.

GENERAL NOTES FOR

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS

1. Numbers in sampling data column next to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) symbols indicate blows required to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. sampling spoon 6 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N value is the number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after a 6 inch seating interval. The Standard Penetration Test is performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586.

2. Visual classification of soil is in accordance with terminology set forth in “Identification of Soil.”

The ASTM D2487 group symbols (e.g., CL) shown in the classification column are based on visual observations.

3. Estimated water levels indicated on the logs are only estimates from available data and may vary with precipitation, porosity of the soil, site topography, and other factors.

4. Refusal at the surface of rock, boulder, or other obstruction is defined as an SPT resistance of 50 blows for 1 inch or less of penetration.

5. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled or excavated. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and water level conditions at the subsurface exploration location.

6. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types as obtained from the subsurface exploration. Some variation may also be expected vertically between samples taken. The soil profile, water level observations and penetration resistances presented on these logs have been made with reasonable care and accuracy and must be considered only an approximate representation of subsurface conditions to be encountered at the particular location.

7. Key to symbols and abbreviations:

S-1, SPT Sample No., Standard Penetration Test 5+10+1 Number of blows in each 6-inch increment

MC Moisture Content (percent) %Passing#200 Percent by weight passing a No. 200 Sieve

IDENTIFICATION OF SOIL

I. DEFINITION OF SOIL GROUP NAMES (ASTM D2487) SYMBOL GROUP NAME

Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels – More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Coarse, ¾” to 3” Fine, No. 4 to ¾”

Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines

GW WELL GRADED

GRAVEL

GP POORLY GRADED

GRAVEL

Gravels with fines More than 12% fines

GM SILTY GRAVEL

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

Sands – 50% or more of coarse Fraction passes No. 4 sieve Coarse, No. 10 to No. 4 Medium, No. 40 to No. 10 Fine, No. 200 to No. 40

Clean Sands Less than 5% fines

SW WELL GRADED

SAND

SP POORLY GRADED

SAND

Sands with fines More than 12% fines

SM SILTY SAND

SC CLAYEY SAND

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit less than 50 Low to medium plasticity

Inorganic CL LEAN CLAY

ML SILT

Organic OL ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit 50 or more Medium to high plasticity

Inorganic CH FAT CLAY

MH ELASTIC SILT

Organic OH ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor PT PEAT

II. DEFINITION OF SOIL COMPONENT PROPORTIONS (ASTM D2487)

Examples

Adjective Form

GRAVELLY

SANDY

>30% to <50% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY

CLAYEY

SILTY

>12% to <50% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil

SILTY SAND

“With” WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND

>15% to <30% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil

FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL

WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND

>15% to <50% coarse grained component in a coarse-grained soil

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

WITH SILT

WITH CLAY

>5% to <12% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

III. GLOSSARY OF MISCELLANEOUS TERMS

SYMBOLS ............................ Unified Soil Classification Symbols are shown above as group symbols. A dual symbol “-“ indicates the soil belongs to two groups. A borderline symbol “/” indicates the soil belongs to two possible groups.

FILL ....................................... Man-made deposit containing soil, rock and often foreign matter.

PROBABLE FILL .................. Soils which contain no visually detected foreign matter but which are suspect with regard to origin.

DISINTEGRATED ROCK

(DR)

Residual materials with a standard penetration resistance (SPT) between 60 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as an SPT of 100 blows for 2" or less penetration.

PARTIALLY WEATHERED

ROCK (PWR)

Residual materials with a standard penetration resistance (SPT) between 100 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as an SPT of 100 blows for 2" or less penetration.

BOULDERS & COBBLES ..... Boulders are considered rounded pieces of rock larger than 12 inches, while cobbles range from 3 to 12-inch size.

LENSES ................................. 0 to ½-inch seam within a material in a test pit.

LAYERS ................................ ½ to 12-inch seam within a material in a test pit.

A

B

FILL

SP

92.8 92.3

78.0

63.0

0.2 0.7

15.0

30.0

Start at 12:25 Cinders from 0-6 ft

Black laminations spaced at approx.

3" from 15-30 ft

End at 13:26 Bottom of Boring at 30.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

MC = 6.1%

% Passing #200 = 14.0

MC = 10.4%

% Passing #200 = 45.5

MC = 2.5%

% Passing #200 = 3.8

S-1, SS

8+6+8+5

S-2, SS

4+3+2+2

S-3, SS

3+2+3+3

S-4, SS

3+4+3+3

S-5, SS

3+4+3+5

S-6, SS

5+3+3+5

S-7, SS

6+6+8+10

REC=20", 83%

S-8, SS

6+5+6+6

REC=21", 88%

S-9, SS

10+10+12+13

REC=21", 88%

2" asphalt pavement

6" subbase

FILL, sampled as silty sand, fine to medium grained sand; moist, orangish brown, estimated 5 - 10% gravel, estimated <5% black cinders

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine to medium grained sand; moist, light brown, probable GLACIAL TILL material

Completion 9/9 1:25 PM Dry --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 30.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 93± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/9/15 Finished: 9/9/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing

Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area

Fort Wadsworth

Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

REMARKSTESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

FW-1

T

E S

T B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

.G P

J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

L A

T E

.G D

T

/2

/1

A

B

FILL

SP

92.8 92.3

78.0

63.0

0.2 0.7

15.0

30.0

Start at 13:31

Cinders from 4-6 ft and 13-15 ft

End at 14:14 Bottom of Boring at 30.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

MC = 9.2%

% Passing #200 = 26.8

MC = 7.0%

% Passing #200 = 16.1

S-1, SS

3+5+4+3

REC=16", 67%

S-2, SS

3+2+1+1

REC=10", 42%

S-3, SS

3+2+2+2

REC=15", 63%

S-4, SS

3+3+4+4

REC=21", 88%

S-5, SS

5+5+5+6

REC=20", 83%

S-6, SS

6+6+6+6

REC=24", 100%

S-7, SS

4+4+4+5

REC=24", 100%

S-8, SS

6+6+7+7

REC=22", 92%

S-9, SS

5+4+4+7

REC=20", 83%

2" asphalt pavement

6" subbase

FILL, sampled as silty sand, fine to medium grained sand; moist, orangish brown, estimated 5 - 10% gravel, estimated <5% black cinders

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine to medium grained sand; moist, light brown, probable GLACIAL TILL material

Completion 9/9 2:15 PM Dry --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 30.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 93± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/9/15 Finished: 9/9/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing

Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area

Fort Wadsworth

Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

REMARKSTESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

FW-2

T

E S

T B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

.G

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

L A

T E

.G

/1

APPENDIX B

SOIL LABORATORY TEST DATA

Summary of Laboratory Tests Gradation Curves

FW-1

4.0 - 6.0

89.0 - 87.0

Jar

SILTY SAND (SM)

6.1 3.9 82.1 14.0

FW-1

8.0 - 10.0

85.0 - 83.0

Jar

SILTY SAND (SM)

10.4 0.0 54.5 45.5

FW-1

18.0 - 20.0

75.0 - 73.0

Jar

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

2.5 0.0 96.2 3.8

FW-2

0.0 - 2.0

93.0 - 91.0

Jar

SILTY SAND (SM)

9.2 7.8 65.4 26.8

FW-2

6.0 - 8.0

87.0 - 85.0

Jar

SILTY SAND (SM)

7.0 0.0 83.9 16.1

Sheet 1 of 1

Boring No.

Summary Of Laboratory Tests Appendix

Description of Soil Specimen

Project Number: 15615018.00

Notes: 1. Soil tests in general accordance with ASTM standards.

2. Soil classifications are in general accordance with ASTM D2487(as applicable), based on testing indicated and visual classification.

3. Key to abbreviations: NP=Non-Plastic; -- indicates no test performed

Project:

Sample Depth (ft)

Elevation (ft)

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Wadsworth Staten Island, NY

Sample Type

D Y

N A

M

IC

L A

B S

U M

M A

R Y

.G

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

L A

T E

.G

/1

P e rc e n t F in e s

P e rc e n t S a n d

P e rc e n t G ra v e l

N a tu ra l

M o is tu re

0.0010.010.1110100

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

200100 1406040

3 3/41.5

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

14.0

45.5

3.8

26.8

16.1

GRADATION CURVES

4 3

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

1/2 3/8

HYDROMETER

%Sand

82.1

54.5

96.2

65.4

83.9

D30

0.181

0.302

0.103

0.116

D60

4.0 ft

8.0 ft

18.0 ft

0.0 ft

6.0 ft

ASTM D422

ASTM D422

ASTM D422

ASTM D422

ASTM D422

Test Method D10

0.314

0.106

0.458

0.405

0.195

D100

4.75

4.75

4.75

LL PL PI Cc Cu

FW-1

FW-1

FW-1

FW-2

FW-2

4.0 ft

8.0 ft

18.0 ft

0.0 ft

6.0 ft

1.11 2.56

%Clay

FW-1

FW-1

FW-1

FW-2

FW-2

%Silt%Gravel

3.9

0.0

0.0

7.8

0.0

0.179

Specimen

Sample Description

SILTY SAND (SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

SILTY SAND (SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

Specimen

Project: NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area

Fort Wadsworth

Staten Island, NY

Contract: 15615018.00

S

IE

V E

S

H E

E

.G

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

L A

T E

.G

/1 fine coarse

COBBLES SILT OR CLAY

medium fine

SANDGRAVEL

coarse