ATL No. CD4849E-01-07-20 Rev 1 Burns - Watervliet Ped Bridge.pdf

Albany Binghamton Elmira Plattsburgh Poughkeepsie Rochester Syracuse Utica Watertown

Canton 6431 U.S. Highway 11

Canton, NY 13617 315-386-4578 (T) atlantictesting.com

ATLANTIC TESTING LABORATORIES

WBE certified company

August 18, 2022

Burns & McDonnell 10 North Park Place, Suite 330 Telephone: 973-490-2427 Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Email: tvoorhees.@burnsmcd.com

Attn: Mr. Thomas Voorhees, LLA, RLA Associate/Project Manager

Re: Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Evaluation Services Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Building 20 – Watervliet Arsenal Westervelt Avenue

Watervliet, Albany County, New York ATL Report No. CD4849E-01-07-20 Rev. 1

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Enclosed is one (1) electronic copy of the referenced report. ATL appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical services for your project.

Please note that upon completion of the subsurface investigation, boring B-1 was backfilled with on-site soils. It is important that the backfilled boring be monitored for settlement or subsidence.

This will be the responsibility of Burns & McDonnell and/or their Client. ATL assumes no liability for loss or damage resulting from borehole settlement.

The soil samples obtained during this investigation will be retained for a period of six months and subsequently discarded, unless otherwise instructed.

Please contact our office should you have any questions or comments on this information, or if we may be of further service. We look forward to our continued association to obtain a successful completion of this project.

Sincerely, ATLANTIC TESTING LABORATORIES, Limited

Adam J. Schneider, PE Project Engineer

MTT/mtt

Enclosures

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

AND

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

BUILDING 20 – WATERVLIET ARSENAL

WESTERVELT AVENUE

WATERVLIET, ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

BURNS & MCDONNELL

PREPARED FOR: Burns & McDonnell 10 North Park Place, Suite 330 Morristown, New Jersey 07960

PREPARED BY: Atlantic Testing Laboratories, Limited 6431 U.S. Highway 11 Canton, New York 13617

ATL Report No. CD4849E-01-07-20 Rev. 1

August 18, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

NUMBER

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

3.0 SITE SURFACE CONDITIONS & GEOLOGY 2

4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION & SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 2

5.0 SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3

5.1 Soil Boring

5.2 Subsurface Water

6.0 LABORATORY ANALYSES 4

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 4

7.1 Proposed Pedestrian Bridge

7.2 Frost Protection

7.3 Backfill and Compaction Recommendations

7.4 General

7.5 Testing and Inspection

8.0 LIMITATIONS 7

APPENDICES

A. Site Location Plan B. Boring Location Plan

C. Subsurface Investigation Log and SPT N-Value Corrections D. Laboratory Test Reports E. Settlement Calculations

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

AND

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

BUILDING 20 – WATERVLIET ARSENAL

WATERVLIET, ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

BURNS & MCDONNELL

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of Mr. Thomas Voorhees, LLA, RLA, representing Burns & McDonnell and in accordance with our proposal (ATL File No. CD998-1647-07-19, dated July 19, 2019), Atlantic Testing Laboratories, Limited (ATL) performed a subsurface investigation and geotechnical evaluation for the referenced project.

The purpose of the investigation was to ascertain the general subsurface soil and water conditions at the site, to evaluate the engineering significance of these findings, and to provide recommendations related to the pedestrian bridge foundation design and construction.

The proposed project consists of constructing a replacement pedestrian bridge and entry canopy between the north end of Building 20 and Westervelt Avenue on the Watervliet Arsenal in Albany County, New York. The geodetic coordinates at the approximate center of the project are N 42º43′08″ latitude and W 73º42′22.5″ longitude. A Site Location Plan is included in Appendix A. All dimensions and elevations referenced in this report are in units of feet, unless otherwise noted.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on preliminary information provided by Burns & McDonnell, the project consists of constructing a replacement pedestrian bridge and entry canopy connecting the main floor level of Building 20 to Westervelt Avenue. Based on our review of historical drawing #20 “Pedestrian Bridge, N-W Corner, Bldg 20”, dated August 28, 1958, the existing pedestrian bridge is founded on three, cast-in-place concrete foundations. The proposed bridge will reportedly be a dual-span structure founded on shallow spread foundations to roughly match the existing structure.

Based on the information provided to ATL by Burns & McDonnell to perform the settlement analysis, the foundation details for the structures are as follows:

Burns & McDonnell Page 2 of 8 ATL Report No. CD4849E-01-07-20 Rev. 1 August 18, 2022

Pedestrian Bridge Footing o 6’-4” length x 4’-6” width x 1’-6” thick o Proposed Depth: 5’-0” o 2650 psf

Entry Canopy Footing o 4’-6” length x 4’-6” width x 2’-0” thick o Proposed Depth: 5’-0” o 850 psf

3.0 SITE SURFACE CONDITIONS & GEOLOGY

The Watervliet Arsenal is located along the west bank of the Hudson River, approximately three miles south of the confluence with the Mohawk River. The proposed project is located in the eastern-central portion of the installation. The proposed pedestrian bridge will span between the main floor of Building 20 and Westervelt Avenue. The proposed bridge will span over a grass-and stone-covered, open-air slope, leading down to the basement level of Building 20. The overall arsenal generally slopes downward from west to east towards the Hudson River;

however, the proposed pedestrian bridge will span a north-south downward slope toward the building from surface elevations ranging from approximately 50 to 34 feet. The finished floor elevation of the ground floor and lower level of Building 20 appear to be at 49 and 35 feet, respectively, based on our review of the historical 1958 drawings for the existing bridge.

The project area is located in the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands Physiographic Region of New York State, in the northern Capital District. Based on the Surficial Geologic Map of New York, Hudson-Mohawk Sheet, 1987, the project area is generally mantled with recent alluvium soils.

These fluvial deposits of oxidized sand and gravel are generally confined to flood plains within river and stream valleys and may be overlain by silt in larger tributaries. These permeable soils may be subject to flooding, with thicknesses varying from approximately 1 to 10 meters. Based on the Geologic Map of New York, Hudson-Mohawk Sheet, 1970, the recent alluvium is generally underlain by Middle Ordovician Age, Shale of the Normanskill Formation.

4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION & SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

One (1) soil boring location was selected by representatives of Burns & McDonnell and estimated in the field by representatives of ATL. The boring surface elevation was not determined during this subsurface investigation. The approximate soil boring location is depicted on the Boring Location Plan included in Appendix B.

The soil boring was advanced utilizing 3-inch (NW), inside diameter flush-joint casing and tri-cone roller bit using water as the drilling fluid. Soil sampling and standard penetration testing was performed utilizing a 2-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler and automatic drop hammer in accordance with ASTM D 1586. Soil sampling was performed continuously to a depth of approximately 15 feet and at 5-foot intervals thereafter to termination at a depth of 24.3 feet below the surface. The field SPT N-values were corrected for hammer energy and overburden pressure, and are included in a table following the Subsurface Investigation Log.

The soil samples were classified in the laboratory by an engineering technician in general accordance with the Burmister Soil Classification System. The split spoon sampler does not recover particles larger than 1⅜-inch in nominal dimension; therefore, the soil classifications may not be representative of the entire soil matrix. The laboratory classifications and the

Burns & McDonnell Page 3 of 8 standard penetration test (SPT) results are presented on the Subsurface Investigation Log included in Appendix C.

The borehole was backfilled with on-site soils upon project completion. It is important that the backfilled boring be monitored for settlement or subsidence. This will be the responsibility of Burns & McDonnell and/or their Client. ATL assumes no liability for loss or damage resulting from borehole settlement.

5.0 SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The following description of subsurface conditions is based on the subsurface soil and water conditions encountered during this subsurface investigation. Actual subsurface conditions may vary across the site in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. Detailed subsurface descriptions are provided on the Subsurface Investigation Log. The surficial topsoil and organic material thicknesses presented on the subsurface investigation logs should not be utilized to estimate material quantities for construction.

5.1 Soil Boring

The soil boring encountered approximately 4 inches of topsoil and organic material at the surface, underlain by loose (SPT N-values 4 to 10) to medium compact (SPT N-values 10 to 30) gravelly sand fill with varying proportions of silt, brick, and rock fragments that extended to a depth of approximately 10 feet below the surface. Trace organic materials were encountered within the fill to a depth of approximately 6 feet. The fill was underlain medium compact sand with lesser proportions of gravel, silt and clay that extended to very compact (SPT N-values greater than 50) weathered rock at a depth of about 15 feet below the surface. The boring was terminated in weathered rock at a depth of 24.3 feet below the surface.

5.2 Subsurface Water

Groundwater measurements were performed during the subsurface investigation through the cased and open borehole. The soil samples were also classified for coloration and relative moisture conditions.

Based on measurements performed during borehole advancement, subsurface water was recorded at a depth of approximately 13 feet below the surface; however, this reading was likely affected by water utilized to advance the borehole. The recovered soil samples were generally classified as moist to the depths investigated, with an isolated wet zone between 4 and 6 feet below the surface. Since boring B-1 was backfilled at the completion of advancement, groundwater levels may not have had sufficient time to stabilize.

Perched groundwater may be encountered at higher elevations especially during wetter periods of the year. It is anticipated that shallow, perched groundwater encountered in shallow site work excavations may be controlled by pumping from sumps installed around the perimeter of the excavations.

Fluctuations in water levels may occur due to seasonal and climatic variations, changes in surface runoff patterns, construction activity, and subsequent development of the site along with other interrelated factors.

Burns & McDonnell Page 4 of 8

6.0 LABORATORY ANALYSES

Select soil samples were submitted to ATL’s geotechnical laboratory for the following physical analyses:

Four (4) Water Content Determination of Soil (ASTM D 2216) Two (2) Particle Size Analysis without Hydrometer (ASTM D 422) One (1) Atterberg Limits Determination of Soil (ASTM D 4318)

The test results are presented on the subsurface investigation logs and included in Appendix D, Laboratory Test Reports.

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION

The Geotechnical Engineering Discussion is based on information provided by Burns & McDonnell and the subsurface conditions outlined in this report. At the time of report issuance, the existing foundation depth and design bearing pressure were not known.

The following recommendations are presented as the minimum requirements for the design, planning, and construction of the foundation system. The concepts and geotechnical engineering considerations presented must be considered in project design and construction.

7.1 Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Replacement and Entry Canopy

The primary concern with respect to the design and construction of the proposed pedestrian bridge is the presence of fill materials that extended to a depth of approximately 10 feet below the surface in the soil boring. It is possible that these fill materials exist at other locations, elevations, and in varying concentrations throughout the project site.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the soil borings, the proposed pedestrian bridge could be supported on shallow foundations, bearing on compacted Granular Fill overlying stable, proof-compacted in-situ soils free of deleterious fill and organic materials, provided the recommendations contained within this report are followed.

7.1.1 Site Preparation

Site work will require the removal of any surficial concrete, topsoil, and organic material within the proposed bridge foundation footprints. If encountered, any existing deleterious fill materials should be removed. In planning excavations adjacent to existing structures and utilities that are to remain in-place, care must be taken to locate and maintain their stability. The project should be designed to minimize disturbances to existing structures and utilities.

Site surface grading should be designed to convey surface water away from the site structures.

7.1.2 Pedestrian Bridge and Entry Canopy Foundations

Fill soils were encountered in boring B-1 to a depth of approximately 10 feet below the surface.

Traces of organic material were encountered to a depth of approximately 6 feet. It is recommended the foundation excavations for the proposed pedestrian bridge be advanced to a minimum depth of 8 feet below existing grade, or to stable, native gravelly sand soils, whichever is less. The exposed subgrade soils must be evaluated in the field by a Geotechnical Engineer, prior to placing controlled fill and/or foundation elements. Deleterious fill or organic materials

Burns & McDonnell Page 5 of 8 that are encountered at the planned subgrade elevations during construction should be over excavated to stable subgrade soil and replaced with compacted Granular Fill, under the direction of a Geotechnical Engineer.

The bottom of the over excavations should extend 1 foot horizontally on each side of the proposed footing for each 1 foot of over excavation beneath the planned bottom of footing elevation.

Prior to placing controlled fill, the exposed foundation subgrades should be proof-compacted with a minimum of four passes of a dual-drum walk-behind vibratory roller; a Wacker DPU 6055 vibrating plate tamper; or equivalent, under the direction of a Geotechnical Engineer. The proof-compaction is recommended to densify the surficial subgrade soils, identify potential unstable areas, and to provide a uniform bearing surface for subsequent development. Unstable areas noted to weave or deflect should be over excavated to stable material, at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer, and replaced with compacted Granular Fill.

Following proof-compaction of the exposed subgrade soils, Granular Fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with section 7.3 of this report, to the planned bottom of foundation elevation.

Footing subgrades that become saturated and unstable during construction should be over excavated 6 inches and a 6-inch layer of NYSDOT Number 2, crushed stone should be placed and compacted on the subgrade to provide a stable working surface and dewatering media if ground or surface water enters the excavations. The Number 2, crushed stone should be compacted with four passes of a dual-drum walk-behind vibratory roller; a Wacker DPU 6055 vibrating plate tamper; or equivalent, under the direction of a Geotechnical Engineer.

The existing building’s foundation depths were not known at the time of report issuance. New footings placed adjacent to the existing structures’ footings should be placed at the same elevation to avoid overstressing the existing foundations. New foundation excavations that extend within the zone of influence below the existing foundations will require shoring and/or underpinning of the existing foundations. The zone of influence is defined as a line extending downward at a 45 degree angle from the bottom of existing footing in all directions. The contractor should be responsible for determining the underpinning method and providing the underpinning design.

Benching, sloping, shoring or other acceptable excavation stabilizing methods may be required to provide a stable work area. The on-site granular soils will be susceptible to sidewall sloughing in open excavations, especially in the presence of ground or surface water.

The contractor should develop an excavation stabilization plan for review by the owner and engineer prior to beginning the excavations.

Shallow foundations bearing on compacted Granular Fill that overlies stable, proof-compacted in-situ soils or stable, native, soils, may be designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 4,000 psf.

Total settlement of the pedestrian bridge footing is estimated to be approximately ½-inch and the entrance canopy footing is estimated to be approximately ¼-inch. Differential foundation settlement should be about half of the estimated total settlement. Since the subsurface soils are granular, settlement should occur immediately as each new load is applied to the foundations, Burns & McDonnell Page 6 of 8 with negligible time dependent settlement. The settlement calculations are included in Appendix E, Settlement Calculations.

As an alternative, the foundations could be supported on drilled piers that extend to the weathered shale. Recommendations for drilled piers can be provided upon request.

7.2 Frost Protection

Shallow foundations should extend a minimum of 4.5 feet below final exterior grade to provide adequate frost protection.

7.3 Backfill and Compaction Requirements

Select on-site soils may be utilized as exterior foundation backfill in landscape areas, provided all deleterious fill, organic, and oversize material (particles larger than 4 inches in diameter) are removed and the material is properly moisture conditioned. Granular Fill should be utilized beneath paved areas or sidewalks.

All controlled fill and backfill should be placed and compacted in lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness, at a moisture content of 2% of the Optimum Moisture Content, and to densities in excess of 95%, as determined by ASTM D1557, or as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Granular Fill should consist of a clean, screened, crushed, or bank-run gravel conforming to the following gradation:

Sieve Size

Percent Passing

4” 100

¼” 35-65

#200 0-10

The soil parameters presented in the following table may be used for the following backfill materials.

Table of Soil Properties

Soil Property On-site

Gravelly Sand Granular

Fill

Angle of Internal Friction (°) 28 32

Active Earth Coefficient (Ka)* 0.36 0.31

At Rest Earth Coefficient (Ko)* 0.53 0.47

Passive Earth Coefficient (Kp)* 2.77 3.25

Wet Unit Weight (pcf) 125-135 135-145

*The Rankine earth pressure coefficients (ultimate values) are for level backfill placed in a fully drained condition.

7.4 General

The contractor must follow excavation safety practices as mandated by 29 CFR Part 1926 (OSHA) and by applicable state regulations.

Burns & McDonnell Page 7 of 8

Construction equipment and foot traffic should be limited on exposed subgrades, especially during wetter periods of the year. The granular soils encountered in the soil borings will be susceptible to sidewall sloughing in open excavations.

Shoring/underpinning of existing foundations and structures may be required if new foundation excavations are performed within the zone of influence of adjacent structures. The contractor should be responsible for the shoring/underpinning design.

Perched subsurface water, man-made fill, and sloughing granular soils, may be encountered in foundation, utility, and site work excavations.

Care must be exercised to locate and maintain the stability of all adjacent structures and utilities that are to remain in-place.

It will be the contractor’s responsibility to maintain adequate water control at all times. Project specifications should clearly indicate that standing water, and/or saturated, unstable soil conditions will not be tolerated in areas to receive foundations or utilities. The project specifications should state that the contractor will not be reimbursed for extras related to the control of water.

All dewatering activities must comply with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) storm water discharge requirements for construction.

7.5 Testing and Inspection

Foundation installations must be continuously observed by an experienced Licensed Geotechnical Engineer, and/or their representative, familiar with the subsurface conditions and analysis described in this report. The engineer will be required to assess any unusual conditions and to ensure that adequate bearing capacities and proper foundation installation requirements are achieved.

All backfilling, placement of fill, and concrete construction should be inspected by an Independent Testing Laboratory, which conforms to ASTM E-329, “The Standard Practice for use in the Evaluation of Testing and Inspection Agencies as Used in Construction”. It should be the Independent Testing Laboratory's responsibility to monitor construction practices to determine if they are in accordance with the project documents.

The final site plans and project specifications should be reviewed by ATL, as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, to verify that there has not been a misinterpretation of this report and/or ATL’s understanding of the project.

8.0 LIMITATIONS

The subsurface investigation log and this report in its entirety should be provided to the contractors for information and interpretation. The subsurface investigation logs may not be representative of the entire site subsurface conditions, but only what was encountered at the individual test location at the time of this investigation. The subsurface soil and water conditions may be different from those described on the subsurface investigation logs and summarized in this report.

Burns & McDonnell Page 8 of 8

This report was prepared to present the findings of our subsurface investigation and engineering evaluation, and to outline concepts to be utilized in foundation design and construction. These concepts may require alterations to meet the specific design and economic considerations for this project.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Adam J. Schneider, PE Brian T. Barnes, PE Project Engineer Senior Engineer

MTT/BTB/mtt

APPENDIX A

SITE LOCATION PLAN

SITE LOCATION PLAN

Drawn by:

MTT

Scale:

As Noted Project No.:

CD4849

Date:

July 2020

Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Building 20 – Watervliet Arsenal

Westervelt Avenue Watervliet, Albany County, New York

ATLANTIC TESTING LABORATORIES, Limited

Albany, NY Binghamton, NY Canton, NY Elmira, NY Plattsburgh, NY

Poughkeepsie, NY Syracuse, NY Rochester, NY Utica, NY Watertown, NY mtrodler Callout

PROJECT LOCATION

APPENDIX B

BORING LOCATION PLAN

mtrodler Oval mtrodler Text Box Approximate Location of Soil Boring, B-1

APPENDIX C

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION LOG AND

SPT N-VALUE CORRECTIONS

50/3"

50/5"

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

C A S I N G

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

19.0

24.0

50/4"

4" TOPSOIL & ORGANIC MATERIAL

Dark Brown cmf SAND; little mf GRAVEL; trace BRICK

Fragments; trace SILT; trace ORGANIC MATERIAL (grass)

(moist, non-plastic) FILL

Dark Brown cmf SAND; and mf GRAVEL; trace SILT; trace

ORGANIC MATERIAL (grass) (moist, non-plastic) COBBLE

Fragments FILL w = 7.8%

Greyish-Brown cmf SAND; some mf GRAVEL; trace SILT; trace

ORGANIC MATERIAL (grass) (wet, non-plastic) FILL

Brown cmf SAND; some mf GRAVEL; little SILT; little CLAY

(moist, slightly plastic) FILL w = 13.7%

PL = 19, LL = 27, PI = 8

Red and Brown cmf SAND; and mf GRAVEL; trace SILT; trace

BRICK Fragments (moist, non-plastic) COBBLE Fragments FILL

Brown cmf SAND; little SILT; trace f GRAVEL; trace CLAY (moist, very slightly plastic) w = 10.8%

Brown cmf SAND; little mf GRAVEL; little SILT; trace CLAY

(moist, very slightly plastic) COBBLE Fragments

Brown cmf SAND; little mf GRAVEL; little SILT; trace CLAY

(moist, very slightly plastic) w = 10.3%

Encountered possible WEATHERED ROCK fragments at 15.0 feet.

Grey cmf SAND; little mf GRAVEL; trace SILT; trace CLAY (moist, very slightly plastic) Possible WEATHERED ROCK Fragments

Grey cmf SAND; little f GRAVEL; trace SILT (moist, non-plastic)

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

15.3

19.9

24.3

0.3

6.0

10.0

15.0

24.3

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

DEPTH

OF

SAMPLE

trace

Subsurface Investigation

Groundwater Observations littlem

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL

some

Split Spoon Sample

DepthDate

Start Date:

Boring Location:

7/14/2020

Weight:

c fine

ATLANTIC TESTING LABORATORIES, Limited

CD4849E-01-08-20

Watervliet Arsenal Pedestrian Bridge to Building 20 & 25 Renovation

Project:

Finish Date:7/14/2020

S A

M P

L E

N O

SS

M E

T H

O D

O F

A D

V A

N C

E

From

Drillers:

Estimated Groundwater

NX

D E

P T

H O

F C

H A

N G

E

Borehole caved at 13.4 feet.

PM

B-1

Fall:

Hammer Type:

Client:

13.0'

Ground Elev.:

35-50%

Watervliet, New York

Sheet

Casing

Automatic

Boring No.:

medium coarse of

Inspector:

0-10%

7/14/2020

Time

BLOWS ON

SAMPLER

PER 6"

2" O.D.

SAMPLER

Coordinates

NW (3") Casing

R ec o ve ry (I n ch es in.

Report No.:

Boring Advance By:

140140140

Undisturbed Sample (Shelby Tube)

24.0'

Burns & McDonnell

To 10-20%

Subsurface Investigation and

Longitude

Rock Core lbs.

f

Sampler Hammer

See Boring Location Plan

D E

P T

H

SH

Collin Benton; Tony Jones

20-35%

Latitude

A T

L-

LO

G

LL

C D

B U

R N

S

M C

D O

N N

E

LL

W

A T

E R

V

LI

E T

.G P

J A

T L4

-0 8.

G D

T

/1

/2

Boring terminated at 24.3 feet.

Notes:

1. Borehole backfilled with on-site soils.

Possible WEATHERED ROCK Fragments and little

From To of

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(i n ch es some

ATLANTIC TESTING LABORATORIES, Limited

CD4849E-01-08-20

DEPTH

OF

SAMPLE

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

BLOWS ON

SAMPLER

PER 6"

2" O.D.

SAMPLER

fine medium course

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL

D E

P T

H O

F C

H A

N G

E

35-50% trace m f

Boring No.:

Sheet c

S A

M P

L E

N O

20-35%

0-10%

B-1

D E

P T

H Subsurface Investigation

2Report No.:

M E

T H

O D

O F

A D

V A

N C

E

10-20%

A T

L-

LO

G

LL

C D

B U

R N

S

M C

D O

N N

E

LL

W

A T

E R

V

LI

E T

.G P

J A

T L4

-0 8.

G D

T

/1

/2

Project: Watervliet Arsenal Pedestrian Bridge Project No.: CD4849 Boring No.: B-1 (7-14-20) Hammer Energy= 80 Std Energy= 60

Sample No Depth

(ft) Field

N-Value N60

LRFD

N(1)60

1 1 9 12 23 2 3 7 9 15 3 5 10 13 19 4 7 4 5 7 5 9 17 23 28 6 11 15 20 23 7 13 30 40 45 8 15 62 83 90 9 19 100 133 138 10 24 100 133 131

APPENDIX D

LABORATORY TEST REPORTS

APPENDIX E

SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS

tf''! ^ m I Am 7m:11

^C> pg^esr-RjA^ -^a^hgE-FOOT'^^<S- |:£>>VgV9 /;W

JOB BY

pcj^/^47^ o ̂ '^‘-^?f^'S' ,=^ n r\!fJELL_

DATE

P-/g

'pE'bJ^STXi 4-rO T^ooTiAE lengthy^ ^'^■^v^.irTf X 7'^'r I

SUBJECT SHEET

'-Z-'Z OF

■|■^^^o'p>cs■c'>> \r pn( S '"©''

LOG-/o" -e4 <=G

E

L V

A ffc ~ - ^<o cr.o

4 ^l _z

K^TT~thLn^r4'J J=7ZOJ< p_/>

— ^ ^' N-JZT^A iL V't^'^T^ <= 4-^ S'T^E4^£\ A7— /iJihy>cX^J

a. i 0dl -cr-e>

2^^ V ̂ i^i d yf 7“ :

4 <dTV x'l^'jpox^ h 0^£i±^

Ad)^ ////. - ioL

LO^4 j4Xy iMR/■ CR<E aJ5RjL<^^ o4^ Ih

4 A :

d) ^ c::

_ o. ''^d., ^2'TJ /^ (-1

/^ A /w

L^riCrni X X

?^c?t"/a/(5— f-d(_

7^(^kz

'X4-)^‘^(-

- ^.^/p IZ- 1^ 77X

4 4: -~d r 4/^y-x-.