Geotechnical Engineering Report - Steuben County · Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed CR22 Bridge Replacement Bridge 3333290 over Canisteo River Cameron, Steuben County, New

REPORT C OVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed CR22 Bridge Replacement

Cameron, Steuben County, New York

July 24, 2017 (REV. March 19, 2018)

Terracon Project No. J5175049

Prepared for:

Nature’s Way Environmental Consultants and Contractors, Inc.

Alden, New York

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants-NY, Inc.

Rochester, New York

REPORT C OVER LETTER TO SIGN

July 24, 2017 (REV. March 19, 2018)

Nature’s Way Environmental Consultants and Contractors, Inc.

3553 Crittenden Road

Alden, New York 14004

Attn: Mr. Dale Gramza

P: (716) 937 6527

E: [email protected]

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed CR22 Bridge Replacement

Bridge 3333290 over Canisteo River

Cameron, Steuben County, New York

Terracon Project No. J5175049

Dear Mr. Gramza:

We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This

study was performed in general accordance with our master service agreement task order number

PJ5175049 dated June 7, 2017. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration

and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and

construction of foundations for the proposed bridge replacement.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions

concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Terracon Consultants-NY, Inc.

Christian B. Rice Stephen C. Lanne, P.E.

Senior Staff Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

REPORT TOPICS

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 2 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... 3 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 4 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................ 4 DEEP FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................... 8

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 11 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ................................................................................. 12

GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 14

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced

heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section. For more interactive features,

please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLAN

EXPLORATION RESULTS (Boring Logs and Laboratory Data)

SUPPORTING INFORMATION (Unified Soil Classification System)

http://client.terracon.com/

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed CR22 Bridge Replacement

Bridge 3333290 over Canisteo River

Cameron, Steuben County, New York Terracon Project No. J5175049

July 24, 2017 (REV. March 19, 2018)

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering

services performed for the proposed County Road 22 bridge replacement located at Bridge

3333290 over Canisteo River in Cameron, Steuben County, New York. The purpose of these

services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ subsurface soil conditions ■ foundation design and construction

■ groundwater conditions ■ seismic site classification per IBC

■ site preparation and earthwork ■ lateral earth pressures

The geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the advancement of three

test borings to depths ranging from approximately 45 to 79.4 feet below existing site grades.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration

Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples

obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and/or as

separate exhibits in the Exploration Results section of this report.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our review of field exploration program

and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel information

The site is located at County Road 22, Bridge 3333290 over the Canisteo

River in Cameron, Steuben County, New York.

See Site Location

Existing

improvements

An approximately 215-foot long two-lane bridge crossing over the Canisteo

River, with a bituminous concrete paved deck and concrete wingwalls at

each end.


Proposed CR22 Bridge Replacement ■ Cameron, Steuben County, New York

July 24, 2017 (REV. March 19, 2018) ■ Terracon Project No. J5175049


Item Description

Current ground cover Bituminous concrete pavement.

Existing topography The bridge deck is relatively level.

Geology

Based on the Surficial Geologic Map of New York: Finger Lakes Sheet

(1986), the subsurface soil conditions in the vicinity of the site consist of

outwash deposits and glacial till. Based on the Geologic Map of New York

Finger Lakes Sheet (1970), the bedrock in the vicinity of the site consists of

sandstone and/or shale of the “Wiscoy” Formation (Upper Devonian).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed in the

project planning stage. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated,

and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Site Location and Anticipated Conditions

Item Description

Parcel information The project is located at County Road 22, Bridge 3333290 over Canisteo

River in Cameron, Steuben County, New York.

Existing

improvements

An approximately 215-foot long two-lane bridge crossing over the Canisteo

River, with a bituminous concrete paved deck and concrete wingwalls at

each end.

Current ground cover Bituminous concrete pavement.

Existing topography The bridge deck is on an approximately 2.3 percent grade.

Planned Construction

Item Description

Information provided Attachment A – Scope of Work provided by NWECC, describing

geotechnical field and laboratory program requirements for the project.

Project description The project consists of the replacement of the existing Country Road 22

bridge crossing over the Canisteo River.

Proposed structure The project includes a new 200-foot two-span bridge with concrete, pile

supported abutments, pier, and wingwalls.

Bridge construction Steel members with reinforced concrete foundations and a bridge deck

covered with bituminous concrete pavement.

Bridge deck elevation Similar to existing.





Item Description

Grading/slopes Some minor increase in roadway profile anticipated. Work includes

approach embankment and grading to match the new bridge.

Retaining structures Abutments and wingwalls will be required to retain the permanent slopes.

Pavements The bridge deck is expected to be covered with bituminous concrete

pavement.

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Subsurface Profile

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions

based upon our review of the data and our understanding of the geologic setting.

The geotechnical characterization forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation

of site preparation, foundation options and pavement options. As noted in General Comments,

the characterization is based upon widely spaced exploration points across the site, and variations

are likely.

Based on the results of the borings and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions at the boring

locations can be generalized as follows:

Stratum Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Description Consistency/Density

Surface 1.0 to 1.3 Asphalt pavement and gravel

subbase N/A

1 55 to 67 Silt, Sandy silt, clayey silt, silty sand,

gray

Medium dense to very

dense

2

Undetermined: Borings

terminated within this

stratum at depths of

approximately 69 to 79 feet

Silty sand, with gravel, occasional

cobbles, gray Very dense

Based on the results of the explorations, soils encountered and described above appear

consistent with the native soils identified in the geologic map. Conditions encountered at each

boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs shown in the Exploration Results

section and are attached to this report. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the

approximate location of changes in native soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may

be gradual.





Groundwater Conditions

The boreholes were observed while drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. The water

levels observed in the boreholes can be found on the boring logs in Exploration Results, and are

summarized below.

Boring number Approximate depth to groundwater

while drilling (feet) 1

B-1 28

B-2 28

B-3 28

1. Depth below ground surface

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff,

the level of the Canisteo River, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were

performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the

structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of

groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction

plans for the project.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings and the configuration of the

proposed construction, we recommend the proposed bridge abutments, pier, and wingwalls be

supported by driven piles. Design recommendations for driven pile foundations are presented in the

Deep Foundations section

Depending on design and construction sequencing, temporary excavation support may be

required for demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge abutments. A

temporary cofferdam will be required to install the center pier piles, footing, and stem. Additional

site preparation recommendations including subgrade improvement and fill placement are

provided in the Site Preparation section.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork will include clearing, excavations, and fill placement. The following sections provide

recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. These





recommendations include critical quality criteria as necessary to render the site in the state

considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundations, abutments, and

pavements.

Temporary Excavation Support and Cofferdams

Prior to demolishing the existing structure, temporary excavation support may need to be installed

to support existing grades and protect existing structures and utilities during construction of the

new bridge abutments and wingwalls. Based on the results of the explorations, we would consider

the site particularly suited to driven soldier pile or sheetpile excavation support systems.

The design should include surcharge load from construction equipment and vehicle traffic, if the

bridge is built in stages. The excavation support systems may require tieback anchors or internal

bracing. Design should also consider excavation base stability, possible overexcavation to

remove soils disturbed during the pile driving operation.

A temporary cofferdam system will be required in the river to allow for construction of the pier and

foundations. Cofferdam enclosures may also be required to control debris from the demolition of

the existing piers and foundations. We expect the cofferdams would consist of a braced steel

sheet-pile system that encloses the excavation for the pier, and will keep out water and soil so as

to permit dewatering and construction of the pier and foundations in the dry.

The design of the cofferdams should accommodate unbalance soil pressures from the bottom of

new pier level on the inside of the cofferdams and the mudline on the outside, unbalanced

hydrostatic pressures considering the dewatered level on the inside of the cofferdams and the

mean high water level on the outside, wave action, water flow pressure, and impact loading from

vessels, barges, or ice. Due to the unbalanced water pressure from outside to inside of the

cofferdams, water seepage may occur. This seepage can result in piping of fine grained materials,

uplift pressures, and destabilization of the foundation subgrade. Sheetpiles may need to be

extended deeper to prevent seepage. Alternately, a concrete mud mat seal may be placed below

the bottom of pier level using tremie methods prior to dewatering. The tremie seal mud mat must

be configured to accommodate the pier foundation piles.

The excavation support systems and cofferdams should be designed by a specialty contractor or

engineer specializing in the design of these systems. Explorations have not been advanced at

the location of the proposed pier. We recommend explorations be advanced prior to final design

of pier foundations and the cofferdams.

The temporary excavation support, cofferdams, and dewatering systems are considered major

components to the earthwork operations for this project. The approach to these systems should

be coordinated between the owner, geotechnical engineer, structural engineer, and contractor.





Site Preparation

Prior to placing fill, soils disturbed during the installation of the pile foundations and any otherwise

unsuitable materials should be removed. The exposed subgrade should be compacted with a

least six passes of a heavy plate compactor. Unstable subgrades and any deleterious material

should be removed and replaced with compacted fill or crushed stone, as necessary. Fill may

then be placed to attain the required grade.

Fill Material Types

Fill required to achieve design grade should be classified as structural fill and general fill.

Structural fill is that material used below, or within 10 feet of structures, such as the abutments

and wingwalls, or constructed slopes. General fill is that material used to achieve grade outside

of these areas, such as below the pavement section. Earthen materials used for structural and

general fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Soil Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Abutment Backfill GW

All locations and elevations. Imported material should

meet the requirements of NYSDOT Select Structure

Fill (733-14)

General or

Embankment Fill

GW, GP, GM,

SW, SP, SM

For general site grading or as embankment fill where

finished grade is no steeper than 3H:1V. Excavated

soils may be selectively re-used as Embankment fill,

provided they are generally granular in composition,

are free of deleterious materials, and contain less

than 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.

Crushed Stone GP For use as on wet subgrades and as drainage fill.

Should be uniform ¾-inch angular crushed stone.

1. Structural and general fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris.

Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each

material type should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for evaluation prior to use on this site.





Fill Compaction Requirements

Structural and general fill should meet the following compaction requirements.

Item Structural Fill

Maximum individual lift thickness

12 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled

compaction equipment is used

6 to 8 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment

(i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used

Minimum compaction

requirements 1

95 percent of maximum theoretical density below foundations,

behind abutments and wingwalls, and within 3 feet of finished

pavement subgrade.

92 percent of maximum theoretical density all other areas.

Water content

range 1 -3% to +3% of optimum

1. Maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557).

Grading and Drainage

In conjunction with the proposed new abutment, we expect permanent slopes will be constructed

to transition to finish grade. Design of permanent soil slopes should be based on a grade no

steeper than 3H:1V, which would be suitable for slopes in the native soils or for fill slopes of

embankment fill. Steeper slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer and would

likely require premium materials and/or reinforcement.

We recommend that permanent slope surfaces not subjected to possible scour be vegetated to

reduce erosion. Vegetated slopes should be protected with erosion mats until the vegetation is

established. Permanent slope subject to scout potential should be covered with riprap stone

underlain by bedding material and a geotextile separation fabric (Mirafi 140N, or equivalent).

Temporary sedimentation and erosion control methods should be implemented during

construction and left in place until the slope surfaces have become stabilized. Site grading should

direct surface water away from the wing walls and abutments.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Shallow excavations, for the proposed structure, are anticipated to be accomplished with

conventional construction equipment. Construction traffic over the completed subgrades should

be avoided. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared

subgrades or in excavations. Any water that collects over, or adjacent to, construction areas

should be promptly removed. If the subgrade freezes, desiccates, saturates, or is disturbed, the





affected material should be removed, or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned,

and recompacted, prior to floor slab construction. All these processes should be observed by

Terracon.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926,

Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, and/or

state regulations.

Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means,

methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the

information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming any responsibility for

construction site safety, or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied

nor inferred.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. This

monitoring should include documentation of pile installation, removal of unsuitable material, proof-

rolling, and mitigation of areas delineated by the proof-roll to require mitigation.

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked as necessary until approved

by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. In areas of foundation

excavations, the bearing subgrade should be evaluated under the direction of the Geotechnical

Engineer. In the event unanticipated conditions are encountered, the Geotechnical Engineer

should prescribe mitigation options.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the

continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the

continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including

assessing variations and associated design changes.

DEEP FOUNDATIONS

Driven Pile Design Parameters

The proposed bridge abutments and wingwalls may be supported on steel pipe or H-pile

foundations designed to develop the required load carrying capacity from friction and end-bearing

in stratums 1 and 2 at depths below the design scour level. Design and construction of the piles

should be in accordance with the State of New York Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)

Geotechnical Design Manual and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation





Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, 2010. Design

recommendations for driven steel pile foundations are presented in the following paragraphs.

Driven piles should be spaced at least 3 pile widths apart (center-to-center) if side friction is used

for compressive loads.

Description Value

Recommended downdrag load 3 0 kips

Angle of Internal Friction

Stratum 1

Stratum 2

30 degrees

34 degrees

Pile to soil friction (d)

Stratum 1

Stratum 2

22 degrees

25 degrees

P-Y modulus 1

Stratum 1

Stratum 2

90 pci (above water level)

60 pci (below water level)

125 pci (below water level)

Cohesion

All soils Negligible

Estimated In-situ Soil Unit Weight

Stratum 1

Stratum 2

110 pcf (above water level)

48 pcf (below water level)


1. For use with LPile computer program.

Prior to construction, we recommend pile driving criteria be established by conducting a specific

Wave Equation Analysis based on the expected soil conditions and pile driving equipment. During

construction, Pile Dynamic Analysis (PDA) should be performed in accordance with ASTM D4945

to confirm or modify, as necessary, the pile driving criteria and to check the required pile capacities

are achieved. Provided PDA testing is conducted and required capacity is confirmed, static pile

load testing is not required.





When piles are used in groups, the lateral capacities of the piles in the second, third, and

subsequent rows of the group should be reduced as compared to the capacity of a single,

independent pile. Guidance for applying p-multiplier

factors to the p values in the p-y curves for each row of

pile foundations within a pile group are as follows:

■ Front row: Pm = 0.8;

■ Second row: Pm = 0.4

■ Third and subsequent row: Pm = 0.3.

The load capacities provided herein are based on the

stresses induced in the supporting soil strata. The structural capacity of the piles should be checked

to assure that they can safely accommodate the combined stresses induced by axial and lateral

forces. Lateral deflections of piles should be evaluated using an appropriate analysis method, and

will depend upon the pile’s diameter, length, configuration, stiffness and “fixed head” or “free

head” condition. We can provide additional analyses and estimates of lateral deflections for

specific loading conditions upon request. The load-carrying capacity of piles may be increased by

increasing the section (for H-piles), diameter (for pipe piles) and/or length. The following table

presents our estimate of the required pile lengths for an axial capacity of 150 kips and 195 kips,

based on our static analysis.

Pile Type

Required Pile Embedment

for 150 kip Dead Load

Capacity

Required Pile Embedment for 195 kip

Dead Load Capacity

Driven HP12x53

45 feet (South Abutment)

40 feet (Pier) 1

50 feet (North Abutment)


45 feet (Pier) 1


Driven 14-inch Diameter

Pipe Pile


40 feet (Pier) 1



45 feet (Pier) 1


10-inch Diameter

Micropile


50 feet (Pier) 1



60 feet (Pier) 1


1. No explorations were conducted at the pier location. Estimated pile lengths are based on extrapolating

data collected from B-1 and B-2 and assumes subsurface conditions are similar at the pier location.

Additional explorations should be conducted at the pier location to confirm subsurface conditions.

Driven Pile Construction Considerations

The pile driving method should be submitted for review by the geotechnical engineer, prior to

mobilization of equipment. Piles are required to be installed vertically and along a straight line





within specified tolerances. The subgrade soil will likely become disturbed as a result of the pile

installation procedures. Large limestone boulders were cored in B-1 and B-2 and cobbles were

encountered throughout the explorations. The contractor should take these aspects into account

in their proposed driving method(s). Consideration should be given to using protective points

and/or flange stiffening if H-piles are used. The contractor should be prepared to cut or splice

piles, as necessary. Splicing of piles should be in accordance with specifications provided by the

project structural engineer.

Limitations to ground vibration levels should be established prior to pile installation. Ground

vibrations should be monitored during installation of piles. Pile driving conditions, hammer

efficiency, and stress on the pile during driving could be better evaluated during installation using

a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). A Terracon representative should observe pile driving operations.

Each pile should be observed and checked for buckling, crimping and alignment in addition to

recording penetration resistance, depth of embedment, and general pile driving operations.

The pile driving process should be performed under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer.

The Geotechnical Engineer should document the pile installation process including soil/rock and

groundwater conditions encountered, consistency with expected conditions, and details of the

installed pile.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design

Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a

structure. The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a

weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or

undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7.

Description Value

2015 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC) 1 C 2

Site Latitude 42.1933

Site Longitude -77.3925

SDS Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 3 0.102g

SD1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 3 0.061g





Description Value

1. Seismic site classification in general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code, which refers to

ASCE 7.

2. The 2015 International Building Code (IBC) uses a site profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic

site classification. Borings at this site were extended to a maximum depth of about 79 feet. The site properties

below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic

conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm

the conditions below the current boring depth. 3. These values were obtained using online seismic design maps and tools provided by the USGS

(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/).

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

Below grade structures with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for

earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be

influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction

and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions

are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever

retaining walls and assumes wall

movement. The "at-rest" condition

assumes no wall movement and is

commonly used for walls restrained at

the top. The recommended design

lateral earth pressures do not include a

factor of safety and do not provide for

possible hydrostatic pressure on the

walls (unless stated).

Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

Earth Pressure

Condition

Coefficient for

Backfill Type

Surcharge

Pressure

p1 (psf)

Earth Pressure

p2 (psf)

Active (Ka) 0.28 (0.28)S (35)H

At-Rest (Ko) 0.43 (0.43)S (54)H

Conditions applicable to the above parameters include:

For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements

of about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/





For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize

resistance.

Level backfill is assumed. Contact Terracon for additional guidance if the wall

backfill is sloped more than 1V:5H.

Uniform area surcharge behind the wall, where S is surcharge pressure in psf.

Other surcharge loads should be considered where they are located within a

horizontal distance behind the wall equal to 1.5 times the height of the wall.

Surcharge stresses due to point loads, line loads, and those of limited extent, such

as compaction equipment, should be evaluated in accordance with Article 3.11.6

of the AASHTO LRFD specifications.

To account for the effect of compaction equipment on the wall during construction,

the lateral surcharge pressure should not be less than 100 psf, distributed

uniformly over the height of the wall.

Retained soil total unit weight up to 125 pcf.

Wall is constructed with a minimum 2-foot wide drainage layer of Crushed Stone

placed directly behind the walls, with a drain.

Backfill compacted to at least 95 percent maximum dry density (ASTM D1557)

Within 4 feet of back of wall, hand operated equipment should be used.

Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included; heavy equipment should

not operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of retaining walls.

Hydrostatic pressures acting on wall should be taken into account as appropriate.

Retaining structures should be backfilled evenly to the extent practical. Temporary

bracing should be specified if walls, that are designed to be supported by other

structural elements, are permitted to be backfilled before the permanent support

is in place.

No dynamic loading.

Passive pressure should be ignored because of the amount of movement required

to mobilize resistance.

Subsurface Drainage for Below Grade Walls

A perforated rigid plastic drain line installed behind the base of walls, which extend below adjacent

grade is recommended to prevent hydrostatic loading on the walls. The invert of a drain line

around the retaining wall should be placed near foundation bearing level. The drain line should

be sloped to provide positive gravity drainage to daylight. The drain line should be surrounded by

Crushed Stone encapsulated in a filter fabric.

Temporary Excavation Support and Cofferdam

The above parameters are not applicable to the design of temporary excavation support or

cofferdam systems for the project. For soils consistent with those encountered in our explorations,





the design of excavation support and cofferdams may be based on the following parameters.

Explorations have not been advanced at the location of the proposed pier. We recommend

explorations be advanced prior to final design of pier foundations and the cofferdams.

Description Value

Angle of Internal Friction

Stratum 1

Stratum 2

30 degrees

34 degrees

Cohesion

All soils Negligible

Estimated In-situ Soil Unit Weight

Stratum 1

Stratum 2





GENERAL COMMENTS

Our work is conducted with the understanding of the project as described in the proposal, and will

incorporate collaboration with the design team as we complete our services to verify assumptions.

Revision of our understanding to reflect actual conditions important to our work will be based on

these verifications and will be reflected in the final report. The design team should collaborate with

Terracon to confirm these assumptions and to prepare the final design plans and specifications.

This facilitates the incorporation of our opinions related to implementation of our geotechnical

recommendations. Any information conveyed prior to the final report is for informational purposes

only and should not be considered or used for decision-making purposes.

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the geotechnical conditions in

the area, the data obtained from our site exploration and from our understanding of the project.

Variations will occur between exploration point locations, across the site, or due to the modifying

effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become

evident until during or after construction. Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical

Engineer, where noted in the final report, to provide observation and testing services during

grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the

project. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental

recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services

on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental

recommendations.





Our scope of services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or

biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of

pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for

such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our

client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with

generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third party beneficiaries intended.

Any third party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes only.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for

third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their

own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any

use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there

may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact

excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site

characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering

requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location

of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid

unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

ATTACH MENTS

ATTACHMENTS




esponsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

3 43 to 79.4 Bridge abutments

Boring Layout: The boring layout was performed by others.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: Nature’s Way Environmental Consultants and

Contractors, Inc. performed the soil subsurface explorations. The borings were drilled with a rotary

drilling rig using continuous flight, hollow-stemmed augers to advance the boreholes. Samples

were obtained using split-barrel sampling procedures. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a

standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-pound

hammer falling a distance of 30 inches.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned various laboratory tests to better

understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata as necessary for this project.

Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases,

variations to methods are applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards

noted below include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily

applicable to describe the specific test performed.

■ ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)

Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

■ ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of

Soils

■ ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

The laboratory testing program often includes examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based

on the material’s texture and plasticity, we describe and classify the soil samples in accordance

with the Unified Soil Classification System. The results of the laboratory testing are included in

the Appendix of this report.

SITE LOCA TION AND EXPLORATI ON PLANS

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

SITE LOCATIONCounty Road 22 over Canisteo River BIN 3333290 ■ Cameron, NYJuly 7, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No. J5175049

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEYQUADRANGLES INCLUDE: CAMERON, NY (1/1/1976) and RATHBONE, NY (1/1/1953).

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND ISNOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

SITE

EXPLORATION RESUL TS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

3553 Crittenden Road Alden, NY 14004

(716) 937- 6527www.natureswayenvironmental.com

0

5

10

15

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

15

20

12

45

10

14

50/1"

19

36

50/4"

9

8

-

21

50/1"

-

7

6

-

23

-

19

22

>50

40

86

>50

Asphalt Pavement.

Gravel Sub-base fill

Moist, brown, very gravelly (SANDY-SILT)fill with 40 to 50% gravel, little very fine sizesand, compact.

Moist, olive gray, very gravelly (SILTY-SAND) with 40 to 60% gravel with cobbles,very fine to fine size sand, little silt, denseto very dense, in place.

Limestone boulder, gray, very hard withfossil fragments.

Moist, gray to brown, very gravelly (SILT)with 40 to 60% gravel with cobbles, tracevery fine size sand, very dense, massivesoil structure to weakly bedded.

0.7

1.3

11.0

15.3

17.0

1.5'

0.7'

0.2'

1.3'

1.0'

0.7'

Asphalt pavement to 0.7 foot over gravel sub-base fill to 1.3 foot over silty fill with gravel to

11.0 feet over water sorted and deposited sand and gravel to

15.3 feet over limestone boulder to 17.0 feet over silty glacial drift

with gravel to 28.0 feet over water sorted and deposited sand and gravel to 38.0 feet

over silty lake sediment to 55.0 feet over silty glacial till with

gravel to end of boring.

Hole Number: B 1DATE: 6/26/17 ELEVATION:

PROJECT: Subsurface Investigation for the Proposed CR 22 Bridge Replacement

Bridge 3333290 over Canisto River, Cameron, Steuben County, New York

PREPARED FOR: Fisher AssociatesBORING LOCATION: See Map

LOGGED BY: Dale M. Gramza/ Senior Geologist PAGE 1 of

SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24

N LITH DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION REC COMMENTS

4

Run #1

SConnelly

Line



25

30

35

40

8

9

10

11

24

19

4

9

20

14

35

17

28

16

14

14

33

19

11

21

48

30

49

31

Moist, gray to brown, very gravelly (SILT)with 40 to 60% gravel with cobbles, tracevery fine size sand, very dense, massivesoil structure to weakly bedded.

Wet, brown, very gravelly (SILTY-SAND)with 40 to 60% gravel, very fine to coarsesize sand, little silt, compact to dense, inplace, stratified.

Moist, olive gray (SILT) with trace clay,hard, thinly bedded.

28.0

38.0

1.3'

1.5'

1.0'

1.5'






SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


4



45

50

55

60

12

13

14

15

13

9

21

72

17

21

24

50/2"

25

22

31

-

29

25

35

-

42

43

55

>50

Moist, olive gray becoming gray below 53.0feet (SILT) with trace clay, hard, thinlybedded.

Extremely moist, gray, very gravelly(SANDY-SILT) with 40 to 60% gravel withcobbles, little very fine size sand, verydense, massive soil structure.

55.0

1.5'

1.7'

1.7'

0.4'

Water Present at 42.0' bgs






SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


4



65

70

75

80

16

17

95

33

50/1"

60

-

50/3"

-

-

>50

110

Extremely moist, gray, very gravelly(SANDY-SILT) with 40 to 60% gravel withcobbles, little very fine size sand, verydense, massive soil structure.

Boring Completed at 69.3' bgs69.3

0.5'

1.0'






SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


4



0

5

10

15

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

7

18

45

21

10

9

8

29

41

34

25

19

9

8

31

50/3"

24

25

34

7

7

50/4"

-

19

29

24

18

16

60

91

58

50

53

Asphalt Pavement.

Gravel Sub-base fill.

Extremely moist, very gravelly (SANDY-SILT) fill with 40 to 50% gravel with littlevery fine size sand, compact.

Moist, olive gray to brown, very gravelly(SANDY-SILT) with 40 to 60% gravel withcobbles, little very fine size sand, verydense, weakly stratified.

0.7

1.0

12.5

1.3'

1.0'

1.1'

1.2'

1.6'

1.3'

1.2'

Asphalt pavement to 0.7 footover gravel sub-base fill to to1.0 foot over silty soil fill withgravel to 12.5 feet over watersorted and deposited silt andgravel to 28.0 feet over water

sorted and deposited sand andgravel to 40.0 feet over

limestone boulder to end ofboring.






SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


3



25

30

35

40

8

9

10

11

9

6

44

18

14

6

50/3"

31

12

5

-

50/3"

7

5

-

-

26

11

>50

81

Moist, olive gray to brown, very gravelly(SANDY-SILT) with 40 to 60% gravel withcobbles, little very fine size sand, verydense, weakly stratified with occasionalfibrous wood pieces.

Wet, gray, very gravelly (SILTY-SAND)with 40 to 50% gravel with very fine tocoarse size sand, little silt, compactbecoming very dense below 33.0 feet withoccasional thin clayey silt lensesencountered below 38.0 feet.

28.0

40.0

0.8'

1.3'

0.8'

0.7'






SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


3



45

50

55

60

Limestone boulder, gray, very hard withfossil fragments.

Wet, gray, very gravelly (SILTY-SAND)with 40 to 50% gravel, very fine to coarsesize sand, little silt, compact

Coring Completed at 45.0' bgs

43.0

45.0

Encountered refusal on boulderat 40.0 feet, cored the boulder.Unable to drill past boulder withaugers. Moved boring 10.0 feet

north, re-drilled.






SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


3

Run #1

SConnelly

Line



0

5

10

15

20

Drilled without sampling with 4 1/4" HollowStemmed Augers to 43.0' bgs prior tosampling.

Encountered refusal on boulderat 40.0 feet on B 2. Patched

hole and moved 10.0 feet northand re-drilled.

Below 43.0 feet, water sortedand deposited sand and gravelwith little silt to 45.0 feet over

silty tending toward clayey lakesediment to 63.0 feet over silty

lake sediment with trace sand to67.0 feet over water sorted anddeposited sand and gravel with

little silt to end of boring.

Hole Number: B 3DATE: 6/28/17 - 6/29/17 ELEVATION:





SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


4

3553 Crittenden Road Alden, NY 14004 (716) 937- 6527

www.natureswayenvironmental.com

25

30

35

40

Drilled without sampling with 4 1/4" HallowStemmed Augers to 43.0' bgs prior tosampling.






SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


4



45

50

55

60

1

2

3

4

45

10

14

23

14

14

22

34

17

16

38

50/3

18

18

42

-

31

30

60

84

Drilled without sampling with 4 1/4" HallowStemmed Augers to 43.0' bgs prior tosampling.

Wet, gray, very gravelly (SILTY-SAND)with 40 to 50% gravel with very fine tocoarse size sand, little silt, dense withoccasional thin clayey silt lenses, stratified.

Moist, gray (CLAYEY-SILT) with little tosome clay, very stiff to hard, thinlylaminated with very thin coarse silt lenses.

43.0

45.0

0.3'

0.9'

1.2'

1.5'






SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


4



65

70

75

80

5

6

7

8

28

24

20

21

36

50/5"

35

31

50/3"

-

50/5"

50/5"

-

-

-

-

86

>50

85

81

Moist, gray (CLAYEY-SILT) with little tosome clay, very stiff, thinly laminated withvery thin coarse silt lenses.

Moist, gray (SILT) with trace very fine sizesand, very dense, thinly bedded.

Wet, gray, very gravelly (SILTY-SAND)with 40 to 60% gravel with occasionalcobbles, very fine to coarse size sand, littlesilt, very dense in place, stratified.

Boring Completed at 79.4' bgs

63.0

67.0

79.4

1.0'

1.3'

1.0'

0.5'






SN0/6

6/12

12/18

18/24


4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

USCS Classification AASHTO Classification Boring ID Depth LL

D100 D30

Cc Cu

Boring ID Depth D60 %Clay

12

26

23

2.16

2.15

4.12

1.89

16.40

28.63

32.41

31.04

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

37.5

37.5

37.5

37.5

4.292

3.151

7.659

3.984

0.72

0.401

0.663

0.52

68.2

61.6

78.3

66.2

27.9

35.7

17.8

29.2

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI

D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt

NP

NP

15

12

26

8

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarse fine

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL with SAND(GW)


POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND(GP)


A-1-a (0)

A-1-a (0)

A-2-4 (0)

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

11.818

11.492

21.488

16.132

3.9

2.6

4.0

4.6

3 - 5

12 - 14

23 - 25

28 - 30

3 - 5

12 - 14

23 - 25

28 - 30

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

PROJECT NUMBER: J5175049PROJECT: County Road 22 over Canisteo

River BIN 3333290

SITE: County Road 22 Cameron, NY

CLIENT: Nature's Way Environmental Alden, NY

EXHIBIT: B-115 Marway Cir Ste 2B

Rochester, NY

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S &

AA

SH

TO

CO

MB

INE

D J

5175

049

CO

UN

TY

RO

AD

22

OV

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 7

/18

/17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

USCS Classification AASHTO Classification Boring ID Depth LL

D100 D30

Cc Cu

Boring ID Depth D60 %Clay

24

20

30

1.86

1.52

1.86

2.32

11.83

9.98

12.07

27.51

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

37.5

37.5

37.5

37.5

5.082

6.416

6.312

2.084

1.084

1.649

1.333

0.261

72.4

78.3

76.8

49.9

24.1

20.5

21.6

46.7

B-2

B-2

B-2

B-2

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI

D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt

NP

NP

10

24

20

20

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarse fine





A-1-a (0)

A-1-a (0)

A-2-6 (0)

B-2

B-2

B-2

B-2

12.825

16.45

16.083

7.173

3.5

1.2

1.6

3.4

3 - 5

8 - 10

14 - 16

28 - 30

3 - 5

8 - 10

14 - 16

28 - 30

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136


River BIN 3333290




Rochester, NY

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S &

AA

SH

TO

CO

MB

INE

D J

5175

049

CO

UN

TY

RO

AD

22

OV

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 7

/18

/17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

CH o

r

OH

CL o

r

OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

PL PIBoring ID Depth Description

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL with SAND


POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND




GW

GW

GP

GW

GW

GW

Fines

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

12

26

23

24

20

30

NP

NP

15

NP

NP

10

12

26

8

24

20

20

4

3

4

3

1

2

LL USCS

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-2

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTSASTM D4318

3 - 5

12 - 14

23 - 25

3 - 5

8 - 10

14 - 16


River BIN 3333290




Rochester, NY

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

AT

TE

RB

ER

G L

IMIT

S J

5175

049

CO

UN

TY

RO

AD

22

OV

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 7

/18

/17

CL-ML

SUPPORTING INF ORMA TION

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM



UNIFIED SOIL C LASSIFIC AT ION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of

coarse fraction

retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse

fraction passes No. 4

sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line

J

CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with

cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly

graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded

sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded

sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with

gravel,” whichever is predominant. L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy”

to group name. M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line. Q PI plots below “A” line.

Documents

Geotechnical Engineering Report - Steuben County · Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed CR22 Bridge Replacement Bridge 3333290 over Canisteo River Cameron, Steuben County, New