Final Geotechnical Structure Soils Report Clinton Station ... · This is a structure soils report...

Final Geotechnical Structure Soils Report Clinton Station Platform and Tower

Shore Line East Railroad Clinton, Connecticut

Prepared for:

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 2B

Rocky Hill, CT 06067

Prepared by:

GeoDesign, Inc. 984 Southford Road

Middlebury, CT 06762

Tel. (203) 758-8836 Fax. (203) 758-8842

May 9, 2012 File No. 0183-007.0

SHORE LINE EAST RAIL ROAD CLINTON STATION PLATFORM AND TOWER

SOIL STRUCTURE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page i

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Datum ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Design Methodology.............................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 2

4.0 SUBSURFACE DATA ...................................................................................................... 2

4.1 Geologic Mapping ................................................................................................. 2

4.2 Existing Subsurface Data ..................................................................................... 3

4.3 2010 Subsurface Explorations ............................................................................. 3

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 4

5.1 Generalized Subsurface Profile ........................................................................... 4

5.2 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 5

6.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ................................................................................. 5

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES ............................................................................................. 5

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 6

8.1 Foundation Type and Bearing Strata ................................................................. 6

8.2 Excavation Requirements .................................................................................... 6

8.3 Bearing Pressure ................................................................................................... 7

8.4 Subgrade Modulus ................................................................................................ 7

8.5 Settlement .............................................................................................................. 7

8.6 Coefficient of Friction ........................................................................................... 7

8.7 Seismic Design Category ...................................................................................... 8

8.8 Liquefaction ........................................................................................................... 8

8.9 Infiltration Rates ................................................................................................... 8

8.10 Miscellaneous Minor Site Structures .................................................................. 9

9.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 9

9.1 Temporary Earth Support ................................................................................... 9

9.2 Impact on Catenary Foundations ...................................................................... 10

SHORE LINE EAST RAIL ROAD CLINTON STATION PLATFORM AND TOWER

SOIL STRUCTURE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ii

9.3 Platform Footing Redesign................................................................................. 11

9.4 Dewatering ........................................................................................................... 11

9.5 Re-use of On-site Materials ................................................................................ 11

10.0 SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .......................................... 12

11.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 12

Appendices Appendix 1 Figures Appendix 2 Boring Logs Appendix 3 In-Situ & Laboratory Testing Results Appendix 4 Existing Data Appendix 5 Limitations

1.0 INTRODUCTION This is a structure soils report for the proposed Shore Line East Railroad Station and Platform located in Clinton, Connecticut. This project is part of Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT)'s Upgrade of Seven Rail Facilities. The Clinton Station and Platform is ConnDOT Project No. 310-0020. Baker Engineering NY, Inc. (Baker) is the prime designer and GeoDesign, Inc. (GeoDesign) is the geotechnical subconsultant for Baker. The site location is depicted on Figure 1 (Appendix 1) and a plan view of the proposed construction is shown on Figure 2 (Appendix 1). 1.1 Project Datum The project horizontal datum is the Connecticut Coordinate System NAD 1927 in feet and the vertical datum is N.G.V.D. 1929 in feet. 1.2 Design Methodology Foundation recommendations are in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), 2005 Connecticut Supplement, and 2009 Connecticut Amendment. Recommendations are also based on the ConnDOT Geotechnical Engineering Manual (2005 Edition); ConnDOT Standard Specifications for Roads, Bridges, and Incidental Construction, Form 816 (2004); and 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) publications were followed as reference standards.

2.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed site features and construction information was provided by Baker. A 200-foot long platform is proposed on the north side of the existing railroad tracks. Stair/elevator towers are proposed on both sides of the tracks. The south side platform exists and the south side tower will be constructed over a previously designed and constructed tower foundation. The 50-foot tall towers of approximately 1,300 square feet will be located on the east ends of the existing south and proposed north platforms. The towers will consist of concrete ramps and stairs, with an elevator located on the east side of the tower. The tower entrance floors are to be at top of rail level, at approximate Elevation (El.) 26 feet. Ramps and stairs lead to the platform level at approximate El. 30 feet. The pedestrian bridge crosses over the tracks at about El. 50 feet. The bottom of the elevator pit is to be about 5.5 feet below the tower entrance floor level.

GeoDesign File 0183-007.0 Clinton Station Platforms and Towers

State Project No. 310-0020, Clinton, CT May 9, 2012 - Page 2

Bottom of footing elevations (BFE) are to be a minimum of 42-inches below finished grades. Plans indicate existing grades at about El. 24 feet, with little to no change in exterior proposed grading around the platforms. Based on drawings provided by Baker, BFEs are shown at 6 feet below top of rail level (approximate El. 20 feet). The top of platforms are to be about four feet above the rails and are to be approximately 200 feet long by 12 feet wide. The edge of the proposed platform is to be about 5.83 feet (ft) from the nearest railroad centerline. The platform footing load is to be about 2.0 kips per square foot based on a 7.75 foot wide continuous footing.

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS Refer to Figures 1 and 2 (Appendix 1) for existing site conditions. The site is located about 800 feet west of the Indian River, and about 300 feet north of Route 1. North of the tracks, a chain link fence separates the tracks from a 110-foot wide parking lot which runs parallel to the tracks and inside the corner of Hull Street and Central Ave. South of the tracks is an existing station platform with a covered area to be converted to the south side stairway/elevator tower. The rail line is set on about one to two feet of crushed stone ballast above surrounding grade. The ballast slopes away from the track at about 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical). Grade surrounding the length of the proposed platform is at about El. 24 feet. Based on plans provided by Baker, existing Amtrak Catenary Tower #96-53 on the north side of the tracks is within the footprint of the proposed platform foundation. Existing survey plans provided by Baker do not indicate existing underground utilities present on the north side of the tracks.

4.0 SUBSURFACE DATA 4.1 Geologic Mapping Published U.S. geologic maps indicate surficial deposits of Outwash Sediments, over Potter Hill Granitic Gneiss and/or Narragansett Pier Granite Bedrock. Outwash Sediments are described to consist of Sand and Gravel. East of the proposed station, surficial geologic maps indicate recent swamp deposits along the river.



4.2 Existing Subsurface Data In December of 1999, Wang Engineering performed three borings, designated C-1, C-2, and C-3. Borings C-1 and C-3 were performed on the north side of the tracks within the proposed platform footprint, and C-2 was performed on the south side of the tracks. The boring logs and laboratory data are included in Appendix 4. Our review of existing data (1999) in correlation with recent (2010) data generally indicates consistent subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed platform. 4.3 2010 Subsurface Explorations Two subsurface exploration borings designated Borings RR-21 through RR-22 and four infiltration test (IT) borings designated Borings IT-01 through IT-04 were drilled between September 20th and 22nd, 2010. Borings were performed with conventional rotary drilling equipment and in general accordance to ASTM 1586 (Standard Penetration Testing). The subsurface explorations were monitored by GeoDesign. GeoDesign field representatives observed and logged the borings, classified samples, recorded blow counts (blows per six inch increments), and adjusted the depths and locations of borings in response to field conditions. Samples for environmental purposes were retrieved by TRC Environmental Corporation out of the Winsor, CT office. The samples were taken from above the water table, or before water was introduced into the holes. The borings were performed on the north side of the chain link fence in the existing parking lot. Proposed boring locations and elevations were surveyed by ConnDOT in May, 2010. As-drilled boring locations were determined in the field using line of sight methods and were referenced to existing site features; changes in elevations were nominal. Approximate as-drilled boring locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix 1). Boring logs are included in Appendix 2. Boring depths varied from 64.5 to 68.5 feet below ground surface. The borings were terminated in decomposed bedrock or bedrock, where 10 feet of bedrock was cored at Boring RR-21. Infiltration tests borings were drilled to 6 feet, where testing was performed. Boring were backfilled with a mix of spoils from the boring and grout. In accordance with the 2004 CT Stormwater Quality Manual, falling head infiltration tests were performed in each IT-boring at six feet below ground surface, under both unsaturated and saturated conditions. Test results are attached in Appendix 3, and discussed in Section 8.9. A temporary monitoring well was installed in Boring RR-22 with the bottom of well screen set about 27 feet below grade.



5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 Generalized Subsurface Profile The generalized subsurface profile shown on Figure 3, Appendix 1 includes Wang’s 1999 borings and GeoDesign’s 2010 borings. The profile, in order of increasing depth, consists of:

Surficial covering asphalt, over 1 to 4 feet of Existing Fill, over 0 to 5 feet Organic Sand/Silt 41 to 45 feet Sand, over 17 to 22 feet of Silty Sand, over Up to 19 feet of Decomposed Bedrock, over Granite/Gniess Bedrock

The following descriptions apply to subsurface conditions encountered in the recent 2010 borings only. Note that Silt included in the descriptions below represent soils passing the 200 sieve, which may also include Clay content. The Existing Fill primarily contained fine to coarse sand with 10 to 35 percent Silt and fine Gravel, and where present, trace amounts of roots and cinders. The Existing Fill thickness varied from 1 to 4 feet, found thickest at Boring RR-21. The relative density of the Existing Fill varied from loose to medium dense. Below the Fill, Organic Sand/Silt was observed. This layer generally increased in thickness from Boring RR-22 on the east toward RR-21 on the west. The Sand layer, observed below the Organic Sand/Silt, generally consisted primarily of fine to coarse Sand with less than 10-percent fine Gravel and Silt, and loose to very dense relative density. The Silty Sand stratum, encountered below the Sand, generally consisted of fine to coarse Sand with 20 to 50-percent Silt, and medium dense to very dense relative density. Decomposed Bedrock was observed through split-spoon and/or core samples. Split spoons samples indicated a very dense relative density, whereas the core samples (R-22 cores C-1 and C-2) returned zero-percent RQDs and low Recoveries. Bedrock was classified as gneiss, which is consistent with published geologic maps. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) from Boring RR-21 was 65-percent in core C-3 and 12-percent in core C-4. RQD is the sum of sample pieces greater than four inches in length divided by the



length of core penetration expressed as a percentage. The RQD values of these two samples correspond to Very Poor to Fair Quality. 5.2 Groundwater Groundwater levels were established from the Boring RR-22 monitoring well. Groundwater was observed at about 17 feet below existing ground surface (approximate El. 7 feet). This is consistent with groundwater elevations observed in Wang’s 1999 borings.

6.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Six sieve gradation tests were performed on split spoon samples recovered from borings to confirm field classification and to provide information for liquefaction analysis. The fines content (percent Silt and/or Clay passing No. 200 sieve) varied from about 2.3 to 16.8-percent. Laboratory test results are included in Appendix 4.

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES The following geotechnical issues have been identified and are based on the site soil conditions, and preliminary drawings of existing conditions and proposed construction provided by Baker.

Deposits of Organic Sand/Silt were encountered in some of the borings at anticipated platform and tower footing levels. Organic soils are unsuitable for support of structure foundations per the Building Code. These soils must either be removed and replaced from below footings, or the structure must be supported on foundations bearing below these soils. Groundwater at the time of exploration was sufficiently deep (13-feet below bottom of footings and about 9 feet below Organic soils), and should not become and issue during excavation of the unsuitable soils. (See Sections 8.2 and 9.4)

The western 50 feet of the proposed platform (west of Boring C-3) is absent of any

subsurface data. Although C-3 does not indicate any Organic Sand/Silt, it is unknown if this strata, or another unsuitable layer, is present further west. (See Section 8.2)

Existing north side Amtrak Catenary Tower (CAT Tower) #96-53 interferes with the

proposed platform foundation. Based on information provided by Baker, we understand the CAT Tower foundation consists of an 18-inch diameter drilled concrete shaft to a depth of about ten feet below existing grades (approx. El. 14 feet). The organic Sand/Silt will require excavations to extend to about El. 16 in the vicinity of the CAT Tower. This excavation will expose the CAT Tower foundation with only about two feet of embedment during subgrade preparation. Otherwise, the proposed platform structure(s) and footing designs should be modified to span past the catenary towers as necessary, and preserve foundation embedment and integrity. (See Sections 9.2 and 9.3)



Due to the close proximity of the proposed foundations, the Amtrak rails will need to be supported during excavation to reach proposed bottom of footing elevations. This support must be designed to carry railroad loadings in accordance with AREMA, and to support the excavation of unsuitable materials. The close proximity of the support systems to the tracks will require that the sheeting is left in place (not removed). We also note that excavation support system(s) will need to be installed around the existing CAT Tower #96-53 location. (See Sections 8.2, 9.1, and 9.2)

Infiltration tests indicate subsurface conditions with infiltration rates significantly greater

than the maximum field-measured infiltration rate of 5.0 in/hr, as recommended in the 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual for Infiltration Practices. (See Section 8.9)

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Foundation Type and Bearing Strata

Based on subsurface conditions and design load information, we recommend normal spread footings bearing on the natural Sand stratum, Granular Fill (GF), Compacted Granular Fill (CGF), or Crushed Stone bearing on this stratum. At minimum, the BFE must be below frost depth of 42-inches below final grade.

We anticipate bottom of footing elevations (BFE) at approximate El. 20 feet. The depth to the suitable Sand stratum below the BFE varies over the length of the platform, from about six-inches on the east to about five feet toward the west. 8.2 Excavation Requirements Excavations of up to about nine feet (five feet below BFE) are anticipated to reach the bottom of unsuitable organic soils, with the greatest depth of excavation towards the west. However, due to limited data on the western 50 feet of the proposed platform, Organic Sand/Silt excavation requirements may be greater than expected. Boring C-3 did not indicate the presence of Organic soils; however, we note that as is typical of areas near coastal and lowland water courses, the presence of organic matter can be erratic in thickness and location. To reach the BFEs and excavation requirements, permanent sheet piling will be required to provide excavation support and protect the adjacent railroad. Refer to Section 9.1 for further recommendations regarding sheet pile design considerations. There should be complete excavation, removal, and replacement of the unsuitable organics from below, and within the influence of, the footings. Minimum horizontal excavation limits extend from one foot beyond the footing and then at a 1V:1H downward slope until the suitable natural Sand layer is encountered. Where these horizontal limits intersect the permanent sheeting, no



further excavation is required in that direction. To minimize the horizontal extent of excavation in other directions, the footings may be lowered to bear on the underlying natural deposit. After excavation of the organics, the subgrade should be proofrolled with multiple overlapping passes of a smooth drum roller. However, field conditions and/or vibration criteria may limit use of such equipment such that only static proofrolling can be performed. Therefore, dense-graded aggregate [e.g. Pervious Structural Backfill (PSB)] can be placed and compacted with static rolling over the prepared subgrade. Otherwise, excavated unsuitable soils should be replaced with Granular Fill (GF), Compacted Granular Fill (CGF), or crushed stone to the same minimum horizontal limits expressed above, compacted to a minimum of 95-percent of the chosen materials maximum density. CGF should be used if the excavated depth below BFE is greater than 2 feet, GF should be used if the depth is less than 2 feet, and PSB should be used if vibration criteria limits vibratory compaction of the backfill soils. CGF, GF, and PSB should be placed in accordance with ConnDOTs Standard Specifications, Form 816, Sections 2.14, 2.13, and 2.16 respectively. 8.3 Bearing Pressure We recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 2.0 tons per square foot (TSF) for footings bearing on the natural Sand deposit, Granular Fill, Compacted Granular Fill, or Crushed Stone bearing on the natural Sand deposit. 8.4 Subgrade Modulus We recommend a subgrade Modulus of 125 tons/foot3 (144 lbs/in3). 8.5 Settlement Settlement analyses were performed for several footings with dimensions similar to the proposed design. We anticipate settlement of about one inch or less, and differential settlement of 1/2-inch or less. Due to the granular and cohesionless deposits, we anticipate settlement will occur over relatively short period; primarily during construction. 8.6 Coefficient of Friction For evaluation of sliding (lateral movement of footings bearing on sand) for the earthquake condition we recommend coefficient of friction equal to 0.5.



8.7 Seismic Design Category Using the N(bar)-method to establish the Site Class in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), the applicable Site Class is considered to be Site Class D (Stiff Soil Profile). Per Appendix K to the 2009 Connecticut Building Code Supplement, SS equals 0.219 and S1 equals 0.059. To determine the project “Seismic Design Category” per IBC Tables 1616.3(1) and 1616.3(2), we compute SDS for the site as 0.234g, and SD1 as 0.094g. Assuming the proposed north side platform and tower are classified as Seismic Use Group II, the project would be considered Seismic Design Category B. 8.8 Liquefaction Using data from Boring RR-21, we performed an analysis for liquefaction using the CivilTech Software, LiquefyPro. In accordance with the IBC, we used a peak ground acceleration equal to SDS/2.5, or 0.07g. The analysis indicates a minimum factor a safety greater than 5, while the required minimum factor of safety is 1.1. Therefore, liquefaction at Clinton Station during a seismic event, is not a concern. 8.9 Infiltration Rates In-situ infiltration falling head tests were performed in the four infiltration test (IT) borings under both unsaturated and saturated conditions. Tests were performed at six feet below ground surface. Tests in Borings IT-1 and IT-2 were in the Sand Outwash stratum; the test in Boring IT-3 was in a Gravelly Sand stratum; and the test in Boring IT-4 was in an Organic Silty Sand stratum. These materials are generally considered Group A soils, as defined in the 2004 CT Stormwater Quality Manual. Boring RR-22, located about 15 feet south of IT-3 encountered bedrock about 68 feet below ground surface, at about El. -45 feet. Infiltration tests in each boring, under both saturation conditions, all returned infiltration rates significantly greater than 5 in/hr, which is the recommended maximum field-measured infiltration rate permitted by the 2004 CT Stormwater Quality Manual. The trench or basin galleries will require soil amendments and/or design adjustments to balance storage and inflow. Field observations should be made during trench or basin gallery construction to confirm that the exposed trench soils are not more pervious than those encountered by the SSE infiltration tests. If conditions are more pervious, soil amendments and/or different select backfill may be required.



8.10 Miscellaneous Minor Site Structures For minor lightweight structures around the site (i.e. stair cases, short retaining walls, etc.) which will bear on uninvestigated soils, we recommend the following design guidance:

Allowable bearing pressure of 1.0 TSF, Anticipate up to about 1.5-inches of settlement, Minimum bearing depth must be below frost depth of 42-inches below final grade, Require (during construction) that exposed subgrade and intended bearing soils are

characterized and determined to be satisfactory. Proof role and compact exposed subgrade, Remove observed weak soils under proof rolling and compaction efforts, and replace

with Granular Fill. Backfill Unit Weight = 125 pcf; phi = 34 degrees

The above approach is for minor light structures or short retaining walls that can withstand some settlement. This is a feasible way to design for lightweight structures without requiring additional boring data. With our understanding of the site, we estimate 1.5 inches of settlement to be the upper bound of potential settlement under 1.0 TSF of loading. Although there is still some risk involved, this approach removes the need to get a boring in the location of each site structure. If a structure load is greater than 1.0 TSF, or cannot withstand up to 1.5 inches of settlement, we recommend further subsurface explorations.

9.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 9.1 Temporary Earth Support In accordance with Amtrak requirements for sheet piling adjacent to their tracks (Figure 5, Appendix 1), excavation support sheeting will need to be left in place will be required to reach bottom of footing elevations and/or required excavation limits, while protecting the railroad tracks. In accordance with AREMA requirements, cantilever sheet pile walls shall not exceed 12-feet in height. Based on the boring data, the greatest depth to bottom of unsuitable Organics Sand/Silt from ground surface is about ten feet (Boring RR-21). However, Borings RR-21 and RR-22 indicate that the thickness of the unsuitable organic layer increases toward the west. With limited boring data available further west, we recommend the sheet pile walls be designed to support the maximum 12-foot height. Furthermore, the specification for lateral support should be amended to include procedures for confirming the depth of excavation support and requiring braced excavations in excess of 12 feet, per AREMA. The contractor may propose alternate systems including ground improvement. However, all excavation support submittals must meet Amtrak criteria.



The contractor must engage a Connecticut licensed Professional Engineer to design Temporary earth systems support. The design must be in accordance with Amtrak specifications for surcharge loads, geometric limits, and constructability (e.g. clearance between overhead wires and crane mast). Below are minimum geotechnical parameters recommended for design of temporary earth support systems: Unit weight of ballast equal 140 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and phi = 40˚ Unit weight of Existing Fill equal 125 pcf, phi = 30˚ Unit weight of Sand equal 115 pcf, phi = 30˚ Groundwater at El. 7 feet Ka Railroad Ballast, coefficient of active earth pressure = 0.22 Ka Existing Fill, coefficient of active earth pressure = 0.33

Ka Sand, coefficient of active earth pressure = 0.33 Kp Sand, coefficient of passive earth pressure = 3.00

Coefficient of Friction between soil and sheeting = 0.5 Cooper E80 Surcharge Loading in Accordance with AREMA The railroad tracks should be monitored for vibration and settlement criteria and limitations in accordance with Amtrak requirements. We recommend the contractor consider use of an impact hammer in lieu of a vibratory hammer to minimize vibration and subgrade disturbance of nearby railroad structures. Special provisions will be required for vibration and settlement monitoring. 9.2 Impact on Catenary Foundations Existing CAT Tower #96-53 interferes with the proposed north side platform. Baker provided the following information on each of the CAT towers:

With the existing ground surface at about El. 24 feet, this places the bottom of the CAT Tower at about El. 14 feet. To reach the bottom of footing elevation (approximate El. 20 ft), this would leave an embedment of about six feet; however, excavations to the bottom of unsuitable Organic Sand/Silt will only leave about two feet of embedment. We caution that the thickness (and depth) of unsuitable Organic Silt/Sand may vary by location and excavations to reach the bottom of the unsuitable Organics could potentially expose the entire tower foundation. In either case, a means of stabilizing the towers during construction will likely be required. Special provisions will need to identify that temporary support (by contractor) of the existing CAT Towers must consider all the applicable loadings on the tower (i.e. dead, live, wind, ice,

Tower No. Catalogue

No. Diameter

(in) Total

Length (ft) Length Above

Grade (ft) Length Below

Grade (ft) 96-53 B9200-14 18 14 4 10



lateral, etc…) as defined by AREMA. Otherwise, the platform and footing design should be modified by baker to span the unsuitable Organic soils. 9.3 Platform Footing Redesign An alternate option to stabilizing of the towers is to leave the unsuitable fill in place within the influence of the CAT towers, and design the platform foundation to span the left-in-place unsuitable soils. This alternate will require knowing the extent of the tower’s lateral design load influence. Using the following preliminary assumptions (to be confirmed by Baker), we estimate that the foundation would need to span up to 36 feet of unsuitable soils. Alternatively, the footings can be lowered to the bottom of the Organic Soils (about El. 12 feet at CAT Tower 96-53), reducing this span to about 28 feet. The assumptions made in this estimate include:

Ground Surface at El. 24 feet Tower depth of 10-feet below ground surface (at El. 14) Organic soil depth 8-feet below ground surface (at El. 16) Passive pressure (tower’s lateral influence) at 0.5H:1V (5 feet surrounding tower shaft) Safe Excavation of Fill away from tower for footing placement at 1H:1V (13 feet

surrounding tower shaft) New Fill limits below footing of 1 foot, plus a slope down and away at 1H:1V (or drop

footing to El. 16 feet). The above is for estimation purposes only to aid Baker in determining if this alternate is plausible. Design assumptions of the existing CAT towers must be evaluated. 9.4 Dewatering Although groundwater was encountered 13 feet below bottom of footing elevations, seasonal-high water tables, or perched water conditions can vary significantly from those observed at the time of explorations. All excavation and earthwork specifications should require that the contractor be prepared to dewater. Dewatering should be done in a way that will not result in loss of ground or destabilization of the adjacent structures. 9.5 Re-use of On-site Materials The on-site Organic Sand/Silt is not suitable for re-use as Granular Fill (Form 816, Section 2.13) or Compacted Granular Fill (Form 816, Section 2.14) due to the presence of organic matter and elevated silt content. Off site sources for Granular Fill and Compacted Granular Fill should be anticipated and should follow requirements of Form 816 Section 2.13 and 2.14.



Fill and Organic Sand/Silt removed from excavations may require special testing and/or disposal authorization to meet environmental regulations. If environmental regulations do not govern disposal, non-organic materials may be reused onsite as general embankment fill.

10.0 SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Section 2.03.03.2 (Structure Excavation) of Form 816 will need to be supplemented to include construction observation, proof rolling of the exposed subgrade, and excavation of existing Fill as needed, as discussed in Section 8.2 of this report. Section 7.15 (Sheet Piling Material Left in Place) of Form 816 will need to be supplemented to include maximum exposed cantilevered sheet piling design length of 12-feet, procedures for confirming the depth of excavation support, and requiring braced sheeting excavations in excess of 12 feet, as discussed in Section 9.1 of this report. A Special Provision will be required to identify construction requirements surrounding the CAT Tower #96-53, as discussed in Section 9.2 of this report. A Special Provision will be required for monitoring of the railroad tracks for vibration and settlement, including criteria and limitations.

11.0 LIMITATIONS This report is subject to the limitations included in Appendix 5.

Appendix 1

Figures

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

40

EAST

Reviewed By: MGBDrawn By: RPJVertical Exaggeration: 0.5x

A A'

Notes:1. Data concerning the various strata have been interpreted at boring locations only. The stratigraphy between

borings may vary from that shown.2. Refer to plan view for subsurface profile location. For strata details and symbol legend, see Subsurface

Profile Legend and boring logs appended to this report.3. Numbers displayed beside boring(s) represent SPT "N" values corresponding to their respective sampling

interval. Where coring was performed, numbers represent Recovery and RQD values.

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

feet

)

DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (feet)

Horizontal Scale (feet)

File No.: 0183-007.00

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Figure No.: 3

WEST

Geotechnical | Construction | EnvironmentalEngineers & Scientists

984 Southford Road - Middlebury, Connecticut 06762Telephone: 203.758.8836 Fax: 203.758.8842

GE

O S

TA

ND

AR

D 1

1 X

17

(2/1

9/04

) C

LIN

TO

N R

AIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S 9

-201

0.G

PJ

FB

NW

NL0

1.G

DT

12/

28/1

0

0 10

Shore Line EastClinton - Platforms and Towers

Clinton, CT

20

2634

34

31

28

36

16

11

11

32

10

18

11

11

8

22

33

35

22

26

12

17

43

28

12

43

66100/2282

100/3

200/3

C-1C-330

38

100/5

29

7

18

46

21

15

12

17

20

11

32

7

28

30

36

38

39

20

IT-03

10

11

1518

IT-04

5

RR-21

5

54

52

31

20

2510

10

9

7

22

99

20

19

27

7

30

1215

2220

17

26

1810

6

15

7

24

20

24

RR-22

111

27

100/5"

19

?

SAND

SILTY SAND

SAND

ORGANIC SILTY SAND

FILL

DECOMPOSED BEDROCK

BEDROCK

?

SAND

FILL FILL

APPROX. BFE @ 20 ft.

SILTY SAND

?

WEST END OF PLATFORM(APPROX. 55-ft. FROM C-3)

ELEV. 14 ft.

APPROX. EAST ENDOF PLATFORM

APPROX. LOCATIONCAT# 96-53

APPROX. BFE @ 20 ft.

Date: 01-04-11

18 in. DIAM.

[REC= 47%; RQD= 0%]

[REC= 58%; RQD= 0%]

[REC= 97%; RQD= 65%]

[REC= 78%; RQD= 12%]

Appendix 2

Boring Logs

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

Medium dense,Top 3": brown fine to coarse SAND, little fineGravel, little SiltMiddle 7": black fine to coarse SAND, some coarseGravel, little Silt, trace CindersBottom 8": light brown fine to coarse SAND, traceSiltMedium dense,Top 10": light brown fine to coarse SAND, little fineGravel, trace SiltBottom 8": brown fine to coarse SAND, some Silt,little fine Gravel, (3" of black staining at sample top)Loose, dark brown to brown fine to medium SAND,little Organic Silt, trace fine Gravel, trace RootsLoose, brown fine to medium SAND, little OrganicSilt, trace Roots

Very dense, light brown fine to coarse SAND, little(-) fine Gravel, trace Silt

Very dense, light brown fine to medium SAND, traceSilt

Dense, light brown fine to coarse SAND, trace fineGravel, trace Silt

AsphaltFill

Organic SiltySand

SandOutwash

7 11 9

6 11 16 16

3 3 4 3

4 3 2 8

11 20 34 44

18 24 28 28

21 16 15 14

18

24

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

13

15

12

9

20

Earth: 64.5ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.

Project No.: 310-0048Town: Clinton

NOTES: Augers advanced to 10 ft. below grade; then 4" FJ casing to 13 ft. below grade;then open hole (with mud) to end of boring.Auger chatter from 60 to 64.5 ft. below grade.

Project Description: Shore Line East - 0183-007.00

Northing: 4799.4Easting: 10814.2

Engineer: GeoDesign, Inc.Start Date: 9-20-10

Material Descriptionand Notes

Bridge No.:

Route No.:

Fall: 30 in.Hammer Wt.: 300 lb. Hammer Wt.: 140 lb.

No. ofCore Runs: 4

RQ

D %

Casing Size/Type: FJ4

Total Penetration in

Hole No.: RR-21

Sheet1 of 4

No. ofSoil Samples: 14

Fall: 24in.Sampler Type/Size: SS / 1-3/8" (ID)

Groundwater Observations: @None observed after 0 hours

Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

SAMPLES

Inspector: R. Janeiro

Finish Date: 9-21-10

Connecticut DOT Boring Report

Blows onSampler

per 6 inches

Core Barrel Type: NW(dt)

Rock: 20ft

Sample Type: S = Split Spoon C = Core UP = Undisturbed Piston V = Vane Shear TestProportions Used: Trace = 1 - 10%, Little = 10 - 20%, Some = 20 - 35%, And = 35 - 50%

Surface Elevation: 24.4

SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

20

15

10

5

0

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

S-13

Medium dense,Top 6": brown fine SAND and SILTBottom 6": olive fine to medium SAND, trace Silt

Medium dense, olive fine to coarse SAND, trace fineGravel, trace Silt

Loose to medium dense, oliveTop 4": fine to medium SAND, trace SiltBottom 20": fine to coarse SAND, trace fine Gravel,trace Silt

Loose to medium dense, olive fine to coarse SAND,trace fine Gravel, trace Silt

Loose, olive fine to medium SAND, trace (+) Silt,trace fine Gravel

Loose, olive fine to medium SAND, trace Silt, tracefine Gravel

Silty Sand

SandOutwash

9 8 12 12

15 15 10 7

5 3 7 3

8 5 5 7

7 5 4 6

6 5 2 3

24

24

24

24

24

24

12

10

24

12

17

17

Earth: 64.5ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.







Bridge No.:

Route No.:


No. ofCore Runs: 4

RQ

D %



Hole No.: RR-21

Sheet2 of 4




Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

25

30

35

40

45

50

SAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches


Rock: 20ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

S-14

S-15

S-16

C-1

C-2

Medium dense,Top 5": olive fine to medium SAND, trace SiltBottom 13": brown, fine SAND and SILT

Medium dense, brown fine SAND and SILT

Very dense, brown fine to coarse SAND, little fineGravel, little Silt, with decomposed Rock pieces atsample tip

Very Poor Quality, Soft to Moderately Hard,Extremely Weathered, gray-white, GRANITICGNEISS, very close jointing, [Core Times (min./ft.):1.5,2,1.5,2.5,3]

Very Poor Quality, Soft to Moderately Hard, Highlyto Extremely Weathered, gray-white, GRANITICGNEISS, very close jointing, [Core Times (min./ft.):3.5,3,2,3,3]

0

0

Silty Sand

DecomposedRock

Bedrock

14 8 11 11

6 9 13 20

34 38 61 68

24

24

24

60

60

18

18

14

28

35

Earth: 64.5ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.







Bridge No.:

Route No.:


No. ofCore Runs: 4

RQ

D %



Hole No.: RR-21

Sheet3 of 4




Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

50

55

60

65

70

75

SAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches


Rock: 20ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

C-3

C-4

Fair Quality, Moderately Hard, Slight to ModeratelyWeathered, gray-white, GRANITIC GNEISS, closejointing, [Core Times (min./ft.): 2,1.5,2,1.5,2]

Very Poor Quality, Moderately Hard to Hard,Moderately Weathered, gray-white, GRANITICGNEISS, close jointing, [Core Times (min./ft.):4,4.5,4,4,6]

END OF BORING 84.5ft

65

12

Bedrock(con't)

60

60

58

47

Earth: 64.5ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.







Bridge No.:

Route No.:


No. ofCore Runs: 4

RQ

D %



Hole No.: RR-21

Sheet4 of 4




Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

75

80

85

90

95

100

SAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches


Rock: 20ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

Medium dense,Top 6": black fine to coarse SAND and SILT,trace fine GravelBottom 4": light brown fine to coarse SAND,little Silt, trace fine GravelMedium dense,Top 2": light brown fine to coarse SAND,trace fine Gravel, trace SiltMiddle 10": dark brown fine to coarse SANDand ORGANIC SILT, trace Shells, (moist)Bottom 4": brown fine to coarse SAND andSILT, trace fine GravelMedium dense, light brown fine to coarseSAND, trace fine Gravel, trace (-) SiltMedium dense, light brown fine to mediumSAND, trace fine Gravel, trace (-) Silt

Medium dense, light brown fine to mediumSAND, trace Silt

Medium dense, olive fine to coarse SAND,trace fine Gravel, trace Silt

Medium dense, olive fine to coarse SAND,little fine to coarse Gravel, trace Silt, (piece ofcoarse Gravel jammed mid-sample)

Medium dense,Top 9": olive fine to medium SAND, tracefine Gravel, trace SiltBottom 3": brown SILT, with occasional fineSAND and SILT partings up to 1/8" thick

AsphaltFill

Sand

Organic SiltySand

SandOutwash

Silt

SandOutwash

6 7 5

7 7 8 4

6 11 11 13

17 10 10 9

5 8 9 9

13 14 13 15

13 11 8 9

14 13 13 17

18

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

10

16

14

15

17

9

12

12

Earth: 68.5ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.


NOTES: Augers advanced to 10 ft. below grade; then 4" FJ casing to 25 ft. below grade;then open hole to end of boring.





Bridge No.:

Route No.:


No. ofCore Runs: ---

RQ

D %



Hole No.: RR-22

Sheet1 of 3



Groundwater Observations: @None observed after 0 hours, @17.2 ft. after 6 hours, @16.9 ft. after 24 hours

Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Wel

lC

onst

ruct

ionSAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches

Core Barrel Type:

Rock: ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

20

15

10

5

0

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

S-13

S-14

No Recovery

Loose to medium dense, olive fine to coarseSAND, trace fine Gravel, trace Silt

Loose, olive fine to medium SAND, trace Silt

Medium dense, olive fine to medium SAND,trace fine Gravel, trace Silt

Loose, light brown fine to medium SAND,trace fine Gravel, trace Silt, (3'' seam oforange fine to coarse SAND, trace Silt)

Medium dense, light brown fine to mediumSAND, trace Silt, with occasional dark graypartings layered up to 1/4'' thick

SandOutwash(con't)

Silty Sand

10 9 9 11

7 5 5 5

4 3 3 5

13 7 8 9

4 4 3 7

10 15 15 16

24

24

24

24

24

24

0

23

19

22

19

18

Earth: 68.5ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.







Bridge No.:

Route No.:



RQ

D %



Hole No.: RR-22

Sheet2 of 3




Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

25

30

35

40

45

50

Wel

lC

onst

ruct

ionSAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches

Core Barrel Type:

Rock: ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

S-15

S-16

S-17

S-18

S-19

Medium dense, brown fine to medium SAND,little Silt

Medium dense, brown SILT, little fine Sand,with occasional reddish-brown CLAY partingsup to 1/16'' thick

Medium dense, brown fine SAND and SILT,with occasional orange SILT and CLAYseams layered up to 1/4'' thick

Very dense, brownTop 5": fine SAND and SILTBottom 10": fine to coarse SAND and fine tocoarse GRAVEL, little Silt, with decomposedRock fragments

Very dense, brown fine to coarse SAND, littleSilt, trace fine Gravel, with Rock fragmentsEND OF BORING 68.5ft

Silty Sand(con't)

Silt

Silty Sand

DecomposedRock

10 11 13 14

7 8 12 12

8 9 15 20

15 31 80 76

100/5"

24

24

24

24

5

19

21

17

15

5

Earth: 68.5ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.







Bridge No.:

Route No.:



RQ

D %



Hole No.: RR-22

Sheet3 of 3




Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

50

55

60

65

70

75

Wel

lC

onst

ruct

ionSAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches

Core Barrel Type:

Rock: ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

S-1

S-2

S-3

Medium dense,Top 4": light brown fine to coarse SAND, little Silt,trace fine GravelNext 4": black fine to coarse SAND, some Silt, tracefine GravelNext 2": brown fine to coarse SAND, trace SiltBottom 4": brown fine to coarse SAND, some fine tocoarse Gravel, some (-) Silt, (moist)Loose, dark brown to brown fine to coarse SANDand SILT, (moist)Medium dense, light brown fine to medium SAND,trace fine Gravel, trace Silt, (moist)

END OF BORING 6ft

AsphaltFill

SandOutwashSilty Sand

SandOutwash

8 15 15

4 4 3 2

3 5 8 12

18

24

24

14

20

9

Earth: 6ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.


NOTES:





Bridge No.:

Route No.:


No. ofCore Runs: 0

RQ

D %



Hole No.: IT-01

Sheet1 of 1




Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

0

5

10

15

20

SAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches

Core Barrel Type:

Rock: 0ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

20

15

10

5

S-1

S-2

S-3

Loose,Top 4": brown fine to coarse SAND, some Silt, tracefine GravelMiddle 5": light brown fine to coarse SAND, traceSiltBottom 4": dark brown fine to coarse SAND andSILTLoose,Top 10": brown fine to coarse SAND, some fine tocoarse Gravel, little SiltBottom 8": light brown fine to coarse SAND, littlefine Gravel, trace SiltMedium dense, light brown fine to coarse SAND,trace fine Gravel, trace SiltEND OF BORING 6ft

AsphaltFillSandOutwashSilty SandsSilty GravellySandsSandOutwash

4 6 3

4 3 6 8

11 13 14 13

18

24

24

13

18

20

Earth: 6ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.


NOTES:





Bridge No.:

Route No.:


No. ofCore Runs: 0

RQ

D %



Hole No.: IT-02

Sheet1 of 1




Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

0

5

10

15

20

SAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches

Core Barrel Type:

Rock: 0ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

20

15

10

5

S-1

S-2

S-3

Medium dense,Top 2": black-brown fine to coarse SAND, some Silt,trace fine GravelBottom 10": brown fine to coarse SAND, some Silt,little fine to coarse Gravel, with a piece of coarseGravel jammed in sample tipMedium dense,Top 7": light brown fine to coarse SAND, little (-) SiltBottom 14": dark brown to brown fine to coarseSAND and ORGANIC SILT, trace RootsLoose to medium dense,Top 7": brown fine to coarse SAND and ORGANICSILT, trace RootsBottom 7": light brown fine to coarse SAND, somefine Gravel, trace SiltEND OF BORING 6ft

AsphaltFill

OutwashSandOrganic SiltySand

GravellySand

4 7 13

12 6 5 4

5 4 6 7

18

24

24

12

21

14

Earth: 6ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.


NOTES:





Bridge No.:

Route No.:


No. ofCore Runs: 0

RQ

D %



Hole No.: IT-03

Sheet1 of 1




Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

0

5

10

15

20

SAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches

Core Barrel Type:

Rock: 0ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

20

15

10

5

S-1

S-2

S-3

Medium dense,Top 8": black-brown fine to coarse SAND, some Silt,trace fine GravelMiddle 3": brown fine to coarse SAND, little SiltBottom 5": light brown fine to medium SAND, traceSiltMedium dense,Top 10": light brown fine to coarse SAND, trace fineGravel, trace SiltBottom 7": dark brown to brown fine to coarseSAND, little Silt, little fine GravelLoose,Top 5": brown fine to coarse SAND, little OrganicSilt, trace RootsBottom 12": dark brown fine to medium SAND, littleOrganic Silt, trace RootsEND OF BORING 6ft

AsphaltFill

SandOutwash

Organic SiltySand

11 6 9

9 10 8 5

4 3 2 3

18

24

24

16

17

17

Earth: 6ft

Stat./Offset:

Sam

ple

Typ

e/N

o.


NOTES:





Bridge No.:

Route No.:


No. ofCore Runs: 0

RQ

D %



Hole No.: IT-04

Sheet1 of 1




Gen

eral

ized

Str

ata

Des

crip

tion

Dep

th (

ft)

0

5

10

15

20

SAMPLES




Blows onSampler

per 6 inches

Core Barrel Type:

Rock: 0ft



SM-001-M REV. 1/02

Pen

. (in

.)

Rec

. (in

.)

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

20

15

10

5

Appendix 3

In-Situ and Laboratory Test Results

GRAVEL SAND

COBBLES SILT OR CLAYCOARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

GRADATION TESTShoreline East, Clinton Station BURMISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

TEST NO. MATERIAL SOURCE DESCRIPTION

BORING NO. RR-21

SAMPLE NO. S-1

DEPTH 0.5-2 ft, top 10" 1 of 6 Jar Sample fine to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse Gravel, little (13.5%) Silt

TECH. RJM

REVIEWER MGB

DATE 11/10/10

FILE NO. 183-07

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

1 1/2" No. 200No. 100No.60No.40 3" No. 10No. 41/2" 3/4" 1" 2"

GRAVEL SAND




BORING NO. RR-21

SAMPLE NO. S-2

DEPTH 2-4 ft, top 10" 2 of 6 Jar Sample fine to coarse SAND, little fine Gravel, trace (3.8%) Silt

TECH. RJM

REVIEWER MGB

DATE 11/10/10

FILE NO. 183-07


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

1 1/2" No. 200No. 100No.60No.40 3" No. 10No. 41/2" 3/4" 1" 2"

GRAVEL SAND




BORING NO. RR-21

SAMPLE NO. S-3

DEPTH 5-7 ft 3 of 6 Jar Sample fine to medium SAND, little (16.8%) Silt, trace fine Gravel

TECH. RJM

REVIEWER MGB

DATE 11/10/10

FILE NO. 183-07


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

1 1/2" No. 200No. 100No.60No.40 3" No. 10No. 41/2" 3/4" 1" 2"

GRAVEL SAND




BORING NO. RR-21

SAMPLE NO. S-7

DEPTH 20-22 ft 4 of 6 Jar Sample fine to coarse SAND, trace fine Gravel, trace (2.6%) Silt

TECH. RJM

REVIEWER MGB

DATE 11/10/10

FILE NO. 183-07


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

1 1/2" No. 200No. 100No.60No.40 3" No. 10No. 41/2" 3/4" 1" 2"

GRAVEL SAND




BORING NO. RR-21

SAMPLE NO. S-12

DEPTH 40-42 ft 5 of 6 Jar Sample fine to medium SAND, trace (9.3%) Silt, trace fine Gravel

TECH. RJM

REVIEWER MGB

DATE 11/10/10

FILE NO. 183-07


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

1 1/2" No. 200No. 100No.60No.40 3" No. 10No. 41/2" 3/4" 1" 2"

GRAVEL SAND




BORING NO. RR-22

SAMPLE NO. S-4

DEPTH 7-9 ft 6 of 6 Jar Sample fine to medium SAND, trace fine Gravel, trace (2.3%) Silt

TECH. RJM

REVIEWER MGB

DATE 11/10/10

FILE NO. 183-07


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

1 1/2" No. 200No. 100No.60No.40 3" No. 10No. 41/2" 3/4" 1" 2"

Appendix 4

Existing Data

Appendix 5

Limitations

GEOTECHNICAL LIMITATIONS Explorations 1. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data

obtained from subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report.

2. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface

conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretations of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions are probably more erratic. For specific information, refer to the boring logs.

3. Water level readings have been made in the drill holes at times and under conditions stated

on the boring logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors occurring since the time measurements were made.

Review 4. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the proposed structures are

planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing by GeoDesign. It is recommended that this firm be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications.

Use of Report 5. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. and

Connecticut Department of Transportation for specific application to the Clinton Station and Tower located in Clinton, CT, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

6. This soil and foundation engineering report has been prepared for this project by

GeoDesign. This report is for design purposes only and is not sufficient to prepare an accurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure it with the understanding that its scope is limited to design considerations only.

Final Geotechnical Structure Soils Report Clinton Station ... · This is a structure soils report...

Documents

Transcript of Final Geotechnical Structure Soils Report Clinton Station ... · This is a structure soils report...