GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION REPORT · TRC drilled the soil borings under the...

SHARON HILL FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION

REPORT

Prepared By:

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

299 Madison Avenue Morristown, NJ 07962

Prepared For:

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY October 2019

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Sharon Hill Flood Mitigation Project Geotechnical Engineering Recommendation Report

Page | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 1

3.0 SITE GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 1

4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ......................................................................................... 1

5.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 2

6.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 3

7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... 6

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 General Location Plan Figure 2 Project Limits Map Figure 3 SEPTA Zone of Influence for Shoring LIST OF TABLES Table 1 SEPTA Factor of Safety for Retaining Wall APPENDICES Appendix A ‐ Boring Location Plan Sheets Appendix B ‐ Soil Boring Logs Appendix C ‐ Design Calculations


Page | 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s (SEPTA's) Sharon Hill Trolley Line, just north of Sharon Hill Station, has a low spot where it crosses beneath a CSX freight rail bridge. The existing storm drainage system is not capable of handling storm events without localized flooding of SEPTA’s tracks at the under pass. When it floods service ends at MacDade Blvd, thus requiring shuttle buses, terminating at Chester Pike in Sharon Hill. The current project consists of improvements to the SEPTA right‐of‐way to improve drainage, as well as a proposed pumped drainage system to alleviate the flooding. The project site is shown on Figure 1, General Site Location. The project scope includes the preparation of a 50% design level bid package to be used in advertising for a Design‐Build contract. To facilitate the preliminary design of the foundations and geotechnical analyses, a subsurface investigation was performed in the project area to define the site soil conditions for the proposed project improvements. This report presents the findings of that investigation, including recommendations of engineering soil properties and foundation alternatives. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located in the Sharon Hill in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The scope of the project consists of a pumped drainage system to alleviate flooding where the Sharon Hill Trolley Line crosses under the CSX Mainline railroad bridge at Milepost 5.30. The location of the under grade crossing is the low point for the watershed in this area. Additionally, due to right of way grades in this section of track, existing storm drains continuously become fouled reducing their ability to handle storm events. Reconstruction of the drainage swales is required along the tracks to re‐establish the inverts. There is frequently standing water at the inlet, indicating the storm drain system is likely compromised; the extent is not known. Project elements include reconstructing the short retaining walls along the tracks, which form part of the drainage swales along the tracks, drainage improvements under the track bed, construction of a box culvert to transport the water to the pump station, a basin for water quality, and an outlet system to the nearby Hermesprota Creek. 3.0 SITE GEOLOGY The project site is located in Piedmont Province in southeast Pennsylvania as described in geologic map compiled by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey. The subsurface conditions generally consist of granular soils over bedrock, which can be encountered at shallow depths. The underlying rock is expected to be schist, gneiss, and/or quartzite. 4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION The subsurface investigation program consisted of seven soil borings. Two soil borings, B‐6 and B‐7, were drilled on SEPTA right‐of‐way. Three borings, B‐3 through B‐5, were drilled on PECO property in the area of the proposed pump system and basin. Boring B‐2 was drilled just


Page | 2

outside of PECO property on CSX right of way (ROW). Boring B‐1 was drilled along the proposed pipe route leading to Hermesprota Creek. Through the bidding process, TRC Engineers, Inc. (TRC) of Mount Laurel, New Jersey was selected and awarded the contract to perform the drilling services. TRC drilled the soil borings under the full‐time inspection of Jacobs. The soil boring program was conducted during the period of September 28 through October 5, 2017. The borings were advanced using either a truck or track mounted drill rig, depending on the access to the individual locations. The soil sampling was performed continuously for the top ten feet and at five‐foot intervals thereafter. The proposed depth of all soil borings was 30 feet below ground surface. Borings which encountered bedrock shallow were cored using an NX‐size core barrel with a diamond bit to reach the final depth. Soil samples were recovered utilizing a split‐spoon sampler in accordance with the ASTM D‐1586 standardized procedure. The soil samples were visually identified and logged in the field according to the Burmister System. Rock samples were classified in accordance with the Department of the Navy Design Manual DM‐7.1. The locations of the borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan sheets presented in Appendix A. Soil boring logs showing the engineering descriptions of the recovered soil and rock samples are included in Appendix B. The borings were located in the field based on existing topographic features and structures. The northing and easting coordinates and ground surface elevation shown on the logs are approximate from the existing mapping. One observation well using 2‐inch outer diameter PVC material was installed in Boring B‐4. Due to the coordination needed to access the well on PECO property, only three water level readings were taken. The groundwater elevations obtained from the three readings are shown in the table as follows:

The basin storage capacity and the initial water surface elevation reading were drivers for the basin bottom elevation of 73.5 feet established in the drainage design. The basin bottom elevation had been proposed at 67.5 feet in the Phase I design before the geotechnical program had been contracted. It should be noted that the water level may continue to fluctuate due to precipitation and changes in season and additional readings are recommended if feasible. 5.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions encountered generally agree with the expected geology of the area. The following layers represents the overall soil profile derived from data obtained from subsurface investigation.

Reading Date Well Ground Surface Elevation (ft)

Water Level Depth (ft below ground surface)

Water Surface Elevation (ft)

October 17, 2017 80.51 7.8 72.71

April 10, 2018 80.51 6.2 74.31

October 1, 2018 80.51 7.1 73.41


Page | 3

FILL Fill material consisting of fine to coarse sand and varying amount of gravel and silt is found in all of the borings. This soil layer is encountered from ground surface to about 5 feet below the ground surface. The typical thickness is 2 to 4 feet thick and ranges in density from loose to medium dense. This layer includes the gravel material encountered in B‐6. SILT & CLAY This soil layer is encountered below the Fill in borings B‐1, B‐3, B‐5, and B‐6 and varies in thickness from 2 to 5 feet. This soil is composed of silt and clay mixture with varying amount of sand and gravel. Relative density of this soil stratum ranges from soft to very stiff. SAND Natural soil material composed of fine to coarse sand is found directly below Fill stratum or below the Silt & Clay layer, if present. This soil stratum extends to top of decomposed rock and varies in thickness from 5 to 18 feet. Varying amounts of silt and minor amounts of gravel can be expected throughout. The relative density of this stratum ranges from loose to dense. COMPLETELY WEATHERED ROCK/RESIDUAL SOIL This stratum of residual soil to completely weathered rock was encountered immediately above the bedrock. It is composed mainly of soil particles that have weathered directly from the bedrock material. The dense to very dense soil material consists of fine to coarse sand with varying amount of silt and mica flakes. The thickness ranges from 5 to 7 feet. BEDROCK Rock consists of dark gray Schist. The top of the weathered rock was found between Elevation 74 to 63, generally sloping from the PECO property down to Hermesprota Creek. The top of bedrock was found to be at a depth ranging from depth of about 12 feet below ground surface in B‐7 to 30 feet below ground surface in boring B‐5. The rock is generally moderately to highly weathered and closely to very closely fractured. Recovery of the rock core ranges from 0 to 100 % with rock quality designation (RQD) ranging from 0 to 38%. 6.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The main project elements involve the construction of a basin, box culvert, drainage pipe, and retaining walls along the SEPTA rail line. The basin structure will not be addressed in this report. In general, the analyses and design of the proposed structures followed the guidelines from the SEPTA Design Manual and AREMA. The design rail live load is Cooper E65 as noted in SEPTA’s Design manual. BOX CULVERT/DRAINAGE PIPE The invert of the drainage pipe running from the basin to Hermesprota Creek will be approximately Elevation 67 to 66. For the majority of the length, the pipe will be near the top


Page | 4

of rock or within the completely weathered rock material. Similarly, the box culvert section from the SEPTA right‐of‐way to the pumping facility will be within layers. The culvert can be founded on and bear directly on the existing soils at the proposed bottom of structure elevation. The weight of the structure will be offset by the volume of soil removed during the installation of the culvert structure. Since there is no anticipated net increase in the applied bearing pressure from the culvert, there would be no measureable anticipated settlement, or applicable bearing capacity. A support of excavation system is anticipated for the installation of the proposed 6’ x 6’ box culvert, and potentially for the drainage pipe. The shallow rock and dense completely weathered rock material may pose difficulty driving sheetpiles. Alternate methods of support should be evaluated by the contractor after evaluating the subsurface conditions. The construction is recommended to be conducted in the dry. If water is encountered it should be removed via localized pumping or other methods. Shoring should be maintained until the installation is complete and removed as backfill is placed and compacted. RETAINING WALLS There are two existing retaining walls which are located on east and west side of the existing SEPTA tracks. These walls are in disrepair and need to be replaced from approximately between station 71+00 and 74+00. The proposed west side retaining wall is approximately 250 feet in length and will retain a maximum of approximately 5 feet of soil. The proposed east side wall will be approximately 200 feet in length and will retain approximately 1 foot of soil. The walls will support the small difference in elevation between the track bed and the adjacent drainage swales. The proposed walls are located within the zone of influence of the existing rail live load, therefore temporary shoring will be required per the standard SEPTA drawing, included as Figure 3 in this report. The bottom of west side retaining wall is located in Zone 2 which will require shoring and the shoring can be removed once the construction is backfilled. The foundation of east side wall falls within Zone 4 which does not allow for any type of excavation to take place without obtaining permission and putting track out of work. Refer to for various zones for shoring for additional information. West Side The west side of the track is expected to have a difference in elevation of 5 feet from existing ground adjacent to the track, relative to the swale. Although this wall is out of influence of rail live load, it is in Zone 2 which requires temporary shoring. The proposed wall will only support the horizontal load from the retained soil. The factor of safety (FS) for sliding is 1.7 which exceeds the minimum recommended FS of 1.5. The FS against overturning is 3.7 which is greater than the required FS of 2. The typical factors of safety recommended by SEPTA are listed in Table 1.


Page | 5

The options for the proposed west side retaining wall include the cast‐in‐place concrete, precast modular or gravity wall systems. The most economical is expected to be the gravity walls, including precast options. A gabion basket is an example of a simple gravity wall that could adequately support the difference in elevation. A gabion wall can be constructed at the ground surface. This allows the proposed wall to stay out of the influence zone of rail live load and avoid unnecessary stringent shoring requirements. The typical gabion basket size is 3’x3’x6’, however other custom variations are available. East Side The east side wall is expected to only retain about 1 feet of soil however it is very close to the existing tracks. Therefore, the proposed gabion wall will be affected by the influence of the rail live‐load and soil pressure. As mentioned above the guidelines do not allow for the excavation of the existing soils to construct the wall in place without taking the rail out of service. This will create constructability and scheduling challenges. Due to higher horizontal forces from the rail loading, the wall will not be stable without improvements or reinforcement to provide a stable wall. The preference would be to remove the rail and the existing subgrade and construct a new wall. The anticipated limited construction time would dictate a precast or gravity wall system similar to the west side. Most precast systems have relatively tall sections and would require additional, unnecessary excavation. The gabion wall option would fail in sliding without reinforcement. A layer of geogrid could be secured to the bottom of the gabion baskets and extended back under the rail to provide the necessary lateral resistance for the gabions moving. However, the possibility of removing the tracks in sections to construct this system may not be permitted. An alternative would include installing pin piles to support the gabions or gravity wall system. These could be placed through the center of the gabion baskets before filling with stone or secured tightly in front of the wall system. Hollow steel bars, of a minimum 3‐inch diameter, spaced 3 feet center‐to‐center, would be required to support a gabion wall system. The pin piles should extend the full height of the wall system and a minimum length of 5 feet below ground surface. The recommended soil properties of the existing soil in the area of the SEPTA tracks is presented below: Moist Unit Weight ‐ 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) Effective Unit Weight ‐ 63 pcf Internal Friction Angle ‐ 32° EARTHWORK In general, the existing grades will not be changed except for cleaning out and lowering the drainage swale along the SEPTA tracks, and creating the basin by the pumping facility. Additional earthwork would involve the backfilling of the excavations for the culvert and drainage pipe. Prior to performing any required grading operations and backfilling, the site should be prepared by removing any topsoil, man‐made materials, unsuitable fill materials, frozen, wet, soft or


Page | 6

loose soils; and any other deleterious materials. These operations should be performed in a manner consistent with good erosion and sediment control practices. All material to be used as fill or backfill should be inspected, tested and approved by the Engineer. Any imported engineered fill should be classified as Type 1 in accordance with Tables 8‐5‐1 and 8‐5‐2 of the AREMA Manual. All fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness and moisture conditioned to within ±2% of the optimum moisture content. In confined areas, place only 6‐inch layers and compact with manually operated, vibratory compactor. Engineered fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification D‐698, Standard Proctor Method. All areas receiving fill should be graded to facilitate positive drainage. All earthwork should be performed in the dry condition. 7.0 LIMITATIONS The analysis, design, and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the subsurface explorations made at the time of investigation. Subsurface stratification variations between boreholes are anticipated; this could be particularly the case for the bedrock surface. The recommendations presented are for the preliminary design, to identify feasible alternatives to support the project needs, and should be considered for information only. Subsurface variations may not become evident until construction. If significant variations are noted, the design should be re‐evaluated. This project will be completed via a Design‐Build process, where the final design of the project elements shall be performed by the successful contractor‐engineering team. The Design‐Build team will be responsible for collecting any additional subsurface information they deem necessary, perform the appropriate designs, and sign and seal the designs in general accordance with the project specifications and plans.


Page | 7

(from Google maps)

Figure 1 General Site Location

Project Location


Page | 8

(from Google maps)

Figure 2 Project Limits

Project Limits


Page | 9

Figure 3 – SEPTA Zone of Influence for Shoring

Table 1 – SEPTA Factor of Safety for Retaining Wall

SEPTA SHARON HILL FLOOD MITIGATION

APPENDIX A

Boring Location Plans

SHEET NUMBER

DWG. NO.:

OF

OF

SHT. NO.:

REV. NO.:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:DATE:

WORK ORDER NO.:

SCALE FACTOR:

CHECKED BY:

ARCHIVE NO.:

COMPUTER FILE NO.:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

jcorcoran

Rectangle

SHEET NUMBER

DWG. NO.:

OF

OF

SHT. NO.:

REV. NO.:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:DATE:

WORK ORDER NO.:

SCALE FACTOR:

CHECKED BY:

ARCHIVE NO.:

COMPUTER FILE NO.:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

jcorcoran

Rectangle

jcorcoran

Rectangle

jcorcoran

Rectangle

jcorcoran

Rectangle

SHEET NUMBER

DWG. NO.:

OF

OF

SHT. NO.:

REV. NO.:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:DATE:

WORK ORDER NO.:

SCALE FACTOR:

CHECKED BY:

ARCHIVE NO.:

COMPUTER FILE NO.:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

jcorcoran

Rectangle

jcorcoran

Rectangle


APPENDIX B

Soil Boring Logs Soil Profile

SPTS-1

SPTS-2

SPTS-3

SPTS-4

SPTS-5

SPTS-6

SPTS-7

RCR-1

RCR-2

Brown fine to coarse SAND, some fine to medium Gravel

Brown fine to coarse (-) SAND, little fine Gravel, trace Silt

Gray fine SAND, and (-) Clayey Silt

Top 12":; Gray CLAYEY SILT, and fine to medium (-) Sand, moist, Bot 12" B:Grayish Tan fine to medium SAND, little Silt, with Mica flakes. (DecomposedRock).

Tan fine to medium SAND, little (+) Silt, moist, with Mica flakes.(Decomposed Rock)

Dark Tan medium to coarse SAND, wet, with Mica flakes. (DecomposedRock)

Whiteish Gray fine to medium SAND, little (-) Silt, (Decomposed Rock)

SCHIST, dark brownish gray, highly weathered to moderately weathered, veryclose to close fracture spacing

SCHIST, dark gray, moderately weathered, close to medium fracture spacing

Bottom of borehole at 25.5 feet.

15

7

19

24

20

15

4

56(7)

60(38)

3-4-6-4(10)

3-2-1-1(3)

2-2-1-1(3)

4-5-8-9(13)

7-8-8-12(16)

7-8-50/5"

50/4"

0 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 11.4

15 - 15.3

15.5 - 20.5

20.5 - 25.5

LOGGED BY S. Cruz CHECKED BY CWE

NOTES

BASELINE OFFSETSTATION GROUND ELEVATION 73.00 ft

AT TIME OF DRILLING ---

COORDINATES N 4417408 E 475799

DRILLING CONTRACTOR TRC DATE STARTED 9/28/17 COMPLETED 9/28/17

DRILLING METHOD 6 inch HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER

GROUND WATER LEVELS

AFTER DRILLING ---

DE

PT

H

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

ELE

V.

(ft)

70

65

60

55

50

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.(R

QD

) %

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

-VA

LUE

)

SA

MP

LED

EP

TH

(FT

)

BORING NUMBER B-1PAGE 1 OF 1

PROJECT NAME SEPTA Sharon Hill Flood Mitigation LOCATION Sharon Hill, PA

CLIENT SEPTA PROJECT NUMBER E3X41218

NE

W 2

017

LOG

- G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T -

3/2

6/1

8 1

7:31

- J

:\20

17 P

RO

JEC

TS

\E3X

4121

8\60

0DIS

C\6

11G

EO

T\D

ES

IGN

\SE

PT

A S

HA

RO

N H

ILL.

GP

J 299 Madison AvenueMorristown, New Jersey 07962-1936Telephone: 973-267-0555

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SPTS-1

SPTS-2

SPTS-3

SPTS-4

SPTS-5

SPTS-6

SPTS-7

SPTS-8

SPTS-9

SPTS-10

Black fine to medium SAND, little (-) fine Gravel

Tan fine to medium SAND, and fine to medium Gravel, with mica flakes.

Same as Above;

Same as Above;

Tan fine to medium SAND, little Silt, trace fine to medium Gravel, wet

Tan fine to medium SAND, little (-) fine Gravel, trace Silt

Tan fine to medium (-) SAND, trace (+) Silt, with mica flakes.

Tan fine to medium (-) SAND, little Silt, with mica flakes. (Decomposed Rock)

Tannish Black fine to medium (-) SAND, some Silt, (Decomposed Rock)

Dark Gray fine to medium SAND, some Silt, (Decomposed Rock)Bottom of borehole at 30.2 feet.

5

14

15

16

16

18

18

11

3

2

2-2-3-3(5)

4-5-5-5(10)

1-4-4-4(8)

6-4-2-3(6)

4-5-3-4(8)

4-5-9-9(14)

13-11-13-9(24)

19-18-18-15(36)

50/3"

50/2"

0 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 12

15 - 17

20 - 22

25 - 25.3

30 - 30.2


NOTES






GROUND WATER LEVELS

AFTER DRILLING ---

DE

PT

H

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

ELE

V.

(ft)

85

80

75

70

65

60


RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.(R

QD

) %

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

-VA

LUE

)

SA

MP

LED

EP

TH

(FT

)




NE

W 2

017

LOG

- G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T -

3/2

6/1

8 1

7:31

- J

:\20

17 P

RO

JEC

TS

\E3X

4121

8\60

0DIS

C\6

11G

EO

T\D

ES

IGN

\SE

PT

A S

HA

RO

N H

ILL.

GP


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SPTS-1

SPTS-2

SPTS-3

SPTS-4

SPTS-5

SPTS-6

SPTS-7

RCR-1

RCR-2

RCR-3

Tan fine SAND, and (-) Silt

Tan To Gray CLAYEY SILT, some fine Sand

Top 8": Same as Above; Bot 12": Tan fine to coarse SAND, trace Silt, trace(-) fine Gravel, wet

Top 3": Same as Above; Reddish Tan fine to coarse SAND, little Silt, withmica flakes. (Decomposed Rock)

Grayish Tan fine to coarse SAND, little (-) Silt, trace fine Gravel,(Decomposed Rock)

Tannish Gray fine to coarse SAND, trace (+) Silt, trace fine Gravel,(Decomposed Rock)

Whiteish Gray fine to coarse SAND, trace Silt, (Decomposed Rock)

No Recovery;

SCHIST, dark gray, highly weathered, very close to close fracture spacing

SCHIST, dark gray, highly weathered to moderately weathered, close fracturespacing


14

17

20

18

24

22

9

0(0)

13(0)

21(12)

2-6-7-8(13)

3-5-5-6(10)

5-6-7-7(13)

11-18-38-46(56)

39-40-49-33(89)

29-35-50/5"

40-50/3"

0 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 11.4

15 - 15.8

15.9 - 18.9

18.9 - 23.9

23.9 - 28.9


NOTES Boring done 13' south from location due to overhead wires.






GROUND WATER LEVELS

AFTER DRILLING ---

DE

PT

H

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

ELE

V.

(ft)

80

75

70

65

60

55


RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.(R

QD

) %

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

-VA

LUE

)

SA

MP

LED

EP

TH

(FT

)




NE

W 2

017

LOG

- G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T -

3/2

6/1

8 1

7:31

- J

:\20

17 P

RO

JEC

TS

\E3X

4121

8\60

0DIS

C\6

11G

EO

T\D

ES

IGN

\SE

PT

A S

HA

RO

N H

ILL.

GP


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SPTS-1

SPTS-2

SPTS-3

SPTS-4

SPTS-5

SPTS-6

SPTS-7RCR-1

RCR-2

SPTS-8

RCR-3

Tan SILT, some (-) fine Sand

Whiteish Tan fine to coarse SAND, some (-) Silt, trace fineGravel

Whiteish Brown fine to coarse SAND, little fine to mediumGravel

Tan fine to coarse SAND, little fine to medium Gravel

Whiteish Brown fine to coarse SAND, little (-) Silt, trace fineGravel

Whiteish Tan fine (-) to coarse SAND, little Silt, trace fineGravel

Tannish Gray fine to medium SAND, little (-) Silt,(Decomposed Rock)

No Recovery;

No Recovery;

Tan fine to coarse SAND, trace (+) Silt, (Decomposed Rock)

SCHIST, dark tannish gray, highly weathered, close fracturespacing


17

19

16

20

20

11

15

0(0)

0(0)

8

3(0)

3-2-5-7(7)

9-9-18-19(27)

15-11-10-9(21)

13-7-5-8(12)

13-12-10-11(22)

31-50/5"

48-49-50/3"

24-50/3"

0 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 10.9

15 - 16.3

16.3 - 17.3

17.3 - 22.3

22.3 - 23.1

23 - 28

ProtectiveCasing

SolidPVC +Grout

BentoniteSeal

SlottedPipe w/FilterSand


NOTES Observation Well installed 5' south of boring.






GROUND WATER LEVELS

AFTER DRILLING ---

DE

PT

H

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

ELE

V.

(ft)

75

70

65

60

55


RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.(R

QD

) %

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

-VA

LUE

)

SA

MP

LED

EP

TH

(FT

)




NE

W 2

017

LOG

- G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T -

3/2

6/1

8 1

7:31

- J

:\20

17 P

RO

JEC

TS

\E3X

4121

8\60

0DIS

C\6

11G

EO

T\D

ES

IGN

\SE

PT

A S

HA

RO

N H

ILL.

GP


WELLDIAGRAM

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SPTS-1

SPTS-2

SPTS-3

SPTS-4

SPTS-5

SPTS-6

SPTS-7

SPTS-8

SPTS-9

SPTS-10

Tan SILT, little fine Sand, with roots

Tan SILT, little (+) fine Sand

Tan CLAYEY SILT, little (-) medium to coarse Sand

12" A: Same as Above; 12" B: Tan fine to coarse (-) SAND, little Silt

Same as Above;

Brown fine to coarse SAND, trace (+) Silt, with mica flakes.

Brownish Gray fine to coarse (-) SAND, with mica flakes. (Decomposed Rock)

Same as Above;

Whiteish Tan fine to coarse (-) SAND, some (-) Silt

Grayish Tan fine to coarse SAND, little Silt, (Decomposed Rock)


18

16

13

24

18

19

14

19

4

3

2-2-4-4(6)

9-8-8-8(16)

3-6-6-5(12)

8-7-8-9(15)

8-7-6-7(13)

10-11-13-11(24)

21-25-30-46(55)

11-10-12-32(22)

50/4"

50/3"

0 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 12

15 - 17

20 - 22

25 - 25.3

30 - 30.3


NOTES






GROUND WATER LEVELS

AFTER DRILLING ---

DE

PT

H

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

ELE

V.

(ft)

85

80

75

70

65

60


RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.(R

QD

) %

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

-VA

LUE

)

SA

MP

LED

EP

TH

(FT

)




NE

W 2

017

LOG

- G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T -

3/2

6/1

8 1

7:31

- J

:\20

17 P

RO

JEC

TS

\E3X

4121

8\60

0DIS

C\6

11G

EO

T\D

ES

IGN

\SE

PT

A S

HA

RO

N H

ILL.

GP


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SPTS-1SPTS-2

SPTS-3

SPTS-4

SPTS-5

SPTS-6

SPTS-7

SPTS-8

RCR-1

RCR-2

Drilled 1'. 6" Asphalt, 6" Sub Base.

No Recovery;

1 piece medium GRAVEL at tip of spoon.

Dark Tan And Black fine to medium GRAVEL, some Clayey Silt, trace fine tomedium Sand

Gray CLAYEY SILT, trace (+) fine Sand

Tan fine to coarse SAND, some (-) fine to medium (-) Gravel

Reddish Tan fine to coarse SAND, little Silt, trace fine Gravel

Dark Gray fine to medium SAND, little Silt, with Mica flakes. (DecomposedRock)

Dark Gray SILT, some (-) fine to medium Sand, with Mica flakes.(Decomposed Rock)

SCHIST, dark gray, highly weathered to moderately weathered, close fracturespacing

SCHIST, dark gray, highly weathered to moderately weathered, very close toclose fracture spacing


0

1

6

21

18

14

18

5

30(0)

52(12)

7-6/6"

7-6-7-9(13)

10-11-11-10(22)

5-6-9-17(15)

11-10-8-8(18)

11-14-17-11(31)

14-17-17-34(34)

50/5"

0 -

1 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 12

15 - 17

20 - 20.4

22 - 27

27 - 32


NOTES





DRILLING METHOD 4 inch FLUSH MOUNT CASING HAMMER

GROUND WATER LEVELS

AFTER DRILLING ---

DE

PT

H

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

ELE

V.

(ft)

75

70

65

60

55

50

45


RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.(R

QD

) %

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

-VA

LUE

)

SA

MP

LED

EP

TH

(FT

)




NE

W 2

017

LOG

- G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T -

3/2

6/1

8 1

7:31

- J

:\20

17 P

RO

JEC

TS

\E3X

4121

8\60

0DIS

C\6

11G

EO

T\D

ES

IGN

\SE

PT

A S

HA

RO

N H

ILL.

GP


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SPTS-1

SPTS-2

SPTS-3

SPTS-4

SPTS-5

SPTS-6

RCR-1

RCR-2

RCR-3

Gray fine to coarse GRAVEL, little (-) fine to coarse Sand, (Wet at tip ofspoon).

Tan fine to medium SAND, little (-) Silt, with Mica flakes.

Grayish Tan fine to coarse (+) SAND, trace Silt, trace (-) fine Gravel, withMica flakes.

Grayish Tan fine to medium SAND, some (-) Silt, with Mica flakes.

Same as Above;

Tan fine to coarse SAND, some Silt, (Decomposed Rock)

SCHIST, tannish gray, highly weathered to moderately weathered, very closeto close fracture spacing

SCHIST, dark gray, highly weathered to moderately weathered, very close toclose fracture spacing

SCHIST, dark gray, highly weathered to moderately weathered, close to veryclose fracture spacing


14

15

20

17

19

24

9(0)

14(0)

32(0)

6-15-14-2(29)

13-17-13-10(30)

22-22-16-13(38)

14-16-24-19(40)

19-13-32-30(45)

30-47-50/5"

0 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 11.4

12 - 17

17 - 22

22 - 27


NOTES





DRILLING METHOD 4 inch FLUSH MOUNT CASING HAMMER

GROUND WATER LEVELS

AFTER DRILLING ---

DE

PT

H

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

ELE

V.

(ft)

70

65

60

55

50


RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.(R

QD

) %

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

-VA

LUE

)

SA

MP

LED

EP

TH

(FT

)




NE

W 2

017

LOG

- G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T -

3/2

6/1

8 1

7:31

- J

:\20

17 P

RO

JEC

TS

\E3X

4121

8\60

0DIS

C\6

11G

EO

T\D

ES

IGN

\SE

PT

A S

HA

RO

N H

ILL.

GP


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100 150 200 250 300 350 400

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DATENo. REVISION

SEPTA

SHEET No.:

BY

SUPERVISED

3/26/2018DATE:

SEPTA Sharon Hill Flood MitigationSharon Hill, PAFill Sand & Gravel Sand

Completely WeatheredRock/ Residual Soil

Silt & Clay Sandy Clay/ Silt

Bedrock Asphalt Gravel

Silty Sand/ Sandy Silt

DATE

CHECKED

TRACED

MADE (Approx.)HORZ: 1":30'VERT: 1":10'

SCALE:

FIGURE

CONTRACT NO:E3X41218

Ele

va

tio

n (

ft)

Distance Along Baseline (ft)

3/26/2018

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

U - Undisturbed Sample

REF - Refusal

15% - Rock Quality Designation

12_ - SPT N-Value

- Water Level Reading

20

12

ST

AN

DA

RD

PR

OF

ILE

WIT

H S

TA

TIO

NS

- G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T -

3/2

6/1

8 1

6:5

2 -

J:\

20

17

PR

OJE

CT

S\E

3X

41

21

8\6

00

DIS

C\6

11

GE

OT

\DE

SIG

N\S

EP

TA

SH

AR

ON

HIL

L.G

PJ

Jacobs299 Madison Avenue, Morristown, New Jersey 07962-1936

0 50

7 %

38 %

10

3

3

13

16

REF

REF

0 %

10

8

REF

6

8

5

24

36

14

REF

12 %

13

10

13

56

89

REF

REF

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

7

27

21

12

22

REF

REF

REF

REF

6

16

12

15

13

24

55

22

REF

REF

13

REF

0 %

12 %

REF

22

18

31

34

15

0 %

0 %

0 %

29

30

38

40

45

REF

Elev. 73

B-1B-1

Elev. 89.5

B-2B-2

Elev. 81

B-3B-3

Elev. 79

B-4B-4

Elev. 87.5

B-5B-5

Elev. 76

B-6B-6

Elev. 73

B-7B-7


APPENDIX C

Design Calculations

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION REPORT · TRC drilled the soil borings under the...

Documents

Transcript of GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION REPORT · TRC drilled the soil borings under the...