BSSH Inc. - Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation

BSSH Inc. 122 Hasselhoff Drive Zhang River, China April 27, 2012 Philipsburg Borough P.O.
Box 631, 4 N. Centre St. Philipsburg, PA 16866 Dear Philipsburg Borough: In the attached proposal, BSSH Inc. presents plans to redesign the Cold Stream Dam. The attached report includes project and geologic information, field and laboratory investigations and subsurface conditions conducted by CMT Laboratories. BSSH Inc. proposes three design options for fill over the earthen embankment: roller compacted concrete, soil with asphalt, and a concrete seawall. Prepared in this document are recommendations and analysis for site preparation, drainage, structural fill placement, foundations, lateral earth pressure, settlement, cost analysis and slope stability for each design option. In interest to the general contractor, the acid mine drainage located east of the dam is of concern due to the environmental safety of the community. Slope stability is of concern for the earthen dam and may cause danger to the workers during dam rehabilitation. Therefore, it is recommended that a Professional Engineer (P.E.) be present for the entirety of construction. Sincerely,
Scott Parker President BSSH Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
COLD STREAM DAM REHABILITATION Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania
Prepared For: Philipsburg Borough P.O. Box 631, 4 N. Centre St. Philipsburg, PA 16866
Prepared By: Hasib Hussain Scott Parker Shan Lin Ben Schatz
April 27, 2012
INDEX
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION.........................................................................................1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................................2 GEOLOGIC INFORMATION ........................................................................................................2 MINING INFORMATION..............................................................................................................3 FIELD INVESTIGATION ..............................................................................................................4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................6 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................7 Site Preparation ....................................................................................................................7 Drainage ...............................................................................................................................7 Structural Fill Placement......................................................................................................8 Foundations ........................................................................................................................10 Lateral Earth Pressure ........................................................................................................10 Settlement ..........................................................................................................................11 Design Options...................................................................................................................11 Cost Analysis .........................................................................................................12 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................13 COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................13 APPENDIX: A. Boring Logs & Test Boring Location Plans B. Laboratory Tests C. Slope Stability (RocScience) a. Current Conditions b. Concrete Option c. Soil w/ Asphalt Option d. Seawall Option D. Foundation Drawings & Calculations E. Cost Analysis F. Sources
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania April 27, 2012
INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a subsurface exploration and geotechnical analysis for the proposed Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation, located in Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Test borings were drilled to determine the in-situ subsurface condition and to obtain information for construction and other geotechnical recommendations. The scope of services does not include an environmental assessment for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous, radioactive or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below or around the site. Any statements in this report or on the Test Boring Logs regarding odors, colors or unusual or suspicious items are strictly for the information of the client. PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION The Cold Stream Dam is located in the Borough of Philipsburg, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Specifically, the project site is located at the corner of Half Moon Street and Railroad Street off of PA S.R. 322. The existing site was constructed in the year 1889 with nine (9) acres of normal surface area used for recreational purposes. Cold Stream Dam is of earthen construction with a height of fifteen (15) feet with a length of 1600 linear feet. Its capacity is 75 acre feet with a normal storage of 25 acre feet. The spillway drains an area of 21 square miles. Topographic information was taken from the site plan on August 10, 2009. The existing site contains earth embankments to the north and east of the impoundment. Average dam breast elevations are 1448.08 and 1448.60 feet along the north and east embankments, respectively. The existing spillway is located at the western end of the northern embankment, measures approximately 130 feet in length and has an average top of spillway elevation of 1443.13 feet.
Geotechnical Report (Contd) Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania Re: Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation
April 27, 2012
To the north of the impoundment, the site is grass covered and consists of a playground. To the east of the impoundment, an acid mine drainage bypass channel is present. General project information was provided by two professional engineers with Stiffler, McGraw & Associates, Inc. According to their information, the proposed rehabilitation will consist of a roller compacted concrete stabilization placed on both faces of embankment, replacement of the dewatering and energy dissipation systems, a removal of sediment within dam, and a replacement of pedestrian bridge. The structural loading information regarding the spillway and wing-walls was not available at the time of this report. The above information was utilized in our geotechnical analysis. Therefore, if any of this information has changed, is incorrect or becomes available in the future, please inform the engineer so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate. GENERAL The following recommendations are based on general subsurface information shown on the Test Boring Logs located in Appendix A. The descriptions shown on the Test Boring Logs represent the conditions only at the actual test boring locations. Conditions encountered during excavation may not reflect the conditions presented on the Test Boring Logs, since variations in soil may occur between test boring locations. Therefore, it is necessary that a representative from BSSH Inc. be present during excavation operations. Any variations will then be presented to the geotechnical engineer on site, who may and can make changes to this report if variations are present. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION After the examination of 14 test borings across the site, the subsurface conditions revealed local bedrock with coal, sandstone, shale, and claystone. The processions of the boring locations begin at the west end of the north face of the dam and spillway. There are three (3) boring sights on this west face of the structure. At TB-1, with a depth of 30 ft., there is 3 ft. of coal present followed by at least 2 ft. of sandstone before the boring depth ends at 35 ft. The
BSSH Inc.
April 27, 2012
subsurface is almost the same at TB-2, which is downstream. At TB-3 there is no bedrock found with a 17 ft. bore. Next, across the spillway at TB-4, shale was discovered at a depth of 16 ft. This shale is not present upstream at TB-5, which contains coal and sandstone similar to TB-2 and 1. This coal and sandstone was also found at TB-6A. Next, moving around the berm, there was claystone at a depth of approximately 30 ft. measured from the walkway height and sandstone at about 40 ft. from the same datum present in TB-7, TB-8, TB-9, and TB-10. Moving further east, claystone was present at TB-11 and TB-12 at 30 feet. Lastly, at the southern end of the east berm shale was present at a depth of 15 ft. The coal is described as weathered, very dense, and wet. Also present is sandstone, a sedimentary rock, described as brown and weathered. The shale found at TB-4 was described as gray and weathered. Claystone was found in great abundance at this site, described as gray, very broken to broken, weathered, and medium in hardness. Sandstone found along the eastern end of the north berm was different compared to the sandstone found closer to the spillway. This sandstone was described as gray, fine-grained, broken to slightly broken, slightly weathered, and hard. Lastly, the shale present was described as gray, weathered, very dense, and wet. MINING INFOFRMATION There is a coal mine nearby with a divided runoff stream that parallels the eastern face of the berm. At certain locations, this stream is a few yards away from the reservoir and the vertical faces on both sides lack reinforcement. This situation presents a great potential for water pollution that could involve EPA penalties, fines, environmental concerns, and health risks. The acid mine drainage should be chemically analyzed to ensure proper attention is given. Typical acid mine drainage contains elevated concentrations of sulfate (SO4), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) and aluminum (Al), as well as common elements such as calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium. The pH ranges from 3 to 4.5 or 6 to 7. To ensure the success and safety of the project, we recommend reinforcing the containing surfaces of the runoff stream with an
BSSH Inc.
April 27, 2012
impermeable fabric to keep dangerous elements from the reservoir water and the surrounding environment. FIELD INVESTIGATION The geotechnical boring logs conducted by CMT Labs under File No. 09867 was completed between January 27, 2010 and March 1, 2010 using the Mobile B-40 (ATV) drill rig. With the instability of the terrain and soil conditions it is recommended that the Contractor proceed cautiously during construction with respect to excavating and equipment. The test boring investigation accounts for fourteen (14) test borings. Locations for the test borings represent the location plan set forth by the subsidiaries of the geotechnical engineer in reference to the site plan while implementing standard procedures. The elevations listed on the test boring logs were calculated from the location plan previously mentioned. General layout and approximate locations are shown in the Test Boring Location Plan, located in Appendix A. Soil samples performed by CMT Laboratories were conducted in accordance to ASTM standard D-1586 using sample intervals. Standard Penetration Test values, such as blow counts and N values, were recorded and shown on the Test Boring Logs attached in Appendix A. Results obtained from the Standard Penetration Test provide general conclusions about the layout and consistency of the soil, which will serve as basis for estimating the compressibility and relative strength of the soil. For test boring locations, TB-3 and TB-4, the default 3 casings were replaced with 41/4 HSA augers from a Soilmax drill rig. Auger refusal designates material that cannot be further penetrated by the power auger and is indicative of hard clay, boulders and bedrock. Stratification of underlying soil imaged in the Test Boring Logs is confined to the actual location of the test boring at the time conducted. Natural variations should be expected throughout the site, which should be taken into account during construction. Furthermore, the strata described in the Test Boring Logs provide approximate boundaries between subsurface materials and soil layers. Actual fluctuations amongst layers in expected.
BSSH Inc.
April 27, 2012
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM The laboratory testing program was directed toward determining the index, engineering properties and consolidation characteristics of the foundation soils encountered along the north end of the Cold Stream Dam. Soil samples obtained during drilling operations were sealed and labeled in containers and transported to CMT Laboratories for inspection, testing and classification. For future reference, unused samples will remain in the lab for a minimum of one year. In addition to visual classification of the soil samples, moisture content determination tests were performed on all split-spoon samples. The moisture content is the ratio of the weight of water to the dry weight of the sample. These tests were performed in compliance with ASTM D2217. Hand penetrometer values were determined on representative natural cohesive soil samples. These values provide a basis for estimating the relative strength and compressibility of the soil. By means of the Atterberg Limit Test, moisture-plasticity characteristics of one soil sample were determined. The test determines the moisture content at which the soil begins to act as a viscous liquid (Liquid Limit - LL) and the moisture content at which the soil changes from a plastic state to a semi-solid state (Plastic Limit - PL). The Plasticity Index (PI) can then be calculated by subtracting the Plastic Limit from the Liquid Limit. The test procedures were performed in compliance with ASTM D4318. A particle-size analysis was performed on the same soil sample in compliance with ASTM D422. The procedure involves a sieve analysis for particle sizes greater than the #200 sieve and a hydrometer analysis for particle sizes smaller than the #200 sieve. Using this information, the sample was classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), ASTM D2487.
BSSH Inc.
April 27, 2012
A Standard Proctor analysis was also performed on the same soil sample in accordance with ASTM D698. This laboratory compaction test enables the development of a moisturedensity relationship for a given amount of compactive energy. The following is a summary of the laboratory testing results. A more detailed analysis of the testing is included in Appendix B of this report. Sample Number Location of Sample Liquid Limit (LL) Plasticity Index (PI) USCS Classification Max Dry Density (lb/ft3) Optimum Moisture Content (%)
9757
TB- 8, 5.0'-7.0'
24
SC-SM
126.2
13.2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The data associated with the test borings should be reviewed in Appendix A. This section includes a brief description of the soils and rock based on the test borings. The first stratum encountered at each location is fill, topsoil, or embankment. The fill material is highly organic and will result in large settlement values when loaded with any sizeable weight. This material is between two (2) and five (5) inches, created from the decay of vegetation and natural weathering, and should be removed prior to construction. The fill material underlays the topsoil or lies directly at the surface wherever no embankment is present. There are several different types of fill materials present, each one with unique properties. One is brown silty sand, some gravel, a little clay, and damp to wet. Another type is a damp, brown, sandstone boulder. A third type of fill was brown/gray clayey sand and gravel described as wet. All three of these materials were found at TB-1. At TB-2 fill material was brown/gray sand and gravel, with ash and shale fragments, described as moist. Below this, there were sandstone cobbles and boulders, some sand, some gravel, trace organics and described
BSSH Inc.
April 27, 2012
as moist. The other material present at the surface was embankment, described as damp, dark brown, silty sand, with some gravel, and little clay. RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions and recommendations set forth in this geotechnical report are based upon the field explorations and laboratory testing programs obtained from CMT Laboratories. Cold Stream Dam is considered suitable for construction based on safety and slope stability calculations, attached in Appendix C, if recommendations and concerns addressed in this report are assessed during the design and construction phase. Addressed here forth are recommendations and evaluations in segmented sections. Site Preparation Prior to drainage and construction, the site should be closed to the public and all existing utilities identified. Drainage concerns are discussed in the next section of the report. Moisten soil resides on both sides of the spillway, thus protection against sliding should be designed and overseen by the Professional Engineer on site. The General Contractor is advised to be aware of slope stability issues during the deconstruction of the spillway and abutment walls. Slope stability concerns arise along the earthen embankment during structural fill. Therefore, fill should be placed in lifts and compacted at each half foot. Structural fill recommendations and designs are discussed later in the report. Proof-rolling along the embankment will reveal any soil defects present not identified in test borings. It is recommended that a consulting Professional Engineer be present for the duration of the project, should safety concerns arise. Drainage Current conditions include a spillway on the northern end of the dam which drains incoming reservoir water, and a separate acid mine stream running parallel to the dam between the eastern embankment and PA S.R. 322. Previous proposed site preparation for construction designed the rerouting of water through the acid mine stream. Considering current conditions,
BSSH Inc.
April 27, 2012
such as the community use of the childrens playground and pedestrian walkway, environmental and safety concerns arise if the current acid mine drainage remains open to the atmosphere and possible overflow conditions. Calculations for the acid mine channel show that it can withstand a flow of about 46.6 cfs at bank full stage. During flood events the water elevation of the channel will rise above the bank full stage causing overflow into PA SR-322 and surrounding residences. Area of the Acid Mine Stream (A): Perimeter of the Acid Mine Stream (P): Manning Constant (n): Slope of the Acid Mine Stream (So): Max Flow in Acid Mine Stream (Qmax): 3.0 m2 2.83 m 0.025 0.001 Qmax = (A) (Rh)2/3 (So)1/2
1 3
Qmax = 0.025 (3) (2.83)2/3 (0.001)1/2 Qmax = 1.32 cms = 46.6 cfs Environmental concerns elevate with increased flow and possible overflow of the acid mine stream, as water is rerouted from the dam. Contaminating the rerouted water may cause health and safety concerns for the community and ecosystem. It is recommended that the existing spillway is utilized during drainage. Plans to replace the spillway provide an opportunity to drain the reservoir in conjunction with demolishment. Through incremental deconstruction, water can be drained over the spillway with minimal environmental impacts. As caution, the general contractor should begin drainage months before the contracted start date and take note of any cracks present. Structural Fill Placement Structural fill is defined as all fill placed over and around the earthen dam, utilities, and acid mine stream. Evaluation of backfill material should be considered during construction, depending on its intended use. Current soil conditions, based on the laboratory results located in Appendix B, are suitable for holding two (2) feet of additional fill (proposed for protection against the 100 year
BSSH Inc.
April 27, 2012
flood). However, continued monitoring of the moisture content and strength of the soil is required to verify suitability during construction. Elevated moisture contents may be encountered, requiring the underlain soil to be dried or aerated. Processes may become difficult for the General Contractor based on the current weather conditions and time of year. The two (2) feet placement of additional fill will require imported fill material to be monitored on a case by case basis. Fill material recommendations are discussed later in this report, however it is recommended that the material satisfy the following: Any material utilized as fill should not contain rock greater than three (3) inches in diameter and it should not contain more than one (1) percent (by weight) of organic matter or other deleterious material. The Plasticity Index, PI, (ASTM D4318) for the material should not exceed 30 and the Liquid Limit for the material should not exceed 50 (Unified Soils Classifications of GW, GM, GC, SW, SM, SC, and some CL). Potentially expansive material such as mine tailings, pyritic shale, and slag should not be used as structural fill material. Other materials should be considered on a case-bycase basis, alternative materials should be approved by a Geotechnical Engineer. Difficulties may be encountered during compaction of the fill material due to the moisture present in the existing earth berm. Without proper confinement, poorly graded materials will have the tendency to fail horizontally. It is recommended that weight rollers with high frequency be used to compact the earth berm. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding six (6) inches of loose thickness. Structural fill facing the acid mine stream should be placed on a 2H:1V slope, resulting in horizontal displacement of the top and western slope (2H:1V) of the earthen dam. ASTM D698 requires the fill to be compacted to 100 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Standard Proctor Test. It is recommended that a Soil Technician, working under the direction of a Geotechnical Engineer, be on site during placement and compaction of the fill to ensure the specifications are met.
BSSH Inc.
April 27, 2012
Foundations Attached in Appendix D, are abutment and pier designs prepared by BSSH Inc. Abutment design calculations are based on Rankines Theory for overturning and sliding. No surcharge loading exists on the abutment based on a 2V:1H from the parking lot and recreational area. Obtained from TB-6A, the water table location and soil properties were used in the calculations. For a conservative design, the maximum unit weight from the strata was used, with a friction angle of 30 degrees, and a surface slope angle of 20 degrees. Based on these calculations, BSSH Inc. recommends a base width of 11 feet composed of an 8 foot heel and 2 foot toe. The factor of safety for overturning is 3.15, while the factor of safety for sliding is 1.42. Due to low sliding friction, it is highly recommended that a key be placed on the bottom of the abutment or tie-backs anchored into the earthen embankment. High moisture content in the embankment makes drainage a concern, thus drainage pipes should be installed to provide further resistance against failure. Pier design calculations are based on Rankines Theory for overturning and sliding. A live load of 2.7 kips from the pedestrian bridge (Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges) and a dead load of 765 kips from the spillway structure were used. Based on these calculations, BSSH Inc. recommends a footing width of 6 feet and a length of 12 feet. Upon design, safety requirements are met with factors of safety for overturning and sliding of 6.75 and 13.0 respectively. Lateral Earth Pressure During the construction of raising and extending the berm, the lateral earth forces and hydrostatic forces from the reservoir must be considered in determining the safety and stability. These conditions must be determined under extreme weather events, such as the 100 year flood, seismic, and rapid draw down conditions, when the soil is least stable and the hydrostatic force is at a maximum. The backfill used should be periodically compacted to prevent excessive lateral pressures during placement. To prevent exacerbating any slide problems, the existing slope or maximum
BSSH Inc.
10
April 27, 2012
of 2H:1V should be maintained. An example of effective lateral earth pressure using Rankines Method is shown below:
Effective Friction Angle (): Active Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure (ka): Depth (d): Effective Unit Weight of Soil (): Vertical Effective Pressure (v): Effective Lateral Earth Pressure (ha):
30.0o 1- sin = 0.500 1.524 m 20.4 kn/m3 d * ha = v * ka ha = (1.524)*(20.4)*(0.500) ha = 15.55 kPa
The total resultant lateral forces acting on the embankment were found to be: Po = 465.33 kN/m (at rest) and Pa = 342.32 kN/m (active) Settlement Settlement calculations for the embankment were completed using the online RocScience Settlement application based on the cross sectional dimensions from TB-6 and TB-13. All design options mentioned previously were considered and evaluated based on individual strata and loading. Design Options In regards to the raising of the earthen dam, design options include the utilization of roller compacted concrete, soil with asphalt, and seawalls.
BSSH Inc.
11
April 27, 2012
Cost Analysis All cost values used in this report were taken from the RS Means books for landscaping and heavy construction updated 2010. These books consider labor, materials, and overhead costs to develop estimated costs that can be used professionally with a high level of accuracy. Costs were developed for increasing the height of the berm 2 feet, as well as adding fill to the existing slopes to maintain a safe incline after construction. This slope is to be reinforced with rip-rap on each side of the embankment to maintain slope stability and then tied down with jute mesh to protect against erosion. The previously discussed options were selected because they represent an array of material options at varying costs, longevity, and safety. The slopes were determined to be stable with an acceptable factor of safety under extreme weather condition with all material options. The longevity of the material was considered to ensure that the cost analysis was applicable into the long-term future. While some options are cheaper to implement, they cannot be expected to last as long, and therefore may not be the most practical choice. The first material considered was roller compacted concrete. Priced at $108.5 per cubic yard, it has the highest material cost of $753,000. Including the cost of rip-rap and soil fill, this option is the most expensive overall at $2,868,000. However, it should be considered that concrete is more erosion resistant than soil, and may therefore be a better long-term investment. Also, the RCC option provides an aesthetically pleasing and clean walking path for the community. The next material considered was soil with an asphalt pavement on top. The material cost for these two was $512,000 with a total cost of $2,627,000. This was the cheapest option and would provide erosion resistance due to the weight of the pavement. However, additional costs for pavement renovations after 20-30 years should be considered when weighing options over a long time period. Lastly, a concrete seawall with a shallow foundation was considered. Since this section of concrete is about 1 foot wide, soil is needed on the rest of the walkway to raise the berm to an
BSSH Inc.
12
April 27, 2012
acceptable level. The seawall will be placed on the reservoir side of the berm to help protect against erosion and flooding. The seawall will help water from seeping across the berm during flood conditions and should be erosion resistant over a long time period. The total cost for this option was $2,647,000 making it the second cheapest option. Slope Stability For structural fill placement along the earth embankment, maximum slopes of 2H:1V shall be used in construction of the embankment. Stability concerns have been evaluated in Appendix C using the Bishop and Janbu Corrected Methods within the slope stability program Slide 6.0 by RocScience. If slopes proposed are greater than a maximum of 2H:1V, analysis for each condition is required. At the worst case scenario (100 year flood, seismic, and rapid draw down), the current geometrical layout for TB-8 achieves a minimum factor a safety of 0.751. Therefore, it is imperative to redesign the embankment. For the concrete option listed above, the minimum factor of safety under the worst case scenario is 3.91. For the soil with asphalt option, the minimum factor of safety under the worst case scenario is 1.257. For the seawall option, the minimum factor of safety under the worst case scenario is 1.450. For additional cross-sections and calculations, refer to Appendix C. COMMENTS This geotechnical report has been prepared by BSSH Inc. to assist the local government of Philipsburg in deciding how to best renovate their reservoir embankment and spillway. Proper consideration and planning should result in a cost-effective system with a long lifespan if necessary renovations and upkeep are undertaken. Flood data should be constantly recorded and analyzed to ensure that the dam will be safe under changing weather conditions, particularly in this era of climate change. The subsurface data used in this report should not be extrapolated past what is clearly evident. Conditions surrounding boring holes may be different when compared to the actual
BSSH Inc.
13
April 27, 2012
borings. Therefore, the importance of inspection, consultation, and testing before, during, and after construction is imperative.
BSSH Inc.
14
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS & TEST BORING LOCATION PLANS
General Information Elevation (ft.) Current Main Spillway Secondary Bearing Embankment North East Volume (MG) Pool Tailwater 100 Year Flood 10.75 1443.13 1443.13 1432.50 1448.08 1448.60 Elevation (ft.) 1444.00 1433.00 1448.14 Design 1443.13 1445.53 1432.50 1448.50 1448.50 Flow (MGD) ?/105 93.06
Design Height (ft.) 10.63 13.03 15.08 15.60
Area (ft.2)
93732.49
Test Boring Log

Boring:
Project Name: Site: Driller/helper: Auger Type:
TB-1
Date of Work: File No.: Core Bit: Elevation:
Mc (%) 37.0 12.5
GR
Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania M. Rager/J. Tyson Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) 3" Casing Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586
Depth Sample (ft) Type SS-1 SS-2 Blow Counts 3-5-7 10-13-32 "N" Value 12 45
2/22/2010 09867 N/A 1447.03' Remarks
Description
4" TOPSOIL FILL MATERIAL - Brown silty sand, some gravel, little clay, damp to wet
qp (tsf)
-----
FILL MATERIAL - Brown sandstone boulder, damp FILL MATERIAL - Brown/gray clayey sand and gravel, wet
SS-3
50/0.1
---
---
3.3
10
SS-4 SS-5
10-13-18 30-42-38
31 80
-----
16.4 12.2
Gray clayey SAND, some gravel, little silt, dense, wet (Possible fill)
15
SS-6 SS-7
10-15-21 16-18-23
36 41
-----
11.2 12.3
20
End of boring and 24 hour groundwater measurements are 6.5 and 13.6 feet, respectively. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to these measurements.
SS-8 SS-9
23-23-16 20-25-23
39 48
No Recovery --13.6
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, little clay, dense to very dense, wet
25
SS-10 SS-11
10-15-22 25-50/0.2
37 50/0.2
-----
12.7 11.0
Black weathered COAL, very dense, wet
30
SS-12
49-50/0.3
50/0.3
---
17.0
Brown weathered SANDSTONE End of Boring - 35.0'
35
40 CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-2
Mc (%) 21.2 --GR
Project Name: Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Site: Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania Driller/helper: M. Rager/J. Morrison Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) Auger Type: 3" Casing Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586 Description
4" TOPSOIL FILL MATERIAL - Brown/gray sand, gravel, ash and shale fragments, moist Depth Sample (ft) Type SS-1 SS-2 Blow Counts 5-6-7 8-6-3 "N" Value 13 9
2/25/2010 09867 N/A 1446.43' Remarks
qp (tsf)
-----
FILL MATERIAL - Sandstone cobbles and boulders, some sand, some gravel, trace organics, moist
SS-3
50/0.4
---
---
18.7
FILL MATERIAL - Brown/gray sandy clay, little gravel, moist FILL MATERIAL - Brown clayey sand and gravel, little silt, wet Brown GRAVEL, some sand, little silt, trace clay, dense to very dense, wet
10
SS-4 SS-5
5-4-9 15-19-16
13 35
1.1 ---
23.0 15.4
15
SS-6
46-50/0.2
50/0.2
---
9.9 End of boring and 24 hour groundwater measurements are 11.4 and 15.0 feet,
20
SS-7
50/0.1
---
No Recovery
respectively. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to these measurements.
25
SS-8 SS-9
18-24-16 26-20-11
40 31
-----
14.1 16.5
30
SS-10
50-50/0.3
50/0.3
---
19.1
Weathered SANDSTONE End of Boring - 34.0'
Casing Refusal - 34.0'
35
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-3
Date of Work: File No.: Core Bit: Elevation: qp (tsf)
----Mc (%) 17.1 19.6
GR
Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania R. Rager/J. Tyson Drill Rig: Soilmax (Truck) 4-1/4" HSA Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586
2/18/2010 09867 N/A 1442.05' Remarks
Description
FILL MATERIAL - Black ash, sand and gravel, damp Brown clayey SAND, some gravel, little silt, very dense, moist
SS-3
25-36-50/0.1 86/0.6
---
19.1
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little clay, little silt, very dense, wet
10
End of boring and 24 SS-4 SS-5 17-34-27 61 ----12.2 9.5 hour groundwater measurements are both 15.0 feet.
19-27-50/0.3 77/0.8
15
End of Boring - 17.0'
SS-6
50/0.3
---
---
14.2 Casing Refusal - 17.0'
20
25
30
35
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-4
Date of Work: File No.: Core Bit: Elevation: qp (tsf)
----Mc (%) 18.1 23.4
GR
Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania R. Rager/J. Tyson Drill Rig: Soilmax (Truck) 4-1/4" HSA Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586
2/17/2010 09867 N/A 1436.76' Remarks
Description
FILL MATERIAL - Black ash, sand and gravel, damp Brown clayey SAND, little silt, trace gravel, slightly compact, moist Brown silty SAND, some gravel, dense to very dense, moist to wet
SS-3 SS-4
25-30-21 16-15-16
51 31
-----
10.5 10.8 End of boring and 24 hour groundwater
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, very dense, moist to wet
10
SS-5 SS-6
16-28-30 7-20-40
58 60
-----
9.4 10.6
measurements are 7.0 and 3.0 feet, respectively.
15
Gray weathered SHALE
SS-7
40-50/0.3
50/0.3
---
11.5 Auger Refusal - 18.0'
20
25
30
35
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-5
Mc (%) 11.0 8.2
GR
Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania M. Rager/J. Tyson Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) 3" Casing Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586
2/19/2010 09867 N/A 1441.18' Remarks
Description
EMBANKMENT - Dark brown silty sand, some gravel, little clay, damp
qp (tsf)
-----
Brown SAND, little silt, trace gravel, very loose to loose, wet
SS-3 SS-4
3-1-2 3-4-4
3 8
No Recovery --21.6 End of boring and 24 hour groundwater measurements are 6.0 and 5.2 feet, respectively. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to these measurements.
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, very dense, wet
10
SS-5
26-46-50/0.1 96/0.6
---
6.9
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, some cobbles, little silt, very dense, wet
15
SS-6
45-50/0.4
50/0.4
---
9.6
20
SS-7
50/0.1
---
No Recovery
25
SS-8
46-50/0.3
50/0.3
---
18.1 Casing Refusal - 27.6'
Brown weathered SANDSTONE End of Boring - 27.6'
30
35
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-6
Mc (%) 20.0 18.0
GR
Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania R. Rager/M. Rager Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) 3" Casing Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586
2/5/2010 09867 N/A 1446.62' Remarks
Description
EMBANKMENT - Brown silty clay, some gravel, little sand, damp
qp (tsf)
--2.5
EMBANKMENT - Brown sandstone gravel and clay, some slag, little sand, wet
5
ST-1
End of boring groundwater measurement is 9.0 feet. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to this measurement.
EMBANKMENT - Brown/gray sandy clay, some gravel, wet Gray silty SAND, little clay, trace gravel, loose, wet End of Boring - 15.0'
10
SS-3 SS-4
3-3-3 2-3-4
6 7
0.6 ---
18.3 28.5
15
20
25
30
35
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-6A
Date of Work: 2/17 & 2/18/2010 File No.: 09867 Core Bit: N/A Elevation: 1446.06'
Mc (%) 21.5
GR
EMBANKMENT - Sandstone boulders, cobbles and gravel with some sand, damp Depth Sample (ft) Type SS-1 Blow Counts 50/0.4 "N" Value ---
qp (tsf)
---
Remarks
EMBANKMENT - Brown sand and gravel, little slag, little clay, wet
SS-2 SS-3
3-2-1 1-2-3
3 5
-----
28.4 26.5 End of boring and 24
10
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, trace clay, loose to very dense, wet
SS-4 SS-5
1-1-2 4-3-7
3 10
No Recovery --14.5
15
hour groundwater measurements are 8.0 and 7.3 feet, respectively. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to these measurements.
SS-6 SS-7
16-23-27 27-28-30
50 58
-----
12.3 11.8
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, some cobbles and boulders, very dense, wet
20
SS-8
24-46-50/0.3 96/0.8
---
10.0
25
SS-9
50-50/0.3
50/0.3
---
10.4
30
SS-10
50/0.4
---
---
21.0
Brown weathered SANDSTONE Casing Refusal - 35.0' End of Boring - 35.0'
35
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-7 (Monitoring Well)

Date of Work: 2/15 & 2/17/2010 File No.: 09867 Core Bit: NQ-II Elevation: 1438.05'
Mc (%) 28.8 33.9 End of boring groundwater
GR
Description
2" TOPSOIL FILL MATERIAL - Brown gravel and slag, some clay, moist to wet
qp (tsf)
-----
Remarks
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, trace clay, slightly compact to medium dense, wet
SS-3 SS-4
14-13-8 8-6-10
21 16
-----
10.4 20.0
Brown GRAVEL, some sand, little silt, dense to very dense, wet
10
measurement is 2.0 feet. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to this measurement. See geotechnical report for further groundwater measurements.
SS-5 SS-6
17-20-15 22-27-28
35 55
-----
10.3 9.6
15
SS-7 SS-8
30-40-27 24-24-32
67 56
-----
11.6 14.5 Casing Refusal - 19.0'
Gray CLAYSTONE, very broken to broken, weathered, medium hard
20
NQ-1 Recovery = 52 RQD = 0
25
NQ-2 Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken to slightly broken, slightly weathered, hard End of Boring - 29.0' Recovery = 100 RQD = 8
30
35
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-8 (Monitoring Well, 1 of 2)

Mc (%)
GR
Depth Sample (ft) Type Blow Counts "N" Value
2/3 & 2/4/2010 09867 NQ-II 1446.86' Remarks
Description
EMBANKMENT - Sandstone boulders, cobbles and gravel with some sand, damp
qp (tsf)
EMBANKMENT - Brown silty sand, some clay, some gravel, damp to wet
5
ST-1
10
SS-1 SS-2
4-3-2 2-4-3
5 7
1.6 1.5
15.5 14.7 End of boring
Brown SAND, some gravel, little silt, little clay, slightly compact to dense, wet
15
SS-3 SS-4
12-18-19 13-10-9
37 19
-----
11.4 10.9
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, trace clay, dense to very dense, wet
20
groundwater measurement is 13.5 feet. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to this measurement. See geotechnical report for further groundwater measurements.
SS-5 SS-6
3-16-16 18-19-18
32 37
-----
9.9 11.5
25
SS-7
40-50/0.3
50/0.3
---
10.6
30
Gray highly weathered CLAYSTONE, very dense, wet Gray CLAYSTONE, very broken to broken, weathered, medium hard Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken to massive, slightly weathered,, hard Continued on next page
SS-8 SS-9 SS-10
15-45-18 17-32-40 50/0.0
63 72 ---
-----
No Recovery
35
40
CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-8 (Monitoring Well, 2 of 2)

Mc (%)
GR
2/3 & 2/4/2010 09867 NQ-II 1446.86' Remarks
Description
Continued from previous page Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken to massive, slightly weathered to fresh, hard End of Boring - 45.0'
qp (tsf)
NQ-2
Recovery = 100 RQD = 44
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-9
Date of Work: 2/9 & 2/15/2010 File No.: 09867 Core Bit: NQ-II Elevation: 1438.53'
Mc (%) 12.8 22.4 End of boring and 24
GR
Description
5" TOPSOIL FILL MATERIAL - Brown clay and gravel, little silt, little sand, damp to moist
qp (tsf)
-----
Remarks
Brown silty SAND and GRAVEL, little clay, wet
ST-1
Gray silty SAND, little gravel, trace clay, medium dense to dense, wet
10
hour groundwater measurements are 2.4 and 3.0 feet, respectively. Water utilized for drilling was 11-12-11 22-23-15 23 38 ----14.2 10.2 introduced into the boring prior to these measurements.
SS-3 SS-4
15
Gray highly weathered CLAYSTONE, dense, wet Gray CLAYSTONE, very broken to broken, weathered to slightly weathered, medium hard to hard
SS-5 SS-6
14-14-12 11-12-20
26 32
-----
20
25
Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken to massive, slightly weathered to fresh, hard NQ-2 Recovery = 100 RQD = 50
30
35
Test Boring Log

Boring: TB-10 (1 of 2)
Project Name: Site: Driller/helper: Auger Type: Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania R. Rager/M. Rager Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) 3" Casing Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586

Mc (%)
GR
2/2 & 2/3/2010 09867 NQ-II 1447.87' Remarks
Description
EMBANKMENT - Sandstone boulders, cobbles and gravel with some sand, damp
qp (tsf)
EMBANKMENT - Brown silty sand, some gravel, little clay, damp to wet
SS-1 SS-2
4-6-9 5-5-13
15 18
--1.8
18.0 19.3
10
SS-3 SS-4
8-5-4 4-4-5
9 9
1.2 3.8
12.5 15.8 End of boring and 24 hour groundwater
SANDSTONE BOULDER
15
SS-5
50/0.2
---
No Recovery
Brown clayey SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, dense, wet
20
measurements are 12.2 and 9.4 feet, respectively. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to these measurements.
SS-6 SS-7
9-15-17 9-12-19
32 31
-----
13.4 14.5
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, little clay, medium dense to dense, wet
25
SS-8 SS-9
15-17-10 13-20-23
27 43
-----
18.6 12.1
Gray highly weathered CLAYSTONE, very dense, wet
30
SS-10 SS-11 SS-12
8-31-36 50-50/0.3 50/0.0
67 50/0.3 ---
-----
No Recovery
Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken to massive, slightly weathered to fresh, hard Continued on next page
35
40
Test Boring Log

Boring: TB-10 (2 of 2)
Project Name: Site: Driller/helper: Auger Type: Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania R. Rager/M. Rager Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) 3" Casing Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586

Mc (%)
GR
2/2 & 2/3/2010 09867 NQ-II 1447.87' Remarks
Description
Continued from previous page Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken to massive, slightly weathered to fresh, hard End of Boring - 45.0'
qp (tsf)
NQ-2
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Test Boring Log

Boring:

Mc (%) 23.0 14.7
GR
2/8 & 2/9/2010 09867 N/A 1439.46' Remarks
Description
2" TOPSOIL EMBANKMENT FILL - Brown silty clay, little sand, little gravel, moist EMBANKMENT FILL - Brown silty gravel, little sand, little clay, moist Brown silty SAND and GRAVEL, trace clay, slightly compact, wet
qp (tsf)
1.2 ---
SS-3 SS-4
9-5-9 8-6-9
14 15
-----
13.3 13.0 End of boring
Brown/gray SAND, little silt, little gravel, slightly compact to medium dense, wet
10
SS-5 SS-6
8-10-11 11-8-6
21 14
-----
19.0 12.4
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, slightly compact to dense, wet
15
groundwater measurement is 8.0 feet. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to this measurement. See geotechnical report for further groundwater measurements. Casing Refusal - 22.0'
SS-7 SS-8 SS-9
12-8-11 22-30-11 25-28-8 8-22-50/0.4
19 41 36 72/0.9
-----
12.4 19.9
No Recovery --24.7
Brown/gray weathered CLAYSTONE, very dense, wet End of Boring - 22.0'
20
SS-10
25
30
35
Test Boring Log

Boring:

Mc (%) 14.3
GR
Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania R. Rager/M. Rager Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586
Depth Sample (ft) Type SS-1 Blow Counts 6-50/0.0 "N" Value ---
1/27/2010 09867 NQ-II 1449.02' Remarks
Description
EMBANKMENT - Brown sandy clay, gravel and sandstone cobbles and boulders, damp
qp (tsf)
---
SS-2
50/0.0
---
No Recovery
EMBANKMENT - Dark brown sandy clay and gravel, little silt, wet
SS-3
3-4-3 2-2-2 2-1-1 2-2-4 3-4-2 2-6-10
7 4 2 6 6 16
-------------
14.9 End of boring 20.2 17.9 17.2 40.2 47.8 groundwater measurement is 8.0 feet. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to this measurement. See geotechnical report for further groundwater measurements.
10
SS-4 SS-5 SS-6
Dark gray clayey SAND, little silt, little gravel, trace organics, loose to slightly compact, wet
15
SS-7 SS-8
Brown clayey SAND, some gravel, little silt, slightly compact to medium dense, wet
20
SS-9 SS-10
5-9-8 8-10-11
17 21
No Recovery --14.1
Brown clayey SAND and GRAVEL, medium dense to dense, wet
25
SS-11 SS-12
6-8-18 25-22-16 50-50/0.3
26 38 50/0.3
-------
13.1 13.1 16.1
Gray highly weathered CLAYSTONE, very dense, wet Gray CLAYSTONE, very broken, weathered, medium hard
30
SS-13
Auger Refusal - 30.8'
NQ-1
35
Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken, slightly weathered, hard End of Boring - 39.8' NQ-2 Recovery = 72 RQD = 0
40
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-13
Mc (%)
GR
EMBANKMENT - Sandstone cobbles and boulders with sand, gravel, clay and shale fragments, moist Depth Sample (ft) Type Blow Counts "N" Value
3/1/2010 09867 N/A 1447.79' Remarks
qp (tsf)
SS-1 SS-2
6-7-8 6-28-8
15 36
-----
14.3 15.7 End of boring and 24 hour groundwater measurements are 5.0 and 6.3 feet, respectively. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to these measurements. Casing Refusal - 18.4'
Dark brown silty CLAY, little sand, firm, wet (possible pre-fill topsoil) Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, dense, wet Gray weathered SHALE, very dense, wet
10
SS-3 SS-4
1-1-6 11-18-28
7 46
0.6 ---
50.9 14.6
15
SS-5
50/0.3
---
---
10.3
20
25
30
35
Test Boring Log

Boring:
TB-14
Mc (%)
GR
EMBANKMENT - Sandstone cobbles and boulders with sand, gravel, clay and shale fragments, moist Depth Sample (ft) Type Blow Counts "N" Value
3/1/2010 09867 N/A 1448.26' Remarks
qp (tsf)
5
EMBANKMENT - Brown clay and gravel, little sand, little shale fragments, wet Brown sandy CLAY, little silt, little gravel, firm, moist Brown SAND and GRAVEL, some clay, little silt, very dense, wet Gray weathered SHALE, very dense, wet
SS-1 SS-2
18-24-25 18-20-18
49 38
-----
12.5 14.2
10
End of boring groundwater measurement is 4.3 feet. Water utilized for drilling was introduced into the boring prior to this measurement.
SS-3 SS-4
8-3-5 9-50/0.3
8 50/0.3
0.7 ---
19.6 19.0
15
SS-5
50/0.2
---
---
14.5
Casing Refusal - 19.8' End of Boring - 19.8'
20
25
30
35
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTS
Test Boring - 8 (5'0" - 7'0") Lab Information CMT ID #9757 Water Content (%)
3 Dry Density (lb/ft )
Sample 1 13.80 124.20 141.48 99.00 0.384 2.754 35.8 24 20 4
Sample 2 13.20 126.10 142.70 99.90 0.363 Compression Index, Cc Swelling Index, Cs
Sample 3 13.20 126.20 142.70 100.00 0.363 0.126 0.028
Saturated Density (lb/ft3) Saturation (%) Void Ratio Specific Gravity, Gs Friction Angle, Liquid Limit, LL Plastic Limit, PL Plasticity Index, PI
Average 13.40 125.50 142.29 99.63 0.370
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY
Material Description Embankment Embankment Fill (SC-SM) Embankment Fill (Sandy Clay and Gravel) Silty Clay Sand and Gravel (SM) Clayey Sand with Gravel
Applicable Section A, B, C, D A, B C D A, B, C, D C
Moist Unit Weight (pcf) 130 122.5 115 110 114.4 115
Saturated Unit Weight (pcf) N/A 142.7 125 120 126.3 125
Material Description Claystone Sandstone Shale
Applicable Section A, B, C A, B, C D
Moist Unit Weight (pcf) 130 140 130
Saturated Unit Weight (pcf) N/A N/A N/A
Angle of Internal Friction (deg) 30 35.8 20 5 32.4 30
Cohesion (psf) 50 100 250 500 0 250
Intact UCS (psf) 500000 1500000 700000
Geological Strength Index 40 70 50
Intact Rock Constant 4 17 6
Disturbance Factor 0 0 0
Angle of Internal Friction (deg) 19.63 41.03 26.28
Cohesion (psf) 16734 118830 29906
50
8.016 8.923 27.220 7.000 9.250
40
2.800
7.750
30
5.000
20
41.000
11.500
10
5.500
8.500
0
10
20
Project
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cold Stream Dam Phillipsburg, PA

Analysis Description Drawn By Date
SLIDE 6.015
Section A, TB-8 (Geometric Layout)

Scale
Hasib Hussain/Scott Parker 4/5/2012, 4:36:38 PM
1:116
Company File Name
BSSH Inc. Section A, TB-8 (RDD).slim
Pressure Head [ft] -17.500 -15.000 -12.500 -10.000 -7.500 -5.000 -2.500 0.000 2.500 5.000 7.500 10.000 12.500 15.000 17.500 20.000 22.500 25.000 27.500 30.000 32.500 35.000 37.500 40.000 42.500
10
20
30
40
50
-10
10
Project
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

SLIDEINTERPRET 6.015
Section A, TB-8 (Groundwater Analysis)

Scale
1:118
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
80
1.785
0 -40
20
40
60
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Current - Bishop - Right to Left)

Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
2.376
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Current - Janbu - Right to Left)

Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
1.233
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Current - Bishop - Left to Right)

Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
1.235
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Current - Janbu - Left to Right)

Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
80
1.785
0 -40
20
40
60
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Bishop - Right to Left)

Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
2.376
20
40
-40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Bishop - Right to Left)

Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
0.751
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Bishop - Left to Right)

Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
0.764
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Janbu - Left to Right)

Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
80
1.785
0 -40
20
40
60
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Bishop - Right to Left)

Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
2.376
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Janbu - Right to Left)

Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
1.233
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Bishop - Left to Right)

Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
1.235
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Janbu - Left to Right)

Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
80
1.785
0 -40
20
40
60
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Rapid Drawdown - Bishop - Right to Left)
Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
2.376
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Rapid Drawdown - Janbu - Right to Left)
Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
0.751
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Rapid Drawdown - Bishop - Left to Right)
Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
1.235
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Rapid Drawdown - Janbu - Left to Right)
Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
80
60
4.016
300.00 lbs/ft2 300.00 lbs/ft2 300.00 lbs/ft2
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Concrete - Bishop - Right to Left)
Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
300.00 lbs/ft2 300.00 lbs/ft2 3.822 300.00 lbs/ft2
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Concrete - Janbu - Right to Left)
Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
300.00 lbs/ft2 300.00 lbs/ft2 300.00 lbs/ft2 300.00 lbs/ft2
0.751
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Concrete - Bishop - Left to Right)
Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
0.764
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Concrete - Janbu - Left to Right)
Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
2.956150.00 lbs/ft2
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Soil w/ Asphalt - Bishop - Right to Left)
Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
2.961150.00 lbs/ft2
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Soil w/ Asphalt - Janbu - Right to Left)
Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
1.429
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Soil w/ Asphalt - Bishop - Left to Right)
Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
1.498
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Soil w/ Asphalt - Janbu - Left to Right)
Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
937.50lbs/ft 275.00 lbs/ft2 275.00 lbs/ft2
1.756
275.00 lbs/ft2
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Bishop - Right to Left)
Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
1.701
275.00 lbs/ft2
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Janbu - Right to Left)
Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
937.50lbs/ft 275.00 lbs/ft2 275.00 lbs/ft2 275.00 lbs/ft2
1.545
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Bishop - Left to Right)
Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
60
80
1.545
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Janbu - Left to Right)
Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
0.111
60
80
1.558
275.00 lbs/ft2
20
40
-40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario - Bishop - Right to Left)

Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
0.111
60
80
1.558
275.00 lbs/ft2
0 -40
20
40
-20
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario - Janbu - Right to Left)

Scale
1:187
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
80
0.111
60
1.386
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario - Bishop - Left to Right)

Scale
1:168
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
80
0.111
60
1.450
20
40
-20
0
Project
20
40
60
80
100

Section A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario - Janbu - Left to Right)

Scale
1:168
Company File Name
30
11.253
20
18.942 0.250 9.361 3.592 1.000 1.750 1.500 13.613 3.500 3.500
10
1.000 1.250
3.650
0
3.650
52.200
10
Project
20
30
40
50
60
Cold Stream Dam - Phillipsburg, PA

SLIDE 6.015
Section D, TB-13 (Current - Geometric Layout)

Scale
1:83
Company File Name
BSSH Inc. Section D, TB-13.slim
Pressure Head [ft] -6.800 -5.950 -5.100 -4.250 -3.400 -2.550 -1.700 -0.850 0.000 0.850 1.700 2.550 3.400 4.250 5.100 5.950 6.800 7.650 8.500 9.350 10.200 11.050 11.900 12.750 13.600
-5
10
15
20
25
-5
5
Project
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Section D, TB-13 (Current - Bishop - Right to Left)

Scale
1:73
Company File Name
40 30
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
1.849
10
20
-10
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50

Section D, TB-13 (Current - Bishop - Right to Left)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
40 30
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
1.799
10
20
-10
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50

Section D, TB-13 (Current - Janbu - Right to Left)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
40 30
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
1.916
10
20
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50
60

Section D, TB-13 (Current - Bishop - Left to Right)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
40 30
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
1.862
10
20
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50
60

Section D, TB-13 (Current - Janbu - Left to Right)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
40
10
20
30
1.961
-10
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50

Section D, TB-13 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Bishop - Right to Left)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
30
40
1.918
10
20
-10
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50

Section D, TB-13 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Janbu - Right to Left)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
40 30
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
2.149
10
20
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50
60

Section D, TB-13 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Bishop - Left to Right)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
30
40
2.087
0 -10
10
20
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50

Section D, TB-13 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Janbu - Left to Right)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
40
0.111
30
1.356
10
20
-10
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50

Section D, TB-13 (Seismic - Bishop - Right to Left)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
40
0.111
30
1.311
10
20
-10
0
Project
10
20
30
40
50

Section D, TB-13 (Seismic - Janbu - Right to Left)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
40
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
0.111
30
1.447
10
20
10
Project
20
30
40
50
60

Section D, TB-13 (Seismic - Bishop - Left to Right)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+
0.111
30
1.388
10
20
10
Project
20
30
40
50
60

Section D, TB-13 (Seismic - Janbu - Left to Right)

Scale
1:82
Company File Name
APPENDIX D
FOUNDATION DRAWINGS & CALCULATIONS
Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Footing Rankine Theory Calculation Input Information ka b h1 h2 h3 hf ' sat k1 0.414 0.349 8.000 2.910 7.250 7.750 1.000 0.523 130.000 150.000 0.667 0.349 pa1 pa2 Resultant Forces 2779.230 1388.994 area 1 2 3 4 5 F.S. (Overturning) F.S. (Sliding) BSSH Inc. 15.000 11.000 11.641 58.000 62.000 weight 2250.000 1650.000 1513.283 7540.000 5431.200 18384.483 3.150 1.420 moment arm 2.500 5.500 8.333 7.000 7.000 Pav1 Pav2 Pp Fr Resistanting Forces/Moments 950.090 474.833 2268.750 8956.470 Mv1 Mv2 Mp Mr 10450.994 5223.162 3781.250 133783.244 pah1 pah2 pu Fd Driving Forces/Moments 2611.790 1305.311 2388.750 6305.851 mh1 mh2 mu Md 31698.560 3807.158 6967.188 42472.906
April 27, 2012
moment 5625.000 9075.000 12610.688 52780.000 38018.400 118109.088
Schmertmann settlement calculator
http://www.rocscience.com/settlecalc/schmertmann.html
Input
Results
Help
Settle
3D
2.0
Analysis of consolidation and settlement under foundations, embankments and surface loads. Settle 2.0 includes three additional empirical methods: Peck, Hanson and Thornburn D'Appolonia Schultze and Sherif Get a fully functional trial version here!
3D
Rocscience Inc.
1 of 1
4/26/2012 9:33 AM
Input
Results
Help
Settle
3D
2.0
3D
Rocscience Inc.
1 of 1
4/26/2012 9:34 AM
Input
Results
Help
Settle
3D
2.0
3D
Rocscience Inc.
1 of 1
4/26/2012 9:34 AM
Input
Results
Help
Settle
3D
2.0
3D
Rocscience Inc.
1 of 1
4/26/2012 9:23 AM
Input
Results
Help
Settle
3D
2.0
3D
Rocscience Inc.
1 of 1
4/26/2012 9:20 AM
Input
Results
Help
Settle
3D
2.0
3D
Rocscience Inc.
1 of 1
4/26/2012 9:17 AM
APPENDIX E
COST ANALYSIS
Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Cost Information Cost Information Extra Costs Walk-Way Area (ft^2) Roller Compacted Concrete Soil With Asphault Seawalls 20090 93732.49 6943.15 1785.00 197.00 3.50 Total Area (ft^2) Volume (yd.3) Length (ft) $/LF $/SF $/yd.
3
April 27, 2012
Berm Cost $753,331.49 $512,404.28

$351,645.00
Rip Rap $1,433,909.00
Fill Cost $681,120.00
Total Cost $2,868,360.49 $2,627,433.28 $2,647,176.00
108.50 22.50
$1,433,909.00 $1,583,909.00
$681,120.00 $711,622.00
BSSH Inc.
APPENDIX F
SOURCES
Sources Das, Braja M. Principles of Foundation Engineering, SI. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Gooseff, Michael. CE 462 Open Channel Hydraulic Notes. 2012. Print. Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1997. Print. Qiu, Tong. CE 435 Foundation Engineering Notes. 2012. Print. Spencer, Eugene R. RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data, 2011. Kingston, MA: R.S. Means, 2010. Print.

BSSH Inc. - Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

BSSH Inc. - Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BSSH Inc. - Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BSSH Inc. 122 Hasselhoff Drive Zhang River, China April 27, 2012 Philipsburg Borough P.O.

Scott Parker President BSSH Inc.

COLD STREAM DAM REHABILITATION Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

30.0o 1- sin = 0.500 1.524 m 20.4 kn/m3 d * ha = v * ka ha = (1.524)*(20.4)*(0.500) ha = 15.55 kPa

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

Design Height (ft.) 10.63 13.03 15.08 15.60

Test Boring Log

2/22/2010 09867 N/A 1447.03' Remarks

Black weathered COAL, very dense, wet

Brown weathered SANDSTONE End of Boring - 35.0'

Test Boring Log

2/25/2010 09867 N/A 1446.43' Remarks

Black weathered COAL, very dense, wet

Weathered SANDSTONE End of Boring - 34.0'

Casing Refusal - 34.0'

Test Boring Log

2/18/2010 09867 N/A 1442.05' Remarks

14.2 Casing Refusal - 17.0'

Test Boring Log

2/17/2010 09867 N/A 1436.76' Remarks

10.5 10.8 End of boring and 24 hour groundwater

measurements are 7.0 and 3.0 feet, respectively.

11.5 Auger Refusal - 18.0'

End of Boring - 18.0'

Test Boring Log

2/19/2010 09867 N/A 1441.18' Remarks

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, very dense, wet

Black weathered COAL, very dense, wet

18.1 Casing Refusal - 27.6'

Brown weathered SANDSTONE End of Boring - 27.6'

Test Boring Log

2/5/2010 09867 N/A 1446.62' Remarks

Test Boring Log

28.4 26.5 End of boring and 24

Black weathered COAL, very dense, wet

Brown weathered SANDSTONE Casing Refusal - 35.0' End of Boring - 35.0'

Test Boring Log

TB-7 (Monitoring Well)

11.6 14.5 Casing Refusal - 19.0'

Gray CLAYSTONE, very broken to broken, weathered, medium hard

Test Boring Log

TB-8 (Monitoring Well, 1 of 2)

2/3 & 2/4/2010 09867 NQ-II 1446.86' Remarks

15.5 14.7 End of boring

SS-8 SS-9 SS-10

30.0o 1- sin = 0.500 1.524 m 20.4 kn/m3 d * ha = v * ka ha = (1.524)(20.4)(0.500) ha = 15.55 kPa