Geotech Reports

Transcription

Geotech Reports

STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION REPORT
FOR
PROSPECT STREET (C.R. 513) BRIDGE OVER
NJ TRANSIT MORRISTOWN LINE
TOWN OF DOVER
MORRIS COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
JULY 2009
Prepared by:
ARORA and ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
Princeton Pike Corporate Center
1200 Lenox Drive, Suite 200
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
1401 GE&FRR.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
2.0
PURPOSE AND SCOPE .........................................................................................2
3.0
KEY AND PROJECT LOCATION MAPS ............................................................3
4.0
SITE DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................5
5.0
FIELD EXPLORATION .........................................................................................6
6.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..............................................................................7
General .........................................................................................................7
Soil Profile ...................................................................................................7
Groundwater Table ......................................................................................8
Soil Properties ..............................................................................................8
7.0
GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................9
ROADWAY.............................................................................................................9
General .........................................................................................................9
Design Recommendations ...........................................................................9
Construction Considerations ........................................................................9
WINGWALLS .......................................................................................................10
General .......................................................................................................10
Design Recommendations .........................................................................10
Construction Considerations ......................................................................11
CATENARY STRUCTURES ...............................................................................13
General .......................................................................................................13
Design Recommendations .........................................................................13
Construction Considerations ......................................................................15
TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued
8.0
LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................16
9.0
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................17
APPENDIX A
Boring Location Plans
APPENDIX B
Test Boring Logs
APPENDIX C
Inferred Subsurface Profiles
APPENDIX D
Typical Calculations and Analyses (Bound Separately)
New Jersey Department of Transportation
Prospect Street (C.R. 513) Bridge over
NJ Transit Morristown Line
Geotechnical Engineering and
Foundation Recommendation Report
Page 1 of 17
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The project is located in the Town of Dover, Morris County, New Jersey. The Prospect
Street Bridge carries Morris County Route 513 (Prospect Street) over New Jersey Transit
Morristown Line. The approximate project limits extend from the intersection of
Prospect and Elliot Streets to just south of the intersection of Prospect and Blackwell
Streets. The project site is in a residential and commercial area. Prospect Street is an
undivided urban collector.
The existing Prospect Street Bridge is a single span with rolled steel multi-stringers. It is
34 feet long and 40 feet wide. According to the Feasibility Assessment Report, the
superstructure of the existing bridge is in poor condition due to severe rust and section
loss of the steel stringers. The deck is in unsatisfactory condition due to large uneven
asphalt patches in the bituminous surface and water leakage with rust stains at the
underside of the metal forms. The timber bridge sidewalks exhibit severe weathering,
wide cracks and splits. Based on the evaluation performed in 1991, the existing bridge is
structurally deficient due to the poor condition of the superstructure. According to
NJDOT, the abutments are in satisfactory condition. Therefore, only the Prospect Street
Bridge superstructure needs replacement.
The project consists of the replacement of the existing bridge superstructure and capping
the existing abutments. New wingwalls will be required at the corners of the bridge to
align with the new abutment bridge seats and to address the proposed roadway grading.
Two cantilever catenary structures will be required at the southeast and southwest corners
of the bridge. The proposed bridge will be a single span structure 34 feet long and 42'-6"
wide carrying a 14 feet lane in each direction (No shoulder) and a 6'-0" sidewalk with a
1'-3" wide parapet on both sides. The proposed vertical profile will provide a minimum
vertical underclearance of 19.32'. The bridge and approach roadways are designed using
current design standards.
Arora and Associates, P.C. has been retained by the New Jersey Department of
Transportation to design the project.
This report discusses the geotechnical analyses, evaluations and the foundation
recommendations for the project. The recommendations are based on the encountered
subsurface conditions, geotechnical analyses and evaluations performed for this project.
Page 2 of 17
2.0
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study was to determine the subsurface conditions at the project site
and to develop geotechnical engineering and foundation recommendations. To achieve
this, the following scope of work was performed:
a) Reviewed existing geological data.
b) Prepared and executed a subsurface exploration program.
c) Performed engineering analyses using the test boring data.
d) Prepared this report citing the results of the engineering analyses and foundation
considerations for the various structures. Pertinent construction considerations
are also discussed.
Page 3 of 17
3.0
KEY MAP
Page 4 of 17
3.0
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Page 5 of 17
4.0
SITE DESCRIPTION
Geology
The project area is located in Morris County, New Jersey within a glacial outwash, which
is composed of stratified materials deposited by glacial melt-waters during the Wisconsin
glacial period. The Geologic Zone lies just south of the Terminal Moraine.
According to the Rutgers University “Engineering Soil Survey of New Jersey” (Report
No. 9, Morris County), the overburden soils at the site are geologically identified and
mapped as Glacial Outwash (GO-24). In Morris County, GO-24 soils usually occur as
well-sorted uniform deposits of silt, sand and gravel. Greater quantities of gravel are
usually encountered near the Terminal Moraine. The GO-24 soils surround most of the
project site.
The project area consists of the following general soil types identified below. The soil
types match with the general geology in the area.
GO-24
General Soil Condition:
Silt, Sandy Silt, Silty Sand and some Gravel
Type of Bedrock:
Gneiss
Depth of Bedrock:
Greater than 10'
Engineering Classification:
A-2-4 is predominant.
Drainage:
Good
Pavement Support:
Fair to Good
Page 6 of 17
5.0
FIELD EXPLORATION
The Subsurface Exploration Program for the project was prepared by Arora and
Associates, P.C. to explore the subsurface soil conditions within the project limits.
Four (4) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Borings were performed to investigate the
subsurface conditions within the project limits. All borings were performed by Craig
Test Boring Co., Inc. and completed in the month of June 2009. A representative of
Arora and Associates, P.C. inspected the borings.
The structure borings ranged in depth from 52 feet to 65 feet. One roadway boring was
performed to the depth of 10 feet.
All SPT borings utilized a 4-inch casing or hollow stem auger. The soil samples were
retrieved using a 1-3/8 inch (35 mm) I.D. split spoon sampler driven by a 140 pound
hammer free falling 30 inches. Representative disturbed soil samples were collected in
accordance with NJDOT subsurface exploration criteria. All samples were visually
identified, labeled, and preserved in glass jars for laboratory testing and identification by
the representative of Arora and Associates, P.C. The samples were field classified in
accordance with the Burmister System of Soil Classification. Similarly, rock core
samples were visually identified in the field, labeled, and preserved in standard wooden
boxes for future testing and/or identification.
The as-drilled boring location plan is presented in Appendix A.
The boring logs for all borings performed for the project are presented in Appendix B.
Page 7 of 17
6.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
General
The subsurface conditions discussed below are based on the borings performed in the
various areas of this project. The soils encountered at the surface were mostly
embankment fill material. A glacial till material underlies the embankment fill layer.
Below the glacial till material, bedrock was encountered. An inferred subsurface profile
was developed along the south abutment of the bridge, and it is presented in Appendix C.
The subsurface soil conditions discussed in this report are based on the inferred profile.
Soil Profile
Detailed descriptions of the various soil layers encountered are recorded on the individual
boring logs. The various soil layers encountered are summarized as follows:
Layer 1: Embankment Fill Layer
An embankment fill layer was encountered at the surface throughout the project. This
layer mostly contains coarse to fine sand, some medium to fine gravel, trace clayey silt.
In general, this embankment fill layer is made of on-site glacial till deposits. Therefore, it
exhibits soil properties similar to glacial till deposits. The material is in a medium to
very dense state of compactness. The thickness of this fill layer ranges from 4 feet to 8
feet.
Layer 2: Granular Soil Layer (Glacial Till Deposit)
A granular soil layer mostly containing coarse to fine sand, some coarse to fine gravel,
and trace silt underlies the embankment fill layer. In general, the layer is in a medium to
very dense state of compactness. The thickness of this layer is about 30 feet at the north
abutment and ranges from 33 feet to 46 feet at the south abutment. At some locations
there were blow counts in excess of 100 for one-foot of penetration due to the presence of
boulders and gravel in this layer. The one roadway boring was terminated in this layer.
Page 8 of 17
Layer 3: Bedrock
Underlying the medium to very dense glacial till deposit, bedrock was encountered at the
termination depth of all structural borings. The bedrock can be described as gray,
moderately weathered, very closely to medium spaced fractures, soft to very hard Gneiss.
The upper portion of the bedrock has very closely spaced fractures and the rock quality
designation (RQD) was observed to be less than 25 percent.
Groundwater Table
No groundwater was observed during the boring operation; however, minimal
groundwater may be encountered during construction and the groundwater level may
fluctuate due to the variation in seasonal and climatic conditions.
Soil Properties
The Geotechnical soil properties for each layer were established based on field test data,
engineering correlation and judgment. These soil/rock properties, which are presented in
Table No. 1, were used for the various analyses. We recommend that these values be
used for any design analysis for this project.
TABLE NO. 1
RECOMMENDED SOIL ROCK PROPERTIES
Description of Soil Layer
Embankment Fill Layer
Layer 1
Granular Soil Layer
Medium Dense to Very Dense
(Glacial Till Deposit)
Layer 2
Gneiss Rock
Layer 3
Angle of
Internal
Friction Φ
Cohesion
(psf)
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Submerged
Unit Weight
(pcf)
32°
--
120
58
34°
--
122
60
35°
--
129
67
Page 9 of 17
7.0
GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ROADWAY
General
The roadway portion of the project consists of widening Prospect Street (County
Route 513) and tying into the Ramp north of the bridge. The project limits begin at the
intersection of Prospect and Elliot Streets to just south of the intersection of Prospect and
Blackwell Streets. The proposed typical roadway section includes the improvements to
the roadway. The proposed roadway section is composed of one 14-foot wide lane
(No shoulder) with a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk in each direction.
The proposed vertical profile will provide a minimum underclearance of 19.32'. The
approach roadways are designed using current design standards.
Design Recommendations
The subsurface investigation has indicated that a glacial till deposit containing sand and
gravel underlies the embankment fill material within the existing embankment and in the
widening areas. This type of soil is suitable for the application of standard methods of
roadway construction. Therefore, the widening and regrading of Prospect Street (County
Route 513) and the Ramp connected to Prospect Street can be constructed on the
underlying soil without any soil modifications. Most of the settlement will occur during
construction of the embankment. A slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1V) or flatter
is recommended for the roadway sections without retaining walls.
Construction Considerations
Widening and regrading of the roadway can be constructed using either I-14 Soil
Aggregate or granular, on-site excavated materials. On-site excavated materials that
contain big boulders, organic material and/or cohesive material should not be utilized for
roadway fill. The roadway should be constructed using the NJDOT Standard
Specification items, materials and procedures (2007).
Page 10 of 17
7.0
GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS – Continued
WINGWALLS
General
Three new wingwalls at the SE, SW & NE corners of the bridge are proposed normal to
the new abutment seats to accommodate the proposed roadway grading. The length of
the wingwalls varies from 14 feet to 21 feet. The maximum height of the wingwalls will
be 15'-7" for the SW wingwall.
The subsurface investigation indicated that granular glacial till materials over bedrock is
present below the foundation elevation at all wingwall locations. This glacial till material
is in a medium to very dense state of compactness. The underlying materials can
successfully support the anticipated design embankment loads utilizing a shallow
foundation scheme. A shallow foundation scheme is recommended for all three wingwall
foundations.
A bearing capacity analysis was performed at the critical location near the Southwest
(SW) wingwall. The critical location was considered for the design based on the
maximum height of all wingwalls. Based on the analysis, we recommend that the
wingwalls be designed for a nominal bearing resistance of 12 ksf and factored bearing
resistance of 5 ksf.
We recommend placing the bottom of footing a minimum of 4 feet below the ground
surface to prevent frost heave.
The maximum allowable bearing pressure will yield about 0.5-inch elastic settlement
near the SW wingwall. At the other two wingwall locations, the maximum allowable
pressure will yield less than 0.5-inch elastic settlement. Most of the elastic settlement
along the wingwalls will occur during construction. Therefore, the post construction
differential settlement between the abutments and wingwalls will be negligible.
Page 11 of 17
The global stability of the wingwalls was evaluated utilizing the computer program
“STABLE for WINDOWS v. 3.0” at the critical location (SW Wingwall) for static and
seismic conditions. The earthquake horizontal peak acceleration coefficient is assumed
to be 0.18 g for this project. The minimum evaluated factor of safety against global
failure for the SW Wingwall is 1.99 for the static condition and 1.63 for the seismic
condition. These factors of safety are acceptable for the stability of the wingwalls.
It is recommended that the wingwalls and temporary structures, if utilized, should be
designed for an active earth pressure condition.
The friction coefficient of sliding against the in situ sand and gravel at the foundation
elevation is recommended to be 0.55 for the wingwalls.
For a seismic design, the underlying Soil Type and Profile should be categorized as Site
Class D, as per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (Interim 2008).
Excavation
All excavation, compaction and backfill operations should be accomplished as per NJ
Transit and NJDOT current Standard Specifications (2007). We recommend that
disturbances to the nearby NJ Transit rail track should be minimized during the
foundation excavation. All excavations shall conform to the current OSHA regulations.
Excavated materials may be utilized as a backfill as per NJDOT current Specifications.
Excavated materials containing big boulders and/or organic material should not be
utilized as backfill.
The foundation excavation of the wingwalls can be suitably accomplished using laidback side slopes. Side slopes for soils should not be steeper than one and one-half
horizontal to one vertical (1.5H:1V). It is the Contractor’s responsibility to accomplish
the excavation without endangering the tracks. The very dense gravel and sand mixture
with cobbles and boulders (glacial till material), if encountered during excavation, can be
excavated by utilizing a heavy-duty earth excavator. Occasionally rock ripping
equipment may also be required.
Necessary caution should be exercised not to surcharge (overload) and endanger the sides
of trenches. Excavated soils and stockpiled construction materials should not be stored
directly adjacent to excavations.
Page 12 of 17
Dewatering During Construction
Based on the proposed footing elevations, groundwater is not anticipated to be
encountered during the foundation excavation. However, minimal groundwater may be
encountered during construction and may create temporary soaking conditions. Any
accumulated water must be pumped out completely before placing the concrete in order
to allow the wingwall foundations to be constructed in a dry condition.
Page 13 of 17
7.0
GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS – Continued
CATENARY STRUCTURES
General
The project consists of two new catenary structures, one on each side of the South
Abutment. They are identified as Catenary Structure Nos. 1 & 2. There are existing
stone masonry retaining walls along either side of the track. The catenary structures will
have an approximately 1'-6" clear distance behind top of the existing retaining walls. The
exposed heights of the existing retaining walls are 18' and 17' near Catenary Structure
Nos. 1 & 2, respectively.
The subsurface investigation has indicated that a granular glacial till material is present at
the foundation elevation of Catenary Structure No. 1 near the SE Wingwall, whereas,
bedrock is present at the foundation elevation of Catenary Structure No. 2 near the SW
Wingwall. The thickness of the glacial till material ranges from 33 feet to 46 feet. The
glacial till material is in a medium to very dense state of compactness.
In order to minimize the excavation, a single drilled shaft foundation scheme is suitable
for Catenary Structure Nos. 1 & 2. This foundation scheme can successfully support the
anticipated design loads.
Catenary Structure Nos. 1 & 2
We recommend utilizing a single drill shaft foundation for Catenary Structure Nos. 1
& 2.
Due to the lateral force and moment, the drilled shaft analysis is controlled by the lateral
design. The lateral capacity was evaluated utilizing “LPILE Plus for Window v. 5.0”,
software developed by Ensoft Inc. The embedment length of the drilled shaft was
governed by the tolerable horizontal movement at the top of the shaft under the expected
loading. The diameter or size of shaft was governed by the maximum tolerable
deflection as per the structural requirements of the project and the minimum size required
for mounting or installing a catenary structure on it. A 3.5 ft. dia. drilled shaft is the most
suitable and feasible single drilled shaft foundation for Catenary Structure Nos. 1 & 2 for
this project.
Page 14 of 17
The soil support of 18' and 17' from top of the drilled shaft (the portion behind the
existing retaining wall) to the existing grade in front of the wall was neglected in the
lateral design analyses for Catenary Structure Nos. 1 & 2, respectively. The minimum
embedment length of the drilled shaft was evaluated to transfer loads to the subsurface
below the bottom of retaining wall.
The results of the L-Pile analyses indicates that under the expected loadings, moment and
torque, for Catenary Structure No. 1, a 3.5 ft. dia. drilled shaft embedded 14 ft. below the
retaining wall and having a total length of 32 ft. will have a deflection of 0.42 inch at the
top of the drilled shaft. Similarly, under the expected loadings, moment and torque, for
Catenary Structure No. 2, a 3.5 ft. dia. drilled shaft embedded 14 ft. below the retaining
wall and having a total length of 31 ft. will have a deflection of 0.42 inch at the top of the
drilled shaft. These deflections are well within the tolerable limits as per AASHTO. The
point of fixity was evaluated at EL 569.00, which is at a depth of 28 ft. and 27 ft. from
the top of the drilled shaft for Catenary Structure Nos. 1 & 2, respectively. The analysis
considered the design conditions applicable for a short pile and ignored the shaft length
behind the existing retaining wall.
The recommended shaft size and penetration depth will provide the overall stability of
the foundation system. Therefore, we recommend a 3.5 ft. diameter drilled shaft having
31 ft. and 30 ft. embedment length below the proposed grade for Catenary Structure Nos.
1 & 2, respectively as presented in Table No. 2 shown below. The recommended drilled
shaft size top and tip elevations are presented in Table No. 2 as follows:
TABLE NO. 2
RECOMMENDED DRILLED SHAFT (D.S.) INFORMATION
Catenary
Structure
D.S.
Dia. (ft)
(1)
No. 1
No. 2
(2)
3.5 ft
3.5 ft
D.S.
Top
Elevation
(3)
EL 597.00
EL 596.00
Proposed
Grade
Elevation
(4)
EL 596.00
EL 595.00
D.S.
Tip
Elevation
(5)
EL 565.0 0
EL 565.00
D.S.
Embedment
Length (ft)
(4-5)
31.0 ft
30.0 ft
D.S.
Total
Length (ft)
(3-5)
32.0 ft
31.0 ft
Page 15 of 17
Excavation
All excavation, compaction and backfill operations should be accomplished as per NJ
Transit and NJDOT current Standard Specifications (2007). All excavations shall
conform to the current OSHA Regulations. Excavated materials may be utilized as a
backfill if required as per NJDOT current Standard Specifications. Excavated materials
containing big boulders and/or organic material should be removed prior to backfilling.
During augering operations for Catenary Structure Nos. 1 & 2, precautions should be
taken to minimize the disturbance of the surrounding retaining wall soil mass, the
retaining wall, and the rail track. A core drilling method should be adopted for
excavation due to the presence of gravel and boulders (Glacial Till material) as discussed
in Subsurface Conditions. A dry method of drilling operation can be utilized. Due to the
presence of glacial till materials, a temporary casing may be utilized for the drilled shaft
construction for both catenary structures. The gap between drill hole and shaft casing
should be filled with fine sand.
Prior to placing the drilled shaft foundation concrete, the bottom of the augered hole
should be cleaned.
Very dense gravel and sand mixtures with cobbles and boulders are expected to be
present at both catenary structure locations. The gravel and sand mixtures can be
excavated by utilizing a heavy-duty core drill and/or earth excavator. Blasting will not be
permitted during excavation.
Excavated soils and/or stockpiled construction materials should not be stored directly
adjacent to the excavation.
Dewatering During Construction
Based on the proposed drilled shaft tip elevations for Catenary Structure Nos. 1 & 2,
groundwater should not be encountered during the foundation excavation. However, rain
and/or variations in climatic conditions may create temporary soaking conditions. If the
water accumulates at the tip, it must be pumped out completely before placing the
concrete in order to allow the drilled shaft and/or foundation to be constructed in a dry
condition.
Page 16 of 17
8.0
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based upon the subsurface
data obtained during this investigation and on details stated in this report. Furthermore,
subsurface conditions cannot be fully determined at the project site by limited test
borings customarily conducted at a project site. Therefore, unanticipated soil conditions
other than those specified in this report may be encountered at some isolated locations.
The designer should be notified when unanticipated soil conditions are observed during
construction to review the design assumptions.
We emphasize that our geotechnical recommendations were made for the site of the
proposed structures as shown on the enclosed plans. Arora and Associates, P.C. does not
assume any responsibility of using this report to generate foundations design other than in
the specific area investigated.
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Owner and Arora and Associates,
P.C. in the design of the subject facility. It may be made available to the prospective
Contractors and/or the Contractor for the factual data information only and not as a
warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted from the boring logs
presented in discussions of subsurface conditions included in this report.
Page 17 of 17
9.0
REFERENCES
1. “Engineering Soil Survey of New Jersey”, Rutgers University, Report No. 9, Morris
County, January 1951.
2. “Soils & Foundations Workshop Manual”, (Second Edition), U.S. Department of
Transportation, Report No. NHI-00-045, Revised July 2000.
3. “Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bride Structures”, U.S.
Department of Transportation Publication No. FHWA HI-98-032, July 1998.
4. “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods”, Publication No.
FHWA-IF-99-025, August 1999.
5. “Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.01”, Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, September 1986.
6. “Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.02”, Department of the Navy,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, September 1986.
7. “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction”, New Jersey Department
of Transportation (2007).
8. “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”, (Fourth Edition) 2007 and 2008
Interim.
APPENDIX A:
Boring Location Plans
STATE
FEDERAL PROJECT NO.
N.J.
TOWN OF DOVER
STP-8071 (103)
COUNTY OF MORRIS
N
/F
N
E
R
A
U
Q
S
H
C
R
U
H
C
Li
ne
T
2-6
0
2-9 0 x
0
1-2 0 x 22
100
22
x
26
Z
g
la
F
"
4
ay
w
ve
ri
D
W
c.
on
C
e
ol
P
ed
av
P
k
al
1
an rb
i
u
g
el C
B k
c
o
l
B
an
ri
te
y
sb 51
re #
P ch
r
ry u
to Ch
S
c.
on
C
6"
s
p
te
S
c.
on n
C ro
p
A
.
C
.
D
.
d
y
H
M
l
ai
.R
tl
b
ur
C
.
P
L. .
B
J.
.
98
.
67
5
v.
In
t
en
V
m
om
C
0
5
#
ry .
to g
S ld
B
b
k
ur
C
al
.W
ck
rk
lo
B
B
n
ia
g
el
B
k
al
.
P
L.
k
al
1
.
H
.
2
M
9
. 9.
n
a 57
S
im
R
ck
14
.
lo
B
68
5
n
v.
ia
In
g
el
B
W
c.
on
C
W
c.
on
C
.
B
J.
P
C
ne
ho
P
N
W R
TO VE
O 1
/F D
T
F
O LO
"A"
|
R
E
V
O
D
F
O
s
p
te
S
12 "R
.
70 18
5
4
v.
6
.
In
9
6
5
v.
In
N
V
e
n
t
ce
en
F
L.
.
/C
.w
N
A
I
R
E
T
Y
B
S
LE
P
Ye
llo
w
.
rk e
B us
ry H o
to
S m 5
eu # 5
us
.
W
ne
H
.
Li
M 44
. 0.
te
hi
an 8
e
S m5 W
n
i
Li
R
id
w
ol
o
S
ll
e
Y
l.
b
D
.
H 6
.
M .
5
.
n 80
a
S m5
i
R
k
al
ssw
Cro
C.
D.
D.
C.
W
.
R
t.
S
15
T
S
R
I
F
/F
N
P
C
"R
18
I
nv
.
57
1
.
05
k
al
O
L
M
W
St
op
Bar
p
o
t
S
W
c.
n
o
C
k
oc
l
B
2
4
4
.
70
5
v.
In
8"
R
C
P
b
ur
C
an
i
g
el
B
.
P
L.
b
k
s
ur
al
p
c.
C
e
l
t
.W
ai
on
S
rk
C
ck
.R
B
lo
tl
B
M
.
n
46
B
.
570.
ia nv.
M
g I
el
B
.
P
L.
n
ai
H
i
st
ori
M o cal
n.
Po
l
e
P
ne
Li
ow
l
el
.Y
l
b
D
.
B
J.
W
M
Fl
ag
RA
M
ne
Li
e
t
hi
.
C
.
D
G
ar
B
G
Ra
i
l
.W
c
n
o
C
W
M
l
al
"
10
W
t.
S
n
ai
c.
on
C alk
s
W
p
te
S
G
c.
on n
C ro
p
A
.
C
.
D
"
15
A
S CO
A
C RI
/F O
5
N RT T
E LO
35
U
P
24 53
"B"
G
ay
w
ve
ri
D
P
C
"R
18
0
s
p
te
S
30’ 20’ 10’
ss
ra
G
ch
or
P
N
OW
ST
RI
OR
T M
SI
AN
TR
NJ
&
k
al
M
N
E
LE
TH
A
K
W
ss
ra
G
ed
av
P
W
c.
on
C
ry
to
S s. 8
e
4
R .
#
g
ld
B
|
.
C
.
D
2
10
ch
or
P
1
8"
R
I
nv CP
.
57
7.
1
9
1
8"
R
C
S. I
nv
P
R H.
.
5
D
i
m
. 76
58 M.
.
52
H
1
.
.
1
6
k
al
b
ur
C
k
ay
oc
l
w
B
ve
i
an Dr
i
g
el
B
ed
av
P
6"
Z
W
TO
op
t
S
"
10
Z
p
to
S ar
B
OT STREET
ELLI
W
TH
A
P
lk
H
a
)
w
el
ss
ar
B
ro
te
C
S
.(
P
.
"
2
t
en
V
.
H 5
.
M .
5
n. 84
Sa m 5 5
1
i
.
R 76
5
v.
In
CHESTNUT STREET
an
i
g
el
B
p
to
S
.
C
k .
al D
w l
ss na
ro
C Sig
.
B
.
J
y
u
G
.
B
.
E
k
al
op
St
Bar
Gu
i
de
4" H.
P.(St
eel
)
er
b
.
P
.
E
um
w
ss
ro
C
S
.
H 2
.
1
.
M
T. 86
.
5
B
im
R
9)
65
W
Guy
s
s
a
Gr
4
"
-27
028
n# 2
um
Pad
Col Conc.
w/
pe
Pi
ec.
El
-27
028
n# 2
um
Pad
Col Conc.
w/
30’
60’
R
E
G
R
JO
LEGEND
W
/F
N
BP-01
SCALE: 1"=30’
BP-01
S
S
I
E
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
9
0
0
N 2
ORMED I
NGS PERF
BORI
NE
LI
dy\gener
al
\1401\CADD\Geot
ech\1401-Bor
i
ng Locat
i
on Pl
an.
dgn
\\cassi
Z
Z
em
st
Sy
N
P
C
"R
18
R
(C
Con
c.
Dri
vew
ay
P
C
"R
12
L.
P
.
I
nv
.
57
7.
44
Gr.
580
.
84
P
C
8
5
"R
.
12
77
5
v.
In
R.
.
A R
st
r
uct
ur
es_hal
f
.
t
bl
e
t
na
di
r
oo
C
o
ck
o
l
B
.
c
n
o
C
.
P
L.
.
C
.
D
k
al
W
c.
n
o
C
rb
u
C
d
i
ol
S
J
.
B.
rb
u
C
c.
n
o
C
6
0
7
2 51
2
.
P
.
E
k
al
w
ss
ro
C
y
wa
e
v
i
Dr
s
p
te
S
l
ai
.R
tl
T
N
T
EE
TR
S
D.
C.
.
H 9
.
3
M
. 4.
94
.
2
an 8
S m5
57
i
v.
R
In
.
P
L.
L
EL
09
9.
58 P
v. C
In "R
18
an
gi
Bel
b
Cur
ock
Bl
an
gi
b
Bel
Cur
ock
Bl
ss
Gra
14
578.
nv.
I
66
581.
Gr.
"A"
AN N
AW
ACK
E-L
RI
L E
RAI
B.
E.
50
09-DEC-2014 13:
M
ed
av
P
.
C
.
D
d
e
v
Pa
W.
.R.
St
510
2
gn Fi
l
e:
Desi
l
ai
.R
tl
O
L
g
n
i
k
ar
P
.
C
.
D
b
r
Cu
.
c
n
Co
ce
en
F
L.
.
C
M
b
ur
C
c.
on
C
l
ai
.R
tl
t
en
V
y
u
G
r
ie
KW
C
LA
.B
"
"B
Gr
at
e
D.
C.
18"
Be
n
c
h
.
C
.
D
1
&
N
Y
LV
E
G
C
on
c.
W
al
k
Co
nc
.
.
C
.
D
M
A
R
A
B
R
A
B
S
W
G
.
P
.
E
k
al
.W
c
n
o
C
/F
N
6
"
Qu
a
d
|
K
ar
osci
ol
i
5
0
12
W
ne
Li
61
.
91
5
r.
G
k
al
W
b
W
c.
ur
C
on
C
"
ck
lo
12
B
94
n
.
2
ia
g
57
el
v.
B
In
M
I
nv
.
57
5.
27
W
St
.
R.
W.
18"
C
BLO
s
ack
lTr
Rai
Pen Tabl
e:
K
6
0
7
2 51
2
Y
R
O
LO
A
ed
av
P
T
55
Me
mo
r
i
a
l
Mo
n
.
1
8"
I
RC
n
v
1
.
P
57
8
"
RC
9
.
05
P
I
Gr
n
v
.
.
58
57
8
0.
.
04
9
8
C
G
.
P
L.
te
hi
C 90
V 0.
"P 59
3 v.
In
N
46
597.
.
.El
Fl
18"
CON
y
Gu
Pl
ot Date:
O
L
B
O
L
y
or re
Lo itu
n
ry ur 1
#
ar F
H e dg
in Bl
F
.
B
J.
P rr
C .Ba
"R nc
18 Co
W
ne
Li
id
ol
S
99
25 2
2
R
BE
I
F
Co
n
n
c
c
.Co
.
S
t
.
Ca
r
v
i
n
g
Mo
n
.
N
Y
LV 2
E
Z
2
0x2
0
4
1
Sa
n.
Ri M.
m5 H.
88
.
43
I
n
v
.
5
8
3
.
I
2
3
"H.
4
P
.
nv
(
S
t
e
e
l
)
"
B
"
.
Co
n
c
58
.
Cu
r
b
D.C.
1
.
08
Gr
.
5
8
8
.
2
4
8
"
# DV
RC
3
6
I
2 w/
n
L
i
g
h
t L
v
.
5
8
3
.
.
P
2
P
.
9
1
5
"
RCP
N /F
T
LO
s
ack
lTr
Rai
c.
Con
User Nam e:
&
"
12
O
w
lo
el
Y
l.
b
D
O
k.
ory Br
1 St
#1
dg.
.Bl
Com m
um n
Col
d
nc.Pa
w/ Co
R.
R.
s
ost
e P
t
Ga
Gr.602.51
.
c
n
Co
b
r
Cu
Inv.581.21
S-3
g
n
i
k
ar
P
A
R
A
B
R
A
B
L)
E
E
T
S
.(
P
.
IO
T
b
A
k
ur
R
C
al
W
c.
O
c.
on
P 1
C
on
R
C
2
O
12
C
1
D CK
T
O
O
L
L
B
W
R
R
A
D
ng
Wi
l
W al
t
m en
t
Abu
P
CM
24"
4
5
1
4
ce
Fen
L.
C.
P
a
v
e
dP
a
r
k
i
n
g Ar
e
a
e &
t
Dog W as
ng
pi
m"
16
No Du
3
5
1
4
W.
.R.
St
2
5
1
4
P
C
"R
15
In
v.
5
In
8
8
v.
.
5
5
8
4
8
.
4
4
54
D
.
C
.
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
l
l
fW a
e o
Fac
Top
1
5
1
4
8
"
RCP
.
c
n
nF
o
r
I
t
m en
t
Abu
20"
0
5
1
4
A
AN N
9
4
1
4
Pay at
ne
M achi
8
4
1
4
H
/F
39
599.
.
.El
Fl
42
599.
.
.El
Fl
12"RCP
(Recessed)
l
.W al
Ret
Conc.
2DV
NJ-79
ght
w/Li
7
4
1
4
AW
ACK
E-L
RI
L E OT 3
RAI
L
CON
#
e
W ast
Dog
ng
m pi
No Du
6
4
1
4
18"
&
5
4
1
4
N /F
n-14"
Twi
Guy
4
4
1
4
|
.Curb
Conc
14"
8"RCP
70043DR
LOT 2
3
4
1
4
"
B
"
4
9
.
0
9
5
.
Gr
ry
o re
o
L itu
y rn 1
rr Fu #
a
g
e ld
in B
F
H
/F
N
COAXIAL
W
Y
R
O
LO
|
/F
N
&
.
P
L.
N
um n
Col
n
12"Twi
#
9
1
2
OCK 1
BL
Wd. Walk
Mtl. Fnc.
um n
Col
0‘
99.
=5
El
pe 6.
4‘
/pi .
59
Top I
nv
ce
Fen
L.
C.
10" 10"
at
Pay
ne
i
M ach
N/F TOWN OF DOVER
2
4
1
4
T
ce
en
F
L.
.
C
|
lTracks
Rai
18"RCP
.
Conc
10"
ea
ng Ar
rki
d Pa
Pave
St
.R.
W.
P.
/
C.
L.
Fence
D.
C.
Garage
Conc.Apron
1
4
1
4
c
i
l
b
d Pu
e
v
Pa
g
n
i
k
r
Pa
1232
"
2
t
al
h
sp
A
.
C
.
D
l
ng W al
ni
ai
Ret
e
nc
Fe
L.
.
C
lTracks
Rai
"B"
O
LT
E ON WAL
L
ANDON CAB
AB
0
4
1
4
T
I
RANS
Y NJ T
D B
E
V
MO
E RE
B
LOT 1
|
c.
n
o
C
m ent
Abut
TRACK #1
PP
12"C
24"
ea
12"
d Ar
W oode
ng
rki
HC Pa
H C Parki
ng
|
8
3
1
4
9
3
1
4
O
L
LL
E
S
S
U
R
13
2
7
N
0
0 115
1
T
R
LE
T
U
B
A
Y
LA
T
E
S
C
E
|
5
A
R
C
E
I
T X
0
V
O X
4
N
E
L X X
9
E
2 3
X X
C
8
N
/
X
O
A
/F
S
I
N
E
N
|
A
N
I
N
S
R
E
O
E
4
D
R
H
T
/
T
O
/F
A S
N
L
N
A
,C S
V
,I 3
LL TI
N
A
|
I
7
C UR
R OT 9
2
3
5
L
A
C
5 34
0
C
5 1
M
2
M
/F
/F
N
N
l
al
l
l
e of W a
Top Fac
e
nc
Fe
L.
C.
P
C
"R
12
Dri
veway
1-600 x 26
e
n
i
eL
t
i
h
d W
i
l
o
S
7
3
1
4
A
W
c.
on
C
TRACK #2
Conc.
Fence
L.
C.
In
v.
60
1.
73
Sol
i
d Yel
l
ow Li
ne
Paved
4132
ne
e Li
t
d W hi
i
Sol
4133
ne
e Li
t
d W hi
i
Sol
4130
veway
Paved Dri
eps
St
Conc.Curb
Conc.W al
k
eps
St
Conc.W al
k
St
.
R.
W.
Bel
gi
an Bl
ock Curb
ory Res.
St
#36
dg.
Bl
a
e
g Ar
n
i
k
r
a
dP
e
v
a
P
S
nt
Deck Joi
k
al
l
ng W al
ni
ai
Ret
|
W ooded Area
Fence
L.
C.
"B"
12"
In
v.
60
4.
84
Elec. Mtr.
Bollards
Conc. Walk
(Typ.)
T
o
pF
a
c
eo
fWa
l
l
53
8"RCP
San. M.H. Inv.592.35
Guide Rail
Rim599.45
Stl. Curb
# DR7
0
2
5
2
Gr.601.64
Inv.597.24
P70253
e
u
l
d B
i
l
o
S
e
n
i
L
4
3
1
4
5
3
1
4
e
n
i
eL
u
l
d B
i
l
o
S
e
n
i
eL
t
i
h
d W
i
l
o
S
6
3
1
4
T 8
O
O
8
T
L
9
N
4
1
8
A
,S
E
|
LL
A
V
/F
pe
Pi
Conc.Header
k
ec
D
W
c.
on
C
Fence
L.
C.
l
.W al
Ret
P
C
"R
15
w/ Transform er
P.
C.
I
nv.
602.
19
18"RCP
12
"R
C
P
k
swal
Cros
Hyd.
S-2
Bollards
N/F MARY E. HAY
|
Mtr. Box
Apron
Conc. Curb
D.C.
Stl. Curb
Guide Rail
T
o
pF
a
c
eo
fWa
l
l
Bridge
Inv.594.30
Dbl. Yellow Line
St. R.W.
Conc. Pad Kiosk
Pay Machine
g
n
i
k
r
a
dP
e
v
a
P
1865
Abut
m ent
e
g
d
ri
B
Fence
L.
C.
C.
L.
Fen
ce
03
4.
60
v.
In
ON
T UNI
FEDERAL CREDI
Vent
76
7.
60 84
r.
G 04.
6
v.
In
Conc. Curb
Conc. Walk
P
a
y He
r
e
4131
4128
4129
4127
4126
4125
l
.Rai
l
Mt
2
Grass
W
Gut
t
er Li
ne
Paved Parking Area
Wd. Walk
W
R-1
Guide Rail
at
Pay
Strand
Only
Machine
D.C.
Inv.599.44
Inv.599.19
Inv.597.69
# DR70253 w/Light
.
c
n
Co
k
l
Wa
Mt
l
.
Ra
i
l
Gr.601.62
I
n
v
.
5
9
8
.
2
9
San. M.H.
Rim602.03
1-100 x 24
Guide Rail
n
o
r
Ap
.
c
n
Co
Apron
.
k
r
yB
r
o
t
1S
#1
.
g
d
l
B
mm.
Co
Conc.
52
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
4124
4123
Porch
C
# DR70254 w/Light
Paved
y
wa
e
v
i
Dr
Guy
5’H
e
c
n
e
F
.
L
C.
Paved
rance
Ent
R
BE
I
F
Vent
)
l
e
e
t
S
.(
P
"H.
4
6
O
L
|
St.R.W. w/
Mtl. Rail
.
c
n
nF
o
r
I
Mtl. Fnc.
"B"
Inv.598.42
Dbl. Yellow Line
8"RCP
51
# BT-70255 w/Light
Pay at
St. R.W.
Conc. Walk
O
I
C
A
N
G
I
|
/F
N
# DV-1150
Conc. Curb
1
4
7
2 08
2
LA
E
R
A
V
ON
I
CAT
S & COMMUNI
S
RE
XP
E
‘
"
0
L3
E
V
E
RACK L
NE AT T
I
L
P
E
"DE
0
RACK #1 & 2
OF T
S-1
D.C.
Conc. Curb
T
M
I
n
v
.
6
0
2
.
2
3
Gr.608.87
n
o
r
Ap
.
c
n
Co
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
s
Ga
1"
W
Conc. Walk
ock Curb "B"
an Bl
gi
Bel
07
612.
Gr.
RCP
"
8
1
D.C.
W.
R.
.
t
S
e
ag Pol
Fl
Conc.
"B"
Inv.609.15
I
n
v
.
6
0
7
.
0
5
Conc.
Slate Walk
ock Curb
an Bl
gi
Bel
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
veway
Paved Dri
Conc. Walk
Conc.
t
h
g
i
L
DR w/
2
4
0
0
# 7
CAN
AM ERI
t
o
HCAP L
Conc. Apron
Conc. Curb
D.C.
340
veway
Dri
Fence
L.
C.
S
a
n
.
M.
H.
Rim613.83
4755
340
D.C.
I
n
v
.
6
0
7
.
1
7
Guide Rail
4755
can
sh Am eri
Spani
on
tUni
Fed.Credi
Dover NJ
10"
38
607.
nv.
I
.
C
.
D
8
"
I
P
r
e
b
i
8F
4
6
OT 1
L
LOT 15
ock Curb
an Bl
gi
Bel
18"
ON
T UNI
CREDI
FEDERAL
Paved
Sol
i
d W hi
t
e Li
ne
18"
ock Curb
an Bl
gi
Bel
W
Vent
Exist. Conc. Pav’t.
W/ Bit. Overlay
Machine
P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
k
Conc.W al
ock Curb48 Fi
ber
an Bl
gi
Bel
r.
Gas M t
50
BLOCK 512
CAN
AM ERI
)
eel
P.(St
4" H.
8"RCP
eps
St
S
t
.
R.
W.
SH
N/F DOVER NJ SPANI
SH
N/F DOVER NJ SPANI
08
613.
nv.
I
k
Conc.W al
ock Curb
an Bl
gi
Bel
Conc.
D.C.
I
n
v
.
6
1
3
.
4
5
Walk
Steps
Ri
m 623.
42
Pi
pes & I
nv.
N/A
(Fi
l
l
ed w/Di
rt
)
Gut
t
er Li
ne
St
.R.
W.
Conc.
W al
k
1
5797
LO T 62
.
c
n
eF
d
a
k
c
o
t
S
C.
L.
Fence
2 S
t
o
r
y Re
s
.
B
l
d
g
.
#4
0
/
4
2
r.
Gas M t
N/F KEN NED
Y S.
/ CH ALHOUN
WI
RTHS M .&
E.
Mt
l
.
Ra
i
l
s
G
S
a
n
.
M.
H.
Ri
m6
2
0
.
9
7
D.
C.
S.
H.
D.
M.
H.
I
nv.
620.
05
S
t
e
p
s
Co
n
c
.
Fence
L.
C.
Gr
.
6
2
7
.
2
0
I
n
v
.
6
2
3
.
6
1
"
Gr
.
6
2
7
B"
.
6
6 B""
1
8
"
RCP
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
No Nu
mb
e
r
(
Gu
i
d
e
)
R
BE
I
F
C.
L
.
F
e
n
c
e
C
R5
1
3(
P
R
OS
P
E
C
D
b
T
l
.
Y
e
l
l
T
o
R
wS
E
L
E
i
n
T
e
)
G
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
|
51
1
7
309
LO T 61
N/F NEI
RA,ALCI
BI
ADES
|
675
2633
LO T 60
N/F ROSA
DO M I
GUEL
MI
GUEL &
RAM ON A
|
4833
LO T 59
N/F FI
GUEROA,GL
ADYS
2S
t
o
r
y
Re
s
.
Bl
d
g
.
#4
4
W Co
n
c
.
S
a
n
.
M.
H.
Rim624.68
I
n
v
.
6
1
9
.
3
3
.
C
.
D
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
Paved Dri
veway
Grass
C.L.Fence
W.
.R.
St
Gr
.
6
2
7
.
3
3
I
n
v
.
6
2
4
.
8
1
I
n
v
.
6
2
3
.
3
0
1
8
"
RCP
Conc.
Apron
S
t
e
p
s
G Co
n
c
.
C
1 RCP
4
9 2"
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
S
t
.
R.
W.Guy
"
B"
"
B"
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
C.L.Fence
Paved Dri
veway
2S
t
o
r
y
Re
s
.
Bl
d
g
.
#4
8
Conc.
G
Co
n
c
.
Ap
r
o
n
I
nv.
617.
56
# 7
0
0
2
2
DR w/
L
i
g
h
t D.
C.
Co
n
c
.
D.
C.
Gr
.
6
2
7
.
8
1
I
n
v
.
6
2
4
.
7
4
S
a
n
.
M.
H.
G
H.
San.M .
49
m 621.
Ri
20
1
1
Be
l
g
i
a
n Bl
o
c
k Cu
I
r
n
b
v
.
6
2
8
.
7
3
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
C.
L
.
F
e
n
c
e
Paved
Paved Dri
veway
I
ron Rod
Apron
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
820
1
D.
C.
s
p
e
t
S
S
t
.
R.
W.
S.
H.
D.
M.
H.
Ri
m 625.
49
15
1.
62
.
nv
I
Bl
o
c
k Cu
r
b
4
"H.
P
.
Conc.
(
S
T
E
E
L
)
0
LO T 1
Co
n
c
.
s
p
e
t
S
.
c
n
Co
ps
e
t
S
36"
3
0
"
.
s
y Re
r
o
t
2 S
5
#3
.
g
d
l
B
Conc.
k
c
De
.
Wd
8
"
I
P
L
i
n
e
.
s
y Re
r
o
t
2 S
7
#3
.
g
d
l
B
S
t
.
R.
W.
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
G
ockade Fnc.
St
Co
n
c
.
Ap
r
o
n
V
e
n
t
01
1.
86
62 .
v. 20
6
In v.
In
W
Conc.
Steps
S
te
p
s
107
|
D
5672
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
Ri
m6
3
5
.
7
5
P
R
OS
P
E
C
TS
T
R
E
E
T(
C
R5
1
3
)
D.
Be
C.
l
g
i
a
n
# 7
0
0
2
3
LOT 11
2 S
t
o
r
y Re
s
.
B
l
d
g
.
#4
3
P
av
ed
8"I
P
I
n
v
.
6
2
9
.
3
7
b
lY
e
l
l
o
w
4
8.
4910
S
t
e
p
s
I
n
v
.
6
2
8
.
8
3
N/
FL
AS
T
RA/S
T
OGNE
R
DANI
E
L
/
S
COT
T AConc.
138
St
.R.
W.
G
N/F FALCONE, GIOVANNI &
CATERINA H/W
|
Paved Dri
veway
St
ockade Fnc
.
S
t
.
R.
W.
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
8
"
I
P
LO T 1
3
3959
1
80
GI
OVAN NA
|
M ARTI
N
|
W al
k
ET ALSl
Sate
Conc.
Steps
|
LOT 12
W
Co
n
c
.
Wa
l
k
Apron
Z
O RUI
N/F ACEVEDO JULI
& M ARY GON ZALE
|
N/F CA
TI
ZONE VI
NCEN T
&
LO T 1
4
5052
283
N/F ARI
AS,JUAN
|
5543
LO T 1
5
75
N/F SAN CH
EZ,M ARI
A M
Pa
ve
d
an
gi
l
Be urb
C
09
613.
nv.
I
|
LO T 1
6
206
5562
N/F CEDEN
O,CESAR
E/ JOSEFA
N
2 S
t
o
r
y Re
s
.
B
l
d
g
.
#4
5
8"
Co
n
c
.
D.
C.
|
|
K
N
A
R
F
7
O
L
e
an
Pl
J.
.
N
AN
,JU
AS
I
AR
N
I
RT
MA
Z
S
t
.
R.
W.
L
S
E
R Z
D
N HE
A
C
N
R
A SA
IV
8
LC IA
A UC
L
F
N/
|
8
1
08
4. .
60 607
.
.
nv Gr
I
BORING LOCATION PLAN
PROSPECT STREET BRIDGE (CO. RD. 513)
OVER NJ TRANSIT
TOWN OF DOVER
ARORA and ASSOCIATES, P. C.
1200 LENOX DRIVE, SUITE 200
LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648
ERIC YERMACK, P.E.
N.J. P.E. LIC. NO. 24GE03804600
MORRIS COUNTY
DATE
1
1
APPENDIX B:
Test Boring Logs
Page 1 of 1
ROUTE: C.R. 513
LOCAL NAME:
SECTION:
COORDINATES: N746618.87
Prospect Street
E474953.76
STATION: 51+ 90
OFFSET: 20 RT
REFERENCE LINE: C.R. 513
BORING BY: Craig Geotechnical Drilling Co., Inc.
INSPECTOR: Vasu Ganarajan
DEPTH
(ft)
CASING
BLOWS
CASING
SAMPLE
NO.
BORING NO.
FIELD BORING NO. R-1
DATE STARTED:
6/2/09
DATE COMPLETED:
6/2/09
DEPTH
(ft)
GROUND ELEVATION: 606.77
GROUND WATER ELEVATION
0 Hr. Dry
Date: 6/2/09
24 Hr. Filled for Safety
Date: 6/2/09
PP Installed
REC.
(Inches)
Blow s on Spoon
0" 6"
6" - 12"
12" - 18"
SOIL DESCRIPTION AND STRATIFICATION
S-1
0.00
1.50
5
13
12
9
S-2
1.50
3.00
26
32
31
12
2" Asphalt (Parking Lot)
Brow n cf SAND, some cf Gravel, tr. Silt (Embankment
Fill)
SAME
S-3
3.00
4.50
23
26
24
17
Grayish Brow n cf SAND, some cf Gravel, trace Silt
S-4
5.00
6.50
27
48
40
18
SAME
S-5
6.50
8.00
37
33
36
17
SAME
S-6
8.00
9.50
36
61
42
21
Brow nish Gray cf SAND, some cf Gravel, trace Silt
(ft)
4.00
5
(Glacial Till)
10
Bottom of Boring @ 9.50 ft.
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nominal I.D. of Drive Pipe/Hollow Stem Auger
Nominal I.D. of Split Barrel Sampler
2½ ”
3½ ”
4"
1½ "
Weight of Hammer on Drive Pipe
300 lbs.
Weight of Hammer on Split Barrel Sampler
140 lbs.
Drop of Hammer on Drive Pipe
24"
Drop of Hammer on Split Barrel Sampler
30"
Core Size
--
The subsurface information show n hereon w as obtained for the Ow ner’ s
design and estimate purposes. It is made available to authorized users only
that they may have access to the same information available to the Ow ner.
It is presented in good faith, but is not intended as a substit ute for
investigations, interpretation or judgement of such authorized users.
Approximate Change in Strata
Inferred Change in Strata
investigations,
Soil descriptions represent a field identification after D.M. Burmister unless otherw
ise noted.interpretation or judgement of such authorized users.
H:\1401\Engineering\Geotechnical\Borings\1401 R-1.doc
Approximate Change in
Strata
Page 1 of 2
ROUTE: C.R. 513
LOCAL NAME:
SECTION:
Prospect Street
E474944.97
STATION: 52+ 52
OFFSET: 29 LT
DEPTH
(ft)
CASING
BLOWS
CASING
SAMPLE
NO.
S-1
DATE STARTED:
6/3/09
DATE COMPLETED:
6/3/09
DEPTH
(ft)
0.00
1.50
BORING NO.
FIELD BORING NO. S-1
0 Hr. Dry
24 Hr. Dry
REC.
(Inches)
Blow s on Spoon
0" 6"
6" - 12"
12" - 18"
3
5
5
12
Date: 6/3/09
Date: 6/4/09
PP Installed
(ft)
Dk Brow n cf SAND, some cf Gravel, trace Silt
(Embankment Fill)
5
S-2
5.00
6.50
13
18
32
13
SAME
7.00
S-3
6.50
8.00
34
36
28
14
Dk Brow n cf SAND, some cf Gravel, trace Silt (Glacial
Till)
S-4
10.00
11.50
9
11
7
16
Dk Brow n cf SAND, some mf Gravel, trace Silt
S-5
15.00
16.50
12
14
12
9
S-6
20.00
21.50
15
34
22
12
Dk Brow n cf SAND, some mf Gravel, trace Silt
S-7
25.00
26.50
9
21
43
17
Dk Brow n cf SAND, little (-) Silt, trace f Gravel
S-8
30.00
31.50
21
18
17
18
SAME
S-9
35.00
36.50
45
39
26
16
SAME
2½ ”
3½ ”
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
4"
1½ "
300 lbs.
140 lbs.
24"
30"
Core Size
NX
40.00
It is presented in good faith, but is not intended as a substitute for
investigations,
H:\1401\Engineering\Geotechnical\Borings\1401 S-1.doc
Strata
Page 2 of 2
ROUTE: C.R. 513
LOCAL NAME:
SECTION:
E474944.97
STATION: 52+ 52
OFFSET: 29 LT
DEPTH
(ft)
CASING
BLOWS
SAMPLE
NO.
Prospect Street
DEPTH
(ft)
C-1
40.00
REC.
(Inches)
Blow s on Spoon
0" 6"
CORING
BORING NO.
45.00
R-1
6" - 12"
12" - 18"
REC
27
45%
Dk Gray, moderately w eathered, closely to
RQD
7
12%
very closely spaced fractures, soft GNEISS
Dk Gray, moderately w eathered, medium to
(ft)
45
C-2
45.00
50.00
R-2
REC
60
100%
RQD
23
38%
closely spaced fractures, hard GNEISS
REC
53
88%
Dk Gray, moderately w eathered, medium to
RQD
27
45%
closely spaced fractures, hard GNEISS
50
C-3
50.00
55.00
R-3
55
Bottom of Boring @ 55 ft.
60
65
70
75
80
2½ ”
3½ ”
4"
1½ "
300 lbs.
140 lbs.
24"
30"
Core Size
NX
investigations,
Strata
Page 1 of 2
ROUTE: C.R. 513
LOCAL NAME:
SECTION:
Prospect Street
E474989.98
STATION: 52+ 52
OFFSET: 24 RT
DEPTH
(ft)
CASING
BLOWS
CASING
SAMPLE
NO.
S-1
DATE STARTED:
6/2/09
DATE COMPLETED:
6/2/09
DEPTH
(ft)
0.00
1.50
BORING NO.
0 Hr. Dry
24 Hr. Dry
REC.
(Inches)
Blow s on Spoon
0" 6"
6" - 12"
12" - 18"
2
6
7
10
Date: 6/2/09
Date: 6/3/09
PP Installed
(ft)
w /vegetation (Embankment Fill)
4.00
5
S-2
5.00
6.50
14
22
23
11
Lt Brow n cf SAND and mf Gravel, trace Silt (Glacial Till)
S-3
6.50
8.00
20
27
29
15
SAME
S-4
10.00
11.50
5
8
10
9
SAME
S-5
15.00
16.50
5
12
15
8
SAME
S-6
20.00
21.50
7
10
13
11
S-7
25.00
26.50
8
9
19
9
S-8
30.00
31.50
20
27
27
16
Dk Brow n cf GRAVEL and cf Sand, trace Silt
S-9
35.00
36.50
14
12
10
15
2½ ”
3½ ”
10
15
20
Lt Brow n cf SAND, some cf Gravel, trace Silt
25
Brow n cf SAND, some cf Gravel, trace Silt
30
35
40
4"
1½ "
300 lbs.
140 lbs.
24"
30"
Core Size
NX
investigations,
Strata
ARORA
and
Page 2 of 2
ROUTE: C.R. 513
LOCAL NAME:
SECTION:
E474989.98
STATION: 52+ 52
OFFSET: 24 RT
DEPTH
(ft)
CASING
BLOWS
CASING
SAMPLE
NO.
ASSOCIATES,
Prospect Street
DEPTH
(ft)
P.C.
BORING NO.
REC.
(Inches)
Blow s on Spoon
0" 6"
6" - 12"
12" - 18"
82
S-10
40.00
41.50
33
42
S-11
45.00
45.20
81
100/2
18
Brow n cf SAND some mf Gravel, little Silt
10
SAME
(ft)
45
50
50.00
CORING
C-1
50.00
55.00
R-1
REC
60
100%
RQD
35
58%
Dk Gray, moderately w eathered, medium
to closely spaced fractures, very hard GNEISS
55
C-2
55.00
60.00
R-2
REC
60
100%
RQD
37
62%
SAME
REC
50
83%
RQD
11
18%
60
C-3
60.00
65.00
R-3
65
70
75
80
2½ ”
3½ ”
4"
1½ "
300 lbs.
140 lbs.
24"
30"
Core Size
NX
investigations,
Strata
Page 1 of 2
ROUTE: C.R. 513
LOCAL NAME:
SECTION:
Prospect Street
E475030.33
STATION: 53+ 30
OFFSET: 23 RT
DEPTH
(ft)
CASING
BLOWS
CASING
SAMPLE
NO.
BORING NO.
DATE STARTED:
6/4/09
DATE COMPLETED:
6/4/09
DEPTH
(ft)
0 Hr. Dry
24 Hr. Dry
REC.
(Inches)
Blow s on Spoon
0" 6"
6" - 12"
12" - 18"
Date: 6/4/09
Date: 6/5/09
PP Installed
S-1
0.00
1.50
0
1
5
10
Dk Brow n cf SAND, some mf Gravel, tr. Silt
w /vegetation
(Embankment Fill)
S-2
5.00
6.50
5
7
2
13
Brow n cf SAND, some mf Gravel, tr. Silt (Embankment
Fill)
S-3
6.50
8.00
3
2
2
11
Brow n cf SAND, some cf Gravel, tr. Silt (Embankment
Fill)
S-4
10.00
11.50
1
7
7
4
S-5
15.00
16.50
3
5
6
16
Brow n cf SAND, trace Silt
S-6
20.00
21.50
12
11
13
12
SAME
S-7
25.00
26.50
6
13
7
10
SAME
S-8
30.00
31.50
11
26
32
18
Brow n cf SAND and cf Gravel, trace Silt
S-9
35.00
35.20
100/2
C-1
37.00
42.00
(ft)
5
8.00
10
Brow n cf GRAVEL, some cf Sand, trace Silt (Glacial Till)
15
20
25
30
35
2
SAME
37.00
CORING
R-1
40
2½ ”
REC
50
83%
RQD
15
25%
3½ ”
4"
1½ "
300 lbs.
140 lbs.
24"
30"
Core Size
NX
investigations,
Strata
ARORA
and
Page 2 of 2
ROUTE: C.R. 513
LOCAL NAME:
SECTION:
E475030.33
STATION: 53+ 30
OFFSET: 23 RT
DEPTH
(ft)
CASING
BLOWS
SAMPLE
NO.
Prospect Street
DEPTH
(ft)
C-2
42.00
47.00
R-2
P.C.
BORING NO.
REC.
(Inches)
Blow s on Spoon
0" 6"
CORING
ASSOCIATES,
6" - 12"
12" - 18"
REC
50
83%
RQD
11
18%
REC
38
63%
Dk Gray, moderately w eathered, medium
RQD
23
38%
to closely spaced fractures, hard GNEISS
(ft)
45
C-3
47.00
52.00
R-3
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
2½ ”
3½ ”
4"
1½ "
300 lbs.
140 lbs.
24"
30"
Core Size
NX
investigations,
Strata
APPENDIX C:
Inferred Subsurface Profiles
LEGEND:
610
Existing Ground
S-1
SPT Borings performed
S-2
Surface
10
in 2005
13
Dark Brown cf SAND, some cf Gravel,
600
trace Silt (Embankment Fill)
50
SPT ’N’ Value per 1 foot
64
45
56
18
18
SE Wing Wall-Bottom of Footing EL. 591.00
590
SW Wing Wall-Bottom of Footing EL. 589.00
26
27
56
23
Brown cf SAND, some cf Gravel
(Glacial Till)
580
64
ELEVATI
ON
28
35
54
570
65
22
Bottom of D.S.#2
EL. 565.00
REC=45%
RQD=12%
Bottom of D.S.#1
EL. 565.00
>100
560
REC=100%
RQD=38%
100/2
2.5’
0
2.5’
5
VER.:
Dark Gray, moderately weathered, medium to very closely
\\cassi
dy\general
\1
401
\CADD\G eotech\I
nferred Subsurface Profi
l
e\1
401
South Abutm ent.
dgn
09DEC201
4 1
4:
08
User Nam e:
Pl
ot Date:
Pl
ot Ti
m e:
Desi
gn Fi
l
e:
arosci
ol
i
REC=88%
RQD=45%
SCALE: 1"=10’
spaced fractures, soft to very hard GNEISS
REC=100%
RQD=58%
550
2.5’
0
2.5’
5
HOR.:
REC=100%
RQD=62%
SCALE: 1"=10’
REC=83%
RQD=18%
540
30 LT
20 LT
10 LT
0
10 RT
20 RT
30 RT
40 RT
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATION 52+52
C.R. 513 BASE LINE
PROSPECT STREET (C.R. 513) BRIDGE
OVER NJ TRANSIT MORRISTOWN LINE
INFERRED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
INFERRED SUBSURFACE PROFILE ALONG SOUTH ABUTMENT
DRAWN
DATE:
BY:
06/10/09
PCG
CHECKED
SCALE:
BY:
AS SHOWN
VG
TOWN OF DOVER
MORRIS COUNTY
ARORA and ASSOCIATES
1
1200 LENOX DRIVE SUITE 200
1
LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648
APPENDIX D:
Typical Calculations and Analyses
(Bound Separately)

Geotech Reports

Transcription

Similar documents

III-Structural Composite CD`s 9-14

S-05

5 Use of reference materials

caring for your River Cooter Turtles

Case study - The real life benefits of Geotechnical

NEWSLETTER - Prospect Primary School

Co-driving

flyer/print pdf

Our mission and organization

a printable brochure - Mount Prospect Public Library

Ticketmaster Archtics® SPORTS