GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT

New York State Thruway Authority - Stabilize Approach to Thruway Bridge Over
Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159

Submitted to:
Creighton Manning Engineering LLP
2 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205

Submitted by:
Golder Associates Inc.
670 North Commercial Street, Suite 103
Manchester, NH 03101
+1 603 668-0880

18104049

October 2018, Revised February 2019

October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION.................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION FOR THIS EVALUATION ....................................................................................... 4

3.1 Site Visit ............................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Existing Site Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Geotechnical Investigation ................................................................................................................... 4

3.4 Laboratory Testing Program ................................................................................................................ 5

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 6

4.1 Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Generalized Soil and Bedrock Conditions ........................................................................................... 7

5.0 WALL REMEDIATION EVALUATIONS ......................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Replacement Wall Design Considerations and Assumptions .............................................................. 9

5.2 Remediation Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 10

5.2.1 Repair Existing Wall – Deadman Anchors .................................................................................... 10

5.2.2 Repair Existing Wall – Soil Nail Reinforcement ............................................................................ 11

5.2.3 Repair Existing Wall – Tieback Anchors ....................................................................................... 11

5.2.4 New Sheetpile Wall with Permanent Ground Anchors (Tiebacks) ............................................... 12

5.2.5 New Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall with Permanent Ground Anchors (Tiebacks) ....................... 13

5.3 Alternative Selection .......................................................................................................................... 14

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 14

6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 14

6.2 Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................................................... 15

6.3 Earth Pressures.................................................................................................................................. 16

6.4 Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis ..................................................................................................... 17

6.5 Soldier Pile Axial Capacity ................................................................................................................. 19

6.6 Global Stability ................................................................................................................................... 19

i
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 22

7.1 Preliminary Quantity and Opinion of Construction Cost .................................................................... 22

7.2 Construction Surcharges .................................................................................................................... 23

7.3 Fiber Optic Cable ............................................................................................................................... 24

7.4 Permanent Lagging ............................................................................................................................ 24

7.5 Soldier Pile Survey Monitoring During Construction .......................................................................... 24

7.6 Construction Observations ................................................................................................................. 24

8.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 25

TABLES
Table 1 -- Laboratory Testing Assignment Summary (Embedded in Text – Page 5)
Table 2 – Summary of Soil and Rock Laboratory Testing Results
Table 3 – Global Stability Summary (Embedded in Text – Page 20)

FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Boring Location Plan
Figure 3 – Interpreted Subsurface Profile A-A’
Figure 4 – Interpreted Subsurface Profile B-B’
Figure 5 – Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall Plan and Profile
Figure 6 – Soldier Pile and Tieback Anchor Detail
Figure 7 – Tieback with Double Corrosion Protection Detail

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Boring Logs
Appendix B – Rock Core Photos
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – Calculations

ii
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) presents the findings and recommendations of Golder Associates Inc.’s
(Golder’s) geotechnical investigation and design evaluations to stabilize the southeast approach of the Catskill
Creek Bridge located at (MP) 113.22 of Interstate 87 along the New York State Thruway in Catskill, New York
(See Figure 1). Creighton-Manning Engineering, LLP (C-M) was retained by the New York State Thruway
Authority (NYSTA) to design a replacement retaining wall system, and C-M subcontracted Golder to complete the
subsurface/site investigation and geotechnical aspects of the design. During the course of the work C-M and
Golder worked together to collect field data, develop design parameters, and evaluate design alternatives to
present to the NYSTA.

The focus of this GDR is to present the geotechnical data evaluated for the project, provide a summary of
Golder’s evaluations, and provide recommendations for design and construction of the selected retaining wall
replacement alternative. The GDR includes test boring logs, interpreted subsurface profiles, a description of
subsurface conditions, a discussion of Golder’s alternative analysis that considered options to rehabilitate the
existing wall and to construct a new permanent wall, a discussion of preliminary analyses performed for
alternative wall systems, and design and construction recommendations for the selected replacement wall
alternative.

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Catskill Creek Bridge (the Bridge) is a 600-foot long steel truss arch bridge with 89-foot long and 69-foot long
southern and northern approach spans, respectively, that crosses Catskill Creek at approximately Mile Post
113.22 of the New York State Thruway. The Bridge carries four lanes of the roadway and respective shoulder
lanes for both northbound and southbound traffic. The Bridge trusses are set on four large concrete piers
socketed into bedrock. The piers are staggered and do not lie within the streambed. The bridge was designed in
1952 and constructed in 1953 (Contract CT 53-1). The northern and southern abutments are supported on
shallow foundations bearing on rock. The bridge truss is supported on eight piers each having two footings
socketed 1 to 6 feet (ft) into bedrock. In 1984, a gabion wall that extended out from the original southeast
concrete wingwall was constructed to help stabilize the slope (Contract TAA 84-1B, sheet 29). In 1992, the
NYSTA conducted a bridge rehabilitation program which included the addition of an 80 foot long, 15 foot high
(exposed height) cantilever soldier pile and lagging wall to the southeast approach of the southern abutment, and
a flattening of the existing rockfill embankment slope in front of the wall from 1H:1V to 1.5H:1V (Contract TAA 92-
24B). The 1992 rehabilitation as-built plan sheets 31 and 42 for TAA 92-24B1 and concrete lagging shop drawing2
indicated that the wall includes HP14x89 soldier piles spaced 6 ft on-center with reinforced precast concrete
lagging (2’9” high x 5’8” long x 6” thick). The minimum design embedment depth for the soldier piles was 20 ft
which correlates to a pile tip elevation roughly 10 to 20 ft above the interpreted bedrock surface.

Regional catastrophic flooding occurred in the region on August 28 and September 8, 2011 from Hurricane Irene
and Tropical Storm Lee, respectively. Based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauging data,
the water level in Catskill Creek rose at least 22 ft during flooding from Irene. Following these events, NYSTA
personnel inspected the Bridge foundations, and discovered recent scour of embankment fill, rip-rap and other
soils surrounding the piers north and south of the streambed. The scour included loss of rip-rap and soils

1 New York State Thruway Authority design drawing package titled “Bridge Rehabilitation, Milepost 113.22+/-,” drawing numbers 31 & 42,
dated December 1991.
2 The Fort Miller Co. TAA 92-24B Milepost #113.22 – Precast Concrete Lagging Panels, dated 10/28/92.

3
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

adjacent to the east footing of Pier 3 on the south side of the northbound truss. Additional slope failures
evidenced by tension cracks were surveyed in the fall of 2011, including a tension crack in the slope surface at
the toe of the lagging wall, exposing an underground fiber optic line and junction box. In the fall of 2011 the
NYSTA and Golder designed emergency slope repairs consisting of slope regrading and rip-rap armor partially
anchored in place using rock dowels and pinned steel mesh. The design considerations and recommended
remedial approach was documented in Golder’s December 2011 Emergency Slope Stabilization Report 3. The
slope repairs were conducted in winter and spring 2012. The NYSTA is concerned that additional slope
movements are causing distress to the existing lagging wall as it was not designed with tiebacks and the piles do
not extend into bedrock. This geotechnical investigation and design report were prepared based on the NYSTA’s
desire to rehabilitate the wall by either repairing the existing wall to a stable condition or to replace the existing
wall with a new permanent wall.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION FOR THIS EVALUATION

3.1 Site Visit
On August 7, 2018, Golder conducted a site visit to mark out borehole locations for utility clearance, meet with a
representative of C-M to review topographic and site civil surveying needs, and to map bedrock and slope
conditions. During the site visit, we mapped four (4) scarps within the upper slope below the exposed base of the
existing soldier pile and lagging retaining wall; and staked 13 bedrock exposures in the site area for survey. We
also took site condition photographs to document current conditions and took notes on the condition of the
existing retaining wall, southeast wing wall and general roadway and south abutment conditions, including site
access.

3.2 Existing Site Conditions

The wall currently shows signs of movement evident by soldier pile/lagging lateral deflection up to 5-6 inches to
the east (estimated mid-wall using a tape measure), and asphalt patching around the concrete wall cap. The
return wall, which connects the retaining wall to the abutment wall, has separated from the southeast abutment by
approximately 2.25 inches, and the cap of the return wall is cracked. The exposed portions of the piles show
signs of corrosion. There is also concrete spalling on the concrete wall cap and abutment wall, exposing rebar.
As noted above, several headscarps are visible on the soil slope surface below the retaining wall (surveyed scarp
locations are shown on Figure 2) indicating past slope displacements and existing factors of safety approaching
one. Past surficial slope failures have left portions of the fiber optic line exposed in front of the wall.

The rip rap and wire mesh of the 2012 slope repairs appear to be intact, but these repairs were limited to the
slope toe and mid-slope area between the northern end of the wall and Pier 3 of the bridge. The repair did not
extend along the toe of slope below and in front of the lagging wall. One scarp area in fill materials below the wall
first observed in October 2011 appeared to have increased in size.

3.3 Geotechnical Investigation

On August 13 to 21, 2018, Earth Dimensions Inc. of Elma, New York drilled four borings (DNW-1, DNW-2, DNW-
3, and DNW-4). Boring locations were surveyed by C-M prior to the start of the drilling program, and as there was

3 Golder Associates, Inc. “Summary Report – Emergency Slope Stabilization at MP 113.22, Thruway Over Catskill Creek,” NYSTA Project
D213954, submitted to NYSTA on December 19, 2011.

4
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

no drilling deviation from these locations they also represent the as-drilled locations. The locations are shown on
Figure 2 and the elevations are included on the boring logs in Appendix A.

Both Golder and Earth Dimensions classified soils in the field and collected samples for visual identification and
laboratory testing. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling was conducted at 5-foot intervals through the
overburden. Standard 2-inch O.D. split spoons were driven 24 inches by a 140 pound safety hammer dropped 30
inches using a rope and cathead. Golder recorded sample recovery lengths, lithologic descriptions, and the
number of hammer blows required to advance the sampler at 6-inch increments. A hammer efficiency factor of
0.60 was assumed for the safety hammer and cathead drilling method which requires no correction for the
standard N60 values. Drill behavior during casing and drill rod advancement and cuttings observed during drilling
were also recorded. Golder collected soil samples from each SPT split spoon for visual identification and
laboratory testing. Soils were field classified in general accordance with the NYSDOT Geotechnical Design
Manual – Chapter 5, Soil and Rock Classification and Logging. After reaching bedrock refusal, Earth Dimensions
obtained approximately 10 to 20 feet of NQ2 sized bedrock core from each of the borings. Rock core was field
logged in general accordance with the NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual – Chapter 5, Soil and Rock
Classification and Logging. Borings DNW-2, 3, and 4 were backfilled with cuttings and crushed stone fill to 1.3
feet, then patched with concrete at the ground surface. A 2-inch PVC standpipe piezometer was installed in
DNW-1 to 57.5 feet. Piezometer installation included 15 feet of screen (10 feet in bedrock and 5 feet in the
overburden soils). The screen was backfilled with sand and a bentonite seal was placed above the sand pack
followed by grout and crushed stone mixed with cuttings to 1 ft. An 8-inch diameter flush-mounted roadbox was
installed at the surface. During grouting operations, Golder noted potential grout loss within the stone rockfill, and
the driller noted additional water loss within the formation during drilling operations.

Details of the sampling methods used, field data obtained, and soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions
encountered are presented on the attached boring logs included in Appendix A. Photographs of the rock core are
included in Appendix B.

3.4 Laboratory Testing Program

Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on representative soil and rock samples collected during the
subsurface investigation to assist in soil classification and to assess soil and rock engineering properties. Testing
was performed on samples collected from all four borings.

Testing on the selected soil and rock samples was conducted by 3rd Rock LLC of East Aurora, New York and
GeoTesting Express of Acton, Massachusetts. Laboratory work was performed in accordance with applicable
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) testing procedures. Testing performed for the investigation is
summarized below.

Table 1: Laboratory Testing Assignment Summary

Laboratory Test Testing Procedure Number of Tests Completed

Particle Size Analysis (Sieve only) ASTM D422 12

Moisture Content ASTM D2216 43

Compressive Strength and Elastic

ASTM D7012 8
Moduli (Rock) Method C

5
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

Selected soil and rock testing results are included on the boring logs in Appendix A and summarized in Table 2.
Complete laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix C.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Geologic Setting
Regional geologic mapping indicates the site bedrock, from Catskill Creek to the south abutment, consists of
limestones of the Lower Devonian-aged Helderberg Group.4 5 These rocks were previously mapped as the
Lower Devonian Kalkberg Limestone, Catskill Shaly Limestone, Becraft Limestone, Port Ewen/Alsen Limestone,
and Glenerie Limestone.6 Local mapping revised this series as the Coeymans/Manlius, Kalkberg, New Scotland,
and Becraft Formations, which have been deformed by broad open folding and subject to low angle thrust faults.7
This more recent mapping indicates the south abutment lies on the Becraft and possibly the overlying Alsen/Port
Ewen/Glenerie formations. The lower part of the Becraft is described as a pinkish gray, wavy bedded, medium to
coarse grained grainstone, with beds 4 to 12 inches thick, separated by thin greenish-gray shale. The upper part
of the Becraft lacks the shale layers and is thicker bedded. The Becraft is about 60 ft thick in the Catskill area. 8
The Alsen/Port Ewen formations consist of fine grained, dark gray, argillaceous lime wackestone and limy shale
with layers or nodules of black chert. The Alsen/Port Ewen formations are about 35 ft thick in the Catskill area.
The Glenerie Formation overlies the Port Ewen and consists of black or dark gray hard cherty limestone. 9 The
Esopus Shale overlies the Port Ewen, and consists of a friable, gravelly-crumbling mass of uniform, barren, dark
gray shale and siltstone, about 250 to 300 ft thick, with a well-developed closely-spaced slaty cleavage.6,9

The field descriptions of bedrock exposures located about 50 feet (ft) west of the southbound lanes of the south
abutment and at El. ~150 are as follows: Medium gray (fresh) to tan-buff (weathered), thin to thick bedded (2 to
12 inches to massive), very strong (ISRM rating of R5, estimated compressive strength 15,000 to 36,000 psi),
very coarse grained, crinoidal grainstone (limestone), with brachiopods to 1.5 inches. Bedding dips gently (8°) to
the west, and bedding discontinuities are planar and rough. At least two near vertical conjugate joint sets cross
the bedding, oriented roughly northwest-southeast, and northeast-southwest. The joints are planar, rough to very
rough, have persistences of 5 ft to 50+ ft, and are close to widely spaced (0.5 to 2 ft). This lithology is consistent
with the upper part of the Becraft Formation.

The field descriptions of the bedrock exposed beneath the south end of the bridge at the toe of the shale fill at El.
~105 are as follows: Dull medium gray (fresh and weathered), thin to medium bedded (1 to 5 inches), hard to
very hard (ISRM rating of R4 to R5, estimated compressive strength of 7,000 to 36,000), fine to very fine grained
impure limestone, with abundant brachiopods to 2 inches diameter, and thin (1 to 2 inches) coquina beds
consisting mostly of brachiopods. Bedding dips gently (12°) to the north, and bedding discontinuities are planar

4 Fisher, D.W., Isachsen, Y.W., Rickard, L.V., 1970. Geologic Map of New York: Hudson –Mohawk Sheet, State Museum of New York, scale
1:250,000, reprinted 1995.
5 Raytheon Infrastructure Services Inc., January 1996. Study Report, Catskill Creek, Milepost 113.22 in New York State Thruway.
6 Chadwick, G.H., 1944. Geology of the Catskill and Kaaterskill Quadrangles, Part II Silurian and Devonian Geology, with a Chapter on Glacial
Geology, New York State Museum Bulletin No. 336, June 1944, 275 p.
7 Marshak, S. and Engelder, T., 1987. Exposures of the Hudson Valley Fold-Thrust Belt, west of Catskill, New York. Field Trip No. 28,
Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide – Northeast Section, p. 123-128.
8 Rickard, L.V., 1962. Late Cayugan (Upper Silurian) and Helderbergian (Lower Devonian) Stratigraphy in New York. New York State Museum
and Science Service, Bulletin No. 386, 168 p.
9 Marshak, S., 1990. Structural Geology of Silurian and Devonian Strata in the Mid-Hudson Valley, New York: Fold-Thrust Belt Tectonics in
Minature. New York State Museum Map and Chart Series No. 41, 76 p.

6
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

and very rough. At least two near vertical joint sets cross the bedding, oriented roughly northwest-southeast, and
northeast-southwest. The joints are planar, smooth to very rough, have persistences up to 10 ft, and are close to
moderately spaced (0.5 to 1 ft). This lithology is consistent with the lower part of the Becraft Formation.

Regional surficial geologic mapping indicates glacial sediments beneath the south side of Catskill Creek consist of
glacial till, consisting of a poorly sorted clay, silt, sand and boulders, overlying bedrock.10 Glacial striae occur on
limestone bedding surfaces, and potholes are common within the river bed. The mapping also indicates
glaciolacustrine laminated silts and clays overlying the glacial till and bedrock are present west of the site area in
upland areas at elevations higher than the site but are remnant glacial lake bottom sediments that have been
mostly eroded away. Glaciolacustrine delta stratified fine gravel and sand, and more recent deposits of alluvial
silt, sand and gravel lie within the Catskill Creek stream valley northwest and southeast of the site, and Kaaterskill
Creek south of the site.

4.2 Generalized Soil and Bedrock Conditions

Soil Conditions
Soils encountered in the borings were found to generally include asphalt and rockfill material placed during
construction of the roadway and bridge abutments overlying naturally occurring glacial till sediments. The
underlying bedrock surface in the site area is interpreted to slope down to the north and east as shown on the
interpreted bedrock surface contours on Figure 2, At the boring locations within the wall replacement area, the
bedrock surface is interpreted to range from about 45 to 56 ft below the road grade, sloping down to the north as
shown on the attached interpreted subsurface profiles in Figures 3 and 4. Detailed descriptions of the soil and
bedrock conditions encountered at the borings are provided on the attached boring logs. The following sections
summarize the major stratigraphic units.

Asphalt Pavement
Asphalt pavement ranging from approximately 1 to 1.3 feet thick was encountered in each of the borings.

Rockfill
Weathered shale sandy gravel rockfill material ranging in thickness from approximately 38 to 45 ft was
encountered directly beneath the asphalt pavement at the boring locations. SPT N-values in the rockfill material
ranged from 12 to 129 with an average of 44, indicating a generally compact consistency. The lower blow counts
(i.e. N < 20) were only observed at six of the rockfill sample intervals and were generally scattered throughout the
deposit; there does not appear to be a consistently weak stratum across each borehole. Laboratory testing
showed this layer had an average moisture content of 4% and was composed gravel with an average of 13%
fines and 24% sand, indicating this layer is not a typical “rockfill”. The rockfill material can generally be described
as a gray to brown, dry, non-plastic, compact, sandy gravel with little fines. During piezometer installation, there
was significant grout loss within this stratum indicating this layer has high permeability.

We suspect that the source of the rockfill materials used in the south abutment construction (~1953) was a rock
cut about 1,500 ft southwest of the abutment. This rock cut is mapped as occurring within the Esopus Shale in
the local geologic maps. The rockfill materials on the slope surface beneath and west of the abutment indicate a
lithology consistent with the Esopus, specifically a friable, weak, dark gray, silty shale, with very closely spaced

10Caldwell, D.H., Dineen, R.J., Connally, G.G., Fleisher, P.J. and Rich, J.L., 1991, Surficial geologic map of New York: Hudson - Mohawk
sheet: New York State Museum, Map and Chart Series 40, scale 1:250,000.

7
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

cleavage, weathering into elongated shards 1 to 2 inches long and about ½ inch thick that generate a coarse
gravel. The fill materials contained semi-intact rock blocks of the shale (typically 1 to 2 ft in diameter), that easily
crumble (ISRM rating of R1, estimated compressive strength 150 to 725 psi). The presence of the semi-intact
rock blocks indicate the fill materials were likely not processed prior to placement, and are likely responsible for
the random, higher N-values encountered during drilling. The coarse gravel-like consistency of the fill has a high
void ratio, which likely is responsible for the grout loss observed by Golder during piezometer installation.

Glacial Till
A layer of glacial till, ranging in thickness from approximately 5 to 11 feet, was encountered directly underneath
the rockfill layer in each boring. Laboratory testing showed this layer had an average moisture content of 15%
and was composed of 37-74% fines (average = 55), indicating sizeable quantities of coarse grained soils. N-
values ranged from 16 to 91 with an average of 56, indicating a hard consistency. The layer can typically be
described as of brown, moist, low plasticity, hard, silt with some clay, some sand, and some gravel.

Bedrock Conditions
Bedrock was encountered in all four borings at depths ranging from about 45 to 56 ft bgs. Rock quality
designation (RQD) of the core samples indicated that the bedrock varies from good (75%) in the first run of DNW-
1 to excellent (100%) in the first run of DNW-3. Core samples showed bedrock consists of light gray, fine-grained
limestone. The rock is moderately to very hard, fresh to slightly weathered, thin-bedded, and moderately to
slightly fractured. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) of the rock core runs ranged from 62 to 74 with an average of 70.
Laboratory testing indicated an unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 6,157 to 17,441 psi with an average of
14,252 psi. The low value was from a specimen webbed with healed discontinuities (see attached rock core
photos in Appendix B), and the post-test photo provided in the lab report shows the sample failed along one of
these planes and may not be representative of the intact rock strength. Elastic moduli and Poisson’s Ratio test
results from the rock core testing are provided in Appendix C. A detailed summary of the rock core is presented
in the boring logs.

Golder used bedrock elevation data encountered in the four borings along with bedrock elevations encountered in
historical borings provided by NYSTA11, as well as bedrock outcrops mapped in the field by Golder and surveyed
by C-M to develop interpreted bedrock surface contours across the site. As shown on attached Figure 2, the
bedrock surface dips down from west to east across the site and dips locally from southwest to the northeast
along the wall profile with bedrock elevations varying between approximately El. 130 and El. 110 in the vicinity of
the existing soldier pile and lagging wall.

Groundwater
Groundwater level was measured prior to rock coring, upon completion of the boreholes, and following removal of
the casing. Groundwater level measurements varied from approximately 34 to 55 ft below the roadway. The
observed variation is likely influenced by several factors including the addition of water used during the drilling
process and natural variations such as precipitation and temperature, and it may not be representative of a
stabilized water level. The interpreted groundwater level is shown on the subsurface profile in Figures 3 and 4.

11Historical boring locations are approximate and taken from State of New York Department of Public Works Boring Logs dated 1952 and
1960; and De Leuw and Drill Drawing dated 1952 and titled “Plan and Profile Thruway Sta. 379+00 to 394+00.”

8
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

A piezometer was installed in boring DNW-1. The measured groundwater level in the completed piezometer
ranged from 46 to 56 ft below road surface following piezometer installation and bailing, respectively, on August
17, 2018. NYSTA personnel read the piezometer on October 10, 2018 and observed a groundwater level of 51
feet in DNW-1.

5.0 WALL REMEDIATION EVALUATIONS

5.1 Replacement Wall Design Considerations and Assumptions
The existing soldier pile and lagging wall was constructed in 1992 and many of the design assumptions are based
on the December 1991 as-built plans1 and lagging shop drawing2. The plans indicated that the existing 35 ft long
soldier piles are HP14x89 sections embedded 20 ft below ground surface (measured from the base of the
exposed wall face, i.e., bottom of lagging) in 24-inch diameter, cased, grout-filled shafts. The piles are assumed
to have an ultimate yield strength of 36 ksi, based on typical NYSTA design recommendations in 1991. The
exposed wall height is 15 ft with reinforced concrete lagging facing. The lagging does not currently extend below
ground surface at the base of the wall.

The wall currently shows signs of movement evident by soldier pile/lagging deflection and asphalt patching
around the concrete wall cap. Based on our field observations, SPT N-values from the test borings, laboratory
test data, and literature correlations to soil strength, we assumed a friction angle of 37 degrees for the existing
gravelly sand rockfill material behind the soldier pile and lagging wall as well as for the rockfill layer extending
down over the slope to the river. As stated previously, tension cracks (e.g., headscarps) are present on the slope
below the wall indicating that the factor of safety of the slope is approaching unity. Per our communications with
NYSTA, we understand that they do not plan to stabilize the slope in front of the wall and that the final design wall
alternative should account for probable slope displacements in the future. Accordingly, our design evaluations
assume a long term slope configuration in front of the wall that corresponds to a slope angle with a minimum
factor of safety of 1.3 based on infinite slope theory and verified with method of slices. The infinite slope analysis
indicates that the slope (from the toe at the river to the existing soldier piles) would have a factor of safety equal to
1.3 if it is flattened to a 30 degree angle. A slope flattened to 30 degrees would expose a greater wall height for
repair options that stabilize the existing wall than repair options involving a new wall constructed behind the
existing guardrail. As shown on Figure 6, a slope flattened to 30 degrees results in approximately 14 ft of passive
resistance soil loss at the bottom of the existing wall (i.e. resulting in a total exposed wall height of 29 ft and a
remaining soldier pile embedment depth of 6 ft). For a new wall located behind the guardrail, a slope flattened to
30 degrees would result in an exposed wall height of 24.4 ft and the soldier pile embedment could be designed to
support this condition.

In addition to the geotechnical and structural limitations, there is also an existing fiber optic junction box and cable
that is located on the slope in front of the wall as shown on Figures 2 and 5. The utility company flagged the
location of the cable and C-M surveyed the horizontal location, but the buried elevation of the cable is unknown.
Based on the survey, the cable is located between approximately 2 and 9 ft in front of the existing wall. C-M and
the NYSTA have indicated that the fiber optic cable will not be allowed to be relocated or disturbed during the
construction of the replacement wall.

The observed wall movement and stability concerns with the slope warrant consideration of equipment access
and temporary loads during construction. For repair options that stabilize the existing wall construction equipment
cannot access the ground in front of the wall from below because additional surcharge from equipment and/or
construction of an access road will compromise the stability of the slope. Excavating a bench in front of the base

9
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

of the existing wall is unacceptable because this would reduce passive earth pressure resistance acting to support
the existing wall. If working from above the wall, the construction surcharge loads from cranes and heavy
equipment need to be restricted and set-back sufficient distance from the wall face to limit further loading on the
existing failing wall. For repair options involving a new wall at the existing guardrail, a narrow bench could be
excavated between the new wall and the existing wall where lightweight equipment may be able to be operate if
equipment surcharge pressures are restricted to avoid jeopardizing the stability of the slope in front of the wall.

5.2 Remediation Alternatives

Golder considered several methods for stabilizing the existing wall or installing a new permanent retaining wall
given the design and construction considerations discussed above. The alternatives were evaluated based on
one or more of the following factors: geotechnical global stability, soil/structural feasibility, schedule,
constructability, design life and general costs. A summary of the design considerations for each alternative and
the advantages and disadvantages are provided herein.

5.2.1 Repair Existing Wall – Deadman Anchors

This option involved installing deadmen anchorage working from the embankment slope off the shoulder of the
southbound lanes and anchoring them to the existing wall. One or two rows of anchors would be drilled, using
horizontal auger bore drilling techniques, from the southbound shoulder to the existing wall and tied into walers
spanning the face of the existing wall.

Advantages:

 Drilling from the southbound side of the road will significantly reduce construction surcharges on the existing
wall, reducing risk of wall or slope failure during construction.

 Construction impacts to Thruway traffic minimized due to construction access off southern shoulder.

 Don’t need to remove the existing wall.

Disadvantages:

 Limited design life reusing an existing wall that is already 26 years old.

 Horizontal auger bore drilling will require specialty contractors and may increase costs.

 Drilling from the southbound shoulder will require long anchors and tight location tolerances for the anchors
to tie into the walers at specific locations.

 The technology is considered feasible, but the quality and experience of the specialty contractor would be
critical, and soil conditions along the full extent of auger boring would need to be more comprehensively
defined that requires more time than the design schedule allows.

 Design details and special provisions would need to be developed that would be customized for this project.

 Preliminary analyses indicated that the existing wall rehabilitation option does not provide an adequate factor
of safety for global stability for the assumed long term slope grades.

10
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

5.2.2 Repair Existing Wall – Soil Nail Reinforcement

This method involved installing soil nails through the existing concrete lagging to provide a larger stabilized zone
behind the existing wall, restrain the wall against further movement, and provide improved global stability.

Advantages:

 Equipment used to install soil nails is typically lighter than equipment required for the other stabilization
alternatives. Therefore, the construction surcharge on the existing wall would be lower than other
alternatives, comparatively reducing risk of wall or slope failure during construction.

 Soil nail installation is relatively quick and generally economical.

 Don’t need to remove the existing wall.

Disadvantages:

 Limited design life reusing an existing wall that is already 26 years old.

 Preliminary stability analyses indicated an unacceptable factor of safety for a reasonable nail pattern and
length (e.g. 6 ft x 3 ft spacing and 35 ft long).

 A feasible design would require long nails with tight spacing (e.g., 3 ft x 3 ft or tighter) to provide enough
resistance. Long nails at a tight grid spacing would likely prove difficult to install straight.

 Soil nails are most efficient at low angles (i.e. 10° to 20° from horizontal12) and would be difficult to grout
properly and achieve required bond strengths. Observed grout loss during monitoring well installation in the
field program indicate that grout take may be problematic during installation.

 The soil nail installation equipment would still need to sit atop the existing wall resulting in construction
stability concerns.

 The fiber optic line running below the wall restricts the depth to which reinforcement can be installed without
disturbing the line. For a 29 ft design wall height, only the upper 16-17 ft of the wall can be reinforced.

 Preliminary analyses indicated that the existing wall rehabilitation option does not provide an adequate factor
of safety for global stability for the assumed long term slope grades.

5.2.3 Repair Existing Wall – Tieback Anchors

This alternative involved installing tieback anchors through the existing wall lagging to provide additional lateral
resistance. The anchors would be tied to walers which span across the wall transferring anchor loads to the piles.

Advantages:

 Tieback anchors typically can withstand relatively large horizontal wall pressures.

 Tiebacks can be installed at longer lengths and at steeper angles than soil nails resulting in a lower number
of larger capacity anchors required than soil nails.

12National Highway Institute (2015). “Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 Soil Nail Walls – Reference Manual,” Report FHWA-NHI-14-
007, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. pp. 150.

11
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

 Don’t need to remove the existing wall.

Disadvantages:

 Limited design life reusing an existing wall that is already 26 years old.

 The existing wall has limited passive resistance at the design state (i.e., design for 6 ft pile embedment for
stable slope in front of wall as discussed above).

 The existing wall has limited pile capacity (i.e., soldier piles do not extend down to bedrock, so limited end
bearing and limited skin friction in rockfill due to shallow embedment).

 Due to limited passive resistance and pile capacity of the existing wall, the anchors would need to be
installed at low angles (i.e. 10° from horizontal) to limit the vertical loading on the piles. At these low angles,
tiebacks would be difficult to grout properly and achieve required bond strengths. Observed grout loss
during monitoring well installation in the field program indicate that grout take may be problematic during
installation.

 The fiber optic line running below the wall restricts the depth to which reinforcement can be installed without
disturbing the line. For a 29 ft design wall height, only the upper 16-17 ft of the wall can be reinforced which
allows for two rows of anchors.

 Achieving adequate bond at low anchor angles may be problematic during construction.

 Due to the low anchor angles, the bond zone will be located in the rockfill. The rockfill will have lower bond
strengths and longer bond zones compared to anchors in bedrock. Furthermore, we observed increased
grout takes for piezometer installation during the field program which indicates the potential for grouting
complications (i.e. significant grout losses) during construction.

 The maximum bond length recommended by the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) for ground anchors is 40 ft13.
Preliminary global stability and soil/structure interaction analyses indicated bond lengths approaching or
above recommended maximum to achieve required loads and stability.

 Preliminary analyses indicated that the existing wall rehabilitation option does not provide an adequate factor
of safety for global stability for the assumed long term slope grades.

5.2.4 New Sheetpile Wall with Permanent Ground Anchors (Tiebacks)

This option considered installing a new sheetpile wall behind the existing guardrail. Tieback anchors would be
installed through the sheetpiles to provide the required lateral resistance.

Advantages:

 Increased service life of a new wall as compared to reusing the existing wall.

 Can design the new sheetpile wall to withstand the required horizontal and vertical loads.

13 Post-Tensioning Institute, (2014). “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors – PTI DC35.1-14,” 5th edition, United States
of America.

12
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

 Installation behind the guardrail will reduce surcharges on the existing unstable wall during construction as
equipment will be set back.

 Sheetpiles are relatively quick to install.

Disadvantages:

 Installation of sheetpiles through the existing rockfill may be problematic and considered unfeasible.

 Sheetpile installation equipment is heavier than equipment used for other alternatives.

 New wall will be offset towards the Thruway mainline. Therefore access and impacts to Thruway traffic will
be greater.

 Need to remove the existing wall to gain access to install tiebacks.

 Design will need to include a bridge rail transition with a moment slab or a concrete barrier with a moment
slab so that traffic impact load is not transmitted to the new wall.

5.2.5 New Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall with Permanent Ground Anchors (Tiebacks)
This option involved installing a new soldier pile and lagging retaining wall with tieback anchors extended to
bedrock. The new wall would be installed approximately underneath the existing guardrail. Soldier piles would be
driven to bedrock refusal with pile driving equipment. The existing wall would be removed as the new wall is
constructed.

Advantages:

 Increased service life of a new wall as compared to reusing the existing wall.

 Can design the new wall to withstand the required horizontal and vertical loads. Anchors can be installed at
steeper angles which will allow for shorter, high capacity anchors to bedrock, and the soldier piles can be
designed to resist the increased vertical loading from the steeper anchors.

 Construction equipment setbacks for construction of the new wall located at the guardrail will reduce
surcharges on the existing unstable wall.

Disadvantages:

 Pile driving equipment is heavier than equipment used for other alternatives, may result in large surcharge
forces, greater setbacks and more space needed during construction.

 New wall will be offset towards the Thruway mainline requiring a temporary lane shift during construction.
Therefore access and impacts to Thruway traffic will be greater.

 Need to partially remove the existing wall to gain access to install tiebacks.

 Design will need to include a bridge rail transition with a moment slab or a concrete barrier with a moment
slab so that traffic impact load is not transmitted to the new wall.

 Costs associated with the construction of the new wall and partial demolition of the existing wall.

13
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

5.3 Alternative Selection

After considering each of the alternatives above, through varying levels of analysis, we recommend designing a
new wall rather than rehabilitating the existing wall. The existing soldier piles are assumed to be constructed of
36 ksi steel which limits the allowable moment on the wall. Soldier piles with higher yield strengths can be
specified for the new wall which allows for more of the lateral loads to be carried by the piles. Preliminary
analyses for rehabilitation of the existing wall did not provide adequate global stability factors of safety (i.e., FS <
1.3). For the long term design assumption of a flattened slope to 30 degrees in front of the existing wall, the
resulting limited pile embedment (6 ft) was concluded to be unacceptable for global stability, and anchoring the
existing soldier piles with tiebacks would apply vertical loads to the piles that exceeded the pile end bearing
resistance. To reduce vertical loads on the piles, anchors and/or soil nails needed to be installed at low angles
(i.e. 10°); however, anchors installed at these low angles do not intercept the bedrock and therefore were relying
on bond zones within the rockfill. Anchors installed at low angles become difficult to grout leading to uncertainty
associated with the quality of the bond zone. The risk of related grouting complications during construction was
concluded to be significant considering the increased grout takes measured during piezometer installations made
at one test boring during the field exploration program. In addition, to achieve the required anchor resistance and
satisfy global stability, the bond lengths for the existing wall rehabilitation options were approaching, or exceeding,
the 40 foot maximum bond zone lengths in soil recommended by PTI.

Unacceptable global stability conditions (FS < 1.3) was another factor in rejecting the option of rehabilitating the
existing wall with grouted tiebacks. Due to access limitations imposed by the fiber optic line running along the
bottom of the existing wall face, the number of anchor rows that could be assumed for design is limited. The
existing wall rehabilitation evaluations as described in Section 5.1 assumed that the wall would have 29 ft of
facing exposed with 6 ft of pile embedment at the toe under long term conditions. However, the deepest depth
that an anchor can be placed without disturbing the fiber optic line is 16-17 ft below the top of wall. This leaves
approximately 12-13 ft of unbraced wall below the fiber optic line elevation. Without a third anchor row, this
unbraced zone is problematic from a global stability standpoint and the two upper anchor rows are required to
carry higher loads.

Soil nail rehabilitation of the existing wall was eliminated from consideration because of the very tight and
impractical grid spacing and nail lengths required as discussed above. The deadman wall alternative was
eliminated from consideration because the horizontal auger bore drilling option may be difficult to coordinate and
may not provide the tolerances required to align with the required anchor elevations on the wall. Installation of a
new sheetpile wall was eliminated from consideration due to the potential issues installing sheetpiles through the
existing rockfill. Therefore, Golder recommends installation of a new tieback anchored soldier pile and lagging
wall located approximately along the alignment of the existing guardrail and about 7ft west of the existing wall.

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General
Based on the conclusions from the alternatives analysis and discussion with C-M and the NYSTA, the
recommended design includes installation of a new soldier pile and lagging wall with permanent tieback anchors
drilled into bedrock. Golder worked with C-M and the NYSTA to design the new wall system. During preliminary
design the tieback anchors were designed to be connected to walers attached to the soldier piles, with each
tieback anchoring two soldier piles. The design was modified during final design to eliminate the walers and

14
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

attach the tiebacks to each soldier pile, thus doubling the number of tiebacks and reducing the load for each
anchor.

The proposed new wall is 89 ft 2 in. long and is located 7 ft (face to face) behind the existing wall along the
alignment of the existing guardrail. Drawings prepared by C-M show the wall plan and profile and design
details14. The new wall includes a total of 12 soldier piles (P1 to P12) spaced 8 ft on center and end bearing on
bedrock with estimated lengths ranging from about 47 to 61 ft based on the interpreted bedrock surface. The
design includes one row of tieback anchors spaced at 8 ft on center that are connected to each pile. All anchors
are located 8 ft down from the top of the wall and inclined at 45 degrees. Temporary wood lagging is planned to
be installed behind the back face of the `soldier pile flanges during top down wall construction and anchor
installation. The lagging will be installed about 4 ft below the existing ground surface in front of the existing wall.
The permanent wall facing will be a cast-in-place concrete facia. Behind the top of the wall a moment slab/cast-
in-place concrete barrier is included at the highway shoulder to prevent traffic impact loads from being transmitted
to the new wall.

6.2 Seismic Design Parameters

The borings drilled during this investigation encountered bedrock varying from about 45 to 56 ft bgs. The Site
Class definition for the project area was determined using the B-method outlined in the AASHTO LRFD15 Section
3.10.3.1. The B-method calculates the SPT blow count for the upper 100 feet at the site using the average N-
values for each subsurface layer and the depths of each layer. The N-value for the bedrock is assumed to be 100
blows/ft. Based on the site class definitions presented in AASHTO Table 3.10.3.1.1, the existing subsurface
profile (overburden soils and bedrock) results in a Site Class C. Refer to the seismic site class calculations in
Appendix D.

The horizontal peak ground acceleration coefficient (PGA), the 0.2-second spectral response acceleration (S s)
and 1-second spectral response acceleration (S1) can be determined using online USGS mapping software. The
Site Class classification of “C” and site location can be entered into the software which returns the PGA (PGA =
0.057 g), the spectral response accelerations (Ss = 0.128 g and S1 = 0.038 g), effective peak ground acceleration
coefficient (As = 0.068 g), and the corresponding site coefficients, Fpga, of 1.2, Fa, of 1.2 and Fv, of 1.7.

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) recommends using a horizontal pseudo-static
coefficient, kh, equal to half of As (kh = 0.034 g) and a vertical pseudo-static coefficient, kv, equal to zero for
pseudo-static slope stability analyses16. For seismic earth pressure calculations, NYSDOT recommends using k h
equal to 1.5 x As (kh = 0.102 g) and kv equal to zero for walls not free to move during seismic loading and kh equal
to 0.5 x As (kh = 0.034 g) and kv equal to zero for walls free to move during seismic loading 17. The new wall will
have some flexibility and will be free to deflect during a seismic event, however the tieback anchors will provide
some horizontal restraint. Therefore, Golder recommends using the conservative higher kh value for design.

14 Creighton-Manning Draft Drawings – Albany Division Plans for the Stabilization at MP 113.22 Catskill Creek in Greene County, Town of
Catskill, ADP Submission Plans dated November 2018 and Drawing ST-5 dated January 2019.
15 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2017). “Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition”, Washington, D.C.
16 New York State Department of Transportation (2015). “Geotechnical Design Manual, Section 9 – Seismic Design,” Rev. 1, pp.9-66.
17 New York State Department of Transportation (2012). “Geotechnical Design Manual, Section 17 – Abutments, Retaining Walls, and
Reinforced Slopes,” DRAFT, pp.17-32.

15
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

6.3 Earth Pressures

As requested by the NYSTA, we followed the NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Procedure’s (GDP-1118)
recommendations and used Rankine earth pressure theory for the design earth pressures. The soldier pile and
lagging wall should be designed to resist active earth pressures using an earth pressure coefficient, K a, of 0.25
assuming a horizontal backfill and a friction angle, ϕ, of 37 degrees for the existing rockfill material. As interface
friction acts upwards on the active wedge and reduces active pressures, it was conservatively ignored.

For the seismic analysis, the Mononobe-Okabe procedure was used to calculate the design seismic active earth
pressure coefficient, Kae, per Section 17.4.11 of the NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual17. This coefficient is
only used for the final design condition with live load traffic surcharges applied. We recommend using a Kae value
of 0.31 for design, assuming a ϕ of 37 degrees, horizontal backfill, plumb wall facing, no interface friction on the
wall, and seismic design parameters a discussed in Section 6.2.

The design of the new soldier pile and lagging wall incorporates passive resistance on the piles embedded in the
soil below the toe of the exposed wall. The passive earth pressures were determined using an infinite slope
analysis, referred to as Case 1 in GDP-11 (page A-2)18, which uses the design slope angle below the wall, β, of
30 degrees and ϕ of 37 degrees. Interface wall friction is ignored in this analysis. Per GDP-1118, the passive
pressure coefficients were reduced by a factor of 1.5 resulting in a design Kp of 1.3. A Kp of 1.8 was used for the
seismic design which correlates to a factor of safety of 1.1.

The horizontal earth pressure acting on the wall from the live traffic load was calculated per the methodology
outlined in GDP-1118. A uniform surcharge of 250 pounds per square foot (psf), equivalent to 2 ft of soil, was
applied to the roadway surface up to the edge of the new retaining wall. The surcharge was then multiplied by the
active earth pressure coefficient resulting in a surcharge pressure of 62 psf applied as a rectangular distribution
on the back of the wall.

Conditions during construction were analyzed for global stability for two cases assuming a uniform construction
surcharge load of 400 psf was applied from the location of the back of the new wall and extending approximately
20 ft west to the high speed northbound travel lane. This 400 psf surcharge is based on 150,000 lbs of equipment
distributed over roughly 20 ft x 20 ft area, assuming the contractor needs to design crane mats. The remainder of
the travel lanes still has a 250 psf live load surcharge applied. As discussed in Section 7.2 Case A assumed the
current ground surface behind the new wall location (approximately EL 173 ft) is maintained during construction
and a 400 psf surcharge is applied behind the new wall with temporary lagging installed to a depth of 10 ft. Case
B assumes the ground surface behind the new wall location is excavated 5 ft deep (to approximately EL 168 ft)
and a 400 psf construction surcharge is applied behind the new wall location prior to new wall construction and
prior to excavation below EL 168 ft. The construction cases were also analyzed including a 350 psf surcharge
located between the old and new walls. This 350 psf surcharge is based on 42,000 lbs of equipment distributed
over roughly a 6 ft x 20 ft area.

The construction cases analyzed in the shoring analysis use a similar uniform 400 psf surcharge applied at the
current ground surface behind the new wall location for Case A, and a 20 ft wide 400 psf surcharge applied at a 5
ft lower ground surface behind the new wall location (EL 168 ft) for Case B. For Case A the surcharge earth

18New York State Department of Transportation (2007). “Geotechnical Design Procedure for Flexible Wall Systems, Geotechnical Design
Procedure, GDP-11, Revision #3”, Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, April 2007.

16
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

pressures applied to the new wall were analyzed using conventional methods and a rectangular distribution. For
Case B the earth pressures applied to the existing wall were analyzed using a Boussinesq stress distribution for
surcharge loading in accordance with AASHTO19.

6.4 Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis

A Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis was evaluated using the computer model Shoring Suite20. This analysis was
performed to size the soldier piles (i.e., section modulus and embedment length) and determine the tieback
anchor loads (i.e., axial load and minimum bond zone). We made the following design/input assumptions for the
Shoring Suite analysis:

 The soldier piles will be driven into place and will be constructed of 50 ksi steel, assuming Fb/Fy = 0.55 for
calculating the allowable bending moment and selecting an acceptable section modulus. The temporary
seismic design condition was analyzed assuming Fb/Fy = 0.90 to verify the selected pile section.

 The exposed wall height for the design condition is 24.4 ft, however, the final constructed height per this
contract is 19 ft (see Case 3 described below).

 Tie-back anchors will be extended into competent soft limestone bedrock inside a minimum 7-inch diameter
drill hole. For design the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) recommends applying a factor of safety of 2.0 to the
ultimate bond strength of 150 pounds per square inch (psi) for soft limestone and grout.21 Accordingly, our
analysis assumed a design bond strength of 75 psi (10.8 kips per square foot (ksf)). Per NYSDOT
specifications, the contractor is responsible for grouted tieback design in accordance with PTI22
requirements. During construction the Contractor’s Engineer will design the diameter and length of the
anchor bond zone in rock to support the anchor design load and testing loads and submit the design to the
NYSTA for approval.

The earth pressure envelopes developed in accordance with Section 6.3, coupled with the design assumption
described above, were used to analyze the following wall cases:

Case 1: New Wall Long-Term Static Condition – This case considered a full-height final condition (24.4 ft
exposed wall height) that included a surcharge load of 250 psf applied at the top of the wall, all anchors
installed and tensioned, and the slope at the base of the wall extending 30 degrees from the toe of slope.

Case 2: New Wall Long-Term Seismic Condition – This case is the same as Case 1, but applies seismic
earth pressures as discussion in Section 6.2.

Case 3: New Wall Partial-Height Temporary Condition – This case assumes the front of the wall would be
excavated to 10 ft bgs and timber lagging would be installed in preparation for the anchor installation at 8
ft. As described above in Section 6.3 a uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf was applied at the
top of the wall. The slope in front of the wall at the 10 ft. depth level is assumed to slope down at a 30
degree angle.

19 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2017). “Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition”, Section 3.11.6.2 – Point, Line and Strip Loads (ES): Walls Restrained from Movement. Washington,
D.C.
20 CivilTech Software, (2016). “Shoring Suite,” version 8.17a.
21 Post-Tensioning Institute, (2014). “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors – PTI DC35.1-14,” 5th edition, United States
of America.

17
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

Case 4: Long Term Static Condition (End Pile South End of Wall) - This case considered a 10 ft tall wall
design condition, included a surcharge load of 250 psf applied at the top of the wall, and the slope at the
base of the wall extending 30 degrees from the toe of slope. This wall section assumes 4ft pile spacing to
account for the position of the end pile.

Case 5: Existing Wall Temporary Condition with 5 ft Excavation Behind Existing and New Wall Location –
To assess temporary construction loading effects on the existing soldier pile and lagging wall this case
assumes a 5 ft deep excavation (to EL 168 ft) is made behind the location of the existing wall and extending
20 ft back behind the new wall location. A 400 psf surcharge load is applied to a 20 ft by 20 ft area behind
the new wall location at EL 168 ft. and the grade between the new wall and the existing wall is also at El
168 ft.

Based on the preliminary design evaluations listed above, pile and anchor spacing/orientation were varied within
the program to determine an acceptable design section. The recommended design for the tieback wall includes a
total of 12 HP 14x102 soldier piles, spaced at 8 ft on-center (larger piles may be used to account for section loss
due to corrosion and anchor sleeve placement and should be designed accordingly). In addition, the Shoring
Suite analysis indicates a minimum pile embedment depth of approximately 11.6 ft below the bottom of the wall
(equal to a total pile length of 36 ft.) based on moment equilibrium. Additional criteria for minimum soldier pile
embedment are discussed in Sections 6.5 (pile bearing capacity) and 6.6 (global stability). The governing criteria
is the depth required for pile end bearing on the bedrock surface which is estimated to range from about 45 to 61
ft below the top of the wall.

The recommended wall design includes one row of tieback anchors, installed at an inclination of 45 degrees,
spaced at 8 ft on center, and connected to each pile. The Shoring Suite analysis requires an unadjusted anchor
load of 85 kips (applied at the 45 degree angle) to satisfy wall equilibrium under these conditions. GDP-1118
indicates that a factor of safety of 1.5 should be applied to the anchor load resulting in a design anchor load of
128 kips with horizontal and vertical components of 90 kips. All anchors should be tested to 150% of the design
load (192 kips) per NYSDOT requirements for permanent tiebacks and locked-off at 80% of the design load (102
kips). Assuming a bond strength of 10.8 ksf and borehole diameter of 7-inches, as listed in the design
assumptions, we recommend a 10 ft minimum anchor bond length into competent rock which also corresponds to
the required minimum bond length in rock indicated in NYSDOT’s Standard Specification Section 211 for grouted
tiebacks22. For 10 foot minimum bond lengths in bedrock the minimum total anchor lengths are estimated to
range from about 60 to 80 ft. Anchor design should include a minimum free length of 15 ft per GDP-1118 criteria.

Per NYSTA specifications22,23 the contractor’s anchor design should also meet the following requirements: 1) the
design load should not exceed 53 percent of the specified minimum tensile strength (SMTS, also referred to as
the Guaranteed Ultimate Tensile Strength (GUTS) in NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 21122); and 2) the
maximum test load should not exceed 80 percent of the SMTS. The number of strands in the anchors and the
bond lengths should be determined by the contractor. The permanent anchors should include double corrosion
protection including a corrugated PVC sheath and a grease filled anchorage cover as detailed in Figure 7 for
clarity.

Anchor testing requirements and procedures are described in NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 21122.
The first two anchors installed should be performance tested (to 150% of the design load) and all remaining

22 NYSDOT, (2018). “Standard Specifications Section 211 Internally Stabilized Cut Structures”, January 1, 2018.
23 NYSDOT, (2019). “Standard Specifications (USC), Section 731-02 Grouted Tieback Assembly”, pp 1267-1268.

18
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

anchors should be proof tested (to 150% of the design load). Following successful testing and acceptance by the
engineer, the anchors can be locked off and the final load in the anchor determined from a lift-off test.

6.5 Soldier Pile Axial Capacity

The soldier piles will need to be installed to resist axial loads imposed by the tieback anchor loads and the weight
of the soldier pile and lagging wall system. We estimate that the axial vertical design load on each pile is 125
kips: 90 kips is transferred from the anchors, and 35 kips is transferred from dead load (i.e. self-weight of the
piles and wall components). During anchor testing, the estimated total vertical axial load applied to the piles is
170 kips. We recommend all soldier piles be driven through the gravelly sand rockfill and underlying glacial till to
end bearing refusal on bedrock. The bedrock surface is estimated to vary between approximately Elevation 112
and 127 at the location of the proposed new wall, which correlates to estimated soldier pile lengths ranging from
about 46 ft at the south end of the wall to about 61 ft at the north end.

For piles driven to bedrock refusal the structural capacity of the pile will govern over the geotechnical capacity and
should account for section loss due to corrosion and for combined axial, flexural and lateral resistance. Pile
driving points should be used to protect tips and improve penetration. Hard driving conditions and occasional
cobbles and boulders could provide impediments for pile penetrations reaching refusal criteria. A minimum pile
length of 36 ft below the top of the wall is required to satisfy the wall design requirements as discussed in Section
6.4. A drivability analysis for the pile installations should be performed based on the contractors proposed pile
driving hammer and equipment and the results of a wave equation analysis. Considering AASHTO Table
4.5.6.2A24 and soldier pile loads imposed during anchor testing, we recommend a refusal driving criteria be
developed using a factor of safety of 2.75 applied to the soldier pile vertical design load. For a required vertical
design capacity of 125 kips, this will require driving the pile to an ultimate capacity of 345 kips. Driving stresses
should be limited to 0.9 Fy. Dynamic testing is recommended during the installation of the first two soldier piles to
establish a driving criteria for the minimum ultimate capacity and refusal resistance that meets the maximum
driving stresses criteria.

6.6 Global Stability

The stability analyses included an evaluation of the slope in front of the wall as well global stability of the
proposed retaining wall which incorporates stabilizing effects from anchored soldier piles. Global stability was
evaluated using the computer model SLIDE25. The analyses were performed at one design section as shown on
Figure 6 and include evaluations of six grading cases (or stages) for wall construction as detailed below.

1. Existing conditions.

2. Temporary construction condition after excavation to 10 ft in front of the new wall, installation of treated
timber lagging, placement of construction surcharge at top of wall, and prior to anchor installation.

3. Temporary construction condition after anchor installation and additional excavation/lagging placement to
19 ft in front of new wall.

24 AASHTO, (2002). “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, 2002”, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., Code: HB-17, ISBN: 156051-171-0.
25 Rocscience, Inc. 2018. “SLIDE – 2D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis”, Version 2018 8.016, build date July 23, 2018, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.

19
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

4. Final design conditions (see Figure 6 @ Design Grade) with permanent wall facing extended to 24.4 ft in
front of wall.

5. Final design seismic conditions (see Figure 6 @ Design Grade) with permanent wall facing to 24.4 ft in
front of wall.

6. Temporary construction condition assumes a 5 ft excavation (to EL 168) is made 28 ft behind the existing
wall, and a uniformly distributed construction surcharge for pile driving is applied at EL 168 ft to a 20 ft by
20 ft area behind the new wall during soldier pile installations.

Assumed geometries, configurations, subsurface conditions, and the location of critical failure surfaces
determined from the analyses are shown schematically on stability cross-sections in Appendix D. The
calculations in Appendix D also provide a description of the analytical methods and assumptions used for the
stability analyses. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 3 below.

Due to existing slope stability concerns and site access limitations preventing slope repairs below the wall, a
minimum factor of safety (FS) of 1.3 was required for the final design conditions per our discussions with C-M and
the NYSTA. A target minimum FS of 1.1 was established for temporary construction conditions and a minimum
FS of 1.0 was established for seismic loading conditions. Flood conditions and/or elevated groundwater
conditions were not considered as part of this analysis. The potential for scour erosion at the toe of the soil slope
was ignored per discussions with the NYSTA. All slope models were analyzed for circular surfaces using the
simplified Bishop method.

Case 1: The existing slope in front of the wall was assumed to have a FS of 1.0 based on the observed head
scarps and evidence of slope displacement at the top of slope. The back-calculated analysis using SLIDE results
in a FS slightly less than 1.0, which confirms our field observations. Subsurface soil properties were selected
based on correlations to SPT blow counts as well as findings from the back-calculated stability analysis.
Observed ground water conditions at the time of drilling were used in the slope model. The SLIDE mode outputs
for the existing slope is summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix D. This lower minimum FS for
shallow failure surfaces on the slope in front of the wall also exists for Cases 2 and 3 but was ignored when
identifying the minimum FS for the purpose of this analysis considering the NYSTA’s decision to not include slope
improvements at those areas as part of this project. Cases 2 and 3 consider only deeper-seated failures passing
under the proposed wall structure.

Case 2: Since the current slope is believed to have a FS close to 1.0, additional loading at the top of slope should
be minimized during construction. In this scenario we assumed construction surcharges will not be allowed at or
behind the top of the existing wall until soldier piles are installed and treated timber lagging is placed to a depth
not to exceed 10 ft for the adjacent segment of the new permanent wall. In order to install the solder piles and
minimize additional construction ground pressures behind the top of the current wall, we assumed that a pile
driving rig could drive soldier piles ahead of itself and a portion of the timber lagging for the new wall could be
installed prior to moving the rig behind the top of the new wall. Case 2 models the stage after the new soldier
piles are installed, excavation and lagging are installed to a depth of 10 ft in front of the wall, anchors are not yet
installed, and the pile driving rig (or other construction equipment) is moved to a location behind the top of the
new wall. Case 2 was also analyzed with a uniform construction surcharge load of 350 psf for anchor installation
equipment (if desired) located between the walls on a 7 ft wide bench at the 10 ft excavation level. This 350 psf
surcharge is based on equipment weighing 45,000 lbs applying a uniform load on mats over a 7 ft x 20 ft area.

20
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

Both analyses resulted in a FS > 1.1 (minimum required) as summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix
D.

Case 3: Case 3 represents the stage after the anchors are installed, equipment is still located at the top of the
wall, and the slope in front of the wall is excavated 19 ft below the top of the wall to install the bottom section of
timber lagging. The 19 ft wall height for this case is the height of permanent wall facing planned to be installed
with this contract. Case 3 also included a 6 ft wide, 350 psf construction surcharge located on the bench at the
base of the wall face for equipment to install the permanent wall facing. These analyses resulted in FS > 1.1
(minimum required) as summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix D.

Case 4: This analysis evaluated the permanent wall at the final (long-term) design grades as shown on Figure 6
(labeled as the “Design Grade” slope line) with an exposed wall height of 24.4 ft. The slope below the wall was
assumed to have a long term post-construction geometry corresponding to a flattened slope surface with a FS >
1.3 as discussed in Section 5.1, and a live load traffic surcharge of 250 psf was applied behind the top of the wall.
The existing wall was assumed to have been removed for the purpose of this analysis. This analysis resulted in a
FS > 1.3 (minimum required) as summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix D.

Case 5: Case 5 grades are the same as Case 4, but a horizontal earthquake coefficient of 0.034 g was applied to
the model. The vertical earthquake coefficient was ignored as discussed in Section 6.2. This analysis resulted in
a FS > 1.0 (minimum required) as summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix D.

Case 6: This analysis evaluated a 5 ft excavation and construction surcharge behind the new wall location to
assess temporary construction loading effects on the existing soldier pile and lagging wall. This case assumes a
5 ft deep excavation (to EL 168 ft) is made behind the location of the existing wall and extending 20 ft back behind
the new wall. A 400 psf surcharge load is applied to a 20 ft by 20 ft area at the new wall location at EL 168 ft. and
the grade between the new wall and the existing wall is also at El 168 ft. A FS > 1.1 (minimum required) was
calculated for this case as summarized in Table 3 and presented in Appendix D.
Table 3: Global Stability Summary

Figure Number
Stability Case Description Factor of Safety
(Appendix D)

Case 1 Existing Conditions D-2 0.97

Construction: Excavation and Lagging to 10 ft, No

Anchors Installed- No Surcharge Below Proposed D-3.1 1.21
Wall
Case 2
Construction: Excavation and Lagging to 10 ft, No
Anchors Installed - Includes Surcharge Below D-3.2 1.21
Proposed Wall

Construction: Excavation and Lagging to 19 ft,

Anchors Installed - No Surcharge at Bench at D-4.1 1.33
Base of Wall
Case 3
Construction: Excavation and Lagging to 19 ft,
Anchors installed - Includes Surcharge at Bench D-4.2 1.24
at Base of Wall

21
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

Figure Number
Stability Case Description Factor of Safety
(Appendix D)

Case 4 Permanent (Long-Term) Design Condition D-5 1.30

Case 5 Permanent (Long-Term) Design Seismic Condition D-6 1.23

Case 6 Construction: Temporary Construction Condition

to Install Piles - Assumes a 5ft excavation behind D-7 1.18
the new wall and a surcharge.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Preliminary Quantity and Opinion of Construction Cost
Based on our preliminary geotechnical design recommendations for the anchored soldier pile and lagging
retaining wall system, we made the following assumptions regarding materials and quantities for a preliminary
opinion of construction costs:

 Piles - There are twelve HP 14x102 piles, spaced 8 ft on-center, driven to refusal on rock (total length 625 ft).
We included an assumed mobilization cost of the pile driving equipment in the estimate.

 Timber Lagging - Pressure treated timber lagging will be specified during construction. Lagging will cover
roughly 1,600 SF of wall face.

 Cast-In-Place Concrete Facia - Cast-in-place concrete facia per C-M’s design drawings14 is assumed to be
installed for the permanent wall facing. Lagging will cover roughly 2,000 SF of wall.

 Tiebacks -Twelve (12) permanent double corrosion protected tieback strand anchors, grouted in place,
spaced 8 ft on-center (total length 800 ft). Field fabrication and structural steel for the anchor connections is
included in this cost estimate.

 Anchor Testing – Anchor testing of production anchors will be specified to include two performance tests and
ten proof tests. Mobilization of the anchor installation equipment in included in the cost estimate.

 Drainage - Geocomposite structural drain will be placed over the timber lagging (above the weep holes) prior
to placement of the cast-in-place concrete facia. Geocomposite will cover roughly 1,500 SF of wall
face. Weep holes will be installed at the toe of the wall (spaced at 8 ft).

 Existing Wall Demolition - The existing wall will need to be demolished and removed from the site. We
estimate that at total of 14 HP14x89 piles (to a depth just below finished grade, i.e., 15 ft) and 25 CY of
structural concrete lagging will be removed from site, 310 CY of fill behind the existing wall will need to be
removed from site, and 30 CY of existing stone fill will need to be removed and stored, during below grade
lagging installation and replaced following lagging installation.

Based on the assumptions listed above, we estimate that the new soldier pile and lagging wall with tieback
anchors will cost approximately $780,000. This cost estimate does not consider highway design; traffic control
and/or traffic impacts; night shifts; or other structural design considerations not included in our scope. In addition,
the cost estimate does not include construction oversight. The basis for the unit costs used in this estimate is the

22
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

NYSTA Weighted Average Bid Prices for project lettings between April 18, 2015 and April 18, 2018 26, Vermont
Agency of Transportation’s 2 Year Averaged Price List27, as well as Golder’s recent project experience.

7.2 Construction Surcharges

Construction equipment cannot access the wall from below because additional surcharge from equipment and/or
an access road will reduce the stability of the slope to an unacceptable level and excavating a bench for
equipment to work on will reduce passive resistance required for lateral support of the existing wall. Accordingly,
additional loading at the top of slope in front of the wall and behind the top of the wall needs to be minimized
during construction. Any soils that are imported or are proposed to be reused, should not be stockpiled on the
slope or at current grades behind the top of the existing or new walls. Construction surcharges are allowed
behind the location of the new wall under the following restricted conditions:

1. Case A – Current Ground Surface Behind New Wall (EL 173 ft) Maintained During Construction -

No construction surcharges of any kind should be allowed at or behind the top of the existing wall until
soldier piles are installed and treated timber lagging is placed to a depth not to exceed 10 ft for the
adjacent segment of the new permanent wall. In order to install the solder piles and minimize additional
construction ground pressures behind the top of the current wall, we assumed that a pile driving rig could
drive soldier piles ahead of itself and a portion of the timber lagging for the new wall could be installed
prior to moving the rig behind the top of the new wall. This allows for lateral pressures from the
construction surcharges to be transferred to the new wall with minimal influence on the existing wall.

We assumed an allowable uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf can be applied behind the top
of the new wall after soldier piles are installed and timber lagging is placed for the new wall to a depth not
to exceed 10 ft. This 400 psf surcharge is based on 150,000 lbs of equipment distributed over roughly 20
ft x 20 ft area. The pile driving and/or anchor installation contractor will need to design crane mats to
withstand the weight of equipment proposed for this project. Construction surcharges should be kept to a
minimum whenever possible. The road must remain open during construction, so a 250 psf live load
surcharge will still be applied to the remaining travel lanes.

2. Case B: Excavation 20 ft Wide and 5 ft Deep (EL 168 ft) Made Behind New Wall Location -

A uniformly distributed construction surcharge load up to 400 psf can be placed at EL 168 ft (equal to a 5
ft excavation depth) behind the new wall location prior to excavation of materials below EL 168 ft between
the existing wall and the new wall. During excavations below El 168 ft in front of the new wall, surcharge
loads applied behind the new wall should not exceed 400 psf and should be setback at least 5 ft from the
back face of the wall. Prior to anchor load testing the new wall timber lagging and compacted engineered
backfill materials should be placed to El 173 ft to provide satisfactory passive soil resistance during
anchor load testing. Backfill material should meet the requirements of NYSDOT Standard Specification
Item No. 304.12, Subbase Course, Type II. This backfill material should be placed in 8 inch lifts and
compacted to 95% of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T 99, Method C.

26 New York State Thruway Authority, (2018). “Weighted Average Bid Prices - Lettings 04/18/2015 Thru 4/18/2018,” accessed 9/17/2018.
https://www.thruway.ny.gov/business/consultants/estimator/wa-pb-english.pdf
27 Vermont Agency of Transportation, “2 Year Averaged Price List – ENGLISH, July 2015 – June 2017, 2011 Specifications,” accessed on
9/19/2018. http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/estimating/documents/2YearEnglishAveragedPriceList11.pdf

23
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

A uniformly distributed construction surcharge load up to 350 psf can be placed on the 6 ft wide bench between
the existing wall and the new wall only after soldier piles for the new wall are installed and treated timber lagging
is placed to a depth of 10 ft for the new wall, and the soil between the two walls is removed to a depth of 10 ft.

Alternate surcharge loading conditions, excavation configurations and/or construction sequencing may be
proposed by the contractor with supporting calculations prepared by a New York licensed professional engineer
demonstrating factors of safety for global stability and structural elements of the existing wall and new wall that
are acceptable to the NYSTA.

Considering the critical nature of the construction surcharge load applications during the different stages of wall
construction, we recommend that the contractor submit a construction sequence plan to the engineer for approval
at least 14 days before the start of any wall construction operation. The construction sequence plan should
describe the planned progressive sequence of work and the location and magnitude of surcharge loadings (with
supporting calculations) for the installation sequence for soldier piles, excavations, timber lagging, tieback
anchors (and testing), and permanent wall facing construction.

7.3 Fiber Optic Cable

As stated in previous report sections, an existing fiber optic junction box and cable that is located on the slope in
front of the wall as shown on Figure 2. The utility company flagged the location of the cable and C-M surveyed
the horizontal location, but the buried elevation of the cable is unknown. Based on the survey, the cable is
located between approximately 2 and 9 ft in front of the existing wall. C-M and the NYSTA have indicated that the
fiber optic cable will not be allowed to be moved for this project. Accordingly, all evaluations of alternative
stabilization options and the design of the recommended new wall assumed the fiber optic cable location was not
disturbed or changed during construction. During construction, the contractor should be made aware of and
made responsible for the protection of this cable during all phases of the work.

7.4 Permanent Lagging

The design and construction cost estimate assumes that permanent lagging will be installed as a cast-in-place
concrete facia. The concrete facia will be approximately 13 inches thick and extend 4 ft below design grade (19
ft) to cover the entire face of the timber lagging. Installation of precast panels is not recommended. Our analysis
assumes the piles will be driven to end bearing refusal on bedrock and it may be difficult to maintain tolerances
when driving though the existing rockfill that would be required to ensure that the precast panels can be installed
properly.

7.5 Soldier Pile Survey Monitoring During Construction

We recommend that the tops of the soldier piles be survey monitored (horizontal and vertical) at three stages of
wall construction: 1) immediately after initial installation; 2) after anchor testing; and 3) after full depth excavation
is achieved in front of the wall. All measurements should be made to a tolerance of 0.01 ft. The survey
measurements and calculated displacements relative to the initial and most recent measurement should be
summarized, plotted and transmitted to the NYSTA within two days of performing the survey.

7.6 Construction Observations

During wall construction we recommend a qualified geotechnical engineer be onsite full-time to monitor and
review the following:

 Soldier pile installations.

24
October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

 Excavation at the wall face and lagging installations.

 Tieback anchor installations and testing.

In addition, we recommend that Golder review all contractor submittals during construction for concurrence with
the intent of our design recommendations.

8.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS

The geotechnical information, test results and foundation considerations included in this GDR are provided for the
exclusive use of C-M and NYSTA for specific application to the Stabilize Southeast Approach to Thruway Bridge
over Catskill Creek project at MP 113.22 in Catskill, New York. This GDR was prepared in accordance with
generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices conducted in the project region and under similar
financial and time constraints. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed
project are planned, Golder should be notified to review the appropriateness of our conclusions and
recommendations and to modify the recommendations as appropriate to reflect the changes in design. Further,
our analyses, and recommendations are based in part on the subsurface explorations completed. Golder should
be notified if conditions encountered during construction vary from those described in this report so that we may
re-evaluate, and if necessary, revise the recommendations made in this report.

The professional services provided by Golder for this project included only the geotechnical aspects of the
subsurface conditions at this site. The presence or implications of possible surface and/or subsurface
contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the
site of materials from off-site sources are outside the terms of reference for this report and have not been
investigated or addressed.

Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/29556g/deliverables/geotechnical design report/nysta response final/final stamped gdr feb 2019/catskill gdr final r2 ccb1 cjs1 mp2 mcm final.docx

25
TABLES
October 2018 Page 1 of 1 Project No: 18104049

Table 2: Summary of Laboratory Testing Results

Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek
Milepost 113.22 Thruway Mainline, New York

Existing
Ground Sample Depth Elevation at Natural Rock Uniaxial
Test Boring 2 Sample Sieve Minus AASHTO Soil USCS Soil
1 Surface Latitude Longitude2 Below Ground Midpoint of 4 Moisture Compressive
Designation 2 Number No. 200 (%) 4 Classification3,4 Classification3,4 4
Elevation Surface (ft) Sample (ft) Content (%) Strength (psi)
(ft)
SS1 1.1 - 3.0 171.09 -- 6.7 -- -- --
SS2 3.0 - 5.0 169.14 -- 3.5 -- -- --
SS3 8.0 - 10.0 164.14 4.9 2.1 A-1-a GW --
SS4 13.0 - 15.0 159.14 -- 3.6 -- -- --
SS5 18.0 - 20.0 154.14 -- 5.1 -- -- --
SS6 23.0 - 25.0 149.14 -- 2.1 -- -- --
DNW-1 173.14 42.242253°N 73.893981°W
SS7 28.0 - 30.0 144.14 7.8 4.1 A-1-a GP-GM --
SS8 33.0 - 35.0 139.14 -- 5.0 -- -- --
SS9 38.0 - 40.0 134.14 74.1 18.3 A-4 ML --
SS10 43.0 - 45.0 129.14 -- 7.4 -- -- --
R2P3 50.8 - 52.5 121.49 -- -- -- -- 17,441
R5P6 64.8 - 66.1 107.69 -- -- -- -- 14,723
SS1 1.3 - 2.8 171.04 -- 2.6 -- -- --
SS2 3.0 - 5.0 169.09 -- 2.4 -- -- --
SS3 8.0 - 10.0 164.09 -- 2.3 -- -- --
SS4 13.0 - 15.0 159.09 4.8 3.7 A-1-a GW --
SS5 18.0 - 20.0 154.09 -- 5.3 -- -- --
SS6 23.0 - 25.0 149.09 -- 3.5 -- -- --
DNW-2 173.09 42.242356°N 73.894060°W
SS7 28.0 - 30.0 144.09 -- 2.4 -- -- --
SS8 33.0 - 35.0 139.09 -- 4.0 -- -- --
SS9 38.0 - 40.0 134.09 23.9 5.7 A-1-b GM --
SS10 43.0 - 45.0 129.09 40.3 15.9 A-4 ML --
R1P2 46.2 - 47.1 126.44 -- -- -- -- 15,736
R2P7 54.7 - 55.6 117.94 -- -- -- -- 16,675
SS1 1.0 - 3.0 171.16 -- 3.2 -- -- --
SS2 3.0 - 5.0 169.16 28.8 6.4 A-2-4 SM --
SS3 8.0 - 10.0 164.16 -- 3.0 -- -- --
SS4 13.0 - 15.0 159.16 -- 2.9 -- -- --
SS5 18.0 - 20.0 154.16 13.0 6.8 A-1-a GM --
SS6 23.0 - 25.0 149.16 -- 3.1 -- -- --
DNW-3 173.16 42.242322°N 73.893895°W SS7 28.0 - 30.0 144.16 -- 2.0 -- -- --
SS8 33.0 - 35.0 139.16 -- 3.7 -- -- --
SS9 38.0 - 40.0 134.16 -- 4.7 -- -- --
SS10 43.0 - 45.0 129.16 -- 9.4 -- -- --
SS11 48.0 - 50.0 124.16 68.5 13.9 A-4 ML --
R1P1 50.7 - 51.9 121.86 -- -- -- -- 13,847
R2P4 62.8 - 64.8 109.36 -- -- -- -- 16,041
SS1 1.0 - 3.0 171.17 -- 5.4 -- -- --
SS2 3.0 - 5.0 169.17 5.5 3.0 A-1-a GW-GM --
SS3 8.0 - 10.0 164.17 -- 3.3 -- -- --
SS4 13.0 - 15.0 159.17 -- 3.1 -- -- --
SS5 18.0 - 20.0 154.17 -- 4.4 -- -- --
SS6 23.0 - 25.0 149.17 -- 3.7 -- -- --
SS7 28.0 - 30.0 144.17 -- 3.3 -- -- --
DNW-4 173.17 42.242416°N 73.893984°W
SS8 33.0 - 35.0 139.17 -- 3.4 -- -- --
SS9 38.0 - 40.0 134.17 -- 3.0 -- -- --
SS10 43.0 - 45.0 129.17 16.5 7.3 A-1-b GM --
SS11 48.0 - 50.0 124.17 -- 24.0 -- -- --
SS12 53.0 - 55.0 119.17 37.1 12.9 A-4 ML --
R1P1 56.0 - 56.6 116.87 -- -- -- -- 13,395
R1P13 60.6 - 61.3 112.22 -- -- -- -- 6,157

Notes:
1. Boring locations are shown in Figure 2 - "Boring Location Plan"
2. Boring locations were surveyed by Creighton Manning on August 14, 2018 and received by Golder on August 24, 2018.
3. AASHTO and USCS symbols assigned based on interpretation of laboratory test results.
4. Soil laboratory testing was performed by 3rd Rock LLC and rock laboratory testing was performed by GeoTesting Express. Complete laboratory test results are provided in Appendix C.

Made by: KAR
Checked by: CJS
Reviewed by: MCM

https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/29556g/Deliverables/Geotechnical Design Report/DRAFT/Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results/Soil and rock test results table.xlsx
FIGURES
  

SITE LOCATION
Path: \\manchester\cadd\NYSTA\CATSKILL, NY\99_PROJECTS\18104049_Catskill Creek Bridge\4800_Catskill\02_PRODUCTION\DWG\ | File Name: 18104049_4800_006.dwg

IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI A
Last Edited By: rclark Date: 2018-10-26 Time:9:53:44 AM | Printed By: rclark Date: 2018-10-31 Time:9:25:15 AM

REFERENCE:
1.) BASEMAP TAKEN FROM U.S.G.S QUADRANGLE 7.5 QUADRANGLE OF CEMENTON, NEW  
YORK DATED 2018.
 
0 2000 4000

1'' = 4000' FEET

CLIENT PROJECT
CREIGHTON MANNING ENGINEERING LLP STABILIZE SE APPROACH TO THRUWAY BRIDGE OVER CATSKILL CREEK
2 WINNERS CIRCLE MILEPOST 113.22 THRUWAY MAINLINE, NEW YORK
1 in

ALBANY, NY 12205 NYSTA PIN A72159

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2018-09-18 TITLE

DESIGNED KR
SITE LOCATION MAP
PREPARED RWC

REVIEWED MCM
PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. 01 of 07 FIGURE
APPROVED MSP 181-04049 A 0 001
0
 70
60 C LEGEND
65 75
C

ROS-7 5 FT INDEX CONTOUR

 
C FIBER OPTIC
70 8

-2
23 JUNCTION BOX

H
2
237

D
23
X
7 1 FT INDEX CONTOUR
11 80

X
75
85 EXISTING FIBER 5 FT INTERPRETED BEDROCK CONTOUR
ROS-6 80 EDGE OF
OPTIC CABLE
ROS-8 PAVEMENT

85 0
90

9 5

X
GUARDRAIL BEAM (LOCATION APPROXIMATE NOT SURVEYED)

9
10 EXISTING HEAD SCARPS
8 0

C
11 SIGN

10

95
EDGE OF PAVEMENT

X
10
ROS-3 CHAIN LINK

0
ROS-5

C
FENCE

10
EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE
X X

5
120 DNW-3

X
ROS-4
ROS-2D C C EXISTING FIBEROPTIC CABLE (ELEVATION UNKNOWN)

C
9

11
ROS-2E 11

50
0
ROS-2C EXISTING SCARP

X
110

55

145
C
ROS-2A
ROS-9 TREELINE

150
60

105
X
ROS-2B

15
65

5
DNW-1

C
115 EXISTING GOLDER 2018 BORING LOCATIONS

70

X
GUARD RAIL

110
237

C
75
120 HISTORICAL BORING LOCATIONS

80

X
6 125
Path: \\manchester\cadd\NYSTA\CATSKILL, NY\99_PROJECTS\18104049_Catskill Creek Bridge\4800_Catskill\02_PRODUCTION\DWG\ | File Name: 18104049_4800_001.dwg | Last Edited By: rclark Date: 2018-10-26 Time:11:26:35 AM | Printed By: rclark Date: 2018-10-31 Time:9:22:56 AM

ROS-9

115
85 EXISTING
11

C
SOLDIER PILES ROCK OUTCROP SURVEY POINTS
13 90 LAGGING WALL
0

X
A

C
13 DNW-1

12
5 95
SUBSURFACE PROFILE LOCATION AND DIRECTION

0
5

X
115 14 11
0 10

C
0
14 EXISTING ROCK OUTCROP AREAS

X
5 1 14 105 (GOLDER SITE VISIT AUGUST 2018)

12

C
OUND

5
150
120 0

X
U.S. RT. 87 NORTHB
23
U.S. RT. 87 SOUTHBOUND

U.S. RT. 87 SOUTHBOUND

1
3 55

C
11
16
0

X
NOTES

13

C
0
1 0 10 20 1. THE 2018 BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE WERE SURVEYED BY CREIGHTON
125
16
5 DH- MANNING ON AUGUST 14, 2018 AND RECEIVED BY GOLDER ON AUGUST 24, 2018.
110 1'' = 10' FEET

C
U.S. RT. 87 NORTHBOUND

U.S. RT. 87 NORTHBOUND

1 2. SEE 2018 BORING LOGS FOR DETAILED LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS.

11
B'
23

5
CA
TS
130
KIL
L
3. BEDROCK CONTOURS INTERPRETED FROM BOREHOLE DATA (GOLDER 2018; AND NYSTA, 1952 &
CR
EE 1960), TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA (CREIGHTON MANNING, AUGUST 2018), AND LOCAL
KB
RID GEOLOGIC REPORTS (CHADWICK, 1944; MARSHAK, 1986, 1990).  ENCOUNTERED BEDROCK
GE
AB SURFACE ELEVATIONS WILL VARY AND BE MORE ERRATIC THAN SHOWN.
135 UT
ME
14 NT
0
145 11 REFERENCES
5
A
1. BASEMAP ELEMENTS FROM CREIGHTON MANNING DRAWING TITLED
150
ROS-10 “118-161_map_cons_merged_3d.dgn”, RECEIVED BY GOLDER ON AUGUST 27, 2018.
12
0
C

ROS-11 23
2 -2A' 2. BORINGS WERE LOCATED AND OBSERVED BY GOLDER AND DRILLED BY EARTH
DH
X
DIMENSIONS INC OF ELMA, NEW YORK FROM AUGUST 13-21, 2018.

50
12

ROS-12
5

55
3. HISTORICAL BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND TAKEN FROM STATE OF NEW

X
DNW-4 YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BORING LOGS DATED 1952 AND 1960 AND DE

60
LEUW AND BRILL DRAWING DATED 1952 AND TITLED “PLAN AND PROFILE THRUWAY STA.
13

75
80
90

60
65
70
85

55
50
45

40
95
10

IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI D
DNW-3 379+00 TO STA. 394+00”.

C
0

10
11
11

65
120

5
X

12

0
5
13
4. EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE APPROXIMATE AND TAKEN FROM NEW YORK STATE

13
140

5
ROS-13

70
0
13

5
THRUWAY AUTHORITY BRIDGE REHABILITATION PLANS DATED DEC. 1991 AND TITLED

145
C

150
5

“GENERAL PLAN” AND “CONCRETE REPAIR DETAILS AND SOUTH/EAST APPROACH WALL
155

75
X

PLAN AND DETAILS”.

80
DNW-2 INSET OUTLINE
160

165

170

14

5. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88).
0

85
X

DNW-1
14

90
5

C
X

95
15

 
0

100
C
X

15
 
105
5
11
C

0 20 40
11

16
5

0
C

1'' = 20' FEET

12
B

0
C

                CLIENT PROJECT
CREIGHTON MANNING ENGINEERING LLP STABILIZE SE APPROACH TO THRUWAY BRIDGE OVER CATSKILL CREEK
               
2 WINNERS CIRCLE MILEPOST 113.22 THRUWAY MAINLINE, NEW YORK
                ALBANY, NY 12205 NYSTA PIN A72159
                CONSULTANT TITLE
Manchester, New Hampshire
                670 N. Commercial Street
BORING LOCATION PLAN

1 in
Manchester, NH
               
U.S.A.
0 2018-09-18 DESCRIPTION KR RWC MCM MSP   (603) 668-0880
PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. 02 of 07 FIGURE
www.golder.com
REV. YYYY-MM-DD DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED   181-04049 A 0 002

0
 LEGEND
DNW-1 BORING LOCATION I.D.
54 FT RT OFFSET FROM CENTERLINE

35 SPT: N - VALUE
A A' GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FT)
Northwest Southeast (MEASURED IN BOREHOLE DURING DRILLING)

RUN1 - 75% ROCK CORE RUN NUMBER AND RQD

EOB
220 220 END OF BORING
107.2 FT

ASPHALT

GRAY, DRY, MEDIUM COMPACT TO COMPACT, GRAVELLY

210 210
SAND, NON-PLASTIC (SHALE AND SILTSTONE FILL)
BROWN, MOIST, HARD, CLAYEY TO GRAVELLY SILT,
LOW PLASTICITY (GLACIAL TILL)
GRAY, FINE-GRAINED, FRESH TO SLIGHTLY
200 DNW-4 DNW-3 200 WEATHERED, MODERATELY HARD, FOSSILIFEROUS
13.8
13.8 RT 20.0
20.0 RT LIMESTONE (HELDERBERG GROUP)

DNW-2 DNW-1 ESTIMATED WATER LEVEL FOR DESIGN

43.7
43.7 RT 54.0
54.0 RT
190 EXISTING GUARDRAIL (TO 190
(PIEZOMETER EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLE (ELEVATION UNKNOWN)
BE REMOVED AND RESET)
INSTALLED)
Path: \\manchester\cadd\NYSTA\CATSKILL, NY\99_PROJECTS\18104049_Catskill Creek Bridge\4800_Catskill\02_PRODUCTION\DWG\ | File Name: 18104049_4800_002.dwg | Last Edited By: rclark Date: 2018-10-26 Time:11:00:00 AM | Printed By: rclark Date: 2018-10-31 Time:9:12:04 AM

EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE (TO BE

56'-4" 56'-4"
REMOVED TO FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION)

180 9'-4" 12' 13' 22' 22' 13' 12' 9'-4" 180
(SHOULDER) (SB LANE) (SB LANE) (MEDIAN) (MEDIAN) (NB LANE) (NB LANE) (SHOULDER)
NOTE(S)

X
1. THE WATER TABLE SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE IS ESTIMATED FROM FIELD MEASUREMENTS
EXISTING PRECAST DURING DRILLING AND ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS WILL
CONCRETE LAGGING VARY. 
170 1' OF 59 45 22 27 170
(REF. 4)
ASPHALT 33 36 76 35 2. THE 2018 BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE WERE SURVEYED BY CREIGHTON
MANNING ON AUGUST 14, 2018 AND RECEIVED BY GOLDER ON AUGUST 24, 2018. 

15'
14 79 54 16
3. SEE 2018 BORING LOGS FOR DETAILED LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS.
SOLDIER PILES HP 14x89
ELEVATION (FT)

ELEVATION (FT)
160 160
TOTAL LENGTH 35' (REF. 4)
GRAY, DRY, MEDIUM COMPACT TO 12 45 17 35 4. THIS GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE IS INTENDED TO CONVEY TRENDS IN
COMPACT, GRAVELLY SAND, EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE AND
NON-PLASTIC (SHALE ROCKFILL) (LOCATION APPROXIAMTE) IDEALIZED, AND HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY INTERPRETATIONS OF WIDELY SPACED
58 23 R 48 EXPLORATIONS OF SAMPLES. ACTUAL SOIL AND ROCK TRANSITIONS MAY VARY AND ARE

20' (SEE REF. 4)

EXISTING GRADE
PROBABLY MORE ERRATIC. FOR MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REFER TO EXPLORATION
150 150
LOGS.
27 17 22 23

58 40 35 129

140 140
95 17 27 56
REFERENCE(S)
1. BASEMAP ELEMENTS FROM CREIGHTON MANNING DRAWING TITLED
56 21 99 40 “118-161_map_cons_merged_3d.dgn”, RECEIVED BY GOLDER ON AUGUST 27, 2018.
130 BROWN, MOIST, HARD, CLAYEY TO 130
2. BORINGS WERE LOCATED AND OBSERVED BY GOLDER AND DRILLED BY EARTH
GRAVELLY SILT, LOW PLASTICITY 75 16 91 69
DIMENSIONS INC OF ELMA, NEW YORK FROM AUGUST 13-21, 2018.
(GLACIAL TILL)
RUN1 - 75%
52 RUN1 - 85% 63 3. HISTORICAL BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND TAKEN FROM STATE OF NEW
RUN2 - 85%
YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BORING LOGS DATED 1952 AND 1960 AND DE
120 120 LEUW AND BRILL DRAWING DATED 1952 AND TITLED “PLAN AND PROFILE THRUWAY STA.
62 RUN2 - 91%
379+00 TO STA. 394+00”.
EOB RUN1 - 100% RUN3 - 100%
117.5'
RUN4 - 85% 4. EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE APPROXIMATE AND TAKEN FROM NEW YORK STATE
RUN1 - 80%
THRUWAY AUTHORITY BRIDGE REHABILITATION PLANS DATED DEC. 1991 AND TITLED

IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI D
GRAY, FINE-GRAINED, FRESH TO
110 SLIGHTLY WEATHERED, MODERATELY 110 “GENERAL PLAN” AND “CONCRETE REPAIR DETAILS AND SOUTH/EAST APPROACH WALL
RUN5 - 100%
HARD, FOSSILIFEROUS LIMESTONE RUN2 - 90% PLAN AND DETAILS”.
(HELDERBERG GROUP) EOB RUN2 - 97%
107.2' EOB 5. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM (NAVD) OF 1988.
105.5'
EOB
100 103.3' 100

90 90
0+00 1+00 2+00 2+25  
SECTION A-A'  
0 10 20

1'' = 10' FEET

                CLIENT PROJECT
CREIGHTON MANNING ENGINEERING LLP STABILIZE SE APPROACH TO THRUWAY BRIDGE OVER CATSKILL CREEK
               
2 WINNERS CIRCLE MILEPOST 113.22 THRUWAY MAINLINE, NEW YORK
                ALBANY, NY 12205 NYSTA PIN A72159
                CONSULTANT TITLE
Manchester, New Hampshire
                670 N. Commercial Street
INTERPRETED SUBSURFACE PROFILE A-A'

1 in
Manchester, NH
               
U.S.A.
0 2018-09-18 DESCRIPTION KR RWC MCM MSP   (603) 668-0880
PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. 03 of 07 FIGURE
www.golder.com
REV. YYYY-MM-DD DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED   181-04049 A 0 003

0
 LEGEND
DNW-1 BORING LOCATION I.D.
54 FT RT OFFSET FROM CENTERLINE

35 SPT: N - VALUE
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FT)
B B' (MEASURED IN BOREHOLE DURING DRILLING)

Southwest 80'
(LIMITS OF WALL) 24'
Northeast RUN1 - 75%
EOB
ROCK CORE RUN NUMBER AND RQD
END OF BORING
107.2 FT

190 190 ASPHALT

DNW-1 DNW-3 GRAY, DRY, MEDIUM COMPACT TO COMPACT, GRAVELLY

26.7
26.7 RT 26.9 SAND, NON-PLASTIC (SHALE ROCKFILL)
26.9 RT EXISTING PRECAST
(PIEZOMETER
CONCRETE LAGGING BROWN, MOIST, HARD, CLAYEY TO GRAVELLY SILT,
INSTALLED)
SOUTH BRIDGE LOW PLASTICITY (GLACIAL TILL)
180 180
DNW-2 DNW-4 ABUTMENT GRAY, FINE-GRAINED, FRESH TO SLIGHTLY
-14.1 -14.0
14.0 LT WEATHERED, MODERATELY HARD, FOSSILIFEROUS
14.1 LT
LIMESTONE (HELDERBERG GROUP)
EXISTING
GROUND
ESTIMATED WATER LEVEL FOR DESIGN
170 27 45 22 59 170

15' (APPROX.)
C EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLE (ELEVATION UNKNOWN)
35 36 76 33
Path: \\manchester\cadd\NYSTA\CATSKILL, NY\99_PROJECTS\18104049_Catskill Creek Bridge\4800_Catskill\02_PRODUCTION\DWG\ | File Name: 18104049_4800_003.dwg | Last Edited By: rclark Date: 2018-10-26 Time:10:06:27 AM | Printed By: rclark Date: 2018-10-31 Time:9:11:14 AM

16 79 54 14

160 160 NOTE(S)

C
? 35 45 17 12 1. THE WATER TABLE SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE IS ESTIMATED FROM FIELD MEASUREMENTS
C
DURING DRILLING AND ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS WILL
C
? C
VARY. 
48
C 23 R 58
C C C ? C C C C ? C C ? C C ? 2. THE 2018 BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE WERE SURVEYED BY CREIGHTON

20' (APPROX.)
(SEE REF. 4)
150 150 MANNING ON AUGUST 14, 2018 AND RECEIVED BY GOLDER ON AUGUST 24, 2018. 
23 17 22 27 GRAY, DRY, MEDIUM 3. SEE 2018 BORING LOGS FOR DETAILED LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS.
COMPACT TO
COMPACT, GRAVELLY 4. THIS GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE IS INTENDED TO CONVEY TRENDS IN
ELEVATION (FT)

ELEVATION (FT)
129 40 35 58 SAND, NON-PLASTIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE AND
(SHALE ROCKFILL) IDEALIZED, AND HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY INTERPRETATIONS OF WIDELY SPACED
140 140 EXPLORATIONS OF SAMPLES. ACTUAL SOIL AND ROCK TRANSITIONS MAY VARY AND ARE
56 17 27 95 PROBABLY MORE ERRATIC. FOR MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REFER TO EXPLORATION
SOLDIER PILES HP LOGS.
6'
14x89 LENGTH 35FT
(SEE REF. 4)
40 21 99 56

130 130
69 16 91 75
REFERENCE(S)
1. BASEMAP ELEMENTS FROM CREIGHTON MANNING DRAWING TITLED
RUN1 - 75% “118-161_map_cons_merged_3d.dgn”, RECEIVED BY GOLDER ON AUGUST 27, 2018.
RUN1 - 85% 63 52
RUN2 - 85% BROWN, MOIST, HARD, CLAYEY 2. BORINGS WERE LOCATED AND OBSERVED BY GOLDER AND DRILLED BY EARTH
120 TO GRAVELLY SILT, LOW 120 DIMENSIONS INC OF ELMA, NEW YORK FROM AUGUST 13-21, 2018.
RUN2 - 91% 62 PLASTICITY (GLACIAL TILL)
RUN3 - 100% RUN1 - 100% 3. HISTORICAL BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND TAKEN FROM STATE OF NEW
EOB YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BORING LOGS DATED 1952 AND 1960 AND DE
RUN4 - 85% 117.5' LEUW AND BRILL DRAWING DATED 1952 AND TITLED “PLAN AND PROFILE THRUWAY STA.
RUN1 - 80%
379+00 TO STA. 394+00”.
110 RUN5 - 100% 110
4. EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE APPROXIMATE AND TAKEN FROM NEW YORK STATE
RUN2 - 90% THRUWAY AUTHORITY BRIDGE REHABILITATION PLANS DATED DEC. 1991 AND TITLED

IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI D
RUN2 - 97% “GENERAL PLAN” AND “CONCRETE REPAIR DETAILS AND SOUTH/EAST APPROACH WALL
EOB GRAY, FINE-GRAINED, FRESH TO PLAN AND DETAILS”.
EOB 107.2' SLIGHTLY WEATHERED, MODERATELY
105.5' HARD, FOSSILIFEROUS LIMESTONE 5. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM (NAVD) OF 1988.
EOB
(HELDERBERG GROUP)
100 103.3' 100

90 90
0+00 1+00 1+50  
SECTION B-B'  
0 8 16

1'' = 8' FEET

                CLIENT PROJECT
CREIGHTON MANNING ENGINEERING LLP STABILIZE SE APPROACH TO THRUWAY BRIDGE OVER CATSKILL CREEK
               
2 WINNERS CIRCLE MILEPOST 113.22 THRUWAY MAINLINE, NEW YORK
                ALBANY, NY 12205 NYSTA PIN A72159
                CONSULTANT TITLE
Manchester, New Hampshire
                670 N. Commercial Street
INTERPRETED SUBSURFACE PROFILE B-B'

1 in
Manchester, NH
               
U.S.A.
0 2018-09-18 DESCRIPTION KR RWC MCM MSP   (603) 668-0880
PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. 04 of 07 FIGURE
www.golder.com
REV. YYYY-MM-DD DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED   181-04049 A 0 004

0
 130

125
 
88'
(LIMITS OF WALL)

120
(MEDIAN)
22'

5FT INTERPRETED 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
BEDROCK CONTOURS
TOP OF NEW WALL EL. 173' 8'

115
SOLDIER PILE AND
LAGGING WALL
Path: \\manchester\cadd\NYSTA\CATSKILL, NY\99_PROJECTS\18104049_Catskill Creek Bridge\4800_Catskill\02_PRODUCTION\DWG\ | File Name: 18104049_4800_004.dwg | Last Edited By: rclark Date: 2019-01-17 Time:11:52:14 AM | Printed By: rclark Date: 2019-01-17 Time:11:52:26 AM

8'
5
13

ANCHOR LENGTH VARIES BASED ON

BEDROCK ELEV. (~60-80' TYP.)
(NB LANE)
13'

PERMANENT TIEBACK
ANCHOR (TYP.)
?
4'
0 MIN.
13
?
? ? ? ?
(NB LANE)

MAINTAIN EXISTING GRADE IN

FRONT OF EXISTING WALL
12'

INSTALL LAGGING TO 4' EXISTING FIBER

BELOW EXISTING GRADE OPTIC CABLE
ELEVATION
HP SOLDIER UNKNOWN
PILE (TYP.)
(SHOULDER)

HP SOLDIER
9'4"

5 PILE (TYP.)
1 2 3 4 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

C
160

C
8'

X
6'
(TYP.)
PROPOSED SOLDIER

C
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

PILE & LAGGING WALL

120
PERMANENT TIEBACK
C
ANCHOR (TYP.) BEDROCK
155
0
16

C
88' (LIMITS OF WALL) C

C C
C
C
C C C C C C C C C C C REMOVE EXISTING
WALL TO EXISTING
EXISTING FIBER
115 GRADE IN FRONT OF
OPTIC CABLE WALL TO AID IN
5 INSTALLATION OF
15

IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI D
LAGGING
150

SCALE N.T.S. 001 SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL PLAN VIEW SCALE N.T.S. 002 SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL PROFILE
005 005

 
 

                CLIENT PROJECT
CREIGHTON MANNING ENGINEERING LLP STABILIZE SE APPROACH TO THRUWAY BRIDGE OVER CATSKILL CREEK
               
2 WINNERS CIRCLE MILEPOST 113.22 THRUWAY MAINLINE, NEW YORK
                ALBANY, NY 12205 NYSTA PIN A72159
                CONSULTANT TITLE
Manchester, New Hampshire
                670 N. Commercial Street
SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL PLAN AND PROFILE

1 in
Manchester, NH
               
U.S.A.
0 2018-09-18 DESCRIPTION KR RWC MCM MSP   (603) 668-0880
PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. 05 of 07 FIGURE
www.golder.com
REV. YYYY-MM-DD DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED   181-04049 A 0 005

0
 EXISTING GUARDRAIL
56'-4"
(TO BE REMOVED AND RESET)
180 22' 13' 12' 9'-4"
(MEDIAN) (NB. LANE) (NB. LANE) (SHOULDER) 6' EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE

X
(TO BE REMOVED)

X
X
PERMANENT CONCRETE WALL FACING
NEW SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL EXISTING SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL (TO
170 BE REMOVED TO FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION)
24.4 FT = DESIGN EXPOSED WALL
HEIGHT FOR LONG TERM SLOPE 19 FT = HEIGHT OF TIMBER LAGGING & PERMANENT
GRADE IN FRONT OF NEW WALL CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE FACING FOR PURPOSES
OF WALL CONSTRUCTION (SEE NOTE 2).

19'

15.9'
45°

24.4'
'
160
FIBER OPTIC CABLE DEPTH AND
LOCATION (VARIES (SEE NOTE 1))
Path: \\manchester\cadd\NYSTA\CATSKILL, NY\99_PROJECTS\18104049_Catskill Creek Bridge\4800_Catskill\02_PRODUCTION\DWG\ | File Name: 18104049_4800_005.dwg | Last Edited By: rclark Date: 2019-01-18 Time:1:57:02 PM | Printed By: rclark Date: 2019-01-18 Time:2:00:46 PM

4' MIN.

.)
YP
ROCKFILL

'T
80
EXISTING GROUND

0-
(6
150

.
EV
SEE NOTE 2

EL

20'
K

ELEVATION (45-65 TYP.)

C

PILE LENGTH VARIES

BASED ON BEDROCK
O
R
D
BE
ELEVATION (FT)

EXTEND PILES TO BEDROCK

O
REMOVE &

D
REPLACE FILL

SE
BA
140 FOR LAGGING

S
INSTALLATION

IE
DESIGN GRADE

30°'
VA
TH
G
N
24"
LE

PREAUGERED
R

NEW PERMANENT
O

HOLE
H

TIEBACK GROUND
C
AN

130 ANCHORS @ 8' O.C.

10' INTO ROCK MIN.

NEW HP
GLACIAL SOLDIER PILE
TILL @ 8FT O.C. TO
BEDROCK

IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI D
120
C T D
O IN N

BEDROCK
R H BO
K O
G IN.
LE ' M
T
10

110
0+00 0+50 1+00

SCALE N.T.S. 001 SOLDIER PILE & TIEBACK ANCHOR DETAIL

006 NOTES:
1. ELEVATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLE UNKNOWN. LOCATION VARIES BETWEEN APPROX. 2-9FT  
IN FRONT OF WALL. APPROXIMATE ELEVATION SHOWN BASED ON EXPOSED CONDUIT AT

2.
UTILITY BOX AT NORTH END OF WALL.
LAGGING MAY BE EXTENDED DEEPER IN SURFICIAL SLOPE FAILURE OCCURS IN FRONT OF
 
WALL.

                CLIENT PROJECT
CREIGHTON MANNING ENGINEERING LLP STABILIZE SE APPROACH TO THRUWAY BRIDGE OVER CATSKILL CREEK
               
2 WINNERS CIRCLE MILEPOST 113.22 THRUWAY MAINLINE, NEW YORK
                ALBANY, NY 12205 NYSTA PIN A72159
                CONSULTANT TITLE
Manchester, New Hampshire
                670 N. Commercial Street
SOLDIER PILE & TIEBACK ANCHOR DETAIL

1 in
Manchester, NH
               
U.S.A.
0 2018-09-18 DESCRIPTION KR RWC MCM MSP   (603) 668-0880
PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. 06 of 07 FIGURE
www.golder.com
REV. YYYY-MM-DD DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED   181-04049 A 0 006

0
 13
12
14
8
15

11
9
15
10

SCALE N.T.S. A SECTION SCALE N.T.S. B SECTION

007 007

STR
AND
1 UNB
OND
NO L ED L
OAD ENG
VARIES 2 ZON TH
E
BON
D LE
8 NGT
H TO
BE D
007

MINIMETERMIN
A

UM 1 E
9 ANC 0 FE D BY CO
HOR ET NTR
LENG ACT
TH OR
3 10
11
4 5 7
6 17

007
B
18
14
007
A'

15
16
12

1. ANCHORAGE COVER 13
2. ANCHOR HEAD AND WEDGES
007

3. ANTICORROSION GREASE
B'

4. BEARING PLATE
5. TRUMPET
6. SEAL AROUND TRUMPET
7. ANTICORROSION GREASE
8. PVC OR POLYETHYLENE TUBE
9. INDIVIDUALLY GREASED & SHEATHED STRAND
10. SPACER
11. STRAND TENDON
Path: \\manchester\cadd\NYSTA\CATSKILL, NY\99_PROJECTS\18104049_Catskill Creek Bridge\4800_Catskill\02_PRODUCTION\DWG\ | File Name: 18104049_4800_007.dwg

12. CORRUGATED PVC

13. CENTRALIZER
14. ANCHOR GROUT

IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI A
15. ENCAPSULATION GROUT
16. END CAP
17. TENSION RING TO RESIST SPLITTING FORCE OF
DEFLECTED STRANDS
18. NON-STRUCTURAL FILLER

SCALE N.T.S. 001 TIEBACK WITH DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTION DETAIL

007
Last Edited By: rclark Date: 2018-10-31 Time:8:45:10 AM | Printed By: rclark Date: 2018-10-31 Time:10:06:23 AM

 
 

CLIENT PROJECT
CREIGHTON MANNING ENGINEERING LLP STABILIZE SE APPROACH TO THRUWAY BRIDGE OVER CATSKILL CREEK
2 WINNERS CIRCLE MILEPOST 113.22 THRUWAY MAINLINE, NEW YORK
1 in

ALBANY, NY 12205 NYSTA PIN A72159

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2018-09-18 TITLE

DESIGNED KR
EXAMPLE TIEBACK WITH DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTION
DETAIL
PREPARED RWC

REVIEWED MCM
PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. 07 of 07 FIGURE
APPROVED MSP 181-04049 A 0 007
0
 APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-1 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.14,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 33.80
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242253°N (Long) 73.893981°W

DATE START 8/15/2018 DATE FINISH 8/17/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
0.0 Dark gray asphalt pavement D - NPL

SS1 19 6.7% 20 1.1-2.5' Dark gray to brownish gray (SAND) fill with 10 to D - NPL
16 20% mostly angular gravel, trace silt, dense, massive soil
11 structure, (SM).
11 2.5-3.0' Brown (SILTY-SAND) fill with 5 to 15% gravel,
SS2 21 3.5% 21 some silt, compact, massive soil structure, (SM). D - NPL
18 3.0-3.5' Same as 1.1-2.5'
17 3.5-5.0' Mostly gray shale and siltstone stone fragment
5.0 25 (SANDY GRAVEL) fill with little sand, trace silt and an
occasional cobble or channer, medium compact to -
compact, (GW-GM).

SS3 31 2.1% 8 Same as 3.5-5.0' D - NPL

11
5
10.0 6
-

SS4 37 3.6% 13 Same as 3.5-5.0' D - NPL

18
17
15.0 100/3
-

SS5 9 5.1% 10 Same as 3.5-5.0' D - NPL

25
23
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

20.0 17
-

SS6 10 2.1% 14 Same as 3.5-5.0' D - NPL

9
14
25.0 27

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc. SHEET 1 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-1 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.14,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 33.80
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242253°N (Long) 73.893981°W

DATE START 8/15/2018 DATE FINISH 8/17/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
25.0 -

SS7 48 4.1% 18 Same as 3.5-5.0' D - NPL

92
37
30.0 23
-

SS8 25 5.0% 16 Same as 3.5-5.0' D - NPL

27
29
35.0 21
-

SS9 43 18.3% 19 38.0-38.5' Same as 3.5-5.0' M - LPL

19 38.5-40.0' Brown (CLAYEY-SILT) with 0 to 3% gravel, little
21 to some clay, trace organic matter, hard, weakly thinly
40.0 22 laminated with very thin coarse silt lenses, (ML-CL).
-

SS10 20 7.4% 19 43.0-47.1 Brown (CLAYEY-SILT) with 10 to 20% M - LPL

31 gravel, little clay, trace sand, hard, massive soil structure,
38 (ML-CL).
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

45.0 65

47.1 Top of Bedrock -

RUN1 2.8 47.5 Switched boring method to coring with a NQ-2 size -
double tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit.
Run #1: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 47.5-50.3'
Gray with occasional thin reddish brown interbeds,
50.0 limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute 5%

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc. SHEET 2 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-1 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.14,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 33.80
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242253°N (Long) 73.893981°W

DATE START 8/15/2018 DATE FINISH 8/17/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
50.0 Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard, predominantly
RUN2 4.5 calcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly laminated to thinly -
bedded, slightly fractured horizontally alond bedding planes,
core pieces range from (0.05-0.68'), not weathered, core
breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil, gray chert interbed
from 47.5 to 47.8 feet.

Recovery: 2.8'/2.8' = 100%

RQD: 2.1'/2.8' = 75%
Number of Pieces total: 9
55.0 Run #2: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 50.3-54.8'
RUN3 3.0 -
Gray limstone bedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute
5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard, predominantly
calcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly laminated to thickly
bedded, slightly fractured along bedding planes, core
pieces range from (0.05-1.6'), not weathered, core breaks
appear fresh, occasional fossil.
RUN4 2.2 -
Recovery: 4.5'/4.5' = 100%
RQD: 3.8'/4.5' = 85%
Number of Pieces total: 10
60.0
Run #3: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 54.8-57.8'
RUN5 7.2 Gray limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in -
dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,
predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly
laminated to thickly bedded, slightly fractured along bedding
planes, core pieces range from (0.05-0.9'), not weathered,
core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 3.0'/3.0' = 100%

RQD: 3.0'/3.0' = 100%
65.0 Number of Pieces total: 6
Run #4: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 57.8-60.4'
Gray limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in
dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,
predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly
laminated to thinly bedded, slightly fractured along bedding
planes, core pieces range from (0.1-0.5'), not weathered,
core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 2.2'/2.6' = 85%

RQD: 2.2'/2.6' = 85%
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

Number of Pieces total: 8

Run #5: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 60.4-67.6'
Gray limestone bedrock, efferevesces without etching in
dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,
predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly
laminated to thinly bedded, slightly fractured along bedding
planes, core pieces range from (0.15-1.3'), not weathered,
core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 7.2'/7.2' = 100%

RQD: 7.2'/7.2' = 100%

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc. SHEET 3 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-1 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.14,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 33.80
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242253°N (Long) 73.893981°W

DATE START 8/15/2018 DATE FINISH 8/17/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
Number of PIeces total: 10
BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 67.60 ft

Note: Advanced bore hole with 4 1/4" ID x 8" OD hollow stem auger casing with 5.0-foot interval
sampling to 47.5 feet. Removed NWJ-rods and installed 3" flush joint threaded casing to 47.5.
Continued below with a NQ-2 size double tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit to coring
completion at 67.6 feet. Installed a 2-inch PVC standpipe piezometer to 57.5 feet in completed
bore hole.

Note: Lost approximately 800 to 1,000 gallons of water to formation.

Note: Bailed approximately five gallons of water between 1:52 am and 2:51 am on August 21,
2018

PIEZOMETER AND BORE HOLE DETAILS

00.0-47.5' 8-inch diameter bore hole
47.5-67.5' 3-inch diameter core hole
67.5-57.5' crushed stone fill
57.5-42.5' 0.010 slot 2-inch PVC screen
57.5-40.5' #00N size morie sand pack
40.5-36.5' bentonite seal
36.5-36.0' #00N size morie sand pack
36.0-26.0' cement bentonite grout mixture
42.5-00.3' 2-inch schedule 40 PVC riser
26.0-01.1' crushed stone mixed with cuttings
01.1-00.0' concrete
8-inch diameter roadbox installed at ground surface

DEPTH (ft.) ARTESIAN FILLED WITH

DATE TIME HEAD HEIGHT WATER AT
HOLE CASING WATER ABOVE GROUND END OF DAY
16-Aug-18 02:36 47.50 47.50 None No No
16-Aug-18 22:34 57.50 47.50 33.80 No No
17-Aug-18 01:47 67.60 67.60 36.90 No No
20-Aug-18 23:16 67.60 57.50 45.90 No No
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

21-Aug-18 03:00 67.60 57.50 56.20 No No

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc. SHEET 4 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET

PSN ___________________________________ DNW-1

Boring ID ______________________
A72159
PIN ___________________________________ Surface Elevation_________________
5513219
BIN ___________________________________ 47.5 67.6
Depth From__________to__________
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway
Project _________________________________ 5
Number of Runs _________________
Bridge over Catskill Creek
_______________________________________ NQ-2
Core Size _______________________

08/15/2018
Date Evaluated ____________________ Kyle Shearing & Karen Roth
Evaluator (s) _________________________

47.1
Top of Rock _______________ (Depth) _______________ (Elevation)
47.5
Top of Sound Rock _______________ (Depth) ______________ (Elevation)

Comments ________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

RUN #1 2.8
Run Length ______________ 47.5
Depth Range: From __________ 50.3
To __________

2.1
RQD __________ 75
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly gray with occasional thin reddish brown interbeds
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured horizontally along bedding planes
Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________
0.05-0.68'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Moderately hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil, gray chert interbed from 47.5-47.8'
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 2.8 or 100%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 9
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3

EB 15-025
 ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET (CONTINUED)

PSN _________________ A72159

PIN ____________________________ DNW-1
Boring ID __________________

2
RUN # __________ 4.5
Run Length _____________ 50.3
Depth Range: From _____________ 54.8
to_____________

3.8
RQD __________ 85
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly gray
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured along bedding planes
Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________
0.05-1.6'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Moderately hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 4.5 or 100%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 10
__________________________________________________________________________________________

3
RUN # __________ 3.0
Run Length _____________ 54.8
Depth Range: From _____________ 57.8
to_____________

3.0
RQD __________ 100
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly gray
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured along bedding planes
Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________
0.05-0.9'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Moderately Hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 3.0 or 100%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 6
Page 2 of 3

EB 15-025
 ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET (CONTINUED)

PSN _________________ A72159

PIN ____________________________ DNW-1
Boring ID __________________

4
RUN # __________ 2.6
Run Length _____________ 57.8
Depth Range: From _____________ 60.4
to_____________

2.2
RQD __________ 85
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly gray
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured along bedding planes
Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________
0.01-0.5'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Moderately hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 2.2 or 85%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 8
__________________________________________________________________________________________

5
RUN # __________ 7.2
Run Length _____________ 60.4
Depth Range: From _____________ 67.6
to_____________

7.2
RQD __________ 100
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly gray
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured along bedding planes
Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________
0.15-1.3'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Moderately hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 7.2 or 100%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 10
Page 3 of 3

EB 15-025
 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-2 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.09,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER No Water
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242356°N (Long) 73.894060°W

DATE START 8/13/2018 DATE FINISH 8/14/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
0.0 SS1 2.6% 12 0.0-1.3' Dark gray asphalt pavement D - NPL
42 1.3-2.8' Gray to grayish brown gravelly (SAND) fill with 30
29 to 50% mostly angular gravel, trace silt, dense, (SP).
16
-

SS2 42 2.4% 12 Dark gray to gray shale and siltstone stone fragment fill D - NPL
23 (SANDY GRAVEL) medium compact to compact, little
13 sand, trace silt with an occasional cobble or channer,
5.0 5 (occasional thin 1-3" moist to wet zones).
-

SS3 33 2.3% 14 Same as 3.0-5.0' D - NPL

28
51
10.0 19
-

SS4 24 3.7% 15 Same as 3.0-5.0' D - NPL

25
20
15.0 13
-

SS5 8 5.3% 16 Same as 3.0-5.0' D - NPL

13
10
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

20.0 10
-

SS6 11 3.5% 16 Same as 3.0-5.0' D - NPL

7
10
25.0 2

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc SHEET 1 OF 3 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-2 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.09,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER No Water
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242356°N (Long) 73.894060°W

DATE START 8/13/2018 DATE FINISH 8/14/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
25.0 -

SS7 11 2.4% 15 Same as 3.0-5.0' D - NPL

13
27
30.0 52
-

SS8 12 4.0% 11 Same as 3.0-5.0' D - NPL

9
8
35.0 14
Note: Drilling was difficult between 37.0 and 37.5 feet. -

SS9 7 5.7% 9 Grayish brown (SILTY GRAVEL) fill with some silt, M - LPL
12 little sand and clay, medium compact, massive soil
9 structure, (ML-CL),(GM).
40.0 19
Note: Drilling much softer below 41.0 feet. -

SS10 3 15.9% 17 Brown (SANDY SILT) with 20 to 30% gravel, M - LPL

3 some sand, trace to little clay, firm to stiff, massive soil
13 structure, (ML-CL).
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

45.0 100/3
45.6' Switched boring method to coring with a NQ-2 size -
RUN1 7.8 double tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit. -
Run #1: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 45.6-53.4'
Gray with an occasional thin reddish brown interbed
limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute 5%
Hydrochloric Acid, hard, predominantly calcite, fine grained,
smooth, thickly laminated to thinly bedded, slightly fractured
along bedding planes with occasional areas with multiple
high angle fractures at 47.1 to 47.3 and 48.3 to 48.5 feet,
core pieces range from (0.03-0.9'), not weathered, core
50.0

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc SHEET 2 OF 3 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-2 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.09,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER No Water
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242356°N (Long) 73.894060°W

DATE START 8/13/2018 DATE FINISH 8/14/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
50.0 breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 7.8'/7.8' = 100%

RQD: 6.6'/7.8' = 85%
Number of Pieces total: 17

RUN2 2.2 Run #2 NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 53.4-55.6' -

Gray with occasional thin reddish brown interbed, limestone
55.0 bedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute 5%
Hydrochloric Acid, hard, predominantly calcite, fine grained,
smooth, thickly laminated to thinly bedded, slightly fractured
along bedding planes, core pieces range from (0.03-1.0'),
not weathered, core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 2.2'/2.2' = 100%

RQD: 2.0'/2.2' = 91%
Number of Pieces total: 7
BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 55.60 ft

Note: Advanced bore hole with 4 1/4" ID x 8" OD hollow stem auger casing with 5.0-foot interval
sampling. Removed NWJ rods and installed 3" flush joint threaded casing to 45.6 feet. Continued
below with a NQ-2 size double tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit to coring completion at
55.6 feet. Bore hole was backfilled with cuttings and crushed stone fill to 1.3 feet and ground
surface repaired with a concrete patch.

Note: Used approximately 500 gallons of water while coring.

Note: No water at completion after pulling augers.

Note: Bentonite seal caved inside augers at 41.0 feet.

DEPTH (ft.) ARTESIAN FILLED WITH

DATE TIME HEAD HEIGHT WATER AT
HOLE CASING WATER ABOVE GROUND END OF DAY
13-Aug-18 11:00 45.60 45.60 No Water No No
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

13-Aug-18 13:45 55.60 45.60 No Water No Yes

14-Aug-18 07:00 55.60 45.60 No Water No No

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc SHEET 3 OF 3 HOLE DN-W

 ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET

PSN ___________________________________ DNW-2

Boring ID ______________________
A72159
PIN ___________________________________ Surface Elevation_________________
5513219
BIN ___________________________________ 45.6 55.6
Depth From__________to__________
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway
Project _________________________________ 2
Number of Runs _________________
Bridge over Catskill Creek
_______________________________________ NQ-2
Core Size _______________________

08/13/2018
Date Evaluated ____________________ Kyle Shearing & Karen Roth
Evaluator (s) _________________________

44.7
Top of Rock _______________ (Depth) _______________ (Elevation)
45.6
Top of Sound Rock _______________ (Depth) ______________ (Elevation)

Comments ________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

RUN #1 7.8
Run Length ______________ 45.6
Depth Range: From __________ 53.4
To __________

6.6
RQD __________ 85
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly gray with an occasional thin reddish brown interbed
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Fractures Slightly fractured along bedding planes with occasional multiple high angle fractures at 47.1-47.3 and 48.3-48.5'
_________________________________________________________________________________
0.03-0.9'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 7.8 or 100%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 17
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2

EB 15-025
 ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET (CONTINUED)

PSN _________________ A72159

PIN ____________________________ DNW-2
Boring ID __________________

2
RUN # __________ 2.2
Run Length _____________ 53.4
Depth Range: From _____________ 55.6
to_____________

2.0
RQD __________ 91
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly gray with occasional thin reddish brown interbed
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured along bedding planes
Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________
0.03-1.0'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 2.2 or 100%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 7
__________________________________________________________________________________________

RUN # __________ Run Length _____________ Depth Range: From _____________ to_____________

RQD __________ (as measured) _________ % Photo(s)

______________________________
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 2

EB 15-025
 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-3 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.16,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 46.40
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242322°N (Long) 73.893895°W

DATE START 8/20/2018 DATE FINISH 8/21/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
0.0 18 Gray asphalt pavement. D - NPL

SS1 17 3.2% 1.0-2.7' Dark gray gravelly (SILTY-SAND) fill with 20 to D - NPL
12 40% mostly angular gravel, trace to little silt, compact,
10 massive soil structure, (SM).
11 2.7-3.0' Brown (SILTY-SAND) fill with 5 to 15% gravel,
SS2 10 6.4% 8 occasional cobble, little to some silt, trace clay, compact M - NPL
39 to very dense, massive soil structure, (SM).
37 Brown (SILTY-SAND) fill with 15 to 25% gravel, occasional
5.0 8 cobble, some silt, trace clay, compact to very dense,
massive soil structure, (SM).
-

SS3 12 3.0% 9 Gray mostly shale and siltstone stone fragment fill D - NPL
46 (SANDY GRAVEL) medium compact to compact, little
8 sand, trace silt with an occasional cobble or channer.
10.0 13
-

SS4 12 2.9% 10 Same as 8.0-10.0' D - NPL

9
8
15.0 9
-

SS5 13 6.8% 7 Dark gray to gray mostly shale and siltstone stone M - PL
14 fragment fill (SANDY GRAVEL) medium compact to
100/5 compact, little sand, little silt with an occasional cobble or
channer.
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

20.0
-

SS6 10 3.1% 11 Same as 8.0-10.0' D - NPL

8
14
25.0 13

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc SHEET 1 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-3 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.16,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 46.40
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242322°N (Long) 73.893895°W

DATE START 8/20/2018 DATE FINISH 8/21/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
25.0 -

SS7 49 2.0% 11 Same as 8.0-10.0' D - NPL

24
11
30.0 21
-

SS8 20 3.7% 14 Same as 8.0-10.0' D - NPL

15
12
35.0 19
-

SS9 15 4.7% 9 Same as 8.0-10.0' D - NPL

39
60
40.0 20
-

SS10 33 9.4% 16 Grayish brown (CLAYEY-SILT) with 5 to 10% gravel, M - PL

65 some clay, little to some sand, hard, weakly thinly laminated
26 with very thin coarse silt lenses, (CL).
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

45.0 16
-

SS11 13 13.9% 24 Same as 43.0-45.0' M - PL

28
35
50.0 32

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc SHEET 2 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-3 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.16,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 46.40
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242322°N (Long) 73.893895°W

DATE START 8/20/2018 DATE FINISH 8/21/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
50.0 -
Top of Bedrock -
RUN1 10 Run #1: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 50.7-60.7' -
Gray limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in
dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,
predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly
laminated, slighty fractured along bedding planes, core
pieces range from (0.07-2.25'), not weathered, core breaks
appear fresh, occasional fossil.

55.0 Recovery: 10.0'/10.0' = 100%

RQD: 10.0'/10.0' = 100%
Number of core pieces: 10

60.0

RUN2 9.1 Run #2: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 60.7-69.9' -
Gray limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in
dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,
predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly
laminated to thinly bedded, slightly fratcured along bedding
planes, core pieces range from (0.2-3.4'), not weathered,
core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

65.0 Recovery: 9.1'/9.2' = 99%

RQD: 8.9'/9+.2' = 97%
Number of core pieces: 8
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 69.90 ft

Note: Advanced bore hole with 4 1/4" ID x 8" OD hollow stem auger casing with 5.0-foot interval
sampling 50.7 feet. Removed NWJ rods and installed 3" flush joint threaded casing to 50.7 feet.
Continued below with a NQ-2 size double tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit to coring
completion at 69.9 feet.

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc SHEET 3 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-3 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.16,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 46.40
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242322°N (Long) 73.893895°W

DATE START 8/20/2018 DATE FINISH 8/21/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24

DEPTH (ft.) ARTESIAN FILLED WITH

DATE TIME HEAD HEIGHT WATER AT
HOLE CASING WATER ABOVE GROUND END OF DAY
20-Aug-18 14:14 50.70 50.70 No Water No No
21-Aug-18 05:41 69.90 50.70 46.40 No Yes
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc SHEET 4 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET

PSN ___________________________________ DNW-3

Boring ID ______________________
A72159
PIN ___________________________________ Surface Elevation_________________
5513219
BIN ___________________________________ 50.7 69.9
Depth From__________to__________
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway
Project _________________________________ 2
Number of Runs _________________
Bridge over Catskill Creek
_______________________________________ NQ-2
Core Size _______________________

08/21/2018
Date Evaluated ____________________ Kyle Shearing & Karen Roth
Evaluator (s) _________________________

50.3
Top of Rock _______________ (Depth) _______________ (Elevation)
50.7
Top of Sound Rock _______________ (Depth) ______________ (Elevation)

Comments ________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

RUN #1 10.0
Run Length ______________ 50.7
Depth Range: From __________ 60.7
To __________

10.0
RQD __________ 100
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Gray
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured along bedding planes
Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________
0.07-2.25'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Moderately hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 10.0 or 100%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 10
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2

EB 15-025
 ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET (CONTINUED)

PSN _________________ A72159

PIN ____________________________ DNW-3
Boring ID __________________

2
RUN # __________ 9.2
Run Length _____________ 60.7
Depth Range: From _____________ 69.9
to_____________

8.9
RQD __________ 97
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Gray
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured along bedding planes
Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________
0.2-3.4'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Moderately hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 9.1 or 99%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 8
__________________________________________________________________________________________

RUN # __________ Run Length _____________ Depth Range: From _____________ to_____________

RQD __________ (as measured) _________ % Photo(s)

______________________________
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 2

EB 15-025
 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-4 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.17,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 44.70
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242416°N (Long) 73.893984°W

DATE START 8/14/2018 DATE FINISH 8/15/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
0.0 Dark gray asphalt pavement. D - NPL

SS1 22 5.4% 18 1.0-2.0' Gray very gravelly (SAND) fill with 40 to 60% D - NPL
24 mostly angular gravel, trace silt, dense, massive soil
35 structure, (SM),(GM).
32 2.0-3.0' Brown gravelly (SANDY-SILT) fill with 10 to 25%
SS2 35 3.0% 16 gravel, little to some sand, trace clay, very dense, D - NPL
16 massive soil structure, (ML).
17 3.0-3.2' Same as 2.0-3.0'
5.0 17 3.2-5.0' Gray shale and siltstone stone fragment (SANDY
GRAVEL) fill with some sand, trace silt, medium
compact to compact, with an occasional cobble or channer, -
(GW-GM).

SS3 8 3.3% 6 Same as 3.2-5.0' D - NPL

7
7
10.0 18
-

SS4 6 3.1% 8 Same as 3.2-5.0' D - NPL

4
8
15.0 4
-

SS5 13 4.4% 12 Same as 3.2-5.0' D - NPL

26
32
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

20.0 21
-

SS6 20 3.7% 13 Same as 3.2-5.0' D - NPL

15
12
25.0 14

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc. SHEET 1 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-4 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.17,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 44.70
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242416°N (Long) 73.893984°W

DATE START 8/14/2018 DATE FINISH 8/15/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
25.0 -

SS7 61 3.3% 13 Same as 3.2-5.0' D - NPL

39
19
30.0 9
-

SS8 60 3.4% 14 Same as 3.2-5.0' D - NPL

62
33
35.0 32
-

SS9 33 3.0% 13 Dark gray shale and siltstone (SANDY GRAVEL) fill with M - NPL
31 some sand, little silt, trace clay, very dense, massive soil
25 structure, (Gw-GM).
40.0 24
-

SS10 41 7.3% 16 43.0-44.5' Dark gray shale and siltstone fragment M - NPL
56 (SANDY GRAVEL) fill with 40 to 60% mostly shale stone
19 fragment fill, trace to little sand, trace clay, very dense,
massive soil structure, (ML).
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

45.0 17
44.5-45.0' Brown gravelly (CLAYEY SILT) with 20 to 30% -
gravel, little to some clay, little sand, hard, massive soil
structure, (ML-CL). M - LPL

SS11 20 24.0% 21 Brown faintly mottled (CLAYEY-SILT) with 0 to 5% gravel, M - PL

22 some clay, trace sand, hard, massive soil structure, (CL).
30
50.0 34

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc. SHEET 2 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-4 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.17,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 44.70
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242416°N (Long) 73.893984°W

DATE START 8/14/2018 DATE FINISH 8/15/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24
50.0 -

SS12 10 12.9% 23 Brown (GRAVELLY SILT) with 20 to 40% gravel, some M - LPL
32 sand, little clay, hard, massive soil structure, (ML-CL).
30
55.0 27
-

RUN1 7.6 Run #1: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 56.0-64.0' -
Predominantly gray with an occasional thin dark gray
interbed, limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in
dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,
predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly
laminated to thinly bedded, slightly fractured along bedding
planes, core pieces range from (0.05-2.0'), not weathered,
core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil, occasional
60.0 slight iron staining, void from 58.9 to 59.3 feet, occasional
near vertical fractures from 59.3 to 59.5, 60.3 to 60.6, and
62.5 to 64.0 feet, healed vertical fracture from 60.6 to 61.8
feet.

Recovery: 7.6'/8.0' = 95%

RQD: 6.4'/8.0' = 80%
Number of core pieces - 16

RUN2 1.8 Run #2: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 64.0-66.0' -
65.0 Predominantly gray with occasional thin dark gray interbeds
limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute 5%
Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard, predominantly calcite,
fine grained, smooth, thickly laminated to thinly bedded,
slightly fractured along bedding planes, core pieces range
from (0.35-1.2'), not weathered, core breaks appear fresh,
occasional fossil, occasional near vertical fracture from 65.5
to 65.8 feet, near vertical fracture cracked but not broken
from 64.0 to 64.9 feet.

Recovery: 1.8'/2.0' = 90%

TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

RQD: 1.8'/2.0' = 90%

Number of core pieces - 3
BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 66.00 ft

Note: Advanced bore hole with 4 1/4" ID x 8" OD hollow stem auger casing with 5.0-foot interval
sampling to 56.0 feet. Removed NWJ rods and installed 3" flush joint threaded casing to 56.0
feet. Continued below with a NQ-2 size doubled tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit to
coring completion at 66.0 feet. Bore hole was backfilled with cuttings and crushed stone fill to 1.0
feet below ground surface and ground surface repaired with a concrete patch upon completion.

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc. SHEET 3 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 SM 282 E 12/02
PSN BORNUM DNW-4 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY
HOLE DN-W
DIVISION Albany NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION LINE
COUNTY Greene SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG STA
PIN A72159 OFFSET ft
ROUTE Thruway Mainline SURF. ELEV. 173.17,
MILEPOST 113.22 DEPTH TO WATER 44.70
PROJECT Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

COORDINATES (Lat) 42.242416°N (Long) 73.893984°W

DATE START 8/14/2018 DATE FINISH 8/15/2018
AUGER 4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER WT OF HAMMER-CASING lb HAMMER FALL-CASING in
CASING O. D. 3-1/2 in I. D. 3 in WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER 140 lb HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER 30 in
SAMPLER O. D. 2 in I. D. 1-3/8 in HAMMER TYPE Safety

Rock Recovery
Soil Recovery
DEPTH (ft.)

BLOWS ON
SURFACE
BLOWS/ft

SAMPLE
CASING

BELOW

SAMPLER (in.) MOIST.

NO.

(in.)

(ft.)
CONT. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK
0 6 12 18 (%)
6 12 18 24

DEPTH (ft.) ARTESIAN FILLED WITH

DATE TIME HEAD HEIGHT WATER AT
HOLE CASING WATER ABOVE GROUND END OF DAY
14-Aug-18 10:57 45.00 43.00 44.70 No No
14-Aug-18 12:53 56.00 56.00 54.50 No No
15-Aug-18 06:58 56.00 56.00 48.70 No No
15-Aug-18 09:42 66.00 56.00 48.80 No Yes
TWY-CAN SUBSURF EXPLORATION 4H18.GPJ TWYSE1TMPL_V05.GDT 10/24/18

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for design DRILL RIG OPERATOR Andrew Kempisty
and estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may have SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION Kyle Shearing
access to the same information available to the State. It is INSPECTOR Karen Roth
presented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process, 5513219
the information represents only a small fraction of the total volume BIN
of the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples may STRUCTURE NAME
not be indicative of the actual material encountered. Thruway over Catskill Creek

CONTRACT D214619 CONTRACTOR Golder Associates Inc. SHEET 4 OF 4 HOLE DN-W

 ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET

PSN ___________________________________ DNW-4

Boring ID ______________________
A72159
PIN ___________________________________ Surface Elevation_________________
5513219
BIN ___________________________________ 56.0 66.0
Depth From__________to__________
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway
Project _________________________________ 2
Number of Runs _________________
Bridge over Catskill Creek
_______________________________________ NQ-2
Core Size _______________________

08/15/2018
Date Evaluated ____________________ Kyle Shearing & Karen Roth
Evaluator (s) _________________________

56.0
Top of Rock _______________ (Depth) _______________ (Elevation)
56.0
Top of Sound Rock _______________ (Depth) ______________ (Elevation)

Occasional near vertical fractures at 59.3 to 59.5, 60.3 to 60.6, 62.5 to 64.0, and 65.5 to 65.8 feet.
Comments ________________________________________________________________________________
Near vertical fracture cracked, but not broken from 64.0 to 64.9 feet. Healed vertical fracture from 60.6 to 61.8
__________________________________________________________________________________________
feet.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

RUN #1 8.0
Run Length ______________ 56.0
Depth Range: From __________ 64.0
To __________

6.4
RQD __________ 80
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly gray with an occasional thin dark gray interbed
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured along bedding planes
Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________
0.05-2.0'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Moderately hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core break appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil, occasional slight iron staining, void from 58.9 to 59.3 feet
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 7.6 or 95%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 16
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2

EB 15-025
 ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET (CONTINUED)

PSN _________________ A72159

PIN ____________________________ DNW-4
Boring ID __________________

2
RUN # __________ 2.0
Run Length _____________ 64.0
Depth Range: From _____________ 66.0
to_____________

1.8
RQD __________ 90
(as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________________
Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly gray with occasional thin dark gray interbeds
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Thickly laminated to thinly bedded
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Slightly fractured along bedding planes
Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________
0.35-1.2'
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Moderately hard
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Occasional fossil
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
Rec: 1.8 or 90%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of core pieces - 3
__________________________________________________________________________________________

RUN # __________ Run Length _____________ Depth Range: From _____________ to_____________

RQD __________ (as measured) _________ % Photo(s)

______________________________
Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________
Color ____________________________________________________________________________________
Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________
Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________
Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________
Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________
Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________
Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 2

EB 15-025
 APPENDIX B
ROCK CORE PHOTOS
October 2018 Project No.: 18104049

APPENDIX B
Rock Core Photos
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek
Milepost 113.22 Thruway Mainline, New York
NYSTA PIN A72159

Row 1 = DNW-1 Run 1: 47.5 - 50.3 ft-bgs.

Rows 1,2 = DNW-1 Run 2: 50.3 - 54.8 ft-bgs.
Rows 2,3 = DNW-1 Run 3: 54.8 - 57.8 ft-bgs.
Row 3 = DNW Run 4: 57.8 - 60.4 ft-bgs
Rows 3,4 = DNW Run 5: 60.4 - 67.6 ft-bgs

1 of 4
October 2018 Project No.: 18104049

APPENDIX B
Rock Core Photos
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek
Milepost 113.22 Thruway Mainline, New York
NYSTA PIN A72159

Rows 1,2 = DNW-2 Run 1: 45.6 - 53.4 ft-bgs.

Row 3 = DNW-2 Run 2: 53.4 - 55.6 ft-bgs.

2 of 4
October 2018 Project No.: 18104049

APPENDIX B
Rock Core Photos
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek
Milepost 113.22 Thruway Mainline, New York
NYSTA PIN A72159

Row 1 = DNW-1 Run 5: 60.4 - 67.6 ft-bgs.

Rows 1,2,3 = DNW-3 Run 1: 50.7 - 60.7 ft-bgs.
Rows 3,4 = DNW-3 Run 2: 60.7 - 69.9 ft-bgs.

3 of 4
October 2018 Project No.: 18104049

APPENDIX B
Rock Core Photos
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek
Milepost 113.22 Thruway Mainline, New York
NYSTA PIN A72159

Row 1,2 = DNW-2 Run 1: 45.6 - 53.4 ft-bgs.

Row 2 = DNW-2 Run 2: 53.4 - 55.6 ft-bgs.
Row 3,4 = DNW-4 Run 1: 56.0 - 64.0 ft-bgs.
Row 4 = DNW-4 Run 2: 64.0 - 66.0 ft-bgs.

4 of 4
 APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
 Project: NYSTA Catskill Creek Bridge
(SE Approach)
Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project No.: 18-001
Borehole No.: DNW-1801
Date of Report Cover: 09/25/18
Summary of Testing

Laboratory ID Number Sample Number/Name Requested Analysis

18-620 S3 Grain Size
18-621 S7 Grain Size
18-622 S9 Grain Size
18-632 Run 2, Piece 3 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)
18-633 Run 5, Piece 6 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)
Notes: UCS and Elastic Moduli performed by GeoTesting Express

3rd Rock, LLC

580 Olean Road
East Aurora, NY 14052
(716)655.4933
www.soilstesting.com
 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 36.2 41.2 8.9 6.3 2.5 4.9

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-620
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1.5" 100.0
1 81.0 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.75 63.8 PL= LL= PI=
.5 44.8
.375 37.3 Classification
.25 27.9 USCS (D 2487)= GW AASHTO (M 145)=
#4 22.6 Coefficients
#10 13.7 D90= 30.3395 D85= 27.3858 D60= 17.8110
#20 9.3 D50= 14.5423 D30= 6.9955 D15= 2.4069
#40 7.4 D10= 1.0237 Cu= 17.40 Cc= 2.68
#60 6.5
#100 5.8 Remarks
#140 5.3 Used entire amount provided for Grain Size testing.
#200 4.9

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/18/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1801, S3
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 27.7 39.7 11.0 10.0 3.8 7.8

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-621
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1.5" 100.0
1 82.5 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.75 72.3 PL= LL= PI=
.5 56.7
.375 48.9 Classification
.25 38.8 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#4 32.6 Coefficients
#10 21.6 D90= 30.5439 D85= 27.1067 D60= 13.9288
#20 14.9 D50= 9.9545 D30= 4.1043 D15= 0.8684
#40 11.6 D10= 0.2415 Cu= 57.66 Cc= 5.01
#60 10.1
#100 9.0 Remarks
#140 8.4 Used entire amount provided for testing.
#200 7.8

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested:

Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1801, S7
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 15.2 6.8 1.2 1.5 1.2 74.1

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-622
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1" 100.0
.75 84.8 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.5 82.5 PL= LL= PI=
.375 80.7
.25 79.1 Classification
#4 78.0 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#10 76.8 Coefficients
#20 75.9 D90= 21.4907 D85= 19.1450 D60=
#40 75.3 D50= D30= D15=
#60 74.9 D10= Cu= Cc=
#100 74.6
#140 74.3 Remarks
#200 74.1 Used entire amount provided for testing.

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/18/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1801, S9
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: trm
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1801
Sample ID: 18-632 Run1, Piece 3
Depth, ft: ---
Sample Type: rock core
Sample Description: See photographs
Intact material failure

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock

by ASTM D7012 - Method D

Stress vs. Strain

40000

Lateral Strain Axial Strain

30000
Vertical Stress (psi)

20000

10000

0
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

MicroStrain

Peak Compressive Stress: 17,441 psi

The axial strain values recorded for this test produce values of Poisson's Ratio that exceed maximum values found in rocks.
One axial strain gauge failed to record meaningful data.

Stress Range, psi Young's Modulus, psi Poisson's Ratio

1700-6400 118,000,000 ---
6400-11000 219,000,000 ---
11000-15700 239,000,000 ---

Notes: Test specimen tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.
The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.
Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio calculated using the tangent to the line in the stress range listed.
Calculations assume samples are isotropic, which is not necessarily the case.
Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: crs
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1801
Sample ID: 18-632; Run1, Piece 3
Depth, ft: ---

After cutting and grinding

After break
 Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: trm
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1801
Sample ID: 18-633 Run 5, Piece 6
Depth, ft: ---
Sample Type: rock core
Sample Description: See photographs
Intact material failure

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock

by ASTM D7012 - Method D

Stress vs. Strain

20000

Lateral Strain Axial Strain

15000
Vertical Stress (psi)

10000

5000

0
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

MicroStrain

Peak Compressive Stress: 14,723 psi

Stress Range, psi Young's Modulus, psi Poisson's Ratio

1500-5400 6,370,000 0.19
5400-9300 7,020,000 0.23
9300-13300 6,860,000 0.25

Notes: Test specimen tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.
The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.
Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio calculated using the tangent to the line in the stress range listed.
Calculations assume samples are isotropic, which is not necessarily the case.
Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: crs
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1801
Sample ID: 18-633; Run 5, Piece 6
Depth, ft: ---

After cutting and grinding

After break
 Project: NYSTA Catskill Creek Bridge
(SE Approach)
Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project No.: 18-001
Borehole No.: DNW-1802
Date of Report Cover: 09/25/18
Summary of Testing

Laboratory ID Number Sample Number/Name Requested Analysis

18-623 S4 Grain Size
18-624 S9 Grain Size
18-625 S10 Grain Size
18-634 Run 1, Piece 2 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)
18-635 Run 2, Piece 7 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)
Notes: UCS and Elastic Moduli performed by GeoTesting Express

3rd Rock, LLC

580 Olean Road
East Aurora, NY 14052
(716)655.4933
www.soilstesting.com
 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 44.2 31.6 8.7 7.9 2.8 4.8

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-623
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1.5" 100.0
1 75.0 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.75 55.8 PL= LL= PI=
.5 41.3
.375 35.3 Classification
.25 28.7 USCS (D 2487)= GW AASHTO (M 145)=
#4 24.2 Coefficients
#10 15.5 D90= 32.1276 D85= 29.5973 D60= 20.4306
#20 10.1 D50= 16.9087 D30= 6.9075 D15= 1.8777
#40 7.6 D10= 0.8291 Cu= 24.64 Cc= 2.82
#60 6.4
#100 5.6 Remarks
#140 5.2 Used both jars provided for Grain Size testing.
#200 4.8

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/18/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1802, S4
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 30.5 28.2 6.8 6.8 3.8 23.9

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-624
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1.5" 100.0
1 80.2 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.75 69.5 PL= LL= PI=
.5 62.3
.375 50.0 Classification
.25 44.2 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#4 41.3 Coefficients
#10 34.5 D90= 31.2187 D85= 28.1696 D60= 11.9579
#20 30.2 D50= 9.5250 D30= 0.8090 D15=
#40 27.7 D10= Cu= Cc=
#60 26.3
#100 25.2 Remarks
#140 24.5 Used entire amount provided for testing.
#200 23.9

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/18/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1802, S9
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 11.6 17.0 9.0 11.6 10.5 40.3

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-62
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1.5" 100.0
1 90.3 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.75 88.4 PL= LL= PI=
.5 85.0
.375 81.0 Classification
.25 75.0 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#4 71.4 Coefficients
#10 62.4 D90= 24.7295 D85= 12.6705 D60= 1.5282
#20 55.3 D50= 0.3707 D30= D15=
#40 50.8 D10= Cu= Cc=
#60 47.8
#100 44.7 Remarks
#140 42.5 Used entire sample provided for testing.
#200 40.3

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/20/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1802, S10
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: trm
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1802
Sample ID: 18-634 Run 1, Piece 2
Depth, ft: ---
Sample Type: rock core
Sample Description: See photographs
Intact material failure

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock

by ASTM D7012 - Method D

No Graph Available

Peak Compressive Stress: 15,736 psi

Both axial and lateral strain gauges failed to record meaningful data. Strain data could not be displayed.

Stress Range, psi Young's Modulus, psi Poisson's Ratio

1600-5800 --- ---
5800-10000 --- ---
10000-14200 --- ---

Notes: Test specimen tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.
The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.
Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio calculated using the tangent to the line in the stress range listed.
Calculations assume samples are isotropic, which is not necessarily the case.
Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: crs
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1802
Sample ID: 18-634; Run 1, Piece 2
Depth, ft: ---

After cutting and grinding

After break
 Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: trm
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1802
Sample ID: 18-635 Run 2, Piece 7
Depth, ft: ---
Sample Type: rock core
Sample Description: See photographs
Intact material failure

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock

by ASTM D7012 - Method D

Stress vs. Strain

40000

Lateral Strain Axial Strain

30000
Vertical Stress (psi)

20000

10000

0
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

MicroStrain

Peak Compressive Stress: 16,675 psi

Stress Range, psi Young's Modulus, psi Poisson's Ratio

1700-6100 6,330,000 0.16
6100-10500 8,160,000 0.21
10500-15000 7,190,000 0.21

Notes: Test specimen tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.
The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.
Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio calculated using the tangent to the line in the stress range listed.
Calculations assume samples are isotropic, which is not necessarily the case.
Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: crs
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1802
Sample ID: 18-635; Run 2, Piece 7
Depth, ft: ---

After cutting and grinding

After break
 Project: NYSTA Catskill Creek Bridge
(SE Approach)
Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project No.: 18-001
Borehole No.: DNW-1803
Date of Report Cover: 09/25/18
Summary of Testing

Laboratory ID Number Sample Number/Name Requested Analysis

18-626 S2 Grain Size
18-627 S5 Grain Size
18-628 S11 Grain Size
18-636 Run 1, Piece 1 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)
18-637 Run 2, Piece 4 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)
Notes: UCS and Elastic Moduli performed by GeoTesting Express

3rd Rock, LLC

580 Olean Road
East Aurora, NY 14052
(716)655.4933
www.soilstesting.com
 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 7.1 18.6 9.2 18.2 18.1 28.8

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-626
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1" 100.0
.75 92.9 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.5 87.1 PL= LL= PI=
.375 84.3
.25 77.9 Classification
#4 74.3 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#10 65.1 Coefficients
#20 57.5 D90= 16.2218 D85= 10.1444 D60= 1.0496
#40 46.9 D50= 0.5334 D30= 0.0833 D15=
#60 43.2 D10= Cu= Cc=
#100 37.9
#140 33.0 Remarks
#200 28.8 Used entire sample provided for testing.

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/20/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1803, S2
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 25.4 42.5 9.3 7.4 2.4 13.0

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-627
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1.5" 100.0
1 88.0 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.75 74.6 PL= LL= PI=
.5 56.1
.375 47.3 Classification
.25 37.1 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#4 32.1 Coefficients
#10 22.8 D90= 26.7662 D85= 23.6446 D60= 13.9990
#20 17.6 D50= 10.4911 D30= 4.0892 D15= 0.3548
#40 15.4 D10= Cu= Cc=
#60 14.4
#100 13.7 Remarks
#140 13.4 Used entire sample provided for testing.
#200 13.0

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/21/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1803, S5
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 8.1 6.1 9.7 7.6 68.5

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-628
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
.75" 100.0
.5 99.1 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.375 96.5 PL= LL= PI=
.25 94.2
#4 91.9 Classification
#10 85.8 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#20 80.1 Coefficients
#40 76.1 D90= 3.7051 D85= 1.7648 D60=
#60 73.9 D50= D30= D15=
#100 71.6 D10= Cu= Cc=
#140 70.0
#200 68.5 Remarks
Used entire sample provided for testing.

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/20/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1803, S11
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: trm
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1803
Sample ID: 18-636 Run 1, Piece 1
Depth, ft: ---
Sample Type: rock core
Sample Description: See photographs
Intact material failure

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock

by ASTM D7012 - Method D

Stress vs. Strain

20000

Lateral Strain Axial Strain

15000
Vertical Stress (psi)

10000

5000

0
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

MicroStrain

Peak Compressive Stress: 13,847 psi

One axial strain gauge failed to record meaningful data. Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio reported based on results of a
single axial strain gauge.

Stress Range, psi Young's Modulus, psi Poisson's Ratio

1400-5100 9,020,000 0.26
5100-8700 4,470,000 0.15
8700-12400 2,750,000 0.10

Notes: Test specimen tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.
The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.
Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio calculated using the tangent to the line in the stress range listed.
Calculations assume samples are isotropic, which is not necessarily the case.
Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: crs
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1803
Sample ID: 18-636; Run 1, Piece 1
Depth, ft: ---

After cutting and grinding

After break
 Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: trm
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1803
Sample ID: 18-637 Run 2, Piece 4
Depth, ft: ---
Sample Type: rock core
Sample Description: See photographs
Intact material failure

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock

by ASTM D7012 - Method D

Stress vs. Strain

20000

Lateral Strain Axial Strain

15000
Vertical Stress (psi)

10000

5000

0
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

MicroStrain

Peak Compressive Stress: 16,041 psi

Stress Range, psi Young's Modulus, psi Poisson's Ratio

1600-5900 14,800,000 0.44
5900-10200 14,700,000 ---
10200-14400 11,100,000 ---

Notes: Test specimen tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.
The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.
Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio calculated using the tangent to the line in the stress range listed.
Calculations assume samples are isotropic, which is not necessarily the case.
Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: crs
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1803
Sample ID: 18-637; Run 2, Piece 4
Depth, ft: ---

After cutting and grinding

After break
 Project: NYSTA Catskill Creek Bridge
(SE Approach)
Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project No.: 18-001
Borehole No.: DNW-1804
Date of Report Cover: 09/25/18
Summary of Testing

Laboratory ID Number Sample Number/Name Requested Analysis

18-629 S2 Grain Size
18-630 S10 Grain Size
18-631 S12 Grain Size
18-638 Run 1, Piece 1 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)
18-639 Run 1, Piece 13 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)
Notes: UCS and Elastic Moduli performed by GeoTesting Express

3rd Rock, LLC

580 Olean Road
East Aurora, NY 14052
(716)655.4933
www.soilstesting.com
 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 35.2 36.4 10.7 9.3 2.9 5.5

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-629
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1.5" 100.0
1 86.5 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.75 64.8 PL= LL= PI=
.5 50.6
.375 43.4 Classification
.25 33.7 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#4 28.4 Coefficients
#10 17.7 D90= 26.9866 D85= 24.8328 D60= 17.4509
#20 11.2 D50= 12.3860 D30= 5.2260 D15= 1.4750
#40 8.4 D10= 0.6624 Cu= 26.34 Cc= 2.36
#60 7.2
#100 6.4 Remarks
#140 5.9 Used entire amount provided for testing.
#200 5.5

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/18/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1804, S2
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 28.9 31.9 9.8 9.2 3.7 16.5

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-630
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1.5" 100.0
1 88.9 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.75 71.1 PL= LL= PI=
.5 62.2
.375 53.2 Classification
.25 43.9 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#4 39.2 Coefficients
#10 29.4 D90= 25.9577 D85= 23.8183 D60= 11.6930
#20 23.3 D50= 8.5263 D30= 2.1312 D15=
#40 20.2 D10= Cu= Cc=
#60 18.8
#100 17.6 Remarks
#140 17.0 Used entire sample provided for testing.
#200 16.5

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/21/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1804, S10
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Particle Size Distribution Report

3/8 in.
1½ in.

#100
#140
#200
¾ in.

½ in.
6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1 in.

#10

#20
#30
#40

#60
#4
100 0

90 10

80 20

PERCENT COARSER
70 30
PERCENT FINER

60 40

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 19.0 16.0 8.1 10.6 9.2 37.1

TEST RESULTS (D6913) Material Description

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? ID#18-631
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1.5" 100.0
1 93.0 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
.75 81.0 PL= LL= PI=
.5 75.1
.375 72.1 Classification
.25 68.6 USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
#4 65.0 Coefficients
#10 56.9 D90= 23.5801 D85= 21.0921 D60= 2.9393
#20 50.4 D50= 0.8003 D30= D15=
#40 46.3 D10= Cu= Cc=
#60 43.4
#100 40.7 Remarks
#140 38.8 Used entire sample provided for testing.
#200 37.1

Date Received: 8/28/18 Date Tested: 9/21/18

Tested By: JJZ
Checked By: JMA
Title: LM
* (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 4H18 Date Sampled:
Sample Number: DNW-1804, S12
3rd Rock, LLC Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.
Project: 4H18

East Aurora, NY Project No: 18-001 Figure

 Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: trm
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1804
Sample ID: 18-638 Run 1, Piece 1
Depth, ft: ---
Sample Type: rock core
Sample Description: See photographs
Intact material failure

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock

by ASTM D7012 - Method D

Stress vs. Strain

20000

Lateral Strain Axial Strain

15000
Vertical Stress (psi)

10000

5000

0
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

MicroStrain

Peak Compressive Stress: 13,395 psi

Stress Range, psi Young's Modulus, psi Poisson's Ratio

1300-4900 5,220,000 0.16
4900-8500 6,490,000 0.33
8500-12100 4,850,000 ---

Notes: Test specimen tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.
The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.
Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio calculated using the tangent to the line in the stress range listed.
Calculations assume samples are isotropic, which is not necessarily the case.
Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: crs
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1804
Sample ID: 18-638; Run 1, Piece 1
Depth, ft: ---

After cutting and grinding

After break
 Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: trm
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1804
Sample ID: 18-639 Run 1, Piece 13
Depth, ft: ---
Sample Type: rock core
Sample Description: See photographs
Intact material failure

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock

by ASTM D7012 - Method D

Stress vs. Strain

20000

Lateral Strain Axial Strain

15000
Vertical Stress (psi)

10000

5000

0
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

MicroStrain

Peak Compressive Stress: 6,157 psi

The axial and lateral strain gauges did not pick up any deformation within the first stress range. Young's Modulus and
Poissons Ratio within the first stress range could not be determined.

Stress Range, psi Young's Modulus, psi Poisson's Ratio

600-2300 --- ---
2300-3900 4,890,000 0.24
3900-5500 4,430,000 0.35

Notes: Test specimen tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.
The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.
Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio calculated using the tangent to the line in the stress range listed.
Calculations assume samples are isotropic, which is not necessarily the case.
Client: 3rd Rock LLC
Project Name: Catskill, Thruway
Project Location: ---
GTX #: 308761
Test Date: 9/12/2018
Tested By: crs
Checked By: jsc
Boring ID: DNW-1804
Sample ID: 18-639; Run 1, Piece 13
Depth, ft: ---

After cutting and grinding

After break
 Water Content Test Results by ASTM D2216
Project: New York State Thruway Project No: 18-001
Project: I-87 Catskill Creek Bridge, SE Approach Stabil.
Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc. Date: 9/12/18
Natural
Borehole No. Sample Nos. Lab ID No. Water Content, %
DNW-1801 S-1 18-597 6.7
S-2 18-597 3.5
S-3 18-597 2.1
S-4 18-597 3.6
S-5 18-597 5.1
S-6 18-597 2.1
S-7 18-597 4.1
S-8 18-597 5.0
S-9 18-597 18.3
S-10 18-597 7.4
DNW-1802 S-1 18-598 2.6
S-2 18-598 2.4
S-3 18-598 2.3
S-4 18-598 3.7
S-5 18-598 5.3
S-6 18-598 3.5
S-7 18-598 2.4
S-8 18-598 4.0
S-9 18-598 5.7
S-10 18-598 15.9
DNW-1803 S-1 18-599 3.2
S-2 18-599 6.4
S-3 18-599 3.0
S-4 18-599 2.9
S-5 18-599 6.8
S-6 18-599 3.1
S-7 18-599 2.0
S-8 18-599 3.7
S-9 18-599 4.7
S-10 18-599 9.4
S-11 18-599 13.9
DNW-1804 S-1 18-600 5.4
S-2 18-600 3.0
S-3 18-600 3.3
S-4 18-600 3.1
S-5 18-600 4.4
S-6 18-600 3.7
S-7 18-600 3.3
S-8 18-600 3.4
S-9 18-600 3.0
S-10 18-600 7.3
S-11 18-600 24.0
S-12 18-600 12.9
3rd Rock, LLC
580 Olean Road
East Aurora, NY 14052
(716)655-4933
(716)655-8638 fax
 APPENDIX D
CALCULATIONS
 CALCULATIONS
Date: 10/25/2018 Made by: KAR
Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: CJS
Subject: Seismic Site Class Reviewed by: MCM

Project Short Title: Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

1.0 Purpose
Determine the seismic site class at the Catskill Creek Bridge in Greene County, NY.

2.0 Method
Follow the procedure outlined in AASHTO Table C3.10.3.1-1

3.0 References
1) AASHTO. (2017). "LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", Eighth Edition. Pages 3-94 to 3-96.
2) Borehole logs from Golder field explorations completed August 13-21, 2018, Report Appendix A.

4.0 Calculation
Determine the average N value for each of the layer of the soil profile.

Boring Layer Depth N Value

1.1' - 3.0' 27
3.0' - 5.0' 35
8.0' - 10.0' 16
13.0' - 15.0' 35
Rockfill
18.0' - 20.0' 48
DNW-1
23.0' - 25.0' 23
28.0' - 30.0' 87
33.0' - 35.0' 56
38.0' - 40.0' 40
Glacial Till
43.0' - 45.0' 69
1.3' - 2.8' 45
3.0' - 5.0' 36
8.0' - 10.0' 78
13.0' - 15.0' 45
Rockfill 18.0' - 20.0' 23
DNW-2
23.0' - 25.0' 17
28.0' - 30.0' 40
33.0' - 35.0' 17
38.0' - 40.0' 21
Glacial Till 43.0' - 45.0' 16
1.0' - 3.0' 22
3.0' - 5.0' 76
8.0' - 10.0' 54
13.0' - 15.0' 17
Rockfill 18.0' - 20.0' 64
DNW-3 23.0' - 25.0' 22
28.0' - 30.0' 35
33.0' - 35.0' 27
38.0' - 40.0' 89
43.0' - 45.0' 76
Glacial Till
48.0' - 50.0' 63

Golder Associates
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Seismic Site Class\Catskill_SeismicSiteClass_withrefusal.xlsx Page 1 of 2
 CALCULATIONS
Date: 10/25/2018 Made by: KAR
Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: CJS
Subject: Seismic Site Class Reviewed by: MCM

Project Short Title: Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek
1.0' - 3.0' 59
3.0' - 5.0' 33
8.0' - 10.0' 14
13.0' - 15.0' 12
18.0' - 20.0' 58
Rockfill
23.0' - 25.0' 27
DNW-4
28.0' - 30.0' 58
33.0' - 35.0' 83
38.0' - 40.0' 56
43.0' - 45.0' 69
48.0' - 50.0' 52
Glacial Till
53.0' - 55.0' 62

Average N Values By Layer

Design Thickness
Layer Average N Value
(feet)
Rockfill 51.0 42
Glacial Till 5.0 54

Determine the average N for the top 100 ft using the following calculation:

N i = Standard Penetration Test blow count of a layer (not exceeding 100 blows/ft in the above expression)

d Fill = 51.2 N Fill = 42

d Till = 5.6 N Till = 54

d Rock = 43.2 N Rock = 100 *

*Note: Where refusal is met for a rock layer, N i should be taken as 100 blows/ft.

57

Conclusion:
● The seismic site class is C because > 50 blows/ft. (Classification based on definitions from Table C3.10.3.1-1.)

Golder Associates
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Seismic Site Class\Catskill_SeismicSiteClass_withrefusal.xlsx Page 2 of 2
 10/26/2018
Subject: H-Pile Design Made By: CJS / KAR
Project Name: Catskill Creek Bridge Checked By: CJS Page 1 of 2
Reference: 18104049 Reviewed By: CCB

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the geotechnical capacity for selected pile sizes at the proposed retaining
wall.

REFERENCES: 1. Geotechnical Design Procedure GDP-11 Revision #4, New York State
Department of Transportation, August 2015
2. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Eighth Edition, 2017
3. Principles of Foundation Engineering, Seventh Edition, Braja Das, 2011
4. Laboratory test results for rock core sampled at project site: Compressive
Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock, GeoTesting Express, September 2018
5. Shoring Suite analysis included in Appendix D.

APPROACH: Check pile tip resistance on rock to estimate pile capacity and factor of safety.

CALCULATION:

Step 1: Design Criteria (based on Shoring Suite analysis, Reference 5):

Vertical Anchor Load from Anchor Testing: ALtest ≔ 134

Design Vertical Anchor Load: ALdesign ≔ 90

Step 2: Select Preliminary Pile Sections (based on Shoring Suite analysis, Reference 5):

Select 2 Piles:
HP 14x102 ⎡ 30.0 ⎤ 2
Ag ≔ ⎢
HP 14x117 ⎣ 34.4 ⎥⎦

Step 3: Using the Goodman method (Reference 3), calculate geotechnical pile tip resistance for
the limestone bedrock at the site:

ϕ ≔ 34 For Limestone (34 - 40 degrees), LRFD Table C10.4.6.4-1

qulab ≔ 14 Determined by laboratory testing, Reference 4

qulab
qudesign ≔ ―― Reference 3, Equation 11.65
5
2
⎛ ϕ⎞
Nϕ ≔ tan ⎜45° + ―⎟ = 3.537 Reference 3, Equation 11.64
⎝ 2⎠

qp ≔ qudesign ⋅ ⎛⎝Nϕ + 1⎞⎠ = 12.7 Reference 3, Equation 11.64

P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\600 Calculations\Pile Structural Capacity Calculation - updated for Catskill v3.mcdx
 10/26/2018
Subject: H-Pile Design Made By: CJS / KAR
Project Name: Catskill Creek Bridge Checked By: CJS Page 2 of 2
Reference: 18104049 Reviewed By: CCB

Step 4: Calculate the pile tip bearing capacity and factor of safety:

⎡ 381.1 ⎤
Qp ≔ qp ⋅ Ag = ⎢ HP 14x102 Reference 3, Equation 11.66
⎣ 437 ⎥⎦ HP 14x117

Qp ⎡ 2.84 ⎤
FStest ≔ ―― = ⎢ HP 14x102 Reference 3, Equation 11.66
ALtest ⎣ 3.26 ⎥⎦ HP 14x117

Qp ⎡ 4.23 ⎤
FSdesign ≔ ――― =⎢ HP 14x102 Reference 3, Equation 11.66
ALdesign ⎣ 4.86 ⎥⎦ HP 14x117

CONCLUSION

The HP section piles (HP 14x102 and HP 14x117) were analyzed for bearing capacity on
bedrock. The factor of safety during anchor testing is 2.84 and 3.26 for HP 14x102 and HP
14x117 piles, respectively. The factor of safety for the design case is 4.23 and 4.86 for HP
14x102 and HP 14x117 piles, respectively.

P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\600 Calculations\Pile Structural Capacity Calculation - updated for Catskill v3.mcdx
 CALCULATIONS
Date: 1/25/2019 Made by: CJS

Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: JDL

Subject: Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis Reviewed by: CCB

Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement

1.0 OBJECTIVE
Design a soldier pile and lagging wall with grouted tie-backs to replace the existing wall. Evaluate permanent, temporary
construction and seismic conditions. Evaluate construction condition on the existing wall.

2.0 METHOD
1. Follow NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Proceedure 11 (GDP-11) for fexible wall design. Use Shoring Suite 8.17a to
evaluate the soil/structure interaction and select/size the wall system.

3.0 REFERENCES
1) Golder Associates boring logs, Geotechnical Design Report (January 2019) Appendix A.
2) Golder Associates design figures included in the Geotechnical Design Report (January 2019).
3) CivilTech Software, (2016). “Shoring Suite,” version 8.17a.
4) New York State Thruway Authority design drawing package titled “Bridge Rehabilitation, Milepost 113.22+/-,” drawing
numbers 31 & 42, dated December 1991.
5) Post-Tensioning Institue, (2014). “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors – PTI DC35.1-14,” 5th
edition, United States of America.
6) USGS Seismic Design Maps software, published March 19, 2018, accessed on September 17, 2018,
[https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php?]
7) New York State Department of Transportation (2012). “Geotechnical Design Manual, Section 17 – Abutments,
Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes,” DRAFT, pp.17-32.
8) New York State Department of Transportation (2015). "Geotechnical Design Procedure for Flexible Wall Systems,
(GDP-11)," Rev. 4.
9) Sabatini, P.J., Pass, R.C., and Bachus R.C. (1999). "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 - Ground Anchors and
Anchored Systems," Report No. FHWA-IF-99-015, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. pp 118
10) Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Ed. (2017), “Section 3.11.6.2 – Point, Line,
and Strip Loads (ES): Walls Restrained from Movement,” American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.

4.0 ATTACHMENTS
1) Earth pressure diagrams
2) Software output files

5.0 ASSUMPTIONS
1) The load applied by the road and traffic, for existing and final design conditions, is modeled at 250 psf. The construction
cases were analyzed for global stability assuming a uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf. The This 400 psf
surcharge is based on 150,000 lbs of equipment distributed over roughly 20 ft x 20 ft area, assuming the contractor needs
to design crane mats.
2) Subsurface layers are assumed to exhibit fully drained behavior (c = 0).
3) Groundwater conditions are as observed during the 2018 field program. Analysis of elevated water levels was outside
of our scope and not considered. Assume lagging/wall facing is able to freely drain (i.e. no unbalanced water force).
4) Assume soldier piles below grade consist of only the steel section (i.e. piles are not encased in concrete shafts).
5) The proposed soldier piles will be driven into place and will be constructed of 50 ksi steel, assuming Fb/Fy = 0.55 for
calculating the allowable bending moment and selecting an acceptable section modulus. A Fb/Fy = 0.9 (i.e. FS=1.1) was
assumed for the seismic design check. The existing soldier piles are assumed to be HP14x89 sections constructed of
36ksi steel (A Fb/Fy = 0.56 was considered acceptable for this analysis). Assume modulus of elasticity of 29,000ksi.

1
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite\Calculation Package\190125 Rev 3 Shoring Suite Calculation Package.xlsx
 CALCULATIONS
Date: 1/25/2019 Made by: CJS

Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: JDL

Subject: Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis Reviewed by: CCB

Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement
6) Tie-back anchors will be installed at 45deg from horizontal and extended into competent soft limestone bedrock inside
a minimum 7-inch diameter drill hole. For design, PTI recommends applying a factor of safety of 2.0 to the ultimate bond
strength of 150 psi for soft limestone and grout. Accordingly, our analysis assumed a design bond strength of 75 psi
(10.8 ksf).

7) The horizontal peak ground acceleration coefficient (PGA), the 0.2-second spectral response acceleration (Ss) and 1-
second spectral response acceleration (S1) can be determined using online USGS mapping software. The Site Class
classification of “C” and site location can be entered into the software which returns the PGA (PGA = 0.057 g), the spectral
response accelerations (Ss = 0.128 g and S1 = 0.038 g), effective peak ground acceleration coefficient (As = 0.068 g),
and the corresponding site coefficients, Fpga, of 1.2, Fa, of 1.2 and Fv, of 1.7. For seismic earth pressure calculations,
NYSDOT recommends using kh equal to 1.5 x As (kh = 0.102 g) and kv equal to zero for walls not free to move during
seismic loading and kh equal to 0.5 x As (kh = 0.034 g) and kv equal to zero for walls free to move during seismic loading.
The new wall will have some flexibility and will be free to deflect during a seismic event, however the tieback anchors will
provide some horizontal restraint. Therefore Golder recommends using the conservative higher kh value for design.

6.0 INPUT PARAMETERS

Earth Pressures:
Determine the active earth pressure acting against the wall. Follow the design guidance in GDP-11 assuming Rankine
earth pressure.

𝑝𝑎 = 𝛾 ′ 𝐻𝑘𝑎 (for static analysis)

𝑝𝑎 = 𝛾 ′ 𝐻𝑘𝑎𝑒 (for pseudo-static analysis)

where:
γ' = effective unit weight of soil (pcf)
H = soil layer thickness (ft)
k a = active earth pressure coefficient

1 − sin ϕ′𝑓
𝑘𝑎 = (for static analysis)
1 + sin ϕ′𝑓

φ'f = 37 deg, effective friction angle of soil layer

(for pseudo-static analysis)

where:

φ'f = effective friction angle of soil layer (deg)

β = wall inclination (deg, assumed to equal zero for this analysis)
δ = wall friction (deg, assumed to equal zero for this analysis)
i = backfill slope angle (deg, assumed to equal zero for this analysis)
kh = 0.102g (horizontal earthquake acceleration component)
kv = 0 (vertical earthquake acceleration component)

2
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite\Calculation Package\190125 Rev 3 Shoring Suite Calculation Package.xlsx
 CALCULATIONS
Date: 1/25/2019 Made by: CJS

Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: JDL

Subject: Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis Reviewed by: CCB

Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement

Determine the surcharge pressure acting against the proposed wall. Follow the design guidance in GDP-11 assuming
Rankine earth pressure.

𝑝𝑞 = 𝑞𝑘𝑎
where:
q = uniform surcharge load (psf)

The existing wall wall surcharges were applied according to the theory below (from Ref. 10):

3
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite\Calculation Package\190125 Rev 3 Shoring Suite Calculation Package.xlsx
 CALCULATIONS
Date: 1/25/2019 Made by: CJS

Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: JDL

Subject: Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis Reviewed by: CCB

Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement
Determine the passive pressure coefficient acting against the wall. Follow the design guidance in GDP-11 assuming
Rankine earth pressure.

𝑝𝑝 = 𝛾 ′ 𝐻𝑘𝑝

where:
γ' = effective unit weight of soil (pcf)
H = soil layer thickness (ft)
k p = passive earth pressure coefficient

where:
β = slope angle (deg)
φ'f = 37 deg, effective friction angle of soil layer
FS = 1.5 for permanent walls (per GDP-11). 1.1 is recommended for pseudo-
static external stability analyses (Ref 9).

The earth pressure coefficients used in design were as follow:

ka = 0.25 (active coefficient for non-seismic conditions)
k ae = 0.31 (active coefficient for seismic only)
kp = 1.31 (passive coefficient for non-seismic conditions)
kp = 1.78
(passive coefficient for seismic only)
kp
(passive coefficient for existing wall under non-
= 1.68
seismic conditions, assuming 25degree slope in
front of wall)
Earth pressure diagrams for each design case are provided in Attachment 1.

4
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite\Calculation Package\190125 Rev 3 Shoring Suite Calculation Package.xlsx
 CALCULATIONS
Date: 1/25/2019 Made by: CJS

Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: JDL

Subject: Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis Reviewed by: CCB

Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement

Shoring Suite Analysis:

The earth pressure envelopes from Reference 7, coupled with the design assumptions described above, were used to
analyze the five following wall cases:

Case 1: Long-Term Static Condition – This case considered a full-height final condition (24.4 ft wall) that included a
surcharge load of 250 psf applied at the top of the wall, all anchors installed and tensioned, and the slope at the base of
the wall extending 30 degrees from the toe of slope. Earth pressures are applied as shown in Attachment 1.

Case 2: Long-Term Seismic Condition – This case is the same as Case 1, but applies seismic earth pressures as as
shown in Attachment 1.

Case 3: Partial-Height Temporary Condition – This case assumes the front of the wall would be excavated to 10 ft bgs
and timber lagging would be installed in preparation for the anchor installation at 8 ft. As described above in Section 5.1 a
uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf was applied at the top of the wall. For the purposes of this analysis, the
slope in front of the wall is assumed to fail to 30 degrees measured from horizontal at the toe of slope at the river (no
passive resistance provided by the soil above teh 30 degree surface).

Case 4: Long Term Static Condition (End Pile South End of Wall) - The ground surface slopes upwards at the southern
end of the wall. This case considered a 10ft tall wall design condition, included a surcharge load of 250 psf applied at the
top of the wall, and the slope at the base of the wall extending 30 degrees from the toe of slope. This wall section
assumes 4ft pile spacing to account for the orientation of the end pile. Earth pressures are applied as shown in
Attachment 1.

Case 5: Temporary Construction Condition. This assumes a 5ft excavation behind the existing wall, in which the
installation equipment will sit, during installation of the proposed soldier piles. A construction surcharge of 400psf was
applied within the 5ft excavation from 7 to 27ft behind the existing wall. The 250psf traffic surcharge was applied at the
existing roadway elevation assuming two lanes of traffic are maintained through a lane shift. The slope below the existing
wall was assumed to be 25 degrees.

5
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite\Calculation Package\190125 Rev 3 Shoring Suite Calculation Package.xlsx
 CALCULATIONS
Date: 1/25/2019 Made by: CJS

Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: JDL

Subject: Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis Reviewed by: CCB

Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement
7.0 Conclusion
The recommended design for the tieback wall includes a total of 12 HP 14x102* soldier piles, spaced at 8 ft on-center. In
addition, the Shoring Suite analysis results in a minimum pile embedment depth of approximately 11.6 ft below the bottom
of the wall. Golder recommends driving the piles to refusal on bedrock to satisfy axial pile capacity requirements (i.e.
vertical anchor load components, dead weight of the wall, etc.). This results in estimated pile lengths ranging from
approximately 45 to 65 ft.

The design analysis includes one row of tieback anchors, installed at an inclination of 45 degrees, spaced at 8 ft on
center, that tie-in to each pile. The Shoring Suite analyses requires an anchor capacity of 84.3 kips to satisfy static wall
equilibrium under these conditions. GDP-11 indicates that a factor of safety of 1.5 should be applied to the anchor load
resulting in a design anchor load of 126.5 kips with horizontal and vertical components of 89.4 kips. The anchors should
be tested to 1.5 times the design load, resulting in temporary design loads during construction of 189.75 kips with
horizontal and vertical components of 134.1 kips.

A 400psf construction surcharge applied 7 to 27ft behind the existing wall can be applied during construction assuming 5ft
of soil is removed from behind the wall. Based on GDP-11 recommendations, the temporary timber lagging used during
construction whould be 3inches thick assuming: competent sands/gravels, 8ft pile spacing and wall height <25ft. The
timber lagging is assumed to be temporary and should be considered ineffective in carrying earth pressure loadings for
long-term permanent conditions. A maximum apparent earth pressure of 820 psf at the base of the exposed wall face can
be used in lagging design. This earth pressure does not include an earth pressure reduction for soil arching that may be
present if strain compatibility is considered.

*HP 14x120 is the minimum required pile size prior to any reduction in section for corrosion loss or anchor sleeve placment.

6
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite\Calculation Package\190125 Rev 3 Shoring Suite Calculation Package.xlsx
 550psf

823psf
550psf

1415psf
 MCM

- Timber lagging is in place

 MCM

- Timber lagging is in place.

 Case 5: Earth Pressure on Existing Wall
Earth Pressure (psf)
0 500 1000 1500
0
Active Earth Pressures
Surcharge Pressures - 400psf Load
5 Total Pressure
Surcharge Pressures - 250psf Load
10

15

20
Depth Below Top of Wall

25

30

35

40

45

50
 Attachment 2
Permanent Wall - Design Condition
8ft Pile Spacing, 8ft Anchor Spacing
Depth(ft)
0

5
1
10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 ksf
40

<ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 10/2/2018

File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\Permanent Wall.sh8

Wall Height=24.4 Pile Diameter=1.2 Pile Spacing=8.0 Wall Type: 3. Soldier Pile, Driving

PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=11.64 Min. Pile Length=36.04

MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=284.79 per Pile Spacing=8.0 at Depth=20.01

PILE SELECTION:
Request Min. Section Modulus = 124.3 in3/pile=2036.48 cm3/pile, Fy= 50 ksi = 345 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.55
HP14X102 has Section Modulus = 150.0 in3/pile=2458.05 cm3/pile. It is greater than Min. Requirements!
Top Deflection = -0.98(in) based on E (ksi)=29000.00 and I (in4)/pile=1050.0

BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, Deadman, Sheet Pile as Anchor
No. & Type Depth Angle Space Total F. Horiz. F. Vert. F. L_free Fixed Length
1. Tieback 8.0 45.0 8.0 84.3 59.6 59.6 14.0 4.3
UNITS: Width,Diameter,Spacing,Length,Depth,and Height - ft; Force - kip; Bond Strength and Pressure - ksf

DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE):

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
0 0.062 43 1.398 0.031070

PASSIVE PRESSURES:
Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
24.4 0 43 3.036 0.1632

ACTIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 0.00 8.00
2 24.40 1.23

PASSIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 24.40 3.69

UNITS: Width,Spacing,Diameter,Length,and Depth - ft; Force - kip; Moment - kip-ft

Friction,Bearing,and Pressure - ksf; Pres. Slope - kip/ft3; Deflection - in
 Permanent Wall - Design Condition Attachment 2
8ft Pile Spacing, 8ft Anchor Spacing
Depth(ft)
0

84.3 kip
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 ksf
40

Net Pressure Diagram

Top Deflection=-0.98(in)
Depth(ft) Max. Shear=47.65 kip Max. Moment=284.79 kip-ft Max Deflection=1.04(in)
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40
47.65 kip 0 284.79 kip-ft 0 1.042(in) 0

Shear Diagram Moment Diagram Deflection Diagram

PRESSURE, SHEAR, MOMENT, AND DEFLECTION DIAGRAMS

Based on pile spacing: 8.0 foot or meter
User Input Pile, hp14x102: E (ksi)=29000.0, I (in4)/pile=1050.0
File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\Permanent Wall.sh8

<ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343

 Attachment 2
Permanent Wall - Seismic Condition
8ft Pile Spacing, 8ft Anchor Spacing
Depth(ft)
0

1
10

15

20

25

30

35 0 1 ksf

<ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 10/25/2018

File: C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite

Wall Height=24.4 Pile Diameter=1.2 Pile Spacing=8.0 Wall Type: 3. Soldier Pile, Driving

PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=8.54 Min. Pile Length=32.94

MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=170.10 per Pile Spacing=8.0 at Depth=19.90

PILE SELECTION:
Request Min. Section Modulus = 45.4 in3/pile=743.31 cm3/pile, Fy= 50 ksi = 345 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.9
HP14X102 has Section Modulus = 150.0 in3/pile=2458.05 cm3/pile. It is greater than Min. Requirements!
Top Deflection = -0.23(in) based on E (ksi)=29000.00 and I (in4)/pile=1050.0

BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, Deadman, Sheet Pile as Anchor
No. & Type Depth Angle Space Total F. Horiz. F. Vert. F. L_free Fixed Length
1. Tieback 8.0 45.0 8.0 123.8 87.5 87.5 14.0 6.3
UNITS: Width,Diameter,Spacing,Length,Depth,and Height - ft; Force - kip; Bond Strength and Pressure - ksf

DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE):

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
0 0.55 24.4 0.55 0.000000
24.4 .823 43 1.415 0.031828

PASSIVE PRESSURES:
Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
24.4 0 43 4.139 0.2225

ACTIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 0.00 8.00
2 24.40 1.23

PASSIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 24.40 3.69

UNITS: Width,Spacing,Diameter,Length,and Depth - ft; Force - kip; Moment - kip-ft

Friction,Bearing,and Pressure - ksf; Pres. Slope - kip/ft3; Deflection - in
 Attachment 2
Permanent Wall - Seismic Condition
8ft Pile Spacing, 8ft Anchor Spacing
Depth(ft)
0

123.8 kip
5

10

15

20

25

30

35 0 1 ksf

Net Pressure Diagram

Top Deflection=-0.23(in)
Depth(ft) Max. Shear=52.20 kip Max. Moment=170.10 kip-ft Max Deflection=0.48(in)
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

52.20 kip 0 170.10 kip-ft 0 0.482(in) 0

Shear Diagram Moment Diagram Deflection Diagram

PRESSURE, SHEAR, MOMENT, AND DEFLECTION DIAGRAMS

Based on pile spacing: 8.0 foot or meter
User Input Pile, hp14x102: E (ksi)=29000.0, I (in4)/pile=1050.0
le: C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite\seismic case partialRectangular dist.sh8

<ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343

 Permanent Wall - Construction Conditions Attachment 2
8ft Pile Spacing, Excavation to 10ft for Anchor In
Depth(ft)
0

10

15

20

25

Moment Equilibrium
30 Force Equilibrium

0 1 ksf
35

<ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 10/2/2018

File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\Construction Case No Anchor.sh8

Wall Height=10.0 Pile Diameter=1.2 Pile Spacing=8.0 Wall Type: 3. Soldier Pile, Driving

PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=21.26 Min. Pile Length=31.26

MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=217.70 per Pile Spacing=8.0 at Depth=19.46

PILE SELECTION:
Request Min. Section Modulus = 95.0 in3/pile=1556.71 cm3/pile, Fy= 50 ksi = 345 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.55
HP14X102 has Section Modulus = 150.0 in3/pile=2458.05 cm3/pile. It is greater than Min. Requirements!
Top Deflection = 0.91(in) based on E (ksi)=29000.00 and I (in4)/pile=1050.0

DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE):

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
0 .1 43 1.436 0.031070

PASSIVE PRESSURES:
Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
10 0 43 5.385 0.1632

ACTIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 0.00 8.00
2 10.00 1.23

PASSIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 10.00 3.69

UNITS: Width,Spacing,Diameter,Length,and Depth - ft; Force - kip; Moment - kip-ft

Friction,Bearing,and Pressure - ksf; Pres. Slope - kip/ft3; Deflection - in
 Permanent Wall - Construction Conditions
8ft Pile Spacing, Excavation to 10ft for Anchor In Attachment 2
Depth(ft)
0

10

15

20

25

Moment Equilibrium
30 Force Equilibrium

0 1 ksf
35

Net Pressure Diagram

Top Deflection=0.91(in)
Depth(ft) Max. Shear=58.87 kip Max. Moment=217.70 kip-ft Max Deflection=0.91(in)
0

10

15

20

25

30

35
58.87 kip 0 217.70 kip-ft 0 0.910(in) 0

Shear Diagram Moment Diagram Deflection Diagram

PRESSURE, SHEAR, MOMENT, AND DEFLECTION DIAGRAMS

Based on pile spacing: 8.0 foot or meter
User Input Pile, hp14x102: E (ksi)=29000.0, I (in4)/pile=1050.0
File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\Construction Case No Anchor.sh8

<ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343

 Permanent Wall - Last Pile at West End of Wall
Reduce to 4ft Pile Spacing to Simulate End Pile
Attachment 2
Depth(ft)
0

10

15

20

Moment Equilibrium
Force Equilibrium
25
0 1 ksf

30 <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 10/5/2018

File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\End pile 4ft spacing.sh8

Wall Height=10.0 Pile Diameter=1.2 Pile Spacing=4.0 Wall Type: 3. Soldier Pile, Driving

PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=14.75 Min. Pile Length=24.75

MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=73.50 per Pile Spacing=4.0 at Depth=16.42

PILE SELECTION:
Request Min. Section Modulus = 32.1 in3/pile=525.60 cm3/pile, Fy= 50 ksi = 345 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.55
HP14X102 has Section Modulus = 150.0 in3/pile=2458.05 cm3/pile. It is greater than Min. Requirements!
Top Deflection = 0.23(in) based on E (ksi)=29000.00 and I (in4)/pile=1050.0

DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE):

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
0 0.062 43 1.398 0.031070

PASSIVE PRESSURES:
Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
10 0 43 5.385 0.1632

ACTIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 0.00 4.00
2 10.00 1.23

PASSIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 10.00 3.69

UNITS: Width,Spacing,Diameter,Length,and Depth - ft; Force - kip; Moment - kip-ft

Friction,Bearing,and Pressure - ksf; Pres. Slope - kip/ft3; Deflection - in
 Permanent Wall - Last Pile at West End of Wall
Reduce to 4ft Pile Spacing to Simulate End Pile Attachment 2
Depth(ft)
0

10

15

20

Moment Equilibrium
Force Equilibrium
25
0 1 ksf

30 Net Pressure Diagram

Top Deflection=0.23(in)
Depth(ft) Max. Shear=28.16 kip Max. Moment=73.50 kip-ft Max Deflection=0.23(in)
0

10

15

20

25

28.16 kip 0 73.50 kip-ft 0 0.232(in) 0

30
Shear Diagram Moment Diagram Deflection Diagram

PRESSURE, SHEAR, MOMENT, AND DEFLECTION DIAGRAMS

Based on pile spacing: 4.0 foot or meter
User Input Pile, hp14x102: E (ksi)=29000.0, I (in4)/pile=1050.0
File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\End pile 4ft spacing.sh8

<ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343

 15ft Existing Wall - Construction Conditions
6ft Pile Spacing 5ft Excavation Behind Wall Attachment 2
Depth(ft)
0

10

15

20

25

30
Moment Equilibrium
Force Equilibrium
35
0 1 ksf

40
<ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 1/25/2019

File: C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite

Wall Height=15.0 Pile Diameter=2.0 Pile Spacing=6.0 Wall Type: 2. Soldier Pile, Drilled

PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=19.52 Min. Pile Length=34.52

User inputted Embedment=20.00, Pile Length=35.00
MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=218.46 per Pile Spacing=6.0 at Depth=23.83

SYSTEM FACTOR OF SAFETY (Approximate)=1.02

The request embedment is 19.5, the user input fixed embedment = 20.

PILE SELECTION:
Request Min. Section Modulus = 130.0 in3/pile=2130.88 cm3/pile, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.56
HP14X89 has Section Modulus = 131.0 in3/pile=2146.70 cm3/pile. It is greater than Min. Requirements!
Top Deflection = 1.35(in) based on E (ksi)=29000.00 and I (in4)/pile=904.0

DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE):

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
0 0 5 0.0264 0.005280
5 0.0264 10 .3903 0.072780
10 .3903 15 .5647 0.034880
15 .5647 20 .6851 0.024080
20 .6851 25 .8019 0.023360
25 .8019 30 .9248 0.024580
30 .9248 35 1.0545 0.025940

PASSIVE PRESSURES:
Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope
15 0 43 5.907 0.2110

ACTIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 0.00 6.00
2 15.00 2.00
PASSIVE SPACING:
No. Z depth Spacing
1 15.00 4.00

UNITS: Width,Spacing,Diameter,Length,and Depth - ft; Force - kip; Moment - kip-ft

Friction,Bearing,and Pressure - ksf; Pres. Slope - kip/ft3; Deflection - in
 CALCULATIONS
Date: 10/31/2018 Made by: CJS
Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: MCM
Subject: Passive Soil Check During Anchor Installation Reviewed by: CCB
Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement

1.0 Purpose
Check that the force generated during anchor testing does not exceed the passive soil resistance of the wall system.

2.0 Method
Calculate passive pressure using Rankine earth pressure theory.

3.0 References
1) Das, Braja, (2011). "Principles of Foundation Engineering," 7th ed.

4.0 Assumptions
1) The wall system transfers the anchor load uniformly over the back of the exposed wall (i.e. temporary lagging). During anchor installation, the anchor
load is distributed over 8ft x 10ft (i.e. 8ft pile spacing and 10 ft wall height at testing).
2) Horizontal anchor load transferred to the pile is 135 kips (Test Load) and 90 kips (Design Load).

5.0 Calculations

߮
݇௣ ൌ –ƒଶ ሺͶͷ ൅ ൗʹሻ (Reference 1, Eq. 7.61)
Where:
ϕ= 37 deg, soil friction angle

kp = 4.0

ͳ
ܲ௣ ൌ ݇ ߛ ᇱ ‫ܪ‬ଶ (Reference 1, Eq. 7.64)
ʹ ௣
Where:
γʹ = 125 pcf, unit weight of soil
H= 10 ft, temporary height of wall during anchor installation

Pp = 25142 lbs/ft

Check factor of safety against Test Load (PTL)

ሺܲ௣ ‫ܮ כ‬ሻ
‫ ܵܨ‬ൌ ൘ܲ
்௅
Where:
L= 8 ft, pile spacing
PTL = 135,000 lbs, Horizontal Component of Anchor Test Load

FS = 1.49

Check factor of safety against Test Load (PDL)

ሺܲ௣ ‫ܮ כ‬ሻ
‫ ܵܨ‬ൌ ൘
ܲ஽௅
Where:
L= 8 ft, pile spacing
PDL = 90,000 lbs, Horizontal Component of Anchor Test Load

FS = 2.23

6.0 Conclusions
The factor of safety against passive failure at the anchor test load is 1.49.
The factor of safety against passive failure at the anchor design load is 2.23.
 APPENDIX D

CALCULATIONS
Date: 1/25/2019 Made by: CJS
Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: JDL
Subject: Global Stability Analysis Reviewed by: CCB
Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement

1.0 Purpose
Calculate global factor of safety for the proposed retaining wall replacement. Analyze existing, construction, and final design conditions under static and
seismic conditions.

2.0 Method
Use Slide slope stability analysis software to analyze global stability.

3.0 References
1) Golder Associates boring logs, Geotechnical Design Report (January 2019) Appendix A.
2) Golder Associates design figures included in the Geotechnical Design Report (January 2019).
3) Rocscience, Inc. 2018. “SLIDE – 2D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis”, Version 2018 8.018, build date September 28, 2018, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
4) New York State Thruway Authority design drawing package titled “Bridge Rehabilitation, Milepost 113.22+/-,” drawing numbers 31 & 42, dated
December 1991.
5) Golder Associates calculation titled, "Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis," dated 1/25/2019.
6) Rocscience, Inc. 2018. “RSPile”, Version 2018 2.011, build date October 15, 2018, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

4.0 Attachments
1) Slide Output Figures

5.0 Assumptions
1) The load applied by the road and traffic, for existing and final design conditions, is modeled at 250 psf. The construction cases were analyzed for global
stability assuming a uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf above the wall. This 400 psf surcharge is based on 150,000 lbs of equipment
distributed over roughly 20 ft x 20 ft area, assuming the contractor needs to design crane mats. The construction cases were also analyzed for global
stability assuming a uniform construction surcharge load of 350 psf between the walls. This 350 psf surcharge is based on 42,000 lbs of equipment
distributed over roughly 6 ft x 20 ft area, assuming the contractor needs to design crane mats.
2) Subsurface layers are assumed to exhibit fully drained behavior (c' = 0).
3) Facing of the retaining wall is assumed to be infinite strength (i.e. structural failure of the lagging is not allowed). The concrete wall facing is modeled
with a unit weight of 0.1pcf, as the facing will be supported by the piles and does not add driving forces to the slide.

4) Groundwater conditions are as observed during the 2018 field program. Analysis of elevated water levels was outside of our scope and not considered.

5) Pile sizing, spacing and orientation were selected as described in Appendix D of the Geotechnical Design Report. The retained portion of the anchored
wall is modeled with the retained earth pressure applied to the face of the wall (as the Soil/Pile Interaction Calculation in Reference 5 shows the proposed
wall system satisfies equilibrium for the applied design loads. The earth pressure diagrams are included as part of Reference 5). The purpose of this is to
help model the stiffness of the piles and the anchored wall system instead of using a discrete anchor point load. The piles are modeled as active supports
with a user defined shear strength value. LPile was used to check the amount of mobilized shear resistance on the piles for a specified amount of soil
movement past the pile. We assumed an allowable soil movement of up to 1.75 inches for the purpose of this analysis. Pile shear strength values used in
the analysis are shown on the output Figure D-2 through D-6. The following soil models were used in the analysis:

1
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Stablility Analyses\Calculation Package\19.01.25 Catskill_Final Slide package v3.xlsx
 APPENDIX D

CALCULATIONS
Date: 1/25/2019 Made by: CJS
Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: JDL
Subject: Global Stability Analysis Reviewed by: CCB
Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement

- API Sand (axial model, medium dense sand):

- Reese Sand (lateral model, medium consistency)

*Soil property tables shown above are taken from the internal RSPile help documentation (Reference 6).

6) The NYSTA indicated that stabilization of the existing slope would not be considered, but indicated that a FS > 1.3 was required for final design
conditions. We assumed a FS > 1.1. was required for construction conditions and FS > 1.0 was required for the seismic condition.
7) Use Bishop Method for circular failures in the analyses discussed in this calculation.

8) The seismic analysis in slide is performed by adding an the seismic force as a horizontal loading. The NYSDOT recommends using a horizontal pseudo-
static coefficient, kh, equal to half of As (kh = 0.034 g) and a vertical pseudo-static coefficient, kv, equal to zero for pseudo-static slope stability analyses.

6.0 Calculation
Determine input parameters to build the soil model in Slide. Use field N values and local engineering experience to develop these parameters. The field N
values are shown on the boring logs (Reference 2). The material parameters selected for use in the Slide models are shown in Figure D-1.

Use the soil layer parameters summarized in Figure D-1 to analyze the following scenarios:
1. Existing conditions
2. Temporary construction condition prior to installation of the anchors (i.e., construction equipment on top of the wall and a bench
in front at 10 ft from top of wall)
3. Temporary construction condition at maximum excavation. For this construction contract, the new wall will typically have a 15 ft
exposed face with 4 ft of lagging installed below finished grade (i.e. maximum excavation at 19ft bgs).
4. Final design conditions (see Figure 6 of the Geotechnical Design Report @ Design Grade)
5. Final design seismic conditions (see Figure 6 of the Geotechnical Design Report @ Design Grade)
6. Temporary construction condition to install piles for the new wall. This assumes a 5ft excavation behind the existing wall in
which the installation equipment will sit.

2
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Stablility Analyses\Calculation Package\19.01.25 Catskill_Final Slide package v3.xlsx
 APPENDIX D

CALCULATIONS
Date: 1/25/2019 Made by: CJS
Project No.: 18104049 Checked by: JDL
Subject: Global Stability Analysis Reviewed by: CCB
Project Short Title: Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement
7.0 Results & Conclusions

Table 7.1: Proposed Conditions Slope Stability Results

Global Factor Depth to Failure Surface

Run Description Figure Nos. Comments
of Safety (ft, below top of wall)

CASE 1: Existing slope configuration with 250psf traffic

D-2 0.97 --
Existing Conditions surcharge loading

Failure under the proposed wall with 400psf

construction loads above wall. Excavation to
CASE 2: D-3.1 1.20 10.5 10ft to install anchors at 8ft. Pile shear forces
Construction: are modeled assuming 1-inch of soil
Excavation to 10 ft, No movement past the piles.
Anchors Installed Same analysis as above, but includes 350psf
D-3.2 1.21 10.5 equipment surcharge for equipment working
in front of the wall
Failure under the proposed wall with 400psf
construction loads above wall. Excavation to
CASE 3: D-4.1 1.33 20.0 19ft to install lagging. Pile shear forces are
Construction: modeled assuming 1-inch of soil movement
Excavation to 19 ft, past the piles.
Anchors Installed Same analysis as above, but includes 350psf
D-4.2 1.24 -- equipment surcharge for equipment working
in front of the wall
Excavation to 24.4ft per the design condtions
CASE 4:
with a 30deg slope below the wall. Pile shear
Permanent Design D-5 1.30 34.0
forces are modeled assuming 1.75-inch of soil
Condition
movement past the piles.
CASE 5:
Same analysis as above, but with seismic
Permanent Design D-6 1.23 34.5
load applied to the system
Seismic Condition
CASE 6: Excavate to a depth of 5ft behind the existing
Construction: wall and apply 400psf construction surcharge.
D-7 1.18 16.8
Surcharge Application Maintain 250psf traffic surcharge on roadway
Behind Existing Wall assuming a lane shift.

Conclusion:
The proposed retaining wall system maintains acceptable factors of saftey through the construction scenarios and the design conditions as described
below:
● CASE 1: The global stability of the existing conditions confirms that the current slope conditions are not stable.
● CASE 2: An allowable surcharge of 400psf above the new wall and 350psf between the existing wall and the new wall was determined to be acceptable
once temporary lagging has been installed to a depth of 10 feet. Anchors must be installed prior to further excavation in front of the wall.
● CASE 3: Once the anchors have been installed, excavation to a depth of 19 feet for additional lagging installation was determined to be stable with both
a surcharge loading of 400psf above the wall and 350psf below the wall over a 6ft width.
● CASE 4: This shows the wall is stable at the final design case assuming the slope fails (i.e. passive soil loss) in front of the wall leaving an exposed wall
height of 24.4ft. Traffic is maintained on the roadway for this condition.
● CASE 5: This shows the wall is stable at the final design case, as described above, during a seismic loading event (i.e. kh = 0.034 g, kv=0).
● CASE 6: An allowable surcharge of 400psf, distributed over a 20ft width and set 7ft from behind the existing wall, can be assumed during construction
provided 5ft of material is excavated from behind the existing wall prior to surcharge placement. This case maintain 250psf traffic surcharge on the
roadway assuming a lane shift into the center median.

3
C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Stablility Analyses\Calculation Package\19.01.25 Catskill_Final Slide package v3.xlsx
860

Unit Weight Cohesion Phi

Material Name Color Strength Type
(lbs/ 3) (psf) (deg)

Rock Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 37

840

Till 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 38

Concrete * 0.1 Infinite strength

820

Bedrock 155 Infinite strength

800

Vegeta on 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 50 37

* Facing of the retaining wall is assumed to be infinite strength (i.e. structural failure of the lagging is not allowed). The concrete
wall facing is modeled with a unit weight of 0.1pcf, as the facing will be supported by the piles and does not add driving forces
780

to the slide.

-280 -260 -240 -220 -200 -180 -160 -140 -120

Project
Stabilize Approach to Thruway Bridge Over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159
Analysis Description
Material Summary Table
Drawn By Checked by: Reviewed by: Scale
JDL CCB
Figure D-1
CJS 1:197
Date
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.018
10/25/2018
250

0.97
200

250.00 lbs/ft2

Existing Ground Surface

15.9
150

W
100

W
50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Project
Stabilize Approach to Thruway Bridge Over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159
Analysis Description
CASE 1 - Existing Conditions - Circular Failure
Drawn By Checked by: Reviewed by: Scale
JDL CCB
Figure D-2
CJS 1:475
Date
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.016
10/4/2018
 Pile Shear
Out‐Of‐Plane Failure
Support Name Color Type Force Applica on Strength Force Direc on
Spacing ( ) Mode
(lbs)
250

Pile/Micro
Proposed Piles Ac ve (Method A) 8 Shear 15000 Perpendicular to pile
Pile

Pile/Micro
Exis ng Piles Ac ve (Method A) 6 Shear 6150 Perpendicular to pile
Pile
200

400.00 lbs/ft2
Method Name Min FS
250.00 lbs/ft2

  Bishop simplified 1.21
150

Existing Ground Surface

W
100

W
50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Project
Stabilize Approach to Thruway Bridge Over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159
Analysis Description
CASE 2 - Construction: Excavation to 10 ft, No Anchors Installed- No Surcharge Below Proposed Wall - Circular Search
Drawn By Checked by: Reviewed by: Scale
JDL CCB
Figure D-3.1
CJS 1:458
Date
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.018
10/23/2018
 Pile Shear
Out‐Of‐Plane Failure
250

Support Name Color Type Force Applica on Strength Force Direc on

Spacing ( ) Mode
(lbs)

Pile/Micro
Proposed Piles Ac ve (Method A) 8 Shear 15000 Perpendicular to pile
Pile

Pile/Micro
Exis ng Piles Ac ve (Method A) 6 Shear 6150 Perpendicular to pile
Pile
200

400.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2 Method Name Min FS
350.00 lbs/ft2

  Bishop simplified 1.21
150

Existing Ground Surface

100

W
50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Project
Stabilize Approach to Thruway Bridge Over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159
Analysis Description
CASE 2 - Construction: Excavation to 10 ft, No Anchors Installed- Includes Surcharge Below Proposed Wall - Circular Search
Drawn By Checked by: JDL Reviewed by: Scale
CCB
Figure D-3.2
CJS 1:441
Date
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.018
10/23/2018
250

Pile Shear
Out‐Of‐Plane Failure
Support Name Color Type Force Applica on Strength Force Direc on
Spacing ( ) Mode
(lbs)

Pile/Micro
Piles AcƟve (Method A) 8 Shear 28565 Perpendicular to pile
Pile
200

400.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
Method Name Min FS

Bishop simplified 1.33

or
150

ch
An
k
ac
eb
Ti

W
Existing Ground Surface
100

W
50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Project
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159
Analysis Description
CASE 3 - Construction: Excavation to 19 ft, Anchors Installed - No Surcharge Below Proposed Wall
Drawn By Checked by: Reviewed by: Scale
JDL CCB
Figure D-4.1
CJS 1:490
Date
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.018
10/25/2018
250

Pile Shear
Out‐Of‐Plane Failure
Support Name Color Type Force Applica on Strength Force Direc on
Spacing ( ) Mode
(lbs)

Pile/Micro
Piles AcƟve (Method A) 8 Shear 28565 Perpendicular to pile
Pile
200

Method Name Min FS
400.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2 Bishop simplified 1.24

350.00 lbs/ft2
or
150

ch
An
k
ac
eb
Ti

W
Existing Ground Surface
100

W
50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Project
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159
Analysis Description
CASE 3 - Construction: Excavation to 19 ft, Anchors Installed - Includes Surcharge Below Proposed Wall
Drawn By Checked by: Reviewed by: Scale
CJS JDL CCB 1:446
Date
10/25/2018
Figure D-4.2
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.018
30

1.30
250

Pile Shear
Out‐Of‐Plane Failure
Support Name Color Type Force Applica on Strength Force Direc on
Spacing ( ) Mode
(lbs)

Pile/Micro
Piles AcƟve (Method A) 8 Shear 46700 Perpendicular to pile
Pile
200

250.00 lbs/ft2
150

or
ch
An
k
ac

W
eb
Ti

30°

Existing Ground Surface

100

W
50

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Project
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159
Analysis Description
CASE 4 - Permanent Wall - Design Condition - Circular Search
Drawn By Checked by: Reviewed by: Scale
JDL CCB
Figure D-5
CJS 1:524
Date
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.018
10/23/2018
 1.23

0.034
Horizontal Seismic Loading
Applied to the Model
250

Pile Shear
Out‐Of‐Plane Failure
Support Name Color Type Force Applica on Strength Force Direc on
Spacing ( ) Mode
(lbs)

Pile/Micro
Piles AcƟve (Method A) 8 Shear 46700 Perpendicular to pile
Pile
200

250.00 lbs/ft2
150

or
ch
An
k
ac

W
eb
Ti

30°

Existing Ground Surface

100

W
50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Project
Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159
Analysis Description
CASE 5 - Permanent Wall - Design Seismic Condition - Circular Search
Drawn By Checked by: Reviewed by: Scale
JDL CCB
Figure D-6
CJS 1:500
Date
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.018
10/24/2018
 20.0
Method Name Min FS
7.0
  Spencer 1.18
200

400.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2 Pile Shear
Out‐Of‐Plane Failure
Support Name Color Type Force Applica on Strength Force Direc on
Spacing ( ) Mode
1.182 (lbs)

Pile/Micro
Exis ng Piles Passive (Method B) 6 Shear 9982 Perpendicular to pile
Pile
150

W
100

W
50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Project
Stabilize Approach to Thruway Bridge Over Catskill Creek - Milepost 133.22 - NYSTA PIN A2159
Analysis Description
CASE 6 - Excavate to 5ft to Install Anchors
Drawn By Checked by: Reviewed by: Scale
CJS JDL CCB 1:405

SLIDEINTERPRET 8.018
Date
1/25/2019 Figure D-7
golder.com
golder.com