March 2012 Draft Project Scoping Report/Final Design ... DR Appendix E.pdf · March 2012 Draft...

March 2012 Draft Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 4754.92

of 16BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT.doc

2011 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT

BRIDGE: Erie-Attica Railroad Bridge 367.14 over the Genesee River

LOCATION: Erie-Attica Trail at Farmers Road, Avon, NY

DATE(S) OF INSPECTIONS: August 17, 2011: 10:00 am – 2:00 pm

INSPECTION PERFORMED BY: Benjamin Beardsley, P.E. – Team Leader(NY PE Lic. #: 083414)Tim Davis – Assistant Team LeaderStacy Ingersol – Assistant Team Leader

WEATHER CONDITIONS: 08/17/11 – Sunny and clear, temp. ~ 75°F (±)

I. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING BRIDGE:

The Erie-Attica Railroad Bridge 367.14 over the Genesee River is a three-span bridge consisting ofa main truss span over the Genesee River and two approach spans on either end.

The west approach span is a steel two-girder superstructure with timber railroad ties placeddirectly on the top flanges of the girders. The span length of the west approach span is 24'-0".

The main truss span is a steel riveted Through Pratt Truss. The truss span length is 174'-6" fromcenter-to-center of the bearings. The distance between the truss top and bottom chords isapproximately 30'-0". The center-to-center spacing of the trusses is 17'-6" permitting placement ofa single track. The trusses are comprised of built-up riveted construction except for the eye-barmembers at interior bays of the lower chords and diagonals. The truss floorbeams, which are hungbelow the lower chord by means of riveted hangers, carry two stringers spaced at 5’-0”.

Wood ties are placed 13" center-to-center directly on the top flanges of the stringers and held inplace by dapped lower surfaces and their own weight. Ties measure 9" x 9" x 9'-0" long and aretied together along the ends by 4" tall x 6" wide timbers.

An east approach span was removed after abandonment of the railroad. The span length of theeast approach span is approximately 32'-0". It provided about a 12'-0” clearance over a road thatleads to a field. All that remains at present are the cut stone substructures.

The abutments and piers are constructed of rough-hewn cut stone with only a minimum of smoothfinishing. Mortar was used between stone courses. Concrete with gravel (rounded stone)aggregate has been placed as a cap on all of the substructures. Pedestals at the piers for the trussspan are reinforced with upside-down railroad rails (See Photo 17).

The distance between the truss and either approach span is about 15'-0”.

2011 Bridge Inspection ReportErie-Attica Railroad Bridge 367.14 over the Genesee River

Page 2 of 16

The measured overall length of the structure, therefore, is as follows:

West approach span 24'-0"West pier 15'-0"Truss span over river 174'-6"East pier 15'-0"East approach span (removed) 32'-0"

Total (Center to Center of Bearings) 260'-6"

II. DETAILS OF INSPECTION:The bridge was inspected primarily as a visual inspection due to the heavy vegetation along theend spans and limited safe access. A ladder was used to access the piers supporting the trussspan. The inspection was limited to the bottom chord, floorbeams and stringers of the truss, thestone substructures, and the end spans. Conditions will be stated with both a descriptive andnumerical rating with the baseline being the original railroad design condition not that of a trailbridge.

The descriptive rating is based on the following word definitions: “Excellent” represents new or likenew condition, “Good” represents general wear of the structure elements but otherwise in goodworking order, “Fair” means there are items in need of repair but otherwise in working order, and“Poor” means there are bridge elements in need of serious repair or replacement in the nearfuture.

A. AbutmentsBoth abutments are in Fair to Good condition. In various locations the joint mortar has comeloose. There are cracks through some of the individual stones but there are no signs ofmovement. The concrete cap on the abutments is in poor condition.(See Photos 1 & 2)

B. PiersBoth piers are in Fair condition. In various locations the joint mortar has come loose. Thereare some large cracks that run full height of the piers but there are no signs of movement. Theconcrete cap on Pier 1 is solid while the cap on Pier 2 has some heavy scaling and couple oflarge spalls.(See Photos 3 thru 8)

C. West Approach SpanThe West approach span overall is in Fair condition. This span is composed of two steel built-up girders. On average the built-up girders have up to 75% section loss on the top cover plate,while the remainder of the built-up girder has up to 10% section loss. The difference in sectionloss between the top cover plate and the remainder of the built-up girder is due to theremaining timber ties along with the vegetation on the girders which keep the top cover platein a moist environment. The build-up diaphragms for the span are in Good condition overall.(See Photos 9 & 10)


Page 3 of 16

D. Main Truss Span TRUSS MEMBERS – All of the members that constitute the truss (lower chord, upper

chord and diagonals) are in Good condition overall. There are still remnants of the blackpaint applied to the bridge previously. There is some light rusting but no measureablesection loss along the members. There are a few isolated spots of a single lacing barthat is bent but nothing indicated any more than minor impact damage.(See Photos 11 thru 18)

FLOORBEAMS – All of the floorbeams are in Fair condition overall. The built-upfloorbeams have up to 30% section loss on the top cover plate, while the remainder ofthe built-up floorbeam has up to 5% section loss. The difference in section lossbetween the top cover plate and the remainder of the built-up floorbeams is due to theremaining timber ties along with the vegetation on the girders which keep the top coverplate in a moist environment.(See Photos 12, 18, & 19)

STRINGERS – All of the stringers are in Fair condition overall. The built-up stringers onaverage have up to 50% section loss on the top cover plate, while the remainder of thebuilt-up stringer has up to 5% section loss. The difference in section loss between thetop cover plate and the remainder of the built-up stringer is due to the remainingtimber ties along with the vegetation on the girders which keep the top cover plate in amoist environment. The build-up diaphragms for the span are in Good condition overall.(See Photos 19 & 20)

LATERAL BRACING - All of the members that constitute the upper lateral bracing are inGood condition overall. There are still remnants of the black paint applied to the bridgepreviously. (See Photo 16)

All of the members that constitute the lower lateral bracing are in Fair condition overall.There are still remnants of the black paint applied to the bridge previously but withareas under the timber ties experiencing up to 50% section loss in isolated locations.(See Photos 12, 18, & 19)

E. East Approach SpanThe end approach span was removed and therefore there is no condition rating to provide.(See Photo 21)

F. Timber TiesThe timber ties that remain on the bridge are all in poor condition. Most of them are heavilyrotted with vegetation.(See Photo 22)

III. CONCLUSIONS:Considering the age of the Erie-Attica Railroad Bridge 367.14 over the Genesee River and the newuse of the structure will be a pedestrian bridge, overall it is in Fair to Good condition. Based on theobserved amounts of section loss, the west approach span girders and truss stringers were furtheranalyzed for trailway traffic limited to an AASHTO H10 Vehicle, snowmobiles, ATV’s, bicycles andpedestrians and found to be adequate.


Page 4 of 16

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS:The following recommendations are given for the possible reuse of the this bridge for trailwaytraffic limited to an AASHTO H10 Vehicle, snowmobiles, ATV’s, bicycles and pedestrians.

Remove all of the existing timber railroad ties and connectors.

Remove the vegetation and tree overgrowth from around the bridge.

Wire brush the top flanges of the Truss Stringers and Floorbeams and West Approach spangirders, and then apply rust inhibiting paint to them.

Install new pressure treated timber deck system on top of the Truss Stringers and WestApproach span girders.

Install a new bridge for the East Approach including new bridge seats and superstructure.

Repair spalled and scaled areas of the bridge substructures.

Repoint the grout between the cut stone of the bridge substructures.


Page 5 of 16

V. PHOTOGRAPHS & SKETCHES:


Page 6 of 16

PHOTO 1:Begin (West) Abutment

PHOTO 2:End (East) Abutment


Page 7 of 16

PHOTO 3:West Side of Pier 1

PHOTO 4:East Side of Pier 1

CRACK


Page 8 of 16

PHOTO 5:West side of Pier 2

PHOTO 6:East Side of Pier 2

CRACK


Page 9 of 16

PHOTO 7:South Face of Pier 2 (Concrete Cap Shown)

PHOTO 8:North Face of Pier 2


Page 10 of 16

PHOTO 9:Top View of Span 1 (Looking East)

PHOTO 10:Bottom View of Span 1 (Looking East)


Page 11 of 16

PHOTO 11:Bottom View of Main Span (Looking West)

PHOTO 12:Top View of Main Span (Looking West)


Page 12 of 16

PHOTO 13:Typical View of Eye-bar joint (End Right L06 Shown)

PHOTO 14:Typical View of Eye-bar joint (End Right L05 Shown)


Page 13 of 16

PHOTO 15:Typical Joint Between Eye-bars and Built-up Chord (Left L06 Shown)

PHOTO 16:Typical Upper Chord Panel Point (Left U04 Shown)


Page 14 of 16

PHOTO 17:Typical View of Truss Bearing (Begin Left Shown)

PHOTO 18:Typical View of Floorbeam and Hanger (End Right L05 Shown)


Page 15 of 16

PHOTO 19:Typical View of Stringer Top Flange (Bay L04-L05 Shown)

PHOTO 20:Typical View of Diaphragm (Bay L04-L05 Shown)


Page 16 of 16

PHOTO 21:View of Span 3 (Looking West)

PHOTO 22:Timber Ties at End of Main Span

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SUMMARY

For the proposed

Erie-Attica Bridge and Trail Project

located in the

Town of Caledonia / Village of Avon Livingston County, New York

Prepared for:

Village of Avon 74 Genesee Street

Avon, New York 14414

Prepared by:

November 2011

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 General.......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description ....................................................................................... 1

2.0 Subsurface Explorations ........................................................................................... 1

2.1 Test Borings .................................................................................................. 1

2.2 Analytical Testing ......................................................................................... 2

3.0 Summary of Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................... 2

3.1 General.......................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Test Boring B-1 - Creek Crossing ................................................................ 2

3.3 Test Borings B-2 and B-3 – Parking Lot ...................................................... 2

3.4 Groundwater ................................................................................................. 3

4.0 Geotechnical Engineering and Construction Considerations ................................... 3

4.1 Creek Crossing ............................................................................................. 3

4.2 Proposed Parking Lot ................................................................................... 4

5.0 Construction Observation ......................................................................................... 5

6.0 Closing ...................................................................................................................... 6 Figures

Figure No. 1-1 - Site Location Map

Figure No. 2 – Subsurface Exploration Location Plan

Appendices

Appendix A – Test Boring Logs

Appendix B – Analytical Laboratory Results

1.0 Introduction 1.1 General Fisher Associates, P.E., L.S., P.C. (Fisher Associates) was retained by the Village of Avon (Village) to provide geotechnical engineering services associated with the Erie-Attica Bridge and Trail project. The proposed project is generally located on the north side of Avon Caledonia Road and bounded by West River Road to the west and Horseshoe Boulevard to the east. The trail will connect to the Genesee Valley Greenway at its western terminus and Horseshoe Boulevard within the Livingston Industrial Complex at its eastern terminus. The approximate site location is shown on the Project Location Map, Figure 1-1. Fisher Associates conducted this geotechnical investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions, provide geotechnical engineering recommendations, and provide construction considerations related to the proposed creek crossing and proposed parking lot. This report presents the results of our field explorations and our preliminary geotechnical evaluations and was prepared for the exclusive use of the Village of Avon for the specific application of the proposed creek crossing and proposed parking lot areas. The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practice, and no other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 1.2 Project Description The proposed project will include a creek crossing and construction of a parking lot at the approximate location shown of Figure No. 2. The anticipated creek crossing location is currently proposed to be constructed south of two existing abutments associated with the historic railway alignment. The proposed design alternatives to cross the creek is to utilize either a 4-sided concrete box culvert or a culvert pipe. However the anticipated loading of these structures and design elevations were not available at the time of this report preparation. The location of the proposed parking lot area is proposed near the eastern terminus of the trail, east of Farmers Road. The traffic for the proposed parking lot is expected to consist mainly of automobiles and is not anticipated to facilitate heavy truck traffic.

2.0 Subsurface Explorations 2.1 Test Borings The subsurface exploration program consisted of three (3) subsurface test borings, designated as B-1 through B-3. Test boring B-1 was conducted near the proposed creek crossing and test borings B-2 and B-3 were conducted near the proposed parking lot area. The test boring explorations were performed by Nature’s Way Environmental Consultants & Contractors, Inc. (Nature’s Way) of Crittenden, New York on October 3, 2011. The test borings were performed using an ATV mounted, rotary drill rig and the borings were advanced to 20 ft below the existing ground surface (bgs) elevations. Fisher Associates’ personnel monitored the drilling operations and reviewed the soil and subsurface conditions at the time of the explorations. The test boring locations were established in the field by Fisher Associates’ personnel and

Erie-Attica Bridge and Trail Project November 2, 2011 FA#111006 Page 2

utility clearances were provided by Nature’s Way. The approximate as-advanced exploration locations are shown on Figure No. 2 - Subsurface Exploration Plan. Nature’s Way prepared subsurface test boring logs based on visual descriptions of recovered soil samples and the test boring logs are contained in Appendix A - Test Boring Logs. 2.2 Analytical Testing Analytical laboratory testing was conducted on representative soil samples recovered from the test borings. The analytical testing was conducted by Glynn Geotechnical Engineering of Lockport, New York and included natural moisture content, mechanical grain size analyses, and atterberg limits determinations. The testing was conducted to provide information to assist with determination of soil index properties and with soil classification. The testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM standards, and the laboratory test results prepared by Glynn Geotechnical Engineering are contained in Appendix B - Analytical Laboratory Results.

3.0 Summary of Subsurface Conditions 3.1 General The test borings made at the site encountered surface topsoil and native soils. It is noted that the generalized soil profile described below and shown on the test boring is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between the soil strata are approximate and are based on interpretations between widely spaced explorations. Actual soil transitions and conditions may vary between the subsurface exploration locations. 3.2 Test Boring B-1 - Creek Crossing The general stratigraphy encountered at the proposed creek crossing test boring B-1 generally consisted of approximately 8-inches of topsoil, followed by a loose to medium dense silt (ML) and stiff to very stiff clayey silt (ML) soils, which extended to approximately 15 ft bgs. Underlying these soils, a loose to medium dense silty sand (SM) soil deposit was encountered. The silty sand deposit was not fully penetrated at the depth explored. Analytical laboratory test results within the clayey silt layer at a depth of 8 to 12 ft bgs indicated that the natural moisture content of 22.1%. The Atterberg Limit determinations indicate the Liquid Limit of 46, a Plastic Limit of 28 and a Plasticity Index of 18. 3.3 Test Borings B-2 and B-3 – Parking Lot The general stratigraphy encountered at the proposed parking lot area test boring (B-1 and B-2) generally consisted of a stiff to very stiff clayey silt (ML and ML-CL) soil to a depth ranging from 5.5 ft to 8 ft bgs. Underlying the clayey silt deposit, a generally loose (i.e. standard penetration test “N” values less than 10) silty sand (SM and SP-SM) soil deposit was encountered. These loose silty sand and sand soils were not fully penetrated at the depths explored.


Analytical laboratory test results within the clayey silt soils indicated a natural moisture content of 15.4%, with gradations of 35.4% sand, and 64.6% fine-grained material. The analytical laboratory test results within the silty sand soils indicated a natural moisture content of 28.1%, with gradations of 2.1% gravel, 90.4% sand, and 7.5% fine-grained material. 3.4 Groundwater Groundwater levels were observed during the test boring drilling and recorded on the test boring logs. However, adequate time may not have passed during and/or after the completion of overburden drilling and sampling for groundwater to accumulate within the borings. Based on the drill log notes, groundwater was observed in test boring B-1 upon completion at a depth of about 16.8 ft bgs, however due to the close proximately of the existing creek it should be expected that the actual groundwater condition may be encountered at the water level within the creek. The groundwater observations at test borings B-2 and B-3 were observed at a depth of 15.8 ft bgs and 14.3 ft bgs, respectively. However as noted on the test boring logs, the recovered soil samples are generally described as “extremely moist” and “wet” below a depth of about 6 to 8 ft bgs, indicating that the groundwater table may have been encountered at or near this depth. It is anticipated that groundwater levels may be impacted by regional and local site considerations and may fluctuate over time. The fluctuations may be due to seasonal variations in precipitation and variations in soil conditions between explorations.

4.0 Geotechnical Engineering and Construction Considerations

4.1 Creek Crossing

Based on the current subsurface exploration, it is our preliminary opinion that the subsurface conditions would be suitable to support a lightly loaded box culvert supported using conventional spread foundation design or a culvert pipe, however we anticipate that it will be necessary to incorporate special procedures in order to provide a suitable bearing grade and working surface for the proposed structure. The factors that will affect the geotechnical foundation design recommendations will be the elevation of the structural elements in relation to the loose silt and silty sand soils, type of structure, size, structural loading, grade increases, and scour depths. Accordingly once additional design information has been developed we can provide specific geotechnical design and construction recommendations in regards to the creek crossing.


4.2 Proposed Parking Lot Based on the subsurface explorations at the proposed parking lot area (B-2 and B-3) it is our opinion that the subsurface conditions are generally suitable for asphalt concrete pavement, providing that the subgrades will be prepared and evaluated as discussed below. The following pavement design recommendation is provided based on the assumption that the vehicular traffic will consist of automobiles and is not anticipated to facilitate heavy truck traffic: Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Section:

• 1.5 inches - Asphalt Concrete Top Course - NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Type 7 Top Course

• 2.5 inches - Asphalt Concrete Binder Course - NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Type 3 Binder Course

• 12* inches - Subbase Course, New York State DOT specifications Item 304.12 Type 2

• Geotextile - Woven polypropylene stabilization/separation geotextile (i.e., Mirafi 500X or approved equivalent)

* It may be necessary to increase the subbase thickness in some areas to improve subgrade conditions and to promote drainage to underdrains, etc, as discussed below.

Accumulation of water on pavement subgrades should be avoided by grading the subgrade to a slope of at least 2 percent. Installation of underdrains is recommended to drain the pavement subbase course and subgrades and limit the potential for frost action. Underdrain pipes should be connected to the site storm water drainage system or daylight to drainage features. Based on the soils encountered in the subsurface explorations, exposed subgrade materials will generally consist of clayey silt soils. Due to the grain size and composition, these soils will be highly sensitive to disturbance and strength degradation in the presence of excess moisture. These soils will also be frost susceptible if left open to inclement weather conditions during construction. It is recommended the site preparation work be performed during seasonally dry periods to minimize potential degradation of the subgrade soils and undercuts which may become necessary to establish a stable base for construction. Efforts should be made to maintain the subgrades in a dry and stable condition at all times, and traffic over exposed subgrades should be minimized to the extent practicable during construction. These efforts could include: installation of drainage swales and underdrains (i.e. “French drains”) to intercept and divert surface runoff and perched groundwater away from the construction areas; sloping of the subgrade and “sealing” of the surface with a smooth drum roller to promote runoff; and restricting construction equipment traffic from traveling directly over the subgrade surfaces, especially when they are wet.


It should be anticipated that construction traffic over these subgrade soils particularly when they are wet, but not limited to, may become disturbed, destabilize, and rut/pump. Accordingly any areas that are disturbed should be undercut or over excavated and backfilled with compacted Engineered Fill (i.e. New York State DOT specifications Item 304.12 Type 2). Site preparation for the parking lot should include excavation and removal of all surface materials, topsoil, trees, and loose/soft or wet soils. The prepared surface should be visually observed, and all deleterious materials and organic matter, should be excavated and removed. The subgrade surface should be proof-rolled with at least three (3) sets of overlapping passes of a smooth-wheel vibratory compaction equipment weighing at least 10 to 15 tons, under the observation of a qualified geotechnical engineer. Areas that are wet, weave excessively, or unstable during proof-rolling should be excavated and replaced with compacted Engineered Fill. A suitable stabilization/separation geotextile, such as Mirafi 500X, should be placed between the soil subgrades and the overlying Engineered Fill layer. We recommend that any Engineered Fill/Subbase beneath the parking lot area, consist of Crusher Run Stone or Crushed Gravel and Sand mixture that is free of Clays, Organics, Snow, Ice and friable or deleterious particles. The Engineered Fill should meet the material requirements of NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Subbase Item New York State DOT specifications Item 304.12 Type 2. All placement of fill should be placed in nearly horizontal, uniform lifts not exceeding 9-inches in loose thickness and compacted with at least three (3) passes of suitable compaction equipment. All fill should be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density as determined by modified proctor test (ASTM D-1557). Fill should also be placed in a stable well engineered condition and should not “pump” or show signs of movement or significant deflection (i.e. unstable conditions) as it is being constructed. All fill should be placed and compacted within ±2% of optimum moisture content, and the equipment used to compact the granular materials must be compatible with the material type and lift thickness. The loose lift thickness should be reduced to 6-in. in excavations where hand operated compaction equipment will be utilized.

5.0 Construction Observation We recommend that a geotechnical engineer, and/or a qualified engineering technician, working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer, be retained during construction. The Engineer and/or his representative will make observations of the prepared subgrade and bearing surfaces to review that unsuitable materials have been removed. The Engineer or his representative will also observe the subsurface conditions exposed during construction for comparison to the exploration data. This will allow for adjustments that may be necessary to accommodate actual soil conditions revealed at the time of construction.


6.0 Closing We prepared this report to provide information about potential foundation design and construction considerations for the proposed creek crossing and parking lot area. Test borings were made as part of this evaluation, and the recommendations provided herein are based on information available from the subsurface explorations. This report presents the field observations, data collection and research, results, and professional opinions, and may be subject to modification if the Village of Avon or any other party develops subsequent information. The report has been prepared for the specific and exclusive use of the Village of Avon, and the design team for these project elements, described above. The report and the findings in the report shall not, in whole or in part, be disseminated or conveyed to any other party, or used or relied upon by any other party, except for the specific purpose and to the specific parties alluded to above, without the prior written consent of Fisher Associates. Fisher Associates would be pleased to discuss the conditions associated with any such additional dissemination, use, or reliance by other parties. These conclusions and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions which could exist in unexplored areas of the site. Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is a possibility that conditions between test borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that the conditions are not anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore, an experienced geotechnical engineer should evaluate earthwork and foundation construction to verify that the field conditions match those anticipated in design, as recommended above. In the event changes are made in the proposed constructions plans, the recommendations presented in this report shall be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer and the conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing.

FIGURES

4

Orthoimagery Source:NGS_Topo_US_2Dhttp://services.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/services

ERIE-ATTICA BRIGE AND TRAILTown Of Caledonia & Village Of AvonLIVINGSTON COUNTY, NEW YORK

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 1-1

PROJECT LOCATION

0 4,000 8,000 12,000Feet

�North Not to Scale

Legend:

�B-1 Designation and

approximate location of test borings.

Notes: 1. Test borings drilled by Nature’s Way Environmental Consultants &

Contractors, Inc. on October 3, 2011. 2. Test boring locations established in the field by Fisher Associates

personnel based on aerial mapping. The location of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.

3. Test boring logs prepared by Nature’s Way Environmental Consultants & Contractors, Inc. are contained in Appendix A of the attached report text.

Figure No. 2

Subsurface Exploration Location Plan Erie-Attica Bridge and Trail

Town of Caledonia & Village of Avon Livingston County, New York

FA #111006 November 2011

��B-2

��B-1 ��B-3

Approximate Creek Crossing Location

Approximate Parking Lot Area

APPENDIX A

Test Boring Logs By Nature’s Way Environmental Consultants & Contractors, Inc.

APPENDIX B

Analytical Laboratory Result

H:\Projects\111006-Erie_Attica_Trail_Avon\Eng\Reports\Geotechnical\Test Pits\Technical Memo - Test Pits.docx

To: Carl Ast, PE

CC: Roseann Schmid, PE Katherine C. Dugan, EIT

From: Wendel C. Armstrong, PE Date: February 6, 2012

Subject:

Test Pit Exploration Summary for the Proposed Erie-Attica Bridge and Trail Project Village of Avon, New York

Comments:

This technical memorandum was prepared in regards to the recently completed test pit explorations

associated with the Erie-Attica Bridge and Trail Project. This technical memorandum presents a summary of

the exploration methods, a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the test pit explorations, and

laboratory analysis results.

Subsurface Explorations – Test Pits

The subsurface investigation at the project site consisted of conducting eight (8) test pits, designated as TP-1

through TP-8. The test pit exploration locations were established in the field by Fisher Associates’ personnel

using tape measurements referenced to existing site features. The location of the explorations should be

considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The approximate as-advanced

exploration locations are shown on Figure No. 1. In general test pits TP-1, TP-2, TP-3, TP-7, and TP-8 were

conducted within the existing trail limits, while TP-4 and TP-5 were conducted within the portion of the trail

that goes around the existing abutments. Test pit TP-6 was conducted where the existing farmer’s lane

crosses the trail.

The initial locations of the test pits were proposed to be approximately spaced evenly along the trail

alignment beginning at its western limit at the Genesee Valley Greenway and extending to the Genesee River

on the eastern limit of the trail. However due to an existing underground utility located within the trail limits

at the western portion of the trail, test pits TP-1, TP-2, and TP-3 we relocated in the field, as shown on

Figure No. 1.

The test pit explorations were performed by Nature’s Way Environmental Consultants & Contractors, Inc.

(Nature’s Way) of Crittenden, New York on January 13, 2012, utilizing a Komatsu PC40R mini excavator to

depths of approximately 1.5 ft to 6 ft below the ground surface (bgs) elevations. Fisher Associates’

personnel monitored the test pit operations and reviewed the soil and subsurface conditions at the time of the

explorations. Fisher Associates prepared the subsurface test pit logs based on visual descriptions of

recovered soil samples. The test pit logs are contained in Attachment A and representative photographs of

the test pit excavations are presented in Attachment B.

MEMO

Erie-Attica Bridge and Trail Project February 6, 2012

Test Pit Exploration Summary Page 2

Laboratory Testing of Soil Samples

Laboratory testing was conducted on representative soil samples recovered from the test pits. The testing

was, conducted by Glynn Geotechnical Engineering., included natural moisture contents, mechanical grain

size analyses, atterberg limit determination, and modified proctor analysis. The testing was performed to

confirm the visual soil classification and provide grain size distribution for the Railroad Fill material. The

testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM standards. A summary of the geotechnical laboratory

testing results is included in Table No.1 and the prepared laboratory test results are contained in Attachment

C.

Summary of Subsurface Conditions

General:

The subsurface conditions encountered at the site are generally summarized below, in order of increasing

depth below the ground surface. The boundaries between soil strata are approximate and the actual soil

transitions and conditions may vary between the subsurface exploration locations. The test pit exploration

logs are presented in Appendix A. The test pit photographs contained in Appendix B provide additional

details regarding the subsurface conditions.

Surface Material:

A thin vegetative layer, with an approximate thickness ranging from 2 to 6 inches was encountered at test

pits TP-1, TP-4, TP-5, TP-7 and TP-8. This surface material generally consisted of topsoil, organics, roots,

and contained inclusions of railroad bed fill material containing black sand and gravel.

Railroad Fill:

Underlying the surface materials or from the ground surface, railroad fill material was encountered at test

pits TP-1, TP-2, TP-3, TP-7, and TP-8. The railroad fill ranged in thickness from approximately 7-inches to

11-inches. The following table summarized the railroad fill thicknesses.

Test Pit Number Approximate Railroad Fill Thickness

(inches)

TP-1 8

TP-2 7

TP-3 11

TP-4 Not Encountered



TP-7 11

TP-8 9

The railroad fill generally consisted of Black, sandy coarse to fine Gravel, gravelly coarse to fine Sand, with

inclusions of silt, roots, and organics. Analytical laboratory test results indicate that the natural moisture

content of the railroad ranges from approximately 7±% to 16±% with an average of approximately 11%. The

grain size analysis indicates a distribution of gravel ranging from approximately 33% to 52%, sand at

approximately 40% to 58%, and fine grained materials (i.e. silts and clays) of 8% to 10%. The two (2)

Erie-Attica Bridge and Trail Project February 6, 2012

Test Pit Exploration Summary Page 3

modified proctors indicate the materials maximum dry density of 115.6 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and

118.3 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 6.9% and 7.7%, respectively.

Based on the analytical laboratory testing the railroad fill is classified generally as GP-GM, SW-SM, and

GW-GM group soils, using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). In addition based on visual

observations, the gravel size particles generally appeared to be rounded with occasional angular pieces. In

addition the gravel appeared to be 3-inches or less, however occasional cobbles were observed.

General Fill Soils:

Beneath the railroad fill material or from the ground surface, general fill soils were encountered at all of the

test pit explorations. It is assumed that these general fill soils are associated with the construction of the

railroad bed. The general fill soils consisted of fine-grained materials described as clayey Silt and silty Clay

soils, with inclusions of sand and organics. The USCS In addition an approximate 1 foot thick layer of buried

topsoil was encountered at test pits TP-2 and TP-6 at a depth of approximately 3.6 ft and 2.6 ft bgs,

respectively.

Attachments: Figure No. 1 – Test Pit Exploration Location Plan

Table No. 1 – Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results

Attachment A – Test Pit Logs

Attachment B – Test Pit Photographs

Attachment C – Laboratory Results

Figure

NorthNot to Scale

Legend:

TP-1 Designation and

approximate location ofTest Pits. Refer to testpit logs for approx.

station location.

Notes:1. Test borings drilled by Nature’s Way Environmental Consultants &

Contractors, Inc. on October 3, 2011.

2. Test boring locations established in the field by Fisher Associatespersonnel based on aerial mapping. The location of the boringsshould be considered accurate only to the degree implied by themethod used. Refer to test pit logs, included in Attachment A forapproximate station locations of the test pits.

Figure No. 1

Test Pit Exploration Location PlanErie-Attica Bridge and Trail

Town of Caledonia & Village of AvonLivingston County, New York

FA #111006 February 2012

TP-8TP-7

TP-6

TP-1

TP-4

TP-5

TP-3TP-2

Test Pit Sample Moisture

Number Number Content Gravel Sand Silt and

Clay

% % % %

TP-1 S1 0.3 to 1 8.2 46.5 45.7 7.8 GP-GM Railroad Fill

TP-3 S1 0 to 0.9 10.9 33.1 58.1 8.8 SW-SM 115.6 pcf @ 6.9% Railroad Fill

TP-4 S1 0.3 to 2 22.8 0.0 9.7 90.3 25.0 40.0 15.0 CL

TP-5 S1 0.5 to 1 11.8 40.0 47.2 12.8 SM

TP-6 S1 0 to 2.6 18.0 0.0 12.0 88.0 24.0 40.0 16.0 CL

TP-7 S1 0 to 1.4 7.1 51.7 40.3 8.0 GW-GM Railroad Fill

TP-8 S1 0 to 1 16.4 40.3 50.0 9.7 SW-SM 118.3 pcf @ 7.7% Railroad Fill

Notes:

1) Blank space indicates testing was not completed.

2) Laboratory testing results contained in Attachment C.

(ft)

Modified ProctorMaximum Dry Density @

Optimum Moisture

Sample Grain Size Analysis Liquid and Plastic Limit AnalysisUSCSSymbol

RemarksDepth PlasticLimit

Liquid LimitPlasticity

Index

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

ERIE-ATTICA BRIDGE & TRAIL PROJECT

AVON, NEW YORK

Attachment A

Test Pit Logs

TEST PIT LOG

Test Pit Number: TP-1

Project Number: 111006 Test Pit Number: TP-1

Project Name: Erie-Attica Bridge & Trail Project Surface Elevation: NA

Project Location: Avon, New York Location: Approx. Sta. 38+00

Contractor: Nature’s Way Date: January 13, 2012

Weather: Snow - ~20°

Equipment: PC40R – Mini ExcavatorFisher Associates

Representative: W. Armstrong

Depth(Feet)

SampleNumber

Soil Description Remarks/Notes

S1

Black, TOPSOIL with gravel0.3’

--- 1 ---(0.3’ – 1’) Black, c-f GRAVEL and SAND, trace silt,

trace coal pieces, contains roots &organics 1’

(moist/frozen, Railroad FILL)

--- 2 ---Light Brown, f SAND and SILT, little gravel,contains roots (moist, FILL)

--- 3 --- 3’

Brown, Clayey SILT, little Sand, contains organics &roots (moist, FILL)

--- 4 ---

--- 5 ---

--- 6 ---

Bottom of Exploration at 6 ft.

Notes or Comments: Test pit size = 2.5’ wide X 8’ long.

TEST PIT LOG









Depth(Feet)

SampleNumber


Black, c-f GRAVEL and SAND, trace silt, containsorganics (moist/frozen, Railroad FILL) 0.6’

--- 1 ---Brown, Clayey Silty SAND, some Gravel

contains roots & organics (moist/frozen, FILL)

S2

(1’ to 2’)

--- 2 ---

2.5’

--- 3 ---Brown, Clayey SILT, little Sand, trace gravel (moist,FILL)

3.6’

--- 4 ---Dark-Brown, Buried TOPSOIL

4.7’

--- 5 ---Brown, Clayey SILT, little Sand (moist, FILL)

--- 6 ---Bottom of Exploration at 5.5 ft.

Notes or Comments: Test pit size = 2.5’ wide X 6.5’ long.

TEST PIT LOG









Depth(Feet)

SampleNumber


S1

Black, c-f SAND, some Gravel, trace silt, containsroots & organics (moist/frozen, Railroad FILL)

--- 1 ---(0’ – 0.9’) 0.9’

Brown, Clayey SILT, some Sand, little gravel,contains organics (moist/frozen, FILL)

--- 2 ---

Bottom of Exploration at 1.5 ft.

--- 3 ---

--- 4 ---

--- 5 ---

--- 6 ---


TEST PIT LOG









Depth(Feet)

SampleNumber


S1

Black, TOPSOIL (moist/frozen)0.33’

--- 1 ---(0.33’ –

2’)Gray-Brown, Silty CLAY, trace sand, contains roots& organics (moist/frozen, FILL)

--- 2 --- 2’

S2

(3’ – 3.5’)

Brown to Dark-Brown, Clayey SILT, little Sand,contains roots & organics (moist, FILL)

--- 3 ---

--- 4 --- 4’

Gray, Silty CLAY, trace sand (moist to wet, CL)

--- 5 ---Occasional cobbles at 5’.

--- 6 ---


Notes or Comments: Test pit size = 3’ wide X 7’ long.

TEST PIT LOG









Depth(Feet)

SampleNumber


S1

Black, Gravelly TOPSOIL (moist/frozen)0.5’

--- 1 ---(0.5’ –1.3’)

Dark-Brown, c-f SAND and c-f GRAVEL, little silt,contains roots & organics (moist/frozen, FILL)

1.3’

--- 2 ---Brown, Clayey SILT, some Sand, trace gravelcontains roots & organics (moist, FILL)

S2

(3’ – 4’)

--- 3 ---

--- 4 ---

--- 5 ---



TEST PIT LOG









Depth(Feet)

SampleNumber


S1

Light Brown, Silty CLAY, little Sand, (moist/frozen,FILL)

--- 1 ---(0’ – 2.6’)

--- 2 ---

2.6’

--- 3 ---S2

(2.6’ –3.6’)

Black, Buried TOPSOIL layer

3.6’

--- 4 ---Brown, Clayey SILT, little Sand, contains organics(moist, FILL)

S-3

(3.6’ – 4’)Grades to some Sand.

--- 5 ---


Notes or Comments: Test pit size = 3’ wide X 7’ long.

TEST PIT LOG









Depth(Feet)

SampleNumber


S1

Black, ORGANICS with roots, little Gravel, littleSand (moist/frozen, Topsoil/Railroad FILL) 0.5’

--- 1 ---(0’ – 1.4’) Black, c-f GRAVEL and f-m SAND, trace silt,

contains organics (moist/frozen, Railroad FILL)

1.4’

--- 2 --- Brown, Clayey SILT, some Sand, contains roots &

organics (moist, FILL)

--- 3 ---Occasional cobbles observed up to approx. 10” in

diameter.

--- 4 ---S2

(4’ – 5’)

--- 5 ---


--- 6 ---

Notes or Comments: Test pit size = 2’ wide X 6.5’ long.

TEST PIT LOG









Depth(Feet)

SampleNumber


S1

Black, SAND and c-f GRAVEL, some organics/roots

Black, f-m SAND and c-f GRAVEL, trace silt0.2’

--- 1 ---(0’ – 1’) (moist/frozen, Railroad FILL)

1’

Brown, Clayey SILT, little Sand, contains roots &

--- 2 ---organics (moist, FILL)

S2

(2’ – 2.5’)

--- 3 --- 3’

Brown, Silty CLAY, little Sand, contains roots &

--- 4 ---organics (moist, FILL)

--- 5 ---


--- 6 ---


Attachment B

Test Pit Photographs

Attachment B - PhotographsErie-Attica Bridge & Trail Project, Avon, NY January 13, 2012

Test pit No.1, Depth at time of photograph 2.4ft.




Test pit No.5, Full depth at time of photograph 5.5ft.

Attachment C

Laboratory Results

March 2012 Draft Project Scoping Report/Final Design ... DR Appendix E.pdf · March 2012 Draft...

Documents

Transcript of March 2012 Draft Project Scoping Report/Final Design ... DR Appendix E.pdf · March 2012 Draft...