Wall 22 I-295 Investigative Report

DIRECT CONNECTION CONTRACT 3 (DC3)
WALL 22 FAILURE - FORENSIC ENGINEERING

REPORT
January 2022
Prepared for New Jersey Department of Transportation
Submitted by
Direct Connection Contract 3 (DC3) Wall 22 Failure - Forensic Engineering
I-295/I-76/Route 42 Interchange Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................III
1.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 5
3.0 WALL 22 DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 7
4.0 FORENSIC APPROACH...................................................................................................... 9
5.0 FORENSIC DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................10
5.1 Site Visit ............................................................................................................................................ 10
5.2 Wall Deconstruction .......................................................................................................................... 18
5.3 Subsurface Exploration Program ...................................................................................................... 33
6.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW .........................................................................................................39
6.1 Construction Scheme ........................................................................................................................ 39
6.2 Site History ........................................................................................................................................ 40
6.3 Subsurface Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 43
6.4 Groundwater...................................................................................................................................... 48
7.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT ...............................................................54
8.0 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALL ...................................................................55
8.1 General .............................................................................................................................................. 55
8.2 MSE Wall Design .............................................................................................................................. 57
8.3 MSE Wall Construction ..................................................................................................................... 58
9.0 I-11 SLOPE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................64
9.1 I-11 Slope Design .............................................................................................................................. 64
9.2 Construction ...................................................................................................................................... 81
10.0 GROUND IMPROVEMENT ...............................................................................................84
10.1 General............................................................................................................................................ 84
10.2 CSES Design .................................................................................................................................. 87
10.3 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 94
10.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 95
11.0 COMPARISON WITH GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION DATA .............................96
12.0 EARLY SIGNS OF DISTRESS........................................................................................107
13.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................108
13.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 108
Background: ...................................................................................................................................... 108
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall ........................................................................................ 108
I-11 (sand) Slope............................................................................................................................... 108
Column Supported Embankment System (CSES) ........................................................................... 109
13.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 109
i
14.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................110

15.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................110
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Idealized Configuration of the Failed Mass
Appendix B - Observed Conditions at the End of Deconstruction.
Appendix C - Results of Subsurface Exploration
• C-1: Test Locations
• C-2: SPT Boring Logs
• C-3: CPT Test Results
• C-4: Test Pit Logs
• C-5: Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D - MSEW Design and Construction Check
Appendix E - I-11 Slope Design and Construction Check
Appendix F - CSES Design and Construction Check
Appendix G - Geotechnical Instrumentation Data
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Direct Connection Contract 3 (DC3) Wall 22 at the confluence of I-295, Rt. 42 and I-76 in Bellmawr,
Gloucester City and Mount Ephraim, New Jersey, constructed in 2018, experienced failure on March 25,
2021. At the time of failure, the elevated roadway embankment supported by the wall was not open to
traffic.
Hardesty & Hanover, LLC (H&H) was hired by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) to
conduct a forensic engineering study to determine probable cause(s) for the failure and prepare this report.
The elevated roadway embankment consists of Wall 22 resting approximately at a 9-foot offset from the
crest of a slope. The slope characteristics at the failed section of Wall 22 consist of an approximate 29-foot-
high slope with a slope angle of approximately 2H: 1V built using I-11 (sand) material.
Wall 22 was a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining system and consisted of rectangular precast
concrete facing panels and horizontal reinforcing metallic strips. The predesign geotechnical subsurface
data at Wall 22 indicated subsurface conditions having unfavorable engineering properties subject to
vertical and horizontal deformations upon loading and inadequate strength to support the anticipated
elevated roadway embankment. The design scheme incorporated a ground improvement technique
involving a Column Supported Embankment System (CSES) to mitigate the inadequate strength and
deformation concerns and to satisfactorily support the applied loads. The bottom of the MSE wall rests
directly on a layer of I-11 material (uniformly graded sandy soil) between the bottom of the Wall and CSES.
It was reported that this I-11 embankment layer was detailed to mitigate drainage issues associated with
existing subsurface water/hydrological conditions.
H&H reviewed project documents and data to identify potential wall deficiencies that could have contributed
to the failure including 1) MSE wall design and construction; 2) I-11 slope design and construction; and 3)
CSES ground improvement design and construction.
Based on our assessment of relevant project information and the site and subsurface conditions, it is H&H’s
opinion that Wall 22’s failure mode is complex and involves both vertical and lateral displacements of the I-
11 (sand) material and a deep-seated bearing capacity/global stability failure. It is H&H’s opinion that the
following are the significant contributing factors that led to the failure:
1) The I-11 (sand) material used for the embankment and slope was not an appropriate material to
support a 30-foot-high retaining wall due to its poor engineering properties at high moisture
contents.
2) The CSES unreinforced concrete columns were not adequate to withstand the vertical and
horizontal loads from the elevated roadway embankment, I-11 slope, and the MSE Wall to provide
a suitable safe foundation.
3) The project site has a known chronic high groundwater condition and showed previous indications
of instability.
4) The heavy precipitation observed on March 24, 2021, appears to have exacerbated the
groundwater conditions affecting the already marginally stable slope and ground improvement
foundation system on which the wall was supported.
iii
1.0 BACKGROUND
Direct Connection Contract 3 (DC3) Wall No. 22 (hereafter referred as “Wall 22”) at the confluence of I-295,
Rt. 42 and I-76 in Bellmawr, Gloucester City and Mount Ephraim, New Jersey, constructed in 2018,
experienced failure on March 25, 2021. This area received heavy rainfall the day before the wall failure.
Figure 1-1 details observed limits of the failed zone.
Figure 1-1: Limits of failed zone (Source: NJDOT)
It our understanding that immediately after the wall failure, NJDOT took measures to secure the site and
notify all external stakeholders. The Department’s Bureau of Aeronautics surveyed the site to define the
preliminary limits of failure for safety purposes. A berm was constructed at the toe of the failed slope to
stabilize the wall and mitigate further deformation. A monitoring program consisting of continuous survey
monitoring and geotechnical instrumentation (i.e., deformation targets, inclinometers, and piezometers)
was implemented to assess site conditions and monitor potential future movement of Wall 22 and adjacent
structures.
H&H was contracted by the NJDOT to serve as the forensic engineer to determine the possible cause(s)
of the failure. This report details our findings, opinions, and conclusions relative to the type of failure and
probable causes of the failure.
4|Page
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

DC3 is the third of four contracts for the NJDOT’s I-295/Rt. 42/I-76 Interchange project. Figure 2-1 identifies
the limits of DC3. The objective of the project is to improve safety and reduce traffic congestion of the
interchange, which has a high rate of traffic incidents and is one of the most congested roadways in New
Jersey. Currently, the I-295 Rt. 42, I-76, and interchange does not provide a direct connection for I-295
traffic. The interchange requires I-295 traffic to reduce speeds, negotiate ramps, and compete with vehicles
entering from Rt. 42 and from I-76. The main objective of DC3 is to provide I-295 mainline traffic a direct
connect bridge over Rt. 42/I-76, as well as reconstruct the Browning Road Bridge over Rt. 42. At the time
of failure, the project was under construction.
I-295 Mainline Direct

Connect Bridge
Browning Road Bridge
Figure 2-1: Direct Connector Contract 3 (DC3)

(Source: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt295/contracts.shtm)
The project owner is NJDOT and the owner’s design and construction team consists of:
• Dewberry – Engineer of Record (EOR).

• South State, Inc. (SSI) - General Construction Contractor - Responsible for construction of CSES’s
LTM, embankment, and Wall 22.
• SSI subcontractor, Menard Group USA Inc (Menard) - Responsible for the design of Column Supported
Embankment System (CSES) involving columns and load transfer mat (LTM), and construction of
CSES’s columns.
• SSI subcontractor, The Reinforced Earth Company (RECo) - Responsible for design of Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall.
5|Page
• SSI subcontractor, Wang Technology - Responsible for geotechnical instrumentation.

• NJDOT Bureau of Materials - Responsible for material testing.
• NJDOT, IH Engineers, and AECOM – Construction Inspection Team.
The contract documents provided the geotechnical design parameters, design and construction
suggestions, design criteria, and performance requirement for the design and construction of the retaining
wall, embankment and CSES. Figure 2-2 summarizes the interpreted design and construction
responsibilities.
Figure 2-2: Interpreted design and construction responsibilities
6|Page
3.0 WALL 22 DESCRIPTION

Project background information suggests that the “As-Built” failed section of Wall 22 consists of a wall height
ranging from approximately 23 to 31 feet high and, approximately, 17 to 22 feet wide proprietary type MSE
retaining wall system resting approximately at a 9-foot offset from the crest of a slope. The slope
characteristics at the failed section of Wall 22 consist of a 29-foot-high slope with a slope angle of
approximately 2H:1V built using I-11 material (sand) beneath and in front of Wall 22.
Wall 22 is located northeast of where Browning Road crosses over I-76, situated between Interim Ramp
AD/AE to the north and the cemetery to the south, and between the Browning Road bridge over I-76 to the
West and DC 2 tunnel to the east. Figure 3-1 details the limits of Wall 22.
Figure 3-1: Wall 22 limits (Source: NJDOT)
Subsurface geotechnical data obtained during the design for the Wall 22 location predicted a subsurface
condition having unfavorable engineering properties for a standard NJDOT wall. These properties include
vertical and horizontal deformations upon loading and inadequate strength to support the anticipated project
fill construction comprising embankment placement and a retaining wall. Based on the subsurface
conditions at this site, design mitigation measures would warrant implementation of either ground
improvement techniques to improve in-situ soil’s strength and compressibility characteristics or the use of
a different structural system to meet project performance requirements. The selected design alternative
included a ground improvement technique involving a CSES to mitigate the strength and deformation
concerns, and to satisfactorily support the applied loads. Figure 3-2 details the representative section at
the center of the failed area of the roadway embankment section at Wall 22. The constructed lower level
CSES consists of a LTM and unreinforced concrete columns, referred as Controlled Modulus Columns
(CMC).
7|Page
Figure 3-2: Roadway embankment section relative to Wall 22 at center of failed section
The project documents indicate the bottom of Wall 22 does not extend to the top of the CSES. The wall
directly bears on an I-11 (uniformly graded sandy soil) embankment layer between the bottom of the wall
and CSES, which was reportedly detailed to mitigate drainage issues associated with existing subsurface
water/hydrological conditions (Reference: RFI 168).
8|Page
4.0 FORENSIC APPROACH

H&H followed a widely recognized practice for geotechnical forensic studies that includes data collection,
technical study, engineering analysis, and development of this summary report containing findings and
conclusions. Specifically, H&H adopted an approach that included review of project and background
information, data collection and engineering analyses to identify potential contributing causation factors and
failure modes using a process of elimination.
As shown in Figure 4-1, the roadway at Wall 22 consisted of three major components; MSE Wall 22 along
with its retained fill; I-11 (sand) material slope (consisting of both the embankment layer beneath the wall
and the slope (the combined system will be referred to as I-11 slope throughout the report); and a CSES.
The forensic analysis consisted of individually analyzing each of these major components to verify whether
the component performed its respective function as designed and constructed.
Figure 4-1: Forensic approach
9|Page
5.0 FORENSIC DATA COLLECTION

The following subsections summarize the data collection process undertaken by H&H during the forensic
study.
5.1 Site Visit

H&H visited the site after receipt of Notice to Proceed (NTP) on April 1, 2021 (7 days after Wall 22 failed)
to better understand the events that occurred and to document distress pattern(s). The distress patterns
discussed below are based on H&H’s field observations during our site visit as well as from information
provided by others detailing the sequence of events that occurred between the failure of Wall 22 and H&H’s
initial visit to the site.
During the site visit, the distress pattern of the failed section of Wall 22 relative to lateral and vertical
deformations and rotation were visually assessed from a safe distance. The I-11 slope beneath Wall 22
was also visually assessed. A visual assessment of CSES was not conducted, since the CSES was below
the ground surface. Visual assessment of the I-11 slope was partially hindered by the berm constructed at
the toe of the failed slope to stabilize the wall and mitigate further deformations. Therefore, we have relied
on the photographs taken by others prior to placement of the stabilization berm to assess the distress
pattern of the I-11 (sandy soil) slope.
Figures 5-1 thru 5-13, taken between the failure of Wall 22 and the conclusion of our site visits, show the
observed Wall 22 failure. Based on the photographs and field observations, the failure appeared to be
relatively global, and the majority of the reinforced zone remained intact. Notable visual observations
regarding the failure are as follows:
1) Limits of Wall 22 failure was between Sta. 267+00 and 270+00.

2) The failure surface plane through the Wall 22 cross section was immediately behind the retained
fill volume (behind the MSE reinforced zone).
3) Distresses, such as: a) cracked facing panels; b) roots penetrating the facing of the wall; c) spalling;
d) backfill leakage; e) isolated bulging; f) “popped‐out” panel section; g) soil/water flow (piping) from
wall panel; and h) facing connection rupture or reinforcement pullout, that are routinely associated
with localized failure of MSE walls were not observed.
4) I-11 slope directly beneath Wall 22 was soft and saturated with numerous zones of running water
(small subsurface bodies of flowing water). Also, the slope surface exhibited multiple cracks along
its length (See Figure 5-11).
5) Drainage systems (i.e., trench drain) detailed within the I-11 slope had shifted out of position toward
the slope face.
6) Observed erosion gullies at several locations along the slope length where water travelled from the
slope surface to the toe of the slope.
10 | P a g e
Figure 5-1: Aerial view of Wall 22 showing failure zone (looking at wall face)
Figure 5-2: Aerial view of Wall 22 showing failure zone (looking south/down station)
11 | P a g e
Figure 5-3: Closeup of failed portion of Wall 22 and I-11 slope orientation (facing south)
Figure 5-4: Closeup of failed portion of Wall 22 showing the MSE wall vertically deformed
into the I-11 slope (facing north)
12 | P a g e
Figure 5-5: Closeup of Wall 22 failure zone on top of the MSE wall showing vertical scarp (looking
south/down station)
Shifted Drainage
System
Figure 5-7: Swale filled with slope material that slid (facing north)
Figure 5-8: Demolition of the failed portion of Wall 22 after temporary stabilization measures in place
Figure 5-6: Closeup of base of I-11 slope showing soil heave/disturbance (looking north/up
station)
13 | P a g e
Figure 5-7: Swale filled with slope material that slid (facing north)
Figure 5-8: Demolition of the failed portion of Wall 22 after temporary stabilization measures in
place
14 | P a g e
Berm
Figure 5-9: I-11 Slope stabilized with pavement millings while SSI begins demolition of failed
portion of Wall 22 (looking north/up station)
Figure 5-10: Wall 7 observed following the failure of Wall 22
15 | P a g e
Fissure
Figure 5-11: Fissure observed in the I-11 slope in front of the failed portion of Wall 22
16 | P a g e
Figure 5-12: Concrete facing panels observed out of alignment in the failed portion of Wall 22
Figure 5-13: Cracked panels
17 | P a g e
Summary: Based on visual observations during our site visits (initial and subsequent) and information
provided by others, it is H&H’s opinion that Wall 22 moved downward, outward and rotated resulting in a
corresponding soil bulge near the toe of the failure. Figure 5-14 is an idealized configuration of the failed
mass. The soil bulge was in the order of 2 to 3 feet in height (compared to as-built elevation of crest of the
slope) and extended a distance approximately 18 to 20 feet away from the bottom of the wall. In addition,
subsurface materials consisting of the I-11(sandy soil) slope, CSES system and in-situ soils experienced
horizontal deformations outward toward the slope face
As constructed Wall
22 prior to failure
Idealized configuration
of the failed mass
Figure 5-14: Failed soil mass
5.2 Wall Deconstruction

It is our understanding that immediately after the failure, the Department took measures to secure and
temporarily stabilize the site and notify all external stakeholders. The Department’s Bureau of Aeronautics
surveyed the site to define the preliminary limits of failure for safety purposes. A berm was constructed at
the toe of the failed slope to stabilize the wall and mitigate further deformation or sliding. A monitoring
program was implemented which included continuous survey monitoring and geotechnical instrumentation
(i.e., deformation targets, inclinometers, and piezometers) to assess the site conditions and to monitor
potential movement of the adjacent structures. Control measures were constructed to minimize infiltration
of surface water from the roadway above into the failed area.
After it was determined that the collapsed section of the retaining wall was stable, a section of the failed
wall was deconstructed in a controlled fashion to gather information on the various materials used for
construction. The deconstruction of the failed portion of Wall 22 began on March 29, 2021, and was
completed on May 13, 2021. H&H visited the site between April 1, 2021, and May 13, 2021, to observe
deconstruction work and document data relative to the nature of failure, the in-situ in-placed condition of
18 | P a g e
construction materials, compliance with the contract requirements, and the subsurface soil conditions.
Figure 5-15 shows a deconstruction sketch.
Figure 5-15: Deconstruction sketch (Sta. 268+50) (Reference: NJDOT Field Order # 192)
The deconstruction involved the following steps to capture the as failed conditions:
• Step 1: Excavate Wall 22 at the center of the failure at approximately Sta. 268+50 to create a 90-foot-
wide work area to a depth of approximately El. 47 (five [5] feet above the design elevation of MSE wall
leveling pad).
• Step 2: Excavate in controlled 2-foot lifts from working elevation El. 47 to El. 34, to locate and document
the post failure MSE (MSE level pad and face panels) elements.
• Step 3: Excavate in controlled 2-foot lifts from El. 34 to the depth determined in the field and not to
exceed El. 24, to locate post failure CSES (LTM and CMCs) elements.
Note: After completion of Step 1, a subsurface exploration program was conducted to collect
information on both the construction material and the in-situ subsurface soils.
Figures 5-16 and 5-17 show deconstruction steps and work zone plan view.
19 | P a g e
Figure 5-16: Deconstruction steps at Sta. 268+50
Figure 5-17: Deconstruction steps (plan view)
20 | P a g e
The deconstruction involved both a brute force method of removing debris by use of a backhoe and careful
excavation at specific identified locations. During deconstruction, in-situ moisture content and in-place
density was measured at various locations. Bulk samples using five-gallon buckets were collected at
different portions of the soil material used for the construction and a series of tests were conducted to
validate whether the in-place materials met specification requirements. The bulk samples consisted of the
I-15 soil used for the reinforced fill, the I-14 soil used for the retained fill, and the I-11 soil used for the slope
construction.
Initial stages of the deconstruction began with the removal of the moment slabs and parapets along with
the upper wall panels. To remove the wall panels, the reinforcement straps connected to the panels were
cut and remained in the reinforced soil mass. The concrete face panels were cautiously removed and
inspected for signs of deterioration. Removal of face panels continued from the center of the failure and
extended outward until only approximately plumb panels outside the failure remained. After the panels were
removed, the reinforced soil remained intact. The next stage in the deconstruction was removal of the
reinforced and retained soils within the failed wall section. Excavation of the soil was done in a manner to
provide stable slopes at the open excavation to ensure safety of the workers. Once a safe work area within
the failure zone was established, excavation began to expose CSES elements. After CSES elements were
exposed, conditions of LTM and columns were examined and information relative to the extent and nature
of failure of these components was documented.
A portion of the CSES system was located near the back of the excavation behind the estimated failure
plane. However, directly below the MSEW, no evidence of either the CSES or the I-11 was identified.
Remnants of these elements appear to have shifted laterally and sheared in multiple locations. Upon further
deconstruction within the excavation zone, sections of the lower CSES were observed to be sheared. The
portion of lower CSES behind the MSE wall was found to be intact and in-place at approximately El. +37.
The sections of the shifted CSES and I-11 (sand), detailed directly below the MSE wall, were observed in
front of the wall beyond the as-built locations, indicating that the CSES shifted laterally (both LTM and
columns) with both the LTM and columns sheared at multiple locations.
In the area of the laterally shifted CSES (in front of the failed wall), several CMCs were exposed to examine
their condition. Several CMCs were found to be sheared near the column top while several were intact at
the top but appeared to have sheared at a deeper depth. Attempts were made to exhume exposed CMCs
that were intact at the top to determine the lengths of sections and fracture angles. The CMCs that could
not be exhumed were subjected to low-strain pile integrity testing (LSPIT). GEI Consultants, Inc. performed
LSPIT test for Menard and test results were inconclusive. While excavating within the failed wall zone to
locate the displaced LTM and CMCs, significant water infiltration was observed at approximately EL. +28,
and the deconstruction work was suspended at approximate El.+27. Figures 5-18 through 5-35 show
photographs taken during deconstruction (excavation) work. Figure 5-36 shows post deconstruction work
performed by contractor, which is representative of the volume of water that occurred at approximate El.
+27.
The recorded observations of the deconstruction are summarized below.
1) Observations during removal of the wall facing indicate that the steel reinforcement was generally
placed at the locations specified on the approved contract shop drawings.
2) The majority of the reinforced zone remained intact as the face panels were removed.
21 | P a g e
3) No sign of corrosion in the steel reinforcement and connection was observed.

4) No sign of voids behind the facing panels was observed.
5) Face panel concrete did not exhibit signs of degradation.
6) No sign of connection failure was observed.
7) Geotextile material between the panel joints and salt intrusion protection (HDPE) geomembrane
were observed as specified on the contract documents and approved shop drawings.
8) In-situ density were recorded by the NJDOT’s representatives during deconstruction process.
Records indicate that the material was adequately compacted to the required contract documents.
Although caution was taken to minimize disturbance, it is also possible that the materials tested in
the field may have undergone deformation due to the failure and/or from deconstruction activities,
altering their density from the conditions that existed prior to the failure.
9) Spoils from deconstruction activities contained remnants of drainage systems, although it was
difficult to verify if they conformed to the design drawing requirements.
10) The MSE wall had moved downward and outward, and the relocated position of the bottom of the
wall was at approximately El. +27.
11) Excavation within the failed wall was limited to approximate El. +27 ft due to excessive groundwater
infiltration.
12) Field observations indicate that the I-11 slope in the excavation area appears to have shifted
laterally and was squeezed laterally outward and vertically.
13) The lower CSES was sheared behind the common structure volume (CSV). The common structure
volume (CSV) is the volume that contains all components of all retaining wall systems considered
for construction at given site. A portion of the CSES behind the CSV was found to be intact and in-
place at approximately El. +37. Whereas the CSES below CSV shifted laterally and the LTM
contained multiple fractures and signs of shear and multiple fractures were also found in the
columns. The top El. of the remnants of the CSES varied between El. +31 and +34.
14) Moist and wet soil starting at El. +57.5 was observed consistently during the entire period of
deconstruction. In addition, sporadic soil sloughing from perched water was observed around El.
+47.5.
Figure 5-18: Initial stages of excavation (removal of the moment slabs and parapets)
22 | P a g e
Figure 5-19: MSE wall reinforcement strap clipping (looking south)
Figure 5-20: MSE wall panel removal
23 | P a g e
Figure 5-21: MSE wall panel/strap connection
Figure 5-22: Reinforced soil mass (looking south)
24 | P a g e
Figure 5-23: Exposed stable reinforced soil
Figure 5-24: Work area within the failure zone (completion of deconstruction step 1)
25 | P a g e
Figure 5-25: Controlled excavation (deconstruction step 2)
Figure 5-26: Bulk sample collection Figure 5-27: In-situ moisture

content/density testing
26 | P a g e
MSE wall
leveling pad
Figure 5-28: Exposed bottom MSE wall
Figure 5-29: Careful excavation to locate CSES
27 | P a g e
Displaced/
sheared LTM
Figure 5-30: Exposed displaced/sheared LTM in front of MSE wall
Intact LTM
Figure 5-31: Intact LTM behind MSE wall (sheared point)
28 | P a g e
Figure 5-32: Excavation for CMC
29 | P a g e
Figure 5-33: Exhumed CMC
Figure 5-34: Pile integrity testing on CMC
30 | P a g e
Moist Soil @ El.+57.5’
Free water @ El.+47.0’
Free water @ El.+27.0’
Figure 5-35: Observed groundwater condition (completion of deconstruction

step 3)
Figure 5-36: Free groundwater at El. +27
31 | P a g e
Summary: Based on the observations during the deconstruction, it appears that the Wall 22 failure occurred
through the I-11 (sand) slope and ground improvement CSES. It also appears that the I-11 slope and CSES
elements shifted outward first. The wall moved downward and outward around 10 to 12 feet vertically and
shifted laterally around 12 to 14 feet at an angle of approximately 18 degrees from vertical and away from
the as-built bottom of wall location. The portion of the I-11 slope between the bottom of the MSE Wall and
top of CSES system was not observed immediately below the failed Wall 22 during post failure field
investigations. The lower CSES was sheared behind the common structure volume (CSV). A portion of the
lower CSES behind the CSV was found to be intact and in-place at around El. +37. The CSES below CSV
shifted laterally with the LTM exhibiting multiple fractures and signs of shear. The columns also exhibited
multiple fractures and shear surfaces. The top elevation of the CSES varied between El. +31 and El +34
compared to the as-built El. of +37. Figure 5-37 shows observed conditions at the end of deconstruction.
Figure 5-37: Observed conditions during deconstruction
32 | P a g e
5.3 Subsurface Exploration Program

In conjunction with the deconstruction work, a limited scope subsurface exploration program was
implemented by H&H to explore both the subsurface soil conditions around the failed section of Wall 22
and to examine materials used for wall construction. The subsurface exploration program included borings
and sampling, standard penetration tests, cone penetration tests, test pits, piezometer installation, bulk
sample collection, and laboratory soil testing.
The subsurface exploration program consisted of two (2) standard penetration test (SPT) soil borings, six
(6) vibrating wire piezometers (three [3] per hole), five (5) cone penetration soundings (CPT), and four (4)
exploratory test pits. Jersey Boring & Drilling Co., Inc. of Fairfield, NJ conducted drilling operations for the
borings and test pits. ConeTec Inc. of West Berlin, NJ performed the cone penetration soundings under a
subcontract with Jersey Boring & Drilling Co. Inc. The subsurface exploration program took place between
April and May 2021.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT): The drilling contractor utilized a truck-mounted drill rig for the two (2) SPT
borings. After setting an initial length of casing in the upper 30 feet, the borings were advanced using drilling
mud. The sampling procedure was carried out using techniques and equipment specified in ASTM Standard
D1586. Continuous SPT testing was performed for the first 12 feet and 24-inch split spoon samples were
taken every five (5) feet thereafter for the boring located behind Wall 22. The second boring, located in front
of Wall 22, required drilling through 17 feet of millings and rip rap before 12 feet of continuous sampling
and every 5 feet thereafter. Undisturbed samples were obtained using Shelby tube samplers. The split-
spoon samples were classified in the field by the inspectors according to the Burmister Soil Classification
system. The boring depths ranged from 77 feet to 102 feet below surface grade.
Table 5-1 summarizes the SPT boring information. A complete set of test boring logs is provided in
Appendix C.
Table 5-1: Summary of SPT Borings

Ground Bedrock Ground
Boring Baseline Boring
Station Offset (ft) Surface Depth Water
No. (Survey) Depth (ft)
Elevation (ft) (ft) Depth (ft)
H&H B-6 266+52 90 L I-295 SB 28.6 77 N/A *
H&H B-7 77+37 29 R I-295 NB 66.8 102 N/A *
* Installed piezometers to determine groundwater pressures
Figures 5-38 and 5-39 are photographs of disturbed and undisturbed SPT samples collected during the
subsurface exploration of Boring B-7.
33 | P a g e
Figure 5-38: Disturbed sample from Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Figure 5-39: Undisturbed sample from boring
34 | P a g e
Cone Penetration Test (CPTu): Testing was performed in accordance with ConeTec’s CPTu operational
procedures and in general accordance with ASTM D5778. The CPTu is conducted at a steady rate of 2
cm/s and typically, one-meter length rods with an outer diameter of 1.5 inches are used to advance the
cone to the termination depth. Eight pore water dissipation tests were performed at different depths and
locations during the CPTu testing. Pore water pressures were recorded at five-second intervals. Dissipation
data were plotted as pore pressure versus time. The shape of the dissipation curve is useful in evaluating
soil type and drainage characteristics. The cone has an equal-end-area friction sleeve and a tip-end area
ratio equal to 0.80. The cone was advanced using a 25-ton, track-mounted rig.
Table 5-2 summarizes the CPTu sounding results. Detailed CPTu results are provided Appendix C. Figure
5-40 is a photograph of the cone penetration testing rig.
Table 5-2: Summary of CPTu Tests

Baseline Elevation Estimated Phreatic Test Depth
Sounding ID Station Offset
(Survey) (ft) Surface (ft) (ft)
CPT21-HH1 269+02 52 L I-295 SB 45.1 12.5 80.05
CPT21-HH2 267+54 54 L I-295 SB 41.7 9.5 19.69
CPT21-HH3 268+61 49 L I-295 SB 45.1 14.7 84.97
CPT21-HH4 266+63 83 L I-295 SB 28.5 9.0 14.19
CPT21-HH5 270+28 65 L I-295 SB 38.3 10.0 65.04
Figure 5-40: Cone penetration testing rig
Test Pits: Test pits were conducted using a John Deere 35G Compact Excavator and were excavated along
the slope in front of Wall 22 to collect bulk samples of the I-11 soil. As the test pits were excavated, nuclear
gauge testing was conducted by NJDOT representatives within the exposed soil to determine the in-situ
density and moisture content. A complete set of test pit logs is provided in Appendix C. Table 5-3
35 | P a g e
summarizes the test pit information. Figure 5-41 is a photograph of the test pit excavation and Figures 5-
42 and 5-43 show in-situ moisture content/density testing and bulk sample collection during test pit
excavation.
Table 5-3: Summary of Test Pits

Max. Field
Test Pit Baseline Ground Surface Test Depth
Station Offset (ft) Moisture
No. (Survey) Elevation (ft) (ft)
Content (%)
T-1 266+21 72 L I-295 SB 40.9 ±3 6.4
T-2 266+54 71 L I-295 SB 41.8 ±3 48.2
T-3 270+19 54 L I-295 SB 31.7 ±3 13.3
T-4 270+42 55 L I-295 SB 32.4 ±3 12.1
Figure 5-41: Excavation of test pits
36 | P a g e
Figure 5-42: In-situ moisture content/density testing (test pit)
Figure 5-43: Bulk sample collection (test pit)
37 | P a g e
The SPT, CPT, test pit location plans and results of the subsurface exploration program are presented in
Appendix C.
Laboratory Testing Program: A select number of bulk samples and disturbed and undisturbed soil samples
were tested in a laboratory test program to evaluate index and engineering parameters (shear strength and
compressibility). The laboratory test program included:
• Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)

• Organic Content (ASTM D2974)
• Soil Classification (ASTM D2487)
• Specific Gravity (ASTM D854/)
• Standard Proctor (ASTM D698)
• Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)
• Density (Unite Weight) of Soil Specimens (ASTM D7263)
• Moisture, Ash and Organic Matter (ASTM D2974)
• Grain Size Analysis (ASTM D6913)
• Large-Scale Fixed Wall Permeability (ASTM D2434)
• Triaxial UU Compression (ASTM D2850)
• Triaxial CU Compression (ASTM D4767)
• One-Dimensional Consolidation (ASTM D2435)
• Direct Shear (ASTM D3080)
• Soil pH values (ASTM G51)
GeoTesting Express, Inc. of Acton, Massachusetts performed the laboratory testing program and the
detailed laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.
38 | P a g e
6.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW

A technical review of the construction scheme, site history and subsurface conditions applicable to Wall 22
area was performed as part of the forensic assessment and is discussed in this report section.
6.1 Construction Scheme

Due to the size and complexity of the project, it was divided into four construction contracts. Direct
Connection Contracts 1 and 2 are complete. DC3 is under construction and Direct Connection Contract 4
is expected to be bid at a future date.
The construction sequence of the I-295/Rt. 42/I-76 improvement includes altering the original ground
surface through multiple stages of construction at Wall 22. Completed Direct Connection Contract 2
required creating a cut slope of approximately 30 feet high at Contract 3’s Wall 22 location to facilitate
Contract 2’s construction work south of Wall 22. DC 3 specified construction involving a fill placement
scheme containing a CSES, a I-11 slope, Wall 22 and a permanent roadway directly covering the cut area
created during Contract 2. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 show the general construction scheme in Contracts 2 and
3, respectively at the Wall 22 location.
Figure 6-1: Typical section of Direct Connection Contract 2 (I-295 NB Sta. 78+50)
Construction Scheme (Contract 3)
Figure 6-2: Typical section of Direct Connection Contract 3
39 | P a g e
6.2 Site History

Project background information indicates a history of slope instabilities and/or unstable ground conditions
during construction of Contracts 2 and 3 at the Wall 22 location. Figure 6-3 illustrates observed instabilities
along the Wall 22 area during construction of Contract 2. Figure 6-4 illustrates the unstable and remediated
slope area along Wall 22 as interpreted by H&H.
Figure 6-3: Observed slope distress (looking east) during Contract 2 (Source:
NJDOT)
Figure 6-4: Interpreted slope distress (aerial view) during Contract 2

construction (May 2016)
40 | P a g e
Figure 6-5 illustrates the location of the Wall 22 failure zone, (3/29/2021 drone photo), superimposed over
the observed slope failure and potential slope distress identified during Contract 2 construction and Figure
6-6 illustrates DC3 roadway cross section in the area of Contract 2 unstable ground condition.
Wall 22
Figure 6-5: Wall 22 relative to unstable ground conditions of Contract 2 (aerial view)
(Source: NJDOT)
Wall 22 (Contract 3)
Unstable Ground Conditions (Contract 2)
Figure 6-6: Wall 22 relative to interpreted unstable ground conditions of Contract 2

(typical cross section)
41 | P a g e
Project information also suggests that roadway construction in the Wall 22 area (DC 3) was directly over
this distressed ground condition shown in Figure 6-7. In addition, project information suggests that Wall 22
construction was placed over the I-11 slope that was wet and where the subsurface water was exiting from
the slope face. See Figures 6-7 and 6-8 for details.
CSES installation
Distress
Figure 6-7: CSES ground improvement work in progress (Source: NJDOT)
Groundwater line
Figure 6-8: Wall construction over wet and bleeding I-11 slope (Source:
NJDOT)
42 | P a g e
6.3 Subsurface Conditions

The existing subsurface conditions at Wall 22 consist primarily of cohesive soils, overlain by a layer of sand
varying in thickness from 8 to 18 feet. The subsurface conditions, in the order in which they were
encountered, can be divided into four strata: 1) surficial sand; 2) Upper Woodbury Clay; 3) Lower Woodbury
Clay; and 4) Merchantville Formation. The surficial sand varies from loose to medium in density. Underlying
the surficial sand is a layer of Upper Woodbury Clay. This stratum consists of dark gray, soft to medium,
moderately plastic, over-consolidated clay. The Upper Woodbury Clay is underlain by a layer of Lower
Woodbury Clay consisting of dark gray, medium stiff, highly plastic, over-consolidated clay. Beneath the
Lower Woodbury Clay is the Merchantville Formation. The Merchantville Formation consists of greenish-
gray, medium stiff to hard silt and clay (MC) stratified with medium to very dense interbedded layers of silty
sand (MG). Isolated lenses of sands and silts are present within this stratum and mica and glauconite are
abundant. Laboratory test results of the Upper Woodbury Clay indicate a Plasticity Index varying between
14 and 53 with a majority of results at or above 40 and an over consolidation ratio (OCR) varying from 2 to
8 with majority around 4.0. Figure 6-9 illustrates the generalized subsurface soil conditions at Wall 22.
Figure 6-9: Original subsurface profile at Wall 22 and Wall 7 (section view)
43 | P a g e
In general, the subsurface conditions at Wall 22 exhibited typical subsurface conditions found in southern
New Jersey geology, except the previously stated observed ground instabilities. It is our opinion that the
observed ground instabilities at Wall 22 were caused by the cut in the in-situ soils which results in a
reduction of the vertical and horizontal stresses present prior to the Contract 2 excavation. This stress
reduction led to a soil expansion, formation of tension cracks and an increase in the soil’s ability to absorb
water, which leads to a decrease in strength with time and instability over time or potentially to failure. This
progressive process of deterioration of a soil’s strength over period with development of strain is referred
as strain softening.
The undrained shear strength (the key parameter of cohesive soils to resist the applied load) of the
Woodbury Clay was examined as it dictated selection of CSES. The undrained shear strength of Woodbury
Clay soil at Wall 22 was estimated based on SPT and CPT test results along with commonly used reference
materials.
Figure 6-10 illustrates the estimated undrained shear strength of Woodbury Clay layer in accordance with
the Terzaghi and Peck 1967 correlation between SPT N-values and shear strength for cohesive soils.
Figure 6-11 details the estimated in-situ shear strength from CPT test results, and the undrained shear
strength which is estimated directly from the cone tip resistance by applying a cone factor, (Nkt), of 20.
FHWA-TS-78-009 guidelines for CPT testing, recommend applying correction factor (Nkt) to estimate
undrained shear strength. Therefore, in our analysis Nkt values of 20 corresponding to cohesive soils with
Plasticity Index (PI) values of around 40 were considered.
44 | P a g e
SPT N-Value (Blows/ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
30
20
NAvg = 8.0
Su = 525 to 1050 psf
10
0
Elevation (ft)
NAvg = 14.0
-10
Su = 1050 to 2100 psf
-20
-30
TS-594 TS-595 TS-596
TS-597 TS-598 TS-599
TS-600 TS-601 WW-37
-40
Figure 6-10: Summary of uncorrected SPT N-values applicable to Wall 22 (data from
2009)
45 | P a g e
Undrained Shear Strength CPT (psf)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
30
110 % of Average
25
20
15
Elevation (ft)
10
5 90 % of Average
CPT21-09A
CPHH1
-5 CPHH3
CPHH 5
-10
Figure 6-11: Summary of CPT test results applicable to Wall 22 (data from 2021) Nkt = 20
(data from 2021)
In addition to estimating shear strength using SPT and CPT test results, results of laboratory test programs
conducted during forensic study were examined relative to Woodbury Clay shear strength. Figure 6-12
presents shear strength as determined from laboratory test results.
46 | P a g e
Undrained Shear Strength (psf)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
30
25 B-6 (H&H)
20
15
10
Elevation (ft)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Figure 6-12: Lab test results applicable to Wall 22 (Data from 2021)
As illustrated in Figures 6-10 through 6-12, data from the SPT, CPT and laboratory test results suggest that
the Woodbury Clay layer exhibits a linear relationship of undrained shear strength increasing with depth
due to overburden pressure, with an interpolated undrained shear strength of 525 psf at the top of the layer,
and 2100 psf at the bottom.
Previously suspected strain softening behavior or loss of soil strength could not be verified from the
interpretation of available geotechnical data i.e., comparing the soil strength prior to any construction
activities (before cut) with soil strength during Direct Connection Contracts 2 and 3 (following the cut). The
available geotechnical data obtained during DC 3 was not in the immediate vicinity of the unstable slope.
In addition, post failure SPT borings and CPT data could not verify the softening behavior due to the applied
loads (vertical and horizontal stress) from roadway construction during Contract 3.
47 | P a g e
6.4 Groundwater
Available groundwater data from the permanent groundwater monitoring locations obtained during the
design period of Contracts 2 and 3 indicate a groundwater elevation varying between El. +42 and El. -6.5
near Wall 22 and between El. +44 and El. +39 near Wall 7. Figures 6-13 and 6-14 present the recorded
groundwater levels near Wall 22 and Wall 7 over a time period prior to the beginning of Direct Connection
Contracts 2 and 3.
50
40
30
Elevation (ft)
20
10 B-20
B-19
0 QB 773
TS 600
-10
Mar-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 May-10 Aug-10 Nov-10 Feb-11 Jun-11
Time
Figure 6-13: Groundwater readings near Wall 22 (Mar 2009 to June 2011) (After DC3
Geotechnical Report Dated July 2016)
45
44
WB-238
43
WB-242
NW-496
Elevation (ft)
42
41
40
39
38
Mar-09 May-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Mar-10 May-10 Jun-10 Aug-10 Sep-10
Time
Figure 6-14: Groundwater readings near Wall 7 (Mar 2009 to Sept 2010) (After Contract 3
Geotechnical Report Dated July 2016)
48 | P a g e
Figure 6-15 presents the generalized hydraulic gradient measured from piezometer readings taken during
the forensic study at the Wall 22 area. Per the piezometer readings, in general, the water table is sloping,
with the groundwater level ranging between El +41.8 near Wall 7 and El +8.6 near the toe of slope below
Wall 22. The observed sloping hydraulic gradient appears to be influenced by the sloping site characteristics
due to gravitational energy.
Figure 6-15: General hydraulic gradient based on piezometer readings
Figure 6-16 presents piezometer readings taken during the forensic study near Wall 22. In general, the
lower-level piezometer (approximately El. -21.4’) at Wall 22, recorded daily pressures of around 6 psi, which
corresponds to a groundwater elevation of approximately -7. This piezometer recorded sudden large spikes
in recorded pressure during the passage of two hurricanes, Henri (August 16, 2021 – August 24, 2021) and
Ida (August 26, 2021 – September 4, 2021). Both hurricanes produced pressures greater than 50 psi
(greater than piezometer range), which corresponds to a groundwater elevation greater than the crest of
the I-11 slope. These readings returned to 6 psi following the storms and the spikes generally occurred
during precipitation and dissipated over a short period of time. It is important to note that this data is
independent of the subsurface groundwater condition (i.e., subsurface water exiting the slope surface) in
the sandy soil above the clay layer.
An additional hydraulic feature at the site is the chronic groundwater condition of lateral water movement
from the New St Mary's cemetery toward Rt. 42 and Little Timber Creek prior to and during the I-295/ Rt.
42/I-76 Interchange project construction and also the post failure of Wall 22. Figures 6-17 through 6-20
illustrate the observed chronic groundwater conditions prior to and during construction work of interchange
project.
49 | P a g e
Large Spike
Figure 6-16: Piezometer readings near Wall 22
Free water
Figure 6-17: Water seepage before construction (Aug 2013) (Source: Google)
50 | P a g e
Free water
Figure 6-18: Water seepage observed during Contract 2 (Source: NJDOT)
Wall 22
Free water
Figure 6-19: Water seepage observed during Wall 22 construction (DC 3) (Source: NJDOT)
51 | P a g e
Free water
Figure 6-20: Water seepage post failure (Source: NJDOT)
This free water feature is believed to be influenced by the subsurface soil profile that consists of a surficial
sand underlain by cohesive soils. The cohesive soil has a relatively low permeability that impedes the
downward movement of the rainfall precipitation. Groundwater seepage flows laterally at the Wall 22 area
along the transition zone and results in a higher ground water elevation than readings from monitoring wells
and piezometers in the Upper Woodbury Clay.
It is our opinion that the observed groundwater elevation during non-hurricane times in the monitoring wells
and piezometers (between El. -6.5 and +44) are part of the deep regional groundwater table for this area.
Whereas visually observed groundwater seepage at the site appears related to subsurface water flow as a
result of rainfall precipitation. The Upper Woodbury Clay has a relatively low permeability that impedes the
continued downward migration of the infiltrated rainfall. In our opinion, the groundwater seepage level
should be estimated to be around the interface of surficial sand and Upper Woodbury Clay, which is
estimated around El.+40, and much higher than recorded readings from groundwater monitoring wells
readings obtained during project design phase and piezometer data collected during the forensic study.
Visually, the water seepage observed at a slightly lower elevation due to construction activity previous to
DC 3 that involved the excavation of the upper Woodbury Clay, which no longer extends to the face of the
slope and was replaced with I-11 (sand) material. As the water reaches the face of the slope, the granular
material allows the water to flow downward due to gravitational energy.
52 | P a g e
Summary: In H&H’s opinion, the review of the project information at Wall 22 suggests:
1) The disturbance of upper clay during Contract 2 construction sequence called for altering the
original ground surface which generally resulted in an unstable subsurface site condition;
2) Wall 22 was constructed over the unstable subsurface condition;
3) The I-11 slope material immediately below Wall 22 that was wet with the subsurface water exiting
the slope surface at an elevation much higher than the recorded readings from groundwater
monitoring wells and piezometers; and
4) The subsurface conditions primarily consist of cohesive soils with the Woodbury Clay having an
undrained shear strength increasing with depth, and an undrained shear strength of 525 psf at the
top of the layer, and 2100 psf at the bottom.
53 | P a g e
7.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT

H&H reviewed design documents of the Wall 22 key components: 1) MSE Wall 22; 2) I-11 (sand) slope;
and 3) ground improvement system consisting of a CSES. An independent design and construction check
was performed based on information gathered during forensic data collection and technical review phases.
The objective was to identify factor(s) that may have contributed to the Wall 22 failure.
Figure 7-1: Key components of the Wall 22 roadway
The contributing factors and most probable causes for the failure were then identified by a process of
elimination. The following section discusses the details of the design and construction assessment and
findings.
54 | P a g e
8.0 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALL

Contract documents required construction of Wall 22 to consist of a proprietary type retaining wall system
and assigned wall design and construction responsibility to the SSI. The contract documents also depicted
acceptable proprietary retaining wall system alternatives as a MSE wall and a Prefabricated Modular wall.
The contract document specified factored bearing resistance (allowable load carrying capacity) of the
foundation soil supporting (beneath) Wall 22 and design soil parameters of the wall’s reinforced and
retained fill materials. The contract document also required CSES designer to design the CSES to provide
the bearing resistance shown on the Contract plan. The proprietary type retaining wall was required to meet
AASHTO standards and NJDOT guidelines and recommendations.
SSI elected to use a MSE wall system consisting of metallic soil reinforcing elements and SSI’s
subcontractor, RECo was required to design the MSE wall and provide the wall materials, exclusive of the
backfill and leveling pad.
Wall 22 Retained Fill
Figure 8-1. Wall 22 details as shown in the Contract 3 plans
H&H reviewed project documents and data to identify potential deficiencies in MSE wall design and
construction. The following presents a summary of our assessment.
8.1 General
The term MSE wall describes a retaining wall system consisting of compacted earth fill strengthened with
several layers of reinforcing elements attached to facing panels. Major components of an MSE wall system
typically include reinforcing elements (metallic or polymeric), reinforced fill material, and a facing system.
The retained fill, which can be placed or in-situ, is directly behind the reinforced fill zone and is the primary
source of the lateral earth pressures that the MSE wall system must resist. Drainage details below and
55 | P a g e
behind the reinforced fill are also an important component, especially at locations with a high groundwater
table. Figure 8-2 details typical components of an MSE wall system.
Figure 8-2: Typical components of an MSE wall system
The MSE wall design process consists of determining the geometric and reinforcement requirements to
prevent several external and internal failure modes. External stability checks assume that the failure surface
lies completely outside the reinforced soil mass. Internal stability checks address all possible failure modes
within the reinforced soil mass. Figures 8-3 and 8-4 illustrate the different failure mechanisms described in
FHWA and AASHTO guidance and recommendations for MSE wall structures.
Figure 8-3: Internal MSE wall failure mechanisms (Reference: FHWA NHI-07-
071)
56 | P a g e
Figure 8-4: External MSE wall failure mechanisms (Reference: FHWA NHI-07-
071)
8.2 MSE Wall Design

On the vast majority of projects (including Wall 22), MSE wall suppliers perform internal stability checks
and assume that the wall will be constructed on stable ground and external stability modes of overall
stability, bearing capacity, site specific drainage details, and foundation deformations are designed by
others. MSE wall suppliers do perform external failure mode checks for sliding and eccentricity. The MSE
supplier, RECo., produced shop drawings detailing the Wall 22 components which were recommended for
approval by the Owner’s Engineer, Dewberry.
H&H reviewed the Wall 22 design submittal to identify deficiencies (if any) in MSE wall design that could
cause or contribute to the wall’s failure. The design factors reviewed included: 1) contractual requirements;
2) wall design details conformance to AASHTO and NJDOT design guidance and recommendations; 3)
following standard MSE design methodology; and 4) site specific design factors and boundary conditions.
Review of RECo's design document suggests the MSE wall stability checks follow the general design
philosophy outlined in the AASHTO and NJDOT recommendations. Further, the design submittal appears
to consider the contract document's recommended soil parameters, except the consideration of the
groundwater conditions specific to the location of Wall 22 as outlined in Section 6.4. Lastly, the design
document concludes that the Wall 22 design would function satisfactorily if built on stable ground. The
design document assumes that others would be responsible for the design of the foundation soil’s,
adequacy to support the wall without failure or excessive deformations.
H&H also performed an internal stability design check of Wall 22 at the failed section using the commercially
available software MSEW 3.0 developed by ADAMA Engineering. This computer software specifically
57 | P a g e
follows the design guidance in NHI-00-0043 (FHWA manual for MSE Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
Design and Construction Guidelines). Two design scenarios were evaluated:
1) Perform a design check using the contract recommended soil parameters along with the RECo.’s
recommended Wall 22 construction details and excluding groundwater conditions specific to Wall
22 location as outlined in Section 6.4.
2) Perform a design check using the contract recommended soil parameters along with the RECo.’s
recommended Wall 22 construction details and actual groundwater conditions specific to the Wall
22 location i.e., groundwater El +35 in front of Wall 22 and around El. +44 near cemetery.
Our independent checks also assumed the Wall would be built on stable ground, since no design check in
the software could be performed without this assumption.
Results of our design checks suggest that the recommended soil reinforcement’s type, length, spacing and
density were adequate to withstand anticipated loadings and the possible failure modes of sliding,
eccentricity, and localized failures of reinforcement pullout and rupture through the reinforced soil mass.
Table 8-1 presents a summary of design checks performed for the above listed failure modes.
Table 8-1: MSE Wall design summary

Design check summary
Without groundwater consideration With groundwater conditions
Sliding (CDR Note 1) 1.679 > 1.0 (OK) 1.562 > 1.0 (OK)
Eccentricity (e/B Note 2) 0.1905 < 1/3 or 0.33 (OK) 0.2023 < 1/3 or 0.33 (OK)
Factored Bearing Load Note 3 6499 psf < 7700 (OK) 6338 psf < 7700 (OK)
Note:
1) In terms of the AASHTO design philosophy, the structure should have a Capacity Demand Ratio (CDR) of
either 1.0 or greater than 1.0. A CDR < 1.0 indicates insufficient resistance compared with load (demand)
implying potential failure.
2) AASHTO and FHWA require that the eccentricity of the resultant force be checked and limits the
eccentricity to not greater than one-third of the corresponding wall width dimension.
3) Anticipated load from the wall should be less than the Contract specified bearing resistance of 7700 to
11900 psf.
Although the design check considering actual groundwater conditions results in a lower safety margin, it is
our opinion there were no deficiencies relative to MSE wall design that may have contributed to the failed
Wall 22. Design calculations prepared by RECo. and H&H are presented in Appendix D.
8.3 MSE Wall Construction

The Wall 22 shop drawing and construction records were reviewed to identify construction deficiencies (if
any) that might cause or contribute to Wall 22 failure. The examined construction factors included 1)
compaction (reinforced and retained backfill); 2) compliance with material specifications of reinforced and
retained backfill; and 3) compliance with the reinforcement and mechanical connection specifications.
Reinforced and Retained Backfill Properties: Reinforced and retained backfill soils are susceptible to many
issues that must be accounted for in construction. Use of unstable, uniformly graded and gap graded soils
58 | P a g e
could result in long-term performance issues of an MSE wall. These soil types are susceptible to piping and
can erode internally, resulting in loss of material (development of voids) and clogging of drainage systems
and hence poor wall performance. Use of poor-quality fill material used for construction can lead to
additional problems including significant vertical and lateral deformations and structural failure. For Wall 22,
the contractual requirements stated that NJDOT Standard Soil Aggregate Gradation I-15 with no specified
shear strength requirement be used for the reinforced fill and I-14 with a minimum friction angle of 33° be
used for the retained backfill. H&H examined the properties of reinforced and retained backfill used to
construct Wall 22 as compared with these requirements. We examined results of the following property
tests: 1) grain size analysis tests; 2) standard proctor compaction tests; 3) shear strength (both triaxial and
direct shear tests); and 4) permeability tests.
Figures 8-5 and 8-6 present the test results of the reinforced and retained backfill used to construct Wall
22. The test results verified the material met the requirements for both NJDOT I-15 and I-14, including the
contractual plan requirement of shear strength for I-14. The laboratory test results are presented in
Appendix C.
Figure 8-5: Laboratory test results of reinforced fill (I-15)
59 | P a g e
Figure 8-6: Laboratory test results of retained fill (I-14)
Compaction of Reinforced and Retained Backfill: Moisture content and density control is imperative for
successful construction of an MSE wall and is a critical service life requirement. Even when high-quality
coarse granular reinforced fill materials are used, problems may occur if compaction control procedures
are not in accordance with routine engineered fill construction requirements.
Improper placement and poor compaction of these materials may lead to unbalanced vertical and lateral
stresses near the wall face, thus, resulting in excessive bending of the wall reinforcement connections and
bulging of the face. In addition, improper soil placement and suboptimal moisture content of the reinforced
and retained backfill can significantly affect reinforcement-soil interaction and its ability to withstand lateral
earth pressures and may result in excessive facing misalignment or localized wall failure.
H&H examined construction records of the reinforced and retained backfill placement to verify whether the
construction practices met the requirements of the NJDOT standard specification. Figures 8-7 and 8-8 detail
the summary of the compaction and density control test results performed during the wall construction. The
construction records and additional information are presented in Appendix D.
60 | P a g e
Figure 8-7: Summary of construction record retained fill (I-15)
Figure 8-8: Summary of construction record reinforced fill (I-14)
Based on our review of the construction records, the construction practice followed the NJDOT standard
specification requirements for MSE wall construction i.e., moisture content and density control practices
met the requirement of maintaining a minimum density of 90 percent of the maximum density or the average
density of 95 percent of the maximum density as determined in accordance with AASHTO T 99, Method C
(AASHTO T 180, Method D).
61 | P a g e
Field Observations: Project records indicate Wall 22 construction began December 2018 and continued
through January 2019. Wall construction temporarily stopped for several weeks in February 2019 and
resumed in late February 2019. During that time, several facing panels were noticed to not be within
Contract compliance or RECo.’s (designer/wall supplier) recommendations. The cause of the observed
distress was attributed by SSI to the foundation material (I-11 slope) on which the MSE wall was placed,
whereas the Owner, through the EOR, concluded that 1) SSI’s construction methods may have contributed
to the panel movement, and 2) the backfill material was placed on the high end of the acceptable moisture
content and may have caused the embankment to expand when frozen and displaced the panels out of
plumb. Figures 8-9 and 8-10 are photos which show soil losses (washout rivulets) on the slope and
depressions at the same locations immediately behind the MSE facing panels.
Figure 8-9: Localized settlement behind the MSE

facing panel (source: NJDOT)
Figure 8-10: Soil erosion (washout

rivulets) o the slope (Source: NJDOT)
It is our understanding that subsequently approximately fifty (50) percent of the partially completed MSE
Wall 22 was reconstructed. RECo.’s representative periodically observed the reconstruction process.
RECo.’s field notes indicate the facing panels were set using appropriate lifting devices while maintaining
proper vertical joint spacing and shimmed as necessary to obtain a level, horizontal top of panel as well as
to provide an appropriate batter. Additionally, the facing panels were clamped as backfill was placed, and
the fill was compacted using a steel drum roller and a walk-behind plate tamper. The walk-behind plate
tamper was used in the area the first three feet behind the wall panels and the steel drum roller was used
beyond three feet to the end of the MSE fill. The SSI’s foreman periodically checked facing panel alignment
and made adjustments as necessary before moving to the next level. RECo.’s field notes also state that
the Wall 22’s reconstruction work by SSI was in compliance with RECo.’s recommendations and that the
installation crew was conscientious and took great care during the reconstruction. The NJDOT inspector
also stated that SSI’s wall construction work was performed correctly. RECo.’s field notes also state that:
62 | P a g e
1) water seeping through several slope locations and the slope sluffed at several areas; and 2) panel
movements occurred resulting in joint openings, closings and some corner offset.
Reinforcement and Mechanical Connections: As noted in Section 5.2, the condition of the metallic
reinforcement and mechanical connection between the face panel and reinforcement was visually
examined. During our visual examination, no instances of reinforcement details differing from those
specified on the approved working drawings, including inadequate reinforcement lengths, reinforcement
density, flawed strap gauges (smaller than required), missing reinforcements and missing mechanical
connections were observed.
Examination of the Wall 22 shop drawings, construction records, and materials used for construction
indicates that 1) the reinforced and retained backfill materials conform to the contractual requirements; 2)
the reinforced and retained backfill materials were properly placed and compacted; 3) the reinforcement
lengths and mechanical connections are adequate; and 4) construction was completed to the satisfaction
of Wall designer/supplier. Our review of the construction records found no major deficiencies relative to the
MSE wall construction of the failed Wall 22, although the amount of lateral movement of the face panels
during reconstruction was unusual.
Summary: It is the opinion of H&H that review of project documents and background information suggests:
• The Wall design followed standard NJDOT procedures, including assuming the adequacy of
foundation, global stability, foundation deformation analyses and drainage features which are routinely
the responsibility of EOR or the SSI.
• Excessive lateral movement of the Wall facing panels occurred during construction.
63 | P a g e
9.0 I-11 SLOPE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Contract documents required construction of Wall 22 be approximately at a 9-foot offset from the crest of
the I-11 slope. The slope characteristics at the failed section of Wall 22 consists of a 29-foot-high slope with
a slope angle of approximately 2H: 1V built using I-11 (sand) material. Specific design and construction
details shown on contract documents showed top of CSES at EL +34, which suggests an I‐11 material
thickness of approximately 8 to 12 feet immediately below Wall 22. However, during deconstruction, the
top of the CSES was observed at EL +37, which suggests the as-built thickness of I-11 material was
approximately 5 feet within the deconstruction zone. The contract documents suggest the I-11 material and
associated details were incorporated to address the existing subsurface water conditions. In addition, per
contract plans, the wall was not detailed to extend down to the top of ground improvement LTM due to cost
(Reference: RFI 160). Figure 9-1 illustrates the I-11 slope details as shown in the contract plans.
Figure 9-1 DC 3 plan depicted I-11 slope scheme
H&H reviewed the I-11 slope design and construction details because potential instabilities of the slope
could directly contribute to the failure of Wall 22.
9.1 I-11 Slope Design

Evaluation of the I-11 slope included design checks for: 1) overall stability; and 2) bearing capacity. For this
portion of evaluation, failure surfaces were restricted to be within the I-11 material layer.
Slope Stability Check: Overall stability was evaluated using the conventional soil mechanics stability
method of Limit-Equilibrium (LE) analysis. Conventional analysis procedures characterize the stability of a
slope by calculating a factor of safety (FOS or FS). FOS is defined as the ratio of the restoring or resisting
forces or moments to the driving forces or moments required for equilibrium. This method is based on an
assumed failure surface and the mobilized shear strength along the surface. The slip surface shape is
varied and can consist of a circular surface or a non-circular surface (i.e., planar surface, two-part surface,
three-part wedge, or a log-spiral surface). LE is achieved when the available shear strength is equal to or
64 | P a g e
greater than the mobilized shear strength, in other words, when the FOS is equal to or greater than 1.0.
Minimum required factors of safety are typically 1.3 for slopes not adjacent to or directly supporting
structures and 1.5 for slopes that directly support or influence the performance of structures, such as
bridges and retaining walls. According to FHWA SA-02-054 “All slopes supporting footings should have a
global factor of safety of at least 1.5”. Figure 9-2 presents a graphical definition of FOS.
Figure 9-2 Various definitions of factor of safety (FHWA-SA-94-005)
As shown in Figure 9-3, a slope may fail at different locations. The deep-seated failure often occurs in weak
foundation soils, whereas toe of slope failures generally occur above the foundation soils and occur due to
inadequate shear strength of the embankment fill material. Surficial and local failures are most often
triggered by water due to the saturation and weakening of the embankment material and the development
of seepage forces within the embankment materials.
65 | P a g e
Figure 9-3: Potential failure surfaces
H&H reviewed the slope stability check performed by the EOR during the design phase. Our review found
that the EOR performed a I-11 slope stability check for a deep-seated failure surface and the design
assumptions included that the I-11 material has a friction angle (shear strength) of 32 degrees and a
groundwater elevation at El. +30 within the cross section. The EOR design check document concludes that
the I-11 slope has an adequate FOS. Information provided to H&H did not include slope stability checks for
potential surficial and toe failures. Figure 9-4 presents the results of EOR’s slope stability check with failure
surfaces restricted within the I-11 slope.
FOS = 1.54
Figure 9-4: EOR slope stability check (Source: DC 3 background information)
66 | P a g e
Typically, evaluation of the overall stability is performed to identify critical deep seated and toe failure
surfaces and to verify whether the available shear strength of the in-situ soil and embankment materials
are adequate to maintain a state of equilibrium with a required FOS. Slope sloughing and local instabilities
within the surficial soils, which routinely occur, often are not given attention as they are commonly assumed
to be addressed through permanent vegetation and drainage as well as by maintenance and minor site
grading following initial construction. This approach is commonly applied to slopes which do not directly
support or are directly adjacent to structures such as bridges and retaining walls. The I-11 slope of this
project site can be classified as a critical slope because it directly supports Wall 22. Therefore, slope stability
checks for potential surficial and toe failures were warranted during the design phase.
Independent Check: As part of the forensic study, H&H conducted an independent slope stability analysis
of the I-11 slope supporting Wall 22. An assessment to identify critical failure surfaces and corresponding
safety factors of the I-11 slope was performed using the commercially available software SLIDE developed
by Rocscience Inc. The computer program follows the conventional soil mechanics stability methods of LE
analysis. In addition to assessing the critical failure surfaces and minimum safety factors, a series of
sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effects of various geomaterial input design parameters
on slope stability. The design parameters evaluated in the sensitivity analyses included groundwater
conditions and shear strength of the I-11 (sand) material used for embankment construction based on
laboratory test results.
An initial slope stability check was performed by replicating the EOR’s analysis, which included their design
parameter assumptions and search routines. H&H’s stability check, following the EOR’s assumptions,
agreed with EOR’s analysis results. However, in performing the duplicate analysis, H&H discovered a more
critical failure surface in front of Wall 22. When H&H analyzed that more critical failure surface, we obtained
a lower FOS of 1.26, which is below the required FOS of 1.5 as shown in Figure 9-7.
After replicating the EOR’s analysis, H&H then varied several parameter values, as detailed below:
1) Groundwater: As noted in Section 6.4, during the H&H original site visit the I-11 slope material
immediately below Wall 22 was wet and had subsurface water exiting the slope surface, emerging
the slope surface at elevation above El. +30. Based on historical groundwater information at the
site, H&H assumed seepage levels of approximately El. +35 in front of Wall 22 and around El. +44
near cemetery in the analysis.
2) Fill Material Strength (I-11 material): The friction angle (shear strength) of I-11 (sand) material used
for slope construction, which was collected and laboratory tested during the forensic study, was
also considered. Specifically, the I-11 material’s strength (friction angle) was varied based on the
material’s behavior when exposed to increased hydraulic/water content conditions as shown in
Figure 9-5.
67 | P a g e
Direct Shear Test Results (I-11)

45
40
Friction Angle (Deg)
35
30
T-1
T-2
25
T-3
T-4
20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content %
Figure 9-5: I-11 Strength response when exposed to higher moisture content.
The data summary presented in Figure 9-5 is based on laboratory test results conducted on the I-11 material
to model site conditions of a wet I-11 slope with high moisture content. To replicate the moisture content of
the I-11 soil, the moisture content was varied and progressively increased to yield the most representative
material strength data which at its highest was at 48%. Initially, triaxial testing was attempted to assess I-
11’s material strength. The attempt to test the material via triaxial testing was unsuccessful at higher
moisture contents, as the sample was unable to be prepared properly due to its high moisture content (as
shown in Figure 9-7), and the cylindrical membrane was not strong enough to support the unstable soil
sample.
Following the triaxial test attempt, direct shear tests were used to assess the material strength properties.
This test method has a limitation of a predetermined failure plane, which
may not be the weakest shear plane, and thus the measured strength is
generally overestimated. In order to replicate the field conditions as
closely as possible, the test sample moisture content was progressively
increased to 48%. The direct shear results show that with an increase in
the moisture content, there is a corresponding decrease in the friction
angle, and an overall loss of strength. The direct shear test recorded a
maximum shear strength of approximately 42 degrees (deg.) and the
minimum recorded shear strength of around 28 deg. for I-11 material.
The triaxial tests that were able to be conducted recorded a maximum
shear strength of around 38 deg. for I-11 material. Therefore, for forensic
analyses, the maximum shear strength of the I-11 material was limited
to 38 deg.
Figure 9-6: Triaxial test
sample preparation
68 | P a g e
It should be noted that a direct shear test may not be the best representation of the I-11 (sand) material
because the sample is constrained in a way that doesn’t model site conditions of the failed wall (i.e., three-
sided confinement with an exposed slope). To better represent the site conditions, use of a small-scale
analog model and subjecting the material to pore water pressure per the anticipated site-specific subsurface
groundwater is most appropriate to understand the behavior of the material when exposed to higher
moisture content. Unfortunately, a comprehensive study using such a model is beyond the scope of this
forensic study.
Check for Surficial and Toe Failures: As stated above, the project’s I-11 slope can be classified as a critical
slope as it is required to directly support Wall 22, and sloughing or instability within the slope material is
likely to directly affect Wall 22’s performance. H&H next evaluated the stability of potential failure surfaces
passing at or above the toe of the slope, which included the EOR’s design parameter assumptions. The
results of this analysis indicate the most critical failure surface has a FOS of 1.26 while a FOS of 1.5 is
required. Figure 9-7 presents the FOS results for a potential surficial and toe failure.
FOS
Figure 9-7: H&H surficial and toe stability check results
Sensitivity Analyses: A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effect of various
geomaterial design input parameters for a deep-seated failure surface passing above the I-11 slope base.
The design parameters specific to the failed section of Wall 22 accounted for in the sensitivity analyses
included groundwater conditions and shear strength (based on laboratory tests) of the I-11 (sand) material.
The LE check included sensitivity analyses using a two-step process. The first step included modifying the
groundwater conditions to reflect the actual site conditions, and the second included modifying the shear
strength of the slope materials based on the minimum and maximum ranges observed per laboratory test
results.
Figure 9-8 shows the minimum FOS along the slip surface when considering the site-specific elevated
groundwater conditions. The results of the stability check suggest an adverse influence on FOS when
69 | P a g e
elevated groundwater conditions are considered. Figure 9-9 shows the minimum FOS along the slip surface
when the shear strength of the slope material is increased to the maximum test value, including elevated
groundwater conditions. While this analysis suggests that the FOS increases significantly when the
maximum test value of shear strength is considered, it is H&H’s opinion that those maximum values likely
over-state the behavior of the material. Figure 9-10 shows the minimum FOS along the slip surface when
the shear strength of the slope material is decreased to the minimum test value, including elevated
groundwater conditions. Results of the analyses show that consideration of the minimum test value of shear
strength and elevated groundwater condition have a significant influence on the FOS, and the overall global
stability of the system dropped significantly. Table 9-1 summarizes the results of slope stability check
performed for I-11 slope.
Table 9-1: I-11 Slope Stability check

Deep Seated Toe and/or
Conditions Stability Surficial stability
Check check
EOR’s design assumptions 1.54 1.26
EOR’s design assumptions with consideration of elevated groundwater

1.42 < 1.0
condition
1.71 < 1.0
condition and I-11 shear strength (maximum material strength)
1.23 < 1.0
condition and I-11 shear strength (minimum material strength)
70 | P a g e
FOS
FOS
FOS
Figure 9-8: FOS with consideration of elevated groundwater condition
71 | P a g e
FOS
FOS
FOS
Figure 9-9: FOS with consideration of elevated groundwater and I-11

shear strength (maximum material strength)
72 | P a g e
FOS
FOS
FOS
Figure 9-10: FOS with consideration of elevated groundwater and I-11 shear
strength (minimum material strength)
73 | P a g e
The results of the sensitivity analyses indicate the shear strength friction angle has a significant influence
on the minimum FOS and stability of the I-11 slope, and that stability will be compromised if the I-11 (sand)
material loses its strength when exposed to higher moisture contents. In addition, one common aspect
noted in LE analyses suggests the potential for surficial sloughing or instability within the surficial soils
regardless of geotechnical design parameters, as shown in Figure 9-7 through 9-10.
H&H’s LE analyses found possible critical slope conditions that yielded a FOS less than required 1.5 and,
in some cases, less than 1.0 indicating a likelihood of slope instability. These observations are consistent
with the noted I-11 slope instability during construction as shown in below Figure 9-11.
Deformation Behavior: The project’s I-11 (sand) slope can be classified as a critical slope since it directly
supports Wall 22, and surficial or toe
instability is likely to affect Wall 22’s
performance. Therefore, H&H performed an
additional assessment of the I-11 slope
using an advanced finite element
computational method of the stress-
deformation behavior of the slope. This type
analysis is often used in practice to
complement LE analysis methods of shear
failures because it provides deformation
results which are not provided by LE
methods.
The assessment of slope deformations and

stress-deformation behavior was performed
using the commercially available software
PLAXIS 3D developed by Bentley System,
Inc. The program uses the soil stress-strain
material behavior for slope stability
modelling. The major advantage of finite
element (FE) analysis is that no
assumptions are required for the geometry
and shape of the failure surface. The FE
approach divides the model into a number of
mesh elements and stresses and strains are
calculated using the constitutive laws for the
materials comprising the slope stability
model. Failure occurs naturally through the
specific model zones in which the soil shear
strength is unable to resist the developed
shear stresses.
Figure 9-11: Unstable I-11 slope (Source: NJDOT)
74 | P a g e
The FE check included sensitivity analyses using the step process, as detailed below:
1) The first step included analyzing the I-11 slope supporting Wall 22 using the design assumptions
of the EOR’s design parameter assumptions i.e., I-11 material’s strength (friction angle) of 32
degrees and groundwater elevation at El. +30 below Wall 22. The deformation analysis results
suggest that a lateral deformation of approximately 4 inches occurs as the I-11 slope is loaded.
Figure 9-12 illustrates the deformation pattern observed in the FE model.
2) The second step included analyzing the I-11 slope supporting Wall 22 using the EOR’s design
parameter for I-11 material’s strength i.e., friction angle of 32 degrees with consideration of elevated
groundwater condition i.e., groundwater El +35 in front of Wall 22 and around El. +44 near
cemetery. The deformation analysis results suggest that a lateral deformation of approximately 9
inches occurs as the I-11 slope is loaded. Figure 9-13 illustrates the deformation pattern observed
in the FE model.
3) The subsequent step included modifying the shear strength of the slope materials based on the
minimum and maximum friction angle observed per laboratory test results including the elevated
groundwater condition. The deformation analysis suggests that a lateral deformation of
approximately 4 inches would occur at the maximum friction angle (i.e., friction angle of 38 degrees
and groundwater El +35 in front of Wall 22 and around El. +44 near cemetery) and a lateral
deformation of approximately 3.4 feet would occur at the minimum friction angle (i.e., friction angle
of 28 degrees and groundwater El. +35 in front of Wall 22 and around El. +44 near cemetery)
respectively. Figures 9-14 and 9-15 illustrates the deformation pattern observed in the FE model.
I-11
CSES
In-Situ Soil
Figure 9-12: FE predicated I-11 slope behavior FE predicated I-11 slope behavior with EOR’s
design parameter assumptions
75 | P a g e
I-11
CSES
In-Situ Soil
Figure 9-13: FE predicated I-11 slope behavior with EOR’s I-11 material strength parameter with
consideration of elevated groundwater condition
I-11
CSES
In-Situ Soil
Figure 9-14: FE predicated I-11 slope behavior with consideration of elevated groundwater
and I-11 shear strength (minimum material strength)
76 | P a g e
I-11I-11
CSES
CSES
In-Situ
In-Situ SoilSoil
Figure 9-15: FE predicated I-11 slope behavior with consideration of elevated groundwater
and I-11 shear strength (maximum material strength)
As-Constructed Conditions: A slope stability check was also performed for the as-constructed conditions,
i.e., considering I-11 (sand) material thickness of approximately 5 feet compared to the 8 feet that was
considered during the original design (bottom of MSE wall at El. +42 and top of CSES at El.+37). The check
included surficial and toe failures with consideration of the elevated groundwater table (El. +35 in front of
Wall 22 and around El. +44 at cemetery in their analysis) and the measured maximum and minimum friction
angle (shear strength) of the slope materials (I-11 material) that were collected, and laboratory tested during
the forensic study. Figure 9-16 shows the minimum FOS along the slip surface when considering the site-
specific elevated groundwater conditions and the shear strength of the slope materials at the maximum
recorded friction angle of 38 deg. Figure 9-17 shows the minimum FOS along the slip surface when
considering the site-specific elevated groundwater conditions and the shear strength of the slope materials
at the minimum recorded friction angle of 28 deg. The results of the stability check show potential for surficial
sloughing or instability within the slope and show the slope having a marginal FOS for both the maximum
and minimum shear strength of the slope material found during the forensic study.
77 | P a g e
FOS
FOS
Figure 9-16: FOS with consideration of elevated groundwater and I-11

shear strength (maximum material strength) - Deconstructed zone
78 | P a g e
FOS
FOS
Figure 9-17: FOS with consideration of elevated groundwater and I-11 shear strength (minimum
material strength) - Deconstructed zone
79 | P a g e
Bearing Capacity Check: For the roadway embankment details depicted on the contract plans to function
satisfactorily, two criteria should be met: 1) I-11 slope should have adequate bearing capacity; 2) I-11
material should have the ability to transfer the Wall 22 loading to the underlaying CSES.
In our opinion, the criteria of the I-11 (sand) material to transfer the Wall 22 loading to the underlaying CSES
appears to rely on AASHTO’s two-layer foundation soil system where shear strength properties of the
underlying CSES system is accounted to withstand anticipated loading. As shown below in Figure 9-18, the
boundary condition for consideration of a two-layer soil system assumes no sloping ground, i.e., the
foundation soil being loaded is constrained and prevented from horizontal displacement (indicated with blue
arrows added to the AASHTO figure). In Figure 9-19, this assumption is not applicable with the conditions
at Wall 22. The wall is located adjacent to the I-11 slope and as previously shown in the FE check, the I-11
material experiences horizontal displacements during loading.
Figure 9-18: Two layered soil - system (AASHTO LRFD)
Figure 9-19: Foundation system (foundation soil) supporting Wall 22
80 | P a g e
H&H’s independent bearing capacity check for the I-11 (sand) material with consideration of a footing
adjacent to the slope and the elevated groundwater condition without the consideration for two-layer soil
system suggests the I-11 (sand) material immediately beneath Wall 22 does not have the required bearing
resistance to support the Wall 22 loading. Also, the FE model results suggest that the I-11 material beneath
Wall 22 is likely to undergo lateral deformation upon loading from Wall 22 and has limited ability to transfer
the wall mass loads to the underlying CSES.
The slope stability sensitivity analyses and deformation assessments prepared by H&H are presented in
Appendix E.
9.2 Construction
Construction factors that could possibly have caused or contributed to the poor performance of the I-11
slope were examined. The examined construction factors included: 1) compaction; 2) compliance with the
I-11 (sand) material specification; and 3) moisture control.
I-11 (sand) Material Properties: Contract documents require the use of I-11 material to construct the I-11
slope and the contract plan also requires the contractor to furnish I-11 material having friction angle of 32
degrees. H&H examined the properties of the I-11 material used to construct the I-11 slope. The examined
properties and related tests included: 1) grain size analysis; 2) standard proctor compaction test; 3) shear
strength (both triaxial and direct shear tests); and 4) permeability tests, to verify compliance with the material
specifications.
Figure 9-20 presents the test results of the I-11 material. The test results verified the material met the
requirements for NJDOT I-11, including the contractual plan requirement of shear strength. The laboratory
test results are presented in Appendix C.
Figure 9-20: Laboratory test results of I-11 material
81 | P a g e
Compaction of I-11: Moisture content and density control is imperative for successful construction of an
engineered fill embankment and is a critical service life requirement. Proper selection of soil type, adequate
moisture control, and uniform compaction are required for a quality embankment. Problems resulting from
poor embankment construction are likely to result in excessive deformation and slope instability.
H&H examined construction records of the I-11 fill placement to verify whether the construction procedures
met the NJDOT standard specification. Figures 9-21 provides a summary of the compaction and density
control tests performed during the I-11 slope construction. The construction records data and additional
details are presented in Appendix E.
Figure 9-21: Summary of construction record I-11 Slope
Based on the construction records as shown in Figure 9-21, the construction practice appears to have
followed the NJDOT standard specification requirements for embankment construction. The moisture
content and density control met the requirement of maintaining a minimum density of 90 percent of the
maximum density or the average density of 95 percent of the maximum density as determined in
accordance with AASHTO T 99, Method C (AASHTO T 180, Method D).
Field Observations: Project documents indicate the following difficulties occurred during construction: 1)
achieving required compaction control while maintaining the required moisture content; and 2) efficiently
operating construction equipment directly above previously placed fill, during construction of the I-11 slope.
These observations are not surprising, since the contract documents required use of poorly graded material
(I-11) for the slope and embankment construction. Poorly graded soils have a narrow range of particle sizes
and are less conducive for embankment construction due to the material uniform particle size and void
structure. This results in compaction being more difficult to achieve and reduces soil stability and stiffness
compared to well graded soil materials. The narrow range of particle sizes increases compaction difficulties
and in coarse grained uniform soils (sands and gravels) water quickly drains and further impedes the
effectiveness of compaction efforts. The result is reduced shear strength and load carrying capacity.
82 | P a g e
Summary: It is H&H’s opinion that review of Project documents and H&H independent engineering
assessment suggest:
• The two-layer bearing capacity model is not appropriate based on the cross-section geometry at Wall
22. By applying this model, the foundation (I-11) soil immediately beneath Wall 22 would appear to
have a higher load carrying capacity than its actual load carrying capacity by relying on the underlying
stiffer CSES. The two-layer soil system approach is applicable only for a flat surface or when the
foundation soil being loaded is constrained on all sides to prevent horizontal displacement which is not
the case for Wall 22 which contained a sloped side.
• As-detailed features of the I-11 slope placed directly over the unstable ground condition (strain
softening behavior of cut slope) created during Contract 2 could significantly affect the stability of the I-
11 slope and its ability to support and transfer the loads of the wall mass.
• The I-11 slope at this project site can be classified as a critical slope because it directly supports Wall
22. Therefore, a slope stability check for potential surficial and toe failures was warranted during the
design phase. Our independent check with consideration of an elevated groundwater condition for
potential surficial and toe failures surface results in a FOS of less than 1.0 for both conditions (both the
one which includes all of the EOR’s design parameter assumptions and other with modifications to
design parameter assumptions H&H believes is more representative of actual conditions).
• Results of the laboratory testing program indicate the friction angle of the supplied I-11 (sand) material
complies with the contractual requirements. However, test results indicate the I-11 material strength
decreases, as the moisture content increases. This result affects the ability of I-11 material to support
the weight of the wall mass and to act as a bridging layer to transfer the weight of the wall mass to the
underlying CSES.
• Site-specific groundwater conditions and loss of I-11 strength when exposed to higher moisture
contents yield a marginal to inadequate factor of safety to withstand the weight of the wall mass and
has potential to displace laterally.
• The I-11 material used conforms to contractual requirements and construction practices were
performed in substantial conformance with NJDOT Standards relative to achieving adequate moisture
control and compaction during placement. However, project documents and data suggest difficulties
were experienced during construction working with the I-11 material and erosion of I-11 material
occurred due to seeping groundwater conditions.
83 | P a g e
10.0 GROUND IMPROVEMENT

The contract documents required implementation of a ground improvement method involving a column
supported embankment system (CSES). The specified CSES work included installation of Rigid Column
Inclusions (RCI) and a Load Transfer Mat (LTM) as a bridging layer to uniformly transfer the loads from the
new highway embankment and wall structure to the RCI which bear on underlying dense and stiff soil
conditions. The contract documents appear to indicate an acceptable CSES consists of unreinforced
concrete columns and compacted soil reinforced with multiple layers of geosynthetic at the top of the
columns to act as a bridging system to transfer and distribute the embankment (I-11 slope) and wall loads
onto the series of columns. SSI elected to implement a CSES system similar to what was indicated on the
contract plans.
Menard - working for SSI - was responsible for the design of the CSES which was recommended for
approval by the Owner’s Engineer, the EOR. The CSES’s columns were constructed by Menard and SSI
constructed the CSES’s LTM which was accepted by the Owner’s Engineer, the EOR.
Ground Improvement
Figure 10-1: Typical column supported embankment system shown in Contract 3
H&H examined the CSES design and construction details to assess the adequacy of the ground
improvement system to support the embankment and Wall 22. The following presents a summary of our
assessment.
10.1 General
A typical CSES ground improvement solution involves constructing a designed pattern of in-situ columns
and a load transfer mat (LTM). The columns are designed to bear on firm subsurface material underlying
the soft and compressible subsurface soils that would otherwise consolidate and shear under loading. An
LTM is used to distribute the embankment and retaining wall loads onto the series of columns. The typical
configuration for design and construction of CSES with a LTM for infrastructure projects across the United
States is depicted in Figure 10-2.
84 | P a g e
Load Transfer Mat (LTM)

Embankment Load
Geotextiles
/Geogrid Select Fill
Layers compacted
Layers
columns
Figure 10-2: Typical column supported embankment system configuration
According to FHWA’s ground modification methods reference manual (Publication No. FHWA-NHI-16-027)
“The support columns that are used with this technology include steel H-piles, steel pipe piles, auger cast
piles, precast concrete piles, and timber piles”. The steel and concrete pile type support columns provide
higher capacities but are generally less economically attractive compared to newer formed-in-place column
types. The newer formed-in-place column types used in CSES include soil mix columns, aggregate
columns, and cement-based columns. In recent years formed-in-place column type(s) have become a
preferred column alternative because of lower cost than steel and concrete, along with faster installation
rates.
The FHWA reference manual also states, “Three types of load transfer platforms are available”. The first
type of LTM is a reinforced concrete structural mat. This mat type is generally more expensive compared
to other types of LTMs which consist of select granular structural fill either reinforced with one or more
layers of geosynthetic or are unreinforced.
The CSES is not dependent on any one column and/or LTM type, hence a project team can use a number
of column and LTM combinations to meet project specific requirements.
The design procedure for CSES is well documented and involves calculating the vertical load followed by
design and detailing of the LTM and columns such that the LTM, through soil arching, transfers the majority
or one hundred percent of the loads to the underlying columns. The design assumes the load is then
transferred to a deeper competent subsurface stratum which provides adequate bearing resistance and
deformation behavior. The design results include: a reduction or elimination of loads transferred to the soft
and weaker foundation soils, reduced vertical and lateral deformations, enhanced resistance against slope
instability, and resistance which prevents sliding and bearing failures within the soft and weak deposit above
the bearing stratum. There are several CSES design methods and theories regarding the shape and nature
of the soil arching above the columns. CSES design methods continue to develop with the advancement
of design tools and case study observations. Some specialty contractors and geotechnical consulting firms
have designed CSES projects using 2D and 3D deformation based numerical modeling tools. The FHWA
85 | P a g e
reference includes a project case history in New

Jersey where use of a 3D finite element numerical
model was applied to optimize the design and meet
the project performance requirements.
The principal limit states (failure modes) for CSES

designs are total settlement, differential settlement,
lateral spreading, overall stability, edge stability,
sliding, column compressive, shear strength and
tensile capacities and stiffness of the geosynthetic
reinforcement. According to the FHWA reference
“The design of CSES must consider both strength
limit states, and serviceability state failure criteria”.
Figures 10-3 and 10-4 illustrate the FHWA
recommended limit state checks.
The strength limit design checks include: 1) column

design to carry the vertical load without failing; 2) Figure 10-3: Serviceability limit state checks
provide an adequate number of column rows to (Ref., Publication No. FHWA-NHI-16-027)
prevent slope instability at the toe of the
embankment; 3) LTM design to transfer the loads to the columns; 4) prevent lateral sliding by inclusion of
a tension resistance system such as high strength geosynthetic elements; and 5) global stability check.
Global stability of CSES may be evaluated using limit equilibrium computer software such as SLIDE, by
accounting for the added shear resistance of the columns and the tensile capacity of the geosynthetic
reinforcement. The serviceability limit state design checks include preventing unacceptable lateral and
vertical deformations and surface deflection reflection (i.e., differential settlement) at the top of the
embankment.
86 | P a g e
Figure 10-4: Strength limit state checks (Ref., Publication No. FHWA-NHI-16-027)
10.2 CSES Design

H&H reviewed the CSES design submittal to identify potential deficiencies in the CSES design assumptions
and recommendations that may have caused or contributed to poor performance of the CSES system and
Wall 22. The design factors reviewed included: 1) Compliance with contract prescribed design and
performance requirements for CSES (columns and load transfer mat); 2) Conformance with the contract
material specifications for the LTM and columns; 3) CSES design in conformance with FHWA reference
manual (AASHTO does not provide guidance on CSES); and 4) Site specific design factors and subsurface
and boundary conditions.
87 | P a g e
Our review of the CSES design documents indicate the design was performed using a deformation analysis
modeling program, PLAXIS. The overall global stability limit state (i.e., deep seated failure surface passing
through the columns) was performed using the program SLIDE. The CSES’s design document indicates
that the recommended CSES arrangement has adequate bearing capacity to withstand loads from Wall 22
and has an adequate FOS against a failure surface (i.e., external global stability) passing through the
CSES. These conclusions assume the I-11 material slope is stable.
Initially, the recommended and accepted CSES design consisted of 15.6-inch and 17.8-inch diameter
unreinforced concrete columns, referred to as Controlled Modulus Columns (CMC), spaced at
approximately 7.5 ft C/C at the Wall 22 failed section with a recommended column length of approximately
70 feet. The recommended LTM detailed a 3 to 4 ft thick engineered fill reinforced with 2 layers of bi-axial
geogrid. Based on our independent design check, the recommended column spacing for the anticipated
loading from Wall 22 and the I-11 slope appears reasonable, however the recommended two geogrid layers
appears inconsequential in transferring most of the embankment and Wall 22 loads to the underlying CMCs.
The geotechnical instrumentation data, as outlined in Section 12.0 of this report, indicated that the in-situ
soil surrounding the CMCs experienced significant loading and deformation.
Following the acceptance of the original CSES design submittal, another CSES related submittal was
proposed by Menard and accepted by the EOR. The second submittal proposed use of smaller diameter
(i.e., core diameter of around 12-inch) CMC columns than in the initial CSES design submittal. The revised
submittal referred to the design of the original column as “traditional CMC,” and proposed the use of a
smaller diameter columns referred to as an “enhanced CMC”. This submittal was simply referred to as a
modification to the means and methods of installation. According to Submittal 299 R1 “An enhanced bond
CMC consists of a smaller inner core diameter than traditional CMC with added threads”. “The bond
between the CMCs and the surrounding soil is enhanced due to the greater surface area provided by the
threaded element and therefore has greater skin frictional capacity”. The review and acceptance process
of the enhanced CMC included conducting a static (compression) load test on a sacrificial column. It was
agreed that if the static load test results confirmed the smaller enhanced CMC provided adequate vertical
load carrying capacity as the originally designed traditional CMC, then a smaller size enhanced CMC would
be accepted.
Check for Deep Seated failure: As previously mentioned, multiple fractures and shears in the columns, both
at the top and at deeper depths, were observed during the wall deconstruction. This mode of failure is
commonly associated with global instability i.e., the resisting force of the in-situ soil with added shear
resistance of the columns have inadequate capacity to withstand destabilizing forces along the critical
failure surface. H&H performed an assessment of the CSES’s global stability using the commercially
available software SLIDE, the same software used by the subcontractor (Menard).
An initial global stability check was performed by replicating Menard’s analysis, which included all of their
design parameter assumptions and specific search routines of failure surface passing through the CMCs.
H&H’s initial stability check achieved similar results to the Menard submittal. Next, H&H varied some of the
parameter values believed to be more representative of the site and subsurface conditions, as detailed
below:
88 | P a g e
1) Groundwater: As noted in Section 6.4, during H&H’s original site visit, the I-11 slope immediately
below Wall 22 was wet and had subsurface water exiting the slope face at elevation above El. +30.
Based on historical groundwater data at the site H&H assumed the potential effects of groundwater
levels at approximately EL +35 in front of Wall 22 and approximately El. +44 behind Wall 22. The
Menard design analysis assumed a uniform groundwater level at El. +30 ft.
2) In-situ Soil Shear Strength: As noted in Section 6.3, the cohesive clay layer exhibits a linear
relationship where undrained shear strength increases with depth, with the estimated undrained
shear strength of 525 psf at the top of the layer and 2100 psf at the bottom. Menard’s design
assumption for cohesive soil in their analysis included a uniform undrained shear strength with
depth of 1294 psf (ref., Submittal No.358).
3) Shear Capacity of the Column: Based on ACI guidance for the shear capacity of the column H&H
considered a strength reduction factor for plain concrete elements with no reinforcement i.e., shear
resistance of a circular concrete column is around 4.2 kips. Refer Appendix G for details. Menard’s
design did not consider the reduction factor and assumed a shear resistance of 6.942 kips.
Figure 10-5 presents the results of Menard’s analysis. The design check document concludes that the
CSES has a required FOS of 1.5 when the slip surface passes through the columns. Figure 10-6 shows
the minimum FOS along the slip surface passing through the columns when considering the groundwater
levels at approximately EL +35 in front of Wall 22 and around El. +44 behind Wall 22 (elevated groundwater
conditions). Figure 10-7 shows the minimum FOS along the slip surface with the consideration of the
cohesive soil’s linear relationship where the undrained shear strength increases with depth, an undrained
shear strength of 525 psf at the top of the layer and 2100 psf at the bottom including elevated groundwater
conditions. Figure 10-8 shows the minimum FOS along the slip surface including the strength reduction
factor for plain concrete elements with no reinforcement, including elevated groundwater conditions and an
undrained shear strength increasing with depth.
89 | P a g e
Figure 10-5: Menard’s deep-seated slope stability check (Source: Submittal No.358)
Figure 10-6: FOS with consideration of elevated groundwater
90 | P a g e
Figure 10-7: FOS with consideration of elevated groundwater and modified shear strength of clay
(undrained shear strength of 525 psf at the top of the layer and 2100 psf at the bottom)
Figure 10-8: FOS with consideration of elevated groundwater and modified shear strength of clay,
and reduction for unreinforced concrete shear strength.
91 | P a g e
Results of the analyses show that consideration of the site-specific conditions has a significant influence
on the FOS. The overall global stability of the system reduced significantly especially with the assumed
clay undrained shear strength properties.
In addition to the global stability check and in consideration of the site-specific design factors, sensitivity
analyses were performed by modifying the type of column from CMC to steel pipe piles. The analyses
suggest that the FOS of the marginally safe CSES system increases significantly if the column type is
changed to steel pipe piles. Refer to Figure 10-9 for results if a steel pipe pile was used as the column.
Figure 10-9: FOS with consideration of elevated groundwater and modified shear strength of clay,
and steel pipe pile
Deformation Behavior: To better understand the observed nature of the CSES behavior, H&H assessed
the “As-Built” failed section of Wall 22 with I-11 slope and CSES using the commercially available finite
element software PLAXIS. Geotechnical design properties used in the PLAXIS model were similar to those
used in the SLIDE analysis except for the inclusion of additional material properties, the selection of
constitutive models and boundary conditions.
The calculation procedure in the PLAXIS model included the staged construction sequence to simulate the
construction changes at the Wall 22 location from the original ground condition to the final construction of
Wall 22 through the multiple construction phases. This sequence included 1) before construction work; 2)
creating a cut slope during Direct Connection Contract 2; 3) Direct Connection Contract 3 work which
included a fill placement scheme involving a CSES, a I-11 (sand) slope, and Wall 22 covering the cut area
created during Contract 2. After geometry creation and defining the cross-section properties of the elevated
roadway at Wall 22, the staged construction sequence was defined. The staged construction sequence
included deactivating the original ground conditions to simulate the Contract 2 excavation work and
activating certain sets of soil (I-11, I-14, and I-15) and elements (CMC, LTM, and MSE wall) to simulate the
Contract 3 fill placement work.
92 | P a g e
Figure 10-10a illustrates the FE model predictions which suggested stress concentrations occurring in the
I-11 slope and below the LTM of the CSES. The stress concentrations below the LTM occurred near the
outermost columns and retrogressively developed toward the inner column rows with increasing
deformation at the top of the columns. Also Figure 10-10b illustrates FE model predictions of soils
deformation at above and below the LTM toward the toe of the embankment slope and Figure 10-10c
illustrates FE model predictions of elements. These FE predictions are consistent to what was observed in
the field with shearing occurring near the tops of the columns and the soil mass deforming outward the tow
of the slope.
Figure 10-10a: FE predicted stress concentration CSES behavior
Figure 10-10b: FE predicted soil mass behavior
93 | P a g e
Figure 10-10c: FE predicted element behavior
10.3 Construction
Construction factors that could have caused or contributed to poor performance of the CSES were also
examined. The examined CSES construction factors included: 1) column installation; 2) compliance with
specification; and 3) quality assurance / quality control.
Menard was the specialty contractor responsible for the installation of CSES and installed the formed-in-
place column type referred as enhanced Controlled Modulus Column (CMC). The system is described by
Menard as using a displacement auger and tooling setup powered by equipment with high torque capacity
and very high static downward thrust to displace the soil laterally. When the required depth or a preset
drilling criterion (usually rotational torque) is reached, a cement grout mix is pumped through the center of
the hollow auger. The grout then flows out of the auger base under low pressure as the auger is withdrawn.
This procedure results in a cement grout column. The CMC drill rigs were equipped with an automated
monitoring system. This system monitors key parameters including auger rotation rate and depth, grout
volume and pressure, and auger withdrawal rate to compute a theoretical profile of the column based on
the amount and location of grout placed. Our review of the CMC’s installation records suggests the CMCs
were installed to drilling criterion established based on the CMC demonstration column load test.
The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures included static load tests to measure the
response of CMC under an applied vertical load. We reviewed the test results performed on test CMCs
designated as DTL-6 and DTL-5 near Wall 22. The results indicate performance of test CMCs was
consistent with the design assumptions for vertical resistance. Additional QA/QC tests included: 1) low-
strain integrity tests; 2) Verification of grout breaks for the CMC materials; and 3) hydraulic conductivity
tests. All test results indicate the columns were sound and continuous, constructed with grout of the required
94 | P a g e
strength and consistent with the design assumptions. All QA/QC test data was reviewed and accepted by
the NJDOT, with EOR assistance.
10.4 Summary
It is H&H’s opinion based on a review of Project documents and H&H’s independent engineering
assessment that:
• The CSES design was performed using a deformation analysis and numerical modeling, which is
included in the FHWA ground improvement publication (Ref., Publication No. FHWA-NHI-16-027). The
subsequent selection of CSES elements (Rigid column inclusion and a granular fill reinforced with
geosynthetic (LTM) follows the contractual requirements.
• The initial and final design submissions were accepted and for the specific mode of failure (failure
surface passing through the columns) examined by Menard/SSI, which indicates that the CSES would
satisfactorily perform if the I-11 (sand)slope is stable.
• The CSES design submission failed to consider site specific subsurface soil conditions, elevated
groundwater conditions and the strength reduction factor for plain concrete elements with no
reinforcement. Our independent assessment of the CSES’s global stability in consideration of site-
specific specific design factors (subsurface soil conditions, elevated groundwater conditions and
strength reduction factor for plain concrete elements with no reinforcement) indicate these factors have
a significant influence on the FOS. The overall global stability of the system was reduced to a marginal
or inadequate degree of safety (i.e., FOS between 0.973 and 1.455). In addition, our global stability
check in consideration of the site-specific condition factors and modifying the column type of column
from CMC to steel pipe piles suggest that the FOS of the CSES increases significantly if the column
type and material properties are changed.
• The recommended column spacing and number of geogrid (2) layers resulted in transfer of up to 88%
of vertical load to underlying compressible soils. Based on our review of CSES published literature and
previous experiences with CSES in New Jersey, the utilization of an LTM with more than 2 layers of
geosynthetic and the inclusion of a tension resistance system such as high strength geosynthetic
materials would decrease the loads on the underlying compressible soils and transfer more loads to
the columns.
• The unstable ground condition was created and initially occurred during Direct Connection Contract 2,
and the CSES was constructed on and within these unstable ground conditions. The type of column
used in the CSES in these unstable ground conditions was inadequate to withstand the forces when
the failure surface passes through the columns and to safely support embankment and Wall 22.
• The cement-based column type used in the CSES is an unreinforced column with very limited flexure
and shear capacity to withstand lateral loading/thrust from the applied project loads. The result is a
potential for excessive vertical and lateral deformations and overall stability failures which would result
in poor performance of Wall 22.
• A review of construction records indicates the CSES was constructed in accordance with the approved
shop drawings and the standard construction practices. One exception is that the LTM has a finished
elevation approximately 2 feet higher than the approved shop drawings at the deconstructed work zone.
95 | P a g e
11.0 COMPARISON WITH GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION DATA

Data from geotechnical instrumentation installed during construction was reviewed to better understand the
factors ausing the failure and to verify our back analyses observations.
Instruments located near Wall 22 were examined for signs of unusual performance. Geotechnical
instrumentation on or near Wall 22 as per the Project instrumentation plans included: 1) Slope inclinometers
VI-10, VI-11, and VI-12; 2) Settlement probe extensometers: PX-5 and PX-4; 3) Settlement platforms: SP-
39, SP-38, SP-35, SP-32, and SP-30; 4) Deformation monitoring points: MP-37, MP-36, MP-34, MP-32,
MP-30, MP-29, MP-28, and MP-26; 5) Strain gauges: SG-6; and 6) Earth pressure cell: EP-6. Figure 11-1
details geotechnical instrumentation locations near Wall 22 within the CP-3 original plans.
Figure 11-1: Geotechnical instrumentation plan shown in Contract 3 plan
96 | P a g e
The following provides a summary of our instrumentation data interpretation, both during and after
construction of Wall 22.
Inclinometer: Inclinometers (sometimes referred to as slope inclinometers or vertical inclinometers) are

generally used to measure horizontal movement below and above the ground surface. Typical applications
include determining the lateral movement of embankments on soft foundation soils, monitoring deflection
of fill slopes, and/or retaining walls. Figure 11-2 shows a schematic representation of an inclinometer for
vertical and near-vertical applications. The inclinometer casing is installed and grouted along its full length
into a borehole so that one pair of the four orthogonal grooves in the casing is normal to the displacements
being measured.
Figure 11-2: Slope inclinometer details (Source: U.S. Department of Labor's

Mine Safety and Health Administration and Dunnicliff, 1993)
97 | P a g e
Inclinometer readings for VI-10 and VI-12 were unavailable. The Project documents provide the following
reference to the missing data: “Note that due to a blockage/obstruction down the pipe identified for VI-10
and VI-12 at 34 ft and 41.5 ft respectively, the instrument cannot physically be lowered beyond those
elevations”. Therefore, we only examined VI-11 data. It should be noted that inclinometer casing blockage
are a possible indication that excessive lateral deformation has occurred at a defined depth which prevents
passage of the inclinometer probe and potential lateral instability.
VI-11 is approximately located at I-295 SB Sta. 267+50 (within the limits of failed zone) and was installed
from atop the CSES’s LTM prior to I-11 fill placement and MSE Wall 22 construction. At this location, the
top elevation of the LTM is 37 feet, and the bottom of the MSE wall elevation is elevation 42 feet.
Documentation suggests that the I-11 fill placement began on 11/16/2018 and was completed on
12/13/2018, Wall 22 construction began on 12/17/2018, was stopped on 1/21/2019, at approximately 1/3
of the final wall height and construction was completed around August 2019.
A review of the inclinometer data indicated an unusual pattern of linear increase in lateral deformation over
the course of the construction period as the placement of I-11 fill and Wall 22 construction work progressed.
At one time lateral displacements near the current top elevation of the Wall 22 was greater than 3 inches
on 8/22/2019 and then rebounded to approximately 1 inch on 8/30/2019 with a sudden shift of 2 inches.
The VI-11 inclinometer is reported to have been decommissioned on 10/21/2019. Refer to Figures 11-3,
11-4 and 11-5 for the recorded field readings and observed unusual response of the slope inclinometer.
Figure 11-3: Inclinometer VI-11 plan
98 | P a g e
VI - 11 (A-Axis)
70
60
50
40
30
Elevation(ft)
11/27/2018
20 12/7/2018
10 1/11/2019
4/23/2019
0 5/30/2019
6/10/2019
-10
6/21/2019
-20 6/28/2019
7/18/2019
-30
8/22/2019
-40
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Displacement (inch)
Figure 11-4: Displacement versus elevation for Inclinometer VI-11 (A-Axis)
over the monitoring period.
VI - 11 (A-Axis)
70
60
50
40
30
Elevation(ft)
20
10
0
8/22/2019
-10 8/30/2019
10/8/2019
-20
-30
-40
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Displacement (inch)
Figure 11-5: Displacement of VI-11 (A-Axis) shown to rebound after 8/22/2019 peak value.
99 | P a g e
The exact cause of why large horizontal

movements occurred below and above the
ground surface as the construction progressed
and then rebounded once construction reached
the planned final grade elevation is not obvious.
One possible cause is the foundation soil
beneath Wall 22 experienced progressive
lateral and vertical movements (rotation) due to
progressive additional loading of the I-11 fill and
wall construction.
Probe Extensometer Settlement Indicator:

Probe Extensometers are generally used to
measure settlement due to the compressibility
of underlying foundation soil layers due to
loading from embankment fills and overlying
structures, such as retaining walls. This
instrument includes multiple monitoring points
along the vertical axis and on this project
monitoring points were detailed at the top and
below the CSES’s LTM as in Figure 11-6.
The data for probe extensometer settlement

indicator PX-4 was not available at the time of
our review. Therefore, we only examined PX-5
data.
It our understanding that PX-5 was installed on

11/20/2018 and decommissioned on
08/05/2019. PX-5 is located approximately at I-
295 SB Sta. 269+13 (within the limits of
distressed zone) and was installed from atop the
CSES’s LTM prior to I-11 fill placement and Figure 11-6: Probe extensometers monitoring
MSE Wall 22 construction. points
Examination of the Probe Extensometer data indicates a pattern of linear increase in vertical deformation
during the construction period as the fill placement and Wall 22 construction progressed and did not show
signs of stabilizing at the time of decommissioning. In summary, PX-5 showed a vertical settlement of
approximately 3 inches (0.25 ft) of total settlement at top of CSES’s LTM, which is greater than the allowable
settlement limit for the project. The data from PX-5 also shows the vertical settlement below CSES’s LTM
is excess of 1.5 inch (0.125 ft). Figure 11-7 summarizing the recorded readings of PX-5.
Considering the fact that vertical settlement in excess of 1.5 inch occurred below the CSES’s with no sign
of stabilizing, it is reasonable to assume that the soil around the CSES’s columns was subjected to the
loading from the embankment fill and Wall 22, and experienced deformations in response to that loading.
100 | P a g e
0.5
PX-5 (Probe Extensometer)
0.4
0.3 PX5-1: 1st Magnet from Top
0.2 PX5-1: 2nd Magnet from Top

PX5-1: Plate Magnet
0.1
0
Settlement (Feet)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
11/20/18
12/10/18
12/30/18
1/19/19
2/8/19
2/28/19
3/20/19
4/9/19
4/29/19
5/19/19
6/8/19
6/28/19
7/18/19
8/7/19
Date
Figure 11-7: Recorded vertical settlement of PX-5 over the monitoring period
Settlement Platform: Settlement platforms are generally used to measure settlement due to consolidation
or compression of underlying soil layers due to loading from embankment fill and overlying structures, such
as retaining walls. This instrument type has a single monitoring reference point and on this project the
monitoring point was located at the top of CSES’s LTM as shown on Figure 11-8.
Settlement platform readings in the vicinity of Wall 22 indicate a maximum vertical settlement of
approximately 1.3 inches. However, the settlement platform data does not show signs of a progressive
increase in vertical settlement, which is in stark contrast to the data from the Probe Extensometer. It is our
opinion that the Probe Extensometer yields more reliable data when compared to the settlement platform
since the stiff steel platform reference plate has the ability to offset any localize deformations.
101 | P a g e
Figure 11-8: Settlement platform monitoring point shown in Contract 3 plan
Deformation Monitoring Point:

This instrument provides the
ability to monitor deformation of
a point established on a
structure. Monitoring of survey
points established on Wall 22 to
measure wall movements
indicate a vertical movement of
approximately 2.0 inches.
Although the recorded
movement is not indicative of
imminent wall failure, the
observed movements were
greater than those typically
measured during MSE wall
construction on stable ground.
Figure 11-9 shows the
monitoring point depicted in the
contract plan. Figure 11-9: Deformation Monitoring Points
102 | P a g e
Geotextile Strain Gauge: Strain gauges are generally used to measure deformation in both the longitudinal
and transverse directions and on this project to verify the performance of LTM and/or CSES. The contract
documents required strain gauges be attached to LTM’s geosynthetic layers. Figure 11-10 shows typical
strain gauge and earth pressure cell as shown in the geotechnical instrumentation plan approved submittal.
Figure 11-10: Strain gauge and earth pressure cell layout.
The strain gauges were installed prior to the I-11 fill placement and MSE Wall 22 construction.
Geotextile strain gauge SG-6 approximately located at I-295 SB Sta. 269+50 (within the limits of distressed
zone) indicates a generally continuous increase in strain with some abrupt increases/decreases in strain
on various dates. This abrupt increase/decrease in strain was especially noted around August 2019, where
a large increase in strain was recorded followed by confirmation of strain gauge damage in subsequent
weeks, refer to Figure 11-11 for details. The August 2019 period corresponds to construction nearing the
completion of Wall 22. The examination of data also indicates negative/decreasing macrostrain
compressive values around April 2019. The April 2019 period corresponds to Wall 22 construction, refer to
Figure 11-12 for observed strain trends during and near the completion of Wall 22.
103 | P a g e
Figure 11-11: Strain pattern around completion of Wall 22 construction.
104 | P a g e
Figure 11-12: Strain pattern during Wall 22 construction.
The observed large amount of strain with abrupt increases/decreases in strain in the geosynthetic layer is
not a normal trend, hence it can be assumed the geosynthetic layers and the overall LTM system may
have experienced rupture which in turn may have led to subsequent ground instability.
105 | P a g e
Earth Pressure Cell: Earth pressure cells installed within the LTM were designed to measure total vertical
pressure in the LTM. Earth pressure cell EP-6 installed within the LTM was reviewed. This earth pressure
cell consisted of an array of nine earth pressure cell (EP) locations and was located at I-295 SB Sta. 269+50.
This pressure cell array indicated an unusual pattern of linear increase in vertical stress as the placement
of I-11 fill and Wall 22 construction work progressed followed by a decrease in pressure near end of
construction. One of the earth pressure cells (EP-4) recorded the vertical stress was approximately 50 psi
on 06/10/2019 and then pressure dropped to approximately 5 psi on the second week of July 2019 as
shown in Figure 11-13. Subsequently, other earth pressure cells EP6-1, EP6-3, EP-5 and EP6-6 displayed
a decrease in recorded pressure around October of 2019. A slight decrease in pressure continued till the
end of the monitoring period. Considering the fact that the decrease in pressure was recorded in the earth
pressures cells, which is unusual, it can be postulated that the geosynthetic layers, and the LTM as a whole,
may have experienced differential movements related to the originally placed horizontal elevation.
Assuming this interpretation is correct the data could be an indicator of overall system instability.
Figure 11-13: Abrupt decrease in pressure observed at EP6-4 in June 2019.
Summary: Instrumentation installed in the area of the failed Wall 22 section showed several signs of
inconsistency as compared to expected behavior. These data inconsistencies appear to be indicators of
instability in the overall system.
106 | P a g e
12.0 EARLY SIGNS OF DISTRESS

In light of the several signs of inconsistency in the geotechnical instrumentation data H&H reviewed project
documents to examine if Wall 22 exhibited any early signs distress or impending failure.
Project construction information indicates that the first cracks in the pavement above Wall 22 were noticed
on or about March 11, 2021 (i.e., around 14 days before failure). At that time, it was deemed that the cracks
may have been surficial since no noticeable settlement was observed. Refer to Figure 12-1 for first recorded
indication of sliding. Upon reexamination of the same cracks on March 16, 2021, no changes were reported.
However, on March 23, 2021 (around a day or two before failure), a significant settlement was reported.
Discussion with NJDOT personnel who observed paving in this area recall observing "soft spots" in the sub-
base which indicates that some distress may have existed months before the cracks were noticed for the
first time around March 11, 2021. This distress, along with observations during the paving process, further
validates that the system exhibited signs of instability before failure occurred.
Figure 12-1: The first indication of sliding noted around 14 days before failure (Source: NJDOT)
107 | P a g e
13.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

13.1 Summary
It is H&H’s opinion that review of Project documents and H&H’s independent engineering assessment
suggest:
Background:
1) The elevated roadway at Wall 22 consisted of three major components; Mechanically Stabilized
Earth (MSE) Wall 22, I-11 slope, and a ground improvement system consisting of a column
supported embankment system (CSES).
2) Wall 22 was supported on a slope approximately 30 feet high. The slope was constructed using I-
11 material (uniformly graded sandy soil).
3) Wall 22 was a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining system and consisted of rectangular
precast concrete facing panels and horizontal reinforcing metallic strips.
4) The geotechnical subsurface data taken during design at Wall 22 indicates subsurface conditions
having unfavorable engineering properties to support the anticipated elevated roadway
embankment and Wall 22. The design scheme incorporated a ground improvement technique
involving a Column Supported Embankment System (CSES) to attempt to overcome the
unfavorable properties and support the applied loads.
5) The bottom of Wall 22 rests directly on a layer of I-11 (sand) material (between the bottom of the
Wall and CSES. This I-11 embankment layer was specified in an attempt to mitigate drainage
issues associated with existing subsurface water/hydrological conditions. (ref., RFI 168)
6) Project information suggests that the construction sequence at Wall 22 involved altering the original
ground surface which generally resulted in an unstable ground condition followed by construction
of Wall 22 directly over this unstable ground condition. In addition, Wall 22 construction was placed
over the I-11 slope that was wet and where subsurface water was exiting from the slope face.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall

1) Review of the Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall design documents and shop drawings
detailing the Wall 22 components determined that, assuming the base design assumptions relative
to adequate support were met, no fatal deficiencies relative to MSE wall design contributed to the
failed Wall 22. Examination of the construction records indicates no major deficiencies relative to
the MSE wall construction contributed to the failed Wall 22 although the amount of lateral movement
of the panels experienced during construction was unusual.
I-11 (sand) Slope

1) I-11 (sand) material lack adequate capacity and ability to transfer the load to the underlying CSES.
This design model is applicable only for a flat surface or when the foundation soil being loaded is
constrained to prevent horizontal displacement which is not the case for Wall 22.
2) The I-11 slope of this project site can be classified as a critical slope because it directly supports
Wall 22. Therefore, slope stability checks for potential surficial and toe failures were warranted. Our
independent check for potential surficial and toe failures surface yielded a FOS less than required
1.5 and, in some cases, less than 1.0 indicating a likelihood of slope instability.
3) Results of the laboratory testing program indicate the friction angle of I-11 material complies with
the contractual requirements. However, the test results indicate I-11 material strength decreases
108 | P a g e
as the moisture content increases. This property compromises the ability of I-11 material to support
the weight of the wall mass and to transfer the load of the wall mass to the underlying CSES.
4) The I-11 material used conforms to contractual requirements and the construction practices were
performed in accordance with NJDOT standards relative to achieving adequate moisture control
and compaction during placement. However, project documents and data suggest difficulties were
experienced during construction while working with the I-11 material. Erosion of I-11 material
occurred due to seeping groundwater conditions during construction.
Column Supported Embankment System (CSES)

1) The contract documents required implementation of a ground improvement method involving a
column supported embankment system (CSES).
2) The CSES design was performed using a deformation analysis using numerical modeling, which is
included in the FHWA ground improvement publication. The subsequent selection of CSES
elements (unreinforced concrete column and a granular fill reinforced with geosynthetic (LTM)
follows contractual requirements.
3) The unstable ground condition was created and initially occurred during Direct Connection Contract
2 and the CSES was constructed on and within these unstable ground conditions. The type and
size of column, which is unreinforced has very limited flexure and shear capacity, and was
inadequate to support the applied embankment and Wall 22 loads based on the Project specific
conditions.
4) A review of construction records indicates the CSES conforms to the approved design submittal
and shop drawings, and that the construction practices were performed in accordance with the
shop drawings relative to construction of the columns and LTM elements of the CSES. One
exception is that the as-built LTM has a finished elevation approximately 2 feet higher than the
approved shop drawings at the deconstructed work zone.
13.2 Conclusions
Based on our assessment of background information and the site and subsurface conditions, it is H&H’s
opinion that Wall 22’s failure mode is complex and involves both vertical and lateral displacement of the I-
11 material and a deep-seated bearing capacity/global stability failure. It is H&H’s opinion that the following
are the significant contributing factors that led to the failure:
1) The I-11 material used for the embankment and slope was not an appropriate material specification
to support Wall 22 because of its poor engineering properties at high moisture contents.
2) The CSES with unreinforced concrete columns was not adequate to withstand the actual loads
from the elevated roadway embankment, I-11 (sand) slope and wall and to provide a suitable safe
foundation.
3) The project site has a known chronic groundwater condition and showed previous indications of
instability.
4) The heavy precipitation observed on March 24, 2021, appears to have altered the marginally stable
slope and ground improvement system on which the wall was supported.
109 | P a g e
14.0 LIMITATIONS
This independent report has been prepared at the request of and for the exclusive use of the client, the
NJDOT, and not intended to be relied upon by any other party for any purpose.
The statements and opinions given in this report are based on interpretation of H&H’s knowledge of the
project as provided in the project documents and H&H’s technical knowledge, skills and experience with
the subject matter. H&H reserve the right to amend or modify this report if new or different information
becomes available at a later date.
15.0 REFERENCES
1) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, 2007
2) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Guidelines for Cone
Penetration Test (performance and design); FHWA-TS-78-209, July 1978
3) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines; FHWA-NHI-00-043, March
2001.
4) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Advanced Technology for Soil
Slope Stability, Volume 1: Slope Stability Manual; FHWA-SA-94-005, 1994.
5) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No.6 - Shallow Foundations; FHWA-SA-02-054, September 2002
6) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Earth Retaining Structures;
FHWA NHI-07-071, June 2008
7) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Design and Construction of
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes - Volumes I and II; (FHWA-NHI-
10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025), November 2009.
8) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 13- Ground Modification Methods – Reference Manual Volumes I and II; FHWA-NHI-
16-027 and FHWA-NHI-16-028, December 2016
110 | P a g e
Draft Direct Connection Contract 3 (DC3) Wall 22 Failure - Forensic Analysis
APPENDIX A
IDEALIZED CONFIGURATION OF THE FAILED MASS

12-14'+/-
18-20'+/-
8-10'+/-
6'
I-
EXCAVATION GRADE AT END OF 5/7/21
IDEALIZED CONFIGURATION OF THE

FAILED MASS
APPENDIX B
OBSERVED CONDITIONS AT THE END OF DECONSTRUCTION

Excavation Line
Contract Lines
Wall 22
Original Leveling Pad

Location
Observed LTM
Leveling Pad and
Wall Panels
LTM Sheared
Fragments
SHOWN DUE
SHOWN DUE
LIMIT OF LO
LIMIT OF LO
Observed CMCs
Excavation Limits
LOCATION OF OBSERVED LTM (WORKING MAT NOT
SHOWN DUE TO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TWO)
LIMIT OF LOWER BENCH LTM & WORKING PLATFORM BEYOND

EXCAVATION PER MENARD ASBUILT PROVIDED 5/6/21) I-1
OBSERVED CONDITIONS AT THE END OF

DECONSTRUCTION
APPENDIX C
RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

APPENDIX C-1
TEST LOCATIONS
APPENDIX C-2
SPT BORING LOGS

HARDESTY & HANOVER, LLC DRAFT SHEET 1 OF 2
PROJECT: I-295 LOCAL NAME: Wall 22 Failure BORING NO. H&H B-6
SECTION: EASTING: 323360.946 NORTHING: 379310.425
STATION: OFFSET: REFERENCE LINE: GROUND ELEVATION: 28.6 ft.
GROUND WATER ELEVATION
BORING BY: JBD (D. Mendez) DATE STARTED: 05/20/2021 0 Hr. DATE:
24 Hr. DATE:
INSPECTOR: P. Johnson DATE COMPLETED: 05/20/2021 Ft. P.P. Installed:
DEPTH CASING SAMPLE BLOWS ON SPOON REC.
(ft) BLOWS NO.
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION AND STRATIFICATION (ft)
0/6 6 / 12 12 / 18 18 / 24 (in)
0 15 Drilled through millings
10
15
15 17 Drilled trough riprap
S-1 17 19 1 4 4 5 18 Dark Gray Silty CLAY
20 U-1 19 21 P U S H 24 Dark Gray CLAY
S-2 21 23 1 3 4 5 18 Dark Gray Silty CLAY
S-3 23 25 5 5 5 4 20 SAME
25
U-2 25 27 P U S H 26 SAME
S-4 27 29 2 3 5 6 24 SAME
30
S-5 30 32 2 4 5 6 24 SAME
35
U-3 35 37 P U S H 26 Dark Gray CLAY, little mf Sand
S-6 37 39 2 5 7 9 24 SAME
40
Nominal I.D. of Hole 4 in.

The subsurface information shown hereon was obtained for the Owner's
Nominal I.D. of Split Barrel Sampler 1.375 in. design and estimate purposes. It is made available to authorized users only
Weight / Type of Hammer on Casing 140 lb. (Automatic) that they may have access to the same information available to the Owner. It
is presented in good faith, but is not intended as a substitute for
Weight / Type of Hammer on Sampler 140 lb. (Automatic) investigations, interpretation or judgement of such authorized users.
Drop of Hammer on Casing 30 in.
Approximate Change in Strata
Drop of Hammer on Sampler 30 in. Inferred Change in Strata
Core Size N/A
Soil descriptions represent a field identification after DM Burmister
unless otherwise noted.
24 Hr. DATE:
INSPECTOR: P. Johnson DATE COMPLETED: 05/20/2021 Ft. P.P. Installed:
(ft) BLOWS NO.
0/6 6 / 12 12 / 18 18 / 24 (in)
S-7 40 42 4 6 9 12 24 Dark Gray SILT & CLAY, little f Sand
45
U-4 45 47 P U S H 26 Greenish Black mf SAND, some(+) Silt & Clay
S-8 47 49 5 8 10 13 24 SAME
50
S-9 50 52 4 6 9 11 24 Dark Gray Silty CLAY, trace f Sand
55
60
S-11 60 62 10 15 22 38 24 Greenish Black SILT & CLAY
65
S-12 65 67 10 14 19 23 24 SAME
70
S-13 70 72 9 12 17 18 24 Greenish Black SILT & CLAY
75
S-14 75 77 6 26 50/3" 15 Dark Gray Silty CLAY
End of Boring at 77 feet

Notes:
80

Core Size N/A
24 Hr. DATE:
INSPECTOR: K.Gurski DATE COMPLETED: 05/19/2021 Ft. P.P. Installed:
(ft) BLOWS NO.
0/6 6 / 12 12 / 18 18 / 24 (in)
S-1 0 2 13 8 7 8 22 Tan mf SAND, little Silt
S-2 2 4 11 10 12 14 9 Dark Grayish Brown cmf SAND, some Silt, little mf Gravel
5 S-3 4 6 4 11 14 20 14 Brown c(-)mf SAND, little Silt, little f Gravel
S-4 6 8 23 21 23 23 19 Brown c(-)mf SAND, trace Silt
S-5 8 10 13 10 9 25 12 Same (2-in seam of Dark Brown Sand and mf Gravel,

10 some Clayey Silt)
S-6A 10 11 6 9 7 Light Yellowish Brown cmf SAND, trace(-) Silt, trace(-) f
S-6B 11 12 11 15 7 Gravel
Dark Olive Gray cmf SAND, some mf Gravel, little Clay &
Silt
15
S-7 15 17 17 22 31 23 22 Possible Load Transfer Mat or Haul Road
20
S-8 20 22 23 45 23 19 17 Brown cmf SAND, little Silt (7-in seam Dark Gray mf Gravel
and cm Sand in middle of sample)
25
S-9 25 27 4 15 22 15 14 Brownish Yellow cmf Sand, little(+) mf Gravel, little Silt
30
S-10 30 32 6 14 18 19 11 Light Grayish Olive cmf SAND, little(+) Silt, little(-) mf
Gravel
35
S-11 35 37 2 2 3 5 19 Orange Brown Silty CLAY (Gray Silty Clay at tip)
U-1 37 39 P U S H Dark Gray Silty CLAY, some f Sand
40

Core Size N/A
24 Hr. DATE:
(ft) BLOWS NO.
0/6 6 / 12 12 / 18 18 / 24 (in)
S-12 40 42 1 3 4 5 21 Dark Gray CLAY & SILT, little(-) f Sand
U-2 42 44 P U S H Dark Gray CLAY & SILT, little(+) f Sand
45
S-13 45 47 WOH 1 5 5 24 Dark Gray Silty CLAY, trace f Sand
50
U-3 50 52 P U S H Dark Gray CLAY, trace(-) f Sand
55
60
U-4 60 62 P U S H Dark Gray Silty CLAY, trace(-) mf Sand, trace(-) f Gravel
S-16 62 64 WOH 6 3 7 19 Dark Gray Silty CLAY, trace f Sand
65
70
75
S-18 75 77 5 7 8 11 24 Dark Gray Silty CLAY, trace(-) f Sand
80

Core Size N/A
24 Hr. DATE:
(ft) BLOWS NO.
0/6 6 / 12 12 / 18 18 / 24 (in)
S-19 80 82 7 10 12 16 24 Dark Gray SILT & CLAY, trace(+) f Sand
85
S-20 85 87 5 6 10 10 24 Dark Gray SILT & CLAY, trace(+) f Sand
90
S-21 90 92 6 8 11 13 24 Dark Gray SILT & CLAY, trace f Sand
95
S-22 95 97 13 17 19 21 24 Dark Gray CLAY & SILT, trace f Sand
100
S-23 100 102 14 19 25 40 24 Dark Gray Clayey SILT
End of Boring at 102 feet

Notes:
Rig Chattering on and off between depths 15 to 25 feet
105
110
115
120

Core Size N/A
APPENDIX C-3
CPT TEST RESULTS

PRESENTATION OF SITE INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Interstate 295 & Route 42 Direct Connection MSE Wall

Bellmawr, New Jersey
Prepared for:
Jersey Boring & Drilling
ConeTec Job No: 21-53-22305

--
Project Start Date: 23-Apr-2021
Project End Date: 26-Apr-2021
Report Date: 7-May-2021
Prepared by:
ConeTec Inc.
436 Commerce Lane, Unit C
West Berlin, NJ 08091
-
Tel: (856) 767-8600
Toll Free: (800) 504-1116
Email: conetecNJ@conetec.com
www.conetec.com
www.conetecdataservices.com
I-295 & RT42 Direct Connection MSE Wall, Bellmawr, NJ
Introduction
The enclosed report presents the results of a piezocone penetration testing (CPTu or CPT) program carried
out for the Interstate 295 and Route 42 Direct Connection MSE Wall project located in Bellmawr, New
Jersey. The site investigation program was conducted by ConeTec Inc. (ConeTec), under contract to Jersey
Boring & Drilling of Fairfield, New Jersey and under engineering supervision of Hardesty & Hanover (H&H)
of West Trenton, New Jersey.
A total of 5 cone penetration tests were completed at 5 locations. The CPT program was performed to
evaluate the subsurface soil conditions. CPT sounding locations were selected and numbered under
supervision of H&H personnel (Kevin Gurski).
Project Information
Project
Client Jersey Boring & Drilling
Project I-295 & RT42 Direct Connection MSE Wall, Bellmawr, NJ
ConeTec project number 21-53-22305
A map from CESIUM including the CPT test locations is presented below.
Rig Description Deployment System Test Type

CPT Track Rig 25 ton track mounted (twin cylinders) CPT
Coordinates
Test Type Collection Method EPSG Number
CPT Provided by H&H New Jersey State Plane Zone 2900 (US Survey Feet)
Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Depth reference Ground surface at the time of the investigation.
Tip and sleeve data offset 0.1 meter. This has been accounted for in the CPT data files.
Pore pressure dissipation (PPD) Eight pore pressure dissipation tests were completed primarily to
tests determine the phreatic surface and consolidation characteristics.
Advanced and Soil Behavior Type (SBT) scatter plots are included in the
Additional plots
data release package.
Cone Penetrometers Used for this Project

Cross Sleeve Tip Sleeve Pore Pressure
Cone
Cone Description Sectional Area Capacity Capacity Capacity
Number
Area (cm2) (cm2) (bar) (bar) (bar)
706:T1500F15U35 706 15 225 1500 15 35
Cone 706 was used for each sounding.
Calculated Geotechnical Parameters Tables

The Normalized Soil Behavior Type Chart based on Qtn (SBT Qtn) (Robertson,
2009) was used to classify the soil for this project. A detailed set of calculated
CPT parameters have been generated and are provided in Excel format files in
the release folder. The CPT parameter calculations are based on values of
corrected tip resistance (qt) sleeve friction (fs) and pore pressure (u2).
Effective stresses are calculated based on unit weights that have been assigned
Additional information
to the individual soil behavior type zones and the assumed equilibrium pore
pressure profile.
Soils were classified as either drained or undrained based on the Qtn Normalized
Soil Behavior Type Chart (Robertson, 2009). Calculations for both drained and
undrained parameters were included for materials that classified as silt mixtures
(zone 4).
Limitations
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jersey Boring & Drilling (Client) and Hardesty &
Hanover (Engineer) for the project titled “I-295 & RT42 Direct Connection MSE Wall, Bellmawr, NJ”. The
report’s contents may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written permission of
ConeTec. ConeTec has provided site investigation services, prepared the factual data reporting and
provided geotechnical parameter calculations consistent with current best practices. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made.
The information presented in the report document and the accompanying data set pertain to the specific
project, site conditions and objectives described to ConeTec by the Client. In order to properly understand
the factual data, assumptions and calculations, reference must be made to the documents provided and
their accompanying data sets, in their entirety.
CONE PENETRATION TEST - eSeries
Cone penetration tests (CPTu) are conducted using an integrated electronic piezocone penetrometer and
data acquisition system manufactured by Adara Systems Ltd., a subsidiary of ConeTec.
ConeTec’s piezocone penetrometers are compression type designs in which the tip and friction sleeve
load cells are independent and have separate load capacities. The piezocones use strain gauged load cells
for tip and sleeve friction and a strain gauged diaphragm type transducer for recording pore pressure.
The piezocones also have a platinum resistive temperature device (RTD) for monitoring the temperature
of the sensors, an accelerometer type dual axis inclinometer and two geophone sensors for recording
seismic signals. All signals are amplified and measured with minimum 16 bit resolution down hole within
the cone body, and the signals are sent to the surface using a high bandwidth, error corrected digital
interface through a shielded cable.
ConeTec penetrometers are manufactured with various tip, friction and pore pressure capacities in both
10 cm2 and 15 cm2 tip base area configurations in order to maximize signal resolution for various soil
conditions. The specific piezocone used for each test is described in the CPT summary table presented in
the first appendix. The 15 cm2 penetrometers do not require friction reducers as they have a diameter
larger than the deployment rods. The 10 cm2 piezocones use a friction reducer consisting of a rod adapter
extension behind the main cone body with an enlarged cross sectional area (typically 44 mm diameter
over a length of 32 mm with tapered leading and trailing edges) located at a distance of 585 mm above
the cone tip.
The penetrometers are designed with equal end area friction sleeves, a net end area ratio of 0.8 and cone
tips with a 60 degree apex angle.
All ConeTec piezocones can record pore pressure at various locations. Unless otherwise noted, the pore
pressure filter is located directly behind the cone tip in the “u2” position (ASTM Type 2). The filter is 6 mm
thick, made of porous plastic (polyethylene) having an average pore size of 125 microns (90-160 microns).
The function of the filter is to allow rapid movements of extremely small volumes of water needed to
activate the pressure transducer while preventing soil ingress or blockage.
The piezocone penetrometers are manufactured with dimensions, tolerances and sensor characteristics
that are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard. ConeTec’s calibration criteria also
meet or exceed those of the current ASTM D5778 standard. An illustration of the piezocone penetrometer
is presented in Figure CPTu.
Figure CPTu. Piezocone Penetrometer (15 cm2)
The ConeTec data acquisition systems consist of a Windows based computer and a signal interface box
and power supply. The signal interface combines depth increment signals, seismic trigger signals and the
downhole digital data. This combined data is then sent to the Windows based computer for collection
and presentation. The data is recorded at fixed depth increments using a depth wheel attached to the
push cylinders or by using a spring loaded rubber depth wheel that is held against the cone rods. The
typical recording interval is 2.5 cm; custom recording intervals are possible.
The system displays the CPTu data in real time and records the following parameters to a storage media
during penetration:
 Depth
 Uncorrected tip resistance (qc)
 Sleeve friction (fs)
 Dynamic pore pressure (u)
 Additional sensors such as resistivity, passive gamma, ultra violet induced fluorescence, if
applicable
All testing is performed in accordance to ConeTec’s CPT operating procedures which are in general
accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard.
Prior to the start of a CPTu sounding a suitable cone is selected, the cone and data acquisition system are
powered on, the pore pressure system is saturated with either glycerin or silicone oil and the baseline
readings are recorded with the cone hanging freely in a vertical position.
The CPTu is conducted at a steady rate of 2 cm/s, within acceptable tolerances. Typically one meter length
rods with an outer diameter of 1.5 inches are added to advance the cone to the sounding termination
depth. After cone retraction final baselines are recorded.
Additional information pertaining to ConeTec’s cone penetration testing procedures:
 Each filter is saturated in silicone oil under vacuum pressure prior to use
 Baseline readings are compared to previous readings
 Soundings are terminated at the client’s target depth or at a depth where an obstruction is
encountered, excessive rod flex occurs, excessive inclination occurs, equipment damage is likely
to take place, or a dangerous working environment arises
 Differences between initial and final baselines are calculated to ensure zero load offsets have not
occurred and to ensure compliance with ASTM standards
The interpretation of piezocone data for this report is based on the corrected tip resistance (qt), sleeve
friction (fs) and pore water pressure (u). The interpretation of soil type is based on the correlations
developed by Robertson et al. (1986) and Robertson (1990, 2009). It should be noted that it is not always
possible to accurately identify a soil behavior type based on these parameters. In these situations,
experience, judgment and an assessment of other parameters may be used to infer soil behavior type.
The recorded tip resistance (qc) is the total force acting on the piezocone tip divided by its base area. The
tip resistance is corrected for pore pressure effects and termed corrected tip resistance (qt) according to
the following expression presented in Robertson et al. (1986):
qt = qc + (1-a) • u2
where: qt is the corrected tip resistance

qc is the recorded tip resistance
u2 is the recorded dynamic pore pressure behind the tip (u2 position)
a is the Net Area Ratio for the piezocone (0.8 for ConeTec probes)
The sleeve friction (fs) is the frictional force on the sleeve divided by its surface area. As all ConeTec
piezocones have equal end area friction sleeves, pore pressure corrections to the sleeve data are not
required.
The dynamic pore pressure (u) is a measure of the pore pressures generated during cone penetration. To
record equilibrium pore pressure, the penetration must be stopped to allow the dynamic pore pressures
to stabilize. The rate at which this occurs is predominantly a function of the permeability of the soil and
the diameter of the cone.
The friction ratio (Rf) is a calculated parameter. It is defined as the ratio of sleeve friction to the tip
resistance expressed as a percentage. Generally, saturated cohesive soils have low tip resistance, high
friction ratios and generate large excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils have higher tip
resistances, lower friction ratios and do not generate significant excess pore water pressure.
A summary of the CPTu soundings along with test details and individual plots are provided in the
appendices. A set of files with calculated geotechnical parameters were generated for each sounding
based on published correlations and are provided in Excel format in the data release folder. Information
regarding the methods used is also included in the data release folder.
For additional information on CPTu interpretations and calculated geotechnical parameters, refer to
Robertson et al. (1986), Lunne et al. (1997), Robertson (2009), Mayne (2013, 2014) and Mayne and
Peuchen (2012).
References
ASTM D5778-12, 2012, "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone
Penetration Testing of Soils", ASTM, West Conshohocken, US.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical
Practice”, Blackie Academic and Professional.
Mayne, P.W., 2013, “Evaluating yield stress of soils from laboratory consolidation and in-situ cone
penetration tests”, Sound Geotechnical Research to Practice (Holtz Volume) GSP 230, ASCE, Reston/VA:
406-420.
Mayne, P.W. and Peuchen, J., 2012, “Unit weight trends with cone resistance in soft to firm clays”,
Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-4, Pernambuco), CRC Press,
London: 903-910.
Mayne, P.W., 2014, “Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests”, CPT’14
Keynote Address, Las Vegas, NV, May 2014.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, “Use of Piezometer Cone Data”,
Proceedings of InSitu 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Robertson, P.K., 1990, “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Volume 27: 151-158.
Robertson, P.K., 2009, “Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach”, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Volume 46: 1337-1355.
PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST
The cone penetration test is halted at specific depths to carry out pore pressure dissipation (PPD) tests,
shown in Figure PPD-1. For each dissipation test the cone and rods are decoupled from the rig and the
data acquisition system measures and records the variation of the pore pressure (u) with time (t).
Figure PPD-1. Pore pressure dissipation test setup
Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of ground water conditions,
permeability, consolidation characteristics and soil behavior.
The typical shapes of dissipation curves shown in Figure PPD-2 are very useful in assessing soil type,
drainage, in situ pore pressure and soil properties. A flat curve that stabilizes quickly is typical of a freely
draining sand. Undrained soils such as clays will typically show positive excess pore pressure and have
long dissipation times. Dilative soils will often exhibit dynamic pore pressures below equilibrium that then
rise over time. Overconsolidated fine-grained soils will often exhibit an initial dilatory response where
there is an initial rise in pore pressure before reaching a peak and dissipating.
Figure PPD-2. Pore pressure dissipation curve examples

In order to interpret the equilibrium pore pressure (ueq) and the apparent phreatic surface, the pore
pressure should be monitored until such time as there is no variation in pore pressure with time as shown
for each curve in Figure PPD-2.
In fine grained deposits the point at which 100% of the excess pore pressure has dissipated is known as
t100. In some cases this can take an excessive amount of time and it may be impractical to take the
dissipation to t100. A theoretical analysis of pore pressure dissipations by Teh and Houlsby (1991) showed
that a single curve relating degree of dissipation versus theoretical time factor (T*) may be used to
calculate the coefficient of consolidation (ch) at various degrees of dissipation resulting in the expression
for ch shown below.
T* ∙a2 ∙√Ir
ch =
t
Where:
T* is the dimensionless time factor (Table Time Factor)
a is the radius of the cone
Ir is the rigidity index
t is the time at the degree of consolidation
Table Time Factor. T* versus degree of dissipation (Teh and Houlsby (1991))
Degree of
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Dissipation (%)
T* (u2) 0.038 0.078 0.142 0.245 0.439 0.804 1.60
The coefficient of consolidation is typically analyzed using the time (t 50) corresponding to a degree of
dissipation of 50% (u50). In order to determine t50, dissipation tests must be taken to a pressure less than
u50. The u50 value is half way between the initial maximum pore pressure and the equilibrium pore
pressure value, known as u100. To estimate u50, both the initial maximum pore pressure and u100 must be
known or estimated. Other degrees of dissipations may be considered, particularly for extremely long
dissipations.
At any specific degree of dissipation the equilibrium pore pressure (u at t100) must be estimated at the
depth of interest. The equilibrium value may be determined from one or more sources such as measuring
the value directly (u100), estimating it from other dissipations in the same profile, estimating the phreatic
surface and assuming hydrostatic conditions, from nearby soundings, from client provided information,
from site observations and/or past experience, or from other site instrumentation.
For calculations of ch (Teh and Houlsby (1991)), t50 values are estimated from the corresponding pore
pressure dissipation curve and a rigidity index (Ir) is assumed. For curves having an initial dilatory response
in which an initial rise in pore pressure occurs before reaching a peak, the relative time from the peak
value is used in determining t50. In cases where the time to peak is excessive, t50 values are not calculated.
Due to possible inherent uncertainties in estimating Ir, the equilibrium pore pressure and the effect of an
initial dilatory response on calculating t50, other methods should be applied to confirm the results for ch.
Additional published methods for estimating the coefficient of consolidation from a piezocone test are
described in Burns and Mayne (1998, 2002), Jones and Van Zyl (1981), Robertson et al. (1992) and Sully
et al. (1999).
A summary of the pore pressure dissipation tests and dissipation plots are presented in the relevant
appendix.
References
Burns, S.E. and Mayne, P.W., 1998, “Monotonic and dilatory pore pressure decay during piezocone tests”,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 26 (4): 1063-1073.
Burns, S.E. and Mayne, P.W., 2002, “Analytical cavity expansion-critical state model cone dissipation in
fine-grained soils”, Soils & Foundations, Vol. 42(2): 131-137.
Jones, G.A. and Van Zyl, D.J.A., 1981, “The piezometer probe: a useful investigation tool”, Proceedings,
10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, Stockholm: 489-495.
Robertson, P.K., Sully, J.P., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M. and Gillespie, D.G., 1992, “Estimating
coefficient of consolidation from piezocone tests”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(4): 551-557.
Sully, J.P., Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G. and Woeller, D.J., 1999, “An approach to evaluation of field
CPTU dissipation data in overconsolidated fine-grained soils”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(2): 369-
381.
Teh, C.I., and Houlsby, G.T., 1991, “An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay”, Geotechnique,
41(1): 17-34.
APPENDICES
The appendices listed below are included in the report:
• Cone Penetration Test Summary and Standard Cone Penetration Test Plots
• Advanced Cone Penetration Test Plots with Ic, Su(Nkt), Phi and N1(60)Ic
• Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots
• Pore Pressure Dissipation Summary and Pore Pressure Dissipation Plots
Cone Penetration Test Summary and Standard Cone Penetration Test
Plots
Job No: 21-53-22305
Client: Jersey Boring & Drilling
Project: I-295 & RT42 Direct Connection MSE Wall, Bellmawr, NJ
Start Date: 23-Apr-2021
End Date: 26-Apr-2021
CONE PENETRATION TEST SUMMARY

Assumed
Final Refer to
Phreatic Northing2 Easting2 Elevation2 Northing3 Easting3
Sounding ID File Name Date Cone Depth Notation
Surface1 (ft) (ft) (ft) (m) (m)
(ft) Number
(ft)
CPT21-HH1 21-53-22305_CPHH1 26-Apr-2021 706:T1500F15U35 12.5 80.05 379462.019 323577.786 45.1 4413739.49 491400.69 4
CPT21-HH3 21-53-22305_CPHH3 23-Apr-2021 706:T1500F15U35 14.7 84.97 379433.201 323546.241 45.1 4413730.66 491391.13
Totals 5 soundings 263.94
1. The assumed phreatic surface was based on pore pressure dissipation tests. Hydrostatic data were used for the calculated parameters.
2. Coordinates and elevation were provided by Hardesty & Hanover in New Jersey State Plane Zone 2900 in US Survey Feet.
3. Coordinates were converted from New Jersey State Plane Zone 2900 to datum: WGS84 / UTM Zone 18 North.
4. The assumed phreatic surface was estimated from the dynamic pore pressure data.
Sheet 1 of 1
Job No: 21-53-22305 Sounding: CPT21-HH1
Jersey Boring & Drilling Date: 2021-04-26 07:41 Cone: 706:T1500F15U35
Site: I-295 & RT42 Direct Connection MSE Wall, Bellmawr, NJ
qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Rf (%) u (ft) SBT Qtn
0 250 500 0.0 2.5 5.0 0 5 10 0 500 1000 0 3 6 9
0 Silt Mixtures
Sands
5
Sand Mixtures
10 Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
15 Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
20
25
30
Clays
35
Depth (feet)
40
45
Silt Mixtures
Clays
50 Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
55
Silt Mixtures
60
Clays
Silt Mixtures
65 Clays
Silt Mixtures
70 Clays
Clays
Silt Mixtures
75 Clays
Silt Mixtures
80 Undefined
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
85
88
Max Depth: 24.400 m / 80.05 ft File: 21-53-22305_CPHH1.COR SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) Coords: NJ State Plane N: 379462.0ft E: 323577.8ft Elev: 45.1ft
Avg Int: Every Point
Hydrostatic Line Ueq Assumed Ueq PPD, Ueq achieved PPD, Ueq not achieved
The reported coordinates and elevations were provided by Hardesty & Hanover in New Jersey State Plane US Survey Feet.
0 250 500 0.0 2.5 5.0 0 5 10 0 500 1000 0 3 6 9
0 Sensitive, Fine Grained
5 Sands
Sand Mixtures
10 Sands
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
15 Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Undefined
20 Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
25
30
35
Depth (feet)
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
88
0 250 500 0.0 2.5 5.0 0 5 10 0 500 1000 0 3 6 9
0 Sand Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Sand Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
5
Sands
10 Sand Mixtures
Sands
Sands
15 Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
20 Gravelly Sand to Sand
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
25
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
30 Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
35 Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Depth (feet)
40 Clays
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
45 Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
50 Clays
Clays
55
Silt Mixtures
60
Clays
Silt Mixtures
65
Silt Mixtures
70
Sand Mixtures
75 Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
80 Silt Mixtures
Clays
Sand Mixtures
85 Undefined
88
0 250 500 0.0 2.5 5.0 0 5 10 0 500 1000 0 3 6 9
0 Sands
Sand Mixtures
5 Sands
Sand Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
10 Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sands
15 Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
20
25
30
35
Depth (feet)
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
88
0 250 500 0.0 2.5 5.0 0 5 10 0 500 1000 0 3 6 9
0 Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
5 Sands
Sand Mixtures
Clays
10 Sand Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
15 Clays
Silt Mixtures
20 Clays
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
25 Clays
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
30 Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
35 Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Depth (feet)
40 Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
45 Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
50
Silt Mixtures
55 Clays
60 Silt Mixtures
65 Undefined
70
75
80
85
88
Advanced Cone Penetration Plots with Ic, Su(Nkt), Phi and N1(60)Ic
qt (tsf) u (ft) Ic (PKR 2009) Su (Nkt) (tsf) Phi (deg) N160 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
0 250 500 0 500 1000 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 25 40 55 0 50 100
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth (feet)
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
85
88 Su(Ndu) N(60) (bpf)
Avg Int: Every Point Su Nkt/Ndu: 12.5 / 6.0
0 250 500 0 500 1000 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 25 40 55 0 50 100
0
10
15
20 Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
25
30
35
Depth (feet)
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
0 250 500 0 500 1000 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 25 40 55 0 50 100
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth (feet)
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
0 250 500 0 500 1000 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 25 40 55 0 50 100
0
10
15 Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
20
25
30
35
Depth (feet)
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
0 250 500 0 500 1000 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 25 40 55 0 50 100
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth (feet)
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009) Modified SBTn (PKR 2016) Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
1000 1000 1000
7 8 10 12
9 SD 11
9
6 TD
100 100 100 8
Qtn,cs = 70 CD
7
qt (bar)
6
Qtn
Qtn
5 SC
5
TC 4
10.0 4 10.0 10.0
3
Ic = 2.6
3
CCS CC 1
1
2 2
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.10 1.0 10.0 0.10 1.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Fr (%) Fr (%) Rf(%)
Depth Ranges Legend Legend Legend

>0.0 to 7.5 ft Sensitive, Fine Grained CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like) Sensitive Fines
>7.5 to 15.0 ft Organic Soils CC (Cont. clay like) Organic Soil
>15.0 to 22.5 ft Clays TC (Cont. transitional) Clay
>22.5 to 30.0 ft Silt Mixtures SC (Cont. sand like) Silty Clay
>30.0 to 37.5 ft Sand Mixtures CD (Dil. clay like) Clayey Silt
>37.5 to 45.0 ft Sands TD (Dil. transitional) Silt
>45.0 to 52.5 ft Gravelly Sand to Sand SD (Dil. sand like) Sandy Silt
>52.5 to 60.0 ft Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silty Sand/Sand
>60.0 to 67.5 ft Very Stiff Fine Grained Sand
>67.5 to 75.0 ft Gravelly Sand
>75.0 ft Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1000 1000 1000
7 8 10 12
9 SD 11
9
6 TD
100 100 100 8
Qtn,cs = 70 CD
7
qt (bar)
6
Qtn
Qtn
5 SC
5
TC 4
10.0 4 10.0 10.0
3
Ic = 2.6
3
CCS CC 1
1
2 2
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.10 1.0 10.0 0.10 1.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Fr (%) Fr (%) Rf(%)

Cemented Sand
1000 1000 1000
7 8 10 12
9 SD 11
9
6 TD
100 100 100 8
Qtn,cs = 70 CD
7
qt (bar)
6
Qtn
Qtn
5 SC
5
TC 4
10.0 4 10.0 10.0
3
Ic = 2.6
3
CCS CC 1
1
2 2
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.10 1.0 10.0 0.10 1.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Fr (%) Fr (%) Rf(%)

Cemented Sand
1000 1000 1000
7 8 10 12
9 SD 11
9
6 TD
100 100 100 8
Qtn,cs = 70 CD
7
qt (bar)
6
Qtn
Qtn
5 SC
5
TC 4
10.0 4 10.0 10.0
3
Ic = 2.6
3
CCS CC 1
1
2 2
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.10 1.0 10.0 0.10 1.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Fr (%) Fr (%) Rf(%)

Cemented Sand
1000 1000 1000
7 8 10 12
9 SD 11
9
6 TD
100 100 100 8
Qtn,cs = 70 CD
7
qt (bar)
6
Qtn
Qtn
5 SC
5
TC 4
10.0 4 10.0 10.0
3
Ic = 2.6
3
CCS CC 1
1
2 2
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.10 1.0 10.0 0.10 1.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Fr (%) Fr (%) Rf(%)

Cemented Sand
Pore Pressure Dissipation Summary and Pore Pressure Dissipation Plots
Job No: 21-53-22305
Client: Jersey Boring & Drilling
Project: I-295 & RT42 Direct Connection MSE Wall, Bellmawr, NJ
Start Date: 23-Apr-2021
End Date: 26-Apr-2021
CPTu PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION SUMMARY

Estimated Calculated Assumed
Test Estimated
Cone Area Duration Equilibrium Pore Phreatic t50
a
Rigidity c hb
Sounding ID File Name 2 Depth Phreatic Surface
(cm ) (s) Pressure Ueq Surface (s) Index (cm2/min)
(ft) (ft)
(ft) (ft) (Ir)
CPT21-HH1 21-53-22305_CPHH1 15 21600 22.64 10.1 12.5 14123 100 0.05

CPT21-HH1 21-53-22305_CPHH1 15 900 80.05 46.7 33.3 47 100 14.81
CPT21-HH2 21-53-22305_CPHH2 15 1890 16.49 13.8 2.7
CPT21-HH2 21-53-22305_CPHH2 15 8760 19.68
CPT21-HH3 21-53-22305_CPHH3 15 315 16.73 2.1 14.7
CPT21-HH3 21-53-22305_CPHH3 15 3600 25.92 11.2 14.7 1920 100 0.37
CPT21-HH3 21-53-22305_CPHH3 15 12000 34.28 19.6 14.7 8199 100 0.09
CPT21-HH3 21-53-22305_CPHH3 15 600 84.97 34.0 51.0 47 100 15.08
Totals 8 dissipations 827.8 min
a. Time is relative to where umax occurred.
b. Houlsby and Teh, 1991.
Sheet 1 of 1
Date: 04/26/2021 07:41 Cone: 706:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Jersey Boring & Drilling Site: I-295 & RT42 Direct Connection MSE Wall, Bellmawr, NJ
100
75
Pore Pressure (ft)
50
25
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Time (s)
Filename: 21-53-22305_CPHH1A.ppd2 u Min: 33.1 ft WT: 3.810 m / 12.500 ft T(50): 14122.9 s

Trace Summary: Depth: 6.900 m / 22.638 ft u Max: 70.4 ft Ueq: 10.1 ft Ir: 100
Duration: 21600.0 s u Final: 35.5 ft U(50): 40.29 ft Ch: 0.0 cm²/min
1200
900
Pore Pressure (ft)
600
300
0
0 250 500 750 1000
Time (s)
Filename: 21-53-22305_CPHH1A.ppd2 u Min: 45.8 ft WT: 10.163 m / 33.343 ft T(50): 47.4 s

30
20
Pore Pressure (ft)
10
-10
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (s)
Filename: 21-53-22305_CPHH2.ppd2 u Min: -2.1 ft WT: 0.825 m / 2.707 ft

Trace Summary: Depth: 5.025 m / 16.486 ft u Max: 14.0 ft Ueq: 13.8 ft
Duration: 1890.0 s u Final: 13.8 ft
80
60
Pore Pressure (ft)
40
20
0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000
Time (s)
Filename: 21-53-22305_CPHH2.ppd2 u Min: 32.0 ft WT: N/A

Trace Summary: Depth: 6.000 m / 19.685 ft u Max: 50.6 ft Ueq: N/A
10
5
Pore Pressure (ft)
-5
-10
0 100 200 300 400
Time (s)
Filename: 21-53-22305_CPHH3.ppd2 u Min: 0.7 ft WT: 4.472 m / 14.673 ft

Trace Summary: Depth: 5.100 m / 16.732 ft u Max: 3.6 ft Ueq: 2.1 ft
200
150
Pore Pressure (ft)
100
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (s)
Filename: 21-53-22305_CPHH3.ppd2 u Min: 49.4 ft WT: 4.472 m / 14.673 ft T(50): 1919.7 s

200
150
Pore Pressure (ft)
100
50
0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000
Time (s)

1000
750
Pore Pressure (ft)
500
250
0
0 200 400 600 800
Time (s)

APPENDIX C-4
TEST PIT LOGS

TEST PIT LOG
PROJECT: DC3 Wall 22 Failure in Bellmawr PROJECT NO.: 3727.09
CLIENT: NJDOT DATE: 4/28/2021
CONTRACTOR: Jersey Boring & Drilling Company, Inc. TIME: 8:45 am - 9:05 am
TEST PIT: T-1 EQUIPMENT: John Deere 35G
EXCAVATION NOTES:
Encountered Load Transfer Mat (LTM) during excavation. Nuclear gauge testing conducted on I-11 soil after removal
of topsoil (see following pages for results). Five(5) 5-gallon buckets of soil collected for soil testing. Test pit
backfilled with remaining soil.
LOCATION: Northing: 379275
Easting: 323353.3
EL: 35.014 ft
Length: 6'
Width: 4'
TEST PIT LOG
EXCAVATION NOTES:
Encountered Load Transfer Mat (LTM) during excavation. Nuclear gauge testing conducted on I-11 soil after removal
of topsoil (see following pages for results). Five(5) 5-gallon buckets of soil collected for soil testing. Test pit
backfilled with remaining soil.
LOCATION: Northing: 379299.8
Easting: 323376.1
EL: 34.609 ft
Length: 6'
Width: 4'
TEST PIT LOG
EXCAVATION NOTES:
Nuclear gauge testing conducted on I-11 soil after removal of topsoil (see following pages for results). Five(5) 5-
gallon buckets of soil collected for soil testing. Test pit backfilled with remaining soil.

Easting: 323675.7
EL: 43.618 ft
Length: 5'
Width: 3'
TEST PIT LOG
EXCAVATION NOTES:
Nuclear gauge testing conducted on I-11 soil after removal of topsoil (see following pages for results). Five(5) 5-
gallon buckets of soil collected for soil testing. Test pit backfilled with remaining soil. Encountered Geogrid at
bottom of excavation
Easting: 323694.7
EL: 42.78 ft
Length: 6'
Width: 4.5'
Form LB264 2/06
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - NUCLEAR DENSITY / MOISURE FIELD TEST DATA
PROJECT: Rt. 295/42/I-76 DC#3 TYPE MATERIAL: I-11 PRODUCER & SOURCE: South State DATE: 4/28/2021
FED. PROJECT NO. NHP-NFP-0295(320) PIT & LOCATION: Bridgeton, NJ COMPACTOR NAME:
MAX. DRY DENSITY 100.6 P.C.F. STANDARD COUNTS: MODEL NUMBER:
OPTIMUM MOISTURE 3.80% DENSITY 2827
MOISTURE 480 REPORT # 1 LOT #
WET DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY %

TEST NO. DEPTH STATION OFFSET DENSITY COUNT MOISTURE COUNT
P.C.F. P.C.F. % P.C.F. COMP.
T-1 12" n/a 1348.5 71.8 98.7 5.9 6.4 92.8 91.5
266+20
T-2 12" n/a 1055.3 166.8 106.5 17.1 19.1 89.5 88.3
266+50
T-3 12" n/a 1053.5 314.8 105.7 34.4 48.2 71.3 70.4
266+50
T-4 12" n/a 1425.5 96.3 96.7 8.8 10 87.9 86.7

270+20
T-5 12" n/a 1509.3 116 94.6 11.3 13.3 83.5 82.4
270+20
T-6 n/a 1264.3 98.8 100.8 9.1 9.9 91.7 90.4

12" 270+45
T-7 n/a 1378.3 111 97.7 10.5 12.1 87.2 86.9

12" 270+45
FIELD WORK PERFORMED BY: B.Rice ; J.Johnson ; J.Hawk Item No. 82

CIRCLE ONE: PASS FAIL
CALCULATIONS PERFORMED BY: B.Rice REGION
RESIDENT ENGINEER
FILE
REMARKS: TMW
Form LB264 2/06

T-1 12" n/a 1347.7 77 98.7 6.5 7.1 92.2 91.7

266+20
T-2 12" n/a 1067.7 156.5 106.2 16.1 17.9 90.1 89.6
266+50
T-3 12" n/a 1074.2 317 105.1 34.7 49.2 70.4 70

266+50
T-4 12" n/a 1446 95.5 96.2 8.7 10 87.5 87

270+20
T-5 12" n/a 1518.2 106.5 94.5 10 11.8 84.5 84

270+20
T-6 n/a 1261.7 105 100.8 9.8 10.8 91 90.5

12" 270+45
T-7 n/a 1356 113 98.3 10.8 12.3 57.5 87

12" 270+45
FIELD WORK PERFORMED BY: B.Rice ; J.Johnson ; J.Hawk Item No. 83

RESIDENT ENGINEER
FILE
REMARKS: TMW
Form LB264 2/06

T-1 12" n/a 1326.8 63.2 99.3 4.9 5.2 94.4 78.8
266+20
T-2 12" n/a 1049 175.8 106.7 18.1 20.5 88.6 74

266+50
T-3 12" n/a 1013.7 331.8 107 36.4 51.6 70.5 58.9
266+50
T-4 12" n/a 1448 94 96.2 8.5 9.7 87.6 73

270+20
T-5 12" n/a 1498 122.5 94.8 11.9 14.3 83 69.3

270+20
T-6 n/a 1282.8 104.8 100.2 9.8 10.8 90.4 75.5

12" 270+45
T-7 n/a 1389 114.5 97.5 10.9 12.6 86.5 72.2

12" 270+45
FIELD WORK PERFORMED BY: B.Rice ; J.Johnson ; J.Hawk Item No.

RESIDENT ENGINEER
FILE
REMARKS: TMW
APPENDIX C-5
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Client: Hardesty & Hanover
Project: DC3 Wall 22 Failure Bellmawr
Location: Bellmawr, NJ Project No: GTX-313542
Boring ID: --- Sample Type: bucket Tested By: cwd
Sample ID: Slope Soil Test Date: 04/28/21 Checked By: jdt
Depth : --- Test Id: 617003
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, brownish yellow sand
Sample Comment: ---
Moisture Content of Soil and Rock - ASTM D2216

Boring ID Sample ID Depth Description Moisture
Content,%
--- Slope Soil --- Moist, brownish yellow sand 2.4
Notes: Temperature of Drying : 110º Celsius
printed 6/24/2021 1:43:36 PM

Boring ID: --- Sample Type: bucket Tested By: ckg
Sample ID: Slope Soil Test Date: 04/30/21 Checked By: jdt
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, brownish yellow sand
Sample Comment: ---
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D6913
0.375 in
0.75 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#50
#60
1 in
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
% Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Silt & Clay Size

--- 0.4 98.0 1.6
Sieve Name Sieve Size, mm Percent Finer Spec. Percent Complies Coefficients
D85 =0.4234 mm D30 =0.2009 mm
1 in 25.00 100
D60 =0.2888 mm D15 =0.1643 mm
0.75 in 19.00 100
0.5 in 12.50 100 D50 =0.2599 mm D10 =0.1537 mm
0.375 in 9.50 100
Cu =1.879 Cc =0.909
#4 4.75 100
#10 2.00 99 Classification
#20 0.85 97
ASTM Poorly graded SAND (SP)
#40 0.42 85
#50 0.30 64
AASHTO Fine Sand (A-3 (1))
#60 0.25 46
#100 0.15 8
#140 0.11 2
Sample/Test Description
#200 0.075 1.6
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : ---
Sand/Gravel Hardness : ---
printed 6/24/2021 1:42:50 PM

Boring ID: --- Sample Type: --- Tested By: cwd
Sample ID: --- Test Date: 04/28/21 Checked By: jdt

Content,%
--- I- 14 --- Moist, yellowish brown sand with gravel 7.1
--- I- 15 --- Moist, yellowish brown sand with silt 7.5

and gravel
printed 6/24/2021 1:09:38 PM

Boring ID: --- Sample Type: --- Tested By: ckg
Specific Gravity of Soils by ASTM D854

Boring ID Sample ID Depth Visual Description Specific Comment
Gravity
--- I- 14 --- Moist, yellowish brown sand with 2.69

gravel
--- I- 15 --- Moist, yellowish brown sand with 2.69

silt and gravel
Notes: Specific Gravity performed by using method B (oven dried specimens) of ASTM D854
Moisture Content determined by ASTM D2216.
Only minus No. 4 Sieve material tested.
printed 6/24/2021 1:11:01 PM

Boring ID: --- Sample Type: --- Tested By: cam
USCS Classification - ASTM D2487

Boring ID Sample ID Depth Group Name Group Gravel, % Sand, % Fines, %
Symbol
--- I-14 --- Poorly graded SAND SP 18.3 78.3 3.4

with Gravel
--- I-15 --- Poorly graded SAND SP-SM 23.5 69.7 6.8
with Silt and Gravel
Remarks: Grain Size analysis performed by ASTM D 6913 results enclosed

Atterberg Limits performed by ASTM D4318, results enclosed
printed 6/24/2021 1:14:06 PM

Sample ID: I-14 Test Date: 04/30/21 Checked By: jdt
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, yellowish brown sand with gravel
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
1.5 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#50
#60
1 in
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 18.3 78.3 3.4
D85 =8.1692 mm D30 =0.2303 mm
1.5 in 37.50 100
D60 =0.4075 mm D15 =0.1701 mm
1 in 25.00 96
0.75 in 19.00 93 D50 =0.3277 mm D10 =0.1537 mm
0.5 in 12.50 88
Cu =2.651 Cc =0.847
0.375 in 9.50 86
#10 2.00 78
ASTM Poorly graded SAND with Gravel (SP)
#20 0.85 74
#40 0.42 62
#50 0.30 46
#60 0.25 34
#100 0.15 9
#140 0.11 5
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : ANGULAR
#200 0.075 3.4
Sand/Gravel Hardness : HARD
printed 6/24/2021 1:08:49 PM

Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, yellowish brown sand with silt and gravel
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
1.5 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#50
#60
1 in
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 23.5 69.7 6.8
D85 =7.3446 mm D30 =0.4090 mm
1.5 in 37.50 100
D60 =1.2095 mm D15 =0.2464 mm
1 in 25.00 100
0.75 in 19.00 99 D50 =0.7621 mm D10 =0.1694 mm
0.5 in 12.50 96
Cu =7.140 Cc =0.816
0.375 in 9.50 90
#10 2.00 69
ASTM Poorly graded SAND with Silt and
#20 0.85 53
Gravel (SP-SM)
#40 0.42 31
AASHTO Stone Fragments, Gravel and Sand
#50 0.30 19
(A-1-b (1))
#60 0.25 15
#100 0.15 8
#140 0.11 7
#200 0.075 6.8
printed 6/24/2021 1:08:51 PM

Boring ID: --- Sample Type: bucket Tested By: cam
Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Atterberg Limits - ASTM D4318
Sample Determined to be non-plastic
Symbol Sample ID Boring Depth Natural Liquid Plastic Plasticity Liquidity Soil Classification
Moisture Limit Limit Index Index
Content,%
I-14 --- --- 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a Poorly graded SAND with
Gravel (SP)
38% Retained on #40 Sieve

Dry Strength: LOW
Dilatancy: RAPID
Toughness: n/a
The sample was determined to be Non-Plastic
printed 6/24/2021 1:06:48 PM

Boring ID: --- Sample Type: bucket Tested By: cam
Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Content,%
I-15 --- --- 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a Poorly graded SAND with
Silt and Gravel (SP-SM)

Dry Strength: LOW
Dilatancy: RAPID
Toughness: n/a
printed 6/24/2021 1:06:49 PM

Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Compaction Report - ASTM D698
125
120 zero air

voids line
Dry Density, pcf
115
110
corrected
105
uncorrected
100
0 5 10 15 20
Water C ontent, %
Data Points Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5
Dry density, pcf 104.8 106.3 107.6 105.8 103.5

Moisture Content, % 7.9 9.7 12.0 14.0 15.9
Method : C
Preparation : DRY
As received Moisture :7 %
Rammer : Manual
Zero voids line based on assumed specific gravity of 2.65
Maximum Dry Density= 107.6 pcf

Optimum Moisture= 11.8 %
Oversize Correction (7% > 3/4 inch Sieve)

Corrected Maximum Dry Density= 110.2 pcf
Corrected Optimum Moisture= 11.0 %
Assumed Average Bulk Specific Gravity = 2.55
printed 6/24/2021 1:15:13 PM

Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
135
130
Dry Density, pcf
125
120 zero air

voids line
115
110
0 5 10 15 20
Water C ontent, %
Dry density, pcf 122.4 123.7 124.5 122.7 118.9

Method : C
Preparation : DRY
Rammer : Manual

printed 6/24/2021 1:16:04 PM

Project Name: DC3 Wall Failure Bellmawr
Project Location: Bellmawr, NJ
GTX #: 313542
Start Date: 06/25/21 Tested By: jlw
End Date: 06/25/21 Checked By: jdt
Boring #: ---
Sample #: I-14
Depth: ---
Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head) by ASTM D2434

Sample Type: Remolded
Sample Information: Corrected Maximum Dry Density: 110.2 pcf

Corrected Optimum Moisture Content: 11.8 %
Compaction Test Method: ASTM D1557
Classification (ASTM D2487): SP
Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.69 (only minus #4 sieve material tested)
Sample Preparation / Test Target Compaction: 95% of the uncorrected maximum dry density (107.6 pcf) at air-dried
Setup: moisture content. Material >3/4-inch removed from sample prior to testing (7% of sample).
Parameter Initial Final

Height, in 12.00 11.95
Diameter, in 9.50 9.50
Area, in2 70.88 70.88
Volume, in3 850.6 847.0
Mass, g 23097 27996
Bulk Density, pcf 103.4 125.9
Moisture Content, % 1.2 22.6
Dry Density, pcf 102.2 102.7
Degree of Saturation, % --- 98.0
Void Ratio, e --- 0.61
Flow
Reading Volume of Time of Rate, Permeability, Temp., Correction Permeability @
o
Date # Flow, cc Flow, sec cc/sec Gradient cm/sec C Factor 20 oC, cm/sec
6/25 1 44.0 30 1.47 0.46 7.0E-03 19.4 1.015 7.1E-03
6/25 2 44.0 30 1.47 0.46 7.0E-03 19.4 1.015 7.1E-03
6/25 3 44.1 30 1.47 0.46 7.0E-03 19.4 1.015 7.1E-03
6/25 4 47.7 30 1.59 0.50 6.9E-03 19.4 1.015 7.0E-03
6/25 5 47.6 30 1.59 0.50 6.9E-03 19.4 1.015 7.0E-03
6/25 6 47.3 30 1.58 0.50 6.9E-03 19.4 1.015 7.0E-03
6/25 7 50.8 30 1.69 0.54 6.8E-03 19.4 1.015 6.9E-03
6/25 8 51.5 30 1.72 0.54 6.9E-03 19.4 1.015 7.0E-03
6/25 9 50.8 30 1.69 0.54 6.8E-03 19.4 1.015 6.9E-03
Velocity vs. Hydraulic Gradient

5.0E-03
4.5E-03
PERMEABILITY @ 20 oC =
Velocity, cm/sec
4.0E-03
3.5E-03
3.0E-03 7.0 x 10-3 cm/sec
2.5E-03
2.0E-03
0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56
Hydraulic Gradient, i
Project Name: DC3 Wall Failure Bellmawr
GTX #: 313542
Start Date: 06/25/21 Tested By: jlw
End Date: 06/25/21 Checked By: jdt
Boring #: ---
Sample #: I-15
Depth: ---

Sample Information: Maximum Dry Density: 124.5 pcf

Optimum Moisture Content: 8.4 %
Classification (ASTM D2487): SP-SM
Measured Specific Gravity: 2.69 (only minus #4 sieve material tested)
Sample Preparation / Test Target Compaction: 95% of maximum dry density (124.5 pcf) at air-dried moisture content.
Setup: Material >3/4-inch removed from sample prior to testing (1% of sample).

Height, in 12.00 11.95
Area, in2 70.88 70.88
Volume, in3 850.6 847.0
Mass, g 26646 30303
Flow
o
6/25 1 27.0 30 0.90 0.50 3.9E-03 19.8 1.005 3.9E-03
6/25 2 27.1 30 0.90 0.50 3.9E-03 19.8 1.005 4.0E-03
6/25 3 27.2 30 0.91 0.50 3.9E-03 19.8 1.005 4.0E-03
6/25 4 30.8 30 1.03 0.54 4.1E-03 19.5 1.013 4.2E-03
6/25 5 30.9 30 1.03 0.54 4.1E-03 19.5 1.013 4.2E-03
6/25 6 31.2 30 1.04 0.54 4.2E-03 19.5 1.013 4.2E-03
6/25 7 35.0 30 1.17 0.59 4.4E-03 19.4 1.015 4.4E-03
6/25 8 34.6 30 1.15 0.59 4.3E-03 19.4 1.015 4.4E-03
6/25 9 34.2 30 1.14 0.59 4.3E-03 19.4 1.015 4.3E-03

3.0E-03
2.5E-03
Velocity, cm/sec
2.0E-03
1.5E-03
1.0E-03 4.2 x 10-3 cm/sec
5.0E-04
0.0E+00
0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
1.00
--- ---
Boring ID: --- Sample Type: --- Tested By: cwd

Content,%
Test Pt # 1 T- 1 --- Moist, light yellowish brown sand 10.0
Test Pt # 3 T- 3 --- Moist, reddish yellow sand 4.6
printed 6/24/2021 1:19:27 PM


Gravity
Only minus No. 4 Sieve material tested.
printed 6/24/2021 1:19:53 PM

USCS Classification - ASTM D2487

Boring ID Sample ID Depth Group Name Group Gravel, % Sand, % Fines, %
Symbol
Test Pt # 1 T-1 --- Poorly graded SAND SP 0.7 98.2 1.1
Remarks: Grain Size analysis performed by ASTM D 6913 results enclosed

Atterberg Limits performed by ASTM D4318, results enclosed
printed 6/24/2021 1:22:24 PM

Boring ID: Test Pt # 1 Sample Type: bucket Tested By: ckg
Sample ID: T-1 Test Date: 05/19/21 Checked By: jdt
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, light yellowish brown sand
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
1.5 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#50
#60
1 in
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.7 98.2 1.1
D85 =0.5752 mm D30 =0.2344 mm
1.5 in 37.50 100
D60 =0.3393 mm D15 =0.1790 mm
1 in 25.00 100
0.75 in 19.00 100 D50 =0.2975 mm D10 =0.1636 mm
0.5 in 12.50 100
Cu =2.074 Cc =0.990
0.375 in 9.50 99
#10 2.00 99
#20 0.85 95
#40 0.42 77
#50 0.30 51
#60 0.25 34
#100 0.15 5
#140 0.11 2
#200 0.075 1.1
printed 6/24/2021 1:18:35 PM

Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#50
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.2 98.3 1.5
D85 =0.4523 mm D30 =0.2214 mm
0.75 in 19.00 100
D60 =0.3119 mm D15 =0.1715 mm
0.5 in 12.50 100
0.375 in 9.50 100 D50 =0.2813 mm D10 =0.1575 mm
#4 4.75 100
Cu =1.980 Cc =0.998
#10 2.00 99
#40 0.42 84
#50 0.30 57
#60 0.25 37
#100 0.15 7
#140 0.11 2
#200 0.075 1.5
printed 6/24/2021 1:18:36 PM

Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, reddish yellow sand
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#50
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.5 96.3 3.2
D85 =0.6045 mm D30 =0.2014 mm
0.75 in 19.00 100
D60 =0.3126 mm D15 =0.1596 mm
0.5 in 12.50 100
0.375 in 9.50 100 D50 =0.2710 mm D10 =0.1421 mm
#4 4.75 99
Cu =2.200 Cc =0.913
#10 2.00 98
#40 0.42 78
#50 0.30 58
#60 0.25 44
#100 0.15 11
#140 0.11 5
#200 0.075 3.2
printed 6/24/2021 1:18:37 PM

Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
1.5 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#50
#60
1 in
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 1.9 96.0 2.1
D85 =0.5728 mm D30 =0.2122 mm
1.5 in 37.50 100
D60 =0.3227 mm D15 =0.1671 mm
1 in 25.00 100
0.75 in 19.00 99 D50 =0.2816 mm D10 =0.1544 mm
0.5 in 12.50 99
Cu =2.090 Cc =0.904
0.375 in 9.50 98
#10 2.00 97
#20 0.85 94
#40 0.42 78
#50 0.30 55
#60 0.25 40
#100 0.15 8
#140 0.11 3
#200 0.075 2.1
printed 6/24/2021 1:18:38 PM

Boring ID: Test Pt # 1 Sample Type: bucket Tested By: cam
Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Content,%
T-1 Test Pt # --- 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a Poorly graded SAND (SP)
1

Dry Strength: LOW
Dilatancy: RAPID
Toughness: n/a
printed 6/24/2021 1:17:57 PM

Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Content,%
2

Dry Strength: LOW
Dilatancy: RAPID
Toughness: n/a
printed 6/24/2021 1:17:58 PM

Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Content,%
3

Dry Strength: LOW
Dilatancy: RAPID
Toughness: n/a
printed 6/24/2021 1:17:58 PM

Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Content,%
4

Dry Strength: LOW
Dilatancy: RAPID
Toughness: n/a
printed 6/24/2021 1:17:59 PM

Boring ID: Test Pt # 1 Sample Type: bucket Tested By: cwd
Test Comment: Water bled from mold during compaction of last 2 points
Sample Comment: ---
115
110
Dry Density, pcf
105
zero air
100 voids line
95
90
10 15 20 25 30
Water C ontent, %
Dry density, pcf 99.0 99.4 101.2 100.1 99.3

Method : A
Preparation : DRY
Rammer : Manual

printed 6/24/2021 1:23:12 PM

Sample Comment: ---
115
110
Dry Density, pcf
105
zero air
100 voids line
95
90
10 15 20 25 30
Water C ontent, %
Dry density, pcf 98.4 99.2 100.0 99.3 98.2

Method : A
Preparation : DRY
Rammer : Manual

printed 6/24/2021 1:23:40 PM

Sample Comment: ---
115
110
Dry Density, pcf
105
zero air
100 voids line
95
90
10 15 20 25 30
Water C ontent, %
Data Points Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4
Dry density, pcf 101.7 102.4 102.6 102.2

Moisture Content, % 13.1 14.9 17.1 18.6
Method : A
Preparation : DRY
Rammer : Manual

printed 6/24/2021 1:24:25 PM

Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
115
110
Dry Density, pcf
105
zero air
100 voids line
95
90
10 15 20 25 30
Water C ontent, %
Data Points Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4
Dry density, pcf 99.7 100.6 101.2 100.2

Moisture Content, % 12.9 15.0 17.1 19.0
Method : A
Preparation : DRY
Rammer : Manual

printed 6/24/2021 1:24:51 PM

Project Name: DC3 Wall 22 Failure Bellmawr
GTX #: 313542
Start Date: 05/28/21 Tested By: sjt
End Date: 06/03/21 Checked By: emm
Boring #: Test Pt # 1
Sample #: T-1
Depth: ---


Measured Specific Gravity: 2.71

Height, in 4.00 4.00
Area, in2 12.6 12.6
Volume, in3 50.3 50.3
Mass, g 1269 1619
Flow
o
6/2 1 18.3 30 0.61 0.13 6.0E-02 22.5 0.942 5.7E-02
6/2 2 18.8 30 0.63 0.13 6.2E-02 22.5 0.942 5.8E-02
6/2 3 19.0 30 0.63 0.13 6.2E-02 22.5 0.942 5.9E-02
6/2 4 22.5 30 0.75 0.18 5.3E-02 22.7 0.938 5.0E-02
6/2 5 22.5 30 0.75 0.18 5.3E-02 22.7 0.938 5.0E-02
6/2 6 22.2 30 0.74 0.18 5.2E-02 22.7 0.938 4.9E-02
6/2 7 27.5 30 0.92 0.23 5.0E-02 22.7 0.938 4.7E-02
6/2 8 27.6 30 0.92 0.23 5.0E-02 22.7 0.938 4.7E-02
6/2 9 27.5 30 0.92 0.23 5.0E-02 22.7 0.938 4.7E-02

2.0E-02
Velocity, cm/sec
1.5E-02
1.0E-02
5.0E-03
5.1 x 10-2 cm/sec
0.0E+00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
GTX #: 313542
Start Date: 05/28/21 Tested By: sjt
End Date: 06/02/21 Checked By: emm
Boring #: Test Pt # 2
Sample #: T-2
Depth: ---
Visual Description: Moist, yellowish brown sand



Height, in 3.93 3.90
Area, in2 12.6 12.6
Volume, in3 49.4 49.0
Mass, g 1190 1538
Flow
o
6/1 1 15.9 30 0.53 0.21 3.2E-02 25.3 0.883 2.8E-02
6/1 2 15.7 30 0.52 0.21 3.2E-02 25.3 0.883 2.8E-02
6/1 3 15.9 30 0.53 0.21 3.2E-02 25.3 0.883 2.8E-02
6/1 4 19.5 30 0.65 0.26 3.1E-02 24.9 0.891 2.8E-02
6/1 5 19.4 30 0.65 0.26 3.1E-02 24.9 0.891 2.8E-02
6/1 6 19.8 30 0.66 0.26 3.2E-02 24.9 0.891 2.8E-02
6/1 7 23.4 30 0.78 0.31 3.1E-02 24.6 0.897 2.8E-02
6/1 8 23.9 30 0.80 0.31 3.2E-02 24.6 0.897 2.9E-02
6/1 9 23.6 30 0.79 0.31 3.1E-02 24.6 0.897 2.8E-02

1.2E-02
1.0E-02
Velocity, cm/sec
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03 2.8 x 10-2 cm/sec
2.0E-03
0.0E+00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 5/26/2021
Tested By: nw/md
Checked By: njh
Boring ID: Test Pit #1
Sample ID: T-1
Depth, ft: ---
Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 0.650 psi
Friction Angle = 41.9o
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Horizontal Deformation, in
Test No.: DS-28a DS-1 DS-2 DS-3

Initial Diameter, in: 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Initial Height, in: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 5 10 15
Initial Mass, grams: 143.8 143.8 143.8 143.8

Initial Dry Density, pcf: 99.2 99.2 99.2 99.2 -0.02
Initial Moisture Content, %: 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Initial Bulk Density, pcf: 111.6 111.6 111.6 111.6
0.00
Initial Degree of Saturation: 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0
Vertical Deformation, in
Initial Void Ratio: 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

Final Dry Density, pcf: 101.7 99.4 99.7 108.6 0.02
Final Moisture Content, %: 22.1 21.7 21.7 23.9
Final Bulk Density, pcf: 124.1 120.9 121.2 134.6
0.04
Normal Stress, psi: 2.5 5.0 10 15
Maximum Shear Stress, psi: 1.9 5.9 11 13
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.06
Sample Type: reconstituted 0.08

Liquid Limit: Non Plastic
0.10
Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
% Passing #200 sieve: 1.1
Soil Classification: Poorly Graded SAND Horizontal Deformation, in
Group Symbol: SP
Notes: Material greater than #5 sieve screened out of sample prior to testing
One initial moisture content for all four test specimens obtained from homogenized bulk sample prior
to reconstituting test specimens.
Moisture Content determined by ASTM D2216
Specific Gravity determined by ASTM D854
Atterberg Limit determined by ASTM D4318
% Passing #200 determined by ASTM D6913
Target Compaction: 95% of the maximum dry density (101.2 pcf) at the optimum moisture content
(16.1% +/- 3%). Values specified by client.
Values for cohesion and friction angle determined from best-fit straight line to the data for the specific test conditions.
Actual strength parameters may vary and should be determined by an engineer for site-specific conditions.
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/4/2021
Tested By: nw/md
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-1
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 1.56 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-31a DS-16 DS-17 DS-18


Initial Dry Density, pcf: 95.3 95.3 95.3 95.3 0.00
Initial Degree of Saturation: 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 0.02

Final Dry Density, pcf: 100.0 96.7 97.0 98.1
Final Moisture Content, %: 24.2 22.2 21.9 22.1 0.04
Maximum Shear Stress, psi: 3.6 5.8 11 14 0.06
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.08
Sample Type: reconstituted
0.10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
Target Compaction: 95% of 97.91 pcf at approximately 20% moisture content. Values specified by
client.
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/4/2021
Tested By: nw/md
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-1
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 0.28 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-33-1a DS-33-2a DS-33-3 DS-33-4


0.02
0.04
Final Bulk Density, pcf: 109.9 113.9 118.9 128.5 0.08
Normal Stress, psi: 2.5 5.0 10 15 0.10
Maximum Shear Stress, psi: 1.9 5.3 7.2 13
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.12
0.14
Measured Specific Gravity: 2.71 0.16
0.18
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
Target Compaction: 95% of 90.38 pcf at approximately 30% moisture content. Values specified by client.
Project Name: DC3 Wall 22 Failure Belmawr
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/8/2021
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-1
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 1.35 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-37-1 DS-37-2 DS-37-3 DS-37-4


Initial Bulk Density, pcf: 111.3 111.3 111.3 111.3 0.05
Initial Void Ratio: 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 0.10

0.15
0.20
Maximum Shear Stress, psi: 2.2 5.8 7.5 11 0.25
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.30
0.40
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
client.
GTX #: 313542
Tested By: nw/md
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-1
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 0 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-41-1 DS-41-2a DS-41-3 DS-41-4a



0.03
0.04
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.06
0.08
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/3/2021
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-2
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-27a DS-4a DS-5 DS-6


Initial Bulk Density, pcf: 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 -0.01

0.01
0.02
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.03

0.05
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
Target Compaction: 95% of the maximum dry density (100.0 pcf) at the optimum moisture content (17.7% +/-
3%). Values specified by client.
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/3/2021
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-2
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-29 DS-19 DS-20b DS-21a



0.04
0.06
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.08

0.12
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/4/2021
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-2
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 1.13 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-34-1 DS-34-2b DS-34-3 DS-34-4


0.02

0.06
0.10
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.14
0.16
0.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/9/2021
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-2
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40
2.5 5 10 15
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10
10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Normal Stress, psi

Test No.: DS-38-1 DS-38-2 DS-38-3 DS-38-4


0.00

0.10
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.15

0.25
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-2
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40
2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 1.19 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10
10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Normal Stress, psi

Test No.: DS-42-1 DS-42-2 DS-42-3 DS-42-4



Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.04
0.05
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-3
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 1.69 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-25D DS-10 DS-11 DS-12a



0.02
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.04
0.06
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
Target Compaction: 95% of the maximum dry density (102.7 pcf) at the optimum moisture content
(16.5% +/- 3%). Values specified by client.
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/3/2021
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-3
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 0 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-30 DS-13 DS-14b DS-15



0.04
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.06
0.08
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/3/2021
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-3
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 1.43 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-35-1b DS-35-2 DS-35-3 DS-35-4


0.05

0.15
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.20

0.30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-3
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 0 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-39-1 DS-39-2a DS-39-3 DS-39-4a



Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.08
0.10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-3
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 0 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-43-1 DS-43-2 DS-43-3 DS-43-4



Maximum Shear Stress, psi: 1.0 3.0 7.6 8.8 0.06
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.08
0.10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-4
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-26b DS-7 DS-8a DS-9



Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.08
0.10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
Target Compaction: 95% of the maximum dry density (101.2 pcf) at the optimum moisture content (16.9% +/-
3%). Values specified by client.
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/4/2021
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-4
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 1.00 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-32b DS-22a DS-23a DS-24a



Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.08
0.10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Test Date: 6/8/2021
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-4
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-36-1 DS-36-2 DS-36-3 DS-36-4


0.02

0.06
Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.08

0.12
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
Target Compaction: 95% of 91.00 pcf at 30% moisture content. Values specified by client.
GTX #: 313542
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-4
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 1.80 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-40-1 DS-40-2 DS-40-3 DS-40-4



Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.08
0.10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
GTX #: 313542
Tested By: nw
Checked By: njh
Sample ID: T-4
Depth, ft: ---

by ASTM D3080
40 2.5 5 10 15
Cohesion = 1.24 psi
40
30
30
Shear Stress, psi
Shear Stress, psi

20
20
10 10
0
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress, psi
Test No.: DS-44-1 DS-44-2a DS-44-3 DS-44-4



Shear Rate, in/min: 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.08
0.10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Group Symbol: SP
--- --- ---
1.00
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
1.00
--- --- --- 0.09
1.00 1.00
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
1.00

Content,%
B-6 U- 1 19-21 Moist, dark gray clay 40.9
B-6 U- 2 25-27 Moist, very dark gray clay 35.6
B-6 U- 3 35-37 Moist, very dark gray clay with organics 37.8
B-6 U- 4 45-47 Moist, greenish black silt 27.3
B-7 U- 1 37-39 Moist, very dark gray clay with sand 34.5
B-7 U- 2 42-44 Moist, very dark gray silt with sand 35.1
B-7 U- 4 60-62 Moist, dark gray silt 40.2
B-7 S- 18 75-77 Moist, very dark gray silt 38.4
B-7 S- 22 95-97 Moist, very dark gray sandy clay 22.6
printed 6/28/2021 10:37:01 AM

Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter - ASTM D2974

Boring ID Sample ID Depth Description Moisture Ash Organic
Content,% Content,% Matter,%
B-6 U-1 19-21 Moist, dark gray clay 39 95.5 4.5
B-6 U-2 25-27 Moist, very dark gray clay 41 97.7 2.3
with organics
B-6 U-4 45-47 Moist, greenish black silt 28 96.8 3.2
with sand
B-7 U-2 42-44 Moist, very dark gray silt with 34 96.5 3.5
sand
B-7 U-4 60-62 Moist, dark gray silt 38 96.5 3.5
Notes: Moisture content determined by Method A and reported as a percentage of oven-dried mass;
dried to a constant mass at temperature of 105º C
Ash content and organic matter determined by Method C; dried to constant mass at temperature 440º C
printed 6/28/2021 10:37:32 AM

Boring ID: --- Sample Type: --- Tested By: htk

Gravity
B-6 U- 1 19-21 Moist, dark gray clay 2.78
B-6 U- 3 35-37 Moist, very dark gray clay with 2.79

organics
B-6 U- 4 45-47 Moist, greenish black silt 2.82
B-7 U- 1 37-39 Moist, very dark gray clay with 2.77

sand
B-7 U- 2 42-44 Moist, very dark gray silt with 2.74

sand
B-7 U- 4 60-62 Moist, dark gray silt 2.76
printed 6/28/2021 3:48:23 PM

Boring ID: --- Sample Type: --- Tested By: md
Laboratory Determination of Density (Unit Weight)

of Soil Specimens by ASTM D7263
Boring Sample Depth Visual Description Bulk Moisture Dry *

ID ID Density Content Density
pcf % pcf
B-6 U- 1 19-21 Moist, dark gray clay 105.4 40.90 74.79 (1)
B-6 U- 2 25-27 Moist, very dark gray clay 116.5 35.60 85.94 (2)
B-6 U- 3 35-37 Moist, very dark gray clay with organics 111.0 37.77 80.56 (3)
B-6 U- 4 45-47 Moist, greenish black silt 119.6 27.30 93.96 (4)
* Sample Comments
(1): Method B-Cylinder, Intact
Notes: Moisture Content determined by ASTM D2216.
printed 6/28/2021 10:38:00 AM

Boring ID: --- Sample Type: --- Tested By: md
Laboratory Determination of Density (Unit Weight)

of Soil Specimens by ASTM D7263
Boring Sample Depth Visual Description Bulk Moisture Dry *

ID ID Density Content Density
pcf % pcf
B-7 U- 1 37-39 Moist, very dark gray clay with sand 112.0 34.51 83.27 (1)
B-7 U- 2 42-44 Moist, very dark gray silt with sand 119.8 35.11 88.68 (2)
B-7 U- 3 50-52 Moist, very dark gray clay 108.9 41.35 77.01 (3)
B-7 U- 4 60-62 Moist, dark gray silt 114.2 40.24 81.45 (4)
* Sample Comments
Notes: Moisture Content determined by ASTM D2216.
printed 6/24/2021 1:37:22 PM

Boring ID: B-6 Sample Type: tube Tested By: ckg
Sample ID: U-1 Test Date: 06/18/21 Checked By: jdt
Depth : 19-21 Test Id: 619370
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, dark gray clay
Sample Comment: ---
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.0 0.2 99.8
D85 =N/A D30 =N/A
#4 4.75 100
D60 =N/A D15 =N/A
#10 2.00 100
#20 0.85 100 D50 =N/A D10 =N/A
#40 0.42 100
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#60 0.25 100
#140 0.11 100
ASTM Fat CLAY (CH)
#200 0.075 100
AASHTO Clayey Soils (A-7-5 (65))
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:11 PM

Depth : 25-27 Test Id: 619371
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark gray clay
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 1.3 0.2 98.5
D85 =N/A D30 =N/A
0.375 in 9.50 100
D60 =N/A D15 =N/A
#4 4.75 99
#10 2.00 99 D50 =N/A D10 =N/A
#20 0.85 99
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#40 0.42 99
#100 0.15 99
ASTM Fat CLAY (CH)
#140 0.11 99
#200 0.075 98
printed 6/28/2021 10:35:36 AM

Depth : 35-37 Test Id: 619372
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark gray clay with organics
Sample Comment: --
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.0 14.4 85.6
D85 =N/A D30 =N/A
#4 4.75 100
D60 =N/A D15 =N/A
#10 2.00 100
#20 0.85 100 D50 =N/A D10 =N/A
#40 0.42 100
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#60 0.25 98
#140 0.11 86
ASTM Fat CLAY (CH)
#200 0.075 86
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:13 PM

Depth : 45-47 Test Id: 619373
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, greenish black silt
Sample Comment: ---
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.0 65.4 34.6
D85 =0.2389 mm D30 =N/A
#4 4.75 100
D60 =0.1738 mm D15 =N/A
#10 2.00 100
#20 0.85 100 D50 =0.1530 mm D10 =N/A
#40 0.42 98
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#60 0.25 89
#140 0.11 38
ASTM Silty SAND (SM)
#200 0.075 35
AASHTO Silty Gravel and Sand (A-2-4 (0))
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:14 PM

Boring ID: B-7 Sample Type: jar Tested By: ckg
Sample ID: S-2 Test Date: 05/28/21 Checked By: jdt
Depth : 2-4 Test Id: 619361
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark grayish brown clayey sand with gravel
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 15.6 61.5 22.9
D85 =6.3169 mm D30 =0.1391 mm
0.75 in 19.00 100
D60 =0.5763 mm D15 =N/A
0.5 in 12.50 89
0.375 in 9.50 86 D50 =0.3866 mm D10 =N/A
#4 4.75 84
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#10 2.00 80
#40 0.42 52
ASTM N/A
#60 0.25 40
#100 0.15 31
#140 0.11 27
#200 0.075 23
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:15 PM

Sample ID: S-6A Test Date: 05/28/21 Checked By: jdt
Depth : 10-12 Test Id: 619362
Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.3 97.1 2.6
D85 =0.7031 mm D30 =0.2167 mm
0.375 in 9.50 100
D60 =0.3490 mm D15 =0.1668 mm
#4 4.75 100
#10 2.00 97 D50 =0.2995 mm D10 =0.1528 mm
#20 0.85 90
Cu =2.284 Cc =0.881
#40 0.42 73
#100 0.15 9
#140 0.11 4
#200 0.075 2.6
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:16 PM

Sample ID: S-6B Test Date: 05/28/21 Checked By: jdt
Depth : 10-12 Test Id: 619363
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, dark olive gray clayey sand with gravel
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 26.6 57.9 15.5
D85 =10.0950 mm D30 =0.2245 mm
0.75 in 19.00 100
D60 =1.2831 mm D15 =N/A
0.5 in 12.50 91
0.375 in 9.50 83 D50 =0.5907 mm D10 =N/A
#4 4.75 73
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#10 2.00 64
#40 0.42 44
ASTM N/A
#60 0.25 32
#100 0.15 22
#140 0.11 18
(A-1-b (0))
#200 0.075 15
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:17 PM

Depth : 25-27 Test Id: 619364
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, brownish yellow silty sand with gravel
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 18.8 67.4 13.8
D85 =6.8949 mm D30 =0.1985 mm
0.75 in 19.00 100
D60 =0.4876 mm D15 =0.0848 mm
0.5 in 12.50 90
0.375 in 9.50 88 D50 =0.3538 mm D10 =N/A
#4 4.75 81
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#10 2.00 76
#40 0.42 57
ASTM N/A
#60 0.25 37
#100 0.15 22
#140 0.11 17
#200 0.075 14
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:17 PM

Depth : 30-32 Test Id: 619365
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, light grayish olive silty sand
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
0.75 in
0.5 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 11.5 69.4 19.1
D85 =2.8536 mm D30 =0.1777 mm
0.75 in 19.00 100
D60 =0.6023 mm D15 =N/A
0.5 in 12.50 96
0.375 in 9.50 94 D50 =0.4414 mm D10 =N/A
#4 4.75 89
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#10 2.00 83
#40 0.42 49
ASTM N/A
#60 0.25 35
#100 0.15 27
#140 0.11 23
(A-1-b (0))
#200 0.075 19
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:18 PM

Depth : 37-39 Test Id: 619366
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark gray clay with sand
Sample Comment: ---
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.0 27.2 72.8
D85 =0.0940 mm D30 =N/A
#4 4.75 100
D60 =N/A D15 =N/A
#10 2.00 100
#20 0.85 100 D50 =N/A D10 =N/A
#40 0.42 100
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#60 0.25 99
#140 0.11 92
ASTM Lean CLAY with Sand (CL)
#200 0.075 73
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:19 PM

Depth : 42-44 Test Id: 619367
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark gray silt with sand
Sample Comment: ---
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.0 18.2 81.8
D85 =0.0814 mm D30 =N/A
#4 4.75 100
D60 =N/A D15 =N/A
#10 2.00 100
#20 0.85 100 D50 =N/A D10 =N/A
#40 0.42 100
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#60 0.25 99
#140 0.11 95
ASTM Elastic SILT with Sand (MH)
#200 0.075 82
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:20 PM

Depth : 50-52 Test Id: 619368
Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 0.0 1.2 98.8
D85 =N/A D30 =N/A
#4 4.75 100
D60 =N/A D15 =N/A
#10 2.00 100
#20 0.85 100 D50 =N/A D10 =N/A
#40 0.42 100
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#60 0.25 100
#140 0.11 99
ASTM Fat CLAY (CH)
#200 0.075 99
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:20 PM

Depth : 60-62 Test Id: 619369
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, dark gray silt
Sample Comment: ---
0.375 in
#100
#140
#200
#10
#20
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)

--- 1.3 1.4 97.3
D85 =N/A D30 =N/A
0.375 in 9.50 100
D60 =N/A D15 =N/A
#4 4.75 99
#10 2.00 99 D50 =N/A D10 =N/A
#20 0.85 98
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
#40 0.42 98
#100 0.15 98
ASTM Elastic SILT (MH)
#140 0.11 98
#200 0.075 97
printed 6/24/2021 1:32:21 PM

Boring ID: B-6 Sample Type: tube Tested By: cam
Depth : 19-21 Test Id: 619355
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, dark gray clay
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
U-1 B-6 19-21 41 88 35 53 0.1 Fat CLAY (CH)
Sample Prepared using the WET method

Dry Strength: VERY HIGH
Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:18 PM

Depth : 25-27 Test Id: 619356
Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
U-2 B-6 25-27 36 84 35 49 0 Fat CLAY (CH)

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
printed 6/28/2021 10:34:09 AM

Depth : 35-37 Test Id: 619357
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark gray clay with organics
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
U-3 B-6 35-37 38 74 32 42 0.1 Fat CLAY (CH)

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
In order to properly describe the soil an Oven Dried Liquid Limit test was performed.
The Oven Dried Liquid Limit was 72
printed 6/25/2021 8:11:20 AM

Depth : 45-47 Test Id: 619358
Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
U-4 B-6 45-47 27 36 27 9 0 Silty SAND (SM)

Dry Strength: HIGH
Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:20 PM

Boring ID: B-6 Sample Type: jar Tested By: cam
Depth : 60-62 Test Id: 619359
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, greenish black sandy silt
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
S-11 B-6 60-62 30 36 28 8 0.3
Dry Strength: MEDIUM

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:20 PM

Depth : 70-72 Test Id: 619360
Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
S-13 B-6 70-72 26 34 24 10 0.2

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:21 PM

Depth : 37-39 Test Id: 619349
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark gray clay with sand
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
U-1 B-7 37-39 35 49 26 23 0.4 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL)

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:22 PM

Depth : 42-44 Test Id: 619350
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark gray silt with sand
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
U-2 B-7 42-44 35 50 31 19 0.2 Elastic SILT with Sand (MH)

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:22 PM

Depth : 50-52 Test Id: 619351
Test Comment: ---
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
U-3 B-7 50-52 41 83 34 49 0.2 Fat CLAY (CH)

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: MEDIUM
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:23 PM

Depth : 60-62 Test Id: 619352
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, dark gray silt
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
U-4 B-7 60-62 40 77 38 39 0.1 Elastic SILT (MH)

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: MEDIUM
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:24 PM

Depth : 75-77 Test Id: 619353
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark gray silt
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
S-18 B-7 75-77 38 79 39 40 0
Dry Strength: HIGH

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:24 PM

Depth : 95-97 Test Id: 619354
Test Comment: ---
Visual Description: Moist, very dark gray sandy clay
Sample Comment: ---
Plasticity Chart
60
50
" U" Line
" A" Line

40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index
30
20
CL or OL
10 MH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Content,%
S-22 B-7 95-97 23 33 19 14 0.3

Dilatancy: SLOW
Toughness: LOW
printed 6/24/2021 1:33:25 PM

6/28/21
6/25/21
6/25/21
6/24/21
--- ---
1.00
--- ---
1.00
--- ---
1.00
--- ---
1.00 1.00
One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B
Summary Report
10
Strain, %
20
30
40
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Vertical Stress, tsf
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
Cv, in²/s
-5
10
-6
10
-7
10
-8
10
-9
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Vertical Stress, tsf
Project: DC3 Wall 22 Failure Bellmawr Location: Bellmawr, NJ Project No.: GTX-313542
Boring No.: B-6 Tested By: trm Checked By: anm
Sample No.: U-2 Test Date: 6/18/21 Depth: 25-27
Test No.: IP-1 Sample Type: intact Elevation: ---

Description: Moist, very dark gray clay
Remarks: System LTIII-D, Swell Pressure = 0.262 tsf
Displacement at End of Increment
2021-06-28 15:23:08 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 1

Time Curve 1 of 13
Constant Volume Step
Stress: 0.262 tsf
1.2
1.0
0.8
Stress, tsf
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
1.2
1.0
0.8
Stress, tsf
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Square Root of Time, √min

2021-06-28 15:23:09 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 2

Time Curve 2 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 0.5 tsf
0.00
0.05
0.10
Strain, %
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
0.00
0.05
0.10
Strain, %
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:09 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 3

Time Curve 3 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 1 tsf
0.2
0.4
0.6
Strain, %
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
0.2
0.4
0.6
Strain, %
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:10 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 4

Time Curve 4 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 2 tsf
1.0
1.5
2.0
Strain, %
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
1.0
1.5
2.0
Strain, %
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:11 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 5

Time Curve 5 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 4 tsf
3.0
3.5
4.0
Strain, %
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
3.0
3.5
4.0
Strain, %
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:11 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 6

Time Curve 6 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 8 tsf
7
Strain, %
10
11
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
7
Strain, %
10
11
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:12 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 7

Time Curve 7 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 16 tsf
10
11
Strain, %
12
13
14
15
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
10
11
Strain, %
12
13
14
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:13 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 8

Time Curve 8 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 32 tsf
14
16
18
Strain, %
20
22
24
26
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
14
16
18
Strain, %
20
22
24
26
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:13 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 9

Time Curve 9 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 8 tsf
18.0
18.5
19.0
Strain, %
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
18.0
18.5
19.0
Strain, %
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:14 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 10

Time Curve 10 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 2 tsf
13
14
15
Strain, %
16
17
18
19
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
13
14
15
Strain, %
16
17
18
19
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:15 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 11

Time Curve 11 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 0.5 tsf
10
11
12
Strain, %
13
14
15
16
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
10
11
12
Strain, %
13
14
15
16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:15 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 12

Time Curve 12 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 0.125 tsf
7.5
8.0
8.5
Strain, %
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
7.5
8.0
8.5
Strain, %
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:16 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 13

Time Curve 13 of 13
Constant Load Step
Stress: 0.0625 tsf
5.5
6.0
6.5
Strain, %
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, min
5.5
6.0
6.5
Strain, %
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2021-06-28 15:23:17 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 14

Specimen Diameter: 2.50 in Measured Specific Gravity: 2.73 Liquid Limit: 84

Initial Height: 1.00 in Initial Void Ratio: 1.08 Plastic Limit: 35
Final Height: 0.92 in Final Void Ratio: 0.91 Plasticity Index: 49
Before Test Before Test After Test After Test

Trimmings Specimen Specimen Trimmings
Container ID aE1623 RING E0416

Mass Container, gm 8.24 112.16 112.16 8.43
Mass Container + Wet Soil, gm 116.74 258.32 253 151.67
Mass Container + Dry Soil, gm 86.25 217.93 217.93 116

Mass Dry Soil, gm 78.01 105.77 105.77 107.57
Water Content, % 39.08 38.19 33.16 33.16
Void Ratio --- 1.08 0.91 ---
Degree of Saturation, % --- 96.87 99.46 ---

Dry Unit Weight, pcf --- 82.084 89.222 ---

2021-06-28 15:23:17 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 15

Square Root of Time Coefficients
Applied Final Void Strain Sq.Rt.

Step Stress Displacement Ratio at End T90 Cv Mv k
tsf in % min in²/s 1/tsf ft/day
1 0.262 0.0004780 1.08 0.0478 258.582 1.37e-05 1.82e-03 4.66e-07

2 0.500 0.002889 1.07 0.289 9.447 3.73e-04 1.01e-02 7.08e-05
3 1.00 0.01273 1.05 1.27 43.763 7.95e-05 1.97e-02 2.93e-05
4 2.00 0.03157 1.01 3.16 69.009 4.90e-05 1.88e-02 1.73e-05

5 4.00 0.05576 0.960 5.58 54.303 5.95e-05 1.21e-02 1.35e-05
6 8.00 0.09008 0.889 9.01 68.498 4.43e-05 8.58e-03 7.12e-06
7 16.0 0.1409 0.784 14.1 113.751 2.43e-05 6.35e-03 2.89e-06
8 32.0 0.2095 0.641 21.0 183.360 1.31e-05 4.29e-03 1.05e-06
9 8.00 0.1806 0.701 18.1 85.734 2.67e-05 1.20e-03 6.02e-07
10 2.00 0.1393 0.787 13.9 270.490 9.22e-06 6.88e-03 1.19e-06

11 0.500 0.1030 0.862 10.3 426.645 6.40e-06 2.42e-02 2.90e-06
12 0.125 0.07806 0.914 7.81 275.848 1.06e-05 6.64e-02 1.32e-05
13 0.0625 0.05610 0.960 5.61 --- --- 3.51e-01 ---

Displacement at End of Increment
2021-06-28 15:23:17 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 16

APPENDIX D
REVIEW
MSEW DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CHECK
Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0 MSEW Version 3.0
MSEW -- Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls I-295/Rte 42 MSE Wall 22

Present Date/Time: Tue Oct 05 11:15:58 2021 C:\Users\kgurski\Desktop\Appendix D\Wall 22_H=27.12_Foundation Phi=32.BEN
AASHTO 2007-2010 (LRFD)

I-295/Rte 42 MSE Wall 22
MSEW(3.0): Update # 14.2
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Title: I-295/Rte 42 MSE Wall 22
Project Number:
Client: NJDOT
Designer: YL/AR
Station Number:
Description:
Wall 22 H=27.12'
Company's information:
Name: H&H
Street:
, 1
Telephone #:
Fax #:
E-Mail:
Original file path and name: C:\Users\kgurski\Desktop\Appendix D\Wall 22_H=27.12_Fou.....

.....oundation Phi=32.BEN
Original date and time of creating this file: 4/15/2021
PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS

of a SIMPLE STRUCTURE
using METAL STRIPS as reinforcing material.
I-295/Rte 42 MSE Wall 22 Page 1 of 11

Copyright © 1998-2011 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. License number MSEW-302444

SOIL DATA
REINFORCED SOIL
Unit weight,  120.0 lb/ft ³
Design value of internal angle of friction,  34.0 °
RETAINED SOIL
FOUNDATION SOIL (Considered as an equivalent uniform soil)

Equivalent unit weight,  equiv. 120.0 lb/ft ³
Equivalent internal angle of friction, equiv. 32.0 °
Equivalent cohesion, c equiv. 0.0 lb/ft ²
Water table does not affect bearing capacity
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

Ka (internal stability) = 0.2827 (if batter is less than 10°, Ka is calculated from eq. 15. Otherwise, eq. 38 is utilized)
Ka (external stability) = 0.2948 (if batter is less than 10°, Ka is calculated from eq. 16. Otherwise, eq. 17 is utilized)
BEARING CAPACITY
Bearing capacity coefficients (calculated by MSEW): Nc = 35.49 N  = 30.21
SEISMICITY
Not Applicable


INPUT DATA: Metal strips

(Analysis)
D A T A Metal strip Metal strip Metal strip Metal strip Metal strip
type #1 type #2 type #3 type #4 type #5
Yield strength of steel, Fy [kips/in ²] 65.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gross width of strip, b [in] 1.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vertical spacing, Sv [ft] Varies N/A N/A N/A N/A
Design cross section area, Ac [in ²] 0.19 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ribbed steel strips.

Uniformity Coefficient of reinforced soil, Cu = D60/D10 = 4.0
Friction angle along reinforcement-soil interface, 

@ the top 60.97 N/A N/A N/A N/A
@ 19.7 ft or below 34.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pullout resistance factor, F*
Scale-effect correction factor,  1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Note: Z for calculating K/Ka and F* is measured from roadway surface (FHWA-NHI-10-024).
Variation of Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient With Depth

K / Ka
Z K / Ka 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
0
0 ft 1.70
3.3 ft 1.60 Z [ft]
6.6
6.6 ft 1.55
9.8 ft 1.45
9.8
13.1 ft 1.35
16.4 ft 1.30
16.4
19.7 ft 1.20
26.2
32.8


INPUT DATA: Facia and Connection

(Analysis)
FACIA type: Segmental precast concrete panels.
Depth of panel is 0.46 ft. Horizontal distance to Center of Gravity of panel is 0.23 ft.
Average unit weight of panel is  f = 150.00 lb/ft ³
Top of wall
Z / Hd To-static / Tmax Z / Hd 0.00
0.25
0.00 1.00
0.50
0.25 1.00
0.50 1.00 0.75
0.75 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50
To-static / Tmax
D A T A (for connection only) Type #1 Type #2 Type #3 Type #4 Type #5
Product Name MetalStrip N/A N/A N/A N/A

Strength reduction at the connection,
CRu = Fyc / Fy 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A


INPUT DATA: Geometry and Surcharge loads (of a SIMPLE STRUCTURE)

Design height, Hd 27.12 [ft] { Embedded depth is E = 3.00 ft, and height above top of finished
bottom grade is H = 24.12 ft }
Batter,  0.0 [deg]
Backslope,  0.0 [deg]
Backslope rise 0.0 [ft] Broken back equivalent angle, I = 0.00° (see Fig. 25 in DEMO 82)
UNIFORM SURCHARGE
Uniformly distributed dead load is 0.0 [lb/ft ²], and live load is 250.0 [lb/ft ²]
ANALYZED REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT:
SCALE:
0 2 4 6 8 10[ft]


AASHTO 2007-2010 (LRFD) Input Data
INTERNAL STABILITY
Load factor for vertical earth pressure, EV, from Table 3.4.1-2:  p-EV 1.35
Load factor for earthquake loads, EQ, from Table 3.4.1-1:  p-EQ 1.00
Load factor for live load surchrge, LS, from Figure C11.5.5-3(b):  p-LS 1.75
(Same as in External Stability).
Load factor for dead load surchrge, ES:  p-ES 1.50
Resistance factor for reinforcement tension from Table 11.5.6-1:  Static Combined static/seismic
Metal Strips: 0.75 1.00
Resistance factor for reinforcement tension in connectors from Table 11.5.6-1:  Static Combined static/seismic
Resistance factor for reinforcement pullout from Table 11.5.6-1:  0.90 1.20
EXTERNAL STABILITY
Load factor for vertical earth pressure, EV, from Table 3.4.1-2 and Figure C11.5.5-2: Static Combined Static/Seismic
Sliding and Eccentricity  p-EV 1.00  p-EQ 1.00
Bearing Capacity  p-EV 1.35  p-EQ 1.35
Load factor of active lateral earth pressure, EH, from Table 3.4.1-2 and Figure C11.5.5-2:  p-EH 1.50
Load factor of active lateral earth pressure during earthquake (does not multiply PAE and PIR ): 
p-EH
EQ
1.50
Load factor for earthquake loads, EQ, from Table 3.4.1-1 (multiplies PAE and PIR ):  p-EQ 1.00
Resistance factor for shear resistance along common interfaces from Table 10.5.5.2.2-1: Static Combined Static/Seismic
Reinforced Soil and Foundation  1.00 1.00
Reinforced Soil and Reinforcement   1.00 1.00
Resistance factor for bearing capacity of shallow foundation from Table 10.5.5.2.2-1: Static Combined Static/Seismic
b 0.65 0.65


ANALYSIS: CALCULATED FACTORS (Static conditions)

Bearing capacity, CDR = 2.56, factored bearing load = 6499 lb/ft².
Foundation Interface: Direct sliding, CDR = 1.679, Eccentricity, e/L = 0.1905, CDR-overturning = 2.62
METAL STRIP CONNECTION

CDR CDR CDR Metal strip Pullout Direct Eccentricity Product
# Elevation Length Type [pullout [connection [metal strip strength resistance sliding e/L name
[ft] [ft] # resistance] break] strength] CDR CDR CDR
1 1.25 19.00 1 N/A 1.21 1.21 1.208 1.541 1.886 0.1751 MetalStrip
2 3.75 19.00 1 N/A 1.06 1.06 1.059 1.131 2.053 0.1463 MetalStrip
3 6.25 19.00 1 N/A 1.17 1.17 1.170 1.029 2.253 0.1200 MetalStrip
4 8.75 19.00 1 N/A 1.27 1.27 1.270 1.001 2.495 0.0962 MetalStrip
5 11.25 19.00 1 N/A 1.37 1.37 1.371 1.011 2.796 0.0750 MetalStrip
6 13.75 19.00 1 N/A 1.52 1.52 1.525 1.001 3.179 0.0564 MetalStrip
7 16.25 19.00 1 N/A 1.72 1.72 1.725 1.089 3.685 0.0403 MetalStrip
8 18.75 19.00 1 N/A 2.01 2.01 2.007 1.160 4.381 0.0268 MetalStrip
9 21.25 19.00 1 N/A 2.80 2.80 2.799 1.376 5.401 0.0158 MetalStrip
10 23.12 19.00 1 N/A 3.02 3.02 3.024 1.603 6.541 0.0092 MetalStrip


BEARING CAPACITY for GIVEN LAYOUT
STATIC SEISMIC UNITS

(Water table does not affect bearing capacity)
Factored bearing resistance, q-n 16642 N/A [lb/ft ²]
Factored bearing load, V 6499.3 N/A [lb/ft ²]
Eccentricity, e 2.44 N/A [ft]
Eccentricity, e/L 0.128 N/A
CDR calculated 2.56 N/A
Base length 19.00 N/A [ft]
Unfactored applied bearing pressure = (Unfactored R) / [ L - 2 * (Unfactored e) ] =

Unfactored R = 66583.56 [lb/ft], L = 19.00, Unfactored e = 2.17 [ft], and Sigma = 4543.92 [lb/ft ²]
SCALE:
0 2 4 6 8 10[ft]


DIRECT SLIDING for GIVEN LAYOUT (for METAL STRIPS reinforcements)

Along reinforced and foundation soils interface: CDR-static = 1.679
# Metal strip Metal strip CDR CDR Metal strip

Elevation Length Static Seismic Type # Product name
[ft] [ft]
1 1.25 19.00 1.886 N/A 1 MetalStrip

2 3.75 19.00 2.053 N/A 1 MetalStrip
3 6.25 19.00 2.253 N/A 1 MetalStrip
4 8.75 19.00 2.495 N/A 1 MetalStrip
5 11.25 19.00 2.796 N/A 1 MetalStrip
6 13.75 19.00 3.179 N/A 1 MetalStrip
7 16.25 19.00 3.685 N/A 1 MetalStrip
8 18.75 19.00 4.381 N/A 1 MetalStrip
9 21.25 19.00 5.401 N/A 1 MetalStrip
10 23.12 19.00 6.541 N/A 1 MetalStrip
ECCENTRICITY for GIVEN LAYOUT
At interface with foundation: e/L static = 0.1905; Overturning: CDR-static = 2.62
# Metal strip Metal strip e/L e/L Metal strip

[ft] [ft]
1 1.25 19.00 0.1751 N/A 1 MetalStrip

2 3.75 19.00 0.1463 N/A 1 MetalStrip
3 6.25 19.00 0.1200 N/A 1 MetalStrip
4 8.75 19.00 0.0962 N/A 1 MetalStrip
5 11.25 19.00 0.0750 N/A 1 MetalStrip
6 13.75 19.00 0.0564 N/A 1 MetalStrip
7 16.25 19.00 0.0403 N/A 1 MetalStrip
8 18.75 19.00 0.0268 N/A 1 MetalStrip
9 21.25 19.00 0.0158 N/A 1 MetalStrip
10 23.12 19.00 0.0092 N/A 1 MetalStrip


RESULTS for STRENGTH Live Actual

[ Note: Load included
CDR = in calculating
(Yield stress)Tmax
/ (Actual stress) ]
# Metal strip Coverage Horizontal Long-term Tmax Tmd Specified Actual Specified Actual
Elevation ratio, spacing, Sh strength [lb/ft] [lb/ft] minimum calculated minimum calculated
[ft] Rc=b/Sh [ft] FyꞏAcꞏRc/b CDR CDR CDR CDR
[lb/ft] static static seismic seismic
1 1.25 0.080 2.000 4741 3925.59 N/A N/A 1.208 N/A N/A
2 3.75 0.064 2.500 3793 3582.09 N/A N/A 1.059 N/A N/A
3 6.25 0.064 2.500 3793 3241.12 N/A N/A 1.170 N/A N/A
4 8.75 0.064 2.500 3793 2986.34 N/A N/A 1.270 N/A N/A
5 11.25 0.064 2.500 3793 2766.43 N/A N/A 1.371 N/A N/A
6 13.75 0.064 2.500 3793 2487.44 N/A N/A 1.525 N/A N/A
7 16.25 0.064 2.500 3793 2198.94 N/A N/A 1.725 N/A N/A
8 18.75 0.064 2.500 3793 1889.43 N/A N/A 2.007 N/A N/A
9 21.25 0.064 2.500 3793 1354.95 N/A N/A 2.799 N/A N/A
10 23.12 0.095 1.670 5678 1877.74 N/A N/A 3.024 N/A N/A
RESULTS for PULLOUT Live Load NOT included in calculating Tmax
NOTE: Live load is not included in calculating the overburden pressure used to assess pullout resistance.
# Metal strip Coverage Tmax Tmd Le La Avail.Static Specified Actual Avail.Seism. Specified Actual
Elevation Ratio [lb/ft] [lb/ft] [ft] [ft] Pullout, Pr Static Static Pullout, Pr Seismic Seismic
[ft] Rc=b/Sh (see NOTE) [lb/ft] CDR CDR [lb/ft] CDR CDR
1 1.25 0.080 3554.5 N/A 18.25 0.75 5477.1 N/A 1.541 N/A N/A N/A
2 3.75 0.064 3211.0 N/A 16.75 2.25 3632.9 N/A 1.131 N/A N/A N/A
3 6.25 0.064 2869.8 N/A 15.25 3.75 2953.6 N/A 1.029 N/A N/A N/A
4 8.75 0.064 2602.9 N/A 13.75 5.25 2606.1 N/A 1.001 N/A N/A N/A
5 11.25 0.064 2363.6 N/A 12.25 6.75 2389.2 N/A 1.011 N/A N/A N/A
6 13.75 0.064 2068.8 N/A 10.86 8.14 2070.7 N/A 1.001 N/A N/A N/A
7 16.25 0.064 1760.3 N/A 10.86 8.14 1916.4 N/A 1.089 N/A N/A N/A
8 18.75 0.064 1427.2 N/A 10.86 8.14 1654.9 N/A 1.160 N/A N/A N/A
9 21.25 0.064 935.0 N/A 10.86 8.14 1286.3 N/A 1.376 N/A N/A N/A
10 23.12 0.095 878.3 N/A 10.86 8.14 1408.1 N/A 1.603 N/A N/A N/A


RESULTS for CONNECTION (static conditions)

Live Load included in calculating Tmax
# Metal strip Coverage Horizontal Connection Reduction Long-term Metal strip CDR CDR
Elevation ratio spacing, Sh force, To factor for connection long-term connection Metal strip Product
[ft] Rc=b/Sh [ft] [lb/ft] connection strength,Tac strength, break strength name
break, (break [lb/ft]
CRu criterion) Specified Actual Specified Actual
[lb/ft]
1 1.25 0.080 2.000 3926 1.00 4741 4741 N/A 1.21 N/A 1.21 MetalStrip
2 3.75 0.064 2.500 3582 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.06 N/A 1.06 MetalStrip
3 6.25 0.064 2.500 3241 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.17 N/A 1.17 MetalStrip
4 8.75 0.064 2.500 2986 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.27 N/A 1.27 MetalStrip
5 11.25 0.064 2.500 2766 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.37 N/A 1.37 MetalStrip
6 13.75 0.064 2.500 2487 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.52 N/A 1.52 MetalStrip
7 16.25 0.064 2.500 2199 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.72 N/A 1.72 MetalStrip
8 18.75 0.064 2.500 1889 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 2.01 N/A 2.01 MetalStrip
9 21.25 0.064 2.500 1355 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 2.80 N/A 2.80 MetalStrip
10 23.12 0.095 1.670 1878 1.00 5678 5678 N/A 3.02 N/A 3.02 MetalStrip


Present Date/Time: Tue Oct 05 11:14:59 2021 C:\Users\kgurski\Desktop\Appendix D\Wall 22_H=27.12 _Foundation Phi=32, Water Depth=0ft.BEN
AASHTO 2007-2010 (LRFD)

I-295/Rte 42 MSE Wall 22
MSEW(3.0): Update # 14.2
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Title: I-295/Rte 42 MSE Wall 22
Project Number:
Client: NJDOT
Designer: YL/AR
Station Number: 268+50
Description:
Wall 22 H=27.12'
Company's information:
Name: H&H
Street:
, 1
Telephone #:
Fax #:
E-Mail:
Original file path and name: C:\Users\kgurski\Desktop\Appendix D\Wall 22_H=27.12 _Fo.....

..... Water Depth=0ft.BEN
Original date and time of creating this file: 4/15/2021
PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS

of a SIMPLE STRUCTURE
using METAL STRIPS as reinforcing material.


SOIL DATA
REINFORCED SOIL
RETAINED SOIL
FOUNDATION SOIL (Considered as an equivalent uniform soil)

Equivalent unit weight,  equiv. 120.0 lb/ft ³
Equivalent internal angle of friction, equiv. 32.0 °
Equivalent cohesion, c equiv. 0.0 lb/ft ²
Water table is at wall base elevation
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

Ka (internal stability) = 0.2827 (if batter is less than 10°, Ka is calculated from eq. 15. Otherwise, eq. 38 is utilized)
Ka (external stability) = 0.2948 (if batter is less than 10°, Ka is calculated from eq. 16. Otherwise, eq. 17 is utilized)
BEARING CAPACITY
Bearing capacity coefficients (calculated by MSEW): Nc = 35.49 N  = 30.21
SEISMICITY
Not Applicable


INPUT DATA: Metal strips

(Analysis)
D A T A Metal strip Metal strip Metal strip Metal strip Metal strip
type #1 type #2 type #3 type #4 type #5
Yield strength of steel, Fy [kips/in ²] 65.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gross width of strip, b [in] 1.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vertical spacing, Sv [ft] Varies N/A N/A N/A N/A
Design cross section area, Ac [in ²] 0.19 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ribbed steel strips.

Uniformity Coefficient of reinforced soil, Cu = D60/D10 = 4.0
Friction angle along reinforcement-soil interface, 

Pullout resistance factor, F*
Scale-effect correction factor,  1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Note: Z for calculating K/Ka and F* is measured from roadway surface (FHWA-NHI-10-024).
Variation of Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient With Depth

K / Ka
Z K / Ka 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
0
0 ft 1.70
3.3 ft 1.60 Z [ft]
6.6
6.6 ft 1.55
9.8 ft 1.45
9.8
13.1 ft 1.35
16.4 ft 1.30
16.4
19.7 ft 1.20
26.2
32.8


INPUT DATA: Facia and Connection

(Analysis)
FACIA type: Segmental precast concrete panels.
Depth of panel is 0.46 ft. Horizontal distance to Center of Gravity of panel is 0.23 ft.
Average unit weight of panel is  f = 150.00 lb/ft ³
Top of wall
Z / Hd To-static / Tmax Z / Hd 0.00
0.25
0.00 1.00
0.50
0.25 1.00
0.50 1.00 0.75
0.75 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50
To-static / Tmax
D A T A (for connection only) Type #1 Type #2 Type #3 Type #4 Type #5
Product Name MetalStrip N/A N/A N/A N/A

Strength reduction at the connection,
CRu = Fyc / Fy 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A


INPUT DATA: Geometry and Surcharge loads (of a SIMPLE STRUCTURE)

Design height, Hd 27.12 [ft] { Embedded depth is E = 3.00 ft, and height above top of finished
bottom grade is H = 24.12 ft }
Batter,  0.0 [deg]
Backslope,  0.0 [deg]
Backslope rise 0.0 [ft] Broken back equivalent angle, I = 0.00° (see Fig. 25 in DEMO 82)
UNIFORM SURCHARGE
Uniformly distributed dead load is 0.0 [lb/ft ²], and live load is 250.0 [lb/ft ²]
Hydrostatic water pressure exist in analysis. hw1 = 0.00 and hw2 = 3.00 ft.
ANALYZED REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT:
SCALE:
0 2 4 6 8 10[ft]


AASHTO 2007-2010 (LRFD) Input Data
INTERNAL STABILITY
Load factor for vertical earth pressure, EV, from Table 3.4.1-2:  p-EV 1.35
Load factor for earthquake loads, EQ, from Table 3.4.1-1:  p-EQ 1.00
Load factor for live load surchrge, LS, from Figure C11.5.5-3(b):  p-LS 1.75
Load factor for dead load surchrge, ES:  p-ES 1.50
Resistance factor for reinforcement tension from Table 11.5.6-1:  Static Combined static/seismic
Resistance factor for reinforcement tension in connectors from Table 11.5.6-1:  Static Combined static/seismic
Resistance factor for reinforcement pullout from Table 11.5.6-1:  0.90 1.20
EXTERNAL STABILITY
Load factor for vertical earth pressure, EV, from Table 3.4.1-2 and Figure C11.5.5-2: Static Combined Static/Seismic
Sliding and Eccentricity  p-EV 1.00  p-EQ 1.00
Bearing Capacity  p-EV 1.35  p-EQ 1.35
Load factor of active lateral earth pressure, EH, from Table 3.4.1-2 and Figure C11.5.5-2:  p-EH 1.50
Load factor of active lateral earth pressure during earthquake (does not multiply PAE and PIR ): 
p-EH
EQ
1.50
Load factor for earthquake loads, EQ, from Table 3.4.1-1 (multiplies PAE and PIR ):  p-EQ 1.00
Resistance factor for shear resistance along common interfaces from Table 10.5.5.2.2-1: Static Combined Static/Seismic
Reinforced Soil and Foundation  1.00 1.00
Reinforced Soil and Reinforcement   1.00 1.00
Resistance factor for bearing capacity of shallow foundation from Table 10.5.5.2.2-1: Static Combined Static/Seismic
b 0.65 0.65


ANALYSIS: CALCULATED FACTORS (Static conditions)

Bearing capacity, CDR = 1.24, factored bearing load = 6338 lb/ft².
Foundation Interface: Direct sliding, CDR = 1.582, Eccentricity, e/L = 0.2023, CDR-overturning = 2.28
METAL STRIP CONNECTION

CDR CDR CDR Metal strip Pullout Direct Eccentricity Product
# Elevation Length Type [pullout [connection [metal strip strength resistance sliding e/L name
[ft] [ft] # resistance] break] strength] CDR CDR CDR
1 1.25 19.00 1 N/A 1.15 1.15 1.155 1.415 1.820 0.1816 MetalStrip
2 3.75 19.00 1 N/A 1.05 1.05 1.051 1.122 2.053 0.1463 MetalStrip
3 6.25 19.00 1 N/A 1.17 1.17 1.170 1.029 2.253 0.1200 MetalStrip
4 8.75 19.00 1 N/A 1.27 1.27 1.270 1.001 2.495 0.0962 MetalStrip
5 11.25 19.00 1 N/A 1.37 1.37 1.371 1.011 2.796 0.0750 MetalStrip
6 13.75 19.00 1 N/A 1.52 1.52 1.525 1.001 3.179 0.0564 MetalStrip
7 16.25 19.00 1 N/A 1.72 1.72 1.725 1.089 3.685 0.0403 MetalStrip
8 18.75 19.00 1 N/A 2.01 2.01 2.007 1.160 4.381 0.0268 MetalStrip
9 21.25 19.00 1 N/A 2.80 2.80 2.799 1.376 5.401 0.0158 MetalStrip
10 23.12 19.00 1 N/A 3.02 3.02 3.024 1.603 6.541 0.0092 MetalStrip


BEARING CAPACITY for GIVEN LAYOUT
STATIC SEISMIC UNITS

(Water table is at wall base elevation)
Factored bearing resistance, q-n 7868 N/A [lb/ft ²]
Factored bearing load, V 6337.6 N/A [lb/ft ²]
Eccentricity, e 2.54 N/A [ft]
Eccentricity, e/L 0.134 N/A
CDR calculated 1.24 N/A
Base length 19.00 N/A [ft]
Unfactored applied bearing pressure = (Unfactored R) / [ L - 2 * (Unfactored e) ] =

Unfactored R = 63024.09 [lb/ft], L = 19.00, Unfactored e = 2.30 [ft], and Sigma = 4376.21 [lb/ft ²]
SCALE:
0 2 4 6 8 10[ft]


DIRECT SLIDING for GIVEN LAYOUT (for METAL STRIPS reinforcements)

Along reinforced and foundation soils interface: CDR-static = 1.582
# Metal strip Metal strip CDR CDR Metal strip

[ft] [ft]
1 1.25 19.00 1.820 N/A 1 MetalStrip

2 3.75 19.00 2.053 N/A 1 MetalStrip
3 6.25 19.00 2.253 N/A 1 MetalStrip
4 8.75 19.00 2.495 N/A 1 MetalStrip
5 11.25 19.00 2.796 N/A 1 MetalStrip
6 13.75 19.00 3.179 N/A 1 MetalStrip
7 16.25 19.00 3.685 N/A 1 MetalStrip
8 18.75 19.00 4.381 N/A 1 MetalStrip
9 21.25 19.00 5.401 N/A 1 MetalStrip
10 23.12 19.00 6.541 N/A 1 MetalStrip
ECCENTRICITY for GIVEN LAYOUT
At interface with foundation: e/L static = 0.2023; Overturning: CDR-static = 2.28
# Metal strip Metal strip e/L e/L Metal strip

[ft] [ft]
1 1.25 19.00 0.1816 N/A 1 MetalStrip

2 3.75 19.00 0.1463 N/A 1 MetalStrip
3 6.25 19.00 0.1200 N/A 1 MetalStrip
4 8.75 19.00 0.0962 N/A 1 MetalStrip
5 11.25 19.00 0.0750 N/A 1 MetalStrip
6 13.75 19.00 0.0564 N/A 1 MetalStrip
7 16.25 19.00 0.0403 N/A 1 MetalStrip
8 18.75 19.00 0.0268 N/A 1 MetalStrip
9 21.25 19.00 0.0158 N/A 1 MetalStrip
10 23.12 19.00 0.0092 N/A 1 MetalStrip


RESULTS for STRENGTH Live Actual

[ Note: Load included
CDR = in calculating
(Yield stress)Tmax
/ (Actual stress) ]
# Metal strip Coverage Horizontal Long-term Tmax Tmd Specified Actual Specified Actual
Elevation ratio, spacing, Sh strength [lb/ft] [lb/ft] minimum calculated minimum calculated
[ft] Rc=b/Sh [ft] FyꞏAcꞏRc/b CDR CDR CDR CDR
[lb/ft] static static seismic seismic
1 1.25 0.080 2.000 4741 4106.10 N/A N/A 1.155 N/A N/A
2 3.75 0.064 2.500 3793 3607.88 N/A N/A 1.051 N/A N/A
3 6.25 0.064 2.500 3793 3241.12 N/A N/A 1.170 N/A N/A
4 8.75 0.064 2.500 3793 2986.34 N/A N/A 1.270 N/A N/A
5 11.25 0.064 2.500 3793 2766.43 N/A N/A 1.371 N/A N/A
6 13.75 0.064 2.500 3793 2487.44 N/A N/A 1.525 N/A N/A
7 16.25 0.064 2.500 3793 2198.94 N/A N/A 1.725 N/A N/A
8 18.75 0.064 2.500 3793 1889.43 N/A N/A 2.007 N/A N/A
9 21.25 0.064 2.500 3793 1354.95 N/A N/A 2.799 N/A N/A
10 23.12 0.095 1.670 5678 1877.74 N/A N/A 3.024 N/A N/A
RESULTS for PULLOUT Live Load NOT included in calculating Tmax
NOTE: Live load is not included in calculating the overburden pressure used to assess pullout resistance.
# Metal strip Coverage Tmax Tmd Le La Avail.Static Specified Actual Avail.Seism. Specified Actual
Elevation Ratio [lb/ft] [lb/ft] [ft] [ft] Pullout, Pr Static Static Pullout, Pr Seismic Seismic
[ft] Rc=b/Sh (see NOTE) [lb/ft] CDR CDR [lb/ft] CDR CDR
1 1.25 0.080 3735.0 N/A 18.25 0.75 5284.3 N/A 1.415 N/A N/A N/A
2 3.75 0.064 3236.8 N/A 16.75 2.25 3632.9 N/A 1.122 N/A N/A N/A
3 6.25 0.064 2869.8 N/A 15.25 3.75 2953.6 N/A 1.029 N/A N/A N/A
4 8.75 0.064 2602.9 N/A 13.75 5.25 2606.1 N/A 1.001 N/A N/A N/A
5 11.25 0.064 2363.6 N/A 12.25 6.75 2389.2 N/A 1.011 N/A N/A N/A
6 13.75 0.064 2068.8 N/A 10.86 8.14 2070.7 N/A 1.001 N/A N/A N/A
7 16.25 0.064 1760.3 N/A 10.86 8.14 1916.4 N/A 1.089 N/A N/A N/A
8 18.75 0.064 1427.2 N/A 10.86 8.14 1654.9 N/A 1.160 N/A N/A N/A
9 21.25 0.064 935.0 N/A 10.86 8.14 1286.3 N/A 1.376 N/A N/A N/A
10 23.12 0.095 878.3 N/A 10.86 8.14 1408.1 N/A 1.603 N/A N/A N/A


RESULTS for CONNECTION (static conditions)

Live Load included in calculating Tmax
# Metal strip Coverage Horizontal Connection Reduction Long-term Metal strip CDR CDR
Elevation ratio spacing, Sh force, To factor for connection long-term connection Metal strip Product
[ft] Rc=b/Sh [ft] [lb/ft] connection strength,Tac strength, break strength name
break, (break [lb/ft]
CRu criterion) Specified Actual Specified Actual
[lb/ft]
1 1.25 0.080 2.000 4106 1.00 4741 4741 N/A 1.15 N/A 1.15 MetalStrip
2 3.75 0.064 2.500 3608 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.05 N/A 1.05 MetalStrip
3 6.25 0.064 2.500 3241 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.17 N/A 1.17 MetalStrip
4 8.75 0.064 2.500 2986 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.27 N/A 1.27 MetalStrip
5 11.25 0.064 2.500 2766 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.37 N/A 1.37 MetalStrip
6 13.75 0.064 2.500 2487 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.52 N/A 1.52 MetalStrip
7 16.25 0.064 2.500 2199 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 1.72 N/A 1.72 MetalStrip
8 18.75 0.064 2.500 1889 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 2.01 N/A 2.01 MetalStrip
9 21.25 0.064 2.500 1355 1.00 3793 3793 N/A 2.80 N/A 2.80 MetalStrip
10 23.12 0.095 1.670 1878 1.00 5678 5678 N/A 3.02 N/A 3.02 MetalStrip

Appendix D - MSEW Construction Records
I‐14 Nuclear Density Moisture Field Testing
I-14 - Nuclear Gauge Testing Summary
Date of Report Report # Moisture Dry et Density (p % Compaction
6/6/2019 46 7.5 99.9 105.9 98.8 115.0
6/6/2019 47 6.4 99.4 104.7 98.5
Dry Density(pcf)
6/6/2019 48 7.4 99.2 106.8 99.1
6/10/2019 49 7.0 99.9 107.2 99.4 Wet Density (pcf)
110.0
6/10/2019 50 9.8 97.5 108.2 97.5
6/11/2019 51 10.1 97.2 107.5 96.8
6/11/2019 52 7.2 101.9 109.5 101.0
105.0
Density (pcf)
6/12/2019 53 6.0 100.2 106.1 99.5
6/28/2019 54 6.1 99.1 104.5 99.0
6/28/2019 55 6.8 101.2 108.3 100.9
6/28/2019 56 8.0 97.8 105.6 97.8
100.0
7/1/2019 57 7.8 98.3 105.4 97.8
7/1/2019 58 6.9 100.5 107.9 99.2
7/1/2019 59 6.8 97.7 104.3 97.0
7/1/2019 60 6.3 98.3 104.1 96.8 95.0
7/2/2019 61 5.2 96.1 101.6 96.0
7/2/2019 62 6.8 97.4 103.0 96.6
7/2/2019 63 5.9 97.6 103.4 97.2
90.0
7/2/2019 64 5.0 99.5 104.9 98.8
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
7/12/2019 65 9.7 99.2 108.7 98.4
Report Number
7/12/2019 66 7.1 98.6 106.2 97.9
7/12/2019 67 8.3 98.9 107.3 98.4
7/15/2019 68 6.7 99.2 105.4 97.4 I-14 - Nuclear Gauge Testing Summary
7/15/2019 69 6.6 99.4 106.3 98.7 115.0
Average 98.3
% Compaction
Compaction % 110.0
105.0
100.0
95.0
90.0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Report Number
I‐15 Nuclear Density Moisture Field Testing
Date of Report Report # Moisture Dry Wet % Compaction
7/11/2019 101 8.1 118.1 127.9 99.0 135.0
7/12/2019 102 10.9 117.1 129.9 98.0 Dry Density(pcf)
113 8.6 116.3 125.3 96.9 133.0
8/13/2019
Wet Density (pcf)
8/19/2019 114 7.2 120.4 129.9 100.8
131.0
8/19/2019 115 9.1 118.2 128.4 98.8
8/20/2019 116 8.5 119.2 128.8 98.5 129.0
8/20/2019 117 7.5 121.8 130.1 101.6
8/21/2019 118 6.9 119.7 128.1 99.9 127.0
Density (pcf)
8/22/2019 119 8.8 121.7 131.8 101.5
8/23/2019 120 9.5 115.6 126.5 96.8 125.0
8/26/2019 121 9.1 119.9 130.2 99.8
123.0
8/28/2019 122 8.6 117.6 127.6 98.2
8/29/2019 123 7.9 116.9 126.2 98.1
121.0
9/5/2019 124 7.7 116.0 125.4 97.0
Average 98.9 119.0
117.0
115.0
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Report Number

106.0
104.0 % Compaction
102.0
Average Compaction % 100.0
98.0
96.0
94.0
92.0
90.0
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Report Number
APPENDIX E
I-11 SLOPE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REVIEW

SANDY CHECK
Slope Stability Check
(sensitivity analyses)
80
1.600
Method Min
Name FS
60
Spencer 1.600
40
W
20
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg)
0
In-Situ Soil 115 Mohr-Coulomb 50 28

CSES 138 Mohr-Coulomb 3000 41
I-11 115 Mohr-Coulomb 0 32
-20

-40
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
I-295 Direct Connect Contract 3
Group Scenario
Group 1 Focus Point
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date File Name
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
4/14/2021 I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry).slmd
80
1.261
60
Method Min
Name FS
40
Spencer 1.261 W
W
20
0

-20
On Site Borrow 122 Mohr-Coulomb 0 28

-40
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Toe Check
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date File Name
4/14/2021 I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry).slmd
Table of Contents
Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Currently Open Scenarios ........................................................................................................................... 2
General Settings ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Analysis Options ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
All Open Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Groundwater Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Random Numbers ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Surface Options ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Seismic Loading ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Materials .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Materials In Use ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Entity Information ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Group 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Shared Entities ........................................................................................................................... 11
Scenario-based Entities ............................................................................................................... 11
I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry) Friday, October 29, 2021
Slide Analysis Information
I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry)
Project Summary
File Name: I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry).slmd
Last saved with Slide version: 9.008
Project Title: I-295 Direct Connect Contract 3
Analysis: RW-22 on Embankment Fill
Company: H&H
Date Created: 4/14/2021
Currently Open Scenarios

Group Name Scenario Name Compute Time
Group 1 Master Scenario
Focus Point
Toe Check
2/11
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Right to Left
3/11
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Spencer
Number of slices: 30
Tolerance: 0.01
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
Yes
water tables and piezos:
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
4/11
Groundwater Analysis
All Open Scenarios
Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces
Pore Fluid Unit Weight [lbs/ft3]: 62.4
Use negative pore pressure cutoff: Yes
Maximum negative pore pressure [psf]: 0
Advanced Groundwater Method: None
5/11
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
6/11
Surface Options
All Open Scenarios
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Grid Search
Radius Increment: 10
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Reverse Curvature: Invalid Surfaces
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
7/11
Seismic Loading
All Open Scenarios
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
8/11
Materials
In-Situ Soil
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unsaturated Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Saturated Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 50
Friction Angle [deg] 28
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Hu Value 1
CSES
Color
Cohesion [psf] 3000
Hu Value 1
I-11
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-14
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-15
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
On Site Borrow
9/11
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
Materials In Use
Material Group 1 Focus Point Toe Check
In-Situ Soil
CSES
I-11
I-14
I-15
On Site Borrow
10/11
Entity Information
Group 1
Shared Entities
Type Coordinates (x,y)

80, 10
80, 29
80, 42
80, 70
41, 71.5
28, 71.5
-12, 73.8
-24, 74
External Boundary
-38, 74
-38, 45
-47, 44.5
-77.5, 29
-92, 22
-120, 22
-120, 10
-58, 10
-77.5, 29
Material Boundary -58, 29
-58, 10
-38, 45
-38, 42
Material Boundary
-12, 42
-12, 73.8
-12, 42
Material Boundary
80, 42
-58, 29
Material Boundary
80, 29
Scenario-based Entities
Coordinates
Type Master Scenario Focus Point Toe Check
(x,y)
Assigned to: Assigned to: Assigned to:
In-Situ Soil In-Situ Soil In-Situ Soil
-120, 22
-92, 22 CSES CSES CSES
Water Table -58, 29
I-11 I-11 I-11
80, 29
I-14 I-14 I-15
I-15 I-15 On Site Borrow
Focus Search
Point
Focus Search
Point
11/11
250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2
80
1.418
60
Method Min W
Name FS
40
Spencer 1.418
W
20
0

-20
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Focus Point
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date File Name I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry) - High
4/14/2021
Groundwater.slmd
250.00 lbs/ft2
80
60
W
Method Min 0.534
Name FS
40
Spencer 0.534
W
20
0

-20

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Focus Line
Drawn By Company
H&H
4/14/2021
Groundwater.slmd
100
250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2

75
0.888
50
Method Min
Name FS
Spencer 0.888
W
25
0

-25
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Toe Check
Drawn By Company
H&H
4/14/2021
Groundwater.slmd
Table of Contents
Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Random Numbers ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Surface Options ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Seismic Loading ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Loading ................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Materials ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Materials In Use ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Group 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Shared Entities ........................................................................................................................... 12
I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry) - High Groundwater Monday, November 1, 2021
I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry) -

High Groundwater
Project Summary
I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry) - High
File Name:
Groundwater.slmd
Company: H&H

Focus Point
Focus Line
Toe Check
Localized
2/13
General Settings
Time Units: days
3/13
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
Spencer
Tolerance: 0.01
Yes
4/13
All Open Scenarios
5/13
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
6/13
Surface Options
All Open Scenarios
7/13
Seismic Loading
All Open Scenarios
8/13
Loading
All Open Scenarios

Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 250
Orientation: Vertical
9/13
Materials
In-Situ Soil
Color
Cohesion [psf] 50
Hu Value 1
CSES
Color
Cohesion [psf] 3000
Hu Value 1
I-11
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-14
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-15
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
10/13
Materials In Use
Material Group 1 Focus Point Focus Line Toe Check Localized
In-Situ Soil
CSES
I-11
I-14
I-15
11/13
Entity Information
Group 1
Shared Entities

80, 10
80, 29
80, 42
80, 70
41, 71.5
28, 71.5
-12, 73.8
-24, 74
External Boundary
-38, 74
-38, 45
-47, 44.5
-77.5, 29
-92, 22
-120, 22
-120, 10
-58, 10
-77.5, 29
-58, 10
-38, 45
-38, 42
Material Boundary
-12, 42
-12, 73.8
-12, 42
Material Boundary
80, 42
-58, 29
Material Boundary
80, 29
12/13
Coordinate Master
Type Focus Point Focus Line Toe Check Localized
s (x,y) Scenario
Assigned to: Assigned to: Assigned to: Assigned to: Assigned to:
-120, 22 In-Situ Soil In-Situ Soil In-Situ Soil In-Situ Soil In-Situ Soil
-92, 22 CSES CSES CSES CSES CSES
-77.5, 29
Water Table
-65.5, 35 I-11 I-11 I-11 I-11 I-11
80, 44
I-14 I-14 I-14 I-14 I-14
I-15 I-15 I-15 I-15 I-15
Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant
DistributionO DistributionO DistributionO DistributionO DistributionO
-38, 74
rientation: rientation: rientation: rientation: rientation:
-24, 74
VerticalMagn VerticalMagn VerticalMagn VerticalMagn VerticalMagn
Distributed -12, 73.8
itude: 250 itude: 250 itude: 250 itude: 250 itude: 250
Load 28, 71.5
lbs/ft2Create lbs/ft2Create lbs/ft2Create lbs/ft2Create lbs/ft2Create
41, 71.5
s Excess s Excess s Excess s Excess s Excess
80, 70
Pore Pore Pore Pore Pore
Pressure: No Pressure: No Pressure: No Pressure: No Pressure: No
Focus
Search Point
Focus
Search Point
Focus -77.5, 29
Search Line -47, 44.5
13/13
100
250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2

250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2
1.233
75
50
W
Method Min
Name FS
Spencer 1.233
W
25
0

-25
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Focus Point
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date FileI-295
Name RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry) - High Groundwater -
4/14/2021
Phi 28.slmd
100

75
W
50
Method Min 0.454

Name FS
Spencer 0.454
W
25
0

-25

-50
-150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Focus Line
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date FileI-295
4/14/2021
Phi 28.slmd
100

75
0.756
W
50
Method Min
Name FS
Spencer 0.756
W
25
0

-25

-50
-125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Toe Check
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date FileI-295
4/14/2021
Phi 28.slmd
Table of Contents
Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Random Numbers ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Surface Options ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Seismic Loading ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Loading ................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Materials ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Materials In Use ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Group 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Shared Entities ........................................................................................................................... 12
I-295 RW-22 on Embankment Fill (Dewberry) - High Groundwater - Phi 28 Monday, November 1, 2021

High Groundwater - Phi 28
Project Summary
File Name:
Groundwater - Phi 28.slmd
Company: H&H

Focus Point
Focus Line
Toe Check
Localized
2/13
General Settings
Time Units: days
3/13
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
Spencer
Tolerance: 0.01
Yes
4/13
All Open Scenarios
5/13
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
6/13
Surface Options
All Open Scenarios
7/13
Seismic Loading
All Open Scenarios
8/13
Loading
All Open Scenarios

9/13
Materials
In-Situ Soil
Color
Cohesion [psf] 50
Hu Value 1
CSES
Color
Cohesion [psf] 3000
Hu Value 1
I-11
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-14
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-15
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
10/13
Materials In Use
In-Situ Soil
CSES
I-11
I-14
I-15
11/13
Entity Information
Group 1
Shared Entities

80, 10
80, 29
80, 42
80, 70
41, 71.5
28, 71.5
-12, 73.8
-24, 74
External Boundary
-38, 74
-38, 45
-47, 44.5
-77.5, 29
-92, 22
-120, 22
-120, 10
-58, 10
-77.5, 29
-58, 10
-38, 45
-38, 42
Material Boundary
-12, 42
-12, 73.8
-12, 42
Material Boundary
80, 42
-58, 29
Material Boundary
80, 29
12/13
Coordinate Master
s (x,y) Scenario
-77.5, 29
Water Table
-65.5, 35 I-11 I-11 I-11 I-11 I-11
80, 44
I-14 I-14 I-14 I-14 I-14
I-15 I-15 I-15 I-15 I-15
-38, 74
-24, 74
Load 28, 71.5
41, 71.5
80, 70
Focus
Search Point
Focus
Search Point
Focus -77.5, 29
13/13
1.712
75
W
50
Method Min
Name FS
Spencer 1.712
W
25
0

-25
-50
-75
-175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Focus Point
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date FileI-295
4/14/2021
Phi 38.slmd
100

75
W
50
Method Min 0.667

Name FS
Spencer 0.667
W
25
0

-25
-50
-125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Focus Line
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date FileI-295
4/14/2021
Phi 38.slmd
100
250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2

250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2
80
1.111
60
W
40
Method Min
Name FS
Spencer 1.111
W
20
0

-20
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Toe Check
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date FileI-295
4/14/2021
Phi 38.slmd
Table of Contents
Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Random Numbers ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Surface Options ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Seismic Loading ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Loading ................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Materials ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Materials In Use ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Group 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Shared Entities ........................................................................................................................... 12

High Groundwater - Phi 38
Project Summary
File Name:
Groundwater - Phi 38.slmd
Company: H&H

Focus Point
Focus Line
Toe Check
Localized
2/13
General Settings
Time Units: days
3/13
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
Spencer
Tolerance: 0.01
Yes
4/13
All Open Scenarios
5/13
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
6/13
Surface Options
All Open Scenarios
7/13
Seismic Loading
All Open Scenarios
8/13
Loading
All Open Scenarios

9/13
Materials
In-Situ Soil
Color
Cohesion [psf] 50
Hu Value 1
CSES
Color
Cohesion [psf] 3000
Hu Value 1
I-11
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-14
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-15
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
10/13
Materials In Use
In-Situ Soil
CSES
I-11
I-14
I-15
11/13
Entity Information
Group 1
Shared Entities

80, 10
80, 29
80, 42
80, 70
41, 71.5
28, 71.5
-12, 73.8
-24, 74
External Boundary
-38, 74
-38, 45
-47, 44.5
-77.5, 29
-92, 22
-120, 22
-120, 10
-58, 10
-77.5, 29
-58, 10
-38, 45
-38, 42
Material Boundary
-12, 42
-12, 73.8
-12, 42
Material Boundary
80, 42
-58, 29
Material Boundary
80, 29
12/13
Coordinate Master
s (x,y) Scenario
-77.5, 29
Water Table
-65.5, 35 I-11 I-11 I-11 I-11 I-11
80, 44
I-14 I-14 I-14 I-14 I-14
I-15 I-15 I-15 I-15 I-15
-38, 74
-24, 74
Load 28, 71.5
41, 71.5
80, 70
Focus
Search Point
Focus
Search Point
Focus -77.5, 29
13/13
Slope Stability Check
(As-Constructed Conditions)
100
1.524
250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
75
250.00 lbs/ft2
50
W
25
0

Method Name Min FS
Spencer 1.524 I-14 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 33
-25
-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Deep Seated Check
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date File Name
4/14/2021 As-Built - CMCs - High Water - Phi 28.slmd
100
250.00 lbs/ft2
75
0.726
50
W
25
0

Method Min I-14 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 33
Name FS
-25
-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Toe Check
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date File Name
Table of Contents
Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Random Numbers ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Surface Options ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Seismic Loading ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Loading ................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Materials ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Materials In Use ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Group 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Shared Entities ........................................................................................................................... 12
As-Built - CMCs - High Water - Phi 28 Monday, November 1, 2021
As-Built - CMCs - High Water - Phi 28
Project Summary
File Name: As-Built - CMCs - High Water - Phi 28.slmd
Company: H&H

Deep Seated Check
Toe Check
2/13
General Settings
Time Units: days
3/13
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
Spencer
Tolerance: 0.01
Yes
4/13
All Open Scenarios
5/13
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
6/13
Surface Options
All Open Scenarios
7/13
Seismic Loading
All Open Scenarios
8/13
Loading
All Open Scenarios

9/13
Materials
In-Situ Soil
Color
Cohesion [psf] 50
Hu Value 1
CSES
Color
Cohesion [psf] 3000
Hu Value 1
I-11
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-14
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-15
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
10/13
Materials In Use
Material Group 1 Deep Seated Check Toe Check
In-Situ Soil
CSES
I-11
I-14
I-15
11/13
Entity Information
Group 1
Shared Entities

80, -20
80, 48
80, 62
41, 65
28, 65
-12, 67.5
-24, 68
-38, 68
-38, 45
-47, 44.5
-51.8305, 42
External Boundary
-76.9492, 29
-104, 15
-109, 15
-117, 19
-120, 19
-120, -20
-58, -20
-51, -20
-49.6916, -20
1, -20
2.74055, -20
-12, 42
Material Boundary
1, 42
-38, 45
-38, 42
Material Boundary
-12, 42
-12, 67.5
1, 42
1, 44.8608
Material Boundary 1, 45
1, 48
80, 48
-51, 37
0.949, 37.071
1, 37
Material Boundary
1, 42
-51, 29
Material Boundary
-51, 37
-76.9492, 29
-51, -20
1, -20
Material Boundary
1, 37
1, -20
Material Boundary
1.004, -19.996
12/13
Coordinates Deep Seated

Type Master Scenario Toe Check
(x,y) Check
-120, 15
Water Table -65.5, 35
I-11 I-11 I-11
80, 44
I-14 I-14 I-14
I-15 I-15 I-15
Constant Constant Constant
-38, 68
DistributionOrient DistributionOrient DistributionOrient
-24, 68
ation: ation: ation:
-12, 67.5
Distributed Load VerticalMagnitude: VerticalMagnitude: VerticalMagnitude:
28, 65
250 lbs/ft2Creates 250 lbs/ft2Creates 250 lbs/ft2Creates
41, 65
Excess Pore Excess Pore Excess Pore
80, 62
Pressure: No Pressure: No Pressure: No
Focus Search
Point
13/13
100
1.693
80
250.00 lbs/ft2250.00 lbs/ft2

250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
60
W
40
W
20
0

Method
Name
Min FS I-14 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 33
-20
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date File Name
100
250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
80
250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
0.854
60
W
40
W
20
0

Method Name Min FS I-14 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 33
-20
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Toe Check
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date File Name
Table of Contents
Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Random Numbers ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Surface Options ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Seismic Loading ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Loading ................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Materials ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Materials In Use ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Group 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Shared Entities ........................................................................................................................... 12
Project Summary
Company: H&H

Deep Seated Check
Toe Check
2/13
General Settings
Time Units: days
3/13
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
Spencer
Tolerance: 0.01
Yes
4/13
All Open Scenarios
5/13
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
6/13
Surface Options
All Open Scenarios
7/13
Seismic Loading
All Open Scenarios
8/13
Loading
All Open Scenarios

9/13
Materials
In-Situ Soil
Color
Cohesion [psf] 50
Hu Value 1
CSES
Color
Cohesion [psf] 3000
Hu Value 1
I-11
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-14
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-15
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
10/13
Materials In Use
In-Situ Soil
CSES
I-11
I-14
I-15
11/13
Entity Information
Group 1
Shared Entities

80, -20
80, 48
80, 62
41, 65
28, 65
-12, 67.5
-24, 68
-38, 68
-38, 45
-47, 44.5
-51.8305, 42
External Boundary
-76.9492, 29
-104, 15
-109, 15
-117, 19
-120, 19
-120, -20
-58, -20
-51, -20
-49.6916, -20
1, -20
2.74055, -20
-12, 42
Material Boundary
1, 42
-38, 45
-38, 42
Material Boundary
-12, 42
-12, 67.5
1, 42
1, 44.8608
1, 48
80, 48
-51, 37
0.949, 37.071
1, 37
Material Boundary
1, 42
-51, 29
Material Boundary
-51, 37
-76.9492, 29
-51, -20
1, -20
Material Boundary
1, 37
1, -20
Material Boundary
1.004, -19.996
12/13

(x,y) Check
-120, 15
I-11 I-11 I-11
80, 44
I-14 I-14 I-14
I-15 I-15 I-15
-38, 68
-24, 68
-12, 67.5
28, 65
41, 65
80, 62
Focus Search
Point
13/13
100
1.969
80
250.00 lbs/ft2250.00 lbs/ft2

250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
60
W
40
W
20
0
Method Name Min FS I-14 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 33

-20
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date File Name
250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
80
250.00 lbs/ft2
250.00 lbs/ft2
1.069
60
W
40
W
20
0
Method I-14 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 33

Min FS
Name I-15 117 Mohr-Coulomb 0 34
-20
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Project
Group Scenario
Group 1 Toe Check
Drawn By Company
H&H
Date File Name
Table of Contents
Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Random Numbers ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Surface Options ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Seismic Loading ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Loading ................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Materials ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Materials In Use ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Group 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Shared Entities ........................................................................................................................... 12
Project Summary
Company: H&H

Deep Seated Check
Toe Check
2/13
General Settings
Time Units: days
3/13
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
Spencer
Tolerance: 0.01
Yes
4/13
All Open Scenarios
5/13
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
6/13
Surface Options
All Open Scenarios
7/13
Seismic Loading
All Open Scenarios
8/13
Loading
All Open Scenarios

9/13
Materials
In-Situ Soil
Color
Cohesion [psf] 50
Hu Value 1
CSES
Color
Cohesion [psf] 3000
Hu Value 1
I-11
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-14
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
I-15
Color
Cohesion [psf] 0
Hu Value 1
10/13
Materials In Use
In-Situ Soil
CSES
I-11
I-14
I-15
11/13
Entity Information
Group 1
Shared Entities

80, -20
80, 48
80, 62
41, 65
28, 65
-12, 67.5
-24, 68
-38, 68
-38, 45
-47, 44.5
-51.8305, 42
External Boundary
-76.9492, 29
-104, 15
-109, 15
-117, 19
-120, 19
-120, -20
-58, -20
-51, -20
-49.6916, -20
1, -20
2.74055, -20
-12, 42
Material Boundary
1, 42
-38, 45
-38, 42
Material Boundary
-12, 42
-12, 67.5
1, 42
1, 44.8608
1, 48
80, 48
-51, 37
0.949, 37.071
1, 37
Material Boundary
1, 42
-51, 29
Material Boundary
-51, 37
-76.9492, 29
-51, -20
1, -20
Material Boundary
1, 37
1, -20
Material Boundary
1.004, -19.996
12/13

(x,y) Check
-120, 15
I-11 I-11 I-11
80, 44
I-14 I-14 I-14
I-15 I-15 I-15
-38, 68
-24, 68
-12, 67.5
28, 65
41, 65
80, 62
Focus Search
Point
13/13
Sandy Slope Deformation Check
(PLAXIS)
Wall 22 Model
PLAXIS Report
Filename Wall 22 Model - EOR - Low Groundwater - Phi 32 -

fixed.p3d
Directory C:\Users\ny-guest\Desktop\PJ\
Title Wall 22 Model
Model PLAXIS 3D
Elements 10-Noded
PLAXIS Version Version 21.1.0.479
Output Version 21.1.0.479
Deformed mesh |u|mesh

Deformed (scaled
|u| up 20.0 times)
(scaled up 20.0(Time 550.0
times) ( day)
Maximum value = 0.2749 ft (at Node 2794)
Project description Date
EOR 11/1/2021
Project filename Step Company
Wall 22 Model - EOR - Lo ... 28 Hardesty and Hanover, LLC

[*10-3 ft]
280.00
260.00
240.00
220.00
200.00
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Total displacements |u| (scaled|u|up

Total displacements 20.0 times)
(scaled (Time
up 20.0 550.0
times) ( day)
Maximum value = 0.2749 ft (Element 3769 at Node 2794)
Wall 22 Model 11/1/2021


[*10-3 ft]
20.00
0.00
-20.00
-40.00
-60.00
-80.00
-100.00
-120.00
-140.00
-160.00
-180.00
-200.00
-220.00
-240.00
-260.00
-280.00
Total displacements ux (scaled

Total displacements u up 20.0 times)
(scaled (Time
up 20.0 550.0
times) (T day)
x
Maximum value = 0.5938*10-3 ft (Element 5408 at Node 6644)
Minimum value = -0.2601 ft (Element 3769 at Node 2794)
Wall 22 Model 11/1/2021


Wall 22 Model
1.1.1.1 Calculation results, Phase_2 [Phase_2] (2/28), Materials plot
2
Wall 22 Model
1.1.2.1.1.1 Materials - Soil and interfaces - Hardening soil (1/2)
Identification Sandy Soil Upper Clay Lower Clay I-15 I-14
Identification number 1 2 3 4 5
Drainage type Drained Undrained (A) Undrained (A) Drained Drained
Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 120.0 115.0 120.0 138.0 120.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 120.0 115.0 120.0 138.0 120.0
Dilatancy cut-off No No No No No
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
e min 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
E 50 ref
lbf/ft² 667.8E3 24.80E3 600.0E3 1.126E6 1.126E6
E oed ref
lbf/ft² 667.8E3 24.80E3 600.0E3 1.126E6 1.126E6
E ur ref lbf/ft² 2.003E6 118.0E3 1.800E6 3.378E6 3.380E6
power (m) 0.5000 1.000 1.000 0.5000 0.5000
Use alternatives No No No No No
C c 0.01079 0.3645 0.01523 6.399E-3 6.399E-3
3
Wall 22 Model
C s 3.237E-3 0.06895 4.568E-3 1.920E-3 1.919E-3
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
c ref lbf/ft² 5.000 5.000 5.000 5000 0.000
φ (phi) ° 30.00 27.00 27.00 36.00 33.00
ψ (psi) ° 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.000 4.000
Set to default values No Yes No No No
ν ur 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
p ref lbf/ft² 2089 2089 2089 2089 2089
K0 nc
0.5000 0.5460 0.5460 0.4122 0.4554
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
z ref ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R f 0.8000 0.9000 0.9000 0.8000 0.8000
Tension cut-off Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tensile strength lbf/ft² 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Undrained behaviour Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
Skempton-B 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866
ν u 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
K w,ref / n lbf/ft² 82.08E6 4.835E6 73.75E6 138.4E6 138.5E6
Stiffness Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
Strength Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid
R inter 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Consider gap closure Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4
Wall 22 Model
δ inter 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Cross permeability Impermeable Impermeable Impermeable Impermeable Impermeable
Drainage conductivity 1 , dk ft³/day/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0 determination Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic
K 0,x = K 0,y Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
K 0,x 0.5000 10.00E9 0.8420 0.4122 0.4554
K 0,y 0.5000 10.00E9 0.8420 0.4122 0.4554
OCR 1.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 1.000
POP lbf/ft² 0.000 5625 0.000 0.000 0.000
kx ft/day 1.968 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 0.1000 0.1000
ky ft/day 1.968 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 1.000E-3 1.000E-3
kz ft/day 0.000 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 0.000 0.000
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
Ss 1/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ck 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12
5
Wall 22 Model
Identification I-11 LTM/WP CSES

Identification number 6 7 8
Drainage type Drained Drained Undrained (A)
Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 120.0 125.0 138.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 120.0 125.0 138.0
Dilatancy cut-off No No No
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
e min 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000 0.000 0.000
E 5 0 ref lbf/ft² 300.0E3 1.126E6 1.130E6
E oed ref
lbf/ft² 300.0E3 1.126E6 1.130E6
E ur ref
lbf/ft² 1.244E6 3.380E6 3.380E6
6
Wall 22 Model

power (m) 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
Use alternatives No No No
Cc 0.02402 6.399E-3 8.077E-3
Cs 5.213E-3 1.919E-3 2.430E-3
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
c ref lbf/ft² 0.000 5.000 3000
φ (phi) ° 32.00 38.00 41.00
ψ (psi) ° 4.000 8.000 8.000
Set to default values No No No
ν ur 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
p ref lbf/ft² 2089 2089 2089
K0 nc
0.4701 0.3843 0.4410
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
z ref ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rf 0.8000 0.8000 0.9000
Tension cut-off Yes Yes Yes
Tensile strength lbf/ft² 0.000 0.000 0.000
Undrained behaviour Standard Standard Standard
Skempton-B 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866
7
Wall 22 Model

νu 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
K w,ref / n lbf/ft² 50.97E6 138.5E6 138.5E6
Stiffness Standard Standard Standard
Strength Rigid Rigid Rigid
R inter 1.000 1.000 1.000
Consider gap closure Yes Yes Yes
δ inter 0.000 0.000 0.000
Cross permeability Impermeable Impermeable Impermeable
Drainage conductivity 1 , dk ft³/day/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0 determination Automatic Automatic Automatic
K 0,x = K 0,y Yes Yes Yes
K 0,x 0.4701 0.3843 0.6320
K 0,y 0.4701 0.3843 0.6320
OCR 1.000 1.000 2.000
POP lbf/ft² 0.000 0.000 0.000
kx ft/day 1.968 0.1000 0.1000
ky ft/day 1.968 0.01000 1000
kz ft/day 0.000 0.000 0.000
8
Wall 22 Model

e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
S s 1/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
ck 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12
9
Wall 22 Model
1.1.2.1.2 Materials - Soil and interfaces - Mohr-Coulomb
Identification In-Situ Soil

Identification number 9
Drainage type Drained
Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 115.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 115.0
Dilatancy cut-off No
e init 0.5000
e min 0.000
e max 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
E lbf/ft² 667.8E3
ν (nu) 0.3000
G lbf/ft² 256.8E3
E oed lbf/ft² 899.0E3
10
Wall 22 Model

c ref lbf/ft² 50.00
φ (phi) ° 28.00
ψ (psi) ° 0.000
V s ft/s 268.1
V p ft/s 501.6
Set to default values Yes
E inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000
z ref ft 0.000
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000
z ref ft 0.000
Tension cut-off Yes
Tensile strength lbf/ft² 0.000
Undrained behaviour Standard
Skempton-B 0.9783
νu 0.4950
K w,ref / n lbf/ft² 25.04E6
Stiffness Standard
Strength Rigid
R inter 1.000
11
Wall 22 Model

Consider gap closure Yes
δ inter 0.000
Cross permeability Impermeable
Drainage conductivity 1 , dk ft³/day/ft 0.000
K 0 determination Automatic
K 0,x = K 0,y Yes
K 0,x 0.5305
K 0,y 0.5305
kx ft/day 0.000
ky ft/day 0.000
kz ft/day 0.000
e init 0.5000
S s 1/ft 0.000
ck 1000E12
12
Wall 22 Model
1.1.2.2 Materials - Geogrids -
Identification Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 MSEW Strap

Comments
Colour
Material type Elastoplastic (N-ϵ) Elastoplastic (N-ϵ) Elastic Elastic Elastic
Isotropic No No Yes Yes Yes
EA 1 lbf/ft 68.52 68.52 4000 8000 4175
EA 2 lbf/ft 68.52 68.52 4000 8000 4175
GA lbf/ft 0.000 0.000 2000 4000 2088
N 1 -eps 1 diagram N-epsilon diagram N-epsilon diagram N-epsilon diagram N-epsilon diagram N-epsilon diagram
13
Wall 22 Model
1.1.2.3 Materials - Plates -
Identification Concrete Panel Leveling Pad

Identification number 1 2
Comments
Colour
Material type Elastoplastic Elastic
d ft 0.5000 1.000
γ lbf/ft³ 150.0 150.0
Isotropic Yes Yes
E1 lbf/ft² 3.600E12 3.600E6
E2 lbf/ft² 3.600E12 3.600E6
ν 12 0.4950 0.4950
G 12 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
G 13 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
G 23 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
Yield stress σ y,11 lbf/ft² 8.640E6 0.000
W 11 ft³/ft 150.0 0.000
14
Wall 22 Model

W 22 ft³/ft 150.0 0.000
Rayleigh α 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000 0.000
Prevent punching Yes No
15
Wall 22 Model
1.1.2.4 Materials - Embedded beams -
Identification CMCs
Comments
Colour
Material type Elastic
E lbf/ft² 194.0E6
γ lbf/ft³ 140.0
Beam type Predefined
Predefined beam type Massive circular beam
Diameter ft 1.000
A ft² 0.7854
I2 ft⁴ 0.04909
I3 ft⁴ 0.04909
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
Axial skin resistance Linear
T skin, start, max lbf/ft 1000
16
Wall 22 Model
Identification CMCs
T skin, end, max lbf/ft 1000
F max lbf 60.00E3
17
Wall 22 Model
1.1.3 General information
General information
Project
Filename Wall 22 Model - EOR - Low Groundwater - Phi 32 - fixed.p3d
Title Wall 22 Model
General
Model PLAXIS 3D
Elements 10-Noded
Acceleration
Gravity 1.0 G (-Z direction)
Earth gravity 32.19 ft/s²
Mesh
Nr of soil elements 9650
Nr of nodes 15809
Average element size 4.001 ft
Maximum element size 21.15 ft
Minimum element size 0.1735 ft
18
Wall 22 Model
General information
Comments
19
Wall 22 Model
PLAXIS Report
Filename Wall 22 Model - EOR - High Groundwater - Phi 32 -

fixed.p3d
Title Wall 22 Model
Model PLAXIS 3D
Elements 10-Noded

Deformed (scaled
|u|up 5.00 times)
(scaled (Time
up 5.00 550.0
times) (T day)
EOR 11/1/2021
Wall 22 Model - EOR - H ... 53 Hardesty and Hanover, LLC

[*10-3 ft]
720.00
680.00
640.00
600.00
560.00
520.00
480.00
440.00
400.00
360.00
320.00
280.00
240.00
200.00
160.00
120.00
80.00
40.00
0.00
Total displacements |u| (scaled|u|up

(scaled (Time
up 5.00 550.0
times) ( day)
Wall 22 Model 11/1/2021


[*10-3 ft]
160.00
120.00
80.00
40.00
0.00
-40.00
-80.00
-120.00
-160.00
-200.00
-240.00
-280.00
-320.00
-360.00
-400.00
-440.00
-480.00
-520.00
-560.00
Total displacements ux (scaledu up

(scaled (Time
up 5.00 550.0
times) (T day)
x
Wall 22 Model 11/1/2021


Wall 22 Model
2
Wall 22 Model
Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 120.0 115.0 120.0 138.0 120.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 120.0 115.0 120.0 138.0 120.0
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
e min 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
E 50 ref
lbf/ft² 667.8E3 24.80E3 600.0E3 1.126E6 1.126E6
E oed ref
lbf/ft² 667.8E3 24.80E3 600.0E3 1.126E6 1.126E6
power (m) 0.5000 1.000 1.000 0.5000 0.5000
C c 0.01079 0.3645 0.01523 6.399E-3 6.399E-3
3
Wall 22 Model
C s 3.237E-3 0.06895 4.568E-3 1.920E-3 1.919E-3
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
c ref lbf/ft² 5.000 5.000 5.000 5000 0.000
φ (phi) ° 30.00 27.00 27.00 36.00 33.00
ψ (psi) ° 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.000 4.000
ν ur 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
p ref lbf/ft² 2089 2089 2089 2089 2089
K0 nc
0.5000 0.5460 0.5460 0.4122 0.4554
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
z ref ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R f 0.8000 0.9000 0.9000 0.8000 0.8000
Skempton-B 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866
ν u 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
R inter 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
4
Wall 22 Model
δ inter 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0,x 0.5000 10.00E9 0.8420 0.4122 0.4554
K 0,y 0.5000 10.00E9 0.8420 0.4122 0.4554
OCR 1.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 1.000
POP lbf/ft² 0.000 5625 0.000 0.000 0.000
kx ft/day 1.968 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 0.1000 0.1000
ky ft/day 1.968 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 1.000E-3 1.000E-3
kz ft/day 0.000 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 0.000 0.000
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
Ss 1/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ck 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12
5
Wall 22 Model

Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 120.0 125.0 138.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 120.0 125.0 138.0
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
e min 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000 0.000 0.000
E 5 0 ref lbf/ft² 80.00E3 1.126E6 1.130E6
E oed ref
lbf/ft² 80.00E3 1.126E6 1.130E6
E ur ref
lbf/ft² 1.244E6 3.380E6 3.380E6
6
Wall 22 Model

power (m) 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
Cc 0.09007 6.399E-3 8.077E-3
Cs 5.213E-3 1.919E-3 2.430E-3
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
c ref lbf/ft² 0.000 5.000 3000
φ (phi) ° 32.00 38.00 41.00
ψ (psi) ° 3.000 8.000 8.000
ν ur 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
p ref lbf/ft² 2089 2089 2089
K0 nc
0.4701 0.3843 0.4410
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
z ref ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rf 0.8000 0.8000 0.9000
Skempton-B 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866
7
Wall 22 Model

νu 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
K w,ref / n lbf/ft² 50.97E6 138.5E6 138.5E6
R inter 1.000 1.000 1.000
δ inter 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0,x 0.4701 0.3843 0.6320
K 0,y 0.4701 0.3843 0.6320
OCR 1.000 1.000 2.000
POP lbf/ft² 0.000 0.000 0.000
kx ft/day 1.968 0.1000 0.1000
ky ft/day 1.968 0.01000 1000
kz ft/day 0.000 0.000 0.000
8
Wall 22 Model

e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
S s 1/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
ck 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12
9
Wall 22 Model

Colour
Comments
e init 0.5000
e min 0.000
e max 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
E lbf/ft² 667.8E3
ν (nu) 0.3000
G lbf/ft² 256.8E3
10
Wall 22 Model

φ (phi) ° 28.00
ψ (psi) ° 0.000
V s ft/s 268.1
V p ft/s 501.6
z ref ft 0.000
z ref ft 0.000
Tension cut-off Yes
Skempton-B 0.9783
νu 0.4950
Stiffness Standard
Strength Rigid
R inter 1.000
11
Wall 22 Model

δ inter 0.000
K 0,x = K 0,y Yes
K 0,x 0.5305
K 0,y 0.5305
kx ft/day 0.000
ky ft/day 0.000
kz ft/day 0.000
e init 0.5000
S s 1/ft 0.000
ck 1000E12
12
Wall 22 Model

Comments
Colour
EA 1 lbf/ft 68.52 68.52 4000 8000 4175
EA 2 lbf/ft 68.52 68.52 4000 8000 4175
GA lbf/ft 0.000 0.000 2000 4000 2088
13
Wall 22 Model

Comments
Colour
d ft 0.5000 1.000
γ lbf/ft³ 150.0 150.0
Isotropic Yes Yes
E1 lbf/ft² 3.600E12 3.600E6
E2 lbf/ft² 3.600E12 3.600E6
ν 12 0.4950 0.4950
G 12 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
G 13 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
G 23 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
W 11 ft³/ft 150.0 0.000
14
Wall 22 Model

W 22 ft³/ft 150.0 0.000
15
Wall 22 Model
Identification CMCs
Comments
Colour
E lbf/ft² 194.0E6
γ lbf/ft³ 140.0
Diameter ft 1.000
A ft² 0.7854
I2 ft⁴ 0.04909
I3 ft⁴ 0.04909
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
16
Wall 22 Model
Identification CMCs
F max lbf 60.00E3
17
Wall 22 Model
General information
Project
Filename Wall 22 Model - EOR - High Groundwater - Phi 32 - fixed.p3d
Title Wall 22 Model
General
Model PLAXIS 3D
Elements 10-Noded
Acceleration
Mesh
Nr of nodes 10982
18
Wall 22 Model
General information
Comments
19
Wall 22 Model
PLAXIS Report

fixed.p3d
Title Wall 22 Model
Model PLAXIS 3D
Elements 10-Noded
DeformedDeformed
mesh |u| mesh
(scaled
|u|up 5.00 times)
(scaled (Time
up 5.00 550.0
times) (T day)
Wall 22 Model 11/2/2021


[ft]
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80
2.60
2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Total displacements |u| (scaled |u|

Total displacements up(scaled
5.00 times) (Time
up 5.00 550.0
times) ( day)
Wall 22 Model 11/2/2021


[ft]
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
-1.60
-1.80
-2.00
-2.20
-2.40
-2.60
-2.80
-3.00
Total displacements ux (scaleduup

Total displacements 5.00 times) (Time 550.0 day)
x (scaled up 5.00 times)
Wall 22 Model 11/2/2021


Wall 22 Model
2
Wall 22 Model
Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 120.0 115.0 120.0 138.0 120.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 120.0 115.0 120.0 138.0 120.0
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
e min 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
E 50 ref
lbf/ft² 667.8E3 24.80E3 600.0E3 1.126E6 1.126E6
E oed ref
lbf/ft² 667.8E3 24.80E3 600.0E3 1.126E6 1.126E6
power (m) 0.5000 1.000 1.000 0.5000 0.5000
C c 0.01079 0.3645 0.01523 6.399E-3 6.399E-3
3
Wall 22 Model
C s 3.237E-3 0.06895 4.568E-3 1.920E-3 1.919E-3
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
c ref lbf/ft² 5.000 5.000 5.000 5000 0.000
φ (phi) ° 30.00 27.00 27.00 36.00 33.00
ψ (psi) ° 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.000 4.000
ν ur 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
p ref lbf/ft² 2089 2089 2089 2089 2089
K0 nc
0.5000 0.5460 0.5460 0.4122 0.4554
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
z ref ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R f 0.8000 0.9000 0.9000 0.8000 0.8000
Skempton-B 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866
ν u 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
R inter 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
4
Wall 22 Model
δ inter 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0,x 0.5000 10.00E9 0.8420 0.4122 0.4554
K 0,y 0.5000 10.00E9 0.8420 0.4122 0.4554
OCR 1.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 1.000
POP lbf/ft² 0.000 5625 0.000 0.000 0.000
kx ft/day 1.968 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 0.1000 0.1000
ky ft/day 1.968 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 1.000E-3 1.000E-3
kz ft/day 0.000 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 0.000 0.000
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
Ss 1/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ck 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12
5
Wall 22 Model

Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 120.0 125.0 138.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 120.0 125.0 138.0
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
e min 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000 0.000 0.000
E 5 0 ref lbf/ft² 75.00E3 1.126E6 1.130E6
E oed ref
lbf/ft² 75.00E3 1.126E6 1.130E6
E ur ref
lbf/ft² 1.244E6 3.380E6 3.380E6
6
Wall 22 Model

power (m) 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
Cc 0.09607 6.399E-3 8.077E-3
Cs 5.213E-3 1.919E-3 2.430E-3
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
c ref lbf/ft² 0.000 5.000 3000
φ (phi) ° 28.00 38.00 41.00
ψ (psi) ° 0.000 8.000 8.000
ν ur 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
p ref lbf/ft² 2089 2089 2089
K0 nc
0.5305 0.3843 0.4410
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
z ref ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rf 0.8000 0.8000 0.9000
Skempton-B 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866
7
Wall 22 Model

νu 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
K w,ref / n lbf/ft² 50.97E6 138.5E6 138.5E6
R inter 1.000 1.000 1.000
δ inter 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0,x 0.5305 0.3843 0.6320
K 0,y 0.5305 0.3843 0.6320
OCR 1.000 1.000 2.000
POP lbf/ft² 0.000 0.000 0.000
kx ft/day 1.968 0.1000 0.1000
ky ft/day 1.968 0.01000 1000
kz ft/day 0.000 0.000 0.000
8
Wall 22 Model

e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
S s 1/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
ck 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12
9
Wall 22 Model

Colour
Comments
e init 0.5000
e min 0.000
e max 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
E lbf/ft² 667.8E3
ν (nu) 0.3000
G lbf/ft² 256.8E3
10
Wall 22 Model

φ (phi) ° 28.00
ψ (psi) ° 0.000
V s ft/s 268.1
V p ft/s 501.6
z ref ft 0.000
z ref ft 0.000
Tension cut-off Yes
Skempton-B 0.9783
νu 0.4950
Stiffness Standard
Strength Rigid
R inter 1.000
11
Wall 22 Model

δ inter 0.000
K 0,x = K 0,y Yes
K 0,x 0.5305
K 0,y 0.5305
kx ft/day 0.000
ky ft/day 0.000
kz ft/day 0.000
e init 0.5000
S s 1/ft 0.000
ck 1000E12
12
Wall 22 Model

Comments
Colour
EA 1 lbf/ft 68.52 68.52 4000 8000 4175
EA 2 lbf/ft 68.52 68.52 4000 8000 4175
GA lbf/ft 0.000 0.000 2000 4000 2088
13
Wall 22 Model

Comments
Colour
d ft 0.5000 1.000
γ lbf/ft³ 150.0 150.0
Isotropic Yes Yes
E1 lbf/ft² 3.600E12 3.600E6
E2 lbf/ft² 3.600E12 3.600E6
ν 12 0.4950 0.4950
G 12 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
G 13 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
G 23 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
W 11 ft³/ft 150.0 0.000
14
Wall 22 Model

W 22 ft³/ft 150.0 0.000
15
Wall 22 Model
Identification CMCs
Comments
Colour
E lbf/ft² 194.0E6
γ lbf/ft³ 140.0
Diameter ft 1.000
A ft² 0.7854
I2 ft⁴ 0.04909
I3 ft⁴ 0.04909
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
16
Wall 22 Model
Identification CMCs
F max lbf 60.00E3
17
Wall 22 Model
General information
Project
Title Wall 22 Model
General
Model PLAXIS 3D
Elements 10-Noded
Acceleration
Mesh
Nr of nodes 10982
18
Wall 22 Model
General information
Comments
19
Wall 22 Model
PLAXIS Report

fixed.p3d
Title Wall 22 Model
Model PLAXIS 3D
Elements 10-Noded

Deformed (scaled
|u|up 20.0 times)
(scaled (Time
up 20.0 550.0
times) ( day)
Wall 22 Model 11/2/2021


[*10-3 ft]
340.00
320.00
300.00
280.00
260.00
240.00
220.00
200.00
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Total displacements |u| (scaled

Total displacements |u|up 20.0 times)
(scaled (Time
up 20.0 550.0
times) ( day)
Wall 22 Model 11/2/2021


[*10-3 ft]
20.00
0.00
-20.00
-40.00
-60.00
-80.00
-100.00
-120.00
-140.00
-160.00
-180.00
-200.00
-220.00
-240.00
-260.00
-280.00
-300.00
-320.00
-340.00
Total displacements ux (scaledu up

(scaled (Time
up 20.0 550.0
times) (T day)
x
Wall 22 Model 11/2/2021


Wall 22 Model
2
Wall 22 Model
Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 120.0 115.0 120.0 138.0 120.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 120.0 115.0 120.0 138.0 120.0
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
e min 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
E 50 ref
lbf/ft² 667.8E3 24.80E3 600.0E3 1.126E6 1.126E6
E oed ref
lbf/ft² 667.8E3 24.80E3 600.0E3 1.126E6 1.126E6
power (m) 0.5000 1.000 1.000 0.5000 0.5000
C c 0.01079 0.3645 0.01523 6.399E-3 6.399E-3
3
Wall 22 Model
C s 3.237E-3 0.06895 4.568E-3 1.920E-3 1.919E-3
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
c ref lbf/ft² 5.000 5.000 5.000 5000 0.000
φ (phi) ° 30.00 27.00 27.00 36.00 33.00
ψ (psi) ° 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.000 4.000
ν ur 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
p ref lbf/ft² 2089 2089 2089 2089 2089
K0 nc
0.5000 0.5460 0.5460 0.4122 0.4554
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
z ref ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R f 0.8000 0.9000 0.9000 0.8000 0.8000
Skempton-B 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866
ν u 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
R inter 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
4
Wall 22 Model
δ inter 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0,x 0.5000 10.00E9 0.8420 0.4122 0.4554
K 0,y 0.5000 10.00E9 0.8420 0.4122 0.4554
OCR 1.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 1.000
POP lbf/ft² 0.000 5625 0.000 0.000 0.000
kx ft/day 1.968 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 0.1000 0.1000
ky ft/day 1.968 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 1.000E-3 1.000E-3
kz ft/day 0.000 0.1000E-3 0.9690E-3 0.000 0.000
e init 0.5000 0.8820 0.9020 0.5000 0.5000
Ss 1/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ck 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12
5
Wall 22 Model

Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 120.0 125.0 138.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 120.0 125.0 138.0
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
e min 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000 0.000 0.000
E 5 0 ref lbf/ft² 99.53E3 1.126E6 1.130E6
E oed ref
lbf/ft² 99.53E3 1.126E6 1.130E6
E ur ref
lbf/ft² 1.244E6 3.380E6 3.380E6
6
Wall 22 Model

power (m) 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
Cc 0.07240 6.399E-3 8.077E-3
Cs 5.213E-3 1.919E-3 2.430E-3
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
c ref lbf/ft² 0.000 5.000 3000
φ (phi) ° 38.00 38.00 41.00
ψ (psi) ° 6.000 8.000 8.000
ν ur 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
p ref lbf/ft² 2089 2089 2089
K0 nc
0.3843 0.3843 0.4410
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
z ref ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rf 0.8000 0.8000 0.9000
Skempton-B 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866
7
Wall 22 Model

νu 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
K w,ref / n lbf/ft² 50.97E6 138.5E6 138.5E6
R inter 1.000 1.000 1.000
δ inter 0.000 0.000 0.000
K 0,x 0.3843 0.3843 0.6320
K 0,y 0.3843 0.3843 0.6320
OCR 1.000 1.000 2.000
POP lbf/ft² 0.000 0.000 0.000
kx ft/day 1.968 0.1000 0.1000
ky ft/day 1.968 0.01000 1000
kz ft/day 0.000 0.000 0.000
8
Wall 22 Model

e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.9000
S s 1/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
ck 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12
9
Wall 22 Model

Colour
Comments
e init 0.5000
e min 0.000
e max 999.0
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
E lbf/ft² 667.8E3
ν (nu) 0.3000
G lbf/ft² 256.8E3
10
Wall 22 Model

φ (phi) ° 28.00
ψ (psi) ° 0.000
V s ft/s 268.1
V p ft/s 501.6
z ref ft 0.000
z ref ft 0.000
Tension cut-off Yes
Skempton-B 0.9783
νu 0.4950
Stiffness Standard
Strength Rigid
R inter 1.000
11
Wall 22 Model

δ inter 0.000
K 0,x = K 0,y Yes
K 0,x 0.5305
K 0,y 0.5305
kx ft/day 0.000
ky ft/day 0.000
kz ft/day 0.000
e init 0.5000
S s 1/ft 0.000
ck 1000E12
12
Wall 22 Model

Comments
Colour
EA 1 lbf/ft 68.52 68.52 4000 8000 4175
EA 2 lbf/ft 68.52 68.52 4000 8000 4175
GA lbf/ft 0.000 0.000 2000 4000 2088
13
Wall 22 Model

Comments
Colour
d ft 0.5000 1.000
γ lbf/ft³ 150.0 150.0
Isotropic Yes Yes
E1 lbf/ft² 3.600E12 3.600E6
E2 lbf/ft² 3.600E12 3.600E6
ν 12 0.4950 0.4950
G 12 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
G 13 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
G 23 lbf/ft² 1.204E12 1.204E6
W 11 ft³/ft 150.0 0.000
14
Wall 22 Model

W 22 ft³/ft 150.0 0.000
15
Wall 22 Model
Identification CMCs
Comments
Colour
E lbf/ft² 194.0E6
γ lbf/ft³ 140.0
Diameter ft 1.000
A ft² 0.7854
I2 ft⁴ 0.04909
I3 ft⁴ 0.04909
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
16
Wall 22 Model
Identification CMCs
F max lbf 60.00E3
17
Wall 22 Model
General information
Project
Title Wall 22 Model
General
Model PLAXIS 3D
Elements 10-Noded
Acceleration
Mesh
Nr of nodes 10982
18
Wall 22 Model
General information
Comments
19
Draft
Draft
Draft
Draft
Sandy Slope Construction Records

I-11 Nuclear Density Moisture Field Testing
Date of Report Report # Moisture Dry Wet % Compaction
% pcf
10/26/2018 33 8.6 97.6 105.1 96.3 110.0
10/31/2018 34 6.4 96.9 103.1 95.6
11/17/2018 35 9.6 96.6 105.7 95.3 % Compaction
11/17/2018 36 9.6 98.7 108.0 97.2 105.0
11/17/2018 37 8.3 98.3 106.3 96.9
11/19/2018 38 7.2 96.5 103.3 95.2
Average Compaction (%)

11/20/2018 39 5.8 98.2 103.6 96.7 100.0
11/21/2018 40 5.8 98.1 103.3 96.6
11/27/2018 41 7.5 97.7 104.9 96.4
11/28/2018 42 7.6 98.3 105.7 96.9 95.0
11/30/2018 43 5.1 97.7 102.7 96.8
12/1/2018 44 6.4 98.1 104.4 96.9
12/1/2018 45 5.5 97.0 102.2 95.6 90.0
12/1/2018 46 5.8 96.4 102.3 95.2
12/3/2018 47 7.7 99.1 107.0 97.9
12/3/2018 48 7.3 96.7 103.6 95.4 85.0
12/3/2018 49 7.9 97.1 104.3 95.6
12/5/2018 50 5.1 98.0 102.6 96.7
80.0
12/5/2018 51 5.4 96.8 101.8 95.5
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
12/6/2018 52 6.6 97.6 103.5 95.8
Report Number
12/7/2018 53 4.7 96.6 101.0 95.2
12/7/2018 54 8.0 97.8 105.5 96.5
12/8/2018 56 5.6 96.6 102.0 95.0 115.0
12/8/2018 57 7.9 99.5 107.8 98.6
Dry Density(pcf)
12/8/2018 58 7.3 98.6 105.7 97.1
12/8/2018 59 8.0 99.1 106.9 97.4 Wet Density (pcf)
110.0
12/8/2018 60 6.1 97.7 104.0 96.4
12/10/2018 61 5.8 98.4 103.6 96.4
12/11/2018 62 5.8 98.4 103.9 97.1 Density (pcf)
12/13/2018 63 4.4 97.9 102.2 96.5 105.0
Average 96.3
100.0
95.0
90.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Report Number

Wall 22 I-295 Investigative Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wall 22 I-295 Investigative Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIRECT CONNECTION CONTRACT 3 (DC3)

WALL 22 FAILURE - FORENSIC ENGINEERING

Prepared for New Jersey Department of Transportation

14.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................110

Figure 1-1: Limits of failed zone (Source: NJDOT)

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

I-295 Mainline Direct

Figure 2-1: Direct Connector Contract 3 (DC3)

• Dewberry – Engineer of Record (EOR).

• SSI subcontractor, Wang Technology - Responsible for geotechnical instrumentation.

Figure 2-2: Interpreted design and construction responsibilities

3.0 WALL 22 DESCRIPTION

Figure 3-1: Wall 22 limits (Source: NJDOT)

4.0 FORENSIC APPROACH

Figure 4-1: Forensic approach

5.0 FORENSIC DATA COLLECTION

5.1 Site Visit

1) Limits of Wall 22 failure was between Sta. 267+00 and 270+00.

Figure 5-10: Wall 7 observed following the failure of Wall 22

Figure 5-13: Cracked panels

Figure 5-14: Failed soil mass

5.2 Wall Deconstruction

Figure 5-16: Deconstruction steps at Sta. 268+50

Figure 5-17: Deconstruction steps (plan view)

The recorded observations of the deconstruction are summarized below.

3) No sign of corrosion in the steel reinforcement and connection was observed.

Figure 5-19: MSE wall reinforcement strap clipping (looking south)

Figure 5-20: MSE wall panel removal

Figure 5-21: MSE wall panel/strap connection

Figure 5-22: Reinforced soil mass (looking south)

Figure 5-23: Exposed stable reinforced soil

Figure 5-25: Controlled excavation (deconstruction step 2)

Figure 5-26: Bulk sample collection Figure 5-27: In-situ moisture

Figure 5-28: Exposed bottom MSE wall

Figure 5-29: Careful excavation to locate CSES

Figure 5-30: Exposed displaced/sheared LTM in front of MSE wall

Figure 5-31: Intact LTM behind MSE wall (sheared point)

Figure 5-32: Excavation for CMC

Figure 5-33: Exhumed CMC

Figure 5-34: Pile integrity testing on CMC

Moist Soil @ El.+57.5’

Free water @ El.+47.0’

Free water @ El.+27.0’

Figure 5-35: Observed groundwater condition (completion of deconstruction

Figure 5-36: Free groundwater at El. +27

Figure 5-37: Observed conditions during deconstruction

5.3 Subsurface Exploration Program

Table 5-1: Summary of SPT Borings

Figure 5-38: Disturbed sample from Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Figure 5-39: Undisturbed sample from boring

Table 5-2: Summary of CPTu Tests

Figure 5-40: Cone penetration testing rig

Table 5-3: Summary of Test Pits

Figure 5-41: Excavation of test pits

Figure 5-42: In-situ moisture content/density testing (test pit)

Figure 5-43: Bulk sample collection (test pit)

• Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)

6.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW

6.1 Construction Scheme

Construction Scheme (Contract 3)

Figure 6-2: Typical section of Direct Connection Contract 3

6.2 Site History

Figure 6-4: Interpreted slope distress (aerial view) during Contract 2

Unstable Ground Conditions (Contract 2)