Appendix C

APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION

Supplemental Information Letter dated, August 2017 (Liquefaction Analysis)
Technical Reference – Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods, Abramson, et al.
Technical Reference – “The Undrained Shear Strength of Overconsolidated Clays”, Strozyk

and Tankiewicz
Figure 2 Liner Stability Plan
Pipe Loading Calcs – Area 2, 3, 4

Supplemental Information Letter dated, August 2017
(Liquefaction Analysis)
1200 Scottsville Road, Building C, Suite 320, Rochester, NY 14624
T 877.294.9010 | F 585.563.6582 | W www.cornerstoneeg.com
August 2nd, 2017
Mr. Angelo A. Marcuccio

Division of Environmental Permits, Region 4
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, New York 12306-2014
Re: Request for Supplemental Information

Part 360 Area 7 Development Application
Geotechnical Documentation
Town of Colonie Landfill (Facility # 01-S-26)
Dear Mr. Marcuccio,
On behalf of Capital Region Landfills and the Town of Colonie and as requested by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Cornerstone
has developed supplemental geotechnical analysis in support of the Part 360 Area 7
Development Application. As noted in your letter dated April 10, 2017, the Site
Investigation Report (Attachment 1 of the Part 360 Permit Application), noted an
alluvial deposit at the north end (Boring IDs B-2013-8, B-2013-9, B-2013-12, MW-2013-
2D, and MW-2013-2S) as well as a small area of alluvial deposit along the east side
(Boring ID B-2013-10) of the proposed Area 7 development. NYSDEC notes that alluvial
deposits may be liquefiable under certain conditions and therefore, requests the permit
application to include an evaluation/analysis that demonstrates that these areas of the
proposed facility are not susceptible to liquefaction. Cornerstone prepared this letter
that contains supplemental technical information to address the NYSDEC comments
and support the application.
As noted, a layer of loose to medium dense Sand was encountered in several subsurface
explorations at the site, and this document provides supplemental information regarding
the liquefaction potential of these soils, if saturated, and remedial soil improvements. The
Sand deposit is described in the Site Investigation Report (SIR) that was included as
Attachment 1 in the permit application. The location, lateral extent, and thickness of the
Sand deposit was also presented in the SIR, and it is noted that the deposit was generally
located at the north end of the site.
August 2nd, 2017
Page 2
The areal extent of the deposit, based on the subsurface explorations, is generally outside
the landfill expansion boundary, but is situated beneath the north perimeter berm (Test
borings B-2013-8 and B-2013-12) and the stormwater management facility (test boring B-
2013-9). The Sand deposit was also encountered in MW-2013-2D and MW2013-4D located
northeast of the landfill footprint along the property boundary. In addition, a small area of
a Sand deposit was encountered along the east side of the landfill (test boring B-2013-10).
The approximate locations of these explorations and extent of Sand deposits are shown on
the plan entitled “Potentially Liquefiable Soils Plan” that is contained in Appendix GEO-A
attached to this letter.
Based on the subsurface explorations, the deposit encountered in B-2013-10 along the east
side of the landfill is isolated and limited in lateral extent, and is located at elevations
significantly above the Sand deposit at the north end of the site. In addition, the subsurface
explorations do not suggest that the deposit at the east side is connected to the northern
Sand deposit. The deposit at this location is also located above the observed subsurface
groundwater level and as such would not be subject to liquefaction.
The subsurface exploration logs and records were reviewed to further evaluate the nature
of the Sand and to determine if the deposit may be subject to potential liquefaction. The
liquefaction potential of the deposit at the three locations, north stormwater pond, north
berm, and east side of the landfill was evaluated and is summarized in Tables 1A, 1B, and
1C, respectively, that are contained in Appendix GEO-B. This review indicates that the
Sand deposit at the north end of the site beneath the berm and the stormwater pond may be
subject to liquefaction as the computed factor of safety (FS) is less than 1.0 for some portions
of the deposit. In addition, the Sand deposit located on the east side of the site is not
susceptible to liquefaction as the computed FS is greater than 1.0, which is consistent with it
being situated above observed groundwater levels.
As the Sand deposit located below the subsurface water level at the north end of the site
may have the potential to liquefy, the settlement resulting from potential liquefaction was
calculated. Settlements were estimated to be approximately 16-in. beneath the stormwater
facility and 4-in. beneath the perimeter berm. Due to the location of the Sand deposit in
relation to the liner system (i.e., toward the downslope end of the cell at the perimeter
berm), the settlement that could result from the liquefaction of soils would not result in
significant strains as indicated in the calculations in Appendix B and generally results in an
increased slope for the leachate collection system. South of the berm, while the load
increases due to the landfill mass, the thickness of the sand deposit decreases and this
reduces liquefaction settlement that would occur. The potential liquefaction settlement can
be accommodated by the berm, liner and stormwater facility design and the settlement will
not adversely affect the performance of these facilities.
The global stability in the northern portion of the landfill along Sections DD, DE, and EE (as
identified in Attachment 7 of the Engineering Report and as shown in Appendix GEO-C)
were analyzed in accordance with RCRA Subtitle D (258) Seismic Design Guidance for
Municipal Landfill Facilities prepared by the USEPA dated April 1995. It should be noted
X:\PROJECTS\COLONIE LANDFILL\150027 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT 2015\Project Files\Revised Response to Public Hearing Comments\Appendices\App C - Geotechnical
Letter\CVLTR 080217 Revised 081717 Geotech Response_Final.docx
August 2nd, 2017
Page 3
that the NYSDEC’s regulations do not specifically address liquefaction induced stability.
However, to present a conservative design, we have analyzed the proposed design and site
conditions in accordance with the Subtitle D Design Guidance Manual.
The stability analyses were completed using the GeoStudio software Slope/W and the
factors of safety were calculated using the Morgenstern-Price method of analysis. The
stability analyses for liquefaction used an estimated residual strength for the liquefied Sand
that was selected in accordance with the USEPA guidelines and the undrained strength for
the Lacustrine deposit (Su with a 0.22 tau/sigma ratio per Holtz & Kovacs and a minimum
Su=533 psf per UU test results for MW-2013-2). Assuming the entire sand zone would
liquefy is conservative as the data indicates that the N-values within the deposit are
variable, and thus not all the deposit is susceptible to liquefaction. It is also noted that
multiple evaluations were made to evaluate if Block or Circular Failures were more critical,
and the results noted herein represent the conditions yielding the lowest computed factor of
safety.
The results, which are summarized in Table 1 below, indicate a computed FS < 1.0 for the
three sections where the Sand that is susceptible to liquefaction would be encountered. The
slope stability supporting documentation is included in Appendix GEO-C.
Table 1
Summary of Stability Analyses
Existing (Pre-Soil Improvement) Conditions
Section Computed Factor of Safety
DD 0.59
DE 0.82
EE 0.69
Therefore, soil improvement measures will be undertaken in the Sand deposit at the berm
location. Based on the site and subsurface conditions, there are multiple soil improvement
methods that are technically suitable. The soil improvements range from methods that
modify/improve the properties of the sand, to methods that provide reinforcement to other
soils such that liquefaction does not impact the landfill. As part of the design presented
herein, soil improvement measures are modeled using compaction or jet grouting of the
Sand located below the MSE embankment and the soil berm along the north side of the
landfill, and soil reinforcement installed at the top of the existing soils. While we have
analyzed soil improvement measures using these specific technologies, it should be noted
that other technologies can also achieve the required degree of stabilization and may also be
appropriate. As such, with different installation techniques the constructed condition may
ultimately have different properties and dimensions than those described herein.
August 2nd, 2017
Page 4
Compaction and jet grouting are common soil improvement techniques that have been a
part of accepted geotechnical construction for over 25-years. The grouting process injects
an aggregate or cementous grout in a borehole that displaces the surrounding soils. This
displacement improves ground conditions by densifying the surrounding soils. Note that
the process is generally iterative and that secondary and tertiary grout patterns may be
employed as necessary to achieve the desired Sand strength. The effectiveness of the
compaction grouting and the need for additional grout borehole locations is determined
during construction based on the results of the data collected from additional test borings.
Technical literature for grouting, reproduced from specialty contractor Hayward-Baker is
included in Appendix GEO-D.
As part of the design, the soil densification needed to achieve a liquefaction potential factor
of safety >1 was evaluated. For this, a design or target Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-
Value was selected and the liquefaction potential calculated. The calculations, which are
shown on Table 3A and 3B included in Appendix GEO-B, indicate that modest densification
is needed to achieve a suitable soil density. The required increase is consistent with N-
Value improvements typically achieved by compaction grouting.
With the anticipated soil densification, additional stability analyses were completed for
Sections DD, DE, and EE. For these evaluations, the densified sand shear strength
properties were selected to be the same as the original Sand properties (φ=28.7°; c=0). As
previously noted, the stability analyses were prepared using the undrained strength for the
Lacustrine deposit and the factor of safety was computed using the Morgenstern-Price
method. Multiple analyses were made to evaluate the location and lateral extent of the
needed soil improvement. These analyses indicate that the densified soil, extending the
limits shown on the stability output, will provide a factor of safety >1 which is acceptable.
As an alternative to grouting, the use of reinforcing materials buried within the soil mass to
improve soil strength has been used commercially for over 40-years. As the strength of the
reinforcing materials have increased, soil reinforcement has been used more frequently to
bridge soft soils and voids, and provide stability. The soil reinforcing elements provide
increased tensional capability to the soil mass, and at this site, the reinforcing increases the
computed factor of safety for global stability.
Additional global stability analyses were completed for Sections DD, DE, and EE including
soil reinforcement for improvement. The soil properties for these analyses were consistent
with the original unimproved conditions noted above, with the addition of the reinforcing
layers. Multiple analyses were made to evaluate the location and lateral extent of the
needed soil improvement. These analyses indicate that the reinforced soil, extending the
limits shown on the stability output, will provide a factor of safety >1 which is acceptable.
The stability analyses for the reinforced soil also indicated that additional soil improvement
would be needed in the area of the stormwater pond berm. In this area, the computed
factor of safety for the pond berm pre-improvement was 0.59 for Section DD. Therefore, a
August 2nd, 2017
Page 5
50-ft. wide zone of grouting will be added along the outside toe of the pond berm.
Computed factors of safety for this berm are >1 post improvement.
While liquefaction induced stability is not specifically addressed in the Part 360 regulations,
a factor of safety >1 is required for other seismically induced stability analyses [Part 360
2.7(b)(7)]. Additionally, the RCRA Subtitle D (258) Seismic Design Guidance indicates that
providing a factor of safety >1 is satisfactory for sites where the ground motion is extreme
(which this site does not have). The guidance document provides additional clarification
that ground motions less than 0.2g are not even considered moderately strong. The
regulatory horizontal ground motion at the site is 0.109g.
A summary table of the stability analyses, for the post-improvement soil conditions is
provided in Table 2, and the stability supporting documentation is included in Appendix
GEO-C. The approximate limits of the improvement zones are shown on Figures 1 and 2
that are contained in Appendix GEO-A.
Table 2
Summary of Stability Analyses
Post -Soil Improvement Conditions
Computed Factor of Safety

Section
Grouted Soil Soil Reinforcement
DD 1.01 1.02
DE 1.01 1.29
EE 1.34 1.11
The design for the compaction grouting indicates the initial grouting pattern will include 4
to 8-in. diameter compaction grout borings spaced 8-ft. on center in the improvement zone.
The final soil stabilization design will be completed along with the final design of the MSE
embankment when construction documents are prepared. In accordance with accepted
design practice, additional subsurface explorations may also be made during the final
design and during construction to further refine the limits of remediation, identify the most
effective stabilization techniques, and to provide verification of the effectiveness of the soil
stabilization.
The design for the geogrid reinforcement indicates that four (4) layers of grid will be
needed. A layer of existing soil/old waste will be excavated and removed, and the grids
will be spaced 2-ft. apart and backfilled with compacted, granular soil. The grids will
consist of high strength material (ParaLink 1500 from Maccaferri, or equal) and will extend
300-ft. to 400-ft. (in plan view) beneath the berm and landfill as measured from the outside
toe of the berm. The reinforcement lengths are shown on the Figures included in the
calculation package that is contained in Appendix GEO-C. Technical information about the
ParaLink reinforcing grid is provided in Appendix GEO-E.
August 2nd, 2017
Page 6
Please append this supplemental information to the application documents. If you have
any questions or need additional information, please contact us by phone or email.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Engineering and Land Surveying, PLLC
Robert A. Holmes, P.E. James G. Walker, P.E.

Client Manager Client Manager
Carl W. Eller, P.E.

Senior Project Manager
Appendices
Appendix GEO-A – Potentially Liquefiable Soil Plan
Appendix GEO-B – Liquefaction Analysis Calculation Package
Appendix GEO-C – Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix GEO-D – Grouting Technology Information
Appendix GEO-E – Geogrid Reinforcement Information
cc:
Matthew McGarry, P.E., Public Works Engineer, Town of Colonie
Curt Taylor, Capital Region Landfills, Inc.
John H. Cunningham, Commissioner, Dept. of Public Works, Town of Colonie
William Clarke, Regional Permit Administrator, NYSDEC
Richard Ostrov, Regional Attorney, NYSDEC
Ricky Leone, Regional Engineer, NYSDEC
Victoria Schmitt, Div. of Materials Management, NYSDEC
Thomas Christoffel, Regional Air Engineer, NYSDEC
APPENDIX GEO-A
Potentially Liquefiable Soil Plan
1
POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE SOILS / PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION
2
POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE SOILS / PLAN (2)
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION
APPENDIX GEO-B
Liquefaction Analysis Calculation Package
CALCULATION COVER SHEET
CLIENT DATE: PROJECT NUMBER

Waste Connections, Inc.
28-Jul-17 150027
PROJECT / CALCULATION NUMBER: TITLE:
Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet): TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPUTER RUNS:
PREPARED BY: CHECKED BY:

CWE JGW
Description and Purpose:
Purpose of the evaluation was to review and evaluate the liquefaction potential of the Sand deposit located at the north end of
the Colonie Landfill site. If liquefaction was a potential, evaluate the settlement due to liquefaction. If the liquefaction potential of
the Sand <1, evaluate design N-Value that would provide a liquefaction potential >1 such that the design N-Value can be used to
develop a soil improvement methodology and procedure.
Design Basis/References/Assumptions:
Design References:
1. Soil Dynamics - Shamsher Prakash, Shamsher Prakash Foundation.
2. RCRA Subtitle D (258) Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities", USEPA Office of Research and
Development, April 1995.
3. See Attachment 7 of the Part 360 Application Engineering Design Report for original settlement and global stability
calculations.
Remarks/Conclusions/Results:
Subsurface exploration logs reveal a layer of granular, Sand at three (3) areas of the Colonie site. The material is limited in aerial
extent and the depth to the deposit is approximately 50-ft. below existing ground surface elevations. Deposit thickness, based on
subsurface explorations, ranges from approximately 5 to 20-ft.
Calculations indicate that liquefaction may occur at the north end of the site in the area beneath the stormwater pond (not
beneath landfill limits) and beneath the north perimeter berm, where the liquefaction potential is <1. The southern limits of the
Sand deposit do not extend a significant distance beneath the landfill limits. The limited Sand deposit at the east side site does is
not subject to potential liquefaction.
Settlement due to liquefaction ranges from approximately 4-in. at the perimeter berm to approximately 16-in. at the stormwater
pond. The settlements do not adversely impact the liner, leachate collection system, or structural components.
As the liquefaction potential is < 1.0 , remediation of the Sand deposit will be completed to provide additional strength. Design N-
Values were computed to provide a liquefaction potential that is >1, and the required increases are within the range that can be
completed with soil remediation such as compaction grouting. Additional explorations will be made to confirm limits of
remediation, to further refine the appropriate remedial process, and confirm densification during construction.
Remediation/densification of the Sand will further reduce settlements.
CALCULATION APPROVED BY: Robert Holmes - July 28, 2017

Project Manager / Date
REVISION NO.: DESCRIPTION OF REVISION: APPROVED BY:
X:\PROJECTS\COLONIE LANDFILL\150027 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT 2015\Project Files\Revised Response to Public Hearing Comments\Appendices\App C - Geotechnical Letter\Liquid Calc
Cover Sheet.xlsx
Liquefaction Potential
Table 1A
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Colonie Landfill
North Stormwater Pond (B-2013-09)
Assumed Total Pressure Effective Pressure Average Shear Critical Stress Critical
Depth Depth to Generalized Unit at Center of at Center of Stress (psf) (3) Observed Ratio (4) Shear Stress (5) FOS
Layer Top Bottom Center Soil Type Weight (pcf) Layer (psf) - s o Layer (psf) - s'o amax/g rd tav N-Value Cer Cn N'60 (7) D50 (mm) sdc/2sa Cp Ca Cocr Dr Cr t (psf) vs Liquefaction
1 0 2 1 FILL (Clay) 140 140 140 0.109 0.98 10 16 1 1.87 30 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 74 0.57 25
2 2 4 3 FILL (Clay) 140 420 420 0.109 0.98 29 16 1 1.65 26 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 69 0.57 70
3 4 6 5 FILL (Clay) 140 700 700 0.109 0.98 49 14 1 1.48 21 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 61 0.57 103
4 6 8 7 FILL (Clay) 140 980 980 0.109 0.98 68 12 1 1.34 16 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 54 0.57 127
5 8 10 9 FILL (Clay) 140 1260 1260 0.109 0.98 87 13 1 1.23 16 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 54 0.57 162
6 10 12 11 FILL (Clay) 140 1540 1478 0.109 0.98 107 10 1 1.15 12 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 46 0.57 162
7 12 14 13 FILL (Clay) 140 1820 1633 0.109 0.98 126 13 1 1.10 14 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 51 0.57 199
8 14 17 15.5 FILL (Clay) 140 2170 1827 0.109 0.96 148 20 1 1.05 21 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 62 0.57 269
9 17 20 18.5 Waste 80 2500 1970 0.109 0.96 170 100/5 1 1.01
10 20 25 22.5 Waste 80 2820 2040 0.109 0.94 188 60 1 0.99 59
11 25 30 27.5 Waste 80 3220 2128 0.109 0.92 210 18 1 0.97 17
12 30 35 32.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 3720 2316 0.109 0.9 237 12 1 0.93 11 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 44 0.57 270 1.14
13 35 40 37.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 4320 2604 0.109 0.86 263 0 1 0.87 0 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 0 0.57 0 0.00
14 40 45 42.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 4920 2892 0.109 0.8 279 3 1 0.82 2 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 21 0.57 158 0.57
15 45 50 47.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 5520 3180 0.109 0.77 301 3 1 0.77 2 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 20 0.57 169 0.56
16 50 51 50.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 5880 3353 0.109 0.73 304 18 1 0.75 13 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 49 0.57 429 1.41
17 51 54 52.5 Shale 140 6150 3498 0.109 0.73 318 35 1 0.73 25
18 54 56 55 ML (Till) 140 6500 3692 0.109 0.71 327 125 1 0.70 88
19 56 60 58 ML (Till) 140 6920 3925 0.109 0.69 338 100/4 1 0.68
20 60 65 62.5 ML (Till) 140 7550 4274 0.109 0.64 342 71 1 0.64 45
Legend
Sand Layer
Notes:
1) Observed N-value taken from center of the particular deposit
2) Water level calculated below ground surface based on boring log information = 10 ft
3) Average Shear Stess Developed During Earthquake
where: h =depth to center of layer
a m ax
τav = (0.65 )γh rd g=unit weight
rd=reduction factor based on depth (Figure 8.15, "Soil Dynamics," by Prakash)
g
amax/g = maximum ground surface acceleration
4) Figure 8.17, 'Soil Dynamics" by Prakash, for 10 significant stress cycles
5) Critical Shear Stress (or allowable shear stress)
where: cr=correction factor based on relative density
σ  D  Dr=relative density of layer
τ = σ o '  d c (cr ) r  s0'= effective stress at center of layer
 2σ a   5 0 
t=critical shear stress
sdc/2sa= stress ratio causing liquefaction (Figure 8.17, Prakash)
6) CN = Correction factor for N value = 2/(1+s'v/2000) - Equation 4.4 - Coduto

7) (N1)60 = Normalized blowcount value = (CN)*(N) - Equation 4.3 - Coduto
Table 1B
Colonie Landfill
North Perimeter Berm and MSE Embankment (B-2013-8 and B-2013-12)
Assumed Boussinesq MSE Total Pressure Effective Pressure Average Shear Critical Stress Critical
Depth Depth to Generalized Unit b/z Influence Berm at Center of at Center of Stress (psf) (3) Observed Ratio (4) Shear Stress (5) FOS
Layer Top Bottom Center Soil Type Weight (pcf) (feet) Factor Load Layer (psf) - so Layer (psf) - s'o amax/g rd tav N-Value Cer Cn N'60 (9) D50 (mm) sdc/2sa Cp Ca Cocr Dr Cr t (psf) vs Liquefaction
1 0 2 1 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 56.0 0.5 1400 1540 1540 0.109 0.98 107 9 1 1.13 10 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 43 0.57 158
2 2 4 3 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 18.7 0.5 1400 1820 1820 0.109 0.98 126 17 1 1.05 18 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 57 0.57 248
3 4 6 5 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 11.2 0.5 1400 2100 2100 0.109 0.98 146 19 1 0.98 19 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 58 0.57 292
4 6 8 7 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 8.0 0.5 1400 2380 2380 0.109 0.98 165 24 1 0.91 22 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 63 0.57 359
5 8 10 9 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 6.2 0.5 1400 2660 2660 0.109 0.98 185 13 1 0.86 11 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 45 0.57 287
6 10 12 11 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 5.1 0.5 1400 2940 2940 0.109 0.98 204 14 1 0.81 11 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 45 0.57 319
7 12 14 13 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 4.3 0.5 1400 3220 3220 0.109 0.98 224 43 1 0.77 33 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 77 0.57 596
8 14 16 15 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 3.7 0.5 1400 3500 3500 0.109 0.98 243 42 1 0.73 31 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 74 0.57 624
9 16 18 17 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 3.3 0.5 1400 3780 3780 0.109 0.96 257 33 1 0.69 23 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 64 0.57 583
10 18 20 19 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 2.9 0.49 1372 4032 4032 0.109 0.96 274 18 1 0.66 12 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 47 0.57 449
11 20 25 22.5 Waste 80 2.5 0.485 1358 4358 4358 0.109 0.94 290 23 1 0.63 14
12 25 30 27.5 Waste 80 2.0 0.48 1344 4744 4744 0.109 0.92 309 37 1 0.59 22
13 30 35 32.5 Waste 80 1.7 0.47 1316 5116 5116 0.109 0.9 326 50 1 0.56 28
14 35 40 37.5 Waste 80 1.5 0.46 1288 5488 5644 0.109 0.86 334 38 1 0.52 20
15 40 45 42.5 Waste 80 1.3 0.45 1260 5860 5704 0.109 0.8 332 25 1 0.52 13
16 45 50 47.5 Waste 80 1.2 0.44 1232 6232 5764 0.109 0.77 340 33 1 0.52 17
17 50 55 52.5 Waste 80 1.1 0.43 1204 6604 5824 0.109 0.73 342 51 1 0.51 26
18 55 60 57.5 Waste 80 1.0 0.415 1162 6962 5870 0.109 0.71 350 31 1 0.51 16
19 60 62 61 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.9 0.4 1120 7240 5930 0.109 0.69 354 14 1 0.50 7 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 35 0.57 550 1.55
20 62 64 63 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.9 0.4 1120 7480 6045 0.109 0.67 355 5 1 0.50 2 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 21 0.57 333 0.94
21 64 66 65 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.9 0.4 1120 7720 6160 0.109 0.64 350 6 1 0.49 3 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 23 0.57 369 1.05
22 66 68 67 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.8 0.38 1064 7904 6219 0.109 0.62 347 6 1 0.49 3 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 23 0.57 371 1.07
23 68 70 69 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.8 0.38 1064 8144 6334 0.109 0.6 346 15 1 0.48 7 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 36 0.57 593 1.71
24 70 72 71 SW (Till) 140 0.8 0.38 1064 8404 6470 0.109 0.59 351 27 1 0.47 13
25 72 74 73 SW (Till) 140 0.8 0.38 1064 8684 6625 0.109 0.58 357 46 1 0.46 21
26 74 76 75 CL (Lacustrine) 119.8 0.7 0.35 980 8860 6676 0.109 0.57 358 5 1 0.46 2
27 76 78 77 CL (Lacustrine) 119.8 0.7 0.35 980 9099 6791 0.109 0.56 361 7 1 0.46 3
Legend
Sand Layer
Notes:
a max
g rd=reduction factor based on depth (Figure 8.15, "Soil Dynamics," by Prakash)

 2σ a   5 0 
6) Assumed top width of berm (cross section of MSE 56 ft

Height of berm above existing grade = 20 ft
Weight of soil berm = 140 pcf
7) Boussinesq Influence Factor from NAVFAC DM-7.1, Figure 6 Influence Value for Vertical Stress Under Embankment Load of Infinite Length
8) CN = Correction factor for N value = 2/(1+s'v /2000) - Equation 4.4 - Coduto
Table 1C
Colonie Landfill
East Landfill Perimeter (B-2013-10)
Depth Depth to Generalized Unit at Center of at Center of Stress (psf) (3) Observed Ratio (4) Shear Stress (5) FOS
1 0 4 3 FILL (Clay) 140 420 420 0.109 0.98 29 10 1 1.65 17 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 55 0.57 55
2 4 8 6 Waste 80 860 860 0.109 0.98 60 8 1 1.40 11 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 45 0.57 93
3 8 12 10 Waste 80 1180 1180 0.109 0.98 82 15 1 1.26 19 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 59 0.57 165
4 12 16 14 Waste 80 1500 1500 0.109 0.98 104 25 1 1.14 29 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 72 0.57 259
5 16 20 18 Waste 80 1820 1820 0.109 0.98 126 30 1 1.05 31 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 76 0.57 329
6 20 24 22 Waste 80 2140 2140 0.109 0.98 149 20 1 0.97 19 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 59 0.57 303
7 24 28 26 Waste 80 2460 2460 0.109 0.98 171 15 1 0.90 13 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 49 0.57 291
8 28 32 30 Waste 80 2780 2780 0.109 0.96 189 25 1 0.84 21 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 62 0.57 410
9 32 34 33 Waste 80 3020 3020 0.109 0.96 205 75 1 0.80
10 34 37 35.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 3280 3280 0.109 0.94 218 12 1 0.76 9 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 40 0.57 345 1.58
11 37 41 39 CL (Lacustrine) 120 3700 3700 0.109 0.92 241 4 1 0.70 3
12 41 45 43 CL (Lacustrine) 120 4180 4180 0.109 0.9 267 2 1 0.65 1 0.001 0.1 34.0 1.3 1 17 0.57
13 45 48 46.5 CL (Lacustrine) 120 4600 4600 0.109 0.86 280 2 1 0.61 1 0.001 0.1 34.0 1.3 1 17 0.57 87
14 48 54 51 ML (Lacustrine) 120 5140 5140 0.109 0.8 291 2 1 0.56 1 0.001 0.1 34.0 1.3 1 16 0.57 93
15 54 58 56 CL (Lacustrine) 120 5740 5740 0.109 0.77 313 2 1 0.52 1 0.001 0.1 34.0 1.3 1 15 0.57 100
16 58 60 59 SC (Lacustrine) 120 6100 6100 0.109 0.73 315 4 1 0.49 2 0.001 0.1 34.0 1.3 1 21 0.57 147
Legend
Sand Layer
Notes:

a m ax
g
 2σ a   5 0 

Liquefaction Settlement
Table 2A
LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT
Colonie Landfill
Unit
Generalized hj Weight so s'o ec re
Layer Soil Type (feet) (pcf) (psf) (tsf) N'60 amax (tav/s'o)M rm (tav/s'o)7.5 (percent) (inches)
1 FILL (Clay) 2 140 140 140 30 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.061
2 FILL (Clay) 2 140 420 420 26 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.061
3 FILL (Clay) 2 140 700 700 21 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.061
4 FILL (Clay) 2 140 980 980 16 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
5 FILL (Clay) 2 140 1260 1260 16 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
6 FILL (Clay) 2 140 1540 1478 12 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
7 FILL (Clay) 2 140 1820 1633 14 0.109 0.08 1.13 0.07
8 FILL (Clay) 3 140 2170 1827 21 0.109 0.08 1.13 0.07
9 Waste 3 80 2500 1970 0 0.109 0.09 1.13 0.08
10 Waste 5 80 2820 2040 59 0.109 0.09 1.13 0.08
11 Waste 5 80 3220 2128 17 0.109 0.10 1.13 0.09
12 SP (Alluvium) 5 120 3720 2316 11 0.109 0.10 1.13 0.09 0.1 0.1
13 SP (Alluvium) 5 120 4320 2604 0 0.109 0.10 1.13 0.09 10 6.0
14 SP (Alluvium) 5 120 4920 2892 2 0.109 0.10 1.13 0.09 8 4.8
15 SP (Alluvium) 5 120 5520 3180 2 0.109 0.09 1.13 0.08 8 4.8
16 SP (Alluvium) 1 120 5880 3353 13 0.109 0.09 1.13 0.08 0.1 0.0
17 Shale 3 140 6150 3498 25 0.109 0.09 1.13 0.08
18 ML (Till) 2 140 6500 3692 88 0.109 0.09 1.13 0.08
19 ML (Till) 4 140 6920 3925 0 0.109 0.09 1.13 0.08
20 ML (Till) 5 140 7550 4274 45 0.109 0.08 1.13 0.07
65 Total Settlement (inches) = 15.7
hj = layer thickness
so total overburden pressure (tsf)
s'o = effective overburden pressure (psf)
(N1)60 = Normalized blowcount value = (Cer)*(CN)*(N)
amax maximum acceleration in units of gravity
(tav/s'o)M stress ratio for maximum earthquake at subject site
rm = scaling factor for Magnitude 7.5 earthquake (=1.13 for conversion from M=6.75 eq)
(tav/s'o)7.5 stress ratio for Magnitude 7.5 earthquake = (tav/so)M/rm
ec = volumetric strain (%) for stress ratio at M=7.5 (from Figure 4-3 - USCOE)
re = ec/100*hj
re = Settlement
Notes:
1) Method from Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987 (from EM 1110-1-1904 US Army Corps of Engineers)
Table 2B
LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT
Colonie Landfill
Unit
Generalized hj Weight so s'o ec re
Layer Soil Type (feet) (pcf) (psf) (tsf) N'60 amax (tav/s'o)M rm (tav/s'o)7.5 (percent) (inches)
1 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 1540 1540 10 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.061
2 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 1820 1820 18 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.061
3 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 2100 2100 19 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.061
4 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 2380 2380 22 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
5 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 2660 2660 11 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
6 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 2940 2940 11 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
7 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 3220 3220 33 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
8 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 3500 3500 31 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
9 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 3780 3780 23 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
10 FILL (Clay/Silt) 2 140 4032 4032 12 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
11 Waste 5 80 4358 4358 14 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
12 Waste 5 80 4744 4744 22 0.109 0.07 1.13 0.06
13 Waste 5 80 5116 5116 28 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.06
14 Waste 5 80 5488 5644 20 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.05
15 Waste 5 80 5860 5704 13 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.05
16 Waste 5 80 6232 5764 17 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.05
17 Waste 5 80 6604 5824 26 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.05
18 Waste 5 80 6962 5870 16 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.05
19 SP (Alluvium) 2 120 7240 5930 7 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.05 0.1 0.0
20 SP (Alluvium) 2 120 7480 6045 2 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.05 8 1.9
21 SP (Alluvium) 2 120 7720 6160 3 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.05 6 1.4
22 SP (Alluvium) 2 120 7904 6219 3 0.109 0.06 1.13 0.05 0.2 0.0
23 SP (Alluvium) 2 120 8144 6334 7 0.109 0.05 1.13 0.05 0.1 0.0
24 SW (Till) 2 140 8404 6470 13 0.109 0.05 1.13 0.05
25 SW (Till) 2 140 8684 6625 21 0.109 0.05 1.13 0.05
26 CL (Lacustrine) 2 119.8 8860 6676 2 0.109 0.05 1.13 0.05
27 CL (Lacustrine) 2 119.8 9099 6791 3 0.109 0.05 1.13 0.05
78 Total Settlement (inches) = 3.5
hj = layer thickness
so total overburden pressure (tsf) - includes pressure from MSE berm.
s'o = effective overburden pressure (psf) - includes pressure from MSE berm.
(N1)60 = Normalized blowcount value = (Cer)*(CN)*(N)
amax maximum acceleration in units of gravity
(tav/s'o)M stress ratio for maximum earthquake at subject site
rm = scaling factor for Magnitude 7.5 earthquake (=1.13 for conversion from M=6.75 eq)
(tav/s'o)7.5 stress ratio for Magnitude 7.5 earthquake = (tav/so)M/rm
ec = volumetric strain (%) for stress ratio at M=7.5 (from Figure 4-3 - USCOE)
re = ec/100*hj
re = Settlement
Notes:
1) Method from Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987 (from EM 1110-1-1904 US Army Corps of Engineers)
Liner Settlement
BASELINER STRAIN ANALYSES WITH LIQUEFACTION
COLONIE LANDFILL - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT
Settlement Section 2 Settlement Section 4 - PIPE

S2-1 S2-2 S2-3 S2-4 S4-1 S4-2 S4-3
Horizontal Dist. From Previous to [ft] 0 388 72 331 Horizontal Dist. From Previous to [ft] 0 311 79
Distance Along Cross Section [ft] 33 421 493 824 Distance Along Cross Section [ft] 0 311 390
Subgrade elevation [ft] 236.00 247.00 249.00 260.00 Subgrade elevation [ft] 232.00 241.25 243.62
Proposed Subgrade Slope from previous to [%] - -2.84% -2.78% -3.32% Proposed Subgrade Slope from previous to [%] - -2.97% -3.00%
Total Elastic Settlement 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Elastic Settlement 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Primary Settlement [ft] 7.46 10.28 10.41 8.43 Total Primary Settlement [ft] 4.03 7.32 7.12
Total Secondary Settlement [ft] 2.35 2.40 2.35 2.07 Total Secondary Settlement [ft] 2.38 1.79 1.88
Total Liquefaction Settlement [ft] 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Liquefaction Settlement [ft] 0.33 0.00 0.00
Total Settlement [ft] 10.16 12.68 12.77 10.50 Total Settlement [ft] 6.74 9.11 9.00
Post-Settlement Proposed Subgrade [ft] 225.84 234.32 236.23 249.50 Post-Settlement Proposed Subgrade [ft] 225.26 232.14 234.62
Post-Settlement Subgrade Slope with Post-Settlement Subgrade Slope with Liquefaction
Liquefaction Settlement [%] - -2.19% -2.65% -4.01% Settlement [%] - -2.21% -3.13%
S2-1 S2-2 S2-3 S2-4 S4-1 S4-2 S4-3

Presettlement Slope Length 388.1559 72.0278 331.1827 Presettlement Slope Length 311.1375 79.0355
Postsettlement Slope Length 388.0149 72.1361 331.0716 Postsettlement Slope Length 311.0199 79.0274
% Elongation -0.04% 0.15% -0.03% % Elongation -0.04% -0.01%
Notes:
1) A negative slope indicates the measurement starts at the highest point.
Liquefaction Design Density
Table 3A
DESIGN N-VALUE TO REDUCE LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Colonie Landfill
Depth Depth to Generalized Unit at Center of at Center of Stress (psf) (3) Ratio (4) Shear Stress (5) FOS
1 0 2 1 FILL (Clay) 140 140 140 0.109 0.98 10 16 1 1.87 30 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 74 0.57 25
2 2 4 3 FILL (Clay) 140 420 420 0.109 0.98 29 16 1 1.65 26 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 69 0.57 70
3 4 6 5 FILL (Clay) 140 700 700 0.109 0.98 49 14 1 1.48 21 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 61 0.57 103
4 6 8 7 FILL (Clay) 140 980 980 0.109 0.98 68 12 1 1.34 16 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 54 0.57 127
5 8 10 9 FILL (Clay) 140 1260 1260 0.109 0.98 87 13 1 1.23 16 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 54 0.57 162
6 10 12 11 FILL (Clay) 140 1540 1478 0.109 0.98 107 10 1 1.15 12 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 46 0.57 162
7 12 14 13 FILL (Clay) 140 1820 1633 0.109 0.98 126 13 1 1.10 14 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 51 0.57 199
8 14 17 15.5 FILL (Clay) 140 2170 1827 0.109 0.96 148 20 1 1.05 21 0.0612 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 62 0.57 269
9 17 20 18.5 Waste 80 2500 1970 0.109 0.96 170 100/5 1 1.01
10 20 25 22.5 Waste 80 2820 2040 0.109 0.94 188 60 1 0.99 59
11 25 30 27.5 Waste 80 3220 2128 0.109 0.92 210 18 1 0.97 17
12 30 35 32.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 3720 2316 0.109 0.9 237 12 1 0.93 11 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 44 0.57 270 1.14
13 35 40 37.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 4320 2604 0.109 0.86 263 12 1 0.87 10 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 43 0.57 293 1.11
14 40 45 42.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 4920 2892 0.109 0.8 279 12 1 0.82 10 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 42 0.57 316 1.13
15 45 50 47.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 5520 3180 0.109 0.77 301 12 1 0.77 9 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 41 0.57 338 1.12
16 50 51 50.5 SP (Alluvium) 120 5880 3353 0.109 0.73 304 12 1 0.75 9 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 40 0.57 350 1.15
17 51 54 52.5 Shale 140 6150 3498 0.109 0.73 318 35 1 0.73 25
18 54 56 55 ML (Till) 140 6500 3692 0.109 0.71 327 125 1 0.70 88
19 56 60 58 ML (Till) 140 6920 3925 0.109 0.69 338 7 1 0.68
20 60 65 62.5 ML (Till) 140 7550 4274 0.109 0.64 342 6 1 0.64 4
Legend Design N-Values
Sand Deposit
Notes:
2) Water level calculated below ground surface based on boring lo 10 ft
a max
g
 2σ a   5 0 

Table 3B
DESIGN N-VALUE TO REDUCE LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Colonie Landfill
Assumed Boussinesq MSE Total Pressure Effective Pressure Average Shear Critical Stress Critical
Depth Depth to Generalized Unit b/z Influence Berm at Center of at Center of Stress (psf) (3) Ratio (4) Shear Stress (5) FOS
Layer Top Bottom Center Soil Type Weight (pcf) (feet) Factor Load Layer (psf) - so Layer (psf) - s'o amax/g rd tav N-Value Cer Cn N'60 (9) D50 (mm) sdc/2sa Cp Ca Cocr Dr Cr t (psf) vs Liquefaction
1 0 2 1 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 56.0 0.5 1400 1540 1540 0.109 0.98 107 9 1 1.13 10 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 43 0.57 158
2 2 4 3 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 18.7 0.5 1400 1820 1820 0.109 0.98 126 17 1 1.05 18 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 57 0.57 248
3 4 6 5 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 11.2 0.5 1400 2100 2100 0.109 0.98 146 19 1 0.98 19 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 58 0.57 292
4 6 8 7 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 8.0 0.5 1400 2380 2380 0.109 0.98 165 24 1 0.91 22 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 63 0.57 359
5 8 10 9 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 6.2 0.5 1400 2660 2660 0.109 0.98 185 13 1 0.86 11 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 45 0.57 287
6 10 12 11 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 5.1 0.5 1400 2940 2940 0.109 0.98 204 14 1 0.81 11 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 45 0.57 319
7 12 14 13 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 4.3 0.5 1400 3220 3220 0.109 0.98 224 43 1 0.77 33 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 77 0.57 596
8 14 16 15 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 3.7 0.5 1400 3500 3500 0.109 0.98 243 42 1 0.73 31 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 74 0.57 624
9 16 18 17 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 3.3 0.5 1400 3780 3780 0.109 0.96 257 33 1 0.69 23 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 64 0.57 583
10 18 20 19 FILL (Clay/Silt) 140 2.9 0.49 1372 4032 4032 0.109 0.96 274 18 1 0.66 12 0.0759 0.21 42.4 1.3 1 47 0.57 449
11 20 25 22.5 Waste 80 2.5 0.485 1358 4358 4358 0.109 0.94 290 23 1 0.63 14
12 25 30 27.5 Waste 80 2.0 0.48 1344 4744 4744 0.109 0.92 309 8 1 0.59 5
13 30 35 32.5 Waste 80 1.7 0.47 1316 5116 5116 0.109 0.9 326 8 1 0.56 4
14 35 40 37.5 Waste 80 1.5 0.46 1288 5488 5644 0.109 0.86 334 8 1 0.52 4
15 40 45 42.5 Waste 80 1.3 0.45 1260 5860 5704 0.109 0.8 332 8 1 0.52 4
16 45 50 47.5 Waste 80 1.2 0.44 1232 6232 5764 0.109 0.77 340 8 1 0.52 4
17 50 55 52.5 Waste 80 1.1 0.43 1204 6604 5824 0.109 0.73 342 51 1 0.51 26
18 55 60 57.5 Waste 80 1.0 0.415 1162 6962 5870 0.109 0.71 350 31 1 0.51 16
19 60 62 61 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.9 0.4 1120 7240 5930 0.109 0.69 354 7 1 0.50 4 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 25 0.57 389 1.10
20 62 64 63 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.9 0.4 1120 7480 6045 0.109 0.67 355 7 1 0.50 3 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 25 0.57 394 1.11
21 64 66 65 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.9 0.4 1120 7720 6160 0.109 0.64 350 7 1 0.49 3 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 25 0.57 398 1.14
22 66 68 67 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.8 0.38 1064 7904 6219 0.109 0.62 347 7 1 0.49 3 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 25 0.57 401 1.15
23 68 70 69 SP (Alluvium) 120 0.8 0.38 1064 8144 6334 0.109 0.6 346 7 1 0.48 3 0.1684 0.23 43.4 1.3 1 24 0.57 405 1.17
24 70 72 71 SW (Till) 140 0.8 0.38 1064 8404 6470 0.109 0.59 351 27 1 0.47 13
25 72 74 73 SW (Till) 140 0.8 0.38 1064 8684 6625 0.109 0.58 357 46 1 0.46 21
26 74 76 75 CL (Lacustrine) 119.8 0.7 0.35 980 8860 6676 0.109 0.57 358 5 1 0.46 2
27 76 78 77 CL (Lacustrine) 119.8 0.7 0.35 980 9099 6791 0.109 0.56 361 7 1 0.46 3
Legend Design N-Values
Sand Deposit
Notes:
a max
g rd=reduction factor based on depth (Figure 8.15, "Soil Dynamics," by Prakash)

 2σ a   5 0 
6) Assumed top width of berm (cross section of MSE 56 ft

Height of berm above existing grade = 20 ft
Weight of soil berm = 140 pcf
7) Boussinesq Influence Factor from NAVFAC DM-7.1, Figure 6 Influence Value for Vertical Stress Under Embankment Load of Infinite Length
8) CN = Correction factor for N value = 2/(1+s'v /2000) - Equation 4.4 - Coduto
Supporting Documentation
"Soil Dynamics", Shamsher Prakash; Shamsher Prakas Foundation,
Rolla Missouri.
APPENDIX GEO-C
Slope Stability Analysis
CLIENT DATE: PROJECT NUMBER

Waste Connections, Inc.
16-Apr-17 150027
Liquefaction Evaluations

CWE JGW
Purpose of the evaluation was to review and evaluate the slope stability at the north of the landfill to accommodate the
liquefaction potential of the Sand located in this area of the site. If computed factors of safety were <1 for slopes with reduced
soil strengths due to liquefaction, the soil improvement/densification soil properties were evaluated to confirm that the
remediation resulted in computed slope factors of safety >1.
Design References:
1. Soil Dynamics - Shamsher Prakash, Shamsher Prakash Foundation.
2. RCRA Subtitle D (258) Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities", USEPA Office of Research and
Development, April 1995.
3. See Attachment 7 of the Part 360 Application Engineering Design Report for original settlement and global stability
calculations.
Subsurface exploration logs reveal a layer of granular, Sand at three (3) areas of the Colonie site. The material is limited in
aerial extent and the depth to the deposit is approximately 50-ft. below existing ground surface elevations. Deposit thickness,
based on subsurface explorations, ranges from approximately 5 to 20-ft.
Calculations indicated that liquefaction may occur in the Sand at the north end of the site in the area beneath the stormwater
pond (not beneath landfill limits) and beneath the north perimeter berm. Therefore, global stability was evaluated using EPA
recommended residual strength values for the Sand. These evaluations revealed computed factors of safety <1. Therefore, the
properties of the Sand resulting from densification were included in selected areas beneath the berm and the global stability re-
evaluated. The computed factors of safety after soil improvements were >1.
CALCULATION APPROVED BY: Robert Holmes - April 12, 2017

Project Manager / Date

Stability - Existing Conditions
540
GLOBAL DD
AREA 7 - LINER STABILITY
520
Morgenstern-Price Analysis
500 F of S: 0.592
480 Horz Seismic Coef.:
460
440
Color Name Model Unit Strength Phi-B Piezometric Cohesion' Phi' Constant
Weight Function (°) Line (psf) (°) Unit Wt.
(pcf) Above
420 Water
Table
(pcf)
New Shear/Normal Fn. 80 New 0 1

400
Waste Waste
Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
380
Fill Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32
Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 100 0

360
Old Shear/Normal Fn. 95 New 0 1 80
Waste Waste
Elevation
Till Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32

340
320
New Waste
300
280
260
Strucutural Fill
240
Existing Waste
220
200
180
Till
160 Bedrock
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600
Distance
0.818
540
Global Section DE Liquefaction Analysis with Sand C = 100 psf
520
500
F of S: 0.818
480
460
Color Name Model Unit Strength Phi-B Piezometric Cohesion' Phi' Constant Tau/Sigma Minimum
Weight Function (°) Line (psf) (°) Unit Wt. Ratio Strength
(pcf) Above (psf)
440 Water
Table
(pcf)
New Waste Shear/Normal Fn. 80 New 0 1

420 Waste
Structural Fill Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32
400 Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 100 0
Old Waste Shear/Normal Fn. 95 New 0 1 80

Waste
Common Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 0 30

380
TILL Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32
Lacustrine UU S=f(overburden) 118 1 0.22 533
360
Elevation
340
320
300
280
Structural Fill
260
240
220 Existing Waste
Common Fill
200
180
Lacustrine Bedrock
160
Sand
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
Distance
GLOBAL EE
540
520 Morgenstern-Price Analysis

F of S: 0.686
500
Color Name Model Unit Strength Phi-B Piezometric Cohesion' Phi' Tau/Sigma Minimum Constant
Weight Function (°) Line (psf) (°) Ratio Strength Unit Wt.
(pcf) (psf) Above
480 Water
Table
(pcf)
460 New Waste Shear/Normal Fn. 80 New 0 1

Waste
440 Structural Fill Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32

420
Waste
400
380 Seismic Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 100 0
360
Elevation
340
320
300
280
260
Structural Fill
240
Existing Waste
220
Common Fill
200
180
Bedrock
Sand
Lacustrine
160
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
Distance
Stability Post-Improvement - Grouted
540
GLOBAL DD
520
500 F of S: 1.012
480 Horz Seismic Coef.:
460
440
(pcf) Above
Water
Table
(pcf)
420
New Shear/Normal Fn. 80 New 0 1
Waste Waste

400
Old Shear/Normal Fn. 95 New 0 1 80

Waste Waste
360
Elevation
Grouted Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 0 28.7

340 Sand Grout width is 165-ft.
320
New Waste
300
280
260
Strucutural Fill
240
Existing Waste
220
200
180
Till
160 Bedrock
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600
Distance
1.007
540
Global Section DE Liquefaction Analysis with Sand C = 100 psf
520 Morganstern-Price Analysis
500
F of S: 1.007
480
(pcf) Above (psf)
460 Water
Table
(pcf)

Waste
440

Waste
400
TILL Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32
Grouted Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 0 28.7

380
360
Elevation
340
320
300
280
Structural Fill
260
240
220 Existing Waste
Common Fill
200
180
Lacustrine Bedrock
160
Sand
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
Distance
GLOBAL EE
540 AREA 7 - LINER STABILITY
Morganstern-Price Analysis
Color Name Model Unit Strength Phi-B Piezometric Cohesion' Phi' Tau/Sigma Minimum Constant
520 Weight Function (°) Line (psf) (°) Ratio Strength Unit Wt. Liquefaction Analysis
(pcf) (psf) Above
Water
F of S: 1.342
Table
500 (pcf)
Waste
480

460

440 Waste
420 Till Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32
Seismic Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 100 0
400 grouted Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 0 28.7
380
360
Elevation
340
320
300
280
260
Structural Fill
240
Existing Waste
220
Common Fill
200
180
Bedrock
Sand
Lacustrine
160
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
Distance
Stability Post Improvement – Soil Reinforcement
CLIENT PROJECT NUMBER

Capital Region Landfills, Colonie NY 150027
Improving Slope Stability above Liquefiable Soils with Geogrid Geogrid Reinforcement Design
6 4
L. Rohr C. Eller and J. Walker
- To stabilize the Area 7 Development proposed slopes above potentially liquefiable soils by adding
geogrid reinforcements.
- Slope/W software using the Morganstern-Price Method was used for this analysis.
- The Long-Term Design Strength (LTDS) of 70,883 lbs/ft for ParaLink 1500 was obtained from the
Technical Data Sheet for the product: Rev 02, Issue Date 08.19.2014.
- As suggested by Koerner, a conservative additional Reduction Factor of 1.5 was applied In Slope/W to
the LTDS for the modeled Geogrid in this analysis.
- The EPA method for modeling liquefied sand (Cohesion of 100 psf and a friction angle of 0 degrees)
was used in this analysis.
- Geogrid reinforcement sheets were spaced 2 feet apart and back-filled with sand both above and below
each sheet.
Reference 1: Richardson, G. AND E. Kavazanjian. RCRA SUBTITLE D (258): SEISMIC DESIGN

GUIDANCE FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITIES. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-95/051.
Reference 2: Koerner, R. "Designing with Geosynthetics, Fourth Edition." Simon & Schuster, New
Jersey, 1998.
1. Using 4 sheets of ParaLink 1500 Geogrid spaced at 2-foot intervals and backfilled with sand results in
Factors of Safety (FOS) greater than 1 for each of the sections of the Area 7 Development that lie above
potentially liqeufiable soils. Section DD: 400 feet of Geogrid with 47,255 lbs of Factored Tensile Capacity
required (FOS = 1.024). Section DE: 300 feet of Geogrid with 47,255 lbs of Factored Tensile Capacity
required (FOS = 1.293). Section EE: 300 feet of Geogrid with 47,255 lbs of Factored Tensile Capacity
required (FOS = 1.113).
2. A 25-foot wide section of compaction or jet grouting is required to reach a FOS greater than 1 (1.23)
for the berm at the base of the Pond intercepted by Section DD.

1.293
540
GLOBAL DE
520
AREA 7 - LIQUEFACTION STABILITY
500
F of S: 1.293
480
(pcf) Above (psf)
460 Water
Table
(pcf)

440 Waste
Structural Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32

Fill
420

Waste
400 Common Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 0 30

around
Geogrid
380 TILL Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32
Lacustrine S=f(overburden) 118 1 0.22 533

UU
360
Elevation
Reinforcement Details:
340 4 Sheets of Geogrid
Factored Tensile Capacity: 47,255.33 lbs
Length: 300 ft
320
300
280
Structural Fill
260 Geogrid with 2-foot Spacing and Sand Backfill
240
220 Existing Waste
Common Fill
200
180
Lacustrine Bedrock
160
Sand
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
Distance
GLOBAL EE
540
520
F of S: 1.113
500 Color Name Model Unit Strength Phi-B Piezometric Cohesion' Phi' Tau/Sigma Minimum Constant
Weight Function (°) Line (psf) (°) Ratio Strength Unit Wt.
(pcf) (psf) Above
Water
480 Table
(pcf)
460
Waste
Structural Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32

440 Fill
Lacustrine S=f(overburden) 118 1 0.22 533
UU
420
Waste
Common Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 0 30
400
Fill
around
380 geogrid

Elevation
340 New Waste

4 Sheets of Geogrid
320 Factored Tensile Capacity: 47,255.33 lbs
Length: 300 ft
300
280
260
Structural Fill
Geogrid with 2-foot Spacing and Sand Backfill
240
Structural Fill
Sand around geogrid Old Waste
Existing Waste
220
Common Fill
200
Common Fill
180 Common Fill Sand Bedrock
Sand
Lacustrine UU Sand Bedrock
Lacustrine
Lacustrine UU UU
Lacustrine
160 Till
Till
Bedrock
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
Distance
1.024
540
GLOBAL DD
520
500 F of S: 1.024
480
460
(pcf) Above
440
Water
Table
(pcf)
420 New Shear/Normal Fn. 80 New 0 1

Waste Waste

400

380
Waste
360 Till Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32

Elevation
Around
340 Geogrid
4 Sheets of Geogrid
320 Factored Tensile Capacity: 47,255.33
lbs
Length: 400 ft New Waste
300
280
260
Geogrid with 2-foot Spacing and Sand
Backfill
Strucutural Fill
240
Existing Waste
220
200
180
Sand
Till
160 Bedrock
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600
Distance
1.229
540
GLOBAL DD
520
500 F of S: 1.229
480
460 Weight Function (°) Line (psf) (°) Unit Wt.
(pcf) Above
Water
Table
440 (pcf)

Waste
420 Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
400

Waste
380
Grouted Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 0 15

360
Sand

Elevation
Around
340 Geogrid
4 Sheets of Geogrid
320
Factored Tensile Capacity: 47,255.33
lbs
Length: 400 ft New Waste
300
280
260
Geogrid with 2-foot Spacing and Sand
Backfill
Strucutural Fill
240
Existing Waste
220
200
180
Sand
Till
160 Bedrock
50-foot Section of Grout Improved

Soil
140
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600
Distance
APPENDIX GEO-D
Grouting Technology Information
APPENDIX GEO-E
Geogrid Reinforcement Information
Technical Reference – Slope Stability and Stabilization
Methods, Abramson, et al.
Technical Reference – “The Undrained Shear Strength of
Overconsolidated Clays”, Strozyk and Tankiewicz
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272351256
The Undrained Shear Strength of

Overconsolidated Clays
Article in Procedia Engineering · December 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.067
CITATIONS READS
2 649
2 authors:
Joanna Strozyk Matylda Tankiewicz

Wroclaw University of Science and Technology Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Matylda Tankiewicz on 16 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 91 (2014) 317 – 321
XXIII R-S-P seminar, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering (23RSP) (TFoCE 2014)
The Undrained Shear Strength of Overconsolidated Clays

Joanna StróĪyka*, Matylda Tankiewicza
a
Wrocáaw University of Technology, WybrzeĪe WyspiaĔskiego 27, 50-370 Wrocáaw, Poland
Abstract
The paper presents results of laboratory unconfined and confined shear tests. Tests were conducted on samples of clays taken from
depth 100-300 meters below ground level. All confined tests were performed in triaxial apparatus following TXCIU procedure.
Selected samples were tested in overconsolidation state. The OCR ratio values ranged from 3 to 28. Values of uniaxial compressive
strength qu and undrained shear strength cu were established for each OCR ratio. The normalization procedure was done and the
normalized ratio cu/V’vc and qu/V’vc were obtained. The results were compared with SHANSEP equation. The analysis shows that
SHANSEP equation can be used for natural clayey soils in heavily overconsolidated state.
© 2014
© 2014The TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Ltd. This
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the XXIII R-S-P seminar, Theoretical Foundation of Civil
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Engineeringunder
Peer-review (23RSP).
responsibility of organizing committee of the XXIII R-S-P seminar, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering (23RSP)
Keywords: undrained shear strength; OCR ratio; overconsolidated soil; clayey soil
1. Introduction
The mechanical properties of clayey soil, especially shear strength, are one of the most important for engineering
practice. The laboratory testing is usually conducted on normally consolidated (NC) or overconsolidated (OC) intact
soil samples, taken from depth no more than 20-50 m below ground level. Only very few experimental investigations
have been carried out using intact clay samples taken from great depths. The correlation between soil mechanic
parameters is usually estimated on reconstituted samples or natural samples with OCR < 10 [2, 6, 7].
This paper presents results of laboratory examinations of undrained shear strength of clayey and silty clayey soil
specimens taken from great depths. All tested samples were taken from 100 to 300 meter below ground level.
The effective vertical stresses in situ in sampling points ı’v0 varied from 1.98 MPa to 5.31 MPa. One of the main
mechanical parameter of soil, i.e. undrained shear strength cu, was established under undrained conditions from
unconfined and confined triaxial tests. In all tests, during consolidation stage, the applied consolidation pressure was
low enough to preserve the overconsolidated state of stress of soil. Tests were repeated with different consolidation
stress due to obtain values of cu at different overconsolidation ratio (OCR) for each sample.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +48-71-320-3194; fax: +48-71-328-4814.

E-mail address: joanna.strozyk@pwr.edu.pl
1877-7058 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the XXIII R-S-P seminar, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering (23RSP)
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.067
318 Joanna Stróżyk and Matylda Tankiewicz / Procedia Engineering 91 (2014) 317 – 321
To determine the changes in cu with respect to OCR ratio a normalization procedure was used. The concept
of normalized behaviour is extensively used in soil mechanics [4]. It is based on observation that the laboratory test
results on samples having the same OCR ratio and different consolidation load (different preconsolidation pressure)
shows similar properties when normalized with respect to the consolidation stress. The normalized behaviour is a basis
of many framework of soil behaviour; in particular, critical state soil mechanics [1, 3] or soils model e.g. Cam-Clay
[7] or MIT [11].
Nomenclature
cu undrained shear strength

m scaling component
OCR overconsolidation ratio, OCR= ı’v0/ ı’vc
S undrained strength ratio of the normally consolidated soil
qu uniaxial compressive strength
w natural water content
z depth below ground level
ȡ bulk density
ı’3 consolidation pressure
ı’v0 average vertical effective stress in situ
ı’vc effective vertical consolidation stress
2. Material and Methods
The laboratory tests were made on the tertiary soil samples taken from Lower Silesia region. The eight samples
have been selected to laboratory investigations. The undisturbed soil samples have been taken from boreholes with
depths from 100 m to 287 m below ground level. The basic geotechnical soil parameters have been estimated
in accordance with the PN-EN ISO 14688: 2006 [13] and PKN-CEN ISO/TS 17892: 2009 [14]. Obtained results are
listed in Table 1. The grain size distribution tests shown, that examined soils are clays (Cl) and silty clays (siCl). The
specimens are characterized by a large variability of densities ȡ (from 1.52g/cm3 to 2.18g/cm3) and natural water
content w (from 13.8% to 25.8%). The examined soils are in stiff and very stiff consistency (PN EN ISO 14688: 2006)
[5, 13].
Table 1. The soil samples characteristics.

Sample Soil Symbol z [m] ı’vo [MPa] ȡ [g/cm3] w [%] Consistency
TX7 Cl 250 4.95 2.18 15.9 Very stiff
TX2 siCl 212 4.20 1.52 19.9 Stiff
TX27 Cl 268 5.31 2.00 23.4 Stiff
TX14 Cl 100 1.98 2.21 13.8 Very stiff
TX12 siCl 103 2.04 2.11 18.9 Stiff
TX1 Cl 104 2.06 1.99 23.4 Stiff
TX22 siCl 287 5.68 1.83 25.8 Stiff
TX18 saCl 217 4.30 1.85 22.7 Stiff
The laboratory tests were carried out in triaxial apparatus. Four specimens were cut out: one for unconfined
compression and three for confined compression tests, from each sample. The unconfined compression test was done
following the procedure described in PKN-CEN ISO/TS 17892: 2009 [5, 14]. The undrained shear strength cu for
each sample was estimated. The confined undrained compression tests were done in triaxial apparatus, after isotropic
consolidation (TXCIU test) [5]. During isotropic consolidation, the specimens were loaded with different isotropic
consolidation stress ı’3 depending on desired OCR value. The undrained compression stage was carried out until the
Joanna Stróżyk and Matylda Tankiewicz / Procedia Engineering 91 (2014) 317 – 321 319
failure was reached. The failure was established for peak shear stress qu = (ı1 - ı3) max. For each samples three
specimens were tested with different confinement. The values of uniaxial compressive strength qu and undrained shear
strength cu (cu = 0.5 qu) were determined from shear stress-strain relationships. The obtained values were dedicated to
proper overconsolidation ratio described by OCR. To compare the parameter values obtained in different stress state
the normalization concept was used [1-3, 11, 12].
Table 2. Unconfined compression test results.

Sample qu [kPa] cu [kPa] qu/ ı’vo [-] cu/ ı’vo [-]
TX7 615.8 307.9 0.124 0.062
TX2 108.6 54.3 0.026 0.013
TX27 206.9 103.4 0.039 0.019
TX14 985.3 492.6 0.498 0.249
TX12 342.6 171.3 0.168 0.084
TX1 348.1 174.1 0.169 0.085
TX22 659.6 329.8 0.116 0.058
TX18 61.5 30.7 0.014 0.007
Table 3. Confined compression test results (TXCIU).

Sample ı’3 [kPa] OCR [-] qu [kPa] cu [kPa] qu/ ı’vc [-] cu/ ı’vc [-]
TX7 200 25 247.3 123.7 1.237 0.618
400 12 680.1 340.0 1.700 0.850
800 6 806.6 403.0 1.008 0.504
TX2 200 21 426.0 213.0 2.130 1.065
400 10 676.0 338.0 1.690 0.845
600 7 974.0 487.0 1.623 0.812
TX27 400 13 297.2 148.6 0.743 0.372
600 9 533.9 267.0 0.890 0.445
800 7 513.8 256.9 0.642 0.321
TX14 100 20 649.5 324.7 6.495 3.247
200 10 452.9 226.5 2.265 1.132
400 5 1012.7 506.4 2.532 1.266
TX12 200 10 665.8 332.9 3.329 1.665
400 5 803.5 401.8 2.009 1.004
600 3 1423.9 712.0 2.373 1.187
TX1 100 21 269.1 134.6 2.691 1.346
200 10 343.5 171.7 1.717 0.859
400 5 329.6 164.8 0.824 0.412
TX22 200 28 294.6 147.3 1.473 0.736
400 14 559.2 249.6 1.398 0.699
800 7 1000.4 500.2 1.251 0.625
TX18 200 21 511.5 255.8 2.558 1.279
400 11 930.3 465.2 2.326 1.163
600 7 1225.7 612.8 2.043 1.021
320 Joanna Stróżyk and Matylda Tankiewicz / Procedia Engineering 91 (2014) 317 – 321
3. Results
The parameters estimated from unconfined compression test are listed in Table 2. After the test, normalized
parameters qu/ı’vo and cu/ı’vo were established [2, 4]. The normalization was divided using effective vertical in situ
stress ı’vo (see Table 1) [3]. As can be seen, the obtained cu and qu values are strongly influenced by samples
consistency. The highest values of cu and qu were observed in samples with very stiff consistency TX7 TX14.
The lowest cu and qu values due probably to internal samples cracks – see TX 2 and TX18. The normalized values cu
and qu varies with OCR and no correlation can be found.
The TXCIU (triaxial isotropic consolidation, undrained compression) tests are shown in Table 3. For each selected
sample three specimens were taken and tested under different confining pressure ı’3. The OCR ratio was estimated
for each test, as the quotient of the in situ effective vertical stress (test as the quotient of the in situ effective is
considered as a preconsolidation stress ı’p = ı’vo) and effective vertical consolidation stress ı’vc. The OCR values
were estimated as 3 to 28. The qu and cu values were determined from each test. The normalized value: undrained
compressive strength ratio qu/ı’vc and undrained shear strength ratio cu/ı’vc were found by following the normalization
procedure described earlier by others authors [2, 4, 8]. The normalized undrained shear strength ratio cu/ı’vc as a
function of OCR is presented in Figure 1.
It is clear that, in case of examined soils taken from great depths, tested in triaxial apparatus the power low function
of the OCR (SHANSEP equation [6]) well described the relationship:
cu/ı’vc = S(OCR)m (1)
The Table 4 gives the correlation coefficient R2 the derived S and m values to SHANSEPT equation (1) for examined
soils presented in Figure 1. There is no correlation in case of two samples TX7 and TX27, but in the case of other six
it is well pronounced. For those (6) samples the values of m is 0.12 – 0.68, which differ significantly from values
given for reconstituted soil by other authors (m is ranging 0.7-0.8) [1, 10]. The S value 0.35-0.80 is generally more
consistent with previous work, where S varies from 0.2 to 0.4 [2, 10]. The large scatter of m and S values is probably
connected with differences of natural clayey soil chosen to the test. The framework was done for reconstituted clay
samples Boston Blue Clay taken from one borehole [2]. Despite this, it should be noted that the equation (1)
SHANSEP could be used for natural heavily overconsolidated soil.
Fig. 1. Undrained shear strength ratio cu/ı’vc versus OCR.

Joanna Stróżyk and Matylda Tankiewicz / Procedia Engineering 91 (2014) 317 – 321 321
Table 4. Undrained shear strength ratio cu/ı’vc and OCR relationship.

Sample S m R2
TX7 0,4462 0,1439 0,143
TX2 0,4807 0,2566 0,945
TX27 0,2582 0,1686 0,130
TX14 0,3512 0,6796 0,661
TX12 0,6831 0,3528 0,580
TX1 0,8024 0,1494 0,976
TX22 0,5009 0,1181 0,958
TX18 0,7061 0,1973 0,944
4. Conclusions
The paper presents results of laboratory unconfined and confined shearing tests conducted on clay samples taken
from great depth. The samples were tested in overconsolidated state. The consolidation stress during testing was lower
than in situ effective vertical stress, which has been considered as preconsolidation pressure. The OCR ratios of
investigated specimens vary from 3 to 28.
The changes of values of undrained shear strength cu with overconsolidation state were established.
The normalization procedure was done and the normalized cu were obtained. The analysis shown that the SHANSEP
equation can be used for natural, intact, overconsolidated soil. Although the values of parameters m and S for highly
overconsolidated soil, with high OCR values, differ from those previously reported.
References
[1] Atkinson J. 2010: The mechanics of soils and foundation. Taylor&Francis, New York.
[2] Abdulhadi N. O., Germaine J.T., Whittle A.J. 2012. Stress-dependent behavior of saturated clay. Can.Geotech. J. 40: 907-916
[3] Burland J.B. 1990. On the compressibility and shear strength of natural soils. Geotechnique, 40, 3:329-378.
[4] Gutierrez M., Nygard R.,Hoeg K., Berre T. 2008 Normalized undrained shear strength of clay shakes. Eng. Geology, 99, 1-2:31-39
[5] Head K.H., Epps R.J. 2011: Manual of soil laboratory testing. Whittles Publishing; Dunbeath v.2.
[6] Ladd C.C., Foot R. 1974. New design procedure for stability of soft clays. Journal of Geotechnical engineering Division, 100,7, 763-786
[7] Roscoe K.H., Burland J.B. 1968.On the generalized stress-strain behavior of wet clay. In engineering plasticity. Cambridge University Press,
535-609
[8] Santagata M., Germaine J.T., Ladd C.C. 2005. Factors affecting the initial stiffness of cohesive soils. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131,4: 430-441
[9] Santagata M., Germaine J.T., Ladd C.C. 2007. Small-strain nonlinearity of normally consolidated clay. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133,1: 72-82
[10] Sheahan, T., Ladd, C., Germaine, J. 1996: Rate-Dependent Undrained Shear Behavior of Saturated Clay. J. Geotech. Eng., 122, 2, 346 -359
[11] Whittle A.J., Kavvadas M. 1994. Formulation of the MIT-E3 constitutive model for overconsolidated clays. Journal of Geotechnical
engineering, 120, 1: 173-198
[12] Wright P.J. 2012: Validation of soil parameters for deep tube tunnel assessment, Proceedings of the ICE - Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
166,1, 18-27
[13] PN-EN ISO 14688: 2006 Badania geotechniczne. Oznaczanie i klasyfikowanie gruntów. (Geotechnical investigation and testing.
Identification and classification of soil), in Polish.
[14] PKN-CEN ISO/TS 17892: 2009.Badania geotechniczne. Badania laboratoryjne gruntów. (Geotechnical investigation and testing. Laboratory
testing of soil), in Polish.
View publication stats

Figure 2 Liner Stability Plan
2
Pipe Loading Calcs – Area 2, 3, 4
CLIENT PROJECT NUMBER

Waste Connections - Colonie Landfill 150027
Area 7 Development Pipe Loading - Areas 2, 3, & 4


LEH (8/11/2017) RAH (8/11/2017)
Develop a pipe loading analysis under the proposed loading conditions for leachate underdrain pipes that were installed as part of
Areas 2, 3, & 4.
- Uni-Bell Technical Report- Deflection: The Pipe/Soil Mechanism

- Design of PE Plastic Pipe - Chapter 6
- Reference Area 5, 6, & 7 pipe loading calculations of Permit Application
- Reference Sheet S-5 of Permit Application Drawings for existing Area 2,3,4 leachate collection system.
- Reference ADS product/technical information
- Area 2, 3, 4 leachate collection systems are no longer fully functional - reportedly cannot be cleaned out.
For existing Area 2, 3, & 4 leachate underdrain pipes with Area 7 overfill:
- Worst case condition in Area 4 has a minimum factor of safety greater than 1.0
X:\PROJECTS\COLONIE LANDFILL\150027 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT 2015\Project Files\Revised Response to Public Hearing Comments\Appendices\App C - Geotechnical Letter\Pipe
Loading\pipe-loading-cover-sheet
Pipe Loading Calculation
Area 2,3,4 ‐ Existing Leachate Layout
Colonie Landfill Expansion
Project No: 150027
Prepared by: LEH 8/11/2017
Checked by: RAH 8/11/2017
A. PIPE PROPERTIES
diameter (in.) D = 4 4
material PVC PVC
perferation PERF. SOLID
specification SDR 35 SDR 35
poisson's ratio of pipe material μ = 0.38 0.38
thickness (in.) t = 0.120 0.120
inside diameter (in.) Di = 3.975 3.975
outside diameter (in.) Do = 4.215 4.215
diameter Ratio SDR = 35.1 35.1
mean diameter Dm = 4.1 4.1
mean radius R = 2.0 2.0
initial modulus of elasticity (psi) Ei = 440000 440000
50‐yr modulus of elasticity (psi) E50 = 158400 158400
initial compressive yield strength (psi) PA,i 9600 9600
50‐yr compressive yield strength (psi) PA,50 3700 3700
B. BEDDING MATERIAL PROPERTIES
* gravel bedding
deflection lag factor Lf = 1.0 1.0

bedding constant K = 0.1 0.1
modulus of soil reaction (psi) Es = 3000 3000
C. LOADING ON PIPE
, ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ for perforated pipes
number of rows of holes per foot of pipe (assumed) n = 2 0
diameter of holes (in.) (assumed) d = 0.375 0
unit weight (pcf) w = 80 80
height of fill over pipe, location #1 (ft.) h1 = 277.53 277.53
location #1 load of fill (psi) P1 = 164.5 154.2
location #1 load of fill (psf) P1 = 23683 22202
Pipe Loading Calculation
Area 2,3,4 ‐ Existing Leachate Layout
Colonie Landfill Expansion
D. RING DEFLECTION
∆ ,
<‐‐‐‐ Modified Iowa Formula
, .
12
3
moment of inertia (in ) I= 0.00014 0.00014
critical deflection limit (%) ΔY/DM = 30.00% 30.00%
initial deflection at location #1 (%) ΔY/DM = 8.64% 8.10%
initial FS at location #1 FS = 3.47 3.70
50‐yr deflection at location #1 (%) ΔY/DM = 8.86% 8.30%
50‐yr FS at location #1 FS = 3.387 3.61
Notes:
(1) Critical deflection limit provided by Uni‐Bell for PVC material and "Design of PE Piping" for HDPE material
D. WALL BUCKLING
′ ,
2
1
initial critical buckling pressure (psi) Pcr = 322 322

50‐yr critical buckling pressure (psi) Pcr = 193 193
E. WALL CRUSHING
,
2
area of pipe wall per unit circumference (in 2/in) = t AW 0.120 0.120

axial stress at location #1 (psi) PSA 2806 2631
GRAVITY SEWER
SUBMITTAL AND DATA SHEET
PIPE SIZE AVERAGE O.D. NOM. I.D. MIN. T. MIN. E APPROX. D9 APPROX. WEIGHT
(IN) (IN) (IN) (IN) (IN) (IN) (LBS/FT)
SDR 35 (PS46) ASTM D3034
4 4.215 3.975 0.120 3.50 4.695 1.05
6 6.275 5.915 0.180 4.25 6.995 2.36
8 8.400 7.920 0.240 4.75 9.360 4.24
10 10.500 9.900 0.300 6.00 11.700 6.64
12 12.500 11.780 0.360 6.25 13.940 9.50
15 15.300 14.426 0.437 7.25 17.048 14.19
SDR 26 (PS115) ASTM D3034
4 4.215 3.891 0.162 3.50 4.863 1.40
6 6.275 5.793 0.241 4.25 7.239 3.11
8 8.400 7.754 0.323 4.75 9.692 5.63
10 10.500 9.692 0.404 6.00 12.116 8.84
12 12.500 11.538 0.481 6.25 14.424 12.56
15 15.300 14.124 0.588 7.25 17.652 18.90
PS46, ASTM F679
18 18.701 17.629 0.499 8.00 20.845 21.43
21 22.047 20.783 0.588 9.50 24.575 29.88
24 24.803 23.381 0.661 9.60 27.647 38.96
27 27.953 26.351 0.745 10.10 31.157 49.47
30 CIOD 32.000 30.194 0.853 16.75 35.612 64.18
36 CIOD 38.300 36.042 1.021 19.02 42.816 93.00
42 CIOD 44.500 41.948 1.187 22.43 49.604 —
48 CIOD 50.800 47.888 1.355 24.78 56.624 —
PS115, ASTM F679
18 18.701 17.261 0.671 8.00 21.581 28.49
21 22.047 20.349 0.791 9.50 25.443 —
24 24.803 22.891 0.889 9.60 28.627 —
27 27.953 25.799 1.002 10.10 32.261 —
30 CIOD 32.000 29.070 1.148 16.75 36.348 —
36 CIOD 38.300 35.464 1.373 19.02 45.438 —
42 CIOD 44.500 41.072 1.596 22.43 51.356 —
48 CIOD 50.800 46.886 1.822 24.78 58.628 —

Appendix C - Geotechnical

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

Appendix C - Geotechnical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION

Technical Reference – Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods, Abramson, et al.

Technical Reference – “The Undrained Shear Strength of Overconsolidated Clays”, Strozyk

Figure 2 Liner Stability Plan

Pipe Loading Calcs – Area 2, 3, 4

August 2nd, 2017

Mr. Angelo A. Marcuccio

Re: Request for Supplemental Information

Dear Mr. Marcuccio,

Section Computed Factor of Safety

Computed Factor of Safety

Cornerstone Engineering and Land Surveying, PLLC

Robert A. Holmes, P.E. James G. Walker, P.E.

Carl W. Eller, P.E.

CLIENT DATE: PROJECT NUMBER

PREPARED BY: CHECKED BY:

Description and Purpose:

CALCULATION APPROVED BY: Robert Holmes - July 28, 2017

REVISION NO.: DESCRIPTION OF REVISION: APPROVED BY:

6) CN = Correction factor for N value = 2/(1+s'v/2000) - Equation 4.4 - Coduto

g rd=reduction factor based on depth (Figure 8.15, "Soil Dynamics," by Prakash)

6) Assumed top width of berm (cross section of MSE 56 ft

1) Observed N-value taken from center of the particular deposit

6) CN = Correction factor for N value = 2/(1+s'v/2000) - Equation 4.4 - Coduto

65 Total Settlement (inches) = 15.7

Settlement Section 2 Settlement Section 4 - PIPE

S2-1 S2-2 S2-3 S2-4 S4-1 S4-2 S4-3

Legend Design N-Values

6) CN = Correction factor for N value = 2/(1+s'v/2000) - Equation 4.4 - Coduto

Legend Design N-Values

g rd=reduction factor based on depth (Figure 8.15, "Soil Dynamics," by Prakash)

6) Assumed top width of berm (cross section of MSE 56 ft

CLIENT DATE: PROJECT NUMBER

PREPARED BY: CHECKED BY:

Description and Purpose:

CALCULATION APPROVED BY: Robert Holmes - April 12, 2017

REVISION NO.: DESCRIPTION OF REVISION: APPROVED BY:

480 Horz Seismic Coef.:

New Shear/Normal Fn. 80 New 0 1

Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1

Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 100 0

Till Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32

New Waste Shear/Normal Fn. 80 New 0 1

Structural Fill Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32

400 Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 100 0

Old Waste Shear/Normal Fn. 95 New 0 1 80

Common Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 0 30

Lacustrine UU S=f(overburden) 118 1 0.22 533

220 Existing Waste

520 Morgenstern-Price Analysis

460 New Waste Shear/Normal Fn. 80 New 0 1

Lacustrine UU S=f(overburden) 118 1 0.22 533

380 Seismic Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 100 0

480 Horz Seismic Coef.:

Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1

Fill Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32

380 Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 100 0

Old Shear/Normal Fn. 95 New 0 1 80

Grouted Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 0 28.7

New Waste Shear/Normal Fn. 80 New 0 1

Structural Fill Mohr-Coulomb 140 0 1 0 32

420 Sand Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 1 100 0

Old Waste Shear/Normal Fn. 95 New 0 1 80