HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230413 Report by Gabr et al. (2004) – Characterization of Jetting-induced Disturbance Zone and Associated Ecological Impacts.ii
Characterization of Jetting-Induced
Disturbance Zone and Associated
Ecological Impacts
by
Mohammed A. Gabr, Ph.D., P.E.
Roy H. Borden, Ph.D., P.E.
Raymond L. Denton
Alex W. Smith
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering
North Carolina State University
In Cooperation with
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
and
The Institute for Transportation Research and Education
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
August, 2004
ii
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA/NC/2006-09
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Characterization of Jetting-Induced Disturbance Zone and Associated
Ecological Impacts
5. Report Date
August, 2004
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
M.A. Gabr, R.H. Borden, R. L. Denton, and A. W. Smith
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
CB 7908 Mann Hall
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7908
11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Research and Analysis Group
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
July 2002 - June 2004
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
2003-15
15. Supplementary Notes
Abstract. Research in this report presents the first study documented in literature to characterize
the surface disturbance and associated ecological impact due to pile jetting process. The enclosed
work describes development of phenomenological pile jetting model in various soil profiles
through implementation of a laboratory experimental program, field testing program, and
comprehensive data analyses. The physical phenomenon of jetting was observed in the
laboratory and a model for computing disturbance created by jetted-pile installations was
developed. Four test sites were chosen in different geographical locations in Eastern North
Carolina to perform a total of 26 jetted pile installations. Ecological impacts of jetting on marine
environment and tidal marches are discussed and presented.
17. Key Words
ecological, disturbance, field testing, flow rate,
imacpt, jetting, piles, sand,
18. Distribution Statement
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
270
22. Price
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)Reproduction of completed page authorized
iii
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views
of the University. The author(s) are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data
presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of
either the North Carolina Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway
Administration at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful for NCDOT-Geotechnical and Construction Divisions for their
support of the research work, their technical contributions, and facilitating of field work.
Thanks are also due to Dr. Moy Biswas and the research and analysis group for their
support of the research and facilitating the proposed work. The authors would like to also
acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Dr. David B. Eggleston, Cynthia Huggett and
Gayle Plaia of the Department of Marine, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences who evaluated
the impact of pile jetting on infaunal macrobenthos (Chapter 9) and Dr. Stephen W.
Broome, Department of Soil Science, who evaluated the influence of jetting on tidal
marsh vegetation (chapter 10).
iv
Executive Summary
Research in this report presents a systematic study to characterize the surface
disturbance and associated ecological impacts due to pile jetting process. The work aimed
at developing a pile jetting model for computing the size of associated debris zones and
illustrating potential ecological impacts of the jetting process. The work encompassed
laboratory and field testing programs, and comprehensive data analyses for the
development of the phenomenological model. From the laboratory testing program, the
physical phenomenon of jetting was observed and a model for computing the disturbance
created by jetted-pile installations was presented. Field testing encompassed four test
sites in different geographical locations of Eastern North Carolina. A total of 26 jetted
pile installations were performed to aid in model development and verify the behavior
observed during laboratory experimentations.
Data from laboratory study indicated that installation of piles using jetting
approach stems from the simultaneous erosion of soils beneath the pile tip and transport
of these soil particles through the annulus to the ground surface. The pile advances only
after a sufficient area of soil has been eroded to cause a tip bearing capacity failure as
side friction is reduced due to the return water and liquefaction jetting annulus.
Optimization of water flowrate (Qw) and jet nozzle velocity (Vj) for a given soil profile
provides minimal debris zone dimensions for jetted installations. In general, higher jet
velocities with longer flow rates will produce smaller debris zones. Given equal jetting
parameters, the extent of the debris zone for sands with smaller average particle sizes
(D50 = 0.15 mm) were approximately 100% further from the pile center than sands with
larger average particle size (D50 = 0.5 mm).
Measurement of the debris zone in the field indicated that the diameter of the
disturbed area created from the jetting process was generally equivalent to the jetted
depth of pile. Furthermore, the volume of debris material measured around the annulus
of pile was generally equal to, or slightly more in case of dense profiles than, the inserted
volume of pile for a particular installation.
At sites where the process took place underwater, environmental sampling
indicated slight variation in pH and dissolved oxygen during jetting. Turbidity increased
after jetting but did not exceed 70 NTU. Turbidity approached 70NTU level only at
Swans Quarter No. 5 installation. In this case, turbidity curtains were used during jetting
at the site where the highest turbidity was measured around the pile. This is due to the
fact that the curtain maintained the sediment confined to area around the pile. Sampling
of sediments and infuana was performed at three sites several months after testing was
completed. Only at one of three sites (i.e., Swan Quarter), the mean number of
macrobenthic organisms was significantly lower at the impact area compared to sampling
areas that were 5 m and 20 m upstream and downstream. The mean number of
macrobenthic species did not vary significantly according to sampling area, including the
impact areas, and at the White Oak River jetting had no statistically significant effect on
the mean number organisms nor the mean number of macrobenthic species; however,
species adapted to disturbed habitats (tube-building oligochaetes) had colonized the
impact area and areas downstream. It seems that 4-9 months after jetting, the mean
abundance and species composition of macrobenthos, primarily polychaetes and
v
molluscan bivalves, sometimes showed a negative response to jetting disturbances,
however, this biological response to disturbance was isolated in space to < 5 m away
from the general impact area, including downstream areas, and did not negatively alter
the overall numbers of macrobenthic species. The spatially isolated nature of the impact
on macrobenthos observed in this study is consistent with the scale of impact by jetting
on the sediment thickness, where sediment thickness from a jetted piling declines to
background levels at ~ 6 m from the impact area. For jetting performed on land, the long-
term impact of elevation change on marsh vegetation is likely to be minimal even if the
spoil deposits are not removed. The elevation changes due to uplift of the original surface
plus the spoil deposit does not exceed the maximum elevation of some plant community
in each marsh. While spoil deposited at each of the jetting installations was deep enough
to bury existing vegetation, there was evidence of regrowth by shoots coming up through
the spoil deposits or rhizomes growing into the affected area from the edges. At Swan
Quarter, where the sandy spoil is very phosphorus deficient, applying and incorporating
phosphate fertilizer would enhance establishment of vegetation.
A proposed phenomenological model provides an estimate of debris zone
characteristics. The model was verified through data obtained from field testing. The
results of the verification study indicate that the results from the model agree fairly with
field data. In 11 cases, the model results over predicted the measured debris volume and
diameters. In six cases, the model under predicted the measured values by approximately
20% on the average. A design procedure was outlined for implementing the proposed
three-part jetting model that include insertion rate, volume and size of disturbance zone,
and change in bedform due to under current velocities. A spreadsheet was developed and
presented for determination of the insertion characteristics and debris volume and area.
Finally, as field jetting for construction is conducted in the future, monitoring of
the installations, surveying of the disturbance zone, and documentation of employed
pumps capacity should be performed to add data to the data base collected during this
research. The addition of more jetting data with a larger variety of subsurface profiles
will serve to further verify the proposed model for evaluating pile insertion rate and
associated disturbance zone. Research should also be conducted to evaluate the
environmental impact of alternative installation methods (such as driving) or foundation
type (such as drilled shafts) so that engineers will have the ability to perform realistic
cost-benefit analyses for structures to be installed in environmentally sensitive areas.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE.............................................II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................IV
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................... XIV
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION...........................................................................1
1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement..........................................................................................................................2
1.3 Objectives.........................................................................................................................................2
1.4 Scope of Research............................................................................................................................3
1.4.1 Chapter 1 – Introduction ..............................................................................................................3
1.4.2 Chapter 2 – Literature Review .....................................................................................................3
1.4.3 Chapter 3 – Laboratory Experimental Program ...........................................................................3
1.4.4 Chapter 4 – Laboratory Jetting Results and Model Development................................................3
1.4.5 Chapter 5 – Field Testing Methodology.......................................................................................4
1.4.6 Chapter 6 – Data Acquisition and Test Monitoring .....................................................................4
1.4.7 Chapter 7 – Results of Field Testing............................................................................................4
1.4.8 Chapter 8 – Model Development and Verification for Field........................................................4
1.4.9 Chapter 9 – Environmental Impact of Pile Jetting on Macrobethos in North Carolina................4
1.4.10 Chapter 10 – Effects of Pile Jetting on Tidal Marsh Vegetation.............................................4
1.4.11 Chapter 11 – Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................4
vii
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................5
2.1 State-of-the-art of Pile Jetting........................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Efficiency and Comparison of Pile Installation Methods.............................................................5
2.1.2 Variation of Subsurface Characteristics.......................................................................................6
2.1.3 General Installation Procedure (Tsinker, 1988) ...........................................................................7
2.1.4 Pile Installation Design Guidelines (Shestopal, 1959).................................................................7
2.1.5 Summary of State-of-the-Art of Pile Jetting.................................................................................9
2.2 Model Techniques for Determining effect of Jetting on Pile Capacity (Gunaratne et al., 1999)
10
2.2.1 Experimental Program for Model Testing..................................................................................11
2.2.2 Testing Matrix and Pile Installation Methods............................................................................11
2.2.3 Lateral and Axial Load Testing of Jetted Piles (Gunaratne et al., 1999)....................................14
2.2.4 Summary of Experimental Modeling of Jetted Pile Installations...............................................14
2.3 Hydraulic Effects on Transport of Sedimentary Particles........................................................14
2.4 Summary of Literature Review ...................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 3 - LABORATORY EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM..........................17
3.1. Mechanical Properties of Laboratory Test Soils ...............................................................................17
3.1.1 Index properties of Test Soils.....................................................................................................17
3.1.2 Effective Angle of Internal Friction...........................................................................................19
3.1.3 Permeability of Testing Material................................................................................................19
3.2 Laboratory Jetting Program........................................................................................................20
3.2.1 Fabrication of Model Test Piles .................................................................................................20
3.2.2 Jetting Test Chamber..................................................................................................................21
viii
3.2.3 Fabrication of Jetting Apparatus ................................................................................................22
3.2.4 Test Setup and Quality Control..................................................................................................23
3.2.5 Jet Testing Program....................................................................................................................25
CHAPTER 4 - LABORATORY JETTING TEST RESULTS AND MODEL
DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................27
4.1 Insertion Characteristics and Refusal Depth..............................................................................27
4.1.1 Insertion Rate Characteristics.....................................................................................................27
4.1.2 Insertion Characteristics – Angled Jets ......................................................................................30
4.2 Debris Zone Characteristics.........................................................................................................31
4.2.1 Debris Volume Analysis – Full Depth.......................................................................................31
4.2.2 Debris Area Analysis – Depth Control.......................................................................................31
4.2.3 Debris Zone Analysis - 45º Angled Jets – Full Tests.................................................................34
4.2.4 Debris Zone Evaluation – Depth Control Tests..........................................................................36
4.3 Model Development......................................................................................................................41
4.3.1 Debris Zone Modeling ...............................................................................................................41
4.3.2 Validation of Proposed Model with Laboratory Tests ...............................................................42
CHAPTER 5 - FIELD TESTING METHODOLOGY............................................44
5.1 Test Locations................................................................................................................................44
5.1.1 White Oak River.........................................................................................................................45
5.1.2 Cherry Branch Ferry Basin.........................................................................................................46
5.1.3 Sampson County Bridge Replacement site ................................................................................47
5.1.4 Swan Quarter Ferry Basin..........................................................................................................47
ix
5.2 Test Setup and Equipment...........................................................................................................49
5.2.1 Equipment..................................................................................................................................52
5.2.2 Testing Procedure.......................................................................................................................54
5.2.2.1 Water Installations............................................................................................................55
5.2.2.2 Land Installation...............................................................................................................57
5.2.2.3 Angled Jets .......................................................................................................................58
CHAPTER 6 - DATA ACQUISITION AND TEST MONITORING.......................59
6.1 Insertion Rate Monitoring............................................................................................................59
6.2 Pump Performance Monitoring...................................................................................................59
6.3 Test Termination Criterion ..........................................................................................................60
6.4 Debris Zone Delineation and Volume Determination................................................................60
6.5 Particle Size Distribution..............................................................................................................62
6.6 Dispersivity Testing.......................................................................................................................62
6.7 Water Quality Monitoring ...........................................................................................................63
6.8 Summary of Data Acquisition and Test Monitoring..................................................................64
CHAPTER 7 - RESULTS OF FIELD TESTING..................................................65
7.1 Refusal Depth and Insertion Characteristics..............................................................................65
7.2 Debris Zone Characteristics.........................................................................................................67
7.2.1 Shape and Extent of Debris Zone...............................................................................................67
7.2.2 Volume of Debris Zone..............................................................................................................68
x
7.2.3 Particle Size Distribution of Debris Zone ..................................................................................69
7.3 Water Quality Characteristics.....................................................................................................71
7.3.1 White Oak River Site .................................................................................................................71
7.3.1.1 Summary of Monitored Water Quality Parameters at White Oak River ..........................75
7.3.2 Cherry Branch Ferry Basin.........................................................................................................76
7.3.2.1 Summary of Monitored Water Quality Characteristics at Cherry Branch........................78
7.3.3 Swan Quarter Ferry Basin..........................................................................................................78
7.3.3.1 Summary of Monitored Water Quality Characteristics at Swan Quarter..........................81
CHAPTER 8 - MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION........................82
8.1 Insertion Model.............................................................................................................................82
8.1.1 Insertion Model Validation ........................................................................................................90
8.2 Debris Model Verification............................................................................................................92
8.3 Particle Transport Model.............................................................................................................96
8.3.1 Model Rational...........................................................................................................................96
8.3.2 Proposed Approach....................................................................................................................97
8.3.3 Turbidity and Transport Length: Underwater Jetting...............................................................101
8.4 Proposed Design Methodology...................................................................................................102
CHAPTER 9 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PILE JETTING ON
MACROBENTHOS IN NORTH CAROLINA ....................................................104
9.1 Sampling Locations and Testing Methods................................................................................104
9.2 Results for Given Sites................................................................................................................106
xi
9.2.1 White Oak River.......................................................................................................................106
9.2.2 Swan Quarter Ferry Basin........................................................................................................111
9.2.3 Cherry Point Ferry Basin..........................................................................................................115
9.3 Summary of Environmental Impact of Pile Jetting On Macrobenthos..................................121
CHAPTER 10 - EFFECTS OF PILE JETTING ON TIDAL MARSH
VEGETATION..................................................................................................123
10.1 Methods........................................................................................................................................123
10.2 Results for Given Sites................................................................................................................124
10.2.1 Swan Quarter Marsh............................................................................................................124
10.2.2 White Oak River..................................................................................................................127
10.3 Summary of Effects of Pile Jetting On Tidal Marsh Vegetation ............................................129
CHAPTER 11 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................131
REFERENCES.................................................................................................134
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 KT factor for various jet pipe material (Marine Structures Handbook, 1972)... 9
Table 2-2 Volume of Water and Head Required for Pile Jetting (Marine Structures
Handbook 1972).......................................................................................................... 9
Table 2-3a,b Engineering Properties of Foundation Soil (Gunaratne et al., 1999) .......... 11
Table 2-4 Nomenclature for Piles in the Testing Program (Gunaratne et al., 1999)....... 12
Table 3-1 Index Properties for Natural Soils Used in Laboratory Testing Program........ 18
Table 3-2 Permeability Information for Soils Used in Laboratory Testing...................... 20
Table 3-3 Available Flowrate and Nozzle Velocity Configurations ................................ 23
Table 4-1 Description of Tests Conducted in Experimental Program.............................. 27
Table 6-1 Example Illustrating calculations of the Debris Volume, CB-1....................... 62
Table 7-1 Summary of Field Testing Program................................................................ 66
Table 7-2 Summary of Debris Zone Measurements........................................................ 68
Table 8-1 SPT Hammer Efficiency Corrections (adapted from Clayton, 1990; from
Coduto, 2001). .......................................................................................................... 85
Table 8-2 Borehole and sampler correction factors (adapted from Skempton, 1986; from
Coduto, 2001). .......................................................................................................... 85
Table 8-3 Measured versus predicted insertion time for given tests. .............................. 92
Table 8-4 Summary of Debris Zone Verification............................................................ 94
Table 9-1 Berger-Parker Diversity Index at White Oak River....................................... 111
Table 9-2 Berger-Parker Diversity Index at Swan Quarter ............................................ 115
Table 9-3 Berger-Parker Diversity Index at Cherry Branch........................................... 121
xiii
Table 10-1 Plant species observed in marshes at Swan Quarter and White Oak River. 124
Table 10-2 Results of analyses of soil samples from Swan Quarter............................... 127
Table 10-3 Results of analyses of soil samples from White Oak River marshes........... 129
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Variation in Annulus Dimensions for Various Foundation Soil (Matlin, 1983).
..................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-2 Structure of Typical Jetted Pile Installation (Matlin, 1983)............................ 10
Figure 2-3 Lateral Load Capacity vs. Lateral Displacement at Point of Load Application
(Gunaratne et al., 1999) ............................................................................................ 13
Figure 2-4 Elapsed Time of Jetting vs. Jetting Pressure – 2.5 ft Depth............................ 13
Figure 2-5 Forces acting on a particle resting on a granular bed subject to a steady
current (Allen, 1985)................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2-6 Lift force due to Bernoulli effect on granular bed subject to fluid shear....... 16
Figure 3-1 Grain Size Distribution Curves for Laboratory Jetting Tests......................... 18
Figure 3-2 Direct Shear Test Results for Material Used in Laboratory Jetting................ 19
Figure 3-3 Saturation Tank and Specimen Basket........................................................... 21
Figure 3-4 Overhead View of Saturation Tank with Specimen Basket in Place.............. 22
Figure 3-5 Laboratory Jetting Apparatus and Various Nozzles........................................ 22
Figure 3-6 Free-fall of Specimen Soil for Desired Lift Height ........................................ 24
Figure 3-7 Compaction of Individual Lift Height............................................................. 24
Figure 3-8 Density Check at Midpoint of Lift Height...................................................... 25
Figure 3-9 Flowchart for Tests Conducted with Vertical Jets – Full Depth.................... 26
Figure 3-10 Angled Jet Nozzles for Jetting Modification ................................................ 26
Figure 4-1 Depth of Insertion as a Function of Time for Various Water Flowrate and Jet
Nozzle Velocity(Numbers on curves = Flow rate(ft3/min) – Nozzle velocity (ft/min))
................................................................................................................................... 28
xv
Figure 4-2 Comparison of Pile Insertion Rates at Given Depths Due to Variation in
Jetting Parameters..................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4-3 Depth of Insertion with Time for Various Water Flowrate and...................... 31
Figure 4-4 Debris Volume with Increase in Jetted Pile Volume...................................... 32
Figure 4-5 Comparison of Debris Areas in Concrete Sand at Two Insertion Depths...... 33
Figure 4-6 Debris Area with Increase in Jetted Pile Volume ........................................... 33
Figure 4-7 Immeasurable Debris Area Distribution for Cherry Branch Sand.................. 34
Figure 4-8 Comparison of Debris Zone Volumes Due to Various Nozzle Orientations.. 35
Figure 4-9 Comparison of Debris Zone Areas Due to Various Nozzle Orientations....... 35
Figure 4-10 Correlations between Pile Insertion Rate and Debris Volume (Depth = 1.0 ft)
................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 4-11 Correlations between Pile Insertion Rate and Debris Area (Depth = 1.0 ft) 37
Figure 4-12 Variation of Debris Volume “a-parameter” as a Function of ....................... 39
Figure 4-13 Debris Volume “b-parameter” Versus D50.................................................... 39
Figure 4-14 Debris Area “a-parameter” Versus D50 ......................................................... 40
Figure 4-15 Debris Area “b-parameter” Versus D50 ......................................................... 40
Figure 4-16 Debris Volume Validation of Proposed Model............................................ 42
Figure 4-17 Debris Area Validation of Proposed Model................................................. 43
Figure 5-1 Site map detailing the field testing locations.................................................. 44
Figure 5-2 River and adjacent marsh area at White Oak River Site in Stella, NC.......... 45
Figure 5-3 Cherry Branch Ferry basin, looking west to east, crane barge in foreground. 47
Figure 5-4 Sampson County Research Site ...................................................................... 48
xvi
Figure 5-5 Swan Quarter Ferry Basin looking from Southwest to Northeast.................. 49
Figure 5-6 Marshy area adjacent to ferry basin (shown after pile installations). ............. 49
Figure 5-7 Steel Test Pile with plate welded onto bottom end........................................ 50
Figure 5-8 Nozzle ends at the ends of the jet pipe, shown with 2 inch (5.08cm) nozzles.
................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 5-9 Connection of the main jet pipes to water injection tee at upper end of pile.. 51
Figure 5-10 American model 5220 crane used for maneuvering test piles. .................... 52
Figure 5-11 Hale model centrifugal trash pump used at first jetting site......................... 53
Figure 5-12 Myer’s Seth model DP150........................................................................... 53
Figure 5-13 Cornell model 4HC high pressure pump....................................................... 54
Figure 5-14 Water meter used to monitor Hale pump and Myer’s Seth pump................. 55
Figure 5-15 Pump curve used to back-calculate flowrate from Cornell 4HC pump (Private
Correspondence, Corenll Pump Company, Portland, Oregon, 2003)....................... 55
Figure 5-16 Pile placed into start position in the reference template. .............................. 56
Figure 5-17 Beginning to perform pre-jet survey............................................................. 57
Figure 5-18 Measuring the profile after a jetting installation........................................... 58
Figure 6-1 Typical jetted pile installation with debris zone profile and extent................ 60
Figure 6-2 Elliptical Distribution of Debris Area (from Smith, 2003)............................. 61
Figure 6-3 WTW measurement systems, Multi-340i with probes................................... 63
Figure 6-4 Orbeco-Hellige Model 966 turbidimeter......................................................... 64
Figure 7-1 Typical Debris Zone Profiles (a) and the average of the profiles(b)............... 67
Figure 7-2 White Oak River measured and NCDOT reported GSD............................... 69
xvii
Figure 7-3 Cherry Branch Ferry basin measured and NCDOT reported GSD................ 70
Figure 7-4 Sampson County measured and NCDOT reported GSD............................... 70
Figure 7-5 Swan Quarter Ferry basin measured and NCDOT reported GSD .................. 71
Figure 7-6 Temperature Readings at WO-1...................................................................... 72
Figure 7-7 Turbidity Readings at WO-1........................................................................... 72
Figure 7-8 Dissolved Oxygen Readings at WO-1............................................................ 73
Figure 7-9 pH Readings at WO-1..................................................................................... 73
Figure 7-10 pH readings at WO-3. .................................................................................. 74
Figure 7-11 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Content readings (1 Minute interval) at WO-3.... 74
Figure 7-12 Turbidity readings at WO-3 installation site................................................. 75
Figure 7-13 Temperature Readings at CB-2..................................................................... 77
Figure 7-14 pH Readings taken at CB-2........................................................................... 77
Figure 7-15 Turbidity Readings at CB-7.......................................................................... 78
Figure 7-16 Turbidity Readings taken at SQ-3................................................................. 79
Figure 7-17 DO readings taken at SQ-5. .......................................................................... 80
Figure 7-18 Turbidity reading at SQ-5 (maximum). ........................................................ 80
Figure 7-19 Turbidity reading at SQ-6 (average)............................................................. 81
Figure 8-1 Relationship between Insertion Parameter and Time for Insertion for Different
soil densities.............................................................................................................. 83
Figure 8-2 Insertion Parameter Characteristics for SC and SQ sites................................ 84
Figure 8-3 SQ-1 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting.................................................. 86
Figure 8-4 SQ-2 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting.................................................. 86
xviii
Figure 8-5 SQ-3 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting.................................................. 87
Figure 8-6 SQ-9 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting.................................................. 87
Figure 8-7 SQ-10 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting............................................... 88
Figure 8-8 SC-1 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting .............................................. 88
Figure 8-9 Development of Slope Parameter, m equation............................................... 89
Figure 8-10 Example of pile insertion spreadsheet, from SQ-2....................................... 91
Figure 8-11 Measured versus predicted insertion times................................................... 92
Figure 8-12 Debris Volume Verification......................................................................... 95
Figure 8-13 Debris Diameter Verification....................................................................... 95
Figure 8-14 Effect of Current Speed on the Erosion and Deposition Characteristics for
Specified Bed Particle Diameter (Open University. Oceanography Course Team
1999)......................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 8-15 Turbidity distribution with time.................................................................... 99
Figure 8-16 Example Spreadsheet for Pile Jetting Model.............................................. 103
Figure 9-1 White Oak River: site sample locations........................................................ 107
Figure 9-2 Mean (+ SE) total abundance and number of species of macrobenthic
organisms (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at the White
Oak River in March 2004.. ..................................................................................... 109
Figure 9-3 Mean (+ SE) total abundance of organisms within the dominant taxonomic
groups (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at the White
Oak River in March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses.................... 110
Figure 9-4 Swan Quarter Ferry Terminal: site sample locations................................... 112
xix
Figure 9-5 Mean (+ SE) total abundance and number of species of macrobenthic
organisms (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at Swan
Quarter in March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses........................ 113
Figure 9-6 Mean (+ SE) total abundance of organisms within the dominant taxonomic
groups (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at Swan Quarter
in March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses..................................... 114
Figure 9-7 The size-frequency of the three dominant species of bivalves collected with a
petite Ponar grab sampler at Swan Quarter in March 2004.................................... 116
Figure 9-8 Cherry Point Ferry Terminal: site sample locations .................................... 117
Figure 9-9 Mean (+ SE) total abundance and number of species of macrobenthic
organisms (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at Cherry
Point in March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses............................ 119
Figure 9-10 Mean (+ SE) total abundance of organisms within the dominant taxonomic
groups (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at Cherry Point
in March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses..................................... 120
Figure 10-1 . Irregularly flooded brackish-water marsh at Swan Quarter showing spoil
from pile jetting installations.................................................................................. 125
Figure 10-2 Juncus roemerianus patch along the shoreline at Swan Quarter. .............. 125
Figure 10-3 Spartina alterniflora is present along small creeks at the Swan Quarter.... 126
Figure 10-4 White Oak River spoil from pile jetting installation................................... 128
Figure 10-5 Vegetation at White Oak River Marsh. Spartina alterniflora (center)
growing in a drainage ditch, Juncus roemerianus, the previous year’s seed
stalks of Spartina cynosuroides and shrubs scattered across the marsh.... 128
1
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
With the increased demand for public transportation, rural development, and leisure
activities, it has become likewise demanding for engineers to produce innovative methods
to assure safe and economic designs of civil infrastructures. This demand has impacted
environmentally sensitive areas which serve to ensure stability in the environment and
achieve balance within our ecosystems. Achieving balance between public demand and
environmental stability becomes more difficult with public expansion into undisturbed
regions. The engineer is faced with providing designs that are functional and economical
while at the same time environmentally friendly to ecologically sensitive areas such as
the estuarine regions of eastern North Carolina.
At present, the NCDOT specifies the use of pre-stressed concrete piles in the
coastal plain region of North Carolina due to the high corrosion resistance properties of
concrete, as compared to steel piles (Soils and Foundations Design Section Reference
Manual version 2001). Severe corrosion occurs due to the harsh saline environment
present in the region. The method typically used to install the concrete foundation
elements is dynamic driving through the subsurface profiles. The subsurface profiles of
the coastal plain region are typically sedimentary in nature, and therefore contain
interspersed layers of material of varying composition and relative density. Often layers
of dense material located within softer sedimentary profiles make it difficult to drive piles
to the required depth without inducing high compressive stresses into the concrete which
potentially damages the pile. In these instances the use of water jetting to aid installation
is required. The alternative is using drilled shaft. The advantages to using jetted piles in
lieu of drilled shafts are many. Jetted piles are considerably less expensive to install per
linear foot than drilled shafts and can be installed much faster. In addition, jetted piles
can be positioned on land or over water with appropriate driving templates. Jetted piles
can be removed and aligned if installed incorrectly from the design grade. Therefore, it is
often economically desirable to use jetted, concrete piles with subsequent driving to
achieve specified design criteria in lieu of drilled shaft foundations.
However, the construction methods mentioned here rarely address possible
adverse effects on the environment surrounding such installations. While there is
literature available on the structural performance of jetted pile foundations, little is
published on the environmental impact as well as mechanics of installation of jetted piles.
Tsinker (1988) presented empirical relationships for jetting piles in various soil types
with emphasis on flowrates as a fuction of pile. Gunaratne et al. (1999) presented
comparisons of load tests conducted on driven, bored and jetted piles with emphasis on
pile capacity.
At the present, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, United States Fish and Wildlife Services, Division of
Coastal Management, and Environmental Protection Agency restrict or prohibit jetting as
a construction technique in eastern North Carolina. This is predominantly due to
insufficient data and lack of specification-based contracts directing foundation
2
contractors to controlled and engineered jetting parameters. Knowledge of the debris
zone created by the jetting process is currently unavailable to the regulatory agencies,
engineers, and contractors who use jetting as a construction method.
Upon completion of jetting a pile, the ground surface surrounding the pile is
normally inundated with water and overlain by debris exhumed from the annulus around
the pile. In coastal or environmentally sensitive areas, debris from the annulus affects
essentially the hydric soil layer adjacent the pile. These hydric soils are considered by
federal regulation 40456 (August 14, 1991) to be layers that are saturated, flooded, or
ponded long enough to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper stratum of the soil
profile. These soils are composed of organic and mineral constituents necessary for
many organisms to reproduce and develop. While environmental impacts of debris
extruded from the jetted holes can be evaluated using present assessment techniques such
as the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP, 1981) and the Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET, Adamus et al 1991), the knowledge regarding the extent of such debris zone is
missing. Therefore, in order to provide information needed for environmental impact, it
is necessary to investigate the effects of jetting parameters on the volume and area of
material debris as a function of pile installation depth and geometry.
1.2 Problem Statement
In order to investigate the impact of pile jetting on environmentally sensitive
areas and the size of debris zone, it is necessary to first understand and evaluate in a
controlled manner the impact of jetting parameters, such as insertion rate and flow
characteristics, on disturbance zone. Such work is best conducted in the laboratory where
testing parameters such as soil type and insertion rate are controlled. Once jetting
mechanism are defined, it is necessary to conduct full scale field installations in areas that
are similar to locations that are likely to be encountered during a typical construction
project where pile jetting would be a viable foundation choice. It is also necessary to
determine the combined effects of varying parameters such as jet water flow rate and jet
nozzle velocity on the debris zone. In order to develop a model that correlates jetting
parameters with pile installation and debris characteristics, an array of soils consisting of
various material types and engineering properties will be implemented into an
experimental program. The model will be developed during the laboratory and field
testing and should enable the practicing engineer to specify jetting parameters, including
insertion rate, water flow rate and soil grain sizes, which will effectively install the
required pile and quantify the debris zone. The definition of the volume and area of the
debris zone will assist in assessing environmental impacts associated with pile
installation.
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this research is to first understand and define the inter
relationship between jetting parameters, pile installation and disturbance zone
characteristics. Through laboratory jetting experiments with model size piles, jetting
parameters required to achieve a given installation depth will be defined as well as
associated disturbance area and volume. Based on the lab data, a model will be
3
developed. The model will be further developed and verified using a series of full-scale
jetted pile installations to verify the developed model. Specifically, the following
objectives are pursued in this research:
1) Develop an experimental testing program in the laboratory to evaluate debris zone
characteristics and understand mechanics of jetted pile installations.
2) Develop a model for jetted pile installations while minimizing size of disturbance
zone.
3) Develop a full-scale field testing program and measurement techniques to
evaluate pile installation rates and associated debris zone characteristics. In
conjunction with field testing, collect data related to environmental impact.
4) Characterize and define disturbance due to jetted pile installations.
5) Assess effects of varying jetting parameters on pile installation rates, debris zone
volumes, debris zone areas, and installation depths.
6) Evaluate environmental impacts associated with pile jetting.
7) Compare results from field jetting installations with estimations at representative
sites made using the proposed model for determining debris volume and extent.
8) Expand the proposed model to include insertion parameters for full size piles.
9) Recommend a procedure by which specifications can be developed for pile jetting
practices if feasible.
1.4 Scope of Research
1.4.1 Chapter 1 – Introduction
An introduction to the jetting problem as related to environmentally sensitive areas is
given. The benefits and drawbacks of using jetted piles in comparison to other
foundation options is discussed.
1.4.2 Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Current state-of-the-art field practices are also reviewed. Literature detailing particle
transport theory is discussed.
1.4.3 Chapter 3 – Laboratory Experimental Program
The experimental program is developed and presented providing insight on the materials
implemented in the testing program. Physical properties of the soil and classification
tests conducted to obtain these properties are described. The methodology behind
construction of the test samples is presented as well as the results of investigation into the
mechanics of jetting presented.
1.4.4 Chapter 4 – Laboratory Jetting Results and Model Development
Tests conducted in the experimental program were analyzed and relationship between
jetting characteristics, such as debris zone surrounding jetted piles, and the mechanics of
installation are developed for various soils used in the program. A model for pile jetting
is developed for implementation to full-scale jetted pile installations. The model requires
4
input of soil index properties and allows the engineer to predict the debris zone
characteristics for a set of jetting parameters and given pile dimensions.
1.4.5 Chapter 5 – Field Testing Methodology
A field testing program is developed to determine the effects of various soil profiles
approach parameters on the volume and extent of debris zone created by jetting. Testing
apparatuses and field locations are discussed.
1.4.6 Chapter 6 – Data Acquisition and Test Monitoring
Methods of data acquisition and soil/water samples collection from field testing are
presented. A data analysis procedure was adapted so that test results could be compared
with laboratory results.
1.4.7 Chapter 7 – Results of Field Testing
Tests conducted in the field test program were analyzed and presented. Results from
each test at the various locations are summarized. Observations and trends gathered from
the analysis are discussed.
1.4.8 Chapter 8 – Model Development and Verification for Field
A three-part model is introduced which encompasses the identified three important
aspects of jetting. The first component is an insertion model which details the jetting
parameters required for successful insertion of a pile. The second component provides the
debris volume and area extent produced by jetting to a given depth. The third model
component addresses the particle transport length caused by underwater current, if
present.
1.4.9 Chapter 9 – Environmental Impact of Pile Jetting on Macrobethos in North
Carolina
Impact of jetting on infaunal macrobenthos is assessed after sampling at three sites:
White Oak River, Cherry Point Ferry basin, and Swan Quarter Ferry basin. Abundance
and species diversity of infaunal macrobenthos as a function of distance away from pile
jetting operations are analyzed and GIS maps of each site are created.
1.4.10 Chapter 10 – Effects of Pile Jetting on Tidal Marsh Vegetation
Jetting effects on vegetation at Swan Quarter and White Oak River are analyzed by
inspecting and listing each plant species. In determining impact on zone of plant species
within tidal marshes two major environmental factors: elevation relative to tidal
inundation and salinity, are discussed.
1.4.11 Chapter 11 – Summary and Conclusions
Conclusions derived from the pile jetting testing research program are summarized in this
section.
5
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW
Pile jetting has been predominantly used in areas consisting of sands and
gravels to install bridge foundations, dock piles, bulkheads and fence posts. However,
after an extensive search for literature on the environmental impacts of jetting, it is
realized that environmental disturbance due to pile jetting has not been reported in past
literature. The purpose of this research is not to perfect the art of pile jetting, but to
investigate the volume and area of debris created by the jetting process in order to be able
to environmentally evaluate its impact.
In order to understand the fundamental practice of jetting, literature from
Tsinker(1988) and Matlin(1983) has been reviewed. Their research consisted of
performance monitoring of jetted piles as well as installation guidelines for jetting piles
in various soil profiles with the main objective being assuring full depth installation.
An in-depth investigation into capacity and performance monitoring of bored,
driven, and jetted piles has been conducted by Gunaratne et al. (1999) demonstrating the
effect of the installation method on the service integrity of structural piles. Their research
encompassed a detailed small-scale experimental program as well as a dimensional
analysis and evaluation of their findings. In addition, a study on the hydraulic effects of
fluid velocity on particle transport by Allen(1985) is reviewed to provide an
understanding on how particles are initially suspended and transported by fluids.
2.1 State-of-the-art of Pile Jetting
Even though pile jetting has been an effective means of installing piles for many
structural applications, the state-of-practice of pile jetting is hardly accepted as a suitable
means for pile installation in ecologically sensitive areas. This is due to non-regulated
and specification- deficient contracts encompassing the jetting installation processes
where knowledge of associated disturbance is missing. For this reason, regulatory
agencies need to understand impact of pile installation methods to ensure minimal
disturbance to ecologically sensitive areas.
2.1.1 Efficiency and Comparison of Pile Installation Methods
A comprehensive review of pile jetting has been conducted by Tsinker (1988).
Tsinker documented the significance in time savings from pile jetting as compared to
dynamic methods of pile installation. As expected, the energy savings and noise
reduction in using pile jetting as opposed to dynamic driving methods is a positive
component of jetting practices. Some may argue that pollution from dynamic and
vibratory pile installation methods could divert migrating fish species from traveling to
spawning estuaries.
Jetted piles can be effectively installed in most sand and gravel soil stratums as well
as subsurface profiles encompassing clay and peat materials. Jetted piles can easily be
positioned on land or over water with appropriate driving templates. Also, jetted piles
can be removed and aligned if installed incorrectly from the design grade. Water jetting
6
of piles is beneficial as compared to dynamic driving in that piles are installed before any
stress conditions develop within the pile section. If not efficiently controlled and
designed, driving piles with dynamic methods may lead to development of stresses within
the pile section above the allowable stresses considered in design and fabrication.
Excessive cost and time associated with dynamic driving methods are significantly
reduced with jetting. Commonly, a combination of jetting and driving is employed.
Jetted pile applications consist of discharging a stream of water at the base of the pile
and/or along the pile sides to erode the surrounding soils (Tsinker, 1988). Continued
water erosion and removal of the surrounding soils allows the pile to penetrate through
soil layers until a sufficient distance above the permanent tip elevation is reached. At this
point, dynamic methods are used for the last few feet of installation to achieve final pile
set.
2.1.2 Variation of Subsurface Characteristics
In jetting piles within sand formations, Tsinker noted that water flow rate is more
important than the jet velocity, whereas in gravel or clay materials, the jet velocity is vital
in loosening soil particles from around the pile. In both conditions, an effective jetting
program is only successful if the jet velocity is sufficient to loosen soil and an appropriate
flow rate of water is used to displace the soil from below the pile tip and carry them along
the pile sides to the ground surface (Tsinker, 1988). If either of these two jetting
parameters is insufficient, the pile will not penetrate the soil. Air can be often
implemented into jetting applications to insure that soil particles are effectively
transported to the ground surface.
Variation in soil type also affects the dimensions of the jet-effected zone
surrounding the pile. Layers of clay encountered in predominantly uniform sand profiles
may cause a blanketing effect of the return water streaming from the jet pipe nozzles
(Tsinker, 1988). Due to this phenomenon, downward movement of the pile would
discontinue at lesser depth than would a similar pile in a uniform sand stratum without
the clay layer. It is therefore inferred that sufficient volume of return water must be
maintained in order to insure continual pile insertion. Also, in cemented sands and clay
materials, the jet velocity must be sufficient to fracture the matrix into smaller diameter
masses in which the flow of water can transport the material above ground. A schematic
of pile jetting through various soil stratums along with variation in return water annulus
dimensions are shown in Figure 2.1 (Tsinker, 1988). Tsinker also recognized effects of
large boulders, cobles, or debris on the effectiveness of pile jetting. As mentioned earlier,
Tsinker stressed the importance of achieving essential volume flow rates of water to
maintain adequate transport of subsurface materials to the ground surface.
7
Figure 2-1 Variation in Annulus Dimensions for Various Foundation Soil (Matlin, 1983).
(a) Uniform Sand; (b) Sand with Clay Stratum; (c) Sand with Underlain Clay: 1 – Pile; 2
– Jet Pipe; 3 – Water Jet; 4 – Sand; 5 – Clay; 6 – Loose Sand; 7 – Return Annulus; 8 –
Particle Deposition
2.1.3 General Installation Procedure (Tsinker, 1988)
Pile jetting is a relatively simple application requiring equipment such as a
“centrifugal pump equipped with a flow meter and pressure gage, a minimum of two steel
jet pipes connected to the pump….and a winch for handling the jet pipes” (Tsinker,
1988). Tsinker suggested that pipe diameters between 2 and 4 inches (50 and 100mm)
are sufficient to carry the flow of water to the jet nozzles to increase the velocity of water
exiting the jet hose. Two jet pipes are often mounted on either side of the pile to achieve
balance and symmetry during pile installation. Prior to lowering the pile to the desired
depth, the pump is engaged and the jet pipes are lowered to the ground surface and
allowed to penetrate the soil stratum. Operators then successively lower and raise the jet
pipes through the soil column to loosen material within that section. The pile is then
lowered into position and allowed to penetrate the soil column freely while the jet nozzles
liquefying the soil.
2.1.4 Pile Installation Design Guidelines (Shestopal, 1959)
Shestopal (1959) conducted numerous jetting investigations for pile installation
using steel pipes as model test piles. Through correlations gathered from research data,
he developed empirical equations for determining water quantities and jet water
8
velocities to install piles of various length and diameter. He also considered the effects of
jetting piles in soil stratums with elevated and deep ground water profiles.
Shestopal provided the following empirical equation for predicting the
required flow rate to install a pile of given diameter to a desired depth of penetration in a
uniform sand stratum (groundwater table below pile tip):
()k l 0.1πlD530D
Q 0.51.3
50 += Eq. 2.1
Where: Q = flow rate of water, (m3/h)
D = pile diameter or width, (m)
D50 = average size of soil particles, (mm)
l = installation depth of pile, (m)
k = filtration coefficient (permeability), (m/day)
The following empirical equation is for installation of jetted piles within a uniform
saturated sand stratum (Shestopal, 1959):
()k l 0.017πlD530D
Q 0.51.3
50 += Eq. 2.2
For jetting piles in non-uniform soil stratums, the average filtration coefficient
(permeability) should be determined from the following:
l
lkk nn∑= Eq. 2.3
Where: kn = filtration coefficient for soil layer n, (m/day)
ln = length of soil layer n, (m)
l = installation depth of pile, (m)
In order to determine the required pump capacity, head loss within the jetting system
water supply hoses may be calculated from the following equation:
T
h
2
K
lQH= Eq.2.4
Where: H = head loss in jetting system, (m)
Q = flow rate of water, (m3/h)
lh = length of water supply hoses, (m)
KT = empirical coefficient due to hose material obtained from Table 2.1
9
Table 2-1 KT factor for various jet pipe material (Marine Structures Handbook, 1972)
Jet Pipe Internal Diameter
(mm) Rubberized Hose Material Rubber Hose Material
33 33 50
50 133 200
65 567 850
76 1333 2000
In order to select an efficient jetting system, Tsinker (1988) suggests: 1) selecting the
appropriate water volume flow rate and head to drive the proposed pile (Table 2.2, or
Eqs. 2-1) to 2-4); 2) determining pressure losses foreseen in the hoses and jet pipes of the
system; and, 3) specifying competent pump.
Table 2-2 Volume of Water and Head Required for Pile Jetting (Marine Structures
Handbook 1972)
Pile Section Diameter
300-500 mm 500-700mm
Soil Type
Depth of
Pile
Driving
(m)
Head at
Nozzle
Tip
(MPa)
Jet Pipe
Internal
Diamete
r (mm)
Flow Rate
of Water
(m3/min)
Jet Pipe
Internal
Diameter
(mm)
Flow
Rate of
Water
(m3/min)
Silt; Silty Sand 5-15 0.4-0.8 37 0.4-1.0 50 1.0-1.5
Fine Sand; Soft
Clay; Sand 15-25 0.8-1.0 68 1.0-1.5 80 1.5-2.0
Sand and Hard
Sand Loam 5-12 0.6-1.0 50 1.0-1.5 68 1.5-2.0
Sand with Gravel 15-25 1.0-1.5 80 1.5-2.5 106 2.0-3.0
CONVERSIONS
MPa to psi: multiply by 145.04
m3/min to ft3/min: multiply by 35.31
2.1.5 Summary of State-of-the-Art of Pile Jetting
A review of literature on installation of piles yielded some findings beneficial to
this research program. Fundamental mechanics of a jetted pile installation in sand is
shown in Figure 2.2. Tsinker (1988) described the structure of the jet hole with three
distinctive zones. Immediately beneath the pile tip, the sand structure is significantly
10
altered from in situ conditions. Infiltration of jet water into this zone results in a mixture
of sand particles and water. Within Zone 2, excess water from the sand-water mixture
rises to the surface while lubricating the pile sides. Tsinker also realized a third zone in
the jet hole structure consisting of a sand-water mixture at high pore pressures stemming
from water infiltration into the hole sides.
Figure 2-2 Structure of Typical Jetted Pile Installation (Matlin, 1983)
Tsinker (1988) conducted research on capacity effects of jetting piles within dry
and water-bearing sands. From that research, he suggested that “concrete piles jetted into
dry sand have six to nine times more capacity than identical piles jetted into water-
bearing sand.” Furthermore, he noted that subsequent dynamic driving does not
significantly increase the capacity of piles jetted in dry sand stratums. He suggested that
this is due to the inability of dry sands to densify by liquefaction. Densification in
unsaturated profiles may occurs due to settlement of loose sand around the pile and
subsequent compaction of the material due to water force from the jets. This
densification is not as profound as that seen in saturated sands where dynamic driving
methods invoke liquefaction. Also, although washing of some fines from the jetted
column occurs, Tsinker stated that “sandy soils granulometric composition” is not altered
significantly.
2.2 Model Techniques for Determining effect of Jetting on Pile Capacity
(Gunaratne et al., 1999)
An investigation into the effects of pile jetting on pile capacity was conducted by
Gunaratne et al. (1999) under sponsorship by Florida Department of Transportation. This
study encompassed model piles installed using jetting techniques, pre-forming and
Zone1- Jet Area, Soil Liquified and
Suspended
Zone 2- Rising Flow
Zone 3- Filtration Zone
11
dynamic driving methods. Pre-forming refers to the method of pre-drilling a hole prior to
pile installation in order to penetrate a denser layer which would be difficult or
impossible to penetrate by other methods. The specific purpose of their research was to
determine the effect of jetting pressure on the lateral capacity and skin friction of piles.
Furthermore, an objection was to determine the zone of influence of jetting on soils
adjacent to existing foundations and explore strength variation due to jetting and pre-
forming. Surface effects due to the jetting process were not studied.
2.2.1 Experimental Program for Model Testing
Gunaratne et al. (1999) conducted an experimental program using model
aluminum piles installed into a 90% sand + 10% kaolin mixture with jetting, pre-forming,
and dynamic installation methods. Laboratory testing of the soil material used in the
experimental program yielded the results shown in Table 2.3.
2.2.2 Testing Matrix and Pile Installation Methods
The experimental program consisted of an excavated 26.26 ft2 (2.44 m2) by 7.0 ft
(2.13m) deep test pit filled to 5.97 feet (1.82 m) in successive lifts with the mixture of
masonry sand and kaolinite. Each lift was compacted to 103.2 lb/ft3 (16.2 kN/m3) or 94.3
lb/ft3 (14.8 kN/m3) based on the desired relative density of the test. Next, two 5.0 ft (1.52
m) long aluminum shafts, 2 in. x 2 in. (50.8 mm x 50.8 mm), 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) wall
thickness were instrumented with strain gauges and installed into the testing medium by
either dynamic driving or jetting. Piles were jetted through saturated and unsaturated test
specimens at various jetting pressures to expedite installation due to increased flow rate
and velocity of the jet water. The nomenclatures for tests within the testing program are
shown in Table 2.4 below. The first symbol in the test description denotes the saturation
condition (i.e. “U” for unsaturated, “S” for saturated) and the second symbol denotes the
installation method (i.e. “D” for driven, “J” for jetted).
Table 2-3a,b Engineering Properties of Foundation Soil (Gunaratne et al., 1999)
Mas. Sand Kaolinite
D50 (mm) 0.25 N/A
d Max, (lb/ft3) 111.7 N/A
d Min, (lb/ft3) 88.0 N/A
PI N/A 22
LL N/A 60
12
Soil Material
% Passing
No. 40
Sieve
%
Passing
No. 200
Sieve
Spec.
Gravi
ty, Gs
Opt.
Moist.
Content,
OMC (%)
d @
OMC.
lb/ft3
@ d =
94.7 lb/ft3
@ d
= 103.7
lb/ft3
90% Masonry Sand
+ 10% Kaolinite 88.2 10.2 2.68 10.2 112 35 38
CONVERSIONS:
lb/ft3 to kN/m3 divide by 6.4
mm to inch multiply by 0.0394
Table 2-4 Nomenclature for Piles in the Testing Program (Gunaratne et al., 1999)
Unit Weight
(lb/ft3) Condition Driven
Piles
Jetted Piles
Jetting Pressure
25 psi 50 psi 75 psi 100 psi
103.7 Unsaturated UD1 UJ11 UJ12 UJ13 UJ14
Saturated SD1 SJ11 SJ12 SJ13 SJ14
94.7 Unsaturated UD2 UJ21 UJ22 UJ23 UJ24
Saturated SD2 SJ21 SJ22 SJ23 SJ24
CONVERSIONS:
lb/ft3 to kN/m3 divide by 6.4
psi to kPa multiply by 6.895
The water jet system used to install jetted piles consisted of two stainless steel
pipes with inside diameters of 0.16 in. (4 mm) extending to the pile tip and fastened to
the pile head. Water was pressurized with a “booster” pump and fed into a 0.75 in.
(19.05 mm) reinforced hose which was reduced and coupled to the two steel jet pipes.
Each pile was jetted to 2.5 ft (0.75 m) and then impact driven 0.833 ft (0.254 m) to the
required tip elevation.
Upon completion of model pile installation and dissipation of excess pore water
pressure, lateral load testing of the piles was conducted. The piles were monitored with
Linearly Varying Displacement Transducers (LVDT) and strain gauges connected to a
data acquisition system to monitor the displacement and loading information. From
Figure 2.3, Gunaratne et al (1999) realized that lateral load capacity for jetted piles
decreases with increased jetting pressure. This holds true for both saturated and
unsaturated conditions. Also, lateral capacity for saturated conditions is significantly less
than that of for unsaturated conditions with similar jetting parameters. Overall, for
similar jetting parameter tests, lateral displacements at failure with saturated conditions
seem to be greater than for lateral load tests conducted in unsaturated conditions.
13
Figure 2-3 Lateral Load Capacity vs. Lateral Displacement at Point of Load Application
(Gunaratne et al., 1999)
Results for tests using γ =94.7 pcf samples were similar in trend to those observed
using the γ =103.1 pcf samples. Figure 2.4 displays the required jetting time to reach the
desired model-pile tip elevation (0.75 m) prior to impact driving to final pile set for
lateral load testing (Gunaratne et al., 1999).
Figure 2-4 Elapsed Time of Jetting vs. Jetting Pressure – 2.5 ft Depth
(Gunaratne et al., 1999)
Jetting Pressure (psi)
20 40 60 80 100 120Elapsed Time of Jetting (min)0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Unsaturated γ = 103.7 lb/ft3
Saturated γ = 103.7 lb/ft3
Unsaturated γ = 94.7 lb/ft3
Saturated γ = 94.7 lb/ft3
Jetted Depth = 2.5 ft
Displacement at Failure (in)
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6Lateral Load Capacity (lb)650
700
750
800
850
900
UD1
UJ11
UJ12
UJ13
UJ14
SD1
SJ11
SJ12
SJ13
SJ14
γ = 103.7 lb/ft3
14
From Figure 2.4, it is shown that for equal depth of driving, the pile installation
rate is dependent on both material density and saturation conditions. For equal material
density at low jetting pressures, installation rates through saturated soils are nearly double
that for unsaturated soils. However, as jetting pressure is increased, the installation rate
seems to become more dependent on soil density rather than saturation conditions in the
jetting stratum.
2.2.3 Lateral and Axial Load Testing of Jetted Piles (Gunaratne et al., 1999)
Lateral and axial load testing of both jetted and dynamically driven model-piles
were conducted to determine effects of spacing and the installation methods on pile
capacity. The piles were tested at axial displacements of 0.5 in (0.13 mm) and laterally
tested to displacements of 1 inch (25.4 mm). Axial capacities of piles driven with jetting
and dynamic driving were shown to have higher capacities at spacing of 3 times diameter
(3D) than similar piles driven at a spacing of 5D in unsaturated conditions. This is
believed to be due to the overlapping influence of densification zones surrounding the
piles at closer spacing. Dynamic driving of the piles to achieve final set at this close
spacing was believed to have overridden the jetting effects. Gunaratne et al. (1999) also
stated that the axial capacity of jetted piles in saturated soil conditions does not affect the
axial load behavior of adjacent driven piles.
Lateral load testing of the model piles was conducted under saturated and
unsaturated conditions. In general, Gunaratne et al. (1999) suggested that lateral load
capacity in unsaturated conditions increased with greater spacing between jetted piles as
tested in the experimental program. Higher lateral load capacities were also obtained in
existing piles where jetting was implemented at a spacing of 5D rather than 3D. At
closer spacing, reduction in lateral confinement surrounding existing piles may occur due
jetting, and therefore lower capacity.
2.2.4 Summary of Experimental Modeling of Jetted Pile Installations
Through research funded by Florida Department of Transportation, Gunaratne et al.
(1999) developed design charts for capacity of piles installed with various methods.
Conclusions drawn from their research include: lateral stability of jetted piles is
significantly less than lateral stability of piles mechanically driven to the same
installation depth; jetting further than 5D from existing piles in unsaturated conditions
and 3D in saturated conditions seems to have little effect on axial and lateral load
capacity; and, installation rates of jetted piles are influenced by jetting pressures and flow
rates as well as material density and saturation conditions within the jetting stratum.
2.3 Hydraulic Effects on Transport of Sedimentary Particles
In order to understand the effects of fluid and flow properties on sediment
transport, a review of literature provided by Allen (1985) was conducted. This review
was undertaken to determine if available jetting parameters from the experimental
program could be used to predict the transport of the soil particles emitted from the
jetting annulus due to the underwater currents. Transport of soil particles by fluids
involves two distinct parts. The first consists of an initial force required to initiate
15
particle motion. The next involves forces necessary to move soil particles along a
velocity vector. These forces must initiate movement and entrain the soil particles within
the fluid current for successful transport (Allen, 1985). Allen states that grain size, fluid
properties, and flow characteristics together determine the “entrainment threshold and the
modes and rate of sediment transport.” As shown in Figure 2.5, the forces acting on an
idealized spherical particle of greater density than the shearing fluid, in contact with a
bed of similar spherical particles are a fluid drag force (FD), lift force (FL), particle
buoyant weight (FW), and interparticle cohesion (FC) from grain to grain contact.
Figure 2-5 Forces acting on a particle resting on a granular bed subject to a steady
current (Allen, 1985)
Applying Newton’s First law, the following force balance was given (Allen, 1985):
CwDLcFaFbFaF+=+ Eq. 2.5
where: a, b, and c are the moment arm lengths from P
P is the downstream pivot point on grain surfaces
The effects of inter-particle cohesion between sand and gravel particles is
neglected which results in only the fluid drag, fluid lift, and particle buoyant weight
acting on the soil grain. Within clay or silt profiles, the inter-particle forces become
important due to adhesion of particles through van der Waals or electrostatic forces.
The fluid drag force may be specified as the mean bed shear stress or through
definition of the drag coefficient involving mean fluid velocity at the particle-fluid
interface. The lift force may be defined through application of the Bernoulli equation.
Since the velocity on the upper surface of the soil particle in Figure 2.6 is greater than at
the particle interface between the soil particles, a pressure gradient exists which provides
a lifting force beneath the upper soil particle. Therefore, the particle weight or specific
gravity, particle size, and interparticle cohesion all contribute to efficiency of a given
fluid velocity to initiate soil particle transport (Allen, 1985).
16
Figure 2-6 Lift force due to Bernoulli effect on granular bed subject to fluid shear
(Allen, 1985)
2.4 Summary of Literature Review
The literature review presented the state-of-the-art of pile jetting techniques
implemented for installation of various length and diameter piles as presented by Tsinker
(1988). These developed techniques encompassed variations in subsurface materials as
well as jetting pump capacity requirements. Nearly ten years later, research conducted by
Gunaratne et al. (1999) brought forth important aspects of model testing and
experimental program development for evaluating impact of jetting on pile capacity.
Lateral load test results from jetted and driven piles were presented and compared as well
as pile installation rates as a function of jetting pressure and flow rate variations.
Literature on the effects of water currents and the initiation of erosion and transport has
been reviewed. However, there was no information attained from literature on the impact
of pile jetting on surface debris zone volumes, debris zone areas, and the effect of these
characteristics on surface environments. The focus of the current research is to quantify
the debris zone and its characteristics due to variation in soil type and jetting parameters
for successful pile installation. In addition, sampling the surrounding environment while
jetting is conducting in the field will provide data for investigating the ecological impact
of the problem. Sampling will include obtaining water and sediment specimens when
jetting underwater and sediment specimens when jetting on land.
17
CHAPTER 3 - LABORATORY EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
An experimental program was developed to quantify jetting induced disturbance
and pile insertion characteristics for jetted pile installations and to provide a setting in
which a detailed study of jetting parameters could be conducted for several soil types.
Index properties of test materials were measured. Testing included sieve analysis for
grain size, maximum and minimum index density tests, direct shear tests, and
permeability tests. The prototype jetting experiments were performed using model
concrete piles in samples that were 5ft × 5ft × 4.5ft. Once a soil sample was prepared,
its surface was surveyed to establish a pre-installation baseline. After pile jetting, the soil
surface was again surveyed to evaluate size of the disturbance zone. This program
enabled the researchers to vary jetting parameters in a controlled setting to determine the
relationship between these parameters and the zone of disturbance and model pile
insertion characteristics.
3.1. Mechanical Properties of Laboratory Test Soils
3.1.1 Index properties of Test Soils
Four different soils were used in the laboratory test program: a well-graded coarse
Concrete Sand, a uniform graded Mortar Sand, a uniform Cherry Branch Ferry Basin
dredged sand, and a 90/10 Mortar Sand/Kaolinite mixture. These soil types exhibited
desired properties with respect to grain size uniformity and gradation as it is inferred that
soil particle size and gradation will have an impact on pile insertion depth, pile insertion
rate, and debris volume characteristics (Allen,1985). Selections of soils used in this
research were predominantly based on the particle size distribution and characteristics of
the distribution curves. The grain size distribution curves for each material used in the
testing program are shown in Figure 3.1. The maximum and minimum index densities
were determined for the Concrete Sand, Mortar Sand, and Cherry Branch Sand used in
the testing program. The maximum dry densities of the soils were determined in
accordance with ASTM D 4253 using a vibratory shake table. The minimum dry
densities for the natural soils were determined in accordance with ASTM D 4254 using
the “funnel pouring device” to fill the specified material mold Also, specific gravities of
the soils were determined in accordance with ASTM D 854. The maximum and
minimum index densities of test materials are shown in Table 3.1. Also each soil type
was defined by USCS using the Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu) and Coefficient of
Curvature (Cc).
18
Grain Size (mm)
0.0010.010.1110Percent Finer by Weight0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cherry Branch Sand
Concrete Sand
Mortar Sand
(90/10) Mortar Sand + Kaolinite
Figure 3-1 Grain Size Distribution Curves for Laboratory Jetting Tests
Table 3-1 Index Properties for Natural Soils Used in Laboratory Testing Program
Soil Type
Max.
Dry
Density,
dmax
(pcf)
Min.
Dry
Density,
dmin
(pcf)
Min.
Void
Ratio,
emin
Max.
Void
Ratio,
emax
Specific
Gravity Cu / Cc USCS
Concrete
Sand 114.81 94.10 0.44 0.76 2.65 3.28 /
0.91 SW
Mortar Sand 107.98 90.10 0.49 0.79 2.58 1.79 /
0.88 SP
Cherry
Branch Sand 102.00 82.00 0.60 0.99 2.61 2.00 /
1.04 SP
Mortar Sand
+ Kaolinite
(90/10)
N/A
176.07
/
56.60
SW-SM
D50
0.75 0.2
19
3.1.2 Effective Angle of Internal Friction
To determine strength properties of the test soils, direct shear tests were
conducted on specimens compacted to dry densities corresponding to 50% relative
density since relative densities range from 50 to 70 percent within the upper soil stratums
where jetting would routinely be used for pile installation. Also normal stresses ranging
from 250 psf (12 kPa) to 2000 psf (96 kPa) were used to develop the failure envelope for
each sand type. These normal stresses cover the range of vertical effective stresses
within a saturated soil stratum of 20 to 40 feet (6.1 to 12.2 m) below the ground surface.
These depths are consistent with jetted pile installations that were planned to be
conducted in field settings as an extension to the laboratory research. The effective
angles of internal friction for each test are shown in Figure 3.2. These friction angle
ranged from 30° for the sand + kaolinite mix to 42° for the concrete sand, with the soil
retrieved from the dredged basin material having ’=34°.
Normal Stress, σn (psf)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500Shear Stress, τ (psf)0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Cherry Branch Sand
Φ' = 34o
Concrete Sand
Φ' = 42o
Mortar Sand
Φ' = 38o
Mortar Sand + Kaolinite (90/10)
Φ' = 30o
Figure 3-2 Direct Shear Test Results for Material Used in Laboratory Jetting
3.1.3 Permeability of Testing Material
Falling head permeability tests were conducted on test samples. Required masses
of each soil material were determined to yield relative densities between 50% and 70%,
which are consistent with threshold values deemed appropriate for the experimental
program. Each specimen was simultaneously subjected to 10 psi (69 kPa) confining
pressure and specimen pressure (headwater). Permeability values, along with pertinent
20
test information, are shown in Table 3.2, and were in the range of 1 to 5 × 10-4 ft/s for the
sand soils and decreased by nearly one order of magnitude when kaolinite was added.
Table 3-2 Permeability Information for Soils Used in Laboratory Testing
Soil Type → Concrete Sand Cherry Branch
Sand Mortar Sand
Mortar Sand +
Kaolinite
(90/10)
Relative
Density, Dr
(%)
57 72 63
Void Ratio, e 0.56 0.71 0.65 0.56
No. of Pore
Volumes for
Constant k
11 21 10 4
Permeability,
k ft/s
(cm/s)
1.5 x 10-4
(10-2)
2.8 x 10-4
(10-2)
5.2 x 10-4
(10-2)
2.7 x 10-5
(10-3)
3.2 Laboratory Jetting Program
A series of jetted pile installations were performed in the various test sands, and a
model was developed based on the laboratory results. The laboratory jetting program
was performed in the Constructed Facilities Laboratory(CFL) on North Carolina State
University’s Centennial Campus. The jetting program consisted of fabrication of model
test piles, a jetting test chamber, and jetting apparatus. The laboratory scale jetting
system encompassed aspects of full-scale jetting processes. Also, of key importance was
development of a method to repeatedly construct test specimens with similar index
densities in order to provide a basis of comparison for each jetted pile insertion with
various jetting parameters.
3.2.1 Fabrication of Model Test Piles
Three solid model test piles were constructed of 5000 psi (34500 kPa), 28 day
compressive strength concrete, formed with 0.667 ft (0.204 m), 0.5 ft (0.153 m), and
0.333 ft (0.102m) inside diameter PVC water pipe. Each test pile was 8 feet (2.438 m) in
length and reinforced with one A36 steel No. 8 rebar extending the entire length of the
test pile. Steel hooks were placed in the top of each test pile. These hooks extended from
the pile head so each could be connected to chains suspended from an overhead crane.
The steel reinforcement provided sufficient tensile support to the pile so each could be
lifted at the head without excessive cracking of the concrete. After concrete placement,
the test piles were allowed to cure for seven days to develop adequate strength before the
forms were removed.
21
Each test pile was marked from the pile tip at 2-inch (50mm) increments so that
insertion rate information could be obtained during each jetting procedure. These
insertion rates were compared between each test to determine jetting parameter effects
and installation and debris characteristics in the various soil types.
3.2.2 Jetting Test Chamber
A 5 ft x 5 ft x 4.5 ft (1.52 m x 1.52 m x 1.37 m - length x width x height) steel box
was fabricated to efficiently conduct jetting tests without unnecessary climbing and
bending over the box sides. This box was fabricated as a tank used to saturate the soil
specimens used in the laboratory jetting program. A 3 ft x 3 ft x 4 ft (0.91 m x 0.91 m x
1.22m - length x width x height) steel frame specimen basket was fabricated with steel
channels for specimen containment as shown in Figure 3.3. The frame allowed routine
movement of large soil specimens with an overhead crane. The interior of the frame was
lined with a geotextile and geogrid layer, which allowed the saturation water to permeate
the soil specimens. The saturation tank and specimen basket are shown in Figure 3.3 and
Figure 3.4.
Figure 3-3 Saturation Tank and Specimen Basket
22
Figure 3-4 Overhead View of Saturation Tank with Specimen Basket in Place
3.2.3 Fabrication of Jetting Apparatus
To install model test piles in the various testing media, it was necessary to
fabricate a jetting apparatus that would allow controlled water flow rates and jet nozzle
velocities. The jetting apparatus used in laboratory testing and the various nozzles
implemented in the program are shown in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3-5 Laboratory Jetting Apparatus and Various Nozzles
23
Variations in jetting parameters provided a means of comparison between tests for
final depth of installation, volume and area of debris zones, and pile insertion rate. The
jetting apparatus consists of two 5 ft (1.52 m) long, 0.8125 inch (20.6 mm) inside-
diameter jet pipes connected with galvanized tees, forming a single jetting system. Also,
the available flow rates and nozzle velocities for each nozzle configuration are shown in
Table 3.3. The nozzle diameter ranged from 0.5 - 0.813 inch (1/2 to 13/16 inch), which
yielded jetting velocities in the range of 186-980 ft/min depending on the flow rate.
3.2.4 Test Setup and Quality Control
Comparison testing involved jetting piles with various jetting parameters through
specimens compacted to equal relative densities. The laboratory procedure to produce
50-70 % relative density for one lift thickness was as follows:
Allow soil to free-fall from material box producing an un-compacted height of
approximately 18 inches. Level the surface.
Table 3-3 Available Flowrate and Nozzle Velocity Configurations
Water Flow Rate
1.337 ft3/min
Water Flow Rate
2.674 ft3/min
Nozzle Diameter (inch) Jet Nozzle Velocity
(ft/min)
Jet Nozzle Velocity
(ft/min)
0.500 490 980
0.625 313 326
0.813 186 372
CONVERSIONS:
ft3/min to m3/min multiply by 0.0283
inch to mm multiply by 25.4
ft/min to m/min divide by 3.281
i. Using a vibratory jack hammer with 8” plate, compact the lift for five
minutes starting from the edge of the specimen basket while following a
circular motion until the center is reached.
ii. Adjust the moisture content to aid in compaction as needed.
iii. Determine dry density from the midpoint of the layer (6 inches) using
nuclear density gage.
This specimen preparation sequence is illustrated in Figures 3.6 through 3.8.
24
Figure 3-6 Free-fall of Specimen Soil for Desired Lift Height
Figure 3-7 Compaction of Individual Lift Height
25
Figure 3-8 Density Check at Midpoint of Lift Height
Upon completion of specimen preparation and quality control, the saturation tank
was filled with water until the water surface and specimen surface coincided. The
Concrete, Cherry Branch, and Mortar sands were allowed to inundate for an hour,
whereas the Mortar Sand/Kaolinite mixtures were allowed to inundate for 24 hours.
Saturated conditions are consistent with coastal groundwater conditions found in Eastern
North Carolina. A reference beam was set above the test box and used for pre and post
testing surveying of the samples surface.
3.2.5 Jet Testing Program
In order to quantify both the magnitude and extent of disturbance and the
insertion rate as a function of jetting parameters, a series of “full-depth” tests was
conducted. These full-depth tests involved maintaining a consistent water flowrate and
jet nozzle velocity for each test. After completion of specimen preparation and
inundation, the jetting apparatus was connected to the selected test pile such that the jet
nozzles were flush with the pile tip. The jetting nozzles were located at the edge of the
pile on opposite sides. The pile was then lowered into place and allowed to settle under
self weight at the specimen surface. During jetting, the test pile penetrated the specimens
until refusal. From these tests, maximum insertion depth and debris zone characteristics
for the experiment jetting parameters were acquired. The flowchart in Figure 3.9
demonstrates the test matrix for vertical jet testing used in the laboratory program.
26
Figure 3-9 Flowchart for Tests Conducted with Vertical Jets – Full Depth
Even though the majority of laboratory jetting involved the vertical jetting
apparatus, modifications involved jet nozzles angled at 45◦ from the vertical pipes to
determine if jet nozzle orientation affected the insertion and debris zone characteristics of
jetted piles. These nozzles were oriented so the jet water flowed directly under the pile
tip. The orientations of the jet streams used in these tests are shown in Figure 3.10. Data
produced from these tests were compared to similar jetting parameter tests using vertical
nozzles.
Figure 3-10 Angled Jet Nozzles for Jetting Modification
27
CHAPTER 4 - LABORATORY JETTING TEST RESULTS and
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
A majority of the jetting experiments were conducted on the eight inch diameter
pile which consistently reached insertion refusal prior to encountering the specimen depth
limit while initial jetting of the four inch and six inch diameter piles penetrated the entire
sample depth. The water flow rates (Qw) and jet nozzle velocities (Vj) varied between
tests to determine the effects of these parameters on pile installation and debris zone
characteristics. Table 4.1 provides information on testing parameters.
Table 4-1 Description of Tests Conducted in Experimental Program
Concrete Sand Mortar Sand Cherry Branch Sand Mortar + Kaolinite
Full
Tests
Depth
Control
Tests
*Full
Tests
*Depth
Control
Tests
Full
Tests
Depth
Control
Tests
Full
Tests
Depth
Control
Tests
(Qw –Vj)
(ft3/min –
ft/min)
(Qw –Vj)
(ft3/min –
ft/min)
(Qw –Vj)
(ft3/min –
ft/min)
(Qw –Vj)
(ft3/min –
ft/min)
(Qw –Vj)
(ft3/min –
ft/min)
(Qw –Vj)
(ft3/min –
ft/min)
(Qw –Vj)
(ft3/min –
ft/min)
(Qw –Vj)
(ft3/min –
ft/min)
1.337-313 1.337-490 1.337-186 1.337-313 1.337-186 1.337-186 1.337-186 1.337-186
1.337-313 2.674-372 1.337-186 1.337-490 1.337-313 1.337-313 1.337-313 1.337-490
1.337-490 2.674-626 1.337-490 2.674-372 1.337-490 1.337-490 1.337-490 2.674-372
2.674-372 2.674-980 2.674-626 2.674-980 1.337-490 2.674-372 2.674-980
2.674-626 2.674-626 2.674-372 2.674-626
2.674-626 2.674-980
2.674-980
CONVERSIONS:
ft3/min to m3min multiply by 0.0283
ft/min to m/min divide by 3.281
* A full test was run by continually jetting the pile into the sample. In comparison, a
depth control test was run incrementally where the test is stopped after pre-specified
insertion depth was reached and the disturbance zone was measured.
4.1 Insertion Characteristics and Refusal Depth
4.1.1 Insertion Rate Characteristics
Piles were jetted into various sand specimens compacted to consistent relative
densities to provide a basis of comparison between tests with variations in water flow rate
(Qw) and jet nozzle velocity (Vj). Insertion properties (i.e. Pile Insertion Rate, and
Refusal Depth) were measured as a function of water flow rate (Qw) and jet nozzle
28
velocity (Vj). Visual observations regarding water returning from the pile annulus with
soil particles was documented.
Insertion depth versus time graphs shown in Figures 4.1a-d for each soil type
indicate that with equal Qw, higher jet nozzle velocities enable the pile tip to penetrate to
greater depths as compared to tests performed using lower jet nozzle velocities. Greater
depth of insertion indicated that erosion efficiency and particle lifting ability increased
with higher jet velocities. For example, in the case of concrete sand having D50=0.75
mm, at a Qw = 2.674 ft3/min only when Vj = 980 ft/min did pile insertion exceed 2 ft
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 4-1 Depth of Insertion as a Function of Time for Various Water Flowrate and Jet
Nozzle Velocity(Numbers on curves = Flow rate(ft3/min) – Nozzle velocity (ft/min))
In contrast, a Vj = 370 ft/min was all that was needed to exceed 2ft in the Cherry
Branch sand having D50 = 0.2mm. Accordingly, it is recognized that particle lift by a
fluid medium is dependent on the velocity of fluid, particle diameter, and specific gravity
of the particle. For equal jetting parameters, it is expected that greater insertion depths
may be obtained in soil profiles with smaller average particle sizes as opposed to soil
profiles with larger average particle sizes.
29
Using the same jetting velocity, the average insertion rate, at one foot insertion, is
approximately 0.7 ft/min (0.20 m/min) in the Cherry Branch sand, in comparison to
approximately 0.3 ft/min (0.08 m/min) in the Concrete Sand. The effective angle of
internal friction ( ’), determined by direct shear testing, is 42o and 34o for the Concrete
and Cherry Branch Sand, respectively. Thus, tip bearing capacity of the Concrete Sand at
this depth increment is greater than tip bearing capacity of the Cherry Branch Sand. For
equal depths of insertion, a larger eroded area needs to be accomplished beneath the pile
tip in Concrete Sand to cause a bearing capacity failure and advancement of the pile.
With equal jetting parameters, longer time intervals are necessary to erode greater areas
in soils with higher friction angle materials, therefore decreasing the pile insertion rate.
Depths of insertion were chosen for each soil type based on the attainable insertion depth
of the lowest Qw and Vj relationship. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 4.2, for a given
depth, the pile insertion rate is dependent on both Qw and Vj. For equal Qw, increases in
Vj will provide higher insertion rates for any depth of insertion.
Jet Nozzle Velocity, Vj (ft/min)
200 400 600 800 1000Pile Insertion Rate, IR (ft/min)0
1
2
3
4
Qw = 1.337 ft3/min
Qw = 2.674 ft3/min
Concrete Sand
Depth = 0.25 ft
Jet Nozzle Velocity, Vj (ft/min)
0 200 400 600 800 1000Pile Insertion Rate, IR (ft/min)0
1
2
3
4
Qw = 1.337 ft3/min
Qw = 2.674 ft3/min
Mortar Sand
Depth = 0.5 ft
(a) (b)
Jet Nozzle Velocity, Vj (ft/min)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Pile Insertion Rate, IR (ft/min)0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Qw = 2.674 ft3/min
Qw = 1.337 ft3/min
Cherry Branch Sand
Depth = 0.5 ft
Jet Nozzle Velocity, Vj (ft/min)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Pile Insertion Rate, IR (ft/min)0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Qw = 1.337 ft3/min
Mortar Sand + Kaolinite
Depth = 1.0 ft
(c) (d)
Figure 4-2 Comparison of Pile Insertion Rates at Given Depths Due to Variation in
Jetting Parameters
30
Assuming continuity, jet nozzle velocity is linearly dependent on the jet nozzle
area and water flow rate through the nozzle by the following equation:
jjwVAQ= Eq. 4.1
where:
Qw = water volume flowrate (L3/T)
Aj = jet nozzle area (L2)
Vj = jet nozzle velocity (L/T)
The pile insertion rate, IR, is based on both Qw and Vj for a given depth in the soil
stratum. Since the bearing resistance of a uniform soil profile increases with depth, the
dimensions of the jetted pile are important when comparing installation characteristics.
Equation 4.2 provides a direct relationship between the pile dimensions, insertion rate,
and therefore indirectly the jetting parameters, at a specified depth within the soil profile.
ppAIRQ×= Eq. 4.2
where:
Qp = pile volume flowrate (L3/T)
IR = pile insertion rate (L/T)
Ap = pile area (L2)
The pile volume rate is the volume of pile (Area * Length) inserted per given time.
4.1.2 Insertion Characteristics – Angled Jets
As a form of practice modification, 45º angled jet nozzles were implemented into
the jetting system to determine jet nozzle orientation effects on pile insertion
characteristics. These tests were conducted in Mortar Sand specimens to compare the
final depth of pile insertion and insertion rates with those obtained using vertical nozzle
orientations. The depth of insertion as a function of time for the comparison tests are
shown in Figure 4.3. Comparing insertion depths and rates for equal jetting parameters in
Mortar Sand in Figure 4.3, the angled jetting system is seen to provide greater depth of
insertion and insertion rate capabilities. For example, for Qw of 1.337 ft3/min (0.038
m3/min) and Vj of 490 ft/min (149 m/min), the vertical jets provide a depth of insertion at
six minutes of 1.25 ft (0.38 m), whereas the angled jetting system provides a depth of
insertion at six minutes of 2.75 ft (0.84 m). However, as will be discussed in conjunction
with the field test data there are practical limitations related to the ability to install and
use angled jet nozzle in the field.
31
Elapsed Time of Jetting (min.)
024681012Depth of Insertion (ft)0
1
2
3
4
1.337-186 : Vertical
1.337-490 : Vertical
2.674-980 : Vertical
1.337-186 : Angled
1.337-313 : Angled
1.337-490 : Angled
Mortar Sand 1.337 & 2.674 = Flow rate in ft3/min
186, 313, 490, and 980 = Nozzle Velocity in ft/min
Figure 4-3 Depth of Insertion with Time for Various Water Flowrate and
Jet Nozzle Orientation.
4.2 Debris Zone Characteristics
4.2.1 Debris Volume Analysis – Full Depth
Upon termination of jetting, debris volumes (Vdebris) were determined based on
final survey of the sample surface. The debris volumes were determined for each full test
to establish the relationship between the total volume of pile jetted into the specimen and
the quantity of material exiting the jetting annulus. As shown in Figure 4.4, data indicated
that the debris volume exiting the annulus increases linearly with depth of pile installed.
These relationships are plotted with best-fit lines through the data for each soil type.
4.2.2 Debris Area Analysis – Depth Control
Upon termination of jetting, debris areas (Adebris) were determined based on final
survey of the sample surface shown in Figure 4.5. The debris areas were determined for
each full test to establish the relationship between the total volume of pile jetted into the
specimen and the distribution of material ejected from the annulus to the sample surface.
The debris areas calculated for each full depth test followed similar distribution with
jetted pile volume as the debris volume quantities.
32
Jetted Pile Volume, Vpile (ft3)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6Debris Volume, Vdebris (ft3)0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Concrete Sand
Jetted Pile Volume, Vpile (ft3)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6Debris Volume, Vdebris (ft3)0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Mortar Sand
(a) (b)
Jetted Pile Volume, Vpile (ft3)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6Debris Volume, Vdebris (ft3)0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Cherry Branch Sand
Jetted Pile Volume, Vpile (ft3)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6Debris Volume, Vdebris (ft3)0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Mortar Sand + Kaolinite
(c) (d)
Figure 4-4 Debris Volume with Increase in Jetted Pile Volume
Figure 4.5 a & b displays the debris area distributions for a jetted pile in Concrete
Sand to a depth of approximately 36 inches (0.91 m) and 14 inches (0.36 m) respectively.
As might logically be expected, as the depth of pile penetration increases, so does the
lateral extent of the debris area and the total debris volume. It should be stated that the
measuring system used in the experimental program was precise to 0.039 inches (1mm).
It should also be noted that smaller particles would have traveled further than the debris
zones shown in Figure 4.5. However, due to the boundary constraints of the test box
setup, these extents were not determined. The debris areas (Adebris) for each full depth
test conducted on the various sand types, with the exception of the Cherry Branch Sand
are shown in Figure 4.6.
33
(a) 36 inch installation depth (b) 14 inch installation depth
Figure 4-5 Comparison of Debris Areas in Concrete Sand at Two Insertion Depths
Jetted Pile Volume, Vpile (ft3)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2Debris Area, Adebris (ft2)3
4
5
6
7
8
Concrete Sand
Jetted Pile Volume, Vpile (ft3)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2Debris Area, Adebris (ft2)3
4
5
6
7
8
Mortar Sand
(a) (b)
Jetted Pile Volume, Vpile (ft3)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2Debris Area, Adebris (ft2)3
4
5
6
7
8
Mortar Sand + Kaolinite
(c)
Figure 4-6 Debris Area with Increase in Jetted Pile Volume
34
The ability to attain greater depths of insertion with lower values of Qw and Vj for
the Cherry Branch Sand as compared to the “coarse grained” sand types has been
presented. However, insertion rates for the Cherry Branch tests were lower at greater
depths due to using the lower values of Qw and Vj as compared to those needed to reach
the same depth in the sands with larger average grain sizes.
It was visually observed during the experiments that the smaller particles were
lifted from the jetting annulus and displaced over the specimen boundaries by increasing
volumes of water. The relative small size Cherry Branch Sand particles were easily
transported with the low jet nozzle velocities. This point is illustrated in Figure 4.7
where fine particles are seen near the boundary of the test box.
Figure 4-7 Immeasurable Debris Area Distribution for Cherry Branch Sand
4.2.3 Debris Zone Analysis - 45º Angled Jets – Full Tests
Even though the insertion rate and final depth of insertion for piles jetted with 45º
angled jets are greater than those installed using vertical jet nozzle, the data presented in
Figures 4.8 and 4.9 demonstrate that angled jets have negligible effect on the size of the
debris zone as compared to that created using the vertical jet nozzle orientations.
Therefore, it is believed that employing angled jets will benefit insertion rates while
resulting in similar sized debris zones to those produced by vertical jets when compared
at equal depths insertion. As shown in Figure 4.8, debris zone volume increased linearly
with jetted pile volume using either nozzle orientation. Similar trend was observed for the
debris zone area as shown in Figure 4.9.
35
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Jetted Pile Volume, Vpile(ft3)Debris Volume, Vdebris(ft3)Vertical Jets
45degree Angled Jets
Line of Complete Agreement
+/- 10% Error Limit
Figure 4-8 Comparison of Debris Zone Volumes Due to Various Nozzle Orientations
Jetted Pile Volume, Vpile (ft3)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2Debris Area, Adebris (ft2)3
4
5
6
7
8
Vertical Jets
45o Angled Jets
Mortar Sand
Figure 4-9 Comparison of Debris Zone Areas Due to Various Nozzle Orientations
36
4.2.4 Debris Zone Evaluation – Depth Control Tests
From full-depth tests, it is not possible to compare debris volumes and jetting
parameters for equal depths of insertion since pile insertion rate varies for a given depth
increment depending on jetting parameters. In order to establish a relationship between
debris zone area and jetting parameters for a given insertion depth, “depth-controlled”
tests were conducted. Depth-control tests were conducted primarily to optimize jetting
parameters for installing a pile in a given soil type. Optimum jetting parameters are
defined as a combination of water flow rate and jet nozzle velocity allowing adequate pile
insertion rate while generating minimum debris volume. There are many combinations
of Qw and Vj that will sufficiently install a pile to the required depth. However, due to
the need to obtain a reasonable insertion rate, there will exist an optimum Qw and Vj, that
will minimize surface impacts. Figure 4.10 shows the jetting data plotted as normalized
values.
Qw/Qp
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Vdebris/Vwtotal0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Concrete Sand
Vdebris/Vwtotal = 1.7663(Qw/Qp)-1.0202
r2 = 0.96
Qw/Qp
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Vdebris/Vwtotal0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Mortar Sand
Vdebris/Vwtotal = 1.2712(Qw/Qp)-1.0028
r ²=0.99
(a) (b)
Qw/Qp
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Vdebris/Vwtotal0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Cherry Branch Sand
Vdebris/Vwtotal = 1.3746(Qw/Qp)-0.9721
r2 = 0.92
Qw/Qp
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Vdebris/Vwtotal0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Mortar Sand + Kaolinite
Vdebris/Vwtotal = 1.4734(Qw/Qp)-1.1401
r2 = 0.99
(c) (d)
Figure 4-10 Correlations between Pile Insertion Rate and Debris Volume (Depth = 1.0 ft)
In this case, the Qw was normalized with respect to pile volume insertion rate (Qp)
and the volume of debris was normalized with respect to the volume of water (Vw). In
r2 =
37
Figure 4.11, the area of debris is multiplied by the pile diameter and normalized with
respect to Vw. It may be inferred from Figures 4.10 and 4.11 that the total volume of
water (Vwtotal) along with Qw/Qp at a given depth has a distinct effect on the debris
volume (Vdebris) and debris area (Adebris) surrounding jetted pile installations. Since Qp
depends on both jetting parameters, (Qw, and Vj) normalizing Qw with Qp takes into
account Vj required to achieve the insertion depth. Therefore, to achieve faster insertion
rates for a given Qw at a specified depth, the Qw/Qp ratio must be minimized resulting in
higher required values of Vj.
As shown in Figure 4.10, the debris volume is a function of the characteristics of
the soil thru which the pile is jetted. Therefore, it is expected that variations in particle
size and characteristics of the different soils would lead to dissimilar debris zone
quantities for the same jetting parameters.
Qw/Qp
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Adebris(Dpile)/Vwtotal0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Concrete Sand
Adebris(Dpile)/Vwtotal = 13.552(Qw/Qp)-1.1671
r2 = 0.98
Qw/Qp
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Adebris(Dpile)/Vwtotal0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Mortar Sand
Adebris(Dpile)/Vwtotal = 13.451(Qw/Qp)-1.1457
r2 = 0.99
(a) (b)
Qw/Qp
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Adebris(Dpile)/Vwtotal0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cherry Branch Sand
Adebris(Dpile)/Vwtotal = 10.473(Qw/Qp)-0.9232
r2 = 0.97
Qw/Qp
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Adebris(Dpile)/Vwtotal0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Mortar Sand + Kaolinite
Adebris(Dpile)/Vwtotal = 15.066(Qw/Qp)-1.2424
r2 = 0.99
(c) (d)
Figure 4-11 Correlations between Pile Insertion Rate and Debris Area (Depth = 1.0 ft)
In Figure 4.11, the debris area is multiplied by the pile diameter (Dp) and
normalized by the total volume of water. This normalization was used to develop the
38
relationship between the pile diameter and the total volume of water necessary to jet the
pile to the cutoff depth.
The debris volume for each soil type can be expressed by the following equation:
volumeb
p
w
volumewtotaldebris Q
QaVV ⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛×= Eq. 4.3
where:
Vdebris = debris volume (L3)
Vwtotal = total volume of jetted water (L3)
avolume = Volume parameter dependent on the characteristics of grain size distribution
bvolume = D50 dependent volume parameter
Qw = Water flowrate (L3/min)
Qp = Pile volume insertion rate (L3/min)
The debris area for each soil type can be expressed by the following equation:
areab
p
w
area
pile
wtotal
debris Q
QaD
VA ⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛×⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛= Eq. 4.4
where: Adebris = debris area (L2)
Vwtotal = total volume of jetted water (L3)
Dpile = pile diameter (L)
aarea = GSD dependent area parameter
barea = D50 dependent area parameter
Qw = water volume flowrate (L3/min)
Qp = pile volume insertion rate (L3/min)
Using the regression parameters from Figure 4.10 for the natural soils, Figures
4.12 & 4.13 shows the dependency of debris volume a-parameter (used in Eq 4.3) on
grain size distribution (GSD) and jetting parameters based on test results obtained in this
study. In Figure 4.12, the coefficient of curvature (Cc) is defined as (D30)²/ (D60D10).
It seems that debris area is dependent upon the jetting parameters pile insertion
rate and the total volume of water required to insert the pile. Figures 4.14 & 4.15 provide
the dependency of debris area “a and b” parameters on grain size distribution (GSD)
characteristics and jetting parameters.
39
Figure 4-12 Variation of Debris Volume “a-parameter” as a Function of
Cc
Figure 4-13 Debris Volume “b-parameter” Versus D50
avolume = 0.520Cc + 0.868
R2 = 0.99
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Coefficient of Curvature, CcVolume a-parameterbvolume = -0.081(D50) - 0.961
R2 = 0.99
-1.03
-1.02
-1.01
-1.00
-0.99
-0.98
-0.97
-0.96
0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8
Average Particle Diameter, D50(mm)Volume b-parameter
40
Average Particle Diameter, D50 (mm)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8Area a-parameter10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
D50 (mm) = (0.15-0.5)
aarea = 8.5086(D50) + 9.1967
D50 (mm) = (0.5-0.75)
aarea = 0.404(D50) + 13.249
Figure 4-14 Debris Area “a-parameter” Versus D50
Average Particle Diameter, D50 (mm)
0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8Area b-parameter-1.20
-1.15
-1.10
-1.05
-1.00
-0.95
-0.90
D50 (mm) = (0.15-0.5)
barea = -0.6357(D50) - 0.8278
D50 (mm) = (0.5-0.75)
barea = -0.0856(D50) - 1.1029
Figure 4-15 Debris Area “b-parameter” Versus D50
41
4.3 Model Development
4.3.1 Debris Zone Modeling
From Section 4.2.4 it was shown that the debris volume (Vdebris) and debris area
(Adebris) follow power relationships with the total volume of water (Vwtotal) and jetting
parameters required to achieve a given depth of insertion. The following empirical
equations provide the relationship between jetting parameters and debris zone for various
soil types used in the testing program.
volumeb
p
w
volumewtotaldebris Q
QaVV ⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛= Eq. 4.5
where: Vdebris = total volume of soil material transported to ground surface (L3)
Vwtotal = total volume of water required to jet a pile to a given depth with
available jetting parameters (L3)
avolume = parameter based on Cc
bvolume = parameter based on D50
and
0.868)0.520(Ca cvolume += Eq. 4.6
volume 50
b 0.081(D ) 0.961=−− (D50 in mm) Eq. 4.7
(inches to mm multiply by 25.4)
In order to estimate the debris area, the following equation is proposed:
areab
p
w
area
pile
wtotal
debris Q
QaD
VA ⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛= Eq. 4.8
where: Adebris = debris distribution on ground surface from jetted pile installation (L2)
Vwtotal = total volume of water required to jet a pile to a given depth with
available jetting parameters (L3)
Dpile = diameter of jetted pile (L)
aarea = parameter based on D50
barea = parameter based on Cc
In cases where D50 < 0.5 mm, the aarea and barea parameters are calculated as follow:
(inches to mm multiply by 25.4)
area 50
a 8.5086(D ) 9.1967=+ (D50 in mm) Eq. 4.9
area 50
b 0.6357(D ) 0.8279=− − (D50 in mm) Eq. 4.10
42
For D50 > 0.5 mm (inches to mm multiply by 25.4)
area 50
a 0.404(D ) 13.249=+ (D50 in mm) Eq. 4.11
area 50
b 0.085(D ) 1.1029=− − (D50 in mm) Eq. 4.12
4.3.2 Validation of Proposed Model with Laboratory Tests
The validation using laboratory data was mainly to ensure that equations
developed from test data were accurately coded in the model spreadsheet. Using
Equations 4.5 and 4.8, the debris zone volume (Vdebris) and debris zone area (Adebris) were
estimated based on the final depth of insertion obtained in the laboratory tests. These
model estimated values were then compared to the actual values of debris zone quantities
for the given soil types. Figure 4.16 & 4.17 present the line of 100% agreement between
the actual debris zone quantities from laboratory tests (Vlab and Alab) and the estimated
debris zone quantities (Vmodel and Amodel) from implementation of the empirical model
(Boundary effects encountered in the Cherry Branch Sand full-depth tests produced
immeasurable debris area properties).
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Laboratory Debris Volume, Vlab (ft 3)Model Estimated Debris Volume, Vmodel (ft3) Concrete Sand
Mortar Sand
Cherry Branch Sand
Line of Complete Agreement
+/- 10% Error Limit
Figure 4-16 Debris Volume Validation of Proposed Model
43
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0
Laboratory Debris Area, Alab (ft 2)Model Estimated Debris Area, Amodel (ft2) Concrete Sand
Mortar Sand
Line of Complete Agreement
+/- 10% Error Limit
Figure 4-17 Debris Area Validation of Proposed Model
In Figures 4.16 & 4.17, the proposed model is seen to provide a reasonably good
estimation of debris volume and area observed in laboratory data. Some scatter exists
between the model and actual values due to the regression of test parameters based on
results from several tests having various soil types and jetting parameters. Overall, the
model should provide accurate estimations of debris zone for jet-driven piles within the
range of qapp/ ’v achieved in laboratory testing.
44
CHAPTER 5 - FIELD TESTING METHODOLOGY
A total of 26 full-scale jetting pile installations at four different test sites were
performed to expand the data base developed during laboratory testing, obtain data for
the validation/modification of the laboratory based models, and assess the impact of
jetting on the surrounding environment. The test sites were selected based on the
characteristics of the subsurface profile at each of the potential sites and also the ease
with which the jetting research could be implemented given construction schedules and
field crew availability. The field testing was conducted in coordination with NCDOT
bridge maintenance Division 2 forces. It should be acknowledged that the bridge
maintenance division was indispensable for fabrication and implementation of the jetting
system used to conduct the field work. The four Sites selected for field testing and testing
dates are as follows:
i. White Oak River (6 installations) June 16-20, 2003
ii. Cherry Branch Ferry Basin (9 installations) Sept. 3-10, 2003
iii. Caeser Swamp, Sampson County (1 installation) Oct. 27, 2003
iv. Swan Quarter Ferry Basin (10 installations) Nov. 3-6, 2003
5.1 Test Locations
The test locations of the test sites are identified in Figure 5.1. Each test location is
described separately in following sections.
Figure 5-1 Site map detailing the field testing locations
45
5.1.1 White Oak River
The first testing site was in Stella, North Carolina, at the White Oak River. The
White Oak River is located within the coastal plain region and is a tidally controlled
river. However, the water in the area of testing was found to have no salinity content.
The site had previously been the subject of NCDOT subsurface investigation (NCDOT
state project 8.2160801, TIP No. B-2938) which consisted of 42 Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) borings along with periodic samples taken within the borings for grain size
distribution, Atterberg limits, and natural moisture content determinations. Based on
results from the NCDOT subsurface investigation, the site was found to have an upper
layer of very soft alluvium muck which extended to depth of 5 to 20 feet (1.5m to 6m).
Standard penetration testing performed in the muck layer yielded SPT N-values ranging
from weight of hammer (WOH) to 2 blows per foot (30cm). The muck layer was
underlain by a layer of loose to medium dense, alluvial, silty, fine to coarse sand which
was approximately 6.5 feet (2m) in thickness. SPT N-values in this layer ranged from 3
to 17 blows per foot. Below the sand layer was medium to very dense silty, fine to coarse
sand of the Coastal Plain Undivided formation, which extended until boring termination
at depths of 65 to 100 feet (19.5 to 30m). SPT N-values in this layer generally increased
with depth and ranged from 14 to 100 blows per foot (30cm).
The general conditions at the site were wet and marshy on the land adjacent to the
river. The marshy area was covered with native grasses and needle rush. The White Oak
site provided areas to test which were located both in the water and on land (in marshy
areas). Three pile installations were performed in the river adjacent to an existing road
crossing, and three installations were performed adjacent to the existing roadway
alignment in the marshy area. Figure 5.2 below shows a photograph of the river and
adjacent marsh setting at the White Oak river site.
Figure 5-2 River and adjacent marsh area at White Oak River Site in Stella, NC
46
5.1.2 Cherry Branch Ferry Basin
The second site was located at the Cherry Branch Ferry Basin in North Carolina.
The subsurface conditions at Cherry Branch Ferry Basin were previously investigated by
the NCDOT in September of 1997. The site is described as being located in the Coastal
Plain Physiographic Province and underlain by recent alluvial and marine deposits of
Pliocene to Miocene age (NCDOT state project 6.171034, TIP No. F-2801). The
investigation consisted of seven SPT borings. Four of the borings were located within
the ferry basin along the western bulkhead, and three were located in the ferry basin
along, what is now, the eastern bulkhead in the basin. The depth of the water in the basin
ranged from 7 to 9 feet (2.1 to 2.75 m).
The profile along the western side of the basin is composed of an upper layer of
very soft organic (muck and sand) deposits ranging from 5 to 21 feet (1.5 to 6.4m) in
thickness. The organic content of this deposit was found to be between 19 and 55 percent
with a natural water content of 172 to 187 percent. The organic soils were underlain by
2.5 to 12.5 feet (.76 to 3.8 m) of alluvial loose to medium dense fine to coarse sand. The
Yorktown Formation of Pliocene age underlies the surficial sediments at an elevation of
-25 to -35 feet. Soils with the Yorktown Formation generally consist of 15 to 20 feet (4.6
to 6.1 m) of medium stiff to stiff sandy clay and clayey sandy silt underlain by
approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) of loose to medium dense slightly clayey fine sand. The
Pungo River Formation of Miocene age underlies the Yorktown Formation at an
elevation of approximately -55 feet and consist of stiff phosphatic sandy silty clay.
The profile along the eastern side of the basin consists of an upper layer of the
Yorktown Formation which is composed of 7 to 8 feet (2.1 to 2.4 m) of very loose to
loose fine to coarse sand underlain by 15 to 17 feet (4.6 to 5.2 m) of loose to medium
dense fine sand with shell fragments. The granular sediments are underlain by 17 to 21
feet (4.6 to 6.4 m) of medium stiff to stiff silty sandy clay and clayey sandy silt. An
approximately 5 foot (1.5m) thick layer of medium dense fine sand underlies the cohesive
deposits. The Pungo River formation underlies the Yorktown Formation and consists of
10 feet (3m) of medium stiff to stiff phosphatic sandy silty clay underlain by a 0.5 to 1.5
feet (.15 to .5 m) thick layer of indurated limestone. The limestone is underlain by loose
to dense fine to coarse sand. It should be noted that, at the time of the subsurface
investigation, the borings on the eastern side were performed along an embankment
which has now been removed for the construction of what is now the eastern bulkhead in
the basin.
Nine test pile installations were performed at Cherry Branch, each being
conducted in the basin. Figure 5.3 shows an overall view of the Cherry Branch Ferry
Basin.
47
Figure 5-3 Cherry Branch Ferry basin, looking west to east, crane barge in foreground.
5.1.3 Sampson County Bridge Replacement site
The third site was located in Sampson County, approximately 8 miles north of
Salemburg, North Carolina. The subsurface investigation of this site was reported by
NCDOT in January of 2003. The site was described in the report as being located in the
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province and being underlain by recent alluvial soils and
Cretaceous age sediments of the Black Creek Formation (NCDOT state project 5.2852).
The upper layer of the subsurface is composed of approximately 6 feet (1.8m) of
very loose to loose fine to coarse brown clayey sand fill. The fill was underlain by very
loose to dense coarse sand with gravel to a depth of 16 feet (4.9m). Beneath the coarse
sand was stiff to hard micaceous silty clay extending to boring termination at a depth of
64 feet (19.5m). It is noted that during the test pile installation, the pile refused at a depth
of 16 feet (4.9m) on a layer that contained .75 to 1 inch (1.9 to 2.5 cm) diameter gravel
particles which was at least 1 foot (.3 m) thick. Based on the difficulty of installing the
test pile and the description in the NCDOT report it is assumed this layer of gravel has a
SPT N-value greater than 50. Only one test pile installation was performed at this site
due to space constraints and hanging power lines. Figure 5.4 shows an overall view the
Sampson County research site.
5.1.4 Swan Quarter Ferry Basin
The fourth test site is located at the Swan Quarter Ferry Basin in Swan Quarter, North
Carolina. The ferry basin is adjacent to the Pamlico Sound and provides transportation to
Roanoke Island.
48
Figure 5-4 Sampson County Research Site
This site had been previously investigated by NCDOT with a report dating March of
2000. According to the report, the ferry basin is located in the tidewater portion of the
Lower Coastal Plain and is underlain by mixed marine and fluvial sediments of
Quaternary to Tertiary age. The water depth in the ferry basin ranges from 10 to 17 feet
(3 to 5.2m) in depth (NCDOT State Project 6.081008, F-3305).
A total of four SPT borings were made to investigate the site. Based on the
borings, the NCDOT report stated that the site generally had an upper layer of
approximately 20 feet (6.1m) in thickness of very soft fine sandy, silty clay and clayey
fine sandy silt. The upper layer was underlain by loose to dense fine sand, and fine to
coarse sand with interbedded thin layers (1 to 2 feet thick) of very dense sand and very
soft clayey, sandy silt to a depth of 50 to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3m). Below the sand deposit,
soils consisted of alternating beds of medium stiff to stiff silty sandy clay and medium
dense clayey fine to coarse sand. At the time of jetting tests, @ 1 to 3 foot (.3 to .9 m)
layer could be dredged material of fill consisting of silty sand and oyster shells was
observed at some of the locations of the test piles. No SPT testing was performed on the
fill, but it was assumed that the fill was relatively dense, as it took considerable effort for
the research piles to penetrate this upper layer of fill.
The area where jetting of test piles occurred consisted of the basin itself along
with a lower lying marshy area covered with native grasses and bushes. A total of ten
test pile installations were performed, six of which were conducted in the basin and four
were conducted in the lower lying marshy area adjacent to the basin. Figures 5.5 and 5.6
show a general view of the site at Swan Quarter.
49
Figure 5-5 Swan Quarter Ferry Basin looking from Southwest to Northeast
Figure 5-6 Marshy area adjacent to ferry basin (shown after pile installations).
5.2 Test Setup and Equipment
*Initially, it was determined that a concrete pile should be used for the field
testing since it is the most frequently jetted pile in the geographical area of the research.
However, it was pointed out by the Division 2 officials that continually handling concrete
piles would be tedious work as lifting long concrete sections is dangerous work due to the
large bending moments induced in the piles during erection. Further, removing the
research piles after installation would be difficult unless lifting hooks were cast into the
concrete, in which case there was still no guarantee that removal without damaging the
50
pile was possible. This issue was resolved by using a 40-foot (12.2m) long, 2-foot (.61m)
diameter, steel pipe pile section filled with a mixture of sand and water. This allowed the
steel pipe pile to simulate the weight of a concrete pile with similar dimensions, therefore
inducing the same bearing stresses when erected. A steel plate was welded on the bottom
end of the pipe pile. The pile was placed on a trailer which was then passed over
highway scales, and by trial and error (filling the pipe pile with sand and water), until the
target weight of approximately 18,800lb (8530 kg) was achieved. Using the steel pipe
section was very beneficial in that, the pile could be lifted easily without fear of
damaging it, and the pile could be extracted by a vibratory hammer if it became difficult
to remove after jetting. This enabled the use of the same pile for all tests. Figure 5.7 is a
photograph of the closed-end steel test pile.
Figure 5-7 Steel Test Pile with plate welded onto bottom end.
The jetting system frame was composed of two, 2.5 inch (6.35cm) galvanized
steel pipes which extended from the bottom of the pile up 34 feet (10.4m) to where they
were connected together with a combination of elbows and a union. At the connection, a
tee was placed so that the water source could be introduced to the two main jet pipes via a
single hose. The end of each jet pipe was threaded so that it could accept different
diameter straight or angled nozzles with diameters ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 inches (3.81 to
6.35cm). Since the same pile was used for all installations, the main jet pipes were
welded to the test pile. Figure 5.8 shows the nozzles (bottom end) of the main jet pipes
and Figure 5.9 shows the connection of these pipes at the upper end of the pile.
51
Figure 5-8 Nozzle ends at the ends of the jet pipe, shown with 2 inch (5.08cm) nozzles.
Figure 5-9 Connection of the main jet pipes to water injection tee at upper end of pile.
52
The tee at the top of the pile was connected to the 2.5 inch (6.35cm) or 4 inch
(10.16cm) diameter flexible hose supplying water from the jetting pump.
5.2.1 Equipment
The mechanical equipment needed to perform the actual pile jetting installations
consisted of a crane capable of maneuvering the large pile and a water pump capable of
producing the flow rates, while withstanding the back pressure, needed to install the pile.
The crane used to lift and maneuver the pile during installation was an American model
5220, as shown in Figure 5.10.
Figure 5-10 American model 5220 crane used for maneuvering test piles.
During the course of the research, three different pumps were used, as it became
evident that higher flow rates were needed. The first pump used was a Hale model
centrifugal trash pump powered by a diesel engine capable of producing flowrates in the
range of 250 to 450 gallons per minute (950 to 1500 liters per minute). The pump was
equipped with a 6-inch (15.24cm) diameter suction hose and a 2.5-inch (6.35 cm)
diameter discharge hose. This pump, shown in Figure 5.11, was used at the first site but
not used for the remainder of the research as it became evident that a higher capacity
pump was needed.
53
Figure 5-11 Hale model centrifugal trash pump used at first jetting site.
The second pump used was a Myer’s Seth model DP150 centrifugal trash pump
equipped with a 6-inch (15.24-cm) diameter suction hose and an interchangeable 2.5-inch
or 4-inch (6.35-cm or 10.16-cm) diameter discharge hose. The Myer’s Seth delivered
flowrates of 300 to 700 gallons per minute (1135 to 2650 liters per minute) and could
sustain a maximum dynamic head pressure of approximately 60 psi (414 kPa) at
operating speed of 1,200 to 2,100 Rpm. The Myer’s Seth model DP150, shown in Figure
5.12, was only used at the second site as still higher flow rates and head pressure were
deemed necessary for full depth installation of the test piles.
Figure 5-12 Myer’s Seth model DP150
54
The third pump used was a Cornell model 4HC equipped with a 200 horse-power diesel
engine, as shown in Figure 5.13.
Figure 5-13 Cornell model 4HC high pressure pump.
The 4HC produced flow rates ranging from 1200 to 1450 gallons (4540 to 5490
liters) per minute. The 4HC is a specialized high pressure pump which is capable of
sustaining dynamic head pressure in excess of 150psi (10034 kPa). The 4HC was the
only pump capable of inserting the test pile its entire length and was used for the
remaining two test sites.
The first two trash pumps used were outfitted with a flow meter (Figure 5.14) so
that the total amount of water delivered over a given time period (flowrate) could be
monitored. The maximum capacity of the water meter was 900gpm so it was not
compatible with the 4HC high pressure pump. For the 4HC, the total dynamic head
pressure was monitored along with the engine RPM to determine the flowrate from a
pump curve provided by the manufacturer and shown in Figure 5.15 as provided by the
manufacturer. As shown in Figure 5.15, for a constant engine speed, the backpressure is
inversely proportional to the flowrate output of the pump.
5.2.2 Testing Procedure
Two different methods were used for installing the piles; one for installations on
land and the other for installations in water.
55
Figure 5-14 Water meter used to monitor Hale pump and Myer’s Seth pump
Figure 5-15 Pump curve used to back-calculate flowrate from Cornell 4HC pump (Private
Correspondence, Corenll Pump Company, Portland, Oregon, 2003)
5.2.2.1 Water Installations
Testing performed in the water required a frame of steel 12x53 H-piles to be
installed around the test pile insertion area in order to provide a working area for
monitoring and data collection. This system of H-piles was referred to as the reference
56
template. The template individual members were installed using a vibratory hammer
prior to the test pile installation. The template consisted of four H-piles driven in a
square pattern with dimensions that measured approximately 35 feet by 35 feet (10.7m by
10.7m). The four free standing piles were connected by four beams, which were attached
around the perimeter by a temporary weld. The template was then used to support a 40-
foot (12.2 m) long aluminum scaffold, which was moved around by the crane, as needed,
to support the researchers as they worked around the test pile.
After the assembly of the reference template, the discharge hose of the pump was
attached to the main jet pipe assembly of the test pile and the pile was marked in 2 foot
(.61m) increments to facilitate measuring the rate of installation. At this time, the desired
nozzles were also attached to the ends of the main jet pipes. The test pile was then
moved into position at the center of the template and lowered until the nozzles were
almost in contact with the soil bed below the water surface. Figure 5.16 shows the pile
being placed into position within the reference template.
Figure 5-16 Pile placed into start position in the reference template.
Once the pile was placed into position, a careful survey was taken of the ground
surface profile below the water surface. This was accomplished by utilizing the reference
template as a datum, (taken as the top of the railing on the walkway platform) and the
distance to the submerged ground surface was measured with a survey rod that was
outfitted with a rigid rubber bottom plate. Readings were made in horizontal increments
of one foot extending in the four cardinal directions from the pile (i.e. in site North,
South, East, and West directions). The survey rod’s rubber foot was 8-in x 10-in x 1-in
(20.3-cm x 25.4-cm x 2.5-cm) in dimension. The rubber foot allowed the rod to be
lowered onto a bed of soft sediment and rest there without significant penetration. The
pre-jet survey was taken prior to disturbance of the soil from the test pile installation, as
illustrated in Figure 5.17.
Test Pile
Jetting Pump
Working Platform
Reference Template
57
Figure 5-17 Beginning to perform pre-jet survey.
After jetting, the same technique was used to measure the distance to the soil
surface from the reference template. The differences between the pre-jet and post-jet
readings were used to determine the change in elevation of the submerged mud line.
After completion of the pre-jetting measurements, the jetting hose (pump
discharge) was connected to the pump, and the pump was positioned at the water source.
The pump was then activated and the crane operator allowed the pile to be lowered into
the subsurface under its own weight, and the action of the water jets, applying just
sufficient tension to the top of pile to keep it plumb. The pile was allowed to sink until it
was observed that no further insertion was taking placing or until a desired termination
depth was reached, as will be discussed in the Chapter 7.
5.2.2.2 Land Installation
The land installations were simpler than those in water because neither the
reference template nor the scaffold was needed. The procedure for determining a
reference for a pre-jet survey was established by placing a series of “taught” string lines
marked in 1 foot (30cm) horizontal increments to facilitate measuring from a fixed
reference point. The string lines were attached to iron silt fence stakes which were driven
in a cross pattern approximately 30 feet by 30 feet (9.1m by 9.1m). One such string line
is shown in Figure 5.18 while post-jetting measurements were being made.
The procedure for the installation of a pile on land was similar to a water
installation. After completion of the pre-jetting measurements, the jetting hose (pump
discharge) was connected to the pump and the pump was positioned at the water source.
Survey rod
Reference
Template
58
Figure 5-18 Measuring the profile after a jetting installation.
The pump was then activated and the crane operator allowed the pile to be
lowered into the soil profile under its own weight and the action of the water jets,
applying just sufficient tension to the top of pile to keep the pile plumb. It was also
important for land installations to make sure that jets were activated prior to lowering the
jets into the soil profile. The same termination criteria were used on land as for under
water tests.
5.2.2.3 Angled Jets
The modification proposed as a results of the laboratory program of using angled
jet nozzles to increase the insertion rate and depth was also explored during field testing.
The process of configuring the jetting system with the nozzles consisted of screwing a 45
degree elbow to each jet nozzle with the desired outlet diameter. The nozzles were
tightened and directed toward the center of the pile. This technique was tried in 3
successive attempts at location WO-6 (at White Oak site). In each attempt, the nozzles
were not capable of withstanding the stresses applied upon them while the pile was being
lowered through the soil profile. In each attempt, when the pile was extracted, the
nozzles were severely crimped, damaged, or missing altogether. After three attempts, it
was reasoned that, without a better design of jet nozzle and connection, using the 45
degree angled jets was not a feasible option when jetting in full scale field applications,
especially since White Oak site was one of the softest profile types encountered in the
field testing program.
59
CHAPTER 6 - DATA ACQUISITION AND TEST MONITORING
The data acquisition and field monitoring programs were adapted from techniques
developed during the laboratory portion of the research. The data gathered consisted of
monitoring the insertion rate of the test pile during installation, monitoring the pump
performance for determination of water flowrate and pressure, determining depth of
termination or refusal, surveying the ground surface profile before and after jetting for
determination of the debris volume and area extent, and determining the grain size
distribution of the debris material created by the jetting installation. In addition, water
quality parameters associated with jetting in the water, including pH, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity and salinity were monitored.
6.1 Insertion Rate Monitoring
The insertion rate of each test pile was monitored for each field installation. In
general, recording the insertion procedure was performed manually and by video camera.
At the beginning of the test, a stopwatch was started at the moment the jets began
dispensing water and the pile was allowed to penetrate the soil. A researcher visually
monitored the process of the pile being inserted and recorded the times coinciding with
the one foot increments as marked on the pile. The process of recording the insertions for
each increment continued until the cessation of the test. This information was used to
determine the pile insertion rate for each increment of pile and also the average insertion
rate of the entire pile length.
6.2 Pump Performance Monitoring
The process of monitoring the pump during pile installations was important
because pump performance directly affected the installations of the test piles. During
field testing at the first two sites, a flow meter was attached in-line to the discharge end of
the pump. The monitoring of water discharge volume over a given time period made
determining the flowrate straight forward. At the third and fourth sites, the Cornell 4HC
pump, which had a significantly higher flowrate output (> 1200 gpm, 4500 lpm), was
used. However, as the flow meter was not adequate for reading flowrates above 900
gallons per minute (3400 liters per minute), it was not used. Instead, the pump curve
provided by the manufacturer (see Fig 5.15) was used to estimate flow rates. To use the
curve, the engine speed (RPM) was monitored along with the pump backpressure, and the
height of suction lift was measured. The height of the suction lift was determined by
measuring the vertical distance between the surface of the water source to the bottom of
the suction intake on the rear of the pump. During the duration of the all the tests, the
appropriate parameters dependent upon which pump was used, were monitored
continuously, so that the flowrate, velocity, and or pump back pressure could be
determined for the purpose of model development.
60
6.3 Test Termination Criterion
The test termination criterion varied depending upon the individual test
installation. In general, the test was terminated when no further advancement of the pile
was possible under the action of the jetting apparatus with constant flowrate and pressure.
From the laboratory experimentation, it was observed that an increased total volume of
water would negatively affect (increase) the amount of debris generated from a pile
installation, therefore termination was reached when the pile no longer advanced even if
return water was still being generated around the annulus of the pile. In some cases the
pile was advanced until the jetting hose connection near the top of the pile at 34 feet
(10.4m) reached the ground surface. The pile was not advanced beyond this point to
prevent damage to the jetting apparatus. By analyzing the insertion data from the various
field tests, an empirical model relating insertion rate to water flowrate, backpressure, and
relative density of the subsurface profile (based on SPT N-value) was developed.
6.4 Debris Zone Delineation and Volume Determination
After installation of each test pile, a survey was conducted to determine the
change in elevation of the ground surface profile. The method for conducting the survey
after jetting was the same as described for the pre-jet survey (Sections 5.2.2.1 and
5.2.2.2). Once the change in elevation was computed for the ground surface profile, the
initial and final elevations at each point along the ground surface were tabulated in data
sheets in Microsoft Excel TM. With this information, the elevation change at each location
along the ground surface was determined. In order to determine the volume of material
deposited within the debris zone (Vdebris), numeric integration of the average height of
deposited material around the pile was conducted. Figure 6.1 illustrates a typical jetted
pile installation with the shape of the debris profile as a function of distance away from
the pile.
Figure 6-1 Typical jetted pile installation with debris zone profile and extent.
61
The volume integration was conducted in all four cardinal directions (north,
south, east and west) and averaged. The general shape of the debris area was usually
symmetrical which validated this approach. The area of the debris zone (Adebris) was
calculated from the following equation assuming a shape of an elliptical area as shown in
Figure 6.2:
Figure 6-2 Elliptical Distribution of Debris Area (from Smith, 2003).
abAdebrisπ= Eq. 6.1
where: a = radial distance of debris zone extent in east and west direction
b = radial distance of debris zone extent in north and south direction
However, it was subsequently determined that reporting the diameter of the debris
zone would be more appropriate since calculation of the area introduces a square of the
error produced when measuring the extent of the debris zone. The diameter of the debris
zone was expressed in terms of the longest dimension extending from the center of the
pile. In this case, referring to Figure 6.2, the diameter of the debris zone reported,
(Ddebris) would be:
aDdebris2= Eq. 6-2
where: a = radial distance of debris zone extent in direction of maximum extent.
Accordingly, the surface effects of pile jetting could be quantified and
compared with results predicted from the debris zone model. To illustrate the spoil
volume calculations, the surveyed profile case of CB-1, Appendix D, Figure D-2, will be
used. The volume is calculated for each spoil increment in the four directions (North
South, East, West) assuming concentric circles. The zero in the “Distance Column” in
Table 6.1 designates the pile edge and the one foot interval thereafter designates the
surveyed point. So, for example in the north direction, the spoil thickness is 0.7 ft at the
pile edge and 0.5 ft one foot in the north direction. Assuming the shape of the spoil to be
a circle (the radius of the circle is 2 ft but the pile inside the spoil circle has a radius of 1
ft), the volume of the spoil using the surveyed data is estimated as follows:
Volume first increment, north direction= (0.7+0.5)/2)*((PI*(2ft)2)-(PI*(1ft-pile diam)2)=5.65ft3
62
This process is repeated for the four directions for all incremental points surveyed. Based
on data in Table 6.1, the volume for north, south, east and west directions are 179, 38, 77,
and 45 ft3, respectively. The average value of the four directions (in this case 85 ft3) is
then reported as the spoil volume.
Table 6-1 Example Illustrating calculations of the Debris Volume, CB-1
Dist
(ft) Pre and Post Jetting Difference in Elevation Debris Volume per One ft increment
North South East West North South East West
0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0 5.6548668 4.712389 2.356194 0
2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0 7.0685835 7.853982 3.926991 0
3 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.1 9.8960169 7.696902 9.896017 1.099557
4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 12.72345 5.654867 14.13717 4.24115
5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 13.823008 5.183628 12.09513 10.36726
6 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 14.294247 2.042035 8.168141 10.21018
7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 14.137167 2.356194 4.712389 4.712389
8 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 16.022123 2.670354 5.340708 5.340708
9 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 11.938052 0 5.969026 5.969026
10 0.3 0 0.1 0 13.194689 0 6.597345 3.298672
11 0.3 0 0 0 21.676989 0 3.612832 0
12 0.1 0 0 0 15.707963 0 0 0
13 0.1 0 0 0 8.4823002 0 0 0
14 0.1 0 0 0 9.1106187 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 4.8694686 0 0 0
6.5 Particle Size Distribution
Collected samples of the debris material extending around the pile circumference
were obtained for particle size distribution determination and dispersivity testing.
Particle size distribution tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 422. Based
on the laboratory testing, it was determined that a significant portion of the material being
replaced by the pile must be removed for successful installation. The particle size
distribution of the debris zone should be representative of the subsurface soils present at a
specific jetting location. With this understanding, the particle size distribution tests were
utilized primarily to confirm that the subsurface soils at a particular jetting installation
site were consistent with the subsurface soils described and characterized by the NCDOT
geotechnical reports and boring logs. It was imperative to confirm this information, as
data from the NCDOT geotechnical reports was used to develop the insertion model.
6.6 Dispersivity Testing
Dispersivity testing was performed on samples obtained from the debris areas that
exhibited cohesive characteristics during field inspection. The dispersivity testing was
performed in accordance with ASTM D 4221 (double hydrometer method). According to
63
ASTM D 4221, dispersive clays are those which normally deflocculate when exposed to
water of low-salt concentration, the opposite of aggregated clays that would remain
flocculated in the same soil-water system. Generally dispersive clays are highly erosive.
Decker (1977) indicated that that dispersivity determined from the method ASTM D
4221 has about 85% reliance in predicting dispersive performance (85% of dispersive
clays show more than 35% dispersion).
The purpose of the dispersivity testing was to evaluate the duration that fine
particles remain in suspension and the expected distribution of fines in the water column
during jetting. Results of the testing, however, indicated that the dispersion of the test
samples obtained from the field were below 35%, which indicates that fine-size parrticles
were non-dispersive.
6.7 Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring was conducted at each underwater jetting site to
evaluate the effects of pile jetting on the surrounding environment. A system of
monitoring stations was set in increasing distances from the test pile at each installation.
A typical station consisted of a stationary buoy, which was used as a marker so that the
same location could be sampled for a series of water quality tests. Generally, the buoys
were spaced 25 to 50 feet (7.6 to 15.2 m) apart and extended radially away from the pile
in the direction of the naturally flowing tide (if present). A pre-jet water quality reading
was taken at each sample station to establish a baseline for future readings prior to
performing any jetting activities. During jetting, the parameters were also monitored, and
afterwards readings were taken over a period of up to approximately two hours until the
readings returned to the pre-jet conditions.
Five parameters were chosen to monitor water quality. These were temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen content (DO), salinity, and turbidity. The device used to measure
pH, DO, salinity, and temperature was a Multi 340i hand-held set manufactured by WTW
measurement systems as shown in Figure 6.3.
Figure 6-3 WTW measurement systems, Multi-340i with probes.
64
The Multi 340i utilizes a hand-held central processing unit with a series of
interchangeable, submersible probes. Each probe is capable of measuring a different
water quality parameter. To measure with the 340i, the specified probe for the parameter
of interest was attached to the handheld device and the other end was submerged to the
desired depth and location. The measurement was digitally displayed on the handheld
unit and was manually recorded. The process was repeated until all the parameters were
measured at a given site.
A separate device was required to measure turbidity. Turbidity is a measure of
cloudiness due to suspended particles and is measured using the intensity of light that can
pass through a sample. The darker or cloudier a sample is, the less light will pass,
corresponding to a higher turbidity reading. Turbidity is expressed in standard units
called Nepholemetric Turbidity Units (NTU). The turbidity readings taken at each test
site were measured with an Orbeco-Hellige portable model 966 unit shown in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6-4 Orbeco-Hellige Model 966 turbidimeter.
The process of measuring turbidity consisted of collecting a 50mL water sample
at the location of interest and placing it into a small glass container which was then
inserted into the turbidity device. The device has an internal light source which shines
through the sample, and the turbidity reading is displayed on a digital display. A
telescoping, 16-foot (4.88m) long bailing device was used to obtain samples at the
specified location.
6.8 Summary of Data Acquisition and Test Monitoring
Each parameter measured during the field testing has been summarized along
with the procedure for measuring that parameter. The results obtained from all test
monitoring and data acquisition will be discussed in detail in the following chapter.
65
CHAPTER 7 - RESULTS OF FIELD TESTING
A total of 26 pile installations were performed in the four different soil profiles as
described earlier. During the course of testing, as the relationship between the measured
parameters and pile insertions became clearer, some variations in procedure were
introduced to facilitate collection of data, omit unnecessary samplings, and/or increase
measurements in some areas. These variations will be explained and justified. A
summary of the field testing program with applied jetting parameters is presented in
Table 7.1.
7.1 Refusal Depth and Insertion Characteristics
As shown in Table 7.1, six installations were performed at the White Oak testing
site. The depth of insertions ranged from 20 to 25 ft. However, the upper 15 to 20 ft of
the profile at the site consisted of very soft muck deposits which could be penetrated by
the self weight of the test pile. With this is mind, it is evident that the pumping system
employed at this site was not sufficient for installing the piles beyond 6 to 9 ft in depth.
Appendix I contains data illustrating the standard penetration resistance with depth for
tested sites.
A variety of nozzle sizes ranging from 2.5”down to 1.5” were used, which in turn
gave a range of velocities from 650 to 1800 fpm, respectively. Nozzle velocities were
calculated by dividing the pump flowrate by the total area of the jet nozzles. From
observing the range of insertion depths, it becomes apparent that even with an increase in
velocity, the insertion depth will not increase significantly unless sufficient flowrate is
provided to carry the debris material up through the annulus surrounding the pile.
Based on the observations of pump performance and insertion depths achieved at
White Oak, it was determined that a larger pump capable of delivering a higher flowrate
would be needed for the future sites. At the next site, Cherry Branch, a larger pump was
acquired which delivered flowrates up to 90.5 cfm (677 gallon/min). With the new
pump, the test piles could jetted to depths of up to 16 feet. Since this was still less than
the available length of the pile, a larger pump was pursued for the next sites. Based on
conversations with different pump manufacturers it was determined that a high pressure
pump would be the most suitable for jetting where the flow rate and jetting velocity are
maintained while sustaining pressures in excess of 150 psi. A new pump was secured
which could tolerate the high pressures deemed necessary. It was equipped with a
pressure gauge which could be monitored continuously during the installation. A pump
curve provided by the manufacturer allowed the flowrates to be back-calculated based on
pump pressure and engine speed.
The high pressure pump was used for the remainder of the field testing at
Sampson County and Swan Quarter. At Sampson County, one installation was
performed, and the depth of insertion reached 16 feet. At this depth the pile refused, and
no increase in pump output would advance the pile.
66
Table 7-1 Summary of Field Testing Program
Location Test ID
Type of Test
Land (L) or
Under Water
(UW)
Flowrate
(ft3/min)
Nozzle
Velocity
(ft/min)
Back
Pressure
(psi)
Jetted
Depth
(ft)
White Oak WO-1 UW 48.7 715 NM* 6
White Oak WO-2 UW 35.5 1446 NM 7
White Oak WO-3 UW 44.5 653 NM 9
White Oak WO-4 L 52.1 1194 NM 6
White Oak WO-5 L 47.2 693 NM 6
White Oak WO-6 L 43.0 1753 NM 6
Cherry Branch CB-1 UW 42.0 963 NM 10
Cherry Branch CB-2 UW 44.0 645 NM 10.5
Cherry Branch CB-3 UW 77.0 1129 NM 16
Cherry Branch CB-4 UW 77.4 1774 NM 16
Cherry Branch CB-5 UW 81.3 1863 NM 14
Cherry Branch CB-6 UW 77.7 1140 NM 14
Cherry Branch CB-7 UW 82.2 3349 NM 10
Cherry Branch CB-8 UW 89.4 1311 NM 12
Cherry Branch CB-9 UW 90.5 2074 NM 10
Sampson
County SC-1 L 179.0 4102 125 16
Swan Quarter SQ-1 UW 192.5 4412 112.5 30
Swan Quarter SQ-2 UW 179.0 2626 100 33
Swan Quarter SQ-3 UW 139.0 2039 98 30
Swan Quarter SQ-4 UW 165.8 2432 100 26.5
Swan Quarter SQ-5 UW 184.5 4228 75 34
Swan Quarter SQ-6 UW 173.8 7081 75 25
Swan Quarter SQ-7 L 192.5 7843 75 34
Swan Quarter SQ-8 L 160.4 3676 75 32
Swan Quarter SQ-9 L 165.8 3800 125 31.5
Swan Quarter SQ-10 L 175.0 2567 78 32.5
* NM= Not Measured
The pile was withdrawn, and at the base of hole a 1- foot-thick layer of gravel was
observed. A sample was retrieved for particle size distribution analysis, and it was
estimated that the layer would likely exhibit an SPT N-value in excess of 50 bpf. This
value was used in the model to represent a refusal point.
At Swan Quarter, a total of ten field installations were performed, with insertion
depths ranging from 26.5 feet to 34 feet. At these locations refusal was not encountered,
but the tests were terminated to avoid damage to the jetting frame mounted on the top of
the test pile. From observing the pump characteristics during insertion, it was determined
that maintaining pump pressure was important for successful installation of the pile. It
was observed that when the pile reached a depth coinciding with a denser layer the pump
pressure increased allowing the pile to advance further. This indicates that the effective
area the jet nozzle may be reduced during the jetting process. If a sufficiently dense
profile is encountered during the insertion process, it appears that the open end of the
67
nozzles become partially blocked by the soil, thereby reducing the effective cutting area
of the nozzles while increasing the cutting velocity. This action explains the need for an
increased pump pressure as the pump is maintaining a constant volume through a reduced
cross-sectional area. Furthermore, it explains why a pump incapable of sustaining
increasing backpressures will not be sufficient for successful pile installations. It was
determined that monitoring pump pressure along with flowrate is more appropriate than
simply monitoring flowrate, and back-calculating velocity based upon nozzle area. If the
pump is not capable of maintaining a constant volume under increased backpressure then
return water (and therefore advancement of pile) is ensured up to the threshold capacity
of the pump.
7.2 Debris Zone Characteristics
During the installation of each jetted pile, the debris zone created around the
perimeter of the pile was surveyed using the previously described methods. From
analyzing the debris zones, several characteristics were observed with respect to their
shape and extent.
7.2.1 Shape and Extent of Debris Zone
Generally, the debris zone extended radially outward in all directions from the
annulus around the pile, consistent with the flow of return water. It should be noted that
in a few occasions the return water exited the ground surface at a location other than
around the perimeter of the pile. This was most likely due to soft zones located in the
vicinity of the installation that provided another return path with less resistance than the
annulus around the pile. In either instance, the debris zone created by the return water
was generally a “blunted” cone shape, which was thicker at the source of the return water
and tapered as it extended away from the return water source. Figure 7.1 shows a typical
debris zone profile measured at Swan Quarter-9 during field testing. In Figure 7.1(a),
each line on the plot represents a different direction measured out from the pile. Figure
7.1(b) shows the average of the four measured profiles.
Typical Spoil Profile
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
0 5 10 15 20
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
0 5 10 15 20
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)
a) Typical Debris Zone Profiles b) the average of the profiles
Figure 7-1 Typical Debris Zone Profiles (a) and the average of the profiles(b).
68
For the particular installation shown in Figure 7.1, the radial extent of the debris
zone approaches 15 feet (4.57m), equating to a debris zone diameter of approximately 30
feet (9.14m). This is an important observation because the depth of insertion of the pile
at this location was 31.5 feet (9.6m). The trend of the diameter of the debris zone
approximating the jetted depth of pile was repeatedly observed in almost all of the field
pile installations.
7.2.2 Volume of Debris Zone
An interesting trend observed was that the volume of the displaced soil
accumulated in the debris zone usually approximated the volume of pile jetted into the
ground. This is intuitive, as it would be expected that the amount of displaced soil from
pile insertion should at least be equal to the total volume of inserted pile. Generally the
measured debris volume was slightly more than the pile volume. An explanation for this
occurrence is that the debris zone material is re-deposited at higher void ratio than the
original site void ratio of the soil profile. It would follow, that a debris zone measured at
a location where dense subsurface soils are present may have a higher ratio of debris zone
volume to inserted pile volume than at a location of loose subsurface profile. Table 7.2
summarizes the volume and extent of debris measured at each test location. Test
locations where volume and extent of debris were not determined have been omitted.
Table 7-2 Summary of Debris Zone Measurements
Measured
Vdebris(ft3) Adebris(ft2)1 Ddebris(ft)
CB-1 84.71 412.33 22.91
CB-2 30.15 238.76 17.44
CB-3 69.12 314.16 20.00
CB-4 74.14 313.37 19.97
CB-5 53.72 469.70 24.45
CB-6 28.50 146.90 13.68
CB-7 49.09 306.31 19.75
CB-8 51.60 358.14 21.35
CB-9 51.25 296.88 19.44
SQ-7 176.16 530.14 25.98
SQ-8 146.40 530.14 25.98
SQ-9 107.60 449.25 23.92
SQ-10 131.55 449.25 23.92
WO-1 109.01 320.44 20.20
WO-2 104.73 392.70 22.36 CB = Cherry Branch
WO-3 57.92 343.22 20.90 SQ = Swan Quarter
WO-4 69.43 251.32 17.89 WO = White Oak
1 Adebris is calculated using equation 6.1
69
7.2.3 Particle Size Distribution of Debris Zone
Representative samples were taken from each of the debris zone locations where
sampling was possible. The bulk samples were obtained using a shovel from the debris
pile with care exercised to sample the whole depth. Each sample was approximately 1 lb
and sample location was adjacent to the jetted pile. These samples were tested for particle
size analysis in accordance with ASTM D 422. The particle size distributions were
compared with particle size distributions provided by NCDOT subsurface reports for
borings in the same area. Figures 7.2 through 7.5 illustrate the comparison between the
NCDOT – obtained grain size distributions and distributions generated from the debris
zone samples.
The grain size distributions provided in NCDOT reports are similar to the
distributions generated from the samples collected from the respective debris zones, with
only a slight increase in the mean particle size for the collected samples. This implies
that the entire range of particle sizes within the soil profile was removed during
installation of the pile. This confirms the observations made through the laboratory
testing phase of the research. The disparity between the mean particle sizes is accounted
for in that the finer silt and clay size particles have been washed outside of the
measurable debris zone within the return water.
Particle Size (mm)
0.0010.010.1110Percent Finer by Weight (%)0
20
40
60
80
100
WO-4 measured
WO-3 measured
WO lower- reported NCDOT
Figure 7-2 White Oak River measured and NCDOT reported GSD
70
Particle Size (mm)
0.0010.010.11Percent Finer by Weight (%)0
20
40
60
80
100
Cherry Branch dredge - measured
Cherry Branch - reported NCDOT
Figure 7-3 Cherry Branch Ferry basin measured and NCDOT reported GSD
Particle Size (mm)
0.0010.010.1110Percent Finer by Weight (%)0
20
40
60
80
100
SC-7'-Measured
NC DOT reported
Figure 7-4 Sampson County measured and NCDOT reported GSD
71
Particle Size (mm)
0.0010.010.1110Percent Finer by Weight (%)0
20
40
60
80
100
SQ-5 coarse - measured
SQ-3 - measured
SQ-2 - measured
SQ-5 fine - measured
SQ upper - reported NCDOT
SQ lower - reported NCDOT
Figure 7-5 Swan Quarter Ferry basin measured and NCDOT reported GSD
7.3 Water Quality Characteristics
The water quality characteristics monitored at the test sites provide insight into
how pile jetting affects the surrounding environment during underwater jetting
applications. Water quality monitoring varied between sites as water conditions varied
and each site will be discussed separately in detail.
7.3.1 White Oak River Site
Three underwater jetting tests were conducted at White Oak River during which
water quality data were collected. The depth of the surface water at this site was
approximately 4 feet. From data collected at the first pile installation, it was determined
that the water had no salinity content, and therefore this parameter was not monitored for
the duration of the testing. Figures 7.6 through 7.9 illustrate the data collected at the first
installation site (WO-1) and present temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and pH as a
function of distance from a given pile. From Figures 7.6 and 7.9, it is evident that jetting
does not significantly affect the temperature and pH of the water in the vicinity of the pile
extending to a distance of 200 feet (60.96m). The post-jet readings were measured
immediately following the jetting installation (within 5 minutes) to a period of up to 30
minutes. Based on the measured turbidity at WO-1 (Fig. 7.7), and for the jetting
parameters used at that site, slight fluctuation in pre-jet to post-jet turbidity is observed
outside of 20 feet (6.1m). Similarly, dissolved oxygen content showed little change, in
fact increasing slightly from the pre-jet readings of approximately 3.5mg/L to 4mg/L
(Figure 7.8). Based on the readings taken at WO-1, it was deemed appropriate to
72
measure the water quality characteristics in the immediate vicinity of the pile (within 10
feet, (3m)) in order to capture the effects of jetting on the environment surrounding the
installation area. Figures 7.10 through 7.12 present readings taken in a subsequent test,
WO-3.
Temperature WO-1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-100 -20 20 50 75 100 150 200
Sample Location (ft), (-neg indicates upstream sample location)Temperature (deg Celcius)Prejet
After Jetting
Figure 7-6 Temperature Readings at WO-1.
Turbidity WO-1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
-100 -20 20 50 75 100 150 200
Sample Location (ft), (-neg indicates upstream sample location) Turbidity (NTU)Prejet
After Jetting
Figure 7-7 Turbidity Readings at WO-1
73
Dissolved Oxygen WO-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-100 -20 20 50 75 100 150 200
Sample Location (ft), (-neg indicates upstream sample location)Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Prejet
After Jetting
Figure 7-8 Dissolved Oxygen Readings at WO-1.
Figure 7-9 pH Readings at WO-1.
pH WO-1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-100 -20 20 50 75 100 150 200
Sample Location (ft), (-neg indicates upstream sample location)pHPrejet
After Jetting
74
Figure 7-10 pH readings at WO-3.
Figure 7-11 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Content readings (1 Minute interval) at WO-3.
Dissolved Oxygen WO-3
0
1
2
3
4
5
Sample Location "R" (located 2 ft from Pile Installation)Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Prejet
During Jetting
01 2 3 45678 9 10111213time(min)
pH WO-3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Sample Location "R" (located 2' from pile installation)pHPrejet
During Jetting
0 13 time (min)
75
Similar to the readings taken at WO-1, Figure 7.10 shows the negligible effect
that jetting had on the pH of the water column around the test pile at WO-3. Figure 7.11
shows the dissolved oxygen content (DO) measured within 2 feet (2.44m) of the pile
installation at test location WO-3. Data also show that during testing, an insignificant
decrease in dissolved oxygen content occurred. The DO readings at WO-3 were taken at
1 minute intervals beginning immediately at the start of the pile installation and
continued for 13 minutes. It is difficult to discern the reason for the different DO
measurement but it could be due to the differences in flow velocity around the pile
during jetting.
Figure 7.12 illustrates the turbidity readings taken at WO-3. The readings were
all taken within the first five minutes of jetting, thereby representing “worst” case values.
The initial pre-jet value of 6.4 NTU increased to a maximum value of 21.8 NTU at a
distance of 2 feet (.61m). The outer 8 foot readings were considerably lower, indicating
that turbidity decreased as a function of distance from the pile installation location. This
is may be expected since more particles fall out of suspension as the distance from the
discharge annulus increases and velocity of the particles decrease.
Turbidity WO-3
0
5
10
15
20
25
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8
Sample Location Turbidity (NTU)Prejet
Samples taken within
first 5 min
P1, P3, P5 located 2 feet from
installation
P2, P4, P6, P8 located 8 feet from
installation
Figure 7-12 Turbidity readings at WO-3 installation site.
7.3.1.1 Summary of Monitored Water Quality Parameters at White Oak River
Analysis of the water quality data from the three underwater installations at White
Oak River produced the following observations. A comparison of pre-jet and post-jet
data show that temperature and pH were not significantly changed pre-jet and post-jet.
76
Salinity was not detected at the White Oak site, so no measurements overtime were made.
Dissolved oxygen content was observed to slightly increase at some installations and to
slightly decrease at others. These fluctuations were on the order of ± 1mg/L (ppm).
Turbidity readings indicated that an increase occurred in the immediate vicinity of the
pile installation and that turbidity decreased as the distance from the installation location
increases. Data indicated that for the jetting parameters employed and for existing field
conditions at the White Oak site, increased turbidity increase was not detectable beyond
20 feet (6.1m) from the pile.
7.3.2 Cherry Branch Ferry Basin
At the Cherry Branch Ferry Basin, nine tests were conducted underwater, which
afforded the opportunity to collect more water quality data. Similar to White Oak River,
the pre-jet and post-jet pH and temperature readings were nor significantly different.
Figure 7.13 shows the change in temperature with location while Figure 7.14 shows the
change in pH.
The pre and post-jet salinity readings were consistently at 9 ppm with a
fluctuation of +/- 0.5 ppm. The dissolved oxygen readings were consistent with the
behavior observed at White Oak River (pre- and post-jet readings at 4.5 mg/L with
variations of +/- 1.5mg/L) with the exception of some spikes (+2mg/L) in DO around
areas where prop-wash from boating activity in the ferry basin disturbed the water.
Turbidity was the most influenced parameter at Cherry Branch. Readings were taken in
two opposing directions from each pile installation due to the swaying motion of the
current in the ferry basin.
The turbidity levels at Cherry Branch was measurable at a farther distance from
the pile than at White Oak River. This may be explained by the fact the jetting flowrates
and velocites used at Cherry Branch were greater in magnitude than those used at the
White Oak river site. From review of particle transport literature it follows that a greater
flowrate and velocity should in fact produce a greater distance of particle transport.
Figure 7.15 illustrates turbidity readings from a typical pile installation at Cherry Branch.
All data are included in Appendix F.
77
Figure 7-13 Temperature Readings at CB-2.
Figure 7-14 pH Readings taken at CB-2.
CB-2 pH
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
S1, 25' S2, 10' S3, 10' S4, 25'
Location, distance from pile (ft)pHPrejet
After Jetting
CB-2 Temperature
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
S1, 25' S2, 10' S3, 10' S4, 25'
LocationTemperature, deg C Prejet
After Jetting
78
Figure 7-15 Turbidity Readings at CB-7.
7.3.2.1 Summary of Monitored Water Quality Characteristics at Cherry Branch
From the installations performed at Cherry Branch, it was determined that pile
jetting had negligible short term effects on the temperature, salinity, and pH. Dissolved
oxygen content changed by ± 1mg/L. The turbidity of the surrounding water was
affected within a 25 foot (7.62m) diameter area. Comparing results from the White Oak
River site and Cherry Branch, it is confirmed that increased jetting flowrates and
velocites increases the area impacted by turbidity.
7.3.3 Swan Quarter Ferry Basin
The underwater jetting sites at Swan Quarter differed from the previous sites in
that the jetting area was surrounded and contained by a turbidity curtain, as mandated by
the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The purpose of the water quality testing at this
site was twofold. First, to evaluate if the turbidity curtain was successful in containing
the debris created from the jetting activities. Secondly, to determine the amount of time
required for the area inside the curtain to return to the baseline conditions based on
readings taken prior to the jetting activities.
Figure 7.16 shows the turbidity readings taken at SQ-3 as a function of location
and time. The readings taken at location “C” were inside of the turbidity curtain at a
distance of 10 feet (3m) from the pile installation.
CB-7 Turbidity
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
S1, 25' S2, 10' S3, 10' S4, 25'
Location, Distance from Pile (ft)Turbidity (NTU)Prejet
Post Jetting
79
Figure 7-16 Turbidity Readings taken at SQ-3.
The other “B” locations were outside of the turbidity curtained zone. From
observation of the reported data, it is evident that the turbidity curtain had the positive
effect of containing the turbid water created by the pile installation. It is on the other
hand important to note that the test site was within the ferry basin with no perceivable
levels of current velocities. The post-jet turbidity levels inside the turbidity curtain
returned to the background levels after approximately 85 minutes (time elapsed after
cessation of jetting). Figure 7.17 is an example of typical DO data taken from the Swan
Quarter site. Notice that the post-jet levels are slightly increased from the pre-jet DO
levels (similar behavior to the previous two sites). Monitored turbidity levels varied at
the different test sites mostly due to differences in the mean grain size of the upper layers
of soil. Figures 7.18 and 7.19 illustrate the maximum and average turbidity values,
respectively. Measured maximum values were approximately 70 NTU. This value was
measured after 15 min during the jetting process.
SQ-3 Turbidity
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
C, 10' B-1, 40' B-2, 100' B-3, 200' B-4, 350'
Location, distance from pile (ft)Turbidity (NTU)Prejet
9.2min
41.6min
58min
85min
80
SQ-5 Dissolved Oxygen
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Prejet 15min 35min 55min 65min
Elapsed Time (min)Dissolved Oxygen (ppm)Inside Turbidity Curtain
Figure 7-17 DO readings taken at SQ-5.
SQ-5 Turbidity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Prejet 15min 35min 55min 65min
Elapsed Time (min)Turbidity (NTU)Inside Turbidity Curtain
Figure 7-18 Turbidity reading at SQ-5 (maximum).
81
SQ-6 Turbidity
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Prejet 4min 16min 27min 75min
Elapsed Time (min)Turbidity (NTU)Inside Turbidity Curtain
Figure 7-19 Turbidity reading at SQ-6 (average).
7.3.3.1 Summary of Monitored Water Quality Characteristics at Swan Quarter
Based on the monitored water quality parameters at Swan Quarter, it was
determined that the dissolved oxygen content was shown to have a short term increase
after the installation of jetted piles and temperature levels were not affected by jetting.
The turbidity curtain proved to be an effective barrier for containing debris created from
the process of pile jetting. However, such observation is limited to the tidal conditions
observed in the ferry basin. One advantage of using the turbidity curtain in the ferry
basin was that the absence of tidal made it easy to keep the curtain anchored in place.
From observation of the turbidity data, levels caused by jetting ranged from 20 to
70 NTU and took approximately 65 to 85 minutes to return to the baseline levels after
cessation of the jetting procedure. These values are the highest recorded from any of the
research sites due to a combination of finer grained soils and higher jetting velocities and
flowrates employed. In addition, keeping the particles trapped inside the turbidity curtain
had the effect of concentrating the fines and thus increasing the turbidity readings.
82
CHAPTER 8 - MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION
The purpose of this chapter is to present a jetted pile insertion-rate model based
on measured field data and to verify the relationships (based on work reported in
literature) describing the debris volume transported to the ground surface and its lateral
extent. Further, a model is proposed which accounts for the change in the shape of debris
area under varying tidal/current conditions.
8.1 Insertion Model
As previously discussed in Chapter 7, higher pump pressure was needed for
successful full depth pile installation. Since increased pressure was proven to be a major
factor contributing to pile advancement, it was desired to incorporate this pump
parameter into the proposed model. Further, as discussed in chapter 7, it was
hypothesized that pump back pressure changed as a function of soil density which is also
related to the hydraulic conductivity of the subsurface profile. This is explained in that, a
stiffer profile will provide more resistance to the outflow of water from the jet pipes and
will erode more slowly, thereby increasing pump pressure. For this reason, it follows that
for an insertion parameter pump pressure should be used in lieu of velocity, since flow
rate and therefore velocity, are not constant. In addition, while pump pressure is read
from a gage, velocity cannot be readily calculated during a particular jetting installation if
adjustment in the field is needed. In order to simplify model development, factors
impacting insertion rate are lumped into a single term in which pile geometries and
jetting parameters are normalized. The following insertion parameter (IP) is proposed
based on the functional relationship between insertion rate and pump pressure, flow rate
and pile geometry, as was observed from laboratory and field testing:
(min)Parameter,Insertion(L/D)
P
P
Q
I
a
b
w
v
= Eq. 8.1
where: Iv = jetted volume of pile (L3)
Qw = pump flowrate (L3/T(minutes))
Pb = pump back pressure (F/L2)
Pa = atmospheric pressure (F/L2)
L = jetted length of pile (L)
D = diameter of pile (L)
Conceptually, it should be possible to develop a relationship between the IP and
time required for pile insertion for various soil types as depicted in Figure 8.1.
83
Time req for Pile Insertion (min)Insertion Parameter (min)Loose Soil Medium Soil
Dense Soil
m m
m
Soil dependent slope parameter, m
Figure 8-1 Relationship between Insertion Parameter and Time for Insertion for Different
soil densities.
Inspecting the trends presented in Figure 8.1, the following observations are
advanced:
i. An increase in Iv results in an increased insertion time.
ii. An increase in Qw results in a reduced insertion time.
iii. An increase in the L/D ratio results in an increased insertion time.
iv. An increase in Pb results in a reduced insertion time.
v. A denser material produces an increased insertion time for an equal
insertion parameter in comparison to that required for a less dense
material.
The following equation is proposed to describe the time required to insert a given
pile:
)(minpile,installtorequired(t) timemparameter,slope
IPParameter,Insertion = Eq.8.2
where, m = Slope parameter dependent on soil characteristics
In order to prove the validity of the proposed relationships, the data collected
from the field research at the Sampson County and the Swan Quarter sites were plotted in
terms of insertion parameter versus time as shown in Figure 8.2. Data for White Oak
84
River and Cherry Branch were omitted from the insertion modeling data set as pump
pressure (Pb) was not measured at these two sites.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
048121620
Time (min)Insertion Parameter (min)SQ-1
SQ-2
SQ-3
SQ-4
SQ-5
SQ-6
SQ-7
SQ-8
SQ-9
SQ-10
SC-1
Figure 8-2 Insertion Parameter Characteristics for SC and SQ sites.
Each symbol in Figure 8.2 represents a different jetting test. Notice that each plot
has a unique slope, m, which was expected since each test was conducted at a different
location with soil characteristics differing from one location to another. Each plot can
also be isolated into separate segments representing different layers in a non-
homogeneous soil profile.
Six test locations were selected at which a high degree of certainty in the
subsurface profile existed. These data were used to model the relationship between soil
characteristics and the slope parameter, m, introduced in Equation 8.2. The data from
each test selected were plotted, and isolated into different segments based on the average
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value corresponding to each segment. N-values were
determined from NCDOT subsurface investigation reports provided to the research
group. SPT N-value was selected as the criterion which to represent different soil
characteristics as it is an index measure of soil composition and relative density. The N-
value used for the insertion modeling will be referred to as Ncr signifying that it has been
corrected for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, and sampling method. This Ncr
value is not the N60 value which also considers a rod-length correction given that such a
lower corrected N-value could lead to unconservative insertion time productions. An
overburden stress correction need not be applied because it is already accounted for in the
L/D ratio in the insertion parameter term. The following equation is recommended to
compute Ncr from the standard field N-value (adapted from Coduto, 2001).
85
6.0
NCCENSBm
cr = Eq. 8.3
where: N = standard field uncorrected N-value, and
Em, CB, and Cs are given in Tables 8.1 and 8.2.(from Coduto, 2001)
Table 8-1 SPT Hammer Efficiency Corrections (adapted from Clayton, 1990; from
Coduto, 2001).
Country Hammer
Type
Hammer Release
Mechanism
Hammer
Efficiency,
Em
Argentina Donut Cathead .45
Brazil Pin Weight Hand Dropped .72
China Automatic Trip .60
China Donut Hand Dropped .55
China Donut Cathead .5
Colombia Donut Cathead .5
Japan Donut Tombi Trigger .78-.85
Japan Donut Cathead(2 turns) .65-.67
UK Automatic Trip .73
USA Safety Cathead(2 turns) .55-.60
USA Donut Cathead(2 turns) .45
Venezuela Donut Cathead .43
Table 8-2 Borehole and sampler correction factors (adapted from Skempton, 1986; from
Coduto, 2001).
Factor Equipment Variables Value
65-115 mm (2.5-4.5 in) 1.00
150 mm (6 in) 1.05 Borhole Diameter Factor,
CB 200 mm (8in) 1.15
Standard Sampler 1.00 Sampling Method Factor,
CS Sampler without liner 1.20
Figures 8.3 to 8.7 show data from tests performed at Swan Quarter (SQ) while the
lone SC plot, Figure 8.8, is for data from the Sampson County site. Figure 8.9 shows the
relationship between the slope parameter m, and Ncr. As shown earlier in equation 8.1,
the pump pressure is normalized with respect to the atmospheric pressure but still the data
used to develop Figure 8.9 was for pump capable of sustaining dynamic head pressure in
excess of 150psi. Collecting data on pump used by the contractors is recommended to
further verify the proposed insertion model.
86
SQ-1
y = 0.1016x + 0.027
R2 = 0.9318
y = 0.2426x - 0.225
R2 = 0.9999
y = 0.1912x - 0.0532
R2 = 0.9946
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (min)Insertion Parameter, (min)Ncr=23
Ncr=17
Ncr=20
Figure 8-3 SQ-1 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting.
SQ-2
y = 0.1133x + 0.0224
R2 = 1
y = 0.2882x - 0.4376
R2 = 0.9973
y = 0.1266x + 0.2495
R2 = 0.9731
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0123456789101112131415
Time (min)Insertion Parameter, (min)Ncr=23
Ncr=17
Ncr=21
Figure 8-4 SQ-2 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting
87
SQ-3
y = 0.0828x + 0.0558
R2 = 0.9857
y = 0.203x - 0.7954
R2 = 0.9842
y = 0.1236x - 0.0455
R2 = 0.9969
y = 0.5615x - 2.127
R2 = 0.9775
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0123456789101112131415
Time (min)Insertion Parameter, (min)Ncr=23
Ncr=17
Ncr=20
Ncr=4
Figure 8-5 SQ-3 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting
SQ-9
y = 0.6802x - 0.5193
R2 = 0.9999
y = 0.2228x + 0.0004
R2 = 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0123456789101112131415Time (min)Insertion Parameter, (min)Ncr=6
Ncr=18
Figure 8-6 SQ-9 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting
88
SQ-10
y = 0.657x - 1.5269
R2 = 0.9904
y = 0.1325x + 0.5509
R2 = 1
y = 0.2888x - 0.4716
R2 = 0.9994
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0123456789101112131415
Time (min)Insertion Parameter, (min)Ncr=4
Ncr=18
Ncr=25
Figure 8-7 SQ-10 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting
SC-1
y = 0.3131x - 1.6475
R2 = 0.9832
y = 0.019x + 0.1166
R2 = 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0123456789101112131415Time (min)Insertion Parameter, (min)Ncr=13
Ncr=50
Figure 8-8 SC-1 Insertion Parameter, Ncr curve fitting
89
The slope parameters developed from Figures 8.3 to 8.8 were plotted in Figure 8.9
against their respective SPT Ncr values to develop the relationship between the Ncr value
and slope parameter, m. Based on the data presented in Figure 8.9, Equation 8.4 was
developed as follows:
slope parameter, m = 0.92e-0.0085(Ncr ) Eq. 8.4
Slope parameter, (m) = 0.92e-0.0835 (Ncr-value)
R2 = 0.9134
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1020304050
Ncr valueslope parameter, m
Figure 8-9 Development of Slope Parameter, m equation.
The model is applied by determining the slope parameter, m, after inputting the
specific Ncr value describing a soil profile (or a segment there of) into Equation 8.4.
After the slope parameter is computed, the insertion parameter (IP) is computed using
equation 8.2. The required installation time for a given set of injection characteristics is
the estimated using equation 8.3.
After determination of the required pile installation time, for a given IP, the debris
volume and its lateral extent are estimated as follows:
Vwtotal = Qw x time Eq. 8.5
and,
Qp = Iv / time Eq. 8.6
90
where:
Vwtotal = total volume of injected water
Qp = average pile volume insertion rate
Iv = inserted volume of pile, (defined previously)
8.1.1 Insertion Model Validation
A pile jetting spreadsheet was developed in Microsoft ExcelTM so that each soil
profile could be separated into discrete 1 foot (.3m) depth increments. Evaluating the soil
profile in several increments provides a higher level of precision, and hopefully accuracy,
in the case where a non-homogeneous soil profile is analyzed. The time required for
insertion of each discrete increment is given by:
i
0toi 0toi 1
Incremental insertion time (min)
insertion parameter insertion parameter
mm−
=
⎛⎞⎛ ⎞−⎜⎟⎜ ⎟⎝⎠⎝ ⎠
Eq. 8.7
The total time required to insert a pile length through the entire profile from 0 to i,
is given by the equation:
1
Total time req,(min) Incremental insertion time
n
i =
=∑ Eq. 8.8
Alternatively, for a homogeneous soil profile where the average Ncr value is
constant, the time required to insert the entire pile can be calculated from equation 8.2
using the average Ncr value. A sample insertion spreadsheet is provided in Figure 8.10.
The estimated insertion time for each test was compared to the actual times
measured during the field installations. Table 8.3 illustrates the computed values based
on the proposed model and the measured values from the actual field tests. Figure 8.11 is
a graphical representation of the data presented in Table 8.3. As shown in Figure 8.11,
the computed versus measured times agree reasonably well.
91
Qw (ft3/min)179
D (ft) 2
A (ft2)3.14
Pb (psi) 100
Pa (psi) 14.7
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)
Insertion
Parameter Time req (min) Prev Increment
Incremental
Insertion time
0.001 2 0.77495 0.0005 0.00314 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000
1 2 0.77495 0.5 3.14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.002
2 2 0.77495 1 6.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.005
3 2 0.77495 1.5 9.42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.008
4 2 0.77495 2 12.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.012
5 2 0.77495 2.5 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.015
6 2 0.77495 3 18.84 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.018
7 2 0.77495 3.5 21.98 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.022
8 2 0.77495 4 25.12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.025
9 2 0.77495 4.5 28.26 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.028
10 2 0.77495 5 31.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.032
11 2 0.77495 5.5 34.54 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.035
12 2 0.77495 6 37.68 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.038
13 2 0.77495 6.5 40.82 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.042
14 23 0.134196 7 43.96 0.3 1.9 1.6 0.259
15 23 0.134196 7.5 47.1 0.3 2.2 1.9 0.279
16 21 0.158586 8 50.24 0.3 2.1 1.8 0.252
17 19 0.18741 8.5 53.38 0.4 2.0 1.8 0.227
18 17 0.221472 9 56.52 0.4 1.9 1.7 0.204
19 15 0.261726 9.5 59.66 0.5 1.8 1.6 0.182
20 13 0.309296 10 62.8 0.5 1.7 1.5 0.163
21 14 0.284518 10.5 65.94 0.6 2.0 1.8 0.186
22 15 0.261726 11 69.08 0.6 2.4 2.2 0.212
23 16 0.240759 11.5 72.22 0.7 2.8 2.6 0.241
24 17 0.221472 12 75.36 0.7 3.4 3.1 0.274
25 18 0.20373 12.5 78.5 0.8 4.0 3.6 0.310
26 19 0.18741 13 81.64 0.9 4.7 4.3 0.351
27 20 0.172397 13.5 84.78 0.9 5.5 5.1 0.396
28 21 0.158586 14 87.92 1.0 6.4 5.9 0.447
29 22 0.145882 14.5 91.06 1.1 7.4 6.9 0.504
30 23 0.134196 15 94.2 1.2 8.6 8.1 0.567
31 24 0.123445 15.5 97.34 1.2 10.0 9.4 0.637
32 25 0.113556 16 100.48 1.3 11.6 10.9 0.715
33 26 0.104459 16.5 103.62 1.4 13.4 12.6 0.802
Σ 7.2
(min)
Figure 8-10 Example of pile insertion spreadsheet, from SQ-2.
92
Table 8-3 Measured versus predicted insertion time for given tests.
Test 1-D Measured Time (min) Predicted Time (min)
SQ-1 4.67 5.21
SQ-2 7.05 7.21
SQ-3 8.22 5.75
SQ-4 6.75 5.65
SQ-9 3.63 5.64
SQ-10 6.95 9.76
SC-1 0.85 0.99
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
Tim e m ea sured (m in)Time predicted (min)LINE OF COMPLETE
AGREEMENT
+/- 10% ERROR LIMIT
Figure 8-11 Measured versus predicted insertion times.
8.2 Debris Model Verification
The primary purpose of this section is to investigate the validity of the laboratory
based debris model providing volume and area extent of the disturbance zone. The
following equations are proposed for predicting debris volume and extent, as was
presented in chapter 4:
volumeb
p
w
volumewtotaldebris Q
QaVV ⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛×= Eq. 8.9
where : Vdebris = debris volume (L3)
93
Vwtotal = total volume of jetted water (L3)
avolume = GSD-dependent volume parameter
bvolume = D50-dependent volume parameter (with D50 in mm)
Qw = water volume flowrate (L3/min)
Qp = pile volume flowrate (L3/min)
and
0.868)0.520(Ca cvolume += Eq. 8.10
0.961)0.081(Db 50volume −−= Eq. 8.11
The area of the debris zone is given by:
areab
p
w
area
pile
wtotal
debris Q
QaD
VA ⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛= Eq. 8.12
where: Adebris = debris distribution on ground surface from jetted pile installation (L2)
Vwtotal = total volume of water required to jet a pile to a given depth with
available jetting parameters (L3)
Dpile= diameter of jetted pile (L)
aarea = parameter based on D50 (with D50 in mm)
barea = parameter based on Cc
For D50 < 0.5 mm
9.1967)8.5086(Da 50area += Eq. 8.13
0.8279)0.6357(Db 50area −−= Eq. 8-14
For D50 > 0.5 mm
13.249)0.404(Da 50area += Eq. 8-15
1.1029)0.085(Db 50area −−= Eq. 8-16
To verify the model, the debris volume and lateral extent from each test were
measured and compared with the computed debris volume and extent from the equations
proposed herein. Table 8.4 is a summary of the comparative results. The error in volume
and diameter predictions is presented (debris area is computed from a measured diameter;
therefore any error in measurement is squared by the area computation.)
For eleven of the seventeen cases presented in Table 8.4, the debris volume was
over predicted by 30% or less. In 5 of the cases, the debris volume was overpredicted;
94
however it was within 20% of the measured values. Similar trend was observed for the
diameter calculations. The gross over prediction is mainly in areas where measurements
occurred under water and where it was difficult to visually discern the presence of a
disturbed volume and the associated height.
Table 8-4 Summary of Debris Zone Verification
Measured Predicted Percent Difference
Vdebris Adebris Ddebris Vdebris Adebris Ddebris Vdebris Ddebris
84.71 412.33 22.91 46.47 207.72 16.26 45% 29%
30.15 238.76 17.44 49.73 228.53 17.06 -65% 2%
69.12 314.16 20.00 72.67 314.22 20.00 -5% 0%
74.14 313.37 19.97 73.80 326.31 20.38 0% -2%
53.72 469.70 24.45 64.73 287.19 19.12 -20% 22%
28.50 146.90 13.68 64.87 288.75 19.17 -128% -40%
49.09 306.31 19.75 46.04 203.05 16.08 6% 19%
51.60 358.14 21.35 56.81 260.86 18.22 -10% 15%
51.25 296.88 19.44 47.05 214.08 16.51 8% 15%
176.16 530.14 25.98 162.11 726.45 30.41 8% -17%
146.40 530.14 25.98 151.21 668.47 29.17 -3% -12%
107.60 449.25 23.92 146.99 637.65 28.49 -37% -19%
131.55 449.25 23.92 154.61 690.44 29.65 -18% -24%
109.01 320.44 20.20 88.22 379.94 21.99 19% -9%
104.73 392.70 22.36 118.70 508.89 25.45 -13% -14%
57.92 343.22 20.90 130.75 580.09 27.18 -126% -30%
69.43 251.32 17.89 121.77 540.55 26.23 -75% -47%
The predicted debris diameter, Ddebris was computed from the following equation:
debris
debris
4(A )D (predicted)π= Eq. 8.17
Figures 8.12 and 8.13 are graphical representations of the computed and measured
debris data. As mentioned earlier, and for comparative purposes, the measured and
predicted debris diameters were compared in lieu of the debris areas. The reason is that
the measured debris area is computed from a measured diameter; therefore any error in
measurement is squared by the area computation.
Figures 8.12 and 8.13 illustrate that the computed debris volumes and lateral
extent represented by the diameter agree fairly with the measured values. The debris
volume regression in Figure 8.12 shows that the predicted values were on the average
40% larger than measured for cases that over predicted the debris volume. If one is to
ignore the two cases where the debris volume is over predicted by more than 100%, the
predicted values are then less than 20% on the average larger than the measured values.
95
The model yielded data within 20% of the measured volumes for the six cases where the
debris volume was under predicted.
Figure 8-12 Debris Volume Verification
Figure 8-13 Debris Diameter Verification
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Measured Volume Debris (ft 3 )Predicted Volume Debris (ft3)LINE OF COMPLETE
AGREEMENT
+/- 10% ERROR LIMIT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Diameter Debris Zone Measured (ft)Diameter Debris Zone Predicted(ft)LINE OF COMPLETE
AGREEMENT
+/- 10% ERROR LIMIT
96
The debris diameter regression in Figure 8.13 shows that the predicted values were
on average within 20% of the measured values for the 11 cases where the diameter was
over predicted. For the 6 cases where the diameter was under predicted, the predicted
values were also on the average within 20% of the measured values.
8.3 Particle Transport Model
Particle transport modeling literature was reviewed in order to capture the effects of
current on changing the shape of the debris zone around the pile. To this end, the
literature review was centered on fluid flow and sediment transport in marine
environments. In addition, double hydrometer laboratory testing was conducted on
several samples of varying grain size distribution to determine the effects of grain size on
turbidity.
8.3.1 Model Rational
Two main sources for fluid flow in the pile-jetting scenario are described. The first
is the flow from the jets themselves. This fluid experiences maximum velocity upon
exiting the jetting nozzles, and subsequently flows in a turbulent manner around the base
of the pile, before flowing along annulus of the pile to the ground surface. The velocity
of importance for zone of disturbance calculations is the exit velocity of the jetting fluid
upon reaching the ground surface. This exit velocity is always less than that of the nozzle
jet velocity, and is assumed to decrease as the pile insertion depth increases.
The second source of fluid flow is that of water current, which may or may not be
present in all jetted pile locations. This source is either from river or tidal velocities,
which may vary during the course of pile installation, but may play a major role in the
determination of the environmental impact boundaries.
Jetting of a pile produces an additional layer of soil on the area surrounding the
pile. This layer will be referred to as a bedform and will be of varying dimensions based
on jetting velocities and flow rates, as have been described previously. When piles are
jetted in locations with sub current, the current supplemental flow and velocity affect the
dimensions of these bedforms. Additionally, the quality of the water in the area, i.e.
turbidity, salinity, pH, and dissolved oxygen levels can be affected due to the disturbance
of the mud line. This facet of model development is focused solely on the transport of
sediment. There are three main scenarios which may exist when jetting a pile under
water:
i) The first scenario involves jetting when no current flow is acting. An example of
this scenario would be the case of a tidal inlet in between high and low tide. For
this scenario, the proposed debris zone model will describe the deposition of the
bedform.
ii) The second scenario can be described as an extension of the first scenario.
Jetting occurs in still water, and then sometime later currents are introduced which
have sufficient velocity to re-suspend the pre-described bedform and alter the shape
and distribution of that bedform.
iii) The third scenario is the case in which jetting occurs simultaneously with water
currents which possess sufficient velocity to alter the bedform shape. Since the
97
proposed debris zone model should adequately describe the bedforms created by the
first scenario, consideration will be given to the second and third scenarios
respectively.
8.3.2 Proposed Approach
For the second scenario, in which currents must re-suspend a previously deposited
bedform, the primary mechanism which governs the migration of the bedform is that of
the initiation of particle movement. This is an important consideration because, although
many particles can be transported at low fluid velocities, Newtonian physics dictates
higher velocities are required in order to initiate erosion and movement. Figure 8.14
(from Open University Oceanography Course Team, 1999) illustrates typical current
velocities required to initiate erosion (particle movement) for different particle sizes.
Referring to Figure 8.14, current speed is analogous to flow velocity. The curve
corresponding to erosion provides the velocity required for the initiation of movement for
each particle size. Above this line, particle movement is likely to occur, while below this
line particles may have the ability to be transported if already in motion, but are not
subjected to forces sufficient to initiate movement. For scenario two, the current velocity
values must lie above the erosion line in order to displace a pre-deposited bedform.
Figure 8-14 Effect of Current Speed on the Erosion and Deposition Characteristics for
Specified Bed Particle Diameter (Open University. Oceanography Course Team 1999)
Note that the range of current velocities near the mud-line required to initiate
erosion for clay to fine gravel-sized particles (grain sizes which can typically be jetted
98
through) ranges from approximately 0.2 to 2 meters per second. It should also be noted
that the range of current velocities required to initiate erosion for the bedform deposited
by the jetting process will also likely have an effect not only on the bedform produced by
jetting but also on the all the surrounding ocean, river, or basin floor. Therefore, when
jetting in this type of environment, the impacts associated with jetting are not likely to be
as significant (or identifiable) because of the dynamic nature of occurring basin floor
migration. Accordingly, perhaps the important scenario to consider is the third, in which
jetting occurs simultaneously with naturally occurring water currents.
For analysis of bedform alteration due to simultaneous jetting and surface
currents, it is important to understand Figure 8.14. One of the key points to note
regarding Figure 8.14 is the variation in current velocity for erosion and deposition as a
function of particle size. For gravel–sized particles, the current velocities that fall
between erosion and deposition occur in a narrow band, suggesting that a small reduction
in current speeds can cause the immediate deposition of eroded particles of this size.
Conversely, for silt and clay–sized particles, fluctuations in current velocity over three
cycles of a log scale can affect the erosion of particles, but have no effect on the
deposition, i.e. particles already in motion will stay in suspension and be transported.
Even for sand – sized particles, the range of current velocity that will not erode but
transport sediment already in motion spans one-log cycle.
Velocities used for jetting are well above those required to initiate erosion. Thus,
almost all particles will experience transport some distance from the jetted pile, as
described by the debris zone and lateral extents model. Further, the water current
velocity is normally relatively constant compared with jetting velocities, and may not be
subject to significant dissipation. Thus, soil particles that enter suspension due to erosion
caused by jetting velocities may be transported significant distances by water currents
that otherwise do not have sufficient velocity to erode these particles. These particles
will be shifted downstream altering the dimensions of the debris zone and may
potentially cause unwanted turbidity in the surrounding water.
Equations of sediment transport length and deposition thickness are presented
here. These equations are taken from Van Rijn(1984, a,b,c) on Sediment Transport, Parts
I through III (1984). The equations were verified by extensive comparison to flume and
field data, and are as follows:
∆ / d = 0.11 (Dp / d)0.3 ⋅ (1- e-0.5T) ⋅ (25 – T) Eq. 8.18
∆ / λ = 0.015 (Dp / d)0.3 ⋅ (1- e-0.5T) ⋅ (25 – T) Eq. 8.19
where:
∆ = bed form height signifying the height of the disturbance zone
d = flow depth signifying the depth impacted by current velocity
Dp = particle diameter of disturbed sediments
T = velocity dependent transport stage parameter
99
λ = bed form length signifying the length of the plume formed by the
transported sediments.
The two equations in tandem can be used to solve for bed form height and length
given that flow velocities, flow depth, and grain size distribution are known. The flow
depth (d) is the height of the column of fluid moving, at the flow velocity of concern,
carrying suspended sediment. Particle diameter (Dp), is the diameter of the particle size of
concern, and is assumed to be D30 for evaluation of finer particle distribution (turbidity).
Laboratory test data from a turbidity study conducted as a part of this research validates
this assumption.
Figure 8.15 illustrates the relationship between turbidity and the characteristic D30
particle size. Notice that as D30 decreases, the amount of time required for turbidity
dissipation increases. So, for this study, D30 will be used as the particle size of interest
with regard to turbidity.
Figure 8-15 Turbidity distribution with time.
While variations in the height, or thickness, of created bedforms are important
characteristic to consider, perhaps of more interest for an environmental focus is the
variation in bedform length. This is typically the more critical value because it dictates
the extent of impact a jetted pile may have on the surrounding area. Combining
Equations 8.18 and 8.19 yields a simplified equation for bedform’s length as follows:
λ = 7.3(d) Eq.8.20
where:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)Turbidity (NTU)D30=.002
D30=.005
D30=.140
D30=.140
100
λ = bedform length
d = flow depth
This equation demonstrates that the single factor affecting the lateral extent of
debris zone due to current near the mud-line is the depth of flow; that is the height of the
column of fluid moving at the flow velocity of concern carrying suspended sediment.
Although this seems like a simplistic solution, when one considers the determination of a
value for the depth of flow, the analysis becomes distinctly more complex.
Utilization of complete depth of basin water (i.e. depth of the river, ocean, or
basin at the point of pile jetting) for the value of flow depth, could be in many cases lead
to a significant overestimate, since the disturbed particles are rather suspended within a
fraction of the height near the mud line. Conversely, utilization of a flow depth
comparable to that of one obtained on land with a similar jetted pile will underestimate
this bedform length, since this scenario does not take into consideration the presence of
additional water that contributes to an increase in flow depth. No direct calculations exist
for the determination of this flow depth, but it is expected to be related to the jetting exit
velocity, and particle size diameter. Increases in a jetting exit velocity will result in the
propulsion of particles further off the surface, thus increasing the flow depth.
Additionally, decreases in the particle size diameter will also result in a greater flow
depth since these particles are more likely to mix in a greater portion of the water depth,
as opposed to remaining fairly close to the mud line as was indicated from data in the
laboratory turbidity testing (Figure 8.15).
When considering this information in tandem with the goal of environmental
impact evaluation, it is important to note the limitations associated with estimating
sediment transport length based on Equations 8.18 through 8.20. These equations only
estimate the sediment transport length based on an assumed flow depth. For any given
grain size distribution this flow depth will vary for each particle size present in the
distribution, since each specific particle size will be propelled into the water column at
different heights. For the sand size and larger particles, within a given grain size
distribution, it is logical to assume that the flow depth is roughly equivalent to the height
of the thickest part of the measurable debris zone since these particles tend to stay very
close to the ground surface and settle out immediately upon leaving the jetting annulus.
Thus, the lateral debris zone extents would be expected to shift in the direction of the
current velocity the amount dictated by Equation 8.20.. Considering the maximum
thicknesses measured from the field research to be approximately 1 foot the shift of the
debris zone would likely be less than 10 feet laterally in the direction of current velocity.
However, keep in mind that as pile diameter and depth increase, the thickness of the
measurable debris zone will also increase.
For this reason, it is appropriate to consider that the major impact of the surface
water current to be the transport of smaller particle sizes (D30 and smaller) in the form of
turbidity. In case of clay-size particles, it can be conservatively assumed that flow depth
will approach the entire thickness of the water column above the jetting application. This
assumption, however, needs further investigation for confirmation.
101
It is logical, however, to assume that as the distance from the pile increases, the
turbidity level will decrease as more particles settle out of suspension. This assumption
was confirmed by monitoring the turbidity levels with increasing distance from the pile
during the field testing. The observed increases in turbidity returned to background
levels after approximately 1 hour and the initial magnitude of the turbidity at locations
were controlled primarily by the particle size distribution of the soil being transported to
the surface in the return water. Areas of finer grain-size distribution soils exhibited
higher initial magnitudes of turbidity than those with coarser grain size distributions.
This was also confirmed by laboratory turbidity testing (see Figure 8.15).
8.3.3 Turbidity and Transport Length: Underwater Jetting
No research has been reported in the literature to determine the magnitude of
turbidity caused by various particle sizes and jetting exit velocities underwater. This is
maybe primarily because of the difficulty associated with determining an exit velocity
which is not constant and cannot be readily measured or determined from continuity
equations. From the field research, the maximum turbidity observed was on the order of
approximately 70 NTU, as measured data was collected at Swan Quarter at a location
with soil having very fine particle distribution (>96% silt and clay size particles) and
where the greatest values of jetting flowrates and velocities were utilized during testing
were employed. The lower end of the scale was approximately 20 NTU where
predominantly sand soils were tested.
In considering the available research data, it is appropriate to be conservative
when estimating the turbidity and sediment transport length. The following approach is
proposed to estimate turbidity magnitude and transport length:
• Estimate the initial magnitude of turbidity based on grain size distribution
of the site soil. A value on the order of 20 NTU should be expected as the
minimum for any jetting application, including profiles comprised entirely
of sand-sized or larger particles. This value should be expected to increase
up to approximately 70 NTU as the percentage of silt and clay size
particles in the distribution approach 100%.
• Use Equation 8.20 to estimate the transport length of the sediment plume
using the estimated depth of disturbance zone as the flow depth.
• In areas where the current velocity exceeds the deposition velocity of the
sand sized particles (from Figure 8.14) it is appropriate to consider that a
shift in the measurable debris zone will take place in the direction of the
current velocity.
It should be noted that the turbidity magnitude is an estimate based on observed
turbidity levels during field testing performed for this research. It is recommended, in
general, that a test pile be installed before production begins at underwater jetting sites to
102
determine if the magnitude of the turbidity is exceeding what is acceptable to local
marine officials.
8.4 Proposed Design Methodology
In this section, the proposed three part jetting model is presented in the context of a
design methodology. The procedure for implementing the model is described as follows:
1. Perform an appropriate subsurface investigation of the proposed jetting
site and determine SPT N-values as a function of depth within the soil
profile along with representative soil sampling for grain size distribution
testing.
2. Separate the soil profile into layers based on the distribution of equal SPT
N-values and use Equation 8.4 or Figure 8.9 to determine the slope
parameter, m, for each layer. Then use Equations 8.1 and 8.2 to
determine the predicted time required to insert a given pile based on a
user-specified insertion parameter. The insertion parameter is determined
based on the proposed pile dimensions and the specified pump
characteristics.
3. Use the time required to insert the pile to calculate the total volume of
water (Vwtotal) and the pile volume insertion rate, Qp, from Equations 8.5
and 8.6. Then use Equations 8.9 through 8.17 to calculate the volume
and lateral extent of the debris zone created by the installation.
4. Estimate the initial magnitude of the turbidity based on grain size
distribution data of the site. A value on the order of 20 NTU should be
expected as the minimum for any jetting application, including profiles
comprised entirely of sand-sized or larger particles, and this value should
increase up to approximately 70 NTU as the percentage of silt and clay
size particles in the distribution approach 100%.
5. If tidal currents are expected in the area of jetting, use Equation 8.20 to
conservatively estimate the transport length of the sediment plume using
flow depth equal to highest expected thickness of the disturbed zone
around the pile. In this case, the volume of the sediments due to jetting is
assumed to be re-distributed due to current velocity.
A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet has been formulated to perform the calculations in
steps 1 through 3. An example of this spreadsheet is given in Figure 8.16.
103
Figure 8-16 Example Spreadsheet for Pile Jetting Model.
The use of the spreadsheet requires that the user input the soil profile N-values,
pump characteristics, pile geometry, and total depth of insertion. The output results
include insertion time, debris area volume and diameter influenced by deposition.
104
CHAPTER 9 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PILE JETTING ON
MACROBENTHOS IN NORTH CAROLINA
by
Dr. David B. Eggleston, Cynthia Huggett and Gayle Plaia
NC State University
Department of Marine, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
919-515-7840 (o), 515-7802 (FAX)
eggleston@ncsu.edu
The impact of jetting on infaunal macrobenthos within each jetting site was
assessed as well as upstream and downstream of each jetting site. Suspended sediment
from jetting operations could (1) smother and suffocate macrobenthic organisms,
especially those that suspension-feed (e.g., clams), (2) alter community structure from
relatively deeply buried species with large biomass (e,g, clams) to relatively shallow-
dwelling species of low biomass (e.g, tube-building polychaetes), or (3) have relatively
little long-term impact to macrobenthos because of rapid recolonization. Estuarine
macrobenthic organisms such as clams and mussels are excellent bioindicators of
estuarine health because they are generally sessile and integrate overlying water quality
through their suspension-feeding activities. The objectives of the proposed study were to
quantify the (1) abundance and species diversity of infaunal macrobenthos as a function
of distance away from pile jetting operations, and (2) create GIS maps of each study site.
9.1 Sampling Locations and Testing Methods
Sediments and infuana were sampled at three sites (WOR, SQF and CPF) during
March 29, 31 and 30, 2004 respectively. These dates were chosen to correspond with
peak abundance of early juvenile clams in this region of North Carolina (Eggleston,
unpubl. data), which increase our chances of identifying recolonization of areas disturbed
by jetting. Each site had at least one group of 2-6 pilings jetted into the sediment—
pilings were removed from the sediment after initial placement. At sites where there was
more than one impact area, the area that was least affected by factors other than jetting
(e.g., boat propeller wash, pilings, bulkheads) was chosen for sampling. Upon arrival at a
site, the jetted area (area impacted by sediments due to jetting, IA) was located and
markers were placed 5 and 20 meters upstream (U5 and U20) and downstream (D5 and
D20) from the impact area. Sampling according to distance from the jetting site, as well
as upstream and downstream of the jetting site, was intended to identify the likely spatial
scales of impact. Five benthic samples were randomly taken at each area, starting at D20
and proceeding upstream, using a petite Ponar grab sampler (15.24 cm X 15.24 cm X ~7
cm deep) from a small (6 m) boat. We chose a distance of 5 m and 20 m from each
impact area because the sediment thickness from a jetted piling declines to background
levels at ~ 6 m from the IA. We chose a sample size (N) of five because our previous
105
experience with estuarine macrobenthos in similar systems indicates homogeneous
variances are achieved at N = 5-9. Thus, a total of 25 grab samples (U20 = 5; U5 = 5; IA
= 5; D5 = 5; D20 = 5) were taken at each site for a total of 75 grab samples. Each sample
was washed through a 500 micron sieve, and then packed into 250ml plastic bottles with
10% buffered formalin. Information concerning sediment depth, as well as sediment
color and characteristics, was recorded for each grab. For each sampling site, surface
water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen were measured using a YSI 85, pH was
measured using an Acumet AP61, water depth was measured using a Hondex hand-held
depth sounde, and turbidity was measured using an Orbeco-Hellige Portable Model 966,
which measures in units of NTU (nephelometric turbidity units).
Chain of custody for samples followed EPA and NC DWQ protocols. State
laboratory certification by the NC DWQ is NOT required for estuarine and marine
benthic sample processing. Sample jars were labeled on the outside and inside of each jar
to ensure proper tracking of a given sample as it was processed. All organisms were
classified to species whenever possible with both Olympus dissecting and compound
microscopes, using taxonomic keys by Fox and Bynum (1975), Day (1973), Roback
(1980), NC DWQ (1997), Milligan (1997) and Epler (2001). To ensure quality of
macrobenthic taxonomic identification and enumeration, a second taxonomist conducted
occasional spot checks of previously sorted samples.
For a given site (WOR, SQF, CPF), we tested whether or not the mean total
abundance, total number of species, as well as total number of polychaetes, crustaceans,
mollusks, and insects varied significantly between the five sampling stations (20 m
downstream, D20; 5 m downstream, D5; Impact area, IA; 5 m upstream, U5; 20 m
upstream, U20) with a 1-way ANOVA (ANOVA=Analysis Of VAriances). We
hypothesized an increasing gradient in macrobenthic response variables with distance
from each impact area, particularly upstream of an impact area. In cases where the
variances of a given response were heterogeneous, the assumption of homogeneous
variances was met after log (x+1) transformation of the response variable. Post hoc
multiple comparison tests were conducted with a Ryan’s Q-test, as recommended by Day
and Quinn (1989).
Initially, we also planned to assess the scale of jetting impacts on macrobenthos
with an index of biotic integrity (IBI; Kerans and Karr 1994). Generation of IBI values
require minimally impacted sites that can be used to set expected values. In this study,
there was no impact of jetting on the mean number of macrobenthic species as detected
by ANOVA analyses. Thus, IBI analyses were not necessary.
Although the total numbers of animals or total numbers of species might not
differ between impact and control sites upstream and downstream of the impact area, the
impact area could harbor different dominant species, some of which may be more
indicative of disturbed environments (e.g., tube-building oligochaete worms) than others.
Thus, “Berger-Parker Diversity Indices” (Berger and Parker 1970) were used to assess
dominance by a particular species as a function of distance from an impact area. For
example, if jetting negatively impacted macrobenthos at the impact area, then we
hypothesized that the impact area would be dominated by a single, or particular suite of
species reflecting recent colonization, whereas sampling stations further upstream and
106
downstream of the impact area would be less dominated by a single species reflecting a
more stable benthic community over time.
9.2 Results for Given Sites
A total of 75 benthic grab samples produced at least 10 families and 57
species (Appendix J-1). Insects, crustaceans, polychaetes, and mollusks contained the
largest number of species (Appendix J-1). The White Oak River had the lowest average
salinity and was essentially freshwater (0.12 ppt), followed by Cherry Point (2.78 ppt)
and Swan Quarter (8.98 ppt) (Appendix J-2). Swan Quarter and Cherry Point had ~ 10
times the number of organisms and ~ twice the number of species compared to the White
Oak River (see below). Dissolved oxygen levels at all locations (WO = 8.37 mg DO/l;
CB = 8.89 mg DO/l; SQ = 9.86 mg DO/l) were well above hypoxic levels (2-4 mg DO/l).
Water temperature was highest at the White Oak River (16 oC), followed by Cherry Point
(13.52 oC) and Swan Quarter (12.86 oC). Average water depth was shallowest at the
White Oak River (0.69 m), followed by Cherry Point (2.53 m) and Swan Quarter (2.81
m). Average turbidity was lowest at the White Oak River (NTU = 8.76) and highest at
Cherry Point (NTU = 16.88) and Swan Quarter (NTU = 14.43) (Appendix J-2). The
average depths to which the Ponar grab penetrated into the sediment to take a
macrobenthic sample were similar between sampling locations, and ranged from an
average low of 5.0 cm at Swan Quarter to a high of 6.3 cm at Cherry Point (Appendix J-
2).
9.2.1 White Oak River
The White Oak River location was adjacent to NC Highway 1442 near Stella, NC
as shown in Figure 9.1. The river was ~100 m wide at this site. The impact area (IA)
consisted of 3 jetted areas on the west side of the river adjacent to the bridge about 7m
from shore. Except for the bridge, the shore was natural salt marsh. This was a relatively
freshwater site with very tannic water. The sediments from all cores were dark brown to
black silt and clay with no visible redox potential layer and large amounts of organic
debris. The sediment was browner at the IA and upstream of the IA than other sampling
stations.
107
Figure 9-1 White Oak River: site sample locations
108
Figure 9.2 depicted that the mean total abundance of organisms per grab sample
was lower in the IA and D20 sampling stations than other stations; however, the trend
was not statistically significant (1-way ANOVA; F = 1.47, df = 4, 25, P = 0.24). As
shown in Figure 9.3 the mean number of species per grab sample was similar across all
sampling stations, and did not differ significantly from each other (1-way ANOVA; F =
0.25, df = 4, 25, P = 0.91). Although we expected to see the largest decrease in mean
abundance and diversity of macrobenthos in the impact area and the station located 5 m
downstream of the IA, the White Oak was not the case. We examined the response of the
dominant taxonomic groups for evidence of an impact from jetting. Although the mean
abundance of polychaetes and mollusks per grab sample was lowest in the impact area
than other sampling stations as shown in Figure 9.3, the trend was not statistically
significant (1-way ANOVA; both P > 0.64). The mean abundance of crustaceans was
highest at the IA compared to other sampling stations, and the mean abundance of insects
in the IA was somewhat similar to the mean abundance in other sampling stations—none
of these trends were statistically significant (1-way analysis of variances (ANOVA); both
P > 0.25).
The IA and downstream sites were all dominated by Tubifex tubifex, an
oligochaete species of worm that is indicative of disturbed benthic habitats, whereas the
upstream sites were dominated by insects as depicted in Table 9.1. Thus, the combined
evidence from the ANOVA and Berger-Parker diversity analyses suggests that jetting
may have negatively impacted primarily polychaete and molluscan species of
macrobenthos only within the immediate impact area (i.e., not > 5 m away from the IA),
although this trend was not statistically significant at an alpha level of 0.05, and that
species adapted to disturbed habitats (tube-building oligochaetes) had colonized the
impact area and areas downstream of the IA. The mean numbers of species appeared to
be unaffected by the jetting disturbance.
109
Figure 9-2 Mean (+ SE) total abundance and number of species of macrobenthic
organisms (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at the White Oak
River in March 2004..
White Oak River Total Abundance
Area
D20D5 IA U5U20Mean Total Abundance0
5
10
15
20
25
30
White Oak River Number of Species
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean Number of Species0
2
4
6
8
10
110
Polychaetes
Area
D20D5 IA U5U20Mean Total Abundance0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Crustaceans
Area
D20D5 IA U5U20Mean total Abundance0
1
2
3
4
Mollusks
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean Total Abundance0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Insects
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean Total Abundance0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
White Oak River
Figure 9-3 Mean (+ SE) total abundance of organisms within the dominant taxonomic
groups (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at the White Oak
River in March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses
111
Table 9-1 Berger-Parker Diversity Index at White Oak River
Site Area # of Sp N Nmax d 1/d Dominant species
D20 11 60 16 0.267 3.750 Tubifex sp.
D5 10 108 32 0.296 3.375 Tubifex sp
IA 11 55 13 0.236 4.231 Tubifex sp
U5 14 70 18 0.257 3.889 P. halterale
WO
U20 14 98 19 0.194 5.158 Micropsectra sp.
9.2.2 Swan Quarter Ferry Basin
The Swan Quarter Ferry terminal basin was ~ 100m wide and oriented SW
(entrance) to NE as shown in Figure 9.4. The basin was surrounded by natural marsh
except for the ferry docks and, in some places adjacent to the IA, oyster shell. The IA
was located in a somewhat irregular line ~ 7 m from shore. The current appeared to flow
around the basin in a counterclockwise motion. Therefore, the downstream sites were
located in the northwest corner of the northern end of the ferry basin, and the upstream
sites in the southeast end. Except for the IA, sediment consisted of a 1cm or less brown
layer over grey or black silt. The IA was noticeably sandier. Less organic debris was
found at Swan Quarter than Cherry Branch or the White Oak River. Grab samples
attempted less than 5m from the shore were unsuccessful due to the bottom being covered
with oyster shell.
As shown in Figure 9.5, the mean abundance of macrobenthic animals per grab
sample varied significantly with sampling area (1-way ANOVA; F = 14.24, df = 4, 25, P
= 0.0001), and was significantly lower at the impact area (IA) than the other areas.
Conversely, the mean number of macrobenthic species per grab sample did not vary
significantly according to sampling area (1-way ANOVA; F = 2.52, df = 4, 25, P = 0.07).
The pattern in mean abundance by sampling area was likely driven by polychaetes, since
the mean abundance of polychaetes per grab sample varied significantly with sampling
area (1-way ANOVA; F = 14.31, df = 4, 25, P 0.0001), and was significantly lower in the
impact area than any other areas. The mean abundance of mollusks also varied
significantly according to sampling area (1-way ANOVA; F = 7.93, df = 4, 25, F =
0.001), and was significantly higher at the area 20m upstream of the impact area,
compared to all of the other sampling areas of Figure 9.6. Figure 9.6 presented that no
crustaceans were collected in upstream stations at Swan Quarter and there were
significantly fewer crustaceans 5m downstream of the impact area than within the impact
area, or 20 m downstream of the impact area. No insects were collected 5 m downstream
and upstream of the impact area. The mean abundance of insects per grab sample was,
however, significantly higher in the impact area than either 20 m upstream or
downstream of the impact area.
112
Figure 9-4 Swan Quarter Ferry Terminal: site sample locations.
113
Swan Quarter Total Abundance
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean Total Abundance0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Swan Quarter Number of Species
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean Number of Species0
5
10
15
20
25
Figure 9-5 Mean (+ SE) total abundance and number of species of macrobenthic
organisms (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at Swan Quarter
in March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses.
114
Polychaetes
Area
D20D5 IA U5U20Mean Total Abundance0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Swan Quarter Ferry Basin
Crustaceans
Area
D20D5 IA U5U20Mean Total Abundance0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mollusks
Area
D20D5 IA U5U20Mean Total Abundance0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Insects
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean Total Abundance0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Figure 9-6 Mean (+ SE) total abundance of organisms within the dominant taxonomic
groups (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at Swan Quarter in
March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses.
115
With the exception of the impact area, all sampling areas at Swan Quarter were
dominated by the polychaete, Mediomastus californiensis, while the impact area was
dominated by the polychaete, Scolecolepides viridis as described in Table 9.2. Thus, the
combined evidence from ANOVA and Berger-Parker diversity indices suggests that
jetting may have negatively impacted the relative abundance and dominance of
polychaetess, with significantly lower overall abundances of polychaetes in the impact
area, and a shift from M. californiensis to S. viridis after jetting disturbance in the IA.
Although the mean abundance of mollusks did not vary according to sampling
area, there was enough variation in size-frequency within the three major species of
bivalves (Macoma balthica, M. mitchelli, M. lateralis) to assess the effects of jetting on
bivalve size-frequencies. In this case, the size-frequency of M. balthica was similar
between the impact area, and 20 m upstream and downstream of the IA as indicated in
Figure 9.7. Conversely, the size-frequency of M. mitchelli and M. lateralis in the IA was
generally restricted to smaller individuals compared to 20 m upstream and downstream of
the IA, suggesting that these species of bivalves had recently colonized the impact areas.
Table 9-2 Berger-Parker Diversity Index at Swan Quarter
Site Area # of Sp N Nmax d 1/d Dominant species
D20 16 6709 4029 0.601 1.665 M. californiensis
D5 17 7766 4734 0.610 1.641 M. californiensis
IA 29 2045 1016 0.497 2.013 S. viridis
U5 12 7126 4371 0.613 1.630 M. californiensis
SQ
U20 13 9364 5245 0.560 1.785 M. californiensis
9.2.3 Cherry Point Ferry Basin
The Cherry Point Ferry Basin was ~75m wide, and oriented north-south with the
entrance at the north end as presented in Figure 9.8. The basin was completely enclosed
by a seawall and contained 3 impact areas (IAs). The two IAs along the sides of the
basin could not be sampled because the seawall and barges were blocking the sampling
area. Thus, the middle IA was sampled. A slight current was flowing into the basin and
ferry traffic created wave action. The sampled IA consisted of 2 jetted areas.
Downstream was located towards the southern end of the ferry basin. Sediment at the
downstream sites consisted of a <1cm brown layer over black silt with a great deal of
organic debris. The sediment surfaces of most samples were densely covered with tubes
from tube-worms. At the IA, the brown sediment layer was noticeably deeper (2-5cm).
The upstream sites contained a ~2cm brown layer of sediment.
116
SWAN QUARTER (M. balthica)
0
10
20
30
0.5-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 4.0-4.9 5.0-5.9 6.0-6.9
SIZEPERCENTAGE D20
IA
U20
SWAN QUARTER (M. mitchelli)
0
20
40
60
0.5-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 4.0-4.9 5.0-5.9 6.0-6.9
SIZEPERCENTAGE D20
IA
U20
SWAN QUARTER (M. lateralis)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.5-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 4.0-4.9 5.0-5.9 6.0-6.9
SIZEPERCENTAGE D20
IA
U20
Figure 9-7 The size-frequency of the three dominant species of bivalves collected with a
petite Ponar grab sampler at Swan Quarter in March 2004.
117
Figure 9-8 Cherry Point Ferry Terminal: site sample locations
118
Figure 9.9 showed that the mean total abundance of organisms and the mean total
numbers of species per grab were similar between sampling areas, and did not differ
significantly (two-way ANOVA, all p > 0.39). When examined by taxonomic groups,
there may have been an impact of jetting on mollusks, but not polychaetes, insects, or
crustaceans. For example, the mean number of mollusks per grab varied significantly
according to sampling area (1-way ANOVA; F = 9.54, df = 4, 25, P = 0.0001), with
lowest abundances 20 m downstream of the IA, followed by the IA and 5 m downstream
of the IA, and highest abundances upstream of the IA. Although the mean number of
crustaceans per grab were lowest at the IA and upstream of the IA, the latter of which
would not be consistent with an impact of jetting, there was no significant difference in
mean abundance of crustaceans across sampling areas (1-way ANOVA; F = 0.60, df = 4,
25, P = 0.66), probably because of the very high variance in mean crustacean abundances
at the downstream stations as illustrated in Figure 9.10. The mean abundances of
polychaetes and insects did not vary significantly according to sampling area (1-way
ANOVA; both P > 0.33).
With the exception of 20m downstream of the IA, Table 9.3 showed that all
sampling areas were dominated by the infaunal clam, Macoma balthica, which is a
suspension-feeding and facultative deposit-feeding bivalve. The dominance of M.
balthica decreased downstream of the IA. The D20 sampling area was dominated by
insect larvae, Chironomus sp. Thus, the combined evidence from ANOVA and Berger-
Parker diversity indices suggests that jetting may have negatively impacted the relative
abundance of mollusks, but the impact was not large enough to alter the overall dominant
species group, which was Macoma balthica. The mean numbers of species appeared to
be unaffected by the jetting disturbance.
119
Cherry Branch Total Abundance
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean Total Abundance0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Cherry Branch Number of Species
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean Number of Species0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Figure 9-9 Mean (+ SE) total abundance and number of species of macrobenthic
organisms (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at Cherry Point in
March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses.
120
Polychaetes
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean Total Abundance0
200
400
600
800
1000
Cherry Branch Ferry Basin
Crustaceans
Area
D20 D5 IA U5 U20Mean total Abundance0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Mollusks
Area
D20D5 IA U5U20Mean Total Abundance0
200
400
600
800
1000
Insects
Area
D20D5 IA U5U20Mean Total Abundance0
100
200
300
400
Figure 9-10 Mean (+ SE) total abundance of organisms within the dominant taxonomic
groups (> 500 um) collected with petite Ponar grab samples (N = 5) at Cherry Point in
March 2004. See text for results of statistical analyses.
121
Table 9-3 Berger-Parker Diversity Index at Cherry Branch
Site Area # of Sp N Nmax d 1/d Dominant species
D20 17 6291 1476 0.235 4.262 Chironomus sp.
D5 21 7742 1618 0.209 4.785 M. balthica
IA 18 7390 1717 0.232 4.304 M. balthica
U5 19 9303 3288 0.353 2.829 M. balthica
CB
U20 18 7880 3746 0.475 2.104 M. balthica
9.3 Summary of Environmental Impact of Pile Jetting On Macrobenthos
The goal of this study was to begin to assess the environmental impact of jetting
pilings on estuarine and freshwater macrobenthos. Macrobenthos are useful organisms to
assess sediment- and water-quality-related impacts because they are generally sessile and
integrate overlying water quality in terms of growth and survival (Kerans and Karr 1994).
Although we expected to see the largest decrease in mean abundance and diversity of
macrobenthos in the impact area and the sampling areas located 5 m downstream of the
IA, this was generally not the case. The key findings were: (1) the mean number of
macrobenthic organisms was significantly lower at the impact area (IA) compared to
sampling areas that were 5 m and 20 m upstream and downstream of the IA at only one
of three sites (i.e., Swan Quarter), (2) the mean number of macrobenthic species did not
vary significantly according to sampling area, including the impact areas, (3) at the White
Oak River, jetting had no statistically significant effect on the mean number organisms
nor the mean number of macrobenthic species; however, species adapted to disturbed
habitats (tube-building oligochaetes) had colonized the impact area and areas downstream
of the IA, (4) at the Swan Quarter Ferry, jetting may have negatively impacted the
relative abundance and dominance of polychaetes, with significantly lower overall
abundances of polychaetes in the impact area, and a shift from M. californiensis to S.
viridis after jetting disturbance within the IA, and (5) at the Cherry Point Ferry, jetting
may have negatively impacted the relative abundance of mollusks, primarily the infaunal
clam, M. balthica, with significantly lower abundances 20 m downstream of the IA,
followed by the IA and 5 m downstream of the IA, and significantly higher abundances
upstream of the IA. Thus, 4-9 months after jetting, the mean abundance and species
composition of macrobenthos, primarily polychaetes and molluscan bivalves, sometimes
showed a negative response to jetting disturbances, however, this biological response to
disturbance was isolated in space to < 5 m away from the general impact area, including
downstream areas, and did not negatively alter the overall numbers of macrobenthic
species. The spatially isolated nature of the impact on macrobenthos observed in this
study is consistent with the scale of impact by jetting on the sediment thickness, where
sediment thickness from a jetted piling declines to background levels at ~ 6 m from the
impact area (M. Gabr and L. Denton, unpubl. data).
Although macrobenthos are good bio-indicators of negative changes in water
quality, they are also very resilient to physical disturbance events, and are capable of
relatively rapid recolonization after major disturbances (Burkholder et al. 2004 and
122
references therein). Thus, although jetting pilings may negatively impact macrobenthic
organisms such as mollusks and polychaetes, this impact will likely be isolated in space
to < 5 m from an impact area (this study), and recovery should occur within 1-2 years
(Burkholder et al. 2004).
123
CHAPTER 10 - EFFECTS OF PILE JETTING ON TIDAL MARSH
VEGETATION
by
Dr. Stephen W. Broome
Department of Soil Science
NC State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
Utilization of Jetting for pile installation in tidal marshes directly affects marsh
vegetation by burial where sediment is deposited, by changing the elevation, which
determines the plant species that can successfully recolonize the affected area, and by
altering the physical and chemical properties of the root zone. Elevation relative to tidal
inundation and salinity are the two major environmental factors that determine zonation
of plant species within tidal marshes. In North Carolina, and along the east coast of the
United States, zonation of vegetation in regularly flooded salt marshes is very distinct.
The elevation zone from mean high water to mean high tide is nearly a monoculture
dominated by Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). Immediately above mean high
tide, Spartina patens (salt marsh hay) is dominant followed by a shrub zone on the
landward side. Common shrub species are Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Baccharis
halimifolia (eastern baccharis), and Juniperus virginiana (eastern red cedar). In
irregularly flooded brackish-water marshes, plant species diversity is greater and zonation
may be less pronounced, but plant species and growth are affected by changes in
elevation.
10.1 Methods
Effects of jetting for pile installation, which occurred in 2003, on tidal marsh
vegetation was assessed at the Swan Quarter and White Oak River sites on April 28 and
29, 2004. The Sampson county site was also visited; however, at that site pile jetting
occurred on the upland adjacent to a wetland. Subsequent construction work, grading and
seeding erased any apparent jetting effects on the upland or the wetland.
Jetting effects on vegetation at Swan Quarter and White Oak River were assessed
by listing each plant species present, recording plant species that were recolonizing spoil
deposits, and taking soil samples from spoil deposits and adjacent undisturbed reference
marshes. Soil samples were returned to the laboratory, dried in a forced air oven at 35
degrees C, passed through a 2-mm sieve and analyzed by the N.C. Department of
Agriculture Soil Testing lab for plant available nutrients, pH and sodium.
124
10.2 Results for Given Sites
10.2.1 Swan Quarter Marsh
The test area at Swan Quarter is near the ferry terminal in a small brackish-water
marsh that has vegetation typical of the Pamlico Sound shoreline as shown in Fig. 10.1.
The upper marsh on the left of Figure 10.1 is dominated by Spartina patens and Distichlis
spicata which transitions into the upland shrub zone (April 28, 2004). Plant species
observed at the site are described in Table 10.1 and Figure 10.2.and 10.3. The four
jetting installations at the site were designated SQ-7, SQ-8, SQ-9 and SQ-10. At SQ-7,
sediment deposited near the jetted pile hole was 14 cm deep and consisted of sand with
small amounts of clay inclusions and some shell fragments. The spoil covered an area
within a radius of about 3 meters around the hole. Shoots of Scirpus robustus, which
were buried by the jetting spoil, were emerging from the sand. Very little Distichlis
spicata was coming through the sand, but probably will come back from the edges of the
spoil as rhizomes and stolons grow.
Table 10-1 Plant species observed in marshes at Swan Quarter and White Oak River
Scientific Name Common name
Low and mid
marsh
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Juncus roemerianus
Distichlis spicata
Scirpus robustus
Scirpus pungens (Scirpus americanus)
smooth cordgrass
saltmeadow cordgrass
black needle rush
salt grass
salt-marsh bulrush
Swan
Quarter
Marsh/upland
edge
Phragmites australis
Festuca arundinacea
Melilotus officinalis
Rhus radicans
Myrica cereifera
Baccharis halimifolia
Pinus taeda
common reed
tall fescue
sweet clover
poison ivy
wax myrtle
groundsel tree
loblolly pine
Low and mid
marsh
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina cynsuroides
Spartina patens
Juncus roemerianus
Distichlis spicata
Scirpus robustus
Scirpus pungens (Scirpus americanus)
smooth cordgrass
big cordgrass
saltmeadow cordgrass
black needle rush
salt grass
salt-marsh bulrush
three-square bulrush
White
Oak
River
Higher
elevations
Myrica cerifera
Juniperus virginiana
Rhus radicans
Pinus taeda
wax myrtle
red cedar
poison ivy
loblolly pine
125
Figure 10-1 . Irregularly flooded brackish-water marsh at Swan Quarter showing spoil
from pile jetting installations.
Figure 10-2 Juncus roemerianus patch along the shoreline at Swan Quarter.
126
Figure 10-3 Spartina alterniflora is present along small creeks at the Swan Quarter.
Spoil was 10 cm deep covering 1-2 meters in each direction around the SQ-8
jetting hole. There was a second deposit of sand around a blowout that occurred
approximately 3 meters from the jetting hole. This deposit of spoil was 18 cm deep. No
vegetation was growing on either of these deposits, but there was evidence that D. spicata
was beginning to grow in around the edges. The SQ-9 jetting hole was similar to SQ-8
with a 12-cm deep sand deposit adjacent to the hole, and an 18-inch blowout deposit 3
meters from the hole. There were a few D. spicata shoots emerging from the sand and D.
spicata was growing in around the edges of each sand deposit. Sand deposited around
SQ-10 was 14 cm deep with a few inclusions of fine material and covered an area 2 to 3
meters around the hole. Shoots of Phragmites australis and Juncus roemerianus were
emerging from the sand.
Chemical properties and plant nutrient availability of sandy spoil deposited on the
marsh surface at Swan Quarter was very different from the adjacent reference areas as
described in Table 10.2. The spoil has higher pH and lower humic matter, P, Ca, Mg,
and Na. Plant growth in tidal marshes is often limited by nitrogen and phosphorus
availability. The property that would most likely affect plant growth on the spoil at this
location is plant-available P. Nitrogen was not included in the soil test, but is also likely
to be deficient. The coarse texture of the spoil and the low humic matter are indicators
that point to extremely low plant-available N. The effects of the poor nutrient status of
the spoil may be less if plant roots can reach the underlying natural marsh soil to absorb
N and P. Applying N and P fertilizers would accelerate restoration of vegetation on the
spoil deposits at this site.
127
Table 10-2 Results of analyses of soil samples from Swan Quarter
Sample
ID
Wt/Vol
(g/cm3)
pH
Matter
(g/100
cm3)
P
(mg/dm3)
K
(meq/100
cm3)
Ca
(meq/100
cm3)
Mg
(meq/100
cm3)
Na
(meq/100
cm3)
SQ-7 1.26 7.5 0.22 4.4 0.34 6.6 4.4 10.1
control 0.81 5.5 6.58 11.6 0.99 4.4 9.0 12.6
SQ-8 1.28 7.3 0.6 11.8 0.53 10.2 3.7 9.1
SQ-8
washout 1.42 6.9 0.18 4.8 0.10 4.0 1.0 1.4
control 0.56 4.8 1.87 8.2 1.11 14.5 9.5 19.1
SQ-9 1.26 7.4 0.27 0.0 0.32 7.2 3.1 9.9
SQ-9
washout 1.39 3.9 0.13 10.2 0.08 1.0 1.3 2.2
control 0.71 5.3 5.23 14.1 0.86 3.2 6.6 11.6
SQ-10 1.38 6.4 0.13 6.1 0.26 5.4 2.0 5.4
control 0.91 5.5 2.37 14.7 0.97 6.5 6.9 9.0
SQ- Swan Quarter
WO- White Oak River
10.2.2 White Oak River
The White Oak River marsh is also brackish water, but the mix of plant species is
different from that at Swan Quarter. Spartina cynosuroides and Juncus roemerianus, as
shown in Figure 10.4 and Figure 10.5, are the dominant plant species, and most of the site
appears to be lower and wetter with more frequent tidal inundation than Swan Quarter.
Vegetation includes Juncus roemerianus, Spartina alterniflora, and Scirpus spp. growing
in a drainage ditch, Juncus roemerianus, the previous year’s seed stalks of Spartina
cynosuroides and shrubs scattered across the marsh.
The three pile jetting installations within the marsh were designated WO-4, WO-5
and WO-6. The WO-4 and WO-5 sites were close together so they were combined for
sampling purposes. The sand deposit near the WO-4 and WO-5 sites was 12 cm deep.
There was also some fill sand that was trucked in to fill the hole, and this was sampled
separately. New shoots from plants were beginning to emerge around the outer edges of
the sand deposits. On the edge toward the marsh, emerging plant species were Juncus
roemerianus, Distichlis spicata, Scirpus robustus and Polygonum spp. On the landward
edge toward the highway, emerging plants were Scirpus americanus, D. spicata, and
Juncus roemerianus.
128
Figure 10-4 White Oak River spoil from pile jetting installation
Figure 10-5 Vegetation at White Oak River Marsh. Spartina alterniflora (center)
129
Sand deposited around the WO-6 pile jetting installation was 6-10 cm deep,
but the spoil deposit impacted a relatively small area. A thick organic surface layer at
this site reduced the depth of sand penetrated by pile jetting. Uplift of the surface by
jetting was about equal to the thickness of the spoil at this site. Plants recolonizing the
area were J. roemerianus, S. robustus, and Spartina patens.
Results of soil analyses from White Oak River indicated much higher plant
available P levels in both the spoil and the natural marsh than at Swan Quarter as listed in
Table 10.3. The spoil from the WO-6 jetting installation was exceptionally high in P, and
P levels in all of the samples were adequate to support plant growth. Generally the natural
marsh soils had higher humic matter, K, Ca, Mg and Na contents, but the only plant
nutrient that might be limit plant growth on the spoil would be nitrogen. Plant nutrients
are not likely to be a limiting factor in plant growth on the spoil at White Oak River.
Table 10.3 Results of analyses of soil samples from White Oak River marshes
Sample
ID
Wt/Vol
(g/cm3)
pH
Matter
(g/100
cm3)
P
(mg/dm3)
K
(meq/100
cm3)
Ca
(meq/100
cm3)
Mg
(meq/100
cm3)
Na
(meq/100
cm3)
WO-4/5 1.42 6.8 0.22 29.7 0.19 4.2 1.6 3.2
WO-4/5
fill 1.38 6.8 0.18 35.5 0.14 3.4 1.2 2.8
control 0.63 5.5 2.68 42.6 0.97 8.4 11.3 6.4
control 0.64 4.7 2.68 45.4 1.18 8.9 12.5 9.2
WO-6
white 1.43 4.6 0.13 453.0 0.08 5.4 0.8 0.8
WO-6
brown 1.40 4.5 0.18 208.4 0.06 3.9 0.6 0.6
control 0.47 5.2 2.29 46.4 0.46 11.0 11.1 5.0
control 0.48 4.6 2.44 41.9 0.60 8.5 7.3 3.8
SQ- Swan Quarter
WO- White Oak River
10.3 Summary of Effects of Pile Jetting On Tidal Marsh Vegetation
Sediments deposited around pile jetting installations in two brackish-water marshes
resulted in sandy spoil deposits on the marsh surface, uplift of the marsh surface, and
some blowout deposits of sand. The potential effects on marsh vegetation (and benthic
organisms) are burial of existing vegetation, increased elevation of the surface (changing
tidal inundation), and a change in physical and chemical properties of soil in the root
zone of plants that may grow on the spoil. The long-term impact of the elevation change
on marsh vegetation is likely to be minimal in these marshes even if the spoil deposits are
not removed. The elevation changes due to uplift of the original surface plus the spoil
deposit does not exceed the maximum elevation of some plant community in each marsh.
130
The change in elevation may result in a different assemblage of plants in the impacted
area, but it is still within the maximum elevation limits of marsh vegetation at each site.
Spoil deposited at each of the jetting installations was deep enough to bury
existing vegetation, but there was evidence of regrowth by shoots coming up through the
spoil deposits or rhizomes growing into the affected area from the edges. Although
physical and chemical properties of the spoil were very different than the reference marsh
soil, the spoil will eventually support plant growth. Tidal flushing and deposition of
sediment by tidal action modify soil properties and nutrient availability over time. At
Swan Quarter, where the sandy spoil is very phosphorus deficient, applying and
incorporating phosphate fertilizer would enhance establishment of vegetation. An
assessment of recovery of vegetation at the end of this growing season (2004) and a year
from now (summer or fall of 2005) could more conclusively determine the extent of
recovery of vegetation at the pile jetting sites and determine whether mitigation is
needed.
Effects of spoil deposits on the marsh vegetation could be mitigated by removal,
but removal activity might cause additional damage to surrounding vegetation. Another
approach to mitigation would be to plant marsh vegetation adapted to the elevation
created by the deposit and enhancing growth by adding nitrogen and phosphorus
fertilizers.
131
CHAPTER 11 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Work presented in this report described the development of pile jetting model for
the computation of jetting-induced debris zone on the surface in various soil profiles
through implementation of a laboratory and field testing programs, and comprehensive
data analyses. The study is systematically performed to characterize the surface
disturbance and associated ecological impacts due to pile jetting process. From the
laboratory testing program, the physical phenomenon of jetting was observed and a
model for computing the disturbance created by jetted-pile installations was presented.
Field testing encompassed four test sites in different geographical locations of Eastern
North Carolina. A total of 26 jetted pile installations were performed to aid in model
development and verify the behavior observed during laboratory experimentations. The
laboratory and field testing results were used to develop a phenomenological model that
is empirical in nature. Based on the analyses of data and environmental impacts, the
following conclusions are advanced.
i. Installation of piles using jetting approach stems from the simultaneous
erosion of soils beneath the pile tip and transport of these soil particles
through the annulus to the ground surface. The pile advances only after
a sufficient area of soil has been eroded to cause a tip bearing capacity
failure as side friction is reduced due to the return water and liquefaction
jetting annulus.
ii. Optimization of water flowrate (Qw) and jet nozzle velocity (Vj) for a given
soil profile provides minimal debris zone dimensions for jetted
installations. In general, higher jet velocities with longer flow rates will
produce smaller debris zones.
iii. Given equal jetting parameters, the extent of the debris zone for sands with
smaller average particle sizes (D50 = 0.15 mm) were approximately
100% further from the pile center than sands with larger average particle
size (D50 = 0.5 mm).
iv. Based on results from the field research program, it was determined that the
diameter of the debris zones created from the jetting process was
generally equivalent to the jetted depth of pile. Furthermore, the volume
of debris material measured around the annulus of pile was generally
equal to, or slightly more in case of dense profiles than, the inserted
volume of pile for a particular installation.
v. A proposed phenomenological model provides an estimate of debris zone
characteristics. The model was verified through data obtained from field
testing. The results of the verification study indicate that the results
from the model agree fairly with field data. In 11 cases, the model
results over predicted the measured debris volume and diameters. In six
132
cases, the model under predicted the measured values by approximately
20% on the average.
vi. A model component, capable of estimating the change in bedfrom length
due to under water current velocity, was proposed based upon published
literature on sediment transport. The proposed procedure, while not
verified by field testing, should give a conservative estimate of the
extent of distribution of the plume of fine particles during underwater
jetting applications, based on an assumed flow depth.
vii. A design procedure was outlined for implementing the proposed three part
jetting model that include insertion rate, volume and size of disturbance
zone, and change in bedform due to under current velocities. A
spreadsheet was developed and presented for determination of the
insertion characteristics and debris volume and lateral extent.
viii. At only one of three sites (i.e., Swan Quarter), the mean number of
macrobenthic organisms was significantly lower at the impact area
compared to sampling areas that were 5 m and 20 m upstream and
downstream).
ix. The mean number of macrobenthic species did not vary significantly
according to sampling area, including the impact areas, and at the White
Oak River jetting had no statistically significant effect on the mean
number organisms nor the mean number of macrobenthic species;
however, species adapted to disturbed habitats (tube-building
oligochaetes) had colonized the impact area and areas downstream.
x. It seems that 4-9 months after jetting, the mean abundance and species
composition of macrobenthos, primarily polychaetes and molluscan
bivalves, sometimes showed a negative response to jetting disturbances,
however, this biological response to disturbance was isolated in space to
< 5 m away from the general impact area, including downstream areas,
and did not negatively alter the overall numbers of macrobenthic
species.
xi. The spatially isolated nature of the impact on macrobenthos observed in this
study is consistent with the scale of impact by jetting on the sediment
thickness, where sediment thickness from a jetted piling declines to
background levels at ~ 6 m from the impact area.
xii. It seems that on land, the long-term impact of elevation change due to
jetting on marsh vegetation is likely to be minimal even if the spoil
deposits are not removed. The elevation changes due to uplift of the
original surface plus the spoil deposit does not exceed the maximum
elevation of some plant community in each marsh.
xiii. While spoil deposited at each of the jetting installations was deep enough to
bury existing vegetation, there was evidence of regrowth by shoots
coming up through the spoil deposits or rhizomes growing into the
affected area from the edges.
133
xiv. At Swan Quarter, where the sandy spoil is very phosphorus deficient,
applying and incorporating phosphate fertilizer would enhance
establishment of vegetation. An assessment of recovery of vegetation at
the end of this growing season (2004) and a year from now (summer or
fall of 2005) could more conclusively determine the extent of recovery
of vegetation at the pile jetting sites and determine whether mitigation is
needed.
Work in this report presents a first documented study to characterize the surface
disturbance and associated ecological impact due to pile jetting process. While the results
presented herein are applicable to site conditions encountered in this study, monitoring of
the installations and associated disturbance zones and documentation of employed pumps
capacity should be performed to add data to the data base collected during this research.
The addition of more jetting data with a larger variety of subsurface profiles will further
verify the insertion model. Research should also be further conducted on the effects of
jetting and surface water currents in order to develop a better model for estimation of
plume and sediment transport in areas of fast moving currents. As field jetting for
construction is conducted in the future, it is also recommended that the environmental
impact of alternative installation methods (such as driving) or foundation type (such as
drilled shafts) be evaluated so that engineers will have the ability to perform realistic
cost-benefit analyses for structures to be installed in environmentally sensitive areas.
134
REFERENCES
Adamus, P.R., L.T. Stockwell, E.J. Clairain, M.E. Morrow, L.P. Rozas, and R.D. Smith
(1991) “Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET)” Volume 1: Literature Review and
Evaluation Rationale, Environmental Laboratory, Report No. WRP-DE-2, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Allen, J. R. L., “Fundamental properties of fluids and their relation to sediment transport
processes,” In Pye (ed.) Sediment Transport and Depositional Processes, Blackwell,
1994.
Allen, J.R.L. (1985) Principles of Physical Sedimentology, George Allen & Unwin
Publishers Ltd., London.
ASTM D 422 Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils, ASTM, Vol. 4.08, Soil
and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics.
ASTM D 854 Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils, ASTM, Vol. 4.08, Soil and
Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics.
ASTM D 3080 Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained
Conditions, ASTM, Vol. 4.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics.
ASTM D 4221 Test Method for Despersive Characteristics of Clay Soil by Double
Hydrometer, ASTM, Vol. 4.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics.
ASTM D 4253 Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils
Using a Vibratory Table, ASTM, Vol. 4.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone;
Geosynthetics.
ASTM D 4254 Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and
Calculation of Relative Density, ASTM, Vol. 4.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone;
Geosynthetics.
Berger, W. H. and F. L. Parker. 1970. Diversity of planktonic Foraminifera in deep sea
sediments. Science 168:1345-1347.
Burkholder, J, D. Eggleston, H Glasgow, et al. 2004. Comparative impacts of two major
hurricane seasons on the Neuse River and western Pamlico Sound ecosystems.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101:9291-9296.
Clayton, CRI (1990) “SPT Energy Transmission: Theory, Measurement, and
Significance,” Ground Engineering, Volume 2, No. 10, pp. 35-43.
135
Coduto, D.P., (2001) Foundation Design, Principles and Practices (2nd ed), Prentice-Hall,
Inc., New Jersey.
Day, J. H. 1973. New Polychaeta from Beaufort, with key to all species recorded from
North Carolina. NOAA Technical Report NMFS CIRC-375.
Decker, R. S., and Dunning, L. P. “Development and Use of the Soil Conservation
Service Dispersion Test,” Dispersive Clays, Related Piping, and Erosion in Geotechnical
Projects, ASTM STP 623, 1977, pp. 94-109.
Epler, J. H. 2001. Identification Manual for the Larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North
and South Carolina. Special Publication SJ2001-Sp13, EPA WQ Program Sec.
104(b)(93), EPA Region 4 and Human Health and Ecolgical Criteria Division. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
Federal Regulations 40446 (August 14, 1991) “Proposed Revisions to the Federal Manual
for Delineating Wetlands.
Fox, R. S. and Bynum, K. H. 1975. The Amphipod Crustaceans of North Carolina
Estuarine Waters. Science, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.223-237, December 1975.
Gunaratne, M., R.A. Hameed, C. Kuo, S. Putcha, and D.V. Reddy (1999) Investigation of
the Effects of Pile Jetting and Preforming, Research Report No. 772, Florida Department
of Transportation, in cooperation with Federal Highway Administration.
Holtz, R.D., and W.D. Kovacs (1981) An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
Kerans, B. L. and J. R. Karr. 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers
of the Tennessee Valley. Ecol. Appl. 4:768-785.
Matlin, A. (1983) Wide Flange, Concrete Sheet Pile Warves, Proceedings of ASCE
Specialty Conference, Ports, 1983, New Orleans, LA., Mar 21-23, 389-401.
McGregor, T.H. (1963) T-shaped Concrete Sheet Piles Renew Deteriorated Bulkhead.
Engineering News-Record, January 3, 20-21.
Milligan, M. R. 1997. Identification Manual for the Aquatic Oligochaeta of Florida, Vol.
I Freshwater Oligochaetes. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Clean Water Act 205 (j)(1). DEP Contract No. WM550.
Mitchell, J.K. (1976) Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 422 pp.
136
Munson, B.R., T.H. Okiishi, and D.F. Young (1998) Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics,
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Canada.
North Carolina Department of Transportation Soils and Foundations Design reference
Manual, Version 2001.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 1997. Master List of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, tolerance values for use of the North Carolina Biotic Index.
Technical Manual Proceedures for the collection and processing of Freshwater
Macroinvertebrates. January 1997.
Open University Oceanography Course Team, Waves, Tides and Shallow Water
Processes, Boston, Butterworth and Heinemann, 1999.
Roback, S. S. 1980. The immature chironomids of the eastern United States IV.
Tanypodinae: Procladiini. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 132, pp. 1-63.
Shestopal, A.O. (1959) Jetting of Pipes, Piles, and Sheet Piles. Hydroproject Institute,
Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Skempton, A.W., (1953) The Colloidal Activity of Clays, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol I, pp 57-
61.
Smith, Alex (2003) “Jetting Techniques for Pile Installation and Environmental Impact
Minimization,” Master of Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Tsinker, G.P. (1988) Pile Jetting, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 144,
No. 3 March 1988, pp. 326-334.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (1981) “Habitat Evaluation Procedure Handbook” (870 FW
1.9A), Washington, D.C.
Van Rijn, Leo C., “Sediment Transport, Part I: Bed Load Transport,” Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 10, 1431 – 1455, 1984(a).
Van Rijn, Leo C., “Sediment Transport, Part II: Suspended Load Transport,” Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 11, 1613 – 1641, 1984(b).
Van Rijn, Leo C., “Sediment Transport, Part III: Bed Forms and Alluvial Roughness,”
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 12, 1733 – 1754, 1984(c).
137
APPENDIX Ι
(Lab Data)
A. Laboratory Testing Medium
B. Data Analysis and Model Development Data
138
APPENDIX A
Laboratory Testing Medium
Characteristics of Laboratory Testing Medium
Index density
139
Specimen H1 (in.) H2 (in.) Avg. 1&2
(in.) H3 (in.) H4 (in.) Avg. 3&4
(in.)
Mortar - 1 0.475 0.436 0.456 0.412 0.381 0.397
Mortar - 2 0.313 0.316 0.315 0.561 0.573 0.567
Concrete - 1 0.268 0.266 0.267 0.617 0.613 0.615
Concrete - 2 0.426 0.476 0.451 0.329 0.289 0.309
Cherry Branch 1.352 1.357 1.355 1.459 1.232 1.346
Specimen Avg. (in.)
Height of
Sample
(in.)
Volume
(ft^3)
Weight
(lbs.)
Density
(lb./ft.^3)
Avg. max
(pcf)
Mortar - 1 0.4260 5.190 0.0848 9.136 107.7 108.0
Mortar - 2 0.4408 5.175 0.0846 9.155 108.2
Concrete - 1 0.4410 5.175 0.0846 9.713 114.8 114.8
Concrete - 2 0.3800 5.236 0.0856 9.821 114.8
Cherry Branch 1.3500 4.740 0.0773 7.902 102.2 102.0
Specimen
Height of
Sample
(in.)
Specimen
Diameter
(in)
Specimen
Area
(in^2)
Specimen
Volume
(in^3)
Specimen
Volume
(ft^3)
Specimen
Weight
(lb)
Mortar - 1 6.098 5.996 28.24 172.19 0.100 8.98
Mortar - 2 6.098 5.996 28.24 172.19 0.100 8.98
Concrete - 1 6.098 5.996 28.24 172.19 0.100 9.38
Concrete - 2 6.098 5.996 28.24 172.19 0.100 9.38
Cherry Branch-1 6.090 5.990 28.18 171.62 0.099 8.13
Cherry Branch2 6.090 5.990 28.18 171.62 0.099 8.16
Specimen Density
(lb./ft.^3)
Avg. min
(pcf)
Mortar - 1 90.120
Mortar - 2 90.120 90.1
Concrete - 1 94.134
Concrete - 2 94.134 94.1
Cherry Branch-1 81.860
Cherry Branch2 82.162
82.0
Appendix A-1 Maximum and Minimum Index Density
140
Effective Angle of Internal Friction
Mortar Sand Concrete Sand
Normal Stress (psf) Shear Stress at Failure
(psf) Normal Stress (psf) Shear Stress at Failure
(psf)
277 245 277 367
504 428 504 612
1008 836 1008 958
2006 1549 2006 1692
Cherry Branch Sand Mortar Sand + Kaolinite
Normal Stress (psf) Shear Stress at Failure
(psf) Normal Stress (psf) Shear Stress at Failure
(psf)
277 265 504 408
504 428 277 183
1008 754 1008 550
2006 1304 2006 1162
Appendix A-2 Direct Shear Test Data for Testing Material
Permeability
141
Unit Weight Information
Specimen Sample Name:
Concrete
Sand Measurement Diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm) Date: 7/21/2003
1 7.21 13
2 7.26 13 rho=2.65
Vs
(cm^3) = 321.69
3 7.26 13
Vv
(cm^3) = 214.59
Average 7.25 13 e = 0.67
Specimen Area
(cm^2) 41.25
Specimen
Volume cm^3) 536.28
Weight of Dry Soil
(lb): 2.004
Pore
Volume
(cm^3)
214.59
Dry Unit Weight
(pcf): 104.9
Void Ratio: 0.667
Relative Density: 57
Beaker Tare gm 115.35
Test No.
Cell
Pressure
(psi)
Head
Pressure
(psi)
Mass
of Pore
(gm)
Flow
Volume
(ft^3)
Time (s) Q/At
1.00 10.00 11.00 315.89 200.54 54.00 0.09
2.00 10.00 11.00 320.66 205.31 61.30 0.08
3.00 10.00 11.00 323.39 208.04 65.90 0.08
4.00 10.00 11.00 312.72 197.37 69.70 0.07
5.00 10.00 11.00 237.75 122.40 36.00 0.08
6.00 10.00 11.00 314.37 199.02 83.00 0.06
7.00 10.00 11.00 314.85 199.50 105.80 0.05
8.00 10.00 11.00 314.06 198.71 128.20 0.04
9.00 10.00 11.00 314.36 199.01 157.60 0.03
10.00 10.00 11.00 319.63 204.28 190.65 0.03
11.00 10.00 11.00 315.28 199.93 180.20 0.03
12.00 10.00 11.00 315.33 199.98 210.80 0.02
13.00 10.00 11.00 312.90 197.55 178.30 0.03
14.00 10.00 11.00 312.10 196.75 197.00 0.02
15.00 10.00 11.00 311.80 196.45 215.00 0.02
16.00 10.00 11.00 310.20 194.85 215.00 0.02
17.00 10.00 11.00 285.20 169.85 213.00 0.02
18.00 10.00 11.00 212.20 96.85 126.00 0.02
Appendix A-3 Falling Head Permeability Data (Concrete sand)
Continued
142
dstandpipe = 7.6cm
Area of Standpipe, a (cm^2) = 45.4
=QL/hAt
=(2.3aL/At)
log(h1/h2)
Constant Head Falling Head
Test No. h/L h
k
(cm/s) h1 (cm) h2 (cm) k (cm/s)
1.00 5.41 70.34 0.0166 74.76 70.34 0.0161
2.00 5.41 70.34 0.0150 74.86 70.34 0.0145
3.00 5.41 70.34 0.0141 74.92 70.34 0.0137
4.00 5.41 70.34 0.0127 74.69 70.34 0.0123
5.00 5.41 70.34 0.0152 73.03 70.34 0.0149
6.00 5.41 70.34 0.0107 74.72 70.34 0.0104
7.00 5.41 70.34 0.0084 74.73 70.34 0.0082
8.00 5.41 70.34 0.0069 74.72 70.34 0.0067
9.00 5.41 70.34 0.0057 74.72 70.34 0.0055
10.00 5.41 70.34 0.0048 74.84 70.34 0.0046
11.00 5.41 70.34 0.0050 74.74 70.34 0.0048
12.00 5.41 70.34 0.0043 74.74 70.34 0.0041
13.00 5.41 70.34 0.0050 74.69 70.34 0.0048
14.00 5.41 70.34 0.0045 74.67 70.34 0.0043
15.00 5.41 70.34 0.0041 74.67 70.34 0.0040
16.00 5.41 70.34 0.0041 74.63 70.34 0.0039
17.00 5.41 70.34 0.0036 74.08 70.34 0.0035
18.00 5.41 70.34 0.0034 72.47 70.34 0.0034
0.0047 0.0045 10^-2
97.033
Appendix A-3 Falling Head Permeability Data (Concrete sand)
143
Unit Weight Information
Specimen Sample Name:
Mortar
Sand
Measurement
Diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm) Date: 1/17/2003
1 7.201 13.8
2 7.201 13.8 rho=2.65
Vs (cm^3)
= 341.05
3 7.203 13.8
Vv (cm^3)
= 221.09
Average 7.202 13.8 e = 0.65
Specimen Area
(cm^2) 40.73
Specimen Volume
cm^3) 562.14
Weight of Dry Soil
(lb): 1.99
Pore
Volume
(cm^3)
221.09
Dry Unit Weight
(pcf): 100.60
Void Ratio: 0.65
Relative Density: 62.70
Beaker Tare gm 119.69
Test No.
Cell
Pressure
(psi)
Head
Pressure
(psi)
Mass of
Pore
(gm)
Flow
Volume
(cm^3)
Time (s) Q/At
1.00 5.00 7.50 338.38 218.69 79.00 0.07
2.00 5.00 6.00 341.38 221.69 87.81 0.06
3.00 5.00 6.00 341.92 222.23 91.60 0.06
4.00 5.00 6.00 342.32 222.63 89.70 0.06
5.00 5.00 6.00 341.32 221.63 90.75 0.06
6.00 5.00 6.00 295.62 175.93 66.72 0.06
7.00 10.00 11.00 339.77 220.08 64.00 0.08
8.00 10.00 11.00 342.11 222.42 64.06 0.09
9.00 10.00 11.00 338.21 218.52 63.10 0.09
10.00 10.00 11.00 338.20 218.51 63.70 0.08
11.00 10.00 11.00 338.80 219.11 64.00 0.08
12.00 10.00 11.00 335.58 215.89 65.46 0.08
13.00 10.00 11.00 336.99 217.30 66.47 0.08
14.00 10.00 11.00 335.06 215.37 64.20 0.08
Appendix A-4 Falling Head Permeability Data (Mortar sand)
Continued
144
dstandpipe = 7.6cm
Area of Standpipe, a (cm^2) = 45.4
=QL/hAt
=(2.3aL/At)
log(h1/h2)
Constant Head Falling Head
Test No. h/L h k (cm/s) h1 (cm) h2 (cm) k (cm/s)
1.00 12.74 175.85 0.01 180.66 175.85 0.005
2.00 5.10 70.34 0.01 75.22 70.34 0.012
3.00 5.10 70.34 0.01 75.23 70.34 0.011
4.00 5.10 70.34 0.01 75.24 70.34 0.012
5.00 5.10 70.34 0.01 75.22 70.34 0.011
6.00 5.10 70.34 0.01 74.21 70.34 0.012
7.00 5.10 70.34 0.02 75.19 70.34 0.016
8.00 5.10 70.34 0.02 75.24 70.34 0.016
9.00 5.10 70.34 0.02 75.15 70.34 0.016
10.00 5.10 70.34 0.02 75.15 70.34 0.016
11.00 5.10 70.34 0.02 75.16 70.34 0.016
12.00 5.10 70.34 0.02 75.09 70.34 0.015
13.00 5.10 70.34 0.02 75.12 70.34 0.015
14.00 5.10 70.34 0.02 75.08 70.34 0.016
0.02 0.016 10^-2
% error
96.620
Appendix A-4 Falling Head Permeability Data (Mortar sand)
Unit Weight Information
145
Specimen Sample Name:
Cherry
Branch Measurement Diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm) Date: 7/17/2003
1 7.19 13.5
2 7.20 13.5 rho=2.61 Vs (cm^3) 321.7
3 7.20 13.5 Vv (cm^3) 227.2
Average 7.20 13.5 e = 0.7
Specimen Area (cm^2) : 40.7
Specimen Volume (cm^3) : 548.9
Weight of Dry Soil (lb): 1.851 Pore Volume (cm^3) 227.22
Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 95.4
Void Ratio: 0.706
Relative Density: 72
Beaker Tare gm 103.75
Test No.
Cell
Pressure
(psi)
Head
Pressure
(psi)
Mass of
Pore
(gm)
Flow
Volume
(cm^3)
Time (s) Q/At h/L
1.00 5.00 7.50 336.34 232.59 91.00 0.06 13.03
2.00 5.00 6.00 333.09 229.34 87.00 0.06 5.21
3.00 5.00 6.00 334.55 230.80 90.50 0.06 5.21
4.00 5.00 6.00 333.02 229.27 91.53 0.06 5.21
5.00 5.00 6.00 331.42 227.67 85.20 0.07 5.21
6.00 5.00 6.00 251.73 147.98 103.30 0.04 5.21
7.00 10.00 11.00 330.03 226.28 83.00 0.07 5.21
8.00 10.00 11.00 332.25 228.50 86.40 0.07 5.21
9.00 10.00 11.00 330.73 226.98 87.50 0.06 5.21
10.00 10.00 11.00 331.06 227.31 105.20 0.05 5.21
11.00 10.00 11.00 330.44 226.69 88.30 0.06 5.21
12.00 10.00 11.00 329.89 226.14 91.70 0.06 5.21
13.00 10.00 11.00 329.93 226.18 94.27 0.06 5.21
14.00 10.00 11.00 329.67 225.92 98.04 0.06 5.21
15.00 10.00 11.00 331.44 227.69 105.21 0.05 5.21
16.00 10.00 11.00 331.82 228.07 108.70 0.05 5.21
17.00 10.00 11.00 329.55 225.80 114.90 0.05 5.21
18.00 10.00 11.00 328.26 224.51 112.30 0.05 5.21
19.00 10.00 11.00 330.84 227.09 117.80 0.05 5.21
20.00 10.00 11.00 331.20 227.45 123.70 0.05 5.21
21.00 10.00 11.00 329.84 226.09 128.20 0.04 5.21
22.00 10.00 11.00 329.30 225.55 214.30 0.03 5.21
23.00 10.00 11.00 328.82 225.07 140.00 0.04 5.21
10.00 11.00 252.94 149.19 99.00 0.04 5.21
Appendix A-5 Falling Head Permeability Data (Cherry Branch Sand)
Continued
146
dstandpipe = 7.6cm
Area of Standpipe, a
(cm^2) = 45.4
=QL/hAt =(2.3aL/At) log(h1/h2)
Constant Head Falling Head
Test No. h k (cm/s) h1 (cm) h2 (cm) k (cm/s)
1.00 175.85 0.005 180.97 175.85 0.005
2.00 70.34 0.012 75.39 70.34 0.012
3.00 70.34 0.012 75.42 70.34 0.012
4.00 70.34 0.012 75.39 70.34 0.011
5.00 70.34 0.013 75.35 70.34 0.012
6.00 70.34 0.007 73.60 70.34 0.007
7.00 70.34 0.013 75.32 70.34 0.012
8.00 70.34 0.012 75.37 70.34 0.012
9.00 70.34 0.012 75.34 70.34 0.012
10.00 70.34 0.010 75.35 70.34 0.010
11.00 70.34 0.012 75.33 70.34 0.012
12.00 70.34 0.012 75.32 70.34 0.011
13.00 70.34 0.011 75.32 70.34 0.011
14.00 70.34 0.011 75.31 70.34 0.010
15.00 70.34 0.010 75.35 70.34 0.010
16.00 70.34 0.010 75.36 70.34 0.010
17.00 70.34 0.009 75.31 70.34 0.009
18.00 70.34 0.009 75.28 70.34 0.009
19.00 70.34 0.009 75.34 70.34 0.009
20.00 70.34 0.009 75.35 70.34 0.008
21.00 70.34 0.008 75.32 70.34 0.008
22.00 70.34 0.005 75.31 70.34 0.005
23.00 70.34 0.008 75.30 70.34 0.007
70.34 0.007 73.62 70.34 0.007
0.008 0.008 10^-2
96.599
Appendix A-5 Falling Head Permeability Data (Cherry Branch Sand)
147
Unit Weight Information
Specimen Sample Name:
Kaolin +
Sand Measurement Diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm) Date: 7/22/2003
1 7.20344 13
2 7.2136 13 ρ=2.65 Vs
(cm^3) = 340.11
3 7.1882 13
Vv
(cm^3) = 189.44
Average 7.2017 13 e = 0.56
Specimen Area (cm^2) 40.735
Specimen Volume cm^3) 529.552
Weight of Dry
Soil (lb):
Pore
Volume
(cm^3)
189.4424
Dry Unit
Weight (pcf):
Void Ratio:
Relative
Density:
Beaker Tare gm 101.02
Test No.
Cell
Pressure
(psi)
Head
Pressure
(psi)
Mass of
Pore
(gm)
Flow
Volume
(ft^3)
Time (s) Q/At h/L
1.00 10.00 11.00 340.4 239.42 1332.0 0.00 5.41
2.00 10.00 11.00 327.3 226.26 1424.0 0.00 5.41
3.00 10.00 11.00 331.6 230.58 1051.0 0.01 5.41
4.00 10.00 11.00 317.2 216.19 1078.0 0.00 5.41
dstandpipe = 7.6cm
Area of Standpipe, a (cm^2) = 45.4
=QL/hAt =(2.3aL/At) log(h1/h2)
Constant Head Falling Head
Test No. h k (cm/s) h1 (cm) h2 (cm) k (cm/s)
1.00 70.34 0.0008 75.61 70.34 0.0008
2.00 70.34 0.0007 75.32 70.34 0.0007
3.00 70.34 0.0010 75.42 70.34 0.0010
4.00 70.34 0.0009 75.10 70.34 0.0009
0.00086 0.00083 10^-3
Appendix A-6 Falling Head Permeability Data (Mortar sand + Kaolinite Sand)
148
APPENDIX B
Data Analysis and Model Development Data
Data Analysis and Model Development Data
149
Depth Analysis
Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Vj/IR Qw/Qp Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Vj/IR
5/29/2003 10DW8-.5 0.50 1.10 1176.47 9.04 1.00 3.70 4264.72
6/2/2003 10DW8-.625 0.50 1.00
6/25/03 10DW8-.625 0.50 4.63 7435.31 47.24 1.00
5/29/2003 20DW8-.8125 0.50 0.65 519.78 8.74 1.00 2.03 1707.86
5/29/2003 20DW8-.5 0.50 0.33 588.24 5.50 1.00 0.89 2941.18
5/30/2003 20DW8-.625 0.50 0.48 941.18 8.08 1.00 1.42 2007.85
6/3/2003 20DW8-.625 0.50 0.49 878.43 8.22 1.00 1.43 1819.61
Qw/Qp Depth
(ft)
Time
(min)
5/29/2003 10DW8-.5 14.67 1.50 n/a
6/2/2003 10DW8-.625 1.50
6/25/03 10DW8-.625 1.50
5/29/2003 20DW8-.8125 14.50 1.50 5.18
5/29/2003 20DW8-.5 7.17 1.50 1.57
5/30/2003 20DW8-.625 11.32 1.50 4.14
6/3/2003 20DW8-.625 11.39 1.50 3.00
Vj/IR Qw/Qp Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Vj/IR Qw/Qp Depth
(ft)
5/29/2003 10DW8-.5 n/a n/a 2.00 n/a n/a n/a 2.50
6/2/2003 10DW8-.625 2.00 n/a n/a n/a 2.50
6/25/03 10DW8-.625 2.00 n/a n/a n/a 2.50
5/29/2003 20DW8-.8125 4937.94 28.30 2.00 n/a n/a n/a 2.50
5/29/2003 20DW8-.5 2156.87 8.26 2.00 2.75 1470.59 10.79 2.50
5/30/2003 20DW8-.625 1631.38 21.76 2.00 5.98 2321.57 25.55 2.50
6/3/2003 20DW8-.625 3011.77 17.79 2.00 3.00 3011.77 17.79 2.50
Time
(min) Vj/IR Qw/Qp
5/29/2003 10DW8-.5 n/a n/a n/a
6/2/2003 10DW8-.625 n/a n/a n/a
6/25/03 10DW8-.625 n/a n/a n/a
5/29/2003 20DW8-.8125 n/a n/a n/a
5/29/2003 20DW8-.5 5.60 1470.59 17.49
5/30/2003 20DW8-.625 n/a n/a n/a
6/3/2003 20DW8-.625
Appendix B-1 Data Analysis and Model Development Data (Concrete Sand)
Continued
Bearing Pressure Analysis
150
Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Qw/Qp qapp/s'v Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Qw/Qp
5/29/2003 10DW8-.5 0.5 1.1 9.0 59.5 1.0 3.7 14.7
6/2/2003 10DW8-.625 0.5 1.0
6/25/03 10DW8-.625 0.5 4.6 47.2 74.0 1.0
5/29/2003 20DW8-.8125 0.5 0.7 8.7 47.5 1.0 2.0 14.5
5/29/2003 20DW8-.5 0.5 0.3 5.5 59.9 1.0 0.9 7.2
5/30/2003 20DW8-.625 0.5 0.5 8.1 61.4 1.0 1.4 11.3
6/3/2003 20DW8-.625 0.5 0.5 8.2 61.3 1.0 1.4 11.4
qapp/s'v Depth
(ft)
Time
(min)
5/29/2003 10DW8-.5 27.8 1.5 n/a
6/2/2003 10DW8-.625 1.5
6/25/03 10DW8-.625 1.5
5/29/2003 20DW8-.8125 24.5 1.5 5.2
5/29/2003 20DW8-.5 27.5 1.5 1.6
5/30/2003 20DW8-.625 28.4 1.5 4.1
6/3/2003 20DW8-.625 28.4 1.5 3.0
Qw/Qp qapp/s'v Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Qw/Qp qapp/s'v Depth
(ft)
5/29/2003 10DW8-.5 n/a 2.0 n/a n/a 2.5
6/2/2003 10DW8-.625 2.0 n/a n/a 2.5
6/25/03 10DW8-.625 2.0 n/a n/a 2.5
5/29/2003 20DW8-.8125 28.3 18.3 2.0 n/a n/a 2.5
5/29/2003 20DW8-.5 8.3 17.5 2.0 2.8 10.8 12.7 2.5
5/30/2003 20DW8-.625 21.8 18.1 2.0 6.0 25.5 14.5 2.5
6/3/2003 20DW8-.625 17.8 20.6 2.0 2.5
Time
(min) Qw/Qp qapp/s'v
5/29/2003 10DW8-.5 n/a n/a
6/2/2003 10DW8-.625 n/a n/a
6/25/03 10DW8-.625 n/a n/a
5/29/2003 20DW8-.8125 n/a n/a
5/29/2003 20DW8-.5 5.6 17.5 9.79478
5/30/2003 20DW8-.625 n/a n/a
6/3/2003 20DW8-.625
Appendix B-1 Data Analysis and Model Developement Data (Concrete Sand)
Full Depth Tests - Mortar Sand
151
Test Description
Jet
Velocity
(ft/min)
Pile
Dia. (in) Ap (ft^2) Dj (in) Aj (ft^2)
Final
Depth of
Insertion
(ft)
4/15/2003 10DU8-.8125 186 8 0.35 0.81 0.0072 0.76
4/15/2003 20DU8-.8125 370 8 0.35 0.81 0.0072 2.43
4/16/2003 10DU8-.5 490 8 0.35 0.50 0.0027 1.21
4/16/2003 20DU8-.5 978 8 0.35 0.50 0.0027 2.90
4/17/2003 20DU8-.5 978 8 0.35 0.50 0.0027 2.92
4/17/2003 20DU8-.625 626 8 0.35 0.63 0.0043 2.56
4/11/2003 10DU8-.8125 186 8 0.35 0.81 0.0072 0.49
5/8/2003 20DU8-.625 626 8 0.35 0.63 0.0043 2.36
45 Deg 7-7-03 10 DU8 0.5 490 8 0.35 0.50 0.0027 2.83
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.625 314 8 0.35 0.63 0.0043 3.00
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.8125 186 8 0.35 0.81 0.0072 2.00
Test Description Ap/Aj
Q
(ft^3/mi
n)
Pile
Volume
(ft^3)
Time Qw/Qp
(Total)
4/15/2003 10DU8-.8125 48.47 1.34 0.27 7.00 35.28
4/15/2003 20DU8-.8125 48.47 2.67 0.85 6.45 20.30
4/16/2003 10DU8-.5 128.00 1.34 0.42 5.83 18.45
4/16/2003 20DU8-.5 128.00 2.67 1.01 2.90 7.65
4/17/2003 20DU8-.5 128.00 2.67 1.02 4.42 11.57
4/17/2003 20DU8-.625 81.92 2.67 0.89 4.45 13.28
4/11/2003 10DU8-.8125 48.47 1.34 0.17 2.07 16.18
5/8/2003 20DU8-.625 81.92 2.67 0.82 3.97 12.85
45 Deg 7-7-03 10 DU8 0.5 128.00 1.34 0.99 6.78 9.17
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.625 81.92 1.34 1.05 8.83 11.28
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.8125 48.47 1.34 0.70 10.67 20.43
Test Description Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Qw/Qp qapp/s'
v
Depth
(ft)
Time
(min)
4/15/2003 10DU8-.8125 0.50 3.00 22.51 59.71 1.00
4/15/2003 20DU8-.8125 0.50 1.00
4/16/2003 10DU8-.5 0.50 0.77 5.87 61.79 1.00 3.45
4/16/2003 20DU8-.5 0.50 1.00
4/17/2003 20DU8-.5 0.50 0.32 4.41 56.22 1.00 0.68
4/17/2003 20DU8-.625 0.50 0.38 5.67 52.76 1.00 0.94
4/11/2003 10DU8-.8125 0.50 2.07 16.06 1.00
5/8/2003 20DU8-.625 0.50 0.38 6.07 62.55 1.00 0.83
45 Deg 7-7-03 10 DU8 0.5 0.50 0.29 2.44 65.67 1.00 0.63
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.625 0.50 0.41 3.41 68.19 1.00 1.04
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.8125 0.50 0.47 3.90 66.52 1.00 1.26
Appendix B-2 Data Analysis and Model Development Data (Motar Sand)
Continued
152
Test Description Qw/Qp qapp/s'v Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Qw/Qp qapp/s'v
4/15/2003 10DU8-.8125 1.50
4/15/2003 20DU8-.8125 4.89 28.48 1.50
4/16/2003 10DU8-.5 13.21 29.92 1.50
4/16/2003 20DU8-.5 1.50
4/17/2003 20DU8-.5 4.98 28.49 1.50 1.26 6.21 18.74
4/17/2003 20DU8-.625 7.08 28.31 1.50 1.61 8.10 18.44
4/11/2003 10DU8-.8125 1.50
5/8/2003 20DU8-.625 6.41 29.73 1.50 1.72 8.85 19.15
45 Deg 7-7-03 10 DU8 0.5 2.50 30.37 1.50 1.39 3.66 19.39
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.625 4.16 31.54 1.50 2.51 6.59 20.14
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.8125 5.03 30.77 1.50 4.24 11.14 19.64
Test Description Depth (ft)
Time
(min) Qw/Qp
qapp/
s'v
Depth
(ft) Time (min)
4/15/2003 10DU8-.8125 2.00 2.50
4/15/2003 20DU8-.8125 2.00 2.50
4/16/2003 10DU8-.5 2.00 2.50
4/16/2003 20DU8-.5 2.00 2.50
4/17/2003 20DU8-.5 2.00 1.83 6.84 13.76 2.50 2.61
4/17/2003 20DU8-.625 2.00 3.09 11.71 13.47 2.50 4.38
4/11/2003 10DU8-.8125 2.00 2.50
5/8/2003 20DU8-.625 2.00 2.98 11.50 13.91 2.50
45 Deg 7-7-03 10 DU8 0.5 2.00 2.77 5.41 14.03 2.50 4.23
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.625 2.00 3.66 7.16 14.57 2.50 5.38
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.8125 2.00 9.59 18.76 14.21
Test Description Qw/Qp qapp/s'v Depth Time Qw/Qp qapp/s'v
4/15/2003 10DU8-.8125 3.00
4/15/2003 20DU8-.8125 3.00
4/16/2003 10DU8-.5 3.00
4/16/2003 20DU8-.5 3.00
4/17/2003 20DU8-.5 8.08 11.17 3.00 4.21 11.16 9.31
4/17/2003 20DU8-.625 13.31 10.48 3.00
4/11/2003 10DU8-.8125 3.00
5/8/2003 20DU8-.625 3.00
45 Deg 7-7-03 10 DU8 0.5 6.60 10.85 3.00 6.23 8.54 9.36
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.625 8.37 11.27 3.00 8.46 10.95 9.08
45 Deg 7-8-03 10 DU8 0.8125 3.00
Continued
153
Test Description Jet Velocity
(ft/min) qapp/s'v Qw/Qp qapp/s'v Qw/Qp qapp/s'v
4/15/2003 10DU8-.8125 186
4/15/2003 20DU8-.8125 370
4/16/2003 10DU8-.5 490 56.50 5.87 29.92 13.21 26.47
4/16/2003 20DU8-.5 978
4/17/2003 20DU8-.5 978 56.22 4.41 29.84 5.06 25.33
4/17/2003 20DU8-.625 626 53.58 5.67 30.99 6.29 26.04
4/11/2003 10DU8-.8125 186
5/8/2003 20DU8-.625 626 53.00 6.08 29.73 6.41 26.25
Test Description Qw/Qp qapp/s'v Qw/Qp qapp/s'v Qw/Qp qapp/s'v
4/15/2003 10DU8-.8125
4/15/2003 20DU8-.8125
4/16/2003 10DU8-.5 16.60
4/16/2003 20DU8-.5
4/17/2003 20DU8-.5 5.17 20.57 5.76 14.78 6.50 9.98
4/17/2003 20DU8-.625 7.35 20.28 7.78 15.22 9.79 10.48
4/11/2003 10DU8-.8125
5/8/2003 20DU8-.625 6.90 20.38 8.01 15.33 10.97
Appendix B-2 Data Analysis and Model Development Data (Mortar Sand)
154
Full Tests - Cherry Branch Sand
Test Description Depth Time Vj/IR Qw/Qp Depth Time Vj/IR
5/21/2003 10DU8-.8125 0.50 3.45 1744.99 26.91 1.00
5/22/2003 10DU8-.625 0.50 2.37 1537.26 18.09 1.00 5.13 1725.5
5/22/2003 20DU8-.8125 0.50 0.78 445.53 13.58 1.00 1.64 779.7
5/27/2003 10DU8-.5 0.50 1.21 1225.49 11.03 1.00 2.68 1666.7
6/27/2003 10DU8-.5 0.50 0.70 392.16 5.85 1.00 1.15 490.2
Test Description Qw/Qp Depth Time Vj/IR Qw/Qp
5/21/2003 10DU8-.8125 1.50
5/22/2003 10DU8-.625 19.61 1.50 8.51 2509.81 21.71
5/22/2003 20DU8-.8125 13.42 1.50 2.64 705.42 14.08
5/27/2003 10DU8-.5 11.18 1.50 4.47 2058.83 12.05
6/27/2003 10DU8-.5 4.60 1.50 2.08 1225.49 5.47
Test Description Depth Time Vj/IR Qw/Qp Depth Time Vj/IR
5/21/2003 10DU8-.8125 2.00 2.50
5/22/2003 10DU8-.625 2.00 12.00 1725.49 22.97 2.50 14.98 4015.70
5/22/2003 20DU8-.8125 2.00 3.86 1485.09 15.26 2.50 5.60 1150.95
5/27/2003 10DU8-.5 2.00 6.58 1421.57 13.14 2.50 8.65 2254.91
6/27/2003 10DU8-.5 2.00 3.90 1813.73 7.63 2.50 5.98 2058.83
Test Description Qw/Qp Depth Time Vj/IR Qw/Qp
5/21/2003 10DU8-.8125 3.00
5/22/2003 10DU8-.625 24.57 3.00
5/22/2003 20DU8-.8125 17.60 3.00 7.28 1485.09 18.99
5/27/2003 10DU8-.5 13.69 3.00
6/27/2003 10DU8-.5 9.31 3.00 8.94 3333.34 11.58
Test Description Depth Time Vj/IR Qw/Qp
5/21/2003 10DU8-.8125 3.50
5/22/2003 10DU8-.625 3.50
5/22/2003 20DU8-.8125 3.50 9.56 2351.40 21.3017
5/27/2003 10DU8-.5 3.50
6/27/2003 10DU8-.5 3.50
Appendix B-3 Data Analysis and Model Development Data (Cherry Branch Sand)
155
Full Depth Tests - Mortar Sand + Kaolinite
Test Description
Jet
Velocity
(ft/min)
Pile Dia.
(in) Ap (ft^2) Dj (in) Aj (ft^2)
Final
Depth of
Insertion
(ft)
Ap/Aj
7-15-03 10KM8-0.5 490 8.00 0.35 0.50 0.0027 2.33 128.00
8-5-0310KM8-0.8125 186 8.00 0.35 0.81 0.0072 0.92 48.47
8-6-0310KM8-.625 314 8.00 0.35 0.63 0.0043 2.00 81.92
Test Description Q
(ft^3/min)
Pile
Volume
(ft^3)
Time Qw/Qp
(Total)
7-15-03 10KM8-0.5 1.34 0.81 5.67 9.30
8-5-0310KM8-0.8125 1.34 0.32 6.30 26.32
8-6-0310KM8-.625 1.34 0.70 8.75 16.76
Test Description Depth (ft)
Time
(min) Qw/Qp
Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Qw/Qp
Depth
(ft)
7-15-03 10KM8-0.5 0.50 0.32 2.65 1.00 1.34 5.36 1.50
8-5-0310KM8-0.8125 0.50 1.62 13.51 1.00 5.68 1.50
8-6-0310KM8-.625 0.50 0.79 6.62 1.00 2.35 9.39 1.50
Test Description Time
(min) Qw/Qp
Depth
(ft)
Time
(min) Qw/Qp
7-15-03 10KM8-0.5 2.66 6.98 2.00 4.77 9.32
8-5-0310KM8-0.8125 2.00
8-6-0310KM8-.625 4.34 11.40 2.00 8.04 15.73
Appendix B-4 Data Analysis and Model Development Data (Mortar + Kaolinite sand)
156
APPENDIX II
(Field Data)
C. White Oak River site
D. Cherry Branch Ferry Basin site
E. Sampson County Bridge Replacement site
F. Swan Quarter Ferry Basin site
G. Model Development Spreadsheet
157
APPENDIX C
Measured Field Data- White Oak River site
158 Figure C- 1 WO-1 Field Drawing
159 Figure C- 2. WO-2 Field Drawing
160 Figure C- 3. WO-3 Field Drawing
161 Figure C- 4. WO-1 River Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 6/17/2003Pile ID: WO-1 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 48.72Nozzles (in): 2.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East West0 11.7 11.7 10.8 10.8 0 11 11 10.1 10.1 0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 11.9 11.5 10.8 10.8 1 11 10.9 10.1 10.1 1 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 7.53982237 6.126106 6.597345 6.5973452 12.1 11.2 10.8 10.8 2 11.4 10.9 10.1 10 2 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.8 12.5663706 7.068583 10.99557 11.780973 12.2 11 11.1 10.6 3 11.7 10.9 10.5 10.2 3 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.4 13.1946891 4.39823 14.29425 13.194694 12.3 10.8 11.1 10.7 4 12 10.9 10.5 10.3 4 0.3 -0.1 0.6 0.4 11.3097336 0 16.9646 11.309735 12.3 10.7 11.1 10.7 5 12.1 10.7 10.6 10.4 5 0.2 0 0.5 0.3 8.6393798 -1.727876 19.00664 12.095136 12.3 10.6 11.2 10.6 6 12.2 10.5 10.9 10.3 6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 6.12610567 2.042035 16.33628 12.252217 12.3 10.5 11.2 10.5 7 12.3 10.4 11 10.4 7 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.35619449 4.712389 11.78097 9.4247788 12.3 10.4 11.3 10.4 8 12.3 10.3 11.1 10.3 8 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 5.340708 10.68142 5.3407089 12.3 10.2 11.3 10.5 9 12.3 10.3 11.1 10.3 9 0 -0.1 0.2 0.2 0 -5.3E-14 11.93805 8.95353910 12.3 10.2 11.4 10.4 10 12.3 10.2 11.2 10.3 10 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 -3.298672 13.19469 9.89601711 12.3 10 11.4 10.4 11 12.3 10 11 10.2 11 0 0 0.4 0.2 0 0 21.67699 10.8384912 12.3 9.9 11.4 10.4 12 12.3 9.9 11.2 10.3 12 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 23.56194 11.7809713 12.3 9.7 11.4 10.3 13 12.3 9.7 11.3 10.2 13 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 12.72345 8.482314 12.5 9.7 11.4 10.4 14 12.5 9.7 11.4 10.2 14 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 4.555309 13.6659315 12.7 9.6 11.4 10.2 15 12.7 9.6 11.4 10.2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.73893716 12.8 9.6 11.4 10.2 16 12.8 9.6 11.4 10.2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 12.9 9.5 11.4 10.1 17 12.9 9.5 11.4 10.1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 13 11.4 18 13 11.4 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01913.1 11.5 1913.1 11.5 190000 00002013.3 11.6 2013.3 11.6 200000 00002113.4 11.6 2113.4 11.6 210000 00002213.4 11.6 2213.4 11.6 220000 000023 23 230000 000024 24 240000 000025 25 250000 000026 26 260000 000027 27 270000 000028 28 280000 000029 29 290000 000030 30 300000 000061.7322956 24.6615 194.3075 155.3518Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 109.0133Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
162 Figure C- 5. WO-2 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 6/17/2003Pile ID: WO-2 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 35.49Nozzles (in): 1.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 10.6 10.6 10 9.9 0 10 10.4 9.5 9 0 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.9 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 10.8 10.6 10.1 9.8 1 10 10.4 9.4 9 1 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.8 6.59734457 1.884956 5.6548672 10.9 10.54 10.2 9.5 2 10 10.1 9.1 9.3 2 0.9 0.44 1.1 0.2 13.3517688 5.026548 14.137173 11.1 10.3 10.3 9.7 3 10.2 10 9.4 9.4 3 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.3 19.7920337 8.136725 21.991154 11.3 10 10.4 9.7 4 10.6 10 10 9.5 4 0.7 0 0.4 0.2 22.6194671 4.24115 18.378325 11.4 9.9 10.3 9.6 5 11.2 9.8 10.1 9.5 5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 15.5508836 1.727876 10.367266 11.4 9.9 10.3 9.6 6 11.4 9.9 10.4 9.5 6 0 0 -0.1 0.1 4.08407045 2.042035 2.0420357 11.5 9.8 10.4 9.6 7 11.6 9.7 10.4 9.4 7 -0.1 0.1 0 0.2 -2.3561945 2.356194 -2.3561948 11.7 9.7 10.4 9.6 8 11.9 9.6 10.5 9.4 8 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.2 -8.0110613 5.340708 -2.6703549 12 9.7 10.4 9.6 9 12.1 9.5 10.5 9.4 9 -0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.2 -8.9535391 8.953539 -5.96902610 12 9.5 10.4 9.5 10 12.1 9.4 10.6 9.4 10 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.1 -6.5973446 9.896017 -9.89601711 12.1 9.5 10.5 9.5 11 12.1 9.3 10.6 9.4 11 0 0.2 -0.1 0.1 -3.6128316 10.83849 -10.8384912 12.1 9.4 10.6 9.5 12 12.1 9.2 10.6 9.4 12 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 15.70796 -3.92699113 12.2 9.3 10.6 9.6 13 12.2 9.1 10.6 9.3 13 0 0.2 0 0.3 0 16.9646 014 12.3 9.2 10.6 9.5 14 12.3 9.2 10.6 9.2 14 0 0 0 0.3 0 9.110619 015 12.3 9.4 15 12.3 9.2 15 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 016 12.3 9.4 16 12.3 9.2 16 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 017 12.2 9.4 17 12.2 9.2 17 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 018 12.3 9.4 18 12.3 9.3 18 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 01912.4 9.41912.4 9.4190000 0002012.5 2012.5 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 00052.4645973 102.2274 36.91371Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 392.6991 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 104.725Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
163 Figure C- 6. WO-3 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 6/17/2003Pile ID: WO-3 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 44.52Nozzles (in): 2.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 10.4 10 9.3 9.1 0 9.7 9.3 8.6 8.3 0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 10.4 9.9 9.3 9.1 1 9.9 9.4 8.8 8.4 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 5.65486678 5.654867 5.6548672 10.4 9.8 9.2 9.1 2 10.2 9.5 8.9 8.3 2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 5.49778714 6.283185 6.2831853 10.6 9.7 9.2 9.1 3 10.4 9.6 9 8.5 3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 4.39822972 4.39823 5.4977874 10.6 9.5 9.2 9 4 10.5 9.5 9.1 8.7 4 0.1 0 0.1 0.3 4.24115008 1.413717 4.241155 10.8 9.6 9.4 8.9 5 10.7 9.5 9.1 8.9 5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0 3.45575192 1.727876 6.9115046 11 9.5 9.3 9 6 10.8 9.5 9.1 8.9 6 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 6.12610567 2.042035 10.210187 11.1 9.5 9.3 8.8 7 11 9.5 9.1 9 7 0.1 0 0.2 -0.2 7.06858347 0 9.4247788 11.2 9.4 9.4 8 11.2 9.4 9.3 8 0 0 0.1 0 2.67035376 0 8.0110619 11.4 9.3 9.4 9 11.4 9.3 9.3 9 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 5.96902610 11.7 9.2 9.5 10 11.6 9 9.4 10 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 3.29867229 6.597345 6.59734511 12 8.9 9.4 11 11.8 8.9 9.4 11 0.2 0 0 0 10.8384947 7.225663 3.61283212 12 9.4 12 12 9.2 12 0 0 0.2 0 7.85398163 0 7.85398213 12.1 9.6 13 12.1 9.6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.482314 12.2 9.8 14 12.2 9.8 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 12.3 10.4 15 12.3 10.4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 12.4 9.5 16 12.4 9.5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 12.4 9.2 17 12.4 9.2 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 12.4 9.4 18 12.4 9.4 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 12.4 19 12.4 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 12.4 20 12.4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 00061.1039771 35.34292 88.74999Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 343.219 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 57.92311Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
164 Figure C- 7. WO-4 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 6/18/2003Pile ID: WO-4 On LandSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 52.11Nozzles (in): 2North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.3 1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 3.29867229 3.769911 3.2986722 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.71238898 6.283185 5.4977873 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.8 3 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.4 3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 5.49778714 7.696902 7.6969024 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 4 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.4 4 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.24115008 8.4823 8.48235 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.8 5 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.4 5 0 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.72787596 8.63938 12.095136 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.8 6 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.5 6 -0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 -2.0420352 8.168141 14.294257 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.8 7 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.5 7 0 0.2 0.3 0.3 -2.3561945 9.424778 14.137178 2.5 2.7 2.8 8 2.3 2.5 2.6 8 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 10.68142 13.351779 2.4 2.6 2.8 9 2.4 2.6 2.7 9 0 0 0 0.1 0 5.969026 5.96902610 2.4 2.6 2.9 10 2.3 2.6 2.8 10 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 3.298672 011 2.42.62.811 2.42.62.8110000 03.612832 012 2.42.62.812 2.42.62.8120000 00013 2.4 2.813 2.4 2.8130000 00014 14 140000 00015 15 150000 00016 16 160000 00017 17 170000 00018 18 180000 00019 19 190000 00020 20 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 00015.0796447 76.02654 84.823Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 251.3274 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 69.4292Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
165 Figure C- 8. WO-5 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 6/18/2003Pile ID: WO-5 On LandSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 47.22Nozzles (in): 2.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 0 0 0 0 0 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx11100000002220000000333000000044400000005550000000666000000077700000008880000000999000000010 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 011 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 012 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 013 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 014 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0No spoil zone measured due to water escaping from hole created at WO-4.000Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 0Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
166Figure C- 9. WO-6 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation.Date: 6/17/2003Pile ID: WO-1 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 48.72Nozzles (in): 2.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East West0 11.7 11.7 10.8 10.8 0 11 11 10.1 10.1 0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 11.9 11.5 10.8 10.8 1 11 10.9 10.1 10.1 1 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 7.53982237 6.126106 6.597345 6.5973452 12.1 11.2 10.8 10.8 2 11.4 10.9 10.1 10 2 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.8 12.5663706 7.068583 10.99557 11.780973 12.2 11 11.1 10.6 3 11.7 10.9 10.5 10.2 3 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.4 13.1946891 4.39823 14.29425 13.194694 12.3 10.8 11.1 10.7 4 12 10.9 10.5 10.3 4 0.3 -0.1 0.6 0.4 11.3097336 0 16.9646 11.309735 12.3 10.7 11.1 10.7 5 12.1 10.7 10.6 10.4 5 0.2 0 0.5 0.3 8.6393798 -1.727876 19.00664 12.095136 12.3 10.6 11.2 10.6 6 12.2 10.5 10.9 10.3 6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 6.12610567 2.042035 16.33628 12.252217 12.3 10.5 11.2 10.5 7 12.3 10.4 11 10.4 7 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.35619449 4.712389 11.78097 9.4247788 12.3 10.4 11.3 10.4 8 12.3 10.3 11.1 10.3 8 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 5.340708 10.68142 5.3407089 12.3 10.2 11.3 10.5 9 12.3 10.3 11.1 10.3 9 0 -0.1 0.2 0.2 0 -5.3E-14 11.93805 8.95353910 12.3 10.2 11.4 10.4 10 12.3 10.2 11.2 10.3 10 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 -3.298672 13.19469 9.89601711 12.3 10 11.4 10.4 11 12.3 10 11 10.2 11 0 0 0.4 0.2 0 0 21.67699 10.8384912 12.3 9.9 11.4 10.4 12 12.3 9.9 11.2 10.3 12 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 23.56194 11.7809713 12.3 9.7 11.4 10.3 13 12.3 9.7 11.3 10.2 13 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 12.72345 8.482314 12.5 9.7 11.4 10.4 14 12.5 9.7 11.4 10.2 14 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 4.555309 13.6659315 12.7 9.6 11.4 10.2 15 12.7 9.6 11.4 10.2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.73893716 12.8 9.6 11.4 10.2 16 12.8 9.6 11.4 10.2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 12.9 9.5 11.4 10.1 17 12.9 9.5 11.4 10.1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 13 11.4 18 13 11.4 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01913.1 11.5 1913.1 11.5 190000 00002013.3 11.6 2013.3 11.6 200000 00002113.4 11.6 2113.4 11.6 210000 00002213.4 11.6 2213.4 11.6 220000 000023 23 230000 000024 24 240000 000025 25 250000 000026 26 260000 000027 27 270000 000028 28 280000 000029 29 290000 000030 30 300000 000061.7322956 24.6615 194.3075 155.3518Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 109.0133Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference Date: 6/19/2003Pile ID: WO-6 On LandSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 43.02Nozzles (in): 1.5 45deg elbowNorth South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 0 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.1 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2.82743339 1.884956 0.9424782 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.71238898 3.141593 2.3561943 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 3 2.25 2.3 2.35 2.5 3 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.1 4.94800843 4.39823 4.9480084 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.6 4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 3.53429174 4.24115 6.3617255 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 5 0 0.1 0 0 1.72787596 3.455752 3.4557526 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 6 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.6 6 0.1 0.1 0 0 2.04203522 4.08407 07 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 7 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 7 -0.1 0 0 0 0 2.356194 08 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 8 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 8 0 0 0 0 -2.6703538 0 09 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.6 9 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 9 0 0.1 0 0 0 2.984513 010 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7 10 2.45 2.65 2.6 2.7 10 -0.05 0.05 0 0 -1.6493361 4.948008 011 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.7 11 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.7 11 0 0 0 0 -1.8064158 1.806416 012 2.5 12 2.5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 013 2.5 13 2.5 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 014 2.5 14 2.5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 013.665928 33.30088 18.06416** Volume may be small due to blowouts into the adjacent creek Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 17.71073Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
167
-0.2
0.3
0.8
1.3
1.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure C- 10. WO-1 Debris Zone Profile.
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure C- 11. WO-2 Debris Zone Profile.
168
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure C- 12. WO-3 Debris Zone Profile.
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure C- 13. WO-4 Debris Zone Profile.
169
-0.2
0.3
0.8
1.3
1.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)NO MEAUREMENTS TAKEN
Figure C- 14. WO-5 Debris Zone Profile (not measured).
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure C- 15. WO-6 Spoil Zone Profile.
170
Figure C- 16. WO-1 Measured Insertion Data.
WO-1
Qw (cfm)35.497
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 35 0.583333 1.71
2 39 0.65 15.00
3 45 0.75 10.00
4 50 0.833333 12.00
5 58 0.966667 7.50
6 64 1.066667 10.00
7 68 1.133333 15.00
8 73 1.216667 12.00
9 82 1.366667 6.67
10 89 1.483333 8.57
11 93 1.55 15.00
12 96 1.6 20.00
13 105 1.75 6.67 freefall
14 110 1.833333 12.00
15 117 1.95 8.57
16 125 2.083333 7.50
17 133 2.216667 7.50
18 141 2.35 7.50
19 153 2.55 5.00
20 201 3.35 1.25
171
Figure C- 17. WO-2 Measured Insertion Data.
WO-2
Q w (cfm)35.497
Depth (ft)min sec min Insertion rate
0 0 0 0.00 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 0 9 0.15 6.67
2 0 17 0.28 7.50
3 0 22 0.37 12.00
4 0 27 0.45 12.00
5 0 32 0.53 12.00
6 0 37 0.62 12.00
7 0 42 0.70 12.00
8 0 47 0.78 12.00
9 0 50 0.83 20.00
10 0 53 0.88 20.00
11 0 57 0.95 15.00
12 1 0 1.00 20.00
13 1 5 1.08 12.00
14 1 10 1.17 12.00
15 1 16 1.27 10.00
16 1 20 1.33 15.00
17 1 24 1.40 15.00
18 1 29 1.48 12.00
19 1 36 1.60 8.57
20 1 45 1.75 6.67
21 2 26 2.43 1.46 freefall
22 2 43 2.72 3.53
23 2 55 2.92 5.00
24 3 53 3.88 1.03
25 4 23 4.38 2.00
26 4 46 4.77 2.61
27 5 25 5.42 1.54
Test ran until 9:57
Time
172
Figure C- 18. WO-3 Measured Insertion Data.
WO-3
Qw (cfm)44.526
Depth (ft)min sec min Insertion rate
0 0 0 0.00 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 0 20 0.33 3.00
2 0 23 0.38 20.00
3 0 28 0.47 12.00
4 0 33 0.55 12.00
5 0 36 0.60 20.00
6 0 41 0.68 12.00
7 0 43 0.72 30.00
8 0 45 0.75 30.00
9 0 51 0.85 10.00
10 0 53 0.88 30.00
11 0 58 0.97 12.00
12 1 3 1.05 12.00
13 1 8 1.13 12.00
14 1 11 1.18 20.00
15 1 15 1.25 15.00
16 1 20 1.33 12.00
17 1 23 1.38 20.00
18 1 30 1.50 8.57
19 1 33 1.55 20.00
20 1 39 1.65 10.00 freefall
21 1 52 1.87 4.62
22 2 33 2.55 1.46
23 4 45 4.75 0.45
24 5 37 5.62 1.15
25 6 2 6.03 2.40
26 7 15 7.25 0.82
27 8 5 8.08 1.20
28 8 51 8.85 1.30
29 13 0 13.00 0.24
Time
173
Figure C- 19. WO-4 Measured Insertion Data.
WO-4
Qw (cfm)52.11506
Depth (ft)min sec min Insertion rate
0 0 0 0.00 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 0 4 0.07 15.00
2 0 8 0.13 15.00
3 0 11 0.18 20.00
4 0 14 0.23 20.00
5 0 16 0.27 30.00
6 0 18 0.30 30.00
7 0 21 0.35 20.00
8 0 26 0.43 12.00
9 0 28 0.47 30.00
10 0 34 0.57 10.00
11 0 37 0.62 20.00
12 0 39 0.65 30.00
13 0 42 0.70 20.00
14 0 48 0.80 10.00
15 0 50 0.83 30.00
16 0 53 0.88 20.00
17 0 56 0.93 20.00
18 1 1 1.02 12.00
19 1 4 1.07 20.00
20 1 8 1.13 15.00
21 1 12 1.20 15.00 freefall
22 1 54 1.90 1.43
23 2 37 2.62 1.40
24 4 32 4.53 0.52
25 5 11 5.18 1.54
26 6 1 6.02 1.20
27 10 30 10.50 0.22
Test ran to 14:48
Time
174
Figure C- 20. WO-5 Measured Insertion Data.
WO-5
Qw (cfm)47.22222
Depth (ft)min sec min Insertion rate
0 0 0 0.00 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 0 6 0.10 10.00
2 0 8 0.13 30.00
3 0 11 0.18 20.00
4 0 15 0.25 15.00
5 0 19 0.32 15.00
6 0 23 0.38 15.00
7 0 26 0.43 20.00
8 0 29 0.48 20.00
9 0 36 0.60 8.57
10 0 41 0.68 12.00
11 0 46 0.77 12.00
120530.888.57
13 0 59 0.98 10.00
14 1 2 1.03 20.00
15 1 5 1.08 20.00
16 1 8 1.13 20.00
17 1 10 1.17 30.00
18 1 13 1.22 20.00
19 1 15 1.25 30.00
20 1 17 1.28 30.00
211251.427.50freefall
224304.500.32
235125.201.43
247237.380.46
258468.770.72
26 10 26 10.43 0.60
27 14 50 14.83 0.23
Time
175
Figure C- 21. WO-6 Measured Insertion Data.
WO-6
Qw (cfm)43.01739
Depth (ft)min sec min Insertion rate
0 0 0 0.00 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 0 33 0.55 1.82
2 1 30 1.50 1.05
3 1 38 1.63 7.50
4 2 26 2.43 1.25
5 3 11 3.18 1.33
6 3 25 3.42 4.29
7 4 0 4.00 1.71
8 4 39 4.65 1.54
9 5 11 5.18 1.88
10 5 40 5.67 2.07
11 6 30 6.50 1.20
12 7 5 7.08 1.71
13 7 49 7.82 1.36
14 8 38 8.63 1.22
15 9 11 9.18 1.82 freefall
16 10 0 10.00 1.22
17 10 42 10.70 1.43
18 11 8 11.13 2.31
19 11 25 11.42 3.53
20 11 33 11.55 7.50
21 15 20 15.33 0.26
Test ran to 17:25
Time
176
Figure C- 22. WO-1 Measured Water Quality Data.
Date 6/17/2003
Time 11:06am
Velocity (ft/sec)0.35 Flowing from S0 towards S7
S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidit y 6.7 6.26.35.97.57.46.86.2
pH 6.46 6.52 6.44 6.45 6.41 6.23 6.5 6.41
dO 3.85 3.6 3.74 3.7 3.63 3.6 3.72 3.75
Salinit y 0 0000000
Conductivity 163 181 165 166 163 163 162 162
Temp C 26.5 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 27.1 26.2 26.4
Temp F 79.7 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.2 80.8 79.2 79.5
Distance -100 -20 20 50 75 100 150 200
Elapsed time 30 1 5 12 15 20 23 25
Turbidit y 6.5 6.4 6 5.8 6.2 6.5 5.8 7
pH 6.52 6.4 6.45 6.49 6.49 6.49 6.52 6.46
dO 3.87 4.04 4.2 3.97 4.02 4.01 3.97 4.02
Salinit y 0 0000000
Conductivity 172 175 172 173 173 173 171 168
Temp C 26.8 27 26.9 26.7 26.8 26.8 26.6 26.6
Temp F 80.2 80.6 80.4 80.1 80.2 80.2 79.9 79.9
Distance -100 -20 20 50 75 100 150 200
Elapsed time 36 43
Turbidit y 6.6 5.6
pH 6.52
dO 4.05
Salinit y 0
Conductivity 169
Temp C 26.9
Temp F 80.4
Distance -20 20
Location
177
Figure C- 23. WO-2 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID WO-2
Date 6/17/2003
Time 230pm
Stream Velocity (ft/sec)0.25 Flowing from S7 towards S0
R R R R R R R R
Elapsed time Prejet :15 :30 :45 1 1:30 2 2:30
dO 3.9 3.96 3.92 3.93 3.98 3.93 3.82 3.9
Temp C 27.2
Temp F 81.0
Distance (ft)33333333
Elapsed time 3 3:30 4 4:30 5 5:30 6 6:30
dO 3.99 3.99 3.97 4.03 4 3.96 3.96 3.98
Distance (ft)33333333
Elapsed time 7 7:30 8 8:30 9 10 11 15
dO 3.95 3.96 3.9 3.92 3.96 3.96 3.95 3.82
Distance (ft)33333333
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8
Elapsed time 22222222
Turbidit y 44.2 8.8 8.6 82.4 19.3 15 7.9 11.6
Distance (ft)88222288
Elapsed time 44444444
Turbidit y 39.7 8.7 7 83.9 22.2 14.2 7.1 11.7
Distance (ft)88222288
Elapsed time 6666
Turbidit y 41.7 8.7 7.8 81.3
Distance (ft)8822
Prejet
Turbidity 6.6
Location
Location
178
Figure C- 24. WO-3 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID WO-3
Dat e 6/17/2003
Time 3:44pm
Stream Velocity (ft/sec)0.5 Flowing from SO towards S7
RRRRRRRR
Elapsed time Prejet :15 :30 :45 1 2 3 4
pH 6.51 nr nr nr 6.55 6.54 6.53 6.54
dO 3.94 3.91 3.68 3.78 3.75 3.75 3.66 3.73
Salinit y 0nrnrnr0 0 0 0
Conductivity 174 nr nr nr 187 183 190 172
Temp C 27.2 nr nr nr 27 27.1 27 26.8
Temp F 81.0 nr nr nr 80.6 80.8 80.6 80.2
Distance (ft)22222222
R R R R R R R
Elapsed time 5678101213
pH 6.54 6.52 6.52 6.51 6.52 6.52 6.52
dO 3.71 3.58 3.62 3.6 3.63 3.68 3.59
Salinit y 0000000
Conductivity 173 183 182 191 175 194 171
Temp C 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.8 26.8 26.9
Temp F 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.2 80.2 80.4
Distance (ft)2222222
S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
Elapsed time 28 32 17 20 23
Turbidity 8.9 7.7 56.6 13.5 21.1
pH 6.63 6.54 6.62 6.53 6.55
dO 3.75 3.47 3.83 3.69 3.78
Salinit y 00000
Conductivity 171 166 171 181 168
Temp C 26.7 26.6 26.7 26.8 26.5
Temp F 80.1 79.9 80.1 80.2 79.7
Distance (ft)50 75 100 150 200
R P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8
Elapsed time 0 <5<5<5<5<5<5nr<5
Turbidity 6.4 16.2 6.4 21.8 6.5 6.92 7.71 nr 9.6
Distance (ft)2 2 8 2 8 2 8 nr 8
Location
Location
Location
Location
179
APPENDIX D
Measured Field Data- Cherry Branch Ferry Basin Site
180 Figure D- 1. Cherry Branch Ferry Basin Field Drawing.
181Figure D- 2. CB-1 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 9/3/2003Pile ID: CB-1 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 42Nozzles (in): 2Velocity (ft/min): 962.57North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 21 2119.919.9020.3 20.5 19.6 19.90 0.7 0.5 0.3 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 20.9 21 19.8 19.8 120.420.519.6 19.81 0.5 0.5 0.2 0 5.65486678 4.712389 2.3561942 20.8 21.1 19.9 19.7 220.420.6 19.619.72 0.4 0.5 0.3 0 7.06858347 7.853982 3.9269913 20.9 21 20 19.7 3 20.4 20.8 19.4 19.6 3 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.1 9.89601686 7.696902 9.8960174 20.9 21 20 19.7 4 20.5 20.8 19.6 19.5 4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 12.7234502 5.654867 14.137175 20.9 21 20 19.7 5 20.5 20.9 19.7 19.3 5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 13.8230077 5.183628 12.095136 20.9 21 20 19.6 6 20.6 21 19.9 19.5 6 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 14.2942466 2.042035 8.1681417 20.9 21.1 20.1 19.6 7 20.6 21 20 19.5 7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 14.1371669 2.356194 4.7123898 20.9 21.1 20.1 19.6 8 20.6 21.1 20 19.5 8 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 16.0221225 2.670354 5.3407089 20.9 20.2 19.6 9 20.8 20.1 19.5 9 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 11.9380521 0 5.96902610 20.9 20.2 19.5 10 20.6 20.1 19.5 10 0.3 0 0.1 0 13.1946891 0 6.5973451120.9 20.219.51120.6 20.219.5110.3000 21.676989303.6128321220.9 20.319.51220.8 20.319.5120.1000 15.7079633001320.9 20.319.41320.8 20.319.4130.1000 8.48230016 0 01420.9 19.31420.8 19.3140.1000 9.1106187001520.9 19.11520.9 19.1150000 4.86946861 0 01620.9 191620.9 19160000 0001720.9 18.81720.9 18.8170000 0001820.9 18.41820.9 18.4180000 0001920.9 18.41920.9 18.4190000 0002021 17.92021 17.9200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 000178.599542 38.17035 76.81194Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 412.334 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 84.70519Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
182Figure D- 3. CB-2 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 9/3/2003Pile ID: CB-2 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 44Nozzles (in): 2.5Velocity (ft/min): 645.38North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 20.9 20.9 19.8 19.8 020.9 20.9 19.8 19.800000 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 20.9 20.9 19.8 19.7 1 21.4 21.5 20.4 20.1 1 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -2.3561945 -2.827433 -2.8274332 20.9 20.8 19.9 19.7 2 21.5 21.4 19.6 19.6 2 -0.6 -0.6 0.3 0.1 -8.6393798 -9.424778 -2.3561943 20.9 20.8 19.9 19.6 3 21 21.1 19.5 19.4 3 -0.1 -0.3 0.4 0.2 -7.696902 -9.896017 7.6969024 21 20.8 19.9 19.6 4 21.3 20.6 19.6 19.4 4 -0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 -5.6548668 -1.413717 9.8960175 20.9 20.6 19.9 19.6 5 20.7 20.6 19.8 19.5 5 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 -1.727876 3.455752 6.9115046 20.9 20.6 20 19.5 6 20.8 20.7 19.9 19.5 6 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0 6.12610567 -2.042035 4.084077 20.9 20.8 20.1 19.5 7 20.9 20.7 20 19.5 7 0 0.1 0.1 0 2.35619449 8.37E-14 4.7123898 20.9 20.6 20.2 19.4 8 20.9 20.7 20 19.4 8 0 -0.1 0.2 0 0 9.49E-14 8.0110619 20.9 20.6 20.1 19.4 9 20.9 20.7 20 19.4 9 0 -0.1 0.1 0 0 -5.969026 8.95353910 20.6 20.1 19.4 10 20.7 20.1 19.4 10 0 -0.1 0 0 0 -6.597345 3.29867211 20.5 20.1 19.4 11 20.7 20.1 19.4 11 0 -0.2 0 0 0 -10.83849 012 20.520.219.412 20.520.219.4120000 0-7.853982013 20.420.219.313 20.420.219.3130000 00014 19.314 19.3140000 00015 19.315 19.3150000 00016 16 160000 00017 17 170000 00018 18 180000 00019 19 190000 00020 20 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 000-17.592919 -53.40708 48.38053Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 238.761 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 30.15929Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
183Figure D- 4. CB-3 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 9/8/2003Pile ID: CB-3 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 77Nozzles (in): 2.5Velocity (ft/min): 1129.41North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 21.1 21.1 20 20 0 21 21 19.7 19.7 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 21.1 21.1 20 19.9 1 21 20.7 19.4 19.8 1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.9424778 2.356194 4.241152 21.1 21.1 20 19.9 2 20.5 20.8 19.6 19.8 2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.1 5.49778714 5.497787 7.8539823 21.1 21.1 20.1 19.9 3 20.6 20.7 19.8 19.4 3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 12.0951317 7.696902 7.6969024 21.1 21.1 20.1 19.8 4 20.6 20.7 19.9 19.4 4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 14.1371669 11.30973 7.0685835 21 21 20.2 19.7 5 20.7 21 20 19.5 5 0.3 0 0.2 0.2 13.8230077 6.911504 6.9115046 21 21 20.2 19.7 6 20.9 21 20 19.6 6 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 8.1681409 0 8.1681417 21 21 20.2 19.7 7 20.9 21 20.1 19.6 7 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 4.71238898 0 7.0685838 21 21 20.3 19.6 8 20.9 21 20.2 19.6 8 0.1 0 0.1 0 5.34070751 0 5.3407089 21 21 20.3 19.6 9 20.9 21 20.2 19.5 9 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 5.96902604 0 5.96902610 21 20.3 19.6 10 20.9 20.2 19.5 10 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 6.59734457 0 6.59734511 21 20.4 19.6 11 21 20.3 19.5 11 0 0 0.1 0.1 3.61283155 0 7.22566312 21 20.4 19.6 12 21 20.4 19.4 12 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 3.92699113 21 20.4 19.4 13 21 20.4 19.4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 014 21 19.5 14 21 19.5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 21 19.4 15 21 19.4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 19.4 16 19.4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 080.8960108 33.77212 78.06858Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 314.1593 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 69.11504Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
184Figure D- 5. CB-4 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 9/8/2003Pile ID: CB-4 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 77.4Nozzles (in): 2Velocity (ft/min): 1773.88North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0212119.819.8021 2119.819.80 0 0 0 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 21 20.9 19.8 19.8 1 20.620.919.819.81 0.4 0 0 0 1.88495559 0 02 21 21 19.8 19.7 2 20.62119.6 19.4 2 0.4 0 0.2 0.3 6.28318531 0 1.5707963 21 21 19.9 19.7 3 20.6 20.9 19.4 19.1 3 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.6 8.79645943 1.099557 7.6969024 21 20.9 19.9 19.6 4 20.6 20.4 19.5 19.2 4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 11.3097336 8.4823 12.723455 21 20.9 19.9 19.6 5 20.8 20.4 19.6 19.3 5 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 10.3672558 17.27876 12.095136 21.1 21 20 19.6 6 21 20.5 19.7 19.3 6 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 6.12610567 20.42035 12.252217 21.1 20.9 20 19.6 7 21 20.7 19.9 19.5 7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 4.71238898 16.49336 9.4247788 21.1 20.9 20 19.5 8 21.1 20.7 19.9 19.6 8 0 0.2 0.1 -0.1 2.67035376 10.68142 5.3407089 21.1 20.9 20.1 19.5 9 21.1 20.8 20 19.5 9 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 8.953539 5.96902610 20.9 20.1 19.5 10 20.8 20.1 19.5 10 0 0.1 0 0 0 6.597345 3.29867211 20.9 20.1 19.5 11 20.7 20.1 19.5 11 0 0.2 0 0 0 10.83849 012 20.8 20.2 19.4 12 20.7 20.2 19.4 12 0 0.1 0 0 0 11.78097 013 20.7 20.2 19.3 13 20.7 20.2 19.3 13 0 0 0 0 0 4.24115 014 19.2 14 19.2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 18.9 15 18.9 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 18.3 16 18.3 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 18.4 17 18.4 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 052.150438 116.8672 70.37168Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 313.3739 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 74.14159Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
185 Figure D- 6. CB-5 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 9/9/2003Pile ID: CB-5 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 81.3Nozzles (in): 2Velocity (ft/min): 1863.26North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 0 17.918.3 18.3 18.30 0.4 0 0 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 18.2 18.2 18.5 18.1 1 18.118.2 18.5 18.11 0.1 0 0 0 2.35619449 0 02 18.2 18.2 18.6 18.1 2 18.5 18 18.2 18.1 2 -0.3 0.2 0.4 0 -1.5707963 1.570796 3.1415933 18.1 18.1 18.3 18.1 3 18.2 17.9 17.8 18 3 -0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 -4.3982297 4.39823 9.8960174 18.1 18.1 18 18.1 4 18.5 18 17.9 17.9 4 -0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 -7.0685835 4.24115 8.48235 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 5 18 18 18.1 17.9 5 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 -5.1836279 3.455752 1.7278766 18.2 18 18.2 18.1 6 18 18 18.3 17.9 6 0.2 0 -0.1 0.2 6.12610567 2.042035 -2.0420357 18.1 18.118.418.1 7 17.9 18 18.2 18 7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 9.42477796 2.356194 2.3561948 18.2 1818.418.1 8 18 18 18.2 18 8 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 10.681415 2.670354 10.681429 18.2 18.1 18.4 18.1 9 18.1 18 18.2 18 9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 8.95353906 2.984513 11.9380510 18.1 18.1 18.4 18.1 10 18.1 18.1 18.2 18 10 0 0 0.2 0.1 3.29867229 3.298672 13.1946911 18.1 18.2 18.1 11 18 18.2 18 11 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 3.612832 7.22566312 18.1 18.2 18.1 12 18 18.2 18 12 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 7.853982 013 18.1 18.1 13 18.1 18 13 0 0 0 0.1 0 4.24115 014 18.1 18.1 14 18.1 18 14 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 015 18.1 18.1 15 18.1 18.1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 18.1 18 16 18.1 18 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 18 17 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18.1 18 18.1 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 18 19 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 022.6194671 42.72566 66.60176Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 469.6681 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 53.72123Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
186 Figure D- 7. CB-6 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 9/9/2003Pile ID: CB-6 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 77.7Nozzles (in): 2.5Velocity (ft/min): 1139.68North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 18.11818 18.1 0 17.9 17.918 18.10 0.2 0.1 0 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1181818 18.1 1 17.7 17.718 18.11 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.35619449 1.884956 02181818.1 18.1 2 17.8 17.6 17.9 17.7 2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 3.92699082 5.497787 1.5707963 18.1 18 18.1 18 3 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.9 3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 5.49778714 6.597345 5.4977874 18.1 18 18.1 18 4 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 7.06858347 4.24115 7.0685835 18 18 18 18 5 17.95 17.85 17.9 18 5 0.05 0.15 0.1 0 4.3196899 4.31969 5.1836286 18 18 18 18 6 18 17.8 18 18 6 0 0.2 0 0 1.02101761 7.147123 2.0420357 18.1 18 18 18 7 18 17.8 18 18 7 0.1 0.2 0 0 2.35619449 9.424778 08 18.1 18 18.1 18 8 18 18 18.1 18 8 0.1 0 0 0 5.34070751 5.340708 09 18.2 18 18.1 18 918.218 18.1 18 9 0 0 0 0 2.98451302 0 010 18.5 18.1 18 1018.518.118100000 00011 18.1 18 11 18.1 18 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 012 18.1 18 12 18.1 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 013 18 13 18 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 014 18 14 18 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 18 15 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 18 16 18 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 18 17 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 034.8716785 44.45354 21.36283Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 146.8695 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 28.47068Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
187Figure D- 8. CB-7 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 9/10/2003Pile ID: CB-7 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 82.2Nozzles (in): 1.5Velocity (ft/min): 3349.13North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East016.616.616.716.7016.6 16.6 16.7 16.70 0 0 0 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx116.616.616.616.7116.6 16.6 16.6 16.710000 000216.716.616.616.8216.7 16.616.2 16.8 2 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 3.1415933 16.7 16.6 16.5 16.8 3 16.55 16.5 16.2 16.45 3 0.15 0.1 0.3 0.35 1.64933614 1.099557 7.6969024 16.8 16.5 16.5 16.8 4 16.3 16.1 16.15 16.25 4 0.5 0.4 0.35 0.55 9.18915851 7.068583 9.1891595 16.8 16.4 16.4 16.8 5 16.3 16.15 16.2 16.5 5 0.5 0.25 0.2 0.3 17.2787596 11.23119 9.5033186 16.8 16.4 16.4 16.7 6 16.5 16.3 16.35 16.5 6 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.2 16.3362818 7.147123 5.1050887 16.8 16.4 16.4 16.8 7 16.75 16.4 16.35 16.65 7 0.05 0 0.05 0.15 8.24668072 2.356194 2.3561948 16.8 16.4 16.4 16.8 8 16.8 16.4 16.35 16.75 8 0 0 0.05 0.05 1.33517688 0 2.6703549 16.8 16.3 16.4 16.8 9 16.816.316.35 16.75 9 0 0 0.05 0.05 0 0 2.98451310 16.8 16.3 16.3 16.8 10 16.816.316.3 16.75 10 0 0 0 0.05 0 0 1.64933611 16.3 16.2 16.8 11 16.3 16.2 16.8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 012 16 16.8 12 16.1 16.8 12 0 0 -0.1 0 0 0 -3.92699113 15.9 13 15.9 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4.2411514 15.7 14 15.55 14 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 6.83296415 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.30420316 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 054.0353936 28.90265 50.26548Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 306.3053 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 49.08739Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
188 Figure D- 9. CB-8 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 9/10/2003Pile ID: CB-8 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 89.4Nozzles (in): 2.5Velocity (ft/min): 1311.29North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 16.9 16.9 16.85 16.85 016.917.2 17.2 17.2 0 0 -0.3 -0.35 -0.35 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 16.8 16.8 16.75 16.85 116.817.1 16.6 17.15 1 0 -0.3 0.15 -0.3 0 -2.827433 -0.9424782 16.8 16.8 16.7 16.9 216.816.4 16.25 17 2 0 0.4 0.45 -0.1 0 0.785398 4.7123893 16.85 16.8 16.65 16.9 316.8516.4 16.15 16.8 3 0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0 8.796459 10.44584 16.9 16.8 16.55 16.9 416.916.7 16.25 16.8 4 0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0 7.068583 11.309735 16.8 16.7 16.5 16.95 516.816.65 16.3 16.4 5 0 0.05 0.2 0.55 0 2.591814 8.639386 16.8 16.5 16.25 16.95 6 16.8 16.5 16.25 16.45 6 0 0 0 0.5 0 1.021018 4.084077 16.9 16.3 16 16.9 7 16.316.316 16.7 7 0.6 0 0 0.2 14.1371669 0 08 16.95 16.3 15.8 16.9 8 16.4516.315.8 16.75 8 0.5 0 0 0.15 29.3738913 0 09 16.95 16.65 15.6 16.9 9 16.8516.6515.65 16.85 9 0.1 0 -0.05 0.05 17.9070781 0 -1.49225710 16.95 16.85 15.4 16.9 10 16.8516.8515.4 16.85 10 0.1 0 0 0.05 6.59734457 0 -1.64933611 17 15.2 16.95 11 16.95 15.2 16.9 11 0.05 0 0 0.05 5.41924733 0 012 17 15 16.9 12 16.95 15 16.9 12 0.05 0 0 0 3.92699082 0 013 14.75 16.95 13 14.75 16.9 13 0 0 0 0.05 2.12057504 0 014 14.5 14 14.5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 079.4822941 17.43584 35.1073Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 358.1416 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 51.60066Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
189Figure D- 10. CB-9 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 9/10/2003Pile ID: CB-9 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 90.5Nozzles (in): 2Velocity (ft/min): 2074.11North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 16.95 16.95 16.95 16.95 016.9517.15 17.6516.950 0 -0.2 -0.7 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 17 17.1 16.95 16.95 11716.5 17.4516.951 0 0.6 -0.5 0 0 1.884956 -5.6548672 17.1 17.05 17.05 16.95 217.116.6 16.6516.952 0 0.45 0.4 0 0 8.246681 -0.7853983 17.15 16.95 17.15 16.7 317.1516.95 16.6516.73 0 0 0.5 0 0 4.948008 9.8960174 17.2 16.95 17.1 16.7 4 17.116.9516.816.74 0.1 0 0.3 0 1.41371669 0 11.309735 17.25 16.95 17.1 16.9 5 16.8516.9516.916.95 0.4 0 0.2 0 8.6393798 0 8.639386 17.25 16.9 17 17.25 6 16.516.916.85 16.6 6 0.75 0 0.15 0.65 23.4834051 0 7.1471237 17.25 16.9 16.05 17.35 7 16.616.915.75 17.2 7 0.65 0 0.3 0.15 32.9867229 0 10.602888 17.25 16.9 16.6 17.35 8 16.916.916.4 17.35 8 0.35 0 0.2 0 26.7035376 0 13.351779 17.25 16.95 16.3 17.35 9 17.1516.9516.15 17.4 9 0.1 0 0.15 -0.05 13.4303086 0 10.445810 17.15 16.1 17.3 10 17.216.117.35 10 -0.05 0 0 -0.05 1.64933614 0 4.94800811 17.1 15.8 17.3 11 17.1515.817.3 11 -0.05 0 0 0 -3.6128316 0 012 17 15.5 12 17.115.512 -0.1 0 0 0 -5.8904862 0 013 17 15.15 13 17.115.1513 -0.1 0 0 0 -8.4823002 0 014 17.05 14.65 14 1714.6514 0.05 0 0 0 -2.2776547 0 015 17 15 17 15 0 0 0 0 2.43473431 0 016 16.9 16 16.9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 17 17 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 090.4778684 15.07964 69.90044Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 296.8805 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 51.24723Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
190
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure D- 11. CB-1 Debris Zone Profile.
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure D- 12. CB-2 Debris Zone Profile.
191
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure D- 13. CB-3 Debris Zone Profile.
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure D- 14. CB-4 Debris Zone Profile.
192
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure D- 15. CB-5 Debris Zone Profile.
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure D- 16. CB-6 Debris Zone Profile.
193
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure D- 17. CB-7 Debris Zone Profile.
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure D- 18. CB-8 Debris Zone Profile.
194
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure D- 19. CB-9 Debris Zone Profile.
Figure D- 20. CB-1 Measured Insertion Data.
Test CB-1
Qw (cfm)42.000
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 2 0.033333 30.00
2 4 0.066667 30.00
3 6 0.1 30.00
4 7 0.116667 60.00
5 8 0.133333 60.00
6 314 5.233333 0.20
7 423 7.05 0.55
8 430 7.166667 8.57
9 437 7.283333 8.57
10 512 8.533333 0.80 Total time 13:25
195
Figure D- 21. CB-2 Measured Insertion Data.
Figure D- 22. CB-3 Measured Insertion Data.
Test CB-2
Q w (cfm)44.000
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 3.5 0.058333 17.14
2 7 0.116667 17.14
3 35 0.583333 2.14
4 86 1.433333 1.18
5 229 3.816667 0.42
6 390 6.5 0.37
7 470 7.833333 0.75
8 549 9.15 0.76
9 606 10.1 1.05
10 761 12.68333 0.39
10.5 901 15.01667 0.43
Total time 15:01
Test CB-3
Q w (cfm)77.000
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0.001 6 0.1 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 10 0.166667 15.00
2 14 0.233333 15.00
3 17 0.283333 20.00
4 21 0.35 15.00
5 25 0.416667 15.00
6 28 0.466667 20.00
7 31 0.516667 20.00
8 35 0.583333 15.00
9 39 0.65 15.00
10 42 0.7 20.00
11 46 0.766667 15.00
12 49 0.816667 20.00
13 70 1.166667 2.86
14 90 1.5 3.00
15 111 1.85 2.86
16 178 2.966667 0.90
196
Figure D- 23. CB-4 Measured Insertion Data.
Figure D- 24. CB-5 Measured Insertion Data.
Test CB-4
Q w (cfm)77.400
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0.001 13 0.216667 xxxxxxxxxxx
1180.312.00
2 20 0.333333 30.00
3 25 0.416667 12.00
4 29 0.483333 15.00
5 37 0.616667 7.50
6 43 0.716667 10.00
7 47 0.783333 15.00
8 61 1.016667 4.29
9 82 1.366667 2.86
10 110 1.833333 2.14
11 132 2.2 2.73
12 156 2.6 2.50
13 190 3.166667 1.76
14 209 3.483333 3.16
15 245 4.083333 1.67
16 329 5.483333 0.71
Test CB-5
Qw (cfm)81.300
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 2 0.033333 30.00
2 4 0.066667 30.00
3 8 0.133333 15.00
4 11 0.183333 20.00
5 14 0.233333 20.00
6 18 0.3 15.00
7 21 0.35 20.00
8 25 0.416667 15.00
9 29 0.483333 15.00
10 33 0.55 15.00
11 39 0.65 10.00
12 137 2.283333 0.61
13 183 3.05 1.30
14 269 4.483333 0.70 Total time 6:08
197
Figure D- 25. CB-6 Measured Insertion Data.
Figure D- 26. CB-7 Measured Insertion Data.
Test CB-6
Q w (cfm)77.700
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 8 0.133333 7.50
2 16 0.266667 7.50
3 19 0.316667 20.00
4210.3530.00
5 23 0.383333 30.00
6270.4515.00
7 32 0.533333 12.00
8 34 0.566667 30.00
9 37 0.616667 20.00
10 39 0.65 30.00
11 44 0.733333 12.00
12 59 0.983333 4.00
13 118 1.966667 1.02
14 345 5.75 0.26
Total time 5:45
Test CB-7
Qw (cfm)82.200
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 4 0.066667 15.00
2 7 0.116667 20.00
3 10 0.166667 20.00
4 20 0.333333 6.00
5 36 0.6 3.75
6 44 0.733333 7.50
7 47 0.783333 20.00
8 52 0.866667 12.00
9 119 1.983333 0.90
10 180 3 0.98
2' free fall Total time 5:11
198
Figure D- 27. CB-8 Measured Insertion Data.
Figure D- 28. CB-9 Measured Insertion Data.
Test CB-8
Q w (cfm)89.400
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 3 0.05 20.00
2 8 0.133333 12.00
3 13 0.216667 12.00
4 28 0.466667 4.00
5 40 0.666667 5.00
6 44 0.733333 15.00
7 52 0.866667 7.50
8 63 1.05 5.45
9 103 1.716667 1.50
10 203 3.383333 0.60
11 360 6 0.38
12 610 10.16667 0.24
2' free fall Total time 11:50
Test CB-9
Q w (cfm)90.500
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx
1 4 0.066667 15.00
2 8 0.133333 15.00
3 17 0.283333 6.67
4 36 0.6 3.16
5 57 0.95 2.86
6 66 1.1 6.67
7 72 1.2 10.00
8 88 1.466667 3.75
9 135 2.25 1.28
10 390 6.5 0.24
2' free fall Total time 7:00
199
Figure D- 29. CB-1 Measured Water Quality Data.
Figure D- 30. CB-2 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID CB-1
Date 9/3/2003
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 9.9 9 9.5 9
pH 5.67
dO
Salinity 9.4 9.5 9.3 9.4
Conductivity 15.7 15.78
Temp C 29.1 29.1
Temp F 84.4 84.4
Distance 15 25 35 50 5
Elapsed time After After After After During
Turbidity 10.8 10.2 12.2 11.6 12
pH 7.3 7.3 7.23 7.15 6.99
dO
Salinity 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.3
Conductivity 15.78 15.88 15.79 15.7 15.7
Temp C 29.2 29.2 29.3 29.2 29.2
Temp F 84.6 84.6 84.7 84.6 84.6
Distance 15 25 35 50 5
Location
Test ID CB-2
Date 9/3/2003
S1, 25' S2, 10' S3, 10' S4, 25' S5
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 12.5 12.2 11.8 12.5
pH 6.25 6.8 7.09 7.55
dO
Salinity 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.3
Conductivity 15.5 15.7 15.66 15.63
Temp C 29.5 29.5 29.2 30.3
Temp F 85.1 85.1 84.6 86.5
Distance 15 25 35 50 5
Elapsed time After After After After During
Turbidity 21.6 16.5 10.6 9.4 18.2
pH 7.17.187.517.9
dO
Salinity 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.2
Conductivity 15.5 15.7 15.7 15.64
Temp C 29.5 29.7 29.3 29.5
Temp F 85.1 85.5 84.7 85.1
Distance 15 25 35 50 5
Location
200
Figure D- 31. CB-3 Measured Water Quality Data.
Figure D- 32. CB-4 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID CB-3
Date 9/8/2003
S1 S2 S3 S4
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 11.8 10.3 8.8 11.3
pH
dO 4.48 9.25 4.8 12.5
Salinity 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.5
Conductivity 14.42 14.51 14.51 14.5
Temp C 24.6 24.5 24.5 24.5
Temp F 76.3 76.1 76.1 76.1
Distance 15 25 35 50
Elapsed time AfterAfterAfterAfter
Turbidity 8.7 8.8 7.4 7.8
pH
dO 7.75 5 7.75 6.2
Salinity 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5
Conductivity 14.5 14.51 14.5 14.5
Temp C 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6
Temp F 76.3 76.3 76.3 76.3
Distance 15 25 35 50
Location
Test ID CB-4
Date 9/8/2003
S1 S2 S3 S4
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 11.1 8.8 10.8 8.5
pH
dO 4.57 4.48 4.25 4.38
Salinity 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5
Conductivity 14.51 14.51 14.5 14.5
Temp C 24.3 24.6 24.3 24.3
Temp F 75.7 76.3 75.7 75.7
Distance 15 25 35 50
Elapsed time After After After After
Turbidity 8.6 8.7 14.5 8.7
pH
dO 4.42 6.2 4.32 4.29
Salinity 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5
Conductivity 14.51 14.51 14.51 14.51
Temp C 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4
Temp F 75.9 75.9 75.9 75.9
Distance 15 25 35 50
Location
201
Figure D- 33. CB-5 Measured Water Quality Data.
Figure D- 34. CB-7 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID CB-5
Date 9/8/2003
S1 S2 S3 S4
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 5.44.25.67.2
pH
dO 4.85 4.83 4.89 4.85
Salinity 7.37.37.37.3
Conductivity 12.67 12.69 12.69 12.66
Temp C 24.3 24.3 24.4 24.4
Temp F 75.7 75.7 75.9 75.9
Distance 25 10 10 25
Elapsed time AfterAfterAfterAfter
Turbidity 7.14.55.57.5
pH
dO 4.85 4.89 4.83 4.85
Salinity 7.37.37.37.3
Conductivity 12.66 12.69 12.69 12.67
Temp C 24.4 24.4 24.3 24.3
Temp F 75.9 75.9 75.7 75.7
Distance 25 10 10 25
Location
Test ID CB-7
Date 9/10/2003
S1, 25' S2, 10' S3, 10' S4, 25'
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 28.5 10.5 11.2 7.2
pH
dO 5.21 5 4.9 5.12
Salinity 6.96.96.96.8
Conductivity 11.93 11.92 11.91 11.88
Temp C 24.7 24 24 24
Temp F 76.5 75.2 75.2 75.2
Distance 25 10 10 25
Elapsed time After After After After
Turbidity 34.9 26.7 11 24.1
pH 6.67 6.72 6.69 6.71
dO 5.18 5.17 5.19 5.28
Salinity 6.96.96.96.9
Conductivity 11.89 11.93 11.9 11.88
Temp C 24 24 24 24
Temp F 75.2 75.2 75.2 75.2
Distance 25 10 10 25
Location
202
Figure D- 35. CB-8 Measured Water Quality Data.
Figure D- 36. CB-9 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID CB-8
Date 9/10/2003
S1-25' S2-10' S3-10' S4-25'
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 18.4 16.5 22.5 17.5
pH
dO 5.5 5.35 5.7 5.5
Salinity 6.96.96.96.9
Conductivity
Temp C 24 24 24 24
Temp F 75.2 75.2 75.2 75.2
Distance 25 10 10 25
Elapsed time After After After After
Turbidity 20.5 22.4 18.1 17.5
pH
dO 5.44 5.45 5.4 5.4
Salinity 6.96.96.96.9
Conductivity
Temp C 24 24 24 24
Temp F 75.2 75.2 75.2 75.2
Distance 25 10 10 25
Location
Test ID CB-9
Date 9/10/2003
S1 S2 S3 S4
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 22.1 21.5 21.4 13.5
pH
dO 5.32 5.45 5.37 5.5
Salinity 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9
Conductivity
Temp C 24 24 24 24
Temp F 75.2 75.2 75.2 75.2
Distance 25 10 10 25
Elapsed time After After After After
Turbidity 16.5 12.5 14.2 12.6
pH
dO 5.44 5.44 5.45 5.44
Salinity 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9
Conductivity
Temp C 24 24 24 24
Temp F 75.2 75.2 75.2 75.2
Distance 25 10 10 25
Location
203
APPENDIX E
Measured Field Data- Sampson County Site
204 Figure E- 1. Sampson County Field Drawing.
205 Figure E- 2. SC-1 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 10/27/2003Pile ID: SC-1Spoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm):Nozzles (in): 2North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 0 00000 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 1 10000 0002 2 20000 0003 3 30000 0004 4 40000 0005 5 50000 0006 6 60000 0007 7 70000 0008 8 80000 0009 9 90000 00010 10 100000 00011 11 110000 00012 12 120000 00013 13 130000 00014 14 140000 00015 15 150000 00016 16 160000 00017 17 170000 00018 18 180000 00019 19 190000 00020 20 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 000000Not MeasuredAvg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 0Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
206
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)Not Measured
Figure E- 3. SC-1 Debris Zone Profile (not measured).
Figure E- 4. SC-1 Measured Insertion Data.
Test SC-1
Back Pressure 125 psi
Qw (cfm)179.000
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rat e L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D) IP
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx 0.0005 8.7751E-09 1.03E-09
1 55 0.916667 1.09 0.5 0.00877514 0.001032
2 88 1.466667 1.82 1 0.03510056 0.004128
3 123 2.05 1.71 1.5 0.07897626 0.009288
4 194 3.233333 0.85 2 0.14040223 0.016511
6 314 5.233333 0.50 3 0.31590503 0.03715
8 324 5.4 6.00 4 0.56160894 0.066045
9 332 5.533333 7.50 4.5 0.71078631 0.083588
10 335 5.583333 20.00 5 0.87751397 0.103196
11 340 5.666667 12.00 5.5 1.0617919 0.124867
12 344 5.733333 15.00 6 1.26362011 0.148602
13 351 5.85 8.57 6.5 1.4829986 0.174401
14 353 5.883333 30.00 7 1.71992737 0.202263
15 365 6.083333 5.00 7.5 1.97440642 0.23219
16 466 7.766667 0.59 8 2.24643575 0.264181
17 780 13 0.19 8.5 2.53601536 0.298235
207
APPENDIX F
Measured Field Data- Swan Quarter Ferry Basin Site
208 Figure F- 1. Swan Quarter Ferry Basin Field Drawing.
209 Figure F- 2. SQ-1 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 11/4/2003Pile ID: SQ-1 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 192.5Nozzles (in): 2North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East014.115.91414.1014.115.91414.100000xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 13.5 15.9 14 14.1 1 13.5 15 14 14.1 1 0 0.9 0 0 0 4.24115 02 13 16.3 14.2 14.1 2 13 16.5 15.1 13 2 0 -0.2 -0.9 1.1 0 5.497787 -7.0685833 12.6 17.4 14.1 14.2 3 12.3 16.6 14.5 13.1 3 0.3 0.8 -0.4 1.1 3.29867229 6.597345 -14.294254 12.2 17.7 13.9 14.4 4 12 17 14.1 13.4 4 0.2 0.7 -0.2 1 7.06858347 21.20575 -8.48235 11.9 17.8 13.9 15.2 5 11.8 17.3 13.5 14.3 5 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.9 5.18362788 20.73451 3.4557526 11.3 17.9 14.1 13.7 6 11.2 17.6 13.3 12.9 6 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.8 4.08407045 16.33628 24.504427 10.9 18 14.3 13.8 7 10.9 17.7 13.7 12.9 7 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 2.35619449 14.13717 32.986728 10.5 18.4 14.3 13.8 8 10.5 17.8 13.4 13.4 8 0 0.6 0.9 0.4 0 24.03318 40.055319 9.9 18.8 14.3 13.8 9 9.9 17.9 13.3 13.4 9 0 0.9 1 0.4 0 44.7677 56.7057510 18.9 14.8 13.7 10 18.3 14.8 13.8 10 0 0.6 0 -0.1 0 49.48008 32.9867211 19 14.5 13.8 11 18.3 14.5 13.6 11 0 0.7 0 0.2 0 46.96681 012 13.812 13.7120000.1 027.48894013 13.813 13.8130000 00014 13.714 13.7140000 00015 13.715 13.7150000 00016 13.716 13.7160000 00017 17 170000 00018 18 180000 00019 19 190000 00020 20 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 00021.9911486 281.4867 160.8495Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 180.6416Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
210 Figure F- 3. SQ-2 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation (INACCURATE SURVEY) Date: 11/4/2003Pile ID: SQ-2 UnderwaterSpoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 179Nozzles (in): 2.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 0 0 0 0 0 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 9.7 11.4 8.9 8.6 1 11.2 9.7 1 9.7 0.2 8.9 -1.1 45.7101731 0.942478 41.940262 9.2 11.7 8.9 8.7 2 10.9 11.5 9.5 9.3 2 -1.7 0.2 -0.6 -0.6 62.8318531 3.141593 65.188053 8.9 11.8 9 8.5 3 9.3 11.3 9.2 9.4 3 -0.4 0.5 -0.2 -0.9 -23.090706 7.696902 -8.7964594 8.7 12.1 8.8 8.5 4 9 12.6 9.25 9.2 4 -0.3 -0.5 -0.45 -0.7 -9.8960169 0 -9.1891595 8.5 12.5 8.8 8.5 5 8.8 13 9.1 9.1 5 -0.3 -0.5 -0.3 -0.6 -10.367256 -17.27876 -12.959076 8.3 13 8.6 8.5 6 8.6 13.3 9.15 9 6 -0.3 -0.3 -0.55 -0.5 -12.252211 -16.33628 -17.35737 8 13.4 8.6 8.4 7 8.5 14 9.1 8.8 7 -0.5 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -18.849556 -21.20575 -24.740048 7.9 13.9 8.8 8.4 8 8.3 14.6 9.15 8.75 8 -0.4 -0.7 -0.35 -0.35 -24.033184 -34.7146 -22.698019 14.8 8.7 8.4 9 8.1 15.5 9.3 8.7 9 -8.1 -0.7 -0.6 -0.3 -253.68361 -41.78318 -28.3528710 15.6 8.8 8.5 10 15.8 9.2 8.8 10 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.3 -267.19246 -29.68805 -32.9867211 16 8.8 11 16.1 9.2 8.9 11 0 -0.1 -0.4 -8.9 0 -10.83849 -28.9026512 16.5 9 12 16.8 9.4 8.9 12 0 -0.3 -0.4 -8.9 0 -15.70796 -31.4159313 11.2 8.9 13 16.9 9.3 13 0 -5.7 -0.4 0 0 -254.469 -33.929214 11.6 9.2 14 17.1 9.4 14 0 -5.5 -0.2 0 0 -510.1946 -27.3318615 11.7 9 15 17.4 9.5 15 0 -5.7 -0.5 0 0 -545.3805 -34.0862816 9.1 16 9.3 16 0 0 -0.2 0 0 -295.4668 -36.285417 9.2 17 9.6 17 0 0 -0.4 0 0 0 -32.9867218 9.3 18 9.8 18 0 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -52.3075219 19 10 19 0 0 -10 0 0 0 -643.241120 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 -644.026521 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-510.82297 -1781.283 -1614.464Volume Calculation Error due to Subsurface Irregularities Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) -1374.604Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
211 Figure F- 4. SQ-3 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation (INACCURATE SURVEY). Date: 11/4/2003Pile ID: SQ-3Spoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 139Nozzles (in): 2.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 7.2 0 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 6 6.7 7.2 7 1 5.75 6.5 6.6 6.6 1 0.25 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.17809725 0.942478 2.8274332 5.8 7.2 7 7.1 2 5.55 6.6 6.4 6.4 2 0.25 0.6 0.6 0.7 3.92699082 6.283185 9.4247783 5.65 7.2 7.1 7.1 3 5.6 6.9 6.4 6.5 3 0.05 0.3 0.7 0.6 3.29867229 9.896017 14.294254 5.35 7.4 7.1 7.1 4 5.35 7.5 6.5 6.6 4 0 -0.1 0.6 0.5 0.70685835 2.827433 18.378325 7.7 7.1 7.1 5 7.9 6.8 6.7 5 0 -0.2 0.3 0.4 0 -5.183628 15.550886 8 7.1 7 6 8.2 6.85 6.9 6 0 -0.2 0.25 0.1 0 -8.168141 11.231197 8.3 7.1 7.1 7 9 7.1 7 7 0 -0.7 0 0.1 0 -21.20575 5.8904868 8.6 7.2 7 8 9.6 7.2 7 8 0 -1 0 0 0 -45.39601 09 9 7.2 7 9 9.3 7.2 7 9 0 -0.3 0 0 0 -38.79867 010 9.7 7.2 7 10 10.9 7.2 7 10 0 -1.2 0 0 0 -49.48008 011 10.4 7.2 11 11 7.2 11 0 -0.6 0 0 0 -65.03097 012 11.2 7.2 12 6 7.2 12 0 5.2 0 0 0 180.6416 013 12.1 7.3 13 11.7 7.3 13 0 0.4 0 0 0 237.5044 014 12.3 7.3 14 12.2 7.3 14 0 0.1 0 0 0 22.77655 015 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 4.869469 016 16 160000 00017 17 170000 00018 18 180000 00019 19 190000 00020 20 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 0009.1106187 232.4779 77.59734Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 98.17477Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
212 Figure F- 5. SQ-4 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation (INACCURATE SURVEY). Avg Flowrate (cfm): 165.8Nozzles (in): 2.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 0 0 0 0 0 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 13 14.2 12.6 12.4 1 12.4 14.2 12.9 14 1 0.6 0 -0.3 -1.6 2.82743339 0 -1.4137172 12.8 14.5 12.6 12.4 2 11.8 14.5 12.9 14.5 2 1 0 -0.3 -2.1 12.5663706 0 -4.7123893 12.3 15.1 12.6 12.4 3 11.4 15 12.8 12.8 3 0.9 0.1 -0.2 -0.4 20.8915911 1.099557 -5.4977874 11.6 15.7 12.4 12.2 4 10.7 14.9 12.7 12.7 4 0.9 0.8 -0.3 -0.5 25.4469005 12.72345 -7.0685835 11.3 16.4 12 12 5 9.9 15.3 12.5 12.5 5 1.4 1.1 -0.5 -0.5 39.7411471 32.82964 -13.823016 10.4 16.7 11.7 12 6 9.2 15.9 12.3 13 6 1.2 0.8 -0.6 -1 53.0929158 38.79867 -22.462397 9.7 17 11.7 12.5 7 8.7 16.5 12.25 12.95 7 1 0.5 -0.55 -0.45 51.8362788 30.63053 -27.096248 9 17.3 12.6 8 8.2 16.9 13 8 0.8 0.4 0 -0.4 48.0663676 24.03318 -14.686959 8.6 17.6 12.7 9 7.75 17.3 12.95 9 0.85 0.3 0 -0.25 49.2444648 20.89159 010 8.3 17.9 12.3 10 7.5 17.65 13 10 0.8 0.25 0 -0.7 54.4280927 18.1427 011 7.9 18.2 12.3 11 7.4 18 13.25 11 0.5 0.2 0 -0.95 46.9668102 16.25774 012 18.4 12.2 12 18.2 13.2 12 0 0.2 0 -1 19.6349541 15.70796 013 18.9 12.1 13 18.9 13 13 0 0 0 -0.9 0 8.4823 014 12.1 14 13.1 14 0 0 0 -1 0 0 015 12.3 15 12.9 15 0 0 0 -0.6 0 0 016 12.1 16 12.75 16 0 0 0 -0.65 0 0 017 17 170000 00018 18 180000 00019 19 190000 00020 20 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 000424.743327 219.5973 -96.76105Volume Calculation Error due to Subsurface Irregularities Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) -41.6261Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
213 Figure F- 6. SQ-5 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation (INACCURATE SURVEY). Date: 11/5/2003Pile ID: SQ-5Spoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 184Nozzles (in): 2North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 8.1 8.1 7.3 0 8.1 8.1 0 0 0 7.3 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 7.9 8.4 7.2 7.3 1 8 7.6 6.75 6.95 1 -0.1 0.8 0.45 0.35 -0.4712389 3.769911 36.521012 7.75 8.5 7.1 7.3 2 7.8 7.8 6.35 6.4 2 -0.05 0.7 0.75 0.9 -1.1780972 11.78097 9.4247783 7.3 8.7 7.15 7.3 3 7.5 7.95 6.25 6.35 3 -0.2 0.75 0.9 0.95 -2.7488936 15.94358 18.14274 7.3 8.8 7.1 7.3 4 7 8.1 6.45 6.5 4 0.3 0.7 0.65 0.8 1.41371669 20.49889 21.912615 7 8.9 7.1 7.3 5 7 8.4 6.5 6.6 5 0 0.5 0.6 0.7 5.18362788 20.73451 21.598456 6.8 9 7 7.3 6 6.8 8.65 6.45 6.6 6 0 0.35 0.55 0.7 0 17.3573 23.483417 9.25 7 7.4 7 9 6.55 6.75 7 0 0.25 0.45 0.65 0 14.13717 23.561948 9.45 7 7.3 8 9.35 6.55 6.9 8 0 0.1 0.45 0.4 0 9.346238 24.033189 9.8 7 7.3 9 9.55 6.5 6.85 9 0 0.25 0.5 0.45 0 10.4458 28.3528710 9.2 6.9 7.3 10 9.85 6.5 6.95 10 0 -0.65 0.4 0.35 0 -13.19469 29.6880511 10.6 6.9 7.4 11 10.3 6.5 7 11 0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0 -12.64491 28.9026512 11.3 7.4 12 11.05 6.95 12 0 0.25 0 0.45 0 21.59845 15.7079613 11.6 13 11.8 13 0 -0.2 0 0 0 2.120575 014 12.3 14 12.2 14 0 0.1 0 0 0 -4.555309 015 12.65 15 12.5 1500.1500 012.17367016 13.3 16 12.9 16 0 0.4 0 0 0 28.50995 017 13.5 17 13.1 17 0 0.4 0 0 0 43.9823 018 13.6 18 13.45 18 0 0.15 0 0 0 31.96571 019 13.8 19 13.8 190000 09.189159020 14.4 20 14.4 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 0002.19911486 243.1593 281.3296Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 207.2273Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
214 Figure F- 7. SQ-6 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation (INACCURATE SURVEY). Date: 11/5/2003Pile ID: SQ-6Spoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 173.78Nozzles (in): 1.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 0 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 0 0 0 0 0 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 8.4 8.9 8.6 8.65 1 8.4 8.9 8.55 8.65 1 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0.2356192 8.1 9.1 8.6 8.7 2 8.15 8.95 8.4 8.7 2 -0.05 0.15 0.2 0 -0.3926991 1.178097 1.9634953 7.95 9.5 8.4 8.75 3 8 9.15 8.6 8.75 3 -0.05 0.35 -0.2 0 -1.0995574 5.497787 04 7.8 10.2 8.45 8.8 4 8.9 9.55 8.5 8.6 4 -1.1 0.65 -0.05 0.2 -16.257742 14.13717 -3.5342925 7.6 10.7 8.4 8.8 5 7.65 10.4 8.5 8.6 5 -0.05 0.3 -0.1 0.2 -19.870574 16.41482 -2.5918146 7.2 11.1 8.6 8.85 6 7.3 10.85 8.4 8.7 6 -0.1 0.25 0.2 0.15 -3.0630528 11.23119 2.0420357 6.95 11.85 8.5 9 7 7 11.45 8.65 8.95 7 -0.05 0.4 -0.15 0.05 -3.5342917 15.31526 1.1780978 6.7 12.4 8.45 8.9 8 6.75 11.8 8.5 9.05 8 -0.05 0.6 -0.05 -0.15 -2.6703538 26.70354 -5.3407089 6.45 12.75 8.3 8.95 9 6.75 12.2 8.3 9.1 9 -0.3 0.55 0 -0.15 -10.445796 34.3219 -1.49225710 6.25 13.2 8.15 8.8 10 6.3 12.5 8.15 9.1 10 -0.05 0.7 0 -0.3 -11.545353 41.2334 011 6 13.35 8.2 8.8 11 6.05 12.8 8.2 8.95 11 -0.05 0.55 0 -0.15 -3.6128316 45.16039 012 5.7 13.45 8.9 12 5.75 13.25 8.85 12 -0.05 0.2 0 0.05 -3.9269908 29.45243 013 14.1 8.9 13 13.75 8.85 13 0 0.35 0 0.05 -2.120575 23.32633 014 9 14 8.9 14 0 0 0 0.1 0 15.94358 015 9 15 8.9 15 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 016 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-78.539816 279.9159 -7.539822Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 48.69469Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
215 Figure F- 8. SQ-7 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 11/4/2003Pile ID: SQ-7Spoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 192.5Nozzles (in): 1.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.8 0 2.5 2.45 2.55 2.3 0 0.6 0.65 0.25 0.5 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.75 1 2.5 2.55 2.35 2.25 1 0.7 0.55 0.45 0.5 6.12610567 5.654867 3.2986722 3.2 3.05 2.75 2.75 2 2.5 2.5 2.35 2.2 2 0.7 0.55 0.4 0.55 10.9955743 8.63938 6.6758843 3.25 3.05 2.9 2.7 3 2.5 2.45 2.35 2.3 3 0.75 0.6 0.55 0.4 15.9435827 12.64491 10.44584 3.35 3.05 2.95 2.7 4 2.5 2.45 2.45 2.25 4 0.85 0.6 0.5 0.45 22.6194671 16.9646 14.844035 3.35 3 2.95 2.85 5 2.65 2.5 2.5 2.2 5 0.7 0.5 0.45 0.65 26.7820774 19.00664 16.414826 3.4 3 3 2.8 6 2.8 2.5 2.55 2.3 6 0.6 0.5 0.45 0.5 26.5464579 20.42035 18.378327 3.35 3 3.05 2.7 7 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.45 7 0.45 0.5 0.45 0.25 24.7400421 23.56194 21.205758 3.25 3 3 2.7 8 2.95 2.5 2.7 2.5 8 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 20.0276532 26.70354 20.027659 3.2 3.05 3 2.75 9 3 2.5 2.7 2.65 9 0.2 0.55 0.3 0.1 14.9225651 31.33739 17.9070810 3.15 3 2.95 2.5 10 3.15 2.5 2.75 2.65 10 0 0.5 0.2 -0.15 6.59734457 34.63606 16.4933611 3.25 2.9 3 2.5 11 3.2 2.55 2.8 2.6 11 0.05 0.35 0.2 -0.1 1.80641578 30.70907 14.4513312 3.15 2.9 2.55 12 3.25 2.6 2.5 12 -0.1 0.3 0 0.05 -1.9634954 25.52544 7.85398213 3.1 13 3.2 13 -0.1 0 0 0 -8.4823002 12.72345 014 14 14 0 0 0 0 -4.5553093 0 015 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0162.106181 268.5276 167.9967Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 530.1438 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 176.1648Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
216 Figure F- 9. SQ-8 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 11/6/2003Pile ID: SQ-8Spoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 160.4Nozzles (in): 2North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.5 0 3.4 3.4 3 2.95 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.55 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.5 1 3.5 3.4 3 2.95 1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.55 4.24115008 4.712389 4.7123892 3.9 3.9 3.55 3.45 2 3.55 3.4 3.1 2.9 2 0.35 0.5 0.45 0.55 5.89048623 7.853982 7.4612833 3.9 3.95 3.5 3.45 3 3.45 3.5 3.15 2.9 3 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.55 8.79645943 10.4458 8.7964594 3.8 3.9 3.55 3.45 4 3.55 3.5 3.15 2.9 4 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.55 9.89601686 12.01659 10.602885 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.4 5 3.65 3.55 3.1 2.95 5 0.15 0.35 0.5 0.45 6.91150384 12.95907 15.550886 3.75 3.9 3.6 3.4 6 3.75 3.6 3.1 3.25 6 0 0.3 0.5 0.15 3.06305284 13.27323 20.420357 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.4 7 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.2 7 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.35619449 11.78097 21.205758 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.35 8 3.75 3.75 3.1 3.25 8 0.05 0.15 0.5 0.1 4.00553063 9.346238 24.033189 3.8 3.85 3.7 3.2 9 3.8 3.75 3 3.25 9 0 0.1 0.7 -0.05 1.49225651 7.461283 35.8141610 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.25 10 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.25 10 0 0.1 0.6 0 0 6.597345 42.8827411 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.3 11 3.8 3.75 3.15 3.25 11 0 -0.05 0.55 0.05 0 1.806416 41.5475612 3.75 3.7 3.3 12 3.75 3.15 3.2 12 0 0 0.55 0.1 0 -1.963495 43.196913 3.75 3.7 3.2 13 3.7 3.25 3.2 13 0 0.05 0.45 0 0 2.120575 42.411514 3.75 14 3.75 140000 02.277655 20.4988915 15 150000 00016 16 160000 00017 17 170000 00018 18 180000 00019 19 190000 00020 20 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 00046.6526509 100.688 339.1349Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 530.1438 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 146.3786Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
217 Figure F- 10. SQ-9 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 11/6/2003Pile ID: SQ-9Spoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 165.8Nozzles (in): 2North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 0 3 3 3.1 3.1 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 1 2.95 3.05 2.9 3 1 0.55 0.55 0.7 0.6 4.94800843 4.948008 5.6548672 3.55 3.6 3.6 3.6 2 3 3.1 2.85 3.1 2 0.55 0.5 0.75 0.5 8.6393798 8.246681 11.388273 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3 3.05 3.15 3 3.2 3 0.45 0.45 0.6 0.4 10.9955743 10.4458 14.844034 3.5 3.55 3.55 3.55 4 3 3.2 3.1 3.2 4 0.5 0.35 0.45 0.35 13.4303086 11.30973 14.844035 3.5 3.5 3.55 3.55 5 3.1 3.3 3.25 3.2 5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.35 15.5508836 9.503318 12.959076 3.5 3.5 3.55 3.5 6 3.2 3.4 3.35 3.25 6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.25 14.2942466 6.126106 10.210187 3.5 3.5 3.55 3.45 7 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.3 7 0.3 0 0.15 0.15 14.1371669 2.356194 8.2466818 3.45 3.55 3.55 3.35 8 3.3 3.6 3.35 3.35 8 0.15 -0.05 0.2 0 12.0165919 -1.335177 9.3462389 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.25 9 3.2 3.55 3.2 3.25 9 0.3 -0.05 0.3 0 13.4303086 -2.984513 14.9225710 3.55 3.45 3.5 3.2 10 3.1 3.45 3.25 3.2 10 0.45 0 0.25 0 24.7400421 -1.649336 18.142711 3.5 3.45 3.5 3.2 11 3.1 3.45 3.4 3.2 11 0.4 0 0.1 0 30.7090682 0 12.6449112 3.5 3.55 3.2 12 3.55 3.5 3.2 12 0 -0.05 0.05 0 15.7079633 -1.963495 5.89048613 3.5 3.15 13 3.55 3.15 13 0 -0.05 0 0 0 -4.24115 2.12057514 3.114 3.1140000 0-2.277655 015 15 150000 00016 16 160000 00017 17 170000 00018 18 180000 00019 19 190000 00020 20 200000 00021 21 210000 00022 22 220000 00023 23 230000 00024 24 240000 00025 25 250000 00026 26 260000 00027 27 270000 00028 28 280000 00029 29 290000 00030 30 300000 000178.599542 38.48451 141.2146Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 449.2477 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 107.5995Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
218 Figure F- 11. SQ-10 Survey Measurements and Volume Calculation. Date: 11/6/2003Pile ID: SQ-10Spoil Volume CalculationAvg Flowrate (cfm): 175Nozzles (in): 2.5North South East West North South East West North South East West North South East0 3.2 3.2 3.55 3.55 0 2.85 2.85 2.8 2.8 0 0.35 0.35 0.75 0.75 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx1 3.2 3.15 3.5 3.6 1 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 1 0.6 0.35 0.6 0.7 4.47676953 3.298672 6.3617252 3.2 3.1 3.4 3.6 2 2.55 2.6 3 3.15 2 0.65 0.5 0.4 0.45 9.81747704 6.675884 7.8539823 3.2 3.15 3.25 3.6 3 2.7 2.5 3.1 3.2 3 0.5 0.65 0.15 0.4 12.6449104 12.64491 6.0475664 3.2 3.15 3.2 3.6 4 2.8 2.55 3.05 3.2 4 0.4 0.6 0.15 0.4 12.7234502 17.67146 4.241155 3.2 3.2 3.25 3.55 5 2.9 2.55 3.1 3.2 5 0.3 0.65 0.15 0.35 12.0951317 21.59845 5.1836286 3.25 3.2 3.2 3.5 6 2.95 2.6 3.1 3.15 6 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.35 12.2522113 25.52544 5.1050887 3.25 3.15 3.2 3.55 7 2.95 2.6 3.2 3.3 7 0.3 0.55 0 0.25 14.1371669 27.09624 2.3561948 3.25 3.15 3.3 3.6 8 3.05 2.65 3.2 3.4 8 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 13.3517688 28.03871 2.6703549 3.25 3.15 3.35 3.55 9 3.2 2.8 3.35 3.45 9 0.05 0.35 0 0.1 7.46128255 25.36836 2.98451310 3.25 3.1 3.35 3.55 10 3.25 2.8 3.4 3.5 10 0 0.3 -0.05 0.05 1.64933614 21.44137 -1.64933611 3.25 3.1 3.45 3.55 11 3.25 2.85 3.4 3.4 11 0 0.25 0.05 0.15 0 19.87057 1.6E-1412 3 3.55 12 3 3.25 12 0 0 0 0.3 0 9.817477 1.96349513 3 3.5 13 3 3.25 13 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 014 3.05 3.4 14 3.05 3.4 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 027 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0100.609505 219.0475 43.11836Avg Spoil Area (ft^2) 449.2477 Avg Spoil Volume (ft^3) 131.5542Prejet Survey PostJet Survey Difference
219
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure F- 12. SQ-1 Debris Zone Profile.
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure F- 13. SQ-7 Debris Zone Profile.
220
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure F- 14. SQ-8 Debris Zone Profile.
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure F- 15. SQ-9 Debris Zone Profile.
221
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from pile (ft)Thickness of Zone (ft)North
South
East
West
Figure F- 16. SQ-10 Debris Zone Profile.
222
Figure F- 17. SQ-1 Measured Insertion Data.
Figure F- 17. SQ-1 Measured Insertion Data.
Test SQ-1
Back Pressure 112.5 psi
Qw (cfm)192.500
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D) IP
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx 0.0005 8.1597E-09 1.07E-09
1 2.5 0.041667 24.00 0.5 0.00815974 0.001066
2 5 0.083333 24.00 1 0.03263896 0.004265
3 9 0.15 15.00 1.5 0.07343766 0.009596
4 13 0.216667 15.00 2 0.13055584 0.017059
5 18 0.3 12.00 2.5 0.20399351 0.026655
6 23 0.383333 12.00 3 0.29375065 0.038383
7 26.5 0.441667 17.14 3.5 0.39982727 0.052244
8 30 0.5 17.14 4 0.52222338 0.068237
9 33 0.55 20.00 4.5 0.66093896 0.086363
10 36 0.6 20.00 5 0.81597403 0.106621
11 59 0.983333 2.61 5.5 0.98732857 0.129011
12 82 1.366667 2.61 6 1.1750026 0.153534
13 85 1.416667 20.00 6.5 1.3789961 0.180189
14 107 1.783333 2.73 7 1.59930909 0.208976
15 115 1.916667 7.50 7.5 1.83594156 0.239896
16 123 2.05 7.50 8 2.08889351 0.272949
17 132 2.2 6.67 8.5 2.35816494 0.308134
18 141 2.35 6.67 9 2.64375584 0.345451
19 146 2.433333 12.00 9.5 2.94566623 0.3849
20 152 2.533333 10.00 10 3.2638961 0.426482
21 167 2.783333 4.00 10.5 3.59844545 0.470197
22 181 3.016667 4.29 11 3.94931429 0.516044
23 196 3.266667 4.00 11.5 4.3165026 0.564023
24 210 3.5 4.29 12 4.70001039 0.614135
25 223 3.716667 4.62 12.5 5.09983766 0.666379
26 236 3.933333 4.62 13 5.51598442 0.720755
27 260 4.333333 2.50 13.5 5.94845065 0.777264
28 284 4.733333 2.50 14 6.39723636 0.835906
29 300 5 3.75 14.5 6.86234156 0.896679
30 316 5.266667 3.75 15 7.34376623 0.959585
223
Figure F- 18. SQ-2 Measured Insertion Data.
Test SQ-2
Back Pressure 100 psi
Qw (cfm)179.000
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D)IP
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx 0.0005 8.77514E-09 1.28995E-09
1 4 0.066667 15.00 0.5 0.00877514 0.001289946
2 8 0.133333 15.00 1 0.035100559 0.005159782
3 28 0.466667 3.00 1.5 0.078976257 0.01160951
4 49 0.816667 2.86 2 0.140402235 0.020639128
5 59 0.983333 6.00 2.5 0.219378492 0.032248638
6 68 1.133333 6.67 3 0.315905028 0.046438039
7 75 1.25 8.57 3.5 0.429981844 0.063207331
8 83 1.383333 7.50 4 0.561608939 0.082556514
9 87 1.45 15.00 4.5 0.710786313 0.104485588
10 91 1.516667 15.00 5 0.877513966 0.128994553
11 96 1.6 12.00 5.5 1.061791899 0.156083409
12 101 1.683333 12.00 6 1.263620112 0.185752156
13 111 1.85 6.00 6.5 1.482998603 0.218000795
14 122 2.033333 5.45 7 1.719927374 0.252829324
15 142 2.366667 3.00 7.5 1.974406425 0.290237744
16 163 2.716667 2.86 8 2.246435754 0.330226056
17 170 2.833333 8.57 8.5 2.536015363 0.372794258
18 176 2.933333 10.00 9 2.843145251 0.417942352
19 188 3.133333 5.00 9.5 3.167825419 0.465670337
20 199 3.316667 5.45 10 3.510055866 0.515978212
21 210 3.5 5.45 10.5 3.869836592 0.568865979
22 222 3.7 5.00 11 4.247167598 0.624333637
23 232 3.866667 6.00 11.5 4.642048883 0.682381186
24 243 4.05 5.45 12 5.054480447 0.743008626
25 268 4.466667 2.40 12.5 5.484462291 0.806215957
26 295 4.916667 2.22 13 5.931994413 0.872003179
27 317 5.283333 2.73 13.5 6.397076816 0.940370292
28 338 5.633333 2.86 14 6.879709497 1.011317296
29 403 6.716667 0.92 14.5 7.379892458 1.084844191
30 468 7.8 0.92 15 7.897625698 1.160950978
31 478 7.966667 6.00 15.5 8.432909218 1.239637655
32 489 8.15 5.45 16 8.985743017 1.320904223
33 534 8.9 1.33 16.5 9.556127095 1.404750683
224
Figure F- 19. SQ-3 Measured Insertion Data.
Test SQ-3
Back Pressure 98 psi
Qw (cfm)139.000
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D)IP
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx 0.0005 1.13E-08 1.7E-09
1 2.5 0.041667 24.00 0.5 0.01130036 0.001695
2 5 0.083333 24.00 1 0.04520144 0.00678
3 18 0.3 4.62 1.5 0.10170324 0.015255
4 32 0.533333 4.29 2 0.18080576 0.027121
5 121 2.016667 0.67 2.5 0.28250899 0.042376
6 210 3.5 0.67 3 0.40681295 0.061022
7 222 3.7 5.00 3.5 0.55371763 0.083058
8 234 3.9 5.00 4 0.72322302 0.108483
9 239 3.983333 12.00 4.5 0.91532914 0.137299
10 243 4.05 15.00 5 1.13003597 0.169505
11 248 4.133333 12.00 5.5 1.36734353 0.205102
12 253 4.216667 12.00 6 1.6272518 0.244088
13 258 4.3 12.00 6.5 1.90976079 0.286464
14 264 4.4 10.00 7 2.2148705 0.332231
15 267 4.45 20.00 7.5 2.54258094 0.381387
16 270 4.5 20.00 8 2.89289209 0.433934
17 318 5.3 1.25 8.5 3.26580396 0.489871
18 365 6.083333 1.28 9 3.66131655 0.549197
19 396 6.6 1.94 9.5 4.07942986 0.611914
20 427 7.116667 1.94 10 4.52014388 0.678022
21 457 7.616667 2.00 10.5 4.98345863 0.747519
22 486 8.1 2.07 11 5.4693741 0.820406
23 506 8.433333 3.00 11.5 5.97789029 0.896684
24 526 8.766667 3.00 12 6.50900719 0.976351
25 546 9.1 3.00 12.5 7.06272482 1.059409
26 567 9.45 2.86 13 7.63904317 1.145856
27 619 10.31667 1.15 13.5 8.23796223 1.235694
28 671 11.18333 1.15 14 8.85948201 1.328922
29 716 11.93333 1.33 14.5 9.50360252 1.42554
30 760 12.66667 1.36 15 10.1703237 1.525549
225
Figure F- 20. SQ-4 Measured Insertion Data.
Figure F- 21. SQ-5 Measured Insertion Data.
Test SQ-4
Back Pressure 100 psi
Qw (cfm) 139
Qw (cfm)165.800
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D)IP
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx 0.0005 1.13004E-08 1.66E-09
1 4 0.066667 15.00 0.5 0.01130036 0.001661
2 8 0.133333 15.00 1 0.045201439 0.006645
3 12 0.2 15.00 1.5 0.101703237 0.01495
4 16 0.266667 15.00 2 0.180805755 0.026578
5 20 0.333333 15.00 2.5 0.282508993 0.041529
6 34 0.566667 4.29 3 0.40681295 0.059802
7 48 0.8 4.29 3.5 0.553717626 0.081396
8 53 0.883333 12.00 4 0.723223022 0.106314
9 58 0.966667 12.00 4.5 0.915329137 0.134553
10 69 1.15 5.45 5 1.130035971 0.166115
11 80 1.333333 5.45 5.5 1.367343525 0.200999
12 113 1.883333 1.82 6 1.627251799 0.239206
13 159 2.65 1.30 6.5 1.909760791 0.280735
14 201 3.35 1.43 7 2.214870504 0.325586
15 225 3.75 2.50 7.5 2.542580935 0.373759
16 240 4 4.00 8 2.892892086 0.425255
17 257 4.283333 3.53 8.5 2.737917672 0.402474 **new flowrate
18 274 4.566667 3.53 9 3.069499397 0.451216
19 292 4.866667 3.33 9.5 3.420028649 0.502744
20 310 5.166667 3.33 10 3.789505428 0.557057
21 330 5.5 3.00 10.5 4.177929735 0.614156
22 372 6.2 1.43 11 4.585301568 0.674039
23 399 6.65 2.22 11.5 5.011620929 0.736708
24 450 7.5 1.18 12 5.456887817 0.802163
25 480 8 2.00 12.5 5.921102232 0.870402
26 520 8.666667 1.50 13 6.404264174 0.941427
26.5 593 9.883333 0.82 13.25 6.652950467 0.977984
26.5 630 10.5 1.62 13.25 6.652950467 0.977984
Test SQ-5
Back Pressure 75 psi
Qw (cfm)184.500
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min Insertion rate L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D)IP
0.001 0 0 xxxxxxxxxxx 0.0005 8.514E-09 1.66866E-09
20 140 2.333333 10 3.4054201 0.667462331
22 170 2.833333 11 4.1205583 0.80762942
24 192 3.2 12 4.9038049 0.961145756
26 220 3.666667 13 5.7551599 1.128011339
28 252 4.2 14 6.6746233 1.308226168
30 298 4.966667 15 7.6621951 1.501790244
34 338 5.633333 17 9.841664 1.928966136
226
Figure F- 22. SQ-6 Measured Insertion Data.
Figure F- 23. SQ-7 Measured Insertion Data.
Test SQ-6
Back Pressure 75 psi
Qw (cfm)173.780
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D IP
0.001 0 0 0.0005 9.04E-09 1.7716E-09
2 24 0.4 1 0.036155 0.00708636
4 34 0.566667 2 0.14462 0.02834545
6 40 0.666667 3 0.325394 0.06377726
8 46 0.766667 4 0.578479 0.11338179
10 53 0.883333 5 0.903873 0.17715905
12 79 1.316667 6 1.301577 0.25510903
16 119 1.983333 8 2.313914 0.45352717
18 132 2.2 9 2.928548 0.57399533
22 197 3.283333 11 4.374744 0.85744981
24 267 4.45 12 5.206307 1.02043614
25 380 6.333333 12.5 5.649204 1.10724407
Test SQ-7
Back Pressure 75 psi
Qw (cfm)192.500
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min L/D Iv/Qw)(L/D IP
0.001 0 0 0.0005 8.16E-09 1.59931E-09
4 145 2.416667 2 0.130556 0.025588945
6 270 4.5 3 0.293751 0.057575127
8 293 4.883333 4 0.522223 0.102355782
20 384 6.4 10 3.263896 0.639723636
22 410 6.833333 11 3.949314 0.7740656
24 423 7.05 12 4.70001 0.921202036
26 436 7.266667 13 5.515984 1.081132945
28 473 7.883333 14 6.397236 1.253858327
30 510 8.5 15 7.343766 1.439378182
32 535 8.916667 16 8.355574 1.637692509
34 570 9.5 17 9.43266 1.848801309
227
Figure F- 24. SQ-8 Measured Insertion Data.
Figure F- 25. SQ-9 Measured Insertion Data.
Test SQ-8
Back Pressure 75 psi
Qw (cfm)160.400
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D)IP
0.001 0 0 0.0005 9.7927E-09 1.919E-09
4 97 1.616667 2 0.15668329 0.0307099
6 121 2.016667 3 0.35253741 0.0690973
8 132 2.2 4 0.62673317 0.1228397
10 136 2.266667 5 0.97927057 0.191937
14 140 2.333333 7 1.91937032 0.3761966
16 162 2.7 8 2.50693267 0.4913588
18 193 3.216667 9 3.17283666 0.621876
20 220 3.666667 10 3.91708229 0.7677481
22 255 4.25 11 4.73966958 0.9289752
24 280 4.666667 12 5.6405985 1.1055573
26 308 5.133333 13 6.61986908 1.2974943
28 348 5.8 14 7.6774813 1.5047863
32 450 7.5 16 10.0277307 1.9654352
Test SQ-9
Back Pressure 125 psi
Qw (cfm)165.800
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D)IP
0.001 0 0 0.0005 9.4738E-09 1.11E-09
8 42 0.7 4 0.60632087 0.071303
12 60 1 6 1.36422195 0.160433
14 65 1.083333 7 1.85685766 0.218366
16 71 1.183333 8 2.42528347 0.285213
18 97 1.616667 9 3.0694994 0.360973
20 120 2 10 3.78950543 0.445646
22 145 2.416667 11 4.58530157 0.539231
28 210 3.5 14 7.42743064 0.873466
30 240 4 15 8.52638721 1.002703
31.5 260 4.333333 15.75 9.4003419 1.10548
228
Figure F- 26. SQ-10 Measured Insertion Data.
Test SQ-10
Back Pressure 78 psi
Qw (cfm)175.000
Depth (ft) Time (sec) Min L/D (Iv/Qw)(L/D)IP
0.001 0 0 0.0005 8.9757E-09 1.6916E-09
6 130 2.166667 3 0.32312571 0.06089677
8 150 2.5 4 0.57444571 0.10826092
14 168 2.8 7 1.75924 0.33154908
16 180 3 8 2.29778286 0.43304369
18 211 3.516667 9 2.90813143 0.54807092
22 270 4.5 11 4.34424571 0.81872323
24 300 5 12 5.17001143 0.97434831
26 335 5.583333 13 6.06758286 1.143506
30 440 7.333333 15 8.07814286 1.52241923
32 535 8.916667 16 9.19113143 1.73217477
32.5 547 9.116667 16.25 9.48059821 1.78672813
229
Figure F- 27. SQ-1 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID SQ-1
Date 11/4/2003
C, 10' B-1, 40' B-2, 100' B-3, 200' B-4, 350'
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 12.3 11 12.2 12.7 14.3
pH
dO 6.6 6.8 6.93 6.65 6.75
Salinity
Conductivity
Temp C 19.8 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.6 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Elapsed time 4min 19min 17min 14.5min 11min
Turbidity 12.6 12.5 16.8 19.8 20.2 Turbidity Caused by incoming Ferry
pH
dO
Salinity
Conductivity
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Elapsed time 28min 43min 41min 37min 35min
Turbidity 15.2 15.6 14.9 19.2 15.4 Turbidity Caused by incoming Ferry
pH
dO 6.94 7.15 7.1 6.92 6.8
Salinity
Conductivity
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Elapsed time 120min 120min 120min 120min 120min
Turbidity 12.3 14.2 12.2 13.3 15.3 Turbidity Caused by incoming Ferry
pH
dO 7.4 7.29 7.26 7.28 6.74
Salinity
Conductivity
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Location
230
Figure F- 28. SQ-2 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID SQ-2
Date 11/4/2003
C, 10' B-1, 40' B-2, 100' B-3, 200' B-4, 350'
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 12.3 14.2 12.2 13.3 15.3
pH
dO 7.4 7.29 7.26 7.28 6.74
Salinity
Conductivity
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Elapsed time 2min 11min 9.5min 5min 7min
Turbidity 16.7 13.3 13.2 12.9 13
pH
dO
Salinity
Conductivity
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Elapsed time 30min
Turbidity 14.1
Elapsed time 70min 70min 70min 70min 70min Ferry Came in before reading was taken
Turbidity 16.1 15 15.6 16.9 18.3
pH
dO
Salinity
Conductivity
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Location
231
Figure F- 29. SQ-3 Measured Water Quality Data.
Figure F- 30. SQ-4 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID SQ-3
Date 11/4/2003
C, 10' B-1, 40' B-2, 100' B-3, 200' B-4, 350'
Elapsed time Prejet Prejet Prejet Prejet
Turbidity 16.1 15 15.6 16.9 18.3
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Elapsed time 4min 9min 10min 11min 12min
Turbidity 25 16 14.7 15.7 16
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Elapsed time 35min 40min 42min 44min 47min
Turbidity 19.6 16.6 15.8 15.4 14.4
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10 40 100 200 350
Elapsed time 58min
Turbidity 17.6
Elapsed time 85min
Turbidity 15.8
Location
Test ID SQ-4
Date 11/4/2003
CCCC
Elapsed time Prejet 4min 35min 50min
Turbidity 15.8 21.3 22.8 16.1
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 20.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 69.3
Distance 10' 10' 10' 10'
Location
232
Figure F- 31. SQ-5 Measured Water Quality Data.
Figure F- 32. SQ-10 Measured Water Quality Data.
Test ID SQ-5
Date 11/5/2003
CCCCC
Elapsed time Prejet 15min 35min 55min 65min
Turbidity 16.5 68.9 35.6 22.8 21.8
dO 5.77 6.96 7.19 7.12 7.14
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10' 10' 10' 10' 10'
Location
Test ID SQ-6
Date 11/5/2003
CCCCC
Elapsed time Prejet 4min 16min 27min 75min
Turbidity 21.8 38.8 35.5 33.9 23.7
Temp C 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7
Temp F 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
Distance 10' 10' 10' 10' 10'
Location
233
APPENDIX G
Model Development Spreadsheets
234
Figure G- 1. SQ-1, SQ-2 Insertion Data used to develop slope parameter, m.
SQ-1 SQ-2
Depth (ft) Navg Min IP Depth (ft) Navg Min IP
0.001 0 0 1.06621E-09 0.001 0 0 1.28995E-09
1 0 0.041667 0.001066206 1 0 0.066666667 0.001289946
2 0 0.083333 0.004264824 2 0 0.133333333 0.005159782
3 0 0.15 0.009595855 3 0 0.466666667 0.01160951
4 0 0.216667 0.017059297 4 0 0.816666667 0.020639128
5 0 0.3 0.026655152 5 0 0.983333333 0.032248638
6 0 0.383333 0.038383418 6 0 1.133333333 0.046438039
7 0 0.441667 0.052244097 7 0 1.25 0.063207331
8 0 0.5 0.068237188 8 0 1.383333333 0.082556514
9 0 0.55 0.086362691 9 0 1.45 0.104485588
10 0 0.6 0.106620606 10 0 1.516666667 0.128994553
11 23 0.983333 0.129010933 11 0 1.6 0.156083409
12 23 1.366667 0.153533673 12 0 1.683333333 0.185752156
13 23 1.416667 0.180188824 13 0 1.85 0.218000795
14 23 1.783333 0.208976388 14 23 2.033333333 0.252829324
15 17 1.916667 0.239896364 15 23 2.366666667 0.290237744
16 17 2.05 0.272948752 16 23 2.716666667 0.330226056
17 17 2.2 0.308133552 17 17 2.833333333 0.372794258
18 17 2.35 0.345450764 18 17 2.933333333 0.417942352
19 17 2.433333 0.384900388 19 17 3.133333333 0.465670337
20 17 2.533333 0.426482424 20 17 3.316666667 0.515978212
21 17 2.783333 0.470196873 21 17 3.5 0.568865979
22 19 3.016667 0.516043733 22 17 3.7 0.624333637
23 19 3.266667 0.564023006 23 17 3.866666667 0.682381186
24 19 3.5 0.614134691 24 20 4.05 0.743008626
25 19 3.716667 0.666378788 25 20 4.466666667 0.806215957
26 19 3.933333 0.720755297 26 20 4.916666667 0.872003179
27 19 4.333333 0.777264218 27 20 5.283333333 0.940370292
28 19 4.733333 0.835905552 28 20 5.633333333 1.011317296
29 19 5 0.896679297 29 20 6.716666667 1.084844191
30 19 5.266667 0.959585455 30 20 7.8 1.160950978
31 20 7.966666667 1.239637655
Pb 112.5 32 20 8.15 1.320904223
Qw 192.5 33 20 8.9 1.404750683
Pb 100
Qw 179
235
Figure G- 2. SQ-3, SQ-4 Insertion Data used to develop slope parameter, m.
SQ-3 SQ-4
Depth (ft) Navg Min IP Depth (ft) Navg Min IP
0.001 0 0 1.69505E-09 0.001 3 0 1.66115E-09
1 0 0.0416667 0.001695054 1 3 0.066667 0.001661153
2 0 0.0833333 0.006780216 2 3 0.133333 0.006644612
3 0 0.3 0.015255486 3 3 0.2 0.014950376
4 0 0.5333333 0.027120863 4 3 0.266667 0.026578446
5 0 2.0166667 0.042376349 5 3 0.333333 0.041528822
6 0 3.5 0.061021942 6 3 0.566667 0.059801504
7 0 3.7 0.083057644 7 3 0.8 0.081396491
8 0 3.9 0.108483453 8 3 0.883333 0.106313784
9 0 3.9833333 0.137299371 9 3 0.966667 0.134553383
10 0 4.05 0.169505396 10 3 1.15 0.166115288
11 0 4.1333333 0.205101529 11 3 1.333333 0.200999498
12 0 4.2166667 0.24408777 12 23 1.883333 0.239206014
13 0 4.3 0.286464119 13 23 2.65 0.280734836
14 0 4.4 0.332230576 14 23 3.35 0.325585964
15 0 4.45 0.38138714 15 17 3.75 0.373759397
16 23 4.5 0.433933813 16 17 4 0.425255137
17 23 5.3 0.489870594 17 17 4.283333 0.402473898
18 23 6.0833333 0.549197482 18 17 4.566667 0.451216411
19 23 6.6 0.611914478 19 17 4.866667 0.502744211
20 17 7.1166667 0.678021583 20 17 5.166667 0.557057298
21 17 7.6166667 0.747518795 21 17 5.5 0.614155671
22 17 8.1 0.820406115 22 20 6.2 0.674039331
23 17 8.4333333 0.896683543 23 20 6.65 0.736708277
24 17 8.7666667 0.976351079 24 20 7.5 0.802162509
25 17 9.1 1.059408723 25 20 8 0.870402028
26 17 9.45 1.145856475 26 20 8.666667 0.941426834
27 20 10.316667 1.235694335 26.5 20 9.883333 0.977983719
28 20 11.183333 1.328922302 26.5 20 10.5 0.977983719
29 20 11.933333 1.425540378
30 20 12.666667 1.525548561 Pb 100
Qw 139+160
Pb 98
Qw 139
236
Figure G- 3. SQ-10, SQ-9 Insertion Data used to develop slope parameter, m.
Figure G- 4. SC-1 Insertion Data used to develop slope parameter, m.
SQ-10 SQ-9
Depth (ft) Navg Min IP Depth (ft) Navg Min IP
0.001 --- 0 1.69158E-09 0.001 --- 0 1.11E-09
6 --- 2.166667 0.060896769 8 6 0.7 0.071303
8 6 2.5 0.108260923 12 6 1 0.160433
14 6 2.8 0.331549077 14 18 1.083333 0.218366
16 6 3 0.433043692 16 18 1.183333 0.285213
18 18 3.516667 0.548070923 18 18 1.616667 0.360973
22 18 4.5 0.818723231 20 18 2 0.445646
24 18 5 0.974348308 22 18 2.416667 0.539231
26 18 5.583333 1.143506 28 25 3.5 0.873466
30 25 7.333333 1.522419231 30 25 4 1.002703
32 25 8.916667 1.732174769 31.5 25 4.333333 1.10548
32.5 25 9.116667 1.786728125
Pb 125
Pb 78 Qw 165.8
Qw 175
SC-1
Depth (ft) Navg Min IP
0.001 --- 0 1.03E-09
1 --- 0.916667 0.001032
2 --- 1.466667 0.004128
3 --- 2.05 0.009288
4 --- 3.233333 0.016511
6 13 5.233333 0.03715
8 13 5.4 0.066045
9 13 5.533333 0.083588
10 13 5.583333 0.103196
11 13 5.666667 0.124867
12 13 5.733333 0.148602
13 13 5.85 0.174401
14 13 5.883333 0.202263
15 13 6.083333 0.23219
16 50 7.766667 0.264181
17 50 13 0.298235
Pb 125
Qw 165.8
237
Figure G- 5. Insertion Prediction Spreadsheet, (Robust Check).
Pile Insertion Spreadsheet ROBUST CHECK
Vc (ft3)192.5
D (ft) 2
A (ft2)3.14
Pb (psi) 112.5
Pa (psi) 14.7
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)Time req (min) Prev Increment Incremental
0.1 15 0.231226 0.05 0.314 1.0657E-05 4.60889E-05 0 4.60889E-05
1 15 0.231226 0.5 3.14 0.0010657 0.004608888 4.60889E-05 0.004562799
2 15 0.231226 1 6.28 0.00426279 0.018435551 0.004608888 0.013826663
3 15 0.231226 1.5 9.42 0.00959127 0.04147999 0.018435551 0.023044439
4 15 0.231226 2 12.56 0.01705115 0.073742205 0.04147999 0.032262215
5 15 0.231226 2.5 15.7 0.02664242 0.115222195 0.073742205 0.04147999
6 15 0.231226 3 18.84 0.03836509 0.165919961 0.115222195 0.050697766
7 15 0.231226 3.5 21.98 0.05221915 0.225835502 0.165919961 0.059915541
8 15 0.231226 4 25.12 0.06820461 0.294968819 0.225835502 0.069133317
9 15 0.231226 4.5 28.26 0.08632145 0.373319912 0.294968819 0.078351093
10 15 0.231226 5 31.4 0.1065697 0.46088878 0.373319912 0.087568868
11 15 0.231226 5.5 34.54 0.12894933 0.557675424 0.46088878 0.096786644
12 15 0.231226 6 37.68 0.15346036 0.663679843 0.557675424 0.106004419
13 15 0.231226 6.5 40.82 0.18010279 0.778902038 0.663679843 0.115222195
14 15 0.231226 7 43.96 0.20887661 0.903342009 0.778902038 0.124439971
15 15 0.231226 7.5 47.1 0.23978182 1.036999755 0.903342009 0.133657746
16 15 0.231226 8 50.24 0.27281842 1.179875276 1.036999755 0.142875522
17 15 0.231226 8.5 53.38 0.30798642 1.331968574 1.179875276 0.152093297
18 15 0.231226 9 56.52 0.34528582 1.493279647 1.331968574 0.161311073
19 15 0.231226 9.5 59.66 0.38471661 1.663808495 1.493279647 0.170528849
20 15 0.231226 10 62.8 0.42627879 1.843555119 1.663808495 0.179746624
21 15 0.231226 10.5 65.94 0.46997236 2.032519519 1.843555119 0.1889644
22 15 0.231226 11 69.08 0.51579733 2.230701695 2.032519519 0.198182175
23 15 0.231226 11.5 72.22 0.5637537 2.438101645 2.230701695 0.207399951
24 15 0.231226 12 75.36 0.61384145 2.654719372 2.438101645 0.216617727
25 15 0.231226 12.5 78.5 0.66606061 2.880554874 2.654719372 0.225835502
26 15 0.231226 13 81.64 0.72041115 3.115608152 2.880554874 0.235053278
27 15 0.231226 13.5 84.78 0.77689309 3.359879205 3.115608152 0.244271053
28 15 0.231226 14 87.92 0.83550642 3.613368034 3.359879205 0.253488829
29 15 0.231226 14.5 91.06 0.89625115 3.876074639 3.613368034 0.262706605
30 15 0.231226 15 94.2 0.95912727 4.147999019 3.876074639 0.27192438
≅4.147999019
(Iv/Vc)(L/D)/
(Pb/Pa)
238
Figure G- 6. SQ-1 Insertion Prediction Spreadsheet (upper N-value zone neglected).
Pile Insertion Spreadsheet SQ-1
Vc (ft3)192.5
D (ft) 2
A (ft2)3.14
Pb (psi) 112.5
Pa (psi) 14.7
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)Time req (min) Prev Increment Incremental
0.1 2 0.77495 0.05 0.314 1.0657E-05 1.37518E-05 0 1.37518E-05
1 2 0.77495 0.5 3.14 0.0010657 0.001375182 1.37518E-05 0.00136143
2 2 0.77495 1 6.28 0.00426279 0.005500729 0.001375182 0.004125547
3 2 0.77495 1.5 9.42 0.00959127 0.012376641 0.005500729 0.006875911
4 2 0.77495 2 12.56 0.01705115 0.022002917 0.012376641 0.009626276
5 2 0.77495 2.5 15.7 0.02664242 0.034379557 0.022002917 0.012376641
6 2 0.77495 3 18.84 0.03836509 0.049506562 0.034379557 0.015127005
7 2 0.77495 3.5 21.98 0.05221915 0.067383932 0.049506562 0.01787737
8 2 0.77495 4 25.12 0.06820461 0.088011666 0.067383932 0.020627734
9 2 0.77495 4.5 28.26 0.08632145 0.111389765 0.088011666 0.023378099
10 2 0.77495 5 31.4 0.1065697 0.137518229 0.111389765 0.026128463
11 23 0.134196 5.5 34.54 0.12894933 0.960906242 0.79413739 0.166768852
12 23 0.134196 6 37.68 0.15346036 1.143557842 0.960906242 0.1826516
13 21 0.158586 6.5 40.82 0.18010279 1.135677889 0.967678201 0.167999688
14 19 0.18741 7 43.96 0.20887661 1.11454436 0.961010188 0.153534172
15 17 0.221472 7.5 47.1 0.23978182 1.082671306 0.943127004 0.139544302
16 15 0.261726 8 50.24 0.27281842 1.042381981 0.916156038 0.126225943
17 13 0.309296 8.5 53.38 0.30798642 0.99576669 0.882063228 0.113703463
18 14 0.284518 9 56.52 0.34528582 1.213579834 1.082483247 0.131096587
19 15 0.261726 9.5 59.66 0.38471661 1.469921466 1.319264695 0.150656771
20 16 0.240759 10 62.8 0.42627879 1.770559439 1.597929893 0.172629545
21 17 0.221472 10.5 65.94 0.46997236 2.12203576 1.924748988 0.197286771
22 18 0.20373 11 69.08 0.51579733 2.531763064 2.306833701 0.224929363
23 19 0.18741 11.5 72.22 0.5637537 3.008132482 2.752242195 0.255890287
24 20 0.172397 12 75.36 0.61384145 3.560634208 3.270096347 0.290537861
25 21 0.158586 12.5 78.5 0.66606061 4.199992192 3.870712804 0.329279388
26 22 0.145882 13 81.64 0.72041115 4.938314569 4.565749416 0.372565152
27 23 0.134196 13.5 84.78 0.77689309 5.789261573 5.368368756 0.420892817
28 24 0.123445 14 87.92 0.83550642 6.768232922 6.293420663 0.474812259
29 25 0.113556 14.5 91.06 0.89625115 7.892576834 7.357645943 0.534930891
30 26 0.104459 15 94.2 0.95912727 9.181823102 8.579903587 0.601919514
≅5.207855225
(Iv/Vc)(L/D)/
(Pb/Pa)
239
Figure G- 7. SQ-2 Insertion Prediction Spreadsheet (upper N-value zone neglected).
Pile Insertion Spreadsheet SQ-2
Vc (ft3)179
D (ft) 2
A (ft2)3.14
Pb (psi) 100
Pa (psi) 14.7
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)Time req (min) Prev Increment Incremental
0.001 2 0.77495 0.0005 0.00314 1.2893E-09 1.66376E-09 0 1.66376E-09
1 2 0.77495 0.5 3.14 0.00128933 0.001663759 1.66376E-09 0.001663758
2 2 0.77495 1 6.28 0.00515732 0.006655037 0.001663759 0.004991278
3 2 0.77495 1.5 9.42 0.01160397 0.014973834 0.006655037 0.008318796
4 2 0.77495 2 12.56 0.02062927 0.026620149 0.014973834 0.011646315
5 2 0.77495 2.5 15.7 0.03223324 0.041593982 0.026620149 0.014973834
6 2 0.77495 3 18.84 0.04641587 0.059895335 0.041593982 0.018301352
7 2 0.77495 3.5 21.98 0.06317715 0.081524206 0.059895335 0.021628871
8 2 0.77495 4 25.12 0.08251709 0.106480595 0.081524206 0.024956389
9 2 0.77495 4.5 28.26 0.1044357 0.134764503 0.106480595 0.028283908
10 2 0.77495 5 31.4 0.12893296 0.16637593 0.134764503 0.031611427
11 2 0.77495 5.5 34.54 0.15600888 0.201314875 0.16637593 0.034938945
12 2 0.77495 6 37.68 0.18566346 0.239581339 0.201314875 0.038266464
13 2 0.77495 6.5 40.82 0.2178967 0.281175321 0.239581339 0.041593982
14 23 0.134196 7 43.96 0.2527086 1.883137106 1.623725361 0.259411744
15 23 0.134196 7.5 47.1 0.29009916 2.161764534 1.883137106 0.278627429
16 21 0.158586 8 50.24 0.33006838 2.081319036 1.829284309 0.252034727
17 19 0.18741 8.5 53.38 0.37261626 1.988242511 1.761211359 0.227031152
18 17 0.221472 9 56.52 0.41774279 1.886206965 1.68245004 0.203756925
19 15 0.261726 9.5 59.66 0.46544799 1.778379148 1.596107601 0.182271547
20 13 0.309296 10 62.8 0.51573184 1.667439051 1.504863744 0.162575307
21 14 0.284518 10.5 65.94 0.56859436 1.998444795 1.81264834 0.185796455
22 15 0.261726 11 69.08 0.62403553 2.384308885 2.17247979 0.211829095
23 16 0.240759 11.5 72.22 0.68205536 2.83293374 2.591946938 0.240986802
24 17 0.221472 12 75.36 0.74265385 3.353256827 3.079640385 0.273616442
25 18 0.20373 12.5 78.5 0.80583101 3.955377517 3.64527592 0.310101597
26 19 0.18741 13 81.64 0.87158682 4.650698745 4.29983242 0.350866325
27 20 0.172397 13.5 84.78 0.93992128 5.452085151 5.055705847 0.396379305
28 21 0.158586 14 87.92 1.01083441 6.374039547 5.926881161 0.447158387
29 22 0.145882 14.5 91.06 1.0843262 7.432899762 6.929124153 0.503775608
30 23 0.134196 15 94.2 1.16039665 8.647058138 8.080195437 0.5668627
31 24 0.123445 15.5 97.34 1.23904575 10.0372062 9.400089057 0.637117147
32 25 0.113556 16 100.48 1.32027352 11.62660732 10.91129847 0.715308849
33 26 0.104459 16.5 103.62 1.40407994 13.44140036 12.63911292 0.802287441
≅7.21 min
(Iv/Vc)(L/D)/
(Pb/Pa)
240
Figure G- 8. SQ-3 Insertion Prediction Spreadsheet (upper N-value zone neglected).
Pile Insertion Spreadsheet SQ-3
Vc (ft3)139
D (ft) 2
A (ft2)3.14
Pb (psi) 98
Pa (psi) 14.7
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)Time req (min) Prev Increment Incremental
0.001 2 0.77495 0.0005 0.00314 1.6942E-09 2.18626E-09 0 2.18626E-09
1 2 0.77495 0.5 3.14 0.00169424 0.002186264 2.18626E-09 0.002186262
2 2 0.77495 1 6.28 0.00677698 0.008745057 0.002186264 0.006558793
3 2 0.77495 1.5 9.42 0.0152482 0.019676378 0.008745057 0.010931321
4 2 0.77495 2 12.56 0.02710791 0.034980228 0.019676378 0.01530385
5 2 0.77495 2.5 15.7 0.04235612 0.054656606 0.034980228 0.019676378
6 2 0.77495 3 18.84 0.06099281 0.078705513 0.054656606 0.024048907
7 2 0.77495 3.5 21.98 0.08301799 0.107126948 0.078705513 0.028421435
8 2 0.77495 4 25.12 0.10843165 0.139920911 0.107126948 0.032793964
9 2 0.77495 4.5 28.26 0.13723381 0.177087403 0.139920911 0.037166492
10 2 0.77495 5 31.4 0.16942446 0.218626424 0.177087403 0.04153902
11 2 0.77495 5.5 34.54 0.2050036 0.264537973 0.218626424 0.045911549
12 2 0.77495 6 37.68 0.24397122 0.31482205 0.264537973 0.050284077
13 2 0.77495 6.5 40.82 0.28632734 0.369478656 0.31482205 0.054656606
14 2 0.77495 7 43.96 0.33207194 0.42850779 0.369478656 0.059029134
15 2 0.77495 7.5 47.1 0.38120504 0.491909453 0.42850779 0.063401663
16 23 0.134196 8 50.24 0.43372662 3.232049398 2.840668416 0.391380982
17 23 0.134196 8.5 53.38 0.48963669 3.648680766 3.232049398 0.416631368
18 21 0.158586 9 56.52 0.54893525 3.461432414 3.087512246 0.373920168
19 19 0.18741 9.5 59.66 0.6116223 3.263554499 2.929062763 0.334491735
20 17 0.221472 10 62.8 0.67769784 3.059965151 2.761618548 0.298346602
21 15 0.261726 10.5 65.94 0.74716187 2.854748807 2.589341321 0.265407485
22 13 0.309296 11 69.08 0.82001439 2.65123054 2.415687331 0.235543209
23 14 0.284518 11.5 72.22 0.8962554 3.150078622 2.882113522 0.2679651
24 15 0.261726 12 75.36 0.97588489 3.728651502 3.424403897 0.304247605
25 16 0.240759 12.5 78.5 1.05890288 4.398179168 4.053361921 0.344817247
26 17 0.221472 13 81.64 1.14530935 5.171341105 4.781195548 0.390145557
27 18 0.20373 13.5 84.78 1.23510432 6.062442139 5.621688458 0.440753681
28 19 0.18741 14 87.92 1.32828777 7.087608662 6.590391218 0.497217444
29 20 0.172397 14.5 91.06 1.42485971 8.265007511 7.704834588 0.560172923
30 21 0.158586 15 94.2 1.52482014 9.615090039 8.98476747 0.630322569
≅5.751363676
(Iv/Vc)(L/D)/
(Pb/Pa)
241
Figure G- 9. SQ-4 Insertion Prediction Spreadsheet (upper N-value zone neglected).
Pile Insertion Spreadsheet SQ-4
Vc (ft3)139
D (ft) 2
A (ft2)3.14
Pb (psi) 100
Pa (psi) 14.7
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)Time req (min) Prev Increment Incremental
0.001 2 0.77495 0.0005 0.00314 1.6604E-09 2.14254E-09 0 2.14254E-09
1 2 0.77495 0.5 3.14 0.00166036 0.002142539 2.14254E-09 0.002142537
2 2 0.77495 1 6.28 0.00664144 0.008570156 0.002142539 0.006427617
3 2 0.77495 1.5 9.42 0.01494324 0.019282851 0.008570156 0.010712695
4 2 0.77495 2 12.56 0.02656576 0.034280623 0.019282851 0.014997773
5 2 0.77495 2.5 15.7 0.04150899 0.053563474 0.034280623 0.019282851
6 2 0.77495 3 18.84 0.05977295 0.077131402 0.053563474 0.023567928
7 2 0.77495 3.5 21.98 0.08135763 0.104984409 0.077131402 0.027853006
8 2 0.77495 4 25.12 0.10626302 0.137122493 0.104984409 0.032138084
9 2 0.77495 4.5 28.26 0.13448914 0.173545655 0.137122493 0.036423162
10 23 0.134196 5 31.4 0.16603597 1.23726891 1.002187817 0.235081093
11 23 0.134196 5.5 34.54 0.20090353 1.497095381 1.23726891 0.259826471
12 21 0.158586 6 37.68 0.2390918 1.507646118 1.26684153 0.240804588
13 19 0.18741 6.5 40.82 0.28060079 1.49725733 1.275769559 0.221487771
14 17 0.221472 7 43.96 0.3254305 1.469395265 1.266978571 0.202416695
15 15 0.261726 7.5 47.1 0.37358094 1.427374403 1.243401702 0.183972701
16 13 0.309296 8 50.24 0.42505209 1.374257681 1.207843665 0.166414016
17 14 0.284518 8.5 53.38 0.47984396 1.686512793 1.493935207 0.192577585
18 15 0.261726 9 56.52 0.53795655 2.055419141 1.833383122 0.222036018
19 16 0.240759 9.5 59.66 0.59938986 2.489580522 2.234415759 0.255164763
20 17 0.221472 10 62.8 0.66414388 2.998765848 2.706386177 0.29237967
21 18 0.20373 10.5 65.94 0.73221863 3.594055204 3.259914017 0.334141187
22 19 0.18741 11 69.08 0.8036141 4.288003241 3.907044275 0.380958966
23 20 0.172397 11.5 72.22 0.87833029 5.094821872 4.661424926 0.433396946
24 21 0.158586 12 75.36 0.95636719 6.030584472 5.538505531 0.492078941
25 22 0.145882 12.5 78.5 1.03772482 7.113454014 6.55575922 0.557694795
26 23 0.134196 13 81.64 1.12240317 8.363937833 7.732930689 0.631007144
26.5 24 0.123445 13.25 83.21 1.16598761 9.445380054 9.09231316 0.353066894
≅5.654506243
(Iv/Qw)(L/D)
/(Pb/Pa)
242
Figure G- 10. SQ-9 Insertion Prediction Spreadsheet (upper N-value zone neglected).
Pile Insertion Spreadsheet SQ-9
Vc (ft3)165.8
D (ft) 2
A (ft2)3.14
Pb (psi) 125
Pa (psi) 14.7
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)Time req (min) Prev Increment Incremental
0.001 2 0.77495 0.0005 0.00314 1.1136E-09 1.43697E-09 0 1.43697E-09
1 2 0.77495 0.5 3.14 0.00111358 0.001436974 1.43697E-09 0.001436973
2 2 0.77495 1 6.28 0.00445433 0.005747897 0.001436974 0.004310923
3 2 0.77495 1.5 9.42 0.01002224 0.012932768 0.005747897 0.007184871
4 2 0.77495 2 12.56 0.01781732 0.022991588 0.012932768 0.01005882
5 2 0.77495 2.5 15.7 0.02783957 0.035924356 0.022991588 0.012932768
6 2 0.77495 3 18.84 0.04008897 0.051731073 0.035924356 0.015806717
7 2 0.77495 3.5 21.98 0.05456555 0.070411738 0.051731073 0.018680665
8 2 0.77495 4 25.12 0.07126929 0.091966352 0.070411738 0.021554614
9 2 0.77495 4.5 28.26 0.09020019 0.116394915 0.091966352 0.024428562
10 2 0.77495 5 31.4 0.11135826 0.143697425 0.116394915 0.027302511
11 2 0.77495 5.5 34.54 0.1347435 0.173873885 0.143697425 0.030176459
12 2 0.77495 6 37.68 0.1603559 0.206924293 0.173873885 0.033050408
13 2 0.77495 6.5 40.82 0.18819546 0.242848649 0.206924293 0.035924356
14 2 0.77495 7 43.96 0.2182622 0.281646954 0.242848649 0.038798305
15 4 0.655762 7.5 47.1 0.25055609 0.382083852 0.332837489 0.049246363
16 4 0.655762 8 50.24 0.28507715 0.434726516 0.382083852 0.052642664
17 4 0.655762 8.5 53.38 0.32182538 0.490765481 0.434726516 0.056038965
18 26 0.104459 9 56.52 0.36080077 3.45398255 3.080867151 0.373115399
19 26 0.104459 9.5 59.66 0.40200333 3.848418829 3.45398255 0.394436279
20 22.6 0.138753 10 62.8 0.44543305 3.21025046 2.89725104 0.31299942
21 19.2 0.184306 10.5 65.94 0.49108994 2.664534278 2.416811136 0.247723141
22 15.8 0.244814 11 69.08 0.53897399 2.201566866 2.005973115 0.19559375
23 12.4 0.325186 11.5 72.22 0.58908521 1.811531905 1.657431838 0.154100068
24 9 0.431945 12 75.36 0.64142359 1.484966291 1.363797167 0.121169124
25 12.6 0.319801 12.5 78.5 0.69598914 2.17632149 2.005697885 0.170623605
26 16.2 0.236772 13 81.64 0.75278186 3.179352272 2.939489896 0.239862376
27 19.8 0.1753 13.5 84.78 0.81180174 4.630932001 4.294252445 0.336679556
28 23.4 0.129787 14 87.92 0.87304878 6.726758863 6.254856137 0.471902726
29 27 0.096091 14.5 91.06 0.93652299 9.746186418 9.085624437 0.660561981
30 27.2 0.0945 15 94.2 1.00222437 10.60556831 9.910314385 0.695253922
31 27.4 0.092935 15.5 97.34 1.07015291 11.51509543 10.78416846 0.730926973
31.5 27.6 0.091396 15.75 98.91 1.10495236 12.08976834 11.70901222 0.380756121
≅5.64 min
(Iv/Vc)(L/D)/
(Pb/Pa)
243
Figure G- 11. SQ-10 Insertion Prediction Spreadsheet (upper N-value zone neglected).
Pile Insertion Spreadsheet SQ-10
Vc (ft3)175
D (ft) 2
A (ft 2)3.14
Pb (psi) 78
Pa (psi) 14.7
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)Time req (min) Prev Increment Incremental
0.001 2 0.77495 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 2 0.77495 0.50 3.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 2 0.77495 1.00 6.28 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
3 2 0.77495 1.50 9.42 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
4 2 0.77495 2.00 12.56 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02
5 2 0.77495 2.50 15.70 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02
6 2 0.77495 3.00 18.84 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.02
7 2 0.77495 3.50 21.98 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.03
8 2 0.77495 4.00 25.12 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.03
9 2 0.77495 4.50 28.26 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.04
10 2 0.77495 5.00 31.40 0.17 0.22 0.18 0.04
11 2 0.77495 5.50 34.54 0.20 0.26 0.22 0.05
12 2 0.77495 6.00 37.68 0.24 0.31 0.26 0.05
13 2 0.77495 6.50 40.82 0.29 0.37 0.31 0.05
14 2 0.77495 7.00 43.96 0.33 0.43 0.37 0.06
15 4 0.655762 7.50 47.10 0.38 0.58 0.51 0.07
16 4 0.655762 8.00 50.24 0.43 0.66 0.58 0.08
17 4 0.655762 8.50 53.38 0.49 0.75 0.66 0.09
18 26 0.104459 9.00 56.52 0.55 5.24 4.68 0.57
19 26 0.104459 9.50 59.66 0.61 5.84 5.24 0.60
20 22.6 0.138753 10.00 62.80 0.68 4.87 4.40 0.48
21 19.2 0.184306 10.50 65.94 0.75 4.05 3.67 0.38
22 15.8 0.244814 11.00 69.08 0.82 3.34 3.05 0.30
23 12.4 0.325186 11.50 72.22 0.89 2.75 2.52 0.23
24 9 0.431945 12.00 75.36 0.97 2.25 2.07 0.18
25 12.6 0.319801 12.50 78.50 1.06 3.30 3.05 0.26
26 16.2 0.236772 13.00 81.64 1.14 4.83 4.46 0.36
27 19.8 0.1753 13.50 84.78 1.23 7.03 6.52 0.51
28 23.4 0.129787 14.00 87.92 1.33 10.21 9.50 0.72
29 27 0.096091 14.50 91.06 1.42 14.80 13.79 1.00
30 27.2 0.0945 15.00 94.20 1.52 16.10 15.05 1.06
31 27.4 0.092935 15.50 97.34 1.62 17.48 16.37 1.11
32 27.6 0.091396 16.00 100.48 1.73 18.94 17.78 1.17
32.5 27.8 0.089882 16.25 102.05 1.79 19.87 19.26 0.61
°9.76 min
(Iv/Vc)(L/D)/
(Pb/Pa)
244
Figure G- 12. SC-1 Insertion Prediction Spreadsheet.
Pile Insertion Spreadsheet SC-1
Vc (ft3)139
D (ft) 2
A (ft2)3.14
Pb (psi) 125
Pa (psi) 14.7
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)Time req (min) Prev Increment Incremental
0.001 2 0.77495 0.0005 0.00314 1.3283E-09 1.71403E-09 0 1.71403E-09
1 2 0.77495 0.5 3.14 0.00132829 0.001714031 1.71403E-09 0.001714029
2 2 0.77495 1 6.28 0.00531315 0.006856125 0.001714031 0.005142093
3 2 0.77495 1.5 9.42 0.01195459 0.01542628 0.006856125 0.008570156
4 2 0.77495 2 12.56 0.0212526 0.027424499 0.01542628 0.011998218
5 2 0.77495 2.5 15.7 0.03320719 0.042850779 0.027424499 0.01542628
6 13 0.309296 3 18.84 0.04781836 0.154603989 0.107363881 0.047240108
7 13 0.309296 3.5 21.98 0.0650861 0.210433207 0.154603989 0.055829218
8 13 0.309296 4 25.12 0.08501042 0.274851536 0.210433207 0.064418329
9 13 0.309296 4.5 28.26 0.10759131 0.347858976 0.274851536 0.073007439
10 13 0.309296 5 31.4 0.13282878 0.429455525 0.347858976 0.08159655
11 13 0.309296 5.5 34.54 0.16072282 0.519641186 0.429455525 0.09018566
12 13 0.309296 6 37.68 0.19127344 0.618415957 0.519641186 0.098774771
13 13 0.309296 6.5 40.82 0.22448063 0.725779838 0.618415957 0.107363881
14 13 0.309296 7 43.96 0.2603444 0.84173283 0.725779838 0.115952992
15 13 0.309296 7.5 47.1 0.29886475 0.966274932 0.84173283 0.124542102
16 13 0.309296 8 50.24 0.34004167 1.099406145 0.966274932 0.133131213
°0.992042264
(Iv/Qw)(L/D)
/(Pb/Pa)
245
Jetting Model Spreadsheet
Cc= Coeff of Curvature of the grain size distribution
Cc = (D30)2/(D10 * D60)
Cc 1.05
Qw = Pump Flowrate
Qw (gal/min)1200 D50 (mm) 0.17 A = Area of Pile
Diam (ft) 2 Total Depth(ft) 30
Pb = Pump pressure
A (ft2)3.14 Pa = Atmospheric Pressure
Pb (psi) 100 Incremental
Pa (psi) 14.7 Insertion Time
Depth (ft) N value m L/D Iv (ft3)IPTime req (min) Prev Increment (min)
0.1 30 0.093459 0.05 0.314 1.4387E-05 0.000153938 0 0.0002
1 30 0.093459 0.5 3.14 0.00143869 0.015393807 0.000153938 0.0152
2 30 0.093459 1 6.28 0.00575476 0.061575226 0.015393807 0.0462
3 30 0.093459 1.5 9.42 0.01294822 0.138544259 0.061575226 0.0770
4 30 0.093459 2 12.56 0.02301906 0.246300904 0.138544259 0.1078
5 30 0.093459 2.5 15.7 0.03596727 0.384845163 0.246300904 0.1385
6 30 0.093459 3 18.84 0.05179287 0.554177034 0.384845163 0.1693
7 30 0.093459 3.5 21.98 0.07049586 0.754296519 0.554177034 0.2001
8 30 0.093459 4 25.12 0.09207622 0.985203617 0.754296519 0.2309
9 30 0.093459 4.5 28.26 0.11653397 1.246898327 0.985203617 0.2617
10 30 0.093459 5 31.4 0.1438691 1.539380651 1.246898327 0.2925
11 30 0.093459 5.5 34.54 0.17408161 1.862650588 1.539380651 0.3233
12 30 0.093459 6 37.68 0.2071715 2.216708137 1.862650588 0.3541
13 30 0.093459 6.5 40.82 0.24313877 2.6015533 2.216708137 0.3848
14 30 0.093459 7 43.96 0.28198343 3.017186076 2.6015533 0.4156
15 30 0.093459 7.5 47.1 0.32370547 3.463606464 3.017186076 0.4464
16 30 0.093459 8 50.24 0.36830489 3.940814466 3.463606464 0.4772
17 30 0.093459 8.5 53.38 0.41578169 4.448810081 3.940814466 0.5080
18 30 0.093459 9 56.52 0.46613587 4.987593309 4.448810081 0.5388
19 30 0.093459 9.5 59.66 0.51936744 5.55716415 4.987593309 0.5696
20 30 0.093459 10 62.8 0.57547639 6.157522603 5.55716415 0.6004
21 30 0.093459 10.5 65.94 0.63446272 6.78866867 6.157522603 0.6311
22 30 0.093459 11 69.08 0.69632643 7.45060235 6.78866867 0.6619
23 30 0.093459 11.5 72.22 0.76106752 8.143323643 7.45060235 0.6927
24 30 0.093459 12 75.36 0.828686 8.866832549 8.143323643 0.7235
25 30 0.093459 12.5 78.5 0.89918186 9.621129068 8.866832549 0.7543
26 30 0.093459 13 81.64 0.97255509 10.4062132 9.621129068 0.7851
27 30 0.093459 13.5 84.78 1.04880572 11.22208494 10.4062132 0.8159
28 30 0.093459 14 87.92 1.12793372 12.0687443 11.22208494 0.8467
29 30 0.093459 14.5 91.06 1.2099391 12.94619127 12.0687443 0.8774
30 30 0.093459 15 94.2 1.29482187 13.85442586 12.94619127 0.9082
Π 14 TOTAL TIME (min)
Predicted
Qw (ft3/min)Qp (ft3/min) Vwtotal (ft3)Qw/Qp avolume bvolume aarea barea Vdebris Adebris Ddebris
160.41666 6.80 2222.48 23.59 1.41 -0.97 11.37 -0.94 144.26 655.44 28.89
Qp must be >= Apile * 1foot
Figure G- 13. Example of Proposed Jetting Model Spreadsheet.
246
APPENDIX H
Environmental Impact of Pile Jetting on Macrobenthos
247
TAXA
POLYCHAETA
Amphectis floridium (Hobsonia floridia)
Etone heteropoda
Heteromastus filiformus
Mediomastus californiensis
Notomastus hemipodus
Neanthes succinea
Polydora websteri
Streblospio benedicti
Scolecolepides viridis
CRUSTACEA
Callinectes sapidus
Rithropanopeus harrisii
Edotea sp.
Cumacea sp.
Cyathura polita
Mysis sp.
Sphaeroma quadridentatum
Tanaidacea (Tanais sp.)
Corophium lacustre
Melita nitida
Gammarus tigrinus
MOLLUSCA
Macoma balthica
Macoma mitchelli
Macoma tenta
Mulinia lateralis
Mytilopsis leucophaeta
Rangia cuneata
Tellina alternata
Littodorinops tenuipes
Crassostrea virginica
INSECTA (DIPTERA)
Ceratopogonidae Culcoides sp.
Chironomus plumosus
Cryptochironomus fulvus
Cryptotendepides sp.
Dicrotendipedes modestus
Polypelilum halterale
Polypelilum scalaenum
248
Continued
Procladius bellus type
Cladotanytarsus sp.
Micropsectra sp. D
Rheotanytarsus sp.
Coelotanypus scapularis
Tanypus neopunctipennis
OTHER
Barnacle
Cerebratus lacteus
Lineus socialis
Turbellaria
Leech
OLIGOCHAETA
Limnodrilus hoffmansteri
Tubifiex tubifex
Nais communis complex
MEIOFAUNA Observed**
Foraminifera
Calanoid copepoda
Harpacticoida
Nematoda
Colonials
Encrusting Bryozoa
Colonial hydroid
Vertebrates
FISH
**not included in species totals
APPENDIX H-1. List of macrobenthic families and species enumerated from
benthic Ponor grab samples taken from the White Oak River, Swan Quarter Ferry
terminal basin, and Cherry Point ferry terminal basin, North Carolina during
March 2004.
2492004 DOT Jetting Sample Summary R1=Downstream 20M R2=Downstream 5M IA=Impact Area R3=Upstream 5M R4=Upstream 20M Salinity Turbitity Start Water Grab Location Date sample temp C ppt DO mg/l pH NTU time GPS N GPS W depth M depth cm White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR1-1 15.3 0.2 8.25 7.08 8.3 9:15 34.77453 77.15411 0.7 5.8White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR1-2 34.77449 77.15405 1.2 6.5White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR1-3 34.77448 77.15402 1.1 5.1White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR1-4 34.77451 77.15395 1.3 4.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR1-5 34.77456 77.15406 0.35 7.5White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR2-1 15.7 0.1 8.45 7.07 7.1 11:17 34.77469 77.15407 0.7 5.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR2-2 34.77470 77.15405 0.8 3.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR2-3 34.77470 77.15401 1.1 6.5White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR2-4 34.77470 77.15399 1.3 5.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR2-5 34.77471 77.15391 1.3 5.5White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOIA-1 16 0.1 8.35 7.5 6.9 13:12 34.77480 77.15399 0.9 6.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOIA-2 34.77477 77.15401 0.9 6.5White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOIA-3 34.77479 77.15401 0.4 6.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOIA-4 34.77476 77.15400 0.6 3.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOIA-5 34.77478 77.15404 0.4 5.5White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR3-1 16.3 0.1 8.46 6.89 12.6 14:22 34.77481 77.15403 0.1 1.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR3-2 34.77493 77.15400 0.2 5.5White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR3-3 34.77489 77.15402 0.2 6.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR3-4 34.77488 77.15392 0.6 6.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR3-5 34.77489 77.15400 0.5 6.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR4-1 16.7 0.1 8.34 7.13 8.9 15:19 34.77502 77.15403 0.2 5.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR4-2 34.77501 77.15399 0.6 6.5White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR4-3 34.77503 77.15398 0.5 5.0White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR4-4 34.77502 77.15396 0.8 4.5White Oak River 3/29/2004 WOR4-5 34.77500 77.15402 0.5 6.0 Appendix H-2 Jetting Sample summary : White Oak
250 Continued-Cherry Branch Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR1-1 12.2 2.8 9.03 7.67 17.8 10:33 34.93562 76.80997 2.7 3.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR1-2 34.93568 76.81007 2.7 7.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR1-3 34.93566 76.80986 2.7 7.5Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR1-4 34.93572 76.81009 2.7 6.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR1-5 34.93568 76.80999 2.7 6.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR2-1 13.3 2.7 9.1 7.18 15.8 11:35 34.93575 76.81006 2.7 5.5Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR2-2 34.93575 76.81003 2.7 7.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR2-3 34.93577 76.80999 2.7 6.5Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR2-4 34.93578 76.81007 2.7 2.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR2-5 34.93581 76.81007 2.7 6.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBIA-1 14 2.9 8.73 7.32 17.7 12:46 34.93580 76.81005 2.6 5.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBIA-2 34.93588 76.81003 2.6 8.5Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBIA-3 34.93588 76.80997 2.5 6.5Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBIA-4 34.93590 76.80998 2.5 7.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBIA-5 34.93588 76.80996 2.5 5.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR3-1 14.3 2.6 8.7 7.17 17.4 13:45 34.93592 76.81002 2.5 6.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR3-2 34.93592 76.81004 2.5 7.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR3-3 34.93595 76.81001 2.5 7.5Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR3-4 34.93595 76.81004 2.6 8.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR3-5 34.93595 76.81005 2.6 6.5Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR4-1 13.8 2.9 8.93 7.15 15.7 14:46 34.93600 76.81007 2.5 6.5Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR4-2 34.93603 76.81005 2.5 7.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR4-3 34.93600 76.81008 2.5 4.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR4-4 34.93601 76.81001 2.5 8.0Cherry Branch 3/30/2004 CBR4-5 34.93601 76.80997 2.5 8.0
251Continued-Swan Quarter Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR1-1 12.8 9 9.24 7.22 13.2 9:25 35.39542 76.32788 3.4 5.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR1-2 35.39542 76.32791 3.5 5.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR1-3 35.39545 76.32787 2.5 5.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR1-4 35.39543 76.32785 2.4 4.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR1-5 35.39546 76.32781 1.5 4.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR2-1 12.7 9 9.67 nodata 15.8 9:54 35.39534 76.32773 2.4 4.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR2-2 35.39526 76.32766 3.1 3.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR2-3 12:40 35.39533 76.32773 3.5 5.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR2-4 35.39531 76.32774 3.4 6.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR2-5 35.39532 76.32772 3.4 6.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQIA-1 12.8 99.98 7.11 nodata 10:54 35.39523 76.27580 2 3.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQIA-2 35.39522 76.32760 2 3.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQIA-3 35.39525 76.32761 5.3 3.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQIA-4 35.39525 76.32757 1.6 2.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQIA-5 39.39525 76.32759 1.5 2.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR3-1 12.8 9 10.06 7.21 nodata 11:20 35.39504 76.32743 2.9 5.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR3-2 35.39505 76.32745 3 5.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR3-3 35.39503 76.32747 3 6.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR3-4 35.39508 76.32740 2.7 5.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR3-5 35.39508 76.32737 3.3 6.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR4-1 13.2 8.910.35 7.31 14.3 12:06 35.39493 76.32727 2.7 6.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR4-2 35.39492 76.32729 2.7 6.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR4-3 35.39492 76.32726 2.8 6.5Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR4-4 35.39496 76.32730 2.8 6.0Swan Quarter 3/31/2004 SQR4-5 35.39495 76.32731 2.9 7.5 Appendix H-2 Jetting Sample summary