Sediment Samplers for Underwater Crawler

Fahad A. Islam

Department of Marine and Environmental Systems

Florida Institute of Technology

TRANSMITTAL

Florida Institute of Technology

Department of Marine and Environmental Systems

TO: Dr. Stephen Wood

Department of Marine and Environmental Systems

Florida Institute of Technology

150 West University Blvd.

Melbourne, FL 32901

FROM: Fahad A. Islam

Department of Marine and Environmental Systems

Florida Institute of Technology

150 West University Blvd.

Melbourne, FL 32901

RE: Final Design Project

SUBMITTAL DATE: May 23, 2014

Dr. Wood,

Please review the attached Final Design Project Report for the “Sediment Samplers for Underwater Crawler.”

Fahad A. Islam

2

Table of Contents

List of Tables: ............................................................................................................................................... 4

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 10

Background Research ................................................................................................................................. 11

Design Concept ........................................................................................................................................... 17

The Gravity and Push Core Sampler (GAPCS) ...................................................................................... 17

Force Analysis for GAPCS ..................................................................................................................... 23

The Archimedes Screw Marine Sediment Sampler (ASMSS) ............................................................... 30

Torque Analysis: ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Material Selection ....................................................................................................................................... 37

The Gravity and Push Corer Sampler ..................................................................................................... 37

Stainless Steel: .................................................................................................................................... 39

Aluminum: .......................................................................................................................................... 41

The Archimedes Screw Marine Sediment Sampler ................................................................................ 42

Cost of the Design vs Cost of a Commercial Product ................................................................................. 43

Hydraulic Motor Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 47

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix A: Calculation ............................................................................................................................ 51

Appendix B: Experiment Documentation. .................................................................................................. 60

References ................................................................................................................................................... 66

3

List of Tables:

Table 1: Volume and Area of the GAPCS .................................................................................... 22

Table 2: Variation of Ku, m, and (Df/B) [36] ............................................................................... 24

Table 3: The critical embedment ratio, the allowed critical embedment ratio to use, non-

dimensional factors, undrained cohesion, and unit weight of soils. ...................................... 27

Table 4: Final results for the Uplift force required to extract the samplers off the sea bed ......... 28

Table 5: Bearing Capacity and Torque provided by EPA of the soil ........................................... 29

Table 6: Mass analysis by Creo 2.0 for Archimedes Screw ......................................................... 33

Table 7: The ASMSS system's tube mass analysis ....................................................................... 35

Table 8: Composition of Different 316 Grade of Stainless Steel ................................................. 40

Table 9: Minimum room-temperature mechanical properties of austenitic stainless steels [27] . 40

Table 10: Typical Aluminum Tensile properties [28] .................................................................. 41

Table 11: GC075 and GC150 Gravity Corers Cost and Configuration. ....................................... 43

Table 12: PC150 and PC300 Piston Corer pricing and Configuration ......................................... 43

Table 13: PC 600 and heavy duty model 2555 coring system cost .............................................. 45

Table 14: Auger kits cost (http://www.equipcoservices.com/sales/ams/flighted_auger_kits.html)

............................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 15: Cost for Both GAPCS and ASMSS in stainless steel ................................................... 46

Table 16: Cost for Both CAPCS and ASMSS in Aluminum........................................................ 46

4

List of Figures

Figure 1: Sketch of the Kullenberg piston core ………………………………………………....11

Figure 2: How the piston sampler works [1]…………………………………………………….11

Figure 3: Core Conveyors by ASTM Standard D4823…………………………………….........13

Figure 4: Core Catcher by ASTM Standard D4823………………………………………..........13

Figure 5: Examples of different types of Core Samplers based on sea bed classification ……...13

Figure 6: Archimedes Screw…………………………………………………………….............14

Figure 7: Auger Sampler Kit……………………………………………………….....................15

Figure 8: Underwater Drilling.......................................................................................................15

Figure 9: The GAPCS Core Sampler Outer tube and Dimensions …………………………......17

Figure 10: The Internal Plastic Tube for the GAPCS…………………………………………...18

Figure 11: The End Cap of the GAPCS…………………………………………………………18

Figure 12: The GAPCS after and before assembly………..…………………………………….18

Figure 13: The second end cap for cohesive sediments ………………………………………...19

Figure 14: Orange Peel Core Catcher…………………………………………………………...20

5

Figure 15: The GAPCS storage Box with internal cylinder to screw the GAPCS in and prevent

water from escaping through the core catcher…………………………………………………..20

Figure 16: Aluminum one way valve…………………………………………………………...20

Figure 17: A plot of α’ versus β’………………………………………………………………..25

Figure 18: The ASMSS Tube and Cover ....................................................................................29

Figure 19: The ASMSS design and dimensions ……………..………………………………...30

Figure 20: Amount of Shortening based on diameter and penetrated depth…............................31

Figure 21: Figure 11: NSK 30202 Tapered Roller Bearing (http://www.amazon.com/NSK-

Standard-Capacity-11000rpm-rotational/dp/B007Z3538E)..............................................…......34

Figure 22: The ASMSS after assembly…………...……………………………………………35

Figure 23: The Hydraulic Hammer Drill……....……………………………………………….48

Figure 24: The Hydraulic Impact Drill…………………………………………………………48

6

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Florida Institute of Technology and the Department of Marine and

Environmental Systems for their support and resources that allowed me to design my Sediment

Samplers for the Underwater Crawler. Also, I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Stephen

Wood for his support, help, and providing all materials and software to get this project alive.

Sincerely, I would like to thank Dr. Paul Cosentino, Dr. Albert Bleakley, Dr. Gary Zarillo, Dr.

John Trefry, Bill Battin, Dr. Mary Sohn, Dr. Geoffrey Swain, and Linda Lundstedt for their great

help and mentorship. I much obligate my family and kids for support and inspiration.

7

8

Executive Summary

The research contained within this document is the design of a sediment sampler to be mounted to the Florida Institute of Technology’s remotely operated sea crawler. The crawler was first designed and built in 2010 by the author and his team. The crawler has been improved and expanded upon by several teams since then. One of the devices that scientists at Florida Tech require is the need to collect a variety of marine sediment samples such as sand, gravel, and fossil artifacts. Marine sediments provide significant information regarding the history of ocean. The two samplers designed within this document obtain their samples differently. The first design is called the Gravity and Push Core sampler (GAPCS) inspired from the gravity corer and piston samplers. The Gravity and Push Core Sampler (GAPCS) is designed to be mounted on the crawler and manipulated by a robotic arm. The GAPCS can be laid vertically on the surface of the sediment and pushed/hammered by the robotic arm. Also GAPCS can be raised above sea bed allowing gravity (i.e., the weight of the drop weight) to penetrate the sediments. The second design is called Archimedes Screw Marine Sediment Sampler (ASMSS). The principal of the Archimedes Screw Marine Sediment Sampler (ASMSS) is inspired from the Archimedes screw that is used to pump water while positioned in angle. However, the ASMSS is laid vertically above sea bed and the screw inside the sediment tube penetrates the sand while the motion of the tube remains downward. The crawler will be operated in depths ranges from 5-m to 76-m.

Both designs will operate in different conditions and on different type of sediment. Sediments studies provide a significant data for marine construction. The designs will be a prototypes for testing their efficiency, optimal forces, and penetration depth.

The materials used for both samplers is stainless steel or aluminum. The cost of making both systems is $730 for stainless steel and $350 for aluminum. Stainless steel is the preferred metal due to several factors but not limited to such as extraction force of the sampler has to be larger than 20767.42 N, and the resultant force exerted by pressure at depth 76.2 m.

9

Introduction

The need of a sediment sampler is valuable for scientific studies (benthos), organic matter,

global past climate, earth’s history, contamination, toxicity, and many more. Civil and coastal

engineers, scientists, and offshore structure architects need information about sediment

conditions for many projects and research, for example the type of sediment in certain offshore

locations is important for any offshore construction.

This paper presents two designs for sediment samplers that can be built and installed onto

Florida Institute of Technology’s remotely operated sea crawler. The first design is called the

Gravity and Push Core Sampler (GAPCS). The GAPCS consists of a cylinder outer hollow tube,

a chamfered cap, inner cylinder plastic tube, a small solid cylinder tube, a core catcher, and a

solid conical frustum base. The second design is called Archimedes Screw Marine Sediment

Sampler (ASMSS). The ASMSS consist of a cylinder tube, a flange, a roller bearing, and an

Archimedes screw.

Both samplers are discussed in detail in the following sections of the paper. The two

samplers are designed to operate in different types of sediment. The crawler will operate in depth

ranges from 5 m to 76 m. GAPCS is designed to operate on muddy and sandy sediments and for

core sampling. The ASMSS is designed to collect core samples from clay to coarse sand and

only for surficial sediment area.

The two designs will need to be tested to establish their efficiency, optimal maximum forces

and torques, maximum penetration depth, and dimension adjustment. The purpose of this design

is to establish a base sedimentation sampler for use on the Department of Marine and

Environmental System’s remotely operated sea crawler at Florida Institute of Technology. This

10

paper also discusses the sediment sampling operations, materials used, comparative analysis,

machinery, and cost of the designs.

Background Research

For many decades people have been inventing, developing, and creating sediment samplers.

Sediments provide information and data regarding the past and future. There are three key types

of sediment samplers and each serves a unique purpose and application. The devices are: Garb

samplers, Core samplers, and Dredge samplers [12]. The Grab sampler is used to examine the

horizontal characteristics of the horizontal profile of the surficial sediments [12]. The Core

sampler is used mainly to evaluate the vertical profile of the sediments at various depth

depending on the dimensions of the core samplers or the characteristics of the different layers it

contains [12]. The Dredge sampler objective is to collect benthos [12].

There are two types of samples: disturbed and undisturbed samples. Disturbed samples are

samples that has its layers disturbed while taking the sample such as dredge samplers and drilling

samplers. However, the undisturbed samples are the samples which their layers remains almost

the same while penetrating the sample into the sediments [20]. Each device collects either a

disturbed sample or undisturbed sample. For this paper, both disturbed samples and undisturbed

samples are designed. When making core samples it is recommended to penetrate 6-8cm,

however, the preferred core penetration depth is 10-15 cm for non-historic contamination studies

[12]. On the other hand, some organisms can be located on the surficial layer of the seabed like

shrimp (0-1 cm), or some feeding habits and life history could be located at certain penetration

depths, therefore, different depths should be considered in the design of sediment samplers [12].

11

Several types of existing samplers were the inspiration for GAPCS and the ASMSS. GAPCS

and ASMSS are not new inventions; rather they are modifications of existing inventions that

could have patent possibilities.

The first device is inspired from the gravity corer and piston corer (see Fig. 1). The piston

corer was invented by Börje Kullenberg, a Swedish marine geologist working in Gothenburg, in

1947 [6]. “A clever modification of the traditional steel tube principle, the coring tube now fell

past a stationary piston at the end of the wire, so that water is expelled from the falling tube

above the piston and sediment is admitted from below.”[6]

Figure 1: Sketch of the Kullenberg piston corer. (From a drawing in Kullenberg, 1943) [6].

Figure 2: How the piston sampler works [1]

12

The advantage of the piston corer is to eliminate compression and disturbance in the sample,

which is great for scientist to study the evolution, accumulation of sediment throughout time, and

the history of earth [12]. The disadvantages of the piston corer are: heaviness, length, and

difficulty to handle with all the parts associated with the piston [12].

ASTM standard D4823 described two common techniques to drive core sampler into

sediment [1]. One technique is weight driven, which is highly depends on the sampler weight,

however the second technique is a momentum driven technique (See Fig. 2) [1]. There are other

techniques usually used in certain circumstances, for example “Free” Core Sampler, Implosive

and Explosive Sampler, Punch-Corer Sampler, Vibratory-Driven Sampler, and Impact-Driven

Sampler [1]. A detailed description is available in the appendices section of the report.

In Figure 1, the main parts of the piston corer are shown. Commercial piston corer in this day

and age, includes a plastic internal tube, a core conveyer (see Fig. 3) [1], a cap for the internal

tube, and a core catcher (see Fig. 4). A core catcher is a device that is fitted into the plastic

internal tube/liner and consists of fingers that open when the corer penetrates through sediment

to allow sediment to flow inside the internal and close when the corer is being extracted to stop

the sediment from escaping the liner [1]. On the other hand ASTM standard D4823 defines a

core conveyer as “a device to reducing friction between a core and the inside surface of a core

barrel.”[1]

There several types of core samplers that are available for different purposes, different sizes, and

different applications (see Fig. 5).

13

Figure 5: Examples of different types of Core Samplers based on sea bed classification [12]

Figure 4: Core Catcher by ASTM Standard D4823 [1] Figure 3: Core Conveyors by ASTM Standard D4823 [1]

14

On the other side, the inspiration for making an Archimedes’ screw dedicated for sediment

sampling started when Archimedes invented the Archimedes screw more than 2000 years ago

[9]. The screw was initially invented to be used in irrigation, by rising water from a lower level

to a higher level [9]. The design of the Archimedes screw consisted of tube with helix inside of

it, which allows the water to move up (see Fig 6) [9]. The ASMSS design was not only inspired

by the Archimedes screw but also by the design of the hand/machine driven auger.

Augers have been used for different purposes based on the industry (see Fig. 7). Augers can

be operated horizontally, vertically, or tilted. Applications of an auger include but are not limited

to animal feed, cereal grain, food waste, aggregates, garbage, and ice removal. Auger samplers

have been primarily used on dry land. The challenge is to make the ASMSS as efficient as

possible collecting sediment with water pores. The samples that the auger takes are disturbed.

Thus, these samples are not appropriate for history of the ocean/earth studies based on the layers

being undisturbed. Drill Augers can be used underwater for drilling pilot holes and drilling for

offshore oil applications (see Fig. 8).

Figure 6: Archimedes Screw (http://www.greenhousecanada.com/energy-edge/renewables/harper-government-invests-in-alternative-energy-sources-for-farmers)

15

All the technology invented above opened the horizon to use the crawler as an underwater

platform for drilling, sediment collecting, coral studies and tests, and many scientific and

commercial use. Implementing these inexpensive technologies and principals in the crawler, will

even introduce new subject for the DMES students into a variety of projects which will lead to a

greater future.

Figure 7: Auger Sampler Kit (http://www.equipcoservices.com/rentals/soil_sampling/soil_sampling_kits.html)

Figure 8: Underwater Drilling (http://charleslab.ucsd.edu/images/kimcobb2005DrillingLineIsl.jpg)

16

Design Concept

A detailed description of both designs will follow

The Gravity and Push Core Sampler (GAPCS)

The GAPCS consists of a cylindrical outer hollow tube, a chamfered cap, an inner cylinder

plastic tube, a small solid cylinder tube, a core catcher, and a solid conical frustum base (see Fig.

9). The cylindrical outer tube will be made of stainless steel to ensure integrity of the tube and is

200mm (8in) and thickness of 10mm. The reason behind choosing this length is to ensure

retrieving the preferred length of sediment which ranges 10-15 cm [12] and give a space for extra

penetration depth. At the top of the tube there are 4 symmetric holes (d=10-mm, 0.4-in) for the

water to exist from the tube while the core is penetrated through sediment. These 4 symmetric

holes could be adjusted after testing the design by taking the sample and noting if water will

escape the holes fast enough to not disturb the core sample. The bottom tip of the GAPCS core

sampler has internal threads so the end cap can be screwed in. The solid conical frustum base

will be welded into the top of the tube. The height for the frustum is 70-mm (2.76-in), the major

diameter is 140-mm (5.52-in), and the minor diameter is 60-mm (2.4-in). For testing purposes,

three prototype of the frustum need to be made. One should be made of hollow plastic or PVC

with a fitted cap on the top, to be filled with diving weight bags. The second prototype should be

17

made of stainless steel, because it has better resistance to corrosion and rust than carbon steel.

The third prototype will be made of marine grade aluminum. After testing and cost analysis, the

best material will be used for the final design. Inside the GAPCS core tube, there is a cylindrical

tube that is hollow and has a length of 60 mm (2.37 in approx.). Its function is to stop the

internal plastic sample tube from blocking the 4 circular holes. The internal plastic tube is where

the sample will be stored in (see Fig. 9). The internal plastic tube has a 50 mm outside diameter

(1.97 in), thickness of 3 mm, and length of 169 mm (6.65 in), so it can fit inside the core

sampler. At the bottom tip of the internal plastic tube, there will be a fitted in or screwed in core

catcher to keep the sample from exiting the tube. The last part is the end cap (see Fig. 11). The

end cap is designed in Creo 2.0 like all the other parts and has cosmetic external threads that will

be screwed inside the GAPCS sampler. The end cap will keep all the inside parts fit and snugged

and helps penetrate through sediment. There are two end caps: one has an angle of 45° and

chamfered 7.5 mm, while the second will have an angle of 23° and chamfered 7.65 mm (see Fig.

11 and Fig. 13). Both end caps have the same dimension except for the angle and the chamfering

distance. Primarily, the GAPCS will be stored inside a square box (L=180 mm, H=290 mm) that

is welded to the front of the crawler and the GAPCS will be manipulated by a robotic arm. The

square box can be adjusted to contain a cylinder solid (D= 50 mm, H= 10 mm) centered in the

Figure 9: The GAPCS Core Sampler Outer tube and dimensions

18

box and has external threads. The threads will provide a mechanism to keep the GAPCS in place

by screwing the front of the end cap to the solid. This mechanism is only beneficial for toxic or

pore water sampling where we need to keep the water inside the sampler after retrieving on land.

The robotic arm should be able to move the GAPCS into a desired location of sampling, lay the

chamfered tip of the GAPCS on the surface of the sea bed, and apply enough force to penetrate

Figure 10: The Internal Plastic Tube for the GAPCS

Figure 11: The End Cap of the GAPCS

Figure 12: GAPCS after and before assembly

19

the GAPCS through the sediment. Again the preferred penetration depth should be 10-15 cm

[12] to collect a reliable core sample. The assembly of the system is showing Fig. 11.

Figure 13: The second end cap for cohesive sediments

20

Extraction forces need to be measured while testing. Core catcher is 47 mm in diameter to fit in

the internal sample tube (see Fig. 13).

Figure 14: Orange Peel Core Catcher (http://www.kc-denmark.dk/products/sediment-samplers/gravity-corer/gravity-core-oe121mm.aspx)

Figure 16: Aluminum one way valve (http://www.siliconeintakes.com/product_info.php?products_id=9582)

Figure 15: The GAPCS storage Box with internal cylinder to screw the GAPCS in and prevent water from escaping through the core catcher

21

The GAPCS can also be raised up to a specific height above sea bed and lets the weight of the

frustum and gravity lead the system into the sediment. However, it will need to be tested to find

the optimum height and weight for the system to penetrate 10-15 cm into the sediment.

An associated device that is needed for the GAPCAS to increase efficiency is a one way

valve. However, we can eliminate the use of the one way valve by the cylinder box with the

external threads mentioned above (see Fig. 14). The one way valve should have a diameter of 10

mm to fit in the 4 holes on the core sampler (see Fig. 15). The one way valve should be fitted in

the GAPCS 4 holes if the sampler is being utilized by a diver and the storage box should be used

if the GAPCS is utilized by the crawler. The price of the one way valve is $4.99 (the source of

the product is on Fig. 15). This features make the GAPCS portable and can be used in any site

with multiple methods.

The maximum sample volume for the GAPCS is 293.2 cm3. The maximum length of the

sample will be 16.9 cm. The following table shows the volumes, surface areas, and Lateral areas

for each part of the GAPCS.

Table 1: Volume and Area of the GAPCS

The GAPCS

Volume (cm3) 754

Surface Area (cm2) 1141

Density (kg/m3) 8000

Mass (kg) 6.03

Therefore, the total volume is multiplied by the density of stainless steel to calculate the mass for

the GAPCS; penetrating the total length of the GAPCS (200 mm) resulting in 13 mm shortening

in the sample (see Fig. 17). This is discussed in the material selection section

22

Force Analysis for GAPCS

For accuracy, the penetration forces that needs to be applied on the GAPCS have to be tested

depending on the site and the sediments classification. The extraction forces, as well, will vary

from site to site and different type of sediments. At this stage the design of the GAPCS is not

built yet so obtaining such information will be in the next stage of this project and will not be

presented in this paper.

On the other hand, consulting Dr. Albert Bleakley (Associate Professor specialized in

construction) and Dr. Paul Cosentino (Professor in Civil Engineering) provided an insight on the

extraction forces. They stated that the extraction force will significantly depend on the friction

forces exerted against the walls of the sample [34 & 35]. Dr. Cosentino is very experienced with

soil sampling on land and water for construction and foundation purposes [35]. He directed the

author of this paper to calculate the uplift capacity of a circular foundation (similar to the

geometry of a GAPCS sampler) using the book of The Principles of Foundation Engineering by

Das [35]. Using the uplift capacity which account for friction of the soil will approximate the

upper limit of the extraction force of the sampler [35]. Dr. Cosentino mentioned that the

penetration force can be approximately calculated by multiplying the bearing capacity by the

cross section area of the contact surface [35]. He also mentioned that after calculating these

values, a factor of safety multiplied by the forces and preferably a factor of safety of 5 is used

[35]. He also stated that penetration and extraction forces will be relatively small because the

dimensions of the GAPCS and ASMSS is fairly trifling, and the penetration depth is insignificant

[34 &35]. Using the book of Principal of Foundation Engineering 6th edition by Das, the upper

limit of the extraction force was calculated for granular soil, soft clay, medium clay, and stiff

clay.

23

The uplift capacity in granular soil is expressed in the following equation [36]:

𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄 = 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐴𝐴 𝛾𝛾 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 Eqn. 1

Where

F𝑞𝑞 = 1 + 2 �1 + m �DfB�� �Df

B�Ku tan ɸ’ for circular foundation Eqn. 2

Qu = the ultimate load of the uplift force.

Fq = non- dimensional breakout factor which is a function of the soil friction angle ɸ’ and Df / B.

A = Area of the foundation.

Df = Depth of embedment.

B =Diameter.

𝛾𝛾 = unit weight of soil, and because the sediment is underwater, the saturated values will be used.

m = a coefficient which is a function of ɸ’.

Ku = nominal uplift coefficient.

Table 2: Variation of Ku, m, and (Df/B) [36]

24

(Df/B)-cr = critical embedment ratio.

And by using Table 2 Ku, m, and (Df/B)-cr are obtained to calculate Fq. The value of the friction

angle ɸ’ is chosen to be 45° as it is the maximum in the table to provide the maximum value for

the calculation. For the GAPCS, Df = 200 mm, B = 60 mm, L = length of the whole sampler =

270 mm. The sampler (Df/B) ≤ (Df/B)-cr which means it is a shallow foundation and it will be

applied for all types of soils. For well graded, dense sand, the unit weight 𝛾𝛾 = 21.22 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘/𝑚𝑚^3 is

used [32]. Using equation 1 and equation 2, the Fq = 18. 1 and the uplift force = 220 N.

For cohesive soil, the following equation is used [36]:

𝑄𝑄𝑢𝑢 = 𝐴𝐴( 𝛾𝛾𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 + 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐) Eqn.3

Where,

cu = undrained shear strength of soil.

Fc = breakout factor

(Df/B)-cr has to be calculated based on the shape of the sampler/foundation and is shown in the

following equation [36]:

�DfB�−𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

= 0.107𝑐𝑐𝑄𝑄 + 2.5 ≤ 7 Eqn. 4

Where

(Df/B)-cr = critical embedment ratio of circular foundation.

cu = undrained cohesion, in kN / m2.

25

To obtain the breakout factor for cohesive soils, an empirical procedure is to be utilized [36].

Das, the author of the Principles of Foundation Engineering, proposed the non-dimensional

factors α’ and β’ to be calculated in the following equations [36]:

α’ =�DfB �

�DFB �cr Eqn. 5

β’ = FcFc∗

Eqn. 6

After calculating α’, β’ is obtained by using Figure 17 [36].

To find the uplift force for cohesive soil, a stiff, medium, and a soft clay were chosen for

calculating the upper limit of the extraction forces. Notice if (Df/B)-cr is higher than 7 in

equation 4, 7 is used as it is the maximum value and it remains constant after the calculated value

of (Df/B)-cr go over 7 [36]. Also, note that (Df/B) = 3.33 for the sampler is less than (Df/B)-cr in

Figure 17: A plot of α’ versus β’

26

the three types of clays, which means that it is a shallow foundation [36]. Shallow foundation

required a different equation to find the uplift force instead of equation 3. The equations used for

shallow foundation are [36]:

𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄 = 𝐴𝐴�β’𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐∗𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 + 𝛾𝛾𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓� Eqn. 7

𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 = 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐∗ = 7.56 + 1.44(𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿

) Eqn. 8

By using equation 4, 5, figure 16 and the values of cu obtained from soil properties article

provided by the U.S. Environmental Agency, Table 3 is generated:

Table 3: The critical embedment ratio, the allowed critical embedment ratio to use, non-dimensional factors, undrained cohesion, and unit weight of soils.

Parameters Soft Clay Medium Clay Stiff Clay

(Df/B)-cr 5.10 7.64 23.04

(Df/B)-cr to use on Eqn. 5&6 5.10 7 7

α’ 0.62 0.48 0.48

β’ 0.83 0.72 0.72

cu (kN/m2) [32] 24 48 192

𝜸𝜸 (kN/m3) [37] 17.29 18.55 19.65

Now, we have all the parameters needed to calculate the uplift capacity for the soft, medium, and

stiff clay. The results for the uplift capacity for soft clay, medium clay, and stiff clay are 341 N,

524 N, and 2064 N respectively. In Table 4 the final uplift capacity with a factor of safety of 5

and without a factor of safety are shown. Factor of safety of 5 suggested by Dr. Paul Cosentino

27

[35]. A factor of safety of 3 is also applicable. All forces and capacities still need to be tested,

observed, and documented.

Table 4: Final results for the Uplift force required to extract the samplers off the sea bed

Type of Soil Uplift Capacity (N) Factor of Safety Uplift Capacity with

Factor of Safety (N)

Granular 220 5 1100

Soft Clay 341 5 1705

Medium Clay 524 5 2620

Stiff Clay 2064 5 10320

Also Dr. Cosentino mentioned that the penetration force will be significantly smaller. The author

investigated if the bearing capacity can be multiplied by the cross section area of the tip of the

sampler where it contacts the sea bed before penetrating. Dr. Casentino (professor and P.E. in

Civil Engineering) agreed on the approach. Using table 5, the bearing capacity for sandy gravel

is 95,760 N/m2 and for firm clay is 47,880 N/m2 [24]. The cross section area of the bottom tip of

the GAPCS that contacts the surface of the sea bed is 1.59 × 10-3 m2. The results for the

penetrations forces are 152 N and 76 N respectively. However loads and forces still need be

tested and documented.

28

Table 5: Bearing Capacity and Torque provided by EPA of the soil

29

The Archimedes Screw Marine Sediment Sampler (ASMSS)

The ASMSS consist of an Archimedes screw, a cylindrical tube, a cover for the tube, a roller

bearing, and a rod. The first main part of the ASMSS is a cylindrical outer tube that is made of

stainless steel to ensure integrity, is 200 mm (8in), and with thickness of 10 mm (see Fig. 16).

The reason behind choosing this length is to ensure retrieving the preferred length of sediment

which ranges 10-15 cm [12] and give a space for extra penetration depth. The tube is chamfered

at the bottom edge to allow the tube to cut into sediment. The chamfering distance of the bottom

of the tube is 5 mm (maximum allowable chamfering distance). There are two holes with

diameter of 5 mm for water to exit from while penetrating the sediments. The outside diameter of

the tube is 60 mm and the inside diameter is 50 mm. At the top of the tube, there is a cylindrical

flange with 70 mm outer diameter. The flange has a hole in the middle with a diameter of 35mm

where the roller bearing and the rod shaft will go through and be connected to

Figure 18: The ASMSS Tube and Cover

30

Figure 29: The ASMSS design and dimensions

31

the Archimedes screw. The thickness of the flange is 10 mm. also there will be 6 screw holes

with 1 mm diameter on the cover for motor/system mounting (see Fig 16). The second part of the

ASMSS is the Archimedes screw attached to a stainless rod (see Fig. 18). The stainless shaft rod

is 15 mm diameter and 170 mm long. The height of Archimedes screw is 200 mm. The height is

to match the outer tube, retrieving a sediment length of 10-15 cm, and to reduce shortening of

sediments. If the ASMSS penetrates the full length of 200 mm, the amount of shortening is 13

mm (see Fig. 17) [2]. The pitch is equal to 23 mm and the helix angle of the threads is 12° total

angle. The reason for choosing an angle of 12°, is because choosing a higher angle will create

steeper threads, which will reduce the efficiency of the screw and increase the amount of

shortening in the sediments. The pitch was the minimum distance to choose from based on the

helix angle and the dimension desired in the design. Choosing a higher pitch will increase the

thickness of threads and decrease the number of threads. The type of threads created is a round

thread shape. The ASMSS needs to be tested to configure the best pitch number based on

handling the load required and the torque of different type of sediments. The outside diameter is

Figure 20: Amount of Shortening based on diameter and penetrated depth [2]

32

50 mm to fit inside the tube and create no gap for sediments to escape (see Fig. 18). A proof of

concept experiment was prepared and tested by a prototype ASMSS to see how well it

functioned in wet sand, half-way submerged underwater, and fully submerged underwater. In

wet sand the prototype was able to collect sand with no loss and needed some force to be applied

on the tube, so it can simultaneously penetrate the sand with the screw. While the prototype was

half way submerged in the water, the sampler was able to retrieve 80% and the tube needed a

little less force to penetrate simultaneously with the screw. Finally, when the sampler was fully

submerged in the water a loss of more than 50% is documented and less force was needed to

penetrate the tube. The experiment was documented in a video. The outside diameter of the

screw was at least 2 mm less than the inside diameter of the tube. Four diving weights were

taped to the outside surface of the tube to create a weight force to help the tube penetrate at the

same time as the screw dose. From observation of the how the system acted while fully

submerged, more weights are needed to help the tube penetrate along with the screw.

Table 6: Mass analysis by Creo 2.0 for Archimedes Screw

33

The experiment figure and result will be discussed in the appendix section on this paper. This

will be noted after several tests with different weights after the ASMSS is built. The ASMSS will

have a stainless steel grade 316 tube and screw which will increase the weight of the sampler.

The prototype had a plastic liner, because of that we needed more weight attachments.

Dimensional and mass analysis was created by Creo 2.0 for both the ASMSS screw and tube

respectively (see Table 3 & Table 4). A Tapered Roller Bearing, standard capacity, pressed steel

cage, metric, 15mm bore, 35mm outside diameter, 11.75mm width, 11 mm cone width, 10 mm

cup width, 11,000rpm maximum rotational speed, 13,200N static load capacity, and 14,800N

dynamic load capacity is been considered for the ASMSS (see Fig. 19).

The ASMSS will collect disturbed samples, which also can be used to give insight about the

classification of sand at a certain location. The Length of the ASMSS can be extended from 200

mm to 215 mm, so it can be adapted to the storage box on figure 14 (both have the same

diameter). A cosmetic thread will need to be constructed on the internal surface of the tube with

a height of 10 mm. the assembly of the ASMSS is shown in Fig. 20.

34

Figure 31: NSK 30202 Tapered Roller Bearing (http://www.amazon.com/NSK-Standard-Capacity-11000rpm-rotational/dp/B007Z3538E)

Table 7: The ASMSS system's tube mass analysis

35

Torque Analysis:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development provided a collection of Code of

Federal Regulation (CFR) annual edition on soil classification and bearing capacity [24]. They

used a torque test probe to measure the torque value to help assist the holding capacity of soil

[24]. “The torque value is a measure of load resistance provided by the soil when subject to the

turning or twisting force of the probe [24].” The torque load will be greater than 62.15 N◦m for

sandy gravel as it is the highest torque load and to ensure the motor will provide enough torque

to penetrate the sediments [24]. The torque load for firm clay is 20 N◦m [24].

Figure 22: The ASMSS after assembly

36

More testing is required to document all loads associated with the ASMSS system in different

type of sediments as well as different depths.

Material Selection

The Gravity and Push Corer Sampler

The GAPCS consists of (see Fig. 9):

• A cylindrical outer hollow tube.

• A chamfered end cap.

• An inner cylindrical tube to hold the samples.

• A small solid cylindrical tube to stop the inner tube from blocking the water exists holes.

• A core catcher.

• A solid conical frustum base.

Typically there are two materials to select from based on important factors but not limited to

such as underwater application, strength, strain, stress, stiffness, and corrosion resistance. First

the outer tube needs to be customized by utilizing a solid cylinder rod where it is machined to be

hallow with 10 mm thickness. The reason it is 10 mm thick is because the outer tube will handle

most of the load from a hammer drill on top and the interaction with sediment on the bottom.

Also, a friction force and a tension force will be exerted on the inside wall.

The inner cylinder tube can be plastic for cost effectiveness and fairly easy machinability

where it can be customized for any size. However, a plastic tube inside can get fractured

especially at the top where it contacts the small solid cylinder tube that stops it from blocking

water exit holes. Another advantage of the plastic tube is the ability to see the sample through the

clear walls of the tube.

37

Preferably the inner tube should be stainless steel for better strength and rigidity. Again the

internal tube should be also custom built based on dimensions provided on the GAPCS section

above. A core catcher (50 mm outside diameter) is fairly cheap and could be purchased from

several retailers. Different materials should be tested on the core catcher but preferably

aluminum or stainless steel.

The small solid cylinder that works as a stopper for the internal tube could be machined easily

and cheaply from stainless steel. For the solid frustum we need 140 mm diameter and length of

80 mm of a solid round bar of stainless steel to be machined conically in the CNC machine to the

exact dimensions mentioned above. The end cap will need to be chamfered about 7.5 mm. the

end cap has an inner diameter of 45 mm and outer diameter of 60 mm. the part of the end cap

that will be attached to the tube has to be threaded down to have an outer diameter of 50 mm, so

it can be screw in the outer tube.

Four holes (10 mm) in diameter needs to be drilled at the top of outer tube about 10 mm

distance between the center of the hole and the tip of the outer tube. Another 2 holes with

diameter of 10 mm needs to be drilled under the top four at a distance of 25 mm from the tip to

the center of the holes. Then the small solid cylinder will slide inside of these holes and will be

welded from the outside to be a fixed object to stop the internal tube from moving. After the

frustum is machined to the correct size, the smaller base will be welded to the top side of the

outer tube.

The internal tube will be fitted in the outer tube. The container box that hold the GAPCS will

consists of 4 metal sheets 290 mm length * 180 mm width with thickness of 2 mm, 1 metal sheet

of 2 mm thickness and 180 mm length * 180 mm width, and a solid threaded cylinder centered

and welded on the bottom metal sheet with 10 mm H and 50 mm OD (see Fig. 14).

38

Stainless Steel:

Washko and Aggen explained that stainless steel metals:

are iron-base alloys containing at least 10.5% Cr. Few stainless steels contain more than

30% Cr or less than 50% Fe. They achieve their stainless characteristics through the

formation of an invisible and adherent chromium-rich oxide surface film. This oxide

forms and heals itself in the presence of oxygen. Other elements added to improve

particular characteristics include nickel, molybdenum, copper, titanium, aluminum,

silicon, niobium, nitrogen, sulfur, and selenium. Carbon is normally present in amounts

ranging from less than 0.03% to over 1.0% in certain martensitic grades. [27]

The proper stainless for The GAPCS based on factors mention above is 316 Austenitic

stainless steel with its different grades [27]. The composition of the different 316 grades of

stainless steel is provide by the ASM handbook collection (see Table. 5) [27]. In the 316 grade

Mo is added to increase corrosion resistance [27]. In the 316 L grade, C reduced to provide a

better welded corrosion resistance [27]. In the 316 LN grade, C reduced and N added to provide

better strength [27]. In the 316 F grade S and P were added to provide a better machinability

[27], and finally the 316 N, N is added for better strength. All these grade of 316 stainless steel

are the most applicable for salt water exposure where the crawler will be operated [27].

39

Table 8: Composition of Different 316 Grade of Stainless Steel

Composition Type UNS

Designation C Mn Si Cr Ni P S Other

316 S31600 0.08 2.00 1.00 16.0–18.0

10.0–14.0

0.045 0.03 2.0–3.0 Mo

316F S31620 0.08 2.00 1.00 16.0–18.0

10.0–14.0

0.20 0.10 min

1.75–2.5 Mo

316H S31609 0.04–0.10

2.00 1.00 16.0–18.0

10.0–14.0

0.045 0.03 2.0–3.0 Mo

316L S31603 0.03 2.00 1.00 16.0–18.0

10.0–14.0

0.045 0.03 2.0–3.0 Mo

316LN S31653 0.03 2.00 1.00 16.0–18.0

10.0–14.0

0.045 0.03 2.0–3.0 Mo; 0.10–0.16 N

316N S31651 0.08 2.00 1.00 16.0–18.0

10.0–14.0

0.045 0.03 2.0–3.0 Mo; 0.10–0.16 N

Table 9: Minimum room-temperature mechanical properties of austenitic stainless steels [27]

To simplify the selection process, the type of stainless steel will be narrowed down to

stainless steel 316 and 316 L. The narrowing process was based on their extensive usage in the

marine applications. As shown in Table 6, the material has enough strength to withstand the

Type of SS

Condition Tensile strength (MPa)

0.2% yield strength (MPa)

Elongation %

Reduction in area %

Hardness HRB

ASTM specification

316 (UNS S31600) Bar

Cold finished

and annealed

620 310 30 40 ---- A276

316L (UNS S31603) Bar

Cold finished

and annealed

620 310 30 40 ---- A276

40

pressure in 76.2 m underwater depth and the load associated with the hammer drills. Motor

recommendation will be discussed thoroughly in the next section of the report. For all other

properties, refer back to Washko and Aggen article in the ASM handbook.

Aluminum:

On the other hand, the 2nd preferable metal is aluminum. The advantages of aluminum are:

• Light weight

• Easy manufacture

• Usage of scrap aluminum metal in Florida Institute of Technology machine shop

• Cheap

• High strength

• Excellent corrosion resistance in salt water

Aluminum has a density of only 2.7 g/cm3 and the “5xxx Alloys in which magnesium is the

principal alloying element [28].” Two types of Aluminum were chosen based on their

adaptability for marine application. The types are 5083 and 5086 aluminum. Their typical tensile

properties are shown in Table 7 [28].

Table 10: Typical Aluminum Tensile properties [28]

Notice the difference in tensile strength, yield strength, and elongation between stainless steel

and aluminum. The difference is almost 50%.

Type of Aluminum

Temper Tensile strength (MPa)

yield strength (MPa)

Elongation %

ASTM specification

Alloy 5083 H116 317 228 16 B 221, B 547 Alloy 5086 H116 290 205 12 B 221, B313, B547

41

The Archimedes Screw Marine Sediment Sampler

Machining the outer tube for the ASMSS will be the same as the outer tube of the GAPCS

with small differences. A metal solid rod (length is 200 mm) with outer diameter of 60 mm will

be drilled through to create a hollow cylinder with thickness of 10 mm. Then, two 5 mm holes

will be drilled on the side on the tube 10 mm away from the top of the tube, while chamfering

the bottom end about 5 mm. The tube will then be ready. Next, a flange will be created with 70

mm outer diameter, 35 mm inner diameter, and 10 mm thickness. Around the edge of the flange,

six symmetric holes 1 mm in diameter will be drilled. The next step is to weld the flange on the

tube. After building the tube, it is now time to build the screw. Using the drawing created in Creo

2.0 and 4 axis CNC machine, the Archimedes screw will be made.

To save on the cost of the materials, the upper rod (170 mm long, and 15 mm in diameter) of

the Archimedes is welded to a bottom rod (200 mm long, and 50 mm in diameter). Then using

the 4 axis CNC machine and the file from Creo 2.0 the screw will be built. Also it is important to

start with a wooden rod to determine the outcome of machining of the screw, to be safe and save

on cost in case something goes wrong. The pitch of the screw is 23 mm with helix angle of 12°.

The final decision on material selection will be discussed on the cost of the design section.

42

Cost of the Design vs Cost of a Commercial Product

Table 12: GC075 and GC150 Gravity Corers Cost and Configuration.

Table 11: PC150 and PC300 Piston Corer pricing and Configuration

43

Commercial gravity and piston core vary in sizes and cost. In Tables 8, 9, and 10, pricing

quotes for gravity corers and piston corers with different sizes are shown.

Table 8, 9, and 10 are printed quotes from Mooring Systems, Inc. (www.mooringsystems.com).

The systems in Tables 8, 9, and 10 have their own launching system. They are mainly launched

from a vessel on water. They are very expensive, while the pricing does not include shipping and

the client is responsible for shipping the equipment back in case of a rental option. The GAPCS

will be very cost effective to build and be adaptable to different launching systems. However, the

main goal here is to adapt it to the crawler, so there is no need for launching systems to be made

or configured. The GAPCS price will be compared with those on Tables (8, 9, and 10). On the

other hand, The ASMSS will be compared to AMS Flighted Auger Kits shown in Table 10. The

kit will include 5/8″ threaded male to SDS Max adapter, 1 1/2″ x 6″ soil core sampler, slide

hammer, 2″ flighted lead auger with hard surfaced tip, 2″ carbide tip, and two 2″ x 3′ flighted

extensions, three 5/8″ x 4′ extensions, universal slip wrench, 1 1/2″ x 12″ nylon brush, and AMS

deluxe carrying case (website is listed on Table 10).

44

Table 14: Auger kits cost (http://www.equipcoservices.com/sales/ams/flighted_auger_kits.html)

The prices for the all the materials needed to complete both the GAPCS and the ASMSS for

both stainless steel and aluminum are shown in the tables 12 and 13. The aluminum 5083 and

5086 were replaced by Aluminum 6061, because of the lack of information on the prices of the

marine grade aluminum. After analyzing the cost of both systems, it appears that the costs are

fairly small compared with buying any commercial system. Commercial systems do not include

any hydraulic underwater motors needed for the system because they are limited to vessel

launching. Even if the commercial systems were being adapted to hydraulic motor for

underwater sampling, the cost will be even more expensive. All prices were taken from

onlinemetals.com.

2″ SST Flighted Auger Kit without Drill $2,095.14

2″ SST Flighted Auger Kit with Bosch 11245 Drill $3,290.16

Table 13: PC 600 and heavy duty model 2555 coring system cost

45

Table 15: Cost for Both GAPCS and ASMSS in stainless steel

Materials Cost Parts/System

Stainless T-316/316L Cold Finish Round 2.5" Cut to: 36"

$304.98 All tubes in both GAPCS and ASMSS

Stainless T-316/316L 2B Cold Roll Sheet PVC 1 side 0.105" (12 ga.) Cut to: 12" x 12"

$36.62 Container Box

Stainless T-316/316L 2B Cold Roll Sheet PVC 1 side 0.105" (12 ga.) Cut to: 24" x 24"

$113.65 Container Box

Stainless T-316/316L Round 6" Cut to: 4"

$217.67 Solid Frustum, GAPCS

NSK 30202 Tapered Roller Bearing $18.53 ASMSS Aluminum One-Way Check Valve, 10mm Barbed Silver

$4.99 GAPCS

Plastic Acetal Natural Round 2"Cut to: 12"

$33.52 GAPCS

Total $729.96

Table 16: Cost for Both CAPCS and ASMSS in Aluminum

Materials Cost Parts/Systems

Aluminum 6061-T651 Cold Finish Round 2.5" Cut to: 36"

$135.40 All tubes in both GAPCS and ASMSS

Aluminum 6061-T6 Bare Sheet PVC 1 side 0.125" Cut to: 12" x 12"

$15.72 Container Box

Aluminum 6061-T6 Bare Sheet PVC 1 side 0.125" Cut to: 24" x 24"

$48.79 Container Box

Aluminum 6061-T651 Cold Finish Round 6" Cut to: 4"

$91.16 Solid Frustum, GAPCS

NSK 30202 Tapered Roller Bearing $18.53 ASMSS Aluminum One-Way Check Valve, 10mm Barbed Silver

$4.99 GAPCS

Plastic Acetal Natural Round 2"Cut to: 12"

$33.52 GAPCS

Total $348.11

46

Hydraulic Motor Recommendation

The recommended type of motor for the ASMSS is Stanley Tools Hydraulic Underwater

Impact Drill ID07 supplied by Amron international. This hydraulic impact drill costs around

$1469.05.4. The characteristics of the impact drill are [29]:

• Integral Stanley Hyrevz gear motor produces high torque

• Stainless Steel spools and fasteners

• Forward-reverse with variable speed

• 500 ft lbs/675 Nm of impact torque

• Oversized trigger for operator comfort

• Wiper seals on reversing and trigger spool

• Built in reverse check valve ensures long seal life

• Plastisol handle for comfortable ergonomic grip

• Forward position of handle provides better balance

• Open center/closed center-dual spool feature

• Cast-in lifting eye

The recommended type of motor for the GAPCS is Stanley Tools Hydraulic Underwater

Hammer Drill HD45 by Armon international. This hydraulic hammer drill costs around

$3417.82 and has the following characteristics [29]:

• 7-9 gpm (26-34 lpm) operating flow at the commercial diver's end

• Adjustable Bit Rotation Speed (forward and reverse) up to 300 rpm, making the

underwater tool easy to start and control

47

• Feathering ON/OFF valve allow the commercial diver to control the amount of energy to

the underwater tool, providing more control and ease of handling

• Chuck capacity: Up to 2 in. diameter or 4 in. core, 736 Skil Hex

• Output: 0-300 rpm

• Input flow range: 7-9 gpm (26-34 lpm) at the commercial diver

• Input pressure: 1500-2000 psi (105-140 bar)

• Optimum flow: 8 gpm (30 lpm)

• Weight: 45 lbs (20.4 kg)

• Length: 22.5 in. (57 cm)

• Width (at handles): 14 in. (35 cm)

• Motor: Internal

• Porting: 8 SAE O-Ring

• Connector: 3/8 in. male pipe hose end

The hydraulic motors are shown in figures 22 & 23.

48

Conclusion

In conclusion the GAPCS and the ASMSS show a great potential in sediment sampling

technology. Florida Institute of Technology, and the Department of Marine and Environmental

Science will have the ability to start attracting more students to continue working on such

astonishing projects that will open more opportunities for real world experience and knowledge.

The cost of making the GAPCS and the ASMSS combined is relatively inexpensive. A prototype

was built to make a proof of concept experiment. The experiment only concerned the ASMSS

Figure 24: The Hydraulic Hammer Drill

Figure 25: The hydraulic impact drill

49

design as the GAPCS design concept is already been proven through many inventers and

commercial gravity corer. After building both of the designs, testing is required so the DMES

will have great data for future sediment analysis. This project will open the doors not only for

Ocean Engineers, but also for Scientist, Geologists, Geotechnical Engineers, dredging industry,

and the list goes on. Load, extraction forces, pore water pressure, bearing capacity, ability of the

materials to withstand pressure force, penetration depth, and length of the samples are very

important data that needs to be collected to increase the efficiency of the systems. As for now the

project shows great potential and vision.

50

Appendix A: Calculation

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Appendix B: Experiment Documentation. 1. The setup of the prototype and the parts are a screw, PVC pipe with chamfered edge, and diving

weight duck taped on the tube.

2. Following by putting the parts together.

60

3. Next step is applying the prototype in the first site and penetrate on the wet sand on the beach. No water was included in this sample.

4. Extracting the prototype from the sand.

61

5. Disassembling the screw from the pipe. Notice the amount of sediment it got.

6. Moving to the 2nd site where sampler is partly submerged with water. Penetrate the sampler into sediment.

62

7. Extracting the screw and observing the second sample, where the sampler is partly submerged in water. Notice the amount of sediment and how wet the sample is.

8. Moving the sampler to the final site where the prototype will be fully submerged in the water. Take into consideration that the upper part is fully exposed to water and the 2-3 mm gap between the screw and the pipe internally and sand will be penetrated.

63

9. Extracting the whole prototype. Notice the amount of fine sand escaping the sampler. Notice from the first picture that the screw has a steep angle which is also contributing on the amount of shortening.

10. Removing the screw from the sampler. Notice the amount of sample left and it also shows how much coarse sand is left.

64

The experiment was just a proof of concept which prove that we can collect a significant amount of sand with the optimum angle of the screw and close the internal gap between the screw and the pipe. Also to cover the top to ensure no disturbance with the sample. Finally the sampler need to be closed from the bottom after sampling in case the water is needed to be kept with the sample inside for toxic and contamination testing. Butter results is guaranteed with these modifications.

65

References

1 ASTM D4823, 95(2014), “Standard Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated

Sediments,” ASTM International, 100 Barr, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014,

DOI: 10.1520/D4823, www.astm.org.

2 Blomqvist, Sven. "Reliability of Core Sampling of Soft Bottom Sediment-an in Situ Study."

Sedimentology 32.4 (1985): 605-12. Web.

3 "CERP Quality Assurance Systems Requirements (QASR)." CERP Quality Assurance

Systems Requirements (QASR). N.p., 19 Mar. 2009. Web. 17 May 2014.

<http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/program_docs/qasr.aspx>. Chapter 7: Soil and Sediment

Characterization and Sampling Procedures.

4 Chamberlin, W. Sean., and Tommy D. Dickey. Exploring the World Ocean. Boston:

McGraw Hill/Higher Education, 2008. Print. Chapter 5: Ocean Sediment p72-p89

5 Clayton, C. R. I., N. E. Simons, and M. C. Matthews. Site Investigation. New York: Halsted,

1982. Print. Chapter 6: Sampling and sample disturbance

6 D'Appolonia, Elio. Underwater Soil Sampling, Testing, and Construction Control; a

Symposium Presented at the Seventy-fourth Annual Meeting, American Society for Testing

and Materials. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1972. Print.

7 "Discovery of the Ice Age." Discovery of the Ice Age. Web. 18 May 2014.

<http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/02_3.shtml>.

8 Frank R. Burden; Ulrich Foerstner; Ian D. McKelvie; Alex Guenther: Environmental

Monitoring Handbook. SEDIMENT PHYSICAL PARAMETERS AND TECHNIQUES,

Chapter (McGraw-Hill Professional, 2002), AccessEngineering

66

9 "Inventor of the Week: Archive." Inventor of the Week: Archive. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May

2014. <http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/archimedes.html>.

10 Lane, Christopher M., and Kathryn H. Taffs. "The LOG Corer – a New Device for Obtaining

Short Cores in Soft Lacustrine Sediments." Southern Cross University EPublications@SCU

(2002): n. pag. Print.

11 Mackereth, F. J. H. "A Portable Core Sampler for Lake Deposits." Limnology and

Oceanography 3.2 (1958): 181-91. Web.

12 Office of Science and Technology, Environmental Protection Agency. "Chapter3: Collection

of Whole Sediments." Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for

Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. Washington, DC: Office of

Science & Technology, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. N.

pag. Print.

13 "Piston Corer." WHOI : Instruments :. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2014.

<http://www.whoi.edu/instruments/viewInstrument.do?id=8087>.

14 "Piston Coring - Forams - Students - Ocean World." Piston Coring - Forams - Students -

Ocean World. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2014.

<http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/forams/forams_piston_coring.htm>.

15 Raper, R. L., and D. C. Erbach. "Core Sampler Evaluation Using the Finite Element

Method." Transactions of the ASAE 31.2 (1988): 0331-336. Web.

16 Reed, Allen, Aaron Carmichael, and Marie A. De Angelis. "An Inexpensive Bottom Water

Sampler." Continental Shelf Research 17.6 (1997): 717-21. Web.

17 Rorres, Chris. "The Turn of the Screw: Optimal Design of an Archimedes Screw." Journal of

Hydraulic Engineering 126.1 (2000): 72. Web.

67

18 Sampling of Soil and Rock. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1971.

N. pag. Print.

19 Schumacher, Brian A. Collection of Undisturbed Surface Sediments: Sampler Design and

Initial Evaluation Testing. Las Vegas, NV: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 2005. Print.

20 "Sediment Corers." A Decade of Discovery. Census of Marine Life, 2009. Web. 17 May

2014. "Sediment Corers." A Decade of Discovery. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2014.

<http://www.coml.org/investigating/collecting/sediment_corers>.

21 Shelton, L. S., and P. Capel. "Collecting and Processing Bed Sediment Samples." Collecting

and Processing Bed Sediment Samples. N.p., 1994. Web. 17 May 2014.

<http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/pubs/ofr94-458/>.

22 Washington, E. "Understanding the Geotechnical Report as an Engineering and Construction

Reference - An Online Course for Engineers and Architects." Understanding the

Geotechnical Report as an Engineering and Construction Reference - An Online Course for

Engineers and Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2014.

<http://www.pdhonline.org/courses/g106/g106.htm>.

23 Zangger, Eberhard, and I.n Mccave. "A Redesigned Kasten Core Barrel and Sampling

Technique." Marine Geology 94.1-2 (1990): 165-71. Web.

24 "24 CFR 3285.202 - Soil Classifications and Bearing Capacity." 24 CFR 3285.202 - Soil

Classifications and Bearing Capacity. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2014.

<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action%3Bjsessionid%3DGgGXT20LLyPlP4

NDdnkwHYL18nT9np2W8GzPKp55P25zvJppMTvx%21-318741930%21-

234460278?browsePath=Title+24%2FSubtitle+B%2FChapter+Xx%2FPart+3285%2FSubpar

68

t+C%2FSection+3285.202&granuleId=CFR-2009-title24-vol5-sec3285-

202&packageId=CFR-2009-title24-vol5&collapse=true&fromBrowse=true>.

25 3 Marine Metals Range (n.d.): n. pag. Aalco Uk. Web.

<http://www.aalco.co.uk/literature/files/aalco-marine.pdf>.

26 Uns/euro, Astm/euro, Carbon, and Manganese Phosphorous. North American Stainless (n.d.):

n. pag. Web. <http://www.northamericanstainless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Grade-

316-316L.pdf>.

27 S.D. Washko and G. Aggen, Wrought Stainless Steels, Properties and Selection: Irons,

Steels, and High-Performance Alloys, Vol 1, ASM Handbook, ASM International, 1990, p

841–907

28 E.L. Rooy, Introduction to Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys, Properties and Selection:

Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials, Vol 2, ASM Handbook, ASM

International, 1990, p 3–14

29 "Request a Quote." Stanley Hydraulic Underwater Impact Drill Wrench ID07, Web. 24 May

2014. <http://www.amronintl.com/hydraulic-underwater-impact-drill-wrench-id07.html>.

30 "Stanley Tools Hydraulic Underwater Hammer Drill HD45.”. Amron International, Inc.

Web. 25 May 2014. <http://www.amronintl.com/hydraulic-underwater-hammer-drill-

hd45.html>.

31 http://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant.cfm?id=58&step=2.

32 Sublette, Christine. SOIL PROPERTIES (LPILE & COM624P) (n.d.): n. pag. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 5 June 2014.

<http://epg.modot.mo.gov/documents/321_p-y_Curve_Criteria.pdf>.

69

33 "Soil Friction Angle." Angle of Friction. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June 2014.

<http://www.geotechdata.info/parameter/angle-of-friction.html>.

34 Dr. Albert Bleakley Associate Professor specialized in Construction in Florida Institute of

Technology, personal communication, June 5, 2014.

35 Dr. Paul Cosentino Professor in Civil Engineering in Florida Institute of Technology,

personal communication, June 5, 2014.

36 Das, Braja M. "4.7 Uplift Capacity of Foundations." Principles of Foundation Engineering.

Australia: Thomson/Brooks/Cole, 2011. 193-199. Print.

37 "GEOTECHNICAL INFO .COM." Soil Unit Weight on the Geotechnical Information

Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 June 2014.

<http://www.geotechnicalinfo.com/soil_unit_weight.html>.

70