Geotech_Report.pdf

PDF 5 MB Posted Apr 18, 2018

Attached to: Catoctin Mountain Park Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: 693C73-18-B-000015
Issued by: Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

About this file

From the source

Geotech Report

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Catoctin Mountain Park, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
ROBO_CATO_900(1).pdf	PDF	May 22, 2018
Bridge_Inspection_Report.pdf	PDF	Apr 18, 2018
ADV_Bidders_Qualifications_Form.doc	DOC document	Apr 18, 2018
IFB_Solicitation_NP-CATO_900(1)-_2nd_ADV.pdf	PDF	Apr 18, 2018
NP-CATO_900(1)_Plans_Adv.pdf	PDF	Apr 18, 2018
NEPA_Document_CE.pdf	PDF	Apr 18, 2018
VETS-4212_-_Form.pdf	PDF	Apr 18, 2018
FP03_Eng_.pdf	PDF	Apr 18, 2018
NEPA_Document_EA.pdf	PDF	Apr 18, 2018
NEPA_Document_FONSI.pdf	PDF	Apr 18, 2018
Synopsis,_CATO_900(1).pdf	PDF	Feb 23, 2018

Show all 11

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 02-14

PROJECT PRA-CATO 900(1)

REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE OVER BLAZES CREEK

CATOCTIN NATIONAL PARK

FREDRICK COUNTY, MARYLAND

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

February 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Project Description

2. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

3. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil Sampling

3.1 Sampling and Field Testing

3.2 Laboratory Testing

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

3.3.1 Soil Conditions

3.3.2 Groundwater

4. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Bridge Loading

4.2 Geotechnical Design Parameters

4.3 Settlement

4.4 External Stability

4.5 Internal Stability

5. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 GRS-IBS General Construction Requirements

5.2 Excavation

5.3 GRS Foundation

5.4 GRS Facing

5.5 Geosynthetics

6. DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Bridge Layout Plans APPENDIX C – Borings Location Map, Subsurface Profile, and Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Data APPENDIX E – Design Calculations APPENDIX F – Representative Photographs

Note: Design changes subsequent to publication of this report and prior to the project’s advertisement will be documented by a memo inserted after the title page.

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 02-14

PROJECT PRA-CATO 900(1)

REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE OVER BLAZES CREEK

FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and design analyses and presents our recommendations for the Catoctin National Park Visitor Center bridge replacement. The project site is located in Catoctin National Park in Frederick County, Maryland. The general site location is provided in Figure 1, Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

This project consists of the replacement of Bridge over Blazes Creek and other rehabilitation work. The subject Bridge is located to the west of the visitor center and provides access to a bus parking area. The existing single span timber bridge is supported on stone masonry wall abutments. The Bridge provides a one-lane access and spans approximately 76 ft over the creek. The east abutment is damaged and access to the parking area is provided via a temporary steel truss that is placed over the bridge.

The new bridge will be a 34 ft long single span bridge, supported on Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil-Integrated Bridge Systems (GRS-IBS) abutments. The GRS-IBS technology was adopted by FHWA as part of its “Every Day Counts” initiative that identifies innovations aimed at cost effectiveness and shortening project delivery.

2. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Geologic Map of Maryland (1968) indicates that the project site appears to be located within the Catoctin Metabasalt, described as a thick-bedded Metabasalt with Amygdaloidal layers and secondary veins of Quartz, Calcite, and Epidote; inter-bedded green Tuffaceous Phyllite and blue Amygdaloidal Meteandesite. The Geologic Map of the project area is included in Figure 2, in Appendix A.

Project: PRA CATO 900(1) Soils and Foundations Report Catoctin National Park No. 02-14 Frederick County, Maryland

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

3. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil Sampling

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team drilled two soil borings on September 19, 203. . Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled in the proximity of the eastern and western abutments of the existing bridge and extended to depths of 39 ft (El 882.5) and 38 ft (El 883.4) below the existing site grades, respectively, where auger refusal was encountered.

3.1 Sampling and Field Testing

Borings were drilled using hollow-stem augers by a CME 750 ATV-mounted rotary drilling rig. The boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. The borings location plans and subsurface profiles are provided in Appendix C. Borings were advanced to their termination depths using 3¾-in. (inside diameter) hollow stem augers.

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was performed using a 2¼-in. (outside diameter) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T 206. SPT soil samples were typically recovered at 2.5 and 5.0-feet intervals. Samples were obtained by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24-in., into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-lb. automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle 12 inches of the 2 feet long sampler is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6 inches interval was recorded on field boring logs.

Borings were located in the field by a hand held GPS and measuring from features present on-site. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were determined from the topography plans provided by the survey team. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Borings Location Map in Appendix C.

Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars for laboratory testing. S All samples were later transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, Tennessee for testing and storage. The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring are presented in the appropriate boring log in Appendix C.

A field description based on color, consistency, texture, and component was made for each recovered sample.

Groundwater depth readings were made at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. Fluctuations in groundwater elevations due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

3.2 Laboratory Testing

A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to aid in classification and evaluation of engineering properties of soils present at the site. Laboratory tests included natural moisture content (AASHTO T-265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89/90) and Particle size analysis (AASHTO T-88). Summary of the laboratory test results conducted on selected soils and rock samples are presented in Table 1. The laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix D.

Table 1 – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

Boring

No.

Sample No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

Gravel

Sand

Fines

Classification

USCS AASHTO

B-1 J-2 3-5 11.5 28 NP NP 19 69.4 11.6 SP-SM A-1-b

B-1 J-3 5-7 6.4 NV NP NP 33.8 48.5 17.7 SM A-1-b

B-1 J-4 8-10 11.0 29 22 7 28.4 33.9 37.7 SC-SM A-4(0)

B-1 J-6 13-15 31.6 40 NP NP 5.6 38.1 56.3 ML A-4(0)

B-1 J-7 15-17 17.8 36 NP NP 15.5 48.1 36.4 SM A-4(0)

B-1 J-8 20-22 24.6 TNP TNP TNP 1 34.9 64.1 TNP TNP

B-1 J-10 30-32 30.2 TNP TNP TNP 0 32.0 68.0 TNP TNP

B-2 J-11 35-37 22.0 32 24 8 0 31.1 68.9 ML A-4(4)

B-2 J-2 3-5 10.7 28 23 5 22.4 42.9 34.7 SM A-2-4(0)

B-2 J-3 5-7 24.3 NV NP NP 6.2 45.4 48.4 SM A-4(0)

B-2 J-4 8-10 15.5 29 22 7 21.7 33.5 38.2 SC-SM A-4(0)

B-2 J-6 13-15 11.5 32 25 7 44 37.6 18.4 GM A-2-4(0)

B-2 J-8 20-22 47.3 29 21 8 5.9 27.0 66.3 CL A-4(3)

B-2 J-9 25-27 29.4 - - - 8.4 44.3 47.3 - -

B-2 J-11 35-37 27.2 30 17 13 12 38.8 49.2 SM A-6(3)

MC=Moisture Content; LL = Liquid Limit; PL = Plastic Limit; PI=Plasticity Index; TNP = Test Not Performed; NP = Non-plastic; NV=No Value.

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

This section provides a brief description of the subsurface soils encountered in the borings. The results of field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheets in the field. These data sheets and logs contain information concerning the boring methods; samples attempted and recovered; indications of the presence of various materials such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, etc.; and observations of groundwater. They also contain interpretations by the exploration foreman of the subsurface conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings brought to the surface by the drilling tools; therefore, the field data represents both factual and interpretative information.

The boring logs in Appendix C of this report represent a compilation of field and laboratory data and description of the soil samples by the geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally do not include all data recorded on driller’s logs and field data sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this report.

Variations in soil conditions from the generalized soil profile can occur over short horizontal and vertical distances and should be anticipated. Lenses, pockets, and other discontinuous soil strata are noted, if present. Other variations may be present that are not depicted in the generalized soil profile. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. One or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

Groundwater measurements were made in the boreholes at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. Fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

3.3.1 Soil Conditions

Fill – Fill materials encountered in the soil borings consisted primarily of recycled asphalt pavement material, sand, and silty sand and extended to depths of 5.0 ft and 8.0 ft below existing site grade in borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. N values recorded in the fill layer ranged between 2 and 27 blows per foot (bpf).

Alluvial Deposits– Underneath the fill layer, alluvial deposits consisting of silty sand, silty gravel and sandy clay with various amounts of silt, sand, clay and gravel were encountered.

In Boring B-1, this material extended from depth of 5 ft (EL 916.5 ft) to the boring termination depth at 39 ft (EL 882.5 ft) with N-values ranging from 3 to 39 bpf. Pocket penetrometer values ranged from 2.0 to 2.5 tsf. In Boring B-2, this material extended from depth of 8 ft (EL 913.4 ft) to depth of 38 ft (EL 883.4 ft) with N-values ranging from 3 to 22 bpf.

Auger refusal was encountered at depths of 39 ft, and 38 ft below existing site grades in boring B-1and B-2, respectively.

3.3.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at depth of 20 ft below existing site grade at completion of borings B-1 and B-2, corresponding to elevations 901.5 ft and 901.4 ft, respectively.

Fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

4. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In our opinion, a GRS-IBS system represents the most cost effective alternative to re-construct the bridge and associated abutmentys. The GRS-IBS abutments consist of closely spaced layers of reinforced compacted fill and the super structure is placed directly on the geosynthetic reinforced soils (GRS) abutment. We have evaluated the global stability, bearing capacity, sliding, and internal stability (i.e., vertical capacity, deformation and reinforcement strength).

Our design analysis was performed in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, 2012 and Interim Revisions and FHWA-HRT-11-026 "Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System Interim Implementation Guide".

4.1 Bridge Loading

Bridge loads and dimensions are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 – Bridge Data Bridge Clear Width

(ft)

Abutment Width

(ft)

Length

Span Length

Total Service 1 (Un-factored)

(kip)

Total Strength 1 (Factored)

(kip)

24.31 33.65 15.5 34 149.6 220.3

4.2 Geotechnical Design Parameters

A summary of the design parameters used in the analyses and design of the GRS abutments, based on the subsurface profile encountered during our drilling operations are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 – Design Parameters for the Fill and In-situ Materials Soil Type Total Unit Weight

(pcf) Short-Term

Strength Parameters

Long-Term Strength Parameters

Water Table Elev.

(deg) cu (psf)

(deg) c′ (psf)

Reinforced Soil 120 34 0 34 0

901.5

RSF 140 38 0 38 0

Retained Soil 125 28 100 28 0 Foundation Soil 125 28 100 28 0 RSF= Reinforced Soil Foundation; friction angle; 'Effectiveangle of internalfriction angle cu= un-drained cohesion/shear strength; c′= drained cohesion.

4.3 Settlement

Settlement analysis was performed for the GRS embankments. Our yielded an immediate settlement of less than 1.0 inch and a total settlement of approximately 1 1/2 inches. Most of the settlement is anticipated to occur during construction or not too long after completion of construction. Settlement computation is included in Appendix E.

4.4 External Stability

External stability analyses for the GRS abutment included sliding, bearing resistance, and overall global stability. Information regarding reinforcement length, abutment height, and foundation dimensions used in our analysis are listed in Table 4. A uniformly distributed load of 250 psf was applied to account for traffic surcharge.

Table 4 –GRS Abutment Dimensions and Reinforcement Lengths

Height

RSF

Width (front)

(ft)

RSF

Length (sides)

(ft)

RSF

Depth

Base Length of Reinforcement

Reinforcement Length Upper Layers (wing walls)

12.8 38.65 12.0 2.5 9.5 15.5

The results of the external stability analyses are provided in Table 5. The results indicate that the proposed GRS abutment meets stability requirements for direct sliding and bearing capacity. The design calculations are provided in Appendix E.

Table 5 –Summary of External Stability Analysis for GRS Abutments

Failure Mode Actual

CDR

Required

CDR

Direct Sliding (GRS-RSF interface) 2.1 1 Direct Sliding (RSF-Foundation soil interface) 2.2 1 Bearing Resistance 2.8 1

Global stability analysis was performed using ReSSA (3) computer program. The summary of global stability analysis results are provided in Table 6. The analysis output is provided in Appendix E. The results indicate that the proposed GRS abutment meets global stability requirements.

Table 6 –Summary of Global Stability Analysis for GRS Abutment Failure Mode Actual FS Required FS

Rotational 2.6 1.5

Translational 1.5 1.5

Three-part wedge failure mechanism 3.2 1.5

4.5 Internal Stability

Internal stability analysis to determine nominal capacity of GRS abutment was performed using the analytical method (soil-geosynthetic capacity method) described in FHWA- HRT-11-026 manual. The input characteristics and results of the analysis are presented in Table 7. The results indicate that the proposed GRS abutment satisfies vertical capacity requirements. The design calculations are provided in Appendix E

Table 7 –Summary of Internal Stability Analysis Using Analytical Method for GRS

Description Unit Value

Reinforcement vertical spacing (Sv) inches 8 Maximum particle size, inches (dmax) inches 1.0 Ultimate reinforcement strength (Tf) lb/ft 4,800 Factored-Applied stress on top of GRS mass (Vapplied) psf 3,685 Nominal load-carrying capacity of the foundation using the analytical method (qnan) psf 15,830

Factored load-carrying capacity of the foundation using the analytical method (cap*qnan) psf 7,123 cap (resistance factor) =0.45

5. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 GRS-IBS General Construction Requirements

Construction procedures are outlined in Chapter 7 of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System, Interim Implementation Guide (Adams, et al).

5.2 Excavation

In general, all temporary cut slopes constructed in soils should not be steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V). All excavations are to be performed in accordance with applicable OSHA, federal, state, and county requirements and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03 Specifications. Temporary excavation in fill and/or natural material should be achievable using conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working condition. Any unsuitable materials encountered below proposed foundation elevations should be removed and replaced with more granular materials.

5.3 GRS Foundation

The GRS foundation subgrades should not be left exposed to rain or flooding conditions.

It is recommended to place the geosynthetics reinforcement and select granular backfill immediately after excavation or to cover the GRS foundation subgrades with plastic during wet weather. It is not recommended to subexcavate below the planned bottom of the GRS foundations.

Control of storm water or seepage water flowing into open excavations may be necessary in order to retain the integrity of the natural bearing soils. The contractor should control the flow of surface water and seepage water into excavations at all times. Storm water collection and control during construction may be performed using collection trenches and sumps, if accumulation does occur. All dewatering must be conducted in a manner that avoids undermining foundation subgrades and which limits the pumping of fines.

5.4 GRS Facing

The CMU will insure compaction every 8-inch lift before placement of the next geosynthetic layer. The CMU should have minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi and water absorption limit of 5 percent. The CMU should meet requirements for freeze-thaw test (ASTM C1262).

5.5 Geosynthetics

Furnish geosynthetics consisting of geogrid or geotextile for the GRS abutment. Furnish geotextile for the RSF and integrated approach.

Geosynthetics material may be manufactured from Polypropylene (PP), High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) or Polyester (PET).

Geosynthetics can be either uniaxial or biaxial. When a uniaxial type is used, higher strength axis must be placed perpendicular to the wall face.

Furnish geosynthetic composed of a minimum ultimate tensile strength of 4,800 lb/ft according to ASTM D 4595 for geotextile or ASTM D 6637 for geogrid. The design requirements may call for geosynthetic with higher strength.

Geosynthetic reinforcement strength at 2 percent strain shall be greater than the unfactored required reinforcement strength.

6. DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface exploration procedures and results described in this report have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these explorations and tests represent conditions at the specific locations and dates indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary.

The Geotechnical Design Analyses and Recommendations Section of this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Mohammed Elias, Ph.D., P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

APPENDIX A

Figures

STATEREG PROJECT

CATO 900(1)MD

FIGURE 1

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Source: USGS National Geologic Map Database

PROJECT

CATO 900(1)

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STATEREG

MDSTERLING, VIRGINIA NC

Quartzite

Metabasalt

Phyllite

Metarhyolite

APPENDIX B

Bridge Layout Plans

APPENDIX C

Borings Location Map, Subsurface Profile and Boring Logs

B-2

B-1

CONCRETE BOX

COLLAPSED WING WALL

TBAR

Elev. 919.65’

WOODEN DECK

Elev. 919.73’

Elev. 919.78’

Elev. 919.92’

UP 2.

5’ D

EEP

5’ D

EEP

INFO

TBAR

CUNNING HAM TRAIL

FL 9

22.4

5’

0.75

2.0

2.25

2.5

2.25

3.4

13.3

PP (tsf)NDepth (ft)

3.4

PP (tsf) NDepth(ft)

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE

CATO 900(1)

Catoctin National Park, Frederick County, MD

Groundwater depth at boring completion.

Groundwater depth encountered during drilling.

PP Pocket Penetrometer

Scale: 1H = 0.7V Region: NC

E le v a ti o n f t)

Note: Strata changes shown on this profile represent generalizations based on average conditions indicated by soil test borings.

LEGEND

Groundwater depth monitored after boring completion.

N Standard Penetration Test

Resistance in Blows per Foot

E le v a ti o n f t)

Date: 2/11/14

S T

R A

P H

G W

B L

A P

D T

U S

E R

M O

H A

M M

E D .E

D E

S K

T O

C A

T O

P J

Sand Sand Gravel

Fill Silty Sandy Silt Silty Sandy ClaySilty Clayey

B-2 (Abut. 2) B-1 (Abut. 1)

SOIL BORING GENERAL NOTES

Drilling and Sampling Symbols

SS: Split Spoon - 1 3/8” I.D., 2” O.D., except where noted ST: Shelby Tube - 2” O.D., except where noted PA: Power Auger Sample

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground water elevations is not possible, even after several days, and additional evidence on ground water elevations must be sought.

VISUAL METHODS FOR SOILS CLASSIFICATION

Component Distinguishing Features

Boulders Larger than 12” (300 mm)

Cobbles 3” to 12” (75 mm to 12 mm)

Gravel Larger than No. 4 sieve and smaller than a 3” sieve, described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse 3” to 3/4” (75 mm to 19 mm) sieve Medium 3/4” to 3/8” (19 mm to 9.5 mm) sieve Fine 3/8” to No. 4 (9.5 mm to 4.75 mm) sieve

Sand The finest sand grains are just visible to the naked eye, while the largest would pass a No. 4

(4.75mm) sieve (pinhead size). Described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse No. 4 to No. 10 (4.75 mm to 2.0 mm) sieve Medium No. 10 to No. 40 (2.0 mm to 0.42 mm) sieve Fine No. 40 to No. 200 (0.42 mm to 0.075 mm) sieve

Silt 1. Lumps are easily crumbled when are-dried.

2. Feels gritty between the teeth.

3. A moist pat when shaken in the palm of the hand will appear shiny and wet. When squeezed it will appear dry and dull.

Clay 1. Lumps are comparatively hard when air-dried.

2. Threads (1/8” diameter) of considerable length will support their own weight when held by one end.

3. A moist pat will appear the same whether shaken in the palm of the hand or squeezed.

Order of Description

1. Soil Density (or consistency) – see table below

2. Color

3. Major Grain Size – Composes more than 50% of the sample

4. Modifying Term – “and” : 40% to 50% of the minor grain size

“some” : 30% to 40% “little” : 10% to 30%

“trace” : 10% or less

5. Minor Grain Size(s)

6. Other (plasticity, etc.)

7. Moisture Content (by field test) – “dry” : Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch “moist” : Damp but no visible water

“wet” : Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

8. General Classification – Fill, Residual Soil, Weathered Rock

SOIL DENSITY (OR CONSISTENCY) TABLE

Coarse-Grained Soil (Gravel, Sand) Fine-Grained Soil (Clay, Silt)

Apparent Density SPT (# blows / ft) Consistency SPT (# blows / ft) Very loose 0-4 Very soft 0-2

Loose 5-10 Soft 3-4 Medium dense 11-30 Medium stiff 5-8

Dense 31-50 Stiff 9-15 Very dense >50 Very stiff 16-30

Hard >30

Examples:

1. Dense to very dense, brown to light brown, SILTY SAND, some gravel [A-7-6(10)]

(Moist)

-FILL-

Criteria for Describing Soil Structure

Description Criteria

Bed A sedimentary layer bounded by depositional surfaces.

Blocky A characteristic in which cohesive soil can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown.

Bonded Attached or adhering.

Fissured Broken along definite planes of fracture.

Foliated Planar arrangement of textural or structural features.

Frequent More than one per foot of thickness.

Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.

Interbedded Alternating soil layers of different composition.

Laminae A very thin cohesive layer.

Layer A general term for material lying essentially parallel to the surfaces against which it was formed.

Lens A lenticular deposit, larger than a pocket.

Occasional One or less per foot of thickness.

Parting A very thin granular layer.

Pocket Small erratic deposits less than 12” in thickness.

Seam A thin layer separating two distinctive layers of different composition or greater magnitude.

Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color.

Stratum A stratigraphic unit.

Varve A cyclic sedimentary couplet consisting of a coarser and a finer layer representing the variation in depositional energy resulting from the annual freeze-thaw cycle typically found in glaciolacustrine environments.

Medium dense , Recycled Ashpalt Pavement (dry)

[FILL]

Medium dense, brown, poorly graded , SAND , little silt and gravel [A-1-b] (wet)

[FILL]

Medium stiff, brown, SILTY SAND , some gravel [A-1-b] (dry)

Medium dense, brown and gray, SILTY CLAYEY SAND , little gravel [A-4(0)] (moist)

Soft , brown, SANDY SILT , trace gravel [A-4(0)] (moist)

Qu=0.75 tsf

Medium dense, brown, SILTY SAND , little gravel, [A-4(0)] (moist)

Very stiff to hard, brown, SANDY SILT [A-4(4)] (moist)

Qu= 2.0 to 2.5 tsf

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

3.4

5.0

8.0

13.3

15.0

17.0

0.75

2.0

2.25

2.5

4-7-7-18

13-18-7-7

2-2-3-4

5-10-15-14

6-9-9-7

1-2-1-2

2-3-8-9

7-9-9-16

7-14-16-20

2-8-13-18

1.8

1.2

0.7

2.0

0.8

1.7

1.6

2.0

1.9

(Blows / ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings and stones.

SPT

Clear/windy

Boring Began: 9/19/12

HSA

9/19/12

KT/ME

RK/DHOperator:

East Abutment

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

Water Content %

Inspector:Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Catoctin National Park, Frederick County, MD La ye r

D ep th ft)

CATO 900(1)

P P

/R Q

D (t sf

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Encountered at:

After

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4"

B lo w s pe r in

B-1

921.5 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

R ec ft/

BORING LOG

O R

L O

P R

C T

S \C

A T

O \9

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

N \B

O R

L O

G S

\C A

T O

M O

.G P

918.1

916.5

913.5

908.2

906.5

904.5

Very stiff to hard, brown, SANDY SILT [A-4(4)] (moist)

Qu= 2.0 to 2.5 tsf (Continued)

Auger refusal at depth of 38 ft (Bottom of boring)

J-11

38.0

2.25 6-15-24-291.7

(Blows / ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings and stones.

SPT

Clear/windy

Boring Began: 9/19/12

HSA

9/19/12

KT/ME

RK/DHOperator:

East Abutment

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

Water Content %

Inspector:Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Catoctin National Park, Frederick County, MD La ye r

D ep th ft)

CATO 900(1)

P P

/R Q

D (t sf

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Encountered at:

After

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4"

B lo w s pe r in

B-1

921.5 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

R ec ft/

BORING LOG

O R

L O

P R

C T

S \C

A T

O \9

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

N \B

O R

L O

G S

\C A

T O

M O

.G P

883.5

Medium dense , Recycled Ashpalt Pavement (dry)

[FILL]

Medium dense, gray, SILTY SAND , little gravel [A-2-4(0)] (moist)

[FILL]

Very loose, gray, SILTY SAND , trace gravel [A-4(0)] (moist)

[FILL]

Medium dense , gray , SILTY CLAYEY SAND , little gravel [A-4(0)] (moist)

Medium dense, brown, Silty Gravel, some sand [A-2-4(0)] (moist)

Soft, brown , SANDY CLAY, trace gravel [A-4(3)] (moist)

Loose to medium dense, brown, SILTY SAND , [A-6(3)] (moist)

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

3.4

5.0

8.0

13.0

17.0

25.0

7-8-10-10

8-13-14-8

2-1-1-2

3-11-11-10

7-8-4-6

5-6-6-5

4-8-7-3

1-1-2-3

2-3-6-11

7-12-12-13

1.6

2.0

0.9

0.8

1.2

1.6

0.8

2.0

1.7

1.5

(Blows / ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings and stones.

SPT

Clear/windy

Boring Began: 9/19/12

HSA

9/19/12

KT/ME

RK/DHOperator:

West Abutment

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

Water Content %

Inspector:Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Catoctin National Park, Frederick County, MD La ye r

D ep th ft)

CATO 900(1)

P P

/R Q

D (t sf

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Encountered at:

After

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4"

B lo w s pe r in

B-2

921.4 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

R ec ft/

BORING LOG

O R

L O

P R

C T

S \C

A T

O \9

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

N \B

O R

L O

G S

\C A

T O

M O

.G P

918.0

916.4

913.4

908.4

904.4

896.4

Loose to medium dense, brown, SILTY SAND , [A-6(3)] (moist) (Continued)

Auger refusal at depth of 39 ft (Bottom of boring)

J-11

39.0

1-7-13-161.6

(Blows / ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings and stones.

SPT

Clear/windy

Boring Began: 9/19/12

HSA

9/19/12

KT/ME

RK/DHOperator:

West Abutment

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

T yp e

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

Water Content %

Inspector:Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Catoctin National Park, Frederick County, MD La ye r

D ep th ft)

CATO 900(1)

P P

/R Q

D (t sf

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Standard Penetration Test Data

Encountered at:

After

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4"

B lo w s pe r in

B-2

921.4 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

R ec ft/

BORING LOG

O R

L O

P R

C T

S \C

A T

O \9

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

N \B

O R

L O

G S

\C A

T O

M O

.G P

882.4

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Data

SOIL DATA

NO.

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

0.0 6.5 12.5 11.2 47.6 10.6 11.6

(ft.)

CATO 900(1)

East - West Abutments

FHWA / EFLHD

East Abut. B-1/J-2 3-5 Poorly graded sand with silty gravel SP-SM

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 33.8 27.4 9.2 11.9 17.7

East Abut. B-1/J-3 5-7 Silty sand with gravel SM

0.0 10.3 18.1 6.9 17.2 9.8 37.7

East Abut. B-1/J-4 8-10 Silty, clayey sand with gravel SC-SM

0.0 0.0 5.6 1.6 9.7 26.8 56.3

East Abut. B-1/J-6 13-15 Sandy silt ML

0.0 3.8 11.7 7.5 23.0 17.6 36.4

East Abut. B-1/J-7 15-17 Silty sand with gravel SM

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 7.4 26.8 64.1

(ft.)

CATO 900(1)

East - West Abutments

FHWA / EFLHD

East Abut. B-1/J-8 20-22 ML

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.1 27.8 68.0

East Abut. B-1/J-10 30-32 ML

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.7 26.2 68.9

East Abut. B-1/J-11 35-37 Sandy silt ML

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

0.0 4.7 17.7 8.3 20.1 14.5 34.7

(ft.)

CATO 900(1)

East - West Abutments

FHWA / EFLHD

West Abut. B-2/J-2 3-5 Silty sand with gravel SM

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 6.2 4.4 18.3 22.7 48.4

West Abut. B-2/J-3 5-7 Silty sand SM

0.0 7.1 14.6 6.6 10.9 22.6 38.2

West Abut. B-2/J-4 8-10 Silty, clayey sand with gravel SC-SM

0.0 21.5 22.5 9.1 16.0 12.5 18.4

West Abut. B-2/J-6 13-15 Silty gravel with sand GM

0.0 1.0 4.9 0.8 8.8 18.2 66.3

West Abut. B-2/J-8 20-22 Sandy lean clay CL

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

0.0 0.0 8.4 2.7 16.7 24.9 47.3

(ft.)

CATO 900(1)

East - West Abutments

FHWA / EFLHD

West Abut. B-2/J-9 25-27

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 12.0 12.6 15.0 11.2 49.2

West Abut. B-2/J-11 35-37 Silty sand SM

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

CATO 900(1)

East - West Abutments

FHWA / EFLHD

A-4(4)8322422.035-37B-1/J-11East Abut.

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

S T

D E

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

CATO 900(1)

East - West Abutments

FHWA / EFLHD

A-2-4(0)5282310.73-5B-2/J-2West Abut.

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-4(0)NPNVNP5-7B-2/J-3West Abut.

A-4(0)7292215.58-10B-2/J-4West Abut.

A-2-4(0)7322511.513-15B-2/J-6West Abut.

A-4(3)8292147.320-22B-2/J-8West Abut.

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

S T

D E

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

CATO 900(1)

East - West Abutments

FHWA / EFLHD

A-6(3)13301727.235-37B-2/J-11West Abut.

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

S T

D E

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

CATO 900(1)

East - West Abutments

FHWA / EFLHD

A-1-bNP28NP11.53-5B-1/J-2East Abut.

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-1-bNPNVNP6.45-7B-1/J-3East Abut.

A-4(0)7292211.08-10B-1/J-4East Abut.

A-4(0)NP40NP31.613-15B-1/J-6East Abut.

A-4(0)NP36NP17.815-17B-1/J-7East Abut.

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

S T

D E

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

APPENDIX E

Design Calculations

PROJECT - CATO 900(1)

Design of GRS-IBS Abutments

Date: 02/02/2015 Calcs: MBE Checked:

Design Specificatrions:

1. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Sepcifications, 2012

2. FHWA-HRT-11-026 "Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge system Interim Implementation Guide"

H 8.76ft Height of GRS abutment including clear space distance, ft

Habut 8.51ft Height of GRS abutment, ft

Bb 24.31ft Bridge width, ft

Lspan 34ft Bridge span, ft brb 0.7ft Distance over which the road base DL and roadway LL surcharges act over the GRS, ft ab 8in Distance between the back of the wall face and beam seat (set back), ft

Labut 33.65ft Abutment width, ft hrb 1.62ft Height of roadbase = height of bridge beam, ft

Lblock 15.625in Length of a facing block, ft bblock 7.625in Width of a facing block, ft hblock 7.625in Height of a facing block, ft

Wblock 42lbf Weight of individual block, lbf

Nblock 13 Total number of blocks in a single column

Tf 4800plf Total Ultimate reinforcement strength, lb/ft

Sv 8in Reinforcement vertical spacing, ft

Check for GRS-IBS Abutment Geometry :

demin 3in 0.02 H 3inif

0.02 H otherwise

Minimum clear space (from top of wall to bottom of superstructure) = Max (0.02H, 3), ft de demin 3 in Design clear space, ft bmin 2ft Lspan 25.ftif

2.5ft otherwise bmin 2.5 ft

Minimum bearing width, ft b 2.5ft Design bearing width, ft

Btotalmin max 5ft 0.3 H( ) Lspan 25.ftif max 6ft 0.3 H( ) otherwise

Btotalmin 6 ft Minimum base width, ft

Btotal 9.5ft Design base width, ft

B Btotal bblock 8.865 ft Base length of reinforcement not including the GRS facing, ft

BRSF 1.25 Btotal 11.875 ft Design width of reinforced soil foundation, ft xRSFmin BRSF Btotal 2.375 ft Minimum length of RSF in front of the GRS facing, ft xRSF 2.5ft Design length of RSF in front of the GRS facing, ft

DRSFmin 0.25 Btotal 2.375 ft Depth of excavation should be below scour depth, ft

DRSF 2.42ft Design depth of excavation (RSF depth), ft br 2 b ab 5.667 ft Minimum length of bearing bed reinfrocement, ft

L oads and Resistance Factors:

γDW_MAX 1.5 Maximum load factor for wearing surfaces and utilites γDW_MIN 0.65 Minmum load factor for wearing surfaces and utilites γDC_MAX 1.25 Maximum load factor for component and attachment γDC_MIN 0.9 Minmum load factor for component and attachment γEH_MAX 1.5 Maximum load factor for horizontal earth pressure γEH_MIN 0.9 Minimum load factor for horizontal earth pressure γES_MAX 1.5 Maximum load factor for earth surcharge γES_MIN 0.75 Minimum load factor for earth surcharge γEV_MAX 1.35 Maximum load factor for vertical earth pressure for RW & Abutments γEV_MIN 1.0 Minimum load factor for vertical earth pressure for RW & Abutments γDC_ser 1.0 Service load factor for component and attachment γDW_ser 1.0 Service load factor for service load load factor for wearing surfaces and utilites γLL 1.75 Load factor for live load γLL_ser 1.0 Service load factor for live load γLS 1.5 Load factor for earth surcharge

Φτ 1 Resistance factor for shear resistance along common interfaces

Φb 0.65 Resistance factor for bearing resistance

Φcapan 0.45 Resistance factor for ultimate capacity

Soil Properties:

Foundation Soil:

γw 62.4pcf Unit weight of water, lb/ft3 γf 125pcf Total (saturated) unit weight for foundation soil, lb/ft3 γfe γf γw 62.6 pcf Effective (dry) unit weight for foundation soil, lb/ft3 ϕf 28deg Angle of internal friction for foundation soil, degrees cf 0psf Undrained shear strength for foundation soil , lb/ft2 cfe 0psf Effective cohesion for foundation soil , lb/ft2

Retained Backfill Soil:

γb 125.pcf Total (saturated) unit weight for retained backfill soil, lb/ft3 γbe γf γw 62.6 pcf Effective (dry) unit weight for retained backfill soil, lb/ft3 ϕb 28deg Angle of internal friction for retained backfill soil, degrees cb 0psf Undrained shear strength for retained backfill soil , lb/ft2 cbe 0psf Effective cohesion for retained backfill soil , lb/ft2

GRS (Reinforced) Soil Properties:

γr 120pcf Total (saturated) unit weight for reinforced soil, lb/ft3 ϕr 34deg Angle of internal friction for reinforced soil, degrees cr 0.psf Effective cohesion for reinforced soil , lb/ft2 dmax 1.0in Miximum particle size, inches

RSF & Road Base Soil Properties:

γrb 140pcf Total (saturated) unit weight for road base/RSF soil, lb/ft3 ϕrb 38deg Angle of internal friction for road base/RSF soil, degrees crb 0.psf Undrained shear strength for road base/RSF soil , lb/ft2 crbe 0.psf Effective cohesion for road base/RSF soil , lb/ft2

Cofficients of Earth Pressure:

Kaf

1 sin ϕf 1 sin ϕf 0.361 Coffficient of active earth pressure for foundation soil

Kab

1 sin ϕb 1 sin ϕb 0.361 Coffficient of active earth pressure for retained backfill soil

Kar

1 sin ϕr 1 sin ϕr 0.283 Coffficient of active earth pressure for the reinforced soil

Kpr

1 sin ϕr 1 sin ϕr 3.537 Coffficient of passive earth pressure for the reinforced soil

Karb

1 sin ϕrb 1 sin ϕrb 0.238 Coffficient of active earth pressure for the road base and RSF soil

Bridge Loading

Superstructure load from Bridge wtgirder1v 11.5kip Self-weight of one girder with one void, kip wtgirder3v 9.8kip Self-weight of one girder with three voids, kip wtLL 62.2kip Total live load, kip

Nbeams1v 3 Number of beams with one void

Nbeams3v 3 Number of beams with 3 voids wtsw 14.7kip Dead load for sidewalk, kip wtoverlay 8.8kip Dead load for overlay, kip

SERV1 γDC_ser Nbeams1v wtgirder1v Nbeams3v wtgirder3v γDC_ser wtsw γDW_ser wtoverlay γLL_ser wtLL

149.6 kip

Total Service1, kip

SER1 γDC_MAX Nbeams1v wtgirder1v Nbeams3v wtgirder3v γDC_MAX wtsw γDW_MAX wtoverlay γLL wtLL

220.3 kip

Total Strength1, kip qb1

Nbeams1v wtgirder1v Nbeams3v wtgirder3v b Bb

1.051 10 psf

Pressure from Bridge self DL, lb/ft2 qb2 wtsw wtoverlay b Bb

386.672 psf Pressure load from overlay and sidewalk, lb/ft2 qLL wtLL b Bb

1.023 10 psf Pressure from Bridge LL, lb/ft2 qtraffic 250psf Traffic surcharge, psf heq qtraffic γb

2 ft Equivalent height of overburden for traffic surcharge, ft qrb hrb γrb 226.8 psf Road base dead load, lb/ft2 qt heq γb 250 psf Roadway live load (LL), lb/ft2

W B H γr 9.318 10 plf Weight of the GRS abutment backfill, lb/ft

WRSF BRSF DRSF γrb 4.023 10 plf Weight of the RSF, lb/ft

Wface Nblock

Wblock

Lblock

419.328 plf Weight of the facing element, lb/ft

External Stability Analyses :

Direct Sliding

Fb γb Kab H

1.732 10 plf Lateral force due to retained backfill, lb/ft

FRSF

γb Kab DRSF

132.147 plf Lateral force due to retained backfill behind the RSF, lb/ft

Frb qrb Kab H 717.29 plf Lateral force due to roadbase surcharge, lb/ft

Ft qt Kab H 790.663 plf Lateral force due to traffic surcharge, lb/ft

Check Direct Sliding at the interface between the GRS Abutment and RSF

FR γEH_MAX Fb γES_MAX Frb γLS Ft 4.859 10 plf

Factored driving force for direct sliding calculation, lb/ft

WtR γEV_MIN W γDC_MIN qb1 b γDW_MIN qb2 b γES_MIN qrb brb 1.243 10 plf

Factored total resisting weight (weight of GRS plus weight of Bridge (girders, rail & overlay) plus weight of the road base over the GRS mass only), lb/ft

Friction factor (cofficient of friction) based on interface friction angle between the reinforced fill and the geosynthetic for the RSF.μ 0.8098

RR Φτ WtR μ 1.007 10 plf Factored resisting force, lb/ft.

CDRs

2.072 Ok since greater than 1.0 Capacity demand ratio for direct sliding resistance

Check Direct Sliding at the interface between the RSF and the Foundation Soil

Factored driving force at the RSF- foundation soil interface for direct sliding calculation, lb/ftFR2 FR γEH_MAX FRSF 5.057 10 plf

WtR2 WtR γEV_MIN WRSF 1.645 10 plf

Factored total resisting weight (weight of GRS plus weight of Bridge beam plus weight of the road base over the GRS mass and RSF mass only), lb/ft μ2 0.67 Friction factor (cofficient of friction) based on interface friction angle between the RSF geosynthetic and foundation soil (assumed).

RR2 Φτ WtR2 μ2 1.102 10 plf Factored resisting force at the RSF- foundation soil interface , lb/ft.

CDRs2

RR2

FR2

2.18 Ok since greater than 1.0

Capacity demand ratio for direct sliding resistance at the RSF- foundation soil interface

Bearing Resistance

ΣMD γEH_MAX Fb γES_MAX Frb γLS Ft

1.749 10 lbf

Driving moments, lb.ft/ft

ΣMR γDC_MAX qb1 b γDW_MAX qb2 b γLL qLL b b ab

BRSF

xRSF bblock γLS qt brb γES_MAX qrb brb brb γEV_MAX W

1.358 10 lbf

Resisting moments, lb.ft/ft

ΣV γEV_MAX W γEV_MAX WRSF γDC_MAX Wface γLS qt brb γES_MAX qrb brb γDC_MAX qb1 b γDW_MAX qb2 b γLS qLL b

2.761 10 plf

Total vertical load, lb/ft eBn

ΣMD ΣMR

ΣV

0.142 ft Eccentricity of the resulting base force at the base of the RSF, ft σvbase

ΣV

BRSF 2 eBn

2.382 10 psf Applied vertical pressureand traffic surcharge, lb/ft2.

AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-1: Bearing Capacity Factors Nc (Prandtl, 1921), Nq (Reissner, 1924), and Nγ (Vesic, 1975) - Correction factors are ignored.

For ϕf=28 deg.

Nc 25.8 Nq 14.7 Nγ 16.7

Bef BRSF 2 eBn 11.591 ft Effective foundation width, ft ic 1 iq 1 iγ 1 Inclionation correction factors - No inclined load assumed dq 1 Depth correction factor (assumed)

Dw DRSF Depth to groundwater table, ft

Cwq 1.0 Cwγ 0.5 Correction factors for location of G.W.T, AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-2 sc 1

Labut

1.201 sq 1

BRSF

tan ϕf

1.188 Shape correction factors for ϕf>0, AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-3 sγ 1 0.4

0.859

Nominal Bearing Resistance Equation: AASHTO 10.6.3.1 qn cf Nc sc ic γf DRSF Nq sq dq iq Cwq 0.5 γf Bef Nγ sγ iγ Cwγ 1.048 10 psf

Nominal bearing resistance, psf qfbrst Φb qn 6809.7 psf Factored bearing resistance, psf

CDRbr qfbrst σvbase

2.859 Ok since greater than 1.0

Capacity demand ratio for bearing resistance

Internal Stability Analysis:

Vertical Capacity - Analytical Method

Nominal load-carrying capacity of the foundation using the analytical method, lb/ft2qnan 0.7

6 dmax

Kpr 1.583 10 psf

Vapplied qb1 qb2 qLL 2.462 10 psf Applied stress on top of GRS mass, lb/ft2

Vappliedf γDC_MAX qb1 γDW_MAX qb2 γLL qLL 3.685 10 psf

Factored applied stress on top of GRS mass, lb/ft2

Φcapan qnan

Vappliedf

1.933 Ok since greater than 1.0

Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0

ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis Project PRA-CATO 900(1) Present Date/Time: Thu May 22 16:07:54 2014 M:\Projects\cato\900(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Loads\Global Stability\CATO 900(1)-2.MSE

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Title: Project PRA-CATO 900(1) Project Number: - Client: CATOCTIN NATIONAL PARK Designer: M. Elias

Description:

Replacement of Bridge over Blazes Creek

Company's information:

Name: FHWA-EFLHD Street:

Telephone #:

Fax #:

E-Mail:

Original file path and name: M:\Project ..... Analysis\Loads\Global Stability\CATO 900(1)-2.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Wed Jan 29 11:54:41 2014

PROGRAM MODE: Analysis of a General Slope using GEOSYNTHETIC as reinforcing material.

Present Date/Time: Thu May 22 16:07:54 2014 M:\Projects\cato\900(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Loads\Global Stability\CATO 900(1)-2.MSE

INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT)

SOIL DATA

=========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³]

Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c

[lb/ft ²]

...........................................................................1 Reinforced Soil (GRS) 120.0 34.0 0.0

...........................................................................2 RSF 140.0 38.0 0.0

...........................................................................3 Retained Backfill & Foundation Soil 125.0 28.0 0.0

...........................................................................4 Sandy silt 120.0 25.0 0.0

...........................................................................5 Silty Sand 125.0 30.0 0.0

...........................................................................6 Sandy Silt 130.0 30.0 0.0

REINFORCEMENT

R e i n f o r c e m e n t

Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name

Ultimate Strength, Tult

Reduction Factor for Installation Damage, RFid

Reduction Factor for Durability, RFd

Reduction Factor for Creep, RFc

Additional Reduction Factor, RFa

Coverage Ratio, Rc

[lb/ft]

1 Geosynthetic type #1 4800.00 1.20 1.10 1.67 1.00 1.00

I n t e r a c t i o n P a r a m e t e r s

Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name

== Direct Sliding == ==== Pullout ====

Cds-phi Cds-c Ci Alpha

1 Geosynthetic type #1 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.80

Relative Orientation of Reinforcement Force, ROR = 0.00. Assigned Factor of Safety to resist pullout, Fs-po = 1.50 Design method for Global Stability: Comprehensive Bishop.

WATER

Unit weight of water = 62.45 [lb/ft ³] Water pressure is defined by phreatic surface in Effective Stress Analysis.

SEISMICITY

Not Applicable

Project PRA-CATO 900(1)

Present Date/Time: Thu May 22 16:07:54 2014 M:\Projects\cato\900(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Loads\Global Stability\CATO 900(1)-2.MSE

DRAWING OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY - GENERAL - Quick Input

-- Problem geometry is defined along sections selected by user at x,y coordinates.

-- X1,Y1 represents the coordinates of soil surface. X2,Y2 represent the coordinates of the end of soil layer 1 and start of soil layer 2, and so on.

-- Xw,Yw represents the coordinates of phreatic surface.

GEOMETRY

Soil profile contains 6 layers (see details in next page)

WATER GEOMETRY

Phreatic line was specified.

UNIFORM SURCHARGE

Load Q1 = 250.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 302.51 and ends at X1e = 500.00 [ft].

.......................................................................Surcharge load, Q2 None ...............

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it.