Soils_and_Foundation_Report.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

REPORT NO. 02-19

PROJECT: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1)

LANDSLIDE REPAIR

ZILPO ROAD (NFSR NO. 918)

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

21400 RIDGETOP CIRCLE

STERLING, VA 20166

FEBRUARY 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. General

1.2. Project Location

1.3. Background

2. GEOLOGY

2.1. Regional Geology

3. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

3.1. Drilling and Sampling

3.2. Data Summary

3.3. Laboratory Testing

4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1. Stratification

4.2. Groundwater

5. DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Design Alternatives

5.2. Design Analysis

5.3. Recommendations

6. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS

6.1. General

6.2. Excavations and Foundation Preparation

6.3. Wall Erection

6.4. Backfilling

6.5. Reinforcement Specifications

7. REFERENCES

8. DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – Boring Location Maps Appendix C – Subsurface Profiles Appendix D – Boring Logs Appendix E – Laboratory Testing Appendix F – Design Analysis Appendix G – Site Photographs

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

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 3 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

REPORT NO. 02-19

ZILPO ROAD (NFSR NO. 918)

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. General

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical analysis, and our evaluations and recommendations for two (2) landslides repairs along Zilpo Road in Daniel Boone National Forest, as reported in the Damage Survey Reports (DSR).

1.2. Project Location

The project includes two (2) landslide sites along Zilpo Road, National Forest Service Route (NFSR) No.

918, within the Daniel Boone National Forest in Manifee county in the eastern side of Kentucky. Landslide No. 1, or Site No. 1, is located at Mile Post (MP) 0.10, close to the intersection of Clear Creek Road (NFSR No. 1030) and Zilpo Road. Landslide No. 2 or Site No. 2 is located at MP 0.20. Vicinity map can be seen in Figure No. 1 of “Appendix A – Figures”.

1.3. Background

We understand that Zilpo Road was widened by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1977 to accommodate public traffic. NFSR No. 918 has a history of slope failures at MP 0.10 and MP 0.20 locations. The last slope repair was completed in the 1990’s and included buttresses installation of at the base of the slopes. However, earth movements and embankments deformation were observed at the above mentioned locations as evidenced by the presence of cracks in the pavement along the slope failure seam.

The December 2015 rain event caused the slope to fail.

2. GEOLOGY

2.1. Regional Geology

Site No. 1 is located within the Mississippian age Renfro and Nada Members (Mbrn) formation, which is classified as dolomite and dolomitic limestone, and minor shale (Philley, 1978).

Site No. 2 is also located within a Mississippian age geologic unit but in the Newman Limestone (Mn) formation, which is composed of three main beds called the Upper, Ste. Genevieve Limestone, and St. Louis Limestone (Philley, 1978). The Ste. Genevieve Limestone is described as grayish-orange to light-gray, KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 4 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

weathered, all fine grained matrix. St. Louis Limestone is described as aphanitic to fine grained rock (Philley, 1978).

Figure No. 2 of “Appendix A – Figures” presents a geologic map.

3. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

3.1. Drilling and Sampling

A subsurface exploration program consisting of soil borings was conducted to characterize subsurface conditions. Drilling was performed by the EFLHD subsurface exploration team between August 23rd to August 25th, 2017. The program consisted of drilling a total of five (5) borings, two (2) borings in Site No.

1, and three (3) borings in site No. 2. Field date are summarized in Table No. 1, and Boring Location Maps are included in “Appendix B – Boring Location Maps”.

Table No. 1: Summary of Field Information.

Boring No. Location Northing Easting Ground Surface

Elev. (ft) Boring Depth

(ft)

BH-17-01 Site No. 2, MP 0.20 4213883.1 274202.4 1105.9 24.4*

BH-17-02 Site No. 2, MP 0.20 4213854.8 274236.1 1101.5 25.1*

BH-17-03 Site No. 1, MP 0.10 4213464.5 274286.2 1050.5 20.0

BH-17-04 Site No. 1, MP 0.10 4213453.5 274281.0 1049.7 21.0

BH-17-05 Site No. 2, MP 0.20 4213862.0 274214.5 1104.4 20.0

*: Auger Refusal

Borings were drilled using a CME 750 drill rig mounted on a rubber tired all-terrain vehicle (ATV).

Boreholes were advanced using 3-¾-inch (inside diameter) hollow stem augers (HSA) in soil. Borings were terminated upon reaching auger refusal or after reaching the planned boring depth. The locations were laid out by EFLHD personnel in the field by referencing topographic features, measuring distances from existing surface features, using a hand held GPS equipment.

Soil samples were obtained using a standard split-barrel (split-spoon) sampler driven during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, Standard Method of Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils. SPT was performed by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24 inches into relatively undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-pound automatic hammer free falling 30 inches. SPT was generally performed at 2.5-foot interval in the upper 20 feet (ft) and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-inch interval was recorded on field boring logs. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N value. SPT refusal is defined by achieving 50 blows per 1-inch (or less) of the split-spoon sampler. Boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings and patched with cold mix asphalt.

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 5 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Representative portions of the split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars. The samples were visually classified and logged in the field by the drilling crew team leader. Samples were then delivered to the EFLHD Materials Testing facility in Sevierville, TN for testing and storage. Details on sampling and sample descriptions are provided in the boring logs included in “Appendix D – Boring Logs” of this report.

3.2. Data Summary

Data collected from the soil borings was recorded in the driller’s logs. These data sheets and logs indicate the boring methods, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as fines, sands, and gravel, organic matter, and observations of groundwater. The logs also contain interpretations 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 represent both factual and interpretative information.

The boring logs provided in “Appendix D – Boring Logs” represent a compilation of field and laboratory data and description of the soil samples by a 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.

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

3.3. Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to aid in the classification, and the evaluation of engineering parameters of the subsurface materials. The following tests were performed on selected samples.

Grain Size Distribution (AASHTO T-11 and T-27) Moisture Content (MC) (AASHTO T-265) Plastic Limit (PL) (AASHTO T-90) Liquid Limit (LL) (AASHTO T-89)

Laboratory test results are provided in “Appendix E – Laboratory Testing”.

Table No. 2: Summary of laboratory test results.

Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)

Gravel

Sand

Fines

MC

PL

LL

PI

AASHTO

Classification

BH-17-01 J-7 15-17 4.8 30.8 64.4 17.5 29 41 12 A-7-6(7)

BH-17-01 J-9 20-22 4.3 35.8 59.9 10.8 29 35 6 A-4(3)

BH-17-02 J-5 & J-6 10-15 38.1 38.6 23.3 20.3 NP NV NP A-1-b

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 6 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)

Gravel

Sand

Fines

MC

PL

LL

PI

AASHTO

Classification

BH-17-02 J-8 18-20 7.9 64.6 27.5 15.9 32 40 8 A-2-4(0)

BH-17-03 J-4 8-10 17.9 34.9 47.2 26.0 17 30 13 A-6(3)

BH-17-03 J-6 13-15 4.2 36.3 59.5 14.7 22 28 6 A-4(2)

BH-17-04 J-4 8-10 24.7 28.8 46.5 26.3 24 51 27 A-7-6(8)

BH-17-04 J-7 15-17 19.2 26.9 53.9 13.9 25 48 23 A-7-6(10)

BH-17-05 J-2 & J-3 3-7 61.6 27.8 10.6 6.6 NP NV NP A-1-a

BH-17-05 J-5 10-12 0.0 8.0 92.0 22.6 27 48 21 A-7-6(22)

BH-17-05 J-7 15-17 0.0 3.4 96.6 11.8 26 51 25 A-7-6(28)

4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1. Stratification

A general description of the subsurface conditions encountered during our drilling operation is listed below.

Subsurface profiles are included in “Appendix C – Subsurface Profiles”. Stratification lines designating the interfaces between layers on the boring logs and the subsurface profiles represent approximate boundaries while the transition between materials may be gradual. Also, one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

The subsurface profile was classified into the following strata based on descriptions on the boring logs and laboratory tests results:

4.1.1. Site No. 1 (MP 0.10) BH-17-03 and BH-17-04

Pavement

The borings encountered a 0.9 ft thick layer of asphalt pavement, followed by 0.4 ft to 0.8 ft thick layer of base and subbase.

Fill

Underneath the subbase layer, fill was encountered in both borings and extended to a depth of 12 ft below existing site grades. SPT N-values recorded ranged from 1 to 5 blows per foot (bpf), indicating very loose to loose relative densities.

Sandy silty clay/Sandy lean clay with gravel

Underlying the Fill stratum, a sandy silty clay layer was encountered in Boring BH-17-03 and a sandy lean clay with gravel layer was encountered in Boring BH-17-04. These layers extend to depths of 16 ft and 18 ft below existing site grades in Borings BH-17-03 and BH-17-04, respectively. N values ranged from 7 to 33 bpf, indicating medium stiff to very stiff consistencies.

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 7 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Silty Fat Clay

Underneath the above listed stratum, a layer of hard silty fat clay was encountered and extended to the termination depths of the soil borings.

4.1.2. Site No. 2 (MP 0.20) BH-17-01, BH-17-02, and BH-17-05

Pavement

The borings encountered a 1.0 ft thick layer of asphalt pavement, followed by 2.0 ft thick layer of base and subbase.

Fill

Underneath the subbase layer, fill was encountered in all the borings and extended to depths of 7.0 ft to

12.5 ft below existing site grades. N-values recorded ranged from 6 to 36 bpf, indicating loose to dense relative densities.

Sandy silt, silty sand, and silty lean clay

Underneath the fill material, Boring BH-17-01 encountered a 9.5 ft thick layer of sandy silt. N-values ranged from 5 to 53 bpf indicating medium stiff to hard consistencies. Boring BH-17-02 encountered a 10 ft thick layer of silty sand. N-values ranged from 1 to 16 bpf, indicating very loose to medium dense relative densities. Boring BH-17-05 encountered a 6 ft thick layer of silty lean clay. N-values ranged from 2 to 10 bpf, indicating very soft to stiff consistencies.

Silty Fat Clay

Underneath the above mentioned stratum, boring encountered a layer of silty fat clay that extended to their terminations depths. N-values ranged from 28 to over 50 bpf, indicating very stiff to hard consistencies.

4.2. Groundwater

No groundwater was encountered in any of the borings during the drilling operation. However, fluctuations changes in groundwater levels could be expected due to seasonal variations, precipitation, evaporation, and surface water runoff.

5. DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Design Alternatives

To mitigate slope stability problems, two general approaches can be used. One approach is to reduce the driving forces, the second approach is to increase the resisting forces.

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 8 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Three alternatives were considered in our analysis. These alternatives were based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, cost effectiveness, constructability, and our experience with similar projects. The alternatives are summarized in Table No. 3

Table No. 3: Comparison of landslide stabilization and roadway repair alternatives.

Alt. No. Stabilization System Advantages Disadvantages

Sheet No. 3A

Horizontal backslope MSE Retaining Structure

Cost effective.

Flexible system that can accommodate varying subsurface conditions, and can tolerate deformations due to poor subsoil foundation conditions.

Simple and rapid construction.

Compaction is required to achieve design strength.

Requires a relatively large excavation for soil reinforcement installation.

Requires high quality imported backfill material.

Road closer would be required for construction.

Sheet No. 3B

Broken backslope MSE Retaining Structure

Cost effective.

Required less excavation and soil reinforcement compared to Alt. No. 1.

Flexible system that can accommodate varying subsurface conditions, and can tolerate deformations due to poor subsoil foundation conditions.

Simple and rapid construction.

Compaction is required to achieve design strength.

Requires a relatively large excavation for soil reinforcement installation.

Requires high quality imported backfill material.

Road closer may not be required for construction.

Sheet No. 3C

Reinforced Soil Slope

(RSS)

Cost effective.

Flexible system that can accommodate varying subsurface conditions, and can tolerate deformations due to poor subsoil foundation conditions, Simple construction.

Compaction is required to achieve design strength.

May require shoring for temporary cut slopes.

Requires a relatively large excavation for soil reinforcement installation.

Requires high quality imported backfill material.

Weight of backfill adds to driving forces.

Road closer would be required for construction.

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 9 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Based on excavation and soil reinforcement requirements, avoiding road closures, and cost estimates, Alternative 2 is the most favorable. Therefore, Alternative No. 2 was selected for implementation in this project.

5.2. Design Analysis

Design of the MSE walls was conducted using limit equilibrium methodology, in general accordance with the design concepts and procedures presented in FHWA Publication FHWA-GEC 011, “Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes,” (2010), and following “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Ed.” (2017) design requirements. A summary of soil engineering parameters assumed in the external, internal and global stability analyses is presented in Table No. 4 for Site No. 1 and in Table No. 5 for Site No. 2.

Table No. 4: In-situ soil and Granular Backfill assumed engineering properties for Site No. 1.

Material Type

Unit Weight (pcf)

Cohesion (psf)

Internal Friction Angle ϕ

Granular Backfill 125 0 34°

Fill 120 0 26° - 30°

Sandy Silty Clay 120 100 22° - 26°

Silty Fat Clay 120 2000 22° - 26°

Table No. 5: In-situ soil and Granular Backfill assumed engineering properties for Site No. 2.

Material Type

Unit Weight (pcf)

Cohesion (psf)

Internal Friction Angle ϕ

Granular Backfill 125 0 34°

Fill 110 0 26° - 30°

Sandy Silt 110 0 26° - 30°

Silty Fat Clay 120 2000 26° - 30°

A uniform distributed live surcharge load of 250 psf was applied along the travelway to account for traffic loading following (AASHTO-LRFD, 2017)– Section 3.11.6.4.

The selected load factors and combinations for Site No.1 and No. 2 are presented in Table No. 6. The factors follow (AASHTO-LRFD, 2017) Section 3.4.1. The resistance factor used for design for both sites are presented in Table No. 7, following (AASHTO-LRFD, 2017) Section 11.5.7.

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 10 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Table No. 6: Mechanically stabilized earth walls design load factors and combinations.

Load Combination EH EV ES LS

Strength I (Max) 1.50 1.35 1.50 1.75

Strength I (Min) 0.90 1.00 0.75 1.75

Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table No. 7: Mechanically stabilized earth walls design resistance factors.

Analysis Resistance Factor

Sliding Φs: 1.00

Bearing Φb: 0.65

Overall/Global ΦG: 0.75 (FSG:1.3)

Geosynthetic Tensile Resistance ΦT: 0.90

Geosynthetic Pullout Resistance Φp: 0.90

To satisfy the design criteria, the following soil reinforcement general requirements are presented for Site No. 1 and No. 2 repair:

Geosynthetic reinforcement type: Uniaxial or Biaxial Geogrid, Type V Minimum Allowable Long-Term Design strength (Tal): 3,000 lb/ft Minimum Ultimate strength (Tult): 6,000 lb/ft Maximum geogrid vertical spacing: 1.5 feet

External and internal stability analysis computations were performed using PTC Mathcad Prime v. 4.0 software program, and global stability analysis using the computer program Slide v. 6.0 by Rocscience, Inc.

Design calculations and computer output files are included in “Appendix F – Design Analysis”.

According to AASHTO 11.5.4.2, a seismic design shall not be considered mandatory for walls located in Seismic Zones 1 through 3, or for walls located in areas where the adjusted Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is less than or equal to 0.4g, unless one or more of the following is true:

Liquefaction induced lateral spreading or slope failure, or seismically induced slope failure, due to the presence of sensitive clays that lose strength during the seismic shaking, may impact the stability of the wall for the design earthquake.

The wall supports another structure that is required, based on the applicable design code or specification for the supported structure, to be designed for seismic loading and poor seismic performance of the wall could impact the seismic performance of that structure.

After performing a project seismic evaluation, it was concluded that the retaining structures located in Sites No. 1 and No. 2 do not require a seismic evaluation. To see the evaluations calculations, see “Appendix F

– Design Analysis”.

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 11 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

5.3. Recommendations

5.3.1. Site No. 1 (MP 0.10)

The MSE wall system is 10.5 ft high by 14.0 ft wide retaining wall with foundation elevation at 1034 ft.

5.3.2. Site No. 2 (Mile Post 0.20)

The MSE wall system is 13.5 ft high by 14.0 ft wide retaining wall with foundation elevation at 1081 ft.

6. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS

6.1. General

Construction shall be performed following the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14) and the Special Contract Requirements (SCR). Surface runoff should be diverted at the top of the slope to prevent it from flowing over the face. In addition, runoff that is collected above the MSE wall should be channelized or piped outside limits of the repair area.

6.2. Excavations and Foundation Preparation

All excavations shall be performed according to Subsection 208.03 of FP-14, local, state and federal guidelines. Due to the variability of subsurface profile within the landslide areas, temporary excavation support may be required.

6.3. Wall Erection

Wall should be erected according to Subsection 255.04 and 255.04(b).

6.4. Backfilling

Backfill within the wall reinforcement area shall follow Subsection 255.05 of FP-14. Backfill material should be Granular Backfill (AASHTO M 43, Size Number 57) meeting requirements of subsection 703.03a, and be placed and compacted in accordance with subsection 209.09 and 209.10.

The retaining structure subsurface water drainage system shall follow the specification shown in Subsection 605.03, and 605.04(a). Geotextile filter fabric should be in accordance with Subsection 714.01. It is recommended to use a Class 1, Type B geotextile.

6.5. Reinforcement Specifications

Geogrid reinforcement shall conform to Subsection 714.04 of FP-14 specifications. The minimum Nominal Long-Term Strength (Tal) required for construction is of 3,000 lb/ft, or Ultimate Strength (Tult) of 6,000 lb/ft, which represents a Type V geogrid according to Table 714-6.

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 12 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

7. REFERENCES

AASHTO-LRFD. (2017). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (8th ed.). Washington, D.C.:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Berg, R. R., Christopher, B. R., & Samtani, N. C. (2010). Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes (Vol. I & II). Washington D.C.: National Highway Institue (NHI), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), US Department of Transportation.

EFLHD. (2017). Design Scoping Report - KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1). Sterling, VA: FHWA.

FHWA. (2014). Standard Specifications For Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14). US Department of Transportation. Washington D.C.: US Department of Transportation.

NRCS, U. . (2018, 05 09). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from Web Soil Survey:

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

Philley, J. C. (1978). Geologic Map of The Salt Lick Quadrangle, East-Central, Kentucky. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, University of Kentucky: Kentucky Geological Survey.

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 13 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

8. DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

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

Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE 14 OF 44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures A - 15

Appendix B – Boring Location Maps A - 19

Appendix C – Subsurface Profiles A - 22

Appendix D – Boring Logs A - 25

Appendix E – Laboratory Testing A - 33

Appendix F – Design Analysis A - 39

Appendix G – Site Photographs A - 114

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 15 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Appendix A – Figures

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 16 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY

DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGNIA

FIGURE NO. 1

Site Location and Vicinity

Maps

STATE PROJECT

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

KY

KY ERFO FS

2016-1(1) 1 3

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 17 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY

DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGNIA

FIGURE NO. 2

Geologic Map

STATE PROJECT SHEET NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

KY

KY ERFO FS

2 3

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 18 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

A. Typical horizontal backslope MSE retaining structure (Berg, Christopher, & Samtani, 2010).

B. Typical broken backslope MSE retaining structure (Berg, Christopher, & Samtani, 2010).

C. Typical RSS structure (Berg, Christopher, & Samtani, 2010).

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY

DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGNIA

FIGURE NO. 4

Design Alternatives

Evaluated

STATE PROJECT

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

KY

KY ERFO FS

3 3

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 19 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Appendix B – Boring Location Maps

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 20 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 21 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 22 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Appendix C – Subsurface Profiles

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 23 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 24 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 25 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Appendix D – Boring Logs

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 26 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 27 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 28 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 29 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 30 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 31 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 32 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 33 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Appendix E – Laboratory Testing

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 34 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 35 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 36 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 37 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 38 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KENTUCKY ERFO KY2016-1-FS

MENIFEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY

PAGE A - 39 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Appendix F – Design Analysis

United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

Design Calculations Description

The analysis and design calculations for a wire faced MSE wall with a broken backslope and traffic live load is shown in this report. The MSE wall backfill is reinforced with geogrid reinforcement.

References

AASHTO (2017), "LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", 8th Edition, Washington D.C.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R., Samtani, N.C. (2009), "Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes", Vol. 1, National Highway Institute (NHI) - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C.

Model

Data By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

Data

- Wall Geometry

≔H 10.5 ft Total height of wall.

≔hBS 6.67 ft Total height of backslope.

≔hES 0.33 ft Total height of earth surcharge.

≔Hd =+H hBS 17.17 ft

≔B 14 ft Total base width of wall.

≔β =atan

+hBS hES

⋅2 H

18.4 ° Equivalent inclination of backslope behind face of wall.

≔θ 90 ° Angle of back of wall to the horizontal.

≔δ β Friction angle between fill and reinforced soil.

≔ψ 26.57 ° (1V:2H Slope) Backslope inclination behind face of wall.

- Retained Fill Engineering Properties

≔γf 120 ―― lb ft3 Retained fill unit weight.

≔ϕf 28 ° Retained fill residual friction angle.

≔Cf 0.00 ―― lb ft2 Retained fill cohesion.

- Reinforced Soil Engineering Properties

≔γr 125 ―― lb ft3 Reinforced soil unit weight.

≔ϕr 34 ° Reinforced soil friction angle.

≔Cr 0.00 ―― lb ft2 Reinforced soil cohesion.

- Foundation Soil Engineering Properties

≔γB 120 ―― lb ft3 Foundation soil unit weight.

≔ϕB 24 ° Foundation soil friction angle.

≔CB 100.00 ――

lb ft2 Foundation soil cohesion.

- Earth Surcharge Load

≔ES ⋅hES γr ∴ =ES 41.25 ―― lb ft2 Earth surcharge pressure load.

- Live Load Surcharge (AASHTO 3.11.6.4) By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

- Live Load Surcharge (AASHTO 3.11.6.4)

≔heq 2.0 ft

≔LS ⋅γr heq

=LS 250 ――

lb ft2 Traffic surcharge pressure load.

- Wall Reinforcement Specifications

≔Reinforcement_Type “Geogrid”

≔Fp ⋅0.67 tan ⎛⎝ϕr ⎞⎠ ∴ =Fp 0.45 Pullout friction factor (AASHTO Figure 11.10.6.3.2-2)

≔α 0.8 Scale effect correction factor (AASHTO Table 11.10.6.3.2-1)

≔c 2.0 Surface area reinforcement factor (AASHTO 11.10.6.3.2-1)

≔Rc 1.0 Reinforcement coverage ratio (AASHTO 11.10.6.4.1)

≔kf 1.0 Coefficient of lateral stress ratio kr/ka (AASHTO Figure 11.10.6.2.1-3)

≔Sv 1.5 ft Reinforcement vertical spacing (AASHTO Figure 11.10.6.2.1-2)

≔ρ atan tan ⎛⎝ϕr

∴ =ρ 24.2 ° Soil-reinforcement interface friction angle .

(Bergg et al, 2009 - Section 3.4.3)

Coefficient of Horizontal Earth Pressure By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

Coefficient of Horizontal Earth Pressure

≔Γ

+1

⋅sin ⎛⎝ +ϕr δ⎞⎠ sin ⎛⎝ -ϕr β⎞⎠

⋅sin ⎛⎝ -θ δ⎞⎠ sin ⎛⎝ +θ β⎞⎠

∴ AASHTO Eq. 3.11.5.3-1=Γ 2.21

≔ka ―――――――― sin ⎛⎝ +θ ϕr

⋅Γ ⎝ ⋅sin ⎛⎝θ⎞⎠ sin ⎛⎝ -θ δ⎞⎠

∴ =ka 0.328 AASHTO Eq. 3.11.5.3-2

Load Factors - AASHTO Table 3.4.1-1 & Table 3.4.1-2

≔EHmax 1.50 Maximum horizontal earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EHmin 0.90 Minimum horizontal earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EHSer 1.00 Horizontal earth pressure load factor (Service I).

≔EVmax 1.35 Maximum vertical earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EVmin 1.00 Minimum vertical earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EVSer 1.00 Vertical earth pressure load factor (Service I).

≔ESmax 1.50 Maximum earth surcharge load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔ESmin 0.75 Minimum earth surcharge load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔ESSer 1.00 Earth surcharge load factor (Service I).

≔LSmax 1.75 Maximum live load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔LSmin 1.75 Minimum live load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔LSSer 1.00 Live load factor (Service I).

Resistance Factors - AASHTO Table 11.5.7-1

≔φs 1.00 Sliding resitance factor.

≔φb 0.65 Bearing resistance factor.

≔φG 0.75 ∴ ≔FSG =φG -1 1.33 Overall stability resistance factor.

≔φT 0.90 Tensile resistance of geosynthetic resistance factor.

≔φp 0.90 Pullout resistance of geosynthetic resistance factor.

Loads (Unfactored) By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

Overall Stability Analysis - AASHTO 11.10.4.3

According to AASHTO 11.6.2.3, the overall stability resistance factor depends on the site specific scenario. Where the geotechnical parameter are well define, and the slope does not support or contain a structural element, the resistance factor for overall stability is 0.75, which is equivalent to 1.3 Factor of Safety. On the other hand, where the geotechnical parameters are based on limited information, or the slope contains or supports a structural element, the resistance factor for overall stability is 0.65, which is equivalent to 1.5 Factor of Safety. This analysis complies with the first scenario.

Maximum Reinforcement Loads - AASHTO 11.10.6.3 By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

Design Requirements Summary Results - External Stability

- Sliding Stability

=CDRSliding_max 1.48 =CDRSliding__max “OK”

=CDRSliding_min 1.59 =CDRSliding__min “OK”

=CDRSliding_Crit 1.09 =CDRSliding__Crit “OK”

=CDRSliding_Ser 1.69 =CDRSliding__Ser “OK”

- Overturning Stability

=CDROverturning_max 4.24 =CDROverturning__max “OK”

=CDROverturning_min 4.26 =CDROverturning__min “OK”

=CDROverturning_Crit 3.06 =CDROverturning__Crit “OK”

=CDROverturning_Ser 4.85 =CDROverturning__Ser “OK”

- Eccentricity Limit

=emax 0.62 ft =emax_req. “OK”

=emin 0.71 ft =eLim 4.67 ft =emin_req. “OK”

=eCrit 1.42 ft =eCrit_req. “OK”

=eSer 0.51 ft =eSer_req. “OK”

- Bearing Resistance

=CDRBearing_max 2.11 =CDRBearing__max “OK”

=CDRBearing_min 2.76 =CDRBearing__min “OK”

=CDRBearing_Crit 2.23 =CDRBearing__Crit “OK”

=CDRBearing_Ser 4.55 =CDRBearing__Ser “OK”

- Global Stability

≔FSGlobal_Stability 1.40 ≔FSGlobal__Stability “OK”

By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

Design Requirements Summary Results - Internal Stability

- Pullout Resistance

=Le1 14 ft ≔Le1_req =max ⎛⎝ ,,Lemax_req_1 Lemin_req_1 LeSer_req_1 ⎞⎠ 0.39 ft =Le_1 “OK”

=Le2 13.2 ft ≔Le2_req =max ⎛⎝ ,,Lemax_req_2 Lemin_req_2 LeSer_req_2 ⎞⎠ 0.75 ft =Le_2 “OK”

=Le3 12.4 ft ≔Le3_req =max ⎛⎝ ,,Lemax_req_3 Lemin_req_3 LeSer_req_3 ⎞⎠ 0.72 ft =Le_3 “OK”

=Le4 11.61 ft ≔Le4_req =max ⎛⎝ ,,Lemax_req_4 Lemin_req_4 LeSer_req_4 ⎞⎠ 0.68 ft =Le_4 “OK”

=Le5 10.81 ft ≔Le5_req =max ⎛⎝ ,,Lemax_req_5 Lemin_req_5 LeSer_req_5 ⎞⎠ 0.63 ft =Le_5 “OK”

=Le6 10.01 ft ≔Le6_req =max ⎛⎝ ,,Lemax_req_6 Lemin_req_6 LeSer_req_6 ⎞⎠ 0.57 ft =Le_6 “OK”

=Le7 9.21 ft ≔Le7_req =max ⎛⎝ ,,Lemax_req_7 Lemin_req_7 LeSer_req_7 ⎞⎠ 0.47 ft =Le_7 “OK”

=Le8 8.42 ft ≔Le8_req =max ⎛⎝ ,,Lemax_req_8 Lemin_req_8 LeSer_req_8 ⎞⎠ 0.24 ft =Le_8 “OK”

- Reinforcement Strength Resistance

=Tal_1 1500 ― lb ft ≔CDRal_min1 =min ⎛⎝ ,,CDRal_max1 CDRal_min1 CDRal_min1

⎞⎠ 3.06 =Tal1 “OK”

=Tal_2 1500 ― lb ft ≔CDRal_min2 =min ⎛⎝ ,,CDRal_max2 CDRal_min2 CDRal_min2

⎞⎠ 1.74 =Tal2 “OK”

=Tal_3 1500 ― lb ft ≔CDRal_min3 =min ⎛⎝ ,,CDRal_max3 CDRal_min3 CDRal_min3

⎞⎠ 2.02 =Tal3 “OK”

=Tal_4 1500 ― lb ft ≔CDRal_min4 =min ⎛⎝ ,,CDRal_max4 CDRal_min4 CDRal_min4

⎞⎠ 2.41 =Tal4 “OK”

=Tal_5 1500 ― lb ft ≔CDRal_min5 =min ⎛⎝ ,,CDRal_max5 CDRal_min5 CDRal_min5

⎞⎠ 2.98 =Tal5 “OK”

=Tal_6 1500 ― lb ft ≔CDRal_min6 =min ⎛⎝ ,,CDRal_max6 CDRal_min6 CDRal_min6

⎞⎠ 3.9 =Tal6 “OK”

=Tal_7 1500 ― lb ft ≔CDRal_min7 =min ⎛⎝ ,,CDRal_max7 CDRal_min7 CDRal_min7

⎞⎠ 5.65 =Tal7 “OK”

=Tal_8 1500 ― lb ft ≔CDRal_min8 =min ⎛⎝ ,,CDRal_max8 CDRal_min8 CDRal_min8

⎞⎠ 11.3 =Tal8 “OK”

By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

Final Design Results

=H 10.5 ft Total height of wall.

=B 14 ft Total base width of wall.

≔Slope =⋅100 tan ⎛⎝ψ⎞⎠ 50 % Backslope inclination behind face of wall.

=Sv 1.5 ft Geogrid reinforcement vertical spacinig.

≔R8 =Tal_8 1500 ― lb ft ∴ Geogrid Type II (FP-14 Table 714-6)

≔R7 =Tal_7 1500 ― lb ft ∴ Geogrid Type II (FP-14 Table 714-6)

≔R6 =Tal_6 1500 ― lb ft ∴ Geogrid Type II (FP-14 Table 714-6)

≔R5 =Tal_5 1500 ― lb ft ∴ Geogrid Type II (FP-14 Table 714-6)

≔R4 =Tal_4 1500 ― lb ft ∴ Geogrid Type II (FP-14 Table 714-6)

≔R3 =Tal_3 1500 ― lb ft ∴ Geogrid Type II (FP-14 Table 714-6)

≔R2 =Tal_2 1500 ― lb ft ∴ Geogrid Type II (FP-14 Table 714-6)

≔R1 =Tal_1 1500 ― lb ft ∴ Geogrid Type II (FP-14 Table 714-6)

By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

Extreme Event I Evaluation Description

According to AASHTO 11.5.4.2, a seismic design shall not be considered mandatory for walls located in Seismic Zones 1 through 3, or for walls at Sites where the site adjusted peak ground acceleration is less than or equal to 0.4g, unless one or more of the following is true:

Liquefaction induced lateral spreading or slope failure, or seismically induced slope failure, due to the prescence of sensitive clays that lose strength during the seismic shaking, may impact the stability of the wall for the design earthquake.

The wall supports another structure that is required, based on the applicable design code or specification for the supported structure, to be designed for seismic loading and poor sesimic performance of the wall could impact the seismic performance of that structure.

The purpose of this Extream Event I evaluation is to determine if the retaining struture requires a seismic design.

References

AASHTO (2017), "LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", 8th Edition, Washington D.C.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R., Samtani, N.C. (2009), "Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes", Vol. 1, National Highway Institute (NHI) - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C.

Wall Location

Latitude: 38.0408° N Longitude: 83.5720° W

Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) - AASHTO Figure 3.10.2.1-1

≔PGA 0.06

Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at Period of 1.0 s - AASHTO Figure 3.10.2.1-2

≔SS 0.14

Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at Period of 0.2 s - AASHTO Figure 3.10.2.1-2

≔S1 0.05

Site Class Definition - AASHTO Table 3.10.3.1-1

Site Type and Profile: D - Stiff Soil

Site Factors - AASHTO 3.10.3.2

≔Fpga 1.6 ≔Fa 1.6 ≔Fv 2.4

By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By:

Design Date: 05/14/2018

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design - Extream Event I Evaluation.mcdx

A - 73

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.10

Modified Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficients - AASHTO 3.10.4.2

≔As ⋅Fpga PGA ∴ =As 0.1 g

≔SDS ⋅Fa SS ∴ =SDS 0.22 g

≔SD1 ⋅Fv S1 ∴ =SD1 0.12 g

Seismic Zones - AASHTO 3.10.6

≔Seismic_Zone | if else

≤SD1 0.15

‖ 1 if else

≤SD1 0.30

‖ 2 if else

≤SD1 0.50

‖ 3

‖ 4

=Seismic_Zone 1

Conclusion

The retaining structure located in Latitude: 38.0408° N, Longitude: 83.5720° W do not require a seismic analysis and design because comply with the following:

1.

2.

Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is less than 0.4g Retaining structure is located in Seismic Zones 1 through 3.

By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By:

Design Date: 05/14/2018

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.10\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.10 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design - Extream Event I Evaluation.mcdx

A - 74

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.20

Design Calculations Description

The analysis and design calculations for a wire faced MSE wall with a broken backslope and traffic live load is shown in this report. The MSE wall backfill is reinforced with geogrid reinforcement.

References

AASHTO (2017), "LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", 8th Edition, Washington D.C.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R., Samtani, N.C. (2009), "Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes", Vol. 1, National Highway Institute (NHI) - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C.

Model

Data By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.20\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.20 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.20

Data

- Wall Geometry

≔H 13.5 ft Total height of wall.

≔hBS 7.0 ft Total height of backslope.

≔hES 1.47 ft Total height of earth surcharge.

≔Hd =+H hBS 20.5 ft

≔B 14 ft Total base width of wall.

≔β =atan

+hBS hES

⋅2 H

17.4 ° Equivalent inclination of backslope behind face of wall.

≔θ 90 ° Angle of back of wall to the horizontal.

≔δ β Friction angle between fill and reinforced soil.

≔ψ 26.57 ° (1V:2H Slope) Backslope inclination behind face of wall.

- Retained Fill Engineering Properties

≔γf 110 ―― lb ft3 Retained fill unit weight.

≔ϕf 28 ° Retained fill residual friction angle.

≔Cf 0.00 ―― lb ft2 Retained fill cohesion.

- Reinforced Soil Engineering Properties

≔γr 125 ―― lb ft3 Reinforced soil unit weight.

≔ϕr 34 ° Reinforced soil friction angle.

≔Cr 0.00 ―― lb ft2 Reinforced soil cohesion.

- Foundation Soil Engineering Properties

≔γB 110 ―― lb ft3 Foundation soil unit weight.

≔ϕB 28 ° Foundation soil friction angle.

≔CB 0.00 ――

lb ft2 Foundation soil cohesion.

- Earth Surcharge Load

≔ES ⋅hES γr ∴ =ES 183.75 ―― lb ft2 Earth surcharge pressure load.

- Live Load Surcharge (AASHTO 3.11.6.4) By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.20\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.20 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.20

- Live Load Surcharge (AASHTO 3.11.6.4)

≔heq 2.0 ft

≔LS ⋅γr heq

=LS 250 ――

lb ft2 Traffic surcharge pressure load.

- Wall Reinforcement Specifications

≔Reinforcement_Type “Geogrid”

≔Fp ⋅0.67 tan ⎛⎝ϕr ⎞⎠ ∴ =Fp 0.45 Pullout friction factor (AASHTO Figure 11.10.6.3.2-2)

≔α 0.8 Scale effect correction factor (AASHTO Table 11.10.6.3.2-1)

≔c 2.0 Surface area reinforcement factor (AASHTO 11.10.6.3.2-1)

≔Rc 1.0 Reinforcement coverage ratio (AASHTO 11.10.6.4.1)

≔kf 1.0 Coefficient of lateral stress ratio kr/ka (AASHTO Figure 11.10.6.2.1-3)

≔Sv 1.5 ft Reinforcement vertical spacing (AASHTO Figure 11.10.6.2.1-2)

≔ρ atan tan ⎛⎝ϕr

∴ =ρ 24.2 ° Soil-reinforcement interface friction angle .

(Bergg et al, 2009 - Section 3.4.3)

Coefficient of Horizontal Earth Pressure By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.20\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.20 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.20

Coefficient of Horizontal Earth Pressure

≔Γ

+1

⋅sin ⎛⎝ +ϕr δ⎞⎠ sin ⎛⎝ -ϕr β⎞⎠

⋅sin ⎛⎝ -θ δ⎞⎠ sin ⎛⎝ +θ β⎞⎠

∴ AASHTO Eq. 3.11.5.3-1=Γ 2.24

≔ka ―――――――― sin ⎛⎝ +θ ϕr

⋅Γ ⎝ ⋅sin ⎛⎝θ⎞⎠ sin ⎛⎝ -θ δ⎞⎠

∴ =ka 0.3223 AASHTO Eq. 3.11.5.3-2

Load Factors - AASHTO Table 3.4.1-1 & Table 3.4.1-2

≔EHmax 1.50 Maximum horizontal earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EHmin 0.90 Minimum horizontal earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EHSer 1.00 Horizontal earth pressure load factor (Service I).

≔EVmax 1.35 Maximum vertical earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EVmin 1.00 Minimum vertical earth pressure load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔EVSer 1.00 Vertical earth pressure load factor (Service I).

≔ESmax 1.50 Maximum earth surcharge load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔ESmin 0.75 Minimum earth surcharge load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔ESSer 1.00 Earth surcharge load factor (Service I).

≔LSmax 1.75 Maximum live load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔LSmin 1.75 Minimum live load factor (Strength Limit I).

≔LSSer 1.00 Live load factor (Service I).

Resistance Factors - AASHTO Table 11.5.7-1

≔φs 1.00 Sliding resitance factor.

≔φb 0.65 Bearing resistance factor.

≔φG 0.75 ∴ ≔FSG =φG -1 1.33 Overall stability resistance factor.

≔φT 0.90 Tensile resistance of geosynthetic resistance factor.

≔φp 0.90 Pullout resistance of geosynthetic resistance factor.

Loads (Unfactored) By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.20\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.20 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.20

Overall Stability Analysis - AASHTO 11.10.4.3

According to AASHTO 11.6.2.3, the overall stability resistance factor depends on the site specific scenario. Where the geotechnical parameter are well define, and the slope does not support or contain a structural element, the resistance factor for overall stability is 0.75, which is equivalent to 1.3 Factor of Safety. On the other hand, where the geotechnical parameters are based on limited information, or the slope contains or supports a structural element, the resistance factor for overall stability is 0.65, which is equivalent to 1.5 Factor of Safety. This analysis complies with the first scenario.

Maximum Reinforcement Loads - AASHTO 11.10.6.3 By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.20\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.20 - Wire Faced MSE Wall Design.mcdx

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Technical Services - Geotechnical Project: KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - Wired Face MSE Wall Design Calculations - FS Route 918, MP 0.20

Design Requirements Summary Results - External Stability

- Sliding Stability

=CDRSliding_max 1.43 =CDRSliding__max “OK”

=CDRSliding_min 1.56 =CDRSliding__min “OK”

=CDRSliding_Crit 1.06 =CDRSliding__Crit “OK”

=CDRSliding_Ser 1.64 =CDRSliding__Ser “OK”

- Overturning Stability

=CDROverturning_max 3.4 =CDROverturning__max “OK”

=CDROverturning_min 3.46 =CDROverturning__min “OK”

=CDROverturning_Crit 2.45 =CDROverturning__Crit “OK”

=CDROverturning_Ser 3.88 =CDROverturning__Ser “OK”

- Eccentricity Limit

=emax 1.16 ft =emax_req. “OK”

=emin 1.21 ft =eLim 4.67 ft =emin_req. “OK”

=eCrit 2.11 ft =eCrit_req. “OK”

=eSer 0.99 ft =eSer_req. “OK”

- Bearing Resistance

=CDRBearing_max 1.85 =CDRBearing__max “OK”

=CDRBearing_min 3.76 =CDRBearing__min “OK”

=CDRBearing_Crit 2.67 =CDRBearing__Crit “OK”

=CDRBearing_Ser 4.09 =CDRBearing__Ser “OK”

- Global Stability

≔FSGlobal_Stability 1.31 ≔FSGlobal__Stability “OK”

Design Requirements Summary Results - Internal Stability By: Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Reviewed By: Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Design Date: 02/27/2019

M:\PROJECTS\_FS\KY\2016-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\MP 0.20\KY ERFO FS 2016-1(1) - MP 0.20 - Wire Faced…