Appendix_6_-_Geotech_Report_-_Tierra_2022.pdf

TIERRA

Tierra, Inc.

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637

Phone (813) 989-1354 Fax (813) 989-1355

June 22, 2022

Geosyntec Consultants 1120 North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501

Attn: Ms. Katie Fox, P.E.

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Services Report

Mullet Creek - Channel B Erosion Project

Pinellas County, Florida

Tierra Project No. 6511-20-248-001

Ms. Fox:

Per your authorization, Tierra, Inc. (Tierra) has completed a geotechnical engineering study for the referenced project. The results of the study are provided herein.

Should there be any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (813) 989-1354. We look forward to working with you and your organization on this and future projects.

Respectfully Submitted, TIERRA, INC.

Daniel R. Ruel, P.E. Marc E. Novak, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer Senor Geotechnical Engineer Florida License No. 82404 Florida License No. 67431

Larry P. Moore, P.E.

Principal Geotechnical Engineer Florida License No. 47673

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Information

Scope of Services

REVIEW OF PUBLISHED DATA

USGS Quadrangle Map

Review of USDA Soil Survey

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Boring Location Plan and Utility Clearance

Subsurface Conditions

Groundwater and Seasonal High Groundwater Table Information

LABORATORY TESTING

General

Test Designation

ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General

Gabion External and Global Stability Analyses

Concrete Type Matting With Anchoring - Global Stability Analyses

Slope Face Compaction

On-Site Soil Suitability

REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A

Summary of USDA Soil Survey Boring Location Plan Soil Profiles

APPENDIX B

Sample Slope Stability Analyses for Gabion Wall Geometry (Geo5 Output) Sample Slope Stability Analyses for Concrete Matting (Geo5 Output) Sample Slope Stability Analyses for Concrete Matting (ReSSA Output)

APPENDIX C

Boring Location Plan and Soil Profiles data by MC2

Geotechnical Engineering Services Report

Pinellas County, Florida

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Information

Based on coordination with Geosyntec Consultants, Mullet Creek is being stabilized utilizing Gabion Baskets and armored slopes (concrete matting with associated anchors) north of Cedar Street from east of N. McMullen Booth Rd. to west of Elm Street. The purpose of the armoring is to prevent future erosion and provide stable channel side slopes.

Geosyntec Consultants and Pinellas County has requested that Tierra evaluate the geotechnical aspects of the proposed channel armoring between Survey Baseline Stations 105+00 to 113+78. Specifically, the sliding, overturning, eccentricity, bearing capacity and global (slope) stability of the proposed channel armoring improvements presented in the current plans.

Scope of Services

Based on our understanding of the current plans, Tierra completed the following services to assist in our evaluation of the creek armoring:

1. Reviewed published soils and topographic information. This published information was obtained from the appropriate Florida Quadrangle Maps published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Soil Survey of Pinellas County, Florida published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

2. Reviewed the Mullet Creek Bank Restoration Geotechnical Engineering Services Report provided by MC2 (dated August 2017) in order to obtain supplemental data for our evaluation.

3. Conducted a visual reconnaissance of the site and coordinated utility clearances via Sunshine State One Call.

4. Executed a program of subsurface exploration consisting of borings, field testing, and subsurface sampling.

5. Visually classified the recovered soil samples in the laboratory. Performed laboratory tests on selected representative samples to develop the soil legend for the project using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

6. Collected groundwater level measurements and estimated the Seasonal High

Groundwater Table (SHGWT) levels at select locations adjacent to the channel.

7. Evaluated the suitability of the soils encountered within the borings for support of the proposed channel armoring.

Pinellas County, Florida

8. Performed analyses to evaluate sliding, overturning, eccentricity, bearing capacity and global (slope) stability to assist in developing final design improvements to armor the channel.

9. Prepared this engineering report which summarizes the course of study pursued, the field and laboratory data generated, subsurface conditions encountered and the results of our geotechnical evaluation.

The scope of our services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site. The scope of our services did not include determination of the potential for sinkhole activity. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for the information of our client.

REVIEW OF PUBLISHED DATA

USGS Quadrangle Map

Based on a review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Maps for “Safety Harbor, Florida”, the natural ground surface elevations along the limits of the creek along the project site range from approximately +15 to +25 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29).

Review of USDA Soil Survey

Based on a review of the Pinellas County Soil Survey, it appears that there are two (2) primary soil-mapping units within the vicinity of the project. The general soil information is presented on the Summary of USDA Soil Survey in Appendix A.

It should be noted that information contained in the USDA Soil Survey may not be reflective of actual soil and groundwater conditions. Recent development in the project vicinity may have modified existing soils or surface/subsurface drainage.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Boring Location Plan and Utility Clearance

Prior to commencing our subsurface explorations, a boring location plan was developed based on project information provided by Geosyntec Consultants, soil borings performed by MC2 and our engineering judgment. The boring location plan was submitted to Geosyntec Consultants and Pinellas County for approval. The borings were located and staked in the field using hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment and should therefore be considered approximate. Boring locations were sometimes offset from the proposed locations due to access constraints with the actual field conditions. The

Pinellas County, Florida approximate boring locations are presented on the Boring Location Plan sheets in

Appendix A and on the cross sections developed by Geosyntec.

Utility clearances were coordinated by Tierra through Sunshine State One Call and updated as required prior to performing the soil borings in order to reduce the potential for damage to underground utilities during the boring process.

Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions at the project site were explored by Tierra using a total of four

(4) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings performed to a depth of approximately 20 feet below existing site grades and twenty-nine (29) hand auger borings along the project alignment to depths ranging from 2½ to 9½ feet below existing grades.

The SPT borings were performed with the use of a drill rig using Bentonite Mud drilling procedures utilizing an Automatic hammer. The soil sampling was performed in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D-1586. SPT resistance N-values were recorded at intervals of 2 feet to a depth of 10 feet and on intervals of 5 feet thereafter. Within SPT boring B-1, SPT resistance N-values were recorded at intervals of 2 feet to the boring termination depth of 20 feet.

The auger borings were performed by manually advancing a bucket auger into the ground, typically in 6-inch increments. Soil samples collected from the borings were classified in the field and transported to our laboratory for review and laboratory classification testing on representative samples. The soil strata encountered in the borings performed along the creek are summarized in the following table:

Stratum

Number Soil Description USCS Symbol

1 Gray to Brown Sand to Sand with Silt SP/SP-SM

2 Light Gray to Brown Silty Sand SM

3 Light Gray to Light Brown Clayey Sand SC

4 Green-Gray Sandy Clay to Clay CL/CH

5 Organic Sand to Silty Sand Pt/SM

The subsurface soil stratification is of a generalized nature to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The soil profiles, included in

Appendix A, should be reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations.

These profiles include soil descriptions, stratifications, and resistance values. The stratifications shown on the boring profiles represent the conditions only at the actual boring location. Variations did occur and should be expected between boring locations. The

Pinellas County, Florida stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the actual transition may be gradual.

Groundwater and Seasonal High Groundwater Table Information

The groundwater table, when encountered, was measured at each boring location during our field exploration. The depths to the groundwater table were generally found to range from approximately 2 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface at the locations of the borings performed. Within hand auger boring HA-4 the groundwater table was not encountered prior to the boring termination depth of 10 feet. As a result, GNE (Groundwater Not Encountered) is shown adjacent to the boring profile.

The SHGWT level was estimated at select hand auger boring locations adjacent to the channel near the top of slope. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered within the borings, the estimated SHGWT ranges from the existing ground to 6 feet below existing grades at the locations explored.

The groundwater table measured and SHGWT estimates are presented on the Soil

Profiles sheets in Appendix A.

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences (i.e. existing water management canals, swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soils, such as paved parking lots and sidewalks).

LABORATORY TESTING

General

Representative soil samples collected from the borings performed along the project were classified and stratified in general accordance with the USCS soil classification system.

Our classification was based on visual observations, using the results from the laboratory testing as confirmation. Laboratory index property testing comprised of fines content analysis (percent passing the #200 sieve), Atterberg Limits, natural moisture content and organic content determination were performed on representative soils encountered along the project site. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the Soil Profiles sheets in Appendix A.

Test Designation

The following list summarizes the laboratory tests performed and respective test methods utilized.

Fines Content Test - The fines content tests were conducted in general accordance with the AASHTO test designation T-088 (ASTM test designation D-1140).

Pinellas County, Florida

Atterberg Limits – The liquid limit and plastic limit tests (“Atterberg Limits”) were conducted in general accordance with the AASHTO test designations T-089 and T- 090 respectively (ASTM test designation D-4318).

Natural Moisture Content – The moisture content tests were conducted in general accordance with the AASHTO test designation T-265 (ASTM test designation D- 2216).

Organic Content – The organic content tests were conducted in general accordance with the AASHTO test designation T-267 (ASTM test designation D-2974).

ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General

The existing side slopes of Mullet Creek have slopes which are steep (approximately 1V:1H to 1V:1.5H) with factors of safety of approximately 1.0. The FDOT and FHWA design requirements for slope stability require a Factor of Safety of 1.3 or greater.

Currently, some vegetation is helping to reinforce the slopes to maintain stability. The root systems of the vegetation is holding the slope face in place and protecting against erosion and the root system depth is acting as ”reinforcement” helping to maintain slope stability.

One approach to improve the stability of the existing slopes is to make them flatter. Based on the existing soil conditions and groundwater table levels/seepage, a slope of approximately 1V:3H would be required to achieve slope stability factors of safety in excess of 1.3. Because of the Right-of-Way constraints, we understand that a slope of 1V:3H or flatter is not feasible. Slope steeper than 1V:3H will be required to be reinforced/stabilized.

In addition, the slope faces will need to be protected against erosion and surface sloughing. The proposed slopes along Mullet Creek will therefore need to be protected and reinforced.

According to the plans provided by Geosyntec Consultants, the propose slope stabilization along Mullet Creek will consist of a gabion basket and gabion mattress along the south side of the creek. Along the north side of the Creek, due to right-of-way constraints, gabion baskets were not initially proposed but rather a steepened slope with concrete matting and a ground anchor system.

Gabion External and Global Stability Analyses

Tierra performed external and global stability analyses for gabion wall geometry options in effort to determine the maximum efficient geometry that will satisfy both hydraulic and stability requirements. Tierra has coordinated with Geosyntec to incorporate the required gabion basket geometry into the plans.

The analyses were performed using the subsurface conditions encountered within the soil borings and “GEO5” and “ReSSA” computer software. The analyses included an evaluation

Pinellas County, Florida of sliding, overturning, eccentricity, bearing and slope stability of the gabion wall geometries. Sample analyses are provided in Appendix B

It should be noted that the gabion basket design is currently proposed along the south side Mullet Creek but the same design can also be applied to the north side.

Concrete Type Matting With Anchoring - Global Stability Analyses

As previously mentioned, along the north side of the canal, a 1V 1.5 H slope with concrete-type matting is proposed. In order to ensure global stability factors of safety are achieved, the 1V:1.5H slope must be strengthened. Several alternatives are available for strengthening of slopes, however anchoring has been selected from the Mullet Creek project due to construction considerations. Anchors are installed into the slope past the slope failure envelope creating a reinforced, stable embankment. The anchors are connected to the slope face protection. The anchors are installed directly through slope face so therefore over-excavation of the existing slope is not necessary to install the grids or other types of anchors as would be required with other methods such as geosynthetic reinforced earth approach.

Briefly, soil anchors are driven or pushed into the side slope on a pre-determined spacing and to a specified length/depth. Once installed, the anchor must be locked into place. This is done by applying tension to the anchor cable. As the anchor cable is pulled, the anchor is rotated and pulled outward from its installed portion and becomes engaged. In its locked position, the anchor is capable of achieving its design holding capacity. Similar systems known as helical screws are available and work in a similar manner, however for this report and per the plans, an end anchor driven or pushed and then tensioned into place had been evaluated and specified. Other systems of soils anchors are commercially available.

Tierra performed global stability analysis for concrete-type matting (Flexamat or approved equivalent) at a 1.5H to 1.0V slope with an anchoring system. The analysis was performed using the subsurface conditions encountered within the soil borings and “GEO5” and “ReSSA” computer software. A minimum CDR of 1.0 is required for LRFD (Geo5) and an Allowable Strength Design (ASD) factor of safety of 1.3 (ReSSA) for slope stability.

Based on our analysis, the 1V:1.5H slope with a 9-foot anchor will meet the required factors of safety if spaced at 3 foot center-to-center along the concrete matted area. A sample analysis output is included in the Appendix.

The 9-foot installation depth is based on a minimum pullout strength of 500 lbs per anchor.

Based on specification sheets provided by typical anchor manufactures, this appears to be a reasonably achievable strength. The contractor shall provide through testing that their chosen anchoring system achieves the minimum strength requirements. The contractor shall provide proof testing on a minimum of 5% of anchors. Tierra will coordinate with Geosyntec on notes to be include in the plans on proof testing requirements.

Pinellas County, Florida

Slope Face Compaction

The Contractor shall work the slope face to a firm and unyielding state prior to the installation of concrete matting and anchors. The firm and unyielding state could be achieved either through (but not limited to) the use of an excavation bucket pressed into the slope, a walk-behind plate compactor and/or hand-held tampers to stabilize soft areas.

On-Site Soil Suitability

The suitability of the soil for use in construction of the channel stabilization should be evaluated against the project engineering fill requirements. Variations in the subsurface stratification should be expected between borings. All fill should be placed in accordance with Pinellas County and/or FDOT Specifications, if applicable. The following are general recommendations for soil utilization in construction of the channel stabilization.

Stratum 1: sand to sand with silt (SP/SP-SM) may be used for backfill, provided this fill is free of organic materials, clay, debris and/or other material deemed unsuitable for construction.

Stratum 2: silty sand (SM) also appears satisfactory for use as backfill. However, Stratum 2 is likely to retain excess moisture and may be difficult to dry and compact. It should only be used above the existing water level at the time of construction.

Stratum 3: clayey sand (SC) and Stratum 4: sandy clay to clay (CL/CH) are plastic to high plastic soils. These materials, if encountered, should not be used for backfill.

Tierra understands that the County was concerned about the presence of high plastic (gumbo) clays based on project experience with a previously constructed area. Based on the soil borings performed, these soils were encountered but at depths that appear to generally be below the improvement areas. For example, at a depth of 20 feet, boring B-2A encountered clayey soils (98 passing 200 sieve, Liquid Limit = 113 and Plastic Index =82). This appears to be the same material previously encountered. However, based on the depth encountered, it does not appear the material at this location will have an impact on construction activities. Based on the MC2 borings it appears that clayey material could be encountered at depths within the gabion excavation. If the clay is encountered, it does not need to be over excavated but the material should not be used as backfill.

Stratum 5: organic sand to silty sand (Pt/SM) should not be used for backfill. If encountered during excavations or below the base of the gabion basket, Stratum 5 should be removed and replaced with clean sand (SP/SP-SM).

Pinellas County, Florida

REPORT LIMITATIONS

Our services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on this data.

The scope of the exploration was intended to evaluate the project plans and soil conditions. The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface information obtained by Tierra. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, Tierra should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the recommendations are required. If Tierra is not retained to perform these functions, Tierra will not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Pinellas County and the Geosyntec Consultants team for the specific application to this project.

APPENDIX A

Boring Location Plan

Soil Profiles

Mullet Creek – Channel B Erosion

Pinellas County, Florida

Immokalee Soils and Urban Land (Map Unit: 13) – The Immokalee component makes up 50 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flatwoods on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of sandy marine deposits.

Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 12 inches during June, July, August, September, October and November. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent.

The Urban Land component of this soil type consists of areas where most of the soil surface is covered with impervious materials, such as buildings and paved areas. This land type consists of areas where the original soil has been modified through cutting, grading, filling, and shaping or has been altered for urban development.

Placid Fine Sand, Frequently Ponded (Map Unit: 25) – The Placid component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of sandy marine deposits.

Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 0 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 21 during July, August, September and October. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 6 percent.

B-1

SH-1

SH-2

HA-6 HA-7

SH-6

SH-5

HA-8

HA-9

HA-10

HA-1

HA-2

HA-3 HA-5

HA-4

SH-5B

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AUGER BORING

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPT BORING

LEGEND

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER:

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

JMN

SW

FEB 2022

DRR

NOTED 6511-20-248-001

PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

MULLET CREEK CHANNEL B

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

DANIEL R. RUEL, P.E.

FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

82404

NOTE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS

PLAN SCALE

0 40'

BORING LOCATION PLAN

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637 Phone: 813-989-1354 Fax: 813-989-1355

SHEET 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

SRL1

AutoCAD SHX Text

ALSO PER OR 18866 PG 763

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINAGE AND ACCESS ESMT OR 19496 PG 1765

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINAGE & UTILITY ACCESS ESMT

AutoCAD SHX Text 10' (P)

AutoCAD SHX Text

ES-04

AutoCAD SHX Text

ES-05

AutoCAD SHX Text

ES-06

AutoCAD SHX Text

ES-07

AutoCAD SHX Text

ES-08

AutoCAD SHX Text

ES-09

AutoCAD SHX Text

ES-10

AutoCAD SHX Text

ES-11

AutoCAD SHX Text YARD DRAIN 1'x1' PLASTIC

AutoCAD SHX Text YARD DRAIN 1'x1' PLASTIC

AutoCAD SHX Text YARD DRAIN 1'x1' PLASTIC

AutoCAD SHX Text 103+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 104+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 105+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 106+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 107+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 108+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 109+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

SRL1

HA-17

HA-18

SH-4

HA-12

HA-19

HA-20

SH-7

SH-8

B-4

B-3

HA-16

HA-13

HA-11

HA-14

HA-15

SH-3

B-2A

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AUGER BORING

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPT BORING

LEGEND

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER:

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

JMN

SW

FEB 2022

DRR

NOTED 6511-20-248-001

PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

MULLET CREEK CHANNEL B

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

DANIEL R. RUEL, P.E.

FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

82404

NOTE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS

PLAN SCALE

0 40'

BORING LOCATION PLAN

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637 Phone: 813-989-1354 Fax: 813-989-1355

SHEET 2

AutoCAD SHX Text

ALSO PER OR 18866 PG 763

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINAGE & UTILITY ACCESS ESMT

AutoCAD SHX Text 10' (P)

AutoCAD SHX Text

ALSO PER OR 18866 PG 763

AutoCAD SHX Text

ALSO PER OR 18866 PG 763

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINAGE & UTILITY ACCESS ESMT

AutoCAD SHX Text 10' (P)

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINAGE & UTILITY ACCESS ESMT

AutoCAD SHX Text 10' (P)

AutoCAD SHX Text

ES-12

AutoCAD SHX Text YARD DRAIN 1'x1' PLASTIC

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTE: CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR UTILITIES CROSSES IN THIS AREA.

AutoCAD SHX Text 110+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 111+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 112+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 113+00

AutoCAD SHX Text 114+00

115+00

A - WITH WOOD

SP

N

GROUNDWATER LEVEL ENCOUNTERED DURING INVESTIGATION

ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE

ORGANIC SAND TO SILTY SAND (PT/SM)

LOSS OF CIRCULATION OF DRILLING FLUID (100%)

SPT N-VALUE IN BLOWS/FOOT FOR 12 INCHES OF

PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2488) GROUP SYMBOL

AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL REVIEW AND LABORATORY TESTING ON

SELECTED SAMPLES FOR CONFIRMATION OF VISUAL REVIEW.

GRAY TO BROWN SAND TO SAND WITH SILT (SP/SP-SM)

GREEN-GRAY SANDY CLAY TO CLAY (CL/CH)

LIGHT GRAY TO BROWN SILTY SAND (SM)

LIGHT GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC)

LEGEND

EASTING

NORTHING

EASTING COORDINATE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE

PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, FLORIDA WEST ZONE, N.A.D. 83

DETERMINED USING HAND-HELD GARMIN GPS EQUIPMENT

WITH A REPORTED ACCURACY OF +/- 10 FEET

NORTHING COORDINATE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE

PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, FLORIDA WEST ZONE, N.A.D. 83

DETERMINED USING HAND-HELD GARMIN GPS EQUIPMENT

WITH A REPORTED ACCURACY OF +/- 10 FEET

GNE GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED

B - WITH ORGANICS

12 TO 24

6 TO 12

24 TO 40

8 TO 24

3 TO 8

GREATER THAN 24

LESS THAN 3

GREATER THAN 40

LESS THAN 1

VERY LOOSE

HARD

VERY STIFF

STIFF

SILTS AND CLAYS

CONSISTENCY

FIRM

SOFT

VERY SOFT

LOOSE

MEDIUM

DENSE

VERY DENSE

3 TO 6

1 TO 3

RELATIVE DENSITY

GRANULAR MATERIALS- SPT

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT

(BLOWS/FT.)

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

LL

PI

OC

NP

NMC

-200

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY INDEX (%)

ORGANIC CONTENT (%)

NON PLASTIC

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE

CAVE-IN CAVE-IN DUE TO SHALLOW GROUNDWATER INTRUSION

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER:

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

JMN

SW

FEB 2022

DRR

NOTED 6511-20-248-001

PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

MULLET CREEK CHANNEL B

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

DANIEL R. RUEL, P.E.

FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

82404

BOR # HA-5

EASTING 427914

NORTHING 1332749

DATE 2/23/2022

BOR # HA-6

EASTING 427953

NORTHING 1332749

DATE 2/23/2022

BOR # HA-7

EASTING 428576

NORTHING 1332748

DATE 2/23/2022

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

1A

1A

N

BOR # B-1

EASTING 428032

NORTHING 1332770

DATE 1/28/2022

HAMMER AUTOMATIC

RIG D-25

N

BOR # B-2A

EASTING 428301

NORTHING 1332746

DATE 2/2/2022

HAMMER AUTOMATIC

RIG D-25

N

BOR # B-3

EASTING 428399

NORTHING 1332809

DATE 2/3/2022

HAMMER AUTOMATIC

RIG D-25

N

BOR # B-4

EASTING 428622

NORTHING 1332820

DATE 2/3/2022

HAMMER AUTOMATIC

RIG D-25

BOR # HA-1

EASTING 427776

NORTHING 1332754

DATE 2/3/2022

BOR # HA-2

EASTING 427812

NORTHING 1332761

DATE 2/3/2022

GNE

BOR # HA-4

EASTING 427897

NORTHING 1332795

DATE 2/23/2022

BOR # HA-10

EASTING 428196

NORTHING 1332761

DATE 1/28/2022

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

BOR # HA-8

EASTING 428123

NORTHING 1332783

DATE 2/23/2022

BOR # HA-9

EASTING 428173

NORTHING 1332774

DATE 1/27/2022

BOR # HA-3

EASTING 427851

NORTHING 1332748

DATE 2/23/2022

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

NMC =

PI =

LL =

-200 = 18

NP

NP

NMC =

PI =

LL =

-200 = 31

NMC =

PI =

LL =

-200 = 98

NMC =

PI =

LL =

-200 = 12

NP

NP

-200 = 12

-200 = 13

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

PROJECT NUMBER:SCALE:

APPROVED BY:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SOIL PROFILES

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637 Phone: 813-989-1354 Fax: 813-989-1355

SHEET 3

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

GROUNDWATER LEVEL ENCOUNTERED DURING INVESTIGATION

ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE

ORGANIC SAND TO SILTY SAND (PT/SM)

LOSS OF CIRCULATION OF DRILLING FLUID (100%)

SPT N-VALUE IN BLOWS/FOOT FOR 12 INCHES OF

PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2488) GROUP SYMBOL

AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL REVIEW AND LABORATORY TESTING ON

SELECTED SAMPLES FOR CONFIRMATION OF VISUAL REVIEW.

GRAY TO BROWN SAND TO SAND WITH SILT (SP/SP-SM)

GREEN-GRAY SANDY CLAY TO CLAY (CL/CH)

LIGHT GRAY TO BROWN SILTY SAND (SM)

LIGHT GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC)

LEGEND

EASTING

NORTHING

EASTING COORDINATE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE

PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, FLORIDA WEST ZONE, N.A.D. 83

DETERMINED USING HAND-HELD GARMIN GPS EQUIPMENT

WITH A REPORTED ACCURACY OF +/- 10 FEET

NORTHING COORDINATE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE

PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, FLORIDA WEST ZONE, N.A.D. 83

DETERMINED USING HAND-HELD GARMIN GPS EQUIPMENT

WITH A REPORTED ACCURACY OF +/- 10 FEET

GNE GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED

B - WITH ORGANICS

12 TO 24

6 TO 12

24 TO 40

8 TO 24

3 TO 8

GREATER THAN 24

LESS THAN 3

GREATER THAN 40

LESS THAN 1

VERY LOOSE

HARD

VERY STIFF

STIFF

SILTS AND CLAYS

CONSISTENCY

FIRM

SOFT

VERY SOFT

LOOSE

MEDIUM

DENSE

VERY DENSE

3 TO 6

1 TO 3

RELATIVE DENSITY

GRANULAR MATERIALS- SPT

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT

(BLOWS/FT.)

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

LL

PI

OC

NP

NMC

-200

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY INDEX (%)

ORGANIC CONTENT (%)

NON PLASTIC

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE

CAVE-IN CAVE-IN DUE TO SHALLOW GROUNDWATER INTRUSION

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER:

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

JMN

SW

FEB 2022

DRR

NOTED 6511-20-248-001

PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

MULLET CREEK CHANNEL B

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

DANIEL R. RUEL, P.E.

FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

82404

BOR # HA-19

EASTING 428642

NORTHING 1332771

DATE 2/23/2022

BOR # HA-11

EASTING 428291

NORTHING 1332795

DATE 2/3/2022

BOR # HA-12

EASTING 428347

NORTHING 1332766

DATE 1/28/2022

BOR # HA-13

EASTING 428396

NORTHING 1332756

DATE 1/28/2022

BOR # HA-14

EASTING 428287

NORTHING 1332798

DATE 2/3/2022

BOR # HA-15

EASTING 428481

NORTHING 1332747

DATE 1/28/2022

BOR # HA-16

EASTING 428524

NORTHING 1332754

DATE 1/28/2022

BOR # HA-17

EASTING 428560

NORTHING 1332761

DATE 1/28/2022

BOR # HA-20

EASTING 428665

NORTHING 1332788

DATE 1/28/2022

BOR # SH-1

EASTING 427953

NORTHING 1332785

DATE 2/3/2022

BOR # SH-2

EASTING 427952

NORTHING 1332825

DATE 2/3/2022

2B

BOR # SH-3

EASTING 428510

NORTHING 1332790

DATE 2/3/2022

2B

BOR # SH-4

EASTING 428507

NORTHING 1332836

DATE 2/3/2022

BOR # SH-5

EASTING 428051

NORTHING 1332757

DATE 1/27/2022

BOR # HA-18

EASTING 428602

NORTHING 1332774

DATE 1/28/2022

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

NMC =

PI =

LL =

-200 = 15

NP

NP

NMC =

PI =

LL =

-200 = 13

NP

NP

NMC =

PI =

LL =

-200 = 20

NP

NP

-200 = 4

NMC =

-200 =

OC =

NMC =

-200 =

OC =

NMC =

-200 =

OC =

NMC =

-200 =

OC =

-200 =6

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

PROJECT NUMBER:SCALE:

APPROVED BY:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SOIL PROFILES

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637 Phone: 813-989-1354 Fax: 813-989-1355

SHEET 4

N

GROUNDWATER LEVEL ENCOUNTERED DURING INVESTIGATION

ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE

ORGANIC SAND TO SILTY SAND (PT/SM)

LOSS OF CIRCULATION OF DRILLING FLUID (100%)

SPT N-VALUE IN BLOWS/FOOT FOR 12 INCHES OF

PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2488) GROUP SYMBOL

AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL REVIEW AND LABORATORY TESTING ON

SELECTED SAMPLES FOR CONFIRMATION OF VISUAL REVIEW.

GRAY TO BROWN SAND TO SAND WITH SILT (SP/SP-SM)

GREEN-GRAY SANDY CLAY TO CLAY (CL/CH)

LIGHT GRAY TO BROWN SILTY SAND (SM)

LIGHT GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC)

LEGEND

EASTING

NORTHING

EASTING COORDINATE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE

PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, FLORIDA WEST ZONE, N.A.D. 83

DETERMINED USING HAND-HELD GARMIN GPS EQUIPMENT

WITH A REPORTED ACCURACY OF +/- 10 FEET

NORTHING COORDINATE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE

PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, FLORIDA WEST ZONE, N.A.D. 83

DETERMINED USING HAND-HELD GARMIN GPS EQUIPMENT

WITH A REPORTED ACCURACY OF +/- 10 FEET

GNE GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED

B - WITH ORGANICS

12 TO 24

6 TO 12

24 TO 40

8 TO 24

3 TO 8

GREATER THAN 24

LESS THAN 3

GREATER THAN 40

LESS THAN 1

VERY LOOSE

HARD

VERY STIFF

STIFF

SILTS AND CLAYS

CONSISTENCY

FIRM

SOFT

VERY SOFT

LOOSE

MEDIUM

DENSE

VERY DENSE

3 TO 6

1 TO 3

RELATIVE DENSITY

GRANULAR MATERIALS- SPT

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT

(BLOWS/FT.)

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

LL

PI

OC

NP

NMC

-200

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY INDEX (%)

ORGANIC CONTENT (%)

NON PLASTIC

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE

CAVE-IN CAVE-IN DUE TO SHALLOW GROUNDWATER INTRUSION

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER:

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

JMN

SW

FEB 2022

DRR

NOTED 6511-20-248-001

PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

MULLET CREEK CHANNEL B

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

DANIEL R. RUEL, P.E.

FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

82404

BOR # SH-7

EASTING 428330

NORTHING 1332756

DATE 2/23/2022

2 3

BOR # SH-8

EASTING 428330

NORTHING 1332746

DATE 2/23/2022

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

IN

F E

E T

BOR # SH-5B

EASTING 428074

NORTHING 1332783

DATE 2/23/2022

BOR # SH-6

EASTING 428068

NORTHING 1332730

DATE 1/27/2022

CAVE-IN

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

PROJECT NUMBER:SCALE:

APPROVED BY:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SOIL PROFILES

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637 Phone: 813-989-1354 Fax: 813-989-1355

SHEET 5

APPENDIX B

Sample Slope Stability Analyses for Gabion Wall Geometry (Geo5 Output) Sample Slope Stability Analyses for Concrete Matting (Geo5 Output)

Sample Slope Stability Analyses for Concrete Matting (ReSSA Output)

Tierra

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Gabion analysis

Input data Project

Description Author Date Project ID Project number

Station 107+50_ SPT Boring B-1 Tierra 2/28/2022 Mullet Creek Channel B 6511-20-248-001

Settings

(input for current task)

Wall analysis

Verification methodology :

Active earth pressure calculation :

Passive earth pressure calculation :

Earthquake analysis :

Shape of earth wedge :

Allowable eccentricity :

according to LRFD Coulomb Mazindrani (Rankine) Mononobe-Okabe Calculate as skew 0.333

Load factors

Design situation - Strength I

Dead load of structural components :

Dead load of wearing surfaces :

Earth pressure - active :

Earth pressure - at rest :

Earth surcharge load (permanent) :

Vertical pressure of earth fill :

Live load surcharge :

Water load :

DC =

DW =

EHA =

EHR =

ES =

EV =

LL =

WA =

Minimum 0.90 0.65 0.90

0.90

0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00

Maximum 1.25 1.50 1.50

1.35

1.50 1.35 1.75 1.00

Resistance factors

Design situation - Strength I Resistance factor on overturning :

Resistance factor on sliding :

Resistance factor on bearing capacity :

Resistance factor on passive pressure :

Resistance factor on mesh strength :

Resistance factor on mesh connection :

ϕo = ϕt = ϕb = ϕVE = ϕTRM = ϕTRJ =

0.90

0.90

0.55

0.50

0.65

0.65

Material of blocks - filling

No. Name γ

[pcf] φ c

[psf] 1 Rock Filler 96.00 35.00 0.0

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Material of blocks - mesh

No. Name

Strength overh.

Rt [lbf/ft]

Spacing of vert. meshes v [ft]

Bear.cap.

of front joint

Rs [lbf/ft]

1 Rock Filler 2700.00 1.00 2700.00

Geometry of structure

No.

Width b [ft]

Height h [ft]

Offset a [ft] Material

6.00 6.00 6.00 9.00

1.50 3.00 3.00 3.00

1.50 0.00 2.50

Rock Filler Rock Filler Rock Filler Rock Filler

Gabion slope Overall height Overall wall volume

0.00 10.50 72.00 ft ft3/ft

Soil parameters

SP/SP-SM (N avg = 3) Unit weight :

Stress-state :

Angle of internal friction :

Cohesion of soil :

Angle of friction struc.-soil :

Soil :

Saturated unit weight :

γ effective φef cef δ cohesionless γsat

105.0

29.00 0.0

14.00

110.0 pcf psf pcf

Rock Filler Unit weight :

Stress-state :

Angle of internal friction :

Cohesion of soil :

Angle of friction struc.-soil :

Soil :

Saturated unit weight :

γ effective φef cef δ cohesionless γsat

96.0

35.00 0.0

17.00

96.0 pcf psf pcf

Compacted Fill Unit weight :

Stress-state :

Angle of internal friction :

Cohesion of soil :

Angle of friction struc.-soil :

Soil :

Saturated unit weight :

γ effective φef cef δ cohesionless γsat

110.0

32.00 0.0

14.00

115.0 pcf psf pcf

Concrete Unit weight :

Stress-state :

Angle of internal friction :

Cohesion of soil :

Angle of friction struc.-soil :

Soil :

γ effective φef cef δ cohesionless

140.0

0.00 1000.0 pcf psf

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Saturated unit weight : γsat = 140.0 pcf

Geological profile and assigned soils

No.

Thickness of layer t [ft]

Depth z [ft] Assigned soil Pattern

11.50

8.50

0.00 .. 11.50

11.50 .. 20.00

20.00 ..

Compacted Fill

SP/SP-SM (N avg = 3)

SP/SP-SM (N avg = 3)

Foundation

Type of foundation : soil from geological profile Terrain profile

Terrain behind the structure is flat.

Water influence

GWT behind the structure lies at a depth of 5.50 ft GWT in front of the structure lies at a depth of 5.50 ft Subgrade at the heel is not permeable.

Uplift in foot. bottom due to different pressures is not considered.

Input surface surcharges

No.

Surcharge new change Action

Mag.1

[lbf/ft2]

Mag.2

[lbf/ft2]

Ord.x x [ft]

Length l [ft]

Depth z [ft] 1 Yes variable 75.0 on terrain

No. Name 1 Maintenance Load

Resistance on front face of the structure

Resistance on front face of the structure: at rest Soil on front face of the structure - Rock Filler Soil thickness in front of structure h = 0.64 ft

Terrain shape in front of structure

No.

Coordinate x[ft]

Depth z[ft]

0.00 0.00

-5.52 -17.21 -18.21

0.00 -0.64 -0.64 -8.43 -8.43

Origin [0,0] is located in bottom left edge of construction.

Positive coordinate +z has downward direction.

Global settings

Settings of the stage of construction

Design situation : Strength I Reduction of soil/soil friction angle : reduce to 2/3 φ (AASHTO)

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Verification No. 1 Pressure at rest on front face of the structure - partial results

Layer

No.

Thickness

[ft] α φd cd [psf] γ

[pcf]

Kr Comment

1 0.64 0.00 35.00 0.0 33.50 0.426

Forces acting on construction

Name Fhor [lbf/ft]

App.Pt.

z [ft]

Fvert [lbf/ft]

App.Pt.

x [ft]

Coeff.

overtur.

Coeff.

sliding

Coeff.

stress Weight - wall FF resistance Weight - earth wedge Active pressure Water pressure Maintenance Load

0.0 -2.9 0.0

1514.5 0.0

220.8

-6.15 -0.21 -3.30 -3.73

-10.50 -5.19

4474.5 0.0

11.8 597.8

0.0 79.1

5.59 0.00 8.67 8.77

10.00 8.84

0.900 0.900 1.000 1.500 1.000 1.750

0.900 0.900 1.000 1.500 1.000 1.750

1.250 1.350 1.350 1.500 1.000 1.750

Verification of complete wall

Check for overturning stability Resisting moment Overturning moment

Mres Movr

28523.9 10489.5 lbfft/ft lbfft/ft

CDR CDR = 2.72

Wall for overturning is SATISFACTORY

Check for slip Resisting horizontal force Active horizontal force

Hres Hact

2853.53 2655.42 lbf/ft lbf/ft

CDR CDR = 1.07

Wall for slip is SATISFACTORY

Overall check - WALL is SATISFACTORY

Maximum stress in footing bottom : 738.2 psf

Bearing capacity of foundation soil Design load acting at the center of footing bottom

No.

Moment

[lbfft/ft]

Norm. force

[lbf/ft]

Shear Force

[lbf/ft]

Eccentricity

Stress

[psf]

-91.3 1629.3

6644.22 5074.00

2654.10 2655.42

0.000 0.036

738.2 607.1

Service load acting at the center of footing bottom

No.

Moment

[lbfft/ft]

Norm. force

[lbf/ft]

Shear Force

[lbf/ft] 1 -1010.8 5163.23 1732.31

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Slope stability analysis

Input data

Project

Settings

(input for current task)

Stability analysis

Verification methodology :

Earthquake analysis :

Safety factors (ASD) Standard

Safety factors

Permanent design situation Safety factor : SFs = 1.50 [–]

Interface

No. Interface location Coordinates of interface points [ft] x z x z x z

-6.00 0.00

-32.80 -10.00

-7.50 -6.00

-1.50 -1.00

-10.00 32.80

-32.80

-1.50 0.00

-2.07 -9.86 -4.50 0.00

-1.50 -7.50

-10.50 -7.50

-10.50

-1.50

-27.21 -10.00

-7.50 0.00

-1.50

-1.00

-10.00

-1.50

-2.07 -7.50 -1.50 0.00

-4.50

-10.50

-10.50

0.00

-15.52 -7.50 -6.00 32.80

-1.50

-1.00

-10.00

-1.50

-9.86 -7.50 -1.50 0.00

-7.50

-7.50

-9.86

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

No. Interface location Coordinates of interface points [ft] x z x z x z

-32.80

-32.80

-11.50

-20.00

32.80

32.80

-11.50

-20.00

Soil parameters - effective stress state

No. Name Pattern φef cef [psf] γ

[pcf]

SP/SP-SM (N avg = 3)

Rock Filler

Compacted Fill

Concrete

29.00

35.00

32.00

0.00

0.0

0.0

0.0

1000.0

105.0

96.0

110.0

140.0

Soil parameters - uplift

No. Name Pattern γsat [pcf] γs [pcf] n

SP/SP-SM (N avg = 3)

Rock Filler

Compacted Fill

110.0

96.0

115.0

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

No. Name Pattern γsat [pcf] γs [pcf] n

4 Concrete 140.0

Soil parameters

SP/SP-SM (N avg = 3) Unit weight :

Stress-state :

Angle of internal friction :

Cohesion of soil :

Saturated unit weight :

γ effective φef cef γsat

105.0

29.00 0.0

110.0 pcf pcf

Rock Filler Unit weight :

Stress-state :

Angle of internal friction :

Cohesion of soil :

Saturated unit weight :

γ effective φef cef γsat

96.0

35.00 0.0

96.0 pcf

Compacted Fill

Stress-state :

Angle of internal friction :

Cohesion of soil :

Saturated unit weight :

γ effective φef cef γsat

110.0

32.00 0.0

115.0 pcf

Concrete

Stress-state :

Angle of internal friction :

Cohesion of soil :

Saturated unit weight :

γ effective φef cef γsat

140.0

0.00 1000.0

140.0 pcf

Rigid Bodies

No. Name Sample γ

[pcf]

1 Material of structure 96.0

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Assigning and surfaces

No. Surface position Coordinates of surface points [ft] x z x z

Assigned soil

-6.00 -1.50 0.00

32.80 0.00

-1.50 -1.50

-10.00 -1.00 -1.50 -6.00 -7.50

-10.00

-10.00 -15.52 -32.80

0.00 -1.50 0.00

-7.50 0.00

-1.50 -7.50

-10.50 -7.50 -4.50 -1.50 -4.50 -7.50

-10.50 -9.86 -2.07

-6.00 0.00

32.80 0.00

-1.50 -1.00

-1.00 -1.50 -1.50 -7.50 -7.50

-10.00

-10.00 -27.21 -32.80

-1.50 -1.50

0.00 -1.50 -4.50 -7.50

-10.50 -7.50 -1.50 -1.50 -7.50 -9.86

-9.86 -2.07

-10.50

Material of structure

Compacted Fill

Material of structure

Rock Filler

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

No. Surface position Coordinates of surface points [ft] x z x z

Assigned soil

32.80 -1.00

-10.00 -32.80

32.80 -32.80

-32.80 32.80

-11.50 -7.50

-10.50 -11.50

-20.00 -11.50

-20.00 -36.40

32.80 -1.00

-32.80

32.80 -32.80

-32.80 32.80

-7.50 -10.50 -10.50

-11.50 -20.00

-36.40 -20.00

Compacted Fill

SP/SP-SM (N avg = 3)

SP/SP-SM (N avg = 3)

Surcharge

No. Type Type of action

Location z [ft]

Origin x [ft]

Length l [ft]

Width b [ft]

Slope α [°]

Magnitude q, q1, f, F, x q2, z unit

1 strip variable on terrain x = 0.00 l = 32.80 0.00 75.0 lbf/ft2

Surcharges

No. Name 1 Maintenance Load

Water

Water type : GWT

[GEO5 - Gabion (32 bit) | version 5.2022.40.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

No. GWT location Coordinates of GWT points [ft] x z x z x z

-32.80 -5.50 -1.50 -5.50 32.80 -5.50

Tensile crack

Tensile crack not input.

Earthquake

Earthquake not included.

Settings of the stage of construction

Design situation : permanent

Results (Stage of construction 1)

Analysis 1

Circular slip surface

Slip surface parameters

Center :

Radius :

x = z =

R =

-8.07

0.89

13.48

[ft]

[ft]

[ft]

Angles :

α1 = α2 =

-47.72

86.21

The slip surface after optimization.

Slope stability verification (Bishop) Sum of active forces :

Sum of passive forces :

Sliding moment :

Resisting moment :

Fa = Fp =

Ma = Mp =

4580.5 5976.9

61744.5 80568.5 lbf/ft lbf/ft lbfft/ft lbfft/ft

Factor of safety = 1.30 < 1.50 Slope stability NOT ACCEPTABLE druel Callout

1.3 is acceptable per AASHTO when soil information is well established.

druel Line druel Line

Daniel Ruel, PE

Mullet Creek

[GEO5 - Nailed Slope (32 bit) | version 5.2022.38.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Analysis of nailed slope

Input data Project

Task Description Customer Author Date Project ID Project number

Mullet Creek Gripple Anchors with Flexamat Bulbs Pinellas County Daniel Ruel, PE 5/30/2022 6511-20-248 6511-20-248

Settings

USA - Safety factor

Materials and standards

Concrete structures : ACI 318-19

Wall analysis

Verification methodology :

Active earth pressure calculation :

Passive earth pressure calculation :

Earthquake analysis :

Shape of earth wedge :

Allowable eccentricity :

Safety factors (ASD) Coulomb Mazindrani (Rankine) Mononobe-Okabe Calculate as skew 0.333

Safety factors

Permanent design situation Safety factor for overturning :

Safety factor for sliding resistance :

Safety factor for bearing capacity :

SFo =

SFs =

SFb =

1.50

1.50

2.00

Stability analysis

Verification methodology : Safety factors (ASD)

Safety factors

Permanent design situation Safety factor for plane slip surface :

Safety factor for broken slip surface :

SFpl =

SFbr =

1.50

1.50

Geometry of structure

Thickness of weathered layer t = 0.70 ft Soil in the weathered layer Angle of internal friction Cohesion of soil Unit weight φef cef γ

30.00 0.0

10.0 psf pcf

No.

Depth z [ft]

Coordinate x [ft]

0.00 10.00

0.00 -15.00

[GEO5 - Nailed Slope (32 bit) | version 5.2022.38.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Mesh types

No. Name Mesh type Mesh resistance on punching

Rp [lbf]

Mesh resistance on shear

Rs [lbf]

1 TECCO G45/2 TECCO G45/2 17984.72 8992.36

Type of nails

No. Name Nail type Tensile strength

Rt [lbf]

Shear strength

Rs [lbf]

Pull out resistance

Tp [lbf/ft]

1 Gripple TL-606 user-defined 1800.00 180.00 55.00

Sections

No.

Setback k [ft]

Vertical spacing lv [ft]

Horizontal spacing lh [ft]

Length l [ft]

Inclination α [°]

1 1.00 3.00 3.00 9.00 15.00

No.

Plate width hw [in]

Plate length lw [in] Type of nail Mesh type

1 6.00 6.00 Gripple TL-606 TECCO G45/2

Geometry of nails

Nail Depth

[ft]

Length

[ft]

Type of nail

0.55 2.22 3.88 5.55 7.21 8.88

9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00

Gripple TL-606 Gripple TL-606 Gripple TL-606 Gripple TL-606 Gripple TL-606 Gripple TL-606

Soil parameters

Loose to Med Dense Sand Unit weight :

Stress-state :

Angle of internal friction :

Cohesion of soil :

Angle of friction struc.-soil :

Soil :

Saturated unit weight :

γ effective φef cef δ cohesionless γsat

110.0

30.00 0.0

0.00

110.0 pcf psf

Geological profile and assigned soils

No.

Thickness of layer t [ft]

Depth z [ft] Assigned soil Pattern

30.00

0.00 .. 30.00

30.00 ..

Loose to Med Dense Sand

Loose to Med Dense Sand

Terrain profile

Terrain behind the structure is flat.

[GEO5 - Nailed Slope (32 bit) | version 5.2022.38.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Water influence

GWT behind the structure lies at a depth of 5.00 ft GWT in front of the structure lies at a depth of 6.00 ft Subgrade at the heel is not permeable.

Uplift in foot. bottom due to different pressures is not considered.

Input surface surcharges

No.

Surcharge new change Action

Mag.1

[lbf/ft2]

Mag.2

[lbf/ft2]

Ord.x x [ft]

Length l [ft]

Depth z [ft] 1 Yes permanent 75.00 3.00 10.00 on terrain

No. Name 1 Maintenance Equip

Settings of the stage of construction

Design situation : permanent Reduction of soil/soil friction angle : reduce to 2/3 φ (AASHTO)

Internal stability

Analysis No. 1 Horizontal pressure on structure:

Point Depth

[ft]

Pressure

[psf]

0.00 0.00 1.73 1.73 5.00 6.00 9.98 9.98

10.00

0.0 0.0 6.9

15.0 26.8 90.6 96.0 90.9 90.9

Verification of nails bearing capacity

Reduction coeff. of active earth pressure to check for nails bear. capacity kn = 0.85.

Nail Depth h [ft]

Type of nails Nail bearing capacity

[lbf]

Nail force

[lbf]

Verification

0.55

2.22

3.88

5.55

7.21

8.88

Gripple TL-606

Gripple TL-606

Gripple TL-606

Gripple TL-606

Gripple TL-606

Gripple TL-606

495.00

495.00

495.00

495.00

495.00

495.00

10.07

66.29

100.08

265.75

405.32

488.83 is satisfactory is satisfactory is satisfactory is satisfactory is satisfactory is satisfactory

Nail with max. utilization - Nr. 6.

Nail bearing capacity = 495.00 lbf > 488.83 lbf = Nail force Bearing capacity of nails is SATISFACTORY

Analysis No. 2 The slip surface - terrain intersection has not been found.

[GEO5 - Nailed Slope (32 bit) | version 5.2022.38.0 | hardware key 9305 / 1 | Tierra Inc. | Copyright © 2022 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu] [Gintegro, LLC | 201.204.9560| info@gintegro.com| www.gintegro.com]

Analysis No. 3 The slip surface - terrain intersection has not been found.

Verification No. 1 Forces acting on construction

Name Fhor [lbf/ft]

App.Pt.

z [ft]

Fvert [lbf/ft]

App.Pt.

x [ft]

Design coefficient Weight - reinforced soil Active pressure Water pressure Maintenance Equip

0.0 326.5 356.5

84.3

-5.53 -4.64 -1.66 -7.78

9260.0 -99.5

-356.5 3.8

14.11 12.54 18.24 31.56

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Verification of complete wall

Check for overturning stability Resisting moment Overturning moment

Mres Movr

123060.7 2761.1 lbfft/ft lbfft/ft

Safety factor = 44.57 > 1.50 Wall for overturning…