CN-550000-BED28-W0010100.pdf

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TASK WORK ORDER FOR

MASTER UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT

375-040-81

PROCUREMENT

OGC - 11/12

Master Agreement #:

BED28

Cost Center # - Task Work Order #:

977 - 01

Amendment #:

University:

Florida Institute of Technology

Task Work Order Description:

Using the PENCEL PMT to Evaluate Shallow Foundations at Florida's Fine Sand Sites

The effective date of this amendment is the date the Department signs the amendment, unless otherwise stated within the amendment.

Check all applicable terms

The time for completion of services for the subject task work order is extended thru 9/30/2024 .

The subject task work order is hereby canceled (no work has been performed and no payment is due).

The total amount for services performed under this task work order is increased by $ 22,000.00 .

The additional funds will be allocated as defined in the attached revised Exhibit B, Method of Compensation.

The total amount for services performed under this task work order is decreased by $ .

The decrease in funds will be allocated as defined in the attached revised Exhibit B, Method of Compensation.

There is no increase/decrease in the task work order amount. Funds are only redistributed between compensation elements as defined in the attached revised Exhibit B, Method of Compensation.

The Scope of Service is hereby amended, attached hereto, and incorporated herein.

Other:

Department Contact:

Name: Jennifer Clark Phone: (850) 414-4614

Office: Research Center Email: jennifer.clark@dot.state.fl.us

Departmental Approval:

J. Darryll Dockstader Manager, Research Center

(Name) (Title) (Signature) (Date)

University Acceptance:

(Name) (Title) (Signature) (Date)

Legal Review:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5

Hamid Rassoul Int. Provost 12/4/2023

DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

12/13/2023 | 1:30 PM EST

Master University Agreement Task Work Order Amendment Request

Contract-TWO # BED 28 977-01 Amendment # 1

Title: Using the PENCEL PMT to Evaluate Shallow Foundations at Florida’s Fine Sand Sites

Start Date: 4/15/2022 End Date: 3/31/2024

Project Manager: David Horhota Principal Investigator: Paul Cosentino

Additional Time:

Request for additional time for completion of services to 9/30/2024

Justification:

We were delayed from completing our field testing when the FDOT SMO Cone Truck unexpectedly required maintenance of its

AC unit. By the time the Cone Truck was repaired, the field testing at the three sites, was delayed over three months from August until about mid-October. This delay subsequently causes delays in completing Tasks 4 to 8. We are requesting a six-month extension from the end of the original contract.

Change to funding:

__X___ increase project amount by $_ 22,000_ _____ decrease project amount by $__________ _____ rebudget

Justification:

A maximum of two months of TEXAM testing will be required to perform a proposed 75 additional TEXAM PMT tests at the three sites. One additional month will be required to analyze the data for inclusion into the final report. Two graduate students will be employed to conduct that testing.

Attach a budget sheet for the request change.

Change in scope:

Describe the change being requested: Seventy-five additional TEXAM pressuremeter tests will be conducted at the three sites.

Justification:

Revised Scope of Services

FDOT’s SMO Cone Truck, provided by FDOT’s State Materials Office and used exclusively for the field testing, broke down from extensive use and various equipment component malfunctions. Since this problem delayed the field-testing, an expanded field test program is being requested which will now include performing TEXAM pressuremeter tests alongside the PENCEL pressuremeter tests. Task 4, of the project’s original scope of work only included PENCEL tests, because these were the only pressuremeter tests that could be performed by the Department. Recently, it was discovered that the TEXAM equipment could be rented for a short duration at a very reasonable cost. The primary advantage of using the additional TEXAM tests is that these pressuremeters were used in the research performed by Texas A&M to develop the database of pressuremeter results and design methodology that this project is evaluating to modify for Florida specific soils (i.e., fine poorly graded sands), in Task 4 of the original scope of work. In addition, the TEXAM is more classically used throughout the world at this time, so consultants are comfortable with its results, which would aid in the implementation of the project's findings.

We have identified and begun testing at the three project field testing sites (Kingsley, Trenton, and UCF) and it is possible to rent a TEXAM and perform the additional testing for $22,000. We would not require any more additional project time past the six-month extension requested to complete these tests, and the costs above include equipment rental, and extra stipend for the graduate students who would conduct the TEXAM PMT tests at the three sites.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Improved Analysis

The addition of the TEXAM PMT data will significantly improve the findings from this work. Tasks 5 and 6 will be directly improved as will the final report. There is limited published data comparing TEXAM and PENCEL results, especially in sands. Additionally, the PENCEL PMT is used predominately in Florida, while the TEXAM is used classically in other regions of the country.

Benefits to the Department

The PENCEL PMT is more versatile and less expensive than the TEXAM PMT. The entire testing procedure and equipment maintenance is simpler for the PENCEL, and its tests are run more quickly. The findings from this work will demonstrate this advantage and subsequently allow more consulting engineers to use it throughout Florida.

Attach a revised scope of service and a revised project schedule.

Other modifications:

__ __ Change of project manager to _____Mr. Dino Jameson_________________________________ _____ Change of principal investigator to ________________________________________________ _____ Change of title to ______________________________________________________________

Requestor (provide contact information): Paul J Cosentino, cosentin@fit.edu 321-674-7555, Florida Institute of Technology, Civil Engineering and Construction Management, 150 W. University Blvd, Melbourne FL 32901-6975

Note: Requests will not be processed without written FDOT project manager approval. Requested modifications must officially be processed as an amendment signed by the Research Center manager and the authorized party for the contractor in order to be reimbursable.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D mailto:cosentin@fit.edu

Exhibit A – Scope of Service-Revision November 2023

Project Title: Using the PENCEL PMT to Evaluate Shallow Foundations at Florida’s Fine Sand Sites

Principal Investigator: Paul J Cosentino, PhD., P.E.

Florida Institute of Technology, 150 West University Boulevard

Civil Engineering and Construction, Olin Engineering Room 205

Melbourne FL 32901-6975, cosentin@fit.edu

321-674-7555

DSR Administrative Contact: Donn Miller-Kermani, PhD

Florida Institute of Technology, 150 West University Boulevard

Civil Engineering and Construction, Olin Engineering Room 205

Melbourne FL 32901-6975, dkermani@fit.edu

321-674-7648

Project Managers: Dino JamesonDavid Horhota, PhD., P.E.

Florida Department of Transportation, State Materials Office

State Geotechnical Engineer

5007 NE 39th Ave

Gainesville, FL 32609, David.Horhota@dot.state.fl.us

Dino.jameson@dot.state.fl.us

352-955-29242933

Larry Jones P.E.

Florida Department of Transportation, Assistant State Structures Design Engineer & State

Geotechnical Engineer

605 Suwannee Street MS 33

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Larry.Jones@dot.state.fl.us

850-414-4305

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Background Statement

Historical Foundation Design Process: Geotechnical engineers have historically been conservative when designing foundations, choosing deep foundations when shallow foundations may have been successfully and safely used. Significant cost savings can be realized whenever shallow footings are used instead of deep foundations. These conservative designs are often related to the use of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) state that SPT N-values should not be relied on for cohesionless silts, because dynamic effects at the sampler tip can lead to erroneous strength and compressibility evaluations. Layers composed of similar materials (i.e., very fine poorly graded sands) may be present throughout the Florida peninsula. Sabatini et al, (2002), in FHWA-IF-02-034 show the variability of SPT N value measurements in Piedmont residual soil consisting of silty fine sands due to varying energy efficiencies for three different drill rigs and crews. Each crew used hollow stem auger techniques and a safety hammer with a cathead and rope system. The variability in N-values was 50 percent.

Similar variations have been reported with different hammers.

Chopra and Arboleda-Monsalve (2020) summarized the elastic settlement methods pertinent to Florida under FDOT contract BDV24-977-29. They reviewed both classical methods and methods based on field testing. They concluded that the elastic moduli used in these approaches plays a significant role in determining the settlements and developed a survey of current practice when evaluating immediate settlements for Florida Geotechnical Consultants. Data for these various methods was obtained from N-values, cone penetrometer testing (CPT) point and friction data, dilatometer (DMT) empirical stiffnesses and pressuremeter (PMT) stress-strain data.

Improved Technology Produces Improved Soil Properties: Of all the field tests currently available, only PMT testing produces a complete and controllable in-situ stress-strain response.

There are numerous PMT models available to the geotechnical community. The most common are the tri-cell stress-controlled Ménard and mono-cell strain-controlled TEXAM models. Since strain-controlled testing produces many more data points and therefore better stress-strain curves, the industry has migrated away from the Ménard PMT. Cosentino et al., (2007) under FDOT contract BD658 automated the Roctest PENCEL pressuremeter (PPMT) enabling it to be pushed to a desired test depth, with data digitally collected and displayed on a laptop PC. This automation of the cone tipped PPMT produces real-time in-situ stress-strain data that allows

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D engineers to make more informed decisions. It also makes PPMT testing much easier than other

PMT testing. As a result, it is now standard field-testing equipment and used by consultants throughout the United States on many shallow foundation investigations. As a result of this automation, Roctest® automated the TEXAM PMT, now called the TEXAMe, to produce digital pressures and volumes using the same technology deployed in the PENCEL.

Several PPMT testing procedure options are currently used in the field. One requires a standard drill rig, where SPT tests are performed to a desired test depth, and then followed immediately by pushed in PPMT tests. The other approach is to simply push the cone tipped

PENCEL probe from the surface to the desired test depths.

The zone of influence of shallow foundations is about twice their widths (i.e., 2B), meaning that a 10’ by 10’ footing would affect about 20 feet below it and even a 20’ by 20’ footing would affect about 40 feet of soil. If continuous footings are used, they are typically narrower than the others, but they do affect about 6B or six times their widths. This relatively shallow zone of influence helps the geotechnical engineer conduct PPMT tests more efficiently. Schmertmann’s

(1970) strain influence zones can be used to help chose PPMT test depths. Testing for footings affecting 2B would allow the engineer to run more tests near the top portion of the zone to produce a better or higher quality weighted average PPMT stress-strain curve for use in the settlement prediction methods. Figure 1 shows the zone of influence for both square and continuous footings (i.e., axisymmetric with L/B = 1 and plane strain with L/B > 10).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Figure 1 Schmertmann’s (1970) strain influence factors for settlement of sands

PMT testing was historically the test preferred by geotechnical engineers to provide the soil data needed to design and analyze laterally loaded piles. However, these newer applications have shown that the high-quality in-situ stress-strain data produced during properly run PMT tests can be used in conjunction with newer prediction techniques, to accurately predict bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundations subjected to vertical loads. The newer settlement prediction methods have shown consultants that the older methods overpredict settlements by a factor of 3. Meaning that footings on sands predicted to settle 2 ½ inches typically settle less than an inch. PMT data is used in several elastic settlement procedures to predict movements, which

Square or Circular (L/B = 1)

Continuous (L/B > 10)

B

4B

2B

B

B/2

R e la ti ve D e p th B e lo w F o o ti n g

Strain Influence Factor, Iz

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Depth to Bottom of Footing (Df)

Q

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D have been proven to be much more realistic than methods based on SPT N-values, such as those developed by Ménard and Rousseau, 1962, Jeanjean, 1995, and Briaud, 2007.

Significant construction costs savings occur by simply avoiding the use of deep foundations.

Deep foundations require cranes, pile driving hammers, huge augers and expensive load and integrity testing. Shallow footings can be more easily and inexpensively monitored after construction to ensure that the designs are functioning properly. There are reports of 11 and 15 story structures in Florida, being placed on shallow footings when consultants use PENCEL

PMT data to show their clients that these footing will settle less than an inch. Why was the

PENCEL PMT used? The answer is, it is much easier to install in the soil than its larger counterparts the TEXAM and Ménard PMT’s and the automation and accompanying software

(APMT) has allowed engineers to reliably view the test results in real-time.

The large savings to the clients can include agreements between the consultants and their clients, that allow a small portion of the monies saved to be used for monitoring the structures settlements to ensure the designs are successful. The left-over money allows developers more flexibility to improve their architecture and human factor components of the structures. A

Houston consulting office reportedly uses the PPMT on every geotechnical engineering job and easily pushes it about 25 to 30 feet in the softer Texas clays, (i.e., soils with SPT blow counts less than about 20 blows per foot).

In sands, with settlements less than an inch, the immediate elastic movement should occur during construction, while the 50-year creep movements of approximately 50% of these immediate settlements would be at max an additional ½-inch, and therefore, can be incorporated into the building process. The continued success of these consultants indicates that state agencies could also realize these savings.

With the significant amount of highway construction occurring throughout Florida, employing the PPMT approach has the potential of saving FDOT millions of dollars on the properly identified project. Identifying these projects would entail understanding the structural loads and the soil conditions along the portions of the structures typically supported by deep foundations.

Background Summary: To increase the geotechnical consultant’s confidence in using PPMT stress-strain results to predict settlements of shallow footings on sands, three major tasks should

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D be completed. First, historical data should be collected, with the goal of detailing how the PPMT based settlement predictions were validated using the associated field measurements. Second, controlled testing should be conducted at FDOT’s SMO test pit facility to show measured and

PPMT predicted plate movements and thirdly, plate loading tests should be performed in conjunction with PENCEL PMT tests at new field sites to expand the data base of measured and

PPMT predicted settlements of Florida sands. This data base can then be added to the existing data from the Ménard and Rousseau, 1962, Jeanjean, 1995, and Briaud, 2007 PMT settlement methods.

Project Objective: The research objective is to improve the confidence that geotechnical engineers would have in using the PENCEL PMT data to safely design shallow footings placed on Florida fine sands.

Supporting Tasks and Deliverables

To meet the project objective, the following tasks, originally scheduled for 24-months, will now be completed in 30-months.

Project Kickoff Teleconference

The principal investigator, Dr. Paul Cosentino, will schedule a kickoff meeting that shall be held within the first 30 days of task work order execution. The kickoff meeting will consist of a webinar at least 30 minutes in length. The purpose of the meeting is to review the tasks, deliverables, deployment plan, timeline, and expected/anticipated project outcomes and their potential for implementation and benefits. The principal investigator shall prepare a presentation following the template provided at https://www.fdot.gov/research/project-mgt-resources.shtm.

The project manager, principal investigator, and research performance coordinator shall attend.

Other parties may be invited, if appropriate.

Task 1 – Literature Review and Historical Evaluations Involving Settlement of Sands: A thorough literature review will be conducted to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the existing settlement methods used for shallow foundation design on sands. It will also include documentation of case histories of pertinent footing performance. Several consultants have

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D https://www.fdot.gov/research/project-mgt-resources.shtm measured and predicted footing settlements of shallow foundations in Florida. An example of this is shown in Appendix A. The case history projects will be reviewed. If possible, these reviews will include site description and approximate locations, dates of construction, a complete geotechnical profile with testing summary, structural loadings, methods, and theories used for the foundations design and monitored structural performance. Chopra and Arboleda-Monsalve summarized the methods pertinent to Florida under FDOT contract BDV24-977-29 (2020).

Deliverable 1 – Upon completion of Task 1, the Principal Investigator will submit a written document with the title Task 1 Literature Review and Historical Evaluations Involving

Settlement of Sands to the Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us. It will also become part of the final report once it has been approved. This deliverable will include the advantages and disadvantages and any case histories documenting foundation performances.

Task 2 – PPMT and Plate Bearing Test Pit Evaluations of Fine Sands: The two test pits at

FDOT’s State Materials Office (SMO) in Gainesville Florida, will be used to evaluate typical

Florida MSE wall backfill sands. A series of Plate Bearing Tests, PPMT, and density tests will be performed in each pit. Both a lower Proctor density/lower friction angle sand and higher

Proctor density/higher friction angle sand will be obtained with one type placed in each pit.

Loose, medium dense, and dense sand will be placed within each 8-foot wide, 9-foot-long pit subsection to a depth of about 5-feet as detailed in Figure 2. It is proposed that approximate modified Proctor densities, in accordance with the procedures detailed in FM1-T-180, of 90, 95, and 100 percent be used. Each section will be compacted using 8-inch loose-lifts, compacted to

6-inches. The density and moisture content of each 6-inch lift will then be determined using nuclear density testing. The density and moisture content of the 12-inch lifts will also be determined using nuclear density testing. Immediately following each 12-inch nuclear density test, a 12-inch incremental Small Diameter Pressuremeter (SDPMT) test will be performed to produce stress-strain data for comparison to the moisture density data.

Following compaction, plate bearing tests and PPMT tests will be performed in each section of both test pits. Figures 3, 4 and 5 depict the testing protocol for the PENCEL Pressuremeter

(PPMT) and 12-inch plate bearing testing for each section within each of the two 9-foot by 24-

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D mailto:research.center@dot.state.fl.us foot test pits. Figure 3 shows that each section within the pit will have a 9 plate bearing test locations spaced at 1.5B for the 12-inch plate or at about 3-foot center to center. Figure 4 depicts proposed PPMT testing depths within each 8-foot by 9-foot test section. As shown in the figure, two PPMT tests will be conducted at two depths at each location. These tests will be adjacent to the plate bearing test locations as shown.

The PPMT and plate loading test data will be reduced to enable comparisons between plate movements and existing load-settlement of footings on sands. The reduced data will include as built drawings detailing the soils properties, testing locations, and testing sequences. The load-settlement data will be organized such that it may be added to existing plots from the literature

(e.g., Ménard and Rousseau, 1962, Jeanjean, 1995, Briaud, 2007).

Figure 2 Proposed SMO Fine (SP) Sands Installation Requirements

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Figure 3 Proposed Testing Layout for PPMT and Plate Bearing Tests

Figure 4 Proposed PPMT Testing Plan Per Test Pit 8’ by 9’ by 6’ Section

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Figure 5 Proposed Plate Loading Testing Plan Relative to PPMT Testing Per Test Pit 8’ by

9’ by 6’ Section

Deliverable 2 – Upon completion of Task 2, the Principal Investigator will submit a written document with the title Task 2 PPMT and Plate Bearing Test Pit Evaluations of Fine Sands to the

Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us. It will also become part of the final report once it has been approved. This deliverable will include a description of the following items: the testing program, the sand placement methods, the tests conducted, and the test results, plus the analyses of the test results including the variations in moduli produced from each test type and how they are related to the existing settlement of sands methods.

Task 3 -- Site Selection, Site Visits, and Procurement of Site Data: The PI and PM will work together to choose a minimum of 3 and up to 5 FDOT evaluation sites. The selection will be based on the Task 1 literature and historical findings, with a goal of identifying FDOT sites with soil properties that may allow structures to be supported on shallow foundations. Once the sites are chosen the research team will visit each site and procure the pertinent data for the research.

Site visits will be conducted to aid with communications, evaluate the possible field-testing

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D locations, and procure the pertinent site data. The information to be gathered will include as a minimum the following:

1. site locations and descriptions,

2. design phase test boring locations, with pertinent elevations and data, and

3. associated generalized subsurface profile.

Deliverable 3 – Upon completion of Task 3, the Principal Investigator will submit a written document with the title Task 3 Site Selection, Site Visits, and Procurement of Site Data to the

Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us. It will also become part of the final report once it has been approved. This deliverable will include a description of the sites, a description of the subsurface conditions, and comparisons of the subsurface conditions between this task and those in Task 1, and a summary explaining what engineering properties make these sites possible shallow foundation locations.

Task 4 – PPMT, TEXAM, CPT, DMT, and Field Plate Load Testing: Instrumented PENCEL and TEXAMe PMT testing, CPT and DMT testing will be performed within the top 30 feet at each of the chosen sites from Task 3, near a test boring with SPT N-values. FDOT’s State

Materials Office Cone Penetrometer rig will be used for the PPMT, CPT, and DMT testing. The

Cone rig will also be used as a reaction for plate bearing testing on 12-inch plates. FDOT’s SMO

Drill Rig will be used for the SPT testing and to prepare bored holes to insert the TEXAM PMT.

Two options for the PPMT testing are proposed. One option is to hydraulically push the PPMT probe to the desired depth and conduct tests adjacent to SPT Test borings. The industry is pushing the PENCEL in sands with blow counts below about 25, to avoid damaging the probe and because these soils are typically more problematic and produce larger settlements. This process may be performed using a CPT truck. The other option is to use a standard drill rig which can conduct standard penetration testing (SPT) at 2.5-foot intervals followed by hydraulically pushing the PPMT probe to the subsequent test depth using intervals specified by the PI. In addition to PPMT testing, plate loading tests will be performed using available steel plate systems. Currently, there are 24- and 30-inch plates available for this testing. The loads will be applied by mounting the plate loading equipment either to the SMO Cone Penetrometer Truck

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D or Water Distribution Truck and using the chosen truck weight as a reaction during testing. Plate load tests will be performed in the immediate vicinity of PPMT tests.

Additional Testing Plan

Three TEXAM field borings will be conducted at each of the three tests sites. Borings from previous work shows that the Trenton site has soil test data to about 30 feet, while the Kingsley site has data about to 40 feet, and the UCF site to 65 feet. Each TEXAM boring will include

TEXAM PMT tests at 5-foot intervals. PENCEL PMT tests are being performed at 3-foot intervals, with testing at Kingsley already completed to 20 feet, which was the maximum depth that the PENCEL probe could be safely pushed. Using this testing sequence, Table 1 was developed to summarize the proposed comparison testing between the PENCEL and TEXAM

PMT’s at each site. It depicts a total of 120 PENCEL PMT tests originally proposed and an additional 75 TEXAM PMT tests.

Table 1 Proposed Summary of PENCEL and TEXAM PMT

Deliverable 4 – Upon completion of Task 4, the Principal Investigator will submit a written document with the title Task 4 PPMT, TEXAM, CPT, DMT, and Field Plate Load Testing to the

Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us. It will also become part of the final report once it has been approved. This deliverable will include:

1. site locations and descriptions,

2. design phase test boring locations, with pertinent elevations and geotechnical data,

3. associated generalized subsurface profile at the site,

4. raw and reduced PPMT, TEXAM, CPT, and DMT data, with pertinent engineering properties,

5. raw and reduced plate loading data, with pertinent engineering properties,

6. conclusions and recommendations from the field testing.

Depth

(ft) Per Sounding Totals Per Boring Totals

Kingsley 20 7 21 5 15

Trenton 30 13 39 8 24

UCF 65 20 60 12 36

Totals 120 75

TEXAM TestsPPMT Tests Site Name

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Task 5 – Analyzing the Modulus Effects on Foundation Settlement and Bearing Capacity:

A summary of how PPMT and TEXAM moduli compare to moduli from other in situ tests will be prepared. It will include comparisons to other pressuremeters, as well as to SPT N-values, Cone Penetrometer and Dilatometer based moduli.

Using the reduced data from Task 4, load-settlement predictions will be developed for various size footings based on existing theories that required PMT, CPT, DMT, SPT, and plate loading data (e.g., Briaud, 1992, & 2007). Also, based on the structural loading conditions and the testing results for each site, bearing capacity predictions will be developed for various size footings based on common methods (e.g., Ménard and Rousseau, 1962, Jeanjean, 1995, Briaud, 2007).

Comparisons will be made between footings designed based on PPMT and these other options.

Based on these comparisons, conclusions and recommendations will be presented.

Deliverable 5 – Upon completion of Task 5, the Principal Investigator will submit a written document with the title Task 5 Analyzing the Modulus Effects on Foundation Settlement and

Bearing Capacity to the Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us. It will also become part of the final report once it has been approved. This deliverable will include the comparisons of moduli, plots of the load-settlement behavior, the comparisons and the resulting conclusions and recommendations.

Task 6 – Extrapolation of Design Procedure Data with Design Flow Chart using Florida

Site Conditions: The data originally used to develop the settlement procedures in sands, shown in Figure 6, was completed in 1995 (Jeanjean, 1995). It was a very thorough analysis, however, these locations consisted of sands with much larger grain sizes, than Florida’s very fine sands and the data was based on TEXAM results. Test data from Tasks 2 and 4 will be used to further verify Briaud’s (2007) method, which includes a creep or long-term settlement component. Load versus settlement data will be compiled for the various footings tested during this study. This information will then be combined and overlaid onto the original data (Figure 6). Once this is completed, the design procedure will be verified. Based on a thorough collaboration between the

PI and PM a PENCEL PMT Shallow Footings on Fine Sands Design Approach Flow chart will be developed. This flow chart will include:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D o information needed to properly identify sites where this approach would be beneficial, o testing procedures for obtaining and reducing the PENCEL PMT soils information needed for shallow footing designs and o applicable bearing capacity, settlement, and lateral load analyses approaches for footing designs

This new information will be included in the final report.

Deliverable 6 – Upon completion of Task 6, the Principal Investigator will submit a written document with the title Task 6 Extrapolation of Design Procedure Data with Design Flow Chart using Florida Site Conditions to the Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us. It will also become part of the final report once it has been approved. This deliverable will include the plots of the load-settlement behavior and the recommended footing design procedure.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Task 7 – Draft Final and Closeout Teleconference:

This task contains 2 deliverables: the draft final report and the closeout teleconference. The draft final report and closeout teleconference are identified in the budget as one task with a specific dollar amount.

Deliverable (7A): Ninety (90) days prior to the end date of the task work order, the university will submit a draft final report in PDF and Word formats to research.center@dot.state.fl.us.

The draft final report will contain a written summary of the results obtained from each of the first

6 tasks.

Figure 6 Experimental determination of relative footing pressures to settlements (Briaud, 2007)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

The draft final and final reports must follow the Guidelines for University Presentation and

Publication of Research available at https://www.fdot.gov/research/project-mgt-resources.shtm.

The draft final and final report must also follow the FDOT Research Final Report Style Guide provided at https://www.fdot.gov/research/project-mgt-resources.shtm.

The report must be well-written and edited for technical accuracy, grammar, clarity, organization, and format. The report must also comply with section 508 of the United States

Workforce Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Deliverable (7B): Thirty (30) days prior to the end date of the task work order, the principal investigator will schedule a closeout teleconference. The principal investigator shall prepare a

PowerPoint presentation following the template provided at https://www.fdot.gov/research/project-mgt-resources.shtm.

At a minimum, the principal investigator, project manager, and research performance coordinator shall attend. The purpose of the meeting is to review project performance, the deployment plan, and next steps.

Task 8 – Final Report:

Deliverable 8: Upon Department approval of the draft final report, the university will submit the

Final Report in PDF and Word formats electronically to the Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us.The Final Report is due by the end date of the task work order.

References

Briaud, J-L., 1992, The Pressuremeter, ISBN 90 6191 125 7.

Briaud J.-L., 2007, “Spread Footings in Sand: Load Settlement Curve Approach”, Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 133, Issue 8, ASCE Reston Va.

Briaud, J.-L., K. Hossain, J. Barfknecht and J. H. Lee, 2000. "Load Settlement Curve Method for

Spread Footings on Sand." Publication No. FHWA-RD-2000-XXX, Federal Highway

Administration, Washington, D.C.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D https://www.fdot.gov/research/project-mgt-resources.shtm

Chopra, M and Arboleda-Monslve L.G., 2020, “Comparison of Standard Penetration N-Value with

Alternative Field Test Methods in Determining Moduli for Settlement Predictions,” FDOT Contract

BDV24-977-29, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.

Cosentino, P.J., Kalajian, E. H., Stansifer R., Anderson, J.B., Kattamuri, K., Sundaram, S., Messaoud, F., Misilo, T.J., And Cottingham, M.A., 2007, “Standardizing the Pressuremeter Test for Determining p-y Curves for Laterally Loaded Piles” Contract No. BD-658, Final Report. Florida Institute of

Technology, Melbourne Florida.

Jeanjean, P., 1995. “Load Settlement Curve Method for Spread Footings on Sand from the

Pressuremeter Test.” Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M Univ., Dept. of Civil Engineering, College

Station, Tx.

Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation

Design. Report EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alta, CA, August, 306 pp.

Ménard L., and Rousseau, J., L. 1962, Evaluation des Tassements-Tendances Nouvelles, Sols-

Sols, Vol., 1, June.

Sabatini, P.J., Bachus, R.C., Mayne P.W., Schneider, J.A. Zettler, T.E., 2002, Geotechnical

Engineering Circular No. 5, Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties FHWA FHWA-IF-02-034.

Schmertmann, J. H. (1970). “Static cone to compute static settlement over sand.” J. Soil Mech. &

Found. Div., ASCE, 96(SM3), 7302-1043.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Appendix A: Historical Settlement Cases

Brett Gitskin, PE, Subsidiary President of ECS Midwest, made a presentation titled

“Pressuremeter Engineering”, on August 26, 2020, for the American Institute of Architects

Continuing Education System during course number ECS096. He detailed how pressuremeter data was used to show that over consolidated or residual soils provide greater support than indicated using conventional SPT data. Both Ménard and the automated PPMT data were used in the case histories presented.

In Reston Virginia a seven-story structure was designed with shallow footings because PMT stress-strain data showed that the soil strengths were at least twice the strengths predicted from conventional SPT results. These footings were monitored producing measured settlements of

3/16th inch. Settlements were measured over a six-month period for eight shallow footings. The consultant predicted settlements to be a very manageable 3/4 to 7/8ths inch based on PMT data.

Although the SPT based settlement was not presented by Mr. Gitskin, SPT field data is available.

Therefore, the conventional SPT settlements will be determined during this research, so that they can be compared to the PMT based results.

In Clearwater Florida a seven story self-storage structure was placed on shallow footings after

PPMT data was used to show that auger-cast-piles were not necessary. SPT N-values from 11 to

4 were encountered, while a series of PPMT tests produced limit pressures in the 5 tsf range.

Settlements in the ¾-inch range were predicted using PPMT data.

At Chicago’s Midway Airport conventional SPT testing indicated that either drilled shafts or micro-piles to bedrock would be necessary. The client had to be convinced to run PMT tests which indicated that the ultimate capacity of the soils was double that obtained from SPT data.

This information saved the client over $1 million dollars and six weeks during construction.

In Saint Petersburg, Florida a 15-story apartment building, which included an 8-story attached parking garage as shown in Figure 7, has 2-million-pound column loads. Based on these conditions and SPT testing, the original geotechnical consultant recommended 60- to 70-foot-deep auger-cast piles or vibro-replacement with stone column for soil improvement to enable shallow footings to be used. Subsurface conditions consisted of very loose to dense SP to SP-

SM, SM and ML very fine sandy soils. Using PPMT data, shallow footings were used and

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D monitored, producing a maximum measured settlement of 0.6 inches and an estimated cost savings of over $800,000.

Figure 7 Google Earth Pro® Image of the Icon Central Luxury Apartment in Saint Petersburg

Florida.

A six-story multi-family structure with a five-story parking garage in Charlotte North Carolina was placed on shallow foundations after 17 PPMT tests were conducted. Settlements of approximately 0.6-inches were predicted for footings with column loads from 755 to 1400 kips.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Use of Subcontractor(s)

No subtractors will be used during this research.

Use of Graduate Student(s) and other Research Assistants

It is proposed that two graduate students will perform the majority of the work associated within each project task under the guidance of the PI. For each task the following specified work will be completed by the graduate students under the guidance of the PI.

Task 1 – Literature Review and Historical Evaluations Involving Settlement of Sands:

Under the guidance of the PI the graduate students will help identify, review, and document the literature and engineering case history projects chosen for this research.

Task 2 – PPMT and Plate Bearing Test Pit Evaluations of Fine Sands: Under the guidance of the PI the graduate students will work with FDOT SMO personnel to prepare the test pit, conduct the testing, reduce the data to the proper engineering information, and analyze the results.

Task 3 -- Site Selection, Site Visits, and Procurement of Site Data: Under the guidance of the

PI the graduate students will help coordinate the site selection, visit the sites and procure the necessary data for up to 5 sites used for this project.

Task 4 – PPMT, TEXAM, CPT, DMT, and Field Plate Load Testing: Under the guidance of the PI the graduate students will work with FDOT SMO personnel to conduct the field plate bearing and PPMT tests and reduce the raw data to the pertinent engineering information in accordance with the requirements of Task 5.

Task 5 – Analyzing the Modulus Effects on Foundation Settlement and Bearing Capacity:

Under the guidance of the PI the graduate students will collect the pertinent data from each site, and along with the PI evaluate the foundation settlements and bearing capacities and write the report used for this task deliverable.

Task 6 – Extrapolation of Design Procedure Data with Design Flow Chart using Florida

Site Conditions: Under the guidance of the PI the graduate students will analyze the results of the alternative footings and add this new data to the existing data base. Under the guidance of the

PI the graduate students will write the report used for this task deliverable.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Task 7 Draft Final and Closeout Teleconference: Under the guidance of the PI the graduate students will help assemble the Draft Final Report and Teleconference Presentation for the

Closeout Teleconference.

Task 8 Final Report: Under the guidance of the PI the graduate students will help make the necessary changes from the Draft fain to the Final Report for submittal to FDOT.

Equipment

No equipment will be purchased for this research.

Expenses

Describe any expense items to be purchased, if applicable.

Travel

Travel will occur to the field-testing sites described in Task 3. It is proposed that the PI and two graduate students will travel to each site for between 2 and 4 days to obtain the pertinent site data and conduct the necessary tests for the research.

All travel shall be in accordance with Section 112.061, Florida Statutes. Travel expenses specifically authorized in the agreement shall be submitted using the Department’s Travel Form

No. 300-000-06, unless the university provides proof of the Department of Financial Services

General Laboratory Supplies

Item No Description

1 Markers Cleaning Supplies

2 Cables and Connectors

3 Misc

Expendable Supplies

Item No Description

1 Tubing and Connectors

2 PENCEL Pressuremeter Replacement Membranes

3 Miscellaneous PENCEL Control Unit Parts

4 Instrumentation Parts

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D approval to use an alternate travel form. The Department shall not compensate the University for lodging/hotel in excess of $175.00 per day (excluding taxes and fees).

The maximum amount of travel is limited to $3,000. The maximum amount of indirect cost on travel is limited to $750.00.

Financial Consequences

Payment shall be made only after receipt and approval of goods and services. Deliverable(s) must be received and accepted in writing as specified in the task work order prior to payment.

If the Research Center and/or project manager determine that the performance of the university is unsatisfactory, the Research Center shall notify the university of the deficiency to be corrected, and correction shall be made within a timeframe to be specified by the Research Center. Within five days of notice from the Research Center, the university shall provide the Research Center with a corrective action plan describing how the university will address all issues of contract non-performance, unacceptable performance, failure to meet the minimum performance levels, deliverable deficiencies, or contract non-compliance. If the corrective action plan is unacceptable to the Research Center, the university shall be assessed a non-performance retainage equivalent to 10% of the total invoice amount. The retainage shall be applied to the invoice for the current billing period. The retainage shall be withheld until the university resolves the deficiency. If the deficiency is subsequently resolved, the university may bill the

Department for the retained amount during the next billing period. If the university is unable to resolve the deficiency, the funds retained may be forfeited at the end of the task work order period.

Minimum Performance Measures

Performance metrics are defined in this scope of work, which describes the tasks, milestones, and/or deliverables the principal investigator shall accomplish and provide under this task work order. The Research Center will conduct periodic reviews to determine compliance with the tasks, milestones, and/or deliverables.

Publication Provision

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

If at any time during the TWO, the university desires to publish, in any form, any material developed under the TWO, the university must submit to the Project Manager and the Research

Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us a written abstract and notification of intent to publish the materials and receive the Project Manager’s concurrence to publish. Such approval to publish shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the Project Manager does not provide a written response within 30 days after receipt, the university may publish. The publication must include the following language:

“The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation or the

U.S. Department of Transportation.”

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Deliverables Schedule

Note: this document will be used by the Research Center to monitor principal investigator (PI) performance and activity on the project. The PI should give careful consideration to the time needed to complete a task(s) and deliverable(s) against current workload. Failure to submit deliverables in a timely manner may result in cancelation of the task work order.

Remember to include kick-off teleconference, submittal of draft final report, closeout teleconference and final report. The Research Center must at a minimum receive a deliverable every 6 months on a project. Failure to submit deliverables in a timely manner may result in cancelation of the task work order.

Improved Geotechnical Engineering Analysis

The addition of the TEXAM PMT data will significantly improve the findings from this work.

Tasks 5 and 6 will be directly improved as will the final report. There is limited published data comparing TEXAM and PENCEL results, especially in sands. Additionally, the PENCEL PMT is used predominately in Florida, while the TEXAM is used classically in other regions of the country.

Benefits to the Department

The PENCEL PMT is more versatile and less expensive than the TEXAM PMT. Its testing procedure and equipment maintenance is simpler, and its tests are run more quickly. The findings from this work will demonstrate this advantage and subsequently allow more consulting engineers to use this less expensive and more versatile device throughout Florida.

Deliverable # / Description of Deliverable as provided in the scope

(included associated task #)

Anticipated

Date of

Deliverable

Submittal

(month/year)

TO BE

COMPLETED BY

RESEARCH

CENTER

(performance monitoring)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A334854-EFA4-4632-B530-9EB3A6927CE5DocuSign Envelope ID: 75A51EE3-2D99-4482-A43E-9C144B91D28D

Kick-off Teleconference April 2022

Deliverable 1 – Upon completion of Task 1, the Principal

Investigator will submit a written document with the title Task 1

Literature Review and Historical Evaluations Involving Settlement of Sands to the Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us.

It will also become part of the final report once it has been approved. This deliverable will include the advantages and disadvantages and any case histories documenting foundation performances.

September 2022

Deliverable 2 – Upon completion of Task 2, the Principal

Investigator will submit a written document with the title Task 2

PPMT, CPT, DMT, Plate Bearing Test Pit Evaluations of Fine

Sands to the Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us. It will also become part of the final report once it has been approved.

This deliverable will include a description of the following items:

the testing program, the sand placement methods, the tests conducted, and the test results, plus the analyses of the test results including the variations in moduli produced from each test type and how they are related to the existing settlement of sands methods.

April 2023

Deliverable 3 – Upon completion of Task 34, the Principal

Investigator will submit a written document with the title Task 3

Site Selection, Site Visits, and Procurement of Site Data to the

Research Center at research.center@dot.state.fl.us. It will also become part of the final report once it has been approved. This deliverable will include a description of the sites, a description of the subsurface conditions, descriptions of the structural loadings, comparisons of the subsurface conditions between this task and those in Task 1, and a summary explaining what engineering properties make these sites possible shallow foundation locations.

October 2023

Deliverable 4 – Upon completion of Task 4, the Principal

Investigator will submit a written document with the…