RO_100per_Final_Geotechnical_Report_(1).pdf

Final Geotechnical Report

Roosevelt Bridge Kamehameha Highway, Route 99

Oahu, Hawaii State of Hawaii

Prepared for Federal Highway Administration

Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue

Lakewood, CO 80228

July 11, 2016

Hirata & Associates, Inc.

99-1433 Koaha Place

Aiea, HI 96701

9191 South Jamaica Street

Englewood, CO 80112-5946

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page ii

Contents Section Page

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background and Location

1.2 Purpose and Scope

2.0 Geology

2.1 Regional Geology

2.2 Seismic Design Parameters

3.0 General Subsurface Characterization

4.0 Analysis and Recommendations

4.1 Existing Bridge Foundations

4.1.1 Bridge Foundation Bearing Resistance

4.1.2 Bridge Foundation Lateral Resistance

4.1.3 Lateral Load Resistance of Abutment Backfill

4.1.4 Soil Spring Stiffness

4.2 End Post/Concrete Barrier Foundations

4.2.1 Foundation Bearing Resistance

4.2.2 Foundation Lateral Resistance

4.3 Lateral Design

4.3.1 Active and At-rest Earth Pressures

4.3.2 Dynamic Lateral Earth Forces

4.3.3 Drainage

4.4 Pavement Section

4.5 Site Grading

4.5.1 Site Preparation

4.5.2 Structural Excavations

4.5.3 Onsite Fill Material

4.5.4 Imported Fill Material

4.5.5 Backfill for Bridge Abutment Walls

4.5.6 Compaction

5.0 Special Contract Requirements

6.0 Additional Services

7.0 Limitations

Appendixes

A Field Exploration Program & Boring Logs

B Laboratory Testing

C P-Y Curves

HIRATA & ASSOCIATES, INC.

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background and Location

This report provides geotechnical recommendations for the Roosevelt Bridge rehabilitation located along Kamehameha Highway, Route 99, in the District of Waipio, Oahu, Hawaii. Roosevelt Bridge is located at MP 14.4, approximately 0.6 miles north of the Ka Uka Boulevard and Kamehameha Highway intersection.

Project vicinity and bridge photos are presented on Figures 1 and 2.

FIGURE 1

Project Vicinity Map

The Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation is proposing to rehabilitate the existing approximately 484-feet long, 34-feet wide, 16-span concrete bridge over Kipapa Stream to meet current design standards for roadway width, load capacity, bridge railing and transitions, and bridge approaches.

The width of the rehabilitated bridge will be about 4 feet wider than the existing bridge to provide a 7 feet wide shoulder lane on both sides.

In addition to strengthening the concrete frames and truss members linking the existing piers, the rehabilitation of Roosevelt Bridge will include repairs to existing abutment back walls, as well as construction of end post/concrete barrier behind the abutments.

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 2

FIGURE 2

Existing Bridge

1.2 Purpose and Scope

This report provides geotechnical recommendations based on engineering analyses of our subsurface investigation, including the general subsurface characterization, seismicity, boring logs, and laboratory test results. Geotechnical recommendations for evaluation of existing foundations and design of new end post/concrete barriers foundations are presented in this report.

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 3

2.0 Geology

2.1 Regional Geology

The Island of Oahu was built by the extrusion of basaltic lavas from the Waianae and Koolau shield volcanoes. The older Waianae Volcano is estimated to be middle to late Pliocene in age and forms the bulk of the western one-third of the island. The younger Koolau Volcano is estimated to be late Pliocene to early Pleistocene (Ice Age) in age and forms the majority of the eastern two-thirds of the island. Waianae became extinct while Koolau was still active, and its eastern flank was partially buried below Koolau lavas banking against its eastern flank forming a broad plateau, now known as the Schofield Plateau.

During the Pleistocene Epoch, sea levels fluctuated in response to the cycles of continental glaciation. The higher sea level stands caused the formation of deltas and fans of accumulated terrigenous sediments in the heads of old bays, accumulated reef deposits at correspondingly higher elevations, and deposited lagoonal/marine sediments in the quiet waters protected by fringing reefs. The lower sea stands caused streams to carve valleys in the sediments and reef deposits. Subaerial exposure of the sediments and calcareous materials caused consolidation of the lagoonal deposits and induration of the calcareous reef materials.

Based on the geologic maps, the project site is generally underlain by either consolidated non-calcareous deposits and basalt rock formation of the Koolau Volcanic Series. The area that is adjacent to the stream bed/gorge generally is underlain by consolidated older alluvium deposit that has a stiff characteristics. The area that is on top of the gorge is generally underlain by basal rock formation of the Koolau Volcanic Series.

The upper portion of the basalt rock formation may be weathered and consist of residual and saprolitic soils.

2.2 Seismic Design Parameters

Based on the AASHTO site classification criteria, the predominant soils at the bridge site located at 21.431o

N latitude and -158.013o W longitude can be classified as a very dense soil profile corresponding to a Seismic Site Class C.

Recommended seismic response parameters for use in design based on 7th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications represents ground motion corresponding to an exceedance probability of approximately 7 percent in 75 years for an earthquake with an approximate 1000-year return period. The 1000-year return period data for the soil at the bridge site was obtained in accordance with the AASHTO ground motion maps for the probabilistic horizontal acceleration values corresponding to specific peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the spectral coefficients, namely the short and long-period ground acceleration (SS and S1 respectively), and are summarized in Table 1.

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 4

TABLE 1

Summary of Seismic Parameters for Earthquake with 1000-Year Return Period

Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration, (PGA) 0.167g Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 0.2 sec, (SS) 0.381g Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 1.0 sec, (S1) 0.104g

Site Factor at Zero-Period of Acceleration Spectrum, (Fpga) 1.20 Site Factor at Short-Period Range of Acceleration Spectrum, (Fa) 1.20 Site Factor at Long-Period Range of Acceleration Spectrum, (FV) 1.67

Factored Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration, (AS) 0.200g Factored Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 0.2 sec, (SDS) 0.457g Factored Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 1.0 sec, (SD1) 0.177g

Seismic Zone Zone 2

Based on Section 3.0 of the 2014 Design Criteria for Bridges and Structures issued by the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), a 1500-year return period shall be used with the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd edition (2011). The 1500-year return period data for the soil at the bridge site is based on resources provided by HDOT for the probabilistic horizontal acceleration values corresponding to specific peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the spectral coefficients, namely the short and long-period ground acceleration (SS and S1 respectively), and are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Summary of Seismic Parameters for Earthquake with 1500-Year Return Period

Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration, (PGA) 0.202g Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 0.2 sec, (SS) 0.460g Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 1.0 sec, (S1) 0.127g

Site Factor at Zero-Period of Acceleration Spectrum, (Fpga) 1.20 Site Factor at Short-Period Range of Acceleration Spectrum, (Fa) 1.20 Site Factor at Long-Period Range of Acceleration Spectrum, (FV) 1.67

Factored Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration, (AS) 0.242g Factored Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 0.2 sec, (SDS) 0.552g Factored Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at Period of 1.0 sec, (SD1) 0.213g

Seismic Zone Zone 2

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 5

3.0 General Subsurface Characterization

Table 3 presents a summary of the subsurface characterization. Boring logs and laboratory test results are presented in the Appendixes A and B.

TABLE 3

Summary of Subsurface Materials for Foundation Design Purposes

Subsurface Depth

(ft) Material Description USCS

Classification Apparent Density

Ground Water Depth

(ft)

BORING RS1 (ELEVATION +308) – ABUTMENT NO. 2

0.0 to 42.0 Silty GRAVEL with sand (fill) MH Medium dense to dense

Seepage at 42.5

42.0 to 54.0 Clayey SILT with gravel MH Stiff

54.0 to 60.0 WEATHERED ROCK WH-WC Dense to medium hard

60.0 to 65.5 Sandy SILT with weathered rock fragments MH Medium dense

65.5 to 72.0 WEATHERED ROCK WC Dense

BORING RS2 (ELEVATION +325) – ABUTMENT NO. 1

0.0 to 27.0 Silty GRAVEL (fill) GM Medium dense to dense

GW not encountered

27.0 to 57.0 Clayey SILT with sand, gravel, and cobbles MH Stiff

57.0 to 75.0 Clayey SILT with gravel, cobbles, and occasional boulders MH Stiff

75.0 to 79.0 WEATHERED ROCK WH-WC Dense

BORING RS3 (ELEVATION +248) – PIER BORING

0.0 to 17.5 Clayey SILT with sand, gravel, and occasional boulders MH Medium stiff to stiff 13.3

17.5 to 31.0 Sandy SILT with weathered rock fragments ML Medium stiff

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 6

TABLE 3 (continued) Summary of Subsurface Materials for Foundation Design Purposes

Subsurface Depth

(ft) Material Description USCS

Classification Apparent Density

Ground Water Depth

(ft)

BORING RS4 (ELEVATION +248) – PIER BORING

0.0 to 11.5 Clayey SILT with sand, gravel, and occasional boulders MH Stiff

16.1 11.5 to 25.0 Sandy SILT with weathered rock fragments (completely rock) ML Medium stiff to stiff

25.0 to 30.0 WEATHERED ROCK (highly to completely weathered) - Dense

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 7

4.0 Analysis and Recommendations

This section provides a general interpretation of the site investigation and provides recommendations for design parameters at the proposed structure. Generalized subsurface profiles were developed based on data collected during the investigation. The primary structure considered for this project is rehabilitation of the existing Roosevelt Bridge structure.

4.1 Existing Bridge Foundations

Available plans, dated December 1932, indicate that the Abutment No.2/Bent-18 is supported by a continuous footing with plan dimensions of 15 feet by 48 feet. The Abutment No. 1/Bent-1 and intermediate piers (Bents 2 to 17) are supported on square footings ranging from 7.25 feet by 7.25 feet to 12.5 feet by

12.5 feet in size. Elevation of the bottom of the footings ranged from +261 to +230. Based on findings from our test borings, the existing footings appeared to be founded on either the stiff clayey silt immediately above the highly to completely weathered rock or the weathered rock.

4.1.1 Bridge Foundation Bearing Resistance

Existing footing dimensions were taken from record drawings. The estimated footing embedment depths are based on current topographic survey and bottom of footing elevations shown on the record drawings. A soil unit weight of 110 pcf, along with a cohesion of 50 psf and a friction angle of 30 degrees were conservatively selected for determination of the bearing resistance of the footings. The computed bearing resistances for existing footings are presented in Table 4. Bearing resistance factors are based on Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 in the 7th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and the applied strength limit state resistance factor is 0.45.

TABLE 4

Bearing Value for Existing Abutment and Pier Footings

Station Number

Footing Size

(feet)

Embedment Depth (feet)

Extreme Event Limit State

(psf)

Strength Limit State (psf)

Abut. 1/Bent-1 136+59.23 11 by 11 49 166,000 74,000 Bent-2 136+89.23 10 by 10 37 127,000 57,000 Bent-3 137+19.23 8.5 by 8.5 23 82,000 36,000 Bent-4 137+49.23 7.25 by 7.25 8 31,000 13,900 Bent-5 137+79.23 8 by 8 10 38,000 17,000 Bent-6 138+09.23 12.5 by 12.5 8 33,000 14,800 Bent-7 138+33.23 12.5 by 12.5 10 39,000 17,500 Bent-8 138+51.23 12.5 by 12.5 10 39,000 17,500 Bent-9 138+75.23 11 by 11 12 45,000 20,000

Bent-10 139+05.23 11 by 11 9 36,000 16,000 Bent-11 139+35.23 11 by 11 9 36,000 16,000 Bent-12 139+65.23 11 by 11 9 36,000 16,000 Bent-13 139+95.23 11 by 11 8 33,000 14,800

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 8

TABLE 4 (Continued) Bearing Value for Existing Abutment and Pier Footings

Station Number

Footing Size

(feet)

Embedment Depth (feet)

Extreme Event Limit State

(psf)

Strength Limit State (psf)

Bent-14 140+25.23 11 by 11 8 33,000 14,800 Bent-15 140+55.23 9.5 by 9.5 12 47,600 21,000 Bent-16 140+85.23 10 by 10 29 102,000 45,000 Bent-17 141+15.23 11.5 by 11.5 44 151,000 67,000

Abut. 2/Bent-18 141+45.23 48 by 15 58 156,000 70,000

It is anticipated that additional dead loads imposed by the superstructure due to the proposed rehabilitation will be relatively small. As a result, additional settlement of existing bridge foundations is expected to be negligible.

4.1.2 Bridge Foundation Lateral Resistance

Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of foundations. The following passive earth pressures and coefficient of frictions are recommended. The passive earth pressures were computed using the Log-Spiral Method. Resistance factors are based on Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 in the 7th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The applied strength limit state resistance factor for coefficient of friction is 0.8, and the resistance factor for passive pressure resistance is 0.5. Unless covered by pavement or concrete slabs, the upper 12 inches of soil should not be considered in computing lateral resistance.

TABLE 5

Coefficient of Friction and Passive Earth Pressure

Coefficient of Friction for Extreme Limit State 0.58

Coefficient of Friction for Strength Limit State 0.46

Passive earth pressure for Extreme Limit State 500 pcf

Passive earth pressure for Strength Limit State 250 pcf

4.1.3 Lateral Load Resistance of Abutment Backfill

An abutment backfill stiffness of 4 kips per square foot per inch of deflection may be assumed for resistance to lateral loads in the longitudinal direction during seismic event. Maximum lateral resistance of the abutment backfill should be limited to 5 kips per square foot.

4.1.4 Soil Spring Stiffness

Soil springs in the form of P-Y curves may be used to determine the lateral resistance of the piers embedded into the embankment slopes fronting the abutments, for resistance to lateral loads during seismic events.

Based on our borings, the abutment embankments consisted primarily of silty gravel in a dense condition.

As a result, a soil unit weight of 105 pcf and an internal friction angle of 38 degrees were selected for the P-Y curves. Printout of P-Y curve data generated using LPILE (Ensoft, Inc.) for Bents 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, and 18 in

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 9 both longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge were provided to the project Structural Engineer and are included in Appendix C.

4.2 End Post/Concrete Barrier Foundations

4.2.1 Foundation Bearing Resistance

New end post/concrete barrier at the bridge approaches are expected to be founded on the silty gravel embankment fill material. The following bearing values are recommended for design of the footings. The bearing resistance factors are based on Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 in the 7th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and the applied strength limit state resistance factor for bearing resistance is 0.45.

An allowable bearing resistance of 3,000 psf is recommended for service limit state in order to limit the potential settlement to less than 1-inch.

TABLE 6

Bearing Value for End Post Foundations

Extreme Limit State 9,000 psf

Strength Limit State 4,000 psf

Service Limit State 3,000 psf

Spread footings should be a minimum of 36 inches in width and embedded at least 24 inches below finish adjacent grade. Footings located on or near the top of slopes should be embedded such that a minimum horizontal distance of 6 feet is maintained between the bottom edge of footing and slope face. The bottom of footing excavations should be thoroughly tamped and cleaned of loose material prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Soft or loose soils, indicated by pumping conditions, should be removed and replaced with imported granular structural fill or base course.

4.2.2 Foundation Lateral Resistance

Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of foundations. Passive earth pressures were computed using the Log-Spiral Method. Based on the computed values and local practice, the following passive earth pressures and coefficient of frictions are recommended. Resistance factors are based on Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 in the 7th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The applied strength limit state resistance factor for coefficient of friction is 0.80, and the resistance factor for passive pressure resistance is 0.5.

TABLE 7

Coefficient of Friction and Passive Earth Pressure

Coefficient of Friction for Extreme Limit State 0.58

Coefficient of Friction for Strength Limit State 0.46

Passive earth pressure for Extreme Limit State 200 pcf

Passive earth pressure for Strength Limit State 100 pcf

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 10

The recommended passive earth pressures assumed a 2:H:1V sloping ground condition fronting the foundation. Unless covered by pavement or concrete slabs, the upper 12 inches of soil should not be considered in computing lateral resistance.

4.3 Lateral Design

Retaining structures including the abutment walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures presented in this section.

4.3.1 Active and At-rest Earth Pressures

Based on Table 3.11.5.5-1 of the 7th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, the following active and at-rest earth pressures are recommended. In general, a movement of as much as 0.5 percent of the wall height at the top of wall by rotation or lateral translation may be required to reach the active pressure condition. Walls that are not free to deflect sufficiently to permit development of active earth pressure should be designed using the at-rest condition.

TABLE 8

Active and At-rest Earth Pressures for Level Backfill Condition

Active Earth Pressure 35 pcf

At-rest / Restrained Earth Pressure 50 pcf

4.3.2 Dynamic Lateral Earth Forces

For dynamic lateral earth pressure considerations, a total dynamic lateral force of 12H2 pounds per lineal foot of wall length may be assumed for seismic loading with maximum peak ground acceleration (amax) of 0.242g. The above dynamic lateral force is for walls with level backfill conditions and that the wall is free to move laterally up to 1 to 2 inches or rotate in the event of an earthquake. The dynamic lateral force may be assumed to act through the mid-height of the wall.

The recommended dynamic lateral earth force was based on procedures in Section A11.3.2 of the 7th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. For un-restrained condition, kh equal to 1/2 times the maximum peak ground acceleration was used. It should be noted that the maximum peak ground acceleration of 0.242 is for 1500-year return period. Dynamic lateral earth forces for 1000-year return period can be provided if needed.

4.3.3 Drainage

To prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures, retaining walls should be well-drained. The standard of practice consists of placing a minimum 12-inch thick layer of free-draining gravel at the back of the wall. The gravel should extend from the base of the wall, around subdrains and/or weepholes, and up to within 12 inches of finish grade.

Alternatively, prefabricated drainage geocomposites, such as Miradrain or J-drain, may be used in lieu of the free-draining gravel. As with the free-draining gravel, the drainage geocomposites should be placed at the back of the wall, be connected with the weepholes and/or subdrains (in accordance with manufacturers specifications), and extend to within 12 inches of finish grade. For freestanding walls, the drainage system should be covered by at least 12 inches of low permeability soil, such as silty clay or clayey silt with low expansion potential.

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 11

4.4 Pavement Section

The AC concrete pavement encountered in boring RS1 consisted of approximately 4 inches of asphaltic concrete over about 10 inches of base material, while boring RS2 encountered approximately 9 inches asphaltic concrete over 21 inches of base material.

Due to the relatively short length of pavement for bridge approaches, based on discussions with Central Federal Lands Highway Division, we understand that new pavement will generally match the existing pavement sections identified in the borings.

4.5 Site Grading

4.5.1 Site Preparation

The project site should be cleared of all vegetation, AC pavements, and other deleterious material. Prior to fill placement, the existing ground should first be scarified to a depth of six inches, moisture conditioned to about 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent compaction as determined by AASHTO T-180 (ASTM D 1557). Soft or loose soils, indicated by pumping conditions, should be removed and replaced with imported granular structural fill.

4.5.2 Structural Excavations

Based on our exploratory test borings, we believe that excavations into the surface soils can be accomplished with conventional excavating equipment. Temporary cuts should be stable at slope gradients of 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical) or flatter for temporary conditions. It should be the Contractor’s responsibility to conform to all OSHA safety standards for excavations.

4.5.3 Onsite Fill Material

The onsite silty gravel material encountered behind the existing abutments will be acceptable for reuse in compacted fills and backfills, provided all rock fragments larger than three inches in maximum dimension are removed. Onsite clayey silt and sandy silt near the Kipapa Stream below the Roosevelt Bridge should not be reused for compacted fill.

4.5.4 Imported Fill Material

Imported structural fill should be well-graded, non-expansive granular material and conform to FP-14 704.04 with modifications presented in 5.0 Special Contract Requirements section of this report.

4.5.5 Backfill for Bridge Abutment Walls

Backfill for retaining structures should consist of granular fill such as the onsite silty gravel or imported structural fill.

4.5.6 Compaction

The onsite silty gravel, imported structural fill, and granular backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts restricted to 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum 95 percent compaction as determined by AASHTO T-180 (ASTM D 1557). Fill placed in areas which slope steeper than 5H:1V should be continually benched as the fill is brought up in lifts.

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 12

5.0 Special Contract Requirements

Section 704.04 Structural Backfill. Furnish a suitable, well-graded, non-expansive granular material conforming to the following:

(a) Maximum particle size 3 in (75 mm)

(b) Material passing No. 200 (75-µm) between 8 and 20 percent sieve, AASHTO T 27 and AASHTO T 11

(c) Plasticity index, AASHTO T 90 10 max.

(d) California Bearing Ratio, AASHTO T 193 CBR value, 15 min.

(ASTM D 1883) CBR expansion value, 1.0 percent max.

W.O. 15-5682.1 Page 13

6.0 Additional Services

We recommend that we perform a general review of the final design plans and specifications. This will allow us to verify that the foundation design/evaluation and earthwork recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design plans and construction specifications.

For continuity, we recommend that we be retained during construction to (1) observe structural excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete, (2) review and/or perform laboratory testing on import borrow to determine its acceptability for use in compacted fills, (3) observe structural fill placement and perform compaction testing, and (4) provide geotechnical consultation as required.

Our services during construction will allow us to verify that our recommendations are properly interpreted and included in construction, and if necessary, to make modifications to those recommendations, thereby reducing construction delays in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated.

Appendix A Field Exploration Program & Boring Logs

Plate A1.1

Appendix A: Field Exploration Program & Boring Logs

A1.0 Introduction Hirata & Associates, Inc. completed a field exploration program for Roosevelt Bridge, Kamehamhea Highway, Route 99, District of Waipio, Island of Oahu, State of Hawaii, Task Number 499073.03.SU.HI, between September 2 and December 3, 2014 for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge. The scope of work for the field exploration program included two borings at the rear of the existing bridge abutments and two borings near existing piers. Each component of the field exploration program was coordinated and observed by a Geotechnical Engineer from Hirata & Associates, Inc. Boring location plans, as well as individual boring logs are attached. These logs represent a compilation of field data and description of the soil samples by Hirata & Associates, Inc. personnel. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below. Representative soil and rock samples collected during the field exploration program were transported to Hirata & Associates, Inc. in Aiea, Oahu, Hawaii for testing. A summary of the laboratory testing program is provided in Appendix B.

A2.0 Explorations Hirata & Associates, Inc. of Aiea, Oahu, Hawaii provided the drilling services for the soil borings. Borings were completed using a Mobile B80 truck-mounted drill rig and portable drilling equipment.

The borings at the rear of the existing abutments were drilled between September 2 and October 6, 2014.

The two borings at the rear of existing bridge abutments, RS1 and RS2, were completed to depths of about 72 and 79 feet below ground surface to explore subgrade conditions. The borings near existing piers were drilled between November 24 and December 3, 2014. The two borings near existing piers, RS3 and RS4, were completed to depths of about 30 and 31 feet below ground surface to explore subgrade conditions.

Borings were drilled and sampled using continuous flight solid stem augers and continuous sample rock coring techniques.

The locations of individual borings were located in the field by measuring/taping offsets from existing features shown on the plans. Boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate A2.2, and are shown below in Table A-1. Surface elevations at boring locations were estimated based on the Topographic Survey provided by Park Engineering received on December 16, 2014. Following drilling activities, the borings were backfilled with cuttings generated during the drilling operations and borings RS1 and RS2 were capped with “Instant Road Repair” by International Roadway Research.

TABLE A-1

Field Exploration Locations

Foundation Designation Boring

Number Station Offset Ground

Elevation Termination

Elevation Abutment No. 2 RS1 136+47 8 RT +308 ft +236 ft Abutment No. 1 RS2 141+57 8 RT +325 ft +246 ft

Piers RS3 137+63 10 RT +248 ft +217 ft Piers RS4 139+48 2 LT +248 ft +218 ft

Plate A1.2

A3.0 Soil and Rock Sampling Disturbed samples were obtained from the borings in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 for the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). The SPT involves driving a 2-inch outside diameter, 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler a depth of 24 inches with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches.

The number of blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler through each of the 6-inch increments were recorded. The SPT resistance, or N-value, is defined as the number of blows required to drive the sampler over the second and third 6-inch increments. The N-value provides a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine-grained) soils. Because high penetration resistance prevented driving the total length of the sampler at times, the penetration resistance for the partial penetration was recorded where applicable. Representative portions of the split-spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in plastic bags and transported to the Hirata & Associates, Inc. for testing.

Samples were also obtained using a modified California (MC) barrel sampler in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The MC test procedure is similar to the SPT, except a large diameter barrel sampler (3-inch O.D., lined with 2.42-inch-diamter brass sleeves) is used and driven 18 inches. As a result of the larger diameter, the MC sampler yields slightly higher raw blow counts when compared to SPT N-values for similar soils. However, because the blow counts differ slightly, and because the difference in blow count does not significantly impact our results, the raw MC blow counts over the second and third 6-inch increments were used to define the relative density and consistency of the subsurface materials. MC samples were sealed with plastic end caps and transported to Hirata & Associates, Inc. for testing.

Rock samples were collected from borings using NX and HQ core barrels having inside diameters of 2.1 and

2.5 inches, respectively. During coring, cuttings were removed from the borehole by circulating water down the drill rods and back up the annulus of the boring. Core runs ranged between approximately 3 and 5 feet in length. Percent recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) values are shown on the boring logs.

Percent recovery is the ratio of the length of recovered core to the total length of the core run. RQD is the ratio of the sum of the length of intact core pieces greater than 4 inches long in a run to the total length of the core run. Following drilling, the cores were logged by Hirata & Associates, Inc. personnel, then stored in cardboard core boxes and transported to the Hirata & Associates, Inc. laboratory.

A4.0 Soil and Rock Classification System During the drilling of borings, Hirata & Associates, Inc. personnel collected soil/rock samples and prepared field logs of the borings. Soil identification and descriptions, as shown on the field logs, are based on ASTM D2488, a systematic process for identifying and describing individual soil samples by visual and manual means. When sufficient laboratory testing was completed, select samples from borings were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Both the visual soil identification system and the referenced soil classification systems are summarized in the attached Boring Log Legend and USCS plates. Rock samples were classified based on the stratigraphic structure, rock strength, degree of weathering, and other properties. The rock classification system is summarized in the attached Rock Weathering Classification System.

Appendix B Laboratory Test Results

Plate B1.1

Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results

B1.0 Introduction Laboratory tests were completed on select soil and rock samples recovered from the field exploration program in general accordance with ASTM testing methods. The laboratory testing program was completed to provide data for engineering studies and to classify the materials into similar geologic groups. The testing program included index tests and geotechnical engineering property tests. The following sections describe the laboratory testing procedures and test results are presented in the attached laboratory reports.

B2.0 Index Tests Classification and index laboratory testing included identification by visual and manual means, and tests to determine natural water content, unit weight, and Atterberg limits. When sufficient laboratory testing was completed, select samples from borings were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Both the visual soil identification system and the referenced soil classification system are summarized in the Boring Log Legend and USCS plates in Appendix A. The final classifications are shown at the appropriate locations on the Boring Logs, Plates A4.1 through A4.8. Index tests are generally conducted on disturbed soil samples. The following sections describe individual index test procedures.

B2.1 Moisture Content Water content was determined for samples retrieved from the exploration in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. To perform this test method, the sample was weighed before and after oven drying, and the water content was calculated. The moisture content of soils, when combined with data obtained from other tests, provides information about the characteristics of the soil, including general correlations with strength, settlement, and workability.

B2.3 Atterberg Limits Liquid and plastic limit tests were performed on selected fine-grained samples. The tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The Atterberg limits include liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and plasticity index (PI), which is the plastic limit subtracted from the liquid limit. The results of these tests are presented on the USCS plate in Appendix A, and in the following table. These limits are generally used to assist in classification of soils, to indicate soil consistency, and to provide correlation to engineering properties.

TABLE B-1

Atterberg Limit Test Results

Sample Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) RS1 at 32 feet 39 25 14

Plate B1.2

B3.0 Geotechnical Engineering Property Tests For Soil Geotechnical engineering property testing for soil included Moisture-Density, Modified Proctor, and Direct Shear tests. Geotechnical engineering property test results are presented in the attached laboratory reports. The following sections describe these test procedures for soil.

B3.1 In-place Density In-place density tests of select, undisturbed samples were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. This test is performed on relatively undisturbed samples recovered from drive cylinders. The results of this test are shown at the appropriate depths on the Boring Logs, Plates A4.1 through A4.8, and are used to determine the in-place density of soils.

B3.2 Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to determine the shear strength characteristics of selected materials along a predetermined horizontal plane. The results of these tests are presented on Plates B2.1 through B2.4 as graphs showing shear stress versus normal stress and are used in a variety of geotechnical engineering analyses, including slope stability, foundation design, and earth retention design.

B3.3 Triaxial Strength Unconsolidated, undrained triaxial strength tests were completed on a selected, undisturbed sample in general accordance with ASTM D 2850 to determine the strength characteristics of soils, including detailed information on the effects of lateral confinement, porewater pressure, drainage, and consolidation. The specimen is initially consolidated to the effective vertical overburden stress prior to shear (one-point test). The results of this test are presented in the following table and on Plate B3.1.

The results are used in a variety of geotechnical engineering analyses, including slope stability, foundation design, and earth retention design.

TABLE B-2

Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Strength Test Results

Sample Maximum Deviator

Stress (psf) Shear Strain at Max.

Deviator Stress (%)

Total Confining Stress (psf)

RS2 at 39 feet 21,000 3.9 3,500

B4.0 Geotechnical Engineering Property Tests For Basalt Geotechnical engineering property testing for basalt included Uniaxial Compression Tests. The geotechnical engineering property test results and test procedures for basalt are presented in the following section.

B4.1 Uniaxial Compression Test The uniaxial compression test of select basalt core samples was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 7012. In this test, cylindrical basalt specimens are tested in compression without lateral confinement. Basalt core samples were obtained from borings using NX and HQ core barrels having inside diameters of 2.1 and 2.5 inches, respectively. The tests were performed by Construction

Plate B1.3

Engineering Labs in Pearl City, Hawaii. The results of these tests are presented below and are used in a variety of geotechnical engineering analyses, including slope stability, foundation design, and earth retention design.

TABLE B-3

Uniaxial Compression Test Results

Basalt Core Sample Location Core Sample Type

Moist Unit Weight (pcf)

Compressive Strength (psi)

RS3 from 5.5 to 9 feet HQ Core 169.4 5,226 RS4 from 4.5 to 8 feet HQ Core 168.2 8,063

Maximum

Sample Description

Boring No.: RS1 Depth (ft): 5 Soil Description: Reddish brown silty gravel Strength Intercept (C): 400.7 PSF Friction Angle (): 52.9 DEG

Remark: 09/19/14

W.O. 14-5682

Plate B2.1

Hirata & Associates, Inc.

Roosevelt Bridge, Kamehameha Highway, Oahu

DIRECT SHEAR TEST

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

S he ar S tre ss

(P S

F)

Normal Stress (PSF)

Direct Shear Test Results

Boring No.: RS2 Depth (ft): 3.5 Soil Description: Reddish brown silty gravel Strength Intercept (C): 172.8 PSF Friction Angle (): 45.5 DEG

Remark: 09/15/14

W.O. 14-5682

Plate B3.2

Hirata & Associates, Inc.

Roosevelt Bridge, Kamehameha Highway, Oahu

DIRECT SHEAR TEST

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

S he ar S tre ss

(P S

F)

Boring No.: RS2 Depth (ft): 19 Soil Description: Reddish brown silty gravel Strength Intercept (C): 1392.5 PSF Friction Angle (): 54.0 DEG

Remark: 09/18/14

W.O. 14-5682

Plate B2.3

Hirata & Associates, Inc.

Roosevelt Bridge, Kamehameha Highway, Oahu

DIRECT SHEAR TEST

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

S he ar S tre ss

(P S

F)

Boring No.: RS3 Depth (ft): 3 Soil Description: Mottled brown clayey silt with sand and gravel Strength Intercept (C): 593.6 PSF Friction Angle (): 32.7 DEG

Remark: 12/11/14

W.O. 14-5682

Plate B2.4

Hirata & Associates, Inc.

Roosevelt Bridge, Kamehameha Highway, Oahu

DIRECT SHEAR TEST

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

S he ar S tre ss

(P S

F)

Boring No.: RS2 Depth (ft): 39 Soil Description: Mottled brown clayey silt Confining Stress: 3500 psf Maximum Deviator Stress: 21000 psf @ 3.9 %

Remark: 11/20/14

W.O. 14-5682

Plate B3.1

Hirata & Associates, Inc.

Roosevelt Bridge, Kamehameha Highway, Oahu

UU TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

D ev ia to r S tre ss (p si

Axial Strain (%)

Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression

Appendix C P-Y Curves

Plate C1.1

Plate C1.2

5682 Bent-1 longitudinal level.lp6o.TXT

LPile Plus for Windows, Version 6.0 (6.0.20)

Analysis of Individual Piles and Drilled Shafts Subjected to Lateral Loading Using the p-y Method

(c) 1985-2011 by Ensoft, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

Problem Title

Project Name: Roosevelt Bridge

Job Number: W.O. 5682

Client:

Engineer:

Description: Bent-1, longitudinal direction, level ground

Ground Slope and Pile Batter Angles

Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees = 0.000 radians

Pile Batter Angle = 0.000 degrees = 0.000 radians p-y Curves Reported for Specified Depths p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 0.000 in Depth below ground surface = 0.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 0.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

Page 1 Plate C1.3

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 *

0.05152 0.0000

0.10303 0.0000

0.15455 0.0000

0.20606 0.0000

0.25758 0.0000

0.30909 0.0000

0.36061 0.0000

0.41212 0.0000

0.46364 0.0000

0.51515 0.0000

0.56667 0.0000

0.92083 0.0000

1.27500 0.0000

18.27500 0.0000

35.27500 0.0000 p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 48.000 in Depth below ground surface = 48.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 48.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.05626 607.64508 *

0.10266 730.45427

0.14906 818.77217

0.19546 889.58212

0.24186 949.50911

0.28826 1001.90773

0.33467 1048.73776

0.38107 1091.25435

0.42747 1130.31498

0.47387 1166.53423

0.52027 1200.36921

0.56667 1232.17014

0.92083 1467.87769

1.27500 1703.58524

18.27500 1703.58524

35.27500 1703.58524 p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 96.000 in Depth below ground surface = 96.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 96.000 in

Page 2 Plate C1.4

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.03790 818.62659 *

0.08597 1112.40955

0.13404 1313.65871

0.18211 1473.38220

0.23018 1608.44005

0.27825 1726.80603

0.32632 1832.97032

0.37439 1929.74535

0.42246 2019.02494

0.47053 2102.15328

0.51860 2180.12351

0.56667 2253.69295

0.92083 2781.06055

1.27500 3308.42815

18.27500 3308.42815

35.27500 3308.42815 p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 144.000 in Depth below ground surface = 144.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 144.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.00955 309.39957 *

0.06020 883.06469

0.11084 1250.32693

0.16149 1549.25164

0.21214 1809.69841

0.26278 2044.42712

0.31343 2260.33440

0.36408 2461.66203

0.41473 2651.24520

0.46537 2831.09287

0.51602 3002.69173

0.56667 3167.17947

0.92083 4294.75241

1.27500 5422.32536

18.27500 5422.32536

35.27500 5422.32536 p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 192.000 in

Page 3 Plate C1.5

Depth below ground surface = 192.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 192.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.01047 452.45802 *

0.06104 1321.29446

0.11160 1906.95148

0.16216 2393.37533

0.21273 2822.76817

0.26329 3213.53842

0.31385 3575.76703

0.36441 3915.71472

0.41498 4237.59853

0.46554 4544.42582

0.51610 4838.43433

0.56667 5121.34478

0.92083 7067.45577

1.27500 9013.56677

18.27500 9013.56677

35.27500 9013.56677 p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 240.000 in Depth below ground surface = 240.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 240.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.01709 922.87496 *

0.06705 2118.79443

0.11701 2972.47577

0.16697 3689.80218

0.21694 4326.34669

0.26690 4907.37316

0.31686 5447.00954

0.36682 5954.14402

0.41678 6434.81650

0.46674 6893.36217

0.51671 7333.02266

0.56667 7756.30035

0.92083 10704.

1.27500 13651.

18.27500 13651.

35.27500 13651.

Page 4 Plate C1.6 p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 288.000 in Depth below ground surface = 288.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 288.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.02577 1669.78219 *

0.07494 3195.57556

0.12411 4342.72199

0.17329 5319.71586

0.22246 6192.23938

0.27163 6991.65259

0.32080 7735.95299

0.36998 8436.64942

0.41915 9101.65146

0.46832 9736.68355

0.51749 10346.

0.56667 10933.

0.92083 15088.

1.27500 19242.

18.27500 19242.

35.27500 19242.

p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 336.000 in Depth below ground surface = 336.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 336.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.03670 2774.44724 *

0.08488 4619.27266

0.13306 6071.28950

0.18124 7326.19661

0.22941 8455.20131

0.27759 9494.21779

0.32577 10464.

0.37395 11380.

0.42213 12250.

0.47031 13082.

0.51849 13881.

Page 5 Plate C1.7

0.56667 14652.

0.92083 20219.

1.27500 25787.

18.27500 25787.

35.27500 25787.

p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 384.000 in Depth below ground surface = 384.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 384.000 in Pile Diameter b = 34.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.05006 4325.33428 *

0.09703 6467.66576

0.14399 8222.16057

0.19095 9761.68389

0.23792 11158.

0.28488 12450.

0.33185 13660.

0.37881 14805.

0.42577 15895.

0.47274 16939.

0.51970 17943.

0.56667 18912.

0.92083 26099.

1.27500 33286.

18.27500 33286.

35.27500 33286.

p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 432.000 in Depth below ground surface = 432.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 432.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.06603 6417.65376 *

0.11154 8827.26011

0.15705 10869.

0.20256 12688.

0.24808 14352.

Page 6 Plate C1.8

0.29359 15899.

0.33910 17355.

0.38462 18737.

0.43013 20055.

0.47564 21320.

0.52115 22538.

0.56667 23715.

0.92083 32726.

1.27500 41738.

18.27500 41738.

35.27500 41738.

p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 480.000 in Depth below ground surface = 480.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 480.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.08475 9152.99233 *

0.12856 11792.

0.17237 14094.

0.21618 16174.

0.25999 18095.

0.30380 19892.

0.34761 21589.

0.39142 23205.

0.43523 24751.

0.47905 26238.

0.52286 27671.

0.56667 29059.

0.92083 40101.

1.27500 51143.

18.27500 51143.

35.27500 51143.

p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 528.000 in Depth below ground surface = 528.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 528.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

Page 7 Plate C1.9

0.10639 12639. *

0.14823 15463.

0.19008 17987.

0.23192 20299.

0.27376 22453.

0.31561 24482.

0.35745 26407.

0.39929 28245.

0.44114 30010.

0.48298 31709.

0.52482 33352.

0.56667 34945.

0.92083 48224.

1.27500 61503.

18.27500 61503.

35.27500 61503.

p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 576.000 in Depth below ground surface = 576.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 576.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.13109 16989. *

0.17069 19947.

0.21028 22644.

0.24988 25149.

0.28948 27501.

0.32908 29731.

0.36868 31857.

0.40827 33896.

0.44787 35859.

0.48747 37754.

0.52707 39590.

0.56667 41373.

0.92083 57094.

1.27500 72816.

18.27500 72816.

35.27500 72816.

p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 624.000 in Depth below ground surface = 624.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 624.000 in

Page 8 Plate C1.10 y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.15899 22322. *

0.19605 25355.

0.23311 28170.

0.27018 30814.

0.30724 33319.

0.34430 35708.

0.38136 37998.

0.41842 40202.

0.45548 42331.

0.49254 44393.

0.52961 46395.

0.56667 48342.

0.92083 66713.

1.27500 85083.

18.27500 85083.

35.27500 85083.

p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 672.000 in Depth below ground surface = 672.000 in Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 672.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.18491 27958. *

0.21961 31040.

0.25432 33936.

0.28902 36681.

0.32373 39299.

0.35843 41810.

0.39314 44226.

0.42784 46561.

0.46255 48822.

0.49726 51017.

0.53196 53153.

0.56667 55236.

0.92083 76225.

1.27500 97215.

18.27500 97215.

35.27500 97215.

p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil Layer Number = 1 Depth below pile head = 720.000 in Depth below ground surface = 720.000 in

Page 9 Plate C1.11

Ground Slope Angle = 0.000 degrees Pile Batter = 0.000 degrees Effective Slope = 0.000 degrees Equivalent Depth (see note) = 720.000 in

This p-y curve is computed using the equivalent depth.

y, in p, lbs/in

0.0000 0.0000

0.18491 29955. *

0.21961 33257.

0.25432 36360.

0.28902 39301.

0.32373 42106.

0.35843 44796.

0.39314 47385.

0.42784 49886.

0.46255 52309.

0.49726 54661.

0.53196 56950.

0.56667 59181.

0.92083 81670.

1.27500 104159.

18.27500 104159.

35.27500 104159.

Page 10 Plate C1.12

5682 Bent-1 longitudinal sloping.lp6o.TXT

LPile Plus for Windows, Version 6.0 (6.0.20)

Analysis of Individual Piles and Drilled Shafts Subjected to Lateral Loading Using the p-y Method

(c) 1985-2011 by Ensoft, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

Problem Title

Project Name: Roosevelt Bridge

Job Number: W.O. 5682

Client:

Engineer:

Description: Bent-1, longitudinal direction, sloping ground

Ground Slope and Pile Batter Angles

Ground Slope Angle = 22.000 degrees = 0.384 radians

Pile Batter Angle = 0.000 degrees = 0.000 radians p-y Curves Reported for Specified Depths p-y Curve in Sand Computed Using Reese Criteria for Static Loading Conditions

Soil…