GM_25_14_HCRH_Trail_Shellrock_Bin_Wall_Evaluation.pdf

D R A F T T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M

Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail Project – Existing Shellrock Mountain Bin Wall Evaluation PREPARED BY: Benjamin Hoffman/CVO

Melissa Moncada/PDX

REVIEWED BY: Paul Davis/CVO Gary Conner/CVO

VERSION/DATE: Version 0 (November 7, 2014)

PROJECT: Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail – Segments A through C DAP

PROJECT NUMBER: 465275.07.09.WA

Summary Existing bin walls located along the proposed alignment for the Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail have been evaluated for geotechnical and structural stability and have been found to be adequate to support the proposed trail, provided the bin wall structural members do not experience significant steel section loss due to corrosion. Corrosion protection (such as painting the exposed surface of the bin wall) is recommended to extend the remaining service life of these structures.

Introduction This technical memorandum presents results from the geotechnical and structural evaluations performed for the existing bin walls located along the proposed alignment for the Historic Columbia River Highway (HCRH) State Trail. The proposed HCRH State Trail will be constructed above and behind the existing bin walls and the analyses presented in this technical memorandum were performed in order to quantify the impact to the stability of the walls due to the construction of the trail. The bin walls were constructed in 1964 as part of the construction for Interstate 84 and retain slopes above and to the south of the interstate. Bin walls consist of a system of adjoining closed‐faced bins that are each 10 feet wide and are constructed of sturdy, lightweight steel members that have been bolted together on location and backfilled after installation. Structural stringers and stiffeners are designed for various heights with corresponding varying structural properties. The bin wall stability is provided from the weight of the fill material, the strength of the bolted steel components, plus the weight of the steel structure itself which transforms the soil mass into a gravity‐type retaining wall with the steel members holding the earth mass intact. Representative as‐built construction drawings for the bin walls are presented in Attachment 1 and show that a total of three bin walls are located along the proposed HCRH State Trail. The locations of the three bin walls using the old stationing from the as‐built drawings as well as the stationing from the HCRH State Trail Project are provided in Table 1. Stationing presented in the remainder of this technical memorandum will be based on the proposed HCRH State Trail Project.

TABLE 1

Locations of Existing Bin Walls

Bin Wall Number1 1964 Begin/End STA2 HCRH State Trail Begin/End STA3

1 554+90 to 568+50 64+00 to 77+00 2 570+50 to 576+20 80+00 to 85+50 3 578+00 to 582+40 87+00 to 91+00

Notes:

1. Wall number assigned for this evaluation only.

2. Based on as‐built construction drawings (see Attachment 1).

TABLE 1

Locations of Existing Bin Walls

Bin Wall Number1 1964 Begin/End STA2 HCRH State Trail Begin/End STA3

3. Approximate based on STA for proposed HCRH State Trail. Existing bin walls may extend beyond HCRH State Trail STA shown.

The following sections present analyses and discussion related to the geotechnical and structural evaluations performed for the existing bin walls.

Limitations This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of Western Federal Lands and CH2M HILL for specific application to the Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail Project in Oregon. It has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical and structural engineering practice. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

The data and analyses contained in this technical memorandum are based on information obtained from a paper study and on a review of available construction as‐built drawings. The scope of work for the Project only includes sliding, overturning, bearing, and internal structural analyses of the existing bin walls. Global stability analyses were not performed as part of this study. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the facilities are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this technical memorandum should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this technical memorandum are modified or verified in writing by CH2M HILL. CH2M HILL is not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with interpretation of subsurface data or reuse of subsurface data without CH2M HILL’s express written authorization.

Selection of Bin Wall Locations The dimensions of the three bin walls presented in Table 1 and Attachment 1 as well as existing and proposed ground surface elevations behind the bin walls were reviewed in order to select up to five locations presumed to control the stability of the bin walls prior to and after completion of the HCRH State Trail Project. The review of available data resulted in the selection of a total of four bin wall locations to be evaluated. Table 2 presents a summary of the four bin wall locations selected for this evaluation.

TABLE 2

Selected Bin Wall Locations Summary

Bin Wall Number HCRH State Trail STA Reason(s) Selected for Evaluation

1 66+20 Placement of approximately 4 feet of embankment fill* above existing bin wall for construction of proposed HCRH State Trail.

1 69+60 Placement of approximately 3 to 5 feet of embankment fill above existing bin wall for construction of proposed HCRH State Trail.

Existing bin wall constructed with relatively low base width to height ratio.

2 84+60 Placement of approximately 3 feet of embankment fill above existing bin wall for construction of proposed HCRH State Trail.

Tallest section of existing bin wall present along entire length of proposed HCRH State Trail.

3 88+30 Placement of approximately 3 to 5 feet of embankment fill above existing bin wall for construction of proposed HCRH State Trail.

Existing bin wall constructed with relatively low base width to height ratio.

Cross sections showing existing and proposed ground surface elevations at each of the four locations presented in Table 2 can be found in Attachment 2.

Subsurface Conditions Subsurface conditions at the bin wall locations presented in Table 2 were evaluated through the use of a paper study based on information made available from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) as well as the review of geologic maps for the area. A limited number of soil borings have been advanced for the HCRH State Trail Project near the four selected bin wall locations, however subsurface data from these soil borings was not available for this study. The subsurface conditions can be split into two main categories; (1) fill and backfill material used to fill the interior of the bin walls and backfill behind the walls and (2) native geology present behind the bin walls and backfill.

Bin Wall Fill and Backfill Section 470‐3.1 of the Oregon 1964 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (Oregon State Highway Commission, 1964) states the following for construction of metal bin type retaining walls:

(b) The materials used for backfilling the bins of the wall and around the outer sides thereof shall be predominantly of a granular nature (sand, gravel or rock fragments containing not over 25 percent of soil), and it shall be free of sod, cinders, frozen material and gravel or rock fragments having any dimension greater than 4 inches.

(c) Backfilling and filling within the bins of the assembled wall shall progress concurrently with the assembly of the bins, and backfilling around the outer sides thereof shall be kept approximately level with the inside fills. The materials shall be placed in layers not exceeding 6 inches in thickness and shall be compacted with mechanical tampers to a dense and firm condition. Care shall be exercised to completely fill the depressions of stringers and spacers without tamping to the point of displacing them from established line and batter.

Based on the text taken from the 1964 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, the fill and backfill in and around the bin walls as well as the bin wall foundation material was modeled in the evaluation using a total unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and an internal angle of friction equal to 34 degrees.

Native Geology The geology map presented as Attachment A in Geotechnical Report: Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail, Hood River, Oregon (Cornforth Consultants, 2013) was reviewed in order to determine the geologic units present at each of the four bin wall locations presented in Table 2. Table 3 presents the native geology assumed to be present at each of the four bin wall locations based on review of the geology map.

TABLE 3

Native Geology

HCRH State Trail STA Native Geology

66+20 Piqd – Pliocene Quartz Diorite 69+60 Piqd – Pliocene Quartz Diorite 84+60 Tgn1 – Grande Ronde Basalt, Lower Flows 88+30 Tgn1 – Grande Ronde Basalt, Lower Flows

Based on the native geology as well as the relatively steep ground surface contours present behind and above the existing bin walls it was assumed for the evaluation that the geologic units presented in Table 3 are located at or near the ground surface behind the bin wall backfill.

Seismic Design Parameters For seismic stability of the existing bin walls the evaluation used the requirements from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition (2014) for an earthquake with a 7 percent probability of exceedance in 75 years (nominal 1,000 year return period earthquake). Based on the subsurface conditions discussed previously it is estimated that the four bin wall locations can be characterized as Site Class D. For Site Class D conditions, the peak ground acceleration at the ground surface (PGAsurface) can be estimated using the following equation:

PGAsurface = Fpga∙PGA (horizontal seismic coefficient) where:

Fpga = site coefficient = 1.475 PGA = mapped peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the soft rock/stiff soil interface = 0.16g

This results in a PGAsurface value for use in the evaluation equal to 0.24g.

Geotechnical Analyses The following subsections present a summary of the geotechnical analyses performed as part of the evaluation of the existing bin walls.

Lateral Earth Pressure Resultant The active lateral earth pressure resultant was estimated for the static and seismic stability (sliding and overturning) of the existing bin walls at the selected four locations presented in Table 2. Four design scenarios were considered for each bin wall location; (1) static loading using existing conditions, (2) seismic loading using existing conditions, (3) static loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail, and (4) seismic loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail. A lateral earth pressure resultant was taken for each of the four design scenarios at each of the four bin wall locations.

Methods described in Section 7.4 in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 611 (Transportation Research Board, 2008) were used to determine active lateral earth pressure resultant. The method recommended by NCHRP involves using a slope stability analysis method to determine the resultant force at the back face of wall that is required in order to keep the model stable (factor of safety against slope failure equal to 1). The resultant force at the back face of wall should be placed at approximately the one‐third point above the base of wall and approximately the one‐half point above the base of wall for static and seismic loading cases, respectively. In addition, for all loading cases the resultant force should be inclined at an angle equal to the assumed friction angle between the wall and the retained soil. The computer program SLIDE, Version 6 (Rocscience, 2014) was used to perform the slope stability analysis in order to determine the required resultant force. The Spencer method was used in the SLIDE slope stability analysis as well as the following design assumptions:

Because the resultant force should be placed at the back face of the bin wall, the estimated dimensions of the bin wall based on the as‐built drawings were removed from the sections presented in Attachment 2

Soil strength properties and layering based on conditions described in Subsurface Conditions

The groundwater table is located below the base of wall and therefore does not impact the analyses.

The resultant force inclined at an angle equal to one‐half the internal angle of friction for the wall backfill which results in the force inclined at 17 degrees

A horizontal seismic coefficient equal to PGAsurface

The proposed embankment fill for the construction of the HCRH State Trail was modeled using a distributed load and an assumed total unit weight for the fill equal to 130 pcf

A live load surcharge along the width of the trail equal to 90 pounds per square foot (psf) for the static loading condition with the proposed HCRH State Trail

Tables 4 and 5 present a summary of results of the active lateral earth pressure resultant analyses performed using SLIDE (Rocscience, 2014) as well as other bin wall design parameters. The results of the SLIDE (Rocscience, 2014) analyses can be found in Attachment 3.

TABLE 4

Summary of Static Active Lateral Earth Pressure Resultant (PA) and Other Wall Design Parameters

HCRH State Trail STA

Bin Wall Design1

Total Bin Wall Height1

(feet)

Bin Wall Base Width1

(feet)

PA (pounds per foot of wall)2 Distance Above Base of Wall Where PA Acts3

(feet) Existing Conditions With HCRH Trail

66+20 B 13.33 9.9 780 1,710 5.0 69+60 A 10.67 5.5 520 1,300 4.4 84+60 E 30.67 14.3 3,700 5,400 10.4 88+30 A 14.67 5.5 710 870 6.2

Notes:

1. See construction as‐built drawings in Attachment 1.

2. Static active earth pressure resultant is inclined at an angle of 17 degrees.

3. Approximate and based on as‐built drawings (Attachment 1) as well as existing ground surface elevations (Attachment 2).

TABLE 5

Summary of Dynamic Active Lateral Earth Pressure Resultant (PAE) and Other Wall Design Parameters

HCRH State Trail STA

Bin Wall Design1

Total Bin Wall Height1

(feet)

Bin Wall Base Width1

(feet)

PAE (pounds per foot of wall)2 Distance Above Base of Wall Where PAE Acts3

(feet) Existing Conditions With HCRH Trail

66+20 B 13.33 9.9 1,450 2,140 6.3 69+60 A 10.67 5.5 890 1,510 5.5 84+60 E 30.67 14.3 7,500 8,600 13.2 88+30 A 14.67 5.5 1,350 1,560 7.4

Notes:

1. See construction as‐built drawings in Attachment 1.

2. Dynamic active earth pressure resultant is inclined at an angle of 17 degrees.

3. Approximate and based on as‐built drawings (Attachment 1) as well as existing ground surface elevations (Attachment 2).

Sliding The results of the active lateral earth pressure resultant analyses summarized in Tables 4 and 5 were used to estimate the sliding stability of the bin walls at the four selected locations. The sliding stability that was estimated for each bin wall location used four design scenarios; (1) static loading using existing conditions, (2) seismic loading using existing conditions, (3) static loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail, and (4) seismic loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail.

For sliding resistance along the base of the bin wall Table 10.5.5.2.2‐1 of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014), a resistance factor equal to 0.90 should be used for strength limit design for sliding resistance for soil on soil. A resistance factor of 1.0 should be used for extreme limit design. Following are the recommended values for sliding for the sliding stability analyses:

Coefficient of Sliding Friction For Soil on Soil (tan ’) = tan (34) = 0.67

Coefficient of Sliding for Strength Limit State Design = 0.60

Coefficient of Sliding for Extreme Limit State Design = 0.67

The existing sliding force at the base of the wall as well as the sliding force at the base of wall resulting from construction of the proposed HCRH Trail was checked against the resisting force from sliding for each bin wall location. The resisting force against sliding at the base of the wall was calculated per Sections 11.11.4.2 and

10.6.3.4 of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) and using the friction values listed above.

Passive resistance of the soil was conservatively not included in the resisting force against sliding. The sliding force was calculated using survey of the existing geometry of the wall as well as geometry of the proposed HCRH trail in conjunction with earth properties and loads derived from the geotechnical analysis. In each design load scenario and for each bin wall location evaluated it was found that the sliding force is less than the sliding resistance for both the extreme and strength limit states. With the exception of the dynamic load cases at station 84+60 where the capacity to demand ratios for the dynamic load cases were around 1.5, the sliding forces were significantly less than the resisting forces. Therefore, the sliding resistance at each bin wall location is considered adequate for existing and proposed conditions. Table 6 presents a summary of capacity‐to‐demand ratios (CDR) for the sliding stability checks at each bin wall location and the four design scenarios. The CDRs compare sliding resistance to factored sliding forces. The degree of inclination of the wall into the backfill at most locations resulted in a net sliding force into the fill rather than outwards. This negative sliding force results in negative CDR numbers which are acceptable. For further details, see the structural calculations in Attachment 4.

TABLE 6

Summary of Sliding Stability Capacity‐to‐Demand Ratios

HCRH State Trail STA

Existing Conditions With the HCRH Trail

Static Dynamic Static Dynamic

66+20 -1.30 -19.49 -1.64 -422.11 69+60 -1.24 -21.73 -1.72 50.99 84+60 -24.18 1.67 18.67 1.56 88+30 -1.62 9.54 -1.77 6.31

Overturning The results of the active lateral earth pressure resultant analyses summarized in Tables 4 and 5 were used to estimate the overturning stability of the bin walls at the four selected locations. The overturning stability was estimated for each bin wall location was estimated for four design scenarios; (1) static loading using existing conditions, (2) seismic loading using existing conditions, (3) static loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail, and (4) seismic loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail.

The eccentricity of the resultant load normal to the base of the wall was checked per Section 11.11.4.4 and

11.6.3.3 of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014). Per the AASHTO code, a maximum of 80% of the soil‐fill inside of the modules may be considered effective in resisting overturning moments. This accounts for soil arching that may occur within the wall when there is no structural bottom. Additionally, per AASHTO the wall is considered stable against overturning forces when the eccentricity of the resultant load is within the middle 2/3 of the base width. In most of the checks, the resisting moment was significantly larger than the overturning moment, resulting in eccentricities being outside of the middle 2/3 of the base width. However, these eccentricities are on the fill side of the base width and as such, the wall is considered stable. Of all the bin wall locations analyzed, the eccentricities calculated at station 84+60 for the seismic loading conditions were the closest to the toe of the wall, but were still less than 1/3 of the base width from the centerline of the wall.

Therefore, the overturning resistance at each bin wall location is considered adequate for existing and proposed conditions. For further details, see the structural calculations in Attachment 4.

Bearing Resistance Each of the four bin wall locations presented in Table 2 were evaluated for bearing resistance using the base width and embedment of the bin wall at each location. The ultimate bearing resistance for drained conditions was calculated using the ultimate bearing capacity equation for shallow foundations developed by Vesic (1975). The resulting ultimate bearing resistance should be used for extreme limit state design. In addition, a resistance factor equal to 0.45 was applied to the ultimate bearing resistance based on Table 10.5.5.2.2‐1 of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) in order to determine the allowable bearing resistance for the strength limit state. Tables 7 and 8 present the allowable and ultimate bearing resistance to be used for strength and extreme limit state design, respectively, for each of the four bin wall locations.

TABLE 7

Strength Limit State Bearing Resistance

HCRH State Trail STA

Strength Limit State (ksf)

Existing Bearing Pressure (ksf)

Future Bearing Pressure with Trail (ksf)

66+20 18.9 1.3 1.9 69+60 10.4 1.5 1.6 84+60 35.8 3.4 3.6 88+30 10.4 1.5 1.6

TABLE 8

Extreme Limit State Bearing Resistance

HCRH State Trail STA

Extreme Limit State (ksf)

Existing Bearing Pressure (ksf)

Future Bearing Pressure with Trail (ksf)

66+20 42.0 1.4 2.0 69+60 23.0 2.1 2.4 84+60 79.5 4.1 4.3 88+30 23.0 2.1 2.4

The existing bearing pressure at the base of the wall as well as the bearing pressure at the base of wall resulting from construction of the proposed HCRH Trail was checked against the values listed in Tables 7 and 8 for each bin wall location and is also presented in both Tables. Section 11.6.3.2 of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) was used to estimate the bearing pressure at the base of wall. As shown in Tables 7 and 8, in each design load scenario and for each bin wall location evaluated it was found that the bearing pressure is significantly less than the bearing resistance for both the extreme and strength limit states. Therefore, the bearing resistance at each bin wall location is considered adequate for existing and proposed conditions.

Structural Analyses In addition to checking the bin wall locations for external stability, the metal bin components of the wall were also checked for four design scenarios; (1) static loading using existing conditions, (2) seismic loading using existing conditions, (3) static loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail, and (4) seismic loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail. The structural adequacy of the metal bin components was checked using allowable stress design criteria since that methodology is most directly comparable to the original design calculations and is expected to yield conservative results in this application. Metal bin wall calculations by Armco Steel Corporation, that appear to be the basis of the 1958 standard drawings used to construct these walls, were obtained from

Contech, a current supplier of proprietary metal bin walls. These calculations were used as a reference for this analysis and are included in Attachment 4.

As was done in the original Armco calculations for the bin wall, Janssen’s formula was used in this analysis to calculate internal pressures on the metal bin components. The bin wall elements checked included the metal stringers, spacers and connections. The bin walls for this analysis were assumed to have been constructed per the standard drawings and and that minimal section loss due to corrosion has occurred. Results from this analysis showed that in all of the cases, calculated stresses were within the allowable stress limits, the highest stresses being only about a 5% increase over the existing condition stresses and about 5% below the allowable stress limits. For additional details, see the calculations in Appendix 4.

A technical memo, dated August 15, 2013 details the corrosion conditions of the bin wall and surrounding soils, with an anticipated time to penetration of over 75 years. However, due to the high level of stringer flexural stress, only minimal corrosion section loss is acceptable; therefore, it is recommended that corrosion protection measures be taken to extend the remaining service life of these structures. Enhancing the corrosion protection of the existing structure is a prudent measure at this time regardless if the trail is constructed on top or not. Possible corrosion protection measures could include coating all or portions of the existing steel members and/or a cathodic protection system.

Conclusions The results of the sliding, overturning, and bearing analyses show that the bin walls are stable as they currently exist. In addition, the analyses show that the stability of the bin walls are impacted by the construction of the trail, but that the stability is still within acceptable levels for sliding, overturning, and bearing per current AASHTO LRFD design criteria. Structural analysis of the metal bin components were found to be adequate, provided there is no more than minimal section loss due to corrosion, for all of the bin wall locations checked and for each of the four design scenarios; (1) static loading using existing conditions, (2) seismic loading using existing conditions, (3) static loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail, and (4) seismic loading conditions with the HCRH State Trail.

Corrosion protection measures should be evaluated to extend the remaining service life of these structures.

References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2014. LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications, 7th Edition.

Cornforth Consultants. 2013. Geotechnical Report: Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail, Hood River, Oregon. Prepared for CH2M HILL. August 2013.

Chowdhury, Indrajit and Raj Tilak, Dynamic Pressure on Circular Silos Under Seismic Force. Paper No. A009; 14th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, December 17‐19, 2010

Oregon State Highway Commission. 1964. 1964 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.

Rocscience, Inc. 2014. Computer Program SLIDE, Version 6. Minneapolis, MN.

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2008. Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 611.

Washington D.C.

Vesic, A.S. 1975. “Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations.” Foundation Engineering Handbook. 1st edition, pp.

121‐147. Winterkorn, H.F. and H. Fang editors. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Attachment 1 Bin Wall As-Built Drawings

Attachment 2 Cross Sections of Bin Wall Locations

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50

66+20.00

LINE SURFACE

A-C Finish

A-D_Lidar_Ground

Scaled 1 Times

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50

66+30.00

LINE SURFACE

A-C Finish

A-D_Lidar_Ground

Scaled 1 Times

STA. a 66+20 TO STA. a 66+30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50

69+60.00

LINE SURFACE

A-C Finish

A-D_Lidar_Ground

Scaled 1 Times

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50

69+70.00

LINE SURFACE

A-C Finish

A-D_Lidar_Ground

STA. a 69+60 TO STA. a 69+70

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50

84+60.00

LINE SURFACE

A-C Finish

A-D_Lidar_Ground

STA. a 84+60 TO STA. a 84+60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50

88+30.00

LINE SURFACE

A-C Finish

A-D_Lidar_Ground

STA. a 88+30 TO STA. a 88+30

Attachment 3 SLIDE (Rocscience, 2014) – Lateral Earth

Pressure Resultant

STA 66+20

1.0121.012

780.00lbs/ft

1.0121.012

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Piqd 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail STA 66+20 - Existing Conditions - Static Company CH2M HILLScale 1:152Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 66+20_Static_Existing.slimDate 10/22/2014, 1:20:52 PM

Project

SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

SLIDEINTERPRET 6.031

1.0021.002

1710.00lbs/ft

610.00 lbs/ft2

1.0021.002

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Piqd 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail STA 66+20 - HCRH Trail - Static Company CH2M HILLScale 1:152Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 66+20_Static_Trail.slimDate 10/22/2014, 1:20:52 PM

Project

1.0061.006

1450.00lbs/ft

1.0061.006

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Piqd 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

0.24

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail STA 66+20 - Existing Conditions - Seismic Company CH2M HILLScale 1:152Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 66+20_Seismic_Existing.slimDate 10/22/2014, 1:20:52 PM

Project

1.0131.013

2140.00lbs/ft

520.00 lbs/ft2

1.0131.013

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Piqd 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

0.24

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail STA 66+20 - HCRH Trail - Seismic Company CH2M HILLScale 1:152Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 66+20_Seismic_Trail.slimDate 10/22/2014, 1:20:52 PM

Project

STA 69+60

520.00lbs/ft

1.0061.006

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Piqd 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 69+60 Existing Conditions - Static Company CH2M HILLScale 1:155Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 69+60_Static_Existing.slimDate 10/27/2014, 12:06:44 PM

Project

1.0031.003

1300.00lbs/ft

610.00 lbs/ft2

740.00 lbs/ft2

870.00 lbs/ft2

1.0031.003

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Piqd 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 69+60 HCRH Trail - Static Company CH2M HILLScale 1:163Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 69+60_Static_Trail.slimDate 10/27/2014, 12:06:44 PM

Project

1.0051.005

890.00lbs/ft

1.0051.005

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Piqd 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

0.24

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 69+60 Existing Conditions - Seismic Company CH2M HILLScale 1:155Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 69+60_Seismic_Existing.slimDate 10/27/2014, 12:06:44 PM

Project

1.0111.011

1510.00lbs/ft

520.00 lbs/ft2

650.00 lbs/ft2

780.00 lbs/ft2

1.0111.011

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Piqd 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

0.24

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 69+60 HCRH Trail - Seismic Company CH2M HILLScale 1:157Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 69+60_Seismic_Trail.slimDate 10/27/2014, 12:06:44 PM

Project

STA 84+60

1.0071.007

3700.00lbs/ft

1.0071.007

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Tgn1 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 84+60 Existing Conditions - Static Company CH2M HILLScale 1:193Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 84+60_Static_Existing.slimDate 10/27/2014, 3:48:49 PM

Project

5400.00lbs/ft

480.00 lbs/ft2

350.00 lbs/ft2

1.0061.006

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Tgn1 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 84+60 HCRH Trail - Static Company CH2M HILLScale 1:211Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 84+60_Static_Trail.slimDate 10/27/2014, 3:48:49 PM

Project

1.0001.000

7500.00lbs/ft

1.0001.000

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Tgn1 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

0.24

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 84+60 Existing Conditions - Seismic Company CH2M HILLScale 1:193Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 84+60_Seismic_Existing.slimDate 10/27/2014, 3:48:49 PM

Project

1.0111.011

8600.00lbs/ft

390.00 lbs/ft2

260.00 lbs/ft2

1.0111.011

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Tgn1 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

0.24

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 84+60 Existing Conditions - Seismic Company CH2M HILLScale 1:211Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 84+60_Seismic_Trail.slimDate 10/27/2014, 3:48:49 PM

Project

STA 88+30

710.00lbs/ft

1.0071.007

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Tgn1 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 88+30 Existing Conditions - Static Company CH2M HILLScale 1:157Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 88+30_Static_Existing.slimDate 10/27/2014, 4:55:48 PM

Project

870.00lbs/ft

545.00 lbs/ft2

1.0071.007

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Tgn1 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 88+30 HCRH Trail - Static Company CH2M HILLScale 1:174Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 88+30_Static_Trail.slimDate 10/27/2014, 4:55:48 PM

Project

1.0051.005

1350.00lbs/ft

1.0051.005

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Tgn1 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

0.2414

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 88+30 Existing Conditions - Seismic Company CH2M HILLScale 1:174Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 88+30_Seismic_Existing.slimDate 10/27/2014, 4:55:48 PM

Project

1.0041.004

1560.00lbs/ft

455.00 lbs/ft2

1.0041.004

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ 3)

Strength Type Cohesion (psf)

Phi (deg)

UCS (psf) m s a Water Surface

Ru

Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 34 None 0

Tgn1 140 Generalised Hoek‐Brown 3.5e+006 1.60259 0.000712752 0.505734 None 0

0.2414

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis Description HCRH Trail - STA 88+30 HCRH Trail - Seismic Company CH2M HILLScale 1:174Drawn By B. Hoffman File Name 88+30_Seismic_Trail.slimDate 10/27/2014, 4:55:48 PM

Project

Attachment 4 Structural Calculations

Historic Columbia River Highway

Existing Bin Wall Check Summary

By Melissa R. Moncada 11/6/2014

Station

"Design" (Per existing drawings)

66+20 B

69+60 A

84+60 E

88+30 A

Case: Static Existing

Station Overturning Sliding Metal Bin Parts

66+20 OK OK OK

69+60 OK OK OK

84+60 OK OK OK

88+30 OK OK OK

Case: Static with HCRH Trail

Station Overturning Sliding Metal Bin Parts

66+20 OK OK OK

69+60 OK OK OK

84+60 OK OK OK

88+30 OK OK OK

Case: Dynamic Existing

Station Overturning Sliding Metal Bin Parts

66+20 OK OK OK

69+60 OK OK OK

84+60 OK OK OK

88+30 OK OK OK

Case: Dynamic with HCRH Trail

Station Overturning Sliding Metal Bin Parts

66+20 OK OK OK

69+60 OK OK OK

84+60 OK OK OK

88+30 OK OK OK

Project: HCRH Designer: Melissa Moncada Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 1 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD

STA 66+20

HEIGHT = 13.3 FT

DESIGN "B"

Stability Check And Wall Design For Prefabricated Modular Metal Bin Wall Wall design for external stability will be in compliance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units 7th Edition, 2014. Hereafter referred to as "AASHTO LRFD". Check of metal bin parts uses an allowable stress design approach. Note: see geotechnical engineering analysis for bearing pressure check.

Wall section specific input data

Hfront 13.3 ft

B 9.9ft

Ha 10.67ft

Hb 3.5ft hfill Hb 3.5 ft width and height of wedge of new roadway embankment above brdwy 11ft hrdwy mean 3.3ft 4.1ft( ) 3.7 ft

Wall tilt theta 30deg theta 30 deg

Measured from drawing based on survey.

theta 0.5236 rad

11/6/2014 Bin Wall Check_66+20.xmcd Checker : _____________

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 2 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD

Soil Design Properties

Per geotech report

Unit weight of wall backfill γsoil 125 pcf

Unit weight of new HCRH roadway embankment above wall γrdwy 130 pcf

Angle of internal friction φ 34deg

Angle of wall friction δsoil 17deg

Peak ground acceleration PGAsurface 0.24 kh PGAsurface

Resistance Factors For Design

Resistance Factor Sliding RFslide 0.90 As specified by the geotech.

engineer

Ultimate coefficient of friction at base of the wall δfric 0.67

Factored coefficient of friction at base of the wall δr RFslide δfric δr 0.60

Resistance Factor Sliding For Seismic RFslide_EQ 1.0

Factored coefficient of friction at base of the wall for Seismic Case δr_EQ RFslide_EQ δfric δr_EQ 0.67

Material Properties of Bin Wall

Note: Weight of bin wall is negligible - conservative to not include for external stability calculations.

Es 29000ksi Modulus of elasticity of steel fy 33ksi Yield strength of steel for bin wall components per 1965 calculations fu 45ksi Ultimate stress of steel

AASHTO LRFD Design Input Data (Table 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2)

Load Factor for permanent loads "DC" γdc_max 1.25 γdc_min 0.90

Load Factor for wearing surfaces "DW" γdw_max 1.50 γdw_min 0.65

Load Factor for horizontal active earth pressure "EH" γeh_max 1.50 γeh_min 0.90

Load Factor for vertical earth pressure "EV" γev_max 1.35 γev_min 1.0

Load Factor for earth surcharge "ES" γes_max 1.50 γes_min 0.75

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 3 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD

Load Factor for LL "Strength I" γLL 1.75

Load Factor for seismic forces "Extreme I" γeq 1.0

Loads

Dead Load of Soil

Soil area 1 Asoil1 Ha B 105.6 ft

Soil area 1 weight per foot w1 Asoil1 γsoil 1 ft 13.2 kip

Soil area 1 weight per foot, normal to base w1v w1 cos theta( ) 11.4 kip

Soil area 1 weight per foot, parallel to base (into backfill) w1h w1 sin theta( ) 6.6 kip

Soil area 2 (Triangular area on top) Asoil2 0.5 B hfill 17.3 ft

Soil area 2 weight per foot w2 Asoil2 γsoil 1 ft 2.2 kip

Soil area 2 weight per foot, normal to base w2v w2 cos theta( ) 1.9 kip

Soil area 2 weight per foot, parallel to base (into backfill) w2h w2 sin theta( ) 1.1 kip

Total soil load, normal to bottom of bin wall Psoil_v w1v w2v 13.3 kip

Total soil force, parallel to bottom of bin wall (into backfill)Fsoil_h w1h w2h 7.7 kip

Total soil force, parallel to bottom of bin wall (in any lateral direction)

Fsoil_EQ w1 w2 kh 3.7 kip

Dead Load of Roadway Embankment Wedge Above Wall

Area Ardwy brdwy hrdwy 40.7 ft

Roadway weight per foot wrdwy Ardwy γrdwy 1 ft 5.3 kip

Roadway weight per foot, normal to base wrdwy_v wrdwy cos theta( ) 4.6 kip

Roadway weight per foot, parallel to base (into backfill) wrdwy_h wrdwy sin theta( ) 2.6 kip

Total roadway load, normal to bottom of bin wall Prdwy_v wrdwy_v 4.6 kip

Total roadway force, parallel to bottom of bin wall (into backfill)

Frdwy_h wrdwy_h 2.6 kip

Total roadway force, parallel to bottom of bin wall (in any lateral direction)

Frdwy_EQ wrdwy kh 1.3 kip

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 4 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD

Lateral Earth Pressures

Resultant force for each condition per geotech analysis.

A) Static Active - Existing

Resultant force (at angle δ) per ft of wall Pa 0.78kip

Resultant force, normal to base, at back of wall Pav Pa sin δsoil 0.2 kip

Resultant force, parallel to base, towards front of wall

Pah Pa cos δsoil 0.7 kip

B) Static Active - with HCRH Trail

Resultant force (at angle δ) per ft of wall Pa_new 1.71kip Note - this includes live load on trail of 90 psf

Resultant force, normal to base, at back of wall Pav_new Pa_new sin δsoil 0.5 kip

Resultant force, parallel to base, towards front of wall

Pah_new Pa_new cos δsoil 1.6 kip

C) Dynamic - Existing

Resultant force (at angle δ) per ft of wall Pa_EQ 1.45kip

Resultant force, normal to base, at back of wall Pav_EQ Pa_EQ sin δsoil 0.4 kip

Resultant force, parallel to base, towards front of wall

Pah_EQ Pa_EQ cos δsoil 1.4 kip

D) Dynamic - with HCRH Trail

Resultant force (at angle δ) per ft of wall Pa_new_EQ 2.14kip

Resultant force, normal to base, at back of wall Pav_new_EQ Pa_new_EQ sin δsoil 0.6 kip

Resultant force, parallel to base, towards front of wall

Pah_new_EQ Pa_new_EQ cos δsoil 2 kip

Factored Resultant Loads (Normal to Bottom of Bin Wall)

Note: Per AASHTO LRFD 11.11.4.4, use maximum of 80% of soil weight for overturning check.

A) Static - Existing

Necc_sl γev_min Psoil_v 0.80 γeh_min Pav 10.9 kip For sliding and eccentricity

B) Static - with HCRH Trail

Necc_sl_new γev_min Psoil_v 0.80 γeh_min Pav_new γdc_min Prdwy_v 15.2 kip For sliding and eccentricity

C) Dynamic - Existing

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 5 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD

Necc_sl_EQ γev_min Psoil_v 0.80 γeh_min Pav_EQ 11 kip For sliding and eccentricity

D) Dynamic - with HCRH Trail

Necc_sl_new_EQ γev_min Psoil_v 0.80 γeh_min Pav_new_EQ γdc_min Prdwy_v 15.3 kip For sliding and eccentricity

Factored Shear for Sliding Calcs (Parallel to Bottom of Bin Wall) For consistency, use 80% of soil and roadway embankment load.

A) Static Active - Existing

Vsl γeh_max Pah γev_min Fsoil_h 0.80 5 kip Negative numbers indicate that there is no net force outwards. Net force is into the fill

B) Static Active - with HCRH Trail

Vsl_new γeh_max Pah_new γev_min Fsoil_h 0.80 γdc_min Frdwy_h 0.80 5.6 kip

C) Dynamic - Existing

Vsl_EQ γeh_max Pah_EQ γev_min Fsoil_h 0.80 Fsoil_EQ 0.4 kip

D) Dynamic - with HCRH Trail Vsl_new_EQ γeh_max Pah_new_EQ γev_min Fsoil_h 0.80 γdc_min Frdwy_h 0.80 Fsoil_EQ Frdwy_EQ 0 kip

Moments about Point "A"

Moment arms point "A" (See page 1 for point "A") x1 B

5ft CG of soil area 1 y1

Ha

5.3 ft x2 2B

6.6 ft CG of soil area 2 y2 Ha hfill

11.8 ft

CG of vertical component of lateral earth pressurexeh B yeh 5ft CG of horizontal component of lateral earth pressure, static - per geotech.

yeh_EQ 6.3ft CG of horizontal component of lateral earth pressure, dynamic -per geotech.

xrdwy B

5ft CG of roadway embankment weight yrdwy Ha hrdwy

12.5 ft

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 6 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD

Resisting moment from weight of soil

Msoil 0.80 w1v x1 w1h y1 w2v x2 w2h y2 93.6 kip ft Per AASHTO LRFD 11.6.3.3, use maximum of 80% of soil weight

Resisting moment from weight of embankment

Mrdwy 0.80 Prdwy_v xrdwy Frdwy_h yrdwy 44.6 kip ft Per AASHTO LRFD 11.6.3.3, use maximum of 80% of soil weight.

Applying this to embankment also.

Factored Resisting Moment

A & C) Static & Dynamic - Existing Mres γev_min Msoil 93.6 kip ft For eccentricity check

B & D) Static & Dynamic - with HCRH Trail

Mres_new γev_min Msoil γes_min Mrdwy 127.1 kip ft For eccentricity check

Overturning moment from lateral earth pressure

A) Static Active - Existing

Meh Pah yeh Pav xeh 1.5 kip ft

Pah yeh 3.7 kip ft

Pav xeh 2.3 kip ft

B) Static Active - with HCRH Trail

Meh_new Pah_new yeh Pav_new xeh 3.2 kip ft

Pah_new yeh 8.2 kip ft

Pav_new xeh 4.9 kip ft

C) Dynamic - Existing

Meh_EQ Pah_EQ yeh Pav_EQ xeh 2.7 kip ft

Pah_EQ yeh 6.9 kip ft

Pav_EQ xeh 4.2 kip ft

D) Dynamic - with HCRH Trail

Meh_new_EQ Pah_new_EQ yeh Pav_new_EQ xeh 4 kip ft

Pah_new_EQ yeh 10.2 kip ft

Pav_new_EQ xeh 6.2 kip ft

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 7 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD

Overturning moment from weight of seismic

C) Dynamic - Existing

MEQ kh w1 y1 w2 y2 23.1 kip ft

D) Dynamic - with HCRH Trail

MEQ_new kh w1 y1 w2 y2 wrdwy yrdwy 39 kip ft

Factored Overturning Moment

A) Static Active - Existing

MOT γeh_max Meh 2.2 kip ft

B) Static Active - with HCRH Trail

MOT_new γeh_max Meh_new 4.8 kip ft

C) Dynamic - Existing

MOT_EQ γeh_max Meh_EQ MEQ 27.2 kip ft

D) Dynamic - with HCRH Trail

MOT_new_EQ γeh_max Meh_new_EQ MEQ_new 45 kip ft

Check Eccentricity Of Wall (AASHTO LRFD 11.11.4.4)

Eccentricity is measured from CL of bin wall. Per AASHTO LRFD 11.6.3.3 and 11.6.5.1 (seismic), location of resultant of th reaction forces shall be within the middle 2/3 of the base width. Note: For simplicity of calculations, conservatively assumin 100% of seismic force from soil weight acts concurrently with lateral seismic earth force.

emax

B 0.5 3.3 ft The maximum eccentricity from centerline of bin wall base for compliance with AASHTO LRFD

A) Static Active - Existing eA B

Mres MOT

Necc_sl eA 3.472 ft

Eccentricity close to limit, on fill side - OK

B) Static Active - with HCRH Trail eB B

Mres_new MOT_new

Necc_sl_new eB 3.081 ft

Eccentricity is within limit - OK

C) Dynamic - Existing

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 8 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD eC B

Mres MOT_EQ

Necc_sl_EQ eC 1.075 ft

Eccentricity is within limit - OK

D) Dynamic - with HCRH Trail eD B

Mres_new MOT_new_EQ

Necc_sl_new_EQ eD 0.403 ft

Eccentricity is within limit - OK

Check Sliding Of Wall (AASHTO LRFD 11.11.4.2 ) Negative numbers indicate that there is no net force outwards. Net force is into the fill

A) Static Active - Existing

CDRslA

Necc_sl δr

Vsl

1.3 Capacity demand ratio is greater than 1.0, Sliding OK

B) Static Active - with HCRH Trail

CDRslB

Necc_sl_new δr

Vsl_new

1.64 Capacity demand ratio is greater than 1.0, Sliding OK

C) Dynamic - Existing

CDRslC

Necc_sl_EQ δr_EQ

Vsl_EQ

19.49 Capacity demand ratio is greater than 1.0, Sliding OK

D) Dynamic - with HCRH Trail

CDRslD

Necc_sl_new_EQ δr_EQ

Vsl_new_EQ

422.11 Capacity demand ratio is greater than 1.0, Sliding OK

Check Metal Bin Parts for Internal Loadings Using Static, Existing Conditions Reference - 1965 ARMCO Calculations on bin wall. Use Janssen's formula to determine lateral internal force on bin components. The following calculations use updated loading for existing and future conditions to check structural element Walls are assumed to have been constructed per the standard drawings for Standard Bin Type Retaining Walls (ODOT Dw #14646 and 14647, dated 10-23-58). Metal bin parts are assumed to not have any section loss

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 9 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD w γsoil 125 pcf Unit weight of backfill material h Hfront cos theta( ) B sin theta( ) 16.5 ft Height of fill on back unit of bin a 10ft Length of short side of bin (looking in plan view) b B 9.9 ft Length of long side of bin

Rbin 0.283 2 a b a b

2.8 ft μ_prime tan φ( ) 0.7 k 1 sin φ( ) 1 sin φ( )

0.3

Lbin w Rbin μ_prime 1 e k μ_prime h Rbin

349.9 psf Lateral pressure on bottom stringer

Lstringer 1.33ft Lbin 465.4 plf Load on bottom stringer

Individual Bin Parts Analysis

Using Allowable Stress Design

Check bottom stringer (12 Ga) w Lstringer 0.5 klf l 10ft

Ra w l

2.3 kip

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 10 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD

Rb Ra 2.3 kip

M w l

5.8 kip ft

S 6.32in

Section modulus

I 25.85in

Moment of inertia fs M

S 11 ksi Stress on component σallow 0.6 fy 19.8 ksi Stress on plate is lower than the allowable stress - OK.

Δ 5 w l

384Es I

0.14 in Deflection of component

Check connecting channel

P1

Ra

0.6 kip Load per bolt

Pallow 3.07kip Allowable load for 5/8" bolt. Bolt OK

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 11 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD θ atan

0.5 9 in 6 in

12.1 deg Angle of channel flange to load P1

P2 P1 cos θ( ) 0.6 kip Load per bolt σplate

P2 in 0.1644 in

5.5 ksi Bearing stress on plate σallow

3 fu

2.22

60.8 ksi Allowable stress on plate

Stress on plate is lower than the allowable stress - OK.

Column

"Column" element acts as a connector of stringers and spacers and does not take vertical load. Connections are checked in other parts of this analysis.

Spacers (16 Ga)

Pspa 2 Ra 4.65 kip Tension on spacer

4 Bolts Per Spacer

Pbolt

Pspa

1.2 kip Load per bolt on spacer

Pallow 3.07 kip Allowable load for 5/8" bolt. Bolt OK

Check bearing stress on 16 ga. spacer plate σspacer

Pbolt in 0.0598 in

31.1 ksi σallow 60.8 ksi Allowable stress on plate

Stress on plate is lower than the allowable stress - OK.

Analysis of Stringers of Other Gages

Check lateral load on lower most stringer of each different gage represented in the wall using Janssen's formula. Th only change in the variable will be h.

14 Gage w γsoil 125 pcf Unit weight of backfill material h Hfront cos theta( ) B sin theta( ) 1.33ft( ) cos theta( ) 15.3 ft Height of fill on back unit of bin

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 12 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD a 10ft Length of short side of bin (looking in p view) b B 9.9 ft Length of long side of bin

Rbin 0.283 μ_prime tan φ( ) 0.7 k 1 sin φ( ) 1 sin φ( )

0.3

Lbin w Rbin μ_prime 1 e

336.1 psf Lateral pressure on bottom stringer

Lstringer 1.33ft Lbin 447.1 plf Load on bottom stringer w Lstringer 0.4 klf l 10ft

Ra w l

2.2 kip

Rb Ra 2.2 kip

M w l

5.6 kip ft

S 4.51in

Section modulus

I 18.35in

Moment of inertia fs M

S

14.9 ksi Stress on component σallow 0.6 fy 19.8 ksi Stress on plate is lower than the allowable stress - OK.

Δ

0.19 in Deflection of component

Check connecting channel (8 Ga.)

P1

Ra

0.6 kip Load per bolt

Pallow 3.07kip Allowable load for 5/8" bolt. Bolt OK

Facility: Bin Wall Check: STA 66+20 Page 13 of 23 Date: 11/6/2014 Component: Stability And Capacity Analysis Project No.: 316325.D1.09.FD θ atan

0.5 9

P2…