Soils and Foundation Report.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATION REPORT

NO. 08-11

PROJECT ERFO UOC 118(1)

REPLACEMNET OF MOLLICY BAYOU BRIDGE

UPPER OUACHITA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

MOREHOUSE COUNTY, LOUISIANA

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

February 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT PAGE

INTRODUCTION

General Project Description

GEOLOGIC SETTING

Regional Geology Soil Survey

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

General Sampling Field Tests and Measurements Data Summary Laboratory Testing Findings

DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Bridge Foundations Scour Results Axial Capacity Uplift Capacity Settlement Lateral Capacity

RECOMMENDATIONS

BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Boring Locations Plan and Subsurface Profile APPENDIX C – Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Data APPENDIX E – Design Analysis APPENDIX F – Typical Details APPENDIX G – Representative Photographs APPENDIX H – Special Contract Requirements

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

Project: ERFO UOC 118(1) Replacement of Mollicy Bayou Bridge Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge Soils and Foundation Report Morehouse County, LA No. 08-11

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

SOILS AND FOUNDATION REPORT

NO. 08-11

PROJECT ERFO UOC 118(1)

REPLACEMENT OF MOLLICY BAYOU BRIDGE

MOREHOUSE COUNTY, LOUISIANA

INTRODUCTION

General

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and design analyses and presents our evaluations and recommendations for the replacement of Mollicy Bayou Bridge. The project is located in Cook Road, within Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge in Morehouse County, Louisiana. The general site location is shown on Figure 1, Appendix A.

Project Description

Project UOC 118(1) consists of replacing the existing bridge with a new reinforced concrete structure. The existing bridge was built in 1980 and consisted of two salvaged railroad car frames with steel plate decking. The proposed new bridge will be a reinforced concrete structure, together with the associated abutments and wing walls. The single span bridge will be 50 ft long and 21 ft wide. The deck elevation of the new bridge will be approximately 3.5 ft higher than the existing one to accommodate for future severe floods. The approaches will also be raised to accommodate for the new design elevations.

GEOLOGIC SETTING

Regional Geology

The site is located within the area of Pleistocene Terraces and Holocene Alluvium deposits in northeastern Louisiana. The Pleistocene Terraces deposits consist of sand, gravel, and mud.

The alluvium deposits consist of sandy and gravelly channel deposits mantled by sandy to muddy natural level deposits. According to United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Geologic Map of Louisiana (2005), the project area is underlain by Deweyville Terrace Formation, which consists of gray mixed with brown-to-red clay and silty clay with some sand and gravel. Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A for the “Geologic Map” of the project area.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Soil Survey

According to United States Department of Agriculture “Web Soil Survey of Morehouse Parish, Louisiana” (Survey Area Data: Version 6, April 12, 2007), the surficial soil at the site consists primarily of Haggerty loamy fine sand and silty clay. These are alluvial deposits located in stream terraces. Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix A for a “Soil Survey Map” of the project area.

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

General

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division’s (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team drilled two (2) soil borings in January 2011. Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled in the vicinity of the proposed west and east abutments, respectively. Borings were drilled to a depth of 72 feet below existing site grades. The borings were advanced to the termination depths using a CME 750, rotary, ATV-mounted drill rig. A Boring Locations Plan and generalized Subsurface Profile sheet is attached in Appendix B.

Sampling

Borings were advanced to the termination depths using 3¾-in. (inside diameter) hollow stem augers. Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was performed using a 2¼-in. (outside diameter) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T206-87. SPT soil samples were typically recovered at 2.5 and 5-foot intervals. Samples were obtained by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24-inch into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-lb.

automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-in. sample interval is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-in. interval was recorded on field boring logs. The relative consistency of cohesive samples was estimated in the field using a calibrated pocket penetrometer.

Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars for laboratory testing. All samples were later transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, Tennessee for laboratory testing and storage. The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring are presented on its appropriate Boring Log in Appendix C.

Water levels, if present, were measured at the time of completion of each boring, again prior to backfilling the borehole. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of the drilling.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Field Tests and Measurements

The EFLHD geotechnical crew performed the following field tests and took measurements during the course of the subsurface exploration. A field description by color and texture was made for each recovered sample. . Boring locations were determined in the field by measuring distances from features present on site and by a hand held GPS. Boring elevations were determined from plan topography.

Data Summary

The results of field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheets in the field. These data sheets and logs contain information concerning the boring methods, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, and observations of groundwater. They also contain interpretations by the exploration foreman of the subsurface conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings brought to the surface by the drilling tools. Therefore, the field data represents both factual and interpretative information.

The boring logs in Appendix C of this report represent compilation of field and laboratory data and description of the soil samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records may not include all data recorded on driller’s logs and field data sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this report.

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

Laboratory Testing

A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration. The primary purpose of the testing program was to aid in classification and evaluation of the engineering properties of soils present at the site.

Laboratory tests included natural moisture content (AASHTO T-265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89 & T-90), particle size analysis (AASHTO T-88), and classification (AASHTO M-145). All tests were conducted in general accordance with applicable ASTM/AASHTO standard test methods. The results of the laboratory testing program are presented in Appendix D and summarized below:

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Table 1. Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Boring No.

Sample No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

Moisture Content

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit Fines Classification

B-1 (West

Abutment)

J-1 1.0-3.0 18.0 35 17 74.1 A-6(12)

J-6 13.0-15.0 22.4 NP NP 42.7 A-4(0)

J-8 20.0-22.0 23.2 NP NP 66.0 A-4(0)

J-10 30.0-32.0 26.2 NP NP 24.4 A-2-4(0)

J-18 70.0-72.0 22.4 NP NP 25.2 A-2-4(0)

B-2 (East Abutment)

J-1 1.0-3.0 12.0 NP NP 56.8 A-4(0)

J-3 5.0-7.0 21.8 NP NP 67.9 A-4(0)

J-5 12.0-14.0 26.0 51 22 86.6 A-7-6(27)

J-8 20.0-22.0 23.7 NP NP 54.5 A-4(0)

J-10 30.0-32.0 27.2 NP NP 18.1 A-2-4(0)

J-13 45.0-47.0 29.7 NP NP 3.4 A-3

J-18 70.0-72.0 23.6 43 21 77.5 A-7-6(17) NP: Non Plastic

Findings

Boring logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered in each boring are located in Appendix C of this report. The Subsurface Profile in Appendix B represents the general soil conditions that may be encountered at the bridge abutments. Descriptions of the soil conditions encountered during the subsurface exploration conducted at the site are presented below. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the boring logs in Appendix C represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. It should be noted that one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations. It should be noted that one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

Bridge Borings

Two borings (B-1 and B-2) were drilled in the proximity of the abutments of the proposed bridge. In general, the borings encountered three basic strata within the termination depths.

Each of the soil types has been grouped according to its engineering properties and classification. These strata are described briefly in the following paragraphs:

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Stratum I-FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY AND SANDY SILT

Fill was encountered from the ground surface to a depth of 4 ft below existing site grades at both borings. Fill at the site consisted of sandy lean clay and sandy silt. N-values recorded within this stratum ranged between 10 and 25 blows per foot (bpf).

Stratum II- DEWEYVILLE TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY LEAN CLAY, SANDY SILT, AND

SILTY FAT CLAY

Beneath the fill materials, Deweyville Terrace deposits were encountered. These deposits consisted primarily of sandy lean clay, sandy silt, and silty fat clay and extended to depths of 7 ft and 19 ft below existing grades at Borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. N-values recorded within this stratum ranged from 3 to 10 bpf, indicating soft to stiff soil consistencies.

Stratum III- ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, SANDY SILT, AND SILT

Beneath the Deweyville Terrace deposits, alluvial deposits were encountered. The alluvial deposits consisted of silty sand, sandy silt, and silt and extended to the termination depths of the borings. SPT N-values recorded within this layer ranged from 2 to 75 blows/ft (bpf) indicating very loose to very dense relative densities. It should be mentioned that a layer of very stiff lean clay was encountered at a depth of 63 ft below existing site grades in Boring B-2 and extended to the termination depth of the boring.

Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 5 feet below existing grades in the boring locations.

It should be mentioned that groundwater level readings were made at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. Fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Design analyses for construction of the bridge abutments were performed based on the engineering parameters of on-site soils encountered within the depth of our explorations.

Bridge Foundations

Based on the subsurface profile encountered during our drilling operations and the structural loads provided to us, we concluded that a deep foundation system consisting of H-piles would provide a safe and economic foundation alternative for this project.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Design analyses were performed based on data obtained from our subsurface exploration program and laboratory test results, where available. The soil properties presented in Table 2 below were developed based on empirical correlations between available laboratory test results and SPT N-values. Design analyses were performed using a generalized subsurface profile at west abutment (B-1) and using the material properties below and the subsurface profiles as presented in Appendix B. East abutment (B-2) has a similar profile, so the design applies to both abutments.

Table 2 – Soil Parameters for Deep Foundation Design Analysis

Material Type

Depth, below bottom of pile cap (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Unit Weight, γ (pcf)

Friction Angle, Φ

(deg.)

Cohesion, c

(psf)

Silt 0-16 64.5-48.5 60 0 1,000

Silty Sand 16-39 48.5-25.5 55 32 0

Silty Sand 39-54 25.5-10.5 60 37 0

Silty Sand 54-64 10.5-0.5 70 40 0

Scour Results

No scour analysis has been performed for this project. However, the skin friction in the upper 8 feet of the piles was not considered in the analysis.

Axial Capacity The nominal (ultimate) resistance of the piles was evaluated in accordance with FHWA (2006), Design of Driven Pile Foundations, and Section 10 of AASHTO (2007), LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The computer program AllPile (version 6) was used to calculate both axial and lateral capacities for the driven piles.

Design analyses suggest that HP 14x89 piles would be adequate for providing support of the design structural loads. The analyses indicate that axial pile capacity would be developed by a combination of skin friction and end-bearing in the silty sand or fine sand strata at about 52 feet below existing grades. Design bearing graphs that summarize nominal pile resistance versus depth are presented in Appendix E. AllPile analysis computation output files may also be referenced in Appendix E.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Uplift Capacity Uplift resistance factor of 0.25 was used based on Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 in AASHTO (2007), LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Uplift for individual piles were calculated in this way and are included on the resistance plots in Appendix E.

Settlement Settlement of driven H pile foundations bearing at the proposed depths was estimated to be less than ¼ -inch. The total settlement at service load (312 kips) is about 0.02-inch.

Lateral Capacity Design analyses were performed for HP 14x89 with an estimated embedment length of 45 ft.

Pile length variations of +/- 5 ft should be expected. Actual pile lengths will be determined by dynamic pile load testing.

Lateral capacity analyses were performed using the combined factored shear loads and moments, provided by Bridge Branch, as presented in Table 3. The loads shown in Table 3 were rounded up to the nearest 5 or 10 from the provided loads.

Table 3 – Vertical and Lateral Loading Conditions LOADS Abutments

Factored Vertical Load (kips) 455

Factored Shear Load (kips)

Trans 20

Long 60

Factored Moment Load

(kips-ft)

Trans 260

Long 200

Analysis results indicate that the lateral resistance provided by subsurface soils is adequate to limit pile head deflections to less than 1-in. The output files from the AllPile analyses are provided in Appendix E.

RECOMMENDATIONS

BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS

A deep foundation system comprised of HP 14x89 piles is the recommended foundation system for the new bridge. Pile lengths should be determined using the Allowable Capacity

vs. Foundation Depth graphs presented in Appendix E. Based on the axial and lateral capacity requirements, we recommend a minimum pile length of 47 ft for the abutments.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

A wave equation analysis of the contractor’s proposed hammer and driving system should be submitted to EFLHD’s Geotechnical Section for review prior to mobilization of the equipment to the site. The proposed hammer should have adequate energy to efficiently install the piles to the specified capacities without inducing excessive driving stresses. It is recommended that a minimum of two (2) piles at the bridge site be dynamically load tested.

CAPWAP analyses should be performed for each dynamic test. Additionally, it is recommended to perform a minimum of one pile driving analyzer (PDA) testing at the location of each foundation element.

It is recommended that the center-to-center spacing of piles be a minimum of three pile widths.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Excavations: In general, all temporary cut slopes constructed in soils should not be steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V), unless otherwise allowed by OSHA. All excavations are to be performed in accordance with applicable OSHA standards and in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03 Specifications. Temporary excavation in fill and/or natural material should be achievable using conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working condition. Any unsuitable materials encountered below proposed footing elevations should be removed to the maximum depth specified in the project plans and specifications. If deep soft areas are encountered, additional subexcavation should be avoided and geotextile is recommended for placement at the bottom of the excavation. Backfill with competent granular material and second layer of geotextile could be used if needed.

Structural Backfill: The on-site soils are not suitable for reuse as structural backfill behind bridge abutment walls or the retaining wall. Backfill behind abutment walls should consist of structural backfill in accordance with Section 704 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Walls Drainage: For drainage of structural backfill placed behind walls provide weepholes with a 6-in. diameter through abutment walls, wingwalls, and retaining walls. Weepholes should be spaced a maximum of 10 ft on-center, and should be installed at a minimum 1.0 ft above the finished grade along the face of the structure. All weepholes should be approved non-perforated PVC pipes per Section 706 of the FP-03 Specifications. Approved geocomposite drains as per Section 714 should be placed against the backfilled face of the walls. The geocomposite drains should extend from the top of the weepholes to the bottom of the proposed aggregate base course at approaches. Type IV-A geotextile fabric per FP-03 Specifications should be attached to the core of the geocomposite drains. Type IV-B geotextile fabric should be placed between the on-site soil backfill material and the granular select borrow for separation/filtration. Place and compact backfill behind, and in front of all walls, in accordance with Section 208 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Pile Pick-up and Handling: Pick-up and handling should be conducted in accordance with Section 551 of the FP-03 Specifications. Because displacement piles are being recommended, heave of previously installed piles should be monitored during pile driving operations. Pile

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

heave should be monitored (and piles re-driven as required) in accordance with Section 551 of the FP-03.

Pile Installation Sequence: Piles should be installed from the center of the pile group and outwards, or from one side of the group progressively to the other. Under no circumstances should piles be installed from outside of the group towards the center.

Dynamic Pile Load Testing: Dynamic pile load testing is to be performed in accordance with Subsection 551.11 of the FP-03 Specifications. Perform dynamic pile load test on a minimum test pile to be driven at the location presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4 – Dynamic Test Pile Location

Structure Location of Dynamic Pile Load Test

Mollicy Bayou Bridge West and East Abutments At either of the two piles nearest the centerline of the structure.

The wave equation should be used to determine the ultimate capacity of the in-place pile.

Ground and Surface Water Management: On-site soils can be very susceptible to disturbance following contact with water. Control of storm water or seepage water flowing into open excavations may be necessary in order to retain the integrity of the natural bearing soils. The contractor should control the flow of surface water and seepage water into excavations at all times. Storm water collection and control during construction may be performed using collection trenches and sumps, if accumulation does occur.

Roadbed Preparation: The roadbed should be prepared in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03. The depth of scarification shall be carefully controlled so that the surface of the roadbed below the scarified material shall remain undisturbed and conform to the established cross-section. The scarified material shall be partially pulverized and all existing unsuitable material and material retained on a 3-in. {75 mm} sieve shall be removed.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and test described in the section Procedures and Results have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these exploration and test represent conditions at the specific locations indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary. The Analysis and Conclusions sections and the Recommendations section of this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design.

These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Shiping Yang, Ph.D., P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

APPENDIX A

Figures

FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA SE

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO. PROJECTSTATEREG

RRP_LA_UOC_118(1)LA 31

Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS), "Geologic Map of Louisiana (2005)"

Deweyville Terrace

Gray mixed with brown-to-red clay and silty clay; some sand and gravel locally.

Tuscaloosa Formation

Gray and brown silt, silty clay, some very fine sand, reddish brown along the Red River.

Water

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

REG

STERLING, VIRGINIA SE

SHEET

NO. PROJECTSTATE

RRP_LA_UOC_118(1)

TOTAL

SHEETS

LA

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

RRP_LA_UOC_118(1): Mollicy Bayou Bridge

Morehouse County, Louisiana (2006) Source: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

Ha Haggerty Loamy Fine Sand

0 to 1 percent slopes, depth to restrictive feature more than 80 inches, somewhat poorly drained, depth to water table at 0 to 18 inches, rare frequency of flooding, none frequency of ponding.

Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Loamy fine sand; 9 to 40 inches: Fine sandy loam; 40 to 60 inches: Loamy fine sand

He Haggerty Silty Loam

0 to 1 percent slopes, depth to restrictive feature more than 80 inches, somewhat poorly drained, depth to water table at 0 to 18 inches, rare frequency of flooding, none frequency of ponding.

Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Silty clay; 7 to 20 inches: Fine sandy loam; 20 to 54 inches: Loamy fine sand

Gp Groom-Mollicy Complex

0 to 1 percent slopes, depth to restrictive feature more than 80 inches, poorly drained, depth to water table at 0 to 12 inches, rare frequency of flooding, none frequency of ponding.

Typical profile 0 to 4 inches: Silt loam; 4 to 14 inches: silt loam; 14 to 70 inches: Silty clay loam

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

3 3RRP_LA_UOC_118(1)

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

LA

FIGURE 3

SOIL SURVEY MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

REG

STERLING, VIRGINIA SE

RRP_LA_UOC_118(1): Mollicy Bayou Bridge

APPENDIX B

Boring Location Plan

Subsurface Profile

...\CADD\blp and profile.dgn 10/24/2011 8:51:14 AM

APPENDIX C

Boring Logs

4-5-5-6

10-8-5-5

1-1-2-4

3-3-4-3

0-0-2-2

2-4-8-8

3-4-6-7

3-3-6-9

3-3-2-6

1.4

4.6

0.5

1.6

1.5

1.9

1.5

1.8

1.8

4.0

7.0

12.0

18.0

22.0

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

Stiff, brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY [A-6(12)] (Fill) (moist)

Soft, brown and gray, SANDY LEAN CLAY

(moist to wet)

Very loose to loose, brown and gray, SAND, some clay

(moist to wet)

Medium dense, brown and gray, SILTY SAND [A-4(0)]

(moist to wet)

Loose, brown and gray, SANDY SILT [A-4(0)]

(moist to wet)

Loose to medium dense, gray, SILTY SAND [A-2-4(0)]

(wet)

2.0

1.25

1.0

0.25

(Blows / ft)

70.0 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of coring

SPT

Cool/sunny

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th (f t)

ERFO-UOC 118(1), Mollicy Bayou Bridge

E le va tio n (fe et

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 1/27/11

HSA

1/27/11

KT/SY

RK/DHOperator:

Station 102+32.5, 9'R

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

Ty pe

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4 in

B lo w s pe r in

B-1 (West Abutment)

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Morehouse County, LA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

4/

8:

M :\P

R O

JE

C

TS

FW

S

\L A

\U O

C

8( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S (R

E

LO

C A

TE

T

H

IS

IN

FO

)\E R

FO

-O

U C

-1

(1 ).G

P J

66.0

63.0

58.0

52.0

48.0

3-4-6-9

1-2-6-4

3-6-5-9

6-7-12-15

3-9-13-15

5-10-10-13

1.3

0.9

1.5

1.0

1.2

0.8

60.0

J-10

J-11

J-12

J-13

J-14

J-15

Loose to medium dense, gray, SILTY SAND [A-2-4(0)]

(wet) (Continued)

(Blows / ft)

70.0 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of coring

SPT

Cool/sunny

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th (f t)

ERFO-UOC 118(1), Mollicy Bayou Bridge

E le va tio n (fe et

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 1/27/11

HSA

1/27/11

KT/SY

RK/DHOperator:

Station 102+32.5, 9'R

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

Ty pe

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4 in

B lo w s pe r in

B-1 (West Abutment)

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Morehouse County, LA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

4/

8:

M :\P

R O

JE

C

TS

FW

S

\L A

\U O

C

8( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S (R

E

LO

C A

TE

T

H

IS

IN

FO

)\E R

FO

-O

U C

-1

(1 ).G

P J

10.0

12-16-25-27

7-12-17-21

14-30-45-38

1.4

1.8

1.8

72.0

J-16

J-17

J-18

Dense to very dense, gray, SILTY SAND [A-2-4(0)]

(moist to wet)

End of boring @ 72 ft.

4.5

(Blows / ft)

70.0 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of coring

SPT

Cool/sunny

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th (f t)

ERFO-UOC 118(1), Mollicy Bayou Bridge

E le va tio n (fe et

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 1/27/11

HSA

1/27/11

KT/SY

RK/DHOperator:

Station 102+32.5, 9'R

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

Ty pe

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4 in

B lo w s pe r in

B-1 (West Abutment)

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Morehouse County, LA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

4/

8:

M :\P

R O

JE

C

TS

FW

S

\L A

\U O

C

8( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S (R

E

LO

C A

TE

T

H

IS

IN

FO

)\E R

FO

-O

U C

-1

(1 ).G

P J

-2.0

3-10-15-17

8-8-8-7

3-3-3-4

3-2-4-5

3-2-4-5

4-5-5-6

6-5-5-8

4-3-5-5

3-4-4-4

1.8

1.0

1.7

1.9

1.6

2.0

2.0

1.4

0.8

4.0

10.0

19.0

30.0

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

Medium dense, brown and gray, SANDY SILT [A-4(0)]

(FILL)

(moist)

Loose, brown and gray, SANDY SILT [A-4(0)]

(wet)

Medium stiff to stiff, brown and gray, SILTY FAT CLAY, trace sand [A-7-6(27)]

(moist to wet)

Loose, gray, SANDY SILT [A-4(0)]

(wet)

4.0

0.5

0.75

1.0

2.0

1.5

0.25

(Blows / ft)

70.0 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of coring

SPT

Clear/windy

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th (f t)

ERFO-UOC 118(1), Mollicy Bayou Bridge

E le va tio n (fe et

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 1/28/11

HSA

1/28/11

KT

RK/DHOperator:

Station 101+79.5, 9'L

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

Ty pe

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4 in

B lo w s pe r in

B-2 (East Abutment)

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Morehouse County, LA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

4/

8:

M :\P

R O

JE

C

TS

FW

S

\L A

\U O

C

8( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S (R

E

LO

C A

TE

T

H

IS

IN

FO

)\E R

FO

-O

U C

-1

(1 ).G

P J

66.0

60.0

51.0

40.0

3-6-6-8

2-3-5-8

10-11-14-18

3-5-10-16

7-9-16-22

18-14-25-29

1.0

0.8

1.2

0.8

37.5

J-10

J-11

J-12

J-13

J-14

J-15

Loose to medium dense, gray, SILTY SAND [A-2-4(0)]

(wet)

Medium dense to dense, gray, FINE SAND [A-3]

(wet)

(Blows / ft)

70.0 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of coring

SPT

Clear/windy

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th (f t)

ERFO-UOC 118(1), Mollicy Bayou Bridge

E le va tio n (fe et

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 1/28/11

HSA

1/28/11

KT

RK/DHOperator:

Station 101+79.5, 9'L

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

Ty pe

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4 in

B lo w s pe r in

B-2 (East Abutment)

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Morehouse County, LA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

4/

8:

M :\P

R O

JE

C

TS

FW

S

\L A

\U O

C

8( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S (R

E

LO

C A

TE

T

H

IS

IN

FO

)\E R

FO

-O

U C

-1

(1 ).G

P J

32.5

8-8-14-17

10-12-16-21

10-11-19-43

1.3

1.6

1.8

63.0

72.0

J-16

J-17

J-18

Very stiff, gray, LEAN CLAY, with sand [A-7-6(17)]

(dry to moist)

End of boring @ 72 ft.

4.5

4.5

(Blows / ft)

70.0 ft

Penetrometer

Sample Types:

Rock Core

BORING LOG

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of coring

SPT

Clear/windy

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

R ec

Water Content %

Encountered at:

After

La ye r D ep th (f t)

ERFO-UOC 118(1), Mollicy Bayou Bridge

E le va tio n (fe et

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began: 1/28/11

HSA

1/28/11

KT

RK/DHOperator:

Station 101+79.5, 9'L

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Weather:

SAMPLE

hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings UD

10 60

Ty pe

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

40 80

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

L og

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Project Location:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Boring Location:

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto 3 3/4 in

B lo w s pe r in

B-2 (East Abutment)

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

P P

N o.

Morehouse County, LA

Inspector:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/2

4/

8:

M :\P

R O

JE

C

TS

FW

S

\L A

\U O

C

8( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O

TE

C H

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S (R

E

LO

C A

TE

T

H

IS

IN

FO

)\E R

FO

-O

U C

-1

(1 ).G

P J

7.0

-2.0

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Data

SOIL DATA

NO.

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 1.0 24.9 74.1

(ft.)

ERFO UOC 118(1)

Upper Ouachita NWR

FHWA/EFLHD

B-1 J-1 1.0-3.0 Lean clay with sand A-6(12)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 57.3 42.7

B-1 J-6 13.0-15.0 Silty sand A-4(0)

0.0 0.0 34.0 66.0

B-1 J-8 20.0-22.0 Sandy silt A-4(0)

0.0 0.0 75.6 24.4

B-1 J-10 30.0-32.0 Silty sand A-2-4(0)

0.0 8.5 66.3 25.2

B-1 J-18 70.0-72.0 Silty sand A-2-4(0)

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 2.0 41.2 56.8

(ft.)

ERFO UOC 118(1)

Upper Ouachita NWR

FHWA/EFLHD

B-2 J-1 1.0-3.0 Sandy silt A-4(0)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.2 31.9 67.9

B-2 J-3 5.0-7.0 Sandy silt A-4(0)

0.0 0.0 13.4 86.6

B-2 J-5 12.0-14.0 Fat clay A-7-6(27)

0.0 0.3 45.2 54.5

B-2 J-8 20.0-22.0 Sandy silt A-4(0)

0.0 0.0 81.9 18.1

B-2 J-10 30.0-32.0 Silty sand A-2-4(0)

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 0.1 96.5 3.4

(ft.)

ERFO UOC 118(1)

Upper Ouachita NWR

FHWA/EFLHD

B-2 J-13 45.0-47.0 Poorly graded sand A-3

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 22.5 77.5

B-2 J-18 70.0-72.0

Mounir.Abouzakhm Typewritten Text Lean clay with sand

Mounir.Abouzakhm Typewritten Text A-7-6(17)

Mounir.Abouzakhm Typewritten Text

Mounir.Abouzakhm Typewritten Text

Mounir.Abouzakhm Typewritten Text

Mounir.Abouzakhm Typewritten Text

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

ERFO UOC 118(1)

Upper Ouachita NWR

FHWA/EFLHD

A-6(12)18351718.01.0-3.0J-1B-1

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-4(0)NPNVNP22.413.0-15.0J-6B-1

A-4(0)NPNVNP23.220.0-22.0J-8B-1

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP26.230.0-32.0J-10B-1

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP22.470.0-72.0J-18B-1

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

ERFO UOC 118(1)

Upper Ouachita NWR

FHWA/EFLHD

A-4(0)NPNVNP12.01.0-3.0J-1B-2

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-4(0)NPNVNP21.85.0-7.0J-3B-2

A-7-6(27)29512226.012.0-14.0J-5B-2

A-4(0)NPNVNP23.720.0-22.0J-8B-2

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP27.230.0-32.0J-10B-2

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

ERFO UOC 118(1)

Upper Ouachita NWR

FHWA/EFLHD

A-3NPNVNP29.745.0-47.0J-13B-2

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-7-6(17)22432123.670.0-72.0J-18B-2

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

Sample # Jar # Wet Wt (g) Dry Wt (g) Jat Wt (g) Total Sample

Wt (g)

T-265 MC

E-11-0191 B-1/J-1 1178.3 1063.4 424.9 638.5 18.0

0192 B-1/J-6 887.0 803.0 427.4 375.6 22.4 0193 B-1/J-8 1499.4 1298.7 435.0 863.7 23.2 0194 B-1/J-10 1258.1 1085.7 427.9 657.8 26.2 0195 B-1/J-18 1461.3 1274.1 439.4 834.7 22.4 0196 B-2/J-2 1298.2 1204.8 429.0 775.8 12.0 0197 B-2/J-3 1508.7 1315.4 428.9 886.5 21.8 0198 B-2/J-5 1350.0 1159.9 429.3 730.7 26.0 0199 B-2/J-8 983.3 877.8 431.7 446.0 23.7 0200 B-2/J-10 1243.0 1069.5 431.3 638.2 27.2 0201 B-2/J-13 845.8 749.9 427.2 322.7 29.7 0202 B-2/J-18 1414.9 1226.8 430.1 796.7 23.6

ERFO UOC 118(1)

APPENDIX E

Design Analysis

-Vertical Analysis Summary Outputs- -Allowable Capacity vs Foundation Depth-

-Lateral Load vs Deflection & Max. Moment- -Lateral Analysis Summary Outputs-

Loads:

Load Factor for Vertical Loads= 1.0 Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0 Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 % Shear Condition: Static

Vertical Load, Q= 312.0 -kp Shear Load, P= 0.0 -kp Slope Restain St= 0.00 -in/-in

Profile:

Pile Length, L= 47.0 -ft Top Height, H= 2.0 -ft Slope Angle, As= 0 Batter Angle, Ab= 0

* Zero Friction * Zero Friction Start: 0 -ft End: 8 -ft Group and Boundary Condition:

Fixed Head Sx= 57 -in Sy= 14.7 -in Nx= 5 Ny= 1

Soil Data:

Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt -ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 % 0 59.9 0.0 1.00 317.7 0.87 10 16 55.0 32.0 0.00 35.5 36.76 11 39 60.2 37.0 0.00 84.4 61.42 26 54 70.0 40.0 0.00 197.2 95.94 60

Pile Data:

Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight -ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f

0.0 13.8 26.1 57.0 326.0 29000 0.09 47.0

Group Vertical capacity:

Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 795.882-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 420.112-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 795.882-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 420.112-kp OK! Qallow > Q

Group Settlement Calculation:

At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 99999.00-kp At Q= 312.00-kp Settlement= 0.01940-in

Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.

VERTICAL ANALYSIS Figure 1

Driving Steel Pile (Open end)

CivilTech Software

UOC 118(1) Driven Pile Analysis Service load

0 0

200 200

400 400

600 600

800 800

1000 1000

1200 1200

1400 1400

1600 1600

1800 1800

2000 2000

0 06 612 1218 1824 2430 3036 3642 4248 4854 5460 60

Foundation Depth, L -ft Foundation Depth, L -ft

C om pr es si on

C ap ac ity

Q dw -k p

U pl ift C ap ac ity

Q up

-k p

ALLOWABLE CAPACITY vs FOUNDATION DEPTH

ALL-PILE Version 6 CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

Service load

Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0 Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 % Shear Condition: Static

Vertical Load, Q= 455.0 -kp Shear Load, P= 60.0 -kp Slope Restain St= 0.00 -in/-in

Profile:

Pile Length, L= 47.0 -ft Top Height, H= 2.0 -ft Slope Angle, As= 0 Batter Angle, Ab= 0

* Zero Friction * Zero Friction Start: 0 -ft End: 8 -ft Group and Boundary Condition:

Fixed Head Sx= 13.8 -in Sy= 57 -in Nx= 1 Ny= 5

Soil Data:

Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt -ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 % 0 59.9 0.0 1.00 317.7 0.87 10 16 55.0 32.0 0.00 35.5 36.76 11 39 60.2 37.0 0.00 84.4 61.42 26 54 70.0 40.0 0.00 197.2 95.94 60

Pile Data:

Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight -ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f

0.0 13.8 26.1 57.0 326.0 29000 0.09 47.0

Group Vertical capacity:

Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 795.882-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 420.112-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 530.588-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 120.890-kp OK! Qallow > Q

Group Settlement Calculation:

At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 99999.00-kp At Q= 455.00-kp Settlement= 0.02879-in

Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.

VERTICAL ANALYSIS Figure 1

Driving Steel Pile (Open end)

CivilTech Software

Factored load-x weak side

80 80

160 160

240 240

320 320

400 400

480 480

560 560

640 640

720 720

800 800

0 06 612 1218 1824 2430 3036 3642 4248 4854 5460 60

Foundation Depth, L -ft Foundation Depth, L -ft

C om pr es si on

C ap ac ity

Q dw -k p

U pl ift C ap ac ity

Q up

-k p

ALLOWABLE CAPACITY vs FOUNDATION DEPTH

ALL-PILE Version 6 CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

9 9

18 18

27 27

36 36

45 45

54 54

63 63

72 72

81 81

90 90

0.00 00.02 70.04 140.06 210.08 280.10 350.12 420.14 490.16 560.18 630.20 70

Top Deflection, yt -in Max. Moment in Single Pile, Mmax -kp-f

La te ra l L oa d, P -k p

La te ra l L oa d, P -k p

X-Direction, Group Piles

LATERAL LOAD vs DEFLECTION & MAX. MOMENT

ALL-PILE Version 6 CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

ALLPILE 7

LATERAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY OUTPUT

Copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltechsoftware.com Licensed to Date: 7/13/2011 File: M:\Projects\refuge\la\uoc118(1)\techserv\geotech\Foundation Analysis\final analysis\factored load-x weak side .alp 1.0

Title 1: UOC 118(1) Driven Pile Analysis Title 2: Factored load-x weak side

ALLPILE INPUT DATA:

* Pile Type Page * Unit: English Non-displacement pile: H pile or open-ended pipe. Little soil is displaced. Friction is less than displacement pile. Effective area is used.

Pile Type: Driving Steel Pile (Open end)

* Pile Profile * Foundation Depth: 47.0 -ft Top Height: 2.0 -ft Slope Angle: 0 Pile Angle: 0

* Pile Properties * Zs Width Area Perim. I E Weight Mix Out In Other. Type -ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f % Side Side Par.

0.0 13.8 26.1 57.0 326.0 29000 0.09 100.0 1 1 1.0 Steel (rough)

47.0 13.8 26.1 57.0 326.0 29000 0.09 100.0 1 1 1.0 Pile Tip

Group Type: 1 Top Type: 5 Nx: 1 Ny: 5 Sx: 1.15 -ft Sy: 4.75 -ft

Water Table: 0 -ft Ground Elevation: 64.5 -ft

* Soil Properties * Zs Gamma Phi C K E50/Dr Nspt Type Soil -ft -lb/f3 o -kp/f2 -lb/i3 - %

0.0 59.9 0.0 1.00 317.7 0.87 10 3 Silt (Phi + C)

16.0 55.0 32.0 0.00 35.5 36.76 11 4 Sand/Gravel

39.0 60.2 37.0 0.00 84.4 61.42 26 4 Sand/Gravel

54.0 70.0 40.0 0.00 197.2 95.94 60 4 Sand/Gravel

* Zero Friction * Zero Friction Start: 0 -ft End: 8 -ft

ALLPILE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS:

TOTAL LOADS:

Vertical Load, Q: 455.0 -kp Moment, M: 260.0 -kp-f Shear Load, P: 60.0 -kp

FACTORS AND CONDITIONS:

Load Factor for Vertical Loads: 1.0 1.0

Load Factor for Lateral Loads: 1.0 Loads Supported by Pile Cap: 0 % Shear Condition: Static

GROUP PILE FOUNDATION:

Group Configuration:

Head Condition: Fixed Head (Cap with Restrained Connection) Average Pile Diameter= 1.15 -ft Column Number, Nx= 1 Row Number, Ny= 5 Row Spacing, Sy= 4.75 -ft

Y-Direction (Lateral Loading in Y Direction) Combined deduction factor due to Group Effect, R is based on following factors:

Deduction factor due to side effect, Rside= 1.00 Deduction factor due to front effect, Rfront= 0.54

A. Back Pile, Critical Loading for Back Pile:

1.Vertical Analysis:

Try Vertical Load(Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Load)= 80.05 -kp Try Results (Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Results):

Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 159.18-kp, Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 84.02-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 106.12-kp, Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 24.18-kp At Work Load= 80.05-kp, Settlement= 0.02519-in Work Load, 80.05-kp, OK with the Allowable Capacity (Down)= 106.12-kp

2.Lateral Analysis:

Try Shear(Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Shear)= 12.00 -kp Deduction factor due to Group Effect, R=Rfront*Rside= 0.54 Fixed Head Condition Try Results (Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Results):

Top Deflection, yt= 0.07360-in Max. Moment, M= -40.67-kp-f Top Deflection Slope, St= 0.00000

B. Front Pile, Critical Loading for Front Pile:

3.Vertical Analysis:

Try Vertical Load(Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Load)= 101.95 -kp Try Results (Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Results):

Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 159.18-kp, Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 84.02-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 106.12-kp, Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 24.18-kp At Work Load= 101.95-kp, Settlement= 0.03238-in Work Load, 101.95-kp, OK with the Allowable Capacity (Down)= 106.12-kp

4.Lateral Analysis:

Try Shear(Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Shear)= 12.00 -kp Deduction factor due to Group Effect, R=Rfront*Rside= 1.00 Fixed Head Condition Try Results (Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Results):

Top Deflection, yt= 0.07370-in Max. Moment, M= -40.67-kp-f Top Deflection Slope, St= 0.00000

C. Final Results & Summary:

Max. Cap Settlement, Xmax= 0.03238-in Average Cap Settlement, Xaverage= 0.02879-in Differential Cap Settlement, Xdiff= 0.00719-in

Lateral Cap Movement (Deflection), yt= 0.074-in Front Pile: Shear= 11.99-kp Back Pile: Shear= 12.00-kp

Lateral Cap Movement, yt= 0.074-in, OK with the Allowable Deflection= 1.000-in

Max. Cap Settlement, Xmax= 0.032-in, OK with the Allowable Deflection= 1.000-in

X-Direction (Lateral Loading in X Direction) Combined deduction factor due to Group Effect, R is based on following factors:

Deduction factor due to side effect, Rside= 1.00 Deduction factor due to front effect, Rfront= 0.38

A. Back Pile, Critical Loading for Back Pile:

--- Only one front pile in this direction. No back pile analysis.

B. Front Pile, Critical Loading for Front Pile:

3.Vertical Analysis:

Try Vertical Load(Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Load)= 91.00 -kp Try Results (Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Results):

Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 159.18-kp, Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 84.02-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 106.12-kp, Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 24.18-kp At Work Load= 91.00-kp, Settlement= 0.02879-in Work Load, 91.00-kp, OK with the Allowable Capacity (Down)= 106.12-kp

4.Lateral Analysis:

Try Shear(Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Shear)= 12.00 -kp Deduction factor due to Group Effect, R=Rfront*Rside= 1.00 Fixed Head Condition Try Results (Not Final, See "C. Final Results & Summary" for Final Results):

Top Deflection, yt= 0.07370-in Max. Moment, M= -40.67-kp-f Top Deflection Slope, St= 0.00000

C. Final Results & Summary:

Max. Cap Settlement, Xmax= 0.02879-in Average Cap Settlement, Xaverage= 0.01439-in Differential Cap Settlement, Xdiff= 0.02879-in

Lateral Cap Movement (Deflection), yt= 0.074-in Front Pile: Shear= 12.00-kp Back Pile: Shear= 0.00-kp-kp-f

Lateral Cap Movement, yt= 0.074-in, OK with the Allowable Deflection= 1.000-in Max. Cap Settlement, Xmax= 0.029-in, OK with the Allowable Deflection= 1.000-in

Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.

Notes:

Q - Vertical Load at pile top P - Lateral Shear Load at pile top M - Moment at pile top Xall - Pile top total settlement yt - Pile top deflection St - Pile top deflection slope (deflection/unit length)

The Max. Moment calculated by program is an internal moment of shaft due to the loading. Egineers have to check whether the pile has enough moment capacity to resist the Max. Moment with adequate factor of safety. If not, the pile may be damaged under the loading.

1 1 1 0 1

Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0 Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 % Shear Condition: Static

Vertical Load, Q= 455.0 -kp Shear Load, P= 20.0 -kp Slope Restain St= 0.00 -in/-in

Profile:

Pile Length, L= 47.0 -ft Top Height, H= 2.0 -ft Slope Angle, As= 0 Batter Angle, Ab= 0

* Zero Friction * Zero Friction Start: 0 -ft End: 8 -ft Group and Boundary Condition:

Fixed Head Sx= 57 -in Sy= 14.7 -in Nx= 5 Ny= 1

Soil Data:

Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt -ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 % 0 59.9 0.0 1.00 317.7 0.87 10 16 55.0 32.0 0.00 35.5 36.76 11 39 60.2 37.0 0.00 84.4 61.42 26 54 70.0 40.0 0.00 197.2 95.94 60

Pile Data:

Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight -ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f

0.0 14.7 26.1 57.0 904.0 29000 0.09 47.0

Group Vertical capacity:

Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 828.013-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 429.444-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 552.009-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 123.224-kp OK! Qallow > Q

Group Settlement Calculation:

At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 99999.00-kp At Q= 455.00-kp Settlement= 0.02903-in

Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.

VERTICAL ANALYSIS Figure 1

Driving Steel Pile (Open end)

CivilTech Software

Factored load-z strong side

80 80

160 160

240 240

320 320

400 400

480 480

560 560

640 640

720 720

800 800

0 06 612 1218 1824 2430 3036 3642 4248 4854 5460 60

Foundation Depth, L -ft Foundation Depth, L -ft

C om pr es si on

C ap ac ity

Q dw -k p

U pl ift C ap ac ity

Q up

-k p

ALLOWABLE CAPACITY vs FOUNDATION DEPTH

ALL-PILE Version 6 CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 1

4 4

8 8

12 12

16 16

20 20

24 24

28 28

32 32

36 36

40 40

0.000 00.003 30.006 60.009 90.012 120.015 150.018 180.021 210.024 240.027 270.030 30

Top Deflection, yt -in Max. Moment in Single Pile, Mmax -kp-f

La te ra l L oa d, P -k p

La te ra l L oa d, P -k p

X-Direction, Group Piles

LATERAL LOAD vs DEFLECTION & MAX. MOMENT

ALL-PILE Version 6 CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to

CivilTech Software Figure 2

ALLPILE 7

LATERAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY OUTPUT

Copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltechsoftware.com Licensed to Date: 7/13/2011 File: M:\Projects\refuge\la\uoc118(1)\techserv\geotech\Foundation Analysis\final analysis\factored load-z strong side .alp 1.0

Title 1: UOC 118(1) Driven Pile Analysis Title 2: Factored load-z strong side

ALLPILE INPUT DATA:

* Pile Type Page * Unit: English Non-displacement pile: H pile or open-ended pipe. Little soil is displaced. Friction is less than displacement pile. Effective area is used.

Pile Type: Driving Steel Pile (Open end)

* Pile Profile * Foundation Depth: 47.0 -ft Top Height: 2.0 -ft Slope Angle: 0 Pile Angle: 0

* Pile Properties * Zs Width Area Perim. I E Weight Mix Out In Other. Type -ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f % Side Side Par.

0.0 14.7 26.1 57.0 904.0 29000 0.09 100.0 1 1 1.0

47.0 14.7 26.1 57.0 904.0 29000 0.09 100.0 1 1 1.0 Pile Tip

Group Type: 1 Top Type: 5 Nx: 5 Ny: 1 Sx: 4.75 -ft Sy: 1.23 -ft

Water Table: 0 -ft Ground Elevation: 64.5 -ft

* Soil Properties * Zs Gamma Phi C K E50/Dr Nspt Type Soil -ft -lb/f3 o -kp/f2 -lb/i3 - %

0.0 59.9 0.0 1.00 317.7 0.87 10 3 Silt (Phi + C)

16.0 55.0 32.0 0.00 35.5 36.76 11 4 Sand/Gravel

39.0 60.2 37.0 0.00 84.4 61.42 26 4 Sand/Gravel

54.0 70.0 40.0 0.00 197.2 95.94 60 4 Sand/Gravel

* Zero Friction * Zero Friction Start: 0 -ft End: 8 -ft

ALLPILE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS:

TOTAL LOADS:

Vertical Load, Q: 455.0 -kp Moment, M: 200.0 -kp-f Shear Load, P: 20.0 -kp

FACTORS AND CONDITIONS:

Load Factor for Vertical Loads: 1.0 1.0

Load Factor for Lateral Loads: 1.0 Loads Supported by Pile Cap: 0 % Shear Condition: Static

GROUP PILE FOUNDATION:

Group Configuration:

Head Condition: Fixed Head (Cap with…