Soils_and_Foundation_Report.pdf

PDF 2 MB Posted Oct 22, 2015

Attached to: George Washington National Forest Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: DTFH71-16-B-00006
Issued by: Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

About this file

From the source

Soils and Foundation Report

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to George Washington National Forest, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
ROBO_-_VA_ERFO_FS_2013-1(1).pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2015
Categorical_Exclusion_Form_(NEPA).pdf	PDF	Oct 22, 2015
Plans_VA_ERFO_FS_2013-1(1).pdf	PDF	Oct 22, 2015
IFB_Solicitation_-_VA_ERFO_FS_2013-1(1).pdf	PDF	Oct 22, 2015
FP14_Eng.pdf	PDF	Oct 22, 2015
VETS-100A-Form.pdf	PDF	Oct 22, 2015
ADV_Bidder's_Qualifications_Form.doc	DOC document	Oct 22, 2015
Synopsis_VA_ERFO_FS_2013-1(1).doc	DOC document	Oct 8, 2015

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

SOILS AND FOUNDATION REPORT

NO. 04-15

PROJECT VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

DEEP PATCH REPAIR ON HOLLOW HITE ROAD (FSR 82)

GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST

AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

June 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

General Project Description

GEOLOGIC SETTING

Regional Geology Soil Survey

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

General Sampling Field Tests and Measurements Data Summary Laboratory Testing Findings

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Boring Location Plans and Subsurface Profiles APPENDIX C – Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Data APPENDIX E – Design Analysis APPENDIX F – Representative Photographs APPENDIX G – 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.

SOILS AND FOUNDATION REPORT

NO. 04-15

PROJECT VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

DEEP PATCH REPAIR ON HOLLOW HITE ROAD (FSR 82)

GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST

AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA

INTRODUCTION

General

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, design analyses, and presents recommendations regarding the roadway embankment repair in Project VA ERFO 2013-1(1). The project site is located in the George Washington National Forest in Augusta County, Virginia.

The general Site Location and Vicinity Map is shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map, in Appendix A.

Project Description

Damages occurred as a result of a storm water event in July, 2013. The storm water caused extensive damage to Hite Hollow Road (FSR 82) at MP 3.1, approximately between Sta. 1+30 and Sta. 1+75.

A deep patch approach is proposed for the re-establishment of the collapsed sections. The face of these sections will be protected from erosion by means of rolled erosion control products in combination with top soil and seeding. Drainage conditions will be improved using back slope drainage blanket, collector pipes and reconditioning the ditches. The proposed repairs will extend approximately 75-ft, from Sta 115+00 to Sta 190+00.

GEOLOGIC SETTING

Regional Geology

The USGS Geologic Map of Virginia (1997) indicates that the project site is underlain by the Chemung Formation, which consists of shale and sandstone with a few thin, quartz‐ pebble conglomerates and red-beds.

Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A for the Geologic Map of the project area.

Project: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1) Roadway Embankment Repair George Washington National Forest Soils and Foundation Report Augusta County, VA No. 04-15

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Soil Survey

According to the USDA Soil Survey Data, indicate that the surficial soil at the project site consist primarily of residuum weathered from interbedded reddish sandstone, siltstone, and shale.

Refer to Figure 3 of Appendix A, for a Soil Survey Map of the project area.

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

General

A subsurface exploration program was conducted by Eastern Federal Land Highway Division (EFLHD) subsurface exploration team on October 28, 2014. The total of two (2) soil borings and three (3) auger probes were drilled in the vicinity of the impacted area.

Soil borings (B-1, B-2) and auger probes (P-1, P-2 and P-3) were drilled along the Hite Hollow Road eroded area to auger refusal depths of 9.4, 8.2, 9.3, 7.2, and 5.6-ft below existing site grades, respectively.

The Boring Location Map is provided in Appendix B.

Sampling

The borings and auger probes were drilled with a CME 750 All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) mounted rotary drill rig and advanced using 3 ¾ in (inside diameter) hollow stem augers

(HSA).

Soil samples from borings B-1 and B-2 were obtained using a 2 ¼ in (outside diameter) split-barrel (split-spoon) sampler driven during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in general accordance with AASHTO T206. Soil samples were typically recovered continuously by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24 inches into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140 lb. automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches.

The total number of blows recorded for the middle twelve inches of the 24 inches sample range is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value. Spoon refusal is defined by greater than 50 blows per 6-inches of penetration of the split-spoon sampler.

The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-in. interval was recorded on the field boring logs. Upon completion of the SPT, the sampler was removed from the ground and sample recovery measurements were made and recorded for each sampling event. A field description by color, texture, and moisture was made for each recovered sample. Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars for laboratory testing. All soil samples were later transported to EFLHD’s Materials

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

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 when first encountered, at the time of completion of each boring, prior to backfilling the borehole, and, if possible, at 24-hours after completion of drilling. The borings and auger probes were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of the drilling. Auger probes were performed to confirm bedrock depths.

Field Tests and Measurements

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team performed 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 chosen by the field geotechnical engineer and were surveyed by EFLHD Survey Team.

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 represent a compilation of field and laboratory data and descriptions of the soil and rock samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally 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 level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was conducted on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to determine the soil engineering properties required for the design analyses. The laboratory tests included, natural moisture content (AASHTO T- 265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89/90), particle size analysis (AASHTO T-11/T-27), and soil classification (AASHTO M-145). The results of the laboratory testing program are presented in Appendix D and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 – Summary of Soil Laboratory Testing Results

USCS: Unified Soil Classification System

Findings

Boring logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered in each boring are located in Appendix C of this report. The Subsurface Profile sheet in Appendix B represent generalized subsurface profile illustrating the general soil conditions that may be anticipated at each site location. A general description of the soil conditions encountered in the borings is presented below. The stratification lines designating soil types and the interfaces between soil and rock types in 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.

The subsurface profile encountered in borings (B-1 and B-2) and auger probes (P-1, P-2 and P-3) can be summarized as follows:

Sample

No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

AASHTO

Classification

USCS

Classification

B-1/J-2 3-5 A-2-4(0)

Poorly graded gravel with silty clay and sand

3.5 18 25 7

B-2/J-3 5-7 A-2-4(0) Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand

7.6 17 26 9

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Gravel road bed – 0.5 ft thick layer of gravel road bed was encountered at the boring locations.

Fill – Underneath the gravel road bed, fill material was encountered and extended to depths of approximately 1.8 ft to 5.0 ft below existing site grades. This material consisted primarily of brown, medium dense gravel and silt; and stiff silt with some gravel. SPT N-values ranged from 10 to 12 blows per foot (bpf).

Weathered Rock [A-2-4(0)] – Underneath the fill materials, weathered rock consisting of brown, poorly graded gravel, some sand, trace silt and clay was encountered and extended to depths of approximately 5.6 ft to 9.4 ft below existing site grades. SPT N-values ranged from 7 to more than 50 bpf, indication loose to very dense relative densities.

Bedrock – Auger refusal was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 5.6 to

9.4 ft below existing site grades. No rock coring was performed in this study.

Groundwater

No groundwater was encountered in any of the borings during or after completion of drilling. However, fluctuations in the groundwater conditions due to seasonal weather changes should be anticipated.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the soil profile encountered and our experience with similar site conditions and projects, we concluded that a deep patch repair represents the most economic approach to re-establish the roadway embankment at the project site.

The computer program ReSSA (3.0) was used in our design analysis. The design soil parameters used are presented in Table 2.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Table 2 – Design Soil Parameters

Soil Layer

Unit Weight

(lb/ft3)

Friction Angle (deg.)

Cohesion

(lb/ft2)

Select Granular Backfill 125 34 0

Poorly graded gravel, some sand, trace silty clay/trace clay [A-2-4(0)]

(Weathered rock)

125 34 0

Bedrock 140 38 4000

The proposed deep patch repair satisfied the minimum global stability, sliding, and 3-part wedge requirements with the following factors of safety:

Table 3 – Obtained Factor of Safety

Table 4 list the deep patch repair characteristics used for the design. Refer to Appendix E for design analysis calculations.

Table 4 – Deep Patch Repairs Characteristics

Stations of Repair 1+15 to 1+60 1+65 to 1+90 Estimated Total Height (ft) 6.0 4.0

Geogrid Type (Section 714.03 FP-14) Geogrid Type IV

Geogrid Type IV

Minimum Geogrid Ultimate Strength (lb/ft) 5000 5000 Minimum Geogrid Nominal long-term

Strength (lb/ft) 2500 2500

Station

Global

Stability

Sliding

3-part Wedge

1+40

1.92

1.76

2.52

1+65

1.61

1.76

3.63

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Minimum Reinforcement Embedded Length (ft)

13 13

First Geogrid Placement from the Bottom (ft) 0.5 0.5 Maximum Geogrid Vertical Spacing (ft) 1.5 1.5 Backfill Material (Section 704.08 FP-14) Select

Granular Backfill

Select Granular Backfill

Maximum Face and Back Slopes 1(V):1(H) 1(V):1(H)

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Excavations – All excavations are to be performed in accordance with applicable OSHA, Federal, State, and Local regulations, Section 204 of the FP-14 Specifications and SCRs included in Appendix G.

Ground and Surface Water Management: The contractor should control the flow of surface and seepage water into excavations at all times.

Select Granular Backfill Material: The portion of the on-site excavated material that meets the select granular backfill requirements in accordance with Section 704.08 of the FP-14 Specifications can be re-used as backfill material. Backfill material should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-14 Specifications and the specified maximum dry density should be achieved within a water content of ±2%.

Reinforcement Geogrid: Reinforcement geogrid material should be handled in accordance with Sections 714.04 of the FP-14 Specifications and SCRs included in Attachment No. 7.

Deep patch repair: Deep patch repair should be constructed following Section 255 of the FP-14 Specifications and SCRs included in Appendix G.

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests 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 tests 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 this report.

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

Prepared by:

Maria Rosa, MSCE, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

APPENDIX A

Figures

Source:

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

TOTAL

SHEETS

3NH ERFO FS 2013-1(1)VA

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATEREG

Geologic Map of Virginia (1993) U.S. Geological Survey

Chemung Formation, Shale and sandstone with a few thin, quartz‐pebble conglomerates and red‐ beds.

Hampshire Formation, Dusky‐red to grayish‐red shale, mudrock, and sandstone.

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Hite Hollow Road MP 3.7

28—Craigsville cobbly sandy loam, Slope: 0 to 5 percent Parent material: Alluvium derived from shale, sandstone, and quartzite

Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: cobbly sandy loam H2 - 5 to 27 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H3 - 27 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand

57F—Lehew flaggy fine sandy loam, 45 to 70 percent slopes Parent material: Residuum weathered from interbedded reddish sandstone, siltstone, and shale

Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: flaggy fine sandy loam H2 - 7 to 26 inches: channery loam H3 - 26 to 32 inches: very flaggy fine sandy loam H4 - 32 to 42 inches: bedrock

89F3—Weikert very channery silt loam, 45 to 80 percent slopes, severely eroded Parent material: Residuum weathered from interbedded shale, siltstone, and sandstone

Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: very channery silt loam H2 - 5 to 13 inches: very channery silt loam H3 - 13 to 17 inches: bedrock

Source:

Available Soil Survey Data, Friday, March 20, 2015 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

FIGURE 3

SOIL SURVEY MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

REG

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)8

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT

TOTAL

SHEETS

STATE

Project: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Available Soil Survey Data

APPENDIX B

Borings Location Map and Subsurface Profile Sheet

2,473

2,474

2,475

2,476

2,477

2,478

2,479

2,480

2,481

2,482

2,483

2,484

2,473

2,474

2,475

2,476

2,477

2,478

2,479

2,480

2,481

2,482

2,483

2,484

E le va tio n (f t)

Depth water was encountered during drilling.

LEGEND

Groundwater depth monitored after boring completion.

Note: Strata changes shown on this profile represent generalizations based on average conditions indicated by soil test borings.

Groundwater depth monitored after boring completion.

T R

A T

A P

H Y

N G

D A

T A

E N

T R

Y .G

D T

/2 5/

R O

T S

S \V

A \2

E C

H S

E R

V \G

E O

T E

C H

\S U

B S

U R

F A

C E

I N

V E

S T

N \B

O R

L O

G S

\V A

E R

F O

F S

3- 1(

B O

B-1

B-2

P-1

P-2

P-3

APPENDIX C

Boring Logs

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

0.5

3.0

9.4

1.1

0.6

0.8

Gravel road bed

Medium dense, brown, GRAVEL and SILT (Dry)

-FILL

Dense to very dense, tan, poorly graded GRAVEL, some sand, trace silty clay [A-2-4(0)] (Dry)

Weathered Rock

Auger refusal at 9.4 ft

4-5-7-4

4-20-28-14

50/6"

27-50/3"

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

63 degrees/ Sunny/ Clear

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6736147.415 Easting: 11237420.69

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Augusta County, VA Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

2483.6 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

10/28/14

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

2. No groundwater was encountered during or after completion of drilling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

10/28/14 D. Hutchins R. KingsleyOperator:

Hite Hollow Road MP 3.7 - Sta. 1+65.18 hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA

B-1

P P

3 3/4 in

B O

G L

R O

T S

S \V

A \2

1( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

A T

\B O

G L

O G

S \V

A E

R F

O F

1( 1)

O R

L O

G S

.G P

2483.1

2480.6

2474.2

Sheet: 1 of 1

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

0.5

1.8

8.2

1.2

0.7

1.0

0.2

Gravel road bed

Stiff, brown, SILT, some gravel (Moist)

-FILL

Loose to very dense, tan, poorly graded GRAVEL and SAND, trace clay [A-2-4(0)] (Dry)

Weathered Rock

Auger refusal at 8.2 ft

4-5-5-5

2-3-4-6

3-11-12-50/4"

50/2"

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Cool/Cloudy and Windy

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6736138.235 Easting: 11237399.14

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Augusta County, VA Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

2481.5 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

10/28/14

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

2. No groundwater was encountered during or after completion of drilling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

10/28/14 D. Hutchins R. KingsleyOperator:

Hite Hollow Road MP 3.7 - Sta. 1+41.52 hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA

B-2

P P

3 3/4 in

B O

G L

R O

T S

S \V

A \2

1( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

A T

\B O

G L

O G

S \V

A E

R F

O F

1( 1)

O R

L O

G S

.G P

2481.0

2479.7

2473.3

Sheet: 1 of 1

0.5

3.5

9.3

Gravel road bed

Brown, SILT and GRAVEL (Dry)

-FILL

Tan, mixture of GRAVEL, SAND, SILTY CLAY, CLAY (Dry)

Weathered Rock

Auger refusal at 9.3 ft

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Clear

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6736148.889 Easting: 11237421.42

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Augusta County, VA Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

2483.9 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

10/28/14

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

2. No groundwater was encountered during or after completion of drilling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

10/28/14 D. Hutchins R. KingsleyOperator:

Hite Hollow Road MP 3.7 - Sta. 1+66.41 hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA

P-1

P P

3 3/4 in

B O

G L

R O

T S

S \V

A \2

1( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

A T

\B O

G L

O G

S \V

A E

R F

O F

1( 1)

O R

L O

G S

.G P

2483.4

2480.4

2474.5

5.0

7.2

Gravel road bed

Brown, SILT some small GRAVEL (Dry)

-FILL

Tan, mixture of GRAVEL, SAND, SILTY CLAY, CLAY (Dry)

Weathered Rock

Auger refusal at 7.2 ft

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Cool/ Light Rain

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6736134.995 Easting: 11237392.86

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Augusta County, VA Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

2480.9 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

10/28/14

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

2. No groundwater was encountered during or after completion of drilling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

10/28/14 D. Hutchins R. KingsleyOperator:

Hite Hollow Road MP 3.7 - Sta. 1+34.36 hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA

P-2

P P

3 3/4 in

B O

G L

R O

T S

S \V

A \2

1( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

A T

\B O

G L

O G

S \V

A E

R F

O F

1( 1)

O R

L O

G S

.G P

2480.4

2475.9

2473.8

3.5

5.6

Gravel road bed

Brown, SILT some small GRAVEL (Dry)

-FILL

Tan, mixture of GRAVEL, SAND, SILTY CLAY, CLAY (Dry)

Weathered Rock

Auger Refusal at 5.6-ft

Standard Penetration Test Data

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/AutomaticHammer Wt. & Type:

Light Rain

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6736144.903 Easting: 11237407.41

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Project Name:

N o.

Augusta County, VA Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

2482.4 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

10/28/14

R ec ft)

Water Content %

Project Location: Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in . Plastic Limit

1. Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

2. No groundwater was encountered during or after completion of drilling.

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Penetrometer (PP in tsf) Rock Core (RQD in %)

Surface Elevation:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

10/28/14 D. Hutchins R. KingsleyOperator:

Hite Hollow Road MP 3.7 - Sta. 1+51.91 hrs

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

E le va tio n (f ee t)

HSA

P-3

P P

3 3/4 in

B O

G L

R O

T S

S \V

A \2

1( 1)

\T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

A T

\B O

G L

O G

S \V

A E

R F

O F

1( 1)

O R

L O

G S

.G P

2481.9

2478.9

2476.8

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Testing Results

SOIL DATA

NO.

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

0.0 10.9 46.4 17.9 12.3 4.9 7.6

(ft.)

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

B-1/J-2 3-5 Poorly graded gravel with silty clay and sand A-2-4(0)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 15.1 36.6 18.9 14.6 7.0 7.8

B-2/J-3 5-7 Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand A-2-4(0)

SOIL DATA

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

A-2-4(0)725183.53-5B-1/J-2

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-2-4(0)926177.65-7B-2/J-3

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

S T

D E

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

APPENDIX E

Design Analysis

Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0 ReSSA Version 3.0

ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1) Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:51 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Title: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1) Project Number: - Client:

Designer: Maria Rosa Station Number: Sta 1+40

Description:

6ft deep patch repair from Sta 1+15 to 1+60

Company's information:

Name: Eastern Federal Lands Street: 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20165 Telephone #:

Fax #:

E-Mail:

Original file path and name: M:\PROJECT ..... alysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Tue Feb 03 09:34:02 2015

PROGRAM MODE: Analysis of a General Slope using GEOSYNTHETIC as reinforcing material.

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:51 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT)

SOIL DATA

=========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³]

Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c

[lb/ft ²]

...........................................................................1 Select Granular Backfill 125.0 34.0 0.0

...........................................................................2 Gravel, some sand, trace silty clay/ trace clay 125.0 34.0 0.0

...........................................................................3 Bedrock 140.0 38.0 4000.0

REINFORCEMENT

R e i n f o r c e m e n t

Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name

Ultimate Strength, Tult

Reduction Factor for Installation Damage, RFid

Reduction Factor for Durability, RFd

Reduction Factor for Creep, RFc

Additional Reduction Factor, RFa

Coverage Ratio, Rc

[lb/ft]

1 Geogrid 5000.00 1.20 1.10 1.67 1.00 1.00

I n t e r a c t i o n P a r a m e t e r s

Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name

== Direct Sliding == ==== Pullout ====

Cds-phi Cds-c Ci Alpha

1 Geogrid 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.80

Relative Orientation of Reinforcement Force, ROR = 1.00. Assigned Factor of Safety to resist pullout, Fs-po = 1.50 Design method for Global Stability: AASHTO/FHWA Bishop.

WATER

Water is not present

SEISMICITY

Not Applicable

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:51 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

DRAWING OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY - GENERAL - Quick Input

-- Problem geometry is defined along sections selected by user at x,y coordinates.

-- X1,Y1 represents the coordinates of soil surface. X2,Y2 represent the coordinates of the end of soil layer 1 and start of soil layer 2, and so on.

GEOMETRY

Soil profile contains 3 layers (see details in next page)

UNIFORM SURCHARGE

Load Q1 = 250.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 102.13 and ends at X1e = 117.80 [ft].

.......................................................................Surcharge load, Q2 None .......................................................................Surcharge load, Q3 None

STRIP LOAD

.......................................................................None

Toe point

7 89 101112

SCALE:

0246[ft]

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:51 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

TABULATED DETAILS OF GEMERAL SPECIFIED GEOMETRY

Soil profile contains 3 layers. Coordinates in [ft.]

# Xi Yi Top of Layer 1 1 0.00 0.00

2 27.95 5.90 3 65.36 25.53 4 97.25 49.78 5 102.13 54.71 6 110.75 55.75 7 117.80 55.48 8 119.52 55.66 9 121.10 57.72 10 151.35 100.09

Top of Layer 2 11 0.00 0.00 12 27.95 5.90 13 65.36 25.53 14 97.25 49.78 15 112.15 49.78 16 117.80 55.48 17 119.52 55.66 18 121.10 57.72 19 151.35 100.09

Top of Layer 3 20 0.00 0.00 21 34.37 0.00 22 97.68 47.78 23 115.07 47.78 24 119.52 55.66 25 121.10 57.72 26 151.35 100.09

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:51 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

TABULATED DETAILS OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY

Soil profile contains 3 layers. Coordinates in [ft.]

# X Y1 Y2 Y3 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 27.95 5.90 5.90 0.00 3 34.37 9.27 9.27 0.00 4 65.36 25.53 25.53 23.39 5 97.25 49.78 49.78 47.46 6 97.68 50.21 49.78 47.78 7 102.13 54.71 49.78 47.78 8 110.75 55.75 49.78 47.78 9 112.15 55.70 49.78 47.78 10 115.07 55.58 52.73 47.78 11 117.80 55.48 55.48 52.61 12 119.52 55.66 55.66 55.66 13 121.10 57.72 57.72 57.72 14 151.35 100.09 100.09 100.09

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:51 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE STRENGTH ALONG EACH REINFORCEMENT LAYER

A = Front-end of reinforcement (at face of slope) B = Rear-end of reinforcement AB = L1 + L2 + L3 = Embedded length of reinforcement

Tavailable = Long-term strength of reinforcement Tfe = Available front-end strength (e.g., connection to facing)

L1 = Front-end 'pullout' length L2 = Rear-end pullout length Tavailable prevails along L3

Factor of safety on resistance to pullout on either end of reinforcement, Fs-po = 1.50

Reinforcement Layer #

Designated Name

Height Relative to Toe [ft]

L [ft]

L1 [ft]

L2 [ft]

L3 [ft]

Tfe [lb/ft]

Tavailable [lb/ft]

1 Geogrid 0.50 13.00 0.00 6.20 6.80 2268.19 2268.19 2 Geogrid 2.00 13.00 0.00 8.79 4.21 2268.19 2268.19 3 Geogrid 3.50 13.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 1794.15 1794.15 (*)

(*) This Tavailable is dictated by the pullout resistance capacity, which is smaller than the long-term strength of the reinforcement that is related to its specified ultimate strength.

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:51 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS

Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.)

The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points.

Critical circles for each entry point (considering all specified exit points) Entry Point #

E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y )

[ft]

E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y )

[ft]

C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R )

[ft] Fs STATUS

1 102.13 54.71 33.84 9.10 -30.88 179.93 182.68 2.24

. .2 106.57 55.25 65.91 25.95 -102.49 302.51 323.79 1.92 OK

3 111.00 55.74 93.87 47.28 92.23 72.17 24.94 2.44 4 115.43 55.57 93.95 47.28 90.36 88.59 41.46 2.27 5 119.87 56.11 24.21 5.42 51.77 69.01 69.31 5.50 6 116.45 55.53 93.76 47.26 88.85 95.99 48.97 2.29 7 116.17 55.54 93.75 47.26 88.99 94.64 47.62 2.29 8 116.54 55.53 93.77 47.26 88.80 96.47 49.45 2.29 9 117.15 55.50 93.80 47.27 88.47 99.58 52.58 2.28

10 117.35 55.50 93.81 47.27 86.91 104.74 57.89 2.33 11 117.46 55.49 93.81 47.26 85.10 110.37 63.70 2.38

Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-entry' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded.

Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.)

The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points.

Critical circles for each exit point (considering all specified entry points).

Exit Point #

E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y )

[ft]

E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y )

[ft]

C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R )

[ft] Fs STATUS

1 -5.57 0.28 146.46 93.24 41.16 94.65 105.31 5.21 2 3.63 1.58 146.46 93.24 44.67 94.74 101.80 5.09 3 13.57 3.60 146.46 93.24 49.53 93.62 96.93 4.87 4 23.06 5.76 146.46 93.24 53.44 93.69 93.03 4.79 5 33.84 9.10 102.13 54.71 -30.88 179.93 182.68 2.24 6 44.19 14.46 102.13 54.71 -14.70 161.05 157.98 2.37 7 54.22 19.70 102.13 54.71 -2.59 147.73 140.07 2.57

. .8 65.91 25.95 106.57 55.25 -102.49 302.51 323.79 1.92 OK

9 73.86 32.05 106.57 55.25 -31.54 215.34 211.43 2.16

10 84.07 39.76 106.57 55.25 43.79 122.35 91.89 2.55 11 93.95 47.28 115.43 55.57 90.36 88.59 41.46 2.27

Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-exit' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded.

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:51 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

RESULTS OF TRANSLATIONAL ANALYSIS

Results in the table below represent critical two-part wedges identified between specified starting (X1) and ending (X2) search points. Wedges along all reinforcement layers and at elevation zero are reported. The critical two-part wedge, one for each predetermined elevation, is defined by Xa, Xb and Xc where Xa is the front end of the passive wedge (slope face), Xb is where the passive wedge ends and the active one starts, and Xc is the X-ordinate at which the active wedge starts.

Critical two-part wedge along each interface:

Interface Height Relative to Toe [ft]

( Xa, Ya ) [ft]

( Xb, Yb ) [ft]

( Xc, Yc ) [ft]

Fs STATUS

. .At toe elevation 0.00 97.25 49.78 97.45 49.78 97.73 50.26 1.76 Minimum on Edge

Reinf. Layer #1 0.50 97.74 50.28 110.99 50.28 117.01 55.51 3.05 Minimum on Edge Reinf. Layer #2 2.00 99.23 51.78 109.91 51.78 114.80 55.60 3.65 OK Reinf. Layer #3 3.50 100.71 53.28 103.58 53.28 104.81 55.03 3.87 OK

Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical two part-wedge was identified within the specified search domain. 'Minimum on Edge' means the critical result corresponds to a minimum on the edge of the search domain; i.e., either on X1 or X2 or the internally preset limits on Xc.

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:51 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

RESULTS OF 3-PART WEDGE ANALYSIS

Results in the table below represent the critical slip surface composed of a three-part wedge and identified by the specified points (X-left, Y-left) and (X-right, Y-right) and angles Zeta(L) and Zeta(R). ReSSA finds the (X,Y) coordinates, as well as the angles Zeta, based on user-specified search domain.

The trace of the critical three-part wedge is fully defined by four points: (X1, Y1), (X-left, Y-left), (X-right, Y-right), (X2, Y2).

Critical 3-part wedge (Automatic search):

(X2, Y2) [ft]

Zeta(L) [degrees]

( X-left, Y-left ) [ft]

( X-right, Y-right ) [ft]

Zeta(R) [degrees]

( X1, Y1 ) [ft]

(96.08, 48.89) 10.00 (99.25, 48.33) (109.00, 50.00) 50.00 (113.73, 55.64) 2.524

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:52 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

CRITICAL RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL AND TRANSLATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSES

Rotational (Circular Arc; Bishop) Stability Analysis

Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.92 Critical Circle: Xc = -102.49[ft], Yc = 302.51[ft], R = 323.79[ft]. (Number of slices used = 52 )

Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.76 Critical Two-Part Wedge: (Xa = 97.25, Ya = 49.78) [ft]

(Xb = 97.45, Yb = 49.78) [ft] (Xc = 97.73, Yc = 50.26) [ft] (Number of slices used = 30 ) Interslice resultant force inclination = 45.29 [degrees]

Three-Part Wedge Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 2.52 Critical Three-Part Wedge: (X2 = 96.08, Y2 = 48.89) [ft]

(X-left = 99.25, Y-left = 48.33) [ft] (X-right = 109.00, Y-right = 50.00) [ft] (X1 = 113.73, Y1 = 55.64) [ft] (Number of slices used = 45 ) Interslice resultant force inclination = 22.52 [degrees]

REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT: DRAWING

SCALE:

0246[ft]

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:23:52 2015 M:\.....\VA\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+40 - 6 ft deep patch repair.MSE

REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT: TABULATED DATA & QUANTITIES

Layer

Reinf.

Type #

Geosynthetic Designated Name

Height Relative to Toe [ft]

Embedded Length [ft]

Covergae Ratio, Rc

( X, Y ) front [ft]

( X, Y ) rear [ft]

Lsv * [ft]

Lre [ft]

1 1 Geogrid 0.50 13.00 1.00 319.56 163.82 332.56 163.82 1.50 4.00 2 1 Geogrid 2.00 13.00 1.00 321.04 165.32 334.04 165.32 1.50 4.00 3 1 Geogrid 3.50 13.00 1.00 322.53 166.82 335.53 166.82 0.98 4.00

* Vertical distance between layers.

QUANTITIES

Reinf. Type # Designated Name Coverage Ratio Area of reinforcemnt [ft²] / length of slope [ft] (including Lsv & Lre)1 Geogrid 1.00 54.98

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:39:19 2015 M:\.....\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+65.00 - 4 ft deep patch repair.MSE

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Title: VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1) Project Number: - Client:

Designer: Maria Rosa Station Number: 1+65

Description:

4 ft deep patch from Sta 1+65 to 1+90

Company's information:

Name: Eastern Federal Lands Street: 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20165 Telephone #:

Fax #:

E-Mail:

Original file path and name: M:\PROJECT ..... sis\Final\Sta 1+65.00 - 4 ft deep patch repair.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Fri Jan 30 16:27:15 2015

PROGRAM MODE: Analysis of a General Slope using GEOSYNTHETIC as reinforcing material.

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

Present Date/Time: Wed Jun 17 10:39:19 2015 M:\.....\2013-1(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Design Analysis\Final\Sta 1+65.00 - 4 ft deep patch repair.MSE

INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT)

SOIL DATA

=========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³]

Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c

[lb/ft ²]

...........................................................................1 Select Granular Backfill 125.0 34.0 0.0

...........................................................................2 Gravel, some sand, trace silty clay/ trace clay 125.0 34.0 0.0

...........................................................................3 Bedrock 140.0 38.0 4000.0

REINFORCEMENT

R e i n f o r c e m e n t

Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name

Ultimate Strength, Tult

Reduction Factor for Installation Damage, RFid

Reduction Factor for Durability, RFd

Reduction Factor for Creep, RFc

Additional Reduction Factor, RFa

Coverage Ratio, Rc

[lb/ft]

1 Geogrid 5000.00 1.20 1.10 1.67 1.00 1.00

I n t e r a c t i o n P a r a m e t e r s

Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name

== Direct Sliding == ==== Pullout ====

Cds-phi Cds-c Ci Alpha

1 Geogrid 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.80

Relative Orientation of Reinforcement Force, ROR = 1.00. Assigned Factor of Safety to resist pullout, Fs-po = 1.50 Design method for Global Stability: AASHTO/FHWA Bishop.

WATER

Water is not present

SEISMICITY

Not Applicable

VA ERFO FS 2013-1(1)

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.