OR FLAP DOT 46(1) - Final Geotech Report (GM 13-22).pdf

PDF 21 MB Posted Dec 21, 2022

Attached to: OR FLAP DOT 46(1), Oregon Caves Highway (OR 46) Restoration
Solicitation number: 69056722B000014
Issued by: Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 27, 2023

This solicitation is for an Invitation to Bid Project to restore the Oregon Caves Highway (OR 46) located in Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve in Josephine County, Oregon. The Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration is seeking bids for project plans including restoration of the highway, as detailed in the attachments. Bids are due by the date listed in the solicitation document. The awarded contractor will be expected to complete the highway restoration work according to the specifications provided.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Bid Tabulation_OR FLAP DOT 46(1).pdf	PDF	Feb 8, 2023
BidSum_OR FLAP DOT 46(1).pdf	PDF	Feb 7, 2023
QA_02-03-2023.pdf	PDF	Feb 3, 2023
WFLHD Construction Contract Administration_OR FLAP 46(1).pdf	PDF	Feb 2, 2023
Amendment A003.pdf	PDF	Feb 1, 2023
QA_02-01-2023.pdf	PDF	Feb 1, 2023
Amendment A002.pdf	PDF	Jan 30, 2023
QA_01-30-2023.pdf	PDF	Jan 30, 2023
OR FLAP DOT 46(1)_Oregon Caves Interested Vendor List.pdf	PDF	Jan 30, 2023
QA_01-26-2023.pdf	PDF	Jan 27, 2023
QA_01-25-2023.pdf	PDF	Jan 26, 2023
Amendment A001.pdf	PDF	Jan 24, 2023
or-04601_PLANS.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_Memo Project Name Change.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_Earthwork_Rdwy-W1.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_XS_culverts.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_Earthwork_W2.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
Physical Data.zip	ZIP file	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_XS_Roadway.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_Earthwork_Rdwy-W2.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
ak-b-gfo201901_PLANS.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_Horiz_Profile_Report.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
IFB_OR FLAP DOT 46(1).pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_Earthwork_W1.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_Vert_Profile_Report.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_XS_Guardrail.pdf	PDF	Dec 21, 2022
or-04601_Survey Control.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 21, 2022

Show all 27

On GovTribe

Work with this file

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.

158377846

M E M O R A N D U M

Western Federal Lands Highway Division 610 E. Fifth Street

Vancouver, WA 98661

DATE: May 26, 2022

TO: Carrie Warren Project Manager

FROM: Leah Wilmot Geotechnical Engineer

SUBJECT: Geotechnical Memo 13-22 Final Geotechnical Recommendations Oregon Caves Highway (OR 46) Restoration

OR FLAP DOT 46(1)

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum provides final geotechnical recommendations for the Oregon Caves Highway (OR 46) Restoration project being performed for the Oregon Department of Transportation and Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. The project is located approximately 16 miles east of Cave Junction, Oregon on Highway 46 in Josephine County, Oregon as shown in Figure 1 Vicinity Map in Appendix A. Geotechnical recommendations are based on site visits conducted on April 12, 2021, and March 29, 2022, by Leah Wilmot (WFLHD Geotechnical Engineer) which included a visual field reconnaissance of the wall locations and sub excavation locations.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This project will rehabilitate the last 3.6 miles of the Oregon Caves Highway (OR 46) between milepost (MP) 15.7 and 19.3 and which terminates at the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve as shown in Appendix A. This section of OR 46 slowly climbs in elevations eastward and the paved roadway is approximately 20 feet wide for most of the 3.6-mile long section. There is limited to no existing shoulders and there are several deficiencies along this section of the highway, which includes two failing retaining walls in the vicinity of MP 19 and several areas of distressed pavement.

Two failing steel pile walls along the alignment will be replaced with mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. Three sections of roadway will be repaired with subexcavations due to distress in the pavement. Locations of the walls and the sub-excavations are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: List of sites and associated stationing.

Site Beginning Station Ending Station Subexcavation 1 56+20 56+80 Subexcavation 2 68+60 69+55 Subexcavation 3 83+40 84+20

Wall 1 186+57 187+87 Wall 2 189+69 191+06

A subsurface investigation was not included in our scope of work for this project due to the relatively low wall heights, lengths, traffic volumes and limited budget. Conservative soil parameters were applied and should be confirmed during construction. Two separate site visits were conducted to observe site conditions and look for adverse conditions, such as active seepages. We also observed visible conditions of the pavement distress along the alignment and the failing soldier pile walls, which are discussed further in the Site Conditions section below.

GEOLOGY

Geology along the Oregon Caves Highway are mapped as sedimentary, volcanic and metamorphic rock units as “Tras” and “Trav” (Ramp, Peterson, 2004) at the wall and subexcavation 3 locations and as intrusive rock unit “di” at subexcavation 1 and 2 locations, shown in Appendix A.

The “Tras” unit is described as metasedimentary rocks which include slaty siltstone, argillite, quartzite, phyllite, schist, chert, conglomerate, and lenses of limestone of the Applegate Group.

The “Trav” unit is described as metavolcanic rocks which include pillow lavas, tuffs, breccias, agglomerates, and, locally, gabbro and diabase dikes of the Applegate Group. The “di” unit is described as intrusive rocks which include hornblende diorite, granodiorite, and a few dacite and diabase dikes.

A soil resource report was compiled (Web Soil Survey) for the project vicinity. Soils are mapped as “7F” in the locations of the subexcavations and walls, as show in Appendix A. Soils are mapped as “76F”, “72F”, and “8G” along the rest of the alignment.

The soil unit “7F” of the Beekman-Colestine complex, 50 to 75 percent south slopes, is described as a gravely loam. The Beekman, south component makes up 45 percent of the unit.

Parent materials consist of colluvium derived from metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock.

These soils are classified in general as silty gravels and silty sands, with a liquid limit ranging between 25 to 40 percent and a plasticity index between non-plastic and 10 percent. The Colestine, south component makes up 30 percent of the unit. Parent materials consist of colluvium and residuum derived from metavolcanics and/or metasedimentary rock. These soils are classified in general as silty gravels and inorganic clays, with a liquid limit ranging between

25 to 40 percent and a plasticity index between non-plastic and 15 percent. The organic matter content in the surface horizon of the Beekman-Colestine complex is approximately three percent. These near-surface soils are described as well drained.

The soil unit “76F” of the Tethrick, 45 to 65 percent south slopes, is described as a gravely fine sandy loam. Tethrick, south makes up 79 percent of the unit. Parent materials consist of colluvium derived from granite, gabbro and/or quartz-diorite. These soils are classified in general as inorganic silts and silty sands, with a liquid limit ranging between 0 to 10 percent and a plasticity index of non-plastic. The organic matter content in the surface horizon is approximately 75 percent, with an organic matter content of approximately two percent below the thin organic horizon. These near-surface soils are described as well drained.

The soil unit “72F” of the Speaker-Josephine, 35 to 55 percent south slopes, is described as a gravely loam. The Speaker, south component makes up 55 percent of the unit. Parent materials consist of colluvium derived from mudstone, metasedimentary and/or metavolcanic rock. These soils are classified in general as silty gravels and clays, with a liquid limit ranging between 25 to 40 percent and a plasticity index between non-plastic and 20 percent. The organic matter content in the surface horizon is approximately three percent. The Josephine, south component makes up 30 percent of the unit. Parent materials consist of colluvium and residuum weathered from metavolcanics and metasedimentary rock. These soils are classified in general as silty gravels and clays, with a liquid limit ranging between 35 to 45 percent and a plasticity index between 10 and 20 percent. The organic matter content in the surface horizon is approximately 75 percent, with an organic matter content of approximately five percent below the thin organic horizon. These near-surface soils of the Speaker-Josephine unit are described as well drained.

The soil unit “8G” of the Beekman-Vermisa complex, 60 to 100 percent north slopes, is described as a gravely loam. The Beekman, north component makes up 50 percent of the unit.

Parent materials consist of colluvium derived from metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock.

These soils are classified in general as silty gravels and silty sands, with a liquid limit ranging between 25 to 40 percent and a plasticity index between non-plastic and 10 percent. The organic matter content in the surface soils are approximately three percent. These near-surface soils are described as well drained. The Vermisa, south component makes up 30 percent of the unit. Parent materials consist of colluvium and residuum derived from conglomerate, metavolcanics and/or metasedimentary rock. These soils are classified in general as silty gravels and poorly graded gravels, with a liquid limit ranging between 20 to 35 percent and a plasticity index between non-plastic and 5 percent. The organic matter content in the surface horizon is approximately two percent. These near-surface soils are described as somewhat excessively drained.

SITE CONDITIONS

Site conditions were observed during two separate site visits. An initial site visit and reconnaissance was completed on April 12, 2021, by Geotechnical Engineer, Leah Wilmot;

Environmental Protection Specialist, Cyrus Bullock; Materials Engineer, Nassim Sabahfar;

Project Manager Helen Oppenheimer; and Civil Design Engineer, Steven Davis. A second site visit was completed by Geotechnical Engineers, Evan Garich and Leah Wilmot; Environmental Protection Specialist, Cyrus Bullock; Project Manager Carrie Warren; and Civil Design Engineer, Steven Davis on March 29, 2022, to visually inspect the failing walls and pavement distress at the wall and sub excavation locations. The visual inspection of the sites included noting ground surface conditions, observation of materials along the roadway, existing culvert conditions, and documenting any bedrock outcrops within the immediate upslope and downslope areas of the wall sites.

Subexcavation 1

At station 56+20 we observed the loss of edge support of the asphalt concrete pavement along the eastbound lane for approximately 80 feet, shown in Figure 1. The slope below the wall is approximately 45 degrees south sloping. We observed no existing shoulder along the eastbound lane where the loss of edge is present.

Figure 1: Subexcavation 1 at station 56+20. Loss of edge support along eastbound lane.

Photograph A is looking west. Photograph B is looking east.

A B

Subexcavation 2

At station 68+60 we observed fatigue cracking with spalled interconnected cracks and rutting of the asphalt concrete pavement within the eastbound lane for approximately 250 feet shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Subexcavation 2 at station 68+60.

Fatigue cracking and rutting, looking west.

Subexcavation 3

At station 83+40 we observed the loss of edge support of the asphalt concrete pavement along the eastbound lane for approximately 80 feet, shown in Figure 3. The slope below the wall is approximately 45 degrees south sloping. We observed no existing shoulder along the eastbound lane where the loss of edge is present.

Figure 3: Subexcavation 3 at station 83+40.

Loss of edge support along eastbound lane, looking west.

Wall 1

Wall 1 starts at station 186+57 and ends at 187+87. At this location a soldier pile wall has been constructed along the eastbound lane using vertical steel H-beams with 10-gauge lapped-guardrail used for lagging shown in Figure 4. The wall is approximately 128 feet long. We observed no embedment of the guardrail lagging and did not observe concrete around the H-beams; it is likely they were driven in-place. No corrosion was observed along the wall’s surface.

Rock outcroppings were observed on the cut side of the roadway parallel to the wall location.

Trees up to 3.5 feet in diameter were observed growing vertical or within 5 feet of the wall and boulders up to 4 feet in diameter and 3.5 feet exposed from the ground, shown in Appendix B.

A culvert was located that crosses the roadway from the cut side and daylights beneath the current wall. During the site visits we observed that the wall has overturned past vertical causing roadway settlement and longitudinal cracking in the eastbound lane as shown in Figure 4.

Wall 2

Wall 2 starts at station 189+69 and ends at station 191+06. At this location a soldier pile wall has been constructed along the eastbound lane using vertical steel H-beams and 10-gauge lapped-guardrail used for lagging shown in Figure 5. The wall at approximately 136 feet in length. Trees up to 1.5 foot in diameter were observed growing vertical or within 5 feet of the wall. Rock outcroppings were observed on the cut side of the roadway parallel to the wall location shown in Appendix B. We observed that the wall has overturned causing roadway settlement and longitudinal cracking in the eastbound lane. We observed a spring on the cut side of the road that flows into the ditch along the roadway between Walls 1 and 2.

Figure 4: Wall 1 at station 186+57. Photograph A is looking east along wall. Photograph B is looking west at longitudinal cracking along the eastbound lane.

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The final geotechnical recommendations for the subexcavation sections at stations 56+20, 67+83, and 82+17 and the final geotechnical analysis and recommendations for Wall 1 at starting station 186+57 and Wall 2 at starting station 189+69 are summarized below.

Subexcavation Recommendations

We recommend subexcavations at stations 56+20, 67+83, and 82+17 where significant fatigue cracking and pavement distress were observed. The subexcavations should be designed to a 2-foot depth to the half-width of the roadway in eastbound lane where distress was observed and to the approximate length of 180 feet. We recommended that separation-stabilization geotextile be placed at the bottom of the excavated section and that stabilization geogrid be placed at 12-inch vertical spacing.

Wall Recommendations

Based on our site observations and tilting of the existing wall faces, it is likely that the soldier pile walls were constructed by driving the H-beams into the ground, and not drilling and setting

Figure 5: Wall 2 at station 189+69. Photograph A looking west along wall. Photograph B looking east at longitudinal cracking in eastbound lane.

the H-beams into the drilled holes with concrete. The H-beams may have hit rock and not been adequately seated into suitable bearing materials, thus allowing them to overturn on a pivot point.

We recommend replacing the failing soldier pile wall at station 186+57 and 189+69 with a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall. We anticipate a wall no greater than 7.5 feet in total height will be required at each location. MSE walls are well suited for fill-side restoration of failed roadways and shoulders. MSE walls for this project will utilize welded wire facing backfilled with gabion rock. The welded wire facing units used for wall applications are typically 18 inches in height and depth in section view and 8 to 10 feet in length along the wall face. Reinforcement geosynthetics, such as geotextiles and geogrids, are used for strength and global stability and placed at a vertical spacing of 18 inches.

The design software MSEW+ by ADAMA Engineering, Inc. was used to perform internal, external, and global stability analysis of the MSE walls as a geosynthetic reinforced structure.

Soil parameters used in the analysis are shown in Table 2 below and in the MSEW+ calculation summary report in Appendix C. Reinforced fill is to be select granular backfill per FP-14 section

704.08. A maximum 7.5-foot tall wall was modeled with an 18 inch high 1V:2H backslope to a flat roadway surface. Traffic loads were modeled as a 250 pounds per square feet (psf) live load uniform surcharge. Water table is assumed to be below the MSE wall and that backfill is in a drained condition.

Table 2: MSE wall soil parameters

Material Friction

Angle (deg.)

Cohesion

(psf) Total Unit

Weight (pcf) Reinforced Fill 36 0 130 Retained Soils 30 0 125 Foundation Soils 28 100 120

Based on constructability concerns about having enough room for a temporary cut slope and maintaining a temporary travel lane along the roadway, we designed the geosynthetic reinforcement lengths (perpendicular to the wall face) to be shorter at the bottom of the wall and get longer with each successive reinforcement layer to follow the anticipated 1:1 cut slope.

Table 3 shows estimated grid lengths at each grid height. The minimum grid length for any wall height should be 6 feet measured from the face of the wall back into the roadway (i.e., perpendicular to the wall). The reinforcement geogrid should be Type II per FP-14 section

714.04 with a vertical spacing of 1.5 feet. Please note for takeoff quantity purposes that the reinforcement design typically includes a wrap to the geogrid that adds approximately 6 feet of length to the geogrid.

Table 3: MSE wall grid lengths

Wall Height = 7.5 Feet Wall Height = 6.0 Feet Wall Height = 4.5 Feet Grid Height

(ft.)

Grid Length

(ft.)

Grid Height

(ft.)

Grid Length

(ft.)

Grid Height

(ft.)

Grid Length

(ft.)

0 6 0 6 0 6

1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5 3 9 3 9 3 9

4.5 10.5 4.5 10.5 6 12

The seismicity of the project area was considered for the retaining wall design; however, the scaled peak ground acceleration, As, for an earthquake with a return period of approximately 1,000 years was determined to be 0.309g using the USGS Seismic Design Maps Website Figure 7 and table 4. Seismic design for retaining walls is not required by LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2020) where the As is less than 0.4g. Therefore, additional seismic loads were not considered in the design of the retaining structures and slopes.

It should be noted that displacements of retaining structures could occur during strong ground shaking from an earthquake, but it is not practical to mitigate the earthquake loads for these structures due to the relatively high cost. If it is determined that seismic loads on slopes or retaining structures should be considered for this project, the WFL Geotechnical group should be contacted for additional recommendations.

Figure 5: Scaled peak ground acceleration for Site Class D

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

S p ec tr al A cc el er at io n

, S a

Period, T (s)

Table 4: Seismic parameters for wall locations

Site Latitude 42.102119°

Site Longitude ‐123.414386°

Site Class at Project Site D

(by Soil Type and Penetration Resistance in Top 100 feet of Soil Profile)

Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration on Site Class B Rock (PGA) 0.231 g

Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at a

0.540 g

Period of 0.2 sec on Site Class B Rock (Ss)

Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at a

0.248 g

Period of 1.0 sec on Site Class B Rock (S1)

Mapped Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient, FPGA 1.338

Mapped Short‐Period Spectral Acceleration Coefficient, Fa 1.368

Mapped 1‐sec Period Spectral Acceleration Coefficient, Fv 1.904

Scaled Peak Ground Acceleration for Project Site, Site Class D (As) 0.309 g

Scaled Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at a

0.739 g

Period of 0.2 sec for Project Site, Site Class D (SDS)

Scaled Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration at a

0.472 g

Period of 1.0 sec for Project Site, Site Class D (SD1)

AASHTO Seismic Zone 3

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

No subsurface explorations were performed for this study. However, based on the information above, excavations will likely encounter bedrock in the wall and perhaps even subexcavation subgrades. Rippability of the rock is unknown. However, where hard rock is encountered that is difficult to excavate, wall excavations and subexcavations may be reduced. The Geotechnical Team should be on-site during excavation for the walls and subexcavations to confirm suitable subgrade conditions and assist in potential reductions should hard rock be encountered.

Wall sites contained boulders up to 2-feet in diameter with larger boulders of 4-feet in diameter or larger and large tree stumps up to 3.5 feet in diameter observed vertical or near the wall locations. Based on these surface observations, the contractor should be prepared to excavate, handle, and haul boulders and root wads. Contractor should also expect organics to be encountered while excavating wall locations and remove unsuitable organic soils.

REFERENCES

AASHTO, 2020, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

USDA. Web soil survey - home. Retrieved May 3, 2022, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/

Ramp, L., and Peterson, N.V., 2004. Geologic Map of Josephine County, Oregon. U.S Geologic Survey.

USGS. Design Maps. Retrieved May 12, 2022.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/aashto- 2009.json?latitude=42.102119&longitude=- 123.414386&siteClass=B&title=OR%20FLAP%20DOT%2046(1)

CLOSING

Please contact Leah Wilmot at (360) 619-7697 or Leah.wilmot@dot.gov with any questions regarding this memorandum.

CC: Steven Davis, Highway Designer Nassim Sabahfar, Materials Engineer Eric Lim, Senior Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical File

Attachment: Appendix A: Site Maps, Geology Maps, and Soil Map Survey Figures

Appendix B: Photographs Appendix C: MSEW+ Calculations Report

APPENDIX A

Figures and Tables

Site Maps Figures 1-3

Geology Maps Figures 4-6

Soil Map Survey Figures 7-16

610 East Fifth Street Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Regional Overview A‐1

NTS

File Name:

Date:

May 3, 2022

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Site Overview A‐2

NTS

File Name:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Wall Location Overview A‐3

NTS

File Name:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Geologic Map A‐4

NTS

File Name:

Date:

May 3, 2022

N Map Data: Ramp, L., and Peterson, N.V, Geologic Map of Josephine County, Oregon. 2004

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Geologic Map A‐5

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Reference: Ramp, L., and Peterson, N.V, Geologic Map of Josephine County, Oregon. 2004

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Geologic Map A‐6

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Reference: Ramp, L., and Peterson, N.V, Geologic Map of Josephine County, Oregon. 2004

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey A‐7

NTS

File Name:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey of Culvert Sites A‐8

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Reference: USDA, 2022

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey A‐9

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey A‐10

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey A‐11

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey A‐12

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey A‐13

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey A‐14

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey A‐15

NTS

File Name:

Date:

Vancouver, WA 98661

Project No.

OREGON CAVES HIGHWAY (OR 46) RESTORATION FIGUREOR FLAP DOT 46(1)

Scale

Soil Map Survey A‐16

NTS

File Name:

Date:

APPENDIX B

Photographs

Photograph A ‐ 1: (2021) Station 186+57, facing north downslope. Tree stump vertical to wall 1

Photograph A ‐ 2: (2022) Station 186+57, facing east. Erosion of soil below wall 1

Photograph A ‐ 3: (2022) Station 186+55, facing east. Beginning of wall 1

Photograph A ‐ 4: (2022) Station 186+57, facing southwest. Tree in vicinity of wall 1.

Photograph A ‐ 5: (2022) Stationing 186+57, facing east. Longitudinal cracking along eastbound lane adjacent to wall 1.

Photograph A ‐ 6: (2022) Station 186+57, facing east. Longitudinal cracking along eastbound lane. Rock outcropping along north slope , across from

Rock outcropping

Photograph A ‐ 7: (2022) Station 186+57, facing west. North slope adjacent to

Photograph A ‐ 8: (2022) Station 186+47, facing south. Large boulder approximately 4‐feet in diameter, downslope of wall 1.

Photograph A ‐ 9: (2022) Station 188+50, facing north. Spring between wall 1 and 2.

Photograph A ‐ 10: (2022) Station 188+50, facing west. Drainage along northern ditch from spring along north slope.

Spring

Photograph A ‐ 11: (2022) Station 189+80 facing east. Erosion along top of wall 2.

Photograph A ‐ 12: (2022) Station 189+61, facing east. Beginning of wall 2.

Photograph A ‐ 13: (2022) Station 191+00, facing west. Erosion along top of wall 2.

Photograph A ‐ 14: (2022) Station 189+90, facing west. Longitudinal cracking in the eastbound lane.

Photograph A ‐ 15: (2022) Station 190+00, facing east. Rock outcropping along north slope.

Photograph A ‐ 16: (2022) Station 190+00, west. North slope across from wall 2.

Rock outcropping

APPENDIX C

MSWE+ Calculations Report

Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+ Version MSEW+

MSEW -- Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls Oregon Caves Highway (OR 46) Restoration Present Date/Time: Tue May 17 09:39:58 2022 C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\New\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

Oregon Caves Highway (OR 46) Restoration Stiffness Method 2020

MSEW+: Update # 2021.13

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Title: Oregon Caves Highway (OR 46) Restoration Project Number: OR FLAP DOT 46(1) Client:

Designer: Leah Wilmot Station Number:

Description:

Aanalysis of a geogrid reinforced MSE wall with welded wire facing.

Company's information:

Name: WFLHD Street: 610 E. 5th St.

Vancouver, WA 98686 Telephone #: (360) 619-7697 Fax #:

E-Mail:

File path and name: C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\Ne .....ew\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

Original date and time of creating this file: Tue May 17 12:18:29 2021

PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS

of a SIMPLE STRUCTURE using GEOGRID as reinforcing material.

Present Date/Time: Tue May 17 09:39:58 2022 C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\New\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

SOIL DATA

REINFORCED SOIL

Unit weight, 130.0 lb/ft ³ Design value of internal angle of friction, 36.0 °

RETAINED SOIL

Unit weight, 125.0 lb/ft ³ Design value of internal angle of friction, 30.0 °

FOUNDATION SOIL (Considered as an equivalent uniform soil) Equivalent unit weight, equiv. 120.0 lb/ft ³ Equivalent internal angle of friction, equiv. 28.0 ° Equivalent cohesion, c equiv. 100.0 lb/ft ²

Factored bearing capacity resistance of foundation is given: q-ult-static = 6000.0 lb/ft².

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

Ka (internal stability) = 0.2596 (if batter is less than 10°, Ka is calculated from eq. 15. Otherwise, eq. 38 is utilized) Inclination of internal slip plane, = 63.00° (see Fig. 28 in DEMO 82).

Ka (external stability) = 0.3356 (if batter is less than 10°, Ka is calculated from eq. 16. Otherwise, eq. 17 is utilized)

BEARING CAPACITY

Bearing capacity is controlled by general shear.

Bearing capacity factors (calculated by MSEW): Nc = N/A N = N/A

SEISMICITY

Not Applicable

Present Date/Time: Tue May 17 09:39:58 2022 C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\New\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

INPUT DATA: Geogrids (Analysis)

D A T A Geogrid type #1

Geogrid type #2

Geogrid type #3

Geogrid type #4

Geogrid type #5

Tult [lb/ft] 1500.0 Durability reduction factor, RFd 1.00 Installation-damage reduction factor, RFid 1.00 Creep reduction factor, RFc 1.00 CDR for strength N/A Coverage ratio, Rc 1.000

N/A

N/A Friction angle along geogrid-soil interface, 30.17 Pullout resistance factor, F* 0.67ꞏtan Scale-effect correction factor, 0.8

Variation of Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient With Depth

Z K / Ka

0 ft 1.00

3.3 ft 1.00

6.6 ft 1.00

9.8 ft 1.00

13.1 ft 1.00

16.4 ft 1.00

19.7 ft 1.00

6.6

9.8

16.4

26.2

32.8

Z [ft]

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 K / Ka

Present Date/Time: Tue May 17 09:39:58 2022 C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\New\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

INPUT DATA: Geometry and Surcharge loads (of a SIMPLE STRUCTURE)

[S1]

Design height, Hd 7.50 [ft] { Embedded depth is E = 2.00 ft, and height above top of finished bottom grade is H = 5.50 ft }

Soil in front of wall is inclined at 40.0°, Hs = 50.00 ft. and bs = 4.00 ft.

Batter, 3.2 [deg] Backslope, 26.6 [deg] Backslope rise 1.0 [ft] Broken back equivalent angle, I = 3.81° (see Fig. 25 in DEMO 82)

U N I F O R M S U R C H A R G E Uniformly distributed dead load is 0.0 [lb/ft ²]

OTHER EXTERNAL LOAD(S)

[S1] Strip Load, Qv-d = 0.0 and Qv-l = 250.0 [lb/ft ²].

Footing width, b=25.0 [ft]. Distance of center of footing from wall face, d = 14.5 [ft] @ depth of 0.0 [ft] below soil surface.

ANALYZED REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT:

SCALE:

0 2 4 6 [ft]

Present Date/Time: Tue May 17 09:39:58 2022 C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\New\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

Stiffness Method 2020 – Load and Resisting Factors

INTERNAL STABILITY

Load factor for vertical earth pressure, EV: p-EV 1.35 Load factor for prediction of Tmax for the soil failure limit state: p-EVfs 1.20 Load factor for earthquake loads, EQ: p-EQ 1.00

Load factor for live load surcharge, LS: p-LS 1.75 (Same as in External Stability).

Load factor for dead load surcharge, ES: p-ES 1.50 (Same as in External Stability).

Resistance factor for reinforcement tension Static Combined static/seismic Geogrid: 0.90 1.20

Resistance factor accounting for uncertainty in measurement of geosynthetic stiffness J at 2% strain sf 1.000 Facing stiffness factor (recommended by AASHTO for flexible facing as 1.0) fs 1.000

Resistance factor for reinforcement tension in connectors Static Combined static/seismic Geogrid: 0.90 1.20

Resistance factor for geosynthetic pullout 0.90 1.20

EXTERNAL STABILITY

Load factor for vertical earth pressure, EV Static Combined Static/Seismic Sliding and Eccentricity p-EV p-EQ1.00 1.00 Bearing Capacity p-EV p-EQ1.35 1.35

Load factor of active lateral earth pressure, EH p-EH 1.50 Load factor of active lateral earth pressure during earthquake (does not multiply P and P ): p-EH

EQAE IR 1.50

Load factor for earthquake loads, EQ (multiplies P and P ): p-EQAE IR 1.00

Resistance factor for shear resistance along common interfaces Static Combined Static/Seismic Reinforced Soil and Foundation 1.00 1.00 Reinforced Soil and Reinforcement 1.00 1.00

Resistance factor for bearing capacity of shallow foundation Static Combined Static/Seismic b 0.65 0.65

Present Date/Time: Tue May 17 09:39:58 2022 C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\New\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

ANALYSIS: CALCULATED FACTORS (Static conditions) Bearing capacity, CDR = 1.69, factored bearing load = 2307 lb/ft².

Foundation Interface: Direct sliding, CDR = 1.183, Eccentricity, e/L = 0.2644, CDR-overturning = 1.77

G E O G R I D C O N N E C T I O N

# Elevation Length Type

CDR

[connection break]

Geogrid strength

CDR

Pullout resistance

CDR

Direct sliding

CDR

Eccentricity e/L

Product name

[ft] [ft]

1 0.00 6.00 1 N/A N/A 8.508 27.452 1.101 0.2644 Type II LTDS 2 1.50 7.50 1 N/A N/A 5.083 16.068 1.561 0.1143 Type II LTDS 3 3.00 9.00 1 N/A N/A 5.012 14.084 2.152 0.0463 Type II LTDS 4 4.50 10.50 1 N/A N/A 5.316 12.084 2.935 0.0123 Type II LTDS 5 6.00 12.00 1 N/A N/A 4.561 7.108 4.007 -0.0079 Type II LTDS

Present Date/Time: Tue May 17 09:39:58 2022 C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\New\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

BEARING CAPACITY for GIVEN LAYOUT – Using AASHTO 2017-2020 method

[S1]

SCALE:

0 2 4 6 [ft]

STATIC SEISMIC UNITS

(Given factored bearing resistance, q-n) Factored bearing resistance, q-n 3900 N/A [lb/ft ²] Factored bearing load, V 2307.0 N/A [lb/ft ²] Eccentricity, e 0.79 N/A [ft] Eccentricity, e/L 0.131 N/A CDR calculated 1.69 N/A Base length 6.00 N/A [ft]

Unfactored applied bearing pressure = (Unfactored R) / [ L - 2 * (Unfactored e) ] = Unfactored R = 7280.90 [lb/ft], L = 6.00, Unfactored e = 0.68 [ft], and Sigma = 1567.04 [lb/ft ²]

Present Date/Time: Tue May 17 09:39:58 2022 C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\New\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

DIRECT SLIDING for GIVEN LAYOUT (for GEOGRID reinforcements)

Along reinforced and foundation soils interface: CDR-static = 1.183

# Geogrid Elevation [ft]

Geogrid Length [ft]

CDR

Static

CDR

Seismic

Geogrid Type # Product name

1 0.00 6.00 1.101 N/A 1 Type II LTDS 2 1.50 7.50 1.561 N/A 1 Type II LTDS 3 3.00 9.00 2.152 N/A 1 Type II LTDS 4 4.50 10.50 2.935 N/A 1 Type II LTDS 5 6.00 12.00 4.007 N/A 1 Type II LTDS

ECCENTRICITY for GIVEN LAYOUT

At interface with foundation: e/L static = 0.2644; Overturning: CDR-static = 1.77

# Geogrid Elevation [ft]

Geogrid Length [ft] e / L Static e / L Seismic

Geogrid Type # Product name

1 0.00 6.00 0.2644 N/A 1 Type II LTDS 2 1.50 7.50 0.1143 N/A 1 Type II LTDS 3 3.00 9.00 0.0463 N/A 1 Type II LTDS 4 4.50 10.50 0.0123 N/A 1 Type II LTDS 5 6.00 12.00 -0.0079 N/A 1 Type II LTDS

Present Date/Time: Tue May 17 09:39:58 2022 C:\MyFiles\Geotech\Projects\Oregon Caves\MSEW3 Files\New\MSEW 7.5-New.BENp

RESULTS for STRENGTH Live Load included in calculating Tmax

# Geogrid Elevation

[ft]

Limit State Tmax [lb/ft]

Service Limit Tmax [lb/ft]

Reinf.

Strain Static

Tmd

[lb/ft]

Specified minimum

CDR

Static

Actual calculated

CDR

Static

Specified minimum

CDR

seismic

Actual calculated

CDR

seismic

Product name

1 0.00 1350.0 158.7 119.70 0.678 N/A N/A 8.508 N/A N/A Type II LTDS 2 1.50 1350.0 265.6 192.81 1.093 N/A N/A 5.083 N/A N/A Type II LTDS 3 3.00 1350.0 269.3 194.95 1.105 N/A N/A 5.012 N/A N/A Type II LTDS 4 4.50 1350.0 254.0 180.04 1.020 N/A N/A 5.316 N/A N/A Type II LTDS 5 6.00 1350.0 296.0 191.29 1.084 N/A N/A 4.561 N/A N/A Type II LTDS

RESULTS for PULLOUT Live Load included in calculating Tmax

NOTE: Live load is not included in calculating the overburden pressure used to assess pullout resistance.

# Geogrid Elevation

[ft]

Coverage Ratio

Tmax

[lb/ft]

Tmd

[lb/ft]

[ft](see NOTE)

[ft]

Avail.Static Pullout, Pr

[lb/ft]

Specified Static

CDR

Actual Static

CDR

Avail.Seism.

Pullout, Pr

[lb/ft]

Specified seismic

CDR

Actual seismic

CDR

1 0.00 1.000 158.7 N/A 6.00 0.00 4356.1 N/AN/A 27.452 N/A N/A

2 1.50 1.000 265.6 N/A 6.82 0.68 4267.6 N/AN/A 16.068 N/A N/A

3 3.00 1.000 269.3 N/A 7.64 1.36 3793.2 N/AN/A 14.084 N/A N/A

4 4.50 1.000 254.0 N/A 8.46 2.04 3069.1 N/AN/A 12.084 N/A N/A

5 6.00 1.000 296.0 N/A 9.28 2.72 2103.9 N/AN/A 7.108 N/A N/A

GM 13-22 FinalGeotech Recommendations Oregon Caves.pdf

Appendices

Appendices .pdf

Appendices Title Sheets .pdf

Appendix C.pdf

Appendix B.pdf

Appendix A.pdf

	2022-05-26T12:46:11-0700
LEAH ROSEANNE WILMOT

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Dec 21, 2022.