DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION: MATERIALS REPORT COVER SHEET

Transcription

1 LD-450 7/01/09 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION: MATERIALS REPORT COVER SHEET Geotechnical Engineering Report Culverts March 3, 2017 AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Germantown, Maryland AECOM Germantown, Maryland GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER Responsible for Pages: All Project Description: I-264/Witchduck Road Interchange & Ramp Extension (C-D Road) From: Mile East of WBL I-64 To: Mile East of Witchduck Road Project UPC No.: UPC 17630

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction Scope of work Proposed Construction Site Geology Subsurface Exploration General Subsurface Conditions Culvert Foundation Support Culvert Nos. 21 and 34 Support I-264 Box Culvert Extension (Culvert No. 1870) Site Preparation and Grading Construction Considerations Culvert Foundation Subgrades Prestressed Precast Concrete piles Construction Monitoring Limitations APPENDICES Appendix A: Slope Stability Output Appendix B: ALLPILE Output Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC i -

3 I-264 WITCHDUCK ROAD INTERCHANGE & RAMP EXTENSION CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of AECOM s geotechnical analysis for proposed culverts associated with proposed improvements to the I-264 Witchduck Road interchange in the City of Virginia Beach. These improvements include three drainage structures (culverts). A general description of the subsurface conditions and foundation recommendations for support of the culverts installation are included herein. The borings and laboratory testing considered in our evaluations were completed by HDR Engineering, Inc. and ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC under their contract with VDOT. In addition to completing a geotechnical boring program, HDR performed evaluation of the subsurface conditions with respect to embankments and roadway construction, with emphasis on settlement and global stability. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for this report includes the following: a. Recommendations for foundation soil bearing pressures for support of the proposed culverts. b. Evaluation of culvert settlement including the need for soil improvement or the use of deep foundations. c. Comments regarding geotechnical construction considerations that should be considered both in the design and provided to contractors in the construction plans and specifications. 3.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Overall, the project is intended to improve traffic flow, increase capacity, and enhance safety for the traveling public. The new and widened roadways and bridges will require the installation of new box culverts for drainage purposes. Three (3) precast reinforced concrete culverts proposed within the project area were analyzed as a part of this report. The locations, elevations and geotechnical subsurface information pertaining to the proposed retaining walls were obtained from available plans and cross sections prepared by Kimley Horn, dated October 14, 2015, and the Geotechnical Engineering Reports prepared by HDR, Inc. dated September 20, 2013 and the Geotechnical Data Report Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

4 (GDR) prepared by ECS Mid Atlantic, LLC (ECS) dated February 24, These culverts will have approximately 1 foot of cover and hence will be subjected to minimal surcharge due to fill placement. Table 1 shows a summary of the culverts analyzed as a part of this study. Table 1 Summary of Proposed Culverts Analyzed Culvert No. Approximate Location Approximate Length (ft) Size Proposed Invert Elevation (ft) Approximate Cover (ft) Traffic Surcharge 21 B-603 Cleveland St Bridge (previously Greenwich Rd Bridge)- Abutment A 118 6ft x 6ft Single Box (In) & (Out) 1 No South of I-264 6ft x 6ft 9.80 (In) 34 Southbound at about 22 Single And 1 No Station No. 166 Box 9.77 (Out) Structure 1870 I-264 Box Culvert Extension (D-601) 65.5 (extension) 8ft x 6ft Quad Box 9.19 (In) And 9.18 (Out) 2 Yes 4.0 SITE GEOLOGY The geology of the project site is described in the Geotechnical Engineering Reports prepared by HDR, Inc. dated September 20, SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION HDR performed various subsurface explorations including soil borings with standard penetration testing (SPT with automatic hammer), Cone Penetration Testing (CPT), and soil laboratory testing. HDR performed various engineering evaluations along the I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange project site and prepared a GER for each specific subproject within the project area. ECS Mid Atlantic, LLC also performed subsurface exploration including soil borings and soil laboratory testing and the results are included in a GDR dated February 24, Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

5 6.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The conditions indicated by the soil borings performed by HDR are discussed in considerable detail in the GERs prepared by HDR. Specifically, much of the near-surface zones consist of highly variable man-placed fill. This fill likely represents fill placed during construction of the existing highways or earlier development that has occurred over the years adjacent to the project. Below the fill, interbedded layers of clays and sands are present extending down to the Yorktown Formation. These layers were classified as the upper sand and upper clay, characterized by very loose and soft consistencies, and the lower sand and clay, which are typically loose to medium dense, or soft to medium stiff, with sporadic stronger and weaker layers. These natural strata represent the Quaternary geologic units described above. The deepest borings penetrated into the Yorktown Formation. This stratum consists of medium dense to dense silty or clayey sands, with occasional shell fragments. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) indicate that the N-values for these materials range from about 10 blows per foot (bpf) to approximately 50 bpf, with an average of about 25. These soils are known to be overconsolidated with relatively higher strength and lower permeability than the upper soils at the site. The subsurface profile below Culvert No. 21 was estimated from existing soil borings performed by HDR. The deepest soil boring extended to about EL -114 feet. The soil profile below Culvert No was estimated form the existing soil boring BH-23 drilled by ECS which extended to about EL -42 feet. In the absence of available subsurface information, it was assumed that the soil profile below EL -42 for this culvert was similar to the soil profile encountered below Culvert No. 21. The subsurface profile under Culvert No. 34 was assumed to be the same as the soil profile for Culvert No These culverts are located within the same project and geologic area. 7.0 CULVERT FOUNDATION SUPPORT 7.1 Culvert Nos. 21 and 34 Support Culvert Nos. 21 and 34 will consist of 6 ft x 6 ft precast concrete structures and will have minimal cover. Based on the existing soil borings drilled in the vicinity of the proposed culvert locations and the proposed culvert inverts, the subgrades are anticipated to consist of firm to medium dense sandy soils. The sandy soils are anticipated to extend to about El -14 feet. Based on the dead loads of the culvert and assuming minimal to no cover, a contact pressure of about 1,000 psf is anticipated at the foundation level under service limit state. AECOM has estimated total post construction settlement below Culvert Nos. Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

6 21 and 34 will be as much about 2.2 and 1.5 inches, respectively. The settlement analysis results are shown in Table 2. Culver Number Table 2 Summary of Settlements for Culverts No. 21 and 34 Expected Rapid/Immediate Settlement (in) Expected Long Term Settlement Primary Consolidation (in) Secondary Settlement (in) Total Expected Settlement (in) It is AECOM s professional opinion that Culverts No. 21 and 34 can be founded on the natural sandy soils expected at the proposed subgrade elevations. Per VDOT requirements, 8-inch thick gravel bases consisting of AASHTO No. 57 stone should be installed below the culvert bottoms. The AASHTO No. 57 stone layer should be wrapped with geotextile filter fabric. The culverts may be designed for a factored soil bearing resistance of 1,500 psf. A wingwall will be constructed at each end of the culverts. AECOM understands that the wingwalls will be Type I (2:1 Slope Wingwalls, Wing Detail Type H). The bases of the walls will be 5 feet wide. AECOM s analysis indicates that the factored foundation bearing resistance exceeds the minimum required value of 2.03 kilopounds per square foot (ksf) as per VDOT Road and Bridge Standards. The foundation soils are anticipated to consist of sandy material. The friction angle of the founding stratum is expected to be a minimum of 32 degrees. Wingwalls for Culverts 21 and 34 were analyzed for short term, long term and seismic global stability. Section of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications recommends a resistance factor (Φ) of 0.65 for the short term and long term global stability analyses. A corresponding factor of safety (FOS) of 1.54 was calculated as the reciprocal of the resistance factor of Section A of the AASHTO LRFD recommends a FOS of 1.0 for the seismic global stability analysis. The wingwalls were determined to have adequate factors of safety as shown in Table 3. The output of the slope stability analysis is presented in Appendix A. Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

7 Table 3 Summary of Slope Stability Analyses for Culverts No. 21 and 34 Culvert Number Short Term and Long Term FOS Minimum Analyzed Required Analyzed Seismic FOS Minimum Required 21 & Groundwater will be encountered during construction. Therefore, the contractor should be prepared to provide localized construction dewatering consisting of wells, submersible pumps in gravel sumps and/or collector trenches. The contractor should evaluate the appropriate dewatering system requirements. 7.2 I-264 Box Culvert Extension (Culvert No. 1870) Soft upper clay soils subject to compression under substantial additional culvert loads are present between El -14 feet to El -39 feet within the culvert extension area. AECOM performed settlement analysis and estimated a maximum total settlement of approximately 3.3 inches over the design life of the culvert extension, including about 1- inch of secondary settlement. Based upon the soft soil conditions, the anticipated settlements and considering that the culvert extension will be under I-264, it is AECOM s opinion that this culvert extension and related wingwalls should be supported on driven 12-inch square Prestressed Precast Concrete (PPC) piles. It is envisioned that several parallel longitudinal pile caps can be installed, upon which the precast culvert sections can be supported. The caps will derive support from the 12-inch PPC piles. Pile spacing can be based on a calculated factored axial capacity per pile. We expect lateral and transverse reactions per pile to be inconsequential from a geotechnical standpoint; however, we can evaluate such loading, if applicable, prior to finalizing the design. Piles can be designed for a nominal pile resistance of 310 kips. A resistance factor (Φ) of 0.65, per the LRFD Code, must be applied to calculate the maximum factored resistance of 201 kips per pile. A negative down-drag load of 80 kips per pile must be considered to account for the effects of negative down-drag due to settlement of the soft compressible soils present within the upper 48 feet of pile embedment. As per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specification, Section , unfactored down-drag loads of 80 kips per pile must be added to other structural loads acting on the structure to account for the negative downdrag on the piles. The structural engineer should use the appropriate LRFD load factor for the above down-drag load and can then estimate total down-drag load based on the number of piles required for support of the culvert. If bitumen coating or a proprietary product designed to reduce skin friction is used to coat the upper 50 feet of piles, then the unfactored down-drag load of 80 kips per pile should Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

8 not be considered. We understand that this alternative is not preferable because VDOT does not have an approved pile coating product. The use of Φ=0.65 as the resistance factor, in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Table , requires dynamic testing during test pile installation, coupled with signal matching of the data to verify pile capacity. As noted in the referenced table, dynamic testing and signal matching must be performed on at least two piles per site, but not less than 2 percent of the total production piles. Nominal resistance values were evaluated to determine predicted pile penetration depths using the ALLPILE v.7.21a computer program developed by CivilTech Software. The resulting estimated pile embedment to obtain the required nominal resistance of 310 kips is 105 feet, considering the generalized soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed culvert extension, and a 12-inch pile section. Although the surface elevations vary, the required embedment depths are expected to be reasonably predictable, as the large majority of the capacity develops in the Yorktown stratum beginning at about EL -69 feet. Piles should be installed to an estimated tip elevation of EL -96 and the piles should have a minimum embedment of 25 feet of penetration into the Yorktown materials. ALLPILE output sheets showing the example calculations, including graphical plots of penetration versus capacity, are provided in Appendix B. The generally weak soil conditions throughout much of the profile do not suggest unusual or difficult driving; however, should there be any unusual observations during pile installation, such as unexpected soft or hard zones, lateral drift or kick, etc., they must be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to determine if corrective procedures or additional evaluations are warranted. The estimated penetration indicates the depth at which the factored resistance value is predicted to develop for the recommended pile size. Production pile order lengths should be established by pre-production test/indicator piles. The test piles in turn should be ordered somewhat longer than the estimated penetration length, typically at least 10 feet, but perhaps longer to ensure sufficient length to reach estimated pile tip elevation.. The AASHTO code allows use of higher resistance factors for higher quality control levels of production piles. A factor of Φ=0.75 may be used if dynamic testing is performed on all production piles, or if one successful static load test is completed for each site condition. A resistance factor of Φ=0.80 may be used if both a successful static load test, and at least (2) dynamic tests, are completed for each site condition. While static load tests are often not cost effective, in some cases the additional dynamic testing to allow a factor of Φ=0.75 may be cost effective. Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

9 As a precursor to test pile installation, the contractor shall propose equipment for driving, substantiated by wave equation analysis. Wave equation analysis to check drivability will be discussed in the final report. During driving and re-striking the test piles, the entire procedure shall be monitored by dynamic testing, to verify pile stresses and capacities, as well as hammer efficiency and performance. After the minimum wait time and restriking, the nominal pile capacity shall be refined by signal matching analysis of the dynamic data. Upon review of the driving records, dynamic test data, and signal matching analyses, the dynamic testing engineer shall propose the criteria for installing production piles, subject to review and approval by VDOT and the geotechnical engineer of record. Wingwalls for Culvert 1870 were not analyzed for global stability since it is anticipated that the walls will also be supported on pile foundations. 8.0 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING The culvert and open channel conveyance sites should be maintained in conditions that will assure proper drainage and comply with applicable environmental regulations throughout construction. We expect that excavation will consist of forming the conveyances, preparing the bearing surfaces for grade-supported pipes and culverts, and where deep foundation support is necessary, excavating space for the pile caps, and finally driving foundation piles. To assure safety, all excavations must be shored or appropriately laid back to prevent sloughing or lateral displacement and to maintain safe working conditions. Site work must comply with OSHA regulations, specifically 29 CFR Part 1926, which requires that the soil be classified in the field by a competent person. Because a competent person, as defined by the regulations, must have the authority to take prompt corrective action, personnel filling such a role should be employed or retained by the contractor and be onsite on a regular basis during performance of the work. At least one major culvert will be installed adjacent to the existing highway, and due to the elevation difference between the pavement and the culvert bottom, support of excavation (SOE) will be required. Design of temporary support measures are generally the responsibility of the construction contractor. The required SOE shall be designed by experienced engineers specializing in SOE structures, in accordance with applicable AASHTO, VDOT and industry standards. The SOE may be accomplished using steel sheet piles, soldier piles and lagging, or perhaps other technically-feasible means. The sheeting and shoring heights approach 20 feet, and as such, will need to be braced and/or restrained, using bracing, wales, tiebacks, soil anchors, dead men, etc. Note that it is usually impractical to salvage tied back systems, and as such, they are typically Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

10 abandoned in place. The contractor s proposed SOE design shall be submitted for review prior to being installed. After clearing and grubbing the areas to receive new fill, the stripped surfaces should be examined by a geotechnical engineer to assure the exposed grade is suitable to begin material placement. Any highly organic or debris-laden soils should be undercut to reasonably clean materials. It must be anticipated that even with removal of organic and other heterogeneous materials, the surface will be very moist to wet, and very weak. As such, establishing a base acceptable to begin filling will most likely require use of special procedures, such as end-dumping a bridge lift and displacing the muck or mud, the use of geotextile reinforcement, or perhaps other methods. Whichever method is used, the base of the fill should consist of permeable granular materials to provide strength, limit wicking of moisture up through the fill, and to provide a long-term conveyance for groundwater escaping the underlying soils as they are compressed. As some culvert construction will extend near and below the ground water level, it must be anticipated that ground water control will have a major effect on construction. It may prove beneficial to employ active control methods such as a well point system in some areas to temporarily lower water levels during construction. Depending on availability, construction schedules, and prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction, the use of alternative fill materials that are not susceptible to moisture, and can stabilize soft subgrades may be warranted. Such materials include a number of aggregates mixtures, fly-ash-based flowable fill, and proprietary lightweight products such as foamed concrete. Considering the proximity to the water table, materials with unit weights lighter than water are not advisable due to the potential for buoyant uplift. Standard VDOT earthwork procedures require fill placement to be controlled, and its degree of compaction tested, to assure minimum standards are met. Specifically, each lift of fill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the theoretical maximum dry density, as determined by VTM-1 or VTM-12 (Standard Proctor), at a moisture within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. Materials shall be placed in approximately level layers not exceeding 8-inches, loose thickness, with the density and moisture after compaction verified by a qualified soils technician prior to placement of successive lifts. Bedding should be in accordance with the water resources design and applicable VDOT standards. Because the conveyances are in tidal zones, we recommend that bedding consist of densely graded materials to prevent creating an unintended secondary water conduit. Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

11 9.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 9.1 Culvert Foundation Subgrades All culvert foundation excavations should extend to suitable bearing materials, and final bearing subgrades should be observed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of the gravel bedding materials to verify their suitability to provide foundation support, as recommended herein. The footing subgrades should be essentially level or stepped. All loose and soft material should be carefully removed from the bottom of the excavation and replaced with crushed stone such as AASHTO No. 57 stone. The geotechnical engineer should monitor and document all undercuts, if any. 9.2 Prestressed Precast Concrete piles The field control should include driving at least three control piles in the general site area and observing the control and production pile driving. The control piles should be driven to within at least 2 feet of the estimated pile tip elevation. The driving of control piles and production piles should be conducted under the supervision of a qualified geotechnical engineer. WEAP analyses should be performed before a hammer is selected to verify that the hammer can drive the piles to the estimated tip elevations without overstressing them. WEAP can also estimate the anticipated driving resistance required (i.e., blow counts) to reach the required capacity. The capacities presented in this report assume pile capacities will be verified by dynamic pile testing, which should be performed in accordance with ASTM D4945 to verify that the pile-driving system can install piles to the required tip elevations without overstressing them and to determine final pile capacities. PDA tests should be performed during the initial pile driving to monitor stresses in the piles. Due to soil set-up effects over time, performing PDA tests several days after installation (i.e., restrike testing) often results in increased capacities. The waiting times should be in accordance with VDOT guidelines. Final capacities during initial driving or from restrike testing should be determined through signal matching. The production piles should be driven into the Yorktown soils to meet the recommended minimum pile tip elevation requirements or as determined by the PDA test results. Data resulting from pile-driving records and PDA tests will be used to evaluate the foundations. A qualified geotechnical engineer should determine what, if any, changes are necessary regarding the pile foundation installation requirements. Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

12 9.3 Construction Monitoring Monitoring of construction is required by VDOT to address quality control/quality assurance issues and to promptly address non-conforming construction. Full-time construction monitoring should be provided during foundation construction as well as pile installation by a qualified geotechnical engineering firm that is familiar with the design and construction criteria for the project. The monitoring should include observation of the foundation bearing materials, subgrade conditions, subgrade preparation, pile installation observation, compaction testing of fill and backfill, etc LIMITATIONS The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed project as described in this report, data obtained from the previous soil borings performed at the site by HDR and ECS, from existing geotechnical engineering reports (GER) prepared by HDR in 2013, from an existing GDR prepared by ECS in 2016 and soil laboratory test results and soil design parameters established by HDR. This report does not reflect any variations that may occur between boring locations or across the site in areas not sampled. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations occur, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations in this report. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client for specific application to the project discussed, and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, express or implied, is provided. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by AECOM. Culvert Geotechnical Report I-264 Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Project UPC No.: UPC

13 Appendix A Slope Stability Outputs

14 Project: I-264 Witchduck Roadway Improvements Software: Geostudio 2007 Analysis Type: Slope Stability Method of Analysis: Spencer Method Name: Existing Fill Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32 Name: Upper Sand Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32 Name: Upper Clay Long Term Unit Weight: 105 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 23 Name: Concrete Retaining Wall Unit Weight: 150 pcf Cohesion: psf Phi: 50 Short Term and Long Term Analysis Note: Since majority of slip surfaces passed through the upper sand layer using using short term or long term sterngth parameters for the deeper "Upper Clay" layer does not change the analysis. Hence only one analysis was performed for short term and long term condition. Wall Name: Wing Wall for Culvert# 21 amd #34 Wall Type: Concrete Analysis Location: Wing Wall GERs used for Soil Parameters: 6 (Witchduck) Borings Used for Profile: BH-23 (ECS Report) 20 Traffic Surcharge (Unit Weight): 300 pcf Proposed Regular Fill 6' High Wing Wall (5 ft wide x 1.5 ft thick footing) Elevation (ft) 0-5 Upper Sand Upper Clay-Long Term Distance (ft) Performed by: Rajul Teredesai, Date: 6/17/2016 Directory: \\ursgermantown.us.ie.urs\germantown\projects\eng\geotechnical Projects\I-64 and I-264\Witchduck project\calculations\slope Stability\Culverts\

15 Project: I-264 Witchduck Roadway Improvements Software: Geostudio 2007 Analysis Type: Slope Stability Method of Analysis: Spencer Method Name: Existing Fill Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32 Name: Upper Sand Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32 Name: Upper Clay Long Term Unit Weight: 105 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 23 Name: Concrete Retaining Wall Unit Weight: 150 pcf Cohesion: psf Phi: 50 Short Term and Long Term Analysis Note: Since majority of slip surfaces passed through the upper sand layer using using short term or long term sterngth parameters for the deeper "Upper Clay" layer does not change the analysis. Hence only one analysis was performed for short term and long term condition. Wall Name: Wing Wall for Culvert# 21 amd #34 Wall Type: Concrete Analysis Location: Wing Wall GERs used for Soil Parameters: 6 (Witchduck) Borings Used for Profile: BH-23 (ECS Report) 20 Traffic Surcharge (Unit Weight): 300 pcf Proposed Regular Fill 6' High Wing Wall (5 ft wide x 1.5 ft thick footing) Elevation (ft) 0-5 Upper Sand Upper Clay-Long Term Distance (ft) Performed by: Rajul Teredesai, Date: 6/17/2016 Directory: \\ursgermantown.us.ie.urs\germantown\projects\eng\geotechnical Projects\I-64 and I-264\Witchduck project\calculations\slope Stability\Culverts\

16 Project: I-264 Witchduck Roadway Improvements Software: Geostudio 2007 Analysis Type: Slope Stability Method of Analysis: Spencer Method Seismic PGA =0.03g Name: Existing Fill Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32 Name: Upper Sand Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32 Name: Upper Clay Long Term Unit Weight: 105 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 23 Name: Concrete Retaining Wall Unit Weight: 150 pcf Cohesion: psf Phi: 50 Wall Name: Wing Wall for Culvert# 21 amd #34 Wall Type: Concrete Analysis Location: Wing Wall GERs used for Soil Parameters: 6 (Witchduck) Borings Used for Profile: BH-23 (ECS Report) 20 Traffic Surcharge (Unit Weight): 300 pcf Proposed Regular Fill 6' High Wing Wall (5 ft wide x 1.5 ft thick footing) Elevation (ft) 0-5 Upper Sand Upper Clay-Long Term Distance (ft) Performed by: Rajul Teredesai, Date: 6/17/2016 Directory: \\ursgermantown.us.ie.urs\germantown\projects\eng\geotechnical Projects\I-64 and I-264\Witchduck project\calculations\slope Stability\Culverts\

17 Appendix B ALLPILE Output

18 ALL-PILE CivilTech Software Licensed to ULTIMATE CAPACITY vs FOUNDATION DEPTH Compression Capacity, Qdw -kp Uplift Capacity, Qup -kp Foundation Depth, L -ft Foundation Depth, L -ft CivilTech Software Figure 1

19 ALL-PILE CivilTech Software Licensed to Depth (Zp) from Pile Top -ft SOIL STRESS, SIDE RESISTANCE, & AXIAL FORCE vs DEPTH Based on Ultimate Load Condition Vertical Stress -kp/f2 Side Resistance-kp/f2 Axial Force -kp Up 0 Down Up 0 Down +500 G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 % Sand/Gravel Sand/Gravel Elevation from Pile Top-ft Soft Clay Lower Sands Soft Clay Stiff Clay Pile Tip Top Vertical Stress=0.000 Max. Vertical Stress=1.118 Max. Side Resistance=2.00 Top Uplift=286.4 Top DownWard=316.3 Atip=144-in CivilTech Software Figure 1

20 0detail.txt ***************************************************************** ALLPILE 7 VERTICAL ANALYSIS DETAILED OUTPUT Copyright by CivilTech Software ***************************************************************** Licensed to Date: 8/8/2016 File: Q:\Projects\ENG\Geotechnical Projects\I-64 and I-264\Witchduck project\calculations\bearing\culvert Pile Analysis\Quad Culvery Pile Analysis.alp 1.0 Title 1: Title 2: ALLPILE INPUT DATA: ** ** * Pile Type Page * Unit: English Pile Type: Driving Concrete Pile * Pile Profile * Foundation Depth: ft Top Height: 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 Concrete (smooth) Pile Tip Note: Mix = % of Inside material/outside material Group Type: 0 Top Type: 1 Water Table: 1 -ft Ground Elevation: 9 -ft * Soil Properties * Zs Gamma Phi C K E50/Dr Nspt Type Soil -ft -lb/f3 o -kp/f2 -lb/i3 - % Sand/Gravel Sand/Gravel Soft Clay Lower Sands Soft Clay Stiff Clay Surcharge Pressure on ground: 0 -kp/f2 * Zero Friction * Zero Friction Start: 0 -ft End: 48 -ft ALLPILE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: ** ** Pile Profile and Loading: Piletype: Driving Concrete Pile Pile Length, L= ft Top Height, H= 0 -ft Slope Angle, As= 0 Batter Angle, Ab= 0.00 Page 1

21 0detail.txt *To consider the influence of different soils below the pile tip, bearing stratum is defined from pile tip extending to 10 Diameter of pile, which is 10.0-ft (Input Page F, Item 3) Single Pile, Vertical Analysis: Vertical Load with Load factor, Q= kp Vertical Load with Load factor and Pile Cap, Q= kp Load Factor for Vertical Loads= 1.0 Vertical Loads Supported by Pile Cap: 0 % Kdown= 1.3 Kup= 0.8 Ka= 1.00 From Ztip=105.0 to ft Average Properties: Es= kp/f2 C=2.00-kp/f2 Friction=0.00 Cp=0.03 Ksand=0.00 Limits of Max. tip resistance, q_lim= N/A Batter Angle, Ab= 0.00 Batter Factor, Kbat= 1.00 Qtip_dw=18.0-kp based on qult=18.0-kp/f2 and Base Area=1.0-ft2 Qtip_up=0.0-kp and Base Area=0.0-ft2 TIP RESISTANCE (Down) CALCULATION: Tip Depth= ft Critical Depth Ratio Z/D= 20 Critical Depth= 20.0-ft Equivalent Width of Tip= 1.00-ft, Tip Area= 1.00-ft2 Tip Diameter= 1.00-ft Bearing stratum from pile tip extending to 10 Diameter of pile. Bearing stratum= ft Btip: width at pile tip= 1.00-ft (For group pile, it is equivalent width). Phi & C are average value in bearing stratum. Batter Angle= 0.00, Batter Factor for Tip and Side= 1.00 Ztip Z/D Z_lim q_lim Width Area' Phi C Nq Nc Sv qult Qtip_dw -ft -ft -kp/f2 -ft -ft2 - o -kp/f2 -kp/f2 -kp/f2 -kp N/A Ztip - Depth of pile tip from ground surface (Zs) D - Pile average diameter (below ground) for calculation of critical depth. D=1.00-ft Z/D - Critical depth (for tip resistances) as ratio of depth/diameter. Vertical stress will be constant below critical depth Z_lim - Critical depth, calculated from Z/D (for tip resistances) q_lim - Limit of Maximum tip resistance Btip: width or diameter at pile tip Bearing stratum: A stratum from pile tip extending to some depth. Average soil properties in the stratum are used for bearing calculation SIDE RESISTANCE (Uplift & Down) CALCULATION: D Z/D Z_lim Sf_lim K_dw K_up dz -ft -ft -kp/f2 -ft N/A D - Pile average diameter for calculation of critical depth Z/D - Critical depth (for side resistances) as ratio of depth/diameter. Vertical stress will be constant below critical depth Z_lim - Critical depth calculated from Z/D (for side resistances) Sf_lim - Limit of Maximum side resistance Users Setting: Ka=1, which is constant. Ca=KcKaC=KcC SIDE RESISTANCE (Up & Down) CALCULATION vs DEPTH: Calculation is based on segment dz= 0.21 Zs Prem Sv Phi Kf(<2) Delta f_dw f_up C Ka Kc(<2) Ca_dw Ca_up Sf_dw Sf_up Weight Qneg Q_dw Q_up Torsion -ft -ft -kp/f2 - o Delta - o -kp/f2 -kp/f2 -kp/f2 Ca -kp/f2 -kp/f2 -kp/f2 -kp/f2 -kp -kp -kp -kp -kp-f Page 2

22 0detail.txt Page 3

23 0detail.txt Page 4

24 0detail.txt Page 5