Calculations. Conceptual Cofferdam. Prepared for. LAN - Austin. August Briarpark Drive Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77042

Transcription

1 Calculations Conceptual Cofferdam Prepared for - Austin August 0 9 Briarpark Drive Suite 00 Houston, Texas 770

2 Contents Cofferdam Design Report. Cofferdam Conceptual Design Summary.... Analysis Drawings SupportIT Model Setup & Geotechnical Parameters.... SupportIT Calculations.... Steel Capacity Calculations River Gauge Information & Elevation Calculation... 8 DEN/ DOC

3 . Cofferdam Conceptual Design Summary

4 WMARSS Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project , Inc J.Scarborough Description of Design: The Waco Metropolitan Area Regional Sewerage System (WMARSS) is in the process of designing an inverted siphon to cross the Brazos River near Waco, Texas. As part of the project, a trenching and shoring installation method of the pipe crossing is preferred. A boring system would be more expensive and would require the length of piping to increase and require changes to the hydraulics of the system. Conceptual calculations were performed to determine if a trenching and shoring installation method consisting of a series of Cofferdams crossing the Brazos River is feasible. The cofferdams consist of steel sheet piling, steel wale system and steel pipe piles as bracing struts. The wale system is mounted to the vertical steel sheet pile walls and the braces span between the walls. The cofferdams were assumed to be 00 feet in length and 0 feet wide. At the ends of the cofferdams, angled bracing was installed. It is assumed the Contractor would install the cofferdam in 00 feet sections to cross the river. A wide range of construction sequences could occur, but for this task, a continuous sequence from one side of the river moving to the other side was assumed. Cofferdam systems and components vary from each Contractor. Often Contractors use leftover materials from previous project for Cofferdams or buy surplus material at reduced rates, which makes it difficult to analyze a system a Contractor will likely use. Summary of Calculations: It has been determined based on the information provided within these calculations that the construction of the inverted siphon by means of shoring / trenching using a series of cofferdams may prove to be challenging for the Brazos River crossing. Several models or sections of cofferdam were evaluated along the Brazos River crossing. These models are delineated on the plan and profile sheet shown in the reference drawings section. Whereas analysis shows the flexural capacity of the sheet piles are reasonable as noted in the summary of calculations, the embedment depth required into the shale is not achievable with traditional installation methods, such as pile driving. The analysis software used to perform the analysis, does not include a way to model shale / rock, so the last layer was simulated with the following soil layers. It was determined the required embedment would be best approximated with varying the bottom soil layer between a Stiff Clay, Very Stiff Clay and a Concrete layer. Stiff Clay: To create the maximum forces & deflection within the system. Largest embedment. Very Stiff Clay: Less Embedment than Stiff Clay Concrete: Less Embedment than Very Stiff Clay A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine required embedment depth. The bottom shale layer was varied with the above layer types described above. The actual result (if a shale layer was used) would tend to lie between Very Stiff Clay and Concrete. However, these values as shown in the summary sheet, range from feet to 0 feet. The shale RQD (Rock Quality Designation) is 70% to 00% indicating good to excellent rock mass quality. The shale layer had blow counts reported at 0 blows per for the top and 0 blows per for the bottom shale layer. The estimated uniaxial compressive strength is 0 psi upper bound and 8 psi lower bound. The estimated embedment that might be reasonably Desc of Design.docx of

5 WMARSS Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project , Inc J.Scarborough achieved with these shale properties, is to feet. The estimated embedment required might be difficult to achieve by pile driving, if at all possible with a steel sheet pile. Instead of driving the sheet piles, one option to achieve the required embedment could be to core down and cut a trench roughly foot to 0 foot in depth by wide (width of sheet pile + each side for grout), embed the sheet pile with a cement sand / non-shrink grout. However, the sheet piles would have to be pulled before backfill and before the adjacent cofferdam construction. This option will be more costly than a typical cofferdam design, but maybe less than boring the under the Brazos River. In addition as shown in the summary of calculations, assuming a large wale beam with a large brace, the Demand to Capacity ratios exceed.0 in many of the cases. However, it should be noted these calculations take into account one method and wale / brace size. Other cofferdam types and material sizes will vary from each Contractor, as they tend to re-use materials to form the cofferdam. The materials sizes used in this analysis were based on conversations with a local area Contractor based in Beaumont, Texas. It is possible different configurations maybe used to reduce the D/C ratio to less than.0. The use of the Stiff Clay layer at the bottom of the excavation is conservative and forces would reduce with an actual shale layer. However, the critical issue is the embedment of the steel sheet pile within the shale layer. It should be noted, piping or heaving of the bottom of the cofferdam was not inspected as most of the excavations have shale at the bottom. If gravel or sand layer exists, piping of sand or sand boiling at the bottom of the excavation should be investigated. Extreme conditions of high velocity water flow and debris impact loads were not considered in the design. The water height from about 8% percentile of the water height data provided at the nearest river gauge, was included in the analysis of the cofferdam. The extreme conditions would prove difficult to resist with a temporary structure. Without the extreme forces applied, the cofferdam system is at the limit of capacity with using large size members. There is very little excess capacity left within these members to resist the extreme loads. If a cofferdam system is required to resist extreme loads, than a cofferdam would not be the best solution for the river crossing project. In summary, it appears a cofferdam type system is possible, but difficult for the Brazos River crossing project. The embedment of the steel sheet piles on a temporary basis will be difficult due to shale layer. The required embedment for the different model runs ranges from feet to 0 feet. These depths will not be achieved with traditional pile driving methods, but maybe achievable with cutting a trench in the shale and embedding the sheet pile with grout. The analyzed brace, wale and corner brace are large members and are at or over capacity based on the demand from the models. There is a little excess capacity in the system to resist extreme forces. The following calculations were performed for the platform.. Determine the Demand from the soil profile on the Cofferdam system and components. Determine the steel Capacity for the major elements of Cofferdam system and ensure element sizing is reasonable for the required Demand. The details of these calculations performed are shown in depth in the following calculations. The project files are stored on the Project wise server at the below link: pw://ladpw.ladco.int:projectwise/documents/projects/ /-0&space;production/- 0&space;Design&space;Notes-Calculations/Conceptual&space;Cofferdam&space;Calculations/ Desc of Design.docx of

6 WMARSS Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project , Inc J.Scarborough SupportIT by GT soft is a bulkhead analysis software, which was to determine the demand of the cofferdam system. The Mathcad and Microsoft Excel calculations follow the below references to determine the capacity for the major elements. Programs:. GT Soft - SupportIT. MathCad References:. AISC LRFD 00; Load Factor for loads =... US Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual; reference manual for analysis Major Elements of the Cofferdam:. Steel Sheet Piling A-700, A7, Fy = 0 ksi. Brace & Corner Brace 8 DIA x ½ wt steel pipe pile, API L, Fy = 0 ksi. Wale Beam Wx, A7, Fy = 0 ksi Analysis Methods for the Cofferdam:. Penetration Free Earth Method (less embedment, larger moments). Analysis Method Net Pressure; Pressure - Rankine. Load Model Area Distribution. Kp values reduce by. Desc of Design.docx of

7 WMARSS, Inc Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project J.Scarborough Case Soil Elevation Excavation Elevation Program Input Data Water Table Elevation Top of Wall Elevation Excavation Depth Program Results for General Wall Data Tip of Wall Elevation Wall Length Number of Struts Case Program Results for the Steel Sheet Pile (SSP) Wall SSP M Demand (k ft/ft) SSP M Capacity (kft/ft) a a a a SSP (D/C) SSP Deflection (in) Case Wale M Demand Wale M Capacity Wale M Demand (k ft) (k ft) Factored (k ft) Wale M (D/C) Wale Axial Demand (k) Program Results for the Wale Beam Wale Axial Factored Demand (k) Wale Axial Capacity (k) Wale Deflection (in) Wale S Demand (k) Wale S Demand Factored (k) Wale S Capacity (k) Wale S (D/C) 90, ,.00, a,90, ,.00, ,.00, ,07.00, a,7.00, Wale Interaction Case Brace Axial Demand (k) Program Results for the Brace Brace Axial Demand Factored (k) Brace Axial Capacity (k) Brace (D/C) Corner Brace Axial Demand (k) Corner Brace Axial Demand Factored (k) Corner Brace A Capacity (k) Corner Brace (D/C) , , ,09.0,70.7 a ,.00, ,0, ,000,70 0.8, ,7.00,70.00 a ,7.00,70.00 Notes:. M = Moment; S = Shear. Refer to SupportIT program runs for Demand Values. Refer to Capacity calculations for Capacity Values. SSP Wall moment capacity based on USACE criteria using allowable stress, all other element utilized AISC LRFD. Loads are Factored by a load factor of.. Interaction check, flexure + axial based on AISC Chapter H 7. Values reported on the last layer with Stiff Clay. The Stiff Clay in the last layer will result in larger deflections / moments. 8. "a" cases refer to a case with a slope cut at the top of the execavation to reduce the execavation depth. Program Results for the Corner Brace Results Summary.xlsx of

8 WMARSS, Inc Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project J.Scarborough Case Total Embedment w/ Stiff Clay Total Embedment w/ Very Stiff Clay Total Embedment w/ Concrete Emdment into last layer with Stiff Clay Emdment into last layer with Very Stiff Clay Emdment into last layer with Concrete a /. 8.9 /. a Notes:. Cases run assuming Free Earth with a Rankine Pressure Distrubition.. Case run assuming Free Earth with a Terzaghi Pressure Distribution. Analysis would not run with Very Stiff Clay. Results Summary.xlsx of

9 . Analysis Drawings

10

11

12 . SupportIT Model Setup & Geotechnical Parameters

13 WMARSS, Inc Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project J.Scarborough Geotechnical Parameters: Nearest borings and CPT testing to the proposed excavation are B-8, CPT-, B- and CPT-. The B-8 soil profile was used in the design of the cofferdam across the Brazos River. The geo-technical consultant (FPE) was consulted on the strength parameters for this profile. Refer to the below Design ground model used in the analysis. It should be noted a stiff clay was to used to model the Shale. Refer to the reference documents section for the Geo-tech report and other information. Calculations.xmcd of

14 WMARSS, Inc Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project J.Scarborough Brazos River Water Depth: The historical water depth data was pulled from the historical field measurements listed at the upstream gauge. The Gauge referenced was USGS The gauge datum is 9. ft. Regression analysis was performed using the historical gauge height data to determine a probability plot. The roughly 88% probability gauge height was used, which = ft. The water table elevation equals 9 + = ft. Refer to the reference information section for a plot of the probability curve and selected data. Descriptions of the Model Cases: Reference to the Plan & Profile Sheet in the reference documents section. Please note the water table height is assumed to be equal to the Brazos River water elevation based on gauge observations. Case : Excavation Depth = 0 ft Natural Ground Elevation = +78 ft Excavation Elevation = +8 ft Water Table Elevation = + ft Top of Wall (TOW) Elevation = +78 ft ( Assumed equal with the natural ground) Case : Excavation Depth = 0 ft Natural Ground Elevation = +78 ft Excavation Elevation = +8 ft Water Table Elevation = + ft TOW Elevation = +78 ft (Assumed equal with the natural ground) Case a: Excavation Depth = ft Natural Ground Elevation = +78 ft Excavation Elevation = +8 ft Water Table Elevation = + ft TOW Elevation = +7 ft (Assumed ft above the water level is required) Case : Excavation Depth = 8 ft Natural Ground Elevation = + ft Excavation Elevation = +8 ft Water Table Elevation = + ft TOW Elevation = +7 ft (Assumed ft above water level is required) Case : Excavation Depth = 8 ft Natural Ground Elevation = + ft Excavation Elevation = +8 ft Water Table Elevation = + ft TOW Elevation = +7 ft Calculations.xmcd of

15 WMARSS, Inc Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project J.Scarborough Case : Excavation Depth = ft Natural Ground Elevation = +9 ft Excavation Elevation = +8 ft Water Table Elevation = + ft TOW Elevation = +9 ft Case a: Excavation Depth = 7 ft Cut Bench Ground Elevation = +7 ft Excavation Elevation = +8 ft Water Table Elevation = + ft TOW Elevation = +7 ft Refer to the the figure concerning Case a & a. This case was added to reduce the excavation height of the cofferdam wall. Cofferdam Component System: A local marine contractor was contacted and consulted with the construction of a cofferdam for this crossing. The contractor mentioned cranes could be floated on the river utilizing a flexifloat system, which utilizes modular pontoons which can be locked together to create a working floating surface. Calculations.xmcd of

16 WMARSS, Inc Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project J.Scarborough The cofferdam components will vary from Contractor to Contractor. The local Contractor that is referenced from above mentioned, they would use AZ sheets with a Wx wale. These sheets and wales are surplus material they have left over in the yard. Most Contractors will aim to use left over materials. Means, Methods and materials will play a large role in executing the cofferdams for the project. Wale spacing. It was assumed the first wale would be offset feet from the top of the execration leaving about feet of clearance. The last wale had a similar clearance of feet. See the below sketch below. Sufficient clearance needs to be provided for pipe installation. Refer to the below sketch Brace spacing. A workable area is required between the bracing (longitudinal and transverse) to have clearance to lift FRP pipe in place and weave through the bracing to the bottom of the excavation. Along the longitudinal bracing, two opens of about 0 feet were left open. This assumes piping lengths of 0 to feet can be maneuvered through the bracing to the bottom of the excavation. Refer to the below sketch. It should be mentioned some much depends on the contractor methods on construction and their analysis, which will be performed during construction. Calculations.xmcd of

17 WMARSS, Inc Cofferdam for Inverted Siphon Project J.Scarborough Calculations.xmcd of

18 GEOTECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Date: April 9, 0 To: From: Regarding: Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. Todd Nelms, TENelms@lan-inc.com Langerman Foster Engineering- Ottis Foster, P.E. Geotechnical Investigation WMARSS Transfer Lift Station and Force Main Waco, Texas LFE Project No. W-00 This memorandum provides preliminary findings and recommendations regarding the referenced project. Information regarding excavation side slopes and other geotechnical issues is to be provided subsequently. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Borings and Cone Penetrometer Tests were conducted at the approximate locations shown on Plates through. FINDINGS Laboratory test results, boring logs and CPT test results are attached. RECOMMENDATIONS Project Summary: Table provides information provided by the Client about the structures planned for this project that are addressed in this memo. Copyright 0 Waco and Harker Heights (Killeen), Texas 770 Page of 0 LFE Project W-00 /-08; April 9, 0

19 Project Location SITE LOCATION MAP WMARSS LIFT STATION WACO, TEXAS LFE PROJECT NO. W-00 PLATE

20 BORING LOCATION MAP WMARSS LIFT STATION WACO, TEXAS LFE PROJECT NO. W-00 PLATE

21 B CPT - B CPT - B B B CPT - B B 8 CPT - BORING LOCATION MAP WMARSS LIFT STATION WACO, TEXAS LFE PROJECT NO. W-00 PLATE

22 Boring No. Sample Depth (ft.) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Percent Passing No. 00 Sieve Moisture Content (%) Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) Strain at Failure (%) B B B B B B B B B B B- -. B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B NP NP NP 0 8 B B B B NP NP NP 7 0 Summary of Laboratory Results Project: WMARSS Transfer Lift Station and Force Main Project Number: W-00 Unit Dry Weight (pcf) Plate

23 Boring No. Sample Depth (ft.) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Percent Passing No. 00 Sieve Moisture Content (%) B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B NP NP NP 7 B NP NP NP 0 B NP NP NP 00 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B-0. - B B B B B B B B B Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) Summary of Laboratory Results Strain at Failure (%) Project: WMARSS Transfer Lift Station and Force Main Project Number: W-00 Unit Dry Weight (pcf) Plate

24 GERMAN FOSTER - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - /9/ 0: - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\W-00, WMARSS LIFT STATION.GPJ CLIENT DEPTH GRAPHIC LOG Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER W-00 Approximate Surface Elevation 9. feet SAND; brown SILTY SAND; reddish-brown SANDY LEAN CLAY; reddish-brown, silty SILTY SAND; reddish-brown LEAN CLAY; reddish-brown, with sand, with silt seams and layers SAND; tan Completion Depth: Date Started: Completed: Logged by: (Continued Next Page) Langerman Foster Engineering Company Waco and Harker Heights (Killeen), Texas Ph: MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 9 ft. // // W. McAtee silty layer --- sandy lean clay ---. Remarks: SAMPLE TYPE ST SS A SS A SS A SS A SS A SS A ST A ST A SS A SS RECOVERY % (RQD) PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) -- () -- (7) -- () -- () -- () -- () --8 () 9-0- POCKET PEN. (tsf) NT.0. ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT NP 9 NP 8 PLASTIC LIMIT NP NP PLASTICITY INDEX NP 0 NP FINES CONTENT (%) BORING NO. B-8 PAGE OF WMARSS Transfer Lift Station and Force Main Waco, Texas MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WT. (pcf) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (tsf) Boring was drilled without drilling fluid. Groundwater was initially measured about feet below ground surface (BGS). After about 0 minutes, groundwater was measured about. feet BGS. The next day, groundwater was measured about. feet below ground surface (BGS). Boring had caved about. feet BGS. STRAIN AT FAILURE (%)

25 CLIENT Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER W-00 Langerman Foster Engineering Company Waco and Harker Heights (Killeen), Texas Ph: PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION BORING NO. B-8 PAGE OF WMARSS Transfer Lift Station and Force Main Waco, Texas DEPTH GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Approximate Surface Elevation 9. feet SAND; tan (continued) SAMPLE TYPE RECOVERY % (RQD) BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) () POCKET PEN. (tsf) ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX FINES CONTENT (%) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WT. (pcf) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (tsf) STRAIN AT FAILURE (%) --- possible gravel layer A 0 SS -- (7) 0 A GERMAN FOSTER - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - /9/ 0: - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\W-00, WMARSS LIFT STATION.GPJ 0 GRAVELLY SAND; tan, with clay seams SHALE; gray Completion Depth: Date Started: Completed: Logged by: 9 ft. // // W. McAtee. 7.. Remarks: SS A SS A SS A SS --7 (0) --9 () 8-0/" 0/" Boring was drilled without drilling fluid. Groundwater was initially measured about feet below ground surface (BGS). After about 0 minutes, groundwater was measured about. feet BGS. The next day, groundwater was measured about. feet below ground surface (BGS). Boring had caved about. feet BGS. 8 9

26 . SupportIT Calculations

27 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) Maximum 0.8 ftlb/ft in 0. psf. psf d ft Soft Clay 0 psf 0 ft.0 ft WL Dense Fine Sand.00 ft.00 ft.0 ft Dense Gravel 7.00 ft 0 ft WL Toe = 7. ft Very Stiff Clay.00 ft 7. ft SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

28 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) Input Data Depth Of Excavation = 0ft Surcharge = 0psf Soil Profile Depth Of Active Water =.00ft Depth Of Passive Water = 0ft Water Density =.pcf Minimum Fluid Density =.8pcf Active Side Depth Soil Name (pcf) ' (pcf) C (psf) C a (psf) ( ) ( ) K a K ac K p K pc 0 Soft Clay Dense Fine Sand Dense Gravel Very Stiff Clay Soil Profile Depth Soil Name (pcf) ' (pcf) C (psf) C a (psf) ( ) ( ) K a K ac K p Passive Side K pc 0 Soft Clay (.) Dense Fine Sand (.7) 0 (0) 7.00 Dense Gravel (.) 0 (0).00 Very Stiff Clay (70.) ( ) indicates factored value used in all calculations. Factor(s): K p.; C pas. Sheet Sheet Name E (psi) I (in /ft) Solution f (psi) Z (in³/ft) Allowed M max (ftlb/ft) b (in) A (in²/ft) W (lb/ft) Upstand Arbed AZ.0E Pressure Model: Rankine; Assume full hydrostatic pressure to 0ft in cohesive soils on active side Load Model: Area Distribution Supports Maxima d Type L B Load (lb/ft) Maximum Depth.00 Waler Waler Waler Waler Toe Length Pressure. psf 0 Bending Moment 0.8 ftlb/ft 8.0 Deflection in 0.0 Shear Force 0.7 lb/ft.0 SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

29 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) Maximum. psf 0.8 ftlb/ft 0.7 lb/ft in d Pressure (psf) d Deflection (in) Bending Moment (ftlb/ft) d Shear Force (lb/ft) d 0 d SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

30 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

31 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) 0 Active Soil Pressure (psf) 0 Passive Soil Pressure (psf) Active Water Pressure (psf) d 0 d 0 d Passive Water Pressure (psf) -7 0 Min. Fluid Pressure (psf) 0 Net Pressure (psf) d 0 d 0 d SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

32 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine d =.0 ft F = 00. lb/ft L = E = I = M x = 00.0E ft psi in ftlb x R (lb) M (ftlb) Maximum x Bending Moment (ftlb) Shear Force (lb) Deflection (in) B = E = I = M x = 0.0E ft psi in ftlb x R (lb) M (ftlb) Maximum x Bending Moment (ftlb) Shear Force (lb) Deflection (in) lb877.lb 90.lb 89.lb 89.lb 9.lb90.lb 877.lb 99.lb 7.lb 708.9lb 008.9lb 98.0lb 000.lb lb 99.lb 008.9lb 708.9lb 000.lb 98.0lb SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

33 Title: Case Page: 7 Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) Design Report. Total stress values are being used (i.e. C > 0). Note that the Piling Handbook and CIRIA SP9 recommend that effective stress values be used in 'long term' excavations.. Factor(s) applied to soil parameter(s) in the 'Wall' page, and used in all calculations. Factor(s) used: Kp.; C (passive).. Maximum bending moment = 0.8ftlb/ft and f = 9.8psi. MINIMUM required sheet section modulus is: Z =.9in³/ft (= M/f). Sheet section modulus in this design is Z = 7.00in³/ft, and is satisfactory.. Frame primary axis bending moments checked. Users should manually check the axial load capacities and the effects of combined axial and bending stresses to confirm frames are suitable.. FOS =.00 (Net Pressure) This is the factor of safety against rotation about the lowest frame. It is calculated using the factored soil parameters (see above). The FOS can be changed using 'Defined FOS' or 'Manual' in the 'Wall' page. SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

34 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Terzaghi (m =.0; a = 0.) FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.).00 ft Soft Clay 0 psf 0 ft Maximum 8. psf 8. ftlb/ft 0. in d ft WL Dense Fine Sand.00 ft.0 ft. ft Dense Gravel 7.00 ft Stiff Clay.00 ft.00 ft 0 ft WL Toe = 9.90 ft 9.90 ft SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

35 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Terzaghi (m =.0; a = 0.) FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) Input Data Depth Of Excavation = 0ft Surcharge = 0psf Soil Profile Depth Of Active Water =.00ft Depth Of Passive Water = 0ft Water Density =.pcf Minimum Fluid Density =.8pcf Active Side Depth Soil Name (pcf) ' (pcf) C (psf) C a (psf) ( ) ( ) K a K ac K p K pc 0 Soft Clay Dense Fine Sand Dense Gravel Stiff Clay Soil Profile Depth Soil Name (pcf) ' (pcf) C (psf) C a (psf) ( ) ( ) K a K ac K p Passive Side K pc 0 Soft Clay (.) Dense Fine Sand (.7) 0 (0) 7.00 Dense Gravel (.) 0 (0).00 Stiff Clay (9.9) ( ) indicates factored value used in all calculations. Factor(s): K p.; C pas. Sheet Sheet Name E (psi) I (in /ft) Solution f (psi) Z (in³/ft) Allowed M max (ftlb/ft) b (in) A (in²/ft) W (lb/ft) Upstand Arbed AZ.0E Pressure Model: Terzaghi (m =.0; a = 0.); Apply hydrostatic pressure in cohesive soils Load Model: Area Distribution Supports Maxima d Type L B Load (lb/ft) Maximum Depth.00 Waler Waler Waler Waler Waler Toe Length Pressure 8. psf 7.9 Bending Moment 8. ftlb/ft. Deflection 0. in 9.0 Shear Force 0. lb/ft. SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

36 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Terzaghi (m =.0; a = 0.) FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) Pressure (psf) Bending Moment (ftlb/ft) Maximum 8. psf 8. ftlb/ft 0. lb/ft 0. in d d d Deflection (in) Shear Force (lb/ft) d d SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

37 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Terzaghi (m =.0; a = 0.) FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) 0. F (lb/ft) SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

38 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Terzaghi (m =.0; a = 0.) FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) Active Soil Pressure (psf) 0 Passive Soil Pressure (psf) - 0 Active Water Pressure (psf) 0 d Passive Water Pressure (psf) 0 0 d Min. Fluid Pressure (psf) 0 0 d Net Pressure (psf) - 0 d d d SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

39 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Terzaghi (m =.0; a = 0.) d =. ft F = 080. lb/ft L = E = I = M x = 00.0E ft psi in ftlb x R (lb) M (ftlb) Maximum x Bending Moment (ftlb) Shear Force (lb) Deflection (in) B = E = I = M x = 0.0E ft psi in ftlb x R (lb) M (ftlb) Maximum x Bending Moment (ftlb) Shear Force (lb) Deflection (in) lb7.lb 80.9lb 878.lb 878.lb 89.0lb80.9lb 7.lb 09.0lb 909.lb 0.0lb 89.lb 08lb 87.lb lb 09.0lb 89.0lb 0.lb 87.lb 080.lb SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

40 Title: Case Page: 7 Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Terzaghi (m =.0; a = 0.) FOS:.00 (K p.; C pas.) Design Report. Terzaghi was used for the active pressure. Rankine was used for the passive pressure.. Total stress values are being used (i.e. C > 0). Note that the Piling Handbook and CIRIA SP9 recommend that effective stress values be used in 'long term' excavations.. Factor(s) applied to soil parameter(s) in the 'Wall' page, and used in all calculations. Factor(s) used: Kp.; C (passive).. Maximum bending moment = 8.ftlb/ft and f = 9.8psi. MINIMUM required sheet section modulus is: Z =.0in³/ft (= M/f). Sheet section modulus in this design is Z = 7.00in³/ft, and is satisfactory.. d Side L(ftlb) Side B(ftlb) (90900) * (000) (90900) *9.0 (000).0 *09.9 (90900) *700. (000). *0.0 (90900) *89. (000) (90900) *0009. (000) P VIEW: Frame bending moment exceeds specified maximum allowed value for marked (*) depth(s) and side(s).. Frame primary axis bending moments checked. Users should manually check the axial load capacities and the effects of combined axial and bending stresses to confirm frames are suitable. 7. FOS =.00 (Net Pressure) This is the factor of safety against rotation about the lowest frame. It is calculated using the factored soil parameters (see above). The FOS can be changed using 'Defined FOS' or 'Manual' in the 'Wall' page. SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

41 Title: Case a Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.99 (K p.; C pas.) +.00 ft Maximum 9. psf 78.9 ftlb/ft 0. in d ft WL +.00 ft Soft Clay 0 psf 0 ft.00 ft.7 ft Dense Fine Sand.00 ft 0. ft 8.00 ft.00 ft WL Toe = 0.0 ft Dense Gravel 7.00 ft Stiff Clay.00 ft.0 ft SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

42 Title: Case a Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.99 (K p.; C pas.) Input Data Depth Of Excavation =.00ft Surcharge = 0psf Soil Profile Depth Of Active Water = +.00ft Depth Of Passive Water =.00ft Water Density =.pcf Minimum Fluid Density =.8pcf Active Side Depth Soil Name (pcf) ' (pcf) C (psf) C a (psf) ( ) ( ) K a K ac K p K pc 0 Soft Clay Dense Fine Sand Dense Gravel Stiff Clay Soil Profile Depth Soil Name (pcf) ' (pcf) C (psf) C a (psf) ( ) ( ) K a K ac K p Passive Side K pc 0 Soft Clay (.) Dense Fine Sand (.7) 0 (0) 7.00 Dense Gravel (.) 0 (0).00 Stiff Clay (9.9) ( ) indicates factored value used in all calculations. Factor(s): K p.; C pas. Sheet Sheet Name E (psi) I (in /ft) Solution f (psi) Z (in³/ft) Allowed M max (ftlb/ft) b (in) A (in²/ft) W (lb/ft) Upstand Arbed AZ.0E Pressure Model: Rankine; Assume full hydrostatic pressure to.00ft in cohesive soils on active side Load Model: Area Distribution Supports Maxima d Type L B Load (lb/ft) Maximum Depth.00 Waler Waler Waler Waler Toe Length Pressure 9. psf.00 Bending Moment 78.9 ftlb/ft.80 Deflection 0. in 9.0 Shear Force 0.7 lb/ft 8.00 SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

43 Title: Case a Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.99 (K p.; C pas.) Maximum 9. psf 78.9 ftlb/ft 0.7 lb/ft 0. in d Pressure (psf) Bending Moment (ftlb/ft) d Deflection (in) d Shear Force (lb/ft) d d SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

44 Title: Case a Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.99 (K p.; C pas.) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

45 Title: Case a Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.99 (K p.; C pas.) - Active Soil Pressure (psf) 0 Passive Soil Pressure (psf) Active Water Pressure (psf) 0 Passive Water Pressure (psf) d d d d - Min. Fluid Pressure (psf) 0 - Custom Slope Pressure (psf) 0 Net Pressure (psf) d d d SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

46 Title: Case a Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine d = 8.00 ft F = 989. lb/ft L = E = I = M x = 00.0E ft psi in ftlb x R (lb) M (ftlb) Maximum x Bending Moment (ftlb) Shear Force (lb) Deflection (in) B = E = I = M x = 0.0E ft psi in ftlb x R (lb) M (ftlb) Maximum x Bending Moment (ftlb) Shear Force (lb) Deflection (in) lb870.0lb lb 7.lb 7.lb 88.lb8899.8lb 870.0lb 78.lb 008.lb 97.8lb 787.7lb 797.lb 77.9lb lb 78.lb 787.lb 97.9lb 77.7lb 797.lb SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

47 Title: Case a Page: 7 Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine FOS:.99 (K p.; C pas.) Design Report. Total stress values are being used (i.e. C > 0). Note that the Piling Handbook and CIRIA SP9 recommend that effective stress values be used in 'long term' excavations.. Factor(s) applied to soil parameter(s) in the 'Wall' page, and used in all calculations. Factor(s) used: Kp.; C (passive).. Maximum bending moment = 78.9ftlb/ft and f = 9.8psi. MINIMUM required sheet section modulus is: Z =.7in³/ft (= M/f). Sheet section modulus in this design is Z = 7.00in³/ft, and is satisfactory.. d Side L(ftlb) Side B(ftlb) (90900) *778.7 (000) (90900) *8070. (000) (90900) *897.7 (000) P VIEW: Frame bending moment exceeds specified maximum allowed value for marked (*) depth(s) and side(s).. Frame primary axis bending moments checked. Users should manually check the axial load capacities and the effects of combined axial and bending stresses to confirm frames are suitable.. FOS =.99 (Net Pressure) This is the factor of safety against rotation about the lowest frame. It is calculated using the factored soil parameters (see above). The FOS can be changed using 'Defined FOS' or 'Manual' in the 'Wall' page. SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

48 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine +.00 ft WL ft Maximum 98. ftlb/ft 0.9 in 78. psf 0. psf d.9... Soft Clay 0 ft Steel Waler.0 ft Steel Waler.00 ft Steel Waler.0 ft Dense Fine Sand.00 ft Steel Waler.00 ft 8.00 ft WL Toe =. ft Dense Gravel Stiff Clay 7.00 ft.00 ft. ft SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

49 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine Depth Of Excavation = Surcharge = 8.00ft psf Input Data Depth Of Active Water = +7.00ft Depth Of Passive Water = 8.00ft Water Density = Minimum Fluid Density = Soil Profile Depth Soil Name (pcf) ' (pcf) C (psf) C a (psf) ( ) ( ) K a K ac K p Active Side K pc 0 Soft Clay Dense Fine Sand Dense Gravel Stiff Clay Soil Profile Depth Soil Name (pcf) ' (pcf) C (psf) C a (psf) ( ) ( ) K a K ac K p Passive Side K pc 0 Soft Clay (.) Dense Fine Sand (.7) 0 (0) 7.00 Dense Gravel (.) 0 (0).00 Stiff Clay (9.9) ( ) indicates factored value used in all calculations. Factor(s): K p.; C pas..pcf.8pcf Sheet Sheet Name E (psi) I (in /ft) Solution f (psi) Z (in³/ft) Allowed M max (ftlb/ft) b (in) A (in²/ft) W (lb/ft) Upstand Arbed AZ.0E Pressure Model: Rankine; Assume full hydrostatic pressure to 8.00ft in cohesive soils on active side Load Model: Area Distribution Supports Maxima d Type L B Load (lb/ft) Maximum Depth.0 Steel Waler Steel Waler Steel Waler Steel Waler Toe Length Pressure 79.0 psf 8.00 Bending Moment 98. ftlb/ft.9 Deflection 0.9 in. Shear Force 7. lb/ft.00 SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

50 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine Maximum 79.0 psf 98. ftlb/ft 7. lb/ft 0.9 in d Pressure (psf) Bending Moment (ftlb/ft) d - d - Deflection (in) Shear Force (lb/ft) d d SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

51 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) depth P (psf) M (ftlb/ft) D (in) F (lb/ft) SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

52 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine - - Active Soil Pressure (psf) 0 Passive Soil Pressure (psf) Active Water Pressure (psf) 0 0 d d d Passive Water Pressure (psf) Min. Fluid Pressure (psf) 0 Net Pressure (psf) d d d SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

53 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine d =.00 ft F = 09.0 lb/ft L = E = I = M x = 00.0E ft psi in ftlb x R (lb) M (ftlb) Maximum x Bending Moment (ftlb) Shear Force (lb) Deflection (in) B = E = I = M x = 0.0E ft psi in ftlb x R (lb) M (ftlb) Maximum x Bending Moment (ftlb) Shear Force (lb) Deflection (in) lb870.7lb 7.lb 970.lb 970.lb 790.7lb7.lb 870.7lb.lb 788.lb 087.lb 779.lb.lb 7799.lb lb.lb 779.lb 087.lb lb.lb SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

54 Title: Case Page: 7 Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine Design Report. The standard surcharge is psf. The Piling Handbook recommends a minimum surcharge of 0psf.. Total stress values are being used (i.e. C > 0). Note that the Piling Handbook and CIRIA SP9 recommend that effective stress values be used in 'long term' excavations.. Factor(s) applied to soil parameter(s) in the 'Wall' page, and used in all calculations. Factor(s) used: Kp.; C (passive).. Maximum bending moment = 98.ftlb/ft and f = 9.8psi. MINIMUM required sheet section modulus is: Z = 7.in³/ft (= M/f). Sheet section modulus in this design is Z = 7.00in³/ft, and is satisfactory.. d Side L(ftlb) Side B(ftlb) (90900) *80. (088.9) (90900) * (088.9) (90900) * (088.9) (90900) *88. (088.9) P VIEW: Frame bending moment exceeds specified maximum allowed value for marked (*) depth(s) and side(s).. Frame primary axis bending moments checked. Users should manually check the axial load capacities and the effects of combined axial and bending stresses to confirm frames are suitable. 7. FOS =.00 (Net Pressure) This is the factor of safety against rotation about the lowest frame. It is calculated using the factored soil parameters (see above). The FOS can be changed using 'Defined FOS' or 'Manual' in the 'Wall' page. SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777

55 Title: Case Page: Date: 8.. Sheet: Arbed AZ Pressure: Rankine Maximum 89. ftlb/ft 0. in 0. psf 888. psf d Steel Waler Steel Waler +.00 ft +.0 ft +0 ft WL +.00 ft Steel Waler +.0 ft Steel Waler.00 ft Soft Clay 0 ft Steel Waler.0 ft Steel Waler.00 ft 8.00 ft WL Toe = 0. ft Dense Fine Sand.00 ft Dense Gravel Stiff Clay 7.00 ft.00 ft 8. ft SupportIT, v , GTSoft Ltd. Tel/Fax: + (0)9 777