0775833 final structures report - d.n. higginsdnhiggins.com/docs/structures report.pdf ·...

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES REPORT SMOKEHOUSE BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PSI PROJECT NO. 775-833

Professional Service Industries, Inc. •5801 Benjamin Center Drive, Suite 112•Tampa, FL 33634•Phone 813/886-1075• Fax 813/888-6514

Engineering Certificate of Authorization 3684

March 22, 2013 T.Y. Lin International 2400 First Street, Suite 200 Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 Attention: Mr. James Molnar, P.E. Vice President RE: Final Geotechnical Structures Report

Smokehouse Bay Bridge Replacement City of Marco Island, Florida PSI Project No. 775-833

Dear Mr. Molnar: Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the Smokehouse Bay Bridge Replacement in Collier County, Florida. This study was authorized by Mr. James Molnar through written acceptance to PSI’s Proposal No. 0775-19719 (rev5) on November 1, 2010. A 60% Geotechnical Structures Report was issued on December 5, 2011. That report presented evaluations of various foundation alternatives for the proposed bridge structures at Collier Boulevard over Smokehouse Bay. As reported by the Structures Engineer of T.Y. Lin, 24-inch precast prestressed concrete piles have been selected as the final foundation system to support the proposed bridges. This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation including the field and laboratory testing program, and our geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed bridge structures, associated retaining walls and existing seawall evaluation. The Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method was used for the foundation and MSE Wall external stability analysis. Field and laboratory services were provided by PSI. This report has been prepared based on the provided field and laboratory test results which were done at the 60% plan stage.

We have very much appreciated the opportunity to provide our services for this project. If you have any questions concerning the contents of this report or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Professional Service Industries, Inc. Certificate of Authorization No. 3684 Kirk M. Eastman, P.E. Martin E. Millburg, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer Florida License No. 50733 Florida License No. 36584 Ching L. Kuo, P.E. Chief Engineer Florida License No. 36115 KME/MEM/CLK: 0775833_Final Structures Report

T.Y. Lin International PSI Project No. 775-833 – Final Design Report Page i of ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT APPROACH ................................................................................................................ 1

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................ 3

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................................... 3 4.1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION TESTING .................................................................................................. 3 4.2 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA .................................................................................. 4

5.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 4 5.1 COLLIER COUNTY USDA SOIL SURVEY .................................................................................... 4 5.2 USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY .............................................................................................. 4 5.3 SOIL BORING RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 4 5.4 GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................................................... 5 5.5 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 5

6.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 6 6.1 RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION AND DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................. 6 6.2 AXIAL CAPACITY ........................................................................................................................ 6 6.3 DRIVEN PILE GROUP ACTION ..................................................................................................... 7 6.4 SETTLEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 7 6.5 LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 7 6.6 DOWNDRAG ................................................................................................................................ 7 6.7 TEST PILE PROGRAM AND VIBRATION CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 7

7.0 MSE WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 8 7.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................... 8 7.2 EXTERNAL STABILITY ANALYSES .............................................................................................. 9 7.3 SETTLEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 10 7.4 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 11 7.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ................................................................................................... 11

8.0 SEA WALLS (BULKHEAD WALL) AND TEMPORARY WALLS ................................. 12 8.1 SEA WALLS ............................................................................................................................... 12 8.2 TEMPORARY WALLS ................................................................................................................ 13 8.3 EXISTING SEA WALL ................................................................................................................ 13

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................... 14

10.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................... 14

T.Y. Lin International PSI Project No. 775-833 – Final Design Report Page ii of ii

LIST OF TABLES & SHEETS

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .............................................................. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION TESTING ................................ TABLE 2 PERMANENT RETAINING WALL DESIGN DATA ........................................................... TABLE 3 SHEET PILE WALL SOIL PARAMETERS ........................................................................... TABLE 4 PILE DATA TABLE .................................................................................................................. TABLE 5

APPENDIX B USDA & USGS SOIL SURVEY MAPS ................................................................................. SHEET 1 BORING LOCATION PLAN ................................................................................................... SHEET 2 REPORT OF CORE BORINGS (BRIDGES) .......................................................................... SHEET 3 REPORT OF CORE BORINGS (WALLS) ............................................................................. SHEET 4 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF RIPRAP PROTECTION ........................................................ SHEET 5

APPENDIX C PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILE AXIAL CAPACITY CURVES .......................... PLATES 1 - 2

APPENDIX D

SAMPLE COMPUTER OUTPUTS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX E

FB-MULTIPIER SOIL PARAMETER INPUT DATA

APPENDIX F FHWA CHECKLIST

T.Y. Lin International Final Design Report PSI Project No. 775-833 Page 1 of 14

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This study is to support the design of the Smokehouse Bay Bridge Replacement on Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. The project also includes associated roadway improvements, a new seawall, and associated retaining walls. The project limits extend from Station 173+75 to Station 184+39. The total project length is about 1,064 feet. The bridge replacement will be built to provide two travel lanes in each direction. The existing Smokehouse Bay bridges will be demolished and replaced by a new single span bridge structure. The bridge deck will be about 105 feet wide by 114 feet long. The project superstructure includes dual arches which serve as the supports for the suspended bridge deck. At the ends of both arches, approximately 800 kips vertical load, 920 kips horizontal load, and 1,250 ft kips of moment are anticipated. Permanent Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls are planned on both sides of the bridge approaches. These retaining walls will run parallel to the bridge and wrap around the end bents. It is anticipated that approximately 2,160 lineal feet of MSE wall will be required. The MSE walls are numbered as Walls 1 through 3C and 6 through 8C. New seawalls (Bulkhead Walls 4 & 5) are planned outside of the existing seawalls. The new walls will tie into the existing walls near the end of the approach slabs. It is anticipated that approximately 485 lineal feet of new seawall is planned. The existing seawall along southbound Collier Blvd. near the proposed bridge will also be evaluated to ensure its safety. Temporary walls (9A & 9B) are planned between northbound and southbound travel lanes. Approximately 648 linear feet of temporary walls are planned. 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed Smokehouse Bay bridge replacement is located in Collier County, Florida. Specifically, the bridge is located within Section 8 of Township 52 South, Range 26 East (see Sheet 1 in Appendix B of this report). A four lane bridge currently exists at the site. The bridge is located on North Collier Boulevard (State Road 951). 2.0 PROJECT APPROACH The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore the subsurface conditions within the general vicinity of the proposed structures in order to characterize the general subsurface stratigraphy and provide geotechnical recommendations to guide the design and construction. This report includes test borings performed for the proposed structures and analyses with recommendations for the proposed foundation systems.


In performing this evaluation, we have provided the following services:

1. Conducted a general visual reconnaissance of the site and coordinated underground utility location services. Reviewed readily available published geologic and topographic information. Reviewed the “Soil Survey of Collier County, Florida” published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the “Marco Island, Florida” Quadrangle Map published by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS).

2. Reviewed scaled project drawings for the subject area provided by T.Y Lin

International. Performed initial site visit to mark original boring locations and determine site accessibility.

3. Called Sunshine State One Call of Florida for underground utility locations

to be marked at the site. 4. PSI had planned to perform soil borings in the roadway median and off the

outside of the road. During the soil boring permitting discussions, Marco Island officials made clear their strong preference that the soil borings not be performed in landscaped areas. PSI revised the boring plans and performed the borings on the roadway at night. The total number of soil borings was reduced in order to free up project budget to pay for the Maintenance of Traffic. Obtained drilling permit per requirements of City of Marco Island.

5. Assisted in set up and retention of Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) contractor,

Highway Tech, in accordance with FDOT specifications for working in and near roadways. The soil borings performed within the roadway were performed at night in accordance with City of Marco Island regulations.

6. Planned and performed subsurface explorations consisting of 13 SPT borings

for the proposed bridge replacement, seawalls, temporary walls and MSE walls. The soil borings were extended to depths of approximately 40 to 125 feet below the ground surface.

7. Two soil samples were obtained from the upper 2 feet of sediments in the

channel bottom. 8. Inspected soil samples for visual classification and performed grain size

analyses, Atterberg limits, organic content, natural moisture, and corrosion series tests on select representative samples.

9. Reviewed field and laboratory data and performed engineering analyses to

develop design recommendations for chosen foundation systems.


10. Prepared this geotechnical structures report summarizing pertinent information from our review of previous geotechnical data, the field and laboratory data generated, the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered, and our engineering evaluations and design recommendations.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION A field exploration program was conducted consisting of 13 SPT borings along the proposed bridge replacement alignment. The boring locations and soil/rock profiles are shown on the attached Sheets 2 through 4 in Appendix B. The SPT boring procedure was conducted in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test designation D-1586. Closely spaced soil sampling using a 1⅜ inch I.D. split-barrel sampler with an open shoe was performed from a depth of 4 feet to a depth of 10 feet with a 5 foot sample interval used thereafter. The initial 4 feet of the borings were hand augered to avoid possible utility damage. No liner was used in the SPT sampler. After seating the SPT sampler 6 inches, the number of successive blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches into the soil constitutes the value commonly referred to as the N-value. The N-value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties and is considered to be indicative of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The recovered split spoon samples were visually classified in the field with representative portions of the samples placed in jars and transported to the laboratory for review by a Geotechnical Engineer and confirmation of the field classification.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING 4.1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION TESTING Representative soil samples collected from the SPT borings were visually reviewed in the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer to confirm the field classifications. The samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Classification was based on visual observations with the aid of the laboratory test results performed on selected representative samples. Laboratory classification tests consisting of sieve analysis tests (gradation), organic content, natural moisture content tests, and Atterberg Limit tests were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM or other applicable specifications. Corrosion tests (pH, resistivity, chloride and sulfate) were also performed on soil samples to provide a basis for environmental classification.


4.2 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA Some of the laboratory test results are presented on the Report of Core Borings Sheets in Appendix B. A summary of the classification tests is also presented in Table 1 of Appendix A. The environmental classification is presented in Section 9.0 of this report and a summary of the environmental test results are presented in Table 2 of Appendix A. 5.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 COLLIER COUNTY USDA SOIL SURVEY The “Soil Survey of Collier County, Florida”, published in 1972 by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), was reviewed for general near-surface soil information within the project vicinity. This information indicates that the primary mapping unit within the proposed project area, south of the Marco Island Bridges, is Urban Land-Aquents Complex, Organic Substratum (35). This soil unit consists of materials transported from different areas in the county and spread over muck soils for development. The USDA SCS Survey map for the project vicinity is presented on Sheet 1 in Appendix A. 5.2 USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY The USGS Quadrangle map for “Marco Island, Florida”, issued in 1995 indicates that the majority of land in the bridge vicinity has been altered and the ground surface elevation is approximately 0 to 10 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. A reproduction of the USGS topographic map for the project vicinity is presented on Sheet 1 in Appendix A. The soil boring profiles presented on Sheets 3 and 4 in Appendix B are plotted to elevation based on project site topography data provided by T.Y. Lin International. 5.3 SOIL BORING RESULTS The results of the SPT boring program for the proposed bridges and associated retaining walls are presented in Appendix B on Sheets 3 through 4 in the form of soil profiles, along with the profile legend and other pertinent information such as measured groundwater levels and laboratory test results. The soil stratification shown is based on the visual examination of recovered samples, laboratory results, and interpretation of the field logs by a geotechnical engineer. The soil types shown represent observations made in the test borings and may not reflect variations between the borings and beyond the depths explored. In general, the SPT borings performed for the proposed bridge replacement and associated retaining walls encountered the following soil profile.


Depth (ft)

Soil Description Unified

Classification Blows Per 12

Inches Relative Density/

Consistency

Bridge Replacement

0-55 Fine Sand to Slightly Silty Fine Sand,

Organic Sand, Silty Sand to Clayey Sand SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 1 to 55

Very Loose to Very Dense

55-125 Limestone - WH to 50/1” Very Soft to Hard

Sea Walls

0-10 Fine Sand to Slightly Silty Fine Sand SP/SP-SM 23 to 90 Medium Dense to

Very Dense


Organic Sand, Silty Sand to Clayey Sand SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 1 to 7

Very Loose to Loose


Slightly Clayey Sand, Silty sand to Clayey Sand

SP/SP-SM, SP-SC, SM/SC

27 to 66 Medium Dense to

Very Dense

Temporary Walls


Organic Sand, Silty Sand to Clayey Sand SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 31 to 45 Dense

20-30 Silty Sand to Clayey Sand SM/SC 3 to 8 Very Loose to

Loose

30-40 Fine Sand to Slightly Silty Fine Sand, Silty

Sand to Clayey Sand SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 8 to 39 Loose to Dense

MSE Walls


Organic Sand, Silty Sand to Clayey Sand, Slightly Clayey Sand

SP/SP-SM, SM/SC, SP-SC

1 to 71 Very Loose to Very

Dense

5.4 GROUNDWATER Four (4) of the borings performed encountered the groundwater table at an approximate depth of 6 feet below the existing ground surface before the introduction of drilling fluid. The other borings were performed through asphalt and concrete materials which necessitated the use of drilling fluid immediately at the start of each boring to keep the borehole open. The drilling fluid does not allow for accurate groundwater readings to be obtained. Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns in the area. Groundwater conditions will also be tidally influenced by the water level in Smokehouse Bay. 5.5 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE CONDITIONS Based on a review of the map “Potentiometric Surface of Peninsular Florida, May 1980” published by the USGS, the potentiometric surface elevation of the upper Floridan Aquifer in the vicinity of the project site is approximately +10 to +20 feet, NGVD while the natural ground surface elevation appears to be approximately +5.0 to +12.0 feet , NGVD. The SPT borings performed at the project site did not encounter an artesian flow condition during the field exploration. However, the contractor should be prepared to handle this potentiometric level, if encountered.


6.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION AND DESIGN CRITERIA During the preliminary design phase, various foundation alternatives for the proposed bridge structures at Collier Boulevard over Smokehouse Bay were evaluated and discussed in PSI’s 60% Geotechnical Structures Report dated December 5, 2011. As reported by the Structures Engineer of T.Y. Lin, 24-inch precast prestressed concrete piles have been selected as the final foundation system to support the proposed bridges. In this regard, the report presented herein specifically focuses on the selected pile foundation system and develops foundation design recommendations based on the design criteria provided by T.Y. Lin. The LRFD method was utilized for the foundation analysis and the results will be discussed in subsequent sections of this report. 6.2 AXIAL CAPACITY Based on our discussions with T.Y. Lin International, the factored design loads are expected to be 227.5 tons with tension resistance of 165 tons. As discussed in the FDOT Structures Design Guidelines, the nominal bearing resistance is calculated by combining the ultimate downdrag value, the net scour resistance and the factored design load as follows:

Nominal Bearing Resistance = (Factored Design Load) + (Downdrag) + (Net Scour Resistance)

Where = 0.65; assuming dynamic load testing with PDA monitoring will be performed.

Scour was not considered for the proposed bridge which will be a single span structure. Scour is not a concern for the end bent piles since they will be embedded within the embankment behind the MSE wall and the seawall.

The axial capacities were calculated anticipating both end bearing and skin friction for the piling. The FDOT program SPT-97 was used. The results of these analyses are attached in Appendix D. These results indicate that high capacities can be developed shortly after pile tips penetrate the dense to very dense sandy soils. Based on our analyses, we expect 24 inch square piles to achieve the design capacities at the approximate elevations indicated on the following table. Davisson capacity curves are shown on Plates 1 through 2 in Appendix C.

BENT

NO. BORING

NUMBER

PILE CUTOFF

ELEV. (ft, NGVD)

PILE

SIZE

(IN)

FACTORE

D AXIAL

LOAD

(TONS)

TENSION

RESISTANCE

(TONS)

NOMINAL

BEARING

RESISTANCE

(TONS)

APPROXIMATE TIP ELEVATION

(ft, NGVD) RECOMMENDED

TEST PILE LENGTH

(FT) SPT - 97 ANTICIPATED

1 B-1 11.2 24 227.5 165 350 -58 -60 90

2 B-2 11.2 24 227.5 165 350 -65 -65 90


Based on our analyses, we expect piles to achieve the required nominal bearing resistance at anticipated elevations of about -60 to -65 feet, NGVD.

6.3 DRIVEN PILE GROUP ACTION No reduction of the individual pile capacity will be required if driven piles are spaced center-to-center at 3 times their width or greater. Furthermore, we anticipate piles will be installed in single rows at each pier/bent and pile groups will not be utilized. The pile caps usually contribute to the overall bearing capacity of the pile group, provided they are supported on competent soil outside the outer perimeter of the group. However, we do not recommend taking credit for this additional capacity because of the potential for loss of soil cover at the pile cap.

6.4 SETTLEMENT

Settlement of pile supported bridges should be small and tolerable for a typical single row pile group. Individual pile head settlements are estimated to be on the order of ½ inch or less for the 24 inch square piles.

6.5 LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS

The recommended soil parameters for input into the ‘FB-MultiPier’ computer program are summarized in Appendix E. Current plans show many of the piles to be installed on a 6:1 batter. The factored capacity of the piles will be about 227.5 tons, with the horizontal component being about 48 tons. Additional horizontal capacity of the 24 inch pre-stressed concrete pile will be obtained by passive earth pressure and the structural capacity of the pile, as determined by the FB-MultiPier analysis.

6.6 DOWNDRAG It is anticipated that the end bent bridge piles will be driven prior to the placement of the approach embankments. Therefore, to minimize the development of the downdrag loads from embankment fill, the portion of the pile within the embankment should be provided within a bitumen coating or double wrap of polyethylene sheeting according to Section 459 of the FDOT Specifications.

6.7 TEST PILE PROGRAM AND VIBRATION CONSIDERATIONS

We recommend a test pile program be conducted to verify driving conditions, evaluate the hammer system and determine production pile lengths and driving criteria. We recommend a test pile be installed at each bent/pier location. The recommended test pile lengths along with the reported pile cut-off elevations are shown on the previous table. During test pile driving, we recommend the test piles be dynamically monitored to assess pile bearing capacity, hammer performance and driving stresses using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA), or equivalent. The Pile Data Table in conjunction with the recommended test pile lengths is presented on Table 5 in


Appendix A. Test piles should be located at permanent pile locations so that they may be incorporated into the structure. The FDOT Specifications Section 455 outlines general requirements for the protection of existing structures during pile driving operations. Vibration considerations exist but are believed to be less critical than noise impacts due to the distance to existing structures. To reduce the potential for problems with noise impacts, alternative powered hammers (air, steam, hydraulic) along with perimeter curtains could be used. Disturbances can also be minimized by limiting the hours of the pile driving operation. 7.0 MSE WALL RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 GENERAL Based on plans provided by T.Y. Lin, a total of ten (10) Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls at the south and north bridge approaches are proposed for the bridge improvements, in which Walls 1 and 3A, 2 and 3C, 6 and 8A, and 7 and 8C are each a pair of superimposed walls. In addition, two (2) temporary MSE walls (9A and 9B) are proposed for construction purposes. The MSE walls will be utilized to support the roadway alignment with a maximum fill height of approximately 23 feet. Wall location and height information are summarized in the following table:

WALL

ID

WALL LOCATION APPROX. MAXIMUM

WALL HEIGHT (FT)

REMARK BEGIN END

STATION OFFSET STATION OFFSET 1 174+65.23 40.30’LT 177+40.00 41.75’LT 7

SUPERIMPOSED 3A 175+85.33 56.27’LT 178+37.90 51.75’LT 23 2 175+60.00 42.50’RT 177+76.28 49.25’RT 11

SUPERIMPOSED 3C 176+39.00 42.50’RT 178+35.24 51.72’RT 23 3B 178+35.24 51.72’RT 178+37.91 51.75’LT 23 - 6 179+94.49 49.25’LT 183+00.00 42.50’LT 11

SUPERIMPOSED 8A 179+38.32 51.72’LT 181+40.00 42.50’LT 23 7 179+94.91 49.25’RT 182+93.89 42.50’RT 11

SUPERIMPOSED 8C 179+40.99 51.75’RT 181+40.00 42.50’RT 23 8B 179+40.99 51.75’RT 179+38.32 51.72’LT 23 - 9A 175+00.00 6.75’RT 178+2.94 4.97’RT 9 TEMPORARY 9B 179+39.62 0.00’RT 181+99.97 5.86’RT 9 TEMPORARY

Bearing pressures and associated settlements for the MSE wall is dependent upon wall heights and soil reinforcement lengths. External stability analyses, settlement estimates and design recommendations will be discussed in subsequent sections of this report. In addition, it is our understanding that internal wall stability analyses will be performed by the wall supplier.


7.2 EXTERNAL STABILITY ANALYSES The external stability analysis was performed for the proposed MSE wall utilizing soil strength and deformation properties estimated based on their empirical correlations with SPT blow counts. It has been considered that geosynthetic soil reinforcements will be used in the construction of these walls and the minimum embedment depth to the top of the wall leveling pads will be 24 inches. The analyses were performed using the LRFD method for external stability of the walls (FDOT Spreadsheet Version 2.5) and the computer program “RSS” (the modified Bishop method) for slope stability of the walls. The following table summarizes the soil parameters used in the MSE wall design calculations:

MSE WALL GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR ALL PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY WALLS

Reinforced Soil &

Random Backfill

Very Loose to Loose, Fine to

Silty and Clayey Sand

Firm Limestone

Hard Limestone

Depth Below Existing Ground Line (ft.)

---- 0 to 55 55 to 66 55 to 125

Effective Unit Weight (pcf) 105 42.6 72.6 72.6 Cohesion (psf) 0 0 2,500 10,000 Internal Friction Angle 30 30 0 0

Based on the FDOT Structures Design Guidelines and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, the required load and resistance factors in performing external stability analyses are as follows.

LOAD FACTORS

GROUP EARTH VERTICAL

EV

EARTH

HORIZONTAL EH

LIVE LOAD

SURCHARGE

VERTICAL LSV

LIVE LOAD

SURCHARGE

HORIZONTAL LSH

S-1-a 1 1.5 1.75 1.75

S-1-b 1.35 1.5 1.75 1.75

S-IV 1.35 1.5 - -

RESISTANCE FACTORS

Resistance Factor for Sliding 0.90

Resistance Factor for Bearing 0.55

The external stability analyses were performed for the proposed walls up to a maximum wall height of 24 feet. The results of the analyses for the wall in terms of Capacity-Demand Ratio (CDR) are presented in the following table. It should be noted that portions of Wall Nos. 1 &3A (Station 175+85.33 to 177+40.00), Wall Nos. 2 and 3C (Station 176+39.00 to 177+76.28), Wall Nos. 6 and 8A (Station 179+94.49 to 181+40.000 and Wall Nos. 7 and 8C (179+94.91 to 181+40.00) are superimposed walls. The upper wall top elevation of the superimposed walls


shall be used to calculate the wall height for both walls and shall be used to determine the required minimum soil reinforcement length from the data tables.

WALL HEIGHT

(feet)

MINIMUM SOIL

REINFORCEMENT

LENGTH (feet)

OVERTURNING CDR ≥ 1.0

ECCENTRICITY

CDR ≤ 1.0

SLIDING CDR ≥ 1.0

BEARING

CAPACITY CDR ≥ 1.0

FACTORED

NOMINAL BEARING

CAPACITY (psf)

≤ 8 8 2.09 0.95 1.03 2.03 6,900

10 8 2.09 0.95 1.03 2.03 6,900

12 10 2.46 0.81 1.14 2.08 7,200

14 11 2.32 0.86 1.12 1.79 7,400

16 12 2.22 0.90 1.11 1.59 7,400

18 13 2.17 0.93 1.10 1.44 7,500

20 14 2.08 0.96 1.09 1.31 7,500

22 16 2.30 0.87 1.16 1.37 8,000

24 18 2.51 0.80 1.22 1.41 8,500 CDR: Capacity-Demand Ratio. The minimum embedment to the top of retaining wall leveling pad is 24 inches. The retaining wall will utilize plastic reinforcements. Factored nominal bearing capacity is based on a resistance factor of 0.55. Wall height is measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the coping. The traffic surcharge of the wall backfill is assumed as 250 psf.

A slope stability analysis was performed based on the geometry of the proposed MSE wall alignment as shown on plans provided by T.Y. Lin International. It should be noted that currently there is no LRFD method for slope stability analysis, and therefore, the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method is used with a required minimum safety factor of 1.5. The following table summarizes the results of the slope stability analyses. Also, sample computer outputs and calculations from the analysis are presented in Appendix D.

MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT

(feet)

MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST DEEP

SLOPE FAILURE

23 >1.5

7.3 SETTLEMENT Settlements for the proposed MSE walls were estimated using the computer program “SETTLG” developed by Geosoft. The analyses were performed using the proposed maximum wall height and the associated embankment width. A surcharge traffic load of 250 psf was also utilized in the analyses. The differential settlement for the wall location was estimated along the wall alignment for a distance of 100 feet. The results of our analyses are presented in the following table. Sample computer outputs from the analyses are presented in Appendix D.


WALL SETTLEMENT

WALL ID

LONG

TERM* (IN)

SHORT-TERM

(IN)

DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT

LONGITUDINAL (%)(FT/100 FT)

TRANSVERSE (IN)

1 ½ 3 ¼ 0.13 1 ½ 2 ½ 2½ 0.11 1

3A ½ 2½ 0.11 1 3B ½ 2½ 0.13 1 ½ 3C ½ 3 ¼ 0.13 1 ½ 6 ½ 2½ 0.11 1 7 ½ 2½ 0.11 1

8A ½ 3¼ 0.13 1 ½

8B ½ 3¼ 0.13 1 ½

8C ½ 3¼ 0.13 1 ½

9A ½ 2½ 0.11 1 ½ 9B ½ 2½ 0.11 1 ½

* Long term settlement is defined as settlement anticipated to occur after construction of the wall is complete and is in addition to the anticipated short term settlement.

The MSE wall plan requirements, concrete class, cover and wall type data as per the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual Volume I are summarized in Table 3 in Appendix A. 7.4 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS For design purposes, wall footings/leveling pads should be at least 12 inches wide and the minimum depth to the top of leveling pads should be at least 24 inches. Some preparation of footing subgrade soil will be required in accordance with Section 548-6.3 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. For proprietary wall internal design, FDOT currently permits use of a maximum angle of internal friction of 30 degrees and minimum unit weight of 105 psf (compacted to 95 percent of modified Proctor test, American Association for the State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] T-180) for design of proprietary wall systems. 7.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES If applicable, proposed conventional retaining walls will be subject to lateral earth pressures. For walls which are restrained and adjacent to moderately compacted backfill, design is usually based on “at rest” earth pressures. Active pressures are usually employed for unrestrained retaining wall design. Several earth pressure theories could be utilized. One of the most straightforward is the equivalent fluid pressure. The equivalent fluid pressure involves an assumed unit weight of backfill soil. This assumed unit weight is multiplied by the coefficient of lateral earth pressure.


Foundation walls constructed below existing grades or which have adjacent compacted fill will be subjected to lateral at-rest or active earth pressures. Walls which are restrained at the top and bottom will be subjected to at-rest soil pressures equivalent to a fluid unit weight of 53 pcf. Walls which are not restrained at the top and where sufficient movement may mobilize active earth pressures, an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf can be used. At locations where the base of the walls extend below the groundwater table soils pressures can be calculated using half (1/2) the equivalent fluid unit weights given above (see table below for actual values). However, hydrostatic and seepage forces must then also be included. The above pressures do not include any surcharge effects for sloped backfill, point or area loads behind the walls and assume that adequate drainage provisions have been incorporated. The lateral earth pressures acting on retaining walls will be resisted by the sliding resistance forces along the base of the wall footing base and the passive resistance resulting from footing embedment at the wall toe. Passive resistance could be neglected for a safer design (due to possible excavation in front of the wall at a future time).

EARTH PRESSURE CONDITION

COEFFICIENT OF EARTH PRESSURE

UNSUBMERGED FLUID UNIT WEIGHT

(1) (pcf)

SUBMERGED FLUID UNIT WEIGHT

(2) (pcf)

At-rest (Ko) 0.50 53 21

Active (Ka) 0.33 35 14

Passive (Kp) 3.00 315 128

(1) These fluid unit weights are based on a clean sand backfill with an average internal friction angle of 30 degrees and a moist unit weight of 105 pcf.

(2) Hydrostatic and seepage forces should be added to the submerged fluid densities when calculating total forces acting on retaining walls.

8.0 SEA WALLS (BULKHEAD WALL) AND TEMPORARY WALLS

8.1 SEA WALLS Based on the information provided by T.Y. Lin International, two (2) Bulkhead Walls are proposed in conjunction with the Smokehouse Bay bridge replacement program. Both proposed bulkhead walls will be aligned outside the existing sea walls. Bulkhead Wall 4 will begin at approximate station 178+14.86, wrap around the south bridge abutment and end at approximate station 178+11.25. Bulkhead Wall 5 begins at approximate station 178+65.08, wraps around the north bridge abutment and ends at approximate station 179+75.18. The bulkhead walls will vary in height up to a maximum of approximate 12 feet. The proposed bulkhead walls will be aligned approximately 20 feet outside the proposed MSE wall alignment at the bridge abutment. The soil strength parameters estimated based on empirical correlations with SPT blow counts from soil borings were developed as summarized in Table 4 in Appendix A and should be used in the bulkhead wall design. To maintain global stability with the adjacent MSE wall system, the


bulkhead walls will have to be anchored to either the abutment soils or the existing sea wall. In addition, to reduce the effects of scour, the bank/shore at the toe of the sea wall should be covered with rip/rap. To further minimize the migration of soils at the sea wall due to tidal fluctuations, a layer of geofabric or geotextiles is recommended below the sea wall footprint. This is conceptually illustrated on Sheet 5 in Appendix B. Some concrete/rip-rap was noted in the channel. This may impact the installation of the sea walls. 8.2 TEMPORARY WALLS Temporary walls comprised of sheet pile walls are proposed for between the northbound and southbound travel lanes along both the north and south bridge approaches. Wall heights will vary from approximately 12 to 14 feet. The temporary wall SPT borings generally encountered medium dense to dense fine sand to slightly silty fine sand (SP/SP-SM) from the ground surface to a depth of 50 feet. Several zones of loose silty sand to clayey sand were also encountered. The soil strength parameters estimated based on empirical correlations with SPT blow counts and summarized in Table 4 in Appendix A should be used for critical sheet pile wall analysis 8.3 EXISTING SEA WALL According to the wall location plan, the proposed Bulkhead Wall 4 will tie into the existing seawall along the southbound roadway. The existing information indicated that the tip of the seawall was approximately at EL. -13 feet which is equivalent to about 7 feet of embedment into soil layer. By constructing an MSE wall near the top of the existing seawall, there are concerns regarding the stability of the existing seawall. Three (3) cross sections at approximate Stations 178+00, 176+80 and 176+20 along the existing seawall alignment were used to analyze the current conditions and conditions after the construction of the proposed MSE wall. Computer program CWALSHT was used in the analysis. The results are summarized in the following table. A sample calculation is attached in Appendix D.

REFERENCE STATION

FACTOR OF SAFETY CURRENT W/MSE WALL W/MSE WALL AND RIPRAP

178+00 0.99 0.92 1.31 176+80 1.34 1.20 >1.3 176+20 1.40 1.26 >1.3

As shown in the table, under the current conditions, the safety factor of the existing sea wall ranged from 0.99 at the east end where the worst scour occurred to 1.40 at the west end. However, after the proposed MSE wall is constructed, the safety factor will be reduced from 0.92 to 1.26 which is below the required safety factor of 1.3. Therefore, riprap protection along the bottom of the existing sea wall is recommended. The riprap protection along the existing seawall is divided into two zones as shown in Sheet 5 of Appendix B. In Zone B, a 4:1 (H:V) slope of riprap should be placed from EL. -2.0 feet at the wall location, while in Zone A, the riprap should be placed such that the top elevation is at about EL. -5.0 ft at 25 feet from the sea wall,


and at EL. -2.0 ft at sea wall location. With the riprap protection, the safety factor of the existing sea wall will increase to a minimum of 1.3. 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION Corrosion parameter tests were performed on several soil samples obtained from the project site. Test results obtained are presented in Table 2, Appendix A and have been classified as moderately aggressive based on the current FDOT Structure Design Guidelines. However, due to the close proximity of the structures to the salt water in Smokehouse Bay, both the superstructure and substructure were classified as extremely aggressive. 10.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on these data. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the anticipated location and type of construction and the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated and does not reflect any variations which may occur among these borings. If any variations become evident during the course of construction, a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report will be necessary after we have had an opportunity to observe the characteristics of the conditions encountered. When final design plans and specifications are available, a general review by our office is made to check that the assumptions made in preparation of this report are correct and that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. The scope of our services does not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or surface water within or beyond the site studied. Any statements in this report regarding odors, staining of soils or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client.

APPENDIX A

TABLES

TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSSMOKEHOUSE BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

MARCO ISLAND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

PSI PROJECT NO. 775-833

STATION (feet)

OFFSET (feet)

#10 #40 #60 #100 #200D50

(mm)LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTICITY INDEX

B-1 179+37 13 LT 45-50 SM/SC 100 100 96 62 24 - - 23 4 20B-2 179+41 27 RT 45-50 SC 100 100 96 62 28 - - 27 9 21

SW-1 177+37 26 LT 2-4 SP 96 94 87 22 4 - - - - 16SW-1 177+37 26 LT 10-15 SP/SP-SM - - - - - - 12 - - -SW-2 179+77 26 LT 10-15 SP/SP-SM - - - - - - 8 - - -SW-2 179+77 26 LT 25-30 SP-SM 100 98 92 39 9 - - - - 27SW-3 178+18 86 RT 15-20 SP 99 98 95 29 4 - - - - 30TW-3 180+20 13 LT 35-40 SC 100 99 93 52 36 - - - - -MSE-3 181+30 28 RT 8-10 SP/SP-SM - - - - - - 2 - - -MSE-3 181+30 28 RT 15-20 SP/SP-SM - - - - - - 4 - - -MSE-4 180+51 28 RT 6-8 SP/SP-SM - - - - - - 3 - - -MSE-5 176+48 29 RT 35-40 SM 98 96 90 59 14 - - - - 23

C-1 - - 1-1.3* SP 78 75 70 24 4 0.198 - - - -C-2 - - 1-1.3* SP 84 82 76 25 4 0.210 - - - -

(1) Boring locations reference the S.R. 951 B/L Survey * Channel samples obtained from an approximate depth of 13 to 15 inches below the sediment (mud line)

BORING NUMBER

SAMPLE DEPTH

(feet)

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT

(%)

USCS GROUP

SYMBOL

ATTERBERG LIMITS

(%)ORGANIC CONTENT

(%)

SIEVE ANALYSIS (PERCENT PASSING)BORING LOCATION (1)

0775833/90% Tables/Table 1

STEEL CONCRETE

178 + 37 4 - 6 SP/SP-SM 7.4 180 9.9 2300 * Moderately Aggressive Moderately Aggressive179 + 41 2 - 4 SP/SP-SM 7.5 120 4.8 8,300 Slightly Aggressive Slightly Aggressive181 + 32 4 - 6 SP/SP-SM 6.6* 360 9.9 1,060* Moderately Aggressive Moderately Aggressive178 + 18 4 - 6 SP/SP-SM 7.0* 60 14.7 5,400 Moderately Aggressive Slightly Aggressive

CHLORIDES (ppm)

TABLE 2SUMMARY OF CORROSION TEST RESULTS

SMOKEHOUSE BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTMARCO ISLAND

COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAPSI PROJECT NO. 775-833

SULFATES (ppm)

RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm)

ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION

27 RT

STATION (feet)

OFFSET (feet)

B-1 13 LT

BORING NUMBER

BORING LOCATION(1)

* Governing factor for Environmental Classification other than slightly aggressive.

MSE-2SW-3

28 LT86 RT

SAMPLE DEPTH

(feet)

USCS GROUP

pH

(1) Boring locations reference the S.R. 951 B/L Survey.

B-2


PERMANENT RETAINING WALL DESIGN DATASMOKEHOUSE BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

MARCO ISLANDCOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

PSI PROJECT NO. 775-833

1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F

1 Type 2F Yes 2 3 ¾“ and 0.13% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic

2 Type 2F Yes 2 3" and 0.11% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic

3A Type 2F Yes 2 3" and 0.11% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic

3B Type 2F Yes 2 3" and 0.13% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic

3C Type 2F Yes 2 3 ¾“ and 0.13% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic



8A Type 2F Yes 2 3 ¾“ and 0.13% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic

8B Type 2F Yes 2 3 ¾“ and 0.13% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic

8C Type 2F Yes 2 3 ¾“ and 0.13% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic

9A Type 2F Yes 2 3" and 0.11% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic

9B Type 2F Yes 2 3" and 0.11% MSE Walls F 3" IV6 Yes plastic

1. Listed in the Plans; Wall Type combines both Settlement Limitations and Durability Factors.

5. For concrete requirements, see Specification Section 346 using slightly aggressive environment.6. For concrete requirements, see Specification Section 346 using extremely aggressive environment.7. "Other Allowable Wall Types" listed with an "X" have Settlement Limitations and Durability Factors greater than those required by the "Wall Type" (Column 1)

TABLE 3

Wall

Project Specific

Wall Type 1 Proprietary QPL Item

Set

tlem

ent

Cat

egor

y Design Settlement Limitations

Total

Settlement 2Differential

Settlement 3Typical Wall Construction

2. Amount of wall settlements that the will occur in its design life and includes both short and long term settlements. Short term settlements occur during wall construction and may contain elastic deformation and densification settlement. Long term settlements continue after the completeion of the wall and may include consolidation and secondary consolidation/creep settlements.4. Includes all underground walls and walls submerged in water.3. Settlements along the alignment of and perpendicular to the wall face; usually are not uniform. Expansion joints for the cast-in-place walls and slip joints for MSE walls are provided to control wall panel cracks, respectively.

Du

rab

illi

ty

Cat

egor

y Durability FactorsSoil Strap

Type

Other Allowable Wall Types 7

Concrete Cover

Concrete Class

Calcium Nitrate


TABLE 4SHEET PILE WALL SOIL PARAMETERS

SMOKEHOUSE BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTMARCO ISLAND

COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAPSI PROJECT NO. 775-833, SEPTEMBER 11, 2012

SAT SUBMERGEDActive (Ka)

Passive (Kp)

0 - 12.5 44 - 90 SP/SP-SM 125.0 62.6 34 12 0.261 5.46012.5 - 25.0 1 - 5 SP/SP-SM, SP-SC 105.0 42.6 29 12 0.317 4.23425.0 - 50.0 15 - 74 SP-SC, SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 125.0 62.6 34 12 0.261 5.460

0 - 10 32 - 42 SP/SP-SM 120.0 57.6 33 12 0.271 5.18210 - 43 3 - 7 SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 105.0 42.6 29 12 0.317 4.23443 - 50 56 - 59 SP/SP-SM 125.0 62.6 34 12 0.261 5.4600 - 10 23 - 44 SP/SP-SM 120.0 57.6 33 12 0.271 5.182

10 - 35 1 - 5 SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 100.0 37.6 28 12 0.329 4.03335 - 50 40 - 66 SM/SC, SP-SC 125.0 62.6 34 12 0.261 5.460

0 - 12.5 44 - 90 SP/SP-SM 125.0 62.6 34 10 0.263 5.04412.5 - 25.0 1 - 5 SP/SP-SM, SP-SC 105.0 42.6 29 10 0.321 3.95125.0 - 50.0 15 - 74 SP-SC, SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 125.0 62.6 34 10 0.263 5.044

0 - 10 32 - 42 SP/SP-SM 120.0 57.6 33 10 0.274 4.79710 - 43 3 - 7 SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 105.0 42.6 29 10 0.321 3.95143 - 50 56 - 59 SP/SP-SM 125.0 62.6 34 10 0.263 5.0440 - 10 23 - 44 SP/SP-SM 120.0 57.6 33 10 0.274 4.797

10 - 35 1 - 5 SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 100.0 37.6 28 10 0.333 3.77035 - 50 40 - 66 SM/SC, SP-SC 125.0 62.6 34 10 0.263 5.044

0 - 12.5 31 - 34 SP/SP-SM 120.0 57.6 33 10 0.274 4.79712.5 - 27.5 3 - 12 SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 105.0 42.6 29 10 0.321 3.95127.5 - 40 22 - 24 SP/SP-SM 115.0 52.6 32 10 0.285 4.5650 - 22.5 21 - 45 SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 115.0 52.6 32 10 0.285 4.565

22.5 - 32.5 6 - 8 SM/SC, SP/SP-SM 105.0 42.6 29 10 0.321 3.95132.5 - 40 24 - 39 SP/SP-SM 120.0 57.6 33 10 0.274 4.7970 - 12.5 27 - 35 SP/SP-SM 120.0 57.6 33 10 0.274 4.79712.5 - 40 4 - 27 SP/SP-SM, SM/SC 110.0 47.6 30 10 0.308 4.143

All soils non-cohesive (Cohesion = 0 psf)

SOIL PARAMETERS

Boring Number

Depth (feet)

SPT "N" Range Soil Classification (USCS)Earth Pressure Approximate Soil Unit Soil Angle of

Friction ø (degrees)

TW-2

TW-3

SW-2

SW-3

Sea Walls - Steel

SW-1

SW-2

Sea Walls - Concrete

SW-1

Interface Wall Friction

(Degrees)

SW-3

Temporary Walls - Steel

TW-1


PILE SIZE

NOMINAL BEARING

RESISTANCE

TENSION RESISTANCE

MINIMUM TIP

ELEVATION *

TEST PILE

LENGTH

REQUIRED JET ELEVATION

REQUIRED PREFORM

ELEVATION

FACTORED DESIGN LOAD

DOWN DRAG

TOTAL SCOUR RESISTANCE

NET SCOUR

RESISTANCE

100-YEAR SCOUR

ELEVATION

LONG TERM SCOUR

ELEVATION(in) (tons) (tons) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (ft) (ft)

End Bent 1 24 350 165 -50 90 N/A N/A 227.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.65 11.2End Bent 2 24 350 165 -50 90 N/A N/A 227.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.65 11.2

NOTES:

2. All test piles are to be dynamically monitored using the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) as per Section 455-5.13 of the Standard Specifications, or approved equivalent.

3. Minimum tip elevation required for lateral load per Structural Engineer.

4. Test piles shall be driven in the position of permanent piles at locations indicated in plan view or as directed by the engineer, and shall be dynamically load tested as per the specification.

5. Test piles shall be driven in accordance with Section 455-5.12.1 of the FDOT Specifications.

6.

7.

8.

9.

* Minimum penetration requirements shall be governed by Section 455-5.8 of the specifications.

** Pile subject to tension required 3 foot minimum with strands exposed from cut off elevation. See Tension Pile Details Sheet B-14.

All piles shall be driven plumb.

PDA testing may be completed at additional pile locations not identified above in order to meet the requirements of the current FDOT Structure Design Guildlines for number and spacing of test piles.

The Contractor shall use special equipment and/or methods (i.e., Core Barrels, Rock Augers, Punches, Drill Bits, etc.) as needed to facilitate predrilling and preforming, if required.

PIER OR BENT NUMBER

PILE CUT OFF ELEVATION **

When a required jetting or preformed elevation is not shown on the table, do not jet or preform pile locations without prior written approval of the Engineer.

RESISTANCE FACTOR

Ф

1. Nominal Bearing Resistance = Factored Design Load + Net Scour Resistance + Downdrag

Ф

TABLE 5PILE DATA TABLE

SMOKEHOUSE BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTCOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

PSI PROJECT NO. 0775833

INSTALLATION CRITERIA DESIGN CRITERIA


APPENDIX B

SHEETS

APPENDIX C

PLATES

DRAWN SCALE PROJ. NO.

KME NOTED 775833CHECKED DATE

MEM JAN 11 PLATE 1

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

200 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Estimated Nominal Bearing Resistance (tons)

Pil

e T

ip E

leva

tion

(ft

, NG

VD

) 18 in

24 in

S.R.951 over Smokehouse Bay (Boring B-1)

End Bent 1

Station 781+34, 5 RT

--- Prestressed Precast Square Concrete Piles ---

LRFD Estimated Factored Axial Pile Capacities

S.R.951 over Smokehouse Bay

Collier County

DRAWN SCALE PROJ. NO.

KME NOTED 775833CHECKED DATE

MEM JAN 11 PLATE 2

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

200 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Estimated Nominal Bearing Resistance (tons)

Pil

e T

ip E

leva

tion

(ft

, NG

VD

) 18 in

24 in

S.R. 951 over Smokehouse Bay(Boring B-2)End Bent 2

Station 782+81, 18 LT

--- Prestressed Precast Square Concrete Piles ---

LRFD Estimated Factored Axial Pile Capacities

S.R.951 over Smokehouse Bay

Collier County

APPENDIX D

SAMPLE COMPUTER OUTPUTS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

MSE WALL - LRFD External Stability Analysis page 1 of 2 version 2.5 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (2006) Minimum * * * * * * * Reinforcement Over- Eccen- Bearing * * Water * * * * * * H Ho D L Length turning tricity Sliding Resitance d γ[rf] γ[bf] [bf] γ[fs] [fs] c[fs] u q1 q2 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Requirement CDR CDR CDR CDR (deg) (ft) (ft) (pcf) (pcf) (deg) (pcf) (deg) (psf) (deg) (psf) (psf) CW (SDG Fig 3.16) > = 1 < = 1 > = 1 > = 1 1 10.0 8.0 2.0 8.0 OK 2.09 0.95 1.03 2.03 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 1.00 2 12.0 10.0 2.0 10.0 OK 2.46 0.81 1.14 2.06 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.92 3 13.0 11.0 2.0 10.0 OK 2.16 0.92 1.08 1.78 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.92 4 14.0 12.0 2.0 11.0 OK 2.32 0.86 1.12 1.79 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.88 5 15.0 13.0 2.0 11.0 OK 2.07 0.96 1.07 1.56 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.88 6 16.0 14.0 2.0 12.0 OK 2.22 0.90 1.11 1.59 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.85 7 17.0 15.0 2.0 13.0 OK 2.35 0.85 1.15 1.62 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.82 8 18.0 16.0 2.0 13.0 OK 2.14 0.93 1.10 1.44 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.82 9 19.0 17.0 2.0 14.0 OK 2.26 0.88 1.14 1.46 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.80 10 20.0 18.0 2.0 14.0 OK 2.08 0.96 1.09 1.31 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.80 11 21.0 19.0 2.0 15.0 OK 2.19 0.91 1.13 1.34 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.78 12 22.0 20.0 2.0 16.0 OK 2.30 0.87 1.16 1.37 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.76 13 23.0 21.0 2.0 17.0 OK 2.41 0.83 1.19 1.39 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.75 14 24.0 22.0 2.0 18.0 OK 2.51 0.80 1.22 1.41 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.73 15 25.0 23.0 2.0 18.0 OK 2.33 0.86 1.18 1.29 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.73 16 26.0 24.0 2.0 19.0 OK 2.43 0.82 1.20 1.31 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.72 17 27.0 25.0 2.0 20.0 OK 2.52 0.80 1.23 1.33 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.71 18 28.0 26.0 2.0 21.0 OK 2.60 0.77 1.25 1.35 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.70 19 29.0 27.0 2.0 22.0 OK 2.68 0.75 1.27 1.36 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.69 20 30.0 28.0 2.0 22.0 OK 2.53 0.79 1.23 1.27 0.0 0.0 12.5 105.0 105.0 30.0 105.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 250 250 0.69

* Indicates required input Note:

Disclaimer: No Warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the author or the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) as to the accuracy and the functioning of this program or the results it produces; nor shall the fact of distribution constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the author or the FDOT in any connection therewith. H Wall Height H = Ho + D Ho Wall Height above ground (feet) D Wall Embeddment Depth (feet) L Reinforcing Strap Length (feet) CDR Capacity-Demand Ratio for : Overturning = Mr / Mo => 1.0 Eccentricity = e / (L/4) =< 1.0 Sliding = Fr / Fd => 1.0 Bearing Resistance = qr / qvb => 1.0

Slope of backfill soil (degrees) Horizontal distance from the back of the wall to the top of the slope (for broken-back slopes) (feet) Use >= 2*H when modeling infinite slopes

d Water depth below base of leveling pad (feet) γ[rf] Reinforced fill unit weight (pounds per cubic foot) γ[bf] Backfill soil unit weight (pounds per cubic foot) [bf] Backfill soil angle of internal friction (degrees) γ[fs] Foundation Soil unit weight (pounds per cubic foot) [fs] Foundation Soil angle of internal friction (degrees) c[fs] Foundation Soil cohesion (pounds per square foot) u Base Angle of Internal Friction (degrees) (Sliding)

q1 Surcharge load over reinforced soil mass (pounds per square foot) - Should be zero when modeling infinite slopesq2 Surcharge load behind reinforced soil mass (pounds per square foot) - Should be zero when modeling infinite slopes

Cw Cw = 0.5 for d =< 0, Cw=1.0 for d => 1.5*L + D

β

Reinforced Soil

Backfill

D

HoH

q1 q2

LFoundation Soil

d

Reinforced Soil

D

Ho

qvb qr h W1 W2 W3 q1V Ft qt Fd Fr Rv Rv2 Mr Mr2 Mo Mo2 e e2 L' Nc Nq Ng Kabh Kabs Kabs2(psf) (psf) (ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (deg) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) [fs] [fs] [fs] [bf] [bf] [bf]

2542 6883 0.00 8400 0 0 3500 0.0 1750 833 2625 4191 8400 14840 33600 59360 16042 16042 1.91 1.08 5.84 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0002812 7424 0.00 12600 0 0 4375 0.0 2520 1000 3780 6286 12600 21385 63000 106925 25620 25620 2.03 1.20 7.60 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0003153 7165 0.00 13650 0 0 4375 0.0 2958 1083 4436 6810 13650 22803 68250 114013 31547 31547 2.31 1.38 7.23 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0003279 7407 0.00 16170 0 0 4813 0.0 3430 1167 5145 8067 16170 26642 88935 146531 38302 38302 2.37 1.44 8.12 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0003643 7168 0.00 17325 0 0 4813 0.0 3938 1250 5906 8643 17325 28201 95288 155107 45938 45938 2.65 1.63 7.74 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0003757 7425 0.00 20160 0 0 5250 0.0 4480 1333 6720 10057 20160 32466 120960 194796 54507 54507 2.70 1.68 8.64 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0003880 7679 0.00 23205 0 0 5688 0.0 5058 1417 7586 11576 23205 37014 150833 240593 64062 64062 2.76 1.73 9.54 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0004243 7467 0.00 24570 0 0 5688 0.0 5670 1500 8505 12257 24570 38857 159705 252571 74655 74655 3.04 1.92 9.16 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0004357 7730 0.00 27930 0 0 6125 0.0 6318 1583 9476 13934 27930 43831 195510 306814 86339 86339 3.09 1.97 10.06 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0004737 7526 0.00 29400 0 0 6125 0.0 7000 1667 10500 14667 29400 45815 205800 320705 99167 99167 3.37 2.16 9.67 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0004841 7795 0.00 33075 0 0 6563 0.0 7718 1750 11576 16500 33075 51214 248063 384103 113190 113190 3.42 2.21 10.58 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0004954 8060 0.00 36960 0 0 7000 0.0 8470 1833 12705 18439 36960 56896 295680 455168 128462 128462 3.48 2.26 11.48 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0005075 8323 0.00 41055 0 0 7438 0.0 9258 1917 13886 20481 41055 62862 348968 534325 145034 145034 3.53 2.31 12.39 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0005203 8583 0.00 45360 0 0 7875 0.0 10080 2000 15120 22629 45360 69111 408240 621999 162960 162960 3.59 2.36 13.28 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0005550 8408 0.00 47250 0 0 7875 0.0 10938 2083 16406 23572 47250 71663 425250 644963 182292 182292 3.86 2.54 12.91 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0005670 8672 0.00 51870 0 0 8313 0.0 11830 2167 17745 25877 51870 78337 492765 744202 203082 203082 3.92 2.59 13.82 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0005796 8934 0.00 56700 0 0 8750 0.0 12758 2250 19136 28286 56700 85295 567000 852950 225383 225383 3.98 2.64 14.72 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0005927 9194 0.00 61740 0 0 9188 0.0 13720 2333 20580 30801 61740 92537 648270 971633 249247 249247 4.04 2.69 15.61 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0006061 9453 0.00 66990 0 0 9625 0.0 14718 2417 22076 33420 66990 100062 736890 1100677 274727 274727 4.10 2.75 16.51 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.0006389 9295 0.00 69300 0 0 9625 0.0 15750 2500 23625 34572 69300 103180 762300 1134980 301875 301875 4.36 2.93 16.15 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.333 0.000 0.000

** Note: This spreadsheet does not analyze Global

Stability or Wall Settlement.

qvb Vertical Pressure at base of the structure (psf): qvb = Rv2 / L' Nc Cohesion Bearing Resistance Factor : Nc = (Nq-1)cot() if f>0; for f=0 Nc=5.14qr Factored bearing resistance including footing embedment (i.e. overburden) term (qNq) Ng Footing Width Bearing Resistance Factor : Ng = 2*(Nq+1)*tan()h h = Wall height for backfill stress calculations (H+Ltan for infinite slopes and H+Tan for broken back slopes with < 2*H) (ft) Nq Embedment Bearing Resistance Factor : Nq = [e^PI*tan()]*N(); N()=tan^2(PI/4 + /2)W1 Reinforced fill weight (lbs/ft) Kabh Backfill earth pressure coefficient when retained soil is horizontalW2 Sloped backfill weight over reinforced area (lbs/ft) Kabs Backfill earth pressure coefficient when retained soil is at slope (infinite slope)W3 Flat backfill weight over reinforced area (lbs/ft) Kabs2 Backfill earth pressure coefficient for broken back slopesq1V Surcharge vertical force over reinforced area (lbs/ft) Resultant earth pressure inclination (deg)Ft Total resultant horizontal backfill force (lbs/ft)qt Total resultant horizontal surcharge force (q2) (lbs/ft)Fd Driving force (Sum of factored horizontal components of total horizontal foces) (lbs/ft)Fr Resisting foce (Sum of factored resisting foces * Tan u) (lbs/ft)Rv Sum of factored vertical forces acting within reingorced soil mass without live load (q1L) used in sliding CDR calculation (lbs/ft)Rv2 Sum of factored vertical forces acting within reingorced soil mass including live load - used in calculation of qvb for bearing CDR (lbs/ft)Mr Sum of Resisting Moments without live load (lbs-ft/ft)Mr2 Sum of Resisting Moments including live load - used in calculation of e2 for bearing CDR (lbs-ft/ft)Mo Sum of Overturning Moments(lbs-ft/ft)Mo2 Sum of Overturning Moments from case S-1-b (lbs-ft/ft)e Eccentricity {L/2 - [(Mr-Mo)/Rv]} (ft) [for overturning]e2 Eccentricity {L/2 - [(Mr2-Mo2)/Rv2]} (ft) [for bearing stress calculation]L' Effective foundation width (feet): L'= L - 2*e2

Page 2/2

MSE WALL - LRFD External Stability Analysisversion 2.5

AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (2006)

APPENDIX E

FB-MULTIPIER SOIL PARAMETER INPUT DATA

B-1 (24" Pile) END BENT 1SR951 OVER SMOKEHOUSE BAY

COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA


Reference Boring B-1 Foundation Type Driven Concrete PileGround Surface Elevation (ft) 12.50 Size (inch) 24

Ground Water Table Elevation (ft) 0.00 Base Area (ft2) 4

Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5Soil Description Sand Limestone Limestone Limestone LimestoneSoil Type Cohesionless Rock Rock Rock RockTop Boundary Elevation (ft) 12.50 -37.50 -49.50 -79.50 -104.50Bottom boundary Elevation (ft) -37.50 -49.50 -79.50 -104.50 -112.50Average SPT N-Value (Blows/ft) 13 8 46 88 31

Soil Model Sand (Reese) Limestone (McVay) Limestone (McVay) Limestone (McVay) Limestone (McVay)Internal Friction Angle, 31 - - - -Total Unit Weight (pcf), t 105 - - - -Subgrade Modulus (pci), k 36 - - - -Undrained Shear Strength (psf), cu - - - - -Major Principal Strain @ ε50 - - - - -Major Principal Strain @ ε100 - - - - -Average Undrained Shear Strength (psf) - - - - -Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf) - 6660 47660 73600 26400Soil Model Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven PileTotal Unit Weight (pcf), t 105 115 135 135 135Shear Modulus (ksi), G 6.50 4.00 23.00 44.00 15.50Poisson's ratio, 0.30 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.50Vertical Failure Shear Stress (psf) 494 160 920 1200 620Undrained Shear Strength (psf), cu - - - - -Ultimate Unit Skin Friction (psf) - - - - -Mass Modulus (ksi) - - - - -Modulus Ratio - - - - -Surface (Rough/Smooth) - - -Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf) - - - - -Split Tensile Strength (psf) - - - - -Concrete Unit Weight (pcf) - - - - -Slump (in) - - - - -Soil Model Hyperbolic Hyperbolic Hyperbolic Hyperbolic HyperbolicTotal Unit Weight (pcf), t 105 115 135 135 135.00Internal Friction Angle, 31 30 35 35 -Undrained Shear Strength (psf), cu - - - - -Shear Modulus (ksi), G 6.5 4.0 23.0 44.0 15.50Torsional Shear Stress (psf) 494 160 920 1200 620Soil Model Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven PileShear Modulus (ksi), G 6.50 4.00 23.00 44.00 15.50Poisson's ratio, 0.30 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.50Axial Bearing Failure, kips 333 230 1325 1728 893Uncorrected SPT-N Value (blows/ft) - - - - -Undrained Shear Strength (psf), cu - - - - -IGM Mass Modulus (ksi), Em - - - - -

TIP

TORSIONAL

Geotechnical Parameters for FB-MultiPier Input

LATERAL

AXIAL

B-2 (24 " Pile) END BENT 2SR951 OVER SMOKEHOUSE BAY

COLLIER COUNTY


Reference Boring B-2 Foundation Type Driven Concrete PileGround Surface Elevation (ft) 12.50 Size (inch) 24

Ground Water Table Elevation (ft) 0.00 Base Area (ft2) 4

Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6Soil Description Sand Limestone Limestone Limestone Limestone LimestoneSoil Type Cohesionless Rock Rock Rock Rock RockTop Boundary Elevation (ft) 12.50 -43.50 -55.50 -64.50 -84.50 -94.50Bottom boundary Elevation (ft) -43.50 -55.50 -64.50 -84.50 -94.50 -112.50Average SPT N-Value (Blows/ft) 10 1 100 37 100 46

Soil Model Sand (Reese) Limestone (McVay) Limestone (McVay) Limestone (McVay) Limestone (McVay) Limestone (McVay)Internal Friction Angle, 30 - - - - -Total Unit Weight (pcf), t 105 - - - - -Subgrade Modulus (pci), k 28 - - - - -Undrained Shear Strength (psf), cu - - - - - -Major Principal Strain @ ε50 - - - - - -Major Principal Strain @ ε100 - - - - - -Average Undrained Shear Strength (psf) - - - - - -Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf) - 830 80000 34860 80000 47660Soil Model Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven PileTotal Unit Weight (pcf), t 105 115 135 135 135 135Shear Modulus (ksi), G 5.00 0.50 50.00 18.50 50.00 23.00Poisson's ratio, 0.25 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50Vertical Failure Shear Stress (psf) 380 20 1200 740 1200 920Undrained Shear Strength (psf), cu - - - - - -Ultimate Unit Skin Friction (psf) - - - - - -Mass Modulus (ksi) - - - - - -Modulus Ratio - - - - - -Surface (Rough/Smooth) - - -Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf) - - - - - -Split Tensile Strength (psf) - - - - - -Concrete Unit Weight (pcf) - - - - - -Slump (in) - - - - - -Soil Model Hyperbolic Hyperbolic Hyperbolic Hyperbolic Hyperbolic HyperbolicTotal Unit Weight (pcf), t 105 115 135 135 135.00 135.00Internal Friction Angle, 30 28 35 35 - -Undrained Shear Strength (psf), cu - - - - - -Shear Modulus (ksi), G 5.0 0.5 50.0 18.5 50.00 23.00Torsional Shear Stress (psf) 380 20 1200 740 1200 920Soil Model Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven PileShear Modulus (ksi), G 5.00 0.50 50.00 18.50 50.00 23.00Poisson's ratio, 0.25 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50Axial Bearing Failure, kips 256 29 1728 1066 1728 1325Uncorrected SPT-N Value (blows/ft) - - - - - -Undrained Shear Strength (psf), cu - - - - - -IGM Mass Modulus (ksi), Em - - - - - -

TIP

TORSIONAL

Geotechnical Parameters for FB-MultiPier Input

LATERAL

AXIAL

APPENDIX F

FHWA CHECKLIST

*A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS "GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLISTS" The following checklists cover the major information and recommendations which should be addressed in project geotechnical reports. Section A covers site investigation information which will be common to all geotechnical reports for any type of geotechnical feature. Sections B through I cover the basic information and recommendations which should be presented in geotechnical reports for specific geotechnical features: centerline cuts and embankments, embankments over soft ground, landslides, retaining walls, structure foundations and material sites. Subject Page SECTION A, Site Investigation Information................................................................................................ 1 SECTION B, Centerline Cuts and Embankments ........................................................................................ 3 SECTION C, Embankments Over Soft Ground........................................................................................... 5 SECTION D, Landslide Corrections............................................................................................................. 7 SECTION E, Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................... 9 SECTION F, Structure Foundations - Spread Footings ............................................................................. 10 SECTION G, Structure Foundations - Piles ............................................................................................... 11 SECTION H, Structure Foundations - Drilled Shafts ................................................................................ 14 SECTION I, Material Sites .......................................................................................................................... 15 In most sections and subsections the user has been provided supplemental page references to the Soils and Foundations Workshop Manual. These page numbers appear in parentheses ( ) immediately adjacent to the section or subsection topic. Generalist engineers are particularly encouraged to read these references. Additional reference information on these topics is available in the Geotechnical Notebook, a copy of which is kept in all Division Offices by either the Bridge Engineer or the engineer with the soils responsibility. Certain checklist items are of vital importance to have been included in the geotechnical report. These checklist items have been marked with an asterisk (*). A negative response to any of these asterisked items is cause to contact the geotechnical engineer for clarification of this omission.

*A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project. -12-

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (SITE INVESTIGATION)

A. Site Investigation Information

Since the most important step in the geotechnical design process is the conduct of an adequate site investigation, presentation of the subsurface information in the geotechnical report and on the plans deserves careful attention.

Geotechnical Report Text (Introduction) (Pages 322-325)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

1. Is the general location of the investigation described an/or a vicinity map included?

2. Is scope and purpose of the investigation summarized?

3. Is concise description given of geologic setting and topography of area?

4. Are the field explorations and laboratory tests on which the report is based listed?

5. Is general description of subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions given?

*6. Is the following information included with the geotechnical report (typically included in report appendices):

a. Test hole logs? (Pages 25-33)

b. Field test data?

c. Laboratory test data? (Pages 74-75)

d. Photographs (if pertinent)?

Plan and Subsurface Profile (Pages 24, 47-49, 335)

*7. Is a plan and subsurface profile of the investigation site provided?


A. Site Investigation Information (Cont.)

Yes

No Unknown

or N/A

8. Are the field explorations located on the plan view?

*9. Does the conducted site investigation meet minimum criteria outlined in Table 2?

10. Are the explorations plotted and correctly numbered on the profile at their true elevation and location?

11. Does the subsurface profile contain a word description and/or graphic depiction of soil and rock types?

12. Are groundwater levels and date measured shown on the subsurface profile?

Subsurface Profile or Field Boring Log (Pages 16-17, 25-29)

13. Are sample types and depths noted?

*14. Are SPT blow counts, percent core recovery, and RQD values shown?

15. If cone penetration tests were made, are plots of cone resistance and friction ratio shown with depth?

Laboratory Test Data (Pages 60, 74-75)

*16. Were lab soil classification tests such as natural moisture content, gradation, Atterberg limits, performed on selected representative samples to verify field visual soil identifications?

17. Are laboratory test results such as shear strength (Page 62), consolidation (Page 68), etc., included and/or summarized?


"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (CENTERLINE CUTS AND EMBANKMENTS)

B. Centerline Cuts and Embankments (Pages 6-9)

In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project geotechnical report?

Are station to station descriptions included for:

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

1. Existing surface and subsurface drainage?

2. Evidence of springs and excessively wet areas?

3. Slides, slumps, and faults noted along the alignment?

Are station to station recommendations included for the following:

General Soil Cut or Fill

4. Specific surface/subsurface drainage recommendations.

5. Excavation limits of unsuitable materials?

*6. Erosion protection measures for backslopes, side slopes, and ditches, including riprap recommendations or special slope treatments?

Soil Cuts (Pages 101-102)

*7. Recommended cut slope design?

8. Are clay cut slopes designed for minimum F.S. = 1.50?

9. Special usage of excavated soils?

10. Estimated shrink-swell factors for excavated materials?

11. If answer to 3 is yes, are recommendations provided for design treatments?


B. Centerline Cuts and Embankments (Cont.)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

Fills (Pages 77-79)

12. Recommended fill slope design?

13. Will fill slope design provide minimum F.S. = 1.25?

Rock Slopes

*14. Are recommended slope designs and blasting specifications provided?

*15. Is the need for special rock slope stabilization measures, e.g., rockfall catch ditch, wire mesh slope protection, shotcrete, rock bolts, addressed?

16. Has the use of "template" designs been avoided (such as designing all rock slopes on ¼ to 1 rather than designing based on orientation of major rock jointing)?

*17. Have effects of blast induced vibrations on adjacent structures been evaluated?


"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (EMBANKMENTS OVER SOFT GROUND)

C. Embankments Over Soft Ground Where embankments must be built over soft ground (such as soft clays, organic silts, or peat), stability and settlement of the fill should be carefully evaluated. In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project geotechnical report?

Embankment Stability (Pages 77-79, 95-97)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*1. Has the stability of the embankment been evaluated for minimum safety factors of 1.25 for side slope stability and 1.30 for end slope stability of bridge approach embankments?

*2. Has the shear strength of the foundation soil been determined from lab testing and/or field vane shear or static cone penetrometer tests?

*3. If the proposed embankment does not provide minimum factors or safety given above, are recommendations given for feasible treatment alternates which will increase factor of safety to minimum acceptable (such as change alignment, lower grade, use stabilizing counterberms, excavate and replace weak subsoil, fill stage construction, lightweight fill, geotextile fabric reinforcement, etc.)?

*4. Are cost comparisons of treatment alternates given and a specific alternate recommended?

Settlement of Subsoil (Pages 146-160)

5. Have consolidation properties of fine grained soils been determined from laboratory consolidation tests?

*6. Have settlement amount and settlement time been estimated?

7. For bridge approach embankments, are recommendations made to get the settlement out before the bridge abutment is constructed (waiting period, surcharge, or wick drains)?


C. Embankments Over Soft Ground (Cont.)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

8. If geotechnical instrumentation is proposed to monitor fill stability and settlement, are detailed recommendations provided on the number, type, and specific locations of the proposed instruments?

9. Construction Considerations: (Pages 183, 331-334)

a. If excavation and replacement of unsuitable shallow surface deposits (peat, muck, topsoil) is recommended - are vertical and lateral limits of recommended excavation provided?

b. Where a surcharge treatment is recommended, are plan and cross-section of surcharge treatment provided in geotechnical report for benefit of the roadway designer?

c. Are instructions or specifications provided concerning instrumentation, fill placement rates and estimated delay times for the contractor?

d. Are recommendations provided for disposal of surcharge material after the settlement period is complete?


"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (LANDSLIDE CORRECTIONS)

D. Landslide Corrections (Pages 77-80, 103-105) In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the landslide study geotechnical report? (Refer to Table 4 for guidance on the necessary technical support data for correction of slope instabilities.)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*1. Is a site plan and scaled cross-section provided showing ground surface conditions both before and after failure?

*2. Is the past history of the slide area summarized - including movement history, summary of maintenance work and costs, and previous corrective measures taken (if any)?

*3. Is a summary given of results of a site investigation, field and lab testing, and stability analysis, including cause(s) of the slide?

Plan

4. Are detailed slide features - including location of ground surface cracks, head scarp, and toe bulge - shown on the site plan?

Cross Section

*5. Are the cross sections used for stability analysis included with the soil profile, water table, soil unit weights, soil shear strengths, and failure plane shown as it exists?

6. Is slide failure plane location determined from slope indicators?

*7. For an active slide, was soil strength along the slide failure plane backfigured using a safety factor equal to 1.0 at the time of failure?


D.

Landslide Corrections (Cont.)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

Text

*8. Is the following information presented for each proposed correction alternate: (typical correction methods include buttress, shear key, rebuild slope, surface drainage, subsurface drainage-interceptor, drain trenches or horizontal drains and retaining structures)?

a. Cross-section of proposed alternate?

b. Estimated safety factor?

c. Estimated cost?

d. Advantages and disadvantages?

9. Is a recommended correction alternate(s) given which provide a minimum F.S. = 1.25?

10. If horizontal drains are proposed as part of slide correction, has subsurface investigation located definite water bearing strata that can be tapped with horizontal drains?

11. If toe counterberm is proposed to stabilize an active slide, has field investigation confirmed that the toe of the existing slide does not extend beyond the toe of the proposed counterberm?

12. Construction Considerations:

a. Where proposed correction will require excavation into the toe of an active slide (such as for buttress or shear key), has the "during construction backslope F.S." with open excavation been determined?

b. If open excavation F.S. is near 1.0, has excavation stage construction been proposed?

c. Has seasonal fluctuation of groundwater table been considered?

d. Is stability of excavation backslope to be monitored?

e. Are special construction features, techniques and materials described and specified?


"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (RETAINING WALLS)

E. Retaining Walls (See Section 5 of "Geotechnical Engineering Notebook") In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project geotechnical report?

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*1. Does the geotechnical report include recommended soil strength parameters and groundwater elevation for use in computing wall design lateral earth pressures and factor of safety for overturning, sliding, and external slope stability?

2. Is it proposed to bid alternate wall designs?

*3. Are acceptable reasons given for the choice and/or exclusion of certain wall types (gravity, reinforced soil, tieback, cantilever, etc.)?

*4. Is an analysis of the wall stability included with minimum acceptable factors of safety against overturning (F.S. = 2.0), sliding (F.S. = 1.5), and external slope stability (F.S. = 1.5)?

5. If wall will be placed on compressible foundation soils, is estimated total settlement, differential settlement, and time rate of settlement given?

6. Will wall types selected for compressible foundation soils allow differential movement without distress?

7. Are wall drainage details including materials and compaction provided?


a. Are excavation requirements covered - safe slopes for open excavations, need for sheeting or shoring?

b. Fluctuation of groundwater table?


"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (SPREAD FOOTINGS)

F. Structure Foundations - Spread Footings (Pages 191-205) In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project foundation report?

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*1. Are spread footings recommended for foundation support? If not, are reasons for not using them discussed?

If spread footing supports are recommended, are conclusions/recommendations given for the following:

*2. Is recommended bottom of footing elevation and reason for recommendation (e.g., based on frost depth, estimated scour depth, or depth to competent bearing material) given?

*3. Is recommended allowable soil or rock bearing pressure given?

*4. Is estimated footing settlement and time given?

*5. Where spread footings are recommended to support abutments placed in the bridge end fills, are special gradation and compaction requirements provided for select end fill and backwall drainage material? (Pages 137-141)


a. Have the materials been adequately described on which the footing is to be placed so the project inspector can verify that material is as expected?

b. Have excavation requirements been included for safe slopes in open excavations, need for sheeting or shoring, etc?

c. Has fluctuation of the groundwater table been addressed?


"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (PILE FOUNDATIONS)

G. Structure Foundations - Piles (Pages 224-311)

In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, if pile support is recommended or given as an alternate, conclusions/recommendations should be provided in the project geotechnical report for the following:

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*1. Is the recommended pile type given (displacement, nondisplacement, pipe pile, concrete pile, H-pile, etc.) with valid reasons given for choice and/or exclusion? (Pages 224-226)

2. Do you consider the recommended pile type(s) to be the most suitable and economical?

*3. Are estimated pile lengths and estimated tip elevations given for the recommended allowable pile design loads?

4. Do you consider the recommended design loads to be reasonable?

5. Has pile group settlement been estimated (only of practical significance for friction pile groups ending in cohesive soil)? (Pages 245-247)

6. If a specified or minimum pile tip elevation is recommended, is a clear reason given for the required tip elevation, such as underlying soft layers, scour, downdrag, piles uneconomically long, etc.?

*7. Has design analysis (wave equation analysis) verified that the recommended pile section can be driven to the estimated or specified tip elevation without damage (especially applicable where dense gravel-cobble-boulder layers or other obstructions have to be penetrated)?

8. Where scour piles are required, have pile design and driving criteria been established based on mobilizing the full pile design capacity below the scour zone?


G.

Pile Foundations - Piles (Cont.)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

9. Where lateral load capacity of large diameter piles is an important design consideration, are p-y curves (load vs. deflection) or soil parameters given in the geotechnical report to allow the structural engineer to evaluate lateral load capacity of all piles?

*10. For pile supported bridge abutments over soft ground:

a. Has abutment pile downdrag load been estimated and solutions such as bitumen coating considered in design? Not generally required if surcharging of the fill is being performed. (Pages 248-251)

b. Is bridge approach slab recommended to moderate differential settlement between bridge ends and fill?

c. If the majority of subsoil settlement will not be removed prior to abutment construction (by surcharging), has estimate been made of the amount of abutment rotation that can occur due to lateral squeeze of soft subsoil? (Pages 114-115)

d. Does the geotechnical report specifically alert the structural designer to the estimated horizontal abutment movement?

11. If bridge project is large, has pile load test program been recommended? (Pages 299-302)

12. For a major structure in high seismic risk area, has assessment been made of liquefaction potential of foundation soil during design earthquake (note: only loose saturated sands and silts are "susceptible" to liquefaction)?


G.

Structure Foundations - Piles - (Cont.)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

13. Construction Considerations: (Pages 279-311)

Have the following important construction considerations been adequately addressed?

a. Pile driving details such as: boulders or obstructions which may be encountered during driving - need for preaugering, jetting, spudding, need for pile tip reinforcement, driving shoes, etc.?

b. Excavation requirements - safe slope for open excavations, need for sheeting or shoring? Fluctuation of groundwater table?

c. Have effects of pile driving operation on adjacent structures been evaluated - such as protection against damage caused by footing excavations or pile driving vibrations?

d. Is preconstruction condition survey to be made of adjacent structures to prevent unwarranted damage claims?

e. On large pile driving projects have other methods of pile driving control been considered such as dynamic testing or wave equation analysis?


"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (DRILLED SHAFTS)

H. Structure Foundations - Drilled Shafts (Pages 252-260)

In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, if drilled shaft support is recommended or given as an alternate, are conclusions/recommendations provided in the project foundation report for the following:

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*1. Are recommended shaft diameter(s) and length(s) for allowable design loads based on an analysis using soil parameters for side friction and end bearing?

*2. Settlement estimated for recommended design load?

*3. Where lateral load capacity of shaft is an important design consideration, are P-Y (load vs. deflection) curves or soils data provided in geotechnical report which will allow structural engineer to evaluate lateral load capacity of shaft?

4. Is static load test (to plunging failure) recommended?


a. Have construction methods been evaluated, i.e., can less expensive dry method or slurry method be used or will casing be required?

b. If casing will be required, can casing be pulled as shaft is concreted (this can result in significant cost savings on very large diameter shafts)?

c. If artesian water was encountered in explorations, have design provisions been included to handle it (such as by requiring casing and tremie seal)?

d. Will boulders be encountered? (Note: If boulders will be encountered, then the use of shafts should be seriously questioned due to construction installation difficulties and resultant higher cost the boulders can cause.)


"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (MATERIAL SITES)

I. Material Sites

In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project Material Site Report?:

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

1. Material site location, including description of existing or proposed access routes and bridge load limits (if any)?

*2. Have soil samples representative of all materials encountered during the pit investigation been submitted and tested?

*3. Are laboratory quality test results included in the report?

4. For aggregate sources, do the laboratory quality test results (such as L.A. abrasion, sodium sulfate, degradation, absorption, reactive aggregate, etc.) indicate if specification materials can be obtained from the deposit using normal processing methods?

5. If the lab quality test results indicate that specification material cannot be obtained from the pit materials as they exist naturally - has the source been rejected or are detailed recommendations provided for processing or controlling production so as to ensure a satisfactory product?

*6. For soil borrow sources, have possible difficulties been noted - such as above optimum moisture content clay-silt soils, waste due to high PI, boulders, etc?

*7. Where high moisture content clay-silt soils must be used, are recommendations provided on the need for aeration to allow the materials to dry out sufficiently to meet compaction requirements?

8. Are estimated shrink-swell factors provided?


I. Material Sites (Cont.)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*9. Do the proven material site quantities satisfy the estimated project quantity needs?

10. Where materials will be excavated from below the water table, has seasonal fluctuation of the water table been determined?

11. Are special permit requirements covered?

12. Have pit reclamation requirements been covered adequately?

13. Has material site sketch (plan and profile) been provided for inclusion in the plans, which contains:

● Material site number?

● North arrow and legal subdivision?

● Test hole or test pit logs, location, number and date?

● Water table elevation and date?

● Depth of unsuitable overburden which will have to be stripped?

● Suggested overburden disposal area?

● Proposed mining area and previously mined areas?

● Existing stockpile locations?

● Existing or suggested access roads?

● Bridge load limits?

● Reclamation details?

14. Are recommended special provisions provided?

** For purposes of this document PS&E refers to a plan and specification review at any time during a project’s development. Hence, the review may be at a preliminary or partial stage of plan development. *** When plan reviews are conducted at a partial stage the final geotechnical report may not be available. 1 Major and unusual geotechnical features are defined in Table 1. -28-

Plans and specifications (PS&E) reviews of projects with major or unusual geotechnical features1 should preferably be made by examining the plans, special provisions, and geotechnical report together.*** Subject Page Section A, General 29 Section B, Centerline Cuts and Embankments 30 Section C, Embankments over Soft Ground 30 Section D, Landslide Corrections 31 Section E, Retaining Walls 31 Section F, Spread Footings 32 Section G, Pile Foundations 32 Section H, Drilled Shaft Foundations 33 Section I, Material Sites 33 Certain checklist items are of vital importance to have been included in the geotechnical report. These checklist items have been marked with an asterisk (*). A negative response to any of these asterisked items is cause to contact the geotechnical engineer for clarification of this omission.

*A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

29

A. PS&E Review - General

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*1. Has the appropriate geotechnical engineer reviewed the PS&E to insure that design and construction recommendations have been incorporated as intended and that the subsurface information has been presented correctly? This is an absolute necessity.

2. Are the finished profile exploration logs and locations included in the plans.

*3. Have geotechnical designs prepared by region/district offices or consultants been reviewed and approved by the State Headquarters’ geotechnical engineer?

4. Do the contract documents contain the special provisions (SP’s) as provided in the project geotechnical report?

5. Have the following common claim pitfalls been avoided:

a. Has an adequate site investigation been conducted (reasonably meeting or exceeding the minimum criteria given in Table 2 – page 6)?

b. Has the use of “subjective” subsurface terminology (such as relatively soft rock or gravel with occasional boulders) been avoided?

c. If alignment has been shifted, have additional subsurface explorations been conducted along new alignment?

d. Has a note been included in the contract indicating all subsurface information is available to bidders?

e. Do you think the wording of the geotechnical special provisions (SP’s) are clear, specific, and unambiguous?


PS&E Review – Specific Features

The information covered in the previous general section will apply to all geotechnical features The following are some additional important PS&E review items, which pertain to specific geotechnical features.

B.

PS&E – Centerline Cuts and Embankments

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

1. Where excavation is required, are excavation limits and description of unsuitable organic soils shown on the plans?

2. Are plan details and SP’s provided for special drainage details – such as, lined surface ditches, drainage blanket under sidehill fill, interceptor trench drains, etc.?

3. Is SP included for fill materials requiring special treatment, such as nondurable shales, lightweight fill, etc.?

4. Are SP’s provided for any special rock slope excavation and stabilization measures called for in plans, such as controlled blasting, wire mesh slope protection, rock bolts, shotcrete, etc.?

C. PS&E - Embankments Over Soft Ground

*1. Where excavation is required, are excavation limits and description of unsuitable soils clearly shown on the plans?

*2. Where settlement waiting period will be required, has estimated settlement time been stated in the SP’s to allow bidders to fairly bid the project?

*3. If instrumentation will be used to control the rate of fill placement, do SP’s clearly spell out how this will be done and how the readings will be used to control the contractors operation?

4. Do SP’s clearly state that any instrumentation damaged by contractor personnel will be repaired at the contractor’s expense?


D.

PS&E – Landslide Corrections

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

1. Are plan details and SP’s provided for special drainage details, such as lined surface ditches, drainage blankets, horizontal drains, etc.?

*2. Where excavation is to be made into the toe of an active slide (such as for buttress or shear key construction) – and stage construction is required – do the SP’s clearly spell out the stage construction sequence to be followed?

*3. Where a toe buttress is to be constructed, do the SP’s clearly state gradation and compaction requirements for the buttress materials?

*4. If the geotechnical report recommended that slide repair work not be allowed during the wet time of the year, is the proposed construction schedule in accord with the recommendation?

E. PS&E – Retaining Walls

*1. Are select materials specified for wall backfill with gradation and compaction requirements covered in the specifications?

2. Are limits of required select backfill zones clearly detailed on the plans?

3. Are excavation requirements specified, i.e., safe slopes for excavations, need for sheeting?

*4. Where alternate wall types will be allowed, are fully detailed plans included for all alternates?

a. Were designs prepared by wall supplier?

b. Were wall supplier’s design calculations and specifications reviewed and approved by the structural and geotechnical engineer?

5. Where proprietary retaining walls are bid as alternates, does bid schedule require bidders to designate which alternate their bid is for (to prevent bid shopping after contract award)?

6. Have FHWA guidelines for experimental designations for certain proprietary wall types been followed?

7. Is ROW limit shown on plans and mentioned in specification where tiebacks are to be installed?


F.

PS&E – Spread Footings

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*1. Where spread footings are to be placed in natural soil, is the specific bearing strata in which the footing is to be founded clearly described (i.e., placed on Br. Sandy gravel deposit, etc.)?

*2. Where spread footings are to be placed in the bridge end fill, are gradation and compaction requirements – for the select fill and backfill drainage material – covered in the SP’s, standard specifications, or standard structure sheets?

G. PS&E – Pile Foundations

1. Do plan details adequately cover pile splices, tip reinforcement, driving shoes, etc.?

*2. Where friction piles are to be driven in silty or clayey soils – significant setup or soils freeze affecting long-term capacity may occur – do specifications require retapping the piles after 24 to 48 hour waiting period when required bearing is not obtained at estimated length at end of initial driving?

3. Where friction piles are to be load tested, has a reaction load of four times deign load been specified to allow load testing the pile to plunging failure so that the ultimate soil capacity can be determined?

4. Where end bearing steel piles are to be load tested, has load test been designed to determine if higher than 9 ksi allowable steel stress can be used (e.g., 12 – 15 ksi)?

*5. Where cofferdam construction will be required, have soil gradation results been included in the plans or been made available to bidders to assist them in determining dewatering procedures?

*6. If a wave equation analysis will be used to approve the contractor’s pile driving hammer – has a minimum hammer energy or estimated soil resistance (tons) to be overcome to drive the piles to the estimated length – been given in the SP’s?


H.

PS&E – Drilled Shaft Foundations

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

*1. Where drilled shafts are to be placed in soil, is the specific bearing strata in which the drilled shaft is to be found clearly described (i.e., placed on Br. Sandy gravel deposit, etc.)?

2. Where end bearing drilled shafts are to be founded on rock, has the rock elevation at the shaft pier locations been determined from borings at the pier location?

3. Where drilled shafts are to be socketed some depth into rock – have rock cores been extracted at depths to 10 feet below proposed rock socket at location within 10 feet of the shaft?

I. PS&E – Material Sites

*1. Is a material site sketch (containing the basic information listed on page 27) included in the plans?

*2. Has the material site investigation established a proven quantity of material sufficient to satisfy the project estimated quantity needs?

3. Where specification material cannot be obtained directly from the natural deposit, do SP’s clearly spell out that processing will be required?

4. Are contractor special permit requirements covered in the SP’s?

5. Are pit reclamation requirements clearly spelled out on the plans and in the SP’s?

0775833 final structures report - d.n. higginsdnhiggins.com/docs/structures report.pdf ·...

Documents