retaining wall foundation reportrp.dot.state.al.us/i59_20/pdf/phase_iii/retainingwall/rw-3.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Retaining Wall Foundation Report17th Street North Corridor
I-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3)ALDOT PE Project No. IM-I059 (367)
ALDOT CN Project no. ACIMF-I059 (385)Jefferson County, Alabama
October 9, 2015Terracon Project E1155135
Prepared for:Alabama Department of Transportation
Montgomery, Alabama
Prepared by:Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Birmingham, Alabama
Terracon Consul tants, Inc. 110 12TH Street North Birmingham, Alabama 35203P [205] 942-1289 F [205] 443- 5302 terracon.com
October 9, 2015
Mr. Scott George, P.E.Materials and Tests EngineerAlabama Department of TransportationBureau of Materials & Tests – Geotechnical Section3700 Fairground RoadMontgomery, AL 36110
Attn: Ms. Kaye Chancellor Davis, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer
Re: Retaining Wall Foundation Report17th Street North CorridorI-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3)ALDOT PE Project No. IM-I059 (367)ALDOT CN Project no. ACIMF-I059 (385)Jefferson County, AlabamaTerracon Project No. E1155135
Dear Ms. Davis:
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is pleased to present to the Alabama Department ofTransportation this retaining wall foundation report for the planned I-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to31st Street North in Jefferson County, Alabama (Retaining Wall No. 3). Our scope for thisproject was performed in general accordance with our proposal number PE1150526-Revised,dated August 5, 2015.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questionsconcerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerely,Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Matthew S. McCullough, P.E. David A. Been, P.E.Project Engineer Senior ConsultantAlabama PE 31978 Alabama PE 17306
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 12.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 13.0 FIELD PROCEDURE ...................................................................................................... 24.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2
4.1 Geology ............................................................................................................... 24.2 Typical Profile ...................................................................................................... 34.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 3
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ...................................... 45.1 Settlement and Stability ....................................................................................... 45.2 Lateral Earth Pressures ....................................................................................... 55.3 Backfill and Drainage Considerations ................................................................... 65.4 Foundations ......................................................................................................... 6
5.4.1 Cast-In-Place Concrete Walls ................................................................... 65.4.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls .............................................. 7
5.5 Recommended Plan Notes .................................................................................. 75.4.1 Construction Notes ................................................................................... 75.4.2 General Notes .......................................................................................... 8
APPENDIX A – FIGURESExhibit A-1: Geologic MapExhibit A-2: Site Location MapExhibit A-3: Sinkhole Susceptibility MapExhibit A-4: Boring Location Plan
APPENDIX B – FOUNDATION DESIGNExhibit B-1: Retaining Wall EnvelopeExhibit B-2: Summary of Retaining Wall Foundation Recommendations
APPENDIX C – SOIL BORING DATABoring Log Sheets (2)Boring Log Profile
APPENDIX D – LABORATORY TESTINGSoil Classification SummaryConsolidation Test Results
APPENDIX E – STABILITY ANALYSESSLOPE/W Stability Output for Cast-in-place Concrete WallRETWALL 1.0 Stability Output for Cast-in-place Concrete WallMSEW Stability Output for MSE Wall
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 1
RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION REPORT I-59/I-20 EB OFF-RAMP TO 31st STREET NORTH
(RETAINING WALL NO. 3)ALDOT PE PROJECT NO. IM-I059 (367)
ALDOT CN PROJECT NO. ACIMF-I059 (385)JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
Terracon Project No. E1155135October 9, 2015
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed retaining wall for theproposed I-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3) in JeffersonCounty, Alabama. The plans present this structure as two separate adjacent walls (Wall 3A andWall 3B). A total of three (3) SPT and rock core borings were performed to depths ranging from15 to 93 feet below the existing surface grades. Boring No. T-165 is also being utilized forpreparation of the Bridge Foundation Report for Bridge No. 23, submitted under a separatecover. Boring location plans are included in Appendix A of this report. Logs of the borings areincluded in Appendix C.
The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineeringrecommendations relative to construction of the new retaining wall foundations in accordancewith ALDOT design criteria.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The overall project area is located along Interstate 59/20 and Interstate 65 through Birmingham,Jefferson County, Alabama. The project includes the replacement of several bridges along I-59/I-20, as well as the construction of several new bridges and retaining walls, and the wideningof several existing bridges on I-65. The field procedures and foundation recommendationsdiscussed in this report apply to Retaining Wall No 3.
Retaining Wall No. 3 will be constructed near the existing I-59/I-20 eastbound off-ramp to 31 st
Street North (see Figure No. 2, Site Location Map) in conjunction with the east abutment of theproposed new Bridge No. 23. Plans indicate that the new wall will be approximately 185 feet inlength, and will have a maximum height of about 20 feet. Design considerations for bothMechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) and cast-in-place concrete walls are presented in thisreport.
Retaining Wall Foundation ReportI-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3)Jefferson County, Alabama October 9, 2015 Terracon Project E1155135
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2
3.0 FIELD PROCEDURE
A Terracon drilling crew conducted soil boring and sampling operations at designated locationson the project site using both trailer-mounted and ATV-mounted Mobile B-47 drill rigs. The rigswere fitted with manual hammers (AASHTO T-206). A total of three (3) test borings wereperformed on August 24, 2015. Borings T-166, T-167, and T-170 were surveyed for this projectbut were not performed due to both utility conflicts and a wall alignment change. The boringlocations are indicated on the boring location plans in Appendix A. The approximate roadwaystations/offsets and corresponding retaining wall stations/offsets are shown in the table below:
Boring No.
ApproximateRoadway
Station andOffset
ApproximateRetaining Wall No. 3Station and Offset
T-169187+43
66’ LT of BL0+53
T-165187+48.98
18’ LT of BL1+38
T-168188+49.973’ LT of BL
2+3810’ LT
Boring T-165 will serve to evaluate the bridge foundation bearing strata as well as the retainingwall foundation bearing strata. Therefore, this boring was extended to auger refusal depths andinto the underlying bedrock using rock coring techniques (ASTM D-2113). The rock coringinformation can be seen on the boring logs in Appendix C, but has been omitted from the boringlog profile sheet to improve its legibility.
A Terracon engineer evaluated the recovered soil and rock samples and logged the probablesite stratigraphy. Selected soil samples were tested at the Terracon laboratories in Birmingham,Alabama and Chattanooga, Tennessee. A summary of the laboratory test results has beenincluded with this report as Exhibit D-1 in Appendix D.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 Geology
Published maps indicate that the project is located in the Alabama Valley and Ridge Provinceand is underlain by the Copper Ridge Dolomite. The Copper Ridge Dolomite consists of light to
Retaining Wall Foundation ReportI-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3)Jefferson County, Alabama October 9, 2015 Terracon Project E1155135
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 3
medium-gray, laminated to stromatolitic, finely crystalline, cherty dolomite; and producesabundant dense, stromatolitic chert residuum. Please see Exhibit A-1: Geologic Map located inAppendix A.
The site is underlain by carbonate formations which are susceptible to dissolution and formationof sinkholes. A sinkhole susceptibility map of the site vicinity has been included as Exhibit A-3in Appendix A.
4.2 Typical Profile
Based on the results of the test borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can begeneralized as follows:
Boring T-169 encountered previously-placed fill soils consisting of foundry waste. The foundrywaste fill extended to a depth of about 3.5 feet.
Below the fill at the above-referenced boring, and at just below the ground surface at the otherboring locations, native soils were noted. The native soils consisted of gravelly lean clay, lean claywith gravel, fat clay, or clayey sand. The native soils exhibited consistencies of very stiff to hard ormedium dense to very dense near the proposed retaining wall footing elevations. At borings T-168and T-169, the very stiff to hard or medium dense to very dense residual soils extended to a boringtermination depth of 15 feet. At boring T-165, medium stiff fat clay was noted at depths belowabout 28.5 feet, and very dense poorly-graded sand was noted just above auger refusal whichoccurred at a depth of 52 feet.
Boring T-165 will serve to evaluate the bridge foundation bearing strata as well as the retainingwall foundation bearing strata. Therefore, this boring was extended to auger refusal depths andinto the underlying bedrock using rock coring techniques (ASTM D-2113). The coringoperations penetrated light brownish-gray, moderately hard to hard fractured dolomitecontaining sand-filled voids and clay filled voids and seams. Recovery for the rock core runsranged from about 0 to 100 percent, and the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ranged from 0 to59 percent. The rock coring information can be seen on the boring logs in Appendix C, but hasbeen omitted from the boring log profile sheet to improve its legibility.
Further details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs and boring log profilesheets in Appendix C.
4.3 Groundwater
The boreholes were observed during drilling and after completion for the presence and level ofgroundwater. No groundwater was encountered at any of the boring locations during drilling.Due to the relatively short time frame of the field exploration, the groundwater may not have had
Retaining Wall Foundation ReportI-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3)Jefferson County, Alabama October 9, 2015 Terracon Project E1155135
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 4
sufficient time to stabilize in the borings. We note that fluctuations in the level of thegroundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evidentat the time the measurement was made and reported herein.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
5.1 Settlement and Stability
Settlement analysis was performed on a relatively undisturbed Shelby tube sample of the soilsobtained from boring T-165. Based on our analysis, it is our opinion that total settlements for thewall will be within tolerable limits (about 1 inch). Results of the consolidation tests performed forthis project can be found in Appendix D. Based on our consolidation data, the settlement periodwas calculated to be greater than 9 years.
Retaining Wall No. 3 will support the east abutment embankment for Bridge No. 23. Due to thelow permeability of the foundation soils and excessive length of settlement period, it will not bepractical to delay embankment construction until the end of the settlement period. Therefore,the driven piles at this abutment will likely be subjected to additional downdrag forces. Based onour analyses, these downdrag forces will be on the order of 36 tons for pile size HP 12x53 and45 tons for pile sizes HP 14x73, 14x89, 14x102, and 14x117. These downdrag forces should beincluded in the required foundation design capacities and should be considered when selectingpile sizes for Bridge No. 23. For further details, please refer to the Bridge Foundation Report forBridge No. 23 prepared by Terracon and submitted under a separate cover.
Checks of sliding, overturning, and external stability were performed using the computerprograms RETWALL 1.0, Slope/W, and MSEW. Both cantilevered cast-in-place wall and MSEwall options were considered. The factors of safety determined by our analyses are presented inthe table below. The factors of safety presented in Table 5.1 represent an active earth pressurecondition. The stability model output pages are included in Appendix E.
Table 5.1: Calculated Factors of SafetyWall Type Sliding FOS1 Overturning FOS2 External FOS3
Cast-in-place Concrete4 1.8 2.8 3.6
MSE5 3.6 9.2 2.7
1. FOS of 1.5 required by ALDOT BMT-3982. FOS of 2.0 required by ALDOT BMT-3983. FOS of 1.5 required by ALDOT BMT-398
Retaining Wall Foundation ReportI-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3)Jefferson County, Alabama October 9, 2015 Terracon Project E1155135
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 5
4. Backfill behind cast-in-place concrete walls should consist of AASHTO A-4 orbetter soils
5. To provide the necessary pullout resistance, reinforcement strips for MSEwalls should be at least 115% of the wall height.
Plan Note: The minimum wall reinforcement ratio (the ratio of width of wall reinforcedzone to the wall height) shall be 1.15 (reinforcement length 115% of wallheight), with a minimum reinforcement length of 8 feet.
5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures
The retaining walls should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated inTable 5.2 and Figure 5.2 below. Active earth pressure should be used for designs allowing wallmovement. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safetyand do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.
Figure 5.2: Wall Restraint Conditions
Table 5.2: Lateral Earth PressuresEarth Pressure
ConditionsCoefficient forBackfill Type
Equivalent FluidDensity (pcf)
SurchargePressure, p1 (psf)
Earth Pressure,p2 (psf)
Active (Ka) Crushed Stone - 0.26AASHTO A-4 - 0.36
2945
(0.26)S(0.36)S
(29)H(45)H
Passive (Kp) Crushed Stone – 3.85AASHTO A-4 – 2.77
424346
--
--
Retaining Wall Foundation ReportI-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3)Jefferson County, Alabama October 9, 2015 Terracon Project E1155135
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 6
Applicable conditions to the above include:For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall heightFor passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistanceUniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure. A traffic surcharge of 250 psf has beenconsidered for this projectSoil backfill weight a maximum of 125 pcfHorizontal backfill, compacted between 95 and 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum drydensityLoading from heavy compaction equipment not includedNo hydrostatic pressures acting on wallNo dynamic loadingNo safety factor included in soil parameters
Plan Note: Heavy construction equipment and or stockpiles of materials will not beallowed atop walls or construction slope during construction withoutapproval from the Bureau of Materials and Tests, Geotechnical Section
5.3 Backfill and Drainage Considerations
Backfill placed against walls should conform to the requirements of Section 529 of the ALDOTStandard Specifications for Highway Construction. For cast-in-place concrete walls, weep holesspaced at a maximum of 10 feet on center are recommended to prevent hydrostatic loading. Adrainage layer of backfill (minimum 1 foot wide by 1 foot deep) behind the base of the walls inline with the weep holes is also recommended per Section 529. The granular backfill andexpected placement of a perforated drain pipe within the reinforced zone are anticipated toprevent hydrostatic loading for MSE walls.
5.4 Foundations
Based on the results of our borings, the existing very stiff to hard residual soils will provideadequate foundation support for both the Cast-In-Place Concrete and Mechanically StabilizedEarth (MSE) wall options. Exhibit B-2 in Appendix B presents the allowable bearing capacitiesand elevations.
Pay Item No. 529A-011 – Retaining Wall (Cast In Place), per square footPay Item No. 529A-012 – Retaining Wall (MSE), per square foot
5.4.1 Cast-In-Place Concrete WallsIf cast-in-place concrete walls are selected for this project, shallow spread footings may besized for an allowable bearing pressure of 3 kips per square foot at all locations and for all wallheights indicated on the plans. Temporary excavations for footing construction should be cut no
Retaining Wall Foundation ReportI-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3)Jefferson County, Alabama October 9, 2015 Terracon Project E1155135
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 7
steeper than 1.5(H):1.0(V) to maintain a minimum factor of safety of 1.2 per ALDOT BMT-398,or be properly shored. Foundation recommendations are summarized on Exhibit B-2 inAppendix B.
5.4.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) WallsOur analysis indicates that MSE walls will require allowable soil bearing pressures of 3 kips persquare foot or less. Therefore, if MSE walls are selected for this project, they may be supportedon the residual soils encountered by our borings. A summary of the foundationrecommendations is included as Exhibit B-2.
A separation geotextile should be placed between freely-draining granular backfill and soil.
Pay Item No. 608A-000 – Separation Geotextile, per square yard
5.5 Recommended Plan Notes
Plan notes should be developed based off the below listed notes to ensure geotechnicalrecommendations and requirements are executed. In contrast, these notes may not cover allrecommendations and requirements that can be achieved through engineering judgment andreview of this report in its entirety.
5.4.1 Construction Notes
Cast-in-place Retaining WallWe anticipate that the cantilever retaining walls would exhibit designs based on ALDOT
Standard Drawings.Pay Item for CIP Wall: 529A-011 – Retaining Wall (Cast In Place), per square foot
Estimated Quantity: 2,500 ft2
MSE Retaining Wall The minimum wall reinforcement ratio (the ratio of width of wall reinforced zone to the wall
height) shall be 1.15 (reinforcement length 115% of wall height), with a minimumreinforcement length of 8 feet.
Pay Item for MSE Walls: 529A-012 – Retaining Wall (MSE), per square foot Estimated Quantity: 2,500 ft2
A separation geotextile should be placed between freely-draining granular backfill and soilo Pay Item 608A-000 – Separation Geotextile, per square yard
Estimated Quantity: 100 yd 2
Heavy Construction EquipmentHeavy construction equipment shall be located at least 10 feet from the crest of anytemporary slope or within 10 feet of the face of the constructed wall unless approved on
Retaining Wall Foundation ReportI-59/I-20 EB Off-Ramp to 31st Street North (Retaining Wall No. 3)Jefferson County, Alabama October 9, 2015 Terracon Project E1155135
Responsive Resourceful Reliable 8
a case by case basis by the M&T Geotechnical Division. The bearing capacity of theexisting natural soils for heavy construction loads such as a crane) shall be evaluated bythe contractor before construction starts and provided to the ALDOT GeotechnicalEngineer for review.
5.4.2 General Notes
This office recommends the inclusion of a plan note advising potential contractors of theexistence of a Foundation Report and core borings pertaining to this project. Access tothe report and core borings can be arranged by contacting the Geotechnical Division ofthe Alabama Department of Transportation.
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
IM-I059(367)I-59/I-20 EB OFF-RAMP TO 31st STREET NORTH
(RETAINING WALL NO. 3)JEFFERSON COUNTY
110 12th Street North Birmingham, Alabama 35203
PH. (205) 942-1289 FAX. (205) 443-5302
A-1
EXHIBITGEOLOGIC MAPProject Manager:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Approved by:
MSM
MSM
DAB
DAB
Project No.
Scale:
File Name:
Date:
E1155135
9/21/2015
NTS
PROJECTLOCATION
110 12th Street North Birmingham, Alabama 35203
PH. (205) 942-1289 FAX. (205) 443-5302
SITE LOCATION MAPProject Manager:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Approved by:
MSM
MSM
DAB
DAB
Project No.
Scale:
File Name:
Date:
E1145115
9/21/2015
1:24,000
PROJECTLOCATION
A-2
EXHIBITIM-I059(367)
I-59/I-20 EB OFF-RAMP TO 31ST STREET NORTH(RETAINING WALL NO. 3)
JEFFERSON COUNTY
SIN
KH
OLE
SU
SC
EP
TIB
ILIT
YM
AP
A-3
110
12th
Stre
etN
orth
Birm
ingh
am,
Alab
ama
3520
3
PH
.(20
5)94
2-12
89F
AX.(
205)
443-
5302
E114
5115
9/21
/201
5
MSM
MSM DAB
DAB
Not
toS
cale
Proj
ectM
anag
er:
Draw
nby:
Chec
kedb
y:
Appr
oved
by:
Proj
ectN
o.
Scale
:
File
Name
:
Date
:
EXH
IBIT
I-59/
I-20
EB
Off-
Ram
pto
31st
Stre
etN
orth
(Ret
aini
ngW
allN
o.3)
Birm
ingh
am,J
effe
rson
Cou
nty,
Ala
bam
a
PRO
JEC
TLO
CAT
ION
BO
RIN
GLO
CA
TIO
NP
LAN
I-59/
I-20
EB
OFF
-RA
MP
TO31
ST
STR
EET
NO
RTH
(RET
AIN
ING
WA
LLN
O.3
)JE
FFE
RS
ON
CO
UN
TY,A
LAB
AM
A
A-4
110
12th
Stre
etN
orth
Birm
ingh
am,
Alab
ama
3520
3
PH
.(20
5)94
2-12
89FA
X.(
205)
443-
5302
E115
5135
9/21
/201
5
MSM
MSM DAB
DAB
NTS
Proj
ectM
anag
er:
Draw
nby:
Chec
kedb
y:
Appr
oved
by:
Proj
ectN
o.
Scale
:
File
Nam
e:
Date
:
Exhi
bit
DIA
GR
AM
ISFO
RG
EN
ER
AL
LOC
ATI
ON
ON
LY,A
ND
ISN
OT
INTE
ND
ED
FOR
CO
NS
TRU
CTI
ON
PU
RP
OS
ES
BO
RIN
GLO
CAT
ION
T-16
9
T-16
5T-
168
APPENDIX B
FOUNDATION DESIGN
IM-I0
59(3
67)
I-59/
I-20
EBO
ff-R
amp
to31
stSt
reet
Nor
th(R
etai
ning
Wal
lNo.
3)Je
ffers
onC
ount
y,A
laba
ma
Exhi
bitB
-2:
Sum
mar
yof
Ret
aini
ngW
allF
ound
atio
nR
ecom
men
datio
ns
RET
AIN
ING
WAL
LST
ATIO
N
APPR
OXI
MAT
ER
OAD
WAY
STAT
ION
I-59/
I-20
EBO
FF-
RAM
PTO
31ST
STRE
ETNO
RTH
BO
RING
(S)
MAX
IMU
MW
ALL
HEIG
HT(F
T)
ALLO
WAB
LEB
EAR
ING
PRES
SUR
E
(KSF
)
ESTI
MAT
EDG
RO
UND
ELEV
ATIO
N
(FT)
ESTI
MAT
EDB
OTT
OM
OF
FOO
TING
ELEV
ATIO
N(F
T)
0+53
.49
–1+
61.6
118
7+38
.71
–18
7+73
.70
T-16
9,T-
165
203.
062
5–
627
620.
5
1+61
.61
–1+
96.6
118
7+73
.70
–18
8+08
.70
---16
3.0
627
–63
162
3.0
1+96
.61
–2+
37.8
818
8+08
.70
-18
8+49
.97
T-16
811
3.0
631
–63
462
7.0
Note
:Su
mm
ary
appl
ies
tobo
thC
ast-I
n-Pl
ace
Con
cret
ean
dM
echa
nica
llySt
abili
zed
Eart
h(M
SE)W
alls
APPENDIX C
SOIL BORING DATA
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY TESTING
Shee
t1of
1
Stat
ion
&O
ffset
Borin
gSa
mpl
eD
epth
Wat
erLi
quid
Pla
stic
Plas
ticity
%G
rave
l%
Sand
%Pa
ssD
50U
SCS
AASH
TON
o.ID
(ft)
Con
tent
Lim
itLi
mit
Inde
x20
0(m
m)
Cla
ssifi
catio
n(%
)18
7+48
.49,
18’L
Tof
BLT-
165
T165
-11.
0–
2.5
12.5
2916
1325
.723
.051
.3---
CL
A-6
(3)
187+
48.4
9,18
’LT
ofBL
T-16
5T-
165-
48.
5–
10.0
23.8
6926
434.
98.
886
.3---
CH
A-7-
6(41
)18
8+49
.97,
3’LT
ofBL
T-16
8T1
68-3
6.0
–7.
512
.567
2245
35.4
36.7
27.9
2.8
SCA-
2-7
(5)
187+
43,6
6’LT
ofBL
T-16
9T1
69-2
3.5
–5.
023
.749
2029
13.9
12.6
73.5
---C
LA-
7-6
(21)
SOIL
CLA
SSIF
ICA
TIO
NSU
MM
AR
YAl
abam
aD
epar
tmen
tofT
rans
porta
tion
IM-I0
59(3
67)
17th
Stre
etN
orth
Cor
ridor
I-59/
I-20
EBO
ff-R
amp
to31
stSt
reet
Nor
th(R
etai
ning
Wal
lNo.
3)Je
ffers
onC
ount
y
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORTV
oid
Rat
io
0.475
0.500
0.525
0.550
0.575
0.600
0.625
0.650
0.675
0.700
0.725
Applied Pressure - tsf0.1 1 10
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Gr. Overburden Pc Cc CrInitial Void
Saturation Moisture (pcf) (tsf) (tsf) Ratio75.8 % 19.4 % 99.6 X X 2.7 0.45 8.08 0.21 0.05 0.692
Yellowish Red Clay with Chert Fragments X X
E1155135CBD Phase 3 Bridges and Retaining Walls Swell pressure of 1275psf.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No. Client: Remarks:Project:
Source of Sample: T-165 Depth: 7.0-9.0 ft Sample Number: TubeTerracon Consultants, Inc.
Chattanooga, TN
Dial Reading vs. TimeProject No.:Project:
Source of Sample: T-165 Depth: 7.0-9.0 ft Sample Number: Tube
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0006 cm.2/sec.
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0063 cm.2/sec.
E1155135CBD Phase 3 Bridges and Retaining Walls
21.00 tsf
-0.2074-0.2058-0.205637.45 min.
32.00 tsf
-0.1981-0.1963-0.19613.50 min.
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.2046
-0.2049
-0.2052
-0.2055
-0.2058
-0.2061
-0.2064
-0.2067
-0.2070
-0.2073
-0.2076
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t90
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.1940
-0.1944
-0.1948
-0.1952
-0.1956
-0.1960
-0.1964
-0.1968
-0.1972
-0.1976
-0.1980
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t90
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Dial Reading vs. TimeProject No.:Project:
Source of Sample: T-165 Depth: 7.0-9.0 ft Sample Number: Tube
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0075 cm.2/sec.
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0052 cm.2/sec.
E1155135CBD Phase 3 Bridges and Retaining Walls
44.00 tsf
-0.1852-0.1835-0.18332.90 min.
58.00 tsf
-0.1660-0.1632-0.16294.00 min.
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.1808
-0.1813
-0.1818
-0.1823
-0.1828
-0.1833
-0.1838
-0.1843
-0.1848
-0.1853
-0.1858
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t90
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.158
-0.159
-0.160
-0.161
-0.162
-0.163
-0.164
-0.165
-0.166
-0.167
-0.168
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25
t90
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Dial Reading vs. TimeProject No.:Project:
Source of Sample: T-165 Depth: 7.0-9.0 ft Sample Number: Tube
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0069 cm.2/sec.
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0052 cm.2/sec.
E1155135CBD Phase 3 Bridges and Retaining Walls
616.00 tsf
-0.1415-0.1362-0.13562.89 min.
732.00 tsf
-0.1089-0.0998-0.09873.53 min.
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.131
-0.132
-0.133
-0.134
-0.135
-0.136
-0.137
-0.138
-0.139
-0.140
-0.141
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
t90
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.0930
-0.0945
-0.0960
-0.0975
-0.0990
-0.1005
-0.1020
-0.1035
-0.1050
-0.1065
-0.1080
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
t90
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Dial Reading vs. TimeProject No.:Project:
Source of Sample: T-165 Depth: 7.0-9.0 ft Sample Number: Tube
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0021 cm.2/sec.
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0053 cm.2/sec.
E1155135CBD Phase 3 Bridges and Retaining Walls
816.00 tsf
-0.1060-0.1077-0.10788.71 min.
98.00 tsf
-0.1154-0.1178-0.11813.46 min.
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.1080
-0.1078
-0.1076
-0.1074
-0.1072
-0.1070
-0.1068
-0.1066
-0.1064
-0.1062
-0.1060
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
t90
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.1192
-0.1188
-0.1184
-0.1180
-0.1176
-0.1172
-0.1168
-0.1164
-0.1160
-0.1156
-0.1152
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t90
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Dial Reading vs. TimeProject No.:Project:
Source of Sample: T-165 Depth: 7.0-9.0 ft Sample Number: Tube
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0029 cm.2/sec.
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0064 cm.2/sec.
E1155135CBD Phase 3 Bridges and Retaining Walls
104.00 tsf
-0.1227-0.1261-0.12656.46 min.
112.00 tsf
-0.1291-0.1325-0.13293.00 min.
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.131
-0.130
-0.129
-0.128
-0.127
-0.126
-0.125
-0.124
-0.123
-0.122
-0.121
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t90
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.138
-0.137
-0.136
-0.135
-0.134
-0.133
-0.132
-0.131
-0.130
-0.129
-0.128
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t90
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Dial Reading vs. TimeProject No.:Project:
Source of Sample: T-165 Depth: 7.0-9.0 ft Sample Number: Tube
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0011 cm.2/sec.
Load No.=Load=
D0 =D90 =
D100 =T90 =
Cv @ T90
0.0017 cm.2/sec.
E1155135CBD Phase 3 Bridges and Retaining Walls
121.00 tsf
-0.1374-0.1420-0.142517.73 min.
130.50 tsf
-0.1451-0.1471-0.147411.72 min.
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.146
-0.145
-0.144
-0.143
-0.142
-0.141
-0.140
-0.139
-0.138
-0.137
-0.136
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t90
Dia
lRea
ding
(in.)
-0.153
-0.152
-0.151
-0.150
-0.149
-0.148
-0.147
-0.146
-0.145
-0.144
-0.143
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t90
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
APPENDIX E
STABILITY ANALYSES
3.60
3
Con
cret
eW
all
150
pcf
CBD
Wal
l3S
ta.1
87+4
9F
ofS:
3.60
3
Surc
harg
e(U
nitW
eigh
t):25
0pc
f
Nam
e:V
ery
Stif
fGra
velly
Lean
Cla
yU
nitW
eigh
t:12
5pc
fC
ohes
ion'
:100
psf
Phi':
30°
Nam
e:S
tifft
oM
ediu
mSt
iffFa
tCla
yU
nitW
eigh
t:12
0pc
fC
ohes
ion'
:60
psf
Phi':
25°
Nam
e:W
allB
ackf
illU
nitW
eigh
t:12
5pc
fC
ohes
ion'
:60
psf
Phi':
28°
Dis
tanc
e-9
0-8
0-7
0-6
0-5
0-4
0-3
0-2
0-1
00
1020
3040
5060
7080
90
Elevation
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
RETWALL - Version 1.0 (c) 1994 by Prentice Hall, Inc. Stability of Cantilever Retaining Walls
Title: CBD Retaining Wall 3
Date: ********** Time: 01:43 PM
Units of Measurement : English (Press ALT-U to change)
Pressure Behind Wall : Active (Press ALT-P to change)
Earth Pressure Method: Coulomb (Press ALT-E to change)
************************************** INPUT DATA * RESULTS* ** Stem Height = 20.00 ft * Sliding FS = 1.83* Stem Thickness (top) = 1.00 ft * Overturning FS = 2.83* Stem Thickness (bot) = 2.50 ft * In Middle Third? Yes* Footing Thickness = 2.50 ft * Toe Bearing Pressure = 2706psf * Toe Extension = 5.75 ft * Heel Bearing Pressure = 1574psf * Heel Extension = 4.70 ft * Equiv Bearing Pressure = 2347psf * Key Offset = 0.00 ft * All Bearing Capacity = 7976psf * Key Width = 1.70 ft * Bearing OK? Yes* Key Depth = 1.70 ft * Va/Pf = 0.20* Front Cover = 2.00 ft * Eccentricity = 0.57ft * Backfill Angle = 0.00 deg************************************** Center of Overturn = 0.00 ft Soil Below Footing Cohesion = 100 psf Friction Angle = 30 deg Unit Weight = 125.0 pcf Ftg Friction = 30 deg Soil Behind Wall Cohesion = 60 psf Friction Angle = 28 deg Unit Weight = 125.0 pcf Wall Friction = 25 deg