Geotechnical Services Report Structures Project Description: SR-847/NW 47th Avenue PD&E Study From SR-860/NW 183rd Street to Premier Parkway Miami-Dade County, Florida FM No.: 430637-1-22-01 Prepared for: District VI 1000 NW 111 Avenue Miami, FL 33172 December 13, 2013
113
Embed
Geotechnical Services Report · -6-3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION The field exploration conducted consists of drilling two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings on land at approximate
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Geotechnical Services Report
Structures
Project Description:
SR-847/NW 47th Avenue PD&E Study
From SR-860/NW 183rd Street to Premier Parkway
Miami-Dade County, Florida
FM No.: 430637-1-22-01
Prepared for:
District VI
1000 NW 111 Avenue Miami, FL 33172
December 13, 2013
-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM...................................................................................................................PAGE NUMBER LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL...............................................................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................2 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................4 1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................4 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY..............................................................................................5 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................6 4.0 LABORATORY TESTS ...................................................................................................................7 4.1 Soil Classification Testing.................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Grain-Size Analysis...............................................................................................................7 4.3 Moisture and Organic Content Tests ....................................................................................7 4.4 Corrosion Testing ..................................................................................................................7 4.5 Summary of Laboratory Test Results ...................................................................................8 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................................9 5.1 Stratigraphy............................................................................................................................9 5.2 Groundwater ..........................................................................................................................9 5.3 Laboratory Test Results.........................................................................................................9 6.0 BRIDGE STRUCTURE FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES ................................................11
6.1 Foundation Alternatives for Bridge Structures............................................................11 7.0 BRIDGE STRUCTURE FOUNDATION EVALUATION ....................................................12
7.1 Precast Concrete Driven Piles......................................................................................12 7.1.1 Axial Capacity of Precast Concrete Piles .....................................................12 7.1.2 Lateral Capacity of Precast Concrete Piles...................................................12 7.1.3 Construction Considerations - Driven Piles..................................................13
7.2 Drilled Shafts ...............................................................................................................13 7.2.1 Vertical Capacity of Drilled Shaft Foundations ...........................................13 7.2.2 Lateral Capacity of Drilled Shafts ................................................................13 7.2.3 Construction Considerations - Drilled Shafts ...............................................14
7.3 Construction Considerations........................................................................................13 8.0 BOX CULVERT STRUCTURES EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION ...............15
8.1 General.............................................................................................................15 8.2 Recommended Geotechnical Design Parameters ............................................15 8.3 Foundation Support..........................................................................................15 8.4 Construction and Other Considerations...........................................................16
-3-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) ITEM...................................................................................................................PAGE NUMBER 9.0 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY...........................................................................................................17 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS..............................................................TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF CORROSION TEST RESULTS ..................................................................TABLE 2 FB-PIER INPUT PARAMETERS - PILES..............................................................................TABLE 3 FB-PIER INPUT PARAMETERS - SHAFTS .........................................................................TABLE 4 SITE VICINITY MAP...............................................................................................................PLATE 1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION PLAN......................................................PLATES 2 AND 3 REPORT OF CORE BORINGS -BRIDGE STRUCTURES .................................FIGURES 1 AND 2 GRAPHS - VERTICAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF 18 & 24-INCH PRECAST CONCRETE DRIVEN PILES .......................................... APPENDIX - A OUTPUTS - VERTICAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF 18 & 24-INCH PRECAST CONCRETE DRIVEN PILES .......................................... APPENDIX - B GRAPHS & OUTPUTS- VERTICAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF 48-INCH DIAMETER DRILLED SHAFTS................................................................. APPENDIX - C GRAPHS & OUTPUTS- VERTICAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF 60-INCH DIAMETER DRILLED SHAFTS ............................................................... APPENDIX – D GROUND WATER INFORMATION ..........................................................................APPENDIX - E
-4-
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description This entire project corridor runs along NW 47th Avenue (SR-847) with limits beginning at Station 110+00, NW 183rd Street (SR-860), in Miami-Dade County, proceeding north to Station 235+00, Premier Parkway, in Broward County, Florida, a distance of about 2.4 miles. The project includes widening SR-847 from two (2) to four (4) lanes, where one 12 feet travel lane will be added in each direction by widening to outside of SR-847. All improvements will be within the existing right of way. The existing bridge over C-9/Snake Creek Canal will be widened to accommodate the proposed improvements. We understand that the existing box culvert over A-2/Carol City Canal will also be replaced / widened to accommodate the proposed improvements. The majority of the project site is located in Miami-Dade County along NW 47th Avenue (SR-847). Land in the project vicinity is urban. Terrain in the area is relatively flat. The subject project corridor consists of generally one (1) lane of through traffic in each direction, northbound and southbound. The Site Vicinity Map, Plate 1, presents the project limits.
-5-
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions within the general vicinity of the project corridor in order to catalog the general subsurface stratigraphy and provide geotechnical engineering information and recommendations to guide the design and construction of the proposed bridge and box culvert structures, in each of the following areas.
1. General assessment of the area geology based on our past experience and study of available geological literature.
2. Soil stratigraphy at the boring locations. Development of soil profiles along the
proposed bridge and box culvert structure locations.
3. Assessment of the existing soil and groundwater conditions along the subject alignment for suitability for bridge and box culvert structures foundation system.
4. General location and description of potential deleterious materials encountered in the
borings, which may interfere with construction progress or pavement performance, including existing fills or surficial organics.
5. Preliminary recommendations for bridge and box culvert structure foundation.
The scope of work for this project included the following:
1. Conducted a general visual reconnaissance of the project alignment.
2. Reviewed readily available published geologic and topographic information. This published information was obtained from the “Opa-Locka, Florida” Quadrangle Maps published by the USGS and the “Soil Survey of Miami-Dade County and Broward County, Florida” published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
3. Executed a program of subsurface exploration consisting of subsurface sampling and
field testing. The subsurface sampling was accomplished by Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings for the bridge and box culvert structures.
4. Visually classified the samples in the laboratory using the Unified Soil Classification
System in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test designation D-2487, titled “Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering purposes”. The laboratory testing program included grain-size analyses, moisture content determination, organic content determination and FDOT corrosion series (pH, sulfates, chlorides, and resistivity).
5. Measured groundwater levels in the borings.
6. Prepared an engineering report summarizing our field and laboratory testing, the
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered and general (preliminary) evaluation and design recommendations for bridge and box culvert structures.
-6-
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION The field exploration conducted consists of drilling two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings on land at approximate locations of the proposed bridge replacement/widening. The borings were generally located at the proposed locations of the bridge end bents. The bridge borings were extended to 85 feet below existing grade. Additional two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were drilled at the proposed locations for the box culvert structures and extended to depths of 50 feet below existing grade. The numbering schedule and locations of the borings drilled for the proposed bridge and box culvert structures are as follows: • Bridge over C-9/Snake Creek Canal: Two (2) borings, numbered B-101 and B-102. • A-2/Carol City Canal: Two (2) borings, numbered B-201 and B-202. The station, offset, elevation and coordinates information of the locations where the borings were drilled were provided to us by FDOT. The locations of the borings are presented on the plates titled ‘Approximate Boring Location Plan’ Plates 2 and 3. The subsurface geologic profiles encountered at the boring locations, along with the SPT results, are presented in Figures 1 and 2. The soil profiles are drawn with reference to elevation NGVD, 1929. The borings were drilled with a CME 45 drill rig. The SPT borings were advanced using mud rotary procedures. The borings were drilled to depths of 50 or 100 feet below grade. Samples of the in-place materials were recovered with a standard split barrel advanced with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches (the SPT after ASTM D 1586). Soil samples were field classified, placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for further analysis by a soils engineer. Classification of the subsoils found in the borings followed the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487). The boreholes were filled with cement grout at the completion of the drilling activities. The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil strata encountered. The records of subsurface exploration included in the boring logs should be reviewed for specific information as to individual boring locations. The stratifications shown on the records of subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring location. The stratifications represent the proximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may be gradual.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTS
-7-
4.1 Soil Classification Testing Representative samples collected from the SPT borings were visually reviewed in the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer to confirm the field classification. The SPT boring samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Classification was based on visual observations with the results of the laboratory testing used to confirm the visual classifications. Laboratory index tests consisting of sieve analyses, natural moisture content determination and organic content determination tests were performed on selected samples. Corrosion tests are also being performed on selected soil samples. 4.2 Grain-Size Analysis The grain-size analyses were conducted in general accordance with the FDOT test designation Florida Manual (FM) 1-T088 (ASTM test designation D-422). The grain-size analysis test measures the percentage by weight of a dry soil sample passing a series of U.S. standard sieves, including the percentage passing the No. 200 Sieve. In this manner, the grain-size distribution of a soil is measured. The percentage by weight passing the No. 200 Sieve is the amount of silt and clay sized particles. The gradation of a soil, including the amount of silt and clay in a soil, affects its engineering properties, including permeability, consolidation rate, suitability as roadway subgrade, and suitability as general fill material. 4.3 Moisture and Organic Content Tests Laboratory moisture content and organic content tests consist of the determination of the percentage of moisture and organic content in selected samples in general accordance with FM 1-T265 and 1-T267 (ASTM D-2216 and AASHTO T267-86). Briefly, natural moisture content was determined by weighing a sample of the selected material and then drying it in a warm oven. Care was taken to use a gentle heat so as not to burn off any organics. The sample was removed from the oven and reweighed. The difference of the two weights was the amount of moisture removed from the sample. The weight of the moisture divided by the weight of the dry soil sample is the percentage by weight of the moisture in the sample. The dried soil samples were then heated in a small muffle furnace to 455±10 degrees Centigrade for six hours, thereby burning off all organic-type material, leaving only the soil minerals. The difference in weight prior to and after the burning is the weight of organics. The weight of the organics divided by the weight of the dried soil is the percentage of organics within a sample. Organic contents in excess of five (5) percent are generally considered unsuitable. 4.4 Corrosion Testing Corrosion tests were conducted in accordance with FDOT test designations FM 5-550, FM 5-551, FM 5-552 and FM 5-553. These tests are performed on recovered soil samples obtained from the SPT boring location. Corrosion tests measure parameters such as pH, resistivity, sulfate content, and chloride content. 4.5 Summary of Laboratory Test Data
-8-
Index property tests such as grain size analysis, moisture content and organic content were performed on representative samples from the borings. The summary of the laboratory test results are presented on Table - 1. The corrosion test results were compared with FDOT criteria for corrosivity to enable the materials to be classified accordingly. A summary of the corrosion (environmental) test results are presented in Table - 2.
-9-
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 Stratigraphy The bridge borings drilled along the project alignment generally indicate the bridge site to be underlain with very loose to medium dense sands to approximately 50 feet deep, followed by sandy to silty limestone. Layers of silty sands are occasionally encountered at discrete depths within the sand layer. The box culvert borings drilled along the project alignment generally indicated the site to be underlain with interlayering of very loose to medium dense sands to approximately 50 feet deep Details regarding the interlayering of the subsoil layers are shown on the soil profile sheets titled “Report of Core Borings”, are presented in Figures – 1 and 2. 5.2 Groundwater The depths of groundwater tables were measured at the locations of the structural borings drilled. In the four (4) boring locations, groundwater was encountered within the depth interval of 7.0 and 10.5 feet below existing ground surface. Fluctuations of the groundwater should be anticipated. The groundwater table levels measured are shown on the “Report of Core Borings” sheets, Figures 1 and 2 adjacent to the boring logs. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources were reviewed and there are two (2) existing wells close the project corridor. The South Florida Water Management (SFWM) Water Resources were reviewed and there are two (2) stations on C-9 Canal, close the project corridor. The location and available data in reference to these two (2) USGS wells and two (2) SFWM stations were also present in Appendix – E for information purposes only. Based on information above, we estimate that the seasonal high groundwater table will be +4.00’ NGVD, 1929. Groundwater condition will vary with environmental variation and seasonal condition, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, and under drains. We recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction to determine groundwater impact on his or her construction procedure. 5.3 Laboratory Test Results Index property tests such as moisture content, organic content and grain size distribution were completed on representative samples from the borings. All the available laboratory test results are presented in Tables 1. The corrosion parameters of pH, resistivity, sulfates and chlorides were measured for selected soil samples from the borings. The test results were compared with FDOT criteria for corrosivity to enable the materials to be classified accordingly. Based on the laboratory test results and the FDOT Structures Design Guidelines, the environment of the substructure at the site of the bridge over C-9/Snake Creek Canal is classified as slightly aggressive for concrete
-10-
and steel; the environment of the substructure at the site of box culvert over A-2/Carol City Canal are classified as slightly aggressive for concrete and steel; the environment of the superstructure is classified as slightly aggressive. A summary of these corrosion (environmental) test results are presented in Table - 2.
-11-
6.0 BRIDGE STRUCTURE FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Foundation Alternatives for Bridge Structures The borings generally indicated that the project site was underlain by thick deposits of loose to medium dense sands to 50 feet deep followed by limestone layer. Foundation alternatives for the project considered the results of our field study and the location of the proposed roadway corridor improvements. Based on our experience with similar projects, we initially considered the following foundation alternatives for the study:
i. Precast Prestressed Concrete Piles ii. Drilled Shafts
Each of these foundation alternatives will be discussed individually.
i. Precast Prestressed Concrete Piles
Prestressed concrete (PSC) piles are a feasible foundation alternative. They are a widely used and proven foundation system in South Florida. Precast prestressed piles are readily available and generally have a lower cost per ton of capacity than other pile types. However, sometimes when dense subsoil conditions are found at some of the boring/bridge pier locations, it is our opinion that driving of the piles at those locations to the recommended depths may be difficult, and induce high driving stresses which could potentially damage the piles. However, these concerns of driving through dense soils can be minimized (if required) through the use of pre-drilled pile holes or jetting to achieve the recommended penetration. The minimum size for prestressed concrete piles should be 18 inches as referenced in the Structures Design Guidelines (625-020-150-b). A disadvantage of the precast prestressed concrete piles is the potential impact the driving operation may have on nearby structures (if any). ii. Drilled Shafts
Drilled cast-in place straight sided concrete shafts are a feasible foundation alternative. Drilled shafts have the advantage of being able to develop high axial and lateral capacities in a single unit. However, the quality control of drilled shaft installation requires more engineering judgment and precaution compared with driven piles to ensure that the specifications are complied. This type of foundation system may become a favorite alternative for sites where limestone or very dense bearing strata are present at a relatively shallow depth. Significant concrete volume overruns may also occur during construction. As a result, the temporary casing method of installation should be used. Shafts could be drilled and socketed into the limestone stratum (if applicable).
-12-
7.0 BRIDGE STRUCTURE FOUNDATION EVALUATION For this PD&E Study phase, we have considered evaluating the capacities of 18 and 24-inch square driven, prestressed, precast concrete piles and 4 and 5-foot diameter drilled shafts. We understand that for this study the final loads for the bridge structures will not be available soon and hence no information with reference to vertical and lateral loadings and other related structural details were provided to us at the time of writing this report. 7.1 Precast Concrete Driven Piles
7.1.1. Axial Capacity of Precast Concrete Piles
We considered 18-inch and 24-inch square, precast concrete piles of various lengths in order to provide a range of design compressive capacities. The capacities were estimated from a computer-generated analysis based on a method to predict Davisson vertical pile capacity versus depth in sand. Computer program “FB-Deep Version 2.04” developed by Florida Bridge Software Institute, University of Florida was utilized to perform the axial capacity analysis of the driven concrete piles. The Davisson capacities, as mentioned in this report, are the same as the estimated Davisson capacities reported in the FB-Deep Version 2.04 output. The analysis was done for each individual boring drilled at the project site. The Davisson capacity curves for 18-inch and 24-inch square piles with reference to pile tip elevations at each boring location for the bridge sites are presented in Appendix A. The FB-Deep computer output files for 18-inch and 24-inch square piles are presented in Appendix B. The vertical capacity analysis at bridge locations was completed with ground lines set approximately at grades where the individual borings were drilled. Base on depth of borings drilled, we estimate the maximum nominal bearing resistance to be about 230 tons for 18-inch pile and 360 tons for 24-inch pile, based on estimated pile length of about 80 feet below grade. The vertical capacity analysis results (Graphs and Outputs) for the bridge location are arranged in the following format:
Appendix A – Davisson capacity curves for 18-inch and 24-inch Driven
Precast Concrete Piles
Appendix B – FB-Deep computer output files for 18-inch and 24-inch Driven Precast Concrete Piles
We recommend using a resistance factor (Φ) equal to 0.65 for Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for driven precast piles. Please note that the pile tip elevations mentioned in the Appendices are based on ground elevations at the boring locations.
7.1.2 Lateral Capacity of Precast Concrete Piles We have calculated the FB-Pier input geotechnical parameters to be utilized by structural
-13-
designers for performing lateral load analyses for the driven piles. The recommended soil parameters for FB-Pier analysis are presented in Table-3 for 18-inch and 24-inch piles. These parameters are based on correlations with SPT N-values. 7.1.3 Construction Considerations – Driven Piles
We recommend the piles be installed according to the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2013, Section 455. Vibrations resulting from pile driving at the project location should be carefully monitored to limit the impact of ground motion on existing structures (if any).
7.2 Drilled Shafts
7.2.1 Vertical Capacity of Drilled Shaft Foundations Drilled cast-in-place straight-sided concrete shafts are also a technically feasible foundation alternative for the project. Installation procedures for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils normally involve helical auger drilling in combination with bentonite slurry and sometimes steel casings for stabilization of borehole walls. Drilled shaft diameter 4 and 5 feet were considered for our analysis. Vertical (axial) capacity of drilled shafts is normally obtained through a combination of side shear and end bearing. The ultimate vertical capacities were calculated by utilizing the computer program “FB-Deep, Version 2.04” developed by Florida Bridge Software Institute, University of Florida. The analysis was done using SPT N-values and subsoil information developed from each individual boring drilled at the proposed bridge sites and with varying shaft lengths in order to provide a range of design compressive capacities. Based on depth of borings drilled, we estimate the maximum nominal bearing resistance would be about 430 tons for 4-foot shaft and 530 tons for 5-foot shaft, based on an estimated shaft length of about 65 feet below grade. The graphs for ultimate capacities (including ultimate skin friction and end bearing) for 4 and 5-foot diameter shafts are presented in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively. We have calculated the shaft capacities with 0.5 inch settlement of the corresponding shafts. The drilled shaft length mentioned in our analysis results indicates shaft length embedded in the ground at the respective bridge boring location. We recommend using a resistance factor (Φ) equal to 0.55 for drilled shafts. The FB-Deep computer output files for 4 and 5-foot diameter shafts are also included (following the graphs) in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively. 7.2.2 Lateral Capacity of Drilled Shafts We have calculated the FB-Pier input geotechnical parameters to be utilized by structural designers for performing lateral load analyses for the drilled shafts. The recommended soil parameters for FB-Pier analysis are presented in Table-4. These parameters are based on correlations with SPT N-values.
-14-
7.2.3 Construction Considerations - Drilled Shafts Review of the soil profiles from the borings drilled for this project indicates that the subsoils at the location of the bridge piers are underlain by thick deposits of loose to medium dense sands to 50 feet deep followed by limestone layer. The shafts should be installed in accordance with the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2013, Section 455.
7.3 Construction Considerations We understand that project corridor is located in an urban neighborhood. Vibrations resulting from use of construction equipment (e.g., vibratory roller, temporary sheet pile installation, etc.) at the project location should be carefully monitored to limit the impact of ground motion on existing structures. A precondition survey is often prudent to evaluate existing conditions (if any) before any construction operations. Also, during construction operation, vibration resulting from the operation should be monitored constantly in order to limit/avoid any impact of ground motion on the existing structures.
-15-
8 .0 BOX CULVERT STRUCTURES EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
8.1 General We understand that the box culvert structures will be generally supported on shallow foundation. Design loads, foundation sizes and depths have not been provided for this study. 8.2 Recommended Geotechnical Design Parameters The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were used to estimate geotechnical parameters of the existing subsoils at the anticipated bottom of the structures for preliminary design of the project components. These parameters include moist and buoyant unit weights, angle of internal friction, angle of wall friction, cohesion, and active, passive and at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficients. Values for these parameters were selected based upon standard correlations available in the geotechnical literature that are dependent on SPT N-values and the results of laboratory testing completed for this project. A summary of the geotechnical design parameters is presented in the table that follows.
Unit Weight (pcf) Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure
δ indicates angle of wall friction (degrees) C indicates cohesion Ka indicates coefficient of active lateral earth pressure Ko indicates coefficient of at-rest lateral earth pressure Kp indicates coefficient of passive lateral earth pressure
8.3 Foundation Support The results of the borings drilled for the proposed culvert structures indicate that the structure will bottom on sands. These materials are suitable for support of the culvert structure on a reinforced concrete mat foundation. The excavation bottom may be more workable if the foundation soils are over-excavated and replaced with structural backfill or crushed stone such as FDOT No. 57 Stone. If the crushed stone is utilized, it should be wrapped in a geosynthetic to prevent movement of soil fines into the interstitial pore space of the stone. Considering that the imposed maximum bearing pressure is predicted to be relatively low, the resulting total structure settlement is estimated to be about less than 2-inch. This is an elastic response as the sand strata displace under the imposed embankment weight. The maximum displacement should occur within the shallow subsoils, particularly those that are relatively loose. We estimate that the maximum ground settlement occur mostly within the time period of embankment fill construction (i.e., 3 to 6 months). We believe that based on the granular subsurface soils found along the project corridor, the anticipated long-term settlement is estimated to be about less than 10 percent of the settlement anticipated along the culvert alignment, and is expected to be less than 0.25 inches. Total differential settlement along the culvert alignment is anticipated to be minimal.
-16-
Lateral resistance of the foundation to lateral loads will be provided by earth pressure mobilized on the vertical faces of the substructure located orthogonal to and leeward of the direction of thrust and shearing forces acting at the footing–subgrade interface. Calculations for lateral resistance should be based upon the geotechnical design parameters provided earlier in this report, and a friction factor of 0.4 for mass concrete in contact with structural backfill. Use of these values assumes that the substructures can safely sustain a horizontal translation on the order of three eighth to one half inch. Horizontal resistance determined in accordance with the above recommended values should be factored for safety. We suggest that the safety factor be not less than 1.5. Lateral earth pressures associated with the structural backfill should be calculated based upon moist and buoyant unit weights of 115 and 60 pounds per cubic foot, respectively, and active, at-rest and passive earth pressure coefficients of 0.32, 0.48 and 3.12, respectively. The resulting equivalent fluid pressures should be factored to account for allowable wall strain. 8.4 Construction and Other Considerations In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P.” This document was issued to better ensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavations or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottoms. The contractor's "responsible person,” as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. Considering that an excavation will be made for construction of the proposed culvert structures, and that this excavation will extend below the groundwater table, it is expected that the construction will be completed within dewatered open cuts at the structure locations. Dewatering will likely take the form of pumping from wells, wellpoints, sumps or horizontal wells. Concrete placement and backfilling should be completed in a dry condition. Dewatering should be carefully monitored to limit the impact of ground motion on existing structures. The recommendations presented herein related to excavations and construction dewatering are for planning purposes for the Stanley Consultants, Inc. design team. We recommend the contractor should consult and work with an experienced hydrogeologist for the design of an appropriate excavation and dewatering methodology for the proposed culvert construction, in order to avoid any impact of dewatering to the proximate existing structure (house). GCME does not assume responsibility for construction methods, site safety or the contractor's or other parties’ compliance with local, state, and federal safety or other regulations.
Moderately Aggressive This classification must be used at all sites not meeting requirements for either slightly aggressive or extremely aggressive environments.
Table 1.3.2-1 Criteria for Substructure Environmental Classifications
ClassificationEnvironmental
UnitsSteel Concrete
Condition Soil
Boring No.
Location Environmental
Classification
(Substructure)Station
Offset
(ft)
DepthSample
TABLE - 2
SUMMARY OF CORROSION TEST RESULTS
Project: SR-847 / 47 Ave. (From NW 183 St. to Premier Pkwy)
GCME Project No. 2000-01-12009 Table-2_Corrosion Test Results_SR-847 SR-847 (Structures)
Enclosed is the laboratory report for your project. All results meet the requirements of the NELAC standards. Please note the following:
(1) The samples were received as stated on the chain of custody, correctly labeled and at the proper temperature unless otherwise noted. The results contained in this report relate only to the items tested or to the samples as received by the laboratory.
(2) This report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. Any
anomalies are noted in the case narrative.
(3) Results for all solid matrices are reported in dry weight unless otherwise noted.
(4) Results for all liquid matrices are analyzed as received in the laboratory unless otherwise noted.
(5) Samples are disposed of within 30 days of their receipt by the laboratory.
(6) A statement of Qualifiers is available upon request.
(7) Certain analyses are subcontracted to outside NELAC certified laboratories and are designated on your report.
(8) Precision & Accuracy will be provided when clients require a measure of estimated uncertainty.
(9) The issuance of the final Certificate of Analysis takes precedence over any previous Preliminary Report
Preliminary Data should not be used for regular purposes. Authorized signature(s) is provided on final report only
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this report. Sincerely,
Pamela Shore QA Officer
July 05, 2013GCME
0011529
Partha Ghosh
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
(561) 640-0085
LOG #:
Page 1 of 101550 Latham Road, Suite 2, West Palm Beach, FL 33409, phone: (561)689-6701, fax: (561)689-6702
Sand:NSPT (Uncorrected SPT value at tip elevation)12 2 12 3 12 25 8 24 41
Clay:Undrained Shear Strength (Tip), Cu (psf) = NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Rock:Mass Modulus (Tip), Em (ksi) = NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TABLE - 4
Project: SR-847 / NW 47th Ave. PD&E
B-102
Summary of Recommended Soil Parameters for FB-Pier Analysis for Drilled Shafts
Table-4_FB-Pier_Parameter_Shaft B-102
FB-Deep B-101.spc 12/11/13 15:03:34
FB-Deep B-101.spc 12/11/13 15:06:28
FB-Deep B-102.spc 12/11/13 15:07:51
FB-Deep B-102.spc 12/11/13 15:08:41
B-101.outFlorida Bridge Software Institute Date: November 26, 2013Shaft and Pile Analysis (FB-Deep v.2.04) Time: 16:15:24_________________________________________________________________________________
General Information:==================== Input file: .....847_47 Ave SR-860_NW 183 St to Premier Pkwy)\FB-Deep\B-101.spc Project number: 2000-01-12009 Job name: SR-847 Engineer: ZP/PG Units: English
NOTES ------- 1. MOBILIZED END BEARING IS 1/3 OF THE ORIGINAL RB-121 VALUES.
2. DAVISSON PILE CAPACITY IS AN ESTIMATE BASED ON FAILURE CRITERIA, AND EQUALS ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION PLUS MOBILIZED END BEARING.
3. ALLOWABLE PILE CAPACITY IS 1/2 THE DAVISSON PILE CAPACITY.
4. ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY IS ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION PLUS 3 x THE MOBILIZED END BEARING. EXCEPTION: FOR H-PILES TIPPED IN SAND OR LIMESTONE, THE ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY IS ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION PLUS 2 x THE MOBILIZED END BEARING.
Page 5
B-102.outFlorida Bridge Software Institute Date: November 25, 2013Shaft and Pile Analysis (FB-Deep v.2.04) Time: 15:19:22_________________________________________________________________________________
General Information:==================== Input file: .....847_47 Ave SR-860_NW 183 St to Premier Pkwy)\FB-Deep\B-102.spc Project number: 2000-01-12009 Job name: SR-847 Engineer: ZP/QQ Units: English
NOTES ------- 1. MOBILIZED END BEARING IS 1/3 OF THE ORIGINAL RB-121 VALUES.
2. DAVISSON PILE CAPACITY IS AN ESTIMATE BASED ON FAILURE CRITERIA, AND EQUALS ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION PLUS MOBILIZED END BEARING.
3. ALLOWABLE PILE CAPACITY IS 1/2 THE DAVISSON PILE CAPACITY.
4. ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY IS ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION PLUS 3 x THE MOBILIZED END BEARING. EXCEPTION: FOR H-PILES TIPPED IN SAND OR LIMESTONE, THE ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY IS ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION PLUS 2 x THE MOBILIZED END BEARING.
Page 5
FB-Deep B-101_Shaft-48in.spc 12/11/13 15:12:32
FB-Deep B-102_Shaft-48in.spc 12/11/13 15:13:30
B-101_Shaft-48in.outFlorida Bridge Software Institute Date: November 25, 2013Shaft and Pile Analysis (FB-Deep v.2.04) Time: 15:08:11_________________________________________________________________________________
General Information:==================== Input file: .....SR-860_NW 183 St to Premier Pkwy)\FB-Deep\B-101_Shaft-48in.spc Project number: 2000-01-12009 Job name: SR-847 Engineer: ZP/PG Units: English
Drilled Shaft Capacity at User-Defined Settlement (sorted by shaft diameter):=============================================================================***** Capacity is NOT modified by the strength reduction factors ***** ---
B-102_Shaft-48in.outFlorida Bridge Software Institute Date: November 25, 2013Shaft and Pile Analysis (FB-Deep v.2.04) Time: 14:43:45_________________________________________________________________________________
General Information:==================== Input file: .....SR-860_NW 183 St to Premier Pkwy)\FB-Deep\B-102_Shaft-48in.spc Project number: 2000-01-12009 Job name: SR-847 Engineer: ZP/QQ Units: English
Drilled Shaft Capacity at User-Defined Settlement (sorted by shaft diameter):=============================================================================***** Capacity is NOT modified by the strength reduction factors ***** ---
B-101_Shaft-60in.outFlorida Bridge Software Institute Date: November 25, 2013Shaft and Pile Analysis (FB-Deep v.2.04) Time: 14:41:08_________________________________________________________________________________
General Information:==================== Input file: .....SR-860_NW 183 St to Premier Pkwy)\FB-Deep\B-101_Shaft-60in.spc Project number: 2000-01-12009 Job name: SR-847 Engineer: ZP/PG Units: English
Drilled Shaft Capacity at User-Defined Settlement (sorted by shaft diameter):=============================================================================***** Capacity is NOT modified by the strength reduction factors ***** ---
B-102_Shaft-60in.outFlorida Bridge Software Institute Date: November 25, 2013Shaft and Pile Analysis (FB-Deep v.2.04) Time: 14:44:37_________________________________________________________________________________
General Information:==================== Input file: .....SR-860_NW 183 St to Premier Pkwy)\FB-Deep\B-102_Shaft-60in.spc Project number: 2000-01-12009 Job name: SR-847 Engineer: ZP/QQ Units: English
Drilled Shaft Capacity at User-Defined Settlement (sorted by shaft diameter):=============================================================================***** Capacity is NOT modified by the strength reduction factors ***** ---
DESCRIPTION:Latitude 25°56'15.8", Longitude 80°18'03.3" NAD83Miami-Dade County, Florida, Hydrologic Unit 03090202Well depth: 18.5 feetLand surface altitude: 7.4feet above NGVD29.Well completed in "Biscayne aquifer" (N400BISCYN) national aquifer.Well completed in "Biscayne Limestone Aquifer" (112BSCNN) local aquifer
AVAILABLE DATA FROM NWISWeb: Daily Data Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet 1994-11-29 2013-06-06 6578 Field groundwater-level measurementsField/Lab water-quality samples
Additional Data Sources Begin Date End Date Count Annual Water-Data Report (pdf) **offsite** 2006 2012 7 Groundwater Watch **offsite** 1994 2013 6438
OPERATION:Record for this site is maintained by the USGS Florida Water Science Center - Ft.LauderdaleEmail questions about this site to Florida Water-Data Inquiries
Site StatisticsMost recent data value: 3.10 on 6/7/2013
Period of Record Monthly Statistics for 255616080180301Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet
All Approved Continuous & Periodic Data Used In AnalysisNote: Highlighted values in the table indicate closest statistic to the most recent data value.
Daily Groundwater DataMost recent Provisional daily data value: 2.58 on 06/06/13
Summary for Period of Continuous Record
Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet
Approved Daily Maximum Values Data Used in Analysis
BeginDate
End Date Days%
Complete
11/29/94 10/14/12 6,343 97
LowestLevel
5th%ile
10th%ile
25th%ile
50th%ile
75th%ile
90th%ile
95th%ile
HighestLevel
1.41 2.10 2.19 2.33 2.54 2.99 3.61 4.10 7.52
Daily Data Options
View latest data on NWISWeb
View data in calendar format
Download data in text format
View daily medians
Periodic Groundwater Data
Groundwater Watch Latest News...
USGS -- Water Resources of the United States file:///X:/Projects/2012/2000-01-12009 (D-6_SR-847_47 Ave SR-860_...
11/25/2013 12:46 PM
Summary for Period of Record Periodic Water Levels
Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet
Approved Periodic Water Level Values
Begin Date End Date Number of Values
10/07/94 06/07/13 95
LowestWL
Date of LowestWL
HighestWL
Date of HighestWL
1.84 04/28/99 6 10/06/00
Period of Record - All Data TypesSummary for Period of Record - All Data Types
Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet
Begin Date End DateNumber of
Values
10/07/94 06/07/13 6,674
LowestWL
Date ofLowest WL
HighestWL
Date ofHighest WL
1.41 06/18/11 7.52 10/15/99
Period of Record Options
View latest data on NWISWeb for all data types
View annual monthly statistics for all data types
Download Groundwater levels in text format of all data types
Return to Groundwater Watch Return to County Page Return to State Page
*References to non-Department of the Interior (DOI) products do not constitute an endorsement by the DOI.By viewing the Google Maps API on this web site the user agrees to these TERMS.
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior |U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/AWLSites.aspPage Contact Information: OGW WebmasterLast update: Friday, June 07, 2013 at 15:42
Page displayed in 1.094 seconds.
USGS -- Water Resources of the United States file:///X:/Projects/2012/2000-01-12009 (D-6_SR-847_47 Ave SR-860_...
11/25/2013 12:46 PM
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
Site Number: 255526080143001 - S - 18
GroundwaterWatch Help Page
DESCRIPTION:Latitude 25°55'26", Longitude 80°14'30" NAD27Miami-Dade County, Florida, Hydrologic Unit 03090202Well depth: 52 feetLand surface altitude: 9.1feet above NGVD29.Well completed in "Biscayne aquifer" (N400BISCYN) national aquifer.Well completed in "Biscayne Limestone Aquifer" (112BSCNN) local aquifer
AVAILABLE DATA FROM NWISWeb: Daily Data Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet 1955-01-01 2013-06-06 15283 Field groundwater-level measurementsField/Lab water-quality samples
Additional Data Sources Begin Date End Date Count Annual Water-Data Report (pdf) **offsite** 2006 2012 7 Groundwater Watch **offsite** 1955 2013 15280
OPERATION:Record for this site is maintained by the USGS Florida Water Science Center - Ft.LauderdaleEmail questions about this site to Florida Water-Data Inquiries
Site StatisticsMost recent data value: 1.87 on 6/7/2013
Period of Record Monthly Statistics for 255526080143001Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet
All Approved Continuous & Periodic Data Used In AnalysisNote: Highlighted values in the table indicate closest statistic to the most recent data value.
Daily Groundwater DataMost recent Provisional daily data value: 1.88 on 06/06/13
Summary for Period of Continuous Record
Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet
Approved Daily Maximum Values Data Used in Analysis
BeginDate
End Date Days%
Complete
01/01/55 04/10/13 15,226 71
LowestLevel
5th%ile
10th%ile
25th%ile
50th%ile
75th%ile
90th%ile
95th%ile
HighestLevel
0.54 1.63 1.74 1.87 2.02 2.23 2.54 2.83 7.14
Daily Data Options
View latest data on NWISWeb
View data in calendar format
Download data in text format
View daily medians
Periodic Groundwater Data
Groundwater Watch Latest News...
USGS -- Water Resources of the United States file:///X:/Projects/2012/2000-01-12009 (D-6_SR-847_47 Ave SR-860_...
11/25/2013 12:45 PM
Summary for Period of Record Periodic Water Levels
Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet
Approved Periodic Water Level Values
Begin Date End Date Number of Values
10/06/04 06/07/13 54
LowestWL
Date of LowestWL
HighestWL
Date of HighestWL
1.6 05/03/06 3.19 10/01/10
Period of Record - All Data TypesSummary for Period of Record - All Data Types
Elevation above NGVD 1929, feet
Begin Date End DateNumber of
Values
01/01/55 06/07/13 15,338
LowestWL
Date ofLowest WL
HighestWL
Date ofHighest WL
0.54 05/15/55 7.14 10/03/00
Period of Record Options
View latest data on NWISWeb for all data types
View annual monthly statistics for all data types
Download Groundwater levels in text format of all data types
Return to Groundwater Watch Return to County Page Return to State Page
*References to non-Department of the Interior (DOI) products do not constitute an endorsement by the DOI.By viewing the Google Maps API on this web site the user agrees to these TERMS.
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior |U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/AWLSites.aspPage Contact Information: OGW WebmasterLast update: Friday, June 07, 2013 at 15:42
Page displayed in 8.234 seconds.
USGS -- Water Resources of the United States file:///X:/Projects/2012/2000-01-12009 (D-6_SR-847_47 Ave SR-860_...
11/25/2013 12:45 PM
DBKey Station Agency Data Type Unit Statistic Frequency Strata Gate/Pump#06484 C9.NW67 USGS FLOW cfs INST DA 0 N/A00506 C9.NW67 USGS FLOW cfs MEAN DA 0 N/A00505 C9.NW67 USGS STG ft NGVD29 FWM DA 0 N/A00504 C9.NW67 USGS STG ft NGVD29 MEAN DA 0 N/A
DBHydro Chart file:///X:/Projects/2012/2000-01-12009 (D-6_SR-847_47 Ave SR-860_NW 183 St to Premier ...
11/25/2013 6:14 PM
DBKey Station Agency Data Type Unit Statistic Frequency Strata Gate/Pump#04145 C9.S29Z WMD STG ft NGVD29 INST BK 0 N/A04146 C9.S29Z WMD STG ft NGVD29 MEAN DA 0 N/A
DBHydro Chart file:///X:/Projects/2012/2000-01-12009 (D-6_SR-847_47 Ave SR-860_NW 183 St to Premier ...
11/26/2013 5:15 PM
11
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLISTS The following checklists cover the major information and recommendations that should be addressed in project geotechnical reports. Section A covers site investigation information that will be common to all geotechnical reports for any type of geotechnical feature. Sections B through I cover the basic information and recommendations that should be presented in geotechnical reports for specific geotechnical features: centerline cuts and embankments, embankments over soft ground, landslides, retaining structures, structure foundations and material sites. Subject Page SECTION A, Site Investigation Information ........................................................................ 12 SECTION B, Centerline Cuts and Embankments ................................................................ 14 SECTION C, Embankments Over Soft Ground ................................................................... 16 SECTION D, Landslide Corrections .................................................................................... 18 SECTION E, Retaining Structures ....................................................................................... 20 SECTION F, Structure Foundations – Spread Footings ....................................................... 21 SECTION G, Structure Foundations – Driven Piles ............................................................ 22 SECTION H, Structure Foundations – Drilled Shafts .......................................................... 25 SECTION I, Ground Improvement Techniques .................................................................. 27 SECTION J, Material Sites ................................................................................................... 28 In most sections and subsections the user has been provided supplemental page references to the “Soils and Foundations Workshop Manual” FHWA NHI-00-045. 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 Engineering Notebook, a copy of which is kept in all FHWA Division offices by either the Bridge Engineer or the engineer with the geotechnical collateral duty. 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.
12
GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR SITE INVESTIGATION A. Site Investigation Information
Since the most important step in the geotechnical design process is to conduct an adequate site investigation, presentation of the subsurface information in the geotechnical report and on the plans deserves careful attention. Unknown Geotechnical Report Text (Introduction) (Pgs. 10-1 to 10-4) Yes No or N/A 1. Is the general location of the investigation
described and/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 the general description of subsurface soil,
rock, and groundwater conditions given? *6. Is the following information included with the geotechnical report (typically included in the report appendices):
a. Test hole logs? (Pgs. 2-24 to 2-32) b. Field test data?
c. Laboratory test data? (Pgs. 4-22 to 4-23)
d. Photographs (if pertinent)?
Plan and Subsurface Profile (Pgs. 2-19, 3-9 to 3-12, 10-13)
*7. Is a plan and subsurface profile of the investigation site provided? 8. Are the field explorations located on the plan
view?
*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.
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
13
Unknown A. Site Investigation Information (Cont.) Yes No or N/A *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 (Pgs. 2-14, 2-15, 2-24 to 2-31) 13. Are sample types and depths recorded? *14. Are SPT blow count, 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 (Pgs. 4-6, 4-22, 4-23) *16. Were lab soil classification tests such as natural moisture content, gradation, Atterberg limits, performed on selected representative samples to verify field visual soil identification? 17. Are laboratory test results such as shear strength (Pg. 4-14), consolidation (Pg. 4-9), etc., included and/or summarized? *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.
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
22
GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR SPREAD FOOTINGS F. Structure Foundations – Spread Footings (Pgs. 7-1 to 7-17)
In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project foundation report?
Unknown Yes No or N/A *1. Are spread footing recommended for foundation support? If not, are reasons for not using them discussed? If spread footing supports are recommended, are conclusions and 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 fill, are special gradation and compaction requirements provided for select end fill and backwall drainage material (Pgs. 6-1 to 6-4) Construction Considerations 6. 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?
7. Have excavation requirements been included for safe slopes in open excavations, need for sheeting or shoring, etc.?
8. Has fluctuation of the groundwater table been
addressed? *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.
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
23
GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR DRIVEN PILES G. Structure Foundations – Driven Piles (Pgs. 8-1 to 8-29, 9-1 to 9-35)
In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, if pile support is recommended or given as an alternative, conclusions/recommendations should be provided in the project geotechnical report for the following:
Unknown Yes No or N/A *1. Is the recommended pile type given (displacement, non-displacement, steel pipe, concrete, H-pile, etc.) with valid reasons given for choice and/or exclusion? (Pgs. 8-1 to 8-3) 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)? (Pgs. 8-20 to 8-22) 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? *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.
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
24
Unknown G. Structure Foundations – Driven Piles (Cont.) Yes No 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 downdrag load been estimated and solutions such bitumen coating been considered in design? Not generally required if surcharging of the fill is being performed. (Pgs. 8-21, 8-23) 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 abutment rotation that can occur due to lateral squeeze of soil subsoil? (Pgs. 5-25, 5-26) 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? (Pgs. 9-23 to 9-26) 12. For major structure in high seismic risk area, has assessment been made of liquefaction potential of foundation soil during design earthquake (only loose saturated sands and silts are susceptible to liquefaction)? (See GEC No. 3, FHWA SA-97-076) *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.
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
25
G. Structure Foundations – Driven Piles (Cont.) Unknown Construction Considerations (Pgs. 9-4 to 9-35) Yes No or N/A 13. 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.? 14. Excavation requirements: safe slope for open excavations; need for sheeting or shoring; fluctuation of groundwater table? 15. Have effects of pile driving operation on adjacent structures been evaluated such as protection against damage caused by footing excavation or pile driving vibrations? 16. Is preconstruction condition survey to be made of adjacent structures to prevent unwarranted damage claims? 17. On large pile driving projects, have other methods of pile driving control been considered such as dynamic testing or wave equation analysis? *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.
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
26
GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR DRILLED SHAFTS H. Structure Foundations – Drilled Shafts (Pgs. 8-23 to 8-29)
In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, if drilled shaft support is recommended or given as an alternative, are conclusion/recommendations provided in the project foundation report for the following:
Unknown Yes No 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 loads? *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 that will allow structural engineer to evaluate lateral load capacity of shaft? 4. Is static load test (to plunging failure) recommended? Construction Considerations 5. Have construction methods been evaluated, i.e., can less expensive dry method or slurry method be used or will casing be required? 6. 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)? 7. If artesian water was encountered in explorations, have design provisions been included to handle it (such as by requiring casing and a tremie seal)? 8. Will boulders be encountered? (If boulders will be encountered, then the use of shafts should be seriously questioned due to construction installation difficulties and resultant higher cost to boulders can cause.) *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.
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
zpan
Text Box
X
GCME, Inc. 6903 Vista Parkway North, Suite 8
West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Ph: (561) 640-0085; Fax: (561) 640-0409