Appendix F: Structural Design Criteria · EM 1110‐2‐2100 Stability Analysis of Concrete...

Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Reach 4 Diversion Channel and Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure Appendix F: Structural Design & Criteria

97% FTR_FMM_R4_Appendix_F_Structural.docx

AppendixF:StructuralDesign&Criteria

FargoMoorheadMetropolitanAreaFloodRiskManagementProject

Reach4DiversionChannelandRushRiver

Inlet/DropStructure

EngineeringandDesignPhase

P2# 370365

Doc Version: POST FTR Submittal

14 November 2013


97% FTR_FMM_R4_Appendix_F_Structural.docx

This page is intentionally left blank


97% FTR_FMM_R4_Appendix_F_Structural.docx F‐i of F‐iii

AppendixF:StructuralDesign&CriteriaTable of Contents

F.1 Structural Design ................................................................................................................................... 1

F.2 Structural Description ........................................................................................................................... 1

F.3 References ............................................................................................................................................ 1

F.4 Alternatives Considered for Preliminary Engineering Report ............................................................... 1

F.4.1 Headwall Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 2

F.4.2 Flared End Sections Alternative .................................................................................................... 2

F.4.3 Rock Weir Alternative ................................................................................................................... 2

F.4.4 Design Alternative for Design and Construction ........................................................................... 3

F.5 Structural Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 3

F.5.1 Reinforced Concrete ..................................................................................................................... 3

F.5.2 Reinforcing Steel ........................................................................................................................... 3

F.5.3 Material Properties ....................................................................................................................... 3

F.5.4 Load and Strength Reduction Factors for Concrete Design .......................................................... 4

F.6 Inlet Headwall Design ........................................................................................................................... 4

F.6.1 Design Loads ................................................................................................................................. 5

F.6.2 Water Loads .................................................................................................................................. 6

F.6.3 Soil Loads ...................................................................................................................................... 6

F.6.4 Self Weight .................................................................................................................................... 7

F.6.5 Uplift ............................................................................................................................................. 7

F.7 Inlet Headwall Concrete Analysis and Design ....................................................................................... 7

F.7.1 Stem Reinforcement ..................................................................................................................... 7

F.7.2 Footing Reinforcement ................................................................................................................. 7

F.8 Inlet Headwall Trash Rack Design ......................................................................................................... 7

F.9 Reinforced Concrete Pipe Design.......................................................................................................... 8

F.9.1 Hydraulic Requirements ................................................................................................................ 8

F.9.2 Soil Loads ...................................................................................................................................... 8

F.9.3 Concrete Strength Design ............................................................................................................. 8


97% FTR_FMM_R4_Appendix_F_Structural.docx F‐ii of F‐iii

F.9.4 Concrete Pipe Camber .................................................................................................................. 8

F.10 Outlet Pipe Box Design.......................................................................................................................... 9

F.10.1 Design Loads ............................................................................................................................. 9

F.10.2 Pipe Box Sizing .......................................................................................................................... 9

F.10.3 Water Loads .............................................................................................................................. 9

F.10.4 Soil Loads ................................................................................................................................ 10

F.10.5 Self Weight .............................................................................................................................. 10

F.10.6 Uplift ....................................................................................................................................... 10

F.10.7 Pipe Box Concrete Analysis & Design ...................................................................................... 10

F.10.8 Grating Design ......................................................................................................................... 10

F.11 Outlet Impact Basin Design ................................................................................................................. 11

F.11.1 Design Loads ........................................................................................................................... 11

F.11.2 Impact Basin Sizing .................................................................................................................. 11

F.11.3 Self Weight .............................................................................................................................. 11

F.11.4 Water Loads ............................................................................................................................ 11

F.11.5 Soil Loads ................................................................................................................................ 12

F.11.6 Uplift ....................................................................................................................................... 12

F.12 Outlet Impact Basin Concrete Design and Analysis ............................................................................ 12

F.12.1 Reinforcement Design ............................................................................................................. 12

F.13 Sheet Pile Wall Design ........................................................................................................................ 12

F.13.1 Design Loads ........................................................................................................................... 12

F.13.2 Soil Loads ................................................................................................................................ 13

F.13.3 Water Loads ............................................................................................................................ 13

F.13.4 Wall Sizing ............................................................................................................................... 13

F.14 Attachments ........................................................................................................................................ 15

TABLES

Table F. 1: Load Case Summary…………..……………………………………………………………………………….…………………5

Table F. 2: Sheet Pile Load Case Summary..………………….………………………………..…………………………………….11

Table F.3: Embedment Factors of Safety.………………………………………………….………………………………………….12


97% FTR_FMM_R4_Appendix_F_Structural.docx F‐iii of F‐iii

Table F.4: Required Section Moduli….……………………………………………………………………………………………………13

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment F ‐ 1: Inlet Headwall Pipe Section Stability Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 2: Inlet Headwall Typical Section Stability Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 3: Inlet Headwall Wing Wall Section Stability Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 4: Inlet Headwall Pipe Section Reinforcement Design

Attachment F ‐ 5: Inlet Headwall Typical Section Reinforcement Design

Attachment F ‐ 6: Inlet Headwall Wing Wall Section Reinforcement Design

Attachment F ‐ 7: Reinforced Concrete Pipe Design Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 8: Sizing of Outlet Impact Basin Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 9: Inlet Headwall Trash Rack Design

Attachment F ‐ 10: Impact Basin Pipe Box Design

Attachment F ‐ 11: Impact Basin Design

Attachment F ‐ 12: Sheet Pile Wall CWALSHT Design

Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Reach 4 Pipe Drop Structure Appendix F: Structural Design & Criteria

97% FTR_FMM_R4_Appendix_F_Structural.docx Page F‐1 of F‐15

AppendixF:StructuralDesign&Criteria

F.1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN

The structural design follows guidelines laid out in the “Fargo‐Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project: Project Design Guidelines” along with applicable Corps guidelines and industry standards. Design assumptions and methodology are presented in the following sections.

F.2 Structural Description

The layout of this design consists of 615 linear feet of 72 inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (three

72 inch pipes side by side). All 615 feet of pipe would need to be Class IV. The inlet structure consists of

a headwall, wing walls and a slab with a trash rack. The impact basin was sized and required a minimum

width, W, of approximately 14 feet per pipe. A width of 16 feet was used for the design. The energy

associated with the pipe flow is dissipated by an internal hanging baffle wall approximately sixteen feet

away from where the three 72 inch pipes enter the impact basin. The impact basin outlet structure will

be constructed with a headwall and extended boxed concrete section allowing for flap gates with the

three 72 inch pipes coming through, a 21 foot‐4 inch long stilling basin, internal hanging baffle wall and

an end sill.

F.3 References

The following design guides and computer programs will be used to design the drainage structure:

EM 1110‐2‐2104 Strength Design of Reinforced Concrete Hydraulic Structures

EM 1110‐2‐2100 Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures

EM 1110‐2‐2502 Retaining and Floodwalls

EM 1110‐2‐2105 Design of Hydraulic Steel Structures

EM 1110‐2‐3104 Structural and Architectural Design of Pumping Stations

EM 1110‐2‐2902 Conduits, Culverts and Pipes

ACI 318‐11 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

USBR Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basin for Pipe or Channel Outlets

Guideline Project Design Guidelines Engineering and Design Phase: Fargo‐ Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project

AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition (2005)

F.4 Alternatives Considered for Preliminary Engineering Report

Moore Engineering, under contract with the non‐federal sponsor, modeled the local drainage and

provided a draft memorandum with recommendations for types, sizes, and locations of local drainage

features and drop structures along the diversion channel for Reach 4. This includes station 325+00 to



521+00 along the overall project alignment. The drainage structure will be located at station 492+20.

According to the memorandum, the flow computed by Moore Engineering for the Reach 4 inlet is

approximately 520 cubic feet per second (cfs). A dual 72 inch pipe drop structure resulted in an increase

in the water surface elevation for the 1% Rush River event due to breakout flow from adjacent river

systems. Therefore, the report recommends a 20ft wide weir structure to achieve minimal change in the

water surface elevation.

Further hydraulic analyses done by MVP showed that a triple 72 inch pipe drop structure would serve as

an adequate drainage structure. Three alternatives were considered; two incorporated the three 72 inch

pipes and the other is a rock weir structure. Each of the two alternatives for the drop pipe structure

included an impact basin at the outlet end of the structure. The three alternatives that were considered

are referred to as the Headwall Alternative, Flared End Sections Alternative and Rock Weir Alternative.

Each alternative is described below.

F.4.1 Headwall Alternative

The Headwall Alternative is conceptually based on the local drainage structure designed for Reach 1 of

this project. The layout of this design consists of 738 linear feet of 72 inch diameter reinforced concrete

pipe (three 72 inch pipes side by side). All 738 feet of pipe would need to be Class IV. The inlet

structure consists of a headwall, wing walls and a slab with a trash rack. For the conceptual design, the

impact basin was sized and required a minimum width, W, of approximately 14 feet per pipe. A width of

16 feet was used for the conceptual design. The energy associated with the pipe flow is dissipated by an

internal hanging baffle wall approximately six feet‐ten inches away from where water flowing though

the pipes enters the impact basin headwall. The impact basin outlet structure would consist of a

headwall with the three 72” pipes coming through, flap gates at the end of each pipe, a 21 foot‐8 inch

long stilling basin and an end sill. The drain plan and profile can be found in the structural drawings

sheet S‐100. The preliminary estimated construction cost of the Headwall Alternative is $1,368,151

including prime contractor profit.

F.4.2 Flared End Sections Alternative

The Flared End Sections Alternative looks to greatly reduce the size of the inlet structure. The layout of

this design consists of 810 linear feet of 72 inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe. Approximately 590

feet of pipe would need to be Class IV and 220 feet of pipe would need to be Class V because the soil

height above the pipe exceeds 11 feet. This design requires three precast concrete flared end sections

for the inlet structure. Each section will have its own trash rack. The Flared End Sections Alternative will

consist of the same outlet structure as described in the Headwall Alternative. The energy associated

with the pipe flow is dissipated by an internal hanging baffle wall approximately six feet‐ten inches away

from where the three 72 inch pipes enter the impact basin headwall. The preliminary estimated

construction cost of the Flared End Sections Alternative is $873,504, including prime contractor profit.

F.4.3 Rock Weir Alternative

The Rock Weir Alternative is the least expensive of the three alternatives. The preliminary estimated construction cost is $504,170, including prime contractor profit. The layout of this design consists of a



rock weir having a slope of 1:20 and a 20 foot crest width. Rock will be 30 inches of R‐400 riprap for the entire structure.

F.4.4 Design Alternative for Design and Construction

With three viable design alternatives being considered the PDT and Local Sponsors gathered to discuss the engineering merits of each alternative. The Rock Weir Alternative is by far the cheapest of the three alternatives; however, concerns of having a hole in the system that may cause backflow problems may prevent this alternative from moving forward. Both the Headwall Alternative and Flared End Sections Alternative have the advantage of being able to close the system using flap gates. The size of the inlet in the Headwall Alternative may be reduced by using flared end sections presented in the Flared End Sections Alternative. The precast sections for the Flared End Sections Alternative will accomplish the same goal, requiring less concrete to construct. The final decision regarding the alternatives presented was a joint decision between the Corps of Engineers and the Local Sponsor Team. It was decided that the Headwall Alternative is the better option of the three. This alternative allows for a larger trash screen that will reduce the potential of flooding from blocked inlets. A reduced headwall size at the inlet was suggested to cut down costs. Originally, the Headwall Alternative consisted of 738 linear feet of 72 inch diameter Class IV RCP. This alternative was modified after the decision was made to lower the EMB at the drainage structure. Lowering the EMB decreased the pipe length required. The actual design of the Headwall Alternative includes all features discussed in F.4.1, but has 615 linear feet of Class IV RCP instead of 738 linear feet.

F.5 Structural Design Criteria

The design of all structural components follows applicable Corps guidelines and industry standards.

Structural design of the local drainage structure is in accordance with EM 1110‐2‐2104 and EM 1110‐2‐

2105 for reinforced concrete and structural steel, respectively. A single load factor of 1.7 plus a hydraulic

factor of 1.3 are used for reinforced concrete design. Structural design for non‐hydraulic concrete

structures is in accordance with ACI 318‐11. The design of structural steel components is in accordance

with AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition. Designs will be practices and principles that have

proved to be safe and efficient.

F.5.1 Reinforced Concrete

All reinforced concrete shall have a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 4,000 psi.

F.5.2 Reinforcing Steel

Steel reinforcing shall adhere to the requirements of ASTM 615 Grade 60 steel, with a yield strength of

60,000psi. The minimum amount of flexural steel reinforcement should not be less than that required

for shrinkage and temperature in accordance with EM 1110‐2‐2104. The maximum amount of flexural

reinforcement will be 0.25ρb.

F.5.3 Material Properties

Below is a list of material properties used in design:



Water: 62.5 pcf

Concrete: 150 pcf

Reinforcing Steel: 60 ksi

Frost Free Select Granular Fill: c=o, Φ=32deg; =125 pcf Structural Compacted Backfill: c=o, Φ=31deg; =120 pcf

F.5.4 Load and Strength Reduction Factors for Concrete Design

A single load factor of 1.7 dead and live load factor shall be used along with a hydraulic load factor of 1.3 in accordance with EM 1110‐2‐2104. Combining these two load factors result in a total load factor of 2.21. Overstress factors are permitted for unusual and extreme load cases. Strength reduction factors shall be used to design members subjected to bending, combined bending and axial, and shear. Reduction factors for bending and shear are 0.9 and 0.85, respectively.

F.6 Inlet Headwall Design

In some areas the EMBs will be subject to differential head conditions for the most significant diversion

discharges. Therefore it is likely that a portion of the EMBs will act as levees. There are minimum

vegetation management zone requirements for the levee portion. For Reach 4, the levee will be

embedded in the EMB so no separate stability analyses will be required for the levee.

Figure 1: Inlet Headwall Typical Cross Section



Figure 2: Inlet Headwall Cross Section at Pipe

F.6.1 Design Loads

Preliminary analysis and design was performed using the guidance outlined in the “Project Design Guidelines Document” dated 9 March 2012. Three load cases were considered for the design of three cross sections: typical section (Figure 1), pipe section (Figure 2) and wing wall section (Figure 3). Table F.1 shows these load cases.

Table F.1: Inlet Headwall Load Case Summary

*Note: Load Case 4 only applies to the wing wall cross section.

Load Case

Usual/UnusualLoad Factor

Hydraulic Factor

Load Case Name

1 Usual 1.7 1.3 Empty Ditch

Case

2 Usual 1.7 1.3 Full Ditch

Case

3 Unusual 1.7 1.3 Lagging Soil

Case

4* Unusual 1.7 1.3 Inundated

Case



Figure 3: Inlet Headwall Wing Wall Section

F.6.2 Water Loads

Water applies both a lateral and vertical load on the wall. The vertical forces are from the weight of the water on top of the footing. Lateral forces are from hydrostatic pressures on the stem and footing. For the usual load cases, water was placed at the existing ground elevation (EL. 890) or at ½ ft above the top of the footing elevation (EL. 887). For load case 3, water was placed at the top of the wall (EL. 894.5) on the driving side and two feet lower on the toe side to simulate a lagging effect of the water draining form the soil. For load case 4, water was placed at the top of the wall (EL. 894.5) on both sides of the wing wall which causes the wing wall section to be inundated.

F.6.3 Soil Loads

Soil loads are applied laterally and vertically. The weight of the soil acts vertically on the footing of the wall and the soil pressure acts laterally on the stem and footing. The soil is assumed to be sloping to the top of wall having a 1 on 4 slope on the heel of the wall. Soil on the toe side is assumed to be at the top of the footing. Horizontal earth pressure coefficients were calculated referencing EM 1110‐2502, making use of the at‐rest earth pressure Equation 3‐10 along with the strength mobilization factor (SMF).



F.6.4 Self Weight

This includes the weight of the concrete headwall structure. The weight of the wall applies a vertical force on the soil.

F.6.5 Uplift

Uplift forces are accounted for in each load case.

F.7 Inlet Headwall Concrete Analysis and Design

The design and analysis of the inlet headwall was broken into three components: stem, heel and toe for three different cross sections. The stem is 1.5 foot thick for all sections. The first cross section is a typical section of the wall with toe and heel dimensions of six foot and 8 foot, respectively. The second cross section is for the pipe and trash rack having the same heel dimension and an 8 foot toe dimension. The third section is for the wing walls extending from the headwall. Its dimensions are 6 foot for both the heel and toe. Reinforcement calculations were performed following applicable guidelines, EMs and standards by checking both flexure and shear. Reinforced concrete is designed in accordance with load factors presented in Section F.5.4. Temperature and shrinkage steel was determined based on the requirements presented in EM 1110‐2‐2104.

F.7.1 Stem Reinforcement

The stem was designed as a cantilever beam, fixed at the point where the base and stem connect. Design moments were analyzed at the base of the stem, where the moment would be greatest. Load Case 1 was determined to be the worst case.

F.7.2 Footing Reinforcement

The footing was analyzed in two parts: the heel and the toe. The footing thickness was driven by stability requirements and is to be 24 inches thick. Each load case was considered in designing each of the cross sections; the worst case for each element was used for design. Top flexural steel reinforcement for the footing was determined by analyzing the heel as a cantilever beam, fixed at the point where the heel and stem connect. Bottom flexural steel reinforcement for the footing was determined by analyzing the toe as a cantilever beam, fixed at the point where the toe and stem connect.

F.8 Inlet Headwall Trash Rack Design

The trash rack was designed to be completely submerged with a 5‐ft head differential to account for

debris backup in accordance with EM 1110‐2‐3104. Solid rectangular beams of hot dipped, galvanized

steel make up the trash rack. There are a total of 12 trash rack sections; each section consists of seven,

9.3 foot long simply supported beams with six inches of clear space. Beams are 0.625 inches wide and 4

inches deep. The deflection under the unusual loading condition for these beams was calculated as

0.492 inches; this would be equivalent to L/227. Because large deflections will not adversely affect the

performance of the trash rack, accepting the large deflections is more desirable than increasing the

beams cross‐sectional areas or adding a support beam.



F.9 Reinforced Concrete Pipe Design

F.9.1 Hydraulic Requirements

Hydraulics sized the pipes to handle 520 cfs. The invert of the pipes at the inlet headwall is 886.5. The

pipes will run through the excavated material berm and down the slope of the main channel until they

reach the outlet impact basin at EL. 874.003. The pipes have a total length of 204.5 feet per pipe. All

sections of the pipe will be Class IV Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP).

F.9.2 Soil Loads

Geotechnical investigations have shown that with the weight of the Excavated Material Berm (EMB)

there will be significant settlement of the soil. To limit the loading on the pipes and the amount of

settlement beneath the pipes, the EMB will be constructed approximately six feet above existing

ground. With a nine foot EMB height above existing ground, geotechnical investigations estimate a 12

inch total settlement with two to six inches of total settlement occurring beneath the reinforced

concrete pipes.

F.9.3 Concrete Strength Design

The reinforced concrete pipe was classed using EM 1110‐2‐2902. The maximum soil column anticipated above the pipe is approximately 6 feet. Based on preliminary loading analysis, all reinforced concrete pipes will need to be Class IV. A further look into extra loading due to mowing equipment did not require any length of the pipe to be Class V.

F.10 CONCRETE PIPE CAMBER

The purpose of cambering the pipes would be to get the final flow line of the pipes to settle near the

design flow line when the pipes reach final settlement. The slope of the pipes is approximately 7%. The

pipe settlement‐rebound profile has been predicted as shown below in Figure 4. Pipe bedding will not

be used on this project so low strength concrete material will be used to fill the void beneath the set

pipe and ground for strength.

Two conditions were considered in determining whether the pipes of the structure should be cambered:

(1) In order to maintain sufficient velocities for pipe cleanout (determined by the hydraulic engineer),

the slope needs to be at least 0.2%, and (2) the rotational deflection of the pipe joints is not to exceed 1

degree. Points selected for settlement analysis represented points of greatest anticipated curvature due

to embankment and diversion features. The deflection criterion was applied directly to these points

rather than looking at each individual pipe segments. The above criteria were met without the need to

camber the pipes. Thus, cambering of the pipes isn’t necessary.



Figure 4: Pipe Settlement Results

F.11 Outlet Pipe Box Design

F.11.1 Design Loads

Analysis and design was performed using the guidance outlined in the “Project Design Guidelines Document,” dated 9 March 2012 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Project Guidelines’).

F.11.2 Pipe Box Sizing

The dimensions of the pipe box are based on the 72 inch RCP and the flap gate that is needed to fit over the end of the pipe. Wall and footing thickness were specified based on the capacities needed by concrete to resist applied loadings. The box is 10 feet by 11 feet 4 inches. There are three pipes; therefore, there will be three pipe box structures centered behind the three impact basins that are side by side.

F.11.3 Water Loads

Water applies both a lateral and vertical load on the wall. The vertical forces are from the weight of the water on top of the footing. Lateral forces are from hydrostatic pressures on the wall and footing.



F.11.4 Soil Loads

Soil loads are applied both laterally and vertically to the walls. The soil is assumed to be sloping to the top of wall (TOW) with a 1 on 7 channel slope. Soil pressures were calculated assuming an at‐rest condition because the box is constrained with equal soil pressure on all sides.

F.11.5 Self Weight

The weight of the box applies a vertical force on the soil.

F.11.6 Uplift

Uplift of the structure is not a concern. There will not be a difference in water heights across the structure because water is able to enter the structure at grade.

F.11.7 Pipe Box Concrete Analysis & Design

The design and analysis of the pipe box was broken into two parts: wall and footing. The front wall with the pipe cut out hole was considered for load effects. The pressure at the base of the wall per foot of wall width was calculated and was the load that went into Engineering Monograph No. 27 as the Ps. A plate fixed on three sides and free at the top was considered for design. The interior and exterior moment and reactions along the x‐axis at the lower portion of the wall and edge were calculated to determine the wall thickness requirement. A 12 inch thick wall was required and three inches of concrete cover for the rebar was used. Reinforcement calculations were performed per applicable guidance by checking for both flexure and shear. Reinforced concrete is designed in accordance with load factors and resistance factors presented in ACI 318‐11. To simplify the design, all loading is conservatively assumed to be live load making it subject to a 2.21 load factor (1.7 x 1.3). Temperature and shrinkage steel was determined based on EM 1110‐2‐2104. The shear and moment demand on the wall was analyzed at the base of the wall where the moment would be greatest. The wall thickness was adequate for the shear loading; reinforcement was controlled by flexural design. For ease of construction, temperature and shrinkage steel was specified to match that needed for flexure. The footing reinforcement consists of the same rebar required for the wall.

F.11.8 Grating Design

The grating was designed for a live load of 250 pounds per square foot. The live load was estimated from an 8,000 pound tractor mower having one tire on the top of the grating. The grating is to be flat with ¾” by 1/8” steel bars spaced no farther than 11/16” on center. Grating will be divided into four 23.5” sections that will span the entire width of the box. There is a W8x13 steel beam designed to support the grating and the live load that has been designed to reduce the unsupported length of the grating to four feet. The W8x13 beam is connected into the walls of the concrete box with a shear bolt connection. Two ¾” bolts are being bolted through the web of the beam; four manufacturer wedge anchor bolts are being used for the double angle connection to the concrete. On average, the manufacturer specifications for ½” diameter wedge anchor bolts show a minimum shear capacity of 9.38 kips. Analysis showed that the factored shear load requirement is 6.5 kips. Specifying four wedge anchor bolts will provide 37.5 kips of resistance.



F.12 Outlet Impact Basin Design

Figure 5: Outlet Impact Basin

F.12.1 Design Loads

Preliminary analysis and design was performed using the guidance outlined in the “Project Design Guidelines Document” dated 9 March 2012. Two load cases were considered for the design and are presented in Attachment F.11. Each load case includes hydraulic load factors as specified in the Project Guidelines.

F.12.2 Impact Basin Sizing

Dimensions of the outlet impact basin are based on the “Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basin for Pipe or Channel Outlets” by the Bureau of Reclamation. Dimensions of the impact basin are all based on the hydraulic width. The design width of the impact basin is 16 feet. Since there are three pipes, there will essentially be three basins side by side for a total width of 55 feet. The total length of the structure, including the stilling basin, is 50 feet. The basin is 15 feet tall.

F.12.3 Self Weight

This includes the weight of the impact basin outlet structure. The total weight of the structure is 1202.6 kips.

F.12.4 Water Loads

The force of the water on the baffle wall is based on a design “n” of 0.013, a maximum flow of 173.33 cfs (per pipe), a flow area of 6.23 ft2, and a flow velocity of 27.75 feet per second. Given the density of water, flow area and flow velocity at the outlet, the total force expected to hit the baffle wall is 9.3 kips. This load was input into the STAAD model over a 13.5 ft by 2 ft area, equaling 0.346ksf.



F.12.5 Soil Loads

Soil pressures are a function of depth of soil and water. Horizontal earth pressure coefficients and surcharge pressures were applied using appropriate load factors. The earth pressure coefficient was calculated referencing EM 1110‐2502, making use of the at‐rest earth pressure Equation 3‐10 along with the strength mobilization factor (SMF). Internal ice loads are not considered because they act in the opposing direction from the soil and water loads. External ice loads do not act directly on the impact basin due to the channel elevation around the structure. Soil pressures were determined and applied to plate elements in STAAD. This can be seen in the structural attachment F‐11.

F.12.6 Uplift

Uplift pressures where accounted for in the stability analysis of the impact basin.

F.13 Outlet Impact Basin Concrete Design and Analysis

The concrete impact basin is 55 feet wide, 50 feet long (including stilling basin) and 15 feet tall. The

structure will be bearing on five feet of select granular fill that will be compacted beneath the structure.

With the weight of the structure and the limited time the structure could be underwater load bearing is

not a concern on these clay soils. Due to the extreme length to height ratio (3.3:1), there is no concern

of the structure overturning. The structure is not closed or able to trap air, so with the little

displacement the structure will have in the soil compared to its weight floatation is not a concern. The

sliding stability is the only concern that was checked considering two load cases. The first load case

assumes all pipes are flowing full and impact forces on the baffle wall are included. Uplift is assumed to

act on both the impact basin slab and the stilling basin slab. The second load case assumes all pipes are

empty, and no impact force acting on the baffle walls. The sliding stability check assumed the entire

structure needed to move including the stilling basin; the key on the end of the stilling basin is not

considered structural.

F.13.1 Reinforcement Design

The wall thickness of the impact baffle wall is 16 inches in accordance with the standards set by USBR. This thickness proved to be adequate based on STAAD results. The wall thickness of the impact basin is 18 inches based on the same standards. Based on the maximum moments and shear stresses given by the STAAD model, the baffle wall requires #5 @ 12” on center each way on each face. Basin walls and footing requires #5 @ 8” on center each way on each face.

F.14 Sheet Pile Wall Design

F.14.1 Design Loads

Three separate load cases were considered for the design of the sheet pile wall. Each load case was analyzed considering a drained and an undrained condition; a total of six cases were analyzed. Since



greater flow does not affect the sheet pile wall as it does the rest of the drain structure, separate criteria were used to determine the usual, unusual, and extreme events. . A usual loading condition is considered to be the situation where three feet or less of erosion has occurred. An unusual case is when five feet of erosion has occurred, and the extreme case is when all fill on the dredged side of the wall has eroded. The wall is approximately six and a half feet above the channel and completely backfilled on the retained side in each case. In each case a slope of 7:1 was assumed to exist between the top of the fill and the bottom of the channel on the dredged side. Factors of safety associated with each case are governed by Table 5‐1 of EM 1110‐2‐2504. The soil is fine grained and the sheet pile wall is modeled as a retaining wall. The Q‐Case is the undrained case while the S‐Case represents the drained case. A summary of the load cases can be seen in Table F.2.

Table F.2: Sheet Pile Load Case Summary

Load Case Load Condition Factor of Safety

1 Usual (S‐Case) 1.50

2 Unusual (S‐Case) 1.25

3 Extreme (S‐Case) 1.10

4 Usual (Q‐Case) 2.00

5 Unusual (Q‐Case) 1.75

6 Extreme (Q‐Case) 1.50

F.14.2 Soil Loads

The wall was modeled as being placed completely in clay from the Brenna Formation. In each case, a single layer of saturated clay with a unit weight of 106 pounds per cubic foot was used, which is representative of the Brenna formation in which the wall will be placed. The clay was modeled with a friction angle of 19 degrees and cohesion of 50 pounds per square foot in the drained case, and a friction angle of 0 degrees and cohesion of 575 pounds per square foot in the undrained case. A minimum wall friction angle of 54 percent of the friction angle of the soil was used as the wall friction angle, as specified in EM 1110‐2‐2504. Drained and undrained soil conditions were considered for each loading condition.

F.14.3 Water Loads

Water was modeled to the top of the wall on the retained side and at the bottom of the ditch on the dredged side in each case. The effects of seepage under the wall were automatically calculated by the program CWALSHT.

F.14.4 Wall Sizing

The sheet pile wall was designed using the USACE program CWALSHT. For constructability, only readily available sections of z‐shaped sheet pile wall were considered. Further, designs were limited to a maximum ratio of three feet of buried pile to one foot of exposed pile. Since the exposed length was 6.5 feet, the embedded length was first assumed to be 19.5 feet. Factors of safety were not meet with only a 19.5 foot embedment. Keeping in mind that this type of sheet piling normally comes in lengths with multiples of five, a 23.5 foot embedment depth was assumed for design; this requires an overall length



of sheet pile of 30 feet. Increasing the depth to 23.5 feet met all factor of safety requirements for all load cases. Piling was assumed to be A572 grade steel with 50 ksi yield strength. Using the strength limitations and factors of safety specified by EM 1110‐2‐2504, a PZC 13 section with 23.5 feet buried and 6.5 foot exposed was found to be sufficient under all loading conditions. Embedment was checked based on factors of safety published in table 5‐1 of EM 1110‐2‐2504. Bending and shear strength were checked using strength reduction factors of 50% and 67% respectively, as required by EM 1110‐2‐2504, paragraph 6‐3a. Embedment Factors of Safety were determined by CWALSHT for each case using the fixed surface method, which generally gives less conservative answers than the sweep search method. In each case, the active factor of safety was taken to be one based on EM 1110‐2‐2504 paragraph 5‐2d. The passive factors of safety were required to meet the criteria for stability described in Table F.2. Table F.3 below shows the factors of safety for embedment for each case with an embedment length of 30 feet. Note that the wall would not need to be embedded to retain the soil in the usual and unusual, undrained case because of the high cohesion. In each case, the factor of safety was adequate.

Table F.3: Embedment Factors of Safety

Usual Unusual Extreme

Drained (S‐Case)

9.60 7.40 1.33

Undrained (Q‐Case)

No Embedment

7.20 5.11

After the embedment length was determined to be sufficient, the maximum moments were taken from the output of CWALSHT. The section was assumed to be an A572 grade steel PZC section with yield strength of 50 ksi as described above. The maximum applied moments and minimum section modulus needed to adequately resist each moment are shown below in Table F.4. The values for strength reduction factors and allowable stress increase factors are taken from paragraph 6‐3a of EM 1110‐2‐2504.

Table F.4: Required Section Moduli

Applied Moment (k‐in)

Yield Stress (ksi)

Strength Reduction Factor

Allowable Stress Increase

Allowable Stress (ksi)

Minimum Section Modulus (in3)

Drained

Usual 137.76 50 0.5 1 25 5.51

Unusual 139.55 50 0.5 1.33 33.25 4.20

Extreme 318.5 50 0.5 1.75 43.75 7.28

Undrained

Usual

Unusual 199.25 50 0.5 1.33 33.25 5.99

Extreme 234.55 50 0.5 1.75 43.75 5.36



A PZC 13 sheet pile has a section modulus of 24.2 in³, which easily satisfies the minimum section modulus in each case. Thus, a PZC 13 will be specified for design.

F.15 Attachments

Attachment F ‐ 1: Inlet Headwall Pipe Section Stability Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 2: Inlet Headwall Typical Section Stability Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 3: Inlet Headwall Wing Wall Section Stability Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 4: Inlet Headwall Pipe Section Reinforcement Design

Attachment F ‐ 5: Inlet Headwall Typical Section Reinforcement Design

Attachment F ‐ 6: Inlet Headwall Wing Wall Section Reinforcement Design

Attachment F ‐ 7: Reinforced Concrete Pipe Design Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 8: Sizing of Outlet Impact Basin Calculations

Attachment F ‐ 9: Inlet Headwall Trash Rack Design

Attachment F ‐ 10: Impact Basin Pipe Box Design

Attachment F ‐ 11: Impact Basin Design

Attachment F ‐ 12: Sheet Pile Wall CWALSHT Design

FMM Reach 4Inlet Headwall Design

Pipe Section

05/21/2013Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal

Inlet Headwall Design: Pipe Section

Project Description

Reach 4 pipe drop structure inlet design for the Fargo Moorhead Metro project. The inlet will consist ofa concrete headwall and base slab, a trash rack for debris and three 7'‐2" openings in the headwall forRCPs.

Units: kips 1000lbf pcflbf

ft3

lb lbf lbf lb psflbf

ft2

Material Properties:

Unit weight of water γw 62.4pcf

Unit weight of concrete γc 150pcf

Reinforcing Steel fy 60000psi

Strength of Concrete fc 4000psi

Unit weight of soil, saturated γs 120pcf

Unit weight of soil, compacted γbf 115pcf

Unit weight of soil, bouyant γb γs γw 57.6 pcf

The drain will likely be constructed on alluvium, which in the Red River Valley typically occurs as a clayof low or high plasticity. The alluvium will behave differently in short and long‐term loading conditionsdue to its low permeability.

Undrained shear strength

Cohesion cu 900psf

Phi ϕu 0deg

Drained Shear Strength

Cohesion cd 0psf

Phi ϕ 31deg

Unit weight, select granular fill γF 125pcf

Cohesion cF 0psf

Attachment F-1 1 of 27


Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Phi ϕF 32deg

Inputs:

Existing Ground Elevation GR 890ft

Top of Wall Elevation TOW 894.5ft

Top of Footing Elevation TOF 886.5ft

Bottom of Footing Elevation BOF 884.5ft

Water Elevation Water 887ft

Stem Thickness THstem 1.5ft

Toe Length Toe 8ft

Heel Length Heel 8ft

Total Length of Footing B Toe Heel THstem 17.5 ft

EMB Slope EMBs1

4

Slope angle θ atan EMBs 14.036 deg

Strength Mobilization Factor SMF2

3 <‐‐EM 1110‐2‐2502

Developed angle of internal friction ϕd atan SMF tan ϕ( )( ) 21.83 deg <‐‐EM 1110‐2‐2502

References:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (29 September 1989), EM 1110‐2‐2502, Retaining andFlood Walls

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1 December 2005), EM 1110‐2‐2100, StabilityAnalysis of Concrete Structures

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (February 2012), Project Design Guidelines, FMM AreaFlood Risk Management Project, Engineering and Design Phase, Version 1. St. Paul,MN



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Factors of Safety Requirements (EM 1110‐2‐2100 & EM 1110‐2‐2502):

Loading

Condition

Minimum

Sliding FS

Minimum

Flotation FS

Minimum Bearing

Capacity FS

Minimum Base Area

in Compression

Usual 1.5 1.3 3 100%

Unusual 1.3 1.2 2 75%

Extreme 1.1 1.1 > 1 Resultant within Base

Load Case 1

Assumptions: 1. Sloping Backfill 2. Empty Ditch (water equal on both sides at EL. 887.0) 3. Usual Condition

The loading on the strcture consists of the structure dead load, the weight of the soil above the heel, theweight of the water above the toe, lateral earth pressures & water pressures equal on both sides.

1. Determine Critical Slip Plane angle

The soil above the heel of the retaining wall slopes up at a 1V:4H for 8 feet (horizontally), then flattensout (no slope) for 50 feet and then slopes down at a 1V:7H. It is assumed that the critical slip planeintersects the flat surface.



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Prove the assumption, that the critical slip plane intersects the flat surface, by trial and error.

Angle Delta Shown above

Δ atanHeel tan θ( ) TOW BOF( )

50ft

13.496 deg

Limiting angle Angle90 90deg

Assuming the critical plane intersects the flat surface, angle theta now becomes zero. With no verticalsurcharge, coefficients one and two below are calculated using Eqs. 3‐26 and 3‐27 from EM1110‐2‐2502.

Slope of the flat surface θplane atan 0( ) 0 deg

Coeffecient 1(Eq. 3‐26 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

c1 2 tan ϕd 0.801

Coefficient 2(Eq. 3‐27 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

c2 1 tan ϕd tan θplane tan θplane

tan ϕd 1

Critical Slip‐Plane Angle(Eq. 3‐25 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

α atanc1 c1

24 c2

2

55.915 deg

Does the critical slip plane intersect the flat surface?

Checkangle "Yes" Δ α Angle90if

"No, check another surface" otherwise

"Yes"



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

2. Calculate Water Pressures.

Height of water above footing Hw 0 Water TOFif

Water TOF( )( ) otherwise

0.5 ft

ww Hw Toe γw 0.25kip

ft

Weight of Water

AwToe

24 ft

Water pressures are computed using the line of creep method from EM 1110‐2‐2502. The seepage pathis assumed to start at the top of the soil and ends at Point E.

Length from B to C LBC TOF BOF 2 ft

Length from C to D LCD B 17.5 ft

Length from D to E LDE Water BOF( ) 2.5 ft

Ls LBC LCD LDE 22 ftSeepage path

Change in water elevation Δh Water Water 0 ft

PB Water TOF( ) γw 31.2 psfPressure at B

PC Water BOF( )Δh LBC

Ls

γw 156 psfPressure at C

PD Water BOF( )Δh LBC LCD

Ls

γw 156 psfPressure at D

PE 0psi <‐‐End of Creep, tail waterPressure at E

3. Calculate Water Loads and Moment Arms about O.

Load at C wc1

2PB PC TOF BOF( ) 0.187

kip

ft

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2 PB PC PB PC

0.778 ft



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

wd1

2PD Water BOF( ) 0.195

kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1

3TOF BOF( ) 0.667 ft

wb1

2PB Water TOF( ) 7.8 10

3

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab1

3Water TOF( ) TOF BOF( ) 2.167 ft

we 0kip

ft <‐‐End of Creep, tail water

Load at E

Ae 0ft <‐‐End of Creep, tail water

4. Calculate Lateral Pressure Coefficient

Pressure Coefficient above saturationlevel (Equation 3‐14 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

K1

cos ϕd 2

1sin ϕd sin ϕd θplane

cos θplane

20.458

Pressure Coefficient forfill below the saturationlevel (EM 1110‐2‐2502)

Kb

1 tan ϕd cot α( ) 1 tan ϕd tan α( )

1tan α( )

tan α( ) tan θplane 1

γs

γb

0.458

5. Calculate Lateral Driving Force

**Since there is soil above and below the water table, three pressures and computed and thenconverted to forces.

Unit weight accounting for seepage (EM 1110‐2‐2502)

γprime

Heel tan θ( ) TOW BOF( )[ ] γs PD Heel tan θ( ) TOW Water( )[ ] γbf

Water BOF76.6 pcf

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γbf TOW Water( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 0.5 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 TOW Water( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 2.376kip

ft

a1 Water BOF( )1

3Heel tan θ( ) TOW Water( )[ ]

Soil Arm 1



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

a1 5.667 ft

P2 P1 γprime Kb Water BOF( ) 0.588 ksfSoil Pressure 2

F2 P1 Water BOF( ) 1.251kip

ft

Soil Force 2

Soil Arm 2 a2Water BOF

21.25 ft

F31

2P2 P1 Water BOF( ) 0.11

kip

ft

Soil Force 3


30.833 ft

Resultant Force Pa F1 F2 F3 3.736kip

ft

Pah Pa cos θplane 3.736kip

ft

Horizontal Force

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F34.047 ft

Pv Pa sin θplane 0kip

ft

Vertical Force

Av B 17.5 ft

6. Calculate Structure and Soil Weights and Moments Arms about O.

Section 1 w1 Heel TOW Water( ) γbf Heel Water TOF( ) γs 7.38kip

ft

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 13.5 ft

Section 2 w21

2Heel Heel tan θ( )( ) γbf 0.92

kip

ft

A2 Toe THstem2

3Heel 14.833 ft

Section 3 w3 THstem TOW TOF( ) γc 1.8kip

ft

A3 ToeTHstem

2 8.75 ft



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Section 4 w4 B TOF BOF( ) γc 5.25kip

ft

A4B

28.75 ft

7. Calculate Lateral soil force on resisting side.

At Rest Coefficient(Eq. 3‐4 EM 1110‐2‐2502) Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485

Unit weight accounting for buoyancy (EM 1110‐2‐2502) γprime

PB γs TOF BOF( ) PC

TOF BOF( )57.6 pcf

Po1

2Ko γprime TOF BOF( )

2 0.056

kip

ft

Horizontal Force

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft

8. Calculate Uplift Force.

Uplift Force U PC B 2.73kip

ft

AuB

28.75 ft

9. Check Overturning about O.

Sum of Vertical Forces Vv w1 w2 w3 w4 ww U 12.87kip

ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4

ww Aw U Au Pah Ah Po Ao

wc Ac wd Ad wb Ab

137.025 kipSum of All Moments

Resultant Location(Eq. 4‐1 EM 1110‐2502)

XR

MR

Vv10.647 ft

Resultant Ratio(Eq. 4‐2 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

RR

XR

B0.608

Base Compression Check CheckBase "Ok" .667 RR .333if

"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Overturning Moment Mo Pah Ah U Au wd Ad 39.137 kip

Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4

wc Ac Po Ao wb Ab

175.164 kipResisting Moment

Factor of Safety FSo

Mr

Mo4.476

Factor of Safety Check CheckFS "Ok" round FSo 1 2if

"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"

10. Check Slidng using EM1110‐2‐2502 "Single Wedge Analysis".

Slip angle β 0

cF 0 psfShear strength of foundation

ϕF 32 degPhi angle for foundation

LCD 17.5 ftLength of Sliding Plane

Vertical Forces ΣV w1 w2 w3 w4 ww U 12.87kip

ft

ΣH Pah wd wc Po wb 3.68kip

ft

Horizontal Forces

Tslide ΣH cos β( ) ΣV sin β( ) 3.68kip

ft

Parallel Resultant(Fig. 4‐11 EM 1110‐‐2502)

Nslide ΣV cos β( ) ΣH sin β( ) 12.87kip

ft

Normal Resultant(Fig. 4‐11 EM 1110‐‐2502)

FSs

Nslide tan ϕF cF LCD

Tslide2.185

Factor of Safety(Eq. 4‐12 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

CheckFS "Ok" round FSs 1 1.5if

"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"Factor of Safety Check



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

11. Check Bearing Capacity.

Angle of Wall Friction(Fig. 5‐1 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

δ atanTslide

Nslide

15.96 deg

Eccentricity of Resultant eB

2XR 1.897 ft

Effective Width of Base Bprime B 2e 21.294 ft

Effective Overburden Stress(Eq. 5‐8a EM 1110‐2‐2502)

qo γb TOF BOF( ) 115.2 psf

Bearing Capacity Factors for strip load

Nq exp π tan ϕF tan 45degϕF

2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022

Embedment Factors

ξcd 1 0.2TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.034Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξqd 1 0.1TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.017

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγd ξqd 1.017

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.677Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.677

Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.251



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

**Base Tilt and Ground Slope Factors are al equal to 1 since there is not a base tilt nor sloped groundover the toe.

Ultimate Bearing Capacity (Eq. 5‐2 EM 1110‐2‐2502):

Q Bprime ξcd ξci cd Nc ξqd ξqi qo Nqξγd ξγi γb Bprime Nγ

2

112.619kip

ft

Factor of Safety(Eq. 5‐1 EM 1110‐2502)

FSBQ

Nslide8.751

Factor of Safety Check CheckFS "Ok" round FSB 1 3if

"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"

12. Check Flotation Criteria.


FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 ww

U5.714

FSCheck "Ok" FSF 1.3if

"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Load Case 2

Assumptions: 1. Sloping Backfill 2. Full Ditch (water equal on both sides at EL. 890) 3. Usual Condition


1. Determine Critical Slip angle


α 55.915 deg <‐‐See Load Case 1 above


Height of water above footing Hw GR TOF 3.5 ft


ft

Weight of Water

AwToe

24 ft



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal




Length from D to E LDE GR BOF( ) 5.5 ft


Change in water elevation Δh GR GR 0 ft

PB GR TOF( ) γw 0.218 ksfPressure at B

PC GR BOF( )Δh LBC

Ls

γw 0.343 ksfPressure at C

PD GR BOF( )Δh LBC LCD

Ls

γw 0.343 ksfPressure at D

PE 0ksf <‐‐End of Creep, tail waterPressure at E


wc1


kip

ft

Load at C

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2 PB PC PB PC

0.926 ft

wd1

2PD GR BOF( ) 0.944

kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1

3GR BOF( ) 1.833 ft

wb1

2PB GR TOF( ) 0.382

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab1

3GR TOF( ) TOF BOF( ) 3.167 ft

we 0kip


Load at E



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal


4. Calculate Lateral Pressure Coefficients

Pressure Coefficient(Appendix H EM 1110‐2‐2502)

K1 0.458 <‐‐See Load Case 1 above


Kb 0.458 <‐‐See Load Case 1 above

5. Calculate Driving Lateral Force



γprime

Heel tan θ( ) TOW BOF( )[ ] γs PD Heel tan θ( ) TOW GR( )[ ] γbf

GR BOF63.509 pcf

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γbf TOW GR( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 0.342 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 TOW GR( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 1.112kip

ft

a1 GR BOF( )1

3Heel tan θ( ) TOW GR( )[ ] 7.667 ft

Soil Arm 1

P2 P1 γprime Kb GR BOF( ) 0.502 ksfSoil Pressure 2

F2 P1 GR BOF( ) 1.882kip

ft

Soil Force 2

Soil Arm 2 a2GR BOF

22.75 ft

F31

2P2 P1 GR BOF( ) 0.44

kip

ft

Soil Force 3

Soil Arm 3 a3GR BOF

31.833 ft

Pa F1 F2 F3 3.435kip

ft

Resultant Force



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal


ft

Horizontal Force

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F34.225 ft

Active Force Arm

Active Vertical Force Pv Pah sin θplane 0kip

ft

Av B 17.5 ft


Section 1 w1 Heel GR TOF( ) γs 3.36kip

ft

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 13.5 ft

Section 2 w2 Heel TOW GR( ) γbf 4.14kip

ft

A2 Toe THstem1

2Heel 13.5 ft

w31


kip

ft

Section 3

A3 Toe THstem2

3Heel 14.833 ft

w4 THstem TOW TOF( ) γc 1.8kip

ft

Section 4

A4 ToeTHstem

2 8.75 ft


ft

A5B

28.75 ft



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

7. Calculate Soil Force on Resisting Side.

Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485At Rest Coefficient(Eq. 3‐4 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

Unit weight accounting for buoyancy (EM 1110‐2‐2502)

γprime

GR BOF( ) γs PD GR BOF( )

57.6 pcf

Horizontal Force Po1


2 0.056

kip

ft

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft


Uplift ForceU PC B 6.006

kip

ft

AuB

28.75 ft


Sum of Vertical Forces Vv w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 ww U 11.211kip

ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4


wc Ac wd Ad w5 A5 wb Ab


Resultant Location(Eq. 4‐1 EM 1110‐2502) XR

MR

Vv10.396 ft

Resultant Ratio(Eq. 4‐2 EM 1110‐2‐2502) RR

XR

B0.594


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"




Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4

wc Ac Po Ao w5 A5 ww Aw wb Ab



Mr

Mo2.694


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Slip angle β 0




Vertical Forces ΣV w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 ww U 11.211kip

ft


ft

Horizontal Forces



ft



ft

Factor of Safety(Eq. 4‐12 EM 1110‐2‐2502) FSs


Tslide2.073


"Not Ok" otherwise




δ atanTslide

Nslide

16.772 deg



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal


2XR 1.646 ft



qo γb TOF BOF( ) 0.115 ksf



2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022

Embedment Factors

Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξcd 1 0.2TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.035

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502ξqd 1 0.1

TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.017

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502ξγd ξqd 1.017

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.662Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.662

Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.226




Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal



2

100.554kip

ft


FSBQ

Nslide8.969


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 ww

U2.867


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Load Case 3

Assumptions: 1. Sloping Backfill 2. Lagging soil (Water at EL. 894.5 on Heel side; EL. 892.5 on Toe Side) 3. Unusual Condition

The loading on the strcture consists of the structure dead load, the weight of the soil above the heel, theweight of the water above the toe, lateral earth pressures & unequal water pressures.



α 55.915 deg <‐‐See Load Case 1


Height of water above footing Hw TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 6 ft


ft

Weight of Water

AwToe

24 ft



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal




Length from D to E LDE TOW BOF( ) 10 ft

Ls LBC LCD LDE 29.5 ftSeepage path

Change in water elevation Δh TOW 2ft( ) TOW 2 ft

PB TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] γw 0.3744 ksfPressure at B

Pressure at C PC TOW 2ft( ) BOF[ ]Δh LBC

Ls

γw 0.5077 ksf

PD TOW 2ft( ) BOF[ ]Δh LBC LCD

Ls



Load at C wc1

2TOF BOF( ) PB PC 0.882

kip

ft

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2PB PC PB PC

0.95 ft

wd1

2PD TOW BOF( ) 2.908

kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1

3TOW BOF( ) 3.333 ft

wb1

2PB TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 1.123

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab TOF BOF( )1

3TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 4 ft

Load at E we 0kip




Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Ae 0ft 0 <‐‐End of Creep, tail water


Pressure Coefficient(Appendix H EM 1110‐2‐2502) K1 0.458 <‐‐See Load Case 1


Kb 0.458 <‐‐See Load Case 1

5. Calculate Lateral Force



γprime

Heel tan θ( ) TOW BOF( )[ ] γs PD Heel tan θ( )( ) γbf

TOW BOF62.831 pcf

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γbf Heel tan θ( )( ) 0.105 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 Heel tan θ( )( ) 0.105kip

ft

a1 TOW BOF( )1

3Heel tan θ( )( )( ) 10.667 ft

Soil Arm 1

P2 P1 γprime Kb TOW BOF( ) 0.393 ksfSoil Pressure 2

F2 P1 TOW BOF( ) 1.053kip

ft

Soil Force 2

Soil Arm 2 a2TOW BOF

25 ft

F31

2P2 P1 TOW BOF( ) 1.438

kip

ft

Soil Force 3


33.333 ft


ft

Active Horizontal Force



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal


ft

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F34.307 ft

Active Force Arm

Active Vertical Force Pv Pa sin θplane 0kip

ft

Av B 17.5 ft


Section 1 w1 Heel TOW TOF( ) γs 7.68kip

ft

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 13.5 ft

w21


kip

ft

Section 2

A2 Toe THstem2

3Heel 14.833 ft


ft

Section 3

A3 ToeTHstem

2 8.75 ft


ft

A4B

28.75 ft


At Rest Coefficient(Eq. 3‐4 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485

Unit weight accounting for seepage (EM 1110‐2‐2502) γprime


TOF BOF( )53.369 pcf



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal



2 0.052

kip

ft

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft


Uplift ForceU PC B

1

2PD PC B 9.532

kip

ft

Au

PC BB

2

1

2PD PC B

B

3

PC B1

2PD PC B

8.552 ft



ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4


wc Ac wd Ad wb Ab



MR

Vv10.311 ft


XR

B0.589


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4

wc Ac Po Ao ww Aw wb Ab



Mr

Mo1.918



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Factor of Safety Check CheckFS "Ok" round FSo 1 1.5if

"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Slip angle β 0





ft


ft

Horizontal Forces

Parallel Resultant(Fig. 4‐11 EM 1110‐‐2502) Tslide ΣH cos β( ) ΣV sin β( ) 3.448

kip

ft

Normal Resultant(Fig. 4‐11 EM 1110‐‐2502) Nslide ΣV cos β( ) ΣH sin β( ) 9.113

kip

ft


FSs


Tslide1.651


"Not Ok" otherwise



Angle of Wall Friction(Fig. 5‐1 EM 1110‐2‐2502) δ atan

Tslide

Nslide

20.726 deg


2XR 1.561 ft






Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal



2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022

Embedment Factors

Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξcd 1 0.2TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.035

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502ξqd 1 0.1

TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.017

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγd ξqd 1.017

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.592Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.592

Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.124




2

67.256kip

ft

Factor of Safety(Eq. 5‐1 EM 1110‐2502) FSB

Q

Nslide7.38



Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Factor of Safety(Eq. 3‐2 EM 1110‐2100) FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 ww

U1.956


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

Inlet Headwall Design: Typical Section

Project Description



ft3


ft2











Cohesion cu 900psf

Phi ϕu 0deg


Cohesion cd 0psf

Phi ϕ 31deg


Cohesion cF 0psf



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

Phi ϕF 32deg

Inputs:







Toe Length Toe 6ft



EMB Slope EMBs1

4

EMB Slope angle θ atan EMBs 14.036 deg


3 <‐‐EM 1110‐2‐2502







Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal


Loading

Condition

Minimum

Sliding FS

Minimum

Flotation FS

Minimum Bearing

Capacity FS

Minimum Base Area

in Compression

Usual 1.5 1.3 3 100%

Unusual 1.3 1.2 2 75%


Load Case 1

Assumptions: 1. Sloping Backfill 2. Empty Ditch (water equal on both sides at EL. 887.0) 3. Usual Condition



The soil above the heel of the retaining wall slopes up at a 1V:4H for 8 feet (horizontally), then flattensout (no slope) for 50 feet and then slopes down at a 1V:7H. It is assumed that the critical slip planeintersects the flat surface.



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

Prove the assumption, that the critical slip plane intersects the flat surface, by trial and error.

Angle Delta Shown above

Δ atanHeel tan θ( ) TOW BOF( )

50ft

13.496 deg

Limiting angle Angle90 90deg

Assuming the critical plane intersects the flat surface, angle theta now becomes zero. With no verticalsurcharge, coefficients one and two below are calculated using Eqs. 3‐26 and 3‐27 from EM1110‐2‐2502.

Slope of the flat surface θplane atan 0( ) 0 deg


c1 2 tan ϕd 0.801


c2 1 tan ϕd tan θplane tan θplane

tan ϕd 1


α atanc1 c1

24 c2

2

55.915 deg

Does the critical slip plane intersect the flat surface?

Checkangle "Yes, continue analysis" Δ α Angle90if

"No, check another surface" otherwise

"Yes, continue analysis"



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal




0.5 ft


ft

Weight of Water

AwToe

23 ft








PC Water BOF( )Δh LBC

Ls


PD Water BOF( )Δh LBC LCD

Ls




Load at C wc1


kip

ft

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2 PB PC PB PC

0.778 ft



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

wd1


kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1


wb1


3

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab1


we 0kip


Load at E



Pressure Coefficient above saturationlevel (Equation 3‐14 EM 1110‐2‐2502)

K1

cos ϕd 2

1sin ϕd sin ϕd θplane

cos θplane

20.458


Kb


1tan α( )

tan α( ) tan θplane 1

γs

γb

0.458




γprime

Heel tan θ( ) TOW BOF( )[ ] γs PD Heel tan θ( ) TOW Water( )[ ] γbf

Water BOF76.6 pcf



ft

a1 Water BOF( )1


Soil Arm 1

a1 5.667 ft



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal



ft

Soil Force 2


21.25 ft

F31


kip

ft

Soil Force 3


30.833 ft


ft

Horizontal Force Pah Pa cos θplane 3.736kip

ft

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F34.047 ft


ft

Vertical Force

Av B 15.5 ft



ft

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 11.5 ft

Section 2 w21


kip

ft

A2 Toe THstem2

3Heel 12.833 ft


ft

A3 ToeTHstem

2 6.75 ft



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal


ft

A4B

27.75 ft



Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485

Unit weight accounting for buyoant condition (EM 1110‐2‐2502) γprime


TOF BOF( )57.6 pcf

Po1


2 0.056

kip

ft

Horizontal Force

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft



ft

AuB

27.75 ft



ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4


wc Ac wd Ad wb Ab



MR

Vv8.917 ft


XR

B0.575


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal


Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4




Mr

Mo4.285


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Slip angle β 0





ft


ft

Horizontal Forces


ft

Parallel Resultant


ft

Normal Resultant

FSs


Tslide2.126

Factor of Safety(Eq. 4‐6 EM1110‐2‐2502)


"Not Ok" otherwise




Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal



δ atanTslide

Nslide

16.383 deg


2XR 1.167 ft



qo γb TOF BOF( ) 115.2 psf



2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022

Embedment Factors


Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.04Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξqd 1 0.1TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.02

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγd ξqd 1.02

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.669Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.669

ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.238Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502




Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal



2

81.526kip

ft


FSBQ

Nslide6.512


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 ww

U6.178


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

Load Case 2

Assumptions: 1. Sloping Backfill 2. Full Ditch (water equal on both sides at EL. 890) 3. Usual Condition








ft

Weight of Water

AwToe

23 ft



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal








PC GR BOF( )Δh LBC

Ls


PD GR BOF( )Δh LBC LCD

Ls




Load at C wc1


kip

ft

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2 PB PC PB PC

0.926 ft

wd1

2PD GR BOF( ) 0.944

kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1

3GR BOF( ) 1.833 ft

wb1

2PB GR TOF( ) 0.382

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab1




Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

we 0kip


Load at E



Pressure Coefficient(Appendix H EM 1110‐2‐2502) K1 0.458 <‐‐See Load Case 1 above






γprime

Heel tan θ( ) TOW BOF( )[ ] γs PD Heel tan θ( ) TOW GR( )[ ] γbf

GR BOF63.509 pcf

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γbf TOW GR( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 0.342 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 TOW GR( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 1.112kip

ft

a1 GR BOF( )1


Soil Arm 1



ft

Soil Force 2

Soil Arm 2 a2GR BOF

22.75 ft

F31

2P2 P1 GR BOF( ) 0.44

kip

ft

Soil Force 3

Soil Arm 3 a3GR BOF

31.833 ft



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal


ft

Resultant Force


ft

Horizontal Force

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F34.225 ft

Active Force Arm

Active Vertical Force Pv Pa sin θ( ) 0.833kip

ft

Av B 15.5 ft



ft

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 11.5 ft


ft

A2 Toe THstem1

2Heel 11.5 ft

w31


kip

ft

Section 3

A3 Toe THstem2

3Heel 12.833 ft


ft

Section 4

A4 ToeTHstem

2 6.75 ft


ft



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

A5B

27.75 ft



Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485


γprime


57.6 pcf



2 0.056

kip

ft

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft



kip

ft

AuB

27.75 ft



ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4





MR

Vv8.699 ft


RR

XR

B0.561


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal


Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4




Mr

Mo2.644


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Slip angle β 0





ft


ft

Horizontal Forces



ft



ft


FSs


Tslide2.009


"Not Ok" otherwise




Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal



δ atanTslide

Nslide

17.281 deg


2XR 0.949 ft






2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502

Embedment Factors


Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.041Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502

ξqd 1 0.1TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.021Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502

ξγd ξqd 1.021Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.653Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.653

Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.212



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal




2

72.41kip

ft


FSBQ

Nslide6.667


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 ww

U3.042


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

Load Case 3

Assumptions: 1. Sloping Backfill 2. Lagging soil (Water at EL. 894.5 on Heel side; EL. 892.5 on Toe Side) 3. Unusual Condition




α 55.915 deg


Height of water above footing Hw TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 6 ft


ft

Weight of Water

AwToe

23 ft



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal




Length from D to E LDE TOW BOF( ) 10 ft

Ls LBC LCD LDE 27.5 ftSeepage path


Pressure at B PB TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] γw 0.3744 ksf

Pressure at C PC TOW 2ft( ) BOF[ ]Δh LBC

Ls

γw 0.5083 ksf

PD TOW 2ft( ) BOF[ ]Δh LBC LCD

Ls



Load at C wc1


kip

ft

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2PB PC PB PC

0.949 ft

wd1


kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1


wb1

2PB TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 1.123

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab TOF BOF( )1

3TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 4 ft



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

Load at E we1

2TOW TOF( ) PE 0

kip

ft

Ae1

3TOW TOF( ) TOF BOF( ) 4.667 ft









γprime

Heel tan θ( ) TOW BOF( )[ ] γs PD Heel tan θ( )( ) γbf

TOW BOF63.138 pcf

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γbf Heel tan θ( )( ) 0.105 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 Heel tan θ( )( ) 0.105kip

ft

a1 TOW BOF( )1

3Heel tan θ( )( )( ) 10.667 ft

Soil Arm 1

P2 P1 γprime Kb TOW BOF( ) 0.394 ksfSoil Pressure 2

F2 P1 TOW BOF( ) 1.053kip

ft

Soil Force 2


25 ft

F31

2P2 P1 TOW BOF( ) 1.446

kip

ft

Soil Force 3



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal


33.333 ft


ft

Resultant Force


ft

Horizontal Force

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F34.304 ft

Active Force Arm


ft

Active Vertical Force

Av B 15.5 ft



ft

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 11.5 ft

w21


kip

ft

Section 2

A2 Toe THstem2

3Heel 12.833 ft


ft

Section 3

A3 ToeTHstem

2 6.75 ft


ft



Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485


γprime


TOF BOF( )53.062 pcf



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal



2 0.051

kip

ft

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft


Uplift ForceU PC B

1

2PD PC B 8.423

kip

ft

Au

PC BB

2

1

2PD PC B

B

3

PC B1

2PD PC B

7.583 ft



ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4


wc Ac wd Ad wb Ab


Resultant Location(Eq. 4‐1 EM 1110‐2502)

XR

MR

Vv8.007 ft


RR

XR

B0.517


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4




Mr

Mo1.839



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Slip angle β 0





ft


ft

Horizontal Forces



ft



ft

FSs


Tslide1.612



"Not Ok" otherwise




δ atanTslide

Nslide

21.189 deg


2XR 0.257 ft


Effective Overburden Stress(Eq. 5‐8a EM 1110‐2‐2502) qo γb TOF BOF( ) 0.115 ksf



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal



2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502

Embedment Factors


Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.045Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξqd 1 0.1TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.023

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγd ξqd 1.023

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.585Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.585

Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.114




2

44.537kip

ft


FSBQ

Nslide5.019



Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 ww

U2.053


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

Inlet Headwall Design: Wingwall Section

Project Description



ft3


ft2











Cohesion cu 900psf

Phi ϕu 0deg


Cohesion cd 0psf

Phi ϕ 31deg


Cohesion cF 0psf



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

Phi ϕF 32deg

Inputs:


Top of Wall Elevation TOW 893ft





Toe Length Toe 6ft



EMB Slope EMBs 0

Slope angle θ atan EMBs 0 deg


3 <‐‐EM 1110‐2‐2502







Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal


Loading

Condition

Minimum

Sliding FS

Minimum

Flotation FS

Minimum Bearing

Capacity FS

Minimum Base Area

in Compression

Usual 1.5 1.3 3 100%

Unusual 1.3 1.2 2 75%


General Note: Since the wingwall slopes down, causing the wall height to vary along it's length, adesign section is taken 1/3 of the distance down the wall.

Load Case 1

Assumptions: 1. Horizontal Backfill 2. Empty Ditch (water equal on both sides at EL. 887.0) 3. Usual Condition




Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

1. Determine Critical Slip Plane angle

Coeffecient 1(Eq. 3‐26 EM 1110‐2‐2502) c1 2 tan ϕd 0.801

Coefficient 2(Eq. 3‐27 EM 1110‐2‐2502) c2 1 tan ϕd tan θ( )

tan θ( )

tan ϕd 1

Critical Slip‐Plane Angle(Eq. 3‐25 EM 1110‐2‐2502) α atan

c1 c12

4 c2

2

55.915 deg




0.5 ft


ft

Weight of Water

AwToe

23 ft


Length top of water to BOF L1 TOF BOF 2 ft



Ls L1 LCD LDE 18 ftSeepage path



PC Water BOF( )Δh L1

Ls




Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

PD Water BOF( )Δh L1 LCD

Ls




Load at C wc1


kip

ft

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2 PB PC PB PC

0.778 ft

wd1


kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1


wb1


3

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab1


we 0kip


Load at E




K1


tan α( )

tan α( ) tan θ( ) 0.458


Kb


1tan α( )

tan α( ) tan θ( )1

γs

γb

0.458



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal




TOW BOF( )( ) γs PD TOW Water( )( ) γbf

Water BOF69.6 pcf

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γbf TOW Water( )( ) 0.316 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 TOW Water( )( ) 0.948kip

ft

a1 Water BOF( )1

3TOW Water( )( )

Soil Arm 1

a1 4.5 ft



ft

Soil Force 2


21.25 ft

F31


kip

ft

Soil Force 3


30.833 ft


ft

Pah Pa cos θ( ) 1.837kip

ft

Horizontal Force

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F32.904 ft

Pv Pa sin θ( ) 0kip

ft

Vertical Force

Av B 13.5 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal



ft

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 10.5 ft

Section 2 w21

2Heel Heel tan θ( )( ) γs 0

kip

ft

A2 Toe THstem2

3Heel 11.5 ft


ft

A3 ToeTHstem

2 6.75 ft


ft

A4B

26.75 ft



Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485

Unit weight accounting for buyoant condition (EM 1110‐2‐2502) γprime


TOF BOF( )57.6 pcf

Po1


2 0.056

kip

ft

Horizontal Force

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal



ft

AuB

26.75 ft



ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4


wc Ac wd Ad wb Ab


Resultant Location(Eq. 4‐1 EM 1110‐2‐2502) XR

MR

Vv8.098 ft


XR

B0.6


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4

wc Ac Po Ao wb Ab



Mr

Mo4.302


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal


Slip angle β 0





ft


ft

Horizontal Forces

Parallel Resultant(Fig. 4‐11 EM 1110‐2‐2502) Tslide ΣH cos β( ) ΣV sin β( ) 1.781

kip

ft

Normal Resultant(Fig. 4‐11 EM 1110‐2‐2502) Nslide ΣV cos β( ) ΣH sin β( ) 8.094

kip

ft


FSs


Tslide2.839


"Not Ok" otherwise




δ atanTslide

Nslide

12.413 deg


2XR 1.348 ft






2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022

Embedment Factors


Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.045Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξqd 1 0.1TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.022

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγd ξqd 1.022

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.743Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.743

ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.375Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502



Q Bprime ξcd ξci cd Nc ξqd ξqi qo Nqξγd ξγi γprime Bprime Nγ

2

96.568kip

ft

Factor of Safety(Eq. 5‐1 EM 1110‐2‐2502) FSB

Q

Nslide11.931


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal



FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 ww

U4.843


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"

Load Case 2

Assumptions: 1. Horizontal Backfill 2. Full Ditch (water equal on both sides at EL. 890) 3. Usual Condition







Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal



Weight of Water ww Hw Toe γw 1.31kip

ft

AwToe

23 ft


L1 TOF BOF 2 ftLength from top of water to BOF



Ls L1 LCD LDE 21 ftSeepage path



PC GR BOF( )Δh L1

Ls


PD GR BOF( )Δh L1 LCD

Ls




Load at C wc1


kip

ft

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2 PB PC PB PC

0.926 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

wd1

2PD GR BOF( ) 0.944

kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1

3GR BOF( ) 1.833 ft

wb1

2PB GR TOF( ) 0.382

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab1


we 0kip


Load at E








**Since there is soil above and below the water table, two pressures are computed and then convertedto forces.


γprime

TOW BOF( )( ) γs PD TOW GR( )( ) γbf

GR BOF60.327 pcf

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γbf TOW GR( )( ) 0.158 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 TOW GR( )( ) 0.237kip

ft

a1 GR BOF( )1


Soil Arm 1



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal



ft

Soil Force 2

Soil Arm 2 a2GR BOF

22.75 ft

F31

2P2 P1 GR BOF( ) 0.418

kip

ft

Soil Force 3

Soil Arm 3 a3GR BOF

31.833 ft

Pah F1 F2 F3 1.524kip

ft


Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F33.082 ft

Active Force Arm

Pv Pah sin θ( ) 0kip

ft

Av B 13.5 ft



ft

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 10.5 ft


ft

A2 Toe THstem1

2Heel 10.5 ft

w31

2Heel Heel tan θ( )( ) γbf 0

kip

ft

Section 3

A3 Toe THstem2

3Heel 11.5 ft


ft

Section 4



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

A4 ToeTHstem

2 6.75 ft


ft

A5B

26.75 ft


Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485At Rest Coefficient(Eq. 3‐4 EM 1110‐2‐2502)



57.6 pcf



2 0.056

kip

ft

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft



kip

ft

AuB

26.75 ft



ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4





MR

Vv7.877 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal


XR

B0.583


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4




Mr

Mo2.417


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Slip angle β 0





ft


ft

Horizontal Forces

Parallel Resultant(Fig. 4‐11 EM 1110‐2‐2502)


ft

Normal Resultant(Fig. 4‐11 EM 1110‐2‐2502)


ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal



Tslide2.886


"Not Ok" otherwise




δ atanTslide

Nslide

12.215 deg


2XR 1.127 ft






2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022

Embedment Factors


Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.046Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξqd 1 0.1TOF BOF( )

Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.023

Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξγd ξqd 1.023

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.747Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.747

ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.382Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502




2

93.688kip

ft


FSBQ

Nslide13.819


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 ww

U2.463


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

Load Case 3

Assumptions: 1. Horizontal Backfill 2. Lagging soil (Water at EL. 893.0 on Heel side; EL. 891.0 on Toe Side) 3. Unusual Condition



Critical Slip‐Plane Angle(Eq. 3‐25 EM 1110‐2‐2502) α 55.915 deg


Height of water above footing Hw TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 4.5 ft


ft

Weight of Water

AwToe

23 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal


Length from ground to C L1 TOF BOF 2 ft

Length from C to DLCD B 13.5 ft

Length from D to ELDE TOW BOF( ) 8.5 ft

Seepage path Ls L1 LCD LDE 24 ft


Pressure at B PB TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] γw 0.2808 ksf

PC TOW 2ft( ) BOF[ ]Δh L1

Ls


Pressure at D PD TOW 2ft( ) BOF[ ]Δh L1 LCD

Ls

γw 0.486 ksf


wc1


kip

ft

Load at C

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2PB PC PB PC

0.935 ft

wd1


kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1


wb1

2PB TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 0.632

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab TOF BOF( )1

3TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 3.5 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

we 0kip


Load at E

<‐‐End of Creep, tail waterAe 0ft


Pressure Coefficient(Appendix H EM 1110‐2‐2502) K1 0.458


Kb 0.458




TOW BOF( )( ) γs PD

TOW BOF62.8 pcf

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γprime TOW BOF( ) 0.244 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 TOW BOF( ) 1.039kip

ft

a11


Soil Arm 1

Pah F1 1.039kip

ft


Ah a1 2.833 ftActive Force Arm


ft

Av B 13.5 ft



ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 10.5 ft

w21

2Heel Heel tan θ( )( ) γs 0

kip

ft

Section 2

A2 Toe THstem2

3Heel 11.5 ft


ft

Section 3

A3 ToeTHstem

2 6.75 ft


ft

A4B

26.75 ft



Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485



TOF BOF( )52.4 pcf



2 0.051

kip

ft

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft


Uplift ForceU PC B

1

2PD PC B 6.09

kip

ft

Au

PC BB

2

1

2PD PC B

B

3

PC B1

2PD PC B

6.575 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal



ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4


wc Ac wd Ad wb Ab



MR

Vv7.855 ft


XR

B0.582


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4




Mr

Mo1.931


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Slip angle β 0






Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal


ft


ft

Horizontal Forces



ft



ft



Tslide2.096


"Not Ok" otherwise




δ atanTslide

Nslide

16.604 deg


2XR 1.105 ft






2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

Embedment Factors


Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.046Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502


Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.023Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502

ξγd ξqd 1.023Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.665Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.665

ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.231Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502

**Base Tilt and Ground Slope Factors are all equal to 1 since there is not a base tilt nor sloped groundover the toe.



2

62.264kip

ft


FSBQ

Nslide10.758


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Factor of Safety(Eq. 3‐2 EM 1110‐2‐2100) FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 ww

U1.95


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

Load Case 4

Assumptions: 1. Horizontal Backfill 2. Wall is completely submerged (water @ EL. 894.5) ‐ Flotation is the primary concern for this LC 3. Unusual Condition



Critical Slip‐Plane Angle(Eq. 3‐25 EM 1110‐2‐2502) α 55.915 deg


Height of water above footing Hw TOW 1.5ft( ) TOF 8 ft


ft

Weight of Water

AwToe

23 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal


Length from ground to C L1 TOF BOF 2 ft

Length from C to DLCD B 13.5 ft

Length from D to ELDE TOW 1.5ft( ) BOF[ ] 10 ft

Seepage path Ls L1 LCD LDE 25.5 ft

Change in water elevation Δh TOW 1.5ft( ) TOW 1.5ft( ) 0 ft

Pressure at B PB TOW 1.5ft( ) TOF[ ] γw 0.4992 ksf

PC TOW 1.5ft BOF( )Δh L1

Ls


Pressure at D PD TOW 1.5ft BOF( )Δh L1 LCD

Ls

γw 0.624 ksf


wc1


kip

ft

Load at C

AcTOF BOF( )

3

2PB PC PB PC

0.963 ft

wd1

2PD 1.5ft TOW( ) BOF[ ] 3.12

kip

ft

Load at D

Ad1

3TOW 1.5ft( ) BOF[ ] 3.333 ft

wb1

2PB TOW 1.5ft TOF( ) 1.997

kip

ft

Load at B

Ab TOF BOF( )1

3TOW 1.5ft TOF( ) 4.667 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

we 0kip


Load at E

<‐‐End of Creep, tail waterAe 0ft


Pressure Coefficient(Appendix H EM 1110‐2‐2502) K1 0.458


Kb 0.458




TOW 1.5ft( ) BOF[ ] γs PD

TOW 1.5ft( ) BOF57.6 pcf

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γprime TOW BOF( ) 0.224 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 TOW BOF( ) 0.953kip

ft

a11


Soil Arm 1

Pah F1 0.953kip

ft


Ah a1 2.833 ftActive Force Arm


ft

Av B 13.5 ft



ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

A1 Toe THstemHeel

2 10.5 ft

w2 Heel THstem TOW 1.5ft( ) TOW[ ] γw 0.702kip

ft

Section 2(water weight)

A2 ToeHeel THstem

2

9.75 ft


ft

Section 3

A3 ToeTHstem

2 6.75 ft


ft

A4B

26.75 ft



Ko 1 sin ϕ( ) 0.485



TOF BOF( )57.6 pcf



2 0.056

kip

ft

Ao TOF BOF( )1

3 0.667 ft


Uplift ForceU PC B

1

2PD PC B 8.424

kip

ft

Au

PC BB

2

1

2PD PC B

B

3

PC B1

2PD PC B

6.75 ft



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal



ft

MR w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4


wc Ac wd Ad wb Ab


Resultant Location(Eq. 4‐1 EM 1110‐2‐2502) XR

MR

Vv7.804 ft


XR

B0.578


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Mr w1 A1 w2 A2 w3 A3 w4 A4




Mr

Mo1.61


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Slip angle β 0






Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal


ft


ft

Horizontal Forces



ft



ft



Tslide3.808


"Not Ok" otherwise




δ atanTslide

Nslide

9.319 deg


2XR 1.054 ft






2

2

23.177Eq. 5‐3a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐3b EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nc Nq 1 cot ϕF 35.49

Eq. 5‐3d EM 1110‐2‐2502 Nγ Nq 1 tan 1.4 ϕF 22.022



Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

Embedment Factors


Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.046Eq. 5‐4a EM 1110‐2‐2502


Bprimetan 45deg

ϕF

2

1.023Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502

ξγd ξqd 1.023Eq. 5‐4c EM 1110‐2‐2502

Inclination Factors

ξqi 1δ

90deg

2

0.804Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502

Eq. 5‐5a EM 1110‐2‐2502 ξci ξqi 0.804

ξγi 1δ

ϕF

2

0.502Eq. 5‐5b EM 1110‐2‐2502

**Base Tilt and Ground Slope Factors are all equal to 1 since there is not a base tilt nor sloped groundover the toe.



2

113.683kip

ft


FSBQ

Nslide20.799


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


Factor of Safety(Eq. 3‐2 EM 1110‐2‐2100) FSF

w1 w2 w3 w4 ww

U1.649


"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"


FMM Reach 4Inlet Headwall Reinforcement

Design - Pipe Section


97% FTR Submittal

Inlet Headwall Reinforcement Design for Pipe Section

Project Description



ft3


ft2










Cohesion cu 900psf

Phi ϕu 0deg


Cohesion cd 0psf

Phi ϕ 31deg


Cohesion cF 0psf

Phi ϕF 32deg





97% FTR Submittal

Inputs:







Toe Length Toe 8ft



EMB Slope EMBs1

4



3

Developed angle of internal friction ϕd atan SMF tan ϕ( )( ) 21.83 deg

Load Factors and Reduction Factors:

Load Factor Lf 1.7

Hydraulic Factor Hf 1.3

Bending Reduction Factor ϕb 0.90

Shear Reduction Factor ϕv 0.75

Reinforcement Parameters:

#6 Bar Diameter Dia6 0.75in <‐‐Assume #6 bar







97% FTR Submittal

Section Width b 12in

Concrete Cover cover 4in coverstem 3in

tp 7inPipe Thickness

Stem Design

From inspection, it can be determined that the worst design case for the stem will be Load Case 1. Soilis compacted on one side of the stem and water at EL. 887.0 on the other (empty ditch).

The stem will be designed as a cantilever beam, fixed at the point where the base and stem connect.

1. Calculate forces acting on stem.

Pressure Coefficient K1 0.458 <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

Pressure Coefficient Kb 0.458 <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design


γprime 76.6pcf <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

θplane 0deg <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design



ft

a1 Water TOF( )1


Soil Arm 1

a1 3.667 ft

P2 P1 γprime Kb Water TOF( ) 0.518 ksfSoil Pressure 2

F2 P1 Water TOF( ) 0.25kip

ft

Soil Force 2

Soil Arm 2 a2Water TOF

20.25 ft

F31

2P2 P1 Water TOF( ) 4.385 10

3

kip

ft

Soil Force 3


30.167 ft





97% FTR Submittal


ft


ft

Horizontal Force

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F33.336 ft

Surcharge Load surcharge 200psf

Ps K1 surcharge TOW TOF( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 0.916kip

ft

Surcharge Horizontal Force

As1

2TOW TOF( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 5 ft

Surcharge Force Arm

Resisting Water Load Pr .5 γw Water TOF( )2

0.008kip

ft

Water Load Arm Ar1

3Water TOF( ) 0.167 ft

MD Lf Hf Pah Ah 1 ft Ps As 1 ft

Pr Ar 1 ft

29.518 kip ftDesign Moment

2. Determine area of temperature and shrinkage steel required.

Minimum reinforcement ratio ρt .0014 <‐‐EM 1110‐2‐2104

Required Area of Reinforcement At ρt b THstem 0.302 in2

Area of Reinforcement Provided Ast .31in2

<‐‐Input the area of steel that will be provided

Specify #5 @ 12" for Temperature and Shrinkage

3. Determine area of flexural steel required.

Fraction β1 β1 0.854ksi

ksi

fc

ksi

.05 0.85





97% FTR Submittal

Distance to reinforcement d THstem coverstem1

2Dia8 14.5 in

Steel ratio Ru

MD

b d2

140.396 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0027

Required Area of Reinforcement Ast ρ b d 0.463 in2

Minimum Flexural Steel Required (ACI 318‐11 Section 10.5.1)

Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.58 in2


Asmin2 1.33 Ast 0.616 in2

Required Area of Reinforcment Check

Ast max min Asmin Asmin2 Ast At 0.58 in2

4. Check Maximum Steel ratio.

Balanced Steel ratio ρb 0.85 β1fc

fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029





97% FTR Submittal

Asmax "Less than or equal to recommended limit (OK)" ρ 0.25 ρbif

"Doesn't require special investigation (OK)" 0.25 ρb ρ .375 ρbif

"Consider other options (NOT OK)" otherwise

Asmax "Less than or equal to recommended limit (OK)"

5. Specify Flexural Steel Reinforcement.

Required Area of Flexural Steel Ast 0.58 in2

Area of Reinforcement Provided Asf 0.60in2


Specify #7 @ 12" for Flexural Reinforcement

6. Verify Steel Yields.

Tension Force T Asf fy 36 kip

Depth of compression zone aAsf fy

0.85 fc b0.882 in

ca

β11.038 in

Distance to neutral axis

εcd c

c

0.003 0.039Concrete Strain

Check "Tension Controlled" εc .005if

"Compression Controlled" εc .002if

"Transition Zone" .002 εc .005if

Steel Yield Check

Check "Tension Controlled"





97% FTR Submittal

7. Calculate Moment Capacity Provided by Steel Reinforcment .

ϕb 0.9 εc .005if

0.65 εc .002if

0.65 εc .002 250

3

.002 εc .005if

0.9Verify Reduction Factor

Moment Capacity ϕMn ϕb Asf fy d1

2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

37.959 kip ft

Capacity Check Check "Adequate Moment Capacity" ϕMn MDif

"Inadequate Moment Capacity" otherwise

Check "Adequate Moment Capacity"

8. Check Shear Capacity.

Shear Strength of Concrete ϕVc ϕv 2fc

psi b d

lb

in2

16.507 kip

Ultimate Shear Strength Vu Lf Pah 1 ft Ps 1 ft Pr 1 ft 6.017 kip

Check "Adequate Shear Capacity" ϕVc Vuif

"Inadequate Shear Capacity" otherwise

Check "Adequate Shear Capacity"

Heel and Toe Design

Each Load Case will be evaluated to determine the maximum moments in both the heel and toe.Forces will include bearing pressures underneath the footing, uplift pressures underneath the footingand water and soil loads above the footing.Both the Heel and the Toe are designed as cantileverbeams subjected to soil and water loads.

Load Case 1 Summary

Eccentricity e 1.897 ft <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design





97% FTR Submittal

Vertical Loads Vv 12.87kip <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

Area for 1‐ft length of footing A B 1 ft 17.5 ft2

Moment of Inertia I1ft B

3

12446.615 ft

4

Pressure under toe q1

Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.257 ksf

Pressure under heel q2

Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 1.214 ksf

The figure below shows the bearing pressure distribution underneath the footing.

Heel Loads for Load Case 1

Soil above footing Ws 7.38kip

asHeel

24 ft

Wst 0.92kip





97% FTR Submittal

ast2

3Heel 5.333 ft

Weight of Heel Wh Heel TOF BOF( ) 1 ft γc 2.4 kip

ahHeel

2

Weight of Surcharge Wsusurcharge

γsHeel 1 ft γs 1.6 kip

asuHeel

24 ft

Uplift Pressure Uplift 0.156ksf

fu Uplift Heel 1 ft 1.248 kip

auHeel

2

Pressure underneath Heel(Uniform Section)

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.776 ksf

f1 p1 Heel 1 ft 6.211 kip

a1Heel

2

Pressure underneath Heel(Triangular Section)

p2 q2 p1 0.437 ksf

f2 0.5 Heel p2 1 ft 1.749 kip

a22

3Heel 5.333 ft





97% FTR Submittal

The figure below shows the pressure distribution underneath the heel.

Wtotal Lf Hf Ws Wh Wsu f1 f2 fu 4.799 kipTotal Weight

Moment in Heel Muh1 Lf Hf Ws as Wst ast Wh ah

Wsu asu f1 a1 f2 a2

fu au

24.883 kip ft

Vuh1 Wtotal 4.799 kipShear in Heel

Toe Loads for Load Case 1

Pressure underneath toe(Uniform Section)

p1 q1 0.257 ksf

f1 p1 Toe 1 ft 2.057 kip





97% FTR Submittal

a1Toe

24 ft

Pressure underneath toe(Triangular Section)

p2 Toeq2

B

0.555 ksf

f21

2p2 Toe 1 ft 2.219 kip

a21

3Toe 2.667 ft

The figure below shows the bearing pressure distribution underneath the toe.

Wtoe TOF BOF( ) Toe 1 ft γc 2.4 kipWeight of Toe

atToe

24 ft

Weight of water over toe Ww Toe Water TOF( ) 1ft γw 0.25 kip





97% FTR Submittal

awToe

24 ft

Uplift Pressure underneath toe Uplift 0.156ksf <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

fu Uplift Toe 1 ft 1.248 kip

auToe

24 ft

Moment in Toe Mut1 2.21 Wtoe at Ww aw

f1 a1 f2 a2 fu au

18.872 kip ft

Vut1 2.21 f1 f1 fu Wtoe Ww 5.994 kipShear in Toe

Load Case 2 Summary





3

12446.615 ft

4


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.279 ksf


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 1.002 ksf





97% FTR Submittal




asHeel

24 ft

Wst 0.92kip <‐‐Triangular region

ast2

3Heel 5.333 ft


ahHeel

24 ft





97% FTR Submittal



asuHeel

24 ft

Uplift Pressure Uplift 0.343ksf <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design


auHeel

24 ft

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.672 ksf



a1Heel

24 ft

p2 q2 p1 0.331 ksfPressure underneath Heel(Triangular Section)

f2 .5 Heel p2 1 ft 1.322 kip

a22

3Heel( ) 5.333 ft





97% FTR Submittal

The figure below shows the bearing pressure distribution underneath the heel.


Moment in Heel(Counterclockwisemoment is positive)

Muh2 Lf Hf Ws as Wst ast Wh ah

Wsu asu f1 a1 f2 a2

fu au

25.166 kip ft




p1 q1 0.279 ksf

f1 Toe p1 1 ft 2.233 kip





97% FTR Submittal

a1Toe

24 ft

Pressure under toe(Triangular Section)

p2 Toeq2

B

0.458 ksf

f21


a21

3Toe 2.667 ft



atToe

24 ft





97% FTR Submittal

Weight of water over toe Ww Toe GR TOF( ) 1ft γw 1.747 kip

awToe

24 ft



auToe

24 ft

Moment in Toe(Counterclockwisemoment is positive)

Mut2 2.21 Wtoe at Ww aw

f1 a1 f2 a2 fu au

18.133 kip ft


Load Case 3 Summary





3

12446.615 ft

4


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.242 ksf


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.799 ksf





97% FTR Submittal




asHeel

24 ft

Wst 0.92kip

ast2

3Heel 5.333 ft






97% FTR Submittal

ahHeel

24 ft

Weight of Surcharge Wsu 0kip <‐‐With water to the top of wall, nosurcharge will be considered in this load case

asuHeel

24 ft

Uplift Pressure underneath heel Uplift1 0.5817ksf <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

Uplift Pressure underneath toe Uplift2 0.5077ksf <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

pu1 HeelUplift1 Uplift2

B Uplift2 0.542 ksf

fu1 pu1 Heel 1 ft 4.332 kip

au1Heel

24 ft

pu2 Uplift1 pu1 0.04 ksf

fu21

2Heel pu2 1 ft 0.161 kip

au22

3Toe 5.333 ft

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.545 ksf



a1Heel

24 ft


f2 .5 Heel p2 1 ft 1.019 kip

a22

3Heel( ) 5.333 ft





97% FTR Submittal


Total Weight Wtotal Lf Hf Ws Wh Wsu f1 f2 fu1 fu2 0.466 kip



Wsu asu f1 a1 f2 a2

fu1 au1 fu2 au2

9.23 kip ft




p1 q1 0.242 ksf





97% FTR Submittal


a1Toe

24 ft


p2 Toeq2

B

0.365 ksf

f21


a21

3Toe 2.667 ft



atToe

24 ft





97% FTR Submittal


awToe

24 ft



fu1 Uplift2 Toe 1 ft 4.064 kip

auToe

24 ft

fu21

2Toe Toe

Uplift1

B

1 ft 1.059 kip

au21

3Toe 2.667 ft



fu1 au1 fu2 au2

18.743 kip ft

Vut3 2.21 f1 f2 fu1 fu2 Wtoe Ww 12.976 kipShear in Toe

Design Load Summary for Heel

Maximum Moment from all load cases MDH min Muh1 Muh2 Muh3 25.166 ft kip

Since I've chosen counterclockwise moments to be positive, a negative moment here represents thetop of the heel being in tension.

Design Moment MH MDH 25.166 ft kip

Maximum Shear from all load cases VH max Vuh1 Vuh2 Vuh3 4.799 kip

Design Load Summary for Toe

Maximum Moment from all load cases MTH min Mut1 Mut2 Mut3 18.872 ft kip

Since I've chosen counterclockwise moments to be positive, a negative moment here represents thebottom of the toe the being in tension.

MT MTH 18.872 ft kipDesign Moment





97% FTR Submittal

Maximum Shear from all load cases VT max Vut1 Vut2 Vut3 12.976 kip

Reinforcement Design of the Heel



Required Area of Reinforcement At ρt b TOF BOF( ) 0.403 in2





Fraction β1 β1 0.85

Distance to reinforcement d TOF BOF( ) tp cover1

2Dia6 12.625 in

Steel ratio Ru

MH

b d2

157.888 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.003






97% FTR Submittal


Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.505 in2







fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029













97% FTR Submittal

Specify #6 @ 10" for Flexural Reinforcement.


Tension Force T Asf fy 31.8 kip


0.85 fc b0.779 in

ca

β10.917 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check


6. Calculate Moment Capacity Provided by Steel Reinforcment.

ϕb 0.9 εc .005if

0.65 εc .002if

0.65 εc .002 250

3

.002 εc .005if



2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

29.181 kip ft

Capacity Check Check "Adequate Moment Capacity" ϕMn MHif







97% FTR Submittal



psi b d

lb

in2

14.373 kip

Ultimate Shear Strength Vu VH 4.799 kip




Reinforcement Design of the Toe




Area of Reinforcement Provided Ast 0.44in2





Distance to reinforcement d TOF BOF( ) cover1

2Dia6 19.625 in

Steel ratio Ru

MT

b d2

49.001 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0009





97% FTR Submittal



Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.785 in2







fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029









97% FTR Submittal









0.85 fc b0.647 in

ca

β10.761 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check



ϕb 0.9 εc .005if

0.65 εc .002if

0.65 εc .002 250

3

.002 εc .005if



2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

38.217 kip ft





97% FTR Submittal

Capacity Check Check "Adequate Moment Capacity" ϕMn MTif





psi b d

lb

in2

22.341 kip

Ultimate Shear Strength Vu VT 12.976 kip






Design - Typical Section


97% FTR Submittal

Inlet Headwall Reinforcement Design for Typical Section

Project Description



ft3


ft2










Cohesion cu 900psf

Phi ϕu 0deg


Cohesion cd 0psf

Phi ϕ 31deg


Cohesion cF 0psf

Phi ϕF 32deg





97% FTR Submittal

Inputs:







Toe Length Toe 6ft



EMB Slope EMBs1

4



3



Load Factor Lf 1.7












97% FTR Submittal



Stem Design

From inspection, it can be determined that the worst design case for the stem will be Load Case 1. Soilis compacted on one side of the stem and water at EL. 887.0 on the other (empty ditch).


1. Calculate forces acting on stem.

Pressure Coefficient K1 0.458 <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

Kb 0.458 <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

Unit weight accounting for seepage (EM 1110‐2‐2502) γprime 76.6pcf <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

θplane 0deg <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design



ft

a1 Water TOF( )1


Soil Arm 1

a1 3.667 ft



ft

Soil Force 2


20.25 ft

F31

2P2 P1 Water TOF( ) 0.004

kip

ft

Soil Force 3


30.167 ft


ft





97% FTR Submittal

Horizontal Force Pah Pa cos θplane 2.631kip

ft

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F33.336 ft

Resisting Water Load Pr .5 γw Water TOF( )2

0.008kip

ft

Water Load Arm Ar1



Ps K1 surcharge TOW TOF( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 0.916kip

ft


As1

2TOW TOF( ) Heel tan θ( )[ ] 5 ft

Surcharge Force Arm

MD Lf Hf Pah Ah 1 ft Ps As 1 ft Pr Ar 1 ft

29.518 kip ftDesign Moment









ksi

fc

ksi

.05 0.85


2Dia8 14.5 in





97% FTR Submittal

Steel ratio Ru

MD

b d2

140.396 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0027



Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.58 in2







fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029





97% FTR Submittal











Tension Force T Asf fy 36 kip


0.85 fc b0.882 in

ca

β11.038 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check




2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

37.959 kip ft





97% FTR Submittal






psi b d

lb

in2

16.507 kip

Ultimate Shear Strength Vu Lf Pah 1 ft Ps 1 ft Pr 1 ft 6.017 kip




Heel and Toe Design


Load Case 1 Summary





3

12310.323 ft

4


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.443 ksf





97% FTR Submittal


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 1.173 ksf



Soil above footing Ws 7.38kip <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

asHeel

24 ft

Wst 0.92kip

ast2

3Heel 5.333 ft





97% FTR Submittal


ahHeel

24 ft



asuHeel

24 ft



auHeel

24 ft

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.796 ksf



a1Heel

24 ft


f2 .5 Heel p2 1 ft 1.507 kip

a22

3Heel( ) 5.333 ft





97% FTR Submittal


Wtotal Lf Hf Ws Wh Wsu f1 f2 fu

Wst

7.024 kipTotal Weight



Wsu asu f1 a1 f2 a2

fu au

26.367 kip ft




p1 q1 0.443 ksf






97% FTR Submittal

a1Toe

23 ft


p2 Toeq2

B

0.454 ksf

f21


a21

3Toe 2 ft



atToe

23 ft






97% FTR Submittal

awToe

23 ft



auToe

23 ft



f1 a1 f2 a2 fu au

16.664 kip ft


Load Case 2 Summary





3

12310.323 ft

4


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.443 ksf


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.958 ksf





97% FTR Submittal




asHeel

24 ft

Wst 0.92kip <‐‐Triangular region

ast2

3Heel 5.333 ft


ahHeel

24 ft





97% FTR Submittal



asuHeel

24 ft



auHeel

24 ft

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.692 ksf



a1Heel

24 ft


f2 .5 Heel p2 1 ft 1.063 kip

a22

3Heel( ) 5.333 ft





97% FTR Submittal


Wtotal Lf Hf Ws Wh Wsu f1 f2 fu

Wst




Wsu asu f1 a1 f2 a2

fu au

26.752 kip ft




p1 q1 0.443 ksf





97% FTR Submittal


a1Toe

23 ft


p2 Toeq2

B

0.371 ksf

f21


a21

3Toe 2 ft



atToe

23 ft





97% FTR Submittal


awToe

23 ft



auToe

23 ft



f1 a1 f2 a2 fu au

15.575 kip ft


Load Case 3 Summary





3

12310.323 ft

4


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.516 ksf


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.629 ksf





97% FTR Submittal




asHeel

24 ft

Wst 0.92kip

ast2

3Heel 5.333 ft


ahHeel

24 ft





97% FTR Submittal

Weight of Surcharge Wsu 0kip <‐‐With water to the top of wall, nosurcharge will be considered in this load case

asuHeel

24 ft




B Uplift2 0.545 ksf


au1Heel

24 ft


fu21


au22

3Toe 4 ft

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.571 ksf



a1Heel

24 ft


f2 .5 Heel p2 1 ft 0.235 kip

a22

3Heel( ) 5.333 ft





97% FTR Submittal


Wtotal Lf Hf Ws Wh Wsu f1 f2 fu1 fu2

Wst




Wsu asu f1 a1 f2 a2

fu1 au1 fu2 au2

17.11 kip ft




p1 q1 0.516 ksf





97% FTR Submittal


a1Toe

23 ft


p2 Toeq2

B

0.244 ksf

f21


a21

3Toe 2 ft


Weight of Toe Wtoe TOF BOF( ) Toe 1 ft γc 1.8 kip

atToe

23 ft





97% FTR Submittal

Weight of water over toe Ww Toe TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 1ft γw 2.246 kip

awToe

23 ft




auToe

23 ft

fu21

2Toe Toe

Uplift1

B

1 ft 0.672 kip

au21

3Toe 2 ft


Mut3 2.21 Wtoe at Ww aw f1 a1 f2 a2

fu1 au1 fu2 au2

26.84 kip ft



Maximum Moment from all load cases MDH min Muh1 Muh2 Muh3 26.752 ft kip



Maximum Shear from all load cases VH max Vuh1 Vuh2 Vuh3 7.024 kip


Maximum Moment from all load cases MTH min Mut1 Mut2 Mut3 26.84 ft kip







97% FTR Submittal

Maximum Shear from all load cases VT max Vut1 Vut2 Vut3 7.733 kip











2Dia6 19.625 in

Steel ratio Ru

MH

b d2

69.461 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0013



Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.785 in2





97% FTR Submittal







fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029







Area of Reinforcement Provided Asf .44in2


Specify #6 @12" for Flexural Reinforcement




0.85 fc b0.647 in





97% FTR Submittal

ca

β10.761 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check




2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

38.217 kip ft






psi b d

lb

in2

22.341 kip









97% FTR Submittal











2Dia6 19.625 in

Steel ratio Ru

MT

b d2

69.688 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0013



Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.785 in2





97% FTR Submittal







fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029













0.85 fc b0.647 in





97% FTR Submittal

ca

β10.761 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check




2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

38.217 kip ft






psi b d

lb

in2

22.341 kip







Design - Wingwall Section


97% FTR Submittal

Inlet Headwall Reinforcement Design for Wingwall Section

Project Description

Reach 4 pipe drop structre inlet design for the Fargo Moorhead Metro project. The inlet will consist of aconcrete headwall and base slab, a trash rack for debris and three 7'‐2" openings in the headwall forRCPs.


ft3


ft2










Cohesion cu 900psf

Phi ϕu 0deg


Cohesion cd 0psf

Phi ϕ 31deg


Cohesion cF 0psf

Phi ϕF 32deg





97% FTR Submittal

Inputs:


Top of Wall Elevation TOW 893ft





Toe Length Toe 6ft



EMB Slope EMBs 0

Slope angle θ atan EMBs 0 deg


3



Load Factor Lf 1.7





Bar Diameter Dia5 0.625in <‐‐Assume #5 bar







97% FTR Submittal




Stem Design

The design section of the stem was taken at the one‐third distance along the wingwall. Frominspection, it can be determined that the worst design case for the stem will be Load Case 1. Soil iscompacted on one side of the stem and water at EL. 887.0 on the other (empty ditch).


1. Calculate forces acting on stem for Load Case 1.

Pressure Coefficient K1 .458 Ko .485 Kb K1 <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

Unit weight accounting for seepage (EM 1110‐2‐2502) γprime 69.6pcf <‐‐Taken from Inlet Headwall Design

Soil Pressure 1 P1 K1 γbf TOW Water( )( ) 0.316 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 TOW Water( )( ) 0.948kip

ft

a1 Water TOF( )1

3TOW Water( )( )

Soil Arm 1

a1 2.5 ft



ft

Soil Force 2


20.25 ft

F31

2P2 P1 Water TOF( ) 3.985 10

3

kip

ft

Soil Force 3


30.167 ft





97% FTR Submittal


ft

Pah Pa cos θ( ) 1.11kip

ft

Horizontal Force

Ah

F1 a1 F2 a2 F3 a3

F1 F2 F32.171 ft

Pw1

2γw Water TOF( )

2 0.008

kip

ft

Water Force

Aw1


Water Force Arm


Ps K1 surcharge TOW TOF( )( ) 0.595kip

ft


As1

2TOW TOF( )( ) 3.25 ft

Surcharge Force Arm

MD1 Lf Hf Pah Ah Ps As

Pw Aw

1 ft 9.6 kip ftDesign Moment


Minimum reinforcement ratio ρt .0014 <‐‐ACI 318‐11 Section 7.12.2






Desgin Moment MD MD1 9.6 kip ft





97% FTR Submittal


ksi

fc

ksi

.05 0.85


2Dia5 14.688 in

Steel ratio Ru

MD

b d2

44.503 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0008



Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.588 in2









97% FTR Submittal



fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029







Area of Reinforcement Provided Asf .31in2






0.85 fc b0.456 in

ca

β10.536 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check






97% FTR Submittal


ϕb 0.9 εc .005if

0.65 εc .002if

0.65 εc .002 250

3

.002 εc .005if



2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

20.171 kip ft






psi b d

lb

in2

16.721 kip

Ultimate Shear Strength Vu Lf Pah 1 ft Ps 1 ft 2.899 kip




Heel and Toe Design


Load Case 1 Summary

Eccentricity e 1.348 ft <‐‐Taken from Wingwall Design





97% FTR Submittal

Vertical Loads Vv 8.094kip <‐‐Taken from Wingwall Design



3

12205.031 ft

4


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.24 ksf


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.959 ksf







97% FTR Submittal

Soil above footing Ws 4.5kip <‐‐Taken from Wingwall Design

asHeel

23 ft

Wst 0kip <‐‐Taken from Wingwall Design

ast2

3Heel 4 ft


ahHeel

2



asuHeel

23 ft

Uplift Pressure Uplift 0.156ksf <‐‐Taken from Wingwall Design


auHeel

23 ft

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.639 ksf



a1Heel

23 ft


f2 .5 Heel p2 1 ft 0.958 kip

a22

3Heel( ) 4 ft





97% FTR Submittal



Moment in Heel Muh1 Lf Hf Ws as Wh ah Wsu asu

f1 a1 f2 a2 fu au

9.614 kip ft




p1 q1 0.24 ksf






97% FTR Submittal

a1Toe

23 ft


p2 Toeq2

B

0.426 ksf

f21


a21

3Toe 2 ft



atToe

23 ft






97% FTR Submittal

awToe

23 ft



auToe

23 ft



f1 a1 f2 a2 fu au

8.242 kip ft


Load Case 2 Summary





3

12205.031 ft

4


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.251 ksf


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.754 ksf





97% FTR Submittal




asHeel

23 ft

Wst 0kip <‐‐Triangular region

ast2

3Heel 4 ft


ahHeel

23 ft





97% FTR Submittal



asuHeel

23 ft



auHeel

23 ft

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.53 ksf



a1Heel

23 ft


f2 .5 Heel p2 1 ft 0.671 kip

a22

3Heel( ) 4 ft





97% FTR Submittal




Muh2 Lf Hf Ws as Wh ah

Wsu asu f1 a1 f2 a2

fu au

9.657 kip ft




p1 q1 0.251 ksf






97% FTR Submittal

a1Toe

23 ft

Pressure under heel(Triangular Section)

p2 Toeq2

B

0.335 ksf

f21


a21

3Toe 2 ft



atToe

23 ft


awToe

23 ft





97% FTR Submittal



auToe

23 ft



f1 a1 f2 a2 fu au

7.436 kip ft


Load Case 3 Summary





3

12205.031 ft

4


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.218 ksf


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.639 ksf





97% FTR Submittal




asHeel

23 ft

Wst 0kip

ast2

3Heel 4 ft






97% FTR Submittal

ahHeel

23 ft

Weight of Surcharge Wsu 0kip <‐‐With water to the top ofwall, no surcharge will beconsidered in this load case

asuHeel

23 ft




B Uplift2 0.447 ksf


au1Heel

23 ft


fu21


au22

3Toe 4 ft

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.452 ksf



a1Heel

23 ft


f2 .5 Heel p2 1 ft 0.561 kip





97% FTR Submittal

a22

3Heel( ) 4 ft


Wtotal Lf Hf Ws Wh Wsu f1 f2 fu1 fu2

Wst




Wsu asu f1 a1 f2 a2

fu1 au1 fu2 au2

1.199 kip ft






97% FTR Submittal



p1 q1 0.218 ksf


a1Toe

23 ft


p2 Toeq2

B

0.284 ksf

f21


a21

3Toe 2 ft






97% FTR Submittal


atToe

23 ft

Weight of water over toe Ww Toe TOW 2ft( ) TOF[ ] 1ft γw 1.685 kip

awToe

23 ft




auToe

23 ft

fu21

2Toe Toe

Uplift1

B

1 ft 0.648 kip

au21

3Toe 2 ft


Mut3 2.21 Wtoe at Ww aw f1 a1

fu1 au1 fu2 au2 f2 a2

8.753 kip ft


Load Case 4 Summary





3

12205.031 ft

4





97% FTR Submittal


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.215 ksf


Vv

A

Vv e 0.5 B( )

I 0.595 ksf




asHeel

23 ft





97% FTR Submittal

Wst 0.562kip <‐‐Weight of water over the heel

astHeel

23 ft


ahHeel

23 ft

Weight of Surcharge Wsu 0kip <‐‐With water to the top ofwall, no surcharge will beconsidered in this load case

asuHeel

23 ft



auHeel

23 ft

p1 Toe THstem q2 q1

B q1 0.426 ksf



a1Heel

23 ft


f2 .5 Heel p2 1 ft 0.506 kip

a22

3Heel( ) 4 ft





97% FTR Submittal


Wtotal Lf Hf Ws Wh Wsu Ws f1 f2 fu 9.623 kipTotal Weight


Muh4 Lf Hf Ws as Wh ah Wst ast

Wsu asu f1 a1 f2 a2

fu au

0.45 kip ft




p1 q1 0.215 ksf






97% FTR Submittal

a1Toe

23 ft

Pressure under heel(Triangular Section)

p2 Toeq2

B

0.264 ksf

f21


a21

3Toe 2 ft



atToe

23 ft

Weight of water over toe Ww 2.995kip

awToe

23 ft





97% FTR Submittal



auToe

23 ft



f1 a1 f2 a2 fu au

5.097 kip ft



Maximum Moment from all load cases MDH min Muh1 Muh2 Muh3 Muh4 9.657 ft kip



Maximum Shear from all load cases VH max Vuh1 Vuh2 Vuh3 Vuh4 9.623 kip


Maximum Moment from all load cases MTH min Mut1 Mut2 Mut3 Mut4 8.753 ft kip



Maximum Shear from all load cases VT max Vut1 Vut2 Vut3 Vut4 4.023 kip



Minimum reinforcement ratio ρt .0014 <‐‐ACI 318‐11 Section 7.12.2






97% FTR Submittal

Area of Reinforcement Provided Ast 0.44in2





Distance to reinforcement d TOF BOF( )( ) cover1

2Dia6 19.625 in

Steel ratio Ru

MH

b d2

25.074 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0005



Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.785 in2







97% FTR Submittal





fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029









Specify #6 @ 12" for Flexural Reinforcement.




0.85 fc b0.647 in

ca

β10.761 in


εcd c

c






97% FTR Submittal




Steel Yield Check



ϕb 0.9 εc .005if

0.65 εc .002if

0.65 εc .002 250

3

.002 εc .005if



2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

38.217 kip ft






psi b d

lb

in2

22.341 kip









97% FTR Submittal











2Dia6 19.625 in

Steel ratio Ru

MT

b d2

22.727 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0004



Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.785 in2





97% FTR Submittal







fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029













0.85 fc b0.647 in





97% FTR Submittal

ca

β10.761 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check




2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

38.217 kip ft






psi b d

lb

in2

22.341 kip






FMM Reach 4RCP Class Determination


97% FTR Submittal

Class Determination for Reinforced Concrete Pipe

References: 1. EM 1110‐2‐2902 "Conduits, Culverts and Pipes" 2. ASTM C76

Units: kip 1000lbf pcflbf

ft3


ft2

kips kip

Inputs:

Unit Weight of Fill γf 123pcf

Unit Weight of Water γw 62.4pcf

Inside Diameter Di 6ft

t 7inWall Thickness

Do Di 2t 7.167 ftOutside Diameter

ELEMB 896.0ftTop of EMB EL.

Max Soil Cover Over Pipe Hc 7.333ft

ELPipe ELEMB Hc 888.667 ftTop of Pipe EL.

Existing Ground EL. ELGr 890ft

Equipment Surcharge surcharge 200psf

Assumptions: 1. Design follows EM 1110‐2‐2902 2. All pipe bedding is considered "ordinary". 3. Pipes are spaced far enough apart so that one pipe excavation will not be affected by the adjacent excavation. Loading is considered as a single pipe. 4. Trench width limits specified in Figure 2‐4 of Ref.1 will likely be exceeded in the field; thus, Fill Condition will be a considered an embankment condition (Condition III). 5. Pipe Strength 5,000psi; Wall B from ASTM C76




97% FTR Submittal

Figure 2‐4. Loading conditions for conduits (Reference 1)

Outputs:

Outside Pipe Dimension bc Do 7.167 ft

Height of Fill above natural ground Hf ELEMB ELGr 6 ft

Height of Fill above pipe Hc 7.333 ft

Height of Fill above pipe CL Hh Hc

Do

2 10.916 ft

Height of Pipe above level foundation Hp bc max 8in 0.04 Hc 6.5 ft

I. Loading Determination

Soil Load on Pipe

We 1.5 γf bc Hh 1 ft 14.434 kip <‐‐Equation 2‐12 Ref. 1

Live Load on Pipe

WL 0kip <‐‐No Live Load assumed

Water Load in Pipe

Ww

π Di2

4γw 1 ft 1.764 kip




97% FTR Submittal

Equipment Surchage Load in Pipe

Wssurcharge

γfDo 1 ft γf 1.433 kip

II. Bedding Factor Determination

Projection ratio ρHp

bc0.907 <‐‐Defined on Figure 3‐2 Ref.1

Bedding Factor Constant, Xa Xa .654 <‐‐Input value from Table 3‐2

Xp .840 <‐‐Input value from Table 3‐2Bedding Factor Constant, Xp

Bedding Factor Bf1.431

Xp

Xa

3

2.301

III. D‐Load Analysis

Total Load WT We WL Ww Ws 17.632 kip

Hydraulic Load Factor LF 1.3

D‐Load D0.01

LF WT

Di Bf1.66

kip

ft <‐‐Paragraph 3‐7 Ref. 1

III. Determine Pipe Class

Class "Class IV" 1.35kip

ftD0.01 2

kip

ftif

"Class V" 2kip

ftD0.01 3

kip

ftif

"Class IV"




97% FTR Submittal

IV. Determine height requiring Class V pipe

Limiting D0.01 D0.01 2kip

ft

Solve for the maximum Hh

Hh_max

D0.01 Di Bf

LFWw WL

1.5 γf bc 1 ft14.727 ft <‐‐Max distance from centerline of pipe to top of

embankment.

Solve for maximum EMB Height

EMBmax Hh_max

bc

2 ELPipe 899.81 ft

Solve for maximum height above pipe

Hmax EMBmax ELPipe 11.143 ft <‐‐All sections of pipe that have more fill above it than this value will require a Class V precast concrete pipe.


FMM Reach 4Sizing Impact Stilling Basin


97% FTR Submittal

Initial Sizing Design of USBR Type VI Impact Stilling Basin

References:1. "Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basin for Pipe or Channel Outlets" by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation2. "Design of Small Canal Structures" by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Inputs:cfs

ft3

s

Total Design Flow QT 520cfs

Number of Pipes Pipetotal 3

Pipe Diameter Dpipe 6ft

Pipe Inlet Invert Elevation Invertinlet 886.5ft

Pipe Outlet Invert Elevation Invertoutlet 874.003ft

Acceleration due to gravity g 32.174ft

s2

Outputs:

Apipe

π Dpipe2

428.274 ft

2

Pipe Area

Design Flow per Pipe Qp

QT

Pipetotal173.333 cfs

Entrance Velocity Ve 2 g Invertinlet Invertoutlet 28.358ft

s

Flow Area Af

Qp

Ve6.112 ft

2

Depth of Flow Depthflow Af 2.472 ft

FrVe

g Depthflow3.18

Froude Number




97% FTR Submittal

**Use Froude Number calculated above to obtain W/D in Figure 8 below.

W/D ratio RatioWD 5.4 <‐‐Input W/D ratio from Figure 8 of Ref. 1 below

Wmin Depthflow RatioWD 13.351 ftMinimum Inside Width of Basin

Rounded Inside Width of Basin W round ceilWmin

ft

1

ft 14.00 ft

WD 16.00ft <‐‐Input Design width of basinDesign Width of Basin




97% FTR Submittal

**Use Figure 1 below and WD from above to obtain the remaining dimensions of the Stilling Basin.

β

H3 WD

412 ft c

WD

28 ft r

WD

200.8 ft <‐‐Riprap Dia.

L4 WD

321.333 ft d

WD

62.667 ft

aWD

28 ft e

WD

121.333 ft

b3 WD

86 ft t

WD

121.333 ft


FMM Reach 4Inlet Headwall Trash Rack Design

Updated 10/08/2013Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal

Inlet Headwall Design: Trash Rack Section

Trash rack will be located on the inlet headwall of the Reach 4 draingage structure. There will be a totalof 12 trash rack sections. Each section is made up of 7 beams with six inches of clear space betweeneach beam.


ft3


ft2




Unit weight of steel γs 490pcf

Steel Yield Strength fy 50ksi


Young's Modulus E 29000ksi

General Inputs:

Bottom of Trash Rack Elevation BOT 886.5ft

Top of Trash Rack Elevation TOT 893.29ft

Water 894.5ftWater Elevation

ϕb 0.90Moment Reduction Factor


Connection Bolt Diameter D .75in

Trash Rack Angle θ 45deg

Beam Properties:

wb .625inBeam Width

db 4inBeam Depth

Lb 9.3ftBeam Length




97% FTR Submittal

Ab wb db 2.5 in2

Beam Area

Center‐to‐Center Spacing spacing 6in wb 6.625 in

Section Modulus Sx

wb db2

61.667 in

3

Plastic Modulus Zx

wb db2

42.5 in

3

Moment of Inertia Ix

wb db3

123.333 in

4

Beam Loads

The trashrack will be designed to be completely submerged with a 5‐ft head differential resulting fromdebris backup. (EM 1110‐2‐3104 pg. 4‐16)

Assumptions:

1. Trash Rack beam is assumed to be simply supported with a uniform loading.2. Trash Rack beam has a rectangular bar cross section and will be checked for yielding and lateraltorsional buckling flexural limit states.3. Analysis follows the LRFD design method used in AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th edition.4. Load combination 1.2DL + 1.6LL will be used for design.5. Larger than normal deflections will be accepted at the discretion of designer.

Driving Pressure PD γw Water BOT( ) 0.499 ksf

Driving Normal Uniform Force wud PD spacing 0.276kip

ft

Resisting Pressure PR γw Water BOT( ) 5ft[ ] 0.187 ksf

wur PR spacing 0.103kip

ft

Resisting Normal Uniform Force

Beam Self Weight wsf γs Ab sin θ( ) 0.00602kip

ft

Total Beam Load wT 1.2 wsf 1.6 wud wur 0.283kip

ft

Design Moment Mu

wT Lb2

83.058 kip ft

Design Shear Vu

wT Lb

21.315 kip




97% FTR Submittal

Design Checks

Flexural Capacity ‐ AISC Steel Manual Chapter F

1. Yielding Check

Fully Plastic Moment(Eq. F11‐1 AISC Steel Manual)

Mp min fy Zx 1.6 fy Sx 10.417 kip ft

2.Lateral Torsional Buckling Check

Nominal Flexural Strength (Eqs. F11‐2 & F11‐3 AISC Steel Manual)

Taking Cb 1

Mn Cb 1.52 0.274Lb db

wb2

fy

E

fy Sx

0.08 E

fy

Lb db

wb2

1.9 E

fyif

min Mp Sx

1.9 E Cb

Lb db

wb2

otherwise

6.697 kip ft

3. Flexural Design Strength

Flexural Design Strength ϕMn ϕb min Mp Mn 6.027 kip ft

Check1 "Adequate Flexural Capacity" ϕMn Muif

"Inadequate Flexural Capacity" ϕMn Muif

"Adequate Flexural Capacity"

Shear Capacity ‐ AISC Steel Manual Chapter G

Taking Cv 1

Nominal Shear Strength(Eq. G2‐1 AISC Steel Manual)

Vn 0.6 fy Ab Cv 75 kip

Shear Design Strength ϕVn ϕv Vn 67.5 kip

Check2 "Adequate Shear Capacity" ϕVn Vuif

"Inadequate Shear Capacity" ϕVn Vuif

"Adequate Shear Capacity"




97% FTR Submittal

Serviceability Check ‐ Deflection

Max Deflection for simplysupported beam

Δmax

5 wT Lb4

384 E Ix0.492 in

Deflection Ratio RatioLb

Δmax226.631

This maximum deflection of Lb/227 will be accepted for design.

Bolted Connection Design ‐ AISC Steel Manual Chapter J

Assumptions:

1. Bolts shall be 3/4" in diameter.2. ASTM A325 Bolts in Standard Holes.3. Bolt threads are not exclued from shear planes.4. Each trash rack has 2 bolts on the top and bottom of the trash rack which bolts into the concreteheadwall; it will be conservatively assumed that the entire shear loading from the section isconcentrated on one bolt. There are 7 beams in each section; thus, the design shear will be multipliedby seven and conservatively applied to one bolt.

Design Bolt Shear Vbolt 7 Vu cos θ( ) 6.509 kip

Nominal Shear Stress in Bearing Fnv 48ksi

Reduction Factor ϕbv 0.75

Shear Strength of Bolt(Eq. J3‐1 AISC Steel Manual)

ϕRn ϕbv Fnvπ D

2

4

15.904 kip

Check3 "Adequate Bolt Shear Capacity" ϕRn Vboltif

"Inadequate Bolt Shear Capacity" ϕRn Vboltif

"Adequate Bolt Shear Capacity"

Bearing Strength at Bolt Holes (Angle to Base Connection)

Edge of angle to edge of hole Lc 3in <‐‐Input edge distance

Angle thickness tp .5in

Angle Leg Length Lp 6in

Minimum Tensile Strength of plate Fu 58ksi <‐‐Assumes A50 Steel




97% FTR Submittal

Plate Yield Strength Fy 36ksi

Available Bearing Strength(Eq. J3‐6a AISC Steel Manual)

ϕRnb min ϕbv 1.2 Lc tp Fu ϕbv 2.4 D tp Fu

ϕRnb 39.15 kip

Check4 "Adequate Bearing Strength" ϕRnb Vboltif

"Inadequate Bearing Strength" ϕRnb Vboltif

"Adequate Bearing Strength"

Check Beam to End Section Welds

Weld Strength FEXX 70ksi

Reduction Factor ϕw 0.75

Beam and end section width wb 0.625 in

Miniumum Weld Size Weldmin1

8in

wb .25inif

3

16in

.25in wb .5inif

1

4in

.5in wb .75inif

5

16in

wb .75inif

Weldmin1

4in

Weld Size (multiples of 1/16") Weld1

4in

Effective Area Ae2

2Weld 1 in 0.177 in

2

ϕrwL ϕw 0.6 FEXX Ae 5.568 kipShear resistance per inch of weld

Vu 1.315 kipDesign Shear




97% FTR Submittal

Lmin1

Vu

2 ϕrwLin 0.118 in

Minium Effective Length

Minimum Effective Length Lmin2 4 Weld 1 in

Minimum Effective Length Lmin max Lmin1 Lmin2 1 in

One inch of 1/4" fillet weld should be welded on each side of the bar.

Check End Section to Plate Welds

It will be assumed that the shear force from the seven beam sections will be concentrated on oneconnection.

Since the plate, end section and beam all have the same thickness, the minumum weld size is thesame as above.

Minimum Weld Size Weldmin 0.25 in

Weld21

4in

Weld Size (multiples of 1/16")

Ae22

2Weld2 1 in 0.177 in

2

Effective Area

ϕrwL ϕw 0.6 FEXX Ae2 5.568 kipShear resistance per inch of weld

VT 7 Vu 9.206 kipDesign Shear

Lmin1

VT

2 ϕrwLin 0.827 in

Minium Effective Length

Lmin2 4 Weld 1 in <‐‐AISC Steel Manual pg. 16.1‐96

Minimum Effective Length

Lmin max Lmin1 Lmin2 1 inMinimum Effective Length

One and a half inch of 1/4" fillet weld should be welded on each side of the bar.




97% FTR Submittal

Check Shear Strength of Concrete ACI

Shear force resisted by Concrete Vuc 7 Vu sin θ( ) 6.509 kip

Shear Strength of Concrete Vc ϕbv 2fc

psi 12 in 24in 4in .5 0.75 in( )

The above equation assumes a 24in base, 4inches of clearconcrete cover and #6 bars.

Vc Vclb

in2

22.341 kipShear Strength of Concrete

Check5 "Adequate Concrete Capacity" Vc Vucif

"Inadequate Concrete Capacity" Vc Vucif

"Adequate Concrete Capacity"

Section Weight Calculation

Each section of trash rack will consist of 7 beams at 9ft‐4in with a 40.375 inch beam attached to theend. There are a total of 12 sections required.

Trash Rack Single Section Weight TRw Ab 7 Lb 2 40.375 in γs 0.611 kip

Trash Rack Total Weight TRT 12 TRw 7.333 kip


FMM Reach 4Impact Basin Design

Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

Impact Basin Design: Pipe Box Section

The impact basin structure has a concrete box extending from the front of the basin that the RCP willsit in, along with a flap gate.


ft3


ft2










Cohesion cu 900psf

Phi ϕu 0deg


Cohesion cd 0psf

Phi ϕ 31deg


Cohesion cF 0psf

Phi ϕF 32deg



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

Inputs:

Top of Box Elevation GR 883.6ft

Bottom of Box Elevation BOB 872.3ft

Water Elevation Water 883.6ft

Footing Thickness THfoot 1ft

Wall Thickness THwall 1ft

Wall Opening for Pipe Dp 6ft

Total Width of Box wi 10ft

Total Length of Box Li 11.33ft

EMB Slope EMBs1

7



3


qs 250psfSurcharge Load


Load Factor Lf 1.7





Bar Diameter Dia .75in <‐‐Assume #6 bar

Section Width bw 12in

Concrete Cover cover 4in



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

Lateral Forces on Walls and Base of Box Section

Assumptions:

1. Design follows USBR Monograph 27. Plate fixed along 3 edges with the top free; uniformly varyingload.2. Soil and Water are assumed to be at the top of the box.3. At‐Rest soil conditions.

At‐Rest Pressure Coefficient Ko 1 sin ϕd 1 sin θ( )( ) 0.717 <‐‐Equation 3‐6 EM 1110‐2‐2502

Lateral Soil Pressure on Walls Psoil Ko γb GR BOB( ) 0.467 ksf

Pwater γw GR BOB( ) 0.705 ksfLateral Water Pressure on Walls

Psurcharge Ko qs 0.179 ksfLateral Surcharge Pressure on Walls

Because there are two different types of loads applied to the wall, the figures and coefficients taken fromUSBR Monagraph 27 will be combined to determine design moments and reactions. See Figures below.



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

Dimension a awi

25 ft

Dimension b b Li

THfoot

2 10.83 ft

a/b ratio Ratioa

b0.462

The charts on pgs. 7 & 10 of USBR Monograph 27 gives values of a/b for .375 and .5; thus, interpolationwill be used to determine coefficient values for the above ratio.

54.77 82.69

x/a y/b Psoil Pwater Msoil Mwater

0.0 1.0 0.012516 0.012516 0.68555 1.03493 3.80226

0.0 0.8 0.01859 0.01859 1.01825 1.53718 5.6475

0.0 0.6 0.024351 0.024351 1.3338 2.01355 7.39765

0.0 0.4 0.025602 0.025602 1.40232 2.117 7.77769

0.0 0.2 0.015544 0.015544 0.85141 1.28531 4.72215

0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

1.0 1.0 ‐0.00812 ‐0.00812 ‐0.4448 ‐0.6714 ‐2.4668

1.0 0.8 ‐0.00968 ‐0.00968 ‐0.5302 ‐0.8004 ‐2.9407

1.0 0.6 ‐0.01186 ‐0.01186 ‐0.6496 ‐0.9807 ‐3.603

1.0 0.4 ‐0.01171 ‐0.01171 ‐0.6414 ‐0.9683 ‐3.5574

1.0 0.2 ‐0.00589 ‐0.00589 ‐0.3226 ‐0.487 ‐1.7893

1.0 0.0 0.00574 0.00574 0.3144 0.47463 1.74377

7.77769

Mx for Wall

.

Maximum Moment

Values of pb2‐‐‐>>

Moment CoefficientsMoments (ft‐kips)

Total

Moment

(ft‐kip)

5.06 7.64

y/b Psoil Pwater Psoil Pwater

1.0 0.028435 0.028435 0.14381 0.21711 0.79763

0.8 0.118428 0.118428 0.59896 0.90422 3.32202

0.6 0.184098 0.184098 0.9311 1.40562 5.16413

0.4 0.232554 0.232554 1.17617 1.77558 6.52337

0.2 0.163254 0.163254 0.82568 1.24647 4.57944

6.52337Maximum Reaction

Rx for Wall

Reaction CoefficientsReactions (kips)

Total

Reaction

(kips)

Values of

pb ‐‐‐>

NOTE: Both Tables above contain a load factor of 2.21 for design. The load case considerswater and soil to the top of the box with no surcharge loading.



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

Walls Reinforcement Design

Design Moment Mu 7.78kip ft <‐‐Input Moment from Table above

Design Shear Vu 6.52kips <‐‐Input Shear from Table above



Required Area of Reinforcement At ρt bw THwall 0.202 in2






ksi

fc

ksi

.05 0.85

Distance to reinforcement d THwall cover1

2Dia 7.625 in

Steel ratio Ru

Mu

bw d2

133.813 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0025

Required Area of Reinforcement Ast ρ bw d 0.232 in2



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal


Asmin

3fc

psi

fybw d psi

3fc

psi

fybw d psi

200

fy1

psi

bw dif

200

fy1

psi

bw d

otherwise

0.305 in2











Actual Steel Ratio ρa

Asf

bw d0.0034


fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

Asmax "Less than or equal to recommended limit (OK)" ρa 0.25 ρbif

"Doesn't require special investigation (OK)" 0.25 ρb ρa .375 ρbif






0.85 fc b0.042 in

ca

β10.05 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check



ϕb 0.9 εc .005if

0.65 εc .002if

0.65 εc .002 250

3

.002 εc .005if



2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

10.608 kip ft

Capacity Check Check "Adequate Moment Capacity" ϕMn Muif




Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal




psi bw d

lb

in2

8.68 kip

Vu 6.52 kipUltimate Shear Strength




Box Grating Design

The box dimensions are 9' X 10'. Grating will span 8' across the width of the box and 8' along the lengthof the box. An I‐beam will be placed at midspan to make the unsupported length 4ft; beam is consideredsimply supported. Grating is assumed to be W‐11‐4 type with 3/4" X 1/8" bar sizes. Dead load for thistype of grating is approximately 6.4 psf (Grating Pacific manufacturer). The assumed live load over thegrating is a tractor mower. A total of 4 small 23.5" grating sections with 2/3" spacing between eachsection will be used for design.

Check capacity of Grating (23.5" section)

Live Load from Tractor LT 250psf

Grating Dead Load DG 6.4psf

Grating Bar Thickness th .125in

Grating Bar Depth depth .75in

Grating Bar Spacing spacing .6875in

Grating Span span 4ft

Unit Panel Width panel12 12in

Actual Panel Width panel22 23.5in

Number of bars in unit panel width Kpanel12

spacing17.455

Allowable Fiber Stress F 18ksi



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

E 29000ksiElastic Modulus

Section Modulus SwK th depth

2

60.205 in

3

Moment of InertiaIw

K th depth3

120.077 in

4

Max. Allowable Moment per unit width Mw

F Sw

ft3.682 10

3

lb in

ft

Max. Allowable Uniform Load Unit U8 Mw

span2

153.409 psf

Max. Allowable Uniform Load Actual U22 Upanel22

panel12

300.426 psf

Check "Grating Adequate" U22 LT DGif

"Grating Not Adequate" otherwise

"Grating Adequate"

Grating Support Beam Design

Beam Tributary Width wtrib span 4 ft

Lbeam 8.00ftBeam Length

Design Moment per ft of beam Mu

1.2 DG wtrib 1.6 LT wtrib Lbeam2

813.046 kip ft

Design Shear per ft of beam Vu

1.2DG wtrib 1.6 LT wtrib Lbeam

26.523 kip

Fy 50ksiYield Strength


ϕv 0.90Shear Reduction Factor

Initial Beam Size Based on Yielding

Zrequired

Mu

Fy3.131 in

3



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

Zspecify 11.4in3

<‐‐Input Z for W‐shape Chosen (W8X13)from AISC Steel Manual Table 3‐2.

Lb Lbeam 8 ft

Selected Beam Properites

Lp 2.98ft <‐‐AISC Steel Manual Table 3‐2

Lr 9.30ft <‐‐AISC Steel Manual Table 3‐2

Sx 9.91in3

<‐‐AISC Steel Manual Table 1‐1

rts 1.03in <‐‐AISC Steel Manual Table 1‐1

Cb 1 <‐‐Conservatively taken as 1

J .0871in4

<‐‐AISC Steel Manual Table 1‐1

c 1 <‐‐Doubly symmetric shape

ho 7.74in <‐‐AISC Steel Manual Table 1‐1

d 8in <‐‐AISC Steel Manual Table 1‐1

tw 0.23in <‐‐AISC Steel Manual Table 1‐1

Check Beam Flexural Strength ‐ AISC Steel Manual Chapter F

Moment based on Yielding(Eq. F2‐1 AISC Steel Manual)

Mp Fy Zspecify 47.5 kip ft

Moment based on Lateral Torsional Buckling (Eqs. F2‐2 & F2‐3 AISC Steel Manual)

MLTB 1000000ft kip Lb Lpif

min Cb Mp Mp 0.7 Fy Sx Lb Lp

Lr Lp

Mp

Lp Lb Lrif

Cb π E

Lb

rts

21 0.078

J c

Sx ho

Lb

rts

2

Sx Lb Lrif

32.729 kip ft



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

Design Strength ϕMn ϕb Mp MLTB 1000000kip ft=if

ϕb min Mp MLTB otherwise

29.456 kip ft

Design Strength Check CheckM "Adequate Moment Capacity" ϕMn Muif

"Inadequate, choose another beam" otherwise

CheckM "Adequate Moment Capacity"

Check Beam Shear Strength ‐ AISC Steel Manual Chapter G

Web Shear Coefficient(Eq. G2‐2 AISC Steel Manual)

Cv 1

Design Strength(Eq. G2‐2 AISC Steel Manual)

ϕVn ϕv 0.6 Fy d tw Cv 49.68 kip

CheckV "Adequate Shear Capacity" ϕVn Vuif


CheckV "Adequate Shear Capacity"

The grating beam will be connected to the concrete box by 2‐ L3X3X5/16. Angles will be anchored to theconcrete by 2 ‐ 3/4" diameter bolts. Angles will also be bolted to the grating beam. Shear strength of theangle and bolts in standardar holes will be checked in the following sections.

Check Shear Strength of connecting element (Angle) ‐ AISC Steel Manual Chapter J

Angle Thickness ta .3125in

La 6inAngle Length

Fya 36ksiAngle Yield Strength

Fua 50ksiAngle Ultimate Strength

ϕbolt .75inBolt Diameter

ϕbolt_hole ϕbolt1

16in 0.812 in

Bolt Hole Diameter (Standard Hole)



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

Edge of angle to center of bolt hole distance Ledge 1.5in

Shear Yielding of the Angle(Eq. J4‐3 AISC Steel Manual)

ϕRua_yield 0.60 Fya ta La 40.5 kip

Shear Rupture of the Angle(Eq. J4‐4 AISC Steel Manual)

ϕRua_rupture 0.75 0.6 Fua La ta 2π ϕbolt

2

4

22.307 kip

Shear Strength of the Angle ϕRua min ϕRua_yield ϕRua_rupture 22.307 kip

Check "Adequate Shear Strength" Vu ϕRuaif

"Inadequate Shear Strength" otherwise

Check "Adequate Shear Strength"

Check Block Shear Strength of connecting element (Angle) ‐ AISC Chapter J

Gross area subject to shear Agv La ta 1.875 in2

Net area subject to shear Anv La ta 2π ϕbolt

2

4

0.991 in2

Eq. J4‐5 AISC Steel Manual ϕRblock min 0.75 0.6 Fua Anv 0.75 0.6 Fya Agv

ϕRblock 22.307 kip

Checkblock "Adequate" ϕRblock Vuif

"Inadequate" otherwise

Checkblock "Adequate"

Check Bearing Strength at bolt holes ‐ AISC Steel Manual Chapter J

Edge distance Lc Ledge

ϕbolt_hole

2 1.094 in

Number of Bolts Nbolts 2

Available Bearing Strength(Eq. J3‐6a AISC Steel Manual)

ϕRbearing Nbolts min 1.2 Lc ta Fua 2.4 ϕbolt ta Fua



Pipe Box Section


97% FTR Submittal

ϕRbearing 41.016 kip

Checkbearing "Adequate" ϕRbearing Vuif


Checkbearing "Adequate"

Check Shear Strength of Bolts ‐ AISC Steel Manual Chapter J

Bolts shall be conform to ASTM A325 with 3/4" diameter. Bolts will be placed in standard holes. It wil beassumed that threads are not excluded from shear planes.

Nominal Shear Stress Fnv 48ksi <‐‐Table J3.2 AISC Steel Manual

Shear Strength of bolts(Eq. J3‐1 AISC Steel Manual)

ϕRbolt Nbolts 0.75 Fnvπ ϕbolt

2

4

31.809 kips

Checkbolt "Adequate" ϕRbolt Vuif


Checkbolt "Adequate"




97% FTR Submittal

Outlet Impact Basin Design


ft3


ft2






Inputs:

ρ 1000kg

m3

Pipe Inlet Invert Elevation ELinlet 886.5ft Rho of water

Pipe Outlet Invert Elevation ELoutlet 874.003ft Top of Basin TOW 15ft

Bottom of Basin BOW 0ft Q 173.33ft

3

s

Design Discharge

Footing Thickness TH 1.5ftDp 6ft

Pipe DiameterBaffle Thickness THb 16in


3

Wall Thickness THw 1.5ft

Baffle Span L 16ftSoil Slope S

1

7

Slope Angle β atan S( ) 8.13 deg









97% FTR Submittal





Cohesion cu 900psf

Phi ϕu 0deg


Cohesion cd 0psf

Phi ϕ 31deg


Cohesion cF 0psf

Phi ϕF 32deg



Load Factor Lf 1.7





Bar Diameter Dia .625in <‐‐Assume #5 bar


Concrete Cover cover 3in




97% FTR Submittal

The following calculations are for the impact basin in Reach 4 of the Fargo Moorhead Metro project.The impact basin is a concrete structure consisting of two wing walls, two base slabs, a hanging impactbaffle wall, head wall and a box structure that connects to the RCP. A finite element model of the basinwas done is STAAD to determine maximum shear and moments. The overall dimensions weredetermined by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, "Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basin for Pipe or ChannelOutlets."

Hanging Baffle Wall Water Load Determination

1. Calculate entrance velocity into the basin

Pipe Area Ap

π Dp2

428.274 ft

2

Initial Velocity viQ

Ap6.13

ft

s

Theorectical Entrance Velocity ve vi2

2g ELinlet ELoutlet 29.013ft

s

Flow Area AfQ

ve5.974 ft

2

Depthflow Af 2.444 ft <‐‐Assumes square area for impact basin design

Depth of Flow

2. Calculate entrance velocity accounting for friction losses using Bernoulli Equation and Manning's Equation

fhzg

Vpz

g

Vp 2

222

1

211

22 <‐‐Bernoulli Equation




97% FTR Submittal

2

3/249.1

pp

p

fRA

nQS <‐‐Manning's Equation

(a) Results from Excel:

*Solver was used to determine the flow depth and angle. Other variables were determined after thesetwo values had been determined for a given flow, slope, pipe diameter and friction coefficient.

Angle

Flow_Depth

Flow_Area

Wetted_Perimeter

Hydraulic_Radius

Flow_Velocity

Q 173.33 cfs

k 1.49

n 0.013

S 0.06111 ft/ft

D 6 ft

Theta 2.207373 radians

Theta 126.4732 degrees

y 1.649077 ft

A 6.314569 ft^2

P 6.622119 ft

R 0.953557 ft

V 27.44922 ft/s

Qend 173.3301 ft^3/s

θ Angle deg θ 126.473 deg <‐‐Central Angle

yd Flow_Depth ft yd 1.649 ft <‐‐Flow Depth

Aflow Flow_Area ft2

Aflow 6.315 ft2

<‐‐Flow Area

P Wetted_Perimeter ft P 6.622 ft <‐‐Wetted Perimeter

Rh Hydraulic_Radius ft Rh 0.954 ft <‐‐Hydraulic Radius




97% FTR Submittal

ve Flow_Velocityft

s ve 27.449

ft

s <‐‐Flow velocity entering

the stilling basin

5. Calculate impact force on baffle wall

Impact Force F ρ Aflow ve ve 9.232 kip

Effective Length of Impact Force E 13.5ft

W 2ft

Abaffle E W 27 ft2

Impact Pressure per square foot FpF

Abaffle0.342 ksf

This impact force will be applied to the bottom two feet of the baffle over a 13.5ft width. This converts toan pressure of 0.346 psf applied to plate elements.

Impact Basin Side and Head Wall Load Determination

Assumptions 1. Soil and Water is assumed to be at the top of the impact basin.2.Two load cases will be considered for design:

LC1 ‐ Basin walls are loaded all around by soil and water; no load is applied to baffle wall; surcharge load applied to walls; impact basin emptyLC2 ‐ Basin walls are loaded all around by soil and water; impact water force is applied to baffle wall; surcharge load applied to walls; impact basin empty

3. Soil modulus of reaction for input into STAAD is assumed to be 10 kip/ft2/ft.

1. Calculate earth pressure coefficient for at‐rest condition.

At Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient Ko

cos ϕd 2

1sin ϕd sin ϕd β

cos β( )

20.511

2. Calculate soil and water pressure on head wall to be used as STAAD inputs.

The slopes down to meet the headwall approximately 4.5 ft from the top of the headwall; thus, aheight of 10.5 will be used to calculate the soil and water pressures acting on the head wall.




97% FTR Submittal

Soil Pressure Psoil Ko γb TOW 4.5ft( ) 0.309 ksf

Pwater γw TOW 4.5ft( ) 0.655 ksfWater Pressure

PT Psoil Pwater 0.964 ksfTotal Pressure

3. Calculate soil and water pressure on side wall to be used as STAAD inputs.

Since the side wall slopes down, two different pressures will be applied along the length of the wall.The soil slopes from 10.5 ft to about 9 ft for the first 10'‐10" (moving away from the head wall). Thesoil and water pressures will be calculated for an average height of 9.75 ft and applied to the first10'‐10" of the wall up to a height of 9.75 ft. The soil slopes from approximately 9ft to 7.5 ft. The soiland water pressures will be calculated for an average height of 8.25 ft and applied to this portion of thewall up to a height of 8.25 ft.

Soil Pressure 1 Psoil_1 Ko γb 9.75ft( ) 0.287 ksf

Water Pressure 1 Pwater_1 γw 9.75ft( ) 0.608 ksf

Soil Pressure 2 Psoil_2 Ko γb 8.25ft( ) 0.243 ksf

Water Pressure 2 Pwater_2 γw 8.25ft( ) 0.515 ksf

4. Calculate soil surcharge pressure to be used as STAAD input.

Soil surcharge loads will be applied at the same heights, over the same areas as the above pressures forthe head wall and side walls.

Soil Surcharge qsur 250psf

Psurcharge Ko qsur 0.128 ksfSoil Surcharge Pressure

Finite Element Model of Structure

The calculated soil and water loads were applied to a finite element model of the impact stilling basin.The loads where applied as pressure loads on the walls of the structure. Soil and water pressure loadswere reduced linearly to zero at the top of the soil/water elevation. A load factor of 2.21 was added toall loads and considered in the model.

A snapshot of the STAAD model is shown on the next page. Plate elements were used to model theimpact basin. Each plate is modeled as 4000 psi concrete with a unit weight of 150 pcf. The base of the

structure is supported by a plate mat with a soil modulus equal to 10 kip/ft2/ft.




97% FTR Submittal

The results from STAAD are presented at the end document, after the stability analysis. A general threedimensional view of the structure is shown below. The Y‐direction is vertical, the Z‐direction is parallelto water flow and the X‐direction runs along the width of the structure.




97% FTR Submittal

Baffle Wall Design Shear and Moment

The diagrams below show the results of the STAAD analysis. The maximum moment occurs at eachinterface of the baffle and side wall/end wall. The maximum Shear occurs at the bottom corners of thebaffle at the interface of the baffle and side wall/end wall.

The diagram tothe left showsthe areas ofmax moment.

Max momentis equal to 8.43ft‐kip.

The diagram tothe left showsthe areas ofmax shearstress.

Max ShearStress is equalto 33.81 psi.




97% FTR Submittal

Based on the results, the baffle wall wil be designed to resist a moment of 8.52 ft‐kip. Since the bafflewall is 16 inches thick, a shear force of 6.8 kips will be used for design.

Vbaffle 6.5kips Mu_baffle 8.43kip ft

Reinforcement Design for Baffle Wall:


Reinforcement ratio ρt .0014 <‐‐EM 1110‐2‐2104

Required Area of Reinforcement At ρt b THb 0.269 in2






ksi

fc

ksi

.05 0.85

Distance to reinforcement d THb cover1

2Dia 12.688 in

Factored Moment Mu Mu_baffle 8.43 kip ft

Steel ratio Ru

Mu

b d2

52.369 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.001





97% FTR Submittal


Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.507 in2







fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029












97% FTR Submittal





0.85 fc b0.456 in

ca

β10.536 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check



ϕb 0.9 Check "Tension Controlled"=if

0.65 Check "Compression Controlled"=if

0.65 εc .002 250

3

otherwise

0.9Reduction Factor


2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

17.381 kip ft

Capacity Check Check "Adequate Moment Capacity" ϕMn Muif






97% FTR Submittal



psi b d

lb

in2

14.444 kip

Ultimate Shear Strength Vu Vbaffle 6.5 kips




Impact Basin Wall Design Shear and Moment

The diagrams below show the results of the STAAD analysis. The maximum moments in the "X" and "Y"directions were controlled by the end walls. The maximum shear stress also occurred in the end walls.

The diagram above shows the maximum moment in the headwall in the Y‐direction (12.8 ft‐kip).




97% FTR Submittal

The diagram above shows the maximum shear stress in the headwall in the Y‐direction (34.7 psi).

The diagram above shows the maximum moment in the side wall in the Y‐direction (18.5 ft‐kip).




97% FTR Submittal

The diagram above shows the maximum shear stress in the side wall in the Y‐direction (50.4 psi).




97% FTR Submittal

The diagram above shows the maximum moments in the end wall in the X‐direction. The maximummoment occured at the interface between the headwall and the side wall (M=4.7 kip‐ft). The maximummoment at the interface of the baffle wall and side all is 3.6 kip‐ft.

Based on the results, the side walls, head wall and interior walls will be designed to resist a moment of18.5 ft‐kip and a shear force of 11 kips will be used for design.

Vbasin 11kips Mu_basin 18.5kip ft

Impact Basin Wall Reinforcement Design:



Required Area of Reinforcement At ρt b THw 0.302 in2






ksi

fc

ksi

.05 0.85

Distance to reinforcement d THw cover1

2Dia 14.688 in

Factored Moment Mu Mu_basin 18.5 kip ft

Steel ratio Ru

Mu

b d2

85.758 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0016





97% FTR Submittal


Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.588 in2







fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029












97% FTR Submittal





0.85 fc b0.897 in

ca

β11.055 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check





0.65 εc .002 250

3

otherwise

0.9Reduction Factor


2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

39.086 kip ft

Capacity Check Check "Adequate Moment Capacity" ϕMn Mu_basinif






97% FTR Submittal



psi b d

lb

in2

16.721 kip

Ultimate Shear Strength Vu Vbasin 11 kips




Impact Basin Slab Design Shear and Moment

The diagrams below show the results of the STAAD analysis. The maximum positive moment occurs atthe interior and exterior wall and slab interface. The maximum shear stress also occurrs at this interface.

The diagram above shows the maximum moment in the X‐direction (24 ft‐kip).




97% FTR Submittal

The diagram above shows the maximum shear stress (SQX) in the X‐direction (47 psi).

The diagram above shows the maximum shear stress (SQY) in the Y‐direction (37 psi).

Based on the results, the base slab will be designed to resist a moment of 24 ft‐kip in the X‐directionand 13 ft‐kip in the Y‐direction. Also, a shear force of 17.3 kips will be used for design of the base slab.

Vu_base 10.2kips Mu_base 24kip ft




97% FTR Submittal

Impact Basin Slab Reinforcement Design



Required Area of Reinforcement At ρt b TH 0.302 in2






ksi

fc

ksi

.05 0.85

Distance to reinforcement d TH cover1

2Dia 14.688 in

Factored Moment Mu Mu_base 24 kip ft

Steel ratio Ru

Mu

b d2

111.254 psi

ρ0.85 fc

fy1 1

2 Ru

ϕb 0.85( ) fc

0.0021



Asmin

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

3fc

psi

fyb d psi

200

fy1

psi

b dif

200

fy1

psi

b d

otherwise

0.588 in2




97% FTR Submittal







fy

87

87fy

1000psi

0.029









Specify #5 @ 6" for Flexural Reinforcement in

X‐direction; Specify #5 @ 10" for Flexural Reinforcement in Y‐direction.




0.85 fc b0.897 in




97% FTR Submittal

ca

β11.055 in


εcd c

c





Steel Yield Check





0.65 εc .002 250

3

otherwise

0.9Reduction Factor


2

Asf fy

0.85 fc b

39.086 kip ft

Capacity Check Check "Adequate Moment Capacity" ϕMn Mu_baseif





psi b d

lb

in2

16.721 kip

Ultimate Shear Strength Vu Vu_base 10.2 kips







97% FTR Submittal

Stability Analysis of Impact Basin

The impact basin is 55 feet wide, 49 feet ‐ 10 inches long (including the stilling basin) and 15 feet tall.Due to the extreme length to height ratio (3.3:1), there is not concern of the structure overturning.Bearing is not of concern because of the weight of the structure, it's footprint, and the limited timethe structure could be underwater.

Sliding stability and flotation of the structure will be checked for two load cases:

1. Load Case 1 assumes all pipes are flowing full and impact forces on the baffle walls are included inthe analysis. The impact basin is assumed to be filled up to the end sill with uplift assumed to act onboth concrete slabs (impact basin and stilling basin).2. Load Case 2 assumes all pipes are empty, and not impact forces acting on the baffle walls areincluded in the analysis. Water is assumed to be at the elevation of the impact basin slab with upliftonly acting on the impact basin slab.

The stability check will assume that the entire structure needs to move (including the stilling basin);but, the key at the end of the stilling basin is not a structural element.

Stability check follows EM 1110‐2‐2502.

Load Case 1 ‐ Stability Checks

At Rest Pressure CoefficientKo 0.511 <‐‐Taken from above calculations

Slope Angle β 8.13 deg <‐‐Taken from above


c1 2 tan ϕd 0.801




97% FTR Submittal


c2 1 tan ϕd tan β( )tan β( )

tan ϕd 0.586


α atanc1 c1

24 c2

2

51.665 deg


Kb


1tan α( )

tan α( ) tan β( )1

γs

γb

0.574

Critical Slip Angle βc 0

Height of the water Hw 4.167ft

Height of soil Hs 10.771ft

Length of stilling basin Basin 25.5ft

Width of structure Widths 55ft

Thickness of Slab THslab 1.5ft

Wimpact 21ft 4in 21.333 ftInside Width of impact basin

Weight of the Impact Basin WS 938.6kips <‐‐Taken from STAAD

Weight of the Stilling Basin WSB Basin THslab Widths γc 315.563 kips

Total Weight of the Structure WT WS WSB 1254.16 kips

Soil Pressure 1 P1 Ko γs Hs Hw 0.405 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 Hs Hw Widths 73.582 kip

P2 P1 γb Kb Hw 0.543 ksfSoil Pressure 2

F2 P1 Hw Widths 92.858 kipSoil Force 2

F31

2P2 P1 Hw Widths 15.783 kip

Soil Force 3




97% FTR Submittal

Driving Water Force Fw1

2Hw 2 γw Widths 29.796 kip

F41


Resisting Water Force

Force on Baffle Wall Fbaffle F 9.232 kip

Uplift Force Uplift γw Basin Wimpact 3ft Hw Widths 712.674 kips

Weight of water insideimpact basin

Ww γw Hw THslab Widths 7ft Wimpact 170.415 kips

Sum of Vertical Forces ΣV WT Ww Uplift 711.904 kips

Sum of Horizontal Forces ΣH F1 F2 F3 Fw F4 3 F 209.92 kips

Parallel Resultant Tslide ΣH cos βc ΣV sin βc 209.92 kips

Normal Resultant N ΣV cos βc ΣH sin βc 711.9 kips

Factor of Safety, Sliding FSslide

N tan ϕF

Tslide2.119

Factor of Safety Check CheckFS "Ok" FSslide 1.5if

"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"

Factor of Safety, Flotation FSFloat

WT Ww

Uplift1.999

CheckFS "Ok" FSFloat 1.3if

"Not Ok" otherwise





97% FTR Submittal

Load Case 2 ‐ Stability Checks

Height of water Hw 1.5ft

Soil Pressure 1 P1 Ko γs Hs Hw 0.569 ksf

Soil Force 1 F1 .5 P1 Hs Hw Widths 145.015 kip

P2 P1 γb Kb Hw 0.618 ksfSoil Pressure 2

F2 P1 Hw Widths 46.925 kipSoil Force 2

F31

2P2 P1 Hw Widths 2.045 kip

Soil Force 3

Driving Water Force Fw1


F41


Resisting Water Force

Uplift Force Uplift γw Wimpact 3ft Hw Widths 125.268 kips

Weight of water insideimpact basin

Ww γw Hw THslab Widths 7ft Wimpact 0 kips




97% FTR Submittal

Sum of Vertical Forces ΣV WT Ww Uplift 1128.894 kips

Sum of Horizontal Forces ΣH F1 F2 F3 Fw F4 193.99 kips

Parallel Resultant Tslide ΣH cos βc ΣV sin βc 193.99 kips

Normal Resultant N ΣV cos βc ΣH sin βc 1128.89 kips

Factor of Safety, Sliding FSslide

N tan ϕF

Tslide3.636

Factor of Safety Check CheckFS "Ok" FSslide 1.5if

"Not Ok" otherwise

"Ok"

Factor of Safety, Flotation FSFloat

WT Ww

Uplift10.012

CheckFS "Ok" FSFloat 1.3if

"Not Ok" otherwise



CWALSHT Calculations

The output files shown are for six individual cases. The first three are the usual, unusual, and extreme events for the drained case, and the last three are the usual, unusual, and extreme events for the undrained case. Note that the applied moments are reported in pound – feet and translated to kip‐inches in the DDR document.

Case 1: Usual Event, Drained Soil. PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 15:03:15 **************** * INPUT DATA * **************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. USUAL EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐CONTROL CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURES = 1.00 III.‐‐WALL DATA ELEVATION AT TOP OF WALL = 871.16 FT. ELEVATION AT BOTTOM OF WALL = 841.16 FT. WALL MODULUS OF ELLASTACITY = 2.900E+07 PSI. WALL MOMENT OF INERTIA = 152.00 IN^4. IV.‐‐SURFACE POINT DATA IV.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 871.16 100.00 871.16 IV.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 868.16 24.65 864.64 100.00 864.64 V.‐‐SOIL LAYER DATA

FMM Reach 4 Sheet Pile Wall Design

03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


V.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 19.00 50.00 10.26 0.00 DEF DEF V.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 19.00 50.00 10.26 0.00 DEF DEF VI.‐‐WATER DATA UNIT WEIGHT = 62.40 (PCF) RIGHTSIDE ELEVATION = 871.16 (FT) LEFTSIDE ELEVATION = 864.64 (FT) NO SEEPAGE VII.‐‐VERTICAL SURCHARGE LOADS NONE VIII.‐‐HORIZONTAL LOADS NONE PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 15:03:21 **************************** * SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * **************************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. USUAL EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐SUMMARY RIGHTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY FIXED SURFACE WEDGE METHOD.


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


LEFTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY FIXED SURFACE WEDGE METHOD. PASSIVE FACTOR OF SAFETY : 9.60 MAX. BEND. MOMENT (LB‐FT) : 1.1480E+04 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 851.60 MAXIMUM DEFLECTION (IN.) : 1.2252E+00 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 871.16 PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHOREDOR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 15:03:21 **************************** * COMPLETE OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * **************************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. USUAL EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐RESULTS BENDING NET ELEVATION MOMENT SHEAR DEFLECTION PRESSURE (FT) (LB‐FT) (LB) (IN) (PSF) 871.16 0.0000E+00 0. 1.2252E+00 0.00 870.16 1.0400E+01 31. 1.1564E+00 62.40 869.16 8.3200E+01 125. 1.0875E+00 124.80 868.16+ 2.8080E+02 281. 1.0187E+00 187.20 868.16‐ 2.8080E+02 281. 1.0187E+00 175.21 867.94 3.4533E+02 318. 1.0039E+00 169.25 867.16 6.4528E+02 445. 9.5003E‐01 154.25 866.84 7.9595E+02 488. 9.2794E‐01 113.74 866.16 1.1544E+03 572. 8.8159E‐01 135.02 865.16 1.7902E+03 695. 8.1361E‐01 111.11 864.64 2.1678E+03 750. 7.7839E‐01 98.60 864.16 2.5372E+03 794. 7.4634E‐01 87.15 863.16 3.3712E+03 870. 6.8006E‐01 63.20 862.16 4.2685E+03 921. 6.1510E‐01 39.25 861.16 5.2050E+03 948. 5.5182E‐01 15.29 860.52 5.8124E+03 953. 5.1247E‐01 0.00 860.16 6.1568E+03 951. 4.9058E‐01 ‐8.66 859.16 7.0999E+03 931. 4.3176E‐01 ‐32.61 858.16 8.0105E+03 886. 3.7571E‐01 ‐56.57 857.16 8.8644E+03 818. 3.2281E‐01 ‐80.52 856.16 9.6379E+03 725. 2.7338E‐01 ‐104.48


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


855.16 1.0307E+04 609. 2.2772E‐01 ‐128.43 854.16 1.0847E+04 468. 1.8610E‐01 ‐152.38 853.16 1.1236E+04 304. 1.4872E‐01 ‐176.34 852.16 1.1447E+04 116. 1.1574E‐01 ‐200.29 851.16 1.1459E+04 ‐97. 8.7250E‐02 ‐224.24 850.16 1.1246E+04 ‐333. 6.3239E‐02 ‐248.20 849.16 1.0785E+04 ‐593. 4.3630E‐02 ‐272.15 848.16 1.0052E+04 ‐877. 2.8239E‐02 ‐296.10 847.16 9.0230E+03 ‐1185. 1.6779E‐02 ‐320.06 846.16 7.6738E+03 ‐1517. 8.8461E‐03 ‐344.01 845.16 5.9806E+03 ‐1873. 3.9101E‐03 ‐367.96 845.02 5.7080E+03 ‐1926. 3.4105E‐03 ‐371.40 844.16 3.9710E+03 ‐2072. 1.3072E‐03 30.77 843.16 1.9925E+03 ‐1807. 2.6209E‐04 500.31 842.16 5.1434E+02 ‐1072. 1.4391E‐05 969.85 841.25 0.0000E+00 0. 0.0000E+00 1395.30 III.‐‐WATER AND SOIL PRESSURES <‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐SOIL PRESSURES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐> WATER <‐‐‐‐LEFTSIDE‐‐‐‐‐> <‐‐‐RIGHTSIDE‐‐‐‐> ELEVATION PRESSURE PASSIVE ACTIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE (FT) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) 871.16 0. 0. 0. 0. 12. 870.16 62. 0. 0. 0. 59. 869.16 125. 0. 0. 0. 107. 868.16+ 187. 0. 0. 0. 154. 868.16‐ 187. 12. 0. 0. 154. 867.94+ 201. 31. 0. 0. 202. 867.94‐ 201. 31. 0. 0. 165. 867.16 250. 111. 0. 15. 202. 866.84+ 270. 212. 0. 22. 218. 866.84‐ 270. 143. 0. 22. 218. 866.16 312. 212. 29. 35. 250. 865.16 374. 318. 73. 55. 298. 864.64 407. 373. 92. 65. 323. 864.16 407. 394. 103. 74. 345. 863.16 407. 438. 118. 94. 393. 862.16 407. 481. 133. 114. 441. 861.16 407. 525. 148. 133. 489. 860.52 407. 553. 158. 146. 519. 860.16 407. 569. 164. 153. 537. 859.16 407. 612. 179. 173. 584. 858.16 407. 656. 194. 192. 632. 857.16 407. 699. 209. 212. 680. 856.16 407. 743. 224. 232. 728. 855.16 407. 787. 240. 251. 775. 854.16 407. 830. 255. 271. 823.


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


853.16 407. 874. 270. 290. 871. 852.16 407. 917. 285. 310. 919. 851.16 407. 961. 301. 330. 967. 850.16 407. 1005. 316. 349. 1014. 849.16 407. 1048. 331. 369. 1062. 848.16 407. 1092. 346. 389. 1110. 847.16 407. 1135. 362. 408. 1158. 846.16 407. 1179. 377. 428. 1205. 845.16 407. 1223. 392. 448. 1253. 845.02 407. 1229. 394. 450. 1260. 844.16 407. 1266. 407. 467. 1301. 843.16 407. 1310. 422. 487. 1349. 842.16 407. 1353. 438. 507. 1397. 841.25 407. 1397. 453. 526. 1444. 840.16 407. 1441. 468. 546. 1492.

Case 2: Unusual Event, Drained Soil. PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 15:04:05 **************** * INPUT DATA * **************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. UNUSUAL EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐CONTROL CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURES = 1.00 III.‐‐WALL DATA ELEVATION AT TOP OF WALL = 871.16 FT. ELEVATION AT BOTTOM OF WALL = 841.16 FT. WALL MODULUS OF ELLASTACITY = 2.900E+07 PSI. WALL MOMENT OF INERTIA = 152.00 IN^4. IV.‐‐SURFACE POINT DATA IV.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 871.16 100.00 871.16 IV.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 868.16 10.65 864.64 100.00 864.64 V.‐‐SOIL LAYER DATA V.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 19.00 50.00 10.26 0.00 DEF DEF V.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 19.00 50.00 10.26 0.00 DEF DEF VI.‐‐WATER DATA UNIT WEIGHT = 62.40 (PCF) RIGHTSIDE ELEVATION = 871.16 (FT) LEFTSIDE ELEVATION = 864.64 (FT) NO SEEPAGE VII.‐‐VERTICAL SURCHARGE LOADS NONE VIII.‐‐HORIZONTAL LOADS NONE PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 15:04:08 **************************** * SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * ****************************


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. UNUSUAL EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐SUMMARY RIGHTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY FIXED SURFACE WEDGE METHOD. LEFTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY FIXED SURFACE WEDGE METHOD. PASSIVE FACTOR OF SAFETY : 7.40 MAX. BEND. MOMENT (LB‐FT) : 1.1629E+04 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 851.56 MAXIMUM DEFLECTION (IN.) : 1.2471E+00 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 871.16 PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHOREDOR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 15:04:08 **************************** * COMPLETE OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * **************************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. UNUSUAL EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐RESULTS BENDING NET ELEVATION MOMENT SHEAR DEFLECTION PRESSURE (FT) (LB‐FT) (LB) (IN) (PSF) 871.16 0.0000E+00 0. 1.2471E+00 0.00 870.16 1.0400E+01 31. 1.1771E+00 62.40 869.16 8.3200E+01 125. 1.1072E+00 124.80 868.16+ 2.8080E+02 281. 1.0373E+00 187.20 868.16‐ 2.8080E+02 281. 1.0373E+00 171.28 867.94 3.4528E+02 318. 1.0222E+00 170.75 867.16 6.4582E+02 447. 9.6752E‐01 159.01 866.84 7.9757E+02 493. 9.4508E‐01 127.24 866.16 1.1616E+03 582. 8.9800E‐01 135.06 865.16 1.8072E+03 705. 8.2894E‐01 111.11


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


864.64 2.1898E+03 760. 7.9315E‐01 98.60 864.16 2.5638E+03 804. 7.6059E‐01 87.15 863.16 3.4076E+03 879. 6.9325E‐01 63.20 862.16 4.3146E+03 931. 6.2725E‐01 39.25 861.16 5.2609E+03 958. 5.6294E‐01 15.29 860.52 5.8745E+03 963. 5.2294E‐01 0.00 860.16 6.2224E+03 961. 5.0069E‐01 ‐8.66 859.16 7.1753E+03 941. 4.4088E‐01 ‐32.61 858.16 8.0956E+03 896. 3.8389E‐01 ‐56.57 857.16 8.9593E+03 827. 3.3006E‐01 ‐80.52 856.16 9.7425E+03 735. 2.7975E‐01 ‐104.48 855.16 1.0421E+04 618. 2.3325E‐01 ‐128.43 854.16 1.0971E+04 478. 1.9083E‐01 ‐152.38 853.16 1.1369E+04 314. 1.5271E‐01 ‐176.34 852.16 1.1591E+04 125. 1.1904E‐01 ‐200.29 851.16 1.1612E+04 ‐87. 8.9905E‐02 ‐224.24 850.16 1.1409E+04 ‐323. 6.5316E‐02 ‐248.20 849.16 1.0958E+04 ‐583. 4.5192E‐02 ‐272.15 848.16 1.0235E+04 ‐867. 2.9354E‐02 ‐296.10 847.16 9.2152E+03 ‐1175. 1.7519E‐02 ‐320.06 846.16 7.8758E+03 ‐1507. 9.2865E‐03 ‐344.01 845.16 6.1923E+03 ‐1863. 4.1299E‐03 ‐367.96 844.82 5.5281E+03 ‐1992. 2.9501E‐03 ‐376.22 844.16 4.1666E+03 ‐2126. 1.3888E‐03 ‐32.28 843.16 2.1123E+03 ‐1895. 2.8010E‐04 492.51 842.16 5.5057E+02 ‐1141. 1.5519E‐05 1017.30 841.25 0.0000E+00 0. 0.0000E+00 1493.99 III.‐‐WATER AND SOIL PRESSURES <‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐SOIL PRESSURES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐> WATER <‐‐‐‐LEFTSIDE‐‐‐‐‐> <‐‐‐RIGHTSIDE‐‐‐‐> ELEVATION PRESSURE PASSIVE ACTIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE (FT) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) 871.16 0. 0. 0. 0. 15. 870.16 62. 0. 0. 0. 64. 869.16 125. 0. 0. 0. 113. 868.16+ 187. 0. 0. 0. 162. 868.16‐ 187. 16. 0. 0. 162. 867.94+ 201. 30. 0. 0. 211. 867.94‐ 201. 30. 0. 0. 172. 867.16 250. 106. 0. 15. 211. 866.84+ 270. 188. 0. 22. 227. 866.84‐ 270. 140. 0. 22. 227. 866.16 312. 212. 26. 35. 260. 865.16 374. 318. 65. 55. 309. 864.64 407. 373. 81. 65. 335. 864.16 407. 394. 90. 74. 358.


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


863.16 407. 438. 101. 94. 407. 862.16 407. 481. 111. 114. 457. 861.16 407. 525. 122. 133. 506. 860.52 407. 553. 128. 146. 537. 860.16 407. 569. 132. 153. 555. 859.16 407. 612. 143. 173. 604. 858.16 407. 656. 153. 192. 653. 857.16 407. 699. 164. 212. 702. 856.16 407. 743. 174. 232. 751. 855.16 407. 787. 185. 251. 800. 854.16 407. 830. 195. 271. 849. 853.16 407. 874. 206. 290. 898. 852.16 407. 917. 216. 310. 948. 851.16 407. 961. 227. 330. 997. 850.16 407. 1005. 235. 349. 1046. 849.16 407. 1048. 244. 369. 1095. 848.16 407. 1092. 260. 389. 1144. 847.16 407. 1135. 280. 408. 1193. 846.16 407. 1179. 300. 428. 1242. 845.16 407. 1223. 320. 448. 1291. 844.82 407. 1238. 326. 454. 1308. 844.16 407. 1266. 339. 467. 1340. 843.16 407. 1310. 359. 487. 1390. 842.16 407. 1353. 378. 507. 1439. 841.25 407. 1397. 398. 526. 1488. 840.16 407. 1441. 418. 546. 1537.

Case 3: Extreme Event, Drained Soil. PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 14:13:48 **************** * INPUT DATA * **************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. EXTREME EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐CONTROL CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURES = 1.00 III.‐‐WALL DATA ELEVATION AT TOP OF WALL = 871.16 FT.


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


ELEVATION AT BOTTOM OF WALL = 841.16 FT. WALL MODULUS OF ELLASTACITY = 2.900E+07 PSI. WALL MOMENT OF INERTIA = 152.00 IN^4. IV.‐‐SURFACE POINT DATA IV.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 871.16 100.00 871.16 IV.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 864.64 100.00 864.64 V.‐‐SOIL LAYER DATA V.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 19.00 50.00 10.26 0.00 DEF DEF V.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 19.00 50.00 10.26 0.00 DEF DEF VI.‐‐WATER DATA UNIT WEIGHT = 62.40 (PCF) RIGHTSIDE ELEVATION = 871.16 (FT) LEFTSIDE ELEVATION = 864.64 (FT) NO SEEPAGE VII.‐‐VERTICAL SURCHARGE LOADS NONE


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


VIII.‐‐HORIZONTAL LOADS NONE PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 14:13:51 **************************** * SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * **************************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. EXTREME EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐SUMMARY RIGHTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY FIXED SURFACE WEDGE METHOD. LEFTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY FIXED SURFACE WEDGE METHOD. PASSIVE FACTOR OF SAFETY : 1.33 MAX. BEND. MOMENT (LB‐FT) : 2.6542E+04 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 851.19 MAXIMUM DEFLECTION (IN.) : 2.7464E+00 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 871.16 PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHOREDOR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 14:13:51 **************************** * COMPLETE OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * **************************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. EXTREME EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐RESULTS BENDING NET ELEVATION MOMENT SHEAR DEFLECTION PRESSURE (FT) (LB‐FT) (LB) (IN) (PSF) 871.16 0.0000E+00 0. 2.7464E+00 0.00 870.16 1.0400E+01 31. 2.5965E+00 62.40


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


869.16 8.3200E+01 125. 2.4466E+00 124.80 868.16 2.8080E+02 281. 2.2967E+00 187.20 867.94 3.4576E+02 323. 2.2645E+00 200.65 867.16 6.6718E+02 505. 2.1470E+00 265.01 866.16 1.3186E+03 811. 1.9975E+00 347.06 865.16 2.3171E+03 1199. 1.8486E+00 429.11 864.64+ 3.0036E+03 1435. 1.7712E+00 471.93 864.64‐ 3.0036E+03 1435. 1.7712E+00 363.22 864.16 3.7292E+03 1598. 1.7006E+00 321.68 863.64 4.6057E+03 1757. 1.6239E+00 285.92 863.16 5.4768E+03 1886. 1.5541E+00 253.17 862.16 7.4777E+03 2105. 1.4097E+00 184.66 861.42 9.0743E+03 2218. 1.3050E+00 122.56 861.16 9.6607E+03 2249. 1.2682E+00 116.15 860.16 1.1957E+04 2331. 1.1306E+00 47.64 859.46 1.3585E+04 2348. 1.0376E+00 0.00 859.16 1.4300E+04 2344. 9.9759E‐01 ‐20.87 858.16 1.6623E+04 2289. 8.7023E‐01 ‐89.38 857.16 1.8856E+04 2166. 7.4938E‐01 ‐157.89 856.16 2.0931E+04 1974. 6.3592E‐01 ‐226.40 855.16 2.2780E+04 1713. 5.3065E‐01 ‐294.91 854.16 2.4334E+04 1384. 4.3431E‐01 ‐363.42 853.16 2.5525E+04 986. 3.4749E‐01 ‐431.93 852.16 2.6283E+04 520. 2.7066E‐01 ‐500.44 851.16 2.6542E+04 ‐15. 2.0413E‐01 ‐568.95 850.16 2.6231E+04 ‐618. 1.4797E‐01 ‐637.46 849.16 2.5283E+04 ‐1290. 1.0208E‐01 ‐705.97 848.16 2.3628E+04 ‐2030. 6.6081E‐02 ‐774.48 847.16 2.1200E+04 ‐2839. 3.9317E‐02 ‐842.99 846.16 1.7928E+04 ‐3716. 2.0835E‐02 ‐911.50 845.67 1.5980E+04 ‐4175. 1.4382E‐02 ‐945.34 845.16 1.3764E+04 ‐4549. 9.3520E‐03 ‐532.79 844.16 9.0850E+03 ‐4674. 3.2472E‐03 282.50 843.16 4.6885E+03 ‐3984. 7.1321E‐04 1097.79 842.16 1.3896E+03 ‐2478. 5.2976E‐05 1913.07 841.16 3.9163E+00 ‐157. 9.9030E‐11 2728.36 841.10 0.0000E+00 0. 0.0000E+00 2775.01 III.‐‐WATER AND SOIL PRESSURES <‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐SOIL PRESSURES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐> WATER <‐‐‐‐LEFTSIDE‐‐‐‐‐> <‐‐‐RIGHTSIDE‐‐‐‐> ELEVATION PRESSURE PASSIVE ACTIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE (FT) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) 871.16 0. 0. 0. 0. 109. 870.16 62. 0. 0. 0. 206. 869.16 125. 0. 0. 0. 294. 868.16 187. 0. 0. 0. 382.


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


867.94+ 201. 0. 0. 0. 470. 867.94‐ 201. 0. 0. 0. 401. 867.16 250. 0. 0. 15. 470. 866.16 312. 0. 0. 35. 558. 865.16 374. 0. 0. 55. 646. 864.64+ 407. 0. 0. 65. 692. 864.64‐ 407. 109. 0. 65. 692. 864.16 407. 160. 0. 74. 735. 863.64 407. 206. 0. 85. 781. 863.16 407. 248. 0. 94. 823. 862.16 407. 336. 0. 114. 911. 861.42+ 407. 424. 0. 128. 976. 861.42‐ 407. 401. 0. 128. 976. 861.16 407. 424. 5. 133. 999. 860.16 407. 512. 25. 153. 1087. 859.46 407. 574. 38. 167. 1149. 859.16 407. 600. 44. 173. 1175. 858.16 407. 689. 64. 192. 1264. 857.16 407. 777. 84. 212. 1352. 856.16 407. 865. 103. 232. 1440. 855.16 407. 953. 123. 251. 1528. 854.16 407. 1041. 143. 271. 1616. 853.16 407. 1129. 162. 290. 1704. 852.16 407. 1218. 182. 310. 1792. 851.16 407. 1306. 202. 330. 1881. 850.16 407. 1394. 221. 349. 1969. 849.16 407. 1482. 241. 369. 2057. 848.16 407. 1570. 261. 389. 2145. 847.16 407. 1658. 280. 408. 2233. 846.16 407. 1746. 300. 428. 2321. 845.67 407. 1790. 310. 438. 2365. 845.16 407. 1835. 320. 448. 2410. 844.16 407. 1923. 339. 467. 2498. 843.16 407. 2011. 359. 487. 2586. 842.16 407. 2099. 378. 507. 2674. 841.16 407. 2187. 398. 526. 2762. 841.10 407. 2275. 418. 546. 2850. 839.16 407. 2364. 437. 566. 2939.

Case 4: Usual Event, Undrained Soil. CWALSHT will not solve this case because no embedment of the wall is necessary. Case 5: Unusual Event, Undrained Soil. PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 6‐MAY‐2013 TIME: 8:15:59 **************** * INPUT DATA * **************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. UNUSUAL EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐CONTROL CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURES = 1.00 III.‐‐WALL DATA ELEVATION AT TOP OF WALL = 871.16 FT. ELEVATION AT BOTTOM OF WALL = 841.16 FT. WALL MODULUS OF ELLASTACITY = 2.900E+07 PSI. WALL MOMENT OF INERTIA = 152.00 IN^4. IV.‐‐SURFACE POINT DATA IV.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 871.16 100.00 871.16 IV.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 866.16 10.65 864.64 100.00 864.64 V.‐‐SOIL LAYER DATA V.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 0.00 575.00 0.00 0.00 DEF DEF V.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 0.00 575.00 0.00 0.00 DEF DEF VI.‐‐WATER DATA UNIT WEIGHT = 62.40 (PCF) RIGHTSIDE ELEVATION = 871.16 (FT) LEFTSIDE ELEVATION = 864.64 (FT) NO SEEPAGE VII.‐‐VERTICAL SURCHARGE LOADS NONE VIII.‐‐HORIZONTAL LOADS NONE PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 6‐MAY‐2013 TIME: 8:16:19 **************************** * SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * **************************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. UNUSUAL EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐SUMMARY RIGHTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY SWEEP SEARCH WEDGE METHOD. LEFTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY SWEEP SEARCH WEDGE METHOD. PASSIVE FACTOR OF SAFETY : 7.20 MAX. BEND. MOMENT (LB‐FT) : 1.6604E+04 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 851.29 MAXIMUM DEFLECTION (IN.) : 1.7367E+00 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 871.16


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHOREDOR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 6‐MAY‐2013 TIME: 8:16:19 **************************** * COMPLETE OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * **************************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. UNUSUAL EVENT, DRAINED SOIL II.‐‐RESULTS BENDING NET ELEVATION MOMENT SHEAR DEFLECTION PRESSURE (FT) (LB‐FT) (LB) (IN) (PSF) 871.16 0.0000E+00 0. 1.7367E+00 0.00 870.16 1.0400E+01 31. 1.6404E+00 62.40 869.16 8.3200E+01 125. 1.5440E+00 124.80 868.16 2.8080E+02 281. 1.4477E+00 187.20 867.16 6.6560E+02 499. 1.3515E+00 249.60 866.16+ 1.3000E+03 780. 1.2556E+00 312.00 866.16‐ 1.3000E+03 780. 1.2556E+00 152.28 865.16 2.1550E+03 929. 1.1602E+00 145.49 864.64 2.6594E+03 1003. 1.1107E+00 139.08 864.16 3.1540E+03 1065. 1.0656E+00 118.76 863.16 4.2740E+03 1171. 9.7231E‐01 93.82 862.16 5.4882E+03 1253. 8.8068E‐01 70.83 861.16 6.7736E+03 1314. 7.9119E‐01 50.49 860.16 8.1098E+03 1355. 7.0437E‐01 32.09 859.16 9.4759E+03 1372. 6.2072E‐01 0.30 859.15 9.4845E+03 1372. 6.2021E‐01 0.00 858.16 1.0839E+04 1347. 5.4079E‐01 ‐48.54 857.16 1.2155E+04 1276. 4.6510E‐01 ‐95.14 856.16 1.3376E+04 1160. 3.9418E‐01 ‐136.28 855.16 1.4461E+04 1003. 3.2849E‐01 ‐177.45 854.16 1.5368E+04 804. 2.6847E‐01 ‐219.84 853.16 1.6055E+04 563. 2.1447E‐01 ‐262.57 852.16 1.6480E+04 280. 1.6675E‐01 ‐304.26 851.16 1.6601E+04 ‐46. 1.2548E‐01 ‐346.83 850.16 1.6374E+04 ‐414. 9.0713E‐02 ‐390.43 849.16 1.5757E+04 ‐827. 6.2348E‐02 ‐434.03 848.16 1.4707E+04 ‐1282. 4.0146E‐02 ‐476.72 847.16 1.3179E+04 ‐1780. 2.3694E‐02 ‐518.89 846.16 1.1133E+04 ‐2320. 1.2391E‐02 ‐561.96 845.48 9.4292E+03 ‐2711. 7.2600E‐03 ‐591.50 845.16 8.5277E+03 ‐2872. 5.4341E‐03 ‐404.18


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


844.16 5.5509E+03 ‐2985. 1.8072E‐03 176.92 843.16 2.7510E+03 ‐2518. 3.6207E‐04 758.01 842.16 7.0913E+02 ‐1469. 2.0168E‐05 1339.11 841.24 0.0000E+00 0. 0.0000E+00 1871.00 III.‐‐WATER AND SOIL PRESSURES <‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐SOIL PRESSURES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐> WATER <‐‐‐‐LEFTSIDE‐‐‐‐‐> <‐‐‐RIGHTSIDE‐‐‐‐> ELEVATION PRESSURE PASSIVE ACTIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE (FT) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) 871.16 0. 0. 0. 0. 160. 870.16 62. 0. 0. 0. 203. 869.16 125. 0. 0. 0. 247. 868.16 187. 0. 0. 0. 291. 867.16 250. 0. 0. 0. 334. 866.16+ 312. 0. 0. 0. 378. 866.16‐ 312. 160. 0. 0. 378. 865.16 374. 229. 0. 0. 421. 864.64 407. 268. 0. 0. 444. 864.16 407. 288. 0. 0. 465. 863.16 407. 313. 0. 0. 509. 862.16 407. 336. 0. 0. 552. 861.16 407. 356. 0. 0. 596. 860.16 407. 375. 0. 0. 639. 859.16 407. 407. 0. 0. 683. 859.15 407. 407. 0. 0. 683. 858.16 407. 456. 0. 0. 727. 857.16 407. 502. 0. 0. 770. 856.16 407. 543. 0. 0. 814. 855.16 407. 584. 0. 0. 857. 854.16 407. 627. 0. 0. 901. 853.16 407. 670. 0. 0. 945. 852.16 407. 711. 0. 0. 988. 851.16 407. 754. 0. 0. 1032. 850.16 407. 797. 0. 0. 1075. 849.16 407. 841. 0. 0. 1119. 848.16 407. 884. 0. 0. 1163. 847.16 407. 926. 0. 0. 1206. 846.16 407. 969. 0. 0. 1250. 845.48 407. 998. 0. 0. 1279. 845.16 407. 1013. 0. 0. 1293. 844.16 407. 1056. 0. 0. 1337. 843.16 407. 1100. 0. 0. 1381. 842.16 407. 1143. 0. 0. 1424. 841.24 407. 1187. 0. 0. 1468. 840.16 407. 1231. 0. 0. 1511.


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


Case 6: Extreme Event, Undrained Soil. PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 15:35:43 **************** * INPUT DATA * **************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. EXTREME EVENT, UNDRAINED SOIL II.‐‐CONTROL CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURES = 1.00 III.‐‐WALL DATA ELEVATION AT TOP OF WALL = 871.16 FT. ELEVATION AT BOTTOM OF WALL = 841.16 FT. WALL MODULUS OF ELLASTACITY = 2.900E+07 PSI. WALL MOMENT OF INERTIA = 152.00 IN^4. IV.‐‐SURFACE POINT DATA IV.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 871.16 100.00 871.16 IV.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE DIST. FROM ELEVATION WALL (FT) (FT) 0.00 864.64 100.00 864.64 V.‐‐SOIL LAYER DATA V.A.‐‐RIGHTSIDE LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 0.00 575.00 0.00 0.00 DEF DEF


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


V.B.‐‐LEFTSIDE LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT LEVEL 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE = DEFAULT ANGLE OF ANGLE OF <‐SAFETY‐> SAT. MOIST INTERNAL COH‐ WALL ADH‐ <‐‐BOTTOM‐‐> <‐FACTOR‐> WGHT. WGHT. FRICTION ESION FRICTION ESION ELEV. SLOPE ACT. PASS. (PCF) (PCF) (DEG) (PSF) (DEG) (PSF) (FT) (FT/FT) 106.00 106.00 0.00 575.00 0.00 0.00 DEF DEF VI.‐‐WATER DATA UNIT WEIGHT = 62.40 (PCF) RIGHTSIDE ELEVATION = 871.16 (FT) LEFTSIDE ELEVATION = 864.64 (FT) NO SEEPAGE VII.‐‐VERTICAL SURCHARGE LOADS NONE VIII.‐‐HORIZONTAL LOADS NONE PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHORED OR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 15:35:46 **************************** * SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * **************************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. EXTREME EVENT, UNDRAINED SOIL II.‐‐SUMMARY RIGHTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY FIXED SURFACE WEDGE METHOD. LEFTSIDE SOIL PRESSURES DETERMINED BY FIXED SURFACE WEDGE METHOD. PASSIVE FACTOR OF SAFETY : 5.11 MAX. BEND. MOMENT (LB‐FT) : 1.9546E+04 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 851.62 MAXIMUM DEFLECTION (IN.) : 2.0400E+00 AT ELEVATION (FT) : 871.16


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


PROGRAM CWALSHT‐DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF ANCHOREDOR CANTILEVER SHEET PILE WALLS BY CLASSICAL METHODS DATE: 11‐MARCH‐2013 TIME: 15:35:46 **************************** * COMPLETE OF RESULTS FOR * * CANTILEVER WALL ANALYSIS * **************************** I.‐‐HEADING 'SHEET PILE WALL IN BRENNA FOUNDATION. EXTREME EVENT, UNDRAINED SOIL II.‐‐RESULTS BENDING NET ELEVATION MOMENT SHEAR DEFLECTION PRESSURE (FT) (LB‐FT) (LB) (IN) (PSF) 871.16 0.0000E+00 0. 2.0400E+00 0.00 870.16 1.0400E+01 31. 1.9263E+00 62.40 869.16 8.3200E+01 125. 1.8126E+00 124.80 868.16 2.8080E+02 281. 1.6990E+00 187.20 867.16 6.6560E+02 499. 1.5854E+00 249.60 866.16 1.3000E+03 780. 1.4722E+00 312.00 865.16 2.2464E+03 1123. 1.3595E+00 374.40 864.64+ 2.8852E+03 1327. 1.3009E+00 406.97 864.64‐ 2.8852E+03 1327. 1.3009E+00 181.92 864.16 3.5396E+03 1409. 1.2476E+00 161.08 863.64 4.2960E+03 1487. 1.1898E+00 138.32 863.16 5.0219E+03 1548. 1.1372E+00 117.48 862.16 6.6218E+03 1644. 1.0287E+00 73.88 861.16 8.2956E+03 1696. 9.2281E‐01 30.28 860.47 9.4784E+03 1707. 8.5115E‐01 0.00 860.16 9.9996E+03 1705. 8.2019E‐01 ‐13.32 859.16 1.1690E+04 1670. 7.2148E‐01 ‐56.92 858.16 1.3324E+04 1591. 6.2736E‐01 ‐100.52 857.16 1.4857E+04 1468. 5.3846E‐01 ‐144.12 856.16 1.6247E+04 1303. 4.5537E‐01 ‐187.72 855.16 1.7448E+04 1093. 3.7865E‐01 ‐231.32 854.16 1.8418E+04 840. 3.0876E‐01 ‐274.92 853.16 1.9113E+04 543. 2.4608E‐01 ‐318.52 852.16 1.9490E+04 203. 1.9089E‐01 ‐362.12 851.16 1.9504E+04 ‐181. 1.4332E‐01 ‐405.72 850.16 1.9113E+04 ‐609. 1.0338E‐01 ‐449.32 849.16 1.8273E+04 ‐1080. 7.0927E‐02 ‐492.92 848.16 1.6939E+04 ‐1594. 4.5618E‐02 ‐536.52 847.16 1.5070E+04 ‐2153. 2.6931E‐02 ‐580.12 846.16 1.2619E+04 ‐2755. 1.4133E‐02 ‐623.72 845.77 1.1505E+04 ‐2999. 1.0561E‐02 ‐640.60


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


845.16 9.5688E+03 ‐3287. 6.2619E‐03 ‐298.04 844.78 8.3163E+03 ‐3360. 4.3388E‐03 ‐87.74 844.16 6.2260E+03 ‐3306. 2.1321E‐03 261.05 843.16 3.1441E+03 ‐2765. 4.5151E‐04 820.13 842.16 8.8246E+02 ‐1665. 3.0256E‐05 1379.21 841.16 ‐1.2732E‐02 ‐7. ‐4.8148E‐14 1938.30 841.16 0.0000E+00 0. 0.0000E+00 1940.17 III.‐‐WATER AND SOIL PRESSURES <‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐SOIL PRESSURES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐> WATER <‐‐‐‐LEFTSIDE‐‐‐‐‐> <‐‐‐RIGHTSIDE‐‐‐‐> ELEVATION PRESSURE PASSIVE ACTIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE (FT) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) 871.16 0. 0. 0. 0. 225. 870.16 62. 0. 0. 0. 269. 869.16 125. 0. 0. 0. 312. 868.16 187. 0. 0. 0. 356. 867.16 250. 0. 0. 0. 399. 866.16 312. 0. 0. 0. 443. 865.16 374. 0. 0. 0. 487. 864.64+ 407. 0. 0. 0. 509. 864.64‐ 407. 225. 0. 0. 509. 864.16 407. 246. 0. 0. 530. 863.64 407. 269. 0. 0. 553. 863.16 407. 289. 0. 0. 574. 862.16 407. 333. 0. 0. 617. 861.16 407. 377. 0. 0. 661. 860.47 407. 407. 0. 0. 691. 860.16 407. 420. 0. 0. 705. 859.16 407. 464. 0. 0. 748. 858.16 407. 507. 0. 0. 792. 857.16 407. 551. 0. 0. 835. 856.16 407. 595. 0. 0. 879. 855.16 407. 638. 0. 0. 923. 854.16 407. 682. 0. 0. 966. 853.16 407. 725. 0. 0. 1010. 852.16 407. 769. 0. 0. 1053. 851.16 407. 813. 0. 0. 1097. 850.16 407. 856. 0. 0. 1141. 849.16 407. 900. 0. 0. 1184. 848.16 407. 943. 0. 0. 1228. 847.16 407. 987. 0. 0. 1271. 846.16 407. 1031. 0. 0. 1315. 845.77 407. 1048. 0. 0. 1332. 845.16 407. 1074. 0. 0. 1359. 844.78+ 407. 1091. 0. 0. 1402. 844.78‐ 407. 1091. 0. 0. 1375.


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


844.16 407. 1118. 0. 27. 1402. 843.16 407. 1161. 0. 71. 1446. 842.16 407. 1205. 0. 114. 1489. 841.16 407. 1249. 0. 158. 1533. 841.16 407. 1292. 0. 202. 1577. 839.16 407. 1336. 0. 245. 1620.


03/11/2013 Comp by: MVR

97% FTR Submittal


Appendix F: Structural Design Criteria · EM 1110‐2‐2100 Stability Analysis of Concrete...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix F: Structural Design Criteria · EM 1110‐2‐2100 Stability Analysis of Concrete...